Proximities and Logics Underlying Cluster Dynamics: The Case of the Ornamental Horticulture Cluster in Maine-et-Loire

Abstract

While the issue of cluster dynamics has been poorly addressed in the literature, they actually display different levels of adaptability to change and different levels of collaboration. This contribution aims to address this theoretical issue through recourse to the literature on proximity. We analyse the modalities of coordination of organizations within clusters for the creation of localized specific assets. This paper develops the idea that cluster dynamics are governed by two relational logics: a professional and a historic. We show that those logics, each having positive and negative impacts on cluster dynamics, give rise to different ways of mobilizing categories of proximity as well as different ways of articulating them. Our case study shows that a major issue for clusters consists in combining both logics for building enduring competitive assets while staying able to adapt to changing competitive conditions.

Keywords:

• Proximity
• cluster
• coordination
• professional logic
• historic logic

Acknowledgements

This research is part of the CLAP (Compétitivité Localisation Action Publique) project from the PSDR (Pour et Sur le Développement Régional) regional research programme, funded by INRA (Institut National de la Recherche Agronomique), CEMAGREF (Institut de Recherche pour l'Ingénierie de l'Agriculture et de l'Environnement) and the French regions Basse-Normandie, Bretagne, Pays-de-la-Loire and Poitou-Charentes. We also wish to thank the guest editors of the special issue and the three reviewers for their helpful comments.

Notes

¹ Boschma (2005) also introduced cultural proximity, defined as the existence of similarities in the patterns of thought, feelings, behaviours and symbols: overlaps with the definition of institutional proximity are large enough to consider that both follow similar dynamics.

² In addition, the literature adds technological proximity to this typology. By and large, it corresponds to cognitive proximity except that technological proximity refers to the extent to which entities can learn from each other while the former refers to the extent to which they can communicate efficiently (Knoben and Oerlemans, 2006).

³ According to Lorenzen (2007: 801), social capital, as corresponding to the existence of “social relations among agents combined with social institutions”, accounts for this combination of social proximity and some aspects of institutional proximity. For his part, Staber (2008) describes the role played by networks in the circulation of ideas, thus increasing cognitive proximity.

⁴ However, trust goes beyond a combination of institutions, routines and interactions since it also implies a “leap of faith”, that is, a bet of the trustor, that is not rooted on facts, that the trustee will act in a benevolent way (Möllering, 2006).

⁵ Managers are those belonging to the firms sampled which returned the postal survey (Table 2).