SUMMARY
This paper examines the perceptions of a sample of enterprise
managers in the New Zealand forest products industry about the
respective contributions of cluster groups and national industry
associations. Enterprise managers are found to view these forms of
association as complementary rather than as one being clearly superior
to the other. This suggests that business development can benefit from
the existence of both forms of association with individual enterprises
matching participation with their current development needs. Government
support to collective associations should be based on prior
investigation of the gaps in business support rather than on prior
judgements about the superiority of one form of association. This
evidence is considered significant in the context of the present
prioritising of clusters to the neglect of national industry
associations.
KEYWORDS
enterprise cluster; industry association; evaluation; policy; New
Zealand; forestry
ENTERPRISE CLUSTERS AS ONE FORM OF COLLECTIVE ASSOCIATION
Location in a business cluster is claimed to enhance innovation and
enterprise development (Porter, 2000; Benneworth, 2002; Raines, 2002;
Pinch et al., 2003; Rosenfeld, 2005). Proximity to industry peers, it is
argued, gives access to agglomeration advantages that are not available
to enterprises located in isolation or among unconnected activity.
Support for this proposition is reflected in the efforts of public
agencies to increase awareness of the existence of business clusters
(Department of Trade and Industry, 2001) and in many industry-based
projects to promote membership-based cluster groups (Solvell et al.,
2003). Equally, there is evidence that clusters have no necessary impact
on business performance (Malmberg et al., 2000; Beaudry and Breschi,
2003; Braunerhjelm and Johansson, 2003; Cingano, 2003) or that they have
significance for independent firms only (Beardsell and Henderson, 1999)
or that they encourage enterprise start up but not survival (Sorenson
and Audia, 2000; Stuart and Sorenson, 2003). Much of the advocacy of
cluster advantage assumes that they provide unique opportunities for
businesses to engage in collaboration with other businesses. Such a view
can overlook that participation in a national industry association has
been an option for many enterprises (Bennett, 1998; Traxler, 2000).
Cluster promotion increases the opportunity for collective activity but
small businesses have limited resources to devote to discretionary
activities. Providing support for localised collaboration may result in
reduced involvement in other collective associations. This implies a
need to consider net outcomes rather than examining cluster
participation in isolation. Such information may correct the implicit
assumption that enterprises outside a cluster operate in a starkly
different environment to those within a cluster.
Determining the spatial reach of cluster advantages is a further
reason to investigate different sources of collaborative opportunity.
The assessment of cluster significance tends to be polarised. One view
is that clusters are a geographical phenomenon and that a standardised
way of identifying potential clusters is needed before claims about
their significance can be made (Martin and Sunley, 2003). Another view
equates clusters with business interdependence that can be investigated
at any spatial scale from individual localities to transnational regions
(Porter, 2000; 2003; Feser and Luger, 2003). These outlooks produce
conflicting assessments of the importance of business clusters. Viewing
clusters as a specific geographical entity, identified through rules
about the level of industry concentration and specialisation, can show
that clusters are rare and not necessarily associated with economic
growth (Crouch and Farrell, 2001). On the other hand, as all parts of an
economy are ultimately inter-connected, the business interdependence
perspective can always find scope for promoting cluster development
(Feser and Bergman, 2000; Porter, 2003).
Seeking to reconcile these two perspectives may reduce undue
scepticism or excessive optimism about clusters. Exploring enterprise
managers' perception of the activities supported by national versus
local collaboration is one way of seeking reconciliation. This study
makes a contribution to this area of enquiry by presenting evidence
drawn from a sample of enterprises associated with business clusters in
New Zealand's forest and timber processing industries. This sector
provides opportunity to examine how managers compare the value of local
(cluster) versus national (industry association) forms of association.
There is a history of high levels of participation in national forest
industry groups that are differentiated by the activity and type of
enterprise represented. More recently, a government assistance programme
has encouraged the formation of regionally-based cluster groups (Perry,
2004). Regional groups in the timber industry were particularly active
in securing this support drawing in many businesses that were already
members of a national industry. Consequently, this example gives
opportunity to evaluate how enterprise managers evaluate the usefulness
of supporting local versus national forms of collective association.
The discussion commences with further comment on the nature of
clusters and industry associations to justify the comparison of these
forms of enterprise cooperation. The design of the investigation and
study context is then outlined followed by the findings of the
interviews with enterprise managers. The implications of the study are
then considered particularly with respect to the appropriateness of the
present tendency to view clusters as a distinct and more significant
form of collective action than industry associations.
COMPARING CLUSTER AND NATIONAL INDUSTRY GROUPS
Industry associations and cluster groups do not conform to
standardised organisational structures. In the case of both types of
organisation, the nature of the constitute enterprises, the mix of
enterprise types and the status granted collective associations by
government agencies will affect their operation (Bennett, 1998; Perry,
2004). At the extreme, for example, a national industry may be
concentrated entirely within a single regional cluster. Even with a
geographically dispersed industry highly organised cluster groups may
share features of an industry association. Consequently, this
investigation recognises that differences between industry associations
and cluster groups may be unique to the sample covered. Rather than
seeking universal rules, this investigation was motivated by the
perspective that there has been too much recent emphasis on the
competitive advantage of cluster participation to the neglect of the
contribution of other forms of collective association. Consequently, any
evidence of enterprise managers giving preference to national
associations is considered worthy of consideration. As well, there are
some aspects of clusters and associations that are likely to be
relatively widespread.
There has been an influential view that industry associations are
primarily to be viewed as predatory lobbies that exert political
pressure to maintain regulatory protection (Sabel, 1994). A tendency not
to address matters of immediate significance to enterprise development
has been a further reason for dismissing the role of industry
associations (Granovetter, 1994). These assessments can be linked to the
organisational basis of industry associations as networks coordinated by
a third party that has limited capacity to control the behaviour of
members or prevent the diffusion of benefits to non members (Bennett,
1997). As a result, associations normally find it difficult to raise
resources and are constrained in the range of activities that they can
pursue. Excluding those cases where membership is compulsory because of
industry regulation, participation depends on attracting members through
the provision of services to individual members (the logic of services)
or through the provision of collective services (the logic of influence)
or some combination (Bennett, 1998). Whatever the mix, associations tend
to sustain a small membership from all who might join because much
activity is of a public good nature that does require membership to gain
benefit from. Consequently, it has been argued that industry
representative in associations tends to fragment across competing groups
whereas fewer, better resourced groups are needed to promote business
development (Bennett, 1998).
In contrast, clusters can be presented as inclusive groupings. A
'marshallian' conception of clusters envisages that cluster
membership is purely a product of geographical location within the
cluster 'ecosystem' (McCann, 2001). This implies that clusters
exist without any formal membership. Some go further and suggest that
clusters are self-organizing entities that do not require and are
largely unresponsive to efforts to deliberately mould the behaviour of
individual participants such as through a membership association
(Porter, 2000). Similarly, the untraded dependencies that promote
localized learning through informal channels and the operation of
external labour markets have been thought of as the basis for cluster
'membership' (Malmberg et al., 2000; Leamer and Storper, 2001;
Pinch et al., 2003). On the other hand, long term development of a
cluster is generally thought to involve more than geographical
proximity. Porter (1998) has, for example, identified a cluster of 400
medical device companies in Massachusetts, employing close to 40,000
workers that lay dormant until revealed through a search for potential
clusters. Once revealed, he reports that business executives came
together to consciously exploit the advantage of belonging to a cluster.
The Schmitz (1995) model of business cluster development proposes that
deliberate planned action by selective groups of cluster firms is
necessary to sustain the advantages of a cluster. One important form of
deliberate planned action is membership of a trade association that
assists technology transfer or collective investment in shared
infrastructure (Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999).
Consequently, industry networks and business clusters have been
viewed as variations on a theme rather than being wholly different
species (Rosenfeld, 2005). Both have been linked to the
'associative economy' in which businesses are thought to gain
by making more use of the resources of other businesses and support
agencies than in the past. In this context, clusters and industry
associations might be mutually supportive. A cluster may not require
membership of a formal association but it might be an outcome that
enables a geographic concentration of enterprises to improve the
services obtained from a national association. Indeed one survey of
business clusters around the world found that 89 percent of all cluster
initiatives have a facilitator to manage activity, most of which do this
at least part time from an office (Solvell et al., 2003). Once organised
into some form of membership association, pressures to balance activity
and participation will exist for national associations and cluster
groups.
The capacity to incorporate value chain representation may be
identified as a point of difference between clusters and industry
associations. The ability to induce co-location of different components
of a value chain is sometimes identified as the particular strength of
an enterprise cluster. Indeed the incentive for specialist suppliers to
join a cluster was identified among Marshall's original advantages
accruing to a cluster (McCann, 2001: 57). Modern day cluster mapping
uses input-output linkages to delineate clusters as well as the
concentration of same industry activity (Feser and Luger, 2003; Porter,
2003). In contrast, industry associations can be limited to a single
activity and may exist expressly to support the interests of one stage
of the industry against another.
Value chain integration links to potential differences in origin
between clusters and industry associations. Geographical concentration
can be associated with the centrality to a focal organisation such as a
skill development agency, research centre or large enterprise that
'spins out' new start up companies (Colombo and Delmastro,
2003). These processes can lead to the concentration of industry know
how that becomes a stimulus for innovation and market growth. Such a
role of clusters is potentially important as most innovation relies on
interactions among various actors rather than the creativity of lone
inventors (von Hippel, 1988; Lundvall, 1992; Baptista, 1996). Similarly,
long association with a particular industry can give clusters a
marketing brand that gives an edge in international markets and sustains
cooperation to maintain the cluster's advantage (Merrilees et al.,
2006). Such business development advantages seem less likely to explain
the origin of an industry association although they can play an
important role in promoting industry standards around a source of
national technological advantage (Bennett, 1998; Bresnahan et al.,
2001). As well, not all clusters are associated with learning
communities or a distinct marketing brand. In fact, it has been argued
that 'physical clustering' (where businesses locate in
proximity to each other without functional connections or any special
advantage being obtained) is particularly prevalent among clusters of
advanced technology activity (Hendry et al., 2000; Oakey et al., 2001).
Many enterprise clusters are based on final assembly rather than
complete value chains. For example, industry districts in Italy
frequently comprise concentrations of near identical types of
enterprise. Those districts based on an industry specialisation and
associated ancillary activities are a sub category rather than the norm
(Paniccia, 2002). In the USA, it has been shown that concentrations of
footwear production are independent of the location of raw material or
equipment suppliers and of the distribution of buyers (Sorenson and
Audia, 2000). At the same time, industry associations may facilitate
participation from supporting sectors through mechanisms such as
associate memberships or by setting up pan industry groups. For example,
in New Zealand a recent development has been the establishment of such a
pan industry group in the forestry sector ('WoodCo') to
integrate the marketing strategies of individual national associations.
There is much, therefore, to support the contention that clusters
and national industry associations are variants rather than wholly
different species. Nonetheless, differences may develop from the
national versus local focus (Table 1). To the extent that government
actions tend to have nationwide impact and are potentially more
susceptible to influence by a national than local group, lobbying may be
a more significant function of national rather than local groups.
Countervailing influences may be that national regulation has a regional
dimension and that agreement over preferred actions is easier to obtain
among a local than national group. Assuming that lobbying is more a
function of national associations than regional clusters, this may mean
that the public good nature of collective activity is more of a
constraint on national associations than cluster groups.
As well as lobbying, national associations may be better placed to
supply specialised business services to members than is a cluster group.
National associations can collect industry wide data and use this as the
basis for informed advice or other services to individual members
(Bennett, 1998). Similarly, the development of product standards, codes
of conduct and industry marketing programmes that target all industry
members are tasks that are potentially more suited to a national than
local group. As well, to the extent that a national association is
larger and better resourced than a local group, it may have capacity to
employ full time business advisers and project officers. On the other
hand, the possibility of addressing industry wide issues may bring
greater difficulty in obtaining agreement over priorities. In this
sense, the more restricted agenda open to a local cluster group may be
an advantage in focussing attention on issues where there is broad
agreement among enterprises.
The ability to sustain member participation can offset some of the
opportunities existing for national associations. Partly for practical
reasons, a locally based group may have a more actively engaged
membership than a national association. Given that participation is
generally a voluntary commitment on top of full time management
responsibilities, savings in time and cost attending local meetings over
this required to participate in a national group may of itself encourage
involvement. Indeed the potential for intensified face-to-face
interactions, short cognitive distance, common language, trustful
relations, easy observations and immediate comparisons have been held to
be the unique features of clusters (Malmberg and Maskell, 2002). In
contrast, national associations may operate with one-way communication
from association staff and little member input into the direction that
the association chooses to take in its activities (Enderwick and Wilson,
1992). Alternatively, involvement can be limited to large, well
resourced organisations motivated by an agenda that differs from the
priorities of small enterprise (Semlinger, 1995: 23-24). Countervailing
possibilities may complicate whether national associations are
distinguished by their relative lack of participation. Having a
restricted range of active participants may bring greater agreement and
commitment among those who do participate. Consequently, while local
groups may in theory have a more diversified membership than a national
group this can be offset by the difficulty in obtaining agreement around
priorities among a diverse group of enterprises. In New Zealand, this
has resulted in some cluster groups setting membership rules to limit
participation to a like group of organisations (Perry, 2004).
This discussion suggests a number of attributes that potentially
differentiate how enterprise managers perceive the relative
effectiveness of national and local associations:
* Clusters may be seen as providing more opportunity for
interaction with other business members than are national associations.
This possibility arises from a cluster's localised membership,
which may mean that other members are known and that active
participation is less demanding than with a national group.
* The ability to influence group activity may be higher in the case
of a cluster than national association. This possibility follows from
the ability to maintain participation. It may also result from it being
easier to obtain agreement about group activity in the case of local
initiatives than a national group which potentially has a wide range of
issues to address.
* An industry association may be better placed than a cluster to
develop collective resources such as industry standards, marketing
campaigns and industry development strategies. Non members are hard to
exclude from the benefits of collective service and this is a
disincentive for their production. Given that clusters may involve only
part of the national industry, they potentially have the greater
disincentive to invest in collective services.
* Industry associations may be viewed as the more effective vehicle
for informing managers about industry regulation and support programmes.
This follows from the national focus of an industry association.
Conversely, clusters may be perceived as more effective in engaging with
local government.
* Industry associations may be perceived as political organisations
whereas business clusters are viewed as more focussed on business
development rather than industry politics. This would follow from an
industrial association's involvement in lobbying activity, their
possible capture by particularly motivated or well resourced members and
from having a longer history than most cluster groups.
* Membership of a cluster may be seen as implying more commitment
to the group than industry association membership. National association
membership may involve little more than an annual subscription where as
the pressure to 'join in' may be strong with a locally based
cluster group.
CASE STUDY SELECTION AND RESEARCH DESIGN
The context for this study was the particular history of national
industry associations and cluster groups in New Zealand. National
associations have been a longstanding feature of the business
environment whereas cluster groups are a recent product of public policy
support (Perry, 2001; 2004). The diffusion of cluster groups has varied
between sectors. For the purpose of this investigation, an industry with
a number of cluster groups was looked for to obtain a sufficient sample
of enterprises with exposure to a cluster group. The forestry sector met
this criterion as it gave rise to five projects that gained recognition
under a government cluster development programme, the four largest of
which were covered in the study (Table 2). In addition, it is also a
sector with a range of national associations (Table 3).
Association with a cluster group was the starting point for the
investigation. It was judged that all enterprise managers in the
forestry sector would be able to offer informed comment on the perceived
effectiveness of an industry association. Similar comment on a cluster
group was seen to be more dependent on direct exposure. As well, the
prioritisation reflected the lack of a formal membership structure for
most cluster groups. Typically, a public agency had sought to promote a
cluster group on the basis of building an inclusive association using
their resources to limit dependency on membership fees or other member
contributions. This made it possible to identify a range of enterprises
with a varying degree attachment to a cluster. Had the study commenced
with a sample of industry association members, there would have been
more restriction of the sample to a group of enterprises with a
demonstrated commitment to at least one of the forms of association.
Using the prior understanding of the potential roles and challenges
for national and local groups, as discussed in the previous section, a
set of comments were devised that identified potential strengths or
weaknesses of each form of association. Individual enterprises managers
were interviewed and asked to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed
with the statement. In addition, respondents were questioned about their
level of support for the two types of group and, where relevant, asked
to identify actual outcomes from membership. The study covered four of
the five cluster groups existing in the timber industry, excluding the
smallest group known as Forestry Wairarapa. This group comprised seven
forest management companies including local councils that have small
forest holdings maintained for reasons of land conservation rather than
as a commercial business.
The use of face-to-face interviews to collect data reflected a
number of considerations. Practically, cluster-linked businesses are
located in relatively close proximity to each other enabling a single
researcher to complete a comparatively large number of interviews over a
short space of time. Given the possibility, personal interviews were
preferred to gain the cooperation of potential respondents. Particularly
with regard to the evaluation of cluster groups, respondent sensitivity
to providing evaluative judgements was a potential threat to the
validity of responses. Use of a qualitative method was primarily to add
confidence in the quantitative data rather than to investigate
individual experiences in depth. Interviews were used to explain the
questions in the survey and check that responses were based on the
intended meaning of the question. A feature of the study was the high
level of triangulation possible between the responses given by members
of each cluster group. Individual respondents frequently made reference
to their understanding of the views of others in their cluster and
commented upon each other's actions. At the same time, as
enterprise managers were generally well known to each other reporting
individual responses is constrained by the need to maintain
confidentiality. This partly explains the preference to rely on the
quantitative scores obtained rather than reporting qualitative evidence
in the form of individual quotations.
A complete survey of organisations linked to the clusters was not
attempted. The preference for face-to-face interviews and need to fix
meetings over a limited time was a practical constraint on completing a
census. As well, it was not considered relevant to cover all non
business organisations (such as training agencies, port managers and
local authorities) as these participated as 'associate
members' and most would not have experience of a national forest
industry association. The priority was to interview businesses that had
been identified as a supporter of the cluster group. Of 56 organisations
approached for an interview, 50 agreed to participate. In three cases,
all arising in the relation to the same cluster, people declined stating
that they had no interest in the project. As respondents indicated
varying levels of support for their cluster, inactivity was not
restricted to those who declined to participant and so is not thought to
be influencing the results. When account is taken of firms that had
closed, relocated or changed ownership since the membership list
providing the sample population had been compiled, at least 50 percent
of participants were interviewed except in the case of the Southern Wood
Council. In the latter case, 9 of 21 members were interviewed but this
excluded only 4 business members of which 3 were new recruits to the
group at the time of the survey (late 2005).
At the outset some features of the forest industry need to be noted
as they bear upon the results obtained. Timber processing is a
nature-based industry (Prudham, 2002). This has implications for the
extent of risk and uncertainty facing producers. Activity has an
extensive geography (timber is harvested and transported over large
areas); there are frequent changes in the terrain where logging occurs
and to the specifications of timber harvested as well as variability in
the weather. As in other land-based industries, this has traditionally
resulted in much fragmentation of industry ownership to pass on the risk
of production variability. In New Zealand, a feature of the industry is
the survival of arm's length relationships between saw millers and
timber suppliers. Timber suppliers prefer flexibility to long term
relationships so as to exploit market instabilities as well as because
of the potential variability in timber obtained from a single supplier.
This context encouraged participation in separate industry associations
and, at times, antagonistic relations between associations representing
timber processing and those representing forest owners.
Consequently, the cluster groups have offered a different form of
collective association rather than a first opportunity to engage in
joint action with competitors. This can be a different experience to
other industries in New Zealand to the situation in other countries
where timber industry clusters arise without a prior history of
collective association (such as described in Sommers, 1998). In New
Zealand, small industry associations have to some extent operated as
'national clusters' in terms of the personal association among
members and in them sometimes engaging in group marketing initiatives.
Clusters must compete for support but are potentially advantaged by
avoiding alignment to an industry association representing one type of
business.
EVALUATION OF NATIONAL ASSOCIATIONS AND CLUSTER GROUPS
The case study obtained responses from 46 managers whose
enterprises had been associated with a cluster group (other respondents
were government and training agencies that are excluded from this
analysis). Of these managers, 21 described themselves as active
participants in the cluster group. Of these, 9 were associated with the
Southern Wood Council which was the only one where all respondents
identified themselves as active participants. Cluster differences have
been explored in a separate study (Perry, 2007) but some of the reasons
for the Southern Wood Council's support are explored in the next
section. Of the other 26 respondents, most (15) said that they no longer
participated in the cluster: others (10) said that they retained a
marginal attachment. There were 27 respondents that were members of at
least one national industry association, of which, 10 said they were
also active cluster participants at the same time. Most respondents,
therefore, had made a choice to join one form of association or neither.
Managers were asked their reasons for participating in the form of
association that they had participated in. The responses indicate that
similar motives exist but with each form of association generating its
own attractions as well (Table 4). Cluster membership is more likely to
result from a desire to show support to the industry than is national
association membership. Support reflects an altruistic motive: joining
because it may help others in the group rather than because direct
individual benefit is anticipated. This can be interpreted positively,
as a sign of cooperative intentions, but it can also mean that
participation will be passive as they perceive no direct benefit for
their own organisation. Joining an industry association offers another
way of showing support to the industry but social pressure to join a
cluster may increase altruistic behaviour. The newness of cluster groups
also assists the altruistic motive. Unlike industry associations, they
do not have a history of lobbying activity or association with
particular business interests whereas clusters can appear
'neutral' and without implication of joining one side of the
industry.
Clusters appear to disproportionately attract support as a way of
helping 'ensure everyone is working in the same direction'.
This may be surprising as industry associations have capacity to
promulgate industry standards. The cluster effectiveness in this regard
relates to direct cooperation between enterprises linked in supply and
subcontract relations. Industry association membership appears to be
less motivated by the perceived assistance this will bring to forming
new business relationships than does cluster membership. On the other
hand, access to advice and activities appears more likely to motivate
industry association membership and these outcomes have potential to
support business development.
The overall rating of the respective usefulness of the two forms of
association identifies that on most issues there is no clear judgements
(Table 5). Indeed for many of the issues examined a high proportion of
respondents indicate that they are unsure which form of association may
be most effective. These respondents indicate that they need more
experience before passing judgement and this suggests that they remain
open in their evaluation. Looking at those issues where there was a
majority at least double the next largest response group, there are
seven issues where a clear judgement exists. Of these statements, four
may be interpreted as indicating an advantage to a cluster group:
* Clusters provide a better way of keeping in touch with what your
suppliers and customers are doing.
* Clusters give more scope for your business to influence network
activity.
* Industry associations are less focused on issues/ activities that
are of direct interest to this business.
* Industry associations demand equal commitment as belonging to a
cluster. (Except for office holders in a national association,
respondents indicated that a cluster was a bigger commitment.)
Two of the other seven statements can be seen as neutral:
* Clusters manage relations with regional government, industry
associations with national government.
* Industry associations are about industry politics.
This leaves one statement that can be viewed as indicating an
advantage to national associations:
* Industry associations are more effective in keeping you in touch
with industry developments such as market changes and new machinery.
The final part of the comparison looked at outcomes for the
respondent business from the cluster and, for members, an industry
association during the 12 months prior to survey interview. This form of
question can disadvantage industry associations as they have existed for
longer. Outcomes such as finding business partners may be more likely in
a novel group than a long established one. On the other hand, as
clusters bring together a more limited population of firms it might
equally be argued that there is less scope for new relationships to be
stimulated. In practice, clusters were more likely to have helped
enterprises find new customers and suppliers but in other ways industry
associations were at least if not more effective (Table 6). Overall,
both forms of association had most impact on 'softer' outcomes
such as obtaining industry intelligence and equipment and other
purchasing information.
Of course, the outcomes are only indicative of the results of
participation in a collective group and do not say anything about their
importance to the growth of individual enterprises. To test further the
significance of each form of association, industry association members
were asked which form of association they would select if they could
retain a membership of only one group. Respondents split evenly on this
issue: 13 indicate their priority would be an industry association and
13 a cluster with a further respondent being undecided. All respondents
were asked which form of association should be the priority for
government funding support. Half are undecided which, if either merited
government assistance with the balance not significantly more in favour
of one form of association.
INTERPRETATION OF RESPONDENT EVALUATIONS
The overall results suggest that there is no decisive preference
for one form of association. One interpretation, therefore, is that each
is viewed as potentially making a distinctive contribution to industry
development although there are some functions that both might perform
equally effectively. Whether an individual enterprise gives priority to
a cluster, a national association or neither can then reflect the
particular range of challenges that they face at any point in time. For
example, enterprises that are satisfied with their current supply and
market relationships but that are seeking guidance with industry
regulation and new technology might favour industry association over
cluster membership. Evidence of this kind of decision making was found.
Typically the largest enterprises favour industry association membership
partly as they do not seek group assistance in developing business
linkages. In contrast, small enterprises that are seeking to establish
their activity can value cluster groups as a mechanism for helping
building links with other enterprises. Overall, the pattern of responses
broadly confirms the starting expectations of how clusters and national
associations might be differentiated.
1. Interaction with other business members in respect of the chance
to form new business contacts, customers and suppliers tended to be
viewed as most assisted by a cluster. In terms of simply being informed
about what other businesses are doing, both forms of association appear
to be perceived as equally useful.
2. There is generally seen to be more ability to influence cluster
than national association activity.
3. It is not evident that industry associations are viewed as more
effective in helping to develop new markets although those with an
opinion on this issue tend to think that associations do this more
effectively than clusters.
4. As expected, advice on industry developments and government
regulation tends to be viewed as more effectively obtained from national
associations than cluster groups. In line with this, most agree with the
proposition that clusters are useful for support on regional government
matters and national associations for national government matters.
5. Industry associations are more likely to be perceived as
political organisations than clusters. On the other hand, there is no
clear view that business clusters are exclusively concerned with
business development.
6. There is a stronger feeling that cluster membership implies more
commitment to the group than does industry association membership.
Within a small sample based on a particular set of national
associations and cluster projects, the significance of this evident is
to demonstrate that most enterprise managers perceive differe