Transcript Evaluations of Regional Competitiveness

David L. Barkley
Clemson University
Clemson, South Carolina
Roberto Camagni
“On the Concept of Territorial Competitiveness”
Urban Studies (2002)
“…weak and lagging territories risk
exclusion and decline to a larger
extent than in the past.”
 Definitions, conceptualizations, and
 Advantages
 Estimation
 Benefits
measures
and Disadvantages of Strategy
of Indices of Competitiveness
and Shortcomings of Indices
“…the ability of an economy to attract and
maintain firms with stable or rising
market shares in an activity while
maintaining or increasing standards of
living for those who participate in it.”
(Storper, 1997)
“…ultimately competitive regions and
cities are places where both companies
and people want to locate and invest in.”
(Kitson, Martin, and Tyler, 2004)
Conceptualizations of Competitiveness
Context for
Firm
Strategy
and Rivalry
Demand
Conditions
Factor
Conditions
Related and
Supporting
Industries
The Porter Diamond Framework (Porter, 1998)
Source: National Competitiveness Council
Firm level
COMPETITIVE
ADVANTAGE
region
nation
Economy level
COMPARATIVE
ADVANTAGE
Activity-complex
economies
Localization
economies
Urbanization
economies
Enhanced
productivity
REGIONAL
COMPETITIVENESS
AND ITS DYNAMICS
X-Efficiency
Source: Budd and Hirmis, 2004
Enhanced
Economic
efficiency
Inputs (Development Report Card for the States)

Human resources

Financial resources

Infrastructure resources

Innovation resources

Amenity resources and natural capital
Outputs (Krugman, Porter)
 Output per worker
 Output per unit of capital and labor
in traded sectors
Outcome (Kitson, et al. and Budd and Hirmis)
 High rate of employment among labor force
 High quality and high income job opportunities
 Provides
appreciation of current local
economic environment
 Identifies
weaknesses in the local economy
 Encourages
a longer term perspective on
economic development process
 May
lead to new marketing and promotional
programs for the region
 May
contribute to wasteful competition among
regions
 May
result in a re-allocation of resources from
low-visibility programs to high-visibility
programs
 May
contribute to widening social inequalities
 Used
as justification for policy makers pet
programs
Development Report Card for the States (CFED)


67 measures
no weights
15 sub-indices
3 indices
State New Economy Index (Atkinson and Correa)

27 indicators
5 indices

weights selected to reflect relative importance
Policom Economic
Strength Rankingsa
Milken Best
Performing Citiesb
BHI Metro Area
Competitiveness
Reportc
Washington, DC
Riverside-San Bernadino, CA
Boston, MA
Charlotte, NC
Phoenix, AZ
Raleigh, NC
Las Vegas, NV
Orlando, FL
Seattle, WA
Nashville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
Denver, CO
San Diego, CA
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Salt Lake City, UT
Minneapolis, MN
Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Portland, OR
Sacramento, CA
Charlotte, NC
Washington, DC
Minneapolis, MN
Sacramento, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Orlando, FL
Houston, TX
Charlotte, NC
aRankings
for 363 Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
for 200 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
cRankings for 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
bRankings
Policom Economic
Strength Rankingsa
Milken Best
Performing Citiesb
BHI Metro Area
Competitiveness
Reportc
Washington, DC
Riverside-San Bernadino, CA
Boston, MA
Charlotte, NC
Phoenix, AZ
Raleigh, NC
Las Vegas, NV
Orlando, FL
Seattle, WA
Nashville, TN
Las Vegas, NV
Denver, CO
San Diego, CA
Raleigh, NC
Austin, TX
Phoenix, AZ
Salt Lake City, UT
Minneapolis, MN
Atlanta, GA
Austin, TX
Portland, OR
Sacramento, CA
Charlotte, NC
Washington, DC
Minneapolis, MN
Sacramento, CA
Salt Lake City, UT
Orlando, FL
Houston, TX
Charlotte, NC
aRankings
for 363 Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
for 200 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
cRankings for 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas.
bRankings
 Inclusion
of relevant variables, and only
relevant variables
 Selection
of appropriate measures
for the variables
 Selection
of weights used to
combine the variables
 Is
the index a good predictor
 Ignore
the region’s historical development
process and industrial legacy
 Suggestive
of formulaic solutions for complex
economic development problems
 Provide
little room for alternative visions in the
policy discussion
 May
stigmatize lagging regions
Ireland
Portland
Madison
Raleigh/Durham
Austin
Regional
Scientists
 Conceptualizations
and Models
Policy Makers
and
Economic
Development
Agencies
 Discourse on
Competitiveness
Strategies
 Road Trips
 Rankings and Indices
 Best Practices
 Discourse on Rankings
and Indices
1.
Develop indices and benchmarking
methodologies that more accurately
reflect competitiveness
- Variables selected
- Measures/data used for variables
- Weighting of variables in indices
Location
Industrial Structure
Resource
Endowments
Economic History
Social Capital
Institutions
% College
Graduates
% Creative
Class
Sci/Eng
Grad
Students
Raleigh/Durham
39
48
44
Greenville, SC
25
37
16
% College
Graduates
% Creative
Class
Sci/Eng
Grad Students
Raleigh/Durham
39
48
44
Lexington, KY
30
41
28
Greenville, SC
25
37
16
 Provide
interpretations of lessons learned on
road trips
 Help
identify characteristics unique to the
visited region that enhanced competitiveness
 Provide
insights into characteristics of “home”
region that may impede or facilitate the
transfer of policies
 Provide
detailed analysis of the economies of
the visited and home regions
Definition: “an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomena
within its real-life context, especially
when the boundaries between
phenomena and context are not clear.”
(Yin, 2003)
 Development
 Research
 Data
of theoretical model
model design
collection and analysis
 Individuals
associated with “case”
 Review
of literature (industry, government,
popular press, and academic papers
 Secondary
 Multiple
data on regional economy
cases, multiple units of analysis
 Case
studies are expensive and time
consuming
 Skeptical
of information collected
through interviews
 Not
confident in use of findings by policy
makers
 Perceived
to be more difficult to publish
in journals
 Case
studies can be fun
 Provide
new information and perspectives
 Useful
in developing or refining
hypotheses
 Useful
in testing hypotheses
 Policy
makers love case studies
 Case
studies and best practices will be used in
developing policy
 We
cannot attend every meeting of policy
makers
 We
 We
can improve the pool of good case studies
can provide leadership in the design of
case studies and interpretation of findings