The State of the University
By Jim Simmons, University of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Like many major institutions in
this country, universities today face an increasingly demanding and even
hostile environment. The old pillars of higher learning such as a well- rounded
liberal education, academic freedom, shared governance, and tenure are all
under attack from a myriad of sources. Some of the pressure for change stems
from social forces external to the university while others are generated by
various stake-holders within the system. Furthermore, although much more is now
expected of the university, participants are supposed to produce desirable
results with fewer resources.
One approach to university restructuring
is the "corporate model" favored by many employers, parents, and
students. The basic principle underlying this perspective is that the
university should become a vocational-technical training center which supplies
its customers with marketable skills that meet the region's commercial needs.
Advocates of this idea want the university to downsize programs, employ
measurable performance standards, and re-engineer along the lines of certain
management theories that are currently fashionable in the Business College.
Another model roughly based on
principles of the non-profit think tank also has its defenders. Many academic
administrators would like the university to become more like a "knowledge
factory" that emphasizes abstract research and external grants because of
the prestige that those activities produce. Thus, teaching and service would
necessarily take a back seat to aggressive efforts to generate publishable
theories and attract new sources of external funding through grantsmanship.
A third group made up largely
of educators fervently wants learning to be a joyous experience. Under their
direction the university would become a "wellness center" with
facilitators who promote emotive expression, self-esteem, and personal growth.
Classrooms would evolve into therapy circles in which all voices are
encouraged, individual differences are celebrated, and student development is
evaluated without the discipline of substantive course content or grades.
Finally, you have the model
favored by those who want the university to become a "change agent."
Some intellectuals want to re-socialize students, alter their basic values, and
involve them in socially desirable communitarian activities. Such an approach
requires a politically oriented curriculum and passionate advocacy in the
classroom. Usually, activist-scholars also call for campus diversity and
partisan relevance as the primary mission of the university community.
Certainly there is much that
could be said on behalf of each of these approaches. The problem is that the
four visions of university life are mutually contradictory. Even if we could
somehow produce a "multiversity" that integrates everyone's goals, we
would have to do so in an environment of budget cuts and managed enrollments.
The changes in any direction, if a consensus developed, would have to be
accomplished by overworked faculty members who already have problems finding
the necessary time for the teaching, research, and service that is currently
required to ensure job security.
We clearly live in exciting
times. Every interest group seems to have some unique image of, or perspective
on, the university as well as a plan for changing its structure and reshaping
its mission. What the university will actually become over the next decade will
undoubtedly be a product of the complex contest among all those parties seeking
change. And, although these struggles have been going on for some time, the
campus of the year 2005 will not be comfortably familiar.
For an optimist, the current debate
over higher education is a tremendous opportunity. Rethinking university
priorities and assessing the performance of our programs may well force us in
the direction of the idealized "centers of learning" that satisfy
nearly everyone's cravings. On the other hand, if you are cynical, you might
project an underfunded institution with a demoralized workforce that anxiously
tries to respond to every demand but does nothing very well. It isn't hard to
imagine a bleak futuristic Kampus with unscrupulous leaders who pander to every
interest with clout or money.
It is even conceivable that the
comprehensive university for which I toil might be restored to its older
mission. That is, faculty might actually be rewarded in an equitable way for
all their many and diverse efforts. The goals of a resurgent and well-balanced
university might truly be determined by engaged students, faculty, and staff
with due consideration for the broadly defined needs of the surrounding
community. But this traditional ideal is perhaps the least likely scenario and,
in any case, utopian speculation in this direction probably gives away too many
of my own personal values and aspirations. ■
Announcement
Wisconsin
Political Science Association
38th
Annual Meeting
Friday,
October 10, 2003
University
of Wisconsin Eau Claire
Topics: All papers and panel ideas invited. Some topics of particular interest include
Wisconsin politics and policy, civic engagement in the United States, best
teaching practices in political science, civil liberties in the war on
terrorism, and the role of the United States in the world today.
Send proposals to: Dr. Rodd Freitag
Department of Political Science
University of Wisconsin Eau Claire
105 Garfield Avenue
P.O. Box 4004
Eau Claire, WI 54702-4004
Or email: freitard@uwec.edu
Submission Guidelines
Large numbers of submissions from Wisconsin
Political Scientists are both welcome and necessary. The Wisconsin Political Scientist will be designed to
permit publication of shorter articles, essays, commentary, informational items
and notes. Each piece should be limited
to 1000 – 1500 words. All copies should
be submitted by hard copy and computer disk or electronic file through
e-mail. Microsoft Word is our preferred
format. Copy should be submitted to:
James Simmons, Editor
Wisconsin Political Scientist
c/o Political Science Department
University
of Wisconsin Oshkosh
Oshkosh, WI 54901
E-mail address: simmons@uwosh.edu
News, Announcements, & Reviews
The purpose of this
newsletter is to communicate what is happening in the profession in Wisconsin
and, at times, elsewhere. News and
announcements about your department, program, or personnel (including
promotions tenure, additions, and publications) are welcome and should be
forwarded to me – James Simmons, Political Science Dept., 800 Algoma Blvd.,
Oshkosh, WI 54901 or email me at simmons@uwosh.edu.
It would also be useful
to expand our attention to book, software and video reviews. We have occasionally published book reviews
in the past; but this is something that could be enhanced with your help. Submissions should follow the same
guidelines that we use for the Scholarly Extensions section, except that
reviews should be limited to about three single-spaced pages.■
Wisconsin Political Science
Association Officers
James Simmons, UW Oshkosh – President
Cecilia Manrique, UW Stevens
Point – Treasurer
John Rink, UW Platteville – Secretary
Rodd Freitag, UW Eau Claire – Program
Chair
Angelee Hammond, UW Oshkosh – Associate
Editor
Mary Bleser, UW Oshkosh – Associate
Editor
Local Policymakers
and Their Perceptions of Economic Development Suburbs, Central Cities, and
Rural Areas Compared
Baodong
Liu and James Vanderleeuw
UW-Oshkosh Lamer University
Elite administrative office-holders, such as city manager
and economic development director, have direct and substantial influence into
economic development decisions. The
challenges these types of key local administrators perceive their city to face
structure their decision-making. The
manner in which these decision-makers interpret their city’s circumstance
influences the types of development proposals they will support and what kinds
of projects they, and ultimately their city administration, will pursue.
Unfortunately, much of the previous empirical research
into local economic development has relied on aggregate-level analysis of
policy inputs and outcomes. Drawing
upon a survey of city administrators in Texas, we have an opportunity to
investigate suburb/central city economic development differences from the
perspective of administrators’ attitudes and perceptions. Our research focus on
local political economy in terms of the difference between suburbs and central
cities is based on the extent of literature.
Research concerning geographic, social, and economic differences between
suburbs and central cities points to some meaningful divergence in policy
preferences and outputs. Because
central cities tend to be located at the geographic center of SMAs, are the
nexus of transportation systems, and offer substantial employment (Mills and
Lubuele, 2000a, 2000b), central city leaders can reflect an “outward-oriented
development orientation” that stresses regional economic development (Lewis
2001).
By contrast, suburban leaders tend to emphasize local concerns
(Maurer and Christenson 1982). Suburban
dwellers may reflect a rather profound anti-urban and anti-city bias, and
because of the higher level of participation among more educated and wealthier
local residents (Hajnal and Clark 1998), suburban leaders are more likely to
place emphasis on quality of life issues (Thomas 1998; Davis 1990). Suburban leaders oppose, or at least opt for
slower, more managed economic development and growth, while central city leaders
favor growth politics and more vigorous economic development efforts.
Perception
of Economic Development Problems
As noted, a leadership’s perceptions are a potentially
important linkage between policy inputs, such as citizen demands and
development proposals, and policy outputs in the economic development
process. Specifically, we
investigate responses of key city administrators to a
question asking about the economic development problems confronting their city.
Because of the greater tendency of suburbs to reflect an
anti-growth, anti-city bias, we expect
unlike city administrators, suburban administrators tend to perceive the
economic development that would threaten quality of life for suburban
residents, and economic development that would risk becoming uncontrollable as
development problems. Because of
their city’s position as a regional economic leader, we expect central city administrators tend to
perceive situations that would hamper economic growth as development problems.
Research and theory regarding the economic development of
rural communities is comparatively more limited. To fill this research gap, we propose and test that rural administrators are more likely to
perceive environmental damage as a problem associated with economic growth
because of rural communities’ relatively more pristine physical environment.
Data
and Method
The above-referenced survey was mailed to administrators
of cities in Texas with a population of at least 5,000 during February and
March 2000. A list of cities was
obtained from Estimates of the Total
Populations of Counties and Places in Texas for July 1, 1998 and January 1,
1999 (The Texas State Data Center, The Texas State Population Estimates and
Projections Program, August 1999), and cross-checked against census data when
these became available. A list of city
administrators was obtained from the 1999-2000
Texas City Officials Directory and Buyer’s Guide (Texas Municipal League
1999).
The present study utilizes responses to the open-ended
question, In your opinion, what is the
biggest problem facing your city?
Respondents understood this question in the context of local economic
development. A cover sheet explained
the economic development orientation of the survey and accompanied each
questionnaire; the question of current interest followed a request that
respondents rank-order a series of economic development considerations. One hundred eighty-one administrators
responded to this open-ended question (out of 190 who returned the survey). Twenty-four responses came from central city
administrators (out of 25 who returned the survey), 107 came from suburban
administrators (out of 112 who returned the survey), and 50 came from rural
(i.e., nonmetropolitan area) administrators (out of 53 who returned the
survey). Though the majority of administrators
gave one response, up to two responses per respondent were coded. Response coding was checked for intercoder
reliability.
One hundred thirty three respondents listed their job
title as city manager (73.5 percent), 20 as economic development coordinator
(11.0 percent), and 10 as assistant city manager (5.5 percent). The remaining respondents listed job titles
such as administrative assistant, finance director, planning director, or business
development coordinator (none of these represented more than 3.0 percent of
respondents).
Findings
and Discussion
Table 1 reports the “biggest problem” response categories
that garnered at least 10 percent of responses from administrators of a given
city type, along with the percent response in those same categories from
administrators in other cities.
Fifty-five percent of responses from central city administrators related
to problems in job creation, aging infrastructure, and lack of a diversified
economy. About 65 percent of responses
from suburban administrators noted an aging infrastructure, the need to manage
growth/uncontrollable growth, and lack of sufficient city revenue as big
development problems; a similar percent of responses from rural administrators
related to problems in job creation, aging infrastructure, lack of adequate
housing due to growth, and the adverse impact of development and growth on the
environment.
Table 1: City Administrator’s Perception of the Biggest
Problem Facing Their City, by City Type
|
|
Central City
|
Suburb
|
Rural
|
|
Mean:
|
|
|
|
|
Population
|
228749
|
29881
|
12370
|
|
% Black
|
12.8
|
8.5
|
10.2
|
|
% Hispanic
|
37.7
|
24.4
|
36.0
|
|
% Unemployment
|
4.3
|
3.4
|
3.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Biggest Problem
|
|
|
|
|
% Responding
|
|
|
|
|
Diversity
|
10.3
|
0.0
|
1.7
|
|
Environment
|
6.9
|
2.4
|
10.0
|
|
Growth
|
6.9
|
17.7
|
1.7
|
|
Housing
|
3.4
|
3.2
|
15.0
|
|
Infrastructure
|
17.2
|
33.1
|
18.3
|
|
Jobs
|
27.6
|
2.4
|
22.0
|
|
Revenue
|
0.0
|
13.7
|
8.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# Respondents
|
24
|
107
|
50
|
These findings reveal areas of commonality as well as
meaningful differences. Infrastructure
was perceived as a major problem by administrators regardless of city
type. The plurality of responses in
this category were general references about the need to upgrade, improve, or
replaced aged infrastructure. Most of
the specific responses centered on the adverse effect of economic growth on
traffic and streets, and on the city’s ability to deliver an adequate supply of
water. Though critical for economic
growth, and therefore of
practical importance to a wide variety of communities,
infrastructure reasonably might have been expected to be most important for
central city administrators, given their city’s regional status. In this regard it is relevant to note that
suburban administrators perceived aging infrastructure – more than any other
single issue, and more frequently than administrators in other cities – as the
biggest problem facing their city. This
finding suggests a connection with the problem of revenue generation noted by
suburban administrators. Comments in this category referred to the need for new
revenue/new revenue sources, and lack of adequate funds; more specific comments
tended to note the problem of insufficient revenue generated from sales
tax. Many suburban administrators may
be troubled by the idea that their community may be less than fully able to
afford infrastructure replacement.
The problem of job creation also was perceived as a major
problem by administrators in more than one type of city. Many of the responses in this category
referred to a shortage of workers and, more specifically, to an insufficient
number of skilled and trained workers to support economic growth. As expected, job creation was perceived as a
major challenge by central city administrators. Job creation was also perceived as a major problem among rural
administrators. Relatively few suburban
administrators held this opinion, however.
Though the findings regarding job creation are compatible
with the idea that central city administrators view their city as a regional
economic leader, there also may have been local reasons to accent job
opportunities, due to political and economic pressures. As reported in Table 1, the average
percentage of ethnic and racial minorities was highest, and the level of
unemployment was greatest, in the more populous central cities. Rural communities, however, also were home
to a large percentage of African Americans and Hispanics. Further, the difference between city types
in the level of unemployment was relatively modest. Even if weight is given to this modest differential,
administrators of rural communities, whose cities on average enjoyed the lowest
level of unemployment, also perceived job creation as a major challenge.
The concern with job creation likely has multiple
origins. The greater distance of rural
communities from central cities, for example, leaves these communities more dependent
on their own ability to provide employment, and therefore their administrators
likely are more sensitive to the need to create jobs. Comparatively, the closer proximity of suburbs to central cities
allows administrators of the former to rely more heavily on the latter.
Along with aging infrastructure and lack of revenue,
suburban administrators perceived uncontrolled and
unmanageable growth as a major problem. A plurality of responses in this category
were generalized comments about the need to control and manage growth. There were a number of more specific
comments, however. Among these were the
problem of keeping up with increased demand for city services and the prospect
that residential growth might come to surpass industrial and commercial growth
(presumably, increasing unemployment).
This finding regarding the problem of managing economic growth supports
our expectations. Given the anti-city
orientation reportedly reflected by many suburban dwellers, it makes sense that
suburban administrators would perceive the need to manage and control economic
development and growth. Otherwise (from
the perspective of popular perception) problems associated with large cities,
such as traffic and overcrowding, might visit themselves upon suburban jurisdictions.
In addition to job creation and infrastructure, central
city administrators perceived lack of economic diversity as a major
problem. Responses in this category
referred to a stagnant local economy due to lack of economic diversity, and insufficient
city incentives to encourage diversification.
These three response categories are compatible with our
expectations. Aged and inadequate
infrastructure and lack of economic diversity dampen potential for economic
growth; arguably, lack of jobs signals failure to grow.
Rural administrators perceive job creation, aging
infrastructure, insufficient housing to accommodate growth, and the effect of
development on the environment as major problems. The finding regarding the effect of economic growth on the
environment is not quite as expected.
Only one response referred to the adverse impact of economic growth on
the environment, specifically air quality.
Rather, from the perspective of rural administrators the challenge was
the lack of natural resources, notably water, to accommodate growth.
In order to determine whether or not suburban policy
makers perceive their biggest problems differently when other social economic
factors are taken into consideration, we turn to multivariate analysis. Table 2
provides logistic models for the biggest problems, which treat the dependent
variable as dichotomous. For example, as used in the first logistic model, a
respondent may only indicate that the biggest problem facing her is either “the
lack of jobs” (coded as 1) or not (coded as 0).
We only report three models because the other four models
did not yield any statistically significant findings. As stated above, our main
interest is in examining the differences of perceptions between suburban policy
makers and other
policy makers, especially those from central city areas.
Therefore, our main independent variables are three dummy variables, which
measure whether a respondent is
from a central city, a suburban area, or a rural
community. To run a multivariate analysis, certainly only two of these three
variables are necessary to be included because the other omitted one can be
used as the comparison group. In our case, the dummy that measures whether a
respondent is from
Table 2: Logistic Models of Biggest Problems
|
|
Lack
of Jobs
|
Inter-
Governmental
|
Growth
|
|
Rural
|
-1.43
(1.24)
|
-4.24
(2.0)**
|
-
|
|
Suburb
|
-3.75
(1.39)***
|
-3.04
(1.67)*
|
64.0
(1.15)***
|
|
Un-employment
|
.34
(.19)*
|
.27
(.26)
|
-.25
(.32)
|
|
Un- employment change
|
.022
(.022)
|
-.001
(.02)
|
-.002
(.02)
|
|
Median income
|
.00
(.00)
|
.00
(.00)
|
.00
(.00)
|
|
College education
|
.00
(.00)
|
.00
(.00)
|
.00
(.00)
|
|
Total population
|
.00
(.00)
|
.001
(.004)**
|
.00
(.00)
|
|
Population growth
|
-.01
(.02)
|
-.01
(.02)
|
.002
(.004)
|
|
Black population
|
.00 .00
|
-.001
(.0005)**
|
.00
(.00)
|
|
White population
|
.00 .00
|
-.001
(.0004)**
|
.00
(.00)
|
|
Hispanic population
|
.00 .00
|
-.0003
(.0002)*
|
.00
(.00)
|
|
%
Black population
|
-.22
(.17)
|
.11
(.18)
|
-.11 (.16)</ |
Wisconsin
A
Publication of the Wisconsin Political Science Association