Defining a ‘healthy’ community
By Gary Trauner
The Jackson/Teton County Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement begins, “Preserve and protect the area’s ecosystem in order to ensure a healthy environment, community and economy for current and future generations.”
The mission statement for Silicon Couloir is “We align entrepreneurship with community vision to promote a diverse economy and a healthy environment for current and future generations.”
Both of these aspirational statements use the word “healthy” in reference to our community, but what does “healthy” actually mean? Well, a large group of engaged community members got together last week at the annual 22-in-21 conference put on by the Charture Institute to begin working toward defining just that.
As the leader of Silicon Couloir (and, full disclosure, a board member of Charture), I spoke about what I call the Elephants in the Room (“EITR”). That is, dynamics I believe we need to understand before we can determine what steps we need to take to achieve a truly “healthy” community. This column lays out those dynamics for all to explore.
EITR No. 1: Macro vs. Micro. This is the biggie. We have two overarching systems in this country: governance — participatory representative democracy, and economic — “free market” capitalism. One is inherently macro (governance), focusing on society’s priorities, and the other is inherently micro (economic), focusing on individual business profit and success.
The result is inherent tension between these two systems and misplaced priorities. Two examples:
• Jobs. At the macro level, competition and financial incentive means job creation. At the micro level, for individual businesses, jobs are actually a bug in the system, not a feature. The last thing a business generally wants to do is hire more people, the first thing it’ll do when it gets in trouble is lay people off, and if it can do things more efficiently with technology instead of people, it will.
• Drug deals and inside information. The free market is about efficiency and determining value. At the micro level, if someone wants to sell me hard drugs, and we agree on the cost, that is a free market transaction. Likewise, paying someone for inside information is simply the free market at work. Yet, at the macro level, we outlaw both of these transactions because we as a society believe they are bad (for various reasons).
EITR No. 2: Regulation Matters. Many proponents of our free market economic system desire minimal regulation. They view it as burdensome and bureaucratic. Yet those who study systems — biological, natural or human-devised — know that every system must be regulated, either internally or externally. Unregulated systems eventually become toxic (think cancer in biology and gross inequality in economics) and left unregulated, will collapse. Also, self-regulation is an oxymoron — think sports without referees or, well, anyone ever hear of Enron?
EITR No. 3: How/What We Measure Matters. It’s much easier to measure quantitative metrics than qualitative ones, so we tend to ignore the qualitative and place undue emphasis on the quantitative. I would argue that a healthy economy is one that improves the lives of all of its citizens. But when we measure our economy, we use metrics such as GDP, unemployment, wage growth, per capita income. But if 98% of GDP growth goes to the top 1% of the population, is that healthy? Shouldn’t we also measure the quality of our environment, the health of our population, work/life balance, reduced inequality?
EITR No. 4: Decision/Action Mismatch. Governance — reflecting the will of the people and our priorities — is bottom up and messy. It requires input from different community sectors, compromise, and, ultimately, consensus. The consequence? It’s time consuming and subject to manipulation (politics, special interests, money). Conversely, market action is generally topdown and nimble. Business owners/ managers can make decisions quickly and implement them without external input. This timing mismatch results in the “micro” changing reality on the ground while the “macro” is still working things out.
EITR No. 5: It’s the Private Sector Stupid. As I’ve written about previously, there are three sectors in every community: public (government), nonprofit and private. They are all important. However, in the immortal words of Reggie Jackson (Yankee fan here), the private sector is “the straw that stirs the drink.” Any attempt to achieve a healthy economy/environment will require buy-in from the private sector, which means individual businesses. This will require, in my estimation, both carrots and sticks.
Jonathan Schechter, the founder and brains behind the Charture Institute, has coined our conundrum the “250-Year Precedent.” To paraphrase, since the industrial revolution in England, no industrialized community has been able to balance a growing free market economy with preservation of its special natural attributes. Save one: Jackson Hole and Greater Yellowstone. Fortunately, we still have the chance to break the 250-Year Precedent.
To put it another way, when it comes to the macro (community desires and priorities) vs. the micro (free market business activity), the micro wins every time; and the hard truth is that if we continue on our current path, the micro will win here as well. The private sector is here to stay, and has many positive attributes. Yet it is simply a tool, one of many in our toolbox, to help us achieve our community priorities and goals.
In order to overcome the 250-Year Precedent, we must recognize the dynamics of the Elephants in the Room and formulate plans as a community to ensure we take them into account as we discuss and debate a “healthy” future for our economy, environment and community.