---
kind: section
source_pdf: oregon-prosperity-council-report-june-2026.pdf
fingerprint: 8ac9aef8ca1b
page_range: [95, 104]
breadcrumb: ["Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback", "01. University of Oregon Institute for Policy Research & Engagement"]
source_links:
  pdf: "https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=95"
  raw_pages:
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0095.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0096.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0097.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0098.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0099.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0100.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0101.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0102.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0103.txt"
    - "../../.extracted/pages/page-0104.txt"
---

# 01. University of Oregon Institute for Policy Research & Engagement -- Part 1 of 2

<!-- enrich:begin -->

## TL;DR  *(generated · confidence: high)*

The University of Oregon Institute for Policy Research & Engagement advocates for treating economic development as a core Oregon state priority with a coordinated statewide strategy. Despite ranking 9th nationally in innovation, Oregon's decentralized ecosystem has failed to retain businesses—68% of those targeted by out-of-state recruiters relocate or expand elsewhere. The authors propose adapting organizational models from Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Colorado, and Kentucky to strengthen coordination and outcomes.

**Key points** *(each cites a PDF page)*:

- 68% of Oregon businesses contacted by out-of-state economic development entities ultimately chose to relocate or expand outside Oregon (IPRE Business Recruitment Report, 2024) ([p. 97](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=97))
- Oregon ranked 9th nationally for innovation but 28th for overall economic strength and 48th for business friendliness in CNBC 2024 rankings ([p. 98](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=98))
- Oregon ranked 43rd out of 50 in Chief Executive 2024 rankings and 49th in corporate tax environment (Tax Foundation 2025) ([p. 98](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=98))
- Nearly one quarter of Oregon's workforce is over age 55, raising concerns about imminent loss of institutional knowledge and critical skillsets ([p. 98](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=98))
- One in eight Oregon jobs connected to international trade as of 2023, showing state's position in global supply chains ([p. 96](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=96))
- Oregon ranks near bottom among peers in per capita economic development spending when infrastructure is excluded (Council for Community and Economic Research) ([p. 97](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=97))
- Identifies push factors driving business departure: regulatory complexity, tax burden, lack of industrial land, high housing costs, and workforce gaps ([p. 99](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=99))
- Proposes examining five states' economic development structures: Pennsylvania (strong executive leadership), New York (regional approaches), Michigan (public-private partnerships), Colorado (high-tech plus rural), Kentucky (rural focus) ([p. 104](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=104))

Amounts: 68% · 9th · 28th · 48th · 43rd out of 50 · 49th · one in eight · one quarter · Dates/FTE: June 12, 2025 · 2023 · 2024 · 2025 · Programs: IPRE Business Recruitment Report · Parties: University of Oregon Institute for Policy Research & Engagement · Jasper Riogeist · Robert Parker · Josh Bruce

<!-- enrich:end -->

> **Source:** PDF [pp. 95-104](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=95) · raw: [95](../../.extracted/pages/page-0095.txt) · [96](../../.extracted/pages/page-0096.txt) · [97](../../.extracted/pages/page-0097.txt) · [98](../../.extracted/pages/page-0098.txt) · [99](../../.extracted/pages/page-0099.txt) · [100](../../.extracted/pages/page-0100.txt) · [101](../../.extracted/pages/page-0101.txt) · [102](../../.extracted/pages/page-0102.txt) · [103](../../.extracted/pages/page-0103.txt) · [104](../../.extracted/pages/page-0104.txt)

Breadcrumb: Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback > 01. University of Oregon Institute for Policy Research & Engagement

---
Reorganizing Oregon’s Economic Development Ecosystems:
Lessons from Other States
June 12, 2025
Jasper Riogeist, Graduate Research Assistant, Institute for Policy Research & Engagement
Robert Parker, Director of Strategy & Technical Solutions, University of Oregon Institute for Policy
Research & Engagement
Josh Bruce, Associate Director of Applied Research , University of Oregon Institute for Policy
Research & Engagement; Program Director UO EDA University Center of Economic Development
Please direct inquiries to Bob Parker (rgp@uoregon.edu) or Josh Bruce (jdbruce@uoregon.edu).
Oregon faces growing economic challenges. Businesses are leaving the state. Job and population
growth trail national trends, and rural regions face persistent stagnation. These are not isolated issues;
they reflect a broader problem: Oregon lacks a coordinated, comprehensive statewide economic
development strategy. While housing, education, and behavioral health have been named state
priorities by Governor Kotek, economic development has not. And yet, without a healthy economic
development ecosystem, Oregon will struggle to make meaningful or efficient progress on any of its
goals. In this white paper, we examine economic development ecosystem models, drawing insights
from other states to propose an alternative framework for Oregon.
Oregon’s economic development ecosystem is shaped by a decentralized network of organizations:
state agencies, regional groups, nonprofits, and private industry. However, this network currently lacks
clear leadership, shared directions, and articulated desired outcomes. In this white paper, we examine
economic development ecosystem models, drawing insights from other states to propose an
alternative framework for Oregon.
Business Oregon exists to support economic development, but it does not currently lead a unified
statewide strategy. Other states do this differently. Case studies from Pennsylvania, New York,
Michigan, Colorado, and Kentucky offer models that Oregon could adapt to strengthen coordination,
align regional efforts, and improve outcomes.
This white paper makes the case for treating economic development as a core state priority and for
building a more intentional statewide economic development ecosystem. It outlines current economic
risks, examines why Oregon is losing ground, and highlights how structural fragmentation—across
agencies, regions, and funding streams—undermines coordinated progress. Drawing on examples from
other states, it identifies policy tools and ecosystem design features that support stronger alignment,
leadership, and outcomes. It recommends a central ecosystem model led by the Governor and
coordinated through a central agency such as Business Oregon.
The choice is not between economic development and other goals. Economic development is what
makes the other goals possible.
INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH AND ENGAGEMENT
1209 University of Oregon | Eugene, Oregon 97403 | T: 541.346.2878 | http://ipre.uoregon.edu
An equal-opportunity, affirmative-action institution committed to cultural diversity and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act

Imagine that Oregon’s economic development ecosystem embraces a consistent
and wholistic strategy to coordinate implementation of economic development
efforts across lines: public and private and nonprofit, local and regional and state,
urban, rural and frontier. What benefits would that bring and what organizational
framework would support it?
The Foundation of Oregon’s Priorities
Oregon’s current statewide priorities—housing and homelessness, education, and behavioral health—are
well-chosen and widely supported. Each addresses a pressing need. However, progress in these areas is
fundamentally tied to the strength of Oregon’s economy. Without sustained job growth, rising incomes,
and business investment, the state will struggle to generate the necessary resources and momentum.
Economic development is what drives state and local tax revenues, which in turn provides the funding to
address the states pressing problems. Economic development is foundational to Oregon’s future, and yet
it is not currently treated as a formal state priority.
This omission is particularly significant given Oregon’s tax structure. Because the state relies so heavily on
income tax, job creation is one of the few levers policymakers can pull to increase public revenues
without raising tax rates. While there has been growing interest in structural tax reform, it is more
politically feasible and economically immediate to focus on expanding the number and quality of jobs in
Oregon’s economy. A larger, more productive workforce increases the tax base, allowing the state to
better fund essential services, including healthcare and housing.
This is not simply about revenue. Economic development is a key driver of social and economic resilience
and opportunity. When more Oregonians can access stable employment, affordable housing becomes
more attainable, school districts see more consistent enrollment and funding, and behavioral health
systems face less strain. Simply put, without a healthy economic development ecosystem, the state
cannot advance its other priorities as effectively or as efficiently as it otherwise could.
At present, Oregon lacks a unified, forward-looking strategy for economic development. The ecosystem is
made up of many capable actors—state agencies, regional groups, economic development districts,
nonprofits, and business partners—but there is no central plan, no clear coordination, and no agreed-
upon outcomes.
Oregon Business Climate
Economic Strengths and Opportunities in Oregon
Oregon is not starting from scratch. The state has economic assets that many others would envy. In
CNBC’s 2024 Top States for Business rankings, Oregon placed 9th in innovation—reflecting strong
research capacity, a skilled workforce, and a culture of entrepreneurship (CNBC, 2024). The state also
performs well on quality-of-life indicators and has deep institutional strengths in higher education,
advanced manufacturing, and the outdoor economy.
Oregon is also a leader in high-tech and traded sector industries. The state maintains a strong trade
surplus, exporting more than it imports, with one in eight Oregon jobs connected to international trade as
of 2023. Its export portfolio is broad, spanning high-tech electronics, machinery, transportation
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 2

equipment, agricultural products, and professional services. Oregon’s geographic location—along the
Pacific Rim—offers businesses efficient access to global markets via air, sea, rail, and road infrastructure.
While industrial land and broadband availability remain uneven, Oregon’s port and logistics systems offer
a competitive foundation for growth.
The state’s high-tech economy continues to be a pillar of strength. Oregon plays a central role in the
semiconductor and electronics supply chain and consistently ranks highly for innovation and technology
output. Universities contribute licensed technologies and skilled graduates, and a growing clean energy
sector is positioning Oregon as a leader in the green economy. Foreign direct investment also plays a
visible role in several industries, further diversifying the state’s base.
At the regional level, traditional resource industries remain significant contributors. Agriculture, forestry,
and wood products continue to drive economic activity in rural areas, with increasing attention to
sustainability and value-added processing. Small and mid-sized businesses are especially important: they
make up a large share of Oregon’s exporters and are often key drivers of community resilience,
particularly outside the urban core.
Entrepreneurship and small business development receive meaningful support across the state through
nonprofit networks, local governments, and targeted state programs. Combined with Oregon’s generally
high quality of life, these factors can help attract and retain talent, even in a highly mobile labor market.
That said, Oregon’s investment in economic development has not always matched its potential. While the
state invests in infrastructure, comparative data from the Council for Community and Economic Research
(C2ER) suggests that Oregon ranks near the bottom among its peers in per capita economic development
spending when infrastructure is excluded. Without a clearly defined statewide strategy or performance
metrics, many investments are difficult to align or evaluate. A coordinated plan could better ensure that
resources—whether financial, institutional, or geographic—are directed toward outcomes that serve the
whole state, especially in rural and under-resourced regions.
Taken together, Oregon has the ingredients for a competitive, future-facing economy. The opportunity
lies in how the state organizes and mobilizes those ingredients—through stronger ecosystem structure,
statewide coordination, and a clear understanding of the outcomes it aims to achieve.
The Problems Oregon Faces
Despite these strengths, Oregon is facing a number of economic warning signs. Businesses and jobs are
leaving the state. According to recent report by the University of Oregon’s Institute for Policy Research &
Engagement (IPRE), a growing number of Oregon companies are being courted by out-of-state recruiters.
The study found that Oregon businesses are being actively targeted by out-of-state recruiters—and in
many cases, successfully. Of the Oregon businesses contacted by out-of-state economic development
entities, 68% ultimately chose to relocate or expand operations outside of the state (IPRE Business
Recruitment Report, 2024).
This is part of a broader trend. Oregon’s population and job growth now lag behind national averages.
While the U.S. economy has continued to expand, Oregon’s GDP and employment growth have slowed. In
the Portland metro area – long considered the engine of the state’s economy – job losses, rising
commercial vacancies, and business closures have prompted concern about a potential “doom loop,” in
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 3

which economic decline, falling tax revenues, and public service cuts feedback on each other (The
Oregonian, 2025).
In rural Oregon, the problems are different but no less urgent. Many rural communities face persistent
economic stagnation, marked by limited access to capital, declining population, and slow job growth.
These areas are often cut off from emerging industries and the infrastructure needed to support them.
While some rural regions have begun to diversify, the pace of change is slow and uneven.
The state also faces compounding structural constraints: housing remains unaffordable in most urban and
rural markets alike; healthcare and childcare systems are strained; and basic infrastructure, including
broadband and industrial land, is not keeping pace with demand. These are social, infrastructure, and
public finance challenges, but they are also economic development challenges. They shape workforce
participation, business location decisions, and regional competitiveness.
A looming demographic shift will add further strain. According to the Oregon Employment Department,
nearly one quarter of Oregon’s workforce is over the age of 55. As these workers retire, the state faces
the loss of deep institutional knowledge and critical skillsets—not easily or quickly replaced. At the same
time, delayed retirements and a lack of new job openings can create bottlenecks for younger and mid-
career workers, limiting economic mobility and innovation across sectors.
These trends are not destiny, but they point to a need for deliberate action. Without a coordinated
strategy, Oregon risks falling further behind and failing to deliver on the potential its assets and
investments suggest it can achieve.
The Current State of Oregon’s Business Climate
Recent national rankings paint a sobering picture of how Oregon is perceived as a place to do business. In
CNBC’s 2024 “Top States for Business” report, Oregon ranked 28th for overall economic strength and
48th in business friendliness—two categories driven by input from business leaders and measurable
indicators like cost of doing business, regulation, and infrastructure (CNBC, 2024). The state fared no
better in Chief Executive’s 2024 rankings, placing 43rd out of 50, or in the Tax Foundation’s 2025 State
Tax Competitiveness Index, where Oregon ranked 30th overall and 49th in corporate tax environment.
These national rankings reflect more than perception; they align with the tangible trend of businesses
leaving the state. As previously noted, this includes the significant finding that 68% of Oregon businesses
targeted by out-of-state economic development entities ultimately chose to relocate or expand
operations elsewhere (IPRE Business Recruitment Report, 2024).
The report identified a range of factors driving these decisions: regulatory complexity, tax burden, lack of
industrial land, unaffordable housing, and infrastructure constraints. While none of these challenges are
unique to Oregon, the combination and persistence of these issues has highlighted a broader issue with
Oregon’s economic climate: a growing perception that the state is a harder place to do business, expand,
or invest. Without a coordinated strategy to address these challenges—and to play to Oregon’s
strengths—the state risks continued slippage in competitiveness and outcomes.
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 4

Strategic Analysis
Why Businesses Leave, Stay, or Grow in Oregon
To better understand why businesses choose to leave Oregon, expand elsewhere, or stay and grow in-
state, this section draws on the push/pull/anchor framework from the External Business Recruitment
report produced by the Institute for Policy Research & Engagement (IPRE) for Business Oregon.
This framework breaks business decision-making into three categories: Push factors that drive businesses
away, pull factors that attract them elsewhere, and anchor factors that keep them rooted in place
Push Factors
Push factors are internal barriers or disincentives that make doing business in Oregon more difficult.
These are the reasons companies begin to consider leaving in the first place. The most frequently cited
include:
• Regulatory complexity—permitting timelines and compliance processes are often seen as slow,
fragmented, and hard to navigate.
• Tax burden—while Oregon lacks a sales tax, its corporate and personal income tax rates are
comparatively high and often unpredictable.
• Lack of available land and infrastructure—especially industrial land that is site-ready for
expansion.
• High housing costs—which limit the ability to attract or retain a stable workforce.
• Workforce gaps—both in technical talent and in basic labor supply, particularly in rural areas or
fast-growing sectors.
These factors don’t operate in isolation. When they compound, they create an environment that feels
increasingly difficult to operate in, especially for mid-sized and growing firms.
Pull Factors
Pull factors are external incentives offered by other states to draw Oregon companies away. The IPRE
report makes clear that Oregon businesses are being actively recruited by other states—and that many
are responding. Common pull factors include:
• Lower tax burdens
• More aggressive incentive packages, including direct financial offers tied to job creation
• Simplified permitting and regulatory environments, which reduce time-to-market
• Direct outreach from governors or state agencies, signaling that business attraction is a high
priority elsewhere
These efforts are often highly coordinated and targeted. Businesses that feel undervalued or
unsupported in Oregon are more likely to listen.
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 5

Anchor Factors
Not all businesses leave. Many remain committed to Oregon because of the unique value the state
provides. Anchor factors are the characteristics that keep companies rooted—and can serve as a
foundation for future growth:
• Access to talent, including through higher education partnerships
• Quality of life and natural environment, a frequent asset in recruiting talent
• Existing industry clusters and local supply chains, which lower costs and foster innovation
• Local leadership and civic relationships, including municipal governments, chambers, and
nonprofit partners
• Long-term relationships with employees, communities, and other institutions, which are not
easily replicated elsewhere
• While these factors are harder to measure than tax rates or incentives, they matter deeply --
particularly for Oregon-headquartered companies with long-standing local ties.
A coordinated economic development strategy should be designed to address all three categories. That
means reducing push factors, resisting pull factors, and reinforcing anchor factors through deliberate
ecosystem design. Oregon has the building blocks. What it needs is a plan to align them.
Exhibit 1: Push, Pull, Anchor Framework
Source: IPRE Business Recruitment Report, 2024
Understanding Economic Development Ecosystems: Types of
Organizational Structures
An economic development ecosystem is a network of interconnected organizations and institutions within
a region that collaborate to enhance the area’s economic well-being. Economic development ecosystems
typically encompass public agencies (state and local governments, economic development districts),
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 6

private-sector players (businesses, investors, industry associations), and nonprofit or academic partners
(chambers of commerce, universities, workforce organizations) all working in concert. This ecosystem
approach is vital for effective state and regional development strategies because no single entity can
drive growth alone – economic development thrives in ecosystems, not silos. By coordinating efforts
across sectors, regions can align their resources and expertise toward shared goals. In short, when
government, businesses, and community organizations act in partnership, they amplify each other’s
efforts and build a more resilient, competitive regional economy. Several economic development
ecosystem models exist which are discussed in the following sections.
Centralized/Hierarchical Model
This structure features a clear central authority, often a state governor a single organization or
government agency, that takes the lead in directing economic development efforts. Decision-making and
resource allocation are concentrated at the top of the hierarchy. Public Economic Development
Organizations (EDOs) frequently adopt this model, organizing themselves into departments or divisions
based on geography, service, or subject area, with department heads reporting to an Executive Director.
For instance, a city or county EDO might have departments for business development, business finance,
and community development, all operating under the direction of an Executive Director.
This model can offer strong leadership, clear lines of authority, and enhanced accountability, ensuring
that efforts are aligned with a central strategy. Financial analysis, reporting, and overall data management
can also be simplified in a centralized structure. However, a highly centralized approach may lack the
flexibility and responsiveness needed to address the diverse needs of ecosystem participants. It can also
potentially hinder innovation by limiting autonomy and relying on top-down decision-making. The rigidity
and formal hierarchies inherent in this structure can sometimes inhibit collaboration and create barriers
to task completion.
Decentralized/Networked Model
In contrast to the centralized approach, the decentralized model emphasizes collaboration and
partnerships among various independent organizations and institutions. There is no single dominant
entity; instead, the ecosystem functions through interconnected relationships and shared goals. The
economic development ecosystem in Raleigh, North Carolina exemplifies this model, with small business
owners at the center of a network involving the City of Raleigh and numerous external partners. The
Ecosystem Economy, in general, relies on a network where value is co-created through collaboration
between diverse participants. Network organizational structures are often seen as versatile, scalable, and
adaptable.
This model can foster innovation by bringing together diverse perspectives and expertise. It can also be
more responsive to localized needs and opportunities. However, the success of a decentralized model
hinges on strong communication and coordination mechanisms to prevent fragmentation and duplication
of efforts. Building trust and establishing shared objectives among the network participants are also
critical for effective collaboration. Managing the complexity of multiple interdependencies is a key
challenge in this structure.
Public Sector Driven Model
In this model, government entities, such as local or regional development agencies, take the primary
responsibility for initiating, funding, and managing economic development initiatives. These organizations
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 7

often operate with public funds and are accountable to government bodies. Many states, including
Connecticut, run economic development programs through several freestanding public agencies, each
responsible for different programs and services like business financing and tax incentives. The Canadian
Yukon Economic Development organizational structure, with a Deputy Minister at the top overseeing
various directorates like Regional Economic Development and Business and Industry Development,
provides an example of a public sector-driven model.
This structure can ensure public accountability and alignment with broader government policies and
priorities. Public sector entities often have access to significant financial resources and the authority to
implement large-scale projects. However, this model might be susceptible to political influences and
bureaucratic processes, potentially leading to slower decision-making and reduced agility. Engaging the
private sector effectively can also be a challenge if the approach is overly top-down.
Private Sector Driven Model
In this structure, economic development efforts are primarily led and funded by private businesses,
industry associations, or business-led organizations. These entities often have a strong focus on market
needs and business growth. Private EDOs are typically governed by a board of directors composed of
individuals with diverse business expertise. A Regional Business Council, with a board drawn from CEOs
and business leaders across various sectors, and committees focused on areas like business attraction
and workforce development, would represent a private sector-driven model.
This model can bring strong business acumen, efficiency, and a market-oriented approach to economic
development. Decisions are often made quickly and are directly aligned with the needs of the business
community. However, a purely private sector-driven approach might prioritize the interests of its
members over broader community benefits and could face challenges in securing public trust and
accessing public resources. Coordination with public sector entities might also require deliberate effort.
Public-Private Partnership Model
This approach combines the resources and expertise of both the public and private sectors through
formal agreements and collaborative initiatives to achieve shared economic development goals. Public-
private EDOs are often governed by a mixed board of directors that includes representatives from
business, labor, civic groups, nonprofit organizations, and government agencies. Interlocal Partnerships,
formal agreements between public agencies to jointly exercise powers, and collaborations with Corporate
Partners, where both entities cooperate to promote economic growth, are examples of this model.
This structure can leverage the strengths of the different sectors, combining public resources and
oversight with private sector efficiency and innovation. It can lead to more sustainable and impactful
outcomes by aligning the interests of diverse stakeholders. However, establishing clear roles,
responsibilities, and accountability mechanisms is crucial. Careful negotiation and management are
required to avoid potential conflicts of interest and ensure that shared goals are effectively pursued.
Regional Development Organization Model
This model focuses on economic development at a multi-jurisdictional level, fostering collaboration
among several local governments or communities within a specific region. RDOs, which can include
Economic Development Districts (EDDs) and Councils of Governments (COGs), provide planning and
development services to their member local governments. The Advance Albany County Alliance (New
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 8

York), with its proposed Local Development Corporation (LDC) governed by a board representing
business, civic, philanthropic, academic, non-profit, and public sector leaders from across the county,
exemplifies a regional approach. Similarly, the Wisconsin Regional Economic Development Partners map
illustrates a network of eleven regional organizations working across the state.
This model allows for addressing economic issues that extend beyond the boundaries of individual
communities, enabling the development of economies of scale and coordinated regional strategies. It
facilitates access to federal and state funds for regional initiatives. However, aligning the diverse interests
of multiple member jurisdictions and ensuring an equitable distribution of benefits can be challenging.
Strong communication and a shared regional vision are essential for success.
Factors Influencing the Choice of Structure
The selection of the most appropriate organizational structure for an economic development ecosystem
is influenced by a variety of contextual factors. The size and complexity of the community, region, or state
play a significant role; larger, more diverse economies might necessitate more decentralized and
collaborative models to effectively address varied needs and opportunities. Conversely, smaller
communities might find a more centralized approach to be efficient.
The specific economic goals and priorities of the community or region are important in determining the
structure. Whether the focus is on attracting large businesses, nurturing entrepreneurship, or developing
specific industry clusters will dictate the type of structure that can best support these objectives. For
instance, fostering a startup ecosystem might benefit from a decentralized network that provides ample
support and resources for entrepreneurs.
The resources available to the community, both financial and in terms of human capital, will also
constrain the options for organizational structure. Communities with limited resources might need to
leverage existing organizations or adopt more streamlined models, potentially through public-private
partnerships to share the burden.
The political landscape and history of the area are critical considerations. Existing political dynamics, the
level of trust among stakeholders, and any historical precedents of collaboration (or lack thereof) will
influence the feasibility and effectiveness of different structures. Overcoming entrenched political
interests or building trust among partners might be necessary steps in choosing and implementing a
particular model.
Finally, the desired level of centralization versus decentralization is a fundamental choice that will shape
the organizational structure. A community that values efficiency and top-down control might favor a
centralized model, while one that prioritizes innovation, local autonomy, and broad participation might
opt for a decentralized network. Understanding the trade-offs between these approaches is essential for
making an informed decision.
The next section summarizes the most common tools and structures identified in the case studies and
outlines how they might inform ecosystem design in Oregon.
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 9

What We Learned from Case Study States (Pennsylvania,
New York, Michigan, Colorado, Kentucky)
Many states have taken deliberate, structured approaches to managing their economic development
ecosystems with many driven by executive leadership at the gubernatorial level. Their strategies differ—
reflecting differences in geography, governance, and political culture—but they share a common feature:
each has defined a clear role for state-level coordination and made strategic choices about how economic
development functions are organized and delivered.
To better understand how Oregon might strengthen its own approach, we examined five states:
Pennsylvania, New York, Michigan, Colorado, and Kentucky. These were selected because they represent
a range of institutional models, geographic settings, and policy tools. Some are centralized, others more
regionally distributed. Some focus on distressed areas, others on industry sectors or regional innovation.
Together, they offer a diverse set of models Oregon can learn from. Specifically:
• Pennsylvania was chosen for its strong executive leadership in economic development.
• New York was selected to find insights into effective regional approaches.
• Michigan was picked for its public-private partnerships.
• Colorado was chosen to look at a model focusing on high-tech information ecosystems and
supporting rural communities.
• Kentucky was selected for its emphasis on rural communities.
This work was not intended to evaluate which state performs “best.” Rather, it was designed to identify
practical tools, structures, and strategies that have been implemented elsewhere – and that Oregon
might consider adapting if appropriate. The research was based on publicly available materials, including
strategic plans, agency reports, legislative documents, and economic development overviews produced
by the states themselves. We focused on the role of government agencies, quasi-public entities, and
nonprofit partners in delivering and coordinating economic development activities.
Our review looked at:
• Governance structures and the role of central coordinating agencies
• Regional and local implementation mechanisms
• Public-private partnerships and nonprofit delivery partners
• Urban and rural development strategies
• Alignment with workforce, infrastructure, and revitalization goals
• Legal authorities, where relevant
Across the five states, we found a variety of tools and approaches that support coordination, focus, and
impact. These include regional economic planning bodies tied to state funding (as in New York),
statutorily empowered development authorities (as in Pennsylvania), formal regional partnerships with
flexible implementation mandates (as in Kentucky and Colorado), and state-level strategies that integrate
place-based investments (as in Michigan).
Economic Development Ecosystem Analysis June 2025 10

---

Parent: [Appendix E: Submissions & Feedback](./INDEX.md) · PDF: [pp. 95-104](https://www.oregon.gov/gov/Documents/Oregon%20Prosperity%20Council%20Report_June%202026.pdf#page=95)