[wahern]

Unlike San Francisco, Washington, DC was a backwater until the 1960s. For most of the country's history Federal policy was to avoid centralization of government administration to prevent Washington becoming as economically prominent as Paris, London, or countless other capital cities.

But things began to change during the Cold War, and then accelerated during the military buildup under Reagan. The Washington metro area began to explode economically as defense contractors that had once been spread around the country started moving to DC. The acceleration was compounded again under Bush with the war on terror attracting a broader range of security and IT companies wanting to cash in on Federal largesse. A big part of the reason for this is that Republicans preferred outsourcing Federal work to contractors, to avoid Federal unions. Federal policy didn't care where the contractors headquarters were located, whereas older agencies like the Social Security Administration, Federal Reserve, etc, had always been forced to locate most of their work elsewhere, both the labor and most of management--mostly only the political appointees were in DC.

What the government should do is return to the old policies of pushing administrative agencies back out into regional centers. Though it would probably look different in the sense that what's more important now is pushing agency directors and other political appointees along with their teams out of DC, whereas in the bygone era the emphasis was on the mass of Federal workers. You want the leadership teams out of DC because that's what's attracting the companies, not Congress.

But DC has probably grown too economically powerful to reverse the course of things.