產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的結構和發(fā)展交易，技術和知識溢出外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文1978字</b></p><p>　　The structure and evolution of industrial clusters:</p><p>　　Transactions, technology and knowledge spillovers</p><p>　　1. Introductio

2、n</p><p>　　Over recent years, the interrelationships between technology, innovation and industrial location behaviour have come to be seen as essential features of regional development. Much research and pol

3、icy-thinking has been devoted to understanding the factors explaining why particular types of technologies appear to blossom in particular localities, and how this affects local economic growth. Lessons are often drawn f

4、rom observations of particularly successful ‘innovative’ regions as a means of re-mo</p><p>　　It will be argued in this paper that insuf?cient consideration is still devoted to both the nature of innovation

5、processes and the structural conditions under which technical change occurs across space. In order to explain the observed variety of geographical models, it is necessary to take into account the nature of new knowledge

6、in different production sectors. In particular, technological regimes, industrial structures and organisational practices, as well as their dynamics, are often overloo</p><p>　　This paper attempts to classif

7、y industrial clusters on the basis of the existing literature, trying in particular to integrate transactions costs views and innovation and technology perspectives to give account of both the diversity of cluster struct

8、ures and the multiplicity of their evolution paths. In doing so, the following questions are here indirectly addressed. How can we explain the variety and distinctiveness of geographically bounded industrial clusters?Why

9、 particular types of technolog</p><p>　　The paper is structured into 10 sections. In the following sectionwe discuss the various hypotheseswhich exist concerning innovation and geography. In Section 3 we out

10、line the generally-held arguments regarding the relationship between geography and knowledge spillovers, and in Section 4 we present a transactions costs classi?cation of different types of industrial clustering previous

11、ly developed elsewhere, which is explicitly based on the implicit assumptions underlying most of the existing lit</p><p>　　10. Conclusions</p><p>　　In the light of the arguments presented in thi

12、s paper, it becomes clear that all industrial clusters can be characterised in terms of both transactions costs and relations characteristics as described in Table 1, and also in terms of technological regimes and knowle

13、dge characteristics along the lines depicted in Table 2. Our aim, as in all attempts to classify units of analysis by reducing the complexity of the whole population, was to maximise differences among the categories. How

14、ever, as Pavit</p><p>　　From theories of innovation and technical change we know that innovators will tend to emerge in locations where technological opportunities are the highest.When there are conditions o

15、f high opportunity, high appropriability and high cumulativeness, innovators will tend to be geographically concentrated, giving rise to emergent clusters. Nonetheless, whether these types of situations will arise depend

16、 on the nature of knowledge in both the industry and the ?rms. Whereas technical knowledge tends </p><p>　　However, the possible alternative characteristics of clusters presented here indicates that technolo

17、gical and knowledge features alone are not a suf?cient guide to the types of clusters that are likely to emerge, nor are industry characteristics. Rather, as we have seen, knowledge and innovation processes, organisation

18、al, ?rm and industryspeci?c characteristics, and institutional and governance settings, all play a role in explaining the diversity of industrial clusters and also their evolutiona</p><p>　　Once we account f

19、or innovation and knowledge creation processes, it becomes very dif?cult to apply simple stylised cluster constructs, because there is neither a representative Marshallian ?rm nor an illustrative ‘innovative’ cluster. Co

20、-location therefore may or may not offer structures, organisations and institutions which improve the likelihood of local innovation. Understanding this diversity, and in particular both the transactions costs features a

21、nd also the knowledge features of any parti</p><p>　　On this basis, our future research will follow a two-fold path: (1) extend dynamic comparisons among empirical cases, to have feedbacks on the scope and l

22、imitations of our classi?catory attempt; (2) achieve a workable de?nition of the appropriate unit of analysis for assessing knowledge spillovers, and ultimately drawing policy implications.</p><p><b>　

23、　翻譯二：</b></p><p>　　產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的結構和發(fā)展：交易，技術和知識溢出</p><p><b>　　1.引言</b></p><p>　　近年來，技術、創(chuàng)新和工業(yè)區(qū)位行為之間的相互關系已經(jīng)被視為地區(qū)發(fā)展的重要特征。許多人致力于了解為何特定類型的科學技術總是產(chǎn)生于特定區(qū)域，以及其產(chǎn)生是如何作用于當?shù)亟?jīng)濟發(fā)展，展開了很多調(diào)查

24、研究和政策思考?；谔囟ǔ晒Φ摹案母飫?chuàng)新”區(qū)案例的觀察研究的課程，也被作為重建產(chǎn)業(yè)政策和區(qū)域政策的一種方式。</p><p>　　本文將討論，對于自然的創(chuàng)新過程和技術空間變更的產(chǎn)生所需結構條件兩方面的考慮仍然有所欠缺不周全。為了解說我們所觀察的各種地理模型，不同生產(chǎn)部門中新知識的屬性也必須納入考慮范圍。尤其是科技體制，產(chǎn)業(yè)結構和組織實踐以及它們的推動力，這些常常因為簡化和程序化的構想而被忽視。這使得顧問和政府政策

25、決策者希望為這些復雜的問題找到簡單的解決途徑。這其中之一就是用文獻理論促進產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的發(fā)展。</p><p>　　本文試圖在現(xiàn)有文獻研究的基礎上對產(chǎn)業(yè)集群進行分類，尤其致力于將交易成本論和科技創(chuàng)新論兩種不同的集群結構和多樣的發(fā)展途徑整合起來。通過這樣，這里間接地引出以下幾個問題：我們應該如何解釋地域為邊界的產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的多樣性和特殊性？為什么特定種類技術總是趨向于產(chǎn)生于特定區(qū)域呢？為什么不同類型的集群發(fā)展時間不同？&l

26、t;/p><p>　　本文分為10個部分。在以下的部分我們將討論創(chuàng)新和地域方面不同的假設。在第三部分，我們將大致描述被廣泛提出的地理位置和知識溢出之間關系問題的主要爭論。在第四部分，我們將列出其他研究提出的按照交易成本對不同類型的產(chǎn)業(yè)集群進行分類。這里明顯地是以其他現(xiàn)存的大多文獻關于集群和集聚現(xiàn)象的假設為基礎。這種分類方式全面充分考慮了集群的屬性和組織邏輯。在這個基礎上，本文第五部分通過對預期外的知識外流的考慮，來限

27、制集群的所假設出的好處。第六部分之后則解釋交易成本論關于集群演變進程的分析，同時第七部分介紹的是創(chuàng)新變革觀關于技術和機構變化的觀點。這個觀點被應用于第八部分以擴展第四部分所提出的按照交易成本分類的方法，為了將產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的可能發(fā)展途徑的多樣性和差異性納入考慮。第九部分選取了很多實證例子來表明交易成本和知識外衣兩者對于集群發(fā)展模式的闡述的重要性。第十部分則簡要總結出幾點結論。</p><p><b>　　結論

28、</b></p><p>　　隨著本文展示的各種爭論觀點的指引，所有的產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的分類變得很明確了，可以根據(jù)表一描述的交易成本和雙方聯(lián)系特點來劃分，也可以根據(jù)表二所描述的幾點技術體制和知識特征來劃分。如同所有進行單位分析分類的人試圖降低總體的復雜性一樣，我們的目標是將各類別間的差異放到最大。然而，如帕維特自己說自己的分類法，最大的缺陷在于我們的嘗試中“每種類別本身仍存在很大的差異性”（帕維特，2000,

29、）。這用在這里再合適不過了。然而，帕維特的研究途徑是歸納性的，并且是以具體對個別單位的分析，比如說公司的實證研究為基礎（阿爾基布吉，2001）。而我們的研究主要是推導性的，基于地理革新流派的不同文獻研究。同時試圖對集群之類的復合單位進行分類。</p><p>　　從科技革新論我們知道，革新者更偏好于產(chǎn)生于技術進步機會比較多的區(qū)域。當具備好機遇，高占有性以及不錯的可累積性三個條件時，革新者則會傾向于注重地域方面因素

30、，這會促進集群的產(chǎn)生。雖然如此，這些情形的產(chǎn)生還是要看產(chǎn)業(yè)和公司本身的知識屬性。雖然科學知識大多傾于心照不宣的，復雜的和系統(tǒng)的，但這里交易成本和知識為基礎的爭論表明，在一定環(huán)境下，公司地域集群的情況中私人合同和交換信息能促進這些知識的交換。相反，當產(chǎn)業(yè)基礎很薄弱，法律完善并且機遇很少，可占有性和可累積性也很低時，對地理上的關注則遠不如前面重要了。</p><p>　　然而，本文舉出了兩種集群可能的特征，說明單獨技

31、術和知識這一個因素是不足以作為集群產(chǎn)生的可能性分類的指導的，產(chǎn)業(yè)特征也一樣。另外如我們所見，知識和創(chuàng)新進程，組織的、公司的和產(chǎn)業(yè)的特殊特征以及協(xié)會和政府設施，所有的這些都在闡述產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的多樣性和發(fā)展歷程有一定作用。實際上，任何一個公司（尤其是那些規(guī)模大的跨國公司）都會沿著不知一條的技術軌跡發(fā)展的（帕維特等，1989）。在任何給定的時間點上，集群都能很好的并不排他地參與到當時流行的發(fā)展軌跡中。因此，基于了流程的分類方式能夠幫助闡述多樣化發(fā)

32、展軌跡和變革模式，比如說本文展示的那些例子。</p><p>　　一旦當我們想要解釋創(chuàng)新和知識的產(chǎn)生過程時，要應用簡單的程序化的集群結構變得很困難，因為并不存在典型的馬歇爾公司和圖表中的“創(chuàng)新”集群。因此，協(xié)同定位可能可以也可能不可以為組織，為機構，為協(xié)會提供提高地方創(chuàng)新能力的可能性。理解這個多樣性，尤其是想要制定政策措施以找到特定的地區(qū)問題或產(chǎn)業(yè)問題的實際解決方案時，一定要強調(diào)將這一集群的交易成本特征和知識特征