until that time it was unlikely for these ‘regional’ communities of
concern to obtain impetus for innovative growth from central
government: the central bureaucrats were distant interventionists
not always interested in being perceived as all-seeing and all-
caring. But this created a frustration from the local grassroots in
that there is little that local government unaided could do to ini-
tiate greater-than-local development or conservation, especially
so when local tax revenues were low and borrowings high, and
when plugging problems as they occur in poorer communities
can be a full-time job.
Following an emergent pattern of mixed success with growth
management practice (circaearly 1980s) in a few of the United
States, other state provincial and federal governments have
sought to revitalize their city-centred growth management poli-
cies. This chapter identifies this macro-development activity as
‘growth pattern management’; the regional component within the
‘national-regional-local-household’ Matrixoutlined in the previ-
ous chapter. Within that construct the emphasis overall was on
the attainment of a ‘fair balance’ which included economic gains,
social betterment and environmental health, predicated in this
chapter on the premiss that if regions are to have conservancy success
this must be mounted on a platform of well-balanced economic growth.^1
To the extent that growth is valid – and it is, provided within-
nation and within-community harmonies and dynamics are
maintained – then it is at the regional level of middle organiza-
tion, where officials and developers are in touch both ways
nationally and locally, that growth multiplier mechanisms can be
effective, pushed along by that initiator and motivator ‘commu-
nity interest’.
Greater than local, rural-with-urban policy-making and plan
formulation are positioned to seize and act upon conservation
and development initiatives which cannot be delivered by central
or state-level government, and which are beyond the capabilities
of local government, most notably in poorly resourced situations.
Regional agencies pursue material and social gains (jobs, com-
munity projects, and utilities servicing) along with maintenance
of the wider multiplier benefits which go with the conservation
of resources and the management of development. In short: worthy conservancy
outcomes need the cash oxygen which economic growth provides.^2Policy markers
This chapter, generally considered, is about beneficially proactive sustainable
developmentwithconservation for non-metropolitan regions. It mostly addresses
‘regional multiplier policy’. This is bounded by relevant ‘multiplier’ principles.118 Practice
Regional planning in the
United States received
early impetus from
Lewis Mumford and
Clarence Stein’s
founding of the RPAA
(Regional Planning
Association of America)
which largely came
under the thrall of
urbanism. Peter
Calthorpe and William
Fulton’s recent (2001)
publication of The
Regional City
reinvigorates the US
regional enquiry.
New Zealand and
Canada evolved
provincial regional
planning, with marked
success in Canada:
Gerald Hodge and Ira
Robinson (2001),
Planning Canadian
Regions.Bruce Katz: ‘The
fundamental premise of
regionalism is that places
have relationships and
connections to other
places that should not
be ignored.’ Yet also to
be considered is ‘If
regionalism is...[such]
a compelling idea and an
inescapable reality why
[has] the United States
almost no examples of
regional or metropolitan
governments?’
Reflections on
Regionalism, 2000.