Commenting on the problems of assessing the adequacy of the urban economic development process, Beauregard (1993) has noted that: “More so than such policy arenas as income maintenance, nuclear deterrence or intergovernmental aid, that of economic development displaces critical assessment. Its inherent sensibility, avowed pragmatism, and unflinching optimism overwhelm intensive probing of its theoretical tendencies and ideological biases. Economic development seems like such an appropriate thing to do, regardless of ones political persuasion, that one cannot criticize it without being seen as a nay-sayer and an opponent of progress” (Beauregard, 1993: 267).
For Beauregard, the problem is not economic development as such, but that its presumed virtues have led to a proliferation of unbridled urban growth which proceeds with neither the scrutiny nor the accountability one usually associates with a democratic society. In a recent book chapter on economic development theory, he addresses this problem by explicating a set of "constitutive rules" that seem to govern our understanding of the term, "economic development." For Beauregard, these rules are epistemological they determine that which counts as legitimate knowledge or evidence within a given, scientific field of inquiry. His chapter explains how mainstream conceptions of urban economic development implicate a set of rules that, seemingly more than anything else, acts to distinguish which actors, actions and consequences are "essential" to the development process, from those which are not. And, for Beauregard, these distinctions are nowhere more pronounced than within the ecological or market-economics perspective. Indeed, the fields most influential studies, those which dominate its theoretical and practical trends, reflect the logic of this perspective (Kasarda, 1980; Peterson, 1981; Hicks, 1982).
THE MARKET-ECONOMICS PERSPECTIVE
Concerning this perspective, Beauregard (1993) explains how “the modifier ‘economic’ is an ideological statement meant to deflect attention from the inherently political nature of economic development (regardless of whether government is actually involved) and to act as a buffer (available when needed) between key investors and elected officials and government bureaucrats who might introduce the scrutiny and accountability of a democratic society” (Beauregard, 1993: 269).
One of the more basic premises of the market-economics perspective is that the fundamental changes observed in todays urban economies from goods-producing to service-producing are but reflections of an even more fundamental crisis in the world capitalist economy. Students of the international economy generally refer to this crisis as one of "economic restructuring." They mark its beginning with the advent of an intensified global capitalism, beginning as early as 1973, the year of the international debt crisis. While scholars on the left and right of the political spectrum disagree on how one might evaluate the effects of this process, they are, at a more fundamental level, in agreement as to its existence and to its broader trends (Logan & Swanstrom, 1990: 9). Subsequent theories of economic restructuring refer to the international systems attempt to restructure this debt (Kasarda, 1980; Bluestone & Harrison, 1982; Hicks, 1982; Castells, 1985).
Thus far, problems to do with this restructuring have not been associated with changes in final products (i.e., from goods to services). They have, however, been associated with major shifts in employment from goods production to service provision, which, in turn, have been equated with considerable decreases in real incomes. Similarly, technological breakthroughs in transportation, information and computer-mediated communications have rendered industrial capital more mobile, and have prompted geographic shifts in residence towards Americas sun-belt (Logan & Swanstrom, 1990: 7-8). All of which, according to theory, has resulted in an intensified competition for private investment, one which has left many of Americas older rust-belt cities economically obsolete due to their inability to compete with growing sun-belt cities.
Most scholars and practitioners of urban economic development would likely commend the market-economics perspective for having provided rational explanations of why urban economies have faltered. As well, many would add that it has provided considerable detail as to how certain arrangements (i.e., public authorities, public-private partnerships, nonprofit economic development corporations, etc.) might be forged to restructure, and thereby strengthen, these economies (Fosler & Berger, 1982; Levitt, 1987; National Council on Urban Economic Development, 1978).
On the other hand, however, these same scholars would have to admit that the market-economics perspective has been patently one-sided. Indeed, this could hardly be otherwise since this perspective recognizes only one legitimate form of social control competition. Authority of any sort is viewed from this perspective with suspicion, particularly governmental authority, since it further regulates markets. In place of authority, the market perspective forces an ecological understanding of the problems brought about by economic restructuring, such that they appear to result from a "natural" (i.e., blameless) competition over limited resources. This is only one of the more basic presumptions of the market perspective. Similar presumptions "constitute the rules that constrain alternative and oppositional theoretical formulations" (Beauregard, 1993: 275). To adopt this the dominant perspective of urban development politics is to become a prisoner of various presumptions that are ever present, but are rarely made explicit. However, staunch supporters of the market perspective have, inadvertently, indicated how, in theory and practice, the market-economics perspective:
Grants privileges to the dominant institutions of capital (Peterson, 1981). These would include commercial banks, pension funds, and venture capitalists. Others would include developers, contractors, mortgage bankers and related real estate businesses (Molotch, 1976). Ethnic or family savings associations are generally ignored, and even community banks are not usually considered "essential" (Beauregard, 1993: 270);
Author: Steven A. Maclin, Ph. D.
About the Author: Dr. Maclin has been a university professor of public administration and policy since 1994. Recently, from 1998 - 2004, he lived and worked with American military troops in Japan, Okinawa, and South Korea. He has previously edited and published dozens of articles in professional administrative journals and recently, in his ‘spare time,’ he’s been building websites for distributing materials to his graduate students. Hes now stateside, teaching graduate students online, writing articles and developing a small online business (see
http://buyfromart.com); he can be reached at info@buyfromart.com.