I ran
across this New Yorker article a year ago about a small town in Iowa that has managed to maintain its somewhat insular charm while also providing economic growth and a decent quality of life to its inhabitants (and holding on to its young people). I thought it was an interesting counterpoint to my thinking and concern about people leaving their surroundings
in order to develop themselves, as opposed to developing their entire community
(and thus bettering their own lot as well). Here
is an example of a community that has managed to do just that, through a mix of
cultural predisposition, lucky geographical breaks in terms of the location of
higher education institutions and industrial employment, and concerted,
conscious efforts to maintain their small town as a viable, pleasant place to
live. The article highlights some of the
tensions inherent to any local development approach, most notably that you need
to foster a strong sense of place and belonging so the natives stay, but at the
same time you don’t want to be so closed to outsiders that you block the needed
migration and investment from outside the community.
When I was
younger I sometimes decried the type of people who were just content to stay
where they are, working in the same place their folks did, finding their
greatest meaning and interest in the affairs of their own neighborhood and not
concerned with much that transpired beyond it.
As I have pursued economic development as a professional field though, and
as I raise kids that I want to be grounded in the community I grew up in, I
appreciate more this attitude of rootedness.
At the same time, I’m not sure if I’d enjoy living in a place like the Iowa town described in the New Yorker article. It might
be a bit too perfect, a bit too satisfied with and centered on
itself (I'm lucky enough to be from a place like Chicago that is at once rooted and cosmopolitan, so there's something to satisfy all tastes, or at least all my tastes). On a larger scale, it’s a cruel
irony that the communities where people are most active in maintaining and
improving the quality of life, are by definition the communities where people
have less energy to devote to improving life in the rest of the country and the
world. The end result is that you see
nice, cohesive communities constantly investing in themselves and further
improving their lot, while nearby there are other communities that would
greatly benefit if their neighbors directed some of their dynamism and
investments to these other, less fortunate places.
In the end
I’m not sure what the best recipe is for broad-based economic development,
whether it’s best to have small communities centered on themselves, or whether
it’s better to have more centralized, conscious planning to spark broader-based
economic development. Obviously both are
necessary—I’m just trying to figure out the place and proportion of each. There is certainly a need for communities
that are centered on their own wellbeing, because this is the only sustainable
way for a place to prosper. At the same
time, I worry about the implications of this approach for inequality. We certainly see that, in the US at least,
there are a few places that concentrate most of the well-educated, well-earning, socially-
and politically-active people (think wealthy suburbs of any major city), and
these people do all they can to improve their community. This leads to inequality in at least two
ways. One is that these places naturally
prosper more than others, because they have the most resources and these resources are
continuously reinvested in the community.
But more insidiously, part of the advocacy efforts of these communities
is almost always to set up all sorts of barriers (zoning laws, tax paying and sharing
arrangements, transport infrastructure, and sometimes literal physical fences)
to keep out people with less capital (social, economic, human, and
otherwise).
I have often been in situations where my work entails trying to drive or
catalyze economic development through very conscious, technocratic
processes. Sometimes people like me put
a lot of work into trying to make development happen, and it takes a lot of
time and investment to make just a little progress. But at the very same time, you’ll sometimes see
relatively unplanned or unregulated economic processes generating more poverty
alleviation than our best efforts. This
isn’t always or even usually the case, but it happens enough for me to realize
that sometimes these more organic, self-centered community development
approaches that I’ve highlighted in the prior paragraphs are indeed the best way to
reduce poverty and improve economic development.
As I write
this and think it through, I guess I’m coming back to an old adage in my field, which is no less
true for its being oft-repeated. In the
field of economic development, it’s often best to use a light touch on the
planning or governance side, letting natural positive economic and social processes
take their course, while using your outside interventions mainly to favor good
processes, correct negative side effects (inequality chief among them), and
maximize the social benefit of whatever economic growth is occurring.
No comments:
Post a Comment