Everything but the Kitchen Sink? Factors Associated With Local Economic Development Strategy Use

Abstract

Rubin (1988) argued communities “shoot anything that flies and claim anything that falls” in their efforts to attract businesses. Such a perspective implies local governments will use large numbers of strategies as they try “everything but the kitchen sink” to promote job creation and private investment. Conversely, Stokan (2003) claims localities are more selective in how they approach economic development, which implies there should be wide variation in the number of development strategies used across jurisdictions. Based on original survey data from North Carolina cities and counties of all sizes, the findings provide support for both explanations. The data show localities vary considerably with respect to the number of strategies they employ. Notably, variation in strategy use is associated with certain community characteristics including government capacity and development network strength. However, the data also reveal that communities are, on average, utilizing a relatively high number of strategies, lending some credence to Rubin’s theory.

Do Smart Cities Technologies Contribute to Local Economic Development?

“…Socioeconomic and demographic variables like population (Fleischmann & Green, 1991; MacDonald, 2008), race (Hawkins et al, 2016), poverty rates (Morgan et al, 2019), and education (Zhang et al, 2017) are rival explanations for local economic development and are, therefore, included in the model as controls. While higher education promotes economic development through job creation and availability of skilled individuals, high population numbers provide more human resources to spur economic development whereas poverty provides the motivation for economic development to address social and economic ills faced by local governments (Morgan et al, 2019; Zhang et al, 2017).…”

“…Further, developing business innovation incubators (Shaffer et al, 2006) and providing regulatory and financial assistance to local enterprises (McFarland & McConnell, 2013) also influences local economic development. Because poverty in America has racial undertones, studies have found that the proportion of the population that is White has a positive effect on local economic development (Hawkins et al, 2016; Morgan et al, 2019). Moreover, there are regional differences due to metropolitan status as far as economic development is concerned (Hatcher & Hammond, 2018).…”

Exploring the Trade-Offs Local Governments Make in the Pursuit of Economic Growth and Equity

“…When decision-making processes for economic development policy are controlled by corporate interests, for instance, the economic development strategies which emerge tend to favor those clientele groups (Deslatte, Schatteman, and Stokan 2019). The strength of these networks increases usage of economic development offerings (Morgan, Hoyman, and McCall 2019). When these competing clientele groups lobby for different policies, governments may struggle to balance their policy priorities among diverse community stakeholders (Clingermayer and Feiock 1990).…”

Beyond Borders: Governmental Fragmentation and the Political Market for Growth in American Cities

“…This distinction between actors is adopted to account for different competitive pressures around economic development competition. The government actor network is considered important in economic development decision-making (Morgan, Hoyman, and McCall 2019). We construct these measures using ICMA survey questions asking the extent to which government actors (city, county, state, or federal) and business actors (chambers of commerce, public–private partnerships, and private businesses) participate in development economic development strategies.…”