Washington D.C Home Base Think Tanks/Foundations
We have tried to introduce the reader to the development of an organizational “support nexus” for each of the various wings neighborhood-based community development. It seems that as each wing developed strategies, tools and programs, it formed, almost simultaneously a network of state and federal support nonprofits and coalitions. This will evolve into a substantial element of our model’s Policy World. As shall be demonstrated in the next chapters, mainstream physical, chamber, and government agency economic will develop its own network as well—some in the 1970’s. The community development “tilt” in our Policy World, however, will rest on its dominance in social science academic disciplines, the community development supportive nexus, and Think Tanks/Policy Institutes, and Foundations.
A brief word concerning the evolution of the role “the Beltway” was playing in the both the theory and practice of state and sub-state economic development might be in order at this point in our history. As we have already detailed, the extension of the mid-1970 Congressional “earmark” into local not for profit, public and even private “projects” created a new source of public funding for redevelopment projects in particular. But the Great Society, we suspect, also added some fuel into the fire of Beltway ideological polarization[1]. Incrementally through the seventies, (and for all practical purposes has yet to stop) Think Tanks (our somewhat generic term for research and policy institutes, advocacy entities, and non-profit forums) have multiplied to become an endearing and enduring feature of Washington DC policy-making.
These Think Tanks come in all ideological and policy flavors and, from time to time, many insert themselves into state and sub-state economic development policy formulation (and approval). In the contemporary world of economic development, these entities play a major role in selecting for state and local economic developers the “correct” way to think about how to conduct economic development at the non-federal levels. We are, of course, thankful for their herd-like, ideological-partisan impact on our profession and for their injection of complex, thoughtful, but often irrelevant strategies and meaningless data into our local toolkits. To be sure, several of these entities do encourage experimentation and do provide support and legitimacy to new tools, local and state capacity/planning and strategies. Others are more than pleased to arrive at our doorsteps, for a fee, with advice, plans, data analysis and sophisticated knowledge derived from more than fifty miles away from home (the mileage definition of experts).
Several of the larger and impactful Think Tanks which have entered into state and local economic development are in no order: the Urban Institute (1968); National Bureau of Economic Research (1920); Heritage Foundation (1973); the Economic Policy Institute (1986); Committee for Economic Development (1942); Cato Institute (1977); the Brookings Institution (1916); and the American Enterprise Institute (1943 and 1960). There are tons more that deserve to be mentioned, but the main point we wish to make here is that these entities constitute an important force in the nationalization of local and state economic development. Their access to decision-makers in Washington and their ability to incorporate corporate and private wealth into policy-making has not been without its consequences on our practice, thought, and effectiveness at the state and local level. They have earned a place in our Patchwork Profession.
[1] James A. Smith, The Idea Brokers: Think Tanks and the Rise of the New Policy Elite (New York, the Free Press, 1993).
Ron W. Coan 