Ben Armstrong compares the implementation of regional economic development programs in the Pittsburgh and Cleveland metropolitan statistical areas during the 1980s. He argues that their regional economies and research institutions were then similar. He contends that the transformational policy difference occurred when Pennsylvania’s governor mandated that the presidents of Pittsburgh’s research universities be programmatic leaders while Ohio’s governor did not do the same. Armstrong concludes that Pittsburgh’s Metropolitan Statistical Area became a center of high-tech innovation as a result, while Cleveland’s did not. This author contends that disparities in regional technology resources, as well as institutional self-interest and leadership, were the critical differences. Cleveland’s institutions had to give priority to fixing their business problems. Armstrong and the author agree that economic endowments and industrial policy played roles in both regions’ economic outcomes; where they disagree is on the weights given to each.

Ben Armstrong 比较了 1980 年代匹兹堡和克利夫兰大都市统计区区域经济发展计划的实施情况。他认为，当时他们的区域经济和研究机构是相似的。他争辩说，当宾夕法尼亚州州长要求匹兹堡研究型大学的校长是计划领导者而俄亥俄州州长没有这样做时，就发生了变革性政策差异。阿姆斯特朗得出结论，匹兹堡的大都会统计区因此成为高科技创新中心，而克利夫兰则没有。作者认为，区域技术资源的差异以及机构的自身利益和领导力是关键差异。克利夫兰的机构必须优先解决他们的业务问题。阿姆斯特朗和作者一致认为，经济禀赋和产业政策在两个地区的经济成果中都发挥了作用；他们分歧的地方在于给予每个人的权重。