Today, the majority of America’s population resides in metropolitan areas, now widely acknowledged as the drivers of our national economy. Thus, sound urban policy is critical to economic vitality now more than ever. Fortunately, the U.S. is home to an array of talented experts, veterans, and academics in urban policy and planning, with promising students on the way from outstanding programs in colleges and universities. Bob Weissbourd, our guest editor, is one of those nationally renowned experts. Bob is the founder and President of RW Ventures, a consulting firm that develops market-based strategies for regional and community economic development. Bob served for 10 years in executive positions at ShoreBank Corporation, the community development bank founded in Chicago in 1973 that now has affiliates across the country and provides consulting and support services around the world. ShoreBank pioneered a model of for-profit lending in underserved communities that resonates with the ideas and strategies that drive Next Street.
In this Perspectives piece, Bob looks at some of the conflicts that have polarized America’s debate on urban policy over the years. Should we prioritize economic growth or equity? Should we look to government to drive equitable economic development, or can market-driven strategies address that task? Should regions, metropolitan areas, or cities serve as the template for economic development efforts? Bob argues convincingly that these are false conflicts, and at Next Street we know that his arguments are right on target.
Tim Ferguson
Old conflicts: new opportunitiesby Robert Weissbourd, President, RW Ventures, LLC
Public debate on economic development policy often seems trapped in old conflicts. We argue about the relative benefits of focusing on growth or equity, supply side or demand side, markets or government, business or development, regions or neighborhoods, people or place. In private, however, increasing numbers of practitioners, scholars and policymakers across the political spectrum are recognizing that this rhetoric reflects outdated political framing and, worse, bad economics1closeMany of the themes in this editorial are derived from, and much more fully explored in, a project of Opportunity Finance Network and CFED in which a broad range of economic development professionals convened for private discussions. The full project report, “Into the Economic Mainstream,” can be found at http://www.rw-ventures.com/publications/m-b_develop.php.. Many of these subjects, of course, have always had a more complex – and compatible – relationship. Now, broad changes in the global economy offer new opportunities to transcend these old conflicts. We can aim for inclusive prosperity.
