350 Ecological Restoration and Design
1970s it had become clear that despite the favourable climate for domestic indus-
trial growth, a community had to develop a sophisticated approach to firm recruit-
ment if it was to be successful. Planners and social scientists carried out studies to
see where firms located and what they looked for when they chose new sites.
By the economic downturn of the 1980s, states and localities had begun to
realize that only a few firms moved each year and that those that did usually went
overseas for cheaper labour and laxer pollution controls. Competition for the few
firms serious about relocating in the US became intense. States began instituting a
wide variety of inducements for firms, including grants, loans, loan guarantees, tax
incentives, targeted industrial revenue bond financing, tax increment financing
and state enterprise zones. When one state or locality offered an incentive, others
felt obliged to do so.
Less publicized but also prevalent during the 1980s were changes on the state
and federal levels that weakened organized labour. Communities used low wages
as a bargaining chip in attracting firms. In fact, in a number of high-growth areas
where public infrastructural investments and favourable tax structures attracted
industries, the jobs that were generated paid so poorly and the working conditions
were so bad that immigrant workers had to be recruited to fill them. Meatpacking
plants in Kansas and Nebraska are examples of this kind of industrial recruitment.
Political scientist Peter Eisenger refers to these attempts to locally reduce the cost
of land, labour, capital, infrastructure and taxes as ‘supply side development’.
The firm recruitment model of economic development is most compatible with
the technical assistance approach to community development. Local governments
would hire economic development professionals to obtain grants for built capital, to
develop local tax incentive packages and to recruit new firms. These activities
required little grassroots participation. In fact, they are antithetical to broad-based
community involvement. Getting grants requires technical knowledge of bureaucra-
cies and procedures. Negotiations with firms that might move to the community are
best carried out in secret. The firms insist on such secrecy so that communities com-
peting for their branch plants can be played off against each other and so that their
present workforce can be kept in the dark about the potential move. Firms consider-
ing a move prefer to deal with only one person who can speak for the entire com-
munity. Such approaches discourage broad community participation.
The self-development model
In contrast to this model of economic development is what Eisenger refers to as a
‘demand-oriented’ approach to economic development. These include the search
for new markets and new products to fit those markets. Instead of simply offering
incentives to any firm willing to move, public–private partnerships are formed that
help determine what firms will be underwritten by the public as those with the
most potential for success – and positive community impact.
One type of demand-side approach that has been effective in rural communities
is the self-development model of economic development. This involves public-sector