Journal of Planning Education and Research http://jpe.sagepub.com Integrating Investment and Equity: A Critical Regionalist Agenda for a Progressive Regionalism Jennifer Clark and Susan Christopherson Journal of Planning Education and Research 2009; 28; 341 DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08327371 The online version of this article can be found at: http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/3/341 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Additional services and information for Journal of Planning Education and Research can be found at: Email Alerts: http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://jpe.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations http://jpe.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/28/3/341 Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity A Critical Regionalist Agenda for a Progressive Regionalism Jennifer Clark & Susan Christopherson Abstract 䉴 Introduction The regional question was rediscovered in the 1990s, not only by planners but also by geographers, economists, and political scientists concerned with growing spatial and socioeconomic inequality within metropolitan areas and within national economies. The idea of “progressive” regionalism developed in response to this challenge. Although there are many ways to address socioeconomic inequality, the regionalist approach is distinctive in focusing on a particular spatial scale and on political and economic strategies within city–regions or metropolitan areas. In planning, intense debates have emerged over how to promote regional policies that can concurrently foster economic competitiveness and provide social equity (Markusen 1999; Brenner 2002; Imbroscio 2006). In this article, we address the question of what kind of regional policies achieve progressive goals, and although we touch on the methodological debate about how best to study regions, our focus is on the framework for a progressive regionalism. By progressive, we mean regional policies that (1) produce effective economic growth strategies while promoting equity and (2) build an institutional framework that supports civic participation and representation. This second goal—expanding the practices of community-based organizing while shifting the scale of action—is a central challenge in the new regionalism and the ongoing “regional project” (Massey 1979). To engage this challenge, we use the lens of “critical regionalism” to identify two types of regionalism in contemporary practice and discuss how these regionalisms contribute to an emerging progressive regional agenda. We define these regionalisms as investment regionalism (IR) and distributive regionalism (DR) and highlight the different actors and agendas behind these regional practices (see Table 1). We then propose that the keys to a progressive regional policy agenda include a focus on the labor market as a whole and an ability to build multiscalar coalitions and function at multiple scales of governance. We argue that contemporary regionalism is an ongoing and incomplete project, with IR incomplete in the first regard, while DR is incomplete in the second. However, there is the potential for building a progressive agenda that stands on the substantial successes of each practice. This progressive agenda addresses the challenges, particularly growing social and spatial inequality, facing regional policy makers in an era of trade liberalization and market integration, that is, of what we have come to call globalization. Journal of Planning Education and Research 28:341-354 DOI: 10.1177/0739456X08327371 Initial submission, October 2006; revised submissions, August 2007, May and July 2008; final acceptance, September 2008. © 2009 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Since the 1980s, different conceptions of regionalism have emerged, reflecting distinct perspectives on place and space and a variety of policy orientations. The debates in planning over which regional policies are both “equitable” and “democratic” have been intense. This article clarifies these debates through a critical regionalist approach to the two prominent “regionalisms,” investment and distributive. This article then proposes how to strengthen the connections between investment and distributive regionalism and build on the successful practices in each arena. The authors argue that a progressive regionalism requires focus on (1) the labor market as a whole and (2) multiscalar coalitions and policy initiatives. Keywords: critical regionalism; regional economic development; labor markets; multiscalar coalitions Jennifer Clark is an assistant professor in the School of Public Policy at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research focuses on regional economic development policy, agglomeration economies, territorial innovation systems, and labor market restructuring and regulation. Susan Christopherson is J. Thomas Clark Professor in the Department of City and Regional Planning at Cornell University. She is an economic geographer whose research focuses on economic development, urban labor markets, and location patterns in service industries, particularly the media industries. 341 Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 342 Table 1. Regional traditions and the emergence of progressive regionalism. Regionalisms Investment Development tradition Economic development Goals Economic growth Focus Investment: export-base; competitiveness Constituencies Firms Industries Sectors Firm subsidies, real estate development, regional innovation systems; industry clusters Policy tools Progressive Critical regionalism and “the regional question” Sustainable development and quality of life 1. Labor market institutions and intermediaries 2. Regional infrastructure Workers Universities Education and training institutions State and federal investments in science and technology, education, training, and infrastructure in regional institutions Examples in practice National: Alliance for Regional Stewardship; Council on Competitiveness Regional: Bay Area Council; Greater Rochester Enterprise; High Tech Rochester WRTP (Milwaukee) University applied research: CJTC (UCSC); Regional Institute (SUNY-Buffalo); CQGRD (Georgia Tech); CURA (Humphrey Institute, University of Minnesota) Distributive Community development Equity Distribution: access, opportunity Neighborhoods Communities Working poor Metropolitan governance (growth management tax-base sharing) and community-based organizations (CDFIs, CDCs) National: LISC; Gamaliel Foundation Regional: Common Good Planning Council (Rochester ); Georgia STAND-UP (Atlanta); LAANE (Los Angeles) Community: Project QUEST (San Antonio); SAJE (Los Angeles) Note: CDC = community development corporation; CDFI = community development financial institution; CJTC = Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community; CQGRD = Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development; CURA = Center for Urban and Regional Affairs; Georgia STAND-UP = Georgia Strategic Alliance for New Directions & Unified Priorities; LAANE = Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy; LISC = Local Initiative Support Coalition; QUEST = Quality Employment through Skills Training; SAJE = Strategic Actions for a Just Economy; SUNY = State University of New York; UCSC = University of California–Santa Cruz; WRTP = Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership. First, a few words to define our terms. Investment regionalists perceive the region as a locus of global economic competition. They focus outward—on the region within the global economy. From the perspective of investment regionalists, the goals of regionalism can best be achieved by emphasizing a growing economy and by expanding the proportion of high-skilled jobs in export industries. A central assumption behind IR is that public investment in the physical infrastructure, research, and labor market skills that foster innovation and increase firm productivity in the export sectors will rebound to the benefit of the regional economy, thus creating jobs and protecting the region against cost-based competition. Ultimately, all residents of the region will benefit from these investments and a healthy regional economy. By contrast, distributive regionalists perceive the region as the locus of spatial inequality in society. Distributive regionalists look inward—at inequalities between city and suburb and at their costs. They emphasize equity and access as the keys to building a successful region. Distributive regionalists contend that regions with poor central cities and a lower skilled inner-city population will not be able to compete with regions with a more equitable distribution of resources and socioeconomically healthy central cities. They are less concerned with how to grow the regional “pie” than with how that pie is carved up and who makes the allocation decisions. In many discussions, the concept of regional development, balanced between growth and distribution, is characterized by the “three Es” of equity, efficiency, and the environment. In this article, we restructure this paradigm along parameters set by regional development practice in the United States, where IR—concerned with efficient growth—and DR—concerned with equity and sustainability—have diverged, resulting in different political coalitions and distinct policy strategies (Orfield 1997; Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Imbroscio 2006; Swanstrom 2006). We propose an alternative model based on DR and IR to foster rethinking about how perspectives on the regional question originate and move along different paths in research and practice. Our intent is to demonstrate the potential for convergence based on the shared concern for social and economic inequality. That being said, we agree with the Neil Brenner’s cautionary argument: No scale of governance can ever be reduced to a single political or ideological project, but represents instead a Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity 䉳 multidimensional institutional force field permeated by ongoing conflicts, struggles and contradictions. From this perspective, there is nothing intrinsically progressive, or, for that matter, intrinsically reactionary, about the metropolitan or regional scale of governance. Until they are vested with substantive political content and organizational capacities through place-specific sociopolitical struggles, metropolitan institutions represent no more than empty jurisdictional shells. (Brenner 2002, 18) Our examination of the two parallel trajectories of contemporary regional practice, IR and DR, is intended to analyze the actors and actions remaking the regional scale and to understand the processes of this rescaling. To that end, we examine how these parallel regionalisms emerged from different theoretical paths and political perspectives, for behind each conception of regionalism is a policy agenda, a body of theory, and a history of practice. We use a critical regionalist perspective to assess what IR and DR have to offer an emerging progressive agenda, examining the limitations as well as the strengths of each approach, as represented in contemporary practice. Each of these approaches is complex and changing. This is a learning process, especially as it results in perspectives that can create bridges between IR and DR as communities of practice. 䉴 A Critical Regionalist Perspective on the Emergence of Parallel Regional Practices There is a well-established argument for the region as the scale for urban and metropolitan governance on equity, efficiency, and sustainability grounds, although debate continues as to whether metropolitan government is the ideal institutional response (Orfield 1997; Katz 2000; Swanstrom and Banks 2007). Despite this consensus on the region as the scale of action, academics argue that “getting the scale right” is only half the objective. It is necessary to get the policies, institutions, and the politics right as well (Markusen 2001). And as we will discuss in more detail in the section on multiscalar coalitions, action cannot be limited to the regional scale. A literature on “the regional question” and an emerging critical regionalism raises questions about the taken-forgranted role of the region as dominant scale of action in the global economy and about the construction of interregional competition (MacLeod 2001; Brenner 2002). This literature, centered in economic geography, includes critiques of the proposition that nation–state power is declining, demonstrations of the continued influence of nation–state policy on subnational territories and uneven development, and analysis of the “contingent” nature of regions as temporary and rhetorically based spatial constructions (Lovering 1999; MacLeod 2001; Hudson 2005; Jonas and Ward 2007). Critical regionalists examine the processes through which regions emerge as political–economic spaces and how they are defined with respect to other scales of political and economic 343 action—cities, states or provinces, the nation–state and the global economy. This approach, which puts emphasis on how economic institutions and political power shape how territories are defined and governed, has significant implications for policy and practice. The critical regionalist approach is embedded in a discourse that recognizes regional path dependencies, the importance of specialized regional labor markets, and the significance of power relations in local firm and institutional networks (Christopherson and Clark 2007c). This literature draws its empirical grounding from a body of “critical case studies” in regional studies, economic geography, and planning. The research focuses on the industry in the region and, as a consequence, uncovers the nuanced and detailed infrastructure of the regional economy, from firm networks to labor market intermediaries to occupational structures to the interand intraregional spatial organization of production. There is, of course, a methodological tension here, as critical regionalism is deeply invested in the “qualitative turn” in economic geography and thus exposed to the (valid) critique that such “thick description” comes at the expense of clear policy recommendations (Markusen 1999; Peck 2003; Chapple and Lester 2007). Critical regionalism positions itself in contrast to the “new regionalism” in economic geography, which focuses primarily on competitive regional policies, and on the success stories of high-technology regions and innovation-driven industries.1 This tendency to “search under the lamp light” leads to a best practices approach, encouraging “lagging” regions to emulate the leadership styles and “entrepreneurial ethos” of successful regions and to employ regional benchmarking to track their progress. As a consequence, researchers and practitioners are oriented toward divining new metrics to measure regional capacities and mark progress (Shapira, Youtie, and Roessner 1996). Critical regionalism, however, is oriented toward a multiscalar political–economic approach that leads to the evaluation of how public–private policy affects (both indirectly and directly) the propensity of firms to invest in one region rather than another (e.g., trade policy, defense expenditures) and of regional capacity to respond to changing economic conditions (education and health policy). An analysis of the forces constructing interregional inequalities has been almost completely missing from the new regionalism despite evidence of persistent and growing spatial inequality (Silva and Leichenko 2004; Glasmeier 2006). The reason behind this absence can be found in the narrative interpreting regional growth or stagnation in the global economy. This narrative attributes the inability of regions to develop as centers of quality jobs and innovation to their lack of endogenous characteristics such as “entrepreneurial spirit” and the absence of functional networks such as “interfirm cooperation” rather than to a more broadly defined economic and political environment that produces patterns of uneven development (Smith 1984). Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 344 Critical regionalists have responded skeptically to the new regionalism, not because they want to undermine the utility of the region as a political action space but because they question a depiction of the global economy as exclusively oriented around autonomous regional economies. In fact, one of the major concerns of the critical regionalists is the assumption that decisions regarding economic vitality and socioeconomic viability are made predominantly at the regional scale. This assumption may blind policy makers to the ways in which state and national policy affects regional capacities and possibilities. The construction of the region as autonomous from the broader national and global economy leads to the celebration of successful regions and the castigation or pitying of those whose economies lag the leaders. “By this means, regional problems are conceptualized, not as problems experienced by regions, but as problems, for which, somehow, those regions are to blame” (Massey 1979, 234). This construction also prioritizes an inward focus on regional development strategies rather than an outward focus on market governance policies or claims to the resources of state and national government. Todd Swanstrom (2006) critiques the vision of an autonomous region, pointing to the context within which local governments in the United States function: Federal and state laws have constructed an artificial system in which resources are systematically segregated from needs, fiscally hamstrung governments engage in a “beggar-thy-neighbor” competition for tax ratables, and citizens construct their interests around parochial political boundaries. (P. 254) That there are choices to be made, with implications for spatial and social equity is demonstrated in research on comparative national responses to the pressures of “globalization” (Pontusson 2005). As Swanstrom notes, there is a role for national and state governments to shape responses to global economic transitions other than simply to prescribe an “every ship on its own bottom” approach to cities and regions, typical in the United States. Critical regionalists advocate a return to analysis of uneven development and interregional inequality on the assumption that there are broader processes at work constructing regional inequalities and affecting the capacity of regional actors to respond to globally integrated markets and the expansion of potential production locations. Although leadership and initiative play a significant role in the ability of regions to capitalize on the advantages that accrue to them as a result of defense expenditures, trade policy and deregulation and national and state policies are more important to what separates Biloxi, Detroit, and Buffalo from San Jose and Seattle than the capacity to adopt best practices (Bluestone and Harrison 1982; Markusen 1991). For example, trade liberalization policy encourages firms to outsource production, while deregulation raises the cost of transporting goods and people from small- and medium-sized markets outside the megalopolitan regions (Treado and Giarratani 2008). In this article, we explore the possibility for a different vision of regionalism in the knowledge economy. This new vision requires “re-placing” the region in a political–economic context, understanding that the regional scale is being created both politically and discursively. Our intention is to stimulate thinking about the political processes and policies constructing the region—not only in the region but at all scales where political action is instrumental in constructing space. 䉴 IR IR is a set of development strategies focused on firms and industries with the emphasis on wealth generation and job growth as measures of success (see Table 1). The IR focus on firms and industries is consonant with conventional regional economic development programs in the United States, although some more progressive approaches cross traditional boundaries (e.g., they include union participation). Conventional economic development practice attributes job creation to incentives provided to individual firms and a favorable regional “business climate.” IR, however, takes a broader perspective on what needs to be considered in regional development activities. IR includes traditional U.S. economic development practices rooted in export base theory and competitive advantage, along with agglomeration economies (industry clusters and the regional innovation systems discourse associated with the new regionalism in economic geography (Porter 1990; Scott 1998). In the United States, local economic development policy historically has taken two interrelated forms: (1) tax-based subsidies to individual firms intended to influence their location decisions and (2) redevelopment incentives to increase property values (Malizia and Feser 1999). In the first case, that of firm specific subsidies, results are measured in terms of jobs created. In the second, the measure of success is an increase in the local tax base. Redevelopment has been particularly favored in cities because of its potential to increase property values (Sagalyn 1997; Fainstein 2001). The efficacy of these strategies has been critiqued for sixty years, and as many critics have noted, they rarely achieve their stated objectives (Bartik 1991). More recently, ideas counter to this economic development practice have gained popularity within the IR perspective. They include concepts such as regional innovation systems, the creative class, and industry clusters (Porter 1998; Cooke 2002; Florida 2002). These strategies tend to emphasize regional solutions to shared problems and a reorientation of investment to innovative institutions and human capital rather than direct firm subsidies. The first of these counter ideas of what constitutes a good regional business climate was initiated by corporate leaders for Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity 䉳 whom a different set of factors are central to profitability and success in global markets. An example of this new approach to IR is that advocated by the Alliance for Regional Stewardship (ARS). The ARS serves as an umbrella organization for regional economic development organizations and is oriented around solving the problems caused by diseconomies of scale. Its goal is to improve the quality of life in metropolitan regions and to make the region a more efficient place to do business (ARS 2007). The Bay Area Council, for example, emphasizes a parallel and complementary investment approach: the need to construct regional capacity for innovation and attract and retain a high-technology labor force (Bay Area Council 2007). The goal of both these investment approaches is to grow successful new firms in the export sectors of the regional economy and to make regions attractive to high-skilled workers. These organizations do not completely eschew the cost-driven model that dominates economic development policy, but they advocate for other ways to evaluate the regional business climate. They emphasize corporate leadership and commitment to making the region work along with a “business”-based rather than political approach (Kanter 2000). The regions that serve as models for this kind of regionalism are the hightechnology regions of the West Coast, such as Seattle and San Francisco, rather than the older, industrial regions of the Northeast such as Pittsburgh or Cleveland. These regional organizations are distinguished by a major asset, a group of corporate leaders who identify with and are committed to improving the quality of life in the regions in which they operate and live. They recognize that the region’s image affects their corporate image and that the quality of life and services in the region affects their ability to attract and retain skilled workers and effective managers. In many respects, their regional commitments and reformist orientations are a contemporary version of historical business-led civic reform movements and corporate paternalism (Jacoby 1997). What is different this time around is that the focus is on the region (rather than on the city), and emphasis is placed on investments, such as in public transportation, which require public commitments rather than private investment by the firms themselves. Notably missing from the agenda of these organizations are explicit efforts to advocate for federal, state, or regional policies that are directed at providing the region’s poorer citizens with a higher quality of life or access to good jobs. Although some members of these organizations may recognize the need for such initiatives, the political perspectives of private sector and corporate leadership at the core of these coalitions preclude movement in more socially inclusive and progressive directions. As Todd Swanstrom (2006) points out, “First, it is crucial to understand that there is nothing inherently progressive (egalitarian) or democratic about action at the regional scale. . . . Regional policies are just as capable of supporting a regional growth machine as a regional opportunity regime” (251). 345 The second counter idea within IR advocates public investment in innovation capacity, particularly in universities, but also in publicly supported regional research centers, such as the Centers for Excellence in New York and Innovation Centers in Georgia (Wolfe 1999; Christopherson and Clark 2007a). These innovation strategies make a direct connection between public investment and job creation. Underlying the rationale for public investment in innovation is the argument that research and development capacities in regional institutions will produce new, high-technology firms in industries such as nanotechnology or biotechnology within the region. As such, the rationale for innovation strategies is a two-pronged justification for public investment in applied research—science and technology and economic development. The economic development rationale underscores claims for state and local public sector investment in regional research and development capacities. However, empirical evidence indicates that technological change and public investment in research and development produces a wide range of economic impacts—employment growth is only one scenario. As a result, the question of whether innovation is connected to job growth is hotly contested within regional studies circles (Christopherson and Clark 2007c). Critics of the innovation and job creation link, such as John Lovering, argue that claims that innovation in export base industries will lead to regional job growth should be met with skepticism since the evidence does not back up the relationship. This skepticism has its origins in two characteristics of innovation-based production: (1) a potential disjuncture between the location of innovation and the resulting production and (2) the significance of process innovation (such as lean production methods), which can slow job growth in knowledge-based industries (Lovering 2001; Dicken 2003). Recent studies of the computer, telecommunications, and watch industries all tell complex stories about the reorganization of production processes and job growth (Angel and Engstrom 1995; Glasmeier 2000; Wolf-Powers 2001). For example, in the United States, science and technology research was supported historically by the federal government. The devolution of research support to the state level raises a new set of questions about accountability and impact—whether and to what extent local research and development investment is retained in the region and increases jobs, income, or productivity. Regions may have innovation capacity in their universities but lack the labor market skills to attract firms looking for locations to produce the commercialized product (this is sometimes called “absorptive capacity”). Even in cases where firms are established proximate to the innovation source, they may be forced to move away from the innovation source and closer to their investors if they accept venture capital or when they reach a critical size and need to tap a deeper labor pool (Florida and Samber 1999). Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 346 Second, the presence of a regional innovation system, including production facilities, may not produce large numbers of jobs. Small firms subcontracting to transnational corporations (TNCs) with global markets are under intense competitive pressure (Christopherson and Clark 2007b). They frequently cannot locate workers with the skills they require because the skill base of the regional labor market has been eroded by worker exit and poor basic education. For these reasons as well as cost competition, small specialized and innovative production firms turn to lean production methods to remain competitive. As a consequence, they create few jobs, although the (few) jobs they create may be good jobs (Harrison 1994a, 1994b; Christopherson et al. 2007). Because of its emphasis on productivity and innovation capacity, however, IR has focused positive attention on the labor market through its attention to high-technology skills. As a result, IR has created opportunities for labor market intermediaries, including unions, to play a role in training and representing a new generation of skilled workers. This opens the door to bargaining and training arrangements that could give the workforce in regional labor markets and labor market intermediaries more bargaining power. Finally, however, despite its considerable strengths in marshalling regional assets in the service of innovation capacity and high-technology skills, IR is not sufficient to the task of long-term regional development. That task requires more attention to the entire labor market and, by extension, to questions of distribution in and across regional economies. In addition to questions about its ability to create significant employment, IR is limited in its ability to address regional inequality. The contemporary IR agenda tends to obscure the fact that public investment in export industry innovation and jobs for the college educated are more likely to produce inequality than to “lift all boats.” In one trenchant critique of “the creative class” perspective on regional economic development, Eugene McCann notes that innovative centers in the U.S. economy are not immune to high levels of inequality. His analysis of Austin, Texas, demonstrates an unresolved disconnect between creative city discourse and the pressing concerns of those whose incomes did not benefit from and whose quality of life was undermined by the rise of the 1990s new economy. While late-twentieth century Austin gained an image as a high tech boomtown and a creative hometown where creatives could “live the life”, the city’s politics and policy were dominated by ongoing negotiations between the local state and various activist groups aimed at mitigating the negative effects of rapid urban growth on fragile landscapes and on lowincome people. (McCann 2007, 193) Although growth in knowledge-based industries may spur regional employment, much of the additional employment occurs in the retail and service industries (Drennan 2002; Markusen and Schrock 2006). As a consequence, critics see increasing income divergence, not employment growth, as the principal outcome of innovation-driven IR (Martin and Sunley 1998; Lovering 2001). Empirical work, particularly in regions formerly specialized in conventional manufacturing, reinforces this concern, suggesting that the presence of successful regional innovation capacity may not translate into wider and deeper economic development unless steps are specifically taken to “spread the wealth” created by a regional innovation system (Pendall, Drennan, and Christopherson 2004; Rutherford and Holmes 2006; Christopherson and Clark 2007c; Rutherford and Holmes 2008). 䉴 DR The concept of DR has its origins in the worlds of planning and community development practice as well as in planning theory. Theoretical underpinnings for DR emerged from advocacy planning and its associated concerns with equity and distributional justice (Davidoff 1965; Markusen 1985, 1987) and from the concept of “progressive cities,” in which concerns for equity, community empowerment, and governance are intertwined (Clavel 1986; Clavel and Wiewel 1991; Krumholz and Clavel 1994). From a broader perspective, the regional question in planning is rooted in the continuing interest and concern of planners with metropolitan and urban governance and the challenges of urbanization, exemplified by the work of Clarence Stein, Lewis Mumford, and other metropolitan planners and regionalists (Sussman 1976; Friedmann and Weaver 1979; Weir 2000). DR also draws from a literature in political science focused on metropolitan and urban governance. In its contemporary manifestation, DR is concerned with transparent and participatory governance. Its substantive agenda includes growth management to encourage efficiency through density, affordable housing, and tax-base sharing to facilitate equitable access to services, such as schools and transportation, and to the amenities that urban regions can provide, such as parks and cultural activities (Orfield 1997; Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001). DR emphasizes the need to build institutions and place-based capacity and, in both research and practice, is deeply engaged in questions of access, opportunity, and equity. At the heart of DR are concerns about how planning practice and political decisions affect people, communities, and neighborhoods. A critical tension in DR centers on the question of how to form and maintain coalitions that still represent the community. Indeed, contemporary community development practice takes two paths, one multiscalar within the region and one rooted in the neighborhood. In the emerging practice of DR, activists and advocates have worked to build equity and social justice coalitions between central cities and suburbs through several strategies, including metropolitan governance, faith-based organizations, Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity 䉳 and labor–community partnerships (Orfield 1997; Benner 2003; Pastor, Benner, and Matsuoka 2006). Recognizing that regionalism is not politically possible in all places, the distributive regional project has shifted to an advocacy agenda coordinated by urban–suburban faith-based groups under the umbrella of organizations such as the Gamaliel Foundation. MOSES (Metro Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength) in Detroit is one example of this regional approach. In another example, the Common Good Planning Council in Rochester, New York, uses a faith-based approach to advocate for regional solutions to shared problems. Labor–community partnerships have also taken on a regional approach. One prominent example is LAANE (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy) in Southern California. In another variation, Georgia STAND-UP (Georgia Strategic Alliance for New Directions & Unified Priorities) focuses on smart growth and economic justice in the Atlanta metro area. Perhaps the best known of these organizations combines a focus on jobs with a regional approach that brings labor directly into a cooperative effort to produce a skilled regional labor market. The Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP) in Milwaukee organizes training in both basic and nonbasic sectors. All of these organizations have begun to “jump scales” within the region, to connect equity-oriented organizations in the city with social justice organizations in adjacent suburbs and across regions.2 Most community-based organizations, however, remain defined by the neighborhood or urban scale. Highly visible community development programs, such as the Dudley Street Neighborhood Initiative in Boston and the East St. Louis Action Research Project, exemplify three key characteristics of efforts in the inner cities: (1) equitable access, (2) community empowerment, and (3) community ownership, that is, ownership of the development effort and its goals and ownership in the sense of taking control of community space (Medoff and Sklar 1994; Reardon 1998). DR, as its name implies, focuses primarily on the consumption side of the economic ledger. Questions about how metropolitan areas develop economically or create jobs or build a tax base take second place to questions of equity and social justice (Markusen 2007a). There are, however, examples of community-based organizations that expand the distributive model through concentrated programs to build job skills and extend opportunity and access to the labor market. One example, firmly rooted in a community advocacy tradition but specifically concerned with job creation and skill development is San Antonio’s Project QUEST (Quality Employment through Skills Training), originally founded by an offshoot of the Industrial Areas Foundation, Communities Organized for Public Service (COPS) (Osterman 1999). Another tactic involves combating wage stagnation through local living wage campaigns. The national coordination of a living wage campaign by the Association of Community 347 Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has led to 140 ordinances at a variety of scales and covering various sectors and occupations (ACORN 2008). Despite shared interests in alleviating poverty, fostering upward mobility, and creating well-compensated jobs, the path to a regional advocacy agenda remains complicated. Political scientists and public policy professionals in the tradition of urban politics have analyzed the barriers to regionalism and located them in fragmented governance and a growth coalition of politicians, developers, and unions that benefit individually and collectively from expansion of the metropolis on greenfield sites (Mollenkopf 1983; Dreier, Mollenkopf, and Swanstrom 2001; Swanstrom 2001; Weir and Rongerude 2007). In response, planners have not simply pursued the political path to advocate for regional solutions to metropolitan problems but also deployed the methodological skills of the profession to build the empirical case for regionalism. As the political project of regionalism has ebbed and flowed, urban and regional planners have committed to their own regional project. They have documented the problems of the city–region—social, environmental, economic, spatial— and the ways in which the failure to adopt multijurisdictional governance approaches within the region exacerbate the problems facing the metropolitan region as a whole. For example, the lack of affordable housing magnifies the effects of discrimination and poverty in urban neighborhoods but also increases the likelihood that job seekers will have to travel long distances to find jobs (Pendall 2000; Chapple 2006a). The failure of regional policy to address issues of access and transportation contributes to a metropolitan form in which household location is determined by a combination of socioeconomic status and racial and ethnic identity that dictates opportunity (Cervero 2001; Grengs 2002). Although transportation services are perhaps the most regionalized, due to federal requirements for metropolitan transportation planning, they are flawed in their implementation, as issues of equity and distribution take a back seat to questions of efficiency and engineering and opportunities for real estate development (Vogel 2002). Environmental justice has emerged as another research area supporting the move toward a progressive “distributive” regionalism. The concentration of environmental disamenities, such as bus depots, sewage treatment plants, increased truck traffic, and power generation and transmission facilities in densely populated, poor, and minority neighborhoods within the city limits, adds health and safety concerns to the already uneven distribution of access and opportunities to regional amenities (Pulido 2000; Rast 2006). DR, both as an analytical project demonstrating the pervasiveness and persistence of intraregional inequalities (and, thus, the case for a policy response to it) and as a project to marshal community-based organizations into multiscalar coalitions, has produced movement toward a progressive Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 348 regionalism. However, challenges remain. One challenge is the need for a broader political commitment to regionalism. As David Imbroscio noted in his critique of regionalist approaches, the regional strategy has met with stiff resistance from suburban counties and towns, which did not support annexation in the past or regional governance in the present (Jackson 1985; Imbroscio 2006). “It is not simply a question of having resources available to fund the equity agenda; the politics must also be supportive of redistributing these available funds” (Imbroscio 2006, 241). Again, the question is not only how to get the scale right but how to get the politics, policies, and institutions right as well. For DR, community-based organizations are central to successful projects that build labor market skills and access. The challenge, however, is to build on institutions and coalitions currently in place and expand their scope to the labor market as a whole. The second challenge is to actively pursue a multiscalar approach that recognizes a regionalism that is not limited to the regional scale, either in its advocacy or its organizing. In this issue, Todd Swanstrom and Brian Banks (2007) propose mechanisms by which the community-based organizations can “scale up” their activities and “go regional” without the prerequisite regional governance frameworks, which have, at least in the past, proved so difficult to achieve. 䉴 Connecting IR and DR: Focusing on the Labor Market as Whole and Multiscalar Initiatives Within both regional practices, there are examples of programs and organizations that manifest an emergent, progressive policy agenda that addresses questions of growth, agency, sustainability, and equity. There is an argument to be made, however, that the success of IR has been limited by its emphasis on high-skilled jobs and skill attainment as the route to equity and sustainability. At the same time, DR has failed to realize multiscalar governance despite its focus on community and agency. A careful reading of the history of IR and DR demonstrates, however, that there are programs and organizations in both traditions that foster a progressive regionalism in which the regional labor market and multiscalar coalitions are central to their objectives and strategies. We argue that understanding why the region is emerging as the consensus scale for economic and social policy is the first step in developing a progressive regionalism. The preceding discussion of critical regionalism as a theoretical lens through which to view the trajectories of IR and DR and the rhetorical, political, and economic underpinnings of the regional project addresses that challenge. The second step is establishing criteria for the claim of “progressiveness.” We argue that a progressive regionalism requires a focus on two elements that are central concerns of critical regionalism and incomplete projects in the practice of both IR and DR: (1) policies and strategies aimed at the labor market as a whole and (2) organizing and advocating through multiscalar coalitions to make claims on resources and shape agendas beyond the region. (1) The Labor Market as a Whole Progressive regionalists can move IR in a progressive direction by developing and supporting policy strategies that focus on the labor market as a whole, not only on high-skilled jobs in advanced technology and service firms. Both IR and DR can build on existing successes through the expansion of geographic scope and targeted occupational categories. Ideally, the IR approach (focused on high tech) and the DR approach (focused on low-income communities) would meet in the middle with a “whole labor market” approach. We suggest that a progressive regionalism would promote a less bifurcated approach to labor markets and workforce investment. This bifurcated approach, driven to some extent by public and nonprofit funding programs, complicates the coordination of career ladders and the possibility for bridging occupational and jurisdictional boundaries. We advocate this labor market approach for five specific strategic reasons. A labor market approach provides (1) a functional definition of the region (2) a bridge between labor demand concerns within economic development and the labor supply focus of community and workforce development, (3) a policy arena for sustainable investments in people in place, (4) an opportunity to tap national and state funding and resources, and (5) a site for exercising agency and differentiation within and across regions. As we described in the section on DR, it is not only business interests that have developed the ability to jump scale for advocacy or organizing. The power to define the region, however, lies largely with those with multiscalar political influence. A functional definition of the region, shaped by the scope of the labor market and not solely by political jurisdictions is a necessary step in a progressive approach. The act of linking the definition of the region back to the empirical project pursued by academic planners enables an analytical rather than purely political assessment of the scope of the regional economy. In practice, planners and regional scientists have long depended on definitions of the region determined by federal and state government, usually using metropolitan statistical areas as the standard for analysis of publicly available data. We are arguing that it is rhetorically and analytically important to place the labor market at the center of any discussion of strategies to move toward regional equity and sustainability. At the same time, we need to be conscious of alternative definitions of “the region” and what they tell us about critical processes and specific actors engaged in “making” regions. Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity 䉳 The process of constructing a new scale for the formal and informal negotiation of governance is not a neutral act. Participation in the regional project benefits some interests, while it lessens the influence of others. For example, coalitions that draw their political support at the city or neighborhood scale—community-based organizations, local governments, and public agencies—see the region as a landscape that is determined by interests able to jump scales, to use the multijurisdictional character of most U.S. regions to evade democratic accountability. They recognize that regions may be defined to capture the political allegiance of local officials or to create new political bases. They are also designed to exclude or undermine the power of central cities. This exclusion enables regional political actors to avoid confronting the consequences of spatial or social inequality and to maintain a “coherent” power base (Rusk 1999; Katz 2000). Rethinking the regional scale should move us away from the less challenging questions about the workforce, such as those embodied in the concept of the creative class, to more challenging questions about the jobs held by the majority of people. Ideally, a labor market orientation raises questions about how the costs of employment are accounted for. Who pays for skill acquisition? Who pays for commuting costs? Who pays for health insurance? These are the questions we see asked by community and labor coalitions that use multiscalar coalitions to lobby the U.S. Congress, while leveraging their political and economic bargaining power in the local labor market.3 A focus on regional labor markets has the potential to create a link between the job access and skill acquisition concerns raised in DR and the demand-oriented, firm-centered priorities of IR. A recent body of research examines these complex intersections between economic development and community development approaches to labor market intermediaries and job matching in an environment characterized by significant work reorganization and a “new psychological contract” (Theodore and Peck 2002; Benner 2003; Stone 2004; Van Jaarsveld 2004; Chapple 2006b). This research, which straddles the IR and DR approaches, addresses a key criticism of regional economic development organized around innovation systems—the failure to consider jobs beyond high-tech, export-oriented industries. A whole labor market approach focuses on the broad range of people in a labor market, their skills, and long-term potential for sustaining a livelihood. This includes the intermediaries that connect people to jobs, careers, and training (Giloth 1998, 2003; Benner 2003; Fitzgerald 2004; Benner et al. 2007). A whole labor market approach to regionalism also implicitly recognizes that labor market investments, just like labor market regulation, occur at the state and national scale. Indeed, funding for higher education, incumbent worker training, and technical up-skilling has been allocated historically to localities from state and national resources. A labor market approach prioritizes reclaiming those resources for the region and its workers. 349 Finally, a labor market approach leaves open the possibility for organizational and institutional differentiation across regions. In some regions, labor-oriented coalitions could play a central role, while faith-based or community-based organizations might be more effective intermediaries elsewhere. Indeed, a whole labor market approach does not privilege a single model across or within regions but allows for differentiation across places, industries, and occupations. This enables the regional labor market the opportunity to develop its own distinct specializations, institutions, and character within a global production system (Herod 1998). (2) Multiscalar Coalitions The second element in a progressive regional agenda is the formation of multiscalar coalitions to advocate and shape policy initiatives and claim resources at a variety of geographic scales. There are a number of examples of emerging multiscalar coalitions in both IR and DR that we have previously discussed. In addition, some advocacy coalitions organize and lobby across scales of government to make claims on federal resources. The Northeast-Midwest Institute, for example, organizes city and regional leaders from industrial areas in the Northeast and Midwest to make sure their issues stay on the national policy agenda.4 Regional leaders intent on building economies with a capacity for sustainability as well as innovation and job creation must think beyond the region’s perceived borders to understand how “global” processes, such as trade liberalization and deregulation as well as the accelerating power of TNCs, are likely to affect what is possible within the region. This means going beyond references to globalization as an explanation implying that “there is no alternative” to the specific policies and processes in which regional resources are implicated in global projects. Federal policies encourage rather than discourage interregional competition leading to the misallocation of public resources. Multinational bond-rating agencies empowered by the U.S. financial market governance regime, for example, increase the pressure on local governments to privatize public resources and adopt fiscal austerity measures (Hackworth 2007). From a critical regionalist perspective, a progressive regionalism has to acknowledge and address the processes constructing and reinforcing interregional inequalities, the costs of interregional competition, and its beneficiaries. These processes not only lead to new forms of social peripheralization but sap the ability of regions to develop progressive intraregional strategies. A globally attuned progressive regionalism engages both distributive and investment “regionalisms” but also considers how the region’s fortunes are shaped in a broader governance context and how the potential for regional economic development and distributive equity is affected by the Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 350 dynamic processes beyond the boundaries of the region. There are two key elements to engaging a multiscalar strategy: (1) understanding interregional competition in a global context and (2) making broad claims on state and national resources. A regionally focused federal role in economic development—and particularly in mitigating uneven development in lagging regions (rather than exacerbating it through policies that support zero-sum competition)—is a key element of a progressive regional agenda. Examples of TNCs’ use of regional resources to reduce their risks and enhance their competitive position in the global economy represent cautionary tales about the role of firm power in and across regions (Christopherson and Clark 2007b). They suggest that policy makers concerned with the long-term future of the region need to pursue a complex, multiscalar agenda that includes working in coalitions to reduce interregional competition and to ensure that the regional consequences of national policy are understood and confronted. The role of firms as political actors is visible within the region and is particularly evident in the construction of interregional competition. In the United States, a historically fragmented governmental system and devolution of responsibility for social welfare to states and localities create pressure to compete for “jobs” that can increase the tax base and pay for the ever-increasing burden of service provision. Within this context, an emphasis on regional winners and losers and the importance of regional entrepreneurship has encouraged and accelerated local subsidies to TNCs willing to locate activities in a region. Despite a broad awareness of the costs of interjurisdictional competition, subsidies to firms from subnational state and local governments have been steadily rising since the 1980s.5 A national policy initiative to curtail the interstate and interregional competition was proposed by a team of national economic policy experts and published by the Minneapolis Federal Reserve Bank in 1996. They articulated both the problem of interjurisdictional competition and outlined the solution: Only Congress, under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, has the power to enact legislation to prohibit the states from using subsidies and preferential taxes to compete with one another for businesses. Congress could enforce such a prohibition in a variety of ways. To name a few, it could tax real and imputed income from public subsidies, deny tax-exempt status to any public debt used to compete for businesses (there is already a limitation on the tax-exempt status of certain kinds of state and local public debt) and impound federal funds payable to a state engaging in such competition. (Burstein and Rolnick 1996, 36) Notable contributions to the national policy debate identifying possible solutions include the proposals to control interregional competition articulated in The Economic War Among the States and the changes in legal and institutional frameworks proposed by Gerald Frug (Rolnick 1996; Frug 1999, 2002; Markusen 2007b). Multiscalar coalitions are not about “shaming the inside game” (Imbroscio 2006). They are about claiming a seat at the table where the cards are dealt.6 Regions are places, not simply sites of production. At the heart of this discussion are normative questions about what regional policy should do. Joan Fitzgerald and Nancey Green Leigh (2002) have argued that economic development should increase standards of living, reduce inequality, and promote sustainable resource use and production. However, the conventional regional economic development discourse often conflates regions and firms, reverting to the now completely discredited axiom that what is good for GM is good for Detroit. This discourse ignores the fact that contemporary multinational firms have the strategic ability to shift production from one region to another, to retool their processes, and reorganize and reorient their regional investments. This is fundamental to understanding the region in its global context. The partnership of multinational firms with the region is on the firm’s own terms. To share the benefits and not just the costs of competitive advantage, regions will have to set a new agenda for regional economic development policy. A progressive regional agenda would put the region’s priorities above those of the globally oriented firm. The power relationship— between production and place—remains at the heart of the region’s competitive dilemma just as it was for the city. Only the scale has changed. 䉴 Conclusions: Integrating Regionalism(s) DR and IR both offer crucial dimensions to a progressive regional project. A successful and sustainable regional economy needs investments in its research and development capacity, physical and institutional infrastructure, and a skilled labor market. It also must reflect norms of equity and social justice, as manifested in environmentally and socially safe communities, access to affordable housing, health care, and high-quality education. The two regionalisms have a number of factors working against their efforts. The first of these barriers is the fragmented character of urban governance in the United States. Devolution has pushed necessary redistributive policy making to the local scale, where it is likely to produce conflict rather than solutions. As a consequence, distributive and investment regionalists talk past one another and create different audiences, advocates, and adversaries. Second, although distributive and investment regionalists both see the region as the central scale of policy making, they are limited by a political discourse that perceives the region as disconnected from other scales of action and encourages the evaluation of success in terms of cost competition with other “autonomous” regional units. This discourse dominates Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity 䉳 IR to a far greater degree than DR; however, it collapses the universe of possibilities available to both constituencies by blaming the region and its inhabitants for processes and policies originating outside the region and proposing that responses to these processes must be limited to claims and conflicts within the region. In working against these constraints, both regionalisms have developed initiatives that often have a limited relationship with democratic processes or existing social institutions. These initiatives depend on personal relationships and individual leaders and so are fragile and difficult to replicate across space and time. Distributive regionalists have been particularly disadvantaged in this conflictual policy environment because their coalitions lack the power base that is associated with economic development. What they do have is the power to say no—to obstruct and slow down what they perceive as disadvantageous regional initiatives (McCann 2007). For planners, the tension between IR and DR highlights an emerging challenge for research, teaching, and advocacy. As more and more universities invest in applied research on regional issues, there is an opportunity to articulate regionalism beyond a “silo” approach. Indeed, there are a number of university-based applied research centers that effectively train cohorts of planning students to think simultaneously about the region and the neighborhood and understand planning and policy, as implicated both in replicating and rectifying uneven investment outcomes. To move ahead, a progressive regionalism needs to encourage policy measures that address the limitations of IR and DR and bring together their positive normative values. This will require moving beyond the agendas encompassed by the existing coalitions to rethink the region and the regional economy and developing new coalitions oriented to a multiscalar policy environment. 351 $1 billion in subsidies from state and local governments in the United States. In a detailed study, Good Jobs First found subsidies to Wal-Mart in the form of free or reduced-price land, infrastructure assistance, tax increment financing, property tax breaks, state corporate income tax credits, sales tax rebates, enterprise zone (and other zone) status, job training and worker recruitment fund, tax-exempt bond financing, and general grants (Mattera and Purinton 2004). Although subsidies undermine market efficiency and are frequently fiscally irresponsible, corporations operating in the United States continue to seek incentive packages and play regions against one other to get “a better deal.” Transnational corporations in both old and new industries, including Boeing, Intel, IBM, Dell, Ford, and Honda, are adept players of the subsidy game and among the top recipients of subsidy deals. 6. Indeed, this is nothing new (see Kristensen and Zeitlin 2005). Many academic planners and practitioners have long played in the national-, state-, regional-, and community-level policy games, advocating for policies that take a regional approach with attention to neighborhood impacts. The Regional Institute at the University of Buffalo balances regional economic development projects, such as regional economic impact assessments, with community development issues, such as inventories of vacant properties in distressed neighborhoods (see Table 1). Similarly, the Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development at the Georgia Institute of Technology focuses on the neighborhood impacts of regional transportation and park projects. Those impacts are not limited to land use or traffic congestion but encompass environmental issues, such as air quality, and public health issues, such as obesity. At the University of California at Santa Cruz, the Center for Justice, Tolerance & Community combines community advocacy with a regional agenda, while challenging policy makers to make equity a priority. The Center for Urban and Regional Affairs at the University of Minnesota’s Humphrey Institute has balanced community development and neighborhood needs within a regional policy framework for thirty years. Authors’ Note: We would like to thank Pierre Clavel, Harley Etienne, and John Walsh as well as Karen Chapple and three anonymous reviewers for comments and suggestions. Please address correspondence to Jennifer Clark, Assistant Professor, School of Public Policy, Georgia Institute of Technology, D. M. Smith Building, 685 Cherry Street, Atlanta, GA 30332-0345; e-mail: jennifer.clark@gatech.edu. 䉴 Notes 1. The orientation of “new regionalism” in planning is somewhat less directly connected to investment regionalism than the new regionalism that has evolved in economic geography and in disciplines that derive practices from the theories behind territorial innovation systems. See Wheeler (2002), Moulaert (2003), Moulaert and Sekia (2003), and Simmie (2005). 2. For further information, see LAANE (Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy 2008), Georgia STAND-UP (Georgia Strategic Alliance for New Directions & Unified Priorities 2008), and WRTP (Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership 2007). 3. Todd Swanstrom (2006) discusses several examples of this. The organizing and lobbying strategies of the Change to Win coalition demonstrate the beginnings of a coordinated effort among labor unions. 4. Northeast-Midwest Institute (NEMW) (2008). 5. With increasing corporate bargaining power, the problem of interjurisdictional competition in the United States has worsened. Good Jobs First, an organization that tracks corporate subsidies, estimated that by 2004, Wal-Mart had received more than 䉴 References Alliance for Regional Stewardship (ARS). 2007. http://www. regionalstewardship.org/about.html (accessed August 2007). Angel, D. P. and J. Engstrom (1995). Manufacturing systems and technological change: The U.S. personal computer industry. Economic Geography 71 (1): 79. Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). 2008. Living wage resource center: Living wage wins. http://www.livingwagecampaign.org/index.php?id= 1961 (accessed May 25, 2008). Bartik, T. 1991. Who benefits from state and local economic development policies? Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Bay Area Council. 2007. About us. http://www.bayareacouncil .org/bay_area_council.php (accessed August 2007). Benner, C. 2003. Labour flexibility and regional development: The role of labour market intermediaries. Regional Studies 37 (6): 621–33. Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 352 Benner, C., L. Leete, M. Pastor (2007). Staircases or treadmills: labor market intermediaries and economic opportunity in a changing economy. New York, Russell Sage Foundation. Bluestone, B., and B. Harrison 1982. The deindustrialization of America: Plant closings, community abandonment, and the dismantling of basic industry. New York: Basic Books. Brenner, N. 2002. Decoding the newest “metropolitan regionalism” in the USA: A critical overview. Cities 19 (1): 3–21. Burstein, M. and A. Rolnick (1996). Congress should end the economic war for sports and other business. The Region 10 (2): 35-36. Cervero, R. (2001). Efficient urbanisation: Economic performance and the shape of the metropolis. Urban Studies 38 (10): 1651–71. Chapple, K. 2006a. Overcoming mismatch: Beyond dispersal, mobility, and development strategies. Journal of the American Planning Association 72 (3): 322–36. Chapple, K. 2006b. Networks to nerdistan: The role of labor market intermediaries in the entry-level IT labor market. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 30 (3): 548–63. Chapple, K., and B. Lester 2007. Emerging patterns of regional resilience. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Building Resilient Regions. Working paper 2007-13, Berkeley: Institute of Urban and Regional Research, University of California. Christopherson, S., W. Brown, L. Novakovic, and N. Rightor (2007). Advanced Manufacturing in New York’s Southern Tier. Albany: New York State Association of Counties. Christopherson, S., and J. Clark. 2007a. The politics of firm networks: How large firm power limits small firm innovation. Geoforum 38 (1): 1–3. Christopherson, S., and J. Clark. 2007b. Power in firm networks: What it means for regional innovation systems. Regional Studies 41 (9): 1223–36. Christopherson, S., and J. Clark. 2007c. Remaking regional economies: Power, labor, and firm strategies in the knowledge economy. New York: Routledge. Clavel, P. 1986. The progressive city: Planning and participation, 1969–1984. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Clavel, P., and W. Wiewel. 1991. Harold Washington and the neighborhoods: Progressive city government in Chicago, 1983–1987. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Cooke, P. 2002. Regional innovation systems and regional competitiveness. In Innovation and social learning: Institutional Adaptation in an Era of Technological Change, edited by M. Gertler and D. Wolfe, 177–203. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Davidoff, P. 1965. Advocacy and pluralism in planning. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (4): 331–8. Dicken, P. 2003. Global shift: Reshaping the global economic map in the 21st century. New York, Guilford. Dreier, P., J. Mollenkopf, and T. Swanstrom. 2001. Place matters: Metropolitics for the 21st century. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Drennan, M. P. 2002. The information economy and American cities. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. Fainstein, S. S. 2001. Competitiveness, cohesion, and governance: Their implications for social justice. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (4): 884–8. Fitzgerald, J. (2004). Moving the workforce intermediary agenda forward. Economic Development Quarterly 18 (1): 3-9. Fitzgerald, J., and N. G. Leigh. 2002. Economic revitalization: Cases and strategies for city and suburb. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Florida, R. 2002. The rise of the creative class: And how it’s transforming work, leisure, community, and everyday life. New York: Basic Books. Florida, R., and M. Samber. 1999. Capital and creative destruction: Venture capital and regional growth in U.S. industrialization. In The new industrial geography: Regions, regulation, and institutions, edited by T. Barnes and M. Gertler, 265–91. New York: Routledge. Friedmann, J., and C. Weaver. 1979. Territory and function: The evolution of regional planning. London: Arnold. Frug, G. 1999. City making: Building communities without building walls. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Frug, G. 2002. Beyond regional government. Harvard Law Review 113:1763–836. Georgia Strategic Alliance for New Directions & Unified Priorities (Georgia STAND-UP). 2008. Our mission. http://www.georgiastandup.org/purpose_mission.html (accessed June 30, 2008). Glasmeier, A. (2000). Manufacturing time: Global competition in the watch industry, 1795-2000. New York, The Guilford Press. Glasmeier, A. 2006. An atlas of poverty in America: One nation, pulling apart, 1960–2003. New York: Routledge. Giloth, R. (1998). Jobs & economic development : strategies and practice. Thousand Oaks, Calif., Sage Publications. Giloth, R. (2003). Workforce intermediaries: Partnerships for the future. Economic Development Quarterly 17 (3): 215. Grengs, J. 2002. Community-based planning as a source of political change: The transit equity movement of Los Angeles’ bus riders union. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (2): 165–78. Hackworth, J. R. 2007. The neoliberal city: Governance, ideology, and development in American urbanism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Harrison, B. 1994a. Lean and mean: The changing landscape of corporate power in the age of flexibility. New York: Basic Books. Harrison, B. 1994b. The small firms myth. California Management Review 36 (3): 142–57. Herod, A. 1998. Organizing the landscape: Geographical perspectives on labor unionism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hudson, R. 2005. Region and place: Devolved regional government and regional economic success? Progress in Human Geography 29 (5): 618–25. Imbroscio, D. L. 2006. Shaming the inside game: A critique of the liberal expansionist approach to addressing urban problems. Urban Affairs Review 42 (2): 224–48. Jackson, K. T. 1985. Crabgrass frontier: The suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Jacoby, S. M. 1997. Modern manors: Welfare capitalism since the New Deal. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Jonas, A. E. G., and K. Ward. 2007. Introduction to a debate on city-regions: New geographies of governance, democracy and social reproduction. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 (1): 169–78. Kanter, R. M. 2000. Business coalitions as a force for regionalism. In Reflections on regionalism, edited by B. Katz, chap. 6. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Katz, B., ed. 2000. Reflections on regionalism, foreword by Vice President Al Gore. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Kristensen, P. H., and J. Zeitlin. 2005. Local players in global games: The strategic constitution of a multinational corporation. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Krumholz, N., and P. Clavel. 1994. Reinventing cities: Equity planners tell their stories. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Los Angeles Alliance for a New Economy (LAANE). 2008. Building a city of justice. http://www.laane.org/about.html (accessed June 2008). Lovering, J. 1999. Theory led by policy: The inadequacies of the “new regionalism” (illustrated from the case of Wales). International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 23 (2): 379–95. Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Integrating Investment and Equity 䉳 Lovering, J. 2001. The coming regional crisis (and how to avoid it). Regional Studies 35 (4): 349–54. MacLeod, G. (2001). New regionalism reconsidered: Globalization and the remaking of political economic space. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (4): 804–29. Malizia, E. E., and E. J. Feser. 1999. Understanding local economic development. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for Urban Policy Research. Markusen, A. 1987. Regions: The economics and politics of territory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Littlefield. Markusen, A. 1999. Fuzzy concepts, scanty evidence, policy distance: The case for rigour and policy relevance in critical regional studies. Regional Studies 33 (9): 869–84. Markusen, A. 2001. Regions as loci of conflict and change: The contributions of Ben Harrison to regional economic development. Economic Development Quarterly 15 (4): 291–98. Markusen, A. R. 1985. Profit cycles, oligopoly, and regional development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Markusen, A. R. 1991. The rise of the gunbelt: The military remapping of industrial America. New York: Oxford University Press. Markusen, A. 2007a. A consumption base theory of development: An application to the rural cultural economy. Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 36 (1): 9–23. Markusen, A. R. 2007b. Reining in the competition for capital. Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research. Markusen, A., and G. Schrock. 2006. The distinctive city: Divergent patterns in growth, hierarchy and specialisation. Urban Studies 43 (8): 1301–24. Martin, R., and P. Sunley. 1998. Slow convergence? Economic Geography 74 (3): 201–27. Massey, D. 1979. In what sense a regional problem? Regional Studies 13 (2): 233–43. Mattera, P. and A. Purinton (2004). Shopping for subsidies: How Wal-Mart uses taxpayer money to finance its never-ending growth. Washington, DC: Good Jobs First. McCann, E. J. 2007. Inequality and politics in the creative city–region: Questions of livability and state strategy. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 31 (1): 188–96. Medoff, P., and H. Sklar. 1994. Streets of hope: The fall and rise of an urban neighborhood. Boston: South End. Mollenkopf, J. H. 1983. The contested city. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Moulaert, F. 2003. The new regionalism in Western Europe: Territorial restructuring and political change. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 27 (1): 209–10. Moulaert, F., and F. Sekia. 2003. Territorial innovation models: A critical survey. 37 (3): 289–302. Northeast-Midwest Institute (NEMW). 2008. Mission & info. http://www.nemw.org/ blurb.htm (accessed June 2008). Orfield, M. 1997. Metropolitics: A regional agenda for community and stability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Osterman, P. 1999. Securing prosperity: The American labor market: How it has changed and what to do about it. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Pastor, M., C. Benner, and M. Matsuoka. 2006. The regional nexus: The promise and risk of community-based approaches to metropolitan equity. In Jobs and economic development in minority communities, edited by P. Ong and A. LoukaitouSideris, 63–87. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Peck, J. 2003. Fuzzy old world: A response to Markusen. Regional Studies 37 (6/7): 729–40. Pendall, R. 2000. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (2): 125–42. 353 Pendall, R., M. Drennan, and S. Christopherson. 2004. Transition and renewal: The emergence of a diverse upstate economy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Pontusson, J. 2005. Inequality and prosperity: Social Europe vs. liberal America. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Porter, M. E. 1990. The competitive advantage of nations. New York: Free Press. Porter, M. E. 1998. Clusters and the new economics of competition. Harvard Business Review 76 (6): 77–90. Pulido, L. 2000. Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 90 (1): 12–40. Rast, J. 2006. Environmental justice and the new regionalism. Journal of Planning Education and Research 25 (3): 249–63. Reardon, K. 1998. Enhancing the organizational capacity of community-based organizations in East St. Louis. Journal of Planning Education and Research 17 (4): 323–33 Rolnick, A. 1996. The economic war among the states: An overview. The Region 10 (2). Rusk, D. 1999. Inside game/outside game: Winning strategies for saving urban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Rutherford, T., and J. Holmes. 2006. Entrepreneurship, knowledge, and evolution of industrial clusters: The case of the Windsor, Ontario machine tool and mould cluster. Journal of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 7 (2/3/4/5): 320–44. Rutherford, T., and J. Holmes. 2008. “The flea on the tail of the dog”: Power in global production networks and the restructuring of Canadian automotive clusters. Journal of Economic Geography 8 (4): 519–44. Sagalyn, L. B. 1997. Negotiating for public benefits: The bargaining calculus of public–private development. Urban Studies 34 (12): 1955–70. Scott, A. 1998. Regions and the world economy: The coming shape of global production, competition, and political order. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. Shapira, P., J. Youtie, and J. Roessner. 1996. Current practices in the evaluation of U.S. industrial modernization programs. Research Policy 25 (2): 185–214. Silva, J. A., and R. M. Leichenko. 2004. Regional income inequality and international trade. Economic Geography 80 (3): 261–86. Simmie, J. 2005. Innovations and space: A critical review of the literature. Regional Studies 39 (6): 789–804. Smith, N. 1984. Uneven development: Nature, capital, and the production of space. New York: Blackwell. Stone, K. 2004. From widgets to digits: Employment regulation for the changing workplace. New York: Cambridge University Press. Sussman, C. 1976. Planning the fourth migration: The neglected vision of the Regional Planning Association of America. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Swanstrom, T. 2001. What we argue about when we argue about regionalism. Journal of Urban Affairs 23 (5): 479–96. Swanstrom, T. 2006. Regionalism, equality, and democracy. Urban Affairs Review 42 (2): 249–57. Swanstrom, T., and B. Banks. 2007. Going regional: Communitybased regionalism, transportation and local hiring agreements. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Building Resilient Regions. Working paper 2007-17, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California. Theodore, N., and J. Peck. 2002. The temporary staffing industry: Growth imperatives and limits to contingency. Economic Geography 78 (4): 463–93. Treado, C. D., and F. Giarratani. 2008. Intermediate steel-industry suppliers in the Pittsburgh region: A cluster-based analysis of regional economic resilience. Economic Development Quarterly 22 (1): 63–75. Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009 Clark & Christopherson 354 Van Jaarsveld, D. D. 2004. Collective representation among hightech workers at Microsoft and beyond: Lessons from Wash Tech/CWA. Industrial Relations 43 (2): 364–85. Vogel, R. K. 2002. Metropolitan planning organizations and the new regionalism: The case of Louisville. Publius 32 (1): 107–29. Weir, M. 2000. Coalition building for regionalism. In Reflections on regionalism, edited by B. Katz, 127–53. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution. Weir, M., and J. Rongerude. 2007. Multi-level power and progressive regionalism. MacArthur Foundation Research Network on Building Resilient Regions. Working paper 2007-15, Berkeley, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California. Wheeler, S. M. 2002. The new regionalism: Key characteristics of an emerging movement. Journal of the American Planning Association 68 (3): 267–78. Wisconsin Regional Training Partnership (WRTP). 2007. http:// www.cows.org/collab_projects_detail.asp?id=3 (accessed August 2007 Wolfe, D. 1999. Harnessing the region: Changing perspectives on innovation policy in Ontario. In The new industrial geography: Regions, regulation, and institutions, edited by T. Barnes and M. Gertler, 127–54. New York: Routledge. Wolf-Powers, L. (2001). Information technology and urban labor markets in the United States. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 25 (2): 427. Downloaded from http://jpe.sagepub.com at GEORGIA TECH LIBRARY on April 1, 2009