Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Dukakis Center For Urban and Regional PolicyNortheastern UniversitySchool of Public Policy & Urban Affairswww.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter A “Think and Do” Tank
What Makes Working Cities Work?
Barry BluestoneProfessor Emeritus
MMA Annual MeetingJanuary 24, 2020
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
The Big Questions
What factors are most important in promoting economic development?
Do municipal leaders have any control over what really matters?
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Working Cities
These questions are particularly important to older industrial cities like Massachusetts’ “Working Cities” … those that have suffered from deindustrialization, higher unemployment, lower family income, and higher poverty
What can help these cities once again become economic engines, improving the well-being of their citizens and providing the tax base for their public services?
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Massachusetts Working Cities
Economic Development Self-Assessment Tool (EDSAT)
Developed at the Dukakis Center for Urbanand Regional Policy at Northeastern University
to help cities and towns better understandthe factors that contribute to healthy
economic/employment growth
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
EDSAT TOPIC AREASThe self-assessment tool includes sections on:
1. Access to Customers/Markets2. Concentration of Businesses and Services (Agglomeration)3. Lease/Rental Rates4. Labor Quality & Cost5. Municipal Process6. Quality of Life (Community)7. Quality of Life (Site Amenities)8. Business Incentives9. Tax Rates10. Economic Development Marketing
2001-20072007-2013
2001-2013
Employment Trends
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
9.8%8.8%
6.8%
3.6%
-0.5% -0.7% -2.4% -2.6% -2.6% -3.6%-4.5%
-5.2% -5.2%-6.1%
-7.3%-8.0%
-9.0%
-10.6%
-14.2%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Revere
Taunton
Brockton
New Bedford
Haverill
Pittsfie
ld
Everett
Worceste
r
Chicopee
Springfie
ld
Chelsea
LawrenceSalem
SomervilleLo
wellLynn
Holyoke
Fitchburg
Malden
Working Cities Percentage Change in Employment
All Private Sector Industries 2001-2007
There’s wide variance in employment growth amongMassachusetts “working cities”
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
16.0%
13.9%
9.5% 8.9%
4.3%2.9% 2.4%
0.7%
-0.2% -0.3%-0.9% -1.5% -3.1% -3.4% -3.9%
-7.5%
-10.4%
-12.2%
-14.9%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Chelsea
Lawrence
Haverill
Somerville
SalemLy
nnLo
well
Brock
ton
Springfie
ld
Holyoke
Worce
ster
New Bedford
Pittsfi
eld
Everett
Fitchburg
Chicopee
Revere
Taunton
Malden
Working Cities Percentage Change in Employment
All Private Sector Industries 2007-2013:II
… the working cities with strong employmentrecords from 2001 through 2007 have not necessarily continued to produce many jobs
EMPLOYMENT DATACOMPARISONS
2001-2007 V S . 2007-2013: I I
Leaders and Laggards
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Haverill Chelsea Lawrence Salem Somerville Lowell Lynn2001-2007 -0.5% -4.5% -5.2% -5.2% -6.1% -7.3% -8.0%2007-2013 9.5% 16.0% 13.9% 4.3% 8.9% 2.4% 2.9%
-0.5%
-4.5%-5.2% -5.2%
-6.1%
-7.3%-8.0%
9.5%
16.0%
13.9%
4.3%
8.9%
2.4%2.9%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
Working Cities Employment in "Loss-Gain" (Resurgent Cities)
2001-2007 vs. 2007-2013:II
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Revere Taunton New Bedford
2001-2007 9.8% 8.8% 3.6%
2007-2013 -10.4% -12.2% -1.5%
9.8%
8.8%
3.6%
-10.4%
-12.2%
-1.5%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Working Cities Employment "Gain-Loss" Cities
2001-2007 vs. 2007-2013:II
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Pittsfield Everett Worcester Chicopee Springfield Holyoke Fitchburg Malden2001-2007 -0.7% -2.4% -2.6% -2.6% -3.6% -9.0% -10.6% -14.2%2007-2013 -3.1% -3.4% -0.9% -7.5% -0.2% -0.3% -3.9% -14.9%
-0.7%
-2.4% -2.6% -2.6%
-3.6%
-9.0%
-10.6%
-14.2%
-3.1%-3.4%
-0.9%
-7.5%
-0.2% -0.3%
-3.9%
-14.9%
-16%
-14%
-12%
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
Working Cities Employment "Loss-Loss" Cities
2001-2007 vs. 2007-2013:II
Employment Change2001-2013
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
10.8%
9.0%8.0% 7.6%
2.2% 2.1%
-1.1%
-1.6%
-3.4%
-3.7% -3.7%
-4.4% -5.0% -5.4%-5.7%
-9.3%-9.9%
-14.1%
-15.7%
-27.0%
0.73%
-30%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
Chelsea
Haverhill
Lawrence
Brock
ton
Somerville
New Bedford
SalemReve
re
Worce
ster
Pittsfi
eld
Springfie
ld
TauntonLo
wellLy
nn
Everett
Holyoke
Chicopee
Fitchburg
Fall River
Malden
Massa
chuse
tts
Working Cities Percentage Change in Employment
All Private Sector Industries 2001-2013:II
Over the entire period 2001-2013:II, there is a good deal ofvariance to explain in employment trends
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
49.8%
16.8%14.8% 14.4%
6.7% 6.5% 6.2% 6.2% 5.8% 4.9% 3.8% 3.5% 3.1% 3.0% 2.7% 2.1% 1.8%
-0.6%-1.8%-10.0%
0.0%
10.0%
20.0%
30.0%
40.0%
50.0%
60.0%
Somerville
Revere
Lowell
Lawren
ce
Chicope
e
Haverh
ill
Fitchb
urg
Chelsea
Lynn
Springfie
ld
Worcester
Taunto
n
Malden
Brockton
Holyoke
Pittsfie
ldSale
m
New Bed
ford
Everet
t
Working CitiesPercentage Change in Employment
2013:II - 2018:II
Massachusetts: 8.4%
WHAT FACTORS ARE MOST HIGHLY CORRELATED WITH EMPLOYMENT
GROWTH?
EDSAT Correlation Analysis
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
EDSAT Measures – 26 in All
Highway AccessParking AvailabilityTraffic CongestionInfrastructure LimitationsCommercial/Industrial RentsLabor Force SkillsTimeliness of ApprovalsPublic Transit AvailabilityPhysical Attractiveness of MunicipalityComplementary Business ServicesCritical Mass of Firms – Local Supply Chain FirmsCross Marketing by Municipality and Business CommunityMarketing Follow-up with Locating/Relocating FirmsQuality of Available Development Parcels
Labor CostFormal Economic Development Strategy
Available Development SitesPredictable Permitting
Fast Track PermittingCitizen Participation in Development ProcessCultural and Recreational Amenities
Crime RatesHousing Cost
School Success MeasuresAmenities near Available Development SitesLocal Tax Rate Environment
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN EMPLOYMENT GROWTH AND EDSAT VARIABLES
2001-2013:I I
What Factors are Correlated with Greater Employment andEstablishment Growth?
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
.59
.37 .36
.25
.180.15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Available DevelopmentSites
Site Amenities Economic DevelopmentMarketing
Timeliness of Approvals Parking School "Success"
Working Cities Factors Most Highly Correlated with Percentage Change in Employment All Private Sector
Industries 2001-2013:II
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Control Variables
Corr. %Chg Emp. 2001-2013/Proximity to Boston+.16 Slight positive correlation
Corr. %Chg Emp.2001-2013/Higher Poverty Rate+.17 Slight positive correlation
Corr. %Chg Emp.2001-2013/Larger Manufacturing Base +0.13 Weak positive correlation
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Key Factors NOT Highly Correlated with Employment Growth … or Inversely Correlated
Complementary Business Services (+.07)Low Crime Rate (+.07)Public Transit (+.04)Highway Access (-.03)Commercial/Industrial Rents (-.08)Cultural & Recreational Amenities (-.12)Low Local Tax Rates (-.27)Physical Attractiveness of City (-.35)
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
0.37
0.31
0.23 0.23 0.23
0.21
0.170.16
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
EconomicDevelopment
Marketing
Timeliness ofApprovals
Parking Public Transit Cross Marketing Low TrafficCongestion
Fast TrackPermitting
Site Availability
50 Massachusetts Municipalities - Factors Most Highly Correlated with Increase in Establishments
2001-2011
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy v www.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
Controlling One’s DestinyThese results seem very encouraging
If factors such as crime rates, distance from Boston (and Logan Airport), and physical attractiveness were the most important factors determining establishment and employment growth, the working cities would have a high hurdle to overcome to rebuild their prosperity
But the measures that seem to be most important to economic development are factors such as:
Providing sites for economic development and site amenities
Economic Development Marketing
Speed of municipal processes
On-site parking
These are factors over which municipal leaders have some immediate control
Using EDSAT and collaborating with the Working Cities Project, mayors and town officials –
along with the business community -- can find the keys to enhance their community’s
prosperity
… and act on them
Dukakis Center for Urban & Regional Policy
Northeastern UniversitySchool of Public Policy & Urban Affairswww.northeastern.edu/dukakiscenter
A “Think and Do” Tank
Thank You!