Before the City Club in Cleveland, Bruce Katz emphasized the importance of Ohio's older industrial cities for the state's overall prosperity and outlined, despite seemingly grim statistics, why now is the time for a rebirth of those places and how it can be achieved.

Downloads

• Download
• Download Remarks by Lt. Gov. Fisher

       

At a legislative conference in Cambridge, Ohio, Bruce Katz stressed the importance of cities and metro areas to the state's overall prosperity. Acknowledging the decline of Ohio's older industrial cities, Katz noted the area's many assets and argued for a focus on innovation, human capital, infrastructure, and quality communities as means to revitalize the region. 

Downloads

• Download

       

Editor's Note: At a “Restoring Prosperity” gathering at Cleveland State University, Bruce Katz called upon Ohio’s leaders to take bold measures to stabilize the state’s economy by focusing on core communities—home to the assets that are key to recovery.

I want to thank Ned Hill of Cleveland State, Lavea Brachman of Greater Ohio, and Randell McShepard of Policy Bridge for hosting this important forum today.

Last Thursday I attended a keynote speech by Ban Ki Moon, the Secretary General of the United Nations.

The Secretary General provided a sober analysis of the stark challenges facing the global community:

• The worst economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression;
• the acquisition and testing of nuclear weapons by rogue states like North Korea and Iran;
• the existential threat of climate change; and
• the continued instability in the Middle East and other regions of the world.

The Secretary General ended his talk with a clarion call for new international frameworks and structures to govern our troubled world.

“This is not a time for tinkering,” he said, “but a time for transformation.”

Ban Ki Moon’s call for transformative thinking and action frames my talk today.

A housing crisis—fueled by reckless lending and regulatory abdication—has evolved into a full blown economic collapse, here and abroad.

In the last year, the US unemployment rate rose almost 4 percentage points, and now stands at 9.4 percent. In March, 13.2 million people were unemployed—the highest number since records started being kept in 1948.

On a whole series of indicators, in fact, we are at the worst levels since the government started tallying this information 40, 50, 60 years ago:

• continued unemployment claims
• consumer confidence index
• housing starts
• new home sales
• new home completions

Ohio doesn’t look any better, and on many indicators it is faring worse than the nation as a whole. The state’s unemployment rate is currently over 10 percent. Ohio is one of the four states whose metros were hit hardest in terms of employment figures over the last year (with Michigan, California, and Florida).

Downloads

• Full Speech

       

It can be hard to find good news lately in Ohio. Foreclosure filings are at record levels -- again. Income tax receipts plummeted by 35.6 percent from April 2008 to April 2009, and the downward trend continues in 2010. Unemployment remains high: The Cleveland region's jobless rate was 8.9 percent in December.

But the current devastation is only half the story. Ohio is in a paradoxical moment: The present is painful, but the future could be promising. And in another paradox, its manufacturing heritage is part of the reason why.

The pre-recession economy was driven by consumption, energy profligacy and financial bubbles. The next American economy must be very different: export oriented, low carbon and innovation fueled.

According to the World Bank, exports make up only 11 percent of the gross domestic product of the United States, compared to 40 percent in Europe, 40 percent in China, 36 percent in Canada, 22 percent in India and 16 percent in Japan. Only 4 percent of U.S. companies export. Less than 0.5 percent of U.S. companies operate in more than one country.

Ohio can lead the United States back into the export game, because the state still manufactures what the rest of the world wants, including medical instruments, electrical machinery and aircraft parts.

Brazil and China, two rapidly growing economies, are Ohio's third- and fourth-largest trading partners. The seven largest Ohio metros exported about $3.6 billion's worth of goods and services to Brazil, India and China in 2007 alone.

Cleveland is in the country's top quarter of large metros in terms of export intensity (the percentage of metropolitan-region output that is exported overseas). Every patient who comes from abroad to visit the Cleveland Clinic bolsters the region's service exports economy.

Low carbon is the second hallmark of the next U.S. economy, and it could spark a production revolution in Ohio and other manufacturing states.

The transition to a low-carbon economy is fundamentally about markets and products. We will need new energy supplies -- like wind and biomass -- and new machines -- like turbines and solar panels.

Also, we will need new kinds of batteries, new kinds of cars and energy-efficient appliances, smart meters and local food. All of these products could be designed, developed, built and grown in Ohio.

The state ranks seventh in the nation for total green-technology patents for 1998–2007, with strengths in batteries, hybrid systems and fuel cells.

According to a recent report by the Pew Center on the States, Ohio's number of clean-energy jobs grew by more than 7 percent between 1998 and 2007, even as the overall number of jobs in the state fell 2 percent.

Creating the products and services demanded across the globe, and those that fit with a low-carbon world, will take quantum leaps in innovation.

Already, the state is gaining some notice, attracting $46 million in venture capital investments in clean technology in 2008, more than triple the 2007 amount.

The state is in the top 10 nationally in science and engineering doctorates awarded, in academic research and development spending, and in small-business-innovation research awards, according to recent National Science Foundation data.

Cleveland's patent rate, another measure of innovative power, is above the national average.

We used to think that we could divorce innovation entirely from production, keeping the former here as we sent most of the latter abroad. But important innovations also emerge from the factory floor. Innovating more means producing more, and that production can take place in Ohio.

It is true that Ohio's job losses in manufacturing have been staggering, especially in the northeast corner of the state. But manufacturing doesn't have to be a millstone -- it can be a stepping stone toward the next economy.

It is this mindset that should drive Ohioans' policy decisions over the next year. It is not easy to raise spending on innovation, or vote for an additional $700 million for the Third Frontier, while pressing school districts and local governments to find more savings. But those hard choices will position Ohio for a stronger future.

The "Restoring Prosperity" report that the Brookings Institution and the Greater Ohio Policy Center released last week recommends 39 policies -- from rebuilding physical assets to reorganizing work-force supports to collaborating at the regional scale -- that can help Ohio strengthen its footing in an export-oriented, low-carbon and innovation-fueled world. Groups like the Fund for our Economic Future are already working to advance many of these ideas.

Yet just as important as the policies is the underlying message: Even as this economy falters, Ohio could benefit from the next one that's emerging. Your strengths are just as real and relevant as the current crisis.

       

For over 100 years, the driving force of Ohio’s economy has been the state’s so-called Big Eight cities—Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Toledo, Akron, Dayton, Canton, and Youngstown. Today, though, the driving reality of these cities is sustained, long-term population loss. The central issue confronting these cities—and the state and surrounding metropolitan area—is not whether these cities will have different physical footprints and more green space than they do now, but how it will happen.

The state must adopt a different way of thinking and a different vision of its cities’ future—and so must the myriad local, civic, philanthropic, and business leaders who will also play a role in reshaping Ohio’s cities. The following seven basic premises should inform any vision for a smaller, stronger future and subsequent strategies for change in these places:

• These cities contain significant assets for future rebuilding
  
• These cities will not regain their peak population
  
• These cities have a surplus of housing
  
• These cities have far more vacant land than can be absorbed by redevelopment
  
• Impoverishment threatens the viability of these cities more than population loss as such
  
• Local resources are severely limited
  
• The fate of cities and their metropolitan areas are inextricably inter-connected
  

These premises have significant implications for the strategies that state and local governments should pursue to address the issues of shrinking cities.

Full Paper on Ohio's Cities » (PDF)
Paper on Shrinking Cities Across the United States »

Downloads

• Full Paper

       

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area. 

       

Last week, we showed how the share of the nation’s venture capital going to the Bay Area has actually increased over the last decade and posed the question: Are San Francisco and Silicon Valley good models for most cities to imitate? And with the answer being “no,” what strategies should cities employ to bolster local capital networks?

The answer depends upon regions’ technical strengths—different technologies imply different venture capital strategies. A common assumption is that most cities look like Silicon Valley with software monopolizing venture funding, but in many places a mix of different technologies are far more important. Metropolitan level venture capital data from 2005 to 2015 from Pitchbook illustrates how different cities require different strategies.

In Cleveland, for example, more than three-quarters of deals are in clinical care services and medical devices driven by Cleveland Clinic’s world-renowned success in identifying and funding companies creating novel health care technologies. However, software and medical technologies require very different venture capital strategies. Software companies need upfront funding but can scale quickly with few additional funding rounds. Medical technologies require FDA approval and clinical trials, costly and lengthy processes, implying the need to consider whether regional venture capital efforts can provide not only seed funding but multiple rounds. If not, promising health care companies may flame out or relocated elsewhere.

Pittsburgh, on the other hand, has a far more mixed portfolio than either Cleveland or the Bay Area, one of the most diverse in the country. Pittsburgh’s top 10 technologies funded over the last decade include laboratory services, energy exploration, battery storage, medical devices, software, and electronic equipment—with none making up more than one-fifth the metro area’s portfolio. Pittsburgh’s mix of educational and non-profit institutions like Carnegie Mellon University, University of Pittsburgh and UPMC support research in engineering, software, medical technologies, and therapeutics. In addition private companies like Google, Alcoa, and the shale gas boom have provided the region with a blend of market opportunities that are extremely different than that of the Bay Area.

Equally important to the type of technologies funded is how venture capital deals are funded. In the Bay Area private venture capital firms represent the vast majority of funding both in terms of numbers of deals and overall value. Deals from accelerators and universities together equal less than one-tenth of what is invested by private venture capital firms. Given the many private investment firms in the Bay Area, universities and accelerators are better at creating and incubating technologies instead of funding them. Unfortunately, other markets lack such private sector assets and try to jumpstart investments through other methods.

Over the last decade, Pittsburgh made just 3 percent as many total venture deals as the Bay Area, but breaking that figure down by the funding source, universities outperformed in Pittsburgh. There they funded nearly 30 percent as many deals as universities did in San Francisco and Silicon Valley, a rate 10 times as high as would be expected based the Bay Area “norm.” One reason for this is Pittsburgh is relatively new to venture funding and may have more research assets than private venture capital firms. Therefore, university funds could fill an important capital gap.

A common worry is these non-private sector deals are poor investments that private firms, with superior market intelligence, simply refused to make. This argument is most persuasive in regions like the Bay Area where there is no shortage of private capital to fund good ideas. However in other regions these investments can prove to be smart precursors to private funding. Also, rarely do public institutions make investment decisions. Instead, public dollars are funneled through private investment firms to kick start regional activity. For example, Philadelphia’s new StartUp PHL fund is paid for by taxpayer dollars but investment decisions are made by First Capital, the city’s largest private venture capital fund. The fund requires recipients to stay in the city for at least six months after funding, with the hope to increase the number of growing technology companies in Philadelphia.

Cleveland and Pittsburgh are specific examples of a general point. Cities have unique technology competencies and pathways to venture capital. Economic strategies to attract outside, and bolster local capital, should reflect those attributes and not simply default to what seems to have worked in the Bay Area.