I’ve noted in recent columns published in Providence Business News the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for regional innovation clusters as an organizing framework for sector-based economic growth and job creation.
In those articles, I’ve described what clusters are and why they matter, what the administration is doing to catalyze clusters, and in particular the unique role of SBA Administrator Karen Mills. in driving this approach (PBN, April 4, 2010, “Industry clusters would benefit RI, neighbors”).
Given the new political realities of the midterm results, I now offer some insight into clusters’ historic origins with a view to suggesting a policy about which both parties can find common ground.
The Republican provenance of clusters in policy
While Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter is the most widely recognized advocate for this strategy for regional competitiveness, one of the earliest policy organizations formed to advocate for competitiveness – including a full embrace o f clusters – is the Council on Competitiveness, a policy organization formed in 1986 by the chairman of then-President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, John A. Young; Porter was on the council’s board and still serves on its executive committee.
The council sponsors conferences, seminars, and other special events to help catalyze new ideas and solutions, and to circulate its findings in topics that speak to competitiveness in specific regions (such as Brazil) and in key sectors (energy). The council’s Regional Initiatives reports serve to describe and prescribe cluster development process and strategies.
Michael Porter’s support for a Republican viewpoint is not limited to the council.
A Google search turns up Porter’s personal donations to Republican campaigns and organizations in Massachusetts. Accessible to all political parties, Accessible to all political parties, Porter – through his Harvard Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness (ISC) has provided counsel to SBA’s Karen Mills in respect of her work; ISC received $1 million this fall from the Department of Commerce to support its cluster-mapping initiative.
So, while Porter will work with any administration that aligns with his economic philosophy, he seems to lean to the right, politically.
Another historical point of interest – The America COMPETES Act – America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education, and Science Act of 2007 – was signed by then-President George W. Bush and became law in August 2007. This act was designed, “to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” COMPETES was reauthorized in May in the House by 262-150 – so it included support from more than a few Republicans. This updated version of the act included language to create a competitive, regional, innovation-cluster grant program. While this House-approved bill has yet to pass the Senate, it shares the same right-leaning legacy that spawned the Council on Competitiveness.
Clusters are good value for money
As argued by SBA’s Karen Mills and others, cluster development in the private sector is a good “bang for the buck”- activating, growing and sustaining clusters requires convening and connecting regional-sector market actors for education, networking and commerce. Existing technology, trade, economic and community-development organizations are well-suited to lead and tend to find ready support for these activities through private-sector sponsorship and member fees. The fiscal 2010 slew of cluster awards (PBN, Oct. 9, 2010, “More than talk, feds put funds into clusters”) is meant to be just the first step in a multiyear push for clusters at the federal level; in the contentious political environment that seems to suggest stalemate across a range of fiscal and social issues, however, this initiative could get swallowed up with a host of other Democrat-developed plans to stimulate the economy to create jobs.
Given its legacy, which seems very much Republican in origin (as above), clusters seem ideal for bipartisan support in an environment in which the likelihood of consensus across a range of issues seems small. It represents a policy that Republicans are happy to claim as their own and is not expensive and so is deficit-friendly.
Both federal and state governments have precious little capital lying around to fund much of anything new. But considering its Republican provenance and the cross-agency support from a Democratic administration working to find common ground, this seems one program that ought to be win-win for both parties and for the country. •
Michael Gurau is president of Clear Innovation Partners, a firm formed to catalyze, grow and sustain regional innovation clusters. He can be reached at mgurau@clearinnovationpartners.com
Seifert Systems Invests in Energy Efficiency to Strengthen Operations
For manufacturers, energy is more than just another operating expense. It plays a critical role…
Learn More
