INNOVATIVE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE SOUTH: HOW COMPETITIVE ARE SOUTH CAROLINA’S CITIES?

INNOVATIVE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE SOUTH:

HOW COMPETITIVE ARE SOUTH CAROLINA’S CITIES?

by

David L. Barkley

and

Mark S. Henry

Professors and Co-DirectorsRegional Economic Development Laboratory

Department of Applied Economics & StatisticsClemson University

THE NEW ECONOMYTHE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY

THE GLOBAL ECONOMY

Changes in TechnologiesChanges in Production Practices

Changes in Location of Economic ActivityChanges in the Demand for Labor

Industry Clusters

Clusters of InnovationRegional Innovation Systems

Table 1. Examples of State and Local Programs to Encourage Research and Innovation

Program Location Funding

Stowers Institute for Medical Research Kansas City, MO/KS $2 billion endowment

California Institute forRegenerative Medicine

State-wide $3 billion over 10 years

North Carolina Bio-Technology Research Campus Kannapolis, NC $1 billion endowment

The Ohio Third Frontier Project State-wide $500 million

Scripps Florida

Kentucky Research ChallengeTrust Fund

Palm Beach, FL

State-wide

$510 million

$340 million

Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center St. Louis, MO $150 million

Hudson-Alpha Institute for Biotechnology Huntsville, AL $130 million

Translational Genomics Research Institute Phoenix, AZ $100 million

Louisiana Optical Network Initiative

Grow Wisconsin Business Incubators

State-wide

State-wide

$40 million

$30 million

Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan Innovative Environment

A. Innovative Activity

PATENT: Number of patents issued per 1000 population (USPTO, 1990-99)

ARD: Academic R&D expenditures per 1000 population (NSF, 1998-2000)

SED: Doctorates awarded in science and engineering per 1000 population (NSF, 1998-2000)

GSS Graduate science and engineering students per 1000 population (NS, 1998-2000)

ETEC: Percentage of employment in technical professions – computer science; engineering except civil; natural, physical, and social science (BLS, 2000)

Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan Innovative Environment (cont.)

B. Labor Force Quality

PHSG: Percentage of adult population (25+) that are high school graduates (CBP, 2000)

PCG: Percentage of adult population (25+) that are college graduates (CBP, 2000)

PWP: Percentage of population (age 16-64) that are employed (Census, 2000)

Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan Innovative Environment (cont.)

C. Entrepreneurial Environment

PCEST: Percentage change in number of establishments (CBP, 1990-2000)

PEL2O: Percentage of establishments with fewer than 20 employees (BLS, 2000)

INC500: Number of Inc 500 companies per 100,000 population (www.inc500.com, 2000)

VCAP: Venture capital investments ($) per capita (Price Waterhouse Coopers, 2000)

EMB: Percentage of employment in managerial and business professions (BLS, 2000)

Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan Innovative Environment (cont.)

D. Agglomeration Economics

HTEMP: Percentage of employment in high-technology industries (CBP, 2000)

HTEST: Percentage of establishments in high technology industries (CBP, 2000)

ITEMP: Percentage of employment in information technology industries (CBP, 2000)

ITEST: Percentage of establishments in information technology industries (CBP, 2000)

E. Competitiveness in Global Economy

EXPORTS: Exports as a percent of gross metropolitan product, metro areas ranked in quantiles (DOC, 1999)

Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings

1. Outliers (4)

Atlanta, GA CMSAAustin, TX MSARaleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, NC

CMSABaton Rouge, LA MSA

2. High (12)

Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX CMSAHouston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSAHuntsville, AL MSAMelbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL MSAOrlando, FL MSAPensacola, FL MSARichmond-Petersburg, VA MSASan Antonio, TX MSASarasota-Bradenton, FL MSATampa-St. Petersbusrg-Clearwater, FL

MSATulsa, OK MSAWest Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA

Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)

3. College Towns (5)

Athens, GA MSABryan-College Station, TX MSACharlottesville, VA MSAGainesville, FL MSATallahassee, FL MSA

4. Medium (20)

Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSABirmingham, AL MSACharleston-North Charleston, SC MSACharlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSACincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN MSAColumbia, SC MSAGreensboro--Winston-Salem–High Point,

NC MSAGreenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSAJackson, MS MSAJacksonville, FL MSAKnoxville, TN MSALexington, KY-IN MSAMemphis, TN-AR-MS MSANashville, TN MSANew Orleans, LA MSANorfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News,

VA-NC MSA Oklahoma City, OK MSA

Roanoke, VA MSAWilmington, NC MSA

5. Below Average (47)

Abilene, TX MSAAlbany, GA MSAAlexandria, LA MSAAmarillo, TX MSAAshville, NC MSAAuburn-Opelika, AL MSABeaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSABiloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSAChattanooga, TN-GA MSAClarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY MSAColumbus, GA MSACorpus Christi, TX MSADecatur, AL MSADothan, AL MSAEnid, OK MSAEvansville-Henderson, IN-KY MSAFayetteville, NC MSAFayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR MSAFlorence, SC MSA

Fort Smith, AR-OK MSAFort Walton Beach, FL MSAGoldsboro, NC MSAGreenville, NC MSAHattiesburg, MS MSAHickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC MSAJackson, TN MSAJacksonville, NC MSAJonesboro, AR MSAKilleen-Temple, TX MSALafayette, LA MSALake Charles, LA MSALakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSALawton, OK MSALittle Rock-North Little Rock, AR MSALong View-Marshall, TX MSALubbock, TX MSALynchburg, VA MSA

Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)

Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)

5. Below Average (47) (cont.)

Macon, GA MSAMobile, AL MSAMonroe, LA MSAMontgomery, AL MSAMyrtle Beach, SC MSAOdessa-Midland, TX MSAOwensboro, KY MSAPanama City, FL MSAPine Bluff, AR MSARocky Mount, NC MSASan Angelo, TX MSASavannah, GA MSASherman-Denison, TX MSAShreveport-Bossier City, LA MSASumter, SC MSATuscaloosa, AL MSATyler, TX MSAVictoria, TX MSAWaco, TX MSAWichita Falls, TX MSA

6. Low (18)

Anniston, AL MSA Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX MSA Danville, VA MSA Daytona Beach, FL MSA El Paso, TX MSA Florence, AL MSA Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL MSA Gadsden, AL MSA Houma, LA MSA Huntington-Ashland, WY-KY-OH MSA Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA MSA Laredo, TX MSA McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA Naples, FL MSA Ocala, FL MSA Punta Gorda, FL MSA Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR MSA

Table 4. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000

Change in Change in Cluster Grouping Employment Population (%) (%)

A. Metro Counties  

Outliers (32)a

62.26 44.27  

High (58) 42.20 28.25

College Towns (13) 42.61 31.74

Medium (113) 34.51 20.27

Below Average (106) 26.88 14.69

Low (33) 24.27 17.87a Number of metro or nonmetro counties in the cluster grouping.

Table 5. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000

Change in Change in Cluster Grouping Employment Population (%) (%) B. Nonmetro Counties

Outliers (31) 32.74 23.00

High (40) 31.27 22.01

College Towns (24) 25.29 22.22

Medium (136) 21.33 12.25

Below Average (315) 15.89 7.06

Low (42) 19.55 12.83

Rural LMAs (349) 17.88 10.39

Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas

1. Austin-San Marcos 4.28 2. Baton Rouge 3.71 3. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 2.66 4. Gainesville, FL 1.96 5. West Palm Beach-Boca Raton 1.75 6. Houston 1.52 7. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington 1.49 8. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay 1.45

South Carolina Metropolitan Areas 14. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 1.16 29. Florence .79 31. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill .75 50. Charleston .56 51. Columbia .54 64. Augusta-Aiken .39 82. Myrtle Beach .31104. Sumter .17

Table 6. Patents Per 1000 People by Southern Metropolitan Area, 1995-1999

Table 7. Total R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 1998-2000Area Total R&D

1998-2000R&D Expenditures

Per Capita

Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas1. Bryan-College Station, TX 1,193,191,000 $7.812. Athens, GA 713,914,000 4.633. Gainesville, FL 893,001,000 4.094. Baton Rouge, LA 703,565,000 3.625. Hattiesburg, MS 388,843,000 3.466. Charlottseville, VA 410,689,000 2.567. Auburn-Opelika, AL 260,924,000 2.268. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 2,550,055,000 2.12

South Carolina Metropolitan Areas16. Columbia 305,927,000 $.5720. Charleston 179,002,000 .3321. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 306,074,000 .32 22. Augusta-Aiken 133,100,000 .2854. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 36,745,000 .0268. Myrtle Beach 1,638,000 .01NR Florence 0 0NR Sumter 0 0

Source: National Science Foundation

Table 8. Percentage of Metropolitan Labor Force in Professional Occupations, 2000*

* Professional occupations include Computer and Mathematical Operations (15-000); Life, Physical and Social Science. Occupations (19-0000); and Architecture and Engineering Occupations (17-0000)

Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas 1. Huntsville 10.1% 2. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 8.5 3. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay 8.1 4. Austin 7.7 5. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington 6.3 6. Houston 5.9 7. Tallahassee 5.1 8. Atlanta 4.7

South Carolina Metropolitan Areas 13. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hills 3.9% 31. Columbia 3.2 38. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 2.9 39. Augusta-Aiken 2.9 40. Charleston 2.8 69. Sumter 1.8 81. Myrtle Beach 1.6 87. Florence 1.5

Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas 1. Charlottseville 40.1% 2. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 38.9 3. Gainesville, FL 38.7 4. Bryan-College Station 37.0 5. Austin 36.7 6. Tallahassee 36.7 7. Athens, GA 34.1 8. Atlanta 32.0

South Carolina Metropolitan Areas 10. Columbia 29.2% 19. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 26.5 23. Charleston 25.0 58. Augusta-Aiken 20.9 60. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 20.7 74. Florence 18.7 75. Myrtle Beach 18.7 99. Sumter 15.8

Table 9. Share of Adult Population with College Degrees, 2000.

Source: U.S. Census, 2000

Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas 1. Gainesville, FL 88.1% 2. Fort Walton Beach 88.0 3. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay 86.3 4. Tallahassee 85.9 5. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill 85.4 6. Lawton, OK 85.2 7. Fayetteville, NC 85.0 8. Austin 84.8

South Carolina Metropolitan Areas 11. Columbia 84.3% 40. Charleston 81.3 44. Myrtle Beach 81.15 52. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 80.5 66. Augusta-Aiken 78.9 93. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 75.4 99. Sumter 74.3108. Florence 73.1

Source: U.S. Census, 2000.

Table 10. Share of Adult Population with High School Diplomas

State DealsInvestments (millions)

Investments Per Capita

Texas

2154 $18,403 $ 883

Virginia 1098 8,340 1,178

Florida 833

8,037

503

Georgia 1026 6,834 835

North Carolina 869

5,755

715

Tennessee 273 1,921 338

South Carolina 87

1,089

271

Alabama 130 817 184

Louisiana 83

631

141

Kentucky 93 500 124

Oklahoma 67 446 129Mississippi 28 338 119Arkansas 26 68 25

Table 11. Venture Capital Investments in the South, by State, 1995-2005

Source: PriceWaterhouseCooper Money Tree

Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas 1. Miami – Fort Lauderdale, Fl 27.7% 2. Richmond – Petersburg, VA 14.1 3. Tallahassee, Fl 12.7 4. Austin-San Marcos 12.7 5. Atlanta 12.2 6. West Palm Beach – Boca Raton, FL 12.1 7. Huntington-Ashland, WVA-KY-OH 11.4 8. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 11.4

South Carolina Metropolitan Areas 25. Augusta-Aiken 9.5% 40. Charleston 8.4 48. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill 8.0 73. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson 7.1 76. Columbia 6.8 90. Sumter 6.2102. Myrtle Beach 5.8109. Florence 5.4

* Source: 1997 Economic Census ** NAICS 54 activities include legal advice and representation; accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services; architectural, engineering, and specialized design services; computer services; consulting services; research services; advertising services; photographic services; translation and interpretation services; veterinary services; and other professional, scientific, and technical services.

Table 12. Share of Establishments in Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services Industries (NAICS 54), 1997

Entrepreneurial Growth Companies

- Annual employment growth rate > 15% - Employment growth > 100% for 1991-96

Southern Metropolitan AreasLabor Market Area Companies High Growth ShareAustin 20,915 1,514 7.2%Atlanta 69,279 4,479 6.5Nashville 24,458 1,465 6.0Pensacola 10,863 643 5.9Raleigh 25,768 1,507 5.8Little Rock 13,036 757 5.8Charlotte 28,383 1,544 5.4United States Average 4.7

Florence 12,091 567 4.7Green.-Spart.-Ander. 22,771 1,049 4.6Columbia 13,577 607 4.5Augusta-Aiken 9,106 393 4.3Charleston 12,350 507 4.1Sumter 3,185 118 3.7

Source: National Commission on Entrepreneurship, 2001.

Table 13. Entrepreneurial Growth Companies as a Share of Business in Labor Market Areas, 1991-1996.

North Carolina 925 1830 +97.8%

Georgia 727 1319 +81.5%Texas 3542 5995 +69.3%U.S. +60.4%

Kentucky 274 432 +57.5%Alabama 262 390 +48.9%Tennessee 560 770 +37.5%Florida 1842 2471 +34.2%South Carolina 426 564 +32.4%Mississippi 114 151 +32.4%Virginia 874 1117 +27.8%Arkansans 127 156 22.8%Louisiana 441 393 -11.0%Oklahoma 572 476 -16.7%

Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, April 2005.

1992-93-94 2002-03-04 PercentageState Average Average Change

Table 14. Change in Utility Patent Activity 1992-2004, Southern States

Top 25%(1-29)

G-S-A

FlorenceColumbiaCharlotte

Charleston

Augusta-Aiken?

(30-59)Charlotte

CharlestonColumbia

Augusta-AikenCharlestonCharlotte

?

(60-89)Augusta-AikenMyrtle Beach

G-S-AFlorence

Myrtle Beach

G-S-AColumbia

?

Bottom 25%

(90-117)

Sumter Sumter SumterMyrtle Beach

Florence

?

Innovative Activity

(Patents)

Human Capital(College

Graduates)

Entrepreneurial Support

(Professional Services)

Local Quality of Life

Figure 1. Ranking of South Carolina Metropolitan Areas Across Regional Innovation System Indicators

Rank Among Southern Metro

Areas

REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

RESEARCH LABORATORYCLEMSON UNIVERSITY

http://cherokee.agecon.clemson/redrl.htm

Industry Clusters

• Support clusters in new industries related to existing industrial base

• Strengthen emerging/potential clusters in the region

Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)

New Firms

• Promote entrepreneurship and new firm development

• Attract cluster-related firms

Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)

(Continued)

Knowledge and Innovation

• Develop cluster-specific technology centers

• Attract branches of national research organizations

• Build up and attract new labor skills

Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)

(Continued)

Networks

• Link firms to local and external knowledge providers

• Technology transfer programs

Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)

(Continued)