Economic development policy in the United States is dominated by public subsidy and incentive programs designed to induce private sector investment. The market-generated benefits of increased private investment are assumed to justify the public expense of such programs. The author argues that a second type of development policy exists, called Type llpolicy, that is based on a conflicting set of assumptions and that mandates public benefits by requiring private developers to provide direct economic and social goods. An analysis of policy in 281 localities shows that Type II programs are widespread, are strongly associated with higher levels of community-based activity in the economic development arena, and are not restricted to prosperous locations.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Babcock, R. F.1987. Foreword. Law and Contemporary Problems50 (1): 1-4.
2.
Bennett, L.1987. The dilemmas of building a progressive urban coalition: The linked development debate in Chicago. Journal of Urban Affairs9 (3): 263-276.
3.
Blair, J. P. , and B. Wechsler. 1984. A tale of two cities: A case study of urban competition for jobs. In Urban economic development, edited by R. D. Bingham and J. P. Blair, 269-282. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
4.
Bowman, A. O'M.1987. Tools and targets: The mechanics of city economic development. Research Report of the National League of Cities. Washington, DC.
5.
Bowman, A. O'M. . 1988. Competition for economic development among southeastern cities. Urban Affairs Quarterly23:511-527.
6.
Clarke, S. E.1984. The local state and alternative economic development strategies: Gaining public benefits from private investment. Discussion Paper. Center for Public Policy Research, University of Colorado, Boulder.
7.
Clarke, S. E. . 1987. More autonomous policy orientations: An analytic framework. In The politics of urban development, edited by C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders, 105-124. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press.
8.
Clarke, S. , and M. J. Rich. 1985. Making money work: The new urban policy arena. Research in Urban Policy1:101-115.
9.
Clavel, P.1986. The progressive city: Planning and participation, 1969-1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press.
10.
Elkin, S. L. 1982. Popular control and private interests in American cities. Paper presented to the American Political Science Association, Chicago, September.
11.
Elkin, S. L. . 1987. City and regime in the American republic. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
12.
Goetz, E. G.1988. Office-housing linkage programs: A review of the issues. Economic Development Quarterly2 (2): 182-196.
13.
Goetz, E. G. . 1989. Office-housing linkage in San Francisco. Journal of the American Planning Association55 (1): 66-77.
14.
Haar, C. M.1984. The joint venture approach to urban renewal: From model cities to enterprise zones. In Public-private partnership: New opportunities for meeting social needs, edited by H. Brooks, L. Liebman, and C. Schelling, 63-87. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
15.
Hartman, C.1984. The transformation of San Francisco. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld.
16.
International City Management Association . 1986. Municipalyear book; 1986. Washington, DC: Author.
17.
International City Management Association . 1987. Municipal year book. 1987. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
International City Management Association . 1988. Municipal year book 1988. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
Jones, B. D. , and L. W. Bachelor. 1984. Local policy discretion and the corporate surplus. In Urban economic development, edited by R. D. Bingham and J. P. Blair, 245-267. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
20.
Judd, D. R. , and R. L. Ready. 1986. Entrepreneurial cities and the new politics of economic development. In Reagan and the cities, edited by G. E. Peterson and C. W. Lewis, 209-247. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
21.
Keating, D. W.1986. Linking downtown development to broader community goals. Journal of the American Planning Association52 (2): 133-141.
22.
Levine, M. A.1983. The Reagan urban policy: Efficient national economic growth and public sector minimization. Journal of Urban Affairs5 (1): 17-28.
23.
Molotch, H.1976. The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place. American Journal of Sociology82 (2): 309-332.
24.
Muzzio, D. , and R. Bailey. 1986. Economic development, housing and zoning: A tale of two cities. Journal of Urban Affairs8 (1): 1-18.
25.
Peterson, P. E.1981. City limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
26.
Rubin, I. S. , and H. J. Rubin. 1987. Economic development incentives: The poor (cities) pay more. Urban Affairs Quarterly23:37-62.
27.
Sanyika, M. K.1986. Balanced development. Part two: A classification of existing linkages and partnerships. Economic Development and Law Center Report (Fall): 19-22.
28.
Schmenner, R. W.1980. Industrial location and urban public management. In The prospective city, edited by A. P. Solomon, 446-468. Cambridge: MIT Press.
29.
Schwartz, G.1979. The scope for local government action. In Central city development, edited by B. Chinitz, 161-174. Cambridge, MA: Abt Books.
30.
Smith, M. P.1989. The uses of linked-development policies in U.S. cities. In Regenerating the cities, edited by M. Parkinson, B. Foley, and D. Judd, 85-99. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
31.
Stone, C. N.1987. The study of the politics of urban development. In The politics of urban development, edited by C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders, 3-22. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press.
32.
Swanstrom, T.1985. The crisis of growth politics. Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press.
33.
Tegeler, P. , and R. Silverstein. 1985. Hartford demands quid pro quo. Planning (June): 18-19.
34.
Tobin, G. A.1983. The public/private sector partnership in the redevelopment process. Policy Studies Journal11 (3): 473-482.
35.
Vaughan, R.1979. State taxation and economic development. Washington, DC: Council of State Planning Agencies.
