The Role of Economic Theory in Regional Advocacy

Abstract

Regionalism is now being explored by a wide variety of communities. One of the most hotly debated assertions of the 1990s was that regional unity, however defined, leads to higher levels of economic growth. Yet despite this faith in the power of regionalism, the beneficial economic effects of regional planning remain elusive. This review presents and integrates three bodies of literature related to the proposed link between metropolitan unity, as expressed through planning, and economic outcomes.

The Relationship between the Physical Growth of the Central City and Metropolitan Socio-Economic Growth in US Metropolitan Areas from 1950 to 2000

“…Those challenges to Rusk's metropolitan regionalism should at least be able to address how metropolitan areas are fragmented by greater economically self-sufficient autonomy (Swanstrom, 2001) because of diverse local needs and a preference for carrying out the delivery of public goods and services by territorial communities (Boyne, 1998;Sclar, 2000). Even though there is no doubt that suburbs are in the process of creating new clusters that perform many of the same functions that cities used to perform in metropolitan areas (Kurban and Persky, 2007), Rusk contributes to the debates over fragmentation and regionalism using a large number of metropolitan areas (Levine, 2001). Rusk's metropolitan regionalism tries to explain inequality and fix local fiscal imbalances and development sprawl.…”

“…Rusk's metropolitan regionalism tries to explain inequality and fix local fiscal imbalances and development sprawl. Accordingly, his central city elasticity theory is still commonly presented, argued, and debated (Levine, 2001).…”

Risk-averse Regionalism

“…A different note is struck by Foster (2001), who highlights examples of purposeful specialization among many regional efforts driven specifically by environmental, economic, equity, or other motives. This may offer an answer to Levine (2001), who critiqued some new regionalists for cloaking their normative objectives for achieving equity in the language of efficiency, arguing essentially that they play a weak hand. Pastor, Benner, and Rosner (2003) identify regional efforts in different policy domains and with different organizational drivers.…”

“…However, looking for a community-based regionalism to foster participation in regional activities among economically and socially isolated communities, they see equity remaining a common theme in these diverse efforts. This may offer an answer to Levine (2001), who critiqued some new regionalists for cloaking their normative objectives for achieving equity in the language of efficiency, arguing essentially that they play a weak hand. However, Basolo and Hastings (2003) note the persistence of public choice logic in regional planning and identify it as a barrier to issues with distributive implications, such as affordable housing.…”

Connecting Regional Governance, Urban Form, and Energy Use: Opportunities and Limitations

“…Restrictive zoning and subdivision ordinances in many suburban jurisdictions have been criticized for promoting larger houses, protecting local privilege, discouraging multi-family developments, and mixed use developments, [52][53][54][55][56]. These have led to patterns of development that push residents further away from jobs, increasing auto-dependence for most non-homebased activity.…”