Content area
Full text
Ann Reg Sci (2008) 42:449463
DOI 10.1007/s00168-007-0163-1
ORIGINAL PAPER
Received: 25 April 2007 / Accepted: 10 September 2007 / Published online: 13 October 2007 Springer-Verlag 2007
Abstract Most cluster-based economic development programs use co-location to initially identify the spatial footprint of cluster areas. Geographic proximity (co-location) is a necessary, but not a sufcient, condition for potential clustering activity. Therefore, an assessment of industry location and density patterns becomes the rst phase in the identication of potential cluster regions to be included in a cluster driven development policy. This paper compares the use of location quotients and GetisOrd Gi in the identication of potential cluster regions in the transportation equipment industry of four states in the Midwestern USA. Also, both location quotients and Gi are used to classify counties with respect to their concentration of transportation equipment manufacturing.
JEL Classication C0 R11 R12
This research is funded by US Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration grant #06-66-05054-01.
M. C. Carroll
Department of Economics and Center for Regional Development, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA
N. Reid (B)
Department of Geography and Planning and The Urban Affairs Center, The University of Toledo, Toledo, OH, USAe-mail: [email protected]
B. W. Smith
Department of Geography and Center for Regional Development, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, OH, USA
Location quotients versus spatial autocorrelation in identifying potential cluster regions
Michael C. Carroll Neil Reid Bruce W. Smith
123
450 M. C. Carroll et al.
1 Introduction
Cluster-based economic development (CBED), as an alternative economic development strategy, has become more commonplace in recent years. This idea has been promoted by the work of academics (see for example, Porter 1998; Schmitz and Nadvi 1999; Feldman and Francis 2004). Porter (1998, p 197) denes clusters as geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, suppliers, service providers, rms in related industries, and associated institutions (e.g., universities, standards agencies, and trade associations) in particular elds that compete but also co-operate. Moreover, CBED has gained acceptance among practitioners, with Akundi (2003) reporting that 40 states in USA. had adopted a CBED strategy. Worldwide there are literally hundreds of cluster initiatives (Solvell et al. 2003). Communities from San Diego, California (SANDAG 2001) to Sialkot, Pakistan (Nadvi 1999) are pinning much of their economic future on what they are...