Benjamin Armstrong’s article compares state economic development policies in Pittsburgh and Cleveland in the 1980s, the period of major regional economic restructuring. Armstrong argues that what separated Pittsburgh from Cleveland in the ensuring years was the state-mandated inclusion of the city’s universities as major economic development decision makers and the role that advanced technology played in Pittsburgh’s recovery—much more prominent than in Cleveland’s. The authors agree that the 1980s expanded stakeholders in the region’s traditional economic development strategies, but not to the extent that Armstrong argues, and that significant other factors have affected the two regions in recent decades. The authors also find that the divergence in economic trends between the two regions is not a strong as Armstrong suggests.
AhlbrandtR. S.Jr. (1990). The revivial of Pittsburgh: A partnership between business and government. Long Range Planning, 23(5), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1016/0024-6301(90)90256-4
2.
Allegheny Conference on Community Development. (1984). A strategy for growth: An economic development strategy for the Pittsburgh region. Allegheny Conference on Community Development.
3.
ArmstrongB. (2021). Industrial policy and local economic transformation: Evidence from the U.S. Rust Belt. Economic Development Quarterly, 35, 181-196. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424211022822
4.
BeauregardR. A.LawlessP.DeitrickS. (1992). Collaborative strategies for reindustrialization: Sheffield and Pittsburgh. Economic Development Quarterly, 6(4), 418-430. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249200600408
5.
BlazinaE. (1986, July2). State’s airport funding plan lauded. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. B4.
6.
BluestoneB.HarrisonB. (1982). Deindustrialization of America: Plant closing, community abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. Basic Books.
7.
City of Pittsburgh. (1985). Strategy 21: Pittsburgh/Allegheny economic development strategy to begin the 21st century: A proposal to the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Author.
8.
ColemanM. (1988). Public/private cooperative response patterns to regional structural change in the Pittsburgh region. In HesseJ. J. (Ed.), Regional structural change and industrial policy in international perspective: United States, Great Britain, France, Federal Republic of Germany (pp. 141-145). Nomos.
9.
DeitrickS. (1999a). Multi-layered economic restructuring in an old industrial region: The Pittsburgh Transition. The Great Lakes Geographer, 6(1-2), 12-28.
10.
DeitrickS. (1999b). The post industrial revitalization of Pittsburgh: Myths and evidence. Community Development Journal, 34(1), 4-12. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/34.1.4
11.
DeitrickS. E.FarberS. C. (2005). Citizen reaction to Brownfields redevelopment. In WagnerF. W.JoderT. E.MumphreyA. J.AkundiK. M.ArtibiseA. F. J. (Eds.), Revitalizing the city: Strategies to contain sprawl and revive the core (pp. 160-200). M.E. Sharpe.
12.
EisingerP. K. (1988). The rise of the entrepreneurial state: State and local economic development policy in the United States. University of Wisconsin Press.
Mitchell-WeaverC. (1992). Public-private partnerships, innovation networks, and regional development in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Canadian Journal of Regional Science, 15(2), 275-288.
PerlmutterE. M.PierchowiakC. (1987, November15). Power in Pittsburgh: Growth strategy collides with changed times. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. A13.
18.
PiechowiakC.PerlmutterE. M. (1987, November15). Region’s fast change challenges old boy network. Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, p. A12.
19.
PlosilaW. H. (2004). State science and technology-based economic development policy: History, trends, and developments. Economic Development Quarterly, 18(2), 113-126.
20.
SbragiaA. M. (1990). Pittsburgh’s third way: The nonprofit sector as a key to urban regeneration. In JuddD. R.ParkinsonM. (Eds.), Leadership and urban regeneration: Cities in North America and Europe (pp. 51-68). Sage.
21.
State slashes funding for Ben Franklin. (1989, July19). Morning Call, p. B11.
