Progressive Economic Development Policies: A Square PED in a Round Hole

Abstract

It has become increasingly difficult to define progressive municipalities and progressive economic development. Conceptions of “local economic development” tied to neoliberal agendas are often narrow, focusing on efforts to offset perceived disadvantages of a location. Many traditional incentive policies result in a transfer of wealth from the public to the private sector. In this article, we consider whether the introduction of progressive economic development policies into the present neoliberal context might result in improved outcomes in terms of increased equity and democratic empowerment. However, progressive policies in one sector of intervention can yield nonprogressive outcomes in another. We conclude that progressive economic development policies are likely an oxymoron and recommend a complete reconceptualization of what “economic development” means.

Patterns in Local Economic Development in Light of COVID-19

“…Third wave strategies sought to bolster their entrepreneurial ecosystem through business incubators and specialized training. Finally, fourth wave strategies have been broadly conceived as prioritizing community development, environmental sustainability, and improving social equity ( Deslatte and Stokan 2019 ; Filion, Reese and Sands 2021 ; Osgood, Opp and DeMasters 2016 ; Stokan, Deslatte and Hatch 2021 ; Wilson and Polter 2020 ). Previous research has shown that governments use a mix of strategies ( Lowe and Feldman 2018 ), may return to prior approaches during recessions ( Warner and Zheng 2013 ; Zheng and Warner 2010 ), and that policy layering may better reflect these transitions given continued usage of earlier strategies ( Stokan, Deslatte and Hatch 2021 ).…”

Techs and the Cities: A New Economic Development Paradigm?

“…There are a variety of reasons-both political and economic-why public subsidization of private firms has increased over time in both numbers of incentives and the magnitudes of the deals: the recession, the path de-pendent nature of economic development policy, competition between cities and states, the loss of large manufacturing entities forcing communities to compete for a smaller pool of higher tech jobs, capture of the policymaking process by business via both lobbying and campaign donations, and the tendency for local officials to view subsidizing business as being in the 'public interest' (Bartik, 2019;Jansa & Gray, 2017;Kwak, 2014;Posner, 2014;Sands & Reese, 2012). At the same time, and despite considerable research attesting to their effectiveness, there has been a shift away from economic development incentives that invest in the local community more broadly defined: education, job training, services, and small business start-up support (Filion, Reese, & Sands, 2019;Hill et al, 2012;Kodrzycki & Muñoz, 2015;Reese & Ye, 2011). Ten years after the end of the Great Recession and well into the global rise of high technology and Internet-dependent firms, has local economic development fundamentally changed?…”

How Strong is Local Politics’ Grip on Local Economic Development? The Case of Swiss Small and Medium-Sized Towns

“…As Kaufmann and Wittwer (2019) and Kaufmann and Meili (2019) show, land-use policy is an area where the local level still has the potential to shape economic development. The findings on the residential economy indicate that the party–political composition of the local executive can lead to different land-use planning strategies or generally more progressive policies promoting the residential economy by “lessen[ing] the extent that resources and capital flow out of the local economy” ( Imbroscio 1995 ; Filion, Reese, and Sands 2019 , 17), for example, with buy-local campaigns (called “self-reliance strategies”; Imbroscio 1995 ). Hence, on the one hand, left parties may focus on increasing local demand by supporting self-reliance strategies or enlarging the population and gathering places instead of building large industrial zones.…”

“…Different cleavages based on a different reliance on local assets of the economic sectors ( Hiscox 2001 ) then are supposed to manifest themselves only on regional or even higher levels. The post-political condition of “managerial consensual governing” indicates that there is a local political party consensus on an entrepreneurial stance to local economic development, which means that all parties want to engage in inter-municipal competition in the same way to compete for resources ( Peterson 1981 ; Harvey 1989 , 4–5; Jensen and Malesky 2018 ; Filion, Reese, and Sands 2019 ). As Peterson (1981) argues, local politics matter only for allocative policies because these policies have no impact on the economic position of the city.…”