"People" or "Places"?

When I was in grad school--at West Virginia University--one of the major local and regional development issues had to with what was then called the "people or places" approach.  The "people"-based approach emphasized helping people acquire skills and then, id necessary, helping them move to a place in which those skills would pay off.  The "place"-based approach involved providing support for local infrastructure, for attracting new businesses, and supporting local businesses.

In the context of where I was, one aspect of that was that coal mining was a (rapidly) declining source of employment and of local income.  So a "place" approach had to confront the decline of a large, declining, but high-wage (then--the United Mine Workers managed to keep wages and benefits high) industry.  And so the research group at the Regional Research Institute (I was not a part of that, and at the time really wanted to be) developed a plan for the development of a "high-tech" corridor, running along the general route of where I-79 is today (from Morgantown to Charleston), which would also feature a high-speed rail link.  The cost was in the billions, and federal money was not forthcoming.

And the "people" approach took the form of the higher-skilled people, with more education, were leaving, which only made things worse for WVA.

Later, when I was working for the city of Indianapolis, largely in identifying training opportunities for low-income, low-skilled people, we were taking basically a "people" tack.  But we also (wrongly, in my estimation) focused on jobs which appeared to be in relatively high demand (and therefore tried to push people into jobs that may have failed to maximize their chances in life.

Economic history told me that migration was one of the major causes of the dynamism of the US economy, from its earliest days through at least the 1920s.  The Great Depression, in addition to its other consequences, generated a large number of "place"-based economic development programs.

This whole issue has not gone away as this (https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2018/11/19/americans-arent-moving-to-economic-opportunity/) piece of work indicates.  It's a very difficult issue, to say the least.  In Indiana, population has increased by about 70% since 1950 (to 2017).  15 of Indiana's (92) counties have experienced population decline over that period.  Another 18 counties have grown at about 1/3 the rate of the state as a whole.  So something like 1/3 of the state's counties have grown little, if at all.  Those counties accounted for 27% of Indiana's population in 1950, but only 16% in 2017.

The most rapidly growing counties have largely clustered around major cities, or have major universities (IU, Purdue).  What policies *should* the state of Indiana pursue?  "People"- based, or "place"-based?  Through the high school years, education is largely controlled locally.  "Should" Benton or Vermillion (both of which have seen population declines greater than 20% since 1950) devote a lot of resources to improving K-12 education, if all that means is that their "best and brightest" will find it even easier to move away?  Lake County's population has grown by about 1/3 since 1950, while its major cities (Gary, Hammond, East Chicago) have suffered extraordinary population declines (from a combines 276,000 in 1950, to 181,000 in 2017--it's even worse if we look at 1960 to 2017:  down from 348,000 to 181,000--almost a 50% decline.  From 1960 to 2017, EC has declined by 50%, Gary by 60%, and Hammond by (only) a third.

"People" or "places"?  Or do we try to do both?  And if we focus on "people," how do we return to high rates of migration to places that are booming?  How do we keep the lives of those who can't move, or have local roots that are too strong to sever, from cratering?  I wish I knew.  And if I were 30 again, I know what my life's work would be...