A Spatial Perspective on Rising Inequality in the United States

Abstract

Recent research on earnings inequality overlooks the importance of changing spatial dynamics within the United States. While many studies consider the effects of economic restructuring on spatial inequalities, this article reverses the causal arrow to ask whether spatial inequalities shape the effects of economic restructuring. Drawing on a case study of the General Electric (GE) Company's post-World War II restructuring strategies, it argues that instituting a new spatial division of labor within the United States was central to the firm's adaptation to a postindustrial economy, long before similar strategies were applied internationally. In response to a changing regulatory and competitive environment within the United States, firms such as GE opened branch plants in right-to-work states in the 1950s and 1960s so they could expand production and develop new product lines without contributing to the power of organized labor. In the short term this spatial restructuring of the U.S. economy narrowed historical inequalities between regions, but in the long term the growth of production facilities in Southern and Southwestern states undermined the power of organized labor elsewhere and contributed to increased earnings inequality after 1970. A descriptive decomposition of national earnings inequality into its within-and between-place components using U.S. Census

High Road, Low Road, or Off Road? Economic Development Strategies in the American States

“…Firms in the high-tech, banking, or tourism industries have different factors of production than industrial manufacturing firms, but the essential logic of “first wave” industrial recruitment—reducing input costs—can still be applied to these newer industries. It is likewise unclear why support for firms’ adaptation to new production processes is distinctly entrepreneurial: Manufacturing firms routinely consider new locations precisely because they wish to implement new technologies or new divisions of labor in their production processes, and states’ industrial recruitment incentives and deregulation policies often make building new factories more cost effective than updating or modernizing existing facilities (e.g., Hanley, 2011). Finally, Saiz’s description of public–private partnerships reflects elements of administrative passivity and deregulation—albeit financial rather than labor or environmental—that is reminiscent of industrial recruitment policy.…”

Digitization as a Driver fur Rural Development—An Indicative Description of German Coworking Space Users

“…There is both spatial inequality between German regions [30] and there is a lack of spatial justice [31]. Other countries, such as France or the U.S.A. exhibit similar spatial disparity challenges [32,33], which leads internationally to polarization among EU-member states for example [34]. In Germany, political actors have gradually become aware of these trends and have therefore formulated a policy of "equal living conditions in urban and rural areas", which needs to be implemented at different administrative and institutional levels of the federal states.…”

The political economy of public investment and public finance: challenges for social democratic policies

“…24. For an excellent example of the way in which the political/institutional context shapes business investment decisions, see Hanley (2010) regarding GE's decision to invest in Arizona, a Right-to-Work state.…”