This article begins with a discussion of differences between economic and community development. A three-dimensional policy frame work for analyzing subnational economic development policy is presented One dimension consists of the goals of efficiency and equity. The confusion between the equity objectives of poverty alleviation and helping distressed communities is explained The second dimension includes three sets of government and market failures that are rationales for federal intervention-provision of public goods, the mismatch in political and economic federalisms, and the mismatch between political and economic time horizons. The third dimension is the funding mechanisms for development programs-people, places, and people through places. The last section contains recommendations for restructuring federal policy.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Economic Development Council . (1984). Economic development today: A report to the profession. Shiller Park, IL: Author.
2.
Barnes, W. , & Ledebur, L. (1998). The new regional economies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3.
Bartik, T. (1994). What should the federal government be doing about urban economic development?Cityscape, 1(1), 267-292.
4.
Bartik, T. (1996). Strategies for economic development In J. R. Aronson & E. Schwartz (Eds.), Management policies in local government finance (4th ed., pp. 287-311). Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
5.
Bingham, R. (1998). Industrial policy American style: From Hamilton to HDTV. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
6.
Chinitz, B. (1960). Contrasts in agglomeration: New York and Pittsburgh. American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 50, 279-289.
7.
Dabson, B. (1994). Renewing the Economic Development Administration. Renewing the Economic Development Administration: New approaches to economic development (pp. 156-162). Subcommittee on Economic Growth and Credit Formation of the Committee on Banking, Finance, and Urban Affairs, U.S. House of Representatives, 103rd Congress, Serial 103-125.
8.
Engberg, J. (1996). Employment policy and urban economic development. Housing Policy Debate, 7(4), 695-714.
9.
Glasmeier, A. (1997). Rural America and 21st century development policy: The federal role. In B. Harrison & M. Weiss (Eds.), Rethinking national economic development policy [Project report prepared by the EDAC of Boston] (pp. 203-236). Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
10.
Haider, D. (1986). Economic development: Changing practices in a changing U.S. economy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 4, 451-469.
11.
Harrison, B. , Glasmeier, A., & Polenske, K. (1997). National, regional, and local economic development policy: New thinking about old ideas. In B. Harrison & M. Weiss (Eds.), Rethinking national economic development policy [Project report prepared by the EDAC of Boston] (pp. 33-102). Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
12.
Haynes, K. , & Stough, R. (1997). The federal urban policy agenda: Recent past and new realities. American Academy of Political and Social Science Annual, 551, 208-221.
13.
Hill, E. (1997). Policy lessons from Cleveland's economic restructuring and the accompanying case study. In B. Harrison & M. Weiss (Eds.), Rethinking national economic development policy [Project report prepared by the EDAC of Boston] (pp. 139-202). Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
14.
Hill, E. , & Bier, T. (1989). Economic restructuring: Earnings, occupations and housing values in Cleveland. Economic Development Quarterly, 3(2), 123-144.
15.
Isserman, A. (1994). State economic development policy and practice in the United States: A survey article. International Regional Science Review, 16(1/2), 49-100.
16.
Isserman, A. (1997). Wash our hands, tie their hands, or shake their hands? The federal role in rural economic development: Some empirical evidence with implications for current policy debates. In B. Harrison & M. Weiss (Eds.), Rethinking national economic development policy [Project report prepared by the EDAC of Boston] (pp. 237-264). Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
17.
McGahey, R. (1997). Economic development, devolution, and public policy: Reforming federal and state policy in an era of global competition. In B. Harrison & M. Weiss (Eds.), Rethinking national economic development policy [Project report prepared by the EDAC of Boston] (pp. 103-138). Springfield, VA: U.S. Department of Commerce, National Technical Information Service.
18.
National Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) . (1996). A path to smarter economic development: Reassessing the federal role. Washington, DC: Author.
19.
Nowak, J. (1997). Neighborhood initiative and the regional economy. Economic Development Quarterly, 11(1), 3-10.
20.
Olson, M. (1982). The rise and decline of nations. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Rivlin, A. (1992). Reviving the American dream. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
22.
Schweke, W. , Dabson, B., & Rist, C. (1996). Improving your business climate. Washington, DC: Corporation for Enterprise Development.
23.
Teitz, M. (1989). Neighborhood economics: Local communities and regional labor markets. Economic Development Quarterly, 3(2), 111-122.
24.
U.S. General Accounting Office . (1996). Economic development: Limited information exists on the impact of assistance provided by three agencies (GAO/RED-96-103). Washington, DC: Author.
25.
Wolman, H. , Hanson, R., Hill, E., Howland, M., & Ledebur, L. (1992). National urban economic development policy. Journal of Urban Affairs, 14(314), 217-238.
