In 2019, HBS faculty members of the U.S. Competitiveness Project conducted the sixth survey on U.S. competitiveness. This report—built on the latest survey findings and eight years of prior research on the competitiveness of the United States—highlights a disturbing pattern: structural failures in the U.S. political system continue to prevent meaningful progress on actions needed to improve U.S. competitiveness. Despite a decade of steady economic growth, the trajectory of the nation’s competitiveness remains disappointing.
In June 2015, nearly 75 experienced leaders from across business, government, labor, academia, and media gathered at Harvard Business School to discuss a topic of increasing concern in America: How can our nation continue to remain competitive while also providing a path to prosperity for more citizens? This report highlights the group’s deliberations and summarizes the HBS research that was presented during the convening.
The 2015 HBS survey on U.S. competitiveness reveals that business leaders are concerned about the economy’s ability to generate shared prosperity. America’s business environment is improving, but alumni doubt that firms in the U.S. will be able to improve living standards for the average American. Alumni see issues like inequality, middle-class stagnation, and economic immobility, as social as well as business challenges.
This paper looks at some of the issues firms moving large assembly operations back to the U.S. have faced, along with recommendations for more successful implementations.
Is there a credit gap in small business lending?
By: Christian Ketels
A new framing of competitiveness clarifies the role of regions.
In many cases, once manufacturing capabilities go away, so does much of the ability to innovate and compete. Manufacturing, it turns out, really matters in an innovation-driven economy.
Some of the world’s most original thinkers explain the competitiveness challenge America faces and point the way forward.
Manufacturing matters to a nation’s economic prosperity, not because it is an important source of jobs (it currently represents only about 10% of US employment) but because manufacturing competence is often an integral part of innovation. By Professors Gary P. Pisano and Willy C. Shih.
Professors Robin Greenwood and David Scharfstein make recommendations in three important domains in which the U.S. financial system has underperformed: financial stability, housing finance, and investment costs.
Professors Josh Lerner and William A. Sahlman explore the role of entrepreneurial ventures in addressing pressing problems like energy, the environment, healthcare, and education, while also driving productivity and domestic job growth in the U.S.
By: William W. George
Starting in 2003, the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan region lagged the rest of the U.S. in job creation. Alarmed business and civic leaders coalesced around the Itasca Project, which set in motion a series of actions by groups of CEOs and politicians aimed at reversing these trends by creating jobs in all sectors of the economy.
By: William W. George
By 2008, Detroit's "Big 3"—Ford Motor Company, General Motors, and Chrysler—were teetering, and two required federal government assistance to stay afloat. Within three years, remarkably, the Big 3 had turned around by improving competitiveness in quality, design, and cost, as well as through strong, decisive leadership on multiple fronts and improved union relations.
By: William W. George
In 2006, Jim Rogers, CEO of Duke Energy, began to lay the groundwork to establish Charlotte as the "new energy hub of America." The Envision Charlotte initiative builds on the Charlotte region's economic development "energy capital USA" initiative.
For decades, U.S. companies have been outsourcing manufacturing in the belief that it held no competitive advantage. That has been a disaster.