IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v14y2022i3p1262-d731519.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Cluster Policy in Poland—Failures and Opportunities

Author

Listed:
  • Dominika Kuberska

    (Department of Market and Consumption, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, 10-719 Olsztyn, Poland)

  • Marta Mackiewicz

    (Department of East Asian Economic Studies, SGH Warsaw School of Economics, 02-554 Warsaw, Poland)

Abstract

The EU has been leaning towards evidence-based policymaking with the aim of ensuring coherence between industrial, environmental, climate, and energy policy. It focuses on supporting the development of a business environment which would enable sustainable growth, job creation, and innovation. It is generally agreed upon that, at the current level of development, the EU should focus on boosting innovations and theory and practice deliver an array of suggestions on how to achieve this goal. Among them clusters and cluster-led development play a prominent role. Poland inherently follows this belief and has introduced cluster policy to its policy mix by supporting cluster initiatives and cluster organizations. The objective of the paper is to investigate the evolution of cluster policy in Poland, identify its success factors, and propose recommendations for cluster policy. This case study of cluster policy in Poland is based on a series of in-depth interviews as well as secondary data. The conclusions resulting from this case study indicate that adoption by the government of a cluster policy at the national level and implementation of a comprehensive strategy for cluster development at regional and national levels is a basic condition for cluster policy success. Positive results can be achieved if public intervention is continuous and tailored to the needs of cluster organizations at different development stages with particular emphasis on the internationalization of cluster activities, which was a key measure highly evaluated by the respondents. The paper touches upon the timely issue of the future direction of cluster policy. The debate on it is accompanied by another debate on how to build an economic ecosystem capable of reaching sustainability goals.

Suggested Citation

  • Dominika Kuberska & Marta Mackiewicz, 2022. "Cluster Policy in Poland—Failures and Opportunities," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(3), pages 1-18, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1262-:d:731519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1262/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/14/3/1262/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krueger, Anne O, 1990. "Government Failures in Development," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 4(3), pages 9-23, Summer.
    2. Mariana Mazzucato & Gregor Semieniuk, 2017. "Public financing of innovation: new questions," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 24-48.
    3. Wilfred Dolfsma, 2011. "Government Failure — Four Types," Journal of Economic Issues, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(3), pages 593-604.
    4. McCONNELL, ALLAN, 2010. "Policy Success, Policy Failure and Grey Areas In-Between," Journal of Public Policy, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 345-362, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lis, Anna Maria & Mackiewicz, Marta, 2023. "The implementation of green transformation through clusters," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 209(C).

    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. Pim Derwort & Nicolas Jager & Jens Newig, 2019. "Towards productive functions? A systematic review of institutional failure, its causes and consequences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 52(2), pages 281-298, June.
    2. Jianzhuang Zheng & Muhammad Usman Khurram & Lifeng Chen, 2022. "Can Green Innovation Affect ESG Ratings and Financial Performance? Evidence from Chinese GEM Listed Companies," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(14), pages 1-32, July.
    3. Randall Morck & Lloyd Steier, 2005. "The Global History of Corporate Governance: An Introduction," NBER Chapters, in: A History of Corporate Governance around the World: Family Business Groups to Professional Managers, pages 1-64, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Janssen, Matthijs J. & Abbasiharofteh, Milad, 2022. "Boundary spanning R&D collaboration: Key enabling technologies and missions as alleviators of proximity effects?," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 180(C).
    5. Roe, Terry L., 1992. "Political Economy of Structural Adjustment: A General Equilibirum- Interest Group Perspective," Bulletins 7467, University of Minnesota, Economic Development Center.
    6. Odeh Al-Jayyousi & Hira Amin & Hiba Ali Al-Saudi & Amjaad Aljassas & Evren Tok, 2023. "Mission-Oriented Innovation Policy for Sustainable Development: A Systematic Literature Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(17), pages 1-21, August.
    7. James A. Schmitz, 1996. "The role played by public enterprises: how much does it differ across countries?," Quarterly Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, vol. 20(Spr), pages 2-15.
    8. John A. Tatom, 1991. "Should government spending on capital goods be raised?," Review, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, issue Mar, pages 3-15.
    9. Andrea Boitani & Marcella Nicolini & Carlo Scarpa, 2013. "Do competition and ownership matter? Evidence from local public transport in Europe," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(11), pages 1419-1434, April.
    10. Christoph March & Ina Schieferdecker, 2021. "Technological Sovereignty as Ability, Not Autarky," CESifo Working Paper Series 9139, CESifo.
    11. Dirk Ehnts & Michael Paetz, 2021. "COVID-19 and its economic consequences for the Euro Area," Eurasian Economic Review, Springer;Eurasia Business and Economics Society, vol. 11(2), pages 227-249, June.
    12. Andrew Clark & Alexander Mihailov & Michael Zargham, 2021. "Complex Systems Modeling of Community Inclusion Currencies," Economics Discussion Papers em-dp2021-06, Department of Economics, University of Reading.
    13. Chang, Eric C. & Wong, Sonia M.L., 2009. "Governance with multiple objectives: Evidence from top executive turnover in China," Journal of Corporate Finance, Elsevier, vol. 15(2), pages 230-244, April.
    14. FitzGerald Cathal & O’Malley Eoin & Broin Deiric Ó, 2019. "Policy success/policy failure: A framework for understanding policy choices," Administration, Sciendo, vol. 67(2), pages 1-24, May.
    15. Aryal, Kishor & Laudari, Hari Krishna & Maraseni, Tek & Pathak, Bhoj Raj, 2022. "Navigating policy debates of and discourse coalitions on Nepal's Scientific Forest Management," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 141(C).
    16. Stern, Nicholas & Sivropoulos-Valero, Anna Valero, 2021. "Innovation, growth and the transition to net-zero emissions," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 114385, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    17. Roland Hodler, 2008. "Specialization and Welfare in the Presence of Imperfectly Integrated Capital Markets and Learning-by-doing," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 19(3), pages 391-402, July.
    18. Anders Gustafsson & Andreas Stephan & Alice Hallman & Nils Karlsson, 2016. "The “sugar rush” from innovation subsidies: a robust political economy perspective," Empirica, Springer;Austrian Institute for Economic Research;Austrian Economic Association, vol. 43(4), pages 729-756, November.
    19. Nicholas Stern & Anna Valero, 2021. "Innovation, growth and the transition to net-zero emissions," CEP Discussion Papers dp1773, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Рубинштейн Александр Яковлевич, "undated". "Методологический Анализ Теории Опекаемых Благ: Научный Доклад [methodological analysis of the Theory of Patronized Goods. Research report]," Working papers a:pru175:ye:2014:1, Institute of Economics.

    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:gam:jsusta:v:14:y:2022:i:3:p:1262-:d:731519. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.