Foundations of contemporary practice and policy emerge

 

Originally entitled “Great Forces at Work,” this chapter’s topics almost complete our discussion of the critical elements that led to the formation our twenty-first-century contemporary ED/CD system. So far Part III’s chapters have identified several elements that partially constitute the foundations of our practice of economic and community development. They include the limited but critical role of the federal government in state/sub-state ED/CD. We will make one additional point in this chapter on that topic.

Secondly, the implosion of hegemonic Big Cities and their subsequent stabilization markedly altered the character of our second metropolitan hierarchy. A polycentric post-suburban metro area characterized by considerable variation across regions dominates and dramatically influences the context and outputs of jurisdictions in each metro area.

Thirdly, regional change, often subsumed under the rubric “rise of the Sunbelt,” not only broke the previous Northern hegemony, but fundamentally altered the first-level competitive hierarchy, the regional and national competition of major cities. Regional variation in economic and community development strategies and the diffusion of political cultures means American ED is quite diverse despite the seeming perceived commonality of strategies and programs. Each region occupies its “own space and history” which profoundly affects the policy systems of its member jurisdictions. Seattle is not Boston or Philadelphia, Los Angeles is not New York City, Miami is not Chicago, San Antonio is not Houston, Phoenix is not Salt Lake City or Birmingham (AL) and each city/jurisdiction offers its own particular policy fabric to policy-making.

Fourthly, the demise of old gazelles/agglomerations, the rise of new ones, has seriously reordered the geography and configuration of our jurisdictional economic bases. The shift from manufacturing to a services-driven economy not only changed jurisdictional economic bases but altered the mix and the substance of jurisdictional economic development. Chronically declining mostly Great Lakes legacy cities share the landscape with places like the Silicon Valley, American “world cities” like NYC, Los Angeles, Chicago, and a Contemporary Era Miami, a little understood or studied polycentric “boomburb” suburbia, collapsing rural and Third/Fourth level small cities/ towns, and the rapidly growing and dynamic economic bases of energy-driven jurisdictions such as Houston and Bismarck (and many others). While most large cities (and all states) may seek to attract the “usual gazelle suspects” the economic bases they seek to diversify seldom share the same mix of sectors and industries, and certainly seek to overcome different historical legacies and state business climates.

These Contemporary Era drivers have exerted great pressure on the strategies, tools, and EDOs prevalent in our present-day ED/CD. Equally critical is the fluctuating balance between Mainstream Economic Development and the various wings of American community development. In many large cities, hybrid policy systems have formed, adding considerably to the complexity of outputs and policy-making. The profession(s) reflect both the fluidity and the fragmentation, siloization and onionization describe throughout this history.

But there is much more to be added to these Contemporary Era foundations. Reserving discussion of environmentalism to our Conclusion (Chapter 20), this chapter returns to our Chapter 1 model to help identify other Great Forces that fundamentally shaped our present-day Contemporary Era and complete our discussion of Part III’s Transition Era. That the Great Forces discussed in this chapter overlap, even compete with previously discussed Contemporary Era foundations is obvious and inevitable. That other factors, events, strategies/programs exist but are not included in this chapter is also sadly a fact of life. This is, after all a 700-page book already. The detailed consideration of other factors/forces/strategies as well as our present-day Contemporary Era, as stated previously awaits another volume already in progress. Oh joy!

This chapter starts with Deindustrialization and the Great Reindustrialization Debate which raged through the seventies and climaxed in the eighties with the discovery of Deindustrialization. Finally, the beast was named, but the culprit, we contend, is the third or global competitive urban hierarchy that accelerated greatly as global finance abandoned the old Bretton Wood system, and the immediate postwar American economic hegemony wore off and global competition intensified. Emerging from the Great Industrialization debate are several critical Contemporary Era ED strategies, including clusters, corporate strategies, knowledge-based economic development, innovation, and more conventional export-facilitation, start-up entrepreneurship, and foreign direct investment. Community development created its own approach to deindustrialization, and Two Cities/Luxury City, spatial fix, and the pervasive anti-NeoLiberal strategies. In 2016, yet another potential strategy emerged, Trump’s anti-free trade “Forgotten Peoples.”

The second theme, a truly revolutionary evolution of American state and local economic development, described the entry and, through a case study of Massachusetts, the innovation unleashed by state governments into sub-federal economic and community development. Massachusetts was by no means the first, but it was among the most important path-breakers, as states not only entered into local ED/CD, but in many instances almost replaced local governments as the principal player in sub-state ED/CD. A primary hallmark of our Contemporary Era is the near-dominance of the state in American economic development. While strategy and tool innovation may have been a benefit, one can also argue the entry of the States meant an incredible competition among states not over the now-traditional business climate competition, but deals and incentives to firms reached levels that amazed even the participants.

The third Great Force was people mobility. The obvious 800lb gorilla was Immigration as America witnessed a flood of immigrants, the like of which had not been seen for a hundred years. The impact on politics and political culture was huge. The domestic population was incredibly mobile as well. Generational cohorts moved in waves changing policy systems, redefining growth, creating new ED/CD strategies and priorities—and new population centers as well. The young were the usual suspects in generational cohort mobility, and in the 1990s creative classes and millennials played their part, but even the elderly moved and settled in retirement communities, to Miami and Phoenix—and African-Americans began a reverse Great Migration back to the “New South.” “Go West Young Man” had seemingly been replaced by “Go Someplace, y’all.”

All this moving around was unsettling (pardon the pun) enough, but a new phenomenon, the Big Sort, meant that people settled in communities they liked, whose lifestyle and values they identified with. As we sorted ourselves out we created new monolithic jurisdictional policy systems that followed ideological and partisan approaches and re-forged political cultures (think Orange County and Los Angeles). State and local policy-making was yanked into a Brave New World and ED/CD reflected the polarization of ideologies, identity politics, and the rise of groups threatened by each. The impact of all this on our two ships, Privatism and Progressivism, was profound indeed—most of that awaits our next volume, but we introduce it here.

Finally, our last chapter theme introduces the deluge of new programs, strategies, and tools that developed in the Transition Era. Most of these will be discussed in the next volume; it will be a core of the next book. Clusters, knowledge-based economics, innovation, and entrepreneurship deserve more intensive treatment than can be provided in the limited space available in this chapter. Likewise, BRAC and brownfields—even what happened to EDZs—ought to be discussed along with University-led ED. Still, a taste of it needs to be outlined. Several of the most interesting and important include departures by the 1990s’ Clinton Administration, the “New Urbanism,” the most pervasive new ED strategy ever—casino and other forms of gambling, and last, but a promising new strategy, Economic Gardening. These are only the tip of the strategy/ program iceberg, but they give a flavor to the incredible richness in programs that characterize the Contemporary Era.