About 14 years, ago the irreplaceable Rob Mier and the well-published Richard Bingham (both based at the University of Illinois at Chicago and Viet Nam vets) edited an interesting group of articles in a book entitled Theories of Economic Development: Perspectives From Across the Disciplines, that, in turn, described and applied most of the theories and models of economic development that existed at the time. These included: cost minimization models, cluster theories, agglomeration economies, central place theory, product cycle theory, stage/cycle/wave theories, export base theory, entrepreneurial theories, growth machine models, and many others.
Originally, the editors had planned to synthesize all these perspectives and expound ways in which they could be better applied in the field. Needless to say, given the 51 different interpretative frameworks covered by the articles in the book, this proved to be too ambitious of an assignment. Indeed,
It was not just the complexity of the theoretical terrains of explanation and action that sobered us, it was also the daunting challenge of using theory to make better professional practice . . . The chasm is large between the language of scholarship, with its precision, boundedness, and objectivity, and that of practice, with its fluidity, instability, and subjectivity.
Quoting from the work of planning expert Donald Schon, the editors note that there is a “hard high ground where practitioner can make effective use of research-based theory and techniques, and there is a swampy lowland where situations are confusing ‘messes’ incapable of technical solution. The difficulty is that the problems of the high ground, however great their technical interest, are often relatively unimportant to clients and the larger society, while in the swamp are the problems of greatest human concern.”
These conflicting knowledge bases and differing professional goals (e.g., truth versus job creation) mean that researchers and practitioners operate from different starting assumptions and the latter group wants something more than empirical evidence. The economic developer needs “new angles” for seeing problems and devising solutions, narratives for explaining their work, metaphors for inspiring action, and concrete tools for delivering the “goods” – more employment and a stronger tax base.
Consequently, Mier and Bingham developed seven common (but generally unstated) metaphors that they believed guided policy and practice and were not hard discrete categories, but fuzzy, alternative frameworks for understanding and action. The authors also demonstrated how the varied theories fit into different metaphors. Here are the seven metaphors:
- Economic development as problem solving. This metaphor was based on the need to limit and prioritize the data needed to reach a decision. Targeted industry strategies and transportation cost minimization modes are just two examples of methods within this “paradigm.” The metaphor’s general thrust is to focus, focus, focus by defining the types of data gathering that is truly essential, establishing the nature of the problem or opportunity to be addressed, moving quickly into action planning (and any required intellectual and research work), and pursuing strategic and tactical courses that avoid conflict. Its chief pitfall is premature closure – defining the nature of the community’s development challenge too quickly and being a development copy-cat, not innovator or customizer.
- Economic development as running a business. Government is secondary to the process. Organizational and management thinking is more relevant than economics. You need to be able to “speak corporate” to succeed. There’s attendant tendencies to over-emphasize the role of capital investment as the most important factor in the development process, to privilege organizations and persons commanding capital, to work mainly with mainstream business constituencies, to adopt conventional business climate notions as the lens for viewing development realities, to emphasize the sanctity of private markets and the importance of elite partnerships.
- Economic development as building a growth machine. This perspective sides with the pro-growth factions in the area – most local officials, place-based business interests such as utilities, retail, real estate, bankers, and others. Export base models and project impact analyses are among its favored tools. Those that are less powerful and are either run-over or bypassed by growth are rarely among its foremost concerns.
- Economic development as preserving nature and place. This metaphor emphasizes the homegrown economy, smart growth, and local initiative. It is more critical of standard practice than the earlier views. It may have a social justice vision, a “small is beautiful” ethos, a nature and heritage preservationist mentality, a not-in-my-backyard anger. Its pitfalls include: minimizing ties with other localities, regions, and nations, ignoring economies of scale, and allowing better land use planning to trump equity issues.
- Economic development as releasing human potential. This metaphor makes up for decades of the field’s neglect of human capital and entrepreneurial initiative. It also focuses more clearly on the fact that development is ultimately about people and their standard of living and inclusion, not just profits. However, this paradigm has not yet reshaped the development profession and practice as much as it should.
- Economic development as exerting leadership. This is a strong undercurrent in development today. Planner Edward Blakely captures this concept in a simple formula: economic development equals capacity time’s resources. And by capacity, he means leadership and organizational strengths. Viewing this mathematically, a “c” that is less than “one” lowers the impact of other resources, such as a good location, a skilled workforce, low energy costs, etc. Leadership has always been important, but now it’s shifting from sheer civic boosterism to vision, collaborative and negotiating skills, reaching out and mobilizing.
- Development as a quest for social justice. A lot of development projects are sold on the basis of aiding those that are most disadvantaged and struggling. Sadly, few really deliver on this promise. While operating within market parameters, this view calls for broadening asset ownership and expanding economic opportunities for places and people left behind. At times, it even embraces conflict as the only way to bust a logjam. The view also tends to amplify the indigenous development and community capacity and control ideas of some of the other metaphors. Needless to say, this is a tough row to hoe. Race and class issues come to the fore, along with the need to nurture people power.
In conclusion, a given development strategy is not just context dependent or ordained by science; its associated values, stories, vocabulary, and metaphors shape its destiny, its successes and failures. Mier and Bingham remind us that promoting alternative, better futures is a thread running through all seven metaphors. But to do this with more effectiveness, environmental sensitivity, and inclusion, developers must increase their mindfulness of the omissions and biases and politics hidden in these common metaphors.