Perspectives on Place-Based Policy: Strategies for Workforce and Economic Development

Key Points

• Opportunity varies by place in the US, with the lowest levels of opportunity in states in the former Confederacy and American Indian reservations.
• Rural America faces unique challenges in relative income, education, age, population, and life expectancy, and current federal government grants and programs do not sufficiently meet policy goals.
• Place-based funding in rural areas can potentially propel growth in local economies, and outcomes-based programs are crucial for wise government investment.
• Texas offers an example of investment on a state level for local economic growth incentives.

Read the full pdf.

Introduction

The Workforce Futures Initiative is a research collaboration among the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Project on Workforce at Harvard Kennedy School’s Malcolm Wiener Center for Social Policy. The initiative aims to develop concise and actionable reviews of existing research for federal, state, and local policymakers. Since August 2021, the group has provided a forum for researchers and practitioners to discuss policy ideas, evaluate evidence, and identify priorities for new research on the future of work and the public workforce system.

Report 1: Place-Based Policies Through a Rural Lens

The first report, Place-Based Policies Through a Rural Lens by Anthony F. Pipa, makes the case for place-based federal policy as a solution to the diverging success in labor market outcomes for rural and urban America. The report describes the Rural Electrification Act of 1936 as an example of federal policy that helped establish wealth and stimulate demand and growth in rural areas. Pipa argues that the current state of federal investments is decentralized and has accessibility barriers due to varying eligibility requirements. The report includes recommendations for broader federal investment in local development.

Report 2: Texas 2036 and the Texas Legislature’s Future Workforce Initiatives

The second report, Texas 2036 and the Texas Legislature’s Future Workforce Initiatives by A. J. Rodriguez, describes the accomplishments of the nonprofit Texas 2036 in developing a strategic framework to advance Texas in several policy areas and performance measures. The investments in the state’s future focus on growth through data-centered and evidence-based policy. This report provides a concrete example of how place-based policy can succeed in a state legislative context.

Report 3: Place-Based Policy and Economic Development

The third report, Place-Based Policy and Economic Development by Stan Veuger, describes the outcomes of current federal grants to state and local governments. Veuger makes the case for the need to evaluate effectiveness. Including arguments for and against place-based policies, the report features economic considerations of political incentives for productivity and relocation. Veuger recommends that spending be focused on programs with proven effectiveness and diverted from existing place-based policies and grants.

Read the full report.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 1: No Poverty
• SDG 4: Quality Education
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The article discusses the issues of varying levels of opportunity, relative income, education, age, population, and life expectancy in different places in the US, particularly rural areas. These issues are connected to multiple SDGs, including SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• Target 1.1: By 2030, eradicate extreme poverty for all people everywhere.
• Target 4.1: By 2030, ensure that all girls and boys complete free, equitable, and quality primary and secondary education leading to relevant and effective learning outcomes.
• Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men, including for young people and persons with disabilities, and equal pay for work of equal value.
• Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion, or economic or other status.
• Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe, and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.

The article’s content suggests the following specific targets under the relevant SDGs: eradicating extreme poverty (Target 1.1), ensuring equitable and quality education (Target 4.1), achieving full and productive employment (Target 8.5), promoting social and economic inclusion (Target 10.2), and ensuring access to adequate housing and basic services (Target 11.1).

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicator 1.2.1: Proportion of population living below the national poverty line, by sex and age group.
• Indicator 4.1.1: Proportion of children and young people (a) in grades 2/3; (b) at the end of primary; and (c) at the end of lower secondary achieving at least a minimum proficiency level in (i) reading and (ii) mathematics, by sex.
• Indicator 8.5.1: Average hourly earnings of female and male employees, by occupation, age group, and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator 10.2.1: Proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income, by sex, age group, and persons with disabilities.
• Indicator 11.1.1: Proportion of urban population living in slums, informal settlements, or inadequate housing.

The article does not explicitly mention indicators, but based on the identified targets, the following indicators can be used to measure progress: proportion of population living below the national poverty line (Indicator 1.2.1), proficiency levels in reading and mathematics among children and young people (Indicator 4.1.1), average hourly earnings by occupation, age group, and disability status (Indicator 8.5.1), proportion of people living below 50 percent of median income (Indicator 10.2.1), and proportion of urban population living in inadequate housing (Indicator 11.1.1).

Table: SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Behold! This splendid article springs forth from the wellspring of knowledge, shaped by a wondrous proprietary AI technology that delved into a vast ocean of data, illuminating the path towards the Sustainable Development Goals. Remember that all rights are reserved by SDG Investors LLC, empowering us to champion progress together.

Source: aei.org

Join us, as fellow seekers of change, on a transformative journey at https://sdgtalks.ai/welcome, where you can become a member and actively contribute to shaping a brighter future.