IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

The Great Divide: Economic Development Theory Versus Practice—A Survey of the Current Landscape

Listed author(s):
  • Elizabeth Currid-Halkett


    (University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA, USA)

  • Kevin Stolarick

    (University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada)

Registered author(s):

    As a scholarly field, economic development is a theoretical exploration with very real implications for place. As a practice, economic development is an essential component of local policy and governing and a perceived driver of success and vitality for cities and regions alike. The notable distinction between practice and theory may explain the lack of scholarly consensus and the ambiguity in effectiveness of the practice of development. Using a three-tiered approach, we undertake a comparative analysis of the way in which practitioners and scholars undertake economic development. Through a study of Economic Development Quarterly journal keywords and a review of nine cities' economic development initiatives, we assess the most frequent topics and initiatives within the discipline. Using the International Economic Development Council best practice awards, we look at what is generally viewed as “successful.” We conclude with an assessment of the general development landscape, considering implications to our findings.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: no

    Article provided by in its journal Economic Development Quarterly.

    Volume (Year): 25 (2011)
    Issue (Month): 2 (May)
    Pages: 143-157

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:25:y:2011:i:2:p:143-157
    Contact details of provider:

    No references listed on IDEAS
    You can help add them by filling out this form.

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:ecdequ:v:25:y:2011:i:2:p:143-157. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications)

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.