Industry task forces represent a new approach to local economic develop ment planning. It is being applied to many industries and cities by a wide variety of sponsors, who approach the issues with different ideologies and use different planning processes. Yet the outcomes of these planning efforts often exhibit surprising simi larities. It appears that the specifics of the planning processes used, as well as the concept of a task force itself, lead to a washing-out process which subdues most differences and produces a form of "generic plan ning." This confirms other recent re search which suggests that, in local planning, pragmatism suppresses ideological differences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alaska Timber Task Force.1984. Report of the Timber Task Force. Juneau, Alaska.
2.
Alexander, S.; Giloth, R.; and Lerner, J.1987. Chicago's industry task forces: Joint problem-solving for local economic development. Economic Development Quarterly1:352-357.
3.
Allegheny Conference on Community Development. 1984. A Strategy for Growth: An Economic Development Program for the Pittsburgh Region, vols. 1 and 2. Pittsburgh: Allegheny Conference.
4.
Bergman, E.M.1986. Local Economies in Transition. Durham : Duke.
5.
Center for Urban Economic Development.1988 . Printing in Chicago: The Final Report of the Printing Industry Task Force. Chicago: City of Chicago .
6.
Clarke, S.E.1986. Urban America, Inc.: Corporatist convergence of power in American cities? In Local Economies in Transition , ed. E. M. Bergman, pp. 37-58. Durham : Duke.
7.
Clavel, P.1986. The Progressive City. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers.
8.
Cleveland Tomorrow Committee.1981. Cleveland Tomorrow: A Strategy for Economic Vitality. Cleveland: Cleveland Tomorrow Committee.
9.
Dewar, M.1986. Development analysis confronts politics. Journal of the American Planning Association52:290-298.
10.
Goldstein, H.A., and Bergman, E.M.1986. Institutional arrangements for state and local industrial policy. Journal of the American Planning Association52:265-275.
11.
Harper's.1985. Do we need an industrial policy? Harper's (February) :35-48.
12.
Hoch, C.1984. Doing good and being right. Journal of the American Planning Association50:335-345.
13.
Kantor, P.1986. The dependent city: The changing political economy of urban economic development in the United States. Urban Affairs Quarterly22:493-520.
14.
Kokomo Community Planning and Development. 1981. Auto Community Adjustment Plan. Kokomo, Indiana: City of Kokomo.
15.
Magaziner, I., and Reich, R.1982. Minding America's Business. New York : Vintage Books.
16.
Markusen, A.1985. Steel and Southeast Chicago: Reasons and Opportunities For Industrial Renewal. Evanston, Illinois: Northwestern University's Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, in cooperation with the Chicago Department of Economic Development .
17.
Mayor's Task Force on Steel and Southeast Chicago.1986. The Final Report of the Mayor's Task Force on Steel and Southeast Chicago: Building on Basics. Chicago: City of Chicago.
18.
Mayor Washington's Apparel and Fashion Industry Task Force.1986. Final Report: Cooperation for Survival and Growth. New Designs for Apparel Manufacturing in Chicago. Chicago: City of Chicago.
19.
Mier, R.; Moe, K.; and Sherr, I.1986. Strategic planning and the pursuit of reform, economic development and equity. Journal of the American Planning Association52(3):299-309.
20.
Rohatyn, F.1980. The coming emergency and what can be done about it. New YorkReview of Books, 4 December.
21.
Robinson, C.J.1987. Economic development policy approaches of city administrations: Types and influential local conditions. Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
22.
Wiewel, W.1986. The structure and substance of planning task forces . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning, Milwaukee .
23.
Wisconsin Strategic Development Commission.1985. The Final Report. Madison: State of Wisconsin.
