Week 6: Reading Blog - Stephanie

Blakely, E. & Green-Leigh, N. (2010). Concepts and theory of local economic development. In Planning Local Economic Development, pp. 73 – 100. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

In the field of social work, I have often found that the topic of money is taboo.  Social workers are aware that money is required to implement programs but the economics behind the programming is often paid little attention. However, I believe, and this article supports, that to be an effective social worker, and to truly understand the injustice that economics can pose to a society, the concepts and theory of economic development and economic growth need to be understood.  

For those of you that viewed the documentary “Injustice for All” I am sure you noticed that both the film and Blakely and Green-Leigh’s article have a similar theme- that the sources of growing economic inequality in our society are multiple and that economic development does not automatically equal economic growth for all. Similarly, both the film and article express a desire for the idea of “economic development’ to be synonymous with sustainability and rudimentary equality; that the two areas support each other. Economic developmentstrategies that are based on the pursuit of economic growththrough the exploitation of workers is only profitable for a small group of individuals, not for the majority.

Blakely and Green-Leigh offer a solution to the exploitation of workers. The suggested solution is sustainable local economic development that focuses on the desired end state rather than the products or growth produced. According to the article’s authors, there are three parts to the definition of sustainable local economic development:

1. Economic development establishes a minimum standard of living for all and increases over time.

2. Economic development reduces inequality.

3. Economic development promotes and encourages sustainable resource use and production.

Again, for those that had the opportunity to view ‘Injustice for All” elements of this definition are found throughout the documentary. Just as the aforementioned definition does, the documentary highlights the importance of a minimum wage that provides a living wage as a standard; a wage that when earned for a total of forty hours a week can keep individuals and families out of poverty.

Further, just as discussed in the documentary, Blake and Green-Leigh discuss in their article the importance of economic development reducing inequality. Unfortunately, as it goes currently in our society, the more wealth and more assets that are produced does not ensure that each person benefits from such production.

Blake and Green-Leigh explained this concept well when writing “the blind pursuit of economic growth can destroy the foundation of economic development” (74). This brought to mind the devastation that the car industry has left on so many U.S. cities. Detroit is still trying to bounce back from it and so too are certain parts of St. Louis. Many St. Louis families were affected when the Chrysler plant closed because so many workers were dependent on one industry. This made me think, are there other parts of our economy in St. Louis that leave local workers susceptible to unemployment?  What would happen if Boeing left? InBev?  I do think that St. Louis has a little bit of cushion due to the diversification that start-up companies (as well as other industries) bring to our local economy but is it enough? What about the workforce that does not have the education or skill-development to be able to enter the world of start-up companies?  

I would like to hear the opinions and thoughts of the class- is St. Louis a one-factory town that leaves its workforce vulnerable or do we have enough sustainable local development opportunities that the workforce is protected?