Abstract
Diversity is an important topic in the United States. Changes in the demographic makeup of the nation are both well noticed and notable. The U.S. Census Bureau (2012) reports that, “The U.S. is projected to become a majority-minority nation for the first time in 2043.” After the 2012 presidential election, the discussion of the changing ethnic and demographic makeup of the electorate and the potential effects on the country’s partisan national politics often took center stage in the news media (Heavey 2012; Todd et al. 2012). Clearly, in both politics and government, understanding ethnic and cultural diversity remains a need.
It makes sense then that ethnic and cultural diversity are significant topics in the Social Science literature in the United States (Google 2012). There is great interest in the effects, opportunities, and challenges for increased ethnic and cultural diversity in public and private enterprise, education, social groups, as well as society and economy in general. A small part of this literature focuses on metropolitan areas and the effects of an increasingly diverse population on them. 1 For example, one study in Economic Geography looked at the effects of increased cultural diversity brought by foreign-born residents on the incomes of U.S. cities (Ottaviano and Peri 2006). Although, an increase in diversity in the United States is primarily due to internal demographic changes rather than immigration, it is encouraging to note that at least in this study, cultural diversity and metropolitan income were positively correlated.
Yet, even though local governments are already managing these demographic changes, comparatively little research examines how they understand, promote, frustrate, or preserve ethnic and cultural diversity through their policies. The main administrative jurisdiction for governing their changing populations is one unique to these local governments, the neighborhood, and housing programs are the predominant program for addressing ethnic and cultural diversity in Neighborhoods. The principal policy instrument by which local governments attempt to affect the ethnic and cultural diversity of housing distribution and of neighborhoods is the Comprehensive Plan. Yet, in formulating these plans, local governments may not have a profound understanding of their options, choices, the effects of these, or even how to use them as tools for achieving effective governance—the nexus among rules, regulations, processes, and sectors (public, private, and not for profit).
In this regard, the current issue of the State and Local Government Review’s Government Matters Section presents a unique and potentially trendsetting piece of research. It examines attempts to achieve ethnic and cultural diversity in municipal neighborhoods. It looks at the actual behavior of a small set of municipal governments by examining the policies they adopt for promoting ethnic and cultural diversity in Neighborhoods and ultimately in the Municipalities themselves. The policies examined in the article are the official Comprehensive Plans and related documents of these governments. The focus of the research is the municipalities’ understanding and instantiation of cultural, ethnic, and economic diversity in these plans in aiming at housing and neighborhood development. The authors explore how these plans and documents affect and potentially sustain cultural, ethnic, and economic diversity through their rules, incentives, aims, and strategies for achieving a diverse mix of people, ethnicities, income levels, cultures, orientations, and tastes in the neighborhoods of the cities governed by these plans. It is a piece of research of interest to scholars and practitioners alike.