Building the Capacity of Rural People and Places

By Michal Smith-Mello

From Reclaiming Community, Reckoning with Change
pp. 41-59, published 1995

The work of building capacity is, quite simply, that of expanding the capabilities of individuals, firms, communities, regions, labor markets, and organizations to manage change. Its importance is widely recognized. The 1995 report of the Kentucky Appalachian Task Force, the most recent rural initiative in the state, for example, strongly emphasizes the importance of building capacity by investing local communities with decision-making authority and actively engaging citizens in the work of shaping the future. Guiding principles that are echoed in the findings and recommendations of this report, include:

Capacity-building development initiatives, which are alternately termed self-development or community-based, are conceived and executed locally, but often initiated by public or non-profit sector facilitators. Many believe that a collaborative model, uniting communities or focusing on a region, offers significant advantages. In any event, capacity-building initiatives are designed to bring a wider, often non-traditional group of players into the process of assessing the current situation, planning for improved outcomes and acting to implement agreed-upon strategies. The optimum outcome of a capacity-building focus is, of course, expanded levels of civic engagement and increased rural capabilities to solve problems and achieve goals. Importantly, it is also a means to closing some of the many fiscal gaps that inhibit development throughout rural Kentucky. What follows is a discussion of some of the elements of widely used and recognized capacity-building strategies.

Here we discuss some of the key characteristics of capacity-building development initiatives, including the importance of a sustained, long-term focus and open, inclusive, democratic processes; the collective potential of collaborative initiatives; the importance of a factual foundation for planning and decision-making provided by community assessment; and the imperative of nurturing grassroots leadership. We conclude with a case study of Tupelo, Mississippi, as an illustration of the long-term potential of capacity-building development initiatives. A companion Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center study of rural development, Farms, Factories and Free Trade, discusses in detail the potential that industrial networks hold for enhancing the competitive capabilities of firms (Schirmer & Taylor, 1995).

A Long-Term Perspective

The results of a 1990 national survey of self-development initiatives suggest grassroots efforts to leverage improved development outcomes are relatively young; 65 percent of respondents reported that their initiative had been launched since January 1985. While authors of the survey concede that these data may indicate a short lifespan for such initiatives, a logical outcome given the relative lack of public support, the data may also signal growing interest (Green, Flora, Flora and Schmidt, 1990). Certainly, current literature on rural development strongly recommends this path. Short-term results for initiatives designed to yield results over the long-term, however, are not adequate measures of the power or potential of community-based development initiatives.

Because the majority of these capacity-building initiatives have yet to achieve long-term status, short-term results vary. By standard economic models, some results may seem modest at best. For various reasons, others have accomplished few measurable gains or collapsed in the absence of support. The considerable value of such initiatives, however, lies in the long-term accumulation of broader civic engagement and involvement in the life of communities. The compelling examples of Tupelo and the well-documented legacy of Northern Italy strongly suggest that these important non-economic contributions have an enduring power that is worthy of pursuit, commitment and broad-based public support. About their benefits, USDA researchers, for example, observe:

. . . self-development projects tend to open up the decisionmaking process on economic development to a broader range of people in the community. In comparison, industrial recruitment is normally conducted in a secretive fashion by a small minority of residents. Those engaged in self-development have taken an important step in extending democratic principles to the local economy, by expanding involvement in economic development matters to new sectors of the community. Active involvement in self-development efforts tends to carry over into other collective community efforts (Flora, Gale, Schmidt, Green, and Flora, 1993, 28).

Rick Smyre, president of Strategic Concepts, Inc., a North Carolina-based firm that is guiding a Bowling Green initiative, "Communities of the Future," views a future orientation as critical to successful capacity-building initiatives. Because increasing the capacity for change is the principal goal, a strong future orientation and the technological infrastructure to support it is vital, Smyre suggests.

Robert Putnam’s research concludes that the incremental gains realized from such collective community efforts ultimately create wealth. The experience of Tupelo, Mississippi, also demonstrates that, over the long-term, increased prosperity is indeed the net benefit of rising levels of civic engagement. Similarly, the author of a 1988 report on rural economic development initiatives prepared for the U.S. Department of Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) observed, "[M]any of the rural areas that have succeeded in generating the most new jobs are areas that began their programs 15-20 years ago" (Thomas, 1988, 7). A study of economic development initiatives in small Illinois communities essentially concurs, "Most high-growth counties had been involved in development activities for at least 20 years" (Walzer, 1993, 8).

Further, a 1988 study examined the experiences of 16 high-growth, non-metropolitan farm-belt counties to identify the underlying factors contributing to their development and to inform state policies. Among the eight "secrets of success" discovered was "sustained local economic development activities." Importantly, recruitment balanced with entrepreneurship also numbered among these secrets, as did the combination of manufacturing and service industries; progressive firms; pro-active attitudes; finance, sites, and buildings and infrastructure; leadership in the form of partnerships and "sparkplugs"; and support from the outside (John et al., 1988). In these counties, a mix of traditional and non-traditional ingredients, combined with the important leverage of financial support and a sustained focus, enabled development over the long-term.

Clearly, capacity-building initiatives will not transform Kentucky’s rural economies overnight. Instead, as the successes detailed in numerous studies attest, the work of development is a long-term process, but tenacity and commitment do pay off. Indeed, the pursuit of incremental gains through broad civic engagement, clearly a public good, may yield immeasurable long-term returns that extend well beyond the economic realm. Putnam suggests that "the latent effects" of modestly subsidized collaborative initiatives built on linkages between organizations, institutions, firms, workers, or whatever the relevant mix of actors, could prove even more powerful than any direct effects (Putnam, 1993). In short, the process, one which is collaborative, dynamic and fundamentally democratic, is significantly more important than its immediate, short-term products.

Proponents of organizational change initiatives in the private sector often caution against attempts to measure short-term gains, as the benefits of cultural change are incremental and sometimes intangible. It is, for example, virtually impossible to measure the effects of improved labor-management relations on product quality or productivity though we instinctively know that the benefits are substantial. At the same time, organizational change has yielded innumerable examples of relatively short-term gains in profit, productivity and morale won through the rapid expansion of social capital—participatory management and teamwork—in the world of work. Similarly, many regions and communities have discovered relatively quickly that collective will produces results.

Hallmarks of Successful Rural Development Initiatives from Midwest Research Institute, 1988

Regional Approaches

Because the dilution of resources has historically frustrated the work of rural development, collaborative initiatives offer access to the expanded base of resources needed to help meet rural challenges. While collaborative ventures can focus on the interests of a special group, such as organic farmers or female entrepreneurs, or on the broad issue of developing communities, research suggests that the more inclusive the focus—and the process—the more successful the venture (Flora, et al., 1993). While many groups with common goals can be expected to realize gains through collaborative ventures, all of which serve the important long-term purpose of building social capital, our focus here is mainly on collaboration in the form of multi-community or regional approaches to development.

While difficult to launch in the absence of a compelling crisis, collaborative approaches that unite communities in the work of development offer real advantages in the pursuit of greater prosperity. In short, ". . . all parties gain more of whatever it is they value in the collaborative relationship than they can gain by acting independently" (NCRCRD, 1991). Such initiatives, it has been suggested, also help create lateral linkages that hold the potential for rebuilding—at a higher level—the frayed horizontal, intra-community connections that once made rural economies viable (NCRCRD, 1991).

In Rethinking Rural Development, the Corporation for Enterprise Development urges practitioners to "think regional, not rural" (CED, 1993, 5). Because rural and urban problems are not segregated, CED suggests, linking them in regional efforts, such as that employed by Tupelo, is far more logical (CED). Collaborative initiatives, according to Dennis MacDonald, who directs Canada’s Community Futures Program (CFP), which supports local development efforts in high-unemployment rural areas, are appropriate in that they reflect the "interdependence of communities" today (NCRCRD, 1991). Moreover, regional, multi-community approaches recognize that the economic health and social well-being of a single community usually rises and falls with that of a larger region, and communities in competition with one another further diminish their strength.

While rural communities often share common plights, economic links between urban, suburban and rural areas more accurately reflect today’s interdependencies. Indeed, labor markets, the focus of Canada’s CFP, are increasingly rural-suburban-urban contexts. Demographers, for example, find that more people are moving to outlying rural areas, in part because more firms are locating on the outskirts of metropolitan areas, thus extending the radius of commuter travel—and economic relationships—outward into rural communities (Johnson and Beale, 1995). Carving a state into rural and urban territories, CED suggests, only serves to undermine economic links between urban centers and surrounding rural counties, disguise significant variations between substate regions and rural areas, and marginalize rural programs (CED, 1993).

Recognized internationally as model approaches to development, collaborative initiatives are also the offspring of that mother of invention—necessity. Working together to maximize supplies of resources helps communities close some of the many fiscal gaps which have resulted from increased demands on public services and for efficient, low-cost government. In short, they can do more with less. Collaborative multi-community or regional development initiatives, MacDonald suggests, enable communities to:

Logically, such processes can also strengthen the capacity of communities to preserve desirable qualities of local culture, which many fear will be diluted by traditional economic development. Rural communities engaged in collaborative development efforts can also become more effective lobbyists for shared goals and objectives and leverage greater political and technical support—and skill. In effect, they can achieve rising capabilities that enable an upward spiral of economic and social activity.

The ability of rural alliances to build, maintain, and expand local ownership, however, is highly dependent upon democratic processes, a pre-condition for the success of any initiative. Many begin with public or town meetings, aimed at raising awareness, engaging citizens, identifying leaders, and gathering public opinion. Other important ingredients of successful alliances, as suggested by the authors of Toward an Understanding of Multi-Community Collaboration, issue from the work of organizational change in public administration. In each case, they closely parallel private sector quality tenets. They include:

The importance of achieving initial results would seem to run contrary to that of sustaining a long-term focus. Rather, even minor organizational successes can help boost confidence in new approaches to development, and consensus goals usually produce agreed-upon problems and needs that can be readily addressed once collective attention is given to them. Tupelo’s remarkable success story, for example, began with a town clean-up effort. An assessment of community assets, liabilities and future prospects, which we later discuss in greater detail, provides a necessary focus for civic energy from the outset, identifying realistic goals and strategies that elevate confidence in the process.

In spite of the potential they offer, few would suggest that building cooperation between communities, institutions, organizations, etc., is an easy matter. Indeed, turf issues have stymied the most noble of causes here and abroad for generations. The difficult, time-consuming process of cultivating public interest, building trust in the process, and, some suggest, overcoming a general resistance to collaboration, MacDonald observes, can obstruct public and private efforts (NCRCRD, 1991). Moreover, inadequate organizational and leadership capabilities (NCRCRD), and the problem of intervention by government (Freshwater and Ehrensaft, 1995), if the process is initiated by one of its representatives, are all possible impediments. However, research and experience are demonstrating that investment in innovative capacity-building initiatives can facilitate collaboration and engagement and achieve desired economic outcomes.

Regional Approaches to Rural Development

(from Rethinking Rural Development, 1993, pages 8-12; by The Corporation for Enterprise Development)

The Corporation for Enterprise Development cites different approaches to collaborative, capacity-building rural development initiatives which reflect the uniqueness of the regions they serve and the vision of citizens engaged in the processes.

The “citistate” approach adopted by Nashville, Tennessee, for example, is an urban-centered initiative that has brought radiating benefits to surrounding counties. Much as Tupelo did in 1948, business leaders in Nashville organized Partnership 2000, a long-term planning process aimed at raising quality of life, in 1989. Partnership 2000 has achieved remarkable success and extended its focus outward to include nine non-metropolitan counties surrounding the greater metropolitan Nashville area. Building on a foundation of assessment, broad citizen input and measurable goals, the project has formulated long-term plans and goals and raised $6 million, which it has invested in 98 business and community development initiatives. Similar regional planning efforts emanating out of urban centers in Kentucky could integrate fringe rural counties into a long-range effort that would be enhanced by the significant resources of urban communities.

The Regional Economic Strategy Project of Western North Carolina set out in 1988 to develop “an explicitly regional economic strategy,” one that would address the needs of an area which did not enjoy the same level of economic performance as other parts of this prosperous state. The regional focus is one that “ . . . rejects local initiatives that are limited in their ability to produce significant change, and place the region’s counties in competition with one another. It assumes that no community or county in western North Carolina can realize its economic potential while the overall region continues to lag economically.” Through a series of public forums involving 400 people from 17 counties, ideas on ways to build the optimum regional economy were surfaced, then shaped by a technical committee into four consensus goals, including the formation of a leadership development program and a multi-bank lending strategy.

In Nebraska, a statewide strategy for regional development emerged from the work of the 1991 Rural Development Commission formed by Governor Ben Nelson. The commission was charged with bringing public focus to rural issues; encouraging cooperation both between communities and service providers; improving the flow of information to rural communities; integrating rural development goals and recommendations into strategic planning initiatives; and improving programmatic oversight. From the outset, the commission’s work focused on collaboration and the importance of building local capacity. The resultant Nebraska Development Network, which began operations in 1992, has achieved a number of important capacity-building goals, including the creation of an academy to nurture rural leadership and enhance local capacity; formation of regional service providers around trade centers; on-line access that provides interaction between communities and access to economic intelligence; establishment of the Nebraska Intelligence System, a source of useable, readily accessible economic data; the formation of working groups to assess appraisal tools and processes and develop new ones for testing; and, the establishment of benchmarks for the state’s community development block grant program aligned with new rural goals.

Leadership Development

Building capacity is "developing knowledgeable local leadership that can respond to, and even create, opportunities for economic development" (Sears et al., 1992). But, as Grisham suggests, leadership is a force, not simply the individuals we customarily identify as "leaders." The ultimate difference between traditional leaders and leadership lies with relationships, observes Grisham. The relative ineffectuality of some traditional leaders is often a product of their reliance on vertical relationships and their inability to form horizontal relationships within their own community, from where the real energy of development must issue. In the arena of rural development, the ability to form, sustain, and work cooperatively with activist groups or teams is key.

Ideally, capacity-building strategies serve multiple purposes, including identifying, nurturing, and sustaining leadership and engagement. Process leadership, which emphasizes horizontal relationships and focuses skills such as mediating conflict, conducting effective meetings, building consensus, and maximizing participation, is as important as more traditional project leadership. Open democratic processes, for example, provide an important catalyst for engagement, validate the contributions of individuals and encourage them to continue giving. Whether in the form of individuals or goal-oriented groups, an expanding base of leadership, one that is continually undergoing renewal, helps maximize limited resources and launch an upward spiral of activity.

Today, evolving literature and practice inform the leadership development activities being conducted by public, private, and non-profit organizations. Many have developed the internal capacity to provide such training while others look outside to consulting experts. Rural development initiatives with a capacity-building focus have consistently dedicated resources to the establishment of some ongoing, usually internal, mechanism for developing new leaders. Several states have now established formal institutes that coordinate, deliver, evaluate and refine leadership development services. Ideally, any such vehicle should focus on process leadership in order to sustain the work of building rural capacity for change.

In Kentucky, leadership development initiatives have been underway for some time, but their focus and content differ with each organization. Leadership Kentucky, a non-profit organization funded primarily by corporate and business contributions, trains 50 selected participants each year in an effort to broaden "their knowledge of Kentucky’s challenges and opportunities" and inspire future leadership. The program, however, is generally aimed at advancing the capacity of traditional leaders. While some partial scholarships are available, the program’s cost, $1,500 per participant, is prohibitive to many. The University of Kentucky’s Extension Service provides a range of important capacity-building services to interested communities, including leadership development. In conjunction with the University’s Appalachian Center, leadership development workshops are provided, but at a minimum cost of $300. Non-profit organizations, including the Brushy Fork Institute, the Local Governance Project, and Kentuckians for the Commonwealth, on the other hand, have focused significant resources on inclusive leadership development initiatives aimed at broadening civic engagement and enriching the capabilities of citizens and groups. In spite of the efforts underway, no systematic effort to coordinate these initiatives and evaluate their effectiveness and outcomes has been undertaken.

Around the nation, examples of leadership development initiatives are multiplying. The Colorado Rural Revitalization Project, for example, which was established in 1988 with the assistance of a Kellogg Foundation grant to provide leadership and community development assistance, engaged 45 communities, most with populations under 2,000, in the work of building "internal foundations and external relationships" (Dunn, 1992, 1). According to Visions in Action, a 1992 report on the progress of this broad-based capacity-building initiative, residents of some small towns responded by forming community teams that were "looking to the future, assessing community circumstances and options, reaching agreement on community goals and action plans, and tackling a host of tangible community improvement projects" (Dunn, 1992, 1). The project helped launch self-development community initiatives that engaged a broad range of players, and, in some communities, became the seed for catalytic short-term gains.

Importantly, a similar initiative is now underway in Kentucky, also funded by the Kellogg Foundation; however, in order to sustain energy and commitment to rural development, it will be necessary to develop an ongoing, long-term focus. State and local support will be important to the success of such initiatives.

Community Assessment

The Corporation for Enterprise Development recommends in Rethinking Rural Development that broad-based knowledge and understanding of the interrelationships of economies should form the foundation for planning and executing development strategies (CED, 1993). In short, both the point of departure and the continuing path of development initiatives—state or local, rural or urban—must be informed by solid, useable information that can be transformed into goals and objectives for the future. Its importance, Glen Pulver and David Dodson observe, cannot be overstated:

Long-term success rests on a community’s ability to clarify its current situation, describe the future it wants, choose feasible strategies to reach its goals, and implement its plans skillfully. Community assessment—the process that localities use to catalogue their resources, deficits, opportunities, and options—is fundamental to any successful, self-directed effort at community development (Pulver & Dodson, 1992, 3).

Pulver, a Professor Emeritus from the University of Wisconsin-Madison who specializes in community economic policy, and Dodson, who heads MDC, Inc., in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, suggest communities which have not undergone a strong assessment process are blindly groping for the path to prosperity. "The rural landscape is littered with communities that have made large and unsuccessful investments—in industrial parks, promotional campaigns, airstrips, and tourist facilities—without first mapping where they stand in a competitive environment" (Pulver & Dodson, 1992, 3).

Pulver and Dodson, as well as a host of rural development experts, emphasize the importance of community assessment as a process, an ongoing renewal of information, goals, and strategies in accordance with changing circumstances. Smyre emphasizes the importance of a future orientation in community assessment. "Traditionalists may see past strengths as future strengths. That’s a mistake" (Smyre, 1995). A futures orientation necessarily underscores the need for sustainable development that will continue contributing to economic and social well-being of people and places over the long term. Orienting assessment towards the long-term future ultimately strengthens a community’s capacity for change.

Additionally, the goal of broad community engagement in the process is critically important. "The aspirations of residents should provide the primary direction for public action" (Pulver & Dodson, 1992, 5). Open, public meetings not only enrich the assessment process, they also engage citizens, build consensus and ownership, and surface leadership. The essential ingredients of community assessment, according to Pulver and Dodson, are:

In Tupelo, we see a long-standing reliance on technical expertise from outside to provide a foundation for local decision-making, one that has provided critical support for successive 10-year and annual strategic plans. As Pulver and Dodson observe, while most urban communities possess sufficient resources to purchase technical expertise in the marketplace, rural communities generally do not. Consequently, state government could play an important role in advancing local capacity-building by providing technical assistance in community assessment. However, it is important that such technical assistance not displace nor hinder the growth of social capital.

Again, the University of Kentucky Extension Service is skilled and experienced in community assessment, which is provided on request; however, staff and resources are limited. Likewise, the Area Development Districts have the capacity to develop expertise in assessment and to begin providing this critical foundation for community-based development. Part of designing a comprehensive strategy for rural development is determining how best to provide the support communities need to conduct assessments and begin the all-important process of building the capacity to compete and prosper.

Self-Development Strategies

While multi-community or regional collaboration offers clear opportunities to maximize resources, self-development initiatives that have emanated out of empowered local communities have also achieved remarkable goals, often in a relatively short time. Numerous case studies detail the ready success of local self-development initiatives that focused on restoring, rehabilitating or converting to public use historic buildings, potential tourist attractions, abandoned businesses or other community assets, to create a magnet or a center of community activity. Others have developed marketing strategies, recruited and even purchased new businesses, and provided seed money for new enterprises. While these are the most immediate results of community development initiatives, they are also emblematic of the power of social capital, a force which begets more collective energy. These projects have enabled communities with limited resources to achieve unexpected results. Nurturing such efforts by providing grants and ongoing technical support could help produce important long-term benefits.

In Novinger, Missouri, for example, a non-profit community organization formed to launch community improvement projects recruited more than 100 volunteers who donated 5,000 hours of time to the reconstruction of an historic 1848 log home at an estimated savings of $41,000 for the community. Designed to help rebuild local pride in this former coal-mining community, the project also served to demonstrate the possibilities collective action holds (National Association of Towns and Townships, 1990). It is worth noting that the successful development of Tupelo and the surrounding region began with a clean-up project that citizens identified as their top priority (Grisham, 1994).

In Illinois, a number of communities have demonstrated that local goals can be realized through local effort. The celebrated story of Prophetsville, for example, is one of a small community’s determination to create lasting jobs by buying an industry outright. With important pro-bono legal support, valuable social capital in this case, a local development organization sold $100,000 in stock to local residents and purchased a relocating wood products industry. In Blue Mound, residents simply wanted a grocery store, so they formed a corporation, sold shares and built a grocery to meet a pressing need in the community, one that might be expected to spawn other local business activity. In Ohio, Illinois, the community wanted to sustain population and commitment to local schools. To achieve its goal, a program of tax reimbursement to families purchasing or building homes in the community was adopted to attract commuters. As a result, local population and school enrollment increased (Walzer, 1993). Similarly, regions of Kentucky that are experiencing depopulation may want to consider tax incentives for families to encourage investment in and long-range commitment to communities.

Also offering potential for replication in Kentucky, the Virginia Eastern Shore Sustainable Development Corporation united the Nature Conservancy and local residents in an effort to build a long-term strategy aimed at preserving the health and beauty of the county’s ecosystem while expanding opportunities for local residents. Joint plans included the cultivation of eco-tourism attractions that combined conservation goals and plans for expanded public use, specialty agricultural producers, and business development. The Northhampton Economic Forum brought long-term focus and local control to this coastal region, utilizing capacity-building strategies such as community assessment and leadership development training to advance its mission. This work offers a possible model for those underdeveloped regions of Kentucky blessed with significant natural amenities. In these regions, the combination of eco-tourism, complementary agricultural or horticultural strategies, and planned local business development may offer a means to gradually reverse long-term cycles of joblessness and poverty.

Investments that Pay Dividends

While launching a process that asks increasingly alienated citizens to become involved and believe in their own potential is fraught with difficulty, the lack of financial support for such engagement may be the most formidable obstacle to its realization. In a 1993 national study of rural self-development projects, Flora, Gale, Schmidt, Green and Flora found that community-based, self-help initiatives are hampered by the same dilution of resources that has historically inhibited rural development. Funding and access to capital were most frequently identified as obstacles to self-development strategies. Importantly, the authors note, much of the work of these organizations could be advanced through relatively small sums of money (Flora et al., 1993).

A national survey of rural self-development initiatives conducted for the USDA in 1990 (Green et al., 1990) concluded that these local efforts generate positive, tangible benefits to communities. Predictably, however, they are often constrained by a lack of resources, human and financial, and, to a lesser extent, by opposition from traditional leaders—if they are not involved in the effort. Documented successes of community development initiatives over a relatively short span of time, however, strongly suggest the need for broader public investment.

When asked what presented a "great hindrance" to the implementation of self-development efforts, respondents most frequently cited "availability of capital" (32 percent of respondents), followed by the cost of capital (20 percent), lack of capable management (13 percent), and lack of technical assistance (12 percent). Each of these issues can be resolved through the redeployment of more dollars designated for economic development to community-level initiatives.

Other issues of local capacity, including the lack of skilled labor, local government capabilities, professional personnel, and community leadership, were cited by between 7 percent and 10 percent of respondents. In addition, fewer than 5 percent of respondents cited opposition from local government, the private sector, retired persons, and labor groups (Green et al., 1990).

These national survey results also suggest that federal programs and funding play an important role in nurturing and sustaining local development initiatives. Indeed, nearly 30 percent of respondents reported that a regional or local extension agent had been involved in the project, and the largest projects were funded by federal, state or local government (Green et al., 1990). Faced with an almost certain reduction of federal dollars for rural development initiatives, expanded local and state government support could facilitate the emergence of more of these initiatives.

In spite of resource constraints and relatively short lifespans (65 percent of responding organizations had been in existence only since 1985), self-development organizations reported successful efforts to create jobs and generate income. As illustrated, the overwhelming majority (93 percent) of respondents reported having had a positive impact on jobs creation, as well as a range of facets of community life. The median number of jobs reported created or saved was 25 per initiative, and more than half of respondents reported that all of the jobs generated by the initiative were filled by local residents. On average, 91 percent of jobs created, 46 percent of which were skilled, went to local residents. Overall, self-development initiatives also generated median gross sales of $150,000, which were likely to radiate benefits in the community (Green et al., 1990).

Figure 1: Percent of Respondents Reporting Benefits of Rural U.S. Self-Development Initiatives, 1990

Significantly, these efforts, the survey found, are not a substitute for industrial recruitment, but rather a complementary strategy. While a plurality of responding self-development programs (41 percent) reported having made no attempt to engage in industrial recruitment, 28 percent reported failed efforts and 31 percent reported success. Among those who succeeded in recruiting industry, the median number of jobs created was 83 (Green et al., 1990). Consequently, it appears that self-development initiatives are enjoying success whether or not they engage in industrial recruitment and that they can achieve sufficient capacity to garner results in this arena, if they pursue them.

Authors of the survey also found that the more communities engaged in planning and setting goals, the more successful their venture into self-development. Among respondents, 17 percent reported that public meetings helped shape such planning. Likewise, leadership, the development of which is essential to expanding the capacity of rural communities, was an important predictor of success. The authors observe that citizens involved in grassroots development initiatives need training in the fundamentals of democratic organization. Outside funding is also key since only one-eighth of funds utilized by respondents came from local sources. But, the authors note, funds need not be massive. Instead, they conclude that "too much funding too soon can force a project to become inefficient and grow too fast" (Green et al., 1993, 27). Hence, seed money, as well as important sustaining grants, could help launch community-based rural development efforts that have proven to have significant human and economic multiplier effects over time.

Broad-based public sector commitment from state and local government, and the private sector, could play a strong supporting role in the evolution of a network of collaborative development initiatives throughout rural Kentucky. Projects designed to build rural development capacity and nurture collaborative initiatives are emerging across the United States and around the world. From the national focus on distressed communities, which the Community Futures Program has adopted in Canada, to a range of state initiatives such as those in Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Nebraska, North Carolina, Oregon, Washington, and Wisconsin, the work of building communities from within is being broadly advanced. While some states such as Wisconsin are adopting more active roles, placing resource development specialists in extension offices throughout the state, others have adopted more passive strategies, providing assistance when localities make the first step (Sears, Redman, Gardner, and Adams, 1992). In each of these cases, however, government support, in the form of technical assistance, research, facilitators, training, leadership development, and grants, advances the work of rural development under a capacity-building model. While public support is needed to close critical gaps in physical and social infrastructure and fund entrepreneurial ventures, public support for the work of community development is key to building the internal resources rural communities need to more effectively leverage investment. Indeed, investment in community development may be the most profitable one government can make.

Elements of Kentucky’s strategic economic development plan help advance the capacity of local communities, local development organizations, and firms through expanded participation, recruitment training, industrial networks, and export assistance. Nevertheless, in order to bring real focus to the important work of expanding local capacity, it will be necessary to refine and reorder state government’s approach to development. It is one that must consistently recognize the compelling needs of Kentucky’s rural communities, as well as the enormous potential of citizens, organizations, and firms in these communities. While garnering measurable results will take time, as it did in Tupelo, the power of communities that are rich in social capital and civic participation is likely to produce sustainable benefits over the long-term. In short, building the capacity of those who serve and live and work in rural communities will provide the foundation Kentuckians need to compete and prosper in the 21st Century.

To view a list of all chapters in this book, click here.  To read the chapters in sequential order, please follow the arrows below.

  Back to Beyond Quantitative Development

  Ahead to Lessons from Tupelo: A Case Study