Caught in the Middle by Richard Longworth

Today Detroit is perhaps as well known for its ruin porn as it is for making cars. Along with other Midwestern cities such as Cleveland, Flint, Michigan, and Dayton, Ohio, it is notable for being part of the Rust Belt. Manufacturing left these cities and many of the residents followed shortly thereafter. These urban centers have seen large percentages of their residents move out with Detroit and Cleveland having lost more than 50% of their population since their peaks in the 1950s. Industries moved first to non-union states in the South and then to Mexico. More recently jobs have migrated across the Pacific to China and India. The latest iteration of globalization hit the Midwest hard. So what is it doing to adapt?

Richard Longworth attempts to answer that in his book Caught in the Middle. He hails from Iowa and is a former foreign correspondent for the Chicago Tribune. These days he is a Senior Fellow at The Chicago Council on Global Affairs where he advocates for the Midwest as it struggles with globalization. Caught in the Middle combines his reporting acumen with his love of his native region into what is part admonition and part plea for the Midwest to begin moving into the 21st century.

He begins by defining the Midwest. For his purposes it encompasses Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, all but the southern tip of Ohio, Indiana from Indianapolis northwards, the upper 75% of Illinois, the northern half of Missouri, all of Iowa, and some easterly bits of Nebraska and Kansas. We're talking America's great agricultural heartland and the cities that built the 20th century. Longworth spent a couple years driving around this area talking to people and examining how cities and states are adjusting to the new global economy dominated by multi-national corporations that work 24/7 and the Internet. What he found makes for some very depressing reading.

Longworth visits small towns that are really struggling after the factory that used to be the area's biggest employer left. For example, Maytag bailed on Newton, Iowa and Ball left Muncie, Indiana. Many people in these towns are depressed after having suffered layoffs and taking jobs that pay a lot less than they were previously making. Young people leave for big cities while Main Streets have lots of empty shop windows. In rural areas family farms struggle while corporate mega-farms dominate.


Many Midwestern cities were essentially one trick ponies. When foundries and factories left or became modernized, they ran into serious trouble. Longworth describes cities like Flint and Gary, Indiana as basket cases. On the other end of the spectrum is Chicago which he describes as a global city that went from being the hog butcher to the world to the financial services provider to the world. Chicago adapted whereas most Midwestern cities have not.

Longworth finds that most Midwesterners don't understand why their way of life is changing. Many are simply nostalgic for the region's industrial past while others blame NAFTA despite jobs moving to China doesn't have much to do with it. Some states and towns hold out for industries which will never return. Formerly all-white towns are now having to deal with non-white immigrants. He also found that, in an economic environment where having a college degree is a big leg up, many Midwesterners are apathetic towards education. The Midwest used to innovate and adapted to industrialization. Today that spirit is gone.

The picture here is quite gloomy but Longworth offers some solutions. He offers that the Midwest is well positioned to lead in areas that will drive the future economy. For example, we have lots of brain power here that is on display at the Big Ten universities. Also, we've got an agricultural background. Longworth thinks the region can strike it big in agricultural technology, biotech (i.e. – developing new medicines and treatments), and alternative energy. But the problems are many. He makes the Midwest out to be Thomas Franks' What's the Matter With Kansas? writ large. We're essentially too conservative. We cut funding to our schools, including our universities. He also advocates for some radical ideas such as letting smaller community colleges educate first and second year students while the universities would accept juniors and seniors. This would allow the big institutions to focus more on research.

Longworth is also very critical of state governments. Not only do they waste money in essentially bribing companies with tax breaks, they impede economies because, in today's world, state lines are obsolete. For instance, he notes that the region encompassing southeastern Wisconsin, the Chicago area, northwestern Indiana, and southwestern Michigan is an urban/economic entity unto itself. In addition to anachronistic 19th century boundaries, Longworth takes the states and other public entities to task for not collaborating. Regionalism is the order of the day for him. Universities pursue research independent of one another. States fight one another tooth and nail for every bit of funding and job. Yet, he argues, no one state can compete on the global market alone. Iowa cannot compete with China.

While reading the book, I asked myself, if it's cheaper to produce widgets over in China or move your tech support to India, then what is going to stop cancer research, solar power research, or research on the genes of onions from leaving this country? I don't mean this as an argument against investing in these things but Longworth seems to be putting his eggs in a small number of baskets. Then again, perhaps that's just economic life these days. Nothing is safe and just about everything will be done or made more cheaply in some developing economy until everyone on Earth is part of an industrialized society.

I guess I'm just not sure how much effort Longworth thinks states should be putting into these emerging technologies. He talks of the good old industrial days when factories were everywhere. Can we expect the same? I'd think not as we're talking about industries that likely won't have much use for people with nothing but a high school diploma. So are we to abandon rural areas and small towns not in orbit around a big city? Resources aren't infinite and we'll have to make decisions on how to utilize them.

As far as Wisconsin goes, the Dairyland doesn't get a whole lot of nods in contrast to Iowa, Ohio, and Indiana. Mainly he talks about Madison and Milwaukee, which is not surprising. Madison is usually mentioned as an exception to the "Midwest is going to hell in a hand basket" rule and also as a global city. (This is mainly due to the UW.) Longworth notes the deep segregation in Milwaukee along with its failing schools. But he also notes that the city is part of Greater Chicago and quotes the president of the Milwaukee Metropolitan Association of Commerce as saying, "What Chicago does has more impact on us than what the state government does…We're definitely tied to the Chicago economy." And Milwaukee along with the Racine and Kenosha areas account for 35% of Wisconsin's economic output. While the southeastern part of the state is tied to Chicago, the northwestern part is tied to the Twin Cities.

This is worth noting because it occurred to me that Longworth is like the anti-Scott Walker. Longworth suggests high speed rail to link Midwestern states whereas Walker 86'd its expansion in Wisconsin. In order to meet the demands of a knowledge economy, he advocates for investment in education. Walker has cut state aid to schools at all levels. Longworth wants Midwestern states to work while Walker seems to view our neighbors as our enemies, at least Illinois. Having been Milwaukee County Executive Walker surely knows how connected Wisconsin's largest city is to Chicago. But rather than looking to the biggest city and biggest economic engine in the Midwest for common cause, Walker has Rebecca Kleefisch cold call small businesses in Illinois while he bad mouths that state's taxes. Banding together with other Midwestern states may not ensure a future for Wisconsin in a global economy but, with Walker, that option doesn't even appear to be on the table. (Recent news exasperates the situation: funding for a biotech center here in Madison is drying up while venture capital in the state as a whole has decreased.)

Caught in the Middle was, for me, a good introduction to the situation the Midwest finds itself in and it was nice to see the region get some attention for a change instead of the usual focus on the coasts. I found myself nodding my head at his call for institutions and municipalities within the Midwest to cooperate but was a less swayed by his plan for the region to zero in on emerging technologies. Not that this is necessarily bad but I'm unsure just how comprehensive he feels his plan to be. While I suspect he thinks of it more as a rough guide than an exacting road map, his emphasis on urban areas leaves me wondering just what he thinks the government's role should be in promoting his plan. Longworth's push for moving the Midwestern economy towards biotech and whatnot sounds a bit elitist, at times. No matter how much money is put towards education, not everyone can do research in solar energy and stem cells. I don't have a problem with reorganizing the Midwest's economy in the direction Longworth promotes but I think more discussion needs to be had about those who cannot be a part of it. We have to ask how jobs can be created that aren't in these glamorous, bleeding edge areas as well.