ABSTRACT
In international debates about planning for local economic development (LED) there is increased discussion about the existence of a growing degree of “convergence” in policy prescriptions across both developed and developing countries. Although the context for LED policy in the South is viewed as different from that prevailing in the developed North (Helmsing, 2001a, 2001b, 2001c), recent international research on LED planning points to “a considerable convergence of policy prescriptions among the developed nations and, increasingly among developing nations as well” (Glasmeier, 2000, pp. 559–60). According to Glasmeier (2000) the mainstream convergence is upon a set of “neo-liberal” development prescriptions. The trend towards a convergence is to be explained by the fact that LED planning worldwide now requires the preparation of policy frameworks that recognize the major economic and social trends that affect local economies, including globalization and the internationalization of trade and commerce, as well as shifting employment dynamics (ILO, 2002). Illustratively, it is observed that the latest policy trends of LED in the South “cannot be exclusively local but must take into account the position and the positioning of territorial production systems within a local-global context” (Helmsing, 2001b, p. 304). Another base for convergence is the widely held consensus that an ultimate aim of LED is 76enhancement of “well-being” or human development of the population and improvement of what the ELO (2002) describes as “the quality of the territory.”
