The New Localism: How Cities Can Thrive in the Age of Populism

by Bruce Katz, Jeremy Nowak

The New Localism provides a roadmap for change that starts in the communities where most people live and work. In their new book, The New Localism , urban experts Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak reveal where the real power to create change lies and how it can be used to address our most serious social, economic, and environmental challenges. Power is shifting in the downward from national governments and states to cities and metropolitan communities; horizontally from the public sector to networks of public, private and civic actors; and globally along circuits of capital, trade, and innovation. This new locus of power―this new localism―is emerging by necessity to solve the grand challenges characteristic of modern economic competitiveness, social inclusion and opportunity; a renewed public life; the challenge of diversity; and the imperative of environmental sustainability. Where rising populism on the right and the left exploits the grievances of those left behind in the global economy, new localism has developed as a mechanism to address them head on. New localism is not a replacement for the vital roles federal governments play; it is the ideal complement to an effective federal government, and, currently, an urgently needed remedy for national dysfunction. In The New Localism , Katz and Nowak tell the stories of the cities that are on the vanguard of problem solving. Pittsburgh is catalyzing inclusive growth by inventing and deploying new industries and technologies. Indianapolis is governing its city and metropolis through a network of public, private and civic leaders. Copenhagen is using publicly owned assets like their waterfront to spur large scale redevelopment and finance infrastructure from land sales. Out of these stories emerge new norms of growth, governance, and finance and a path toward a more prosperous, sustainable, and inclusive society. Katz and Nowak imagine a world in which urban institutions finance the future through smart investments in innovation, infrastructure and children and urban intermediaries take solutions created in one city and adapt and tailor them to other cities with speed and precision. As Katz and Nowak show us in The New Localism , “Power now belongs to the problem solvers.”

Genres: Nonfiction, Politics, Urban Planning, Economics, Urbanism, Cities, Academic

304 pages, Hardcover

Published January 9, 2018

Reviews

[Max Murphy · Rating 1 out of 5]

I just don't agree with this guy on anything, which is super disappointing because the title jumped out at me. Local politics and progressive ideology are two of my favorite things. Yet Mr. Katz simply wanted to gripe about "partisan gridlock" "extreme views on the right and left" (hah), and how Washington can't get anything done.

Is there an element of truth to it? I guess. But so many of his points fell extremely flat. He uses Detroit as an example of a dilemma best solved by local politics, which seems to overlook the fact that the local government tried and failed to solve it on their own.

He says that Leftist Populism is, much like the white supremacist etho-nationalist alt-right, "seeking to return to a simpler time". His evidence for this is, global trade agreements? Which seems like a minor facet, considering things like universal healthcare and free college are much more important to the movement, and much less like the previous American norm.

It's a lot of both-sides rhetoric, about how both parties are bad and wrong, and the answer is in the middle. DC can't do anything, we have to pull up our bootstraps and do it ourselves, devoid of any political views or, yknow, morals.

He also HEAVILY pushes for a network of problem solvers- public sector, private sector, and everything in between. Which basically means he's pushing for a libertarian fantasy of business running cities in tandem with the government, and congress doing basically nothing.

To be clear--- these are exaggerations. The author makes clear that federal government has a role to play, and that politics is important. But the watered down centrism of the book just didn't vibe with me, I was unable to complete the book.

[Jasmin.M ياسمين منصور · Rating 5 out of 5]

Read this book for my community development class, it drove great analytical conversation in lecture. The world is shift so much and still is since the market crash in 2008. Taking power and giving it to local problem solvers who are more sufficient address local economical, social and political problems and addressed within. I don’t want to give too much pf the book. Worth a read and strikes great conversations with friends.

[David · Rating 2 out of 5]

The author's writing style strikes me as being overly complex. Is he trying to impress me with is vocabulary or help convey a topic to the layman? If you are an average Joe and you're just interested in broadening your knowledge on the topic in case you ever find yourself at a city counsel meeting, this book is going to bore you. The only time I was fully awake was when he was actually talking about a specific city (like Pittsburgh or Copenhagen), which was actually interesting; however, the bulk of the book felt like a trip through a thesaurus with no really summary. I say "felt like" because the author did try to explain things and give a take-away, but it just "felt like" it was lacking. Perhaps if I were a city planner or city counsel member I would get a different vibe from the book, but I'm an average Joe and just thought the book was OK and was glad to finally reach the last page.

[Russell Fox · Rating 3 out of 5]

As my thinking about cities and urban issues is mostly theoretical in orientation, this book ended up being a quick read, because the authors make it clear from the outset that they are "urban realists," far more interested in how cities solve problems then in the historical or conceptual reasons why cities can or cannot solve any given problem. In reading through it, I realized this was the sort of book that our mayor would be interested, which I don't mean as a criticism. While not a simplistic how-to book, the claims it makes about "how cities can thrive in the age of populism," as the subtitle says, are really all grounded in particular city governments and financial institutions and public-private partnerships and more learning how to secure resources, establish rules, and advance common goals within their different urban contexts. For people most interested in such practical examples, this books is rich find. Even for a more idea-focused individual like myself, there was good information here, and a few reflections stand out.

For example, I do have to admit being intrigued by how they did treat the "age of populism" they mention, because it surprised me. While the authors do take a predictably anti-partisan and anti-political tone in talking about how cities, unlike state and national governments, want "common sense solutions" rather ones which check off ideological boxes, I was impressed to see that they recognized something which I think rather obvious, though rarely noted: that the push for localism and the push for populism are, if not identical, then at least entwined at the roots. Both are expressions of frustration at the way elite policies and procedures seem a bad fit for the problems facing people in the places where they actually live. The authors never clearly distinguish what they call "Angry Populism" from the kind of populism that they criticize the delegitimitization of; while their criticism of any populism which centers on national myths and ethnic or racial exclusivity is obviously one they reject, they're too friendly to the problem-solving power (as they see it) of capitalism to be friendly to a populism which tries to hold back economic or technological change either. So I don't want to give them too much credit for reflecting upon deeper political issues; words like "democratic legitimacy" barely ever appear in the text. Still, they do at least attempt to grapple with populism as something other than a threat to the rule of "common sense" centrists, and that makes them stand out.

[Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

Aggressively dull to read, and the teased connection relating New Localism to the new populist movement is completely unaddressed. A cheap, awful grab of a claim to put on the book to turn heads.

The arguments made here, of which I mostly agree, could have been summed up in a few paragraphs - not several hundred pages. This book is not necessary, and written as drearily as it is, does the concepts discussed within a disservice.

[Abby Bayani · Rating 2 out of 5]

Hoooo boy, where to start with this one? In terms of general appeal, I would not recommend the audiobook because Tristan Morris reads like a sports broadcaster. I also can't conscionably recommend the book in general because I think it is pretty poorly written. The book badly needed to be restructured and streamlined — Katz and Nowak try to cover too many distinct ideas under the umbrella of "the new localism" while also somehow repeating the same meaningless examples over and over again. There are chapters that introduce a whole glossary of specialized terminology, and then most of those terms are never mentioned again or otherwise get lost in the alphabet soup of acronyms that the writers use. There are also chapters that made me stop and think, "Didn't I already read this?"

Now for the real criticism: There are some good surface-level ideas, but everything rings hollow since it’s all rooted in neoliberalism. Obviously, all the examples he gives are American or western European cities — development in these places is always enabled by exploitation in others, primarily in the Global South. Compartmentalization and apathy are so ingrained in society under capitalism that it's no surprise that the authors are so in love with the idea of urban renewal and economic development locally, because why would anyone care what's happening in Africa, South and Southeast Asia, or Central and South America? It's sad that most people really think like this and enthusiastically pursue financing for their projects without stopping to think where that money came from.

Other detractions:
- They mention homeless people exactly once and only in passing. Their solution to the housing crisis is… bank loans.
- I'm sure I could list issues with all his examples, but the Kansas City example stood out to me since I live in the area. Their praise of its development plan ignores the fact that this "development" continues to disadvantage the most vulnerable communities and small businesses. My counterexample would be the community pushback against the planned Truman Sports Complex, which would drive rent up exorbitantly and push small businesses out of the area.
- The book pays lip service to other issues such as climate justice/environmental protection, the unique hurdles to development on rural Tribal Reservations, and the inaccessibility of financing for many racial/ethnic groups such as predominantly Black communities.
- The phrase “cradle-to-career” is horrifying (just my opinion)!
- I found it funny that he quoted The Martian and the founder of LinkedIn.
- The most truthful thing he says in the entire book is a sentence from the final chapter: “For every Copenhagen, there are thousands of cities that are creating value for the private sector and then failing to maximize it for the public good.”
- He also appropriates the Zen koan “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” as an idiom completely removed from the original conceit of the koan. He says “the sound of one hand clapping” as a way to describe something pointless, useless, or unable to produce results. A koan is somewhat like a riddle—a question that you can’t really answer. You’re supposed to meditate on them. Not really that important, but that kind of stuff irks me.

Final thoughts: Very funny that he vaguely mentions systemic racism when talking about how businesses' leadership tends to be less diverse than other institutions like universities. Gee, I wonder why that is?

[Anjuli · Rating 4 out of 5]

The New Localism prescribes collaborative governance. Multisectoral networks need to work together to solve urban challenges. These challenges are often complex and ‘wicked’. We need to adopt an all-hands-on-deck approach to alleviate them. Multisectoral networks are often made up of public, private and civic leaders who can provide expertise and other resources that can be valuable when informing policy.

The case studies in the book show how collaboration and cooperation can be effective. I really enjoyed reading the ‘lessons learned’ section after each study. You can see how different cities are leveraging strategic assets readily available to them. Some may argue that Katz and Nowak are encouraging an elite run agenda, however it is important to note that getting all these ‘hard-hitting’ players around the same table is a massive step. These civic entrepreneurs and leaders can work towards actualizing inclusive agendas. Civic organizations do not possess policy capacity so they need to work in conjunction with local and regional governments.

The concepts in the book may seem abstract and optimistic, but we really need to understand that one actor alone cannot combat the challenges cities face. Local governments are often focused on service-delivery so they often lack the expertise and fiscal means to achieve specific initiatives. This is where other sectors come in.

[Robert Wechsler · Rating 5 out of 5]

An excellent guide to the considerations and possibilities for local institutions to work together toward the improvement of their region’s economy, in terms of modernizing it (and those participating in it) and in terms of making its benefits more equally spread. The book is well organized and well written, except for a bit too much repetition. An essential book for anyone who is thinking in terms of local rather than national change.

[C. Patrick G. Erker · Rating 4 out of 5]

In today's America, it's easy to be pessimistic about the state of affairs. Trust in core institutions, and especially in the executive and legislative branches of our federal government, is at frighteningly low levels. Partisanship and new media have created a cacophony of gridlock and shouting. Income inequality gets worse and worse.

Into the void step pragmatic city leaders, who tend to be more focused on solving concrete, day-to-day problems for their constituents, and are generally much more immune to the plague of partisanship.

Katz - who I was lucky to meet at a work event where he spoke to us about his work - shares insights from three examples of city leaders who have delivered results for their constituents.

The examples cities - Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, and Copenhagen - all have been blessed with differing assets. Yet in each case, a coalition of private, public, and other leaders came together to pursue a shared vision and align resources, all in the service of the city's various competitive advantages.

I grew up in St Louis, which the authors mention in passing for its Cortex innovation district, and which has not been able to coalesce around a shared set of priorities in the way Indy or Pittsburgh have. Part of that is due to geography: St Louis' central corridor is simply too big. Part of it is race: St Louis continues to grapple with deep issues on race, more so than many of its fellow cities. And part of it is the city-county divide and proliferation of municipalities: without a single government speaking for the region, it is much harder to build the coalitions necessary. (I think part of St Louis' issue too is that we tend to lose some of our most talented people to other cities, where they start, grow, etc., successful ventures.)

City planners in places like St Louis and elsewhere should read this book. (So should mayors!)

[Peter · Rating 4 out of 5]

While catchphrase “new localism” is not a total success here, this highly readable book is an excellent overview of local developments that incorporate partnerships with local entities like foundations and new types of governance that spur investment and growth. Good case studies on Initial successes of Pittsburgh, Indianapolis and Several other cities.

[Bill · Rating 3 out of 5]

I largely agree with the premise and arguments in this book. And while the examples used were helpful, the book largely read like a long white paper.

The authors argue that cities are not merely creatures of state government in a zero-sum game of political power. "New Localism" views cities as sources of exponential power that can harness unconventional tools focused on problem-solving to become centers of innovation. The authors emphasize utilization of public, private, and philanthropic resources to reshape local economies through unique leaders (which the authors argue is lacking in state, or even federal, politics).

Cities are, by their nature of being closer to the repercussions of their decisions, more pragmatic than state or local governments. The big question that remains is whether state and federal governments will allow their cities to harness their innovative potential. The large-scale effort of state legislatures to preempt ordinances passed by their more liberal local leaders is an argument against this. Because at the end of the day, legally speaking, cities _are_ merely creatures of state governments. In the sense that local leaders will need to be creative to avoid these legal pitfalls, especially in finance and dealing with state leaders, the authors are correct.

[Ivan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I agree with the thesis, but less thrilled about its presentation. What could have been a lively book that showed the liveliness of the “new localism,” it instead reads like a lifeless white paper (to borrow the apt description of another reviewer).

[Luke · Rating 1 out of 5]

Very repetitive and boring

[Katharine · Rating 2 out of 5]

Some good ideas and enjoyed the case studies, but tough to get through.

[Christina Hambleton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is an overview of various new city and regional development strategies that aim to avoid the faults of cities that are (1) centralized political machines or (2) so privatized that all the value that the public creates is disbursed as corporate profit. The authors published the book in 2017, when everyone in the U.S. dismayed that the federal government would ever take responsibility for collective problems with adequate funding or priority-setting. However, several of the authors' observations about problems that are better addressed at the local level remain true even under a fully functioning federal government. Additionally, the authors' critiques of old models of public-private partnerships (including wholesale privatization or incentivizing development through nothing but tax credits) ring truer than in many leftist critiques because they're more concrete and less moralist.

My primary critique is that the book has a very limited notion of what "participatory democracy" looks like with respect to diverse civic groups and city residents. According to this book, "participatory democracy" means that civic groups are polled about what their communities need and that residents' children have an opportunity to get a better education and thus to be more productive workers. Chapter 7 is the chapter devoted to inclusion, and of its "four strategies" three focus on those two goals. The fourth strategy is local organizing. This was the only part of the book wherein the authors discussed truly democratic organizing, it involved only poor residents helping one another access limited resources, it lacked any detail, and it contained no mandate for how city leaders should better interact with or cultivate spaces for such community organizers. (In contrast to the portions of the book devoted to how to best include and leverage CEO's, wealthy philanthropists, and financiers of various stripes).

I wouldn't lead with this critique if this was simply an omission on the author's part. However, one of the book's central theses is that "the New Localism" approach to city governance is more democratic. It's a dangerous proposition that a stronger school-to-employer pipeline for children is THE hallmark of inclusion and participatory democracy. Presumably the "participation" happens when formerly poor children themselves become part of the city's elite-- but this is assimilation, not inclusion. What of residents who can never be productive workers in a city's chosen industries, who have different civic resources to offer? What of those who impede a city's strategic vision by objecting to displacement in favor of new developments? What of the tendency of wealthy philanthropists, corporate stakeholders, and city management to form inaccessible, nontransparent social groups that consistently impose their view of the highest and best use of the city on poorer residents?

Just because the book advocates a more sustainable, environmentally friendly, and socially supportive model of city development doesn't mean the particular beneficiaries and model of that vision is more democratic. In fact, the only naive arguments in the book are arguments that, say, allowing private institutions to manage publicly owned resources will insulate public resource management from "political interference" (as though private business was not also inherently political), or that if a government institution isn't gatekeeping or managing assets the only role left for that government institution will be to be a consumer/citizen advocate when dealing with private managers. It's not that I am opposed to the increased professionalism, expert knowledge, or quick decision-making that can come with private management, and I am grateful that the authors recognize that government institutions must continue to OWN the assets, but the book really needs to address the vices and risks of this model of public asset management.

That said, the book's analysis of factors that go into well-rounded city development strategies is solid. Highlights include a discussion of how cities should survey and more productively leverage their assets, the structural problems with finance and the need for publicly minded financial intermediaries to provide public projects with access to capital, how local governments can partner with private entities but ensure that they recapture wealth generated by public-private partnerships in the future, what a smart subsidy looks like, and the type of strong and effective communication needed to bring entrepreneurs/social problem solvers and investors together to solve a problem.

In conclusion, it's a worthwhile read. Some parts could use more detail or practical instructions, but the book creates a really nice framework for how to think about putting together a development plan. My only advice is to read with an awareness that greater overall economic prosperity for a city does not translate into a better social or democratic situation for city residents. The author's illusion that the two coincide is an elite blind spot.

[Zach · Rating 3 out of 5]

Katz and Nowak deserve credit for writing a thoughtful introduction to urban planning and the Localism movement. To a large extent, their book provides many of the benefits of a full-fledged course (including an impressive bibliography, with the authors taking care to mention seminal works in the study of cities: The Death and Life of Great American Cities, The Global City, etc.). Memorable case studies illustrate the specific arguments that are at the heart of this book. Pittsburgh illustrates the importance of investments in technology and research, Indianapolis illustrates new forms of governance, and Copenhagen represents new methods of financing. For practitioners, a variety of existing tools and recommendations for the future are also provided (for example, this book introduced me to tax increment financing and business improvement districts). And it's certainly prescriptive, boasting an almost comical number of lists: Indianapolis provides six lessons others cities can learn from, Copenhagen provides seven lessons; there are four categories of anti-poverty strategy, five building blocks for metro finance, five norms in metro finance, five qualities in a leader, five roles smart institutions must play, etc. I'm not sure any of these lists were as useful as simply being able to read about a given city's history, but thankfully the authors provide for both.

Some of the authors' ideas about the market are too liberal (in the classic sense) for my taste, particularly when it comes to charter schools or suggestions that amount to privatization. They certainly overstate the impact of the Central Indiana Corporate Partnership, completely skipping over the contributions that mayors like Steve Goldsmith made to Indianapolis (even though they later gush about the impact of similar strategies in Chattanooga). Maybe they didn't want to make their argument too complicated, but in doing so they minimized the role of the public sector. They also minimized the impact that the Lily Endowment had (hundreds of millions of dollars invested), focusing instead on a group of 50 CEOs that meet twice a year. Maybe Katz and Nowak really did find the engine of change, but I would have preferred a little more convincing. I'm uncomfortable with a strategy that depends on the benevolence of CEOs and their private endowments, but it's certainly pragmatic in an era where CEOs receive tax cuts while taking home 270x the salary of their average employee. That said, I realize where I sit on the political spectrum, and I appreciate the thoughtfulness Katz and Nowak put into their work. They certainly know how to build a good city.

[Alexander · Rating 2 out of 5]

I listened to the audiobook version, narrated by Tristan Morris, and found Morris' reading style tough to follow due to his pacing. At first, I thought this meant I might be better reading a physical copy, but as the book went on, I realized that the audiobook may have been the wiser choice. If you really enjoy municipal minutia, this is the book for you, as the authors dive into how things like different types of pensions can affect urban management. For most readers, I imagine these details will seem a bit too "in the weeds."

Overall, I found the book didn't provide more than the sum of its parts. The authors talk about new localism as a novel approach, but what defines that approach sometimes seems unclear, beyond the idea that cities are doing things. The content would be revolutionary in 2005, but not when it was written in 2017. I also found it odd that their examples often included some major donor or foundation moving things along; I don't have anything intrinsically against public-private partnerships, but as someone with an interest in rural areas/rural planning, I regularly thought that their solutions wouldn't be particularly helpful in many small towns needing economic development. There are also quite a few buzzwords around innovation, synergy, etc. and promise of how important the new localism will be that just add filler to the text.

They mention the important of networks quite a bit, which I thought was useful, but the meat of this book would have been better suited to a magazine article.

[Robyn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Both of these authors make the case that three cities solved problems using the model of localism. This is the idea of creating change by working horizontally, not top down from centralized government institutions. This means more creative solutions as cities find ways to connect ideas across public and private platforms, across the US and across the globe. No longer a command-and-control effort (as they argue), better futures, the really resilient cities in the future, will be those who work across unexpected institutions. Sub national institutions and individuals. This is the way to overcome the limits of legacy liabilities and the way to find funding for innovative ideas. Chattanooga, Copenhagen, are both examples. This is decentralized power.Look at local specialities and competitive advantages. Not policy making, but risk taking as startups do. Practice and task led, representative and participative politics, nonpartisan, combining urban and global, strengthening global supply chains. Solutions, are “concrete, imaginative, and tested on the ground and adapted to different cities.” As Taleb, author or The Black Swan said, “History does not crawl, it jumps.”

[Hayden Pierce · Rating 4 out of 5]

Loved the premise of the book, particularly how it draws together global, national, and local phenomena. The Ian Bremmer “Us vs Them” book looks at globalism from an international perspective, showing how globalization connected markets, drove economic and technological progress, but spread the benefits unequally. This book takes that same framework but shows how populism has left a vaccum for political and economic power. The transnational position of cities as hubs of economic and social capital is the answer and can lead to pragmatic problem solving that transcends the noise of partisanship and dsyfunction in DC and our state capitols. Enjoyed hearing this part of the book.

I liked the rest of it too and thought it have great examples of creative problem solving and new forms of civic governance at the local level, but sometimes the details got boring, the takeaways became too asbtract, and the message got repetitive.

Overall, it deserves a 3.75/5. I think it’s a great starting point to rethinking civic institutions in the 21st century, and I encourage my government and entrepreneurial friends to give it a read.

[Myles · Rating 4 out of 5]

Some of my common criticisms of books these days applies to this one: the title really does not do justice to the content. There is the assumption that we are living in a unique age of populism and no real analysis of the premise, but the so-called age of populism is really secondary to the major point of the book: that redirecting the attention of municipal leaders to the underlying wealth of cities can provide the basis for leadership to accelerate growth, provide a basis to deal with intractable urban problems, and rebalance the relationship between levels of government in democracies.

This is actually quite a helpful book on the subject of what cities can do to help themselves.

The stories remind one that some people are really trying hard in America and elsewhere to redress systemic racism, intractable poverty, improve access to educational and economic opportunity, urban renewal (there’s an old phrase), and social cohesion.

[Kevin Carpenter · Rating 2 out of 5]

"..in the Age of Populism" is the key here, and I think a misleading title. 'New Localism' as an alternative *in* the age of populism, not a vision *for* the age of populism.

In reality, the book reads to me as a bizarro David Harvey book. Correctly assessing major planks of Neoliberalism, but offering them as a repackaged vision for the future. How Neoliberal policies can thrive in the age of populism.
Global problems like climate change and partisan gridlock at the national level? Download responsibility to the local level!
Local governments can't solve major problems on their own? Partner with business interests for a win-win!
Business interests are outmaneuvering/capturing public institutions? Governments need to be more nimble and agile with their funding! Act like a tech company! Build amenities that will attract he creative class!

I may have missed something here, but it all seemed pretty tired to me.

[Sophie · Rating 2 out of 5]

The proposals of this book, principally that the future of social progress lies with local movers, deserves some discussion. This book is, however, not in my opinion an ideal agent of that discussion.

The writing is dense and difficult. The authors never choose an Anglo-Saxon word when a Latin one is available. They prefer the long word to the short and four syllables to one syllable. It's presumptuous and rude and, I'm guessing, is meant to make us see how smart the authors are. The authors' being smart would, I suppose, support their thesis. Instead it makes them look as though nobody ever taught them how to write.

I wanted to send them a copy of Strunk & White for their next stab at writing a book. Or, if they want, they could hire an editor. Either way they couldn't really do much worse.

[Zoka Anasazi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I love this book, and here is why. 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Steven Covey and Stewardship by Peter Block are both books written to delineate the power of lived principles. This book demonstrates the same as New Localism, which is pre-Post Capitalism. This book recognizes a free-scale network to the global capitalist economy and perpetuates a theory of development regarding a particular New Local agenda. In other words, New Localism retains the agency of autonomy in the free-scale network of a global capitalist economy and uses it with a particular teleological directive. It's fascinating stuff if you like what one might call biopolitical 'systems thinking.' You are sure to learn something new here...

[C. Patrick Hosford · Rating 3 out of 5]

If you are even remotely interested in the future of workforce and municipal development, or urban innovation, New Localism will be a treat. Bruce Katz and Jeremy Nowak covers a lot of ground in this one, which makes the book enjoyably triumphant and, at times, vague. The reader looking for the more granular, inner workings behind municipal economic development will find that the book provides a solid jumping-off point for your studies. Someone interested in a broad overview of fiscal innovation, or unraveling the complexity behind modern economic development, will value this read. Overall, an intriguing and manageable read.

[Ben Harrington · Rating 3 out of 5]

Despite its popularity amongst think tanks and local EDOs, I found the book underwhelming. Like too many books on local governance and development, it provides solutions that are far too broad and lacking any real depth. While it identifies ideal outcomes via needed structural changes, I don’t think it does enough in providing solutions to get localities/metros/regions there.

Moreover, it felt like the authors were working up their page count at several points in the amount of repetition that the book has. I understand some amount of repetition as a rhetorical device, but this clearly felt like they needed to resummarize points or examples on multiple occasions.

[Breck Wightman · Rating 3 out of 5]

The main argument of the book - that cities are not so much governments as they are intersectoral networks that have incredible potential to meet the demands of the future - is spot on. Everyone needs to consider this as a realistic solution for meeting the challenges of a diverse, pluralistic nation.

The delivery, however, fell flat for me. FAR too much business speak. Personally I felt like there was too much emphasis on public finance and too little emphasis on collaborative public management.

[Jessica · Rating 4 out of 5]

DNF I skimmed this title. It is interesting. Discusses local government or lack there of and how is affected cities like Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, & Copenhagen in positive ways. I really just wanted to read about Indy, where I've lived as an adult but grew up in the suburbs of Detroit and Flint MI. To read it the book well would take more concentration than I'm willing to devote currently.

[Cody Scott · Rating 4 out of 5]

A must read for anyone in city administration or city management.

Would have liked to see more about populism and it's relationship to city efforts. Would love an updated 2nd edition to the book with extra information like this since Populism has only grown and even hindered cities since the book came out

[Kim Honor · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting, quick read - captured recent history and strategies of community economic development.
Wish there were more discussion about the role that race and equity has and needs to play as communities engage in a localist strategy.

[Sandy Irwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

The case studies were the most interesting part of this book. As a government employee in a small town, I was hoping to be inspired. But the content and research is more applicable to larger, urban cities.