The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development

Laura Wolf-Powers, Marc J Doussard, Greg Schrock, Charles Heying, Max Eisenburger, Stephen Marotta

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Problem, research strategy, and findings: The maker movement is placing small-scale manufacturing development on mayoral agendas across the United States and promises to reinvigorate production economies in central cities. To make effective policy, planners need more knowledge about the entrepreneurs at the center of this phenomenon. Here we present a qualitative investigation of urban maker economies. We draw on semistructured interviews with firms and supportive organizations in Chicago (IL), New York City (NY), and Portland (OR). A limitation of our approach stems from the unavailability of population parameters; we cannot confirm that our sample reflects the universe of maker enterprises. We find that makers draw on ecosystems comprising mainly for-profit firms. The public and nonprofit sectors are important in areas where markets do not provide the resources that fledgling makers require. We find 3 distinct types of maker enterprise: micromakers, global innovators, and emerging place-based manufacturers. Each makes a different contribution to local and regional economic development. Takeaway for practice: Planners can maximize the potential of the maker movement by distinguishing among the 3 types of maker firms. Practitioners focused on employment creation should prioritize emerging place-based manufacturers, helping them build supply chain connections and ensuring that they have affordable space into which to expand. Artisanal micromakers also generate economic benefits, as do global innovators focused on product design and prototyping. But emerging place-based manufacturers have the highest potential for employment creation, both directly and via the business growth they stimulate.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)365-376
Number of pages12
JournalJournal of the American Planning Association
Volume83
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2 2017

Fingerprint

economic development
innovator
firm
urban economy
economics
non-profit sector
economy
product design
entrepreneur
public sector
manufacturing
profit
supply
market
ecosystem
resource
interview
resources
city
parameter

Keywords

  • local economic development
  • maker movement
  • urban manufacturing

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Geography, Planning and Development
  • Development
  • Urban Studies

Cite this

The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development. / Wolf-Powers, Laura; Doussard, Marc J; Schrock, Greg; Heying, Charles; Eisenburger, Max; Marotta, Stephen.

In: Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 83, No. 4, 02.10.2017, p. 365-376.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Wolf-Powers, L, Doussard, MJ, Schrock, G, Heying, C, Eisenburger, M & Marotta, S 2017, 'The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development', Journal of the American Planning Association, vol. 83, no. 4, pp. 365-376. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787
Wolf-Powers, Laura ; Doussard, Marc J ; Schrock, Greg ; Heying, Charles ; Eisenburger, Max ; Marotta, Stephen. / The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development. In: Journal of the American Planning Association. 2017 ; Vol. 83, No. 4. pp. 365-376.
@article{db3d2e6d10934890bdeb766635182164,
title = "The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development",
abstract = "Problem, research strategy, and findings: The maker movement is placing small-scale manufacturing development on mayoral agendas across the United States and promises to reinvigorate production economies in central cities. To make effective policy, planners need more knowledge about the entrepreneurs at the center of this phenomenon. Here we present a qualitative investigation of urban maker economies. We draw on semistructured interviews with firms and supportive organizations in Chicago (IL), New York City (NY), and Portland (OR). A limitation of our approach stems from the unavailability of population parameters; we cannot confirm that our sample reflects the universe of maker enterprises. We find that makers draw on ecosystems comprising mainly for-profit firms. The public and nonprofit sectors are important in areas where markets do not provide the resources that fledgling makers require. We find 3 distinct types of maker enterprise: micromakers, global innovators, and emerging place-based manufacturers. Each makes a different contribution to local and regional economic development. Takeaway for practice: Planners can maximize the potential of the maker movement by distinguishing among the 3 types of maker firms. Practitioners focused on employment creation should prioritize emerging place-based manufacturers, helping them build supply chain connections and ensuring that they have affordable space into which to expand. Artisanal micromakers also generate economic benefits, as do global innovators focused on product design and prototyping. But emerging place-based manufacturers have the highest potential for employment creation, both directly and via the business growth they stimulate.",
keywords = "local economic development, maker movement, urban manufacturing",
author = "Laura Wolf-Powers and Doussard, {Marc J} and Greg Schrock and Charles Heying and Max Eisenburger and Stephen Marotta",
year = "2017",
month = "10",
day = "2",
doi = "10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "83",
pages = "365--376",
journal = "Journal of the American Planning Association",
issn = "0194-4363",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Maker Movement and Urban Economic Development

AU - Wolf-Powers, Laura

AU - Doussard, Marc J

AU - Schrock, Greg

AU - Heying, Charles

AU - Eisenburger, Max

AU - Marotta, Stephen

PY - 2017/10/2

Y1 - 2017/10/2

N2 - Problem, research strategy, and findings: The maker movement is placing small-scale manufacturing development on mayoral agendas across the United States and promises to reinvigorate production economies in central cities. To make effective policy, planners need more knowledge about the entrepreneurs at the center of this phenomenon. Here we present a qualitative investigation of urban maker economies. We draw on semistructured interviews with firms and supportive organizations in Chicago (IL), New York City (NY), and Portland (OR). A limitation of our approach stems from the unavailability of population parameters; we cannot confirm that our sample reflects the universe of maker enterprises. We find that makers draw on ecosystems comprising mainly for-profit firms. The public and nonprofit sectors are important in areas where markets do not provide the resources that fledgling makers require. We find 3 distinct types of maker enterprise: micromakers, global innovators, and emerging place-based manufacturers. Each makes a different contribution to local and regional economic development. Takeaway for practice: Planners can maximize the potential of the maker movement by distinguishing among the 3 types of maker firms. Practitioners focused on employment creation should prioritize emerging place-based manufacturers, helping them build supply chain connections and ensuring that they have affordable space into which to expand. Artisanal micromakers also generate economic benefits, as do global innovators focused on product design and prototyping. But emerging place-based manufacturers have the highest potential for employment creation, both directly and via the business growth they stimulate.

AB - Problem, research strategy, and findings: The maker movement is placing small-scale manufacturing development on mayoral agendas across the United States and promises to reinvigorate production economies in central cities. To make effective policy, planners need more knowledge about the entrepreneurs at the center of this phenomenon. Here we present a qualitative investigation of urban maker economies. We draw on semistructured interviews with firms and supportive organizations in Chicago (IL), New York City (NY), and Portland (OR). A limitation of our approach stems from the unavailability of population parameters; we cannot confirm that our sample reflects the universe of maker enterprises. We find that makers draw on ecosystems comprising mainly for-profit firms. The public and nonprofit sectors are important in areas where markets do not provide the resources that fledgling makers require. We find 3 distinct types of maker enterprise: micromakers, global innovators, and emerging place-based manufacturers. Each makes a different contribution to local and regional economic development. Takeaway for practice: Planners can maximize the potential of the maker movement by distinguishing among the 3 types of maker firms. Practitioners focused on employment creation should prioritize emerging place-based manufacturers, helping them build supply chain connections and ensuring that they have affordable space into which to expand. Artisanal micromakers also generate economic benefits, as do global innovators focused on product design and prototyping. But emerging place-based manufacturers have the highest potential for employment creation, both directly and via the business growth they stimulate.

KW - local economic development

KW - maker movement

KW - urban manufacturing

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85029447371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85029447371&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787

DO - 10.1080/01944363.2017.1360787

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85029447371

VL - 83

SP - 365

EP - 376

JO - Journal of the American Planning Association

JF - Journal of the American Planning Association

SN - 0194-4363

IS - 4

ER -