Contemporary local economic development policies reflect an underlying commitment to privatism—to enhancing and enlarging the role of the private sector in urban regeneration. In this study we challenge conventional expectations about the benefits of local economic development policies that are based on this commitment. Our analysis supports a set of propositions that define common limitations of the local economic development policies pursued in the 1970s and 1980s. We expect such limitations whenever privatism is accepted as the framework for urban development and regeneration policies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BARNEKOV, T. K. , R. BOYLE, and D. RICH (1989) Privatism and Urban Policy in Britain and the United States. London: Oxford Univ. Press.
2.
BARNEKOV, T. K. and D. RICH (1977) "Privatism and urban development: an analysis of the organized influence of local business elites."Urban Affairs Q.12 (4): 431-460.
3.
BERNEY, K. (1984) "Expanding firms are flocking to North Carolina, but start-ups elude state's efforts to draw them."Electronics Week (September 10): 38-44.
4.
BLUESTONE, B. and B. HARRISON (1982) The De-Industrialization of America. New York: Basic Books.
5.
BRADFORD, A. (1968) Oakland's Not for Burning. New York: McKay.
6.
BUCHES, D. W. (1980) Observations on the City of Wilmington's Brandywine Gateway Development Project. Newark: College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware.
7.
COHN, J. (1971) The Conscience of the Corporations: Business and Urban Affairs: 1967-1970. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
8.
CUMMINGS, S. (1988) Business Elites and Urban Development: Case Studies and Critical Perspectives. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
9.
DUSTIN, J. and D. RICH (1987) Cities and the New Technology Movement. Newark: Center for Energy and Urban Policy Research, College of Urban Affairs and Public Policy, University of Delaware.
10.
FAINSTEIN, N. I. and S. S. FAINSTEIN (1986a) "New Haven: the limits of the local state," pp. 27-79 in S. S. Fainstein, N. I. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
11.
FAINSTEIN, N. I. and S. S. FAINSTEIN (1986b) "Regime strategies, communal resistance, and economic forces," pp. 245-282 in S. S. Fainstein, N. I. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
12.
FAINSTEIN. S. S. and N. I. FAINSTEIN (1986) "Economic change, national policy and the system of cities," pp. 1-26 in S. S. Fainstein, N. I. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
13.
FAINSTEIN, S. S. , N. I. FAINSTEIN, and P. J. ARMISTEAD (1986) "San Francisco: urban transformation and the local state," pp. 202-244 in S. S. Fainstein, N. I. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
14.
FAINSTEIN, S. S. , N. I. FAINSTEIN, R. C. HILL, D. R. JUDD, and M. P. SMITH (1986) Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
15.
FARLEY, J. and N. J. GLICKMAN (1985) R&D as an Economic Development Strategy: The Microelectronic and Computer Corporation Comes to Austin, Texas. Austin: University of Texas at Austin.
16.
FEAGIN, J. R. (1988) "Tallying the social costs of urban growth under capitalism: the case of Houston," pp. 205-234 in S. Cummings (ed.) Business Elites and Urban Development: Case Studies and Critical Perspectives. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
17.
FERGUSEN, C. H. (1983) "The microelectronics industry in distress."Technology Rev.86(6) (August/September): 24-37.
18.
FRUG, G. E. (1980) "The city as a legal concept."Harvard Law Rev.93(6) (April): 1059-1154.
19.
GIST, J. R. and R. C. HILL (1984) "Political and economic influences on the bureaucratic allocation of federal funds: the case of Urban Development Action Grants."J. of Urban Economics16: 158-172.
20.
GOODMAN, A. C. and R. B. TAYLOR (1983) The Baltimore Neighborhood Fact Book. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research.
21.
GOODMAN, R. (1979) The Last Entrepreneurs: America's Regional Wars for Jobs and Dollars. New York: Simon & Schuster.
22.
GRASSO, P. G. (1986) "Distributive policies and the politics of economic development," pp. 83-98 in F. S. Redburn, T. F. Buss, and L. C. Ledebur (eds.) Revitalizing the U.S. Economy. New York: Praeger.
23.
HILL, R. C. (1986) "Crisis in the motor city: the politics of economic development in Detroit," pp. 80-125 in S. S. Fainstein, N. I. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
24.
JUDD, D. R. (1986) "From cowtown to sunbelt city: boosterism and economic growth in Denver," pp. 167-201 in S. S. Fainstein, N. J. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
25.
JUDD, D. R. and R. L. READY (1986) "Entrepreneurial cities and the new politics of economic development in the United States," pp. 209-247 in G. E. Peterson and C. W. Riley (eds.) Reagan and the Cities. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
26.
KANTOR, P. (1987) "The dependent city: the changing political economy of urban economic development in the United States."Urban Affairs Q.22 (4): 493-520.
27.
KIRBY, A. (1985) "Nine fallacies of local economic change."Urban Affairs Q.21 (2): 207-220.
28.
KIRBY, A. and A. K. LYNCH (1987) "A ghost in the growth machine: the aftermath of rapid population growth in Houston."Urban Studies24: 587-596.
29.
LaDOU, J. (1984) "The not-so-clean business of making chips."Technology Rev. (May/June): 23-36.
30.
LEVINE, M. (1987) "Downtown redevelopment as an urban growth strategy: a critical appraisal of the Baltimore Renaissance."J. of Urban Affairs9 (2): 103-123.
31.
MOLOTCH, H. (1976) "The city as a growth machine: towards a political economy of place."Amer. J. of Sociology82 (2): 309-332.
32.
MOLOTCH, H. (1988) "Strategies and constraints of growth elites," pp. 25-47 in S. Cummings (ed.) Business Elites and Urban Development: Case Studies and Critical Perspectives. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
33.
MOORE, T. S. and G. D. SQUIRES (1988) "Private policy and private benefits: the case of industrial revenue bonds," pp. 97-117 in S. Cummings (ed.) Business Elites and Urban Development: Case Studies and Critical Perspectives. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
34.
NEUBECK, K. J. and R. E. RATCLIFF (1988) "Urban democracy and the power of corporate capital: struggles over downtown growth and neighborhood stagnation in Hartford, Connecticut," pp. 299-332 in S. Cummings (ed.) Business Elites and Urban Development: Case Studies and Critical Perspectives. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press.
35.
PETERSON, P. E. (1981) City Limits. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
36.
PETERSON, P. E. (1987) "Analyzing developmental politics: a response to Sanders and Stone."Urban Affairs Q.22 (4): 540-547.
37.
President's National Urban Policy Report (1978, 1980, 1982, 1984, 1986). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
38.
President's Urban and Regional Policy Group (1978) A New Partnership to Conserve America's Communities: A National Urban Policy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.
39.
PRESSMAN, J. I. and A. WILDAVSKY (1984) Implementation: How Great Expectations in Washington Are Dashed in Oakland; or Why It's Amazing That Federal Programs Work at All This Being a Saga of the Economic Development Administration. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
40.
RICH, M. J. (1982) "Hitting the target: the distributional impacts of the Urban Development Action Grant Program."Urban Affairs Q.17 (3): 285-301.
41.
SANDERS, H. T. and C. N. STONE (1987a) "Developmental politics reconsidered."Urban Affairs Q.22 (4): 521-539.
42.
SANDERS, H. T. and C. N. STONE (1987b) "Competing paradigms: a rejoinder to Peterson."Urban Affairs Q.22 (4): 548-551.
43.
SMITH, M. S. and M. KELLER (1986) "`Managed growth' and the politics of uneven development in New Orleans," pp. 126-166 in S. S. Fainstein, N. I. Fainstein, R. C. Hill, D. R. Judd, and M. P. Smith, Restructuring the City: The Political Economy of Urban Redevelopment. New York: Longman.
44.
SQUIRES, G. (1984) "Industrial Revenue Bonds and the deindustrialization of America."Urbanism Past and Present9 (1): 1-9.
45.
STEPHENSON, M. O. (1987) "The policy and premises of Urban Development Action Grant Program implementation: a comparative analysis of the Carter and Reagan presidencies."J. of Urban Affairs9(1) (Winter): 19-35.
46.
STOKER, R. P. (1987) "Baltimore: the self-evaluating city?" pp. 244-266 in C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders (eds.) The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press.
47.
STONE, C. N. and H. T. SANDERS [eds.] (1987a) The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press.
48.
STONE, C. N. and H. T. SANDERS (1987b) "Reexamining a classic case of development politics: New Haven, Connecticut," pp. 159-181 in C. N. Stone and H. T. Sanders (eds.) The Politics of Urban Development. Lawrence: Univ. of Kansas Press.
49.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1983) Annual Housing Survey: Baltimore. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
50.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1986) Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 154. Money Income and Poverty Status of Families and Persons in the United States: 1985. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
51.
U.S. Bureau of the Census (1987) Current Population Reports, Series P-60, No. 156. Money Income of Households, Families, and Persons in the United States: 1985. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
52.
U.S. Conference of Mayors (1984) The Baltimore City Loan and Guarantee Program: A Trustee System. Washington, DC: U.S. Conference of Mayors.
53.
U.S. Congress, Joint Economic Committee (1982) Location of High Technology Firms and Regional Economic Development. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
54.
U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment (1984) Technology, Innovation, and Regional Economic Development: Background Paper No. 2. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
55.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development , Office of Policy Development and Research (1982) An Impact Evaluation of the Urban Development Action Grant Program. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
56.
WARNER, S. B. (1968) The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth. (1st ed). Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
57.
WARNER, S. B. (1987) The Private City: Philadelphia in Three Periods of Its Growth. (2nd ed). Philadelphia: Univ. of Pennsylvania Press.
58.
WEBMAN, J. A. (1981) "UDAG: targeting urban economic development."Pol. Sci. Q.96 (Summer): 189-207.
