ABSTRACT
Business activity is immersed in a complex and varied conglomerate of relationships or networks that firms need to maintain and develop so they can adapt effectively to the constant changes they face in the competitive environment (Jones et al., 1997). This observation has been noted by several fields of research – economics, geography, sociology, business studies and political science, among others – and materialized in a growing interest in firms’ networks. There are two main strands of research on this topic (Möller and Svahn, 2003): one sees networks as the environment in which economic activity takes place (‘network of organizations’); another, centred on the characteristics and effects of networks, and the density, multiplicity and reciprocity of relationships among its members, deals with ‘network organization’. Within the second strand it is possible to identify three main perspectives according to the network elements, their relationships and the importance placed on the territory: organizational (Ghosal and Bartlett, 1990), social (Granovetter, 1985) and strategic (Gulati et al., 2000). The strategic perspective places a special emphasis on territorial networks, considering them as a way of organizing business activities that can notably increase firm competitiveness. One of the most studied representations of territorial networks is the geographical concentration of firms within the same industry. It is believed that such a model generates important benefits for participating firms, embodied in the existence of external economies (Krugman, 1991a; Parr, 2002a, 2002b). From a conceptual point of view, when that concentration results in the grouping of a sufficiently high number of firms, particularly SMEs, we talk about clusters and/or industrial districts.1 It has been argued that the ultimate outcome of belonging to a cluster or industrial district is higher competitiveness. The influence of the territory on the firms located therein has been tested for structural characteristics of the firms, such as economic performance (Porter, 1990; Bagella, 2000; Puig et al., 2009). These studies have allowed the identification of some of the effects of localization. However, there are some limitations in this line of study with respect to methodology and scope (Paniccia, 1998; Becattini, 2004). In particular, the ana lysis of the influence of the territory on firms’ characteristics or managerial perceptions is still scarce.
