The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Sticky Places in Slippery Space: A Typology of Industrial Districts
Abstract
As advances in transportation and information obliterate distance, cities and regions face a tougher time anchoring income-generating activities. In probing the conditions under which some manage to remain “sticky” places in “slippery” space, this paper rejects the “new industrial district, ” in either its Marshallian or more recent Italianate form, as the dominant paradigmatic solution. I identify three additional types of industrial districts, with quite disparate firm configurations, internal versus external orientations, and governance structures: a hub-and-spoke industrial district, revolving around one or more dominant, externally oriented firms; a satellite platform, an assemblage of unconnected branch plants embedded in external organization links; and the state-anchored district, focused on one or more public-sector institutions. The strengths and weaknesses of each are reviewed. The hub-and-spoke and satellite platform variants are argued to be more prominent in the United States than the other two. The findings suggest that the study of industrial districts requires a broader institutional approach and must encompass embeddedness across district boundaries. The research results suggest that a purely locally targeted development strategy will fail to achieve its goals.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
How does insertion in global value chains affect upgrading in industrial clusters?
Humphrey, J., & Schmitz, H. (2002) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/0034340022000022198 · Cited by 2,584
The Relational Organization of Entrepreneurial Ecosystems
Spigel, B. (2017) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1111/etap.12167 · Cited by 2,257
Digital affordances, spatial affordances, and the genesis of entrepreneurial ecosystems
Autio, E., Nambisan, S., Thomas, L. D. W., & Wright, M. (2018) · Strategic Entrepreneurship Journal · doi:10.1002/sej.1266 · Cited by 1,738
Upgrading in Global Value Chains: Lessons from Latin American Clusters
Giuliani, E., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2005) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2005.01.002 · Cited by 1,073
Looking inside the spiky bits: a critical review and conceptualisation of entrepreneurial ecosystems
Brown, R., & Mason, C. (2017) · Small Business Economics · doi:10.1007/s11187-017-9865-7 · Cited by 852
Toward an Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Research Program
Wurth, B., Stam, E., & Spigel, B. (2022) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/1042258721998948 · Cited by 789
“Subsequent work has built on the notion of Marshallian industrial districts (cf. Krugman, 1991 ; Markusen, 1996 ), first with the early work on national systems of innovation ( Freeman, 1995; Lundvall, 1992 ), learning regions ( Keeble et al., 1999 ; Malmberg & Maskell, 2002 ) the Triple Helix (…”
Markusen, A. (2003) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/0034340032000108796 · Cited by 729
Self-citationOn the role played by temporary geographical proximity in knowledge transmission
Torre, A. (2008) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343400801922814 · Cited by 682
Rugman, A. M., & Verbeke, A. (2003) · Journal of International Business Studies · doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8400012 · Cited by 581
Clusters, entrepreneurial ecosystem co-creation, and appropriability: a conceptual framework
Pitelis, C. (2012) · Industrial and Corporate Change · doi:10.1093/icc/dts008 · Cited by 253
Hayter, R. (2003) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1111/1467-8306.9303010 · Cited by 167
Spatial features of entrepreneurial ecosystems
Fischer, B., Meissner, D., Vonortas, N., & Guerrero, M. (2022) · Journal of Business Research · doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2022.04.018 · Cited by 106
Dunning, J. H., Pak, Y. S., & Beldona, S. (2007) · International Business Review · doi:10.1016/j.ibusrev.2007.01.005 · Cited by 68
Global Production Networks, Offshore Services and the Branch-Plant Syndrome
Kleibert, J. M. (2016) · Regional Studies · doi:10.1080/00343404.2015.1034671 · Cited by 51
Metadata
- Authors
- Markusen, A.
- Venue
- Economic Geography
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1996-07
- Volume
- 72
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 293
- ISSN
- 0013-0095 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1988393249
- Cited by
- 2,446
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 45.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.