Hipsters vs. geeks? Creative workers, STEM and innovation in US cities. (May 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Rodríguez-Pose, Andrés; Lee, Neil
• Is Part Of: Cities. Volume 100(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-05
• Subjects: Creativity -- Creative class -- STEM -- Innovation -- Cities -- United States; City planning -- Periodicals; Urban policy -- Periodicals; 711.4
• DOI: 10.1016/j.cities.2020.102653
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0264-2751

Abstract

Abstract: Innovation in cities is increasingly regarded as an outcome of two potential inputs: scientific activity and creativity. Recent firm level research has suggested that what really matters for innovation is the combination of these two inputs, rather than the mere presence of workers representing each group. Yet there is little evidence on whether this relationship holds at the city level. This paper investigates this gap in our knowledge by examining how the simultaneous presence of STEM (geeks) and creative workers (hipsters) in 290 US Metropolitan Statistical Areas during the period between 2005 and 2015 has contributed to determine city level innovation. The results indicate that, although at first sight the presence of STEM workers is a more important driver of innovation than that of creative ones, it is the combination of both factors that maximizes innovation in US cities. The most innovative cities are precisely those that are more successful at combining the two. Hence, current policies which tend to focus mainly on either STEM or creativity may be better targeted at ensuring both are present. Highlights: Science-based (STEM) activities in US cities are positively linked with innovation. Creative activities are less connected to urban innovation, measured by patent generation. It is, however, the combination of STEM and creative activities in US cities that yields the highest innovation returns. Geeks are more effective and innovate more when working alongside hipsters in cities. Hipsters need geeks, but geeks need hipsters. Each group, on its own, makes a lower contribution to urban innovation.