A New Vision for the Hudson River

In his chapter on patterns of industrialization and regional development, Scott outlines modern patterns for industrialization and specifically examines the technological-institutional structure that developed in silicon valley. This chapter becomes valuable to a discussion about the future of the Hudson River when compared with the articles by Forderaro and Lohr. These two articles explain future plans to bring greater wealth into towns along the Hudson River Valley. The Lohr article focuses on high-tech industry that is moving into the Hudson Valley and Forderaro explains the new luxury homes that seek to increase tax revenues to old industrial towns. Scott’s article indicates that if high-tech industry is the economic future of the Hudson, then industrialization of the area must occur in unprecedented fashion. Furthermore, the conceptions of place among inhabitants of the Hudson River Valley makes any new development more difficult.

Scott asserts that "flexible manufacturing" -characteristic of high tech industry in Southern California- "occurs in parts of Western Europe and North America where traditions of fordist-style industrialization are at best weakly developed" (31-32). Scott defines fordist mass production as "large-scale assembly and process industry", which seems to characterize the traditional industrial towns along the Hudson River. In other words, according to Scott, the Hudson River cannot develop into a center for flexible manufacturing in the same fashion as Silicon Valley simply because it has an established tradition of fordist mass production. However, the Lohr article clearly indicates that with the help of substantial government subsidies high-tech industry is developing along in towns along the Hudson River. The role of this kind of government involvement is also discussed by Scott. Scott asserts that the movement of flexible development to forefront of capitalist development occurs along with privatization (32). Once again, the development of high-tech industry along the Hudson River occurs in opposition to Scott’s traditional method of development. In my opinion, the only way to reconcile Scott’s patterns of development with the development along the Hudson River is to say that the industry developing there is a hybrid of old-style fordist manufacturing and newer flexible manufacturing. The goods may be similar to those produced in Southern California, but New York State’s high-tech industry is being constructed, in unprecedented fashion, similarly to fordist mass production with high levels of government involvement.

High-tech industry could bring a large boost to the Hudson River Valley’s economy, but the Lohr article indicates that these jobs may not benefit the blue-collar poor in the region. These individuals could get a boost from the housing developments that are springing up along the river (discussed in Forderaro’s article) and the service jobs that would accompany an influx of wealthy landowners. However, groups like Scenic Hudson are slowing this development because of their conception of the Hudson river. Their environmentalist efforts focus on limiting urban sprawl and maintaining the valley’s natural beauty. I agree that environmental concerns are important in any kind of development, and Scenic Hudson is probably benefitting the region by exploring these new plans, but I think that it would be irresponsible of any group to stop development in this region. These two articles helped to illustrate a future in which the poverty of many Hudson River towns can be alleviated by the development of high-tech industry and high-end housing.