<%@LANGUAGE="JAVASCRIPT" CODEPAGE="65001"%> Fisher review of Rowe

Journal of
APPLIED RESEARCH IN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Progressive thought and action for practitioners, researchers, civic leaders, and other citizens
contributing to the regional economic development process

Published by the Center for Community & Economic Research
Edited at the University of Southern Mississippi
Available at www.usm.edu/aredjournal

Review of Theories of Local Economic Development: 
Linking Theory to Practice
James E. Rowe, editor
2009 / Ashgate / 398 pp. / $124.95 hardcover

Reviewed by Donna K. Fisher
 School of Economic Development, Georgia Southern University

Rowe’s book offers much needed discourse on the diverse theories associated with E.D. and the disconnect between these theories and current practice.  This edited volume draws on the expertise across several countries and disciplines.  The book is divided into three basic sections (in addition to the editor's introduction): Defining the Discipline, Theoretical Concepts, and Theoretical Frameworks.

Defining the discipline
As I read through the chapters in this section, I recall pieces of various communities in which I have lived and worked.  These chapters also clarify my struggle to convey the extent and meaning of regional E.D. to my undergraduate and graduate classes.  One of the best explanations for the disconnect between theory and practice is attributed to the goals of the different actors in the process.  The practitioner is the frontline implementer.  The workload of most practitioners is such that little time is left to “test out” new theories, much less develop them.  Academicians are recurrently bound by the confines of their institutions and disciplines to produce new theories and publish in peer-reviewed journals; resources are rarely sufficient to allow for field testing the theories.  The policy-makers, often elected officials, direct funding towards activities (and theories) with proven track records.  They are interested in short-term, (highly) visible results that will assure re-election.  These divergent aims make it difficult to secure adequate funding to facilitate the linkages between theory and practice.

One of the more profound take-aways from this section, for me at least, is the explanation behind the success of Porter and Florida in getting their messages to the practitioners. Michael Porter and Richard Florida were not afraid to step out of the ivory tower and convey their messages in words that could be easily understood and utilized by the economic developers and policy makers alike.  As an applied economist, I struggle with balancing between solving real world problems and the theory development demands imposed by my academic position.  This battle is not easily won.  It will take an evolutionary as well as revolutionary shift in the thinking of not only academicians, but also policy makers (i.e., holders of the research funding purse strings). 

Theoretical concepts
This section explores key theories that inform E.D., including globalization, competition, location, clusters, methods and analysis utilized in economic development, entrepreneurship, technology, and social capital.  One of the tenets of the book is that in order to fully understand E.D., it is imperative to grasp the relationship between these sometimes overlapping theories.  The chapters in this section provide a comprehensive overview of the various theoretical concepts.

Theoretical Frameworks
“…the Deleuzian philosophy of difference offers new ways of thinking about economic development by providing insights into the complexity and chaos of capitalism while affording alternative ways of thinking about economic development policies or strategies.”  I’ll highlight just two of the Deleuzian metaphorical tools here.  The idea that E.D. could be interpreted as a rhizome is indeed intriguing.  The relationship between various theories employed either consciously or not when carrying out various E.D. activities can be “… likened to the interconnections of the internet.”  The other tool is multiplicity. This helps explain the plethora of potential amalgamations of various theories and concepts employed in any given E.D. project as well as the persistent transformation of the field.  One of the biggest challenges for E.D. practitioners is that one size does not fit all.  The framework offered in the book lends itself to clarifying and categorizing our understanding of this complex discipline in which we have chosen to work.   

The text will perhaps do more for the academicians and theory builders than the practitioners and policy makers.  The practitioner may at times get lost in the denseness of the material.  I must confess there were a few passages that I reread several times and still took pause that I had not quite understood the intent.  However, this did not take away from the overall message:  the much needed discourse on the continued disconnect between theory and practice in the field of E.D. and our hunger for a structure to facilitate our analysis. 

Did I find the book informative?  I suspect I will see Rowe’s book on the syllabus for my graduate level regional E.D. class next fall.

 

The reviewer
Donna K. Fisher is Associate Professor of Economics in the School of Economic Development at Georgia Southern University.
- 912 478 0533
- dkfisher@georgiasouthern.edu