Maine doesn’t have a city large enough to qualify under a new study of how well metropolitan areas are preparing for the new economy, but the lessons from that study should be useful even to smaller places. If nothing else, it is a reminder, first, of the number of essentially local decisions that are made at the state level in Maine and, second, that economic development must be something more than championing mall development.

The Progressive Policy Institute has for the last several years focused studies on the new economy, defined as a faster-moving, international, more knowledge-based system that depends on dynamic capital markets and greater investments in education and in acquiring new skills. The institute began several years ago with an overall look at the nation, followed in 1999 with an assessment of the states (Maine ranked 28th; Massachusetts was first) and now is down to the city level. Its top cities were San Francisco, Austin and Seattle.

The study includes seven ways cities can invest in themselves to help prosper in the new economy. Some of the ideas seem like the standard points always found in these sorts of studies, including the advice to create a skilled work force through K-12 reform and invest in infrastructure that allows research universities and modern telecommunications to expand.

These are areas talked about at the state level regularly in Maine, but much less so in towns and cities because the money that would support these investments leaves the towns by way of sales and incomes taxes and largely stays at the state level. Which level of government carries out this planning might not always be important, and, in a state with a population that would make it only a mid-sized city elsewhere, might even at times be an advantage. But another recommendation highlights a serious shortcoming with the heavy reliance on state-level planning: “Know your region’s economic function in the global economy,” by assessing key industries around which to build a strategy.

In effect, the report urges cities to take responsibility for their own futures at the level of government closest to the public. This is sound advice that can promote innovation, engage residents and craft investments based on local desires. That would mean more thoroughly addressing another of the institute’s recommendations: Improve the quality of life in communities by expanding outdoor recreation, reducing road congestion and using pedestrian-friendly, mixed-use neighborhoods to attract people back to the cities.

All of this would require a change in thinking about the responsibilities of local and regional governments in Maine. It would require a shift from a heavy reliance on retail sales to investments in training and infrastructure to attract growing industries that can make Maine communities a more vibrant place.