Wanted:
A tool to identify Place-based Policy
 


When people, in Finland at least, hear the words Place-based Policy they think of many different things. Some may think that it is about village action and like it for that. Others might think: At last there is a policy to support the municipalities. Also: In community planning some actors, quite cleverly, try to build schools, community centers. libraries, sport centers and such, next to each other to make shared use or the facilities, and call that Place-based Policy. Some people might react negatively, thinking that this is some kind of backward regionalism.
 


As we see it, we need to agree what PBP is about, some kind of description of the phenomena. Otherwise the discussion will just be confusing and we will never get anywhere.


Of course, there are a lot of reports and books about PBP, such as the famous Barca-report. 
 (http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/archive/policy/future/barca_en.htm)


There is also a nice, short working paper from Oregon state university.(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/41609546_Policy_and_place_requirements_of_a_successful_place-based_policy) 
 


In Finland, we even have guidelines for PBP. 
(http://julkaisut.valtioneuvosto.fi/handle/10024/79203)


And there is so much more out there…
 


Even if there is a lot of sophisticated literature we think that we also need a much simpler tool to illustrate what PBP is -
in this context. Something short and simple for politicians, civil servants, practitioners and also researchers.
 


Surprisingly the Obama administration provides a good starting point for making such a tool. (They might have had the same problem, how to make PBP operational for people who don´t have time to read a lot of books before they act, but still need clear guidelines.) There is a memo for the heads of executive departments and agencies called “Developing Effective Place-Based Policies for the FY 2012 Budget”


It starts with a general statement:



"Definitions

Place-based policies target the prosperity, equity, sustainability and livability of places – how well or how poorly they 
function as places and how they change over time. Place-based policy leverages investments by focusing resources in targeted places and drawing on the compounding effect of cooperative arrangements. By definition, all domestic policies affect people who live or work in particular places. But many domestic policies are not place-based or 
place-driven. This is not to say that place-based approaches are always the most effective way to achieve particular policy goals. However, the Administration’s work should be guided by a clear understanding of the useful role that placebased policy can play and how to make it most effective."
 


But after this it gets interesting - and practical. It gives examples of what is and what is not PBP.




YES: Place-based policy
 


1. A program to foster successful networks or clusters of businesses at the local or regional level
 


2. A Federal program to foster homeownership through a neighborhood-based approach to financing, redevelopment, and financial literacy development
 


3.  A Federal program that targets local workforce  development organizations (which help supply skilled labor) and connects them to efforts to generate jobs (local demand for labor)
 
 

NO: Not a place-based policy
 
 

1.  A Federal program to make credit available to  small businesses generally.
 
 

2.  A program to make mortgage credit available to qualified borrowers generally.
 
  

3.  A program to provide unemployment insurance to the unemployed as a category.
 


We have to keep in mind that this is USA, national level policies. This tool could be useful on EU-level perhaps, but there are so many other levels. (By the way, if you look at the YES # 1, is that not almost a translation of the acronym LEADER?)


I think that the tool provided by Obama can be used as a model for creating our own tool. But we have to broaden the area to cover all levels of policy to get an overall description of Place-based Policy.
 


So here friends, is a challenge and a reality check for you!


A definition or description is used to help us distinguish one thing or type of thing from the rest of the world, it is 
a tool for separation. My thinking is that if we can produce a long enough list of key examples of where the line should be drawn, we will have a good enough description.


And as I just demonstrated: Obama agrees ;-)
 


So if you have a vision of what Place-based Policies are, give practical examples on what it is and what it is not !


Here are some, I'm sorry to say, rather theoretical (and perhaps too general) suggestions from me... but hey - it is a start and I'm counting on you. 
 

  

 

YES: Place-based policy:


1. The place is defined on the basis of the issue, the problem/opportunity at hand.


2. Policies combine bottom-up and top-down policies


3. Actions are tailor-made for the place at hand, on the bases of the resources and will of the people living and acting in the place.


4. The optimal use of the all the resources in the country is the goal of the policies


5. Equality is measured on the basis of outcome in real life


6. Governance is the prevailing way of making policies


7. Local people are always involved and empowered


 

 NO: Not a place-based policy


1. Places are defined on the basis of administrative borders


2. Policies are top-down


3. One size fits all, national policies are carried out the same way everywhere


4. National competitiveness is the goal of the policies


5. Equality means that everyone gets access to the same resources


6. Government is the tool for policies


7. Central government has the power
 


Please continue the list of "opposites" ; what is - what is not.

Please use the possibility to evaluate and comment below!