Summary
In September 2017, Amazon issued a request for proposals (RFP) to identify a location for its second headquarters (HQ2), receiving 238 submissions from cities across North America. Among the key selection criteria was “Cultural Community Fit,” emphasizing the importance of a “diverse population.” However, Amazon provided no specific definition for diversity, leaving cities to interpret and market this concept on their own.
The article, “‘Cities Too Busy to Hate’: Economic Development Through a Diversity Ideology Lens” by Danielle Spurlock, Adams Bailey, and Matthew D. Wilson, examines how U.S. cities used the language of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in their proposals to position themselves as ideal hosts for Amazon. Analyzing 76 proposals, the authors explore how diversity was framed as a marketing tool to appeal to Amazon’s progressive brand image. They reveal how cities commodified their residents, histories, and cultures to attract Amazon, often portraying marginalized groups through stereotypes or reducing them to economic and cultural assets without addressing systemic inequities.
Key findings reveal that many proposals:
-
Use vague references to “diversity” without defining or substantiating the term, often homogenizing marginalized groups into broad stereotypes.
-
Highlight local racial and ethnic groups primarily for their economic or cultural value to Amazon, rather than addressing structural inequalities or offering substantive commitments to equity.
-
Frame their cities as inclusive and forward-thinking while avoiding discussions of the challenges faced by historically marginalized communities.
The authors coded the proposals using categories like Tagline, where diversity is asserted without explanation; Acceptance, which emphasizes tolerance without confronting inequality; and Commodity, where diversity is presented as an economic advantage for attracting Amazon.
Examples include Cleveland’s claim that “[r]egardless of your interests, age, nationality, race, or sexual orientation, Cleveland offers a high quality of life,” sidestepping the realities of systemic inequities, and Detroit’s portrayal of its Hispanic population as primarily contributing through festivals and cuisine. These framings, the authors argue, reflect a pattern of leveraging progressive DEI language to attract corporate investment while sidestepping meaningful commitments to racial and economic justice.
The article highlights a broader critique of economic development practices: the instrumental use of diversity narratives to enhance place branding without implementing policies that address inequality. As the use of DEI language grows, the authors stress the need for critical awareness of its deployment in economic development.
Publication
People
Associate Director of Economic & Workforce Development, UIC Great Cities Institute