Transcription
The Brookings InstitutionMetropolitan Policy ProgramBruce Katz, Vice President and DirectorThe Future State of the State: Why MichiganNeeds a New ModelPresentation to the Michigan State University Land Policy ProgramPlanning for Prosperity SummitMarch 27th, 2006THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Unleashing the Potential of Michigan’s Peopleand PlacesIWhat factors drive economic growth and prosperity?IIWhat policies can Michigan pursue to help movetoward a brighter economic future?THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
IWhat factors drive economic growth andprosperity?THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
IWhat factors drive economic growth andprosperity?Education is the key to economic competitiveness andgrowing incomesMore compact development patterns increaseeconomic productivityLess government fragmentation means greater agility andcompetitivenessTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Nationally, the more you learn, the more you earnWork-life earningsestimates (millions),1997-1999Source:“The Big Payoff:EducationalAttainment andEstimates of WorkLife Earnings,”Doctoral degree 3.4Professional degree 4.4Master's degree 2.5Bachelor's degree 2.1U.S. Census BureauAssociate's degree 1.6Some collegeHigh school graduateNot high school graduateTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION 1.5 1.2 1.0METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Educated metro areas win in the new economyEach additional year of education of workers in a metroarea leads to another 2.8 percent growth in productivityRauch (1993)The cities and metros with highly skilled workers in the1990s also had high population and income growthGlaeser et al (2000)The metro areas that have high proportions of skilled,educated labor are better able to reinvent themselvesand adapt to changing economic needsGlaeser et al (2003)THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Michigan’s educationalperformance lags on several keyindicatorsTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
The share of Michigan residents with BAs falls well behindthe national averageBA AttainmentRate and Rank byAge Group, 2000Source:U.S. Census BureauOver 2525-6425-3422.425.529.130241621.723.926343629Ohio Rate21.123.325.9OH Rank39393024.426.527.5Pennsylvania RatePA RankMichigan RateMI RankUnited StatesTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
This has consequences at the metro level, where low BAattainment leads to lower incomePer Capita IncomeSource:Glazer, 2004, with datafrom the BEA and 2000CensusShare of Earnings, 2001 NAICSBasisShare ofpopulation 2534 with BAdegree or morein 2000Level in2001Change 19692001 relativeto .S. 30,527N/A13.80%23.32%27.5%Detroit-Warren-Flint 33,151-9.52%18.53%23.72%23.8%Grand RapidsWyoming-Holland 27,372-7.70%31.53%13.45%27.2%Boston CMSADenver CMSAMinneapolis CMSANew York CMSAWashington DC CMSA 40,457 38,859 36,355 40,840 %39.9%36.4%40.9%THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
And with the exception of Ann Arbor, BA attainment rates inMichigan cities lag the nation80%Share of adults w/bachelor’s degree,2000Source:U.S. Census Bureau69.3%70%60%50%40%24.4% U.S. Rate30%21.2%23.8%20%11.3%11.0%FlintDetroit10%0%THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONLansingGrand RapidsAnn ArborMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
A major factor in Michigan’s low BA attainment is that the state’sgraduating high school students are ill-prepared for collegeOnly 32 percent of Michigan high school studentsgraduate with college-ready transcriptsThis compares to a national average of 36 percent,and lead states average 49 percentOnly 15 percent of Hispanic youth and 18 percentof black youth are college-readySource: Austin et al, Background Briefingfor Higher Education and EconomicGrowth Commission, 2004.THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Thus, college completion rates are very lowLess than 20 percent of Michigan’s full-time, 2-yeardegree students at community colleges graduatewithin 3 yearsOnly 10.5 percent of Michigan postsecondarystudents enrolled in vocational programs earn adegree or certificateThe overall completion rate at Michigan 4-yearinstitutions is 50 to 55 percent, while strongcompetitor states are higherSource: Austin et al, Background Briefing forHigher Education and Economic GrowthCommission, 2004.THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
The amount of post-secondary public and private institutionsis not a problem—Michigan ranks quite high nationally onthis indicatorInstitutionalCount, 2002Source:National InformationCenter for HigherEducation Policymakingand AnalysisTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONPostsecondary Institutions(Public 4-year)RankPennsylvania461Ohio245Michigan1510Total Institutions(Public & Private, 2-& ROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
But spending on research and development slightly lags thenational averageResearch andDevelopmentExpenditures,2001Source:National InformationCenter for HigherEducation Policymakingand AnalysisTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONTotal R&D ExpenditurePer CapitaRankPennsylvania 136.810Michigan 110.224Ohio 87.236United States 113.2Federal R&DExpenditure Per CapitaRankPennsylvania 92.87Michigan 61.823Ohio 49.130United States 66.4METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
And Michigan is among the most unaffordable states forpublic higher educationPercentage of FamilyIncome Needed toPay for College atPublic 4-YearInstitutions (%),2001Source:National InformationCenter for HigherEducation Policymakingand AnalysisTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONPercentage of FamilyIncome needed topay for 647United States24.2METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
IWhat factors drive economic growth andprosperity?Education is the key to economic competitiveness andgrowing incomesMore compact development patterns increase economicPhysicalproductivityLess government fragmentation means greater agility andcompetitivenessTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Density contributes to productivityAverage labor productivity increases with moreemployment densityCiccone and Hall (1996)“Accessible” cities with efficient transportation systemshad higher productivity than more dispersed places (47metro areas)Cervero (2000)Compared to others, growth management metros werelikely to see improvements in metropolitan level personalincomeNelson and Peterman (2000)THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Density contributes to innovation by attracting young,educated workersHigh density brings with it amenities that create a high“quality of place” that attracts young knowledge-workersIdeas, innovation, and creativity now drive the economyEconomic success requires large numbers of peoplewith a college education and high skillsTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Density enhances innovation by increasing interactions andknowledge-sharing among workersDense labor markets, efficient transport, and highclustering of jobs lead to knowledge spillovers, bothwithin and across industriesDenser local economies have been linked to increasedpatentingCarlino (2001)THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Compact development is more fiscally responsibleLow density development increases demand for facilities: New schools New roads New public facilities Sewer and water extensionsLow density development increases the costs of keyservices: Police Fire Emergency medicalTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
But Michigan and it’s metroareas are growing in low-densitydecentralized waysTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
In Michigan, strong suburban growth during the 1990scontrasts with particularly weak growth in central citiesPopulation GrowthRates, 1990-200020%18.1%Central -10%Source: US CensusBureau-15%-11.6%FlintTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION-6.1%DetroitLansingAnn ArborGrandRapidsMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
While Grand Rapids grew moderately, counties northand south of the city experienced very strong growthPopulation growth .3%5%Source: U.S.Census BureauTHE BROOKINGS leganCountyOttawaCountyMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Detroit lost significant population, but counties to the northand west grewPopulation growth %-2.4%-5%THE BROOKINGS dCountyountyConroeMacomountyCMWayneDetroSource: U.S.Census Bureau-7.5%it-10%METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
The five counties with the largest growth in the 1990s wereall located on the fringes of Michigan’s metro areasPopulation increase,1990-2000120,000110,564Population Increase100,000Source: U.S.Census ,0000OaklandTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONKentMacombOttawaLivingstonMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Michigan’s metropolitan areas “de-densified” rapidly duringthe 1980s and 1990sChange in urbanizedland and change inpopulation, 198219976.8%Lansing50.3%5.0%DetroitSource: Fulton etal., “Who SprawlsMost? HowGrowth PatternsDiffer Across theU.S.,” 2001THE BROOKINGS %30.0%Change in Urbanized Land40.0%50.0%60.0%Change in PopulationMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Michigan’s rural areas make up 18% of the state’s populationbut garnered 25% of the population growth during the 1990sShare of populationgrowth90%82.8%82.2%80%Metro AreasRural ulationShare2000PopulationShare10%Source: U.S.Census BureauTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION0%Share ofPopulationGrowthMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Decentralized growth is in part fueled by high levels of racialseparation in Michigan’s metrosRankingRacialInclusion(N 157)WorstMediocreBest16Appleton-Oshkosh, WI80Canton-Massillon, OH152St. Louis, MO-IL20Duluth, MN82Erie, PA153Cleveland-Lorain-Elyria, OH27Green Bay, WI84Hamilton-Middletown, OH154Milwaukee-Waukesha, WI30Springfield, MO103South Bend, IN156Flint, MI33Madison, WI108Ann Arbor, MI157Gary, INSome Quick Census FactsSource: U.S.CensusBureau; W. E.UpjohnInstitute forEmploymentResearchThe Midwest had the highest level of segregation – 4 of 5indicatorsThe 10 most segregated large metros for Blacks are in theold “Rust Belt”: Milwaukee, Detroit, Cleveland, St. Louis, Newark,Cincinnati, Buffalo, New York, Chicago, and PhiladelphiaCities with the greatest level of segregation in 1980continued to be so in 1990 and 2000THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Employment is also decentralizing. Cities gained jobs duringthe 1990s, but suburbs gained moreAggregate data for114 large cities45401992199738.232.5Millions of Jobs353028.926.6252015105Source: U.SDepartment ofHousing and UrbanDevelopment, Stateof the Cities 2000THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION0CitiesSuburbsMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
On average, 65% of all jobs in metropolitan areas lie within10 miles of traditional central business districts. In Detroit,only 22% do100%80%60%40%Source: EdwardGlaeser. “JobSprawl:EmploymentLocation in U.S.MetropolitanAreas.” Brookings,2001.THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION20%0%Grand RapidsInside 10-mile RingDetroitOutside 10-mile RingMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Consequently, a majority of metropolitan commutes beginand end within the Detroit suburbsShare ofcommuters, 2000Source:U.S. Census Bureau70%64%60%50%40%30%20%10%9%12%10%5%0%Cen City Cen City- Cen - SuburbCityTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONSurburb - Suburb Central SuburbCityWithinMSA OutsideMSAMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Michigan’s weak urban places are contributing to the loss ofyoung, talented workersNet migrationrates for collegeeducated 25-39year-olds, 19952000Source:U.S. Census, .0-100.0New nia-120.0-140.0-160.0THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONIndianaMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Furthermore, Michigan’s weak cities drive developmentpatterns that impinge on the state’s environmental assetsDecentralized development leads to:Loss of WetlandsLoss of ForestsDecreased Water QualityDecreased Open SpaceDecreased Air QualityDecreased Eco-TourismThese all cost the state in terms of infrastructure costs, healthcare costs, and the loss of amenity-driven economicdevelopment opportunitiesTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
IWhat factors drive economic growth andprosperity?Education is the key to economic competitivenessand growing incomesMore compact development patterns increaseeconomic productivityLess government fragmentation means greater agilityand competitivenessTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
High political fragmentation undermines fiscal and economichealth Miller et al (1995): highly fragmented areas tend to reduce thefiscal health of ALL municipalities in a metro area over time Paytas (2000): highly fragmented regions saw their share ofthe total income generated in 285 metro areas slip between1972 and 1997THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
High political fragmentation undermines core economies Lewis (1996): high political fragmentation undermines regionaldevelopment goals Large numbers of decision points, actors, and units ofgovernment make it easy to block actions and ultimatelypreserve status quo Large units of government and unified decision points (e.g.regional districts) function to promote growth, allow forprogress, and reduce spillovers Lewis (1996): fragmentation results in decreased shares of officespace in central business districts, less “centrality,” longercommute times, more “edge cities,” and more sprawlMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAMTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Michigan is one of the mostfragmented states in the countryTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Michigan has a high number of local governments Michigan has 2,816 local governments–the 14thmost among states The state also ranks 7th in the nation in thenumber of general-purpose local units ofgovernment with 1,859:83 counties1,241 townships273 citiesSource: Citizens Research262 villagesCouncil of Michigan, 1999THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Greater government fragmentation correlates with moresprawlChange in Density 1982-1997PittsburghMinneapolis - St. PaulGreater FragmentationSt. LouisClevelandWashington, D.C.MiamiPhoenixLos AngelesSan DiegoDetroit-40More Sprawl-30-20-100102030Less SprawlSource: William Fulton, et. al. “Who Sprawls Most? How Growth Patterns Differ Across the U.S.” Brookings, July 2001.METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAMTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTION
Detroit is among the most fragmented metropolitan areas inthe country.Political FragmentationLocal governmentsMunicipalities Total localper 100,000Metropolitan areaCounties and townships is - St. Paul1333134412.3St. 56.2.Miami255571.6Phoenix232341.2Los Angeles51771821.2San Diego118190.7Source: Myron Orfield. “American Metro Politics: The New Suburban Reality.” Brookings, 2002.THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
IIWhat policies can Michigan pursue to help movetoward a brighter economic future?THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
To unleash its economic potential, Michigan needs to:4Remake theurban landscape2Grow aneducated, skilledworkforce1Set aCompetitiveVisionDrive urbanreinvestment3THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONTransform localand regionalgovernance5METROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Set a Competitive VisionIdea:Establish regional visions for transitioning to thenext economy of advanced manufacturing,knowledge, and innovationTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Set a Competitive VisionExamples:Turin/Lyon regional visionResearch Triangle Region, North CarolinaTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Set a Competitive VisionTurin/Lyon Regional VisionNew outlook was needed due to lost competitiveness in the1970s and 1980s (Turin lost 200,000 manufacturing jobs)To create a southern economic arc to rival the London-ParisFrankfurt-Milan group, Turin and Lyon are presentingthemselves as European Regional Capitals: The ‘AlpineDiamond’ and the ‘Latin Axis’The railway tunnel through the Alps has been a catalyst forcooperation – a typical European ‘Grand Projét’Lyon: 4 major universities with 100,000 students and newresearch centers in information, communications, technology,health, and bioscience. Turin: host of 2006 Winter Olympics,and a new leader in robotics and telecommunicationsTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Set a Competitive VisionResearch Triangle Region, North CarolinaFive-year, 5-million public/private partnership strategy togenerate 100,000 new jobs in all 13 counties of the ResearchTrianglePromotes the growth of industry clusters (particularly thetechnology and bio-tech sectors) and creates agile leadershipnetworks to respond to market changesUses a balanced approach of targeted recruitment, businesscreation, and existing business retentionIntegrates higher education into economic developmenteffortsTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Build ForceIdea:Make Michigan’s workforce “best in class” with highGrowlevelan educated,skilledworkforceacademic andskillstrainingTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Grow an Educated, Skilled WorkforceExamples:California Education RoundtableWisconsin Workforce ReformTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Grow an Educated, Skilled WorkforceCalifornia Education Roundtable K-16 CoordinationThe California State University system accepts the top third ofCalifornia high school graduates, but the students’ performance hasbeen lacking: 37% fail the math section of the CSU placement testswhile 47% fail the English sectionAs a result, CSU worked with the California Education Roundtable toincorporate CSU placement standards with existing California highschool standards tests and set scores that high school juniors needto achieve in order to be successful in collegeThe results of the test are sent to the students before their senioryear, allowing lower-scoring students enough time to work towardsmeeting CSU’s standardsResult: College freshmen better prepared to enter and finish collegeTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Grow an Educated, Skilled WorkforceWisconsin Workforce ReformWisconsin began addressing workforce reform issues earlyand is now considered one of the best systems in the nationTheirs is a sector-driven, customer-oriented systemThey combine local Job Centers with state-level planning andRegional Training PartnershipsWisconsin is now beginning to address performancemanagement and measurementSource: Barnow and King, 2000THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Drive Urban ReinvestmentIdea:Make sprawl hard and urban and older suburbanredevelopment easyTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Drive Urban ReinvestmentExamples:Maryland Priority Funding AreasUrban Redevelopment in the UKTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Drive Urban ReinvestmentMaryland Priority Funding AreasIncluded in the Maryland Smart Growth and NeighborhoodConservation Act of 1997Targets major state funding (e.g. transportation, housing,state facilities) to Priority Funding AreasPriority Funding Areas include municipalities, inner beltwayareas, enterprise zones, industrial areas, and new plannedgrowth areasTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Drive Urban ReinvestmentUrban Redevelopment in the UKLaunched in 1998, the United Kingdom’s PreviouslyDeveloped Land (PDL) project is working to inventory allvacant and derelict land in England and WalesIn addition, the national government has set a target that 60%of all the country’s new housing should be built on previouslyused sites by 2008In 2001, 61 percent of housing built was constructed onbrownfields or through the conversion of existing buildingsTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Remake the Urban LandscapeIdea:Remake the physical landscape of cities to provideaccess to valuable assets (e.g., riverfronts) andundo the mistakes of urban renewalTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Remake the Urban LandscapeExamples:Public Housing Redevelopment in St. LouisMilwaukee’s freeway demolitionTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Remake the Urban LandscapePublic Housing Redevelopment in St. LouisWith state support, high-rise style low-income housing was replacedwith mixed-income townhouses, garden apartments, and singlefamily homesA partnership with corporate and philanthropic groups led to theimprovement of the local elementary school, resulting in dramaticallyimproved student reading levelsThe new development resulted in an economically diversecommunity that has already attracted private residential andcommercial investment in the surrounding areaNeighborhood incomes have increased 18% from 1989 to 1999compared to 4% regionally while unemployment has fallen 35% inthe same period of time (compared to a 3.7% city-wide increase)THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Remake the Urban LandscapeMilwaukee Freeway DemolitionRemoval of a little-used spur of the never-completed ParkEast Freeway began in 2002 to reclaim 11 blocks ofdowntown landRenewal project will add commercial and residentialdevelopment of mixed types, taking advantage of the uniquefeatures downtown (e.g. the river, entertainment venues, etc.)THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
THE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Transform Local and Regional GovernanceIdea:Create a streamlined, efficient and effectivegovernment that matches metropolitan geographyTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Transform Local and Regional GovernanceExamples:Minneapolis Metropolitan CouncilProposed “Rivers City”: Allegheny Co., PATHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Transform Local and Regional GovernanceMinneapolis Metropolitan CouncilHolds significant control of infrastructure including the region’stransportation and wastewater treatment systemsProvides affordable housing opportunities for low- andmoderate-income individuals and familiesEngages communities in planning for smart growth andprovides planning, acquisitions and funding for a regionalsystem of parks and trailsTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Transform Local and Regional GovernanceProposed “Rivers City”: Allegheny Co., PA39 oddly-shaped, fiscally-struggling municipalities inAllegheny County, PA are considering merging into one“Rivers City”“Rivers City” would become the third-largest city inPennsylvania“Rivers City” would replace the current 36 planningcommissions and 361 elected officials in the area with a lessfragmented government to coordinate economic developmentplanningTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
www.brookings.edu/metroTHE BROOKINGS INSTITUTIONMETROPOLITAN POLICY PROGRAM
Some college Associate's degree Bachelor's degree Master's degree Professional degree Doctoral degree Nationally, the more you learn, the more you earn Work-life earnings estimates (millions .
