query: urban revitalization models

colist-admin at comm-org.utoledo.edu colist-admin at comm-org.utoledo.edu
Mon Dec 2 22:12:01 CST 2002

[ed:  thanks to Peter, Bill, and JAnyon for replying to Andrew's 
query, which is reprinted below.  A couple of COMM-ORG 
members also asked for some explanation of Porter's model. A bit 
from me at the very end.]

From: "Peter Dreier" <dreier at oxy.edu>

The best critiques of Porter's approach include articles by Bennett Harrison
and by Tim Bates, both in Economic Development Quarterly, Feb. 1997; a
journalistic version of this critique is by Goozner in American Prospect,
"The Porter Prescription" in 1998 --

Peter Dreier
Peter Dreier
Dr. E.P. Clapp Distinguished Professor of Politics
Director, Urban & Environmental Policy Program
Occidental College
1600 Campus Road
Los Angeles, CA 90041
Phone: (323) 259-2913
FAX: (323) 259-2734


From: "William A. Ninacs" <bill at lacle.coop>


The best critique of Michael Porter's work that I've seen is in "New 
Social Entrepreneurs:  The Success, Challenge and Lessons of 
Non-Profit Enterprise Creation" by Jed Emerson and Fay Twersky 
(1996).  Part 2, Section 2, tackles the competitive advantages of 
the inner city head-on while Part 2, Section 1, critiques Porter's 
take on capital markets.  You can download these chapters as well 
as all kinds of other very interesting stuff free of charge on the 
Roberts Enterprise Development Fund's Web site at 


William A. Ninacs

Coopérative de consultation en développement La Clé
Place communautaire Rita-Saint-Pierre
59, rue Monfette, local 214
Victoriaville (Québec)  G6P 1J8
Phone:     (819) 758-7797
Fax:       (819) 758-2906
E-maiil:  bill at lacle.coop
training - research - consulting

Associate Director
The Canadian CED Network (CCEDNet)
Phone (toll free):  (877) 202-2268
Fax and regular mail:  same as La Clé
E-maiil:  bninacs at canadiancednetwork.org
Web Site:  http://www.canadiancednetwork.org


From: JAnyon at aol.com

In reply to Andrew Carter's request for critiques of Michael Porter's 
ideas, the Fall 1995 issue of Review of Black Political Economy 
(Vol. 24, Issue 2/3) is devoted to critiques of Porter's thesis, with a 
rejoinder by him. -- Jean Anyon, Graduate Center, City University 
of New York.  

> [ed:  Andrew's query also gives some opportunity to have some 
> discussion comparing different urban development models.  Please 
> feel welcome to contribute.]
> From: "Andrew Carter" <andrew.carter at gle.co.uk>
> Dear Listmembers,
> I'm currently doing work in London analysing and critiquing urban 
> revitalisation models and initiatives that look at inner city issues 
> from an economic competitiveness perspective as opposed to a 
> social deprivation perspective.  In other words, adopting the 
> Michael Porter ICIC model.
> I'd be really grateful for information of research, evaluations etc 
> that have critiqued Porter's work and his approach more generally 
> and those that have proposed alternative models for inner city 
> revitalisation that still use economic competitiveness as a driver.
> Thanks.
> Andrew Carter 
> Andrew Carter 
> OneLondon Ltd
> 28 Park Street
> London SE1 9EQ
> T: 020 7940 1571
> M: 07900 168 457
> E: andrew.carter at one-london.com


[ed:  the article that Peter Dreier cites in American Prospect is 
probably a fairly accurate discussion of the debate, though it is 
really a critique of Porter so you kind of have to construct his 
argument through the critique.  What intrigues me is that the 
argument between Porter and his critics doesn't seem very far 
removed from the community development versus community 
organizing debate.  I am wondering if others see a linkage between 
Porter and the U.S. community development model, with the critics 
reflecting the traditional community organizing model.]

More information about the Colist mailing list