REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS AS THE KEY TO GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL AREAS AND W - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 50
About This Presentation
Title:

REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS AS THE KEY TO GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL AREAS AND W

Description:

17. Dental assistants. 18. Personal and home care aides. 19. Self-enrichment education teachers ... 15. Dental hygienists. Moderate-term on-the-job training. 2 ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:96
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 51
Provided by: lfw29
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS AS THE KEY TO GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS: IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL AREAS AND W


1
REGIONAL INNOVATION SYSTEMS AS THE KEY TO
GLOBAL COMPETITIVENESS IMPLICATIONS FOR RURAL
AREAS AND WORKERS
  • by
  • David Barkley and Mark S. Henry, Professors
  • and
  • Santosh Nair, Research Associate
  • Department of Applied Economics Statistics
  • Clemson University

2
The Global Economy The Knowledge Economy The
High-Tech Economy The New Economy
Changes in Technology Changes in Production
Practices Changes in Location of Economic
Activity Changes in the Demand for Labor
Regional Innovation Systems
  • Research Triangle Park, (NC)
  • International Center for Automotive Research
    (SC)
  • Scripps Institute East Coast Facility (FL)
  • Translational Genomics Research Institute (AZ)
  • Oregon Nanotechnology Microtechnologies
    Institute
  • Stowers Institute for Medical Research (MO/KN)

3
Table 1. Summary Characteristics of the Old
and New Economies
4
Table 2. Employment Change by Industry, Metro
Vs. Nonmetro, 1990-2000
5
Table 3. Industries with the Largest Wage and
Salary Employment Growth and Declines, 2002-2012
Source Berman, 2004
6
Table 3. Industries with the Largest Wage and
Salary Employment Growth and Declines, 2002-2012
(cont.)
Source Berman, 2004
7
Table 4. Average Wages in Expanding and
Contracting Industries, 2002-2003
8
Table 4. Average Wages in Expanding and
Contracting Industries, 2002-2003 (cont.)
9
Table 4. Average Wages in Expanding and
Contracting Industries, 2002-2003 (cont.)
10
Table 5. Employment Distribution and Change by
Occupation, South and U.S., 1999-2002
11
Table 6. Occupations with Largest Job Decline,
United States, 2002-2012
Source Hecker, 2004

12
Table 6. Occupations with Largest Job Decline,
United States, 2002-2012 (cont.)
Source Hecker, 2004
13
Table 7. Occupations with Largest Job Growth,
United States, 2002-2012
Source Hecker, 2004
14
Table 7. Occupations with Largest Job Growth,
United States, 2002-2012 (cont).
Source Hecker, 2004
15
Table 8. Fastest Growing Occupations, United
States, 2002-2012
Source Hecker, 2004
16
Table 8. Fastest Growing Occupations, United
States, 2002-2012 (cont.)
Source Hecker, 2004
17
Table 9. Elements of Regional Systems of
Innovation (Acs, 2002).
A. Inter-firm relationships 1. Network
economies 2. Clusters 3. Supplier
chains as source of innovation 4. Cooperatio
n and trust B. The knowledge infrastructure 1.
University research 2. Focus new product
RD 3. External sources of
knowledge 4. Local RD spillovers C.
Community and the public 1. Emphasis on
regional level sector 2. Public-private
partnerships 3. Community, cooperation and
trust
18
Table 9. Elements of Regional Systems of
Innovation (Acs, 2002). (cont.)
D. Internal organization of the firm
1. Organic organization 2. Continuous
innovation 3. Matrix organizations E.
Institutions of the financial sector 1. Venture
capital 2. Informal financial
sector F. Physical and communication
1. Global orientation infrastructure
2. Electronic data exchange G. Firm strategy,
structure and rivalry 1. Easy to start new
firms 2. Inexpensive access to
knowledge 3. Entrepreneurship is crucial
19
  • Table 10. Examples of Innovation Measures Used
    in Previous Research on Innovative Activity or
    Capacity
  • A. Innovative Activity or Capacity
  • Patents
  • Academic R D Expenditures
  • Industrial R D Expenditures
  • Federal R D Expenditures
  • Innovation Counts
  • Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)
    Grants
  • Undergraduate/Graduate Degrees in Science and
    Engineering
  • Professional Employment in High Tech Industries

20
  • Table 10. Examples of Innovation Measures Used
    in Previous Research on Innovative Activity or
    Capacity
  • (Cont.)
  • B. Human Capital or Labor Quality
  • High School Graduates as of Population
  • College Graduates as of Population
  • Technical School Graduates as of Population
  • Working Age Population
  • Managerial, Professional, and Technical
    Employment
  • Online Population
  • Computer Availability and Use in Schools

21
  • Table 10. Examples of Innovation Measures Used
    in Previous Research on Innovative Activity or
    Capacity
  • (Cont.)
  • C. Entrepreneurial Environment
  • Venture Capital Investments
  • Initial Public Offerings
  • New Publicly Traded Companies
  • Employment in Gazelle Firms
  • New Business Start-Ups
  • Job Churning (product of business start-ups and
    business
  • failures)
  • Small Business Employment
  • Employment/Establishments in Business Services
  • Diversity of Population

22
  • Table 10. Continued
  • D. Agglomeration Economies
  • Employment/Establishments in High Technology
    Industries
  • Inc. 500 Companies
  • Population Density
  • Density of Establishments

E. Competitiveness of Local Economy
  • Export Activity
  • Manufacturing Employment Growth Rate
  • Importance of Regional Economy to U.S. Economy

Sources Huovari (2001), Hill (1998),
Catalytix (2003), Porter (2001), SGBP (2001,
2002), Atkinson and Gottlieb
(2001), Gardiner (2003), Markusen (2001), Acs
(2002), Florida (2002).
23
National State Technology Science Index
Overall Index, 2004
Rank

Rank State (2004)
State
(2004) Massachusetts 1 New
Mexico 14 California 2 New
York 15 Colorado 3 Pennsylvania 16 Maryland
4 Arizona 17 Virginia 5 Georgia
18 Washington 6 Oregon 19 New
Jersey 7 North Carolina 20 Minnesota 8
Illinois 21 Utah 9 Vermont 22 Connecticut
10 Texas 23 Rhode Island 11
Ohio 24 New Hampshire 12 Michigan 25 Delawar
e 13
24
National State Technology Science Index
Overall Index, 2004 (cont.)
Rank

Rank State (2004)
State
(2004) Kansas 26 Hawaii 39 Wisconsin 2
7 Alaska 40 Nebraska 28
Wyoming 41 Indiana 29 Louisiana 42 Idaho
30 Nevada 43 Missouri 31 South
Carolina 44 Florida 32 North
Dakota 45 Maine 33 West Virginia 46 Tennes
see 34 South Dakota 47 Oklahoma 35
Kentucky 48 Alabama 36 Arkansas 49 Iowa 3
7 Mississippi 50 Montana 38 Source
DeVol and Kuepp (2004).
25
Table 11. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment
  • A. Innovative Activity
  • PATENT Number of patents issued per 1000
    population
  • (USPTO, 1990-99)
  • ARD Academic RD expenditures per 1000
    population
  • (NSF, 1998-2000)
  • SED Doctorates awarded in science and
    engineering per 1000
  • population (NSF, 1998-2000)
  • GSS Graduate science and engineering students
    per 1000 population
  • (NS, 1998-2000)
  • ETEC Percentage of employment in technical
    professions
  • computer science engineering
    except civil natural, physical,
  • and social science (BLS,
    2000)

26
Table 11. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
B. Labor Force Quality PHSG Percentage of
adult population (25) that are high school
graduates (CBP, 2000) PCG Percentage of
adult population (25) that are college
graduates (CBP, 2000) PWP Percentage of
population (age 16-64) that are employed
(Census, 2000)
27
Table 11. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
C. Entrepreneurial Environment PCEST
Percentage change in number of establishments
(CBP, 1990-2000) PEL2O Percentage of
establishments with fewer than 20
employees (BLS, 2000) INC500 Number of
Inc 500 companies per 100,000 population
(www.inc500.com, 2000) VCAP Venture
capital investments () per capita (Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 2000) EMB Percentage
of employment in managerial and business
professions (BLS, 2000)
28
Table 11. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
D. Agglomeration Economics HTEMP
Percentage of employment in high-technology
industries (CBP, 2000) HTEST
Percentage of establishments in high technology
industries (CBP, 2000) ITEMP
Percentage of employment in information
technology industries (CBP, 2000) ITEST
Percentage of establishments in information
technology industries (CBP, 2000)
E. Competitiveness in Global
Economy EXPORTS Exports as a percent of
gross metropolitan product, metro
areas ranked in quantiles (DOC, 1999)
29
Table 12. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings
  • Outliers (4)
  • Atlanta, GA CMSA
  • Austin, TX MSA
  • Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, NC
  • CMSA
  • Baton Rouge, LA MSA
  • High (12)
  • Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX CMSA
  • Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
  • Huntsville, AL MSA
  • Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL MSA
  • Orlando, FL MSA
  • Pensacola, FL MSA
  • Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA
  • San Antonio, TX MSA
  • Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA
  • Tampa-St. Petersbusrg-Clearwater, FL
  • MSA
  • Tulsa, OK MSA
  • West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA

30
Table 12. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
  • College Towns (5)
  • Athens, GA MSA
  • Bryan-College Station, TX MSA
  • Charlottesville, VA MSA
  • Gainesville, FL MSA
  • Tallahassee, FL MSA
  • Medium (20)
  • Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA
  • Birmingham, AL MSA
  • Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA
  • Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA
  • Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN MSA
  • Columbia, SC MSA
  • Greensboro--Winston-SalemHigh Point,
  • NC MSA
  • Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA
  • Jackson, MS MSA
  • Jacksonville, FL MSA
  • Knoxville, TN MSA
  • Lexington, KY-IN MSA
  • Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
  • Nashville, TN MSA
  • New Orleans, LA MSA
  • Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News,

31
Table 12. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
  • Below Average (47)
  • Abilene, TX MSA
  • Albany, GA MSA
  • Alexandria, LA MSA
  • Amarillo, TX MSA
  • Ashville, NC MSA
  • Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA
  • Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA
  • Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA
  • Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA
  • Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY MSA
  • Columbus, GA MSA
  • Corpus Christi, TX MSA
  • Decatur, AL MSA
  • Dothan, AL MSA
  • Enid, OK MSA
  • Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY MSA
  • Fayetteville, NC MSA

Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA Fort Walton Beach, FL
MSA Goldsboro, NC MSA Greenville, NC
MSA Hattiesburg, MS MSA Hickory-Morganton-Leno
ir, NC MSA Jackson, TN MSA Jacksonville, NC
MSA Jonesboro, AR MSA Killeen-Temple, TX
MSA Lafayette, LA MSA Lake Charles, LA
MSA Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA Lawton, OK
MSA Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR
MSA Long View-Marshall, TX MSA Lubbock, TX
MSA Lynchburg, VA MSA
32
Table 12. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
  • Below Average (47) (cont.)
  • Macon, GA MSA
  • Mobile, AL MSA
  • Monroe, LA MSA
  • Montgomery, AL MSA
  • Myrtle Beach, SC MSA
  • Odessa-Midland, TX MSA
  • Owensboro, KY MSA
  • Panama City, FL MSA
  • Pine Bluff, AR MSA
  • Rocky Mount, NC MSA
  • San Angelo, TX MSA
  • Savannah, GA MSA
  • Sherman-Denison, TX MSA
  • Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA
  • Sumter, SC MSA
  • Tuscaloosa, AL MSA
  • Tyler, TX MSA

6. Low (18) Anniston, AL MSA
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX MSA
Danville, VA MSA Daytona Beach,
FL MSA El Paso, TX MSA
Florence, AL MSA Fort Myers-Cape Coral,
FL MSA Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL
MSA Gadsden, AL MSA Houma, LA
MSA Huntington-Ashland, WY-KY-OH MSA
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA
MSA Laredo, TX MSA
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA
Naples, FL MSA Ocala, FL MSA
Punta Gorda, FL MSA Texarkana,
TX-Texarkana, AR MSA

33
Map 1 Persistent Poverty and RIS Counties,
Southeastern United States, 2000
34
Map 2 Persistent Poverty and RIS (Including
Medium) Counties, Southeastern United States, 2000
35
(No Transcript)
36
Table 14. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000
a Number of metro or nonmetro counties in the
cluster grouping.
37
Table 14. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000 (cont.)
a Number of metro or nonmetro counties in the
cluster grouping.
38
Table 14. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000 (cont.)
B. Monmetro Counties Outliers (31)
87.28
81.02 89.38 High
(40) 78.54
73.43 80.05
College Towns (24) 79.69
70.61 76.45
Medium (136)
72.84 71.88
66.89 Below Average (315)
60.05 52.99
53.77 Low (42)
68.31 61.73
61.65 Rural LMAs
(349) 65.16
59.85 59.29
39
Table 14. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000 (cont.)
B. Monmetro Counties Outliers (31)
32.74
23.00 High (40)

31.27 22.01
College Towns (24)
25.29 22.22
Medium (136)
21.33 12.25
Below Average (315)
15.89 7.06 Low
(42)
19.55 12.83
Rural LMAs (349)
17.88 10.39
40
Table 15. Changes in Per Capita Economic
Activity by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000
A. Metro Counties Outliers (32)a
51.89 96.20
High (58) 40.25 69.04
College Towns (13) 39.10 62.29
Medium (113) 42.34 54.02
Below Average (106) 37.10 47.60
Low (33) 31.13 40.62

a Number of metro or nonmetro counties in the
cluster grouping
41
Table 15. Changes in Per Capita Economic
Activity by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000 (cont.)
A. Metro Counties Outliers (32)a
58.20 -9.81
High (58) 51.29 -5.43
College Towns (13) 45.88 -17.01
Medium (113) 53.26 -12.07
Below Average (106) 53.74 -11.41
Low (33) 47.09 -12.91

a Number of metro or nonmetro counties in the
cluster grouping.
42
Table 15. Changes in Per Capita Economic
Activity by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000 (cont.)

Change in Earnings Change in
Earnings

Per Worker by Per Employed Resident
Cluster Grouping Place
of Work by Place of Residence

() ()
B. Monmetro Counties Outliers (31)
37.16
60.97 High (40)

31.88 53.04
College Towns (24)
36.47 49.98
Medium (136)
39.87 41.86
Below Average (315)
31.90 30.71 Low
(42)
34.92 37.41
Rural LMAs (349)
35.63 35.79
43
Table 15. Changes in Per Capita Economic
Activity by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000 (cont.)



Change in
Change in

Per Capita Share of
Population Cluster Grouping
Personal Income
in Poverty
()
()
B. Monmetro Counties Outliers (31)
52.55
-13.70 High (40)

44.10 -8.05
College Towns (24)
47.29 -14.37
Medium (136)
53.32 -16.40
Below Average (315)
48.77 -12.19 Low
(42)
49.97 -7.52
Rural LMAs (349)
49.96 -13.97
44
Table 16. Regression Results for Change in
Nonmetro County Population and Employment,
1990-2000
Population Equation Employment
Equation
Variable Coefficient
t-value Coefficient
t-value
45
Table 17. Regression Results for Change in
Nonmetro County Earnings, 1990-2000
Earnings by Place of Work Earnings by Place
of Residence
Variable Coefficient
t-value Coefficient
t-value
46
Table 18. Regression Results for Changes in
Nonmetro County Earnings Per Worker, 1990-2000
Earnings by Place of Work Earnings by Place
of Residence
Variable Coefficient
t-value Coefficient
t-value
47
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS
Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
  • Industry Clusters
  • Support clusters in new industries
    related to existing
    industrial base
  • Strengthen emerging/potential clusters
  • in the region

48
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS
Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
(Continued)
  • New Firms
  • Promote entrepreneurship and new firm
    development
  • Attract cluster-related firms

49
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS
Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
(Continued)
  • Knowledge and Innovation
  • Develop cluster-specific technology
    centers
  • Attract branches of national research
    organizations
  • Build up and attract new labor skills

50
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS
Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
(Continued)
  • Networks
  • Link firms to local and external knowledge
    providers
  • Technology transfer programs
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com