In an excellent editorial piece for the January 4, 2014
edition of the “Pittsburgh Post-Gazette”, Harold D. Miller provided those
concerned with Pittsburgh’s socio-economic development much to think
about. Working from US Census Bureau
statistics, Miller presents a not flattering picture of the City and region. One can argue the relevance in 2014 of using
the most recently available Census figures from 2011 and citing a private
foundation study that looked at cities in 2010.
Also, “snapshots” are just that – one time views that neglect trends
which are the basis of most economic decisions in the private sector. But I am not deprecating Miller’s
analysis. His viewpoint needs to be
heard loud and clear by Pittsburgh’s thought leaders in all areas of business,
education and the arts.
What I am concerned with is his reliance on government
solutions to Pittsburgh’s recent history’s lack of entrepreneurial
activity. “Cut red tape” is one
suggestion which on the surface we can all agree on. However expecting governments to act on this
in a timely manner is naïve. What’s
more, much of Pittsburgh’s “red tape” problem is related to the State of
Pennsylvania. No matter though, I’ve
often asked the question “If government regulation is such a limiting issue for
western Pennsylvania, why is it that hotbeds of high tech development are found
in California, Massachusetts and New York?”
You think Pittsburgh startups have a lot of red tape? Look at the municipal and State regulations
in Palo Alto or Cambridge.
“Improve access to capital” is another prescription. Absolutely and I’ve blogged on that topic
previously. But Miller suggests that
government funded programs like Innovation Works need to be expanded. Sure, entrepreneurs will take money from
whatever source presents itself. But if
you look at regions such as metro Boston, the Silicon Valley, and Puget Sound
you’ll see that establishing a self-perpetuating ecosystem of entrepreneurship,
especially in high tech, is best begun and most sustainably with something akin
to an economic “big bang” resulting from all the right pieces being in
place. You can’t force a vibrant, shiny,
new economy on a region that’s not ready for it. I find Miller’s prescriptions
have a subtext of forcing Pittsburgh into a new high tech era with a Big
Brother, top-down approach relying on more government programs at the same time
he calls for less government “red tape”.
At the same time Miller decries Pittsburgh’s lack of small business
formation, a bottom up approach.
Perhaps it is merely a difference in attitude that
separates me from Mr. Miller. But I
believe Pittsburgh has all the right pieces for an economic “big bang”:
world-class universities [that overused term truly applies in this instance], a
great urban lifestyle located in the midst of one of America’s best regions for
outdoor leisure activities, and a social fabric the nurtures people and their
dreams. Am I looking at Pittsburgh
through rose colored glasses? You
betcha! But my viewpoint is also based
on empirical evidence from the last few weeks: Google continues to expand one
of only three engineering offices it has in the world, Computer Sciences
Corporation chooses Pittsburgh for a 500 person office over 400 other locations
they studied, and Kevin Sousa reached his $250,000 Kickstarter campaign goal
for a restaurant and sustainable farm in Braddock. Add to that the constant stream of funding
announcements for high tech start ups, the addition of out of town businesses
from Marcellus Shale oriented law firms to hip boutique hotels, and I see more
than momentum. I see a region that started a generation behind Boston and two
generations behind the Bay Area and Seattle and that is finally on the path that,
40 years from now, will be viewed as the natural path to even greater
prosperity.
