Great power competition has returned. Or rather, it has reminded us that it was always lurking in the background. This is not a minor development in international affairs, but it need not mean the end of the world order as we know it.  

The real impact of the return of great power competition will depend on how the United States responds to these changes. America needs to recognize its central role in maintaining the present liberal international order and muster the will to use its still formidable power and influence to support that order against its inevitable challengers.

Competition in international affairs is natural. Great powers by their very nature seek regional dominance and spheres of influence. They do so in the first instance because influence over others is what defines a great power. They are, as a rule, countries imbued with national pride and imperial ambition. But, living in a Hobbesian world of other great powers, they are also nervous about their security and seek defense-in-depth through the establishment of buffer states on their periphery. 

Historically, great power wars often begin as arguments over buffer states where spheres of influence intersect—the Balkans before World War I, for instance, where the ambitions of Russia and Austria-Hungary clashed. But today’s great powers are rising in a very different international environment, largely because of the unique role the United States has played since the end of the Second World War. The United States has been not simply a regional power, but rather a regional power in every strategic region. It has served as the maintainer of regional balances in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East. The result has been that, in marked contrast to past eras, today’s great powers do not face fundamental threats to their physical security. 

So, for example, Russia objectively has never enjoyed greater security in its history than it has since 1989. In the 20^th century, Russia was invaded twice by Germany, and in the aftermath of the second war could plausibly claim to fear another invasion unless adequately protected. (France, after all, had the same fear.)  In the 19^th century, Russia was invaded by Napoleon, and before that Catherine the Great is supposed to have uttered that quintessentially Russian observation, “I have no way to defend my borders but to extend them.” Today that is not true. Russia faces no threat of invasion from the West.  Who would launch such an invasion? Germany, Estonia, Ukraine? If Russia faces threats, they are from the south, in the form of militant Islamists, or from the east, in the form of a billion Chinese standing across the border from an empty Siberia. But for the first time in Russia’s long history, it does not face a strategic threat on its western flank. 

Much the same can be said of China, which enjoys far greater security than it has at any time in the last three centuries. The American role in East Asia protects it from invasion by its historic adversary, Japan, while none of the other great powers around China’s periphery have the strength or desire now or in the foreseeable future to launch an attack on Chinese territory. 

Therefore, neither Chinese nor Russians can claim that a sphere of influence is necessary for their defense. They may feel it necessary for their sense of pride. They may feel it is necessary as a way of restoring their wounded honor. They may seek an expanded sphere of influence to fulfill their ambition to become more formidable powers on the international stage. And they may have concerns that free, nations on their periphery may pass the liberal infection onto their own populaces and thus undermine their autocratic power. 

The question for the United States, and its allies in Asia and Europe, is whether we should tolerate a return to sphere of influence behavior among regional powers that are not seeking security but are in search of status, powers that are acting less out of fear than out of ambition. This question, in the end, is not about idealism, our commitment to a “rules-based” international order, or our principled opposition to territorial aggression. Yes, there are important principles at stake: neighbors shouldn’t invade their neighbors to seize their territory. But before we get to issues of principle, we need to understand how such behavior affects the world in terms of basic stability 

On that score, the historical record is very clear. To return to a world of spheres of influence—the world that existed prior to the era of American predominance—is to return to the great power conflicts of past centuries. Revisionist great powers are never satisfied. Their sphere of influence is never quite large enough to satisfy their pride or their expanding need for security. The “satiated” power that Bismarck spoke of is rare—even his Germany, in the end, could not be satiated. Of course, rising great powers always express some historical grievance. Every people, except perhaps for the fortunate Americans, have reason for resentment at ancient injustices, nurse grudges against old adversaries, seek to return to a glorious past that was stolen from them by military or political defeat. The world’s supply of grievances is inexhaustible.

These grievances, however, are rarely solved by minor border changes. Japan, the aggrieved “have-not” nation of the 1930s, did not satisfy itself by swallowing Manchuria in 1931. Germany, the aggrieved victim of Versailles, did not satisfy itself by bringing the Germans of the Sudetenland back into the fold. And, of course, Russia’s historical sphere of influence does not end in Ukraine. It begins in Ukraine.  It extends to the Balts, to the Balkans, and to heart of Central Europe. 

The tragic irony is that, in the process of carving out these spheres of influence, the ambitious rising powers invariably create the very threats they use to justify their actions. Japan did exactly that in the 30s. In the 1920s, following the Washington Naval Treaty, Japan was a relatively secure country that through a combination of ambition and paranoia launched itself on a quest for an expanded sphere of influence, thus inspiring the great power enmity that the Japanese had originally feared. One sees a similar dynamic in Russia’s behavior today. No one in the West was thinking about containing Russia until Russia made itself into a power that needed to be contained.

If history is any lesson, such behavior only ends when other great powers decide they have had enough. We know those moments as major power wars. 

The best and easiest time to stop such a dynamic is at the beginning. If the United States wants to maintain a benevolent world order, it must not permit spheres of influence to serve as a pretext for aggression. The United States needs to make clear now—before things get out of hand—that this is not a world order that it will accept. 

And we need to be clear what that response entails. Great powers of course compete across multiple spheres—economic, ideological, and political, as well as military. Competition in most spheres is necessary and even healthy. Within the liberal order, China can compete economically and successfully with the United States; Russia can thrive in the international economic order uphold by the liberal powers, even if it is not itself liberal. 

But security competition is different. It is specifically because Russia could not compete with the West ideologically or economically that Putin resorted to military means. In so doing, he attacked the underlying security and stability at the core of the liberal order. The security situation undergirds everything—without it nothing else functions. Democracy and prosperity cannot flourish without security. 

It remains true today as it has since the Second World War that only the United States has the capacity and the unique geographical advantages to provide this security. There is no stable balance of power in Europe or Asia without the United States. And while we can talk about soft power and smart power, they have been and always will be of limited value when confronting raw military power. Despite all of the loose talk of American decline, it is in the military realm where U.S. advantages remain clearest. Even in other great power’s backyards, the United States retains the capacity, along with its powerful allies, to deter challenges to the security order. But without a U.S. willingness to use military power to establish balance in far-flung regions of the world, the system will buckle under the unrestrained military competition of regional powers. 

For several years, President Obama has operated under a set of assumptions about the Middle East: First, there could be no return of U.S. ground troops in sizeable numbers to the region; and second, the United States had no interests in the region great enough to justify such a renewed commitment. The crises in the Middle East could be kept localized. The core elements of the world order would not be affected, and America’s own interests would not be directly threatened.

These assumptions could have been right, but instead they have proven to be wrong. The combined crises of Syria, Iraq, and the threat posed by the Islamic State (or ISIS) have not been contained. ISIS itself has proven both durable and capable, as the attacks in Paris showed. The Syrian conflict—with the resulting refugee flows—is destabilizing Lebanon and Jordan; it has put added pressure on Turkey’s already tenuous democracy; and it has exacerbated the acute conflict between Sunni and Shiite across the region. The multi-sided war in the Middle East has now ceased to be a strictly Middle Eastern problem. It has become a European problem, as well. The crisis on the periphery, in short, has now spilled over into the core.

Does this not call for a reassessment of the policies that have so far been tried in Syria and Iraq? Have not events in the Middle East, and now in Europe, reached the point where significant interests are at stake, thereby requiring a more substantial response by the United States?

Read Robert Kagan's more in-depth article on the subject in the Wall Street Journal.

Event Information

As President Obama's second term winds down and the 2016 presidential election draws ever closer, the United States finds itself involved in two wars and other global hotspots continue to flare. As is often the case, defense and national security will be critical topics for the next president. Questions remain about which defense issues are likely to dominate the campaigns over the coming months and how should the next president handle these issues once in office. In addition, with the defense budget continuing to contract, what does the future hold for U.S. military and national security readiness, and will those constraints cause the next president to alter U.S. strategy overseas?

On February 1, the Center for 21st Century Security and Intelligence at Brookings hosted an event examining defense and security options for the next president. Panelists included Mackenzie Eaglen of the American Enterprise Institute, Robert Kagan of Brookings, and James Miller, former undersecretary for policy at the Department of Defense. Brookings Senior Fellow Michael O’Hanlon, author of “The Future of Land Warfare” (Brookings Institution Press, 2015), moderated the discussion.

Audio

• Defense strategy for the next president

Transcript

• Uncorrected transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 01nextpresidentdefense

Editors’ Note: The economic, political, and security strategy that the United States has pursued for more than seven decades is under attack by leading political candidates in both parties, write Ivo Daalder and Robert Kagan. But the United States plays an essential role in supporting the international environment from which Americans benefit greatly. This article originally appeared in The Washington Post.

The economic, political and security strategy that the United States has pursued for more than seven decades, under Democratic and Republican administrations alike, is today widely questioned by large segments of the American public and is under attack by leading political candidates in both parties. Many Americans no longer seem to value the liberal international order that the United States created after World War II and sustained throughout the Cold War and beyond. Or perhaps they take it for granted and have lost sight of the essential role the United States plays in supporting the international environment from which they benefit greatly. The unprecedented prosperity made possible by free and open markets and thriving international trade; the spread of democracy; and the avoidance of major conflict among great powers: All these remarkable accomplishments have depended on sustained U.S. engagement around the world. Yet politicians in both parties dangle before the public the vision of an America freed from the burdens of leadership.

What these politicians don’t say, perhaps because they don’t understand it themselves, is that the price of ending our engagement would far outweigh its costs. The international order created by the United States today faces challenges greater than at any time since the height of the Cold War. Rising authoritarian powers in Asia and Europe threaten to undermine the security structures that have kept the peace since World War II. Russia invaded Ukraine and has seized some of its territory. In East Asia, an increasingly aggressive China seeks to control the sea lanes through which a large share of global commerce flows. In the Middle East, Iran pursues hegemony by supporting Hezbollah and Hamas and the bloody tyranny in Syria. The Islamic State controls more territory than any terrorist group in history, brutally imposing its extreme vision of Islam and striking at targets throughout the Middle East, North Africa and Europe. None of these threats will simply go away. Nor will the United States be spared if the international order collapses, as it did twice in the 20th century. In the 21st century, oceans provide no security. Nor do walls along borders. Nor would cutting off the United States from the international economy by trashing trade agreements and erecting barriers to commerce.

In the 21st century, oceans provide no security. Nor do walls along borders. Nor would cutting off the United States from the international economy by trashing trade agreements and erecting barriers to commerce.

Instead of following the irresponsible counsel of demagogues, we need to restore a bipartisan foreign policy consensus around renewing U.S. global leadership. Despite predictions of a “post-American world,” U.S. capacities remain considerable. The U.S. economy remains the most dynamic in the world. The widely touted “rise of the rest”—the idea that the United States was being overtaken by the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China—has proved to be a myth. The dollar remains the world’s reserve currency, and people across the globe seek U.S. investment and entrepreneurial skills to help their flagging economies. U.S. institutions of higher learning remain the world’s best and attract students from every corner of the globe. The political values that the United States stands for remain potent forces for change. Even at a time of resurgent autocracy, popular demands for greater freedom can be heard in Russia, China, Iran and elsewhere, and those peoples look to the United States for support, both moral and material. And our strategic position remains strong. The United States has more than 50 allies and partners around the world. Russia and China between them have no more than a handful.

The task ahead is to play on these strengths and provide the kind of leadership that many around the world seek and that the American public can support. For the past two years, under the auspices of the World Economic Forum, we have worked with a diverse, bipartisan group of Americans and representatives from other countries to put together the broad outlines of a strategy for renewed U.S. leadership. There is nothing magical about our proposals. The strategies to sustain the present international order are much the same as the strategies that created it. But they need to be adapted and updated to meet new challenges and take advantage of new opportunities.

The widely touted “rise of the rest”—the idea that the United States was being overtaken by the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China—has proved to be a myth.

For instance, one prime task today is to strengthen the international economy, from which the American people derive so many benefits. This means passing trade agreements that strengthen ties between the United States and the vast economies of East Asia and Europe. Contrary to what demagogues in both parties claim, ordinary Americans stand to gain significantly from the recently negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership. According to the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the agreement will increase annual real incomes in the United States by $131 billion. The United States also needs to work to reform existing international institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund, so that rising economic powers such as China feel a greater stake in them, while also working with new institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank to ensure that they reinforce rather than undermine liberal economic norms.

The revolution in energy, which has made the United States one of the world’s leading suppliers, offers another powerful advantage. With the right mix of policies, the United States could help allies in Europe and Asia diversify their sources of supply and thus reduce their vulnerability to Russian manipulation. Nations such as Russia and Iran that rely heavily on hydrocarbon exports would be weakened, as would the OPEC oil cartel. The overall result would be a relative increase in our power and ability to sustain the order.

The world has come to recognize that education, creativity and innovation are key to prosperity, and most see the United States as a leader in these areas. Other nations want access to the American market, American finance and American innovation. Businesspeople around the world seek to build up their own Silicon Valleys and other U.S.-style centers of entrepreneurship. The U.S. government can do a better job of working with the private sector in collaborating with developing countries. And Americans need to be more, not less, welcoming to immigrants. Students studying at our world-class universities, entrepreneurs innovating in our high-tech incubators and immigrants searching for new opportunities for their families strengthen the United States and show the world the opportunities offered by democracy.

Americans need to be reminded what is at stake.

Finally, the United States needs to do more to reassure allies that it will be there to back them up if they face aggression. Would-be adversaries need to know that they would do better by integrating themselves into the present international order than by trying to undermine it. Accomplishing this, however, requires ending budget sequestration and increasing spending on defense and on all the other tools of international affairs. This investment would be more than paid for by the global security it would provide.

All these efforts are interrelated, and, indeed, a key task for responsible political leaders will be to show how the pieces fit together: how trade enhances security, how military power undergirds prosperity and how providing access to American education strengthens the forces dedicated to a more open and freer world.

Above all, Americans need to be reminded what is at stake. Many millions around the world have benefited from an international order that has raised standards of living, opened political systems and preserved the general peace. But no nation and no people have benefited more than Americans. And no nation has a greater role to play in preserving this system for future generations.

The world order that was created in the aftermath of World War II has produced immense benefits for peoples across the planet. The past 70 years have seen an unprecedented growth in prosperity, lifting billions out of poverty. Democratic government, once rare, has spread to over 100 nations around the world, on every continent, for people of all races and religions. And, although the period has been marked by war and suffering as well, peace among the great powers has been preserved. There has been no recurrence of the two devastating world wars of the first half of the 20th century.

Today, however, that liberal order is being challenged by a variety of forces—by powerful authoritarian governments and anti-liberal fundamentalist movements, as well as by long-term shifts in the global economy and changes in the physical environment. The questions we face are whether this liberal world order is worth defending, and whether it is capable of surviving the present challenges. We believe the answer to both questions is an emphatic “yes.”

To say that a “liberal” world order is worth defending is, of course, a declaration on behalf of a certain set of principles—a belief that the rights of the individual are primary, that it is the responsibility of governments to protect those rights and that democratic government, in particular, offers the best chance for human dignity, justice and freedom. This is not a universally held view. The leaders of some nations and more than a few people around the world disagree on this hierarchy of values.

There is, and always has been, a division about how nations should be governed, and about the differences in and between democratic and autocratic forms, the role of religion and the connections to economic structures. While recognizing that these differences exist and that every structure has its failings, the authors of this report are confident in their conviction that the liberal world order offers the best hope for meeting human aspirations, both material and spiritual, and for calling forth the very best in people across the world.

To strengthen and preserve this order, however, will require a renewal of American leadership in the international system. The present world order has been forged by many hands and peoples, but the role of the United States in both shaping and defending it has been critical. American military power, the dynamism of the U.S. economy, and the great number of close alliances and friendships that the United States enjoys with other powers and peoples have provided the critical architecture in which this liberal world order has flourished. A weakening of America’s commitment or its capabilities, or both, would invariably lead to its collapse.

But in recent years, many have come to doubt America’s ability to continue playing this role. Only seven years ago, pundits were talking of a “post-American world” with a declining United States and a remarkable “rise of the rest”. These days, however, that prognosis appears to have been at least premature. The United States has substantially recovered from the Great Recession, while the once-heralded “rise of the rest” has stalled.

A new foundation for an effective U.S. foreign policy for a new international environment needs to be established, but it should be recognized that the United States is not omnipotent and faces limitations in what it can do. The emphasis must be on taking advantages of American comparative advantages in certain key areas, doing what the United States does best, and in a way that reflects what those around the world want and need from America.

To this end, this paper focuses on four baskets of policies—Strengthening and Adapting the Liberal Economic Order; Strengthening the International Security Order; Taking Advantage of the Energy Revolution; and Playing to America’s Strengths in Education, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

A key task for American political leaders and policy advocates will be to demonstrate and explain how the pieces fit together: how trade enhances security; how military power undergirds prosperity; and how providing access to American education strengthens the forces dedicated to a more open and freer world. By looking at the whole picture, the importance of the individual strands of policy will be clearer and therefore easier to sell.

Downloads

• Strengthening the liberal world order

Event Information

On May 5, the Brookings Project on International Order and Strategy (IOS) hosted a discussion on America’s global role and the release of the newest edition of Pew Research Center’s series, “America’s Place in the World.” This survey explores American views of U.S. foreign policy today and the role of U.S. leadership abroad. The study also looks at which national security threats concern Americans the most.

Carroll Doherty, director of political research at Pew Research Center, opened the discussion by explaining the survey’s findings. Senior Fellow Robert Kagan, author of “The World America Made” (Vintage Books, 2013), talked about the implications of the survey for U.S. support of the international order. Derek Chollet, former assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs and author of the forthcoming book “The Long Game” (Public Affairs, 2016), offered insight into how these findings fit with President Obama’s worldview. Laure Mandeville, U.S. bureau chief for Le Figaro, contributed an international perspective on American politics and U.S. power abroad.

Margaret Brennan, CBS foreign affairs correspondent, moderated the discussion. Senior Fellow Thomas Wright, director of IOS, provided brief opening remarks.

After the program, the speakers took questions from the audience.

Video

• Introduction
• Speakers

Audio

• America’s place in the world

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• Americas Place in the World 2016 Pew Presentation
• 20160505_americas_place_transcript

Event Information

A conversation with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker

Video

• Economic opportunities and the liberal international order

Event Information

On February 2 and 3, 2010, the Brookings Institution Metropolitan Policy Program and Lazard convened leaders from the public sector, energy, infrastructure, finance and venture capital communities for an in-depth conversation focused on innovative policy and business practices that will help build the next American economy.

California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and Pennsylvania Governor Edward G. Rendell provided the keynote remarks. Both stressed the need for strategic investments in innovative infrastructure and energy practices going forward.

Framing the conference was the notion that the next American economy must be export-oriented, low carbon, innovation-fueled and opportunity rich—an idea which has been proposed by leading economists such as Director of the National Economic Council Larry Summers. It is with this mindset that Brookings and Lazard put together high-level, dynamic panels that centered around the private sector needs for building out the next American economy—and the policy implications. Specifically, they focused on how the traditional industry leaders (e.g., utility companies), the new industry leaders (e.g., venture capital investors), and public sector leaders can work together to move our country forward, especially within the metro areas where the resources and networks that drive innovation are rooted.

Video

• The Keys to American Competitiveness

Audio

• The Next American Economy: Transforming Energy and Infrastructure Investment

Transcript

• Transcript (.pdf)
• Bruce Katz's delivered remarks (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 0203_transcript
• 0203_nextecon_katz
• 0203_overview
• 0203_agenda
• 0203_nextecon_pres

When President Obama unveiled his budget allocation for high-speed rail, he said, “In France, high-speed rail has pulled regions from isolation, ignited growth [and], remade quiet towns into thriving tourist destinations.” His remarks emphasize how high-speed rail is increasing the accessibility of isolated places as an argument for similarly investments. So, what’s the source of this argument in the European context?

In November 2009, the European Union’s ESPON (the European Observation Network for Territorial Development and Cohesion) released a report called “Trends in Accessibility.” ESPON examined the extent to which accessibility has changed between 2001 and 2006. ESPON defines accessibility as how “easily people in one region can reach people in another region.” This measurement of accessibility helps determine the “potential for activities and enterprises in the region to reach markets and activities in other regions.”

ESPON’s research concluded that in this five-year period, rail accessibility grew an average of 13.1 percent. The report further concludes that high-speed rail lines have “influenced positively the potential accessibility of many European regions and cities.”

In particular, the research found that the core of Europe--Germany, France, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Switzerland--has the highest potential accessibility. Europe’s core produces the highest levels of economic output and has the highest population densities. ESPON argues that with such densities, the core has found reason to link their economic hubs (cities) with high-speed rail. These are the places in Europe where they have the greatest returns on investment.

But ESPON also found that high speed rail is starting to increase the accessibility of isolated places such as France’s Tours, Lyon, and Marseille. This is a very important finding for Europe. They have a long-standing policy of social cohesion and balance, striving to create economic sustainability and population stability across Europe. The objective is for areas well beyond core to thrive economically and to dissuade people from migrating in search of jobs. Fiscally, social cohesion translates into investing disproportionately more money into areas not producing sufficient levels of economic output. High-speed rail is but one of the many strategies intending to produce “economic and social cohesion,” states a European Commission report on high-speed rail.

But we are not Europe. While their thesis underpinning high-speed rail is social cohesion, what is our underlying thesis for high-speed rail? And what does this look like spatially? What was the logic behind the selection of Florida over other possible corridors? Is this line going to strengthen our national economy and GDP? Clarity on this score will help ensure the project is a success and offers a high return on investment. Lessons from this accessibility study say that places with high population levels and GDP output offer the greatest accessibility and therefore success.

It would be a pity if the U.S. finally jumped on the high-speed bandwagon but still missed the train.

In partnership with the ESADE Business School and the City of Barcelona, the Metropolitan Policy Program planned and participated in three intensive days of learning in Barcelona in June 2011.  The focus of the session was to look at examples of strategies Barcelona, Spain and its greater metropolitan region is embracing to rebuild and re-invent their economies.  The goal is to share innovative ideas with U.S. metros engaged in similar initiatives as they face the challenge of moving to a new economic growth model.

This paper features brief synopses of the tours and meetings held with the City of Barcelona and the Catalonia Region on their economic development strategies.

Specific strategies include:

Barcelona Activa »

Click on any image below for a larger version

Downloads

• Download the Full Paper

Editor’s Note: During the Global Cities Initiative’s international forum in São Paulo, Bruce Katz delivered remarks on metropolitan areas and their potential to power national economies worldwide. The remarks were written by Katz and Julie Wagner.

The Metropolitan Future of Brazil and the United States
(This presentation is also available in Portuguese)

Good morning everyone.  It is a pleasure to be back in Sao Paulo with JP Morgan Chase, our partner in the Global Cities Initiative.  I am grateful for their support and leadership.

I first want to thank Governor Alckmin and Mayor-elect Haddad for their participation today and we fully welcome the opportunity to work with both of them and the city and state in the coming months and years.

This has been an extraordinary week for our delegation of mayors and business, civic, and university leaders from 10 major American cities and metropolitan areas.

We have seen firsthand the proud history and infectious energy and vibrancy of this great city and macro-metropolis.  We are grateful to Luiz Felipe D’Avila and the Centre for Public Leadership for co-sponsoring this forum today. We also owe a debt to others who have hosted and guided us this week—the State of Sao Paulo, particularly the State Secretariat for Metropolitan Development, Insper, the Commercial Association of Santos and the Port of Santos and the Brazil-U.S. Business Council, and the U.S. Embassy and Ambassador Shannon.

As Aod said at the outset, São Paulo is the first stop outside the United States in our five year Global Cities Initiative.  That is a deliberate choice.   The relationship between the United States and Brazil is a critical one.  Despite barriers, the economic and social ties between our two countries are strong and growing stronger.  Trade is booming.  Investment is up.  Tourism and business travel have never been higher.  And the recent state visits by presidents Obama and Rousseff send a clear signal that this is a partnership of the highest order. 

Yet there is hard work to do in both our countries. The U.S. and Brazil are undergoing major economic transitions. By global standards, both of us under-perform on exports, far trailing other countries.  The U.S. is shifting slowly back towards a more productive, sustainable economy after our worst downturn in 80 years; Brazil is moving forward towards a more open, outward looking economy.

Against this complex backdrop, our delegation comes bearing a simple proposition. The answers to national challenges lie, in great part, below the national level.

We live in a century where cities and metropolitan areas are driving national economies and the global economy. The U.S. and Brazil have 84 and 85 percent of our respective populations living in our cities and metropolitan areas … and these communities generate 91 percent of the GDP in the U.S. and 88 percent of the GDP in Brazil.  There is, in essence, no American or Brazilian—or German or Chinese—economy; rather our national economies represent networks of powerful city and metropolitan economies.

 Today, I will make three main points.

As the world urbanizes, cities and metropolitan areas have emerged as the engines of national economies.

As our economies globalize, cities and metropolitan areas act as the centers of international trade and investment.

To prosper today, cities and metropolitan areas need to drive their economic destiny.  In our federal republic, where power is shared across national, state and local governments, that requires new thinking about who does what. 

But, first things first; we cannot put forward a metropolitan playbook without first understanding what a metropolis is.  And the best way to do that is from the ground up.

On the right side of the screen you see the São Paulo metropolis, 20 million strong, 10^th most populous in the world.

On the left side of the screen you see Chicago, Mayor Daley’s hometown, with a population of 9.5 million, 26^th largest in the world.

Both of these metro areas cluster around core cities but cover large land masses and encompass multiple jurisdictions.

The São Paulo metro is more than 8,000 square kilometers in size, with more than half of your population living in the city proper and the remainder residing in 38 other municipalities.  

Chicago is close to 19,000 square kilometers in size with one third of the population living in the central city and the remainder spread across, incredibly, three states, 14 counties encompassing hundreds of separate municipalities and townships.

The assets São Paulo and Chicago need to compete nationally and globally are spread across their regions:

Clusters of workers;

Key colleges and universities;

Major hospitals and health care facilities;

A network of urban green space; and

The infrastructure—roads, rail and transit and airports—needed to move people, and freight

In other words, metro areas are the natural, organic geographies of the economy, clustered around central cities for sure, but also benefitting from the assets offered by satellite cities and suburban, exurban and rural areas.   

With that background, let me start with an irrefutable observation: cities and metropolitan areas are the 21^st century engines of national economies.

Since 1950, the world’s urban population has more than quadrupled in size.  Now sized at 3.6 billion people, it is expected to surpass 5 billion by 2030.

In 1950, 29 percent of the world’s population lived in cities and their metropolitan areas.  By 2009, the share surpassed 50 percent. By 2030, urban settlements will harbor more than 60 percent of the world’s population.

In many respects, the world is becoming more like us.  The United States and Brazil are two of the most highly urbanized countries with city and metro concentrations surpassing those of both mature economies in Germany, Britain, and Spain and emerging economies like China, India, and South Africa.  

Cities and metros do not just house people; they power economies.  Today Brookings released our annual Global Metro Monitor that tracks the economic performance of the world’s top 300 largest metropolitan economies.

Incredibly, we find that these metropolitan areas house a little under one fifth of global population but generate nearly half its total output.  Put simply: Metros around the world punch way above their weight.

Why are they so powerful? 

Because they cluster and connect firms, large and small, with ports and airports, transport and energy infrastructure, and a broad range of supportive institutions that supply skilled labor, advanced research and customized capital.    And when that happens, productivity improves, entrepreneurship rises, employment and wages increase.   

The dominance of metros holds true for both our countries, which house 13 and 76 of the top 300 global metros, respectively.

Your thirteen top metropolitan areas are home to one third of Brazil’s population, concentrate half of Brazil’s manufacturing output and your population with college education and account for 56 percent of national GDP and 63 percent of financial services output.

These metros range from Sao Paulo, 11^th largest economy in the world, to Baixada Santista, 295^th largest.    

Eleven of your metro areas are state or national capitals; this state is home to three of the 13 large metro areas.

Metro São Paulo takes its place among the world’s most populous and economically powerful metros.

You are home to one tenth of Brazil’s population, account for one-fifth of Brazil’s GDP and generate 57 percent of the GDP of this state.

For America’s part, our top 76 metros form the real heart of the U.S. economy. 

Housing 61 percent of our population, they concentrate a majority of our manufacturing output, gather our most educated people, and generate more than 68 percent of our national GDP.

They also make an outsized contribution on financial services and the production of patents. 

In the U.S., the top 76 metros range from New York, L.A., and Chicago to less well known communities like Allentown, Little Rock, and Harrisburg.

This leads to my second point: as economies globalize, cities and metropolitan areas act as the centers of international trade and investment.

Metros and trade are inextricably linked, and have been for millennia.   The Silk Road that connected Asia, Europe, the Middle East, and Northern Africa.   The Hanseatic League that grew from Hamburg and Lubeck to include 170 cities that monopolized trade in Northern Europe between the 13^th and 15^th centuries.  The great Italian city-states of Venice, Pisa, Genoa, and Amalfi.   

These historic networks offer essential lessons:

As a recent Brookings report concluded:

“Trade is essential to metros—it is how they grow their economies. And metros are essential to trade—they provide the specialization and market access that facilitates exchange among producers and consumers.” 

The top Brazilian and U.S. metros are our nations’ logistical hubs, concentrating the movement of goods and people by sea and by air.  In Brazil, 61 percent of foreign waterborne trade, measured by tonnage, passes through the seaports of the top metros; in the United States the equivalent share is over 66 percent. Passenger travel is even more concentrated; in both countries, close to 82 percent of international air travel passes through the airports of the top metropolitan areas.

Significantly, the top cities and metros in both our countries are magnets for foreign direct investment, particularly “greenfield FDI” where foreign entities invest in new facilities or expansions of existing facilities rather than just purchase domestic companies. 

From 2003 through September 2012, Brazil’s 13 accounted for 77 percent of greenfield FDI projects in Brazil and 59 percent of the jobs created through this key growth vehicle.  The top 76 U.S. metros also accounted for 77 percent of Greenfield FDI projects and 70 percent of the jobs created.

Brazil’s 13 are responsible for a third of all national goods exports; the share is substantially higher for the top U.S. metros.  Brookings research on U.S. exports shows that our top U.S. metros dominate the trade in manufacturing and services … and, given their edge in sectors like chemicals, consulting and computers, are on the front lines of commerce with China, Brazil, and India. 

In sum, our research has shown the collective centrality of our top cities and metros to the trading position of our nations. 

Yet metro economies do not exist in the aggregate; they have distinctive starting points and vary considerably in their trading prowess and intensity.  What makes São Paulo special on the global stage—your distinctive offer, your special investment potential—is different from what defines and drives Rio or Curitiba or Salvador.

São Paulo is Brazil’s premier global metropolis and the numbers reflect that.  Your metro houses 10 percent of Brazil’s population but:

• Your airports handle 26 percent of all passenger traffic in Brazil and 33 percent of all air cargo.
• Your macro metro neighbor, Santos, which we visited yesterday, is the busiest container port in South America and 43rd in the world.
• You are Brazil’s largest metropolitan exporter, producing 27 percent of all metropolitan exports of goods

• And from 2003-2011 you received 19 percent of all greenfield FDI in Brazil … in fact, more FDI than New York, LA, Chicago, Houston and San Francisco combined.

You trade with the world’s most prosperous cities, in the United States and elsewhere, but in particular ways given your distinctive industry clusters and sectors.

Given your substantial concentration in financial services (with 19 of the 25 top international banks present and the world’s third largest financial exchange), you interact naturally with New York and Miami in the U.S., London, Madrid, and Frankfurt in Europe and Shanghai, Tokyo and Hong Kong in Asia.

Despite the outward movement of industry, you still serve as Brazil’s main global platform for advanced manufacturing sectors like automotive, linking you closely with Detroit in the U.S., Milan and Stuttgart in Europe, and Nagoya in Japan.

The shape and structure of your economy puts São Paulo in an exclusive club of “global cities,” a definition drawn in the 1990s when the process of trade, investment, and globalization was seen as empowering a few command and control finance metros of the world.

But today, our notions of “globalizing cities” are more expansive, recognizing that all cities are fueled, to different degrees, by global investment and connected, in distinctive ways, via global commerce and exchange, global product and labor supply chains. 

The energy cluster in Rio finds common interest with the energy cluster in Houston through investments by Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Petrobras … and then further with energy firms in Amsterdam, Dar es Salaam, and Bogota.

Campinas’ hi-tech sector naturally links with the hi-tech cluster in San Jose’s Silicon Valley via elite universities, advanced R&D institutions, and global tech giants like IBM, Hewlett-Packard and Dell … and then further with tech clusters in Tokyo, Bangalore and Dublin.

As headquarters of Embraer, São Jose  dos Campos links via supply chains to Palm Bay, Florida, Harbin, China and Lisbon, Portugal.

In short, a new global map is being drawn in the world, not of nation to nation trade but of metro to metro exchange.

That leads to my final point: To prosper in the global economy today, metros need to drive their global economic destiny.

We have a three part playbook:

The playbook starts at home, with cities innovating locally to exploit their distinctive competitive advantages in the global economy.

In the U.S., cities and metropolitan areas are acting with intentionality in the aftermath of the Great Recession to devise and implement what we call “metropolitan business plans.”  The purpose: build on their distinctive competitive advantages in the traded sectors of the economy, given the crippling effect on housing and consumption.

The elements of business planning are fairly simple and straightforward

Each metropolis does a market assessment of their unique economic profile and potential … what goods and services they trade, which nations they trade with, where trade trends are likely to head given market dynamics here and abroad. 

Armed with this information, metros then set goals and objectives that build on their distinct advantages, devise strategies to meet those goals and establish metrics to gauge progress.

All these efforts are undertaken by a consortium of corporate, government, university and civic institutions that cut across jurisdictions, sectors, and disciplines and “collaborate to compete” globally.

Let me give you an example of how these business plans are helping cities and their metros grow jobs and restructure their economies.

Los Angeles, represented here by Mayor Antonio Villaragoisa, has devised an ambitious plan to grow exports by identifying and proactively supporting export ready firms in leading trade sectors like aerospace, computers, professional services, and film and television.  The L.A. system of trade is moving from a story of fragmentation, where no clear institution defines or drives decision-making, to a reality of coordination and collaboration, responsiveness and flexibility under one Los Angeles Regional Export Council.  The result: More firms will export more goods and services to more places producing more and better jobs.

We believe business planning holds great potential for São Paulo and other Brazilian metros.   Obviously, fixing the basics is a critical first step for economic growth: safe streets, quality schools, efficient transport and sound governance.  But a business plan might focus on increasing foreign direct investment in infrastructure necessary to reduce congestion, improve mobility, and enhance accessibility to jobs. 

The key is not what you focus on … but to decide your focus based on evidence and in a collaborative manner and then to hold yourself accountable through continuous assessment and measurement. 

Having innovated locally, cities must network globally—creating and stewarding close relationships with trading partners in both mature economies and rising nations.

The new global reality is leading to intricate networks of trading cities which grow together by linking together and learning together.

These networks obviously start with firms and ports that do business with each other.  

But, over time, networks extend to supporting institutions—governments, universities, business associations—that provide support for companies at the leading edge of metropolitan economies.

The city of Houston and the city of São Paulo, for example, executed a formal agreement earlier this year that commits each city to increase commercial relations, intensify scientific and technological connections, and facilitate information to tackle shared challenges.

Enterprise Florida, the principal export and investment organization in that state, opened an office in São Paulo in 2011 to help Florida companies expand trade.  APEX-Brasil, Enterprise Florida’s Brazilian counterpart, has its only U.S. location in Miami’s free trade zone.  There it executes projects like providing clean and renewable fuels to IndyCar, the American based auto racing body. 

The Ohio State University and the University of São Paulo have partnered to support the exchange of students and collaborative research.  Areas of recent focus: natural and mathematical sciences, medicine, and teacher training.  In 2014 Ohio State anticipates opening its third “Global Gateways” office in the world in São Paulo to further capitalize on these linkages.

Here is the simple message: We can see a network of trading cities emerging right here in São Paulo and it is a future characterized by multi-layered relationships across multiple dimensions and disciplines, interests and institutions. 

Finally, having innovated at home and networked globally, cities and metros must advocate nationally for federal and state policies and practices that will support metro growth.

Metros are engines, but they do NOT act alone.

Only national governments can set the rules of the road: enhancing access to foreign markets, enforcing trade agreements, opening up borders to immigrants and protecting intellectual property.  They can also help match domestic firms with potential global customers, provide export promotion support, and commit resources to modernizing logistics hubs.

As the world evolves as a network of trading cities, it is only natural that cities become more articulate and aggressive about the support they need from higher levels of government. 

In the United States, cities have found a receptive partner in the Obama Administration.  Key federal agencies—the International Trade Administration, the Ex-Im Bank, the Small Business Administration—have been central partners in guiding business plans with a particular focus on boosting exports.

Similar alliances could be built here.  As part of the Global Cities Initiative, the ESADE Business School mapped the trading system in São Paulo.  Their research clearly shows the central role of your federal and state governments in advancing the internationalization of your economy.  True success will come when these higher level entities align closely with your distinct assets and advantages.

Going forward, the advocacy of cities must extend beyond accessing the export promotion and finance programs of federal and state governments.  They must get to the heart of the matter.

The United States has had a North American Free Trade Agreement in place for 20 years with our partners, Mexico and Canada.

We have recently concluded important Free Trade Agreements with Colombia, Panama, and Korea.

President Obama was in Southeast Asia this month discussing the possibilities of a Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The 2011 Agreement on Trade and Economic Cooperation signed by President Obama and President Rousseff provides a platform to build on.

As they have expressed, we need a new vision for our Hemisphere … and for our two countries.

We are both growing with healthy demographics.

We both have an enormous pool of natural assets.

We both have a shared imperative to reorient our economies.

Empowered with the right policies, enabled with the right frameworks, we have the potential to grow together this century, powered by our major population and economic centers.

So that’s our playbook:

Innovate locally.  Network globally. Advocate nationally.

Let me end where I began. 

From the beginning of time, cities have been centers of commerce, formed along the roads and routes of trade. 

And so it is today.

The cities of our nations are powering our nations.

They are giving physical shape to the globalizing economy, seamlessly integrating the exchange of people, goods, services, energy, capital, ideas, and culture.

The promise of the Global Cities Initiative broadly is to capture and channel this energy into lasting, sustained networks and partnerships.

Our pledge as we leave here today is to work with you, partner with you, and ensure that the United States and Brazil bind together not just as two nations but as living, vibrant, powerful networks of trading cities and metropolitan areas.

Event Information

View the report

The geography of innovation is shifting and a new model for innovative growth is emerging. In contrast to suburban corridors of isolated corporate campuses, innovation districts combine research institutions, innovative firms and business incubators with the benefits of urban living. These districts have the unique potential to spur productive, sustainable, and inclusive economic development.  

On June 9, the Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings released “The Rise of Innovation Districts,” a new report analyzing this trend. The authors of the paper, Brookings Vice President Bruce Katz and Nonresident Senior Fellow Julie Wagner, were joined by leaders from emerging innovation districts across the country to discuss this shift and provide guidance to U.S. metro areas on ways to harness its potential.

Join the conversation on Twitter using #InnovationDistricts

Presentation by Bruce Katz

---

Event Photos

---

Bruce Katz, Vice President and Director, Metropolitan Policy Program

Lydia DePillis, John A. Fry, Nicole Fichera, Kofi Bonner, Julie Wagner

The Honorable Andy Berke, Mayor, City of Chattanooga, TN and Bruce Katz

Video

• What Are Innovation Districts?
• Innovation Districts Aligned With Disruptive Dynamics of Our Era
• Cities are For People
• Boston's District Hall a Living Room for Innovation Economy
• Innovation Happens Anywhere and Everywhere
• Are Innovation Districts Another Form of Gentrification?
• Philadelphia Behind but Competing in Innovation Districts
• Chattanooga Has Fastest, Cheapest Internet in Western Hemisphere
• We Live In an Innovation Century
• The Rise of Innovation Districts - Opening Remarks
• The Rise of Innovation Districts - Presentation by Bruce Katz
• The Rise of Innovation Districts - Panel Discussion
• The Rise of Innovation Districts - Moderated Dialogue

Audio

• The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America

Transcript

• Uncorrected Transcript (.pdf)

Event Materials

• 20140609_innovation_districts_transcript

The geography of innovation is shifting. For proof, start with Google, which over the past 10 years has taken the core R&D and innovation-oriented activities it once housed only in Silicon Valley and extended them into cities. The company’s presence in London’s Tech City, New York City’s Chelsea district, and Pittsburgh’s Bakery Square reflects management’s calculation that being in cities increases the company’s access to growing tech-oriented ecosystems, advanced research institutions, deep pools of talent, and distinct regional specializations.

In its decision to go urban, Google has been joined by not only other tech firms such as Twitter, Microsoft, and Spotify, but also companies like Comcast, Amazon, Pfizer, Quicken Loans, and countless numbers of small start-ups and entrepreneurs. (Our recent research for the Brookings Institution, “The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America,” provides the larger context for these corporate choices.)

For the past 50 years, the landscape of innovation has been dominated by regions like Silicon Valley—suburban corridors of spatially isolated corporate campuses, accessible only by car, with little emphasis on the quality of life or on integrating work, housing, and recreation. After visiting dozens of U.S. and European cities, interviewing hundreds of practitioners and experts on the ground, and scouring scholarly analyses of investor and firm behavior, we are convinced that a complementary new urban model is now emerging, in the form of what we and others are calling “innovation districts.”

These districts, by our definition, are “geographic areas where leading-edge anchor institutions and companies cluster and connect with start-ups, business incubators, and accelerators. Compact, transit-accessible, and technically-wired, innovation districts foster open collaboration, grow talent, and offer mixed-used housing, office, and retail.”

Globally, Barcelona, Berlin, Copenhagen, London, Medellin, Montreal, Seoul, Stockholm, and Toronto all contain emerging innovation districts. In the United States, the most iconic districts can be found in the downtowns and midtowns of Atlanta, Cambridge, Detroit, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis. In each, advanced research universities, medical complexes, and clusters of tech and creative firms are sparking business expansion as well as residential and commercial growth.

Other innovation districts are developing in Boston, Brooklyn, Chicago, Portland, San Francisco, and Seattle. Former industrial and warehouse areas are undergoing a renaissance, powered by their enviable location along transit lines, proximity to downtowns and waterfronts, and recent additions of advanced institutions. (Note, for example, Carnegie Mellon University’s decision to place its Integrative Media Program at the Brooklyn Navy Yard.)

Perhaps the greatest validation of this shift is the fact that traditional exurban science parks like Research Triangle Park in Raleigh-Durham are now responding with efforts to meet the new demand for more vibrant and collaborative work and living environments.

Innovation districts are already attracting an eclectic mix of firms in the app economy and high tech sector as well as in high-value, research-oriented sectors such as life and material sciences, clean energy, and data computing. They are also home to companies in highly creative fields like architecture, design, theater production, advertising, and marketing. We even see a return to cities of small-scale and customized manufacturing, made possible by 3D printing, robotics, and other advanced techniques.

Much of this activity reflects a fundamental rethinking by corporate management about how and where innovation happens. In turn, it is making the case that discrete urban geographies can be instrumental in strengthening the competitive advantages of specific firms and clusters.

Rather than being the outgrowth of heavy-handed government programs, innovation districts are instead emerging from broader trends and market forces. For example, an economy increasingly oriented toward innovation (particularly through open collaborations) naturally rewards urban density. Companies, researchers, and entrepreneurs working in close proximity are able to share ideas rather than invent in isolation. No one company can master all the knowledge it needs, so they rely on a network of industry collaborators. A recent New York Times article on the growth of Pfizer, Novartis, and other major pharmaceutical companies in Cambridge, makes the point explicitly:

Pharmaceutical companies traditionally preferred suburban enclaves where they could protect their intellectual property in more secluded settings and meet their employees’ needs. But in recent years, as the costs of drug development have soared and R&D pipelines slowed, pharmaceutical companies have looked elsewhere for innovation. Much of that novelty is now coming from biotechnology firms and major research universities like MIT and Harvard, just two subway stops away.

If the benefits of urban density were already being experienced, they take on heightened importance in what Michael Mandel has called the “age of convergence” —when companies must simultaneously push forward with technology and content. Other analysis by the Center for an Urban Future in New York City finds many tech players focusing less on building new technologies and more on “applying technology to traditional industries like advertising, media, fashion, finance, and health care.” These shifts reinforce the importance of proximate location as companies strive to be physically close to the individuals and companies they partner with.

The rise of a convergence and collaborative economy also raises questions of how commercial buildings—offices, research labs, business incubators, and innovation institutes—should be designed. Thus, the creative solutions being tried in vanguard innovation districts will yield broad lessons. With their many variations on incubator space, collaborative venues, social networking, product competitions, technical support, and mentoring, they are beginning to sort out the best physical and social platforms for entrepreneurial growth.

Finally, large-scale demographic migrations are putting new value on cities and demanding more and better choices in where workers live, work and play. The City Observatory recently found, for example, that the number of young college graduates living within three miles of city centers (i.e., where innovation districts tend to be located) has surged, up 37 percent since 2000. This is happening not just in talent magnets like Denver, Portland, OR, and San Diego, but also in older industrial cities like Buffalo, Cleveland, and Pittsburgh.

The confluence of these disruptive economic, social, and demographic dynamics has changed corporate calculus. As companies design forward-looking strategies, they should be asking whether and how a greater commitment to urban locales could help them squeeze out even more success.

This commentary was originally published by Harvard Business Review.

In the year since we released “The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America,” Brookings has visited or interacted with dozens of leaders in burgeoning innovation districts in the United States and Europe. In so doing, we’ve sharpened our knowledge of what’s happening on the ground and gained some important insights into how cities and metros are embracing this new paradigm of economy-shaping, place-making, and network-building.

Innovation districts capture the remarkable spatial pattern underway in the innovation economy—the heightened clustering of anchor institutions, companies, and start-ups in small geographic areas of central cities across the United States, Europe, and other global-trading regions.

The rise of innovation districts has been situated against the familiar backdrop of suburban corporate campuses and science parks. Accessible only by car, these spatially isolated corridors place little emphasis on the quality of life or on integrating work, housing, and recreation.

By contrast, in our report we found the rise of urban innovation hubs to be the organic result of profound economic and demographic forces that are altering how we live and work. The growing application of “open innovation”—where companies work with other firms, inventors, and researchers to generate new ideas and bring them to market—has revalued proximity, density, and other attributes of cities. At the same time, the growing preference of young talented workers to congregate in vibrant neighborhoods that offer choices in housing, transportation, and amenities has made urban and urbanizing areas increasingly attractive.

We also found that innovation districts uniformly contain a mix of economic, physical, and networking assets. Economic assets are the firms, institutions, and organizations that drive, cultivate, or support an innovation-rich environment. Physical assets are the public and privately owned spaces—buildings, open spaces, streets, and other infrastructure—designed and organized to stimulate new and higher levels of connectivity, collaboration, and innovation. Lastly, networking assets are the relationships between actors—such as between individuals, firms, and institutions—that have the potential to generate, sharpen, and/or accelerate the advancement of ideas. These assets, taken together, create an innovation ecosystem—the synergistic relationship between people, firms, and place that facilitates idea generation and advances commercialization.

One year later, innovation districts continue to rise. What have we learned about how they are evolving?

A simple Google search will reveal the extent to which the language of “innovation districts” (or “innovation quarters,“ “innovation neighborhoods,” or “innovation corridors”) has rapidly permeated the field of urban and metropolitan economic development and place-making.

In some places, this labeling is being accurately used by globally recognized research institutions (e.g., Carnegie Mellon in Pittsburgh, Drexel University in Philadelphia) that are both experiencing extraordinary growth near their campuses as well as designing intentional efforts to build on their distinctive assets. In communities as diverse as Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis in the United States and Manchester and Sheffield in England, local leaders are conducting deep empirical analysis to understand their competitive advantages and existing weaknesses within their innovation ecosystem. They are exploring what it means to encourage greater collaboration and cooperation across their institutions, firms, and entrepreneurs. And they are exploring ways to better create “place” so as to increase overall vitality, facilitate innovation, and spur the growth of new businesses and jobs.

In other places, the nomenclature reflects an aspiration—and is spurring more deliberate efforts by local stakeholders to grow distinctive innovation ecosystems. In cities like Albuquerque, N.M., Chattanooga, Tenn., Chicago, Ill., Durham, N.C., and San Diego, Calif., local leaders are using the innovation district paradigm as a platform to measure their current conditions, develop strategies for addressing gaps and challenges, and build coalitions of stakeholders that can together help realize a unified vision for innovative growth. Some of these budding districts represent typologies not outlined in our report but that are ripe for future research, including “start-up” enclaves in or near downtowns of cities that lack a major anchor as well as “public markets” that blend locally produced food products and crafts with maker spaces, digital design, and other innovations in the creative arts.

There is one unfortunate trend in the rising use of the "innovation district" lexicon. In a number of cities, local stakeholders have applied the label to a project or area that lacks the minimum threshold of innovation-oriented firms, start-ups, institutions, or clusters needed to create an innovation ecosystem. This appears to result either from the chase to jump on the latest economic development bandwagon, the desire to drive up demand and real estate prices, or sometimes a true lack of understanding of what an innovation district actually is. The motivation for real estate developers to adopt the moniker seems clear: to achieve a price premium for their commercial, residential, and retail rents. Yet these sites are typically a collection of service-sector activities with little focus on the innovation economy. The lesson: labeling something innovative does not make it so.

From all these observations, it is clear that the field needs a routinized way to measure the starting assets of innovation districts—both to separate true districts from “in name only” ones as well as to give individual communities a platform for developing targeted strategies going forward. This means both running the numbers—conducting a quantitative audit—and undertaking a more qualitative assessment of strengths and weaknesses. Irrespective of their phase of development, innovation districts must evaluate the extent to which they have a critical mass of economic, physical, and networking assets to collectively generate the vitality that these districts demand. They need to evaluate the competitive advantages they have in certain economic sectors and learn how to cultivate them. And they need to ensure that they have the connectivity, diversity, and quality of place necessary to create a unique and vibrant environment in which innovation can thrive.

To facilitate this process, we are working in close collaboration with Mass Economics and the Project for Public Spaces to develop an audit template and tool. Over the next year, we intend to sharpen this tool in a subset of innovation districts across the country and then encourage others to employ it in their own established or burgeoning districts.

Second, the core economic assets of innovation districts are not fixed; in fact, many innovation districts are being created or enhanced by the relocation of major anchor facilities as institutions strive to achieve the highest return on investment.

The conventional notion of an “anchor” institution is that it is solidly weighted in a particular place. Yet over the past decade a substantial number of innovative companies and advanced educational and research institutions have moved key facilities and units as a means of generating greater innovation output. Examples of new locations include the University of California-San Francisco’s biotechnology campus in Mission Bay (2003); the University of Washington’s medical research hub in Seattle’s South Lake Union (2005); Brown University’s medical school in downtown Providence, R.I. (2011); Duke’s Clinical Research Institute in downtown Durham (2013); Carnegie Mellon University’s Integrative Media Program in the Brooklyn Navy Yard (2013); and, most famously, the new Cornell Tech campus on Roosevelt Island in New York City (2015).

These “first mover” relocations show how corporate and university leaders are departing from the tradition of building new facilities within their existing footprint and are willing to seek out new areas (and even new cities) to retain, or achieve, competitive advantage in their respective clusters and fields. As Cornell Professor Ronald Ehrenberg said about his school’s isolated Ithaca, N.Y. campus, “It is very, very difficult for us to do the kind of development through tech transfer that a place like Stanford or Berkeley can do in San Francisco or Harvard or MIT can do in Boston.” Our strong sense in talking with leaders around the country is that we are still at the early stage of corporate and university relocations given the extent to which urban areas have been revalued. The physical relocation of key innovation assets has now become a critical competitiveness strategy for companies, universities, and even states.

In some cases, the “unanchoring of anchors” is also compelling local leaders to rethink the traditional borders and boundaries of the innovation economy. In Philadelphia, for example, University City has always been recognized as a settled innovation hub, given the co-location of such anchor institutions as Drexel University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University City Science Center, and others. The recent decision of Comcast to consolidate its corporate presence in the downtown area and build its major new Innovation and Technology Center less than 10 blocks from 30th Street Station and the Drexel Campus is convincing some leaders to “stretch” Philadelphia’s University City district to incorporate this new corporate giant.

While our paper dissected various types of physical assets to help practitioners understand their individual roles and value, the more important message to convey now is the imperative to combine and activate physical assets in ways that create vibrant “places.” The Project for Public Spaces aptly describes place as “…environments in which people have invested meaning over time. A place has its own history—a unique cultural and social identity that is defined by the way it is used and the people who use it.”¹

Our review of innovation districts, including those cited in our paper, reveals that many have not yet maximized the potential for creating lively communities in which their residents and workers feel invested, reducing the potential innovation output of these communities. When designed and programmed well, a district’s public spaces—whether within buildings or outside of them—facilitate open innovation by offering numerous opportunities to meet, network, and brainstorm. Strong places entice residents and workers to remain in the area off hours, extending the opportunities for collaboration. Strong places create a culturally and educationally enriched environment that strengthens human interaction, knowledge, and motivation.

While some university-led districts have made some improvements over the years, districts anchored by medical campuses have significant work ahead. These spaces were designed as isolated fortresses that valued parking over walking (ironic given their health mission), with little or no attention paid to amenities, cultural activities, retail, or housing. Significantly, some medical campuses are often located in close proximity to downtowns, as part of universities, or near organic entrepreneurial communities (e.g., the proximity of Oklahoma City’s Health District to Automobile Alley). This raises the potential for smart (and related) place-making activities in a nearby area and reinforces the need to rethink traditional geographies and artificial boundaries when considering interventions.

The past year has seen substantial growth in multicity intermediaries along with scores of locally grown accelerators and incubators. It appears more than ever that intermediaries are increasingly the catalyst to growing innovation and entrepreneurial energy within local districts and across start-ups, small and medium-sized enterprises, and, even to some extent, large companies and research institutions. They are designed to think and act horizontally, encouraging people and firms to interact and work together in ways and at a scale previously unseen.

A growing and increasingly important role for intermediaries is helping innovation districts evolve from the traditional “research and development” model to a “search and development” one, where crucial answers to their innovation questions and technological challenges are discovered by finding and collaborating with other firms. Some districts immediately recognized this potential and have gone to great lengths to grow, lure, and fund the development of multiple intermediaries across their districts.

The Cortex Innovation Community in St. Louis has, in a short period, clustered new buildings owned and/or supported by a number of well-respected intermediaries. These development and programmatic moves are effectively creating a new focal point for Cortex innovation activities. The new Cambridge Innovation Center, which offers space for start-ups combined with access to venture capital firms, professional services, and a plug-and-play physical environment, is already at 85 percent occupancy. A newly constructed Tech Shop—a do-it-yourself “maker space” equipped with industrial tools, machinery, and technology to support entrepreneurs—is under construction nearby. The near complete renovation of the Center for Emerging Technologies, which provides training, specialized facilities, and technical support, adds yet another layer of support for entrepreneurs and start-ups. Adding more to this mix is a soon-to-be-constructed space for tech-commercial activities combined with new housing, which will exponentially increase the number of people in a very small radius.²

As one can imagine, this clustering was deeply intentional and viewed as a way to stimulate new relationships, new networks, and the cross-fertilization of ideas; Cortex refers to this deliberate process as “innovation engineering.” We anticipate more innovation districts to follow suit, pursuing, if not cultivating, such intermediaries in their own innovation ecosystems.

Finally, the rise of innovation districts takes place in a national and urban political environment that demands inclusive growth and equitable outcomes.

The past year has seen the elevation of income inequality and social mobility as issues of national and urban significance. With the federal government mired in partisan gridlock, cities have become the vanguard of efforts to raise the minimum wage, expand affordable housing, and extend pre-K education, among other initiatives. These efforts come at a time when the civil unrest in Baltimore and Ferguson has refocused national attention on neighborhoods of high poverty.

Because of their location in the cores of central cities, many established and emerging innovation districts are located several blocks away from distressed communities. This proximity creates an enormous opportunity to show the positive impact that innovative growth can have on inclusive outcomes. Innovation districts create employment opportunities that can be filled by local residents and procurement and construction opportunities that can be fulfilled by local vendors and contractors. The districts generate tax revenues that can be used to fund neighborhood services and neighborhood regeneration. And they offer the potential to link the ample expertise and talent in anchor educational institutions with the needs of neighborhood schools and children.

Recognizing these benefits, local leaders are demonstrating a genuine commitment to growing more inclusive districts. In our work, we’ve seen several early models that could be built on and replicated. In the Barcelona 22@ district, for example, leaders are trying to quantify the growth in service jobs accessible to local and regional residents while, at the same time, connecting those residents to training that increases their skills in more innovation-oriented sectors. Last year, Drexel University opened a new “urban extension center” that offers career-building workshops, legal clinics, and other services to residents of the adjacent Mantua Promise Zone. The Evergreen Cooperative in Cleveland’s University Circle district has been working for several years to leverage local purchasing power to create business ownership and employment opportunities for low-income residents. And in Baltimore, the University of Maryland partnered with surrounding neighborhood organizations, residents, and institutions to develop a detailed new plan for building what the Baltimore Southwest Partnership envisions as a “diverse, cohesive community of choice built on mutual respect and shared responsibility.”

These examples represent concrete initiatives to ensure that nearby neighborhoods and their residents connect to and benefit from new growth opportunities in innovation districts and beyond. Scaling such efforts will be critical in the years to come, as the success of these districts will be defined in large part by their broader city and regional impacts.

As Brookings works this year to help unleash more innovation districts across the U.S. and Europe, we will continue to hone our observations and knowledge about trends, challenges, and strategies. We will compile and publish what we have learned for anchor leaders, policymakers, scholars, and practitioners, focusing on many of the issues—accelerating commercialization to improving inclusion—noted above. We will do this work in close collaboration with proven organizations like Mass Economics and Project for Public Spaces. We look forward to contributing to this rapidly changing space via empirical and on-the-ground research, strategy and policy development, convenings, and network building. Stay tuned.

Read The Rise of Innovation Districts: A New Geography of Innovation in America

Innovative activity and innovation districts are not evenly distributed across cities. Some metropolitan areas may have two or three districts scattered about, while other cities are lucky to have the critical mass to support even one strong district. London, however, a global city with nearly unparalleled assets, can best be understood as not just a collection of innovation districts but as a contiguous “city of innovation.” 

Our understanding of that innovative activity has taken a leap forward with the publication of a new report by the Centre for London called "Spaces to Think". Even for a paragon of innovation, a critique such as this is imperative if the city desires to maximize its assets while continuing to grow in a sustainable and inclusive manner. Much as we have recommended that urban leaders across the United States undertake an asset audit of their districts to identify key priorities, "Spaces to Think" focuses on 17 distinct districts, mapping their assets, classifying their typologies, and identifying governance structures.

The 17 study areas in "Spaces to Think"

The report provides lessons applicable to many cities.

Having identified, across all 17 districts, the three major drivers of innovative activity—talent, space, and financing—it becomes clear that the main hurdle for London, as a global magnet of talent and capital, is affordable physical space: “Increasing pressure for land…risks constraining London’s potential as a leading global city for innovation.” Similar to hot-market cities across the United States, many of the study areas of greatest promise are older industrial areas, such as Here East, Canary Wharf, and Kings Cross, where large plots of underutilized land have been reimagined as innovation districts. 

But who is prepared to undertake new regeneration projects? The report places significant responsibility on London’s many universities—whose expansions already account for much of the large-scale development opportunities in the city—for a “third mission” of local economic development. It is universities, the report notes, that are “devoting increasing amounts of money, resources, and planning to building new or redesigned facilities…pitched as part of a wider regeneration strategy, or the creation of an innovation district.” 

A second concern is the democratization of the innovation economy. Already a victim of rising inequality, London’s future growth must reach down the ladder. As we’ve argued, with intentionality and purpose, innovation districts can advance a more inclusive knowledge economy, especially given that they are often abut neighborhoods of above-average poverty and unemployment. Spaces to Think expands upon four key strategies: local hiring and sourcing practices for innovation institutions; upskilling of local residents through vocational and technical programs within local firms; increased tax yield, especially given recent reforms in which “local authorities retain 100 percent of business rates”; and shared assets and rejuvenation of place. This final lever requires inclusive governance that encourages neighborhood ownership of the public realm.

Finally, the report notes that, while there is much diversity of leadership in the study areas—some are university-led, some are entrepreneurial, some are industry-led—“good governance and good relations between institutions, are at the heart of what makes innovation districts tick.” This issue is at the heart of our work moving forward: identifying and spreading effective governance models that encourage collaboration and coordination between the public, private, and civic actors within innovation districts.

We are pleased that this future work will be strengthened by a new partnership between the Bass Initiative on Innovation and Placemaking and the Centre for London. The ambition of this Transatlantic Innovation Districts Partnership is to increase our mutual understanding of innovation districts found in Europe through additional qualitative and quantitative analysis and to integrate European leaders into a global network, all to accelerate the transfer of lessons and best practices from districts across the world.

The weakness of the economic recovery in advanced economies raises questions about the ability of new technologies to drive growth. After all, in the years since the global financial crisis, consumers in advanced economies have adopted new technologies such as mobile Internet services, and companies have invested in big data and cloud computing. More than 1 billion smartphones have been sold around the world, making it one of the most rapidly adopted technologies ever. Yet nations such as the United States that lead the world in technology adoption are seeing only middling GDP growth and continue to struggle with high unemployment.

There are many reasons for the restrained expansion, not least of which is the severity of the recession, which wiped out trillions of dollars of wealth and more than 7 million US jobs. Relatively weak consumer demand since the end of the recession in 2009 has restrained hiring and there are also structural issues at play, including a growing mismatch between the increasingly technical needs of employers and the skills available in the labor force. And technology itself plays a role: companies continue to invest in labor-saving technologies that reduce demand for less-skilled workers.

So are we witnessing a failure of technology? Our answer is "no." Over the longer term, in fact, we see that technology continues to drive productivity and growth, a pattern that has been evident since the Industrial Revolution; steam power, mass-produced steel, and electricity drove successive waves of growth, which has continued into the 21st century with semiconductors and the Internet. Today, we see a dozen rapidly-evolving technology areas that have the potential for economic disruption as well in the next decade. They fall into four groups: IT and how we use it; machines that work for us; energy; and the building blocks of everything (next-gen genomics and synthetic biology).

Wide ranging impacts

These disruptive technologies not only have potential for economic impact—hundreds of billions per year and even trillions for the applications we have sized—but also are broad-based (affecting many people and industries) and have transformative effects: they can alter the status quo and create opportunities for new competitors.

While these technologies will contribute to productivity and growth, we must look at economic impact in a broader sense, which includes measures of surplus created and value shifted (for instance from producers to consumers, which has been a common result of Internet adoption). The greatest benefit we measured for autonomous vehicles—cars and trucks that can proceed from point A to point B with little or no human intervention. The largest economic impact we sized for autonomous vehicles is the enormous benefit to consumers that may be possible by reducing accidents caused by human error by 70 to 90 percent. That could translate into hundreds of billions a year in economic value by 2025.

Predicting how quickly even the most disruptive technologies will affect productivity is difficult. When the first commercial microprocessor appeared there was no such thing as a microcomputer—marketers at Intel thought traffic signal controllers might be a leading application for their chip. Today we see that social technologies, which have changed how people interact with friends and family and have provided new ways for marketers to connect with consumers, may have a much larger impact as a way to raise productivity in organizations by improving communication, knowledge-sharing, and collaboration.

There are also lags and displacements as new technologies are adopted and their effects on productivity are felt. Over the next decade, advances in robotics may make it possible to automate assembly jobs that require more dexterity than machines have provided or are assumed to be more economical to carry out with low-cost labor. Advances in artificial intelligence, big data, and user interfaces (e.g., computers that can interpret ordinary speech) make it possible to automate many knowledge worker tasks.

More good than bad

There are clearly challenges for societies and economies as disruptive technologies take hold, but the long-term effects, we believe, will continue to be higher productivity and growth across sectors and nations. In earlier work, for example, we looked at the relationship between productivity and employment, which are generally believed to be in conflict (i.e., when productivity rises, employment falls). And clearly, in the short term this can happen as employers find that they can substitute machinery for labor—especially if other innovations in the economy do not create demand for labor in other areas. However, if you look at the data for productivity and employment for longer periods—over decades, for example—you see that productivity and job growth do rise in tandem.

This does not mean that labor-saving technologies do not cause dislocations, but they also eventually create new opportunities. For example, the development of highly flexible and adaptable robots will require skilled workers on the shop floor who can program these machines and work out new routines as requirements change. And the same types of tools that can be used to automate knowledge worker tasks such as finding information can also be used to augment the powers of knowledge workers, potentially creating new types of jobs.

Over the next decade it will become clearer how these technologies will be used to raise productivity and growth. There will be surprises along the way—when mass-produced steel became practical in the 19th century nobody could predict how it would enable the automobile industry in the 20th. And there will be societal challenges that policy makers will need to address, for example by making sure that educational systems keep up with the demands of the new technologies.

For business leaders the emergence of disruptive technologies can open up great new possibilities and can also lead to new threats—disruptive technologies have a habit of creating new competitors and undermining old business models. Incumbents will want to ensure their organizations continue to look forward and think long-term. Leaders themselves will need to know how technologies work and see to it that tech- and IT-savvy employees are included in every function and every team. Businesses and other institutions will need new skill sets and cannot assume that the talent they need will be available in the labor market.

Nearly 30 years ago, the economists Robert Solow and Stephen Roach caused a stir when they pointed out that, for all the billions of dollars being invested in information technology, there was no evidence of a payoff in productivity. Businesses were buying tens of millions of computers every year, and Microsoft had just gone public, netting Bill Gates his first billion. And yet, in what came to be known as the productivity paradox, national statistics showed that not only was productivity growth not accelerating; it was actually slowing down. “You can see the computer age everywhere,” quipped Solow, “but in the productivity statistics.”

Today, we seem to be at a similar historical moment with a new innovation: the much-hyped Internet of Things – the linking of machines and objects to digital networks. Sensors, tags, and other connected gadgets mean that the physical world can now be digitized, monitored, measured, and optimized. As with computers before, the possibilities seem endless, the predictions have been extravagant – and the data have yet to show a surge in productivity.

A year ago, research firm Gartner put the Internet of Things at the peak of its Hype Cycle of emerging technologies.

As more doubts about the Internet of Things productivity revolution are voiced, it is useful to recall what happened when Solow and Roach identified the original computer productivity paradox. For starters, it is important to note that business leaders largely ignored the productivity paradox, insisting that they were seeing improvements in the quality and speed of operations and decision-making. Investment in information and communications technology continued to grow, even in the absence of macroeconomic proof of its returns.

That turned out to be the right response. By the late 1990s, the economists Erik Brynjolfsson and Lorin Hitt had disproved the productivity paradox, uncovering problems in the way service-sector productivity was measured and, more important, noting that there was generally a long lag between technology investments and productivity gains.

Our own research at the time found a large jump in productivity in the late 1990s, driven largely by efficiencies made possible by earlier investments in information technology. These gains were visible in several sectors, including retail, wholesale trade, financial services, and the computer industry itself. The greatest productivity improvements were not the result of information technology on its own, but by its combination with process changes and organizational and managerial innovations.

Our latest research, The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype, indicates that a similar cycle could repeat itself. We predict that as the Internet of Things transforms factories, homes, and cities, it will yield greater economic value than even the hype suggests. By 2025, according to our estimates, the economic impact will reach $3.9-$11.1 trillion per year, equivalent to roughly 11% of world GDP. In the meantime, however, we are likely to see another productivity paradox; the gains from changes in the way businesses operate will take time to be detected at the macroeconomic level.

One major factor likely to delay the productivity payoff will be the need to achieve interoperability. Sensors on cars can deliver immediate gains by monitoring the engine, cutting maintenance costs, and extending the life of the vehicle. But even greater gains can be made by connecting the sensors to traffic monitoring systems, thereby cutting travel time for thousands of motorists, saving energy, and reducing pollution. However, this will first require auto manufacturers, transit operators, and engineers to collaborate on traffic-management technologies and protocols.

Indeed, we estimate that 40% of the potential economic value of the Internet of Things will depend on interoperability. Yet some of the basic building blocks for interoperability are still missing. Two-thirds of the things that could be connected do not use standard Internet Protocol networks.

Other barriers standing in the way of capturing the full potential of the Internet of Things include the need for privacy and security protections and long investment cycles in areas such as infrastructure, where it could take many years to retrofit legacy assets. The cybersecurity challenges are particularly vexing, as the Internet of Things increases the opportunities for attack and amplifies the consequences of any breach.

But, as in the 1980s, the biggest hurdles for achieving the full potential of the new technology will be organizational. Some of the productivity gains from the Internet of Things will result from the use of data to guide changes in processes and develop new business models. Today, little of the data being collected by the Internet of Things is being used, and it is being applied only in basic ways – detecting anomalies in the performance of machines, for example.

It could be a while before such data are routinely used to optimize processes, make predictions, or inform decision-making – the uses that lead to efficiencies and innovations. But it will happen. And, just as with the adoption of information technology, the first companies to master the Internet of Things are likely to lock in significant advantages, putting them far ahead of competitors by the time the significance of the change is obvious to everyone.

Editor's Note: This opinion originally appeared on Project Syndicate August 6, 2015.

Social Security is the most popular legacy of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. Last year almost 60 million Americans received benefits from the program. Payments amounted to over $875 billion, nearly a quarter of all federal spending.  For more than two decades, most discussion of Social Security, at least in Washington, has centered on its funding shortfall. Contributions to the program are not high enough to pay for all benefits scheduled under current law. The Social Security Trust Fund is expected to be depleted around 2030. If Congress does not address the funding problem before reserves are exhausted, monthly payments will have to be cut about one-fifth.

Despite the projected shortfall, Democrats in Congress have begun to argue that Social Security benefits should be expanded rather than cut.  Senators Bernie Sanders and Brian Schatz have offered proposals to boost monthly pensions while at the same time shoring up Social Security finances through tax hikes on high-income Americans. 

That Democratic voters and lawmakers embrace these ideas is not surprising. But opinion polling suggests such reforms also enjoy broad support among self-identified independents and Republicans. For example, 57 percent of Republicans (versus 71 percent of Democrats) favor increasing cost-of-living adjustments in the benefit formula. Forty-eight percent of Republicans (versus 67 percent of Democrats) favor boosting the minimum benefit available to low-wage workers who have contributed for many years to the program.  Seventy-four percent of Republicans (versus 88 percent of Democrats) favor raising taxes in order to protect benefits. These polling numbers were obtained in 2013, but more recent polls show similar opinions. Even if debates among Washington insiders and GOP lawmakers focus on how to trim benefits in order to keep Social Security solvent, poll results suggest Senator Sanders holds views closer to those of the typical voter.

One question for both voters and policymakers is whether the aged population is really the most deserving target for additional government spending.  Much of the discussion of voter disaffection in the current election cycle has focused on the stagnation of middle class incomes and the rise in inequality.  While these represent major problems for families headed by a working-age person, they have not been notably troublesome for the nation’s elderly.  The incomes of the elderly, unlike those of the nonelderly, have increased steadily over the past three or four decades.  For low- and middle-income retirees, incomes have clearly improved. The same cannot be said for the incomes of low- and middle-income working-age families. Income inequality among the elderly has increased, to be sure, but much more slowly than among working-age families.

In new research with my colleagues Barry Bosworth and Kan Zhang, I have examined trends in real incomes and inequality among the nation’s elderly and compared them with the same trends in working-age families. We show that inequality has increased among both the elderly and nonelderly, but it has increased much faster among families headed by prime-age and younger adults than among families headed by someone past age 62.  More to the point, real money incomes have increased much faster among middle- and low-income aged families compared with middle- and low-income working-age families. 

Our estimates of the annual rate of change in real money income are displayed in the chart below. The changes are estimated over the period from 1979 to 2012 based on data reported in the Census Bureau’s annual income survey. The top panel shows changes in families with a head who is less than 62. The bottom panel shows changes in families with a head older than 62.  Each bar shows the annual rate of change in real income at the indicated position of the income distribution, either for nonaged families (in the top panel) or for aged families (in the bottom panel).  At the top of the two income distributions—that is, at the 98^th income percentile—real income gains are virtually the same in the two groups.  Further down the income ladder, the income gains differ noticeably, with bigger differences the further down we go.  Middle- and low-income working-age families have clearly fared much worse than families with an equivalent position in the old-age income distribution.

Estimates of income growth based solely on pre-tax cash incomes, such as the ones in the chart, almost certainly understate the improvement families have seen in their living standards, as I have argued elsewhere (here and here).  However, the understatement is bigger in the case of elderly and low-income Americans than it is for the nonelderly and affluent.  If we adjust family incomes to reflect the taxes families owe and the monetary value of their noncash benefits, the relative improvement in the standard of living of older Americans is even greater than is shown in the chart. Under almost any plausible income definition, the elderly have fared better than the nonelderly, especially at the bottom of the income distribution.

The income statistics do not prove the policy reforms urged by Congressional Democrats are unneeded or undesirable. Their proposals spring from an accurate reading of a long-term trend toward less pension coverage — ironically, a trend that has mainly affected working-age adults.  Whereas workers in the 1950s through the 1970s enjoyed continuous improvement in their access to employer-provided retirement benefits, the improvement ceased after 1980. Since that time, private-sector workers have seen reductions in the coverage and generosity of their employer-sponsored pensions. If the private sector voluntarily provides less retirement protection, it does not seem unreasonable to expect the government to provide more.

A crucial reason the nation’s elderly population fared better compared with the nonelderly after 1980 is that Social Security and Medicare provided them government protection that was far more generous (and more costly to taxpayers) than the protection available to working-age adults and their youngsters. The gap was especially glaring in the case of families headed by low-wage breadwinners, who have suffered sizeable reductions in pay and employment opportunities. In the years since 1980, their losses have been only modestly compensated through changes in the tax code and expansions of public health insurance.

Changes in the labor market make it important to protect future retirement benefits provided through Social Security. The same labor market developments make it even more urgent to expand the employment opportunities and improve the protections and work supports offered to working-age breadwinners.  In 2016, the weakening of future income protection for the aged is mostly theoretical. In contrast, the sinking fortunes of less skilled working-age adults are anything but theoretical. They are plain to anyone who can read Census and Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. If taxpayers can identify additional resources to pay for major new initiatives, my vote is for programs that improve the prospects of struggling wage earners. The equity arguments for such an initiative seem to me more persuasive than the case for an across-the-board benefit hike targeted on retirees.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Real Clear Markets. 

Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in Economic Studies, explains new research on the growing longevity gap between high-income and low-income Americans, especially among the aged.

“Life expectancy difference of low income workers, middle income workers, and high income workers has been increasing over time,” Burtless says. “For people born in 1920 their life expectancy was not as long typically as the life expectancy of people who were born in 1940. But those gains between those two birth years were very unequally distributed if we compare people with low mid-career earnings and people with high mid-career earnings.” Burtless also discusses retirement trends among the educated and non-educated, income inequality among different age groups, and how these trends affect early or late retirement rates.

Also stay tuned for our regular economic update with David Wessel, who also looks at the new research and offers his thoughts on what it means for Social Security.

Show Notes

Later retirement, inequality and old age, and the growing gap in longevity between rich and poor

Disparity in Life Spans of the Rich and the Poor Is Growing

Subscribe to the Brookings Cafeteria on iTunes, listen on Stitcher, and send feedback email to BCP@Brookings.edu.

Researchers have long known that the rich live longer than the poor. Evidence now suggests that the life expectancy gap is increasing, at least here the United States, which raises troubling questions about the fairness of current efforts to protect Social Security.

There's nothing particularly mysterious about the life expectancy gap. People in ill health, who are at risk of dying relatively young, face limits on the kind and amount of work they can do. By contrast, the rich can afford to live in better and safer neighborhoods, can eat more nutritious diets and can obtain access to first-rate healthcare. People who have higher incomes, moreover, tend to have more schooling, which means they may also have better information about the benefits of exercise and good diet.

Although none of the above should come as a surprise, it's still disturbing that, just as income inequality is growing, so is life-span inequality. Over the last three decades, Americans with a high perch in the income distribution have enjoyed outsized gains.

Using two large-scale surveys, my Brookings colleagues and I calculated the average mid-career earnings of each interviewed family; then we estimated the statistical relationship between respondents' age at death and their incomes when they were in their 40s. We found a startling spreading out of mortality differences between older people at the top and bottom of the income distribution.

For example, we estimated that a woman who turned 50 in 1970 and whose mid-career income placed her in the bottom one-tenth of earners had a life expectancy of about 80.4. A woman born in the same year but with income in the top tenth of earners had a life expectancy of 84.1. The gap in life expectancy was about 3½ years. For women who reached age 50 two decades later, in 1990, we found no improvement at all in the life expectancy of low earners. Among women in the top tenth of earners, however, life expectancy rose 6.4 years, from 84.1 to 90.5. In those two decades, the gap in life expectancy between women in the bottom tenth and the top tenth of earners increased from a little over 3½ years to more than 10 years.

Our findings for men were similar. The gap in life expectancy between men in the bottom tenth and top tenth of the income distribution increased from 5 years to 12 years over the same two decades.

Rising longevity inequality has important implications for reforming Social Security. Currently, the program takes in too little money to pay for all benefits promised after 2030. A common proposal to eliminate the funding shortfall is to increase the full retirement age, currently 66. Increasing the age for full benefits by one year has the effect of lowering workers' monthly checks by 6% to 7.5%, depending on the age when a worker first claims a pension.

For affluent workers, any benefit cut will be partially offset by gains in life expectancy. Additional years of life after age 65 increase the number years these workers collect pensions. Workers at the bottom of the wage distribution, however, are not living much longer, so the percentage cut in their lifetime pensions will be about the same as the percentage reduction in their monthly benefit check.

Our results and other researchers' findings suggest that low-income workers have not shared in the improvements in life expectancy that have contributed to Social Security's funding problem.

It therefore seems unfair to preserve Social Security by cutting future benefits across the board. Any reform in the program to keep it affordable should make special provision to protect the benefits of low-wage workers.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in The Los Angeles Times. 

Ahead of Tuesday’s primary elections in Ohio, Florida and other states, the 2016 presidential candidates have been talking about the future of Social Security and its funding shortfalls.

Over the next two decades, the money flowing into Social Security will be too little to pay for all promised benefits. The reserve fund will be exhausted soon after 2030, and the only money available to pay for benefits will be from taxes earmarked for the program. Unless Congress and the President change the law before the reserve is depleted, monthly benefits will have to be cut about 21%.

Needless to say, office holders, who must face voters, are unlikely to allow such a cut. Before the Trust Fund is depleted, lawmakers will agree to some combination of revenue increase and future benefit reduction, eliminating the need for a sudden 21% pension cut. The question is: what combination of revenue increases and benefit cuts does each candidate favor?

The candidate offering the most straightforward but least credible answer is Donald Trump. During the GOP presidential debate last week, he pledged to do everything within his power to leave Social Security “the way it is.” He says he can do this by making the nation rich again, by eliminating budget deficits, and by ridding government programs of waste, fraud, and abuse. In other words, he proposed to do nothing specifically to improve Social Security’s finances. Should Trump’s deal-making fail to make us rich again, he offered no back-up plan for funding benefits after 2034.

The other three GOP candidates proposed to repair Social Security by cutting future pensions. No one in the debate, except U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio from Florida, mentioned a specific way to accomplish this. Rubio’s plan is to raise the age for full retirement benefits. For many years, the full retirement age was 65. In a reform passed in 1983, the retirement age was gradually raised to 66 for people nearing retirement today and to 67 for people born after 1960. Rubio proposes to raise the retirement age to 68 for people who are now in their mid-40s and to 70 for workers who are his children’s age (all currently under 18 years old).

In his campaign literature, Rubio also proposes slowing the future rate of increase in monthly pensions for high-income seniors. However, by increasing the full retirement age, Rubio’s plan will cut monthly pensions for any worker who claims benefits at 62 years old. This is the earliest age at which workers can claim a reduced pension. Also, it is by far the most common age at which low-income seniors claim benefits. Recent research suggests that low-income workers have not shared the gains in life expectancy enjoyed by middle- and especially high-income workers, so Rubio’s proposed cut could seriously harm many low-income workers.

Though he didn’t advertise it in the debate, Sen. Ted Cruz favors raising the normal retirement age and trimming the annual cost-of-living adjustment in Social Security. In the long run, the latter reform will disproportionately cut the monthly pensions of the longest-living seniors. Many people, including me, think this is a questionable plan, because the oldest retirees are also the most likely to have used up their non-Social-Security savings. Finally, Cruz favors allowing workers to fund personal-account pensions with part of their Social Security contributions. Although the details of his plan are murky, if it is designed like earlier GOP privatization plans, it will have the effect of depriving Social Security of needed future revenues, making the funding gap even bigger than it is today.

The most revolutionary part of Cruz’s plan is his proposal to eliminate the payroll tax. For many decades, this has been the main source of Social Security revenue. Presumably, Cruz plans to fund pensions out of revenue from his proposed 10% flat tax and 16% value-added tax (VAT). This would represent a revolutionary change because up to now, Social Security has been largely financed out of its own dedicated revenue stream. By eliminating the independent funding stream, Cruz will sever the perceived link between workers’ contributions and the benefits they ultimately receive. Most observers agree with Franklin Roosevelt that the strong link between contributions and benefits is a vital source of the enduring popularity of the program. Social Security is an earned benefit for retirees rather than a welfare check.

Gov. John Kasich does not propose to boost the retirement age, but he does suggest slowing the growth in future pensions by linking workers’ initial pensions to price changes instead of wage changes. He hints he will impose a means test in calculating pensions, reducing the monthly pensions payable to retirees who have high current incomes. Many students of Social Security think this a bad idea, because it can discourage workers from saving for retirement.

All of the Republican candidates, except Trump, think Social Security’s salvation lies in lower benefit payouts. Nobody mentions higher contributions as part of the solution. In contrast, both Democratic candidates propose raising payroll or other taxes on workers who have incomes above the maximum earnings now subject to Social Security contributions. This reform enjoys broad support among voters, most of whom do not expect to pay higher taxes if the income limit on contributions is lifted. Sen. Bernie Sanders would immediately spend some of the extra revenue on benefit increases for current beneficiaries, but his proposed tax hike on high-income contributors would raise enough money to postpone the year of Trust Fund depletion by about 40 years. Hillary Clinton is less specific about the tax increases and benefit improvements she favors. Like Sanders, however, she would vigorously oppose benefit cuts.

None of the candidates has given us a detailed plan to eliminate Social Security’s funding imbalance. At this stage, it’s not obvious such a plan would be helpful, since the legislative debate to overhaul Social Security won’t begin anytime soon. Sanders has provided the most details about his policy intentions, but his actual plan is unlikely to receive much Congressional support without a massive political realignment. Cruz’s proposal, which calls for eliminating the Social Security payroll tax, also seems far outside the range of the politically feasible.

What we have learned from the GOP presidential debates so far is that Republican candidates, with the exception of Trump, favor balancing Social Security through future benefit cuts, possibly targeted on higher income workers, while Democratic candidates want to protect current benefit promises and will do so with tax hikes on high-income workers. There is no overlap in the two parties’ proposals, and this accounts for Washington’s failure to close Social Security’s funding gap.

Editor’s note: This piece originally appeared in Fortune.

The past few months have seen a flurry of reports on discouraging trends in life expectancy among some of the nation’s struggling populations. Different researchers have emphasized different groups and have tracked longevity trends over different time spans, but all have documented conspicuous differences between trends among more advantaged Americans compared with those in worse circumstances.

In a study published in April, Stanford economist Raj Chetty and his coauthors documented a striking rise in mortality rate differences between rich and poor. From 2001 to 2014, Americans who had incomes in the top 5 percent of the income distribution saw their life expectancy climb about 3 years. During the same 14-year span, people in the bottom 5 percent of the income distribution saw virtually no improvement at all.

Using different sources of information about family income and mortality, my colleagues and I found similar trends in mortality when Americans were ranked by their Social-Security-covered earnings in the middle of their careers. Over the three decades covered by our data, we found sizeable differences between the life expectancy gains enjoyed by high- and low-income Americans. For 50-year old women in the top one-tenth of the income distribution, we found that women born in 1940 could expect to live almost 6.5 years longer than women in the same position in the income distribution who were born in 1920. For 50-year old women in the bottom one-tenth of the income distribution, we found no improvement at all in life expectancy. Longevity trends among low-income men were more encouraging: Men at the bottom saw a small improvement in their life expectancy. Still, the life-expectancy gap between low-income and high-income men increased just as fast as it did between low- and high-income women.

One reason these studies should interest voters and policymakers is that they shed light on the fairness of programs that protect Americans’ living standards in old age. The new studies as well as some earlier ones show that mortality trends have tilted the returns that rich and poor contributors to Social Security can expect to obtain from their payroll tax contributions.

If life expectancy were the same for rich and poor contributors, the lifetime benefits workers could expect to receive from their contributions would depend solely on the formula that determines a worker’s monthly pensions. Social Security’s monthly benefit formula has always been heavily tilted in favor of low-wage contributors. They receive monthly checks that are a high percentage of the monthly wages they earn during their careers. In contrast, workers who earn well above-average wages collect monthly pensions that are a much lower percentage of their average career earnings.

The latest research findings suggest that growing mortality differences between rich and poor are partly or fully offsetting the redistributive tilt in Social Security’s benefit formula. Even though poorer workers still receive monthly pension checks that are a high percentage of their average career earnings, they can expect to receive benefits for a shorter period after they claim pensions compared with workers who earn higher wages. Because the gap between the life spans of rich and poor workers is increasing, affluent workers now enjoy a bigger advantage in the number of months they collect Social Security retirement benefits. This fact alone is enough to justify headlines about the growing life expectancy gap between rich and poor

There is another reason to pay attention to the longevity trends. The past 35 years have provided ample evidence the income gap between America’s rich and poor has widened. To be sure, some of the most widely cited income series overstate the extent of widening and understate the improvement in income received by middle- and low-income families. Nonetheless, the most reliable statistics show that families at the top have enjoyed faster income gains than the gains enjoyed by families in the middle and at the bottom. Income disparities have gone up fastest among working-age people who depend on wages to pay their families’ bills. Retirees have been better protected against the income and wealth losses that have hurt the living standards of less educated workers. The recent finding that life expectancy among low-income Americans has failed to improve is a compelling reason to believe the trend toward wider inequality is having profound impacts on the distribution of well-being in addition to its direct effect on family income.

Over the past century, we have become accustomed to seeing successive generations live longer than the generations that preceded them. This is not true every year, of course, nor is it always clear why the improvements in life expectancy have occurred. Still, it is reasonable to think that long-run improvements in average life spans have been linked to improvements in our income. With more money, we can afford more costly medical care, healthier diets, and better public health. Even Americans at the bottom of the income ladder have participated in these gains, as public health measures and broader access to health insurance permit them to benefit from improvements in knowledge. For the past three decades, however, improvements in average life spans at the bottom of the income distribution have been negligible. This finding suggests it is not just income that has grown starkly more unequal.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in Real Clear Markets.

No. We should exempt workers earning the lowest wages.

Social Security faces a serious funding problem. The program takes in too little money to pay all that has been promised to future beneficiaries. Government forecasters predict Social Security’s reserve fund will be depleted between 2030 and 2034. There are two basic ways we can eliminate the funding gap: cut benefits or increase contributions. A common proposal is to increase the age at which workers can claim full retirement benefits. For people nearing retirement today, the full retirement age is 66. As a result of a 1983 law, that age will rise to 67 for workers born after 1959.

When policymakers urge us to raise the retirement age, they are proposing to increase the full retirement age beyond 67, possibly to 70, for workers now in their 30s or 40s. This saves money, but it also cuts monthly retirement benefits by the same percentage for every worker, unless workers delay claiming benefits. The policy might seem fair if workers in future generations could all expect to share in gains in life expectancy. However, new research shows that gains in life expectancy have been very unequal, with the biggest improvements among workers who earn top incomes. Life expectancy gains for workers with the lowest incomes have been small or negligible.

If the full retirement age were raised, future retirees with high lifetime earnings can expect to receive some compensation when their monthly benefits are cut. Because they can expect to live longer than today’s retirees, they will receive benefits for a longer span of years after 65. For low-wage workers, there is no compensation. Since they are not living longer, their lifetime benefits will fall by the same proportion as their monthly benefits. Thus, “raising the retirement age” is a policy that cuts the lifetime benefits of future low-wage workers by a bigger percentage than it does of future high-wage workers.

The fact that low-wage workers have seen small or negligible gains in life expectancy signals that their health when they are past 60 is no better than that of low-wage workers born 20 or 30 years ago. This suggests their capacity to work past 60 is no better than it was for past generations. A sensible policy for cutting future benefits should therefore preserve current benefit levels for workers who have contributed to Social Security for many years but have earned low wages.

Editor's note: This piece originally appeared in CQ Researcher.

Unlike prime-age Americans, who have experienced declines in employment and labor force participation since the onset of the Great Recession, Americans past 60 have seen their employment and labor force participation rates increase.

In order to understand the contrasting labor force developments among the old, on the one hand, and the prime-aged, on the other, this paper develops and analyzes a new data file containing information on monthly labor force changes of adults interviewed in the Current Population Survey (CPS).

The paper documents notable differences among age groups with respect to the changes in labor force transition rates that have occurred over the past two decades. What is crucial for understanding the surprising strength of old-age labor force participation and employment are changes in labor force transition probabilities within and across age groups. The paper identifies several shifts that help account for the increase in old-age employment and labor force participation:

• Like workers in all age groups, workers in older groups saw a surge in monthly transitions from employment to unemployment in the Great Recession.
• Unlike workers in prime-age and younger groups, however, older workers also saw a sizeable decline in exits to nonparticipation during and after the recession. While the surge in exits from employment to unemployment tended to reduce the employment rates of all age groups, the drop in employment exits to nonparticipation among the aged tended to hold up labor force participation rates and employment rates among the elderly compared with the nonelderly. Among the elderly, but not the nonelderly, the exit rate from employment into nonparticipation fell more than the exit rate from employment into unemployment increased.
• The Great Recession and slow recovery from that recession made it harder for the unemployed to transition into employment. Exit rates from unemployment into employment fell sharply in all age groups, old and young.
• In contrast to unemployed workers in younger age groups, the unemployed in the oldest age groups also saw a drop in their exits to nonparticipation. Compared with the nonaged, this tended to help maintain the labor force participation rates of the old.
• Flows from out-of-the-labor-force status into employment have declined for most age groups, but they have declined the least or have actually increased modestly among older nonparticipants.

Some of the favorable trends seen in older age groups are likely to be explained, in part, by the substantial improvement in older Americans’ educational attainment. Better educated older people tend to have lower monthly flows from employment into unemployment and nonparticipation, and they have higher monthly flows from nonparticipant status into employment compared with less educated workers.

The policy implications of the paper are:

• A serious recession inflicts severe and immediate harm on workers and potential workers in all age groups, in the form of layoffs and depressed prospects for finding work.
• Unlike younger age groups, however, workers in older groups have high rates of voluntary exit from employment and the workforce, even when labor markets are strong. Consequently, reduced rates of voluntary exit from employment and the labor force can have an outsize impact on their employment and participation rates.
• The aged, as a whole, can therefore experience rising employment and participation rates even as a minority of aged workers suffer severe harm as a result of permanent job loss at an unexpectedly early age and exceptional difficulty finding a new job.
• Between 2001 and 2015, the old-age employment and participation rates rose, apparently signaling that older workers did not suffer severe harm in the Great Recession.
• Analysis of the gross flow data suggests, however, that the apparent improvements were the combined result of continued declines in age-specific voluntary exit rates, mostly from the ranks of the employed, and worsening reemployment rates among the unemployed. The older workers who suffered involuntary layoffs were more numerous than before the Great Recession, and they found it much harder to get reemployed than laid off workers in years before 2008. The turnover data show that it has proved much harder for these workers to recover from the loss of their late-career job loss.

Download "Labor Force Dynamics in the Great Recession and its Aftermath: Implications for Older Workers" »

Downloads

• Download "Labor Force Dynamics in the Great Recession and its Aftermath: Implications for Older Workers"