There are plenty of answers to this question that involve regional and international economics. The US developed along with the industrial revolution. There were no cities to tear up and rebuild- they grew with the factories. The US has lots of land, some of the world’s greatest farmland, long seashores for ports, lots of navigable rivers (at least in the east and Midwest), and has large quantities of natural resources- coal, oil, gold, trees, and many other minerals. Land was there to be taken. There were no long histories of civil law or procedures or tribal law or religious requirements. Everything had to be adapted to the new world from somewhere else or made up to fit the new situation. Everything was designed to be practical for the time. The oceans protected the US from some involvement in foreign problems. There was no history of a ruling class or aristocracy. Unions were independent of government and of the business, and could work to protect workers and try to raise their pay and working conditions. Because of free speech protections in the constitution, government schools and universities were free to ask whatever questions they wanted, and answer them any way they wanted, as long as the answers met the standards of reason. There were many ways to make a living, people could choose to do what they wished, and for many people this led to getting rich or at least getting to be middle class. There was no one who could say no to an idea that someone wanted to pursue. It is in this way that freedom and capitalism work together.
A lot of that is now history. We still have rivers and coal, but the US economy is no longer factor driven or investment driven- maybe not even innovation driven. But even a wealth driven economy like the US can still do some innovation. What makes that so easy in the US?
Americans move a lot- across the street, across the town, across the country. One of the reasons we do that is so we can start over. Starting over is very easy in the US. People find life too hard in one place, and they move, thinking that things will be better somewhere else. Sometimes, that is true. Maybe the move gives people more energy, or they need to work harder to find a job and start a new life somewhere else. Bankruptcy laws do not take everything a person owns when they go bankrupt. People are allowed to keep their house (if it is not claimed by the bank in a foreclosure) and personal items. The social shame of going bankrupt certainly exists, but everyone deserves a new chance. Failure is not an opinion about someone’s life- it is only an experiment that didn’t work. Failure is not a collective loss, either. One of the benefits of being an American is that one does not have to feel responsible for actions of the government or actions of one’s business. There is a cost to that- we don’t have much loyalty to the government or to a business or to each other- but America is much more about “I” than about “we.”
The ease of starting over extends to the ease of starting a business- we talked about this in class. Credit is not hard to find. Everyone wants to help someone start a business. Partnerships and corporations are very easy to start. Laws permit partnerships and corporations to isolate their liability in classes of ownership, so that investors can feel free to invest while limiting potential losses. Even small and startup businesses can get credit, even if it is only from their credit cards or from a loan against the value of their house. It is easy to hire people, and easy to fire them or lay them off if work declines. Our strong sense of private property is very important. This means that when someone creates some value, they get to claim the value as their property.
Risk-taking is supported at every step by government policies and by the culture. This doesn’t mean that the government provides money, but that laws and regulations support taking risk by being able to isolate risk, making it easy to fail, easy to start up again, easy to move, easy to obtain credit, easy to fill out the paperwork to start a business, and easy to locate where one wishes.
For businesses and for government, the sense of new ideas and information and change and success flowing from the bottom up rather than from the top down has been essential to innovation. The further down the hierarchy we can push the authority and responsibility, the more ideas there are, the more minds there are to work on a problem. The less respect for authority, the more possibilities for change.
My friend Bob Yovovich interviewed a man holding the most patents in the US at the time- more than two hundred individually held patents. Bob asked him what it took to innovate- what is the source of inspiration. The answer was not that his family inspired him, or his company, or solving world problems. He said that the source of innovation was to be easily annoyed. Now maybe that does not work for everyone, but it fits with what my own experience has been. People who are easily annoyed with the problems they see in their company can simply leave the company and start their own business. People who are free to work on what they wish are more interested in the outcome than people who work on what they are told to work on. People who can see the possibility of making money from some innovation are inclined to work harder. This suggests the importance of small institutions- small businesses- which can be more flexible, more innovative because they don’t have the burden of layers of management or an extensive network of suppliers and customers to satisfy. Bigger is clearly not always better. Sometimes the US can innovate because it has a very large market, and the markets can be very diverse. Products have to be designed to meet the needs of different types of people with different needs. This is not to say that the markets in the US are always the most sophisticated- they are not. But designing for different customs and patterns of use make for more thinking about how people use things, and this is the ultimate pragmatism. “What works” is often quicker, faster, or smarter than trying to figure out “what is the single best solution.” It is the difference between Microsoft and Apple Computer. Microsoft has never been an innovator. It tries to figure out what will appeal to the most people, and comes up with one solution. Apple has always been known as an innovator. It tries to find out how people use things.
We tend not to honor teachers in the US. We think teachers can and should help students learn, but we don’t think the teacher is always right (except for certain professors in certain PA courses at IIT). American pragmatism is always the trump card in any discussion- “If you’re so smart, why aren’t you rich?” is a way of saying, if your idea is really better, then prove it. Everyone gets to conduct experiments every day, and sometimes we find one that works.
This even extends to governments- we refer to state and local governments as “laboratories of democracy,” suggesting that we let state and local governments experiment with policies and programs and when something seems to work, others can adopt it and do the same thing. America tends to not have philosophical movements- the twentieth century movement of existentialism, positivism, and communism never really developed big support in the US, because people didn’t see how talking would help doing. The only really American philosophy is pragmatism, which broadly speaking, simply says, “try things, and do what works.”
That is my answer, in the time I have allowed myself. I am no expert in these matters, but I have some experience, so maybe this will be useful. If it is not, you are free to say so, because I respect your ideas and the only way I can do better is if you show me how what I am doing is incorrect. Feel free to disagree or correct me or improve on the ideas.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
What is the usefulness of all this democracy?
You have heard me talk about regional planning, municipal planning, and neighborhood planning, and that planning is all advisory with respect to private land use. We have talked about zoning and how easy it is to get a zoning change, usually, when a developer wants it. We have discussed the extensive amount of public participation in planning and project implementation. We have talked about the impossibility of doing big scale projects in the US, now, because people and organizations that oppose a project will make a lot of effort to defeat it. Zhou Xiaofang, several other students, and a lot of Americans say that this seems to be a great waste of time and money. The product of all this effort is not worth it. Why do we do it?
You have heard me say, many times, that Americans do not trust the government. Everybody in the US, or their parents, or their grandparents, came from somewhere else. Many of the people who came to the US came here as outcasts, or failures, or poor people who were oppressed by the government where they came from. The British colony that became the state of Georgia was founded as a place to store criminals. The people who first came to the area now called Massachusetts came to escape religious persecution in Europe. The people who first settled the area now called Virginia came to make money off the new land and get rich. Many of the people who came to the US in the period from about 1860 to 1920 came as poor people who thought coming here was better than staying where they were. Almost no one who came here was rich or had a good position where they came from. If they did, why would they come?
I am not good at being poetic, but the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty really sound true for Americans-
“…. Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Almost no one who came to the US had a good opinion of the government where they came from. They passed that on to their children and grandchildren, and many Americans still feel that the government is a necessary evil, not a source of hope. We mostly believe that Thomas Jefferson was right- “That government is best which governs least.” By that we mean that government should be as close to people as possible. We give local government the most attention, because in some ways it has the most responsibilities, and has the best chance of meeting the desires of individuals. Many Americans think the federal government should stay away from “local” problems.
We have designed, by intent, a government with levels of government and branches of government that make it difficult for the government to act. We want to control the actions of the government, because we don’t want it to do too much without getting the general approval of the people. We elect aldermen and mayors and state representatives and state senators and US congressmen and US senators and governors and county board members and many other officials, and we expect these people to represent our interests in doing what we collectively want accomplished. We make the legislature approve budgets of government departments and formulate policy for big programs and projects. But we think that electing representatives is not enough, even if we can defeat them at the next election if they don’t fulfill our wishes. So we have created many interim checks and requirements for information so that we can get a sort of intermediate approval on administrative and technical actions of government agencies. Public participation and newspapers and television and blogs and endless meetings are the way we accomplish that. We sue the government and governments sue each other.
There is no doubt that this system makes it very difficult for government to achieve big results or do big projects. There is no doubt that such a system can lead to corruption (every system can lead to corruption). There is no doubt that this system makes it impossible for government to lead very effectively. Every big social movement of the last hundred years- votes for women, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, protections for disabled people, even the more extensive public participation requirements- first started as private movements, and could only be taken up by the government when there were enough votes in the legislature to get a bill passed.
There is no doubt that such a system of government is not efficient. It is not supposed to be efficient. We don’t want it to be efficient. The system is designed to give everyone a voice in the process.
We talk about there being two ways of handling issues or problems in a business, a government, or a society. There is “voice” and “exit.” A person can use “voice” to express opinion and try to change problems. A person can choose to exit the organization- change jobs, leave the city, leave the nation. A person’s sense of loyalty will help determine whether one uses voice or exit in addressing organizational problems.
US presidential administrations that hold up efficiency as a goal- mostly Republican administrations, such as those of Bush and Reagan- use secret meetings, try to implement secret laws and regulations, and try to keep information from the media under the excuse of making government more efficient. For such government administrations, openness and clarity and giving people information is what they try to avoid. They tell people that loyalty demands that people not use their “voice” to express dissenting opinions.
The key to thinking about this system is not what it does accomplish, but what it fails to accomplish. The government cannot act with so much power that it leads everyone “over the cliff.” The government cannot make too many big mistakes. National governments in the last hundred years that could act quickly or decisively – without “voice,” or opposition- all ended up with big problems- pollution, starvation, political prisoners, and big distortions in the economy due to government failure. Even if there is a lot of discussion within the government about what to do, if the government does not get information from outside then it is acting in the dark. That is the benefit of not honoring government statistics or government evaluations or government plans. We don’t think that the government is the holder of the Truth. Someone might have a better idea or better information who is outside the government.
This is not to say that the US does not have its share of big problems. It does. The problems we do have take a long time to solve, and the solutions are often not very good. Sometimes people describe democracy as like being in a life raft after a boat sinks. The life raft will keep everyone safe, but everyone’s feet are constantly wet. Democracy works, but it is not very comfortable.
It must be a common saying in China right now, that big risks provide big profits. I have heard this for several years from students from China. But no smart investor- at least none that I know- believes that. The larger the risk, the greater the chance that some part of the risk has not been carefully evaluated. Big risks provide an opportunity for big failure. Democracy is supposed to avoid the big failures. In exchange for only being able to make small changes at any one time, democracy is supposed to avoid making too many bad policy judgments. One cost of that approach is that democracy cannot do big risk projects very easily.
At the heart of democracy is the thinking of Isaiah Berlin, a Russian political philosopher. His point is that democracy forces a government to acknowledge that humans have many different ideas of what is the Good, and that the government cannot decide for everyone what the best Good is. We have a great toleration for letting people do what they want, which has both good and bad effects. The bad effects are usually easy to see. The good effects are much more difficult to see. There is a line from a Shakespeare play- “The evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred (buried) with their bones.”
Democracy is not, needless to say, a perfect system. It requires an educated citizenry that can make reasonable judgments about proposals for government action, and a citizenry that is interested in public affairs and in keeping control of the government. We are losing both of those aspects in the last thirty years or so. Our primary and secondary schools are often very poor. We focus on television and spending money to fix up the kitchen in the house and on buying things, and fewer people are interested in attending meetings and expressing their views on government plans or policies. When trust in the government falls to very low levels, people lose a sense that the government is doing anything to act for them, and is only acting to serve special interests. When people don’t take an interest in the actions of government, control of the government by special interests is guaranteed. Plato said that democracy will tend to devolve over time into anarchy or mob rule. If people don’t want democracy, and don’t actively take care of it, then Plato will probably be correct.
There is another answer as to why we spend all this time and money on planning that cannot be implemented by the government. This is the answer Jim Ford would provide, if he and I were discussing this issue. He would say that the time spent in planning and public participation is a way of educating citizens and mayors and aldermen and county board members about the important issues of the moment, and giving people a way to think about how their actions affect other people. As you know, there is no career path in government in the US, and there is no requirement that elected officials be smart or sophisticated in their understanding of issues. The time we spend in planning and public participation is a way of educating people about the meaning of the choices they make when they vote, or when they express their opinions about an issue. Jim would say that in that sense, regional planning in the Chicago area has been a success. There is much more of a collective sense of one region now than there was fifty years ago, when regional planning began in the Chicago area. There is some truth in this, but I remain skeptical about this point.
You have heard me say, many times, that Americans do not trust the government. Everybody in the US, or their parents, or their grandparents, came from somewhere else. Many of the people who came to the US came here as outcasts, or failures, or poor people who were oppressed by the government where they came from. The British colony that became the state of Georgia was founded as a place to store criminals. The people who first came to the area now called Massachusetts came to escape religious persecution in Europe. The people who first settled the area now called Virginia came to make money off the new land and get rich. Many of the people who came to the US in the period from about 1860 to 1920 came as poor people who thought coming here was better than staying where they were. Almost no one who came here was rich or had a good position where they came from. If they did, why would they come?
I am not good at being poetic, but the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty really sound true for Americans-
“…. Give me your tired, your poor,
your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed, to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.”
Almost no one who came to the US had a good opinion of the government where they came from. They passed that on to their children and grandchildren, and many Americans still feel that the government is a necessary evil, not a source of hope. We mostly believe that Thomas Jefferson was right- “That government is best which governs least.” By that we mean that government should be as close to people as possible. We give local government the most attention, because in some ways it has the most responsibilities, and has the best chance of meeting the desires of individuals. Many Americans think the federal government should stay away from “local” problems.
We have designed, by intent, a government with levels of government and branches of government that make it difficult for the government to act. We want to control the actions of the government, because we don’t want it to do too much without getting the general approval of the people. We elect aldermen and mayors and state representatives and state senators and US congressmen and US senators and governors and county board members and many other officials, and we expect these people to represent our interests in doing what we collectively want accomplished. We make the legislature approve budgets of government departments and formulate policy for big programs and projects. But we think that electing representatives is not enough, even if we can defeat them at the next election if they don’t fulfill our wishes. So we have created many interim checks and requirements for information so that we can get a sort of intermediate approval on administrative and technical actions of government agencies. Public participation and newspapers and television and blogs and endless meetings are the way we accomplish that. We sue the government and governments sue each other.
There is no doubt that this system makes it very difficult for government to achieve big results or do big projects. There is no doubt that such a system can lead to corruption (every system can lead to corruption). There is no doubt that this system makes it impossible for government to lead very effectively. Every big social movement of the last hundred years- votes for women, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, protections for disabled people, even the more extensive public participation requirements- first started as private movements, and could only be taken up by the government when there were enough votes in the legislature to get a bill passed.
There is no doubt that such a system of government is not efficient. It is not supposed to be efficient. We don’t want it to be efficient. The system is designed to give everyone a voice in the process.
We talk about there being two ways of handling issues or problems in a business, a government, or a society. There is “voice” and “exit.” A person can use “voice” to express opinion and try to change problems. A person can choose to exit the organization- change jobs, leave the city, leave the nation. A person’s sense of loyalty will help determine whether one uses voice or exit in addressing organizational problems.
US presidential administrations that hold up efficiency as a goal- mostly Republican administrations, such as those of Bush and Reagan- use secret meetings, try to implement secret laws and regulations, and try to keep information from the media under the excuse of making government more efficient. For such government administrations, openness and clarity and giving people information is what they try to avoid. They tell people that loyalty demands that people not use their “voice” to express dissenting opinions.
The key to thinking about this system is not what it does accomplish, but what it fails to accomplish. The government cannot act with so much power that it leads everyone “over the cliff.” The government cannot make too many big mistakes. National governments in the last hundred years that could act quickly or decisively – without “voice,” or opposition- all ended up with big problems- pollution, starvation, political prisoners, and big distortions in the economy due to government failure. Even if there is a lot of discussion within the government about what to do, if the government does not get information from outside then it is acting in the dark. That is the benefit of not honoring government statistics or government evaluations or government plans. We don’t think that the government is the holder of the Truth. Someone might have a better idea or better information who is outside the government.
This is not to say that the US does not have its share of big problems. It does. The problems we do have take a long time to solve, and the solutions are often not very good. Sometimes people describe democracy as like being in a life raft after a boat sinks. The life raft will keep everyone safe, but everyone’s feet are constantly wet. Democracy works, but it is not very comfortable.
It must be a common saying in China right now, that big risks provide big profits. I have heard this for several years from students from China. But no smart investor- at least none that I know- believes that. The larger the risk, the greater the chance that some part of the risk has not been carefully evaluated. Big risks provide an opportunity for big failure. Democracy is supposed to avoid the big failures. In exchange for only being able to make small changes at any one time, democracy is supposed to avoid making too many bad policy judgments. One cost of that approach is that democracy cannot do big risk projects very easily.
At the heart of democracy is the thinking of Isaiah Berlin, a Russian political philosopher. His point is that democracy forces a government to acknowledge that humans have many different ideas of what is the Good, and that the government cannot decide for everyone what the best Good is. We have a great toleration for letting people do what they want, which has both good and bad effects. The bad effects are usually easy to see. The good effects are much more difficult to see. There is a line from a Shakespeare play- “The evil that men do lives after them. The good is often interred (buried) with their bones.”
Democracy is not, needless to say, a perfect system. It requires an educated citizenry that can make reasonable judgments about proposals for government action, and a citizenry that is interested in public affairs and in keeping control of the government. We are losing both of those aspects in the last thirty years or so. Our primary and secondary schools are often very poor. We focus on television and spending money to fix up the kitchen in the house and on buying things, and fewer people are interested in attending meetings and expressing their views on government plans or policies. When trust in the government falls to very low levels, people lose a sense that the government is doing anything to act for them, and is only acting to serve special interests. When people don’t take an interest in the actions of government, control of the government by special interests is guaranteed. Plato said that democracy will tend to devolve over time into anarchy or mob rule. If people don’t want democracy, and don’t actively take care of it, then Plato will probably be correct.
There is another answer as to why we spend all this time and money on planning that cannot be implemented by the government. This is the answer Jim Ford would provide, if he and I were discussing this issue. He would say that the time spent in planning and public participation is a way of educating citizens and mayors and aldermen and county board members about the important issues of the moment, and giving people a way to think about how their actions affect other people. As you know, there is no career path in government in the US, and there is no requirement that elected officials be smart or sophisticated in their understanding of issues. The time we spend in planning and public participation is a way of educating people about the meaning of the choices they make when they vote, or when they express their opinions about an issue. Jim would say that in that sense, regional planning in the Chicago area has been a success. There is much more of a collective sense of one region now than there was fifty years ago, when regional planning began in the Chicago area. There is some truth in this, but I remain skeptical about this point.
PA 577, PA 578 Glossary
Terry Nichols Clark articles-
Clientelism
Clientelism is a form of social organization characterized by a "patron-client" relationship. In such a setting, relatively powerful "patrons" promise to provide relatively powerless "clients" with jobs, protection, infrastructure, and other benefits in exchange for votes and other forms of loyalty. While clientelism involves a mutual exchange of favors, these relationships can also be exploitative. Patrons are often unaccountable for their actions.
Clientelism is used to describe relationships between local government political leaders and the population in big cities in the US, up until about 1980. In New York, Boston, and Chicago, the concept of " machine" politics meant that the polirical party in power, usually the Democratic Party, was able to create a machine for turning out votes at every election by using clientelism- promising jobs, favors, and contracts in exchange for votes.
依持主义：一种赞助者和“客户”之间的互动关系，赞助者往往是有钱有势的政治家，官员等，向相对处于弱势地位的“客户”提供就业机会，保护，资源等，以换取他们的支持或投票。政治选举的拉票 可以看成一种 clientelism。
Growth machine
The growth machine is a term used to describe local government politics in many cities in the US. In this model, the political leaders develop a coalition with business leaders, particularly those whose businesses depend upon increasing local population for growth- newspapers, retail stores, insurance, real estate, and construction businesses- to promote growth that will lead to increased profits. The machine characterizes the kind of policies and programs that the coalition will support- those that make the local government into a machine for generating profits for business.
Entertainment machine
In a way similar to the concepts of machine politics and the growth machine, the entertainment machine has been used to describe urban politics in Chicago and some other cities in the last twenty years. Big cities have become the location of entertainment, not only for visitors and conventions, but for newly arriving local people as well. With the increase in wealth of people moving to cities, and the need for cities to attract "gold collar" jobs (instead of lower or middlle class "blue collar" jobs) cities cannot attract such people with clientelist programs such as favors or jobs. Cities need to make themselves attractive to people who can put more value on culture, beauty, and arts. The City of Chicago, for example, has used its Cultural Affairs Department to attract events from around the world, in a way that would have been unheard of in Chicago of forty years ago. The City government does this because it needs to make Chicago attractive to people who want to see such events, not just sports teams and museums.
Real estate terms-
Bundle of rights
The bundle of rights is a common way to explain the complexities of property ownership. Teachers often use this concept as a way to organize confusing and sometimes contradictory data about real estate. The bundle of rights is commonly taught in US first-year law school property classes to explain how property righs can simultaneously be divided among multiple parties.
It is useful to imagine a bundle of rights that can be separated and reassembled. A "stack of sticks" - in which each stick represents an individual right - is a common analogy made for the bundle of rights. Any property owner possesses a set of sticks related directly to the land. An owner can treat each stick as independent of the others, and can, for example, rent or mortgage one particualar stick wihout necessarily giving up rights to the other sticks.
一捆的权利：这个术语以较为易懂的方式解释了所有权的复杂性。在房地产领域较为常见。这个术语常用来解释一个所有物是怎样同时被多方“拥有”。
想象一捆的权利能被分散再聚集。“一堆棍子”――在其中每一根棍子代表一个人的权利――是由一捆的权利引申出来的一个类比。任意一个所有权拥有者都享有与土地直接相联系的那一些棍子。
Fee simple无条件继承的不动产(权)
Fee simple is the term used to describe a property owner who has the full bundle of sticks of property rights. For example, an owner of a single family home is usually described as having fee simple ownership, which means that the ownership is not shared with another person or family.
Property taxes-
Equalization平等
Levy 征收（捐税，罚款等）
Extension扩展
Assessment评估
Homestead【法】 宅基地, 住宅
Appraiser 估价人
Regression 倒退
Mandate 授权于，命令
Augment 扩大，增加
Poll tax人头税(poll tax或head tax)是种向每一个人课相同，定额的税种。
Capital plan and bonds-
Inventory存货
Acquisition 获得
Facility 设施，设备
Maintenance 维修，保养
Prioritize 确定（事项）的优先次序
Ratify （正式）批准
Executive summary 在会议中给上级领导看的总结报告
Premium 额外补贴，保险费
Bidding ( 拍卖时的) 出价
Feasibility 可行性
Offset 抵消
Demographic 人口的
Underwriter 担保人
Portfolio （一投资者所持有的）投资组合
Volatile （价格）不稳定的
Porter, Chapter 1-
Pendulum 钟摆
Paradigm 范例，样式
Subsidy补贴，津贴
Deficit 赤字
Amorphous 无一定方向的
Per capita 每人，按人计算的
Stringent 短缺的，急需的
Boost 增强
Apparel 服饰
Vis-à-vis 和…面对面
Per se 本身
Exogenous 外因的
Endogenous 自生的
Jurisdiction 司法；管辖权
Safety net （为失业者提供的）安全保障
Public Works 公共工程
Initiatives 主动权
Guarantee 保证
Eligible 合格的
Incentive 刺激，鼓励
Partial 偏袒，不公的
Ideological 思想上的
Empirical 经验主义的
Buttoned-down 有领尖钉有纽扣领圈的衬衫
Pragmatism 实用主义
Irony 冷嘲，反语
Circular and cumulative causation循环累积因果关系'
Development economics-
Feedback 反馈
Stagnation 停滞
Dualism 两重性
Disequilibrium 失去平衡，失调
Linkage 联系
Threshold 门槛
Economies of scale 规模经济
Comparative advantage 比较优势
Linear 线的
Oligopolist 寡头 a market with only a few producers, who control the market. An oligopolist whould be one such producer.
Grilling 炙烤般的
Capsulization 概述
Metaphor 隐喻
Perfect-competition 完全竞争
Marginal 边际的
Horizontal 水平的
Irrationality 无理性，不合理
Nonsensical 荒谬的
Expenditure 支出
Cost-effective 有成本效益的，有利可图的
Sustainable development 可持续发展
Intangible 无形的
Business retention 商业保持
Industry cluster产业集群(Industry Cluster)是一群地域上彼此邻近的公司和机构,它们属于同一个行业且彼此互相联系。
Extension services In some American universities, there are technical assistance programs to help local people in various ways, using the skills and experience of the university faculty. Extension programs started by helping farmers grow better crops, or use better seeds. Recently, urban universities have begun to assist businesses with technical problems, from manufacturing to personnel. In some cases, the US government supports such efforts with funds.
Productivity 生产率
Agglomeration economies集聚经济效益
Facilitate 使便利
Entrepreneurship 企业家精神
Pecuniary 金钱上的
Incubator 孵化器
Venture capital 风险资本
Equity 股本
Capital 资本
Inputs of knowledge 知识投入
Amenity (环境) 舒适
General terms-
Globalism 全球主义
Rationale 理论基础
Fiscal 财政的
Erroneously 错误的
Planning and economic development-
Brownfield被污染的区域
Contamination 污染
Smokestack chasing In the 1960's and 1970's, and even into the 1980's, competition among states and local governments for jobs and tax base led some states, mostly in the US south, such as Texas, Alabama, and North Carolina, to send business promotion and attraction teams to cities in the north, trying to get factories to close their plants in the north and move to the south. State governments would provide tax breaks, low cost loans, and other incentives to get factories to move. Since factories usually have a smokestack, this process was called smokestack chasing. It has fallen out of favor as an economic development tool in the US, since it has been shown not to accomplish much and was mostly just a giveaway to businesses.
Cyclical instability 周期性波动
Revitalize 使有新的活力
Monopoly 垄断
Tariff 关税
Quota 配额
Protectionist 保护主义者
Commercialization 商业化
Capitalize 使资本化
Consortia 合伙
Spillover 大得无法被容纳
R&D Research and Development 研发
Rivalry 竞争
Path dependence路径依赖(path dependence) 经济学家认为,路径依赖类似于物理学中的“惯性”,一旦进入某一路径(无论是“好”的还是“坏”的)就可能对这种路径产生依赖。
Community and neighborhood –community 的概念比neighborhood概念更广。Community不仅可指地域性的概念，一个社区，还可指社会上某一类人由于兴趣或者其他共同特征而聚集在一起。Neighborhood仅限于指邻里。
Neo-urbanism新都市主义，关键内容在于：（1）重新改建市中心区域，使之重新成为居民集中的地点；（2）建立新的密切的邻里关系和城市生活内容。
Growth management 增长管理
Clientelism
Clientelism is a form of social organization characterized by a "patron-client" relationship. In such a setting, relatively powerful "patrons" promise to provide relatively powerless "clients" with jobs, protection, infrastructure, and other benefits in exchange for votes and other forms of loyalty. While clientelism involves a mutual exchange of favors, these relationships can also be exploitative. Patrons are often unaccountable for their actions.
Clientelism is used to describe relationships between local government political leaders and the population in big cities in the US, up until about 1980. In New York, Boston, and Chicago, the concept of " machine" politics meant that the polirical party in power, usually the Democratic Party, was able to create a machine for turning out votes at every election by using clientelism- promising jobs, favors, and contracts in exchange for votes.
依持主义：一种赞助者和“客户”之间的互动关系，赞助者往往是有钱有势的政治家，官员等，向相对处于弱势地位的“客户”提供就业机会，保护，资源等，以换取他们的支持或投票。政治选举的拉票 可以看成一种 clientelism。
Growth machine
The growth machine is a term used to describe local government politics in many cities in the US. In this model, the political leaders develop a coalition with business leaders, particularly those whose businesses depend upon increasing local population for growth- newspapers, retail stores, insurance, real estate, and construction businesses- to promote growth that will lead to increased profits. The machine characterizes the kind of policies and programs that the coalition will support- those that make the local government into a machine for generating profits for business.
Entertainment machine
In a way similar to the concepts of machine politics and the growth machine, the entertainment machine has been used to describe urban politics in Chicago and some other cities in the last twenty years. Big cities have become the location of entertainment, not only for visitors and conventions, but for newly arriving local people as well. With the increase in wealth of people moving to cities, and the need for cities to attract "gold collar" jobs (instead of lower or middlle class "blue collar" jobs) cities cannot attract such people with clientelist programs such as favors or jobs. Cities need to make themselves attractive to people who can put more value on culture, beauty, and arts. The City of Chicago, for example, has used its Cultural Affairs Department to attract events from around the world, in a way that would have been unheard of in Chicago of forty years ago. The City government does this because it needs to make Chicago attractive to people who want to see such events, not just sports teams and museums.
Real estate terms-
Bundle of rights
The bundle of rights is a common way to explain the complexities of property ownership. Teachers often use this concept as a way to organize confusing and sometimes contradictory data about real estate. The bundle of rights is commonly taught in US first-year law school property classes to explain how property righs can simultaneously be divided among multiple parties.
It is useful to imagine a bundle of rights that can be separated and reassembled. A "stack of sticks" - in which each stick represents an individual right - is a common analogy made for the bundle of rights. Any property owner possesses a set of sticks related directly to the land. An owner can treat each stick as independent of the others, and can, for example, rent or mortgage one particualar stick wihout necessarily giving up rights to the other sticks.
一捆的权利：这个术语以较为易懂的方式解释了所有权的复杂性。在房地产领域较为常见。这个术语常用来解释一个所有物是怎样同时被多方“拥有”。
想象一捆的权利能被分散再聚集。“一堆棍子”――在其中每一根棍子代表一个人的权利――是由一捆的权利引申出来的一个类比。任意一个所有权拥有者都享有与土地直接相联系的那一些棍子。
Fee simple无条件继承的不动产(权)
Fee simple is the term used to describe a property owner who has the full bundle of sticks of property rights. For example, an owner of a single family home is usually described as having fee simple ownership, which means that the ownership is not shared with another person or family.
Property taxes-
Equalization平等
Levy 征收（捐税，罚款等）
Extension扩展
Assessment评估
Homestead【法】 宅基地, 住宅
Appraiser 估价人
Regression 倒退
Mandate 授权于，命令
Augment 扩大，增加
Poll tax人头税(poll tax或head tax)是种向每一个人课相同，定额的税种。
Capital plan and bonds-
Inventory存货
Acquisition 获得
Facility 设施，设备
Maintenance 维修，保养
Prioritize 确定（事项）的优先次序
Ratify （正式）批准
Executive summary 在会议中给上级领导看的总结报告
Premium 额外补贴，保险费
Bidding ( 拍卖时的) 出价
Feasibility 可行性
Offset 抵消
Demographic 人口的
Underwriter 担保人
Portfolio （一投资者所持有的）投资组合
Volatile （价格）不稳定的
Porter, Chapter 1-
Pendulum 钟摆
Paradigm 范例，样式
Subsidy补贴，津贴
Deficit 赤字
Amorphous 无一定方向的
Per capita 每人，按人计算的
Stringent 短缺的，急需的
Boost 增强
Apparel 服饰
Vis-à-vis 和…面对面
Per se 本身
Exogenous 外因的
Endogenous 自生的
Jurisdiction 司法；管辖权
Safety net （为失业者提供的）安全保障
Public Works 公共工程
Initiatives 主动权
Guarantee 保证
Eligible 合格的
Incentive 刺激，鼓励
Partial 偏袒，不公的
Ideological 思想上的
Empirical 经验主义的
Buttoned-down 有领尖钉有纽扣领圈的衬衫
Pragmatism 实用主义
Irony 冷嘲，反语
Circular and cumulative causation循环累积因果关系'
Development economics-
Feedback 反馈
Stagnation 停滞
Dualism 两重性
Disequilibrium 失去平衡，失调
Linkage 联系
Threshold 门槛
Economies of scale 规模经济
Comparative advantage 比较优势
Linear 线的
Oligopolist 寡头 a market with only a few producers, who control the market. An oligopolist whould be one such producer.
Grilling 炙烤般的
Capsulization 概述
Metaphor 隐喻
Perfect-competition 完全竞争
Marginal 边际的
Horizontal 水平的
Irrationality 无理性，不合理
Nonsensical 荒谬的
Expenditure 支出
Cost-effective 有成本效益的，有利可图的
Sustainable development 可持续发展
Intangible 无形的
Business retention 商业保持
Industry cluster产业集群(Industry Cluster)是一群地域上彼此邻近的公司和机构,它们属于同一个行业且彼此互相联系。
Extension services In some American universities, there are technical assistance programs to help local people in various ways, using the skills and experience of the university faculty. Extension programs started by helping farmers grow better crops, or use better seeds. Recently, urban universities have begun to assist businesses with technical problems, from manufacturing to personnel. In some cases, the US government supports such efforts with funds.
Productivity 生产率
Agglomeration economies集聚经济效益
Facilitate 使便利
Entrepreneurship 企业家精神
Pecuniary 金钱上的
Incubator 孵化器
Venture capital 风险资本
Equity 股本
Capital 资本
Inputs of knowledge 知识投入
Amenity (环境) 舒适
General terms-
Globalism 全球主义
Rationale 理论基础
Fiscal 财政的
Erroneously 错误的
Planning and economic development-
Brownfield被污染的区域
Contamination 污染
Smokestack chasing In the 1960's and 1970's, and even into the 1980's, competition among states and local governments for jobs and tax base led some states, mostly in the US south, such as Texas, Alabama, and North Carolina, to send business promotion and attraction teams to cities in the north, trying to get factories to close their plants in the north and move to the south. State governments would provide tax breaks, low cost loans, and other incentives to get factories to move. Since factories usually have a smokestack, this process was called smokestack chasing. It has fallen out of favor as an economic development tool in the US, since it has been shown not to accomplish much and was mostly just a giveaway to businesses.
Cyclical instability 周期性波动
Revitalize 使有新的活力
Monopoly 垄断
Tariff 关税
Quota 配额
Protectionist 保护主义者
Commercialization 商业化
Capitalize 使资本化
Consortia 合伙
Spillover 大得无法被容纳
R&D Research and Development 研发
Rivalry 竞争
Path dependence路径依赖(path dependence) 经济学家认为,路径依赖类似于物理学中的“惯性”,一旦进入某一路径(无论是“好”的还是“坏”的)就可能对这种路径产生依赖。
Community and neighborhood –community 的概念比neighborhood概念更广。Community不仅可指地域性的概念，一个社区，还可指社会上某一类人由于兴趣或者其他共同特征而聚集在一起。Neighborhood仅限于指邻里。
Neo-urbanism新都市主义，关键内容在于：（1）重新改建市中心区域，使之重新成为居民集中的地点；（2）建立新的密切的邻里关系和城市生活内容。
Growth management 增长管理
Idiom Sites
I think I sent this to students in January, but just in case I didn't or someone wants the reference again-
For help in English as we actually speak it, some American idiom sites-
1. From English People's Daily-
http://www.englishdaily626.com/idioms.php#Tongue-in-Cheek
also has Chinese folk tales in English and American slang words
2. Site with links to lots of other slang sites-
http://www.slangcity.com/
3. Site that is easy to use-
http://www.manythings.org/slang/
4. Another good site, especially for business terms-
http://www.eslmania.com/students/idioms/Business_idioms.htm
5. 600 idioms, but not in any order-
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/English-idioms-01.html
Have fun!!
For help in English as we actually speak it, some American idiom sites-
1. From English People's Daily-
http://www.englishdaily626.com/idioms.php#Tongue-in-Cheek
also has Chinese folk tales in English and American slang words
2. Site with links to lots of other slang sites-
http://www.slangcity.com/
3. Site that is easy to use-
http://www.manythings.org/slang/
4. Another good site, especially for business terms-
http://www.eslmania.com/students/idioms/Business_idioms.htm
5. 600 idioms, but not in any order-
http://www.paulnoll.com/Books/Clear-English/English-idioms-01.html
Have fun!!
Another "To Do" Item...
A great way to see part of Chicago is to rent a bicycle and ride the Lakefront or ride through the north side neighborhoods. There are several bike rental businesses, but Bike Chicago has five locations near downtown, including Navy Pier, Milennium Park, and North Avenue Beach.
They are open 7 days a week, year-round at Millennium Park. Get location hours at
http://www.bikechicago.com/
They give a 10% discount if you reserve a bike online.
It is good to wait for a hot summer weekend day to do this, but anytime will be fun. If we can arrange it, I would even ride my bike down from Evanston to join you.
They are open 7 days a week, year-round at Millennium Park. Get location hours at
http://www.bikechicago.com/
They give a 10% discount if you reserve a bike online.
It is good to wait for a hot summer weekend day to do this, but anytime will be fun. If we can arrange it, I would even ride my bike down from Evanston to join you.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Coming Weekend Events- Printer's Row Book Fair and the Old Town Art Fair
Summer in Chicago includes art fairs and neighborhood festivals everywhere. Two big things to do in a couple of weeks-
Printer's Row Book Fair- June 7 and 8- Dearborn Street between Congress and Polk Streets, downtown. Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This event is free. I know most of the books are in English, but walking around and sampling the food and events will be fun anyway.
Another cultural event-
Coming up soon on the weekend of June 14 and 15, go to the Old Town Art Fair, located from North Avenue to Armitage Avenue, and from Wells Street to Larrabee. This is one of the oldest of the Chicago summer art fairs, and although there are many more, every weekend in the summer, this one is very big and the weather should be perfect.
Old Town is part of the neighborhood that we walked around when some of you (at least the students from Dalian) had just gotten here last September.
Take the Red Line to Division/Clark and walk about 1/2 mile north; or take the Green Line downtown, change to the Brown Line, and get off the Brown Line at North Avenue/Larrabee Street, which is very close to the fair. Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 AM until 6:00 PM. Donation is $5.00. There is food, music, art, and lots of people.
From the Old Town Art Fair web site-
The tree-lined streets of Chicago's historic Old Town Triangle District will again provide a charming setting for the 58th Old Town Art Fair, the oldest and most prestigious juried outdoor art fair of its kind. Produced by the Old Town Triangle Association, the annual fundraiser is made possible with the support of more than 750 neighborhood volunteers. This year’s Fair will be held on June 10 and 11 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. rain or shine. The Main Gate is at Lincoln and Wisconsin Avenues, or you can enter at 1736 North North Park Avenue, or other locations in the neighborhood. Requested donation is $5.00; there is no request for donation for children 12 or under. Proceeds benefit a host of local youth groups, schools, and neighborhood preservation projects. The 2007 Old Town Art Fair will host 260 nationally acclaimed artists chosen by an independent jury of professional artists, gallery owners and museum curators. On display will be 2D- and 3D- mixed media, drawing, painting, photography, printmaking, ceramics, fiber, glass, jewelry, and works in metal, stone and wood.
New to this year’s fair will be live performances from a variety of Chicago favorites on the Old Town Art Fair Music Stage at Wisconsin Avenue and Orleans Street.
Additional highlights include a Garden Walk through more than 30 urban home gardens; a Self-Guided Historic Tour; a Children’s Corner featuring marionette shows and arts and crafts activities; and, a Food Court sponsored by popular local eateries. Souvenir Stores will offer posters and other items celebrating the X-Rayography of 2006 Showcase Artist: Photographer Albert Koetsier of California.
Printer's Row Book Fair- June 7 and 8- Dearborn Street between Congress and Polk Streets, downtown. Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM. This event is free. I know most of the books are in English, but walking around and sampling the food and events will be fun anyway.
Another cultural event-
Coming up soon on the weekend of June 14 and 15, go to the Old Town Art Fair, located from North Avenue to Armitage Avenue, and from Wells Street to Larrabee. This is one of the oldest of the Chicago summer art fairs, and although there are many more, every weekend in the summer, this one is very big and the weather should be perfect.
Old Town is part of the neighborhood that we walked around when some of you (at least the students from Dalian) had just gotten here last September.
Take the Red Line to Division/Clark and walk about 1/2 mile north; or take the Green Line downtown, change to the Brown Line, and get off the Brown Line at North Avenue/Larrabee Street, which is very close to the fair. Saturday and Sunday, 10:00 AM until 6:00 PM. Donation is $5.00. There is food, music, art, and lots of people.
From the Old Town Art Fair web site-
The tree-lined streets of Chicago's historic Old Town Triangle District will again provide a charming setting for the 58th Old Town Art Fair, the oldest and most prestigious juried outdoor art fair of its kind. Produced by the Old Town Triangle Association, the annual fundraiser is made possible with the support of more than 750 neighborhood volunteers. This year’s Fair will be held on June 10 and 11 from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. rain or shine. The Main Gate is at Lincoln and Wisconsin Avenues, or you can enter at 1736 North North Park Avenue, or other locations in the neighborhood. Requested donation is $5.00; there is no request for donation for children 12 or under. Proceeds benefit a host of local youth groups, schools, and neighborhood preservation projects. The 2007 Old Town Art Fair will host 260 nationally acclaimed artists chosen by an independent jury of professional artists, gallery owners and museum curators. On display will be 2D- and 3D- mixed media, drawing, painting, photography, printmaking, ceramics, fiber, glass, jewelry, and works in metal, stone and wood.
New to this year’s fair will be live performances from a variety of Chicago favorites on the Old Town Art Fair Music Stage at Wisconsin Avenue and Orleans Street.
Additional highlights include a Garden Walk through more than 30 urban home gardens; a Self-Guided Historic Tour; a Children’s Corner featuring marionette shows and arts and crafts activities; and, a Food Court sponsored by popular local eateries. Souvenir Stores will offer posters and other items celebrating the X-Rayography of 2006 Showcase Artist: Photographer Albert Koetsier of California.
The Experiment
This is the experimental blog designed to provide a forum for Chicago IIT Public Administration faculty and Chinese government students (current and past) to share information about courses, supplemental materials of interest, and new information that might be of interest to old students. My hope is that this blog will be a way for former students to stay in touch with us and with each other, and even be a way to keep practiced in writing English.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)