A participatory methodology for evaluating the cluster policy of the Basque Country

  1. Mari Jose Aranguren 1
  2. Cristina Iturrioz 2
  3. James R. Wilson 1
  4. Cristina Aragón Amonarriz
  1. 1 Orkestra-Basque Institute of Competitiveness and Deusto Business School, University of Deusto
  2. 2 Deusto Business School, University of Deusto
Revista:
Orkestra Working Paper Series in Territorial Competitiveness

ISSN: 1989-1288

Año de publicación: 2011

Número: 1

Tipo: Documento de Trabajo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Orkestra Working Paper Series in Territorial Competitiveness

Resumen

Las políticas clúster son actualmente una herramienta consolidada entre las políticas regionales y, a pesar de su creciente presencia, existe un cierto escepticismo ante la idea de considerar los cluster como la panacea de las políticas públicas. Una asignatura pendiente en este tipo de políticas es su evaluación, todavía insuficiente. En España, el País Vasco ha sido pionero en las políticas clúster regionales y recientemente se han evaluado en este contexto diversos aspectos de esta política. Sin embargo, el reto sigue siendo llevar a cabo una evaluación holística que valore si la política alcanza su principal objetivo: el fomento de la competitividad de la economía vasca a través de la cooperación. Fundamentado en un marco de investigación-acción, este artículo expone las razones para aplicar un enfoque de evaluación participativa a la política clúster del Gobierno Vasco. Con base en estas razones, se presenta una metodología diseñada para una aplicación piloto específica en la asociación clúster de la aeronáutica. De esta manera, se pretende contribuir al debate sobre la aplicabilidad y la implementación práctica de dichas metodologías en la evaluación de políticas regionales “soft”, basadas en la cooperación.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Ahedo, M. (2004). ‘Cluster Policy in the Basque Country (1991-2002): Constructing “IndustryGovernment” Collaboration through Cluster-associations’, European Planning Studies, 12: 8, 1097-1113.
  • Aragon, C., Aranguren, M-J., Iturrioz, C., Larrea, M. and Olarte, F. (2008). ‘A New Step in Cluster Policy Evaluation in the Basque Country’, mimeo, University of Deusto, Spain.
  • Aranguren, M J., Aragón, C., Larrea, M. and Iturrioz, C. (2008). ‘Does Cluster Policy Really Enhance Networking and Increase Competitiveness’, in M J. Aranguren, C. Iturrioz and J. R. Wilson (eds.), Networks, Governance and Economic Development: Bridging Disciplinary Frontiers, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, forthcoming.
  • Aranguren, M J., Larrea, M. and Navarro, I. (2006). ‘The Policy Process: Clusters versus Spatial Networks in the Basque Country’, in C. Pitelis, R. Sugden and J. R Wilson (eds.), Clusters and Globalisation: The Development of Urban and Regional Economies, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Aranguren, M.J.; Navarro, I. (2003). ‘La Política de Clusters en el País Vasco: Una Primera Valoración, Ekonomiaz, 53: 90-113.
  • Becattini, G. (1978). ‘The Development of Light Industry in Tuscany: An Interpretation’, Economic Notes, 7, 2-3.
  • Becattini, G. (1991). ‘Italian Industrial Districts: Problems and Perspectives’, International Studies of Management and Organization, 21 (1), 83-90.
  • Becattini, G., Bellandi, M., Dei Ottati, G. and Sforzi, F. (2003). From Industrial Districts to Local Development: An Itinerary of Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Christerson, B. and Lever-Tracy, C. (1997). ‘The Third China? Emerging Industrial Districts in Rural China’, International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 21: 4, 569-88.
  • Cooke, P. (2007). ‘How Benchmarking can Lever Cluster Competitiveness’, International Journal of Technology Management, 38(3): 292-320.
  • Diez, M A. (2001). ‘The Evaluation of Regional Innovation and Cluster Policies: Towards a Participatory Approach’, European Planning Studies, 9: 7, 907-923.
  • Diez, M A. (2002). ‘Evaluating Regional Policies: Reviewing the Theory and Practice’, Evaluation, 8: 3, 285-305.
  • European Commission (2006): “Indicative Guidelines on Evaluation Methods: Monitoring and Evaluation Indicators” Working Document, august 2006.
  • Gilliam, A., Davis, D., Barrington, T., Lacson, R., Uhl, G. and Phoenix, U. (2002). ‘The Value of Engaging Stakeholders in Planning and Implementing Evaluations’, AIDS Education and Prevention, 14, supplement A, 5-17.
  • Isham,J., Kelly, T., Ramaswamy, S. (2004) Social capital and economic development: well-being in developing countries, Edward Elgar Publishing Limited, Cheltemham, UK.
  • Iturrioz, C., Aranguren, M J., Aragón, C. and Larrea, M. (2005). ‘¿La Política Industrial de Cluster/Redes Mejora Realmente la Competitividad Empresarial? Resultados de la evaluación de los experiencias en la Comunidad Autónoma de Euskadi’, Ekonomiaz, 60: 2, 10-61.
  • Martin, R. and Sunley, P. (2003). ‘Deconstructing Clusters: Chaotic Concept or Policy Panacea?’, Journal of Economic Geography, 3, 5-35.
  • Piore, M. J. and Sable, C. F. (1984). The Second Industrial Divide: Possibilities for Prosperity, New York: Basic Books.
  • Porter, M. (1990). The Competitive Advantage of Nations, New York: Free Press.
  • Porter, M. (1998). ‘Clusters and the New Economics of Competition’, Harvard Business Review, 76 (6), 77-91.
  • Porter, M. (2004). ‘Location, Competition and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy’, Economic Development Quarterly, 14: 1. 15-34.
  • Pyke, F, Becattini, G. and Sengenberger, W. (eds.) (1990). Industrial Districts and Inter-firm Cooperation in Italy, Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies.
  • Raines, P. (2002). ‘The Challenge of Evaluating Cluster Behaviour in Economic Development Policy’, paper presented at the International RSA Conference on Evaluation and EU regional policy: New questions and challenges, European Policies Research Centre, University of Strathclyde. Glasgow, UK.
  • Reason, P. and Bradbury, H. (2008). ‘Introduction’, in P. Reason and H. Bradbury (eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Action Research: Participative Inquiry and Practice, Second Edition, London: SAGE.
  • Saxenian, A (1994). Regional Advantage: Culture and Competition in Silicon Valley and Route 128, Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Schmitz, H. and Musyck, B. (1994). ‘Industrial Districts in Europe: Policy Lessons for Developing Countries’, World Development, 22: 6, 889-910.
  • Storey, D.J. (2000). ‘Six Steps to Heaven: Evaluating the Impact of Public Policies to Support Small Businesses in Developed Economies’, in D.L. Sexton, and H. Landström (eds.), The Blackwell Handbook of Entrepreneurship, Oxford: Blackwell Publishers.
  • Storey, D. J. (2004). ‘Evaluation of SMEs Policies and Programmes’, document prepared in cooperation with the SME Unit of the OECD Secretariat for the 2nd OECD Conference of Ministries Responsible for SMEs held in Istanbul, 2-3 June 2004.
  • Sugden, R. and Wilson, J. R. (2002). ‘Development in the Shadow of the Consensus: A Strategic Decision-Making Approach’, Contributions to Political Economy, 21, 111-134.
  • Sugden, R., Wei, P. and Wilson, J. R. (2006). ‘Clusters, Governance and the Development of Local Economies: A Framework for Case Studies’, in C. Pitelis, R. Sugden and J. R. Wilson (eds.), Clusters and Globalisation: The Development of Urban and Regional Economies, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Sullivan, H. and Stewart, M. (2006). ‘Who Owns the Theory of Change’, Evaluation, 12: 2, 179-199.
  • Svensson, L. and Nielsen, K. A. (2006). Action and Interactive Research: Beyond Theory and Practice, Kristiansand: Shaker Publishing.
  • Turok, I. (1990). ‘Evaluation and Accountability in Spatial Economic Policy: A Review of Alternative Approaches’, Scottish Geographical Magazine, 106: 1, 4-11.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet