Characteristics of Competitive Places: Changing Models of Economic Dynamism IEDC/IASP 2009 Conference Technology-Led Economic Development World Science and Technology Park Research Triangle Park, NC June 2, 2009 Ross DeVol Director, Regional Economics Director, Center for Health Economics (310) 570 4615 rdevol@milkeninstitute.org www.milkeninstitute.org
Overview Long-term regional growth process Regional economic development ecosystem Examples of top U.S. performers Conclusions: Sustaining an economic development ecosystem
Long-term regional growth process Large regional differences in growth Few barriers to flow of economic activity Export-intensive activity is critical Manufacturing is an export sector Travel & tourism can be an export
Factors affecting disparity in regional growth Existing industrial structure Cost of doing business: Tax rates, capital costs, wage rates, space costs, energy costs, health care costs, etc. Labor force skills, access to markets and capital Research, development and innovation capacities Quality of place issues
Research and development composite 2009 Rank:22 Source: Milken Institute Legend Top 10 Second tier Third tier Bottom 10
Research and development composite Oregon, 2009 Indicators 2009 rankings 1 Federal R&D 33 2 Industry R&D 27 3 Academic R&D 24 4 National Science Foundation funding 15 5 National Science Foundation research funding 15 6 R&D expenditures on engineering 47 7 R&D expenditures on physical sciences 43 8 R&D expenditures on environmental sciences 15 9 R&D expenditures on math and computer science 8 10 R&D expenditures on life sciences 16 Source: Milken Institute.
Research and development composite Oregon, 2009 (cont.) Indicators 2009 rankings 11 R&D expenditures on agricultural sciences 16 12 R&D expenditures on biomedical sciences 17 13 STTR awards per 10,000 businesses 25 14 STTR award dollars per $ millions fo GSP 24 15 SBIR awards per 100,000 people 19 16 Phase 1 SBIR awards per 10,000 business establishments 18 17 Phase 2 SBIR awards per 10,000 business establishments 22 18 Competitive NSF funding rate 14 Research and Development Inputs Composite 22 Source: Milken Institute.
Risk capital and entrepreneurial investment composite 2009 Rank:4 Source: Milken Institute Legend Top 10 Second tier Third tier Bottom 10
Life Sciences Small Business Vitality Index Ranked by composite score Rank MSA Therapeutics and devices Healthcare services Life science supporting Small Business Vitality Index 1 Greater Los Angeles 100 100 95 100.0 2 Greater San Francisco 98 74 68 91.1 3 San Diego 90 81 79 87.4 4Boston 92 69 85 87.4 5 Greater Raleigh-Durham 88 71 85 85.0 6 Washington, D.C. 90 63 42 80.5 7 Greater New York 68 87 68 72.2 8Chicago 61 82 98 69.5 9 Greater Philadelphia 61 55 100 63.9 10 Seattle 51 46 91 54.5 11 Minneapolis 61 36 42 54.3 Sources: NETS Database, Walls & Associates, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Milken Institute.
Human capital investment composite 2009 Rank:23 Source: Milken Institute Legend Top 10 Second tier Third tier Bottom 10
Life sciences human capital Selected metropolitan regions, 2009 Score 100 95 90 85 80 75 70 Boston Raleigh Chicago Minneapolis Washington Philadelphia New York San Fran. Los Angeles Seattle San Diego Source: Milken Institute.
Technology and science workforce composite 2009 Rank:31 Source: Milken Institute Legend Top 10 Second tier Third tier Bottom 10
Technology and science workforce composite Oregon, 2009 Indicators 2009 rankings 1 Intensity: computer and information science experts NA 2 Intensity: computer programmers 42 3 Intensity: software engineers, systems software 30 4 Intensity: computer support specialists 25 5 Intensity: computer system analysts 36 6 Intensity: database and network administrators 27 7 Intensity: agricultural and food scientists 22 8 Intensity: biochemists and biophysicists NA 9 Intensity: microbiologists 35 10 Intensity: medical scientists 17 Source: Milken Institute.
Technology and science workforce composite Oregon, 2009 (cont.) Indicators 2009 rankings 11 Intensity: physicists 24 12 Intensity: other life and physical science occupations 17 13 Intensity: electronic engineers 18 14 Intensity: electrical engineers 28 15 Intensity: computer hardware engineers 1 16 Intensity: biomedical engineers 34 17 Intensity: agricultural engineers NA 18 Intensity: other engineers 32 Technology and Science Work Force Composite 31 Source: Milken Institute.
Technology concentration and dynamism composite 2009 Rank:9 Source: Milken Institute Legend Top 10 Second tier Third tier Bottom 10
University Biotech Patent Ranking Top 30, 2000-2004 13. University of Michigan 9. Univ. of WI, Madison 27. Univ.of Minnesota 22. Washington University 26. University of Utah 25. Univ. of British Columbia 7. Univ. of CA, Berkeley 2. Univ. of CA, San Francisco 4. Stanford University 17. CA Institute of Technology 23. Univ. of CA, Los Angeles 8. Univ of CA, San Diego 1. University of Texas 29. Univ. of Chicago 30. Univ. of Alabama 14. McGill University 11. Harvard University 18. Yale University 28. MA Institute of Technology 6. Columbia University 5. Cornell University 16. Rockefeller University 15. Univ. of Pennsylvania 20. Thomas Jefferson University 3. Johns Hopkins University 10. University of London 24. University of Oxford 21. Tel-Aviv University 12. Hebrew Univ. of Jerusalem 19. Univ. of Melbourne
State Technology and Science Index 2009 Rank:16 Source: Milken Institute Legend Top 10 Second tier Third tier Bottom 10
Per capita income & Tech and Science Index Income relative to working age population, 2007 $US Thousands 55 50 Actual Predicted 45 40 35 30 25 AL AZ CO DE GA IA IL KS LA MD MI MOMT ND NH NM NY OK PA SC TN UT VT WI WY AK AR CA CT FL HI ID IN KY MAMEMN MS NC NE NJ NV OH OR RI SD TX VA WAWV
(#1) Provo-Orem vs. United States High-tech employment 2001 index =100 110 105 Provo-Orem 100 95 90 U.S. 85 80 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: BLS, Moody s Economy.com, Milken Institute.
(#2) Raleigh-Cary vs. United States Professional, scientific, and technical services Jobs, percent change from preceding year 10 8 6 Raleigh-Cary U.S. 4 2 0-2 -4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: BLS, Moody s Economy.com, Milken Institute.
(#3) Salt-Lake City vs. United States Computer systems design and related services Jobs, percent change from preceding year 20 10 Salt Lake City U.S. 0-10 -20 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: BLS, Moody s Economy.com, Milken Institute.
(#4) Austin-Round Rock vs. United States Computer and electronic product manufacturing Percent share of total employment 7 6 Austin-Round Rock U.S. 5 4 3 2 1 0 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: BLS, Moody s Economy.com, Milken Institute.
(#5) Huntsville vs. United States Professional, scientific, and technical services Percent share of total employment 16 Huntsville U.S. 14 12 10 8 6 4 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 Sources: BLS, Moody s Economy.com, Milken Institute.
Conclusions: Creating an economic development ecosystem Develop strategic vision for economic development Award incentives on value-added economic impact Target anchor tech firms Public/Private partnerships (economic catalysts) Promote commercialization of R&D
Conclusions (cont.): Creating an economic development ecosystem Increase access to venture capital (private equity) Support technology entrepreneurship Improvements in broad-based human capital Encourage engineering training and retention Communicate and promote economic development vision (internally and externally)