Conference on “Centenary Canberra –Past, Present and Future” 20‐21 August, 2013, University of Canberra

Canberra’s Competitiveness in the National Context Dr Richard Hu [email protected] Globalisation and Cities Research Program ANZSOG Institute for Governance at the University of Canberra Major Contents

. Background and Purpose

. Urban Competitiveness: Concept and Approach

. Methods

. Results

. Discussion

. Further Research Background and Purpose

A national urban policy for a productive, sustainable and liveable future… Urban Competitiveness: Concept and Approach

. Urban competitiveness takes its conceptual roots in competitiveness for industries and firms (Krugman, 1993, 1996a; Porter, 1985).

. The proposition of territorial competitiveness was first applied to nations (Porter, 1990), and then extended to incorporate cities (Kresl, 1995; Kresl & Singh, 1994; Porter, 1995).

. Cities do not compete with one another: they are the locus for firms and enterprises which compete (Krugman, 1996a, 1996b).

. Cities and regions do compete, but not in the same way as commercial enterprises which compete for profit maximisation; cities and regions compete in more complex ways for more complex goals, such as investment, population, talents, funding for public infrastructure, and events like the Olympic Games (Porter, 1995, 1996).

. Though cities do not compete as firms do, some cities provide better environments than other cities for firms to do business (Boddy & Parkinson, 2004). . A city’s competitiveness is related to its mix of attributes for business operation (Begg, 1999).

. Urban or regional competitiveness is essentially about economic competitiveness, and is measured by economic success (Boddy & Parkinson, 2004; Budd & Hirmis, 2004; Kresl, 1995; Kresl & Singh, 1994, 1999, 2012; Rogerson, 1999; Turok, 2004).

. An explanatory approach: ‘outcomes’ and ‘inputs’ of urban competitiveness, in which the outcomes are the ‘indicators’ of urban competitiveness (e.g. GDP, employment, income, etc.) while the input factors are identified as the ‘determinants’ of urban competitiveness (e.g. productivity, innovation and infrastructure) (Begg, 1999; Greene, et al., 2007; Jiang & Shen, 2010).

. Importance of incorporating non‐economic dimensions into the conceptualisation and methodological approach of urban competitiveness, such as quality of life (Begg, 1999; Rogerson, 1999) or liveability (Ling & Yuen, 2010), urban governance (Shen, 2004), urban amenities (Florida, 2002), social cohesion (Ranci, 2011), and environmental sustainability (Bulkeley & Betsill, 2005; Petrella, 2000).

. An integrative approach to urban competitiveness to include economic, social and environmental dimensions (Jiang & Shen, 2010; Ng & Hills, 2003; Shen, 2004). Methods An explanatory and integrative approach:

Urban competitiveness = %∆ employment +%∆ population + %∆ income Adapted from (Kresl & Singh, 2012):

Where is the urban competitiveness index of city i (i = 1 to 18). Accordingly, is the vector of city I’s productivity, is sustainability measure, is liveability measure, is a dichotomous variable of capital city or non‐capital city (it is assumed that a city’s status of being capital city or non‐capital city impacts its performance in competitiveness), to are regression coefficients, and is the error term. Australian Major Cities

4500000 4000000 3500000 3000000 2500000 2000000 1500000 1000000 500000 0 Dimensions

&

Indicators Results Urban Competitiveness Index – Population growth

Perth Canberra‐Queanbeyan’s Melbourne Brisbane population growth between Cairns 2006 and 2011 (9.8%) was Toowoomba th Townsville the 9 fastest rate of Darwin Australia’s 18 major cities. Sunshine Coast Canberra-Queanbeyan Geelong Sydney Adelaide Hobart Albury-Wodonga Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Newcastle - Maitland Wollongong Launceston 0% 5% 10% 15% Urban Competitiveness Index –Employment growth

Perth Canberra‐Queanbeyan’s Darwin Brisbane employment growth Canberra-Queanbeyan Newcastle - Maitland between 2006 and 2011 Townsville (10.7%) was the 4th fastest Melbourne Sunshine Coast rate of Australia’s 18 major Adelaide cities. Hobart Sydney Geelong Wollongong Toowoomba Cairns Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Launceston Albury-Wodonga -2%0%2%4%6%8%10%12%14%16%18% Urban Competitiveness Index – Income growth

Canberra-Queanbeyan Perth Canberra‐Queanbeyan Darwin (8.2%) had the highest Sydney Brisbane proportional growth in Melbourne Newcastle - Maitland people earning a high Wollongong income of more than Adelaide Townsville $104,000 a year between Geelong 2006 and 2011. Hobart Toowoomba Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Cairns Albury-Wodonga Sunshine Coast Launceston 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% Productivity Urban Competitiveness Index – Workforce participation

Darwin Canberra – Queanbeyan had Canberra-Queanbeyan Townsville the second highest Sydney proportion of people in Melbourne Brisbane employment per head of Perth Cairns population (70.7%), of Adelaide Australia’s 18 major cities. Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Hobart Albury-Wodonga Launceston Wollongong Geelong Newcastle - Maitland Toowoomba Sunshine Coast 58% 60% 62% 64% 66% 68% 70% 72% 74% Urban Competitiveness Index – Research & innovation

Canberra-Queanbeyan Canberra‐Queanbeyan had Wollongong Hobart the highest share of people Geelong working in research and Melbourne Adelaide innovation related industries Toowoomba Darwin (5.9%). Townsville Launceston Brisbane Newcastle - Maitland Albury-Wodonga Sydney Perth Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Cairns Sunshine Coast 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% Sustainability Urban Competitiveness Index ‐ Transport

Sydney Brisbane Canberra – Queanbeyan Melbourne th Darwin ranked 7 of Australia’s 18 Perth major cities in the use of Hobart Canberra-Queanbeyan public and active transport Cairns (22.5%). Adelaide was the Wollongong Adelaide only state or territory capital Townsville Gold Coast - Tweed Heads with a lower usage. Geelong Sunshine Coast Launceston Toowoomba Newcastle - Maitland Albury-Wodonga 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% Urban Competitiveness Index – Ecological footprint

Perth Townsville Canberra – Queanbeyan had the th Darwin 7 largest ecological footprint of Sydney Brisbane Australia’s major cities at 6.59 Adelaide hectares per person per year. The Canberra-Queanbeyan Melbourne ecological footprint was Cairns calculated by the Australian Toowoomba Sunshine Coast Conservation Foundation to show Gold Coast - Tweed Heads the amount of land and resources Newcastle - Maitland Wollongong therein required to sustain an Geelong average individual resident for a Albury-Wodonga Launceston year. Melbourne and Hobart were Hobart the only state or territory capitals 02468 with a smaller footprint. Liveability Urban Competitiveness Index –Cost of living

Canberra-Queanbeyan Sydney Canberra – Queanbeyan was Perth Darwin the major Australian city Brisbane with the highest proportion Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Melbourne of homes paying off a Wollongong Townsville mortgage of more than Sunshine Coast $2,999 per month (15.2%). Newcastle - Maitland Cairns Adelaide Hobart Toowoomba Geelong Albury-Wodonga Launceston 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% Urban Competitiveness Index –Sense of community

Canberra-Queanbeyan Canberra – Queanbeyan was Toowoomba Albury-Wodonga the major Australian city Sunshine Coast with the highest proportion Hobart Launceston of residents who took part in Geelong Brisbane volunteer work or activities Adelaide (16.8%). Cairns Wollongong Darwin Townsville Newcastle - Maitland Melbourne Perth Gold Coast - Tweed Heads Sydney 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% Discussion

Where should Canberra be situated in the Australian urban landscape?

Smart city? Green city? Liveable city? Further Research

How does Canberra’s performance in the dimensions of productivity, sustainability, and liveability contribute to its competitiveness in the national context, and in the global context?