Based on November 2012, “Arizona’s Economic Development Landscape”, Ken Western and Ioanna Morfessis, Morrison Institute for Public Policy, granted provided by Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold.
The real critique is what is not included in the paradigm, who and what EDOs are NOT thought of as EDOs, the underlying notion of professionalism and the “landscape” it pictures and strives for. In particular:
- Where does politics fit in
- KNOWLEDGE-BASED IS SO PERVASIVE IT DOES NOT NEED MUCH DEVELOPMENT. NO MENTION OF CREATIVITY, HOWEVER. Education and workforce development—although no mention of federal programs except STEM, really does not get into WIA or even mention it—does not include workforce agencies in the many agencies they cite and discuss—not one.
- Targeted sectors, workforce development and job creation are key concepts, that all who adopt the paradigm must comply—BUT “COMMUNITIES CANNOT CHASE EVERY SMOKESTACK OR TRENDS BUT MUST BUILD ON THEIR OWN UNIQUE STRENGTHS” p20—Plan is key to that
- Tolerates tourism and endorses economic gardening, renewable energy
- Definition of accepted targeted sectors p20—really is cluster development but no mention of Porter, nor use of the word cluster—they are targeted high quality sectors—reminds me of the old sunrise industry stuff.—also close tie in with the old EDS AND MEDS,P24-5
- How does this square with “place” driven ED—it describes and is sometimes in a quandary how the requirements of place inject a tension into their reforms and proposals and acknowledges the goals and perspective is different, but can be reconciles.
- Relies upon, one can argue is focused on A Plan and Planning. It seems inconceivable this strategy can be followed without a plan, and if nothing else a plan builds collaboration, or buy-in.
- Does this strategy have “legs” on the ground or is it fine sounding concepts that lose traction outside of planning, plans, and university. Is it state and large city, and can it really be relevant to smaller cities and rural ED.
- This is third wave and COC is outside—BUT attraction is a key part of agglomeration and cluster development—the heart of it, but nowhere are incentives mentioned, despite its insistence the strategy is necessary to compete not only with other cities, but regions and countries as well. The HIERARCHY (p. 3) underlies why one needs to embrace the strategy—it stresses COMPETITIVENESS but redefines it away from the traditional Business Climate version of economic base competitiveness, i.e. low cost, low-regulation, et al. Instead it stress worker knowledge and skills, educational levels, and entrepreneurialism which is closely linked to the Kauffman approach—innovation in fact is almost a synonym for entrepreneurialism. Kauffman, of course, stress entrepreneurialism as a job creation strategy and observe young new firms are the greatest job creators despite their high casualty rates—constant need to create brand new young firms to replace those destroyed. That flavor is not at all part of the Arizona study.
- Suggests Arizona must “collaboratively differentiate its economic identity amid an ever-changing economic landscape”—a sort of state branding through competence in meeting the standards of the paradigm and through the selection of the right,i.e cutting edge, good job, correct targeted sectors of growth. AVOID “low impact” jobs and attract and develop high pay, high skill jobs whose outputs are exported.
- Its critique of Arizona acknowledges that is a high growth state but observes the Recession’s job loss demonstrates the need to “diversity” its economy from the sectors and strategies associated with pre-Recession state growth. Its critique of the Arizona deficiencies reflect things like STEM, engineering degrees, it uses Moretti as support, and observes Arizona’s high rates of entrepreneurialism but such entrepreneurialism must be shifted to create the “right” cutting edge, high quality sectors startups. P4. It is ok with the aerospace sector, but since that is a traditional Arizona agglomeration, further diversification is necessary. It acknowledges that tourism is ok but for rural areas it is vital.
- It does not go out of its way about FDI, no mention, or export. It is people, skills, and startup focused, and does not address factors that make a firm competitiveness—except workers skills.
- There is a stress on transportation related infrastructure—and of course education particularly university, but at all level.
- There is a thought that these right jobs and sectors will produce growth which will produce revenues for taxing authorities (p.3)—
- THERE IS NO MENTION OF cd TYPE NEIGHBORHOOD, NO INEQUALITY, NO RACISM OR IDENTITY, NO COMPREHENSIVENESS—NO MENTION OF THE IMMIGRANT FIRST GENERATION OR THE IMMIGRANT AT ALL, NO TRIBAL Application, NO REFERENCE TO WELFARE OR HEALTH CARE—NOTHING CLOSE TO MY FORGOTTEN PEOPLE. THERE IS NO MENTION OF WHETHER SKILLS TRAINING HAS LIMITATIONS, OR THAT TARGETING SECTORS CAN BE RISKY. THE SECTORS ARE SIMPLY ASSERTED AND ASSUMED AS LOGICAL AND COMMONSENSICAL—PROVEN ELSEWHERE PERHAPS—EVERYBODY KNOWS A CONSENSUS THAT IS ASSUMED.
- PARTNERSHIPS ARE REALLY REGIONAL—REALLY DOES NOT STRESS PUBLIC PRIVATE BUT RATHER GEOGRAPHIC ALLIANCES, COLLABORATION AND IS REALLY WARMED OVER REGIONALISM—WITH A PLAN AND EVERYBODY TARGETING THE RIGHT SECTORS AND JOINING TOGETHER IN THE PARADIGM. POLIITICANS ARE USUALLY NOT DISCUSSED UNLESS THEY EMBRACE THE PRINCIPLES
- VERY UNIVERSITY TIED AND MUCH OF THEIR SPECIFIC PROGRAMS, LIKE ACCELERATORS, WHICH ARE VERY BIG, AND STEM, PATENTS, AND HIGH PAYING JOBS ARE REALLY TIED TO EDUC—THE ONE EXCEPTION IN ARIZONA IS MINING, REMEMBER WHO SPONSORED THIS REPORT, AND EVENTHEN THEY TALK ABOUT NEW INNOVATIONS IN MINING, R&D, AND THEN GLOBAL EXPORT.
- Does not like small EDOs, fragmented, under-skilled, too part time, too-pace based, cannot attract right kinds of people. EDOs are governmental or nonprofit. Chambers are not EDOs. Private firms are just not discussed. Philanthropic EDOs are highly valued, but capitalism and corporate leadership is not well-developed
- Policy recommendation p30.
Ron W. Coan 