What We Know About Regional Economic Growth, Innovation, and Recovery

Screen shot 2010-01-20 at 4.52.31 PMNOTE: We’ll be be posting findings from a few papers we’re reviewing with the intent of sharing with colleagues. We’re doing this here so that you might benefit from them too, but wanted to warn you before you read too far.

We just reviewed Regions Matter (OECD, November 2009). It’s chalk full of bits and bobs we’d picked up (and learned ourselves) while studying, conducting research, or providing technical assistance to stakeholders in regions, but offers a difference level of coherence than we’ve seen in some time.  We thought we might share.

Key Policy Messages about Regional Economies and Development (the “Big Picture”)

  • The intent of regional policies is evolving: they are increasingly about fueling growth and not just limiting (or reducing) disparities.
  • There is no consistent relationship between urban concentration and economic performance – simply concentrating resources in a place does not necessarily lead to growth.
  • Public policy matters in maximizing the potential of assets in regions.
  • Leading and lagging regions are both important – when lagging regions improve, they make important contributions to growth and equity, opportunity.
  • The use of productive assets (labor, capital, technology) are correlated with growth, but no single factor explains improved performance in a region. It is the interaction and interdependence of key assets that matters (suggesting flexible and integrated policy approaches).
  • Investment and governance are important dimensions of regional innovation and change, but there is no blueprint for these. Policy should be developed in the context of the specific assets a particular region offers.
  • Research- and technology-driven innovation is highly concentrated, but public policy can impact growth and capacity in regions with assets in emerging fields.
  • Innovation policy is not just about inventing the next new technology, but also about its adoption or application. Different regions have different innovation assets and can and should develop these based on their unique capacities. Some regions will invent; others will deploy or scale.
  • Innovation capacity is moving East (to Asia, where there are high concentrations of skilled labor and dense supplier networks). This mean regions in OECD countries must be mindful of how they develop knowledge capital that allows them to compete.
  • Rural regions offer innovation potential but in different ways – social innovation around environmental issues, better public services (on which most rural areas are highly dependent), and new cooperative arrangements for living, working, and managing communities hold promise.
  • Sustainable urban growth is widely recognized as a key policy priority.
  • Regional policy is difficult to manage at the national level. It would benefit from coordination and multi-year co-financing.
  • Learning, knowledge-sharing, monitoring and evaluation need to be coordinated across levels of government.

What turns places with concentrations of assets into agglomeration economies? (from Krugman, 1991)

  • The sharing of unique, place-based facilities (labs, universities, creative space, etc.)
  • Gains from producing complementary products in a wider array of facilities
  • Gains from a wider array of suppliers (and supply chain connectivity)
  • Deeply and broadly skilled labor reduces risk of adjusting to market shocks
  • Matching mechanisms (connecting workers and jobs, suppliers and purchasers, distributers with buyers and sellers, etc.)
  • Learning mechanisms based on the generation, diffusion, accumulation of knowledge and the systems that cultivate and disseminate it.

Results of OECD Growth Model Analysis

  • Human capital and innovation positively influence regional growth (as traditional growth theories suggest).
  • Elements from new economic geography theories (e.g. agglomeration economies) are also relevant and reveal a spatial connection to growth.
  • Infrastructure is a necessary but not sufficient condition for growth – it is only relevant if human capital and innovation are also present.

Time also matters in regional development efforts…

  • Infrastructure and human capital shifts require three years to positively influence growth
  • Innovation is even longer-term, netting positive effects after five years.

Governance in Regions

Regional development depends on efficient governance. Accountable and credible leadership is important, but it looks different than a generation ago:

  • It’s network-based, not organization based.
  • It’s championed by collaborative leaders, not individual heroes.
  • It’s more likely to be university or public sector-based than private sector based (and that’s okay, as the attention of private sector leaders is now often global, not local).
  • It manifests in shared public-private ventures that can take a variety of forms.
This entry was posted in Economy, Longform, Regions, Resilience and tagged , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

2 Comments

  1. Posted January 22, 2010 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Good morning,

    Thanks for sharing your insights. I have to agree with a majority of them given our experience over the last 2-2 1/2 years working in the Iowa Innovation Gateway region (7 counties in East Central Iowa).

    The one comment I did want to make is that our governance structure aligns with 3 of your 4 observations. We are leveraging a private business association as our “official” home rather than a public organization. This alignment and partnership with the business community has been incredibly beneficial for our efforts to align assets in support of economic growth the way our businesses need them to align.

    Our partnership has put us in the middle of the business network and therefore we do not have to spend countless hours trying asking or trying to guess what our businesses need to grow.

    I would highly recommend that other regional efforts give consideration to this type of private sector/business partnership rather than residing on the outside in a public organization.

  2. Posted January 22, 2010 at 3:31 pm | Permalink

    Kim: We were really just using this post to share OECD findings. We can’t take credit for them as insights, but find that our experience in working across several WIRED and BRAC regions tracks pretty closely. On the specifics of working with a business association, we appreciate you sharing. We’ve had mixed models (including business association partnerships) where different partners play different roles to more or less effect, but having followed your progress, we think you must have cracked the magic code. Thanks to you and your partners for inspiring us all.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • Browse Topics