Morrison Institute for Public Policy Publications Archives

Economic development leaders and public officials throughout the country are tending to the effects of a sour economy and huge state budget deficits when they would rather be creating quality jobs and new economy assets. According to the most prominent thinking on today’s knowledge economy, locally developed and exported technology will be the primary economic differentiator between future winners and losers. Thus, with long-term fiscal and economic health at stake, the 50-state race is on for advantages and leadership in science and technology. This report sheds light on these issues through an overview of Arizona’s standing in science and technology today, short case studies of four competitors in the west, as well as Arizona, and ideas for Arizona’s leaders to consider as they strive to give our state an edge.

This paper, drawing upon historical data and information from surveys and interviews with more than 50 legislators, lobbyists, and knowledgeable observers, finds that the term limits reform adopted by the Arizona voters in 1992 has caused legislators to make some painful adjustments. Because of term limits many legislators have decided to run for another office prior to the expiration of their terms. This has often meant trying to move from the one legislative house to another, most commonly from the House to the Senate. On the plus side, the report finds that term limits have encouraged greater competition for legislative and other seats and have given voters a greater choice among candidates. To some extent, limits have been a force toward a more inclusive governing process. At the same time, they have generally reduced the power of legislative leaders and generally increased the influence of lobbyists and staff, though not all lobbyists and staff have gained equally. Recent newcomers to the Arizona Legislature are probably not any less knowledgeable than previous classes of newcomers, but under term limits there are more newcomers and members have less time to learn their jobs. For many, the limit to four two-year terms (eight years total) provides too little time to learn how to do the job and do it well.

This document profiles 11 examples of arts and education institutions across the country that are working to solve community problems. Programs, which reflect a number of purposes, are organized by category.

Large Urban Profiles, look at:

1. "Bridgemaking" in Chicago: Chicago Arts Partnership in Education.
2. Learning by Working: Young Artists at Work, Arts Commission of Greater Toledo.
3. Arts Education: Local Priority: Arts Integration Program, Tucson/Pima Arts Council.
4. Communications and Vocations: Arts Talk/Arts Workers, Rhode Island State Council on the Arts.

Small Urban Profiles, look at:

5. SPECTRA Plus: Cultural Council of Santa Cruz County.
6. Art for Science's Sake in Fairbanks, Alaska: Arts & Science Collaboration, Denali Elementary School and Visual Enterprises.

The Suburban Profile is:
7. "Strategy for Economic Development and Education: Blue Springs Arts 2000 Partnership.

Rural Profiles present:
8. Big Ideas in Small Places: Artists in Minnesota Schools & Communities, Minnesota Rural Arts Initiative COMPAS.
9. Parent Power for the Arts: Moms for Fun, Silver City, New Mexico.
10. Art for Every Student: Art in Education Special Project, Idaho's Salmon Arts Council and Brooklyn School.
11. Theater Development Through Arts Education: Dell'Arte, Blue Lake, California.

Common keys to program effectiveness are shown to be: leadership, vision, planning, community involvement, professional development, cooperative relationships, innovation, evaluation, and high quality services. Appendices list additional programs and contacts for the profiled programs.

This report both updates statistics and perceptions and adds new features. Thus, readers may look at quality of life based on how residents feel or on the trend lines revealed in the numbers. What Matters reports what people think about Greater Phoenix, how they view their own lives, and whether they believe the region is on the right or wrong track. The sections are presented in the order of importance assigned to them by the survey rankings (i.e., Education appears first, Public Safety and Crime second, etc).

What Matters is intended to support decision-making on public issues and to provide a reference for policy makers, civic and business leaders, community activists, and other residents. In response to feedback on previous issues, this edition includes additional indicators for healthcare and more information on higher education. Price and income data have been adjusted for inflation, and more information has been added where appropriate for a fuller picture of trends. Different approaches or completely new sources of data were required in some of this issue’s indicators because of changes in data sources. While every effort was made to choose items that would be stable, there is no way to control for how data are collected or reported over the years. On the whole, however, the 1997 baseline remains intact.

In step with other organizations, the Greater Phoenix Economic Council (the Valley’s regional public-private economic development organization) published a comprehensive 10-year economic development strategy that codified its change in direction to quality economic development in aerospace, bio-industry, advanced business and financial services, technology, and software. In early 2004, the Governor’s Council on Innovation and Technology issued Building Arizona’s Knowledge-Based Economy with scores of recommendations on venture capital, higher education, collaboration, workforce development, and other topics. Separately, each of these items would have been notable. Taken together, they demonstrate a strong commitment to the growth of a knowledge economy and to the multifaceted approaches needed to develop it.