Scholars have qplauded and critiqued the "equity" dimensbas of the four-year mayoral administration of Harold Washington in Chicago (1983-1987. Much of the debate has centered on how to assess the progress of equity planning and implementation in specific contexts, whether it has produced concrete outcomes for poor communities, become imtitutionalized, or changed civic decisionmaking structures. This article attempts to capture the contested and emergent quality of kquity planning in the Washington administration by examining its focus on jobs in some detail. The jobs goawerived from neighborhood experience of economic change-becarne a central element of Washington's 1983 mayoral campaign and one of the key development goak of the administration. The aahinktrationpursued an array of jobs policies and program. attempting to link economic development with employment services, hold accountable those f i r m receiving public incentives, retain manufacturing, and provide equitable access to city resources. By the end of Washington's fwst term, many economic development accomplishments had been achieved but the administration also expw'ienced dilemmas that challenged the jobs goal and its equity potentia-or example. the connection between local investment and regional and M t i o~l economic policies. Consideration ofthe early qeriences of the Washington administration in Chicago in formulating and implementing job policies and programs clarifies the dificulties of a broad-based and sustainable equity program. These lessons are particularly useful today as many low-income advocates. municipalities, and states struggle to reform workforce and economic developmenf systems.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.