EADI 10Th General Conference, 19-21 September 2002, Lubljana, Slovenia
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EADI 10th General Conference, 19-21 September 2002, Lubljana, Slovenia. “From Marshallian District to Localized Productive Systems. The Polish case”. Dr Barbara A. DESPINEY-ZOCHOWSKA1 ”When an industry has chosen a locality for itself it is likely to stay there long: so great are the advantages which people following the same skilled trade get from near neighbourhood to one another”, Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics, Macmillan, London,1920, p.271. Abstract. Using Ron Martin’s expression we face today “geographical turn” in economics which embraces three research programmes: 1/spatial agglomeration of economic activity; 2/dynamics of regional growth convergence; 3/ neo-Marshallian districts economics (Italian economist’s topic). The aim of this article is to offer initial reflection on the relevance of the “Marshallian District” concept in the analysis of regional development in Central Europe. The Marshallian industrial district is based on the external economies of agglomeration and the economics of urbanisation, and this kind of development we can see today in this part of Europe. The study concentrates on the positive development dynamics of “industrial districts” based on a network of small and medium-sized firms, in opposition with the decline of industrial centres of mass production. The crux of the matter is to establish whether or not industrial districts constitute a model for the regeneration of local and regional economies in Central European countries. The study of localized productive systems must be thorough and multidisciplinary and carried out through fieldwork. The aim is to understand how work, relationships and culture as well as material and immaterial infrastructures that give a place its original identity within the international division of labour regenerate in locally coherent forms. The work carried out 1 ROSES /CNRS-University of Paris 1, 106-112, Blvd de l’Hôpital, 75647 PARIS CEDEX 13, [email protected] ; tel. 33 1 44 07 81 88; fax 33 1 44 07 81 91. 1 on localized productive systems (LPS) should be followed up by field studies and a qualitative adaptation of statistical measurements These studies need to be carried out, surveying local players in order to observe future evolutions. JEL Classification B3, R12, P2. Introduction. In the context of future EU expansion eastwards is necessery to integrate candidate countries to the ESDP (European Spatial Development Perspective) with it’s polycentric coherent development. It’s three objectifs are : 1/ social and economic cohesion, 2/ soustainaible development, 3/ better competitiveness of european regions, with motto : « Non, for blue banana, yes for polycentric development of Europe « (SDEC, 2000). It seems that the "metropolis" scenario, renforced by location of FDI, would allow candidate countries to join the European Union, within the framework of "a multi-speed Europe" (DATAR, 1996). The problem now is to know, what are the assets held by central Europe for endogenous development. Regional production systems grouped together on the spatial level and integrated company networks at the regional level could serve to create local hubs of competition. Our study concentrates on this new possibility, looking for the possible birth of a localized competitive productive systems in Poland located in Free Economic Zones and in Euroregions. The paper concentrates on the positive development dynamics of « industrial districts » based on the network of small and medium-sized firms, in opposition with the decline of industrial centres of mass production in transition countries. The communist productive system involved the concentration of industry in highly specialised industrial districts with priority given to heavy industry at the expense of production of consumer goods (DESPINEY-ZOCHOWSKA, 1982). The experience of the industrial districts answers this new requirement : it is a type of industrialisation which is particulary well adopted to the need for flexibility and which could help industrialisation in emerging countries as well as in transition countries (COURLET, 1997). In the specific case of developing countries, the word “cluster” is often used, indicating a greater diversity of forms than industrial districts (REQUIER-DESJARDINS, 2000). Nevertheless, no author has defined the characteristics of new industrial districts in a way rigorous enough to make is possible to easily establish the perspectives of their incidence on growth over space and time (MARKUSEN, 2000). An important work has developed by OECD’s Programme on Local Economic and Employment Development (LEED) to analyse local clusters in transition 2 economies (OECD, 2001). Five transition countries: Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia and Hungary are involved in. The paper has three sections. In section 1 I briefly recount the theories that form the subject of the paper. In section 2 I present the Central European development model after ten years transition. Section 3 is dedicated to analyse the emergence of first Localized Productive Systems in Poland. I. Theoretical Background. Regional research has proposed increasingly deep-rooted differentiation between the various types of regional development, in opposition with simple centre/periphery models. Faced with the revival of regional science in general and its links with industrial economics, the relevance of the latter models appears to be declining. The theoretical analysis of regional growth at the centre of our research has been given new life by progress made in understanding the mechanics of both economic growth and changes in the agglomeration of economic activities. The changes underway tend to transform the means of understanding industrialisation and development problems by integrating a territorial dimension as an explanatory variable of growth phenomena. Two theoretical currents are at the origin of this progress; the theories of endogenous growth initiated by P. ROMER (1986) and R. E. LUCAS (1988), and, with regard to the formation of agglomerations, the new geographic economics developed from P. KRUGMAN’s model (1991). These two theoretical schools of localisation and growth can be placed parallel to one another as they are both concerned with questions of spatial concentration and divergence. Since the mid-1980’s, growth theory has been rejuvenated by insight gained from studying the micro-economic foundations of the process of factor accumulation, from endogenous sources of growth. This new growth theory, in opposition with the neo-classic growth model, holds that economies follow divergent growth paths. Indeed, growth is not linear, it begins at certain growth points and is propagated, in an unbalanced way, to other points in space. The revival of growth economy is based on new industrial economy, like it was in case of the international economy in the beginning of the Eighties (GUELLEC&RALLE, 1995). The present study must be considered both from the point of view of macro-economic factors linked to transition in the 1990’s and to specific local features. The tenants of the first conception of the industrial district presented it as a productive complex whose operation is subject to the market’s behaviour and the rules of civil society (AZAIS, 1997). It is often presented as an alternative to 3 Fordism. According to GREMI2, Fordism opened the way to the new “territorial” type of development, based on an innovative capacity that is better able to carry out projects within social and industrial networks on a local level (GREMI, 1986; MAILLAT, 1988 ; PERRIN, 1989). Indeed, the local productive system notion appears alongside the term “flexible production” (PIORE & SABEL, 1984). Piore and Sabel argue that a new logic of production – “fexible specialization” – emerged as a challenge to mass production once markets for standarized goods were saturated, and higher quality and more specialized goods attracted consumers. This flexibility is based on small-sized production units, on the density of links between them and on the rapid reaction time of companies when faced with new internal and external conditions in the area (COURLET, 2000). This flexibility also implies the capacity to adapt to new technologies. One of many problems linked to the notion of flexibility is that the debate on this subject has centred on the organisation and spatial dynamics of the economic system in its role as a productive system. But, in the world of capitalist production, production is nothing more than a broader means of accumulating capital. Furthermore, the district phenomenon should be placed in a broad political economics’ framework: concerned with the nature of development and the transformation of capitalism. According to the American geographers Scott and Storper, there has been an “evolutionary tendency” towards flexible specialisation as a form of industrial organisation, but also towards flexible accumulation which they see as a new historic social era (SCOTT & STORPER, 1989). According to them, flexible specialisation and flexible localisation find their significance in the broader context of socio- historic processes. The question remaining unanswered is whether or not the new accumulation regime leads to a specific form of spatial organisation. The competitive advantage of flexible specialisation strategies and networks of small-sized companies relies on very specific conditions. It depends, on the one hand, on irregular and differentiated demand and on the other hand on low set- up costs (DUNFORT, 1992). Various