Economic development is half policy and half practice - kind of an applied science and art that overlaps many other academic disciplines - urban and regional studies and planning, economics, geography, economic sociology, and economic history. It is an enigma, often crudely defined and full of contradictions.
Its fundamental definitions are contested. What is growth? What is development? How should its progress be measured? And what is progress? A lack of concord over definitions is usually taken as a sign of an intellectual discipline's scientific immaturity.
Yet, at the same time, it is as concrete as sales and advertising - seemingly an adjunct to practicing real estate. "Here's is a nice site for your plant."
Economic development, at times, is seemingly unambiguous. Either you won the contest or not. "Did you land that facility with its 300 jobs, or not?"
On the other hand, economic development is like opening a closet door and finding scores of unexecuted plans - all calling for the same reforms every five years - but almost none of them being acted on.
Or, here's another image of the field. Pages and pages of spreadsheets and data tables, with an accompanying text, featuring lots of frightening mathematical formulas, jargon, and writing in the passive voice, while missing a description of the context that would make it meaningful to the average elected official, high school graduate, entrepreneur or professional from another field. So, it appears that the only recourse, if one is to fully understand this and be linguistically equipped to read and to converse, one must join yet another newly formed sect, paddling down another academic tributary.
Yet, the most famous quip in economic development lore is: "Shoot at anything that flies. Claim anything that lands."
Indeed, economic development is not for wimps. It can be regarded at times as a "manly" profession (women are still a minority), involved in its own way with commerce, and not running our mouths all day at an ivory tower think-athon.
Here is another disconcerting fact. Many of our most respectable and methodologically rigorous studies don't quite measure the right thing, instead using a surrogate indicator.
But this behavior often violates the reasonable and justly famous maxim of the controversial sociologist C. Wright Mills - "Let your problems determine your methods and not your methods choose your problems."
Economic development cannot help from being political. Every economic change creates some winners, and losers. Moreover, "innovation requires abandonment" in Peter Drucker's immortal words. Some businesses and product lines have to go to make room for the new. What does one then do to address this challenge? How much do you cushion your community and workers from the whole process of "creative destruction?"
Lastly, communities want more jobs and a stronger tax base from their economic development strategies. Economic developers also make the case for their efforts by claiming that effective programs and projects have the potential of lessening uneven development and expanding opportunities for the unemployed and working poor, dislocated workers and other others struggling economically.
A corollary of this position is a developer perception that any efforts to reform or terminate business incentives will cost the community jobs, as well as weaken the image of its business climate.
Yet, unless designed expressly to aid these places and constituencies, it will not happen. At best, those people and jurisdictions that are already getting along fine will benefit much more and those suffering might find a way to cope.
In a profession rife with uncertainty and contradiction, what is needed is more truth in packaging and strategies structured to truly include all in a wider and more sustainable prosperity.