TWENTY-THIRD EUROPEAN CONGRESS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION

THE CONCEPT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT: A

STAGES MODEL OF ENDOGENOUS REGIONAL
GROWTH*

William J. Coffey
School of Public Administration
Dalhousie University
Halifax, Nova Scotia
Canada B3H 4H6
Mario Pol se
1NRS --- Urbanisation
Universitb du Qubbec
Montrbal, Qubbec
Canada H2X 2C6

ABSTRACT The concept of local development is defined as a particular form of regional

development, one in which endogenous factors occupy a central position. A stages model
of local development is proposed: 1) the emergence of local entrepreneurship; 2) the "take
off" of local enterprises; 3) the expansion of these enterprises beyond the local region;
and 4) the achievement of a regional economic structure that is based upon local initiatives
and locally created comparative advantages. The theoretical and empirical foundations
of this model are examined, with particular emphasis upon the roles of the entrepreneur
and of human capital in the process of economic growth, and upon the spatial effects of
the expansion of the firm.

1. INTRODUCTION
Although local development is frequently cited as an option within the
broader context of regional policy the concept remains vague, giving rise to
varying interpretations. In the present paper we propose a definition of local
development and explore its implications for regional science research? Having
proposed a definition, we proceed to examine the theoretical foundations which
underlie the concept. This examination leads us to reconsider the process of
regional development, within which context the concept of local development
must necessarily be accommodated. Finally, we present the elements of a model
of local development, in the form of a four-stage process.

:2. DEFINING LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

Due to the lack of a consistently utilized definition of local development,
:it is possible to identify, in a general way, two distinct approaches which are a
function of the meaning attributed to the adjective "local." In this section we
shall examine both of these interpretations and then propose a working definition
of local development. Before doing so, however, let us consider the meaning of
the term "development" Since our framework is based principally upon economic
considerations, we define development as sustained and irreversible economic
growth which will be characterized, in quantifiable terms, by an increase in real

* This paper was originally written and presented in French under the title of "Le concept de
d6veloppement local en sciences r6gionales: voies de r6flexion et de recherche"
1The present paper represents one element of a broad examination of the concept of local
development which has engaged the authors for several years (Coffey and Pol~se 1982; 1984).
2 PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, VOL. 55, 1984

income per capita for a given region. The process of development will necessarily
be accompanied by certain structural and social transformations, z

A First Approach: The Development of Localities

According to its current usage, the adjective "local" indicates any action,
event, or process which concerns an individual place or territory; in other words,
a locality. Used in this fashion, the term "local" can serve as a synonym for
"regional" although by tradition the former refers to a territory relatively limited
or confined. The definition o f local development that follows from this inter-
pretation thus implies the self-development o f small regions - - the development
o f localities.
In order to serve as a basic concept of regional science this usage requires
a universally accepted definition o f a "locality" and the specification o f its
relationship to the term " r e g i o n " While the economic concept o f a " r e g i o n " in
relation to that of a " n a t i o n " appears to be relatively clear, 3 the conceptual
difference between a "locality" and a "region" seems difficult to establish, apart
from the criterion o f size. The adjective local has traditionally also been used
to refer to subnational areas which possess their own government; while this
distinction can serve as a useful criterion, it can add to the confusion in countries
such as Canada, which possess several levels o f government. In the absence of
a distinct concept of "locality" the difference between regional development and
local development is largely reduced to a difference o f degree, according to the
size o f the area in question, and does not necessarily reflect a difference in the
nature o f the process. In addition, the territorial limits o f that which is "local"
(in relation to that which is "regional") will likely vary from author to author
and from one country to another. The framework of local development defined
in this m a n n e r thus rests upon examining the relation between the variable
"size" and the variable " d e v e l o p m e n t " i.e., upon examining the development
problems o f microregions.

A Second Approach: Development Based on Local Factors

The adjective "local," when added to the term " d e v e l o p m e n t " lends itself
to a second interpretation whose connotation is not purely spatial and which
presents a different perspective on the very nature of the process of development.
Thus, the term "local" can also indicate an event, action, or process, the impetus
for which is found principally within the region in question, as opposed to being
provided from external areas. Interpreted in this manner, the adjective "local"
suggests terms such as "endogenous" or "native." This view o f "local" within
the development process thus necessitates the elaboration of a model which
specifies the role of endogenous elements and which can be applied to large
regions as well as to microregions. One often finds expressions such as "devel-
o p m e n t from below" or " b o t t o m - u p development" used to express similar
processes.

2In his definition of economic growth, Kuznets (1965, p. 6) includes the condition of demographic
growth. Recent experience has demonstrated, however, that the latter no longer seems to be a
necessary condition of economic growth.
3In economic terms, the concept of region can be defined as an open spatial system which is
under the authority of a central government (for purposes of general economic policy such as
currency, trade, taxation, and so forth), and which is situated within the context of a larger national
entity within which products and factors of production circulate freely (Pol~se 1981).This definition
enables a region to be delineated in various forms and dimensions, according to the needs of a
particular analysis.
COFFEY AND POLI~SE:CONCEPT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 3

The model of local development that we shall define is based upon this
second approach which, while retaining a spatial framework (the region), em-
phasizes local factors of development. It must be stressed, however, that this
model is set within the context of a mixed market economy (Coffey and Polrse
1985). Others who have addressed the question of local development, endogenous
development and related concepts (Friedmann and Weaver 1979; Planque and
Lazzeri 1980; Stohr and Taylor 1981) have sometimes based their approaches
upon the need for fundamental changes in the organization of society and of
the', space-economy: the creation of alternative and parallel economic systems;
the', prevalence of small-scale projects and non-market transactions; the intro-
duction of selective regional closure, and so forth. The present approach to the
concept of local development, on the other hand, explicitly accepts as given the
existing market structure, including the possibility of high levels of economic
integration among regions.
The concept of local (or endogenous) development, as we employ it, thus
defines a particular form of regional development in which "local" factors
the local spirit of entrepreneurship, local firms, or local financial institutions
constitute the principal bases for regional economic growth, within a mixed
market context. This formulation of the concept thus requires a definition of
loc,al factors, as distinct from external factors. By local factors we clearly do not
mean the geographic or physical attributes of a region (its locational character-
istics, natural comparative advantages, mineral resources, and so forth) but,
rather, the socio-cultural and behavioural attributes of the local population related
to the development p r o c e s s . 4 It is the identification and analysis of such local
factors which constitutes the principal methodological and conceptual challenge
to the elaboration of a model of endogenous regional growth.

3. THE CONCEPTUAL BASES OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT

In this section we advance three propositions which must hold if "pure"
local d e v e l o p m e n t - regional economic growth generated solely from endoge-
nous forces m is to exist. Given the open nature of most regional economies, it
is unlikely that economic growth will result exclusively from endogenous sources.
It is instructive, however, to consider the extreme case. Thus, our goal is simply
to define a model of the development process in which local factors play the
principal role. In the following discussion we also emphasize the theoretical and
empirical foundations of each proposition and suggest avenues of research related
to each.

Proposition 1: A Region's Potential for Development Rests Upon the Stock of

Entrepreneurship and the Accumulated Knowledge Embodied in Its Population
This proposition represents the key element underlying our definition of
local development; if it is rejected, our concept of the local development process
becomes insupportable. It simply asserts that a population's entrepreneurial spirit
and the sum of its knowledge and talents constitute factors of production that
are at least as important as the classical factors of labour and capital. In support
of this proposition we can cite Denison-type models (Denison 1974), applications
of which in Canada (Waiters 1968; Termote 1978) and in other countries
demonstrate that the major portion of modern economic growth cannot simply

4 In other words, we define as "local" each factor or characteristic which can be changed or
affected by actions of the local inhabitants. The location or physical characteristics of a region
cannot be modified.
4 PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, VOL. 55, 1984

be explained by increases in capital stock or by natural resource endowment.

Rather, per capita income growth remains largely unexplained in the form of a
residual factor which is often interpreted as a reflection of "the progress of
knowledge" which in turn is partially embodied in the population (and partially
in capital). One can also cite the classic works of Kuznets (1965; 1966) who, in
his theory of economic growth, insists upon the importance of institutional,
cultural, and social factors, as opposed to more geographical or physical factors,
including capital stock. It then becomes a question of transposing these models
of national development in order to examine their relevance in a regional context.
George (1970), in his comparative analysis of the economies of Nova Scotia,
Quebec, and Ontario, stresses the role of entrepreneurship, rather than capital,
as the scarce (and catalytic) factor in regional development. Further, the recent
work of Friedmann and Weaver (1979), while adopting a perspective far removed
from that of classical economic analysis, places strong emphasis upon cultural
and institutional factors as explanatory variables in the process of regional
development.
Given this proposition, it then becomes a relatively straightforward exercise
to postulate a national economic system dominated by industries with a strong
knowledge component, in which the principal scarce factor of production is the
stock of knowledge rather than the stock of capital. In such a system regional
disparities would be, above all, a function of differences in the endowment of
knowledge, and one task of regional analysis would be to explain differences in
the spatial distribution of knowledge. Local entrepreneurship (that is, the pro-
pensity of the local population to initiate business enterprises) can similarly be
integrated into this system as a second variable underlying regional development;
thus it will be necessary to explain spatial variations in entrepreneurship. There
exists a lengthy tradition of research on the entrepreneur, starting with Schumpeter
(1935). This avenue of research encompasses several disciplines (Belshaw 1965;
Hagen 1971; Harris 1973; Kilby 1983; Redlich 1971) but seems tO have had
relatively tittle impact upon regional science.
Finally, to the extent that one accepts the postulate that a local population,
through its entrepreneurial spirit, ability and know-how, is effectively a major
element in the development process, it follows that this group creates, at least
in part, its own comparative advantages. As we have already noted, in a model
where local factors predominate, comparative advantage will not be principally
determined by location, natural resources, or events beyond the boundaries of
the region. This also suggests that the initial impetus to invest capital for
productive purposes will originate from within the region itself, more precisely
from the local entrepreneurs.

Proposition 2: lnterregional Migration Serves to Redistribute the Sources of

Economic Growth
This postulate is a corollary of the preceding one. If knowledge and
entrepreneurship constitute distinct factors of production, it therefore becomes
necessary to examine the mechanisms by which they are redistributed over space.
However, since we are dealing with development, sustained and irreversible
economic growth, more is involved than simply the efficient allocation of resources
under given conditions.
Development, as we have defined it, is a dynamic process which necessarily
involves technological and structural change and the creation of new firms. Since
people are at the origin of these changes, interregional migration will serve to
redistribute not only the static factors of production but also the dynamic factors
COFFEY AND POLESE: CONCEPT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 5

underlying regional development. It is largely accepted in the literature (see, for

example, White and Woods 1980 for a recent synthesis) that migrants generally
comprise that portion of the population which distinguishes itself from nonmi-
grants on the basis of personal characteristics which have a high degree of
potential for economic development: level of education, youth, and entrepre-
neurial spirit. To our knowledge, however, there exist few attempts to integrate
migration models into a dynamic framework of economic growth and even less
into a dynamic framework for regional development.
The work of Termote (1978) constitutes one major exception2 By applying
a Denison-type model to Quebec for the period 1951 to 1974, modified to take
inmigration into account, Termote observed that the effect of immigration was
to increase the per capita income within the province; this increase was, in large
measure, ascribed to the "attributes of regional development" of the immigrants:
their propensity to entrepreneurship, age structure, educational levels, and labour
force participation rates. If these results are accepted, it follows that there can
often exist a conflict between, on the one hand, the static effects of migration,
which in principal serve to equalize wage and unemployment rates at the
irtterregional level, and, on the other hand, the dynamic effects. In a national
system in which future productive capacities are more than proportionally
enthodied in the geographically mobile population, interregional migration can
have the long-term effect of exacerbating regional income disparities if, as is
generally the case, the direction of net migration favours regions with high
relative wage levels and low rates of unemployment.

Proposition 3: The Spatial Expansion of the Firm and Its Spatial Network of
Purchases Is a Function of Its Location
S p a c e imposes upon the entrepreneur certain costs of administration,
communications, and information. The spatial point of origin of a direct
investment (implying elements of management and control) will, we postulate,
influence its regional allocation and impact. This does not, however, exclude a
very high level of interregional mobility for capital. One must distinguish, as
does George (1970), between the entrepreneur who uses capital for productive
purposes (regardless of its spatial origin) and the investor who furnishes the
capital. The distinction between the two roles often becomes blurred, however,
as when an entrepreneur invests his own funds rather than the capital of others.
It is the entrepreneur, much more so than capital, that is sensitive to the effects
of distance. It follows that an entrepreneur will first invest, ceteris paribus, in
his own region because of the information and managerial costs imposed by
distance. However, it is not sufficient to consider only the emergence of firms;
their expansion in an interregional framework must also be taken into account.
The spatial logic of. investment and production characteristic of large
multibranch firms must be introduced into the model. As the literature seems
to indicate, this logic manifests itself at two levels. First, multibranch firms seem
to have a tendency, ceteris paribus, to locate their branches and subsidiaries as
close as possible to their head office, in part in order to maximize control; this
follows from our postulate on the behaviour of enterprises, above. Second, the
spatial allocation of subcontracting and of intrafirm transactions also seems to
be strongly influenced by the location of the head office, through which a large
part of all purchases and transactions are channeled. There exists a growing

s In more recent studies Kilby (1983) and Glade (1983) address the question of the (international)
movement of entrepreneurs and its consequences for national economic development.
6 PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, V O L 55, 1984

literature on the spatial organization of the multiplant firm and its purchases
(Hamilton 1974; Watts 1974; Sallez 1983), the conclusions of which tend largely
to confirm our reasoning. Ray's (1971) classic study of the spatial distribution
of American branches and subsidiaries in Canada dearly demonstrated the
influence of head office location on the spatial distribution of production units.
In a more recent study, Pol~se (1982) has shown that intrafirm service transactions
are largely polarized by head offices, making those regions lacking in control
functions into net importers of business services.
The head office of a large multibranch firm may be seen as the successful
end-result of local entrepreneurship; that is, to the extent that the head office
remains in the region. There exists a literature on the location of head offices
(Cohen, 1981; Semple, !977; Stephens and Holly, 1981), which is still in its
early stages and which, as such, has not yet produced a distinct conceptual
framework.6 However, what emerges from several studies of the location of major
head offices, principally in the United States, is that their spatial distribution
does not always correspond to the "natural" locational advantages provided by
the largest cities such as New York. The urban agglomeration of Minneapolis-
St. Paul, for example, ranks as one of the strongest regions of head office functions
and financial services, in per capita terms. This region is, however, clearly situated
on the periphery of the American urban system and is lacking in any evident
locational advantages other than the entrepreneurial spirit of its population,
from which all of the major head offices of the region have emerged.
In sum, the regional impact of the creation or of the expansion of a firm
is a function of the location of the entrepreneur (or the manager) who controls
it. Locally controlled firms, through their investment decisions, purchasing
patterns and interindustry linkages, tend, ceteris paribus, to generate a higher
level of impact upon the local area than do externally controlled firms. Given
this proposition, the level of development of the region will in large measure
depend upon its capacity to generate and to retain local firms.7 This brings us
full circle to the process of local entrepreneurship.

4. A STAGES MODEL OF THE LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

From the above three propositions, the outlines of a model of local
development begin to emerge; they depict a world where local factors are the
necessary (and largely sufficient) conditions for regional development. Since
development is most correctly regarded as a process, the concept of local
development can best be represented as a sequential set of stages (Figure 1). As
we explore these stages we again indicate the avenues of research that they
present.
The first stage of local development is the creation of local firms; in other
words, the emergence of local entrepreneurship and local entrepreneurial talent.
The analysis of this stage leads one to examine both the determinants of local
entrepreneurship in the context of an interregional system and the particular
constraints upon entrepreneurial behaviour or upon the creation of new firms

6The reader is referred to Coffey and Pol6se (1983) for an attempt at such a conceptual
framework.
7 Conversely, to the extent that externally controlled firms are viewed as having positive
development effects (for example, upon investment or technology transfer) the role of the local
creation of firms becomes less important. Under such conditions, local development is still possible
(and certainly desirable) but is no longer a necessary element of regional development. The relative
merits of locally induced versus exogenously induced development will undoubtedly continue to
be the object of much research and debate.
COFFEY AND POLI~SE: CONCEPT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 7

o~ .6.~ ~ - . ~ .~'~-~

.~-~ o O

c~ o

~.~o ~ . . ~ ~ . = ~ . ~ ~ o

o
0
= ~ , .&

~ .~==o~ ~ ~'-~-

0
o
O
O

<~..~o ~ ~o~.o~. < ~.=.= <

0

r~.~ ,o ~ ~
O ' O
~c~ oc~

~ G ~ ~ c~.~,~
..0"

o'
0

~!:lO
0
~.-~ . . ~ .
~'.~
,.~ . : ,
2
'~ ~ = ~ ~.~ ~ ~ ~ : o~.~
NoO~ ~o. ,~

"O,A,
6 ~ ,
o~ ~'~
~ ~~ ~
Or: ~.~ ~ ' ' ~ ~ _,~
o~
o'~
O ~
gg ,Z:I ,~
,-~ ~ ~ ,.~ ~-,~.~
~.oo~
8 PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, VOL. 55, 1984

in given regions (Coffey and Polrse, 1982). Within most market economies,
especially in developing countries, this first stage undoubtedly constitutes the
chief obstacle to effective policy-making, for as was noted earlier, the emergence
of local entrepreneurship is as much a socio-cultural process as an economic
one. The failure of entrepreneurship to emerge spontaneously will often push
planners and consultants into ambitious "top-down" schemes which, in a sense,
defeat the very idea of endogenous growth.
In its second stage, local development entails the expansion of local firms
beyond the region. This expansion must be based not only upon the "natural"
advantages of the region but also upon the man-made comparative advantages
with which the entrepreneurs (and the other inhabitants of the region) have
endowed it; these man-made comparative advantages are, in turn, embodied in
the institutions, the infrastructure and the knowledge of the population. The
extraregional expansion of successful local firms may take the form of export
activity or of locally controlled branches established outside the region. Since
we are dealing with open regional economies, interregional trade and investment
flows remain essential elements of economic growth. For regional growth to be
sustained it must be accompanied by a net inmigration (or at least a balanced
level) of the future sources of economic growth; that is, of entrepreneurial
capacity and knowledge. This leads the researcher to explore the flows of
knowledge, information and ideas; the migratory behaviour of managers, profes-
sionals, and entrepreneurs; and the local mechanisms for the creation of
knowledge, skills, and entrepreneurial talent.
Further, in stage three, in order that the extraregional expansion of local
firms continues to have a full development impact upon the local region, as
posited in proposition 3 above, it is necessary that a significant proportion of
locally generated firms remain under local control? In addition to the classical
questions concerning the process of regional economic growth, this stage focuses
attention on the mechanisms linked to corporate takeovers and to the spatial
organization and expansion of oaultibranch firms.
The result of the process of local development, stage 4, manifests itself in
the form of a regional economic structure composed in large part of local firms
together with a labour force and a local entrepreneurial class capable of adapting
and modifying the output and the structure of the region's economy. In the
extreme case the economy of the region will be entirely the result of local
entrepreneurship and of self-created advantages. This latter condition further
implies the achievement of an economic structure in which control functions
and high-order services play an important role. In an interregional model of
"balanced" local development each region would attain, in its relations with
other regions, an equilibrium in terms of control functions; in quantitative terms
this will be reflected, at any moment in time, by a zero balance in the interregional
balance of payments for services related to management and control functions.
As in the case of all models, the one presented here is never perfectly
achieved in reality. The obstacles to its realization will vary from one stage to
another and from one region or system to another. By way of comparison,
however, let us postulate the inverse of the above model of successful local
development. In the extreme case of a region which is characterized by a process
of nonlocal development, the initial impetus to growth will be provided entirely

8 As indicated earlier, this stage does not imply that external investment or control is necessarily
detrimental to the development of the region; rather, it acknowledges that at least some level of
local control is essential for all the desired development effects to occur.
COFFEY AND POLI~SE: CONCEPT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 9

by external investors and entrepreneurs. Further, the investments made will be

very largely concentrated in those sectors which are based upon the natural
advantages of the region, especially upon its primary resources; thus, the region
would possess few or no man-made advantages. The few firms controlled by
local entrepreneurs which succeeded in penetrating extraregional markets would,
along the way, have been purchased by external interests. The region would
suffer a continuous net outmigration of potential entrepreneurs and of other
human resources, finding itself, at the end of the process, with a structure doubly
dependent in terms of the control of its economy and the composition of its
exports. One could add a third element of dependency since, as has happened
in the majority of western nations, the region would be dependent for a portion
of its income upon the generosity of the central government; i.e., upon interte-
gional transfer payments. 9
This model of non-local development, although it may appear somewhat
extreme, is not far from the reality experienced by several Canadian regions;
Matthews (198 l a; 198 l b) has evoked the concept of regional dependency in his
analysis of Canada's peripheral regions. According to his analysis of the Nova
Scotia economy (1981a), that region's problem lies at the level that we have
labeled stage 3. During the latter part of the nineteenth century Nova Scotia
was characterized by a strong expression of local entrepreneurship and, conse-
quently, by a flourishing local industrial structure. Following its integration into
the Canadian economy, however, the Nova Scotia economy largely fell under
the control (through takeovers, mergers, and so forth) of interests in the financial
centres of Toronto and Montreal during the first decades of the twentieth century;
today it is a highly dependent economy. According to our schema, this is a case
of "truncated" local development.
For other regions the problem may be of a different sort. In the past the
relative economic backwardness of the province of Quebec within Canada was
sometimes attributed to the lack of entrepreneurial spirit among French Cana-
dians; the Latin-Catholic values had retarded the emergence of entrepreneurship,
it 'was argued. More recently, the outmigration of head offices and financial
institutions from Quebec is partly attributable to the perceptions and preferences
of anglophone entrepreneurs and professionals. The recent growth of francophone
local entrepreneurship in Quebec, however, with the investments and the take-
ow~rs which have accompanied it, reveals that non-local development is not
necessarily an irreversible process.
The principal merit of a stages model such as that which we have proposed
here is that it requires the analyst to examine a complete process, to trace it
from its origins to its ideal outcome. For example, to retain only local entrepre-
neurship (stage 1) or local initiative as objects of analysis and of policy risks the
creation of inexact conclusions and inappropriate policies if the other conditions
of local development are not equally considered. Several authors have stressed
the,, fundamental conflict between what we have termed local ~levelopment and
the,, increasing integration of national economies, more particularly the trend
towards transregional and transnational firms (Bade 1982; Friedmann and Weaver
19"79; Bluestone and Harrison 1982; Planque and Lazzeri 1980). It remains to
be determined if economic integration and local development are truly irrec-
oncilable. This is perhaps the fundamental question posed by the concept of
local development.

9 Courchene (1981) utilizes the term "transfer dependency" to describe this form of regional
dependence upon transfer payments.
10 PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, VOL. 55, 1984

5. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT AND REGIONAL SCIENCE

There exists in the field of regional development an unexplained area, often
barely perceived, the existence of which manifests itself in the residuals of
Denison-type growth models or in the so-called local factors of shift-share
analysis. It is in part this grey zone that we have sought to explore in our attempt
to more rigorously define the conditions of local or endogenous development.
The prevalent regional science models often emphasize avenues of research
very different from those which we have proposed. Theories of location, with
their focus upon distance and the costs of transportation, implicitly lead us to
stress the geographical attributes of a region. Interindustry analysis focuses our
attention upon technological links, especially the links between manufacturing
establishments. Economic base theory, in its various forms, leads us to under-
estimate endogenous development factors and to emphasize the evolution of
external demand.
The notion that regional development consists, at least in part, of a social
and cultural process internal to the region occupies a relatively minor place in
the regional science literature. By the same token, the work of sociologists,
anthropologists, and historians remains under-represented in this discipline. The
elaboration of an ideal local development model, as proposed here, may perhaps
furnish an opportunity to more fully open regional science to these and other
disciplines. In addition, our emphasis on a model compatible with the premises
of a mixed market economy should permit further conceptual efforts to develop
stronger finks with mainstream regional science. The avenues of theory and
research suggested are, however, not without difficulties. The notion of entre-
preneurship, for example, requires the regional scientist to enter areas of human
experience where our tools of analysis still remain highly imperfect. How, within
a regional framework, can one measure levels of entrepreneurship or the stock
of knowledge, skill, and experience? Finally, the construction of a model of local
development (or endogenous development, if one prefers) cannot be undertaken
without reference to the global context within which the region is situated; i.e.,
to exogenous factors. The conceptual and operational distinction between en-
dogenous and exogenous factors will always remain the object of considerable
debate.
From a policy perspective, programs for promoting local development, as
we have defined it, will often emphasize human resources and institutions rather
than capital subsidies and infrastructure. These policy directions are, however,
not necessarily easier to articulate or to implement than those of the more
traditional capital-oriented variety. A focus upon social factors (entrepreneurship,
local initiative, and so forth) will in many instances lead the policy analyst into
the difficult and still largely imprecise areas of social animation and community
organization; our emphasis upon institutional factors (control and corporate
organization) may similarly lead the policy analyst to consider various forms of
regional protectionism, at least in terms of capital flows. It is indeed all too easy
to retreat into an anti-system view of quasi-regional protectionism in order to
promote local development in a particular region. But a local development
model, one relevant to western nations, must reconcile regional development
objectives with the imperatives of economic integration: the free movement of
people, goods, information, and capital. From an interregional perspective, it is
perhaps preferable to think in terms of "balanced" local development rather
than to adopt a narrow and exclusive interpretation of the concept.
COFFEY AND POLI~SE: CONCEPT OF LOCAL DEVELOPMENT 11

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We are grateful to o u r colleagues F e r n a n d M a r t i n , M a r c Termote, a n d J e a n -
C l a u d e T h i b o d e a u for t h e i r c o m m e n t s a n d advice o n a n earlier draft o f this
aJ~cle.

REFERENCES
Bade, E J. 1982. Localisafion industrielle, division fonctionnelle du travail et drveloppement
rrgional. Revue d'Economie ROgionale et Urbaine, 6, 4: 483-508.
Belshaw, C. S. 1965. The cultural milieu of the entrepreneur. In Explorations in enterprise, ed. H.
G. J. Aitken. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
BJLuestone, B. and Harrison, B. 1982. The deindustrialization of America. New York: Basic Books.
Coffey, W. J. and Pol~se, M. 1982. Local development: some policy directions. Halifax: Institute of
Public Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 9.
Coffey, W. J. and Pol~se, M. 1983. Towards a theory of the interurban location of head office
functions. Paper delivered at the European Congress of the Regional Science Association,
Poitiers, France.
Coffey, W. J. and Pol~se, M. 1985. Local development: conceptual bases and policy implications.
Regional Studies 19, 2: 85-93.
Cohen, R. B. 1981. The new international divison of labor, multinational corporations and urban
hierarchy. In Urbanisation and urban planning in capitalist society, ed. M. Dear and A. J.
Scott, pp. 287-315,
Courchene, T. J. 1981. A market perspective on regional disparities. Canadian Public Policy, 7, 4:
506-518.
Denison, E. E 1974. Accounting for United States economic growth 1929-1969. Washington, D.C.:
Brookings Institution.
Friedmann, J. and Weaver, C. 1979. Territory and function: the evolution of regional planning.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
George, R. E. 1970. A leader and a laggard: manufacturing industry in Nova Scotia, Quebec, and
Ontario. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Glade, W. 1983. The Levantines in Latin America. American Economic Review, 73, 2:118-122.
Hagen, E. 1971. How economic growth begins: a theory of social change. In Entrepreneurship and
economic development, ed. R Kilby, pp. 123-37. New York: Free Press.
Hamilton, E E. I., ed. 1974. Spatial perspectives on industrial organization and decision making.
London: Wiley.
Harris, J. R. 1973. Entrepreneurship and economic development. In Business enterprise and
economic change, ed. L. Cain and R Uselding, pp. 141-172. Kent, Ohio: Ohio University
Press.
Kilby, E 1983. An entrepreneurial problem. American Economic Review, 73, 2:107-111.
Kuznets, S. 1965. Towards a theory of economic growth. New York: Norton.
Kuznets, S. 1966. Modern economic growth. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Matthews, R. 1981a. An examination of development and dependency in Nova Scotia. Halifax:
Institute of Public Affairs, Occasional Paper No. 8.
Matthews, R. 1981b. Two alternative explanations of the problem of regional dependency in
Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 7, 2: 268-283.
Planque, B. and Lazzeri, V. 1980. Disjonction fonctionnelle et d6veloppement local. Revue
d'Economie Rbgionale et Urbaine, 4, 1: 51-72.
Pol~se, M. 1981. Economic integration, national policies and the rationality of regional separatism.
Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 4, 1: 1-19.
Pol~se, M. 1982. Regional demand for business services and interregional service flows in a small
Canadian region. Papers of the Regional Science Association, 50:151-163.
Ray, M. 1971. The location of United States manufacturing subsidiaries in Canada. Economic
Geography, 47, 3: 112-32.
Redlich, E 1971. Entrepreneurial typology. In Steeped in two cultures: a selection of essays, ed. E
Redlich. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Sallez, A. 1983. Division spatiale du travail, d6veloppement r6gional polaris6 et th6orie de la
localisation. Revue d'Economie Rbgionale et Urbaine, 7, 1: 69-98.
Semple, R. K. 1977. The spatial concentration of domestic and foreign multinational corporate
headquarters in Canada. Cahiers de gOographie de QuObec, 21, 2: 33-52.
Schumpeter, J. 1935. The theory of economic development. New York: Oxford University Press.
Stephens, J. D. and Holly, B. 1981. City system behaviour and corporate influence: the headquarter
location of U.S. industrial firms, 1955-1975. Urban Studies, 18: 285-300.
12 PAPERS OF THE REGIONAL SCIENCE ASSOCIATION, VOL. 55, 1984

Stohr, W. B. and Taylor, D. R. E 1981. Development from above or below? Chichester: John Wiley.
Termote, M. 1978. Une mesure de l'impact 6conomique de l'immigration internationale: le cas du
Qu6bec, 1951-1974. Canadian Studies in Population, 5: 55-68.
Walters, D. 1968. Canadian income levels and growth: an international perspective. Ottawa:
Economic Council of Canada, Study No. 23.
Watts, H. D. 1974. Spatial rationalization in multi-plant enterprises. Geoforum, 17: 69-76.
White, R. and Woods, R. 1980. The geographical impact of migration. London: Longman.