In medicine, treatment normally starts with an examination of symptoms followed by a diagnosis of their likely cause and then a ‘cure’ to counter that cause. In the case of ‘Levelling Up’, the symptoms presented appear to be significant disparities in economic vitality between different areas – but a diagnosis of the cause is not clearly indicated. However, if the recommendation amounts essentially to encouraging private sector growth in under-performing places by pump-priming infrastructure schemes, (for instance, investment funds, education, skills, health care, local leadership and community pride), that might suggest a diagnosis that the under-performance occurs because entrepreneurial endeavour is constrained by infrastructural deficiencies. That diagnosis fits the conventional wisdom but is it correct? The rationale appears to be based on an assumption that the better the infrastructure the more entrepreneurial endeavour there will be – but many commentators indicate that humans are more influenced by historic, cultural and/or social norms than by such considerations. Therefore, continuing to fund infrastructure is unlikely to change the situation. Although that does not itself indicate what might be the answer – or even that a quick solution is possible. But it does suggest both the necessity to look and possible avenues to explore.

中文翻译：

---

升级——这是正确的治疗方法吗？

在医学上，治疗通常从检查症状开始，然后诊断其可能的原因，然后“治愈”以对抗该原因。在“升级”的情况下，所呈现的症状似乎是不同地区之间经济活力的显着差异——但没有明确指出原因的诊断。但是，如果该建议实质上等于通过启动基础设施计划（例如，投资基金、教育、技能、医疗保健、地方领导力和社区自豪感）来鼓励私营部门在表现不佳的地方增长，那么这可能表明一种诊断表现不佳的原因是创业努力受到基础设施缺陷的​​限制。这种诊断符合传统智慧，但它正确吗？其基本原理似乎是基于这样一种假设，即基础设施越好，创业的努力就会越多——但许多评论家表示，人类受历史、文化和/或社会规范的影响比受这些因素的影响更大。因此，继续为基础设施提供资金不太可能改变这种情况。尽管这本身并不能说明答案可能是什么——甚至不能说明快速解决方案是可能的。但它确实表明了寻找的必要性和探索的可能途径。继续为基础设施提供资金不太可能改变这种情况。尽管这本身并不能说明答案可能是什么——甚至不能说明快速解决方案是可能的。但它确实表明了寻找的必要性和探索的可能途径。继续为基础设施提供资金不太可能改变这种情况。尽管这本身并不能说明答案可能是什么——甚至不能说明快速解决方案是可能的。但它确实表明了寻找的必要性和探索的可能途径。