Choosing the right path for regional economic development

Continued from front page

The state’s efforts are being underwritten in part by an investment of $245,000 by the Innovation Institute in support of this work.

Eric Nakajima, senior policy advisor with the Executive Office of Housing and Economic Development, shared current thinking around the need to work collaboratively with local communities to create one-stop shopping for development, where communities were both “shovel-ready” and possessed the necessary public investment in infrastructure. (In May, Gov. Patrick announced his program to designate 16 communities as “urban growth districts.” See “A New, Urban Agenda Takes Shape.”)

The process, according to Nakajima, begins with good listening skills, identifying assets, initiatives and investments that can realistically lead to near- and long-term economic growth – investments “in jobs, in education, in civic engagement, in core infrastructure, and in workforce development.”

David Forsberg, president of the Worcester Business Development Corporation, said that there needed to be a candid discussion of both impediments and rewards in addressing development. Sharing his experiences with the development of the Worcester biotech industry park, Forsberg argued that successful investments “reward risk and patience.” The most important factor, he said, was locating the University of Massachusetts Medical School in Worcester. “The Medical School gave us the intellectual capital,” he said. “It often takes a long time, at a sometimes high cost, to reward investments.”

Another impediment that needs to be overcome, Forsberg said, was overcoming the “island mentality.” Development needs to be seen as a gateway for “commercial, tax-producing, job-creating centers.”

Don Dubendorf, chair of the Innovation Institute’s Governing Board, asked the group to consider whether the work should be considered a road map, and not a plan. Also, regional economic development strategy may not respond to political cycles, but more to economic cycles.

Kurt Dassel from Monitor Group suggested the model of an eight-point plan of action, citing his firm’s work around the globe. First, chose a strategy appropriate to the region. Second, achieve broad-based participation around a common agenda. Three, involve private sector leadership, and four, take the leadership through a careful analytical process. Five, recognizing that politics are an inevitable part of the process, bring accurate data, and gain consensus. Six, articulate the plan, and organize all the actors on the landscape. Seven, organize around the plan, so that there is ownership, and eight, be able to measure progress and report back to the leadership group.

Richard Hess, president and CEO of Konarka Technologies, who served on past administrations’ competitiveness council, said that it was often impossible to achieve a consensus, given all the actors and diversity of thinking. To be successful, Hess suggested the state needed to get below the regional level, working with communities. Hess, echoing Forsberg’s comments, talked about the need for patience and long-term time-frames – often beyond any current administration’s view. “The question needs to be not how many jobs you can add next year, or in a two-year time-frame, but in a 10-year time-frame,” he said.

Mayor Wong argued for the need to think globally and act locally, understanding the importance of connectivity. “We need to understand what is happening – and then act upon it at the local level. We need to connect any statewide plan to folks on the ground at the local level.”

David Fleming, group senior vice president at Genzyme and a member of the Governing Board, spoke to the need for “predictability” both in the long-term and the short-term to be successful.

Jack Wilson, president of the University of Massachusetts and a Governing Board member, talked about the need to understand what government can do and what it cannot do. “You lead with the private sector, with private enterprise,” he said. “The government can provide seed money and nurture; the government can’t bully.”

Mitch Tyson, CEO and director of Advanced Electron Beams and a Governing Board member, said that the state must understand “why some companies thrive, while others die, in order to identify the full landscape of companies. There are insights that that the state can draw upon by talking directly to the companies.”