Yes, But...: Questioning the Conventional Wisdom about Economic Development

Abstract

This article explores various aspects of the conventional wisdom regarding local economic development policy and policy making. Much widely accepted knowledge about why and how local governments approach economic development is based on a fairly narrow array of methodological approaches. And the conclusions often suffer from the limitations inherent in their respective methodologies. This may mean that what we think we know about local economic development might be reasonably accurate, but it does not quite reflect actual local dynamics. Yes, the conventional wisdom is true, but.... Using data from a large survey database of Canadian and U.S. cities along with findings from nine case studies in medium-size and smaller cities in both nations, the authors challenge a number of accepted truths and present an alternative civic culture framework for better understanding economic development policy making.

Competing for global capital or local voters? The politics of business location incentives

“…Although most analysts agree on these trends, it remains disputed whether mayors do this because of patronage politics (Enikolopov 2014) or pandering (Vlaicu and Whalley 2014). Further, existing academic research is mixed on how the form of government shapes tax incremental financing, which is one type of incentive (Mason and Thomas 2010;Reese and Rosenfeld 2001). By contrast, our approach, which aggregates all types of incentives to obtain the total amount expended by each municipality, finds that, consistent with our electoral explanation, the form of government is associated strongly with the amount of money allocated to incentives.…”

Two Steps Forward, One Step Back: Uncertainty in Local Economic Development

“…Even more troublesome in the Reese and Rosenfeld (2001) formulation of local civic culture is the word unique. It is, at once, everything and nothing.…”

Conceptualizing Local and Regional Economic Development in the USA

“…While on one hand several contributions have bemoaned an apparent lack of a formal or convincing theory of local development (see for example CLARKE, 2001;FASENFEST et al 1997;KIRBY, 1985; and HOVEY, 1985), others have highlighted the confusion engendered by a multiplicity of very specific and narrow theoretical frameworks. Overall there is concern that theoretical approaches in LRED have been variously unconvincing, incomplete, or inappropriate (see, for example, CLARKE, 1993;2001;REESE and ROSENFELD, 2001;WIEWEL et al, 1993;WILSON, 1999). For WIEWEL et al previous theoretical contributions in the field have been unable to grapple effectively with the range of tasks required, such that economic development theory 'on the whole… does not do well' (WIEWEL et al, 1993: 94).…”

“…Yet to date there is little evidence of a serious or sustained effort to establish such a framework. Rather, authors have continued to decry a 'myopic tunnel vision approach' (IMMERGUT, 1992, quoted in WILSON, 1999) and a 'narrow evidentiary base' which omits 'critical variables and dynamics' (CLARKE, 2001: 320;REESE and ROSENFELD, 2001), often reinforcing the view of WIEWEL et al (1993: 94) that we have 'little in the way of an integrated theoretical framework' which might lend coherence to the analysis of U.S. local and regional economic development (LRED).…”