In today's global economy, regions compete for jobs, investment, and talent--not states.  Businesses choose between Pittsburgh and Charlotte, Erie and Buffalo, and Philadelphia and Boston, not Pennsylvania vs. Massachusetts, New York, or North Carolina.  

It's no surprise to anyone that Pennsylvania's regions are very different places. It's not just that we call soft drinks "pop" in the west and "soda" in the east. More important things, like land and infrastructure issues, differ dramatically across the state. For example, one of the most critical challenges in western Pennsylvania has been finding money for industrial site development and reuse of brownfields to enable business growth, while a pressing need in southeastern Pennsylvania has been controlling development of farmland from pressures for new housing. Western Pennsylvania has an abundance of water, but it has problems keeping it clean, while eastern Pennsylvania has been plagued by droughts. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia have sought predictable funding for transit systems, while the rest of the state has been more concerned with highway funding.  

Yet the decisions about how to deal with each region's unique issues are made not by the regions themselves, but by officials in Harrisburg. Although regional planning commissions develop regional transportation plans and prioritize projects, PennDOT still decides which projects will be funded, not the regions. Although county and regional agencies plan, organize, and prioritize economic development projects, the decisions about which projects get funded are made by the Department of Community and Economic Development or the Governor's Office, and do not always match local priorities. There is no flexibility to create special programs or to reallocate funds to respond to regional needs--all programs have to be statewide, and the funding amounts and program guidelines are all established in Harrisburg.  

In many of its key economic development and infrastructure programs, the state should allocate a portion of the funding and delegate the decision-making authority for spending it to those regions that have effective regional planning and decision-making mechanisms in place. For example, Southwestern Pennsylvania has demonstrated that it can effectively plan and set economic development priorities at the regional level. For over a decade, beginning with the Southwestern Pennsylvania Growth Alliance and now through the Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission, ten counties have worked together to identify priorities for infrastructure investment and business climate improvements.  But all too often, the state has chosen to ignore the region's priorities.

So what can you do?

1. Demand that the state follow regional priorities. The next time the Governor or your state legislator come bearing "gifts" from Harrisburg, ask whether the projects they're funding were regional economic development priorities.

2. Urge that state funding programs be regionalized. What good is planning if you can't assure that funding will follow the plan? Just as many municipalities have been given "home rule" powers by the state, state economic development and infrastructure programs should be modified to explicitly delegate decision-making responsibility to capable regional entities.

If we enable each of the state's regions to compete effectively for jobs and talent in the post-recession economy, we'll see greater economic success for the state as a whole.