This commentary describes selected revitalization initiatives in Atlanta, Georgia and Baltimore, Maryland to illustrate the challenges and opportunities local policy makers face when linking economic and community development. The authors draw on more than 30 years of observation and research. Fragmented power, complexity, conflict, mistrust, and resource scarcity make policy coordination a daunting challenge. The cities studied have faced these challenges by creating organizations and intermediary institutions to plan and execute local revitalizations initiatives with mixed success. The authors discuss the challenge of coordinating economic and community development (Ec&CD) policies and then compare the economic context of Atlanta and Baltimore and summarize several efforts to coordinate economic and community development policy making. The authors review the cases to discuss their commonalities and differences and conclude with advice for local leaders who hope to pursue a coordinated Ec&CD policy agenda.
Atlanta City Council. (2005). Creating beltline redevelopment area and tax allocation district #6-Beltline plus adopt sub amend, Ordinance 05-O-1733 (November 9, 2005).
BradshawT.BlakleyE. (1999). What are third-wave state economic development efforts? From incentives to industrial policy. Economic Development Quarterly, 13(3), 229–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124249901300303
BrownP.ButlerB.HamiltonR. (2001). The Sandtown-Winchester neighborhood transformation initiative: Lessons learned about community building & implementation. The Annie E. Casey Foundation.
ErickcekG. (2023). What is inclusionary economic development – what if employees mattered?Economic Development Quarterly, 37(1), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424221142592
17.
ErnsthansenJ.ElliottJ. (2019). One Trump tax cut was meant to help the poor. A billionaire ended up winning big. Propublica. One Trump Tax Cut Was Meant to Help the Poor. A Billionaire Ended Up Winning Big. — ProPublica
18.
FangL. (2022). A text-mining and bibliographical analysis of the economic development literature: 1959-2020. Urban Science, 6(4), 80. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci6040080
GilesM. (1993). The Atlanta project: A community-based approach to solving urban problems. National Civic Review, 82(4), 354–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.4100820406
21.
GilesM. (1995). Evaluation of the Atlanta project, part 2: Analysis and findings. Carter Collaboration Center.
HillE. (2023). What is economic development? And what is the job of an economic development professional?Economic Development Quarterly, 37(1), 34–48. https://doi.org/10.1177/08912424221147013
24.
HorakM.MussoJ.ShiauE.StokerR.StoneC. (2015). Change afoot. In StoneC.StokerR. (Eds.), Urban neighborhoods in a new era: Revitalization politics in the postindustrial city (pp. 209–249). University of Chicago Press.
KingP.RichM. (2022). ‘Building together’ in Baltimore? Corporate megadevelopment and coalitions for community power. Urban Affairs Review, 58(4), 1028–1064. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874211021325
31.
LoweN.FeldmanM. (2018). Breaking the waves: Innovating at the intersections of economic development. Economic Development Quarterly, 32(3), 183–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242418783848
32.
MossbergerK. (2000). The politics of ideas and the spread of enterprise zones. Georgetown University Press.
33.
PetersA.FisherP. (2002). State enterprise zone programs: Have they worked?W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.
RichM.StokerR. (2014). Collaborative governance for urban revitalization: Lessons from empowerment zones. Cornell University Press.
37.
RosenJ. (2023). Community benefits: Developers, negotiations, and accountability. University of Pennsylvania Press.
38.
RosenblattP.DeLucaS. (2017). What happened in Sandtown-Winchester? Understanding the impacts of a comprehensive community initiative. Urban Affairs Review, 53(3), 463–494. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415617852
Schnake-MahlA.JahnJ.SubramanianS.WatersM.ArcayaM. (2020). Gentrification, neighborhood change, population health: A systematic review. Journal of Urban Health, 14(7), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11524-019-00400-1
42.
StokanE.RaleighE. (2018). Improving the citizen participatory process in community economic development. In RiveraJ.NickelsA. (Eds.), Community development and public administration theory (pp. 109–133). Routledge.
43.
StokerR. (1987). Baltimore: The self-evaluating city? In StoneC.SandersH. (Eds.), The politics of urban development (pp. 244–266). University Press of Kansas.
44.
StokerR.StoneC.WorgsD. (2015). Neighborhood policy in Baltimore: The postindustrial turn. In StoneC.StokerR. (Eds.), Urban neighborhoods in a new era: Revitalization politics in the postindustrial city (pp. 50–80). University of Chicago Press.
45.
StoneC. (1980). Systemic power in community decision making. American Political Science Review, 74(4), 978–990. https://doi.org/10.2307/1954317
46.
SzantonP. (1986). Baltimore 2000: A choice of futures.The Morris Goldseker Foundation.
TheodosB. (2022). The East Baltimore Development Initiative: A long-term impact evaluation of a comprehensive community initiative. The Urban Institute.
Wolf-PowersL. (2010). Community benefits agreements and local governments: A review of recent evidence. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 141–159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360903490923
52.
ZukinS. (1987). Gentrification: Culture and capital in the urban core. American Journal of Sociology, 13, 129–147. https://www.jstor.org/stable/2083243
