France’s pôles de compétitivité are a long-standing national cluster policy designed to strengthen competitiveness through collaborative innovation between firms, universities and research organisations. First launched in 2005, the policy has evolved over successive phases, moving from an initial focus on collaborative R&D and partnership building towards stronger support for SME innovation, European outreach, and more recently the digital and green transitions. Delivery combines national strategic orientation with increasing regional governance, while cluster activities are led by non-profit managing associations under the state-backed label. Since its creation, the policy has brought together around 18 000 companies, three-quarters of them SMEs, and 2 000 research institutions. The model highlights the value of combining cluster-based networking, collaborative project support and adaptive multi-level governance to strengthen SME innovation capacity and regional innovation ecosystems.
France’s national cluster competitiveness (Pôles de Compétitivité)
Abstract
|
|
Objectives |
|
|
|
Delivery arrangements |
|
|
|
Budget |
|
|
|
Outreach |
|
|
|
Targets |
|
|
|
Closest UK Counterpart |
|
Introduction
Announced in 2004 as part of a new industrial policy and initiated in 2005, France's competitiveness cluster policy aims to enhance national competitiveness by strengthening connections among cluster members (firms, universities, and research organisations) to foster synergies, boost innovation, and improve economic outcomes. This nationwide policy supports selected clusters – labelled ‘Pôles de Compétitivité’ (PDC) – initially organised around a specific territory and common theme. Its primary focus is on generating new knowledge through collaborative R&D projects, while also promoting knowledge transfer and the diffusion of technological innovation in later phases. The PDC offer two main types of activities to their members: non-financial support (partnership building by connecting with other firms and research organisations, technical assistance, legal and financial advisory services, etc) and financial support (help in securing public funding, national and European, for collaborative R&D projects).
The policy has evolved through several phases, each with distinct objectives to adapt to changing economic contexts and lessons learned:
Phase I (2005-2008) and Phase II (2009-2012) – The key objective is to foster partnership building and improve support of collaborative R&D projects. These initial stages focused on launching and structuring the policy by identifying regional innovation ecosystems and labelling a large number of clusters.
Phase III (2013-2018) – Marked a shift towards generating stronger economic and employment outcomes, with growing attention to support for innovative projects until their launch on the market, and a greater focus on support to SMEs.
Phase IV (2019-2022) – Outreach at the European level, with the ambition to aim for excellence in high-potential sectors for the future, restructuring the clusters.
Phase V (2023-2026) – Fostering regional collaborations, supporting SMEs in market extension at the European level, and in the digital and green transition. This phase aligns with the strategic plan ‘France 2030’ initiated in 2021.
Delivery arrangements
The PDC policy operates through a co-ordinated national, regional, and local structure, with regions taking an increasingly co-ordinating role since 2019.
Nationally, the Direction Générale des Entreprises (DGE, Directorate General for Enterprise), under the Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industrial and Digital Sovereignty, plays a central role in the strategic orientation and monitoring of the policy. Other national public actors, such as Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR, National Research Agency), Agence de la Transition Ecologique (ADEME, The French Agency for Ecological Transition), Caisse des Depots et des Consignations (CDC, a public financial institution), and BPI France (the Public Investment Bank) are involved in supporting policy implementation by providing funding for collaborative R&D projects.
Regions play a crucial role in identifying potential cluster areas based on existing industrial strengths and research capabilities. Since 2019, the central government has been looking to transfer the governance of competitiveness clusters to the regional level, making regions their primary point of contact. This ‘regionalisation’ of the PDC policy was confirmed with the launch of phase V and transfer of the operational funding to the regions. The State, as guarantor of the label’s quality and credibility, continues to define strategic orientation and involve clusters in national innovation and industrial strategies, including the deployment of the France 2030 plan. Regional and local authorities are involved in the operations and funding of the clusters within their territory: they are systematically members of the clusters and therefore participate in the decision-making process.
The clusters are typically managed by dedicated non-profit associations that unite companies, universities, research centres, and regional and local authorities. These associations animate the clusters by expanding networks, supporting innovation projects, assisting with access to public funding, facilitating internationalisation, and helping members navigate digital and green transitions. Their roles have evolved over time, but consistently focus on fostering collaboration and strengthening members' innovation capacity.
The ‘Association Française des Pôles de Compétitivité’ (AFPC, French Association of Competitiveness Clusters), created in 2013 with support from the CDC and the DGE, represents the clusters and serves as a direct liaison with both the French government and the European Commission to advocate for the interests of the clusters1.
The PDC initiative was launched through a bottom-up approach, beginning with a call for projects in late 2004, which led to the labelling of 71 clusters in three waves between July 2005 and July 2007. Following the restructuring during phases III and IV (some clusters merged, others were de-labelled), the number of clusters was reduced reflecting the periodic re-labelling process and a policy shift towards fewer, stronger clusters with greater critical mass and European ambition, including incentives for mergers and tighter selection criteria: 55 clusters currently have a PDC label for phase V2,3. The label is typically attributed for a period of 4 years, with a minority of clusters receiving a 2-year label.
BioValley France is a major French health innovation cluster based in the Grand Est region. The cluster has strong historical foundations, stemming from the trinational BioValley initiative created in 1996 to foster cross-border collaboration in life sciences across France, Germany, and Switzerland.4 Today, BioValley France brings together a network of over 200 member organisations, up from 124 in 2019, reflecting steady growth through 20245. The cluster supports health innovation across biopharmaceuticals, medical technologies, diagnostics, and digital health by providing tailored project support, facilitating access to funding, and enabling strategic partnerships.
Examples of projects supported:
The Anubis project played a key role in spreading a new form of surgery that avoids visible scars by using the body’s natural pathways. Between 2004 and 2007, over 500 procedures were tested in partnership between research institute IRCAD and industry, which helped design the special tools needed for this less invasive approach. Beyond the technological innovation, the project also prioritised the diffusion and adoption of this technique by creating surgical training programs6. While this method hasn’t fully replaced keyhole surgery due to its complexity, the tools and techniques developed have since been widely adopted. They are now commonly used to remove small tumours in the digestive system and are showing promise in obesity treatment. By combining technical innovation with specialised training, Anubis helped speed up the spread of less invasive surgery that reduces pain, shortens recovery time, and leaves no visible trace of illness7.
The ongoing HACK-IT-NET project (2024-2027) is driving health and care innovation across the Alpine region by improving access to advanced technologies like machine learning and remote cancer screening. With EUR 2.5 million in funding (75% ERDF, via Interreg Alpine Space), the project is creating a sustainable framework to transfer and scale up existing innovations through a Toolkit Portfolio built on three approaches. STEMLabs establishes experimental spaces in key healthcare hubs to test digital tools and sustainable practices, helping improve care in remote areas and guiding climate-adapted health systems. TechCAREavan brings green and digital healthcare solutions directly to urban and rural hospitals, supporting energy-efficient, future-ready operations aligned with the EU Green Deal. Practice2Policy Labs ensure that insights from these initiatives shape actionable, cross-border health policies8,9.
Budget
Funding of the operational activities of the managing associations comes from three sources: state (national/regional government), local authorities and private funding (membership fees and paid services). In 2022, private funding constituted the largest share (approximately 55%) of the PDCs' total funding (≈ EUR 64 million). Local authorities contributed around EUR 20 million (≈31%), while state funding amounted to EUR 9 million (≈14%)10. There is no information for more recent years. However, the state contribution is expected to remain the same (EUR 9 million) for Phase V11. In recent years, the PDC policy has seen a reduction in operational funding from the French State, with allocations declining from EUR 18 million in 2019 to EUR 9 million in 202212, with the funding gap being increasingly covered by local governments and private member contributions. This reflects a broader shift toward regionalisation and greater reliance on private financing within the policy framework.
Funding for collaborative R&D projects under the PDC policy has evolved over time across various national programmes, making it difficult to estimate the total budget dedicated specifically to PDC policy. Historically, a PDC label was often a prerequisite for public funding, especially under the Interministerial Single Fund (Fonds Unique Interministériel, FUI), which supported around 1 800 projects with EUR 3 billion in public funding, and the early rounds of the Structural Competitiveness Projects (Projets Structurants pour la Compétitivité, PSPC).
Funding for the various schemes supporting R&D collaborative projects remained relatively stable at around EUR 500 million annually between 2007 and 2018 (Figure 1). However, this stability masked a significant shift in resource allocation: FUI projects more directly linked to competitiveness clusters were gradually replaced by different funding streams from the Programme d’Investissements d’Avenir, PIA (ADEME, PIAVE and PSPC).13
Note: Overall amount of funds engaged, including PDC and non-PDC projects, with PDC label required only for FUI and PSPC (in the initial calls for projects).
Source: Bellégo, C., Bénatia, D., Christophe, K., Dortet-Bernadet, V., (2020) « Évaluation économétrique des aides aux projets collaboratifs de R&D (2005-2019)», DGE. https://www.info.gouv.fr/upload/media/organization/0001/01/sites_default_files_contenu_piece-jointe_2021_01_annexe_1-_rapport_econometrique_brique_rd_2020.pdf
While there are no recent estimates of the funding available for the R&D projects with the PDC label, the operational funding is estimated to represent less than 10% of the total budget14 dedicated to the PDC policy. The overall budget for R&D projects might therefore be around EUR 600 million per year, although there are also signs that the actual value might be smaller.
There have been, indeed, concerns about the financial disengagement of the French Government with this policy since 201915. Similarly, the progressive switch from the FUI, which had made a PDC label a prerequisite for public funding, towards other funding schemes, may also imply a decrease in the overall R&D support facilitated by PDCs. The latest PSPC-Regions round, which concluded in 2020, raised EUR 40 million (EUR 20 million of PIA funding matched by regional and local authorities funding), which is considerably below the average annual FUI funding over the period 2005-2018 (around EUR 200 million).
Outreach
In terms of outreach, since 2005, the PDC policy has brought together 18 000 innovative companies and 2 000 research institutions and laboratories, supported 2 000 innovation projects and mobilised EUR 7.5 billion in total investment.16
Business participation in the PDC policy increased by 45% between 2011 and 2021. However, this growth slowed considerably, from 6.5% annually between 2011 and 2016 to just 1.1% between 2016 and 2021. The decline is especially pronounced among SMEs, particularly younger firms (under 10 years old) and those in scientific and technical sectors17. The slowdown in participation was primarily due to fewer new memberships, not an increase in firms leaving the clusters.
According to the 2023 AFPC barometer18, based on responses from 42 competitiveness clusters, on average, each cluster had 361 members, with 79% being businesses, three-quarters of which were SMEs.
The PDC policy has been evaluated through various internal and external assessments, most recently covering Phase IV. However, evaluating its impact is methodologically challenging. The effects of financial and non-financial support are often intertwined, making them hard to distinguish. Moreover, as PDCs primarily facilitate access to other funding schemes rather than directly provide funds, isolating their specific impact from other R&D initiatives is difficult. As Phase V only began in 2023, no evaluation evidence is yet available on the policy’s influence on digital transformation and the green transition.
Independent external evaluation
Impact on R&D spending and economic performance
Evaluations of the PDC policy and associated collaborative R&D funding schemes using difference-in-difference methodology reveal several consistent findings and important distinctions over time and across firm types:
SMEs showed the most positive responses to cluster participation and collaborative R&D funding. Early evaluations (2005-2008)19 found that PDC membership led to a 7.3% increase in R&D spending, largely financed by public aid, without displacing private investment. Later studies (covering 2005-201220 and 2005-201712) showed stronger results: SMEs significantly increased self-financed R&D, indicating a public-private leverage effect (ranging between EUR 1.88 to EUR 2.50 of private R&D for each EUR 1 of aid).
In contrast, mid-sized and large firms generally did not increase self-financed R&D, suggesting a windfall effect where public support substituted for private investment. Employment impacts were also smaller.
Sectoral differences were minor. Specialised R&D service firms showed the strongest R&D intensity gains, but leverage effects of funding were broadly consistent across sectors.
R&D employment effects were positive and consistent, especially for SMEs. Initial studies showed an average increase of 0.9 full-time R&D jobs per firm during Phase I. Later evaluations found larger effects, with cluster firms hiring on average 2.4 more employees by 2007 and nearly 6 by 2012, representing up to 27.5% of the average workforce. Collaborative project participation also led to sustained increases in R&D personnel and higher researcher salaries, particularly among SMEs.
There was no effect on patents in the two early studies18 19. In the later study12, the effect of participation in collaborative projects on patenting was mixed and depended on the data source used.
Regarding economic performance, no significant impact was observed on turnover, exports, or value added, suggesting that many firms remain in the development phase several years after participating in collaborative R&D projects.
Impact on innovation network
A recent study assessed the structural effects of PDC policy on local innovation networks by combining programme evaluation with spatial analysis and using patent data to assess network quality13. According to this study, the PDC policy reinforced existing ties among core players rather than integrating smaller or more peripheral firms into these networks. To enhance effectiveness, future similar policies could benefit from targeting underrepresented or peripheral actors and from fostering better regional co-ordination to reduce fragmentation within innovation ecosystems.
Internal evaluation
The latest internal evaluation based on panel data analysis from 4 327 SMEs that joined a competitiveness cluster between 2013 and 2016, compares their R&D investment and economic performance to a matched group of 15 498 non-member firms over the period 2013-20199. The study confirms a positive impact of cluster membership on SMEs' R&D investment, as well as more consistent positive performance outcomes:
SMEs that joined a cluster received higher public support and showed a stronger leverage effect than companies participating in other innovation policies. For every EUR 1 of public aid, private R&D spending increased by EUR 2.80, far above the average for other innovation incentives like the R&D tax credit, which typically shows a 1:1 ratio.
Cluster membership also significantly improved economic outcomes. On average, annual turnover increased by 36% compared to non-member firms. Sector-wise, the turnover gains compared to the control group were the highest in the information and communication sector (+45%), followed by manufacturing (+28%), and scientific and technical services (+26%).
Export performance improved as well: the likelihood of exporting rose by 5 percentage points, and export values increased by 20% among exporters.
Employment effects were also substantial, with 24% average growth in full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs, translating to the creation of one job for less than EUR 7 000 in public aid.
These effects manifested themselves quickly. Employment began rising in the first year, peaking around years 2-3 (+28%). Revenue effects were slightly delayed but peaked in years 3-4 (+45%). Export rates began improving immediately, reaching a 31% increase in export turnover by year five.
The following main lessons can be drawn from the history of the PDC policy.
The flexible design of the PDC policy has allowed it to evolve in line with shifting national investment priorities – such as digital transformation, green innovation, and strategic autonomy – while consistently maintaining its core functions: financial support for collaborative R&D and networking activities among firms and research actors.
The shift of governance and funding responsibilities from the national to regional level has increased regional engagement, but has also raised concerns over declining financial resources, possible disengagement of the national government, lack of a coherent national strategy, and unequal resources across regions with different levels of development. In this regard, continued national engagement even in highly regionalised policy approaches may be warranted.
Outreach remains high but growth in membership is slowing. While clusters have supported thousands of companies and projects since 2005, the pace of new memberships, particularly among SMEs, has slowed since 2016, despite strong retention rates. Overall, this may suggest that R&D-based policy for SMEs may face a natural barrier when it comes to increasing outreach, as R&D will continue to be within the scope of a limited number of SMEs, mostly concentrated in knowledge-intensive sectors.
Participation in collaborative R&D projects significantly boosts innovation capacity. Firms engaged in publicly supported collaborative R&D projects show sustained increases in internal R&D investment, personnel, and capital expenditure, with stronger results among SMEs than mid-sized or large firms.
Cluster membership generates substantial R&D leverage effects, particularly for SMEs. Multiple evaluations show that for each 1 euro of public funding, SMEs typically invest EUR 2.50-2.80 in additional private R&D.
Evidence on economic impacts is mixed. Early evaluations found no measurable effects, but more recent (internal) assessments suggest that positive outcomes emerge over time, particularly for SMEs.
Non-financial support is vital but harder to evaluate. PDC policy reinforces innovation hubs more than it broadens networks. Evidence suggests that the policy strengthens existing core innovation actors rather than integrating peripheral or less-connected firms, limiting network inclusivity and resilience.
France’s pôles de compétitivité offers a mature example of long-running, adaptive cluster support that combines two pillars: non-financial services (partnership brokering, technical and legal/financial advice) and financial support for collaborative projects, while evolving objectives across phases. The policy’s trajectory, from early emphasis on collaborative R&D (Phases I-II), to stronger economic and employment outcomes and greater SME focus (Phase III), to European outreach and excellence (Phase IV), and most recently to regional collaboration and SME support for digital and green transitions (Phase V, aligned with “France 2030”), is directly relevant to UK priorities around diffusion, net zero and internationalisation.
The progressive decentralisation of governance to regions increased local engagement and alignment with regional priorities but also surfaced risks the UK should recognise: uneven resources, weaker national co-ordination and potential fragmentation. This balance between regional autonomy and national coherence is central to effective UK cluster governance.
Evidence cited in the case points to clear innovation and technology-adoption benefits from collaborative projects, with smaller SMEs showing the strongest gains in R&D investment, staffing and capex. At the same time, membership growth has slowed, indicating natural limits to small-firm participation in knowledge- and technology-based collaborations. For UK cluster initiatives, this combination underscores the importance of sustained SME-oriented design, careful calibration of support instruments, and continued attention to national co-ordination.
This work is published under the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official views of the Member countries of the OECD.
This document, as well as any data and map included herein, are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The use of such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israeli settlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits: © Cover © Bardhok Ndoji/iStock by Getty Images Plus.
© OECD 2026
Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)
This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. By using this work, you accept to be bound by the terms of this licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Attribution – you must cite the work.
Translations – you must cite the original work, identify changes to the original and add the following text: In the event of any discrepancy between the original work and the translation, only the text of original work should be considered valid.
Adaptations – you must cite the original work and add the following text: This is an adaptation of an original work by the OECD. The opinions expressed and arguments employed in this adaptation should not be reported as representing the official views of the OECD or of its Member countries.
Third-party material – the licence does not apply to third-party material in the work. If using such material, you are responsible for obtaining permission from the third party and for any claims of infringement.
You must not use the OECD logo, visual identity or cover image without express permission or suggest the OECD endorses your use of the work.
Any dispute arising under this licence shall be settled by arbitration in accordance with the Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) Arbitration Rules 2012. The seat of arbitration shall be Paris (France). The number of arbitrators shall be one.
← 1. L’Association Française des Pôles de Compétitivité, https://www.afpc.eu/fr/a-propos
← 2. DGE. (2024). Présentation des pôles de compétitivité. Direction générale des Entreprises. Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique. https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/priorites-et-actions/autonomie-strategique/soutenir-linnovation-dans-les-secteurs-strategiques-de-5
← 3. Deschamps, V.; Dortet-Bernader, V. ; Khiati, A.; Guillet, X. (2023). “Les pôles de compétitivité : état des lieux à la fin de la phase 4”, Les Thémas de la DGE, No. 9, Direction générale des entreprises (DGE), Paris, March. https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/Publications/2023/Themas/2023-themas-dge-poles-de-competitivite-phase-4-n9.pdf
← 4. Crépin, B. (2024). BioValley France : un cluster trinational unique en Europe, au service de la filière santé. Techniques de l'Ingénieur. https://www.techniques-ingenieur.fr/actualite/articles/biovalley-france-un-cluster-trinational-unique-en-europe-au-service-de-la-filiere-sante-134312/
← 5. BioValley France. (2025). Rapport d'activité 2024. https://www.biovalley-france.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/rapport-dactivite-biovalley-france-2024.pdf
← 6. DGE. (2008). Les pôles de compétitivité en France. Supplément à la lettre d’information de la DGE. May 2008. https://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/Les_poles_de_competitivite_en_France.pdf
← 7. https://www.ircad.fr/fr/avril-2023/#:~:text=L'op%C3%A9ration%20Anubis%20est%20la,en%20passant%20par%20le%20vagin.
← 8. https://www.biovalley-france.com/fr/territoire/projets/
← 9. https://www.alpine-space.eu/project/hack-it-net/
← 10. DGE. 2023. Les pôles de compétitivité : état des lieux à la fin de la phase 4. Les Thémas de la DGE. 27.03.2023. https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/files/files/Publications/2023/Themas/2023-themas-dge-poles-de-competitivite-phase-4-n9.pdf
← 11. Zapalski, E. 2023. Phase V des pôles de compétitivité : la "saison de vérité". Banque des Territoires. 29.03.2023. https://www.banquedesterritoires.fr/phase-v-des-poles-de-competitivite-la-saison-de-verite
← 12. Zapalski, E. 2019. Transfert des pôles de compétitivité aux régions : les discussions démarrent. Banque des Territoires. 18.07.2019. https://www.banquedesterritoires.fr/transfert-des-poles-de-competitivite-aux-regions-les-discussions-demarrent
← 13. Bellégo, C., Benatia, D., Christophe, K., & Dortet-Bernadet, V. (2020). Évaluation économétrique des aides aux projets collaboratifs de R&D (2005–2019): Rapport final. Report prepared for the European Commission under the evaluation plan of the “Investissements d’Avenir” (PIA) programmes operated by ADEME and the national R&D and Innovation aid schemes. Centre de recherche en économie et statistique (Crest), École nationale de la statistique et de l’administration économique (Ensae); Direction générale des entreprises (DGE), Ministère de l’Économie et des Finances. https://www.info.gouv.fr/upload/media/organization/0001/01/sites_default_files_contenu_piece-jointe_2021_01_annexe_1-_rapport_econometrique_brique_rd_2020.pdf
← 14. Alain N’Ghauran, K., & Autant-Bernard, C. (2022). Effects of cluster policies on regional inventor networks: evidence from France. Regional Studies, 56(11), 1903-1918.
← 15. Zapalski, É. (2022). Régions de France lance une consultation publique sur l'avenir des pôles de compétitivité. Banque des Territoires. https://www.banquedesterritoires.fr/regions-de-france-lance-une-consultation-publique-sur-lavenir-des-poles-de-competitivite
← 17. DGE. (2023, March 27). Les pôles de compétitivité : état des lieux à la fin de la phase 4. Direction générale des Entreprises. Ministère de l'Économie, des Finances et de la Souveraineté industrielle et numérique. https://www.entreprises.gouv.fr/la-dge/publications/les-poles-de-competitivite-etat-des-lieux-la-fin-de-la-phase-4
← 18. AFPC. (2024). Les chiffres du baromètre France 2023 de l'AFPC. Association Française des Pôles de Compétitivité. https://www.afpc.eu/fr/actualite/les-chiffres-du-barometre-france-2023-de-l-afpc
← 19. Bellégo, C., & Dortet‑Bernadet, V. (2014). L’impact de la participation aux pôles de compétitivité sur les PME et les ETI. Economie et statistique, 471(1), 65-83.
← 20. Ben Hassine, H., & Mathieu, C. (2017). Évaluation de la politique des pôles de compétitivité : la fin d'une malédiction ? (Document de travail n° 2017-03). France Stratégie. Retrieved from https://www.strategie.gouv.fr/publications/evaluation-de-politique-poles-de-competitivite-fin-dune-malediction.
