Increasingly Rank: The Use and Misuse of Rankings in Economic Development

Debates over the merits of competing schemes for ranking metropolitan areas as hightech centers shed little light on the important policy questions that should be the core of economic development policy. There are no strong theoretical reasons for preferring one ranking system to others. Rankings often conflate different industries and ignore history, obscuring the varied and often idiosyncratic processes that drive growth in different regions. Although an occupational perspective is a useful one for examining economic activity, it is a supplement to, not a replacement for, a careful understanding of metropolitan industrial specialization. Practitioners should not put too much weight on any ranking system but instead should work to develop detailed knowledge of their region’s special economic niche and to develop relationships and strategies that build on established strengths.

What is the Role of Universities in High-tech Economic Development? The Case of Portland, Oregon, and Washington, DC

This paper focuses on two regions in the United States that have emerged as high-technology regions in the absence of major research universities. The case of Portland's Silicon Forest is compared to Washington, DC. In both regions, high-technology economies grew because of industrial restructuring processes. The paper argues that in both regions other actors—such as firms and government laboratories—spurred the development of knowledge-based economies and catalysed the engagement of higher education institutions in economic development. The paper confirms and advances the triple helix model of university–government–industry relationships and posits that future studies have to examine degrees of university-region engagement.

Institutional Infrastructure to Support 'Super Growth' in Kenya: Governance Thresholds, Reversion Rates and Economic Development

Kenya Growth Vision 2030 proposes policy and institutional reforms that make it possible for the country to achieve development status of a middle income country by 2030. This paper outlines the institutional framework necessary to achieve ÈSuper Growth,É which describes the character of growth required to meet targets stipulated in the Vision. The paper provides evidence confirming the importance of improving the quality of governance to the achievement of the Vision. The paper also demonstrates that the country is characterized by a high probability of reverting to poor governance. It is argued that, to achieve super growth, the country must attain an institutional tipping point which associates with low reversion rates to weaker institutions. The paper provides suggestions for institutional reforms that result in the achievement of an institutional tipping point and super growth.