《日本产业集群的演化与结构[外文翻译].doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《日本产业集群的演化与结构[外文翻译].doc（11页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、本科毕业论文外文翻译题 目：The Evolution and Structure of Industrial Clusters in Japan 出 处： Small Business Economics 作 者： Hideki Yamawaki 译 文：ABSTRACTThis paper focuses on two aspects of the evolution and structure of clusters in Japan, namely, what gives rise to clusters and what benefits are acquired by small
2、firms from participating in clusters. The determinants of clustering are discussed by way of a review of the history of 14 industrial clusters which cover a wide range of industries andlocations in Japan. It is noted that different factors dominate in different cases. Among the more important ones a
3、re the existence of leading large firms, the availability of a pooled labor market, and the presence of public research and testing facilities. The four most important benefits from clusters reported by small firms are : (i) specialization; (ii) ease of procurement; (iii) diffusion of technology, an
4、d (iv) public policy support. Access to skilled workers is not reported to be a significant benefit. This may be explained by the fact that the dominant source of skills acquisition among Japanese workers is on-the-job training and such skills may be too firmspecific to be useful to others, even wit
5、hin a geographically concentrated cluster.1. IntroductionIt is a well established fact that Japan hosts the largest number of small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) among industrialized countries. When SMEs are broadly defined as those enterprises with fewer than 300 employees or less than Yen 1
6、00 million in capital, more than 99 percent of all enterprises in Japanese manufacturing were classified as SMEs in 1994. Further,67 percent of total employees in manufacturing worked for SMEs in 1994.1 An equally important feature of Japans industrial organization is that Japans SMEs often form clu
7、sters. According to the 1996 survey of the Small and Medium Enterprise Agency, a total of 537 clusters are reported to exist throughout Japan. While the economic significance of these clustersvaries widely from clusters producing primarily for exports to clusters producing indigenous goods little kn
8、own outside Japan, an important question common to these clusters arise: Where do these clusters come from? What are the key drivers for the birth and growth of these clusters in Japan?What competitive advantage do they have? The purpose of this paper is to address these issues.Specifically, the pap
9、er first identifies factors thatare important in shaping the evolution of clusters in Japan. Second, it describes the structure of Japans clusters and examines their sources of competitive advantage. While clusters are defined generally as geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and in
10、stitutions in a particular business field (Porter, 1990, 1998), each cluster varies greatly in terms of key features such as geographic locations, products, functions, and patterns of inter-firm linkages. Clusters differ from each other because of differences in historical circumstances,demand condi
11、tions, supporting industries, and competitive conditions that underlie their evolution. Some clusters arise from peculiar historical conditions, yet others may develop through the confluence of various economic conditions. The initial economic conditions that shaped a cluster,however, do not necessa
12、rily remain constant beyond certain periods. Rather, economic conditions surrounding clusters may change over time because of changes in domestic and international competitive conditions. On the basis of information provided in the previous surveys on Japans manufacturing clusters (Peoples Finance C
13、orporation, 1987,1995; MITI, 1996; SMEA, 1997; Ito and Urata,1997, 1998), this paper examines a sample of 14 major cases of manufacturing clusters in Japan that have shown high propensities to export. Afterproviding a brief description on the historical development of each of these clusters, the pap
14、er extracts key driving forces for the evolution of a cluster. The 14 clusters studied manufacture a wide range of products including silk, cotton, and synthetic fabrics; apparel; ceramic goods; general machinery; automobile parts; binoculars; silverware and cutlery; hand tools; and eyeglass frames.
15、 The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, evolutionary patterns of this sample of 14 clusters are qualitativelyexamined to derive a certain set of factors that contributed to the birth of clusters. This analysis identifies historical circumstances, prior existence of
16、 related industries in the region, prior existence of related clusters in neighboring regions, technology transfers from other clusters and foreign countries, and regional government policy as most important drivers of the birth and growth of clusters. Section 3 describes structural features of thes
17、e clusters and examines various sources of advantage that they create. The analysis finds that the existence of small and medium enterprises with specialized skills in an industry in a geographic space is likely to create agglomeration in Japanese clusters. Section 4 examines the development of tech
18、nological and human assets in Japanese clusters. Section 5 summarizes the key findings and concludes thepaper.2. Evolution of industrial clusters in JapanA sample of 14 clusters in Japan was selected from the clusters previously studied by the Peoples Finance Corporation (1987, 1995), MITI (1996),SM
19、EA (1997), and Ito and Urata (1997, 1998).The 14 clusters were chosen rather subjectively by using the following criteria: (1) The cluster is distinctive in that interconnected firms are located in a geographically concentrated area and produce a particular class of products; (2) the cluster has bee
20、n important in terms of the size of economic activity; (3) the cluster has been competitive in international markets with significantly high export share; and (4) the evolution pattern of thecluster is unique. The locations of these clusters are not concentrated in one particular area but dispersed
21、widely across Japan. In what follows, each of these clusters is briefly described focusing on its history, key conditions for birth, and interfirm linkages.3. Structure of industrial clusters in JapanSources of advantage in Japans clustersInterpreting the seminal work of Marshall (1920),Krugman (199
22、1) pointed out that the advantage of concentrated production is generated by threedistinctive sources: labor market pooling, specialized inputs, and technological spillovers. In this section, we will first lay out these three causes with additional consideration and then examine which one of them is
23、 most important for the clusters in Japan by reviewing the SMEA survey result.Labor market poolingBy concentrating a number of firms in an industr in the same location, a localized industry gains an advantage from offering a pooled market forworkers with specialized skills. Both workers with special
24、ized skills who seek employment and firms that seek such workers are better off if they get access to the pooled labor market in the same location (Marshall, 1920; Krugman, 1991). Whether this factor is relevant and important for Japanese clusters depends presumably on the mobility of skilled worker
25、s between firms withina cluster and between geographic areas. Because Japanese workers tend to stay in the same firm until retirement, the benefit of agglomerationarising from labor market pooling for skilled workers may be relatively small in a Japanese cluster. On the other hand, this advantage ma
26、y bemore important in labor markets for part-time workers. As in the cases of apparel and textile clusters, part-time workers are often female workers who are local residents and work at home. Their wages are under normal circumstances much lower than regular employees.Availability of firms with spe
27、cialized skills and competencies Agglomeration is created in a localized industry because it can support suppliers with specialized skills and capabilities. Capacity utilization of specialized machinery can be increased and maintained at a high level in a localized industry thatproduces the same kin
28、d of products. This in turn makes the localized industry more efficient (Marshall, 1920; Krugman, 1991). If the minimum efficient scale of production varies across a range of products and through different stages of the production process, thenmanufacturers can choose an optimal combination of opera
29、tions by working closely with a number of specialized suppliers. Manufacturers can benefit from the availability of such suppliers as they choose a right technology in response to the scale of production at each stage of the process througha subcontracting-based manufacturing system. The availabilit
30、y of the number of firms with complementary skills also allows manufacturers to produce a large variety of product. If variety is produced through a wide range of materials and components that are handled efficiently by specialists as well as through stages of specialized operations, then manufactur
31、ers will benefit from working with suppliers with such capabilities. While such division of labor can be contracted between firms in the different geographic spaces,it is more efficiently and easily organized between nearby firms. An example of the mechanical pencil industry in Japan shows that the
32、manufacturer may suffer from working with suppliers scattered geographically in different stages of the production system (Mishina, 1993). The long travel distance of work in process impaired the timeliness of delivery and therefore reduced production efficiency in this case.4. Development of firm c
33、apabilities in Japanese clustersSkill formationThe analysis in the previous section finds that the existence of suppliers with specialized, complementary skills is the most likely source of agglomeration in a Japanese cluster. On the other hand,the SMEA survey does not seem to provide evidence that
34、supports the hypothesis that the creation of a pooled labor market for skilled workers in a localized industry offers an advantage to both local firms and workers.22 Why is a pooled labor market for skilled workers not important source of advantage in Japanese cluster? The way in which skills are cr
35、eated and developed in Japanese firms, and the way in which such human skills are allocated among firms may provide an answer. As is well known, on-the-job training is the most commonly used method to train workers in Japanese corporations (Koike, 1988). The prevalence of on-the-job-training in Japa
36、n is based on the premises that most skills are learned only by doing, and that some of these skills are specific to the firm or to the plant. This firm-specific nature of human skills in turn tend to discourage the worker to move to another firm since the worker will lose some of the skills acquire
37、d in the firm if the worker moves to the another firm. The firm will not be able to replace the worker easily within a short period with a new recruit without impairing efficiency. This in turn motivates both workers and firms to use a mechanism that is internal to firms rather than a mechanism that
38、 use external markets to allocate human resources (Odagiri, 1992). In sum, the analysis in this section and the previous section suggests that the firms in an industrial cluster in Japan are more likely to benefit from supporting large numbers of suppliers with specialized skills. Some of the human
39、skills in these firms are firm-specific and developed internally within the firms through on-the-job-training. Since such skills are only infrequently acquired from other firms in the same cluster, a localized industry in Japan is less likely to support a pooled labor market for skilled workers.Deve
40、lopment of technological assetsWhile the access to a pooled labor for skilled workers in an industrial cluster in Japan is unlikely to be an important source of agglomeration,technology spillovers are more likely to be an advantage of clustering. How does a cluster facilitate the diffusion of new te
41、chnology and other knowledge? As was discussed earlier in this paper,knowledge spillovers among firms in the same cluster can occur through various institutions such as trade associations, public testing and research centers, public technical centers, wholesalers associations, and local chambers of
42、commerce. In addition to such institutions, various forms of inter-firm cooperation and contacts within a cluster are also likely to facilitate knowledge spillovers. Table V summarizes the SMEA survey result on the pattern of inter-firm cooperation in Japans industrial clusters. Out of the 123 clust
43、ers that responded to the question of what types of interfirm cooperation they participate in, 64 percent of them pointed out joint R&D as a vehicle for collaboration, and 26 percent of them saw their firms participate in technological alliance. This general pattern remains virtually unchanged for d
44、ifferent industries except in wooden products and furniture where technological alliance is not important. It is also worth noting that the frequency with which Japanese firms in a cluster exchange business information and reference each other through informal channels is not trivial. Another intere
45、sting pattern that emerges in Table V is that the types of partnership that include equity ownership and therefore ownership control are not common in a Japanese cluster. Among the 123 clusters, only 3.3 percent of them report partnerships that involve capital participation, and a mere 2.4 percent o
46、f them report joint ventures as a common form of alliance. Table VI summarizes the SMEA survey result on alliance partners. The questionnaire asked who are the most likely partners of alliance. Among the 127 clusters where their firms formed alliance,60.6 percent of them formed alliances with public
47、 research and testing centers and technical centers.The response rate is the highest for machinery where more than 80 percent of clusters involve partnerships with such public institutions. On the contrary, forming a partnership with a university is relatively rare for the firm in a cluster. Only11
48、percent of the clusters are involved in partnerships with universities. When a firm in a cluster form alliances with other firms, its partners are likely to be small- and medium-sized firms rather than large firms. Indeed, in the majority of clusters are partnerships formed among SMEs, but only 5 pe
49、rcent of them involve large firms as partners. In sum, the evidence suggests that public institutions such as prefecture testing and research centers and technical centers play an important role in facilitating inter-firm cooperation between firms in a localized industry. Joint R&D efforts and technological
