Enhancing Rural Economic Opportunities, Community Resilience, and Entrepreneurship

<p>(1) Enhancing rural economic opportunities and entrepreneurship. This is an exceptionally broad, multi-faceted objective which encompasses both the need for advancing the theoretical structure of community economic development and the need for empirical, focused, policy relevant research. Some of the areas which NE1049 researchers have pursued and will expand in the new project are discussed in the comments section. a. The Theory of "Community capitals" (Flora and Flora 1993, 2008). These seven community capitals include built, financial, political, social, human, cultural and natural capitals (Flora and Gillespie 2009). NE1049 researchers have done substantial research on social capital over the past five years (e.g. Goetz and Rupasinga, 2006; Halstead and Deller, 2015). Research in the capitals overlaps with many sub-topics in both this and the second proposal objective, and helps in the pursuit of a broad paradigm for economic development.<br />
b. Issues of wealth/income distribution and rural economic development. Country-level studies have largely found that income inequality and economic growth are inversely related (e.g. Person and Tabellini, 1994; Alesina and Rodrik, 1994; Banerjee and Duflo, 2000). Income and wealth distribution is also an issue in rural areas. Bishaw and Posey (2016) noted that rural Americans have lower median household incomes than urban households, but rural areas have lower poverty rates than their urban counterparts.<br />
c. Non-agricultural development opportunities. A particular area of research for NE1049 has been the economics of local agriculture. However, many rural communities have tried to expand into tourism and recreation with mixed success; in any case, employment opportunities generated in some of these sectors tend to be relatively low-income. Diversification of local economies (e.g. export base and local agriculture; business attraction and retention) through both expanding the small business sector (Eschker, Gold and Lane, 2017) and fostering retention and expansion of existing businesses (Halstead and Deller, 1997) are key development objectives which clearly affect resiliency in the face of natural and human caused shocks to the system. How entrepreneurs behave socially, exchange information, and procure resources and establish reciprocity, are key areas of research (Markeson and Deller 2015).<br />
d. Infrastructure needs, development, and deficiencies. Infrastructure is a broad concept, including both Economic Overhead Capital (which includes roads, bridges, powerlines, etc.) and Social Overhead Capital (health, education, etc.) (Hansen, 1965). Built infrastructure has been researched by team members since the 1980s (e.g. Johnson et al. 1988). Such investments have the potential to affect virtually all the subtopics in both proposed objectives. Specific topics under scrutiny by NE1049 researchers include impacts of broad band internet availability/deficiency on economic development and availability and affordability of child care as a deterrent to availability of affordable labor, and its effects on rural quality of life.<br />
e. Chronic and progressive labor availability problems, related to the issues raised in the third REE goal listed above. If labor becomes more expensive, more automation may result (Devaraj et al. 2017). This can cause economic distortion, and affect labor participation rates, economic goal setting, and other key features at the community level<br />
f. The impact of entrepreneurship on rural areas. There is evidence from previous research that entrepreneurs can contribute to growth in rural areas (e.g. Sepehns et al. 2013; Rupasingha and Goetz, 2013) and understanding what types of policies can contribute to this growth will be critical to deal with the restructuring of rural areas.<br />
(2) 2. Evaluating Factors and Policies Affecting the Resiliency of Rural Communities. Many of the natural and human induced "shocks" which impact rural communities are external i.e. communities have little or no control over whether the shock occurs. Examples include major storms (Hurricane Harvey, Superstorm Sandy), restructuring of the tax code or health care system, or State and Federal changes in energy, land, and water use policy. However, there are proactive and reactive mechanisms communities can adopt to minimize negative effects and enhance positive effects of these shocks, and to mitigate effects which do happen. The degree to which a community can bounce back from these changes is a measure of resiliency. Proposed and ongoing research areas under this objective are discussed in the comments section. 1. objective are:<br />
<br />
a. Impacts of federal infrastructure investment plans. Funding mechanisms for proposed infrastructure upgrades and expansion are not yet determined and may be quite different from historical funding efforts and effects on tax bases (Deller, Amiel, Stallmann, and Maher, 2013a; Janeski and Whitacre, 2014).<br />
b. Changes in health care availability due to changes in the Affordable Care Act and possible new health care legislation. Many rural counties currently have few or no health care providers, and often suffer from substance abuse issues (Henning-Smith and Kozhimannil, 2016; Skidmore et al. 2014). The disproportionate representation of veterans in rural areas presents both problems and opportunities; veterans may require health care and counseling services difficult to find in rural areas.<br />
c. Why are some areas lagging in recovering from the recession (Stephens, H., Partridge, and Faggian, 2013; Stephens and Partridge, 2011)? What did we learn from the recession? What policies aided resilience and recovery (Deller and Watson, 2016)? There is movement away from extractive industries to retirement/tourism based economies in rural areas, a trend partially offset with opposite effects in, for example, fracking areas; how will this effect community resilience in the face of future shocks? What contexts increase the likelihood a rural community will benefit from retirement-, tourism-, or recreation-based economies as they consider moving away from extractive industries (Hill et al. 2014; Lim, 2016)?<br />
d. The impact of changes in federal policies affect land and water use in rural areas (Chen and Weber, 2012). For example, transfer of ownership of federal lands from federal to state government has been proposed, which might affect income, employment, and taxation at the local/state level. Other issues include changes in public land policy and forest resource management.<br />
e. Understanding the Impacts of changes in the retirement system. For example, the current generation of retirees is the first to experience a shift from traditional pension plans to personal retirement accounts, with implications for intergenerational wealth transfer.<br />
f. Understanding the impact of policies regarding climate change and efforts to support alternative forms of energy on rural areas. What impacts does the renewable energy sector have on rural jobs, income, and household and community well-being? Are some locations better equipped with transport infrastructure, land and forest resources, and human and social capital to support the expansion of this emerging sector? What is the effect of clean energy development on rural counties? Increased focus on sources of renewable energy has raised questions of aesthetic damages, issues of regional vs. local energy, and storage capacity for solar generation. How can rural areas participate?<br />
g. Understanding the impact of policies geared at reinvigorating or encouraging fossil fuels on rural areas. How do rural residents value th</p>