Testimony
Testimony before the Assembly Standing Committee on
Economic Development, Job Creation, Commerce and Industry and Assembly Committee
on Small Business, May, 1999, 8 pp.
The Upstate Economy
James Parrott
Deputy Director and Chief Economist Fiscal Policy Institute
Albany, New York May 11, 1999
Thank you for the opportunity to testify on the economic development challenges
facing Upstate New York. The lagging performance of the upstate economies is a
serious issue. Weak job growth for an extended period in the 1990s has
restrained income growth and the resulting lack of job opportunities has,
unfortunately but not unexpectedly, led many people to give up entirely on New
York and move elsewhere. Our state has the dubious distinction of leading the
country in the rate of domestic out-migration of population in the 1990s. And
last year, as the notice for this hearing indicated, we saw the labor force
actually decline in many upstate metropolitan areas.
Concerted action to revitalize upstate economies is needed before this brain
and skill drain worsens, putting a turnaround beyond reach. Given the powerful
influence of national and international economic forces beyond the control of
State government, it is imperative that the State judiciously plan how it will
deploy its resources to improve, at the margins, regional and State economic
performance. In recent years, the State has chosen to focus on massive tax cuts
and a corporate retention approach geared to financial services. I would argue
that these policies have had very little real impact on the state's economy and
have clearly failed to rejuvenate the upstate economy.
Earlier this year, the Fiscal Policy Institute included its analysis of the
data on the state of the Upstate Economy in its briefing book on the 1999-2000
Executive Budget and we have attached that publication to our testimony for your
reference. Also attached is a copy of the revenue section of this year's
Counterbudget, in which we set forth our analysis of why the Pataki tax cuts are
not achieving the results which their advocates promised. In today's testimony,
we will not repeat these analyses. Rather we will focus on the important purpose
of this hearing as stated so clearly in your hearing notice: "to examine
proposals to improve the Upstate Economy."
Without attempting to be definitive regarding a comprehensive State economic
development strategy, I will discuss today two areas of economic development
policy, industry clusters and high technology, that hold significant promise.
The
Fiscal Policy Institute's executive director, Frank Mauro, will be testifying
at your Syracuse hearing on May 20 on the use of tax policy to stimulate the
upstate economy and several related issues.
First, the Empire State Development Corporation's Strategic Plan from
February 1996 emphasizes the value of pursuing an industry clusters approach.
Yet, this emphasis is not evident when the State implements its economic
development priorities. Competitive advantage increasingly depends on developing
and capitalizing on technologically-oriented workforce and entrepreneurial
skills. In a global economy, those skills are the major assets of our State.
An industry clusters approach focuses attention on just those workforce and
entrepreneurial skills and how to develop them further and address barriers to
their development. To be effective, this strategy depends on the leadership of
small and medium-sized firms coming together to discuss common concerns,
identifying opportunities and working with government to address skills training
or other infrastructure needs, regulatory issues, and joint marketing or
strategic business partnerships. In practice, an outside party, which could be
government or an academic or industry consultant, is often necessary to initiate
the formation of an industry cluster self-help organization. In the late 1980s,
the State sponsored the Strategic Industries Group Services program to encourage
the creation of such industry groups.
In the 1980s, I was the representative of the International Ladies' Garment
Workers' Union to the Garment Industry Development Corporation (GIDC) in New
York City, an organization involving industry, labor and government that is
often cited as one of the leading examples in the country of this sort of
industry self-help organization. GIDC provides training programs for workers and
management, assistance in identifying and introducing new technologies and
tapping export markets, and is constantly seeking innovative ways to expand New
York-based apparel production.
The second area I would like to discuss is high technology. I view high
technology not so much as a specific group of industries such as biotech or
electronics, but as the application of a variety of technologies and related
skills needed to produce high value-added goods and services. In addition to
helping facilitate greater investment in high technology industries, the State
should support the development of high tech skills across the spectrum of
export-oriented industries. In particular, it should substantially expand
funding for employer-specific training through the community college system. If
designed with business and labor input, employer-specific training can be, as a
recent report from the State Comptroller indicates, "a powerful economic
development tool". (1) Such training is one of the most
cost-effective investments that can be
made in increasing the technological proficiency of our existing workforce,
raising the productivity and earnings of our workers and addressing business'
growing need for more skilled workers.
Other institutions that are critical in helping New York's businesses in
applying new technologies to maximum advantage in our workplaces are labor
unions and technology extension programs. Consequently, I think that the State's
technology focus should include support for innovative labor-management
partnerships fostering new workplace technologies. The State also should
increase funding for the network of technology extension centers that assist
small and medium-sized companies by providing a range of engineering and
technical assistance that enhance their competitiveness. (2)
In closing, I would like to comment on the division of labor between the
State and local levels in conducting economic development efforts. Creative and
committed leadership at both levels is essential in the development and
execution of a strategic plan. There needs to be overall coordination at the
State level and the State should provide the lion's share of the resources
needed. Local leadership is critical for industry self-help partnerships and
coordination with local governments and educational institutions. Needless to
say, the legislature and the Comptroller's Office have important oversight roles
to ensure periodic evaluation and accountability.
For additional information contact:
Frank Mauro, Executive Director Fiscal Policy Institute One Lear Jet Lane
Latham, NY 12110 phone: 518-786-3156 fax: 518-786-3146 e-mail: fpi@albany.net
James Parrott Deputy Director and Chief Economist Fiscal Policy Institute 218
W. 40th St., 3rd floor New York, NY 10018 Phone: 212-730-1551 fax: 212-819-0885
e-mail: jparrott@uniteunion.org
Notes
(1) New York's Community Colleges: Cost-Effective Engines of Educational
Access and Economic Development," State Comptroller H. Carl McCall, March
1999.
(2) See James A. Parrott, "Labor Unions, Technological Change, and Economic
Development in the New York Tri-State Region," in Technology and Economic
Development in the Tri-State Region, Collected Background Papers for the New
York Academy of Sciences Roundtable Series, New York Academy of Sciences, 1997.
|