2012年--城市規(guī)劃外文翻譯--城市競爭力和美國大都會中心

1、<p>　　中文9900字，英文6600單詞，3.4萬英文字符</p><p>　　出處：Kresl P, Singh B. Urban Competitiveness and US Metropolitan Centres[J]. Urban Studies, 2012, 49(2):239-254.</p><p><b>　　畢 業(yè) 設 計</b>&l

2、t;/p><p><b>　　外 文 翻 譯</b></p><p>　　學 院：建筑學院</p><p>　　專 業(yè)：城市規(guī)劃</p><p><b>　　姓 名：</b></p><p><b>　　學 號：</b></p&

3、gt;<p><b>　　指導教師：</b></p><p><b>　　完成時間： </b></p><p><b>　　【英文原文】</b></p><p>　　Urban Studies 49 (2012) 239–255</p><p>　　作者：Pet

4、er Kresl and Balwant Singh</p><p><b>　　字數(shù)：6605</b></p><p>　　Urban Competitiveness and US Metropolitan Centres</p><p><b>　　Abstract </b></p><p>　

5、　In this paper, the urban competitiveness of 23 major US cities is examined. The methodology allows the obtaining of results that are not available to other methodologies. Several determinants of urban competitiveness ar

6、e identified that are statistically verifiable and it is possible to show how both these determinants and the competitiveness of 23 US urban economies have changed during the past two decades. The results are presented i

7、n a manner that will be of use to urban decision-makers and p</p><p>　　The study of urban competitiveness has taken off during the past two decades (see the Appendix, Table A2). At the outset, most researche

8、rs were committed either to Michael Porter’s (1990) focus on the competitiveness of nations or to Paul Krugman’s (1993) micro-economic focus on the firm. One of the authors remembers approaching a US foundation that was

9、 advertising itself as the primary supporter of research on competitiveness, with a proposal for a study of urban competitiveness—only to be to</p><p>　　This focus on urban competitiveness is due to at leas

10、t three factors. First, there has been a reduction in the policy capability of national governments as a consequence of, among other things, the emergence of supranational entities such as the European Union, a plethora

11、 of multinational and bi-national trade agreements, and the fiscal difficulties of most governments. Secondly, the fact that sub-national entities such as states, provinces and regions are torn between the demands of rur

12、al/agri</p><p>　　Even in Porter’s famous‘diamond’, three of the four points are contingent upon, or heavily affected by, policies enacted, and assets created, by local governments (Porter, 1990, p.72).</p

13、><p>　　More generally, competitiveness is important to local authorities because of the exposure their economies have to distant markets and competitors due to the cost- and distance-reducing consequences of t

14、echnological change. Globalisation is also opening markets throughout the world to flows of goods and factors of production—labour, capital, technology and raw materials. Cities must be competitive to attract and to ret

15、ain the talented and educated labour force that the industries of the coming </p><p>　　From the outset, there have been different approaches taken to the process of describing and determining how competitive

16、 individual cities or urban economies (hereafter, cities) actually are, in relation to each other, and to the determination of the most effective policies that city leaders can implement. We do not argue that one approac

17、h is preferable to any other, but each does offer different insights to those who have to make decisions about urban economic strategic policies and initiatives</p><p>　　In this paper, we will use a methodol

18、ogy that we developed for an earlier article in this journal (Kresl and Singh, 1999) to give an empirical analysis that will identify fundamental, statistically verified determinants of urban competitiveness. This appro

19、ach generates results that are more objective than those obtained using either of the two other methodologies discussed here. Since this is the third such study we have done using this methodology, we are also able to sh

20、ow how the relative com</p><p>　　Methodological Approaches to Urban Competitiveness</p><p>　　There are essentially four distinct methodological approaches to the analysis of urban competitivene

21、ss. Each has its own attractiveness and shortcomings.</p><p>　　In one approach, cities are rated in accordance with several variables that are asserted to be of importance. This is often done with the anal

22、yst making an assumption as to what economic specialisation or structure will be of most importance to a city in the contemporary economic environment. Recently, the most popular assumption has been that the competitive

23、 city must be a city of high-tech or research-intensive production (Maskell and Törnquist, 2001; and Lever, 2002). The cities are then ra</p><p>　　A second approach has been that of benchmarking in whi

24、ch a set of cities is ranked in accordance with a large number of variables, without an assertion as to which specialisation is the preferred one. In this approach, it is argued that all of the variables are contributor

25、y to a city’s competitiveness without priority necessarily being given to one subset of them. The most ambitious of these benchmarking studies is that by Ni Pengfei of the Chinese Academy of Social Science (Ni and Kresl

26、, 201</p><p>　　One of the difficulties in benchmarking is the validity of some of the variables included. Not all convey what they are assumed to convey. In the US, one of the prime examples of this is the

27、use of patents registered. These data are readily available, so there is a temptation to include them. However, in the US it is impossible, without examination of thousands of individual patent registrations, to know how

28、 the patent registered relates to the locus of research activity which it is purported </p><p>　　A third approach is that of a structural analysis. Negrey and Zickel (1994) classify cities according to pos

29、itive or negative changes in population and manufacturing employment and put cities in one of six types, such as deindustrialising, innovation or new services centres. Markusen (1996) uses 4–6 characteristics to place

30、cities in one of three types—hub-and-spoke, satellite industrial and state-anchored districts. Finally, Pollard and Storper (1996) identify three activity types of cities—</p><p>　　The fourth approach is two

31、 studies of the competitiveness of a large number of US cities, we have published on previous occasions, utilising a rather different methodology. The first study was done for an OECD conference on globalisation and ur

32、ban economies (Kresl and Singh, 1994) and the second was published in this journal (Kresl and Singh, 1999). The first step in this methodology is that of selecting a small set (three) of variables that could serve as gen

33、eral indicators of urban competiti</p><p>　　In the first Kresl–Singh study, we noted that urban competitiveness is a composite of economic and strategic determinants. The latter include governmental effectiv

34、eness, urban strategy, public–private-sector co-operation and institutional flexibility. We sent to mayors’ offices to gain information about these aspects and strategic plans were obtained. Unfortunately, the data deve

35、loped from this exercise could not be put in a form that would make them comparable with, or as reliable as, the data</p><p>　　The Research</p><p>　　In the first two studies, the variables we se

36、lected to be indicators were the growth over a 5- or 10-year period of: manufacturing value added, retail sales and a set of professional services. Retail sales indicate the degree to which the city is experiencing growt

37、h in population and/or personal income and is considered by non-residents to be an attractive place to come for culture, recreation, shopping and, in general, an urban experience. Professional services are required if

38、the city is to </p><p>　　These three variables do not explain the ranking of MSAs, but rather are used to generate the ranking. They are selected because they are, as stated earlier, logically congruent wit

39、h economic competitiveness and because of the strength of their discriminant loadings. This is the final step in the methodology in which statistical verfication rather than assertion is used. Causation of urban competit

40、iveness will be given by the determinant variables, discussed later.</p><p>　　In the present study, we have used the same methodology, but we have reconsidered the use of manufacturing value added as an indi

41、cator of urban competitiveness and have decided to replace it, for two reasons. First, the revival of manufacturing is no longer as central to urban competitiveness as it was in earlier decades for almost all cities. The

42、 cities in our study were dominated by their strength in 19th-century industry; today, manufacturing is one of several strategic options for them. Seco</p><p>　　In its place, we have decided to use the growt

43、h in payroll per employee. Our aversion to using income or employment as general indicators of urban competitiveness is that neither captures accurately what is needed. Measures of income include retirement income, trans

44、fers and other items that do not relate to income derived from productive activity. Employment can be declining in a city in which a traditional labour-intensive industrial activity is no longer competitive, but in which

45、 a new high-te</p><p>　　The growth of payroll per employee variable captures wages and salaries from all productive activity, per worker, and its rise over a period of time will give one indication of the d

46、egree to which the city or urban economy is experiencing higher productivity and can be considered to be competitive relative to other similar entities. In the environment of today, it is not conceivable that union press

47、ures are forcing up salaries in absence of increases in productivity, and often not even then. Th</p><p><b>　　Urban </b></p><p>　　competitiveness = % Δ payroll per employee </p>

48、;<p>　　+ % Δ retail sales </p><p>　　+ % Δ professional services</p><p>　　The period used for the growth of each of the indicators was 1997–2002. Using this equation, the ranking of 23 lar

49、ge US metropolitan statistical areas is presented in Table 1. The data are for MSAs rather than for cities since competitiveness attaches to the urban economic region rather than just to the city itself. The city and th

50、e surrounding area that makes up the MSA are symbiotic in that one could not exist effectively without the other. Earlier, the MSA was thought to be the city and its </p><p>　　A few things should be noted ab

51、out this ranking. First, there are some clear surprises in the placement of many of the MSAs. Favourites of some, such as Boston and San Francisco, do not fare well, while others such as Kansas City and Pittsburgh do une

52、xpectedly well. In the case of San Francisco, this is because the MSA data do not include San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, which means that Silicone Valley is excluded. This may not meet the requirements of some research

53、ers, but the result for San F</p><p>　　Secondly, this approach to evaluating cities according to their relative competitiveness stresses movement over time; that is, successful achievement of percentage gro

54、wth in the three indicators—retail sales, professional services and payroll per employee. It accepts that this can be achieved via any of a number of paths or strategies and simply values improving the general economic s

55、ituation of the residents of that urban economy.</p><p>　　Thirdly, the ranking does not privilege the economies that are favoured by most of those who advocate policies to enhance the competitiveness of an i

56、ndividual city or of cities in general—typically prescribing some aspect of high-technology production, learning, creativity, the information-communication sector, bio-pharmaceuticals, nanotechnology and so forth. Rathe

57、r, it accepts the notion that the end-result of a competitive city should be that of realising the aspirations of the residents of </p><p>　　Table 1. Urban competitiveness ranking of 23 US MSAs, 1997–2002<

58、;/p><p>　　Table 2. Changes in competitiveness, major US metropolitan areas, by region, between 1992–97 and 1997–2002</p><p>　　The Rise and Decline of a City’s Competitiveness</p><p>　　

59、One of the enduring questions of strategic planners is whether a city is dominated by its geographical or regional location. That is, do all cities in a region rise or fall because of region-specific characteristics? Thi

60、s was analysed in our 1999 study and we present results here from our more recent analysis. The changes in position for each of the cities for 1992–1997 to 1997–2002 is presented in Table 2, with the cities grouped into

61、 five US regions: the Industrial Triangle, the Pacific Coast</p><p>　　Figure 1 shows the average gain or loss in the competitiveness ranking for the MSAs in each region. The results differ somewhat from thos

62、e of the earlier 1999 paper. In that paper, during 1977–87 to 1987–92, MSAs in the industrial triangle gained 8 positions, on average, where in this study, for 1987–92 to 1997–2002, they are essentially unchanged; and th

63、e centre rose by 4 positions, while here the gain is 5.5 positions. It was also the case that MSAs in the Pacific Coast, North East and South l</p><p>　　Determinants of Urban Competitiveness</p><p

64、>　　Rankings do give some cities bragging rights, but are not all that interesting analytically. However, once we have this ranking we can then move to the more important part of the analysis, that of ascertaining the

65、specific determinants of urban competitiveness; that is, the answer to the question: ‘Why is city x more competitive than city y’? A regression analysis was conducted, with the results given in Table 3. These variables

66、have been demonstrated statistically to be determinants of urban c</p><p>　　The signs for all of the determinant variables are positive. “Labour force/finance, insurance and real estate” and “l(fā)abour force/r

67、esearch centres” are seemingly perverse as the results indicate that neither the FIRE component of the labour force nor research centres in relation to the labour force are positive for competitiveness. This does not co

68、me as a surprise because, in the first study, in 1994, a variable that was similar to Labour force/FIRE, Engineering, administrative, research and ma</p><p>　　The transport infrastructure has become importan

69、t for urban competitiveness, whereas it was important only for the relatively skilled EARM (engineering, accounting, research and management) component of the labour force in the 1999 study. The city’s endowment in cul

70、tural institutions has been a determinant of urban competitiveness in each of the three studies, partly because it attracts visitors to the city and partly because it is important in attracting and retaining educated/s

71、killed worke</p><p>　　Finally, the growth in manufacturing value added is shown to be a determinant of urban competitiveness. This variable indicates that the manufacturing sector is expanding or that it is

72、moving from low to high value added activities, presumably related to increasingly technology-intensive production. </p><p>　　We have been able to do a regression analysis of the determinants of one of the i

73、ndicators of competitiveness so as to obtain additional second-tier determinants of urban competitiveness—the percentage of the population, 25 years of age and older, who have attained a university education. This regres

74、sion exercise gives city leaders additional information as to which policy initiatives are likely to have a positive impact on the city’s competitiveness. The results of this analysis are presented</p><p>

75、　　Table 4. The determinants of %BA BS 25+:%BABS25+=-44.613+0.027x9+0.651x10+0.169x11+1.408x12</p><p>　　How Urban Leaders Can Use This Analysis</p><p>　　For these results to be of use to decision

76、-makers and planners in the individual MSAs, all of the determinants must be presented in a form that highlights the specific competitive strengths and weaknesses of that MSA. We do this in Table 5. Here, we present two

77、sets of determinants: the primary determinants that explain the urban competitiveness ranking; and the secondary determinants that explain the educational attainment of the population of that MSA. Two explanatory comment

78、s are required. Th</p><p>　　With these caveats, what understanding can an MSA leader gain from Table 5? It has been argued that, for effective strategic planning, decision-makers must understand how their MS

79、A stands in relation to others that might stand in competition with it (Kresl, 2007, ch. 2). In isolation, something the MSA has put in place may make leaders feel they have gained some competitive advantage when, in re

80、ality, what they have done just keeps the MSA in the same competitive position since other MSAs have</p><p>　　Fundamentally, the response of city leaders to the information in Table 5 should not be that of

81、 focusing on the ranking, trying to move up a step or two, but rather to use the rankings for each determinant to make tangible, objective improvements in specific areas of relative strength and weakness. The position of

82、 the MSA in the rankings table will take care of itself.</p><p>　　How the Determinants of Urban Competitiveness Have Changed over Time</p><p>　　Finally, since these three studies of urban compet

83、itiveness have been done over three decades, we can note the changes there have been in the explanatory determinants. The determinants are presented in appropriate groupings in Table 6. Four appeared in all three studies

84、 and eight were found in only one period. Some of the determinants—specifically, fiscal, regulatory and political climate, state capital stock and EARM—were available for only one or two of the periods and one, growth in

85、 MVA, appe</p><p>　　First, location in the Sun Belt, the band from Virginia through to southern California, ceased to be of importance in the third period. This could be reflective of a fundamental change th

86、at occurred as globalisation dramatically altered the competitive situation of urban economies in the US and elsewhere. The Centre became the principal region of strength in the US and transport emerged as a determinant

87、 of importance. Secondly, it is also noteworthy that ‘softer’ determinants, such as health ca</p><p>　　Table 6. Determinants over the three periods</p><p>　　Final Comments</p><p>　　

88、We opened this paper by noting that there were different methodological approaches to the study of urban competitiveness and that each had its own advantages. Without commenting on the advantages or disadvantages of the

89、other two approaches, we would like to finish by highlighting what can be accomplished using our methodology. First, our ranking of cities is done by utilising our Kresl–Singh methodology in which three variables that w

90、e assert are reliable indicators of urban competitiveness ar</p><p><b>　　Notes</b></p><p>　　1. We use data for the MSA, rather than for the city, because the interaction of economic

91、actors extends beyond the city proper. It is difficult to think of the city and its suburbs as belonging to separate economies. One could even argue that an area larger than the MSA should be used, such as the Italian ar

92、ea vasta but comparable data are not available for larger US areas.</p><p>　　2. This information was gained from a long-practising patent attorney who said that there is no reliable relationship between the

93、place the patent was registered and the place where the research was actually conducted. One would have to examine thousands of patent registrations to get the first level of understanding and then have confidence that t

94、he place of research was accurately recorded. Furthermore, even some users of this information for US states recognise that the data are not useable a</p><p>　　3. Source: Gaquin and DeBrandt (2007).</p>

95、;<p><b>　　【中文翻譯】</b></p><p><b>　　字數(shù)：9908</b></p><p>　　城市競爭力和美國大都會中心</p><p>　　Peter Kresl和Balwant Singh</p><p><b>　　【摘要】</b>&l

96、t;/p><p>　　本文對美國23個主要城市的競爭力進行了調查評估。這種方法可以獲得其他方法很難得出的結論。城市競爭力的幾個決定因素是顯著的，它的顯著性是統(tǒng)計可以證實的，而且它顯示了這23個美國城市經濟的決定因素和競爭力在過去的二十年已經發(fā)生了改變。從某種意義上來說，這項發(fā)表的研究成果可以被城市決策者和規(guī)劃師所借鑒和參考。同時，這項研究也是前兩個研究主題的延續(xù)。</p><p>　　城市競爭

97、力的研究已經在過去的二十年里已經開始(see the Appendix, Table A2)。起初,大多數(shù)研究人員要么關注于Michael Porter (1990)所研究的國家競爭力，要么關注于Paul Krugman(1993)所研究的該公司微觀經濟。其中一位記者同意一個美國基金會的意見，認為廣告本身作為研究競爭力的主要支持者，并且城市競爭力研究的結果只是認為城市本身對提高城市競爭力沒有作用。不久之后，經合組織舉辦了一個會議，主題為

98、“城市和新的全球經濟”(OECD, 1994)，同時這次會議發(fā)表了一篇關于“有競爭力的城市”的問題(Urban Studies, 1999)。隨后歐洲城市組織(2002)宣布歐洲是一個網絡城市。城市已經成為競爭力主要的現(xiàn)實所在地。</p><p>　　關注城市競爭力是由于至少三方面的因素。首先,國家政府在制定政策方面能力的減弱，是國家實體如歐盟的出現(xiàn)導致的結果,除此之外,大量的跨國和兩國的貿易協(xié)議,以及大多數(shù)政府

99、財政困難方面的原因。其次,地方政府實體的事實,如國家、省市和地區(qū)之間左右為難的要求，農業(yè)和城市農村經濟利益意味著城市經濟體可以不依靠地方政府基礎設施項目提供融資和政策,他們需要提高他們的競爭力,考慮到競爭的農村地區(qū)的要求。第三,在所有的工業(yè)化國家,和很多人一樣,我們已經看到了重新振作的活動家市長和其他市政領導人意識到他們采取行動的必要性,如果他們的城市經濟是實現(xiàn)它的城市居民居民未來的愿望。實際上,我們可以認為,這國家的競爭力只不過是復合