The West Virginia Department of Commerce should be commended for landing $130 million in federal stimulus funds to expand high-speed internet access across the state.  I’m sure West Virginia’s application was assisted by Senator Jay Rockefeller, who has been a long-time champion of broadband access, but it takes more than a powerful Senator to land a competitive grant of that magnitude.

Senator Rockefeller described the grant as “a real game-changer in West Virginia,” and I could not agree more.  Broadband access is a critical component of rural economic growth.  In a world where some people can work from almost anywhere, they can’t work from an area that lacks basic broadband access.

Richard Florida’s book The Rise of the Creative Class was the standard tome for economic and community revitalization for most of the past decade.  In it Dr. Florida taught us that all we needed to do was focus on three “T’s” – technology, talent, and tolerance – to transform our communities into the equivalent of Silicon Valleys.  Despite his simple recipe for creative success, few communities made the transformation that Dr. Florida envisioned.

Now, I am sad to report, Dr. Florida has concluded that we should just give up on community development.  Instead of supporting communities, explains The American Prospect in an article aptly titled “The Ruse of the Creative Class,” we should start supporting people.  His words from a May 2009 blog post: “People – not industries or even places – should be our biggest concern.  We can best help those who are hardest-hit by the [economic] crisis, by providing a generous social safety [net], investing in their skills, and when necessary helping them become mobile and move where the opportunities are.”

Had we known back then how easy it was to (re)create West Virginia, we could have saved a lot of time and money by buying everyone suitcases and renting them Ryder trucks so they could move to more stylish bergs like Austin, Texas; Raleigh, North Carolina; and Boulder, Colorado.

Was Dr. Florida correct then or is he correct now?  Stay tuned.

Tilting at windmills

Despite being championed/cynically exploited by three Governors and a whole host of political leaders, Vision Shared has not been very successful.  Why?

  • The first problem, I daresay, is with Vision Shared’s mission: “To bridge social, political and economic gaps by BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER to confront the issues and needs facing West Virginia.” I realize that bringing people together, which is better known as event planning or party planning to the uninitiated, can be quite an accomplishment, but it is hardly a “meaningful” accomplishment for an organization in existence for almost a decade. During my eight years working in government, I quickly learned that the problem with getting things done rarely is that key stakeholders don’t meet – the public policy world is filled with party planners.  Rather it was that no one ever does much of anything after being brought together.  An organization that makes bringing people together its primary mission is destined to fail at accomplishing much of anything else, regardless of whom it brings together.
  • The second problem, I daresay, is with Vision Shared’s goal: “To strengthen the economy, reshape communities, promote progressive government and improve the quality of life for all West Virginians.”  No organization can be all things to all people – and certainly not with a $600,000 annual budget.

Vision impaired?

Vision Shared, a group created in 2000 to make West Virginia more economically competitive, recently issued its 2009 annual report.

Like the organization itself, the report is a mile wide and an inch deep.  You have to skip to the top of page 12 (and can stop at the bottom of page 13) of the 18 page report to find a discussion of the group’s accomplishments during 2009.  The highlights listed:

  • Early Child Development. They issued a report with some recommendations. No discussion of accomplishments in improving early child development.
  • Creative Communities.  They held a conference. Again no discussion of accomplishments in creating or sustaining creative communities.
  • Technology Based Economic Development. They created yet another free-standing non-profit organization – TechConnectWV.  Again no discussion of accomplishments in bringing technology-based economic development to West Virginia.
  • Entrepreneurship.  They launched the Young Entrepreneurs Support (YES) Network.  Clever acronym, but what does it do?  And, yes, they created a business “plan” to focus on marketing West Virginia-made consumer goods.  How many new entrepreneurs do we have as a result of these efforts?  How many jobs have been created?
  • Building Bridges and Empowering Citizens.  They supported the growth of yet another group – Generation West Virginia – and yet another conference for group participants.
  • Results-Based Government.  They supported the creation of another state government agency, GO HELP, to coordinate governmental health care entities.  Much like the much-ballyhooed and failed Governor’s Cabinet on Children and Families?
  • Permitting.  They crowed about legislation, passed in 2008, to make it easier for new entrepreneurs to find the information they need to engage in business in West Virginia.  It’s called Business4WV, folks, and it’s been around for a while.  Although not perfect, it’s very good and facilitated quite easily my entry into the small business world this past year. Surely no one seriously thinks West Virginians with the talent, drive, and ideas to create going business enterprises don’t create them because it’s hard to comply with basic business filing, permitting, and tax requirements.

What did Vision Shared accomplish? More plans, reports with recommendations, and conferences?  Another notoriously-difficult-to-sustain 501(c)(3) organization, another state government “coordinating” agency with little real power, and another solution to a business problem that doesn’t exist?  These are not meaningful accomplishments for a group that has been in “business,” literally and figuratively, for more than a decade.

Over the last few weeks, I have come across writings from very different genres that challenge economic development and education “groupthink.”  I encourage you to peruse the links in this and other upcoming posts because they truly will cause you to think.

In his new book The Nature of Technology: What It Is and How It Evolves, W. Brian Arthur questions our notion of that great buzzword “innovation.”  Says Arthur:

There isn’t a deep understanding of innovation out there.  And I think you can see that because the way innovation is described is very hand-wavy, and-then-something-creative-happens.  All societies want to be innovative, but in the absence of any deep idea of innovation, governments and companies tend to run after what seems to be the latest idea; that if you somehow have, ‘creativity,’ or invest in R&D, or set up industrial parks, that’s going to work.

In his book review, Lee Drutman explains the book’s basic argument this way:

New technology is just combining old technologies in new ways.  And all technology is, at its core, simply the harnessing of nature and its manifold phenomena for human needs.

He goes on to say:

The key implication … is that … innovations do not come out of nowhere.  ”There are not magic wands or bright ideas in bathtubs,” Arthur said….  Rather, innovation is something that comes from the hard work of decades and decades of education and training.  It is something that comes from devoting lots of resources to universities and investing in loads of basic science.

In other words, there is no “magic” shortcut to business innovation, contrary to what you might hear at the next economic development conference you attend.

Tagged with:  
Page 1 of 212
CONTACT

© 2010 DCT Advisors LLC
27 Wynfield Trace
Winfield, West Virginia 25213
Phone: 304.541.0332
Fax: 866.783.0511
Email: dct@dctadvisors.com

text

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

THIS IS A LEGAL ADVERTISEMENT. The materials on this website have been prepared for informational purposes and are not legal advice, nor do they create a lawyer-client relationship. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.