Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen

Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen The attention that clusters have received from policy makers and academics has substantially increased in the last 20 years. Since Porters seminal work on The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990) presented clusters as one of the determinants of the international competitiveness of nations and regions, many scholars have adopted and further developed his approach. Porter bases his arguments on what he describes as the globalization paradox, pointing out that despite the logical implications that the globalisation process might have in dismissing the relevance of regional factors, the most competitive firms in world are located in groups geographically concentrated in specific locations. That perspective contributed to attracting attention to the existence of characteristics tied to a local context that could not be accessed by firms positioned elsewhere, and more, to the positive effects that the concentration and the geographic proximity could exert on the firms competitiveness. However influential, Porters ideas were not the precursor to discussing the competitive outcomes originating from the geographic concentration of firms (Martin and Sunley, 2003). The roots of cluster theory go back to the industrial districts identified by Marshall (1890), who offered the first detailed description about the economic and social systems created as a result of the spacial concentrations of industrial activities. The Marshallian industrial districts were arrangements of small firms interconnected by commercial operations (buyers and sellers) and other firms engaged in the same or similar activities, that shared productive factors, such as the labour market, infrastructure and tacit knowledge (Becattini, 2004, p. 68). According to Marshals descriptions, a group of firms operating in one specific sector within a well-defined, concentrated and relatively small geographic area would experience higher levels of productivity and innovation, indeed the emergence of a fertile e nvironment for technical and organisational developments. Thus the local characteristics would enable the emergence of an industrial atmosphere that would increase the firms potential to acquire (especially tacit) knowledge, and create positive external economies accessible only to the firms located within the district (Asheim, 2003, p. 416). That perspective tried to evidence that firms geographically concentrated could accesses restricted positive exogenous benefits (exogenous to firms, but endogenous to the district), which would be an alternative to the scale economies achieved by a single (integrated) firm. Additionally, following some of the seminal ideas proposed by Marshall, it is possible to observe a significant number of economic geographers that also explored regional development using the spatial economic agglomeration to support their ideas. Some examples of concepts emerging from that theoretical trend are regional innovation milieux (Crevoisier, 2004), neo-Marshallian nodes (Amin and Thrift, 1992) and learning regions (Asheim, 1995). More examples can be found in Markusen (1996, p. 297), in which another three different types of industrial districts are described according to the firms configurations, internal versus external orientations and governance structures: a hub-and-spoke industrial district, which is concentrated around one or more dominant firms; a satellite platform, formed by a group of unconnected branches embedded in external links; and the state-anchored district, concentrated on one or more public-sector institutions. Despite the logical and robust assumption s found in many of those concepts, their influence and dissemination were not as successful as the more general cluster framework proposed by Porter. Martin and Sunley (2003) attributes the successful dissemination of the Porter concepts to the very general descriptions and delimitations that encompass a wide range of actors and many different structures. Following much of the concepts proposed by Porter, the description of advantages conferred on clustered firms associated with a general and structured analytical framework stimulated the development and dissemination of academic studies and subsidized the creation of supply-side competitiveness policies directed at structuring and supporting the development of clusters (Pitelis, 2010). That fact resulted in what Martin and Sunley (2003) describe as a policy panacea in the use of clusters as a standard (sometimes the unique) target for promoting competitiveness, innovation and economic growth. Moreover, in the last 20 years an increasing number of empirical studies in different countries and sectors have been observed, which aim to identify and discuss the competitive outcomes originating from the concentration of firms and other actors in the same location, for example: Brazil à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" shoe manufacturing in the Sinos Valley (Schmitz, 2000); Spain à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the text ile and clothing industries in Catalonia (Porter, 1998); Taiwan à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" electronic products at the Hsinchu Science Park (Chen, 2008); and the United States à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" computer and information systems at the Silicon Valley (Saxenian, 1994). The large significant number of academic studies has resulted in a large number of definitions aiming to describe and establish an accepted cluster template (e.g., Enright, 1996; Swann and Prevezer, 1996, Rosenfeld, 1997; Porter, 1998) to support policy makers and academics has led to intense debates and controversial perspectives. Even though the concept of clusters has been increasingly widely disseminated and used by geographers, economists and policy makers, it has suffered from some conceptual confusion. Porter defines a cluster as a geographic concentration of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate (1998, p. 197). However, Martin and Sunley (2003, p. 12) present consistent arguments that indicate the vagueness and superficiality of the concept proposed by Porter. Accordin g to their arguments, those characteristics make the concept of cluster means different things to different researchers and policy makers, creating problems for its proper use in the guidance of academics and governments. Those highly controversial aspects of the cluster theory have stimulated the continuous emergence of new concepts and definitions for clusters. Proposing a definition aiming to fill some of the gaps and failures found in extant cluster theory, Pitelis (2010, p. 5) defines clusters as geographical agglomerations of firms in particular, related, and/or complementary, activities, with a geographical dimension, that exhibit horizontal and/or vertical intra- and/or inter-sectoral linkages, which operate in the context of a facilitatory socio-institutional setting, and which co-operate and compete (co-opete) in inter-national markets. That definition tries offer to a more delimited approach that incorporates four major elements: geographical agglomeration, linkages, social-capital  [1]  and co-opetition (competition and cooperation). The use of those four elements in a single definition offers the possibility to cover the cluster characteristics using delimited criteria to identify and distinguish developed clusters from less complex geographical agglomerations of firms and institutions. Although it is possible to observe some level of ambiguity encompassing the clusters theory, the existence of links interconnecting local actors complemented by geographical dimensions constitute some of the main common points used to guide academics and policy makers with interesting by the competitive outcomes originating from clusters. Those characteristics have frequently been used as the starting point to understand the economic dynamics of clustered firms, putting emphasis on the levels of innovation and productivity emerging from the concentration of different actors in the same area. Suggesting conditional characteristics to the presence of competitive advantages obtained by firms inside clusters, Ketels (2004) considers that the positive economic effects originated from the geographical concentration will only take place if four critical characteristics are shared among firms and institutions: Proximity: they must be geographically close to allow the emergence of knowledge spillovers and to share the same common resources; Linkages: the necessity of similarities in their activities leading to the establishment of connections and synergies; Interactions: the social interactions developed among firms, clients, suppliers, research institutes, and so on, is what forms the social capital that becomes possible firms to achieve differentiated competitive performances; Critical mass: it is important to have a significant number of firms and institutions in order to create meaningful impacts on performance of the local actors. Those characteristics described by Ketels may be used to guide the identification and distinction between developed clusters (Pitelis, 2010) from incipient clusters (Schmitz, 1999) in order to dismiss some incorrect interpretations associated with the clusters dynamics. Considering that the presence of geographic concentration of firms in the same industry is strikingly common around the world (Porter, 1990, p.120), it is necessary the use of specific benchmarks to distinguish and classify different groups of firms geographically concentrated according to their specific characteristics (Gordon and McCann, 2000; Isbasoiu, 2006). Describing how the existence of local capabilities  [2]  create differentiated conditions for companies within real clusters, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) argue that clusters are essentially formed from path dependencies (Martin and Sunley, 2006), transaction costs economies (McCann and Sheppard, 2003) and small cognitive distances originating from spatial proximity (Maskell, 2001). Thus, that set of factors are expected to create a specific regional dynamics with influence on the firms economic performance. Taking into consideration the different stages of a cluster life cycle, and the misunderstandings related to the claims associated with the clusters and competitiveness, Schmitz points out that A group of small producers making the same or similar things in close vicinity to each other constitutes a cluster, but such concentration in itself brings few benefits (1999, p. 4), emphasizing that the mere presence of firms in a delimited area does not represent a source of value creat ion able to improve in a significant way the local economic performance. Following the arguments above, the differences between regional clusters and simple agglomerations (groups of firms) lie mainly on the interconnected nature and spatial proximity. Thus, clusters are characterized by intense collaborative networks and concentrations of collaboration and competition (co-opetitition) (Pitelis, 2010), conditions which offer significant opportunities and stimulate the emergence of regional competitive advantages (Steinle and Schiele, 2002). Complementarily, another critical characteristic observed within clusters is the diversity of actors. According to Porter (1990, 1998, 2000), an industrial cluster includes suppliers, consumers, related industries, governments, and supporting institutions such as universities. This way, the existence of a regional network formed by a significant group of interconnected local actors is one of the critical factors to understand the differentiated competitive performance of firms within clusters (Steinle and Schiele, 2002 ). Illustrating that argument, Saxenian (1994) observed that Hewlett Packard and other firms at the Silicon Valley had their performance improved by the development long-term partnerships with suppliers located geographically close. Moreover, based on that observation, Saxenian concluded that, especially in high-tech industries, the physical proximity represents a facilitator to the establishment of efficient collaborative arrangements required to create and manage complex products and services. 1.2 Evolutionary Stages of Industrial Clusters Despite the vast cluster literature, the number of academic works discussing the evolutionary patterns of clusters overtime is not so extensive. Some examples can be found in Pouder and John (1996), Klepper (2001, 2007), Wolter (2003) and Andersson et al., (2004), and despite the divergent perspectives, it is accepted that clusters follow a kind of life cycle comprised by different phases that significantly differ in their characteristics and influence on firms performance. Regarding the cluster dynamics, Pouder and John (1996) argue that comparative analysis between clustered and non-clustered firms during the industry life cycle reveal that firms within clusters outperform those geographically dispersed at the initial stages of development, and have a worse performance at its end. That fact suggests that the cluster life cycle is not just a local representation of the industry trajectory, but is a result from local peculiarities. The comparative analysis developed by Saxenian (1994 ) between the computer industry in Boston and Silicon Valley illustrates how different clusters belonging to the same industry are very likely to follow different trajectories (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). Proposing a different perspective, Klepper (2001, 2007) suggests a model to demonstrate how the clusters life cycle is determined by some the industry patterns. Klepper analyzed the automobile, tire and television industries and observed that at the beginning of the industry life cycle it was not possible to observe clear geographic concentrations of firms, with most of the firms spatially dispersed. He observed that in those industries clusters started to emerge and develop according to the industry growth rates. Klepper argues that the local characteristics originating from the spacial proximity (e.g., intensive spin-off process) give the stimulus for the geographic agglomeration of the whole industry, not only for specific groups. At the time the industry growth rate reduces, the attractiveness to remain agglomerated will also decrease and the industry will become dispersed again. That model proposed by Klepper represents a Technology-Product- Industry (TIP) life cycle. The logic behind this model is on the impact that the evolution of products and innovations has on the size, number, and location of firms. Wolter (2003) criticizes the model proposed by Klepper arguing that the growth rate cannot explain the agglomeration process in all industries on equal basis. Moreover, Wolter disagrees with the determinist perspective proposed by the TIP model, once it neglects that mature industries can be reinvented by radical or incremental innovations of new products and process. Analyzing the economic performance of firms within clusters Pouder and John (1996) attribute to the existence of mental models and biased cognitive focus the characteristics responsible for shaping the movement through the clusters life cycle. Following that perspective, at initial stages the cluster dynamics creates an innovative environment that exerts positive impacts on the firms performance. However, overtime that initial condition is eroded by strong institutional pressures that create a homogeneous macroculture that acts inhibiting the innovative capacity of the firms within the cluster. As in the model presented by Klepper (2001, 2007), that trajectory proposed by Pouder and John may also be criticized by the determinism that ignores the possibility of adaptations or reconfigurations in order to avoid lock-ins and other negative effects. Considering the arguments proposed by Menzel and Fornahl (2010, p. 8) that very few clusters follow a rigid life cycle from emergence to growth and decline, it is expected that clusters evolve overtime according to the local dynamics created by economic and social interactions among firms and institutions. That dynamics may be influenced, but not strictly determined by industry patterns (Wolter, 2003). Following a generic and stylized trajectory, within successful clusters the local network formed by inter-firm connections will tend to be intensified overtime, with an increasing number of formal and informal interactions between the long-established companies and new the ones attracted to the cluster. Even though it is more conceivable to assume that the decisions adopted by firms and institutions are shaped by specific circumstances, a generic trajectory can be described following the stages illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: The cluster life cycle C:UsersLucasAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesContent.WordSem tÃÆ' ­tulo.jpg Source: Andersson et al. (2004, p. 43) Agglomeration: It is possible to observe the existence of a number of companies and other actors (e.g. banks, government agencies, universities, accountants, and lawyers offices) in a specific region working around the same or interrelated activities. Emerging cluster: Forming the embryo to the cluster some actors start to cooperation around some core activities, and start to realize the existence of common linkages. Developing cluster: The linkages are intensified by the emergence and attraction of new actors to the region, resulting in the creation of more interaction. In this context the development of inter-firm-cooperation becomes more evident through the development of joint efforts. The Mature cluster: This stage is configured by the presence of a certain critical mass of factors that consistently influence the competitive performance of the firms inside the cluster. The internal dynamics is characterized by the presence of an institutional environment, strong linkages, complementarities and the emergence of new firms through startups, joint ventures and spin-offs. Transformation: Indeed the process of continuous environmental change in markets, technologies, regulations and other process, to be successful a cluster have to innovate and adapt to these new conditions, other way stagnation and decay may affect the cluster dynamics. That process of change/adaptation may happen through the emergence of one or several interconnected clusters with focus in other activities, or by new configuration in terms of networks of firms and institutions. The presence of economic benefits for clustered firms described by authors like Schmitz and Nadvi (1999), Ketels (2004), Isbasoiu (2006) and Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) are closely related to the stage of development that a cluster is experiencing. For example, an emerging cluster is not actually a cluster, since the small number of firms is not expected to present a high level of linkages and do not form a critical mass. Moreover, the absence of strong interdependencies such as labour mobility, spin-off, socioeconomic networks and intense exchange of good and services prevent the emergence of local capabilities. Thus, same considering that this stage constitutes the embryo that determines the future cluster orientation, at this point the firms are not expected to be strongly influenced by a complex local dynamics. Observing that fact, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) present a skeptical position regarding the effectiveness of any competitiveness policy intended to stimulate the development of clusters at initial stages (agglomeration and emerging), since the existence of horizontal and vertical links among firms concentrated in the same region constitutes a very common fact around the world. Thus, it is almost impossible to distinguish agglomerations with real potential to become a cluster from less complex structures. Consequently, emerging clusters are almost always only described ex-post. After the initial stages of the clusters life cycle it is expected the development and intensification of interdependencies between firms within cluster boundaries (Press, 2006). Indeed the development of those interdependencies, firms start to resemble more with each other, being observe the emergence of convergent designs in terms of technological models (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010), specialized labour market (Cooke et al., 2007), production systems (Pitelis, 2010) and inter-firm relationships (Blien and Maier, 2008). Moreover, developing clusters also attract a high number of start-ups that act stimulating the intensification of intra-cluster relationships. This way, that process of convergence and expansion of the number of firms within the cluster boundaries culminates in the development of self-reinforcing external economies that decrease the heterogeneity among firms at the same time that creates benefits like transactions cost economies and the privileged access to local knowle dge. As clusters reach the stage of maturity, the standards and configurations originating from past decisions become consolidate and it is observed a reduction in the growth rate of firms attracted to the cluster (Klepper, 2007). At this point the cluster trajectory may take two different directions. Keep unchanged, and suffer with a homogenization process that creates bias economic activities and therefore prevent firms to adapt to external shocks (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). That situation traps firms in previous successful development path and lead to the geographic dispersion of the local actors and to the deterioration of the interdependencies and capabilities. The other possible trajectory is observed in clusters that reach the stage of maturity and successfully sustain the local dynamics by a continuous process of reconfiguration and adaptation to the external shocks (Wolter, 2003). 1.2 Clusters and Economic Performance The extant theory offers a wide range of explanations to justify the economic and competitive benefits experienced by firms located within clusters. Krugman (1991) stress the existence of increasing returns originating from the concentration of firms in the same area, arguing that the geographic proximity puts together the main parts related to firms activities (e.g., labours, firms, suppliers and costumers) resulting in transaction costs economies. Following other perspective, Schmitz and Nadvi (1999) argue that unintentional external economies are not sufficient to explain the competitiveness of firms located within clusters, attributing to the existence of deliberate joint actions (e.g., sharing equipments, associations, strategic alliances and producers improving components) a critical source of the competitive advantages. Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) explain the levels of competitiveness and productivity associated with clustered firms considering the existence of specialized hu man resources, infrastructure and befits associated with unit costs economies complemented by the presence of an institutional atmosphere. Stressing a different point of view, Bahlmann and Huysman (2008) adopts the knowledge-based view of clusters to emphasize the relevance of knowledge spillovers among the firms to explain the advantages originated from the agglomeration process. Dupuy and Torre (2006) explains the existence of cluster in terms of the advantages originating from trust relationships that increase confidence and reduce risk and uncertainty about the intra-cluster operations taking place among the firms. Moreover, Zyglidopoulos et al. (2003), describe the positive effects that the reputation of a cluster may exert on the internalization process of small and micro enterprises through the alleviation of strategic constraints associated with factors like qualified work force, financing and reduction of the firms legitimation expenses. Despite that wide range of arguments, the most traditional perspective found in the cluster literature has explained the competitive advantages of clusters in terms of productivity and innovation (Pitelis, 1998; Porter, 1998), suggesting that the special characteristics originated from the economic and geographic proximity have significant impact on those two factors. Supplementary, Enright (1998) considers that the characteristics present inside the clusters local environment result in pressures, incentives and capabilities that increase the firms competitiveness comparatively to dispersed competitors, explaining the clustering process in terms of geographically restricted characteristics. Moreover, Solvell et al. (2003) suggests that the competitive advantages emerging from regional clusters may be classified as static and dynamics. According to this perspective, while the agglomeration process triggered and sustained intensively or exclusively by factors like natural resources, low cost labors and government subsidies offers a vulnerable (easy to be copied, substituted or simple eroded by environmental changes) competitive position, clusters based on dynamics characteristics like multi-sectorial externalities, advantages of scale and scope and specific knowledge spillovers are more dynamics and competitive. Extending the arguments presented by Solvell and his colleagues, Andersson et al. (2004) considers that the sustainability of static and dynamic competitive advantages is not strictly determined, arguing that static factors are the main responsible for the emergence of clusters, while the dynamics factors are only developed along the different stages of the cluste r life cycle. Complementing the understanding about the influence of the cluster dynamics on the firms economic performance some authors like Porter (2001); Garnsey and Heffernan (2007); Karlsson (2008) and Mason (2008) describe the existence of a self-reinforcing process originating from the agglomeration externalities that contribute to create a regional virtuous-circle of increasing productivity, competitiveness and value creation. Following that argument, the economic and geographic proximity will stimulate firms to innovate more indeed benefits originating from local capabilities, which will stimulate even more the agglomeration process through the intensification of inter-firm relationships and the attraction of other firms from outside the cluster, which in turn will strength the local capabilities (Blandy, 2003, p. 101). Thus, the dynamics of clusters is expected to be self-reinforced by agglomeration benefits with significant influence on the firms performance. Putting together the arguments associated with the economic impacts experienced by clustered firms indeed the existence of local factors, it is possible to identify and describe the following positive location-specific externalities: Cost savings indeed the geographic proximity with specialized suppliers, labours and distributors; Knowledge-spillovers (intentional and unintentional), since firms inside clusters can benefit from the knowledge dissemination process that may take place especially through inter-firm cooperation, specific linkages and labour mobility; Deliberate joint actions facilitated by the engagement in alliances and partnerships to achieve strategic objectives; Trust relationships, that through the geographic and economic proximity minimize the uncertainty associated with commercial operations, resulting in transactions costs economies; Pressures for higher performance, stimulated by the proximity with competitors; Specific Infrastructure and public goods that are oriented to attend the cluster demands, like roads, ports, laboratories and telecommunication networks; Complementarities, associated with firms in different activities but sharing common factors like raw material, clients and technologies that may enhance the cluster efficiency as whole. Discussing the role of regional clusters in shaping competitive patterns, Tallman et al. (2004) proposes a distinction between the types of competitive advantages emerging from clustered firms: based on traded interdependencies and based on untraded interdependencies. The concept of traded interdependencies is related to the existence of inter-firm transactions inside the cluster, and is observed in formal exchange operations that may take place in form of alliances, commercial operations and acquisitions. On the other hand, untraded interdependencies are related to less tangible effects, and are based on shared knowledge for which no market mechanism exists; with no formal exchange of value for value (Tallman et al. 2004, p. 261). To illustrate the mechanisms by which the untraded interdependencies take place, it is possible to mention unintentional external economies associated with tacit knowledge shared through mechanisms like labor mobility. Those different types of interdependencies, especially untraded, present at the cluster level, represent a source of competitive advantage that is likely to be causal ambiguous (for firms inside and outside the cluster) and high complex in terms of their origins, what consequently constitutes attributes difficult to be replicated by competitors. However, the presence of untraded effects, especially unintentional knowledge spillovers, is viewed Enright (1998) as a constraining factor for firms within clusters, since the establishment of an efficient information flow may limit the firms capacity to obtain monopoly profits from the development of innovations. Complementing the negative effects originating from the clusters dynamics, some authors also describe agglomeration diseconomies that have a negative impact firms located within clusters. For example, congestion effects (Arthur, 1990), institutional sclerosis (Pouder and John, 1996; Pitelis, 2010), rigidities associated with labour mobility and natural resources (Krugman, 1989) and pollution (Fan and Scott, 2003). This way, the dynamics and performance of a cluster is determined by the interplay between positive and negative externalities observed during the different stages of development that a cluster is expected to pass overtime (Wolter, 2003) Limitations in the Cluster Theory Notwithstanding the advances in the cluster theory some questions still remain insufficiently explored. One of the main limitations observed in the current state of the cluster literature is the lack of comparative perspectives to explain the advantages and disadvantages of clusters relatively to other alternative models of organization of economic activities. In his very novel approach, Pitelis (2010) suggests that any perspective trying to explain clusters in terms of absolute advantages is at the very best incomplete. In this context, Pitelis proposes the comparison of clusters vis-ÃÆ'  -vis to markets and hierarchies in order to understand the reasons and conditions that lead firms to engage in intra-clusters relationships, market operations (outside the cluster) or integrate within the firms hierarchy. In fact it is not necessary a great effort to conclude that most of the cluster theory has been developed following a mono-institutional approach (e.g. Porter, 1990, 1998; Saxe nian, 1994; Rosenfeld, 1998; Swann and Sennett, 1998; Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999), while some few exceptions concentrated on transactions costs (e.g. Fujita and Thisse, 1996; Iammarino and McCann, 2006; Takeda et al., 2008) and knowledge creation efficiency (e.g. Hendry et al., 2000; Tracey and Clark, 2003; Reinau, 2007; Kongmanila and Takahashi, 2009) have been drawn on a comparative approaches between clusters and open-market operations. Assuming the arguments proposed by many scholars that clusters are engines of innovation (Davis, 2006, p. 32), the lack of comparative perspectives do not answer the question why clusters are more efficient than markets or the hierarchy to improve the firms innovative capacity (Pitelis, 2010). Thus, despite the wide number of ramifications observed in the cluster theory such as innovative efficiency, productivity, social capital and social interactions, its explicative power remains almost always restricted Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen Inter Firm Relationships in the Silicon Fen The attention that clusters have received from policy makers and academics has substantially increased in the last 20 years. Since Porters seminal work on The Competitive Advantage of Nations (1990) presented clusters as one of the determinants of the international competitiveness of nations and regions, many scholars have adopted and further developed his approach. Porter bases his arguments on what he describes as the globalization paradox, pointing out that despite the logical implications that the globalisation process might have in dismissing the relevance of regional factors, the most competitive firms in world are located in groups geographically concentrated in specific locations. That perspective contributed to attracting attention to the existence of characteristics tied to a local context that could not be accessed by firms positioned elsewhere, and more, to the positive effects that the concentration and the geographic proximity could exert on the firms competitiveness. However influential, Porters ideas were not the precursor to discussing the competitive outcomes originating from the geographic concentration of firms (Martin and Sunley, 2003). The roots of cluster theory go back to the industrial districts identified by Marshall (1890), who offered the first detailed description about the economic and social systems created as a result of the spacial concentrations of industrial activities. The Marshallian industrial districts were arrangements of small firms interconnected by commercial operations (buyers and sellers) and other firms engaged in the same or similar activities, that shared productive factors, such as the labour market, infrastructure and tacit knowledge (Becattini, 2004, p. 68). According to Marshals descriptions, a group of firms operating in one specific sector within a well-defined, concentrated and relatively small geographic area would experience higher levels of productivity and innovation, indeed the emergence of a fertile e nvironment for technical and organisational developments. Thus the local characteristics would enable the emergence of an industrial atmosphere that would increase the firms potential to acquire (especially tacit) knowledge, and create positive external economies accessible only to the firms located within the district (Asheim, 2003, p. 416). That perspective tried to evidence that firms geographically concentrated could accesses restricted positive exogenous benefits (exogenous to firms, but endogenous to the district), which would be an alternative to the scale economies achieved by a single (integrated) firm. Additionally, following some of the seminal ideas proposed by Marshall, it is possible to observe a significant number of economic geographers that also explored regional development using the spatial economic agglomeration to support their ideas. Some examples of concepts emerging from that theoretical trend are regional innovation milieux (Crevoisier, 2004), neo-Marshallian nodes (Amin and Thrift, 1992) and learning regions (Asheim, 1995). More examples can be found in Markusen (1996, p. 297), in which another three different types of industrial districts are described according to the firms configurations, internal versus external orientations and governance structures: a hub-and-spoke industrial district, which is concentrated around one or more dominant firms; a satellite platform, formed by a group of unconnected branches embedded in external links; and the state-anchored district, concentrated on one or more public-sector institutions. Despite the logical and robust assumption s found in many of those concepts, their influence and dissemination were not as successful as the more general cluster framework proposed by Porter. Martin and Sunley (2003) attributes the successful dissemination of the Porter concepts to the very general descriptions and delimitations that encompass a wide range of actors and many different structures. Following much of the concepts proposed by Porter, the description of advantages conferred on clustered firms associated with a general and structured analytical framework stimulated the development and dissemination of academic studies and subsidized the creation of supply-side competitiveness policies directed at structuring and supporting the development of clusters (Pitelis, 2010). That fact resulted in what Martin and Sunley (2003) describe as a policy panacea in the use of clusters as a standard (sometimes the unique) target for promoting competitiveness, innovation and economic growth. Moreover, in the last 20 years an increasing number of empirical studies in different countries and sectors have been observed, which aim to identify and discuss the competitive outcomes originating from the concentration of firms and other actors in the same location, for example: Brazil à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" shoe manufacturing in the Sinos Valley (Schmitz, 2000); Spain à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" the text ile and clothing industries in Catalonia (Porter, 1998); Taiwan à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" electronic products at the Hsinchu Science Park (Chen, 2008); and the United States à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â‚¬Å" computer and information systems at the Silicon Valley (Saxenian, 1994). The large significant number of academic studies has resulted in a large number of definitions aiming to describe and establish an accepted cluster template (e.g., Enright, 1996; Swann and Prevezer, 1996, Rosenfeld, 1997; Porter, 1998) to support policy makers and academics has led to intense debates and controversial perspectives. Even though the concept of clusters has been increasingly widely disseminated and used by geographers, economists and policy makers, it has suffered from some conceptual confusion. Porter defines a cluster as a geographic concentration of interconnected companies, specialized suppliers, service providers firms in related industries, and associated institutions (for example, universities, standards agencies and trade associations) in particular fields that compete but also co-operate (1998, p. 197). However, Martin and Sunley (2003, p. 12) present consistent arguments that indicate the vagueness and superficiality of the concept proposed by Porter. Accordin g to their arguments, those characteristics make the concept of cluster means different things to different researchers and policy makers, creating problems for its proper use in the guidance of academics and governments. Those highly controversial aspects of the cluster theory have stimulated the continuous emergence of new concepts and definitions for clusters. Proposing a definition aiming to fill some of the gaps and failures found in extant cluster theory, Pitelis (2010, p. 5) defines clusters as geographical agglomerations of firms in particular, related, and/or complementary, activities, with a geographical dimension, that exhibit horizontal and/or vertical intra- and/or inter-sectoral linkages, which operate in the context of a facilitatory socio-institutional setting, and which co-operate and compete (co-opete) in inter-national markets. That definition tries offer to a more delimited approach that incorporates four major elements: geographical agglomeration, linkages, social-capital  [1]  and co-opetition (competition and cooperation). The use of those four elements in a single definition offers the possibility to cover the cluster characteristics using delimited criteria to identify and distinguish developed clusters from less complex geographical agglomerations of firms and institutions. Although it is possible to observe some level of ambiguity encompassing the clusters theory, the existence of links interconnecting local actors complemented by geographical dimensions constitute some of the main common points used to guide academics and policy makers with interesting by the competitive outcomes originating from clusters. Those characteristics have frequently been used as the starting point to understand the economic dynamics of clustered firms, putting emphasis on the levels of innovation and productivity emerging from the concentration of different actors in the same area. Suggesting conditional characteristics to the presence of competitive advantages obtained by firms inside clusters, Ketels (2004) considers that the positive economic effects originated from the geographical concentration will only take place if four critical characteristics are shared among firms and institutions: Proximity: they must be geographically close to allow the emergence of knowledge spillovers and to share the same common resources; Linkages: the necessity of similarities in their activities leading to the establishment of connections and synergies; Interactions: the social interactions developed among firms, clients, suppliers, research institutes, and so on, is what forms the social capital that becomes possible firms to achieve differentiated competitive performances; Critical mass: it is important to have a significant number of firms and institutions in order to create meaningful impacts on performance of the local actors. Those characteristics described by Ketels may be used to guide the identification and distinction between developed clusters (Pitelis, 2010) from incipient clusters (Schmitz, 1999) in order to dismiss some incorrect interpretations associated with the clusters dynamics. Considering that the presence of geographic concentration of firms in the same industry is strikingly common around the world (Porter, 1990, p.120), it is necessary the use of specific benchmarks to distinguish and classify different groups of firms geographically concentrated according to their specific characteristics (Gordon and McCann, 2000; Isbasoiu, 2006). Describing how the existence of local capabilities  [2]  create differentiated conditions for companies within real clusters, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) argue that clusters are essentially formed from path dependencies (Martin and Sunley, 2006), transaction costs economies (McCann and Sheppard, 2003) and small cognitive distances originating from spatial proximity (Maskell, 2001). Thus, that set of factors are expected to create a specific regional dynamics with influence on the firms economic performance. Taking into consideration the different stages of a cluster life cycle, and the misunderstandings related to the claims associated with the clusters and competitiveness, Schmitz points out that A group of small producers making the same or similar things in close vicinity to each other constitutes a cluster, but such concentration in itself brings few benefits (1999, p. 4), emphasizing that the mere presence of firms in a delimited area does not represent a source of value creat ion able to improve in a significant way the local economic performance. Following the arguments above, the differences between regional clusters and simple agglomerations (groups of firms) lie mainly on the interconnected nature and spatial proximity. Thus, clusters are characterized by intense collaborative networks and concentrations of collaboration and competition (co-opetitition) (Pitelis, 2010), conditions which offer significant opportunities and stimulate the emergence of regional competitive advantages (Steinle and Schiele, 2002). Complementarily, another critical characteristic observed within clusters is the diversity of actors. According to Porter (1990, 1998, 2000), an industrial cluster includes suppliers, consumers, related industries, governments, and supporting institutions such as universities. This way, the existence of a regional network formed by a significant group of interconnected local actors is one of the critical factors to understand the differentiated competitive performance of firms within clusters (Steinle and Schiele, 2002 ). Illustrating that argument, Saxenian (1994) observed that Hewlett Packard and other firms at the Silicon Valley had their performance improved by the development long-term partnerships with suppliers located geographically close. Moreover, based on that observation, Saxenian concluded that, especially in high-tech industries, the physical proximity represents a facilitator to the establishment of efficient collaborative arrangements required to create and manage complex products and services. 1.2 Evolutionary Stages of Industrial Clusters Despite the vast cluster literature, the number of academic works discussing the evolutionary patterns of clusters overtime is not so extensive. Some examples can be found in Pouder and John (1996), Klepper (2001, 2007), Wolter (2003) and Andersson et al., (2004), and despite the divergent perspectives, it is accepted that clusters follow a kind of life cycle comprised by different phases that significantly differ in their characteristics and influence on firms performance. Regarding the cluster dynamics, Pouder and John (1996) argue that comparative analysis between clustered and non-clustered firms during the industry life cycle reveal that firms within clusters outperform those geographically dispersed at the initial stages of development, and have a worse performance at its end. That fact suggests that the cluster life cycle is not just a local representation of the industry trajectory, but is a result from local peculiarities. The comparative analysis developed by Saxenian (1994 ) between the computer industry in Boston and Silicon Valley illustrates how different clusters belonging to the same industry are very likely to follow different trajectories (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). Proposing a different perspective, Klepper (2001, 2007) suggests a model to demonstrate how the clusters life cycle is determined by some the industry patterns. Klepper analyzed the automobile, tire and television industries and observed that at the beginning of the industry life cycle it was not possible to observe clear geographic concentrations of firms, with most of the firms spatially dispersed. He observed that in those industries clusters started to emerge and develop according to the industry growth rates. Klepper argues that the local characteristics originating from the spacial proximity (e.g., intensive spin-off process) give the stimulus for the geographic agglomeration of the whole industry, not only for specific groups. At the time the industry growth rate reduces, the attractiveness to remain agglomerated will also decrease and the industry will become dispersed again. That model proposed by Klepper represents a Technology-Product- Industry (TIP) life cycle. The logic behind this model is on the impact that the evolution of products and innovations has on the size, number, and location of firms. Wolter (2003) criticizes the model proposed by Klepper arguing that the growth rate cannot explain the agglomeration process in all industries on equal basis. Moreover, Wolter disagrees with the determinist perspective proposed by the TIP model, once it neglects that mature industries can be reinvented by radical or incremental innovations of new products and process. Analyzing the economic performance of firms within clusters Pouder and John (1996) attribute to the existence of mental models and biased cognitive focus the characteristics responsible for shaping the movement through the clusters life cycle. Following that perspective, at initial stages the cluster dynamics creates an innovative environment that exerts positive impacts on the firms performance. However, overtime that initial condition is eroded by strong institutional pressures that create a homogeneous macroculture that acts inhibiting the innovative capacity of the firms within the cluster. As in the model presented by Klepper (2001, 2007), that trajectory proposed by Pouder and John may also be criticized by the determinism that ignores the possibility of adaptations or reconfigurations in order to avoid lock-ins and other negative effects. Considering the arguments proposed by Menzel and Fornahl (2010, p. 8) that very few clusters follow a rigid life cycle from emergence to growth and decline, it is expected that clusters evolve overtime according to the local dynamics created by economic and social interactions among firms and institutions. That dynamics may be influenced, but not strictly determined by industry patterns (Wolter, 2003). Following a generic and stylized trajectory, within successful clusters the local network formed by inter-firm connections will tend to be intensified overtime, with an increasing number of formal and informal interactions between the long-established companies and new the ones attracted to the cluster. Even though it is more conceivable to assume that the decisions adopted by firms and institutions are shaped by specific circumstances, a generic trajectory can be described following the stages illustrated in Figure 1. Figure 1: The cluster life cycle C:UsersLucasAppDataLocalMicrosoftWindowsTemporary Internet FilesContent.WordSem tÃÆ' ­tulo.jpg Source: Andersson et al. (2004, p. 43) Agglomeration: It is possible to observe the existence of a number of companies and other actors (e.g. banks, government agencies, universities, accountants, and lawyers offices) in a specific region working around the same or interrelated activities. Emerging cluster: Forming the embryo to the cluster some actors start to cooperation around some core activities, and start to realize the existence of common linkages. Developing cluster: The linkages are intensified by the emergence and attraction of new actors to the region, resulting in the creation of more interaction. In this context the development of inter-firm-cooperation becomes more evident through the development of joint efforts. The Mature cluster: This stage is configured by the presence of a certain critical mass of factors that consistently influence the competitive performance of the firms inside the cluster. The internal dynamics is characterized by the presence of an institutional environment, strong linkages, complementarities and the emergence of new firms through startups, joint ventures and spin-offs. Transformation: Indeed the process of continuous environmental change in markets, technologies, regulations and other process, to be successful a cluster have to innovate and adapt to these new conditions, other way stagnation and decay may affect the cluster dynamics. That process of change/adaptation may happen through the emergence of one or several interconnected clusters with focus in other activities, or by new configuration in terms of networks of firms and institutions. The presence of economic benefits for clustered firms described by authors like Schmitz and Nadvi (1999), Ketels (2004), Isbasoiu (2006) and Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) are closely related to the stage of development that a cluster is experiencing. For example, an emerging cluster is not actually a cluster, since the small number of firms is not expected to present a high level of linkages and do not form a critical mass. Moreover, the absence of strong interdependencies such as labour mobility, spin-off, socioeconomic networks and intense exchange of good and services prevent the emergence of local capabilities. Thus, same considering that this stage constitutes the embryo that determines the future cluster orientation, at this point the firms are not expected to be strongly influenced by a complex local dynamics. Observing that fact, Menzel and Fornahl (2010) present a skeptical position regarding the effectiveness of any competitiveness policy intended to stimulate the development of clusters at initial stages (agglomeration and emerging), since the existence of horizontal and vertical links among firms concentrated in the same region constitutes a very common fact around the world. Thus, it is almost impossible to distinguish agglomerations with real potential to become a cluster from less complex structures. Consequently, emerging clusters are almost always only described ex-post. After the initial stages of the clusters life cycle it is expected the development and intensification of interdependencies between firms within cluster boundaries (Press, 2006). Indeed the development of those interdependencies, firms start to resemble more with each other, being observe the emergence of convergent designs in terms of technological models (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010), specialized labour market (Cooke et al., 2007), production systems (Pitelis, 2010) and inter-firm relationships (Blien and Maier, 2008). Moreover, developing clusters also attract a high number of start-ups that act stimulating the intensification of intra-cluster relationships. This way, that process of convergence and expansion of the number of firms within the cluster boundaries culminates in the development of self-reinforcing external economies that decrease the heterogeneity among firms at the same time that creates benefits like transactions cost economies and the privileged access to local knowle dge. As clusters reach the stage of maturity, the standards and configurations originating from past decisions become consolidate and it is observed a reduction in the growth rate of firms attracted to the cluster (Klepper, 2007). At this point the cluster trajectory may take two different directions. Keep unchanged, and suffer with a homogenization process that creates bias economic activities and therefore prevent firms to adapt to external shocks (Menzel and Fornahl, 2010). That situation traps firms in previous successful development path and lead to the geographic dispersion of the local actors and to the deterioration of the interdependencies and capabilities. The other possible trajectory is observed in clusters that reach the stage of maturity and successfully sustain the local dynamics by a continuous process of reconfiguration and adaptation to the external shocks (Wolter, 2003). 1.2 Clusters and Economic Performance The extant theory offers a wide range of explanations to justify the economic and competitive benefits experienced by firms located within clusters. Krugman (1991) stress the existence of increasing returns originating from the concentration of firms in the same area, arguing that the geographic proximity puts together the main parts related to firms activities (e.g., labours, firms, suppliers and costumers) resulting in transaction costs economies. Following other perspective, Schmitz and Nadvi (1999) argue that unintentional external economies are not sufficient to explain the competitiveness of firms located within clusters, attributing to the existence of deliberate joint actions (e.g., sharing equipments, associations, strategic alliances and producers improving components) a critical source of the competitive advantages. Pitelis and Pseiridis (2006) explain the levels of competitiveness and productivity associated with clustered firms considering the existence of specialized hu man resources, infrastructure and befits associated with unit costs economies complemented by the presence of an institutional atmosphere. Stressing a different point of view, Bahlmann and Huysman (2008) adopts the knowledge-based view of clusters to emphasize the relevance of knowledge spillovers among the firms to explain the advantages originated from the agglomeration process. Dupuy and Torre (2006) explains the existence of cluster in terms of the advantages originating from trust relationships that increase confidence and reduce risk and uncertainty about the intra-cluster operations taking place among the firms. Moreover, Zyglidopoulos et al. (2003), describe the positive effects that the reputation of a cluster may exert on the internalization process of small and micro enterprises through the alleviation of strategic constraints associated with factors like qualified work force, financing and reduction of the firms legitimation expenses. Despite that wide range of arguments, the most traditional perspective found in the cluster literature has explained the competitive advantages of clusters in terms of productivity and innovation (Pitelis, 1998; Porter, 1998), suggesting that the special characteristics originated from the economic and geographic proximity have significant impact on those two factors. Supplementary, Enright (1998) considers that the characteristics present inside the clusters local environment result in pressures, incentives and capabilities that increase the firms competitiveness comparatively to dispersed competitors, explaining the clustering process in terms of geographically restricted characteristics. Moreover, Solvell et al. (2003) suggests that the competitive advantages emerging from regional clusters may be classified as static and dynamics. According to this perspective, while the agglomeration process triggered and sustained intensively or exclusively by factors like natural resources, low cost labors and government subsidies offers a vulnerable (easy to be copied, substituted or simple eroded by environmental changes) competitive position, clusters based on dynamics characteristics like multi-sectorial externalities, advantages of scale and scope and specific knowledge spillovers are more dynamics and competitive. Extending the arguments presented by Solvell and his colleagues, Andersson et al. (2004) considers that the sustainability of static and dynamic competitive advantages is not strictly determined, arguing that static factors are the main responsible for the emergence of clusters, while the dynamics factors are only developed along the different stages of the cluste r life cycle. Complementing the understanding about the influence of the cluster dynamics on the firms economic performance some authors like Porter (2001); Garnsey and Heffernan (2007); Karlsson (2008) and Mason (2008) describe the existence of a self-reinforcing process originating from the agglomeration externalities that contribute to create a regional virtuous-circle of increasing productivity, competitiveness and value creation. Following that argument, the economic and geographic proximity will stimulate firms to innovate more indeed benefits originating from local capabilities, which will stimulate even more the agglomeration process through the intensification of inter-firm relationships and the attraction of other firms from outside the cluster, which in turn will strength the local capabilities (Blandy, 2003, p. 101). Thus, the dynamics of clusters is expected to be self-reinforced by agglomeration benefits with significant influence on the firms performance. Putting together the arguments associated with the economic impacts experienced by clustered firms indeed the existence of local factors, it is possible to identify and describe the following positive location-specific externalities: Cost savings indeed the geographic proximity with specialized suppliers, labours and distributors; Knowledge-spillovers (intentional and unintentional), since firms inside clusters can benefit from the knowledge dissemination process that may take place especially through inter-firm cooperation, specific linkages and labour mobility; Deliberate joint actions facilitated by the engagement in alliances and partnerships to achieve strategic objectives; Trust relationships, that through the geographic and economic proximity minimize the uncertainty associated with commercial operations, resulting in transactions costs economies; Pressures for higher performance, stimulated by the proximity with competitors; Specific Infrastructure and public goods that are oriented to attend the cluster demands, like roads, ports, laboratories and telecommunication networks; Complementarities, associated with firms in different activities but sharing common factors like raw material, clients and technologies that may enhance the cluster efficiency as whole. Discussing the role of regional clusters in shaping competitive patterns, Tallman et al. (2004) proposes a distinction between the types of competitive advantages emerging from clustered firms: based on traded interdependencies and based on untraded interdependencies. The concept of traded interdependencies is related to the existence of inter-firm transactions inside the cluster, and is observed in formal exchange operations that may take place in form of alliances, commercial operations and acquisitions. On the other hand, untraded interdependencies are related to less tangible effects, and are based on shared knowledge for which no market mechanism exists; with no formal exchange of value for value (Tallman et al. 2004, p. 261). To illustrate the mechanisms by which the untraded interdependencies take place, it is possible to mention unintentional external economies associated with tacit knowledge shared through mechanisms like labor mobility. Those different types of interdependencies, especially untraded, present at the cluster level, represent a source of competitive advantage that is likely to be causal ambiguous (for firms inside and outside the cluster) and high complex in terms of their origins, what consequently constitutes attributes difficult to be replicated by competitors. However, the presence of untraded effects, especially unintentional knowledge spillovers, is viewed Enright (1998) as a constraining factor for firms within clusters, since the establishment of an efficient information flow may limit the firms capacity to obtain monopoly profits from the development of innovations. Complementing the negative effects originating from the clusters dynamics, some authors also describe agglomeration diseconomies that have a negative impact firms located within clusters. For example, congestion effects (Arthur, 1990), institutional sclerosis (Pouder and John, 1996; Pitelis, 2010), rigidities associated with labour mobility and natural resources (Krugman, 1989) and pollution (Fan and Scott, 2003). This way, the dynamics and performance of a cluster is determined by the interplay between positive and negative externalities observed during the different stages of development that a cluster is expected to pass overtime (Wolter, 2003) Limitations in the Cluster Theory Notwithstanding the advances in the cluster theory some questions still remain insufficiently explored. One of the main limitations observed in the current state of the cluster literature is the lack of comparative perspectives to explain the advantages and disadvantages of clusters relatively to other alternative models of organization of economic activities. In his very novel approach, Pitelis (2010) suggests that any perspective trying to explain clusters in terms of absolute advantages is at the very best incomplete. In this context, Pitelis proposes the comparison of clusters vis-ÃÆ'  -vis to markets and hierarchies in order to understand the reasons and conditions that lead firms to engage in intra-clusters relationships, market operations (outside the cluster) or integrate within the firms hierarchy. In fact it is not necessary a great effort to conclude that most of the cluster theory has been developed following a mono-institutional approach (e.g. Porter, 1990, 1998; Saxe nian, 1994; Rosenfeld, 1998; Swann and Sennett, 1998; Schmitz and Nadvi, 1999), while some few exceptions concentrated on transactions costs (e.g. Fujita and Thisse, 1996; Iammarino and McCann, 2006; Takeda et al., 2008) and knowledge creation efficiency (e.g. Hendry et al., 2000; Tracey and Clark, 2003; Reinau, 2007; Kongmanila and Takahashi, 2009) have been drawn on a comparative approaches between clusters and open-market operations. Assuming the arguments proposed by many scholars that clusters are engines of innovation (Davis, 2006, p. 32), the lack of comparative perspectives do not answer the question why clusters are more efficient than markets or the hierarchy to improve the firms innovative capacity (Pitelis, 2010). Thus, despite the wide number of ramifications observed in the cluster theory such as innovative efficiency, productivity, social capital and social interactions, its explicative power remains almost always restricted

Present and Discuss the Views submitted by Socrates and Thrasymachius i

In the first book of the Republic Socrates and Thrasymachus argue about the nature of justice. Thrasymachus claims that justice is the advantage of the stronger. He also claims that Socrates’ arguments against that position stem from a naive set of beliefs about the real intentions of rulers, and an uncritical approach to the way words acquire their meaning. Present the arguments on both sides. Who do you think is right? Justify your position. In the first book of the Republic Plato orchestrates a dialogue between his teacher Socrates and one of his peers Thrasymachus in order to demonstrate the desirable nature of justice. In this essay I shall present Thrasymachus argument that justice is a tool of oppression wielded by the strong over the weak, whereas injustice provides a happy and fulfilled existence, and Socrates notion that justice is a desirable commodity and characteristic that benefits all individuals and is the only way to achieve any common goal. I believe that both philosophers have elements of truth in their arguments, however in the essay I intend to show that it is not possible to agree entirely with either party because of the underlying premise of their argument. I shall demonstrate that neither party has a correct view because they base their arguments on examples whose essence is incompatible with the concept of justice, and refute their claims due to the obvious fallacy of arguing two extremes when con sidering human nature. In the first book of the Republic, Thrasymachus states that justice is not desirable. He describes human behaviour as fundamentally self-interested, and states that justice is ‘an advantage of the stronger’ employed to suppress ‘the weaker’ . He submits the view that injustice is therefore preferable in relation to politics and to common living. Thrasymachus postulates that it is right and just to obey the rules of the state created by the ruling power, but that the ruling power will be making rules that benefit themselves. He supports his claim that the ruling power capitalise upon the weaker party by drawing a parallel between the profession of government and the profession of sheep herding: ‘The shepherd and the herdsman study the good of their flock and herds (for) the good of their masters and themselves’ . He considers that rulers rule with the objective of procuring some profit from them. On a basic level ... ... is in favour of ‘the weaker party’ and is a position of strength that provides a more fulfilling life. However, both arguments attempt to provide an explanation for the nature of justice without defining it and base their arguments on tangible concepts such as crafts and professions in order to give weight to their beliefs. Without a definition of the subject we cannot make a concrete comparison as it is unrealistic to try to prove that the nature of justice is the same as the nature of medicine. In addition, both arguments endeavour to confine human nature to extremes, just and unjust, knowledgeable and ignorant, and good and bad, without acknowledging the depth of the human experience and intermediate levels that we have. The conclusions of these arguments are incongruous with human nature and when we speak of justice, we are trying to define a concept that has distinct links with human nature. Therefore, I cannot say that either of the positions is ‘rightâ €™ as neither acknowledge my nature and have attempted to justify that justice is a commodity to desire or expel without explicating justice itself. Word Count: 2120 Bibliography Plato, The Republic, (Penguin Books, 2003)

Letter to Soldier :: War Writing Papers

Letter to Soldier When faced with obstacles in life, people rely on their family and friends to give them support and encouragement. Sometimes, family members can seem harsh and unkind, but their intentions are sincerely good. Mothers will always disapprove of their son’s choice in girlfriends, but she will shed tears of joy at the wedding. Fathers will never like their sons-in-law, but they still tell their daughters that they will find the perfect man. Thirty-year old men will always be treated as if they were ten by their mothers. It has been this way for centuries in our society. A letter from a worried mother to her son, a soldier in the Confederate Army, proved this point. While this young man was, by that time’s standard, an adult, his mother still felt the need to keep her child safe. Aside from the content and ideas relayed in the letter, the document itself is a powerful item from American in history. Reading about a person or event in history is a good experience; a powerful experience, however, is to hold history in your hand and listen to people in their own words. Discovering the story and history behind this letter proved to be even more rewarding than holding and reading the letter itself. Expecting to find a few, uninteresting facts about this Civil War Era, I found that this letter brought to life five southern boys that were thrown off the farm and into battle. The letter also helps to illuminate the way a society lived while it told a story of a mother, her sons, and several friends On January 6, 1863, a mother sat down and wrote her son a letter. The author of the letter was a forty-five year old woman named Kerney A. Stocks. She was writing to her son, John, who was a soldier in the Civil War. From what she mentioned in the letter, she was a very passionate woman. She made some very blatant remarks concerning her feelings toward her son’s behavior. For example, Mrs. Stocks says, â€Å"I feel [sort of] mad this morning because I did not get no letter from you yesterday,† expressing her displeasure to her son. Kerney Stocks was more than likely a middle class woman, since she could read and write.

Multiculturalism in Mother Tongue, Memorial Day and Multiculturalism, a

Multiculturalism in Mother Tongue, Memorial Day and Multiculturalism, and College Writing      Ã‚  Ã‚   As an American it is very important to understand the different concepts of assimilation and multiculturalism. It is these terms that differ one person from everybody else in some kind of way. Multiculturalism is a term that is just what it sounds like. It is including several cultures. According to the American Heritage dictionary, multiculturalism is " a social or educational theory or program that encourages interest in many cultures within a society rather than in only one mainstream culture. " Assimilation is the exact opposite of what multiculturalism is. Assimilation is described to be where " a minority group gradually adopts the customs and attitudes of the prevailing culture. " So how does one decide whether to believe in assimilation or multiculturalism? Well the truth to that question is that there really is no direct correct belief. It all depends on the person. On how their past was like, who their parents are and where they came from. Some of the greater issues that come up when talking about assimilation versus multiculturalism are language, literacy, power, and difference in American culture. Amy Tan's reading titled " Mother Tongue ", Thomas Bray's " Memorial Day and multiculturalism ", and Maxine Hairston's " College Writing " readings are amongst one of the most appropriate in addressing the issues of multiculturalism and assimilation. One of the greatest differences in American culture right now is language. This is because people come from all sorts of different countries into America and only know how to speak their own native language. Many people come over to America to work here... ...most people in American have come together to form a part of assimilation; however not to it's fullest. Although people are proud to keep their American culture and initiate with it as much as possible, I feel that people must not forget their own personal heritage from where they were born. The Idea of assimilation for me is just as important as multiculturalism. I will be just as proud to learn and follow in the English language, as I will be to remember all that I have been taught about my Russian culture.    Works Cited: Bray Thomas. " Memorial Day and Multiculturalism, " Detroit News 24 May 1998 Tan Amy. " Mother Tongue. " Border text: cultural reading for contemporary writers Ed. Randal Bass. Boston: Houghton- Mifflin, 1999 Hairston Maxine. " College Writing ." College Composition and Communication 43.2. University of Texas, 1992  

Effective Team and Performance Management Essay

Effective Team and Performance Management Introduction            This is a report on the case study on team performance management of Electric Company. The report will borrow on theory and practice of both leadership and team management in order to explain the need for organisations to employ the use of employee teams which is a strategy designed to improve the performance of the employees. The report will begin with an introduction of the organisation in the case study and then proceed to the aims and objectives of the report. This will be followed by a discussion of the theories that have been used to describe team performance as well as the substitution of leaders by the teams. In this section, an empirical review on these theories will also be carried out. Finally, the conclusions and recommendations will be presented.            Electron, is a small manufacturing company that deals with the manufacture of telecommunications components. The company was established in 1997 and its headquarters is in the North of England. It should be noted that 90 out of 150 employees working at the headquarters work in the manufacturing department. The company operates using the traditional organisation structure divided into various departments such as manufacturing, finance, human resource, sales and marketing and engineering departments. The management of the company decided to group the employees in the manufacturing department into 8 teams each consisting of 10 employees in order to increase their efficiency in terms of the quality and the quantity of work done. The management of the company wanted to establish whether the teams would perform better as compared to when employees were working individually. This report therefore aims to evaluate the performance of the selected teams borrowing heavily on theory and empirical evidence to determine the appropriateness of dividing employees into teams. the report will also rely heavily on the relevant work of other researchers and academicians. The report will also make conclusions on the performance of teams as well as make recommendations on what the best practices are on employee team performance (Mueller, Procter & Buchanan, 2000).            Team PerformanceIn today’s organisations, employees are increasingly being allocated to work groups as part of the strategy to increase their efficiency and output. This is also being done in order to ensure that employees work together in a more effective way and are able to exploit their potential to grow and develop in an optimal way. These work groups are normally designed such that the employees are working together on some common activities in manner that is co-ordinated and in most occasions, these activities cannot be carried out successfully through individual effort alone. In such a case where employees are working together in group for a common goal, this is normally referred to as team work and the groups are normally referred to as teams. It should be noted that in an organisation setting, managers or supervisors can form employee teams on a temporary or permanent basis and the compositions of these teams varies with the purpose for which the te am is created in the first place. This means that there are teams that will constitute of employees from the same department while there are teams which will be made up of employees from across the various departments of the organisation. There are various attributes that will determine whether a team is successful in its activities; however, of a lot of importance is the support from senior management, training and development as well as the devotion and dedication of team members in the execution of their duties (Parker, 1990).            Teams and leadershipTeams are today required to take care of a lot of the duties that were previously assigned to supervisors and therefore various scholars and academicians have made suggestions that teams have come to be substitutes of leadership in organisations of the 21st century. They also argue that as a result of this change, supervisors on the other hand have also evolved from being foremen to mere facilitators of the activities of the team members (Huusko, 2006). In practice therefore, in a situation where the organisation employees are divided into teams, the number of supervisors greatly reduce since the hierarchical structure of the organisation is lowered and the organisation adopts a more flat organisation structure. This therefore means that the role of leadership in the organisation is faced with a new challenging situation where they no longer have a clearly laid down way of operating as their duties have been taken over by the new teams.            There are various theories that have attempted to explain the idea of the substitution of leadership and an example of such is the idea that deals with the idea of moderators that are known to influence the actions of leaders and leaders’ substitutes in different ways. The idea suggests that most of the current arrangements evident in organisations today such as teams, management from a distance and others have various effects on the roles of leaders in the organisation and can either support them or substitute them and even reduce the impact that leaders have on the employees of the organisation. This can occur in a case where the management and the employees are separated by a long distance and may therefore not understand the instructions given to them by their supervisors if proper communication channels have not been established. Researchers on leadership substitutes have also brought a legal angle into the discussion where they argue that employees may receive the needed guidance or instructions from their supervisors but take it for granted that the information comes from the supervisors as they are the primary suppliers of such information in the organisational structure (Howell et al., 1990).            In the case of Electric Company, it is evident that the older team members were given the responsibility of ensuring that the new team members understood the norms of the team and that they obeyed the rules of the team as well as ensure that they were fully and successfully integrated into the value based social order. This therefore means that the role of supervisors and other leadership persons in the organisation was taken over by the older members of the teams indicating that there was a substitution of leadership roles by the teams. This has been clearly supported by both the theories above and the empirical evidence.            Another theory that explains the substitution of leadership by team members is the theory of functional leadership. Researchers have used this leadership perspective to argue that effective team leaders are normally able to follow the activities of their team members and also normally take over any leadership roles in the team at any time when there is need for such an action (Zaccaro, Rittman, & Marks, 2001). This means that a team leader’s primary responsibility in the organisation is to plan the activities of the team and to continuously follow the activities of the team members as well as to determine the functions that are not being carried out in the right way and those that are missing in order to either perform the duties themselves or ensure that team members are made aware of them and directed to carry them out. The functional leadership theory is based on the premise that certain team circumstances normally drive the actions of the team members as well as the team leaders and they therefore call for some leadership activities to be adopted by the team leaders. This means that once the team leaders adopt these jobs then the leaders are left with no duties and therefore become useless in the organisational structure (Zaccaro, 2002).            In most organisations therefore, this theory suggests that leadership behaviours become irrelevant and ineffective in guiding the actions of the teams and therefore the success of teams does not require the involvement of leaders but the guidance of the team leaders and the dedication of the team members. The argument by this theory is therefore in line with the contingency theories of leadership which suggest that leadership effectiveness is normally influenced by the context of leadership, the situation facing the leader at a particular time as well as the organisational conditions at specific times (House, 1971). This means that the characteristics and behaviours of the team members and the team leaders are able to take the place of leadership processes thereby substituting the role of leadership in the organisation. This moves the focus of leadership functions from the person or individual leader to the functions of leadership and extends the idea that leadersh ip functions can be found from other sources other than the organisational leaders themselves.            This is the situation that was experienced by the employees at Electron Company when new members were introduced into the teams. the old team members who were already aware of the values and norms of their teams naturally assumed leadership roles and guided the new members to understand and identify with these team values as they best as they could as this is what drove the dedication of team members in general as well as the performance of the team as compared to the other teams. The result was that the older team members were exerting control over the actions of the new team members and therefore the new team members saw the need to follow the laid down values of the team. This led to a situation where the new team members also started controlling themselves in terms of their actions and behaviour towards work and other team members (Kerr & Jermier, 1978). This therefore made it possible for the values and norms of the teams to be translated into simple rules and regulations that all new employees could understand easily and therefore fit into their assigned teams with ease. The assumption of the responsibility of guiding the new team members by the old team members therefore substituted the need for leadership in the management of the company.            The new way of carrying out duties amongst the team members resulted in a situation where the common values and norms of the team members were gradually turned into properly laid down rules and regulation and it was the responsibility of each team member to follow them in order to effectively contribute to the success of the organisation at large. This therefore means that team members were no longer acting on the instructions of the team leaders but their actions were being guided by the rules and regulations that they had set up themselves. Team members found it easy to follow these rules and regulations as they had played a part in their making and therefore felt more comfortable following hem unlike in a case where these rules had been established by the management of the company without their involvement in any way. Team members found it hard not to follow the rules because of the peer pressure that they experienced from other team members and due to the fact that the rules were such that failure to follow them would lead to punitive actions against the team member. Employee effectiveness was therefore ensured through peer pressure and the fact that older members were very keen to avoid a situation where they could be seen as being too harsh to the new employees. They therefore ensured that they carried out their duties according to the laid down procedures and therefore the new team members were left with no option but to adapt to the situation and follow the actions of the older ones. This situation effectively removed the need for leadership individuals in the structure as the team members were able to control them and ensure that all employees worked for the greater good of the company (Kerr & Jermier, 1978).            Determinants of team performanceResearchers have argued that although most employee groups can be referred to as teams, it should be noted that there are several major differences that distinguish groups and teams and these are very important for anyone to understand in order not to make the mistake of confusing the two. In most cases, groups are normally made up of people who meet through the fact that they share a common interest such as past time activity or sport while a team on the other hand can still be made up of people who share a common interest but the major reason for their being in the same team is the fact that they have complimentary abilities or qualities. This means that for a team to succeed in what they do, they have to work together and combine their efforts and skills otherwise they will just be working as individuals. The main advantage of teams is that they have the energy and the power needed to complete particular tasks and activities which would have been impossible if there was no team in the first place and an individual was carrying out the task by their own. It has been argued that although each member of the team has some unique abilities or skills, they cannot be able to use them and succeed in the execution of the task if they are working alone and therefore they must be in the team for their efforts to count in the execution of the task or activity (Guzzo & Dickson, 1996).            Researchers have also argued that one of the important factors that determine the way people conduct themselves when they are in a team is self-awareness. In today’s business setting, most organisations, through the use of human resource development professionals as well as consultants, have developed various tests that are designed to help employees more self-aware thereby improving their understanding of themselves and what motivates them to act in particular ways. Researchers have however noted that the results of the assessments normally rely on the individual employee’s self-reporting and therefore the outcome of the tests may not be objective in nature and in most cases they are always positive as it is human nature not to say anything negative about oneself. The reason for this is that human beings are known to agree with their personal thoughts. Researchers therefore suggests that employees may fake their personal abilities and they may also b e unrealistic in the way they view themselves and therefore the opinion of others about our abilities or attributes may be disregarded when assuming team roles. This means that the performance of the team may be adversely affected if only an individual’s opinion is considered when assigning team roles (Belbin, 1981).            Various researchers such as Salas, Cooke, & Rosen, (2008) and Cohen & Bailey (1997) have empirically examined the issue of team performance. Traditionally, the effectiveness of a team has been measured by researchers and academicians either through the use of unidimensional models of effectiveness such as real productivity of the team and the objective measurement of team performance or through the use of multidimensional models which normally adopt a wider spectrum of measures other than productivity. These other measures could be the attitude of the members of the team, their behaviour and their levels of job satisfaction (Pina, Martinez, & Martinez, 2008). Empirical research has also revealed that there are three most common measurements that are used to measure team effectiveness and these are performance effectiveness measured in terms of the quality and quantity of the team output, the attitude of the team members measured in terms of level of trust and level of job satisfaction and finally the behavioural outcomes of team members measure in terms of employee turnover and the level of absenteeism among the team members. Researchers however point out that the three measures are used in varying degrees in each team and the degree of usage in a specific team will be influenced by the type of activities that the team engages in (Pina et al., 2008).            ConclusionsThe evaluation of the theories and empirical literature carried out above regarding substitution of leadership functions by the use of teams in organisations shows that it is clear that the future of organisations is towards the establishment of employee teams in the quest for much more concentrated efforts in delivering efficient services and in ensuring that employees are able to maximise their growth and development potential within the organisations. It is clear that using teams in organisations leads to a situation where team members tend to come up with their own norms and values that guide their actions and behaviours and these values and norms finally end up being translated into laws and regulations that all employees in the team can clearly understand and are expected to follow without being reminded by the leaders in the organisation (Mullen, et al., 1994). The emergence of these rules laid down by the team members themselves lead to a situati on where all members of the team know their exact duties and roles in the team and therefore carry out their duties without the need for supervision. This situation has effectively reduced the need for leaders in the organisation as their roles have been slowly eroded by the activities of these teams. This is exactly what happened in the case of Electric Company where the rules that were established by team members took the place of supervisors in guiding the actions of employees. These teams also influence the performance of individual employees and it has been established that individuals in teams tend to perform much better than if they were working individually.            RecommendationsFollowing the discussion above and the conclusions that have been made regarding the role of teams in the organisations and how their performance can be measured and improved, there are various recommendations to the management of companies that will lead to the better performance of teams and the organisations in general. The management of Electric Company should develop a human resource development program aimed at training the team leaders on the formal decision making process and other managerial roles in order to ensure that they are more effective in guiding their team members to better performance. The management of the company should also ensure that selection and assignment of employees to different teams should take into account the individual skills and abilities of the employees in order to ensure that they contribute to the well-being of the organisation through improved performance. Finally, employees themselves should ensure that they follow the laid down team rules and regulations and therefore ensure that they carry out their team roles without being reminded as their individual actions are what will lead to the success of the entire team. It is therefore important for organisations to consider developing various teams among their employees as this will lead to better performance and may also lead to lower costs incurred to maintain supervisors and other leaders in the organisation. References Belbin R. M. (1981) Management Teams: Why they succeed or fail. London, Butterworth-Heinemann.Guzzo, R. A., & Dickson, M. W. (1996). Teams in organizations: Recent research on performance and effectiveness. Annual Review of Psychology, 47, 307–338. House, R. J. (1971). A path-goal theory of leader effectiveness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 15, 321–338. Howell, J.P., Bowen, D.E., Dorfman, P.W., Kerr, S. & Podsakoff, P.M. (1990), Substitutes for leadership: effective alternatives to ineffective leadership, Organizational Dynamics, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 20-38. Huusko, L. (2006), The lack of skills: an obstacle in teamwork, Team Performance Management: An International Journal, Vol. 12 Nos 1/2, pp. 5-16. Kerr, S., & Jermier, J. M. (1978). Substitutes for leadership: Their meaning and measurement, Organizational Behaviour and Human Performance, vol. 22 no.3, pp. 375–403. Mueller, F., Procter, S. & Buchanan, D. (2000), Teamworking in its context(s): antecedents, nature and dimensions, Human Relations, Vol. 53 No. 11, pp. 1387-424. Parker, G. M. (1990). Team Players and Teamwork: The New Competitive Business Strategy. Oxford: Jossey-Bass Zaccaro, S. J. (2002). Organizational leadership and social intelligence. In R. E. Riggio, S. E. Murphy, & F. J. Pirozzolo (Eds.), Multiple intelligences and leadership (pp. 29–54). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Zaccaro, S. J., Rittman, A. L., & Marks, M. A. (2001). Team leadership. Leadership Quarterly, 12, 451–483. Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290. Salas, E., Cooke, N. J., & Rosen, M. A. (2008). On teams, teamwork, and team performance: Discoveries and development. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 50(3), 540–547. Pina, M. I. D., Martinez, A. M. R., & Martinez, L. G. (2008). Teams in organizations: A review on team effectiveness. Team Performance Management, 14(1/2), 7–21. Mullen, B., Anthony, T., Salas, E., & Driskell, J. E. (1994). Group cohesiveness and quality of decision making: An integration of tests of the groupthink hypothesis. Small Group Research, 25(2), 189–204. Source document

What made Delaney’s play dramatic for its audience?

A Taste of Honey was first produced at London's Royal Court Theatre in 1958. Britain in the 1950's was much different than it is now. During the 1950's single parents were a tiny minority of the population. Couples who were living together without getting married would have been condemned by society . Male homosexuality were a criminal offence and it was generally not safe for homosexuals to appear in public. Statistics show that in 1958 approximately 1 in 100 marriages ended in divorce compared to 1995 when approximately 1 in 3 marriages ended in divorce. Also in 1958 there were black communities in the United Kingdom in London, Bristol, Cardiff and Liverpool but they were not common elsewhere. In the 1990's approximately 1 in 20 British citizens is of African, Asian of Caribbean origin. The play A Taste of Honey explores all of the above themes which at the time in 1958 were controversial. The play confronts a range of social issues such as single motherhood, black and white, gay and straight and class. These issues are discussed in a frank manner and from a female point of view both of which were unusual for Britain in the 1950's. During the 1950's. The country was deeply religious quite unlike the Britain of today. During the 1950's the theatre going audience would largely have been made up of the upper classes. A favourite show at that time was â€Å"My Fair Lady† which is a play about a girl named Eliza Do-Little who is taught how to become a â€Å"proper â€Å"Lady. It would only have been in very rare circumstances that the working classes would have attended. To see a play of this nature covering such unsavoury topics would have shocked the middle class audience. You can read also Audience Adaptation Paper Although they were aware of the above issues it was unlikely that the average theatre going audience at that time would have had any direct contact with the themes covered. To see a play that was to display such a rollercoaster of emotions would have been quite dramatic in itself. A quote from Deuteronomy 5-6-21 â€Å"You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the lord will not forgive anyone who misuses his name â€Å"Throughout the play Helen and Peter often use blasphemous phrases when angry, which is something that the middle class audience would have found shocking. An example of this is where Peter says â€Å"God! We've got a founder member of the Lord's Day Observance Society here. † Another example is where Helen is speaking to Jo and Helen shouts â€Å"For God's sake shut up! Close your mouth for five minutes. â€Å"The devil is also referred to which is another element that would have startled the audience, not only is the devil mentioned but he is mentioned in front of children. The play is written in a way very similar to that of a soap opera. It has a timeless quality and it would not be out of place if a scene appeared in a soap opera such as Coronation Street today. Coronation Street first appeared in the early 1960's. The play was written to portray the lives of the working class. It was written in a very honest way without the use of â€Å"rose coloured spectacles†. Originally the play was going to be a novel but after seeing a Terence Rattigan play Delaney became disillusioned as Rattigan did not seem to be writing about the sort of places and people that she knew in Salford. The theatre of the 1950's, seemed to describe † safe ,sheltered, cultured lives in charming surroundings and not life as the majority of ordinary people knew it. This was the lifestyle that was more familiar to the Middle Classes. There is irony in the title â€Å"A Taste of Honey† this implies that it is a taste of something sweet or something pleasant. The only real â€Å"sweet† thing throughout the play is the relationship between Boy and Jo. Like Coronation Street the play is set in Salford in the North of England close to Manchester. As previously stated the play is set in a shabby, uncomfortable flat in a poor part of Manchester in Northern England. When Peter first visits the flat he asks â€Å"What on earth made you choose such a ghastly district? † Peter goes on to say â€Å"Nobody could live in a place like this† Jo replies â€Å"Only about a thousand people. Later on he is desperate to leave the flat and says â€Å"Those bloody little street kids have probably pulled the car to pieces by now†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦. † â€Å"I just want to get the hell out of this black hole of Calcutta. † The above quotes give some insight into Peter's status simply by the fact that he owns a car as this would have been out of reach of most working class people. There is also a hint that Peter is racist with his comment about Calcutta. The middle class audience may have found this element of Peter amusing as they realised that they had more in common with Peter than the other characters. Today such a reference would be totally unacceptable. At this time in Manchester, following a gradual recovery from the war there were many buildings and homes that were sub standard needing urgent modernisation. Often there would be several families sharing the same latrine and bathing facilities. On occasions there would be no bathing facilities at all and a trip to the public baths would be the only place that a bath could be taken. This lack of facilities would have been unheard of amongst the upper classes. Over a period of time these buildings were upgraded or knocked down. This was referred to as slum clearance. A perfectly acceptable phrase then but now more pleasantly referred to as urban regeneration. The focus of the play is on Helen and Jo mother and daughter, their problems and their attempts to cope with life. The act opens with them in the process of moving into their new flat. The flat is in very poor condition cold and damp. Helen has a cold but despite this she is still able to bicker constantly with her daughter. The conversation is like verbal sparring. They bicker constantly over trivial matters such as making coffee or how often to bathe. It soon becomes clear that their relationship is one of ill concealed hostility. Jo does not call Helen mother or mum but refers to instead by her name Helen. The way in which Helen speaks to her daughter would be considered unacceptable today. â€Å"You stupid little devil† and â€Å"You silly little bitch â€Å". This language would have had even greater impact in the 1950's and was deliberately selected by the author to shock the middle class audience. Both Helen and Jo demean each other with comments such as Jo saying to Helen â€Å"You don't look forty. You look sort of well -preserved sixty† Each remark is rebuked and followed by a defensive comment. Helen is described as a crude semi- whore like and a drunk. She is barely forty and has been married and divorced, but her daughter Jo is the result of a brief fling . Peter, her latest conquest is a middle class, wealthy alcoholic womaniser. He is uncouth and racist. Peter often has a dirty tale to tell and is suggestive. He seems to have the manners that would normally be associated with the working class rather than the middle class. Jo attempts to improve their surroundings . Jo yearns for a real home and despite the dreadful condition of their new flat she attempts to give it a homely touch. She wants to plant bulbs and buy a new lampshade. It is the simple things in life that appeal to Jo. Jo is the result of a brief fling that has been raised in difficult circumstances . She has not had the benefit of one loving parent let alone two. There has been no father figure just a constant stream of Helen's boyfriends . This is illustrated when Jo says' you should have asked him to stay. It wouldn't be the first time I've been thrown out of my bed to make room for one of you is†¦ ‘ The fact that Helen is referred to as Helen by Jo reflects the lack of maternal feelings on Helen's behalf. The play at this point raises awareness amongst the middle classes about the plight of the single parent and I am sure that the audience though shocked at the reality would have some sympathy for both women although in different ways. Single parents would have been unheard of amongst the middle classes and if such a situation arose the female would have been forced into marriage to avoid a scandal. Jo is afraid of ‘darkness inside houses' which is an insight into the loneliness and fear that she feels as she is often left alone by her mother. The home is seen as a place of sanctuary, a place of warmth, comfort and love but this is not the case for Jo. Helen is not interested . in any of this she does not wish to make a home for Jo. She is very self centred and feels a bitterness towards Jo. When Jo tries to ask Helen for details about her father Helen replies ‘I didn't do it on purpose. How was I to know you'd materialize out of a little love affair that lasted five minutes? ‘ Jo accuses her mother of being indifferent and running away from her problems. Helen suffers from a lack of morals and does not think twice about leaving Jo unsupervised and alone. Jo displays a responsibility and maturity far beyond her years. Something that has always escaped her selfish immature mother. Nothing must stand in the way of her having a good time. It is clear that Peter had no idea that Helen had a daughter. Jo tries to ruin Helen's relationship with Peter in an attempt to keep her mother for herself. Jo is afraid of loosing her mother yet again. Jo eventually finds a boyfriend, â€Å"boy† He is a 23 year old black sailor. He is on leave over the Christmas period. He appears very casual but is sexually interested in Jo who is just fourteen but lies and tells boy that she is eighteen. Helen is yet again absent. Boy spends Christmas with Jo. Out of desperation and loneliness Jo is intimate with boy which in turn leads to a pregnancy. Although only fourteen she is not naive. She is fully aware that boy is only after ‘one thing ‘although professing to love her and is suspicious as to whether he will return. Boy leaves not knowing that Jo is pregnant. The themes that are explored here are those of underage sex which although fully aware went on the middle class audience would have been shocked to see it portrayed so vividly. Racism is also in evidence here. Simply because Jo's boyfriend is black, he is not worthy of a name and is referred to as boy. This is an example of how black people were thought of as the underclass and boy is often associated with the slave trade. Miscegenation was very much frowned upon by the upper classes. Increasingly lonely Jo invites Geoffrey, a gay man who she met at a fair to stay with her. The middle class audience are now confronted with homosexuality and although aware of its presence in their society. It would have been an activity that would have been conducted behind closed doors. They would not be used to having such a subject flaunted in public. Geoffrey flourishes in the role of caring for and protecting Jo. He cleans and helps with preparations for the birth of the baby. Geoffrey knows that because of his homosexuality this is probably the only chance he will ever have of being a father figure. Geoffrey knows also that he will never be able to have an openly gay relationship because it will be condemned by society and he will be the victim of abuse. Geoffrey and Jo get on well together in an attempt to be ‘normal. ‘ And fit in with an intolerant society. Geoffrey asks Jo to marry him. Jo is not in control of her emotions. She hates the idea of love and motherhood but at the same time is in need of someone to love her. Jo says to Geoffrey ‘You've got nice hands, hard. You know I used to try and hold my mother's hands but she always used to pull them away from me. So silly, really. She had so much love for everyone else but none for me. †She refers to Geoffrey as her big sister, and he is very tolerant of her mood swings. Geoffrey brings Helen back to visit Jo. She is very critical and hostile towards him. Peter arrives and is also very hostile towards Geoffrey. They make jokes about his homosexuality which reflects society attitude towards homosexuality. Peter says ‘Well, is anybody coming for a few drinks? You Staying with the ladies, Jezebel. Peter also refers to Geoffrey as Mary. Helen refers to him as ‘an arty little freak. ‘ In the final scene of the play Jo is in the latter stages of her pregnancy. Jo and Geoffrey are still getting along well. Jo does get upset at one point when Geoffrey buys her a baby doll to help her to learn how to look after the baby. It is a white doll not a black one. Jo threatens to kill the baby. Helen leaves Peter and returns to the flat. Peter has been chatting up a younger woman . Helen seems willing to help Jo and Geoffrey is driven out of the flat. Helen feels that Geoffrey has taken her place. Sadly this situation changes when Jo tells Helen that the father is black. It is at this point in the play that the father of Jo's baby is referred to as Jimmie rather than boy. Helen leaves the flat to go for a drink but the implication is that she may have left for good. Jo is left on her own, smiling but unaware that Geoffrey will not return. The characters in the play are depicted as honest and realistic and full of substance the play gave an accurate account of working class lives . Delaney wanted her characters to be resilient, not depressed by the harshness of their environment. They have to take everyday knocks in their stride . It would have been unusual in the 1950's for a black man and a homosexual man to be presented as natural characters and not placed in the play as freaks or to provide comedy. The comedy in this play comes from the characters themselves and the situations in which they find themselves. The play ends sadly for Jo who will once again be alone. She will however, have a child and something of her own to love. There is however, a positive note a new beginning, a new life . It creates a positive feeling for life. At last Boy has a name Jimmie. The play helps the audience realize that no matter what colour, or class, or sexuality we are all equal. The fact that the play ends with a song is uplifting. Throughout the play it was boy who made up these little songs and who sang them to her. The fact that she is singing a song as she is alone brings back memories of a time when she was happy. When life for her was sweet. It was a time when she had ‘A Taste of Honey' The themes explored in depth above of the class system, dysfunctional families, (a single mother with a child of dual heritage living with a homosexual male who is not related to her. Racism, homophobia, alcoholism, prostitution, dialogue, offensive language all contribute to the fact that Delaney's play was dramatic for its audience. The dialogue is witty sharp and unsentimental. The issues covered in the play are still fresh and anyone one of them could be headline news tomorrow. It portrays complex relationships which are constantly at the forefront in today 's society. Some critics actually saw Delaney's work as a protest against working class poverty and the hopelessness of a flawed social system. The play demanded attention and as a result the public began to change their attitude towards art and society. I think that the ending of the play is one of the most dramatic moments throughout. Jo is left on her own, waiting to give birth to a black child, which as discussed before was frowned upon in that time. This would be said to be a Hollywood ending as many of us believe that Hollywood endings are make believe, they are this to impress the audience as situations in this matter would not have happened, which leads us to think is it real? This then relates to a book â€Å"The Catcher in The Rye† because the book is about phoneys, although how it is all real and makes us think of the situation. This in relation to â€Å"a Taste Of honey† is quite similar, because although the ending is dramatic, situations like this happened in the 1950's and the fact Jo was abandoned because of her black child was not frowned upon, because it seemed like the right thing to do.