Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Intellectual ...

Rita Babiliūtė and Kęstutis Kriščiūnas
<strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> firm and that new forms <strong>of</strong> collaboration are needed in order to make a productive use <strong>of</strong> this
knowledge.
Trust performs <strong>the</strong> role <strong>of</strong> “social glue” in inter-organizational relations. In <strong>the</strong> absence <strong>of</strong> trust,
exchanging knowledge in knowledge-intensive clusters maybe a risky undertaking due to possible
free-riding <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>se intangible assets. The high trust environment prevailing in <strong>the</strong> cluster might serve
as <strong>the</strong> engine stimulating its development, innovativeness and competitiveness. Han et al. (2008)
supplements <strong>the</strong> above mentioned statement by concluding that successful clusters usually are
characterized by strongly embedded networks and relationship systems, with highly developed trust
and inter-personal relationships.
Trust is <strong>of</strong>ten regarded as a public resource that is historically embedded in <strong>the</strong> industrial cluster that
firms can build upon once <strong>the</strong>y become part <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> cluster. The established social and institutional
“rules <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> game” limit <strong>the</strong> incentives for opportunist behaviour, so in a way firms are capable <strong>of</strong>
“borrowing” <strong>the</strong> public trust for <strong>the</strong>ir private transaction. However, as already mentioned, most <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>
literature on clusters ei<strong>the</strong>r celebrates <strong>the</strong> presence <strong>of</strong> trust (in <strong>the</strong> mature and productive clusters) or
bemoans <strong>the</strong> lack <strong>of</strong> it (in <strong>the</strong> emerging or malfunctioning clusters), but not too many researchers
seek to explain <strong>the</strong> background <strong>of</strong> trust and <strong>the</strong> mechanisms that enable its emergence.
3. Relationship between cluster variables and dimensions <strong>of</strong> trust
Trust and <strong>the</strong> cultural environment <strong>of</strong> cluster
Numerous authors (e.g. Beugelsdijk and Hospers, 2005; Dwivedi et al. 2003; Jimenez and Junquera,
2010; Murphy, 2006) admit that every industrial cluster is deeply embedded in a specific cultural
environment, which is shaped by norms, values and shared understandings <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> social group.
Clusters are first <strong>of</strong> all influenced by <strong>the</strong> national and regional culture. Besides, different cultures can
be characterised by <strong>the</strong> prevalence <strong>of</strong> different types <strong>of</strong> social capital and trust.
On <strong>the</strong> level <strong>of</strong> national culture, Lewis (2006) distinguishes tree types <strong>of</strong> culture: a) linear-active, b)
multi-active and c) reactive – all <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong>m relying on various aspects <strong>of</strong> trust.
Linear-active cultures (e.g. Germany, Switzerland, USA) are dominated by <strong>the</strong> institutional trust and
are characterized by strongly expressed aspect <strong>of</strong> formality, when agents tend to rely on institutional
and legal values that diminish <strong>the</strong> risk. or ensure <strong>the</strong> compensations/deterrence system in case <strong>the</strong>
agent violates/suffers from <strong>the</strong> inappropriate behaviour within a cluster.
Multi-active cultures (e.g. most South European, Latin American countries) emphasize <strong>the</strong> interpersonal
trust, i.e. <strong>the</strong> importance <strong>of</strong> social ties in business interactions. Firms prefer to cooperate
with <strong>the</strong> agents/entrepreneurs based on a prior personal experience <strong>of</strong> communication.
Reactive cultures (e.g. China, Japan, Vietnam) tend to rely on <strong>the</strong> long-term trust, which is built via
<strong>the</strong> extended family and pr<strong>of</strong>essional networks <strong>of</strong> peers (i.e. old time friendships, school friendships,
etc.), usually in a highly collectivist environment. It means that <strong>the</strong> process <strong>of</strong> building trust as well as
entering <strong>the</strong> established reputation- and affiliation-based networks takes a longer period <strong>of</strong> time.
Putnam’s (1993) classical distinction between bridging and bonding social capital also provides
valuable insights into <strong>the</strong> different nature <strong>of</strong> trust in different social settings. The bridging social capital
is usually created in <strong>the</strong> social networks that span different communities and shows positive
correlation with <strong>the</strong> economic performance (Beugelsdijk and Smulders, 2003). The bonding social
capital arises from networking within closed communities <strong>of</strong> family and friends. However, researchers
claim that <strong>the</strong> bonding social capital does not reduce <strong>the</strong> opportunist behaviour at <strong>the</strong> society as a
whole and <strong>the</strong>refore results in worse economic performance. The economically developed Western
societies (e.g. Germany, Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland) that possess strong institutional framework
and civil participation can be characterised by bridging social capital, whereas <strong>the</strong> bonding social
capital is present in most South European regions (e.g. Sou<strong>the</strong>rn Italy or Mediterranean France). One
can see clear parallels between <strong>the</strong> above mentioned institutional trust and <strong>the</strong> bridging social capital,
as well as between <strong>the</strong> inter-personal trust and <strong>the</strong> bonding social capital.
Naturally, one can expect that clusters will be embedded in <strong>the</strong> corresponding cultural environment
and <strong>the</strong>ir inter-organizational relations will be built on <strong>the</strong> type <strong>of</strong> trust that prevails in a given context.
59