Ben Armstrong compares the implementation of regional economic development programs in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland metropolitan statistical areas during the 1980s. He argues that their regional economies and research institutions were then similar. He contends that the transformational policy difference occurred when Pennsylvania’s governor mandated that the presidents of Pittsburgh’s research universities be programmatic leaders while Ohio’s governor did not do the same. Armstrong concludes that Pittsburgh’s Metropolitan Statistical Area became a center of high-tech innovation as a result, while Cleveland’s did not. This author contends that disparities in regional technology resources, as well as institutional self-interest and leadership, were the critical differences. Cleveland’s institutions had to give priority to fixing their business problems. Armstrong and the author agree that economic endowments and industrial policy played roles in both regions’ economic outcomes; where they disagree is on the weights given to each.
AustinJ. E. (1998). Business leadership lessons from the Cleveland turnaround. California Management Review, 41(1), 86-106.
3.
CaliguiriR. S.FoersterT.FlahertyP.HaferB.PosvarW. W.CyertR. M. (1985). Strategy 21: Pittsburgh/Allegheny economic development strategy to begin the 21st century. http://www.briem.com/files/strategy21.pdf
Harvard Business School. (1996). The Cleveland Turnaround (Parts A to D; Case Number 9-796-151). Barker Library, Harvard Business School.
14.
HillE. (1995). The Cleveland economy: A case study of economic restructuring. In KeatingD.KrumholzN.PerryD. C. (Eds.), Cleveland: A metropolitan reader (pp. 53-86). Kent State University Press.
15.
KastorJ. A. (2005). Specialty care in the era of managed care: Cleveland Clinic versus University Hospitals of Cleveland. The Johns Hopkins University Press.
16.
LevineA.DetreT.McDonaldM.RothL.HuberG. A.BrignanoM. G.DanoffS.FarnerD. M.MasnickJ.RomoffJ. (2008). The relationship between the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine and the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center: A profile in synergy. Academic Medicine, 83(9), 816-826. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0b013e318181d1a8
17.
MagnetM. (1995). How business bosses saved a sick city. In KeatingD.KrumholzN.PerryD. C. (Eds.), Cleveland: A metropolitan reader (pp. 155-160). Kent State University Press.
18.
National Research Council. (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. National Academy Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/4915
ShapiraP. (1990). Modern times: Learning from state initiatives in industrial extension and technology transfer. Economic Development Quarterly, 4(3), 186-202. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249000400302
23.
ShattenR. A. (1995). Cleveland tomorrow: A practicing model of new roles and process for corporate leadership in cities. In KeatingD.KrumholzN.PerryD. C. (Eds.), Cleveland: A metropolitan reader (pp. 321-331). Kent State University Press.
24.
SwanstromT. (1995). Urban populism, fiscal crisis, and the new political economy. In KeatingD.KrumholzN.PerryD. C. (Eds.), Cleveland: A metropolitan reader (pp. 97-118). Kent State University Press.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment. (1990, February). Making things better: Competing in manufacturing, OTA-ITE-443. U.S. Government Printing Office. http://www.princeton.edu/~ota/disk2/1990/9028/9028.PDF
27.
WeissM. A.MetzgerJ. T. (1987). Technology development, neighborhood planning, and negotiated partnerships. Journal of the American Planning Association, 53(4), 469-477. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944368708977135
