by  Christopher M. Cirillo

 

Abstract


 

Shortly after the end of World War II, key leaders in the state of North Carolina recognized the need to make some form of major investments to curtail the state’s fading economy. Out of this need was born the idea of creating a research and development park that could potentially leverage the science and engineering knowledge inherent in three of the state’s major universities; Duke University in Durham, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University in Raleigh. This paper focuses on the establishment of such an entity, Research Triangle Park (RTP) located in-between the three universities, and how this park has stimulated the economic growth of the adjoining regions. The intent is to demonstrate that Research Triangle Park has promoted a wide range of economic benefits to the areas of Durham, Chapel Hill, Raleigh, and Cary since its establishment primarily because it serves as the core of a world-class innovation driven economic cluster that has directly promoted an increased global flow of goods and services.

 

Key Words: Research Triangle Park, Economy, Innovation, Creativity, Durham-Chapel Hill, Raleigh-Cary, North Carolina, Metropolitan Statistical Area, Cluster, Patent

 

 

  1. I.          Introduction

In 1776, Scottish moral philosopher and economist Adam Smith forever changed the world’s view on the key factors that effectively drive a nation’s and by extension the world’s economy with the publication his seminal work on modern economic theory, An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Smith, in his treatise, articulated several beliefs that he felt were required in order to grow and sustain a nation’s wealth. Central to his theories was the belief that the flow of goods and services was absolutely required to sustain an effective economy and that anything that over regulates such flow or diminishes the inputs to the stream were detrimental to economic sustainability. To this end, much of Smith’s work concentrated on the factors that could potentially affect the dynamic nature of the production of goods and services (Library of Economics and Liberty).

Today, Smith’s ground-breaking theories are more relevant than ever given the rebirth of a truer global economy over the last several decades. The ability for cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas to be agile and creative in the face of global competition has never been more important. To that end, this paper investigates the steps that one region of the country pursued to adopt the fundamental principles that Smith so eloquently articulated all the way back in 1776. From a rather dire position in the global economy in the post-World War Two era, the region in North Carolina bounded by the cities of Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh banded together to create an economic entity, Research Triangle Park (RTP), that would allow this area to rise today to one of global competitiveness. For, without such a bold investment, North Carolina faced the prospect of watching the talented scientists, engineers, and technicians that were being produced by its three leading universities; Duke University in Durham, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University in Raleigh leave the state for greener employment pastures.

 

  1. II.        Birth of an Idea

In early 2008, the National Research Council (NRC) of the National Academies tasked its Board on Science, Technology, and Economic Policy (STEP) to undertake a study to help characterize the role that investments in forming science and technology themed research parks play in stimulating regional and national economies. In March of 2008, the STEP, along with the Association of University Research Parks (AURP), sponsored a global symposium entitled “Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices” recognizing that “a capacity to innovate and commercialize new high-technology products is increasingly a part of the international competition for economic leadership” and that “governments around the world are taking active steps to strengthen their national innovation systems” (Wessner, xiii).

Central to the final report summarizing the outcome of the symposium was the recognition that “shared facilities, coupled with geographical proximity, can facilitate the transition of ideas from universities and laboratories to private markets” (Wessner, xiii). This belief was highly consistent with the findings of an earlier 2007 report issued by the National Academy of Sciences/National Academy of Engineering/Institute of Medicine which concluded that “the United States must compete by optimizing its knowledge-based resources, particularly in science and technology, and by sustaining the most fertile environment for new and revitalized industries and the well-paying jobs they bring” (Rising Above, 4). The ultimate goal in asking the NRC’s STEP to investigate the relationship between research parks and the innovation and creativity associated with knowledge-based research parks that can lead to economic stimulation was to better understand current United States policies relating to these types of institutions and steps that are being taken by other countries to enhance their global competitiveness by supporting their own research parks.

To illustrate that the concepts and beliefs identified in the NRC’s STEP report are more than just theory, this paper explores the creation, establishment, and growth of one of the United States’ oldest research parks, Research Triangle Park (RTP), located in the heart of North Carolina. In addition to covering the history of the RTP, the paper will characterize the positive effects that the RTP has had on the region’s economy over the last several decades at both a local and global scale, while providing a summary of some of the negative aspects associated with RTP’s impact on the environment and infrastructure. Finally, the paper will summarize several of the key steps the RTP has planned and initiated to ensure continued success.

 

  1. III.      An Historical Perspective on the Economy of North Carolina

From an historical perspective, cities and their surrounding metropolitan areas have played a vital role in fostering regional and national growth, primarily through trade, for thousands of years. Cities, not the nations that they reside in, are responsible for the majority of global commerce. Throughout history, before the rise of the nation-state, trade along routes like the Silk Road that connected cities from the Mediterranean to the heart of China, or the “medieval network of maritime trading cities” that served to link “Northern Europe’s Hanseatic League,” cities served as an integral part to enabling the earliest global trade (Berube and Parilla 2). What is unique about the creation of the RTP in North Carolina is that unlike the market-driven growth experienced by most U.S. cities, the idea for the creation of a primarily knowledge-based economic enterprise without existing commercial support to drive economic growth had never been accomplished before.

So, what drove the need for such a unique venture in the years shortly after the end of World War II? The primary motivation was to support a southern economy that had started to become “very unstable” (Link, 2). Over the proceeding decades, the state of North Carolina had relied on three primary industries for the generation of revenue and source of jobs: the tobacco growth and manufacturing industry, the furniture industry, and the textile industry. Unfortunately, the sustainment of each of these three primary industries was now being threatened as furniture manufacturing was exiting the state and migrating to the northeastern U.S., textile manufacturers were experiencing stiff competition from Asian manufacturers, and the tobacco industry was losing jobs because of the introduction of more automated manufacturing processes combined with decreasing demand.

The loss of jobs in these three sectors along with North Carolina’s already poorly ranked per capita income was making it increasingly difficult to retain the state’s recent college graduates. In 1952, per capita income for the continental states was $1,639, $1,121 for the states in the southern part of the country, but only $1,049 in North Caroline (Weddle et al, 3). To compound matters, the majority of North Carolina’s economy consisted of low wage manufacturing jobs.  In response, members of the state’s academic communities initiated a dialogue in the early 1950’s with the state’s economic leadership in order to identify potential ways to rectify this bleak economic situation and attract new businesses to the state. From these discussions, the initial concept for the creation of a research park area supported by the regions three “triangle” universities, Duke University in Durham, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC-CH) in Chapel Hill, and North Carolina State University (NCSU) in Raleigh was born (Link, 2).

 

  1. IV.      The Founding of Research Triangle Park

Instrumental in the initial discussions to form a research park were the Treasurer of North Carolina, Brandon Hodges, the president of Wachovia Bank and Trust, Robert Hanes, and a local Greensboro builder, Romeo Guest, whom some credit with the initial idea to create such an entity. By 1954, the three had worked to secure the support of a number of influential members of the NCSU faculty and administration resulting in the school’s Chancellor, Carey Bostian to pitch the idea to then Governor, Luther Hodges. While not immediately being convinced of the value of the idea of forming a research park, Governor Hodges was willing to commission to study the concept. On January 27, 1955, William Newell, director of the Textile Research Center at NCSU delivered a report to the governor endorsing the idea of forming what at that time was referred to as the “Governor’s Research Triangle” (Link, 2).

After obtaining the support of the UNC-CH president, Gordon Gray and the Duke University president, Hollis Edens, the Governor formed the first official entity associated with the RTP, the Research Triangle Development Council. After a first year under the leadership of Robert Hanes, control of the council passed to UNC-CH sociology professor George Simpson, who was tasked with seeking out companies to come to the research park. While Simpson worked with the three universities to develop material to help promote the park, and eventually met with over 200 companies, it became clear that in the absence of a physical entity, the concept was not attractive enough to secure enough interest to locate in North Carolina (Link, 3).

In response, Governor Hodges and a variety of potential investors worked to secure land in the area between the three cities. Unfortunately, the required capital to secure all of the land required to establish the research park failed to be obtained, so in August of 1958, Hanes and Governor Hodges made probably the single most important decision related to founding the park when they secured the services of Archibald Davis of Wachovia Bank and Trust. For it was Davis that recognized that only by making the Research Triangle an entity for public service instead of for private gain would the park be successful in raising the needed development and operating capital (Link, 4). As a consequence of this recognition, the nonprofit Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina was created and over only a two-month period in late 1958 raised $1.425 million to acquire both the land needed to establish the park and create as a focal point for the park, the Research Triangle Institute. It would be the job of the Institute to conduct research for government, industry, and business in addition to serving as the home of the Foundation (Link, 4).

 

  1. V.        Growth of Research Triangle Park

The first major firm to move into the research park was the Chemstrand Corporation, which relocated from Decatur, Alabama to the park in May 1959. While the going was slow in attracting additional companies over the next five years, 1965 was a pivotal year for the park, when on January 6, 1965 it was announced that the $70 million National Environmental Health Sciences Center would be constructed in the Research Triangle Park by the U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Three short months later, International Business Machines (IBM) announced that it would build a 600,000-square foot research facility spread over 400 acres in the Park (Link, 5). Over the coming decades a host of companies, some world leaders and some small entrepreneurial start-ups, would help to make Research Triangle Park one of the greatest research parks in the world (Link, 5). Figure 1 provides an historic overview of the number of jobs that have been created as a function of time in the RTP along with a near-term projection on potential job growth. Additionally, the graph shows the growth in the number of research and development related firms that have occurred since the Park was established (Weddle, 105).

Finally, to cement the long-term existence and uniqueness of such a world-class research park, the president of the Foundation, Davis, worked in 1974 with the president of Duke University, Terry Sanford, and the president of UNC-CH, William Friday, and NCSU to create a “park within the park,” the Triangle Universities Center for Advances Studies, Inc. (TUCASI) (Link, 5). This move was facilitated by the Park becoming financially solvent during this period.  TUCASI was specifically designed to foster an environment where faculty and students from the three associated universities could come together and collaborated with the RTP’s scientists and engineers. To facilitate the creation of TUCASI, the RTP Foundation created a 120-acre campus within the RTP (Weddle et al, 5). In 1976, TUCASI won a competition to house the National Humanities Center and today encompasses a number of other world-class entities such as the Microelectronics Center of North Carolina, the North Carolina Biotechnology Center (NCBC), the National Institute for Statistical Sciences (NISS), the Statistical and Applied Mathematical Sciences Institute (SAMSI), the Borroughs-Wellcome Fund, and Sigma Xi (TUCASI: A Brief History, 2-3).

Today, Research Triangle Park is by far one of the largest research parks in the U.S. and ranks among one of the top parks in the world. Located on an approximately 7,000-acre development situated between the three cities of Durham, Chapel Hill, and Raleigh, RTP is home to more than 170 companies and employs over 39,000 full-time researchers (RTP Media Resources). An ongoing model of science and technology innovation and creation for decades, RTP is home to a combination of multi-national corporations, university derived businesses, and entrepreneurial financed start-ups working in the fields of agricultural biotechnology, biotechnology/life sciences, clean and green technologies, information technology, materials sciences and engineering, business and professional services, and financial and insurance activities. A map of RTP showing the location of a majority of the businesses in the Park plus a listing of companies by industry sector is shown in Figure 2.

 

  1. VI.      RTP’s Impact on the Economic Growth of the Research Triangle Area

As was previously discussed, the degree to which investments in research parks yield a positive return on investment and the policies that should be enacted to enable such investments is an area of national interest given the nature of today’s global economy. The theory being that the establishment of a high-technology research park should support the agglomeration or clustering of advanced research and development firms that will eventually lead to economic growth. In 2004, a study by Scott Wallsten argued that, in general, science based research parks do not usually has a large positive effect on the economic growth of an area. One of the few exceptions specifically mentioned in this report was the Research Technology Park in North Carolina (Wallsten, 1). Although this economic stimulation took a number of decades to be realized, RTP has had a substantial impact on the economic growth of the Research Triangle including Durham and its surrounding counties.

In its current state, RTP meets all of the conditions associated with satisfying the important concept of “geographically clustered economic activity” which was first developed in the late 1800s by economist Alfred Marshall and expanded upon by economists Kenneth Arrow and Paul Romer.  Arrow and Romer characterized the benefits that are accumulated for works, companies, and local economies into three “externalities,” including:

  • Input externalities: a geographic concentration of producers in a given industry that helps reduce costs through shared specialized services, shared infrastructure costs, and shared transportation costs;
  • Labor market externalities: a concentration of workers with specialized skills attractive to local companies. This concentration of skills also has the beneficial effect of increasing worker skills;
  • Knowledge externalities: the high concentration of interrelated activities in a limited geographic area facilitates the intentional and unintentional spread of information and knowledge (Berube and Parilla 10).

By choosing to make an investment in RTP, North Carolina as a whole, and specifically its Research Triangle region have greatly benefited. In order to characterize the positive impact that the RTP has had on the region, it is important to establish an understanding and definition of what the “entity” is that should be evaluated. While in the past, it was potentially acceptable to present key statistical information such as population size and Gross Domestic Product relative to just the incorporated portion of a major city, it is best today to characterize such information in terms of the total metropolitan area. Over the last fifty to seventy years, while there has been a large decline in most cities’ population, there has been a corresponding increase in the number of residents living in a city’s respective surrounding metropolitan areas. As identified above, it is vitally important today to be able to characterize the behavior of not only the core city, but the metropolitan area in order to characterize an agglomeration driven economy.

Fortunately, one is aided in this definition through the establishment by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of a set of accepted Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs). Standard definitions of metropolitan areas were initially established in 1949 by the precursor to the OMB, the Bureau of the Budget. According to their website, the U.S. OMB defines a MSA as “that of a core area containing a substantial population nucleus, together with adjacent communities having a high degree of economic and social integration with that core” (2011 National Data Book: Appendix II – United States Census Bureau). In order to qualify as a MSA, it must have at least one urbanized area of 50,000 or greater inhabitants. A graphic showing the geographical areas of the two MSAs, Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA and Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA, that encompass Research Triangle Park and the three associated universities is shown in Figure 3. Table 1 provides a listing of the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area broken down by its associated “component counties” with their corresponding populations as of 2009, while Table 2 shows the equivalent data for the Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA (2011 National Data Book: Appendix II – United States Census Bureau). Finally, Figure 4 shows the significant growth in the overall populations of both the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA and the Raleigh-Cary MSA from 1969 through 2011 (U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis). An initial comparison of Figure 1, showing the rate of growth in the number of jobs in RTP, with Figure 4, showing the overall rate of growth in the two MSA, indicates that there is a potential positive relationship in the peak growth rate experienced by both in the mid-to late 1980’s timeframe. While not all of this population growth is directly related to science and research related jobs in RTP, it can be argued that a large portion of this growth comes from the associated ancillary jobs, such as teachers, city works, police, and service sector jobs that help support RTPs employees.

Besides just an increase in overall population in the Durham-Chapel Hill and Raleigh-Cary MSAs, Figure 5 illustrates that a measurable increase in the per capita personal income of both MSA’s inhabitants was experienced from 1969 through 2012 with a slight drop in the 2007 to 2009 timeframe most probably associated with the Great Recession (U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis). Figure 6 shows that a comparable increase in the Gross Domestic Product was also experienced by the two MSA’s during this same period of time. This is significant as it reinforces one of Adam Smith’s basic tenants that economic flow, in this case as measured by an increase in products and services (GDP), is vital to the economic sustainability of a nation, and that in this case much of that flow can be attributed to the innovative nature of RTP and its associated universities (U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis).   It is also clear from Figure 7, that during the period from the late 1980s through 2005, the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA, along with the other RTP influenced MSA, Raleigh-Carey, experienced per capita personal income growth that far exceeded North Carolina as a whole and the national average (Weddle, 106). While not all of this growth can be solely attributed to the establishment and growth of RTP, it is clear that residents of the Research Triangle area greatly benefited economically from the creation of approximately 40,000 high paying research and technology specific jobs.

In addition to the 40,000 jobs created within the RTP, the area has experienced a number of direct and indirectly related economic benefits including construction jobs, real estate tax yields, sales tax yields and income tax yields. Additionally, studies have shown that since 1970, greater than 1,500 companies have been established in the Triangle Region as a direct result of supporting the work done by companies inside RTP and the three associated universities (Weddle et al, 7). What has enabled much of this growth is a fundamental shift in the types of companies that were established within RTP. Prior to the existence of RTP, less than 15% of the businesses in the counties around RTP; Orange, Wake, and Durham, were involved in what were designated as “New-line” industries. That is, industries dealing with electronics, communications, engineering and management services, chemicals, and business and education services. As RTP grew, so did the percentage of new-line businesses, from 30% in 1966 to 51% in 2005 (Weddle et al, 6). Much of the economic growth success of RTP and the surrounding area has been attributed not only the number of firms with RTP, but the nature of the businesses that those companies are involved in, thus allowing them to compete on a global basis.

Finally, data from the Brooking Institution’s Global Metro Monitor for the years 2012 and 2013 has been used to assess the Raleigh-Cary MSAs economic recovery on a national basis and the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA’s and Raleigh-Cary MSA’s economic performance on a global basis (Note: Metro Monitor national ranking data for the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA was not available as only data for the top 100 MSA’s in terms of population is currently produced).

The Brookings Institute specifically developed the Metro Monitor to allow for a more visual understanding of the economic recovery of major MSAs from the Great Recession. Although the recession was given an official end date of June, 2009, the U.S. has three million less jobs today than when the recession began toward the end of 2007 (Friedhoff and Kulkarni). From an economic recovery perspective, the Global Metro Monitor tracks and assesses the economic performance of the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas since the 2004 timeframe using for key metrics; total employment, unemployment, total output (GDP), and housing prices (Friedhoff and Kulkarni). The most recent March, 2013 data shows that the Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA (Figure 8) has experienced a relatively good recovery in term of overall economic recovery over the period 2004 – 2012. The Raleigh-Cary MSA is currently ranked 29th in terms of overall economic recovery, leading the Brooking Institution to conclude that the Raleigh-Cary MSA has fully recovered from a major economic depression. Paradoxically, while job growth for the area is very strong (ranked 13th nationally), unemployment in the area is still relatively high compared with many other major MSAs.

In addition to an assessment of national economic recovery, the Brooking Institution also ranks each of the top 300 global metropolitan areas in terms of economic growth data, including real GDP and employment change. Currently, the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA ranks 118th (Figure 9) in the world in overall economic performance, while the Raleigh-Cary MSA ranks 109th (Figure 10). While the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA shows improvement economic performance when compared with the period 1997 – 2007, the Raleigh-Cary MSA still has not returned to the level of economic performance that it demonstrated during the 1997 – 2007 timeframe (Istrate and Nadeau). Finally, Figures 11 through 14 provide further insights on the economic recovery of both of the MSAs. From Figure 13, it is clear that both MSAs have experienced positive employment and GDP per capita growth from 2011 through 2012. Conversely, from Figure 14 it can be seen that while both MSAs have improved from an employment change perspective relative to the rest of the country over the last couple of years, both areas are slightly lagging the rest of the U.S. in terms of GDP per capita change over that same time period.

  1. VII.    Patent Trending: An Additional Measure of Economic Stimulation

In February of 2013, the Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute conducted a comprehensive, first of its kind analysis of patenting activity and trends on a national scale (Rothwell et al). The report covers patenting trends on a regional level during the period 1980 up to 2012. The report focused on investigating the invention as a measure of economic growth while trying to establish an understanding of why certain areas are more creative and innovative than others.

The major findings of the report were:

  • The rate of patenting in the United States is at a historically level and has been increasing over the last several decades as shown in Figure 15;
  • The issuing of patents tends to occur in a small number of metropolitan areas. 92% of all U.S. patents are issued in just 100 metropolitan areas, while 63% are developed by individuals living in only 20 metropolitan areas;
  • High quality patents are found to be long-term stimulators of economic growth;
  • Metropolitan areas with a significant rate of patenting most often contain research oriented universities with graduate programs in the sciences;
  • Patents produced under U.S. government funded research activities tend to be of very high quality. (Rothwell et al, 1).

Given these findings, it is no real surprise to find that both the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA (40th of 358 MSAs) and the Raleigh-Cary MSA (19th of 358) both rank extremely high in terms of the average number of patents developed per year during the period from 2007 – 2011 (Patenting). Both of the region’s two MSAs have striven to develop tight relationships with their world-class research universities, while these schools had striven to develop and maintain close partnerships with the leading research and development companies in the Research Triangle area. All of this effort has clearly paid off in terms of producing an innovative and creative workforce that serves to stimulate the regional economy by making the firms they work for competitive on a global basis.

Figure 16 shows the relative number of patents produced per worker for most of the major U.S. metropolitan areas. Figure 17 shows the specific patenting activity for the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA in terms of several key indicators including the number of patents, patents/thousand jobs, patenting growth for the area relative to the entire U.S., and the top patenting companies in the area. Figure 18 shows the same information for the Raleigh-Cary MSA. Finally, Tables 3 and 4 list the top twenty patenting companies for the Durham-Chapel Hill MSA and the Raleigh-Cary MSA, respectively.

Potentially the most telling fact, as shown in Table 5, is that both of the MSAs associated with RTP are in the top twenty MSAs in America in terms of Patents per Million Residents for the period from 2007 – 2011 (Rothwell et al, 14). Another way to interpret this information is that if one viewed the productivity of the two RTP related MSAs as one joint enterprise, then the Research Triangle area would rank fifth overall on that same list, making the combined area on of the most powerful engines for innovation in the world.

 

 

  1. VIII.  Conclusions and Summary

From its humble beginnings in the mid-1950s to today, Research Triangle Park has experienced a world of change and growth, the majority of which has had an extremely positive economic effect on the Research Triangle area of North Carolina. Most of this success can be attributed to four primary factors:

  • Timing: the idea for the Park occurred during a period in which both private industry and state and local government saw the immense potential for significant investments in advanced research and development. The vision and faith that North Carolina’s leadership showed in sticking with the creation of such a unique economic entity is commendable;
  • University Partnerships: the linkage with the three surrounding world-class universities allowed the RTP to build excellent working relationships with the school’s scientists and engineers and also employ the best and brightest graduates of these universities. The formal establishment of a permanent academic entity, the TUCASI, also helped to play a significant role in cementing this relationship;
  • Clustering: the critical mass of diversified businesses with their highly skilled scientists and engineers has enabled RTP to form a knowledge-based cluster that has demonstrated the ability to leverage these skills in innovative and creative ways to sustain long-term economic sustainability and growth. As shown in the recent Metropolitan Policy Program study on patent trends, the two MSAs associated with the Research Triangle Park both reside in the top twenty for Patents per million residents (Rothwell et al, 14). This is a clear indication that the concentration of talent in the Research Triangle area is extremely effective at creating new ideas, which as the patent study indicates is essential for economic growth.
  • Commitment: there has been a long-term commitment on the part of both state and regional leadership that has allowed RTP to flourish (Weddle et al, 8). Without this kind of balanced leadership commitment between government and industry an economy runs the risk of either becoming stagnant or resorting to means that run contrary to a free trade economy.

While both MSAs clearly suffered during the most recent economic downturn, the Great Recession of 2008 that was initiated by “flawed government policies and reckless and unscrupulous personal and corporate behavior in the United States,” various assessments have concluded that both Durham-Chapel Hill and Raleigh-Durham have taken steps toward a healthy recovery (Stiglitz).

Clearly, beyond the economic benefit that RTP has provided to the area, the worth of the knowledge contained in the Research Triangle areas’ libraries and museums, the beauty in their orchestras, musical and theater companies, the spirit associated with their collegiate football, basketball, and other sports teams must all be accounted for lest we forget that the most important part of a city is the humans that walk their streets and parks. As Jane Jacobs noted in her monumental work on urban environments, The Death and Life of Great American Cities, “dull, inert cities, it is true, do contain the seeds of their own destruction and little else. But lively, diverse, intense cities contain the seeds of their own regeneration, with energy enough to carry over for problems and needs outside themselves” (Jacobs). It is clear that the cities of Durham, Chapel Hill, Raleigh, and Cary have all striven over the last several decades to be more than dull with the hope that their residents continue to do so.


Works Cited

 “Adam Smith”. Library of Economics and Liberty. 2008. Web. 7 April 2013.                         < http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/bios/Smith.html>

Berube, Alan, and Joseph Parilla. “Metro Trade: Cities Return to Their Roots in the Global Economy”. The Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program. 26 November 2012. Web. 30 March 2013.                                                                                                               <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2012/11/26%20metro%20trade/26%20metro%20trade.pdf >

Friedhoff, Alec, and Siddharth Kulkarni. “Metro Monitor – March 2013”. The Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program. 28 March 2013. Web. 14 April 2013.            < http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/metromonitor#M39580-recovery-overall-nv>

Istrate, Emilia, and Carey Anne Nadeau. “Global MetroMonitor 2012: Slowdown, Recovery, and Interdependence”. The Brookings Institution – Metropolitan Policy Program. 30 November 2012. Web. 14 April 2013.                                                                          <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2012/11/30%20global%20metro%20monitor/30%20global%20monitor.pdf>

Jacobs, Jane. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House, 2011. Print.

Link, Albert N., and John T. Scott. “The Growth of Research Triangle Park”. Department of Economics Dartmouth College. 2000. Web. 14 April 2013. <http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jtscott/Papers/00-22.pdf>

“Patenting and Innovation in Metropolitan America”. The Brookings Institute. 1 February 2013. Web. 20 April 2013. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

“Population: Estimates and Projections – States, Metropolitan Areas, Cities”. United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. n.d. Web. 13 April 2013. <http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/population/estimates_and_projections–states_metropolitan_areas_cities.html>

“Regional Data – Gross Domestic Product by Metro Area”. United States Department of Commerce – Bureau of Economic Analysis. 29 September 2011. Web. 13 April 2013.                                                                                                                                    < http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1>

“Rising Above the Gathering Storm: Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future”. Committee on Prospering in the Global Economy of the 21st Century: An Agenda for American Science and Technology, National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine. 2007. Web. 13 April 2013.                                                                                                                                    < https://download.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11463>

Rothwell, Jonathan, Mark Muro, and José Lobo. “Patenting Prosperity: Invention and Economic Performance in the United States and its Metropolitan Areas”. Metropolitan Policy Program, the Brookings Institute. 1 February 2013. Web. 20 April 2013.              <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/02/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell>

Smith, Adam. An Inquiry Into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations. Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982. Print.

Stiglitz, Joseph. Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010. Print.

“The 2011 Statistical Abstract. The National Data Book. Appendix II – Metropolitan and Micropolitan Statistical Areas: Concepts, Components, and Population”. United States Census Bureau, United States Department of Commerce. n.d. Web. 13 April 2013.        < http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/app2.pdf>

“The Research Triangle Park – Media Resources”. Research Triangle Foundation of North. 2011. Web. 13 April 2013.                                                                                    <Carolina http://www.rtp.org/about-rtp/media-resources>

“Triangle Universities Center for Advanced Studies, Inc.: A Brief History”. The Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina. n.d. Web. 13 April 2013.                                                                                                          <http://www.rtp.org/sites/default/files/TUCASI%20Background_0.pdf>

Wallsten, Scott. “Do Science Parks Generate Regional Economic Growth? An Empirical Analysis of their Effects on Job Growth and Venture Capital”. AEI-Brookings Joint Center for Regulatory Studies. March 2004. Web. 30 March 2013.                                  < http://regulation2point0.org/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/04/php0i.pdf>

Weddle, Rick L., “Research Triangle Park: Past Success and the Global Challenge”, Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices. Ed. Charles W. Wessner. Committee on Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century, National Research Council. Pages 103-109. 2009. Web. 28 March 2013.   < http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12546&page=127>

Weddle, Rick L., Elizabeth Rooks, and Tina Valdecanas, “Research Triangle Park: Evolution and Renaissance”. The Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina. June 2006. Web. 26 March 2013.                                                                                                          < http://www.rtp.org/sites/default/files/RTP_History_0.pdf>

Wessner. Charles W., Editor, Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices. Committee on Comparative Innovation Policy: Best Practice for the 21st Century, National Research Council. 2009. Web. 28 March 2013.                      < http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12546&page=127>

 

 

 


Appendix I – Figures and Tables

DP_ChrisCirillo-1

Figure 1. Number of Jobs, Number of Projected Jobs, and Number of Research & Development Firms Located in Research Triangle Park since 1960 through a 2016 projection. Source: Weddle, Rick L., “Research Triangle Park: Past Success and the Global Challenge”, Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices. < http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12546&page=127>

DP_ChrisCirillo-2

Figure 2: Map of Research Triangle Park and list of associated companies by industry sector. Source: Research Triangle Foundation of North Carolina. <http://rtp.org/sites/default/files/Map%20info%40rtp%202012%20industry_final_0.pdf>

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-3

DP_ChrisCirillo-4

Figure 3: The two major Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) associated with Research Triangle Park, the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA and the Raleigh-Cary, NC MSA. Source: U.S. Census Bureau.    <http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/metroarea/stcbsa_pg/Nov2004/cbsa2004_NC.pdf>

 

 

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-5

Table 1: Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistics Area population by county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011 – Appendix II. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/app2.pdf>

DP_ChrisCirillo-6

Table 2: Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistics Area population by county. Source: U.S. Census Bureau’s Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2011 – Appendix II. <http://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/11statab/app2.pdf>

DP_ChrisCirillo-7

Figure 4: Comparison of Population for the Durham-Chapel Hill Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area from 1969 – 2011. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. <http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1>

DP_ChrisCirillo-8

Figure 5: Comparison of the Per Capita Personal Income (Dollars) for the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area from 1969 – 2011. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. <http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1>

DP_ChrisCirillo-9

Figure 6: Comparison of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in millions of current year dollars for the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area from 2001 – 2010. Source: U.S. Department of Commerce’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. <http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTable.cfm?ReqID=70&step=1>

DP_ChrisCirillo-10

 

Figure 7: A Comparison of change in Per Capita Personal Income as measured by percentage comparison to the National Average from 1970 through 2005 for the state of North Carolina and select cities. Source: Weddle, Rick L., “Research Triangle Park: Past Success and the Global Challenge”, Understanding Research, Science and Technology Parks: Global Best Practices. <http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12546&page=127>

DP_ChrisCirillo-11

Figure 8: Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area economic recovery ranking among the top 100 largest United States’ MSAs as reported by the Metro Monitor for the March, 2013 timeframe. Source: the Brooking Institution’s Metro Monitor. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/metromonitor#M39580-recovery-overall-nv>

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-12

Figure 9: Global MetroMonitor 2012 Generated Economic Performance Ranking for the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area out of 300 metropolitan economies worldwide. Source: the Brookings Institution’s Metro Monitor. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3>

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-13

Figure 10: Global MetroMonitor 2012 Generated Economic Performance Ranking for the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area out of 300 metropolitan economies worldwide. Source: the Brookings Institution’s Metro Monitor. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3>

DP_ChrisCirillo-14

Figure 11: Global Metro Monitor November generated economic growth data from 2011 to November 2012 for the Durham, NC metropolitan area measured against the world’s 300 largest metropolitan economies in terms of comparison with their country’s real GDP per capita and employment change. Source: the Brookings Institution’s Global Metro Monitor. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3>

DP_ChrisCirillo-15

Figure 12: Global Metro Monitor November generated economic growth data from 2011 to November 2012 for the Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area measured against the world’s 300 largest metropolitan economies in terms of comparison with their country’s real GDP per capita and employment change. Source: the Brookings Institution’s Global Metro Monitor. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3>

DP_ChrisCirillo-16

Figure 13: Global Metro Monitor 2012 generated economic growth data from 2011 to November 2012 for the Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area measured against the world’s 300 largest metropolitan economies in terms of  real GDP per capita and unemployment change. Source: the Brookings Institution’s Global Metro Monitor. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3>

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-17

Figure 14: Global Metro Monitor November generated economic growth data from 2011 to November 2012 for Durham, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area and the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area measured against the world’s 300 largest metropolitan economies in terms of  comparison with their country’s real GDP per capita and employment change. Source: the Brookings Institution’s Global Metro Monitor. http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/global-metro-monitor-3

DP_ChrisCirillo-18

Figure 15: Timeline of innovation. Graph of patents granted to U.S. inventors per 1,000 U.S. residents by year of grant from 1790 – 2011. Source:  the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

 

 

 

 

 

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-19

 

Figure 16: Number of U.S. Patents granted per worker in 2011. Source:  the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-20

 

Figure 17: Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area summary of patent activity (by year of application) for the period 2007 – 2011. Source: the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

 DP_ChrisCirillo-21

Figure 18: Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area summary of patent activity (by year of application) for the period 2007 – 2011. Source: the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

 

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-22

 

Table 3: 22 Largest U.S. Patent assignees in the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2011. Source: the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

DP_ChrisCirillo-23

Table 4: 20 Largest U.S. Patent assignees in the Raleigh-Cary, NC Metropolitan Statistical Area in 2011. Source: the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2013/metropatenting>

 

 

DP_ChrisCirillo-24

 

Table 5: Top twenty Metropolitan Statistical Areas in in terms of Patents per Million Residents for the period from 2007 – 2011. The Raleigh-Cary, VC MSA ranks 12th and the Durham-Chapel Hill, NC MSA ranks 14th. Taken together, the Research Triangle region would rank fifth overall on this list with 2,284 patents per million residents over the period 2007 – 2011. Source: the Brookings Institute. <http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/reports/2013/02/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell/patenting%20prosperity%20rothwell>