The University-Creativity Index In order to get at the broader relationship between the university and regional creativity, we constructed a University-Creativity Index or UCI. The index combines a measure of student concentration with the percent of a region’s work force in the creative class. In keeping with Chapple et al. (2004), this is a diversified measure, which is more likely to capture more of the big picture. We view this not as a measure of actual creative performance, but rather as a measure of how a region’s absorptive capacity is capitalizing on its university capabilities and how it combines them with other creative assets. In our view, a ranking in the top 50 means a region has considerable assets to work with and is well positioned to leverage those assets for improved innovative and economic performance. Table 10 shows regions on the Index for four regional size classes. The top five large regions are all noted high-tech regions: San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, Austin, and Boston. Rounding out the top 10 are Sacramento and Oakland (both in the San Francisco Bay Area), Seattle, Denver, Los Angeles, and Chicago. The rankings for small and medium-size regions, not surprisingly, are dominated by major state university centers, such as Lansing, MI (Michigan State); Ann Arbor, MI (University of Michigan); Madison, WI (University of Wisconsin); Provo, UT (University of Utah); Gainesville, FL (University of Florida); Bryan-College Station, TX (Texas A&M); and Corvallis, OR (University of Oregon), among many others. These findings suggest there is tremendous potential for harnessing university assets for regional economic growth in these communities. This trend is already occurring in some of these places, notably Madison’s recent ascendance as a center for industry and spin-off companies.
References Agrawal, A., and Cockburn, I. 2003. “The Anchor Tenant Hypothesis: Exploring the Role of Large, Local, R&D-Intensive Firms in Regional Innovation Systems.” International Journal of Industrial Organization 21: 1227–1253. Anselin, L., Vargas, A., and Acs, Z. 1997. “Local Geographic Spillovers between University Research and High Technology Innovations.” Journal of Urban Economics 42:3, BankBoston. 1997. “MIT: The Impact of Innovation.” Boston: BankBoston. Bathelt, H., Malmberg, M., and Maskell, P. 2004. “Clusters and Knowledge: Local Buzz, Global Pipelines and the Process of Knowledge Creation.” Progress in Human Geography 28:31, 31–56. C., and Glaeser, E. 2005. “The Divergence of Human Capital across Cities.” Papers in Regional Science 84:3, 407–444. Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., and Taylor, L. 2000. “Demographics of the Gay and Lesbian Population in the United States: Evidence from Available Systematic Data Sources.” Demography 37:2, 139–154. Chapple, K., Markusen, A., Schrock, G., Yamamoto, D., and Pingkang, Y. 2004. “Gauging Metropolitan “High-Tech” and “I-Tech” Activity.” Economic Development Quarterly 18:10–29. Cohen, W., and Levinthal, D. 1990. “Absorptive Capacity: A New Perspective on Learning and Innovation.” Administrative Science Quarterly 35:1, 128–152. Cooke, P. 2002. Knowledge Economies: Clusters, Learning and Cooperative Advantage. New York: Routledge.
Florida, R. 1999. “The Role of the University: Leveraging Talent, Not Technology.” Issues in Science and Technology 15:4, 67–73. Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative New York: Basic Books. Florida, R. 2003. “Cities and the Creative City and Community 2.1, 3–19. Florida, R. 2004a. The Rise of the Creative Class (updated paperback edition). New York: Basic Books. Florida, R. Cities and the Creative Class. New York: Routledge. Florida, R. 2004c. “Revenge of the Squelchers.” Next American City, 5, July. Florida, R. 2005. The Flight of the Creative Class. New York: Harper Business. Florida, R., and Cohen, W. 1999. “Engine or Infrastructure? The University Role in Economic Development.” In Industrializing Knowledge: University—Industry Linkages in Japan and the United States, edited by Lewis M. Branscomb, Fumio Kodama, and Richard Florida. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Florida, R., and Gates, G. 2001. “Technology and Tolerance: The Importance of Diversity to High-Technology Growth.” Washington, DC: Brookings Institute, Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy. Florida, R., Mellander C., and Stolarick K. 2007. “Inside the Black Box of Regional Development—Human Capital, the Creative Class, and Tolerance.” Journal of Economic Geography 8.5: 615–649. Fogarty, M., and A. 1999. “University-Industry Relationships and Regional Innovation Systems—Why Older Industrial Regions Can’t Generalize From Route 128 and Silicon Valley.” In Industrializing Knowledge: University-Industry Linkages in Japan and the
Merton, R. 1973. The Sociology of Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Mokyr, J. 1990. The Lever of Riches: Technological Creativity and Economic Progress. New York: Oxford University Press. Pavitt, K. 1991. “What Basic Research Economically Useful?”Research Policy Peck, J. 2005. “Struggling with the Creative Class.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 29:4, 740–770. P. 1986. “Increasing Returns and Long-Run Growth.” Journal of Political Economy 94:5, 1002–1037. Romer, P. 1990. “Endogenous Technological Change.” Journal of Political Economy 98:5, Rosenberg, N., and Nelson, R. 1994. “American Universities and Technical Advance in Industry.” Research Policy 23:3, 323–348. Saxenian, A. 2002. “The Silicon Valley Connection: Transnational Networks and Regional Development in Taiwan, China, and India.” Science Technology Society 2:117, 118–149. Schumpeter, J. 1962. Capitalism Socialism and Democracy. New York: Harper Perennial. Schumpeter, J. 1982. The Theory of Economic Development. Somerset, NJ: Transaction. Simonton, D. 1999. Origins of Genius: Darwinian Perspectives on Creativity. New York: Oxford University Smilor, R., O’Donnell, N., Stein, G., and Welborn, R. 2007. “The Research University and the Development of High-Technology Centers in the United States.” Economic Development Quarterly. 21:3, 203-222.
Tolerance Melting Pot Gay/Lesbian Index Bohemian Index Intercept -0.004 n/s -0.384 -0.389 n/s -0.176 n/s Log Students 0.541 0.136 0.757 0.834 Log Faculty -0.123 -0.075 -0.169 -0.151 Log Population -0.272 0.012 n/s -0.290 -0.382 Adjusted R2 0.33 0.28 0.273 0.341 n/s = not significant All other correlations are significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed). 10 University-Creativity Index Regions with population 1 million and above Rank Region Overall Rank University/Creativity Interaction 1 San Jose 6 0.924 2 San Francisco 11 0.896 3 San Diego 19 0.856 3 Austin 19 0.856 5 Boston 24 0.841 6 Sacramento 26 0.837 7 Oakland 29 0.814 8 Seattle 34 0.801 9 Denver 35 0.795 10 Los Angeles 42 0.772 10 Chicago 42 0.772 Regions with population between 500,000 and 1,000,000 Rank Region Overall Rank University/Creativity Interaction 1 Albany NY 15 0.876 2 Ann Arbor 21 0.855 3 Columbia SC 37 0.789 4 Omaha 42 0.772 5 Albuquerque 48 0.761 6 Springfield MA 51 0.754 7 Dayton 54 0.748 8 New Haven 59 0.745 9 Syracuse 61 0.737 10 Baton Rouge 68 0.710 Regions with population between 250,000 and 500,000 Rank Region Overall Rank University/Creativity Interaction 1 Lansing 4 0.926 2 Madison 8 0.917 3 Montgomery 9 0.914