what makes working cities work?...dukakis center for urban & regional policy v cities these...

Dukakis Center For Urban and Regional PolicyNortheastern UniversitySchool of Public Policy & Urban Affairswww.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter A “Think and Do” Tank

What Makes Working Cities Work?

Barry BluestoneProfessor Emeritus

MMA Annual MeetingJanuary 24, 2020

Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter

The Big Questions

What factors are most important in promoting economic development?

Do municipal leaders have any control over what really matters?


Working Cities

These questions are particularly important to older industrial cities like Massachusetts’ “Working Cities” … those that have suffered from deindustrialization, higher unemployment, lower family income, and higher poverty

What can help these cities once again become economic engines, improving the well-being of their citizens and providing the tax base for their public services?


Massachusetts Working Cities

Economic Development Self-Assessment Tool (EDSAT)

Developed at the Dukakis Center for Urbanand Regional Policy at Northeastern University

to help cities and towns better understandthe factors that contribute to healthy

economic/employment growth


EDSAT TOPIC AREASThe self-assessment tool includes sections on:

1. Access to Customers/Markets2. Concentration of Businesses and Services (Agglomeration)3. Lease/Rental Rates4. Labor Quality & Cost5. Municipal Process6. Quality of Life (Community)7. Quality of Life (Site Amenities)8. Business Incentives9. Tax Rates10. Economic Development Marketing

2001-20072007-2013

2001-2013

Employment Trends


9.8%8.8%

6.8%

3.6%

-0.5% -0.7% -2.4% -2.6% -2.6% -3.6%-4.5%

-5.2% -5.2%-6.1%

-7.3%-8.0%

-9.0%

-10.6%

-14.2%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Revere

Taunton

Brockton

New Bedford

Haverill

Pittsfie

ld

Everett

Worceste

r

Chicopee

Springfie

ld

Chelsea

LawrenceSalem

SomervilleLo

wellLynn

Holyoke

Fitchburg

Malden

Working Cities Percentage Change in Employment

All Private Sector Industries 2001-2007

There’s wide variance in employment growth amongMassachusetts “working cities”


16.0%

13.9%

9.5% 8.9%

4.3%2.9% 2.4%

0.7%

-0.2% -0.3%-0.9% -1.5% -3.1% -3.4% -3.9%

-7.5%

-10.4%

-12.2%

-14.9%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Chelsea

Lawrence

Haverill

Somerville

SalemLy

nnLo

well

Brock

ton

Springfie

ld

Holyoke

Worce

ster

New Bedford

Pittsfi

eld

Everett

Fitchburg

Chicopee

Revere

Taunton

Malden


All Private Sector Industries 2007-2013:II

… the working cities with strong employmentrecords from 2001 through 2007 have not necessarily continued to produce many jobs

EMPLOYMENT DATACOMPARISONS

2001-2007 V S . 2007-2013: I I

Leaders and Laggards


Haverill Chelsea Lawrence Salem Somerville Lowell Lynn2001-2007 -0.5% -4.5% -5.2% -5.2% -6.1% -7.3% -8.0%2007-2013 9.5% 16.0% 13.9% 4.3% 8.9% 2.4% 2.9%

-0.5%

-4.5%-5.2% -5.2%

-6.1%

-7.3%-8.0%

9.5%

16.0%

13.9%

4.3%

8.9%

2.4%2.9%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

Working Cities Employment in "Loss-Gain" (Resurgent Cities)

2001-2007 vs. 2007-2013:II


Revere Taunton New Bedford

2001-2007 9.8% 8.8% 3.6%

2007-2013 -10.4% -12.2% -1.5%

9.8%

8.8%

3.6%

-10.4%

-12.2%

-1.5%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Working Cities Employment "Gain-Loss" Cities

2001-2007 vs. 2007-2013:II


Pittsfield Everett Worcester Chicopee Springfield Holyoke Fitchburg Malden2001-2007 -0.7% -2.4% -2.6% -2.6% -3.6% -9.0% -10.6% -14.2%2007-2013 -3.1% -3.4% -0.9% -7.5% -0.2% -0.3% -3.9% -14.9%

-0.7%

-2.4% -2.6% -2.6%

-3.6%

-9.0%

-10.6%

-14.2%

-3.1%-3.4%

-0.9%

-7.5%

-0.2% -0.3%

-3.9%

-14.9%

-16%

-14%

-12%

-10%

-8%

-6%

-4%

-2%

0%

Working Cities Employment "Loss-Loss" Cities

2001-2007 vs. 2007-2013:II

Employment Change2001-2013


10.8%

9.0%8.0% 7.6%

2.2% 2.1%

-1.1%

-1.6%

-3.4%

-3.7% -3.7%

-4.4% -5.0% -5.4%-5.7%

-9.3%-9.9%

-14.1%

-15.7%

-27.0%

0.73%

-30%

-25%

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

Chelsea

Haverhill

Lawrence

Brock

ton

Somerville

New Bedford

SalemReve

re

Worce

ster

Pittsfi

eld

Springfie

ld

TauntonLo

wellLy

nn

Everett

Holyoke

Chicopee

Fitchburg

Fall River

Malden

Massa

chuse

tts


All Private Sector Industries 2001-2013:II

Over the entire period 2001-2013:II, there is a good deal ofvariance to explain in employment trends


49.8%

16.8%14.8% 14.4%

6.7% 6.5% 6.2% 6.2% 5.8% 4.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 2.7% 2.1% 1.8%

-0.6%-1.8%-10.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Somerville

Revere

Lowell

Lawren

ce

Chicope

e

Haverh

ill

Fitchb

urg

Chelsea

Lynn

Springfie

ld

Worcester

Taunto

n

Malden

Brockton

Holyoke

Pittsfie

ldSale

m

New Bed

ford

Everet

t

Working CitiesPercentage Change in Employment

2013:II - 2018:II

Massachusetts: 8.4%

WHAT FACTORS ARE MOST HIGHLY CORRELATED WITH EMPLOYMENT

GROWTH?

EDSAT Correlation Analysis


EDSAT Measures – 26 in All

Highway AccessParking AvailabilityTraffic CongestionInfrastructure LimitationsCommercial/Industrial RentsLabor Force SkillsTimeliness of ApprovalsPublic Transit AvailabilityPhysical Attractiveness of MunicipalityComplementary Business ServicesCritical Mass of Firms – Local Supply Chain FirmsCross Marketing by Municipality and Business CommunityMarketing Follow-up with Locating/Relocating FirmsQuality of Available Development Parcels

Labor CostFormal Economic Development Strategy

Available Development SitesPredictable Permitting

Fast Track PermittingCitizen Participation in Development ProcessCultural and Recreational Amenities

Crime RatesHousing Cost

School Success MeasuresAmenities near Available Development SitesLocal Tax Rate Environment

CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND EDSAT VARIABLES

2001-2013:I I

What Factors are Correlated with Greater Employment andEstablishment Growth?


.59

.37 .36

.25

.180.15

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Available DevelopmentSites

Site Amenities Economic DevelopmentMarketing

Timeliness of Approvals Parking School "Success"

Working Cities Factors Most Highly Correlated with Percentage Change in Employment All Private Sector

Industries 2001-2013:II


Control Variables

Corr. %Chg Emp. 2001-2013/Proximity to Boston+.16 Slight positive correlation

Corr. %Chg Emp.2001-2013/Higher Poverty Rate+.17 Slight positive correlation

Corr. %Chg Emp.2001-2013/Larger Manufacturing Base +0.13 Weak positive correlation


Key Factors NOT Highly Correlated with Employment Growth … or Inversely Correlated

Complementary Business Services (+.07)Low Crime Rate (+.07)Public Transit (+.04)Highway Access (-.03)Commercial/Industrial Rents (-.08)Cultural & Recreational Amenities (-.12)Low Local Tax Rates (-.27)Physical Attractiveness of City (-.35)


0.37

0.31

0.23 0.23 0.23

0.21

0.170.16

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

EconomicDevelopment

Marketing

Timeliness ofApprovals

Parking Public Transit Cross Marketing Low TrafficCongestion

Fast TrackPermitting

Site Availability

50 Massachusetts Municipalities - Factors Most Highly Correlated with Increase in Establishments

2001-2011


Controlling One’s DestinyThese results seem very encouraging

If factors such as crime rates, distance from Boston (and Logan Airport), and physical attractiveness were the most important factors determining establishment and employment growth, the working cities would have a high hurdle to overcome to rebuild their prosperity

But the measures that seem to be most important to economic development are factors such as:

Providing sites for economic development and site amenities

Economic Development Marketing

Speed of municipal processes

On-site parking

These are factors over which municipal leaders have some immediate control

Using EDSAT and collaborating with the Working Cities Project, mayors and town officials –

along with the business community -- can find the keys to enhance their community’s

prosperity

… and act on them

Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy

Northeastern UniversitySchool of Public Policy & Urban Affairswww.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter

A “Think and Do” Tank

Thank You!

what makes working cities work?...dukakis center for urban & regional policy v cities these...

Documents