Chapter 16
Attractiveness of Territories and Territorial Intelligence: Indicators1
16.1. Introduction
Globalization, a phenomenon supposed to break down borders and make distances disappear, brings attention back to the idea of “territory”, not as an element of cultural differentiation but as an element of competitive differentiation. Globalization has resulted in a polarization of economic activities into agglomerations, districts, or clusters, depending on the theoretical angle taken in discussing the matter. Globalization is not, therefore, a sort of homogenization but results in the creation of competition between territories. This new factor means that territories must be “attractive”, and competitive intelligence (CI) can be used to help them achieve this goal.
The time when simply raising awareness of a territory was sufficient to make it attractive is now past. It is difficult, if not foolish, to attempt to “sell” a territory before increasing its visibility and readability, making it economically, socially, and territorially coherent [CAM 05]. Before this, CI, and territorial intelligence (TI) in particular, has an essential role to play in showing that an attractive territory is a reasoned construct regrouping competitive actors to respond to the complexification of the international environment and to the concerns of the “society of knowledge”.
The notion of territory, in the economic sense of the term, has been interpreted in extremely varied ways during different periods, from “state” to “region” to “localized system” [BRY 06]. For the classical economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo, the territory, in the state-region sense of the term, is the source of differences and serves as a basis for the commercial specialization of countries1. Other actors focus on explaining industrial localization and the spatial concentration of activities, such as Marshall [MAR 90] for industrial districts or Perroux [PER 50, PER 55, PER 61] for centers of growth and development. These authors consider the territory more as a market, a space for production, transactions and profit creation — thanks to scale economies and externalities — rather than as a reasoned construction. More recently, with the development of geographic economy [FUJ 99], the territory has become not just a place for the agglomeration of activities but a place for the accumulation of knowledge and an endogenous source of growth. We thus move from an extensive vision of the territory to a more localized reading of economic activity. With globalization and the multiplicity and heterogeneity of actors, the notion of territory takes on a certain analytical relevance. Understanding how a territory develops becomes a major concern and generates two legitimate questions for research: what is the “attractiveness” of a territory, and how can this “attractiveness” be measured?
The aim of this chapter is to provide a response to these questions and to clarify the logic of attractiveness of a territory associated with TI. First, we will look at the theoretical basis for this attractiveness. We feel that this will be found in the concept of “territorial value”. Second, we will attempt to identify relevant indicators for territorial attractiveness and propose a TI approach destined to ensure the durability of this attractiveness.
16.2. Attractiveness and value of a territory: elements of analysis
An attractive territory, be it a state, a region, a county, a rural area, an urban center, or even a town, is able to attract businesses and capital for industrialization, modernization, growth, and prosperity. In such cases, we speak of “productive attractiveness”. This may be brought by the presence of foreign companies, by more local actors or a combination of the two. The attractiveness of a territory takes on a more social and residential dimension when we take into account the ability of a territory to accommodate various populations [GAU 05]. We feel that the attractiveness of a territory will be “fuller” and more durable if it combines these two aspects.
Before going further, we must establish the position of attractiveness in relation to competitiveness. The two terms are fairly close, and both are forms of results. However, competitiveness is “instant” and resumes performance ex post (parts of the market, degree of openness); attractiveness applies not just to the intrinsic quality of the territory (offer) but especially to the way in which this offer is suited to the needs and projects of actors. In other terms, competitiveness validates the potential of a territory (natural and constructed resources), while attractiveness validates the choice of localization of actors. A territory will become more attractive by attracting and harnessing resources and revenues from external sources.
Attractiveness is, in fact, the fruit of a process of synergizing heterogeneous actors. It owes its durability and coherences to an organized and well thought out construction. The key to analyzing the attractiveness of a territory is understanding the distinction between creating and harnessing wealth (section 16.2.1). In this context, TI contributes greatly to understanding the mechanisms of attraction (section 16.2.2).
16.2.1. Attractiveness of territories: creating and harnessing value
We must distinguish between attractiveness based on attracting companies to a territory, on the one hand, and the attractiveness that comes from the capacity to valorize the territory which results from harnessing resources on the other. We thus go from a logic of value creation to a logic of harnessing value.
16.2.1.1. Using attractiveness to create value
The attractiveness of countries has been a particular subject of study in international economics to understand the implications of implantations of offshoots of foreign companies2 or foreign direct investment (FDI). According to Dunning [DUN 93], three advantages must be present simultaneously for FDI to occur: ownership advantage, including all the elements of superiority of a company in relation to its competitors; localization advantage, relating to the advantages offered by a host territory to foreign companies; and internalization advantage, which makes the FDI more interesting from a strategic point of view than a simple market transaction (subcontracting)3. Among these three advantages, the localization advantage has taken on increasing importance in the current context of globalization.
This localization advantage was first seen from the angle of natural resources. A territory is attractive because it has exploitable natural resources, reliable infrastructures (telecommunications, ports, airports, roads), an available qualified and productive workforce, technologies, public services, and, more generally, a favorable socioeconomic and political environment. Attractiveness in this way is based on what a territory has to offer. Criteria relating to demand and the potential for growth reinforce the localization advantage of an area. A company investing in a territory wishes to develop parts of the market in this territory. The size and growth of the market, the tastes and preferences of consumers, and their per capita income are major factors in FDI in a territory. Attractiveness is thus linked to demand.
The densification of international competition pushes companies to adopt an efficiency seeking strategy, combining cost optimization with the exploitation of new leads. In this context, on top of the advantages already mentioned, the legislative environment, macro-economic and institutional stability, and the presence of local and international competitors creating external and network effects all contribute to the attractiveness of a territory [FAB 06, ROD 03]. Attractiveness is carried by constructed advantages. The move from natural to constructed advantages gives each territory a potential margin for manoeuver in drawing the contours of its attractiveness. Thus, a territory will be attractive if it is able to welcome FDI, implying that companies wish to invest in the territory. There is an implicit relationship of seduction and retention which tempers the attractiveness of a territory by business opportunities offered to companies, their aversion to risk, and more generally the “image” put forward by the territory.
This idea acts as a basis for most attractiveness indicators [CUS 08, ERN 08a, ERN 08b, ERN 08c]. However, an extraverted reading based on the capacity to welcome foreign businesses is not sufficient to measure the attractiveness of a territory. We must consider all actors, without distinctions based on provenance, and envisage the territory as a complex socioeconomic architecture validated not only by the choices of companies but also by local and immigrant populations. Publications on the subject all too often forget that territorial attractiveness is based on dual foundations: attractiveness for businesses and attractiveness for populations (residents and tourists). At this point, CI, and TI in particular, plays an important role in helping territories to respond to the renewed challenge of attractiveness.
Attractiveness is considered from the perspective of the choice of localization of companies, so jobs, and not residency. The “production” dimension is highlighted at the expense of the “consumption” aspect. Although this approach is important, it remains limiting. Use of economic base analysis can allow us to surpass these limits.
16.2.1.2. Using attractiveness to harness value
The notion of attractiveness for harnessing value has its origins in the theory of economic bases, developed by Cantillon in around 1725 and, more recently, by Sombart [SOM 54]. Using the example of a fortified medieval village, Sombart first distinguishes a population group with exterior revenues due to wealth, authority, or practicing a particular trade (taxes, rents, allocations, and industry) [KRU 68]. These are the “Städtegründer” or town founders. This population category — the “base” — will be able to employ other individuals in their service or make use of the services of independent workers, seen as “passive” individuals or “secondary founders”. Sombart divides this group into two categories: the “unmittelbare Brotnehmer” (direct breadwinners) and the “mittelbare Brotnehmer” (indirect breadwinners). The first group is made up of servants and employees of the “founders”, whereas the second group is made up of independent workers (traders, bankers, transporters, craftsmen, etc.). Sombart deduced that the larger the base, the more it will be able to generate, through a multiplication effect, urban growth, and the concentration of skills, showing, in passing, that the growth of the town is based on the development of services.
Thus, originally, economic base theory is built on the distinction between a local residential economy and an external economy. Local economic development consists of developing the territory by attracting businesses, “indirect or derived” jobs, but also migrants who will add to the base by bringing in revenues from outside. Economic base theory is particularly interesting nowadays when looking at the effects of migration [GON 06]. Over the last 10 years, in industrial countries, we have observed a disconnection of the territories where wealth is produced and those where the possessors of this wealth reside. This dissociation removes an entire aspect of attractiveness from the territory, as the aim of attractiveness is not just to produce value but also to harness value produced elsewhere through individual migrations (residents, workers, and tourists) [DAV 08].
One of the main difficulties is thus to quantify human and financial circulation between territories, linked to harnessing value. As Davezies indicates [DAV 08, p. 55]: “the economic reading of a territory remains exclusively dependent on the representation of a territory supporting activities and generating revenues, and not on a territory supporting populations with revenues which may be independent of local activity”. In this way, TI can contribute to understanding attractiveness.
16.2.2. TI and attractiveness: measuring the value of a territory
For Bruneau [BRU 04, p. 31], TI is “the capacity for anticipation, the mastery of all forms of information, and the organized use of networks of influence and actions by elected representatives and territorial executives to benefit the territory for which they are responsible”. Bruté de Rémur [BRU 06, p. 93] distinguishes two levels of TI: the territorialization of CI, which consists of the local application of CI measures taken at national level without distinguishing between actors (businesses and local government), and intelligence based on the territory, an “autonomous” action taken at local level “for the determination of specific objectives and the implementation of actions specific to the space concerned, in accordance with policies adopted at larger, higher levels”.
Gaucherand [GAU 05], taking a different approach, identifies three levels of TI:
– Territorial CI, which consists of “creating products and leading CI services for actors involved in economic innovation”. This may take the form of pooled watch platforms or the installation of a CI portal (sectorial syntheses, competence mapping, etc.), for example.
– Strategic TI, which consists of creating strategic watch infrastructures hosting permanent diagnosis tools (dashboards, development analysis, identification of strong tendencies, and major changes).
– Management of territorial communities, particularly in the domain of information and communications technology (ICT) (digital territories) or more generally by motivating actors through the creation of social links.
From these various and non-exhaustive points of view, we retain the fact that there is no stable definition of TI. One thing, however, is certain: TI cannot be reduced to the local transposition of national CI, to a simple watch policy [BER 06], or to territorial marketing. It always involves a strategic and prospective dimension while using CI tools [FRA 08].
From a TI perspective, a territory is attractive not only because of its natural and/or created resources but because it offers the following possibility resources:
– diagnosing and taking account of what exists (competences, advantages, resources, etc.);
– expertise on and valorization of the territory. This involves understanding local production dynamics, innovations, and, more generally, socioeconomic relationships, which generate synergies and give flesh to the emergence of a localized social capital. This relational aspect, often based on networks and information pooling, reduces opportunism, and consequently incertitude, and may facilitate the emergence of a learning and knowledge sharing process [BER 06, CAM 05];
– anticipation and determination of priority axes and establishment of federating projects. This applies to the establishment of local governance, bringing together public actors (local public administrations, communities), institutions and private actors (businesses) responsible for identifying the needs of actors, offering projects and proposing solutions [CAM 05];
– creation of a strategy to ensure the durability of attractiveness by seeking to understand ongoing transformations, anticipate ruptures and threats, and seize opportunities. This relates to the facilitation of renewal of the economic fabric in the medium and long term and to its inclusion in a system of international competition between territories.
The attractiveness issue consists of bringing together the actions of heterogeneous actors, promoting their complementarities/interdependences and revealing synergies, without losing sight of a durable development project [PEL 08]. In the next section, we will see that a TI approach allows the introduction of a new model for action and decision within a territory to serve aims of attractiveness.
16.3. Attractiveness and implementation of a TI approach
The articulation between territorial dynamics, population dynamics, and company dynamics must be at the heart of the construction of a TI approach. This is why we propose the implementation of a participative approach to the construction of territorial attractiveness, with true coproduction of attractiveness by all involved (section 16.3.2). This coproduction of territorial attractiveness is based on the creation and sharing of decision assistance tools among actors. This supposes genuine investment in an information database, a tool for shared anticipation (section 16.3.3). Beforehand (section 16.3.1), we will show the necessity of looking at the criteria of territorial attractiveness, as there is no definite response on the choice of relevant indicators, as shown by the example of the Ile-de-France (IDF), a region with a particular attachment to the notion of its own attractiveness.
16.3.1. Territorial attractiveness: comparison of studies on the IDF region
The question of criteria of attractiveness may be tackled in various ways, depending on the size of the territory and its geographic situation, and in practice, the response is found in a “bundle” of interconnected variables. Without attempting to provide exhaustive coverage of the question, we will examine the matter of criteria through a number of recent studies carried out on the IDF region.4
For regional development agency (ARD) [AGE 05, p. 5], attractiveness, or “the capacity of a region to attract and retain all types of resources, whether human, financial or technological”, is seen through five main components: the analysis of the IDF region, based on surveys carried out by various organizations (DATAR, DIACT, Cushman & Wakefield, Healey & Baker, IMD), FDI, financial and property investment, assets, tourism, and major international manifestations. The study concludes that the IDF is beaten by London in terms of FDI, the level of investment in commercial property, stock market capitalization, and the presence of foreign talent. On the other hand, Paris (the center of the IDF region) overtakes London in terms of quality of life, the presence of decision centers, the profitability of property investment and tourism (for business or leisure).
For Floret [FLO 04, p. 16], “attractiveness is a heterogeneous mass measuring subjective social factors as much as considerations of pure economic competitiveness (trade GDP, average individual wealth, costs and charges, etc.). This subjectivity is thus a fundamental aspect of data on attractiveness and relates to the shared values of a nation. It includes both constructed and inherited values. Thus, for many visitors, Paris and the Ile-de-France are more a representation of the past (allowing the development of high-level tourism) than carriers of future values. As each individual has their own interpretation of attractiveness, political work on the subject should use mechanisms supporting competitiveness — an ‘objective’ value — while imagining elements showing the subjective part of attractiveness.”
Attractiveness may be tackled by taking two groups into account: businesses that participate in the region’s production and thus its material wealth and workers in the IDF who participate in the processes of local life (industrial or associative). Each group exercises meaningful functions (independent variables). Thus, for companies, we apply criteria such as research potential, training systems, economic potential, the labor market, implantation criteria, quality of life, networks, the fiscal and regulatory framework, the social climate, and the effectiveness of administrative and political structures. For residents, we use criteria of urbanism and housing, communications networks, cultural, sport and leisure potential, other collective equipment, the quality of life (and the cost of living), the social environment, the labor market, economic potential, and the training system. In fact, we attempt to identify possible developments and to identify criteria for territorial attractiveness in a prospective fashion.
Concerning the observed attractiveness of the IDF, three domains require rapid decisions although the effects of these decisions will only be felt in the long run. These include the infrastructure and urbanism for the construction and/or support of a polycentric region in a limited space, welcoming young populations important for future professions and new activities, governance to give unity to the region and reduce spatial inequalities, and research and training to “reposition the region in the world of knowledge (social, technical, and artistic) and research”.
The European Cities Monitor report [CUS 08] presents strong criteria for the implantation of companies in a territory/town and analyses attractiveness from an economic point of view, using quantitative and qualitative data. Among these criteria, we can identify the access to markets, consumers, or clients, the availability of qualified labor, the quality of infrastructures and the density and interconnection of communications’ infrastructures, the cost of labor, the business climate (taxes, etc.), the supply of business premises (availability and cost), the use of foreign languages, the quality of life, and the quality of the environment. The indicators used are divided into five categories: demographics, labor (availability, quality, and price), business costs (property), access to markets, and the environment.
The Greater Paris Investment Agency [PAR 06, PAR 08] in collaboration with Ernst and Young, surveyed the economic attractiveness of the region through the strategic functions of the metropole. This involves taking account of the number of company headquarters implanted in the region, R&D centers, and service centers dedicated to internal clients (the back-offices of companies, shared service centers, etc.) and to external clients (client relation centers, call centers, etc.). According to Ernst and Young, these strategic functions play a positive role in the creation of value and thus the attractiveness of the region. We should, however, add decision and technological functions to this list as a basis for diagnosis and comparison of territorial attractiveness.
Table 16.1. The attractiveness of the Paris Area according to major sources
| Sources | Links |
|---|---|
| Paris IDF region | Paris Région www.paris-region.com/ IDF Economic and Social Council www.cesr-ile-de-France.fr/cesr_htm/commun/theme_jf.asp |
| Ernst and Young | European attractiveness survey (various countries and issues): http://www.ey.com/DLResults?Query=[CountryCode]=FR~[LanguageCode]=fr~[T_Issues]=%28IssuesBusiness%20environment%29 |
| Cushman and Wakefield | European cities monitor and other reports http://www.cushwake.com/cwglobal/jsp/kcLanding.jsp?Country=GLOBAL&Language=EN |
| Foreign policy | The 2010 global cities index http://www.atkearney.com/index.php/Publications/global-cities-index.html |
| Saffron consultants | The Saffron European City Brand Barometer: revealing which cities get the brands they deserve http://saffron-consultants.com/wp-content/uploads/Saff_CityBrandBarom.pdf |
This non-exhaustive presentation shows that the attractiveness of a territory may be approached from different angles, both quantitative and qualitative in nature. Nevertheless, a number of reports have resulted from isolated initiatives and act as a support for lobbying, while it would be more relevant to establish an approach associating all actors in the construction of attractiveness. All analyses highlight the advantages of the IDF region but indicate weaknesses and risks of losing ground to other major European cities to differing degrees. It is therefore reasonable to look at the importance of motivation of all actors in creating attractiveness in a territory5.
16.3.2. The participatory method
We have chosen to develop a method that takes account of the diversity of local actors, inspired by the method created by the French Agency for Tourism Engineering (Agence Française de l’Ingénierie Touristique, AFIT) [PER 03] for the establishment of a durable tourism policy. This method makes use of a participatory approach. In this model, indicators are not an end unto themselves, but situated at the center of a set of steps, the aim of which is to pilot attractiveness in the territory. The proposed method is broken down into four phases: inspection of the current situation, diagnosis, the definition of strategic axes, and the action plan. The first two steps are crucial, as the definition of strategic axes and the action plan depend on these phases (see Figure 16.1).
Figure 16.1. The five steps of the participative method
In the first phase (inspection of the situation), we must analyze local realities, based on documentary resources and meetings with different local actors. The aim is to identify the diversity of public and private actors, their practices, and spontaneous territorial dynamics. Existing orientations and actions are evaluated at this stage. This identification stage is carried out on two levels: the first is a “territory” analysis, allowing us to understand the impact of public policy on the attractiveness of a territory and to identify issues present in the territory. We also seek to gather information on the diversity of approaches taken by territorial actors linked to local policies (local policy decision makers). The second level is a “business” analysis, used to identify the desires and expectations of businesses.
The second phase is the diagnosis phase and is carried out with the aim of interpreting signs and tendencies observed during the previous stage to identify exploitable fields for progress. This phase is based on a well-known operational marketing technique, SWOT (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) applied to a given territory, taking account of businesses operating locally and the resources available for the development of activity. This phase has three main goals: first, to identify and validate priority keys for interpretation to see whether the attractiveness policies analyzed respond to the priority issues of the territory.
Second, we aim to promote the elaboration of contradictory diagnoses expressing the variety of points of view, also dynamizing the participative approach.
Finally, we aim to produce a diagnosis of the territory using shared bases for interpretation — the issues linked to the territory and the local table of attractiveness indicators. This diagnostic work helps identify the strengths and weaknesses of different types of policies implemented by actors to respond to the development issues of the territory.
The third phase is given over to the definition of strategic axes. It aims to project sufficiently stable axes over a duration of 3–5 years, collectively defining and prioritizing strategic axes for the territory. For this, the local coordination group must synthesize the results of previous debates. The proposition of strategic axes must take account of the set of elements validated during diagnosis in the previous phase. It must also prioritize and validate strategic axes using a temporal approach. This should result in the definition of consensual strategic axes and the identification of conflicting axes, which, in the latter case, are only shared by one section of the actors involved.
Finally, the action plan must organize and prioritize actions, in terms of time, which correspond to main developmental aims, identified in the strategic plan. The central aim is to make the proposed actions respond correctly to the desired attractiveness objectives.
This participatory method is based on the establishment of networks of relationships and moves toward an integrated interpretation of territorial attractiveness. From this perspective, information constitutes one of the pillars for the establishment of an attractiveness policy.
16.3.3. Information and attractiveness
Territories should no longer be approached by decision makers as the product of an unconscious trajectory, but as a space for the sharing of information and knowledge. In this way, territorial actors should be better able to understand the reasons for cooperation in the framework of territorial attractiveness. We therefore move from a situation where actors are “subjected” to a development strategy to one with a reasoned and shared development strategy. Within this context, we must consider the specificities of a territory, its social and institutional organization, the proximity and accessibility of resources, etc.
The development of an attractiveness strategy passes through shared access to knowledge of the territory, on the one hand, and, on the other, by durable structuring of the territory from a social, economic, technological, intellectual, environmental, and cultural point of view. This supposes the maintenance of a dynamic of “localized innovative performance” as shown by Massard and Mehier [MAS 04]. For Dou and Bertacchini [DOU 01], the role of TI is the establishment of a Territorial Managing System, with the aim of acquisition and redistribution of information to local actors and the demonstration of territorial potential in the domains of transfer and valorization of information through networks. In the same spirit, Herbaux and Bertacchini [HER 03, p. 4] state that “territorial intelligence is a culture of organization based on the pooling and treatment of signals from economic actors, destined to provide those in command positions with decisive information at the ideal moment”.
The establishment of collective, participatory tools is necessary in the context of appropriation of TI by actors in the territory. At the center of this collective appropriation, we find the question of accessibility of knowledge and information [MAS 05]. The notion of accessibility should not be understood in a purely geographic sense but in a more complex way that brings together three dimensions: the spatial, human, and structural dimensions, while taking the transversal temporal dimension into account. The spatial dimension refers as much to the notion of movement as to that of relationships or connectivities between individuals. The human dimension should be envisaged as the potential for connectivity between individuals and the territory. It forms part of an approach to the appropriation of a territory by an individual. The structural dimension consists of the potential for connectivity of units of production and public actors in the territory with populations. The temporal dimension is transversal and allows us to distinguish the level of engagement of authors in relation to the territory. Thus, in the short term, an employee seeks a job in a territory; in the long term, the fact of staying within the territory will depend on social networks, educational infrastructures, and housing. Different actors in a territory see their relationship with that territory according to the temporal space in which they find themselves.
We can thus define the territorial capital as the relational capital representing the potential for connectivity between actors in this territory: the existence of social networks and links, both between businesses and with public actors, inhabitants, and other businesses. In Figure 16.2 and Appendix A, we propose an attempt at modeling the territory using the three dimensions described above. Our reading of the territory adds to the traditional model, too often limited to an analysis of the geographic situation, the infrastructure, and the presence of companies. We add population indicators and take particular notice of immaterial resources as an attractiveness factor. Essentially, we look at indicators relating to education, training, and access to ICT, and more generally to the valorization of local heritage. Moreover, we consider these resources not just as short-term “stock”, but also in a dynamic (forward-looking) and historical perspective.
Figure 16.2. Attractiveness of a territory
Reading the territory in this way necessarily leads to the establishment of “aggressive” attractiveness, based on endogenous resources specific to the territory which allow it to capitalize on specific skills and specializations. The analysis of territorial attractiveness thus involves seeking adequate indicators to measure the true position of the territory concerned, while taking into account temporal horizons and the dimension involved.
16.4. Conclusion
At the end of this analysis, and in accordance with the analysis carried out by the DIACT [DIA 05], it seems necessary to highlight some major issues linked to the attractiveness of a territory. Economic base theory allowed us to show that an attractive territory accommodates both value creation activities and populations with revenues which may be independent of local activity (allocations, retirement, tourism, etc.). The territory is thus considered a support for both created and harnessed value.
The contribution of TI as we see it allows us to move beyond three weaknesses of the notion of attractiveness present in traditional literature on the subject. First, attractiveness is not exclusively based on companies, but on three “pillars”: the economic, the residential, and the tourism aspect of a territory, which is all too often neglected [FAB 08]. Second, as attractiveness is a relative notion, studies have a tendency to underestimate benchmarking for positioning a territory, but this tool is essential when comparing the relative performance of territories in the context of competition. Finally, attractiveness is a temporal notion. From this point of view, existing studies too often concentrate on the present situation without placing the territory in a historical perspective. In the same way, future prospects are often neglected.
Furthermore, actors have representations of territories which vary depending on their temporal horizon. These representations affect their level of engagement in a territory. A territory seeking durable attractiveness must not only attract but also retain populations and businesses. It is at this point that TI should be considered a transversal method for “reading” a territory.
16.5. Bibliography
[AGE 05] REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY PARIS ILE-DE-FRANCE, an attractive region, 2005, available online at www.europinvest-paris.info/FR/Document/Publications/IDF_une%20région%20attractive.pdf.
[BER 06] BERTACCHINI Y., GIRARDOT J.J., GRAMMACIA G., “Territorial intelligence: theory, position, hypothesis, and definitions”, 5th Conference ICT and Territory: Which Development?, University of Franche-Comté, 9–10 June, 2006.
[BRU 04] BRUNEAU J.M., “Territory intelligence: what is it?”, Veille Magazine, no. 80, December 2004.
[BRU 06] BRUTE DE REMUR D., What Business Intelligence Means, Editions d’Organisation, Paris, 2006.
[BRY 06] BRYKOVA I., “The international competitiveness of national regions: conceptual and practical dimensions”, Journal of International Economic Policy, vol. 4, pp. 31–56, 2006.
[CAM 05] CAMAGNI R., “Attractivité et compétitivité: un binôme à repenser”, Territoires vol. 2030, no. 1, pp. 11–15, 2005.
[CUS 08] CUSHMAN ET WAKEFIELD, European Cities Monitor, 2008, available online at www.cushwake.com/cwglobal/jsp/kcReportDetail.jsp?Country=GLOBAL&Language=EN&catId=100006&pId=c17500010p.
[DAV 08] DAVEZIES L., The Republic and Its Territories, coll. La république des idées, Le Seuil, Paris, 2008.
[DIA 05] DIACT (INTERMINISTERIAL DELEGATION TO REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMPETITIVENESS), “Regional attractiveness in urban projects”, Les notes de l’Observatoire, April 2005.
[DOU 01] DOU H., BERTACCHINI Y., “The territorial competitive intelligence. A network approach”, Actes du colloque VSST, Barcelona, Spain, 2001.
[DUN 93] DUNNING J., Multinational Enterprises and the Global Economy, Addison-Wesley, Wokingham, 1993.
[ERN 08a] ERNST & YOUNG, European attractiveness survey, 2008, available online at www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/France/attractiveness-europe-2008-EN.
[ERN 08b] ERNST & YOUNG, France attractiveness Survey — Liberté, créativité, attractivité?, 2008, available online at www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/France/attractiveness-form-France-2008.
[ERN 08c] ERNST & YOUNG, Global cities attractiveness, 2008, available online at www.ey.com/global/content.nsf/France/Global-Cities-Attractiveness-Survey-2008_EN.
[FAB 06] FABRY N., ZEGHNI S., “How former communist countries of Europe may attract inward foreign direct investment? A matter of institutions”, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 39, pp. 201–219, 2006.
[FAB 08] FABRY N., “Tourism clusters, actors competitiveness and regional attractiveness”, in FRANÇOIS L. (ed.), Regional Intelligence, Business Intelligence Applied to Territory, Lavoisier, Paris, 2008.
[FLO 04] FLORET C., Ile-de-France attractiveness towards 2025, Economical and social council of the Ile-de-France Region, report presented by the prospective department, May 2004, available online at www.cesr-ile-de-france.fr/cesr_doc/magazine/magazine41-attractivite.pdf.
[FRA 08] FRANÇOIS L., “Business intelligence in support of the economic competitiveness of territories: regional intelligence”, in FRANÇOIS L. (ed.), Intelligence territoriale, l’intelligence économique appliquée au territoire, Lavoisier, Paris, 2008.
[FUJ 99] FUJITA M., KRUGMAN P., VENABLES A.J., The Spatial Economy: Cities, Regions and International Trade, MIT Press, Boston, 1999.
[GAU 05] GAUCHERAND A., “Introduction to the regional intelligence concept”, I-expo Conference on the Theme “Information and Competitiveness”, Paris, France, 2005, available online at www.i-expo.net/documents/actes2005/A2-AurelienGaucherand.pdf.
[GON 06] GONNARD S., Interregional migration flows: new links between internal migrations and regional development?, Doctoral Thesis, University of Paris 12, Val-de-Marne, 2006.
[HER 03] HERBAUX P., BERTACCHINI Y., “Mutualization and regional intelligence”, International Journal of Information & Communication Sciences for Decision Making, vol. 9, pp. 1–9, 2003, available online at http://isdm.univ-tln.fr/PDF/isdm9/isdm9a73_herbaux.pdf.
[KRU 68] KRUMME G., “Werner Sombart and the economic base concept”, Land Economics, vol. 48, pp. 112–116, 1968.
[MAR 90] MARSHALL A., Principles of Economics, an Introductory Volume, MacMillan, London, 1920, 8th edition, vol. 4, chap. 10, 1890, available online at http://socserv2.socsci.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/marshall/prin/index.html.
[MAS 04] MASSARD N., MEHIER C., “Knowledge externalities, intellectual assets and localised and innovant performances. First interdisciplinary workshop on performance and intangible”, Première journée Interdisciplinaire de recherché Performance et Immatériel, Angers, France, October 2004, available online at http://leshumas.insa-lyon.fr/stoica/page.php4_fichiers/Publications_AXE_1/2004_06_NMASSARD_CMEHIER_ANGERS.pdf.
[MAS 05] MASSARD N., MEHIER C., “Proximity, accessibility to knowledge and innovation”, Regional Studies Association International Conference, Aalborg, Denmark, 28–31 May 2005.
[PAR 06] PARIS-ILE-DE-FRANCE, CAPITALE ÉCONOMIQUE ET ERNST & YOUNG, 2005 survey on international investment in the 15 most attractive european metropolis. L’Ile-de-France prend la tête du classement, 2006, available online at www.europinvest-paris.com/FR/Document/Benchmarking/E&Y/Nouveau%20dossier/Etude%20IDE%20IDF%202006.pdf.
[PAR 08] PARIS-ILE-DE-FRANCE, CAPITALE ÉCONOMIQUE ET ERNST & YOUNG ET CSA, Global cities’ attractiveness survey 2008, Paris et ses principales concurrentes européennes dans la compétition mondiale, 2008, available online at www.ey.com/Global/assets.nsf/France/Global_Cities_Attractiviveness_2008/$file/Global_Cities_Attractiveness_2008_VF.pdf.
[PEL 08] PELISSIER M., “The origin and fundaments of regional intelligence: a simple variation of business intelligence at the territory level?”, in FRANÇOIS L. (ed.), Intelligence territoriale, l’intelligence économique appliquée au territoire, Lavoisier, Paris, 2008.
[PER 50] PERROUX F., “Economic space: theory and applications”, The Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 64, no. 1, pp. 89–104, 1950.
[PER 55] PERROUX F., “Note on the concept of growth poles”, Economie appliquée, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 307–320, 1955.
[PER 61] PERROUX F., The 20th Century Economy, PUF, Paris, 1961.
[PER 03] PERRRET J., TEYSSANDIER J.P., MARETTE C., “Managing sustainable tourism in region and firms”, Cahiers de l’AFIT — Guides de savoir-faire, La Documentation Française, Paris, 2003.
[ROD 03] RODRIK D., SUBRAMANIAN A., “The primacy of institutions”, Finance and Development, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 31–34, 2003.
[SOM 54] SOMBART W., The Economics of Location, Yale University Press, New Haven, 1954.
16.6. Appendix A: grid for territorial analysis by aspect
Spatial dimension
Short term: Public transport, accessibility of equipment and jobs from living spaces, accessibility of healthcare provision from living spaces, part played by secondary residences in all movements, number of migrants between urban areas, section of employees with jobs outside their territory of residence, coverage by cell phone networks, number of operators offering broadband in the territory, number of broadband technologies in the territory, proportion of population with broadband coverage, coverage of the main road network, coverage by other transport networks (ports, airports, rail), average daily/annual traffic on major road axes, cultural provision per capita, sports equipment per capita.
Medium term: Development of digital infrastructures, economic orientation of living spaces, balance of arrivals and departures by age and qualification, development of road coverage, development of coverage by other transport networks (ports, airports, rail), development of average daily/annual traffic on major road axes.
Long term: Development of environmentally friendly means of transport, section of cultural heritage on national lists.
Human dimension
Short term: Crime levels, proportion of job prospects linked to FDI among the working population, total number of R&D researchers, proportion of researchers working in administration, jobs linked to FDI, proportion of jobs in fragile sectors, weight of establishments with 20–99 employees, unemployment, activity levels by age and gender.
Medium term: Housing, accessibility of healthcare services from living spaces, arrival of tourists, development of the qualification index, development of the active population, structuring of living spaces by healthcare provision, structuration of living spaces by education equipment, index of work qualification, development of salaried activity, development of unemployment rates, structure of jobs by CSP, structure of qualifications for 15–59 year olds, average spending per child in first degree education, average spending per child in second degree education, average spending per student in higher education, number of university students.
Long term: Development of structuring of living spaces by healthcare provision, development of structuration of living spaces by education equipment, number of risk prevention plans.
Structural dimension
Short term: Territorial expenditure, infrastructure and public services, regional fiscal pressure, proportion of researchers working in administration, import/export as a proportion of exchanges, weight of establishments with 20–99 employees, proportion of activity considered in regional added value, proportion of R&D expenditure in the public sector and higher education, number of patents registered, business creation, total exports, total imports, existence of competitiveness clusters, weight of first five sectors in salaried employment, weight of the four largest companies.
Medium term: Existence of complementary businesses (industry/services), 5-year survival rate of business creations, financial potential per capita, fiscal potential per capita, structuring of living spaces by services and jobs, economic orientation of living spaces, development of regional GDP, regional GDP per job, regional GDP per inhabitant, average 5-year survival rate of business creations, development of weight of first five sectors in salaried employment, development of weight of four largest companies.
Long term: Development of inter-territory networks, competitiveness clusters, development of territorial expenditure.
1 Chapter written by Nathalie FABRY and Sylvain ZEGHNI.
1 According to the principle of absolute advantage (Smith) or comparative advantage (Ricardo).
2 This is particularly the case since the opening up of “transition” countries (China and the East).
3 The OLI paradigm: ownership advantage, localization advantage, and internalization advantage.
4 For more global studies concerning major global centers, see the City Mayors Web site (www.citymayors.com) or the Global City Index in Foreign Policy published at www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4509&page=0. We might also use the European Attractiveness Scoreboard, published at www.gtai.com/uploads/media/European_Attractiveness_Scoreboard_2008.pdf. To compare the IDF with another major region, such as Greater Montreal, we can use the following address: www.montrealinternational.com/fr/accueil/index.aspx.
5 This importance of mobilization of actors seems to have been integrated little by little by the ARD which, in early 2008 and at the request of the regional council of the IDF, launched an “Attractiveness” action plan to accompany the implementation of priority axes in the regional economic development plan. The partners involved were départements and their agencies or expansion committees, the main intercommunal bodies, council chambers, professional organizations, and competitiveness clusters.