Superintendents find new, deeper ways to work with business beyond a financial gift.
By: Christian Ketels
A new framing of competitiveness clarifies the role of regions.
Policy steps for the president and Congress to follow in order to make American companies more competitive and their employees more prosperous.
Business leaders should not simply accept the business environment as a given, set by government. They can—and should—enhance the commons in ways that boost their own long-run profits.
Some of the world’s most original thinkers explain the competitiveness challenge America faces and point the way forward.
Over the last four decades companies have dispersed more and more of their activities across the globe. Data and analysis from Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin suggest that the U.S. is losing out on location decisions at an alarming rate, even for high value adding activities such as R&D that it should be able to attract.
In thinking about the competitiveness of a nation, analysts commonly focus on economic factors, such as exports, unit labor costs, and fiscal policy, among others. "Politics" is not typically high on the list, if it appears at all, observes Professor David Moss.
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 Michael E. Porter and Jan W. Rivkin frame the HBS project on U.S. competitiveness by defining "competitiveness," assessing the state of U.S. competitiveness, and pinpointing dynamics that threaten America's competitiveness.