Presenting a regional advantage evaluation model for industry development based on the anchor regional system

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

Department of Geography, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, Urmia University, Urmia, Iran

Abstract

ABSTRACT
This research aims to present a model for evaluating the regional competitiveness capacity using an anchor-based system. The research method employed a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing a questionnaire based on AHP and a cross-sectional structure analysis model (37x37) for data collection. The analytical framework is based on the three concepts of importance, effectiveness, and sensitivity of the variables in the three constituent components of the anchor model, including 1-attraction and establishment of the anchor tenant, 2-clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources, and 3-intelligence and stabilization of the leadership position. Based on the obtained results, in terms of effectiveness, the variables of industry chain with the rate of 1.76 and the quality and quantity of infrastructure (1.14) had the most significant impact on the other investigated variables in terms of effectiveness. In the sector of clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources, the best performance related to the variables of the presence of multinational and international companies in the region with (1.46) and the level of density of private and public companies along with the level of knowledge and technology transfer of global industry to the region in the current situation with a score of (1.16) has been. In the area of intelligence and stabilization of the leadership position in terms of effectiveness, the highest performance is for the variables of the existence of industry innovation support centers (0.84), the existence of regional and national innovation systems in the industry sector (0.78), and the degree of interdependence between existing companies and investors and regional stakeholders (0.78). Finally, based on the results of the discussion, 7 principles and 3 hypotheses were formulated and presented.
Extended Abstract
Introduction
To evaluate the competitive capabilities of regional industry development, particularly in new industries across different regions, various routes and models have been employed. The classic model of regionalism, or endogenous models, and the value chain of globalism, or exogenous models, are among those that have provided a framework for measuring the competitive advantages of developing new industries in the region. Also, most competitiveness models have introduced the physical aspects of resources, such as labor, market, water, mineral resources, infrastructure, and energy of the regions, as a competitive advantage, and have paid less attention to the social, economic, and geographical advantages. The purpose of this research is to present a new model and framework for regional industry development planners to evaluate the competitive advantage of regions.
 
Methodology
This research is descriptive and analytical in terms of method and exploratory in terms of purpose. The methods of collecting information are documentary and library. The data collection tool in this research was a questionnaire. In this research, first, the variables related to the anchor theory were counted and extracted. After extracting the variables, they have been defined and separated into three categories as attracting and establishing the anchor tenant, clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources, and intelligence and stabilization of the leadership position. After counting the variables, items related to the evaluation literature were formulated for each. After compiling the items, the data related to them was collected. The opinions of experts in regional planning and development were used to analyze and examine the variables.
The number of the sample community was determined based on the available people. Based on available people, 17 regional, planning, and economic experts were selected as a sample community. The questionnaire was a tool for collecting information. Questionnaires were designed in two ways. The first questionnaire was used to measure the importance of variables in terms of attracting and establishing anchor tenants, clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources and intelligence, and stabilization of leadership positions in the form of a matrix. The second questionnaire is designed to measure the influence of variables in a cross-sectional manner.
AHP hierarchical analysis, cross-structural analysis (using a 37*37 matrix), and SPSS statistical models have been employed in the data analysis. From the AHP model to determine the importance of variables in pairs concerning the three criteria of attraction and establishment of anchor tenants, clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources and intelligence, and stabilization of the leadership position, and from the cross-structural analysis model to measure the degree of effectiveness and sensitivity of the variables to each other, and the correlation model has been used to examine the relationships between the components. To discuss the results and present the model, three monitoring concepts of "effectiveness," "importance," and "sensitivity" were used to analyze the variables.
 
Results and discussion
Based on the results, in terms of effectiveness, the variables of industry chains (1.76) and the quality and quantity of infrastructure (1.14) had the most significant impact on the other investigated variables in terms of effectiveness. In this section, the variables with the lowest influence are labor attraction power (0.22) and the level of legitimacy of local managers in decision-making and decision-making by national managers (0.3).
In the clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources, the best performance is related to the variables of the presence of multinational and international companies in the region, with a score of 1.46, and the density level of private and public companies, along with the level of knowledge and technology transfer of global industry to the region, with a score of 1.16. The lowest effective performance is also related to the indicators of the level of friendship and unreceptiveness of local people (0.3) and the level of concentration of financial institutions (0.38).
In the area of intelligence and stabilization of the leadership position in terms of effectiveness, the highest performance is for the variables of the existence of industry innovation support centers (0.84), the existence of regional and national innovation systems in the industry sector (0.78), and the degree of interdependence between existing companies and investors and regional stakeholders (0.78).
In the attraction of anchor tenants, the variables of industry chains (1.84) and the enthusiasm of local stakeholders in the establishment of industries (1.05) have the highest sensitivity compared to other variables. The lowest sensitivity is related to tax discount (0.11) and the quality of industry managers in terms of industry management (0.14).
In terms of the sensitivity of the variables to other variables in the clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources, the highest sensitivity is related to the presence of multinational and international companies in the region (1.65) and the presence and level of loyalty of foreign investors to the region (1.81).
In the field of intelligence and stabilization of leadership positions, the variable sensitivity of strategic orientation of companies to multiple industries (1.16) has the highest sensitivity compared to other variables.
Based on the results obtained in the anchor tenant attraction section, the variables of industry chain with the amount (1.34) and the quality and quantity of infrastructure (2.73) had the highest importance compared to other investigated variables. In this section, the variables with the least importance are labor attraction power (0.27) and the local government's level of belief in the possibility of creating industries (0.29).
In the sector of clustering and mobilization of multi-scale resources in terms of effectiveness, the best performance is related to the variables of the existence of programs and policies for the formation of industry clusters with a score of 2.41, and the degree of financial connection of the region with the global financial market with a score of 2.22, and the lowest performance is in effectiveness. It is also related to the indicators of the level of connection of existing local industries with global industries (0.3) and the level of connection of the local workforce with modern global knowledge (0.52).
In terms of importance, in terms of intelligence and stabilization of the leadership position, the highest importance is for the variables of space and auxiliary infrastructure for the expansion and diversification of industry (2.33), the existence of the regional and national innovation system in the industry sector, and the motivation of research and development capabilities in existing industries (1.89).
 
Funding
There is no funding support.
 
Authors' Contribution
The authors contributed equally to the conceptualization and writing of the article. All of the authors approved the content of the manuscript and agreed on all aspects of the work declaration of competing interest none.
 
Conflict of Interest
The authors declared no conflict of interest.
 
Acknowledgments
 We are grateful to all the scientific consultants of this paper.

Keywords

Main Subjects


  1. Alkhalidy, Q. M. A. (2021). Urban Polarization and Its Impact on The Urban Structure of The City of Basra. Review of International Geographical Education Online11(9), 385-395.
  2. Alomari, M. W., Marashdeh, Z., & Bashayreh, A. G. (2019). Contribution of financial market development in competitiveness growth. Cogent Economics & Finance. https://doi.org/10.1080/23322039.2019.1622483
  3. Antràs, P. (2020). Conceptual aspects of global value chains. The World Bank Economic Review, 34(3), 551-574. https://doi.org/10.1093/wber/lhaa006
  4. Antràs, P., & Chor, D. (2022). Global value chains. Handbook of international economics5, 297-376.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.hesint.2022.02.005
  5. Asheim, B. T., & Coenen, L. (2005). Knowledge bases and regional innovation systems: Comparing Nordic clusters. Research policy34(8), 1173-1190.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2005.03.013
  6. Bathelt, H., & Henn, S. (2017). National and regional innovation systems. In The Elgar companion to innovation and knowledge creation (pp. 457-471). Edward Elgar Publishing.
  7. Binz, C., Truffer, B., and Coenen, L. 2016. Path creation as a process of resource alignment and anchoring: Industry formation for on-site water recycling in Beijing. Economic Geography, 92 (2), 172–200. doi:10.1080/00130095.2015.1103177.
  8. Boschma, R., Coenen, L., Frenken, K., & Truffer, B. 2017. Towards a theory of regional diversification: Combining insights from evolutionary economic geography and transition studies. Regional Studies, 51 (1), 31–45.
  9. Cooke, P. (2002). Regional innovation systems and regional competitiveness. In Innovation and social learning: Institutional Adaptation in an Era of Technological Change (pp. 177-203). London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
  10. De Propris, L., & Crevoisier, O. (2011). From regional anchors to anchoring. Handbook of regional innovation and growth.
  11. del Campo, C., Tierno, N. R., Banegas, N. C., & Verdú, F. M. (2023). The role of technology centers in regional competitiveness: a multicriteria approach. Revista de Estudios Empresariales. Segunda época, (1), 119-141. DOI: 10.17561/ree.n1.2023.7398
  12. Feldman, M. (2003). The locational dynamics of the US biotech industry: Knowledge externalities and the anchor hypothesis. Industry and Innovation 10 (3): 311–29. doi:10.1080/ 1366271032000141661.
  13. Figueiredo, P. G., Leandro, F. J., & Li, Y. (Eds.). (2021). Handbook of Research on Special Economic Zones as Regional Development Enablers. IGI Global.
  14. Filippidis, L., Xie, H., Galea, E. R., & Lawrence, P. J. (2021). Exploring the potential effectiveness of dynamic and static emergency exit signage in complex spaces through simulation. Fire safety journal125, 103404.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.firesaf.2021.103404
  15. Frenken, K., Van Oort, F., & Verburg, T. (2007). Related variety, unrelated variety and regional economic growth. Regional studies41(5), 685-697.‌ https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400601120296
  16. Friedmann, J. (1972). A general theory of Polarized development. In N. Hansen (Ed.), Growth centers in regional economic development (pp. 82–107). New York: The Free Press.
  17. Gaus, D., & Link, H. (2020). Economic effects of transportation infrastructure quantity and quality: A study of German counties.
  18. Gereffi, G., Humphrey, J., & Sturgeon, T. (2005). The governance of global value chains. Review of international political economy12(1), 78-104.‌ https://doi.org/10.1080/09692290500049805
  19. Gong, H., Yu, Z., Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2024). Beating the Casino: Conceptualizing an Anchoring-based Third Route to Regional Development. Economic Geography100(2), 107-137. https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2023.2276474
  20. Gussmann, G., & Hinkel, J. (2021). A framework for assessing the potential effectiveness of adaptation policies: Coastal risks and sea-level rise in the Maldives. Environmental Science & Policy115, 35-42.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2020.09.028
  21. Hägerstrand, T. (1967). Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. (A. Pred, Trans.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Original work published 1953).
  22. Harmaakorpi, V. (2006). Regional development platform method (RDPM) as a tool for regional innovation policy. European Planning Studies14(8), 1085-1104.‌ https://doi.org/10.1080/09654310600852399
  23. Heiberg, J., & Truffer, B. (2022). The emergence of a global innovation system–A case study from the urban water sector. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions43, 270-288.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eist.2022.04.007
  24. Heiberg, J., Binz, C., & Truffer, B. (2020). The geography of technology legitimation: How multiscalar institutional dynamics matter for path creation in emerging industries. Economic Geography96(5), 470-498.‌ https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2020.1842189
  25. Horner, R. (2020). Towards a new paradigm of global development? Beyond the limits of international development. Progress in Human Geography44(3), 415-436.‌ https://doi.org/10.1177/03091325198361
  26. Huzjak, H. (2012). Regional Competitiveness in Central Europe: The Importance of Transport Infrastructure Development (Doctoral dissertation, Central European University). DOI: 10.3390/su15065263
  27. Ibidunni, A. S. (2024). Cross-border knowledge transfer and the innovation performance of developing economy small and medium enterprises: A moderated mediation effect of industry networks and localization of knowledge. Technological Forecasting and Social Change208, 123702.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2024.123702
  28. Jeannerat, H., & Crevoisier, O. (2016). From ‘territorial innovation models’ to ‘territorial knowledge dynamics’: On the learning value of a new concept in regional studies. Regional Studies, 50 (2), 185–88. doi:10.1080/00343404.2015.1105653
  29. Jones, D. O., Simon-Lledó, E., Amon, D. J., Bett, B. J., Caulle, C., Clément, L., ... & Huvenne, V. A. (2021). Environment, ecology, and potential effectiveness of an area protected from deep-sea mining (Clarion Clipperton Zone, abyssal Pacific). Progress in Oceanography197, 102653.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pocean.2021.102653
  30. Kabak, Ö., Ekici, Ş. Ö., & Ülengin, F. (2020). Analyzing two-way interaction between the competitiveness and logistics performance of countries. Transport Policy98, 238-246.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.10.007
  31. Koo, J., & Lee, H. (2015). Regional capability and regional disparity: A conceptual framework and applications within Korea. International Review of Public Administration20(2), 121-135.‌ DOI: 10.1080/12294659.2014.1003456
  32. Lauri, P., Forsell, N., Di Fulvio, F., Snäll, T., & Havlik, P. (2021). Material substitution between coniferous, non-coniferous and recycled biomass–Impacts on forest industry raw material use and regional competitiveness. Forest Policy and Economics132, 102588.‌ https://doi.org/10.1016/j.forpol.2021.102588
  33. MacKinnon, D., Dawley, S., Pike, A., & Cumbers, A. (2019). Rethinking path creation: A geographical political economy approach. Economic geography95(2), 113-135.‌ https://doi.org/10.1080/00130095.2018.1498294
  34. Marsoosi, Nafiseh and Salahi Esfahani, Giti. (2009). Fundamentals of Economic Geography 2 (Industry, Transportation and Energy). Payam Noor Publications. [In Persian]
  35. Martin, R. (2010). Roepke lecture in economic geography—rethinking regional path dependence: beyond lock-in to evolution. Economic geography86(1), 1-27.‌ https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1944-8287.2009.01056.x
  36. Maskell, P., & Malmberg, A. (1999). The Competitiveness of Firms and Regions: ‘Ubiquitification’and the Importance of Localized Learning. European urban and regional studies6(1), 9-25.‌ https://doi.org/10.1177/096977649900600102
  37. Morrison, A., Pietrobelli, C., & Rabellotti, R. (2008). Global value chains and technological capabilities: a framework to study learning and innovation in developing countries. Oxford development studies36(1), 39-58.‌