[the_ad id=”12142″]

A couple of weeks ago, the Globe and Mail published an op-ed “Beyond “the Next Silicon Valley”: Why Many Kinds of Economic Superpowers Matter” by Dalhousie University President Richard Florizone and MIT’s Scott Stern. It is, in my opinion, a better explanation of and argument for superclusters than anything the government itself has published, but it’s also a rebuttal (I think) to naysayers (like me) of the Supercluster concept, so I thought it worth reviewing some of the arguments here.

The piece starts out by recounting the basics of cluster theories: why and how industries (all industries, not just tech ones) cluster in geographic regions, how successful clusters can drive innovation and job growth, etc etc.  It then goes on to suggest that the Canadian Supercluster Initiative is a great idea for three reasons.  First, because it allows regions to building on existing industrial strengths; second, because it pushes for inclusive and effective cluster governance; and third, because the investments are big enough to have transformative effects.

It the ends with the following statement: Canada’s supercluster initiative is grounded in rigorous research about the drivers of economic development, but it is the responsibility of each supercluster to take advantage of this opportunity to design and focus their efforts in ways that will transform the foundations of their regional economies. It will be by building on our regional strengths – informed by the best clusters around the world – that we can become a stronger and more prosperous Canada.

Again, it’s a better argument than what Ottawa came up with.  It suggests clusters are natural economic developments rather than something that the brilliant minds in the Liberal Party came up with on their own because they are Just. So. Smart.  It doesn’t focus exclusively on tech.  It doesn’t make lunatic promises about a 56-fold returns on investment or make appalling claims about “Made-in-Canada Silicon Valleys”.  It assumes a regional development mission rather than pretend there is some kind of merit-based national competition which just so happens – LIKE MAGIC! – to result in one cluster being awarded per region.

(Contrary to any impression I may have given you, I don’t think spending regional development money on science/tech clusters is a terrible thing in and of itself.  I mean, as government industrial policy goes, this is probably less likely to be a waste of time than most other uses, like eternal subsidies for Bombardier.  It’s the hucksterism, exaggeration, lies, and self-congratulation of the Government’s presentation which I find objectionable.)

Unfortunately, I think there are a couple of holes left in this argument, which need to be acknowledged.  The first is the hey, this is totally normal, clusters are everywhere line.  Yes, it’s true clusters are everywhere, but my position concerning the Liberal supercluster plan isn’t an anti-cluster argument per se: it’s an argument that history isn’t exactly replete with examples of clusters being deliberately created through government seed-funding.

Now, one might insist, “remember, these Superclusters aren’t about creating things from scratch, they are about building on existing strengths”.  Well, sort of.  One can make that case pretty strongly about the Protein Supercluster in the Prairies.  And maybe you can make the case for the Oceans Supercluster in the Atlantic (though if you read their material, a lot of their case seems to boil down to: “the Norwegian Ocean industry is awesome!  Why can’t Atlantic Canada have something as cool as the Norwegian Ocean Industry?” – which suggests ambition and opportunity but not necessarily pre-existing strength).  As for the others: Quebec and Supply Chain Logistics?  British Columbia and Whatever the Hell the BC Digital Supercluster is Supposed to be Doing? (Seriously, last I heard they were throwing “preserving Indigenous Languages” into the mix as a “core element” in order to get the province to pony up some cash…a worthy aim, of course, but a long way from initial program goals).

Similarly, there is the issue of Supercluster governance.  I think the goals around governance that Florizone and Stern lay out in their piece – “inclusive and effective” governance – are excellent ones.  In fact, achieving this sort of governance would make for a great performance indicator for the Superclusters.  Sadly, though, it is not: instead, the approved indicators include some drearily unhelpful one-dimensional metrics like “number of companies participating” – a stat that is just itching to be juked).

In brief, it would have been great if Florizone and Stern had been left in charge of developing Supercluster policy, rather than whoever actually did it.  Certainly, we would have ended up with a much more sensible process.  But let’s not retroactively imbue the circus that led to the current policy with any common sense or dignity.  It was a maelstrom of sloppy, magical thinking and however benevolent the Government’s intentions, they need to be held accountable for the process.