I would challenge some of your positions on Priority #2. Removing all barriers internal trade barriers will have negative impacts, especially in the smaller jurisdictions. You state "We should not be competing internally to attract talent from other provinces through zero-sum internal competitions".
Sure. We shouldn't be competing internally for talent, but reality is we absolutely do! And the smaller jurisdictions usually lose out. Those differing policies for attracting investments help offset some of the network effects of the more populous regions.
If we flatten policy differences, how do we offset the network/agglomeration effects that lead to most investment going to certain regions more so than others?
Nation building takes more than purely economic optimization.
Interesting points, thanks for this. You're right that making a uniform policy landscape promotes agglomeration of ecosystems - but most of the research on the topic suggests that this is pretty much inevitable and that you're better of accepting and building policy that takes advantage of it than fighting it. Dan Breznitz get into this in his book "Innovation in Real Places" and does a great job laying out the tradeoffs - worth a read if you have not already. I touched on this issue previously as well, though it might be deserving of a deeper dive: https://www.caninnovate.ca/i/150476287/are-the-most-innovative-companies-being-supported-regardless-of-their-technology-industry-or-location
It comes down to the question of whether to double down on strengths or to try to shore up weak points. Canada mostly does the latter (and that applies at all levels, right down to individual academic grants). I obviously tend to prefer the former, but it does come with the consequences you mention.
In that case (agglomeration), how do we get buy in from provinces? How do we ensure equitability without further growing dependance on straight equalization (especially when it's already so acrimonius)?
That said, the word "inevitable" is a bit like "never" in my books ;)
That's fair - I tend to overstate things and should probably caveat the language somewhat.
That said - concentrated ecosystems are mostly good for innovation, in the sense that a density of talent and capital and experience tends to be a self-reinforcing thing. Just spitballing here, but where the provincial level is concerned, regional sectoral focuses make a lot of sense - Agtech in the Prairies, Oceans++ in Atlantic, QC and Ontario are already pretty well established as Quantum hubs, etc. We see that kind of sectoral concentration in the US a lot - mostly accidental there, I think, but there's no reason it could not be deliberate policy. Public sector money that conditionally follows private has a lot of power in directing investment priorities.
In other words - embrace agglomeration because fighting it is mostly pointless in my view, and play to regional strengths in directing sectoral focus for the actual points of agglomeration.
I would challenge some of your positions on Priority #2. Removing all barriers internal trade barriers will have negative impacts, especially in the smaller jurisdictions. You state "We should not be competing internally to attract talent from other provinces through zero-sum internal competitions".
Sure. We shouldn't be competing internally for talent, but reality is we absolutely do! And the smaller jurisdictions usually lose out. Those differing policies for attracting investments help offset some of the network effects of the more populous regions.
If we flatten policy differences, how do we offset the network/agglomeration effects that lead to most investment going to certain regions more so than others?
Nation building takes more than purely economic optimization.
Interesting points, thanks for this. You're right that making a uniform policy landscape promotes agglomeration of ecosystems - but most of the research on the topic suggests that this is pretty much inevitable and that you're better of accepting and building policy that takes advantage of it than fighting it. Dan Breznitz get into this in his book "Innovation in Real Places" and does a great job laying out the tradeoffs - worth a read if you have not already. I touched on this issue previously as well, though it might be deserving of a deeper dive: https://www.caninnovate.ca/i/150476287/are-the-most-innovative-companies-being-supported-regardless-of-their-technology-industry-or-location
It comes down to the question of whether to double down on strengths or to try to shore up weak points. Canada mostly does the latter (and that applies at all levels, right down to individual academic grants). I obviously tend to prefer the former, but it does come with the consequences you mention.
In that case (agglomeration), how do we get buy in from provinces? How do we ensure equitability without further growing dependance on straight equalization (especially when it's already so acrimonius)?
That said, the word "inevitable" is a bit like "never" in my books ;)
That's fair - I tend to overstate things and should probably caveat the language somewhat.
That said - concentrated ecosystems are mostly good for innovation, in the sense that a density of talent and capital and experience tends to be a self-reinforcing thing. Just spitballing here, but where the provincial level is concerned, regional sectoral focuses make a lot of sense - Agtech in the Prairies, Oceans++ in Atlantic, QC and Ontario are already pretty well established as Quantum hubs, etc. We see that kind of sectoral concentration in the US a lot - mostly accidental there, I think, but there's no reason it could not be deliberate policy. Public sector money that conditionally follows private has a lot of power in directing investment priorities.
In other words - embrace agglomeration because fighting it is mostly pointless in my view, and play to regional strengths in directing sectoral focus for the actual points of agglomeration.