IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/65053.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

About Cooperation, Selfishness and Joint Risks in Clusters

Author

Listed:
  • Gedai, Endre
  • Kóczy, László Á.
  • Meier zu Köcker, Gerd
  • Zombori, Zita

Abstract

This study introduces an entirely novel way to study the cooperative and noncooperative nature of clusters by looking at the selfish, profit-seeking interests of the actors within cluster initiatives. The approach provides a game theory inspired framework to study the dilemma of cluster actors between the fruitful cooperation with other actors and their own selfish – and possibly short-term – interests at three levels: intensity focussing on the overall cooperation effort; structure looking at the network of cooperation and balance discussing good ways to allocate resources. Characteristic models of cluster behaviour have been developed for all these aspects. Interviews have been conducted among cluster actors of two cluster initiatives. Both were quite matured and well managed with similar core objectives. The methodology applied has revealed that the nature of cooperation among the actors and how the cluster initiative is managed is of surprisingly different nature although both cluster initiatives provide high added value by the cluster actors perspective. One cluster initiative can be characterised as a “managed cooperation cluster”, where the management has a central role to match actors, while the nature of the other cluster initiative is more “a peer-to-peer cooperation cluster” where cooperation emerges directly between cluster actors and the cluster management has another role. The results of the study lead to conclusions that there is not one ideal way how to manage cluster initiative. Furthermore the cluster actors cannot be seen as a homogenous group. Even if all of them have similar objectives like increased innovation capabilities, higher competitiveness, higher profitability etc. their intension why joining a cluster initiative and the readiness to contribute or just to benefit is very different. The cluster management has to understand what are the particular interests and to what extent a dedicated cluster is ready to contribute. Applying the game theory inspired analytical approach helps to gain important inside views for cluster management. Furthermore the study shows that the way how cluster initiatives are set up and supported by public authorities does have a strong implication on the nature of cooperation and selfishness among the cluster actors. The conclusion from the study is, among others, that high public funding facilitates the creation of cluster initiatives, but also attracts free riders to join since the barriers to enter are quite low. Having such an interest group “on board” within a cluster initiative hampers further trust building and cooperative framework conditions since selfish actors dominate. Low public funding at the beginning of the life of a cluster initiative leads to higher barriers due to higher mandatory investments of cluster participants, but creates a cooperative environment since mainly those actors have joint that are really interested to cooperate and take common risks. However, the study has shown that good cluster managements can deal with different cooperative natures among cluster participants, if they are aware of this and implement proper actions.

Suggested Citation

  • Gedai, Endre & Kóczy, László Á. & Meier zu Köcker, Gerd & Zombori, Zita, 2015. "About Cooperation, Selfishness and Joint Risks in Clusters," MPRA Paper 65053, University Library of Munich, Germany.
  • Handle: RePEc:pra:mprapa:65053
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/65053/1/MPRA_paper_65053.pdf
    File Function: original version
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. P. Herings & Gerard Laan & Dolf Talman, 2005. "The positional power of nodes in digraphs," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 24(3), pages 439-454, June.
    2. Gaspar, Jess & Glaeser, Edward L., 1998. "Information Technology and the Future of Cities," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 136-156, January.
    3. Borm, P.E.M. & Owen, G. & Tijs, S.H., 1992. "On the position value for communication situations," Other publications TiSEM 5a8473e4-1df7-42df-ad53-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    4. Copic Jernej & Jackson Matthew O. & Kirman Alan, 2009. "Identifying Community Structures from Network Data via Maximum Likelihood Methods," The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 9(1), pages 1-40, September.
    5. László Kóczy, 2007. "A recursive core for partition function form games," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 63(1), pages 41-51, August.
    6. Iammarino, Simona & McCann, Philip, 2006. "The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(7), pages 1018-1036, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Maryann Feldman & Frederick Guy & Simona Iammarino, 2021. "Regional income disparities, monopoly and finance," Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 14(1), pages 25-49.
    2. Herings, P. Jean-Jacques & van der Laan, Gerard & Talman, Dolf, 2007. "The socially stable core in structured transferable utility games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 59(1), pages 85-104, April.
    3. René Brink & Gerard Laan & Vitaly Pruzhansky, 2011. "Harsanyi power solutions for graph-restricted games," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 40(1), pages 87-110, February.
    4. Encarnacion Algaba & René van den Brink & Chris Dietz, 2015. "Power Measures and Solutions for Games under Precedence Constraints," Tinbergen Institute Discussion Papers 15-007/II, Tinbergen Institute.
    5. Edward J. Malecki, 2010. "Everywhere? The Geography Of Knowledge," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 50(1), pages 493-513, February.
    6. Gedai, Endre & Kóczy, László Á. & Zombori, Zita, 2012. "Cluster games: A novel, game theory-based approach to better understand incentives and stability in clusters," MPRA Paper 65095, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Alexandre Skoda, 2016. "Convexity of Network Restricted Games Induced by Minimum Partitions," Documents de travail du Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne 16019, Université Panthéon-Sorbonne (Paris 1), Centre d'Economie de la Sorbonne.
    8. Dávid Csercsik & László Á. Kóczy, 2017. "Efficiency and Stability in Electrical Power Transmission Networks: a Partition Function Form Approach," Networks and Spatial Economics, Springer, vol. 17(4), pages 1161-1184, December.
    9. Carl Gaigné & Jacques-François Thisse, 2013. "New Economic Geography and the City," Working Papers SMART 13-02, INRAE UMR SMART.
    10. Melo, Patricia C. & Graham, Daniel J. & Noland, Robert B., 2009. "A meta-analysis of estimates of urban agglomeration economies," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(3), pages 332-342, May.
    11. Andrés Rodríguez-Pose & Fabrice Comptour, 2010. "Do clusters generate greater innovation and growth? An analysis of European regions," Working Papers 2010-15, Instituto Madrileño de Estudios Avanzados (IMDEA) Ciencias Sociales.
    12. repec:rdg:wpaper:em-dp2007-43 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. Zackary B. Hawley & Geoffrey K. Turnbull, 2019. "Social Interaction and Urban Location Decisions," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 59(1), pages 1-26, July.
    14. Sándor Juhász, 2021. "Spinoffs and tie formation in cluster knowledge networks," Small Business Economics, Springer, vol. 56(4), pages 1385-1404, April.
    15. Rajneesh Narula & Grazia D. Santangelo, 2007. "Location and R&D Alliances in the European ICT Industry," DRUID Working Papers 07-05, DRUID, Copenhagen Business School, Department of Industrial Economics and Strategy/Aalborg University, Department of Business Studies.
    16. Keith Head & Yao Amber Li & Asier Minondo, 2019. "Geography, Ties, and Knowledge Flows: Evidence from Citations in Mathematics," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 101(4), pages 713-727, October.
    17. GUILLAIN, Rachel & HURIOT, Jean-Marie, 1999. "How information shapes cities: theory and facts," LATEC - Document de travail - Economie (1991-2003) 1999-05, LATEC, Laboratoire d'Analyse et des Techniques EConomiques, CNRS UMR 5118, Université de Bourgogne.
    18. Ron Martin & Peter Sunley, 2011. "Conceptualizing Cluster Evolution: Beyond the Life Cycle Model?," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 45(10), pages 1299-1318, November.
    19. Sridhar Mandyam & Usha Sridhar, 2017. "DON and Shapley Value for Allocation among Cooperating Agents in a Network: Conditions for Equivalence," Studies in Microeconomics, , vol. 5(2), pages 143-161, December.
    20. Liying Kang & Anna Khmelnitskaya & Erfang Shan & Dolf Talman & Guang Zhang, 2021. "The average tree value for hypergraph games," Mathematical Methods of Operations Research, Springer;Gesellschaft für Operations Research (GOR);Nederlands Genootschap voor Besliskunde (NGB), vol. 94(3), pages 437-460, December.
    21. Ron Boschma & Ron Martin, 2010. "The Aims and Scope of Evolutionary Economic Geography," Chapters, in: Ron Boschma & Ron Martin (ed.), The Handbook of Evolutionary Economic Geography, chapter 1, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    industrial cluster initiative game theory cooperation effort cooperation structure balanced cooperation managed cooperation cluster peer-to-peer cooperation cluster;

    JEL classification:

    • C70 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory - - - General
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • D71 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Social Choice; Clubs; Committees; Associations
    • M19 - Business Administration and Business Economics; Marketing; Accounting; Personnel Economics - - Business Administration - - - Other
    • O32 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Innovation; Research and Development; Technological Change; Intellectual Property Rights - - - Management of Technological Innovation and R&D

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:pra:mprapa:65053. 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: Joachim Winter (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/vfmunde.html .

    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.