State and local economic development is often conceptualized as a series of successive waves, with each wave representing distinct policy priorities. In this study, we rework the standard wave metaphor to recognize the gains for regional economies when practitioners reach across established boundaries to work together to create a strategy mix. We present a case from North Carolina biosciences to demonstrate the contribution to regional industrial specialization when specialists combine their respective knowledge of entrepreneurship and industrial recruitment and coordinate development practice. More than an adjustment to tightening budget constraints or intensifying political demand, strategy mixing allows practitioners to extend and capture greater gains from state support for innovation. This case study provides an illustrative example for how other regions can advance innovative industry by bringing seemingly distinct development tools and targets into closer alignment.
AlpaughA. (2008). A systematic approach to project portfolio selection for economic development in municipalities: A case study of Vienna, Missouri (Unpublished master’s thesis). Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla.
2.
AmsdenA. (1989). Asia’s next giant: South Korea and late industrialization. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
3.
AmsdenA.ChuW. (2003). Beyond late development: Taiwan’s upgrading policies. Cambridge: MIT Press.
4.
BinghamR. D.MierR. (1993). Theories of local economic development: Perspectives from across the disciplines. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
5.
BlakelyE. J.LeighN. G. (2009) Planning local economic development: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
6.
BlockF. (2008). Swimming against the current: The rise of a hidden developmental state in the United States. Politics & Society, 36, 169-206.
7.
BreznitzD. (2007). Innovation and the state: Political choice and strategies for growth in Israel, Taiwan, and Ireland. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
8.
BreznitzD.MurphreeM. (2011). Run of the red queen: Government, innovation, globalization, and economic growth in China. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
9.
BurawoyM. (1998). The extended case method. Sociological Theory, 16, 4-33.
10.
CampbellS. (1996). Green cities, growing cities, just cities? Urban planning and the contradictions of sustainable development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 62, 296-312.
11.
CarleyS.LawrenceS.BrownA.NourafshanA.BenamiE. (2011). Energy-based economic development. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 15, 282-295.
12.
ClarkJ.ChristophersonS. (2009). Integrating investment and equity: A critical regionalist agenda for a progressive regionalism. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 28, 341-354.
13.
ClarkW. W.BradshawT. K. (2004). Agile energy systems: Global lessons from the California energy crisis. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
EisingerP. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
16.
FeldmanM. P.LoweN. J. (2011). Restructuring for resilience. Innovations, 6(1), 129-146.
17.
FeldmanM. P.LoweN. J. (2017). Evidence-based econoimc development. Innovations, 11(3-4), 34-49.
18.
FeserE. J.LugarM. I. (2003). Cluster analysis as a mode of inquiry: Its use in science and technology policymaking in North Carolina. European Planning Studies, 11, 11-24.
19.
FitzgeraldJ. (2004). Moving the workforce intermediary agenda forward. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 3-9.
20.
FitzgeraldJ.LeighN. G. (2002). Economic revitalization: Cases and strategies for city and suburb, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
21.
FlanaganK.UyarraE.LaranjaM. (2011). Reconceptualising the “policy mix” for innovation. Research Policy, 40, 702-713.
22.
FlyvbjergB. (2006). Five misunderstandings about case-study research. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 219-245.
23.
GlasmeierA. K. (2000). Economic geography in practice: Local economic development policy. In In ClarkG. L.GertlerM. S.FeldmanM. P. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of economic geography (pp. 559-584). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
24.
GoetzS. J.DellerS. C.HarrisT. R. (2009). Introduction and overview. In GoetzS. J.DellerS. C.HarrisT. R. (Eds.), Targeted regional economic development (pp. 1-14). London, England: Routledge.
25.
HanleyC.DouglassM. (2014). High road, low road, or off road? Economic development strategies in the American States. Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 220-229.
26.
ImbroscioD. (1997). Reconstructing city politics: Alternative economic development and urban regimes. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27.
IssermanA. M. (1993). State economic development policy and practice in the United States: A survey article. International Regional Science Review, 16, 49-100.
28.
KivimaaP.KernF. (2016). Creative destruction or mere niche support? Innovation policy mixes for sustainability transitions. Research Policy, 45, 205-217.
29.
LanahanL.FeldmanM. P. (2015). Multilevel innovation policy mix: A closer look at state policies that augment the Federal SBIR Program. Research Policy, 44, 1387-1402.
30.
LazonickB.MazzucatoM. (2013). The risk-reward nexus in the innovation-inequality relationship: Who takes the risks? Who gets the rewards?Industrial and Corporate Change, 22, 1093-1128.
31.
LinkA. N. (1995). A generosity of spirit: The early history of the Research Triangle Park. Durham: Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina.
32.
LoweN. (2007). Job creation and the knowledge economy: Lessons from North Carolina’s life science manufacturing initiative. Economic Development Quarterly, 21, 339-353.
33.
LoweN. (2014). Beyond the deal: Using industrial recruitment as a strategic tool for manufacturing development. Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 287-299.
34.
LoweN.GoldsteinH.DoneganM. (2011). Patchwork intermediation: Challenges and opportunities for regionally coordinated workforce development. Economic Development Quarterly, 25, 158-171.
35.
LoweN.KenneyM. (1999). Foreign investment and the global geography of production: Why the Mexican consumer electronics industry failed. World Development, 27, 1427-1443.
36.
LoweN.Wolf-PowersL. (2017). Who works in a working region? Inclusive Innovation in the new manufacturing economy. Regional Studies. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/00343404.2016.1263386
37.
MaliziaE. E. (1986). Local economic development. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
38.
MaliziaE. E. (1994). A redefinition of economic development. Economic Development Review, 12, 83-83.
39.
MarkusenA.NesseK. (2007). Institutional and political determinants of incentive competition. In MarkusenA. (Ed.), Reining in the competition for capital (pp. 1-42). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
40.
MarkusenA.SchrockG. (2008). Placing labor center-stage in industrial city revitalization. In McGaheyR. M.VeyJ. S. (Eds.), Retooling for growth: Building a 21st century economy in America’s older industrial areas (pp. 179-210). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
41.
MazzucatoM. (2014). The entrepreneurial state: Debunking public vs. private sector myths. London, England: Anthem Press.
42.
North Carolina Biotechnology Center. (2014). Response to SB402. N.C. General Assembly 2013-2014 Session. Research Triangle Park, NC: Author.
43.
OlberdingJ. C. (2002). Diving into the “third waves” of regional governance and economic development strategies: A study of regional partnerships for economic development in US metropolitan areas. Economic Development Quarterly, 16, 251-272.
44.
PenderJ. L.WeberJ. G.BrownJ. P. (2014). Sustainable rural development and wealth creation. Economic Development Quarterly, 28, 73-86.
45.
PikeA.Rodríguez-PoseA.TomaneyJ. (2006). Local and regional development. London, England: Routledge.
46.
PikettyT. (2017). Capital in the twenty-first century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
PlosilaW. H. (2004). State science-and technology-based economic development policy: History, trends and developments, and future directions. Economic Development Quarterly, 18, 113-126.
48.
RodrikD. (2014). Green industrial policy. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 30, 469-491.
49.
RossD.FriedmanR. E. (1990). The emerging third wave: New economic development strategies in the 90’s. Entrepreneurial Economy Review, 9, 3-10.
50.
RubinH. J. (1988). Shoot anything that flies; claim anything that falls: Conversations with economic development practitioners. Economic Development Quarterly, 2, 236-251.
51.
SchönD. A. (1993). Generative metaphor: A perspective on problem-setting in social policy. In OrtonyA. (Ed.), Metaphor and thought (pp. 137-163). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
52.
SchrankA.WhitfordJ. (2009). Industrial policy in the United States: A neo-Polanyian interpretation. Politics and Society, 37, 521-553.
53.
SchrockG. (2013). Reworking workforce development. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 163-178.
54.
StarkD. (2011). The sense of dissonance: Accounts of worth in economic life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
55.
StiglitzJ. E. (2016). How to restore equitable and sustainable economic growth in the United States. American Economic Review, 106(5), 43-47.
56.
SullivanD. M. (2002). Local governments as risk takers and risk reducers: An examination of business subsidies and subsidy controls. Economic Development Quarterly, 16, 115-126.
57.
WarnerM. E.ZhengL. (2013). Business incentive adoption in the recession. Economic Development Quarterly, 27, 90-101.
58.
WeberR. (2007). Negotiating the ideal deal: Which local governments have the most bargaining leverage? In MarkusenA. (Ed.), Reining in the competition for capital (pp. 141-160). Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
59.
ZhangX.WarnerM. E.HomsyG. C. (2017). Environment, equity, and economic development goals: Understanding differences in local economic development strategies. Economic Development Quarterly, 31, 196-209.
60.
ZhengL.WarnerM. E. (2010). Business incentive use among U.S. local governments: A story of accountability and policy learning. Economic Development Quarterly, 24, 325-336.
