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 x.briggs@fordfoundation.org, victor@policylink.org, and rpendall@urban.org.

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.