TREATING DEVELOPMENT NETWORKS SERIOUSLY: WHAT PUBLIC MANAGERS SHOULD KNOW
Public policymakers have always been preoccupied with issues to do with economic development. In recent years, these issues have come to dominate the agendas of state and local politics. State and local leaders increasingly rely on tax abatements, regulatory relief, stadia, and other such subsidies in efforts to establish business climates conducive to economic growth. Their emphasis on growth and on the status of their communities has opened the door for several detailed and often very fine case studies of urban politics and development policymaking. Surprisingly little attention has been given, however, to governing the highly networked structure of the development policymaking system or to the primary interests it ought to serve.
In democratic societies, public subsidies and the processes by which these are sanctioned and administered are expected to raise certain political and normative issues; those, for instance, to do with representation, accountability, distributive justice, and legitimacy. While these types of issues would seem particularly relevant to the highly networked context of public-private development, they are not typically raised. Instead, where large-scale developments or professional sports franchises are involved, these are treated as secondary to the financial calculations of individual "deals," to the enviable status of having a world-class firm or a professional ball team in town, and to the more visible banquets and groundbreakings that host public officials, private entrepreneurs, and professional sport moguls. As a result, the developmental interests of sports franchises are typically favored over those of the general public.
Unfortunately, much of the research on urban economic development ascribes policymaking influence to individuals as if it were acquired on the basis of individual merit or sheer will-power. Scant concern is focused on the highly networked context of urban development policymaking systems. Absent an understanding of this context, theorists may remain unable to develop accurate descriptions of the policymaking system. More importantly, they will be unable to prescribe how, when, where or whether public managers might effectively intervene in the system to address critical normative issues of representation, accountability, distributive justice or legitimacy.
This article clarifies the nature and significance of these political and normative issues, as they apply to the field of urban economic development policymaking. This analysis is informed by three theoretical perspectives: urban regime theory, democratic political theory, and organization theory. These perspectives are refined and supported by a case study of the Gateway Complex in Cleveland, Ohio. These illuminate the modern realities of urban policymaking as we move into a new millennium and how these realities square with the legitimacy needs of local government. Absent a constitutional and democratically-based process, urban policymaking may exhibit little relation to the long-term needs of the relevant public. Unabated, this situation may increase, for most citizens, a sense of helplessness, alienation and of less-than-legitimate governance.
Authors: Steven A. Maclin, Ph. D. and Lawrence F. Keller, J.D., Ph. D.
About the Authors: Dr. Maclin has been a university professor since 1994, but 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 Flash 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://loan-money-usa.com); he can be reached at info@loan-money-usa.com. Dr. Keller teaches public administration and policy at Cleveland State University.