Regional Innovation Systems: Implications for Nonmetropolitan Areas and Workers in the South

Abstract

A public policy response to global competition is the creation of a geographic concentration of innovative activity (regional innovation systems [RIS]) that will enhance metropolitan economic development through knowledge spillovers, product development, and new firm spin-offs. This article identifies three types of RIS in the thirteen southern states based on a cluster analysis of twenty indicators of innovative and entrepreneurial activity. Next, regression analysis is used to determine if the 1990-2000 growth rates of nonmetro county population, employment, and earnings were related to proximity to an RIS after controlling for other county characteristics associated with local economic development. The research findings indicate that nonmetro counties near an RIS experienced more rapid population and employment growth; however, changes in nonmetro growth rates varied by type of regional innovation system. In addition, proximity to an RIS had a stronger impact on nonmetro population change than on nonmetro job growth. Copyright 2006 Blackwell Publishing.

Innovation and Regional Socio-Economic Development - Evidence from the Finnish Local Administrative Units (1)

“…The results can be generalized at a level which states, as Bettencourt et al (2007) have done, that larger cities (more urbanized) are more inventive per inhabitant than smaller ones. The positive association with innovation and population growth suggested by Barkley et al (2006) is also supported by the Finnish data. When these results are viewed from another standpoint it could be stated equally well that innovations can generate city development and urbanization.…”

“…Earlier notions (e.g., Rodríguez-Pose, 1999;Barkley et al, 2006) about the connection between low unemployment and indicators of innovations and the positive effect innovations on employment growth are not supported by this analysis since there seems to be little connection between the indicators of innovation and the unemployment rate. One explanatory factor might be that technological innovation usually leads to a heightened efficiency, i.e., to a decrease in the need for manpower.…”

“…It also seems that in Finnish regions housing and housing costs do play a part in innovation as earlier studies (Sternberg, Arndt, 2001;Barkley et al, 2006;Ewers, 2007) have suggested. Indicators of innovation are negatively and significantly correlated with housing.…”

“…At the same time the innovativeness of a particular region attracts educated human capital to that region (Faggian, McCann, 2009). Barkley et al (2006) have shown that innovative activity is positively associated with population growth, employment, earnings, and, to some degree, with new housing. Urbanization has a positive influence on innovativeness and, furthermore, urbanization attracts better educated employees to a region (Florida, 2005;Bettencourt et al, 2007).…”

Urban/Regional Economics and Rural Development

“…Finally, could not rural residents just “wait for disagglomeration economies to kick in in urban areas?” No waiting needed (see Figure 2). Proximate rural counties are already the beneficiaries of net in‐migration (Carlino, 2000; Khan et al, 2001; So et al, 2001; Barkley, Henry, and Nair, 2006; Gottlieb, 2006). This offers no remedy for the distress of residents and businesses in remote rural counties (Partridge and Rickman, 2008).…”