Accounting for the resilience of the machine-tool industry in Spain (c. 1960–2015)

Abstract

This article examines the evolution of the machine-tool industry in Spain between 1960 and 2015, its international competitiveness and its adaptability to the changes that have taken place in this industry worldwide as regards markets, technology and competitors. Drawing on the theoretical literature on the resilience of regions, cities and production systems, the article offers an exploratory analysis of the three main factors that account for the resilience of this industry in Spain: business size, flexibility and production specialisation; absorptive and innovative capacity; and geographical concentration in a region with an ecosystem that is highly supportive of skilled human capital training and innovation.

Keywords:

• Machine-tool industry
• Spain
• Basque Country
• twentieth century
• absorptive capacity
• resilience

Notes

1. The AFM was set up in 1946 and until very recently it represented the vast majority of Spain’s machine-tool manufacturers. In 2011 it took over AMT, the association of component, accessory and tool manufacturers. More recently it has joined with the associations AFMEC (machining), Eskuin (hardware) and Addimat (additive manufacturing technologies) to form the AFM Cluster for Advanced Manufacturing, see http://www.afm.es/es/quienes-somos & http://www.afmcluster.com (last accessed on 9/10/2017).

2. Other sectors in Spain with a similar track are the automotive industry (Catalán, 2017; Ortiz-Villajos, 2010), the electric and electronic equipment industry (Valdaliso, 2010; Valdaliso, Elola, Aranguren, & López, 2011) and the aeronautics industry (Elola et al., 2013b).

3. The only exceptions are Fagor Arrasate and Fagor Automation (which belong to the MCC Group) and Loire (which is a member of the Gestamp Group). In regard to Danobat and Soraluce, see the following note. For the rest, http://www.macarbox.com/es/etxetar-group, http://www.correa.es/es/presentacion/grupo-nicolas-correa/, http://www.mtorres.es/es/mtorres/historia, http://www.biele.com/en/our-company/, http://www.goratu.com/es/ y http://www.tekniker.es/es/patronato/goratu (last accessed on 11/07/2017).

4. Danobat (2004), Barajas (2012) and http://www.danobatgroup.com/es/corporativo/historia.

5. For information on the internationalisation of these firms see Danobat (2004), Ortueta (2008), Barajas (2012), Valdaliso (2010) and the websites of the firms themselves.

6. This is the case, for instance, at Danobat, Soraluce, M. Torres, Ona Electroerosión and the Etxe-Tar Group, Allcock (2005), Barajas (2012), Velasco and Olaskoaga (2005).

7. This information is taken from the websites of the firms themselves and from that of Ikergune, http://www.ikergune.com/#pagina-3 (last accessed on 12/07/2017).

8. Information on R&D and turnover is taken from SPRI (2004), (SPRI, 2009) and (SPRI, 2013).

9. It should be noticed that both regions concentrated until the early 1970s two thirds of the automotive parts and equipment industry, one of the most important markets for machine-tools in Spain in those years, Ortiz-Villajos (2010, pp. 138–41).

10. A total of 5 firms took up the subsidies and a further 5 the restructuring guarantees, and the aid provided added up to €19 million, less than 7% of the total aid given under the Plan. The totals for the 3Rs Plan given here are taken from the sources quoted in Aranguren et al. (2012, p. 199). The figures for the industry are from the Court of Auditors (TVCP) (1995, p. 25). Unlike the PRE, the 3Rs Plan came in for considerable criticism from the TVCP (TVCP, 1995, p. 27) and in specialist publications. See, for example, Aranguren et al. (2012, p. 199).

11. Information on these programmes, including a breakdown by clusters, was obtained from the SPRI portal at http://www.politicaindustrialvasca.net (last accessed on 12/07/2017). Aid under the PTI was not the only aid received by firms, but it accounted for 24% of their spending on R&D between 1993 and 1996; aid from the INTEK programme accounted for 8% of R&D spending by firms from 1997 to 2004 and aid from the SAIOTEK programme accounted for 9% of R&D spending by firms from 2002 to 2004.

12. SPRI (2004), Albizu, Olazaran, Lavía, and Otero (2013), Navarro (2014), and https://www.tkgune.eus/wp-content/uploads/sites/28/2017/02/eskuorria-es_2017.pdf (last accessed on 23/08/2017). For a comparison with other regions, see Olazarán & Brunet (coord.) (2013).

13. Aldabaldetrecu (2000) and http://www.imh.eus/es/conocenos/informacion-corporativa, http://www.afm.es/servicios-afm/personas/formacion and http://www.ehu.eus/manufacturing/ca-noticias-leer.php?IdNoticia=73 (last accessed on 23/08/2017).