By Frank Waeltring, presented at the 18th TCI Global Conference, Daegu, 2015.

1. Overcoming simplistic
„urban vs. rural“ and
„social vs. economic innovation
distinctions
Frank Waeltring
Parallel Session 2.1: Cluster Models Worldwide. Unique Features, Common Challenges

2. Promoting competitive
territorial Living Spaces
Overcoming simplistic
„urban vs. rural“ and
„social vs. economic innovation
distinctions
18th TCI Conference in Daegu, 3.-6. Nov. 2015
Frank Waeltring, www.mesopartner.com

3. ❖ MY KEY MESSAGE:
❖ There is a Risk of taking a too strong cluster
and agglomeration approach when we want to
promote innovative living spaces!
Macro policies
Micro world
Meso.Inst.
Territorial change

4. The Rural-Urban Differentiation
❖ Classification by the OECD
❖ five types of regions:
❖ Predominantly Urban (PU),
❖ Intermediate Close to a city (INC)
❖ World Bank (2009)
❖ A classification of spaces
❖ Intermediate Remote (INR)
❖ Predominantly Rural Close to a city (PRC)
❖ Predominantly Rural Remote (PRR).
❖ Place neutral vs. place-based international approach discussion
❖ agglomeration advantages of cities vs. space matters/local unique advantages
/„creative space making“

5. Rural-Urban Divide in Europe
❖ Europe
❖ Still high difference between
rather urban or rural based
population in Europe
❖ Trend in all countries towards
urbanization
❖ Population increase in large cities,
population loss in medium-sized
towns
❖ bridging function of medium-sized
towns to rural areas gets weaker
❖ Economic development efforts in
cluster promotion focuses more on
vibrant agglomeration centers

6. Rural-Urban Divide in Germany
❖ Germany
❖ Large cities grew around 2,8%
between 2008 and 2013
❖ In medium-sized towns
population decreases
❖ Even stronger population
decrease in rural areas

7. Vicious circle of medium-sized cities and rural areas
❖ Loss of employment opportunities
(employment rate)
❖ Migration (nr. of working population)
❖ Less local purchasing power (income)
❖ Less demand for local products (turn over
of local businesses)
❖ Loss of tax incomes (budget revenues)
❖ Loss of welfare of community
❖ Increase of running costs (infrastructure,
health, supporting institutions)
❖ further closing of shops and businesses

8. Innovative strategies
❖ „Smart city“, Smart region“, „Future
region“ etc.
❖ a region as a living space with its
unique diverse advantages
❖ rural and urban areas as one
competitive space that requires the
promotion of different kinds of
innovation
❖ search for inclusive strategies for
rural and urban sustainable economic
development
❖ requirement to combine economic
and social innovation promotion

9. Stereotype example from Germany
❖ 3 medium-sized towns joint
forces in structural change
process
❖ challenges & potentials:
❖ closing of mine, atom-power station,
military base, automobile sector
❖ potentials: tourism, mobility, decentralized
energy system, conversion, creation of
technology region
❖ Cooperation beyond administrative
boundaries
middle centre
(e.g. Rheine)
middle centre
(e.g. Lingen
etc. )
middle centre
(e.g.
Ibbenbüren
etc. )

10. The success in creating new innovation space will depend on
the city’s ability to follow a dynamic dual- innovation strategy
by creating a highly attractive living and innovation space
Dual =
rural
and urban
areas
as one space

11. Weaknesses of current perspectives
middle centre
(e.g. Rheine)
middle centre
(e.g. Lingen
etc. )
middle centre
(e.g.
Ibbenbüren
etc. )
Focus on burning issues, mainly
conversion and infrastructure, not
innovation
Lack of a clear living space
orientation with different priorities
Lack of involvement of their rural
environment as factors of
attractiveness and innovation
Joint but isolated
approach

12. Social
lens
Econo-
mic
lens
Environ-
ment.
lens

13. Examples of living space combinations
Cooperation
between medium
town cities
Application of
innovations in
rural areas
Economic
development
Green/social
development
Strengthening of a local/regional
innovation system with stronger
SME orientation and start-up
activities
Innovative competence networks
e.g. in climate-friendly technologies,
construction etc.
City Innovation Labs
energy-friendly renovation
of suburbs and villages
New service delivery models
e.g. in the health sector
Organizational development
promotion for NGOs, social and
business organizations to increase
efficiency and innovation orientation
Promotion of creative industry
settlement in rural areas
Knowledge transfer between innovative and less-
innovative enterprises in the countryside
Promotion of creative freelancers e.g.
with Co-working spaces, matching platforms
innovation and info centers
Increase education in the countryside
through e.g. village academies, mobile
laboratory spaces, life-long learning for
entrepreneurs & employees
Coaching initiatives to assure basic
services like small shopping cooperatives in
villages, to restructure social organizations
and social clubs
Mobility projects (e.g. car sharing, e-
buses, self-sufficient villages, mobile
health centers
Promotion of new business models (e.g.
in ecological agricultural production,
sustainable tourism, creative industries etc.)
Rural Impact Labs

14. My key message
❖ „Promotion of creative economies and spaces require new lenses (beyond the
agglomeration lens) “
❖ Consideration of a living space approach increases potential to combine
innovation potentials
❖ Learnings between cities and rural areas can be very rich and provide us with new
perspectives and increase of sustainable competitiveness

15. Thank you for your attention !
❖ Frank Waeltring, fw@mesopartner.com, www.mesopartner.com