International Endowment for Democracy ���or���

Is Local Democracy Possible in the Global Era?

From America Beyond Capitalism by Gar Alperovitz
Wiley & Sons, 2005

Must communities—and therefore community democracy—rise and fall with every shift in the global economic winds? Can Americans ever really take charge of their common community life, given the realities of the modern political economy?1

Beyond this, might we have the wherewithal—the experience, knowledge, political sophistication—to one day achieve the idea of community?

Historical perspective provides insight into a critical economic trend which suggests that the economic stability required for a new community-based democratic vision is likely to become increasingly feasible in the coming period.

Fully 31 percent of the nation's nonfarm workforce were involved in manufacturing at the midpoint of the twentieth century, in 1950. By 1970 such employment had slipped to 25 percent. By 1990 it was 16 percent. As of 2003 those working in the manufacturing sector numbered only 11 percent of the labor force—and this figure is projected to decline to approximately 9 percent by 2045. Some experts expect that a mere 5 to 7 percent of the economy will be involved in manufacturing long before that time.2

The U.S. economy has for many years been dominated by services—a sector that is far more locally oriented and much more stable than manufacturing. Importantly, many service-sector industries are also much less dependent upon—and responsive to the vagaries and instabilities of—global trade. Only approximately 5 to 7 percent of U.S. services are exported.3

Despite other problems associated with the larger trends, that more stable, locally oriented economic development is increasingly favored by sectoral changes even in an era of increasing globalization is documented in recent studies of the already high degree of localization of economic activity. "About 60 percent of U.S. economic activity is local and provides residents with the goods and services that make their lives comfortable," observes economist Thomas Michael Power. "This includes retail activities; personal, repair, medical, educational, and professional services; construction; public utilities; local transportation; financial institutions; real estate; and government services. Thus almost all local economies are dominated by residents taking in each other's wash."4

Power reports that locally oriented economic activity increased from 42 percent in 1940 to 52 percent in 1980. Over the roughly two-decade period between 1969 and 1992 "the aggregates of retail and wholesale sales, services, financial and real estate, and state and local government" have been making up "a larger and larger percentage of total earnings, rising from 52 to 60 percent."5

Paul Krugman offers a summary judgment: "Although we talk a lot these days about globalization, about a world grown small, when you look at the economies of modern cities what you see is a process of localization: A steadily rising share of the work force produces services that are sold only within that same metropolitan area."6

The long-term sectoral trends also have reduced the importance of location-related efficiency considerations that conflict with policies aimed at greater community stability. Opponents of policies designed to help local community economies have traditionally held that firms must be allowed to locate wherever managers think best. Many such arguments, however, are implicitly based on the assumption of a manufacturing-dominated economy—that is, one in which economic activity historically had to locate near raw material sources and transportation hubs, starting with water and evolving to rail and air.

Some service industries (e.g., international banking) require networks of related businesses, but most are not nearly as wedded to places that happen to provide access to natural resources or to cheap transportation. In addition, advances in communication technologies have made it economic for firms to locate in a number of different areas.

Community-oriented strategies throughout the nation now regularly build upon these realities to achieve greater stability, Some stress bottom-up development utilizing conventional tax, loan, procurement, and other strategies. Others emphasize measures that enhance the local community's physical and social environment so as to attract professionals and others looking for a supportive community in which to live and raise children. Successfully attracting new arrivals, turn, stimulates new services, construction, and other economic activity. Attracting retirees and their pension income flows can also help bolster community stabilization efforts—a factor of increasing importance as the baby-boom generation reaches retirement age.7

In recent years numerous other policies have been developed to retain jobs, build greater local self-reliance, and increase local economic "multipliers" so that money spent in a community recirculates to produce additional jobs. In addition to tax, loan, training, and other traditional approaches:

  • State governments now regularly target public procurement to boost local economies. Community-based small businesses, for instance, can receive a 5 percent preference on bids for state contracts in California, New Mexico, and Alaska. Louisiana allows a 7 percent preference for products "produced, manufactured, grown, harvested, or assembled" in the state.8
  • Many cities increasingly use public contracts to help neighborhood-anchored Community Development Corporations—and to simultaneously improve the delivery of government services (roughly half the municipalities in a recent survey).9
  • Publicly sponsored "buy local" programs are also widespread The Rural Local Markets Demonstration in central North Carolina identifies products, services, parts, and raw materials that manufacturers would like to purchase locally—and then assists other local firms with the development of such products and/or helps establish new local firms to fill the supply gap.10
  • Pension funds now also regularly seek ways to enhance local economic health. More than half the states have established Economically Targeted Investment programs to target investment to help communities. Several independent labor- backed programs—for example, the Landmark Growth Capital Fund and the Pittsburgh Regional Heartland Find—also involve geographically targeted investments.11

As we have noted, an obvious line of convergence has also emerged between stabilization strategies and many new institutional efforts. Precisely because worker-owned firms. community development corporations, co-ops, municipal enterprises, and related efforts are increasingly regarded as important to achieving broader community economic goals, they have received additional backing from many states and localities (see Chapters 7, 8, and 9).

Research on the costs of 'throwing away cities" has added to the economic arguments that favor new localist strategies. Allowing existing public and private investments in transportation, office buildings, schools, homes, and other local infrastructure to go to waste when companies leave town for small (possible) private advantage—and then having to rebuild them elsewhere—obviously creates very large expenses that, if saved, can significantly offset the costs of community-oriented policies.

One recent estimate is that taxpayers spent roughly $65 billion (2001 dollars) to pay for the infrastructure and other capital costs needed to serve individuals who moved out of declining cities to other locations over the 1980 to 1999 period. Work by University of Maryland researcher Tom Ricker suggests that adding private costs (e.g., redundant houses, stores, factories, etc.) brings the figure to over $350 billion—not including lost tax revenues and increased social spending borne by specific communities when jobs decline and citizens leave town.12

At the national level, both political parties have also shown themselves responsive to the practical and philosophical elements of a community-building paradigm—and to the concerns of local constituents. Among the many federal policies and precedents that now exist (and that suggest possible directions for future development) are:

    The strategic targeting, currently, of public contracts by federal agencies to small businesses in "HUBZones" (Historically Underutilized Business Zones)—that is, areas that have a high proportion of low-income households or those experiencing high unemployment.13
  • Trade Adjustment Assistance to communities experiencing dislocation as a result of imports. Workers receiving TAA are eligible for an additional fifty-two weeks of income assistance (beyond the standard twenty-six weeks unemployment insurance) and for a variety of training and other programs)14
  • The Community Adjustment and Investment Program, which uses funding from the North American Development Bank to make loans and grants to specific economically depressed communities.15
  • Community Development Block Grants, which in fiscal year 2004 will provide $4.4 billion in support to various locally selected, largely community-based efforts.16
  • The Empowerment Zone/Enterprise community programs, which, as of this writing, are expected to involve over $1 billion in public subsidies in 2004.17
  • The previously cited New Markets Initiative, passed as part of the Community Renewal Tax Relief Act of 2000, which will make several billion dollars of federal tax credits available in the next six years. The credit (30 percent of funds invested) is available to specially certified entities that make investments in low-income communities.18

Unusual and often unexpected political alliances have developed around more controversial issues of importance to community stability—including the left-right coalition that blocked several 'free trade" initiatives. After the passage of NAFTA in 1993, Congress refused Clinton administration requests to reestablish expired "fast-track" authority, which facilitates presidential trade negotiations. Again, fast-track legislation proposed by the Clinton administration in 1997 was withdrawn when it became clear that it faced substantial opposition in both parties, and as concern about the proposed Multilateral Agreement on Investment began to develop force.19

Although the Bush administration won approval of such authority (calling it "Trade Promotion Authority") in 2002, it did so only after yielding several major points of contention—especially those that impacted local communities. Among other things, Republicans from textile-producing states (in particular, North Carolina) secured language requiring that duty-free textile imports from the Caribbean, Africa, or Latin America be made with fabrics dyed and finished in the United States.20

The Bush administration also yielded much of the substance of the issue in connection with support for agricultural subsidies and protectionist measures for the steel industry—in large measure because of the economic threat to communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania. Given ongoing unemployment problems and the growing pressure from both left and right, the likelihood is for more rather than less support for trade measures of importance to specific communities in the future.*21

In connection with virtually every policy advance—local, state, and federal—there has been conflict, interest—group bargaining, and debate concerning effectiveness and efficiency. Viewed in a larger historical perspective, what is significant is the long-term trend. Detailed scholarly studies of numerous specific policies confirm the expanding use and refinement of a variety of new tools aimed in one way or another at community economic stability. "Sometime after the mid-1970s," observes urban policy expert Peter K. Eisinger, especially on the state and local level there emerged "an intense preoccupation with economic development that has been marked by a level of consensus and expectation unusual in American politics."22

The growing force and political appeal of locally oriented strategies is also evident in organizing efforts by engaged citizens. Although many studies show a decline in national citizen participation, the United States in fact is in the midst of an extraordinary resurgence of local community-building efforts. A recent comprehensive survey by professors Carmen Sirianni and Lewis Friedland confirms the findings of many scholars, and concludes that Americans at the local level "have created forms of civic practice that are far more sophisticated in grappling with complex public problems and collaborating with highly diversified social actors than have ever existed in American history."23

The long-standing largely black BUILD alliance in Baltimore, for instance, challenges local insurance and home mortgage redlining, builds and rehabilitates homes, raises money for student scholarships, and—importantly—registers thousands of voters.24 Since 1976 Citizens for Community Improvement in Iowa has spearheaded opposition to corporate concentration in state agriculture, helped create financing for small farms and low-income rural and urban housing, and fought for enforcement of environmental air and water regulations. A youth organizing project works on projects ranging from gun violence and crime education to drug addiction.25

In San Antonio, COPS—Communities Organized for Public Service—combines research and planning with public mobilizations of Hispanic American voters and other low- income groups. In the last several decades COPS campaigns have produced funds for libraries, playgrounds, schools, street paving, sewers, flood protection, and other infrastructure improvements. COPS has also forced support for health clinics, state funding of a community college, and federal backing for affordable housing programs from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Taken together, COPS's organizing efforts have secured an estimated $1 billion for neighborhood development from these and other sources.26

New forms of local labor-community alliances have broken down traditional barriers between organizations in several cities. In Chicago the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights jointly lead a Grassroots Collaborative of community and labor groups working on living wage and health care campaigns. In Oakland, California, the Labor Immigrant Organizers Network (LION) helped the hotel employees' union, HERE Local 2850, successfully challenge corporate efforts to prevent union organizing. In turn, the union supported LION's efforts to organize local residents around immigration issues.27

In many cities—from Boston and Baltimore to St. Louis and Los Angeles—"living wage" campaigns have succeeded in requiring public agencies and their contractors to pay a wage that allows employees to support themselves and their families, commonly $9 to $10 per hour, plus health benefits. Cincinnati established a floor of $8.70 per hour with health benefits ($10.20 an hour without benefits) for all city employees or any business with a city contract over $20,000. New York's law requires a wage of $9.10 an hour plus benefits (or $10.60 an hour without benefits) for about fifty thousand workers.28

Several related initiatives have achieved formal structures of greater democratic participation within larger municipalities. In Portland, Oregon, each of ninety largely autonomous neighborhood associations drafts its own plans detailing the form of development that is acceptable to its neighborhood. The city of St. Paul, Minnesota, has seventeen elected District Councils, each of which has considerable authority— including zoning powers and control over the allocation of certain city services and capital expenditures.29

In Seattle, a Neighborhood Matching Fund allocates public funds for neighborhood-initiated projects when local residents match such support with their own contributions. Neighborhood District Councils made up of representatives of neighborhood organizations make specific recommendations for project funding. In Birmingham, Alabama, each of the city's ninety-five neighborhood associations makes decisions about how public funds will be spent—with each also receiving an allocation of federal Community Development Block Grant funds.30

Political scientists Jeffery Berry, Kent Portney, and Ken Thompson—who have studied St. Paul, Birmingham, Portland, and Dayton, Ohio, in depth—conclude that such efforts alter the balance of power between businesses and neighborhoods. Although "general" participation does not increase because of formal changes of structure, there is an increase in "strong participation activities"—for example, "being involved in neighborhood or issue groups, contacting such groups," or "working with others to solve problems" (as opposed, for instance, to merely "working in social or service groups or contacting government officials"). A telling outcome is that it is commonly all but impossible for developers to win approval of projects that are strongly opposed by a neighborhood association—even when the association does not have formal power to reject proposals. In general, Berry, Portney, and Thompson observe: "Neighborhood-based government draws easily on people's sense of identity with the area they live in. People know they are going to have frequent interactions with their neighbors, so even if they attend meetings infrequently they have a powerful incentive to think about long-term relationships in addition to the policy questions at hand."31

None of this is to say that a new day of participatory democracy has arrived. In most cities power still largely resides in the hands of traditional economic interests. In some cases, too, civil society organizations have lost credibility and are deeply compromised politically. It is to say, however, that there is growing evidence of change and of new longer-term possibilities. In many communities the developing trend of activist organizing and local policy change has followed a logic similar to that which has forced a reassessment in connection with a number of other matters of strategic importance.

An inability to achieve solutions to growing problems through traditional means has repeatedly driven home a painful reality. In case after case, the choice presented has been between no solution, and the ultimately critical decision to begin the arduous long-term process of rebuilding, step by step—at home, within reach, from the bottom up.

Over the last several decades, community-building themes and paradigms related to the Pluralist Commonwealth vision have also attracted increasing interest and important support from writers, academics, and activists representing different philosophical perspectives. We have noted the emphasis given such ideas by progressives ranging from Hannah Arendt and Jane Jacobs to Benjamin Barber and Michael Sandel. Along with many modern conservatives, William Schambra of the Bradley Foundation holds that "conservatism wasted much of [the twentieth] century futilely extolling the virtues of rugged individualism and the untrammeled marketplace in the face of America's manifest yearning for some form of community."32

Similarly, communitarian theorist Amitai Etzioni echoes the oft-heard judgment that the "most common antidotes to mass society" are "intermediary bodies"—but Etzioni quickly goes on to stress, "It is often overlooked. . . that many of these bodies are not the vaunted voluntary associations, with their meager bonding power. . . but communities, with their much stronger interpersonal attachments."33

Environmentalists Herman Daly, Thomas Prugh, and Robert Costanza begin with a different question but come to a similar conclusion: "[M]ost of the individual behaviors and attitudes that support sustainability are best nurtured at the community level. The political structure and process necessary for a regionally, nationally, and globally sustainable society must be built on a foundation of local communities."34

Black scholars on both the right and the left now commonly also emphasize community-based themes. Thus, the conservative activist and writer Robert Woods on stresses, "The lives of young people cannot be salvaged through outside intervention that ignores the necessity of strengthening their communities." The progressive urban affairs and planning expert Sigmund C. Shipp emphasizes the importance of cooperative community-wide development: "The depth of the dilemmas that black communities face requires strategies that focus on the entire group and the total problem, that is, the collection of factors that constitute the quality of life of a community."35

Harry Boyte adds that such themes help reenergize a sense of commitment to "public work" in general.36 And Betty Friedan, speaking for many feminists, writes, "I've spent 25 to 30 years focusing on women's issues. . . . I see no solutions in terms of power blocks. What is needed is a new vision of community, a higher vision of the good of a whole community that transcends polarization of groups. Groups have been effective in the past in achieving equality. Now we're in a position where the only way progress can continue is through a new definition of community."37

Many analysts believe the growing interest at various levels in rebuilding the foundations of community is ultimately traceable to the psychological dead end that individualism has reached for large numbers of Americans, and from a profound—and ongoing—personal reassessment process: "[M]any of those we talked to," sociologist Robert Bellah observes, "realize that though the processes of separation and individuation were necessary to free us from the tyrannical structures of the past, they must be balanced by a renewal of commitment and community if they are not to end in self-destruction."38

Research by University of Chicago sociologist Robert K. Sampson offers a summary overview. Sampson finds that "calls for a return to community values" now appear "everywhere"—especially (and, he urges, significantly) among the parents of the new generation: "Whatever the source, there has emerged a widespread idea that something has been lost in American society and that a return to community is in order. . . . Seeking an alternative to mainstream institutions such as old-line churches, urban sprawl, and market-induced conspicuous consumption, the baby boom is driving unforeseen demand for the good that is deemed community."39

The point is particularly important among those who will inevitably take over leadership of the nation—and of its communities—in coming decades. A recent survey found that two-thirds of young adults currently already do volunteer work in their own cities—and that a majority agree with the slogan "Think Globally, Act Locally." Two-thirds believe "the best way to make a difference is to get involved in your local community, because that's where you can best solve the problems that are really affecting people."40

* In addition, the Bush administration agreed to extend Trade Adjustment Assistance support to workers in firms supplying businesses disrupted by trade, to add six months to coverage, and to pay 65 percent of transitional health insurance for workers who lose jobs due to trade. A sign of related, growing concern; as of this writing, at least twenty-eight states were considering legislation to limit the "outsourcing" of jabs (see ALICE, In a highly unusual reversal the Bush administration rescinded the steel tariffs in Dccember 2003 for complex reasons that included anger at high prices in Michigan and other politically important steel-using states, growing foreign (particularly Chinese) demand, and threats of retaliation by the European Union. Mike Allen, "President to Drop Tariffs on Steel, Bush Seeks to Avoid a Trade War and Its Political Fallout," Washington Post, December 1, 2003, p. Al.
  1. For a detailed survey of many of the policies discussed in this chapter, see Williamson, Imbroscio, and Alperovitz, Making a Place for Community. For an earlier exploration of related themes see Alperovitz and Faux, Rebuilding America.

  2. For historical data see Bureau of Labor Statistics, "National Employment, Hours, and Earnings," Public Data Query, (accessed 06/11/03). For projection to 2045 see Bureau of Economic Analysis, "Regional Projections to 2045: Volume 1, States," July 1995, www.beadata.bea. (accessed 06/01/98). For 5 to 7 percent projection see Peter F. Drucker, Interview, "The Future Manufacturing," Industry Week, vol. 247, no. 17 (September 21, 1998), p. 97. See also Richard B. Freeman, "The World of Work in the New Millennium," in What the Future Holds, ed. Richard N. Cooper and Richard Layard (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 2002), p. 167.

  3. For service share exports see U.S. Census Bureau, Statistical Abstract of the United States: 2002 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2003), tables 633, 1277 and pp. 419, 793. For a discussion of service sector stability see Andrew J. Filardo, "Cyclical Implications of the Declining Manufacturing Employment Share," Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City Economic Review, vol. 82, no. 2 (1997), pp. 63-88. See also Todd M. Godbout, "Employment Change and Sectoral Distribution in 10 Countries, 1970-1990," Monthly Labor Review, vol. 116, no. 10 (October 93), pp. 3-21, esp. p. 10. The growth of the (lower wage) service sector is one of the key factors producing greater inequality-and demanding new strategies of the kind explored throughout this book.

  4. Thomas Michael Power, Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 1996), p. 37.

  5. This is a minimum estimate for smaller cities (e.g., 200,000), which for obvious reasons have less internal trade than larger cities. For cities of over 1 million, the proportion of "locally oriented economic activity" increased at an annual rate of 0.7 percent from 1969 to 1989-and at a rate of over 0.8 percent from 1979 to 1989. "Locally oriented manufacturing's share increased at a rate of almost 2 percent per year during the same period." Power, Lost Landscapes and Failed Economies, p. 49.

  6. Paul R. Krugman, Pop Internationalism (Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press, 1996), p. 211.

  7. Jason White, "States Mine for Gray Gold,", September 12, 2002, (accessed 11/25/02); Genaro C. Armas, "Luring Retirees Becomes Lucrative Business for States," Associated Press, December 26, 2000, via Lexis Nexis; "Hopkins County Hoping to Lure Retirees to the Area," Associated Press, January 22, 2001, via Lexis Nexis; Penelope Lemov, "Welcome to Eldertown," Governing (October 1996), (accessed 11/25/02); and Grant Smith, "Senior Migration Means Revenue, Study Says," Arizona Capitol Times, August 23, 2002, (accessed 06/11/03).

  8. National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, NIGP 1998 Preference Report (Herndon,Va.: NIGP, 1998).

  9. Christopher Walker and Mark Weinheimer, "Community Development in the 1990s" (Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 1998), pp. 90-93. The survey gave eleven of the twenty-three cities examined a 4 or 5 on a 5-point scale on the question, "Do public agency funding and policy decisions give CDCs a central role in the delivery of government programs in low-income neighborhoods?" An additional four cities had shown significant improvement in this area in the period examined (but had not reached a 4 or 5 on the scale).

  10. "Local to Local Buying Programs Aid Rural Economies," Economic Development Digest, vol. 4, no. 11(1995), p. 6.

  11. According to the GAO ( 995/pe9501 3.pdf), at least twenty-nine states had some type of Economically Targeted Investment (ETI) program in 1992. See also Isamu Watson, Investment Intermediaries: Model State Programs (Washington, D.C.: Center for Policy Alternatives, June 1995), p. 2. Quite separately, a 2001 study of forty state and local pension investment systems found that 27 percent had ETI plans or included "collateral benefits" when considering investment decisions. Nicholas Greifer, "Pension Investment Policies: The State of the Art," Governance Finance Review (February 2002), (accessed 05/09/02), p. 4. The Landmark Growth Fund, which supports employee-owned firms or firms with strong employee participation in management, and the Pittsburgh Regional Heartland Fund both draw on pension fund investments. For more information see the Heartland Network,

  12. The study was based on cities of 25,000 or larger and does not include costs for smaller towns. For a discussion see Williamson, Imbroscio, and Alperovitz, Making a Place for Community, p. 12.

  13. Small Business Administration, "HUBZone 'Historically Underutilized Business Zone'," (accessed 11/01/02).

  14. U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, "Fact Sheet: Trade Adjustment Assistance," (accessed 04/16/03). Benefits have been recently increased, see note 20 on the following page.

  15. North American Development Bank, "US Community Adjustment Investment Program," www.nadbank-caip.orgl (accessed 11/01/02).

  16. Department of Housing and Urban Development, "Fiscal Year 2004 Budget Summary," (accessed 09/29/02).

  17. The administration requested no new direct expenditures for these programs in 2003; see source in note 16 above. Tax expenditures are expected to exceed $1.2 billion in fiscal 2004. Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States 2004 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2003), p. 108, (accessed 09/19/03).

  18. The legislation originally made $15 billion in tax credits available; see Rapoza Associates, "New Markets Tax Credit Fact Sheet," factsheet2.pdf (accessed 11/01/02). The Bush administration's most recent budget estimates tax expenditures (2004 to 2008) at $760 million for corporations and $2.3 billion for individuals. Analytical Perspectives, Budget of the United States 2004 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 2002), p. 107, (accessed 10/06/03). For two different perspectives on the developmental trajectory of federal programs and their possibilities, see Alice O'Connor, "Swimming Against the Tide: A Brief History of Federal Policy in Poor Communities," and the reply by Joseph McNeely, in Urban Problems and Community Development, ed. Ronald F. Ferguson and William T. Dickens (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1999), pp. 77-138.

  19. Lenore Sek, "Trade Promotion Authority (Fast-Track Authority for Trade Agreements): Background and Developments in the 107th Congress," Congressional Research Service Issue Brief, January 14, 2003, (accessed 04/16/03); and Peter Beinart, "The Next NAFTA," New Republic, December 15, 1997, p. 4.

  20. Joseph Kahn, "Wheeling, Dealing and Making Side Deals-Vow to Scrap Latin Textile Deals Wins Vote on Bush Trade Powers," New York Times, December 8, 2001, p. Cl.

  21. See footnote on page 131. Juliet Eilperin and Helen Dewar, "Accord Reached on Trade Authority; President Would Gain Power to Cut Deals," Washington Post, July 26, 2002, p. Al; Elizabeth Becker and Edmund L. Andrews, "Performing Free Trade Juggling Act, Offstage," New York Times, February 8, 2003, p. Cl; and Leon Hadar, "Bush's Incomplete Victory on Trade," Business Times Singapore, August 7, 2002, via Lexis Nexis.

  22. In particular, Eisinger found that a large number of innovative policy tools designed to support economic development have emerged which complement-and in some areas even supplant-more traditional locational incentives to attract business. He also found "increasing numbers and a growing use of economic development tools . . . designed to distribute firms to particular locales within a state," including "site-development programs, financial assistance to firms in distressed areas, tax-increment financing, and state enterprise zones." Peter K. Eisinger, The Rise of the Entrepreneurial State (Madison: University ofWisconsin Press, 1988), pp. 3, 173. Subsequent work by Susan Clarke and Gary Gaile confirmed that the trends continued into the 1 990s. Utilization of what they term "third-wave" economic development strategies by localities in 1996 was significantly higher than in 1980. For example, over 70 percent of cities surveyed worked with or through local development corporations (compared to 38 percent before 1980), 64 percent used enterprise zones, and 56 percent had some form of equity participation program; one-third used equity pools and venture capital funds-and 75 percent using these tools had only begun doing so since 1989. Susan E. Clarke and Gary L. Gaile, The Work of Cities (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1998), pp. 81, 84.

  23. John Gardner, "National Renewal," Speech delivered to the National Conference on Governance (NCG) in November 1994, (accessed 12/02/02); G. Thomas Kingsley, Joseph B. McNeely, and James 0. Gibson, Community Building Coming of Age (Washington, D.C.: The Development Training Institute and The Urban Institute, 1997); and Sinanni and Friedland, Civic Innovation in America, p. 1. Among many other studies, see also Harry C. Boyte and Nancy N. Kani, Building America: The Democratic Promise of Public Work (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1996).

  24. BUILD, "Build Highlights," (accessed 10/17/01); and David Harvey, Spaces of Hope (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), pp. 124-127. BUILD was instrumental in the enactment of the first modern living wage law, in Baltimore in 1994.

  25. All information from (accessed 08/21/03).

  26. Mark R. Warren, Dry Bones Rattling (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2001), pp. 41, 55, 56, 83, 165.

  27. See the Grassroots Collaborative's web site at (accessed 11/07/02). David Bacon, "Labor Fights for Immigrants," The Nation, vol. 272, no. 20 (May 21, 2001), pp. 15-18. See also Paul Saba, Amy Simon, Frank Mitchell, and Jeremy Brecher, "Forging Closer Ties: Case Studies of Labor's Role in Progressive State Coalitions" (Amherst, Mass.: Proteus Fund, 2002), (accessed 05/09/03).

  28. By 2004 the Cincinnati rates were $8.79 and $10.30. See "Living Wage Successes," ACORN, (accessed 06/03/04); City of Cincinnati, "Living Wage Requirements," www. (accessed 05/31/04); and City of New York Office of the Comptroller, "Prevailing Wage Schedules," bureaus/bll/2004.pdf files/i 09-Living-Wage-Schedule-03to04.pdf (accessed 05/31/04).

  29. Jeffrey M. Berry, Kent E. Portney, and Ken Thompson, The Rebirth of Urban Democracy (Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1993), pp. 13, 113.

  30. The National Commission on Civic Renewal, "A Nation of Spectators" (College Park, Md.: The National Commission on Civic Renewal, 1998), p. 14. For Seattle see "City of Seattle Neighborhood Involvement Structure," involvementstructure.htm (accessed 11/4/02); and Berry, Portney, and Thompson, The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, pp. 12, 65.

  31. Berry, Portney, and Thompson, The Rebirth of Urban Democracy, pp. 12, 91, 286-291.

  32. William A. Schambra, "Local Groups Are the Key to America's Civic Renewal," Brookings Review, vol. 15, no. 4 (Fall 1997), pp. 20-22. Important works on the larger problem of "community" from diverse perspectives include Raymond Williams, The Long Revolution (London: Chatto & Windus, 1961); Martin Buber, Paths in Utopia, trans. R.F.C. Hull, paperback ed. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1958); Paul and Percival Goodman, Communitas: Means of Livelihood and Ways of Life, 2nd ed. (NewYork: Vintage Books, 1960); and Wendell Berry, The Unsettling of America, 3rd ed. (San Francisco: Sierra Club Books, 1977). Robert B. Westbrook's John Dewey and American Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991) is a useful introduction to Dewey's thought.

  33. Amitai Etzioni, The New Golden Rule (New York: Basic Books, 1996), p. 27.

  34. Thomas Prugh, Robert Costanza, and Herman E. Daly, The Local Politics of Global Sustainability (Washington, D.C.: Island Press, 2000), pp. xv-xvi. See also Murray Bookchin, From Urbanization to Cities: Toward a New Politics of Citizenship, revised ed. (London: Cassell, 1995).

  35. Robert L. Woodson, "Reclaiming the Lives of Young People," USA Today, vol. 126, no. 2628 (September 1, 1997), pp. 56-59, via ProQuest; Sigmund C. Shipp, "The Road Not Taken: Alternative Strategies for Black Economic Development in the United States," Journal of Economic Issues, vol. 30, no. 1 (March 1996), pp. 79-95. See also James B. Stewart, "Building a Cooperative Economy: Lessons from the Black Experience," Review of Social Economics, vol. 42, no. 3 (December 1984), pp. 360-368; Race, Politics and Economic Development, ed. James Jennings (NewYork:Verso, 1992); and Jessica Gordon Nembhard, "Entering the New City as Men and Women, Not Mules," in The Black Urban Community, ed. Lewis Randolph and Gail Tate (forthcoming).

  36. See Boyte, Booth, and Max, Citizen Action and the New American Populism; Evans and Boyte, Free Spaces; Boyte and Kani, Building America; and Harry C. Boyte, Everyday Politics (September 2004).

  37. Betty Friedan, quoted in Kathleen Erickson, "Betty Friedan," The Region, vol. 8, no. 3 (September 1994), p. 10.

  38. Robert N. Bellah, Richard Madsen, William M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M. Tipton, Habits of the Heart (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), p. 277. See also Bellah et al., The Good Society, (NewYork: Knopf, 1991).

  39. Robert J. Sampson, "What 'Community' Supplies," in Urban Problems and Community Development, ed. Robert F. Ferguson and William T. Dickens (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1999), pp. 241, 242.

  40. Tracey C. Rembert, "Generation E," E: The Environmental Magazine, vol. 8, no. 5 (September-October 1997), p. 4, (accessed 01/08/03). See also poll research by the Meilman Group and Peter D. Hart Research Associates for the Panetta Institute,! (accessed 11/03/02).

Democracy Library