Spatial proximity, functional closeness and regional competitiveness

Over the past decade or so, there have been intensive theoretical discussions of industrial clustering. Along with this, countries and sub-national regions (including states and provinces) have more and more incorporated the idea of industrial clusters into their economic planning and programming. Many researchers and policy makers consider industrial clusters the major force driving regional economic growth and improving regional competitiveness. However, until recently, there has been limited attention given to the spatial dimensions of industrial clusters. One basic question is "are functional or sectoral clustering and spatial clustering patterns significantly related?" This dissertation is to address this question. This is important not only because the empirical evidence of the relationship between the two parameters could enrich studies on the spatial dimensions of industrial clusters and discussions on industrial (functional) clustering and regional competitiveness, but also it could contribute to development of a solid foundation for cluster-based policy and practice. Using the case of the Washington and Baltimore metropolitan regions, the research develops a methodology to identify industry clusters and analyzes the relationship between functional closeness and spatial proximity for sector members within each individual cluster and across clusters.; The research shows that a significant negative relationship between functional and spatial proximity exists among the clusters in both of the test or case study regions. However, the relationship between these two parameters varies across clusters and across the two regions. The variation of the relationship across different clusters may be caused by such factors as different industrial characteristics, regional development history, economic structures and land use policies. They can be very important in determining the location choices of firms. The variation of the relationship across regions may be explained by the difference of the two metropolitan regions in such factors as geographic characteristics, economic history and structure and administration.; The research further investigates the relationship between functional closeness and spatial proximity among major technology sectors and professional services sectors in the two regions. These technology sectors show a significantly stronger relationship between spatial proximity and functional closeness than the professional services sectors in the Washington metropolitan region. However, no statistically significant relationship between the two parameters is found for the professional services sectors in the Baltimore metropolitan region. This may be due to the fact that some professional services sectors in this group such as banking and insurance agents and brokers are more geographically dispersed at the metropolitan level in order to provide a better coverage of customers in the local market area.; The analysis for the major health services sectors in the two regions shows that there is no significant negative hypothesized relationship between functional closeness and spatial proximity. This is different from the research findings in the analysis of the technology sectors. One reason that may explain the difference is that like some professional services sectors discussed earlier, many health sectors such as hospitals and offices & clinics of medical doctors are also distributed to cover the local market area. Therefore, the geographic distribution of the sectors is more distributed to provide better access to potential local customers or markets. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)...