Factors of Development of Hybrid Institutional Agreements in Traditional Societies
https://doi.org/10.38050/2078-3809-2021-13-1-7-24
Abstract
This paper analyzes the reasons why hybrid organizations appear in some traditional communities, but not in others. For this purpose, a field study was conducted in three villages in Dagestan, where there is different dynamic of cooperation between local entrepreneurs. The interviews show that the main factors in the development of hybrid organization are the presence of closed social capital, informal regulators within the community, the presence of demand for community products in foreign markets, and the ability of local entrepreneurs to borrow know-how from outside the community. In addition, the following barriers to the development of hybrids were identified: low quality of the institutional environment, differences in the approach to doing business among community residents, and rural depopulation.
About the Author
D. A. Sitkevich
Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy (The Gaidar Institute); Lomonosov Moscow State University, Faculty of Economics (Moscow)
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Daniil A. Sitkevich - Researcher, Postgraduate student
References
1. Kotlyarov I. D. Puti formirovaniya gibrida [The Ways ofHybrid Formation]. Teoreticheskaya ekonomika [Theorethical Economics]. 2015. V. 23, no. 3 (In Russian).
2. Kotlyarova S. N. Praktika formirovaniya klasterov v regionakh Rossii [The practice of forming clusters in the regions of Russia]. Regional'naya ekonomika: teoriya i praktika [Regional economy: theory and practice]. 2012. no. 24. P. 29–39 (In Russian).
3. Sitkevich D. A, Industrial districts as the instrument of modernisation: evidence from Southern Europe. Ars Administrandi. 2019. V. 11. № 4. P. 632–653 (In Russian)
4. Sheresheva M. U. Problemy sozdaniya innovatsionnykh klasterov v regionakh Rossii [Problems of creating innovative clusters in the regions of Russia]. Nauka. Innovatsii. Obrazovanie [Science. Innovation. Education]. 2008. V. 3. No. 4. P. 213–230 (In Russian).
5. Starodubrovskaya I. V. et al. Severnyy Kavkaz: modernizatsionnyy vyzov [North Caucasus: Modernization Challenge]. Moscow: Izdatel’skiy dom «Delo», 2014 (In Russian).
6. Steinberg I. et al. Kachestvennye metody. Polevye sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya [Qualitative methods. Field sociological research]. St. Petersburg: Tsentr nezavisimykh sotsiologicheskikh issledovaniy [Centre for Independent Social Research], 2009 (In Russian).
7. Steinberg I. A Logical Scheme To Justify The Sample In Qualitative Interview: An "8-Window Sample Model". Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling. 2014. V. 38. P. 38–71 (In Russian).
8. Bagnasco A. The governance of industrial districts / A Handbook of Industrial Districts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.
9. Becattini G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. ed. by Pyke, F. (Frank), Becattini, Giacomo, Sengenberger, Werner. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, 1990.
10. Becattini G. The Marshallian industrial district as a socio-economic notion. Industrial districts and inter-firm co-operation in Italy. 2017. № 157. P. 13–32. URL: https://www.cairn-int.info/journalrevue-d-economie-industrielle-2017-1-page-13.htm/. DOI: 10.4000/rei.6507.
11. Becattini G., Dei Ottati G. The performance of Italian industrial districts and large enterprise areas in the 1990s. European Planning Studies. 2006. V. 14. № 8. P. 1139–1162. DOI: 10.1080/09654310600852423.
12. Bek, M.A., Bek, N.N., Sheresheva, M.Y. and Johnston, W.J. Perspectives of SME innovation clusters development in Russia. Journal of Business & Industrial Marketing. 2013. V. 28. № 3. P. 240–259. DOI: 10.1108/08858621311302895.
13. Belussi F. Knowledge dynamics in the evolution of Italian industrial districts. A Handbook of Industrial Districts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.
14. Fiorenza Belussi & Silvia Rita Sedita (2009) Life Cycle vs. Multiple Path Dependency in Industrial Districts, European Planning Studies, 17:4, 505-528, DOI: 10.1080/09654310802682065
15. Beugelsdijk S., Smulders S. Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which type is good for economic growth? Cult. Divers. Eur. Unity. 2003. № 11. P. 275–310.
16. Boix R., Vaillant Y. Industrial districts in rural areas of Italy and Spain. 2010. URL: https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/118841
17. Boschma R. Culture of trust and regional development: An empirical analysis of the Third Italy. Congress of the European Regional Science association. 1999.
18. Brusco S. Sistemi globali e sistemi locali. Economia e politica industriale. Milano: Franco Angeli. 1994.
19. Coleman J. S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American journal of sociology. 1988. V. 94. P. S95-S120. DOI: 10.1086/228943.
20. Glaser B. G. Basics of grounded theory analysis. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press. 1992.
21. Glaser B. G., Strauss A. L. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine, 1967.
22. Grondeau A. Formation and emergence of ICT clusters in India: The case of Bangalore and Hyderabad. GeoJournal. 2007. V. 68. № 1. P. 31–40. DOI: 10.1007/s10708-007-9051-6.
23. Guerrieri P., Iammarino S. Dynamics of Export Specialization in the Regions of the Italian Mezzogiorno: Persistence and Change. Regional Studies. 2007. V. 41. № 7. P. 933–948. DOI: 10.1080/00343400701281667.
24. Guerrieri P., Pietrobelli C. Industrial districts’ evolution and technological regimes: Italy and Taiwan. Technovation. 2004.V. 24. № 11. P. 899–914. DOI: 10.1016/S0166-4972(03)00048-8.
25. Lancee B. The Economic Returns of Immigrants’ Bonding and Bridging Social Capital: The Case of the Netherlands. International Migration Review. 2010. V. 44. № 1. P. 202–226. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2009.00803.x.
26. McGuire J., Dow S. Japanese keiretsu: Past, present, future. Asia Pacific journal of management. 2009. V. 26. № 2. P. 333–351. DOI: 10.1007/s10490-008-9104-5.
27. Murillo D., Sung Y.-D. Understanding Korean Capitalism: Chaebols and their Corporate Governance. ESADEgeo Position Pap. 33. 2013. № 2018 Aug 20.
28. Ottati G. D. Marshallian Industrial Districts in Italy: The end of a model or adaptation to the global economy? Cambridge Journal of Economics. 2018. V. 42. № 2. P. 259–284. DOI: 10.1093/cje/bex066.
29. Park S. R., Yuhn K. hyang. Has the Korean chaebol model succeeded? Journal of Economic Studies. 2012. Т. 39. V. 2. P. 260–274.
30. Piore M. Conceptualizing the dynamics of industrial districts. A Handbook of Industrial Districts. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009.
31. Sforzi F. The quantitative importance of marshallian industrial district. Industrial district and interfirm cooperation in Italy. Geneva: International Institute for Labour Studies, 1990.
32. Williamson O. E. Comparative Economic Organization: The Analysis of Discrete Structural Alternatives. Administrative science quarterly. 1991. V. 36. № 2. P. 269. DOI: 10.2307/2393356.
33. Ybarra J. A., Doménech-Sánchez R. Innovative business groups: Territory-based industrial policy in Spain. European Urban and Regional Studies. 2012. V. 19. № 2. P. 212–218. DOI: 10.1177/0969776411428558.
Review
For citations:
Sitkevich D.A. Factors of Development of Hybrid Institutional Agreements in Traditional Societies. Scientific Research of Faculty of Economics. Electronic Journal. 2021;13(1):7-24. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.38050/2078-3809-2021-13-1-7-24
Views:
325
Email this article 