After following some of the considerable discussion of Economic Development (ED) at USM, I thought I would write in hopes of offering some small clarification from within. Please note, however, that all the following comes from my own, limited, highly opinioned perspective.

I consider my main academic specialty to be “regional economic development.” Through my working experiences in Belize (Peace Corps) and Guatemala, years ago, I found I had more questions than answers about how quality of life can be improved and sustained in developing places. To me, this is what economic development is about. I studied management and then geography in an effort better to understand and participate in this interdisciplinary field.

When I first took my faculty position at USM, in 1988, the ED masters program was offered within the then-department of Geography and Area Development. A few years back, the department was divided in two. In retrospect, I believe this was a mistake for many reasons, and it helped contribute confusion about the difference between ED in the ED Department and ED in the Economics Department.

Regional economic development has deep roots in the discipline of geography, as well as in regional planning, regional economics, anthropology, management, marketing, public policy, the arts, and even psychology. I consider regional ED an interdisciplinary field of study, rather than an academic discipline per se—such as Tourism, Latin American, or Women’s Studies.

In practice, there have been efforts for decades to establish ED as a recognized profession. The results in this regard have been mixed to date, but the stakes are high. Anyone who follows Mississippi current events recognizes that many millions of public and private dollars are invested every year in efforts to attract industries to our state and our communities. We would like to hope that there are some sound theories and reasonably reliable data guiding such investments.

I have a great deal of respect for my academic colleagues in economics, as well in the many other disciplines that contribute to economic development. Actually, I can pronounce “heteroskedasticity,” although I’m unlikely to use the term in a professional seminar. My own career has focused mainly, for better or for worse, on trying to bridge the yawning gap between academic research and application in practice. I’m still working on encouraging students and practitioners to pronounce phrases such as “you know, decades of data suggest that industrial incentives don’t really accomplish very much.”

In my experience, economists tend to focus on economic development at the level of the country, state, or city. Economists’ methods generally emphasize sophisticated quantitative modeling. Geographers tend to focus more on the fuzzier regions in between, e.g., neighborhoods, regions such as the Mississippi Delta, or larger regions such as Appalachia. Geographers’ methods generally emphasize more field research and mixed methodologies.

I believe that both fields provide invaluable perspectives, and there is plenty of work for all of us—particularly in a place like Mississippi. I do regret having missed the great economist Amartya Sen’s visit to campus. A text I assigned this semester (The UN Development Programme’s Human Development Report 2004) is largely based on his work. I applaud the research work of my former business college colleagues, and assign their articles in my classes.

Probably as much as anyone on campus, I have been affected by the decisions of the current administration. I can appreciate your concerns about numerous issues related to ED. I do hope, though, that you will distinguish between local politics and the value of an entire field of study. I believe I share the goals of most of you avidly reading this message board, of academic integrity, adequate library and other scholarly resources, and well-informed students who will take their place in professional ranks.