Global Models of Binational Regional Collaboration

Global Models of

Binational Regional Collaboration:

The Potential for Great Lakes Regional Innovation

J. D. Snyder

Project Director

Kelly Christopherson│Leslie Grimm

Anthony Orlando │ Aaron Galer

May 2014

Global Models of Binational Regional Collaboration May 2014

Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development

in cooperation with the

St. Clair County Economic Development Alliance

Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and Development Commission Chippewa, Luce, Mackinac Counties

and the East Michigan Council of Governments (EMCOG)

Arenac, Bay, Clare, Gladwin, Gratiot, Huron, Iosco, Isabella, Midland, Ogemaw, Roscommon, Saginaw, Sanilac, Tuscola Counties

Disclaimer This report was prepared by the Michigan State University Center for Community and Economic Development, in part, under award 06-79-05665 from the Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce and, in part, with the support of a grant from the Michigan Applied Public Policy Research, a program of the Michigan State University Institute for Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR). The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Economic Development Administration, the U.S. Department of Commerce, or the MSU Institute for Public Policy and Social Research.

©2014 Michigan State University Board of Trustees, All Rights Reserved

Cover Photo Credits: Gov. Snyder/PM Harper- http://www.cbc.ca/news/iikime/iikimed/1b-windsor-detroit-bridge-deal-struck-1.1141713,

Trucks-http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/07/bottleneck_at_the_border_aging.html, Blue Water Bridge -

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Water_Bridge_2006.JPG, Niagara Bridge -

http://warrior481.blogspot.com/2009_07_01_archive.html, NITC - http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/rebuilding-

america/the-monumental-new-us-to-canada-bridge#slide-8, Arranged by Anthony Orlando.

http://www/

http://blog.cleveland.com/business/2008/07/bottleneck_at_the_border_aging.html

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Blue_Water_Bridge_2006.JPG

http://warrior/

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/rebuilding-america/the-monumental-new-us-to-canada-bridge#slide-8

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/rebuilding-america/the-monumental-new-us-to-canada-bridge#slide-8


i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1 The Levels and Value of Binational Collaboration ..................................................................... 2

1.11 Traditional or Classic Binational Collaboration ......................................................................... 3

1.111 U.S.-Canada Binational Collaboration ....................................................................................... 3

1.12 Binational State-Provincial Collaboration: Practicing Paradiplomacy ....................................... 5

1.121 Binational Multi-State/Multi-Provincial Collaboration ............................................................. 6

1.13 Binational Regional Sub-State/Sub-Provincial Collaboration .................................................... 7

1.131 The Role of Economic Development Districts in Binational Regional Collaboration ................ 8

2.0 Theories of Binational Regionalism and Beyond: A Brief Review of the Literature .......................... 11

3.0 The Importance of Binational Regional Collaboration at the Sub-State/Sub-Provincial Level in the

Global Economy ................................................................................................................................ 15

3.1 Operationalizing Binational Regional Collaboration ............................................................... 16

3.2 Stages of Regional Innovation Systems ................................................................................... 19

4.0 European Models of Binational Regional Collaboration: Integration and Cohesion ........................ 21

4.1 EUREGIO (Netherlands-Germany): Pioneering Binational Regional Collaboration ................ 23

4.2 Oresund Region (Copenhagen, Denmark-Malmo, Sweden): A Binational Metro Region ...... 25

4.3 Helsinki-Tallinn (Finland-Estonia): The Binational Gulf of Finland Region .............................. 27

4.4 Hedmark-Dalarna (Norway-Sweden): A Binational Rural EuroRegion .................................... 29

4.5 The Bothnian Arc (Finland-Sweden): Deepening Northern EuroRegion Integration .............. 31

4.6 Ireland-Northern Ireland (UK) Collaboration: The Binational Emerald Connection ............... 33

5.0 North American Models of Binational Regional Collaboration ......................................................... 37

5.1 The Pacific Northwest: The Cascadia Bioregion and Mind Set ................................................ 39

5.11 Geographic Area ...................................................................................................................... 40

5.12 Background .............................................................................................................................. 41

5.13 Current Binational Collaboration Initiatives ............................................................................ 42

5.14 The PNWER Model .................................................................................................................. 43

5.2 The Blue Water Region of Southwest Ontario/East Michigan ................................................ 44

5.21 Infrastructure Connections: The Blue Water Bridge and St. Clair River Rail Tunnel ............... 45


ii

5.22 Demographic and Economic Profile of the Blue Water Region .............................................. 46

5.23 The Binational Blue Water Regional Collaborative Process .................................................... 47

5.24 Success of the Binational Blue Water Regional Collaboration Conference, October 2013 .... 48

5.25 Future Steps in the Blue Water Region Binational Collaboration ........................................... 50

5.3 The Twin Saults Region of the Michigan Eastern Upper Peninsula and Northern Ontario .... 50

5.31 The History and Context of the Twin Saults ............................................................................ 51

5.32 Major Economic Sectors in the Twin Saults Region ................................................................ 52

5.33 Formalizing the Connection: The Sister City: Two Nations – One City Agreement ................. 52

5.34 The Binational Regional Collaborative Process in the Twin Saults Region .............................. 53

5.35 Two Successful Binational Regional Collaboration Conferences in the Twin Saults Region ... 53

5.36 Future Collaborative Steps in the Twin Saults Region............................................................. 54

5.4 The Buffalo-Niagara/Southern Ontario Region ....................................................................... 54

5.5 The Cali Baja Region: San Diego, California, USA/Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico ................ 56

5.6 The Region of El Camino Real: El Paso, Texas, USA/Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico ........ 58

5.7 The Region of Brownsville, Texas, USA/Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico ............................. 59

6.0 Conclusion ......................................................................................................................................... 61

6.1 Creating a Binational Regional Collaborative Process ............................................................. 61

6.2 Economic Rationales Support Binational Regional Collaboration ........................................... 62

6.3 The Linkage to Regional Innovation Systems .......................................................................... 62


1

1.0 Introduction

A current paradox of globalization is the corresponding rise in the importance of regions at the sub-

state/sub-provincial level. Less surprising, perhaps, is the emerging importance of binational, or cross-

border, regions at the sub-state/sub-provincial level. Current processes of globalization entail a

transition from the traditional international order of sovereign nation-states that arose in the

seventeenth century to a transnational world where a sense of “transcending borders” permeates, or

perforates, traditional national states with the invisible power of the Internet and mushrooming trade

relationships.

In the early 21st century, traditional notions of nation-

state sovereignty are being challenged and transformed

by sub-national and sub-state/sub-provincial regions and

the exponential increase in international trade since 1990.

With trade relationships facilitated by the World Trade

Organization (WTO) and free trade agreements, global

economic growth has occurred at a remarkable pace. In

the past 20 years, global trade has increased annually an

average of 5.4 percent. In global merchandise alone,

trade increased more than 7 percent per year on average

between 1980 and 2011, reaching a total of $18 trillion for that period.1

The commencement of the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995 and the implementation of nearly

100 free trade agreements2 world-wide have resulted in a globalized economy that provides access to a

greater variety of goods and services, increase of sales and market shares, improvement in allocation of

global resources, open markets, offering businesses incentives and protections and removing barriers

for a more transparent border. The WTO and the success of current free trade agreements continue to

provide a framework for negotiating and formalizing new trade alliances, and promote innovation,

competition, and economic growth.

Due to the “increasing volume, velocity and importance of flows with and across borders of people,

ideas, greenhouse gases, dollar drugs, good, services, viruses, emails, and weapons,”3 actors at sub-

national levels have become increasingly important. Cities and regions are competing with each other in

the global economy more so than national states. Many regions are not within a single national state,

but are instead located at international borders and transcend national territorial boundaries.

1 World Trade Organization. “World Trade Report: Factors shaping the future of world trade.” 2013. Retrieved December 30,

2013 from http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report13_e.pdf

2 World Trade Organization. Annual Report. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/anrep_e/anrep13_e.pdf

3 Richard N. Haass. “Sovereignty and Globalisation.” Council on Foreign Relations. 2006. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from

http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903.

In the early 21st century, traditional

notions of nation-state sovereignty

are being challenged and transformed

by sub-national and sub-state/sub-

provincial regions and the exponential

increase in international trade since

1990.


http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903


2

Innovation-driven economic growth and prosperity increasingly depend on sub-national actors, those at

the state/provincial and sub-state/sub-provincial levels, emphasizing the importance of working with

cross-border neighbors. Sub-national/sub-provincial actors have the strongest interest in cross-border

relationships because they most directly experience the costs and the benefits.

Due to the evolving roles of national and sub-national regions, there is a need for policies to fit and

define these functional binational regions, or cross-border regions. Cross-border regions are increasingly

more visible to national policymakers and have become more globally-competitive for firms and talent.

Moreover, binational regional collaboration is ideal for facilitating innovation policy because regions

include a relevant spectrum of private firms, universities, talent/workers, and other resources.

In the following sub-sections of the introduction, the three levels of binational collaboration are briefly

described: traditional binational collaboration between nation-states; state/provincial collaboration and

multi-state/multi-provincial collaboration; and regional sub-

state/sub-provincial collaboration. Our focus is binational regional

collaboration at the sub-state/sub-provincial level. This level is

only recently receiving the attention it should receive,

commensurate with its importance.

The following major sections include a discussion of the

importance of binational sub-state/sub-provincial regional collaboration in the global economy; a brief

review of European models of binational regional collaboration; a more detailed review of North

American models of binational regional collaboration, including a discussion of the MSU Center for

Community and Economic Development’s engagement with two binational regions in Michigan/Ontario;

and the conclusion.

1.1 The Levels and Value of Binational Collaboration

Binational collaboration occurs on three principal levels: one, the traditional or classic level

between nation-states; two, the sub-national state or provincial level, usually because of physical

proximity between the jurisdictions; or three, the sub-state or sub-provincial regional level, again usually

because of physical proximity between the jurisdictions.

Binational collaboration consists of a framework or process of cooperation and coordination between

two national states, between states or provinces of two national states, or between sub-state/sub

regional entities in two different national states for an identified purpose.4 This proceeds “through a

process of systematic harmonization of policy…that leads to policy parallelism and is driven by the

convergence of socio-cultural values, increased economic integration, and the formation of border-

spanning network institutions.5

4 Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. “Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the Emergence of Cross-Border

Regions.” Canadian Political Science Review Vol. 2. No 2. 109, 2008.

5Ibid.

Our focus is binational

regional collaboration at the

sub-state/sub-provincial

level.


3

This cultural convergence is especially true in the case of Michigan, USA and Ontario, Canada, which

have been described as being more similar to one another than to their neighboring states and

provinces. This idea is also demonstrated by the Canadian government’s Policy Research Initiative (PRI)

Project for North American Linkages which reported that socio-cultural values are more similar between

Atlantic Canada and the U.S. east coast, Pacific Canada and the U.S. west coast, and within in the Great

Lakes Heartland (including Midwestern America and

Ontario.)

In the 21st century global economy, the activities of these

levels have become increasingly vertically-integrated.

Binational, or cross-border, interests and organizations

often need to work with various levels of government to

achieve their goals. This means that binational

collaboration results in closer cooperation within each

nation as binational collaboration breaks down barriers

and facilitates partnerships between two nations.

Binational collaboration can take the form of formal arrangements with the execution of treaties or

agreements, or informal arrangements that rely on meetings, discussions, and grassroots activities, or a

hybrid mix of the two. Many informal systems exist in local binational communities that facilitate the

daily lives of their residents and businesses.

A more sophisticated form of binational collaboration involves ongoing binational governance

mechanisms. Binational collaboration is predicated on the understanding of parties in the two national

states, sub-national states, or even sub-state regions that greater binational economic prosperity, better

management of shared natural resources, or some other common cause is feasible through the

collaboration. Binational collaboration facilitates an economic or other type of outcome with greater

benefits than those outcomes resulting from each entity acting unilaterally.

1.11 Traditional or Classic Binational Collaboration

Collaboration at the nation-state level usually entails the governments of two national states

entering a treaty or some other type of formal agreement. This conduct is typical of traditional

diplomacy. Binational collaboration at this level is of course extensive and commands the highest public

profile with its nationwide implications and impact on two nations.

1.111 U.S.-Canada Binational Collaboration

In many cases, binational collaboration occurs between two adjacent countries, like Canada and

the United States.6 Such collaboration may include agreements to manage natural resources, such as

the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909; or promote trade and commerce as in the Auto Pact of 1965 and

6 Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. “Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the Emergence of Cross-Border

Regions.” Canadian Political Science Review Vol. 2. No 2. 109. 2008.

Binational collaboration can take

the form of formal arrangements

with the execution of treaties or

agreements, or informal

arrangements that rely on

meetings, discussions, and

grassroots activities, or a hybrid mix

of the two.


4

the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) of 1988; or cooperate on security as in the 2011

Beyond the Border Agreement.

The Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 is a hugely important binational agreement between Canada and

the United States. Over the past 105 years, this treaty has provided a framework through the

International Joint Commission to manage and settle issues that arise from shared water resources on

the basis of equality between the two countries.

The Auto Pact, formally the Canada–United States Automotive Products Agreement, was signed by

Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson7 and President Lyndon B. Johnson on January 16, 1965. This was a

major step towards integrating the North American automotive industry by reducing production costs in

Canada, lowering prices for consumers, and removing tariffs on cars, trucks, and automotive parts.

The Auto Pact of 1965 helped to

reduce the Canadian balance of

trade deficits resulting from most

automotive parts being made in the

U.S., but it also bolstered the

economies of the two nations

through the elimination of tariffs

and lowering the price of

automobiles. According to Dimitry

Anastakis, “the Auto Pact was an

important step in the creation of a

continental economy.”8

The Auto Pact created a platform

for the Canada-United States Free

Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) that

was signed by Prime Minister Brian

Mulroney and President Ronald Reagan on January 2, 1988 and took effect the following year. The Free

Trade Agreement excluded tariffs quotas, export subsidies, and other types of government interference.

The Free Trade Agreement greatly liberalized trade between Canada and the U.S. by removing tariffs,

but more importantly, provided Canadians unhindered access to U.S. markets and provided U.S.

businesses with access to the Canadian energy industry.

7 Lester Pearson was a statesman of note who received the 1957 Nobel Peace Prize for solving the Suez Crisis in 1956. As the

president of the United Nations General Assembly, he secured support to send UN peacekeeping forces to the trouble spot and separate the warring parties of Britain, France, and Israel from Egypt and the Soviet Union with the imminent threat of nuclear war.

8 Dimitry Anastakis. Auto Pact: Creating a Borderless North American Auto Industry, 1960–1971. Toronto: University of Toronto

Press. 2005.

Detroit Skyline and Detroit River Source: Wikipedia


5

Just four years later, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was signed by President

George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, and Mexican President Carlos Salinas on

December 17, 1992, that went into effect January 1, 1994.9 NAFTA brought together three of the 10

largest economies in the world, the U.S. with the largest economy and Canada’s ranked #8 and Mexico’s

#9, according to the World Bank.

With the signing of NAFTA, the CUSFTA was expanded to encompass a trilateral North American pact.

U.S.-Mexican tariffs were eliminated or phased out over 10-15 years. In addition to tariff elimination,

NAFTA deepened and extended the Free Trade Agreement. Many observers point out that NAFTA

removed restrictions on the mobility of capital and confers rights on investors, limiting the power of

governments and making it difficult for future governments to change the terms.10

n responding to the post 9-11 world, President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper jointly

announced the Beyond the Border Agreement on December 7, 2011 on border security and reducing

trade regulations. The agreement was designed to coordinate the introduction of new technology to

improve cargo security and screening at points of entry along the border. With such improvements,

congestion will be eased and the time it takes to transport products between the U.S. and Canada will

be reduced. These measures are intended to make it easier for businesses to export their goods. The

U.S. and Canada are also working on streamlining trade regulations or eliminating them in some cases.

1.12 Binational State-Provincial Collaboration: Practicing Paradiplomacy

Subnational collaboration occurs at the state/provincial level and is a type of paradiplomacy,

according to political science researchers. Paradiplomacy refers to international actions by subnational

levels of government in regard to trade, cultural matters, economic development, and other areas.

Paradiplomacy can involve two subnational entities working with one another, or a subnational

government working with a sovereign foreign government. Soldatos defines paradiplomacy as direct

international activity by subnational actors supporting, complementing, correcting, duplicating, or

challenging the nation-state’s diplomacy.11 Whether provincial/state paradiplomacy can be practiced is

determined by the structure of a nation’s constitution and laws.

Some countries, like Mexico, specifically prohibit any international activities by its constituent states.

9 President Bill Clinton, a centrist Democrat, shepherded NAFTA through Congress in 1993, depending on Republicans for the

majority of supporting votes in the House and Senate. As a result of criticism, President Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation. The Free Trade Agreement had been highly contentious in Canada with the 1988 election fought largely over the issue. The Liberals and the New Democrats split the anti-free trade vote in the 1988 election and the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives slipped in. Mulroney’s PC party easily passed the 1987 FTA and 1993 NAFTA bills.

10 Robert E. Scott, Carlos Salas, and Bruce Campbell. “Revisiting NAFTA: Still not working for North America’s workers.” EPI

Briefing Paper #173, 2006.

11 Panayotis Soldatos. “An Explanatory Framework for the Study of Federated States as Foreign Policy Actors in Federalism and

International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units” Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990.


6

Other countries, like the U.S., reserve the sphere of international relations and treaty making to the

federal government but the flexible structure of U.S./state federalism allows states to engage in foreign

relations short of treaty-making. This even includes state participation in binational statutory

organizations like the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) or less formal arrangements like the

Council of Great Lakes Governors. U.S. states have also routinely established offices in foreign countries

to facilitate trade and exporting by companies in their states and attract foreign direct investment (FDI).

Still others, like Canada, require provinces to approve treaties and agreements made by the central

government. The levels of Canadian provincial paradiplomacy have been classified by Richard Vengroff,

who identified Quebec and Ontario as the provinces with the highest levels of paradiplomacy.12

Quebec’s paradiplomacy assets include an International Relations Ministry with over 700 employees;

over 550 international agreements since 1964, many with a foreign central government; and a network

of offices in 17 countries across four continents. Ontario has also operated at significant levels of

paradiplomacy, undertaking numerous international trade missions and working to expand cooperation

with actors in Michigan and New York State in the areas of tourism, transportation, energy, and

technology.13

1.121 Binational Multi-State/Multi-Provincial Collaboration

Binational multi-state/multi-provincial collaboration is

generally used to promote trade and investment or manage

common natural resources. For example, the Council of Great

Lakes Governors which includes the governors of the eight

Great Lakes states and the premiers of two provinces14

exemplifies this type of regional collaboration. The Council

was established in 1982 and achieved notable successes with

the Great Lakes Charter in 1985 and Great Lakes Protection

Fund in 1988, among other agreements. The Great Lakes

Charter was a landmark in binational multi-state, multi-provincial regional collaboration, and established

a durable framework to protect Great Lakes waters from diversions out of the Basin. The Great Lakes

Protection Fund was the first of its kind and established funding for research on critical Great Lakes

issues. Despite these significant successes, the Council went into eclipse and met only intermittently for

two decades. It met for the first time in eight years last June (2013).

As the Council is an informal, voluntary organization, it depends on the whims of current governors and

lacks institutional consistency over time as evidenced by its fragmentary performance since 1990. The

12

Richard Vengroff and Jason Rich. “Paradiplomacy and the Canadian Provinces.” The American Political Science Association. 2004.

13 Ibid.

14 The governors of the states of Michigan, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, New York, and Pennsylvania and the

premiers of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.

Paradiplomacy refers to

international actions by

subnational levels of government

in regard to trade, cultural

matters, economic development,

and other areas.


7

Council focuses on Great Lakes management and environmental policy as an avenue for economic

policy.15

The Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) provides a powerful model of binational multi-state,

multi-provincial collaboration. PNWER is a statutory organization that includes five U.S. states

(Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, and Alaska) and five Canadian jurisdictions (the provinces of

British Columbia, Alberta, and Saskatchewan and the Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories). Each

jurisdiction adopted legislation to implement its PNWER membership. PNWER members collaborate on

policy to improve regional economic well-being and strengthen regional clout in national and

international settings.16 As a statutory body, it functions as an ongoing institution without its

institutional functionality being subject to the whims of political leaders.15

PNWER has done groundbreaking work In promoting more effective border management, critical

infrastructure security, energy planning, cross-border workforce mobility, and economic innovation.

1.13 Binational Regional Sub-State/Sub-Provincial Collaboration

Binational regional sub-state/sub-provincial collaboration has been largely neglected as an area

of study until recently. This type of collaboration may include local units of government; private sector

actors; nongovernmental organizations; economic development agencies and organizations (e.g.,

federally-designated economic development districts, or EDDs); and universities and colleges. Sub-

state/sub-provincial or regional binational collaboration is extensive in Europe. EUREGIO in the Dutch-

German region situated between the Rhine, Ems, and Ijessel Rivers is the pioneer of European cross-

border collaboration. EUREGIO has a long history (dating back to the 1950s) and an advanced level of

governance that includes a binational regional parliament. The binational Metro Oresund Region which

includes the areas of Copenhagen, Denmark and Malmo, Sweden may be considered the flagship of

contemporary binational regional collaboration.

The European Community established the International Region Community Initiative (INTERREG)

program in 1990 to encourage economic cooperation in cross-border regions, providing a top-down

approach completely unlike any structure in North America. EUREGIO, it should be noted in this regard,

predates INTERREG by some 30 years.

The supra-national framework of the EU European Territorial Cooperation program, formerly the

INTERREG program, has no counterpart in North America. Another obvious difference between the EU

and North America is the number of countries, with many more collaborative combinations possible in

the EU than in North America. Independent of the top-down support of binational regional collaboration

15

Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. “The State of Borders and Borderlands Studies 2009: A Historical View from the Journal of Borderlands Studies.” Eurasian Border Review. 2010.

16 Pacific NorthWest Economic Region website. “About Us.” Retrieved December 27, 2013 from

http://www.pnwer.org/AboutUs/Background.aspx



8

and the number of countries, the critical piece is whether leaders and stakeholders in the binational

region have the willingness and desire to work together.17

Binational regional (or cross-border area) collaboration is critical as a conduit to the global economy in

the 21st century. Rationales for binational regional collaboration include addressing positive or negative

externalities that cross borders, overcoming peripherality in terms of both national policymaking and

competing for firms and talent, and creating economies of scale that leverage binational assets and

achieve more potent critical mass.

In binational regions, opportunities for firms and workers are increased through a larger labor market,

an asset that is attractive to knowledge-based companies. Accessing knowledge and business networks

helps SMEs that lack the global reach of large firms. Achieving critical mass can increase the region’s

visibility “as an innovation node in global networks, raising the region’s profile for public and private as

well as national and international innovation-related investments.”18

However, our knowledge of the dynamics and functioning of binational regions is woefully incomplete:

…there is no model that addresses, first, why some borderlands integrated economically

but not politically, while others have institutions spanning an international boundary

without the presence of intense economic linkages, and second, what role local political

clout and local culture play in defining and shaping borderlands…19

We hope the discussion of binational regional collaboration here illuminates the dynamics and benefits

of binational regional collaboration to some degree and provides future directions for U.S. EDA,

International Trade Administration (ITA), other policy makers, and their stakeholders to pursue.

1.131 The Role of Economic Development Districts in Binational Regional Collaboration

Federally-designated Economic Development Districts (EDDs) that are border or near-border

regions can play significant roles in the development and implementation of binational regional

collaboration strategies. Indeed, this EDD role could and should be a new dimension of 21st century

comprehensive economic development strategies (CEDS) for competing in the global economy and

should be supported by the U.S. Economic Development Administration with adequate funding of EDDs.

Our U.S. EDA-funded field experience at the MSU Center for Community and Economic Development

included working with a border-region EDD and a near-border region EDD along with a key local border

economic development organization (EDO) with a bridge to Canada. These EDDs and the EDO

demonstrated the capacity to initiate and develop valuable initiatives with a focus on binational regional

17

Carl Ek and Ian F. Fergusson. “Canada-U.S. Relations.” Congressional Research Service. 2012.

18 OECD. “Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders.” OECD Publishing. 2013.

19 Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. “The State of Borders and Borderlands Studies 2009: A Historical View from the Journal of

Borderlands Studies.” Eurasian Border Review. 2010.


9

collaboration. This strategic binational approach can clearly be used to further regional economic

development consistent with (or perhaps broadening) their CEDS goals.

The range of models described in this research paper provides a solid starting point for consideration by

the U.S. EDA and its partners and stakeholders of the appropriate scope and scale of binational regional

collaborative data and initiatives that could be incorporated in the future CEDS of border and near-

border EDDs.

“Greater knowledge of (binational or cross-border regions) will enrich the policy toolbox of governments

and contribute to a better understanding of the role governments play in the face of the rising

importance of (these regions),” according to one of the leading North American experts on cross-border

regions.20

In the hyper-competitive global economy, it is critical that U.S. EDDs in border and near-border regions

are equipping their toolboxes with all the tools that are available to them. We believe cross-border

collaboration is an important tool that’s been largely neglected in North America. It’s important to

change that now.

To foster greater understanding of the benefits of cross-border regions, we describe 13 different models

of binational regional collaboration in this paper. We believe this is a good place to commence

consideration of this innovative, 21st century global approach to comprehensive regional economic

development strategies.

20

Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, Tony Payan, and Gary Sawchuck. “The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Along the Mexican-US Border and in Europe: Lessons for Canada.” Government of Canada Working Paper Series 35. 2008.


10

Soo Locks, Twins Saults of Michigan and Ontario Source: Wikipedia


11

2.0 Theories of Binational Regionalism and Beyond: A Brief Review of the Literature

Our focus is on binational regional collaboration at the sub-state/sub-provincial level (or otherwise

referred to as cross-border areas).

Keating (1997) provided a template for analyzing regionalization, which geographers call a re-scaling

process, by identifying the aspects of political mobilization for the processes of region building,

institutional restructuring resulting in new governance structures, and functional needs providing

rationales for the actors involved.

In an overview of European geographical research on border regions, van Houtum (2000) sees three

theoretical strands of geographic analysis: the flow approach based on classic economic analysis of

borders causing discontinuities and increasing the marginal costs of interactions; the cross-border

cooperation approach that has evolved in economic and geographic studies since the early 1990s with

greater interest in integration and cooperation in economic geography; and the people approach with

an emphasis on the mental creation, symbolic shaping, and reshaping of borders by humans.

Blatter (2004) convincingly argues that the conceptual template to describe and compare political

cooperation across national boundaries must be broader than using the dichotomy of government

versus governance and also have greater precision in describing the types of interactions. He poses two

questions for empirical research on cross-border regions (with his research focusing on the Californias

and Cascadia in North America; Lake Constance and the Upper Rhine in Europe):

1) Do multiplying levels of governance lead to an extended version of federalism or do the

‘unbundling’ of governance institutions into a functionally-differentiated system with varying

scales result in ‘deterritorialization’?

2) What is the extent of the transformation from government to governance in terms of

involving private and non-profit actors in institutions of governance, and what mechanisms bind

these actors together?

Blatter’s template is also grounded in Hooghe and Marks’ (2003) typology of multi-level and

functionalist governance. The first type is based on traditional concepts of federalism where

jurisdictions are designed around communities with bundled competencies, stable over time, and

limited in number. The second type is based on public choice theory and characterized by jurisdictions

concentrated on specific policy problems with functional specificity and fluid over time with the

possibility of growing in number.

Blatter’s conceptual model is further informed by Castells’ (1996) ‘network society’ where a ‘space of

flows’ supersedes the traditional ‘spaces of place’ as the dominant logic for social organizations and

institutions. In the process of decentralization and regionalization, a more autonomous level of

governance results on the subnational level (Keating 2003). Blatter notes that scholars of European

integration lean toward a classic federalism to understand these processes with the regional

cooperation mimicking the integration of the European Union model. He also notes the term of

glocalization used by researchers outside the EU context to describe stronger interdependencies and

interactions between local and global actors.


12

Blatter suggests four ideal types of cross-border political institutions based on territorial and functional

governance, and instrumental/control and identity-providing/orientation modes. The four types are

named commission and consociation as types of territorial governance (spaces of place) and connection

and coalition as types of functional governance (spaces of flows).

A 2007 case study by Perkmann of the EUREGIO, the German-Dutch binational regional organization

that pioneered European regional cross-border cooperation, provides an initial typology for classifying

cross-border regions based on political mobilization, governance building, and strategic unification,

based on Keating’s template. Perkmann also defines a cross-border region as comprising contiguous

sub-national units from two or more nation states. This definition is likewise applicable to a binational

region, the term we use in this paper. He further observes that the existence of integrated cross-border

spaces is not a novelty in any historical sense; but having explicit strategic objectives pursued by social

forces within and beyond the region is.

In a seminal 2009 article, Brunet-Jailly points out that the study of borderlands needs more than partial

explanations focusing on market economics, government initiatives, and the roles of local communities

and culture to account for the relative transparency of borders in economically-integrated globalization.

As previously pointed out in sub-section 1.13, he concluded that there is no model that addresses:

…first, why some borderlands (or binational regions in the terminology of our paper here)

integrate economically but not politically, while others have institutions spanning

an international border without the pressure of intense economic linkages, and second,

what role local political clout and local culture play in defining and shaping

borderlands and boundaries.21

Decoville etal. (2010) analyze the process of spatial integration in 10 European cross-border

metropolitan regions. Spatial integration can be seen as a process of convergence between distinct

territories that results from intensified interactions between social, political, and social actors. It was

also demonstrated that strong economic interactions have an impact on the cross-border integration of

communities, using the measure of the proportion of residents based on the other side of the border.

The analysis looks at cross-border regions and the differentials in their GDP per capita, with cross-border

commuting being a major indicator. The authors developed three models of cross-border integration: by

specialization, polarization, and osmosis. In a functional specialization, cross border commuting goes

primarily from the periphery to the metropolitan center with an opposing residential flow toward the

periphery. The Oresund (Copenhagen, Denmark-Malmo, Sweden) Region is an example. In integration

by polarization, the flows of labor and residential displacements converge on the dominant urban

center. Basel is an example. In integration by osmosis, bi-directional flows of cross-border commuting

and residential movements occur. In this type of integration, the attractiveness of the metro center is

21

Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly, Tony Payan, and Gary Sawchuck. “The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Along the Mexican-US

Border and in Europe: Lessons for Canada.” Government of Canada Working Paper Series 35. 2008.


13

not high or the peripheral areas are attractive enough to contest the direction of the flow. Lille and

Aachen-Liege-Maastricht are cross-border regions that reflect this model.

Since the signing of the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1993, researchers and writers

have contemplated the future steps that the U.S., Canada, and Mexico might take to reach the next level

of cooperation and collaboration. Two recent books have looked at fundamental transformation of

cross-border integration. Dianne Francis has looked at a complete U.S.-Canada integration, and Robert

Pastor has contemplated the huge step of a fully-integrated North American continent.

In the Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country (2013), Francis

makes the case for the complete political integration of the U.S. and Canada. She argues that sharing

the world’s largest border with so many similarities in values, lifestyles, aspirations, and sectoral

economies should make such a merger modest. The two countries are each other’s largest investor,

customer, and supplier. Canada ships most of its oil to the U.S., and in return, purchases more U.S.

products than does the entire European Union. The U.S. and Canada are already far more integrated

than most understand.

The unification of the U.S. and Canada would result in an economy larger than the European Union’s.

This new entity would have the world’s most powerful military controlling more oil, water, metals,

energy, arable land, resource potential and technology than any jurisdiction on Earth. Francis contends

that the current U.S.-Canada free trade deal is making the border worse off, hurting trade and tourism.

New regulations create thousands of barriers for economic prosperity and integration, not to mention

the total cost of these barriers. Both countries are more regionalized than ever; the level of

statesmanship needs to improve before any steps are taken for complete integration. Even though the

merger seems logical, the hurdles are quite daunting.

Pastor (2011) offers a broad vision and a detailed blueprint for an integrated, dynamic, and equitable

North America. Arguing that NAFTA's mandate was too limited to address a new continental agenda and

that Interest groups and nativism inhibited bolder proposals, the three governments stalled in providing

dynamic continental leadership. To overcome resistance and inertia, leaders need a sufficiently large

idea to inspire people in all three countries to forge a formidable region to compete with the East Asia

powerhouse. According to Pastor, the North American idea--once woven into the national consciousness

of the three countries--could mobilize public support for continental solutions to problems that have

confounded each nation working alone. To stimulate trade and reduce illegal migration, for example,

the three countries should establish a fund to invest in the continent's infrastructure.


14

“Collaboration is important, not just because it’s a better way to learn. The

spirit of collaboration is penetrating every institution and all of our lives.

So learning to collaborate is part of equipping yourself for effectiveness,

problem solving, innovation and life-long learning in an ever-changing

networked economy.”

– Don Tapscott, Rotman School of Management, University of Toronto.


15

3.0 The Importance of Binational Regional Collaboration at the Sub-State/Sub-Provincial Level in the Global Economy

The global economy presents an entirely different set of market opportunities for local firms than the

domestic markets they are more familiar with. These opportunities require a different set of lenses and

an evolving mind-set for local firms to create innovative new products and services, and market these

goods and services to targeted export markets. These markets are targeted on the basis of being price

competitive and offering innovative products or services that appeal to that market. It is increasingly

understood that regions, with their respective knowledge assets and product mix, are the appropriate

vehicles for competing successfully on the hyper-competitive global playing field.

The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)22 is providing valuable global

leadership in its recognition of the critical importance of regions and cross-border regions as vehicles for

innovation. In recognizing the role of specific places, focused research and analysis of these regions can

enhance understanding of their growth opportunities. No one size fits all. Various measures of the

benefits of innovation activities find that the strongest interactions take place in close proximity, within

a radius of approximately 200 kilometers (or 120 miles), according to the OECD.

Describing the OECD’s approach to regional innovation further:

The increasing globalization of innovation forces regions to think beyond their borders.

The share of patents with a foreign co-inventor has doubled from 10% to 20% over the

past three decades. The share of scientific publications with an international co-author

has tripled from around 7% to 22%. Many firms innovate with international partners, but

that rate is much higher for large firms than for small or medium enterprises. Firm collab-

oration with a cross-border neighbor can be a stepping stone to wider global reach.

However, borders remain a barrier, even for neighboring regions.

Cross-border policy efforts have previously focused on border barriers, but considering

border opportunities is a newer approach. In the field of innovation policy, there are many

unknown factors but also many possibilities. To support innovation-driven growth,

innovation policy tools are an addition to the toolbox for cross-border regions.23

22

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) provides a forum for the 34 market democracies to address the economic, social, and governance challenges of globalization as well as exploit its opportunities. OECD provides a setting where policy experiences can be compared, answers sought to common problems, good practices identified, and domestic and international policies coordinated. The OECD often works closely with the EC. The U.S., Canada, and Mexico are members.

23 Karen Maguire. “Why Consider Cross-Border Policies to Support Regional Innovation?” Nordregio News. November, 2013.

Retrieved December 29, 2013 from http://www.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/Nordregio-News/2013/Cross-Border-Innovation-Policy/Context/

http://www.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/Nordregio-News/2013/Cross-Border-Innovation-Policy/Context/

http://www.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/Nordregio-News/2013/Cross-Border-Innovation-Policy/Context/


16

The importance of binational regions, or cross-border regions, was recognized by the Government of

Canada in its 2008 Final Report titled The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Between Canada and the

U.S. This report was the result of a four-year long research effort by the Policy Research Initiative (PRI), a

Government of Canada think tank responsible for “cross-cutting research in support of medium-term

policy planning.”

The robust PRI policy research on North American linkages started in 2004 with extensive survey

research and analysis in 2005, and concluded with six regional roundtables and a workshop in

Washington, DC in 2006. The NAFTA-propelled North American integration provided the impetus for

policy leaders and researchers to look more carefully at the “increasingly apparent strong and multi-

dimensional linkages that are taking hold at the regional

level, especially between adjacent and nearby areas along

the border.”24

The OECD and the Canadian PRI research reflects a

growing appreciation for binational regional collaboration

in the international community. The recent OECD and PRI

research comes after 20 years of the EC’s INTERREG

program supporting the cohesion and integration of Europe through cross-border cooperation. In the

current search for effective economic development approaches in the global economy, innovative

collaborative networks are emerging as a critical focal point.

Binational regional collaboration offers a genuinely new economic development approach in North

America, provided that international borders are not seen as barriers. To better understand the process

of binational regional collaboration, we examine the factors that support binational regional

collaboration; the steps to operationalize binational regional collaboration; and the stages of regional

innovation systems.

3.1 Operationalizing Binational Regional Collaboration

The 2013 OECD report Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders25 provides

guidance on cross-border regional innovation starting with the following threshold questions:

When does it make sense to collaborate with cross-border neighbors for innovation-

driven economic development?

What kinds of governance approaches can be used to manage such cross-border

collaboration?

24

Government of Canada PRI. “The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Between Canada and the United States.” PRI Final Report, 2008.


Binational regional collaboration

offers a genuinely new economic

development approach in North

America, provided that international

borders are not seen as barriers.


17

What are the policy instruments to facilitate cross-border collaboration for innovation?

To move the process forward to determine the viability of binational regional collaboration and develop

collaborative strategies, when appropriate, five sequential steps are identified and include:

1. Information: Mutual exchange of policy information.

2. Experimentation: Ad hoc and temporary common initiatives without joint funding.

3. Alignment: Mutual opening of programs or structures across borders with no joint funding.

4. Joint Actions: Policy, structures, and actions funded by all participating units.

5. Joint Strategy: Common strategy adopted at the level of the cross-border area, translated

into the common policy mix and co-funded by all participating units.26

In determining whether innovation-driven binational regional collaboration will be viable, six factors27

should be evaluated. The configuration and extent of each factor

contributes to the level of innovation culture and its

development potential. The evaluation can also ensure strategies

that reveal why the neighboring area is a good partner for

collaboration, a point stressed in the OECD report. The six

factors include:

Proximity

Economic structure/specialization patterns

Policy structures

Institutional set-up

Science base/knowledge infrastructure

Nature of linkages

These six factors are all basic constructs. What is important is to examine each of these factors in light of

the stages of development in their innovation systems. We discuss this aspect in the next sub-section.

Regional leaders and stakeholders can determine the viability of future binational regional collaboration

by assessing the conditions and constraints of each factor in their region.

For the successful practice of innovation-driven collaboration, a region is a more appropriate scale than

a locality because it includes the most relevant range of firms, universities, talent, and other innovation

26 OECD (2013), Regions and Innovation: Collaborating across Borders, OECD Reviews of Regional Innovation, OECD Publishing.

Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205307-en.

27 The six innovation system factors are derived from Lundquist and Trippl, Distance, Proximity and Types of Cross-border

Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis. They identify five elements for analysis and the importance of proximity in constructing cross-border strategies. We refer to six innovation system factors: their five elements and proximity.

“…innovative collaborative

networks are emerging as a

critical focal point.”


18

actors. Binational regional collaboration fundamentally relies on the proximity of regions to one

another. But, importantly, proximity is not restricted to a strictly-spatial definition. Three types of

proximity are identified in the OECD report:28

Physical proximity

Relational proximity

Functional proximity

Physical proximity refers to the spatial definition of proximity that is used to analyze the accessibility of

locales to one another. Accessibility may have less to do with measured distance, however, than with

the time and costs of interactions between binational regions. Accessible regions allow unfettered flow

of goods, people, and knowledge, all of which contribute to the development of innovation. Regions

with immediate physical proximity are natural candidates for binational regional collaboration.

Relational proximity refers to several aspects of the relationship between regions: social dynamics,

governance structures, regulations, and cultural identities. These aspects play an important role in the

facilitation and implementation of binational regional collaboration.

Functional proximity refers to the capabilities and capacities of each respective side of the border. If

great disparities exist between the capabilities and capacities of each actor, there may be little mutual

benefit to collaboration. The functionality of a region can depend on the existence of physical and

relational proximities. Regional functionality for collaborative efforts also depends on data, that may or

may not exist, in order to correctly define the cross-border area. For defining the cross-border area, use

data, the OECD report encourages, but don’t wait for complete data before collaborating.

The OECD report also identifies four economic rationales that support cross-border collaboration and

new market opportunities:

Economies of scale

Economies of scope

Public goods

Externalities

Economies of scale are supported by the growth of both labor markets and the knowledge base that

occurs with binational regional collaboration. Economies of scope can occur in the form of

complementary markets when each respective side of the border is proficient in a complementary

activity to the other.

Public goods are goods that would not typically emerge under competitive market conditions. These are

exemplified by the creation of a regional identity or a regional marketing campaign. These products

28

K. Lundquist and M. Trippl (2013). Distance, Proximity and Types of Cross-border Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis. Regional Studies. Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.450-460.


19

benefit both sides of the border, but would not exist without collaboration. Similarly, the economic

benefits of externalities such as knowledge spillovers, occur with successful collaboration.

The OECD report describes six European case studies that demonstrate these collaborative economic

opportunities and the specific drivers of those opportunities. Our paper here discusses five of the six

OECD case studies in section 4.0.

3.2 Stages of Regional Innovation Systems

An integrated regional innovation system (RIS) is the key outcome of effective binational

regional collaboration. The OECD report draws upon recent research by Lundquist and Trippl29 in

developing this regional innovation paradigm. These researchers define a regional innovation system as

a regional space in which firms, people, and institutions interact to develop and use knowledge for

innovation, and specifically those with an international border (emphasis added).

In their paradigm, the six innovation factors of regional innovation systems can be characterized as

being in one of three stages of development:

1. Weakly-integrated, cost-driven;

2. Semi-integrated, emerging knowledge-driven; and

3. Strongly-integrated, symmetric innovation-driven.

These six innovation factors include economic structure/specialization pattern; science base/knowledge

infrastructure; nature of linkages; institutional set-up; policy structure; and accessibility. The conditions

and constraints of each factor can be evaluated to determine the capacity of a binational region for joint

innovation activities. The six innovation system factors are laid out in a matrix with the three stages of

development in the table from Lundquist and Trippl (2013) on the next page.

The extent of integration is determinative in this evaluative framework. Integration is a function of

increased interaction and collaboration across the binational region. The development of a binational

regional innovation system, then, requires increased collaboration within each of the six factors (listed

in the left column).

Lundquist and Trippl emphasize that the creation and successful operation of a regional innovation

system is essential to a region in creating a long-term competitive advantage in the global knowledge

economy. Their paradigm makes a major contribution to creating an intellectual framework for

understanding the dynamics and characteristics of the relationship between innovation and binational

regional collaboration. This paradigm will undoubtedly evolve as binational regional collaboration

broadens and intensifies.

29

K. Lundquist and M. Trippl (2013). Distance, Proximity and Types of Cross-border Innovation Systems: A Conceptual Analysis. Regional Studies. Vol. 47, No. 3, pp.450-460.


20

Table 1: Stages of Regional Innovation Systems (RIS)

Stage I: Asymmetric cost-driven system (weakly-integrated)

Stage II: Emerging knowledge-driven system (semi-integrated)

Stage III: Symmetric innovation-driven system (strongly-integrated)

Economic structure/specialization pattern

Strong differences in

specialization → cognitive

distance (lack of synergies).

Functional distance.

Emerging synergies and

complementarities (cognitive

proximity) and functional

proximity in a few business

areas.

Related variety,



proximity in wide range of

business areas.

Science base/knowledge infrastructure

Strong differences in

specialization → cognitive

distance (lack of synergies).

Functional distance.

Fruitful synergies (cognitive


proximity in a few scientific

fields.

Related variety,



proximity in wide range of

scientific fields.

Nature of linkages Cost-driven asymmetrical

linkages. Lack of knowledge

flows. Strong embeddedness

in established

RIS/NIS/international

linkages.

Decreasing asymmetry→

interactive links in selected

fields. Links to existing

RIS/NIS/global level more

important.

Intensive cross-border

knowledge exchange.

Reshaping importance of

established links.

Institutional set-up

High degree of (hard and soft) institutional distance. Institutional thinness at the cross-border level. Low acceptance of cross-border-integration processes.

Decreasing levels of (hard

and soft) institutional

distance. Rise of institutional

set-up at the cross-border

level. Increasing acceptance

of building a common cross-

border region.

Low levels of (hard and soft)

institutional

distance/remaining distances

mediated by specialized

bridging organizations.

Institutional thickness at the

cross-border level. High

acceptance of creating a

common innovation system.

Policy structure Absence of policy

“leadership” with vision and

lack of legitimacy. Low or

asymmetric support from

nation states.

Emergence of mechanisms

for coordination of

innovation policies.

Transparent and democratic

governance structures.

Inclusive forms of governance

and civic participation.

Accessibility Low/medium degree of

physical proximity.

Medium/high degree of

physical proximity.

High degree of physical proximity


21

4.0 European Models of Binational Regional Collaboration: Integration and Cohesion

Binational regional collaboration is far more institutionalized in Europe than in North America as a result

of a very different history, geography, and institutional development.

After suffering the devastation of two world wars between neighboring states in the 30-year period

between 1914 and 1945, European leaders sought to insure peace through an integrated Europe in the

second half of the 20th century. Structural European integration started with the European Coal and

Steel Community in 1950 and culminated with the establishment of the European Union by the Treaty of

Maastricht in 1992. These major milestones were punctuated by the establishment of the Commission

of the European Communities, the European Parliament, and Council of Ministers in 1967. The Single

European Act was signed in 1986.

With these successful unifying measures and achievements,30 European Commission (EC) leaders

intensified their efforts at European cohesion and integration with the establishment of the

International Region (INTERREG) Community Initiative program in 1990 to support Euroregion cross-

30

The European Union was awarded the 2012 Nobel Peace Prize for six decades of work in advancing European peace.

Europe Source: Wikipedia


22

border projects. The program was recently re-named European Territorial Cooperation, and “its place-

based focus is used to solve problems that transcend boundaries and require a common approach.”31

“(The) European Territorial Cooperation (program) offers a unique opportunity for regions and Member

States to divert from the national logic and develop a shared space together, build ties over borders, and

learn from one another. It is a laboratory of EU integration and EU territorial cohesion,” according to

José Palma Andres, the director of the European Commission Directorate-General for Regional Policy.32

What are Euroregions? “Euroregions are widely understood, if not precisely defined. While the term

refers to a transnational cooperative arrangement among adjoining local or regional authorities (and

sometimes other parties), they are also sometimes understood as the actual areas.”33

The first generation of INTERREG Community Initiatives were funded in the early 1990s with the goals of

erasing inner European borders and promoting economic development and cooperation between the

regions that had been conflict zones for centuries.

The Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) was created in 1971 at the first Conference of

European Border Regions. EUREGIO was a founding member (see 4.1 below).

We report in our paper here on five of the six case studies of cross-border regional collaboration

described in this OECD report and we also include EUREGIO as our sixth European case study:

EUREGIO (Netherlands-Germany)

Oresund Region (Denmark-Sweden)

Helsinki-Tallinn (Finland-Estonia)

Hedmark-Dalarna (Norway-Sweden)

Bothnian Arc (Sweden-Finland)

Ireland-Northern Ireland (UK).

Each case study includes a profile of the cross-border area and its relevance to innovation, driving forces

and key actors, governance, and cross-border policy mix.

31

European Union. “European Territorial Cooperation: Building Bridges Between People.” European Union, 2011.

32 Ibid.

33 Government of Canada. Emergence of Cross-Border Regions along the Mexican-US Border and in Europe. February 2008.

Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/27667/1/WP%20035-Final_US-Mexico%20Sawchuk.pdf?1.


23

4.1 EUREGIO (Netherlands-Germany): Pioneering Binational Regional Collaboration

EUREGIO in the Dutch Enschede-German Gronau Region pioneered the art and practice of

European binational regional collaboration. Over a 40-year period, EUREGIO has developed into a cross-

border regional development agency after starting as a loose network of ceremonial elements in the

1950s. It was a binational grass roots effort without any external encouragement or coordination34.

Figure 1:

The EUREGIO region

The EUREGIO is located in parts of three Dutch provinces—Gelderland, Overijessel, and Drenthe—and

the two German lander (states) of North Rhine-Westphalia (Nordrhein-Westfalen) and Lower Saxony

(Niedersachsen). These provinces and lander enjoy substantial economic assets with significant

manufacturing and agricultural sectors, e.g., Volkswagen has four production plants in North Rhine-

Westphalia.

34

Markus Perkmann (2005). “Cross-Border Co-Operation as Policy Entrepreneurship: Explaining the Variable Success of European Cross-Border Regions”. CSGR Working Paper. No. 166/05. May 2005

Source: EUREGIO, “Official Map of EUREGIO,” 2014


24

This binational partnership has deep roots, dating to the 1950s when local elected officials in the Dutch

Enschede region and the German Gronau region saw that cross-border cooperation would benefit the

entire binational region. EUREGIO was formed formally in 1958 (coincidentally the same year as the

European Economic Community was created) with the first indirectly-elected parliament that

represented cities, counties, and regions on both sides of the Dutch-German border. Three

associations—the Dutch Regio Twente and Achterhoek and German Kommunalgemeinschaft Rhein-

Ems—were the founding partners of the transborder parliament. In 1972 about 100 municipalities and

local districts formed the EUREGIO to implement their socio-cultural policies.

During the 1980s, the organization expanded the socio-cultural agenda to include socio-economic

policies. “Despite language differences, it seems that, because they believe in cooperation, these

borderland communities have successfully created institutions that span the border.”35

Within the EUREGIO 129 Dutch and German municipalities, towns, and administrative districts work

together across the border. They have been assigned the task to create and develop better relations at

all levels and in all spheres of life between citizens and authorities. EUREGIO has spent more than 50

years building and reinforcing cross-border structures economically, socially, and otherwise.

All municipalities, towns, and administrative districts that participate are represented in the

Association's Assembly. The municipalities that are members also send representatives into a cross-

border regional parliament called the EUREGIO Council.

The EUREGIO Council consists of 41 Dutch and 41 German representatives. The EUREGIO Board forms

the executive committee of the organization. The daily work is coordinated and implemented by the

EUREGIO office located at the Dutch-German border crossing of Glanerbrug-Gronau where some 30

German and Dutch employees cooperate. Representatives from all kinds of social groups, organizations,

and institutions work together in various EUREGIO working committees on cross-border ideas and

projects. The EUREGIO-Mozer-Commission plays a special role in the social and cultural spheres offering

a wide range of support for cross-border projects in the field of sports, art, culture etc.

The transfer of ideas and experiences with other border regions has a long tradition in the EUREGIO.

EUREGIO is one of the charter members of the Association of European Border Regions (AEBR) whose

secretariat general is still located at the EUREGIO house in Gronau/Enschede. Representatives and

employees of border regions from all over Europe visit the EUREGIO headquarters every year to learn

more about cross-border cooperation.

EUREGIO works across borders in a systematic rather than an ad hoc way and in every area of possible

regional cross-border cooperation. “This was a radical change in carrying out cross-border work and

seems to be a fundamental difference between EUREGIO and other border regions.” EUREGIO

35

Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. “The State of Borders and Borderlands Studies 2009: A Historical View and a View from the Journal of Borderland Studies.” Journal of Borderlands Studies. 2009

http://www.aebr.eu/en/index.php


25

participants emphasize that the organization does not add new levels of bureaucracy or administration.

Instead, “(it) is a cross-border ‘turntable’ in which cooperation is concentrated.”36

In the earlier stages of development, a loosely-constituted working group came together in which

representatives of local and regional organizations could cooperate. However, “it is important to find

through these cross-border platforms a reconciliation of the varied structures and skills on both sides of

the border.” Buy-in at the national level is also seen as a prerequisite for success along with the

cooperation in the cross-border area.

EUREGIO participants also strongly contend that a comprehensive strategy is needed that includes

economic and infrastructural components on an equal footing with socio-cultural development.

“Through socio-cultural cooperation, psychological barriers and prejudices (can be) set aside…If Europe

does not grow together at the borders, which are the seams of the (national) states, no European Union

can develop in the long term.” 37

Cross-border cooperation in economic, infrastructural, and environmental areas has demonstrated its

practical value on the ground. Border regions create a regional lobby for economic development, and

regions often push for economic development initiatives on the national level in each national state.

4.2 Oresund Region (Copenhagen, Denmark-Malmo, Sweden): A Binational Metro Region

The binational Metro Øresund Region of 3.8 million inhabitants is connected by a newly-built

(2000) bridge spanning the Oresund Sound (the strait between the North Sea and the Baltic Sea that is

the busiest waterway in the world). The bridge connects the areas around the Danish capital of

Copenhagen (population of 1,230,728 in 2013) and the Swedish cities of Malmo (population of 278,523

in 2007), Lund (population of 82,800 in 2010), and Helsingborg (population of 97,172 in 2010) in

Sweden’s southernmost county, Skane. Two-thirds of the Region’s population are concentrated in

Denmark.

36

Wim L.G. Schelberg EUREGIO: Pioneer in the Practice of European Cross-Border Co-operation. Volume 49, no.2 Summer 2001.

37 Wim L.G. Schelberg EUREGIO: Pioneer in the Practice of European Cross-Border Co-operation. Volume 49, no.2 Summer

2001.


26

Figure 2:

Binational Oresund Region

Source: Center for Caucasus Studies, Oresund University

This region represents a highly-developed binational collaboration model with the international bridge;

cross-border science and technology innovation; and the stable binational Oresund Committee. But the

Oresund region also lacks many elements of strong collaboration: there is a shortage of project

continuity and thus limited effectiveness of initiatives by the Oresund Committee. And the Oresund

University recently closed.

The Region enjoys a highly-educated workforce with 35% of that workforce having a college-level

education. Specialization in high-tech industries depends on a few large corporations and the

consequent vulnerability to corporate decisions. However, new firm creation in the Region is better than

their national contexts: 26% of all new businesses in Denmark and Sweden were launched in the Region.

Its most important high-tech specializations include pharmaceuticals and electro-mechanical

equipment.

Two large scientific facilities for materials science research are being built (MAX IV and the European

Spallation Source). The OECD report on the Oresund Region points out that exploiting

complementarities in knowledge assets is a driving force for the Region that could be more fully

exploited. The Medicon Valley Alliance promotes external linkages to global life science knowledge hubs.

However, the loss of AstraZeneca on the Swedish side has contributed to a lack of exploiting key

complementarities.

Branding is another key objective. Since the 1990s, many “O” organizations have been started to bring

life to the Oresund brand. Any innovation policy changes that occur will focus on the international brand

of the Oresund Region and creating an Oresund identity that still supports its diverse populations.


27

Governance is institutionalized through the Oresund Committee and supported by several public,

private, and non-profit organizations. Local and regional authorities are members, but national agencies,

firms, and universities are not. A 10-person

Secretariat provides staff support, and the

Committee is complemented by organizations like

the Oresund Direkt to support cross-border labor

market integration and the Oresund Institute

which conducts research in the Region. The

Oresund Business Council, the former Oresund

University, and the Oresund Committee provided

the key leadership in the development of the

Oresund as a formal cross-border initiative.

The Oresund Committee adopted a long-term

vision for 2020 in its Regional Development

Strategy (ORUS) in 2010 with four themes,

including knowledge and innovation as one.

The OECD report on the Oresund Region observes

that “this is one step ahead of most other cross-

border regions where strategies are limited to ad

hoc projects. But a joint economic development

strategy targeting innovation has not been

drafted. Local and regional agencies are involved

in joint strategies in areas like land use planning, transport, and the environment. A future European

Territorial Cooperation (formerly INTERREG) program will support joint strategies with more precise

goals and indicators.

With much of the Oresund Region’s population aging, new opportunities for innovation in the medical

sector are created, including facilitating binational patient mobility and large scientific infrastructures for

the Oresund international brand.

The cultural and economic momentum inspired by the bridge in 2000 has plateaued. Regional officials

are seeking new ways to encourage binational collaboration. Barriers include the termination of

significant binational initiatives (Oresund University and Oresund Science Region), the imbalance in

economic power between the two sides in their national contexts (stronger in Denmark), and relatively

weak national interest and support in each country for binational regional cooperation and innovation.

4.3 Helsinki-Tallinn (Finland-Estonia): The Binational Gulf of Finland Region

The capital cities of Helsinki, Finland and Tallin, Estonia (in the counties of Uusimaa and Harju)

face each other from opposite sides of the 40-mile wide Gulf of Finland at the eastern end of the Baltic

Sea. The two capitals are connected by a two-hour long ferry ride across the Gulf. Each capital

Oresund Bridge Source: Fanpop.com


28

represents the majority of each nation’s population and GDP, respectively.38 Their location on the Gulf

of Finland is a key to a future logistics strategy to develop the region as an international port.

Figure 3:

Helsinki-Tallinn Binational Region

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 2013

The economies of the Helsinki and Tallinn areas are different. Finland is the more developed of the two

and joined the EU in 1995. Estonia, one of the three Baltic states that was behind the Soviet Iron Curtain

until it unraveled in 1989, joined the EU in 2004. Helsinki, with a population of 1.4 million, is nearly three

times larger than Tallin with a population of 500,000. In addition, GDP per capita in Tallinn is only 60%

of that in Helsinki and the unemployment rate of 9.6%39 in Tallinn is roughly 50% greater than the 6.3%

unemployment rate in Helsinki.40 These important economic differences create a dichotomized flow of

labor and spending between the nations. Finnish tourists and investors take advantage of the lower

prices in Tallinn and have high levels of investment and spending there. The high wages available in

Helsinki, often three times the wages in Tallinn, attract many Estonian workers across the border.41

Despite the asymmetries in economic production, there is an important complementarity between

industries in Helsinki and Tallinn. ICT is one of the largest economic sectors in Tallinn; indeed, the

country’s web usage is intensive with high levels of web accessibility. This ICT sector complements

Helsinki’s strong science and technology sector and creates a huge opportunity for innovation.

38

City of Helsinki Website. Retrieved January 15, 2013 from http://www.hel.fi/hki/helsinki/en/Information+on+Helsinki.

39 City of Tallin Website. Retrieved January 22, 2014 from http://www.tallinn.ee/eng/investor/Facts-about-Tallinn

40 City of Helsinki Website. Retrieved January 22, 2014 from http://www.hel.fi/hki/helsinki/en/Information+on+Helsinki.

41 Seppo Laakso and Eeva Kostiainen, “Economic Flows between Helsinki- Uusimaa and Tallinn-Harju regions.” H-TTransPlan

Final Conference. Retrieved January 15, 2013 from http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e/Helsinki-Tallinna+talousvirrat.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e

http://www.hel.fi/hki/helsinki/en/Information+on+Helsinki

http://www.hel.fi/hki/helsinki/en/Information+on+Helsinki

http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e/Helsinki-Tallinna+talousvirrat.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e

http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e/Helsinki-Tallinna+talousvirrat.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e


29

Binational regional cooperation has increased significantly since Estonia joined the EU and adopted the

Euro in 2011. The primary efforts of the governments of Finland and Estonia on binational collaboration

opportunities came from “Wise Men” reports in 2002 and 2007 that recommended a focus on the

development of cross -border research. The Helsinki-Tallinn twin-city science project echoes this

recommendation and also calls for collaboration between the universities to target foreign regions, such

as China and India.42

The Helsinki-Tallinn Euregio NPA, a non-profit association of several public authorities, provides

technical assistance but lacks the recognition of many leading public and private actors. Created in 1999

and funded by INTERREG, this association focuses on transport, infrastructure, university contacts, and

government, but the emphasis on IT and innovation is weak. The Euregio recently generated data on

cross-border flows of freight, goods, and people for the “H-T Transplan.” There is little active effort by

the private sector in binational regional collaboration, and besides the “Wise Men” reports, little

involvement by the national governments.

There are multiple key objectives in creating a stronger binational region. A preliminary goal is to

directly involve the national governments of Finland and Estonia to remove other obstacles to closer

collaboration. Another important step is to create a regional brand that will combine the strong Finnish

research sector with the Estonian web application culture. OECD reports that these cities are test beds

for medium-sized cities for advanced smart city applications.

4.4 Hedmark-Dalarna (Norway-Sweden): A Binational Rural EuroRegion

The rural counties of Hedmark (Norway) and Dalarna (Sweden) are located on the Norwegian-

Swedish border separated by a mountain range and distant from any major urban centers. The total

population of 500,000 people inhabit almost 23,000 square miles with an economic output of USD 22

billion.43 The region does feature relational (i.e., socio-cultural and linguistic) proximity.

42

Merle Krigul. “On possibilities to develop cross-border knowledge region: the case of Tallinn (Estonia) and Helsinki (Finland). Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2011.

43 OECD. “The Case of Hedmark-Dalarna (Norway-Sweden) –Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders.” OECD

Publishing. 2013.


30

Figure 4:

Hedmark-Dalarna Binational Region


Collaboration in the tourism sector provides important economies of scale and forestry is another

common sector with rich potential for binational collaboration. Both of these sectors would be aided by

the construction of an airport that would serve both counties.

Small university colleges in the region do have an interest in forming partnerships with larger

universities that are located outside the area. The smaller colleges have used these relationships to

develop distance-learning joint activities that correlate strongly to the needs of the tourism industry.44

As most science and technology-related assets are located far from the border, the region does not

seem to have the relevant conditions for a broad cross-border regional innovation policy since urban

centers are perhaps better served by looking towards other locations rather than this border. On the

border, efforts for innovation and collaboration in other forms, such as in marketing, timber,

construction, education and organizational methods in tourism, are more relevant.

The Hedmark-Dalarna region has been experiencing more strength in the collaboration between the two

counties, largely in efforts to increase tourism at the border area, which is facilitated mainly by Skistar, a

Swedish firm that manages ski resorts in both counties. The region is also seeing cross-border

collaboration with the planned construction of a new airport that would bring a much needed boost to

the infrastructure of the region.45

44

Ibid.

45 Hedmark Dalarna Website. Retrieved January 21, 2013 from http://www.hedmarkdalarna.com/wp-

content/uploads/2013/05/Backgroundreport.pdf


31

Opportunities in the region include the growth of the Oslo region, 135 miles from Hedmark and 210

miles from Dalarna, and the unique global brand of tourism based on sports, health, and green assets.

In addition to their naturally-pristine areas, regional assets include relational proximity; knowledge and

support institutions oriented toward regional specializations; potential in forestry-related industries;

and an openness to cross-border cooperation.46 Given these significant strengths, closer binational

regional collaboration makes sense.

The weakness of the region in terms of cross-border collaboration potential is the lack of infrastructure;

minimal potential for joint activities at the border; imbalance in wage levels and currencies;

depopulation due to youth outmigration; and the high level of intense national and international

competition in the tourism industry.47

A major missing component that is essential for cross-border collaboration is private sector funding.

Private sector support has been nonexistent, especially with regard to funding while public sector

funding supports cross-border collaboration projects through the Nordic Council of Ministers and the

European Union.

At present, due especially to the fact that cooperation does not appear in the regional development

plans of either county, the region is not a prime candidate for strong binational regional collaboration.

4.5 The Bothnian Arc (Finland-Sweden): Deepening Northern EuroRegion Integration

The Bothnian Arc is formed by coastal areas in Sweden and Finland around the Gulf of Bothnia

at the north end of the Baltic Sea. It includes seven Swedish municipalities and five Finnish sub-regions

and one province.48 This region has a population of about 710,000 people, spanning nearly 55,000

square kilometers, with a GDP of $31 billion (USD).49

46

OECD. “The Case of Hedmark-Dalarna (Norway-Sweden) –Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders.” OECD Publishing. 2013.

47 Ibid.

48 Bothnian Arc Website. Retrieved January 14, 2013 from http://www.bothnianarc.net/en/etusivu


http://www.bothnianarc.net/en/etusivu


32

Figure 5:

The Binational Bothnian Arc


The strategic location of the Arc at the confluence of the Baltic Sea and the Barents Sea Regions can be a

link and meeting place between these areas with the benefits of improving communications and

enabling social, cultural, and economic exchanges between the regions.50

The Nordic Council of Ministers provides funding support. Cross-border cooperation in the Bothnian Arc

will open up new opportunities to build a competitive region that sets high international standards in

technology, enterprise, tourism, and networking.51 Critical involvement by the mayors of Oulu and Lulea

(300 kilometers, or about 180 miles, apart) supports the regional collaboration.

Despite its peripheral location, Oulu (Finland) is driven by an innovative spirit that builds on the Nokia

heritage and the contributions of Oulu University. Lulea (Sweden) has recently attracted the European

Facebook data center which provides a concrete step in signaling the extent of its innovative

technological capabilities for housing tech giants. The region looks for a more strategic approach to go

beyond ad hoc projects, and uses binational collaboration in support of becoming the knowledge-

intensive hub of the north.52 The success of this collaboration represent a major step in the 21st century

development of northern Europe.53

Challenges to binational regional collaboration, specifically between Oulu and Lulea, include the lack of

information on the potential of collaboration and insufficient involvement of private firms to develop a

50

Bothnian Arc Website. Retrieved January 14, 2013 from http://www.bothnianarc.net/en/etusivu 51

Ibid.

52 OECD 2013, op. cit.

53 Bothnian Arc Website, op. cit.

http://www.bothnianarc.net/en/etusivu


33

cross-border vision. The strengths of the region, however, emphasize strong innovation assets and

existing experimentation on joint projects to support a cross-border innovation agenda.

Future issues that might pose problems include the greater attractiveness of other national and

international locations for high-skilled talent and the declining relative competitiveness of its high-tech

sectors. However, these problems may be neutralized by the opportunities of increasing the

geostrategic importance of the location, given global warming and the advantage that could come from

developing an internationally-recognized brand in its technology hub in northern Europe.54

Success in cross-border collaboration will come from achieving three goals: one, collecting relevant data

to build on the two urban hubs and improve internal accessibility to realize the potential of cross-border

innovation; two, developing a shared vision and strategy for the Bothnian Arc area with greater

involvement of firms and knowledge institutions; and three, communicating more effectively about

cross-border area opportunities to support strategic programs and instruments.55

4.6 Ireland-Northern Ireland (UK) Collaboration: The Binational Emerald Connection

Ireland and Northern Ireland share the same emerald isle.56 With a total island population of 6.4

million, 4.6 million live in the Republic of Ireland and 1.8 million in Northern Ireland.57 The population is

concentrated in large cities with 527,000 or nearly 12%, of the Irish population residing in Dublin,58 and

281,000, or 16% of Northern Ireland, in Belfast59.

54

OECD. “The Case of the Bothnian Arc (Finland-Sweden) –Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders” OECD Publishing. 2013.

55 Ibid.

56 It is worth noting that long-standing conflict in Northern Ireland that had killed thousands was settled in 1998 by the Good

Friday Peace, or Belfast, Agreement. Political and religious roots of the conflict were centuries old. The modern conflict, the Troubles, centered on opposing views of the status of Northern Ireland, with some in Northern Ireland, especially the mainly Protestant Unionist community, believing it should remain a part of the United Kingdom. Others, particularly the mainly Catholic Nationalist community, believed it should leave the UK and become part of the Republic of Ireland. The Agreement provided that the union between Northern Ireland and the UK would remain in place as long as the majority of the people in Northern Ireland wanted it and the North would be governed by a power-sharing arrangement with both the unionist and nationalist sides. Unionists and Nationalists agreed to participate in the new assembly in Stormont Castle in Belfast. The 15 years of peace since have not been perfect but still represent a vast improvement over the previous decades.

57 Northern Ireland Website. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dfp-260613-northern-

ireland-population

58 Ireland Central Statistics Office Website. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from

http://www.cso.ie/en/statistics/population/populationofeachprovincecountyandcity2011/

59 City of Belfast Website. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from

http://www.belfastcity.gov.uk/business/investinginbelfast/belfastfacts.aspx

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dfp-260613-northern-ireland-population

http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-dfp-260613-northern-ireland-population

http://www.geonames.org/IE/largest-cities-in-ireland.html


34

Figure 6:

Narrow border area of Ireland-Northern Ireland


Strictly speaking, Ireland and Northern Ireland are not an example of binational regional collaboration.

But the spatial dimensions are comparable to those of binational regions. This collaboration is actually

between two countries, the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, the latter being one of four

countries that make up the United Kingdom. Typically of course, the binational regional collaboration

involves working with an immediate border region and not the entire country. In the case of Ireland and

Northern Ireland, however, the border region is considered an area with low potential for economic

development and innovation. It was more productive to consider the entire island, including the cities

of Dublin and Belfast, in a binational collaboration.

Ireland and Northern Ireland have very different economic structures. Ireland’s economy is essentially

two pronged: one, large multinational corporations (MNCs), and two, small and medium-sized

enterprises (SMEs). The Northern Ireland economy is dominated by the public sector. In addition, the

Irish economy with a richer history of foreign direct investment and research and development is

generally more robust than the Northern Ireland economy.

Most cross-border collaboration between Ireland and Northern Ireland is driven by government-funded

organizations, including InterTradeIreland and Innovation Vouchers. IntertradeIreland was co-funded by

the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, and supports SMEs through research, business funding,

mentoring, and networking.60 InterTradeIreland leads the binational collaboration efforts on the island.

60

InterTradeIreland Website. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from http://www.intertradeireland.com/aboutus/whoweare/

http://www.intertradeireland.com/aboutus/whoweare/


35

Innovation Vouchers, a joint project between Invest Northern Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, connects

SMEs with researchers in the public sector and universities.

Collaboration between Ireland and Northern Ireland enjoys consistent funding, but that also presents

difficulties. Public programs often fail to meet business needs and they are of limited duration. In order

for collaboration to flourish and succeed, greater involvement from the private sector and universities is

necessary.

One of the greatest potentials for binational collaboration lies in the more than 100 research centers

supported by Ireland and Northern Ireland in ICT, life sciences, nanotechnology, agri-food, and

aerospace. To work together, information gaps across the border must be filled, and discrepancies in

laws regarding intellectual property must be resolved.

Private sector efforts in collaborative initiatives tend to be irregular and poorly-coordinated. To

maximize the potential for collaboration between Ireland and Northern Ireland, cooperation between

publicly-funded programs, universities, and private sector activities must increase.


36


37

5.0 North American Models of Binational Regional Collaboration

Binational regional collaboration in North America operates in an entirely different historical, political,

demographic, and socio-cultural context than in Europe. There is no overarching supranational

authority like the EC to guide and support it. Nor is there any history of devastating wars being fought

on North American soil in the 20th century. Combat was not absent, however; the U.S. took armed

action on multiple occasions against Mexico during the Mexican Revolution of 1910. And instead of

some 30 mostly small countries as in Europe, there are only three countries with an acute asymmetry

between the populations and economies of the U.S. and Canada and the U.S. and Mexico. All three

countries are constitutional republics with free market economies.

The three countries are somewhat similar in terms of having extensive land areas with Canada the

largest at 3.855 million square miles, followed by the

U.S. at 3.71 million square miles and Mexico at 761,600

square miles. Canada has the largest land mass in the

North American hemisphere and is second only to China

in the world. The U.S. and Mexico are the third and 13th

largest in the world, respectively.

The population of the U.S. was 317,353,470 (as of January 2014);61 compared to Mexico with a

population of 117,410,00062 and Canada with a population of 35,158,300.63 Asymmetry between the

U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors is pronounced with the U.S. population nearly 10 times

greater than Canada’s and nearly three times Mexico’s.

The U.S. economy is about ten times bigger than either Canada or Mexico. The U.S. GDP of $15.7 trillion

in 2012 represented just over 25% of the world economy as reported by the World Bank Group. In

comparison, the Canadian GDP was $1.4 trillion (Canadian) and the Mexican GDP was $1.761 trillion in

2012.

At 5,525 miles, the U.S.-Canada border is the longest shared border in the world, with five geographic

regions: one, Pacific West Coast; two, Great Plains; three, Great Lakes; four, Quebec-New York State and

Northern New England; and five, Atlantic East Coast.

61

U.S. Census Bureau Popclock. Retrieved January 11, 2014 from http://www.census.gov/popclock/

62 World Population Statistics. Retrieved January 11, 2014 from http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/mexico-population-

2013/

63 Statistics Canada. Retrieved January 11, 2014 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130926/dq130926a-

eng.htm?HPA

“…cross-border regions represent a

new economic model that best meets

the challenge of competing in global

markets.”


38

The U.S.-Canadian relationship is exceptionally close:

Canada and the U.S. share a tradition of day-to-day cooperation and have

developed an ‘intimate’ knowledge of each other that is apparent in the current

tradition of quiet diplomacy and low-level functional solutions in a few key policy

areas (free trade, labor, and environmental standards).64

A key Canadian observer of cross-border regions, Senator Jerahmiel Grafstein, co-chair of the Canada-

U.S. InterParliamentary Group, noted that cross-border regions represent a new economic model that

best meets the challenge of competing in global markets.65

The results (of the collaborative research process) underscore the increasing importance of cross-border

regions and regional relationships to present-day Canada-U.S. relationships and to Canada’s future

growth and prosperity. This importance highlights the need for new ways of thinking about policies and

policy development, and, more than ever, shows that using a cross-border regional lens is necessary to

recognize, understand, and better respond to the rising cooperative links and increasing participation of

regional players and local stakeholders in the practical problem-solving of common issues in the border

areas of Canada and the U.S.66

The extensive and growing integration of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada economies since the North

American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect 20 years ago is a phenomenon that requires a

deeper understanding by regional leaders in taking advantage of new economic development

opportunities.

The U.S.- Canadian Auto Pact (1965), the U.S. Canadian Free Trade Agreement (1989), and the North

American Free Trade Agreement (1994) were the early milestones in an evolving strategy of connecting

to and competing in the global economy. These milestones have contributed to the integration of the

North American economy and greater global competitiveness. Multi-national corporations that helped

drive this global economic process have reaped substantial benefits. SMEs have opportunities to seize

these global economic opportunities through regional economic framework. Binational regions provide

especially rich opportunities.

While globalization has undermined the importance of nation-states, sub-state regions have become

more important. As places where cross-border commerce flows and communities live, sub-state/sub-

provincial actors are well positioned to offer important guidance on embracing new perspectives, seeing

themselves as part of the larger economic regions they inhabit rather than as isolated production and

commerce centers.

64

Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. “Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the Emergence of Cross-Border Regions.” Canadian Political Science Review Vol. 2. No 2. 109. 2008. 65

Government of Canada PRI. “The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Between Canada and the United States” Final Report, 2008.

66 Ibid.


39

The 2,000 mile-long U.S.-Mexico border can be viewed as four binational regions (consisting of four U.S.

states and six Mexican states): one, Greater California (Baja California to Tijuana, Mexico/San Diego,

California, USA); two, Primeria Alta (Sonora, Mexico and Arizona, USA); three, El Camino Real (Ciudad

Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico and El Paso, Texas and Las Cruces, New Mexico, USA); and four, Nuevo

Santander (Coahuila, Nuevo Leon, and Tamaulipas, Mexico and most of Texas, USA). All four regions are

characterized by their shared Spanish colonial heritage. The U.S.-Mexico border was determined by the

Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that ended the U.S-Mexico War in 1848 and the Gadsden Purchase in 1854.

The Hispanicization of the U.S. Southwest is propelling the more distinct emergence of these binational

regions.

A dozen binational border communities are found at Matamoros/ Brownsville; Reynosa/McAllen; Nuevo

Laredo/Laredo; Ciudad Acuna/Del Rio; Piedras Negras/Eagle Pass; Ciudad Juarez/El Paso; Las

Palomas/Columbus; Agua Prieta/Douglas; Nogales/Nogales; San Luis/Yuma; Mexicali/Calexico; and

Tijuana/San Diego. In an insightful article on U.S.-Mexico regional cross-border relationships, Alan

Bersin observes that U.S.-Mexican “binational regionalism is growing despite an infrastructure distinctly

unsuited to accommodate it.” He goes on to explain that by infrastructure, he is referring to both

physical and intellectual (or cultural) elements.67

The illegal immigration issue on the U.S.-Mexico border and the U.S. federal response of greater and

increasingly militarized border security has acted as a chilling factor in potential binational regional

collaborations along that border. But that’s not to say such collaboration does not occur. Indeed, the

level of binational regional collaboration in the San Diego-Tijuana region provides perhaps the most

robust model for North America.

The following seven sub-sections on binational regional collaboration in North America include brief

discussions of the Pacific Northwest-Cascadia region; the Blue Water and Twin Saults regions in

Michigan-Ontario; Buffalo Niagara-Southern Ontario region; and the regions of San Diego-Tijuana; El

Paso-Ciudad Juarez; and Brownsville-Matamoros.

5.1 The Pacific Northwest: The Cascadia Bioregion and Mind Set

The Cascadia region presents a vexing puzzle with its important but elusive geographical and

bioregional identity. We take a shot at providing an accurate picture below. On more concrete ground,

we also take a brief look at the Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER) in which Cascadia is

centrally located. PNWER far transcends the sub-state, sub-provincial scale that we focus on in this

paper but it’s so hugely important in North American binational collaboration that we could not ignore

it.

67

Alan Bersin. “Cross-Border Economies: A Blueprint for North American Competitiveness.” William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies. 2013.


40

5.11 Geographic Area

The Cascadia region has multiple geographic definitions. Brunet-Jailly, editor of the Journal of

Borderlands Studies and faculty member at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, defines the

region as the “(g)eographical cross-border area of the Pacific North West, including the metropolitan

regions of both Vancouver, British Columbia and Seattle, Washington.”68 Other geographic definitions

include parts or all of the U.S. states of Washington and Oregon and the Canadian province of British

Columbia. Still other definitions take in parts of California, Idaho, and the Alaskan panhandle.

One geographic definition of the Cascadia Region underscores the vast potential of global trade in the

region with the bulk-shipping ports in Portland and Vancouver and container-shipping ports in Seattle

and Tacoma. Under this definition, Cascadia extends from Eugene, Oregon in the south to Vancouver,

British Columbia in the north. Environmentalism is a driving force for collaboration with many binational

structures being developed around the Puget Sound and Georgia Basin, including a U.S. EPA aquatic

ecosystem framework and a binational ecosystem memorandum of understanding signed by the heads

of the U.S. EPA and Environment Canada, among others.69

The Discovery Institute’s Cascadia Center for Regional Development uses a definition of Cascadia that

focuses on the I-5 Corridor from Salem, Oregon to Vancouver, British Columbia. This corridor contains

the population, transportation, academic, and technological center of the region and is commonly

referred to as Mainstreet Cascadia. It also helps frame the Salish Sea, a body of water that runs from the

Georgia Basin in the north to Puget Sound in the south.70

Well beyond any delineation of the Cascadia region, the Pacific NorthWest Economic Region (PNWER)

consists of the five U.S. states of Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and Montana and the three

Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories and Yukon

Territory. This region is larger than many countries in the world.

68

Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the Emergence of Cross-Border Regions, Canadian Political Science Review. Vol 2 (2). June, 2008.

69 Susan E. Clarke, Regional and Transnational Discourse: The Politics of Ideas and Economic Development in

Cascadia. International Journal of Economic Development Vol. 2. No.3. 363, 200

70 Don Alper. Emaiil communication. May 4, 2014.


41

Figure 7:

Cascadia and the pre-2008 Pacific Northwest Economic Region (PNWER)71

Source: AAG Center for Global Geography Education

5.12 Background

The strong sense of identity in the Cascadia Region has its origins in the “Oregon Country” that

encompassed the Pacific North West Region in early 19th century North America. Because of the natural

barrier of the Rocky Mountains and the distance from the national capitals in the east, an expectation

for this territory to become an independent nation was natural. Evidence suggests that this was

Thomas Jefferson’s intention who described the land as “(A) great, free and independent empire,

populated by American settlers but separate from the U.S.”72

The settlers of the Oregon Country supported the formation of an autonomous state and voted to form

an independent republic in 1843. But in the meantime, the U.S. and British North America each claimed

71

The Northwest Territories and province of Saskatchewan in Canada joined PNWER since 2008.

72 http://www.ohs.org/education/oregonhistory/historical_records/dspDocument.cfm?doc_ID=92F96702-9FCF-

BAC0-3411BF129F1F23DA


42

the region and a boundary dispute resulted. In 1848, the international boundary was established by

treaty at the 49th parallel with the American Oregon Territory south of the 49th parallel and British

Columbia north of it. Despite the international boundary, the Cascadia Region retains much of its

transnational regional identity.

The sense of identity that once supported the creation of an independent republic has manifested in

various ways since then. In the early 1940s, supporters of independence attracted national attention by

blocking highways and proposing an independent “State of Jefferson.” In 1956, protestors threatened

violence in their efforts to create an independent “State of Shasta.”

This independence streak remains evident today in Internet platforms created by the Cascadian

Independence Project focusing on Cascadia’s identity as a unique bioregion. This notion was created by

environmentalists, novelists, and sociologists in the 1970s and 80s who identified five elements as their

rationale for an independent state, including:

Bioregionalism and sustainability

Local autonomy and self-sufficiency

Increased regional integration

Local food networks and economies

Dedication to open source, dynamic, and associative governing models.73

The Cascadia concept or dream continues on.

5.13 Current Binational Collaboration Initiatives

Despite the intensity of Cascadia’s cultural identity, the success of efforts to create a binational

regional sub-state/provincial economic partnership has been limited. Paul Schell, a former mayor of

Seattle, created the Cascadia Mayors Council in 1998 to address issues of common interest in cities

between Vancouver, British Columbia and Eugene, Oregon. However, the Council has not met since

2004.74 Schell also created the concept of “Mainstreet Cascadia,” the transportation corridor defined by

the Interstate 5 corridor in Washington and Oregon and Highway 99 in British Columbia that many use

to define the Cascadia Region.75

Researchers have predicted competition between various Cascadia interests: those advocating for

Cascadia as a bioregion, those for economic development, and those for governmental decentralization.

73

Cascadian Independence Project. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from http://cascadianow.org/about-cascadia/a-brief-history-of-cascadia/

74 Discovery Institute. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/cascadiaCorridor/

75 Mark Trahant, “Cascadia: Borderless Solutions. The Seattle Times, May 2, 1999. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from

http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=19990502&slug=2958375

http://cascadianow.org/about-cascadia/a-brief-history-of-cascadia/

http://cascadianow.org/about-cascadia/a-brief-history-of-cascadia/

http://www.discovery.org/cascadia/cascadiaCorridor/



43

Because of these differences, Clarke predicted a greater likelihood of independent, sector-specific

structures forming than a broad regional governance scheme.76

Brunet-Jailly identifies the transportation and logistics, construction, oil and gas, and agricultural and

fishing sectors as key sectors integrating cross-border activity in the region. He agrees with Clarke’s

analysis, and predicted in 2008 that various economic, social, cultural, and bioregional factors will

contribute to competing, sector-specific institutions of binational collaboration. He also cites Clarke in

stating that Cascadia forms a regional and transnational “symbolic” regime in which economic actors, as

well as state and provincial officials, port officials, and non-governmental officials, promote their specific

agendas for Cascadia.77

The Cascadia Center for Regional Development, founded in 1993 in Seattle, exemplifies this sector-

specific model. The Center conducts research on regional transportation and sustainable development78

with a single staff person, and six person consultant team.79 Its research on transportation issues and

solutions focuses on central planning in the Puget Sound, developing cohesive transportation corridors

and hubs, marine transportation, and sustainable energy.

The Cascadia Center and other public, private and non-profit organizations successfully lobbied for the

addition of a second daily Amtrak train between Seattle and Vancouver in 2009. The Canada Border

Services Agency (CBSA) and its proposed passenger processing fee ($1,500 dollars/day) was cited as the

primary obstacle to scheduling the second train. The CBSA eventually responded to public, and private

lobbying, and extensive negative media coverage, and agreed to waive the border-inspection fee.

Government regulations such as these pose the largest threat to binational initiatives in the Cascadia

region. Yet obstacles remain in convincing municipal, state and provincial leaders of the major

economic benefits that would result from working beyond their governmental boundaries.80

The Cascadia Center is currently in the process of becoming a part of the Pacific NorthWest Economic

Region (PNWER), a step which could enable the Center to engage at a higher level of political impact.81

5.14 The PNWER Model

Cascadia forms the geographic heart of the powerhouse Pacific North West Economic Region

(PNWER). This binational multi-state, multi-provincial collaboration has created the most historically-

76

Susan E. Clarke, Regional and Transnational Discourse: The Politics of Ideas and Economic Development in Cascadia. International Journal of Economic Development Vol. 2. No.3. 372, 2000

77 Emmanuel Brunet-Jailly. Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the Emergence of

Cross-Border Regions, Canadian Political Science Review. Vol 2 (2). June, 2008.

78 Cascadia Center. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from http://www.cascadiacenter.org/about.php

79 Ibid

80 Peter Severinson. The New Frontier. BC Business Review, pg. 59. February, 2010.

81 Bruce Agnew. Personal communication. April 28, 2014.

http://www.cascadiacenter.org/about.php


44

robust binational regional model in North America with its vast geographical reach, statutory structure,

and stable funding mechanisms.

PNWER was formed in 1991 by the founding states of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana and Alaska

and the provinces of British Columbia and Alberta each passing legislation creating PNWER. This political

and economic institution expanded in 1994 to include the Yukon Territory, and again in 2008 and 2009

to include Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories, respectively. PNWER also expanded its

governance structure in 1993 to include governors and premiers. Official private sector and non-

elective public sector participation was incorporated into the governance structure in 1994.82

The goals of PNWER are to “coordinate provincial and state policies; identify and promote models of

success; serve as a conduit to exchange information; promote greater regional collaboration; enhance

regional competitiveness; leverage influence in national capitals; and continue sustainable economic

growth.” To this end, PNWER is intricately involved in multiple annual conferences and forums, on

policy and economic issues, and contributes extensively to the formation of legislation. PNWER funding

is based on three primary sources: state and provincial dues; private sector sponsorships; and public and

private grants.

PNWER’s governance is highly organized with an elected president and two vice presidents from each

country, who must be legislators and members of the PNWER Executive Committee. Other Executive

Committee members include legislators from each state and province, a private-sector board member

from each state and province, and four governors/premiers. This Executive Committee is responsible

for reviewing the work of 21 working groups and the election of the President and two Vice- Presidents.

The Delegate Council and Private Sector Council are an important part of the overall PNWER structure.

The Delegate Council is made up of the governors and premiers of member U.S. states and Canadian

provinces/ territories and four legislators. It coordinates public sector agendas and promotes working

group participation. The Private Sector Council includes every non-elected private sector member,

including non-elective public sector, NGOs, businesses, and non-profits. It identifies issues and

communicate these through the working groups to the PNWER Executive Committee.83

Whether PNWER provides a replicable model for binational collaboration in other areas with distinctly

less development of binational regional identities remains a key question. With its core identity

grounded in the well-delineated bioregion of Cascadia, the Pacific Northwest may be unique compared

to other areas along the U.S.-Canada border.

5.2 The Blue Water Region of Southwest Ontario/East Michigan

The binational Blue Water Region of southwest Ontario and east Michigan (at the edge of the

Metropolitan Detroit area) is connected by the bridge of that name crossing the St. Clair River at Port

Huron-Sarnia. The usual binational asymmetry is reversed here: the population of Sarnia is about two

82

Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. Retrieved April 18, 2014 from http://www.pnwer.org/background--history.html

83 Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. Retrieved April 25, 2014 from http://www.pnwer.org/about-us.html


45

and a half times greater than that of Port Huron. This is one of two binational regions that the MSU

Center for Community and Economic Development (CCED) has engaged over the past two years (2012-

13) and continues that engagement in 2014.

Figure 8:

The Blue Water Gateway Region and Adjacent Areas

Source: MSU Center for Community and Economic Development, 2013.

5.21 Infrastructure Connections: The Blue Water Bridge and St. Clair River Rail Tunnel

The Blue Water Bridge was built to link Port Huron, Michigan, and Sarnia, Ontario in 1938, with

the support of the United States and Canada. The bridge was expanded by building a twin span in 1997.

The bridge plays a major role in connecting and integrating the Michigan and Ontario economies, and

facilitates cross-border private sector market activities.

The bridge is jointly-owned and maintained by the United States and Canada. Blue Water Bridge Canada

is responsible for the Canadian side and the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) for the U.S.

side. The Blue Water Bridge crosses the St. Clair River and connects Highway 402/401 in Ontario directly

with U.S. Interstate 69 And Interstate 94. The Interstate 69 corridor runs through the middle of the U.S.

and ends at the Mexican border. Interstate 94 provides direct access to Detroit and Chicago to the west.

Proximate access to Interstate 75 is available at Flint, about 70 miles west of Port Huron via Interstate

69. Interstate 75 accesses the southeast U.S. down to Florida.


46

The Blue Water Bridge is the second busiest truck crossing on the U.S. – Canada border with close to

15,000 cars and trucks crossing the bridge every day.84 The total value of freight shipments through Port

Huron reached $83 billion in 2011.85 The Blue Water Bridge handles about 14 percent of the truck trade

between the two countries.86

In addition to the Blue Water Bridge, the St. Clair River Rail Tunnel provides double-stack capacity for rail

freight between Port Huron and Sarnia (the rail tunnel connecting Detroit, Michigan and Windsor,

Ontario lacks double-stack capacity). CN lines connect the Blue Water Region to the important ports of

Montreal on the St. Lawrence River and Halifax, an Atlantic deep-water port in Nova Scotia. Although

significant economic value is generated by current cross-border trade, the Port Huron and Sarnia sub-

state/sub-provincial region did not have a significant past history of binational regional collaboration

before 2013.

Collaborative binational regional approaches could build stronger trading ties and more robust

development of key economic sectors.

5.22 Demographic and Economic Profile of the Blue Water Region

St. Clair County is the heart of the Blue Water Region on the Michigan side (at the base of the

Thumb of Michigan’s mitten-shaped Lower Peninsula). The county population was 163,040 in 2010

(2010 census). The city of Port Huron—the Michigan terminus of the Blue Water Bridge—has a

population of 29,928.87 Only 2.5% of Port Huron residents are foreign-born and only 3.6% of the citizens

speak another language.

Lambton County has a population of 126,199 (2011 Census) and is the heart of the Blue Water Region

on the Ontario side. The city of Sarnia has a population of 72,366,88 more than twice the population of

Port Huron. Immigrants make up 14 percent of the Sarnia population, according to Statistics Canada.

Port Huron is located in predominantly rural St. Clair County on the periphery of the Metro Detroit

region. Sarnia is located 120 miles west of the Greater Toronto Area, the turbocharged engine of the

Ontario economy. Lambton County is predominantly rural and agricultural, but also has other significant

economic sectors although these sectors have taken serious hits in the past few years.

84

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), “Border Crossing Study at Blue Water Leads to Improved Community Relations and Creative Transportation Solutions.” n.d.

85 U.S. Department of Transportation, Top 20 U.S.-International Trade Freight Gateways by Value of Shipments: 2011 (billions of

current dollars). Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2013/economic_competitiveness/table_04_10.

86 Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT), “Border Crossing Study at Blue Water Leads to Improved Community

Relations and Creative Transportation Solutions.” n.d.

87 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2665820.html

88 Statistics Canada, 2011. Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/start-debut-eng.html.


47

Port Huron is home to a Domtar paper mill and a number of Tier 1, 2, and 3 automotive suppliers.

Automotive parts manufacturing as well as health care, utility power generation (3 DTE plants), and

plastics manufacturing (e.g, polypropylene) are the main sectors of the Port Huron economy.

Large petrochemical production is the main driver of the Sarnia-Lambton area economy, followed by oil

refining, industrial bioproducts, energy (e.g., largest solar power farm in the Northern hemisphere), and

tourism.89

5.23 The Binational Blue Water Regional Collaborative Process

The binational Blue Water regional collaborative process is building on the important

commercial and physical nexus provided by the Blue Water Bridge.

The MSU Center for Community and Economic Development(CCED) and the St. Clair County Economic

Development Alliance (SCCEDA) were unable to identify any existing binational collaborative platforms

although SCCEDA had had previous contacts with the Sarnia-Lambton Economic Partnership (SLEP). The

Canadian Consulate General (Detroit) and the George Morris Centre in Guelph, ON played key roles in

articulating the expected binational benefits from binational regional collaboration. Eventually, 24

representatives of local and regional economic development organizations, universities, state/provincial

agencies, private sector rail, and the Canadian Consulate in Detroit participated on the conference

planning committee.90

The conference planning committee identified four areas with opportunities for collaborative initiatives

to promote binational regional competiveness in global markets: green chemistry, agri-food production,

regional transportation and logistics, and immigrant attraction. Joint marketing of the Blue Water

Region was also identified as a major focus area for a roundtable to discuss promoting the region.

Binational panels of experts were identified by the planning committee for each collaborative area and

the roundtable (see figure 9 below).

89

J. D. Snyder. “Binational Regional Collaboration: Expanding the Relationship.” CN Forum Synergistic Transformation of the Great Lakes Region, October 10, 2013.

90 Members included representatives of the Economic Development Alliance of St. Clair County (EDASCC); Sarnia-Lambton

Economic Partnership (SLEP); Southwest (ON) Economic Alliance (SWEA); George Morris Centre, Guelph, ON; University of Guelph; Canadian Consulate, Detroit; Middlesex County, London, ON; MSU Canadian Studies Center; Blue Water Bridge Authority; I-69 International Trade Corridor Next Michigan Corporation; Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT); East Michigan Council of Governments (EMCOG); Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC); and St. Clair County Community College (Port Huron, MI).


48

Figure 9: Binational Blue Water Regional Collaboration areas

The panel discussions at the conference in October 2013 illuminated new pathways to future

collaboration at enhanced strategic levels in 2014.

5.24 Success of the Binational Blue Water Regional Collaboration Conference, October 2013

The success of the first Binational Blue Water Regional Collaboration Conference held October 2,

2013 in Port Huron, MI represented a significant step in developing collaborative partnerships across the

border and a new model for regional cross-border collaboration. Local leaders and stakeholders

identified collaborative opportunities in the four key economic areas and joint regional marketing.

Roy Norton, the Canadian Consul General, delivered the afternoon keynote titled Building U.S.-Canada

Prosperity through Binational Regional Collaboration. Mr. Norton had played a major leadership role in


49

the successful collaboration between Canada and the U.S. to work out a deal in 2012 to build the New

International Trade Crossing (NITC) at Detroit-Windsor91.

The agri-food panel included a joint presentation by representatives of the Michigan Sugar Company

and the Ontario Sugarbeet Growers Association. In this binational partnership, the Ontario sugar beet

growers share ownership of a cooperative processing enterprise, Michigan Sugar Company.92 A

significant percentage of Ontario sugar beets supply the Michigan Sugar Company. Ontario growers ship

over 6,000 loads of beets over the Blue Water Bridge each year.93

The Green Chemistry Innovations panel included representatives from the Bioindustrial Innovation

Centre, Sarnia, ON; Ontario BioAuto Council, Guelph, ON; Ontario Agri-Food Technologies, Guelph, ON;

Michigan Molecular Institute, Midland, MI; and MBI International, East Lansing, MI. This discussion

focused on the need for closer collaboration in research and development between these organizations

to achieve commercial success with benefits for both Ontario and Michigan.

The Regional Logistics Solutions Panel included panelists representing the Blue Water Bridge (MDOT);

Michigan Economic Development Corporation (MEDC); Ontario Ministry of Transportation; CN Rail; and

Great Lakes International Trade and Transport Hub. The discussion focused on the logistics assets

shared by Michigan and Ontario, and especially emphasized the vital role that the Blue Water Bridge

plays in making the region a logistics hub.

The Strategic Approaches to Immigrant Attraction Panel was made up of representatives from Global

Detroit, Detroit, MI; University of Guelph, Guelph, ON; City of Southfield, Michigan; Ontario Immigrant

Network, Sarnia, ON; and MEDC Talent Enhancement. Panelists shared information about their

approaches to Immigrant Attraction: why it was important, and the strategies they utilized. Strategies

included researching ways to attract and retain newcomers to smaller communities by connecting

potential entrepreneurs to services and professionals and newcomers to social services to ease

transitions94; cultivating immigrant/ethnic revitalization of neighborhoods; and training, advising, and

placing work-authorized skilled immigrants.95

The Joint Marketing panel included presenters from the I-69 International Trade Corridor; Ontario

Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Employment (Western Region); Southwest (ON)

Economic Alliance (SWEA); Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce; and Sarnia-Lambton Chamber of

91

The two cities are connected by the 84-year old, privately-owned Ambassador Bridge, but the need for a second bridge had

become increasingly acute in the minds of Michigan, Ontario, U.S., and Canadian public and private leaders. However, the owners of the Ambassador Bridge have strenuously fought NITC with a series of law suits and financing a statewide ballot initiative which failed.

92Delon Chan, “MI Sugar and Ontario Sugar Beet Growers Collaboration,” Canadian Consulate General, 2012.

93 Ibid.

94 Rodolfo Martinez, “Newcomers and Business Succession,” Ontario Immigrant Network. Presentation, Blue Water Binational

Collaboration Conference. October 2, 2013.

95 Steve Tobocman, “The Case for Immigration-Centered Economic Development,” Global Detroit. Presentation, Blue Water

Binational Collaboration Conference. October 2, 2013.


50

Commerce. Panelists discussed the strengths and accomplishments of their organizations and

acknowledged the challenges they face in reaching their goals. Accomplishments include marketing by

sector, geographical market, multi-lingual, regional branding, and noticeable levels of social media

traffic. Challenges included “changing the channel”96 on negative perceptions of the region; leveling the

playing field between rural, small urban, large urban; and ultra-high-speed broadband throughout the

region.

5.25 Future Steps in the Blue Water Region Binational Collaboration

Building on the success of the first binational regional collaboration conference, the Blue Water

Conference planning committee is organizing the second annual Binational Blue Water Regional

Collaboration Conference on June 11, 2014 in Sarnia, ON as a part of the Southwest (Ontario) Economic

Alliance’s(SWEA) annual assembly. St. Clair County Economic Development Alliance continues to play a

key leadership role in Blue Water binational regional collaboration along with SWEA and the Bio-

Industrial Innovation Canada (BIC). And the I-69 International Trade Corridor Next Michigan Corporation

(NMC) has taken a more aggressive role in pursuing binational regional collaborative approaches.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be signed by the I-69 International Trade Corridor NMC,

Detroit Regional Chamber of Commerce, and SWEA at the June 11 conference to cooperatively market

the Parties’ competitive and complementary assets to promote trade, transportation, and economic

growth in the region.

The MSU CCED project team received a grant from the Michigan Applied Public Policy Research program

(an Institute of Public Policy and Social Research program) to support the development of joint regional

marketing in the Blue Water Region and the development of binational sectoral strategies in green

chemistry and agri-food production. This work is ongoing through 2014.

5.3 The Twin Saults Region of the Michigan Eastern Upper Peninsula and Northern Ontario

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan in the Michigan Eastern Upper Peninsula and Sault Ste. Marie,

Ontario in northern Ontario are linked by the International Bridge across the St. Mary’s River (that

connects Lake Superior and Lake Huron). The relationships forged in the Twin Saults Region provide a

relevant model for binational regional collaboration that includes a history of joint management of the

International Bridge, reciprocal tuition agreements in higher education, formalizing the relationship

between the Twin Saults with a “Two Nations, One City” Sister City agreement in 2012, the

establishment of a Joint International Relations and Economic Growth Committee, and two successful

binational regional collaboration conferences in 2012 and 2013.

96

Serge Lavoie, “Southwestern Ontario: an Intelligent Region,” Southwest Economic Alliance. Presentation. Blue Water Binational Collaboration Conference. October 2, 2013.


51

Figure 10:

Binational Twins Saults Region and Adjacent Areas

Source: MSU Center for Community and Economic Development, 2013

5.31 The History and Context of the Twin Saults

Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, USA and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, Canada have a long shared

history. French missionaries Jacques Marquette and Claude Dablon founded a mission they named Sault

Sainte Marie (“rapids of St. Mary”) in 1668 where Ojibwa (Chippewa) Native Americans had lived for

centuries. Prior to finalizing the Michigan-Ontario border in 1817, Sault Ste. Marie was a single city and

an important commercial trading center in the Upper Great Lakes.

This historical nexus between the two cities continues today. Trade and economic cooperation between

the two cities is supported and facilitated by the International Bridge, which connects I-75 in Sault Ste.

Marie, Michigan and the Trans-Canada Highway in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. A rail bridge across the St.

Mary’s River also carries limited volumes of freight.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Marquette

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Dablon

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ojibwa


52

The construction of the International Bridge connected the Twin Saults in 1962 over the St. Mary’s

River, the channel that connects Lake Superior and Lake Huron. The bridge provides a link between

northern Ontario and Michigan’s Eastern Upper Peninsula and Lower Peninsula via the Mackinac Bridge.

The management and operation of the International Bridge provides an outstanding model of binational

collaboration with the International Bridge Authority (IBA) operating the cross- border infrastructure

and contributing to the integration of economic, social, and cultural ties between the two Sault

communities.

The management of most international bridges usually involves managers from each nation. But IBA has

a single general manager who is an Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) employee. The

current general manager, Phil Becker, employs a “binational” mindset for managing all bridge functions.

The staff and board are each evenly split between Canadians and Americans. The binational spirit of the

nexus in bridge management animates and drives other forms of collaboration in the Twin Saults

Region.

5.32 Major Economic Sectors in the Twin Saults Region

The city of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan has a population of 14,144.97 Foreign-born residents make

up 3.5% of the population.98 Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario in the Algoma District across the St. Mary’s River is

home to 75,141 residents; of whom 8,225 are immigrants, making up 11% of the population.99

The top five economic sectors in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan include accommodation and food services;

health care and social services; retail; professional, scientific, and technical services; and other services

subject to Federal income tax.100 The main economic sectors in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario include

advanced manufacturing, alternative energy, lottery and gaming, and industrial/regional service.101

5.33 Formalizing the Connection: The Sister City: Two Nations – One City Agreement

The twin cities of Sault Ste. Marie entered a formal Sister City Agreement August 16, 2012 titled

“Two Nations – One City” to reinforce and enhance their strong, longstanding informal collaborative

relationship. The Agreement was signed by the mayors “to promote economic, educational, and cultural

exchanges and other cooperative ventures and foster business development initiatives.” The Terms of

Reference established a Joint International Relations and Economic Growth (JIREG) Committee. Progress

has been very slow. JIREG members have yet to be announced (as of May 2014) nearly two years after

was established.

97

U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. Retrieved January 17, 2014 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/26/2671740.html

98 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. “Selected Social Characteristics in the United States for Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, 2006-2010

American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates”

99 Ibid.

100 U.S. Census Bureau, 2010. “Selected Economic Characteristics in the United States for Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan.”

101 Tom Dodds. “One City, Two Nations Working Together to Move Our Communities Forward.” Presentation. Conference on

Binational Collaboration. October 25, 2012.


53

5.34 The Binational Regional Collaborative Process in the Twin Saults Region

In 2012, the communities of Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario came

together to plan the 50th anniversary celebration of the opening of the International Bridge. The

importance of the International Bridge Authority as a force for binational regional collaboration cannot

be overstated. The 50th Anniversary Celebration was marked by a series of public events and

celebrations ending on October 30, 2012. These activities created momentum that helped in planning

the first Twin Saults binational regional collaboration conference that was held October 30-31. The

conference planning committee102 identified binational opportunities in the areas of alternative energy,

multi-modal transportation, higher education, and business development.

5.35 Two Successful Binational Regional Collaboration Conferences in the Twin Saults Region

Successful Binational Regional Collaboration Conferences were held in the Twin Saults in 2012

and 2013. Each conference was the major program focus of an Upper Peninsula Economic Development

Association (UPEDA) quarterly meeting. The first conference was held October 24 – 25, 2012 at Lake

Superior State University in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and at the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario City Hall.

Over 100 people attended this highly successful conference.

The conference sought to articulate a vision of future collaborative economic development in the Twin

Saults Region with broad opportunities for interactions between Michigan and Ontario participants in

the areas of alternative energy, multi-modal transportation, higher education, and business

development opportunities. This conference provided a rich opportunity for economic developers and

other public sector interests, researchers, and private sector interests to work together across the

border to identify steps to enhance regional economic prosperity.

The Second Annual Binational Twin Saults Regional Collaboration Conference was held on October 30-

31, 2013. The Conference was designed to further leverage the collaborative assets in the binational

region. The conference planning committee identified the collaborative areas and panel experts to

address these areas that included regional tourism opportunities; issues at the International Bridge

border crossing; the value of trails and natural resources in the Upper Peninsula and in Ontario; and

strategic initiatives in the binational transportation corridor.

The second conference in 2013 coincided with the international Naturallia business-to-business event,

hosted by the Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario EDC, which attracted 200 businesses and organizations to Sault

Ste. Marie, Ontario. The intent was to leverage the Naturallia event with the U.S. EDA-funded

102

Members included the Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning & Development Commission (EUPRPDC); Upper Peninsula

Economic Development Alliance (UPEDA); International Bridge Authority; City of Sault Ste. Marie (Michigan) Economic

Development Corporation; City of Sault Ste. Marie (Ontario) Economic Development Corporation; MSU Center for Community

and Economic Development; MSU Canadian Studies Center; MSU Institute of Public Policy and Social Research (IPPSR); Great

Lakes International Trade and Transportation Hub (GLITTH); and Lake Superior State University (SSM, MI).


54

conference to create and take advantage of synergies. Naturallia concluded on Wednesday October 30

as the binational Twin Saults conference kicked off. The hoped-for synergies were limited.

5.36 Future Collaborative Steps in the Twin Saults Region

Building on the success of the first two binational regional collaboration conferences, the Twin

Saults Conference planning committee is organizing the third annual Binational Twin Saults Regional

Collaboration Conference in November 2014. The Eastern Upper Peninsula Regional Planning and

Development Commission (EUPRPDC, a federal Economic Development District) continues its key

leadership role in the binational collaboration with the Upper Peninsula Economic Development

Alliance, Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario EDC, Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan EDC, Lake Superior State University,

and International Bridge Authority. As this report goes to press, the Soo Area Chamber of Commerce on

the Michigan side is taking a greater role in planning this year’s conference while EUPRPDC softens its

role.

5.4 The Buffalo-Niagara/Southern Ontario Region

The Buffalo Niagara-southeast Ontario region lags somewhat in the extent of its binational

regional collaboration. However, the State University at Buffalo’s Regional Institute is providing key

intellectual leadership in advocating binational regional collaboration with a robust research program as

well as a collaboration with Brock University in nearby St. Catherine’s, Ontario.

Figure 11:

Buffalo/Niagara-Southern Ontario Region

Source: Canuffalo.com

This is an important economic region with four bridges and two rail tracks; regional trade amounted to

$75.6 billion in 2006, second only to Windsor-Detroit. Major trade commodities include motor vehicle

parts, energy, and pharmaceuticals.


55

Researchers, activists, planners, and government officials have started a process “to imagine” a

binational Niagara community. But the region is currently characterized as politically-fragmented with

areas in the region being highly competitive with each other.

There is substantial binational socio-cultural activity in the region like the NFL Buffalo Bills playing

regularly-scheduled games in Toronto and the Buffalo Canoe Club located in Port Abino, Ontario since

1892. A high level of Canadian patronage of Buffalo’s Albright-Knox Art Gallery and substantial Canadian

attendance at NHL Buffalo Sabres games are also documented.

An important recent binational effort was the short-lived Niagara Bi-National Regional Economic

Roundtable that issued a single report in 2003. But its quick demise attests to the fragility of binational

collaboration in the region.

Historical binational cross-border institutions include the Niagara Falls Bridge Commission being created

in 1938 and the Peace Bridge Authority in 1958. Both are self-funded through bridge revenues and are

stable ongoing binational institutions. Each shares equal representation of Canadians and Americans on

their respective governing boards.

In the early 2000s, the Binational Tourism Alliance was established to advocate a binational regional

approach for the tourism industry. This could represent a significant breakthrough in binational regional

collaboration.

On the down side, however, the city of Buffalo’s and New York State’s funding of the Fort Erie-Buffalo

Friendship Festival dried up in 2005, eight years after the Festival was founded. The Americans on the

governing board left the board after the funding stopped.

In a sharply observed 2010 article, Eagles points out that two sets of challenges must be dealt with: one,

the securitization of the border since 9-11 and the secure document requirements that were

implemented in 2009; and two, cultural issues associated with residents and organizations that are

working to build on the cross-border nature of the Niagara region while accommodating cross-border

differences in cultures and attitudes.103

Ongoing parochialism and protecting bureaucratic turf in the region fundamentally interfere with the

emergence of a viable binational regional champion. But academic leadership in the region on binational

regional collaboration is significant. The State University at Buffalo and Brock University in Ontario

entered a collaborative agreement in 2007 to conduct joint seminars, faculty-student exchanges,

collaboration between public policy institutions on both campuses, and the formation of a joint Institute

for Transnational Studies in the Americas (ITSA). This collaboration holds significant promise for broader

future initiatives involving public and private actors.

103

Monroe Eagles (2010) Organizing Across the Canada-US Border: Binational Institutions in the Niagara Region, American Review of Canadian Studies, 40:3, 379-394, DOI: 10.1080/02722011.2010.496904


56

5.5 The Cali Baja Region: San Diego, California, USA/Tijuana, Baja California, Mexico

The total population of the San Diego Region is 3,095,313 104; the total population of the Tijuana,

Tecate, and Playas de Rosarito (TTPR) Zone is 1,751,430 (IMPLAN). The population of the city of San

Diego is 1,301,617 (2010 Census). The population of the Mexican Zone is overwhelmingly concentrated

in Tijuana with a population of 1,559,683; Tecate’s population is 101,079 and Playas de Rosarito is

90,668.

Figure 12:

United States-Mexico cross-border regions

Source: United States Envrionmental Protection Agency, 2014

(The three U.S.-Mexico binational regions that are circled above are discussed here and in sections 5.6-

5.7)

The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), comprised of San Diego County and 18

municipalities, has supported an annual binational event since 1997 through its Committee on

Binational Regional Opportunities (COBRO). The 2012 meeting focused on examining approaches to

regional collaboration with Tijuana, Tecate, and Playas de Rosarito in the context of their Metro Zone

Strategic Plan and the San Diego Regional Comprehensive Plan (RCP) and 2050 Regional Transportation

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS).

In connection with the 2012 meeting, SANDAG produced a white paper titled The Mechanics of

Crossborder Collaboration for the San Diego Region and Tijuana, Tecate, and Playas de Rosarito (TTPR)

104

U.S. Census 2010. Retrieved January 22, 2014 from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html


57

Metro Zone. The white paper noted the upcoming completion of the 2034 Metro Zone Plan with the

prospect of merging the San Diego Region planning strategies with the TTPR Metro Zone’s Plan.105

The major strategic accomplishment going into this new integrated planning phase was the

development and early implementation of the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay Binational Corridor Strategic

Plan. Both the SANDAG Board and Tijuana City Council approved the Binational Corridor Strategic Plan in

2007. This plan focuses on the Otay Mesa-Mesa de Otay commercial point of entry (POE) and related

corridor improvements as well as on housing, economic development, and environmental conservation.

U.S. agencies included SANDAG and the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Mexican

agencies included the Secretariat of Infrastructure and Urban Development of Baja California (SIDUE)

and IMPLAN.106

The Mexican Consulate and the Tijuana EDC were engaged in the development of the binational San

Diego Regional Economic Evaluation and Prosperity Strategy, a component of the Binational Corridor

Strategy. Improving access to jobs and housing was a focus, and it was noted that “…the issues of San

Diegans migrating southward for affordable housing and the northward migration of Mexicans in search

of work along the border (must be addressed).”107

Goods movement was also hugely critical. The white paper noted that nearly $27 billion in goods moved

between Mexico and the U.S. at the Otay Mesa POE and Tecate POE. SANDAG’s 2050 Gateway Study

projects that nearly 5 million trucks are expected to cross in 2050, up from nearly 2 million trucks

crossing in 2007. 108

Finally, the California-Baja California Border Master Plan was completed in September 2008 that was

touted as a binational comprehensive approach to coordinate planning and implementation of projects

at land POEs and related transportation infrastructure in the California-Baja California region.

According to SANDAG staff, Hector Vanegas, this high level of binational collaboration requires huge

amounts of patience and respect because of the deep differences between the structure and operations

of the U.S. and Mexican government systems in addition to socio-cultural differences.109 All decision

making in the Mexican system is done in Mexico City. Local and state governments in Mexico do not

exercise power in a manner similar to local and state governments in the U.S. He also emphasized that

the planning process and the collaborative process are two different processes, and binational

participants should not confuse the two. Deep frustration can ensue from the confusion.

As was pointed out by the Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration (that was

housed at San Diego State University), “(t)he pattern is progressive, each succeeding relationship is built

105

The Mechanics of Crossborder Collaboration (2012) SANDAG Binational Seminar, White Paper. June 26, 2012.

106 SANDAG Service Bureau (2008) California-Baja California Border Master Plan, Final Report, September 2008.

107 The Mechanics of Crossborder Collaboration, op. cit.

108 Ibid.

109 Hector Vanegas. Personal Communicatoin. January 15, 2014.


58

upon a previous one: first come informal relationships followed by business arrangements and more

recently, governmental alliances.”110

In 2008, the San Diego Regional EDC and Imperial Valley EDC received funding from the U.S. Economic

Development Administration (EDA) to develop a strategy to market San Diego County, Imperial County,

and Baja California (the northernmost state in Mexico) as a binational mega-region. In June 2011, six

regional economic development organizations (EDOs) signed a Marketing “Rules of Engagement”

Memorandum of Understanding. This MOU was designed to establish the foundation for marketing the

region together as CaliBaja. Within the MOU several commitments were made to work on efforts

including participating in marketing and trade shows, updating the CaliBaja website, and developing the

unique binational GIS asset map. This MOU later evolved into a more formal relationship.

Since the end of the EDA grant, the CaliBaja initiative has been funded by both the public and private

sector. Marketing of the region’s assets (high-technology, business, and manufacturing) has sought to

attract investment opportunities for global business.

The CaliBaja Mega Region was recognized as a model of innovation/education for its economic

development efforts in a highly-integrated region at the 2014 North American Leaders Summit held

February 19 in Toluca, Mexico. The Leaders also committed to creating a Trilateral Research,

Development and Innovation Council to encourage opportunities for North American leadership and a

trilateral network of entrepreneurs.111

5.6 The Region of El Camino Real: El Paso, Texas, USA/Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico

The binational metropolitan region of El Paso, Texas, USA/Ciudad Juarez, Chihuahua, Mexico

(that also takes in Las Cruces, New Mexico) is the second largest on the U.S.-Mexico border with 2.4

million inhabitants (see Figure 12 on pg. 56 for a map of the El Paso-Ciudad Juarez region). The region is

bi-lingual and bi-cultural. Daily cross-border commuting occurs at five bridges between El Paso and

Juarez along with many cross-border firm interactions. NAFTA has facilitated cross-border exchanges. It

is the second busiest Mexico-U.S. trade corridor.

El Camino Real (the Royal Road) was built in the Spanish colonial era and connected Mexico City to

Chihuahua City (now Ciudad Juarez) and El Paso del Norte and up the Rio Grande to Albuquerque and

Santa Fe. This route is now Highway 45 in Mexico and Interstate 25 in the U.S.

The region has a strong manufacturing base with a large maquiladora sector of some 350 facilities in

Juarez that are owned and operated by 200 multinational corporations. It is touted as the largest

manufacturing region in North America with major automotive and ICT sectors. The U.S. side is more

diversified with a significant service sector. The public sector has contributed to recent job growth,

110

http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/institutes/tbi/resources/conahec.php

111 The White House. Fact Sheet: Key Deliverables for the 2014 North American Leaders Summit. February 19, 2014.



59

including military installations at Fort Bliss (Texas), White Sands Missile Range (New Mexico), and

Holloman Air Force Base (New Mexico).

A major challenge is to enhance the region’s attractiveness which suffers from crime and other adverse

conditions. Attracting and retaining workers and families is challenging. Over 110,000 students attend

several universities in the region, but many of the science and engineering graduates leave for other

locations with better job opportunities. Pockets of poverty remain a drag on competitiveness on both

sides of the border. Tightened border controls on the U.S. side and drug-related violence on the

Mexican side further compromise cross-border integration and the region’s competitiveness.

The Borderplex Alliance is a new El Paso-based, private sector-driven regional economic development

organization. It recently joined with Desarrollo Economico de Ciudad Juárez to develop key industry

clusters and conduct joint regional business promotion. Policy development and lobbying at local, state,

and federal levels in Mexico and the United States are also part of the joint agreement. Borderplex is

seeking multiple partnerships to form a foundation for a strong regional coalition that will transform the

region into a competitive player at the global level.112

Higher education and research resources include New Mexico State University, UTEP, Texas Tech

medical school, Universidad Autónoma de Ciudad Juárez, and El Paso Community College. Priority

sectors include automotive, consumer electronics, renewable energy (particularly solar), tourism, and

medical. The Medical Center of the Americas will contribute to the medical sector via medical tourism,

medical research, and medical device manufacturing.

5.7 The Region of Brownsville, Texas, USA/Matamoros, Tamaulipas, Mexico

Brownsville-Matamoros binational regional collaboration is taking its first tentative steps (see

Figure 12 on pg. 56 for a map of the Brownsville-Matamoros region). The region is the fourth largest

metro region on the U.S.-Mexico border with a population of over 1.3 million. Three bridges connect the

Brownsville and Matamoros areas. And a state highway ending at Brownsville was recently designated a

part of the Interstate 69 corridor.

The population of Brownsville is 180,097 (U.S. Census 2012 estimate) and the population of Cameron

County is over 406,000. The population of the city of Matamoros is about 500,000. Brownsville’s

population is over 90% Hispanic; family, cultural, and economic ties between the Texas community and

the state of Tamaulipas are strong.113

United Brownsville, a coalition group, provided strategic leadership in creating the 2010 Imagine

Brownsville Comprehensive Plan. It is made up of the City, Greater Brownsville Incentives Corporation,

112

Vic Kolenc, El Paso's Borderplex Alliance forms partnership with Juarez economic developers, El Paso Times, November 12,

2013 Retrieved January 13, 2014 from http://www.elpasotimes.com/business/ci_24502921/el-pasos-borderplex-alliance-

forms-partnership-juarez-economic

113 Sergio Chapa. Border realities exposed on trip through Texas-Mexico neighborhoods. Borderzine. October 4, 2013.

mailto:[email protected]?subject=El%20Paso%20Times:


60

School District, Port of Brownsville, Brownsville Public Utilities Board, Brownsville Community

Improvement Corp, and the University of Texas-Brownsville/Texas Southmost College (UTB/TSC).

UTB/TSC have sought to play a catalytic role in developing binational regional collaboration.

United Brownsville hosted a Bi-National Economic Development (Bi-NED) zone workshop May 3, 2013 at

UTB to push for binational regional collaboration. The Bi-NED zone would align the economic

development strategies of the two cities and other economic growth factors like transportation and

infrastructure. United Brownsville strongly contends that a binational approach is critical to regional

growth.

The workshop was attended by key stakeholders on both sides of the border as well as representatives

of the Federal Reserve Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, New Policy Institute, and Woodrow

Wilson International Center for Scholars.

Private sector leadership is critical to the effort with the understanding that working together as one

unit attracts capital investment more effectively and also creates jobs through increasing exports. The

Bi-NED strategy focuses on binational clusters with light and heavy manufacturing among other sectors.

Bi-NED would also serve larger public policy interests with greater prosperity in the binational region

helping to create long-term solutions to immigration problems.

UTB representatives emphasized that not pursuing Bi-NED poses a distinct risk since many

manufacturing operations have been moved to Mexico’s interior as that country has improved its

infrastructure to make goods movement easier.

Eleven years ago, the UTB/TSC Cross-Border Institute for Regional Development put out a major report

titled Cameron County/Matamoros at the Crossroads: Assets and Challenges for Accelerated Regional

and Binational Development. That report recommended a fully-engaged binational approach that would

focus on advanced manufacturing and binational supply chain management, transportation services and

logistics, cross-border security and trade expansion, and health services and life sciences.

Implementation clearly lagged.

Binational regional assets are significant. Shrimpers, metal recycling, and oilrig construction companies

are thriving at the Port of Brownsville. PEMEX, Mexico’s national oil company, recently discovered a new

deep water well in the Gulf of Mexico that would bring jobs and development to the region. Mexico

recently built Federal Highway 40, the Carreterra Interoceanica, that links the Pacific Coast state of

Sinaloa to Tamaulipas and now provides a higher level of economic integration in Mexico.


61

6.0 Conclusion

Binational regional collaboration is the key to regional economic prosperity in Michigan and Ontario, the

Great Lakes Region, and other regions in North America. It creates myriad opportunities to leverage a

more diverse range of economic assets that can strengthen the strategic position of a binational region

and its competitiveness in the global economy.

Collaborative efforts in cross-border areas have been pursued in Europe and supported by the European

Commission (EC) since 1990. Six European case studies described in this paper illustrate the flexibility,

resilience, and variability of the binational approaches used there.

North American binational collaborative efforts differ from those in the European experience. Unlike

Europe with nearly 30 countries, many of which are small both in land area and population, North

America consists of just three large asymmetrical countries. Existing asymmetry between the U.S. and

Canada, and the U.S. and Mexico, and the complexity of a trilateral North American paradigm, magnifies

the importance of the state/provincial, and especially the sub-state/sub-provincial, regions collaborating

to achieve binational regional success. Successful binational regional experiences in North America

include collaborative efforts at both the state and sub-state levels.

The CaliBaja Mega-Region (San Diego-Tijuana) arguably provides the most robust regional sub-state

model in North America. This model is predicated on a formal agreement between four Mexican and

two U.S. local units of government to market the area as a binational region and attract foreign direct

investment (FDI). In the Great Lakes Region, the Blue Water and Twin Saults Regions of

Michigan/Ontario are currently pursuing binational collaboration with formal agreements to collaborate

in specific target economic areas.

6.1 Creating a Binational Regional Collaborative Process

Ongoing binational regional collaboration requires clear communication and an effective

framework. Three questions should be answered in starting the process to create a binational

framework:

When does it make sense to collaborate with cross-border neighbors for innovation-

driven economic development?

What kinds of governance approaches can be used to manage the cross-border

collaboration?

What policy instruments should be used to facilitate cross-border collaboration?

We suggest a careful examination of the following six factors to help answer these threshold questions:

Proximity

Economic structure/specialization pattern

Policy structure

Institutional setup

Knowledge base/science infrastructure


62

Nature of linkages

Each factor plays an important role. Proximity (physical, functional, and relational) is a critical factor in

determining the feasibility of cross-border collaboration. Comparable capabilities and capacities

(functional proximity) of neighboring regions vastly improve the likelihood of successful collaborative

activities. Existing alignment of economic and policy structures, a strong knowledge base/science

infrastructure, existing sectorial and knowledge linkages, and/or analogous institutional configurations

can often act as a springboard for collaborative relationships. The intricacies of these factors are

interdependent and should all be well understood in order to determine the appropriate approach and

viability of binational regional collaboration.

6.2 Economic Rationales Support Binational Regional Collaboration

Binational regional collaboration at both the state/provincial and sub-state/sub-provincial levels

provides an innovative economic development tool for supporting small and medium-size companies

(SMEs) enter and expand export markets. Collaboration can facilitate the identification of strategic

opportunities that will accelerate binational regional economic prosperity. Such mutually-beneficial

opportunities are based on the economic rationales of:

Economies of scale

Economies of scope

Public goods

Externalities

Each economic rationale provides important market benefits that would not be captured in the absence

of collaboration. Economies of scale are supported by the growth of both labor markets and the

knowledge base that occurs with binational regional collaboration. Economies of scope can occur in the

form of complementary markets when each respective side of the border is proficient in a

complementary activity to the other. Public goods are goods that would not typically emerge under

competitive market conditions. These are exemplified by the creation of a regional identity or a regional

marketing campaign. These public goods clearly benefit both sides of the border, but would not exist

without collaboration. Similarly, the economic benefits of externalities, such as knowledge spillovers,

are realized through successful collaboration.

6.3 The Linkage to Regional Innovation Systems

Binational regional collaboration unleashes innovation, the mainspring of 21st century

entrepreneurial market development. Out of such collaboration, a new set of dynamics and

opportunities emerge in and for economic sectors, networks, and actors. Regional innovation systems

(RIS) can be created where the regional spaces are inhabited by firms, people, and institutions

interacting to develop and use knowledge for innovation, specifically those regions with an international

border. There are three stages of regional innovation systems:

Weakly-integrated and asymmetric cost-driven;

Semi-integrated and emerging knowledge-driven; and


63

Strongly-integrated and symmetric innovation-driven.

Several regions in Europe and North America are in the process of creating and deploying regional

innovation systems. In these regions, leaders and stakeholders recognize the critical linkage between

binational regional collaboration and advancing innovation to create competitive advantages for their

region in the global knowledge economy.

Vertical and horizontal alignment of policies and programs can synergize and intensify the desired

impacts of these policies and programs on both sides of the border. Interactions and interrelationships

between sub-state/sub-provincial initiatives and statewide/province-wide policies are essential to

propelling the Great Lakes Region forward. Binational regional collaboration provides the critical ballast

for regions to navigate a successful course in the uncharted seas of rapidly evolving global markets.


64


65

Bibliography

Anastakis, Dimitry (2007). “Auto Pact: Creating a Borderless North American Auto Industry, 1960–1971”

retrieved December 17, 2013 from http://es.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/2/451.extract

Austin, John C., B. Affolter-Caine and E. Dezenski (2008). “The Vital Connection : Reclaiming Great Lakes

Economic Leadership in the Bi-National US-Canadian Region” , Brookings. Retrieved on December 31,

2013 from http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2008/03/24-greatlakes-canada-austin

Bersin, Alan (2013). William J. Perry Center for Hemispheric Defense Studies, 2013 Edition, No. 3

(October). Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from http://chds.dodlive.mil/files/2013/12/pub-RI-

bersin.pdf

Bothnian Arc. Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from http://www.bothnianarc.net/en/etusivu

Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel (2008). “Cascadia in Comparative Perspectives: Canada-U.S. Relations and the

Emergence of Cross-Border Regions.” Canadian Political Science Review Vol. 2. No 2. : 109.

Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel (2009). “The State of Borders and Borderlands Studies 2009: A Historical View

and a View from the Journal of Borderland Studies.” Journal of Borderlands Studies. Retrieved on

December 31, 2013 from http://src-

h.slav.hokudai.ac.jp/publictn/eurasia_border_review/no1/01_Brunet.pdf

Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel (2010). “The State of Borders and Borderlands Studies 2009: A Historical View

from the Journal of Borderlands Studies.” Eurasian Border Review. 1/1 Spring 2010. Retrieved on

December 31, 2013 from http://eprints.lib.hokudai.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/2115/50839/1/EBR1-

1_002.pdf

Brunet-Jailly, Emmanuel, T. Payan and G. Sawchuck (2008). “The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions

Along the Mexican-US Border and in Europe: Lessons for Canada.” Government of Canada Working

Paper Series 35. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from

http://dspace.cigilibrary.org/jspui/bitstream/123456789/27667/1/WP%20035-Final_US-

Mexico%20Sawchuk.pdf?1

Cascadia Center. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from http://www.cascadiacenter.org/about.php

Chan, Delon (2012). “MI Sugar and Ontario Sugar Beet Growers Collaboration,” Canadian Consulate

General, 2012.

Chapa, Sergio (2013). “Border realities exposed on trip through Texas-Mexico neighborhoods.”

Borderzine. October 4, 2013.

City of Helsinki Website. Retrieved January 15, 2013 from

http://www.hel.fi/hki/helsinki/en/Information+on+Helsinki.

Clarke, Susan (2000). “Regional and Transnational Discourse: The Politics of Ideas and Economic

Development in Cascadia.” International Journal of Economic Development. Vol.2.No.363.


66

Council on Foreign Relations (2006). “Sovereignty and Globalisation”, Project Syndicate. Retrieved

December 30, 2013 from http://www.cfr.org/sovereignty/sovereignty-globalisation/p9903.

Dodds, Tom. “One City, Two Nations Working Together to Move Our Communities Forward.”

Presentation. Conference on Binational Collaboration. October 25, 2012.

Eagles, Munroe (2010). “Organizing Across the Canada-US Border: Binational Institutions in the Niagara

Region,” American Review of Canadian Studies, 40:3, 379-394, DOI:10.1080/02722011.2010.496904

Ek, Carl and I. F. Fergusson (2012). “Canada-U.S. Relations.” Congressional Research Service. 2012.

Estonia Tourist Information Website. Retrieved January 15, 2013 from

http://www.visitestonia.com/en/holiday-destinations/city-guides/tallinn-the-capital

European Union (2011). “European Territorial Cooperation: Building Bridges Between People.”

September 2011. Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/pdf/brochures/etc_book_lr.pdf

Francis, Diane (2013). Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One

Country.Harper Collins, New York.

Government of Canada (2008). PRI Project, “The Emergence of Cross-Border Regions Between Canada

and the United States.” Final Report, November 2008.

Intertrade Ireland (No Date). “About Us.” Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from

http://www.intertradeireland.com/aboutus/whoweare/

Ireland Central Statistics Office Website. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from


Ireland-Largest Cities. Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from http://www.geonames.org/IE/largest-

cities-in-ireland.html

Kolenc, Vic (2013). “El Paso's Borderplex Alliance forms partnership with Juarez economic developers”,

El Paso Times, November 12, 2013 Retrieved January 13, 2014 from

http://www.elpasotimes.com/business/ci_24502921/el-pasos-borderplex-alliance-forms-partnership-

juarez-economic

Krigul, Merie (2011). “On possibilities to develop cross-border knowledge region:the case of Tallinn

(Estonia) and Helsinki (Finland). Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2011.

Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from

http://businessperspectives.org/journals_free/ppm/2011/PPM_2011_1_Krigul.pdf

Krigul, Merle (2011). “On possibilities to develop cross-border knowledge region: the case of Tallinn

(Estonia) and Helsinki (Finland). Problems and Perspectives in Management, Volume 9, Issue 1, 2011.

Laakso, Seppo and E. Kostiainen (2013). Tallinn University of Technology. “Economic Flows between

Helsinki- Uusimaa and Tallinn-Harju regions.” H-TTransPlan Final Conference. Retrieved January 15, 2013

from http://www.hel.fi/wps/wcm/connect/15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e/Helsinki-

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/information/pdf/brochures/etc_book_lr.pdf


http://www.elpasotimes.com/business/ci_24502921/el-pasos-borderplex-alliance-forms-partnership-juarez-economic

http://www.elpasotimes.com/business/ci_24502921/el-pasos-borderplex-alliance-forms-partnership-juarez-economic


67

Tallinna+talousvirrat.pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=15e9d665-795c-4429-91c9-af5abdb63d8e, January

2013.

Lavoie, Serge (2013). “Southwestern Ontario: an Intelligent Region,” Southwest Economic Alliance.

Presentation. Blue Water Binational Collaboration Conference. October 2, 2013.

Karen Maguire (2013). “Why Consider Cross-Border Policies to Support Regional Innovation?” Nordregio

News. November, 2013. Retrieved December 29, 2013 from

http://www.nordregio.se/en/Metameny/Nordregio-News/2013/Cross-Border-Innovation-

Policy/Context/

Martinez, Rodolfo (2013). “Newcomers and Business Succession,” Ontario Immigrant Network.

Presentation, Blue Water Binational Collaboration Conference. October 2, 2013.

Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) (No Date). “Border Crossing Study at Blue Water Leads

to Improved Community Relations and Creative Transportation Solutions.” Retrieved on December 31,

2013 from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/context/practitionersguide/reference/Blue_Water_Bridge.pdf

Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013). “The Case of the Bothnian Arc (Finland-

Sweden) – Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders”, OECD Regional Development

Working Papers, 2013/17, OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3xv0r6v26b-en

Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013). “The Case of Hedmark-Dalarna (Norway-

Sweden) – Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders”, OECD Regional Development


http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3xv0r36gls-en

Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013). “The Case of Helsinki-Tallinn (Finland-Estonia)

– Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers,

2013/19, OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3xv0lrt1r6-

en

Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013). “The Case of Ireland-Northern Ireland (United

Kingdom) – Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders”, OECD Regional Development


http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3xv0llxhmr-en

Nauwelaers, C., K. Maguire and G. Ajmone Marsan (2013). “The case of Oresund (Denmark-Sweden) –

Regions and Innovation: Collaborating Across Borders”, OECD Regional Development Working Papers,

2013/21, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k3xv0lk8knn-en

Northern Ireland Website. Retrieved January 10, 2013 from http://www.northernireland.gov.uk/news-

dfp-260613-northern-ireland-population

OECD (2013). Regions and Innovation: Collaborating across Borders, OECD Reviews of Regional

Innovation, OECD Publishing. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205307-en

http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264205307-en


68

Pacific NorthWest Economic Region. “About Us.” 2013. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from


Pastor, Robert. (2011). The North American Idea: A Vision of a Continental Future.

Perkmann, Markus (2005). “Cross-Border Co-Operation as Policy Entrepreneurship: Explaining the

Variable Success of European Cross-Border Regions”. CSGR Working Paper. No. 166/05. May 2005

Schelberg, Wim L.G. (2001). “EUREGIO: Pioneer in the Practice of European Cross-Border Co-Operation.”

Volume 49, number 2, Summer 2001, 23-34.

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/1953/1/WRAP_Perkmann_wp16605.pdf

Scott, Robert E., C. Salas, and B. Campbell (2006). “Revisiting NAFTA: Still not working for North

America’s workers.” EPI Briefing Paper #173, 2006.

Snyder, J. D. (2013). “Binational Regional Collaboration: Expanding the Relationship.” CN Forum

Synergistic Transformation of the Great Lakes Region, October 10, 2013.

Soldatos, Panayotis (1990). “An Explanatory Framework for the Study of Federated States as Foreign

Policy Actors in Federalism and International Relations: The Role of Subnational Units” edited by H.S.

Michemmann, P. Soldatos Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Statistics Canada (2013). Canada’s total population estimates. Retrieved January 11, 2014 from

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130926/dq130926a-eng.htm?HPA

The Mechanics of Crossborder Collaboration (2012). SANDAG Binational Seminar, White Paper. June 26,

2012.

Tobocman, Steve. “The Case for Immigration-Centered Economic Development,” Global Detroit.

Presentation, Blue Water Binational Collaboration Conference. October 2, 2013.

Trahant, Mark (1999). “Cascadia: Borderless Solutions. The Seattle Times, May 2, 1999. Retrieved

January 15, 2014 from


U.S. Census 2010. Retrieved January 22, 2014 from

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06073.html

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). “Selected Economic Characteristics in the United States for Sault Ste. Marie,

Michigan.”

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). “Selected Social Characteristics in the United States for Sault Ste. Marie,

Michigan, 2006-2010 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates”

U.S. Census Bureau (2010). Retrieved January 17, 2014 from


U.S. Census Bureau Population Clock (No Date). U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau.

Retrieved January 11, 2014 from http://www.census.gov/popclock/



69

U.S. Department of State, Office of the Historian. Retrieved January 15, 2014 from

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territory

U.S. Department of Transportation (2011). 4-10 Top 20 U.S.-International Trade Freight Gateways by

Value of Shipments: 2011. Research and Innovative Technology Administration, Bureau of

Transportation Statistics. Retrieved on December 31, 2013 from

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2013/economic_competitiv

eness/table_04_10

U.S. Department of Transportation. “Top 20 U.S.-International Trade Freight Gateways by Value of

Shipments: 2011” (billions of current dollars). Retrieved January 17, 2014 from

http://www.rita.dot.gov/bts/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2013/economic_competitiv

eness/table_04_10.

University of San Diego. Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration. Retrieved on

January 13, 2014 from http://www.sandiego.edu/peacestudies/institutes/tbi/resources/conahec.php

Vengroff, Richard and J. Rich (2004). “Paradiplomacy and the Canadian Provinces” Retrieved on

December 31, 2013 from

http://www.business.uconn.edu/ciber/documents/paradiplomacycanadianprovinces.pdf

World Population Statistics (2013). Mexico Population 2013. Retrieved January 11, 2014 from

http://www.worldpopulationstatistics.com/mexico-population-2013/

World Trade Organization (2013). Annual Report. Retrieved December 30, 2013 from


World Trade Organization (2013). World Trade Report: Factors shaping the future of world trade.

Retrieved December 30, 2013 from

http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/booksp_e/world_trade_report13_e.pdf

http://history.state.gov/milestones/1830-1860/oregon-territory


1615 E. Michigan Ave. Lansing, MI 48912-2822 Phone: (517) 353-9555 ced.msu.edu knowledgeplanning.org

http://ced.msu.edu/

http://www.knowledgeplanning.org/

Date post:	15-Jul-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kelly-christopherson
View:	74 times
Download:	3 times

Global Models of Binational Regional Collaboration

Documents