The Metropolitan Policy Program 2006:

from The Guardian

Ten years since its inception, the Metropolitan Policy Program continues to provide the demographic, economic, and spatial framework with which to understand the challenges facing metropolitan America.

Within that framework in 2006, the program re-emphasized the power of economic prosperity, and prosperity for all, as the unifying goal of reform.

Because big picture, although national statistics portray a rebounding economy, many parts of the country, and many households, are not sharing in that success.

Poverty rates are on the rise in both cities and suburbs, with more poor people now living in suburbs than in cities. The Midwest continues to bear the brunt of America's manufacturing job loss. And the very emblem of the American Dream, the middle-class neighborhood, is shrinking as the costs of daily necessities for working families continues to rise.

And as many communities grapple with greater economic insecurity, some are simultaneously dealing with other rapid changes, such as the demands of new immigrants, refugees, and population growth in general (symbolized by the arrival of America's 300 millionth American), the needs of declining older suburbs, and the growth pressures of exurban development on the fringe.

It is against this backdrop that we are learning that political and civic leaders are craving solutions to achieving and maintaining economic prosperity. While this year's mid-term elections were dominated by frustrations with Iraq and the war on terror, state and local elections—and even referendum results—signaled the need for practical problem solving to the issues around the economy, infrastructure, and income security for workers.

This proved true in every case where the program has engaged: fact-driven, comprehensive (yet practical) problem solving to achieve prosperity proved in demand and successful, whether at the metro, state, regional, or national level.

Central to these holistic efforts are three components to prosperity that guide the Metropolitan Policy Program's efforts:

# robust growth that boosts productivity and innovation, generates quality jobs, and helps the U.S. maintain its economic leadership in the face of rapid global, corporate, and technological change;

# sustainable growth that strengthens cities and older communities, reduces the costs of government, and conserves resources from energy to the environment; and

# inclusive growth that fosters a strong middle class while reducing racial and ethnic disparities in education, income, and wealth.

In New Orleans, the Metropolitan Policy Program documented the progress, or lack thereof, in the region's recovery throughout the year via the monthly Katrina Index. And while most commentary at the one-year anniversary of the storm was focused on the speed (or slow speed) of federal spending and government response, we pushed for a quality economic turnaround of the region, publishing a holistic proposal for a revived, inclusive, and sustainable New Orleans including an elucidation of the proper roles for federal, state, and local government.

In Maine, the program entered a state at a critical economic cross-roads. On the one hand, we found that after a period of demographic stagnation the state is growing quite rapidly again, driven by a major acceleration of domestic in-migration from Massachusetts and the growth of new service and innovation businesses.

On the other hand, "Charting Maine's Future" argued forcefully that sustainable prosperity is not inevitable, and that the state urgently needs to respond to a series of challenges involving the fragility of emerging clusters of innovative companies; the pace of its chaotic, low-density sprawl; and government's high and misdirected expenditure levels and taxes.

To respond, we advocated a state policy reform agenda that linked environmental assets, an innovative service economy, and fiscal discipline into a comprehensive sustainable prosperity agenda for Maine that was comprehensive and grounded in political reality. The agenda was also budget-neutral, calling for a "cutting to invest" approach and providing an alternative to the hot TABOR ballot question fight.

Key precepts included a $190 million Quality Places Fund for land conservation and community/downtown revitalization and a $200 million Innovative Jobs Fund to double R+D and support emerging clusters of the economy.

To fund these critical investments, government can be streamlined and more of the tax burden should be shifted to tourists. Also, more growth in existing towns and cities should be accommodated by reducing regulations and improving planning.

Perhaps most novel, and talked about, has been Brookings' proposal of a BRAC-like commission to identify inefficiencies in state government and submit a reform package for savings and reorganization to the legislature for up or down vote.

This and other packages promise to be central issues in the coming legislative session.

As our first of future forays into multi-state reform, "The Vital Center" examined the Great Lakes region's industrial legacy and the economic hangover from the seismic shifts in American manufacturing.

However, the region retains many significant assets such as its universities and natural amenities. In its conclusion, the report argues for a new federal-state compact around a series of educational, economic, social, and infrastructure initiatives that can help the region reassert its global economic leadership. It, too, continues to reverberate in the region's wrangling over its future.

Also creating legislative impact is "Prosperity at Risk: Toward a Competitive New Jersey," a project designed to diagnose the state's competitive position structured around housing, development, and social challenges.

In short, the project found that although New Jersey's economy has performed exceedingly well in the past, the state is losing its competitive edge. It argues that the threat to the state's prosperity comes from multiple forces—dysfunctional land use, rising housing costs, and growing race and place disparities—forces that are not normally associated with competitiveness.

Additionally, beside being cited extensively, several recommendations from the report focusing on housing and land use were recently embraced by Gov. Corzine in his new economic growth strategy.

In sum, we have learned that the reforms needed to bring quality economic growth, sustainable growth, and inclusive growth have strong political resonance—and impact—when packaged in pursuit of prosperity.

For 2007, Brookings hopes to take these on-the-ground lessons to the national level. It is time to demonstrate that the nation's economic prosperity is based on the health of metro areas, signaling a need for new federal and state reforms to promote metro prosperity.

Though the Metropolitan Policy Program relentlessly gathers local data for its analyses, the program nonetheless continues to look abroad for both lessons and opportunities.

In particular, the program continues its close collaboration with the London School of Economics on several fronts. This fall, Bruce Katz led a delegation of U.S. practitioners to London to participate in a trans-Atlantic conference on the economic recovery of industrial, "weak market" cities. Brookings is already applying the lessons on market recovery from cities like Bilbao, Sheffield, and Torino to its work in states such as Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan.

Katz has also been a senior advisor to another LSE initiative—the "Urban Age"—that is designed to develop policies that can address the rapid urbanization in China, India and elsewhere and the stresses experienced by global cities throughout the world. His presentation on "An Urban Agenda for an Urban Age," delivered at a major international conference in Berlin this fall, demonstrates that cities and city regions are the vehicles for achieving major global objectives in the 21st century, and require radically different multidimensional interventions if they are to realize their potential.

And while the Urban Age agenda tends to be more infrastructure-oriented than the Metropolitan Policy Program, it does fit into the program's vision of comprehensive reform.

The Metro Program remains committed to attacking the concerns around economic prosperity, and has demonstrated that efforts to strengthen industry and other economic assets, investing in existing communities and infrastructure, and growing the middle class all only enhance the goals of prosperity.

Also, wherever possible the program advances solutions that do not require more public subsidies but can be achieved through market and regulatory reforms, maximizing existing programs, or ensuring that new investments are offset by savings in other programs.

All of these efforts are of course in service of our three primary goals of robust growth, sustainable growth, and inclusive growth.

Ten years in, we hope you'll stay with us or join us. Subscribe to our email newsletters, or send us comments.

We look forward to hearing from you in 2007.