The most important social expectation from the partner, if the firm was to be involved in inter-firm collaboration in marketing activities, are 'frankness' (96%), 'competence' (92%) and 'knowledge' (90%). The building of a common knowledge base and frankness can be assumed to be further aspects of the social element, part of the concept of 'trust' previously found in past research (Morgan & Hunt 1994; Coutler & Coutler 2003), helping the development of relational ties which are special for inter-firm interactions.

The results showed that the social networking elements, like 'trust' (Morgan & Hunt 1994; Hoang & Antoncic 2003) and 'respect reciprocity' (Coutler & Coutler 2003) play a key role in inter-firm cooperation in marketing. Elements of networking are important for inter-firm cooperation. The evidence presented in this research also suggests that the concept of 'proximity' (Amin & Cohendet 1999; Gertler 2001) needs to be considered as being not only spatial but also social, assuming organizational and relational forms in which firms and entrepreneurs relate to each other.

Standard multiple regression was employed (Table 2) in order to see the strength and direction of the associations between a set of independent variables: company structure, usefulness of geographical co-location and social networking, and a dependent variable: marketing cooperation. This method was also used to investigate issues relevant at answering how independent variables (e.g. company structure, geographical co-location and social networking) predict the inter-firm marketing cooperation (dependent variable).

Table 2 shows that the only significant factor affecting inter-firm cooperation in marketing is related to social networking, specifically 'discussion about marketing activities with other managers'.

Table 3 shows that by excluding other factors, (independent variables: e.g. subsidiary of a multinational company, usefulness of geographical co-location), the item 'discussion about marketing activities with other managers' ([beta]=.457) becomes more important for influencing inter-firm cooperation in marketing. Once again, the results confirm the importance of the social networking issues for collaboration in marketing activities among firms.

Figure 1 illustrates the overall results of the analysis presented above, explaining 31.1 per cent (R square) of the variance of marketing cooperation (dependent variable). The factor analysis showed that there are only two strong betas, graphically represented by the wider arrows. In other words, the social networking variables 'discussion about marketing activities with other managers' ([beta]= .441) and 'informal contacts with other managers' ([beta]=.167) make the largest contributions leading to marketing cooperation.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

The variable 'discussion about marketing activities with other managers' made a statistical significant contribution to the equation having an important influence in inter-firm cooperation in marketing. This means that this is the single most important factor for marketing collaboration among firms. Therefore, this specific social networks factor appears to be more important than just co-location for generation active marketing externalities in this specific industry cluster.

5. CONCLUSIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH AND MAIN CONTRIBUTION

According to the research objectives, our results suggest that 'close proximity' is not a key issue per se for the development of inter-firm cooperation in marketing. Co-location, however, may be someway beneficial for the development of 'social glue' (Porter 1998). The relationship between colocation and social networking is complex and the interaction between both elements often difficult to separate. For example, co-location assists in the social elements of networking which, in turn, help build strategic collaborative arrangements, for example in marketing, which contribute to enhanced performance.

The concept of 'proximity' (Amin & Cohendet 1999; Gertler 2001) needs to be considered as being not only spatial but also social, assuming organizational and relational forms in which firms and managers relate to each other. These social relations are related to the model that Chetty and Agndal (2008) proposed for the interconnectedness of formal and informal inter-organisational and interpersonal levels. This brings lessons for public policies enhancing the cluster development and performance as they need to include the local culture embedded in specific regions for the understanding of the degree of formalisation of relations between actors at organisational and individual levels. Without considering these elements, the growth and consolidations of regional innovative clusters and the effectiveness of local public policies for achieving this goal, may be difficult to implement successfully.

Results specified and stressed the importance of informal relationships in the development of inter-firm co-operation. Therefore, we can say that informal contacts play a key role for collaborative marketing activities. In addition, the results also showed that informal meetings and 'weak ties' (Granovetter 1973) are valuable for sharing marketing information among managers. This is also relevant for the development of specific national and regional public policies related to clusters and local development in small and open economies found in countries like New Zealand, Scotland and Chile. Moreover, it is more that clear that governments of those countries would like to foster competitiveness and entrepreneurship at both national and regional levels in innovative natural resources-based clusters, in which the economy has comparative advantages.

At the theoretical level, it is more than clear that future cluster theory needs to place greater emphasis on the role of electronic communications in transmitting technical content and the ways in which this affects the inter-firm cooperation process. Consequently, individual firms operating in clusters and future research investigating clusters both need to consider relational closeness (Ghemawat 2001) as well as the strength of ties in industrial districts (Ganesan et al. 2004). Moreover, considering the literature on 'communication and social networks' (Szarka 1990; Johannisson 1995) and 'extra local networks' (Mackinnon et al. 2004) may be key for next level of research.

We can claim that this study contributes to the literature and to theoretical understanding by integrating the two concepts of geographical proximity and social networking. The study also explored in depth whether levels of inter-firm cooperation differed between countries with distinctly different levels of social collectivism, issues that were not explicitly included in previous studies. In addition to differences in respect of collaboration, significant differences were found in this study while Chilean more than the Scottish companies considered higher the usefulness of access to new technology, innovation, and reputation. The paper supports much recent research on the relative strategic importance of social networking among firm's relationships. The contemporary concepts of 'relational mix' (Lechner and Dowling 2003) and 'social topography' (Van Dijk & Sverrisson 2003) are seen to be key issues of consideration when investigating queries related to inter-firm relationships and geographical co-location effects, where social networking is a key factor among them.

Finally, this study should also stress that cooperation is not an element per se in every organisation and that the effect of the country as well as the local culture of regions may play a crucial role in the trust and cooperative process. It is clear that more work needs to be done to confirm the effect of geographical co-location and social networking in inter-firm cooperation in marketing activities, not only conducting similar research in different industry sectors and countries, but also integrating a more holistic view including the regional systems of innovation and local entrepreneurship perspectives.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

We gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Fondecyt 11060185 project--Research Council Chile.

Received 21 September 2007 Accepted 16 October 2008

References

Adler P and Kwon S (2002) Social capital: prospects for a new concept, Academy of Management Review 27(1): 17-40.

Agndal H and Axelsson B (2002) Networks and business renewal, JIBS Research Reports, Mo 2002-4, Jonkoping International Business School, Jonkoping.

Amin A and Cohendet P (1999) Learning and adaptation in decentralised business networks, Environment and Planning 17: 87-104.

Becattini G (1990) 'The Marshallian industrial districts as a socio-economic notion', in Pyke F, Becattini G and Sengenberger W (Eds) Industrial Districts and Inter-Firm Co-operation in Italy, Geneva: International Institute for Labor Studies, 37-51.

Bellandi M (1987) La Formulazione Originaria; il Mercato e Force Locali: Il Distretto Industriale, Il Milino, Bologna.

Bellandi M (2001) Local development and embedded large firms, Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 13(3): 189-210.

Brown P and Bell J (2001) 'Industrial clusters and small firms internationalisation' in Taggart J, Berry M and McDermott M (Eds) Multinationals in a New Era, Palgrave Macmillan, pp 10-26.

Brown P and McNaughton R (2002) 'Global competitiveness and local networks: a review of the literature', in McNaughton R and Green M (eds) Global Competition and Local Networks, Ashgate Publishing, Aldershot.

Chetty S (2004) 'On the crest of a wave: evolution of the New Zealand boat building clusters', International Journal of Entrepreneurship and Small Business 1(3-4): 313-329.

Chetty S and Agndal H (2008) Role of inter-organizational networks and interpersonal networks in an industrial district, Regional Studies 42(2) 175-187.

Print Get the Mag Weekly Updates