guest editorial

" GUEST EDITORIAL

Universities and Local Economic Development: An Appraisal of the Issues and Practices

LOCAL ECONOMY, 2003,

VOL.

18,

NO.

1, 2–6

" GUEST EDITORIAL Universities and Local Economic Development: An Appraisal of the Issues and Practices Helen Lawton Smith

Helen Lawton Smith is at the Centre for Local Economic Development, Coventry Business School, Coventry University, Priory Street, Coventry CV1 5FB, Email: h.lawtonsmith@ coventry.ac.uk

2

This collection of papers is dedicated to the memory of Michel de Bernardy who died in February 2002 in a climbing accident in the mountains above Grenoble. Michel was a first-class academic whose recent work specialised on the relationship between research in science and engineering and territorial development. Key challenges facing universities are the subject of a current discussion paper published by the Department of Education and Skills on the Future of Universities (www.dfes.gov.uk/highereducation/discussion.shtml). This special issue contributes to the debate by reviewing issues relating to universities’ role in local economies. The papers are drawn from experiences in the UK, Italy, Canada and Sweden and provide some opportunity to compare political agendas, policies and practice in the UK with those in other countries. The background to the theme of this special issue is the increasing academic concern about the expectations placed on universities about their role in stimulating economic development. Since the election of the Labour Government in 1997, policy discourses have been concerned with universities’ contributions to regional development while remaining committed to previous Conservative governments’ agendas of commercialisation of research both through increasing links with industry and through academic entrepreneurship. As a consequence, Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) (established in 1999) have appropriated universities as adjuncts to their regional economic strategies (e.g. SEEDA) and in some cases regional Local Economy ISSN 0269–0942 print/ISSN 1470–9325 online # 2003, LEPU, South Bank University Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on July 30, 2016 http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals DOI: 10.1080/0269094032000073771

GUEST EDITORIAL 3

innovation strategies (e.g. Advantage West Midlands) (see Benneworth, 2001 for a review). What the papers have in common is that they address the regional role but from different perspectives. The first paper, by David Charles, Newcastle University, highlights how radical has been the shift in the position of universities in regional local economies to an increasingly instrumentalist position, from a more idealistic position focused on the creation of knowledge. He argues that universities are now explicitly part of the system of governance of regions. Governance is defined by Stoker (2002, 3) as ‘the capacity to get things done through collective action in the realm of public affairs, in conditions where it is not possible to rest on recourse to the state’. An essential feature of governance is the role of networks in providing the means of coordinating resources. Therefore in relation to regional/local development, universities are required to act on behalf of the state even though in principle they are autonomous entities. Charles puts his discussion into context with reference to national and international changes, but emphasizes that it is at the local level that the interaction between national and international forces for change have become visible. It is this instrumentalist position – of getting things done – which runs through the papers. Thus rather than the old model of UK universities’ primary roles of teaching and research per se, the model is more like an extended version of the old polytechnics (first called ‘new’ and now ‘modern’ universities) and the engineering schools in the 19th century. While priorities of mapping and matching the needs of employers are similar, the extended model includes an entrepreneurial role and a role in the local community which relates to social equity, sustainability and culture. In analysing this role, Charles draws attention to the suggested link between civic culture, local institutions and wider socioeconomic performance. However, he is careful to point out that it is easy to overstress the regional agenda with many universities preferring a model of indifference at best or disdain at worse for a regional role (see also Charles and Conway 2001) on this, but emphasizes that there are a range of strategies and mechanisms developing – even in some of the most old-fashioned universities. John Glasson, Oxford Brookes University, covers many of these themes in his comparison of wide-ranging impacts that two modern universities, Oxford Brookes and Sunderland, have on their local economies, using evidence from a recent study. The instrumentalist role appears early on in the paper with the reference to the need for universities to ‘plan strategically’. He points out their missions will vary depending on size of university and of its catchment area, and the local and regional context. The two case studies provide striking contrasts of an area of rapid technological change and increasing population (Oxford) with one which is in economic and population decline (Sunderland). Glasson also highlights the many potential effects of a university on its local community – providing further examples of the extended model of universities, particularly

Downloaded from lec.sagepub.com by guest on July 30, 2016


3

" GUEST EDITORIAL


4

with regard to sustainable development issues such as the built environment and social and community development. Glasson first reviews empirical evidence concerning direct and indirect employment and expenditure. He finds that both universities are amongst the top half dozen employers in their respective localities. He then compares the different ways in which university and industry linkages have developed, from specific technological initiatives – including in Sunderland automotive and advanced manufacturing practice, spin-off companies, students and graduate placements, and in Oxford CASE studentships, placements and a Faraday Partnership in conjunction with Oxford University. He finds that both have a low record of spin-offs. The number and type of community developments are different, with Sunderland providing a broader range of community projects than Oxford, reflecting the particular needs to the city and EU funding derived from Sunderland’s Objective 2 and UK designated area status. For example, Sunderland has a greater record of providing community lifelong courses and supporting the cultural vitality of its local community. Oxford Brookes on the other hand, although providing continuing education programmes and promoting green initiatives – very much part of the Oxford political agenda – has not the same cultural impact. And, Glasson argues, ‘the marginal contribution is perhaps less significant than the Sunderland counterpart’. Andrea Piccaluga and Michela Lazzeroni from Lecce/Pisa develop the theme of changes in innovation systems, characterizing these as the spontaneous emergence of a more entrepreneurial university system. The paper’s purpose is to provide a methodology for analyzing changes that are taking place in university organization, culture, incentives, marketing and so on. The instrumentalist position is explored in relation to the convergence of university missions and the private sector. The four specific missions identified for universities are very functional: knowledge production, supply of human capital, technology transfer and territorial development. The paper develops a typology of scientific research spillovers and discusses how they are to be measured – again an instrumentalist way of looking at relationships. Indeed the new measures proposed are indicators of relationships which Charles and Glasson discuss. While these may be used to assess the fast changing phenomenon, Piccaluga and Lazzeroni sound a note of caution. This is diagnosis, not a prescription, and they emphasise the need to avoid a decrease in the quality of long-term research while stimulating economic development. Frank Peck and David McGuinness, Northumbria University, take a rather different perspective on the issue. Their concern is the dangers inherent in the RDAs cluster strategies. Taking the case of the knowledge base in the North of England, they question the merit of pursuing specialized clusters in isolation at the regional scale. This paper provides a critique of the current instrumentalist policies of the RDAs which are required to identify ‘business-led’ clusters and


GUEST EDITORIAL 3

develop the means by which their regions’ universities and institutes can support entrepreneurship and business growth. For example, Peck and McGuinness find that even though the three regions in the north have cluster potential around firms based in chemicals, food processing, metal industries and furniture manufacture, there are few instances of cluster development that involve inter-regional collaboration. Peck and McGuinness argue that the operational definitions of cluster and clustering in the north of England owe as least as much to political processes as they do to the theoretical debate over the meaning of clustering. While there is evidence of governance in partnerships within regions which have influenced the manner of cluster strategies, the absence of any real incentive to collaborate between regions has affected the cluster agenda with relatively few attempts to engage across borders. Je´roˆme Doutriaux (from Ottawa) and A˚sa Lindholm Dahlstrand and Staffan Jacobsson (from Gothenburg) present detailed analyses of the organisation and impact of relationships between universities and territorial development. Doutriaux takes as his theme the lack of evidence to support the claim that universities are drivers of economic development. His contention is that in Canada, universities are important catalysts of high-tech development – a rather different process and concept and a distinction that needs careful consideration in the UK. He reports on 11 Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and their paths of high-tech development clearly showing the very varied histories of universities’ engagement with their local economies. The paper demonstrates the different stages that universities were involved in the initiation and evolution of Canadian high-tech clusters, that organisations other than universities were major players in stimulating economic growth in some locations, and the varying extent to which university-linkages were embedded in the local system of governance. A˚sa Lindholm Dahlstrand and Staffan Jacobsson’s paper relates to several of the other papers. In their focus on a particular instrumentalist relationship between universities and the formation of new technology-based firms, they trace the relationship between the changes in volumes and orientation of graduates at MSc and PhD levels in the region of Western Sweden in the period 1975–1997. Their themes are the responsiveness of universities to the needs of industry and the growing pressure for accountability in the public funding of academic research. Like Doutriaux’s paper, they explore the specifics of what has happened in a particular location, why this happened and the impact of those actions. Like Charles and Glasson, they identify various mechanisms by which the transfer of technology can benefit society through, which they term ‘the generation of capabilities’ – that is the range of future activities which they make possible. The particular focus of the supply of capabilities is in relation to the size and orientation of local technology-based entrepreneurship in Gothenburg, particularly the process of spin-off from Chalmers University and the



5

" GUEST EDITORIAL


supply of graduates at masters and doctoral levels. The rate of spin-off in Gothenburg is one of the most remarkable stories in Europe. In exploring the ‘responsiveness’ of universities to the local economy they analyse both direct and indirect effects, identifying other significant factors such as the centralized nature of the Swedish Higher Education system which hindered the formation of a programme in computer engineering. Moreover, they make the important observation that although the supply of graduates was increased in mechanical engineering – often seen as a dated sector – this is actually a positive contribution as it is a scientific and technological area which exhibits vitality, for instance, through the development and use of new materials. To sum up, the papers provide an analysis of process. All of them discuss the reasons why universities have assumed such a central role in local economic development. These explanations are crucially important for policy development. They have discussed where universities fit into the ‘bigger picture’. Most have given examples of the enormous range of the particular roles that universities play in individual local economies and have said why this is so. The examples from Sweden and Canada are valuable in that they give reference points for how local authorities and RDAs might review their policies and strategies. The paper by Piccaluga and Lazzeroni provides a methodology for doing so. Peck and McGuinness have warned of the dangers of spatial shortsightedness. Glasson and Charles present holistic accounts of the very complex relationships between universities and society. References BENNEWORTH, P. S. 2001: Regional Development Agencies – Their Early Years 1998–2001, Seaford: Regional Studies Association. CHARLES, D. and CONWAY, C. 2001: Higher Education-Business Interaction Survey: A Report to the UK HE Funding Bodies

6

(HEFCE, SHEFC, HEFCW and DEL) and the Office of Science and Technology, December, CURDS, Newcastle University. STOKER, G. 2000: Introduction, in STOKER, G. (ed), The New Politics of British Local Governance, Basingstoke: Macmillan Press, 1–10.
