Carolina planning [serial]

68 Pages·1995·3.8 MB·English

by  University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dept. of City and Regional Planning

1
,
Carolina
Volume 2
Number
1
Carolina. * Carolina
jJk-_ 77ie ^Energy /planning-; planning
'- WT ^Break^lowTi ;. *0Lfl,no.!.HMw1M3W
Sfi§.# vol'7.pb 2,Falljg^l*--- -*r'"'
'.. a.. ^,..;"->'-*-.*-"'';-.:.''*••' t-*..,.:".
,' V
I"*""** --
will* -«J '..-»<--.''.r >.*_.;"* ,
."'"*"
Carolina planning Carolina planning
«T-
Carolina planning
c i„ -_y^«s
I
i
i
m
IB
YEARS
Carolina Carolina §: . •., pi Carolina iCarolina
i |
Planning Planning aiietlK j Planning [Planning VoNulnuimlevr:n|
"^W^
fit
7
.J
WesternNorthCarolina "'I*! I dTcjraplTMran'dialteisl Sii-.uimiibk- Doil.ipnK:iu|
j
Editors' Note
Editors
Withthis issue ofCarolina Planning, we celebrate twentyyears ofpublication. Thanks to
JosephBamberg
the support ofthe North Carolina Chapter ofthe American Planning Association and the
Alumni Association ofthe Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of
MerrittClapp-Smith
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Planning has continuously explored issues of
planning in the southeastern United States.
Inthisissue,weexaminehowseveralaspectsofplanninghavechangedoverthepasttwenty KarenKristiansson
years:
MarkShelburne
• At the start ofthejournal is a short article celebrating our twentyyears ofpublication.
Lee Corum, one ofthe foundersofCarolinaPlanning, tells howthejournalbegan, how-
it has changed, and its prospects for the future. He also thanks the many people who Carolina Planning is published twice a
helped with its production over the twenty years. yearby students intheDepartmentofCity
andRegionalPlanning,UniversityofNorth
• Rick Carlisle discusses how economic development policies in North Carolina and the CarolinaatChapelHill,withtheassistance
nation have changed in the last twentyyears, and shares his thoughts on some ofthe offunds from the John A. Parker Trust
reasons for and implications ofthese changes. Fund, Department of City and Regional
Planning,andtheNorthCarolinachapterof
• Steven French and William Drummond describe the sweeping changes in the use of theAmericanPlanningAssociationandthe
computersbyplanners, from thepunchcard mainframes oftwodecades ago totheword Department ofCity and Regional Planning
processors and geographic information systems oftoday. The authors then look to the Alumni Association.
future and discuss how the World Wide Web will be the next wave in technology for Subscriptions to Carolina Planning are
available at an annual rate of $12.00, or
planners.
$20.00fortwoyears.Backissuesareavail-
• James Svara writes about regional planning councils in North Carolina. He discusses ablefor $6.00 per issue.
their original mission, theirchanging roles and functions, and how they might best be
used to assist planning at the local, regional, and state levels.
Carolina Planning welcomes comments
• Privateconsultantshaveplayed animportantandchangingroleinpublicplanningover
and suggestions on the articles published.
the years. This role is explored through interviews with Glenn Harbeck. a private con- Please address all correspondence to:
sultant, and George Chapman, the Director ofPlanning for the City ofRaleigh. Carolina Planning, University ofNorth
Carolina at Chapel Hill, Campus Box #
• Michael Hibbard and Wes Hankins look at the trends inplanning education programs, 3140, New East Building, Chapel Hill,
with a particular focus on undergraduate survey courses. NorthCarolina27599-3140. Youcanalso
• In a Viewpoint article. Randy Schenck shares his opinions on how planning and envi- [email protected]. Suvbimaissei-omnasilareaatl:-
ronmental protection work together, and he lays out an agenda for the future. ways welcome.
• This issue also contains the winning entry from thethird annual Weiss Urban Livabil-
ity Contest. The essayby John Paul Floom explores the issue ofdemilitarization in the Clarification: Aversionof thearticleby
South. Dwayne Anderson entitled "Public-Private
Partnerships forHistoric Preservation" ap-
Atthe endofthejournal is a list ofMasters ProjectsandDoctoral Dissertations completed pearing in CarolinaPlanning Volume 20
#2 was previously published in Historic
by students at the Department of City and Regional Planning at the University of North PreservationForumandwasreprintedwith
Carolina. Chapel Hillin 1995. Alsoincludedisanindexofthe articlespublishedinCarolina permission. HistoricPreservationForum
Planning over the last tenyears. highlights preservationnews and activities
Finally,weaskforyourinput regardingCarolinaPlanning. Amail-backsurveyisincluded atthe local, state, andnational levels. For
subscriptionsormoreinformationconcem-
onaperforatedpageinthisjournal. Pleasetakeafewminutestocompletethesurveyandreturn ingHistoricPreservationForum,call(202)
ittous. Yourinputwill enableustobetter serveyourinterestswiththisjournal. You canalso 673-4296.
reachthe editorsvia e-mail at: cp.dcrp^mhs.unc.edu. We look forwardto hearing fromyou
regarding the survey, ideas for thejournal, or potential articles. PrintedbytheUniversityofNorthCarolina
Printing Department on recycled paper.
Merntt Clapp-Smith Cover produced by Mark Henderson.
KarenKristiansson
CarolinaPlanningwishestothankBertina
Baldwin,PatCoke,CarrollCyphert,Carolyn
Jones, Holly McBane, and the Center for
Urban and Regional Studies.
© 1995 Department ofCity and Regional
Planning
Carolina Planning
A Student-Run Publication of
The University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill Volume 21
Department ofCity and Regional Planning Number
1
Anniversary
Feature The Founding ofCarolina Planning:
A Modest Proposal Lee L. Coaim
Articles
Twenty Years ofState
Economic Development Policy:
North Carolina and the Nation Rick Carlisle
The Rapidly Changing Steven P. French and
Technology ofPlanning William J. Drummond 13
Regional Councils and Regional
Action in North Carolina:
Past, Present, and Prospects James H. Svara 19
The Private Consultant in
Public Planning: Interviews with
Glenn Harbeck and George Chapman Carolina Planning Staff 26
The Undergraduate Survey Course
as an Introduction to Planning Michael Hibbard and Wes Hankins 34
Viewpoint
Planning and the Environment:
The Need for a Common Ground Randy Schenck
Weiss Award
A Formula for Viability
in the Face of Demilitarization John Paul Floom 44
Masters Projects and Doctoral Dissertations 4X
Index for Volume 10 through Volume 21, Number 1 50
The Founding of Carolina Planning:
A
Modest Proposal
Lee L. Corum
T»
he Department of City and Regional Planning the summer of1974 ledto aproposal whichwas sub-
(DCRP) at the University of North Carolina (UNC) mitted to DCRP Chairman George Hemmens.
at Chapel Hill is celebrating the twentieth anniver- Initial correspondence with Chairman Hemmens
sary of Carolina Planning. The students of DCRP led to serious consideration ofour proposal for pub-
began what has become the twenty-year tradition of lishing Carolina Planning. After we returned to
Carolina Planning with the publication of the first Chapel Hill for the fall semester. DCRP approved
issue duringthe summerof 1975. This article reviews our proposal, subject to our securing the necessary
the efforts of DCRP students, faculty, staff, and funding for this new publication.
alumni who have contributed to the founding and
success ofCarolina Planning. The Start-Up
The idea for Carolina Planning was developed
byNancy Grden. Jim Miller, and myself, three UNC The 1974-75 academic year was devoted to the
planning graduate students, during our 1974 summer establishment ofwhat we were convinced would be-
DC
internships in Washington. Fresh from the come a planning student institution at UNC.
completionofourfirstyearofgraduate planning edu- Nancy Grden had served as editor ofthe student
cation, excited by our first contact with professional newspaper at Bucknell University before arriving at
planning practice, and undeterred by practical con- UNC. Due to her experience, ability, and leadership,
siderations, we undertook a modest endeavor. We she was the natural selection for the first editor. Jim
began to discuss and develop a proposal for a stu- Miller accepted the duties of
dent-ain journal addressing public policy issues in assistanteditor. John Carroll, Brower, David
the planning field a graduate of the N.C.S.U. Burby, Raymond
Fromourcontactwithfellow students atthe UNC School of Design joined the Erskine, Robert
Law School we were aware ofthe tradition of Uni- student team and designed Gilbert. Gorman
versity' support for a student-edited law review. To the new publication. Jim Godschalk, David
us this model seemedto have equal application to the Foerster. Wanda Lewis, and Goldstein, Harvey
professional and academic development ofthe plan- Chuck Roe made valuable Hemmens, George
ning field. Dinner discussions in Georgetown during contributions while serving Hill,William
as the first members of the Howes, Jonathan
Lee L. Corum, afounder ofCarolina Planning and Editorial Board. While Luger, Mike
1977graduateoftheDepartmentofCityandRegional house-sitting for DCRP Malizia,Emil
Planning and the Law School at the University of founder and former Chair-
Rohe, William
North Carolina. Chapel Hill, is an attorney with a man John Parker. I provided Stegman,Michael
generalpractice includinghousing, economicdevel- the venue for student staff
Weiss, Shirley
opment, environmental, andhistoricpreservation law meetings. It is fitting thatthe
in Durham. North Carolina. He is currentlyserving roots of Carolina Planning Table 1: FacultyWho
on the Chapel Hill District Commission and is Sec- canbetracedtoJack Parkers Have Assisted Caro-
retaryofthe DCRPAlumniAssociation. lovely home and garden UnaPlanning.
VOLUME NUMBER
1
Baldwin, Bertina Ademeluyi, Steve Feibel, Charles Morris, Cathy
Barger, Brenda Allenstein, Karen Ferland, Kathey Morrison, Michael
Bisher, Catherine Anders,JamesJr. Fleishman,Daniel Morton, Elizabeth
Brady, Michael Anton, John Foerster, Jim Mosher, Carolyn
Coke, Patricia Axler, Norman Foster, Becky Paik, Dick
Cooper, Asta Bachle, Laura Gaadt, John Parham, David
Cyphert, Carroll Bamberg, Joseph Garner, Nancy Petterson, Lynne
Drake, Linda Barlow, Bill Gleason, Rick Pfeffer, Cindy
Egan, Bruce Barnard,Chase Godwin, Stephen Pollock, Blair
Felton, Mollie Barnes, Karen Gould, Trina Ponticello, Stacey
Geer, Betty Becker, John Grden, Nancy Powell, Heidi Walter
Gould, Katherine Beiro, Noreen Hafrey, Anne Randall, Nancy
Hagner, MaryEllen Berusch,Russell Hal'rey, Anne Redmond, Michael
Holman, Bill Biber, Joe Harrison, Ted Olm Richardson, Craig
Jones, Carolyn Blaha, Kathy Hegenbarth, Jane Robertson, Ken
Pettis, Mary Bland, Thomas Hendricks, Sara Roe, Chuck
Rhine, Cynthia Blieve, John Herzberg, Steve Sadler, Forrest
Schwalberg, Renee Blomberg, Georgiana Hill, Laura Sandorf, Marilyn
Theobald, Joyce Bollens, Scott Hillstrom, Doug Sauve, Joanne
Thomas, Janie Bollens, Scott Hollifield, Shea Scopaz, Valerie
Whitt,Marsha Boykins, Irving Hyman, Eric Shambaugh,Claudia
Yates, Judy Broun, Dan Jones, Susan Shambaugh, Julie
Broun, Daniel Klein, Robert Shaw,Carol
Table 2: Staff Who Have Buckwalter,Jane Knopf, Bruce Shelburne, Mark
Carroll, John Knstiansson, Karen Silverman, Ann
Assisted CarolinaPlanning.
Gate,Dennis Kron, Paul Snaman, Sue
where so many other contributions Clapp-Smith,Merritt Lebens, John Springer, Kirsten
to planning education were dis- Cobb, Pnscilla Lewis, Wanda Stein, Jim
Crews,Jean Leyden, Kathleen Stewart,Margaret
cussed and nourished
Cunningham, Ellen Mack,Joanna Stichter, Steven
Facultysupport andencourage-
ment during the first year was led Davis,John Manuel,John Stiftel, Bruce
by Chairman Hemmens. Professors Deese, William Marling, John Stroh, Dan
David Godschalk and Gorman Gil- Dingfelder, Jackie Mason,Martha Taylor, Louise
bert joined him on the first Caro- DiTullio, John McCullough, Julie Vant-Hull, Julia
lina Planning Editorial Board. Dopp, Steve McDonald, Sam Waitz, Judy
Einsweiler, Lee McGuire, Patricia Wallace, Ralph
Otherfacultymembers, particularly
Jonathan Howes, made contribu- Engel,Maria McKell, L. Dale Webb,Laura
Epstein, Andy Merkel, Heidi Tolo Weidner,RuthAnn
tions that insured asuccessful start-
Epstein, Larry Meserve, Don Weissman, Seth
up
Evers, Kathy Miller, Jim White,Karen
Financial Support Faust, Ginny Morris, Catherine
As with most new enterprises Table 3: StudentsWho HaveAssisted CarolinaPlanning.
Carolina Planning was in need of
an "angel" who would underwrite its initial work- Over the years Carolina Planning has enjoyed fi-
ing capital requirements Answering this need, the nancial support from many quarters The John Parker
Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation of Winston-Salem Trust Fund and DCRP have contributed financial as-
awarded a generous grant which made possible the sistance in the form of scholarships to student staff
publication ofthejournal during its second andthird members and ongoing operating support beginning
years ofoperation.
CAR. OLINA PLANNING
with the first issue and continuing for
thejournal's entire tenure. Resolution
The North Carolina Chapter ofthe adoptedbytheCommissionofthe
American Planning Association AmericanInstituteofCertifiedP.anners
(N.C.A.P.A.), whichprovides Carolina Commending
Planningsubscriptions forits member- CarolinaPlanning
ship, has provided years ofunderwrit-
ing support The DCRP Alumni Asso-
ut^ffrecu, CarolinaPlanninghas beenpublishedcontinuously
ciationhas followed the examplesetby
theN.C.A.P.A. Chapterbyalso provid- for 15years by students in the graduateprogram in City and
ing subscriptions forits members. Ithas RegionalPlanningatthe UniversityofNorthCarolinaatChapel
been the support of these friends of Hill, and
Carolina Planning and our loyal sub-
scribersthat has made atwentiethanni- M/hereaj, Carolina Planning in its design andcontent has
versary observance possible. achievedalevelofoutstandingqualityand
DCRP Faculty and Staff Support
la/hervaj, Carolina Planning, through distribution by the
Thefacultyand staffofDCRP have NorthCarolinaChapteroftheAmericanPlanningAssociation to
always answered the call when Caro- chaptermembers continues to advance thefieldofplanning by
lina Planningwas in need ofguidance. providing a lively forum for students, practitioners, public
Professor David Godschalk has given officials, andplanningeducators, and
the longest service on the Editorial
Board and has remained afrequentcon- M/nereeu the 1991AICPStudentAwardsjuryin awardingan
,
tributorofarticles. Otherprincipal fac- HonorableMentionfortheSpring 1990issue recommendedto
ulty supporters are shown in Table 1 the Commission that Carolina Planning receive a special
Notasingleissueofthejournalwas recognition on itsfifteenth anniversary, nowbe it
producedwithoutsignificant assistance
from DCRP staff. Latermembers ofthe
/\eJou/ea, that the Commission ofthe American Institute of
Centerfor Urban and Regional Studies
also made contributions for which the Certified Planners recognizes Carolina Planning for its
contribution to thefieldofplanning, commends thestudents of
student staffmustremain forevergrate-
the graduate program in City and Regional Planning at the
ful. BertinaBaldwin. PatCoke,andAsta
Cooperare representative ofstaffmem- UniversityofNorth Carolina atChapelHillfortheirtalentand
commitment inpublishing Carolina Planningcontinuouslyfor
bers who have always provided indis-
fifteenyears, andsincerelywishedCarolinaPlanningcontinued
pensable assistance. Otherkey staffare success in thefuture, andfurther
shown in Table 2.
A Student Publication rCeJou/ea, that a suitable engrossedcopyofthe resolution be
presented to the University ofNorth Carolina at Chapel Hill,
Morethan 120studentshave served DepartmentofCityandRegionalPlanningforpublicdisplay.
on the staffofCarolinaPlanningsince
its founding in 1975. Students have ed- March 22, 1991
ited, managed, designed, and laid out
AICP
each and every issue. The total number
ofhours required to publish Carolina ExecutiveDirector
Planning over the past twenty years is
beyond calculation. Because of this Figure 1: Commendation to Carolina Planning from AICP.
enormouseffort, Ifeel itessentialtorec-
ognize these students for their sendee.
See Table 3.
VOLUME NUMBER
21.
1
Service to the Planning Field
As stated above. Carolina Planning was origi-
nally founded with the model of the student-edited
law review in mind. Therefore, unlike other academic
journals, Carolina Planning is unique because, like
law reviews, it is both professional and academic in
purpose while it is controlled and edited by graduate
students. The unique character ofthis model has al-
lowed Carolina Planning to serve the field ofplan-
ning in three facets: it has been useful to the aca-
demic development ofplanning, to practitioners, and
has provided a valuable experience for planning stu-
dents.
CarolinaPlanning's contributionto the planning
field cannot be fully measured. In its twenty years of
publication, the journal has presented over 270 ar-
ticles, book reviews, and comments by over 315 au-
thors. (See the index ofarticles for the last ten years
elsewhere in this issue.) This body ofwork was pre-
pared byplanning students, faculty, and practitioners
and reflects their diverse interests, rich variety of
viewpoints, and professional life experiences. Caro-
linaPlanning's uniquecontributionisthat itattempts
to stimulate rigorousacademicdiscourseamongplan-
ning students, practitioners, and faculty on issues of
public importance.
CarolinaPlanningwas recognizedbytheAmeri-
can Institute ofCertified Planners in 1991 with a spe-
cial commendation. This award is an indication of
the twenty-year legacy ofhigh quality service to the
planning field. (See Figure 1 for the full text ofthe
commendation.)
Carolina Planning has achieved many of the
original objectives identified by its founders over
twenty years ago. As the journal begins another de-
cade ofservice, it should strive to continue this work
while reaching all those who may contribute to and
benefit from this forum <3>
Twenty Years of State Economic Development
Policy: North Carolina and the Nation
Rick Carlisle
a
"ver the last twenty years, state funding, action, Federal Disengagement
and capacity for economic development policy and
practice have grown tremendously while federal in- A little over twenty years ago. the Nixon
volvement has waned. We enter the middle part of Administration's "New Federalism'' promised a new
the lastdecade ofthe20thcenturywithunprecedented era offederal, state, and local cooperation. The fed-
state involvement in funding for economic develop- eral government would give state and local govern-
ment policy and practice. At the same time, we face ments greater flexibility in economic and commu-
greater state vulnerability to changes in the global nity development policies and programs. Specific,
marketplace, to global shifts in capital and technol- rule driven, categorical programs would be combined
ogy, to international trade agreements, and. conse- into more flexible block grantsto state and local gov-
quently, to the declining ability of state policy mak- ernments. Stateand localgovernments, inturn, would
ers to shape the direction oftheir economies. Funda- assume greater responsibility for their own destinies.
mental shifts in the international and national struc- The Community Development Block Grant and the
ture of economic production are reshaping state Comprehensive Employment Training Act promised
economies, placing new demands on infrastructure. federal funds without direct federal control.
tax and regulatory systems, education and training A little over a decade later, much ofthe prom-
systems, and research and development capacity in ised flexibility had not materialized or had been un-
higher education. The rise of industrial competitors done by creeping regulatory controls implemented
in developing countries and the rapid spread oftech- in response to real or perceived inadequacies in state
nology' are changing the structure of employment. and local controls or due to disagreement with state
They are pushing down some industry wages, reduc- and local priorities. mthe 1980s, the Reagan Admin-
ing the rate ofgrowth in blue collarjobs, and increas- istration reintroduced New Federalism with renewed
ing the reliance on abifurcated service sector ofhigh zeal for block grants, local flexibility in decision
wage and low wagejobs. State government will play making, and the policy-making abilities and priori-
a significant role in responding to the challenges that ties ofstate government. This second round ofblock
these changes create. grants signaled a return of obeisance to the greater
wisdom and knowledge of state and local officials.
With greater freedom, however, came less funding.
While budget reductions were never as deep or as
Rick Carlisle is Economic PolicyAdvisor to Gover- widespread as initially proposed, the implicit under-
nor James B. Hunt ofNorth Carolina. Mr. Carlisle standingwas thatgreaterflexibilityandcontrolwould
has heldpolicy and management positions in state be accompanied by declining federal funding.
government, with a national trade association in In 1995. just over a decade later, state policy
Washington, andinuniversityandnon-profitsettings. makers face another round ofproposed block grants.
He is a graduate ofthe Department ofCityandRe- Unlike prior programs, these block grants move far
gionalPlanningat the UniversityofNorth Carolina. beyond the consolidation of categorical, discretion-
ChapelHill, andofDuke University. ary programs into a combined block grant for states
VOLUME NUMBER
1
to administer. Proposals governing welfare, food State Engagement
stamps, and Medicaidwould turn overto states many
ofthe "safety net" entitlement programs designed to In 1989. David Osborne released an influential book
catch those that fall through the cracks ofthe market on state economic development policy. Laboratories
economy In addition, in discussions among interest ofDemocracy. Osborne argued that while federal in-
groups, think tanks, and congressional staff, policy volvement in state and local economic development
makers have pondered dismantling direct federal had languished, states had become increasingly ac-
funding for economic development, rural develop- tive and creative in designing public policy to stimu-
ment, and small businesses, and combining those late economic activity. At the state level, new ap-
funds into various block grants for states. As in the proaches to build a stronger economic base tended to
1980s, the 1995 proposals would reduce or freeze reflect some common understanding or themes.
program funds, with prospects at best for no real Osborne argued that these state development poli-
growth, and at worst for further reductions in real cies focused on nine basic elements:
program funding The twenty year trend, with some
fits and starts, has included a polite but firm with- 1 intellectual infrastructure.
drawal ofthe federal government from policy mak-
ing in community and economic development, a re- 2. a skilled and educated workforce.
duction in federal expenditures, and a "devolution"
ofgreaterflexibilityandgreaterresponsibilitytostate 3. quality of life.
government.
While the block grantprocess has captured much 4 the entrepreneurial climate,
ofthe press and public attention, a less marked but
consistent retrenchment has taken place in other fed- 5. adequate risk capital.
eral initiatives to stimulate state and local economic
development. The Economic Development Admin- 6. markets for new products.
istration, the Appalachian Regional Commission, the
Title V Commissions, Urban Development Action 7. industrial modernization.
Grants, and economic development funds within the
Farmer's Home Administration have all been reduced 8. an industrial culture ofcooperation and flexibil-
oreliminated. There was a briefrespite fromthis pro- ity, and
cess in the early proposals of the Clinton Adminis-
tration, which envisioned federal action to stimulate 9. a social system that supports innovation and
and invigorate the manufacturing economy, increase change.
federal funding for research and development, and
expand federal programs to increase financing for In his book. Osborne profiles six states* policies
community and economic development. At the time and programs that address one or more ofthese ele-
this article was written. Congress appeared poised to ments These innovations were actually relatively
dismantle the manufacturing and technology pro- widespread in the nation and in the Southeast. In the
grams of the National Institute for Standards and 1980s, for example. North Carolina launched many
Technologies and perhaps to eliminate the U.S. De- ofits initiatives to promote new technology develop-
partment of Commerce Following the flurry of fed- ment and commercialization, to increase cooperation
eral action in the 1960s and early 1970s to provide between businesses and universities, to provide high
both funding and policy direction for state and local risk capital for entrepreneurs, and to provide techni-
economic development, the past two decades have cal services and training for small businesses. Like
—
seen ageneral federal withdrawal atrend thatseems most states, however. North Carolina did not aban-
likely to continue in the near future. What has been don its traditional economicdevelopment policies that
the state response to these changes? served it well throughout the 1960s and 1970s. The
new initiatives were additions to the policy arsenal,
which meant new money and increasing expenditures
for economic development.
CAROLINA PLANNING
A common theme of policy initiatives launched structure, andworkertrainmg. was awell established
in the 1970s is that they were new and experimental. economic development policyin southernstates. This
Manyoftheseeffortswerecenteredinindustrialstates first wave of development policy was certamlv not
whose economic strength was threatened by the in- limited to the southern states, but in the 1970s thev
dustrial recruitment policies of the Sunbelt states. were its primary beneficiaries.
However, foralltheattentiongenerated amongpolicy
makers, and for all the real energy and innovation Wave 2: The IndividualFirmApproach
these initiatives represented, they were quite modest
interms offunding andtheir relative portions ofstate The second wave of state development policies
expenditures oneconomic development. Forexample. was characterized by the initiation ofthe types ofac-
the Ben Franklin Partnership of Pennsylvania, a tivities Osborne lauded in Laboratories ofDemoc-
model for connecting state government, business, and racy. Many ofthese were launched in the northeast
universities for technology transfer and commercial- and midwestern industrial belts to counter the suc-
ization, was launched with only a few hundred thou- cessful industrial recruitment efforts of the Sunbelt
sand dollars. By 1994. expenditures for the program states. Industrial revitalization and modernization
hadgrowntoabout $20million, while Pennsylvania's policies were intended to introduce new technologies
total expenditures on technology related economic and production practices to make industrial plants
development still totalled underS35 million. InNorth more competitive. Technology commercialization
Carolina in 1994. direct state expenditures for tech- and entrepreneurial policies were designed to create
nology transfer, commercialization, and industry new firms or introduce new products in companies
—
modernization were estimated at $37 million a sig- losing market share. The latter strategies gained na-
nificant but still small portion ofthe estimated total tionwide attention in the 1980s, largely because of
directstateexpenditures of$150millionforeconomic David Birch's analysis ofsources ofnewjobs. Birch's
development programs.1 The new initiatives of the widely reported findings argued that the principal
1970s and 1980s were real, but in most states these sources of new job creation were small companies.
expenditures were marginal compared tototal spend- Birch also argued that the differences in rates of
ing on economic development. growth of\anous states and localities were explained
by the differential birth rates for small firms. Places
Transitions in State Development Policy that, for whatever reason, had higher than average
growth in new enterprises also had higher levels of
Followers ofstate development policy atthe Cor- job growth. Although Birch's methodology was later
poration for Enterprise Development characterized criticized, his reporthadanimmediateimpactonstate
the transitions that took place in state development and local development policy. While few states had
policy in the last two decades as the three waves of small business programs in 1980. by 1993 they were
development policy. present in every state. By the late 1980s, most states
had a combination ofinitiatives aimed at small busi-
Wave I: Industrial Recruitment nesses and entrepreneurship. technology commercial-
ization, technology transfer, modernization, and fi-
Tire first wave comprised the industrial recruit- nancing In 1980. North Carolina had only a modest
ment policies pioneered by the southern states. While program to assist small businesses located in the
popular wisdom has these recruitment/incentive pro- Department ofCommerce, but by the 1990s the state
grams beginning with Mississippi's "Balance Agri- had the following programs:
culture with Industry" economic development initia-
tive ofthe 1930s, they actually date back to southern • the Small Business andTechnology Development
industrialization efforts ofthe 19th century. Legisla- Centerprogram, whichhousedsmallbusiness ser-
tive committee reports ofthe North Carolina Gen- vices on the state's 16 university campuses;
eral Assembly from the mid-1800s speak ofthe need
to provide incentives for northern capital to invigo- • the Small Business Center program, which lo-
rate the southern industrial economy until such time cated center directors to coordinate small busi-
as the South has sufficient capital to invest in itself. ness courses andworkshops in most ofthe state's
A
century later in the 1960s, industrial recruitment, 58 community college campuses:
combined with investments in transportation, infra-