1. Path-dependencies and path- creation in Piedmont “The Future of European Regions” Warsaw, 31st May - 3rd June 2007 Daniele Ietri Dipartimento Interateneo Territorio Politecnico e Università di Torino ietri@econ.unito.it

2. In search for the local scale - identity (culture, habits, institutions); not just a “place”; - embeddedness; - auto-organisation, complexity; - social capital; - “territorial” path- dependence.

3. Growing competitiveness among firms and territories (Amin and Thrift, 2003) Necessity to differentiate from “competitors” (or eventually overcome them) via:  local systems of production and innovation (Markusen, 1996; Moulaert and Sekia, 2003; Bathelt et al., 2004; etc);  networked forms of organisation (Boschma, 2005; Gordon and McCann, 2000; etc.);  specialisation in products and competences (Steiner, 2004; etc.).

5. cluster paradigm Great popularity of the cluster concept among scholars: and diffusion of cluster-based policies… “Geographic concentrations of interconnected companies, specialised suppliers, service providers, firms in related industries, and associated institutions (…) in particular fields that compete but also cooperate” (Porter, 1998, p. 197)

6. questions In order to elaborate path-creation scenarios, we need to take into account of the local To what extent a model might be used as an “universal instrument”? May different models coexist in a regional context/economy? What does determine the adoption of one model with respect to another?

7. methodology 1)Investigation of the literature describing the regional manufacturing fabric; 2)Selection/recognition of the different industrialisation models proposed; 3)Analysis of their key features according to: Identification criterion (quantitative, qualitative) Geographical scale (local, global, multiscalar) Actors involved (nature, dimension, activity sector) Network structure (hierarchy, centre-periphery) Innovative activity (incremental/radical; product/process) Historical trend (continuity, substitution or juxtaposition of distinct models)

8. Models from the literature (1970-2005): Industrial districtA local system characterised by cooperation/solidarity and a population of small and medium sized enterprises, specialised in a particular industrial sector (Biella, Valenza) Technological district In a urban dimension, the coexistence of enterprises (not only SMEs, but also corporations) and R&D institutions (universities, research centres) which can foster local competitiveness through innovation TechnopolePublic funded agglomerations of firms in high-technology sectors and research institutions, such as science parks and business incubators (Bioindustry Park, Ivrea) ClusterA locally organised network of firms and public agencies exploiting a place specific competitive advantage, developing at the same time supra- local relationships (Regione Piemonte, Documento Strategico Preliminare 2007/2013) Localised supply chain This applies to the peculiar organisation of automotive industry in the area of Turin. Productive filièreThe presence, in a defined area, of firms, service enterprises, public institutions involved in the realisation and commercialisation of a specific product (Wine industry, Canelli) Concentration specialisation Territorial area in which is localised a conspicuous number of enterprises and employees in a specific industry (Chemicals, Novara) ComprensorioIntermediate statistical and administrative area, designed according to the objectives of economic and social development defined by regional policies

10. Defining a “local” geographical scale in practice: the Local Labour Systems in Italy

11. conclusions According to Piedmont region, many heterogeneous models coexist with some reciprocal influences (and some confusion) Models may overlap but they are not perfectly interchangeable In the adoption of a model, scale and place-specific features matter: Path-dependence - historical evolution characterising a local system; - inertia in the localisation of firms - embeddedness of decision makers.