The Performance of Seaport Clusters - RePub - Erasmus Universiteit ...

54
6.1 Coordination in a cluster
The Performance of Seaport Clusters
The need for coordination in clusters is undisputed amongst cluster scholars (see Harrison,
1994). Cluster scholars frequently regard clusters as special solutions to a coordination
problem. In this stream of literature (the flexible specialization literature, see Piore and
Sabel, 1984) clusters are regarded as networks of (small) firms that cooperate based on
trust and cooperation. This ‘mode of production’ is an alternative to production by large
conglomerates. Other scholars question this particular definition of clusters (Markusen,
1996) but acknowledge the importance of coordination in a cluster.
Different modes of coordination (or to use the terminology of Williamson: modes of
governance) can play a role in clusters (see Hollingsworth et al, 1994). We distinguish six
general modes of coordination (see Campbell et al, 1991, Hollingsworth and Boyer 30 , 1997,
and Williamson, 1985): markets, firms, interfirm alliances, associations, public-private
organizations and public organizations 31 .
None of the different modes of coordination is ‘structurally superior’, each mode has
advantages and disadvantages. Consequently, different modes of coordination are used in a
specific domain 32 , to solve different coordination problems. In Table 8, an overview is given
of different modes of governance, their advantages, disadvantages and ‘domain’.
30 Hollingsworth and Boyer (1997) identify six modes of governance, five of which (firms, markets,
interfirm alliances, associations and public organizations) are included in this study. Public-
private organizations are added and ‘communities’ are omitted, because communities are not
designed to coordinate specific activities.
31 Campbell et al (1991) argue that government has such special abilities (such as changing
property rights, allocating resources and serving as gatekeepers) that it cannot be analyzed as
merely an alternative governance mechanism. Hollingsworth and Lindberg (1985) and
Hollingsworth and Boyer (1997) do analyze the state as a governance mechanism. We include
public organizations in the analysis of governance when they provide public services (such as
education). The legislative role of the government is not included in the analysis.
32 This is a ‘Williamsonian approach’, because each mode of governance has a ‘structural
domain’, based on its advantages and disadvantages. However, this does not imply that all
modes of governance develop automatically in their ‘structural domain’. Thus, this framework is
not sufficient to analyze governance regimes in full detail, but a useful starting point.