Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
INTRODUCTION
Cluster theory aims to understand the underlying factors as well as the necessary and sufficient
conditions for a sustained positive impact of
clustering on firm-level performance (Porter
1998; Brenner 2004; Visser 2009). A number of
studies revealed a positive influence of clustering on firm-level performance (Saxenian 1994;
Visser 1999; Baptista & Swann 1998). However,
these are not ever-lasting effects; clusters grow
but may also decline faster than firms operating
outside clusters (Menzel & Fornahl 2009). In
this paper, we follow propositions to analyse
clusters over longer time periods (Lorenzen
2005; Menzel & Fornahl 2009). The need for
longitudinal cluster analyses is evident. Clusters
Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie 2015, DOI:10.1111/tesg.12083, Vol. 106, No. 1, pp. 7893.
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
79
80
lead to a situation of sustaining clusters that are
in equilibrium, and where the number of firms
and employment do not change much, apart
from smaller cyclical fluctuations. But it may
also produce technological and other forms of
lock-in, thus initiating the decline of clusters,
with the number of firms and employment
diminishing faster than elsewhere due to
reduced firm entry, increasing firm exits,
mergers and rationalisations (Menzel &
Fornahl 2009). This process may go on until the
cluster is entirely gone, or it may evoke clustered firms to respond to the crisis, through
timely adaptation to changes in the business
environment, more radical technological and
product renewal or even a complete transformation of the cluster by moving towards
entirely new economic activities (Menzel &
Fornahl 2009). So, clusters may stop decline, as
they may have a governance advantage while
seeking a way-out of the crisis through joint
actions and collective investments (Visser
2009). Such also depends, however, on the
wider socio-institutional context of a cluster.
Based on previous studies of the cluster
under review that point at problems of decreasing knowledge heterogeneity, lock-in, lack of
non-local ties and wider socio-institutional constraints (Visser 1996, 2000; Cornejo Manrique
1999; Tello & Tvara 2010) and considering the
mounting international pressure on the Peruvian clothing industry, we expect the cluster
under review below to have entered the stage of
decline and to struggle to adapt and renew
itself, let alone induce a transformation towards
new activities.
CASE DESCRIPTION
The cluster under review is locally known as the
Gamarra cluster. It is located in La Victoria, one
of the 43 municipal districts of Lima, the capital
city of Peru (Figure 1) and located close to the
city centre (Figure 2). The La Victoria district is
known as an industrious, dynamic and economically dense part of Lima.
The Gamarra cluster took various decades to
develop (for an overview and analysis of driving
factors , see Ponce 1994; Tvara &Visser 1995,
Visser 1996). The first real-estate investments
were made in the early 1970s. In August 1993,
the cluster consisted of about 35 housing blocks
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
81
82
83
a
b
14 workers
59 workers
1019 workers
2099 workers
50b
71
60
31
13
23
14
6
10
5
10
7
25
33
38
54
23
37
13
27
16
8
17
9
Figures printed in bold indicate the modal firmsize category in each group.
Pearsons 2 is significant (2sided), with P = 0,007.
Source : Survey: July/August 2008 (2007 data), Visser (1999, 1996 (1993 data).
difference across the two sub-samples regarding the average employment size of firms in
2007. However, as the distributions of the two
sub-samples differ, it makes sense to analyse the
data for different size classes:3 micro enterprises (14 workers), small enterprises (two
subcategories: 59 and 1019 workers; see
Visser 1999 for an explanation) and mediumsized enterprises (2099 workers). Table 1
summarises the outcomes.
In 1993, clustered firms most often pertained
to the small-scale subcategory of 59 firms,
whereas dispersed firms most often belonged
to the micro-enterprise class. In 2007, this
difference has gone. This is partly due to an
overall trend of micro enterprises increasing in
importance in the sample as a whole, from 38 to
60 per cent. This is most pronounced among
dispersed producers, however, where 71 per
cent of firms are micro-sized in 2007, against 33
per cent in 1993. In the cluster, 50 per cent of
the subsample falls into the micro category in
2007, against 25 per cent in 1993.
So, are clustered producers cutting employment? The answer is not necessarily affirmative.
An alternative explanation is that the universe
from which the sub-samples were taken in 1993
was biased toward small enterprises, since tax
reform was just underway and the informal
sector was larger then. The 2007 register is
more comprehensive and includes a (much)
larger fraction of micro firms that entered the
market in a context of enhanced demand for
clothing products. Next, clusters grow and
decline due to firm entry, exit and relocation of
firms. High start-up rates may decrease the
84
Table 2. Average monthly gross sales per worker in 2007, 1994 and 1993 by location.
Location
Observations
(number)
2007c
Clustered
Dispersed (high-income)
1994d
Clustered
Dispersed (high-income)
1993
Clustered
Dispersed (high-income)
Idem (low-income)
Idem (elsewhere La Victoria)
Notes :
Mean
(US dollars)b
SD
(US dollars)
Sign.a
85
63
983
557
747
368
0.000
19
17
837
529
428
406
0.03
23
28
31
17
1,148
510
660
380
852
354
777
346
0.001
KruskalWallis 2 for the 1993 and 1994 data; ttest for equality of means for the 2007 data.
As the purpose is to compare clustered and dispersed producers, the figures are in current dollars.
c
The analysis for 2007 excludes one extreme value from the cluster subsample and seven extreme
values from the control group.
d
In 1994, there was also no significant (P = 0.63) difference between clustered and dispersed firms
when taking into account all firms in the two subsamples. The above result refers to firms employing
less than 20 workers in both sub-samples, and excludes the effect of one outlier in the control group,
which was left outside the comparison.
a
Source : Survey July/August 2008 (2007 data), Visser (1996 (1993 and 1994 data)).
the relatively dynamic production and marketing behaviour of some firms in this group
(Visser 1996). So, the 2007 survey also compares clustered producers with the most challenging group outside the cluster.
Against this background, it may not be surprising that the sales difference between the
two groups in 2007 is not significant. This only
holds, however, comparing all the firms in the
two sub-samples. Outlier analysis reveals a very
skewed distribution of the sales performance of
firms, especially in the control group, suggesting that some firms in high-income areas do
very well. Their performance obscures the sight
of what is happening to most firms in this
group. Excluding outliers (one in the cluster
and seven in the control group), the sales difference between clustered and dispersed producers is large and significant (Table 2).
Visser (1996) argued that clustered firms
have a better sales record due to relatively high
labour productivity in volume terms and thus
lower unit production costs, longer working
days, and a relatively good market-fit of garments made in Gamarra and sold to wholesalers in Lima, other Peruvian regions and
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
85
(t-value 3.46; significance 0.001). This size category contains the bulk of firms in both groups,
so one may safely say that clustering especially
yields positive effects for micro-sized firms.
Comparison of the means of the other size
classes does not yield significant results, due to
lower numbers of observations (Table 3). Yet,
the sales figures of clustered producers in the
small and medium-sized categories also tend to
be higher than in the control group.
One may also interpret Table 3 in another
manner, considering the importance of firm
size for sales in the two sub-samples. In 1993, we
found that in a setting of clustering, firm size
does not (positively) influence sales performance and that clustering enabled some micro
and small firms to considerably enhance sales
(Visser 1996). On the other hand, we found
that big is better in control groups, particularly in low-income areas and the La Victoria
district. The high-income control group was
a special case, as the correlation coefficient
between sales and size was as low and insignificant as in the cluster, due to the poor performance of medium-sized enterprises in highincome areas that were restructuring at the
time (Visser 1999). In 2007, size still does not
matter for clustered producers, and also not in
the control group, where the insignificant
sales/size correlation coefficient is even slightly
negative. So, it seems that size is even less
important in 2007 than it was in 1993. In a
setting of clustering, location effects continue
to overrule the importance of size-related variables (Visser 1996). In the 2007 control group,
size matters less than entrepreneurship and
creativity.
To sum up, the performance gap between
clustered and dispersed firms has remained
intact over time. Clustering advantages that are
external to individual firms appear to drive the
difference. Especially the bulk of producers in
the micro enterprise size category appears
to profit from the advantages of clustering.
The persistence of these advantages sheds a
light on previous concerns (Visser 1996) about
the static (cost-related) and passive (windfall)
advantages of clustering for transformation,
transacting and strategic decision-making processes. Moreover, local spillovers often refer to
outdated information, which is insufficiently
diverse and publicly available, and thus hardly
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
86
Table 3. Average monthly gross sales per worker in 1993, by size and location
Location
2007a
Clustered
Dispersed
1993
Clustered
Dispersed
59
1019
2099
t/2
Sign.
sales/size
correlation
Sign.
P value
983
(817)b
43 obs
520
(394)
47 obs
897
(509)
26 obs
685
(260)
7 obs
1,107
(969)
12 obs
661
(314)
4 obs
1,168
(694)
4 obs
640
(271)
5 obs
0.30
0.82
0.05
0.63
0.62
0.60
0.02
0.86
949
(930)
6 obs
414
(243)
9 obs
1286
(961)
12 obs
301
(171)
7 obs
935
(473)
3 obs
781
(495)
7 obs
1,229
(641)
2 obs
596
(322)
7 obs
0.98
0.8
0.12
0.30
8.91
0.07
0.18
0.19
Notes : a The analysis for 2007 excludes one extreme value from the cluster subsample and seven extreme
values from the control group. b Standard deviations are given between the brackets. Numbers of observations
(obs) are below the standard deviations.
Source : Survey July/August 2008 (2007 data) and Visser (1996 (1993 data)).
87
88
Another aspect is the type of information.
Textile suppliers, suppliers of other inputs,
competitors (direct observation), subcontractors, and trade fairs are all relatively important
sources for clustered producers, but not so
much for dispersed producers (sign. <0.05).
The latter group relatively more often reads
fashion magazines (sign. 0.00). Both groups
recur to clients (buyers), informal sources
(including friends and relatives), and the Internet to obtain information. Next, market contacts are more important for both clustered and
dispersed producers than diagonal linkages
with consultancy firms, NGOs, semi-public
and/or public institutes. Most interviewees in
the two sub-samples say that these sources are of
limited importance or no importance at all.
A final issue regarding access to markets and
market information is that a typical firm in the
cluster has two establishments (against 1.5 in
the group of dispersed producers, sign. 0.03):
one workplace and one sales outlet, both
located in the cluster. Among dispersed firms it
is not common for producers to have an own
sales point, let alone in the cluster. For clustered producers, a sales outlet in Gamarra is
where they meet and talk with numerous clients
(wholesalers, retailers and individuals) visiting
the cluster each day. So, while both clustered
and dispersed producers state that clients are
important sources of market information, clustered producers have an advantage over dispersed ones, in terms of the number and variety
of clients. Indeed, dispersed producers sell
about 80 per cent of their produce to individual
customers, 10 per cent to retailers, 2 per cent to
wholesalers and 8 per cent to other clients (e.g.
schools, companies, sport clubs or public institutes). In the cluster, these figures are 19, 25, 38
and 13 per cent respectively (the differences
are significant, sign. <0.05). More importantly,
clustered producers sell a significantly higher
portion of their produce to export agents.
In terms of the share of sales to different
geographical markets, dispersed producers
more heavily rely on the capital city of Lima,
where they sell 91 per cent of their produce,
against 66 per cent in the cluster (sign. 0.00).
Clustered producers sell more to the Peruvian
countryside (24 against 3%, sign. 0.00), and
also to neighbouring countries (but these differences are not significant). Interestingly, a
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
89
90
including imported products. The productivity
of clustered firms has fallen somewhat over 15
years time, although they still maintain a competitive advantage over dispersed producers,
especially in the smallest firm-size categories.
We observe that the clustering process at hand
still mainly yields static (cost-related) advantages that are due to the co-location of firms,
which are passive in nature (falling into a producers lap once) and not so much active
(created through strategic action), and which
mostly develop at the level of transacting inputs
and output, not so much at the level of transformation and innovation processes. Next, clustered producers do not use profits to upgrade
their clothing business but to construct new
buildings and work places for other firms in the
cluster, as rents have gone up due to surging
trade activities in a context of increasing
demand for garments at times of fast macroeconomic growth in Peru over the past decades.
Increasing rents and real estate prices decrease
firm entry and relocation of existing firms
towards the cluster, and may also stimulate firm
exit. So, producers in the cluster are struggling,
but this is obscured by a surge in trade activities.
As the latter is deeply rooted in the mental
model of successful entrepreneurship in the
cluster (Visser 2000), this shift towards trade
activities should be regarded as a continued
and deepening exploitation of the existing
model, not as change or development of the
cluster.
Yet, the observed static, passive and transactions-related advantages of clustering have
been important for clustered producers.
Tvara and Visser (1995) already stressed the
incubator function of the Gamarra cluster: as a
result of the observed cluster advantages, new
firms have a higher chance to survive and
develop into larger firms. These advantages
also helped small firms in the cluster to survive
two decades of international competition, from
China and other (Asian) countries. While this
competition had very negative effects for the
Argentinean and Chilean apparel industries,
the impact has been smaller in the case of clustered producers in Lima, Peru. Favourable
macroeconomic conditions in Peru in the
period from 1993 until 2007 have helped
(clustered) producers to stay on their feet,
however. Recent conditions have changed,
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
91
3.
4.
5.
6.
REFERENCES
Asheim, B.T. (1996), Industrial Districts as Learning
Regions: A Condition for Prosperity. European
Planning Studies 4, pp. 379400.
Asheim, B.T., P. Cooke & R. Martin ( 2006), The
Rise of the Cluster Concept in Regional Analysis
and Policy: A Critical Assessment. In: B.T. Asheim,
P. Cooke & R. Martin, eds., Clusters and Regional
Development: Critical Reflections and Explorations,
pp. 129. London: Routledge.
Baptista, R. & P. Swann (1998), Do Firms in Clusters Innovate More? Research Policy 27, pp. 525540.
Bathelt, H., A. Malmberg & P. Maskell (2004),
Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation. Progress in Human Geography 28, pp. 3149.
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
92
Becattini, G. (1990), The Marshallian District as a
Socio-economic Notion. In: F. Pyke, G. Becattini
& W. Sengenberger, eds., Industrial Districts and
Inter-firm Co-operation in Italy, pp. 3751. Geneva:
International Institute for Labour Studies.
Brenner, T. (2004), Local Industrial Clusters: Existence, Emergence and Evolution. London: Routledge.
Chion, M. (2001), Informalizacin e Internacionalizacin de Gamarra, Per: De Bario Marginal a
Centro Metropolitano. Ambiente y Desarrollo 17,
pp. 6877.
Cooke, P. (2001), Regional Innovation Systems,
Clusters and the Knowledge Economy. Industrial
and Corporate Change 10, pp. 945974.
Cornejo Manrique, C. (1999), Los Sistemas de
Co-operacin en las Concentraciones Territoriales
de Empresas en Pases en Desarrollo: El Caso de la
Industria de la Confeccin en LimaPer (PhD
thesis, University of Geneva).
DeBresson, C. & F. Amesse (1991), Networks of
Innovators: A Review to Introduction to the Issue.
Research Policy 20, pp. 363379.
Gilsing, V.A. & G.J. Hospers (2000), Levensloop
van Clusters. Economisch Statistische Berichten, 4283,
pp. 1214.
Giuliani, E. (2007), Networks and the Heterogenous Performance of Cluster Firms. In: K.
Frenken, ed., Applied Evolutionary Economics and
Economic Geography, pp. 161179. Cheltenham:
Edward Elgar.
Gonzales de Olarte, E. ( 2008), Esta Cambiando
el Per?: Crecimiento, Desigualdad y Pobreza. In:
rsula Len, ed., Informe Anual 20072008, pp.
5261. Lima, Oxfam.
Hotz-Hart, B. (2000), Innovation Networks,
Regions, and Globalization. In: G. L. Clark, M.P.
Feldman & M.S. Gertler, eds., The Oxford Handbook of Economic Geography, pp. 432450 Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Lorenzen, M. (2005), Why Do Clusters Change?,
European Urban and Regional Studies 12, pp. 203
208.
Maskell, P. (2001), Towards a Knowledge-based
Theory of the Geographical Cluster. Industrial and
Corporate Change 10, pp. 921943.
Menzel, M.P. & D. Fornahl (2009), Cluster Life
Cycles Dimensions and Rationales of Cluster
Evolution. Industrial and Corporate Change 19,
pp. 205238.
Newlands, D. (2003), Competition and Cooperation in Industrial Clusters. European Planning
Studies 11, pp. 521528.
2014 Royal Dutch Geographical Society KNAG
93