在全球价值链的地方产业集群：探索德国和巴基斯坦之间的动态联系【外文翻译】

1、本科毕业论文外文译外文题目： Local clusters in global value chains: exploring dynamic linkages between Germany and Pakistan出 处： Entrepreneurship & Regional Development作 者： Khalid Nadvi and Gerhard HalderAbstract Recent researchhas under lined the importance of external linkages for industrial clusters. Suppli

2、ers and buyers within a global value chain offer important external ties for cluster based producers not only in terms of the distribution of physical goods, but also for knowledge flows and innovation. Globalization has intensified such value chain links, connecting geographically dispersed produce

3、rs to global markets. Yet, there is limited research on how local clusters enter global chains or on ties between clusters in the developed and developing world. This study addressesthis gap. It uses the case of the global surgical instrument industry to analyze connections and differences between t

4、he industry 'leading production clusters in Germany and Pakistan. Global standards, low-cost competition, and advances in medical technology raise challenges for both clusters. The paper explores the responses to these challenges. It distinguishes between knowledge and production links to illust

5、rate differentiation in each cluster, diverging trajectories and continuing ties.Keywords industrial clusters global value chains networks innovation developing countriesIntroductionSince the 1990s, many studies have shown that competitiveness can be enhanced in geographically concentrated and secto

6、r-specialized industrial clusters or districts (Brusco 1990, Krugman 1991, Schmitz 1995, Markusen 1996, Scott 1996, Porter 1998, Gordon and McCann 2000). The allure of the cluster approach lies in its promise for small-scale industry and the importance it attaches to local linkages. It shows that, w

7、ith economies of agglomeration and local joint action, small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs) can compete alongside large firms and in global markets. Cluster-specific external economies include the presence of skilled labor, specialist suppliers, and knowledge spillovers. Economies of scale and

8、scope emerge when firms concentrate on particular processes and produce complex goods by interacting with each other. High levels of organizational flexibility within small firms lead to further cost advantages. Finally, local joint action, between firms and through local institutions can enhance th

9、e capacity of small firms and raise a cluster ' s competitiveness.Observing that local clusters have global connections is not new. Amin and Thrift (1992) have long argued that clusters are' nodes' within glcHbawevworks.studies on inter-cluster ties are rare (exceptions include Scott 199

10、4, Rabellotti 1997, Meyer - Stamer et al. 2004). Moreover, understanding the role of such external links on processes of local upgrading within clusters is especially weak. We focus on these gaps. The global surgical instruments industry provides us with an exemplary case study in that two quite dis

11、tinct but closely related clusters, one in Sialkot, Pakistan and the other in Tuttlingen, Germany play a major role in the industry. In terms of innovation and quality the two clusters mark the lower and higher ends of the global industry, but, in terms of production, they are closely linked.Using p

12、rimary and secondary evidence from both clusters we study how the two clusters work as specific, but inter-connected, nodes.1In order to obtain a dynamic perspective on these nodes, we distinguish between the analysis of production systems, which encompass the production of goods to desired specific

13、ations, and that of knowledge systems, that generate and manage changes in the production process or the organization of production (Bell and Albu 1999). This distinction between knowledge flows and production flows provides an important organizing principle to the paper and is central in explaining

14、 the nature of linkages between the two clusters and their dynamic responses to the common global challenges that they currently face. These challenges include meeting higher global quality standards, facing greater low-cost competition, and reacting to new developments in health care delivery and m

15、edical technology. We study the responses of the two clusters to these challenges, and the implications for the relationships between them as well as for their growth dynamics. The next section considers the importance of external knowledge flows, especially through global value chains, to cluster u

16、pgrading. Section 3 provides an overview of the global surgical instruments sector, outlining the two clusters and their main connections. Section 4 reports on upgrading responses in each cluster in the face of common challenges. Section 5 focuses on the material and knowledge flows across the two c

17、lusters that influence such upgrading. The paper concludes by considering the future trajectories for Tuttlingen and Sialkot.Clusters, value chains and upgradingMuch of the recent conceptual discussion on clusters has focused on the process of knowledge generation and dissemination (Bathelt et al. 2

18、004). Malmberg and Maskell (2002: 442) argue that at the horizontal and vertical dimensions of cluster relationships, distinct mechanisms work to enhance learning dynamics. Thus, strong inter-firm rivalry at the horizontal level alongside more trust-based relations at the vertical level can work tog

19、ether to promote learning. This may be further facilitated through an institutional dimension of a cluster. It is widely acknowledged that a strength of clusters reside in the rapid use, replication and circulation of knowledge within the cluster ' s boundaries (Nadvi 1999a). Technological simil

20、arities of firms and social coherence of personal actors can promote such patterns of learning (Bathelt et al. 2004). However, the circulation, absorption and modification of already existing knowledge within the cluster rarely alter the stock of knowledge in more than an incremental way (Humphrey a

21、nd Schmitz 2000). In fact, a concentration on internal mechanisms and a 'regionag aze'that fails to look beyond the boundaries of the cluster are elements of recent critiques of previous work on industrial clustering (Lagendijk 2002).Radical upgrading, be it technological, processual or func

22、tional in nature, often requires a combination of external and internal knowledge (Bell and Albu 1999, Bathelt et al. 2004). It is argued, that even world-class clusters need external ideas and inspiration to retain their dynamism, and cannot rely on their own expertise to bring about sustained tech

23、nological developments. Thus, the long-term success of a cluster is tied to the ability of clustered firms to build channels to external partners providing complementary and new knowledge.This emphasis on external and internal linkages in understanding cluster dynamics requires a conceptual framewor

24、k to analyze local and global ties. The value chain approach provides a useful model (Gereffi 1994). It shows how the distinct functions involved in turning a raw material into a final product can be mapped onto the complex inter-relations that exist between local suppliers and their global buyers.

25、The approach emphasizesthe role of governance, or conscious co-ordination, of distinct activities within the chain. This highlights the significance of power in the chain (Gereffi et al. 2002, Bathelt and Taylor 2004). The influence of actors in the chain can vary, affecting their ability to determi

26、ne the parameters of production -including what is produced, how, when, and at what price (Humphrey and Schmitz 2002). Coordinating inter-firm relationships can involve network arrangements between relatively equal partners who share complementary skills and abilities; quasi-hierarchical ties in whi

27、ch one actor has disproportionately more power over other independent actors; or hierarchical vertical integration (Humphrey and Schmitz 2002). These distinct forms of chain governance explain how a chain is structured, and where and how value is added and appropriated. Chain governance also impact

28、on the scope for local actors to promote upgrading and growth.These studies highlight the significance of external links to cluster dynamics. They point to the differing ways in which global chain ties can effect local cluster upgrading. However, they do not address the role of inter-cluster ties, n

29、or how production and knowledge flows between clusters influence cluster dynamics.The global surgical instruments industry and local clusters Historically, hand-held steel surgical instruments were manufactured in regions known for traditional artisanal metalworking. The distinct production tasks pr

30、omoted a division of labor whereby small firms flourished and local clusters emerged. Thus, in the early twentieth century, clusters of surgical instrument production were found in Sheffield (UK), Nogent-sur-Marne (France), and Solingen and Tuttlingen (Germany). With the exception of Tuttlingen, non

31、e of these locations survive as significant centres for surgical instrument manufacture today. Instead, the last quarter of the twentieth century has seen a number of new actors, such as Pakistan, Malaysia, Poland and Hungary, emerge as important producers of traditional surgical instruments.In sum,

32、 there are three important distinctions to note in the nature of global value chain ties between Tuttlingen and Penang on the one hand, and Sialkot on the other. First, the range of producers and traders who have either direct or indirect ties to Sialkot is large. It includes large firms as well as

33、small producers unable to compete against Sialkot. In contrast, ties with Malaysia are restricted to two of Tuttlingen ' s biggest firms. Second, Pakistani capital has established a trading foothold in Tuttlingen. Third, these patterns suggest very different forms of governance relations. Wherea

34、s ties between Tuttlingen and Penang are hierarchical, those between Sialkot producers and Tuttlingen buyers range from arms-length to quasi-hierarchical.Upgrading in the Sialkot and Tuttlingen clustersThe global surgical instruments industry faces three distinct challenges: reduce costs, adopt glob

35、al standards,and develop new products. These call for distinct forms of process, product and functional upgrading, leading to a repositioning of firms, and clusters, within global value chains. As Humphrey and Schmitz (2002) argue, the potential for upgrading is influenced by governance within the l

36、ocal cluster and the global value chain. The subsequent discussion, structured around the three challenges, unravels patterns of upgrading in Sialkot and Tuttlingen and considers how this is associatedto internal linkages within the cluster and external ties within the value chain.As we have seen, T

37、uttlingen large firms tend to concentrate on endoscopesand implants, leaving production of minimal invasive instruments to the medium and small firm sector. This differentiation points to the distinct knowledge requirements of these product groups, and to knowledge flows within the cluster. The Sial

38、kot cluster, however, lacking either the technical capabilities to manufacture the new products or accessend-users, has been unable to respond to this challenge. As the next section shows, this points to key differences in production and knowledge flows between the two clusters.ConclusionThis study

39、takes the literature forward in some significant ways. First, we provide comparative evidence on clusters engaged in the same sector from the developed and developing world, outlining their differences and similarities. Second, while Amin and Thrift (1992) point to clusters as nodes in global networ

40、ks, we provide empirical evidence on how such nodes are linked. In differentiating between these nodes, we show how the developing country cluster concentrateson mature products whereas the developed country cluster is focused on the development and production of new products. While the two clusters

41、 used to compete with each other in many product lines, the relationship has become more complementary as the range of products made by each cluster diverges. More than that, the two clusters have developed close ties with each other. Improvements in product quality and production capabilities have

42、shifted relations from job processing to original equipment manufacture. This helped firms in the Sialkot cluster to export independently to quality-driven global markets. Tuttlingen' s producers played a key part in channelling technicaadvice, equipment and know-how to Sialkoti partners. At the

43、 same time, the price and quality competitiveness of the Sialkot cluster led to many Tuttlingen producers moving away from production to trading activities, and to sourcing more heavily from Sialkot. Finally, there are signs that Pakistani capital has established an important presence within the Tut

44、tlingen cluster as key traders. Since the Tuttlingen cluster marks the organizational hub of large parts of the production as well as of the distribution and the knowledge system in the sector, structural features have clear implications regarding upgrading and industrial policy. While the productio

45、n capacity of the Sialkot cluster constantly evolves, partly due to knowledge flows from Tuttlingen, there is no indication that the division of labor between the clusters changes. This is an outcome of the quasi-hierarchical chains between firms in both clusters. Thus, as Humphrey and Schmitz (2000

46、: 23) suggest, knowledge flows remain at the sphere of production and avoid functional upgrading. Hence, by showing the linkages between the clusters, we outline their competitive edge as well as their constraints.Thus, external and internal linkages both matter for understanding the competitive str

47、engths and weaknesses of the two clusters, and they matter for the design of local and regional industrial policy. Such policy cannot just focus on the cluster as an entity in isolation, it needs to recognize the critical importance of linkages to the othercluster. That other cluster, which used to

48、be a rival, can now become a strategic partner. Moreover, linkages external to both clusters, yet internal to the value chain, are likely to gain prominence in the future development of the two clusters, and in defining their competitiveness strategie.s译文：在全球价值链的地方产业集群：探索德国和巴基斯坦 之间的动态联系Khalid Nadvi

49、and Gerhard Halder【摘 要】最近的研究强调了产业集群的外部联系的重要性.供给商和买家不仅在实物商品的分配方面,而且对知识流动和创新在全球价值链提供了重要的外 部关系.全球化增强了这样的价值链环节,连接地理上分散的生产者与全球市场. 然而,还有本地集群是如何进入全球链或在兴旺国家之间和开展中国家关系的有 限群的研究.本研究解决了这一差距.它使用全球外科手术器械行业的案例分析 和行业之间的联系在德国和巴基斯坦领先的生产集群的差异.全球标准,低本钱的竞争,以及医疗技术的进步提升两个群集的挑战.本文探讨了应对这些挑战. 它区分来说明在每个集群的分化,分歧的轨迹和持续的知识和生产关系之

50、间的联 系.【关键词】产业集群 全球价值链网络 创新 开展的国家简介90年代以来,许多研究说明,在地理上集中可以增强部门或地区专业化产 业集群竞争力1990, Brusco； 1991,克鲁格曼；1995年,施密茨；1996年, 马库森；1996年,斯科特；1998年,波特；2000年,戈登和麦肯.集群的魅 力在于它的方法,重视小规模工业和本地的联系. 这结果说明,与产业集聚与地 方联合行动,中小型经济体中小型企业可以和大中型企业在全球市场一起竞 争.特定于集群的外部经济,包括熟练的劳动力,专家,供给商和知识溢出.当 公司集中在特定的工艺和复杂的生产相互作用商品时,其经济规模和范围开始出 现.

51、组织高水平的灵活性使小企业进一步的表达本钱优势.最后,地方的联合行动,并通过公司之间地方机构可以提升小企业的水平,同时提升集群的竞争力.觉察到本地集群具有全球连接是不是新的,Amin and Thrift (1992年)一直认为集群是全球网络的“节点.然而,在集群间的关系研究很少(例外情况包 括斯科特1994年,Rabellotti 1997年,迈耶-Stamer等.2004年).止匕外,了解 这些外部链接上集群内的本地升级的进程的作用尤其薄弱,而本文专注的在于这些差距.全球汽车行业提供手术器械研究我们的一个范例.锡亚尔科特,巴基斯坦和一些在其他图特林根,这两个截然不同但密切相关的集群里, 德

52、国在业界扮 演主要的角色.在全球较低和较高的完行业中,这是创新和质量为标志的两个集 群,但在生产方面,他们有着密切的联系.使用两个集群小型和中型证据,我们研究如何将两个组的工作具体化同时又 相互连接,为了获得一个动态数据,从这些节点上的角度来看,我们区分了生产 系统的分析,其中包括对所需规格的商品生产和知识系统的产生和治理,在生产工艺变化或组织生产(贝尔和 Albu 1999年).这种流动和生产的流动知识之间 的区别提供了重要的组织原那么,解释了两个集群之间的联系和本质的集中及他们 的共同当前面临的全球性挑战的动力响应.这些挑战包括满足更高的全球质量标准,面临着更大的本钱低竞争,对于新开展趋势

53、的反响和医疗卫生保健效劳技术. 我们学习这些挑战的两个集群的反响,以及它们之间的影响,以及为他们的成长 动力的关系.下面一局部认为外部知识流动的重要性,特别是通过全球价值链, 以集群的升级.第三局部定概述全球机构手术器械,概述了两个组,其主要连接. 第四局部在每个集群在提升中面临的回应共同的挑战.第五局部中在物质上和知识的流动两个集群升级的影响等.文章最后考虑对图特林根和锡亚尔科特未来的 轨迹.集群,价值链与升级最近集群概念大局部讨论集中在过程知识的产生和传播(Bathelt等2004年).Malmberg和马斯克尔(2002: 442)认为,在集群的水平和垂直尺寸关系, 不同的机制工作,增强

54、学习动力.因此,企业间竞争的同时更在信任为根底的关 系,在横向水平垂直水平可以携手合作,促进学习.这可能是进一步推动通过集群的体制的方面.人们普遍成认,处在实力的快速提升的集群,便于在集群中模 仿和知识的流通( 1999, Nadvi).促进对公司的技术相似性和个人演员社会协调 能学习( 2004, Bathelt).然而,流通,吸收和改造现有集群内的知识很少改变 知识存量增量方式(2000, Humphrey和Schmitz).事实上,在集中的内部机制 不能超越集群产业以前的工作内容的界限(2002, Lagendijk).激进的升级,无论是技术,过程主义或功能性的,常常需要大量的外部和内

55、部知识 1999年贝尔和Albu结合,Bathelt等.2004年.有人认为,即使是世 界级的集群需要外部的想法和灵感保存其活力,而不能依靠自己的专业知识实现持续的技术开展.因此,一个长期成功集群是联系在一起的集群企业水平建设的 渠道,外部合作伙伴提供补充和新知识.这种动态的重点是了解群集外部和内部 联系.对了解集群动态外部和内部联系,需要一个概念框架,以分析当地和全球的 联系.价值链方法提供了一个有用的模式1994, Gereffi.它显示了不同的职 能在成为最终产品的原材料所涉及可以映射到复杂的相互关系,以及他们之间的本地供给商和全球买家存在.该方法强调治理的作用,或有意识的协调,对内链 不同的活动.这突出说明了权力的意义链2002年,Gereffi; 2004, Bathelt和 泰勒.在成员的影响链可以有所不同,影响了他们的决定生产的水平,人工智 能的参数包括生产什么,何时以及以什么价格2002年,Humphrey和Schmitz. 协调企业之间的关系可以涉及网络安排相对平等的伙伴之间分享互补的技能和 水平；准层次关系,其中一个成员有