To what extent is the concept and
delivery of the ‘learning region’ dependent upon public sector intervention?
GG3830
Principles in Geography
Seminar 2.
Nick
Drake
The
‘concept’ of the ‘learning region’ stems from areas of the Regional Development
discipline, ‘new Regionalist’ concepts and a recognition of inequalities
between locations.
The
recognition of inequalities between regions include:
These
inequalities were identified in the post-war, post-industrialist period and
regional development came in-and-out of policy-making for successive
governments.
Throughout
the late 20th century came increases in:
Complexities
developed throughout different governments with regard to policies made trying
to regenerate areas suffering from the advanced economies shift away from heavy
industry and manufacturing.
The
concept of a ‘learning region’ is in response to the identification by central
government of a ‘region’ as being less ‘competitive’ than elsewhere.
“ Regions
are being politically charged through a discourse of competitiveness and
learning, as a means of achieving so-called success” (Jones 2001 a)
“Drawing
from growth regions such as
As
mentioned above, the ‘learning region’ is focused on the stimulation and uptake
of knowledge, information, skills and education within an area that has been
identified as needing assistance.
“Within
the regional development industry, knowledge, it’s production (innovation),
acquisition (learning), accumulation, storage and management has become an
increasingly central issue, as in other industries” (Lagendijk)
This
concentration of knowledge that is highly tacit, localised and untraded embeds
itself in localised networks of individuals and institutions, which can thus
form the basis for a regions Unique Selling
Proposition (USP), or more broadly competitive advantage. Adapted
from Lagendijk.
The
competitive advantage gained through embedded tacit knowledge can be used in
conjunction with public and private sector investment to try to ensure the
future prosperity of a region.
Such
public and private investment opportunities are outlined below:
With
reference to the Governments white paper on ‘competitive advantage’; to further
encourage innovation, technology access and partnership between
Private
financing of ‘learning regions’ is a key contributor to the instigation of
regional regeneration. For example, a large TNC, wants to produce closer to it’s market in
Private
finance once attracted can benefit regions as stated above in many ways. As
stated in the governments white paper on building
competitiveness, Mr Mandelson identifies Information and Computer Technologies
(ICT) as one of the ‘new’ keys to prosperity. Private financing may bring not
only the facilities to educate relating to ICT (seminars, workshops, colleges)
but also the opportunities to use these skills in the workplace (securing
economic stability) In fact, ICT is such a large market that whole areas have
concentrated on this as their USP – Silicon Glen, Scotland and Silicon Valley, California.
Private
finance although not at the same level of public sector investment may be as
diverse. The first concern for a business in relocation is profitability. It
may be tacit knowledge, but a business will not relocate in a region unless it
has guaranteed profitability or some other form of benefit (better quality of
life, less congestion, less pollution, room for expansion, cheaper labour). The
diversity of private finance in regions may be seen in the areas of the economy
or local environment which are improved. For example, Pfizer’s new headquarters
in Walton-on-the-Hill has produced a plethora of community based improvements,
sponsorships and information – inc. a Pfizer Community Newsletter.
So,
in relation to private finance and investment, the ‘delivery’ of a ‘learning
region’ is dependent upon the economic opportunities for regions delivered
through business relocation.
This
regional dependence on private finance is not without the interconnected
private sector dependence on public sector intervention, such as 3 policy
commitments made in the white paper on regional competitiveness:
Public
sector intervention may not be as easily identified as a privately financed
glass-fronted headquarters but may have an intangible effect on greater numbers
of people, providing accessibility throughout regions, skills/education/learning
and improvements to infrastructure and recreation. The intangible nature of
individual uptake is the ‘risk’ associated with regional development.
“the
securing of economic success is not exclusively the result of state-driven
politics, or a narrow set of economic factors; the capacity of any given
territory to ‘hold down’ or ‘embed’ increasingly global processes of economic
development rest in part on non-state and non-economic factors such as
sub-national, social, cultural and institutional forms and supports” (Jones
2001)
Another
key aspect to public sector intervention is the governing body from which it
comes. For example, EU Structural Funds may be used by a region to not only
regenerate and rebuild infrastructure, but also completely change the
appearance and operations of the local economy. This is because the funds may
amount to many millions of Euros (€).
At
the other end of the public sector investment scale may be the local councils
stimulating interest in education and/or skills to benefit ‘competitiveness’. A
further example of public sector intervention may be central government’s
international marketing of the region. Although intangible, in that trying to
calculate the effects on individuals is impossible, this provides the first and
most important way of stimulating
interest in a region. “businesses are not likely to
invest in an area if they do not know about it” (Quote, unknown author)
“It
is evident that the nation-state and the national scale continue to provide the
institutional conditions or atmosphere for economic development” (Jones 2001).
“Regional
development is clearly based on the strict parameters and incentives for action
determined by central government” (Jones 2001 p1198)
Despite
weight placed on alliances involving civil society as a prerequisite for
success, the nation-state is retaining its role in orchestrating governance. (adapted from Jones 2001 p1202)
So
in conclusion, the extent to which ‘learning regions’ are dependent upon public
sector intervention for the concept and delivery is in-fact determined by a key
interconnected relationship between three different groups to ensure regional
success:
1,272
words
Bibliography
Nb.
Of 11 references in the handout, only 3 were available from the library.