What the "people to jobs" strategy for distressed places overlooks is that even if this could be achieved at a much larger scale -- which I doubt -- this strategy probably hurts those left behind, or certainly does not help.
As I reviewed in my paper on place-based policies in JEP, the empirical evidence suggests that negative population shocks of x% from a community reduce jobs in the community left behind by at least x%, so the employment to population ratio of those left behind is not improved. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.34.3.99
Beyond simply raw numbers, encouraging MORE population out-migration probably differentially removes younger and more entrepreneurial workers, which further hurts those left behind. In addition, it seriously damages the fiscal base of the already-declining community, which reduces the ability of the local community to maintain infrastructure and public services, and certainly the ability of the community to come up with new economic development strategies to attract or grow new jobs.
Flint Michigan has had a lot of out-migration. It hasn't helped those still living in Flint.
I think there's no real substitute for really thinking about "jobs to people" strategies as well as "people to jobs" strategies. "Jobs to people" will not always work, but with the right resources, many distressed communities can significantly improve employment rates and per capita earnings.
What the "people to jobs" strategy for distressed places overlooks is that even if this could be achieved at a much larger scale -- which I doubt -- this strategy probably hurts those left behind, or certainly does not help.
As I reviewed in my paper on place-based policies in JEP, the empirical evidence suggests that negative population shocks of x% from a community reduce jobs in the community left behind by at least x%, so the employment to population ratio of those left behind is not improved. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.34.3.99
Beyond simply raw numbers, encouraging MORE population out-migration probably differentially removes younger and more entrepreneurial workers, which further hurts those left behind. In addition, it seriously damages the fiscal base of the already-declining community, which reduces the ability of the local community to maintain infrastructure and public services, and certainly the ability of the community to come up with new economic development strategies to attract or grow new jobs.
Flint Michigan has had a lot of out-migration. It hasn't helped those still living in Flint.
I think there's no real substitute for really thinking about "jobs to people" strategies as well as "people to jobs" strategies. "Jobs to people" will not always work, but with the right resources, many distressed communities can significantly improve employment rates and per capita earnings.