A blog that explores life and society. Mostly pieces on business, economics, arts and other interests. A place to showcase activities and explore ideas.
These organizations are not only meaningful institutions that advocate for essential democratic principles, but also provide enjoyable spaces to socialize, connect with others, and strengthen community ties. They often require a genuine commitment to democratic values as a condition of membership. For example, groups like AMVETS or the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) require military service by members or their immediate family, while others such as the Eagles or Elks may require a formal pledge or oath. In both cases, expressing a belief in core democratic principles is fundamental.
Civic participation strengthens our communities, supports the health of our nation, and even benefits our personal well-being. Civic Participation-OASH
One organization I admire—especially fitting for the Fourth of July—is AMVETS. Veterans and their families are welcome to join. Join AMVETS. There are others in San Diego and Escanaba that have a lot of value and you should consider exploring (Eagles and Elks are awesome!)
Happy 4th of July and Thank you veterans for all that you do for our society and communities.
Most businesses experience a life cycle that spans from inception to eventual decline. The five stages of the business life cycle illustrate this progression. The 5 Stages of a Business Life Cycle Extending a business's vitality requires strong leadership—people capable of rejuvenating the organization. This includes introducing fresh ideas, embracing new perspectives, applying sound financial judgment, and making strategic, evidence-based decisions.
The study referenced below reinforces the idea that CEO performance—and likely might be expanded to the performance of other executives—directly impacts organizational success. Sometimes, maintaining or improving firm performance may require leadership changes. It is ultimately the responsibility of the board and organizational leadership to assess capabilities and make decisions that ensure the highest quality individuals are in place.
When such behaviors are embedded within groups—especially those in positions of authority—where intent and influence converge, the potential for harm becomes significant. In our learning example, we explored a deeply embedded clan where some individuals had engaged in longstanding misconduct. Collusion to harm and enrich themselves seemed apparent, given the number of actors involved and the rumors circulated to justify group oriented aggression.
Despite numerous concerns raised by victims and citizens, the system—seemingly designed to appease the clan—responded not with accountability, but with a “wink and nod,” shielding and even rewarding the perpetrators. This allowed the capacity for future harm to remain intact and arguably increased the likelihood of continued abuse. That’s a serious concern if we expect our systems to serve society as a whole and avoid descending into the dysfunction seen in many failed or corrupt conceptual orders.
In closed, clan-based systems, accountability is often the first casualty. Corruption thrives when hate and self-enrichment take precedence, eroding the rule of law and ethical norms. The unconscious motivations driving such groups are often rooted in their identity, political or religious ideologies, and a perceived entitlement to dominate local institutions.
The article below offers insight into how hate can become neurologically embedded, tied to survival instincts. However, when misperceptions evolve into deliberate targeting of others—especially through organized means—justifications are few. That’s why they are often fabricated as part of the dehumanization process. In our example, the so-called clan elites who perpetuated this hate frequently manipulate the insecurities of others, using tactics like scapegoating and “flying monkeys.”
Institutions have a responsibility to confront open corruption and hate. To preserve public trust and fulfill their intended mission—rather than serving a narrow set of interests—they must continuously evolve and improve. This responsibility falls especially on those in positions of authority. There is a modern kind of honor in doing the right thing. Some matters are more important than appearances or loyalty to friends, cronies, or clan-based social networks. Let us be thankfull for those who continue to support our Constitution, human/civil rights, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and fulfill their oaths because without them we may see an an alternative that would have turned our forefathers/mothers in their graves. A sacred rite from generation to generation. No matter how much harm comes to them they continue to believe and support liberty and justice for all.
Read more: How Our Brains Learn to Hate – Chief Learning Officer
Note: This is a hypothetical, philosophical, and theoretical thought experiment designed to help us explore how hate and corruption form, function, and affect systems. It is offered for learning purposes and will conclude with a constructive outcome. Take with a grain of salt and don't be so quick to judge (see above).
Art is a hobby I engage in regularly, and every now and then, I’m lucky enough to sell a piece or two. Since I travel often, I don’t have the ability—or the financial justification—to maintain a physical gallery. It just wouldn’t make sense unless I were fully devoted and exceptionally skilled (neither are true. 😊).
Occasionally, by chance, I manage to capture a good photo or create something that turns out well. The Walking Path Gallery is more of a fun side project than anything serious. Most of what I make, I end up donating to various causes, charities and events. A little here and there can make a difference.
Making a living off art is tough! My advice: go into a business that provides something people crave—and keep your art as a hobby unless you are going to fully devote yourself to the Art World (Its a very cool world to be in and I'm hoping to get back into it on a casual non-committed basis.).
Industry Cluster Formation Through Collaboration
Murad Abel, DBA
June 12, 2025
Keywords: Economics, Clusters, Innovation,
Industry
Technological innovation is transforming economies at
unprecedented speeds, reshaping industries, and redefining national growth
trajectories. Central to this transformation are economic clusters—geographic
concentrations of interconnected businesses, institutions, and networks—which
serve as engines of innovation, productivity, and regional development. These
clusters enable collaboration among academia, government, and private industry,
fostering environments conducive to the rapid development of next-generation
products and services. Drawing on theories such as Schumpeter’s Creative
Destruction, this paper explores how innovation-driven clusters support
economic resilience, quality of life enhancements, and human capital
development. It emphasizes the importance of infrastructure, data networks, and
inclusive strategies in sustaining global leadership in innovation. Despite
persistent barriers—such as resource limitations and technological adoption
gaps—clusters offer scalable solutions through coordinated stakeholder efforts,
startup integration, and cross-sector collaboration. The paper concludes that a
hybrid approach to cluster formation, blending intentional design with organic
growth, holds the greatest promise for advancing regional economies and
addressing 21st-century challenges through shared innovation ecosystems.
Economic clusters—regions where businesses, research
institutions, and networks converge—play a vital role in fostering innovation.
By enhancing connectivity and collaboration, these clusters create enriched
environments that support the development of next-generation products and
services. While improved GDP at local, state, national, and regional levels is
one key benefit, such clusters also offer significant opportunities to enhance
Quality of Life (QOL) and support long-term human capital development.
Technological innovation often drives broad economic
growth within industries and regions (Thi & Do, 2024). When tied to
infrastructure—such as railroads or the Internet—these advancements can deliver
widespread benefits, especially for those who leverage resources effectively.
For instance, the strength of data networks and fiber infrastructure, combined
with advancements in artificial intelligence, significantly influence national
growth prospects. As of this writing, the U.S. ranks among the top three countries
on the Advanced Innovation Index 2024 (Dutta et al., 2024). However,
maintaining this position requires intentional efforts to foster innovation
through a more inclusive and networked approach.
Creating innovative environments
accelerates the development of new products and services. In some cases,
paradigm-shifting discoveries—such as breakthroughs in energy, AI,
infrastructure, or materials—can rapidly transform multiple industries. With
the right conditions, innovation clusters can give rise to entirely new
sectors.
Joseph Schumpeter described this
phenomenon as Creative Destruction—a
natural economic process where old structures are continuously dismantled and
replaced by new ones. As he wrote in Capitalism,
Socialism, and Democracy (1942):
“The opening
up of new markets, foreign or domestic, and the organizational development from
the craft shop to such concerns as U.S. Steel illustrate the same process of
industrial mutation—if I may use that biological term—that incessantly
revolutionizes the economic structure from within, incessantly destroying the
old one, incessantly creating a new one. This process of Creative Destruction
is the essential fact about capitalism.” (p. 83)
Economic clusters offer
governments a practical way to support innovation, economic development, and
quality of life improvements. These clusters—often formed through partnerships
among industry, academia, government, and communities—serve as microcosms of
economic progress, enabling stakeholders to collaborate and mutually benefit.
Fostering clusters of related
industries helps catalyze these natural processes. According to Porter (1998),
such clusters are inherently innovative and contribute to economic resilience.
They do so by forming networks of complementary businesses that boost
efficiency and competitiveness—advantages that are difficult to replicate
elsewhere.
Economies are complex systems that, when functioning
effectively, generate value for both industries and the communities in which
they operate. Technological advancement has long served as a catalyst for
economic growth and has improved the quality of everyday life. The development
of new technologies depends on a region's physical assets combined with human
capital, which together create innovative advantages.
Industry clusters—geographic concentrations of
interconnected companies, suppliers, and institutions—have been shown to foster
innovation, improve efficiency, and increase productivity, enabling firms to
compete at both national and global levels (Porter, 1998). Due to their
significant financial and supply chain impacts, fostering innovation through
clusters is increasingly viewed as a strategic avenue for economic development.
For economies aiming to compete globally, the ability to produce cutting-edge technologies
and engage in advanced manufacturing is essential to enhancing value and
resource attraction.
More than fifteen years of research into industrial
clusters suggests that rapid innovation arises from the interaction of multiple
interrelated factors. These factors can be isolated, studied, and optimized to
further accelerate cluster formation and effectiveness. Ideally, clusters
should be purposefully developed to strengthen community resilience, address
critical industry challenges, or advance sector-specific research. Centering
cluster development around clear objectives can improve coordination and collective
impact.
Collaboration among key
stakeholders—including industry, academia, government, and local
communities—can create robust economic ecosystems. These systems harness unique
regional advantages, such as data assets, coordinated resource use, branding,
process innovation, and management infrastructure, to foster scientific
progress and address market or societal challenges (Tanaka & Lopez, 2024).
However, barriers frequently impede the adoption of
new technologies within manufacturing sectors (Rached et al., 2022). Removing
these obstacles is critical for promoting innovation and enhancing industrial
competitiveness through technological advancement (Zou, 2024). Common barriers
include lack of technical knowledge, high labor and installation costs,
inadequate government support, limited resources, and insufficient
infrastructure (Rashed, Bagum, & Haque, 2022).
Well-designed economic clusters aim to minimize these
barriers by fostering environments that support industrial growth. Such
environments ensure access to necessary infrastructure, promote skilled labor
development, facilitate research and development initiatives, offer tax
incentives, strengthen digital connectivity, and enhance overall quality of
life. These factors collectively create fertile ground for industry
development, resulting in mutual growth and problem-solving capacity within
targeted sectors.
Collaboration is essential to building strong economic
clusters due to the significant investment of time and resources required to
develop their foundational elements. In some cases, clusters form organically,
while in others, they emerge from strategic efforts to fill industry gaps or
stimulate innovation. When key stakeholders identify critical bottlenecks to
industry development, they often come together to address these challenges,
aiming to drive regional economic growth by advancing business innovation
(Pulido-Gomez, de Jong & Rivkin, 2025).
Clusters operate as interconnected systems, linking
labor, education, firms, and networks to form viable, dynamic ecosystems
(Konig, 2023). These connections enhance resource efficiency and add depth to
the local business environment. Companies that effectively leverage cluster
resources tend to adapt and grow more rapidly within competitive markets
(Handoyo et al., 2023). This accelerated growth contributes to regional gross
domestic product, strengthening the broader economy (Pyo & Choi, 2025).
Start-ups play a critical role in these ecosystems by
acting as sources of innovative capital for larger firms (Giglio et al., 2025).
Clusters create fertile ground for the launch and scaling of start-ups,
providing the support and conditions needed to foster radical innovation. Such
innovation often arises under specific environmental pressures that trigger a
reordering of industries. For instance, the development of AI followed a
Schumpeterian model of Creative Destruction, where new technologies replaced
outdated ones and reshaped entire sectors (Ramazan, Tuluce & Aykac, 2024).
The potential to spur innovation across multiple
industries is one of the most transformative outcomes of successful clusters. A
single invention can influence several sectors through ripple effects across
the supply chain. Cross-industry collaboration, particularly where
inter-industry networks overlap, can amplify innovation (Shi & Xiao, 2024).
Ultimately, building clusters is about cultivating environments that are not
only capable of inventing new products and technologies but also of generating
entirely new technological trajectories that were previously unimaginable.
References
Bedru, H., et al. (2020).
Big networks: A survey. Computer Science Review, 37. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S157401371930282
Dutta, S., et al.
(2024). Global Innovation Index 2024. World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO). https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/global-innovation-index-2024/en/
Giglio, V.,
et al. (2025). Cooperation between
large companies and start-ups: An overview of the current state of research. European Management Journal, 43(1). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237323000919
Handoyo, S., et al.
(2023). A business strategy, operational efficiency, ownership structure, and
manufacturing performance: The moderating role of market uncertainty and
competition intensity and its implication on open innovation. Journal of
Open Innovation: Technology, Market, and Complexity, 9(2), 100039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2023.100039
Hua, L., Yang, Z.,
& Shao, J. (2022). Impact of network density on the efficiency of
innovation networks: An agent-based simulation study. PLoS One, 17(6),
e0270087. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0270087
Kadlec, Ž.,
Josip, H., & Bedeković, M. (2018).
Attracting investment in entrepreneurial zones of small cities by creating
preconditions for the development of small and medium-sized enterprises. Interdisciplinary Management Research. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368881896
Katz, B.,
& Wagner, J. (2014). The rise of innovation districts. Brookings
Institution. https://c24215cec6c97b637db6-9c0895f07c3474f6636f95b6bf3db172.ssl.cf1.rackcdn.com/content/metroinnovation-districts/~/media/programs/metro/images/innovation/innovationdistricts1.pdf
König, T. (2023).
Between collaboration and competition: Co-located clusters of different
industries in one region—the context of Tuttlingen’s medical engineering and
metal processing industries. Regional Science Policy & Practice, 15(2),
288-326. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1757780223002639
My
Thi Thi, D., & Tran Phu Do, T. (2024). The interrelationships between
economic growth and innovation: international evidence. Journal of Applied
Economics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2332975
Porter, M.
(1998). Clusters and the New Economics of Competition. Harvard Business Review. Available at: https://hbr.org/1998/11/clusters-and-the-new-economics-of-competition [Accessed 6 Dec. 2017].
Pulido-Gómez,
S., de Jong, J., & Rivkin, J. W. (2025). Cross-sector collaboration in
cities: Learning journey or blame game? Journal
of Public Administration Research and Theory, muae026. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muae026
Pyo, S., & Choi, S.
O. (2025). Regional innovation and economic growth: Empirical insights from
FGLS, FE-DKSE, and XGBoost-SHAP approach. Journal of Open Innovation:
Technology, Market, and Complexity, 11(2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joitmc.2025.100524
Ramazan, U., Tuluce,
N., & Aykac, M. (2024). Creative destruction and artificial
intelligence: The transformation of industries during the sixth wave. Journal
of Economy and Technology, 2, 296-309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ject.2024.09.004
Rashed, C. A., Bagum,
M. N., & Haque, E. (2022). Adoption of technology and innovation in
manufacturing sector: Current scenario. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359732230_Adoption_of_Technology_and_Innovation_in_Manufacturing_Sector-_Current_Scenario
Schumpeter,
J. A. (1950). Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (3rd ed.). Harper and
Brothers.
Shi, J.,
& Xiao, Z. (2024). Research on the impact of inter-industry innovation
networks on collaborative innovation performance: A case study of strategic
emerging industries. Systems, 12(6),
211. https://doi.org/10.3390/systems12060211
Tanaka, M. L., &
Lopez, O. (2024). Outlook on industry-academia-government collaborations
impacting medical device innovation. J Eng Sci Med Diagn Ther, 7(2),
025001. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4063464
Thi Thi, D., & Do,
T. P. (2024). The interrelationships between economic growth and innovation:
International evidence. Journal of Applied Economics, 27(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.2024.2332975
Zou, T.
(2024). Technological innovation promotes industrial upgrading: An analytical
framework. Structural Change and Economic
Dynamics, 70, 150-167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strueco.2024.01.012
