Submitted by Richard Shearer, Aug 28, 2008 18:05

In response to the previous two comments, if place based economic development strategies are theoretically and empirically antithetical to the socio-economic progress of denizens of distressed communities as Dr. Glaeser suggests, then the political or logistical realities of implementing such strategies are irrelevant. While I can somewhat sympathize with Mr. Lucas's claim of implicitly institutionalized racism, it seems the prescription probably did not fail purely as a result of political motivations. That current government based interventions in urban redevelopment are counter productive is not a new idea. Michael Porter's controversial 1995 article, "The Competitive Advantage of the Inner-City" made similar claims. However, Porter's "let the market handle this" approach is too objective to be effective. Externalities of urban economic stagnation and subsistence often demand government intervention as a means of providing a place-based social safety net. When there is no immediate private sector impetus for investment, what means of providing an impetus do local governments have?

Note: Comments are screened, and in some cases edited, before posting. We reserve the right to reject anything we find objectionable.