What Makes a City Entrepreneurial?
Posted using ShareThis
In Local Industrial Conditions and Entrepreneurship: How Much of the Spatial Distribution Can We Explain? Edward Glaeser and William Kerr report that high levels of entrepreneurship, measured by the number of smaller firms, are correlated with regional economic growth. This finding is not surprising, it really confirms what many people have believed for decades and it supports a body of research going back nearly 30 years. What this report does well, however is that it is very rigorous and delves into the questions of why places have different levels of entrepreneurship.
In commenting on this report, David Luberoff, Executive Director of Harvard University’s Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston delves into another side of the question which is what we can do to promote growth. However, Luberoff is not as rigorous in proposing or dismissing various strategies.
He briefly discusses four policy options for local communities.
- Attracting large, mature firms.
- Public venture investment.
- Improving quality of life.
- Subsidizing local universities.
Luberoff dismisses the first two and focuses on the third and fourth options. Unfortunately this kind of binary (do this / don’t do that) approach is too simplistic. You have to do a lot of things well and can’t simply choose one or another from a limited set of options.
In light of the evidence from Glaeser andKerr it may not make sense to invest solely in attracting large, mature firms, but that doesn’t mean that you don’t do it at all. Adding one or two large firms that fit well into local growth clusters can provide many benefits. They add reach and depth to the labor market and provide a pool of workers that can fuel growth in smaller firms.
On public venture investment, Luberoff cites the “failure” of the effort by Japan’s MITI. He ignores the track record of success compiled by a variety of programs elsewhere. There are a myriad of successful programs that have assisted entrepreneurial growth through a combination of investment and mentoring. There are models that have worked to varying degrees, such the Ben Franklin Partnership in PA, KTEC in KS, USTAR in Utah, OCAST in OK, TEDCO in MD, MassTech, and more. I am not saying that citing six examples proves my case and dismisses this argument, but I am saying that we need a more careful assessment of whether these programs work and under what circumstances that succeed or fail. One case, or six does not make the case.
On quality of life, I agree. When is it a bad idea? OK, but you can still do a poor job on quality of life if you invest in recreational assets and starve education or pursue high profile “amenity” developments while basic services crumble.
Local support for universities is also a good idea, but it is not an unqualified good idea. Not every university provides the same level of ROI for the region. Maryann Feldman demonstrated this in 1994 in the case of Baltimore and The Johns Hopkins University. This has been followed up by Heike Mayer’s work on region’s that have developed as tech hubs without a significant research university.
There is no silver bullet answer to promoting growth or entrepreneurship, which is but one path to growth among many alternatives. Whichever path you choose, however, you have to be able to do many things well to enjoy sustainable growth and prosperity. A little luck doesn’t hurt either.




![question-cloud[1]](http://economicarchitecture.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/question-cloud1.jpg?w=190&h=300)

By 








