Cluster-compatible | With a conservative legacy, innovation clusters represent an opportunity for bipartisanship
I’ve noted in a handful of recent articles the Obama administration’s enthusiasm for regional innovation clusters as an organizing framework for sector-based economic growth and job creation. I’ve described what clusters are and why they matter, what the administration is doing to catalyze clusters (“One Year Later,” Feb. 22 and “Bottoms up,” Oct. 4) and in particular the unique role of SBA Administrator Karen Mills in driving this approach (“Catalyzing clusters,” Aug. 9). Given the new political realities of the mid-term results, I offer some insight into clusters’ historic origins with a view to suggesting a policy in which both parties can find common ground.
Republican provenance of clusters
While Harvard Business School professor Michael Porter is the most widely recognized advocate for this strategy for regional competitiveness, one of the earliest policy organizations to advocate for it — including a full embrace of clusters — is the Council on Competitiveness, formed in 1986 by the chairman of President Ronald Reagan’s Commission on Industrial Competitiveness, John A. Young; Porter was on the council’s board and still serves on its executive committee. The council sponsors conferences, seminars and other special events to help catalyze new ideas and solutions, and to circulate its findings on topics that speak to competitiveness in specific regions (e.g. Brazil) and in key sectors (energy). The council’s regional initiatives reports describe and prescribe cluster development process and strategies.
Michael Porter’s support for a Republican viewpoint is not limited to the council. Porter was tapped to chair Republican Mitt Romney’s Global Competitiveness Policy Advisory Group, which also included ex-eBay CEO Meg Whitman and JP Morgan Chair William Harrison. A Google search turns up Porter’s personal donations to Republican campaigns and organizations in Massachusetts. Accessible to all political parties, Porter — through his HBS Institute for Strategy and Competitiveness — has provided counsel to SBA’s Karen Mills in respect of her work; ISC received $1 million this fall from the Department of Commerce to support its cluster mapping initiative. So, while Porter will work with any administration that aligns with his economic philosophy, he seems to lean to the right politically.
Another historical point of interest: The America Creating Opportunities to Meaningfully Promote Excellence in Technology, Education and Science Act was signed by President George W. Bush and became law in August 2007. The COMPETES Act was designed “to invest in innovation through research and development, and to improve the competitiveness of the United States.” COMPETES was re-authorized in May in the House by a vote of 262-150, so included more than a few Republicans. This updated version of the act included language to create a competitive regional innovation cluster grant program. While this House-approved bill has yet to pass the Senate, it shares the same right-leaning legacy that spawned the Council on Competitiveness.
Clusters good value for the money
As argued by SBA’s Mills and others, cluster development is private sector-led and a good “bang for the buck.” Activating, growing and sustaining clusters requires convening and connecting regional sector market actors for education, networking and commerce. Existing technology, trade, economic and community development organizations are well-suited to lead and tend to find ready support for these activities through private-sector sponsorship and member fees. The fiscal year 2010 slew of cluster awards is meant to be just the first step in a multi-year push for clusters at the federal level. In this contentious political environment, that seems to suggest stalemates across a range of fiscal and social issues; however, this initiative could get swallowed up with a host of other plans developed by Democrats to stimulate the economy to create jobs.
Opportunity for agreement
Despite its legacy, which seems very much Republican in origin, clusters appear ideal for bipartisan support in an environment in which the likelihood of consensus across a range of issues seems small. The strategy represents a policy that Republicans are happy to claim as their own and is not expensive and so is deficit-friendly.
To Maine’s new governor, I respectfully submit that continued support and expansion of the state’s unique cluster development grant fund, managed by the Maine Technology Institute, is cost effective and aligns with core principles that support competitiveness at a price the state can afford.
Both federal and state governments have precious little capital lying around to fund much of anything new. But considering its Republican provenance and the cross-agency support from a Democratic administration working to find common ground, this seems one program that ought to be win-win for both parties and for the country.
Michael Gurau is president of Clear Innovation Partners, a Maine-based cluster development organization. He can be reached at mgurau@clearinnovationpartners.com. Read more Venture Builder here.
Most Recent
Most Recent
Comments