Usaha MIkro Kecil dan Menengah

Diskusi dan penelitian lebih dalam mengenai UMKM akan menarik dan bermanfaat, bukan hanya karena dinamika bisnis di dalamnya tapi juga atas nama keadilan ekonomi di Republik ini. Seperti diketahui, mayoritas pelaku ekonomi di Indonesia berada pada sektor UMKM maka sudah menjadi konsekwensi logis ketika segala daya upaya pembangunan ekonomi selalu memberikan peran yang strategis kepada sektor ini.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010

The Cluster and The Indusrial District Theories

The two broad literatures which refer to the initial definition of geographical agglomeration of firms from Marshal are cluster and industrial district theories. Porters and Ketels (2009) assert that although cluster and industrial district theories have different views in identifying the role played by the cluster actors and the influential factors of cluster performance, it root from similar fundamental theory. Moreover, those theories also recognise the significant role played by cluster to enhance the competitiveness of clustered firms.
According to cluster theory, cluster is defined as a geographical agglomeration of companies, suppliers, service providers, and associated institutions in a particular field, linked by externalities and complete of various. types Moreover, Humphrey and Schmitz (1995) and Sonobe and Otsuka (2006) assert that cluster is a geographical concentration or localization of firms producing similar product or closely related product in certain area. Those definitions recognize that cluster includes not only the firms which compete and cooperate with others firm in the similar value chain but also institutional supports which sustain the dynamics of cluster. The definitions solely identify the cluster members rather than explicitly recognize the level of significance of roles played by cluster actors.
In contras, Parrilli (2009), Becattini (2004), and Bianchi (1994) cited in Cainelli (2008) highlight that the industrial district is a socio-geographical entity of small and medium enterprises (SMEs) producing a specific commodity in industrial atmosphere. The socio-geographical entity is characterized by the existence of interpersonal relationship among actors and the common social and cultural background owned by SMEs and institutional supports in the industrial district. Moreover, industrial atmosphere facilitates the emergence of agglomeration effect, such as knowledge and innovation spillovers, external economies and joint actions. Considering those definitions, it could be indicated that the industrial district is likely dominated by SMEs with their social and cultural embeddedness.
Despite the different views in identifying roles played by the actors of cluster, those two theories also point out that the driver factors of cluster performance are varied. The previous studies which relied on cluster theory have merely emphasized on business environment, collective efficiency, and institutional support as a determinant factors of cluster performance (Porter, 1998; Lundequist and Power, 2002; Newlands, 2003; McDonald et al., 2007). However the industrial district literature-based studies have taken into account not only those factors but also social variables affecting the development of cluster (Cooke and Wills, 1999; Nadvi, 1999b; Parrilli, 2007; Nam et al., 2010).
For instance, Porter (1998) emphasized the importance of conducive environment to support the dynamics of cluster, and McDonald et al’s (2007) study recognized that industrial sector factors matter in cluster performance. Moreover, regarding the institutional intervention of the cluster development, Study by Lundequist and Power (2002) revealed the four key factors supporting the success of the intervention, creation and institutionalization, management, marketing and upgrading. Additionally, the significance of institutional support in cluster also highlighted by Newland’s study (2003). He asserted that one of the influential conditions affecting the dynamics and the developmental policy of cluster is the balance between competition and collaboration. The condition could be created by encouraging the cooperation between and within actors to respond the increasing competition pressure among firms stimulated by cluster. Finally, those empirical studies reflect that the cluster theory tends to limit the influential factors of cluster performance on business variables and neglects the social variables.
Since the cluster theory lacks of social perspective in the analysis, the industrial district literature provides more attention on social values in the empirical study. Nadvi’s study (1999b) exhibited that social network and cultural values contribute to the success of Sialkot cluster in Pakistan, in addition to collective efficiencies and governmental supports. In line with previous empirical study, Nam et al’s (2010) also recognized the contribution of human and social capital on the internationalization of knitwear cluster in Southern Vietnam. Considering the importance of social capital to enhance the performance of clustered SMEs, study carried out by Cooke and Wills (1999) revealed finding that the business performance of SMEs significantly determined by social capital. Interestingly, the study also justified that social capital could be deliberatively constructed through innovative program. Finally, Parrilli’s (2009) study in Forly cluster in Italy seems to amplified evidences revealed by the previous studies, because it identified three broad driver factors of cluster growth, collective efficiency, policy inducement and social embeddedness.
Due to the existence of dominant role played by SMEs and the identification of multi dimensional factors, industrial district might be appropriate to capture the phenomena of SME cluster in developing countries, more specific in Indonesia. Therefore, the definition of industrial district would be employed in this section. Yet, cluster and industrial district terms would be remain employed because the interchangeable usage of industrial district and cluster seems to be common and acceptable (Schmitz, 1999; Parrilli, 2007; Landabaso and Rosenfeld, 2009).

No comments:

Post a Comment