There’s no shortage of debate on this one. But a new report (pointer via Tyler Cowen) by the intriguing combination of Harvard professor of Technology and Operations Management Robert D. Austin and Lee Devinand, a theatre dramaturg, shows there’s really no conflict:

[W]e examine the apparent conflict between artistic and commercial objectives within creative companies … We surface some assumptions that underlie such debates, compare them with findings from our research on creative industries, and identify three “fallacies” that sometimes enter into discussions of art in relation to money. This, in turn, leads us to propose a framework that can support more productive discussion and to describe a direction for management research that might help integrate art and business practices. We conclude that despite an inclination to take offense that often attends the close juxtaposition of art and commerce … the interests of art, artists, and business can be best served if more commerce enters into the world of art, not less.

Check out the other fascinating work on art, music, and management this team is doing.

Many economic development experts continue to insist that jobs are the key to economic growth. Attract the companies and the jobs and the people will follow? Consider this from a recent study by Harvard economist Edward Glaeser and collaborators.

[W]hich way does the causality run? Are skilled industries moving into an area because there are an abundance of skilled workers, or are skilled workers moving to areas because of skill-oriented industries?

While surely both phenomena occur, we think that the evidence supports the view that industries are responding to the area’s skill distribution more than the view that the skill distribution is responding to the area’s industries mix. For example, the share of the population with college degrees in 1940 can explain 35 percent of the variation in the skill mix of industries today. By contrast, the skill composition of the industries in the metropolitan area in 1980 can only explain seven percent of the variation in growth of the population with college degrees since that date. The complex two-sided nature of this relationship makes it difficult to accurately assess the direction of causality, but there are reasons to think that much of the industrial mix in the area is actually responding to the skill distribution.

Harvard competitive strategy guru, Michael Porter, lays it on the line in BusinessWeek:

The stark truth is that the U.S. has no long-term economic strategy—no coherent set of policies to ensure competitiveness over the long haul. Strategy embodies clear priorities, based on understanding the strengths we need to preserve and the weaknesses that threaten our prosperity the most. Strategy addresses what to do, but also what not to do. In dealing with a crisis, experience teaches us that steps to address the immediate problem must support a long-term strategy. Yet it is far from clear that we are taking the steps most important to America’s long-term economic prosperity.

More here. The economy is the new adminstration’s job one. The crisis provides the opportunity to move beyond patchwork and develop the kind of broad economic strategy Porter advocates. Can Obama and company deliver here?

Writing in the New York Sun, Harvard’s Ed Glaeser reviews Harm de Blij’s new book,“The Power of Place (h/t: Mark Thoma):

But the flat world experienced by the globe-trotting management consultant is only the wealthiest and most air-conditioned sliver of the globe … Place is powerful indeed. People born in America or Europe are much more likely to end up wealthy and healthy than people born in the developing world. Life expectancy in Sweden and Japan is over 80, while life expectancy in Zimbabwe is under 45. The success of New York reflects the power of place to foment creativity and productivity by speeding the flow of ideas.

In his book, Mr. de Blij addresses some of the most fundamental questions in geography: Are differences across space man-made or nature’s handiwork? Is globalization homogenizing the world, and is that a good thing? Should political power be held by large nation states or devolved to smaller geographic units?

If this were to pass, here is what I would consider:

1.
Instead of expanding the university into Alston, Harvard could create a
second campus in another state. Call it Harvard South. (Put it in a
better climate than Boston, and I would be one of the first faculty to
volunteer for the move.)

2. Transfer much of the endowment to Harvard South. Support Harvard North by slowly selling off land in Massachusetts.

3.
Eventually, make Harvard South the main campus, and Harvard North the
satellite. If Massachusetts state lawmakers remain hostile, close
Harvard North down entirely.

I have often wondered what the
efficient scale of a university is and, in particular, whether it would
be better to create a second Harvard with the university’s wealth than
to expand the first one. Maybe the Massachusetts state legislature will
give the powers-that-be at Harvard an incentive to consider more
radical expansion plans.

And if states and cities are willing to pony up billions for convention centers and stadia, and hundreds of millions in industrial incentives for factories, how much do you think they much come up with for a Harvard, or MIT, or Stanford, or Oxford relocation. Universities are already setting up foreign campuses. Trust me, it’s just a matter of time until this game gets big.