Theory and Practice in Private and Public Sector Spatial Planning

Learning city regionsDownloaded by [James Simmie] at 03:09 21 May 2012There have been, however, major differences in the ways in which learningnetworks have been developed in the two city-regions. In the case of Cambridge,much of the success in creating a learning economy has been led by the privatesector. The private sector, for example, has initiated and led the ‘CambridgeNetwork’. Local entrepreneurs started the network as a private businessnetworkingorganization. It is funded by their subscriptions rather than publicfunding. This kind of privately funded networking differentiates cities likeCambridge from those where networks have only been established as a result ofpublic funding (WF, 2006, p.10).In Cambridge, a distinctive style of networking has developed. It involves acombination of private sector leadership, networking and consultancy that is ableto take advantage of the research base provided by the University (WF, 2006, p.3). The economic success of the city-region has been led by networks ofentrepreneurs, consultants and scientists working in collaboration to create the socalled‘Cambridge Phenomenon’ (Segal Quince Wicksteed, 1985, 2000). Thesenetworks have been built organically and, so far, have been proved adaptable tochange (WF, 2006, p. 14).In contrast to Cambridge, such knowledge networks as have developed inSwansea have mostly been instigated by the public sector. They have alsoinvolved a higher proportion of public sector actors than in Cambridge. Oneexample of this is the South West Wales Knowledge Economy Steering Group.Although this is a private sector led partnership, its main actors are the local higherand further education institutions, local authorities and the WAG (2008, p. 148).This reflects the fact that many of the high-technology actors in the city-region arelocated in the public sector. They include the Blue-C life science supercomputer,the Institute of Advanced Telecommunications at Swansea University andexpertise in digital media at Swansea Metropolitan University. Private sectoractors include BT and their 21CN test bed at their Swansea centre (WAG, 2008, p.147). The WAG freely admits, ‘The challenge is to further develop . . . this sector’(WAG, 2008, p. 147).These two case study examples illustrate the radically different initial conditionsconfronting spatial policy-makers concerned with enabling the development oflearning economies and knowledge networks in leading and LFRs. The formertends to start with more knowledge intensive private sector actors than the latter.These actors may also take the lead in forming collaborative networks to servenational and international markets. The relative lack of competitive private sectoractors in LFRs is one of the major causes of their poor economic performance. Insuch conditions, spatial planners are hamstrung by their lack of powers andfunding to stimulate new entrepreneurial activities and to enable collaborativenetworking between them. This raises a major question mark over the degree towhich learning region policies based on the development of relevant private sectorknowledge networks and soft infrastructure can be employed to accelerateeffectively economic growth in LFRs.As noted above, connectivity is a key driver of economic growth in cityregions(Simmie et al., 2006). Despite the contribution of the ICT revolution todigital connectivity, all the TIMs, including the learning region version, arguethat the development of trust and the exchange of tacit knowledge through11