IPO Logo Home Search Browse About IPO Staff Links
ii9810301.jpg
GOING GLOBAL
The Chicago region has advantages as a global economic force. But its biggest advantage may lie closer to home
Analysis by David Moberg

The world is shrinking, which would seem to give Chicago and its metropolitan region a bigger place in it. From its headquarters in suburban Schaumburg, for example. Motorola oversees a high-tech empire with factories in 18 countries producing cellular phones, computer chips and pagers, nearly 60 percent for sale outside the United States. In Chicago's Loop, futures exchanges that moved from contracts in wheat and eggs to bonds and currencies still dominate the exchange-traded portion of a global market they largely created in financial products designed to manage economic risk. When London's Financial Times picked the top 10 global firms in 15 different industries, Chicago-based corporations made the list in pharmaceuticals (Baxter — and Abbott should have been included), air travel (United), oil (Amoco), telecommunications (Ameritech), leisure services (McDonald's) and food processing (Sara Lee). Among metropolitan areas in the United States, Chicago ranks fifth in exports.

But now, long after its most fabled industries have disappeared or been radically transformed, can the old hog butcher to the world really hold its own in the fast-changing world marketplace?

The city's claims have taken some hits recently For example, the Scandinavian firms Nokia and Ericsson have seized the technological lead and a growing market share in the crucial world cellular phone market, as Motorola — the fourth-ranked recipient of U.S. patents in 1997 — scrambles to catch up. Despite their continued importance, the Chicago futures exchanges are under assault from upstart markets overseas and could be vaporized by a shift of business from the famous pits of shouting traders to computer screens, where European exchanges have taken the lead. Some of those leading global firms of today will be another town's transitory trophy tomorrow, as London-based BP takes over Amoco and Phoenix-based SBC, formerly Southwestern Bell, absorbs Ameritech. With foreign sales accounting for 42 percent of its revenue, Sara Lee hopes to remain a global presence, but it plans to sell off most of its factories, concentrating on marketing brand names. But only 2,157 of its 141,000 employees worldwide work in Illinois anyway.

Globalization brings little-noted risks as well as much-ballyhooed opportunities. Corporate jockeying for power in the new economy has unleashed a merger and takeover boom that can subjugate even the mighty. For example, Waste Management, which marched out to conquer the world's garbage from its Oak Brook base more than a decade ago, has been gobbled by USA Waste and packed off to Houston. Holy grails turn into pariahs overnight: Last year's promising emerging markets have since unleashed a contagion of financial panic and economic collapse that has repercussions for workers and businesses that couldn't have distinguished a Thai baht from a Thai gnat.

Certainly, technologies — computers, cargo jets, supertankers, the Internet—have shrunk the world. Similarly, transnational corporations, often with declining loyalties to their home bases, have emerged as the dominant form of enterprise. Financial markets have become more instantaneous, global, powerful and volatile. And the rules of trade have been rewritten to encourage commerce and empower corporations at the expense of governments. Capital is more mobile, and workers accustomed to middle-class lifestyles in industrial countries are told they must compete with vast pools of labor available for a couple of dollars a day or less.

Businesses, workers and governments ignore these global economic trends at

30 ¦ October 1998 Illinois Issues


their peril. But despite the furor over globalization, only about 12 percent of the goods and services produced each year in the United States are exported, and the biggest market in the world is still our backyard.

Workers and governments regularly face threats that businesses will pick up and leave if demands for wages, taxes or public accountability grow, but unions, governments, citizen groups and the general public have more potential power to control business than they exercise, even in this global economy. Businesses have strategic choices as well for contending with global competition: They can take the high road — upgrading skills and technology, recognizing their social responsibilities and treating their employees like valued contributors.

Or they can take the low road — seeking the lowest wages and least regulations, smashing unions, treating workers as expendable costs and focusing only on plumping up stock values and executive pay. In short, while the influences of the emerging world economy are likely to grow, barring a crisis like the Great Depression, there are choices about what the new global economy will look like. There are even some limited choices that metropolitan regions like Chicago can make about how they will adapt to global trends.

Last December the Civic Committee of The Commercial Club of Chicago, representing Chicago's business elite, released a study that concluded Chicago "is ready to take its place as a major player in the global economy" but that its "promise... is not fully realized," largely because the city's virtues were inadequately promoted. Among the city's strengths, the study touted its growing exports, strong multinational corporations, prowess in industries, from machinery to business services, citizens with ties to foreign countries, a large number of foreign businesses, O'Hare airport, cultural institutions, skilled workers and proximity to key markets. But, the Civic Committee reported, Chicago's image, especially to foreigners, is often fuzzy or worse — crime-ridden, closed-minded, costly to business. To market Chicago as a center of global business, the Civic Committee launched World Business Chicago. Former banker David Paulus and industrial location consultant Robert Ady are partners in this effort to get Chicagoans to think globally and to attract international investors.

"When this country had many small markets, everyone thought locally," Paulus argues. "Every community had its own brewery. We got national laws, national communications, national transportation, national currency. All of a sudden those companies and communities that thought nationally won the national game. Chicago won. That same analogy will happen globally, but it will happen more slowly."

Even more than reorienting Chicago business thinking, however, World Business Chicago wants to persuade foreign investors to bet their yens and euros on the broad Chicago metropolis. Already, nearly 1,000 foreign-owned businesses have operations in the Chicago region. In most cases, they are small sales or distribution outlets. The bigger businesses are typically foreign buyouts of established American businesses, such as Harris and LaSalle banks, Inland Steel, American Can and Zenith, all of them one-time "local champions" that are now branches of multinationals based in Canada, the Netherlands, Britain, France and Korea. Though foreign-owned businesses have brought at least several billion dollars in investment since 1980 and account for 12.3 percent of Illinois' manufacturing employment (slightly above the national average), it is hard to say how much of that reflects new job opportunities. (Foreign buyers also shut down businesses, as the British conglomerate BTR Ltd. did with Chicago's Stewart-Warner auto parts factory.)

Nevertheless, Paulus argues that "a focus on foreign direct investment is one way to make a community more global and cosmopolitan, to get a critical mass of global companies here that makes us one of the cities where you have to be if you're global."

But what does it mean to be global? Why should we want to take that path? Is being global, whatever that is, the best response to the forces of globalization? Is there more than one way of being global?

Urbanologists like Columbia University's Saskia Sassen identify "world cities," prototypically New York, London and Tokyo, as homes for those in the upper reaches of power in world markets. These cities house corporate headquarters, international banks, financial exchanges and centers of communications, culture and ideology, such as the mass media, universities and government. They nurture a complex of legal, advertising, design, consulting and other business services for the major banks and corporations. Their main product is corporate power, whether it's exercised directly through the business hierarchy or indirectly through money or images or other media. Despite the centrifugal effects of transportation, telecommunications and urban sprawl, these high-level business services still concentrate in the urban core, because the people involved still rely on personal interactions. (Corporate headquarters are less anchored in the city: Six of the top 10 "Chicago" corporations — measured by shareholder equity — actually are based in suburbs.)

Chicago can claim some of these world city qualities, but tenuously. On the financial front, the city will have only one large bank headquarters (the former Continental Bank, bought by Bank of America, is being swallowed up by Charlotte, North Carolina-based NationsBank) and financial markets with an uncertain future. Even the new merger of First National NBD with Bank One of Columbus may be swallowed up by a bank in New York or elsewhere within a few years.

Illinois Issues October 1998 ¦ 31


"Even if you have a banking center, the fragility is such that it could go pretty quickly," observes Daniel Immergluck, vice-president of the Woodstock Institute, a public interest group that studies the financial industry.

Though Chicago is one of the world's busiest air, rail and trucking transportation centers, it lacks a large port and extensive direct links to foreign markets. It is neither a media center approaching New York, a design, fashion and popular culture center with the influence of Los Angeles, nor an intellectual center on a par with Boston or the Bay Area — although over time the city could cultivate all of those far more than it does.

Is there anything that gives Chicago an advantage in the competition?

To some extent, the city's edge is what it has always been — its location — but it also gains strength by being big. Though it has slipped to third place in population, the metro area's size allows it to support a range of specialized businesses that in turn support other businesses, large and small, and provide a ready local market. With a large population, it can nurture a diverse cultural life that makes the city appealing, especially to well-educated workers and professionals that businesses need. (However, the city, through the government, media, philanthropy and general public, still fails to give the arts and cultural life as much support as they deserve, even from the crass viewpoint of economic development.)

The city's diversity — in population and economics — is one of its main comparative advantages, Paulus argues, especially by comparison with cities like Atlanta, Houston or Phoenix. Chicago is also economically diverse in an important way. Although it has as much, if not more, of the financial and high-level business services that serve corporate power centers as any American city except New York, it is still a preeminent center for manufacturing. The story of Chicago's industrial decline is sad and true. From the mid-'50s to the early '90s, the city lost about 400,000 manufacturing jobs, two-thirds of its total, according to a Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago study. From 1970 on, the whole metropolitan area lost nearly half a million manufacturing jobs as businesses relocated to the Sunbelt or overseas, fell victim to foreign competition and bad management, or more recently, radically downsized or introduced productivity-enhancing technology.

As sociologist William Julius Wilson has argued, this loss of central city factory jobs has contributed greatly to the hard-core urban poverty that, compounded by a history of harsh racial segregation, has profoundly hurt Chicago's African-American population and the social fabric of the metropolitan area. That continued racial and economic inequality remains, directly and indirectly (through crime, for example, or high social service costs), one of the major impediments to the metro region's economic success.

Even so, the Chicago region has the second largest number of manufacturing jobs of any metropolis in the country, only slightly behind the larger Los Angeles-Long Beach area, and, measured in terms of contribution to the national manufacturing product, the Chicago region ranks at the top. Moreover, in the 1998 Industry Week survey of "world class communities" in manufacturing presence, productivity and strength, Chicago ranked eighth, well ahead of the other major "world city" contenders.

Edward Hill, professor of urban affairs at Cleveland State University, who conducted Industry Week's study, argues that Chicago's high rank reflects not just the size of its manufacturing base but its strength in all facets of industry — headquarters management, research and development, physical production, marketing and distribution. "Chicago is one of the few places that pulls it all together," he says. The metro region also has a wide range of businesses, so it isn't reliant on a single industry. "It has everything from very high productivity information technology industry to labor intensive industries," Hill says. "It probably has one of the largest number of competitive industrial clusters in the United States. It's the breadth that's imposing."

There are drawbacks to Chicago's location, certainly, starting with the weather. But Chicago's centrality in the nexus of continental transportation and its convenience in reaching large parts of the country from a central time zone make it appealing both as a business headquarters and as a center for distribution.

Chicago can also claim to be the central metropolis of the reviving industrial heartland, serving as a business service center and part of a network of world-class manufacturers. If the Midwest were a country and not a region, Chicago might already be seen as a "world city."

The important point, however, is not mindless civic boosterism. The comparative advantage for Chicago — and one that is not systematically exploited — is its dual role as a center of both manufacturing and the corporate city complex of finance, business services and culture. Indeed, Chicago's chances of emerging as a world city are closely related to the economic health of the region and the strength of its ties to the region.

Ultimately, the test for a metropolitan strategy is not profits, productivity, exports or investment — important as they are — but the quality of life it creates for the people who live there. Which strategy produces more good jobs that lead to stable communities and the lowest possible levels of social inequality? Which strategy strengthens the social fabric and is more environmentally sustainable? Which strategy gives the metropolis more democratic control over its future? There is nothing wrong with seeking more corporate headquarters or finance and business service jobs, as long as that strategy does not conflict with the goals for the metropolis and, in Chicago's case in particular, does not neglect or undermine the strategy of strengthening all facets of the manufacturing sector. There is, however, a dark side to the "world city" strategy. The path of development that Sassen and others describe is typically associated with rising social inequality. For example, in the Federal Reserve study of the Midwestern economy, there was less increase in inequality in regions that had preserved a higher proportion of their manufacturing base than in Chicago, where the balance was tipping more toward services. Rising inequality is, of course, an issue for the entire society. "It's shocking to see what a small percentage of households control so much wealth," Paulus notes. "I think it's not good and can't last forever. We are a democracy. People have one vote and will eventually change that. But in a global world, the ability for capital to be mobile is there."

32 ¦ October 1998 Illinois Issues


While the federal government has more power to redistribute income and wealth, there are steps that even metropolitan regions can take.

In particular, pursuit of the global may require more attention to the local. Ironically, as a study by Wim Wiewel and Joseph Persky of the University of Illinois at Chicago demonstrates, Chicago's economy has become more "local" even as it has moved in the direction of a global city. Compared to typical business services, most manufacturing of the older industrial Chicago was more oriented to export, including national and regional buyers as well as foreign countries. Much of the dealmaking by the bankers, lawyers and corporate officials of the global city economy, they argue, "consists in no small part of disassembling the older metropolitan industrial base." But as they make their globally oriented deals, the employees of these businesses patronize the restaurants, health clubs and boutiques of the local economy.

While the business service managers and employees — the lawyers, accountants and consultants and information technologists — are well paid, the local service sector — the busboys, parking lot attendants and security guards — is typically poorly paid by comparison with much of the displaced factory work. If the labor market were tight enough, or if those jobs were unionized, local service work, of course, need not be so poorly paid, Wiewel notes. But that sector has grown in part because workers could be found at subpoverty wages.

The old manufacturing firms proved mobile, especially factories owned by large, globally oriented corporations. The story of Zenith, once a shining star of the Chicago economic firmament, illustrates the tragic side of globalization: the loss of jobs that comes when low-wage competition, especially when combined with savvy production techniques, hits companies with poor management.

With Japanese consumer electronic products often winning on price and performance, Zenith moved thousands of jobs out of Chicago and other parts of the United States to Mexico, retaining only its Melrose Park picture tube plant as the last vestige of television manufacture in this country, though consumer electronics had once been a major source of employment in Chicago.

The new rules of world commerce and the volatility of the global economy can overwhelm the best efforts of local government and even well-managed corporations.

In 1995, the Korean firm, LG Electronics, bought a majority stake. Though Zenith was making technological breakthroughs with digital high-definition television, the company continued to lose money, finally announcing it would file papers in bankruptcy court this fall. LGE will either sell or shutter the Melrose Park plant, moving all production to Mexico but keeping part of the Zenith headquarters staff to do design work.

Defenders of globalization see this as a natural progression, with only skilled jobs remaining in the United States, while assembly work moves to low-wage countries. But the more than 2,000 workers who lose their jobs in Melrose Park will not do design work, and the control over that work and its benefits will shift to Korea and away from Chicago. As LGE gains Zenith's technical expertise, it may also choose to do more of that work at home, where white-collar wages are lower. Meanwhile, a once-great company has been hollowed out, leaving nothing but its name, a ghostly but valuable marketing image.

The new rules of world commerce and the volatility of the global economy can overwhelm the best efforts of local government and even well-managed corporations, however. Chicago-area steel mills, for example, have become as efficient as any in the world, now requiring only two hours of labor per ton of steel, but the collapse of Asian currencies and economies, which push them to export more and import less, now threaten to undermine what is in all regards a world-class competitive American steel industry

The Midwest is bitterly accustomed to companies picking up factories and moving most direct production jobs, but the global corporate headquarters are often proving to be nearly as mobile. Ameritech and Waste Management are good cases in point: Both had expanded aggressively overseas, trying to become global companies, but now they will disappear to different degrees from Chicago. U.S. Robotics, the modem manufacturer, gave Chicago hopes of becoming more of a computer manufacturing powerhouse, but last year Silicon Valley-based 3Com bought the firm, shifting control to California, though the company plans to expand employment in the Chicago area. (3Com itself was rumored to be a takeover target of L.M. Ericsson of Sweden.)

The creation of global giants out of mergers, even when jobs aren't lost, may also hurt the local economy If past trends are a guide, SBC's takeover of Ameritech is likely to lead to higher rates for consumers. Likewise, Immergluck of the Woodstock Institute says large banks tend to charge higher consumer fees than small ones and mergers typically lead to a decline in small business lending to poorer communities. However, local citizen groups, including Woodstock, used their influence over the merger approval to force First Chicago NBD to promise to maintain substantial loans and services to low-income communities — one example of how citizen groups can influence corporate strategies if there is sufficient regulation.

Becoming a corporate headquarters city also doesn't mean that white-collar jobs will grow despite losses of blue-collar opportunities. Many corporate offices command vast empires from Chicago with tiny general staffs. A large share of the employees at top Chicago companies like Abbott Laboratories, Ameritech, Illinois Tool Works and Tellabs actually work in Illinois. But Fort James Corp., a Chicago-based company that cut 8 percent of its workforce when it was created from two big paper companies last year, has only 400 employees in Chicago out of its total of 28,000. Fruit of the Loom, a leading underwear and sportswear manufacturer, has 31,000 employees worldwide (increasingly in Mexico and elsewhere overseas after it shut down 11 U.S. factories and fired 7,700 workers last year), but it employs

Illinois Issues October 1998 ¦ 33


only 40 people at its Chicago headquarters.

There are advantages to having corporate headquarters, but it would be a mistake to evaluate the region's competitive advantage in the new global economy by their presence. When they employ many people directly or use local services and contractors indirectly, they make a difference. Motorola not only provides jobs but indirectly boosts the rest of the local telecommunications industry, partly by helping to maintain a pool of skilled workers and managers who may be available for other businesses.

But corporations come and go and, in the long run, the corporations do not equal the region. As they become global, they often try to loosen their ties even to their home countries, even as they continue to profit from their strong base. "If you look 20 years in the future," Paulus argues, "successful corporations will be citizens of nowhere." That's a far cry from the late 19th-century barons of Chicago business who promoted the city, its architecture and its arts, though they were ruthlessly competitive.

If all these caveats are kept in mind, there are some advantages to pursuing corporate headquarters, but there may not be a lot government can or should do other than the basics: Maintain good infrastructure, educate students well and provide continued training for workers, provide good and efficient public services and work toward a high quality of public life, ranging from supporting culture to reducing inequality.

"Taking care of basic things going into the economy is a better use of money than incentives or bribing companies," argues Wim Wiewel, dean of the college of Urban Planning and Public Affairs and director of the Great Cities Institute at the University of Illinois at Chicago. "Focusing on education, roads, housing and making the city attractive is very important. If you have to bribe a company, the odds of its staying in the long term are not good."

It is worth recalling, however, that there is more to government than attracting business and that the overriding public goal of a high quality of life includes strong democratic participation, vigorous and open debate, a clean environment, protection of the right of workers to organize, progressive taxes that adequately fund public services and other objectives that businesses may oppose. High-wage, strongly unionized communities with good public services, however, can be attractive places for business when workers are skilled, infrastructure is excellent and government is efficient. Hill argues that, in the long run, there's "very little that local governments can do to affect [development of a global city]. It's up to the marketplace. Fundamental are international air access, cost of living and operation, and your base. No matter what you do, the largest amount of jobs and innovation will come from the existing base." Yet if the existing base does not constantly upgrade itself to world standards, it could lose its markets, even if it is not strongly export-oriented and doesn't expand overseas.

Nevertheless, it makes sense to enlighten business decision-makers about the advantages of Chicago as a place to work, as the World Business Council plans, just as it makes sense to play up Chicago as both a tourist and convention destination, as long as those do not distract strategists from what's most important.

There is also nothing wrong with seeking more exports or even foreign investment, as long as those strategies are kept in perspective. According to Federal Reserve Bank analyses, about 45 percent of the $250 billion gross regional product in 1995 was consumed within the metropolitan area. Only $21 billion, or about 8.4 percent of gross regional product, were "exports" in the conventional sense. Of course, it is always important to look to new and potentially fast growing markets.

There is more to government than attracting business. A high quality of life includes democratic participation, a clean environment and protection of workers rights.

Still, Chicago can gain jobs by promoting sales of business services and manufacturing components to the rebounding Midwest manufacturing industries, possibly faster and more securely than by promoting exports overseas. In that regard, making Chicago the hub of a new highspeed rail system should be at least as high a priority as maintaining the city's prime business asset, O'Hare airport. Not only would that strengthen and expand Chicago's role as a transportation hub and link the region closer to the city, but it could also boost the development of new rail industries that would build on existing manufacturing expertise and push into new areas of advanced technology.

A stronger focus on the region can also help to compensate for the growing disconnection between the corporate giants of the Chicago region and smaller manufacturers. Once those small job shops turned out screws, switches and widgets for giant companies like General Electric, Western Electric and International Harvester, but with the dispersal or disappearance of many of those industrial behemoths, smaller job shops have had to look farther afield for customers. Some components manufacturers, like Tellabs (which makes products for cable and optical fiber networks) or Molex (the world's second-largest maker of electronic connectors), are large, technologically sophisticated manufacturers (often spread around the world). But there are about 10,000 manufacturers in the metro region, most of them employing fewer than 100 people. According to the Federal Reserve study, those small shops are much less likely to use advanced manufacturing technologies than are large factories, and they face greater obstacles in training their workforce to use the new technologies, even when they can afford them. Size, not age, is the crucial factor.

Those small factories are typically more firmly rooted in the region than big companies, and they are also the foundation of the region's continued manufacturing strength.

These companies can benefit much more than the large firms from public assistance. There are a variety of programs that train workers, some of them sponsored by government and some run by the rich assortment of not-for-profit

34 ¦ October 1998 Illinois Issues


community development organizations that are one of Chicago's unique assets. For example, the Jane Addams Resource Corp. (JARC), a northside Chicago nonprofit group, helps train workers primarily for small metalworking firms in the Ravenswood corridor and out into the suburbs but also promotes the interests of small manufacturers.

Training, or money to pay for it, is also often available to small manufacturers through state agencies, such as Prairie State 2000; city programs, such as the Local Industrial Retention Initiative; trade associations; and some university and community college (though tragically not through most of Chicago's City College system). Also, Chicago schools have finally started a school-to-work initiative to give students in high school more exposure to job possibilities. Initial results seem positive, JARC executive director Michael Buccitelli says, with participating students earning $2 to $3 more per hour than the average working graduate and with half continuing some education after high school. Similarly some not-for-profit groups, like JARC, or government-sponsored programs, like the Chicago Manufacturing Center established by the National Institute on Standards and Technology, help businesses learn about and adopt new technologies.

While these initiatives are promising, they need to be expanded vastly. Also, the region needs mechanisms to more aggressively promote and customize help in upgrading both training and technology among smaller manufacturers, who are often overwhelmed with managing their businesses day to day. These programs would all be much more successful if the different industrial clusters in the metropolitan region were better organized to cooperatively address their needs. The Candy Institute, organized by the Midwest Center for Labor Research, is one example of an effort to save a key, job-intensive

Chicago manufacturing specialty by encouraging the elevation of skills and technological expertise in the industry. But there is still a strong sense that manufacturing does not get the same respect as pursuit of corporate headquarters or even big retailers. Despite some laudable efforts to preserve manufacturing districts in Chicago from encroachment by housing and retail stores, Buccitelli complains that developers and city council members routinely rezone parts of industrial areas in ways that ultimately drive out remaining factories.

The Chicago metropolis is unique in the way it combines strengths in many areas — corporate management and finance, transportation and distribution, research and development, and manufacturing — in a wide range of industries. But the benefits of those economic strengths are not evenly shared throughout the region, which is fragmented by political jurisdictions and divided still by race and class in ways that undermine many of the region's strengths. The parts do not work well together, and the whole suffers. While the region's sprawl boosts individual companies' profits and benefits some suburbanites, it imposes big costs on government and inner-city minorities, Persky and Wiewel argue. Likewise, research from several cities shows that even wealthy suburbanites gain from greater equality in a metropolis, in part because inequality is a serious drag on economic growth.

In many ways, Chicago and its businesses are already quite competitive globally, though given the volatility of the world economy, that can change arbitrarily and rapidly. There is much room for progress, however, especially in evening out disparities. For example, "there are companies and segments of manufacturing that would rate very high, equal to Germany or Japan," Buccitelli says of Chicago manufacturing, "but looking broadly, if you lump all the manufacturers together, we would not fare so well."

As a region, Chicago should focus above all on improving the quality of life for everyone, strengthening the base of businesses and the skills of a workforce that already exist, tightening its links with the regional economy and forging a more cooperative regional government that more equitably distributes the region's resources for the common good. As this urban matrix is nurtured, globally competitive businesses will emerge and will be attracted to Chicago because of its location, its size, its diversity and its historic but evolving strengths.

The best way to make Chicago a distinctive global city may, ironically, involve first tending well its own backyard. 

David Moberg, a free-lance writer in Chicago, last wrote for Illinois Issues about the economics of public facilities. This article was made possible by a grant to the magazine from The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation. It is part of a continuing series on regionalism.

Illinois Issues October 1998 ¦ 35


|Home| |Search| |Back to Periodicals Available| |Table of Contents| |Back to Illinois Issues1998|
Illinois Periodicals Online (IPO) is a digital imaging project at the Northern Illinois University Libraries funded by the Illinois State Library
Sam S. Manivong, Illinois Periodicals Online Coordinator