TY - JOUR
AU1 - Giulio, Buciuni,
AU2 - Gary, Pisano,
AB - Abstract Over the past two decades, the greater prevalence of global supply chains has had contrasting effects on Western manufacturing clusters. While some of them dwindled, others proved resilient. Contributing to the recent literature on co-located clusters and clusters' linkages, we focus on the impact of lead firms’ strategies on the competitiveness of a pair of ‘twin’ clusters located in Northeast Italy. Our findings suggest that production remains ‘sticky’ when leading firms pursue ‘process-embedded’ innovation by integrating global market and local technical knowledge. We refer to this type of firm as a Knowledge Integrator and discuss how its strategy supports the competiveness of localized suppliers. 1. Introduction Over the past fifteen years, the global reorganization of production networks has emerged as one of the most important and disruptive phenomena in both developed and developing economies. To remain competitive in today’s globalized economic scenario, regions and firms need to continuously upgrade their capabilities in global value chains, hence increasing their competitive advantage vis-à-vis global competitors. A key aspect in this process is their level of ‘knowledge connectivity’ (Cano-Kollmann et al., 2016), a concept which refers to their capability to tap into to global sources of knowledge in order to absorb and generate new competences. How to integrate novel external knowledge within existing industrial regions and organizations is one of the most important and challenging questions scholars, policymakers and managers are coping with these days. Whether focusing on the role of MNCs as driver of knowledge dispersion across countries (Cantwell and Mudambi, 2005) or on the mechanisms underpinning local knowledge building (Lorenzen and Mudambi, 2013; Bathelt and Cohendet, 2014), economic geographers and international business scholars alike have been lately devoting increasing attention to this specific matter. Understanding through which mechanisms new knowledge is created across countries and under what conditions regions and organizations can absorb and retain it is particularly important for territories and firms specializing in manufacturing activities, since these have been the primary objective of the global reorganization of value chains. The past century and the past few decades in particular have witnessed the migration of an unprecedented number of production activities, generally moving from Western countries to the ‘Global South’ (Dicken, 2003). Driven by falling trade barriers, the opening of once closed markets (like China, India, Eastern Europe and Russia), and fueled by modularization of production (Baldwin and Clark, 2000; Sturgeon, 2002), declines of long established manufacturing regions and clusters in the USA and Europe have occurred in industries as diverse as apparel, automobiles, consumer electronics, furniture, shoes and steel. In Italy, in particular, several low-technology and labor-intensive clusters like the Murge upholstery district (Puglia) and the hub for gold jewelry production in Arezzo (Tuscany) dwindled, hence leading some to question the future viability of the cluster model (De Marchi et al., 2014). Mass manufacturing migration is such a prominent part of the globalization discourse that it is easy to forget that a surprising amount of manufacturing actually stays put some of it quite for a long time. Harley Davidson for instance has been producing motorcycle engines in the Milwaukee area since 1903; in Europe, Faber-Castell has produced pencils in Germany since 1761, while Tuscany and Veneto in Italy have been leading centers of high quality wool fabric and luxury apparel production since the 13th century (Goldthwaite 2009). Traditional manufacturing clusters, at least in some contexts, appear to be surviving globalization. Such a variation in patterns of manufacturing migration motivates the central question of this paper: Why and under what circumstances do manufacturing clusters survive globalization? The answer matters for several reasons. First, it will help us understand the extent to which lower barriers to trade pose real or imagined threats to specific industries in specific locations. Second, it will provide managers needing to make long-term commitments toward value chain configurations with an in-depth understanding of the circumstances under which manufacturing remains ‘sticky’ to specific locales (Markusen, 1996) and how location matters to manufacturing performance and innovation (Pisano and Shih, 2012a; Buciuni and Finotto, 2016). Clusters’ evolution and integration into the global economy is a topic that has received substantial attention from several academic perspectives over the past two decades. Within this broad domain, a number of studies have examined the way firms’ knowledge creation and transmission affect the competitiveness of clusters (Morrison, 2008; Morrison et al. 2013; Lorenzen and Mudambi, 2013; Hervas-Olivier and Albors-Garrigos, 2014). However, quite surprisingly, very little attention has been devoted to how leading firms’ different operating strategies affect the competitiveness and evolution of established manufacturing clusters. Building on and contributing to a novel stream of literature focusing on clusters’ linkages (Henn and Bathelt, 2018,) and co-located clusters (Bathelt and Zhao, 2016), we present an empirical study featuring the analysis of the way leading firms’ strategies have shaped the recent evolution of four distinct industrial clusters located in one of Europe’s most industrialized regions: Northeastern Italy. Our analysis leads us to identify three circumstances contributing to the geographic ‘stickiness’ of manufacturing: (i) clusters’ lead firms are tightly linked to the local supply base and have stable connections with major global players; (ii) the complementarity of design and production knowledge in different stages of the value chain is critical to innovation (‘process-embedded’ innovation, Pisano and Shih, 2012b); (iii) cluster suppliers are highly specialized in narrow production tasks and are actively involved in innovation development. Although representing three necessary but seemingly independent factors, we find close interdependence between these elements. Critical to understanding this interdependence, and in explaining how it sustains the competitiveness of manufacturing clusters, is the operating strategy of firms we call Knowledge Integrators. We define a Knowledge Integrator as a locally operating lead firm that, by pursuing a constant product and process innovation strategy through the integration of global market and local technical knowledge, stimulates the continuous upgrade of cluster suppliers and supports the preservation and improvement of local external economies. The article develops as follows. We first provide a literature overview of how manufacturing clusters have adopted and compete in the global economy and introduce the concept of Knowledge Integrators. The article then illustrates the research methodology used and specifically how data were collected and analyzed. This is followed by an empirical section where the evolutionary trajectories of the four clusters are analyzed. Finally, we discuss the role played by Knowledge Integrators in supporting the upgrading and competitiveness of the Livenza and Riviera del Brenta clusters and offer suggestions for further research in the field of clusters’ global evolution and local-global linkages. 2. Manufacturing clusters in the global economy Over the past two decades, the migration of manufacturing drastically reshaped the geographical and organizational configuration of numerous manufacturing industries in Western economies. Frequently accompanied by structural changes in the governance of industrial processes (Gereffi et al., 2005), the global fragmentation of manufacturing was triggered and sustained by multinational corporations’ international dispersion of production activities (Mudambi 2007; Coe et al., 2008). The rapid and pervasive spread of global supply chains, and the parallel decline of long established industrial regions in developed countries, led some to question the future viability of ‘Marshallian’ manufacturing districts (De Marchi and Grandinetti, 2014), where the entire production chain is performed locally by dense networks of small and medium-sized firms specializing in narrow production activities. Despite the global shift of manufacturing from developed to developing countries, and the growing international fragmentation of production, certain types of manufacturing activities proved resilient. However, the ‘stickiness’ of production activities in Western countries is not occurring in all manufacturing sectors alike, nor is it involving all the firms competing in a given manufacturing industry (Buciuni et al., 2014; De Marchi et al., 2014). Whether thriving or fading, the transformation of industrial regions and clusters in a globalizing economy have revamped the interests of scholars, managers and policymakers on the factors and dynamics underlying industrial localization and the evolutionary paths of industrial regions (Martin and Sunley, 2006; Christopherson et al. 2014). As local and global forces collided and redrew the boundaries of regional industries, firms located in mature manufacturing clusters strived to remain alive by pursuing upgrading strategies and move into higher value-adding functions in global supply chains (Gereffi, 1999). The industrial clusters literature timely addressed this phenomenon and progressively moved from the study of production optimization and local division of labor (Marshall, 1890; Piore and Sabel, 1984) to the analysis of clusters’ knowledge creation and innovation (Belussi and Pilotti, 2002; Maskell and Malmberg, 2007; Giuliani, 2007; Hannigan et al., 2015). Central to this line of research is the understanding of dynamics that underpin a cluster’s capacity to constantly generate or absorb new knowledge and diffuse it among its members, hence sustaining the competitive advantage of the local industry vis-à-vis global competitors (Giuliani, 2005). The ability of clusters to develop new knowledge has been analyzed through a geographical perspective, mostly in an attempt to investigate the relationship between the geographical scope of inter-firm linkages and clusters learning capacities (Bathelt et al, 2004; Lazerson and Lorenzoni, 2008; Hannigen et al., 2015). Common across these contributions is the idea that firms should tap into external sources of knowledge to avoid lock-in traps and cognitive redundancy, a concept Uzzi (1997) referred to as ‘the paradox of embeddedness’. According to Maskell and Malmberg (2007), if cluster firms are to escape situations of ‘cognitive myopia’, they need to build knowledge conduits with distant communities. A key contribution in the analysis of clusters’ competitiveness in the global economy was the seminal work of Becattini and Rullani (1996), where the authors for the first time introduced and discussed the importance for local systems to create linkages with regions and actors located outside industrial districts to foster the creation of new knowledge and capabilities. Becattini and Rullani's original argument was further elaborated by Bathelt, Malmberg and Maskell in 2004 through the analysis of the conditions under which tacit (local) and codified (global) knowledge can be combined and ultimately bolster the competitive advantage of a cluster. According to the authors, crucial in the process of knowledge creation is the coexistence of a high level of localized learning processes (‘local buzz’) and knowledge conduits (‘global pipelines’) connecting local firms to external actors. In addition to tackling the geographical dimension of new knowledge creation, the authors shed light on the mechanisms, whereby codified global inputs can be integrated into local circuits of knowledge. The architecture and functioning of the local–global knowledge conduits received substantial attention in recent years and paved the way for the development of the ‘strategic coupling’ (Coe et al., 2004,), the ‘gatekeeper’ (Allen, 1984) and the ‘knowledge gatekeepers’ concepts (Morrison, 2008; Morrison et al., 2013). Central in these contributions is the idea that the innovation capabilities of an organization (Allen, 1984) and the competitiveness of regional industries are contingent upon the strategic integration of local and global assets and the diffusion of new knowledge at local level. Despite the recent growing emphasis on firm-level studies, the existing literature on clusters evolution in the global economy still lacks a systematic analysis addressing the relationship between firm-specific operating strategy and clusters’ evolutionary trajectories (Hervas-Olivier and Boix-Domenech, 2013). This gap is preventing a thorough understanding of why similar manufacturing clusters adapt differently to globalization and ultimately follow distinct evolutionary paths. Assuming that all global conduits are equally beneficial to the competitive advantage and survival of manufacturing clusters can be misleading. Numerous are the examples of lead firms in developed economies that established global linkages with foreign low-cost subcontractors, whom they delegate production activities once performed by local suppliers (e.g. Coucke and Sleuwaegen, 2008; Buciuni et al., 2014). This type of knowledge conduit, while critical to the competitive advantage of Western lead firms, will hardly contribute to the preservation of a ‘vertically integrated’ manufacturing cluster. Natuzzi is a case in point. Defined by Morrison (2008) as a ‘gatekeeper of knowledge’, the firm had connected the Murge upholstery cluster to the global economy mostly by establishing supplying relationships with low-cost furniture producers in China and Brazil. While contributing to decrease the firm’s production costs and hence profitability, this strategy also contributed to the erosion of the local supply base and ultimately to the downsize of the Murge cluster. 3. Knowledge integrators and clusters survival The concept of ‘gatekeeper of knowledge’, and the case of Natuzzi in particular, highlights the key role played by leading firms in connecting local clusters to global value chains and the impact of their strategies on the competitiveness of production territories. Illustrating how this process happens and how different leading firms’ operating strategies can determine the evolution of similar manufacturing clusters is the purpose of this study. We do so by presenting and discussing a typology of firm that we refer to as knowledge integrators, namely a cluster’s leading firm whose simultaneous participation into manufacturing clusters and global value chains permit the codification and transfer of innovation and market knowledge into production territories. The concept of knowledge-integrating firms has some antecedents in the existing literature, particularly in field of business studies (Allen, 1984; Henderson and Clark, 1990; Grant, 1999). Allen (1984) firstly discussed the importance of managing the flow of technical knowledge within an organization and introduced the idea of knowledge gatekeepers; 20 years later, the notion of knowledge integration was explicitly addressed by Grant (1999) when he discussed the importance for a firm to create competitive advantage by integrating different types of knowledge that may exist within its organizational boundaries. Although critically contributing to the still ongoing debate on knowledge creation and integration in organizations, the existing theory has not investigated systematically how the integration of different forms of knowledge occurs within and across clusters of firms, what are its underlying dynamics and what firms ultimately benefit from it. The concept of knowledge integrators that we introduced in this article offers answers to these questions by adding a more explicit geographical and systemic perspective to existing analysis—where different types of knowledge are generated and where they integrate—and by providing a finer grained analysis of how this process occurs within clusters—what are the key actors involved and why the same process does not happen uniformly across similar clusters. Overall, we argue that it is the ability of knowledge integrators to establish and organize linkages between the production territory and the global environment that determines the competitiveness and survival of established manufacturing clusters. In other words, a knowledge integrator allows a cluster to overcome the trade-off of being either ‘too global’ or ‘too local’ by preserving and improving its localized capabilities (production and technical skills) and integrating them with global market stimuli (above all innovation input). As discussed in the findings section, the strategy of knowledge integrators is particularly suitable for clusters’ leading firms which pursue a model of innovation (product or process) that is continuous over time and is ‘process-embedded’ (Pisano and Shih, 2012a), that is innovation requires the co-location of pre-production (design and R&D) and production functions. Ultimately, we contend, it is this specific aspect of leading firms’ strategies that acts as the glue ‘sticking’ production activities to long-established territories and bolsters the perseveration and upgrading of clusters’ specialized supply base. By introducing and discussing the role of knowledge integrators in established manufacturing clusters, we contribute to the developing literature on the importance on local–global linkages and global connectivity in industrial clusters (Bathelt et al., 2004; Coe et al., 2004; Lorenzen and Mudambi, 2013; De Marchi et al., 2017; Henn and Bathelt, 2018) through an in-depth analysis of the micro dynamics that underpin the distinct evolutionary paths of similar manufacturing territories. It is on the level of analysis—firm-specific operating strategies—that we believe our work can complement and advance the state of the art of studies on clusters evolution. 4. Research methods Because Italy is well known as an economy organized around industrial clusters (Piore and Sabel, 1984), it presents an ideal laboratory in which to investigate the competitive dynamics of clusters. We have chosen to focus on Northeast Italy because it is one of Europe’s most industrialized regions and home to several manufacturing clusters that have been heavily impacted by global competition (Eurostat, 2014). To date, while there exist several studies comparing similar clusters (as per production specialization) located in different regions (e.g. Amighini and Rabellotti, 2006; Giuliani et al. 2010; Buciuni et al., 2014; De Marchi et al., 2014) or different clusters located in the same geographical context (e.g. Belussi and Sedita, 2009; Buciuni and Finotto, 2016), there is no evidence of any work in the existing clusters theory focusing on co-located clusters competing in the same industry. Our research strategy deliberately aimed to identify and analyze comparable clusters located in the same industrial region. Analyzing multiple clusters all located in the same region allows us to hold constant ‘region-specific’ factors—such as wage changes, workforce shifts, taxation, industrial policies—that might influence clusters’ performance and evolution. The couple of ‘twin’ clusters we selected are the Livenza and Manzano furniture clusters and the Montebelluna and Riviera del Brenta footwear production poles. Despite sharing a similar historical evolution, competing in the same industry, and being respectively separated by 40–50 km, the four clusters have been following different evolutionary trajectories over the past two decades. On the one hand, the Livenza (case goods and kitchens) and Riviera del Brenta clusters (women footwear) proved capable of adapting themselves to the globalizing economy and survived the increased competition from foreign low-cost producers, often attracting investments from major global brands like Ikea and Louis Vuitton; on the other, Manzano (chairs and upholstered furniture) and Montebelluna (sport shoes) significantly eroded their manufacturing base and drastically downsized (Table 1). Table 1 Key features and evolution of the Manzano, Livenza, Montebelluna and Riviera del Brenta clusters (2005–2014) Cluster Manzano Chair District Livenza Furniture District Montebelluna Sport shoes District Riviera del Brenta Footwear District Location Udine Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Pordenone Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Treviso Province (Veneto) Padova, Venezia Provinces (Veneto) Primary activity Chairs and Upholstered Seats Case Goods and Kitchens Hiking and Ski Boots, Sport Shoes Female Leather Shoes Establishment 1890s 1900s 1890s 1890s Major leading firms Calligaris Friulintagli Lotto Sport Giorgio Armani Krassevig Media Profili Diadora Louis Vuitton Potocco Valcucine Tecnica Prada Palma Sangiacomo AKU Renè Caovilla Tonon Northwave Rossimoda Production units (2005) 888 846 362 744 Production units (2009) 675 813 266 756 Production units (2014) 501 693 226 732 Employees (2005) 8076 17336 5457 6531 Employees (2009) 5564 18760 4565 6204 Employees (2014) 3818 14995 4264 6252 Cluster Manzano Chair District Livenza Furniture District Montebelluna Sport shoes District Riviera del Brenta Footwear District Location Udine Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Pordenone Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Treviso Province (Veneto) Padova, Venezia Provinces (Veneto) Primary activity Chairs and Upholstered Seats Case Goods and Kitchens Hiking and Ski Boots, Sport Shoes Female Leather Shoes Establishment 1890s 1900s 1890s 1890s Major leading firms Calligaris Friulintagli Lotto Sport Giorgio Armani Krassevig Media Profili Diadora Louis Vuitton Potocco Valcucine Tecnica Prada Palma Sangiacomo AKU Renè Caovilla Tonon Northwave Rossimoda Production units (2005) 888 846 362 744 Production units (2009) 675 813 266 756 Production units (2014) 501 693 226 732 Employees (2005) 8076 17336 5457 6531 Employees (2009) 5564 18760 4565 6204 Employees (2014) 3818 14995 4264 6252 Table 1 Key features and evolution of the Manzano, Livenza, Montebelluna and Riviera del Brenta clusters (2005–2014) Cluster Manzano Chair District Livenza Furniture District Montebelluna Sport shoes District Riviera del Brenta Footwear District Location Udine Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Pordenone Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Treviso Province (Veneto) Padova, Venezia Provinces (Veneto) Primary activity Chairs and Upholstered Seats Case Goods and Kitchens Hiking and Ski Boots, Sport Shoes Female Leather Shoes Establishment 1890s 1900s 1890s 1890s Major leading firms Calligaris Friulintagli Lotto Sport Giorgio Armani Krassevig Media Profili Diadora Louis Vuitton Potocco Valcucine Tecnica Prada Palma Sangiacomo AKU Renè Caovilla Tonon Northwave Rossimoda Production units (2005) 888 846 362 744 Production units (2009) 675 813 266 756 Production units (2014) 501 693 226 732 Employees (2005) 8076 17336 5457 6531 Employees (2009) 5564 18760 4565 6204 Employees (2014) 3818 14995 4264 6252 Cluster Manzano Chair District Livenza Furniture District Montebelluna Sport shoes District Riviera del Brenta Footwear District Location Udine Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Pordenone Province (Friuli Venezia Giulia) Treviso Province (Veneto) Padova, Venezia Provinces (Veneto) Primary activity Chairs and Upholstered Seats Case Goods and Kitchens Hiking and Ski Boots, Sport Shoes Female Leather Shoes Establishment 1890s 1900s 1890s 1890s Major leading firms Calligaris Friulintagli Lotto Sport Giorgio Armani Krassevig Media Profili Diadora Louis Vuitton Potocco Valcucine Tecnica Prada Palma Sangiacomo AKU Renè Caovilla Tonon Northwave Rossimoda Production units (2005) 888 846 362 744 Production units (2009) 675 813 266 756 Production units (2014) 501 693 226 732 Employees (2005) 8076 17336 5457 6531 Employees (2009) 5564 18760 4565 6204 Employees (2014) 3818 14995 4264 6252 To explain the reasons of such divergent paths, and hence tackling the research question of this article, we conducted a two-phase empirical analysis between January 2014 and July 2016. Phase 1 draws on unique industrial statistics and provides a longitudinal analysis of the evolution of the four clusters from 2005 to 2014 in terms of size of the local workforce and population of manufacturing firms. Since no accurate data on the number of manufacturing firms and workers for the four clusters were available, we had to gather primary data. To do so, we co-designed and later purchased a database from the Istituto Italiano di Statisitca (ISTAT), the public institution responsible for the elaboration of official socio-economic statistics in Italy. The unavailability of data before 2005 and after 2014 determined the time frame we could take into account. Phase 2 features a qualitative comparative analysis of the dynamics underlying the evolutionary trajectories of the fours clusters and strives to explain the differences emerging from phase 1. Data collection was based on multiple-firm and multiple-context case approach, a research method particularly useful when the complexity and plurality of the socio-economic dynamics induced by globalization are investigated (Birkinshaw et al., 2011). We collected data from eight leading firms, two per each cluster. The identification of leading firms was based on objective elements, such as firm turnover, exports, number of employees, number of production units, and foreign direct investments, Data collection lasted approximately 18 months—from June 2014 to July 2016—and took place mainly through personal interviews with firms’ decision makers. Furthermore, we conducted a dozen interviews with the firms’ key suppliers in order to evaluate the impact of their strategies on the local production base. All interviews were conducted through face-to-face meetings and involved extensive visits of the firms’ production floor. The first round of interviews was aimed at gathering information regarding the operating strategy of the leading firms, and particularly their international marketing and supply chain strategies. For this reason, meeting with CEOs and Presidents at the firms’ headquarters was a necessary condition. The questions asked during this phase of data collection mostly concerned with the recent evolution of the firm, its strategic orientation and the most important challenges confronting the organization in the current global economic landscape. In order to integrate data and answers to questions emerging from the first round of interviews, a second round of interviews was conducted with most of the firms we analyzed (September 2015–July 2016). During this phase of data collection, we met with sales and supply chain managers as well as with specialized workers and technicians involved in product development and project management. This step allowed us to gather finer-grained information through more specific questions on the coordination of key suppliers (locally, domestically and globally), the product development cycle and the access to international markets and customers. Between the two rounds of interviews, preliminary results were discussed and validated with experts operating in the four industrial contexts, including independent professionals, entrepreneurs and representatives of the clusters’ main industrial associations, such as the Associazione Sviluppo Distretti Industriali of Livenza (Livenza cluster), the Associazione Sviluppo Distretti Industriali of Manzano (Manzano cluster) and the Associazione Calzaturifici Riviera del Brenta (Riviera del Brenta cluster). Overall, we conducted 22 interviews with firms—including both leading firms and their cluster suppliers—and 6 with industry experts with each interview lasting on average 75 minutes. Because of the exploratory nature of our research design, we recognize that the study presented and discussed in this article might not provide perfectly comparable data across the four clusters we took into account and offer insights that might not fit all cluster analysis. As a result, the generalization of the results emerging from the empirical analysis should be exercised with care. 5. Findings 5.1. The cases of sport boots and shoes in Northeastern Italy Separated by only 50 km, the Montebelluna and Riviera del Brenta clusters have long represented Italy’s most prominent locales for the manufacture of two specific types of shoes: professional sport shoes, including ski boots and hiking boots (Montebelluna) and women’s leather shoes (Riviera del Brenta). The production pole of Montebelluna developed thanks in part to its proximity to the Dolomites; in the late 1800s, local artisans began producing hiking shoes for mountain enthusiasts. During the two World Wars, numerous local producers engaged in the manufacturing of boots for the Italian army, although the industrialization of the local cluster occurred between the 1970s and the 1990s, when Montebelluna gave birth to numerous globally renowned sport brands, like Tecnica, AKU, Lotto Sport, Diadora and started drawing investments from major international brands like Nike and The North Face It is in this cluster that during the 1970s, Nordica introduced plastic injection in the production of ski boots (De Marchi and Grandinetti, 2016). As in Montebelluna, the beginning of the leather shoes production in Riviera del Brenta dates back to the late 1800s, when a handful of artisanal laboratory settled down in the town of Stra (just south of Venice). Similar to the majority of the Italian industrial districts, the Riviera del Brenta flourished in the second half of the 1900s thanks to the growing domestic demand for consumer goods items and strong exports to Germany, France and the USA (Amighini and Rabellotti, 2006). Over the past two decades, the local footwear cluster specialized in the production of luxury footwear and started attracting investments from major global fashion brands, like Giorgio Armani, Prada and Louis Vuitton. While the origins and development of these two production hubs share major similarities, the way they adapted to the global economy over the past two decades followed divergent trajectories. On the one hand, leading firms in Montebelluna started offshoring production to lower cost economies (first to Eastern Romania and later to South-East Asia—above all Cambodia and Vietnam) while focusing on ‘intangible’ functions like marketing and distribution. In addition to cutting off numerous first and second-tier local suppliers from local supply chains, leading firms’ strategic decisions paved the way for the development of a new business model, where competitive advantage stemmed from sport sponsorships and investments in marketing and advertising. Yet, it was in this specific field that leading firms in Montebelluna struggled to compete against larger USA and German competitors like Nike and Adidas, particularly in key disciplines like football, tennis, and basketball where the cost of sponsorships grew exponentially over the past decade. By following the business model of major brand-name corporations, local firms radically changed the organization of their value chains, which evolved from being anchored in the cluster to becoming globally dispersed. This led to a substantial downsizing of the local manufacturing system and generated approximately 1200 layoffs (22% of total workforce) in shoes production in less than a decade (2005–2014). During the same period, the population of shoe producing firms declined by approximately 38%, with 136 production firms shut down, including both brand-name firms and suppliers. Consistent with industrial statistics, case study findings revealed that very few production tasks are currently performed in the Montebelluna region, mostly concerning complex items produced in small batches. According to the president of a historical leading firm specializing in the production of hiking boots, there are less than five branded firms still manufacturing sport shoes in the cluster: We maintain only one line (production line) in this plant simply because this (manufacturing hiking boots) is what we have been doing for decades. Technically and economically, there are no reasons why we shouldn’t outsource it to Romania like we did for the rest of our production (UKA’s1 President). UKA’s production and sourcing strategy, and the logic sustaining it, is very similar to that of a second leading firm that we analyzed in the cluster, Caber. Caber is a long-established firm specializing in the production of sports shoes and gears, particularly for football and tennis and running. Similarly to UKA, over the last 15 years Caber outsourced offshore the bulk of its local operations, above all to Romania, Cambodia and China. According to Caber’s CEO, changes in the firm’s operating strategy have been inevitable given the increased competitive pressures coming from global major brands like Adidas, Nike and Puma. If contracting production costs was the first reaction to the new supply chain strategy implemented by global competitors (De Marchi and Grandinetti, 2016), seeking to differentiate their products from those of more famous competitors is the dilemma currently confronting Caber and other local brands. Partnerships with professional athletes and teams, once an ordinary aspect of Caber’s marketing strategy, have become more difficult due to the increased costs of sponsorships and the sole strategy available seems to be that of penetrating market niches marked by a high-growth rate, like the fashion sneakers segment. While the outcome of this new market strategy remains to be determined, the downsizing of professional sponsorships severely affected local leading firms’ internationalization strategy and ability to collect knowledge from the market and particularly from trendsetters. In fact, partnerships with professional athletes are not only functional to improve the brand reputation of a sports equipment producer, but also they play a key role in supporting new product development and product testing by providing real time and trustworthy feedback on the functionality and aesthetics of new products or prototypes (Buciuni and Finotto, 2016). Over the same decade, the other major regional pole for footwear production followed a radically different evolutionary path. In Riviera del Brenta, not only did production of shoes remain stable between 2005 and 2014, but the cluster also became a magnet for investments from several global fashion brands like Giorgio Armani, Prada and Louis Vuitton. It is estimated that 90% of women’s luxury shoes (priced approximately $300 and above) are produced in the Riviera del Brenta. In addition to manufacturing women’s upscale footwear, local producers have lately specialized in the technical development and engineering of new products, hence completing a strategic process of upgrading. Once new designs are developed at the headquarters of fashion maisons (typically located in Milan and Paris), the development and refinement of the new models take place in Riviera del Brenta. The upgrading accomplished by the local cluster, which comprised both branded firms and their first and second-tier suppliers, took place over two decades and was triggered and sustained by the global strategies of local leading firms. Unlike other traditional Italian districts specializing in classic footwear production (e.g. Vigevano in Lombardia; Casarano in Puglia), firms in Riviera del Brenta seldom outsourced production offshore, even when local branded firms were not yet competing in the luxury segment (1970s–1980s). As most of our interviews with both local producers and industry experts indicated, the penetration of this market niche only occurred in the 1990s and 2000s and resulted from the establishment of tight partnerships between local production firms and foreign fashion brands (above all French brands like Chanel and Yves Saint Laurent). It was thanks to these production partnerships that manufacturing firms in Riviera del Brenta started supplying global fashion brands, thus initiating a critical process of ‘learning by supplying’ (Fifarek and Veloso, 2010). This process allowed local firms to improve their production capabilities, expand their knowledge into the product development and engineering phases, and ultimately establish their own brands in the luxury segment. While initiated by a handful of local firms (above all Redfashion), this business model has been later implemented by numerous producers, including smaller suppliers: We have been operating in the district since 1955 and have been part of the major changes this territory went through. Over the years we have been specializing in the production of high-quality shoes, especially for a few key partners (global fashion brands). We have also considerably developed our own brand through which we serve very specific market niches, mostly comprising high-spending international customers (Owner of Rob). The upgrading of the local footwear industry culminated in the late 2000s—early 2010s when global brands established their own production units in the Riviera del Brenta area (Louis Vuitton, Giorgio Armani) or took over existing manufacturing firms (Prada) to seize to specific production and technical capabilities available in the cluster. Thanks to this upgrading process, several brands operating in the Riviera del Brenta have gained international visibility in recent years. These brands include globally renowned MNEs as well as locally based firms, which despite their smaller size have been able to establish key partnerships with international designers and buyers. While large brands operate globally mostly through their own distribution channel, interviews with indigenous brands pointed out how cooperation with designers and trendsetters allowed smaller players to enter the global market, enhance their brand reputation and ultimately gather market knowledge like market trends and consumer's preferences. 5.2. The cases of seats and furniture in Northeastern Italy Like the Montebelluna and Riviera del Brenta manufacturing clusters, the origins of the Livenza (furniture) and Manzano (chairs) production hubs date back to the late 1800 and early 1900 when the first shops were established by local artisans, typically coming from the agricultural sector. The early development of both areas was sustained by the proximity to strategic sources of raw materials: wood from the Alps (Livenza) and wild canes from the Northern Adriatic lagoon (Manzano), which were used to manufacture woven seats. The two industrial areas grew remarkably between the 1960s and the 1990s, thanks to the boom of the domestic construction industry and the growth of foreign markets. Sustained by the specialization and the production flexibility of the regional production systems, exports to Germany, the UK and the USA during the 1980s marked the beginning of the internationalization of the furniture industry in Northeast Italy. As of the mid 1990s, one-third of the chairs sold in the world were manufactured in the Manzano industrial region (Lombardi, 2013). Twenty years later, the production of chairs in Manzano has halved. Data from the ISTAT indicates that the number of workers employed by chair producers in Manzano decreased by 53% between 2005 and 2014, dropping from 8076 to 3818 employees. The downsizing of the local workforce was coupled with and triggered by the shutdown of numerous production firms; according to ISTAT data, between 2005 and 2014 about 387 local production firms went out of business, hence reducing the overall number of production units by 43% in less than a decade. The downsizing of the Manzano district is even more evident if compared to the evolutionary trajectory of the other major regional hub for furniture production, the Livenza cluster. Located just 40 km away in the same region (Friuli Venezia Giulia), the Livenza furniture cluster remains one of the key activities for the regional economy and is home to several innovative firms, including a few of Ikea’s largest European suppliers. While confronted by the effects of the domestic Italian economic downturn, the size of the Livenza district decreased only marginally between 2005 and 2014 and maintained the bulk of local operations. The number of local employees declined by 13%, while the size of the local population of firms contracted by ‘only’ 18%. As discussed in the following section, the downsizing of the cluster’s production units is partially explained by the multiple acquisitions conducted in the cluster by a few major lead firms, above all Ikea’s two main suppliers in the region. The analysis of the leading firms’ operating strategies that we conducted in the two production hubs revealed how distinct strategic behaviors paved the way for the two clusters’ divergent evolutions. In particular, while the Livenza cluster was able to rethink its role in global supply chains and became one of Europe’s most important production hubs for large international retailers like Ikea (Sweden), Leroy Merlin (France) and John Lewis (UK), the one in Manzano kept following the old business model and failed to adapt to the globalizing economy. Key in the upgrading of the Livenza cluster was the strategy of three major leading firms specializing in the production of wooden components for case goods like bookcases, wardrobes and beside tables. Separated by only 5 km, over the past decade Friulegno and M-profiles became two of Ikea’s most strategic production partners in Europe. In addition to sustaining their economic growth (Friulegno’s turnover increased 10-fold between 2004 and 2014, from 40 to 400 million Euros), the tight connections they established with Ikea benefitted their local supply chains, comprising about one hundreds of first and second-tier suppliers and approximately 4000 workers. Strategic in the upgrading of the Livenza cluster have been the new production standards implemented by the two leading firms in order to fulfill Ikea’s operational and logistical requirements. These included sizable investments in production technology and supply chain management and in most cases entailed the reorganization of local suppliers’ production floor. Working with Ikea required us to invest several million of Euros in new production technology; in many cases we bought new equipment in advance, anticipating the needs of our client. It is undoubtedly a risky strategy but it paid off and allowed us to became one of their World’s most important partners (Export Manager, Friulegno). Although the bulk of investments was sustained by the two leading firms, local suppliers had to improve their production assets accordingly. As most of our interviews with cluster’s subcontractors confirmed, suppliers that failed to meet new production and logistical requirements (typically consisting in shorter production lead times) were either cut off by the supply chain or taken over by the two leading firms. In addition to fostering the overall productivity of the cluster supply base, Friulegno and M-profiles accomplished a strategic upgrading process within Ikea’s global supply chain as they evolved from being mere private-label producers to becoming developers of new furniture items on behalf of the Swedish retailer. By controlling key phases in the production chain, Friulegno and M-profiles have been able to develop strategic competences in the development of new product prototypes as well as in the design and refinement of industrial processes. This required them to further increase their production capacity and hire new skilled workers, many of which were absorbed from the shutdown of local furniture firms. Overall, the upgrading accomplished recently by the Livenza cluster can be seen as a direct result of the specific internationalization trajectory initiated by two of its leading firms 15 years ago. It was thanks to their capacity to establish and maintain supply chain relationships with larger global buyers that new knowledge could flow and spread into the cluster from outside. New knowledge not only features market trends and dynamics but also includes new production requirements and supply chain management practices. Unlike in the Livenza cluster, in Manzano we found no significant relationships between local production firms and global resellers and retailers. Although several local leading firms export their final products to a wide range of foreign countries, none of them have developed stable linkages with major global players, nor have they established a direct presence in key foreign markets. Leading firms’ weak presence in the global market has exposed the local cluster to the growing competition of lower cost foreign suppliers, mostly by preventing new knowledge and practices to flow into the cluster and integrate existing production capacities. As our interviews with a local industry expert suggests, the increased isolation of the cluster was also imputable to the shutdown of the local tradeshow, an event that in the past attracted numerous international buyers to the area and that in general is deemed to facilitate the exchange of knowledge between cluster’s firms and global players (see for example, Bathelt and Schuldt, 2008). As a result, while a handful of small branded firms like K-line and Ton were able to penetrate upscale niches through small-batch custom-made productions, the bulk of local firms kept following the old business models. Furthermore, Manzano’s leading firms competing in upscale niches are on average significantly smaller than leading firms in the Livenza cluster. This, in addition to limiting investments in production technology and supply chain management, only allowed leading firms to ‘feed’ a fraction of the overall local supply base, thus limiting their impact on the cluster. 6. Discussion 6.1. Knowledge integrators and the evolution of manufacturing clusters The empirical analysis we conducted in the four industrial clusters shed light on how leading firms’ distinct operating strategies can profoundly affect the evolution of similar manufacturing clusters. Consistent with the global commodity and global value chain theories (Gereffi et al., 2001), the relative decline of the Montebelluna sport shoes cluster is mostly imputable to the specific global strategies followed by local leading firms, notably the offshoring of production to the Balkans and Southeast Asia. In this case, local firms established global linkages with foreign lower cost contractors, through which they transferred production knowledge to the locales where manufacturing was being relocated. While leading firms built conduits with international contractors, they failed to establish stable bridges with external sources of innovative knowledge, like R&D centers, professional sports teams, and major global brands. This so far has impeded the local cluster to upgrade from being a production-centered pole to becoming a global innovation hub, a process previously illustrated by Hannigan, Cano-Kollmann and Mudambi (2015) through the analysis of the evolution of the Detroit automotive cluster. To date, the only local firm that has been able to compete successfully in the new globalized competitive landscape is Geox, a producer of classic footwear that in 2008 acquired Diadora and which accounts for 33% of the cluster’s total turnover (De Marchi et al., 2017). Although Diadora’s recent economic performances are encouraging and its current strategy may provide a new benchmark for the cluster’s leading firms, its long-term competitiveness remains unclear and its impact on the cluster has not been investigated analytically to date. The lack of a systematic access to market and innovation knowledge was one of the main factors underpinning the decline of the Manzano seats cluster. Yet unlike in the Montebelluna area, furniture producers located in Manzano retained the bulk of manufacturing activities within the cluster. Indeed, a few local leading firms like K-line and Ton leveraged localized production expertise to manufacture custom-made upholstered seats and penetrate global market niches. However, international sales mainly occur through arm’s length relationships with foreign dealers and resellers, hence limiting local firms’ continuous access to global market knowledge. This strategy, together with leading firms’ relatively small size, has hindered the inflow of innovative knowledge to the Manzano region and has ultimately hampered the upgrading of the local cluster. While existing theories provide comprehensive explanations of the decline of the Montebelluna and Manzano clusters, what appears to be harder to explain is the survival and upgrading of the Livenza and Riviera del Brenta clusters. Like most of Italian industrial clusters, Livenza and Riviera del Brenta are long established manufacturing hubs specializing in labor-intensive low-tech productions and have been lately confronted by the fast rise of foreign competitors, above all from Poland, Turkey, and China (Livenza) and Portugal and Spain (Riviera del Brenta). However, despite the centrifugal forces of globalization, manufacturing in Livenza and Riviera del Brenta proved ‘sticky’. Although marked by different competitive dynamics, the in-depth analysis of the operating strategies of the two clusters’ leading firms revealed a couple of major commonalities. Firstly, leading firms in both contexts have invested in the preservation of local production knowledge and have improved technical and development capabilities in order to partake in global customers’ product innovation; secondly, leading firms have established global linkages with major international brands and retailers, through which they have direct and continuous access to market and innovation knowledge. Key in the development of global linkages was leading firms’ willingness to operate as private-label producers for major global brands. While going against the classical idea of value chain upgrading (Gereffi, 1999), this strategy allowed cluster firms to internalize innovative inputs and ideas that they would have not been exposed to otherwise. Once internalized, external knowledge was diffused to the local production base through supply chain relationships, hence bolstering a systemic learning process. Interestingly, going through a phase of downgrading (Rabellotti, 2004) turned out to be a necessary step for pursuing a long-term upgrading strategy and moving from being private-label producers to becoming design and brand original manufacturers. This was for instance the trajectory followed by Redfashion and Rob in the Riviera del Brenta, two local fashion firms that started their upgrading path through a ‘learning by supplying’ process (Fifarek and Veloso, 2010). However, while this upgrading trajectory has been fully completed by several firms in Riviera del Brenta, manufacturers in the Livenza cluster are still operating as private-label producers and have yet to engage with design and branding activities. Despite their different level of upgrading in global value chains, it is apparent that the competitiveness and resilience of both the Livenza and Riviera del Brenta clusters strategically relies on the integration of localized production knowledge and global market knowledge. The effective integration of these two bodies of knowledge allows cluster leading firms to further specialize in their relative typical production and increase their technical and production capabilities (Figure 1). Figure 1 View largeDownload slide Sources of knowledge in the four manufacturing clusters. Figure 1 View largeDownload slide Sources of knowledge in the four manufacturing clusters. The coexistence of local production and global market knowledge is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the survival of a traditional manufacturing cluster; the second necessary condition is the integration and diffusion of different bodies of knowledge within the cluster. Case-study evidence reveals how an effective and continuous knowledge integration in both Livenza and Riviera del Brenta is contingent on the role of local leading firms. For this reason, we refer to this specific type of organization as knowledge integrator that is a firm whose innovation model is ‘process-embedded’ and favors the integration of global market and local production knowledge. The latter feature is particularly relevant for the competitiveness of a manufacturing cluster as it acts as the glue bonding together different types of knowledge (market and production). Although frequently originating from innovative inputs conceived outside the cluster, the type of innovation developed by knowledge integrators is dependent on the production and technical capabilities of skilled workers situated in the two clusters (Figure 2). In the Riviera del Brenta, for instance, globally renowned fashion brands like KG and VLF have established a direct presence in the cluster to tap into the production expertise of local producers. Localized production knowledge is functional to developing and refining prototypes of novel items that are generally invented by international fashion designers located in major fashion cities like Milan, Paris, and New York. Because each brand develops on average from 400 to 500 hundred new models a year, the continuous access to cluster-specific production knowledge is an essential condition for sustaining a process-embedded innovation model. Figure 2 View largeDownload slide Knowledge integrators in the Riviera del Brenta and Livenza clusters. Figure 2 View largeDownload slide Knowledge integrators in the Riviera del Brenta and Livenza clusters. In addition to bolstering branded firms’ product development, their presence in the cluster ensures the constant transmission of external innovative knowledge to highly specialized footwear producers. In fact, although all knowledge integrators can operate in the cluster through their own production facilities, they rely on numerous local suppliers for the development and production of part of their broad women shoes collection. According to KG’s local plant manager, private-label producers responsible for manufacturing new models are generally in charge of developing and fine-tuning product prototypes too. This ensures cluster suppliers’ direct involvement in global brands’ innovation development and allows them to be constantly updated on new market trends. The type of innovation developed by knowledge integrators in Livenza mostly concerns process innovation. Although part of global retailers’ product development takes place locally, it is in the engineering of and fine-tuning of industrial processes where local firms have a real competitive advantage. Since margins in the retail segment are generally low, key in this production model is the design and set up of a highly performing supply chain, including the engineering of manufacturing processes. Not only this is vital to the competitive advantage of local suppliers, but it is also a fundamental aspect of global buyers’ business model. The engineering of industrial processes are required any time a new furniture item is developed and brought to the market. As the product’s life cycle matures, and margins lower, global retailers move production to suppliers in lower cost economies, especially Poland. The engineering and implementation of new production processes are not limited to the shop floors of Friulegno and M-profiles, but it involves their local suppliers as well. Since production lead-time is typically very short, tight connections between knowledge integrators and cluster suppliers are fundamental. Not only are these at the base of a ‘short’ supply chain, but they also allow knowledge integrators to co-develop new technical and engineering solutions with specialized suppliers. First-tier suppliers in particular are coordinated through quasi-captive relationships (Gereffi et al., 2005), a model of governance that ensures the continuous flow of knowledge between the two parties. As a result, suppliers partaking in the knowledge integrators’ supply chains are granted access to global value chains that they would be hardly connected to otherwise. The most evident outcome of this process was improvement of the technological and production equipment accomplished by the local supply base. In addition to fostering their productivity, and hence profitability, this has allowed numerous local suppliers to increase their competitiveness and survive despite competing in a price-sensitive market segment. Overall, we argue that the local presence of knowledge integrators represents a strategic condition for the long-term competitiveness of mature manufacturing clusters in today’s global economy. Their commitment to cluster production networks and participation into global value chains ensures the constant transmission of new market and innovation knowledge to local first and second-tier suppliers. Our empirical analysis revealed that the number of knowledge integrators that a manufacturing cluster necessitates to remain competitive may vary depending on the size of the cluster, its production and industrial dynamics as well as its life cycle. Overall, we encountered three knowledge integrators in the Livenza cluster and five in the Riviera del Brenta region. Despite their different size, their positioning in global value chains and role in the cluster are very similar. Both types of firms, in fact, engage with the design, product development and marketing, although through different investments and channels. Differences in size ultimately impacts the way globally renowned and locally established brands operate in international markets. While the former are tightly linked to global consumers through their own flagship stores, the latter mostly rely on third parties. This makes particularly important form smaller knowledge integrators to preserve and improve their relationships with international designers and trendsetters as these allow them to collect relevant market knowledge which they can use to generate innovation development locally. Differences in ownerships (Italian versus foreign) did not seem to directly affect knowledge integrators’ operating strategy. In fact, both Italian-owned and foreign-owned brands seem to follow a similar strategy, where production is mostly performed within the cluster while intangibles are delegated to or co-developed with global players. However, all the foreign-owned knowledge integrators located in the clusters are also MNEs, hence highlighting the importance for traditional manufacturing clusters to attract foreign direct investments. Similar to leading firms in the Livenza region, it is their specific commitment to a ‘process-embedded’ innovation strategy and hence reliance on skilled labor that bonds Riviera del Brenta’s knowledge integrators to cluster small producers and in turn makes their production activities ‘sticky’. It is this specific characteristic of knowledge integrators that we contend ultimately plays the most critical role for the competitiveness and economic sustainability of manufacturing clusters. While the access to global pipelines and the involvement in localized production networks are two necessary conditions, it is the pursuit of a ‘process-embedded’ innovation strategy that anchors leading firms to specific production territories. 7. Conclusions Can traditional manufacturing clusters survive globalization? The short answer is yes. There is nothing inherently in conflict between the simultaneous pursuit of global market opportunities and the exploitation of specialized local production know-how. Whether a given cluster thrives (or dies) in the face of global competition, though, depends on a confluence of forces that we explored in this paper. One of these forces is the presence of what we called a knowledge integrator—a firm with access to both global markets (directly or indirectly through partnerships) and to a network of local specialized suppliers. We can think of the knowledge integrator as an organizational conduit by which market signals (such as customer tastes, design and fashion trends, etc.) from the global context are transmitted and translated to suppliers with specialized know-how. The second force is technological in nature—a high degree of complementarity between stages of design and production is required in order to make it advantageous for suppliers to cluster geographically. The complementarity of design and production knowledge is particularly relevant in industries where innovation is ‘process-embedded’ (Pisano and Shih, 2012b), and hence it requires the co-location of the design and production phases. While we are aware that this condition does not apply to all industrial sectors, it certainly does in the furniture and upscale footwear markets. The third factor relates to the industrial organization of the cluster—the presence of highly specialized suppliers. Suppliers’ specialization emerged as one of the essential condition for lead firms’ innovation strategies, and this explains why local producers actively partake in innovation development. Interestingly, suppliers’ specialization is continuously enhanced by new ideas and knowledge coming from the global market like the case of KG and Ikea highlighted. As a result, manufacturing specialization, and hence the competitive advantage of cluster suppliers, is a never-ending process that is fueled by the integration of existing manufacturing capabilities and new external inputs. Although our study focuses specifically on the survival of long-established manufacturing clusters, we, by no means, contend that industrial clusters in developed economies can survive only by preserving and investing on production knowledge. The transition from manufacturing-centered to innovation hubs is a process that deserves greater attention (De Marchi et al., 2017), particularly in regions like Northeastern Italy where investments in pre and post-production activities like R&D and distribution remain underdeveloped. While the cases of the knowledge integrators that we discussed in this paper provide insights into a specific strategy, where local and production and investments in the global market are combined, alternative strategies exist in the region. The case of Luxottica (Belluno eyewear cluster), De Longhi (white goods and appliances in Treviso) and Geox (classic footwear in Montebelluna) highlight how lead firms in Northeastern Italy can thrive and grow in the global economy even when only a fraction of their production activity is performed locally. Not only do we believe that the coexistence of these two models is possible, but we also urge more research to be conducted on the dynamics linking regional firms pursuing different strategies in global value chains. Overall, we believe this work contributes to ongoing debate on the nature of local–global linkages and their impact on industrial clusters’ evolution and competitiveness (Bathelt et al., 2004; Coe et al., 2004; Lorenzen and Mudambi, 2013; De Marchi et al., 2017; Henn and Bathelt, 2018), and specifically to a more recent stream of literature focusing on how innovation knowledge is generated and distributed across trans-national borders (Bathelt and Cohendet, 2014; Cano-Kollmann et al., 2016). As recent cluster studies suggest (Breznitz and Buciuni, 2015; De Marchi et al., 2017), the integration of cluster and global value chain dynamics are not only possible but also represent a fundamental condition for the competitiveness of regional industries and firms. Our analysis of lead firms’ operating strategies shows how much the evolutionary path of clusters is contingent on the combination of both macro and micro-level factors. While the former has been extensively studied, the understanding of the latter requires further endeavor. We hope this analysis can stimulate further research in this research area and encourage scholars from the business domain to contribute to this very topic and help advance the frontiers of the ever-evolving economic geography discipline. Finally, we recognize that replicating our research approach might represent an important limitation to the further development of this specific line of research. Detecting and analyzing comparable co-located clusters are two challenging tasks and perhaps explain why there have been very few attempts at studying this phenomenon so far. However, as new clusters are constantly emerging in developed and developing economies, new research opportunities may also arise. Footnotes 1 For privacy purposes, we refer to the firms in the study using pseudonyms. References Allen T. J. ( 1984 ) Managing the Flow of Technology: Technology Transfer and the Dissemination of Technological Information within the R&D Organization , Cambridge, MA : MIT Press Books , 1 . Amighini A. , Rabellotti R. ( 2006 ) How do Italian footwear industrial districts face globalization? European Planning Studies , 14 : 485 – 502 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Baldwin C. , Clark K. B. ( 2000 ) Design Rules: The Power of Modularity . Vol. 1 . Cambridge, MA : MIT press . Bathelt H. , Cohendet P. ( 2014 ) The creation of knowledge: local building, global accessing and economic development - toward an agenda . Journal of Economic Geography , 14 : 869 – 882 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Bathelt H. , Malmberg A. , Maskell P. ( 2004 ) Clusters and knowledge: local buzz, global pipelines and the process of knowledge creation . Progress in Human Geography , 28 : 31 – 56 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Bathelt H. , Schuldt N. ( 2008 ) Between luminaires and meat grinders: international trade fairs as temporary clusters . Regional Studies , 42 : 853 – 868 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Bathelt H. , Zhao J. ( 2016 ) Conceptualizing multiple clusters in mega-city regions: the case of the biomedical industry in Beijing . Geoforum , 75 : 186 – 198 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Becattini G , Rullani E. ( 1996 ) Local systems and global connection: the role of knowledge. In Cossentino F. , Pyke F. , Sengerberger W. (eds) Local and Regional Response to Global Pressure: The Case of Italy and Its Industrial Districts . Geneva : International Institute for Labour Studies . Belussi F. , Pilotti L. ( 2002 ) Knowledge creation, learning and innovation in Italian industrial districts . Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography , 84 : 125 – 139 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Belussi F. , Sedita S. R. ( 2009 ) Life cycle vs. multiple path dependency in industrial districts, European Planning Studies , 17 : 505 – 528 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Birkinshaw J. , Brannen M. Y. , Tung R. L. ( 2011 ) From a distance and generalizable to up close and grounded: reclaiming a place for qualitative methods in international business research . Journal of International Business Studies , 42 : 573 – 581 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Boschma R. , Frenken K. ( 2011 ) The emerging empirics of evolutionary economic geography . Journal of Economic Geography , 11 : 295 – 307 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Breznitz D. , Buciuni G. ( 2015 ) Keeping up in an era of global specialization. Semi-public goods and the competitiveness of integrated manufacturing districts. In Audretsch D. , Link A. , Walshok M. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Local Competitiveness . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press . Buciuni G. , Coro’ G. , Micelli S. ( 2014 ) Rethinking manufacturing in global value chains. An international comparative study in the furniture industry . Industrial and Corporate Change , 23 : 967 – 996 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Buciuni G. , Finotto V. ( 2016 ) Innovation in global value chains: co-location of production and development in Italian low-tech industries . Regional Studies , 50 : 2010 – 2023 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Christopherson S. , Martin R. , Sunley P. , Tyler P. ( 2014 ) Reindustrialising regions: rebuilding the manufacturing economy? Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society , 7 : 351 – 358 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Cano-Kollmann M. , Cantwell J. , Hannigan T. , Mudambi R. , Song J. ( 2016 ) Knowledge connectivity: an agenda for innovation research in international business . Journal of International Business Studies , 47 : 255 – 262 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Cantwell J. , Mudambi R. ( 2005 ) MNE competence-creating subsidiary mandates . Strategic Management Journal , 26 : 1109 – 1128 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Coe N. , Hess M. , Yeung H. W. , Dicken P. , Henderson J. ( 2004 ) Globalizing regional development: a global production networks perspective . Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers , 29 : 468 – 484 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Coe N. , Dicken P. , Hess M. ( 2008 ) Global production networks: realizing the potential . Journal of Economy Geography , 8 : 271 – 295 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Coucke K. , Sleuwaegen L. ( 2008 ) Offshoring as a survival strategy: evidence from manufacturing firms in Belgium . Journal of International Business Studies , 39 : 1261 – 1277 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS De Marchi V. , Di Maria E. , Gereffi G. ( 2017 ) Local Clusters in Global Value Chains: Linking Actors and Territories through Manufacturing and Innovation . Abingdon-on-Thames, UK : Routledge . De Marchi V. , Grandinetti R. ( 2014 ) Industrial districts and the collapse of the Marshallian model: looking at the Italian experience . Competition and Change , 18 : 70 – 87 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS De Marchi V. , Grandinetti R. ( 2016 ) Lo sportsystem di Montebelluna: il distretto delle sette vite , Economia e Società Regionale , 34 : 142 – 148 . De Marchi V. , Lee J. , Gereffi G. ( 2014 ) Globalization, recession and the internationalization of industrial districts: experiences from the Italian gold jewellery industry . European Planning Studies , 22 : 866 – 884 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Dicken P. ( 2003 ) Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century . Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage . Eurostat ( 2014 ) Eurostat Regional Yearbook. Luxembourg : European Commission . Fifarek B. J. , Veloso F. M. ( 2010 ) Offshoring and the global geography of innovation . Journal of Economic Geography , 10 : 559 – 578 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Gereffi G. ( 1999 ) International trade and industrial upgrading in the apparel commodity chain . Journal of International Economics , 48 : 37 – 70 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Gereffi G. , Korzeniewicz M. (eds) ( 1994 ) Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism . Westport, CT : Praeger Publishers . Gereffi G. , Humphrey J. , Kaplinsky R. ( 2001 ) Introduction: globalisation, value chains and development . IDS bulletin , 32 : 1 – 8 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Gereffi G. , Humphrey J. , Sturgeon T. ( 2005 ) The Governance of Global Value Chains, Review of International Political Economy , 12 : 78 – 104 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Giuliani E. ( 2005 ) Cluster absorptive capacity: why do some clusters forge ahead and others lag behind? European Urban and Regional Studies , 12 : 269 – 288 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Giuliani E. ( 2007 ) The selective nature of knowledge networks in clusters: evidence from the wine industry, Journal of Economic Geography , 7 : 139 – 168 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Giuliani E. , Morrison A. , Pietrobelli C. , Rabellotti R. ( 2010 ) Who are the researchers that are collaborating with industry? An analysis of the wine sectors in Chile, South Africa and Italy, Research Policy , 39 : 748 – 761 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Goldthwaite R. ( 2009 ) The Economy of Renaissance Florence . Baltimore : The Johns Hopkins University Press . Granovetter M. ( 1985 ) Economic action and social structure: the problem of embeddedness . American Journal of Sociology , 91 : 481 – 510 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Grant R. M. ( 1999 ) Prospering in dynamically-competitive environments: organizational capability as knowledge integration . Knowledge and Strategy , 133 – 153 . Hannigan T. J. , Cano-Kollmann M. , Mudambi R. ( 2015 ) Thriving innovation amidst manufacturing decline: the Detroit auto cluster and the resilience of local knowledge production, Industrial and Corporate Change , 24 : 613 – 634 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Henderson R. M. , Clark K. B. ( 1990 ) Architectural innovation: the reconfiguration of existing product technologies and the failure of established firms . Administrative Science Quarterly , 35 : 9 – 30 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Henn S. , Bathelt H. ( 2018 ) Cross-local knowledge fertilization, cluster emergence, and the generation of buzz . Industrial and Corporate Change , Forthcoming. Hervas-Oliver J. L. , Albors-Garrigos J. ( 2014 ) Are technology gatekeepers renewing clusters? Understanding gatekeepers and their dynamics across cluster life cycles . Entrepreneurship & Regional Development , 26 : 431 – 452 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Hervas-Oliver J. L. , Boix-Domenech R. ( 2013 ) The economic geography of the meso-global spaces: integrating multinationals and clusters at the local–global level . European Planning Studies , 21 : 1064 – 1080 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Krugman P. ( 1991 ) Geography and Trade . Cambridge, MA : MIT Press . Lazerson M. , Lorenzoni G. ( 2008 ) Transforming industrial districts: how leading firms are escaping the manufacturing cage. In Cropper S. , Ebers M. , Huxham C. , Smith Ring P. (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations . Oxford, UK : Oxford University Press . Lombardi A. ( 2013 ) Distretto Della Sedia: Design Tra Passato e Future . Milan, Italy : Franco Angeli Editore . Lorenzen M. , Mudambi R. ( 2013 ) Clusters, connectivity and catch-up: bollywood and Bangalore in the global economy . Journal of Economic Geography , 13 : 501 – 534 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Markusen A. ( 1996 ) Sticky places in slippery space: a typology of industrial districts . Economic Geography , 72 : 293 – 313 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Marshall A. ( 1890 ) Principles of Economics . Macmillan : London, UK . Martin R. , Sunley P. ( 2006 ) Path dependence and regional economic evolution, Journal of Economic Geography , 6 : 395 – 437 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Maskell P. , Malmberg A. ( 2007 ) Myopia, knowledge development and cluster evolution . Journal of Economic Geography , 7 : 603 – 618 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Morrison A. ( 2008 ) Gatekeepers of knowledge within industrial districts: who they are, how they interact . Regional Studies , 42 : 817 – 835 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Morrison A. , Rabellotti R. , Zirulia L. ( 2013 ) When do global pipelines enhance the diffusion of knowledge in clusters? Economic Geography , 89 : 77 – 96 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Mudambi R. ( 2007 ) Offshoring: economic geography and the multinational firm . Journal of International Business Studies , 38 : 206 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Piore M. J. , Sabel C. F. ( 1984 ) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity . New York : Basic Books . Pisano G. P. , Shih W. C. ( 2009 ) Restoring American Competitiveness . Harvard Business Review , 87 : 114 – 125 . Pisano G. P. , Shih W. C. ( 2012a ) Producing Prosperity. Why America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance . Boston, MA : Harvard Business Review Press . Pisano G. P. , Shih W. C. ( 2012b ) Does America really need manufacturing? , Harvard Business Review , 90 : 94 – 102 . Pouder R. , John C. H. S. ( 1996 ) Hot spots and blind spots: geographical clusters of firms and innovation . Academy of Management Review , 21 : 1192 – 1225 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Rabellotti R. ( 2004 ) How globalisation affects Italian industrial districts: the case of Brenta . Local Enterprises in the Global Economy: Issues of Governance and Upgrading , 140 – 173 . Sturgeon T. J. ( 2002 ) Modular production networks: a new American model of industrial organization . Industrial and Corporate Change , 11 : 451 – 496 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS Uzzi B. ( 1997 ) Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness, Administrative Science Quarterly , 42 : 35 – 67 . Google Scholar Crossref Search ADS © The Author(s) (2018). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com This article is published and distributed under the terms of the Oxford University Press, Standard Journals Publication Model (https://academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model)
TI - Knowledge integrators and the survival of manufacturing clusters
JF - Journal of Economic Geography
DO - 10.1093/jeg/lby035
DA - 2018-09-01
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/knowledge-integrators-and-the-survival-of-manufacturing-clusters-EOOSUYgAj1
SP - 1069
VL - 18
IS - 5
DP - DeepDyve
ER -