日本产业集群的演化与结构[外文翻译]

日本产业集群的演化与结构[外文翻译] 本科毕业 论文 政研论文下载论文大学下载论文大学下载关于长拳的论文浙大论文封面下载 外文翻译 题 快递公司问题件快递公司问题件货款处理关于圆的周长面积重点题型关于解方程组的题及答案关于南海问题 目:The Evolution and Structure of Industrial Clusters in Japan 出 处: Small Business Economics 作 者: Hideki Yamawaki 译 文: ABSTRACT This 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 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 and locations in Japan. It is noted that different factors dominate in different cases. Among the more important ones are 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, and (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 within a geographically concentrated cluster. 1. Introduction It 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 100 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 Japan’s industrial organization is that Japan’s SMEs often form clusters. 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 clusters varies widely from clusters producing primarily for exports to clusters producing indigenous goods little known 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 paper first identifies factors that are important in shaping the evolution of clusters in Japan. Second, it describes the structure of Japan’s clusters and examines their sources of competitive advantage. While clusters are defined generally as geographic concentrations of interconnected companies and institutions 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 conditions, 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 necessarily 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 Japan’s manufacturing clusters (People’s Finance Corporation, 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 paper 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. The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section, evolutionary patterns of this sample of 14 clusters are qualitatively examined to derive a certain set of factors that contributed to the birth of clusters. This analysis identifies historical circumstances, prior existence of 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 these 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 technological and human assets in Japanese clusters. Section 5 summarizes the key findings and concludes the paper. 2. Evolution of industrial clusters in Japan A sample of 14 clusters in Japan was selected from the clusters previously studied by the People’s Finance Corporation (1987, 1995), MITI (1996), SMEA (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 been 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 the cluster is unique. The locations of these clusters are not concentrated in one particular area but dispersed 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 Japan Sources of advantage in Japan’s clusters Interpreting the seminal work of Marshall (1920),Krugman (1991) pointed out that the advantage of concentrated production is generated by three distinctive 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 most important for the clusters in Japan by reviewing the SMEA survey result. Labor market pooling By concentrating a number of firms in an industr in the same location, a localized industry gains an advantage from offering a pooled market for workers with specialized skills. Both workers with specialized 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 workers between firms within a cluster and between geographic areas. Because Japanese workers tend to stay in the same firm until retirement, the benefit of agglomeration arising from labor market pooling for skilled workers may be relatively small in a Japanese cluster. On the other hand, this advantage may be more 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 specialized 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 that produces the same kind 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, then manufacturers can choose an optimal combination of operations 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 through a subcontracting-based manufacturing system. The availability 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 manufacturers 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 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 capabilities in Japanese clusters Skill formation The 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 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 created 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 Japan 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 acquired 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 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 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. Development of technological assets While 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 technology 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 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 Japan’s industrial clusters. Out of the 123 clusters 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 different 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 interesting 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 of 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 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 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 percent 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 alliances serve as the most commonly used vehicles for access to new technology and other assets in Japan’s clusters.Acquiring or augmenting technological assets and other assets through capital participation and joint venture is unlikely in Japanese cluster. 6. Conclusions This paper has provided an overview of the evolution and structure of industrial clusters in Japan.The emergence of Japan’s clusters is related to several factors: historical circumstances, prior existence of large manufacturers, prior existence of supporting industries, prior existence of related industries in neighboring geographic areas, reduction in transportation costs, regional government policy, and technology transfer. Japan’s industrial clusters generate advantages by supporting large numbers of suppliers with specialized capabilities and by organizing market structures that encourage inter-firm linkages and facilitate the transmission of knowledge among firms. This list of drivers and advantages of industry localization is quite consistent with lists derived from the experiences in the United States and Europe. Aside from the difference in historical circumstances, the distinctively Japanese element lies in the ways in which Japanese firms organize their business activities and the local governments promote local clusters. The extensive use of subcontracting; the hierarchical relationship between manufacturers and multiple layers of suppliers; the small size of suppliers; the importance of on-the-job-training; the low degree of labor mobility of skilled workers between firms; the preference for internal labor markets to external labor markets to allocate human resources; the establishment of various public testing, research, and technical centers by the local governments; the existence of various institutions such as trade associations,business associations, and wholesalers associations; and the roles such institutions play in facilitating the communication between firms in a cluster, are all important characteristics of Japan’s industrial organization that distinguish Japan’s industrial clusters from those in other countries such as in the United States. Among the advantages identified in the paper,that created by the existence of specialized suppliers in a localized industry is considered the most important element in creating agglomeration economies. A supplier’s skills and capabilities complement other suppliers’ skills and capabilities, which in turn complement manufacturers’skills and capabilities. Through such a network,firms develop the skills specific to a cluster. The case analysis of this paper finds that firms develop and accumulate such skills over time, which in turn become important assets that often determine the cluster’s evolution path. 译 文: 日本产业集群的演化与结构 摘要 本文着重于日本产业集群的演化和结构这两方面，分别是什么产生了集群，以及小企业从产业集群中获得什么好处。对集群的决定因素，散射的方式，讨论了日本的14个产业集群及相关行业。据指出，在不同的情况下不同的因素占主导地位。其中较重要的是存在领先地位的大公司，汇集一可用性劳动力市场和公共研究以及测试存在的设施。四个最重要的因素是:(一)专业化;(二)易于采购;(三)扩散的技术，(四)市民政策支持。获得熟练的工人是一个明显的好处。这可能是解释一事实，即在职 培训 焊锡培训资料ppt免费下载焊接培训教程 ppt 下载特设培训下载班长管理培训下载培训时间表下载 是日本工人的技能收购的主要来源，这种技能可能过于具体到企业是有益的人，即使在地理上集中的集群。 一、引言 这是一个公认的事实，日本是集群数量最多的小型和中小型企业(SMEs)的 工业化国家。当中小型企业与1994年被广泛定义为这些企业的雇员少于300或小于1亿日元资金，超过日本制造业所有企业的99%。此外，1994年67%的总制造业员工在中小企业工作。 对日本的产业组织同样重要的是，日本的中小型企业往往形成集群。根据中小型企业局， 1996年的调查 报告 软件系统测试报告下载sgs报告如何下载关于路面塌陷情况报告535n,sgs报告怎么下载竣工报告下载 显示在日本存在一共537个产业集群。 虽然这些集群的经济意义差别很大，为集群生产用于生产小日本以外，一个重要问题的共同认识到这些簇群主要原货物出口出现:这些集群从哪里何而来,什么是日本的诞生和成长的这些集群的关键驱动因素,他们有哪些竞争优势,本文的目的是为了解决这些问题.尤其，本文首先确定日本集群发展的重要因素。其次，它描述了日本的集群结构，并探讨其竞争优势的来源。 虽然集群是指相互关联的公司和机构一般在特定业务领域(波特，1990年，1998年)，每个群集具有不同的功能联系，如地理位置，产品，功能和模式的企业间联系。集群间有很多不同，因为在历史条件，需求条件，产业配套，竞争条件的差异下发生演变。一些集群产生在特殊的历史条件下，但其他集群可能通过发展汇合各种经济条件认为初步形成了集群经济条件，但是，超过一定期限并不一定保持不变。相反，由于国内和国际竞争条件围绕集群经济状况的变化可能随时间而改变。 通过日本的制造业集群以往的调查提供的资料(人民的金融公司，1987,1995;通产省，1996年;中小企业处，1997年;伊藤和浦田，1997年，1998年)，本文考察了14个样本制造业在日本的倾向已经表明大概的高出口集群。在提供对这些集群各个历史发展的简要介绍，本文摘录了集群演进的主要驱动力。研究的14个集群制造出各种各样的产品，包括丝，棉，化纤面料，服装，陶瓷制品，一般机械，汽车配件;望远镜;银器和餐具，手工具和眼镜框。 本文的其余部分组织如下。在下一节中，对14类样品的进化模式进行了定性研究，以获得促成了某些设置集群的诞生的长期因素。这一分析标识的历史条件下，相关产业在该地区，周边相关集群地区，从其他联网与外国，并作为集群的诞生和成长的最重要动力自治区政府之前已存在的技术转让政策之前已存在。第3节描述了这些集群的结构特征，并探讨各种来源，他们创造的优势。分析认为，中小型企业生存在一个专业技能行业的在地理空间可能造成日本集群集聚。第4节探讨了技术和人力资产在日本群的发展。最后，第5节总结和主要成果的文件。 二、日本产业集群的演化 日本集群的14个样本是从以前由人民国际金融公司研究团簇选择(1987年，1995年)，通产省(1996)，中小企业处(1997)，伊藤和浦田(1997，1998)。14类入选主要使用下列 标准 excel标准偏差excel标准偏差函数exl标准差函数国标检验抽样标准表免费下载红头文件格式标准下载 :(1)集群是相互关联的企业在这独特的地理位置位于一个集中的区域，产生一个特定类别的产品，(2)集群在经济活动规模中重要性(3)集群已在国际市场竞争力显着高出口份额;及(4)集群的演化模式是独一无二的。这些产业群的地点不集中在一个特定的地区，但广泛分散在日本。接下来，对这些产业群集中的每一个进行简要介绍它的历史，诞生的关键条件，企业间的联系。 三、日本产业集群的结构 1、日本产业集群的资源优势 解读马歇尔开创性工作(1920年)，克鲁格曼(1991)指出，在集中生产优势，是由三种不同来源所产生:劳动力市场池，专门投入和技术溢出效应。在本节中，我们将先考虑这三个原因，然后检查其中，其中之一是在日本最重要的集群中小企业处调查通过审查的结果。 2、劳动力市场汇集 集中在同一位置的企业，具有一个本地化的行业收益的优势，从提供一个集中的市场具有专业技能的工人。这两个具有特殊技能的就业和企业谁是寻求这样 将获得更好的收益(马歇尔，1920年，的工人，在同一地点汇集劳动力市场工人 克鲁格曼，1991)。 无论这个因素对日本产业集群是相关的和重要的主要依赖对技术工人在企业 群集之间的地理区域之间的流动。由于日本工人往往留在同一家公司，直到退休，从技术工人劳动力市场中出现的集聚效益可能会相对日本产业集群小。另一方面，这种优势可能会更体现在兼职工人的劳动市场。如服装和纺织品集群的情况下，兼职工人往往是当地居民和在家工作的女工。根据他们的工资比有专门技能和定期集聚在一个本地化的行业制造能力的公司较低，因为它可以正常的支持具有专业技能和能力的供应。专用机械的高利用率可提高和保持本地化行业生产的同类产品处在高水平。反过来，这使得本地化行业更为有效(马歇尔，1920年，克鲁格曼，1991)。 如果最小有效规模的生产多个产品，并通过不同阶段的生产过程，可以选择不同制造商，然后通过与一些专门的供应商密切合作。制造商可以受益于这些供应商的提供，他们选择通过一个分包为基础的制造系统利用合适的技术来应对生产规模中每个阶段。 对企业数量与互补的可用性技能还允许制造商生产种类繁多的产品。如果是通过各种各样的材料处理，以及由专家通过专项行动产生的各种有效成分，那么制造商将受益于供应商的这种能力。 尽管这样的劳动分工承包公司之间可以在不同的地理空间，但更高效的是与附近的公司主办。以日本的自动铅笔行业为例表明，制造商可能会与分散在不同阶段的地域生产系统(三品，1993)供应商合作。工作过程中的距离远损害了交货的及时性，因此在这种情况下降低了生产效率。 四、日本集群发展的企业能力 1、技能的形成 在上一节的分析发现，有专门的供应商，存在互补的技能，是日本产业集群最有可能来源。在另一方面，调查似乎没有提供证据支持这一假设:中小企业集聚在一个熟练的工人集中的劳动力市场形成本地化行业可以为当地企业带来优势。 日本集群为什么是一个熟练的工人集中的劳动力市场没有优势的重要来 源,在日本企业创建和发展道路的技巧方式中，人的技能可能会给企业之间的分配提供答案。众所周知，在职培训是训练日本企业工人最常用 的方法(小池，1988)。在日本在职培训的基础上，大多数技能是一些公司或该工厂的特定技能。 这种技能，从而坚定的阻止工人转移到另一家公司，因为如果工人移动到另一家公司，工人将失去在该公司学到的一些技能。该公司短期内不会更新招募工人这样不容易损害效率。这反过来又促使工人和企业用一种机制，即企业内部的机制，而不是利用外部市场分配(Odagiri，1992)的人力资源。 总之，在本节和前一节的分析表明，在日本的产业集群中企业更可能受益于配套的供应商和大批专业技能。国内的公司通过在职培训开发的这些企业技能是企业特有的技能。由于这些技能是很少从其他相同的群集公司能学到的，在日本本地化的行业是不太可能支持对技术工人汇集的劳动力市场。 2、发展技术资产 虽然对技术工人汇集的劳动力市场不太可能是日本产业集群集聚的一个重要来源，但技术外溢有可能成为集群优势。集群如何促进新技术和其他知识的传播,正如本文前面讨论的，在同一间知识溢出的集群企业可以通过诸如发生行业协会，公开测试和研究中心，公共技术中心，批发商协会，各地商会的各种机构。除了这样的机构，企业间合作和集群内各种形式的交往也很可能促进知识外溢。 表五摘要介绍了关于公司间的合作，调查日本的产业集群模式的中小企业获得的结果。123个群集回应了什么类型的企业间合作，参与他们提出的问题，有64%指出，作为一个汽车联合研发协作，并有26%认为他们的企业参与科技结盟。实际上这是一般的模式依然不变，但针对不同行业的木制品和家具，技术联盟并不重要。还值得一提的是频率，在群集中交换业务信息和参考其他各非正规渠道的日本企业是不计其数。 另一个有趣的模式出现在表五是这种伙伴关系的类型，包括股权和所有权的控制。其中123个集群，其中有3.3%报告涉及资本参与的伙伴关系，以及其中仅为2.4%报告作为联盟共同组建的合资企业。 表六，总结了对联盟伙伴中小企业的调查结果。问卷被问及谁是联盟最有可能的合作伙伴。其中127个集群问及其公司的联盟，其中60.6%形成了公共研究和测试中心和技术中心。联盟回应率最高的是机器有超过80%需要与集群等公共机构建立伙伴关系。相反，形成以一所大学的伙伴关系相对集群中的企业是很少 的。 只有11%参与集群与大学的伙伴关系。当在一个集群的形式与其他企业联盟公司，其合作伙伴很可能是小型和中型公司而不是大型企业。事实上，在大多数的集群中小企业之间形成的伙伴关系，但只有涉及其中5%大公司作为合作伙伴。 总之，有证据表明，如县试验和研究中心和技术中心的公共机构发挥了在促进本地化行业企业间合作的重要作用。联合研发力度和技术联盟作为最常用的车辆，获得新技术，并在日本的群学和其他资产。获取或扩大技术资产通过资本的参与和联合其他资产在日本集群的可能性不大。 五、结论 本文通过对日本产业集群的出现，演变和机构概述了几个因素:历史条件下，之前已存在的大型厂家，事先存在配套产业，相关产业在邻近的地理区域，运输成本的降低，区域政府和技术转移。日本的产业集群支持与具有专业能力的供应商合作，并通过组织大量的市场结构，鼓励企业间的联系优势，促进企业间的知识传播。 这种产业定位的优势列表与来自美国和欧洲的经验得出的名单一致。除了从历史情况不同，日本企业组织其经营活动具有独特的方式，使当地政府促进本地集群。广泛使用的分包;制造商和供应商之间的多层次等级关系;小规模的供应商;在职培训的重要性;公司之间劳动技能工人的流动程度低，对内部劳动力市场与外部劳动力市场配置人力资源的偏爱，研究各种公共检测机构，由当地政府制定了技术中心;，如行业协会，商会，协会的各种机构和批发商的存在，以及这些机构在集群中发挥的作用;在集群中企业之间的沟通，是由日本的产业组织的所有重要特征来区分，如美国、其他国家以及日本的产业集群。 其中的文件所确定的优势，即由专门的供应商创造了一个局部存在的行业被认为是创造聚集经济的最重要因素。供应商的技术和能力 配合其他供应商的技能和能力，这反过来又补充制造商的技术和能力。通过这样一个网络，企业开发的技能具体到群集。本文的案例分析发现，企业发展、技能积累和时间的推移，这反过来又成为重要的资产，往往决定了集群的演变轨迹。