基于制度的产业集群演进研究
|
摘要
全球化条件下经济发展的区域化、地方化现象得到了理论界与实业界的广泛关注,产业集群不仅是学者们仁者见仁、智者见智的研究热点,也是政府发展经济的重要战略选择。对产业集群的研究有着重要的理论价值与现实意义,本文从制度的视角研究产业集群演进问题。
本文认为产业集群是一个包括位置要素(产业集聚)、组织要素(产业联合体)与认知要素(产业区域创新与集体品牌载体)的演进适应系统:产业由产业集聚(一体化企业简单的区域集聚)到产业联合体(基于价值链的有形要素投入与有形产品生产的良性区域竞争合作)的演进本质上是“一体化”的企业内部分工合作向“网络化”的企业间分工合作的演进;产业联合体向产业区域创新与集体品牌载体的演进本质上是新古典的“地理区域”向产业集群的“生态区域”的演进。
秉承青木昌彦的制度观(青木昌彦,2001),本文从博弈规则与博弈均衡两个方面分析产业集群演进。制度决定企业行为选择,制度变迁决定产业集群演进进程。博弈规则由成本竞争、速度竞争到技术竞争的变迁,客观上要求企业由产业集聚向产业联合体、产业区域创新与集体品牌载体演进(产业集群演进的必要性);作为集聚企业博弈均衡的网络化的企业制度与有组织的市场制度使产业集聚向产业联合体、产业区域创新与集体品牌载体的演进成为可能(产业集群演进的现实性)。产业集群要在博弈均衡的支持下通过自身的演进来适应博弈规则的变迁。
本文对产业集群演进做的制度分析可以为“位置悖论”、“集群悖论”以及产业集群边界问题作出理论解释。
O’Brien与Cairncross的“距离消亡(death of distance)”论实际上是“现代版”的新古典位置观,他们视位置为均质的“地理空间”,即使论及空间差异,也仅仅是要素禀赋的不同,而技术进步与市场竞争会最终将这仅存的差异“除清”,所以,在他们看来,本来就“不重要”的“位置”的重要性,在信息技术、WTO规则与全球化共同作用下,理所应当地应该“消亡”。Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujita与Venables的“区域经济观”与新古典的位置观不同,他们视区域为“生态空间”,强调区域间“第二自然”的异质性、面对面沟通在知识生产与非线性创新的独特作用,认为产业集群是区域经济竞争力的重要来源。
本文认为,O’Brien与Cairncross强调的是位置的“自然属性”; Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujita与Venables等学者强调的是位置的“社会属性”。O’Brien与Cairncross所说的“距离的消亡”,本质上是信息技术时代“地理”距离的消亡,而不是“组织”距离,更不是“心理”距离的消亡①。“位置悖论”是由学者们研究的视角不同导致的,本质上是一致的,而不是相悖的。当“地理”距离的“消亡”与“组织”距离、“心理”距离的“复活”并存,“位置悖论”也就见怪不怪了。
Feser、Bergamn、Pandit et al、Martin与Sunley对产业集群理论的批评以及产业集群发展的区域差异,即本文所说的“集群悖论”至少可以从两个方面得到解释。第一,产业集群是“地理”距离、“组织”距离与“心理”距离的有机统一,是一个演进适应系统,而不仅仅是“地理”距离的接近(产业集聚)。第二,制度的缺失或不完善是制约产业集群演进的根源。
产业集群的边界问题是产业理论必须作出回答的最基本的问题,有重要的理论价格与现实意义。探讨产业集群的边界问题必须回答这样两个问题:第一,什幺是产业集群的边界;第二,什幺因素决定着产业集群的边界。
本文认为,产业集群既然是产业集聚体、产业联合体、产业区域创新与集体品牌载体的统一,产业集群的边界就应该包括地理边界、组织边界与认知边界;制度既然是产业集群演进的基础,制度就应该是产业集群边界的决定因素。
目前关于产业集群边界的讨论主要集中在产业集群的地理边界上,对产业集群的组织边界、认知边界的研究还十分缺乏,用产业集群的地理边界替代产业集群边界实际上是将产业集聚与产业集群混为一谈的必然结果;对产业集群边界决定因素的研究更多地是从集群成本与收益的角度探讨,还没有从制度层面的解释。
本文对产业集群演进做的制度分析就是对制度对产业集群地理边界、组织边界与认知边界的决定作用的分析。本文把一体化的企业制度与新古典的市场制度看成“通用性”的制度,把网络化的企业制度与有组织的市场制度看成“专用性”的制度。产业集群可以看成是对企业与市场的双重替代:企业间分工对企业内部分工的替代;区域有组织的市场对新古典原子型市场的替代。
本文探讨的理论问题具有重要的现实意义,给定产业集群是一个演进适应系统,给定制度在产业集群演进中的决定性作用,制度建设就应该是集群企业与政府在产业集群演进中最重要的行为选择。
The regionalization and localization of increasingly global economy have drawn extensive attention among academics and industries. In light of this development, considerable amount of studies concerning industrial clusters, which is a key governmental strategy for economic development, have been published by economists.
This dissertation argue that industrial clusters are evolution-adaptive systems consisting of geographical element (industrial agglomeration), organizational element (industrial complexes) and cognitive element (the carrier of regional innovation and collective brand).
It’s our purpose to take Aoki’s institutional perspectiv(eAoki, 2001)and analyze the evolution of industrial clusters with the help of game theory and the equilibrium of games. Institutions determine the behavior set of the firm, and institutional changes determine the progress of industrial clusters. The change of game rules from cost competition, speed competition to technological competition resulted in the evolution of the firm from regional agglomeration to regional competition and cooperation, regional brand innovation (i.e. the necessity of the evolution of industrial clusters); The institutions of network-based firm in game equilibrium and organized market institutions make the above evolution possible (i.e. the practicability of the evolution of industrial clusters). With the support of the game equilibrium, industrial clusters need to adapt themselves to the changes of game rules.
In order to analyze the evolution from the institutional perspective, we draw two comparisons: one is to compare the intra-firm division to inter-firm division within an industrial syndicate, the other is to compare the homogeneous neoclassical“geographical space”to the“ecological space”as the carrier of regional innovation and brands.
Such institutional analysis can not only allow us to clarify some key concepts concerning industrial clusters to expose their nature, but also to offer theoretical explanation to the questions of“the paradox of location”,“the dilemma of cluster”and the boundary of industrial clusters.
The theory of“death of distance”developed by O’Brien and Cairncross is actually the modern version of the neoclassical concept of location. They identify location as homogeneous and geographical. Even when spatial differences are considered, they only attribute it to the differences in the quality of the key factors, which they believe will eventually be“eliminated”by technological progress and market competition. Thus they predict the“significance”of the“insignificant”concept of location will naturally“cease to exist”under the impact of information technology, WTO regulations and globalization. Unlike this neoclassical opinion, Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujita and Venables deem“the significance of location”differently . They view regions as ecological space and stress the heterogeneity of the“second nature”of regions and their unique role in knowledge production and nonlinear innovations by means of face-to-face communication. They refer to industrial clusters as the source of regional economic competitiveness.
Tt is the dissertation’s belief that O’Brien and Cairncross emphasize the“natural quality”and“physical quality”of a location, while Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujitaand Venables stress the“human quality”and“social quality”of a location. O’Brien Cairncross’idea of“the death of distance”is fundamentally“the death”of the geographical distance in the era of information technology, not the death of“organizational distance”or of“psychological distance”.“the paradox of location”is simply a result of diverse perspectives on the same subject and not contradictive in nature. It is no surprise to see“the paradox of location”in light of the coexistence of“the death of the geographical distance”and“the revival of the organizational and psychological distance”.
The criticism raised by Feser、Bergamn、Pandit et al、Martin Sunley on industrial clusters, and the regional differences in developing of industrial clusters, a.k.a the“the dilemma of cluster”, can be explained from two aspects.Firstly, industrial clusters are the unification of“geographical distance”,“organizational distance”and“psychological distance”. They are not just an enclosure in the geographical sense (i.e. industrial agglomeration), but also an evolution-adaptive system. Secondly, the incompleteness or lack of institutions will damage the dynamic advantages of industrial clusters.
It is vital both in theory and in practice for cluster theories to answer the basis question of the boundary of industrial cluster. In our point of view two questions need to be raised in order to discuss the boundary of industrial cluster: first of all, how to define the boundary of industrial cluster? Secondly, what factors determine the boundary of the industrial cluster?
We argue that, industrial cluster being the combination of industrial agglomeration, industrial complexes and industrial innovations, its boundary should extend to cover geographical boundary, organizational boundary and cognitive boundary; If institutions are the foundation of the evolution of the industrial clusters, it ought to be considered as the deciding factor in defining the boundaries of industrial clusters. Current discussions on industrial clusters mostly concentrate on the geographical boundary and studies on the other two types of boundaries are rather scarce. To confuse industrial clusters with industrial agglomerations will inevitably result in mistaking the geographical boundary as the only boundary; Researches on the definitive factors of the boundary mostly involved cluster cost and gains, rather than on the institutional level.
In conclusion, our industrial cluster theory has important implication for policy making, given the fact that industrial clusters are an evolution- adaptive system, institutions are the fundamentals for cluster evolutions, institutions construction should be the most significant behavior selection for government and cluster firm alike.
本文认为产业集群是一个包括位置要素(产业集聚)、组织要素(产业联合体)与认知要素(产业区域创新与集体品牌载体)的演进适应系统:产业由产业集聚(一体化企业简单的区域集聚)到产业联合体(基于价值链的有形要素投入与有形产品生产的良性区域竞争合作)的演进本质上是“一体化”的企业内部分工合作向“网络化”的企业间分工合作的演进;产业联合体向产业区域创新与集体品牌载体的演进本质上是新古典的“地理区域”向产业集群的“生态区域”的演进。
秉承青木昌彦的制度观(青木昌彦,2001),本文从博弈规则与博弈均衡两个方面分析产业集群演进。制度决定企业行为选择,制度变迁决定产业集群演进进程。博弈规则由成本竞争、速度竞争到技术竞争的变迁,客观上要求企业由产业集聚向产业联合体、产业区域创新与集体品牌载体演进(产业集群演进的必要性);作为集聚企业博弈均衡的网络化的企业制度与有组织的市场制度使产业集聚向产业联合体、产业区域创新与集体品牌载体的演进成为可能(产业集群演进的现实性)。产业集群要在博弈均衡的支持下通过自身的演进来适应博弈规则的变迁。
本文对产业集群演进做的制度分析可以为“位置悖论”、“集群悖论”以及产业集群边界问题作出理论解释。
O’Brien与Cairncross的“距离消亡(death of distance)”论实际上是“现代版”的新古典位置观,他们视位置为均质的“地理空间”,即使论及空间差异,也仅仅是要素禀赋的不同,而技术进步与市场竞争会最终将这仅存的差异“除清”,所以,在他们看来,本来就“不重要”的“位置”的重要性,在信息技术、WTO规则与全球化共同作用下,理所应当地应该“消亡”。Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujita与Venables的“区域经济观”与新古典的位置观不同,他们视区域为“生态空间”,强调区域间“第二自然”的异质性、面对面沟通在知识生产与非线性创新的独特作用,认为产业集群是区域经济竞争力的重要来源。
本文认为,O’Brien与Cairncross强调的是位置的“自然属性”; Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujita与Venables等学者强调的是位置的“社会属性”。O’Brien与Cairncross所说的“距离的消亡”,本质上是信息技术时代“地理”距离的消亡,而不是“组织”距离,更不是“心理”距离的消亡①。“位置悖论”是由学者们研究的视角不同导致的,本质上是一致的,而不是相悖的。当“地理”距离的“消亡”与“组织”距离、“心理”距离的“复活”并存,“位置悖论”也就见怪不怪了。
Feser、Bergamn、Pandit et al、Martin与Sunley对产业集群理论的批评以及产业集群发展的区域差异,即本文所说的“集群悖论”至少可以从两个方面得到解释。第一,产业集群是“地理”距离、“组织”距离与“心理”距离的有机统一,是一个演进适应系统,而不仅仅是“地理”距离的接近(产业集聚)。第二,制度的缺失或不完善是制约产业集群演进的根源。
产业集群的边界问题是产业理论必须作出回答的最基本的问题,有重要的理论价格与现实意义。探讨产业集群的边界问题必须回答这样两个问题:第一,什幺是产业集群的边界;第二,什幺因素决定着产业集群的边界。
本文认为,产业集群既然是产业集聚体、产业联合体、产业区域创新与集体品牌载体的统一,产业集群的边界就应该包括地理边界、组织边界与认知边界;制度既然是产业集群演进的基础,制度就应该是产业集群边界的决定因素。
目前关于产业集群边界的讨论主要集中在产业集群的地理边界上,对产业集群的组织边界、认知边界的研究还十分缺乏,用产业集群的地理边界替代产业集群边界实际上是将产业集聚与产业集群混为一谈的必然结果;对产业集群边界决定因素的研究更多地是从集群成本与收益的角度探讨,还没有从制度层面的解释。
本文对产业集群演进做的制度分析就是对制度对产业集群地理边界、组织边界与认知边界的决定作用的分析。本文把一体化的企业制度与新古典的市场制度看成“通用性”的制度,把网络化的企业制度与有组织的市场制度看成“专用性”的制度。产业集群可以看成是对企业与市场的双重替代:企业间分工对企业内部分工的替代;区域有组织的市场对新古典原子型市场的替代。
本文探讨的理论问题具有重要的现实意义,给定产业集群是一个演进适应系统,给定制度在产业集群演进中的决定性作用,制度建设就应该是集群企业与政府在产业集群演进中最重要的行为选择。
The regionalization and localization of increasingly global economy have drawn extensive attention among academics and industries. In light of this development, considerable amount of studies concerning industrial clusters, which is a key governmental strategy for economic development, have been published by economists.
This dissertation argue that industrial clusters are evolution-adaptive systems consisting of geographical element (industrial agglomeration), organizational element (industrial complexes) and cognitive element (the carrier of regional innovation and collective brand).
It’s our purpose to take Aoki’s institutional perspectiv(eAoki, 2001)and analyze the evolution of industrial clusters with the help of game theory and the equilibrium of games. Institutions determine the behavior set of the firm, and institutional changes determine the progress of industrial clusters. The change of game rules from cost competition, speed competition to technological competition resulted in the evolution of the firm from regional agglomeration to regional competition and cooperation, regional brand innovation (i.e. the necessity of the evolution of industrial clusters); The institutions of network-based firm in game equilibrium and organized market institutions make the above evolution possible (i.e. the practicability of the evolution of industrial clusters). With the support of the game equilibrium, industrial clusters need to adapt themselves to the changes of game rules.
In order to analyze the evolution from the institutional perspective, we draw two comparisons: one is to compare the intra-firm division to inter-firm division within an industrial syndicate, the other is to compare the homogeneous neoclassical“geographical space”to the“ecological space”as the carrier of regional innovation and brands.
Such institutional analysis can not only allow us to clarify some key concepts concerning industrial clusters to expose their nature, but also to offer theoretical explanation to the questions of“the paradox of location”,“the dilemma of cluster”and the boundary of industrial clusters.
The theory of“death of distance”developed by O’Brien and Cairncross is actually the modern version of the neoclassical concept of location. They identify location as homogeneous and geographical. Even when spatial differences are considered, they only attribute it to the differences in the quality of the key factors, which they believe will eventually be“eliminated”by technological progress and market competition. Thus they predict the“significance”of the“insignificant”concept of location will naturally“cease to exist”under the impact of information technology, WTO regulations and globalization. Unlike this neoclassical opinion, Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujita and Venables deem“the significance of location”differently . They view regions as ecological space and stress the heterogeneity of the“second nature”of regions and their unique role in knowledge production and nonlinear innovations by means of face-to-face communication. They refer to industrial clusters as the source of regional economic competitiveness.
Tt is the dissertation’s belief that O’Brien and Cairncross emphasize the“natural quality”and“physical quality”of a location, while Ohmae、Coyle、Krugman、Porter、Scott、Fujitaand Venables stress the“human quality”and“social quality”of a location. O’Brien Cairncross’idea of“the death of distance”is fundamentally“the death”of the geographical distance in the era of information technology, not the death of“organizational distance”or of“psychological distance”.“the paradox of location”is simply a result of diverse perspectives on the same subject and not contradictive in nature. It is no surprise to see“the paradox of location”in light of the coexistence of“the death of the geographical distance”and“the revival of the organizational and psychological distance”.
The criticism raised by Feser、Bergamn、Pandit et al、Martin Sunley on industrial clusters, and the regional differences in developing of industrial clusters, a.k.a the“the dilemma of cluster”, can be explained from two aspects.Firstly, industrial clusters are the unification of“geographical distance”,“organizational distance”and“psychological distance”. They are not just an enclosure in the geographical sense (i.e. industrial agglomeration), but also an evolution-adaptive system. Secondly, the incompleteness or lack of institutions will damage the dynamic advantages of industrial clusters.
It is vital both in theory and in practice for cluster theories to answer the basis question of the boundary of industrial cluster. In our point of view two questions need to be raised in order to discuss the boundary of industrial cluster: first of all, how to define the boundary of industrial cluster? Secondly, what factors determine the boundary of the industrial cluster?
We argue that, industrial cluster being the combination of industrial agglomeration, industrial complexes and industrial innovations, its boundary should extend to cover geographical boundary, organizational boundary and cognitive boundary; If institutions are the foundation of the evolution of the industrial clusters, it ought to be considered as the deciding factor in defining the boundaries of industrial clusters. Current discussions on industrial clusters mostly concentrate on the geographical boundary and studies on the other two types of boundaries are rather scarce. To confuse industrial clusters with industrial agglomerations will inevitably result in mistaking the geographical boundary as the only boundary; Researches on the definitive factors of the boundary mostly involved cluster cost and gains, rather than on the institutional level.
In conclusion, our industrial cluster theory has important implication for policy making, given the fact that industrial clusters are an evolution- adaptive system, institutions are the fundamentals for cluster evolutions, institutions construction should be the most significant behavior selection for government and cluster firm alike.
引文
①《政治经济学期刊》1991 年第 3 期。
① Porter, M. E. (1998): Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76,(November-December):77-90。
[1] A.H.J. Helmsing. Externalities, learning and governance: new perspectives on local economic development[J]. Development and change. 2001,32: 277-308;
[2] Albino V., Carbonara N., & Giannoccaro I. Industrial districts as complex adaptive systems: Agent-based models of emergent phenomena. [M].In: Karlsson, C., Johansson, B., & Stough, R. (Eds.) Industrial Clusters and Inter-Firm Networks, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005,73-82;
[3] Alchian, Armen & Demsetz, Harold. Production, information costs, and economic organization[J]. American economic review, 1972,62(50), 777-795;
[4] Allen, P. M. A complex systems approach to learning, adaptive networks[J]. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2001, 5, 149-180;
[5] Allen, R.C. Collective invention[J]. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 1983, 4: 1-24;
[6] Amin, Ash. Flexible specialization and small firms in Italy: myths and realities[J]. Aantipode, 1989, 21(1): 13-34;
[7] Amin, Ash. The Emilian model: institutional challenges[J]. Europeam Planning Studies, 1999, 7(4): 389-403;
[8] Amin, Ash. Globalisation and regional development: a relational perspective[J]. Competition and Change, 1998, Vol.3, pp.145-65;
[9] Amin, Ash. An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1999, Vol.23(2), pp.365-378;
[10] Amin, Ash. Moving on: institutionalism in economic geography[J]. Environment and Planning A, 2001a, Vol.33(7), pp.1237-241;
[11] Amin, Ash. Globalisation: geographical imaginations, in Neil Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (eds.) [M]. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2001b, pp.1247-257;
[12] Amin, Ash. Spatialities of globalisation[J]. Environment and Planning A,2002, Vol.34(3), pp.385-99;
[13] Amin, Ash and Cohendet, Patrick. Learning and adaptation in decentralised business networks[J]. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1999, Vol.17(1), pp.87-104;
[14] Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel. Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1992, Vol.16(4), pp.571-87;
[15] Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel. Living in the global, in Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift (eds.) [M]. Globalization, Institutions, and Regional Development in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp.1-22;
[16] Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel.What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic geography[J]? Antipode, 2000, Vol.32(1), pp.4-9;
[17] Amin, Ash. and Thrift, N. Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association[J]. Economy and Society 1994b, 24, 41-66;
[18] Amin Ash. and Wilkinson F. Learning, proximity and industrial performance: an introduction[J]. Camb. J. Econ. 1999, 23(2), 121-125;
[19] Anoop Madhok and Stephen B. Tallman. Resources, transactions and rents: managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships[J]. Organization science 1998, 9(3): 326-339;
[20] Arrow, K.J.The economic implications of learning by doing[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1962a, Vol. XXIX, No. 80;
[21] Arrow, Kenneth J.Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events[J]. Economic Journal, 1989, 99, pp. 116–131;
[22] Arthur, W. Brian. Silicon Valley' locational clusters: When do increasing returns imply monopoly[J].? Mathematical Social Sciences 1990, 19:235-251;
[23] Asanuma, B. Manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan and the concept of relation-specific skill[J]. Journal of the Japanese and international economies, 1989, 3: 1-30;
[24] Asheim, B.T. Industrial districts as “learning regions”: a condition for prosperity[J]. European planning studies 1996, 4 (4): 379-400;
[25] Asheim, Bjorn T. Interactive learning and localised knowledge in globalising learning economies[J]. GeoJournal 1999, 49: 345-352;
[26] Audretsch D. B. and Feldman, M. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production[J]. American ecomic review,1996, 86:630-640;
[27] Barnes, Trevor J. Retheorizing economic geography: from the quantitative revolution to the ‘cultural turn’ [J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2001, Vol.91(3), pp.546-65;
[28] Barnett, Clive.The cultural turn: fashion or progress in human geography[J]? Antipode, 1998, Vol.30(4), pp.379-94;
[29] Becattini G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion in Pyke F., Becattini G. and Sengenberger W. (eds.) [M]. Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, 1990, ILO, Geneva;
[30] Bellini, N. Planning the learning regions: an Italian approach, in Knowledge, innovation and economic growth. The theory and practice of learning regions[M], edited by F. Boekema, K. Morgan, S. Bakkers and R. Rutten. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 2000, 95-114;
[31] Belussi, Fiorenza. Local systems, industrial districts and institutional networks: towards a new evolutionary paradigm of industrial economics[J]? European Planning Studies, 1996, 4(1): 5-22;
[32] Belussi F. Path dependency vs. industrial dynamics: an analysis of two heterogeneous districts[J]. Human Systems Management, 1999a, p. 1-14;
[33] Belussi F., Arcangeli F. A typology of networks: flexible and evolutionary firms[J]. Research Policy 1998, 27: 415-428;
[33] B. Harrison Industrial districts:old wine in new bottles[J]? Regional Studies,1991, 26(5):469-483;
[34] Boschma, and Jan G. Lambooy. Knowledge, market structure and economic coordination, dynamics of industrial districts[J]. Growth and change 2002, 33:291-311;
[35] Boschma, R.A. New industries and windows of locational opportunity. A long-term analysis of Belgium[J]. Erdkunde 1997, 51, (1), 1-19;
[36] Boschma, R.A., and Lambooy, J.G. Evolutionary economics and economic geography[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1999, 9, 411-429;
[37] Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. Localised Knowledge Spillovers versus Innovative Milieux: Knowledge ‘Tacitness’ Reconsidered[J]. Regional Science, 2001, 80, pp. 255-273;
[38] Brian J. Loasby. Market institutions and economic evolution[J]. J Evol Econ 2000, 10: 297-309;
[39] Cairncross, F., the Death of Distance[M]. 1999, London: Orion Business Books;
[40] Candace, J. William, S. H, Stephen, P. B. A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms[J]. Academy of management review, 1997, 22(4): 911-945;
[41] Carbonara, N., Giannoccaro I., & Pontrandolfo P. Supply chains within industrial districts: a theoretical framework[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2002, 76 (2), 159-176;
[42] Cheung, Steven N.S. The contractual nature of the firm[J]. Journal of law and economics, 1983, 26(1): 1-21;
[43] Coase, Ronald H. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica, 4 (new series) 1937, 386-405;
[44] Coase, Ronald H. The New Institutional Economics[J]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 1984, 140, pp. 229–231;
[45] Coase, Ronald H. The Institutional Structure of Production[J]. American Economic Review, 1992, 82, pp. 713–719;
[46] Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990, 35: 128-152;
[47] Cooke, P. Flexible integration, scope economies, and strategic alliances: social and spatial mediations[J]. Environment and Planning D: society and space 1988, 6: 281-300;
[48] Cooke, P. Regional Innovation Systems: Competitive Regulation in the New Europe[J]. Geoforum, 1992, 23: 365-382;
[49] Cooke, P. and K. Morgan. The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation[M]. Oxford: 1998, Oxford Univer sity Press;
[50] Cooke, P., M. Uranga and G. Etxebarria. Regional Systems of Innovation: an Evolutionary Perspective[J]. Environment and Planning A, 1998, 30: 1563-1584;
[51] Coyle, D. The Weightless World: Strategies for Managing the Digital Economy[M]. London: 1997, Capstone;
[52] Coyle, D. Paradoxes of Prosperity: Why the New Capitalism Benefits All[M]. London: 2001, Texere Publishing;
[53] Daniel A. Levinthal Organizational adaptation and environmental selection: interrelated processes of change[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 140,145;
[54] Dyer, J.H. & Ouchi, W.G. Japanese style business partnerships: giving companies a competitive edge[J]. Sloan management review. 1993, 35(1): 51-63;
[55] Dyer, J. H. Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage[J]. Organization science, 1996a, 7: 649-666;
[56] Dyer, J. H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry[J]. Strategic management journal, 1996b, 17: 271-292;
[57] Dyer, J. H. and Harbir Singh. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23(4): 660-679;
[58] Eskelinen, H. and Kautonen, M. In the shadow of the dominant cluster-the case of furniture industry in Finland'. In: Eskelinen, H., (Ed.) [M].Regional Specialisation and Local Environment-Learning and Competitiveness pp. 171-192. Stockholm: NordREFO Report 1979:3 NordREFO;
[59] Enright, M.J. Organization and coordination in geographically concentrated industries. In N. Lamoreaux and D. Raff(eds.) [M]. Coordination and information: historical perspectives on the organization of enterprise. University of Chicago Press for the NBER, Chicago, IL., 1995, pp.103-142;
[60] Feser, e.j. Old and new theories of industry clusters, in Steiner, M. (1998) (Ed.) Clusters and Regional Specialisation: On Geography, Technology and Networks[M]. London: Pion, 1998, pp. 18-40;
[61] Feser, E.J. and Bergman, E.M.National Industry Cluster Templates: A Framework for Regional Cluster Analysis[J]. Regional Studies, 2000, 34, 1, pp. 1-20;
[62] Freeman, C. The economics of technical change[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1994, vol. 18, no. 5, October;
[63] Fujita, M. Krugman, P. and Venables, A. The Spatial Economy: Cities Regions and International Trade[M]. Cambridge, Mass: 2000, MIT Press;
[64] Gertler, M. S. Implementing advanced manufacturing technologies in mature industrial regions: towards a social model of technology production[J]. Regional Studies 1993, 27: 665-680;
[65] Gertler, M. S. Being there: proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies[J]. Economic Geography 1995, 71: 1-26;
[66] Ghoshal, S. 1995. Bad for practice; a critique of the transaction cost theory[J]. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1995, 12-16;
[67] Gianni Lorenzoni and Andrea Lipparini The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study[J]. Strategic Management Journal 1999, 20: 317-338;
[68] Gibbons, M. and Johnston, R. D. The roles of science in technological innovation[J]. Research Policy, 1974, vol. 3, no. 3;
[69] Giuliani E. 2005. When the micro shapes the meso: learning and innovation in wine clusters[M]. University of Sussex, 2005, Brighton, UK;
[70] Giuliani E, Bell M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1): 47-68;
[71] Gordon, I. R. and McCann, P. Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/ or social networks[J]. Urban Studies 2000, 37: 513-532;
[72] Granovetter, M. 1973, The strength of weak ties[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78: 1360-1380;
[73] Granovetter, M. Economic action and economic structure: the problem of embeddedness[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1985, 91: 481-510;
[74] Grossman, Sanford and Oliver Hart. The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1996, Vol. 94;
[75] Oliver Hart and Moore, John. Property rights and the nature of the firm[J]. Journal of political economy, 1990, Vol. 98;
[76] Helfat, C.E., & Teece, D.E. Vertical integration and risk reduction[J]. Journal of law, economics and organization, 1987, 3: 47-67;
[77] Hill, C.W.L. National institutional structures, transaction cost economizing and competitive advantage: the case of Jpan[J]. Organization science, 1995, 6: 119-131;
[78] Howells J. R. L. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography[J]. Urban studies, 2002, 39 (5-6), 871-884;
[79] Hudson R. The learning economy, the learning firm and the learning region. A sympathetic critique of the limits of learning[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1999, 6(1): 59-72;
[80] Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations[J]. Quarterly journal of economics, 1993, 108: 577-598;
[81] Jeffrey L. Bradach and Robert G. Eccles. Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms[J]. Annu. Rev. social. 1989, 15: 97-118;
[82] Jeffrey H. Dyer. Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 18(7): 535-556;
[83] Jensen, Michael C. and William Meckling. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3: 305-360;
[84] Joanne E. Oxley. Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: a transaction cost approach[J]. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 1997, 13(2): 387-409;
[85] Joel m. Podolny and Karen L. Page. Network forms of organization[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1998, 24: 57-76;
[86] Johnson, Bj?rn and Bengt-Ake Lundvall. Closing the Institutional Gap[J]? Revue D’Economie Industrielle, 1992, No. 59;
[87] Joseph Farrell, Hunter K. Monroe and Garth Saloner. The vertical organization of industry: systems competition versus component competition[J]. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 1998, 7(2): 143-182;
[88] Keeble D, Wilkinson F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe[J]. Regional Studies , 1999, 33 (4): 295-303;
[89] Keeble, D. and Wilkinson, F. High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe[M]. Aldershot, 2000, Ashgate;
[90] Kevin Morgan. The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal[J]. Regional studies, 1997, 31(5): 491-503;
[91] Kirat T. and Lung Y. Innovation and proximity, territories as loci of collective learning processes[J]. European urban and regional studies, 1999, 6(1):27-38;
[92] Klein, B., Crawford, R. and Alchian, A. Vertical integration, appropriable rents and the competitive contracting process[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1978, 21: 297-326;
[93] Lane, C. and R. Backman. The social construction of trust: supplier relations in Britain and Germany[J]. Organization Studies, 1996, 17(3):365-395;
[94] Lisa, De Propris. Systemic flexibility, production fragmentation and cluster governance[J]. Europen planning studies, 2001, 9(6): 739-753;
[95] Loasby,Brian. Time, Knowledge and evolutionary dynamics: why connections matter[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2001, 11(4):393-412;
[96] Lorenz, E. H. Flexible production systems and the social construction of trust[J]. Politics and Society, 1993, 21(3): 307-324;
[97] Lundvall, B.A. and Johnson, B. The learning economy[J]. Journal of Industry Studies, 1994, 1: 23-42;
[98] Lundvall, B.-A. Introduction to 'technological infrastructure and international competitiveness' by Christopher Freeman'[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2004, Vol 13, No 3, pp 531-539;
[99] Lundvall, B-A, B. Johnson, E.S. Andersen and B. Dalum. National systems of production, innovation and competence building[J]. Research Policy, 2002, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 213-231;
[100] Malmberg, A. Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and firm competitiveness[J]. Geogr. Ann. 1996, 78 B(2): 85-97;
[101] Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. Towards an explanation of industry agglomeration and regional specialization[J]. European Planning Studies, 1997, 5: 25-41;
[102] Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering[J]. Environment and Planning A, 2002, 34: 429-449;
[103] Malmgren, H. B. Information, expectations and the theory of the firm[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1961, 75 (3): 399-421;
[104] Martin, R.L. and Sunley, P. Slow Convergence? The New Endogenous Growth Theory and Regional Development[J].Economic Geography, 1998, 74, pp. 201-227;
[105] Martin, Ron. The new “geographical turn” in economics: some critical reflections[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1999, Vol.23, pp.65-91;
[106] Martin, Ron. Geography and public policy: the case of the missing agenda[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 2001, Vol.25(2), pp.189-210;
[107] Martin, Ron and Sunley, Peter. Rethinking the “economic” in economic geography: broadening our vision or losing our focus? [J]. Antipode, 2001, Vol.33(2), pp.148-61;
[108] Martin R, Sunley P. Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? [J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2003, 3 (1): 5-35;
[109] Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2001, 10: 921-943;
[110] Maskell, P. and Malmberg, A. The competitiveness of firms and regions: ‘ubiquitification’ and the importance of localized learning[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1999a, 6: 9-25;
[111] Maskell, P. and Malmberg, A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1999b, 23: 167-185;
[112] Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster[J]. Industrial and corporate change, 2001, 10(4): 921-943;
[113] Meine Pieter Van Dijk. Flexible specialization, the new competition and industrial districts[J]. Small Business Economics, 1995, 7(1): 15-27;
[114] Myrdal, G. Economic theory and underdeveloped regions[M]. London, 1957, Duckworth;
[115] Nelson, R.R. Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 1995, 33, 48-90;
[116] North, Douglass. Structure and Change in Economic History[M]. New York, 1981, Norton;
[117] Nicolai J. Foss, Carsten A. Koch. Opportunism, organizational economics and the network approach[J]. Scand. J. Mgmt, 1996, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 189-205;
[118] North, Douglass. Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic History[J]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 1984, 140, pp. 7–17;
[119] North, Douglass. A transaction cost theory of politics[J]. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1990, 2, pp. 355–367;
[120] O’Brien, R. Global Financial Integration: The End of Geography? [M]. London: Pinter, 1992;
[121] Ottati, G. D. Cooperation and competition in the industrial district as an organization model[J]. Europeam planning studies, 1994, 2(4): 463-484;
[122] Paniccia, I. One, a hundred, thousands of industrial districts. Organizational variety in local networks of small and medium-sized enterprises[J]. Organization Studies, 1998, 19(4): 667-699;
[123] Parkhe, A. Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1993, 36,794-829;
[124] Paul H. and Jonathan Z. Flexible specialization versus post-fordism, theory, evidence and policy implications[J]. Economy and Society, 1991, 20(1): 1-56;
[125] Philip M., Tomokazu A., Ian R. G. Industrial cluster, transaction costs and the institutional determinants of MNE location behavior[J]. International Business Review, 2002, 11: 647-663;
[126] P. Krugman. First nature, second nature, and metropolitan location[J]. Journal of Regional Science, 1993, 33 (2): 129–144;
[127] P. Krugman, P.et al. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade[M]. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1999);
[128] Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation[M]. New York: Rinehart, 1994;
[129] Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension[J]. Routledge: London, 1996;
[130] Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy[M]. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul 1958;
[131] Porter, M. E. Clusters and the new economics of competition[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76 (November-December):77-90;
[132] Powell, W. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organisation in B. Straw and L.L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour[M]. CT : JAI Press: 1990, 295-336;
[132] Ranjay Gulati. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38(1): 85-112;
[133] Richardson GB. The organisation of industry[J]. Economic Journal, 1972, 82: 883-896;
[134] Rikard L., Lars B., Kristina H., Judith S.The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances[J]. Organizational Science, 1998, 9(3): 285-305;
[135] Ring, P.S. and A.H. Van de Ven. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19:90-118;
[136] Robert Ellinger. Industrial location behavior and spatial evolution[J]. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1977, 25(4): 295-312;
[137] Robins, J.A. Organization as strategy: restructuring production in the film industry[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14: 103-118;
[138] Ron Martin, Peter Sunley. Paul Krugman’s geographical economics and its implications for regional development theory: a critical assessment[J]. Economic geography, 1996, 72(3): 259-292;
[139] Sabel C. F., Studied trust: building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy[J]. Human relations, 1993, 46(9):1133-1170;
[140] Sake, M. The role of “trust” in Japanese buyer-supplier relationships[J]. Ricerche Economiche, 1991, XLV: 449-474;
[141] Sanchez, R. Strategic flexibility, firm organization, and managerial work in dynamic markets[J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 1993, (9): 251-291;
[142] Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994;
[143] Saxenian Annalee. Inside-out: regional networks and industrial adaption in silicon valley and route 128[J]. Journal of policy development and research, 1996, 2(2): 41-60;
[144] Schmitz, H. Small shoemakers and Fordist giants: tale of a supercluster[J]. World Development, 1995a, Vol 23 No 1 January: 9-28;
[145] Schmitz, H. Collective efficiency: growth path for small-scale industry[J]. Journal of Development Studies, 1995b, Vol 31 No 4 April: 529-566;
[146] Schmitz, H. and B. Musyck. Industrial districts in Europe: policy lessons for developing countries? [J].World Development, 1994, Vol 22 No 6 June: 889-910;
[147] Schumpeter, J. A. The theory of economic development[M]. Harvard university press, Cambridge, Mass, 1936;
[148] Scott, A.J. Flexible production systems: Analytical tasks and theoretical horizons – a reply to Lovering[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1991, 15: 130-134;
[149] Scott, A.J. The geographic foundations of industrial performance: Competition and Change[J]. The Journal of Global Business and Political Economy, 1995, 1: 51-66;
[150] Silverberg, G., and Orsenigo, L. Innovation, diversity and diffusion: a self-organizing mode[J]. Economic Journal, 1988, 98, pp. 1032-1054;
[151] Teven Tadelis. What's in a Name? Reputation as a Tradeable Asset[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jun., 1999), pp. 548-563;
[152] Storper, M. The transition to flexible specialisation in the US film industry: external economies, the division of labour and the crossing of industrial divides[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1989, Vol 13 No 2 June: 273-305;
[153] Storper, M and Bennett Harrison. Fflexibility, hierarchy and regional development: the changing structure of industrial production systems and their forms of governance in the 1990s[J]. Research Policy, 1991, 20: 407-422;
[154] Storper, M. The resurgence of regional economics, ten years later[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1995, 2: 191-221;
[155] Storper, M. The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy[M]. New York, London: Guilford, 1997;
[156] Sunley, P. Context in economic geography: the relevance of pragmatism[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 1996, 20: 338-55;
[157] Teece, D. J. Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1980, 3 (1): 223-247;
[158] Thrift, Nigel. On the determination of social action in space and time[J]. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1983, Vol.1(1), pp.23-57;
[159] Thrift, Nigel. Performing cultures in the new economy[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2000b, Vol.90(4), pp.674-92;
[160] Thrift, Nigel and Olds, Kris. Refiguring the economic in economic geography[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 1996, Vol.20(3), pp.311-337;
[161] Torre A. and Gilly J.P. On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics[J]. Regional Studies, 2000, 34(2), 169-180;
[162] Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect[J]. American Sociological Review, 1996, 61: 674-698;
[163] Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997, 42: 35-67;
[164] Walker, G. and D. A transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29,373-391;
[165] Walter W. Powell. Neither market nor hierarchy; network forms of organization[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1990, 12:295-336;
[166] Williams, K., Cutler, T., Williams, J. and Haslam, C. The end of mass production? Review of Piore and Sabel’s the second industrial divide[J]. Economy and society, 1987, 16: 405-439;
[167] Williamson, Oliver E. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications[M]. New York: free press, 1975;
[168] Williamson, Oliver E. The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1981, Vol.87(3), pp.548-77;
[169] Williamson, Oliver. Transaction Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1979, 22, pp. 233–261;
[170] Williamson, Oliver. Imparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alyernatives[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 1991a, 36: 269-296;
[171] Williamson, Oliver. Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Organization[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1991b, 12, pp. 75–94;
[172] Williamson, Oliver. Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1993a, 36, pp. 453–486;
[173] 阿尔弗雷·韦伯.工业区位论[M].李刚剑等译,北京:商务印书馆,1997;
[174] 保罗·克鲁格曼.地理与贸易[M].张兆杰译,北京:北京大学出版社,2000;
[175] 蔡宁, 杨闩柱.企业集群竞争优势的演进: 从“聚集经济”到“创新网络[J] .科研管理, 2004(4);
[176] 陈剑锋,唐振鹏.国外产业集群研究综述[J].外国经济与管理, 2002(8);
[177] 仇保兴.小企业集群研究[M] .上海:复旦大学出版社,1999;
[178] 符正平.论企业集群的产生条件与形成机制[J] .中国工业经济,2002(10);
[179] 盖文启.创新网络—区域经济发展新思维[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002(21);
[180] 顾强.“从基地到集群”:东西老工业基地发展产业集群的探析.中国产业集群第一辑[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2005:23-56;
[181] 顾强. 资源型产业集群的结构调整—从路径依赖到路径创造.中国产业集群第四辑[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2006:32-56;
[182] 黄建康.产业集群竞争优势刚性及其超越路径[J].经济问题探索, 2004(8);
[183] 李青,李文军、郭金龙.《区域创新视角下的产业发展:理论与案例研究》[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004;
[184] 梁琦.《产业集聚论》[M],商务印书馆,2004;
[185] 刘仁军.交易成本、社会资本与企业网络-关系契约理论及应用[D].华中科技大学博士学论文,1995;
[186] 马斌,徐越倩.社区性产业集群与合作性激励的生成[J].中国工业经济,2006(6):65-72;
[187] 马歇尔.《经济学原理》[M] . 朱志泰译,北京:商务印书馆,1994;
[188] 诺斯.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M] .上海:上海人民出版社,1996;
[189] 彭泗清.关系与信任;中国人人际信任的一项本土研究,郑也夫等着,中国社会中的信任[M].北京:中国城市出版社;
[190] 史晋川.《制度变迁与经济发展:温州模式研究》[M],杭州:浙江大学出版社,2001;
[191] 孙沛东,徐建牛.国外产业集群技术创新研究综述[J] .广州大学学报,2004(3);
[192] 唐晓华等.产业集群:辽宁经济增长的路径选择[M] .北京:经济管理出版社,2006;
[193] 王步芳.世界各大主流经济学派产业集群理论综述[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2004(1);
[194] 王缉慈.地方产业群战略[J].中国工业经济,2002(3);
[195] 王雷.中国产业集群理论研究评述[J].重庆工商大学学报, 2004(4);
[196] 魏后凯.中国制造业集中状况及其国际比较[J].中国工业经济,2002(1):41-49;
[197] 魏江.产业集群—创新系统与技术学习[M].科学出版社,2003;
[198] 威廉姆森.《资本主义经济制度》[M].段毅才,王伟译,商务印书馆,2002;
[199] 威廉姆森.《治理机制》[M].中国社会科学出版社,2001;
[200] 魏守华,石碧华,论产业集群的竞争优势[J].中国工业经济,2002(1):69-66;
[201] 魏守华.集群竞争力的动力机制以及实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2002(10);
[202] 魏守华.赵雅沁,企业群的概念、意义与理论解释[J].中央财经大学学报, 2002(3);
[203] 文嫣, 曾刚.嵌入全球价值链的地方产业集群发展—地方建筑陶瓷产集群研究[J].中国工业经济,2004(6);
[204] 徐康宁.开放经济条件下的产业集群及其竞争力[J].中国工业经济,2001(11);
[205]许庆明, 盛其红, 黄晖.产业集群发展的可持续性[J].经济理论与经济管理, 2003(11);
[206] 杨洪焦, 钱颜文, 孙林岩.产业集群理论研究述评[J].经济问题探索,2006(3); [2-7] 张辉.产业集群竞争力的内在经济机理[J].中国软科学, 2003(1);
[208] 张维迎.企业的企业家-契约理论[M].三联书店,1995;
[209] 张元智、马鸣萧.产业集群:获取竞争优势的空间[M].华夏出版社,2006;
[210] 中国社会科学院课题组.“温州模式”的转型与发展[J].中国工业经济,2006(6):51-59;
[211] 朱华晟.浙江产业群—产业网络、成长轨迹与发展动力[M].浙江大学出版社,2003;
[212] 郭健.世界硅谷模式的制度分析[M].石家庄:中国社会科学出版社.2001:6-78.
① Porter, M. E. (1998): Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76,(November-December):77-90。
[1] A.H.J. Helmsing. Externalities, learning and governance: new perspectives on local economic development[J]. Development and change. 2001,32: 277-308;
[2] Albino V., Carbonara N., & Giannoccaro I. Industrial districts as complex adaptive systems: Agent-based models of emergent phenomena. [M].In: Karlsson, C., Johansson, B., & Stough, R. (Eds.) Industrial Clusters and Inter-Firm Networks, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2005,73-82;
[3] Alchian, Armen & Demsetz, Harold. Production, information costs, and economic organization[J]. American economic review, 1972,62(50), 777-795;
[4] Allen, P. M. A complex systems approach to learning, adaptive networks[J]. International Journal of Innovation Management, 2001, 5, 149-180;
[5] Allen, R.C. Collective invention[J]. Journal of Economic Behaviour and Organization, 1983, 4: 1-24;
[6] Amin, Ash. Flexible specialization and small firms in Italy: myths and realities[J]. Aantipode, 1989, 21(1): 13-34;
[7] Amin, Ash. The Emilian model: institutional challenges[J]. Europeam Planning Studies, 1999, 7(4): 389-403;
[8] Amin, Ash. Globalisation and regional development: a relational perspective[J]. Competition and Change, 1998, Vol.3, pp.145-65;
[9] Amin, Ash. An institutionalist perspective on regional economic development[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1999, Vol.23(2), pp.365-378;
[10] Amin, Ash. Moving on: institutionalism in economic geography[J]. Environment and Planning A, 2001a, Vol.33(7), pp.1237-241;
[11] Amin, Ash. Globalisation: geographical imaginations, in Neil Smelser and Paul B. Baltes (eds.) [M]. International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioural Sciences, Amsterdam: Elsevier Science, 2001b, pp.1247-257;
[12] Amin, Ash. Spatialities of globalisation[J]. Environment and Planning A,2002, Vol.34(3), pp.385-99;
[13] Amin, Ash and Cohendet, Patrick. Learning and adaptation in decentralised business networks[J]. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1999, Vol.17(1), pp.87-104;
[14] Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel. Neo-Marshallian nodes in global networks[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1992, Vol.16(4), pp.571-87;
[15] Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel. Living in the global, in Ash Amin and Nigel Thrift (eds.) [M]. Globalization, Institutions, and Regional Development in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994, pp.1-22;
[16] Amin, Ash and Thrift, Nigel.What kind of economic theory for what kind of economic geography[J]? Antipode, 2000, Vol.32(1), pp.4-9;
[17] Amin, Ash. and Thrift, N. Institutional issues for the European regions: from markets and plans to socioeconomics and powers of association[J]. Economy and Society 1994b, 24, 41-66;
[18] Amin Ash. and Wilkinson F. Learning, proximity and industrial performance: an introduction[J]. Camb. J. Econ. 1999, 23(2), 121-125;
[19] Anoop Madhok and Stephen B. Tallman. Resources, transactions and rents: managing value through interfirm collaborative relationships[J]. Organization science 1998, 9(3): 326-339;
[20] Arrow, K.J.The economic implications of learning by doing[J]. Review of Economic Studies, 1962a, Vol. XXIX, No. 80;
[21] Arrow, Kenneth J.Competing technologies, increasing returns, and lock-in by historical events[J]. Economic Journal, 1989, 99, pp. 116–131;
[22] Arthur, W. Brian. Silicon Valley' locational clusters: When do increasing returns imply monopoly[J].? Mathematical Social Sciences 1990, 19:235-251;
[23] Asanuma, B. Manufacturer-supplier relationships in Japan and the concept of relation-specific skill[J]. Journal of the Japanese and international economies, 1989, 3: 1-30;
[24] Asheim, B.T. Industrial districts as “learning regions”: a condition for prosperity[J]. European planning studies 1996, 4 (4): 379-400;
[25] Asheim, Bjorn T. Interactive learning and localised knowledge in globalising learning economies[J]. GeoJournal 1999, 49: 345-352;
[26] Audretsch D. B. and Feldman, M. R&D spillovers and the geography of innovation and production[J]. American ecomic review,1996, 86:630-640;
[27] Barnes, Trevor J. Retheorizing economic geography: from the quantitative revolution to the ‘cultural turn’ [J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2001, Vol.91(3), pp.546-65;
[28] Barnett, Clive.The cultural turn: fashion or progress in human geography[J]? Antipode, 1998, Vol.30(4), pp.379-94;
[29] Becattini G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion in Pyke F., Becattini G. and Sengenberger W. (eds.) [M]. Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, 1990, ILO, Geneva;
[30] Bellini, N. Planning the learning regions: an Italian approach, in Knowledge, innovation and economic growth. The theory and practice of learning regions[M], edited by F. Boekema, K. Morgan, S. Bakkers and R. Rutten. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar: 2000, 95-114;
[31] Belussi, Fiorenza. Local systems, industrial districts and institutional networks: towards a new evolutionary paradigm of industrial economics[J]? European Planning Studies, 1996, 4(1): 5-22;
[32] Belussi F. Path dependency vs. industrial dynamics: an analysis of two heterogeneous districts[J]. Human Systems Management, 1999a, p. 1-14;
[33] Belussi F., Arcangeli F. A typology of networks: flexible and evolutionary firms[J]. Research Policy 1998, 27: 415-428;
[33] B. Harrison Industrial districts:old wine in new bottles[J]? Regional Studies,1991, 26(5):469-483;
[34] Boschma, and Jan G. Lambooy. Knowledge, market structure and economic coordination, dynamics of industrial districts[J]. Growth and change 2002, 33:291-311;
[35] Boschma, R.A. New industries and windows of locational opportunity. A long-term analysis of Belgium[J]. Erdkunde 1997, 51, (1), 1-19;
[36] Boschma, R.A., and Lambooy, J.G. Evolutionary economics and economic geography[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 1999, 9, 411-429;
[37] Breschi, S. and Lissoni, F. Localised Knowledge Spillovers versus Innovative Milieux: Knowledge ‘Tacitness’ Reconsidered[J]. Regional Science, 2001, 80, pp. 255-273;
[38] Brian J. Loasby. Market institutions and economic evolution[J]. J Evol Econ 2000, 10: 297-309;
[39] Cairncross, F., the Death of Distance[M]. 1999, London: Orion Business Books;
[40] Candace, J. William, S. H, Stephen, P. B. A general theory of network governance: exchange conditions and social mechanisms[J]. Academy of management review, 1997, 22(4): 911-945;
[41] Carbonara, N., Giannoccaro I., & Pontrandolfo P. Supply chains within industrial districts: a theoretical framework[J]. International Journal of Production Economics, 2002, 76 (2), 159-176;
[42] Cheung, Steven N.S. The contractual nature of the firm[J]. Journal of law and economics, 1983, 26(1): 1-21;
[43] Coase, Ronald H. The Nature of the Firm[J]. Economica, 4 (new series) 1937, 386-405;
[44] Coase, Ronald H. The New Institutional Economics[J]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 1984, 140, pp. 229–231;
[45] Coase, Ronald H. The Institutional Structure of Production[J]. American Economic Review, 1992, 82, pp. 713–719;
[46] Cohen, W. M. and Levinthal, D. A. Absorptive capacity: a new perspective on learning and innovation[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly 1990, 35: 128-152;
[47] Cooke, P. Flexible integration, scope economies, and strategic alliances: social and spatial mediations[J]. Environment and Planning D: society and space 1988, 6: 281-300;
[48] Cooke, P. Regional Innovation Systems: Competitive Regulation in the New Europe[J]. Geoforum, 1992, 23: 365-382;
[49] Cooke, P. and K. Morgan. The Associational Economy: Firms, Regions and Innovation[M]. Oxford: 1998, Oxford Univer sity Press;
[50] Cooke, P., M. Uranga and G. Etxebarria. Regional Systems of Innovation: an Evolutionary Perspective[J]. Environment and Planning A, 1998, 30: 1563-1584;
[51] Coyle, D. The Weightless World: Strategies for Managing the Digital Economy[M]. London: 1997, Capstone;
[52] Coyle, D. Paradoxes of Prosperity: Why the New Capitalism Benefits All[M]. London: 2001, Texere Publishing;
[53] Daniel A. Levinthal Organizational adaptation and environmental selection: interrelated processes of change[J]. Organization Science, 1991, 2(1): 140,145;
[54] Dyer, J.H. & Ouchi, W.G. Japanese style business partnerships: giving companies a competitive edge[J]. Sloan management review. 1993, 35(1): 51-63;
[55] Dyer, J. H. Does governance matter? Keiretsu alliances and asset specificity as sources of Japanese competitive advantage[J]. Organization science, 1996a, 7: 649-666;
[56] Dyer, J. H. Specialized supplier networks as a source of competitive advantage: evidence from the auto industry[J]. Strategic management journal, 1996b, 17: 271-292;
[57] Dyer, J. H. and Harbir Singh. The relational view: cooperative strategy and sources of interorganizational competitive advantage[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1998, 23(4): 660-679;
[58] Eskelinen, H. and Kautonen, M. In the shadow of the dominant cluster-the case of furniture industry in Finland'. In: Eskelinen, H., (Ed.) [M].Regional Specialisation and Local Environment-Learning and Competitiveness pp. 171-192. Stockholm: NordREFO Report 1979:3 NordREFO;
[59] Enright, M.J. Organization and coordination in geographically concentrated industries. In N. Lamoreaux and D. Raff(eds.) [M]. Coordination and information: historical perspectives on the organization of enterprise. University of Chicago Press for the NBER, Chicago, IL., 1995, pp.103-142;
[60] Feser, e.j. Old and new theories of industry clusters, in Steiner, M. (1998) (Ed.) Clusters and Regional Specialisation: On Geography, Technology and Networks[M]. London: Pion, 1998, pp. 18-40;
[61] Feser, E.J. and Bergman, E.M.National Industry Cluster Templates: A Framework for Regional Cluster Analysis[J]. Regional Studies, 2000, 34, 1, pp. 1-20;
[62] Freeman, C. The economics of technical change[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1994, vol. 18, no. 5, October;
[63] Fujita, M. Krugman, P. and Venables, A. The Spatial Economy: Cities Regions and International Trade[M]. Cambridge, Mass: 2000, MIT Press;
[64] Gertler, M. S. Implementing advanced manufacturing technologies in mature industrial regions: towards a social model of technology production[J]. Regional Studies 1993, 27: 665-680;
[65] Gertler, M. S. Being there: proximity, organization, and culture in the development and adoption of advanced manufacturing technologies[J]. Economic Geography 1995, 71: 1-26;
[66] Ghoshal, S. 1995. Bad for practice; a critique of the transaction cost theory[J]. Proceedings of the Academy of Management, 1995, 12-16;
[67] Gianni Lorenzoni and Andrea Lipparini The leveraging of interfirm relationships as a distinctive organizational capability: a longitudinal study[J]. Strategic Management Journal 1999, 20: 317-338;
[68] Gibbons, M. and Johnston, R. D. The roles of science in technological innovation[J]. Research Policy, 1974, vol. 3, no. 3;
[69] Giuliani E. 2005. When the micro shapes the meso: learning and innovation in wine clusters[M]. University of Sussex, 2005, Brighton, UK;
[70] Giuliani E, Bell M. The micro-determinants of meso-level learning and innovation: evidence from a Chilean wine cluster[J]. Research Policy, 2005, 34(1): 47-68;
[71] Gordon, I. R. and McCann, P. Industrial clusters: complexes, agglomeration and/ or social networks[J]. Urban Studies 2000, 37: 513-532;
[72] Granovetter, M. 1973, The strength of weak ties[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1973, 78: 1360-1380;
[73] Granovetter, M. Economic action and economic structure: the problem of embeddedness[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1985, 91: 481-510;
[74] Grossman, Sanford and Oliver Hart. The costs and benefits of ownership: a theory of vertical and lateral integration[J]. Journal of Political Economy, 1996, Vol. 94;
[75] Oliver Hart and Moore, John. Property rights and the nature of the firm[J]. Journal of political economy, 1990, Vol. 98;
[76] Helfat, C.E., & Teece, D.E. Vertical integration and risk reduction[J]. Journal of law, economics and organization, 1987, 3: 47-67;
[77] Hill, C.W.L. National institutional structures, transaction cost economizing and competitive advantage: the case of Jpan[J]. Organization science, 1995, 6: 119-131;
[78] Howells J. R. L. Tacit knowledge, innovation and economic geography[J]. Urban studies, 2002, 39 (5-6), 871-884;
[79] Hudson R. The learning economy, the learning firm and the learning region. A sympathetic critique of the limits of learning[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1999, 6(1): 59-72;
[80] Jaffe, A., M. Trajtenberg, and R. Henderson Geographic localization of knowledge spillovers as evidenced by patent citations[J]. Quarterly journal of economics, 1993, 108: 577-598;
[81] Jeffrey L. Bradach and Robert G. Eccles. Price, authority, and trust: from ideal types to plural forms[J]. Annu. Rev. social. 1989, 15: 97-118;
[82] Jeffrey H. Dyer. Effective interfirm collaboration: how firms minimize transaction costs and maximize transaction value[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1997, 18(7): 535-556;
[83] Jensen, Michael C. and William Meckling. Theory of the firm: managerial behavior, agency costs, and capital structure[J]. Journal of Financial Economics, 1976, 3: 305-360;
[84] Joanne E. Oxley. Appropriability hazards and governance in strategic alliances: a transaction cost approach[J]. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization, 1997, 13(2): 387-409;
[85] Joel m. Podolny and Karen L. Page. Network forms of organization[J]. Annual Review of Sociology, 1998, 24: 57-76;
[86] Johnson, Bj?rn and Bengt-Ake Lundvall. Closing the Institutional Gap[J]? Revue D’Economie Industrielle, 1992, No. 59;
[87] Joseph Farrell, Hunter K. Monroe and Garth Saloner. The vertical organization of industry: systems competition versus component competition[J]. Journal of Economics & Management Strategy, 1998, 7(2): 143-182;
[88] Keeble D, Wilkinson F. Collective learning and knowledge development in the evolution of regional clusters of high technology SMEs in Europe[J]. Regional Studies , 1999, 33 (4): 295-303;
[89] Keeble, D. and Wilkinson, F. High-Technology Clusters, Networking and Collective Learning in Europe[M]. Aldershot, 2000, Ashgate;
[90] Kevin Morgan. The learning region: institutions, innovation and regional renewal[J]. Regional studies, 1997, 31(5): 491-503;
[91] Kirat T. and Lung Y. Innovation and proximity, territories as loci of collective learning processes[J]. European urban and regional studies, 1999, 6(1):27-38;
[92] Klein, B., Crawford, R. and Alchian, A. Vertical integration, appropriable rents and the competitive contracting process[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1978, 21: 297-326;
[93] Lane, C. and R. Backman. The social construction of trust: supplier relations in Britain and Germany[J]. Organization Studies, 1996, 17(3):365-395;
[94] Lisa, De Propris. Systemic flexibility, production fragmentation and cluster governance[J]. Europen planning studies, 2001, 9(6): 739-753;
[95] Loasby,Brian. Time, Knowledge and evolutionary dynamics: why connections matter[J]. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 2001, 11(4):393-412;
[96] Lorenz, E. H. Flexible production systems and the social construction of trust[J]. Politics and Society, 1993, 21(3): 307-324;
[97] Lundvall, B.A. and Johnson, B. The learning economy[J]. Journal of Industry Studies, 1994, 1: 23-42;
[98] Lundvall, B.-A. Introduction to 'technological infrastructure and international competitiveness' by Christopher Freeman'[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2004, Vol 13, No 3, pp 531-539;
[99] Lundvall, B-A, B. Johnson, E.S. Andersen and B. Dalum. National systems of production, innovation and competence building[J]. Research Policy, 2002, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 213-231;
[100] Malmberg, A. Spatial clustering, local accumulation of knowledge and firm competitiveness[J]. Geogr. Ann. 1996, 78 B(2): 85-97;
[101] Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. Towards an explanation of industry agglomeration and regional specialization[J]. European Planning Studies, 1997, 5: 25-41;
[102] Malmberg, A. and Maskell, P. The elusive concept of localization economies: towards a knowledge-based theory of spatial clustering[J]. Environment and Planning A, 2002, 34: 429-449;
[103] Malmgren, H. B. Information, expectations and the theory of the firm[J]. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 1961, 75 (3): 399-421;
[104] Martin, R.L. and Sunley, P. Slow Convergence? The New Endogenous Growth Theory and Regional Development[J].Economic Geography, 1998, 74, pp. 201-227;
[105] Martin, Ron. The new “geographical turn” in economics: some critical reflections[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1999, Vol.23, pp.65-91;
[106] Martin, Ron. Geography and public policy: the case of the missing agenda[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 2001, Vol.25(2), pp.189-210;
[107] Martin, Ron and Sunley, Peter. Rethinking the “economic” in economic geography: broadening our vision or losing our focus? [J]. Antipode, 2001, Vol.33(2), pp.148-61;
[108] Martin R, Sunley P. Deconstructing clusters: chaotic concept or policy panacea? [J]. Journal of Economic Geography, 2003, 3 (1): 5-35;
[109] Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster[J]. Industrial and Corporate Change, 2001, 10: 921-943;
[110] Maskell, P. and Malmberg, A. The competitiveness of firms and regions: ‘ubiquitification’ and the importance of localized learning[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1999a, 6: 9-25;
[111] Maskell, P. and Malmberg, A. Localised learning and industrial competitiveness[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1999b, 23: 167-185;
[112] Maskell, P. Towards a knowledge-based theory of the geographical cluster[J]. Industrial and corporate change, 2001, 10(4): 921-943;
[113] Meine Pieter Van Dijk. Flexible specialization, the new competition and industrial districts[J]. Small Business Economics, 1995, 7(1): 15-27;
[114] Myrdal, G. Economic theory and underdeveloped regions[M]. London, 1957, Duckworth;
[115] Nelson, R.R. Recent evolutionary theorizing about economic change[J]. Journal of Economic Literature, 1995, 33, 48-90;
[116] North, Douglass. Structure and Change in Economic History[M]. New York, 1981, Norton;
[117] Nicolai J. Foss, Carsten A. Koch. Opportunism, organizational economics and the network approach[J]. Scand. J. Mgmt, 1996, Vol. 12, No. 2, pp. 189-205;
[118] North, Douglass. Transaction Costs, Institutions, and Economic History[J]. Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics, 1984, 140, pp. 7–17;
[119] North, Douglass. A transaction cost theory of politics[J]. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 1990, 2, pp. 355–367;
[120] O’Brien, R. Global Financial Integration: The End of Geography? [M]. London: Pinter, 1992;
[121] Ottati, G. D. Cooperation and competition in the industrial district as an organization model[J]. Europeam planning studies, 1994, 2(4): 463-484;
[122] Paniccia, I. One, a hundred, thousands of industrial districts. Organizational variety in local networks of small and medium-sized enterprises[J]. Organization Studies, 1998, 19(4): 667-699;
[123] Parkhe, A. Strategic alliance structuring: a game theoretic and transaction cost examination of interfirm cooperation[J]. Academy of Management Journal,1993, 36,794-829;
[124] Paul H. and Jonathan Z. Flexible specialization versus post-fordism, theory, evidence and policy implications[J]. Economy and Society, 1991, 20(1): 1-56;
[125] Philip M., Tomokazu A., Ian R. G. Industrial cluster, transaction costs and the institutional determinants of MNE location behavior[J]. International Business Review, 2002, 11: 647-663;
[126] P. Krugman. First nature, second nature, and metropolitan location[J]. Journal of Regional Science, 1993, 33 (2): 129–144;
[127] P. Krugman, P.et al. The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions, and International Trade[M]. MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, (1999);
[128] Polanyi, K. The Great Transformation[M]. New York: Rinehart, 1994;
[129] Polanyi, M. The tacit dimension[J]. Routledge: London, 1996;
[130] Polanyi, M. Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy[M]. London: Routledge and Keegan Paul 1958;
[131] Porter, M. E. Clusters and the new economics of competition[J]. Harvard Business Review, 1998, 76 (November-December):77-90;
[132] Powell, W. Neither market nor hierarchy: network forms of organisation in B. Straw and L.L. Cummings (eds), Research in Organizational Behaviour[M]. CT : JAI Press: 1990, 295-336;
[132] Ranjay Gulati. Does familiarity breed trust? The implications of repeated ties for contractual choice in alliances[J]. Academy of Management Journal, 1995, 38(1): 85-112;
[133] Richardson GB. The organisation of industry[J]. Economic Journal, 1972, 82: 883-896;
[134] Rikard L., Lars B., Kristina H., Judith S.The interorganizational learning dilemma: collective knowledge development in strategic alliances[J]. Organizational Science, 1998, 9(3): 285-305;
[135] Ring, P.S. and A.H. Van de Ven. Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships[J]. Academy of Management Review, 1994, 19:90-118;
[136] Robert Ellinger. Industrial location behavior and spatial evolution[J]. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 1977, 25(4): 295-312;
[137] Robins, J.A. Organization as strategy: restructuring production in the film industry[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1993, 14: 103-118;
[138] Ron Martin, Peter Sunley. Paul Krugman’s geographical economics and its implications for regional development theory: a critical assessment[J]. Economic geography, 1996, 72(3): 259-292;
[139] Sabel C. F., Studied trust: building new forms of cooperation in a volatile economy[J]. Human relations, 1993, 46(9):1133-1170;
[140] Sake, M. The role of “trust” in Japanese buyer-supplier relationships[J]. Ricerche Economiche, 1991, XLV: 449-474;
[141] Sanchez, R. Strategic flexibility, firm organization, and managerial work in dynamic markets[J]. Advances in Strategic Management, 1993, (9): 251-291;
[142] Saxenian, A. Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128[M]. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1994;
[143] Saxenian Annalee. Inside-out: regional networks and industrial adaption in silicon valley and route 128[J]. Journal of policy development and research, 1996, 2(2): 41-60;
[144] Schmitz, H. Small shoemakers and Fordist giants: tale of a supercluster[J]. World Development, 1995a, Vol 23 No 1 January: 9-28;
[145] Schmitz, H. Collective efficiency: growth path for small-scale industry[J]. Journal of Development Studies, 1995b, Vol 31 No 4 April: 529-566;
[146] Schmitz, H. and B. Musyck. Industrial districts in Europe: policy lessons for developing countries? [J].World Development, 1994, Vol 22 No 6 June: 889-910;
[147] Schumpeter, J. A. The theory of economic development[M]. Harvard university press, Cambridge, Mass, 1936;
[148] Scott, A.J. Flexible production systems: Analytical tasks and theoretical horizons – a reply to Lovering[J]. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 1991, 15: 130-134;
[149] Scott, A.J. The geographic foundations of industrial performance: Competition and Change[J]. The Journal of Global Business and Political Economy, 1995, 1: 51-66;
[150] Silverberg, G., and Orsenigo, L. Innovation, diversity and diffusion: a self-organizing mode[J]. Economic Journal, 1988, 98, pp. 1032-1054;
[151] Teven Tadelis. What's in a Name? Reputation as a Tradeable Asset[J]. The American Economic Review, Vol. 89, No. 3 (Jun., 1999), pp. 548-563;
[152] Storper, M. The transition to flexible specialisation in the US film industry: external economies, the division of labour and the crossing of industrial divides[J]. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 1989, Vol 13 No 2 June: 273-305;
[153] Storper, M and Bennett Harrison. Fflexibility, hierarchy and regional development: the changing structure of industrial production systems and their forms of governance in the 1990s[J]. Research Policy, 1991, 20: 407-422;
[154] Storper, M. The resurgence of regional economics, ten years later[J]. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1995, 2: 191-221;
[155] Storper, M. The Regional World. Territorial Development in a Global Economy[M]. New York, London: Guilford, 1997;
[156] Sunley, P. Context in economic geography: the relevance of pragmatism[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 1996, 20: 338-55;
[157] Teece, D. J. Economies of scope and the scope of the enterprise[J]. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 1980, 3 (1): 223-247;
[158] Thrift, Nigel. On the determination of social action in space and time[J]. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 1983, Vol.1(1), pp.23-57;
[159] Thrift, Nigel. Performing cultures in the new economy[J]. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 2000b, Vol.90(4), pp.674-92;
[160] Thrift, Nigel and Olds, Kris. Refiguring the economic in economic geography[J]. Progress in Human Geography, 1996, Vol.20(3), pp.311-337;
[161] Torre A. and Gilly J.P. On the analytical dimension of proximity dynamics[J]. Regional Studies, 2000, 34(2), 169-180;
[162] Uzzi, B. The sources and consequences of embeddedness for the economic performance of organizations: the network effect[J]. American Sociological Review, 1996, 61: 674-698;
[163] Uzzi, B. Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: the paradox of embeddedness[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly,1997, 42: 35-67;
[164] Walker, G. and D. A transaction cost approach to make-or-buy decisions[J]. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1984, 29,373-391;
[165] Walter W. Powell. Neither market nor hierarchy; network forms of organization[J]. Research in Organizational Behavior, 1990, 12:295-336;
[166] Williams, K., Cutler, T., Williams, J. and Haslam, C. The end of mass production? Review of Piore and Sabel’s the second industrial divide[J]. Economy and society, 1987, 16: 405-439;
[167] Williamson, Oliver E. Markets and hierarchies: analysis and antitrust implications[M]. New York: free press, 1975;
[168] Williamson, Oliver E. The economics of organization: the transaction cost approach[J]. American Journal of Sociology, 1981, Vol.87(3), pp.548-77;
[169] Williamson, Oliver. Transaction Cost Economics: The Governance of Contractual Relations[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1979, 22, pp. 233–261;
[170] Williamson, Oliver. Imparative economic organization: the analysis of discrete structural alyernatives[J]. Administrative science quarterly, 1991a, 36: 269-296;
[171] Williamson, Oliver. Strategizing, Economizing, and Economic Organization[J]. Strategic Management Journal, 1991b, 12, pp. 75–94;
[172] Williamson, Oliver. Calculativeness, Trust, and Economic Organization[J]. Journal of Law and Economics, 1993a, 36, pp. 453–486;
[173] 阿尔弗雷·韦伯.工业区位论[M].李刚剑等译,北京:商务印书馆,1997;
[174] 保罗·克鲁格曼.地理与贸易[M].张兆杰译,北京:北京大学出版社,2000;
[175] 蔡宁, 杨闩柱.企业集群竞争优势的演进: 从“聚集经济”到“创新网络[J] .科研管理, 2004(4);
[176] 陈剑锋,唐振鹏.国外产业集群研究综述[J].外国经济与管理, 2002(8);
[177] 仇保兴.小企业集群研究[M] .上海:复旦大学出版社,1999;
[178] 符正平.论企业集群的产生条件与形成机制[J] .中国工业经济,2002(10);
[179] 盖文启.创新网络—区域经济发展新思维[M].北京:北京大学出版社,2002(21);
[180] 顾强.“从基地到集群”:东西老工业基地发展产业集群的探析.中国产业集群第一辑[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2005:23-56;
[181] 顾强. 资源型产业集群的结构调整—从路径依赖到路径创造.中国产业集群第四辑[M].北京:机械工业出版社,2006:32-56;
[182] 黄建康.产业集群竞争优势刚性及其超越路径[J].经济问题探索, 2004(8);
[183] 李青,李文军、郭金龙.《区域创新视角下的产业发展:理论与案例研究》[M].北京:商务印书馆,2004;
[184] 梁琦.《产业集聚论》[M],商务印书馆,2004;
[185] 刘仁军.交易成本、社会资本与企业网络-关系契约理论及应用[D].华中科技大学博士学论文,1995;
[186] 马斌,徐越倩.社区性产业集群与合作性激励的生成[J].中国工业经济,2006(6):65-72;
[187] 马歇尔.《经济学原理》[M] . 朱志泰译,北京:商务印书馆,1994;
[188] 诺斯.制度、制度变迁与经济绩效[M] .上海:上海人民出版社,1996;
[189] 彭泗清.关系与信任;中国人人际信任的一项本土研究,郑也夫等着,中国社会中的信任[M].北京:中国城市出版社;
[190] 史晋川.《制度变迁与经济发展:温州模式研究》[M],杭州:浙江大学出版社,2001;
[191] 孙沛东,徐建牛.国外产业集群技术创新研究综述[J] .广州大学学报,2004(3);
[192] 唐晓华等.产业集群:辽宁经济增长的路径选择[M] .北京:经济管理出版社,2006;
[193] 王步芳.世界各大主流经济学派产业集群理论综述[J]. 外国经济与管理, 2004(1);
[194] 王缉慈.地方产业群战略[J].中国工业经济,2002(3);
[195] 王雷.中国产业集群理论研究评述[J].重庆工商大学学报, 2004(4);
[196] 魏后凯.中国制造业集中状况及其国际比较[J].中国工业经济,2002(1):41-49;
[197] 魏江.产业集群—创新系统与技术学习[M].科学出版社,2003;
[198] 威廉姆森.《资本主义经济制度》[M].段毅才,王伟译,商务印书馆,2002;
[199] 威廉姆森.《治理机制》[M].中国社会科学出版社,2001;
[200] 魏守华,石碧华,论产业集群的竞争优势[J].中国工业经济,2002(1):69-66;
[201] 魏守华.集群竞争力的动力机制以及实证分析[J].中国工业经济,2002(10);
[202] 魏守华.赵雅沁,企业群的概念、意义与理论解释[J].中央财经大学学报, 2002(3);
[203] 文嫣, 曾刚.嵌入全球价值链的地方产业集群发展—地方建筑陶瓷产集群研究[J].中国工业经济,2004(6);
[204] 徐康宁.开放经济条件下的产业集群及其竞争力[J].中国工业经济,2001(11);
[205]许庆明, 盛其红, 黄晖.产业集群发展的可持续性[J].经济理论与经济管理, 2003(11);
[206] 杨洪焦, 钱颜文, 孙林岩.产业集群理论研究述评[J].经济问题探索,2006(3); [2-7] 张辉.产业集群竞争力的内在经济机理[J].中国软科学, 2003(1);
[208] 张维迎.企业的企业家-契约理论[M].三联书店,1995;
[209] 张元智、马鸣萧.产业集群:获取竞争优势的空间[M].华夏出版社,2006;
[210] 中国社会科学院课题组.“温州模式”的转型与发展[J].中国工业经济,2006(6):51-59;
[211] 朱华晟.浙江产业群—产业网络、成长轨迹与发展动力[M].浙江大学出版社,2003;
[212] 郭健.世界硅谷模式的制度分析[M].石家庄:中国社会科学出版社.2001:6-78.