TY - JOUR
AU1 - Suwala, Lech
AU2 - Micek, Grzegorz
AB - Abstract By combining the two emerging discourses on regional development platforms and field configuration, the study develops a novel perspective on regional transformation. This will be achieved through tracing self-reinforcing or counterbalancing events of a regional initiative and contextualising them within the trajectory of the Podkarpackie region in Southeast Poland, which intends to convert from a low-cost workbench towards an innovative centre. The results show that the regional policy in Podkarpackie underwent a transformation from a conventional cluster initiative towards smart specialisation and is now moving to something that might be referred to as ‘(smart) diversification’ in the future. Introduction ‘Platforms’ and ‘events’ are two actual trends rushing into everyday life. On the one hand, platforms offer an eminent way to systematically valorise novelty from cross-fertilisation and newly formed combinations when industrial borders, technology regimes and knowledge bases become increasingly blurred. On the other hand, a plethora of information connected to social media and mobile devices penetrating the rearmost corners of personal spheres give each other a thrilling race for human attention. Understanding and managing attention is becoming an increasingly important determinant of business success in an economy of spectacle, where events provide the appropriate channels to ‘trade and sell experiences’. Against this background, a new formula for regional development perspectives or policies might rest on these two pillars. By combining the two emerging discourses on regional development platforms (RDPs) and field-configuring events (FCEs), this study attempts to develop a novel perspective on regional economic policy. Whether this perspective can be called ‘beyond clusters’, ‘smart diversification’ or even ‘post-cluster’ will be thoroughly discussed here. Although clusters nowadays explicitly span sectoral boundaries and are even based around common markets and/or technologies (Delgado et al., 2016), the traditional thinking still mostly rests on clusters as vertical, cumulative and sectorally specialised ‘silos’ (Cooke, 2012; James and Halkier, 2016). The idea is to leave the often specialised or value-chain constricted industrial (cluster) or technological regime conceptions of the region behind by offering an approach that (i) highlights the importance of individual and organisational agency, (ii) features regional dynamics by tracing event-based critical junctures leading either to self-reinforcing or counterbalancing processes, and (iii) identifies the potential in existing regional resource configurations taking historical and spatial imprints into account for building future competitive advantages through platforms. Empirically, this study focuses on the regional trajectory of the Podkarpackie region in Southeast Poland over the past 15–20 years. This region intends to convert itself from a low-cost workbench towards an innovative centre by means of a regional initiative called ‘Aviation Valley’ (AVI) in that respective industry and beyond. Apart from the creation of two longitudinal databases on the Polish aviation industry (PAI)1 and events in the realm of AVI, the study draws upon insights from 45 interviews with pertinent stakeholders all over Poland. Methodically, a path constitution analysis (PCA) will be applied that allows to integrate both path dependency elements and path creation/development elements, to distinguish self-reinforcing or counterbalancing effects of events. Moreover, since these events are categorised, they expose opportunities to draw conclusions if regional policies pursued targeted specialisation or diversification of the region. The structure is as follows: the second section squeezes out the novelty of current debates on RDPs and FCEs against recent cluster approaches and points to advantages of a confluence approach; the third section provides the background on PAI, AVI and sets the stage for the analysis in the fourth section. Hereby, the regional and industrial transformation and policy direction of AVI is monitored by means of events; and the fifth section concludes and highlights both original insights and contribution to the recent academic discussion. RDPs and FCEs Platforms The idea of ‘technological, innovation and/or development (TID) platforms’ has independently developed almost three decades ago in a variety of disciplines such as economics (Sah and Stiglitz, 1986); management (Garud and Kumaraswamy, 1995); and science, technology, innovation (STI) studies (Robinson et al., 2007) and also made its way as ‘RDPs’ into regional studies (Asheim et al., 2011; Cooke, 2007, 2012; Harmaakorpi, 2004, 2006; James and Halkier, 2016; Lazzeretti et al., 2010; Uotila et al., 2012). Although the concept is rather broad and fuzzy, there are three peculiar characteristics that hold true for most definitions of ‘TID platforms’ in general: (1) TID platforms are systemic infrastructures for the organisation and coordination of complex intertechnological, interorganisational or intersectoral processes (Consoli and Patrucco, 2008, 702; Sah and Stiglitz, 1986). (2) TID platforms allow exploration and exploitation of a variety of options by maximising the diversity of contributions stemming from variegated knowledge bases while maintaining coherence through transversal cognitive connections and a minimum level of hierarchy (Lazzeretti et al., 2010, 31; Robinson et al., 2007, 872). (3) The implementation of TID platforms evokes a dynamic trade-off between deeper specialisation and wider variety of the knowledge base (Kogut, 2000). The concept of RDPs was established as a tool for regional innovation policies and stems from the tradition of territorial innovation models (among them clusters, see for review Moulaert and Sekia, 2003) in general and regional innovation systems (RIS) literature (Cooke et al., 1997) in particular (Harmaakorpi, 2004, 2006). Since space, or at the least ‘scale’, is involved, the rationale of regional innovation policies in this realm is to construct efficient and effective forms of either concentration/proximity/immersion or dispersion/distance/agnosia (Suwala, 2014). Harmaakorpi et al. (2017, 1483) even take the view that, unlike in clusters, where science-based innovation (STI mode) with analytical knowledge is prevalent and based on proximity (for example, agglomeration, economies of scale, similar patterns of thought) of economic activities in relatively atomistic and closed environments, regional platforms rely on practice-based innovation (doing, using, interacting (DUI) mode) with synthetic knowledge and distance (for example, related variety (urbanisation), economies of scope, sundry patterns of thought) of economic activities in relational and open environments. In our opinion, this view is too controversial and exaggerated. We rather align with the statements of Cooke (2012, 1422) that “neither are clusters and platforms in contradiction, nor platforms superior to clusters (…); they are rather both complementary and evolutionary in that an ideal situation is where clusters may evolve into platforms”. In other words, RDPs might prevent regions from, for example, sclerosis and ‘lock-in’—two common traps of path-dependencies fostered by self-reinforcing mechanisms. All in all, platforms are complex combinations of cluster and non-cluster industry entities that operate in fields of related variety. The main idea of “distance”, “relatedness” or related variety in this context2 is to allow regions or cross-fertilisation through a higher capability to absorb innovation from adjacent sectors by building on an existing regional resource basis and, to first and foremost, anticipate future societal, technological and economic trajectories or a combination of those (Frenken et al., 2007; Uotila et al., 2012, 1589–1590). It was found that such recombinations pave the way for often very unorthodox combinations of knowledge, competencies through more opportunities for ‘spillovers’ and therefore renewal of regional economies (James and Halkier, 2016, 833). The RDP encompasses stakeholders such as the firms, technology incubators, expertise committees, research think-tanks, education institutions all contributing to the platform (Harmaakorpi, 2004, 122). In this realm, both top-down and bottom-up policies/initiatives for the collaboration among cognitively related industries, are conceivable as manifold examples from mostly former EU-15 countries plus Norway illustrate (Lazzeretti et al., 2010, 27, 33). Field-configuring events The concept of FCEs originated from organisation and management studies, where scholars experimented with transformation processes occurring when industry boundaries were shifted, emerging sectors came into life, new network forms arranged, and volatile ecosystems changed (Lampel and Meyer, 2008; Meyer et al., 2005). Hereby, mainly power relations (for example, resources, rules, routines and standards) (Anand and Watson, 2004; McInerney, 2008) within or structuring mechanisms (for example, market formation, maintenance, dissolution, identity building) (Delacour and Leca, 2011; Garud, 2008) of fields3 were investigated upon. Not surprisingly, FCEs are considered as temporary social organisations such as tradeshows, professional gatherings, technology contests and business ceremonies that condense and contour the development of professions, technologies, markets and industries (Meyer et al., 2005). During FCEs, diverse actors assemble temporary bounded (from hours to days) in one place where planned or spontaneous opportunities for direct social interaction often with symbolic constituent parts, and incidents for information exchange and collective sense-making emerge (Lange et al., 2014, 188). During these events, usually business cards are bartered, reputations groomed, deals concluded, news shared, accomplishments acknowledged, standards agreed upon and prevailing designs chosen (Lampel and Meyer, 2008, 1026). Independent of the latter, scholars in regional studies worked on both the spatiality of temporary or cyclical clusters and the exchange of knowledge or generation of innovation therein (Bathelt et al., 2004; Maskell et al., 2006; Power and Jansson, 2008); furthermore, fields as overlapping spatial structuring mechanisms for creativity, innovation and entrepreneurship (for example, Scott, 2006; Suwala, 2014). Since Lampel and Meyer (2008, 1027) define FCEs as events where actors from diverse professional, organisational and geographical backgrounds assemble in and necessitate one location, research on ‘spatialities or geographies of FCEs’ (Lange et al., 2014) was stimulated. The attractiveness of the FCE concept stems from its relational perspective. This perspective moves beyond the rather descriptive concepts of temporary and cyclical clusters and allows for an analysis of cognitive, social and economic structuring among institutionally embedded actors. Again, it is the balancing act between concentration/proximity/immersion on the one hand or dispersion/distance/agnosia on the other hand (Suwala, 2014), and the interplay between different spaces or scales that matters most for regional scientists when investigating upon FCEs. In this realm, innovation (Schüssler et al., 2015), or knowledge transfer over distance (Maskell, 2014). The majority of existing studies about FCEs stems from organisation and management studies; those studies deal with processes wherein single or pertinent events are decisive in bringing field-level changes such as a novel common cognitive patterns (Oliver and Montgomery, 2008) or emerging technological standards (Garud, 2008); only very few studies in regional studies have examined the creation of novel regional paths against a FCE perspective so far (Sydow and Koll, 2017). Confluence of both concepts Against this background, our aim here is to fertilise insights from both concepts RDP and FCE to present an original regional transformation approach. Since we are asking if this approach is ‘beyond clusters’, we have to consult the recent cluster literature to see if, when and how this approach differs from cluster and/or smart specialisation concepts. The recent rich cluster literature definitely helps here to sketch a distinction and to further develop promising thoughts. It sheds light with regard to (temporary) relations among clusters (for example, Delgado et al., 2016; Li, 2014; Lu and Reve, 2015), leadership in clusters (Sotarauta et al., 2017; Sydow et al., 2011), how clusters build foreign direct investment (FDI) relations (Bathelt and Li, 2014) or even how clusters relate to concepts like industry 4.0 (Götz and Jankowska, 2017). All these insights show that ideas for cross-fertilisation strategies are far from being novel, but the question is how to successfully implement them in settings of related variety. Interestingly, despite the dominating EU policy ‘smart specialisation paradigm’ (for example, Foray, 2014; McCann and Ortega-Argilés, 2015), recent studies have also highlighted the importance of relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification in European regions (for example, Balland et al., 2018; Neffke et al., 2011). Here, the starting point (cluster strategies, smart specialisation) and the destination (platform strategies, smart diversification) are basically the same as in this case study. A confluence approach can be achieved by identifying mutual synergies and common characteristics. Although both concepts originated from different schools of thought—RDP from evolutionary (Harmaakorpi, 2006) and FCE from institutional thinking (Lampel and Meyer, 2008)—both contribute generally to the prevalent, contemporary evolutionary and institutional theorising of regional development processes (Boschma and Martin, 2010). Albeit caution should be exercised when transferring concepts towards new areas of application, a cross-fertilisation between RDPs and FCEs lies at hand. Uotila et al., for example, have stressed that “the concept of regional development platform is strongly bound [also] to the institutional (formal and informal) set-up of a region and can, therefore, be a useful tool in exploring existing business potentials in manifold regional resource configurations” (2012, 1589). These regional resources are shaped via FCEs in constitutive, albeit intermittent, ways (Lampel and Meyer, 2008, 1027). Moreover, often FCEs can be related to platforms; as Lange et al. argue, FCEs “are not only regular industrial meeting points but also platforms and channels for communication and broadcasting different types of messages, brands or movements” (2014, 191), or as Sydow and Koll claim, FCEs “are (…) an important concept for understanding and a means of executing platform policies” (2017, 213) and vice versa. The leitmotif behind both concepts is the orchestration and framing of novel, spontaneous and unexpected gatherings, constellations and collaboration among stakeholders from rather unrelated backgrounds. These gatherings, however, are not only bringing these stakeholders together in space, but also structure cognitive, social, economic and spatial patterns and negotiate power relations establishing new leaders (Sotarauta et al., 2017). These patterns and power relations are played out in ‘orders of worth’ (McInerney, 2008, 1092), ‘tournaments of value’ (Anand and Watson, 2004, 60), ‘meta races’ (Garud, 2008, 1081) or ‘spaces for play’ (Lange et al., 2014, 193). In addition, they provide ‘ecologies of learning’ and emphasise platforms or events as ‘arenas of emergence’ (Lampel and Meyer, 2008, 1027), ‘combinatorial platforms’ (James and Halkier, 2016, 832), ‘innovation platforms’ (Uotila et al., 2012) or ‘areas of innovation and learning’ (Schüssler et al., 2015, 165). At the same time, those gatherings can also be “self-preserving, constantly re-establishing and negotiating the status quo” (Henn and Bathelt, 2015, 105), reconfiguring, maintaining or even dissolving field and platforms (Delacour and Leca, 2011). Having said that, both concepts (RDPs and FCEs) can be understood as highly dynamic. Since the evolution of regions and their political approaches are deeply rooted in historical and spatial economic structures, we explicitly propose the PCA to frame our combined approach (Meyer and Schubert, 2007; Sydow et al., 2012). We have chosen the PCA, as this framework embraces both path dependency and path creation/development despite recent and very advanced studies, since these studies have explicitly considered either only path dependency within regional policy approaches (Valdaliso et al., 2014) or only (policy-lead) path creation/development within different types of regions (for example, Isaksen and Trippl, 2017, 440) or different types of entrepreneurs (for example, Rypestøl, 2017, 14). Our idea is here to focus on path dependence and possible path creation/development through RDPs and attendant FCEs, driving field evolution with regard “regional resource configurations based on the past development trajectories but presenting the future potential to produce competitive advantage existing in the defined resource configurations” (Harmaakorpi, 2006, 1089). Although, as we showed, both concepts have been highlighted as catalysts of institutional and evolutionary change, still very little is known about the specific conditions that allow such change to happen. Our understanding of a ‘path’ should be clarified; we subsume paths as ‘unparalleled, unintentional, open and not goal-oriented sequences of happenings’ (Suwala, 2018); hereby, paths have to satisfy two conditions: first, manifold, alternative outcomes are possible during infancy and the later ‘solution(s)’ and outcome(s) were not foreseeable at the beginning; second, the development can culminate into both a sequence of narrowing down to only one option (path dependency) or a sequence that breaks-up again through counterbalancing forces unlocking novel options (path creation/development). We argue that new development paths may emerge from both endogenous and exogenous sources (see also Trippl et al., 2017). Against this conceptual background, the following research interests can be formulated: How do RDPs foster regional transformation? How does this concept relate to existing strategies in the region (for example, clusters, smart specialisation)? What is the difference between FCEs in clusters and RDPs? How can RDPs and FCEs contribute to path dependency/path creation? Which role does individual and organisational agency play therein? Which events have a ‘field-configuring’ character in forming the region’s path? What was the specific potential in existing regional resource configurations taking historical and spatial imprints into account for building future competitive advantages through platforms? How do platforms contribute to an industrial diversification of the region? How did historical and spatial imprints lead either to self-reinforcing or counterbalancing processes? Methodology The analysis of AVI in the Podkarpackie region is based on a mixed approach using both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data entails the construction of a unique longitudinal database of 270 companies (2000–2017) operating in PAI in general, and of members of AVI (2003–2017), with currently 135 members, in particular. Moreover, an events database (200 events such as trade fairs, conferences, seminars etc., 2003–2017) has been collected from various sources representing events attended by members that might have been decisive in shaping the path of AVI. Companies’ information is based on EMIS data (derived from Dun & Bradstreet), PAIIZ (Polish Information and Foreign Investment Agency) documents, a web-based inquiry using the ‘waybackmachine’ (https://web.archive.org/, archiving websites and their content) of the AVI’s website (www.dolinalotnicza.pl), and pertinent newspapers and magazines queries. Qualitative data covers 45 qualitative interviews that have been conducted with different stakeholders (business, administrative entities, academia and intermediaries) on-site between 2013 and 2016.4 Here, six ‘founding fathers’ of the AVI—mostly still opinion leaders—and all six current members of the board have been personally interviewed in depth. Finally, the authors attended a variety of different events either as observers or active participants. The latter helped to identify agenda-setting policy documents, to eliminate the wheat from the chaff within the events database and to understand self-reinforcing or counterbalancing mechanisms that drove field evolution and platforming. Additionally, a strategy document of the AVI was published in 2015 (Darecki, 2015), and books making references to important events have been investigated (for example, Fiszer and Bluj, 2007). Since a PCA according to Sydow et al. (2012) will be applied here, we have subdivided events into a pre-formation phase, a formation phase and a broadening phase. Thereby, we aim to identify and analyse events that had either a field-configuring or maintaining effect (in other words, critical junctures, triggering and non-ergodic happenings). We categorised these events ex post into small and large incidents with regard to their importance for the regional policy path and into intra-sectoral, cross-sectoral and political/other happenings to distinguish between specialisation (cluster-type objectives) and diversification (platform-type objectives) that shaped the above-mentioned three phases of development (see Figure 2). AVI and its role within the landscape of PAI Clarifying the historical imprints and spatial context Although PAI looks back on a turbulent millennium since 1912, only the time period after 1990 (the fall of the COMECON) and, in particular, from 2003 with the inception of the so-called AVI (Dolina Lotnicza) will be subject of discussion here. Based on our purpose, five spatially bounded regions with significant activities of the aviation industry can be identified in Poland: (1) Central Poland mainly with its capital region of Warsaw, (2) East Poland in the vicinity of the City of Lublin, (3) Southeast Poland around the Carpathian Mountains (home of AVI), (4) South Poland with the City of Kraków and Bielsko-Biała and (5) West Poland with some unevenly distributed locations (Wrocław, Kalisz, Poznań, Lódź) (Suwala, 2018). From the beginning the capital of Warsaw was the dominant location within PAI, first for production capacities, later also as a command headquarter, with the most renowned research units and design offices in socialist times, despite a relatively decentralised, locational system with a high division of labour and scattered factories producing airframes, engines, pneumatic, metallurgic or hydraulic components. At its peak, according to estimates, PAI employed roughly 100,000 workers, with 70,000 earning their daily bread directly and 30,000 indirectly in related industries in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Glass, 1980). Rzeszów and what is now considered the Southeast of Poland (Mielec, Krosno etc.) had a postponed appearance on the Polish aviation landscape as workbenches for aviation engines just between 1937 and 1939 by means of the industrialisation plan for the back-then Central Poland (the so-called Central Industrial District) in order to revive this structurally lagging region. In socialist times, the cities of Rzeszów (up to 12,500 workers) and Mielec (up to 25,000 workers) were homes to the biggest aviation engine production plants in the early 1980s (Fiszer and Bluj, 2007) and acted as regional headquarters with subsidiaries (for example, Ropczyce, Zolynia, Dynów, Bartkówka for the case of Rzeszów) and related industries (for example, National Machine Works in Ranizów, Niebylec for the case of Rzeszów) in nearby mid-size towns. All of these entities were state-owned and working in close collaboration to fulfil the prescribed superordinate national plans (interview I2, P7, P8, A11, E14). What followed with the fall of the Iron Curtain and the integration into the market economy was a painful restructuring in the late 1980s and early 1990s in Poland, where some state-owned aviation factories had to cut up to 80% of their production capacities, with concomitant employment lay-offs (for example, the factory in Rzeszów was downsized from 10,960 to 6050 and in Mielec from over 20,112 to 8750 between 1989 and 1994) and the collapse of their subsidiaries (interviews E1, I2). Nevertheless, the contemporary history of PAI (since 2003) in general, and of South East Poland (respectively, the Podkarpackie region, officially administered in 1999) around its capital Rzeszów in particular, can be portrayed as a success story. Therefore, the following questions arise: How this rather lagging part of Poland became the de facto centre and orchestrating locational unit within the Polish Aviation landscape? Which type of processes and mechanism let to this success? Let us consider some stylised facts first and later investigate upon interrelated growth processes that propelled this development. The PAI roughly encompasses 250 companies providing 35,000 to 37,500 workspaces in 2017.5 The industrial structure is still heavily influenced, however to a decreasing share, by downsized successors (employing from 1000 up to 4000 workers) and outsourced operations of the former state-owned conglomerates (employing from 70 to 700 workers), covering half of the total workforce. This organisational persistence is also echoed in the spatial distribution of the industry, whereby cities that served as former regional headquarters in socialist times still belong to the top tier locations. Next to the capital Warsaw, still playing an influential role on the Polish Aviation landscape, interestingly Rzeszów claims the top spot in the PAI; both cities host around 5500 workspaces and can be considered as the two locations on top of the pyramid, followed by second-tier cities (Świdnik, Mielec, Kalisz, between 2500 and 3500) and third-tier cities (Krosno, Wroclaw, Bydgoszcz, Poznań, Lodz, Bielsko-Biala, between 600 and 1200). The portrayed, plausible hierarchy, however, is modified by two novel locations (Tajęcina 900, Sędziszów Małopolski, 1400) in the periphery around Rzeszów experiencing unrivalled growth in employment. Current basic figures of the PAI Despite a major restructuring that lasted at least until the transition towards the 21st century, PAI perpetually increased its employment by roughly 40–50% from 2003 (25,000) until 2017 (approx. 35,000–37,500) (Figure 1). During the same time period, the number of companies has risen by 80%, roughly from 140 to 250. Three interrelated processes were responsible for this growth. Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Employment in Polish aviation industry (PAI) (total and in Aviation Valley initiative [AVI] companies engaged in the core aviation industry activities only). Figure 1. View largeDownload slide Employment in Polish aviation industry (PAI) (total and in Aviation Valley initiative [AVI] companies engaged in the core aviation industry activities only). First, the privatisation, acquisition and modernisation of large state-owned enterprises by foreign firms, starting with joint ventures or minor purchases of shares in the beginning of the 1990s (for example, Pratt & Whitney Canada (PWC) and WSK-PZL Kalisz). This tentative engagement was broadened to significant involvement of foreign companies and concomitant influx of brownfield FDIs after it was predictable that Poland would enter the EU (around 2000). The former state-owned enterprises lost not only their economic independency, but partly also their initial names (for example, WSK-PZL Rzeszów to Pratt & Whitney Rzeszów), and were integrated into global production networks and value chains of huge systems suppliers like United Technology Cooperation (UTC) dealing directly with original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) like Boeing or Airbus (Kinder and Suwala, 2012). Interestingly, this rise was accompanied by a tremendous internationalisation of the industry, where the share of employment within enterprises in foreign hands doubled from one-third in 2003 to almost two-thirds of nationwide employment in 2017. Second, greenfield FDIs through ‘latecomers’ that occurred in two waves (2009–2011 and from 2016). These investments were executed either by still-independent ‘hidden champions’ producing key elements (for example, MTU AeroEngines invested near Rzeszów in set up of the production of vanes, blades, discs, rotor components for engines, low-pressure turbine assembly and parts repair) (Interview E2) or by joint ventures (JV) between already located companies and well-known international players (for example, accessory components, Aero Gear Box (JV between Rolls-Royce and Safran)). These activities contributed at least to another 1500 new-established workspaces. Third, observed to a much smaller extent than FDI but very interesting for our study here, is the rise and rediscovery of domestic private companies, mostly small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), that, despite increased employment from 2800 to 4600 and doubling in number from 80 to 160, could not heighten their relative weight in PAI between 2003 and 2017. The vast majority of those SMEs provide a range of products and services well beyond the initial scope of the aviation industry, adding to the related variety of regions. Often these domestic private companies were either simply born out of the necessity when workers got laid off in the restructuring phase in the early 1990s, initiated by enthusiasts or leading personnel in niches, or spun-off from the lateral regional capabilities afterwards. In 2013, for example “a minimum of 50 national and family-owned businesses like Waldrex or Ultratech [were] integrated into the value chains of UTC companies as local suppliers delivering dies, fuselage structural parts, or gear wheels” (interviews E1, E4). The Aviation Valley initiative A steering force and a guiding light for all those growth processes was and is mainly the so-called AVI, incepted in 2003, surprisingly not in Warsaw (Mazowieckie province, 108% of the GDP PPS per inhabitant against the EU28 average by NUTS 2 regions, 2017), but in the Podkarpackie region with its capital Rzeszów and surrounding provinces (47–52%)—still belonging to the poorest and most lagging regions in Poland (country average 68%) and Europe even today. AVI was brought into life by 19 representatives stemming from 18 organisations (15 from commercial businesses from the aviation industry, two from regional development agencies and one from a university) led by the back-then biggest aviation industry company in Poland, WSK “PZL Rzeszów”. In the face of a tremendous majority of participants from the Podkarpackie region, the first encounter also united well-reputed companies from Świdnik and Bielsko-Biala forming a boomerang-shaped alliance of aviation companies from Southeast Poland (Darecki, 2015, 16). It has to be mentioned that three of the biggest aviation companies (as measured in total employment in 2003), WSK “PZL Rzeszów”, WSK “PZL Mielec”, WSK “PZL Świdnik”, were among the founding members, totalling slightly over 9500 employees and covering over one-third of the total employment of PAI. This powerful initiative experienced a continuous development over the years by means of members not only beyond Southeast Poland (for example, Kalisz, Wroclaw), but also beyond aviation industry borders (for example, members from the tooling industry acting as suppliers, and service providers (school, consulting etc.)), and beyond the commercial sector (regional development agencies, universities). Based on companies predominantly working in the aviation industry, the membership number rose from 15 to 94 since the inception and 2017; during the same time period, employment grew from over 9500 (one-third in foreign hands) to roughly 23,500 (half in foreign hands). At the same time, AVI members in aviation manufacturing increased their share of employment from one-third in 2003 to two-thirds in 2017 in relation the total employment provided by the PAI (Figure 1). Platforming and field configuration in AVI Pre-formation phase: bringing the Aviation Valley initiative info life (prior to 2003) Since paths can be defined as contingent sequences of happenings that might lead to manifold outcomes in the beginning, a more or less random event or a series of small events can serve as tipping points for their formation. Therefore, in a so-called pre-formation phase, background information about stakeholder constellations and informal arrangements have been carefully collected by means of a contextual analysis clarifying the level interrelatedness. The idea of AVI was a long-lasting dream by the President of the biggest Aviation company, WSK-PZL Rzeszów Darecki (interviews, E1, I1, I3, P2, A1) (and probably also conceivable as a desirable measure by the new owners of the company) (interview, E6). This idea, however, could have been only actuated on the eve of Poland’s integration into NATO in 1999 and the European Union from 2001 to 2004, when manifold opportunities were tangible that seemed to be in a distant future just years before. The takeover of the biggest Polish Aviation enterprise WSK “PZL-Rzeszów” by United Technology Cooperation (UTC) (a systems supplier of aviation OEMs), the participation in European Union-related pre-accession programmes, and the strategic and well-prepared vision of an enthusiast with entrepreneurial spirit in the right position provided the fertile ground and favourable environment for the creation of AVI in 2003. This journey, however, has been far from simple. During the 1990s, the still highly diversified remnants of the socialist conglomerates—which later turned out to be the driving force of AVI—often nicknamed (WSK—Wytwórnia Sprzętu Komunikacyjnego (Transportation Equipment Factory) or PZL—Państwowe Zakłady Lotnicze (National Aviation Works)) were downsized, modularised and re-organised as public companies with the State Treasury as the exclusive shareholder (Fiszer and Bluj, 2007, 151). In this period, those entities produced a broad range of products (for example, parts for the automotive, railway and ship industries and even tableware), which ensured survival. “It was enough to pay salaries, but not enough for modernisation and development” (interviews E1, E14, P2). This illustrates how difficult it was to form cooperation agreements beyond corporate borders and to formulate a common vision alongside a specialised industry profile, since every former conglomerate stewed in his own juice. Interestingly, numerous initiatives for cooperation existed even before 2001. Probably the most influential one was the cyclical ‘Aviation Industry Council of Directors’ meeting; during these meetings key personnel from these remnants gathered with top executives from research institutes in changing locations to exchange experiences about similar challenges (interview E6). The brainchild of an industrial policy initiative, an association or least some networking activities was laterally existent since a critical mass of companies was definitely there. However, first of all, different levels of administrative authorities (city, province, state) had to be convinced to partake in such an undertaking. As one of the founders remembers, “we have written a regional strategy indicating that the aviation industry might be the key to prosperity and asked the administration about their opinion and about their capacity to serve potential investors with investment promotion measures” (interview E14). It seems that the political flexibility of the newly established Podkarpackie province with its ambitious capital Rzeszów (a 150,000-inhabitant mid-size town in 2002) provided the adequate location and open environment at the right time. Not surprisingly, this politically motivated initiative gained momentum in the realm of pre-accession EU programmes, where at least theoretically an opportunity for funding was tangible (interviews P1, P2). After the administration was convinced, a provincial high-level group on Aviation under Marek Darecki’s leadership was formed; this group joined the administrative delegation of Podkarpackie during the negotiations about the nature and direction of the newly formed voivodship (Governorship) securing provincial pre-accession money for the region in Warsaw in 2001. Since no comparable competing calls from other provinces/voivodships targeting the aviation industry rested on the table, the central government endorsed the plans (interview P4). This was a relatively early on involvement in and familiarity with the new-introduced National Strategy for Regional Development and Assistance programmes that turned to Operational Programmes after the accession; the latter systemically channelled national and EU funding money for the support of the Aviation Industry towards Podkarpackie. This can be definitely seen as a first-mover advantage and one of the FCEs in this phase. Simultaneously, the completion of the foreign takeover (WSK-PZL Rzeszów by UTC) following a four-month negotiation process in 2001 where 85% of shares (later in 2004 the rest) were sold to UTC, provided the necessary cognitive and financial room to manoeuvre. It has to be mentioned that Pratt & Whitney Canada, a company of UTC, had already 25 years of experience of working with WSK-PZL Rzeszów even throughout socialist times. During this transformation, Darecki was appointed as the CEO of the new company; he was an experienced manager who already started working at WSK-PZL Rzeszów in the late 1970s and later even headed it in the turbulent times between 1995 and 1998; after leading another North American Aviation company in Poland (1998–2001), he was familiar with both the structures of the company and the foreign working spirit; a ‘man heaven sent’, as would become evident later (Fiszer and Bluj, 2007, 166). Having secured political and corporate backing, Darecki convened a prepared meeting on 11 April 2003 in his office in Rzeszów, where AVI was founded and a common strategy mutually formulated (interview E1). One of the founding members representing a former conglomerate not from the province argued “the Aviation Valley initiative was not something entirely new for us (…) as we made many integration steps together before (…) hence, why wouldn’t we join our friends since we met so many times before and Rzeszow was close” (interview E6). It was important to “stand together and to speak with one voice” (interview E1); another favouring circumstance can be derived from the fact that most of the founding members were former employees of the socialist conglomerates in either Rzeszów, Mielec or Swidnik, or had studied at certain technical universities (alumni network), knowing each other and sharing basic corporate principles and a working ethic (interviews A1, P1, I1, E6, E14). However, first and foremost, the economic necessity to create an industrial profile, a market and a value chain of national suppliers, or in other words, the economic specialisation strategy for the South Eastern part of Poland based on Aviation, was the overall objective that brought everyone together. Of course, there was also resistance against these novel plans, for example with regard to the reorganisation of the supportive education system according to western standards (interview E14). All in all, this meeting can be considered as the second FCE in the pre-formation phase. All attempts in this phase can definitively be seen paradoxically as a bottom-up process by some national high-ranked enterprise officials securing political and foreign corporate support (interviews P1, P2). Formation phase: on the way towards a National Key Cluster and a business card for Poland (2003–2012) Formation can be understood as a stage where a particular type of self-reinforcement gathers momentum; this might lead to steadiness (lock-in), tempting a specific rigid outcome following a dominant self-reinforcement. Was the AVI a platform right from its infant years? Definitely not, it was a conventional cluster initiative with objectives to unite a thitherto dispersed and formally not organised group of stakeholders from similar backgrounds. At same time, it was an attempt to set up one of the first serious clusters in Poland. The strategy composed during the inaugural meeting was narrowed down to (i) the development and organisation of a cost-effective supplier value chain with local firms to deliver non-core business activities in order to comply with the demands of UTC subsidiaries (which mushroomed in the formation phase all over Poland) and their far-flung global network; (ii) a close cooperation with academia to set up an educational and R&D system guaranteeing a continuous recruiting of young local talent and innovation; (iii) to exert meaningful influence on the Polish economic policy favouring the aviation industry; and (iv) to popularise Southeast Poland in the worldwide aviation landscape (interviews A12, E1, E4, E6, E14, I4, P3, P4). What followed was a tremendous series of events—around 800 meetings until 2012 (Darecki, 2015, 61) (whereof we identified 130 in this phase) to set the right course for development. As one of the founding members putted it. Despite our big vision during the inaugural meeting; in beginning—you need personnel and an office to run your cluster activities, but who will pay for it?—the Polish Government did not have the money for funding such measures back in the days—so we asked UTC telling them that it is not sufficient only to invest in the company, but also in the region. They gave us 300,000 US$ basically as a present, but in five yearly instalments á 60,000 US$ and that kept our heads above the water; I mean, you need to go to Toulouse, to Hamburg, to organize meetings, appropriately introduce yourself to the industry (interview E1). After setting up an AV office in 2004, the objective was to solicit membership primarily among manufacturing companies in the aviation industry (Darecki, 2015, 17). In the early years, it was by far not clear that AVI would prevail and become the leading regional cluster initiative; other promising initiatives, for example, the Association for the Promotion of PAI (AVIA-SPLot) popped up in Mielec in 2004 and even operated until 2010, having united 28 enterprises (among them two successor of the former conglomerates WSK-PZL Mielec, and a subsidiary of EADS Warszawa-Okecie), 13 service companies and a research institute at its peak (interview I2). In what follows, we collected the triggering events mostly self-reinforcing the specialisation in the formation phase until 2012. The Paris Air Show—among the most renowned trade fairs in aviation industry—in June 2005 was the venue for the first-time appearance of a delegation from Podkarpackie; this delegation included politicians, entrepreneurs and scientists mutually presenting AVI in front of a larger global business audience; during this event the will was forged to speak with one voice (interviews I1, P1). Another crucial event followed just three months later, when Rzeszów hosted the conference on Prospects of the Aviation Industry in the expanded European Union in September 2005, with 164 participants from 17 EU member states. This incident activated a series of follow-up events, including the Wings of Europe partnership project in 2006, leading to seven bilateral agreements with aviation clusters worldwide (Darecki, 2015, 31) and finally to the founding membership within the European Aerospace Cluster Partnership (EACP) in Hamburg (the German headquarter of Airbus) in 2009. Further positive development—and the proper self-reinforcing mechanism in this sense—rested upon a combination of manifold, often cyclical, small and big events in the industry: the continuous attendance at trend-setting trade fairs (for example, Paris, Berlin, Montreal, Seattle) next to back-and-forth visits of project partners and delegations from aviation-oriented regions mounted in the selection of Poland as the official Partner at the ILA Air Show in Berlin in 2012 (AVI was already engaged in minor events during this trade fair in 2006 and 2010). This chain of sectoral and specialised events elevated AVI on the global aviation industry horizon. Since this phase was almost exclusively aligned to popularise the sectoral trademark of “Aviation Valley” and attach Southeast Poland to it, it can be treated as a straightforward cluster-based policy. During this time, cross-sectoral and diversified approaches played no role, with the only exception when the Polish Aeronautical Technology Platform (PATP) was raised in 2004 by AVI among others; the idea was to create substantial links between science, the aviation industry and other Polish technological platforms through innovation and commercialisation of scientific results—later also within a European context by means of the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) (Darecki, 2015, 17). We should be all aware that the overall objective of AVI to exert meaningful influence of the Polish and later also European economic regional policy was not only a paper tiger, but one of substantial pillars leading to its tremendous success. A rather negligible project (from today’s point of view) called for the development and promotion of an industrial cluster of the Podkarpackie voivodship was acquired by AVI and started in April 2005; it was the first EU project implemented in the region (interview I1). It helped not only to keep the office running, extend personal capacities, but also to acquire pioneer knowledge about European funding regulations. At the same time, Darecki and his team were engaged in forming economic policies, on the regional (for example, the Regional Innovation Strategy (RIS) of Podkarpackie for 2005–2013), national (for example, AVI as the Sectoral Contact Point in Poland for European framework programmes) and European level (for example, Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation—Report of the High-Level Group on Aviation Research, in 2011). The whole process was reinforced by mutual consultation visits with the DG Regio in Bordeaux and Rzeszów in 2004/2005; hereby, the agenda was set for the Regional Operation Programme (ROP) for Podkarpackie (2007–2013), wherein it is clearly stated that “enterprises who are members of the Aviation Industry will receive a preferential treatment” (61). Through his passionate involvement in policy matters and as a Polish pioneer in EU frameworks, Darecki was appointed to the High-Level Group on Aviation by the European Commission. All of these issues were accompanied by substantial investments in human capital (creation of a Centre for Advanced Technology-Aeronet in 2004) and a supporting physical infrastructure (creation of 12 vocational education and training (VET) centres in mid-size towns until 2012, the opening of the Podkarpackie Park for Science-Technology—Aeropolis and a new terminal at Rzeszów-Jasionka Airport). All in all, these, by all means, complex measures of AVI in the formation phase were arranged around a cluster-based strategy that promoted specialisation of the region in aviation and the construction of a regional value chain of suppliers merely with regard to basic production activities. A positive multiplier also crystallised from successfully attracting foreign global players to invest in the region (for example, MTU AeroEngines from Germany in 2009). Broadening phase: AVI at crossroads: between (smart-)specialisation and (re- or smart)diversification? (2012 and later) By ‘broadening’, we understand the break-up of a specific rigid outcome following a dominant self-reinforcement due to a counterbalanced force towards steadiness or a dominant type of self-reinforcement, where the initial self-reinforcement is either confined or suspended leading to a potentially novel (pre-)formation and in this sense to a path creation/development. No later than by the end of 2012, the harbingers of a novel, adjusted strategy of AVI appeared heavily inspired by the programming period for EU structural funds for 2014–2020. The result was a Smart Specialisation Strategy for Podkarpackie, where aviation among others was named one of the key sectors in the region and respectively funded. On the one hand, the rationale was to strengthen the raison d’etre of AVI by attending the most important cyclical meetings, conferences and trade fairs in aviation. Worth mentioning is the local Aviation Valley Expo Day in Rzeszów in 2014 (being the third meeting of its kind), with more than 500 participants providing manifold opportunities for networking among its members. This mostly sectoral/specialised view also dominated the composition and orientation of the ‘Comprehensive Education Support System (CESS) for AVI’ (Darecki, 2015, 19), where basically all levels of education (kindergarten, VET centres and local university degree programmes) were customised for the needs of the aviation industry (interviews A1, A4, A5, A12). These measures can be understood as field-maintaining events (FMEs) in a henceforth-established environment. On the other hand, AVI opened its doors for dual-use technologies and for the cooperation with other clusters in the region. AVI members were now more concerned about SME in the association, not only because of its vast number, but also because of novel policy priorities, as will become clear later. In this realm, investment promoters have already reported many cases of local family-based SMEs switching their clients from neighbouring industries (automotive etc.) towards aviation, due to increased demand and political priority in this sector (interviews I1, P4). For these reasons, an internal SME committee was initiated within AVI, tackling topics like innovation and management styles beyond usual production practices (for example, EU-funded project on HiPAir—High Performance Work Practices for competitive SMEs in aviation sector—from 2015 on). This idea was in line with both Darecki’s co-authored European “Flightpath 2050 Europe’s Vision for Aviation” from 2011 and the newly negotiated European Defence Action Plan (EDAP), which was officially communicated in 2016, but where negotiations started in 2014 mounting in a European Defence Fund (and novel funding opportunities for AVI). These measures have been even further specified in pertinent documents, by proposing networks of multidisciplinary technology clusters (Aviation Report, 2011, 18) or promoting “European SMEs or subsidiaries of the major defence producers (prime contractors and sub-contractors) [who] offer dual-use goods or services in a wide range of industries” (EDAP, 2016, 11)—interestingly, explicitly naming aeronautics and even regional clusters specialising in aircraft engines (EDAP, 2016, 13). The strategic vision, insider knowledge and first-mover advantage of Darecki and AVI become evident here. At the same time, this is a clear change of policy towards platform approaches (for example, ‘multidisciplinary’, ‘dual-use’)—even if labels (for example, ‘clusters’) remained rooted mostly in familiar words (for example, ‘smart specialisation’) in the official documents. This novel strategy of AVI is also evidenced by participation at meetings, conferences and trade fairs, including both neighbouring (for example, space industry, organisation of the trade fair Aerospace and Defense Meetings Central Europe in 2017 in Rzeszów with over 150 exhibitors from 15 countries) and distant industries (for example, Annual General Meeting of Life Quality Cluster ‘Podkarpacie Country’ in 2013). Another hint is provided by the AVI-propelled initiative ‘Podkarpackie Clusters Forum’, a regional multi-clusters platform to explore synergies among related and distant, but agglomerated industries in the region (welding, casting, IT, renewable energies, organic food and quality of life) brought to life in 2013 and revitalised in 2016 (Darecki, 2015, 104). During the 2016 meeting, the initiator Darecki clearly accentuated the nature and structure of this event: “nobody dominates the discussion here (…) the reason is to unite our voices and make it accessible to a larger audience”. This statement touches upon the very nature of FCE and illustrates the genuine offer for an unbiased relationship with other sectors in a novel institutional setting. An even stronger cooperation is politically desired with the ‘IT’ and ‘quality of life’ sectors within the Strategy 2020 for Podkarpackie. These three areas of specialisation will mirror the region’s assets in the light of overall European 2020 imperatives and “[are] fully justified by the endogenous resources of the Region, and it excellently matches the future vision of the Region as a place with the top quality of life” (Podkarpackie Strategy 2020, 37). The latter exactly meets the rationale of regional platforms and will be substantiated as follows, “while the smart specialisation ‘aeronautics and space technologies’ relates to and will provide support mainly for a few largest cities of the province, the specialisation ‘quality of life’ is designed to foster smart growth of the entire Region, in particular its rural areas and small towns” (interview E1). Since AVI and WSK-PZL Rzeszów were also among the entities that actively shaped the ROP Podkarpackie 2014–2020, small wonder that representatives of AVI are honorary members of the life-quality cluster and have actively contributed to their agenda. The next milestone is the proposition for a platform under the auspices of AVI named ‘cluster dual-use technology’—if one of the anticipated cooperations with related industries will bear fruit (Darecki, 2015, 104). The research-based PATP mentioned before is a step beyond and launched the InnoLot Program in 2013 to finance scientific research on innovative solutions using accomplishments from a variety of related technologies for the aerospace industry in cooperation with National Research and Development Centre (until 2018, in total €73 million allocated). On the European level, AVI is well represented in leading consortia with global industry leaders in framework programmes exploiting the latest insights from converging and related industries. Figures 2 and 3 summarise the most important FCEs and FMEs in the pre-formation, formation and potential broadening phase next to the current state of the RDP of AVI for Southeast Poland. Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Evolutionary path of the Aviation Valley initiative, including FCEs (interviews E1, E2, E4, A12, P1, P2, Darecki, 2015, 19–20, 31–32 and manifold websites). Figure 2. View largeDownload slide Evolutionary path of the Aviation Valley initiative, including FCEs (interviews E1, E2, E4, A12, P1, P2, Darecki, 2015, 19–20, 31–32 and manifold websites). Figure 3. View largeDownload slide Regional development platform of the Aviation Valley initiative (AVI) for the Podkarpackie region. Figure 3. View largeDownload slide Regional development platform of the Aviation Valley initiative (AVI) for the Podkarpackie region. Conclusion The often-mentioned statement “there is no airplane engine produced in the world now without at least one part produced in Podkarpackie region” (interviews E1, I1, P4) is an impressive witness of what this peripheral region in Europe contributes to. The strategy behind this story involved a balanced orchestration of existing resources, idiosyncratic dynamic capabilities, key events and critical junctures, which all added up to a path towards a very promising regional transformation. The PCA showed the economic policy path taken by Southeast Poland and especially the Podkarpackie region and indicated a two-sided open funnel (Figure 3). Whereas the pre-formation was characterised by a consolidation of the erstwhile diversified state-owned conglomerated towards specialisation, the formation phase obviously reinforced this cluster-based policy. Now the question arises whether the region is capable of broadening this chosen but standard way by (i) reactivating the lateral and novel potential of (un)related industries in the region (for example, outsourced entities of the former conglomerates, SME in related industries) for their own purposes, and by (ii) fruitfully collaborating with related (for example, space technologies) and distant industries (for example, life quality) to create a genuine platform and to revive the ecosystem of the region as a whole. We hope to have clearly shown the potential of combining the two emerging discourses on RDPs (rooted in evolutionary thinking) and field configuration (rooted in institutional thinking) by identifying ‘self-reinforcing and counterbalancing mechanisms’ through the analysis of crucial events. Hereby, the study contributes to a novel regional policy approach visualising a transformation—or to be more precise—a co-existence of cluster-based ‘smart-specialisation’ and promising platform-based ‘diversification’ strategies (that one day might be called ‘smart diversification’). Whereas this strategy might be referred to as ‘beyond clusters’, as it adds up a further element to clusters with RDPs also engaging with diversification in ‘(un)related variety’, it is definitively not a ‘post-cluster’ approach, as it does not rest on a fully standalone logic. Academically, our study is in line with recent rather quantitative studies and European regional policy documents on Regional Diversification Opportunities and Smart Specialization Strategies (2017) that sketch the promises and pitfalls of regional diversification approaches against relatedness and knowledge complexity in the realm of smart specialisation strategies (Balland et al., 2018), but offers a qualitative case study explaining individual and organisational agency behind such transformations. Hence, it contributes to manifold promising approaches in the current literature by explicitly using a path dependency/development approach in tracing regional policy evolution or vice versa (Trippl et al., 2017; Valdaliso et al., 2014), also in peripheral regions (Isaksen and Trippl, 2017). Finally, it contributes to a better understanding of leadership in regional economic measures—an often-neglected dimension (Sotarauta et al., 2017; Sydow et al., 2011). In a hands-on context, the present study contributes as a ‘good practice’ worth pursuing for policy makers in Central and Eastern European Countries in particular and former socialist countries as a whole, who went through painful restructuring times and had to specialise as a first step, but should revive the (un-)related variety lying dormant in the region, as long as the growing older and part-retired personnel is able to transfer skills and experiences. The so-far successful strategy was only possible through enthusiasts’ vision and leadership with long-term objectives, working beyond project, programme and structural funding periods. Moreover, as noticed elsewhere, a ‘one-size-fits-all’ policy will not do and must be nuanced and redefined anew according to the particular context in the respective region; both exogenous and endogenous triggers for path dependency and path creation are conceivable here (Isaksen and Trippl, 2017; Tödtling and Trippl, 2005). It will be exciting to observe if AVI can really initiate a genuine platform in this peripheral European area in the years to come or, as James and Halkier note, ‘to identify novel directions of industrial knowledge flows in the region, bypassing vertical, cumulative and sectorally specialised ‘silos’, to horizontal and combinatorial ‘platforms’ (2016, 832). Although the fundamentals for a platform are definitively set, only a reciprocal interplay of sectoral and cross-sectoral events in the future against the background of endeavours in the political and academic field can guarantee to broaden the path. The potential for this reciprocal interplay has been explicitly acknowledged in the 2015–2020 agenda proclaiming the vision and future megatrends for the region (Darecki, 2015, 97). Certainly, the architects still in charge and their trusted collaborators in the aviation industry, policy and education will do their best to expedite the well-trodden path by adequately positioning the region within the aviation industry, actively shaping future ROP and innovation policies and extending their educational system. At the same time, however, they also rely on related and distant industrial counterparts for the first time who do not necessarily have the financial latitude and experience of global associates behind them. Footnotes 1 AVI is the cluster initiative from Podkarpackie region, whereas PAI entails all the companies operating in the aviation sector in Poland. 2 The concept of ‘related variety’ builds on the presence of miscellaneous industries with sufficient difference for novel recombination of knowledge (cognitive distance) on the one hand, but not to such an extent that understanding between the relevant actors is impossible on the other hand (cognitive proximity) (Frenken et al., 2007). 3 A field will be broadly defined as “a community of organizations that partakes of a common meaning system and whose participants interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside of the field” (Scott, 1994, 207–208). 4 In total, 45 interviews with different stakeholders have been conducted as broad as (I)ntermediaries (for example, cluster managers) = 10, (P)oliticians (for example, mayors) = 9, (E)ntrepreneurs (for example, CEOs of companies) = 14, (A)cademia (for example, professors) = 12. 5 Total employment varies depending on if large tool-making firms that partly also supply other industries (automotive, ships, machinery etc.) are counted in or not. Conservative estimates reckon 28,000 to 30,000 workers. Acknowledgements Lech Suwala acknowledges generous support from Mr Kyosuke Hashimoto, Mr Takashi Kasagami and Mr Charles Vacher, as well as Ms Nakaya and NPO 日本古典研究会 (Nippon Koten Kenkyukai). Grzegorz Micek acknowledges funding from the Polish National Science Center (project 2015/17/B/HS4/00338, ‘Geographical Proximity of Knowledge-Intensive Companies and Knowledge Flows: Interactions, Mechanisms and Dynamics’). References Anand , N. and Watson , M. R . ( 2004 ) Tournament rituals in the evolution of fields: the case of the Grammy Awards , Academy of Management Journal , 47 : 59 – 80 . Asheim , B. , Boschma , R. and Cooke , P . ( 2011 ) Constructing regional advantage: platform policies based on related variety and differentiated knowledge bases , Regional Studies , 45 : 893 – 904 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Balland , P. A. , Boschma , R. , Crespo , J. and Rigby , D. L . ( 2018 ) Smart specialization policy in the European Union: relatedness, knowledge complexity and regional diversification , Regional Studies , doi: 10.1080/00343404.2018.1437900 . Bathelt , H. and Li, P.-F . ( 2014 ) Global cluster networks—foreign direct investment flows from Canada to China , Journal of Economic Geography , 14: 45 – 71 . Bathelt , H. , Malmberg , A. and 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 Boschma , R. and Martin , R . ( 2010 ) The aims and scope of evolutionary economic geography . In The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography , 3 – 39 . Consoli , D. and Patrucco , P. P . ( 2008 ) Innovation platforms and the governance of knowledge: evidence from Italy and the UK , Economics of Innovation and New Technology , 17 : 699 – 716 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cooke , P . ( 2007 ) To construct regional advantage from innovation systems first build policy platforms , European Planning Studies , 15 : 179 – 194 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cooke , P . ( 2012 ) From clusters to platform policies in regional development , European Planning Studies , 20 : 1415 – 1424 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Cooke , P. , Uranga , M. G. and Etxebarria , G . ( 1997 ) Regional innovation systems: institutional and organisational dimensions , Research Policy , 26 : 475 – 491 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Darecki , M . ( 2015 ) Strategia dzialania i rozwoju SGPPL ‘Dolina Lotnicza’ . Rzeszow : AVI . Delacour , H. and Leca , B . ( 2011 ) The decline and fall of the Paris salon. A study of the deinstitutionalization process of a field configuring event in the cultural activities , Management , 14 : 47 – 78 . Delgado , M. , Porter , M. E. and Stern , S . ( 2016 ) Defining clusters of related industries , Journal of Economic Geography , 16 : 1 – 38 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Fiszer , M. and Bluj , M . ( 2007 ) Od Pegasusa do F-100-PW229. Wypisy z siedmiu dekad historii WSK ‘PZL Rzeszów’ (1937–2007) . Warszawa : Magnum-X . Foray , D . ( 2014 ) Smart Specialisation: Opportunities and Challenges for Regional Innovation Policy . Abingdon: Routledge . Frenken , K. , Van Oort , F. G. and Verburg , T . ( 2007 ) Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth , Regional Studies , 41 : 685 – 697 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Garud , R . ( 2008 ) Conferences as venues for the configuration of emerging organizational fields: the case of cochlear implants , Journal of Management Studies , 45 : 1061 – 1088 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Garud , R. and Kumaraswamy , A . ( 1995 ) Technological and organizational designs for realizing economies of substitution , Strategic Management Journal , 16 : 93 – 109 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Glass , A . ( 1980 ) Samoloty PZL 1928–1978. Warsaw: Wydawnictwa Komunikacji i Lacznosci . Götz , M. and Jankowska , B . ( 2017 ) Clusters and industry 4.0 – do they fit together ?, European Planning Studies , 25 : 1633 – 1653 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Harmaakorpi , V. K . ( 2004 ) Building Competitive Regional Innovation Environment – The Regional Development Method as a Tool for Regional Innovation Policy . Espoo : Helsinki University of Technology . Harmaakorpi , V. K . ( 2006 ) The regional development platform method as a tool for regional innovation policy , European Planning Studies , 14 : 1085 – 1104 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Harmaakorpi , V. , Melkas , H. and Uotila , T . ( 2017 ) Re-categorizing innovation policy according to broad-based innovation , European Planning Studies , 25 : 1477 – 1496 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Henn , S. and Bathelt , H . ( 2015 ) Knowledge generation and field reproduction in temporary clusters and the role of business conferences , Geoforum , 58 : 104 – 113 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Isaksen , A. and Trippl , M . ( 2017 ) Exogenously led and policy-supported new path development in peripheral regions: analytical and synthetic routes , Economic Geography , 93 : 436 – 457 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS James , L. and Halkier , H . ( 2016 ) Regional development platforms and related variety: exploring the changing practices of food tourism in North Jutland, Denmark , European Urban and Regional Studies , 23 : 831 – 847 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Kinder , S. and Suwala , L . ( 2012 ) Rzeszów und das “Aviation Valley” – Perspektiven für eine Dynamische Wirtschaftsentwicklung in Südostpolen. Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung , Polen-Analysen , 7 : 1 – 13 . Kogut , B . ( 2000 ) The network as knowledge: generative rules and the emergence of structure , Strategic Management Journal , 21 : 405 – 425 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lampel , J. and Meyer , A. D . ( 2008 ) Field-configuring events as structuring mechanisms: how conferences, ceremonies, and trade shows constitute new technologies, industries, and markets , Journal of Management Studies , 45 : 1025 – 1035 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lange , B. , Power , D. and Suwala , L . ( 2014 ) Geographies of field-configuring events , Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsgeographie , 58 : 187 – 201 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lazzeretti , L. , Capone , F. and Cinti , T . ( 2010 ) The regional development platform and ‘related variety’: some evidence from art and food in Tuscany , European Planning Studies , 18 : 27 – 45 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Li , P. F . ( 2014 ) Global temporary networks of clusters: structures and dynamics of trade fairs in Asian economies , Journal of Economic Geography , 14 , 995 – 1021 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Lu , R. and Reve , T . ( 2015 ) Relations among clusters . European Planning Studies , 23: 828 – 845 . Maskell , P . ( 2014 ) Accessing remote knowledge – the roles of trade fairs, pipelines, crowdsourcing and listening posts , Journal of Economic Geography , 14 : 883 – 902 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Maskell , P. , Bathelt , H. and Malmberg , A . ( 2006 ) Building global knowledge pipelines: the role of temporary clusters , European Planning Studies , 14 : 997 – 1013 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McCann , P. and Ortega-Argilés , R . ( 2015 ) Smart specialization, regional growth and applications to European Union Cohesion Policy , Regional Studies , 49 , 1291 – 1302 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS McInerney , P. B . ( 2008 ) Showdown at Kykuit: field-configuring events as loci for conventionalizing accounts , Journal of Management Studies , 45 : 1089 – 1116 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Meyer , A. D. , Gaba , V. and Colwell , K. A . ( 2005 ) Organizing far from equilibrium: nonlinear change in organizational fields , Organization Science , 16 : 456 – 473 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Meyer , U. and Schubert , C . ( 2007 ) Integrating path dependency and path creation in a general understanding of path constitution , STI Studies , 3 : 23 – 44 . Moulaert , F. and Sekia , F . ( 2003 ) Territorial innovation models: a critical survey , Regional Studies , 37 : 289 – 302 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Neffke , F. , Henning , M. and Boschma , R . ( 2011 ) How do regions diversify over time? Industry relatedness and the development of new growth paths in regions , Economic Geography , 87 : 237 – 265 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Oliver , A. L. and Montgomery , K . ( 2008 ) Using field-configuring events for sense-making: a cognitive network approach , Journal of Management Studies , 45 : 1147 – 1167 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Power , D. and Jansson , J . ( 2008 ) Cyclical clusters in global circuits: overlapping spaces in furniture trade fairs , Economic Geography , 84 : 423 – 448 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Robinson , D. K. R. , Rip , A. and Mangematin , V . ( 2007 ) Technological agglomeration and the emergence of clusters and networks in nanotechnology , Research Policy , 36 : 871 – 879 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Rypestøl , J. O . ( 2017 ) Regional industrial path development: the role of new entrepreneurial firms , Journal of Innovation and Entrepreneurship , 6 : 3 – 22 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sah , R. K. and Stiglitz , J. E . ( 1986 ) The architecture of economic systems: hierarchies and polyarchies , The American Economic Review , 76 : 716 – 727 . Schüssler , E. , Grabher , G. and Müller-Seitz , G . ( 2015 ) Field-configuring events as arenas for innovation and learning , Industry and Innovation , 22 : 165 – 172 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Scott , W. R . ( 1994 ) Institutions and organizations: toward a theoretical synthesis . In W. R. Scott and J. W. Meyer (eds) Institutional Environments and Organizations: Structural Complexity and Individualism , pp. 55 – 80 . London : Sage . Scott , A. J . ( 2006 ) Entrepreneurship, innovation and industrial development, geography and the creative field revisited , Small Business Economics , 26 : 1 – 24 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sotarauta , M. , Beer , A. and Gibney , J . ( 2017 ) Making sense of leadership in urban and regional development , Regional Studies , 51 : 187 – 193 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Suwala , L . ( 2014 ) Kreativität, Kultur und Raum: ein wirtschaftsgeographischer Beitrag am Beispiel des kulturellen Kreativitätsprozesses . Heidelberg : Springer . Suwala , L . ( 2018 ) Between location, persistence and relocation – early historical and spatial trajectories of the Polish aviation industry . In C. Pawel and M. Dej (eds) Relocation of Economic Activity: Contemporary Theory and Practice in Local, Regional and Global Perspectives . Berlin : Springer . Sydow , J. and Koll , F . ( 2017 ) Platforming for path-breaking? The case of regional electromobility initiatives in Germany . In J. Glückler , E. Lazega and I. Hammer (eds) Knowledge and Networks , pp. 191 – 219 . Cham : Springer . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sydow , J. , Lerch , F. , Huxham , C. and Hibbert , P . ( 2011 ) A silent cry for leadership: organizing for leading (in) clusters , The Leadership Quarterly , 22 : 328 – 343 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Sydow , J. , Windeler , A. , Müller-Seitz , G. and Lange , K . ( 2012 ) Path constitution analysis: a methodology for understanding path dependence and path creation , Business Research , 5 : 155 – 176 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Tödtling , F. and Trippl , M . ( 2005 ) One size fits all? Towards a differentiated regional innovation policy approach , Research Policy , 34 : 1203 – 1219 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Trippl , M. , Grillitsch , M. and Isaksen , A . ( 2017 ) Exogenous sources of regional industrial change: attraction and absorption of non-local knowledge for new path development , Progress in Human Geography , 1 – 19 . Uotila , T. , Harmaakorpi , V. and Hermans , R . ( 2012 ) Finnish mosaic of regional innovation system – assessment of thematic regional innovation platforms based on related variety , European Planning Studies , 20 : 1583 – 1602 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS Valdaliso , J. , Magro , E. , Navarro , M. , Jose Aranguren , M. and Wilson , J. R . ( 2014 ) Path dependence in policies supporting smart specialisation strategies: insights from the Basque case , European Journal of Innovation Management , 17 : 390 – 408 . Google Scholar CrossRef Search ADS © The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Cambridge Political Economy Society. 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/about_us/legal/notices)
TI - Beyond clusters? Field configuration and regional platforming: the Aviation Valley initiative in the Polish Podkarpackie region
JF - Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society
DO - 10.1093/cjres/rsy010
DA - 2018-05-26
UR - https://www.deepdyve.com/lp/oxford-university-press/beyond-clusters-field-configuration-and-regional-platforming-the-iCF4Uq0F9t
SP - 1
EP - 372
VL - Advance Article
IS - 2
DP - DeepDyve
ER -