Regional Economic Development Policy Research Articles

Organizational differentiation and integration: the case of regional economic development policy in Canada

Abstract: Over the past two and a half decades regional development policy and administration has gone through at least five distinct stages: in 1961 the government started with a number of uncoordinated boards and agencies; in 1969 it created the high profile and centralized Department of Regional ECOnomic Expansion (DREE); a few years later (1973), DREE was decentralized and became more low key in its approach; in 1978 the government struck the centralized Board of Development Ministers, supported by the Ministry of State for Economic Development (MSED), to revamp the national economy while maintaining DREE in its decentralized format; and in 1982 DREE was abolished and the Cabinet Committee for Economic and Regional Development (CCERD), headed by a Minister of State for Economic and Regional Development and supported by a Ministry of State for Economic and Regional Development (NSERD), was given the responsibility of integrating economic and regional development activities of all line departments. The logic of and reasons for the 1982 reorganization are assessed. Although innovative, particularly with regard to the placement of a Federal Economic Development Coordinator (FEDC) in each province, the reorganization does not necessarily mean improved regional policy. Major obstacles are identified which may serve to prevent the objectives of the reorganization from being realized.Sommaire:Au cours des vingt‐cinq dernières années, In politique et l'administration du développenient régional sont passées par au moins cinq étapes distinctes: en 1961, le gouvernement a commence avec un certain nombre de commissions et dorganismes isolés; en 1969, il a créé le ministère de l'Expansion éonomique régionale (MEER), organisme centralisé et très en vue; quelques années plus tard, en 1973, le MEER a été décentralisé et est devenu beaucoup plus modeste; en 1978, le gouvernement a mis sur pied un autre organisme centralisé, la Commission des ministres du développement qui, appuyée par le département d'État au Développement économique (DEDE), devait réorganiser l'économie nationale tout en maintenant la décentralisation du MEER; puis en 1982, le MEER a été aboli et c'est au comité du Cabinet pour le Développement économique et régional, dirigé par le ministre d'État au Développement économique et régional et appuyé par le département d'État au Développement économique et régional, qu'a été donnée la responsabilité d'intégrer les activités de développement économique et régional de tous les ministères verticaux. L'article suivant évalue les raisons de la réorganisation de 1982. Bien que cette réorganisation ait été innovatrice, particulièrement en ce qui concerne le placement d'un coordonnateur fédéral au développement économique dans chaque province, la politique régionale ne s'en est pas trouvée nécessairement améliorée. Les auteurs mettent en relief les obstacles majeurs qui empêcheront peut‐être la réalisation des objectifs de la réorganisation.

Regional economic development policy

Regional economic development policy

Privatized Policy‐Making: Administrative and Consociational Types of Implementation in Regional Economic Policy in Switzerland*

ABSTRACTThis paper reports results of a research project dealing with the role of private actors and semi‐public organizations in inter‐organizational networks of policy implementation. The first part addresses more general and longer‐term issues of how and why mixed public and private implementation networks are generated. The central part of the article describes the results of a case study of regional economic development policy in Switzerland by comparing two models of implementation: an administrative one specifically attuned to the interests of the policy's target (firms), and a ‘consociational’ one emphasizing the participation of regional economic interest groups. Using this comparison we try to evaluate the impact of institutional configurations on policy output.

Regional inequality in the development of Pakistan

This study evaluates the impact of Pakistan's development policies on regional development, using multi-variate statistical techniques of analysis. Regional economic development policies were inspired by the growth pole theory, but the centralized sectoral planning processes, relying on the market mechanism on the one hand and controlled fiscal and monetary policies on the other, have increased interregional development inequalities. The growth pole planning strategies have stimulated very little development in the lagging areas, especially agricultural development. Future planning strategies need to be divised that will assure development advances in Pakistan's backward regions.

The formation of new manufacturing establishments in the Central Clydeside and West Midlands Conurbations 1963–1972: A comparative analysis

Firn J. R. and Swales J. K. (1978) The formation of new manufacturing establishments in the Central Clydeside and West Midlands Conurbations 1963–1972: a comparative analysis, Reg. Studies 12, 199–213. Little research has been undertaken on the birth rates of new manufacturing enterprises either at a national or a regional level. This paper focuses on the role of new firms in regional economic development by analysing the formation of new manufacturing establishments in the Central Clydeside and West Midlands Conurbations between 1963 and 1972. Marked differences are revealed in the organisational structure of new establishments in the two regions, with the West Midlands showing an unexpectedly poor performance in generating new firms. The results suggest that while regional policy has been effective in transferring employment to the development areas, the low rates of new enterprise formation shown in both conurbations pose substantial long-term problems for both regional economic development and small firm sector policies.

Manufacturing Diffusion as a Growth Point Process in the Southeast

MANUFACTURING DIFFUSION AS A GROWTH POINT PROCESS IN THE SOUTHEAST William A. Rabiega and Roland G. Wood" INTRODUCTION. Extensive manufacturing development in the southeastern United States is generally accepted to have taken place in this century. Indeed, study of the relocation of the textile industry and its subsequent expansion in the Appalachian Piedmont has almost become hackneyed through its wide use to illustrate (1) the effects of manufacturing introduced into a relatively underdeveloped and agrarian region and (2) the role of labor costs in attracting specific types of manufacturing . An introduction of industry into selected centers, as in the 19201940 relocation of textile plants from New England to the Southeast, but by government rather than private entrepreneurs, would be an initial step in regional economic development following the classic growth point model. The model outlines a sequence of events which ultimately leads to dispersion of manufacturing and wealth. According to the theory a "motor industry," i.e., an industry which attracts extraregional income, locates at a growth point. Workers respond to the high wages offered by this industry by commuting to it from the surrounding area. Their wages are then spent at their places of residence, creating a multiplier and allowing some accumulation of capital. This capital is eventually used to establish new industry away from the original growth point, which has by now diversified its workforce into a number of tertiary activities, thereby receiving the designation of growth pole. The outlying center with new manufacturing becomes a growth point, and the process continues until manufacturing employment has been evenly spread over the region. There is considerable controversy over whether this process takes place in fact, and hence, if an economic development policy following growth point principles is wise. (1) Thus, it is germane to review industrialization in the Southeast with regard to how well it follows classical growth point theory. It might be hypothesized that manufacturing activity did begin as highly dispersed, owing to the region's generally low proportion of employment and low technological level, then became more concentrated with the introductions of industry (primarily textiles in the case of the Southeast), and still later became less concentrated as economic activity spread from growth poles. This sequence would support the growth point hypothesis. Alternatively, if the process ended with concentration of manufacturing in the original centers of industrial introduction, approximating a "back- *Dr. Rabiega is assistant professor of geography at The Florida State University. Dr. Wood is head of the cartographic section of the World Bank. This paper was accepted for publication in June 1974. Vol. XIV, No. 2 85 wash" or "polarization" effect, the case against a regional economicdevelopment policy following growth point principles would be strengthened . (2) THE PRORLEM. The basic problem of this investigation was to establish whether industrial development in the Southeast since 1920 has followed growth point processes, or whether it has continued to concentrate in original centers of introduction. The analysis employed county level data in Alabama, Georgia, North Carolina, and South Carolina for the census years 1920 through 1970, inclusive. The general concentration pattern was analyzed for each ten year period. CLASSICAL GROWTH POINT THEORY AS A DIFFUSION PROCESS . Analysis of concentration patterns is appropriate to the problem because the classic growth point model has been increasingly noted to represent a diffusion process. (3) In particular, the diffusion is of the hierarchical, expansion type. The growth point process is implicitly hierarchical in that the spread of economic activity can be viewed as a "trickling down" effect through a hierarchy in which the apex is the initial introduction point for manufacturing. It is an expansion diffusion situation in that the relative dominance of initial centers should decrease as dispersion of industry takes place, but there should never be total relocation of manufacturing from introduction points. Whether the scale is micro, meso, or macro is immaterial to the type of analysis summarized here. Issues concerning scale pertain to explicit patterns of diffusion of specific innovations. This analysis encompassing four states was at a macro scale. However, because all manufacturing was included rather than a single category or a new process within a single economic activity, only the most general attributes of the model...