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.

Taking Root in the Silicon Forest: High-technology Firms as Surrogate Universities in Portland, Oregon

Most case studies of successful high-technology industry regions highlight the role of research universities in fostering regional economic development. The Portland, Oregon, region managed to root a thriving high-tech industry in the absence of this critical factor. In this article, I present a case study of the evolution of Portland's high-tech industry and propose that high-tech firms can act as surrogate universities that attract and develop labor, create knowledge, and function as incubators for startups. I conclude that planners working to develop high-tech industries in regions without major research universities should attract R&D-intensive firms, maintain information on key busineses and entrepreneurial ventures, support an innovation milieu, and set realistic goals.