I agree with Canada needing to think longer-term in its place-based policies. I am particularly interested in the US Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs program - loosely based on this idea from ITIF/Brookings
Focusing on places with strong fundamentals for a new innovation ecosystem makes sense to me. I also think in the Canadian context, any innovation-related place-based policy should include massive investments in housing and other supporting infrastructure (including cultural infrastructure - which was important for Pittsburg's revitalization https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/how-the-once-struggling-pittsburgh-is-reinventing-itself-as-innovation-hub).
After the announcement of the high-speed rail stops, I thought some of them sounded like some interesting B-tier cities that you could double down on to try and share growth in... but hosting a competition like the innovation hubs program and Canada's superclusters did would likely make the most sense.
I don't know if a competition would be needed—there are just far fewer cities in Canada that have the scale to act as innovation hubs in that way (something in the region of 34 population centres over 100k compared to over 350 in the US). I'm actually going to be working on a place-based report in the new year, so I will hopefully be able to drill down into where the fundamentals act as hubs (assuming the data at the right granularity is available, which is not a given, unfortunately). We should definitely chat more on it though, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts!
Sounds very interesting and definitely interested in chatting more! I think the main thing you get out of a competition is an indication of the level of commitment to change. Just allocating the funds without some sort of grassroots aspect may end up in investments in places that then seek to frustrate change.
As an evaluator, I can say that this is such a common way to do programs, not only at government levels but in the NFP sector as well. It's like evaluation is never invited to the table when it comes to structuring the intent of the initiatives and guiding the discussion about how change is supposed to happen. Yes, early stages are not an indication of how a program will work out in the end, but having clear expectations can help us measure how far from the goals we are, find the reasons behind results and adapt accordingly.
I agree completely (you will be utterly unsurprised to hear). I wonder how much is due to organizational silos that separate policymaking from evaluations and see the latter more as compliance rather than program development?
I agree with Canada needing to think longer-term in its place-based policies. I am particularly interested in the US Regional Technology and Innovation Hubs program - loosely based on this idea from ITIF/Brookings
https://itif.org/publications/2019/12/09/case-growth-centers-how-spread-tech-innovation-across-america/
Focusing on places with strong fundamentals for a new innovation ecosystem makes sense to me. I also think in the Canadian context, any innovation-related place-based policy should include massive investments in housing and other supporting infrastructure (including cultural infrastructure - which was important for Pittsburg's revitalization https://nextcity.org/urbanist-news/how-the-once-struggling-pittsburgh-is-reinventing-itself-as-innovation-hub).
After the announcement of the high-speed rail stops, I thought some of them sounded like some interesting B-tier cities that you could double down on to try and share growth in... but hosting a competition like the innovation hubs program and Canada's superclusters did would likely make the most sense.
I don't know if a competition would be needed—there are just far fewer cities in Canada that have the scale to act as innovation hubs in that way (something in the region of 34 population centres over 100k compared to over 350 in the US). I'm actually going to be working on a place-based report in the new year, so I will hopefully be able to drill down into where the fundamentals act as hubs (assuming the data at the right granularity is available, which is not a given, unfortunately). We should definitely chat more on it though, I'd love to hear more of your thoughts!
Sounds very interesting and definitely interested in chatting more! I think the main thing you get out of a competition is an indication of the level of commitment to change. Just allocating the funds without some sort of grassroots aspect may end up in investments in places that then seek to frustrate change.
As an evaluator, I can say that this is such a common way to do programs, not only at government levels but in the NFP sector as well. It's like evaluation is never invited to the table when it comes to structuring the intent of the initiatives and guiding the discussion about how change is supposed to happen. Yes, early stages are not an indication of how a program will work out in the end, but having clear expectations can help us measure how far from the goals we are, find the reasons behind results and adapt accordingly.
I agree completely (you will be utterly unsurprised to hear). I wonder how much is due to organizational silos that separate policymaking from evaluations and see the latter more as compliance rather than program development?