產(chǎn)業(yè)集群，知識(shí)整合和績效外文翻譯

1、<p><b>　　中文2380字</b></p><p>　　Industrial Clusters, Knowledge Integration and Performance</p><p>　　WHAT ARE INDUSTRIAL CLUSTERS?</p><p>　　During the 1990s the explos

2、ion of specialized and popular literature on industrial clusters gave them an unprecedented relevance across a range of areas, including business management and economic, political, public and social policy. There was al

3、so a degree of confusion over what the various authors mean––and do not mean––by industrial clusters. Our ?rst consideration therefore is terminology.</p><p>　　It is important to point out from the outset th

4、at we are not concerned here with the kinds of economic agglomerations found in large cities and urban developments of a certain size. As various authors have noted, large urban realities of necessity and almost inevitab

5、ly provide opportunities for agglomerations of sorts to emerge, human ?rst, social and economic next (Gordon &McCann, 2000). Indeed, it is obvious to those familiar with large cities and urban realities that economic

6、 interactions wit</p><p>　　On the one hand, large cities and similar agglomerations nurture urbanization economies––in other words, economic advantages that stem from factors or conditions that bene?t all ec

7、onomic entities and agents that are part of the agglomeration. For example, the impressive air transportation facilities and infrastructure of a city such as London, the strategic geographic location of Athens for west–e

8、ast logistical links and the multiplicity of linguistic skills present in Singapore can lead to econ</p><p>　　On the other hand, urban agglomerations lead to localization economies of scale. These are specia

9、lized economic advantages stemming from close geographic proximity that bene?t speci?c industries only. To follow the previous examples, the City of London is one of the world’s premier centers of ?nancial talent in the

10、form of tens––perhaps hundreds––of thousands of highly skilled ?nance professionals. This world-class talent pool presents obvious bene?ts for all ?nancial services ?rms that decide t</p><p>　　The idea of lo

11、calized economies of scale in geographic agglomerations has a long history in economics, going back to Adam Smith’s early observations of labor specialization and to Marshall’s (1925) explanations of why ?rms continue to

12、 localize in the same areas. Marshall highlighted three key explanations. First, ?rms get close together geographically because this allows them to develop a pool of specialized labor that is highly skilled for the speci

13、?c needs of an industry and relatively easy fo</p><p>　　It is interesting––and to some degree quiteparadoxical––that virtual communication technologies and developments in global transportation and logistics

14、 during the 20th century have made localization economies more––notless––critical to the competitive performance of ?rms. On the one hand, virtual communications and similar technologies have highlighted tacit knowledge

15、and close personal relationships between economic agents as key determinants for the competitive success of?rms. On the other han</p><p>　　Our de?nition of ‘‘industrial cluster’’ includes the Marshallian not

16、ions of urbanization and especially localization economies of scale, but it clearly departs from the concept of agglomerations in that the knowledge interactions within the cluster are not random but rather deliberate, s

17、ocially constructed and determinant for its competitive survival:</p><p>　　An industrial cluster is a socioeconomic entity characterized by a social community of people and a population of economic agents lo

18、calized in close proximity in a speci?c geographic region. Within an industrial cluster, a signi?cant part of both the social community and the economic agents work together in economically linked activities, sharing and

19、 nurturing a common stock of product, technology and organizational knowledge in order to generate superior products and services in the marketplace</p><p>　　LINK BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE INTEGRATION, SCOPE OF COMP

20、ETITION AND THE PERFORMANCE OF CLUSTERS</p><p>　　A broad array of existing empirical evidence (some of which is referenced in the previous sections) suggests that both the degree of knowledge integration and

21、 the scope of competition are co-evolving factors that are crucial to explain the economic performance of industrial clusters. Although the empirical evidence remains slightly fragmented, it suggests that ?rms in industr

22、ial clusters that present a high degree of knowledge integration and compete globally innovate more, present stronger grow</p><p>　　The higher the degree of knowledge integration between member ?rms, and the

23、 higher the global scope of competition of member ?rms, the higher the economic performance of industrial clusters. </p><p>　　Figure 1 provides a graphic illustration of our hypothesized e?ects, postulating

24、a comparative taxonomy of industrial clusters across a diversity of industries and geographies, which we assessed within the context of our research. This hypothesized taxonomy is included here for illustrative purposes

25、only. It is based, however, on an examination of over 2,000 pages of archival data, academic and specialized publications as well as expert opinion gathered through a series of ?eld visits and interv</p><p>

26、　　Figure 1 thus illustrates a number of overall patterns that seem to emerge quite clearly from the growing––albeit fragmented––empirical literature on industrial clusters over the last two decades of the 20th century. T

27、hese patterns unveil a multitude of characteristics that appear both to explain and determine the economic performance of industrial clusters. Some of these characteristics have to do with competitive factors that are in

28、herent in the industrial sectors in which the clusters operate</p><p>　　An empirical test of the hypothesis we have developed, remains, however, a challenging step for a better, holistic understanding of the

29、 major factors that both explain and determine the economic performance of an industrial cluster. We suggest that this empirical test, conducted along the constructs developed in Tables 1 and 2, could contribute to this

30、understanding in a way that encompasses the economic and social aspects that appear to be equally important to the competitive functioning of ind</p><p><b>　　翻譯：</b></p><p>　　產(chǎn)業(yè)集群，知識(shí)

31、整合和績效</p><p><b>　　產(chǎn)業(yè)集群是什么</b></p><p>　　十九世紀(jì)九十年代，關(guān)于產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的專業(yè)的和通俗的研究文獻(xiàn)劇增，使得產(chǎn)業(yè)集群與各個(gè)領(lǐng)域產(chǎn)生了空前緊密的聯(lián)系，涉及商業(yè)管理和經(jīng)濟(jì)方面，政治上以及公共社會(huì)政策上。對(duì)于不同的作者，通過產(chǎn)業(yè)集群這個(gè)詞，所代表的內(nèi)容和不想表達(dá)的含義，存在一定程度的混亂和困惑。因此，我們首先考慮的是術(shù)語問題。<

32、/p><p>　　重要的是從一開始就應(yīng)指出，我們這里所關(guān)注的并不是大城市或者達(dá)到一定發(fā)展規(guī)模的城鎮(zhèn)中經(jīng)濟(jì)分區(qū)的類別。如各作者所提到的，一個(gè)大城市，必需會(huì)也不可避免地會(huì)為各種各樣分區(qū)的產(chǎn)生提供機(jī)會(huì)，先是按人群分，之后是按照社會(huì)和經(jīng)濟(jì)分區(qū)(Gordon &McCann, 2000)。實(shí)際上，對(duì)于那些熟悉大城市和城鎮(zhèn)現(xiàn)狀的人來說，各種經(jīng)濟(jì)分區(qū)之間的相互作用通常是受大量隨機(jī)的大事的邏輯支配的。但是，在這里我們通常也可

33、以發(fā)現(xiàn)兩種基本的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益，這對(duì)于我們理解產(chǎn)業(yè)集群很重要。</p><p>　　一方面，大城市和類似的經(jīng)濟(jì)區(qū)域有利于城市化經(jīng)濟(jì)。換句話說，那些有利于各方經(jīng)濟(jì)主體的因素或者條件所產(chǎn)生的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，本身就屬于群聚的一部分。舉例來說，像倫敦這樣城市的優(yōu)越的航空運(yùn)輸設(shè)備和城市基礎(chǔ)設(shè)施，雅典作為東西方聯(lián)系樞紐的戰(zhàn)略地理位置，新加坡的語言多樣化……這些能產(chǎn)生經(jīng)濟(jì)效益，造福城市里的或靠近這些城市的經(jīng)濟(jì)利益體。</p>

34、<p>　　另一方面，城市集群可以導(dǎo)致地方規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)。這些是源于地域鄰近而特別產(chǎn)生的針對(duì)特定行業(yè)的經(jīng)濟(jì)效益。接著上文的例子來說，倫敦是世界重要的金融中心，幾十個(gè)，可能幾百個(gè)，幾千個(gè)地集了一群高素質(zhì)地金融專業(yè)人才。倫敦作為世界級(jí)的人才匯集地，對(duì)于所有決定在倫敦立足的金融服務(wù)公司來說有很大好處。同樣，雅典和它周圍的地區(qū)是世界最重要的人口、公司、資產(chǎn)和和船舶業(yè)相關(guān)的設(shè)施中心之一。新加坡也一樣，除了它國際地理位置更優(yōu)越因而在航運(yùn)中心上

35、比雅典更大。</p><p>　　地理集聚中地方規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)理論在經(jīng)濟(jì)學(xué)中的提出已經(jīng)有了很長的歷史，可以追溯到亞當(dāng)斯密對(duì)于勞動(dòng)分工的早期研究和馬歇爾（1925）對(duì)于為什么公司在同一個(gè)區(qū)域落腳原因的解析。馬歇爾強(qiáng)調(diào)了三個(gè)關(guān)鍵解釋。首先，公司在地域上接近是為了發(fā)展出一個(gè)專業(yè)勞動(dòng)力儲(chǔ)備區(qū)，可以滿足一個(gè)特定產(chǎn)業(yè)的特殊要求，并且方便那些需要這些技能的公司招聘人才。第二，這些公司可以提供特別針對(duì)某個(gè)行業(yè)的非交易投入，比如說，公司

36、通過地域上的接近能在發(fā)展中實(shí)現(xiàn)規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)，使用共同的技術(shù)或者特定的資本設(shè)施。第三，公司聚集在一起可以產(chǎn)生最大的信息和理論流動(dòng)性。換句話說，相比于那些地理上分散的經(jīng)濟(jì)主體，地理上鄰近的主體之間，產(chǎn)品，市場(chǎng)和技術(shù)知識(shí)能夠更方便的實(shí)現(xiàn)共享以及更有效率地轉(zhuǎn)化為有價(jià)值的創(chuàng)新。</p><p>　　有趣的是，某種程度上說得上是荒謬，20世紀(jì)以來虛擬通訊技術(shù)，國際運(yùn)輸和物流的發(fā)展使得地區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)對(duì)于公司的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力更加關(guān)鍵，并不是更少。

37、一方面，虛擬通訊和類似的技術(shù)，強(qiáng)調(diào)了經(jīng)濟(jì)主體之間心照不宣的信息和緊密的私人關(guān)系這兩點(diǎn)為企業(yè)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力的關(guān)鍵因素。另外一方面，雖然國際物流意味著基本生產(chǎn)要素，如資本和一般勞動(dòng)力，對(duì)所有人嗾使開放的，然而，專業(yè)知識(shí)的流動(dòng)和豐富的信息交流導(dǎo)致處于同一地域空間的代理人比不同地方的公司之間更容易得到有價(jià)值的創(chuàng)新。</p><p>　　我們對(duì)于“產(chǎn)業(yè)集群”的定義包括馬歇爾城市化和地方規(guī)模經(jīng)濟(jì)的概念。。我們所說的集聚的概念和那些群

38、聚中信息的相互作用并不是隨機(jī)的，而是刻意地社會(huì)性地構(gòu)建的，并且取決于競(jìng)爭(zhēng)生存，有明顯的區(qū)別。</p><p>　　產(chǎn)業(yè)集群是一個(gè)由同一個(gè)社區(qū)的個(gè)人和位于特定區(qū)域很近的經(jīng)濟(jì)主體組成的社會(huì)經(jīng)濟(jì)體。在一個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)集群中，社區(qū)和經(jīng)濟(jì)體雙方中很大一部分在利益相關(guān)活動(dòng)中一起合作，共享和培育出一個(gè)產(chǎn)品、技術(shù)和組織文化的利益共同體，從而在市場(chǎng)中提供更好的產(chǎn)品和服務(wù)。</p><p>　　知識(shí)整合、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)規(guī)模和集

39、聚情況三者間的聯(lián)系</p><p>　　很多現(xiàn)存的實(shí)驗(yàn)證據(jù)（其中很多可參考前文）表明，知識(shí)整合的程度和競(jìng)爭(zhēng)規(guī)模都是對(duì)解釋產(chǎn)業(yè)集群這一經(jīng)濟(jì)現(xiàn)象很重要的共同發(fā)展因素。雖然實(shí)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)仍然有些零散，但是它表明，比起集群程度較低，地理區(qū)域內(nèi)競(jìng)爭(zhēng)激烈的公司來說，產(chǎn)業(yè)集群中的公司知識(shí)整合程度更高，國際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)中的創(chuàng)新更多，發(fā)展模式更好，能更迅速地適應(yīng)周圍環(huán)境的變化，有更持續(xù)的經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)(Meyer-Stamer, 1998; Port

40、er, 1998; Pyke et al., 1990; Rabellotti, 1995; Schmitz, 2000; Simmie & Sennett, 1999)。這些類型的經(jīng)驗(yàn)數(shù)據(jù)構(gòu)成了以下理論的基礎(chǔ)。</p><p>　　集群內(nèi)的成員公司信息整合程度越高，那么成員公司的國際競(jìng)爭(zhēng)力越高，產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)也越好。</p><p>　　圖1為我們所假設(shè)的幾點(diǎn)影響提供了圖例，

41、假定將我們研究中所涉及的各種地區(qū)和產(chǎn)業(yè)中的產(chǎn)業(yè)集群進(jìn)行比較性分類。這個(gè)分類假設(shè)只是為了以圖為例。然而，它是基于對(duì)2000多頁檔案數(shù)據(jù)的測(cè)試結(jié)果，結(jié)合了學(xué)術(shù)和專業(yè)出版物數(shù)據(jù)以及通過采訪會(huì)見巴西南部、巴西亞馬遜洲和意大利北部等地區(qū)產(chǎn)業(yè)集群主體，所搜羅的專家意見（例如，企業(yè)家，協(xié)會(huì)主席，從業(yè)人員等）。我們所得出的文獻(xiàn)綜述和專家訪談都是根據(jù)表1表2（見附件B）的模板和框架構(gòu)造的。我們的分析主要集中在十九世紀(jì)九十年代，因?yàn)檫@段時(shí)期內(nèi)產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的以下

42、方面有很多歷史數(shù)據(jù)：信息整合程度、競(jìng)爭(zhēng)范圍以及經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)（例如，貝卡蒂尼1990；費(fèi)澤&伯格曼2000；戈登&麥卡恩2000；邁耶斯塔默1998；羅貝羅蒂1999）。</p><p>　　圖1給出了許多整體模式，這些模式似乎是產(chǎn)生于二十世紀(jì)過去最后二十年中產(chǎn)業(yè)集群相關(guān)的實(shí)證研究文獻(xiàn)發(fā)展之中，盡管發(fā)展得很分散。這些模式揭示了許多特征，這些特征似乎既可以解釋又可以決定產(chǎn)業(yè)集群經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)。有些特征是和集群所

43、在的產(chǎn)業(yè)部門所特有的競(jìng)爭(zhēng)優(yōu)勢(shì)因素有關(guān)，其他特征則是和產(chǎn)業(yè)集群的體制結(jié)構(gòu)、地理密閉程度、經(jīng)濟(jì)相關(guān)度以及“共同粘合處”有很大關(guān)聯(lián)。并且在這里，對(duì)于宏觀經(jīng)濟(jì)政策決策者以及類似的商業(yè)計(jì)劃策劃者來說，積極干預(yù)的范圍程度更為重要。</p><p>　　然而，基于我們所作假設(shè)的實(shí)證研究依然只是有挑戰(zhàn)性的一步，是為了更好更全面地理解，那些能解釋并且決定一個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)集群經(jīng)濟(jì)表現(xiàn)優(yōu)劣的主要因素。我們認(rèn)為這次根據(jù)表一表二架構(gòu)展開的實(shí)證研究