In Britain and Scotland, there is sometimes the impression that government economic policies heavily favour urban areas. It is not unusual for regions to be precluded from certain schemes if they did not meet a given population target. For example, in Scotland, a Lighthouse forum earlier this year was about whether to limit creative industry development schemes to only cities like Glasgow or Edinburgh. 

The present day bias towards industry development in urban areas was largely the result of management research produced by Harvard Business School. Now widely accepted by policy makers worldwide, the idea that industry in general is best served when there is a group of practictioners huddling geographically together is not without its detractors. For example, there is the well-known phenomenon of established professionals leaving the congestion of cities for the higher quality of life out in the countryside. Demographers argue that it translates to a talent fluidity that places significant restrictions upon the theory by making cluster build-up in some sectors highly erosion prone. This is especially true in the creative industries where value is 'created' and not replicated, and an inspirational location is as important than having a mass of bodies to huddle up to.  

The key question for rural regions then becomes - Can we become ten thousand square miles of urban aggregation?
Probably not in the near future.

But can we reach critical mass without being an urban sprawl?
Definitely.

The argument of having a 'critical mass' as an advantage tends to be confused with having an urban environment as a pre-requisite. These are not the same things and this is a very important distinction for a region like the Highlands & Islands. Afterall, northern Scotland is already home to the likes of Whitbread nominated novelists, national composer laureates, and more film and music stars than you can shake a stick at. You can reach a critical mass in the creative scene without being an urban sprawl. Hence, it is useful to understand one of the seminal (and in many respects, sensible) theories behind the decision making processes behind the politicians and public sector, if only to point out the weaknesses and the misconceptions. The following is an excerpt from Michael Porter, a superstar amongst management theorists.

Today's economic map of the world is dominated by what are called clusters: critical masses - in one place - of unusual competitive success in particular fields. Clusters are not unique, however; they are highly typical - and therein lies a paradox: the enduring competitive advantages in a global economy lie increasingly in local things - knowledge, relationships, motivation - that distant rivals cannot match. Untangling the paradox of location in a global economy reveals a number of key insights about how companies continually create competitive advantage. What happens inside companies is important, but clusters reveal that the immediate business environment outside companies plays a vital role as well. This role of locations has been long overlooked, despite striking evidence that innovation and competitive success in so many fields are geographically concentrated.

To read the whole paper, visit http://polaris.umuc.edu/~fbetz/references/Porter.html