Territories as a subject of global competition
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31558/2519-2949.2023.3.2Keywords:
territories; global competition; territorial development strategies; economic activity of territoriesAbstract
The article is devoted to the analysis of the nature of territories as a subject of global competition. It was determined that solving the problems of territorial competitiveness research involves the need to avoid excessive emphasis on direct competition between territories in order to maintain a balance between competition and cooperation; recognition that productivity growth and, as a result, income growth is an important component of the likely development goals of the territory; determination that the achievement of socio-economic goals of the territory requires the development of internal democratic mechanisms necessary for the political process. The article proves that gradually in the genesis of the theory of territorial competitiveness, the issues of competition and competitiveness pass to the concept of attractiveness, especially at the level of subnational territories. It is determined that the attractiveness of the territories refers to the dual ability, firstly, to attract and maintain the population of the territory by offering it an appropriate standard of living and, secondly, to attract or create competitive activities. This is the result of an effective combination between the strategies and trajectories of local actors and the ability of the territory to define its specific offer that will distinguish it from others. Compared to territorial competitiveness, attractiveness refers to a more global strategy that aims not only at economic sustainability, but also at environmental and socio-cultural sustainability, based on the principle of "territorial capital". It is concluded that the components of the competitiveness of territories, as subjects of global competition, should include the ability of cities/regions/states: to attract and continue economic activity, to produce goods and services that meet the requirements of wider regional, national and international markets, to ensure a high level life for its citizens, compared to citizens of other countries, to produce and absorb innovations, to form competitive clusters, to ensure high labor productivity, and to provide institutional conditions for direct democracy and local decision-making autonomy.
References
Camagni, R. (1991) “Technological change, uncertainty and innovation networks: towards a dynamic theory of economic space.” In Camagni, R. (ed.) Innovation networks:spatial perspectives, Belhaven-Printer (London)
Cheshire, P. and Gordon, R. (1998) “Territorial Competition: some lessons for policy.” The Annals of Regional Science 32, pp. 321 –346.
Porter, M. (1999) “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition.” Harvard Business Review November-December, pp. 77-90
Shotar, M.M. (2005) ‘The attractiveness of Qatar to foreign direct investment, 1980 – 2002’, Applied Econometrics and International Development, vol. 5(3):117-132
Krugman, P. (1994) “Competitiveness: a dangerous obsession.” Foreign Affairs 74-2, pp. 28-44.
McFetridge, D. (1995) “Competitiveness: Concepts and measures.” Occasional paper - 5, Industry Canada
Yap, J. (2004) “A Note on the Competitiveness Debate.” Discussion Paper Studies Series No 2004-39, Philippine Institute for Development Studies
Lovering, J. (1999) “Theory lead by policy: the inadequacies of the New Regionalism.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23, pp. 379-396
Harvey, D. (2001) Spaces of Capital: Towards a Critical Geography, Routledge (New York).
Lever, F. and Turok, I. (1999) “Competitive Cities: Introduction to the review.” Urban Studies 36, pp. 791-793.
Reinert, E. (1995) “Competitiveness and its predecessors -a 500-year-cross-national perspective.” Structural Change and Economic Dynamics 6, pp. 25-47.
Storper, M. (1997) The regional world: territorial development in a global economy, Guilford Press (New York).
Porter, M.(1990) The competitive advantage of Nations, The Free Press (New York).
Porter, M. (2000) “Location, Competition, and Economic Development: Local Clusters in a Global Economy.” Economic Development Quarterly 14-1, pp. 15-34.
Fagerberg, J. (1996) “Technology and competitiveness.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 12-3, pp. 39-51.
OECD (1996) Industrial Competitiveness, OECD publications (Paris).
Porter, Michael E. (1995). ‘The Competitive Advantage of the Inner City’, Harvard Business Review, 73: 3, 55-71
Bristow, G. (2005). ‘Everyone’s a ‘Winner’: Problematising the Discourse of Regional Competitiveness’, Journal of Economic Geography, 5, 285-304., стор. 287
Radice, Hugo (2000). ‘Responses to Globalisation: A Critique of Progressive Nationalism’, New Political Economy, 5: 1, 5-19
Sudgen, Roger and Wilson, James R. (2005). ‘Economic Globalisation: Dialectics, Conceptualisation and Choice’, Contributions to Political Economy, 24, 13-32
Ohmae, K. (1995). The End of the Nation State: The Rise of Regional Economies, London: HarperCollins.
Scott, Allen J. (1998). Regions and the World Economy: The Coming Shape of Global Production, Competition and Political Order, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Davies, H. and Ellis, P. (2000). ‘Porter’s Competitive Advantage of Nations: Time for a Final Judgement?’, Journal of Management Studies, 37: 8, 1189-1214.
Lall, S. (2001a). Competitiveness, Technology and Skills, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Aiginger, K. (2006). ‘Competitiveness: From a Dangerous Obsession to a Welfare Creating Ability with Positive Externalities’, Journal of Industry, Competition and Trade, 6, 161-177.
OECD (1992). Technology and the Economy: The Key Relationships, Paris: OECD.
Schoenberger, E. (1998). ‘Discourse and Practice in Human Geography’, Progress in Human Geography, 22: 1, 1-14.
Camagni, R. (2002). ‘On the Concept of Territorial Competitiveness: Sound or Misleading?’, Urban Studies, 39 (13), 2395-2411
Beccatini, G., Bellandi, M., Dei O., Fabio G. and S. (2003). From Industrial Districts to Local Development: An Itinerary of Research, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
World Bank (1999). World Development Report 1999/2000, Oxford: Oxford University Press, стор. 227
Seers, Dudley (1969). ‘The Meaning of Development’, International Development Review, 11: 4, 2-6.
World Commission on Environment and Development (1987). Our Common Future: Report of the World Commission on Environment and Development, Annex to United Nations General Assembly Document A/42/427 – Development and International Co-operation: Environment, August.
Di Tella, Rafael and MacCulloch, Robert (2008). ‘Gross National Happiness as an Answer to the Easterlin Paradox, Journal of Development Economics, 86:1, 22-42.
Pitelis, C. (2003). ‘Supply-side Strategy for Productivity, Competitiveness and Convergence for the EU and the CEECs’ in Marinova, S. T and Marinow, M. A. (eds.), Foreign Direct Investment in Central and Eastern Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.
Branston, J. R., Rubini, L., Sugden, R. and Wilson, J. R. (2006). ‘The Healthy Development of Economies: A Strategic Framework for Competitiveness in the Health Industry’, Review of Social Economy, LXIV: 3, 301-329.
Layard, R. (2006). ‘Happiness and Public Policy: A Challenge to the Profession’, The Economic Journal, 116: March, C24-C33.
Frey, B. and Stutzer, A. (2002). ‘The Economics of Happiness’, World Economics, 3: 1, 1-17.
Cowling, K. (2006). ‘Prosperity, Depression and Modern Capitalism’, Kyklos, 59: 3, 369-381
Prescott, E. C. (2004). ‘Why do Americans Work so much more than Europeans?’, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Research Department, 321.
Lucas, R. E. (2003). ‘Macroeconomic Priorities’, American Economic Review, 93: 1-14.
EUROPEAN COMMISSION (1999) Sixth Periodic Report on the Social and Economic
OECD (1999a) The OECD Territorial Reviews: a conceptual framework. Territorial Development Service, DTPC, November.
https://www.kearney.com/industry/public-sector/global-cities/2022
