The last quarter century has witnessed a steady decline in the positivist hegemony over social science scholarship. This has, of course, been welcome news to positivisms detractors, but the range of alternate theoretical and methodological perspectives legitimized by this decline still bewilders social scientists about what should now qualify as acceptable scholarship.
The field of local economic development has not fully matured into such problems, however; it cleaves uncritically to the tenets of logical positivism and to its instrumental mode of rationality (Peterson, 1981; Kantor & David, 1988; Wolman & Spitzley, 1996). One of the more costly results has been a pervasive disjuncture within the field: entire schools have been founded on little more than a commitment to growth, despite the fact that development produces winners and losers, with allocational consequences that, for many, have been politically embarrassing (Sanders & Stone, 1987). Donald Schon may have best stated the problem in this way:
In the varied topography of professional practice, there is a high hard ground where practitioners can make effective use of the research-based theory and technique, and there is a swampy lowland where situations are confusing "messes" incapable of technical solution. The difficulty is that the problems of the high ground, however great their technical interest, are often relatively unimportant to clients and the larger society, while in the swamp are the problems of greatest human concern (Schon, 1983: 42).
The essential argument of this paper is that the more important problems regarding economic development are rooted at two levels, the more basic of which is theoretical. These problems surface as differences in "knowledge" about how the development process actually operates, in what can be taken as legitimate knowledge, and in the degree to which public officials can speak authoritatively about development. The other, more visible, level involves the practice of development. Here, we find differences in social values, in levels of empathy, in the expected role of politics, and in views regarding governments use of development policy in achieving some measure of "distributive justice" (Giloth & Mier, 1989; Giloth, 1988).
The field of economic development has been incapable of dealing with either of these two levels because of its fundamental commitment to the positivist research tradition. This tradition presumes of its subject matter that the only legitimate knowledge is empirical or "factual" in form; and, that "value-laden" knowledge (such as we find in the realm of politics) is of little or no use. Further, that political or moral issues (such as those relating to distributive justice) should be handled separately from those which most directly involve economic growth.
This article unravels these and related issues, but offers neither simple solutions nor pat answers. It does not, for instance, argue with the reasonableness of charging users for the cost of securing capital growth; nor does it question the importance of using independent, empirically-based feasibility analyses. But, insofar as businesses demand public sector participation in the financing of facilities that will permit them to increase their own revenues; and, insofar as state and local government budgets have become increasingly tight, it seems only reasonable that public officials should require political justifications (e.g., providing jobs for local residents or decreasing disparities between central cities and suburbs) for offering public subsidies in addition to those relating to economic feasibility (e.g., generating economic growth through high levels of new spending in the region).
The essential effort of this paper is, thus, to clarify the necessary interplay between the politics and economics of local development. This is accomplished in three sections: the first contrasts that which is taught, with that which an increasing number of researchers have come to observe about the development process. The second, involves an examination of logical positivism and of its implications for the practice of development. The third introduces a praxiological approach to development, within which both theory and practice are initially fused. The inherent fusion fundamentally alters our understanding of development and of the various political issues that policymakers have been precluded from taking more seriously in their attempts to formulate successful developmental policies.
The praxiological approach is preferable for three main reasons: it derives from a more plausible epistemological account of social interaction than that of logical positivism; it provides an epistemological basis for reconciling the theory and practice of economic development; and, it enables a more candid consideration of questions regarding the political good by placing these at the center of development policy analysis. The following section reviews the principle lessons taught within the field of local economic development, and the principle difficulties with recent efforts to integrate theory and practice within this field.
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
Johnny Depp Posters); he can be reached by email at info@buyfromart.com.