Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade

, Volume 6, Issue 2, pp 115–136 | Cite as

Michael Porter’s Competitiveness Framework—Recent Learnings and New Research Priorities

  • Christian H. M. Ketels


The conceptual framework of competitiveness and clusters introduced by Michael Porter in his Competitive Advantage of Nations (Free, New York, 1990) remains exceptionally influential, especially among practitioners. The article discusses recent learnings about Porter's conceptual framework from practical applications and research directly driven by his work. It also outlines developments in the creation and analysis of empirical datasets and the analysis of policy processes, two main areas of current research in this field that are likely to increase in importance. The aim is to provide a coherent and current representation of key elements of the framework, while also discussing a few misperceptions about the concept present among practitioners or researchers.


competitiveness clusters business environment analysis 

JEL Classification

F23 L52 O13 O57 R12 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aiginger, K. and Pfaffermayr, M., “The Single Market and Geographic Concentration in Europe,” Review of International Economics, vol. 12, pp. 1–11, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cairncross, F., Death of Distance: How the Communications Revolution is Changing our Lives. Harvard Business School: Boston, Massachusetts, 2001.Google Scholar
  3. Centre for Excellence in Management, “Kuwait Competitiveness Report,” Kuwait National Competitiveness Committee: Kuwait City, 2006.Google Scholar
  4. Council on Competitiveness, “Competitiveness Index 2006,” Council on Competitiveness: Washington, DC, 2006, (in press).Google Scholar
  5. Department of Trade and Industry, “Business Clusters in the UK–A First Assessment,” Department of Trade and Industry: London, 2001.Google Scholar
  6. Department of Trade and Industry, “UK Productivity and Competitiveness Indicators 2003,” DTI Economics Paper No. 6, Department of Trade and Industry: London, 2003.Google Scholar
  7. Doz, Y., Santos, J., and Williamson, P., “From Global to Metanational: How Companies Win in the Knowledge Economy.” Harvard Business School: Boston, Massachusetts, 2001.Google Scholar
  8. European Commission, “Regional Clusters in Europe, Observatory of European SMEs, no. 3,” European Commission: Brussels, 2002.Google Scholar
  9. European Commission, “Final Report of the Expert Group on Enterprise Clusters and Networks,” European Commission: Brussels, 2003.Google Scholar
  10. European Commission, “European Competitiveness Report 2004,” European Commission: DG Enterprise, Brussels, 2004.Google Scholar
  11. Forfas/National Competitiveness Council, “National Competitiveness Report 2005,” Forfas/National Competitiveness Council: Dublin, 2005.Google Scholar
  12. Ketels, C., “The development of the cluster concept: Present experiences and further developments,” Paper presented at the NRW Cluster Workshop in Duisburg, Germany, 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Ketels, C., “Competitiveness Assessment of the Stockholm Region,” background report for the OECD. Center for Strategy and Competitiveness: Stockholm, 2005.Google Scholar
  14. Ketels, C. and Sölvell, Ö., “State of the Region-Report 2005: Competitiveness and Cooperation in the Baltic Sea Region.” Vinnova/TEKES: Stockholm, 2005.Google Scholar
  15. Ketels, C., and Sölvell, Ö., “Clusters in the EU-10 New Member Countries,” European Commission, DG Enterprise and Industry: Brussels, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. Ketels, C., Lindqvist, G., and Sölvell, Ö., “Cluster Initiatives in Developing and Transition Economies,” Ivory Tower: Stockholm, 2006.Google Scholar
  17. Landabaso, M., “Clusters in Less Prosperous Places: Policy Options in Planning and Implementation,” European Commission: Brussels, 2001 (mimeo.).Google Scholar
  18. Marchionni, C. and Oinas, P., “The many explanations of spatial clustering: Rival or complementary?,” Paper presented at the inaugural Nordic Geographers Meeting in Lund, Sweden, May 2005.Google Scholar
  19. Martin, R. and Sunley, P., “Deconstructing clusters—chaotic concept or policy panacea?” Journal of Economic Geography, vol. 3, pp. 3–35, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Massachusetts Technology Collaborative, “2005 Index of the Massachusetts Innovation Economy,” Massachusetts Technology Collaborative: Westborough, 2005.Google Scholar
  21. Midelfart-Knarvik, K.H., Overman, H.G., Redding, S.J., and Venables, A.J., “The location of European industry,” EU Economic Papers no. 142, European Commission: Brussels, 2004.Google Scholar
  22. Möhring, J., “Clusters: Definition and Methodology, in Business Clusters: Promoting Enterprise in Central and Eastern Europe,” OECD: Paris, 2005.Google Scholar
  23. Nickell, S. and Van Reenen, J., “The United Kingdom,” in Steil, B., Victor, D.G., and Nelson, R.R. (eds.), Technological Innovation and Economic Performance, Princeton University Press: Princeton, New Jersey, 2002.Google Scholar
  24. OECD, “Innovative Clusters: Drivers of National Innovation Systems,” OECD: Paris, 2001.Google Scholar
  25. O’Malley, E. and van Egeraat, C., “Industry clusters and Irish indigenous manufacturing: Limits of the Porter view,” The Economic and Social Review, vol. 31(1), 2000.Google Scholar
  26. Porter, M.E., “The Competitive Advantage of Nations.” Free: New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  27. Porter, M.E., “Clusters and competition: New agendas for governments, companies, and institutions.” in Porter, M. (ed.), On Competition, Harvard Business School: Boston, Massachusetts, 1998a.Google Scholar
  28. Porter, M.E., “Competing across locations: Enhancing competitive advantage through a global strategy,” in Porter, M. (ed.), On Competition, Harvard Business School: Boston, Massachusetts, 1998b.Google Scholar
  29. Porter, M.E., “Attitudes, values, beliefs, and the microeconomics of prosperity,” in Harrison, L.E. and Huntington, S.P. (eds.), Culture Matters: How Values Shape Human Progress, Basic: New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  30. Porter, M.E., “The economic performance of regions,” Regional Studies, vol. 37(6 and 7), pp. 549–578, 2003.Google Scholar
  31. Porter, M.E., “Building the microeconomic foundations of prosperity: Findings from the business competitiveness index.” in Sala-i-Martin, X. (ed.), The Global Competitiveness Report 2003–2004, Oxford University Press: New York, 2004.Google Scholar
  32. Porter, M.E., “The Kazakhstan’s competitiveness: Roadmap towards a diversified economy,” Presentation given in Astana, Kazakhstan, 26 January 2005.Google Scholar
  33. Porter, M.E. and Emmons, W., “Institutions for Collaboration: Overview,” Note 9-703-436, Harvard Business School Publishing: Boston, 2003.Google Scholar
  34. Porter, M.E. and Ketels, C.H.M., “U.K. competitiveness: Moving to the next stage,” DTI Economics Paper no. 3, Department of Industry and Trade: London, 2003.Google Scholar
  35. Porter, M.E. and van der Linde, C., “Toward a new conception of the environment–competitiveness relationship,” The Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol. 9(4), Fall 1995.Google Scholar
  36. Porter, M.E., Takeuchi, H., and Sakakibara, M., “Can Japan Compete?,” Basic: New York, 2000.Google Scholar
  37. Porter, M.E., Monitor Group, OntheFRONTIER, and Council on Competitiveness, “Clusters of Innovation: Regional Foundations of U.S. Competitiveness,” Council on Competitiveness: Washington, District of Columbia, 2001.Google Scholar
  38. Porter, M.E., Ketels, C.H.M., Miller, K., and Bryden, R.T., “Competitiveness in rural U.S. regions: Learning and research agenda,” Report prepared for the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce: Washington, District of Columbia, 2004.Google Scholar
  39. Rugman, A. and Verbeke, A., “Multinational enterprises and clusters: An organizing framework,” mimeo, 2002.Google Scholar
  40. Sölvell, Ö., Lindqvist, G., and Ketels, C., “The Cluster Initiative Greenbook,” Ivory Tower: Stockholm, 2003.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Strategy and CompetitivenessHarvard Business SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Center for Strategy and CompetitivenessStockholm School of EconomicsStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations