Response: Why Business Alone won't Redevelop the Inner City: A Friendly Critique of Michael Porter's Approach to Urban Revitalization

Bennett Harrison and Amy K. Glasmeler
Additional contact information
Amy K. Glasmeler: Pennsylvania State University

Economic Development Quarterly, 1997, vol. 11, issue 1, 28-38

Abstract: Community development activists recognize that some of the poorest neighborhoods in our biggest cities are among the most well situated in terms of access to the region of which they are a part. Scholars and activists often remark on the paradox of high inner-city poverty rates coexisting with substantial aggregate purchasing power Michael Porter contends that inner-city businesses should exploit their potential linkages to other firms located outside their immediate neighborhoods by becoming suppliers or co-venturers. Training programs, too, should be organized by and around the region's most important or promising clusters. These concepts-linkage, sectors, and industrial or service complexes-actually have a long history in the field of development planning, antedating Porter's writing. His incorporation of these elements is valuable; his inclination to dismiss the positive contributions of local governments and community-based organizations is not.

Date: 1997
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (2)

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/089124249701100103 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:11:y:1997:i:1:p:28-38

DOI: 10.1177/089124249701100103

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Economic Development Quarterly
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().