IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/hig/wpaper/106sti2020.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Towards An ‘Ideal’ Cluster Support Program: Blending The Approaches

Author

Listed:
  • Evgeniy Kutsenko

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Ekaterina Islankina

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Vasiliy Abashkin

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

  • Elena Popova

    (National Research University Higher School of Economics)

Abstract

Clusters have become a major element of innovation and industrial policies in many countries worldwide. Over the years, targeted cluster support programs have been designed and implemented, each featuring a variety of approaches to the selection of clusters, terms and prerequisites for funds allocation, the areas of support, etc. Such approaches have both the advantages and drawbacks, which leads to a conception of an ‘ideal’ support program mix that could consider the best practices and ignore some unsuccessful solutions. The working paper aims at suggesting such an ‘ideal’ approach to designing a cluster support program, based on the synchronization of the most effective elements of various such programs in Russia. Over the past decade, cluster policy has occupied an important position in the agenda of the Russian Government. Two federal Ministries – the Ministry of Economic Development and the Ministry of Industry and Trade initiated several cluster support programs for innovative and industrial clusters. Nowadays, there are more than 118 clusters in Russia, and over a half of them benefit from current public support measures – 27 innovative clusters, 42 industrial and 12 leading clusters. The comparative analysis of federal support programs revealed several benefits and limitations in both approaches in terms of subsidy allocation principles, areas of support and cluster selection criteria. In particular, among the key advantages of innovative clusters programs are the focus on cluster management development, and identifying the strongest clusters through one-time selection procedure. The successful features of industrial clusters program are permanent application process, reduction of budget risk due to compensation principle of funding, and stimulation of cooperation through special requirements for joint projects. The major disadvantages of innovative cluster support programs are budget risks caused by advanced financing of cluster activities, and a lack of project focus; the probability to support low-quality projects and neglecting the issue of cluster management development are the key weaknesses within the industrial clusters program. The paper suggests a ‘smart’ synchronization of approaches to cluster support, which blends the best practices of different ministries.

Suggested Citation

  • Evgeniy Kutsenko & Ekaterina Islankina & Vasiliy Abashkin & Elena Popova, 2020. "Towards An ‘Ideal’ Cluster Support Program: Blending The Approaches," HSE Working papers WP BRP 106/STI/2020, National Research University Higher School of Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:106sti2020
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://wp.hse.ru/data/2020/03/24/1567591839/106STI2020.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eickelpasch, Alexander & Fritsch, Michael, 2005. "Contests for cooperation--A new approach in German innovation policy," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 34(8), pages 1269-1282, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wang Dongling & Kelvin C.K. Lam, 2018. "Whether the Innovation Policy Will Really Improve Enterprise’s Innovation Performance— Mediating Role of Ambidextrous Learning," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 11(9), pages 96-107, September.
    2. Alecke, Björn & Breitfuss, Marija & Cremer, Wolfram & Hartmann, Christian & Lageman, Bernhard & Mitze, Timo & Peistrup, Matthias & Ploder, Michael & Rappen, Hermann & Rothgang, Michael, 2011. "Föderalismus und Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik: Bericht des Konsortiums "Föderalismus und Forschungs- und Innovationspolitik"," Studien zum deutschen Innovationssystem 11-2011, Expertenkommission Forschung und Innovation (EFI) - Commission of Experts for Research and Innovation, Berlin.
    3. Hassine, Haithem Ben & Mathieu, Claude, 2020. "R&D crowding out or R&D leverage effects: An evaluation of the french cluster-oriented technology policy," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Jose Guimon, 2014. "Regional Inovation Policy and Multilevel Governance in Developing Countries," World Bank Publications - Reports 23655, The World Bank Group.
    5. Huang, Cui & Yang, Chao & Su, Jun, 2021. "Identifying core policy instruments based on structural holes: A case study of China’s nuclear energy policy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    6. Claire Champenois, 2012. "How Can a Cluster Policy Enhance Entrepreneurship? Evidence from the German ‘Bioregio’ Case," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 30(5), pages 796-815, October.
    7. Graf, Holger & Broekel, Tom, 2020. "A shot in the dark? Policy influence on cluster networks," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    8. Benz, Arthur & Böcher, Michael, 2012. "Politischer Leistungswettbewerb zwischen Regionen: Voraussetzungen, Chancen und Grenzen," Forschungs- und Sitzungsberichte der ARL: Aufsätze, in: Kauffmann, Albrecht & Rosenfeld, Martin T. W. (ed.), Städte und Regionen im Standortwettbewerb, volume 127, pages 71-89, ARL – Akademie für Raumentwicklung in der Leibniz-Gemeinschaft.
    9. Peter-J. Jost, 2021. "Endogenous formation of entrepreneurial networks," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(1), pages 39-64, January.
    10. Steinmueller, W. Edward, 2010. "Economics of Technology Policy," Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, in: Bronwyn H. Hall & Nathan Rosenberg (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1181-1218, Elsevier.
    11. Uwe Cantner & Holger Graf & Susanne Hinzmann, 2013. "Policy Induced Innovation Networks: The Case of the German “Leading-Edge Cluster Competition”," Advances in Spatial Science, in: Thomas Scherngell (ed.), The Geography of Networks and R&D Collaborations, edition 127, chapter 0, pages 335-352, Springer.
    12. Annalisa Caloffi & Marco Mariani, 2018. "Regional policy mixes for enterprise and innovation: A fuzzy-set clustering approach," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(1), pages 28-46, February.
    13. Rolf Sternberg & Matthias Kiese & Dennis Stockinger, 2010. "Cluster Policies in the US and Germany: Varieties of Capitalism Perspective on Two High-Tech States," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 28(6), pages 1063-1082, December.
    14. Giebe, Thomas & Grebe, Tim & Wolfstetter, Elmar, 2006. "How to allocate R&D (and other) subsidies: An experimentally tested policy recommendation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(9), pages 1261-1272, November.
    15. Annalisa Caloffi & Federica Rossi & Margherita Russo, 2013. "Does participation in innovation networks improve firms' relational abilities? Evidence from a regional policy framework," DRUID Working Papers 13-07, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    16. Leonard Prochaska & Daniel Schiller, 2021. "An evolutionary perspective on the emergence and implementation of mission-oriented innovation policy: the example of the change of the leitmotif from biotechnology to bioeconomy," Review of Evolutionary Political Economy, Springer, vol. 2(1), pages 141-249, April.
    17. Susana Borrás & Jacint Jordana, 2016. "When regional innovation policies meet policy rationales and evidence: a plea for policy analysis," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(12), pages 2133-2153, December.
    18. Michaela Trippl & Joshua von Gabain & Franz Tödtling, 2006. "Policy agents as catalysts of knowledge links in the biotechnology sector," SRE-Disc sre-disc-2006_01, Institute for Multilevel Governance and Development, Department of Socioeconomics, Vienna University of Economics and Business.
    19. Dohse, Dirk & Staehler, Tanja, 2008. "BioRegio, BioProfile and the rise of the German biotech industry," Kiel Working Papers 1456, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    20. Michael Fritsch & Martina Kauffeld-Monz, 2010. "The impact of network structure on knowledge transfer: an application of social network analysis in the context of regional innovation networks," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 44(1), pages 21-38, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    cluster policy; innovative clusters; national cluster support program; industrial clusters.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D04 - Microeconomics - - General - - - Microeconomic Policy: Formulation; Implementation; Evaluation
    • O18 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Urban, Rural, Regional, and Transportation Analysis; Housing; Infrastructure
    • O19 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - International Linkages to Development; Role of International Organizations
    • O38 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Government Policy
    • R58 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Regional Development Planning and Policy

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:hig:wpaper:106sti2020. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Shamil Abdulaev or Shamil Abdulaev (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/hsecoru.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.