The evolution of cluster initiatives in Russia
1 like734 views
The document analyzes the evolution of cluster initiatives (CIs) in Russia, highlighting their growth and the impact of government policies on their performance and emergence. It presents data from 2008 to 2015, noting that state-supported clusters exhibit higher employment and institutional development compared to those without support. The findings suggest that while government intervention is important, other factors such as regional innovation capacity also play a significant role in the effectiveness of cluster initiatives.
The evolution of cluster initiatives in Russia
- 1. The evolution of cluster initiatives in Russia: the impacts of policy, life-time, proximity and innovative environment Evgeniy Kutsenko Ekaterina Islankina Vasily Abashkin Russian Cluster Observatory, ISSEK, HSE 56th ERSA Congress Cities & Regions: Smart, Sustainable, Inclusive? 23-26 August 2016, Vienna, Austria
- 2. Sölvell et al, 2003; Lindqvist et al., 2013; Russian Cluster Observatory, 2015; Andersson et al., 2004 Sölvell Ö., 2009; Ketels and Protsiv, 2014; Chatterji et al., 2013 Hagenauer et al., 2011; Sölvell et al., 2003; INNO Germany AG, 2010; Menzel and Fornahl, 2007 Harvard Business School, 2014; Ketels, 2014 Why clusters matter and what matters for clusters? 2 • Clusters in US-traded industries: 36% of employment, 50% of income, 96.5% of patents • 50% of EU employment, higher productivity and patenting are in economic sectors that “cluster” Sölvell et al., 2003; Lindqvist et al., 2013; BMBF, 2006 • 32% (2003) and 41% (2013) of CI established under the influence of cluster policy • +11% (2000-2004) in employment within CI that participated in the InnoRegio (Germany) programme • CI improve their quality over time, involving new members, establishing management organizations • However, economic benefits generated by the cluster are not permanent (‘museum’ cluster) • Concentration of industries in regions with the most favourable conditions for innovation • 1990-s: cluster initiatives (CI) appeared followed by cluster policy boost • 2013: 2,580 CI around the globe • Russia: 277 CI identified since 2008 • Cluster policy aims at overcoming systemic failures: "a mismatch between interrelated institutions, organizations, market conditions, or playing rules".
- 3. What affects the emergence of CI and their performance? 3 Dependent Variables Factors Emergence : • Number of CI identified with 2008, 2012, 2015-databases Performance: • Quantitative – average No. of employees within the members of CI • Qualitative – institutional development level of a CI (integral indicator of the Russian cluster mapping scorecard) National support programme of pilot innovative clusters (PICs) Proximity to regions with previously launched CI Duration of CI existence Accumulated innovative capacity of CI home regions 31 indicators 3 levels: initial, medium, high
- 4. Features of the study 4 The unique database on cluster initiatives identified in 2008, 2012 and 2015: covers almost a decade of clustering activity in Russia during which cluster initiatives emerged, disappeared or transformed Valid data sources: requests by the Ministry of Economic Development of Russia, Cluster applications, National cluster mapping project; NO surveys about the effectiveness of CI or the cluster members’ satisfaction Analyses of the solid data (year of establishment, workforce, the number of participants in cluster initiatives): no estimation features and relatively easy verification Comprehensive study object: not only the state supported cluster initiatives (PICs), but also those developed independently. => Extra opportunity for comparison to study the impact of state intervention 1 2 3 4
- 5. 2015 Database on cluster initiatives identified in 2008, 2012 and 2015 5 2008 169 cluster initiatives (name, region of location, specialization) Compiled according to the information provided by regional government offices at the request of the Ministry the Economy Development of Russia 2012 92 cluster initiatives (name, region of location, specialization) Compiled according to the applications for the pilot innovative cluster (PIC) contest 107 cluster initiatives (information reflecting 31 indicators) Compiled according to the Russian cluster mapping project (http://map.cluster.hse.ru/) Russian regional innovative development rating using the data on 83 regions in 2014: 37 indicators grouped into 4 thematic blocks: "Social and economic conditions of innovative activity", "S&T potential", "Innovation activity of organizations" and "The quality of regional innovation policy" +
- 6. Сluster initiatives mapping in Russia More than 2000 members More than 1 mln employees 100clusters mapped since September, 2015 map.cluster.hse.ru
- 7. Russian cluster mapping scorecard 7
- 8. The number of cluster initiatives in Russia in dynamics 8 46 24 37 2008 2012 2015 62 169 277cluster initiatives identified* according to databases (170 vanished) 107**clusterinitiatives active***bynow -123 -9 -38 * Identification means the emergence of a cluster initiative in any of the databases analyzed ** The calculations based on quality indicators (for cluster performance evaluation) were made using the data on 91 cluster initiatives – those having completed profiles on the Russian cluster map. The calculations based merely on the number of cluster initiatives were made using data on all 107 cluster initiatives from the Russian cluster map, including 16 so-called proto-clusters – the cluster initiatives registered in the cluster mapping system with partially filled or unfilled profiles. ***A cluster initiative was defined to be active at the time of the study (December 2015) if it was registered on the Russian cluster map
- 9. Social and economic conditions for innovations development Key macroeconomic indicators Educational capacity of the population Development of information society Scientific and technical capacity Scientific research and development. Financing Scientific research and development. Human resources Publications activity Patenting activity Creating advanced production technologies Trading in technologies Innovations activity Activity in the area of technological and non- technological innovations Small innovations businesses Spending on technological innovation Results of innovations activity Quality of innovations policy Quality of regulatory documents supporting innovations policy Quality of organizational support for the innovations policy Spending from the consolidated budget 9 4 sub-ratings 13 indicator groups 36 indicators HSE ratings of the regions of Russia in terms of innovation activity
- 10. Hypothesis 1. National policy has had a significant impact on the emergence of cluster initiatives and their performance 10 0,42 0,85 0 0,5 1 Average number of new CI located in non-PIC home regions located in PIC home regions In the regions of the state supported clusters (PICs) new cluster initiatives were created on average twice as intensively as in the other regions. 3 7 58 0 50 100 The share of CI with medium or high level of institutional development non-PICs, % PICs, % Average employment in the clusters supported by the state subsidy was 3 times higher than in the clusters with private funding only 1 2 The share of PICs with high and medium level of institutional development is 8.29 times higher than the respective share of non-PICs 4 18 of 65 CI which had lost the contest continued functioning, despite the lack of state support 40% of the German cluster initiatives with rejected applications for InnoRegio programme contest still exist and implement their projects (Eickelpasch and Fritsch, 2005). lost the PICs competition, but survived lost the PICs competition and vanished 28% 7,8 23,8 0 5 10 15 20 25 Average No. of employees in CI non-PICs, K people PICs, K people
- 11. Hypothesis 2. Proximity to regions with previously established CI influenced the emergence of new CI. However, no extra impact of the neighboring PICs on fostering the new CI creation was detected 11 2,5 3,3 0 1 2 3 4 New CI in non-PIC home regions bordering the PIC home regions New CI in non-PIC home regions bordering the non-PIC home regions 4 0,7 0 1 2 3 4 5 New CI in regions bordering the regions with more mature CI New CI in regions bordering the regions with no CI 1 Proximity to the state-supported CI (PICS): • an average of 2.46 new cluster emerged in the locations neighboring PIC home regions • while 3.3 new clusters appeared in the regions bordering the non-PIC home regions 2 Proximity to more mature CI: • in the regions bordering the home locations of more mature CI (2008 and 2012), there emerged 4 new CI on average • in the regions bordering the locations with no CI there emerged 0.71 new CI on average Such outcomes may occur because the cities of Moscow and St. Petersburg with 5 PICs border only the locations of PICs as well: Moscow, Kaluga and Leningrad regions.
- 12. Hypothesis 3 (1). CIs` age is positively correlated with the average No. of employees only for state-supported clusters (PICs) 12 The PICs identified in 2008 are 34% stronger in terms of average No. of employees than the PICs identified in 2012. The oldest CI without state support (non-PICs- 2008) demonstrated the lowest employment characteristics compared to the cluster initiatives identified later (non-PICs-2012) and even to new clusters (2015) 1 2 Average No. of employees in all CI was practically constant regardless of their identification period: 2012 or 2008 3 6,9 12,6 7,3 0 4 8 12 16 Average No. of employees in non- PICs and new CI non-PICs identified in 2008, K people non-PICs identified in 2012, K people CI-2015, K people 29 19,3 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Average No. of employees in PICs PICs-2008, K people PICs-2012, K people 16,7 16,9 16 16,2 16,4 16,6 16,8 17 Average No. of employees in all CI all CI-2008, K people all CI-2012, K people
- 13. Hypothesis 3 (2). The level of institutional development in earlier generated CI was, in all cases, higher than in the CI that emerged later, regardless state support 13 82% 7% 38% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% The share CI with medium or high level of institutional development (split by state support) 2008 2012 40% 25% 9% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% The share of CI with medium or high level of institutional development CI-2008 CI-2012 CI-2015 PICs non-PICs
- 14. Hypothesis 4. The innovative capacity of regions is closely linked to the number of CI located there. The majority of CI that received state support are located in the most innovative regions 6,33 2 4,33 16,1 0,26 1,55 0,52 1,03 13 0,22 0,65 0,08 0,58 7,6 0,15 0,09 0 0,09 5,1 0 Characteristics of CI split by regional groups regarding innovation development gr I (3 regions) gr II (29 regions) gr III (40 regions) gr IV (11 regions) • The average number of all CI located in the most innovative regions (group I) exceeds the number of CI in other regions (groups II - IV) by 7 times, the number of PICs is 9 times higher, the number of non-PICs is 3 times higher • The comparison of PICs and non-PICs revealed no significant difference between the innovation leaders (group I) and the regions belonging to the groups II - III in terms of the average employment or the average number of CI with high and medium levels of institutional development. Despite that the state-supported CIs are concentrated in a few of the most innovative regions, the qualitative characteristics of all PICs are generally similar, regardless of the home region’s group.
- 15. Conclusions 15 The number of new clusters in PIC home regions, the average employment in PICs and the share of PICs with high and medium level of institutional development were 2.02, 3.05 and 8.29 times higher, respectively, than the similar characteristics of cluster initiatives not supported by the State The impact of proximity to the home regions of previously established CI on the emergence of new CI is empirically proved. In the regions bordering the locations where the cluster initiatives had appeared earlier, there emerged an average of 4 cluster initiatives. Meanwhile an analysis of proximity to the state-supported cluster home regions revealed no special influence The length of cluster initiatives’ existence is always positively correlated with their institutional development level, and only in the cases of budget funding - with No. of employees The strongest CI are concentrated in regions with an adequate STI capacity, high innovation performance of businesses, well-developed innovative infrastructure and tangible financial support of innovation activity. BUT: the qualitative characteristics of state-supported clusters (PICs) are generally comparable among all groups of regions
- 16. Practical implications and future research ideas 16 Positive effects of cluster policy such as the increase of new cluster initiatives suggest the importance of long-standing cluster support programmes. Over time some of the cluster initiatives become prone to grant-seeking behaviour and blocking disruptive innovations as alternative sources of competitiveness. If this hypothesis is true, then the government’s contribution to overcoming systemic failures by supporting cluster initiatives will be insufficient for intensive economic growth The government’s role is not only in the allocation of funds, but also in the legitimation of relevant regional clustering initiatives and policies. Even with limited financial resources, cluster policy should remain the focus of the state agenda. But: other factors (first of all, proximity effects and innovation development of the regions) are also seem significant. To deal with systemic failures systemic approach is needed.
- 18. Russian CI landscape: 25% of active CI are state supported (PICs) 18 23 14 1113 46 CI-2008 PIC-2008 CI-2012 PIC-2012 CI-2015