Tuesday, January 7, 2014

The Way Forward: An Alternate Path


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.

No comments:

Post a Comment