inclusive economic growth in americas cities dec...
TRANSCRIPT
Policy Research Working Paper 7322
Inclusive Economic Growth in America’s Cities
What’s the Playbook and the Score?
Xavier de Souza BriggsRolf PendallVictor Rubin
Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice GroupJune 2015
WPS7322P
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
edP
ublic
Dis
clos
ure
Aut
horiz
ed
Produced by the Research Support Team
Abstract
The Policy Research Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage the exchange of ideas about development issues. An objective of the series is to get the findings out quickly, even if the presentations are less than fully polished. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited accordingly. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this paper are entirely those of the authors. They do not necessarily represent the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, or those of the Executive Directors of the World Bank or the governments they represent.
Policy Research Working Paper 7322
This paper is a product of the Social, Urban, Rural and Resilience Global Practice Group. It is part of a larger effort by the World Bank to provide open access to its research and make a contribution to development policy discussions around the world. Policy Research Working Papers are also posted on the Web at http://econ.worldbank.org. The authors may be contacted at [email protected], [email protected], and [email protected].
This paper defines economic inclusion as the ability of all people, including the disadvantaged, to share in economic gains, that is, the conditions that allow for broadly shared prosperity. Beyond the “right” to access consumption in cities, and beyond relatively standardized safety net poli-cies that support economic security, inclusion demands intentional, flexible, context-appropriate strategies aimed at shifting the dynamics of local land and labor markets, public education, and other institutions. The paper analyzes the varied contexts for designing and supporting such strate-gies in a rapidly changing society, where urban regions have long been critical to incorporating a broad cross-section of people, including immigrant newcomers. Four dimensions
are particularly crucial: an urban area’s level of economic growth, the quality of its jobs, its demographic profile, and its geography of opportunity (degree and form of spatial inequality). Economic inclusion is particularly urgent in America’s strongest local markets, which are pricing out the lowest-wage workers and showing a disturbing tendency to import rather than grow the talent needed for the emerging, innovation-driven economy. But weak-market regions face important challenges—and a range of options for leverag-ing demographic and other changes—as well. And for now, in all types of cities, innovative and promising strategies remain small in scale, in part because they are competing for support with entrenched, underperforming systems.
InclusiveEconomicGrowthinAmerica’sCities:
What'sthePlaybookandtheScore?
XavierdeSouzaBriggsRolfPendallVictorRubin
Keywords:Cities,RegionalGrowth,Workforce,EconomicPlanning,WashingtonConsensusJELClassification:R110,J210,O200
2
Introduction
Thenation’slaboredbutsteadyeconomicrecoveryandtheeconomicresurgenceof
manyU.S.citiesasplacestoliveandwork—largelyareflectionoftheirinventivenessand
improvedpublicsafetyinrecentdecades—hasmadetheissueofinclusionurgentagain:
Whowillbenefitfromthisresurgence,whocouldbedisplaced,whoisbeingleftbehind?
Thewiderdebateaboutthegrowthofeconomicinequalityandthelossofeconomic
mobility—gettingahead—inAmericahasalsomadethesequestionstimelyandimportant.
Perhapsnotsincethe1980s,whencitiesintheRustBeltweresheddingindustrial
jobsrapidlyandWashingtoncutbackdramaticallyonurbanaid,havetherebeensomany
ideasinplayaboutensuringbasicaccesstowell‐being,letaloneeconomicmobility,and
abouttheroleofcitiesandlocal‐levelactioninthatlargerproject.Intermsofheadwinds,a
sloweconomicrecovery,enormousfiscalpressures,jurisdictionalconflicts,andglobal
competitionremainverychallengingascitiestrytofindtheirway.
Inthispaper,werevisittheunderlyingquestion—whatisaneconomicallyinclusive
city,andhowcanitbecreatedastheeconomygrows?—offeringacriticalreviewofseveral
frameworks,discussingthevariedcontextsforinclusion,andoutliningwhatwehopecan
serveasamorecomplete,actionablemodelforpolicyandpractice.Weorganizemostof
thisanalysisaroundpolicyissuesratherthanprinciples(acknowledgingtheimportanceof
thelatterasguides),andweemphasizetheinterplayamongpolicies.Thisisbotha
practicalmatter—ofwantingtoseeresultsfrommutuallyreinforcingand“de‐conflicted”
approachestopolicy—and,inourview,akeytoanypoliticsofprogressivechange.Thatis,
wetakeaholistic,systemsapproach,incontrasttothemorepiecemealapproachofsome
priorwork.
Inclusive Urban Economies: Concepts and Trends
Wedefineeconomicinclusionastheconditionsthatmakeitpossibleforallpeople,
especiallythedisadvantagedandtypicallylow‐incomepeople,toshareinrisingprosperity,
3
i.e.toshareinandcontributetogains.Inclusionrelatescloselytotheinter‐generational
conceptofeconomicmobility:theabilityofapersonwhoseparentsearnorownlittleto
growupandbebetteroffthanherparents.Wherethereiseconomicmobility,peopleborn
intothebottomendoftheincomedistributionincreasingly,overtheirlifecourses,
contributetonationalprosperityanddowellthemselves.Wherethereismoreeconomic
inclusion,aggregateeconomicgainsoveragivenperiodoftime,inparticulargainsin
incomeandwealth,arewidelyshared.Broadlyunderstood,then,theinclusivecityisone
thatallowsallpeople,includingthedisadvantaged,bothtoshareinandtocontributeto
risingprosperityovertheirlifecourses.Inclusionisconcernedwithbothconsumption
(whatlow‐incomepeopleget)andproduction(whatlow‐incomepeoplemakeanddo).
Bothmobilityandinclusiondiffermarkedlyfromsocialprotection,forexample,of
basicincomesecurity(duringretirementorspellsofunemployment)oraccessto
healthcare.Protectivepoliciesandinstitutionsaretypicallyquitestandardizedand
operatedatpopulationscalesmuchlargerthanurbanregions.Suchsecurity—thesafety
net,groundedinasocialcontract—isnecessarybutnotsufficienttopromotemobilityand
inclusion.
Ourperceptionsofinclusionandmobilityareinformedbytwoverydistinctperiods
ofgrowthintheAmericaneconomybetween1945andthepresent.The25yearsafter
WorldWarIImarkedaturningpointintheU.S.economy,whichhadpreviously—
especiallyinthe1920s—deliveredmostofitsgainstoownersandinvestors.Immediately
afterWorldWarII,U.S.manufacturersgrewtodominateglobalmarkets,asEuropean
competitorsstruggledtorebuildafterwartimedevastation.Nationalprogramsandpolicies
enactedduringtheGreatDepressionandinthewakeofthewar—toencourage
homeownership,unionmembership,infrastructuredevelopment,collegeeducation,and
more—contributedtorisinglevelsofincomeandwealthforvastnumbersoffamilies
whoseparentsandgrandparentshadstruggledtosubsistintheearly1900s.Income
inequalitydroppedsteadily,homeownershipratesrosefrom40to60percent,high‐school
graduationratesroseacrosstheincomedistribution,andcollegeattendancesoared.And
eventhoughdiscriminationagainstAfricanAmericanspersisted,themedianincomeand
4
homeownershipratesofAfricanAmericansmovedupinparallelwithgainsbywhite
Americans,thoughhugeblack‐whitedisparitiesinwealthpersisted.Bothtrendswere
fueledbythe50‐yearGreatMigrationofAfricanAmericans,fromthelargelyagricultural
SouthtohigherwagejobsinindustrialcitiesintheNortheast,Midwest,andWest.
Economic,political,andsocialopportunityweremuchgreaterinthosedestinationmarkets
thaninSouthernstates,whoseeconomieswerestillpredominantlyruralandwhose
electedofficialsfoughtagainstexpandedcivilrights(Lemann1991;Wilkerson2010).
Theyearssincethisperiod,however,havebeenmarkedbysharplyincreasing
economicinequality,withmostgainsfromrisingproductivitygoingtoinvestors,not
workers(LevyandTemin2007).AsAmericandominanceinmanufacturingwaned,awide
arrayofnationalleadersgrewtoembracepoliciessupportingtradeliberalizationandthe
dominanceofthefinancialsectornotjustintheU.S.butglobally.Growthintradeand
“financialization,”alongwithchangingtechnologiesandskilldemands,havecontributed
significantlytorisinglevelsofincomeinequalityintheU.S.;butsohastheerosionof
policiesandinstitutions,includingcollectivebargainingandaffordablehighereducation,
thatpromotedsharedgainsinincomeandwealth(Cornia2003,GoldbergandPavcnik
2004,LinandTomaskovic‐Devey2013).Consistentwiththethesisthatunevenspatial
developmentisendemictomarketeconomies,thesetrendshadparticularlysevereeffects
oncity‐regionsthatunderwentsignificanteconomicrestructuring—especiallyde‐
industrialization—overthepastfortyyears(BluestoneandHarrison1982).
Atthenationallevel,increasedinequalityinthedistributionofearningswasa
consequenceofthesestructuralchanges.Whereasthetop5percentofearnerstookhome
17.2percentoftheincomein1967,theyaccountedfor22.3percentin2012(U.S.Census
2013a).Theaverageincomesofthoseinthetop5percentgrew—afteradjustingfor
inflation—by70percent,toover$318,000,whilethoseinthelowest20percentgrewonly
19percent,tolessthan$11,500(U.S.Census2013b).Since2000,moreover,thereal
averageincomeatthebottomofthedistributionhasdropped15percent,whereasthereal
averageincomeforthetop5percenthasdroppedbyonly4percent.Theselevels
distinguishtheU.S.asthemostunequalincomedistributionintheindustrializedworld
5
(Garfinkel,Rainwater,andSmeeding2006).AndanestimatedoneinfourU.S.workers
earnspoverty‐levelwages(OstermanandShulman2011).
BythetimeoftheGreatRecession,theU.S.economyhadbecomeaprolific
generatorof“bad”jobs,withlowwages,poorornon‐existentbenefits,orboth.Arapidly
growingproportionoftheworkforcewascontingentinsomeform:hiredonatemporary
basis,employedbysubcontractorsratherthandirectlybymajorfirms,lackinginjob
security,orevenredefinedlegallyasself‐employedandthusineligibleforevenbasic
workers’rights,letalonebenefits.Compoundingthis,sincetherecession,manymiddle‐
wage,middle‐skilljobs—thekindsofjobsthatplayedavitalroleinthebroadlyshared
gainsoflate‐industrializingnationssuchastheRepublicofKorea—havebeenlost,while
muchnewjobgrowthisinoccupationalsectorswiththelowestwages,worstbenefits,and
weakestcareerladders.
Thewealthgaphasincreasedevenmorethantheincomegap.Forexample,“tracing
thesamehouseholdsover25years,thetotalwealthgapbetweenwhiteandAfrican‐
Americanfamiliesnearlytriples,increasingfrom$85,000in1984to$236,500in2009”
(Shapiro,Meschede,andOsoro2013).ThegapbetweenthewealthofblacksandHispanics,
ontheonehand,andwhitesontheotherisamongthemostthreateningportentsforthe
future.Wealth—especiallyhousingwealth,whichwasdevastatedforminorityhouseholds
inthecrash—isthesourceofstabilityforfamiliesinthefaceofeconomicinsecurityandan
increasinglyimportantpreconditionforsendingchildrentocollege.
Risingnationalincomeinequalityreflectsbetween‐regionaswellaswithin‐region
trends.First,theincomegapbetweentherichestandpoorestcity‐regionshasgrown,andit
appearstostronglytrackdifferencesinhumancapitalandinnovation;butforcommodities
boomssuchasthecurrentoneinshaleoilandgas,incomegainsarestronglyassociated
withhighskillsandR&D‐intensiveproductivity(Moretti2012).Second,therearemarked
differencesbetweenmetroregionsintheinter‐generationaleconomicmobilityoflow‐
incomechildren(Chettyetal.2013).Andthird,incomeinequalityhasalsogrownwithin
higher‐incomeregions,especiallythose,suchasNewYorkCity,whicharedominatedby
thefinancialsector.Thelasttrendhascontributedinturn—especiallyinlarge
6
metropolitanareas—toincreasingresidentialsegregationbetweenhigh‐income
householdsandothers(ReardonandBischoff2011).Muchofthisincomesegregation
trendappearstobedrivenbytheenclavingofthehighestincomehouseholds,notthe
spatialsegregationofthelowestincomehouseholdsfromothers.
Whiletheaggregateincomeandwealthatthetophasneverstoppedgrowing,the
nationalconsensussupportingredistributionandreinvestment—thesocialcompact—has
erodedseverelysinceroughly1970.Manyimportantnationalpoliciesremaininplaceto
protectpeople—especiallytheelderlyandtheworkingpoor—fromabjectpoverty.Near‐
universalhealthcoveragecouldhavedramaticeffects,likewiseprotective,overtime.But
sincethesenationalpoliciesdolittlemorethanthat,citiesandstateswhoseresidentsand
electedleaderswantmoreeconomicinclusionandmobilityhaveworkedtodevelop
initiativesoftheirown.Aswediscussingreaterdetailinthesecondsectionofthispaper,
thelocalinitiativesdiffermarkedlyfromoneanotherinpartbecausetheyarisein
metropolitanareaswithdivergentstartingpoints.
Policies and Practices to Promote Inclusion
Mosteffortstoimprovetheprospectsforinclusionareverynarrowlydefined,with
asingletargetandpurpose.Comparedtothe1980sand1990s,whenpublic‐private
partnershipswereaggressivelypromotedandcritiquedasakeyconceptualbreakthrough
forcitiestosurviveandthrive(Linder1999,Warner2008),therehasbeenrelativelylittle
discussionofchangestothecoreinstitutionsandpolicycommitmentsthatmightbuild
economicallyinclusivecities.Manyinsightfulanalysesandcommentarieslimitthemselves
toparticularfacetsofinclusion—housingandcommercialdevelopment,education,
employment,andsoon—inurbanareas,iftheytakeaplace‐basedapproachatall.Rarely
doanalystsexplorethelinksamongthesefacetsortheprospectsforaddressingthem
togetherinthecomplexsystemsthatcitiesare—withintersectinginterests,myriad
spillovereffectsofanyintervention,feedbackloops,andotherfeatures.
7
Wearenotwithoutsomemoreintegrativeframeworks,however.Intheworldof
policy,practice,advocacyandappliedresearch,“equitabledevelopment,”emphasizing
inclusionaryphysicaldevelopmentbutextendingtoskills,healthandotherissues,has
takenshapeandwonsupportoverthepastdecade,thankstoPolicyLink,aprogressive
policyadvocacyorganization,andothercontributors(BlackwellandBell2005;Pastor
2000;Orfield1997).Inaseriesofpublications,economistManuelPastorandcollaborators
havearguedthatequitabledevelopmentpoliciesandpracticesand“movementsfor
regionalequity”arecrucialtoensuringnationalprosperityandmeetingmajor
demographicandenvironmentalchallenges,notsimplyjustfromanormativestandpoint
(Treuhaft,Blackwell,andPastor2011;BennerandPastor2012).Insimplerterms,these
authorsarguethatgreaterracialinclusionispragmatic—havingthefullcomplementofthe
raciallydiverseworkforcefullypreparedtosucceedprovidesasurerroadtosustainable
growth,forcities,regionsandthenationasawhole.Thisparallelsthemoregloballyand
historicallyfocusedevidence,byAcemogluandRobinson,thatequity—intheformof
inclusivepoliticalandeconomicinstitutions—isapowerfuldriveroflong‐runeconomic
innovationandgrowth.Inclusioniskeytoprosperity.
Tworecurrentthemesinthiswork,whichincludesanalyticandprescriptive
elements,arethepersistentspatialinequalitieswithinAmerica’surban(metropolitan)
areas—inequalitiesthataremuchsharperthanthoseinotherindustrializedcountries—
andtheinterdependenceofthecentralcitiesandsuburbsthatdefinemetroareasaslocal
labormarkets—meaningfuleconomicunits(Briggs2005;Pastor2000;Orfield2002).In
termsofpolicyfocus,housing,employmentandeducationalopportunitiestendtoloom
largeintheseanalyses,followedbysocialprotection,mostfundamentallyhealthand
safety.Theregionalequityframeworkcombinesanemphasisonaccesstometropolitan
area‐wideopportunities,suchasfairdistributionofaffordablehousingandincreased
transitaccesstosuburbanjobcenters,withacomparablefocusoncomprehensive
community‐buildinginpreviouslydisinvestedinnercityneighborhoods.
Likewise,inaseriesofarticlesanda2010book,politicalscientistSusanFainstein
(2000,2010)hasofferedaphilosophicallybasedargumentfor“thejustcity”andexamined
8
theeconomicandpoliticalforcesthathelpshapecities’performanceagainstjust‐city
criteria.Fainsteinunderlineslongstandingtensionsandtrade‐offsamongthevaluesof
equity,democracyanddiversitytoanextentthatotherobservershavenot,andunlike
muchoftheabove‐citedresearch,herworkiscomparative.Shecompareseconomically
prominent“global”cities—Amsterdam,London,andNewYork—whileacknowledgingthat
thedynamicsinthesecitiesareillustrative,notrepresentative,oftheopportunitiesand
challengesfacingmoretypicalcitiesinthesamenations.Liketheequitabledevelopment
framework,Fainstein’snormativeframeworkemphasizesmoreequity‐oriented
approachestospatialdevelopmentbutacknowledgestheimportanceofeducation,
employment,safetyandotherneeds.Fainstein’sjustcityisbothanidealandasetof
criteriaforjudgingwhatcitiesdecideandwhattheirsocialoutcomesare.Her
recommendedpoliciesandpractices“tofurtherequity”arerelativelygeneral,however:
takeaninclusionaryapproachtonewhousingdevelopment(ensuringthatsomeunitsin
market‐ratedevelopmentsareavailabletolow‐incomehouseholds)andprotectthe
affordabilityofhousingoverthelongrun,emphasizebenefitsforsmallandlocal
businessesandnotjustbigcorporateinvestors,keeptransitaffordable,andminimize
displacementinredevelopmentprojects(Fainstein2010:172‐173).Aproposthemega‐
projectsshehaslongobserved,Fainstein’sframeworkis,toagreatextent,aframeworkfor
pursuingurbanredevelopmentwithequityinmind,notforadvancingequitableoutcomes
moregenerally.Anditdoesnotaddresswhateconomicstrategiescitiesmightchooseto
furtherequity,asopposedtohowcitiesshouldmitigatetheinequitableeffectsofthemost
familiarstrategies:lureinvestorsandtouristswithoutregardtolocal“valuecapture,”job
qualityandotherkeystoinclusion.
Finally,aworldwide“righttothecity”socialmovement,inspiredbytheworkof
MarxistphilosopherandsociologistHenriLefebvre(cf.LefebvreandNicholson‐Smith
1991)and“spatialjustice”theoriesofgeographerDavidHarvey(1988,2003),hasa
presenceintheU.S.,bothamongintellectualsandingrassrootsorganizing,typicallyinthe
formofpressurepolitics.Memberorganizationsparticipateinanalliance“topromote
democracy,justiceandsustainability.”Thealliancefightsdisplacement,particularlyfor
low‐incomeresidentsandpeopleofcolorandusuallyinthecontextofmajorurban
9
redevelopmentprojects,butitadvocatesonotherissuesaswell.Onabroadernote,inthe
U.S.,thisintellectualtraditiontendstoemphasizemoreradicaltransformationsofkey
institutions,forexampleofpropertyrightsandtheroleofgovernment,eschewing
neoliberalismandtheveryideathatcapitalism,withoutsuchtransformations,canbemade
farmoreequitableincities.Theright‐to‐the‐cityagendaisconsistentwiththecallfor
regionalequity,forexample,butgoesbeyondtheseotherframeworksinitsprescription
forchange.
Theseframeworksarereflectedinthestrategiesanddemandsofurbansocial
movementsandinthepolicyagendasofprogressiveleadersandcoalitions,astheyseek
waystopromoteinclusioninthefaceofrapideconomicchange.Whetherthecontested
terrainistransportationspendingpriorities,housingaffordability,localhiring
requirementsonpublicly‐fundedconstructionprojects,financialsupportfornewbusiness
ventures,K‐12schoolreform,orevenaccesstohighereducation,thevariouspolicy
campaignscanbeseenaschaptersinanongoingdebateaboutthemeanstocreateamore
inclusivecity.
Toward Inclusive Cities: Dimensions and Starting Points
TheupsurgeininterestininclusivecitiesintheU.S.andabroadisanoutgrowthof
deepconcernsthatcitiesintheU.S.—reflectingthebroadertrendstowardinequalityin
wealth,income,andpowerdescribedabove—havebecomeunsustainablyexclusive.This
exclusionoccursinmetropolitanareasthatdivergeradically.FromculturallyvibrantNew
York,toeconomicallypowerfulHouston,todistressedbutdeterminedDetroit,thepathway
towardinclusionhasdifferentstartingpointsandwillfacedifferentkindsofchallengesin
comingyears.Thosechallengesincludefour(4)keydimensions:theoveralllevelofgrowth,
thequalityoflocaljobs(inparticular,theextenttowhichthe“knowledgeeconomy”
dominatesthemetropolitanarea),thedemographicprofileoftheregion,andthegeography
ofopportunityinthearea.
10
Level of metropolitan growth
Growthdeterminesthelevelofresourcesandrangeofeconomicopportunities
availableforallregionalresidentsandshapespossibilitiesforredistributiontolow‐income
households.Growthalsoaffectsthepoliticalenvironmentforpolicychoices.
Inweak‐marketmetroareas,jobgrowthandpopulationgrowtharebothlow.
Competitionforworkishigh,andmanymobileandmotivatedadults,especiallyrecent
collegegraduates,departforareaswheretheirearningprospectsarebrighter.Someweak‐
marketmetroareasretainawell‐educatedpopulationengagedinadvancedmanufacturing,
education,andmedicalcare,butopportunitiesformiddle‐incomejobsandjobgrowthare
limited.Immigrantsfromabroad,whoconstituteaveryimportantsourceofpopulation
andlabor‐forcegrowth,arelesslikelytosettleinweak‐marketmetros.Thismeansthat
immigrantenclaves,whichhavehelpedreenergizeurbancores,arealsolesscommonor
aresmallerinmanyweak‐marketcities.Fromafiscalstandpoint,weak‐marketmetro
areasalsosufferfromslowgrowthorevendeclinesintaxrevenue,evenastheneedgrows
forrevenuetoserveanincreasinglyvulnerableandneedypopulation.
Promotinginclusionwhentheeconomyisgrowingslowlyorshrinkingisvery
challenging.Moststrategiesforweak‐marketcitiesandmetrosfocusfirstonrestartingthe
engineofjobcreation.Suchstrategiesoftenbeginbyidentifyingthestrengthsofthelocal
economyand“anchor”institutionsthatareunlikelyorunabletorelocatetootherplaces.
Theseinclude,forexample,universitiesandhospitals(“edsandmeds”),which,with
deliberatepolicycommitments,cansometimesprovidethebasisforlinkagestolocal
suppliersoralliedbusinesses,adoptgood‐jobstandards,andcontributedirectlyto
buildingskills.Suchinstitutionsmayalsofocusonquality‐of‐lifemeasuresmeanttoattract
andretainthewell‐educatedandmobilepeople—oftenambitiousyoungpeople—who
mightbeinclinedtolookforgreateropportunityinstrong‐marketmetros.Manyweak‐
marketcitiesfeaturesurprisinglyextensiveeffortstogrowtheir“innovationeconomy”:to
promotebusinessstart‐upsinthosetechnology‐basedsubsectorsthatbuildupontheir
11
distinctlocalassetsinengineeringandscience.Forthereasonsoutlinedabove,innovation
isincreasinglyprescribedasthetonicforlocaleconomicdistressinAmerica.
Inastrong‐marketmetro,bycontrast,jobgrowthandpopulationgrowthboth
exceedthenationalaverage.Thesemarketsareeconomicmagnets,retaininglocalswho
canfindgoodjobslocallyandattractingmigrantsfromotherpartsofthecountryandoften
fromabroad.Sinceyoungpeoplearemorelikelytorelocatethanolderadults,the
dynamismofstrong‐marketlabormarketsisoftenreflectedinsubstantialgrowthinthe
numberofchildren,increasingfiscalburdensintheshorttermbutsettingthestagefor
furtherroundsofgrowthandproductivityinthelongertermifchildrenarewellenough
caredforandeducatedtogetgoodjobswhentheyenterthelaborforce.Likewise,the
foreign‐borntendtoincreaselocalfiscalburdeninthenearterm;theirnetfiscal
contributionsaresubstantialovertime,andtheyaccrueprimarilyatthenationallevel,via
incometaxespaid(NASstudy).
Strong‐marketmetroshavetheirownchallengeswithinclusivegrowth.
Comparativelylowunemployment,rapidjobcreation,andsubstantialinvestmentinreal
estatemayleaddecision‐makerstooverlookproblemsofincomeinequality,long
commutes,andunaffordablehousing.Low‐payingservicesectorjobsstilldominatethe
labormarketforlargesectorsofthepopulation,andthoselowwagesaredoubly
challenginginsuchhigh‐costenvironments.Finally,thereisasubstantialriskthatstrong‐
marketmetroareaswillunder‐investinlocaltalentbecauseemployerscanattracthigh‐
skillworkersfromelsewhereinthenationorabroad.Strongmagnetsthatcanimportso
muchtalenthavelessincentivetogrowtheirown,andthislackofcommitmenttolocal
economicmobilityusuallyhastheheaviestconsequencesforlowerincomecommunitiesof
color,whoseschoolsandconnectionstogoodjobsaretypicallytheworstintheregion.
Job quality and access
Theproblemsofthepersistenceofbadjobsandthedisparitiesinaccesstobetter
onesreflectpublicpolicyandemployerpracticesaswellasdocumentedskillgapsinthe
laborforce.Asdescribedinouropeningsection,alargeproportionof“good”industrial
12
jobs,bywhichrelativelyless‐educatedAmericanscouldsupportamiddle‐incomelifestyle,
havedisappearedsincethe1970s,andtheprofileofthelabormarkethasbeenincreasingly
bifurcated,withlargernumbersoflowerpaidservicesectorjobsandasmaller,butstill
significantnumberofwell‐compensatedpositionsgroundedintechnicalorfinancial
expertise.
Preparationoftheworkforceis,atitscore,aproblemofnationalscopeand
significancewithpersistentracialdisparities,andanunderstandingofregionaldifferences
shouldberootedinthatbroadercontext.Lackofeducationalopportunityisacritical
barrier.Thejobsofthefuturewillrequireincreasinglyhigherskilllevels,butour
educationalsystemsarenotpreparinglow‐incomechildrenandchildrenofcolorfor
success.While45percentofalljobsin2018willrequireatleastanassociate’sdegree,only
27percentofAfrican‐Americanworkers,26percentofU.S.‐bornLatinos,and14percentof
Latinoimmigrantshavethislevelofeducation(Carnevaleetal.,2010;Treuhaftetal.,
2011).Inaddition,racialdiscrimination,weaksocialnetworks,disproportionate
incarceration,andthedistancebetweenwherejobsarelocatedandwherepeopleofcolor
canaffordtolive(combinedwithpoortransportationoptions)allconspiretoreinforce
racialinequitiesinthelabormarket(TreuhaftandRubin,2013).
Differencesbetweenregionshavetodowiththequalityofjobscurrentlyinthelocal
economicbase(i.e.,thelegacyofpasttrends)aswellasthosecurrentlybeingproducedby
theregionaleconomy(i.e.,therecentmomentumofeconomicgrowthordecline).One
metricofjobqualityandskilllevelistheextenttowhichtheregionallaborforceis
dominatedbyoccupationsthat—onaverage,nationally—requireatleastsomecollege.
Warehouseemployeesandagriculturalworkers,forexample,seldomhavemuchcollege
education;collegeprofessorsalmostalwayshaveatleastsomecollegeeducation.
Toillustrateinter‐regionaldifferences,weclassifiedU.S.workersintofive“job
skill”1categories,bycollegeattainment:Verylow(fewerthan20%ofthoseinthe
1“Skill”hereisanabbreviation;peoplewithoutcollegeoftenhaveverystrongskillsobtainedthroughexperience.Thevariableweuseisaconstructedvariablemadeavailable
13
occupationhaveatleastsomecollege),low(20‐39%havesomecollege),medium(40‐59%
havesomecollege),high(60‐79%havesomecollege),andveryhigh(80‐100%havesome
college).Ourfindingshelpunderscoretheimportanceofnationaltrends,thevariation
betweenU.S.metroareas,andthediversepathwaysthatinclusivegrowthpoliciesmay
needtopursue:
1. Occupations in which most workers lack college education are disappearing fast.
Between2000and2011,thevery‐lowskillcategorylostnearly16millionjobs
nationwideandthelow‐skillcategorygainedonly2millionjobs,comparedwithgainsof
almost12millionmiddle‐skilljobs,4.6millionhigh‐skilljobs,andnearly11millionvery
highskilljobs(Figure1).Thesechangesaredrivenbyatleasttwomainforces.First,the
fastest‐growingoccupationsarethosethathavelongrequiredatleastsomecollege
attainment.Second,educationalexpectationsarerising,sothatoccupationsthatoncehad
lowlevelsofcollegeattainment—includingmanylow‐wagejobs—nowareheldbypeople
withmediumskilllevels,eveniftheobjectiverequirementsforcarryingoutmanyofthese
jobshavenotchanged.
inIPUMS‐USA(Rugglesetal.,2010),EDSCOR90,whichindicatesthepercentageofpeopleintherespondent'soccupationalcategorywhohadcompletedoneormoreyearsofcollege.
14
Figure 1. Most U.S. job growth is in the middle‐ and high‐skill categories; low‐skill jobs declining.
Source:Authors’calculationsbasedonU.S.Census,2000CensusofPopulationandHousinglongformand
2011one‐yearAmericanCommunitySurvey,extractedfromIPUMS‐USA(StevenRuggles,J.TrentAlexander,
KatieGenadek,RonaldGoeken,MatthewB.Schroeder,andMatthewSobek.IntegratedPublicUseMicrodata
Series:Version5.0[Machine‐readabledatabase].Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota,2010.).
MetroareaswheremanyyoungpeoplelackaccesstogoodK‐12education,
communitycolleges,andfour‐yeardegreesthereforeareunlikelytoshareinnationaljob
growthunlesstheyhaveotherfeaturesthatcanattractin‐migrants.Focusingoneducation,
atleastthroughcommunitycollege,isthereforeanecessaryingredientnotonlybecauseit
allowsworkerstogetaccesstobetterjobsbutsimplybecauseitequipsthemtoqualifyfor
jobsintheonlysegmentsofthelaborforcethatarestillgrowing.Mostcriticallyofall,
perhaps,accesstoeducationallowscurrentworkerstokeepupwithnewentrantstothe
laborforce,whoareincreasinglylikelytohaveatleastayearofcollege.
2. Cities with low‐skill job concentrations can grow but are not safe from decline.
AsshowninFigure2,U.S.metropolitanareaswheremostofthelaborforceworked
inoccupationsrequiringlowlevelsofcollegeattainmentin2000(averageslessthan45
percentofthetotal)rangedfromemploymentgrowthofover40percentbetweenthenand
2011(inthebordermetrosofMcAllenandLaredo,Texas,wherecross‐borderconsumer
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Verylow Low Medium High Veryhigh
Workers
Millions
Averagecollegeattainmentintheoccupation
2000
2011
15
demandhelpsfuelgrowth),toemploymentlossesoffiveto10percentinasmallnumberof
metroareas(withFlint,Michigan,intheRustBelt,losinganestimated28percentofits
jobs).
Figure 2. Job growth is not limited to high‐skill metro areas (U.S. Metro areas, 2000‐2011)
Source:Authors’calculationsbasedonU.S.Census,2000CensusofPopulationandHousinglongformand
2011one‐yearAmericanCommunitySurvey,extractedfromIPUMS‐USA(StevenRuggles,J.TrentAlexander,
KatieGenadek,RonaldGoeken,MatthewB.Schroeder,andMatthewSobek.IntegratedPublicUseMicrodata
Series:Version5.0[Machine‐readabledatabase].Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota,2010.).
DevelopmentstrategiesforinclusivegrowthintheRioGrandeValleywill
necessarilyneedtodifferfromthoseinFlintandtherestoftheGreatLakes.Theysharea
needforskilldevelopmentinthelaborsupply;manynewjobsarelow‐incomejobs,
meaningmetrossuchasMcAllenneedtocreatemore“good”jobsandupgrademany
existingjobs.ButFlint,oncethehomeofmanyofGeneralMotors’largestassemblyplants,
mayalsoneedacombinationofjobdevelopmentthroughthecreationofnewenterprises
‐40%
‐30%
‐20%
‐10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
Percentemploym
entchange,2000‐2011
Averageoccupationalcollege‐educationlevel,2000
16
andmobilitypathwaysleadingsomejob‐seekerstoother,growingmetropolitan
economies.
3. Cities with concentrations of high‐skill jobs show significant and persistent inequities.
WhileFigure2suggeststhathigh‐skillmetroareaswereshieldedfromjobloss
since2000,theyhavenotexperiencedthelevelsofjobgrowthoftencommoninmore
balancedeconomies(i.e.thosewithmanymiddle‐skilljobs).Andthemetroareaswhere
thehighestsharesofresidentsworkinhigh‐skilloccupations—Stamford,Connecticut;
Washington,DC;SantaFe,NM;SanJose,CA;andBoston,MA—havehighhousingcoststhat
burdenlow‐wageworkers.Inclusiveeconomicstrategiesinthesemetroareasmayneedto
focusnotonlyonjobgrowthformid‐tolow‐wageworkers,butalsooninitiativestoease
financialandcommutingburdensforyoungadultswhofillthesejobsbutneedtobalance
work,family,andthepursuitofhighereducation.Thediverserecenttrendsinlabor,
studentandresidentorganizinginthosehighgrowthareashavefocusedonthesetypesof
challenges:maintainingtheaffordabilityofandaccesstocommunitycolleges;enacting
policiesforhigherminimumwagesor“livingwages”;expandingaffordablehousingsupply
(inthefaceofstagnantordecliningfederalassistance);andbuildingbroad‐based
coalitionstoadvocateforexpandedmasstransittoserveworkingpeople.
Metropolitan demographic profiles
U.S.metropolitanareasalsovaryintheirdemographicprofiles.First,thereisage
distribution:BabyBoomers(thoseborn1945‐1962andcurrentlyagedbetween51and
68)areanoticeable“bump”intheageprofileofmostmetropolitanareas.Nationaltrends
ineconomicgrowthandinternationalmigrationoverthepastfourtofivedecadeshaveled
tosubstantialvariationintheshareofyoungerresidents,however.IntheNewYork
metropolitanarea,forexample,about53percentofresidentsareyoungerthan40years
old,whereasabout60percentofthepopulationofmetropolitanDallasisyoungerthan40.
AcomparisonoftheagestructuresofDallasandPittsburgh—twolarge
metropolitanareasatextremesoftheage‐distributionspectrum—suggeststhatthesetwo
17
areashaveeconomieswithdifferentkindsofchallenges(Figure3).InPittsburgh,Baby
Boomerretirementswillcreatelargenumbersofjobopeningsinthenexttwodecades,
potentiallyofferingsignificantopportunitiesfortherelativelysmallnumberofchildren
andyoungadultscurrentlylivingintheregion—butperhapsattractingmigrantsto
competeforthoseopeningsaswell.Utilities,hospitals,universities,andotheranchor
institutionswithlarge,relativelywell‐paidworkforcesarethekeysourcesofthisturnover,
andmanyoftherecentinnovationsinworkforcedevelopmentaimsquarelyattaking
advantageofthatforlocalpopulations.
Figure 3. Age composition extremes: Pittsburgh and Dallas, 2010
Source:U.S.CensusofPopulationandHousing2010,SummaryFile1.
InDallas,bycontrast,thepopulationhaslargenumbersofchildrenandyoung
adultsandasmallershareofBabyBoomersthanthenationalaverage.Substantialamounts
ofjobgrowththroughtheformationofnewestablishmentsandfirmsandtheexpansionof
existingoneswillthereforebeneededtoprovideopportunitiesadequatetoaccommodate
expectedlabor‐forcegrowth.SincethemainsourcesofjobgrowthintheU.S.economyare
18
occupationsthatrequirehighlevelsofeducation,Dallas’sabilitytoremaincompetitivefor
thatjobgrowthmayhingeoninvestmentsinpre‐K,K‐12education,highereducation,and
workforcedevelopment.Specificmeasuresaimedatinclusionineducationandtraining,
thatis,areprobablycrucialifcitiessuchasDallaswishtomaximizetheireconomic
potential—andspecificallypromoteinclusivegrowth—incomingdecades.
Aseconddimensionofdifferenceamongmetropolitanareashastodowithwide
variationinracialandethniccomposition.TheUnitedStates’longhistoryofwhitenon‐
Hispanic(white)racialdiscriminationagainstnonwhites—especiallyAfricanAmericans—
affectsprospectsforinclusioninmanyways.
Whiteshavehigherincomesandhouseholdwealth,workinhigher‐status
occupations,havelowerlevelsofunemployment,andaremuchlesslikelytobecurrently
orformerlyincarceratedthaneitherAfricanAmericansorLatinos(Oliver2006,Alexander
2012).Onaverage,whitechildrenattendschoolswhoseteachersarebetterpaidandless
likelytoturnoverthanthosewhosestudentsaremainlyAfricanAmericanorLatino
(Clotfelter,Ladd,andVigdor2007).
Amongthe25largestU.S.metropolitanareas,forexample,thepercentofpopulation
thatiscurrentlywhiteandnon‐Hispanicrangesfromover80percentinPittsburgh,
Cincinnati,andMinneapolis‐St.Paultolessthan50percentinLosAngeles,Miami,
Riverside(CA),Houston,andSanFrancisco‐Oakland.Theraciallydiversemetroareasalso
differfromoneanother,withblacksorAfricanAmericansconstitutingoverone‐quarterof
thepopulationinAtlanta,Baltimore,andWashingtonandLatinosorHispanicsamounting
toatleastathirdofthepopulationofRiverside,LosAngeles,Miami,andHouston.
MetropolitanareaswithhighproportionsofAfricanAmericansandLatinos
disproportionatelybeartheburdenofthelegacyofdiscrimination,meaninganeedfor
higherlevelsofinvestmenttoreachalevelplayingfieldwithpredominantlywhitemetros.
About13percentoftheU.S.populationin2010wasbornabroad.Butlikeother
demographiccharacteristics,theshareofimmigrantsfromabroadvarieswidelyacross
metropolitanareas.Perhapspredictably,metropolitanareaswiththehighestpercentages
19
ofHispanicpopulation—Miami,LosAngeles,andRiverside—alsorankamongthosewith
thehighestsharesofforeign‐bornresidents,butimmigrantsalsoaccountformorethan
oneinfiveresidentsinSanFrancisco,NewYork,SanDiego,Houston,andWashington,D.C.
Eventhesemetroshavediversityinthenationaloriginsandskillleveloftheirforeign‐born
residents.Localinitiativesinmetroswithlargeandespeciallynewlygrowingimmigrant
populationsneedtofosterimmigranteconomicintegrationandensuresuccessfromthe
firsttosecondandsuccessivegenerations.Insomelargeimmigrantgatewaymetropolitan
areas,thisrequiresEnglishlanguageinstructiontolargenumbersofresidents.Aboutone
in10residentsoftheSanFrancisco‐Oaklandarea,forexample,speakEnglishlessthan
“verywell,”aproficiencylevelthatalsoappliestobetween5and10percentofresidentsof
LosAngeles,NewYork,Seattle,Boston,SanDiego,andWashington.
The geography of opportunity within metropolitan regions
AfourthandfinalkeydimensionofdifferenceamongU.S.metropolitanareasisin
thedegreetowhichresidentialneighborhoodsandevenlocalgovernmentjurisdictions
separatepeoplebyraceandclass.Comparedtootheraffluenteconomies,including
immigrantmagnetssuchasCanadaandAustralia,racialresidentialsegregationisstillvery
highintheU.S.,especiallysegregationofAfricanAmericansfromwhitesandLatinos(Fig.
4).SegregationreduceshousingwealthforpeoplelivinginblackandLatinoneighborhoods
(Flippen2004)andreducesusefulsocialcontactbetweenwhitesandothers(Masseyand
Denton1994;Briggs1998).Racialsegregationhassometimesevolvedsothatlarge,
contiguousareas—entiredistricts,notjustsingleneighborhoods,withincities—areeither
mostlyAfricanAmericanormostlywhite(Leeetal.2008).InAtlanta,forexample,whites
havesuburbanizedbymovingeverfarthernorthfromthecentralcityandmiddle‐and
working‐classblacksbymovingsouth.Washington,D.C.,presentsasimilarpattern:whites
havesuburbanizednorthandwest,whileblackshavemovedsouthandeast.
Thespatialsegregationofthepoorfromthenon‐poorisrelatedtoracial
segregationbutlesssevereintermsofrates(figure4).Low‐andmiddle‐incomepeople
20
increasinglyshareneighborhoodswhilethehighest‐incomehouseholds—whoare
predominantlywhite—formenclaves(ReardonandBischoff2011).
NeighborhoodswithhighconcentrationsofAfricanAmericansandLatinosoften
havehighpovertyrates;fewhigh‐povertyneighborhoods,conversely,aremostlywhite.
Concentratedpoverty—neighborhoodpovertylevelsexceeding30percentoreven40
percent—hasahostofnegativeoutcomesforthepeoplewholiveinit,especiallyfor
childrenwhogrowupamidsucheconomicinsecurity.Theseinclude,forexample,alower
senseofsubjectivewell‐being(Ludwigetal.2012),lowerbirthweight(Osypuketal.
2013),poorerphysicalhealth(Ludwigetal.2011),worseeducationaloutcomes(Sharkey
andElwert2011),higherrisksofadolescentparenthood(Wodtke2013),weakerlevelsof
labor‐forceparticipation,higherratesofincarceration(Faganetal.2002),anddampened
ratesofcivicparticipation(Stoll2001).Moreover,keyeffectsappeartobetransmitted
acrossgenerations(Sharkey2013),contributingto“durable”inequalities.Theincidenceof
high‐povertyneighborhoods—thosewhosepovertyrateexceeds30percent—varies
substantiallyacrosstheU.S.;inDetroit,Cleveland,andPhiladelphia,theprobabilitythata
personlivingbelowthepovertylinealsolivesinahigh‐povertyneighborhoodexceeds40
percent.2PoorpeopleinPortland(OR),SanFrancisco,Seattle,andTampa,bycontrast,are
lessthan15percentlikelytoliveinahighpovertyneighborhood.Althoughall
comprehensivestrategiesforaddressingtheneedsoflow‐incomechildrenrequirea
combinationofcommunity‐levelinstitution‐buildingandfamily‐levelinterventionsand
supports,thesecontrastsintheintensityofconcentratedpovertysuggestdifferent
approachesareneededinvariouscities.
2Authors’calculationsbasedon2005‐2009U.S.CensusAmericanCommunitySurveydata.
21
Figure 4. Racial‐ethnic and poor‐nonpoor residential segregation varies widely across U.S. metro areas, 2005‐09
Source:AmericanCommunitySurveydatafor2005‐09(average),CBSAs(metropolitanareasonly)using
2003definitions;computedbyPastoretal.andavailableintheBuildingResilientRegionsdataset.
Prolongedeconomicdistress,beginningwiththeGreatRecessionin2007,has
raisedthenationalpovertyratetoitshighestlevelsincethe1970s.Thefamilieswhohave
fallenintopovertybecauseofjoblosslivedisproportionatelyinneighborhoodswhere
manypoorfamiliesalreadylived.Asaconsequence,povertyratesinmanyofthese
neighborhoodshavesurpassedthe“high‐poverty”threshold.Whileeconomicrecovery
maychangethisintime,theseareasandtheirresidentsremainunstableandeconomically
insecure.
Therearetwodistincttypesofgrowthinconcentratedpoverty,requiringdifferent
policyresponses.First,somehigh‐povertyneighborhoodsareimmigrantenclavesinfast‐
growth,low‐wagemetros,withhighpopulationdensity,high(butalsoofteninformal)
22
laborforceparticipation,highresidentialmobilityrates,andlargefamilies.Policy
responsesappropriatefortheseenclaveslargelyhingeoneffectiveimmigrant
incorporationthroughschool,workforce,andentrepreneurshipopportunities,andhousing
policies(includingrentalaffordability)thatsupportapathwaytoaffordableandsecure
homeownership,especiallyforyoungfamilies,asanasset‐developmenttool.Some
researchevensuggeststhatimmigrantenclaveshaveprotectivefactorsthatneutralizethe
negativeeffectsofconcentratedpoverty,notonlyforimmigrantsbutalsofornative‐born
co‐ethnics(Osypuketal.2010).
Asecond,verydifferentgroupofhigh‐povertyneighborhoodsarecentral‐cityand
inner‐suburbanzonesofdeindustrialized,weak‐marketmetros,effectivelyabandonedby
boththemarketand,inmanyrespects,thepublicsector.Theseneighborhoodshavelow
populationdensityandhighconcentrationsofelderlyanddisabledresidents,lack
affordableandamenableoptionsforshopping,andsufferfromdecayinginfrastructure.
Policiestoimprovetheeconomicprospectsoftheseneighborhoodsandtheirresidents
oftenhingeonworkforcedevelopmentandthecreationofstrongerconnectionswiththe
anchorinstitutionsthatareoftennearby.Totheextentthattheirhousingstockremains
viableandtheirlocationisconvenienttoestablishedjobs,reinvestmentininfrastructure
andpatienteffortstobuildmixed‐incomehousing,createnewopportunitiesforsmall
business,andimprovemass‐transitconnectionscanalsoimprovetheirappealandstabilize
theseneighborhoods.
Butmanyoftheseneighborhoodsareatthecoreofmetropolitanareaswhoseedges
aresteadilymovingoutwardasnewhousescontinuetobebuilttoaccommodatemiddle‐
andupper‐incomehouseholds.Thisoversupplymakesnewneighborhoodsmoreattractive
thanoldonesandalmostasaffordable.Effortstomakeolderneighborhoodsmore
attractivethereforemayrequirecomplementaryeffortstoreducetheoversupplyofnew
housingatthefringe.Inthemeantime,inclusivedevelopmentintheseneighborhoodsmay
mainlyneedtofocusonsmoothingthetransitiontoalower‐growtheconomythroughland
banking,codeenforcement,andenhancedsocialservices.
23
Ensuring the Elements: What Do We Know, and What Do We Need to Learn?
Inclusiondemandsaccesstoaffordablenecessities,suchashousing,whichpresents
acrushingburdentomanydisadvantagedhouseholds.Butinclusionclearlydemands
accesstogoodjobsandopportunitiestobuildwealthaswell.Inlightofthetrendsinhow
andwherecitiesandmetropolitanareashavebeengrowing,thestrategiesformaking
citiesmoreeconomicallyinclusivearenecessarilyvaried.Here,wefocusingreaterdepth
ontheemploymentdimensionofthe“playbook,”firstoutliningthreebroadobjectivesand
thenbrieflydescribingseveralstrategiesthatarereceivingagrowingamountofattention
fromlocalleadersandnationalpolicymakers.
Improving institutional access:Insomelocallabormarkets,jobsareavailable,or
willbethankstonewinvestments,andthelocalpopulationisready,willingandableto
securethejobs.Newpoliciesorpracticesareneededinordertoensurebroadandfair
accesstothesejobopportunitiesandtomatchjobseekersandemployerseffectively.These
arenotnecessarilyeasychangestobringabout,buttheyareperhapsthesimplestin
conceptualterms:newpositionsarecreated,andqualifiedlocalresidentsfromlower
incomecommunitiesofcoloraregivengenuineopportunitiestoobtainthem.Thisrequires
overcominghistoricandpersistentbarriersofracialandgenderdiscriminationinvarious
businessesandtrades,anditrequiresnewinvestmentinorneartheareaswhere
disadvantagedworkersandjobseekersaredisproportionatelyconcentrated.TheU.S.
DepartmentofHousingandUrbanDevelopment’sSection3policy,forexample,gives
residentsofpublichousingfirstchanceatconstructionjobsintherenovationoftheir
developments.MeetingthegoalsforSection3alonewouldcreateabout100,000jobsfor
publichousingresidents.(CarrandMulcahy,2010.)Ahostofprogramstoprovideenergy
retrofitstoolderbuildingsandpromotelocalhiringforthisworkhavealsoledtothe
employmentoflocallowincomeresidentseagerforachancetobreakintothenewgreen
industries.(NationalEmploymentLawProject,2012)Virtuallyeverymajorredevelopment
projectintheU.S.hasfaceddemands,ifnotoutrightopposition,untiltheyhavecreated
vehiclesforinclusionaryhiringandlocalcontracting.Beyondredevelopmentintheformal
governmentalsenseofthatterm,almostallpublicinfrastructureprojectsarenowsubject
24
tosomeformofthisfocusoninclusivehiringandcontracting.Themosteffectiveofthese
targetedhiringstrategiesaretiedtoskills‐buildingandotherpreparationforwould‐be
newworkersfromunderrepresentedcommunities.
Improving spatial access (to jobs throughout the region):Inmostregions,most
newjobsarecreatedinsuburbanlocations,sothegeneralabsenceofgoodmasstransithas
mademanyofthesepositionsinaccessible,bothtoinner‐citypopulationsandtothe
growingranksofsuburbanpoor.Ahostofpilotefforts,suchasthefederalJobAccess
ReverseCommute(JARC)program,havehelpedtobringanumberofthesejobswithin
reach,althoughsignificantprogresswouldstillrequiremassivetransitexpansion,landuse
policiestobetterconcentratejobgrowthonornearexistingtransitcorridors,and/or
affordableaccesstoreliableautomobiles.(e.g.,throughcarvoucherprograms,whichhave
beentestedbutneverscaled).Notwithstandingpersistentspatialmismatch,thedispersion
ofaffordablehousingtothesuburbshasbroughtmanyraciallydiverse,lowerincome
earnerswithinbetterreachofawiderrangeofjobs;infact,improvementsinspatial
mismatchappeartobemainlyaboutworkersrelocatingtowardjobgrowth,notjobs
growingneardisadvantagedworkersandjobseekers(RaphaelandStoll2003).Inarecent
changetofederalguidanceandenforcementoffairhousinglaws,HUDhasdirectedthose
regionalplanningagencieswhichhavereceived“sustainablecommunities”planninggrants
toconduct“fairhousingequityassessments”whichexplicitlymeasurethevariationsacross
theirregionsinaccesstojobsinrelationtothelocationofareasofraciallyconcentrated
poverty.Thisbetterdocumentationandheightenedawarenessisintendedtospurgreater
regionalattentiontoaddressthesedisparities,thoughthepolicyframeworkforregional
actionisthusfarrelativelysparse.
Building skills:Theeducationandskilllevelsofunemployedandunderemployed
peopleneedtobesignificantlyimprovediftheyaretobeabletoobtainandsucceedin
growingandmorerewardingoccupations.Giventhaturbanschoolsystemshavefailed
largeproportionsofinner‐cityresidentsofcolor,andgiventhatpoorersuburbanschool
districtsarelikewisestruggling,prospectsforeconomicsecurity,letaloneupward
mobility,willremainlimitedunlessanduntilthedisadvantagedgainskillsandjob
25
readiness.Therangeofstrategiesinplaytoaddressthishumancapitalcrisisisenormous,
anditisbeyondthescopeofthispapertocoverthemindepth.Keystrategiesforvarious
agegroupsinclude:
Intensiveearlychildhoodeducation,withafocusoncognitivedevelopmentand
health;
Primaryandsecondaryeducationreformsofmanykinds,withparticularemphasis
onteachereffectiveness,smallerclasssizes,neweducationaltechnologies,and
improvedscience,technology,engineeringandmath(STEM)curriculaand
mentoring;
Dropoutand“push‐out”prevention,whichoftencallsforradicallydifferent
approachestoschooldisciplineprocedures,especiallyforboysofcolor,aswellas
improvementstocurriculum;
Restructuredtechnicalandvocational(“skilledtrades”)programs,whichreflect
modernworkplacerealities,highwagesfortrades(thankstolicensureandinsome
casesunionization)andeffortstocombatstigmasandovercomediscriminatory
practicesof“tracking”low‐incomeyouthandyouthofcolorawayfromcollege
preparation;and
Improvedaccessto,andreadinessfor,highereducation,fromassociate’sdegree
credentialsthatareincreasinglyindemandfortraditionallylower‐skilljobs,suchas
manufacturing,onup.
Eachofthesestrategiesdeservesaplaceinanyseriouscommitmenttopromote
economicinclusionbyimprovingthelivesofyoungpeople.Foradults,awiderangeof
training,education,andworkplacestrategieshavebeendeveloped,andmanyofthe
effectiveonesfeatureconsistentsuccessfactors,whetherthejobsareinconstruction,
retailing,healthcare,orothersectors.Forexample:
Concurrentworkplaceandclassroomlearningexperienceswhichfeedintoand
reinforceeachother,sometimesintheformofapprenticeships;
26
Supportservices,mentoringandguidance,andflexiblefinancialaid,whichenableto
clientstogainconfidenceandfinishwhattheystart;and
Aclearandrealisticpathtoemployment,forexamplethroughstrongconnectionsto
employersthatfocusonspecificskillneedsandsectoralchanges.
Thesefeaturesrepresentbestpracticesinworkforcedevelopmentforallkindsof
adults.Butforthelargenumbersofformerlyincarceratedmenandwomenbeingreturned
totheirhomecommunities,theyareespeciallycrucialyethardtoputintopractice.The
lackofresourcesdevotedtogettingformerprisonersintotheregularlaborforceisoneof
thelargestsystemicfailingsofthejusticeandtrainingsystems,andthreatenstoundermine
progressmadeonotherfronts.
Workforcedevelopmentandeducationaretheresponsibilityofpatchworkquiltof
localagencies,overseenbyequallyfragmentedstateandfederalregulatorsandfunders.
Issuessuchastheneedsoftheformerlyincarceratedaddthecriminaljusticesysteminto
themixofrelevantpolicyarenas.Savvyschoolandworkforceagencyleadersknowhowto
initiatethesekindsofinnovationsinspiteoftheinertiabuiltintothesystem,andallofthe
conceptslistedabovecanbefoundbeingsuccessfullyimplementedsomewhere.Thenext
thresholdforUSworkforcedevelopmentwillnotbethecreationofmorepilotprojects,but
rathermorewidespreadenactmentofpoliciesforsystemicchangeandsustainedfunding
tonurturethenewapproachesincommunitycolleges,highschools,andcommunity‐based
trainingorganizations.
Economic Inclusion Tools and Policy Targets for Cities and Regions
Sincethecivilrightsera,communities,advocates,policymakers,andindustry
leadershavedevelopedavarietyofeconomicinclusiontools,suchastargetedhiringand
minoritycontractingstrategies,whichconnectlow‐incomepeople,peopleofcolor,and
minority‐andwomen‐ownedbusinessestoeconomicopportunities.Economicinclusion
toolshaveachievedimportantgainsforlow‐incomecommunitiesandcommunitiesof
color—buttheyarefarfromsufficienttomatchthescaleoftheproblem.Economic
inclusionhasoftenbeenasmalladd‐ontoafullydevelopedeconomicdevelopment
27
strategy,incorporatedbecauseoflegalrequirementsorresultingfromcommunity
pressure,organizing,andadvocacy.Inotherinstances,economicinclusioneffortsare
ineffective,uncoordinated,or—inthecaseofstrategiesthatdependoncommitmentsby
employersorothers—weaklyenforced.
Asthelocaldemonstrationprojectsandinnovationssupportedbyphilanthropyor
federalpilotprogramshaveproliferated,andadvocatesforinclusionhavetheirsightsset
onmorethoroughlyintegratingthesepilotsintolarge‐scalejobcreation,economic
development,andpublicinvestmentstrategiesbeingpursuedbylocalandstate
governments.
Below,wesummarizethreesuchapproachestoeconomicinclusionincitiesand
regions,whichwechoseforseveralreasons.First,theyareimportantjobcreation
strategiesintheirownright.Second,theyofferlarge‐scaleopportunitiesforeconomic
inclusionintermsofthepotentialnumberofpeoplefromunderrepresentedgroupswho
couldbeconnectedtojobsorthenumberoffirmsthatcouldbeconnectedtogrowth
opportunities(thatleadtogreaterjobcreation).Third,theyhavethepotentialtochange
thesysteminwhichtheyarebeingimplemented,engagingmultiplestakeholdersand
leadingtoshiftsinhoweconomicdevelopmentispursuedattheregionallevel.Fourth,
manyofthemareattunedtotheimportanceofasset‐buildingandwealthcreationaswell
asdirectemployment.Andfinally,whilethereareonlyafewwell‐establishedmodelsof
theseinnovativestrategies,thelocalinnovationsshowgreatpromise.
Increasing the positive local economic and social impact of anchor institutions
Asmentionedabove,hospitals,universities,utilitiesandotherlargeemployerswill
usuallynotberelocatingfromcentralcitiesandareamajorsourceofemployment,
spendingongoodsandservices,andcapitalprojects.Theyareoftenalso,throughthe
commercialusesoftheirresearch,thedriversoftechnologicalinnovationandhighgrowth
industriesintheirhomeregions.Thislargeeconomicimpactandgenerallyheightened
sensitivitytoarangeofsocialandpoliticalimperativesmakeanchorinstitutionsespecially
significantpotentialcontributorstostrategiesforinclusion.Whenseveralanchorsactin
alliancewitheachotherandwithcommunitydevelopers,theimpactandthelevelof
innovationcanbeevenlarger.
28
Cleveland’sEvergreenCooperativesexemplifieshowhospitalsanduniversitiescan
orienttheirspendingpowertospurdevelopmentofnewenterprisesindistressed
communitiesandconnectlow‐incomeresidents(includingex‐offenders)togoodcareers
thatpayfamily‐supportingwagesandenabletheemployeestobuildwealththroughan
ownershipstakeinthebusiness.Theworker‐ownedenterprisesare,thusfar,alaundry,an
urbangreenhouseoperationgrowinglettuce,andasolarinstallationcompany,all
capitalizedbasedoncommitmentsbythehospitalsanduniversitiestopurchasethese
goodsandservices(ClevelandFoundation2013).
Thebreadth,creativityandsustainabilityoftheEvergreenCooperativesandthe
otherjointactivitiesofCleveland’sanchorsarearesultofrecognitionofseveralkeyfactors
bykeyleaders:
Theseinstitutionsneededtoactcollaboratively.Notwithstandingthetraditional
intensecompetitionbetweenthetwolargehospitals,theycouldnotrevivethe
communityorcreatetheenvironmentfortheirsurvivalandsuccessindependently.
Inadditiontotheworker‐ownedenterprises,thejointactivityofthehospitalsand
universitieshasledtomasstransitimprovements,publicsafetystrategies,public
events,andnumerousotherwaysinwhichtheUniversityCircleareahasbecomea
moreviablecommunity.
TheClevelandFoundationplaysastronganduniqueroleinconveningaswellas
supportingallthepartnersinalong‐term,comprehensiveplace‐basedstrategy.
Thislocalphilanthropy,oneofthenation’soldestandlargestcommunity
foundations,createdthespacesinwhichalltheparties,fromcorporateexecutives
tolocalresidentstomunicipalgovernment,couldplanandimplementthenew
enterprisesandtheotherneighborhoodimprovementstrategies.
Astrategyforneighborhoodrevivalrequiresfamilyandcommunityasset‐building
aswellasincome‐generatingefforts.ThegoalofEvergreen’sfirmsistoendowtheir
worker‐ownerswithagrowingstakeinviablebusinesses.Thiseconomicstability
will,itisanticipated,promotestabilityintheneighborhood’spopulationandreal
estatevalues,andenhanceitschancesforagradualreturntoprosperity.
29
TheHenryFordHealthSysteminDetroithasincreaseditspurchasingfromDetroit
firmsandrunsasupplierdevelopmentprogramtoincreaseminoritypurchasingand
contracting.Thehospitalpayssmalllocalfirmsamonthinadvance,whichmakesiteasier
forthemtoexecutethesecontracts,andhasmadeitsbiddingproceduresmuchmore
transparentthaninthepast(TreuhaftandRubin,2013).Acitywideinformationsystemfor
matchinglocalfirmswithalltheanchors’purchasingrequirementsinbeingputinto
operation.HenryFordHealthSystemandtheotheranchorsinMidtownDetroithavealso
collaboratedonhousingincentiveprograms,forbothpurchasesandrentals,toencourage
employeestoliveneartheirwork,andtoarangeofotherrevitalizationinitiatives.
AsinCleveland,thearrayofstrategiesandcollaborativerelationshipsamongand
withtheanchorsiscultivatedbyanindependententity,inthiscasethecommunity‐based
organizationnowknownasMidtownDetroit,Inc.Thegroupservesasabusiness
improvementdistrictmanager,anonprofitpropertydeveloper,aforumforneighborhood
plans,asupportsystemforsmallfirms,andtheinstigatorofavarietyofhousing,
commercial,targetedprocurementandlocalhiringstrategies.MDIissupportedbyawide
rangeoffoundationsaswellasearnedincome.InasituationsuchasDetroit,wherelocal
governmentisunabletotakethekindsofinitiativesseenelsewhere,
Promoting racial and ethnic diversity in entrepreneurship, from neighborhood small
businesses to innovative technology firms.
Thecaseforracialinclusionisnotlimitedtojobs,butisequallyimportantforthe
establishmentandsupportofsmallbusinessesand,moregenerally,thedevelopmentof
newenterprisesinallsectorsoftheregionaleconomy,fromneighborhoodretailand
business‐to‐businessvendorstothestart‐upsinthetechnologysectorsandthe
commercializationofintellectualproperty.Minorityentrepreneurstypicallyfacebarriers
orlackofaccesstonetworks,capital,andotherresourcesbeyondwhattheirwhite
counterpartsface,andanumberoforganizationshavebeenformedtoovercomethese
oftenimplicitbutveryrealchallenges.Apartfromrepresentinganimportantdimensionof
inclusionintheirownright,minority‐ownedfirmsaremorelikelythanotherfirmstohire
employeesfromtheircommunities(Bates,2009).
30
TheU.S.haslonghadsupportcentersforindependentfirmsandwould‐be
entrepreneurs,oftenundertherubricofSmallBusinessDevelopmentCentersorother
extensionsofthefederalSmallBusinessAdministration.Mostlargecitiesalsohavesome
kindofsmallbusinessloanprogram.Butwhilethesepubliclysupportedentitieshavehad
somesuccesses,theyareslowtochangetheirpractices,facetighteningpublicbudget
allocations,andhavenotbeenthelocusofmostoftheinnovationinthefield.Mostofthat
energyhasbeenfoundinsomerelativelynewnonprofitorganizations,usuallyseededby
privatephilanthropyandoftenwithanexplicitracialorculturalidentity.The
NeighborhoodDevelopmentCenterinSt.Paul,Minnesotaisemblematicofbusiness
developmentprogramsthathelpentrepreneursfromlow‐incomecommunitiesofcolor
starttheirownenterprisesandcontributetotherevitalizationoftheirneighborhoods.The
NDC’strainingcoursesareculturallyandlinguisticallyspecifictoeachcommunity,
includingmanydiverseimmigrantgroups,fromSomalistoHmongtoMexicans,andthe
supportsystemthatkeepsworkingwithgraduateshasproventobeeffectiveoverthelong
term:morethan4,000residentshavecompletedthetrainingand500graduatesare
currentlyoperatingbusinesses,sustaining2,200jobsandreturning$64milliontotheir
communityintaxes,payroll,andrentannually(TreuhaftandRubin,2013,basedon
evaluationbyWilderFoundation).Aninterest‐freesystemforlendingmoney,consistent
withIslamicpractice,isamongtheculturallyspecificcomponentsoftheworkofNDC.The
NDCmodeliscurrentlybeingadaptedinDetroitbyaclusteroforganizationsservinga
rangeofimmigrantpopulationsandAfricanAmericancommunities.
Inthehigh‐growthsectors,thereisasmallbutpromisingtrendofsupportsystems
beingestablishedforAfricanAmericanandLatinowould‐beentrepreneurs,bothmenand
women,toestablishaccesstothekindsofadvising,socialandbusinessnetworks,
informationandcapitalwhichhavelargelybeentheprovinceofwhiteandAsianAmerican
males.Thesesupportcenters,someorganizedasnonprofits,otherasfor‐profitbusinesses,
areappearinginboththedominantcentersofinformationtechnology,suchastheSan
FranciscoBayArea,andinolderindustrialcitiessuchasCleveland.JumpStart,Inc.anda
spin‐off,MainStreetInclusionAdvisors,basedinCleveland,havebeenleadersin
counselinghundredsofentrepreneursofcolorfromtheirearliestconceptsthroughallthe
stagesofstartinguporconnectingtotechnology‐orientedcompanies.Moresystemically,
31
NorTech,anonprofittechnology‐basedeconomicdevelopmentorganizationalsobasedin
NortheastOhio,hasassertedthehighpriorityit,anditsallies,givetoinclusiveness:
“NortheastOhioisthefirstregioninthecountrywherepartnerorganizationsinthe
innovationecosystem…haveunitedtomeasurethecompetitivenessofAfricanAmericans
andLatinoAmericansinregionalinnovationclusters,committoacommonframeworkfor
collectiveaction,andtoadoptbroadpoliciesofsupport.”(NorTech,2012).NewMEisan
acceleratorfortechnologystart‐upsbyAfricanAmericanandLatinoentrepreneurs,based
inSanFranciscobutwith“pop‐up”competitionsandclinicsinseveralothercities,
includingDetroit.(PolicyLink2013.)NewMEaimstobroadenaccesstothekindsof
experts,resources,andenvironmentsforcollaborativeproblem‐solvingwhichhave
becomethehallmarkofsoftwareentrepreneurship.
Thoughthistypeofadvisingisstillrelativelynew,thereisgreatpotentialforits
expansionintoothercitiesandmorevariedlinesofbusiness.Itiscomplementedbythe
approachtakenbygroupssuchastheInitiativeforaCompetitiveInnerCitywhich,while
notasexplicitlyrace‐based,alsochampionsbusinessstart‐upsandexpansionsinsectors
andplaceswherecorecitieshave,throughmarketanalysis,beenshowntohavea
comparativeadvantage.
Butlikemanyeffectiveinnovations,theseeffortsfacecompetitionfromentrenched
actorsandinterests,includingunder‐achievingpublicorpubliclyfundedoperators.Change
callsfordisruptivereformsandre‐purposingbudgets.
Building equity into regional economic development and sustainability strategies
Thegeographyofopportunityacrossmetropolitanareasnecessitatesaregional
approachtoequityandinclusion,andmanyoftherecentpilotprojectsinregional
sustainabledevelopmenthaveattemptedtoidentifythewaysinwhichlow‐income
residentscangainbetterconnectionstotheenginesofeconomicgrowth.Granteeconsortia
oftheHUDSustainableCommunitiesInitiative,manyofthemheadedbyregional
transportationagencies,haverecentlybeenaskedbyHUDtofocusmoreon“economic
resilience.”Thiscanencompassmanyaspects,butmoreequitableaccesstojobs
throughoutisconsideredaprimefeature,onethatfitswellwiththeseconsortia’sinterest
inlinkingtransitinvestmentsandtransit‐orienteddevelopmenttospecificsector
32
strategiesandemploymentgrowthmoregenerally.Whileitistooearlytoseetheresultsof
theseplans,regionssuchasPugetSoundinthestateofWashington,KansasCity,andthe
TwinCitiesofMinnesota,areamongthosewhoaretakingtheseaccess‐to‐opportunity
issuesveryseriously.AcrossthemajormetrosofCalifornia,theregional“Sustainable
CommunitiesStrategies”mandatedbythestateinordertoreducecarbonemissionshave
alsoresultedinassessment,ifnotselection,oflanduseandtransportationscenariosfor
growthbasedontheiremploymentandequityconsequences.
Thisattentionisnotjusttheresultofplannersorpolicymakerscomingtotheirown
conclusionsabouttheimportanceofracialinclusionandaccesstoopportunity.Rather,the
planningprocessesarebeingpushedhardandcreativelybynetworksofregionalequity
advocates,whichweredescribedearlierinthispaper.IntheSanFranciscoBayArea,both
thestateandfederally‐supportedsustainablecommunitiesregionalplanningprocesses
haveactivatedabroadcoalitionoflabor,communityandenvironmentalgroups.This
alliancehaspushednotonlytofortransportationandhousingplansthatwouldreducethe
jobs‐housingmismatch,butforcitiesandcountiestotakethe“highroad”withrespectto
jobquality,thatis,tosavetheireconomicdevelopmentincentivesandsubsidiesonlyfor
enterprisesthatwouldcreatejobsthatpaywellandprovidegoodbenefits,especiallyfor
thosewithmodestlevelsofeducation.Thatwillnotbeaneasybartoreach,butinaregion
wherethedominantthemesofpublicdiscourseconcernthetransformationof
neighborhoodanddisplacementofpeoplebyhightechnologyfirmsandtheirprofessional
workforce,ithasundeniableresonance.
Metrics for Inclusive Cities: Improving the Score
Developingaparsimonioussetofoutcomeindicatorswillhelpthoseengagedin
localeconomicandcommunitydevelopmenttosettleonacourseofaction,trackprogress,
andmakecoursecorrections.Toservethesepurposes,theindicatorsneedtobe
straightforwardtomeasure,preferablyusingatleastsomedatagatheredbytrustedlocal
stakeholders.Somedatacollectedbynon‐localsourceswillnaturallyalsobeused,butlocal
actorsneedtounderstandandacceptthedatacollectedbyotherstakeholdersandtoknow
howbesttointegratenon‐localwithlocaldatasources.
33
Metricsforbothproductionandconsumptionobjectiveswouldhelpshowwhether
alocaleconomyisbecomingmoreinclusive.Inonerecentexampleofsuchmeasurement,
PolicyLinkandtheUniversityofSouthernCalifornia’sProgramforEnvironmentaland
RegionalEquity(PERE)havedevelopedaseriesofregionalequityprofilesforvariousU.S.
metropolitanareas.3Theprofilesoffer69indicatorsofdemographics,economicvitality,
readiness,andconnectednessinamixofbothregional“startingpoints”(includingsomeof
thosewehavediscussedinthispaper)andsocialandeconomicoutcomes.Notevery
measurehasaclearrelationshipwithadesiredoutcomeandispossibletoinfluencewith
localactions.Butallthecategoriesofferatleastsomeindicatorsthatcouldbeusedtotell
stakeholdersthattheireconomyisbecomingmoreproductive,inclusive,andinnovative.
Eventhedemographicindicators—whosetrajectoriesaremostlyaffectedbyforcesbeyond
localcontrol—includemeasuresofdiversitythatcouldassociatewithlocaleffortsto
attractandretainyoungpeople,especiallyinternationalimmigrants.Amongtheother
areas,hereareexamplesofsomemetricsmainlyfromtheregionalequityprofilesthat
associatewithmoreinclusiveoutcomesthatcouldbemonitoredforaction:
Economicvitalityo Jobgrowthindicatestheextenttowhichjobsareavailable.Jobopenings
(i.e.,positionsthatcomeopenfornewapplicants)areanotherindicatoroftheavailabilityofjobs.
o Unemploymentandlabor‐forceparticipation,trackedbyrace,sex,age,andeducationalattainment,showstheextenttowhichadultsareintheworkforceandcanfindajobandwhereeffortstoincreaselabor‐forceengagementandjobdevelopmentmightbetargeted.
o Realincomeandpovertyratescanexposethetotalpurchasingpowerofthepopulationaswellastheextentofmaterialwantinthecommunity.However,bothofthesemeasuresneedtobecalibratedtolocalconditionsbecauseprices—especiallyhousingcosts—varydramaticallyacrossthecountry.Furthermore,multipledatasourcesareneededforanaccurateviewofincomeandpovertyconsideringtheimprecisionofself‐reportsonnationalsurveys.
3See,forexample,AnEquityProfileoftheKansasCityRegion,http://www.policylink.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=lkIXLbMNJrE&b=5136581&ct=13381851,andAnEquityProfileoftheHouston‐GalvestonRegion,http://www.ourregion.org/OurRegion2040Supporting_Documents/Regional_Equity_Profile.pdf.
34
o TheGinicoefficientofincomeinequality,andothermeasuresofincomeinequality,cantellhowfarapartthehighest‐andlowest‐incomehouseholdsareintheirpurchasingpower.
o Wages,boththeirlevelandgrowth,arethecentralcomponentofincomeforworkingpeople,andcanalsobetrackedbyrace,sex,age,andeducationalattainment.
o Occupationalstructurealsoaffectseconomicoutcomes.Theregionalequityprofilestrackjobopeningsaccordingtotheiroccupationalopportunity,anindexbasedonjobquality(medianannualwage)andgrowthfrom2005to2011(realwagegrowth,changeinthenumberofjobs,percentchangeinthenumberofjobs,andmedianageofworkers).Theoccupationsarefurthersortedaccordingtotheeducationallevelrequiredtoobtainworkinthem.InHouston,forexample,thehighest‐opportunityoccupationforworkerswithhigh‐schooldiplomasorlessiswatertransportationworker,whereasthelowest‐opportunityoccupationsareanimalcareandserviceworkersandotherprotectiveserviceworkers.
o Industrialstructureinfluencesmanycharacteristicsofthelocaleconomy,becausedifferentindustrieshavedifferentlevelsofdynamism,stability,wagegrowth,unionization,andlocaleconomiclinkages,andbecausedifferentindustrieshavedifferentoccupationalstructure.
o Entrepreneurialopportunity,indicatedbyarangeoffeaturesincludingthelevelofself‐employment,thenumberofnewestablishmentsinanarea,thenumberofsmallbusinessespercapita,andthepercentofadultscurrentlyengagedinstartingabusiness.ThesemeasuresarenotincludedintheRegionalEquityProfiles,andlocaldatamaybenecessarytodevelopreliableindicators.
Readinesso Educationalattainmentisacoreattributeofreadinessforworkand
probablytheoutcomethatcitieswillfinditeasiesttoaddressintheshorttomediumterm.Overalleducationalattainmentaswellasspecificlevelsofattainment—associate’sdegreesorfour‐yeardegrees,forexample—canundergirdtheup‐skillingofestablishedindustries(i.e.,theintroductionofnewhigher‐opportunityoccupationsaswellashigherrealwagesinestablishedoccupations)aswellasthegrowthofnewindustriesrelyingonbettereducatedworkers.
o Ratesofdisconnectedyouth,usuallymeasuredasthepercentof16‐to24‐year‐oldsnotinschoolandwithoutahigh‐schooldiploma,arewarningsignsthatlocalactorscanwatchandattempttoimprove.
35
o Measuresofhealthandwell‐being,includingforexampleobesity,diabetes,asthma,andwork‐relateddisabilities,alsoshowareasinwhichbarriersmayreducelabor‐forceparticipationandreduceproductivity.
Connectednesso Residentialsegregationbyraceandincome,includingtheconcentration
ofpoverty,correlateswithinequalityinthedistributionofamenities.PoorandpredominantlyblackandHispanicneighborhoodshaveweakerschools,areexposedtomorepollution,andoftenhaveloweraccesstohigh‐qualityretailgoodsandfoodthanmostlywhiteandupper‐incomeneighborhoods.Racialresidentialsegregationmayalsoreduceoveralleconomicgrowthinmetropolitanareas,therebyrelatingbacktoeconomicvitality.
o Publictransportationdependence,lackofaccesstoanautomobile,andestimatedannualtransportationcostsbasedonplaceofresidenceshowtheextenttowhichtransportationbarriersmightlimittheabilityoffamiliestogetaccesstowork,schools,trainingopportunities,andhigh‐qualitygoodsandservices.
o Housingcostburdenindicatestheextenttowhichresidentsareabletodevotetheirincomestocriticalnon‐housingexpenditures.
o HomeownershipratesbyraceandincomeshowhowwidelydistributedistheaccesstothecentralmechanismforwealthretentionintheU.S.
Localstakeholderswillnotgotothetroubleofcollectingandwatchingthese
metricsiftheydonotfindthemuseful,however.Aseriesofchallengesmayeitherdeter
themorstrengthentheprocessofbuildingmoreinclusiveeconomies.Asafirststepinthe
developmentofmetrics,then,aninterventionmayneedtobeginwithaprocessinwhich
localactorsengagedirectlywiththesekeychallenges.
Stakeholdersneedtobelievethattheactionstheyinvesttimeandmoneyincould
logicallyhaveanimpactontheoutcomestheyhopetoimprove.Global,nationaland
regionaltrendssimplymattermuchmorethanlocalactionsformanyoftheoutcomesin
question.4Andwhilecommon‐sensestoriesmayconnectsomelocalactionswithimproved
outcomeseveninthefaceoftrendsbeyondlocalcontrol,theevidencebaseconnecting
actions(e.g.,raisingthelocalminimumwage)withresults(e.g.,reducinglocalincome
inequality)inthisrealmisgenerallysparseandweak.Evenwhenlocalactionsbearfruit
4Thisimpliesthatthejobofbuildinginclusivecities—andofmeasuringinclusionatthecitylevel—isanissuethatneedstoinvolvestakeholdersandactionsatalllevels,notjustlocally.
36
withbetteroutcomes,itmaytakeyearsbeforethoseoutcomestrulyflourish,andbythen,
itmaybeimpossibletodistinguishthecontributionofanyoneactiontothebetter
outcome.Iflocalactorsdodecidetoinnovateinwaysdesignedtoincreasevitality,
readiness,andconnectedness,however,theycandosobycomparingareasorpeoplewho
doanddonotbenefitfromtheinnovation.
Metricsareimportant,thatis,duringthisphaseofbuildingmoreinclusive
economiesbecauseitisstillanexperimentalone.Theroleofmetricsinthisexperimental
phasemaybetoencouragestakeholderstoidentifytheirmostimportantobjectives(i.e.,
desiredoutcomesoftheintervention),developmorerobustlogicmodelsconnecting
interventionswithoutputsandoutcomes,androlloutinterventionsthattheyagreeare
mostlikelytohelpreachtheirexpectations.Buildingconsensusabouttheoutcomesisan
importantexerciseinitself,becausestakeholdercommitmenttoactionsthatwillimprove
thoseoutcomescanfosterbetterpreparationinthefaceoffutureeconomicchallenges.
Measurementoflocaloutcomesisalsochallengingbecausepeopleandbusinesses
moveintoandoutofcitiesallthetime.Thebeneficiariesoflocalactionsmightrelocate.An
investmentinchildren’shealthandeducationinonecitymaypayoffinanothercity(or
state,orcountry)entirely.Encouragementofentrepreneurs,taxbreaksforrelocating
businesses,andotherinitiativescanalloffershort‐termgainsthatevaporatewith
relocationtootherplaces.Additionally,someactionsinvolveredistributionofresources
fromamobilegrouptoalessmobileone—inparticular,taxationofhigh‐incomeorhigh‐
wealthindividualsorbusinessestofundservicesforlow‐incomehouseholds.Iffewenough
membersofthemoremobilegroupsupporttheoverallbalancebetweenwhattheypayand
theadvantagesthelocationaffords,theymaybeinclinedtomoveaway(andothersnotto
movein).Asthemostsensitivepeopleandbusinessestrickleawayfromthecityordecide
nottomovein,theburdenmayshifttothosewhosetoleranceistestedandeven
overstressed,causingnewpeopleandbusinessestomoveaway.
Trackingwhomoves,wheretheymove,andwhycanbedonetoanextentusing
existingnationaldatasources,butonlywithsomedelay.Forexample,dataonresidentsof
smallareasbyage,sex,andracecanbeusedtoinfermovementbetweencensuses.The
residentsofaneighborhoodconsistingentirelyofexactlythesamenumberof20‐to24‐
year‐oldsinboth2000and2010,forexample,mustbecompletelydifferentpeople(i.e.,
37
grossoutmigrationandgrossin‐migrationareboth100percent).Grossestimatesof
migrationandresidentialmobilitycanalsobemadeforlargercitiesusingmicrodatafrom
theAmericanCommunitySurveywithalagofabouttwoyears.Bettersourcesarelocal,but
thesewillrequirecooperationamonggovernmentinstitutions.Forexample,school
registrationlinksstudentstoaddressesandcanshowhowfamilieswithchildrenare
flowingintoandoutofacity.Useofthesedatawithpersonalidentifierseliminatedis
complexbutmorefeasibleofschooldistrictsparticipateintheprocessofplanningfor
economicallyinclusivecities.Communitycollegesmayalsobeimportantpartnersfor
developingtrackingmeasures.Relationship‐buildingwithstateDepartmentsofMotor
Vehiclesmayalsosupportthedevelopmentofsystemstotrackresidentrelocations,again
usuallyusinglinkedbutde‐identifiedpersonaldata.Fortrackingbusinessstartupsand
relocations,citiescanuselocalbusinesslicensesorcommercialproductssuchasthe
NationalEmploymentTimeSeries(NETS)database.Ultimately,understandingand
trackingmobilitycanalertstakeholderstoemergingtrendsthatcouldeithersupportor
destabilizeeffortstobuildamoreinclusivecityeconomy.
Anotherkeychallengeisunavailable,weak,orstaledata.Thischallengemay
presentanotheropportunityindisguise.First,itmaydriveparticipantsintheeconomic
developmentprocesstoconnectwithothereffortsthathavealreadystartedtomakedata‐
drivenimprovementsinothersystems.ImpressedbythemodelofCincinnati’sSTRIVE
initiativetoimproveoutcomesforchildrenandyouth,forexample,actorsinothercities
havebeguntheirowneffortstoconvenestakeholdersfrommultiplesectorstoachieve
specificgoalsforkidsaccordingtoage‐basedmilestones.Thismodel—knownascollective
impact—hassincespreadtoothersubjectareasincludingeconomicandcommunity
development.Commitmenttothesemodelscanleadstakeholderswithaccesstodatato
sharetheirdatawithoneanotherorwithtrusteddataintermediaryorganizationslike
thoseparticipatingintheNationalNeighborhoodIndicatorsPartnership(NNIP).The
collectionandanalysisofdata,intheseexamples,becomesvaluedbecauseitisembedded
andmaderelevantinalocalcontext.Astheygrapplewithquestionsofmeasurementand
validity,stakeholdersintheprocessultimatelycometodefineissuesandoutcomesmore
clearly.
38
Conclusion
America’surbanregions,anchoredbytheircorecities,varyintheiroveralllevelof
growth,thequalityoflocaljobs,thedemographicprofileoftheregion,andthegeographyof
opportunityinthearea.Thesedifferenceshelpdefinedistinctcontextsforpromoting
economicinclusion,whichwehavedefinedassharinginthegainsassociatedwith
economicgrowth,notjustaccesstoconsumption.Butfornow,aquiteextensiveplaybook
ofstrategiesandtacticaltoolsreceivessparseandunevensupport.Moreover,agrowing
bodyofevidencesuggeststhatexclusionunderminesgrowth,firstbyunder‐utilizinga
society’sworkforceandsecondbystiflingentrepreneurialrisktaking.Progressivesafety
netpoliciescontinuetobevitalforeconomicsecurity—andtheyareunderseverestrain
thankstogovernmentcutbacks—buttheyarenotenoughtocreativeaneconomically
inclusivesociety.Suchasocietymustbebasedoninclusiveurbanlabormarkets,local
determinationtogrowtalentandnotjustimportit,andprivateemployers,anchor
institutions,andotherengagedincontinuousproblemsolvingandlearning.
Thediversestrategiesandtoolsforcreatingmoreinclusivecitiesarenotyetwidely
orsystematicallyapplied,andtheirscalethusfarismodestcomparedtothevolumeofjobs
thatwerelostbeforeandduringtheGreatRecession,particularlyinolderindustrialcities.
Buttheirproliferationisencouraging,andtheywillgetincreasedmomentumgiventhe
heightenedsocietalattentiontoincreasedinequalityandlimitedeconomicmobility.Ina
patternfamiliarintheU.S.,manyoftheinnovationshavebeenprimarilysupportedby
privateorcommunityfoundations,ratherthangovernmentfunding.Thisisnotapathto
sustainability,ofcourse,foriftheinnovationsaretobecomestandardandwidespread
practice,theiroperationswillneedtobeadoptedbythepublicsectorinsomeformandthe
capitalforthestart‐upandexpansionofthefirmstheyassistwillneedtoincreasinglycome
fromprivate,market‐drivensources.Theinterestinattainingwidespreadimpactisalso
whyadvocatesoftenfocusmoreongettingbroadpoliciesenacted,andpublicbudgets
restructured,toeffectchangethanonsimplyreplicatingorexpandingmodelprojects.
Recentattentiontoincomeinequalityandthelackofintergenerationalmobilityin
Americahastranscendedtheresearcharenatobecomethecurrencyofactivism,andthis
suggestsaconstituencyforenactingthekindsofinclusivestrategiesprofiledinthispaper.
39
Localcampaignsaroundthecountrytoraisetheminimumwage,ortheelectionofBillde
BlasioasMayorofNewYorkonaplatformcommittedtoreversingthecity’sgrowing
economicdivide,areindicationsoftheimmediacyandappealoftheseissues.The
combinationofpoliticaladvocacywithsensibleprogramsandpoliciescouldmake
America’scitiesandmetroregionsevermorelivelytestinggroundsforwaystomake
economicchangedeeplyandbroadlyinclusive.
Works cited
Alexander,Michelle.2012.ThenewJimCrow:Massincarcerationintheageofcolorblindness.TheNewPress.
Bates,Timothy.2009.“UtilizingAffirmativeActioninPublicSectorProcurementasaLocalEconomicDevelopmentStrategy.”EconomicDevelopmentQuarterly23.30:180‐192.
Benner,Chris,andManuelPastor.2012.JustGrowth:InclusionandProsperityinAmerica’sMetropolitanRegions.NewYork:Taylor&Francis.
Blackwell,AngelaGlover,andJudithBell.2005.“EquitableDevelopmentforaStrongerNation:LessonsfromtheField.”InTheGeographyofOpportunity:RaceandHousingChoiceinMetropolitanAmerica,editedbyXavierdeSouzaBriggs,289–309.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.
Bluestone,Barry,andBennettHarrison.1982.TheDeindustrializationofAmerica:PlantClosings,CommunityAbandonment,andtheDismantlingofBasicIndustry.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Briggs,XavierdeSouza.1998.“Brownkidsinwhitesuburbs:Housingmobilityandthemanyfacesofsocialcapital.”Housingpolicydebate9.1:177‐221.
Briggs,XavierdeSouza.2005.“PoliticsandPolicy:ChangingtheGeographyofOpportunity.”InTheGeographyofOpportunity:RaceandHousingChoiceinMetropolitanAmerica,editedbyXavierdeSouzaBriggs,310–41.Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.
Carr,L.andMicheleMulcahy.2010.“RebuildingCommunitiesinEconomicDistress:LocalStrategiestoSustainHomeownership,ReclaimVacantProperties,andPromoteCommunity‐BasedEmployment.”NationalCommunityReinvestmentCoalition.
ClevelandFoundation.2013.“Cleveland’sGreaterUniversityCircleInitiative:Buildinga21stCenturyCitythroughthePowerofAnchorInstitutionCollaboratives.”ClevelandFoundation.
Clotfelter,CharlesT.,HelenF.Ladd,andJacobL.Vigdor.2007.“TeacherCredentialsandStudentAchievement:LongitudinalAnalysiswithStudentFixedEffects.”EconomicsofEducationReview26.6:673–82.
Cornia,GiovanniAndrea.2003.“Theimpactofliberalisationandglobalisationonwithin‐countryincomeinequality.”CESifoEconomicStudies49.4:581‐616.
Fagan,Jeffrey,ValerieWest,andJanHollan.2002.“ReciprocaleffectsofcrimeandincarcerationinNewYorkCityneighborhoods.”FordhamUrbanLawJournal30:1551.
40
Fainstein,SusanS.2000.“NewDirectionsinPlanningTheory.”UrbanAffairsReview35.4:451–478.
Fainstein,SusanS.2003.“TheRighttotheCity.”InternationalJournalofUrbanandRegionalResearch27.4:939–941.
Fainstein,SusanS.2010.TheJustCity.Ithaca,NY:CornellUniversityPress.Flippen,Chenoa.2004.“Unequalreturnstohousinginvestments?Astudyofrealhousing
appreciationamongblack,white,andHispanichouseholds.”SocialForces82.4:1523‐1551.
Garfinkel,Irwin,LeeRainwater,andTimothyM.Smeeding.2006.“Are‐examinationofwelfarestatesandinequalityinrichnations:Howin‐kindtransfersandindirecttaxeschangethestory.”JournalofPolicyAnalysisandManagement25.4:897‐919.
Goldberg,PinelopiK.,andNinaPavcnik.2004.Trade,inequality,andpoverty:Whatdoweknow?Evidencefromrecenttradeliberalizationepisodesindevelopingcountries.No.w10593.NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.
Harvey,David.1988.SocialJusticeandtheCity.2nded.Oxford:Blackwell.Lee,BarrettA.,SeanF.Reardon,GlennFirebaugh,ChadR.Farrell,StephenA.Matthews,
andDavidO'Sullivan.2008.“Beyondthecensustract:Patternsanddeterminantsofracialsegregationatmultiplegeographicscales.”AmericanSociologicalReview73.5:766‐791.
Lefebvre,Henri,andDonaldNicholson‐Smith.1991.TheProductionofSpace.Oxford:Blackwell.
Lemann,Nicholas.1991.ThePromisedLand:TheGreatBlackMigrationandHowItChanged.NewYork:Knopf.
Levy,Frank,andPeterTemin.2007.“InequalityandInstitutionsin20thCenturyAmerica”.13106.Cambridge,MA:NationalBureauofEconomicResearch.
Lin,Ken‐Hou,andDonaldTomaskovic‐Devey.2013.“FinancializationandUSIncomeInequality,1970–2008.”AmericanJournalofSociology118.5:1284‐1329.
Linder,StephenH.1999.“ComingtoTermsWiththePublic‐PrivatePartnershipAGrammarofMultipleMeanings.”Americanbehavioralscientist43.1:35‐51.
Ludwig,Jens,GregJ.Duncan,LisaA.Gennetian,LawrenceF.Katz,RonaldC.Kessler,JeffreyR.Kling,andLisaSanbonmatsu.2012.“Neighborhoodeffectsonthelong‐termwell‐beingoflow‐incomeadults.”Science337.6101:1505‐1510.
Ludwig,Jens,LisaSanbonmatsu,LisaGennetian,EmmaAdam,GregJ.Duncan,LawrenceF.Katz,RonaldC.Kessleretal.2011.“Neighborhoods,obesity,anddiabetes—arandomizedsocialexperiment.”NewEnglandJournalofMedicine365.16:1509‐1519.
Moretti,Enrico.2012.TheNewGeographyofJobs.NewYork:HoughtonMifflinHarcourt.NationalEmploymentLawProject.2012.“RebuildingOurWaytoaSustainableRecovery:
MakingCommercialBuildingRetrofitJobsintoQualityJobsforOurCommunities.”NorTech.“InclusivecompetitivenessinNortheastOhio.”Cleveland,July,2012.Oliver,MelvinL.,andThomasM.Shapiro.2006.BlackWealth,WhiteWealth:ANew
PerspectiveonRacialInequality,secondedition.CRCPress.Orfield,Myron.1997.Metropolitics:ARegionalAgendaforCommunityandStability.
Washington,DC:BrookingsInstitutionPress.Orfield,Myron.2002.AmericanMetropolitics:TheNewSuburbanReality.Washington,DC:
BrookingsInstitutionPress.
41
Osterman,Paul,andBethShulman.2011.GoodJobsAmerica:MakingWorkBetterforEveryone.NewYork:RussellSageFoundation.
Osypuk,TheresaL.,LisaM.Bates,andDoloresAcevedo‐Garcia.2010.“AnotherMexicanbirthweightparadox?TheroleofresidentialenclavesandneighborhoodpovertyinthebirthweightofMexican‐origininfants.”Socialscience&medicine70.4:550‐560.
Pastor,Manuel.2000.RegionsThatWork:HowCitiesandSuburbsCanGrowTogether.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesotaPress.
PolicyLink.“ChangingthefaceofSiliconValleystart‐ups.”America’sTomorrow:EquityistheSuperiorGrowthModel.May23rd,2013.
Raphael,Steven,andMichaelA.Stoll.2003.Modestprogress:Thenarrowingspatialmismatchbetweenblacksandjobsinthe1990s.BrookingsInstitutionCenteronUrbanandMetropolitanPolicy.
Reardon,SeanF.,andKendraBischoff.2011.“IncomeInequalityandIncomeSegregation.”AmericanJournalofSociology116.4:1092‐1153.
Shapiro,Thomas,TatianaMeschedeandSamOsoro.2013.“TheRootsoftheWideningRacialWealthGap:ExplainingtheBlack‐WhiteEconomicDivide.”ResearchandPolicyBrief,InstituteonAssetsandSocialPolicy,BrandeisUniversity
Sharkey,Patrick,andFelixElwert.2011.“Thelegacyofdisadvantage:Multigenerationalneighborhoodeffectsoncognitiveability.”AJS;Americanjournalofsociology116.6:1934.
Sharkey,Patrick.2013.StuckinPlace:UrbanNeighborhoodsandtheEndofProgressTowardRacialEquality.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Stoll,MichaelA.2001“Race,neighborhoodpoverty,andparticipationinvoluntaryassociations.”SociologicalForum.16.3:529‐557.
Treuhaft,Sarah,AngelaGloverBlackwell,andManuelPastor.2011.“Equity:TheSuperiorGrowthModel.”Race,Poverty&theEnvironment18.2.
U.S.Census.2013a.MarchCurrentPopulationSurvey.HistoricalIncomeTables:IncomeInequality,tableH‐1AllRaces.Machine‐readabledataaccessedbytheauthorsNovember25,2013fromhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2012/H01AR_2012.xls.
U.S.Census.2013b.MarchCurrentPopulationSurvey.HistoricalIncomeTables:IncomeInequality,tableH‐3AllRaces.Machine‐readabledataaccessedbytheauthorsNovember25,2013fromhttp://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/2012/H03AR_2012.xls.
Warner,MildredE.,andAmirHefetz.2008.“Managingmarketsforpublicservice:theroleofmixedpublic–privatedeliveryofcityservices.”PublicAdministrationReview68.1:155‐166.
Wilkerson,Isabel.2010.TheWarmthofOtherSuns:TheEpicStoryofAmerica’sGreatMigration.NewYork:RandomHouse.
Wodtke,GeoffreyT.2013.“DurationandTimingofExposuretoNeighborhoodPovertyandtheRiskofAdolescentParenthood.”Demography50.5:1765‐1788.