Frostbelt Diversity Since 1975 • In1975: Cleveland, Detroit, NYC and Boston all were in trouble – Today the first two are still troubled; the second two look like big success • Increasing tendency of successful, older or colder, cities to specialize in idea-oriented industries. – Centralization of high h.c. industries (Glaeser and Kahn, 2001)
Skills and Growth in the Cold coef = .01169126, se = .00161765, t = 7.23 Barnstab .311965 Lawrence Springfi Sioux Fa Iowa Cit Minneapo Rocheste Columbia Elkhart- Madison, Lancaste Lincoln, Green Ba Grand Ra Burlingt Columbus Fargo--M Blooming Rapid Ci St. Clou Des Moin Joplin, Indianap Wichita, Portland Appleton Kansas C Blooming York, PA State Co Reading, Lafayett Bismarck Omaha, N e( dpop | X) La Cross Allentow Cincinna Rockford Boston-- Glens Fa Eau Clai Wausau, Harrisbu Fort Way Cedar Ra Chicago- New York Sheboyga Providen South Be Topeka, Philadel Janesvil Hartford New Have New Lond St. Loui Kalamazo Milwauke Evansvil Springfi Rocheste Lansing- Champaig Albany-- Sioux Ci Bangor, Jackson, Springfi Lewiston Detroit- Williams Syracuse Dayton-- St. Jose Canton-- Erie, PA Lima, OH Toledo, Clevelan Kokomo, Mansfiel Grand Fo Terre Ha Binghamt Saginaw- Jamestow Dubuque, Benton H Peoria-- Scranton Altoona, Buffalo- Sharon, Utica--R Elmira, Davenpor Pittsfie Waterloo Muncie, Youngsto Pittsbur Duluth-- Johnstow Decatur, Steubenv -.310423 -10.4384 24.0572 e( bagrad90 | X )
Change Income 1980-2000 Fitted values .6 Austin-R San Fran Boston-Q San Jose Portland Newark-U Providen Atlanta- Tampa-St Charlott Jacksonv Albany-S Philadel West Pal Washingt Nashvill Columbus Minneapo Hartford New York Nassau-S Springfi Knoxvill Baltimor Memphis, San Dieg Orlando, Sacramen Seattle- .4 Richmond Oxnard-T Greensbo Birmingh Columbia Cincinna Omaha-Co Fort Lau Jackson, Charlest Tacoma, Dallas-P Little R Indianap Kansas C Louisvil Salt Lak San Anto Harrisbu Allentow Lancaste Grand Ra St. Loui Chicago- Stockton Spokane, Phoenix- Syracuse Honolulu Albuquer Buffalo- Dayton, Wichita, Akron, O Riversid Tucson, Milwauke Las Vega Rocheste Toledo, Fort Way Clevelan Tulsa, O Oklahoma Pittsbur Baton Ro Los Ange New Orle Detroit- Canton-M .2 Houston- Youngsto Fresno, Gary, IN Bakersfi El Paso, 0 .02 .04 .06 .08 .1 1980 Share of Skilled Workers Figure 5
.1 Change in Percent with BA 1990-2000 .05 0 .1 .2 .3 .4 .5 Percent of Adults with BA Degree in 1990
Innovation, Entrepreneurship and City Success • Entrepreneurship lies behind this skills- success connection. • Skilled people are more likely to become successful entrepreneurs. • They are also more likely to hire other more skilled people. • The turnaround of some older, colder cities owes much to entrepreneurship.
Figure 2 - Self Employment and Income by Education 30% Percent Self Employed Earning over $110,000 Annually 25% 20% Percent 15% 10% Percent Self Employed 5% 0% No High School Some High School High School Graduate Some College College Graduate or Higher Education
Change in Income 1990-2000 Fitted values .3 Austin-R .2 Colorado Salt Lak Raleigh- San Fran Madison, Louisvil San Jose Minneapo Portland Omaha-Co San Anto Columbus Nashvill Charlott Birmingh Cincinna Akron, O Indianap Knoxvill Tacoma, Lake Cou New Orle Memphis, Charlest Little R Seattle- Kansas C Jacksonv Grand Ra Milwauke Atlanta- .1 Sarasota Dallas-P Tampa-St Baton Ro Pittsbur Phoenix- Oakland- Youngsto Wichita, Gary, IN Tucson, Albuquer Las Vega Detroit- Columbia Greenvil St. Loui Scranton Tulsa, O Clevelan Virginia Fort Wor Greensbo Chicago- Dayton, Buffalo- Richmond Baltimor Houston- Toledo, Sacramen Allentow Washingt West Pal Philadel Orlando, El Paso, Wilmingt Oklahoma Harrisbu Boston-Q Albany-S Newark-U Fort Lau Providen Stockton Nassau-S Springfi San Dieg Syracuse Honolulu Poughkee Rocheste Hartford 0 New Have Oxnard-T Fresno, New York Riversid Bakersfi -.1 Los Ange -1 0 1 2 Change in Patents 1990-2000 Figure 10
Log Avg Firm Size 1977 . Chicago, 3 Rocheste Fort Way Milwauke Detroit, Clevelan Akron, O Minneapo Greensbo Charlott Allentow Houston- Boston, Indianap San Jose Youngsto Youngsto Youngsto Cincinna Toledo, Pittsbur Dayton-S Birmingh Dallas-F Hartford Buffalo- Canton, Louisvil Philadel Columbus Grand Ra Lancaste Los Ange Nashvill Nashvill Nashvill Wichita, Atlanta, Atlanta, Atlanta, Harrisbu Kansas C Memphis, San Fran Omaha, N 2.8 Syracuse Las Vega Springfi New York Baton Ro Scranton Providen Providen Providen Albany-S St. Loui Tulsa, O Tulsa, O Tulsa, O Richmond Washingt Denver-B Raleigh- Baltimor Honolulu El Paso, Columbia Little R Phoenix, Salt Lak Jacksonv San Anto Seattle- Portland Portland Portland Lakeland Miami-Hi Jackson, Jackson, Jackson, Norfolk- Norfolk- Norfolk- Knoxvill Oklahoma Orlando, Orlando, Orlando, 2.6 Albuquer Tampa-St Tucson, Boise Ci Pensacol Melbourn Melbourn Melbourn San Dieg Spokane, Riversid Charlest Tacoma, West Pal West Pal West Pal Austin, Ventura- Stockton Modesto, 2.4 Fort Lau Colorado Fresno, McAllen- Sacramen Bakersfi Monmouth Sarasota 2.2 0 .05 .1 Self Employment Rate
Employment Growth 1977-2000 Fitted values Figure 5 Las Vega 1.5 Austin, Orlando, Phoenix, Colorado Sarasota West Pal Baltimor Norfolk- Raleigh- Riversid Atlanta, Sacramen Melbourn Charlest 1 McAllen- Richmond Tampa-St San Dieg Boise Ci Ventura- Fort Lau Tucson, Seattle- Salt Lak Dallas-F San Anto Washingt Springfi Jacksonv Nashvill Tacoma, St. Loui Columbia San Jose Albuquer Denver-B Monmouth Portland Modesto, Knoxvill Hartford Charlott Stockton Grand Ra Pensacol Minneapo Baton Ro Columbus Bakersfi Little R Lakeland Jackson, Fresno, Memphis, Spokane, Houston- Boston, Indianap Kansas C El Paso, Omaha, N Oklahoma Lancaste Greensbo Tulsa, O Cincinna Harrisbu Louisvil Birmingh .5 Miami-Hi Albany-S San Fran Fort Way Wichita, Honolulu Los Ange Milwauke Dayton-S Syracuse Detroit, Chicago, New Orle Toledo, Philadel Rocheste Akron, O Scranton Canton, Providen Allentow Clevelan Pittsbur New York Buffalo- Youngsto 0 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 Average Firm Size - 1977 Employment Growth and Average Firm Size
L og Population Growth 1 970-2000 Fitted values 2 Las Vega Orlando, West Pal Phoenix, Dallas-F Au stin, Atlanta, 1 Fort Lau Tucson, Salt Lak Riversid Tampa-St Norfolk- Baton Ro S an Houston- Dieg Jacksonv Sacramen Greensbo Bakersfi Ventura- Stockton Fresno, El P aso, New York Grand Ra Scranton Los Ange Little R Jackson , Tacoma, Charlott Albuqu er Fort Way Seattle- Nashvill Denver-B Columbia San Anto San Jose Harrisbu Washingt Lancaste Miami-Hi Minneapo Tulsa, O Charlest Portland San Fran Spokane, Wich ita, Chicago, Kan sas C K noxvill Indianap Allentow Colu mbu s Syracu se Richmond Canton, Omaha, N St. Loui Clevelan Baltimor Milwauke Springfi P hiladel Akron, O Detroit, 0 Albany-S Y oun gsto Toledo, New Orle Buffalo- Boston, Louisvil Providen Oklahoma Honolulu Birmingh Memphis, Dayton-S Cincinn a Hartford Rocheste -1 0 .2 .4 .6 R ate of Se lf Em ployment 19 70 Figure 1: Pop Growth and Initial Self Employment Rate
Attracting and Facilitating Skilled Entrepreneurs • The Inability to Predict Innovative Success • Attracting and creating potential entrepreneurs. – Quality of life strategies (schools, crime) – Limiting taxes and redistribution • Eliminating roadblocks to their innovation. • Creating infrastructure for success – Legal and physical
Recommend
More recommend
