The role of place branding in local and regional economic development: bridging the gap between policy and practicality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Place branding has become an increasingly integral part of local and regional economic development strategies in the global competition for business investment. Professional and academic understanding remains limited, however, regarding whether place branding can be classified as a ‘high-road’ policy with substantive and effective merits or a ‘low-road’ policy that is generally inefficient and ineffective at fostering sustainable economic growth. Through the context of business attraction, this study examines whether place branding represents ‘high-road’ policy by comparing what economic development practitioners are doing to create and support their brands against the needs and desires of businesses considering relocation. The research goal is achieved through a series of in-depth interviews with economic development practitioners (n = 25) and private-sector site selectors (n = 10) in the province of Ontario, Canada. Gaps between policy and practicality are identified by comparing the responses of the two groups. Results demonstrate that place branding has the potential to be ‘high-road’ policy given its utility in business attraction. In its current implementation, however, place branding remains better described as a ‘low-road’ policy, as it is not being used efficiently. Several gaps in place-branding policy are identified, including an overreliance on visual identities and narratives, poor communication of the brand information, and overemphasis on presenting quality of life and affordability. These gaps present possible areas of ineffectiveness that can limit the ability of a place brand to attract investment, but provide areas of future policy improvements, thus enabling place branding to shift from ‘low road’ to ‘high road’.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".