Why do Rust Belt rivals Cleveland and Pittsburgh have diverging economies?

-- "Urban economic development strategies: do you invest in people or places? ... yes," 2010 (Richard Florida said this was a particularly trenchant commentary on Pittsburgh's success)
"Economic restructuring success and failure: Detroit compared to Bilbao, Liverpool, and Pittsburgh," 2014

========

Cleveland.

The article "Why do Rust Belt rivals Cleveland and Pittsburgh have diverging economies?," in the Cleveland Plain Dealer, references a report (Pittsburgh v. Cleveland: Winning in Football (Finally), Losing in Economic Development (Still). A story told in Graphs -- not yet online) by Richey Piiparinen, of the Levin College of Urban Affairs at Cleveland State University.  From the article:

Experts have provided a variety of explanations for the diverging economies, from policy differences at the state level, to the relative strength of each city’s anchor institutions, including its universities, to the exposure each has had to the global economy. 

But what’s certain in Piiparinen’s mind is that a more holistic, less siloed approach to economic development is called for in Cleveland, and it should begin with innovation, centered around research and development. 

 “Cleveland is not where it needs to be,” Piiparinen writes in his report that looks at several economic criteria. “The solution? Not to copycat Pittsburgh, but reflect on its incremental success. This means looking at trends and making sense of them. But doing so coolly, discerningly.”

Pittsburgh Triangle.  Photo: Darrell Sapp.  From "Pittsburgh's population slides, but no longer falling off a cliff," Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.

It is an interesting question.  Both have experienced significant deindustrialization and corporate consolidation, although Pittsburgh still has more major corporate headquarters for firms in industry, IT and banking.  Both have recovered from industrially-related environmental degradation.

Both have a set of universities that aren't national leaders, but hold their own, including strong engineering programs, which are particularly good for ancillary business development.  

Both have renowned medical centers, although UPMC's transplantation expertise has attracted patients, especially wealthy ones, from around the world.  Both have engaged philanthropic communities that do innovative things.

Some of the difference is racial--Cleveland is more black--and political--Cleveland has been a bit more radical ("How the 'People's Mayor' saved public power," The Intercept) and was the first large American city to have a black mayor, in Carl Stokes.

As far as the center city is concerned, Cleveland still has more population, about 100,000 more residents than Pittsburgh.  But the Greater Pittsburgh area has more population, by a few hundred thousand, although both areas have shrunk since 1960, although population has leaked out of the central city to the counties.  (Detroit has the same issue.)

Piiparinen says that while Pittsburgh's education and medical institutions are more successful than Cleveland's, part of the difference is that Cleveland is still more manufacturing based (actually producing stuff, rather than coordinating functions), but Pittsburgh's primary reason for economic success compared to Cleveland is fossil fuel extraction through fracking.

According to another article cited, "Industrial Policy and Local Economic Transformation: Evidence From the U.S. Rust Belt," from Economic Development Quarterly, Pittsburgh has been better at coordinating and focusing on economic development policy at both the local and state levels.  (Interestingly, Ohio has the Battelle Memorial Institute, which is an expert organization when it comes to technology-based economic development.)

This is accentuated by a better developed venture capital system in Pittsburgh, in part anchored by greater R&D at Carnegie-Mellon and the University of Pittsburgh, especially in IT.

So Pittsburgh is superior because:

• Universities with more R&D and spillover business development, especially in IT
• UPMC is more successful than Cleveland Clinic*
• a better system (venture capital) for funding new businesses, especially health-related IT**
• fracking.

* Maybe certain types of medical expertise and specialization have more economic development benefit than others?  It would be interesting to find out more about the differences between Cleveland Clinic and UPMC.  There's no question that UPMC's medical transplantation excellence goes back more than 30 years.

**  Interestingly, the thesis of Richard Florida's Rise of the Creative Class was his analysis of why Pittsburgh was at the time, a post-industrialization economic laggard.  I'd argue that part of it was temporal, in that certain conditions necessary for success, in particular an ecosystem for funding new businesses with great potential and opportunity, were not in place, but were in early development stages.  As the funding ecosystem developed, Pittsburgh's fortunes improved.