INNOVATIVE METROPOLITAN
AREAS IN THE SOUTH:
HOW COMPETITIVE ARE SOUTH
CAROLINA’S CITIES?
by
David L. Barkley
and
Mark S. Henry
Professors and Co-Directors
Regional Economic Development Laboratory
Department of Applied Economics & Statistics
Clemson University
THE NEW ECONOMY
THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY
THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Changes in Technologies
Changes in Production Practices
Changes in Location of Economic Activity
Changes in the Demand for Labor
Industry Clusters
Clusters of Innovation
Regional Innovation Systems
Table 1. Examples of State and Local Programs to Encourage Research
and Innovation
Program
Location
Funding
Stowers Institute for Medical Research
Kansas City, MO/KS
$2 billion endowment
California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine
State-wide
$3 billion over 10 years
North Carolina Bio-Technology Research Campus
Kannapolis, NC
$1 billion endowment
The Ohio Third Frontier Project
State-wide
$500 million
Scripps Florida
Palm Beach, FL
$510 million
Kentucky Research Challenge
Trust Fund
State-wide
$340 million
Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center
St. Louis, MO
$150 million
Hudson-Alpha Institute for Biotechnology
Huntsville, AL
$130 million
Translational Genomics Research Institute
Phoenix, AZ
$100 million
Louisiana Optical Network Initiative
State-wide
$40 million
Grow Wisconsin Business Incubators
State-wide
$30 million
Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment
A. Innovative Activity
PATENT: Number of patents issued per 1000 population
(USPTO, 1990-99)
ARD:
Academic R&D expenditures per 1000 population
(NSF, 1998-2000)
SED:
Doctorates awarded in science and engineering per 1000
population (NSF, 1998-2000)
GSS
Graduate science and engineering students per 1000 population
(NS, 1998-2000)
ETEC:
Percentage of employment in technical professions –
computer science; engineering except civil; natural, physical,
and social science (BLS, 2000)
Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
B. Labor Force Quality
PHSG: Percentage of adult population (25+) that are high school
graduates (CBP, 2000)
PCG:
Percentage of adult population (25+) that are college
graduates (CBP, 2000)
PWP:
Percentage of population (age 16-64) that are employed
(Census, 2000)
Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
C. Entrepreneurial Environment
PCEST:
Percentage change in number of establishments
(CBP, 1990-2000)
PEL2O:
Percentage of establishments with fewer than 20
employees (BLS, 2000)
INC500:
Number of Inc 500 companies per 100,000 population
(www.inc500.com, 2000)
VCAP:
Venture capital investments ($) per capita (Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 2000)
EMB:
Percentage of employment in managerial and business
professions (BLS, 2000)
Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
D. Agglomeration Economics
HTEMP:
Percentage of employment in high-technology industries
(CBP, 2000)
HTEST:
Percentage of establishments in high technology
industries (CBP, 2000)
ITEMP:
Percentage of employment in information technology
industries (CBP, 2000)
ITEST:
Percentage of establishments in information technology
industries (CBP, 2000)
E. Competitiveness in Global Economy
EXPORTS: Exports as a percent of gross metropolitan product,
metro areas ranked in quantiles (DOC, 1999)
Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings
1. Outliers (4)
Atlanta, GA CMSA
Austin, TX MSA
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, NC
CMSA
Baton Rouge, LA MSA
2. High (12)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX CMSA
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
Huntsville, AL MSA
Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL MSA
Orlando, FL MSA
Pensacola, FL MSA
Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA
San Antonio, TX MSA
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA
Tampa-St. Petersbusrg-Clearwater, FL
MSA
Tulsa, OK MSA
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA
Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
3. College Towns (5)
Athens, GA MSA
Bryan-College Station, TX MSA
Charlottesville, VA MSA
Gainesville, FL MSA
Tallahassee, FL MSA
4. Medium (20)
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA
Birmingham, AL MSA
Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN MSA
Columbia, SC MSA
Greensboro--Winston-Salem–High Point,
NC MSA
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA
Jackson, MS MSA
Jacksonville, FL MSA
Knoxville, TN MSA
Lexington, KY-IN MSA
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
Nashville, TN MSA
New Orleans, LA MSA
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News,
VA-NC MSA
Oklahoma City, OK MSA
Roanoke, VA MSA
Wilmington, NC MSA
Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional
Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
5. Below Average (47)
Abilene, TX MSA
Albany, GA MSA
Alexandria, LA MSA
Amarillo, TX MSA
Ashville, NC MSA
Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA
Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA
Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA
Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY MSA
Columbus, GA MSA
Corpus Christi, TX MSA
Decatur, AL MSA
Dothan, AL MSA
Enid, OK MSA
Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY MSA
Fayetteville, NC MSA
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR MSA
Florence, SC MSA
Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA
Fort Walton Beach, FL MSA
Goldsboro, NC MSA
Greenville, NC MSA
Hattiesburg, MS MSA
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC MSA
Jackson, TN MSA
Jacksonville, NC MSA
Jonesboro, AR MSA
Killeen-Temple, TX MSA
Lafayette, LA MSA
Lake Charles, LA MSA
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA
Lawton, OK MSA
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR MSA
Long View-Marshall, TX MSA
Lubbock, TX MSA
Lynchburg, VA MSA
Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems
Cluster Groupings (cont.)
5. Below Average (47) (cont.)
Macon, GA MSA
Mobile, AL MSA
Monroe, LA MSA
Montgomery, AL MSA
Myrtle Beach, SC MSA
Odessa-Midland, TX MSA
Owensboro, KY MSA
Panama City, FL MSA
Pine Bluff, AR MSA
Rocky Mount, NC MSA
San Angelo, TX MSA
Savannah, GA MSA
Sherman-Denison, TX MSA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA
Sumter, SC MSA
Tuscaloosa, AL MSA
Tyler, TX MSA
Victoria, TX MSA
Waco, TX MSA
Wichita Falls, TX MSA
6. Low (18)
Anniston, AL MSA
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX MSA
Danville, VA MSA
Daytona Beach, FL MSA
El Paso, TX MSA
Florence, AL MSA
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA
Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL MSA
Gadsden, AL MSA
Houma, LA MSA
Huntington-Ashland, WY-KY-OH MSA
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA MSA
Laredo, TX MSA
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA
Naples, FL MSA
Ocala, FL MSA
Punta Gorda, FL MSA
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR MSA
Table 4. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000
Cluster Grouping
Change in
Employment
(%)
Change in
Population
(%)
A. Metro Counties
Outliers (32)a
62.26
44.27
High (58)
42.20
28.25
College Towns (13)
42.61
31.74
Medium (113)
34.51
20.27
Below Average (106)
26.88
14.69
Low (33)
24.27
17.87
a Number
of metro or nonmetro counties in the cluster grouping.
Table 5. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings, 1990-2000
Cluster Grouping
Change in
Employment
(%)
Change in
Population
(%)
B. Nonmetro Counties
Outliers (31)
32.74
23.00
High (40)
31.27
22.01
College Towns (24)
25.29
22.22
Medium (136)
21.33
12.25
Below Average (315)
15.89
7.06
Low (42)
19.55
12.83
Rural LMAs (349)
17.88
10.39
Table 6. Patents Per 1000 People by Southern Metropolitan
Area, 1995-1999
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Austin-San Marcos
2. Baton Rouge
4.28
3.71
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
Gainesville, FL
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton
Houston
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay
2.66
1.96
1.75
1.52
1.49
1.45
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
14. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
29. Florence
31. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
50. Charleston
51. Columbia
64. Augusta-Aiken
82. Myrtle Beach
104. Sumter
1.16
.79
.75
.56
.54
.39
.31
.17
Table 7. Total R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 1998-2000
Area
Total R&D
1998-2000
R&D Expenditures
Per Capita
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Bryan-College Station, TX
2. Athens, GA
3. Gainesville, FL
4. Baton Rouge, LA
5. Hattiesburg, MS
6. Charlottseville, VA
7. Auburn-Opelika, AL
8. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
1,193,191,000
713,914,000
893,001,000
703,565,000
388,843,000
410,689,000
260,924,000
2,550,055,000
$7.81
4.63
4.09
3.62
3.46
2.56
2.26
2.12
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
16. Columbia
20. Charleston
21. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
22. Augusta-Aiken
54. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
68. Myrtle Beach
NR Florence
NR Sumter
305,927,000
179,002,000
306,074,000
133,100,000
36,745,000
1,638,000
0
0
$.57
.33
.32
.28
.02
.01
0
0
Source: National Science Foundation
Table 8. Percentage of Metropolitan Labor Force in
Professional Occupations, 2000*
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Huntsville
2. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
3. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay
4. Austin
5. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
6. Houston
7. Tallahassee
8. Atlanta
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
13. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hills
31. Columbia
38. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
39. Augusta-Aiken
40. Charleston
69. Sumter
81. Myrtle Beach
87. Florence
10.1%
8.5
8.1
7.7
6.3
5.9
5.1
4.7
3.9%
3.2
2.9
2.9
2.8
1.8
1.6
1.5
* Professional occupations include Computer and Mathematical Operations (15-000); Life, Physical and
Social Science. Occupations (19-0000); and Architecture and Engineering Occupations (17-0000)
Table 9. Share of Adult Population with College Degrees, 2000.
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Charlottseville
2. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
3. Gainesville, FL
4. Bryan-College Station
5. Austin
6. Tallahassee
7. Athens, GA
8. Atlanta
40.1%
38.9
38.7
37.0
36.7
36.7
34.1
32.0
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
10. Columbia
19. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
23. Charleston
58. Augusta-Aiken
60. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
74. Florence
75. Myrtle Beach
99. Sumter
29.2%
26.5
25.0
20.9
20.7
18.7
18.7
15.8
Source: U.S. Census, 2000
Table 10. Share of Adult Population with High School Diplomas
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Gainesville, FL
2. Fort Walton Beach
3. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay
4. Tallahassee
5. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
6. Lawton, OK
7. Fayetteville, NC
8. Austin
88.1%
88.0
86.3
85.9
85.4
85.2
85.0
84.8
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
11.
40.
44.
52.
66.
93.
99.
108.
Columbia
Charleston
Myrtle Beach
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
Augusta-Aiken
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
Sumter
Florence
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.
84.3%
81.3
81.15
80.5
78.9
75.4
74.3
73.1
Table 11. Venture Capital Investments in the South, by State, 1995-2005
State
Deals
Investments
(millions)
Texas
Virginia
2154
1098
$18,403
8,340
$ 883
1,178
Florida
Georgia
833
1026
8,037
6,834
503
835
North Carolina
Tennessee
869
273
5,755
1,921
715
338
South Carolina
Alabama
87
130
1,089
817
271
184
Louisiana
Kentucky
83
93
631
500
141
124
Oklahoma
Mississippi
Arkansas
67
28
26
446
338
68
129
119
25
Source: PriceWaterhouseCooper Money Tree
Investments
Per Capita
Table 12. Share of Establishments in Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services Industries (NAICS 54), 1997
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Miami – Fort Lauderdale, Fl
2. Richmond – Petersburg, VA
3. Tallahassee, Fl
4. Austin-San Marcos
5. Atlanta
6. West Palm Beach – Boca Raton, FL
7. Huntington-Ashland, WVA-KY-OH
8. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
27.7%
14.1
12.7
12.7
12.2
12.1
11.4
11.4
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
25. Augusta-Aiken
40. Charleston
48. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
73. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
76. Columbia
90. Sumter
102. Myrtle Beach
109. Florence
9.5%
8.4
8.0
7.1
6.8
6.2
5.8
5.4
* Source: 1997 Economic Census
** NAICS 54 activities include legal advice and representation; accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll
services; architectural, engineering, and specialized design services; computer services; consulting
services; research services; advertising services; photographic services; translation and interpretation
services; veterinary services; and other professional, scientific, and technical services.
Table 13. Entrepreneurial Growth Companies as a Share of
Business in Labor Market Areas, 1991-1996.
Entrepreneurial Growth Companies
- Annual employment growth rate > 15%
- Employment growth > 100% for 1991-96
Southern Metropolitan Areas
Labor Market Area
Austin
Atlanta
Nashville
Pensacola
Raleigh
Little Rock
Charlotte
United States Average
Florence
Green.-Spart.-Ander.
Columbia
Augusta-Aiken
Charleston
Sumter
Companies
20,915
69,279
24,458
10,863
25,768
13,036
28,383
12,091
22,771
13,577
9,106
12,350
3,185
High Growth
1,514
4,479
1,465
643
1,507
757
1,544
567
1,049
607
393
507
118
Source: National Commission on Entrepreneurship, 2001.
Share
7.2%
6.5
6.0
5.9
5.8
5.8
5.4
4.7
4.7
4.6
4.5
4.3
4.1
3.7
Table 14. Change in Utility Patent Activity 1992-2004,
Southern States
State
North Carolina
Georgia
Texas
U.S.
Kentucky
Alabama
Tennessee
Florida
South Carolina
Mississippi
Virginia
Arkansans
Louisiana
Oklahoma
1992-93-94
Average
925
727
3542
274
262
560
1842
432
390
770
2471
Percentage
Change
+97.8%
+81.5%
+69.3%
+60.4%
+57.5%
+48.9%
+37.5%
+34.2%
426
114
874
127
441
572
564
151
1117
156
393
476
+32.4%
+32.4%
+27.8%
22.8%
-11.0%
-16.7%
Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, April 2005.
2002-03-04
Average
1830
1319
5995
Rank Among
Southern Metro
Areas
Top 25%
(1-29)
(30-59)
(60-89)
?
G-S-A
Florence
Charlotte
Charleston
Columbia
Augusta-Aiken
Myrtle Beach
Columbia
Charlotte
Charleston
Augusta-Aiken
G-S-A
Florence
Myrtle Beach
Augusta-Aiken
Charleston
Charlotte
?
G-S-A
Columbia
?
?
Bottom
25%
(90-117)
Sumter
Sumter
Innovative
Activity
(Patents)
Human Capital
(College
Graduates)
Sumter
Myrtle Beach
Florence
Entrepreneurial
Support
(Professional
Services)
Local
Quality
of Life
Figure 1. Ranking of South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
Across Regional Innovation System Indicators
REGIONAL ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH
LABORATORY
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY
http://cherokee.agecon.clemson/redrl.htm
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions
(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
Industry Clusters
•
Support clusters in new industries
related to existing industrial base
•
Strengthen emerging/potential clusters
in the region
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions
(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
(Continued)
New Firms
•
•
Promote entrepreneurship and new firm
development
Attract cluster-related firms
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions
(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
(Continued)
Knowledge and Innovation
•
Develop cluster-specific technology centers
•
Attract branches of national research
organizations
•
Build up and attract new labor skills
Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions
(Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
(Continued)
Networks
•
•
Link firms to local and external
knowledge providers
Technology transfer programs