Paper to be presented at the DRUID 2012

on
June 19 to June 21
at
CBS, Copenhagen, Denmark,

The birth and the rise of the cluster concept

Silvia Rita Sedita
University of Padova
Department of Economics and Management
silvia.sedita@unipd.it
Luciana Lazzeretti
University of Firenze
Department of Management
luciana.lazzeretti@unifi.it
Annalisa Caloffi
University of Padova
Department of Economics and Management
annalisa.caloffi@unipd.it

Abstract
Why has the cluster concept proved so successful in this millennium? Which are the authors, the scientific areas, and
journals that have helped to enliven the debate in this era? With this work, we have aimed to answer these research
questions by adopting an evolutionary approach. By means of a bibliometric analysis based on descriptive statistics and
social network analysis tools, we have identified the founders and the main disseminators of the cluster concept across
time. The point of departure is an original database, created by the authors, consisting of 1586 academic articles about
industrial clusters that have been published from 1989 to 2010 in international scientific journals (source: ISI Web of
Science). Our claim is that the Porterian contribution on clusters opens up a global debate over a concept that was ?in
the air? many years before. The cluster concept is rooted in the Marshallian tradition, and is strongly related to the

Italian and European literature, which is more familiar with the narrower concept of the industrial district. By relaxing
some of the specific features that characterized the industrial district model, a more inclusive concept is promoted,
which, in a prey-predator relationship, assimilates previous contributions. By now, the cluster concept has gained
international recognition and been constantly sustained by a theoretical discussion that encompasses a variety of
disciplines and approaches. Our evidence shows that this success can be attributed basically to the liquid properties we
have identified: multi-disciplinary and cross-disciplinary qualities and global dimension.

Jelcodes:R00,-

1. Introduction
Borninthestrategicmanagementliterature,theconceptofclustershasspannedovertimethroughawide
range of disciplines, changing, adapting, and gaining theoretical power by finding application to different
fields(Porter,1990,1998).Today,severaldefinitionsofclusterscoexistaswellasseveralapplications to
differentsocioeconomiccontexts,eachoneofthemstressingoneormoreoftheparticularfeaturesofthe
cluster.Therefore,wecanconsidertheclusterconceptasapuzzlemadeofdifferentpieceseitheroriginally
elaboratedbytheclusterliteratureorborrowedfromotherfieldsofstudy.Inparticular,twoconceptshave
beenduelingforalongtime:theclusterandtheindustrialdistrict(henceforth,ID).Thelatterstemsfrom
the economics literature; its modern history dates to the rediscovery and reinterpretation of the
MarshalliancontributionmadebyBecattini(1979).InhisanalysisoftheevolutionoftheBritishindustry,
Marshall (1920) identifies the triad ofexternal economies (labor market pooling, technological spillovers,
and intermediate goods supply and demand linkages), which tends to lead to the local clustering of
economicactivity.TheworksofBecattiniwentbeyondMarshallseconomicanalysis,stressingtheneedfor
an interdisciplinary approach. A large number of geographers, economic geographers, and scholars in
regionalsciencefurthercontributedtorefiningtheconcept.Aparallelstreamofresearch,whichfocuseson
theexplanationofagglomerationsandtheirimpactoneconomicperformance,islinkedtotheworkofPaul
Krugman(1991)andoftheexponentsoftheNewEconomicGeography(NEG).
The literature on clusters has a lot in common with that on IDs. As stressed by Feser and Bergman
(2000),PorterandKetels(2009),andKetels(2011),bothconceptsbringtheanalysisoflocationintothatof
firms competitiveness and they share the same focus on the impact of agglomeration on economic
performance. Some contributions, mainly from management scholars, use the term ID or cluster
indifferently (among the others: Schmitz, 1995; Tallman et al., 2004; Bell, 2005), some others, more
precisely,identifytheIDasaparticularkindofamoregeneralcategoryofclusters(Belussi,2006;Bellandi,
2007;PorterandKetels,2009).
The cluster concept has become an increasingly popular topic for researchers and policy makers
operating at different levels. Nevertheless, some authors have strongly criticized the cluster concept,
characterizing it as fuzzy and chaotic (Martin and Sunley, 2003) because of the absence of a unique
definition and the problems related to its measurability (see also Malmberg and Maskell, 2002).1 Foss
(2011:100)criticizesthePorterianapproach;heaccusesPorterofapplyingawrongformofeclecticism,of
proposinglooseframeworks.Inourperspective,thesocalledfuzziness,aswellasthechaoticnatureof
the cluster concept is at the very root of its evolutionary nature. The concept, in fact, has spanned over
time through a wide range of disciplines, changing, adapting, and gaining theoretical power by finding
applicationtodifferentfields(fromeconomicstomanagementandorganizationstudies,fromsociologyto
economicgeographyandregionalstudies,fromurbanplanningtoinnovationstudies).Wethereforestress
theideathattheadaptationcapabilityoftheclusterconcepthastransformedapotentialweaknessintoan
opportunity.Certainly,someoftheclusterfeaturesareilldefined,butwehavetoacknowledgethat the
cluster paradigm is successful, because it has been able to cross the bridge from the solid to the liquid
modernity (Bauman, 2000).2 The concept of liquid modernity was first proposed by the Polish sociologist
ZygmuntBauman,asamoreapttermthanpostmodernity(Harvey,1989)formakingsenseofchangesas
well as continuities in modernity, mainly driven by globalization. We draw from his works by suggesting

Nevertheless, some authors have successfully applied some techniques to measure the variety of interfirm
relationships within a cluster; see for instance the social network analysis to map knowledge flows performed by
McEvilyandZaheer(1999),andGiulianiandBell(2005).

that some cluster features (multidisciplinary, crossdisciplinary, and global dimension) that we identified
makeitliquidandabletofacethemajorchangeofourmodernity,whichmoresolidconcepts,suchas
Marshallian IDs and innovative milieux, failed to capture (see also Cooke, 1990; Lazzeretti, 2006, 2007).
Therefore, the main features to be checked about the concept will be the multidisciplinary, the cross
disciplinary, and the global dimension, which allow the generation and diffusion of new ideas inside and
acrossdiverseareas,astaughtusbythelessononthetrespassingboundariesgivenbyHirshmann(1981).
By multidisciplinary, we refer to the fact that the cluster concept has been studied by scientists
belongingtodifferentdisciplines,suchaseconomicgeographyandneweconomicgeography,management
and innovation studies, and economic sociology. By crossdisciplinary, we refer to the contamination
between the various disciplines, which borrowed theoretical frameworks and analytical tools from one
another,enrichingthenotionofclustersinacoevolutionaryandtrespassingprocess.Byglobaldimension,
werefertothegeographicalextensionoftheconcept,whichcanbecapturedfromtheacademicaffiliation
oftheauthorsthathavepublishedonthetopic.
Thereisasubstantiallackofempiricalsupportinascertainingtheevolutionoftheconceptofclusters,
which is often depicted through qualitative methods. The purpose of this paper is to review cluster
researchanditsevolutionbyconsideringtheworksofthemostprominentresearchersinthefieldoveran
extendedperiodoftimeusingbibliometricmethods.
Weaddtopreviousworkontheissuebyproposinganinterpretativekeytothesuccessofthecluster
concept,andbystronglysupportingourargumentsbymeansofquantitativetechniques. Thesemethods
tendtominimizethesubjectivityoftheanalysisandtoproducemorereliableresults,ifcomparedtoother
morequalitativetechniques.Ourworkoffersanoriginalandrobustoverviewoftheclusterconcept.The
theoreticaldiscussionisempiricallysupportedbyabibliographicanalysisbasedonstatisticalanalysisand
socialnetworktools.Thepointofdepartureisanoriginaldatabase,createdbytheauthors,consistingof
1586 academic articles about clusters or IDs that were published from 1989 to 2010 in international
scientificjournals(source:ISIWebofScience).
Wefirstidentifiedthedisseminatorsoftheclusterconcept,selectingthemostcitedarticles;second,we
performed a backward citation analysis, in order to get information on the roots of the concept (the
founders).CruzandTeixeira(2010)embarkedonasimilarexercise,but,insearchoftheseminalworkson
thetopic(thefounders),theylimitedtheanalysistocontributionsmostcitedbyarticlespublishedonlyin
onejournal(RegionalStudies)onindustrialclusters(from1962to2007),andmoreimportantly,theydid
not try to give a specific theoretical explanation for the success and the evolutionary trajectories of the
clusterconcept.
The results of our work shed light on the cluster concept contextualized into liquid modernity. The
concept is evolutionary in nature; it emerges in the realm of the economics of agglomeration and local
competitive advantage studies and spans over and fertilizes through a variety of social and economic
sciences.
Thepaperisstructuredasfollows.Section2illustratesthetheoreticalbaseofthework,whichexplains
whytheclusterconceptcanbelabeledasliquidandpresentsourresearchquestions.Section3describes
ourresearchdesignandthemethodofdatacollection.Section4presentssomedescriptivestatisticsonthe
disseminators of the cluster concept. Section 5 illustrates the results of the backward citation analysis,
reportingonthefoundersoftheclusterconcept.Finally,Section6incorporatesourconclusiveremarks.

3.Dataandmethodology
OurdatacomefromtheISIThomsonReutersWebofSciencedatabase(henceforth,ISI).Thechoiceof
ISIasthereferringdatabaseismotivatedbyitswidespreadinternationaluseforratingtheresearchoutput

of scientists in every discipline. Our database includes a set of articles3 collected by ISI that have been
publishedfrom19894to2010ininternationalscientificjournals.Wehaveidentifiedthearticlespivotingon
the topic of industrial clusters or IDs, performing an advanced search on a specific subset of subject
categories included in the ISI database (i.e., economics, planning and development, geography,
management,environmentalstudiesandbusinessandurbanstudies).5Concerningtheboundariesofthe
disciplines,wedelimitedthetopicbysearchingarticlesontheindustrialdistrict*ORcluster*(astopicin
ISI).Inourview,aspreviouslydiscussedintheintroduction,theclusterandtheIDconceptareinterwoven.
ThecontributionsofferedbyMcEvilyandZaheer(1999)andPorterandKetels(2009),whichdescribeIDsas
a special form of clusters, strongly support our choice. In order to decide whether or not to include an
articleinthesample,weadoptedthecriterionofreadingtheabstractofeacharticle,and,ifthiswasnot
sufficient,thewholearticle.Bydoingso,weexcludedallthearticlesthatfocusedonlyonclusteranalysis
asastatisticalprocedure,clustersasagenericgroupofobjects,clustersofpopulationinurbaneconomics
andthedistrictasanadministrativeunit.
Anystudybasedoncitationsmuststartfromasetofsourceauthorsordocumentsthatmakeupthe
coreofthedisciplineorapproachbeinganalyzed(Callon,Courtial,andPenan,1993),fromwhichcitation
analysisisobtained. Theselectionofthosesourcedocumentsisacriticalstageintheprocess.The usual
criteriontoestablishthecoreisrelevance(mostcitedworksinthefield).Citationanalysisisbasedonthe
premisethatauthorsciteworkstheyconsidertobeimportanttothedevelopmentoftheirresearch.Asa
result,heavilycitedarticlesaremorelikelytohaveexertedagreaterinfluenceonthesubjectthanthose
lessfrequentlycited.Inordertoavoidthedrawbackoffavoringtheolderdocumentstothedetrimentof
more recent ones, which might have had a greater impact on theory, we selected as a criterion not the
mostcited,inabsoluteterms,buttheaveragemostcitedperyear.Inthisway,theanalysiscapturesalso
themostrecenttrendsinthetheory.
Insteadofusingarticlespublishedinaspecificjournal,asisoftenthecaseinexistingliteraturereviews
(see,forinstance,CruzandTeixeira,2010),wedecidedtogrouparticlesbysubjectcategories.Thistakes
intoaccountthemultidisciplinarynatureoftheconceptandallowstheproductionofamoreobjectiveview
of the cluster research. There is, however, some bias involved in our choices. Some articles on clusters
mighthavebeenpublishedwithinothersubjectcategoriesthat,nevertheless,wouldrepresentaminority.
We are, however, reasonably confident that the articles analyzed are a representative sample of cluster
research.
Following this procedure, we collected a set of 1586 journal articles that have been published in 250
international journals. From this database, we have selected a relatively small group of 46 mostcited
articles, which have collected more than ten citations on average (by year).6 The 46 mostcited articles
represent the disseminators of the cluster concept. They are recognized as the most significant
contributionsonthetopicbythescientificcommunity7.

Wealsosearchedforproceedings,becauseinISIthearticlesthathavealsobeenpublishedasproceedingshavebeen
recordedasbelongingtoboththecategories.Includingasaselectioncriteriononlythearticles,wewouldhavekept
allofthemoutofthesample.
4
1989isthefirstyearofdataavailableintheISIdatabase.
5
Thesecategorieswereselectedonthebasisofthemainfieldofanalysisandapplicationoftheclusterconcept,in
accordancealsowiththecontributionofMaggioni,Uberti,andGambarotto(2009).
6
CitationsdataareupdatedtoNovember2011.
7
ItisworthremindingherethattheISIdatabasecollectsonlythecontributionspublishedbyISIjournals,mostlyin
English, and omits all the contributions published in books and other languages. The mostcited articles are
consequently a subset of this group of contributions. Only when looking at the references cited by this subset

Startingfromtheselectedgroupofmostcitedarticles,weexploredthetheoreticalgrounduponwhich
theyarebased.Inordertodoso,wedownloadedfromtheISIdatabasethebackwardcitationsofthe46
mostcitedarticles.Theanalysisofbackwardcitationsreferstoallthearticles,books,andbookchapters
thathavebeencitedbythe46observedarticles.Inthepast,themonographwasthetypicaloutcomeof
theworkdonebyresearchers,andthepublicationofabookwasmuchmorecommonthanthepublication
ofajournalarticle.Therefore,theinclusionofbooksprovestobeaparticularlyappropriatechoiceforthe
studyofthefoundersoftheclusterconcept.
Overall, the 46 articles cite 2066 different references. The web of relations between citing and
backwardcited works, as well as that among backwardcited works, is analyzed with the help of social
network analysis tools (Wasserman and Faust, 1994). In order to identify the most influential backward
citedworksandauthors,werefertothesimpleconceptofdegreecentrality,whichmeasuresthecitation
frequenciesofarticlesandauthors.Inordertoidentifycohesivegroupsofbackwardcitedworks,whichcan
berepresentativesofmeaningfulscientificcommunities,weuseaclusteringalgorithmthatwasdeveloped
byPallaetal.(2005).

4. Theriseoftheclusterconcept:Thedisseminators
Thenumberofarticlesonclustersaugmentedovertheyears,reachingupto200articlesperyearin2010
(Figure 1). This result indicates how hot is the topic and the degree to which the scientific community is
investedindeepeningit.
INSERTFIGURE1ABOUTHERE
Theclusterconceptintermingledwithdifferentstreamsofliterature,sometimesproducingnewtopicsand
newfieldsofstudy.AswecanseefromFigure2,thenumberofjournalsthatpublishedarticlesonclusters
alsogrewexponentiallyfrom1989to2010.Theincreasingvarietyofjournalsinterestedinpublishing on
this issue supports the idea that this concept is very multidisciplinary, and able to cross different
communitiesofscientists.
INSERTFIGURE2ABOUTHERE
ThisideaisreinforcedbyFigure3,whichshowshowthedistributionofthejournalspernumberofarticles
published resembles that of a long tail. Besides the few that dominate mostly journals in the area of
economic geography we find a long tail composed of journals targeting a wide range of scientific
disciplines.
INSERTFIGURE3ABOUTHERE
Inordertoinvestigatethisissuemoredeeplyovertime,welistedthejournalsthatpublishedthemoston
clusters (which we named bestpublisher journals), considering two time frames: 19891999 and 2000
2010.Wedidsplittheoverallperiodofanalysisintotwodecades,becausewewantedtocapturethetime
evolution of the concept, which is strictly linked to the types of journals interested in publishing on the
topic.TheresultsareshowninTable2.

INSERTTABLE2ABOUTHERE

(backward citations) can we collect information on contributions published in other journals, in books, and in
languagesotherthanEnglish.


WhereasRegionalStudies contains the originalmostcitedcontributionsovertheissue,startingoffas
theleadingjournalduringthefirstdecade,EuropeanPlanningStudiespositioneditselfatthetopofthelist
in the second decade, narrowly followed by Regional Studies. It is also interesting to note that in recent
years, Research Policy is among the top ten journals, together with Technovation, thus informing on the
importanceoftheconceptsininnovationrelatedstudies.
Analyzingthemostpopulararticlesonclusters,theonesthattrytosketchthepillarsoftheconcept,we
canunderlinesomefeaturesthatcanbeinformativeregardingthereasonsbehindthelargeconsensusit
receivedovertime.Fromthelistofthe46mostcitedarticles(thedisseminators),wehaveextractedthe
ninemostcitedarticles(yearlycitations>20),whicharepresentedinTable3.

INSERTTABLE3ABOUTHERE

AswecanseeinTable3,themostcitedarticlesontheissue,onaverage(consideringtheaverageyearly
citations), were published in 2004 in Progress in Human Geography. The article, titled Clusters and
knowledge:Localbuzz,globalpipelinesandtheprocessofknowledgecreation,isconcernedwithspatial
clusteringofeconomicactivityanditsrelationtothespatialityofknowledgecreationininteractivelearning
processes.It isargued thatthecoexistenceof high levelsofbuzzand many pipelinesmayprovidefirms
located in outwardlooking and lively clusters with a string of particular advantages not available to
outsiders. Buzz refers to the knowledge exchange resulting from a variety ofinformal local relationships.
The concept of buzz is strictly connected and comparable to the Marshallian industrial atmosphere
(Marshall, 1920), to the mechanism of localized knowledge spillovers (Breschi and Lissoni, 2001), to the
JapaneseBa(NonakaandKonno1998),andtothespecificimmaterialconceptofthepublicgood(Bellandi,
2006),onlytocitethemostwellknownexamples.Theconceptofbuzzofferstheopportunitytobroaden
otherpreexistingconcepts,morestrictlyrelatedtotheareaoftheindustrialproductionsystem.
MichaelStorperandAnthonyVenables,inanarticlepublishedintheJournalofEconomicGeographyin
2004,madeanextensiveargumentabouttheroleofbuzzintheexplanationofurbanconcentration.This
concept was developed to describe the importance of facetoface (F2F) contacts in metropolitan areas,
andthenextendedtoexplaintheagglomerationadvantagesoffirmslocatedinIDsandclusters.Batheltet
al.(2004)usedthetermbuzztodescribeapeculiaraspectofaformofindustrialorganization,thecluster,
markingthetransitionfromanurbantoanindustrialeconomicsperspective.Theglobalpipelinesmetaphor
is used to illustrate the knowledge networks built upon formal distant business relationships. These
relationships can, in fact, include the R&D collaborations of dynamic local companies (as spelled out by
Powell,1996;OwenSmithandPowell,2004)aswellasthecaptivetiesofamultinationalwithasubsidiary
in the cluster (as spelled out by Bair and Gereffi, 2001; Humphrey and Schmitz, 2002; Cantwell and
Iammarino,2003).
The mostcited article, in absolute terms (considering the total citations), is "Clusters and the New
Economics of Competition, published in 1998 by Michael Porter in the Harvard Business Review. The
article explains how clusters, despite the era of global competition, foster high levels of productivity and
innovation; in other words: locality still matters. In 2000, Porter published another highly cited article in
Economic Development Quarterly, addressing the issue of the competitive advantages related to clusters
andoftheroleofgovernmentinsustainingclusterupgradingthroughdedicatedclusterpolicies.
It is worth noting that both the mostcited articles deal with the importance of proximity despite
globalization. Alongside this perspective, Ann Markusen tackled the issue of the importance of sticky
placesinslipperyspace,proposingoneofthemostcitedtaxonomiesofindustrialspaces.Inanarticle
published in 1996 in Economic Geography, she introduced some new variables used to better classify

industrial agglomerations: the role of the state, the role of large firms, the firms embeddedness, the
structureofthemajorlocalindustries,andtheroleplayedbytheregionalpolicy,togetherwitharangeof
socialwelfaremetrics.Sheproposedatheoreticaltaxonomyofindustrialspaces,beinginspiredbytheID
literature.
TheJournalofEconomicGeographyin2003publishedthethirdmostrelevantpaper,authoredbyRon
MartinandPeterSunley.Itisaconceptualpaper,whichtriestomoreproperlydefinetheclusterconcept,
andtoanalyzeindetailitspolicyimplications.MartinandSunley(2003)areverycriticalaboutthebusiness
strategy approach of Porter, who proposes a vague definition of clusters and seems not to make any
reference to the work done by the economic geographers on other related, but, unfortunately, less
fashionableconcepts.AswellexplainedbyMartinandSunley(2003:9),thePorterianclustermetaphoris
highlygenericincharacter,beingdeliberatelyvagueandsufficientlyindeterminateastoadmitaverywide
spectrum of industrial groupings and specializations (from footwear clusters to wine clusters to
biotechnologyclusters),demandsupplylinkages,factorsconditions,institutionalsetups,andsoon.The
clusterconcepthasbeenlabeledaschaotic,withanegativemeaning.
In a similar vein, Ian Gordon and Philip McCann, in their article published in Urban Studies in 2000,
considertheclusterasanumbrellaconcept.Theyadmitthatthisformulationasksforamorefinegrained
definition; they propose to distinguish between three ideal types of spatial industrial clustering.
Unfortunately, the three models are not mutually exclusive, since a social network can be developed
around a central firm or a group of firms, and thus resemble an industrial complex, or give rise to local
rentalvalues,asinthecaseofpureagglomeration.Theircontributionconfirmstheimpossibilitytobundle
theconceptintoonespecificacademictradition,givenitsmultifacetednature.WhileGordonandMcCann
(2000)adoptedastructuralistapproachinanalyzingthemechanismofindustrialclustering,Malmbergand
Maskell (2002) focused on the cluster knowledge creation process along the vertical and horizontal
dimension of interfirm cluster relationships. They describe the main features of the cluster building as a
hybridargumentthatliesbetweenthePorterianandtheIDapproach,andfinallyacknowledgetheabsence
ofasatisfactorytheoryofthelocalizedcluster,mainlybecauseoftheconceptualelasticityofthecluster
concept.
Bill McEvily and Akbar Zaheer contributed heavily to celebrating the mutation of the cluster concept
fromaneconomicgeographytoastrategicmanagementdomain,writingalargelycitedpaperinStrategic
ManagementJournal.Heretheauthorsdemonstratedthroughastructuralequationmodelingthatthefirm
embeddednessingeographicalclustersisanimportantsourceofvariationintheacquisitionofcompetitive
capabilities.

5.Thebirthoftheclusterconcept:Thefounders
5.1Mainbackwardcitedauthorsandworks
From the analysis of the backwardcited authors and works, we gain information on the founders of the
clusterconcept.Overall,the46articlescite2066differentreferences,writtenby1276authors.Asetof437
works (that is, around 21% of the total backward citations) and 421 authors (around 33% of the total
numberofauthors)hasbeenrepeatedly(morethanonetime)cited.
Table 4 presents the most backwardcited authors (BC_AUT) and the most backwardcited works
(BC_WORKS).
On top of the list of the founders, we find, not surprisingly, Michael Porter, the father of the cluster
concept. His books also rank among the mostcited works that we have examined. Together with these
books, the list of BC_WORKS includes other milestones of the cluster and district concepts, such as Paul
Krugman, who has opened a new avenue of studies on agglomeration, and the works of Alfred Marshall

(1920).Alsoonthedistrictconcept,wefindanarticlewrittenbytheItalianscientistwhorediscoveredand
enrichedtheanalysisofMarshall:theeconomistGiacomoBecattini.Inhispopularwork,IndustrialDistricts
andInterfirmCooperationinItaly,hepublishedachapterthatpresentedasummaryofhisresearchonIDs
andprovidedafirstdefinitionofthisrediscoveredsocioeconomicunitofanalysis(Becattini,1990).
Thegroupoffoundersincludesotherauthorswhohavecoinednewconceptsthatshowsomedegreeof
relatednesstothecluster.OneofthemostimportantisPhilipCooke,whoincorporatedsomepiecesofthe
cluster and district literature within the broader concept of a regional innovation system; a concept that
has gained great popularity both among the scientific community and among the EU policymakers. The
relatedconceptofanationalinnovationsystem(Lundvall,1988;1992)hasalsobeenwidelycited.Besides
the fathers of new concepts, the list of founders includes also a large group of geographers who have
contributedeithertothetheoreticaldevelopmentoftheclusteranddistrictconceptsortotheirempirical
application.ThefirstintermsofcitationsreceivedisMichaelStorper,whohasreflectedupontheconcept
of an economic region and has elaborated the successful definition of "untraded interdependencies"
(Storper,1997,p.5).Theseinterdependencies,whichareplacespecificinstitutionsthatcanfueldifferent
paths of local development, also relate to the idea of embedding (Granovetter, 1985), which has also
been widely cited. The list of founders also includes a number of sociologists such as Charles Sabel and
Peter Dickens, who have further developed the concepts of embeddedness and that of social capital.
Sabels article on flexible specialization is, not surprisingly, among the small group of mostcited articles
thatwehavelistedinTable4.
Alwaysinthefieldofgeographyoreconomicgeography,alargebulkofresearchonthethemeofthe
linkages between clusters and economic regions have been published by Allen J. Scott, Ash Amin, Meric
Gertler,andAnnaLeeSaxenian.Anothergroupofgeographershavefocusedontheknowledgeimplications
oftheclusterorganizationforms.Amongtheothers,werecallPeterMaskell,AndersMalmberg,andBjorn
Asheimwhohaveextensivelyexploredthecognitivemechanismsfeaturingclustersanddistrictsandtheir
innovationcapacity.
Asforthemostcitedarticlesorbooks,wefindanumberofcontributionswhichfocusonthethemeof
industryspecific spillovers as drivers of the agglomeration of economic activities. Among the mostcited
works, we find the works written by the economists David Audretsch and Maryanne Feldman and Glenn
EllisonandEdwardGlaeser,whoexploresthemotivesforagglomerations,andthefamousworkwrittenby
Jaffe,Trajtenberg,andHenderson,whichempiricallyprovesthegeographicalconcentrationofknowledge
by exploring the paper trails left by the knowledge spillovers. Another wellknown innovationrelated
conceptcitedintheliteratureanalyzedisthatof"absorptivecapacity"(CohenandLevinthal,1990),which
explainstheinnovationdifferentialamongdifferentIDsorclusters.Theevolutionaryapproachputforward
byNelsonandWinter(1982)isalsowidelycited.

INSERTTABLE4ABOUTHERE

5.2Thehistoricalevolutionoftheclusterconcept
Inordertotracetheevolutionarytrajectoriesoftheclusterconcept,wegroupedtheBC_WORKSbyyearof
publication(seeTab.5).Thisanalysisshowsthetheoreticalbackgroundofthe46mostcitedarticles(the
disseminators). The number of citations received by each work informs us of the relative importance of
each contribution. In so doing, the differences between subsequent time periods, together with the
identificationofthereferenceauthorsperperiod,givesusimportantinformationontwoofthethreemain
featuresoftheliquidmodernityoftheclusterconcept:multidisciplinarynatureandglobaldimension.The
analysisofthehistoricalevolutionoftheconceptconnectsourcontributiontotherecentdebateoncluster

evolution (Iammarino and McCann, 2006; Boschma and Fornahl, 2011; Martin and Sunley, 2011) and
clusteridentity(StaberandSautter,2011).
Table 5 helps us in highlighting the roots of the cluster and district concepts, which, not surprisingly,
datebacktotheseminalcontributionofMarshallin1920.ThelistofBC_WORKSpublishedbeforethe50s
includes,togetherwithMarshall(1920),anumberofmilestonessuchasthecontributionsofAdamSmith,
JosephSchumpeter,AlfredWeber,aswellasanumberofcontributionscomingfromthesideofeconomic
geography on the location theory. The contribution of the economic geographers is relevant, also with
referencetothesubsequentperiods.
During the '50s, the longstanding location economics tradition consolidates and Franois Perroux
(1955) formulates the concept of growth poles, which have had a strong influence both on the French
school of the milieux innovateurs and on the Italian school of IDs. Other mostcited books or articles are
those written by Penrose on the theory of the growth of the firm, or the Stiglerian reflection on
specialization, which provides a ground for the explanation of the nature of the (external) economies of
specialization.
Fromtheliteratureofthe60s,theclusterconceptborrowssomereflectionsfromAlfredChandleron
strategicorganizationalissues.Inordertoexplainthenatureofthelearningprocessestakingplaceatthe
locallevel,theliteratureonclustersinitiallyreferstotheArrowianprocessesoflearningbydoing.These
areverycommoninthetraditionalsectorsofthemadeinItalygoods,uponwhichmostoftheempirical
researchonIDsfocuses.Mostimportantly,theJacobianreflectiononcities,andonwhathasbeencalled
Jacobsexternalities,becomesanewpointofreference.
In the 70s, it is the turn of the transactional theory of Williamson and the centrality of the network
forms.InhisoriginalformulationoftheID,Marshallenvisionedalocalityofindustrywherethebusinessis
runbylocal entrepreneursthatarestronglyembeddedinlocal networksofproductionandexchange.In
ordertoexplaintheparticularfeaturesoftheselocalinterfirmrelations,theliteratureonclustersandIDs
hasmadealargeuseoftheframeworksetbytheliteratureontransactioncostsandsocialnetworks(see
for instance Dei Ottati, 1991). The particular nature of the local transactions has been explained by
referring to the role of local institutions, and to the concepts of embeddedness and strength of weak
ties,(Granovetter,1973).Thesocialandcommunitydimensionoftheagglomerationeconomiesisatthe
centerofthereflectionsofBecattini,whoin1979publishedapathbreakingarticleinanItalianjournalof
industrial economicsandpolicy,whichgaverisetotherediscoveryoftheID.According toMartin (1999:
79), the Italian ID literature has encouraged economic geographers to focus on the network of trust,
cooperation,competitionandgovernancethatcharacterizessuchareas.
Inthe80s,PioreandSabel(1984)launchedanewindustrialtechnologicalparadigm,basedonflexible
specialization,whichiscentralforunderstandingthesuccessofregionaldevelopment,asspelledoutby
Scott (1988). In the same period, Nelson and Winter (1982) put forward their evolutionary theory of the
firm,whichisparticularlysuitedforinvestigatingtheexistenceandfunctioningoflocalproductionsystems.
Analysis on the patterns of industrial development of large firms in the U.S. and in Europe, begin to
confront and to contaminate with the analysis on small companies. Articles written by American
economists and geographers have become a common reference. The European and American schools
appearnowasintegrated,andthuscontributetogethertothedevelopmentofaglobaldimensionofthe
clusterconcept.
Theoveralldevelopmentoftheclusterconceptexplodedinthe90s,thankstothemajorcontributionof
Porter(1998,1990),andhasbecomeacrossdisciplinarypointofreference.Duringthe90s,theliterature
onclustersalsointermingledwiththecontributionsoftheNEG,basedontheworkofPaulKrugman(1991),
who constructed a theory of economic localization based on increasing returns. In particular after the
contributionoftheNEGschool,agroupofeconomiststhatfocusedontheinvestigationofthecausesand

consequences of agglomeration. Special attention is given to the processes of R&D and knowledge
spillovers(Jaffeetal.,1993;AudretschandFeldman,1996).Itisinthe90sthatthemultidisciplinarynature
of the concept becomes evident. Innovation studies become a new reference for cluster concept
development:thegeographicaldimensionofthephenomenonmatcheswiththetechnological.Regionsare
perceived as the best geographical scale for an innovationbased learning economy (Cooke and Morgan,
1998;MalmbergandMaskell1999).
ThestrongpresenceofPorter,Krugman,Saxenian,Storper,andotherAmericansinthe90sunderlines
the primacy of the U.S. not only in the realm of management studies, but also in the area of economic
geography and sociology, where their contributions engage in a privileged dialogue with the northern
Europeanscholars,suchasCooke,Morgan,MalmbergandMaskell.
The success of the cluster as an organizational form of the new millennium is thus anchored on the
importantlinkbetweendifferentdisciplines(multidisciplinary),whosemainrepresentativesspanoverthe
USandEurope(globaldimension),wheretheclusterposesthebasisforitsrecentdevelopmentalsointhe
developingandemergingcountries.

INSERTTABLE5ABOUTHERE

5.3Cocitationanalysis:Asocialnetworkanalysisapproach
Inordertoinvestigatemoredeeplythethreemainfeaturesoftheliquidmodernityoftheclusterconcept,
andmostlyitscrossdisciplinarycharacter,weconductedasocialnetworkanalysisonthebackwardcited
works(BC_WORKS).Thesetof2066backwardcitedworkscanbeviewedasatwomodenetworkwhere
thecitingarticlesareconnectedtothecitedworks.Bytransformingthistwomodenetwork8intoaone
mode one, we obtain a network that includes only the backwardcited works: two backwardcited works
areherelinkedwhentheyarecitedbythesamearticles.
This kind of network leads us to the analysis of scientific communities (Crane, 1972; Verspagen and
Werker,2004)andtherelationshipbetweenthem.Infact,weconsiderthatwhentwoormoreworksare
oftencitedtogetherbythesamesources,theyformacohesivegroupthatcanbeinterpretedasascientific
community. The relationship between communities (crossdisciplinary) is possible if there are members
that have the property of multimembership, belonging to more than one community and behaving as
boundary spanners. We therefore apply an algorithm for the identification of particular communities
(cohesive substructures) and boundary spanners (intercohesive nodes) from the network of backward
citations.
In social network analysis, communities are groups of nodes that are more intensively connected to
eachotherthantotherestofthenetwork,identifyingparticularlycohesivesubstructures.Aspreviously
noted, in our network, communities of works may constitute meaningful groups of references that are
somehowconnectedbythepresenceofatheme,anauthor,aconceptthatislinkedtotheliteratureon
clusters. Communities in network analysis can be identified in several ways. The clique percolation
algorithm(Pallaetal.,2005),implementedintheCfindersoftware,identifiesgroupsofadjacentkcliques
(whereakcliqueisasetofnodeseachofwhichisconnectedtoatleastotherknodes):twokcliquesare
adjacent if they have k1 vertices in common. Each set of adjacent kcliques is a community. The idea

Thistwomodenetworkisbasedonatwomodematrixcomposedof2066*46articles.Theintersectionoftherows
andcolumnsofthematrixtellsushowmanytimesanarticlehasbeencitedbythe46mostcitedarticlesoncluster
anddistrict.Thisnumberwillalwaysbegreaterthan1,sincewehavealreadyexcludedthearticlesthatarementioned
onlyonce.Theonemodenetworkisbasedonaonemodematrixcomposedof2066*2066articles.Twoarticlesare
herelinkediftheyarecitedbythesamesource(s).

underlyingtheidentificationofsuchcommunitiesisthat,foranetworksubgrouptobecohesive,itisnot
necessary for all members of the group to interact with all others (as in a kclique) but there can be
cohesionevenifsomeactorsinteractwithonlyk1others.9
In social network analysis, boundary spanners can be discovered by looking at intercohesive nodes,
whichtakepartsinmorethanonecommunity.Thisconceptissimilartothatofbrokers.However,while
brokersconnectdifferentcommunitiesbutdonotbelongtoanyofthem,anintercohesivenodebelongsto
morethanonecommunityandhencebelongstodifferentsocialgroupsatthesametime.Inournetworkof
backwardcitations,intercohesivenodesaremeaningfulworksthathavebeenrecognizedasimportant,and
cited,byseveralscientificcommunities.Weapplytheclusteringalgorithmtoourdata.Asinanyclustering
algorithm, we define the criterion that allows us to choose the number of groups. We look for those
communitiesthatincludeatleast14components(backwardcitedarticles);14isthethresholdthatallows
ustoidentifycommunitiesthatarecomposedofreferencescitedbyatleasttwodifferentsources(among
the 46 articles). In so doing, we identify communities that are not generated by the backwardcitation
madebyasinglearticle.
Onthebasisofthiscriterion,weidentifytencommunitiesofworks,whosecompositionisdisplayedin
Figure4.Eachcommunityiscomposedof15worksonaverage(minimumis14andmaximumis21),andit
includes both intercohesive nodes (highlighted in black in Figure 4) and singletime participants (white
nodes, belonging to a single community). Overall, there are 30 intercohesive agents. The strength of the
linkbetweenworksvariesonthebasisofthefrequencyofthecocitations:themoretwobackwardcited
worksarecitedfromthesamesources,themoreintenseistherelationshipthatbindsthem.
The communities are identified in Figure 4 as groups of adjacent nodes.10 The communities that are
more clearly visible are those at the borders of the graph (the periphery). They are composed mainly of
worksthatbelongtoonlyonecommunity,andincludealimitednumberofintercohesivenodes.Instead,
thecoreofthegraphisformedbyintercohesivenodesthatcrossdifferentcommunities,andgivethepace
ofthecrossdisciplinaryfeatureoftheclusterconcept.

INSERTFIGURE4ABOUTHERE

Letusfirstfocusontheperipheryofthenetwork.Ontheleftside,thefirstiscomposedofworksdealing
with the topics of urbanization economies, authored mainly by economic geographers. Here we find the
seminalcontributionofChinitz(1961)ontheurbansupplyside,ofVernon(1960)onthemetropolitanarea
of New York, and Jacobs (1960) on urban external economies. Large urban environments generate
externalities from lower transaction costs (Williamson, 1975, 1985). Better matches in the labor market,
availabilityofspecialized machinesin production,andskilledentrepreneursreducetransaction costsand
speed up economic development in cities and metropolitan areas. Proceeding clockwise, we find the
communityformedbyHirschmann,Arthur,Brusco,andMyrdal,economistswhowroteontheexternalities
in the process of economic development, exploring the role of agglomeration and increasing returns in
theories of economic growth. More to the right, the Nordic school of economic geography, led by

Pallaetal.(2005)introduceanapproachtoanalyzethemainstatisticalfeaturesofinterwovensetsofoverlapping
communities that form a network. Their basic assumption is that most of the actual networks are made of highly
overlapping cohesive groups of nodes. Therefore, the existing methods used in order to find communities in large
networksarenotuseful,sincetheyfindseparatedcommunities.Giventhatourexploratoryanalysishasrevealedthe
presence of a high level of interconnections between the literature on clusters and that on industrial districts, we
believethatthecliquepercolationisthemethodthatbestfitsourdata.

10

Malmberg and Maskell, worked on local processes of learning and innovation, fueled by networks of
interconnected innovators, as in the case of the innovative milieus proposed by Maillat. Always moving
clockwise, Capello and Camagni, inspired by the French school of the milieux innovateur, studied the
processesofcollectivelearningininnovativelocalsystems.Theyarenodesofacommunitydedicated to
evolutionarybasedstudiesoninnovationprocessesandinnovationnetworksdevelopingatthelocalscale
(othermembersareBoschma,VonHippel,Barabasi).Thiscommunityisstronglylinkedtothefollowingby
the works of Lundvall and Asheim on national and regional innovation systems. The latter are the main
focus of the bottomright community, which includes Cooke, Asheim, Tdtling, Trippl and Doloreux. This
communityismostlycomposedofEuropeaneconomicgeographers.Atthebottomofthenetwork,wefind
thestrategicmanagementcommunity,largelypopulatedbyAmericans,whoseworkfocusesontheanalysis
of firms competitiveness, through the lenses of the resourcebased view of the firm (Barney, Teece and
colleaguesaremembers).Finally,onthebottomleft,Gertler,SayerandAminaremembersofacommunity
focused on the spatial implications of PostFordism and flexible specialization. These peripheral
communitiesarelinkedtothecoreofthenetworkbyboundaryspanners,interchoesivenodesrepresented
bycrosscommunitycontributions,whichhybridizedifferentdisciplinesinordertobuildacrossdisciplinary
conceptofclustering.

INSERTFIGURE5ABOUTHERE

Thecoreisformedbystronglinkagesbetweenintercohesivenodes,anditisshowninFigure5,where
thesizeofthenodesinformsontheirdegreecentrality(numberofconnections).Theanalysisofthedegree
centrality(DC)ofthecorenodeshelpsinunderstandingthelogicbehindtheirnetworkposition.Saxenian
(1994)DC=97andScott(1988)DC=91arethetwocontributionsmostlargelycitedbyavarietyof
communities.Theyworkasboundaryspannersbetweendifferentdisciplinesandgeographicalareas.The
work on Silicon Valley and Route 128 by Saxenian lies at the intersection between economics, economic
geography, business strategy, entrepreneurship, and innovation studies. Moreover, Saxenian connects
EuropeanandAmericanscholarsfocusedonclusterresearch.Saxeniansbookontheemblematiccaseof
Silicon Valley became an international point of reference. The work on flexible production systems and
regionaldevelopmentbyScottliesattheintersectionbetweentheoriesofeconomicgrowthandregional
science.ScottsbookonnewindustrialspacesinNorthAmericaandWesternEuropehasaglobalreach(as
promised by the title). Interestingly enough, both Scott and Saxenian elaborated their theory having in
mindthemodelofMarshallianID,morethanthatofthePorteriancluster.
ThetriadScottMarshallSaxenian,wellconnectedatthecenterofthenetwork(bothinFigure4and
Figure5),iskeytounderstandingthecrossdisciplinaryaspectoftheclusterconcept.Withoutthesenodes,
thenetworkwouldhavecollapsedinsmallisolatedcommunities,wherethetwomainstreamconceptsof
ID(inEurope)andcluster(intheUS)wouldhavenevermet.

6.Conclusions
Thisworkaimedtogivearigorouspictureoftheoriginanddevelopmentoftheclusterconcept.Wealso
attempted to offer an original interpretation of the mechanisms behind the rise and the progressive
diffusionoftheconceptinavarietyofdisciplinesfromapoolofscholarsthatspanovervariouscountries.
Whilemanycontributionsstressedthenegativequalitiesoftheclusterconcept,labelingitaschaotic,we
providesomeevidence,throughourbibliometricanalysis,ofitsliquidmodernity,whichweconsideratthe
very root of its international and interdisciplinary success. We maintain that the success of the cluster
conceptovertimecanbepartiallyexplainedbyitsliquidnature,whichallowsadaptationtothechallenges

11

ofthesecondmodernityandofglobalization.Threeimportantfeaturescharacterizetheliquidmodernityof
theclusterconcept:multidisciplinaryandcrossdisciplinarynatureandglobaldimension.Inourview,these
three aspects do not represent a threat, but an opportunity; they cannot be confined and reduced as
responsibleforitschaoticandfuzzynature,indeedtheycontributetomaketheconceptevolutionary.
Our descriptive statistics based on a bibliometric analysis show the multidisciplinary character of the
cluster concept, which proves to be a powerful concept that grows in multiple directions and generates
newideasandapplicationsinavarietyoffields.Thestudyofthenetworkofauthorsbasedonabackward
citation analysis shows the interconnections between different scientific communities, confirming the
crossdisciplinarynatureoftheclusterconcept.Finally,theconceptisanexampleofacaseofinternational
success, thanks to its global dimension. The cluster, in fact, has proved an important tool for
internationalization,beingreplicableandappropriablebydiversecommunities.
Accordingtothisperspective,theinitialproblem,evokedbymanyoftherecenttheoreticaldiscussions,
relatedtothevaguenessofitsboundaries,nolongerexists.Thevaguenesscanbeseennotasaweakness
butasastrength.Theclusterconcepthasgrownintherealmofpoliticalandindustrialeconomy,inEurope,
from neoMarshallian origins. It spreads over, nurtured by the Italian experience on ID, in the business
literatureintheUnitedStates,andsubsequentlytakesaprominentroleworldwide,particularlythanksto
theworksofmanyNorthEuropeanandNorthAmericangeographersandeconomicgeographerswhohave
investigatedthelocaldimensionofeconomicdevelopmentandinnovation.
Our work presents some limitations, due to the choice of the database, key words, and subject
categories. Nevertheless, we believe that the results obtained are robust and give a complete and
suggestivepictureofthebirthandriseoftheclusterconceptinliquidmodernity.
Theunderstandingoftheoriginandthenaturaldevelopmentoftheclusterconceptprovidesauseful
pointofdeparturefordesigningthefuture,rejuvenatingtheconceptsofclustersandIDs,andeventually
pushing the conceptual trajectories toward a better fit to the liquid modernity. What will be the future
directionsoftheconcept?Willitexpandinglobalreach?Willthenumberofdisciplinesinterestedincluster
studiesincreaseorshrink?Willitsurvivethechallengeoftheliquidmodernityorwillitbesubstitutedwith
another more liquid concept? These are only some of the possible ways to further develop the work we
havestartedhere.

REFERENCES
Audretsch, D.B., Feldman, M. (1996) R&D Spillovers and the Geography of Innovation and Production.
AmericanEconomicReview,86:630640.
Bair,J.,Gereffi,G.(2001)Localclustersinglobalchains:Thecausesandconsequencesofexportdynamism
inTorreon'sbluejeansindustry,WorldDevelopment,29(11):18851903.
Bathelt,H.,Malmberg,A.,Maskell,P.(2004)Clustersandknowledge:localbuzz,globalpipelinesandthe
processofknowledgecreation,ProgressinHumanGeography,28(1):3156.
Bauman,Z.(2000).LiquidModernity.Cambridge,UK:PolityPress.
Becattini, G. (1979). Dal settore industriale al distretto industriale. Alcune considerazioni sull'unit di
indaginedell'economiaindustriale,Rivistadieconomiaepoliticaindustriale1.
Becattini,G.(1990)TheMarshallianindustrialdistrictasasocioeconomicnotion,inPyke,F.Becattini,G.
and Sengenberger, W. (Eds), Industrial Districts and Interfirm Cooperation in Italy, Geneva:
InternationalInstituteforLabourStudies.
Bell,G.G.(2005)Clusters,networks,andfirminnovativeness,StrategicManagementJournal,26(3):287295

12

Bellandi,M.(2006)Aperspectiveonclusters,localities,andspecificpublicgoods,in:Pitelis,C.,R.Sugden,
and J.R. Wilson (Eds) Clusters and Globalisation. The Development of Urban and Regional
Economies.Cheltenham:EdwardElgar,pp.96113.
Bellandi, M. (2007) Industrial district and wave of industrialization: a rich and contested terrain. Scienze
regionali,6(2):727.
Belussi,F.(2006).Insearchofatheoryofspatialclustering:agglomerationvsactiveclustering.In,Asheim,
B.,P.CookeandR.Martin(Eds)ClustersinRegionalDevelopment.London:Routledge,p.6989.
Boschma,R.,Fornahl,D.(2011).ClusterEvolutionandaRoadmapforFutureResearch,RegionalStudies,45
(10):12951298.
Breschi, S., Lissoni, F. (2001) Knowledge Spillovers and Local Innovation Systems: A Critical Survey.
IndustrialandCorporateChange,10(4):9751005.
Callon,M.,Courtial,J.P.,Penan,H.(1993)LaScientomtrie.PressesUniversitairesdeFrance:Paris.
Cantwell,J.,Iammarino,S.(2003)MultinationalcorporationsandEuropeanregionalsystemsofinnovation.
London:Routledge.
Chinitz,B.(1961)Contrastsinagglomeration:NewYorkandPittsburgh,AmericanEconomicReview:Papers
andProceedings,pp.279289,reprintedin:M.EDELAndJ.ROTHENBERG(Eds)(1972)Readingsin
UrbanEconomics,pp.9099.NewYork:Macmillan.
Cohen,W.M.,Levinthal,D.A.(1990)AbsorptiveCapacity:ANewPerspective onLearning andInnovation,
AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35(1):128152.
Cooke,P.(1990)Backtothefuture:modernity,postmodernityandlocality.London:UnwinHyman.
Cooke, P., Morgan, M. (1998) The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation, Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Crane, D. (1972) Invisible colleges. Diffusion of knowledge in scientific communities. The University of
ChicagoPress:ChicagoandLondon.
Cruz,S.,Teixeira,A.(2010)TheEvolutionoftheClusterLiterature:SheddingLightontheRegionalStudies
RegionalScienceDebate,44(9):12631288.
DeiOttati,G.(1991)TheEconomicBasesofDiffuseIndustrialization,InternationalStudiesofManagement
&Organization,21(1):5374.
Dosi, G. (1988). Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation. Journal of Economic
Literature,AmericanEconomicAssociation,26(3):112071.
Feser, E.J., Bergman, E.M. (2000) National industry cluster templates: a bframework for applied regional
clusteranalysis,Regionalstudies,34(1):119.
Foss, N. (2011) The evolution and eclecticism of Porter's thinking, in Huggins, R., H. Izushi (Eds.)
Competition,CompetitiveAdvantage,andClusters.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Giuliani,E.,Bell,M.(2005)Themicrodeterminantsofmesolevellearningandinnovation:evidencefroma
Chileanwinecluster,ResearchPolicy,34(1):4768.
Gordon, I.R., McCann, P. (2000) Industrial clusters: Complexes, agglomeration and/or social networks?
UrbanStudies,37(3):513532.
Granovetter, M. (1985) Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness, American
JournalofSociology,9(1):481510
Granovetter,M.(1973)TheStrengthofWeakTies,TheAmericanJournalofSociology,78(6):13601380
Harvey,D.(1989)Theconditionofpostmodernity,Cambridge,MA:BasilBlackwell.
Hirshmann,A.O.(1981)Essaysintrespassing:economicstopoliticsandbeyond.Cambridge(UK)andNew
York:CambridgeUniversityPress
Humphrey,J.,Schmitz,H.(2002).HowDoesInsertioninGlobalValueChainsAffectUpgradinginIndustrial
Clusters?,RegionalStudies,36(9):10171027.

13

Iammarino, S., McCann, P. (2006) The structure and evolution of industrial clusters: Transactions,
technologyandknowledgespillovers,ResearchPolicy,35(7):10181036.
Jacobs,J.(1960)Theeconomyofcities.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Jaffe, A.B., Trajtenberg, M., Henderson, R. (1993) Geographic Localization of Knowledge Spillovers as
EvidencedbyPatentCitations,QuarterlyJournalofEconomics,108(3):577598.
Ketels, C. (2011) Clusters and Competitiveness: Porter's Contribution. In Huggins R., H. Izushi (Eds)
Competition, competitive advantage, and clusters: the ideas of Michael Porter, Oxford: Oxford
UniversityPress.
Krugman,P.(1991)IncreasingReturnsandEconomicGeography,JournalofPoliticalEconomy,99(3):483
99.
Lazzeretti, L. (2006) Districtos industrials clusters y otros: un analisis trespassing entre la economia
industrialylagestionestrategica,EconomiaIndustrial,359:5979.
Lazzeretti,L.(2007)Distrettieclusternellamodernitliquida:unconfrontofraBecattiniePorter,Finanza
MarketingeProduzione,XXV(4):5278.
Lundvall,B.A.(1988)InnovationasanInteractiveProcess:FromUserProducerInteractiontotheNational
SystemofInnovation.InDosi,G.,C.Freeman,R.R.Nelson,G.Silverberg,L.Soete(Eds.)Technical
ChangeandEconomicTheory.London:Pinter,pp.34969.
Lundvall, B.A. (1992) National Systems of Innovation: Towards a Theory of Innovation and Interactive
Learning,London:Pinter.
Maggioni, M.A., Uberti, T.E., Gambarotto, F. (2009). Mapping the evolution of clusters: a metaanalysis.
Working
paper
74.2009,
Fondazione
Eni
Enrico
Mattei.
URL:
http://www.feem.it/userfiles/attach/Publication/NDL2009/NDL2009074.pdf
Malmberg,A.,Maskell,P.(1999)LocalisedLearningandIndustrialCompetitiveness,CambridgeJournalof
Economics,23(2):16785.
Malmberg, A., Maskell, P. (2002) The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge
basedtheoryofspatialclustering,EnvironmentandPlanningA,34(3):429449.
Markusen,A.(1996)Stickyplacesinslipperyspace:atypologyofindustrialdistricts.EconomicGeography,
72:293313.
Marshall, A. (1920) Principles of Economics (Revised Edition ed.). London: Macmillan; reprinted by
PrometheusBooks.Istedition1890.
Martin,R.(1999)Thenewgeographicalturnineconomics:somecriticalreflections,CambridgeJournalof
Economics,23:6591.
Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2003) Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea?, Journal of
EconomicGeography,3(1):535.
Martin, R., Sunley, P. (2011) Conceptualizing cluster evolution: beyond the life cycle Model?, Regional
Studies,45:12991318.
McEvily, B., Zaheer, A. (1999) Bridging ties: a source of firm heterogeneity in competitive capabilities,
StrategicManagementJournal,20:11331156.
Nelson,R.R.,Winter,S.G.(1977)Insearchofusefultheoryofinnovation.ResearchPolicy,6(1):3676.
Nelson, R.R., Winter, S.G. (1982) An evolutionary theory of economic change. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap
Press.
Nonaka,I.,Konno,N.(1998)TheConceptofBa:BuildingaFoundationforKnowledgeCreation,California
ManagementReview,40(3):4054.
OwenSmith, J., Powell, W.W. (2004) Knowledge Networks as Channels and Conduits: The Effects of
SpilloversintheBostonBiotechnologyCommunity,OrganizationScience,15(1):521.

14

Palla, G., Dernyi, I., Farkas, I., Vicsek T. (2005) Uncovering the overlapping community structure of
complexnetworksinnatureandsociety,Nature,435(7043):8148.
Perroux,F.(1955)Notesurlanotiondepoledecroissance,EconomieApplique,8:307320.
Piore, M.J., Sabel, C.F. (1984) The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity. New York: Basic
Books.
Porter, M., Ketels, C. (2009) Clusters and Industrial Districts: Common Roots, Different Perspectives. In:
BecattiniG.,BellandiM.,DeProprisL.(Eds)Ahandbookofindustrialdistricts,Cheltenham:Edward
Elgar,pp.172183.
Porter,M.E.(1990)TheCompetitiveAdvantageofNations,NewYork:FreePress.
Porter,M.E.(1998)OnCompetition,Boston:HarvardBusinessSchool.
Powell, W.W. (1996) InterOrganizational Collaboration in the Biotechnology Industry, Journal of
InstitutionalandTheoreticalEconomics,120(1):197215.
Saxenian, A. (1994) Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128.
Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
Schmitz,H.(1995)SmallshoemakersandFordistgiants:taleofasupercluster,WorldDevelopment,23(1):
928.
ScottA.J.1988.Newindustrialspaces:FlexibleproductionorganizationandregionaldevelopmentinNorth
AmericaandWesternEurope.London:Pion.
Staber, U., Sautter, B. (2011) Who Are We, and Do We Need to Change? Cluster Identity and Life Cycle,
RegionalStudies,45(10):13491361.
Storper, M. (1997) The Regional World : Territorial Development in a Global Economy, London and New
York:GuilfordPress.
Tallman, S., Jenkins, M., Henry, N., Pinch, S. (2004) Knowledge, clusters, and competitive advantage, The
AcademyofManagementReview,29(2):258271).
Vernon,R.(1960)Metropolis1985.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress.
VerspagenB.,WerkerC.(2004)KeithPavittandtheInvisibleCollegeoftheEconomicsofTechnologyand
Innovation,ResearchPolicy,33:14191431.
Wasserman,S.,Faust,K.(1994)SocialNetworkAnalysis:MethodsandApplications.NewYork:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Williamson, O. (1975) Markets and Hierarchies: Analysis and Antitrust Implications. New York: The Free
Press.
Williamson,O.(1985)TheEconomicInstitutionsofCapitalism.NewYork:FreePress.

15

Figure1Numberofarticlesonclustersin19892010
N. of articles
250

200

150

100

50

09

08

07

06

05

04

10
20

20

20

20

20

20

03

20

20

01

00

99

98

97

96

95

94

93

92

91

02
20

20

20

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

19

89

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase

Figure2Numberofjournalsthatpublishedarticlesonclustersin19892010
Number of journals
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10

19
89
19
90
19
91
19
92
19
93
19
94
19
95
19
96
19
97
19
98
19
99
20
00
20
01
20
02
20
03
20
04
20
05
20
06
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase

16

Figure3Thelongtaildistributionofjournalsin19892010
18 0

16 0

14 0

12 0

10 0

80

60

40

20

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase
Notetofigure3:Thenumberofarticlesisdisplayedontheyaxis.Labelsidentifyingthe250journalsarenotincluded
forlackofspace.

Table2Listofbestpublisherjournalsbytimeframe.

JOURNAL19891999
ARTICLES
JOURNAL20002010 ARTICLES
REGIONALSTUDIES
24
EUROPEANPLANNINGSTUDIES
154
WORLDDEVELOPMENT
19
REGIONALSTUDIES
100
RESEARCHPOLICY
11
ENVIRONMENTANDPLANNINGA
59
ENTREPRENEURSHIPANDREGIONAL
ECONOMICGEOGRAPHY
11
DEVELOPMENT
52
ENVIRONMENTANDPLANNINGA
8
URBANSTUDIES
46
JOURNALOFECONOMIC
SMALLBUSINESSECONOMICS
7
GEOGRAPHY
44
INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFURBAN
INTERNATIONALJOURNALOF
ANDREGIONALRESEARCH
7
TECHNOLOGYMANAGEMENT
44
URBANSTUDIES
6
RESEARCHPOLICY
40
IDSBULLETININSTITUTEOF
ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT
DEVELOPMENTSTUDIES
6
QUARTERLY
36
CAMBRIDGEJOURNALOFECONOMICS
5
TECHNOVATION
33
ECONOMICDEVELOPMENT
QUARTERLY
4
ECONOMICGEOGRAPHY
28
TIJDSCHRIFTVOORECONOMISCHE
GROWTHANDCHANGE
4
ENSOCIALEGEOGRAFIE
27
Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase

17

Table3Thetopdisseminators:mostcitedarticlesin19892010
AUTHORS

YEAR JOURNAL

Bathelt,H;Malmberg,A;Maskell,P 2004 PROGHUMGEOG

Porter,ME
1998 HARVARDBUSREV
Martin,R;Sunley,P
2003 JECONGEOGR
Storper,M;Venables,AJ
2004 JECONGEOGR
Porter,ME
2000 ECONDEVQ
Malmberg,A;Maskell,P
2002 ENVIRONPLANNA
Markusen,A
1996 ECONGEOGR
McEvily,B;Zaheer,A
1999 STRATEGICMANAGEJ
Gordon,IR;McCann,P
2000 URBANSTUD
Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase.

YEARLY
TOTAL
CITATIONS CITATIONS
54,43
381
46,31
602
43,63
349
37,29
261
28,45
313
26,11
235
25,87
388
22,92
275
21,36
235

18

Table4Thetopfounders:mostbackwardcitedauthorsandmostbackwardcitedworks.

Mostcitedauthors
(BC_AUT)

Total

citations
(>17)

Mostbackwardcitedworks(article,bookchapterorbook)
(BC_ART)

Total
citations
(>8)

PORTERME
STORPERM

KRUGMANP1991.IncreasingReturnsandEconomicGeography,JournalofPoliticalEconomy,
66 99(3):48399.
52 PORTERME1998.OnCompetition,Boston:HarvardBusinessSchool

24
22

SCOTTAJ

45

SAXENIANAL1994.RegionalAdvantage.Cambridge,MA:HarvardUniversityPress

21

KRUGMANP

40

PORTERME1990.TheCompetitiveAdvantageofNations,NewYork:FreePress

20

AMINA

37

16

MASKELLP

31

MARSHALLA1920.PrinciplesofEconomics.London:Macmillan.
JAFFEAB,TRAJTENBERGM,&HENDERSONR1993.GeographicLocalizationofKnowledge
SpilloversasEvidencedbyPatentCitations,QuarterlyjournalofEconomics,577598

SAXENIANAL

30

15

COOKEP

29

SCOTTAJ1988.Newindustrialspaces.London:Pion
AUDRETSCHDB&FELDMANM1996.R&DSpilloversandtheGeographyofInnovationand
Production.AmericanEconomicReview,86:630640

14

MARKUSENA

26

STORPERM1997.TheRegionalWorld.London:GuilfordPress

14

MARSHALLA

26

13

MALMBERGA

23

COOKEP&MORGANM1998.TheAssociationalEconomy,Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress
MALMBERGA&MASKELLP1999.LocalisedLearningandIndustrialCompetitiveness,Cambridge
JournalofEconomics,OxfordUniversityPress,23(2):16785.

ASHEIMBT

22

GRANOVETTERM

22

JAFFEAB

22

NELSONRR

21

LUNDVALLBA

19

DICKENP

18

GERTLERMS

17

HARRISONB

17

KEEBLED

17

SABELCF

17

PIOREM&SABELCF1984,TheSecondIndustrialDivide.NewYork:BasicBooks
STORPERM1995.TheResurgenceofRegionalEconomies,10YearsLater,EuropeanUrbanand
RegionalStudies2(3):191221.
GRANOVETTERM1985,EconomicActionandSocialStructure:TheProblemofEmbeddedness.
AmericanJournalofSociology,91:481510.
MARKUSENA1996.StickyPlacesinSlipperySpace:ATypologyofIndustrialDistricts.Economic
Geography,72(3):293313.
COHENWM&LEVINTHALDA_90:AbsorptiveCapacity:ANewPerspectiveonLearningand
Innovation,AdministrativeScienceQuarterly,35(1):128152
MASKELLP2001.TowardsaKnowledgebasedTheoryoftheGeographicalCluster,Industrialand
CorporateChange,10(4):921943.
BECATTINIG1990.IndustrialdistrictsandinterfirmcooperationinItaly,edbyF.Pyke,G.Becattini
eW.Sengenberger,IILS,Geneva.
ELLISONG&GLAESERE1997.GeographicConcentrationinU.S.ManufacturingIndustries:A
DartboardApproach.JournalofPoliticalEconomy,105(5):889927,
NELSONRR&WINTERSG1982.Anevolutionarytheoryofeconomicchange.Cambridge,Mass.:
BelknapPress
SABELCF1989.Flexiblespecialisationandthereemergenceofregionaleconomies,inP.Hirstand
J.Zeitlin(eds.):Reversingindustrialdecline?IndustrialstructureandpolicyinBritainandher
competitorsOxford:Berg

15

12
12
12
11
10
9
9
8
8
8

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase.

19

Table5Numberofcitations(cits)ofthemostbackwardcitedworks,groupedbyyearsofpublication
pre1950

cits

1950s

cits

1960s

MarshallA.1920.Principlesof
Economics(RevisedEditioned.).
London:Macmillan.
CoaseR.H.1937.TheNatureofthe
Firm.Economica,4(16):386405.

16

PenroseE.T.1959.TheTheoryofthe
GrowthoftheFirm.NewYork:JohnWiley
&Sons.
HirschmanA.O.1958.TheStrategyof
EconomicDevelopment,NewHaven,Yale
University.

JacobsJ.1960.Theeconomyof
cities.NewYork:RandomHouse

ArrowK.J.1962.TheEconomic
ImplicationsofLearningbyDoing.
ReviewofEconomicStudies29:
155173
ChandlerA.D.1962.Strategyand
structure.Cambridge(MA):The
MITPress
ChinitzB.1961Contrastsin
agglomeration:NewYorkand
Pittsburgh,AmericanEconomic
Review:PapersandProceedings
StinchcombeA.L.1965Social
structureandOrganisations.InJ.G.
March(Ed)Handbookof
Organizations:142193:Chicago:
RandMcNally.
ThompsonJ.1967.Organizationsin
Action.NewYork:McGrawHill.

MarshallA.1927IndustryandTrade.
Philadelphia:PorcupinePress.

LschA.1954.Theeconomicsoflocation.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.

SmithA.1776.Aninquiryintothe
natureandcausesofthewealthof
nations.London:StrahanandCadell.

MyrdalG.1957.EconomicTheoryand
UnderdevelopedRegions.London:
Duckworth.

SchumpeterJ.1934.TheTheoryof
EconomicDevelopment,Cambridge,
Mass:Harvard.UniversityPress.

PerrouxF.1955Notesurlanotiondepole
decroissance,EconomieApplique,8,pp.
307320.

WeberA.1909.Theoryofthe
LocationofIndustries.Chicago:
UniversityofChicagoPress.

StiglerG.J.1951.TheDivisionofLaboris
LimitedbytheExtentoftheMarket,
JournalofPoliticalEconomy,59(3)

1970s

1980s

1990s

GranovetterM.1973TheStrengthof
WeakTies.TheAmericanJournalof
Sociology78(6):13601380.

WilliamsonO.1975.Marketsand
Hierarchies:AnalysisandAntitrust
Implications.NewYork:TheFree
Press.
RichardsonG.B.1972.The
OrganisationofIndustry,Economic
Journal,87(327):883896.

ScottA.J.1988.Newindustrialspaces:
Flexibleproductionorganizationand
regionaldevelopmentinNorthAmerica
andWesternEurope.London:Pion.
PioreM.J.&SabelC.F.1984.TheSecond
IndustrialDivide:Possibilitiesfor
Prosperity.NewYork:BasicBooks.

15

KrugmanP.1991.Increasing
ReturnsandEconomicGeography,
JournalofPoliticalEconomy,99(3):
48399.
PorterM.E.1998.OnCompetition,
Boston:HarvardBusinessSchool.

24

BecattiniG.1979.Dalsettore
industrialealdistrettoindustriale.
RivistadiEconomiaePolitica
Industriale1.
PorterM.E.&CavesR.E.1977.From
EntryBarrierstoMobilityBarriers:
ConjecturalDecisionsandContrived
DeterrencetoNewCompetition.
QuarterlyJournalofEconomics:241
262.
DixitA.&StiglitzJ.1977.Monopolistic
competitionandoptimumproduct
diversity,AmericanEconomicReview
67,297308.

12

22

GranovetterM.1985.EconomicActionand
SocialStructure:TheProblemof
Embeddedness,AmericanJournalof
Sociology,91:481510.
NelsonR.R.&WinterS.G.1982.An
evolutionarytheoryofeconomicchange.
Cambridge,Mass.:BelknapPress.

11

SaxenianA.L.1994.Regional
Advantage.Cambridge,MA:
HarvardUniversityPress.

21

PorterM.E.1990.TheCompetitive
AdvantageofNations,NewYork:
FreePress.

20

SabelC.F.1989.Flexiblespecialisationand
thereemergenceofregionaleconomies,in
P.HirstandJ.Zeitlin(eds.):Reversing
industrialdecline?Industrialstructureand
policyinBritainandhercompetitors
Oxford:Berg.
JaffeA.B.1989.Realeffectsofacademic
research.AmericanEconomicReview,
79(5),957970.

15

JaffeA.B.TrajtenbergM.&
HendersonR.1993.Geographic
LocalizationofKnowledge
SpilloversasEvidencedbyPatent
Citations,QuarterlyJournalof
Economics,577598.
AudretschD.B.&FeldmanM.
1996.R&DSpilloversandthe
GeographyofInnovationand
Production.AmericanEconomic
Review,86:630640.
StorperM.1997.TheRegional
World.London:GuilfordPress.

FreemanL.C.1979.Centralityinsocial
networks:conceptualclarification.
SocialNetworks,1:215239.
GalbraithJ.R.1973.Designing
ComplexOrganizations.Reading,MA:
AddisonWesley.

WilliamsonO.E.1985.TheEconomic
InstitutionsofCapitalism,NewYork:Free
Press.

CookeP.&MorganM.1998.The
AssociationalEconomy.Oxford
UniversityPress.
MalmbergA.&MaskellP.1999.
LocalisedLearningandIndustrial
Competitiveness,Cambridge
JournalofEconomics,23(2):167
85.
StorperM.1995.TheResurgence
ofRegionalEconomies,European
UrbanandRegionalStudies2(3):
191221.

14

14

13

12

12

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase.

20

Figure4Thenetworkoffounders

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase.
Note: Nodes are the backwardcited articles. White nodes belong to a single community, black nodes are
intercohesivenodes.Linesaremarkedwithdifferentwidths,dependingtotheintensityofthecocitationrelation.The
labelsidentifythenameofthefirstauthorandtheyearofpublication.

Figure5Thecoreofthenetwork

Source:AuthorselaborationsbasedonISIdatabase.
Note:Thesizeofnodesinformsonthedegreecentrality.Thethicknessofthelinesdependsonthefrequencyofco
citations.Thelabelsidentifythenameofthefirstauthorandtheyearofpublication.

21