Is Government-led Prosperity Possible? Doubtful

By Fernando Centeno

All human settlements aspire to serve the needs of their respective inhabitants. They design processes, rules, and policies to shape the character and direction of their visionary path forward.  But it is done ideally, in support of balance for the whole.

Physical, subsidized growth in itself should not be the ultimate objective, as has been the case in San Antonio for generations.  This has resulted in a structural divide.

Instead, the strategic objective should be to support an entrepreneurial dynamism to sustain a competitive playing field. We would then see upward mobility and inter-generational opportunities, rather than the stagnation we see. We would have nurtured an educated, skilled workforce, vibrant entrepreneurship, and broad-based flourishing.

Here, urban success is measured by GDP metrics from a metropolitan perspective, which distorts our actual city metrics.  We look better from a distance. Our mainstream press presents data about our MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) and “area” statistics for our 8-county region, a 7,398 square mile area, which is largely rural in character. 

San Antonio’s geographic area is only about 498 square miles, and therefore no longer a worthy unit of analysis. That denies us the ability to examine the merits of adopted economic policy impacts and outcomes. When you read about “San Antonio” statistics, you are reading about regional statistics.

Civic success is also measured by our credit bond ratings, which are no longer AAA.  To economists, our subsidized physical growth rates and population growth rates matter as well.

In city “policy direction” terms, the aim has been to grow northeasterly as fast as possible, to lock in the goal to become a metroplex with Austin, in the name of agglomeration spillovers.  But agglomeration has its drawbacks as well.

Traffic congestion, pollution, and other negative externalities caused by the clustering of firms and people will cause diseconomies of scale.  Without a concurrent skilled and educated workforce, agglomeration benefits will only remain a key marketing tool by city boosters, but nothing else.

How do local residents define civic success, as affected from a flawed “urban planning” model which negatively accelerates their costs of living and quality of life impacts? They have not been asked.

Residents do not have a real voice to shape economic impacts or outcomes, notwithstanding marketed “public engagement” success.  Such hearings are performative; residents are only asked to comment about proposed programs or projects, never about “policy direction” decisions or options, short-term or long-term-term.

As such, we have no community-designed long-term Vision. We have no grassroots investment toward important milestones. 

Recent census data reveals the extent of our socioeconomic profile; 270,000 residents living below the federal level of poverty. Nearly 100,000 sit on a waiting list for public housing.

We rank nationally in poverty and economic segregation, blaming “historic redlining” for our ills rather than our own adopted economic policies led by “minority” leaders who have endorsed the same neoliberal ideology as the one they inherited 4o years ago.

Our MSA Personal Income by County and Metro Area was $53,648 in 2021, ranking #202 in the U.S. New wine in old bottles is introduced in the form of “innovative” projects with the promise of pathbreaking solutions. 

Instead, disinvestment in human capital continues; our north/south divide widens.  Over time, at the metroplex level, our urban profile becomes a tale of two cities.  Despite this, public officials and their executive staffs will stick to their same yardstick of urban planning success. 

They know no other avenues.

This is an ideology which has not been examined for its analytical flaws, in terms of community well-being and strategic effectiveness, in support of family and neighborhood sustainability, systemic equity, and financial security for those most in need.  Those being left behind are casualties of a flawed planning and policy ideology.

While good-faith efforts have been made to put out encroaching fires, who is providing the interventionist accelerant? Public officials are, as well as others in the inner circles who benefit from staying the course. 

As billions are spent each fiscal year in the name of “public investments,” where is our ROI (return on investment)? I see no significant or promising gains, in real terms, from the city’s long-term “Vision,” its “Strategic” Economic Development plan, or from its SA2020 “Achieving a Vision of Prosperity.”

Net gains are marginal at best.

Recent SAISD projected “rightsizing” school closures are a reflection of market forces dynamics. It is the interventionist hand of policymakers in play, influencing their impacts upon those most vulnerable.

The objective to become a metroplex solidifies our economic segregation divide, without any accountability for unexamined long-term decisions led by “minority” representatives who should be the most critically analytical of their policy consequences.

We are the authors of our own demise.

How does it happen that public leaders cite becoming “the fastest growing city in the U.S.” while witnessing the de-population of the broad middle core of our city?  To escape a growing unaffordability crisis?

City leaders also celebrate the “generational change” from its current workforce program, 30 years in advance of any actual achievement in generational terms. Are we talking about statistical outputs, programmatic characteristics, or about the actual leveling-up of our society such that we no longer rank as a top-tier segregated city?

Is government-led prosperity possible? Doubtful. 

From dedicated, broad-based research carried out over many years, I have never seen San Antonio mentioned as an example of successful or innovative “economic development” practice. That’s because subsidizing business development isn’t an innovation.

We see no discussion involving the critical role our private sector could play, nor in understanding the potential dynamics of our diverse labor market as it interfaces with our weak labor pool. We hear about entry-level, low paying jobs, but we don’t see an active commitment for good-paying, quality careers for residents south, east, and west of Hildebrand Avenue. We will never achieve generational gains if we continue measuring civic success in limited, privileged terms. Instead, we need an intentional socioeconomic lens to guide us toward pathbreaking, generational results.

**The views and opinions expressed in this guest editorial are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of InfuseSA.  InfuseSA shall not be held liable for any inaccuracies represented in guest editorials.

Fernando Centeno specializes in community economic development, policy analysis, and strategic planning. He earned an M.Ed. in administration, planning, and social policy from Harvard University