There are several reasons to believe that local governments can find positive economic outcomes among the distress of the virus-based recession. Ignoring for the moment the human tragedy dimension, cities can lead the economic recovery of their communities, which is justifiable for at least the following reasons:
The massive economic stimulus/aid packages led by the federal government have already created a greater psychological acceptance of government roles in recovery efforts.
Both the business community and consumers need a boost in confidence, which is the linchpin in moving forward, and decisive government leadership can be crucial to encouraging this.
The competitive landscape will have changed, both within the city and across the larger region, due for example to the following:
Consumer behavior with regard to public places and spaces will likely have changed in some respects, perhaps permanently, with the result that the attractiveness of previously established commercial neighborhoods/districts will increase or decrease.
Some businesses or groups of businesses will have disappeared from areas where their presence was key to the general appeal of a location.
The city can intervene with land use and other policy changes, special incentives, etc. to ameliorate negative competitive conditions.
For all of the above reasons, a strategic approach to community recovery is both possible – constituents are likely to accept this – and necessary. Overburdened with the response to the pandemic along with many other entities, a city may be reluctant to take on additional responsibilities at the point of recovery; but the idea that business as usual can just resume naturally is almost certainly wishful thinking.
An interesting and informative argument along these lines was put forth in a recent blog posted by Brookings [1] in which the author argues that the internationally derived concept of cities focusing on sustainable development, and specifically meeting the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) by 2030, is a good model for taking a strategic approach to recovery. Meeting SDG’s involves the use of evidence, taking a comprehensive approach to articulating a coherent vision, and encouraging partnerships with other cities and multiple economic sectors, while also creating opportunities for investors. Cities are accustomed to working with these general strategy-development models, which often become a source of inspiration for the stakeholders involved, as well as a cross-fertilization platform to help various entities work together in ways they may not be accustomed to doing.
The elements of a comprehensive, strategic approach to community recovery can include special consideration of the following:
Creative application of data to help explain certain fundamentals of pre- and post-recovery conditions – business/economic changes, patterns of the community that will help or hinder recovery efforts, how recovery efforts could also leverage other desired improvements, etc.
Proactive programs such as “town halls,” or “expos” (which could be virtual), to bring multiple entities together to showcase business assistance resources for firms that may be struggling to achieve full recovery.
Re-activating the concept from earlier years of encouraging “cluster relationships,” specifically to showcase cluster drivers or other leadership-demonstrating firms that have positioned themselves well in the recovery cycle. This could take a number of forms:
Presenting business partnerships involving product development from a shared-resource standpoint,
Giving businesses and consumers alike a view into new products, procedures, etc. that are evolving with the current market, and
Encouraging networking to identify mutual self-interests in business development.
Time-sensitive incentives to apply to certain areas of the community or specific properties where revitalization/repurposing can play a key role in either the image or actual implementation of recovery.