Is small beautiful?

My column today is on using our size as an advantage.  There are two schools of thought on this.  One, small jurisdictions can’t really compete with large ones at any level so unless you strike oil, just accept your destiny.  The other view is that small jurisdictions can move faster and do innovative things that would be hard to do in large jurisdictions.

The problem is that it’s hard for small places to be innovative and move faster.  It’s easier to be a follower than a leader.

3 thoughts on “Is small beautiful?

  1. Our ability to “go it alone” properly (as a disciplined fiscal entity with pro-growth policies instead of a “haven” for pseudo work and government sponsored prop ups) as well as our ability to work with our neighbours will be key (ie Nova Scotia & PEI). We really have to find a way to minimized the “size factor” when attempting to attract investment around the globe, not to mention, from Ottawa.

  2. Do we need to be leaders in everything we undertake ? I think in most cases, we could play a better role as an effective follower. In the business world, inventors are rarely the ones reaping the benefits of their work…opportunistic followers do.

    Nevertheless, it would feel good to lead in something besides budget deficits.

  3. Small had better confer an advantage. One place where it can certainly be true is in education. We know we have to be tops in class to be more competitive. If we set that as a goal, it should be easier to achieve with efffectively one ‘board of education'(and two language administrations)courtesy of Equal Opportunity, than the hundreds or thousands you will find in larger jurisdictions.

Comments are closed.