January 12, 2003
DIY Economic Development
To some extent reponding to (or perhaps expanding upon) a December article by Randy Gragg about Portland's "young creative class", Tiffany Lee Brown suggests some ways to encourage and support such people, and thereby generate a truly home-grown urban economy:
In a cash-poor do-it-yourself world of emerging artists, resourcefulness and devotion make things happen. Our arts and crafts, music and films sometimes even make money from Portland audiences and beyond. We also create microeconomies centered on the neighborhoods we live in, the stuff we like to eat and the clothes we want to wear. Young creatives start cafes, galleries, shops selling locally-made food, designer clothing, artwork and music for their survival. Nonprofit organizations provide services and performance venues.
Encouraging the success of microbusinesses -- those with fewer than five people -- and creative nonprofits is a distinctive way Portland can commit to making its creative class flourish well beyond the current economic recession. We expend too much energy asking questions such as: "Where's our big windmill factory?" and "Who's going to stop the next chip manufacturer from pulling up stakes when times get tough?" Instead, let's ask: "How can we support our own talent and business?"
Not being anything even resembling an economist, ideas like the ones in this article lead me to ask perhaps naive questions. Such as: Why all the traditional focus on large-scale corporate development (which runs the concomitant risks of economic disaster should such a large-scale business fail or bail), rather than a concerted effort to support a wider and broader range of smaller local businesses such as the ones discussed in the above article?
Is there some fundamental economic principle which demands that we chase a handful of large employers (which often demand large concessions, and can leave larges holes behind when and if they leave) instead of encouraging a much larger number of smaller local employers, who demand less in assistance than larger companies, have deeper roots in the local community, and can more easily be "replaced" in the event of failure?
Comments (2)
myrln on 12 Jan 2003
Case in point: see Schenectady,N.Y., and what G.E.'s virtually total abandonment of that city has done to it. Once a thriving place, it depended so much on G.E., that now it resembles a ghost town that can't even figure out how to get the snow off its streets.
Elaine on 12 Jan 2003
For some reason, Chris Locke is not taking me off his email list, but maybe that's OK 'cause his last one just cited the book The Support Economy: Why Corporations Are Failing Individuals and The Next Episode of Capitalism by Shoshona Zuboff -- which looks as though it might deal with just this issue. I'm planning on reading it. Will let you know.