A fascinating new Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report takes a deep dive into the factors that help communities recover from economic shocks and downturns. Unpacking Place Transformation finds that 1 in 4 places in the US and across Europe have faced “severe restructuring pressure.” Community responses—and their success rates—vary greatly.  Effective strategies helped some regions respond and grow employment by as much as 20 percent.  On the flip side, failed strategies can result in the loss and displacement of up to 1/3 of the local workforce.  These locales become ghost towns or left-behind places.

What factors contribute to restructuring success?  Successful places think big and think differently.  As the report notes: “Transformation goes beyond restoring what was lost; it requires reimagining the future of a community when its traditional economic foundations no longer suffice . . . Successful transformation (strengthens) social well-being, dignity and belonging.”

The report offers a host of recommendations and useful real-life examples from across the OECD.  Several recommendations jump out.  The authors recommend that communities take a long perspectives—thinking in ten-year cycles—and also embrace holistic solutions that address economic, social, educational and cultural factors.  Many specific recommendations focus on specific types of communities, but the general guidance is to embrace innovation and disruption.  While it’s often easier said than done, community leaders should “think big” whenever possible. This is an excellent guidebook with lots of good ideas and approaches—a great resource for economic developers.

The Federal Opportunity Zone tax incentive program is considered by many to be the Trump Administration’s flagship economic development initiative.  It’s a big money program, with more than $108 billion now sitting in Opportunity Zone funds across the US.  The OZ program began in 2017, and was revised and updated in 2025.   

Despite more than five years of operations, the jury is still out on whether opportunity zones work.  In my view, the evidence supporting the OZ program’s effectiveness remains quite weak. And, it seems like I’m not alone as a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment offers a sober and critical look at the OZ program and its effects.

GAO analysts assessed the state and local impacts of OZ programs, and found that few programs actually track job creation and other impacts from OZ investments.  Not surprisingly, surveyed state and local officials were typically “unsure” of any concrete impacts. Their survey responses noted that they hoped for impacts on poverty, jobs, and development, but that evidence in support of these impacts remained “anecdotal” at best. GAO offers a number of recommendations for improving the program, but it should be a concern to policymakers that one of our largest economic development investment programs still lacks the capacity to track its impacts and its return on investment to taxpayers and to local communities.