In a New Economy characterized by ever-greater "churn" in jobs -- with companies forming, reforming, merging and dissolving; rapid changes in markets for goods and services; and new skills needed for the use of new technologies -- the old strategies for economic security are largely inadequate. That's why there is an undertow of anxiety accompanying all the new opportunities of the New Economy.

But the good news is that this economy creates enormous rewards for workers, companies and communities that can adapt quickly to these new opportunities. Above all, that underscores the need to create a workforce prepared for the jobs of the future and able to identify and fill them.

Unfortunately, most old-fashioned government job training programs are too narrowly focused on dislocated workers, not all workers needing new skills; and are not specifically linked to the employers who can supply both jobs and practical training. Moreover, training programs often ignore other important obstacles that get in the way of matching workers, skills and jobs -- such as inadequate child care or transportation services.

What's needed is a new framework for addressing workforce development needs in particular communities and industries that's flexible enough to meet constantly changing needs. The Progressive Policy Institute has now published a paper by Kenan Patrick Jarboe of the Athena Alliance that offers a potential solution: Community Workforce Partnerships.

Jarboe defines Community Workforce Partnerships as "community-based collaborations of companies, unions, local governments, educational institutions, and non-government organizations that can tailor solutions that meet specific community employment needs." Existing examples of this framework include the business-led Regional Skills Alliances that PPI has promoted for a number of years; industry-specific training and marketing collaborations in the textile, apparel, and plastics sectors; and experimental programs like the Appalachian Center for Economic Networks, which promotes entrepreneurship among low-income families in southeastern Ohio.

Under Jarboe's proposal, the federal government would stimulate a national network of such partnerships by offering a small seed money grant to set them up (up to $150,000), and a 1-to3 match grant to get them up and running for at most three years (with two-thirds coming from the sponsoring local consortium).

At a total cost of no more than $100 million per year -- a small percentage of the current federal investment in training and other services for dislocated workers -- this initiative could create a national infrastructure of locally-rooted, private-sector led, job-and-skill specific partnerships aimed at building a workforce equipped for the economic opportunities of the future.

This idea deserves support from New Democrats, and indeed from anyone concerned with getting beyond today's rhetoric of "winners" and "losers" in the New Economy, and instead focusing on expanding the winners' circle of Americans prepared to succeed. Industries, communities and workers struggling to adjust to rapid economic change need more than sympathy, protection or reparations: they need a chance to master change on their own terms.