Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T19:10:51.852Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Path Dependency and Cluster Competitiveness Framework to Examine Regional Marketing Systems and Conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2015

Timothy Woods  and
Roberta Cook
Timothy Woods
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY
Roberta Cook
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of California–Davis, Davis, CA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper develops a framework for competitiveness that incorporates path dependency within production regions. Patterns of technological innovation, product development, institutions, and market orientation follow a certain local path. This evolution creates regional economies that emerge with unexpected competitive advantage. The model draws on previous work looking at, among other things, induced innovation. The framework is applied here to the major regional tomato producers in North America. The paper examines the role of various institutions (grower associations, governments, research institutions, and support industry) in influencing the path along which a regional sector evolves.

Keywords

competitivenessinduced innovationpath dependencyQ13Q16Q17
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 35 , Issue 2 , August 2003 , pp. 305 - 312
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2003

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Beckman, E. Personal Communication. California Tomato Commission, January 2003.Google Scholar
Brown, S.L., and Eisenhardt, K.M.. Competing on the Edge: Strategy as Structured Chaos. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press, 1998.Google Scholar
Buurma, J.S.Dutch Agricultural Development and Its Importance to China, Case Study: The Evolution of Dutch Greenhouse Horticulture, Report 6.01.11. The Hague, Netherlands: Agricultural Economics Research Institute, October 2001.Google Scholar
DiMare, P. Personal Communication. The DiMare Companies and Florida Tomato Commission, October 2002.Google Scholar
Federal Register. “Suspension of Antidumping Investigation: Fresh Tomatoes From Mexico: December 4, 2002 Agreement,” A-201-820, Investigation Public Document, G103:MHR, 2002.Google Scholar
Harrow Research Centre. Greenhouse and Processing Crops. Internet Site: http://res2.agr.ca/har-row/index_e.htm (Accessed April 14, 2003).Google Scholar
McLaughlin, E.W., and Park, K.. The Fresh Produce Wholesaling System: Trends, Challenges, and Opportunities. Research Bulletin 97-16. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University and Produce Marketing Association, 1997.Google Scholar
North, D.C.Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plunkett, D.J.Mexican Tomatoes—Fruit of New Technology. Vegetables and Specialties Situation and Outlook, VGS No. 268, ERS, USDA, April 1996.Google Scholar
Porter, M.The Competitive Advantage of Nations. New York: The Free Press, 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruttan, V.W. “Induced Innovation and Path Dependence: A Reassessment with Respect to Agricultural Development and the Environment.” Technological Forecasting and Social Change 53:41–59, 1996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruttan, V.W. “Induced Innovation, Evolutionary Theory and Path Dependence: Source of Technical Change.” The Economic Journal 107(444): 1520–29, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sparling, D., and Cook, R.. “Strategic Alliances and Joint Ventures Under NAFTA: Concepts and Evidence.” Paper presented at the Fifth Canada/Mexico/US Conference on Policy Harmonization and Adjustment in the North American Agricultural and Food Industry, Acapulco, Mexico, March 1999.Google Scholar
Thompson, G.D., and Wilson, P.N.. “The Organizational Structure of the North American Fresh Tomato Market: Implications for Seasonal Trade Disputes.” Agribusiness 13(5):533–47, 1997.3.0.CO;2-7>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
USDA-AMS. Vegetable Shipments by Commodities, Origins, and Months. Washington, D.C., 2001.Google Scholar
Wright, G. “Towards a More Historical Approach to Technological Change.” The Economic Journal 107(September): 1560–66, 1997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar