Debating Public Investments

Debates about what kinds of public investments are best for economic growth dominate the South’s political discourse. In a recent online article, Rob Schofield of NC Policy Watch, a Raleigh-based think tank, teases out the three main schools of thought running those these perennial arguments.

• Passive Trickledown - Schofield characterizes this approach as calls "for policies that would deemphasize public solutions in the expectation (hope?) that the 'genius of the market' would expand an entrepreneurial class, which would, in turn, expand the creation of wealth."
• Active Trickledown - Schofield describes this view as stressing "the idea of empowering and unleashing an entrepreneurial class" and favoring “direct government subsidies as a part of the strategy."
• Grassroots Investment - According to Schofield, this idea wants to use public resources to "alter the landscape on which markets will grow and work their magic.” Furthermore, "human and physical infrastructures are substantially and purposefully enhanced and significant emphasis is given to the promotion of broadly shared and widely distributed prosperity."
  

Schofield then offers examples of how a grassroots investment approach could shape public investments in workforce development activities in order to bring about long-term, sustainable economic growth.