Category: Policies

From the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

The link is here

POLITICS. For most of its history, Cleveland has been governed much like other American cities. A mayor elected at large and a council chosen by wards have usually constituted the formal instruments of administration and legislation, while a multiplicity of private groups have sought to influence the direction of public policy. With some exceptions, Cleveland’s mayors before World War II were business and professional men of old-stock Protestant ancestry. Those who were 2nd-generation Americans, such as HARRY L. DAVIS† and FRED KOHLER†, were Protestants whose fathers came from Wales and Germany, respectively. The election of FRANK LAUSCHE† in 1941 brought Catholic and Slovenian background to the mayoralty, and since Lausche, Cleveland’s mayors have come from a variety of ethnic backgrounds and from the black community (see AFRICAN AMERICANS). Ward elections made the council reflect the ethnic diversity of the city much earlier. In 1903 councilmen separated into the “Irish” and the “Germans” for purposes of playing baseball, and surnames of council representatives at the time indicate that the team titles made sense. By the 1920s, people of Southern and Eastern European origins, along with an occasional black, began to win seats on the council and increasingly to play leadership roles. By the 1930s the general ethnic makeup of the ward and the background of the councilperson corresponded fairly closely, making the council something of a representative democracy among the larger nationality groups in the city. Only a minority of council members were workers; most were small businessmen and professionals, especially lawyers–a development not always pleasing to the city’s economic elite who had to bribe councilmen to get what they thought they were entitled to as a matter of right. Individual council members lacked the time, staff, or expertise to deal with complicated matters of physical development or the city’s relationships with its privately owned public-service corporations. The council, then, was reactive rather than proactive.

Yet it was not corruption or incapacity that most concerned leading businessmen, but the council’s inescapable parochialism. Cleveland’s legislature was a living embodiment of the dictum that all politics are local politics. Council members were products of particular wards with their individual mixtures of ethnicity and class, and they approached proposals primarily from the perspective of “What’s in it for my ward?” Whether or not they formally articulated their views, most believed that the city was primarily a collection of neighborhoods where people lived most of their lives and did not want to be taxed for the sole benefit of downtown or some distant ward on the other side of town. The elite, on the other hand, saw the city as an organic whole, with its various parts organized in a functional and spatial division of labor under the direction of downtown business and professional leaders. These men believed that what was good for major industry and downtown business was good for the city as a whole and wanted public policies that promoted economic growth and maintained an orderly and efficient city. From this perspective, the council’s insistence on ensuring that each part of the city benefited equally from city improvements simply promoted inefficiency or wasteful duplication.

Parochialism came from the voters as well as members of the council. Ohio’s stringent limitations upon cities’ taxing and borrowing power meant that additional levies and many bond issues for capital improvements had to be approved by the voters. The council could issue bonds only to a stipulated percentage of the city’s tax duplicate, the total of assessed valuation of property in Cleveland. After 1902 the council had to secure a 60% “For” vote on any bonds that it wished to issue that would raise the total face value of bonds outstanding beyond the 4% of the duplicate. The total permitted of such voter-approved bonds was an additional 4% of the duplicate. Proposals to build bridges or eliminate grade crossings usually required voter approval, and the 60% majority meant that any organized opposition could defeat a bond issue. Thus, any grade-crossing elimination had to package sites from western, eastern, or southern portions of the city or face certain defeat. Sometimes the council tried to leave the proposed location of a bridge off the bond-issue ballot to minimize opposition from those who wanted the bridge somewhere else. The most important spatial separation in Cleveland was that between east and west sides, divided by the broad valley of the CUYAHOGA RIVER. The location of the central business district east of the river was a result of the 1825 decision to locate the northern terminus of the Ohio canal there–a circumstance which facilitated its commercial and residential development. West-siders had much more reason to cross over than east-siders, many of whom could see little reason to approve bond issues for bridges that they would rarely use. Outside the formal structure of government, the most important political players were the party organization, and such groups as the Chamber of Commerce (GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSN.) and the Chamber of Industry, an association organized in 1907 to promote west side interests. In addition, there were a number of locally oriented improvement associations. As in other cities, the party organizations were most concerned with organizational maintenance and the avoidance of divisive issues. Those who wished something from the city found it useful to have friends in both major parties. Major businessmen were overwhelmingly Republican, but the VAN SWERINGENS†’ man in council was Democrat JAMES J. MCGINTY†. The Chamber of Commerce, an outgrowth of the earlier Board of Trade, was extremely influential in the city’s political life. In the early 20th century, it had a paid staff and could command the time and attention of the most important men in the city. Its committees consisted of leading industrialists and their commercial and professional allies. These committees prepared well-researched and -written reports on items of interest to the chamber. These resources were precisely what the council lacked, so that in many instances the chamber could control the agenda and frame the terms of debate. The chamber’s style was to seek agreement among all the economic interests involved in a particular policy area. Where such agreement was possible, as in the Group Plan of public buildings, the projects were moved forward. Where it was not, such as lakefront development, nothing much happened.

Conspicuously absent from the deliberations of the chamber were small businessmen, workers, and those of recent immigrant origin. They were “the people” whose function it was to man the factories, do the domestic chores, and approve the initiatives of the chamber at the polls. Still, so long as most business and professional leaders lived within the city limits, the chamber maintained a general interest in the functioning of the city. A city that promoted the well-being of its workers would be an economically efficient unit. By the mid-1920s, however, most of its leaders no longer lived in the city; the chamber expressed less interest in the general welfare and focused more exclusively on economic development and keeping taxes down. The census of 1930 indicated that the suburbs taken together were of higher socioeconomic status than the city, as affluent Clevelanders sought a more commodious lifestyle outside the city. The political impact of suburbanization was highlighted in 1931 when the 3 leading candidates for the mayoralty all had to move back into the city to establish legal residences.

Although leaders of the CITIZENS LEAGUE OF GREATER CLEVELAND lived in the suburbs, as a leading civic organization the league believed in the concept of Greater Cleveland. As such, the group still had the right to promote the cause of good government in the city. Like good government organizations in other cities, it sought to promote better candidates for public office and fiscal responsibility on the part of city government. One of those principles was nonpartisanship, which Cleveland at least nominally adopted in the HOME RULE charter of 1913. A commission under the leadership of Mayor NEWTON D. BAKER† wrote the charter which included initiative and referendum provisions, 
nomination by petition, and elections using a nonpartisan, preferential ballot. This last provision was designed to weaken the role of the party organization and to ensure election by majorities. In most but not all cases, candidates who had the support of the party organization fared much better than those who did not. In the late 19th century, Republicans won more elections in Cleveland than Democrats did. TOM JOHNSON† and Newton Baker reversed this pattern in the early 20th century, but from 1916-41, Cleveland again was primarily a Republican city, as least for the mayoralty.

In the 1920s Cleveland departed from the mayor-council form to adopt the CITY MANAGER PLAN, which was supposed to limit even further the role of the political parties. The reality was that the parties learned how to use this new arrangement almost as well as the mayor-council form. Under the plan, Republican party leader MAURICE MASCHKE† and his Democratic opposite BURR GONGWER† reached an agreement during the City Manager experiment to split the reduced party patronage between them 60%-40% respectively. By 1931 the city manager form of government was abandoned in favor of a return to the mayor-council pattern. Despite experiments in municipal governments designed to limit party influence, both the county Democratic and Republican parties enjoyed a period of stability during the first 3 decades of the 20th century.

In the 1920s Cleveland’s African Americans, then concentrated on the near east side, constituted an important component of the Republican organization, electing 3 city councilmen in 1927. The Democrats under Gongwer also appealed to the black community for its support, endorsing black candidates for council and municipal judge. During the 1930s black inclusion in the New Deal prompted them to shift their allegiance to the Democratic party, where they became a significant proportion of the city’s emerging Democratic majority. When the Democratic party came to the fore during the Depression, the county parties became destabilized as contending forces fought to succeed their longtime leaders. Five years after Maschke’s retirement GEORGE H. BENDER†, former state senator and congressman-at-large, took over the county Republican party organization following a bitter conflict with Mayor HAROLD H. BURTON† and ward leaders over the distribution of patronage. Former Mayor RAY T. MILLER† was elected chairman of the county Democratic party in 1938, but court challenges by other party factions delayed the final settlement until 1940, when Gongwer was removed. Miller was able to consolidate the local nationality groups and the blacks into a potent voting block, and since the 1940s Democrats have far outnumbered Republicans within the city, although Republican mayors, such as Ralph Perk and George Voinovich, were elected in the 1970s and 1980s. Over the years, the diversity of Cleveland’s population had been evident as candidates with effective political names, such as Corrigan, Metzenbaum, Celebrezze, Sawicki, Carr, and Stokes, among others, won elective office in Cleveland or on the county, congressional, or state level.

Whether mayors or managers, Cleveland’s chief executives have found themselves chronically short of money. Before 1909 Ohio permitted reassessment of property for purposes of taxation only every decade. Thus Cleveland’s government could not take advantage of the rapid rise in property values in the prosperous first years of the century. When Cleveland was able to more than double its tax duplicate, the legislature in Columbus limited the rate of taxation. By the Smith Act, property for all purposes combined–city, county, schools, and state–was limited to a total of 10 mills, or 1% of the duplicate. By referendum, the voters could approve an additional 5 mills. This legislation crippled municipal operating budgets. By 1919 Cleveland had accumulated operating deficits totaling $7 million and had to issue “revenue deficiency bonds” to cope. In the early 1920s, the legislature did grant some relief by giving more latitude to city officials and voters in setting higher tax limits for themselves. In the 1920s the city could finance its activities without undue strain. The Depression shattered Cleveland’s economy, and with it its fiscal stability. Because of the city’s concentration of capital-goods production, it suffered terribly from unemployment, lower tax collections, and high relief needs throughout the 1930s. World War II restored Cleveland’s prosperity, and the 1950 census recorded the largest population in the city’s history, 914,000.

The lessons of municipal frugality during the Depression were too well learned. Beginning with Lausche, most of Cleveland’s mayors continued to practice the fiscal austerity of the 1930s, confident that their thrifty administrations could accommodate requirements of more prosperous times as well as ensure their reelection to office. Increasingly independent of the county Democratic party, they successfully appealed to the city’s nationality groups that formed their political base. In their political campaigns mayors Lausche, Burke, Celebrezze, Locher, and Perk stressed frugality in city administration, holding the line on taxes, and living within the city’s income–at the same time they tried to project the image of a vigorous forward-looking city. A majority of the voters responded by reelecting them to office. In the meantime, the war economy of the 1940s and the pent-up demand of the postwar years induced thousands of southern blacks to migrate to Cleveland, swelling the black population from 9.7% of the total in 1940 to 38.3% in 1970. For example, the HOUGH area on the east side went from 95.1% white in 1950 to 74.2% black in 1960. The larger black population after 1945 intensified the exodus of Cleveland’s white middle class residents and businesses to the suburbs as the prevailing mix of the city’s population changed. Ethnic and racial identifications and antipathies, always significant in Cleveland politics, increased in importance as sources of political decision making. Politics and constituent interests took precedence over the growing problems of Cleveland as a whole, and the need for municipal leadership was not addressed by its caretaker governments. This was evident when Mayor Ralph Locher won reelection in 1965 with only 37% of the total vote. His razor-thin margin over State Representative Carl B. Stokes, who ran as an independent, demonstrated that the majority of Clevelanders did not feel they were being served effectively.

The continuing policy of municipal frugality challenged the city water and sewer departments’ ability to meet service demand in the rapidly expanding suburbs. This led civic reformers to revive efforts to strengthen regional authority by reorganizing Cuyahoga County so that it could administer area-wide municipal functions. Voters, however, turned down county home rule charters that would accomplish this in 1950 and 1959 (see REGIONAL GOVERNMENT). As the combination of accelerated suburbanization and a decline in the city’s economic base became evident, some type of metropolitan authority was needed for its area-wide services. Financially unable to manage its regional water pollution control and transit systems in the 1970s, Cleveland was forced to transfer the ownership and management of each to a single-function regional district. Since the suburban population exceeded that of the city in 1970, the price for regional cooperation was shared authority to appoint the districts’ Board of Trustees among the city, county and suburbs. The new partnership diluted Cleveland’s municipal control and gave political legitimacy to a changed balance of power in the metropolitan region.

Complicating the city’s problems was the central cleavage of race. For a brief moment in the late 1960s, it looked as if Mayor Carl Stokes had succeeded in forging a coalition of downtown business leaders and the black community. Whatever hopes existed evaporated after the GLENVILLE SHOOTOUTbetween black nationalists and Cleveland police, which led to 7 deaths and weakened Stokes’s credibility among a majority of whites, although he was elected to a second term in 1969. At that time Cleveland could no longer provide all the basic services out of its own resources without voter-approved tax increases–a proposition made difficult by the city’s declining economic base, racial tensions, and the politics of municipal frugality. Aware of Cleveland’s deteriorating finances, Stokes used his municipal leadership to try and increase the city income tax, but racial politics prevented him from building the needed consensus to obtain voter approval. Stokes was followed by 2 white ethnics, Ralph Perk, a Republican and dedicated defender of the status quo, and Dennis Kucinich, a maverick young Democrat who was elected in 1977 on a “no new taxes” platform. Kucinich was a self-styled urban populist out to defend the interests of the neighborhoods against the excessive demands of downtown business. He combined some reasonable policy perspectives with an abrasive and confrontational style that made difficult any cooperation between the city’s economic and political leadership. Financially, intergovernmental transfer payments such as revenue sharing had allowed the city to stay afloat until 1978, when the city could no longer pay its bills and was brought to DEFAULTduring the Kucinich mayoralty. The shock of default enabled his successor, George Voinovich, to raise taxes and restore Cleveland’s financial creditability. He also instituted civility in the city’s political discourse which allowed the long-sought reduction in the 33-member city council to take place (for recent mayors, see MAYORAL ADMINISTRATION OF [name]).

Structural reformers had urged a small council for many years to avoid the parochial limitations of small wards. The most extreme versions pressed for at-large elections of a small council, a provision that almost assured elite domination. Clevelanders recognized that this proposal would not allow for the social diversity of the city. Other proposals for reduction in the size of the council had foundered on racial divisions and animosities. Finally, in 1981, the voters approved a charter amendment reducing the council from 33 to 21 members. Such structural changes, however, could do only so much. To be well governed, cities need adequate resources, competent officials, and an electorate supportive of quality. Cleveland has sometimes but not always had all these things at once.

Although the city’s population continued to decline in 1993, new leadership under Mayor Michael White (see MAYORAL ADMINISTRATION OF MICHAEL R. WHITE) appeared to offer hope for future improvement in Cleveland’s downtown area and in its neighborhoods as well.

James F. Richardson

Univ. of Akron

 

From the Encyclopedia of Cleveland History

The link is here

INDUSTRY. Within 60 years of Cleveland’s founding, industry, especially the making of iron and its products, began to dominate the economy of the city and its vicinity. To a large degree, Cleveland’s growth has been determined by its industrial base. The term industry in its economic and technical sense refers to the organized production of goods for the market. Historians also use the term industrialization to refer to the rapid increase in the size and number of industries in Europe and North America over the last 300 years. The U.S. was an early leader and Cleveland a major center of industrialization. Modern industry is associated with the factory system of production, in which workers are gathered in one place to work under centralized direction with the aid of powered machinery. Cleveland’s factories have usually mass-produced standardized products such as clothing, iron shapes, or automobiles. Cleveland industry developed under favorable economic conditions. Primary among them was excellent TRANSPORTATION. The development of shipping on the Great Lakes, the completion of the OHIO AND ERIE CANAL in 1832, the later construction of RAILROADS, and the more recent construction of majorHIGHWAYS and airports have allowed Cleveland to receive a large flow of raw materials and to ship out finished products. In addition, exceptional businessmen and inventors have developed and promoted Cleveland’s industry, and the city’s workers have been recognized for their skill and productivity.

In its first 4 decades, Cleveland was an agricultural village and a regional center of commerce. Examples of manufactured items included farming tools, barrels for shipping salted meat, flour, and other food products, and household furnishings. These were made by craftsmen in small shops rather than in factories. In 1820, for example, a Cleveland newspaper contained advertisements for a wagonmaker’s shop located near the courthouse on PUBLIC SQUARE, and a 2-story shop containing a shoemaker and a saddlemaker. With the coming of the canal, Cleveland’s markets expanded. In 1837 the city was reported to have 4 iron foundries making steam engines and other products, 3 soap and candle works, 2 breweries, a window-sash factory, 2 ropewalks, a pottery, 2 carriagemakers, 2 millstone shops, and a large flour mill under construction. The CUYAHOGA STEAM FURNACE CO., just established, was probably the largest single industry. It had a blast furnace that made iron from ore, charcoal, and limestone brought by canal, and had a foundry to make the iron into usable products. Over the next 40 years, the company made a variety of goods which were representative of Cleveland’s flourishing iron trade: steam engines, locomotives, stoves, and iron for building construction. At the time of the U.S. manufacturing census of 1860, the most valuable industrial product of Cleveland was iron, while the manufacture of items made from iron was also very important. Like many other Great Lakes cities, Cleveland had a large flour-and-gristmilling industry (ranking 2nd in value of product), which served the productive Midwest farms.

Cleveland’s history from 1860-1930 was mostly a record of heavy industrialization, not commerce in agricultural products. The Civil War gave immediate impetus to Cleveland’s iron industry, and by 1880 the making of iron and steel represented 20% of the value of the city’s manufactures. In part this growth was due to enterprising Clevelanders, who in the 1850s began exploiting the mineral resources of the upper Great Lakes and shipping the ores to Cleveland. Leaders in the iron industry after the Civil War included the Otis Iron & Steel Co. and the Cleveland Rolling Mill Co. in NEWBURGH. The latter began making Bessemer steel in 1868, and Otis instituted open-hearth steel manufacture in 1873; both technologies were importations of recent European innovations. Along with some other Cleveland companies, Otis and the Cleveland Rolling Mill eventually joined the U.S. STEEL CORP., formed in 1901. The making of machinery and other iron and steel products, such as ore vessels for the Great Lakes trade, continued to grow, along with the production of iron and steel. Machine-tool companies such as WARNER & SWASEY CO. and Cleveland Twist Drill made lathes, planers, drill presses, and similar devices or parts for them. Sewing-machine manufacturers (for example, the White Co.) and other machinery companies were major purchasers of machine tools. In turn, the Cleveland clothing industry, already the city’s 3rd-largest producer of goods (by value) in 1860, became a major consumer of sewing machines. This industrial interconnection (iron and steel, machine tools, sewing machines, clothing) is one example of how growing industries benefited by linking to one another. Such interconnections were crucial to the development of Cleveland’s industries.

Another contribution to industrial growth in the later 1800s came in the form of entirely new industries. The petroleum-refining industry developed rapidly after the first American oil well was drilled at Titusville, in northwestern Pennsylvania, in 1859. Although Cleveland was no better located with respect to the new oil region than Pittsburgh or Buffalo, young Cleveland businessman JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER† became the most resourceful organizer of the oil market. Bringing oil to Cleveland by railroad at low prices, Rockefeller built or purchased almost all of Cleveland’s refining capacity in the 1870s and made the city the center of the American refining industry. By exercising a virtual monopoly in the industry, and attempting to control an enormous network of shipping, refining, and distributing enterprises, Rockefeller became a pioneer in modern corporate forms. He experimented by establishing in Cleveland theSTANDARD OIL CO. (OHIO) of Ohio (1870), and then the Standard Oil Trust (1879). While Rockefeller’s methods of business control were ruthless, and his industrial combinations were eventually broken up by court action, he was one of the first businessmen in the U.S. to recognize that rapid industrialization required new forms or organization.

Cleveland’s CHEMICAL INDUSTRY arose in part out of the refiners’ need for sulfuric acid. The Grasselli Co. of Cincinnati established a Cleveland works in 1866 specifically to supply sulfuric acid to refineries, but in succeeding years it supplied a wide range of industrial chemicals. Relying in part on petroleum products for their raw materials, Cleveand’s large paint and varnish companies were founded in the 1870s. Henry Sherwin and Edward Williams joined in 1870 to form a paint-manufacturing company (SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO.), and 10 years later they introduced a ready-mixed paint, which found immediate success. Francis H. Glidden organized his company in 1875 and based its sales on varnishes and enamels. Electrical equipment was another new industry of the later 19th century. Although telegraphy had become the first viable electrical technology in the 1840s, its power and apparatus requirements were low and did not stimulate major industrial development. Clevelander CHAS. BRUSH† pioneered in new electrical technology in the 1870s by developing an effective dynamo to generate large amounts of electricity, and an outdoor arc-lighting system to consume electricity. First put into continuous use on Public Square in Apr. 1879, Brush’s dynamo and arc lights were soon installed in major cities throughout the world. In 3 years they could be found in San Francisco, London, and Shanghai, among others. Brush pushed his company into the production of batteries and streetcar equipment as well, before it was absorbed by GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. in 1891. Other electrical businesses were founded by persons trained in Brush’s company, includingNATIONAL CARBON CO. and LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO., while Brush’s personal influence continued to be felt at the Brush Laboratories. The success of Brush’s business soon attracted numerous other firms to the electrical industry.

The AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY was the final major industry to emerge in Cleveland. The automobile was brought to a workable form by European inventors of the 1880s and early 1890s, but when Americans took to the “horseless carriage” after 1895, it was still not clear whether it would be gasoline-, electric-, or steam-powered. Cleveland boasted 3 of the earliest manufacturers of each type: ALEXANDER WINTON† (gasoline), WALTER BAKER† (electric), and ROLLIN WHITE† and the White Co. (steam). A Winton sold in 1898 is often claimed to be the first American automobile made for the open market. The Cleveland automobile manufacturers mostly specialized in high-quality and luxury cars. Baker’s electric vehicles, for example, were favored by wealthy women for quiet, pollution-free driving. White specialized in heavy touring cars, a tradition that served the company well when it decided to make only trucks. Other well-known Cleveland luxury cars included the Stearns, Jordan, and Peerless. In spite of having several hundred brands of automobiles made in Cleveland up to the 1930s, the city lost the leadership of the auto industry to Detroit as early as 1910. Henry Ford, whose vision of a car for the common man carried the day, chose to concentrate his efforts in what became the Motor City. However, Cleveland remained one of the most important assembly and parts-manufacturing centers in the U.S. Major automakers continued to build and operate new facilities in the Cleveland area after the mid-1900s. Several smaller industries arose in conjunction with automobile manufacture, including diesel engines, construction and industrial vehicles, and aircraft parts.

Cleveland’s industry came to the end of its period of rapid growth by 1930. Cleveland was then second only to Detroit among American cities in the percentage of its workers employed in industry. This dependence affected society in a variety of ways. The public schools, for example, provided industrial training for their pupils, and in 1930 the city’s Industrial Development Committee reported that industrial training could be found in all school grades. Moreover, thousands of workers were enrolled in the public schools’ adult-education classes. Trade and industrial unions were also a means of accommodating industrialization. The city early acquired a reputation for strong trade and craft unions, which joined workers of similar skills to maintain or improve wages and working conditions. In the 1930s Cleveland workers were also receptive to the formation of industrial unions, especially the UNITED STEEL WORKERS OF AMERICA and the UNITED AUTO WORKERS, which crossed over trade or craft lines. A sit-down strike at the General Motors Fisher Body plant on Coit Rd. in 1936 was a catalytic event in unionizing the automobile industry. The consistent training of Cleveland’s workers, and the unionization of important industrial sectors, made the city attractive both to job-seekers and to businessmen, and did much to promote Cleveland’s industrial growth. In 1931 the U.S. Census of the Cleveland metropolitan area (including Cuyahoga and Lorain counties) ranked it 8th nationally by the number of industrial employees, and 7th by value of its products. This ranking held essentially the same through the economic depression of the following decade, and through the ensuing war years. During World War II, manufacturers and workers strained the city’s productive capacity. Cleveland Twist Drill’s outstanding record earned it the first Army-Navy Star Award in the nation. Several Cleveland firms, including HARSHAW CHEMICAL CO., Victoreen Instrument, Brush Beryllium, McGean Chemical, and H.K. Ferguson, contributed materially to the Manhattan (atomic bomb) Project. Nevertheless, the concentration of Cleveland industry on producers’ goods, such as machine tools or construction equipment, which made it a wartime arsenal, also made it especially susceptible to economic fluctuations. Measured by national averages, Cleveland workers suffered more during depressions and recessions but did better in times of economic growth. Cleveland’s industry entered the 1950s with its boom years in the past and no obvious directions for change. The census of 1954 indicated that its traditional leading industries were essentially in the same positions as before the Great Depression. In terms of employment and value of products, the Cleveland area’s leaders were transportation equipment (1st, 1st); machinery (2nd, 2nd); iron-and-steel making (3rd, 3rd); metal products (4th, 4th); and electrical machinery (5th, 6th). During the next 3 decades, these industries remained the leaders (though their rank order varied) and accounted for more than 60% of the city’s industrial employment. By the 1980s, some sources of future change were visible. Most notably, the international iron and steel market was adverse to American industry as a whole and Cleveland in particular. The impact was symbolized by the dismantling of the U.S. Steel blast furnaces in Cleveland, and severe fluctuations in production levels at REPUBLIC STEEL CORP., the JONES AND LAUGHLIN STEEL CORP. (CLEVELAND WORKS), and other iron and steel companies. In the late 1970s, Cleveland’s decline in manufacturing was led by its basic steel, motor vehicle and equipment, and metalworking industries, with aging facilities, mismanagement, and outside ownership among the reasons for their departure. Challenges from Japanese and European automakers and drastic increases in gasoline prices changed American automobile buyer’s habits and required shutdowns or retooling of many Cleveland plants. By 1986 blue-collar employment represented only 29% of the total employment in Cuyahoga, Lake, Medina, and Geauga counties.

Few new industries seemed likely to take a major role in Cleveland soon, although the making of instruments and medical equipment grew significantly during the post-World War II years, and the manufacture of chemicals and plastics and the printing and publishing business remained strong. As Cleveland looked to the future, organized research seemed likely to assume a major role in new industrial development. From the establishment of the National Electric Lamp Assn. laboratories at NELA PARK (1911) and the National Carbon industrial research facility at about the same time, Cleveland business supported research leading to new technologies. Later the federal government’s Lewis Laboratory (1941) and the facilities of Case Institute of Technology became important sites for pioneering development. By the mid-1980s, the Cleveland area had over 200 corporate industrial research laboratories.

While Cleveland became a major American industrial center during the century after 1830, dependence on an industrial economy has brought periods of high unemployment and air and water pollution, among other problems. Nevertheless, Cleveland area industry appeared to be stabilizing in the 1980s, with numerous new small manufacturing companies forming, and major employers such as FORD MOTOR CO., General Motors, and LTV STEEL making substantial investments in their existing facilities.

Darwin H. Stapleton

Rockefeller Archive Center

 

Written by David C. Hammack

The link is here

ECONOMY. To those seeking to sell their own labor or to sell goods or services, from cornflakes to nails to open-heart surgery to major league baseball tickets, the Greater Cleveland Metropolitan region is a single market that includes not only the City of Cleveland and Cuyahoga County, but also the surrounding areas from Lorain in the west to Youngstown in the east to Canton in the south. At the 1990 U.S. census this region included 3,253,000 people, and although it was growing very slowly (or perhaps shrinking a bit) it was still the 11th largest metropolitan region in the U.S., ranking just ahead of Miami-Ft. Lauderdale. The region’s diversified economy grew large enough to support this population in 5 stages. Each stage reflected new realities in transportation, communication, and national politics: each stage also grew out of existing conditions.

The pre-history of Greater Cleveland’s economy ended with the total subordination of the Indians who had long lived in the “Middle Ground” of the Great Lakes by 1815, and with the establishment of a “Frontier Republic” state government that sought to protect both individual opportunity and social order by 1825. In terms of economic geography, the Cleveland area stands at the easternmost point from which it is possible to build a water-level connection between the Great Lakes and the Ohio River. The first stage in the region’s economic development began with the state’s authorization of the OHIO AND ERIE CANAL in 1825, the year the Erie Canal connected New York’s Hudson River with Lake Erie. The Ohio Canal was completed to Akron in 1827 and then to the Ohio River in 1832: with its branches, the Ohio and Erie Canal eventually constituted a system of some 500 mi., giving Cleveland access southward through eastern and central Ohio to the Ohio River. Previously, the products of Ohio’s farms, mines, forests, and workshops had been kept out of national markets by the price of road transport, $15 or more per ton per mile, compared to only about $1 on a canal. Lower transport costs meant higher incomes inAGRICULTURE: wheat, formerly worth only 20 or 30 cents a bushel to farmers in the Massilon and Akron areas, brought as much as 75 or 80 cents by the early 1830s. Cleveland thrived during the 1830s and 1840s as the chief market on the Great Lakes for grain products, including flour and whiskey, for butter and cheese, and for wool. As northern and central Ohio’s farm population grew rapidly in numbers and wealth, Cleveland brought in more lumber, construction materials, fertilizer, salt, tools, and household goods. When the canals reached the coal-rich Mahoning Valley (in 1840) and other places along the western slopes of the Alleghenies, Cleveland became the most important fueling station on the Great Lakes. Within a few years it was also a shipbuilding and repair center.

Because different kinds of vessels were used on the canals and on the Great Lakes, nearly all freight arriving at the mouth of the Cuyahoga had to be unloaded, stored, and either used or transferred to another vessel. In 1838–a depression year for most of the country–the CLEVELAND HERALD reported the construction of 9 large new warehouses. Merchants who had to pay for the unloading and storage of goods sought to process them at the same time, to add value and reduce weight. Grain, pig iron, tallow, wool, lumber, and other raw materials were processed by flour mills, distilleries, foundries, machine-makers, soap and candle factories, millstone shops, sash and door works, and potteries. Cleveland’s first manufacturing establishment, the CUYAHOGA STEAM FURNACE CO., appeared in 1827, the year the Ohio Canal reached Akron. Ten years later it had been joined by 2 ropewalks, ship repair yards, and altogether a total of 17 manufacturing plants. Other manufacturing facilities were located throughout the region: Adams Norton established the first blast furnace, for example, at Clyde in 1840.

So long as city dwellers had to walk from place to place, commercial and financial offices clustered within walking distance of the waterfront. By the mid-1850s 6 insurance companies, 43 insurance agents, 6 commercial banks, 6 private banking houses, 2 exchange brokers, and the Society for Savings clustered in the downtown business district near the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. There they were joined by nearly 100 lawyers, who sought to resolve business conflicts in the state courts and in the Federal District Court that was established to handle Cleveland’s increasing legal work in 1855. Some of this work had to do with protecting the property rights of entrepreneurs as they built, bought, and sold their farms and businesses; some of it had to do with establishing the state policy of financial aid to local canals and securing state subsidies to canals and railroads that served Cleveland; some of it had to do with maintaining and increasing federal tariff protection for manufactures and federal investment in navigation on the Great Lakes. By the 1850s most Cleveland-area lawyers were also committed to a free market in labor, opposing Ohio’s BLACK LAWS as well as slavery, and (with notable exceptions) opposing unionization as well. At the end of the first stage of its economic development, Cleveland had become an important regional market town, providing facilities for the shipment and processing of goods, for the financing of commerce, and for the political and legal arrangements essential for the resolution of commercial disputes and the development of private capital.

The railroad boom of the 1850s initiated the second stage of Cleveland’s economic development. The completion of the canal system, the introduction of the steamboat, and the arrival of RAILROADS cut short any ambition that Cleveland might become one of the nation’s top wholesale centers: Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago, and New York were better located for that purpose as railroads and the telegraph greatly speeded commercial activity and enabled a smaller number of cities to serve national markets. But railroads did reinforce the development of manufacturing in Cleveland. Because Cleveland, like other cities, provided large volumes of easy-to-handle long-distance freight, it attracted competing rail lines, whose competition kept freight rates lower than those faced by producers in small towns. Cleveland’s first railroad was completed to Cincinnati in 1851. In 1863 the first through train arrived in Cleveland from New York. By 1870, 6 railroad lines converged upon the Cleveland waterfront from all landward points of the compass, and population, under 18,000 in 1850, had jumped to 92,829.

Mid-19th-century Cleveland quickly became an important center for the building of railroads and then for the development of the iron and steel and the machine industries. HENRY CHISHOLM†, who arrived in Cleveland to lead railroad construction efforts in 1850, joined Jones & Co., which was already rolling iron rails, in 1858. As an important railroad center Cleveland developed railroad repair shops in the 1860s. JEPTHA H. WADE† made Cleveland an early telegraph center with lines to Detroit, Buffalo, Cincinnati, and St. Louis by 1850; by 1856 he had moved to Cleveland and was playing a key part in the creation of the Western Union company. Chisholm and his partners were among the first in the U.S. to use the Bessemer method to produce steel, in 1868; within a few years the area was producing large quantities of iron and steel and was processing it into wire, nails, sheets and plates, and tubes. The expanding metalworking industry attracted skilled iron and steel workers: the Jones brothers (see ) hired Welsh iron puddlers, for example, and Chisholm brought wire men from Worcester, MA, in 1867. Many of Cleveland’s smelting and metalworking firms prospered during the Civil War, earning large profits out of which they could finance their continuing expansion. The war also confirmed Cleveland’s commitment to free labor and to the belief that government intervention–through tariffs, subsidies to transportation and higher (especially technical) education, and through patent laws and other protections for private property–provided an essential support for economic prosperity.

With its new railroad and lake connections, a rapidly expanding iron and steel industry, and a growing population of skilled metal workers in place by 1880, Cleveland embarked upon the third phase of its economic development, a 70-year period of growth that slowed after 1920 and was harshly interrupted by the Great Depression before resuming during World War II and after. Henry Tuttle, SAMUEL MATHER†, JAMES PICKANDS†, MARCUS A. HANNA†, Daniel Rhodes, C. C. BOLTON†, and others had gained control of ores from Michigan’s Upper Peninsula as early as the 1850s: along with DAVID Z. NORTON†, JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER† and others they reached out further to Minnesota’s Mesabi range in the 1880s, then built and operated the fleets of Great Lakes vessels necessary to move the ore. They gained control, also, of coal fields in southern Ohio, West Virginia, and Kentucky, and of the rail lines that could most efficiently move the coal to coke ovens and then to blast furnaces. Careful calculations revealed that Cleveland (and nearby Lorain, Canton, and Youngstown) was the place to which much of the iron ore, coke and essential acids could most cheaply be brought together. Stimulated by this rapidly expanding market and supported by the availability of water- and rail-borne raw materials, Cleveland’s CHEMICAL INDUSTRY grew rapidly. Rockefeller used the methods established by Cleveland’s iron-ore merchants to bring crude oil from Pennsylvania and western Ohio by rail to Cleveland, making the city, for a time, the largest oil-refining center in the world; railroads (later, pipelines) then carried Standard Oil’s (see BP AMERICA) kerosene, fuel oil, and other products via the low-cost Mohawk Valley route to the New Jersey side of New York Harbor, from which they moved on to East Coast and foreign markets.

With steel and fuel abundant and cheap in the Cleveland area (and heavy and expensive to ship elsewhere), and with a cadre of skilled metal workers already in residence, machine-making factories of all kinds rapidly clustered in the city. The federal government (often led by Ohio Republicans including presidents Hays, GARFIELD†, and McKinley and senators Sherman and Hanna) maintained and even increased the tariffs that protected many Cleveland manufactures, took measures to stabilize the money supply and the banking system, discouraged both business monopolies and labor unions, and raised almost no barriers to immigration from Europe until the 1920s. City and state governments also helped, by permitting and even encouraging industry to use the Cuyahoga River and Lake Erie as unlimited sources of “free” water, by allowing industries to discharge wastes into the river, the lake, and the air, and by building, through the agency of the City of Cleveland, adequate paved STREETS, an excellent WATER SYSTEM and effective sanitary and storm sewers for residential and commercial areas in the city and its suburbs. City and state governments also granted the franchises under which private entrepreneurs developed the streetcars of the URBAN TRANSPORTATION and INTERURBANS systems that enabled workers to move from their homes to the city’s factories and offices.

Economic growth requires an expanding labor supply. Between 1880 and the 1920s Cleveland drew heavily on IMMIGRATION AND MIGRATION, especially from Europe. Immigrants contributed in many ways. Through family connections and other elements of “chain migration” they themselves organized much of the movement of people, saving employers much expense. Nearly all immigrants arrived as adults, ready to work, and many possessed appropriate skills, whether they were carpenters from the Czech lands, metal workers from Slovakia, railroad workers from Budapest, or skilled stonecarvers from Italy. Black migration from the South accompanied immigration and expanded rapidly just as federal law cut off the flow of immigrants in the 1920s. Immigrant and American-born women, black and white, also participated more and more in the labor force between 1880 and the 1960s, taking jobs not only in the garment and other trades but increasingly in the city’s very rapidly expanding clerical, medical care, teaching, and government forces.

The production of finished products also requires a daily intake of components, parts, and supplies from process specialists, such as foundries and electroplating shops. Suppliers of industrial materials, including chemicals (GRASSELLI CHEMICAL CO.), lubricants (LUBRIZOL CORP.), coatings (FERRO CORP., GLIDDEN COATINGS & RESINS DIV. (IMPERIAL CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES), SHERWIN WILLIAMS CO.), abrasives, ores (CLEVELAND-CLIFFS INC., PICKANDS MATHER & CO., MATHER†), metals, and plastics concentrated in Cleveland. Before the introduction of heavy trucks and highways after World War II, dispersed plants in the countryside or in small towns usually had to provide their own roads and water and sewer systems, and to rely on the slow and unpredictable delivery of parts by rail. Thus shops with related operations clustered near raw materials and near each other. Cleveland developed many such clusters–in the FLATS and up the Cuyahoga through NEWBURGH, INDEPENDENCE, and CUYAHOGA HEIGHTS, on Hamilton Ave. and other streets along the Lake Erie shoreline, along the belt railroad that runs between 55th and 77th streets on the East Side, along Brook Park Rd. to the southwest. Other clusters appeared in East Cleveland, in the Birdtown area of Lakewood, and in Lorain, Akron, Canton, Youngstown, and Warren. Fabricators of such products as bicycles, sewing machines, machine tools, locomotives, addressographs and ditto machines (the copying machines of the middle decades of the 20th century), and innumerable other mechanical devices took advantage of Cleveland’s inexpensive iron and steel. Skilled metalworkers came to the Cleveland area from all over the U.S., and indeed from all over the world, creating competitive and self-sustaining communities and adding to the area’s strengths as a manufacturing center. Many entrepreneurs moved their entire firms from Massachusetts and Connecticut, sometimes coming to Cleveland after finding insufficient skilled labor in Chicago.

Cleveland’s economy in this period was characterized by diversity rather than by concentration in a single industry, but the city might be said to have specialized by the 1920s in the AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY, machine tools (WARNER & SWASEY CO.), and industrial equipment (DRAVO WELLMAN CO., BABCOCK & WILCOX, LINCOLN ELECTRIC CO.), and in the production of electrical appliances, as well as in the production of steel. Detroit became the Motor City, but Cleveland produced a very large share of the automobile engines (notably at FORD MOTOR CO. plants), axles and transmissions (EATON CORP.), valves (TRW, INC.) and other key moving parts. Akron became the tire and belt capital, and Canton produced specialty steels. After 1920 Cleveland continued to grow, but not so rapidly, as through the 1960s Cleveland INDUSTRY also ranked at or near the top in the production of the products of the ELECTRICAL AND ELECTRONICS INDUSTRIES, from NELA PARK‘s light bulbs to coffeemakers and toasters to range tops, refrigerators, and vacuum cleaners, washing machines and dryers, and radios. The GARMENT INDUSTRY, AMERICAN GREETINGS CORP., WORLD PUBLISHING CO., and others produced significant quantities of standardized consumer goods. Altogether, the value of the city’s manufactures in 1929 was nearly 120 times what it had been in 1860 (stated in dollars of constant purchasing power), and the population of Cuyahoga County in the same period had leaped 25-fold, from fewer than 48,000 to over 1.2 million.

Cleveland’s diverse industries made the city and its region an excellent location for corporate headquarters: from the early 20th century it has been home to one of the largest concentrations of corporate headquarters in the U.S. (it was third in the nation in 1995), and it has been a major center of managerial and professional employment. To serve the corporate headquarters, one of the nation’s largest concentrations of corporate lawyers, accountants, business consultants, business marketing firms, and bankers grew up in Cleveland, making the city a logical place for the location of a branch of the Federal Reserve Bank (established in 1914). Industrial and architectural engineering firms (AUSTIN CO., M.K. Ferguson) located in Cleveland for the same reason, as did the many TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRIAL RESEARCH laboratories and industrial publishers.

Although no single industry and no small group of firms dominated the Cleveland area, and its economy was characterized by diverse, competitive companies, the area was also characterized by large businesses that required very substantial capital investments and employed large numbers of workers. Despite their size, however, Cleveland’s business firms have never been stable: seeking profits in the face of constantly changing competitive conditions, the city’s business leaders carried out major acquisitions, mergers, expansions, deaccessions, and bankruptcies in virtually every industry in every decade. Cleveland thus offered both opportunity and uncertainty to increasing numbers of workers. Seeking security as well as prosperity, its workers persistently sought to organize. In many industries they met tough and equally persistent opposition until the massive crisis of the Great Depression led to federal protection for collective bargaining. By the early 1940s Cleveland’s workers were as thoroughly unionized as those of any metropolitan area in the U.S. From then until the early 1970s they enjoyed one of the highest standards of living of any industrial population in the world, their high wages complemented by stable employment, by medical care and other fringe benefits provided through Blue Cross (see BLUE CROSS OF NORTHEAST OHIO) and other agencies encouraged by post-World War II federal legislation and supplemented after 1966 by the Federal Medicare system, by retirement plans supplemented by the increasingly generous federal Social Security system, as well as by access for increasing numbers of their children to the expandingCUYAHOGA COMMUNITY COLLEGE, CLEVELAND STATE UNIVERSITY, and other state institutions of HIGHER EDUCATION whose tuitions were kept low through heavy tax subsidies.

The Cleveland area’s ability to prosper on the basis of 19th century achievements came to an end in the 1960s. Its fourth period of economic development, which lasted from the early 1960s through the 1980s, was one of painful stagnation and reorientation. Manufacturing employment peaked in 1969, then declined until one-third of manufacturing jobs were gone by the early 1980s. The success of Cleveland’s unions in raising workers incomes also meant that Cleveland-area employers had to deal with higher numbers of days lost to work stoppages and higher labor costs than most of their competitors in the U.S.–at a time when foreign competitors enjoyed labor costs that were much lower still. Goods long made in Cleveland’s aging factories faced new competition from the U.S. and abroad as trucks and containers and new investments (such as the St. Lawrence Seaway (1959) which connected the Great Lakes with the Atlantic) cut transportation costs both within the U.S. and around the world, and as changing international political conditions and electronic communications cut transaction costs. The U.S. government, influenced in part by such Ohio leaders as U.S. Senators Robert A. Taft and John Bricker, had encouraged and sometimes invested in the development of new steel production facilities in Italy, Japan, and Korea as a means of promoting Cold War alliances, and took the lead in international efforts to reduce tariffs and trade barriers. By the late 1970s it was possible to produce goods of any description anywhere in the world and to move them to American markets cheaply and on a rigorous schedule. Cleveland manufacturers and workers found themselves in competition with foreign steel producers, machine-tool manufacturers, and auto makers. Big Cleveland-area firms like Addressograph-Multigraph (AM INTERNATIONAL, INC.) also found themselves driven into obsolescence by computer and other industries whose production facilities were located elsewhere in the U.S.

New transportation and communication facilities and new government policies also posed severe challenges to Cleveland’s economy. Federal highway programs, especially the Interstate Highway program begun under Eisenhower, together with new high-capacity trucks (many of them built in Cleveland itself), freed much industrial production from 19th-century water and rail systems. By the 1970s trucking allowed overnight delivery over hundreds of miles, permitting specialization without proximity and allowing automobile and other manufacturers to locate assembly plants in southern states that offered lower wages and taxes, in northern Mexico, or even in Asia. The civil rights movement, Federal civil rights laws, and the replacement of sharecropping with industrial agriculture in the 1960s combined to free the American South of the economically debilitating system of racial segregation and to allow many southerners to move into industry. At the same time, the federal environmental protection laws of the late 1960s and 1970s forced the Cleveland area to tie its manufacturing plants into expensive new sewer and water-treatment systems and to clean up badly polluted land and waterways. Sites within the Cleveland area’s industrial clusters became “brownfields,” sites so polluted (and so narrow, crowded, and difficult of access for cars and trucks) that despite their location on long-established rail and water lines they did not seem worth the cost of redevelopment. As employment in older industrial areas declined, nearby residential neighborhoods lost population, becoming home to those who were least able to find work or to pay for adequate housing.

Many Cleveland firms failed to adjust to these challenges by redesigning their products and production processes, retraining their workers, and investing in new facilities, and the result was a particularly intense period of bankruptcies and corporate “reorganizations” and “downsizings” in the 1980s. Many firms struggled to reduce labor costs; firms that failed to secure the cooperation of their workers often shut down. Labor unions lost members and morale. The national civil-rights movement secured equal employment opportunity for African Americans just at the time when many Cleveland firms were laying people off. Cleveland had long maintained one of the nation’s best public school systems, but many of the area’s people had left school by the 10th grade to take factory jobs, and when the city and its schools encountered serious financial and other difficulties in the late 1960s, the CLEVELAND PUBLIC SCHOOLSlacked solid political support. Cleveland-area workers were not nearly as well educated as their competitors on the west and east coasts. The least affluent half of the area’s population saw its real income fall during the 1970s, even though money income per capita in Cuyahoga County actually rose 12% (after correction for inflation), then rose again during the 1980s. The Greater Cleveland area’s population had more than doubled between 1940 and 1960, but grew only from 2.7 to 3.3 million in the next 20 years–and actually declined by nearly 300,000 between 1970 and 1990.

A remarkable coalition of business and political leaders (CLEVELAND TOMORROW) worked effectively during the 1980s to move the region into a fifth phase of economic development. It became clear that reorganized, more labor-efficient heavy industry would remain, and large investments were made in many of the region’s steel, automobile, and other manufacturing factories (the Ford Motor Co. alone invested $4 billion, confirming Cleveland as its second largest employment center in the world). Cleveland continued to be an excellent location for distributors of industrial materials and components, including thePREMIER INDUSTRIAL CORP., which grew up after World War II. Business and labor leaders negotiated new labor-management agreements that improved productivity and increased investment in job training and in the use of the most advanced manufacturing technologies. Although many factories moved south, many of the highly skilled specialists who knew how to build, install and maintain manufacturing equipment remained in Cleveland, traveling up and down the interstate highways to serve plants from Ohio to South Carolina to Arkansas. The GREATER CLEVELAND GROWTH ASSN., its Council of Smaller Enterprises, and others worked to train and support skilled and technical workers and to provide essential services to the smaller firms that employed many of them. There were encouraging signs that Clevelanders were learning to overcome racial prejudice and work together, although the poverty of inner-city neighborhoods in Cleveland, East Cleveland, Akron, and Youngstown grew more and more concentrated. Cleveland’s substantial communities of specialists in business services–law, accounting, engineering and industrial design, banking and finance, and industrial advertising and public relations–also proved to be durable and capable of expanding.

In an effort to build new industries on the region’s existing strengths and to move Cleveland into a leadership position in scientific research, Cleveland business and political leaders also established new research centers in polymers (whose plastics and other compounds were supplementing and replacing rubber, steel, and copper) and factory automation and reinforced long-standing strengths in biomedical and aerospace at Case Western Reserve Univ., the Cleveland Clinic, the Univ. of Akron, and NASA, and encouraged the continuing activities of the region’s many industrial research laboratories. The business and political leaders also created new pools of venture capital intended to turn new products and processes developed in these laboratories into new, rapidly growing companies.

Seeking to move beyond Cleveland’s identity as a manufacturing center, business and political leaders promoted the idea that the region could develop a significant visitor economy in the 1980s. They sponsored major renewal projects such as GATEWAY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CORP. (home to key professional SPORTS teams), PLAYHOUSE SQUARE, the NORTH COAST HARBOR with its ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME AND MUSEUM and Great Lakes Museum, and the Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area. These publicly subsidized projects supplemented private ventures in the Flats, Cedar Point, Sea World, and Geauga Lake, and such 75-year-old institutions as the CLEVELAND ORCHESTRA, theCLEVELAND MUSEUM OF ART, the WESTERN RESERVE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, the CLEVELAND PLAY HOUSE, KARAMU HOUSEand the CLEVELAND METROPARKS. The increasingly successful effort to clean up the region’s rivers and lakeshore also enhanced opportunities for active recreation. Taken together, these facilities were designed to position Cleveland to compete for visitors and conventions that had not come to the area since the 1930s. These amenities, together with the region’s many excellent suburban, Catholic, and PRIVATE SCHOOLS, also made the area a desirable place for well-educated and well-paid professionals, helping existing financial and consumer service firms to expand (Key Corp, PROGRESSIVE CORP.) and persuading expanding new firms to relocate to the Cleveland area–often in new downtown office buildings constructed with the aid of substantial tax abatements and other subsidies. These developments promised to enrich some of the region’s inhabitants even if they failed to attract new business. In 1995 it was still uncertain whether they would increase opportunities for the unemployed.

David C. Hammack

Case Western Reserve Univ.

---

Bausch, Thomas, et al. Economic and Demographic Analysis for Cleveland, Ohio (Cleveland: Cleveland Urban Observatory, 1974).

Gurwitz, Aaron S. and G. Thompson Kingsley. The Cleveland Metropolitan Economy (Santa Monica, CA: The Rand Corp., 1982).

Hoffman, Naphtali. “The Process of Economic Development in Cleveland, 1825-1920” (Ph.D. diss., Case Western Reserve Univ., 1981).

Knight, Richard. The Cleveland Economy in Transition: Implications for the Future (Cleveland: College of Urban Affairs, Cleveland State Univ., 1977).

Milne, Ruth J. “The Economic Development of Cleveland, 1796-1827” (M.A. thesis, Case Western Reserve Univ., 1994).