IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/eurpls/v9y2001i6p739-753.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Systemic Flexibility, Production Fragmentation and Cluster Governance

Author

Listed:
  • Lisa De Propris

Abstract

The recent process of production fragmentation and the rapid growth of firm clusters have been explained by the increasing need for output flexibility. Although the mainstream literature relates flexibility mostly to labour adjustments, this paper investigates sources of flexibility as being related to forms of inter-firm production. Two extreme cases are compared: industrial districts and monopsonistic clusters. The nature and the implications of production flexibility are discussed in both settings. It is argued that the governance structure of industrial districts affects the dynamics of inter-firm linkages, which in turn enables systemic flexibility to be achieved.

Suggested Citation

  • Lisa De Propris, 2001. "Systemic Flexibility, Production Fragmentation and Cluster Governance," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(6), pages 739-753, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:9:y:2001:i:6:p:739-753
    DOI: 10.1080/713666511
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/713666511
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/713666511?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Guth, W. & Kliemt, H., 1993. "Competition or Co-Operation," Papers 9339, Tilburg - Center for Economic Research.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Martin Mathews & Peter Stokes, 2013. "The creation of trust: the interplay of rationality, institutions and exchange," Entrepreneurship & Regional Development, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 25(9-10), pages 845-866, December.
    2. Lisa De Propris & Ping Wei, 2007. "Governance and Competitiveness in the Birmingham Jewellery District," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(12), pages 2465-2486, November.
    3. Rafael Pardo & Ruth Rama, 2013. "Is the Pro-Network Bias Justified?," SAGE Open, , vol. 3(3), pages 21582440134, July.
    4. José Quesada-Vázquez & Juan Carlos Rodríguez-Cohard, 2019. "Subsidiary upgrading and regional innovation policies: The case of Valeo lighting Systems Spain and the Andalusian Plastic Innovation Centre," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 37(5), pages 908-928, August.
    5. Guven Sak & Erol Taymaz, 2004. "How Flexible are Small Firms? An Analysis on the Determinants of Flexibility," Working Papers 0416, Economic Research Forum, revised Aug 2004.
    6. Jiang Wei & Minfei Zhou & Mark Greeven & Hongyan Qu, 2016. "Economic governance, dual networks and innovative learning in five Chinese industrial clusters," Asia Pacific Journal of Management, Springer, vol. 33(4), pages 1037-1074, December.
    7. Ruth Rama & Adelheid Holl, 2013. "Subcontracting relationships," Chapters, in: Anna Grandori (ed.), Handbook of Economic Organization, chapter 28, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dufwenberg, Martin & Güth, Werner, 1997. "Indirect evolution versus strategic delegation: A comparison of two approaches to explaining economic institutions," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,28, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    2. van Damme, E.E.C. & Dufwenberg, M. & Gneezy, U. & Güth, W., 2000. "An Experimental Test of Direct and Indirect Reciprocity in Case of Complete and Incomplete Information," Other publications TiSEM dd58eedd-ce16-44e7-8f5a-1, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    3. Poulsen, Anders, 2001. "Reciprocity, Materialism and Welfare: An Evolutionary Model," Working Papers 01-3, University of Aarhus, Aarhus School of Business, Department of Economics.
    4. Werner Gueth & Axel Ockenfels, 2000. "Evolutionary Norm Enforcement," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 156(2), pages 335-335, June.
    5. Heiner, Ronald Asher, 2002. "Robust Evolution Of Contingent Cooperation In Pure One-Shot Prisoners' Dilemmas. Part II: Evolutionary Dynamics & Testable Predictions," CSLE Discussion Paper Series 2002-10, Saarland University, CSLE - Center for the Study of Law and Economics.
    6. Ryan Murphy & Amnon Rapoport & James Parco, 2006. "The breakdown of cooperation in iterative real-time trust dilemmas," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 9(2), pages 147-166, June.
    7. Samuel Bowles & Sandra Polania-Reyes, 2011. "Economic incentives and social preferences: substitutes or complements?," Department of Economics University of Siena 617, Department of Economics, University of Siena.
    8. Friedman, Daniel & Singh, Nirvikar, 2009. "Equilibrium vengeance," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 66(2), pages 813-829, July.
    9. Jeffrey Carpenter & Peter Matthews & Okomboli Ong’ong’a, 2004. "Why Punish? Social reciprocity and the enforcement of prosocial norms," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 14(4), pages 407-429, October.
    10. Pierre Courtois & Tarik Tazdaït, 2012. "Learning to trust strangers: an evolutionary perspective," Journal of Evolutionary Economics, Springer, vol. 22(2), pages 367-383, April.
    11. Werner Güth & Hartmut Kliemt & Bezalel Peleg, 2000. "Co‐evolution of Preferences and Information in Simple Games of Trust," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 1(1), pages 83-110, February.
    12. Jeffrey Carpenter & Peter Matthews, 2002. "Social Reciprocity," Middlebury College Working Paper Series 0229, Middlebury College, Department of Economics.
    13. Güth, Werner, 1998. "Do banks crowd in or out business ethics? An indirect evolutionary analysis," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,40, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    14. Matteo Ploner, 2007. "Personal Autonomy in Trust-Based Interactions. An Experimental Analysis," CEEL Working Papers 0701, Cognitive and Experimental Economics Laboratory, Department of Economics, University of Trento, Italia.
    15. Brennan, Geoffrey & Güth, Werner & Kliemt, Hartmut, 1997. "Trust in the shadow of the courts if judges are no better," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1997,44, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    16. Güth, Werner & Ockenfels, Axel, 2005. "The coevolution of morality and legal institutions: an indirect evolutionary approach," Journal of Institutional Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 155-174, December.
    17. Güth, Werner, 1998. "Sequential versus independent commitment: An indirect evolutionary analysis of bargaining rules," SFB 373 Discussion Papers 1998,5, Humboldt University of Berlin, Interdisciplinary Research Project 373: Quantification and Simulation of Economic Processes.
    18. Daniel Friedman & Nirvikar Singh, 2004. "Vengefulness Evolves in Small Groups," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Steffen Huck (ed.), Advances in Understanding Strategic Behaviour, chapter 3, pages 28-54, Palgrave Macmillan.
    19. Martin Dufwenberg & Werner Guth, 2003. "Indirect Evolution Versus Strategic Delegation," Levine's Working Paper Archive 618897000000000789, David K. Levine.
    20. Geoffrey Brennan & Alan Hamlin, 2009. "Bygones are Bygones," Rationality, Markets and Morals, Frankfurt School Verlag, Frankfurt School of Finance & Management, vol. 0(10), November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:eurpls:v:9:y:2001:i:6:p:739-753. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/CEPS20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.