LeBron James migration as economic development at Pacific Standard magazine.
Theme: Return migration.
Subject Article: "God Loves Cleveland: Why LeBron James — unparalleled NBA genius, heir to Michael (and Larry and Magic) — went home."
Other Links: 1. "Miami Is Dying."
2. "Quality of Place and Migration."
3. "In Cleveland, Income Growth Without Population Growth."
4. "Unhappy Cities."
5. "LeBron: I'm coming back to Cleveland."
6. "Cleveland has been on the rebound even before LeBron James news."
7. "That New York City Magic."
8. "Let the People Go: The Problem With Strict Migration Limits."
9. "LeBron's Location Decision."
10. "Kool-Aid Man (Family Guy)."
Postscript: A few months back, I read about a critique of the push-pull model for migration theory. At first, it was unsettling. Push-pull is the crux of rational choice. One place is better (pull) than another (push). Long ago, I decided the push factor was nonsense. Migration is aspirational, all pull. However, push-pull assumes that places develop and then people. I do believe, I think that migration is economic development. Still, I struggled to reconcile that with the critique of push-pull. Reconciliation came in the form of realizing that migration had a bad image. Relocation is a negative outcome, not a positive one. If someone moves, then something must be wrong. In both LeBron James migrations, everything was right. What was wrong was (is) how we perceive his journey.