Obama's Metro Presidency

Abstract

Metropolitan areas are the unequivocal engines of the US economy and our prosperity because they spatially concentrate at an unprecedented level the assets that matter, assets like innovation, human capital, and infrastructure. the national government must pursue a Metro Policy to help cities and metropolitan areas leverage these critical assets in the service of productive, sustainable, and inclusive growth. There are early signs that the Obama Administration embraces this new vision of Metro Policy. the President's rhetoric recognizes the critical role cities and metropolitan areas play in the national economy and the need for a new generation of federal policies that leverage this economic primacy. the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 and FY 2010 budget invest directly in the assets that drive prosperity. But President Obama inherits a federal government replete with legacy programs, diminished in capacity, and without a coherent federalist philosophy, which will be obstacles for the structural reform necessary for Metro Policy.

The Military Metropolis: Defense Dependence in U.S. Metropolitan Areas

“…Recently, urban scholars have opined that the Obama administration is crafting a “stealth urban policy” (Silver, 2010, p. 6) in which budget priorities reflect a tacit recommitment to U.S. cities and metropolitan areas. The quintessential example of this, the economic stimulus package, poured billions of dollars into urban jobs to rebuild infrastructure and to service urban residents, without explicitly framing these commitments as “urban policy.” Bruce Katz (2010, p. 26) argues that Obama's metropolitan agenda must forge a new federalist compact in which “federal and state governments serve as strategic, flexible, and accountable partners to help metros act with cohesive vision, address their central concerns, realize their full potential and, in so doing, resolve our most pressing national challenges.” It is unlikely that Obama's metro agenda will include a wholesale dismantling of the “military metropolis.” However, one sign of a potential turn in urban policy is Obama's successful effort in eliminating funding for archaic, but lucrative, weapons systems like the $67 billion F−22 fighter jet. Yet, the defunding of the F‐22—that comprised over 1,000 contracts and 95,000 jobs in 44 different states— yields sobering lessons for the future: A large‐scale deescalation of military spending is likely to meet with fierce resistance from the entrenched interests that profit from the permanent war economy.…”

“…Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2009). As Katz (2010, p. 23) argues, “metropolitan areas are the unequivocal engine of the U.S. economy because they spatially concentrate at an unprecedented level the assets that matter, like innovation, human capital, and infrastructure.” Thus, urban areas are logical locations for the allocation of military expenditures for procurement of military weaponry and defense personnel. Second, from the perspective of urban political economy theory , government policies play an undeniable role in shaping the economic and social organization of cities (e.g., Castells, 1982, 1985; Walton, 1993; Logan and Molotch, 2007).…”

“…The most prominent sociological explanation for the role of military spending in the economy is the military Keynesian perspective , which contends that military spending is used as a countercyclical fiscal tool to stabilize the economy, particularly during economic downswings (Griffin, Devine, and Wallace, 1982; Griffin, Wallace, and Devine, 1982; Isaac and Leicht, 1997). 1 Military spending assuages the concerns of powerful interests in society—particularly private corporations who seek to maintain profitability and labor unions who seek to protect the jobs of their members—by providing an influx of government spending to sustain the economy.…”

“…Empirical studies of military spending in the United States have focused primarily on the relationship between economic conditions and military expenditures in the national economy (Nincic and Cusack, 1979; Griffin, Devine, and Wallace, 1982; Mintz and Hicks, 1984; Isaac and Leicht, 1997), but several studies have also looked at both causes and consequences of military spending in U.S. states (Mehay and Solnick, 1990; Hooker, 1996; Hooker and Knetter, 1997; Wallace, Borch, and Gauchat, 2008; Borch and Wallace, 2010). In addition, these studies have spanned different time periods, encompassing periods of wartime (i.e., the Korean War, the Vietnam War) and periods of relative peace, and have included periods dominated by Cold War geopolitics and the post–9/11 “War on Terror.” Despite this variety of research investigating a range of economic outcomes, we know of no comprehensive empirical studies that have considered the impact of military spending on metropolitan economies (although see Lotchin, 1984, for a collection of historical essays on this topic and Lotchin, 2002, for an in–depth case study of military spending in California cities).…”

Putting People Back into Place-Based Public Policies

“…Arguably, many of the Obama administration initiatives that aim to stimulate change in urban communities, such as Choice Neighborhood Initiative, are pitched as both place‐based and people‐based. By implicitly prioritizing spatial conceptions of community in these programs, the new Obama administration's place‐based initiatives may fall short of integrating public programs and services that invest in groups of people who live in the areas being targeted (Katz, ). Specifically, the low‐income citizens living in targeted areas where place‐based initiatives have been launched could greatly benefit from a host of public programs, including the health services of the Affordable Care Act, early childhood programs (such as Headstart and Early Intervention), child care subsidies, food and nutrition programs (such as Summer Food and WIC), and an array of other social welfare supports.…”