Holding on to Sticky Places in a Slippery Global Economy

Last week, I presented the concept of "sticky places" or places that are able to maintain their economic well-being throughout economic cycles.  However, there is debate about how much power local governments have over the ability to manage economic outcomes in an increasingly globalized economy.

Since the 1970's, globalization has mobilized capital and led to the decline of many industrial cities.  Some of these places have rebounded (e.g. Baltimore and Pittsburgh) as a result of strategic planning and economic restructuring.  So what is the playbook for government led urban regeneration?  Or in other words, where do you apply the 'sticky tape'?

Susan Fainstein explains how local governments vary greatly in their approaches to economic intervention.  While home rule allows U.S. cities a significant amount of autonomy, federal policies and the fragmented nature of federalism usually favor local policy that applies sticky tape to mobile corporations versus building sticky community-based assets.

This analogy is useful for evaluating the prevailing economic development model.  We have been applying sticky tape to something that is inherently slippery.  If we want a more impactful, sustaining, and widespread return on our public investements, we should devote our resources toward developing communities assets--human capital, social capital, etc--to which they are more likely to stick.