The concept of sustainable development has given rise to a variety of definitions, and increasingly, these definitions include the concepts of place and community. It is arguable that there now exists a sustainable communities movement in the United States, with self-selected initiatives and/or staffed coalitions thriving several hundred jurisdictions to date, and new ones being created almost continuously.[82]

Many of these initiatives are as small as rural villages, while some (e.g. “Sustainable Seattle” or “Campaign for a Sustainable Milwaukee”) encompass entire metropolitan regions. All attempt to be comprehensive in their outlook, with multi-issue agendas the rule rather than the exception.

Over the past several years, in surveying the scope of practice included under the rubric of sustainable communities, I’ve observed that there has been considerable innovation in how communities to decide to act collectively. These initiatives have a common goal of seeking what might be termed collective efficacy.

The pace, creativity and dynamism of these usually informally- (as opposed to governmentally-constituted) initiatives stands in contrast to the kinds of initiatives structured by local, state and federal governments, and helps frame the challenge to local government leaders considering their own futures. Informal organizations and networks can be structured to provide “just in time” social capital to get a variety of jobs done.

By contrast, political and judicial institutions, while seemingly slower and less creative, hold the standing and power necessary to guarantee rights and associated responsibilities in a democratic society. Government reinvention as a movement, and as a set of policies is alive and well. As a result, it is becoming more possible to address both the quality of life and economic performance themes that drive public discourse today.

Understanding these tensions (between local and regional, formal and informal institutions) and goals (livability and economic performance) requires a better understanding of the differences in approach taken in addressing regional strategy.

A review (in consultation with the National Academy for Public Administration and the Brookings Institution) of practice in jurisdictions across the country suggests a taxonomy of major strategies being advanced in the name of regional well being.[88] The three major categories are—(1) regional strategy as intergovernmental coordination; (2) regional strategy as representative of the interests of all communities and people within that region; and (3) regional strategy as market-linked and community-responsive.

Most communities’ governments spend significant time with the first of these. In the face of both mandates and incentives from the federal government, (e.g., the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act) they are struggling with just how to make the second of these work. Most communities’ independent initiatives start with the third strategy and seek to add value to place through both governmental and non-governmental (including both private economic institutions and non-profit community organizations) partnership efforts.

Let’s examine the differences in these approaches and look at their potential reconciliation. As suggested above, the pace of change facing communities and regions demands a more dynamic and performance-based set of approaches than those typical of today’s local governmental initiatives. If so, then local government’s best futures are dependent upon assuming new roles. This includes strengthening some that are undervalued (setting performance standards; providing information critical to issues and resource transparency, market development and value capture; providing new incentives for collective investment activities, such as credit enhancement, economic valuation of environmental and community improvement, technology access). And it also includes minimizing those which may hamper regional and community performance, (e.g., subsidization of unhealthy trends and less-than-desirable development patterns; structural under-representation of dis-enfranchised and older communities; revenue distribution policies that contribute to fiscal disparities; capital budgeting which leads to premature write-off of long-term assets).