Posts Tagged ‘entrepreneurship’

Podcast: migration, cities, Brexit

November 3, 2017

(c) 2014 uncovention

I did a Centre for Cities podcast on migration, urban economies and Brexit a few weeks back, with Andrew Carter (CFC) and Nicola Headlam (Oxford Uni).

Here’s the blurb:

From the benefits of cognitive diversity in the workforce to the success of the entrepreneur program, our guests offer insights from their own research on the less publicised impacts migrants have on the economy. They go on to discuss the big question; does net migration have an overall positive or negative effect on the UK economy? Finally they consider how Brexit might affect migration patterns and examine what benefits diasporic communities can have on facilitating trade links with new markets.

You can listen here – it’s about an hour in total.

*

 

 

Innovation, evidence and industrial strategy

September 1, 2017

circle-mesh_1920_700_75_s_c1

[A What Works Centre post that’s good here too.]

Industrial strategy is one of the big issues for the What Works Centre and its local partners and innovation is one of the main themes of industrial strategies in the UK, and around the world.

Public policy plays a number of important roles in supporting innovation — see thisdebate between Mariana Mazzucato and Stian Westlake for a good intro. And as I wrote back in January, it’s equally important that we understand what the most effective tools are.

The good news for the UK is thatwe are — slowly — building an evidence base on what works for promoting innovation, as well as other pillars of industrial policy. What’s more, what we have suggests some current UK programmes work pretty well.

*

Our latest case study summarises Innovate UK’s programmes of support for microbusinesses and SMEs: mainly grants but also loans, awarded on a competitive basis, either to individual firms, or to promote partnerships with other companies or with universities.

Using standard UK administrative data, evaluators were able to set supported firms alongside similar non-supported companies, then compare how the two groups did. This ‘difference in difference’ approach is one of the methods we endorse, as it meets our minimum standards for good evaluation.

Encouragingly, Innovate UK’s programmes seem to have raised treated firms’ survival prospects (by 14 percentage points), employment (an extra 32 staff on average), and possibly sales too (although this result is less robust). These positive effects are biggest for 2–5 year old companies and those aged 6–19 years old. That is, these programmes seem to have helped innovative firms to scale.

*

This is another helpful piece of the industrial strategy puzzle, for several reasons.

First, in our innovation evidence review back in 2015, we found lots of evidence that these kinds of programmes raised firms’ R&D — but rather less evidence on growth impacts further down the line. Now we have good UK evidence of those growth and scaling impacts.

Second, we already know that the UK’s R&D tax credit system is pretty effective in stimulating firms’ patenting. We can now add good evidence on grants and loans alongside that.

Third, we can set these innovation findings alongside other evidence on business support programmes — where again, we have a decent stock of UK evidence, with several programmes (e.g. on export support) showing positive impacts.

Finally, it’s reassuring to see that evidence for these types of innovation support programmes in the UK broadly lines up with what we’ve found for OECD countries as a whole. We’ve had a number of conversations with policymakers worried that innovation programmes are very context-specific, so results from one country won’t generalise to others. This may be true in some cases. But for grants, loans and tax credits, what we know suggests that what works across the OECD also works in the UK.

*

Originally published here on 17 August 2017.

A modern industrial strategy

February 3, 2017

A What Works Centre post I thought would be good here. Written with Henry Overman.

*

Much has already been written on the UK Government’s Industrial Strategy Green Paper. This post isn’t intended to provide an overall assessment or spell out our individual views on the approach being set out (they differ, depending on which of us you ask). But there are areas where the proposed strategy will shape the work that we’ll do at the Centre and where we also hope that our work will influence the implementation of the eventual strategy.

[Full disclosure – the Centre is cited in the document as one of the institutions the Government hopes will help improve local economic growth.]

*

The first area relates to what we do and don’t know about policy effectiveness, particularly when it comes to some of the Strategy’s 10 pillars – which are a mix of tech (science, research and innovation) cross-cutting (skills, infrastructure, supporting business growth, procurement, trade and inward investment) and sector (new sector deals, clean energy). Academics would call this a ‘matrix’ approach.

Take, for example, policy to support business to start and grow. We know that there are market failures here – entrepreneurs often make avoidable mistakes, which better information could help fix; many young firms need better access to early stage finance (the Green Paper talks about ‘patient capital’).

The crucial question is: what’s the right policy mix to help address these challenges? Our evidence reviews on business support and on access to finance suggest that around half of schemes have measurable impact against policy objectives but around half don’t. Our reviews and associated toolkits start to identify the elements that might go in to the design of a more effective set of interventions. And we’ll soon be publishing more toolkits on incubators, accelerators and science parks. All this material provides guidance on how we might improve support to businesses but major challenges remain – both in terms of gaps in our understanding and embedding the evidence in policy development.

We are in a similar position when it comes to policy to develop skills. We know quite a lot – see, for example our evidence reviews on employment support and apprenticeships and our toolkit on training (soon to be supplemented by a toolkit on apprenticeships). Changes to policy design can improve effectiveness but, once again, there are gaps in our knowledge and challenges in implementation.

*

Things are more complicated when it comes to investing in science and promoting innovation. We can say something about the specific policy tools – e.g. from our evidence reviews we know that both R&D grants and tax credits drive up innovative activity. But it’s not so clear whether increased innovation at the firm level feeds in to improved local economic performance and there are lots of unanswered questions about the appropriate policy mix. That ambiguity is one of the reasons why people advocate such different approaches to strategy.

In the interests of openness – we should note that one of the things our review did find was that grants and loans programmes that target particular production sectors appear to do slightly worse in terms of increasing R&D expenditure and innovation, compared to those that are ‘sector neutral’. So, while it makes sense for government to recognise that different sectors might need different policy responses (e.g. in terms of the institutional structure that supports those sectors) this might increase the challenge of effective policy implementation in some of the other policy areas.

*

Questions of infrastructure are similarly challenging. The evidence that we do have on the link from transport to local economic growth raises some questions about the effectiveness of these policies for turning around areas that are struggling. But at the same time, we know that such investments can help drive growth in areas where travel times and congestion are a big issue (and not all of those areas are in London and the South East). Getting the right balance will be crucial.

As with innovation expenditure, people are willing to advocate for very different approaches – particularly when it comes to the overall pattern of expenditure. We’ll continue to make the case that focussing on the overall pattern of expenditure isn’t helpful when it comes to shaping effective policies. What we need is a better understanding of the economic impact of different schemes and improved ways of feeding this information back in to decisions about scheme prioritisation. This will be where our work will focus in the coming years.

*

We could make similar points about the other pillars, but in the interest of space, let’s turn instead to a final cross cutting issue – whatever happens we think that to be successful, industrial policy will need to be inherently experimental. How we deliver and develop the policy will matter a lot.

Industrial strategy is always going to involve unknowns. Most fundamentally, because it involves funding basic science (or commercialising new ideas) – not all of which are going to work out, so wouldn’t be delivered by the market. In other cases, investments will trigger spillovers between parts of the economy that are hard to see upfront.

Finally, unknowns crop up because – for a lot of the things Governments want to do as part of industrial strategy – we still have a long way to go in understanding what is an effective policy mix. In addition to the policy areas covered above, at least three of the Pillars – strategic procurement, innovative place strategies, and institutions – are subject to big knowledge gaps in terms of what works. As a result, how we implement future industrial strategy will be crucial.

As you might expect, we will be arguing for an experimental approach. We need to test lots of different ideas, figure out what works, scale up the things that do and drop those that don’t. Many of those calling for a more interventionist policy – such as Harvard’s Dani Rodrik – have consistently emphasised this point. Many people have argued that the Green Paper’s approach isn’t such a fundamental break with the past. But a greater focus on flexibility, on experimentation, and on testing and improving, would help differentiate this from the past and increase the chances of success where so many other strategies have failed.

*

Originally posted here on 27 January.

Evidence in a post-experts world

October 11, 2016

(c) The Thick of It / BBC

Something I wrote for the What Works Centre that I thought would be good here too.

*

The What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth is three years old. So what have we learnt?

Two weeks ago we were in Manchester to discuss the Centre’s progress (the week before we held a similar session in Bristol). These sessions are an opportunity to reflect on what the Centre has been up to, but also to think more broadly about the role of evidence in policy in a post-experts world. In Bristol we asked Nick Pearce, who ran the No 10 Policy Unit under Gordon Brown, to share his thoughts. In Manchester we were lucky to be joined by Diane Coyle, who spoke alongside Henry and Andrew on the platform. Here are my notes from the Manchester event.

*

Evidence-based policy is more important than ever, Diane pointed out. For cash-strapped local government, evidence helps direct resources into the most effective uses. As devolution rolls on, adopting an evidence-based approach also help local areas build credibility with central government departments, some of whom remain sceptical about handing over power.

Greater Manchester’s current devolution deal is, in part, the product of a long term project to build an evidence base and develop new ways of working around it.

A lack of good local data exacerbates the problem, as highlighted in the Bean Review. The Review has, happily, triggered legislation currently going through House of Commons to allow ONS better access to administrative data. Diane was hopeful that this will start to give a clearer picture of what is going on in local economies in a timely fashion, so the feedback can be used to influence the development of programmes in something closer to real time.

Diane also highlighted the potential of new data sources — information from the web and from social media platforms, for example — to inform city management and to help understand local economies and communities better. We think this is important too; I’ve written about this here and here.

*

So what have we done to help? Like all of the What Works Centres, we’ve had three big tasks since inception: to systematically review evaluation evidence, to translate those findings into usable policy lessons, and to work with local partners to embed those in everyday practice. (In our case, we’ve also had to start generating new, better evidence, through a series of local demonstrator projects.

Good quality impact evaluations need to give us some idea about whether the policy in question had the effects we wanted (or had any negative impacts we didn’t want). In practice, we also need process evaluation — which tells us about policy rollout, management and user experience — but with limited budgets, WWCs tend to focus on impact evaluations.

In putting together our evidence reviews, we’ve developed a minimum standard for the evidence that we consider. Impact evaluations need to be able to look at outcomes before and after a policy is implemented, both for the target group and for a comparison group. That feels simple enough, but we’ve found the vast majority of local economic growth evaluations don’t meet this standard.

However, we do have enough studies in play to draw conclusions about more or less effective policies.

The chart above summarises the evidence for employment effects: one of the key economic success measures for LEPs and for local economies.

First, we can see straight away that success rates vary. Active labour market programmes and apprenticeships tend to be pretty effective at raising employment (and at cutting time spent unemployed). By contrast, firm-focused interventions (business advice or access to finance measures) don’t tend to work so well at raising workforce jobs.

Second, some programmes are better at meeting some objectives than others. This matters, since local economic development interventions often have multiple objectives.

For example, the firm-focused policies I mentioned earlier turn out to be much better at raising firm sales and profits than at raising workforce head count. That *might* feed through to more money flowing in the local economy — but if employment is the priority, resources might be better spent elsewhere.

We can also see that complex interventions like estate renewal don’t tend to deliver job gains. However, they work better at delivering other important objectives — not least, improved housing and local environments.

Third, some policies will work best when carefully targeted. Improving broadband access is a good example: SMEs benefit more than larger firms; so do firms with a lot of skilled workers; so do people and firms in urban areas. That gives us some clear steers about where economic development budgets need to be focused.

*

Fourth, it turns out that some programmes don’t have a strong economic rationale — but then, wider welfare considerations can come into play. For example, if you think of the internet as a basic social right, then we need universal access, not just targeting around economic gains.

This point also applies particularly to area-based interventions such as sports and cultural events and facilities, and to estate renewal. The evidence shows that the net employment, wage and productivity effects of these programmes tends to be very small (although house price effects may be bigger). There are many other good reasons to spend public money on these programmes, just not from the economic development budget.

*

Back at the event, the Q&A covered both future plans and bigger challenges. In its second phase, the Centre will be producing further policy toolkits (building on the training, business advice and transport kits already published). We’ll also be doing further capacity-building work and — we hope — further pilot projects with local partners.

At the same time, we’ll continue to push for more transparency in evaluation. BEIS is now publishing all its commissioned reports, including comments by reviewers; we’d like to see other departments follow suit.

At the Centre, we’d also like to see wider use of Randomised Control Trials in evaluation. Often this will need to involve ’what works better’ settings where we test variations of a policy against each other — especially when the existing evidence doesn’t give strong priors. For example, Growth Hubs present an excellent opportunity to do this, at scale, across a large part of the country.

That kind of exercise is difficult for LEPs to organise on their own. So central government will still need to be the co-ordinator — despite devolution. Similarly, Whitehall has important brokering, convening and info-sharing roles, alongside the What Works Centres and others.

Incentives also need to change. We think LEPs should be rewarded not just for running successful programmes — but for running successful evaluations, whether or not they work.

Finally, we and other Centres need to keep pushing the importance of evidence, and to as wide a set of audiences as we can manage. Devolution, especially when new Mayors are involved, should enrich local democracy and the local public conversation. At the same time, the Brexit debate has shown widespread distrust of experts, and the ineffectiveness of much expert language and communication tools. The long term goal of the Centres — to embed evidence into decision-making — has certainly got harder. But the community of potential evidence users is getting bigger all the time.

Save

Save

Save

RGS talk on migration

May 13, 2016

(c) 2016 RGS

A late plug for this. I did a panel event on ‘Europe’s Migration Crisis’ with the Royal Geographical Society a few weeks back, alongside Heaven Crawley, Madeleine Sumption and Christina Boswell. The Guardian’s estimable David Walker chaired it.

I gave an overview of the local economics of migration, focusing on the recent UK experience, and drawing on some of my work – as well as borrowing a couple of nice maps from the Migration Observatory.

*

Here’s the summary I sent the organisers:

My talk will look at migration impacts at the local level, especially in cities. I’ll argue that we should look both at people flows, but also at the diversity that migration brings. Today’s public conversation about migration is focused on jobs, housing and public services. That’s understandable, and there are some real concerns here.

I also want to shift the conversation to cover migration as an influence on long term economic growth, with impacts on productivity, innovation, entrepreneurship and trade. Skilled migrants (from inside and outside the EU) are central to this, and the evidence we have suggests that there are positive effects of these groups on economic outcomes policymakers should care about. We need to know much more about how these channels work, of course. But national government and cities can start – now – to adjust policy to make more of these opportunities. 

There’s a nice write-up of the event on the RGS blog. If you want more detail, my slides are here.

Mapping London tech

October 22, 2015

 

 

Science and tech employment counts, 2013, IDBR

 

The Tech Map London is out, and so is the research that underpins it. It’s an extremely impressive piece of work, and anyone remotely interested in urban tech ecosystems should take a look. Kudos to the GLA for commissioning it, and to Trampoline Systems and SQW who put the thing together. Other city-regions should try and do something similar.

Here’s some notes I made. It gets a bit geeky in places.

*

1/ Patterns – one widely-reported headline is that London has a whole bunch of technology hotspots, not just one. That makes sense, and chimes with other recent analysis. And as some colleagues and I explore in a forthcoming paper, even pre-2010 Silicon Roundabout was linked into a much larger system.

Another is that the tech sector is ‘shunning’ the Old St area. That’s harder to see, as there’s no time dimension in the data, but it’s clear that as that neighbourhood’s technology scene grows, and the area gets pricier, things will tend to spread out. This is what I found recently in some work for Centre for London.

2/ Definitions – The definition of ‘tech’ is important, and this NESTA piece makes clear, there’s a bunch of competing definitions in play. The project team base their work on the recent ONS science and technology categories, though they tell me they tweaked these a bit. This feels sensible, and has the advantage of allowing them to consider (say) medicine and life sciences alongside ICT.

3/ Data – the report uses high quality IDBR data for some of the analysis, but relies on Companies House data for the actual mapping, which identifies tech firms using self-reported industry codes. This isn’t great, as the authors acknowledge: a non-trivial share of firms don’t report anything, others put down non-informative codes (say, ‘other business services’), and SIC codes often don’t tell us much about products/services. Companies House data on employment and revenues is also quite gappy, and comes off of a selected subsample. Use those numbers with caution.

Anna Rosso  and I have used a big data-driven approach [unlocked version] to try and get around some of these issues, though this isn’t perfect either. We’re now testing a combination of administrative and modelled info which should plug a lot more of the holes.

4/ Location – I’m still scratching my head a bit on this. Companies House data gives the address of a registered office, not the trading address. The two could be quite different, and in extremis, not even in the same city. The project team did a survey to explore these issues, finding that for most SMEs, the two addresses are the same, so developed the map on that basis. It’s obviously critical that the survey is robust for us to believe the map.

I couldn’t find that much detail in the report, but assuming the survey is sound, this is a pretty helpful finding for me and others working with company data. Meanwhile, we can get a rough sense of the correspondence by comparing the map at the top of the page with this one.

 

Digital technologies employment counts, 2013, Companies House

 

The first uses IDBR employment data from actual plant locations, the second uses Companies House registered addresses. For some reason, the first map covers the whole of science and tech, while the second only looks at digital technologies (around 18% of all science and tech jobs in 2013) and is in logs, not raw counts. The two line up *fairly* well, but really we need to see a like-for-like comparison using plants/enterprises, not jobs. Note: I’d be very happy to update this material if the team can furnish me with more detail.

 

New essay on London’s digital industries

June 27, 2015

I’ve written a piece for the new issue of London Essays, the beautifully-designed journal published by Centre for London.

Having covered soft power, the latest issue looks at technology. It launches on 1 July, but you can read my article early here: I take a look at London’s digital industries and their contribution to the city’s economic future, crunch some new numbers and try not to make too many jokes about artisanal products.

Hope you enjoy reading it!

Writing it has been good preparation for the LSE lecture I’m chairing on 7 July, where Gerard Grech, CEO of Tech City UK will be setting out his thoughts on London’s digital future, and the prospects for the tech sector across the country. If you can make it, please come say hello.

 

 

Can ‘Tech North’ take off?

October 27, 2014

Rory Cellan-Jones has a nice article on the BBC website on the prospects for the Government’s ‘Tech North’ initiative, building extensively from my work with Emma Vandore on Tech City in London. Here’s some further thoughts.

*

Tech North was launched by Nick Clegg last week: it’s one of the products of the DPM’s recent Northern Futures initiative. The idea is to promote tech clusters in Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Leeds and Newcastle: Clegg has put £2m/year on the table to support local firms, and to attract FDI to the area.

Politically this is a no brainer. It meshes with the government’s ‘rebalancing’ rhetoric. And it fits the new mission of TechCity UK, which has expanded its remit from just East London to cover the whole country. TCUK is publishing work next month looking at digital clusters, which will put some new numbers behind the policy.

*

So will it work? Rory is fairly sceptical in his piece. I’m still unclear what the programme will actually do: so here are five issues policymakers should be thinking about.

1/ Real geographies – Tech North connects five big cities with over 150 miles between them. In the real world, urban tech is in very tight microclusters: neighbourhood scale scenes which allow for lots of face to face contact. In Liverpool, for example, a lot of the action is in Ropewalks or the Baltic Triangle.

In London, Ministers originally hoped to ‘connect’ the Shoreditch cluster to the Olympic Park a few miles away. That hasn’t proved possible, not least because Old Street firms didn’t want to move there and saw no connection between the two.

So the chances of creating a single super hub across the Pennines are slim at best. There are worrying echoes of the Thames Gateway here: a planning concept, not a real place. On the other hand, as we found in London, the area branding might prove a helpful way to raise the profile of these local scenes.

2/ Who’s in and who’s out? The DPM seems to have focused his attention on the five Northern core cities. Fair enough, in that these are the economic powerhouses of their wider regions. But the real geography of tech activity is a little different. But cities like York and Sunderland also have quite a lot of tech firms. So why aren’t they included?

3/ FDI versus growing our own – firms cluster because co-location makes sense: they can tap into new ideas and pools of skilled workers and can share useful inputs (like fast broadband or VC investors). On the other hand, clusters have tensions built in. As more firms enter, pressures on space build up, so rents rise. And competition rises, for staff and for market share.

Given all this, it’s risky to base cluster development policies on foreign investment. If FDI simply brings in big multinationals, these might displace smaller, younger UK businesses. I doubt that’s what Government or cities want. Agencies like UKTI typically try and maximise the count and size of foreign investments. A different approach is needed here, which is to focus on the type of foreign inputs.

4/ Infrastructure – FDI programmes should try and enrich the rest of the ecosystem, especially specialist services tech firms need: finance, lawyers, accountants and workspaces. This stuff is only just starting to appear in London at scale, and is likely to be a priority for other UK cities. Certainly, the UK’s VC scene is pretty weak outside the capital.

Equally, fast internet (and fast connection to it) is a basic need. For me, this is now a public utility, so it’s disappointing that the Superconnected Cities scheme has retreated from rolling out faster systems to everyone, to simply providing vouchers to SMEs. The CORE programme in York, Peterborough and Derby is an interesting exception (thanks to Tom Forth for the link).

5/ Policy architecture (and whether it really matters) – cluster policy advocates like Michael Porter assume that cluster development has to be local, since clusters are local phenomena. But this doesn’t follow.

First, Tech North has little cash on the table: its five-city budget is about the same as the original budget for Shoreditch. Second, a lot of the relevant policy levers are held at national level: tax breaks for investors, crowdfunding regulation, immigration and skills. That still leaves some local levers: branding, networking, planning and any local investment pots. But it’s limited stuff.

Arguably some of these national levers should be devolved: that’s started to happen through City Deals and Local Growth Deals. But we’re at the very start of this process, and though the post-Scotland moment may yet shake things up further, what Ministers are handing over in powers they’re currently taking away in cuts.

But perhaps that’s too pessimistic. As Emma and I found in the East London research, the Old St scene grew quietly for years without policymakers really noticing. That could well be the likely trajectory for the many clusters under the Tech North umbrella.

My new book

May 23, 2014

I have a book out: Urban Economics and Urban Policy, written with Henry Overman and Paul Cheshire, and published by Edward Elgar.

In a nutshell, it’s ‘economic urbanism’. We bring together last two decades of work by economists and economic geographers on urban issues, and distill some high-level lessons for policymakers. We look at trends in city growth and change, spatial disparities and urban housing/labour markets, as well as evaluating a range of urban policies.

The focus is on the UK, and especially work done at LSE’s Spatial Economics Research Centre since 2008. You can read the first chapter here.

*

The book began as a kind of greatest hits compilation for SERC, but has morphed into a broader attempt to show what economists (and economic geographers like me) can bring to cities and urban analysis.

Economics’ influence on urban policy has historically been very limited: urban thinking has been dominated by architects, planners and governance types.

In part, this is because economists haven’t been very interested in space until recently. As Paul pointed out at the book’s launch, economics 101 classes mention the three factors of production – capital, labour and land – after which land is rarely (if ever) discussed again. That has only really begun to change in the last decade or so, with the very obvious death of ‘death of distance’ arguments, and people like Paul Krugman and Ed Glaeser making their influence felt in the profession. (Ed kindly wrote the foreword for our book.)

It’s also because spatial economic concepts and techniques are fiddly and difficult to explain. Dealing with spatial autocorrelation is rarely as glamorous or compelling as iconic buildings or big political personalities. Evan Davies did economic geographers everywhere a great service with the Mind the Gap series, which did a bravura job of distilling agglomeration, knowledge spillovers and path-dependence into everyday language.

And of course lessons from spatial economics aren’t always ones policymakers want to hear. Urban systems tend to build in spatial differences, and these inequalities are self-reinforcing and hard for policy to reverse. Many urban policies are effective, but many popular ones – such as Enterprise Zones or cluster programmes – often don’t have much impact.

*

In turn, that highlights both the advantages and limitations in the economic urbanist’s approach. City leaders should take economic ideas and analysis seriously, especially when making decisions about housing, planning or development. The book is an attempt to put economic thinking back in the room. But we can’t reduce cities to purely economic processes: as objects or systems, they are too complex and chaotic for that. And as Max Weber says:

… The explanation of everything by economic causes alone is never exhaustive in any sense whatsoever, not in even in the … economic sphere itself. In principle, a banking history of a nation which adduces only economic motives for explanatory purposes is naturally just as unacceptable as an explanation of the Sistine Madonna as a consequence of the social-economic basis of the culture of the epoch in which it was created. 

That logic also applies to policy choices. In practice we often have to trade off economic, social and environmental goals – when planning new roads or houses, for instance. Citizens’ welfare is rather wider than economic welfare, and we should avoid collapsing the first into the second.

Given those complexities, economists need to be mindful of real-world priorities and politics when giving policy advice. (As do others – Richard Rogers’ reductionist readings of Jane Jacobs have not been very helpful in the UK, for example.) The What Works Centre for Local Economic Growth, which I’m helping to run, is one attempt to translate quantitative academic analysis from a range of fields into feasible, pragmatic policy ideas.

As an economic geographer, co-authoring a book with two economists proper is a rewarding experience – and a challenging one. The three of us didn’t agree on everything: as you can imagine, my views on regeneration, brownfield development and place-based policies are more optimistic than some of my co-authors. In the book we carefully flag who led on each chapter, and which work is genuinely joint.

*

I hope all that’s encouraged you to take a further look. The hardback is painfully expensive, as academic books always are. The ebook edition is quite a lot cheaper. Either way, order it from the EE website and use the code CHES35 to get yourselves a 35% discount. Happy reading!

New articles published in Economic Geography, European Urban and Regional Studies

April 29, 2014

(c) Max Nathan 2011

Since last summer I’ve been pretty focused on helping get the What Works Centre off the ground, so I’m posting these two articles rather late in the day.

The first is online at European Urban and Regional Studies. It’s my over-ambitious attempt to build a framework for thinking about the economic impacts of diversity in cities, drawing on my own work as well as the growing international literature. Specifically, I critique and try to move beyond Richard Florida’s thinking on these issues.

Here’s the abstract:

In recent years, most European countries have experienced substantial demographic changes and rising cultural diversity. Understanding the social and economic impacts of these shifts is a major challenge for policymakers. Richard Florida’s ideas have provided a popular – and pervasive – framework for doing so. This paper assess Florida’s legacy and sets out a ‘post-Florida’ framework for ‘technology, talent and tolerance’ research. The paper first traces the development of Florida’s ideas. ‘Florida 1.0’, encapsulated by the Three Ts framework, has performed badly in practice. There are problems in bringing causality to the fundamental relationships, and in consistently replicating the results in other countries. ‘Florida 2.0’, though suggests that Creative Class metrics have value as alternative measures of human capital. This create space for a post-Florida agenda based on economic micro-foundations. I argue that the growing body of ‘economics of diversity’ research meets these conditions, and review theory and empirics. Urban ‘diversity shocks’ shift the size and composition of populations and workforces, with impacts operating via labour markets, and through wider production and consumption networks. While short-term labour market effects are small, over time low-value industrial sectors may become migrant-dependent. Diversity may help raise productivity and wages through innovation, entrepreneurship, market access and trade channels. Bigger, more diverse cities help generate hybridised goods and services, but may also raise local costs through crowding. All of this presents new challenges for policymakers, who need to manage diversity’s net effects, and address both economic costs and benefits.

The full piece is here. There’s no pre-print available, but you can access this paper in the IZA Journal of Migration which covers some of the same ground.

*

The second piece is out in Economic Geography, and is co-authored with Neil Lee. This is an empirical study testing links between firm-level demographics, innovation and entrepreneurship. We use a recent sample of London businesses, and uncover some small but robust diversity effects.

Here’s the abstract:

A growing body of research is making links between diversity and the economic performance of cities and regions. Most of the underlying mechanisms take place within firms, but only a handful of organization-level studies have been conducted. We contribute to this underexplored literature by using a unique sample of 7,600 firms to investigate links among cultural diversity, innovation, entrepreneurship, and sales strategies in London businesses between 2005 and 2007. London is one of the world’s major cities, with a rich cultural diversity that is widely seen as a social and economic asset. Our data allowed us to distinguish owner/partner and wider workforce characteristics, identify migrant/minority-headed firms, and differentiate firms along multiple dimensions. The results, which are robust to most challenges, suggest a small but significant “diversity bonus” for all types of London firms. First, companies with diverse management are more likely to introduce new product innovations than are those with homogeneous “top teams.” Second, diversity is particularly important for reaching international markets and serving London’s cosmopolitan population. Third, migrant status has positive links to entrepreneurship. Overall, the results provide some support for claims that diversity is an economic asset, as well as a social benefit.

The full piece is here, and a pre-print version is here.

%d bloggers like this: