Erasing Red Lines: Part 3 - Building Community Wealth

Erasing Red Lines of discrimination and inequality from our map is a monumental task that will require transformational systems-change. As community-based organizations are demonstrating the possibilities of alternative systems in specific geographic places, the questions of (1) how to bring those efforts to scale, and (2) how public policies might change in response to the lessons learned from those efforts, require greater attention. Building on the previous installment of this series, this report engages with aspects of these two questions by: (a) further unpacking some of the beliefs, values, and goals that define the current economic system; (b) summarizing and synthesizing selected ideas from the literature to describe mental models that might underwrite a “next system”; and (c) relating a public policy case study from Buffalo, NY, in which a City-run program was redesigned to be a vehicle for bottom-up community empowerment as opposed to a tool for top-down command-and-control. The case study shows how the program redesign implicitly reflects, and explicitly embraces, some of the “next system” mental models that are outlined in the report. For these and other reasons, the program has received (inter)national recognition, and researchers have argued that it might offer budding insights for how local governments can begin reorienting their existing policies away from goals of growth that support the status quo, and toward goals of equity and community wealth-building. The report concludes with a summary of the case study’s practical lessons for policy development moving forward

Deepening Democracy in Buffalo by Honoring Prior Commitments (And a Legacy)

The waning years of the 2010s and the opening weeks of the 2020s have been rife with headlines, editorials, academic articles, lectures, and book titles lamenting a “crisis of democracy”. Among other things, the concerned authors and observers participating in the discourse cite foreign election interference; the global rise of populist authoritarians; the exorbitant financial costs of electoral politics and the attendant subordination of policy to wealth and corporate interests; increasing social and cultural cleavages and polarization; sharply rising inequality; the ongoing erosion of public trust; and a host of other factors as both causes and consequences of the present weakened state of democracy in and beyond the United States. Not surprisingly, in light of these trends, strengthening democratic institutions and expanding democratic participation are among the highest priorities included in proposals to combat intersecting social, economic, and ecological problems from local gentrification to global climate change. With that in mind, this policy memo highlights two opportunities for the City of Buffalo, New York to answer these urgent calls to deepen democracy. Both opportunities—promoting worker cooperatives and the use of participatory budgeting—have already been experimented with in Buffalo, and have received meaningful resource commitments from the City in the recent past. Earlier progress on those fronts is part of the legacy of former Delaware District Council Member Michael J. LoCurto, who championed both causes through legislation and advocacy. Honoring that legacy means renewing prior commitments to these causes and ensuring that they become lasting fixtures of local governance

“Advice and Consent” in Historical Perspective

In recent years, commentators have complained about what they regard as an increasingly dysfunctional confirmation process for judges and high-ranking executive officials, and the proper role for the Senate in the confirmation process has been much debated. This Article suggests that confirmations have been contentious throughout American history, and that the focus on ideological issues in today’s confirmation proceedings is not anomalous. Indeed, historically, both Republicans and Democrats have used the confirmation process to delay or oppose nominations when the President hails from a different political party, and, sometimes, even when the President comes from the same party but there are ideological objections to the nominee. That the appointments process has, at times, been difficult and contentious should come as no great surprise. The Framers of the United States Constitution intentionally created a governmental structure that was more prone to obstructionism than other comparable systems. Relying on concepts like “separation of powers,” and “checks and balances,” the Framers sought to constrain the federal government in ways that would limit the possibilities for governmental abuse. The appointments power reflects this approach. Like many other constitutional powers, it is a shared power. Although the President has the power to nominate Article III judges, as well as ambassadors and “officers,” nominees can only be confirmed with the “advice and consent” of the Senate. By placing the power to appoint in two politically elected entities, the Constitution establishes a system whereby political influences will sometimes have a major impact on the confirmation process. Although contentiousness can arise during any type of nomination, some Supreme Court nominations have been particularly bitter. Both the Senate and the American public have increasingly become aware that the courts make law and that the political and judicial attitudes of nominees matter. Under such circumstances, the Senate’s inquiry quite naturally goes beyond the simple question of whether a nominee is qualified or unqualified. However, the confirmation process is more difficult today, even for nonjudicial nominees, because of the bitter partisanship that has infected the U.S. political system

Defining and Advancing High Road Policy Concepts, Strategies, and Tactics

[Excerpt] This Special Edition of High Road Policy (HRP) outlines a vision that opponents of the status quo can choose to stand for. It does so by proposing succinct answers to three basic questions: What is the High Road? What is High Road Policy? Through what means can High Road Policy be advanced? By answering these questions, this Special Edition of HRP aims to provide readers with a clearer understanding of what “High Road Policy” – both the concept and the journal – is all about. Concerning the latter, HRP’s Aims and Scope state that the outlet is committed to publishing on “policies, proposals, campaigns, governance arrangements, and other practical strategies for advancing a more democratic economy.” What follows is: (1) an overarching conceptual framework onto which those “policies, proposals,” and so forth can be mapped to determine how compatible they are with a High Road agenda; and (2) a plan of action that (a) articulates a theory of change and (b) introduces three interdependent strategies for implementing that theory of change, thereby supplanting the status quo with a democratic, fair, High Road system over time

Appalachia, USA: An Empirical Note and Agenda for Future Research

Drawing regional bright-lines to separate one “kind” of space from another is often complex and nebulous, if not impossible, in social science research. These circumstances generate two countervailing tendencies: they (1) promote multiple conceptualizations of a given ideational region; and (2) increase demand for a standardized operational definition of that region with which to facilitate intertemporal and interdisciplinary empirical research. These two tendencies animate much of the discourse on “Appalachian” geographies in America. While comparatively theoretically-oriented work emphasizes the unbounded, socially constructed nature of Appalachia, empirical research must often represent the region as a bounded spatial unit. The operational definition commonly used in such empirical analyses is the one established by the federal Appalachian Regional Commission in the 1960s. This research note engages in exploratory spatial data analysis to illustrate some pitfalls that are possible when this political/administrative definition functions as a study area in quantitative Appalachian social research

Economic Development on Common Ground: Two Bipartisan State Policies for Defunding Low Road Infrastructure

[Excerpt] On the backdrop of civil unrest and the nation’s politically discordant handling of COVID-19, these alarming figures bode poorly for the prospects of overcoming partisan gridlock to pass progressive, High Road legislation. At face value, members of opposing political parties seem too unwilling to cede any ground to their rivals to come together to enact meaningful change. To be sure, lawmaking bodies are even unable to agree that a global pandemic, which has thus far killed over 125,000 Americans and left tens of millions jobless, demands additional government intervention. Nevertheless, there is at least one domain where the two sides of the political divide appear to share common ground. Organizations and authors from right-leaning free market think tanks like the Mercatus Center to the left-leaning Good Jobs First have made the case to end targeted economic development subsidies and tax incentives. The next section explores the rationale for this position. From there, the memo highlights two opportunities to reform – and ultimately phase out – economic development incentives in New York State. Both opportunities were introduced to the New York State Assembly in the 2019-20 legislative session. Thus, the legislation already exists and does not need to be drafted anew. The bills are available to be reported out of committee and put to a vote (or, since the session has ended, reintroduced in 2020-21 and then reported out of committee for a full Chamber vote). They accordingly represent near-to medium-term actions that the State legislature can take to wind down and then end a practice that, as detailed below, is roundly derided across the political spectrum. Finally, the memo concludes with an even more immediate policy target: a federal COVID-19 relief package for state and local governments that might help end the “interstate economic development arms race.

Capacity Building and Community Resilience: A Pilot Analysis of Education and Employment Indicators Before and After an Extension Intervention

This article reports on an analysis of the effects of a quasinatural experiment in which 16 rural communities participated in public discussion, leadership training, and community visioning as part of an Extension program at Montana State University. Difference-in-differences methods reveal that key U.S. Census socioeconomic indicators either improved more rapidly or declined more slowly in communities that took part in the program, relative to a statistically matched control group. These findings offer persuasive circumstantial evidence for the ability of Extension programs to build community resilience. The findings and methodology, therefore, have important implications for Extension\u27s role in current public and academic resilience planning discourses

Robotic speech and the first amendment

Freedom of expression is he cornerstone of democratic governance. As the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in Garrison v. Louisiana, “speech concerning public affairs is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government.” Or, as the Court stated in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, speech is an essential mechanism of democracy, for it is the means to hold officials accountable to the people. The right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a pre-condition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it. The First Amendment has its fullest and most urgent application ‘to speech uttered during a campaign for political office.’ It is inherent in the nature of the political process that voters must be free to obtain information from diverse sources in order to determine how to cast their votes

Free Speech, Transparency, and Democratic Government: an American Perspective

Governmental openness and accountability are essential to the proper functioning of a democratic society.  At one point in history, monarchy was the dominant form of government in Europe, and some monarchies tried to justify their existence through the concept of “Divine Right,” the idea that kings were placed on their thrones by God, were divinely inspired and guided, and were carrying out God’s will through their actions. Of course, to the extent that monarchs really were carrying out God’s will, concepts like openness, transparency and democratic accountability had no role.  After all, why would society allow common people to criticize what God has done, or allow them to rebuke the monarch for carrying out God’s choices and actions