1. INNOVATIVE METROPOLITAN AREAS IN THE SOUTH: HOW COMPETITIVE ARE SOUTH CAROLINA’S CITIES?by
David L. Barkley
and
Mark S. Henry
Professors and Co-Directors
Regional Economic Development Laboratory
Department of Applied Economics & Statistics
Clemson University

2. THE NEW ECONOMY THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY THE GLOBAL ECONOMY
Changes in Technologies
Changes in Production Practices
Changes in Location of Economic Activity
Changes in the Demand for Labor
Industry Clusters
Clusters of Innovation
Regional Innovation Systems

3. Table 1. Examples of State and Local Programs to Encourage Research
and Innovation
Program
Location
Funding
Stowers Institute for Medical Research
Kansas City, MO/KS
$2 billion endowment
California Institute for
Regenerative Medicine
State-wide
$3 billion over 10 years
North Carolina Bio-Technology Research Campus
Kannapolis, NC
$1 billion endowment
The Ohio Third Frontier Project
$500 million
Scripps Florida
Kentucky Research Challenge
Trust Fund
Palm Beach, FL
$510 million
$340 million
Donald Danforth Plant Sciences Center
St. Louis, MO
$150 million
Hudson-Alpha Institute for Biotechnology
Huntsville, AL
$130 million
Translational Genomics Research Institute
Phoenix, AZ
$100 million
Louisiana Optical Network Initiative
Grow Wisconsin Business Incubators
$40 million
$30 million

4. Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment
A. Innovative Activity
PATENT: Number of patents issued per 1000 population
(USPTO, )
ARD: Academic R&D expenditures per 1000 population
(NSF, )
SED: Doctorates awarded in science and engineering per 1000
population (NSF, )
GSS Graduate science and engineering students per 1000 population
(NS, )
ETEC: Percentage of employment in technical professions –
computer science; engineering except civil; natural, physical,
and social science (BLS, 2000)

5. Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
B. Labor Force Quality
PHSG: Percentage of adult population (25+) that are high school graduates (CBP, 2000)
PCG: Percentage of adult population (25+) that are college
graduates (CBP, 2000)
PWP: Percentage of population (age 16-64) that are employed
(Census, 2000)

6. Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
C. Entrepreneurial Environment
PCEST: Percentage change in number of establishments
(CBP, )
PEL2O: Percentage of establishments with fewer than 20
employees (BLS, 2000)
INC500: Number of Inc 500 companies per 100,000 population ( 2000)
VCAP: Venture capital investments ($) per capita (Price
Waterhouse Coopers, 2000)
EMB: Percentage of employment in managerial and business professions (BLS, 2000)

7. Table 2. Selected Measures of Metropolitan
Innovative Environment (cont.)
D. Agglomeration Economics
HTEMP: Percentage of employment in high-technology industries
(CBP, 2000)
HTEST: Percentage of establishments in high technology
industries (CBP, 2000)
ITEMP: Percentage of employment in information technology
ITEST: Percentage of establishments in information technology industries (CBP, 2000)
E. Competitiveness in Global Economy
EXPORTS: Exports as a percent of gross metropolitan product, metro areas ranked in quantiles (DOC, 1999)

8. Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings
1. Outliers (4)
Atlanta, GA CMSA
Austin, TX MSA
Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill, NC
CMSA
Baton Rouge, LA MSA
2. High (12)
Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington, TX CMSA
Houston-Galveston-Brazoria, TX CMSA
Huntsville, AL MSA
Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay, FL MSA
Orlando, FL MSA
Pensacola, FL MSA
Richmond-Petersburg, VA MSA
San Antonio, TX MSA
Sarasota-Bradenton, FL MSA
Tampa-St. Petersbusrg-Clearwater, FL
MSA
Tulsa, OK MSA
West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL MSA

9. Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
3. College Towns (5)
Athens, GA MSA
Bryan-College Station, TX MSA
Charlottesville, VA MSA
Gainesville, FL MSA
Tallahassee, FL MSA
4. Medium (20)
Augusta-Aiken, GA-SC MSA
Birmingham, AL MSA
Charleston-North Charleston, SC MSA
Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill, NC-SC MSA
Cincinnati-Hamilton, OH-KY-IN MSA
Columbia, SC MSA
Greensboro--Winston-Salem–High Point,
NC MSA
Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson, SC MSA
Jackson, MS MSA
Jacksonville, FL MSA
Knoxville, TN MSA
Lexington, KY-IN MSA
Memphis, TN-AR-MS MSA
Nashville, TN MSA
New Orleans, LA MSA
Norfolk-Virginia Beach-Newport News,
VA-NC MSA
Oklahoma City, OK MSA
Roanoke, VA MSA
Wilmington, NC MSA

10. Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
5. Below Average (47)
Abilene, TX MSA
Albany, GA MSA
Alexandria, LA MSA
Amarillo, TX MSA
Ashville, NC MSA
Auburn-Opelika, AL MSA
Beaumont-Port Arthur, TX MSA
Biloxi-Gulfport-Pascagoula, MS MSA
Chattanooga, TN-GA MSA
Clarksville-Hopkinsville, TN-KY MSA
Columbus, GA MSA
Corpus Christi, TX MSA
Decatur, AL MSA
Dothan, AL MSA
Enid, OK MSA
Evansville-Henderson, IN-KY MSA
Fayetteville, NC MSA
Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers, AR MSA
Florence, SC MSA
Fort Smith, AR-OK MSA
Fort Walton Beach, FL MSA
Goldsboro, NC MSA
Greenville, NC MSA
Hattiesburg, MS MSA
Hickory-Morganton-Lenoir, NC MSA
Jackson, TN MSA
Jacksonville, NC MSA
Jonesboro, AR MSA
Killeen-Temple, TX MSA
Lafayette, LA MSA
Lake Charles, LA MSA
Lakeland-Winter Haven, FL MSA
Lawton, OK MSA
Little Rock-North Little Rock, AR MSA
Long View-Marshall, TX MSA
Lubbock, TX MSA
Lynchburg, VA MSA

11. Table 3. Metropolitan Areas in Regional Innovation Systems Cluster Groupings (cont.)
5. Below Average (47) (cont.)
Macon, GA MSA
Mobile, AL MSA
Monroe, LA MSA
Montgomery, AL MSA
Myrtle Beach, SC MSA
Odessa-Midland, TX MSA
Owensboro, KY MSA
Panama City, FL MSA
Pine Bluff, AR MSA
Rocky Mount, NC MSA
San Angelo, TX MSA
Savannah, GA MSA
Sherman-Denison, TX MSA
Shreveport-Bossier City, LA MSA
Sumter, SC MSA
Tuscaloosa, AL MSA
Tyler, TX MSA
Victoria, TX MSA
Waco, TX MSA
Wichita Falls, TX MSA
6. Low (18)
Anniston, AL MSA
Brownsville-Harlingen-San Benito, TX MSA
Danville, VA MSA
Daytona Beach, FL MSA
El Paso, TX MSA
Florence, AL MSA
Fort Myers-Cape Coral, FL MSA
Fort Pierce-Port St. Lucie, FL MSA
Gadsden, AL MSA
Houma, LA MSA
Huntington-Ashland, WY-KY-OH MSA
Johnson City-Kingsport-Bristol, TN-VA MSA
Laredo, TX MSA
McAllen-Edinburg-Mission, TX MSA
Naples, FL MSA
Ocala, FL MSA
Punta Gorda, FL MSA
Texarkana, TX-Texarkana, AR MSA

12. Table 4. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings,
Change in Change in
Cluster Grouping Employment Population
(%) (%)
A. Metro Counties
Outliers (32)a
62.26
44.27
High (58)
42.20
28.25
College Towns (13)
42.61
31.74
Medium (113)
34.51
20.27
Below Average (106)
26.88
14.69
Low (33)
24.27
17.87
a Number of metro or nonmetro counties in the cluster grouping.

13. Table 5. Changes in Aggregate Economic Activity
by Cluster Groupings,
Change in Change in
Cluster Grouping Employment Population
(%) (%)
B. Nonmetro Counties
Outliers (31)
High (40)
College Towns (24)
Medium (136)
Below Average (315)
Low (42)
Rural LMAs (349)

14. Table 6. Patents Per 1000 People by Southern Metropolitan
Area,
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Austin-San Marcos
4.28
2. Baton Rouge
3.71
3. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
2.66
4. Gainesville, FL
1.96
5. West Palm Beach-Boca Raton
1.75
6. Houston
1.52
7. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
1.49
8. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay
1.45
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
14. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
1.16
29. Florence
.79
31. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
.75
50. Charleston
.56
51. Columbia
.54
64. Augusta-Aiken
.39
82. Myrtle Beach
.31
104. Sumter
.17

15. Table 7. Total R&D Expenditures at Universities and Colleges, 1998-2000
Area
Total R&D
R&D Expenditures
Per Capita
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Bryan-College Station, TX
1,193,191,000
$7.81
2. Athens, GA
713,914,000
4.63
3. Gainesville, FL
893,001,000
4.09
4. Baton Rouge, LA
703,565,000
3.62
5. Hattiesburg, MS
388,843,000
3.46
6. Charlottseville, VA
410,689,000
2.56
7. Auburn-Opelika, AL
260,924,000
2.26
8. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
2,550,055,000
2.12
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
Columbia
305,927,000
$.57
Charleston
179,002,000
.33
21. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
306,074,000
.32
22. Augusta-Aiken
133,100,000
.28
54. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
36,745,000
.02
68. Myrtle Beach
1,638,000
.01
NR Florence
NR Sumter
Source: National Science Foundation

16. Table 8. Percentage of Metropolitan Labor Force in
Professional Occupations, 2000*
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Huntsville
10.1%
2. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
8.5
3. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay
8.1
4. Austin
7.7
5. Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington
6.3
6. Houston
5.9
7. Tallahassee
5.1
8. Atlanta
4.7
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
13. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hills
3.9%
31. Columbia
3.2
38. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
2.9
39. Augusta-Aiken
40. Charleston
2.8
69. Sumter
1.8
81. Myrtle Beach
1.6
87. Florence
1.5
* Professional occupations include Computer and Mathematical Operations (15-000); Life, Physical and
Social Science. Occupations ( ); and Architecture and Engineering Occupations ( )

17. Table 9. Share of Adult Population with College Degrees, 2000.
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Charlottseville
40.1%
2. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
38.9
3. Gainesville, FL
38.7
4. Bryan-College Station
37.0
5. Austin
36.7
6. Tallahassee
7. Athens, GA
34.1
8. Atlanta
32.0
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
10. Columbia
29.2%
19. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
26.5
23. Charleston
25.0
58. Augusta-Aiken
20.9
60. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
20.7
74. Florence
18.7
75. Myrtle Beach
99. Sumter
15.8
Source: U.S. Census, 2000

18. Table 10. Share of Adult Population with High School Diplomas
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Gainesville, FL
88.1%
2. Fort Walton Beach
88.0
3. Melbourne-Titusville-Palm Bay
86.3
4. Tallahassee
85.9
5. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill
85.4
6. Lawton, OK
85.2
7. Fayetteville, NC
85.0
8. Austin
84.8
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
11. Columbia
84.3%
40. Charleston
81.3
44. Myrtle Beach
81.15
52. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
80.5
66. Augusta-Aiken
78.9
93. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
75.4
99. Sumter
74.3
108. Florence
73.1
Source: U.S. Census, 2000.

19. Table 11. Venture Capital Investments in the South, by State, 1995-2005
Deals
Investments
(millions)
Per Capita
Texas
2154
$18,403
$ 883
Virginia
1098
8,340
1,178
Florida
833
8,037
503
Georgia
1026
6,834
835
North Carolina
869
5,755
715
Tennessee
273
1,921
338
South Carolina 87
1,089
271
Alabama
130
817
184
Louisiana 83
631
141
Kentucky 93
500
124
Oklahoma 67
446
129
Mississippi 28
119
Arkansas 26 68 25
Source: PriceWaterhouseCooper Money Tree

20. Table 12. Share of Establishments in Professional, Scientific,
and Technical Services Industries (NAICS 54), 1997
Leading Southern Metropolitan Areas
1. Miami – Fort Lauderdale, Fl
27.7%
2. Richmond – Petersburg, VA
14.1
3. Tallahassee, Fl
12.7
4. Austin-San Marcos
5. Atlanta
12.2
6. West Palm Beach – Boca Raton, FL
12.1
7. Huntington-Ashland, WVA-KY-OH
11.4
8. Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill, NC
South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
25. Augusta-Aiken
9.5%
40. Charleston
8.4
48. Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill
8.0
73. Greenville-Spartanburg-Anderson
7.1
76. Columbia
6.8
90. Sumter
6.2
102. Myrtle Beach
5.8
109. Florence
5.4
* Source: Economic Census
** NAICS 54 activities include legal advice and representation; accounting, bookkeeping, and payroll services; architectural, engineering, and specialized design services; computer services; consulting services; research services; advertising services; photographic services; translation and interpretation services; veterinary services; and other professional, scientific, and technical services.

21. Table 13. Entrepreneurial Growth Companies as a Share of
Business in Labor Market Areas,
Entrepreneurial Growth Companies
- Annual employment growth rate > 15%
- Employment growth > 100% for
Southern Metropolitan Areas
Labor Market Area
Companies
High Growth
Share
Austin
20,915
1,514
7.2%
Atlanta
69,279
4,479
6.5
Nashville
24,458
1,465
6.0
Pensacola
10,863
643
5.9
Raleigh
25,768
1,507
5.8
Little Rock
13,036
757
Charlotte
28,383
1,544
5.4
United States Average
4.7
Florence
12,091
567
Green.-Spart.-Ander.
22,771
1,049
4.6
Columbia
13,577
607
4.5
Augusta-Aiken
9,106
393
4.3
Charleston
12,350
507
4.1
Sumter
3,185
118
3.7
Source: National Commission on Entrepreneurship, 2001.

22. Table 14. Change in Utility Patent Activity 1992-2004, Southern States
Percentage
State Average Average Change
North Carolina
925
1830
+97.8%
Georgia
727
1319
+81.5%
Texas
3542
5995
+69.3%
U.S.
+60.4%
Kentucky
274
432
+57.5%
Alabama
262
390
+48.9%
Tennessee
560
770
+37.5%
Florida
1842
2471
+34.2%
South Carolina
426
564
+32.4%
Mississippi
114
151
Virginia
874
1117
+27.8%
Arkansans
127
156
22.8%
Louisiana
441
393
-11.0%
Oklahoma
572
476
-16.7%
Source: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, April 2005.

23. Figure 1. Ranking of South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
Rank Among Southern Metro Areas
Top 25%
(1-29)
G-S-A
Florence
Columbia
Charlotte
Charleston
Augusta-Aiken ?
(30-59)
(60-89)
Myrtle Beach
Bottom 25%
(90-117)
Sumter
Innovative
Activity
(Patents)
Human Capital
(College Graduates)
Entrepreneurial Support
(Professional Services)
Local Quality
of Life
Figure 1. Ranking of South Carolina Metropolitan Areas
Across Regional Innovation System Indicators

24. REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RESEARCH LABORATORY
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY

25. Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions (Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004)
Industry Clusters
Support clusters in new industries related to existing industrial base
Strengthen emerging/potential clusters
in the region

26. Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions (Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004) (Continued)
New Firms
Promote entrepreneurship and new firm
development
Attract cluster-related firms

27. Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions (Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004) (Continued)
Knowledge and Innovation
Develop cluster-specific technology centers
Attract branches of national research
organizations
Build up and attract new labor skills

28. Innovation Policies for Non-RIS Regions (Rosenfeld, 2002 and Tödtling, 2004) (Continued)
Networks
Link firms to local and external
knowledge providers
Technology transfer programs