Minnesotans are famously loyal to Minnesota. We take deep pride in place. But a question I’ve been circling lately is this: Are Minnesotans investing in Minnesota’s next economy?

A recent venture capital report from Revolution concerns this topic. Of all the venture deals last year involving Minnesota-based companies, in-state investors participated in roughly three out of ten. That places Minnesota toward the lower end of the spectrum for local participation.

Is that a problem? I’m not sure.

Capital is mobile. If we build great companies, investment should eventually find them. In fact, many of the states that top the “local loyalty” rankings are not necessarily the economies Minnesotans aspire to emulate. Outside investors can bring in networks, markets, and expertise that growing companies need.

Still, any list where Minnesota ranks low draws my attention. If local investors don’t help get ventures out of the garage, they may never reach the stage where outside capital notices them. And the question goes beyond venture capital. It points to something bigger: Are we investing in the parts of the economy most likely to define the future?

Minnesotans boast the highest state pride in the country. We are deeply civic-minded. We give, volunteer, vote, and show up for our neighbors. But too often the capital we deploy locally is limited to fixing problems rather than building solutions. That pattern of exporting our capital shows up not only in households but in institutions, pension funds, and even federal tax flows, where Minnesota has long been a net donor to other states.

There are encouraging signs. Our region now has dozens of venture firms and investment organizations, and new impact-investing efforts are giving families and institutions opportunities to pursue investments that generate financial returns while also pursuing additional “bottom lines” of strengthening communities or benefitting the planet. Too often those conversations stay in the civic realm, where Minnesotans already give generously.

The harder question lies in examining our most self-interested investment accounts—the ones where investors expect top returns.

And when we get to those terms, we must acknowledge that some investors are not yet convinced Minnesota is a compelling investment proposition. Those concerns deserve real, data-driven answers. But one assumption underlying them doesn’t hold up for me: the idea that a place is either broadly competitive or broadly uncompetitive.

That’s not necessarily how the economy works. Like most things in life, it depends.

If all capital flowed only to the easiest places to do business, three-quarters of venture investment wouldn’t still concentrate in California, Massachusetts, and New York. Venture investors, for instance, go where they believe the future is being built—where talent, ideas, and industries collide.

And if the defining economic story of the next decade is the transformation of major industries through technology—health care, energy, manufacturing, agriculture, logistics—then those collisions will happen where those industries operate. On factory floors. In hospitals. Across supply chains. Inside corporate headquarters.

Companies like Pivot Bio in agtech, HistoSonics in medtech, and Niron Magnetics in advanced materials are scaling where real work is happening.

I often find myself chatting about the economy with people who want to believe in Minnesota’s future but don’t. They aren’t being exposed to any new vision for the state, so they’re living like Doc and Marty, traveling back 30 years in time from the Galleria parking lot hoping we could maybe relive a different era.

I admit that if I had a flux capacitor, I’d maybe head back to the ’90s and give Minnesota’s leaders a few tips. I’d tell them their wealth wouldn’t grow as much as the wealth of their neighbors to the west and south over the coming decades. Minnesotans were probably sitting too pretty—and we missed some open nets.

But we can’t invest in the past. The future is coming fast, and we still control our destiny if we choose to act.

I’m not naïve about obstacles to our state’s competitiveness. Vision for our economic future is similarly absent from our legislature. However, I’ve found while meeting with legislators of both parties that many are quite eager for a vision to rally around and not just rail against. That vision can build on our existing strengths.

Does it make financial sense for Minnesota to win the future in every industry sector? No. But can we do it in a few spaces that matter enough to generate extraordinary returns? Absolutely.

Venture capital is only one window

Venture capital attracts most discussion in the tech community, but it is only one piece of the investment picture.

Many of the sectors where Minnesota has an advantage—medical technology, clean energy, biomanufacturing, advanced materials, digital infrastructure—require patient and creative capital. R&D cycles are longer. Capital stacks are more complex. Deals often combine angel investment, corporate capital, grants, and public funding.

That makes comprehensive analysis of our local investment trends harder. But the underlying economics are clear.

Research from organizations like Brookings has shown that not all economic activity produces the same returns. Industries that primarily serve local markets—retail, hospitality, personal services—create jobs and stability. But tradable industries, those that sell goods and services beyond a region’s borders, generate far larger impacts, higher wages, and stronger long-term growth.

In basketball terms, there are slam dunks and there are three-pointers. Something happened in the NBA over the past 20 years. Those paying attention to the analytics realized you could score more points and win more games if you stuck to these two types of shots. Midrange jump shots disappeared because taking a step or two back behind the three-point line may be a slightly harder shot but delivers 50% more points. Investors take a similar view and communities that are paying attention also realize that it matters which sectors you prioritize with limited capital.

Every community should invest in its foundations. There are dunks to be slammed. But the places that deliver the greatest returns for their residents make deliberate bets on the sectors where they can compete globally—even when those bets require patience, coordination, and risk. These are the shots that deliver more points for investors and residents alike.

That raises a critical question for Minnesota: Are we simply supporting our economy, or are we investing in the parts of it that can produce the highest returns? I notice everyone in our diversified economy making a case for why their opportunity is important and makes a positive impact. No doubt. But that’s not the question I’m asking.

To attract more capital—from Minnesotans and from the world—we must clearly articulate where our edge lies. We must clarify where we are positioned to deliver outsized returns with high multiples. Not in vague terms about our work ethic or legacy, but in concrete advantages: technical expertise, infrastructure, regulatory certainty, supply chains, and talent clusters that make certain investments more likely to succeed here than anywhere else.

When those advantages compound, capital follows.

Following this same logic for how we prioritize our educational and workforce policy can be the difference between our kids having better economic prospects than we did—or not. More on that another day.

Where Minnesota’s edge actually shows up

Consider Minnesota’s new sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) blending facility.

There are very few facilities like it in North America, in an industry the world is racing to develop. It may look inevitable in hindsight, but this critical asset that enables the further development of an industry with many potential producers and supply chain partners was the result of years of alignment across companies, researchers, policymakers, and investors. It’s an asset that de-risks investment in dozens of opportunities across an entire value chain.

Minnesota had the pieces: one of the world’s largest future consumers of SAF at the table with a larger “demand consortium”; a major international airport ready to partner; a mature biofuels industry; global agriculture companies; advanced manufacturing capabilities; energy infrastructure; and supportive public policy.

What’s turning those assets into major wins like the blending facility is coordination—the work of the Minnesota SAF Hub—and hundreds of intentional decisions that moved faster because the right people were at the table. It changes the competitiveness equation.

That pattern shows up repeatedly here in Minnesota in a few other spaces.

Once places stop fretting about what they lack and instead focus on which of the world’s problems they are positioned to solve, the sky opens. And when those problems are not niche plays but massive global challenges, new friends—including investors—tend to show up whether they live nearby or not.

So, what kinds of places are positioned to solve big global problems?

First, they are places that don’t start from scratch. They’ve built deep technical capabilities, established industries, and talent clusters that have taken decades to form. It is hard to transform a critical industry from a thousand miles away.

Minnesota has those foundations in sectors that solve problems that matter to the future: feeding the world, advancing medical technology, developing new materials, building clean energy systems, and powering digital infrastructure.

Second, they are places where people have the patience and foresight to think longer-term and bigger picture. Celebrated tech hubs are full of innovators who move fast, break things, and move on. They deliver dopamine hits and move to the next opportunities. Places like Minnesota are not places to quickly extract value and move on.

The collective strategy behind the SAF Hub is spelled out in horizons that run to 2050. These are not overnight opportunities we’re after. They operate on timelines measured in decades, not quarters. Minnesota won’t lead North America’s clean transition overnight. But neither will we be subsumed by the ocean.

Third, they are places where people know how to collaborate when collaboration is required. It is one thing to be a maverick in a game without rules. It is another to try to disrupt spaces with regulatory complexity, physical infrastructure requirements, and cascades of real-world consequences.

Innovating in the legacy and emerging sectors where Minnesota can play is not an individual sport. These opportunities demand patience and technical understanding. But they also create large markets and have high barriers to entry. That has implications for investors.

The goal is not to chase every trend. It is to recognize which games we are positioned to win, and then bring the capital required to compete in those arenas.

Some of that capital will come from venture funds. Some from banks, sovereign wealth funds, family offices, and corporations. Some from government. Some from Minnesotans themselves. For any given opportunity, it will be okay if most investors aren’t interested. Some will be.

If we want more investment flowing into Minnesota’s next economy—from down the street or across the ocean—the answer is not to follow the same playbook as everyone else. It is to build deals around the assets we already have, in ways only we can.

A signal, not the story

The SAF blending facility is not the story. It is a signal.

What if I told you there was a place where the world’s top hospital is working with universities, other health systems, global technology companies, and AI leaders to safely accelerate innovators’ access to health data—and do it 10 times faster? What if I told you there was a place where several of the world’s largest food and agriculture companies are working together pre-competitively to develop new ingredients that could change how the world sustainably meets demand for protein? What if I told you there was a place building world-leading testbeds for biomanufacturing, next-generation materials, hypersonic flight, and other national security technologies in partnership with the United States government?

What if I told you those places were the same place—and that if you turned the page, there were more moonshots underway?

These are the kinds of opportunities that attract serious capital—but only when investors understand what they are looking at.

Too often, our pitch still leans on our burn rate, our work ethic, our history of brand names founded in 1928. Those are supporting facts, not the thesis.

Opportunity alone does not attract investment. It takes people willing to recognize where the next economy is being built—and to move early.

If we want more capital flowing into Minnesota’s future, we need more investors in the game. More Minnesotans willing to study the opportunities in front of us. More institutions willing to back industries that may not look like the last cycle but are far more likely to define the next one.

Minnesota has the assets and the opportunities. What will determine the outcome is whether we choose to see and invest in them.

This article was adapted for length from a LinkedIn series.