An Analysis of the Economic Development Role 


Of Business Associations 


And Other Intermediary Organizations 


Serving Appalachian Industries


VOLUME I: REPORT 

Submitted to 

the Appalachian Regional Commission 

Second Edition 

April 2000 

Lynn E. McCormick 

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 

695 Park Avenue 

Hunter College at The City University of New York 

New York, New York 10021 

Email: mccormil@aol.com
VOLUME I: REPORT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i 

I. INTRODUCTION 1 

II. THE FUNCTIONS AND SCOPE OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS AND 

OTHER INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS 2 

• Business Associations and Other Intermediary Organizations in Flexible 

Production Districts 2 

• Collective Action to Minimize Transaction and Adaptive Costs 3 

• Critical Functions of Business Associations and Other Intermediary 

Organizations 4 

(1) Public and Private Sector Roles 4 

(2) Market Coordination 4 

(3) Skill Upgrading 5 

(4) Research and Development 5 

(5) Inter-firm Coordination 5 

(6) Strategic Planning 5 

(7) Labor Standards 8 

• The Scope of Business Associations and Other Intermediary Organizations 9 

(1) Small- and Medium-Sized Enterprises versus Big Business 9 

(2) Same versus Different Sector Institutions 10 

(3) Regional and National Inter-firm Institutions 13 

III. CASE STUDIES OF INTER-FIRM INSTITUTIONS IN THE 

APPALACHIAN REGION 14 

• Selection of Industries 14 

• Furniture 15 

(1) Furniture Production in the Appalachian Region 15 

(2) Institutional Scope 18 

(3) Institutional Functions 20 

(4) Institutional Gaps 25 
• Lumber and Wood Products 26 

(1) The Wood Products Industry in the Appalachian Region 27 

(2) Institutional Scope 27 

(3) Institutional Functions 34 

(4) Institutional Gaps 36 

• Textiles 37 

(1) Textile Production in the Appalachian Region 38 

(2) Scope and Functions of Local/Regional Institutions 38 

(3) Scope and Functions of National Level Institutions 45 

(4) Institutional Gaps 47 

• Apparel 48 

(1) Apparel Manufacturing in the Appalachian Region 49 

(2) Scope and Functions of National Level Institutions 51 

(3) Scope and Functions of Local/Regional Institutions 54 

(4) Institutional Gaps 55 

IV. FINDINGS AND POLICY OPTIONS 56 

• Findings 56 

• Policy Options 59 

V. CONCLUSION 60 

VI. ENDNOTES 63 

VII. REFERENCES 69 

• Interviews 69 

• Organizational Literature and Website Material 71 

• Bibliography 73 

FIGURES 

• Figure 1 - Institutional Framework for Collective Inter-firm Partnerships 6 

• Figure 2 - Inter-firm Relationships 12 
• Figure 3 - List of Organizations and Their Acronyms 16 

• Figure 4 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employment in Furniture 

and Related Products (SIC 25) 19 

• Figure 5 - Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnerships in the 

Appalachian Furniture and Related Industries 21 

• Figure 6 - Relationships Among Organizations Serving the Furniture and 

Home Furnishings Industries 23 

• Figure 7 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employment in Lumber 

and Wood Products (SIC 24) 28 

• Figure 8 - Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnerships in the 

Appalachian Wood Products Industry 30 

• Figure 9 - Relationships Among Organizations Serving the Wood Products 

and Related Industries 32 

• Figure 10 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employment in Textiles 

and Related Products (SIC 22) 39 

• Figure 11 - Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnerships in the 

Appalachian Textile Industry 41 

• Figure 12 - Relationships Among Organizations Serving the Integrated 

Textile Complex 43 

• Figure 13 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employment in Apparel 

and Related Products (SIC 23) 50 

• Figure 14 - Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnerships in the 

Appalachian Apparel Industry 52 

• Figure 15 – Ideal Types of Collective Inter-firm Organizations 62 
i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

This report examines how collaboration among firms through business 

associations and other entities can increase the participating firms’ competitiveness. 

These intermediary organizations can tailor their services to a membership of firms that 

differs in terms of the size, sector, and location of their members. By combining their 

efforts at research and development, training, technology acquisition, and marketing, 

small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) garner economies of scale in providing 

services that come naturally to a larger operation. The most comprehensive system of 

inter-firm services would assist all types of firms (small and large, peers and suppliers, 

local and multiple locations) with their specific needs related to reducing both transaction 

and adaptive costs§

. Such a system would also promote regional and national industrial 

development simultaneously. 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) wanted to identify the extent that 

business associations and other intermediary organizations increase the competitiveness 

of firms in the thirteen-state Appalachian region. In addition, ARC wanted to know the 

number and type of such intermediary organizations, the various strategies they use in 

providing services, and the opportunities for public-private sector cooperation in 

delivering services. This report meets these objectives by focusing on case studies of 

four prominent manufacturing sectors in the Appalachian region. 

CASE STUDIES 

Four important manufacturing sectors were selected for detailed case studies to 

analyze the role of business associations in economic development in this region. The 

furniture, wood products, textiles, and apparel industrial sectors were selected because 

they are among the most prominent in the Appalachian states, based on their employment 

size and concentration (as indicated by location quotients). A brief institutional profile is 

provided, followed by a summary of business associations within the industry, their 

functions, and their weaknesses. These summaries are based on telephone interviews and 

an organizational literature review of 59 business, public, or quasi-public institutions. 

Furniture 

Furniture production takes place throughout the thirteen states in the Appalachian 

region; these states account for almost half of all jobs in furniture manufacturing in the 

United States. Twenty percent of all U.S. manufacturing jobs in furniture construction are 

provided by plants in the Appalachian Region, and fifteen percent are provided by North 

Carolina plants—six percent exist in firms within the state’s Appalachian region. Several 

industry trade associations and other intermediary institutions serve the industry 

nationally from High Point, North Carolina, and elsewhere in the state. Each 

§

 Transaction costs include typical costs of producing the same product, while adaptive costs include the 

costs of shifting to new products or processes in response to changes in long-term demand. 
ii 

organization represents small and large firms in their respective constituency. Each also 

organizes a peer group of firms that are horizontally related in an industrial supply chain. 

They assist coordinating the supply chain in the furniture market through the 

International Home Furnishings Marketing Association (IHFMA) and several industrial 

extension/research institutes for the industry. 

The clustering of these various associations in High Point rather than in 

Washington, D.C. lends a local focus to their efforts and offers strong spin-off benefits in 

terms of local and statewide development. These institutions offer services that allow 

firms to reduce both transaction and adaptive costs. For instance, one institution offers 

transaction cost savings for the industry by lobbying through its Furniture Political 

Action Committee, and by carrying out extensive activities to coordinate its members’ 

output and input markets. Other institutions help the industry with new product 

development, research and development, and training. 

The lack of such institutional clustering in other furniture-producing states such 

as Mississippi and Tennessee has weakened the furniture manufacturing support systems 

there. Local associations would allow firms to meet more frequently and perhaps 

influence state-level economic development efforts—a critical policymaking level in this 

age of federal devolution. Given this institutional vacuum, several non-profit community 

development organizations have begun to organize the industry at the local level (e.g., the 

Community Development Foundation (CDF), in Mississippi, and the Appalachian Center 

for Economic Networks (ACEnet) in Ohio). Another gap in the furniture sector is in the 

area of production labor training. Outside North Carolina, specialized training for 

furniture workers is scarce. 

Lumber and Wood Products 

In the thirteen states comprising the Appalachian region, wood and forest 

products manufacturing jobs on a state-wide basis account for about 40 percent of such 

jobs nationally, and are concentrated in North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, Pennsylvania, 

Mississippi, and Virginia. Appalachian firms account for fifteen percent of these jobs 

nationally. Several organizations represent divisions of the industry nationally with 

headquarters in Washington, D.C. The American Forest and Paper Association 

(AF&PA) represents peer firms that are sometimes connected in the supply chain, but its 

activities at a local/regional level have been minimal. 

There are several regional and sectoral business associations, but only a few 

target the wood products industry specifically. Other regional associations serving firms 

in the same wood products sector exist almost exclusively for product promotion. These 

organizations have been too dispersed in membership to exert much influence at the state 

level for funding and targeting industrial extension activities. 

In terms of creating adaptive cost efficiencies, there is a separation of the industry 

into top-down (and nationally centered) and bottom-up (regionally and locally focused) 
iii 

efforts. One top-down national effort is the Sustainable Forestry Initiative promoted by 

the AF&PA. The Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (SLMA) has initiated 

a regional effort through its resource pooling schemes, “managers’ roundtables,” and 

strategic planning. At the local or statewide level, Kentucky’s Wood Products 

Competitiveness Corporation (KWPCC) also has established resource pooling schemes 

and strategic planning initiatives for the industry. 

Compared to the other industries profiled, associations in the lumber and wood 

products industry seem the least involved in collective research efforts, training, and new 

technology. No linkage or collaborative efforts with union or production labor were 

mentioned. Another institutional gap in this sector is the lack of many local or state-level 

associations to influence and/or work with state industrial extension services, although 

Kentucky and North Carolina are exceptions. In addition, there is a relatively low level of 

collective research and new technology initiatives in the lumber and wood products 

sectors. 

Textiles 

The textile industry is centered in the U.S. South. North Carolina alone provides 

almost one-third of all textile jobs in the country, and 75 percent of the industry’s total 

business volume. Adding North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama—in 

order by size of employment concentration—the employment total of all textile jobs is 

about 78 percent. Over one-third of all jobs in this industry are located in the 

Appalachian Region. 

State textile associations exist in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 

Alabama. Some of these associations, such as the Georgia Textile Manufacturers 

Association and the North Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association, provide financial 

support and collaboration with state technical schools and community colleges for 

worker training. The business-community college link is most apparent at the regional or 

local level. Several highly local actors have taken a more active role in helping their 

member firms collectively focus on adaptive cost efficiencies. For instance, the Dalton 

Floor Covering Marketing Association (DFCMA) assists smaller firms in Georgia by 

hosting its own local suppliers and equipment show. 

In contrast to these state or local textile associations is the American Textile 

Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) whose members process about 80 percent of all textiles 

made in U.S. plants. The organization’s mission is to allow its member firms to solve 

problems collectively at a national level and to act as the industry’s representative to 

federal agencies, Congress, and the news media. Many of the activities for stimulating 

textile firms to acquire new technologies and skills come from the national level. Several 

universities, national organizations, the federal government, and key manufacturing 

companies started new institutions to promote basic research and technology diffusion in 

integrated textile industries. The first national-level institution for the integrated textile 

complex was the Textile/Apparel Clothing Corporation (TC2). Located in North 
iv 

Carolina, it focuses on research and development for automating the apparel industry. 

Other institutions include the American Textile Partnership (AMTEX), a collaborative 

research program involving industry representatives, federal agencies, and a consortium 

of universities. 

The specialized federal-level efforts may not always be coordinated with state or 

sub-state efforts. Smaller textile firms—often underrepresented in national and 

diversified business associations—may receive less support from this set of institutions, 

weakening the development of state or sub-state textile clusters. Some state or sub-state 

textile clusters served by proactive business associations have enhanced their 

competitiveness. However, more localized clusters without such associations are 

relatively under-served. 

Apparel 

Fifty-one percent of all jobs in the U.S. apparel industry are located in the thirteen 

states comprising the Appalachian region, with the largest number of state-wide, apparel 

jobs in New York, North Carolina, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama, and 

South Carolina. Within the Appalachian Region, 16 percent of all jobs in the U.S. apparel 

industry, with Tennessee, Alabama and Pennsylvania having the largest employment. For 

some Appalachian counties, apparel constitutes the most sizable manufacturing 

opportunity locally. 

The apparel industry in the Appalachian region is well-served by a host of 

innovative, basic-research and training organizations that are organized and funded at the 

national level through AMTEX. The American Apparel Manufacturers Association 

(AAMA) offices are in the Washington area, allowing it to carry out significant federal 

level lobbying activities. Against this context of national institutions, one can compare 

the set of local or regional apparel associations likely to involve the industry’s smaller 

firms. This contrast shows that the institutional structure serving apparel at this lower 

level is relatively weak if almost non-existent. 

By itself, the AAMA is not involved with business associations that operate at a 

sub-national level; nor does it host local chapters of the AAMA. Two regional business 

associations, the American Apparel Producers Network (AAPN) and the Southeastern 

Apparel Manufacturers and Suppliers Association (SEAMS), offer contrasting images of 

the potential for regional trade associations in this industry. AAPN offers its member 

firms cooperative marketing and cooperative workers’ compensation insurance schemes. 

SEAMS aims to assist its members with acquiring information about markets and 

technology. Organizations that serve or organize state-level or sub-state clusters of 

apparel firms were not encountered. State competitiveness efforts, on the whole, did not 

target the apparel industry for specialized services (except North Carolina’s 

manufacturing extension services). Targeted and sector-specific associations, 

government extension, and/or community college services do not serve the bulk of small 

apparel firms in much of the Appalachian area. 
v 

AMTEX and other organizations are national institutions that are regionally sited, 

and provide services for moving the apparel industry into computerized and automation 

technologies. However, it is unclear the extent to which these efforts have been linked 

up with smaller apparel firms in the industry. Several regional associations indicate a 

closer proximity to SME manufacturers, but differ immensely in terms of their 

performance. Finally, none of the associations interviewed for this section mentioned 

collective efforts with worker training. 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

This section summarizes the main insights that emerge from the foregoing case 

studies. It also includes recommendations for how public sector agencies such as the 

Appalachian Regional Commission can build on the noted institutional strengths or 

overcome institutional weaknesses. 

Findings 

• These associations show a great range in capacity, from government lobbying 

to assisting member firms develop new products, processes, skills, and 

technology. 

• Few business associations researched for these case studies actively recruit, 

train, and/or structure career paths for production workers in their member 

firms. 

• National business associations represent all four industries in the Appalachian 

region but many local clusters of firms are under-served by business 

associations. 

• Large firms are well served by business associations in all four industries but 

smaller firms remain neglected in terms of separate representation for their 

specific issues. 

• Business associations in the sectors surveyed foster peer groups of firms 

within an industry more than supply chain relationships. 

• Local business associations, state economic development agencies, and other 

state or local actors together have constructed highly innovative support 

systems. 
vi 

Policy Options 

• Stimulate the organization of local or regional business groups, especially for 

small and medium-sized enterprises. 

• Facilitate vertical supply chain cooperation by hosting trade shows, 

conventions, strategic planning efforts, or other mechanisms to bring interlinked sectors together at a national or sub-national level. 

• Encourage closer links between business associations and training institutions, 

and research collective labor-management efforts and independent labor 

associations to provide training and other support services. 

• Foster the benchmarking of business associations for “best practices’ to 

stimulate weak or inactive associations. 

CONCLUSION 

This report has analyzed the capacity of business associations and other inter-firm 

organizations in the furniture, lumber and wood products, textiles, and apparel industries 

in the Appalachian region. It offers a framework to assess these organizations by 

examining their functions and scope. The case studies reveal many successful practices 

by associations that could be replicated in other geographic locations or other industries. 

For example, collaboration among furniture trade associations, universities, and other 

state agencies has resulted in significant economic benefits for North Carolina. Other 

states with clusters of furniture manufacturing could use some programs and practices in 

North Carolina as a model. The case studies also reveal insufficient inter-firm 

associations in certain areas, particularly for small firms, and insufficient programs for 

worker training and supply-chain integration. The findings and policy options in this 

study offer important opportunities for future collaboration among public-sector 

organizations, including the Appalachian Regional Commission, and business 

associations. Successful collaboration based on these findings could improve the 

effectiveness of business associations and lead to greater economic development in the 

Appalachian region, both in the industries examined and in other industries. 
1 

I. INTRODUCTION 

Public policymakers are examining the involvement of groups of firms in a 

variety of economic development efforts. Economic development practitioners and 

researchers hold that informal and formal collaboration among firms such as business or 

vendor associations, research and development or training consortia increases 

participating firms’ competitiveness. Collaboration is believed to promote collective 

problem solving, the sharing of information, new technology diffusion, access to new 

markets, and new product or process innovation among firms. This emphasis on the role 

of collective business institutions comes from a decade of research on the successful 

models of collaborative and “flexible” production in regions of Italy, Germany, and 

Japan. 

The research on the role of business associations in the United States,1

 and the 

more substantial literature covering less developed countries,2 also suggests there is 

increased pay-off to regions and firms through formal institutions of collaboration. For 

instance, Annalee Saxenian’s3

 investigation of electronics firms in Silicon Valley points 

out the key role played by business associations, such as the Western Electronics 

Manufacturers Association and the Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Institute, in 

encouraging cooperative research and development, marketing, and information-sharing 

activities among such firms. Stewart Rosenfeld’s4 evaluation of the Northwest Area 

Foundation’s efforts to start new business associations among rural manufacturers in the 

states of Minnesota, Washington, and Montana suggests that firms credited their 

expanded sales to membership in such associations. Lynn McCormick’s5 history of a 

trade association among the small firms in Chicago’s metalworking industry shows how 

it was a critical support during periods of restructuring by providing collective strategic 

industry planning, constant institutional organizing, and the collective provision of 

training, technological, and other services. Lastly, other research implies that many of 

the activities such associations provide are an important source of strategic information 

for the member firms.

6 

The Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) wants to identify the extent to 

which business associations and other intermediary organizations in which businesses 

participate, such as research and development or technology-based consortia, non-profit 

regional development organizations, increase the competitiveness of firms in the thirteenstate Appalachian region.7 In addition, the Appalachian Regional Commission wants to 

know the number and type of such intermediary organizations, the various strategies they 

utilize in servicing firms, and the opportunities for public-private sector cooperation in 

delivering such services. 

This paper focuses primarily on business associations and offers a framework for 

analyzing the inter-firm institutional capacity of a particular sector and region. It draws 

on existing theoretical and case study material on business associations and other interfirm institutions. This framework is then applied to four key industrial sectors within the 

Appalachian region—furniture, wood products, textiles, and apparel—to identify areas of 
2 

institutional strengths and weaknesses. The institutional capacity of these sectors is 

gauged by interviews with representatives of business associations and other 

intermediary organizations, and a review of the organizational literature they publish. 

The report concludes by suggesting critical areas of intervention for the public and/or 

quasi-public sector to strengthen these collective inter-firm institutions, as well as areas 

for future research. 

II. THE FUNCTIONS AND SCOPE OF BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS AND 

OTHER INTERMEDIARY ORGANIZATIONS 

Successful flexible production districts in other countries show that business 

associations and other intermediary organizations undertake a variety of activities to 

promote regional development. This section offers a framework of the functions and 

scope of business associations for analyzing the inter-firm institutional capacity in the 

Appalachian region. This framework suggests the full range of activities that business 

associations could undertake to promote the growth of firms, industries, and regions. 

Before detailing this framework, the key institutional features of the flexible production 

districts are highlighted. 

Business Associations and other Intermediary Organizations in Flexible Production 

Districts 

Much of the interest in promoting business associations and other intermediary 

organizations for economic development stems from research of highly successful 

“flexible production” manufacturing districts in the 1980s and 1990s in other countries. 

Firms in flexible production districts organize manufacturing along collaborative lines 

that changes the nature of competition. This structure contrasts with firms in most U.S. 

regions, as U.S. firms are often described as carrying on distant or “arms length” 

relationships with other firms, and as solving business problems on their own. This 

“arms length” mentality has been cited as a cause of the declining competitiveness of 

American manufacturing.8 

Researchers, firms, and policymakers in this country began to observe and 

replicate the collaborative relationships and institutions in “flexible production” districts 

elsewhere. These institutions in such regions as Emilia-Romagna in Italy (called the 

“Third Italy”), in Baden-Wuerttemberg in southern Germany, and in Japan include:9 

(1) a web of business associations—sometimes legally mandated by 

government—to give firms a formalized governance structure for solving 

problems collectively; 

(2) a system of technical assistance service centers that offer firms advice on 

marketing, technology acquisition, research and development, new product 

commercialization, and general industry research; 
3 

(3) links among the service centers, faculty at local universities and vocational 

schools, and industry representatives, all of whom provide input on curriculum 

and policy development matters; 

(4) a host of local or regional governmental support services for existing firms, 

would-be entrepreneurs, and workers that are often offered in partnership with 

industry associations (e.g., vocational training programs; subsidized loans, 

venture capital funds, industrial space; day care and other social services for 

workers); 

(5) direct involvement by unions or organized labor in industrial policymaking on 

the shop floor, in local technical assistance centers, and in vocational training 

programs. 

Flexible production systems necessitate collaboration among many actors. 

Intermediary organizations, such as business associations, labor unions, and less 

formalized collective institutions like consortia, are directly involved in activities that 

provide business assistance to firms. These non-governmental actors also forge 

partnerships or act in an indirect advisory capacity with local and regional government 

agencies and other public sector actors such as universities and public school systems to 

promote local economic development and industrial policy. The greater the overlap and 

duplication of such collaborative partnerships, the greater the opportunity for all firms to 

link to the beneficial framework. 

Collective Action to Minimize Transaction and Adaptive Costs 

Regional economists traditionally discuss how groups of firms offer certain 

economies as compared with the individual firm. Firms in clusters enjoy external 

economies of scale and scope comparable to the internal economies of scale and scope 

that the large, vertically integrated corporation provides for itself (e.g., as when it 

employs automated assembly line technology). Firms gain external economies, or cost 

savings, by sharing a skilled and specialized pool of labor, a specialized set of local 

providers (e.g., from suppliers of components to business services), and technological 

information and know-how which allows each firm to better solve its own distinct 

production problems. These represent cost savings from the unplanned behavior of firms 

that are co-located in the same place. When firms intentionally carry out collective 

action with others—as when they join together in a business association—they may 

achieve even greater cost savings for each member.10 

Analysts distinguish between two types of cost savings that groups of firms can 

achieve through intentional group action: those related to transaction costs and those 

related to adaptive costs.

11 Business associations can achieve transaction costs savings 

for their members by helping them deal most economically with short-term changes in 

demand. The challenges are to increase capacity utilization, profitability, and 

productivity for individual firms in the association. Savings related to adaptive costs 
4 

occur when groups of firms are helped to produce new products in the same or different 

sectors, and helped to create higher value-added niches in an existing product range. 

These situations require new skills, new capital investments, and/or new technology so 

the firms can create new products, diffuse new technologies, and utilize their workers 

more flexibly than before. 

Researchers argue that adaptive costs are more critical for firms today given the 

increased focus on innovation as the key competitive factor in the “flexibly structured” 

global marketplace. In comparison, until recently many American manufacturers focused 

solely on transaction costs, and issues such as increasing productivity or cutting 

production costs. A firm or group of firms today, however, must innovate and increase 

productivity and cost savings in order to remain competitive. Firms must attend to both 

transaction and adaptive costs. 

Critical Functions of Business Associations and Other Intermediary Organizations 

Seven critical functions of business associations and other intermediary 

organizations will be discussed below (see Figure 1).12 Functions that achieve 

transaction cost savings are discussed first, followed by those related to adaptive costs. 

(1) Public and Private Sector Roles. The first critical function that business 

associations and other groups of economic actors carry out is to clarify the respective 

roles of the public and private sector concerning property ownership and use. This 

function can lead to transaction cost savings when business associations and other 

intermediary organizations push government agencies to stabilize or increase private 

property rights, to enhance government performance, or to expand the provision of 

infrastructure for a locality. Business associations in the U.S. and other advanced 

industrialized countries often lobby governments to decrease tax burdens, ease 

regulations, and increase public sector efficiency and the provision of infrastructure. The 

results strengthen the returns to private property owners. 

(2) Market Coordination. The second critical function of business associations 

and other intermediary organizations is to coordinate their members input and output 

markets to achieve transaction cost savings. For example, input markets are influenced 

when small firms engage in resource pooling. Business associations in the U.S., such as 

Chicago’s Tooling and Manufacturing Association (TMA), help small firms share the 

cost of health insurance and long-distance telephone service. Collective efforts to ensure 

an adequate supply of labor, such as the TMA’s collective screening of potential workers, 

also influence the quantity, quality, and price that individual firms pay for this specific 

input.13 

Collective control over output markets is enhanced when business associations 

collect and disseminate information on changing market trends and/or help market their 

members’ products. Business associations and other intermediary organizations can also 

limit or redirect the productive capacity of the group as a whole through market sharing 
5 

and/or export promotion schemes in downturns. In the Depression of the 1930s, for 

instance, members of the TMA collectively agreed to reduce the workweek and not to 

hoard work individually. Today, New York City’s Garment Industry Development 

Corporation influences its members’ exports through overseas export missions and other 

activities.14 

(3) Skill Upgrading. A third function involves upgrading skills and productive 

capacity of member firms and other actors. These activities achieve adaptive cost 

savings for groups of firms moving into new or improved product areas. For instance, 

Chicago’s TMA has operated a training program for its members’ workers for at least 

forty years and took the lead locally in diffusing information about numerically 

controlled and computer-numerically controlled technology in the industry in the 1960s 

and 1970s. The Great Lakes Manufacturing Technology Center (GLMTC) in the 

Cleveland area, a creation of the State of Ohio, offers seminars and workshops on 

computer applications in metalworking operations to local manufacturers.15 

(4) Research and Development. Collectively promoting research and 

development activities among a group of firms, may stimulate them to innovate new 

products and production processes faster. Calstart, for instance, is a consortium of public 

and private organizations in Southern California that has organized a network of 

component suppliers to investigate the commercialization of an electric car and to build a 

prototype.16 

(5) Inter-firm Coordination. A fifth function involves the intentional 

coordinating of inter-firm relationships to smooth out conflicts and achieve shipping, 

production, and other efficiencies. The Consortium for Supplier Training is a collective 

effort by major customer firms (e.g., Xerox, Motorola, Digital) that has standardized 

quality accreditation requirements and run regional training programs for its suppliers. 

This improves the production quality and capacity of many supplier firms while also 

coordinating supply chain relationships better. The State of Oregon’s Key Industries 

Development program subsidized “brokers” to organize bidding consortia and other 

cooperative projects among small manufacturers.17 Whether the collaborative effort is 

vertical—between firms in a supply chain—or horizontal—between peers wanting to 

pool resources, the coordination of networks requires leadership to organize and maintain 

relationships.18 

(6) Strategic Planning. A sixth function is strategic planning for an industry 

and/or inter-linked businesses. This function is critical for allowing firms to anticipate 

future changes in technology, labor force requirements, markets, and other conditions. In 

some cases, a public sector actor carries out this role.19 In other cases, a business 

association or other non-public-sector actor plays this role. Chicago’s TMA conducts 

strategic planning exercises for the metalworking industry periodically, allowing firms to 
Figure 1 -Institutional Framework 

ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

For Collective Inter-firm Partnerships 

1. Size of member firms 

Small vs. Large 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peer vs. Supply Chains 

3. Locatio

Local clus

1. Clarifying public and private sector roles. Increasing private property rights, improving government performance 

and infrastructure, lobbying. 

2. Coordinating markets. Increasing control over input and output markets (including resource pooling schemes), increasing member information about markets, 

limiting or redirecting productive capacity collectively (also including 

searching for new, export markets). 

3. Upgrading skills and productive capacity/technology. Developing management and 

workers skills, diffusing new technologies, improving product/production process quality (e.g., by enacting higher standards). 
ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Small vs. Large 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peer vs. Supply Chains 

3. Location of mem

Local cluster vs. Dis

4. Promote R&D and new product development. Promoting research and development, new product development, and basic research. 5. Coordinating inter-firm relationships. Increasing efficiency in supply chains, coordinating peer firms relationships, acting as lead organizer for group (e.g., by setting up inter-firm relationships or moderating conflicts among firms). 6. Conducting strategic planning for relevant industry(s) Planning for future changes in markets, technologies, labor and training needs, and product trends. 7. Upholding labor standards and social benefits. Setting wage or benefit standards and/or providing other social supports for workers. 
8 

identify critical challenges in their environment, such as changes in technology.20 Very 

large firms and corporations carry out strategic planning functions for their own related 

businesses, but not for an industry at large. 

(7) Labor Standards. A seventh, and final, is to uphold labor standards and 

other social benefits for workers. This is often accomplished in partnership with 

organized labor unions and/or public sector institutions, such as when the local 

government in the “Third Italy” arranged for day care services for working women.

21 

Labor standards and social benefits for workers may emerge as a function of government 

regulation, such as in the United States (e.g., worker safety laws).22 It can also arise out 

of negotiation between unions and business associations. An example is Chicago’s TMA 

in its early years. This business association was originally formed out of a partnership 

with the Machinists Union in the 1920s. Both metalworking suppliers and their workers 

wanted a collective mechanism to counteract the cutthroat pricing their customers were 

encouraging. Implicit within this worker-management partnership were higher wages 

and skills training for the craft workers.23 Craft communities historically have often 

forged partnerships between firm owners and their skilled workers.24 The provision of 

collective labor standards and other social benefits fosters the dynamism of firms when 

workers are also given greater autonomy on the shop floor and can help management 

innovate new products and production processes with their experience and input.25 

Businesses, acting collectively with or without labor, can also inhibit the 

adaptation process toward more innovative practices to the extent that they solely seek 

higher returns and protection from competition. This is the basis for U.S. antitrust policy. 

However, some researchers argue that some higher returns are required to invest in new 

technologies, skills, and research and development in order to promote the adaptation 

process in the longer term. These researchers feel it is better to regulate how such returns 

are used than prohibit collective business activities completely.26 

In summary, researchers have conceptualized how various activities of business 

associations and other collective entities have intentionally achieved cost savings and 

other external economies for members. These activities help cut transaction costs by 

protecting firms’ private property rights and coordinating input and output markets. 

Savings related to adaptive costs occur when the following activities are offered 

collectively: upgrading skills and firm technologies, promoting research and development 

activities, coordinating supply chain and peer relationships, and conducting strategic 

planning for industries. These results allow firms to enter new product markets and 

adopt new technologies more efficiently. 
9 

The Scope of Business Associations and Other Intermediary Organizations 

Business associations and other intermediary organizations carry out diverse 

functions and work at different levels, or scope. Inter-firm institutions can be classified 

according to three types of scope: size, sector, and location of their member firms (refer 

again to Figure 1). 

(1) Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises versus Big Business. Models of 

flexible production systems from other countries offer examples of small and large-firmoriented collective services. The focus on small and medium-sized enterprise (SME) 

emerges in studies of the Italian flexible industrial district model. Institutions that serve 

large firms are more prevalent in the Japanese case. 

There are two rationales for focusing the efforts of collective institutions on 

providing support to SMEs versus larger businesses. First, by combining their efforts on 

research and development, training, technology acquisition, and marketing, SMEs garner 

economies of scale in providing services that come naturally to a larger operation. 

Secondly, many SMEs face resource and capacity constraints compared to much larger 

and resource-rich corporations. Government subsidies are appropriate to encourage SME 

survival because such firms produce wider benefits for regional economies. For instance, 

small firms are believed to provide a greater proportion of new jobs, offer an important 

livelihood in areas faced with high unemployment (e.g., rural areas in developed 

countries and much of the developing world), and be more flexible in labor deployment 

to meet rapid changes in demand. 

SMEs can be efficient and dynamic, especially when linked to highly cooperative 

small-firm communities or large firms that transfer critical skills and resources. Business 

associations can provide this linkage. Since SMEs are local and less mobile compared to 

multinational firms, they offer entrepreneurial opportunities and returns to local people.27 

Hence, some researchers hold that small-business support activities foster regional 

development simultaneously—a development path that is controlled by local people.28 In 

addition to the economic gains that SMEs potentially accrue through collective action 

and institutions, SMEs can achieve political goals more effectively as a group by 

lobbying other public and private sector actors. 

To achieve such benefits, the U.S. government launched its Manufacturing 

Extension Partnership (MEP) program in 1989 under the supervision of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology within the Department of Commerce. MEP is a 

network of manufacturing extension centers in each state that target technical assistance 

and other services to help SMEs become globally competitive. Local centers operate 

with federal, state, and local government support and use in-house as well as consultant 

expertise. Most are linked with local economic and industrial development 

organizations. For instance, Georgia’s Manufacturing Extension Alliance operates in 
10 

partnership with Georgia Tech’s Economic Development Institute, which has provided 

assistance to area firms for over 30 years through 18 field offices. Alabama’s 

Technology Network links the University of Alabama, Auburn University, the Economic 

Development Partnership of Alabama, and some two-year colleges to its manufacturing 

extension system of 10 regional offices. MEP services are provided to individual firms 

or groups of firms and include help in such areas as technology assessment and adoption, 

quality standards, workforce training, workplace organization, business systems, 

marketing, and finance. Business associations can offer similar services to local 

companies on their own or sometimes in partnership with the country’s MEP centers 

and/or state economic development agencies.29 

Researchers disagree as to whether large firms use the services of business 

associations. Some authors imply that large firms—especially vertically or horizontally 

integrated firms—do not require inter-firm mechanisms to carry out their goals.30 Other 

researchers describe how business associations and other intermediary organizations help 

large firms meet the increasing pace of technological change and shorter product life 

cycles. Large firms in Japan and the business groups, or keiretsu, to which they belong, 

engage in frequent collaborative behavior to solve joint problems and lobby the 

government.31 Collaboration in associations and research and development consortia 

allows large and small firms alike to achieve technological “synergies” and realize 

economies of scope through sharing technological skills and solutions.32 

Associations representing large firms often carry out different functions than 

those representing smaller firms. Large firm associations are more likely to lobby the 

government for trade protection. Associations representing SMEs, on the other hand, are 

more likely to work on joint export promotion, research and development, training, and 

marketing schemes that large firms easily implement internally. Separate intermediary 

organizations also allow SMEs to formulate policy independently within such 

organizations without fear that larger firms will dominate decision-making.33 Therefore, 

public sector may help by stimulating certain kinds of collective policies and 

organizations for SMEs—as do the German and Japanese industrial policy models. 

(2) Same versus Different Sector Institutions. Industry focus also influences the 

character, goals, and activities of inter-firm support institutions. One can distinguish 

cooperative actions between firms in the same industry versus cooperative actions in 

different but inter-linked industries. A separate set of incentives and disincentives shapes 

cooperation between actors in these two separate categories. 

Researchers draw on social and human ecology theory, business strategy, and 

other literatures to construct typologies that explain how groups of firms act collectively 

to control their environment.34 Figure 2 offers a synopsis of these typologies. Peer 

groups of firms make similar demands on an environment (in terms of resources used), 

experience similar resource and other environmental constraints, and, hence, face a 

“common fate.” They are competitors in the same or similar industries. Supply-chain 

groups are made up of mutually interdependent firms—connected in input-output 
11 

relationships—that hold different resource demands and can face dissimilar although 

inter-linked fates. One could characterize Japanese inter-firm institutions as primarily 

belonging to the vertical supply-chain type, and Italian ones as heavily focused on interfirm cooperation among peers. Each of these groups of firms can be subdivided again 

into different types of action based on whether a small or large number of firms is 

involved and whether inter-firm relationships (e.g., joint contracting arrangements) or 

formal institutions (e.g., business associations) are required. 

If competition for limited resources shapes the interaction of firms in the same 

sector, why would they ever engage in cooperative behavior? Some authors suggest they 

infrequently cooperate, and do so only under stress, or such firms are mostly in the precompetitive stages of production (e.g., providing collective training or infrastructure). 

Therefore, public efforts are especially needed to encourage same sector, or peer, 

cooperation.35 Others suggest that horizontal cooperation is more frequent, especially 

among SMEs, as a coping strategy for capital or labor constraints of the individual firm, 

to provide collective services, or to engage in political lobbying. SMEs may pool 

production capacity, for instance, to share a large order from a customer.36 Therefore, 

although there are serious market disincentives for firms in the same sector to cooperate, 

other economic and political incentives push firms into peer collaboration, as do external 

threats (e.g., competition by firms outside the region or country). These economic and 

political incentives may be such things as the need for a stronger lobbying force, the 

pooling of resources, or sharing the costs of public goods such as infrastructure provision 

and training. 

Inter-firm cooperation also takes place between firms in different, but inter-linked 

sectors. This type of cooperation faces a different incentive/disincentive structure. The 

incentive is the market tie; firms that buy or sell from each other have a reason to 

cooperate to carry out the exchange smoothly.37 In addition, there is no competition to 

act as a disincentive—the firms need each other. However, transaction-based 

relationships can breed distrust too since they may breakdown into cheating or 

“opportunism” and, hence, are equally difficult to establish.38 

This is especially likely in situations where there is an imbalance of power 

between collaborating partners, which can happen in subcontracting arrangements 

between a large customer and myriad small suppliers.39 For instance, the United Auto 

Workers Union experienced difficulty establishing a horizontal peer network among auto 

suppliers—a project fostered by the Michigan Manufacturing Technology Center 

(MMTC)—because large customer firms were “whipsawing” their suppliers, encouraging 

them to bid their prices down against each other. In Chicago, cutthroat-pricing situations 

stimulated by larger customers, however, encouraged small metalworking suppliers to 

initially organize their horizontal business association as a counter to what they saw as 
12 

Figure 2 - Inter-firm Relationships 

Peer Relationships 

(horizontal relationships) 

Supply Chain Relationships 

(vertical relationships) 

Direct 

Relationships 

(small number 

of firms) 

Two or more firms that are 

competitors in the same 

industry, collaborate in a 

horizontal relationship (e.g., 

firms sharing machinery and 

equipment; also price collusion). 

A small number of firms in 

different sectors—having a 

vertical and often supply-chain 

relationship—collaborate (e.g., a 

joint venture; a producer and 

user improving components in 

their shared manufacturing 

process). 

Indirect 

Relationship 

(large number 

of firms) 

Many competitor firms in the 

same sector—a horizontal 

relationship—collaborate (e.g. a 

trade association of firms in the 

same industrial sector; a sector 

specific and supported training 

program). 

Many firms in different, but 

vertically related sectors, 

collaborate (e.g., a supply chain 

network organization, and an 

inter-sectoral research and 

development consortium). 
13 

“ruinous” price pressures.40 Hence, horizontal or vertical cooperation among firms is 

related and each may influence the other. Both produce distinct economic and political 

benefits and can enhance firm competitiveness. Both also carry the potential to create 

conflict. 

(3) Regional and National Inter-firm Institutions. Models of flexible 

production systems from other countries suggest that both national and regional 

institutions among firms are critical to their growth and adaptation to new competitive 

forces. However, regional development accompanies firm growth only in cases where 

actors have constructed regional (and local level) institutions. At one extreme is the 

“Third Italy,” where collective inter-firm institutions, industry activity, and public sector 

support services concentrate within a single region (or even smaller communities at the 

sub-regional level).41 In this model, strengthening inter-firm institutions leads to 

development within the region. 

At the other extreme lies Japan, with its Ministry of Industry and Trade (MITI) 

and the many national-level business associations that guide it. Japanese industrial 

policy and efforts at collaborative inter-firm behavior do not promote a regional benefit, 

even though large, multi-plant firms do well with this centrally focused assistance.42 

Germany presents an intermediate case between Italy and Japan with industrial policy 

and inter-firm institutions operating separately at the regional and national levels.43 

Institution building can promote the development of certain regions, but it depends on the 

combination of institutions and policies that are developed at the national and regional 

levels. 

Some researchers who have studied business associations in the United States 

describe regional institutions. For instance, collaborative inter-firm relationships at the 

regional level in Silicon Valley (both formalized associations and less formalized interfirm norms and behavior) have been linked with promoting the development of that 

region and its electronics industry. These regional institutions help promote development 

of the industry and region simultaneously.44 A key finding of recent research on 

voluntary associations in America is that they expand nationally. Many such associations 

adopt a three-tiered federated structure—parallel to that found in the public sector’s local, 

state, and national levels. By creating geographically dispersed structures, locally 

embedded groups can more easily tap into a broader set of people, resources, and 

political leverage.45 The National Association of Manufacturers, with national 

headquarters in Washington, D.C. and state level chapters, is a version of this federated 

structure. 

In summary, business associations and other intermediary organizations can tailor 

services to a membership that differs in terms of scope. Such organizations can assist 

SMEs or large firms; they can serve firms that are peers or those related because of 
14 

supply chain needs; and they can include local clusters of firms or a more national and 

dispersed membership. The most comprehensive system of inter-firm services would 

assist all such sub-groupings of firms (small and large, peers and supply chains, local and 

multi-location) with their specific needs related to both transaction and adaptive costs. 

Such a system would provide an array of functions for firms at different levels, and 

promote regional and national industrial development simultaneously. In the real world, 

however, inter-firm governance systems, which require public and/or private sector 

resources to maintain, may be skewed toward assisting only certain constituencies. In the 

next section, the potential of a comprehensive framework for inter-firm governance will 

be compared with actual patterns in different Appalachian industries to determine key 

institutional gaps. 

III. CASE STUDIES OF INTER-FIRM INSTITUTIONS IN THE APPALACHIAN 

REGION 

The foregoing discussion of the theoretical basis of inter-firm institutions and the 

behavior of successful manufacturing models from Italy, Germany, and Japan, provides a 

framework for mapping institutional capacity of business associations and other 

intermediaries in the Appalachian region (refer again to Figure 1). Institutions are 

classified by the functions they provide and the scope at which they operate. This 

classification is accomplished by focusing on the role of business associations in 

organizing manufacturing firms in the Appalachian states. Their role emerges from case 

studies of four prominent industrial sectors in this region. These case studies also show 

how institutions such as community colleges, non-profit regional development 

organizations, and public sector economic development organizations can forge 

collective partnerships with businesses.46 

Selection of Industries 

Initially, this research was narrowed to all manufacturing industries in the 

Appalachian region because much of the literature on inter-firm collaboration focuses on 

manufacturing industries. Lists of relevant business associations within the country 

and/or for the states comprising the Appalachian region were compiled for all 

manufacturing sectors from the national and regional volumes of the Encyclopedia of 

Associations (see Appendix).47 Due to the significant volume of business associations 

serving manufacturing nationally and within the thirteen states of the Appalachian region, 

only four prominent manufacturing sectors were selected for detailed case studies. The 

four sectors are furniture, wood products, textiles, and apparel. 
15 

These industrial sectors were selected because they are among the most prominent 

in the Appalachian states based on location quotients.** This data was drawn from the 

1996 statistics published in County Business Patterns48 (see Appendix).49 Furthermore, 

associations in North Carolina’s furniture industry had been chronicled elsewhere as 

innovative institutions.50 Hence, it made sense to choose this industry as a benchmark for 

the other cases. 

To better understand collective inter-firm behavior in these four industries, phone 

interviews were conducted with the representatives of 21 business associations and 15 

public or non-profit development organizations operating programs related to these 

business associations or industries. Literature published by such organizations was also 

gathered, which allowed an additional 21 business, public or quasi-public sector 

institutions to be profiled. Interviewees and related organizational literature are listed in 

the reference section. The case studies are based on this material unless otherwise noted. 

Figure 3 offers a list of all relevant organizations and their acronyms. From this data an 

institutional profile, including institutional strengths and gaps, is offered for the furniture, 

wood products, textiles, and apparel industry. 

Furniture 

Of the four industries surveyed for this report, the furniture industry most closely 

approximates the “Third Italy” in terms of its institutional agglomeration in North 

Carolina. A coordinated set of trade associations and other institutions are centered in 

High Point, just outside the borders of that state’s Appalachian region and near the other 

furniture producing hub of Hickory. Fifteen percent of all U.S. manufacturing jobs in 

furniture construction are provided in North Carolina plants, and nearly six percent exist 

in firms within the state’s Appalachian region. In terms of scope, the trade associations 

and other intermediaries servicing the industry assist small and large firms, are sectorspecific but linked through collaborative activities along the supply chain, and offer a 

concentrated regional presence while also representing the related set of industries 

nationally. In regard to function, these institutions help firms achieve transaction cost 

efficiencies, but also work through a variety of innovative efforts to increase adaptive 

cost efficiency as well. However, as noted at the end of this section, there are several key 

gaps in this rich institutional infrastructure for the Appalachian region as a whole. 

**A location quotient is a measure of concentration of industrial activity in a region. It is a ratio that 

compares the share that an industry comprises of all manufacturing in a region to the same share, or 

percentage, in the country as a whole. Sales or employment levels are often utilized to indicate industry 

activity. In this report, location quotients are calculated using employment figures. A location quotient 

greater than “1” suggests that an industry is more concentrated in a particular region than in the country as 

a whole. 
16 

Figure 3 -

List of Organizations and Their Acronyms

Acronym Name of Organization 

________________________________________________________________________ 

AACA Atlantic Area Contractors Association 

AAMA American Apparel Manufacturers Association 

AAPN American Apparel Producers Network 

ACEnet Appalachian Center for Economic Networks 

AF&PA American Forest & Paper Association 

AFMA American Fiber Manufacturers Association 

AFMA American Furniture Manufacturers Association 

AHEC American Hardwood Export Council 

AHMI Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers Inc. 

ARC Appalachian Regional Commission 

ASFD American Society of Furniture Designers 

ATMA Alabama Textile Manufacturers Association 

ATMI American Textile Manufacturers Institute 

AWPI American Wood Preservers Institute 

CAR Clemson Apparel Research 

CDF Community Development Foundation 

CHA Carolina Hosiery Association 

CPA Composite Panel Association 

CRI Carpet and Rug Institute 

CVCC Catawba Valley Community College 

DFCMA Dalton Floor Covering Marketing Association 

DOE U.S. Department of Energy 

EDI Georgia Tech’s Economic Development Institute 

FMMC Furniture Manufacturing and Management Center, North Carolina State 

University 

GIDC Garment Industry Development Corporation 

GTMA Georgia Textile Manufacturers Association 

HMA Hardwood Manufacturers Association 

HP&VA Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association 

IFAI Industrial Fabrics Association International 

IHFMA International Home Furnishings Marketing Association 

IHFRA International Home Furnishings Representatives Association 

ITT Institute of Textile Technology 

KCMA Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers Association 

KTA Knitted Textiles Association 
17 

KTS Kentucky Technology Service 

KWMA Kentucky Wood Manufacturers Association 

KWPCC Kentucky Wood Products Competitiveness Corporation 

MEP Manufacturing Extension Partnership agency 

NAM National Association of Manufacturers 

NCMEP North Carolina Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

NCTMA North Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association 

NHFA National Home Furnishings Association 

NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce 

NKSA National Knitwear and Sportswear Association 

NTMA National Tooling and Machining Association 

NWFMA National Wood Flooring Manufacturers Association 

OTEXA Office of Textile, Fiber, and Apparel Industries, U.S. Department of 

Commerce 

PA&TA Philadelphia Apparel & Textile Association 

SBA Structural Board Association 

SCMA/SCTMA South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance (formerly South Carolina Textile 

Manufacturers Association) 

SEAMS Southeastern Apparel Manufacturers & Suppliers Association 

SFPA Southern Forest Products Association 

SLEA Southern Lumber Exporters Association 

SLMA Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association 

SME Small and medium-sized business 

SPC Southern Pine Council 

TC2 Textile/Clothing Technology Corporation 

THC The Hardwood Council 

TRI Textile Research Institute Princeton 

UFAC Upholstered Furniture Action Council 

WMMPA Wood Moulding & Millwork Producers Association 

WTC Wood Truss Council 
18 

(1) Furniture Production in the Appalachian Region. High Point and North 

Carolina are, of course, only part of the furniture manufacturing industry nationally. In 

addition to historical concentrations in California and Michigan, furniture production also 

takes place throughout the thirteen states comprising the Appalachian region, in part due 

to its hardwood forests used in furniture construction. Almost half of all jobs in furniture 

manufacturing in the United States occur in these thirteen states. As can be seen in 

Figure 4, other top furniture producing states—with major furniture employment in the 

state as a whole and/or in the Appalachian counties—include the following: 

Percent of U.S. SIC 25 Jobs State Location Quotient 

North Carolina 15.2 percent 5.1 

Mississippi 5.5 percent 6.4 

Tennessee 5.3 percent 2.4 

Virginia 4.0 percent 1.6 

New York 3.5 percent 0.5 

Pennsylvania 3.2 percent 0.7 

Several of these states show high concentrations of furniture manufacturing employment 

in their Appalachian counties—with location quotients much greater than 1 (e.g., 

Mississippi at 24.6, North Carolina at 10.0, Virginia at 5.2, Tennessee at 4.3, and New 

York at 2.4). Furniture manufacturing employment within the entire Appalachian region 

totals 20.6 percent of all jobs in this industry nationally. Plants in the industry tend to be 

similar in size to all manufacturers in the country. For instance, 68 percent of all 

furniture establishments in the U.S. employ fewer than 20 workers and 3.4 percent 

employ at least 250 workers. Comparable statistics for all manufacturers are 67 percent 

and 3.6 percent, respectively. 51 

(2) Institutional Scope. Several industry trade associations and other 

intermediary institutions serve the industry nationally from High Point, North Carolina, 

and elsewhere in the state. Figure 5 describes the scope and the functions of these 

institutions. The overall relationships among these organizations are indicated in Figure 

6. The American Furniture Manufacturers Association (AFMA), the International Home 

Furnishings Representatives Association (IHFRA), and the National Home Furnishings 

Association (NHFA) represent small and large firms, and serve the manufacturing or 

wholesale/retail distribution portion of the supply chain. Other institutions connect to 

this network, such as North Carolina State University, the community college system, 

and other specialist business associations. 

In regard to scope, each association organizes a horizontally related, or peer group 

of firms within a separate link in the overall supply chain. By coordinating their efforts 

(e.g., all associations and their members are invited to attend the NHFA’s industry-wide 

convention, held biannually), they also achieve supply chain coordination at the front end 

of production. Collective coordination of the backend of production (e.g., suppliers to 
Figure 4 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employ

in Furniture and Related Products (SIC 25) 

INDUSTRY IN THE STATE INDUSTRY IN APPALA

As % of 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. LQ* Empt. 

United States 498,464 United States 102,645 North Carolina 75,586 15.2% 5.1 North Carolina 27,360 Mississippi 27,393 5.5% 6.4 Mississippi 22,433 Tennessee 26,203 5.3% 2.4 Tennessee 18,372 Virginia 20,126 4.0% 1.6 Alabama 10,629 New York 17,450 3.5% 0.5 Pennsylvania 7,435 Pennsylvania 16,183 3.2% 0.7 Virginia 4,738 Ohio 14,970 3.0% 0.7 New York 4,002 Alabama 12,890 2.6% 1.7 Georgia 3,520 Georgia 11,754 2.4% 0.8 Ohio 1,166 Kentucky 4,759 1.0% 0.7 South Carolina 884 South Carolina 4,655 0.9% 0.7 Kentucky 826 Maryland 3,222 0.6% 0.4 Maryland 666 West Virginia 604 0.1% 0.2 West Virginia 614 

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the l

ocal employment share for a sector (i.e., the p

sector in the ARC region or State is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment sha

proportion of that sector in the U.S. of all jobs in the U.S.). SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Com

m

erce, 1996. 
20 

furniture manufacturers) and of the overall complex is carried out through the 

International Home Furnishings Marketing Association (IHFMA) and associationsponsored trade shows (described below). Joining this initial cluster of industry-related 

associations are sets of special institutions that provide unique functions or represent 

critical personnel in the industry. These organizations serve large and small peer firms. 

UFAC (the Upholstered Furniture Action Council), for example, was formed in the 1970s 

to solve the issue of upholstery fires in the home. The American Society of Furniture 

Designers (ASFD) offers services to design professionals in the industry. However, a 

weak link in these relationships and institutions servicing the furniture industry is the 

absence of any collective relationships among firms with production labor (either through 

unions or labor training programs, as touched on below). Interviewees stated that the 

industry in the South remains unorganized; hence, few workers’ institutions exist that 

could collaborate. 

The institutions mentioned all represent the industry nationally. For instance, 

manufacturers which used to be represented by regional groups, such as the Southern 

Furniture Manufacturers Association and the National Association of Furniture 

Manufacturers, merged into the AFMA in 1983 to overcome institutional duplication. 

The AFMA’s 300-plus member firms are located primarily in the Southeast. However, 

the association has a presence in 37 states and does not consider itself a regional group. 

The clustering of these various associations in High Point rather than in 

Washington, D.C. and their joint promotion of the High Point market lends a local focus 

to their efforts and offers strong spin-off benefits in terms of local and statewide 

development. For example, North Carolina’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership 

(NCMEP) includes a furniture specialist on its engineering staff who works regularly 

with AFMA on local projects. The state MEP programs that offer sectoral specialists 

have often been lobbied by business groups to provide them with more specific extension 

assistance (e.g., see Kentucky’s example in the wood industry case). AFMA also helped 

start North Carolina State’s Furniture Manufacturing and Management Center (described 

below) that is part of NCMEP. Other states without localized sector associations have 

not been able to establish such links. 

Some state extension agents utilize existing business associations to more 

efficiently market their services. The NCMEP not only works through the AFMA but 

also through local-level manufacturers associations (e.g., the Robertson County Plant 

Managers Association) or chambers of commerce. Its specialists will also organize or reenergize such networks if needed, much as agricultural extension agents did in earlier 

periods.52 This is a critical theme, as touched on at the end of this section, and one can 

compare the institutional agglomeration in North Carolina with its opposite—the lack of 

such organizations serving furniture clusters elsewhere within the Appalachian region as 

a whole. 
Figure 5 -

Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnershi

in the Appalachian Furniture and Related Industries

ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Locatio

Local/regi

Cluster 

1. Clarifying public and private sector roles. Increasing private property rights, improving government performance 

and infrastructure, lobbying. 

AFMA AFMA 

2. Coordinating markets. Increasing control over input and output markets (including resource pooling schemes), increasing member information about markets, 

limiting or redirecting productive capacity collectively (also including 

searching for new, export markets). 

ACEnet 

IHFRA 

AFMA 

IHFMA 

CDF 

NHFA 

AFMA 

ACEnet 

IHFRA 

NHFA 

IHFMA 

CDF 

CDF 

ACEnet 

3. Upgrading skills and productive capacity/technology. Developing management and 

workers skills, diffusing new technologies, improving product/production process quality (e.g., by enacting higher standards). 

IHFRA 

ASFD 

AFMA/FMMC 

NHFA 

CVCC 

AFMA/FMMC NHFA IHFRA ASFD 

CVCC AFMA/FM

CVCC 
ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Locatio

Local/regi

Cluster 

4. Promote R&D and new product development. Promoting research and development, new product development, and basic research. 

AFMA/FMMC 

UFAC 

AFMA/FMMC UFAC 

AFMA/FM

5. Coordinating inter-firm relationships. Increasing efficiency in supply chains, coordinating peer firms relationships, acting as lead organizer for group (e.g., by setting up inter-firm relationships or moderating conflicts among firms). 

IHFMA 

AFMA 

IHFMA 

6. Conducting strategic planning for relevant industry(s). Planning for future changes in markets, technologies, labor and training needs, and product trends. 

NHFA NHFA 

7. Upholding labor standards and social benefits. Setting wage or benefit standards and/or providing other social supports for workers. 

IHFRA IHFRA 

* These organizations serve a disperse constituency in the sense that they are national business associations. However, 

North Carolina, and therefore, offer significant additional developmental benefits to that locality and region. 
Figure 6 - Relationships Among Organizations Serving 

the Furniture and Home Furnishings Industries 

U.S. Furniture Manufacturers 

(SIC 25) 

Appalachian Area 

Furniture Manufacturers 

Inputs 

and 

Appalachian States Total 47 Percent of 

U.S. Employment in SIC 25 

Domestic 

and 

Other Materials Foreign Mark

Top Producing Appalachian States: 

NORTH CAROLINA 

(15% of U.S. Employment) 

MISSISSIPPI 

(6% of U.S. Employment) 

TENNESSEE 

(5% of U.S. Employment) 

National Association 

of Furniture Manufacturers, 

Located in North Carolina 

American Furniture Manufacturers 

Association (AFMA) 

Ma

Loc

_______________

International Hom

International Ho

National Hom

National 

Specialist Associations, 

Located in North Carolina 

American Society of Furniture Designers 

(ASFD), 

Upholstered Furniture Action Council 

(UFAC). 

Training and 

Technical Assistance Organizations, 

Located in North Carolina 

North Carolina State University’s Furniture 

Manufacturing and Management Center (FMMC), 

Catawba Valley Community College, 

Furniture Technology Center. 

See Also Figure 9, 

Other Wood Products 

Associations 

(SIC 24) 

Co

Organ

an

_________

Appalach

Communi

Appalachian 

Regional Wood Input 

Associations 

Appalachian Hardwood 

Manufacturers Inc. (AHMI) (in 

North Carolina), 

Hardwood Manufacturers 

Association (HMA) (in 

Pennsylvania). 
24 

(3) Institutional Functions. These institutions offer services that allow firms to 

reduce both transaction and adaptive costs (refer again to Figures 5 and 6). Some 

institutions are better at offering a range of functions than are others; some institutions 

exist purely as special-function organizations. As an overview, the AFMA provides a 

lobbying function common among U.S. trade associations. The organization keeps a 

lobbying staff in Washington to push the industry’s point of view; it sponsors the Furniture 

Political Action Committee to support election of congressional candidates friendly to the 

furniture industry; and increasingly it lobbies on legislative and regulatory issues at the 

state level as well. Lobbying protects the private interests of firms (e.g., by seeking lower 

taxes or public training subsidies) and may offer transaction cost savings for the industry. 

Market coordination activities also assist in reducing transaction costs. AFMA 

carries out extensive activities concerning its members’ output markets, but fewer 

activities related to input markets. For instance, it offers training for the marketing 

executives in furniture plants, it promotes a membership directory of manufacturers, it 

regularly offers information on export markets, and it conducts overseas trade missions. It 

sponsors the International Woodworking Machinery and Furniture Supply Fair USA 

biannually in Atlanta and operates a Suppliers Division within its membership to facilitate 

contact between suppliers and furniture manufacturers. These activities regulating supply 

chain relationships is traditional in the sense that the organization does not actively 

promote enhanced supply chain efficiency among these partners. However, to the extent 

that trade shows—either promoting the industry’s products or those of its key suppliers— 

help firms to adopt and develop new processes and products, they help cut adaptive costs. 

The AFMA also operates a Transportation and Logistics Committee that helps 

members improve Just-in-Time delivery of products—representing adaptive cost 

efficiencies and significant changes in the way distribution is practiced by members. 

Adaptive cost efficiencies are also achieved by upgrading skills, technology use, and 

research and development in the industry. AFMA significantly influences this aspect of its 

members’ performance through its Furniture Foundation. Funded by member dues, the 

foundation has supported educational activities at North Carolina State University for 

almost a century (the Furniture Manufacturing and Management curriculum offers an 

undergraduate degree in industrial engineering) and co-funded and co-established the 

Furniture Manufacturing and Management Center. 

Started in 1991, the Center offers workshops on Team Building for Furniture 

Manufacturers and Furniture Process Improvement, and an applied research and industrial 

extension program for firms in the industry. Recent research projects include the virtual 

factory, robotic sanding, product development with parametric feature based computeraided design (CAD), and kiln scheduling. Center staff and other university faculty, 

operating as cross-functional teams, work with individual furniture manufacturers on 

focused technical assistance projects lasting four to six months. These efforts result in new 

product development and process improvements in firms in the furniture industry. 
25 

Other institutions help the industry collectively with new product development, 

research and development, and training. UFAC, for instance, was founded by furniture 

manufacturers in 1974—albeit to forestall federal regulations of the industry—to set higher 

fire retardant standards for upholstery construction as well as to carry out research in new 

fabric use or product construction to achieve the same goal. Both the NHFA, a national 

trade association for furniture retailers, and IHFRA, an association for furniture 

wholesalers, offer training programs as well as resource pooling schemes for their 

constituencies. NHFA offers a sales training institute for mid-level management and 

strategic planning and financial management courses for top level CEOs in retail 

operations. IHFRA offers its members (most are individuals operating as self-employed, 

independent contractors) professional sales and related training through its Certified Home 

Furnishings Representative Program, designed with manufacturer input. In addition, 

NHFA goes further than any of the other organizations in conducting strategic planning for 

its industry. A decade ago, it produced “Profile 5” and “Profile 6,” consultant reports 

looking at the furniture store of the future. Currently, the organization is studying 

customer service performance in retail operations. The interviewed business associations 

in this category identified retail customer service as one of the weakest links in the entire 

furniture manufacturing and distribution chain. 

The final and critical institutional actor comprising this complex is the IHFMA, the 

organization that operates and coordinates High Point’s furniture trade show. Held in 

April and October each year, the show is the largest furniture market in the world. As 

such, it draws in manufacturers and distributors from all over the U.S. and 80 countries. 

The AFMA, NHFA, and IHFRA all maintain their headquarters in High Point since they 

are sure to make contact with the bulk of their membership there at least twice a year at the 

market. In fact, the NHFA and IHFRA moved their operations from Chicago to High 

Point in the late 1980s in recognition of the growing preeminence of this trade show. The 

expanding institutional agglomeration in North Carolina represents a slow movement 

during much of this century of furniture manufacturers from the Midwest and Northeast to 

the south and the weakening influence of Chicago’s furniture mart at the same time. 

(4) Institutional Gaps. The institutional strengths presented thus far include a 

multitude of specialist business associations that service the furniture supply chain from 

manufacturing to wholesale and retail, marketing (e.g., IHFMA), and research and design 

issues (e.g., UFAC, ASFD). Additionally, there are dynamic business associations that 

help firms learn new skills, design new products, and decrease transaction costs (e.g., 

through FMMC). Finally, there is an institutional agglomeration of “national” business 

associations in North Carolina that has produced significant local economic development 

benefits for firms in that state. 

However, the lack of such institutional clustering in other furniture-producing 

states has weakened the furniture manufacturing support systems there. Therefore, a key 

gap is the absence of institutions (such as those in High Point) servicing other furnituremaking centers in the industry, such as in Mississippi, Tennessee, or other Appalachian 
26 

states. Furniture manufacturers in Mississippi, for example, which represent the second 

largest concentration of furniture producers in the Appalachian states in terms of 

employment, do not have a local or state association to serve their needs but use the 

“national” associations in North Carolina. They have not influenced the state’s MEP 

agency to target specialized services for their industry as have their competitors in North 

Carolina.53 In this situation, an institutional actor with a state or local-level focus, such as 

a non-profit development organization, a local or state governmental agency, or local 

business association could bring local manufacturers together for information-sharing and 

joint problem-solving as has been done in High Point. Local institutions would offer firms 

a venue to meet more frequently than twice a year and at less cost and difficulty for the 

small firm especially. Local associations may also be in a better position to influence 

state-level economic development efforts—a critical policymaking level in this age of 

federal devolution. 

Given this institutional vacuum, the Community Development Foundation (CDF), a 

sub-state non-profit entity in Tupelo, Mississippi, has begun to organize this industry. The 

CDF is one of the original Tennessee Valley Authority community organizations. The 

organization carries out a range of social and economic development services for a twocounty area. Its promotion of the Tupelo Furniture Market and provision of other services 

to the furniture industry stimulates cooperation between furniture firms there. Another 

example of a non-profit networking organization is the Appalachian Center for Economic 

Networks (ACEnet)—in Athens, Ohio. It has organized a network of furniture 

manufacturers in its local area. ACEnet also organizes inter-firm networks and support 

services (e.g., incubator space) for other critical local industries—such as specialty food 

products. These networks have been able to create new products and move into new niche 

markets through the joint efforts of member firms. 

Another gap in the furniture sector is in the area of production labor training. 

Associations exist to train, collectively organize, and provide benefits to other “workers” 

in this complex (e.g., IHFRA and ASFD), but attention to training for production workers 

is inconsistent. None of the associations interviewed mentioned any involvement or 

interest in undertaking training for furniture workers, although training of managerial and 

design labor takes place through the connection to North Carolina State University. On the 

other hand, the Catawba Valley Community College operates a highly regarded Furniture 

Technology Division that provides training in furniture design and production to 

manufacturing workers and operates in conjunction with the NCMEP. Several leading 

manufacturers provide scholarships to students at the college and groom them for jobs.54 

None of the interviewed business associations in the furniture industry mentioned direct 

support for this program. Outside North Carolina, specialized training for furniture 

workers is even scarcer. Although worker training is important for some manufacturers, it 

is an underdeveloped or less critical issue for these business associations and their 

membership collectively. 
27 

Lumber and Wood Products 

The institutional make-up of the lumber/wood products industry is profiled first in 

this section. In terms of scope, the lumber/wood products industry and the textile industry 

represent sectors that are institutionally more similar to the Japanese case. Both industries 

consist of large corporate and small, family-owned firms but are organized substantially by 

very big, influential, and broad-based institutions operating at the national level. These 

institutions headquarter in Washington where they exhibit a “corporatist” profile in the 

sense of large corporations (accompanied by some that are smaller members) that maintain 

a focus on federal government policies. Regional and/or state associations exist to work 

with manufacturers closer to their point of production. These regional associations may 

stimulate local-level development in their industries, depending on the functions they 

provide. Association performance can be critical in economic development, and these 

regional associations vary widely in the range of functions they offer member firms and 

their ability to stimulate greater competitiveness and adoption of best practices in their 

respective industries. 

(1) The Wood Products Industry in the Appalachian Region. In the thirteen 

states comprising the Appalachian region, wood and forest products manufacturing (SIC 

24) totals about 40 percent of SIC 24 jobs nationally and is concentrated in several states, 

both in terms of size (1994 employment) and state location quotient. These include: 

Percent of U.S. SIC 24 Jobs State Location Quotient 

North Carolina 6.0 percent 2.0 

Alabama 4.8 percent 3.2 

Georgia 4.8 percent 1.6 

Pennsylvania 4.1 percent 0.9 

Mississippi 3.6 percent 4.1 

Virginia 3.4 percent 1.4 

Looking at just the ARC portion of these states, Kentucky and Ohio also show high 

location quotients (of 3.2 and 3.3, respectively) along with the states already mentioned. 

This suggests that wood/forest product jobs are highly concentrated in the Appalachian 

counties of these states versus other industries (see Figure 7 for detailed data). However, 

wood products jobs in the Appalachian counties total only about 15 percent of all such jobs 

nationally.55 Wood products firms are much smaller than most manufacturers nationally. 

Whereas 81 percent of the establishments in this industry employ fewer than 20 workers, 

only two-thirds of all manufacturers do so nationally. Only one percent of wood products 

plants employ 250 workers or more, compared with three percent of all manufacturers in 

the U.S which employ 250 workers or more. 
Figure 7 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employm

in Lumber and Wood Products (SIC 24) 

INDUSTRY IN THE STATE INDUSTRY IN APPALA

As % of 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. LQ* Empt. 

United States 732,400 United States 107,954 North Carolina 43,771 6.0% 2.0 Alabama 21,705 Alabama 35,425 4.8% 3.2 Pennsylvania 20,448 Georgia 34,963 4.8% 1.6 Ohio 10,485 Pennsylvania 30,068 4.1% 0.9 Tennessee 10,316 Mississippi 26,060 3.6% 4.1 North Carolina 8,570 Virginia 24,692 3.4% 1.4 West Virginia 8,400 Ohio 23,856 3.3% 0.7 Mississippi 8,123 Tennessee 21,006 2.9% 1.3 Kentucky 5,623 South Carolina 14,878 2.0% 1.4 Georgia 5,088 New York 13,507 1.8% 0.3 Virginia 3,535 Kentucky 12,624 1.7% 1.3 New York 3,101 West Virginia 8,466 1.2% 2.2 South Carolina 1,880 Maryland 4,386 0.6% 0.3 Maryland 680 

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the propsector in the ARC region or State is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of all jobs in the U.S.). SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Com

m

erce, 1996. 
29 

(2) Institutional Scope. In terms of institutional scope, several organizations 

represent divisions of the industry nationally with headquarters in Washington—close to 

federal agencies, Congress, and each other (see Figures 8 and 9). This contrasts with the 

furniture sector which has very few trade associations in Washington. For instance, one 

such trade association is the highly diversified American Forest and Paper Association 

(AF&PA); it represents firms throughout the U.S. in the related forest, paper, and wood 

products industries. These companies grow, harvest, and process wood; they make pulp, 

paper, and engineered and traditional wood items for sale to a variety of industrial users 

and individual consumers. AF&PA estimates its member firms produce more than eight 

percent of the nation’s total manufacturing output. Organized into separate suborganizations, such as the American Wood Council for the wood products section of this 

diversified industry, AF&PA represents broad groupings of peer firms that may (e.g., 

forestry and paper) or may not be connected in the supply chain (e.g., wood products 

versus paper). 

AF&PA is a horizontally and vertically integrated trade association. Given its 

size and preeminence in these related sectors, the organization includes some small but 

mostly very large corporate actors. It is seen by other trade associations as existing 

primarily to lobby the federal government and to set standards for the industry—for 

instance, by working with building code organizations to facilitate increased use of wood 

in construction. (It is also seen as dominated by the paper industry, according to one 

person interviewed. Hence, the issues of the wood products industry may get lost.) 

AF&PA’s Wood Council coordinates its activities with regional groups—such as the 

Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA)—and nationally-oriented associations 

representing specialized niche markets (e.g., the Structural Board Association, the Wood 

Truss Council of America). Until the present, its activities at a local/regional level have 

been minimal. 

However, the organization is currently initiating the organization of state member 

groups, or planning to work through existing state organizations, to facilitate 

implementation of its Sustainable Forestry Initiative described in detail below. This 

model of top-down policymaking and fostering the adoption of production standards by 

smaller firms in regional settings through a set of subsidiary organizations parallels the 

preferred supplier networks that major American manufacturers are copying from 

Japanese corporations. Increased performance is stimulated by large firms from the topdown, or national center, in much of this industry. 

The woods products industry is also represented by a host of nationally oriented 

business associations that include all (small and large companies) in a single niche 

product area. Hence, these are national peer organizations—many of whom are 

headquartered in the Washington, D.C. area presumably to influence the federal 
Figure 8 -

Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnerships 

in the Appalachian Wood Products Industry 

ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Location of 

Local/regional 

Cluster vs

1. Clarifying public and private sector roles. Increasing private property rights, improving government performance 

and infrastructure, lobbying. 

SLMA 

KWMA 

AF&PA 

SFPA 

SLMA 

SFPA 

KWMA 

AF&PA SLMA 

SFPA 

KWMA 

2. Coordinating markets. Increasing control over input and output markets (including resource pooling schemes), increasing member information about markets, 

limiting or redirecting productive capacity collectively (also including 

searching for new, export markets). 

SLMA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA 

AHMI 

AHEC 

SPC 

HMA 

SLEA 

THC 

AHMI 

SPC 

HMA 

SLMA 

KWPCC /KWMA 

SLEA 

AHEC 

THC 

SLMA 

AHMI 

SPC 

HMA 

SLEA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA 

3. Upgrading skills and productive capacity/technology. Developing management and 

workers skills, diffusing new technologies, improving product/production process quality (e.g., by enacting higher standards). 

SLMA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA/ 

KTS 

AF&PA 

SFPA 

SLMA 

SFPA 

KWPCC /KWMA 

/KTS 

AF&PA SLMA 

SFPA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA/ 

KTS 
ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Locatio

Local/regi

Cluster 

4. Promote R&D and new product development. Promoting research and development, new product development, and basic research. 

KWPCC/ 

KTS 

AF&PA KWPCC 

/KTS 

AF&PA KWPCC/ 

KTS 

5. Coordinating inter-firm relationships. Increasing efficiency in supply chains, coordinating peer firms relationships, acting as lead organizer for group (e.g., by setting up inter-firm relationships or moderating conflicts among firms). 

SLMA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA 

AHEC 

THC 

SLEA 

AF&PA 

SLMA 

KWPCC /KWMA 

AHEC 

THC 

SLEA 

AF&PA 

SLMA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA 

6. Conducting strategic planning for relevant industry(s). Planning for future changes in markets, technologies, labor and training needs, and product trends. 

SLMA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA 

SLMA 

KWPCC /KWMA 

SLMA 

KWPCC/ 

KWMA 

7. Upholding labor standards and social benefits. Setting wage or benefit standards and/or providing other social supports for workers. 
Figure 9 - Relationships Among Organizations 

Serving the Wood Products 

and Related Industries 

U.S. Wood Products 

Manufacturers (SIC 24) 

Appalachian Area 

Wood Products Manufacturers 

Inputs 

Appalachian States Total 40 Percent of 

U.S. Employment in SIC 24 

and Domestic 

Other Top Producing Appalachian States: and 

Materials NORTH CAROLINA 

(6% of U.S. Employ

ment) 

Foreign Markets 

Timber 

ALABAMA 

(5% of U.S. Employ

ment) 

Stand 

Owners 

GEORGIA 

(5% of U.S. Employ

ment) 

U.S. Pulp and Paper Domestic and 

Manufacturers (SIC 26) Foreign Markets 

Appalachian Regional and 

State Associations of Southern 

Wood Products Manufacturers 

____________________________________ 

Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA) (in 

Louisiana), Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers 

Association (SLMA) (in Georgia), Kentucky Wood 

Manufacturers Association (KWMA)/Kentucky 

Wood Products Competitiveness Corporation 

(KWPCC). 

SFPA Operates the Forest Products 

Machinery & Equipment Exposition, 

SFPA and SLMA Operate the 

Southern Pine Council. 

Nat

of Wo

Composite Pa

Structural Boa

American Woo

Kitchen Cabinet Manuf

Hardwood Plywood & 

Wood Mou

Asso

National W

Associatio

Wood Tru

1 The Hardwood Council is a coalition comprised of the: erican Walnut Manufacturers Association (in Indiana), Appalachian Hardwoo

Manufacturers Inc. (in North Carolina), Canadian Lumberman’s Association (in Ontario), Hardwood Distributors Association (in Missouri)

Hardwood Manufacturers Association (in Pennsylvania), National Hardwood Lumber Association (in Tennessee), National Oak Flooring 

Manufacturers Association (in Tennessee), National Wood Flooring Association (in Missouri), Northeast Loggers’ Association (in New Yo

Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association (in Georgia), and Wood Component Manufacturers Association (in Georgia). 2 The Southern Pine Council is a joint effort of the Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association and the Southern Forest Products Asso

National 

Association for the 

Integrated Wood-Related 

Supply Chain of Forest, 

Wood, Paper, and Related 

Producers (in D.C.) 

___________________ 

American Forest & Paper 

Association (AF&PA) 

Am
33 

government. They include such organizations as the Kitchen Cabinet Manufacturers 

Association; the Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Association; and the Composite Panel 

Association. Some such organizations may be located close to their point of production, 

such as the National Wood Flooring Association in Manchester, Missouri.56 

In contrast to these nationally oriented organizations, there are several regional 

and sectoral business associations. At least one of these—the Southeastern Lumber 

Manufacturers Association, or SLMA—was started in the 1960s to offer a collective 

voice exclusively to smaller firms in the wood products industry. This association, 

headquartered in Forest Park, Georgia, represents over 300 independent (i.e. not publicly 

traded) manufacturers in 16 states in the Southeast. Its membership is restricted to 

companies employing fewer than 500 workers—most are family-owned sawmill 

operations. The association’s biggest member company currently employs about 220 

workers. Thus, as a representative of the association stated—SLMA does not include 

“Georgia-Pacific . . . [We] are not big business.” This is one of the few associations 

contacted (either by phone or internet) with an exclusive smaller-firm focus—much as 

some Italian and German associations operate today (another serves the carpet industry in 

Dalton, Georgia—as profiled below). The state MEP programs, of course, target smalland medium-sized manufacturers (those under 500 workers). However, only a few target 

the wood products industry specifically (e.g., Kentucky and North Carolina). The SLMA 

concentrates on firms in the same sector—although it allows suppliers to this industry to 

join as associate members. This is a practice most associations encourage—which may 

be critical since the second most important source of strategic information for 

manufacturing firms in the Appalachian region is through suppliers.57 

Another Appalachian region business association in the wood products industry is 

the Southern Forest Products Association (SFPA is headquartered in Kenner, Louisiana). 

SFPA’s members are located in a similar swath of ten southern states—as are the firms 

belonging to SLMA. Its membership, however, ranges from some of the largest 

international companies to the very small family-run operations. Essentially a slightly 

diversified peer organization, its membership includes only firms producing products of 

southern pine (the organization was named the Southern Pine Council until the 1960s). 

About 70 companies comprise its active and affiliate membership (i.e. sawmills, and 

companies producing wood components, laminates, or treated products. Adding the 

associates that supply these firms with services or products brings the total membership 

to around 200. Hence, SFPA is a “large-firm” version of SLMA. 

Other regional associations exist with duplicate membership areas—for example, 

the Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers Institute (AHMI) in North Carolina, the 

Hardwood Manufacturers Association (HMA) in Pennsylvania, Southern Lumber 

Exporters Associations (SLEA), and the Southern Pine Council (a joint effort of the 

SLMA and SFPA) in Louisiana. But these associations provide a much narrower set of 

functions to the industry—that is, they exist almost exclusively for product promotion 

with potential wood products users—who are located either domestically or abroad. The 

Hardwood Council is a national umbrella group or coalition of ten such business 
34 

associations—that also exists exclusively to conduct promotional marketing activities.58 

The American Hardwood Export Council (AHEC), in Washington, D.C. is the national 

version of the SLEA. 

All these regional organizations have, however, been still too dispersed in 

membership to exert much influence at the state level in the funding and targeting of state 

and local level industrial extension activities. State or local-level associations are 

required here, as Kentucky’s Wood Products Competitiveness Corporation (KWPCC) 

discovered. KWPCC is a non-profit organization that the state legislature created at the 

same time (in 1994) it endorsed the Kentucky Technology Service (KTS)—the state 

MEP program. The two organizations partner in providing extension services to the 

wood products industry. One-third of KTS’s engineers are specialists in the wood 

products industry, and the cost of their salaries is shared by KTS and KWPCC. 

The legislation establishing KWPCC was spearheaded by a small group of wood 

industry leaders. Since KWPCC’s founding, it has helped this group formally organize 

itself as the Kentucky Wood Manufacturers Association (KWMA). KWPCC jointly 

works with this association to organize annual meetings of the industry, to market its 

short course series and technical assistance services, to initiate benchmarking activities 

among firms in the industry, and to organize cooperative health care and workers 

compensation insurance programs. KWPCC also works cooperatively with other existing 

business associations—the Kentucky Forest Industry Association, and occasionally the 

SFPA and the AF&PA. It also creates smaller networks of wood products 

manufacturers—in conjunction with the State Cabinet of Economic Development’s 

Networking Initiative—to encourage joint contracting and marketing activities among 

groups of firms in the industry. 

(3) Institutional Functions. How do these various organizations differ in regard 

to the functions they provide their member firms? Do any organizations facilitate 

adaptive cost efficiencies, new product development, skill upgrading, and research and 

development among companies? As already suggested, several organizations exist 

almost exclusively for product promotion and marketing activities: The AHMI, the 

HMA, the SLEA, the Hardwood Council, and the AHEC (refer again to Figures 8 and 9). 

Other associations, representing wood product manufacturers, financially support these 

industry-wide marketing councils. 

The marketing councils engage in activities such as developing the Southern Pine 

Council promotional material on the benefits and uses of wood (presented online, as 

association publications, and as press releases). They also offer a variety of educational 

programs and construction manuals for end-users groups (architecture and engineering 

firms, builders, lumber retailers, and building code departments). Topics include 

engineered wood systems or marine construction, publishing on-line or hard copy 

product guides and members directories for use by wood-users, statistically tracking 

industry shipments and market trends, participating in the trade shows of user groups 

(e.g. The National Association of Home Builders), and conducting overseas trade 
35 

missions. AHEC, representing “the committed exporters among U.S. hardwood 

companies and all the major U.S. hardwood product trade associations” goes so far as to 

maintain association offices in Tokyo, Osaka, London, Hong Kong, Mexico City, and 

Seoul to service the global community of potential wood user groups and consumers.59 

These marketing and promotional activities are often relatively passive in the 

sense that they promote wood products and wood species (e.g., southern pine) generically 

and do not help individual plants with their marketing efforts nor actively help them 

coordinate output markets and production capacity. This compares with the High Point 

Furniture Market where individual companies exhibit their products and learn about 

market trends from each other. However, some of these associations are aggressive in 

locating new export markets overseas—something that many associations rarely do. 

And, since these promotion and marketing associations arose out of collaboration among 

these other woods products manufacturing associations, they foster increased 

collaboration among all sectors of the industry similar to the way that the High Point 

marketing association does. 

A more proactive marketing approach is that offered by Kentucky’s KWPCC. It 

is assisting a network of 16 firms to cooperatively market their products and increase 

government contracting among network members. Other association activities that 

strengthen traditional transaction cost efficiencies include, of course, lobbying at federal 

and state levels and protecting private property use from excessive government 

regulation (especially relevant to the timber stand owners). Almost all associations 

contacted do some lobbying. 

Moving into the realm of adaptive cost efficiencies, however, we see a division of 

the industry into top-down (and nationally centered) and bottom-up (regionally and 

locally focused) efforts. Three such efforts are profiled here. One top-down, national 

effort is the Sustainable Forestry Initiative promoted by the AF&PA. The goal of this 

initiative is to promote forest harvesting practices that are environmentally sensitive 

(including reforestation, the protection of wildlife habitats, the limitation of water 

pollution, restrictions on clear cutting, and the promotion of diversity in forest 

environments), while also protecting the private property rights of timber stand owners. 

This initiative combines research into new production methods, such as forest harvesting, 

training in such methods for loggers, and an enforcement mechanism for firm 

compliance. Since 1996, the AF&PA has denied continued membership in the 

association for all firms that have not complied with its implementation guidelines, and it 

promotes the development of state-level standards (to reflect different forest conditions) 

and reporting of compliance. The AF&PA also compiles an annual report on 

membership compliance that is monitored by an independent body of experts, and it 

convenes a national forum of loggers, landowners, and senior industry representatives to 

monitor progress semi-annually. 

To the extent that these policies result in new forest-harvesting practices, greater 

productivity, lower waste, more intensive resource use, and enhanced production by 
36 

loggers, they promote adaptive cost savings among a segment of the wood products 

industries. Furthermore, the AF&PA is stimulating the adoption of these new practices 

by working with existing state groups—or organizing such groups where they do not 

exist—to promote upgrading the skills and training of loggers, landowners, contractors, 

suppliers, and wood resources. Hence, this national association is involved in increasing 

the capacity of collective problem solving and training among firms at the state level 

through its centralized policies. In this way, the national association is becoming an 

“institutional entrepreneur” or organizer of institutional capacity at the local level. 

Another effort at collective problem solving has been initiated at the regional 

level by the SLMA among its constituency of small, family-owned sawmill operators. In 

contrast to other organizations that primarily aim to expand demand for member products 

or protect member interests, this organization’s mission is to “aid and assist its 

membership in running a more profitable business.”60 Hence, while some of its activities 

are fairly standard (e.g. lobbying at the federal level for estate tax appeal or utility 

deregulation), others are not in that they promote lower collective costs and improved 

performance among member firms. 

The SLMA, for instance, offers a host of resource pooling schemes for its 

membership of small business owners (e.g. estate planning services, a brokering service 

to allow members to buy and sell equipment, health insurance). It has recently begun 

organizing problem-solving groups and to conduct strategic planning for the industry to 

enhance member competitiveness. The problem solving groups—“managers’ 

roundtables”—consist of about a dozen manufacturers each. They meet regularly to talk 

about ways to upgrade their businesses collectively and solve common concerns. The 

first group has just started; staff intentionally chose to mix manufacturers from different 

states to enhance collaboration and soften competitive divisions among these 

manufacturers. These roundtables emerged out of another association activity; the 

SLMA initiated a “competitive assessment survey” developed by an outside consultant to 

grade each member firm according to “best practices” for the industry on a range of 

factors. In addition, a recent initiative that emerged from strategic planning efforts was 

to develop an on-line suppliers directory of its members’ products for use by potential 

customers. 

At the local or statewide level, Kentucky’s KWPCC also has established resource 

pooling schemes for insurance and a smaller network of firms to set up joint contracting 

initiatives. It organized the Kentucky Wood Manufacturers Network of wood products 

craft-shops to cooperatively own and operate a shared manufacturing facility and to 

emulate a joint manufacturing process. KWPCC also conducts strategic planning for the 

industry as a whole in conjunction with the State’s Cabinet on Economic Development. 

(4) Institutional Gaps. The institutional strengths noted in this industry case 

include a host of nationally and regionally oriented business associations; a rich array of 

product marketing and promotion organizations and activities at the national and regional 

levels; and the beginning of some initiatives in collective research and technology 
37 

dissemination. However, compared to the other industries profiled, associations in the 

lumber and wood products industry seem the least involved in collective research efforts, 

training and new technology. In regard to research and technology dissemination, three 

efforts were highlighted: the top-down, nationally oriented Sustainable Forestry Policy of 

the AF&PA; the regionally-focused collective small-business problem-solving groups of 

the SLMA; and the bottom-up and statewide focused wood products networks created by 

the KWPCC in Kentucky. These are relatively independent efforts. In addition, the 

SFPA convenes the biannual Forest Products Machinery and Equipment Exposition—the 

largest such show in North America—much as other associations host machinery and 

suppliers expositions servicing their industries. This may be less glamorous than hosting 

new technology projects, but machinery and equipment vendors may be the best way to 

link firms with the latest technology.61 

Like in the furniture industry, no linkage or collaborative efforts with union or 

production labor were mentioned. Issues related to production labor in sawmills or wood 

component manufacturers have largely been ignored because of the low skill content, 

according to one interviewee. One training program to improve the activities of loggers, 

some of the most skilled personnel in the complex, is being promoted and run by the 

AF&PA in conjunction with state logging and forestry groups. Another is being 

implemented by the KWPCC for wood products manufacturers in Kentucky. Patterned 

after Oregon’s Secondary Wood Products Training System, Kentucky’s Wood 

Manufacturing Technology curriculum is offered through community colleges and the 

statewide Area Technology Centers, and is supported by a new scholarship program for 

trainees. 

In summary, institutional gaps experienced by this sector include the lack of many 

local or state-level associations to influence and/or work with state industrial extension 

services, except in Kentucky and North Carolina; a relatively low level of collective 

research and new technology initiatives; and few industry workforce training programs, 

except in Kentucky. 

Textiles 

Whereas efforts at promoting adaptive cost savings among manufacturers in the 

lumber/wood products industry are coming from both regional small-firm and national 

corporate actors, in textiles many of the efforts at stimulating research and development 

and improved production methods have come from the top-down and center. These 

efforts in the textile industry are substantial, compared to the other industries profiled, 

and represent a major corporatist effort not likely to be replicated given federal fiscal 

restraints today. At the same time, the textile industry is richly served at the local level 

by several state textile associations. However, on the whole these associations engage in 

traditional association lobbying activities that promote transaction cost savings at best. 

In contrast, one local set of business associations serving the carpet industry in northwest 

Georgia has taken a more proactive role to deal with competitiveness issues that is having 

an impact on regional development. 
38 

(1) Textile Production in the Appalachian Region. The textile industry is 

centered in the U.S. South. North Carolina alone provides almost a third of all textile 

jobs in the country and 75 percent of the industry’s total business volume.62 Adding 

Georgia, South Carolina, Alabama, and Virginia—in order by size of employment 

concentration—brings the employment total nearly 70 percent. 

Percent of U.S. SIC 24 Jobs State Location Quotient 

North Carolina 29.7 percent 9.9 

Georgia 15.8 percent 5.3 

South Carolina 12.6 percent 9.0 

Alabama 6.4 percent 4.2 

Virginia 4.8 percent 1.9 

Pennsylvania 3.6 percent 0.8 

Much of these jobs are concentrated in the Appalachian portion of these states, as can be 

seen by looking at the location quotients for the ARC counties (Figure 10). For instance, 

textile employment posts location quotients of 15.2 for Georgia, 13.4 for North Carolina 

and 12.2 for South Carolina. Textile employment in all counties comprising the ARC 

region equal one-third of all such jobs in the U.S. The textile industry consists of larger 

firms than average for all manufacturing nationally. For instance, 11 percent of textile 

establishments in the U.S. employ 250 workers or more (and only 51 percent employ 

fewer than 20); this compares with 3.6 percent and 67 percent, respectively, for all 

American manufacturers. 

(2) Scope and Functions of Local/Regional Institutions. Mill owners in each 

of the key textile producing states joined together in cooperative associations in the first 

decade of this century. These state textile associations exist today in North Carolina, 

South Carolina, Georgia, and Alabama, and provide a variety of services to textile and 

related firms. (Refer to Figures 11 and 12 for the remainder of this section.) In the main, 

these organizations lobby their respective state legislatures and agencies, acting as the 

state NAM (National Association of Manufacturers) affiliates but only for firms that are 

in the textile and related industries. One state association, the South Carolina Textile 

Manufacturers Association, has recently changed its name to the South Carolina 

Manufacturers Alliance; it opened its membership to all manufacturers in the state last 

year and now is a state NAM affiliate. It felt that the same issues it lobbied for 

previously were important to all manufacturers in the state and, that as an expanded 

organization, it would be a stronger voice for these issues. This organization had never 

been involved 
Figure 10 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Empl

in Textiles and Related Products (SIC 22) 

INDUSTRY IN THE STATE INDUSTRY IN AP

As % of 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. LQ* Empt

United States 582,188 United States 200,1North Carolina 172,933 29.7% 9.9 Georgia 57,7Georgia 92,251 15.8% 5.3 North Carolina 42,6South Carolina 73,459 12.6% 9.0 South Carolina 32,1Alabama 37,271 6.4% 4.2 Alabama 30,7Virginia 27,814 4.8% 1.9 Tennessee 13,2Pennsylvania 20,868 3.6% 0.8 Pennsylvania 10,0Tennessee 18,689 3.2% 1.5 Virginia 6,2New York 17,076 2.9% 0.4 Kentucky 2,3Kentucky 8,711 1.5% 1.1 Mississippi 1,5Mississippi 4,369 0.8% 0.9 West Virginia 1,2Ohio 3,727 0.6% 0.1 Maryland 8Maryland 1,458 0.3% 0.1 New York 7West Virginia 1,141 0.2% 0.4 Ohio 4

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the lo

cal employment share for a sector (i.e., the 

sector in the ARC region or State is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment shsector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of all jobs in the U.S.). SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Com

m

erce, 1996. 
40 

with the individual processes of its members; hence, its activities may have created 

transaction cost savings for firms but never assisted in the area of upgrading the 

processes, products, or skills of the firms. The other state textile associations partner 

with the state NAM-affiliates and other lobbying organizations (e.g., state chambers of 

commerce, trial lawyers associations, trucking associations) on state issues related to 

taxes, environmental regulations, hazardous waste, safety and human resources, 

unemployment insurance and workers compensation, health care, and so forth. These 

associations also encourage informal networking among their member firms and offer 

educational forums on topics of general business interest. 

Some issues facing the industry in the beginning of this century were and still are 

dealt with collectively by some of these state associations. Other issues have now been 

taken over by large, corporate mills or smaller mills individually and/or have been 

transferred to the national association, the American Textile Manufacturers Institute 

(ATMI). For instance, Georgia mill owners were concerned with unfavorable freight 

rates for the southern manufacturers. They formed what is now known as the Georgia 

Textile Manufacturers Association (GTMA) and employed a traffic expert to look after 

their interests. In the 1960s, this association ran a collective traffic service for the mills 

(through the Georgia-Alabama Textile Traffic Association).63 This traffic association 

disbanded in the 1980s. Today, most mills offer Just-in-Time delivery to their customers 

but plan the logistics function on their own. 

Each state textile association also organized and operated an annual Fiber Buyers 

meeting for cotton growers and other fiber producers to meet in a collective and planned 

fashion and transact business with the textile mill users. The state associations got 

together eight years ago to hold this meeting jointly; recently, the state associations 

turned this event over to the national textile association (the ATMI) for a variety of 

reasons. One state association representative said that since textiles was a national 

industry, “ the event ought to have a ‘signature’ to it.” The representative added that the 

ATMI brought stature to this event as well as a broader range of national and 

international contacts (for instance, the National Cotton Council started to collaborate in 

the event). Having the national association absorb the event was also thought to be more 

cost effective. This implies that regionally based business associations may not have the 

finances or political clout to carry out major programs for an industry that increasingly is 

characterized by consolidated mills and corporations. This begs the question of what 

activities are most appropriate for local or regionally based business associations versus 

those that are large and serve a national constituency that includes major corporations. 

This issue is addressed in the conclusion. 

Issues that have been retained by some of the state textile associations, in addition 

to lobbying, include offering financial support and collaborating with state technical 

schools for worker training. For instance, the Georgia Textile Manufacturers Association 

started the Textile Education Foundation in 1943 to “promote educational and career 
Figure 11 -

Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnershi

in the Appalachian Textile Industry

ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Locatio

Local/regi

Cluster 

1. Clarifying public and private sector roles. Increasing private property rights, improving government performance 

and infrastructure, lobbying. 

DFCMA ATMI 

ATMA GTMA 

NCTMA 

SCMA 

ATMA GTMA 

NCTMA 

DFCMA 

ATMI 

SCMA 

ATMA GTMA 

NCTMA 

SCMA 

DFCMA 

2. Coordinating markets. Increasing control over input and output markets (including resource pooling schemes), increasing member information about markets, 

limiting or redirecting productive capacity collectively (also including 

searching for new, export markets). 

DFCMA ATMI DFCMA ATMI DFCMA 

3. Upgrading skills and productive capacity/technology. Developing management and 

workers skills, diffusing new technologies, improving product/production process quality (e.g., by enacting higher standards). 

AMTEX 

ATMI 

GTMA/TEF 

NCTMA/ 

Belmont College 

Dalton College 

GTMA/TEF NCTMA/ Belmont College Dalton College 

AMTEX 

ATMI 

GTMA/TEF NCTMA/ Belmont CoDalton CollAMTEX Research U
ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Locatio

Local/regi

Cluster 

4. Promote R&D and new product development. Promoting research and development, new product development, and basic research. 

AMTEX AMTEX AMTEX 

Research 

Univs. 

5. Coordinating inter-firm relationships. Increasing efficiency in supply chains, coordinating peer firms relationships, acting as lead organizer for group (e.g., by setting up inter-firm relationships or moderating conflicts among firms). 

DFCMA AMTEX 

ATMI 

DFCMA AMTEX 

ATMI 

DFCMA 

6. Conducting strategic planning for relevant industry(s). Planning for future changes in markets, technologies, labor and training needs, and product trends. 

OTEXA 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

AMTEX 

7. Upholding labor standards and social benefits. Setting wage or benefit standards and/or providing other social supports for workers. 
Figure 12 - Relationships 

Among Organizations 

Serving the Integrated 

Textile Complex 

Inputs and 

Other Materials 

U.S. Textile Manufacturers 

(SIC 22) 

U.S. Apparel Manufacturers 

(SIC 23) 

Natural and 

Synthetic Fiber 

Producers 

Appalachian Area 

Textile Manufacturers 

Appalachian Area 

Apparel Manufacturers 

Appalachian States Total 82 Percent of 

U.S. Employment in SIC 22 

Appalachian States Total 52 Percent of 

U.S. Employment in SIC 23 

Top Producing Appalachian States: Top Producing Appalachian States: 

NORTH CAROLINA 

(30% of U.S. Employment) 

NEW YORK 

(10% of U.S. Employment) 

GEORGIA 

(16% of U.S. Employment) 

NORTH CAROLINA 

(7% of U.S. Employment) 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

(13% of U.S. Employment) 

GEORGIA 

(5% of U.S. Employment) 

Appalachian State Textile Associations 

Alabama Textile Manufacturers Association, 

South Carolina Manufacturers Alliance (Formerly South Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association), 

Georgia Textile Manufacturers Association, 

North Carolina Textile Manufacturers Association. 

. 

AMTEX Partnership 

and Other Federal Agen

_________________________

U.S. Dept. of Energy Laborato

U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Offi

Textile, Fiber, and Apparel Ind

(OTEXA); 

National Textile Center-Univ

Research Consortium1; Indu

Research Centers (RETTS)

Corporate Leaders. 

Sub-state 

Textile Manufacturers 

Associations & Technical 

Assistance Providers 

___________________________ 

Carpet and Rug Institute, 

Dalton Floor Covering Marketing 

Association, Dalton College— 

all above in Georgia, Hosiery 

Technology Center— 

in North Carolina. 

National 

Fiber, Textile, and 

Apparel Associations (in D.C.) 

American Apparel Manufacturers Association (AAMA), 

American Fiber Manufacturers Association, 

American Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI), 

Industrial Fabrics Association International (IFAI), 

Knitted Textiles Association, 

National Knitwear and Sportswear Association 

(NKSA). 

1 Universities affiliated with the National Textile Center include: Auburn University (in Alabama), Clemson University (in South Carolina), Georgia Institute of Techno

Carolina State University (in North Carolina), Philadelphia College of Textiles & Science (in Pennsylvania), University of Massachusetts-Dartmouth (in Massachusetts

2 AMTEX Industry Research Centers include: Clemson Apparel Research (CAR) (in South Carolina), Cotton Inc.(in North Carolina and New York), Textile/Clothing Te

North Carolina), Institute of Textile Technology (IIT)(in Virginia), Textile Research Institute (TRI)/Princeton (in New Jersey). 
44 

opportunities to prospective textile students”.64 This foundation has spent several million 

dollars on this project in its lifetime—it currently budgets about one-quarter of a million 

dollars each year—for scholarships, capital improvements, faculty support, machinery and 

equipment at Georgia Tech and Southern Tech. The North Carolina Textile Manufacturers 

Association (NCTMA) has had a similar relationship with the community college system in 

its state. In 1949, the state and NCTMA co-funded Belmont College to provide training for 

skilled workers in the textile plants near one of the largest industrial concentrations in the 

state. A decade ago, the state community college system absorbed the Belmont facility; now 

faculty from Belmont can offer textile related training to workers and firms throughout the 

state at one of the 59 other community college sites as well. This funding support from the 

state-level textile associations is a drop in the bucket compared to textile funding from the 

national government (described below). However, it may be that the business-community 

college link is most appropriately carried on at the regional or local level—much like the 

furniture association’s support for state college efforts in technical assistance in North 

Carolina. 

It is important to highlight a highly local actor, the Dalton Floor Covering Marketing 

Association, that has taken a more proactive role than other local associations in helping its 

175 member firms solve their problems collectively. Of the institutions profiled in this 

section, this is by far the most locally embedded association—it operates at the sub-state 

level in Daltonthe center of the U.S. carpet industry. The association was formed in 1979 

to promote smaller companies in the industry (the Carpet and Rug Institute, also in Dalton, 

works with larger companies). For instance, many smaller mill owners—i.e., those 

employing fewer than 30 workers—cannot afford the time or expense to travel to the 

Greenville, South Carolina, textile equipment and suppliers show. The association decided 

to bring such suppliers to them by hosting its own suppliers and equipment show in Dalton 

every other year. This show attracted 3,000 attendees and 1,000 exhibitors last year. The 

association also lobbied state and county officials to construct a trade center facility for these 

shows. 

In smaller firms, the owner often carries out all management functions—he or she 

does not have an exporting department or sales representative. Therefore, the association 

also acts as sales representative for these companies at international/national trade shows 

where floor coverings are marketed. The association sent a representative to the world’s 

largest carpet show in Germany recently, accompanying staff from the State of Georgia’s 

Export Assistance Center. The state is currently developing a prototype “global” videoconferencing system—with U.S. Department of Commerce and ARC funding—to enhance 

the ability of smaller manufacturers to “talk” and negotiate via technological hook-up with 

potential customers at these overseas trade shows. Representatives from the association and 

the state are on hand with carpet samples from these companies to help forge this linkage. 

They also provide other assistance to smaller companies, helping them wade through the 

regulations, paperwork, and other requirements of exporting such as establishing local lines 

of credit. 
45 

Thus, the Dalton Floor Covering Marketing Association primarily helps its 

membership survive as smaller firms in an increasingly global marketplace with much larger 

firms that are concentrating their ownership. For instance, larger carpet mills have 

increasingly bought up the yarn mills for their own internal purposes. The loss of 

independent yarn companies can create supply difficulties for smaller carpet manufacturers 

without the activities of the association, which now help them to locate these supplies over 

greater distances. This association brings a regional and SME focus to its activities; 

however, certain pressures have caused it to expand beyond this membership base. Last 

year, for instance, the association broadened its sectoral membership base because it was not 

growing and felt it needed to continue providing cost effective pooled services (e.g., health 

and workers compensation insurance). It also does not maintain size restrictions on member 

firms, and a few of the largest corporations are also members (e.g., Shaw and Queen). 

Another business association in Dalton, the Carpet and Rug Institute, services the 

same industry as DFCMA but targets all firms, large and small, in its efforts. It has been able 

to provide a network of firms that can jointly engage the state’s MEP agency, Georgia Tech’s 

Economic Development Institute, or EDI, in sector-wide projects. The EDI has not focused 

its work along sector-specific expertise, although the State of Georgia has in other of its 

programming. However, with an active sector-specific network in place—like the CRI— 

EDI’s Dalton office can help the association move along some of its projects. 

For instance, the two organizations have put together projects to collectively research 

and implement automated creeling technology, the use of textile waste as fill in roadbed 

construction, and wastewater treatment solutions for carpet plants. The EDI also wrote a 

Title V major source air permit for a model carpet mill for the CRI that other carpet plants 

could utilize to guide their own permit applications. The EDI receives funding from the 

State’s Consortium for the Competitiveness in the Apparel, Carpet, and Textile Industries 

(CCACTI) to provide essential environmental research, extension, and support services to 

the Dalton-area carpet industry. 

North Carolina’s clustered hosiery industry also benefits from a highly organized and 

proactive business association—the Carolina Hosiery Association (CHA, formerly the 

Catawba Valley Hosiery Association). In past years, the CHA worked with the Catawba 

Valley Community College to create the Hosiery Technology Center (HTC) (described in 

greater detail below). Working in conjunction with the National Association of Hosiery 

Manufacturers (NAHM) and funded by the North Carolina state government’s Alliance for 

Competitive Technologies (NC ACT), CHA produced a strategic plan for the hosiery 

industry in 1994. 

(3) Scope and Functions of National Level Institutions. In contrast to these state 

and local textile associations is the American Textile Manufacturers Institute, or ATMI (refer 

again to Figures 11 and 12). This organization represents approximately 130 member firms 

that process about 80 percent of all textiles made in U.S. plants. The organization grew 

during the post-World War II period through a series of mergers. In 1949 there was a merger 

between the American Cotton Manufacturers (representing plants in the South) and the 

Cotton Textile Institute (with northern companies). Next, the organization merged with the 
46 

National Federation of Textiles (in 1958), the Association of Finishers of Textile Fabrics (in 

1965), the National Association of Wool Manufacturers (in 1971), and the Thread Institute 

(in 1989). 

ATMI considers itself “a coordinating force behind efforts of related trade 

associations and other organizations to obtain orderly international trade in textiles.”65 Its 

objective is to allow its member firms to solve problems collectively at a national level and 

to act as the industry’s representative to federal agencies, Congress, and the news media. 

More recently, it has become involved in issues of competitiveness and foreign market 

access. It is also heavily involved in setting industry-wide standards and individual firm 

certification for environmental efforts by textile firms in their production processes. 

Although much of the activity for stimulating textile firms to acquire new 

technologies and skills comes from the national level, a few exceptions exist. For instance, 

recently some state government technology programs have been implemented, namely North 

Carolina’s Alliance for Competitive Technology and Georgia’s Consortium on 

Competitiveness for the Apparel, Carpet, and Textile Industries (CCACTI). Dalton College 

also serves the carpet industry locally with technical assistance and research-support 

activities. 

At the national level, several universities, national organizations (e.g., the ATMI, the 

American Apparel Manufacturers Association, and the Union of Needle Trades, Industrial, 

and Textile Employees),66 the federal government (the Departments of Commerce, Energy, 

and Labor), and several key manufacturing companies started a host of new institutions. The 

purpose of these institutions is to promote basic research and technology diffusion in the 

integrated textile complex in order to enhance the competitiveness of a set of inter-linked 

industries. This complex involves the industries of fiber production, textile and apparel 

manufacturing, and soft goods distribution/retail, thereby serving more than one sector. 

The first national-level institution for the integrated textile complex was the 

Textile/Apparel Clothing Corporation (TC2). TC2 was started in 1979 after a conference was 

convened at the Harvard Business School to look at trade adjustment and competitiveness 

issues in the textile and apparel industries. Key academics (e.g., Professors John Dunlop and 

Frederick Abernathy), industry leaders (including Hart, Schaffner, & Marx; Burlington 

Industries; Milliken; Vanity Fair; and DuPont), union representatives (e.g., the Amalgamated 

Clothing and Textile Workers), and business associations (the AAMA and the ATMI) came 

together to form TC2. The U.S. Departments of Commerce and Labor provided initial startup support. TC2, located in Cary, North Carolina, is an independent non-profit entity that 

focuses on research and development for automating the apparel industry. It operates a stateof-the-art training and manufacturing facility—the National Apparel Technology Center 

(NATC)—that demonstrates the use of the latest equipment and software for the apparel and 

soft goods industry. For instance, staff work on manufacturing projects using “agile” 

manufacturing technology, ergonomics, and computer simulation to show how to design, die, 

cut, and sew customized garments to industry representatives. 
47 

One such project—DAMA, or the Demand Activated Manufacturing Architecture 

Project—focuses on creating a set of technologies to promote “mass customization” in the 

apparel manufacturing process. The goal here is to cut manufacturing time in the apparel and 

soft goods supply chain in half. DAMA staff has mapped supply chains for several key 

products and is applying such technologies as computerized body scanning, digital cloth 

printing, and team-based modular manufacturing to produce “tailored clothing at ‘off-therack’ prices”.67 DAMA and NATC staff teaches manufacturers about these new technologies 

and processes at their demonstration factory site, which utilizes equipment donated by 

industry leaders. They also offer formalized workshops and training programs—both for 

production workers and plant supervisors/management personnel. TC2 currently obtains over 

$3 million annually from the U.S. Department of Commerce and also raises support from 

fees for service. 

Since TC2, several other institutions serving the integrated textile complex were 

funded and/or started with federal subsidy. In the early 1990s, the American Textile 

Partnership was formed (AMTEX) to strengthen the competitiveness of firms in this complex 

through basic research. AMTEX is a collaborative research program involving industry 

representatives, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and DOE laboratories, other federal 

agencies, and a consortium of universities. AMTEX aims to link the national scientific and 

engineering capacity to these interrelated industries by funding academic research through 

six “research education and technology transfer entities” (RETTS). These entities include 

Clemson Apparel Research (CAR), Cotton Incorporated (which focuses on natural fibers), 

Textile Research Institute (TRI, which focuses on manmade fibers), the Institute of Textile 

Technology (ITT, which works on textile manufacturing technologies), TC2 (which works on 

apparel technologies), and the National Textile Center (NTC). 

The NTC is a consortium of universities that carries out funded research for the fiber, 

textile, and apparel industries. This consortium includes Auburn University in Alabama, 

Clemson University in South Carolina, Georgia Institute of Technology, North Carolina 

State University, the Philadelphia College of Textiles and Science, and the University of 

Massachusetts at Dartmouth. A committee of industry leaders (e.g., from DuPont, Walmart, 

and J.C. Penney) and faculty jointly select project proposals to fund and oversee the 

implementation process. One such project at Georgia Tech, for example, involved altering 

the textile dying and bleaching process to eliminate pollutants; the results of this 

technological research project helped a specific company in North Carolina to remain in 

business by solving its environmental waste problems. This whole complex of institutions is 

coordinated, in part, by interlocking memberships on their respective Boards of Directors and 

is funded by the national government at a level of $9 million this year. This concerted, 

national-level and institutionally rich effort bears close resemblance to Japanese technology 

policy and the overlap of industry leaders, business association representatives, and national 

agency heads on policy boards. As such, this institutional complex may not necessarily 

promote regional, state-level, or more localized industrial development. Its services are 

available to large corporations—as well as smaller producers—that may exhibit weaker ties 

to specific textile clusters within the Appalachian states. 
48 

(4) Institutional Gaps. The textile industry that is centered in several Appalachian 

states benefits from many institutional strengths. These strengths include an extensive set of 

state-level textile associations, and a multitude of national business associations that have 

stimulated the creation of several unique, federally supported research, technology, and 

educational institutions. Additionally, there are several highly proactive localized business 

associations that serve key niche areas, such as carpet production in Georgia and hosiery 

production in North Carolina. This industry exhibits a highly developed and federated 

structure of collective inter-firm organizations and other intermediaries. Nevertheless, there 

are several gaps in this institutional system. 

First of all, the specialized federal-level efforts provided through the Department of 

Commerce may not always be coordinated with state or sub-state efforts. National business 

associations do not organize local level chapters. Therefore, national level assistance to the 

textile and related industries may not necessarily result in the development of certain underdeveloped regions and smaller firms. Impact on localized clusters of firms depends on the 

existence and foresight of lower level intermediary organizations. These vary greatly across 

the Appalachian region. 

For instance, some state MEP and/or economic development agencies have targeted 

textiles for strategic planning and other specialized programming (e.g., North Carolina, 

Georgia) whereas other states have not (e.g., Alabama and Virginia). Statewide textile 

manufacturers associations serve four states (North Carolina, Georgia, South Carolina, and 

Alabama). However, many of these do not provide sufficient assistance to firms trying to 

increase their competitiveness. Hence, smaller textile firms that are often underrepresented 

in national, corporatist, and diversified business associations may receive less support from 

this set of institutions. One such organization in South Carolina has moved away from a 

sector focus. Its efforts take a more generalized approach to manufacturing issues that do not 

allow it to deal with the textile industry’s specific competitiveness issues. All four state 

textile associations have also shed their marketing function to the national association (the 

ATMI) to gain greater national prestige for it. However, this weakens the development of 

state or sub-state textile clusters and collective inter-firm problem-solving capacity. 

Some state or sub-state textile clusters have enhanced their competitiveness, 

spawning more localized economic development. These clusters are served by strong, 

proactive business associations that can lobby for state-provided and/or offer their own 

collective services. More localized clusters without such associations, however, are 

relatively under-served—much as furniture producers in Mississippi, for instance, or wood 

products producers outside of Kentucky. 

Apparel 

From the of the textile industry, we see that the apparel industry in the Appalachian 

region is well-served by a host of innovative, basic-research and training organizations that 

were initially organized and funded at the national level through AMTEX. This nationally 

organized consortium of research and development centers is predominantly sited within the 
49 

thirteen-state Appalachian region and includes such regional universities as Clemson, 

Auburn, Georgia Tech, and North Carolina State. DAMA, TC2, and its demonstration 

factory are also located near apparel firms in North Carolina and much of the Southeast. 

Therefore, although the AMTEX institutions are “national” institutions—in terms of funding 

and the businesses associations associated with them—they provide a regional presence. It is 

unclear, however, the extent to which small apparel firms in the region use these state-of-theart technology services. 

Apparel firms in Appalachian states are also served by a set of large, nationally 

focused trade associations—the ATMI and AAMA. It is against this context of nationally 

focused institutions that one can compare the set of local or regionally focused apparel 

associations that would more likely involve the industry’s smaller firms. This comparison 

shows that the institutional structure serving apparel at this lower level is relatively weak—if 

almost non-existent—especially compared to the number of state and sub-state business 

associations in textiles. The weakness of apparel-related institutions at the local/regional 

level in much of Appalachia also contrasts with the institutions serving other apparel 

agglomerations in the U.S. In particular, the New York City region has an institutional 

agglomeration of business associations for the apparel industry much like North Carolina’s 

agglomeration in the furniture industry. Before profiling these local or regionally focused 

apparel institutions, the apparel industry in the Appalachian region is briefly described. 

(1) Apparel Manufacturing in the Appalachian Region. Fifty-one percent of all 

jobs in the U.S. apparel industry in 1996 were located in thirteen states comprising the 

Appalachian region. This proportion is somewhat misleading since almost ten percent of all 

American apparel employment is lodged in the New York state—most outside the 

Appalachian counties and in the New York City metropolitan region. Segregating out the 

ARC-designated counties, about 16 percent of all apparel jobs originate in the true 

Appalachian region. The Appalachian states with the largest number of apparel jobs include: 

Percent of U.S. SIC 23 Jobs State Location Quotient 

New York 9.8 percent 1.5 

North Carolina 6.8 percent 2.3 

Georgia 5.4 percent 1.8 

Tennessee 5.1 percent 2.4 

Pennsylvania 5.2 percent 1.1 

Alabama 4.5 percent 3.0 

Of these states, however, Mississippi shows the highest apparel location quotient at 3.3 

(Figure 13). Looking at the Appalachian counties within those states, we see that the 

Appalachian portions of Tennessee, Alabama, and Pennsylvania provide the largest number 

of jobs (at two to three percent of all U.S. apparel jobs each). Mississippi’s Appalachian 
Figure 13 - Appalachian States Ranked According to Employme

in Apparel and Related Products (SIC 23) 

INDUSTRY IN THE STATE 

As % of 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. LQ* 

United States 843,140 New York 82,774 9.8% 1.5 North Carolina 56,979 6.8% 2.3 Georgia 45,662 5.4% 1.8 Pennsylvania 43,673 5.2% 1.1 Tennessee 43,006 5.1% 2.4 Alabama 38,279 4.5% 3.0 South Carolina 28,333 3.4% 2.4 Virginia 24,763 2.9% 1.2 Kentucky 23,976 2.8% 2.1 Mississippi 23,907 2.8% 3.3 Ohio 13,817 1.6% 0.4 Maryland 5,599 0.7% 0.4 West Virginia 2,109 0.3% 0.5 

INDUSTRY IN APPALACH

Empt. 

United States 136,127 Tennessee 27,023 Alabama 19,626 Pennsylvania 17,233 North Carolina 14,624 Georgia 12,936 Mississippi 10,703 Kentucky 9,690 South Carolina 8,446 Virginia 8,192 Ohio 3,254 West Virginia 1,846 New York 1,721 Maryland 833 

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the l

ocal employment share for a sector (i.e., the proport

sector in the ARC region or State is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for 

proportion of that sector in the U.S. of all jobs in the U.S.). SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of C
51 

counties again show the highest concentration (a location quotient of 6.9), followed by 

Virginia (5.3), and Kentucky (4.8).68 

This means that for some Appalachian counties, apparel constitutes the most 

sizable manufacturing opportunity locally even though it represents a very small 

proportion of all U.S. apparel jobs. Kentucky is good example. The apparel sector there 

constitutes 18 percent of all manufacturing jobs in that state’s Appalachian region, yet 

apparel firms there provide only 1.1 percent of all U.S. apparel jobs. Apparel firms—as 

part of the integrated textile complex that is highly concentrated in the states comprising 

the Appalachian regionare much smaller and more numerous than firms comprising the 

fiber and textile industries to which they are linked. For instance, two-thirds of all U.S. 

apparel establishments employ fewer than 20 workers, in contrast to half of all textile 

plants. There were 24,278 establishments in apparel in total in the United States in 1996, 

compared with about 6,400 establishments in textiles. 

(2) Scope and Functions of National Level Institutions. As mentioned 

previously, the AAMA represents firms in the apparel industry nationally. ATMI also 

includes apparel firms in its ranksprimarily firms that are diversified textile and 

apparel manufacturers. (Refer to Figures 12 and 14 for the remainder of this section.) 

AAMA offices are in the Washington area, allowing it to carry out significant federal 

level lobbying activities. The approximately 300 member firms produce a range of 

apparel products—from tailored men’s suits to hats and coats (but excluding footwear). 

These member companies represent more than 80 percent of all wholesale clothing 

produced in this country. These firms range from $3 million in annual sales to over $1 

billion and employ around 600,000 workers in total. Although the AAMA represents the 

entire apparel industry, it does not include small contractors in its membership (e.g., 

firms employing fewer than 50 workers). Hence, certain regions of the country—like 

Los Angeles where a significant portion of custom-oriented apparel produced by craft 

firms originates—are not involved in this organization. A considerable number of 

apparel firms in the Appalachian states are also not served by the AAMA. 

The AAMA carries out traditional trade association activities, such as advocacy 

on federal legislation, regulations, and foreign trade policy. It also conducts other 

activities that influence adaptation of its member firms to new markets and products. For 

instance, its Committee on Apparel Quality helps set standards for quality control and 

helps its members to meet these standards. The association also holds educational 

seminars for its membership (e.g., on changes in market trends, the impact of the recent 

Southeast Asian crisis on the industry). It holds an annual business outlook conference in 

New York City and co-sponsors an annual technology conference in Atlanta. The 

association also maintains involvement in apparel training through its Education 

Committee that focuses on college curricula related to apparel management and 

technology and includes members of the NTC as well as other universities. Outside of its 

significant involvement with AMTEX and related Appalachian area institutions, the 

AAMA is not involved with business associations for the apparel industry that operate at 
Figure 14 -

Institutional Framework for Select Inter-firm Partnerships 

in the Appalachian Apparel Industry 

ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Location of me

Local/regional 

Cluster vs. 

1. Clarifying public and private sector roles. Increasing private property rights, improving government performance 

and infrastructure, lobbying. 

AAMA AAMA 

2. Coordinating markets. Increasing control over input and output markets (including resource pooling schemes), increasing member information about markets, 

limiting or redirecting productive capacity collectively (also including 

searching for new, export markets). 

AAPN 

SEAMS 

AAPN 

SEAMS 

AAPN 

SEAMS 

3. Upgrading skills and productive capacity/technology. Developing management and 

workers skills, diffusing new technologies, improving product/production process quality (e.g., by enacting higher standards). 

AAPN 

SEAMS 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

AAMA 

AAMA 

AAPN 

SEAMS 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

AMTEX 

Research 

Univs. 

AAPN 

SEAMS 
ORGANIZATIONAL 

SCOPE 

ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTION 

1. Size of member firms 

Larger (or 

Smaller vs. All Firms) 

2. Industries of member 

firms 

Peers vs. Supply Chains 

3. Location of membe

Local/regional 

Cluster vs. Dis

4. Promote R&D and new product development. Promoting research and development, new product development, and basic research. 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

AMTEX 

Research 

Univs. 

A

O

5. Coordinating inter-firm relationships. Increasing efficiency in supply chains, coordinating peer firms relationships, acting as lead organizer for group (e.g., by setting up inter-firm relationships or moderating conflicts among firms). 

AAPN AAPN AAPN 

6. Conducting strategic planning for relevant industry(s). Planning for future changes in markets, technologies, labor and training needs, and product trends. 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

AMTEX 

OTEXA 

A

O

7. Upholding labor standards and social benefits. Setting wage or benefit standards and/or providing other social supports for workers. 
54 

a sub-national level, nor does it host local chapters of the AAMA. Hence, its activities 

do not necessarily stimulate regional development of apparel clusters. 

(3) Scope and Functions of Local/Regional Institutions. Some regional 

institutions round out the picture of this industry. Two of these—the American Apparel 

Producers Network (AAPN) and the Southeastern Apparel Manufacturers and Suppliers 

Association (SEAMS)—offer contrasting images of the potential for regional trade 

associations in this industry. The American Apparel Producers Network (the AAPN) is 

located in Atlanta, Georgia. This organization offers its approximately 300 member 

firms with two services—cooperative marketing and cooperative workers’ compensation 

insurance. The organization changed its name recently (it was called the American 

Apparel Contractors Association) to signal the fact that it does not consider itself a 

regular trade association. It is not political and it does not lobby in Washington; instead 

it primarily organizes the highly fragmented apparel industry into supply chains and 

cooperative networks. 

How does the organization specifically carry out this goal? It hosts problemsolving groups of member firms patterned after town meetings and organizes its 

membership on-line as a sourcing database (the “Apparel Exchange”). AAPN also 

encourages apparel firms to co-design and co-arrange the production of garments on-line 

at confidential password-protected websites—a much cheaper alternative for small firms 

than dedicated lines between companies. The AAPN’s member companies have been 

reachable on-line since 1993—the association is one of the earliest of such organizations 

to do this. AAPN’s marketing effort takes place in a context in which, according to the 

organization’s director, many of the “long-run” apparel contracts have moved offshore to 

places with lower labor costs. “Short run,” specialty contracts remain, however, for firms 

that can offer flexible, quality, and quick service to their customers. The on-line sourcing 

directory helps member firms to locate these specialty contracts. Therefore, AAPN’s 

supply chain efforts allow its member firms to link up to achieve these goals; they also 

allow them to meet the challenges of consolidation and computerization within the 

apparel and textile industries.69 AAPN tries to “be a big place for small businesses” 

bringing the smaller companies up to speed in terms of performance and technology 

issues.70 

Although the AAPN’s membership is distributed throughout 41 states, the bulk of 

its network exists in the southeastern states. In that sense, the organization operates like 

a regional association. Similar sourcing networks of apparel manufacturers exist in other 

regions: the Atlantic Apparel Contractors Association in Allentown, Pennsylvania, the 

Pennsylvania Apparel and Textile Association, the Garment Contractors Association in 

San Francisco, the Northwest Apparel Manufacturers Association in the Pacific 

Northwest, and the Garment Industry Development Corporation (GIDC) of New York. 

These regional associations play a critical role in the integrated textile and apparel 

complex. As DAMA’s project director stated, DAMA staff teach classes to 

manufacturers about “quick response” (and other subjects), but organizations like GIDC 

organize sourcing chains to achieve it.71 
55 

Another regional apparel sourcing association serving the Southeast is SEAMS— 

the Southeastern Apparel Manufacturers and Suppliers Association. This organization 

was started in 1969 by a group of manufacturers clustered near Columbia, South 

Carolina, to collectively solve industry problems. This association is about the same size 

as AAPN in membership—but its firms are centered mostly in the Carolinas. SEAMS 

until recently had linked apparel contractors in a more traditional manner—hosting a 

biannual trade show. However, due to the increasing cost of such shows and 

competition—more associations are hosting bigger and better trade shows—the 

organization decided to eliminate this event in the last few years. It now participates in 

the show held by the National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers, and holds its own 

biannual technology-related educational conference for its members. 

The organization currently has found its membership declining as more and more 

work is contracted offshore to the Caribbean Basin and South America, yet it does not 

assist its membership with marketing activities in any formal way. SEAMS responds to 

requests for contractor services by consulting its in-house membership database and 

offering a FAX broadcast service to members to spread the word about contracting 

opportunities. Its director is currently semi-retired. 

Thus, whereas SEAMS aims to assist its members with acquiring information 

about markets and technology, it carries this mission out in a much less proactive and 

more traditional way than does AAPN. The structure and goals of these organizations 

are similar; yet, their performance seems to diverge sharply. Organizations that serve or 

organize state-level or sub-state clusters of apparel firms were not encountered. State 

governmental competitiveness efforts, on the whole, did not target the apparel industry 

for specialized services (except North Carolina’s manufacturing extension services). 

Hence, the bulk of small apparel firms in much of the Appalachian area remains unserved 

by targeted and sector-specific association, government extension, and/or community 

college services. 

(4) Institutional Gaps. From this profile of select business associations serving 

the apparel industry, several strengths and weaknesses become apparent. First, the 

national associations (ATMI and AAMA) were instrumental in early efforts within the 

Department of Commerce to support basic research and technology adoption in the 

apparel and textile industries. AMTEX, the result of this business association, offers a 

set of regionally sited and nationally coordinated institutions for moving the apparel 

industry into computerized and automation technologies. However, from these brief 

interviews, it is unclear the extent to which these efforts have been linked with smaller 

apparel firms in the industry. Several regional associations indicate a closer presence to 

SME manufacturers. 

Secondly, regional subcontractors’ associations by themselves differ immensely 

in terms of association efforts. The more traditional associations could benefit from more 

collaboration or networking opportunities with other leading regionally based groups. 

This same divergence in performance of regionally based textiles associations was also 

noted in the previous section. Some consolidation within the institutional structure is 
56 

also occurring (e.g., SEAMS’ ending its trade show arena). This consolidation is similar 

to ATMI’s takeover of this function from its regional association entities. Finally, none 

of the associations interviewed for this section mentioned collective efforts at worker 

training, such as GIDC provides its members’ workers in New York. It may be that 

educational institutions are picking up this effort, but the apparel firms and their workers 

seem relatively unconnected to any worker training effort. 

IV. FINDINGS AND POLICY OPTIONS 

This section summarizes the main insights that emerge from the foregoing case 

studies. It also includes policy options for how public sector agencies, such as the 

Appalachian Regional Commission, can build on the region’s institutional strengths or 

overcome institutional weaknesses through partnerships with business associations and 

other intermediary organizations. 

Findings 

• The associations researched show a great range of institutional functions, from 

lobbying to assisting firms develop new products, processes, skills, or technology. 

Large business associations with headquarters in Washington often list lobbying 

on legislative and regulatory matters as their primary function (e.g., the American 

Apparel Manufacturers Association, American Textiles Manufacturers Institute, and the 

American Forest & Paper Association). Other business associations eschew lobbying 

activities altogether and focus on helping their members adapt to new conditions and 

reach new markets. These associations include the industry-sponsored Furniture 

Foundation, the Upholstered Furniture Action Council standard-setting activities, and the 

Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association’s “competitive assessment” activities to 

benchmark members’ performance and the formation of “managers’ roundtables” to 

engage firms in collective problem-solving. The American Apparel Producers Network’s 

promotion of supply networks through the internet, the Kentucky Wood Products 

Competitiveness Corporation and the Kentucky Wood Manufacturers Association’s 

activities in Kentucky’s wood products industry, as well as the technology and basic 

research activities of the American Textile Partnership are progressive activities by 

several associations. 

• Few business associations identified in these case studies actively engage in 

activities to recruit, train, and/or structure career paths for production workers 

in their member firms. 

Specialized, industry-specific worker training programs in community colleges 

and other institutions are common throughout the U.S., including the Appalachian 

states.72 However, business associations interviewed for this project rarely take a direct 

role in supporting these worker-training activities. 
57 

Two exceptions are state textile associations involved with community college 

training programs and the apprenticeship training program established by two state 

chapters of the National Tooling and Manufacturing Association, the North Carolina 

A&T University, and the Piedmont Triad Advanced Center for Manufacturing project. 

However, other regional associations in the Appalachian statesfor instance, the 

Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association, the Southern Forest Products 

Association, the Southeastern Apparel Manufacturers & Suppliers Association, the 

American Apparel Producers Network, and even the American Furniture Manufacturers 

Association73—do not take an active interest or involvement in worker training. State 

Manufacturing Extension Partnership programs and other state agencies may fill this gap 

in organizing working training efforts (e.g., the Kentucky Wood Products 

Competitiveness Corporation). 

Furthermore, other programs to promote worker-management collaboration are a 

missing ingredient from the institutions surveyed. With the exception of the unionbusiness partnership within the American Textile Partnership, few business associations 

interviewed carried on collaborative efforts with organized labor or other workers as part 

of their activities. 

• National business associations represent all four profiled industries in the 

Appalachian region but many local clusters of firms are under-served by local 

business associations. 

Several forces are pushing business associations to “go national” while local or 

statewide associations have decreased in significance. Such forces include the need to 

achieve organizational scale and the desire of associations to increase their ability to 

lobby the federal government. Many business associations today do not maintain a 

federated structure with local or state chapters once they have expanded, due to a 

seeming lack of interest in specific local firm affairs and an overemphasis on the 

importance of national policymakers. Some exceptions include the National Tooling and 

Manufacturing Association and the National Association of Manufacturers that have 

maintained local chapters all along.74 Because of these trends, the four industries 

examined in this study are under-served by trade associations or institutions that could 

stimulate collective problem solving and manufacturing competitiveness along with 

regional development. 

National furniture associations are concentrated in North Carolina and produce 

local developmental benefits for firms there, but furniture clusters in Mississippi and 

Tennessee remain relatively unorganized and do not experience such benefits. The wood 

products and apparel industries host several regional associations but it is unclear how 

well they represent local clusters with state and local level policymakers. Textile firms 

are represented at the state and national levels; however, the state associations have 

increasingly narrowed their activities over time and are minimally involved in 

manufacturing competitiveness and state economic development issues. 
58 

• Large firms are well served by business associations in all four profiled 

industries but smaller firms lack separate representation for their specific issues. 

Of the twenty business associations interviewed for this project, only one, the 

Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers Association, had a specific firm-size criterion for 

association membership. The American Apparel Producers Network and the Dalton 

Floor Covering Marketing Association indicated that they tended to serve smaller firms 

in their industries because there was an institutional gap in this area and smaller firms 

wanted their own association. The remaining associations served large corporate and 

smaller firms together with the same set of services. Therefore, the small and mediumsized enterprises (SME) may be overlooked. 

Targeting the services of business associations to smaller firms is important for 

promoting entrepreneurship, and is often pursued as an economic development strategy 

for rural and high unemployment areas such as parts of Appalachia. Analysts have found 

that SMEs and large firms may also require different technical assistance, technologies, 

and other services.75 Many state Manufacturing Extension Partnership programs mostly 

provide assistance to individual client firms rather than organize collective groups of 

firms. One extension agent said, “the big success stories of individual companies provide 

more help to our funding side” in terms of maintaining legislative appropriations. 

• Business associations in the sectors surveyed foster peer groups of firms within 

an industry more than supply chain relationships. 

Most business associations in the U.S. are organized around a specific industry 

(e.g. wood flooring manufacturers, carpet manufacturers, lumber producers, textile mills, 

silk fiber manufacturers, and so forth), and almost all allow their various input suppliers 

(of machinery, materials, and professional services) to join as associate members. 

However, beyond these actions business associations do not frequently carry out the 

promotion of supply chain collaboration between inter-linked industries. It may be that 

such relationships are merely coordinated and, therefore, controlled by large corporations 

within these chains, as many analysts point out.76 However, this means that industries 

heavily comprised of SMEs (e.g., wood products) do not coordinate supply chain 

relationships well and/or, their collective needs may be under-served if they are linked to 

and coordinated by firms in an oligopolistic industry. 

Exceptions to this finding include the Dalton Floor Covering Marketing 

Association’s trade shows, which are held to make the expertise of key suppliers 

accessible to their smaller and more rural constituency. The Kentucky Cabinet on 

Economic Development’s networking programs is another example of efforts by 

localized or statewide agencies to support supply chain networks of linked contractors. 

• Local business associations, state economic development manufacturing 

extension agencies, and other state or local actors together have constructed 

innovative, sector-specific, and targeted support systems to local or regional 

clusters of firms. 
59 

These success cases of local institutional concentration often show that when 

firms have already been organized into sector-specific and local business associations or 

interest groups, such groups are able to urge other local and state agencies to channel 

resources to their constituencies. In this way, the Dalton Floor Covering Marketing 

Association persuaded state and county officials to fund an exhibition hall. Additionally, 

the Carpet and Rug Institute has prompted Georgia’s extension office to provide it with 

collective services, and other actors (e.g., Dalton Community College, the State’s 

economic development and export assistance offices) have been influenced to create 

carpet-specific programming for this sub-state cluster. 

Other cases show a similar confluence around sector-specific and localized 

interests. The Carolina Hosiery Association influenced the formation of a statewide 

strategic plan for the industry in conjunction with the State economic development 

agency and the National Association of Hosiery Manufacturers. Early efforts of the 

American Furniture Manufacturers Association and other related groups to organize 

firms in North Carolina fostered the establishment of the Furniture Technology Center at 

Catawba Valley Community College, and the Furniture Manufacturing and Management 

Center at North Carolina State. 

Policy Options 

The following policy options would address the institutional gaps and help 

replicate the successes noted above in relation to the functions and scope of business 

associations and other intermediary organizations. These options are targeted to public 

sector and/or non-profit organizations focusing on local, sub-state, or regional 

development. These organizations could act in partnership with the Appalachian 

Regional Commission to increase the capacity of business associations and industries 

serving the region. 

• Stimulate the organization of local or regional groups of firms (by sector or 

related-sectors) and make certain that the needs of small and medium-sized 

firms are met. 

These local associations should include formal organizations and small 

contractual networks to ensure they provide a range of collective goods to their 

respective industries. They could be organized by state or other public-sector staff (e.g., 

as Kentucky Wood Products Competitiveness Corporation did with the Kentucky Wood 

Manufacturers Association) or by community development organizations with economic 

development interests (e.g., the Community Development Foundation in Mississippi, and 

the Appalachian Center for Economic Networks in Ohio). Also, existing national level 

associations interested in organizing local chapters could do so with the assistance of 

local economic development organizations. 

Public agencies can assist local business associations of small and medium-sized 

firms by providing market facilities to help them bring in suppliers or market their own 
60 

products, and by providing support with computer communications technologies to assist 

them in reaching additional markets. 

• Facilitate vertical supply chain cooperation by hosting trade shows, task forces, 

conventions, strategic planning or other mechanisms to bring inter-linked 

sectors together at a national or sub-national level. 

Public sector agencies can target local supply chain clusters and create a 

mechanism for them to link to more dispersed networks. For example, Kentucky has 

organized local auto supply firms and connected this network to auto companies and 

other original equipment manufacturers in the Midwest that purchase such products. 

Such government action often assists SMEs and rural firms. Additionally, it promotes 

efficiencies among entire sectors and inter-linked sectors (through the diffusion of new 

technology or dissemination of best practices) that can produce social benefits such as 

job retention and economic development in non-metropolitan areas. 

• Encourage closer links between business associations and training institutions to 

develop specialized training curricula for workers, and research collective labormanagement efforts and independent worker associations in the areas of 

training, innovation, and manufacturing competitiveness. 

Workers in many of these industries migrate between jobs in different firms, and 

firms are consequently reluctant to invest in worker training. Therefore, training is a 

perfect activity to provide collectively, which would increase the returns for all firms. 

Increasing workers’ skills may be critical to increase innovation in small firms. Given 

that many Appalachian states have community college systems, these findings suggest 

that linkages between such systems and existing business associations should be 

strengthened. Public agencies and business associations also could explore the value of 

joint labor-management programs or independent worker associations to provide these 

benefits collectively in industries with high job mobility, training requirements, and/or 

insecurity. Independent worker associations may provide training, connections to the 

industry and community, and other support services for workers during their employment 

and if they are between jobs. 

V. CONCLUSION 

This study has analyzed the capacity of business associations and other inter-firm 

organizations serving the Appalachian region. Based on national and international 

research, the first part of the report examined the critical functions such as market 

coordination and pooled research and development of inter-firm organizations to achieve 

transaction and adaptive cost savings for member firms. Transaction costs refer to 

typical expenses in producing and selling a product that a firm has developed. Adaptive 

costs include expenses incurred in developing a new product or process as a response to 

changes in long-term demand. Additionally, the report identified the different levels or 
61 

scope of such organizations. For example, business associations can represent small 

and/or large firms, one or many sectors of the industry, and local and/or national areas. 

This framework of the functions and scope of business associations and other 

inter-firm organizations was used to analyze these organizations in the furniture, lumber 

and wood products, textiles, and apparel industries in the Appalachian region. The 

institutional strengths and gaps of the business associations serving each industry were 

highlighted. The findings and policy options summarize the results of the analysis and 

suggest actions that could strengthen the capacity of business associations and the 

industries in the region. Policymakers interested in local or regional industrial 

development can use these specific findings to strengthen the Appalachian industries 

examined in this report, or apply the framework to inter-firm organizations in other 

industries and identify actions to strengthen those industries. 
Figure 15 - Ideal Types of Collective Inter-firm Organizations

ATTITUDE TOWARD NEW MARKET OPPORTUNIT

Fragmented Traditional 

Localized 

ATTITUDE 

TOWARD THE 

UNORGANIZ

ED CLUSTER 

• No current collective inter-firm relationships exist. • Local or regional cluster of firms in an industry or related industries. • Individual firms exclusively make decisions regarding transaction and adaptive cost 

efficiencies. 

STATIC CLUSTER 

ORGANIZ

ATION 

• Collective inter-firm relationships exist and are organized into either an informal or formal organization. • The inter-firm organization focuses on strengthening a local or regional cluster of firms in an industry or related industries (over a larger grouping). • The inter-firm organization addresses transaction cost efficiencies in its activities. 

AC

• Collective are organizorganizatio• The inter-strengthenifirms in an a larger gro• The inter-transaction 

activities. 

GEOGRAPHY OF 

INDUSTRIAL 

DEVELOPMENT 

Dispersed 

UNORGANIZ

ED NATIONAL 

INDUSTRY 

• No current collective inter-firm relationships exist. • Widely (e.g., nationally) dispersed grouping of firms in an industry or related industries. • Individual firms exclusively make decisions regarding transaction and adaptive cost 

efficiencies. 

RENT-SEEKING CORPORATIST 

ORGANIZ

ATION 

• Collective inter-firm relationships exist and are organized into either an informal or formal organization. • The inter-firm organization focuses on strengthening a widely (e.g., nationally) dispersed grouping of firms in an industry or related industries (over a localized cluster). • The inter-firm organization addresses transaction cost efficiencies in its activities. 

INNOV

• Collective are organizorganizatio• The inter-strengthenidispersed grelated indu• The inter-transaction 

activities. 
63 

VI. ENDNOTES 

1 Many researchers assume the existing interfirm institutional capacity in the United States is weak, nonexistent or focused primarily on lobbying activities, or that such institutions as business associations exist 

primarily to thwart organized labor (e.g., see Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide; Harris, 

“Getting It Together”). However, little systematic research on such institutions in this country has been 

conducted. Exceptions are Bradley, The Role of Trade Associations; Lynn and McKeown, Organizing 

Business. 

2 For example, see Nadvi and Schmitz, “Industrial Clusters;” Doner and Schneider, “Business 

Associations.” 

3 Saxenian, Regional Advantage. 

4 Rosenfeld, “Does Cooperation Enhance.” 

5 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model.” 

6 Glasmeier et al., “How Firms Acquire Strategic Information.” 

7 The Appalachian Regional Commission covers 399 counties distributed across portions of the following 

states: Alabama, Georgia, Kentucky, Maryland, Mississippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, 

Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia. 

8 Best, The New Competition; Dertouzos et al., Made in America; Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial 

Divide. 

9 Summarized from various sources, including: Capecchi, “Case 4: Emilia-Romagna;” Herrigel, 

“Industrial Order;” Locke, Remaking the Italian Economy; Pyke, Small Firms; Schmitz and Musyck, 

“Industrial Districts in Europe;” Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg.” 

10 Hubert Schmitz—in his research of flexible production districts in Europe and developing countries— 

calls this combination of planned and unplanned group benefits, “collective efficiency.” Hence, groups of 

firms achieve collective efficiency through intended joint action and incidental clustering. Schmitz, 

“Collective Efficiency.” See also Saxenian, Regional Advantage. 

11 Hage and Alter focus on the type of business costs that traditional versus flexible producers emphasize 

and seek to diminish in their business planning efforts. They call these, respectively, transaction versus 

adaptive costs, terminology this report uses. Doner and Schneider focus on how business associations 

assist firms to reduce these two types of costs; they call the resultant cost savings static and dynamic 

efficiencies, respectively. Hage and Alter, “A Typology;” Doner and Schneider, “Business Associations.” 

12 Here Doner and Schneider’s analytical framework is revised to combine activities and add others 

suggested by other researchers. Doner and Schneider, “Business Associations.” 

13 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model.” 
64 

14 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model;” Herman, Personal Interview; Cleckley, Personal Interview. 

15 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model,” Kelley and Arora, “The Role of Institution-Building.” 

16 Storper, “Regional Technology Coalitions.” 

17 Kelley and Arora, “The Role of Institution-Building;” Rosenfeld, “Does Cooperation Enhance.” 

18 Skocpol et al. call leaders who organize collective civic organizations, “institutional entrepreneurs.” 

Skocpol et al., “Casting Wide Nets.” 

19 Pyke, Small Firms; Rosenfeld, Industrial-Strength Strategies. 

20 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model.” 

21 Capecchi, “Case 4: Emilia-Romagna.” 

22 Herman, Corporate Control. 

23 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model.” 

24 Piore and Sabel, The Second Industrial Divide. 

25 Appelbaum, and Batt, The New American Workplace. 

26 Doner and Schneider, “Business Associations;” McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model.” 

27 Spath, “Small Firms in Latin America;” Pyke, Small Firms. 

28 Pyke, Small Firms, 1. Others, however, question the potential of small firms for achieving these goals, 

arguing that many small enterprises are stagnant, inefficient, and/or often controlled and exploited as 

subcontractors for much larger firms that shed risk and other costs to these small enterprises. This debate 

remains unresolved. Harrison, Lean and Mean; Spath, “Small Firms in Latin America.” 

29 NIST, “Solutions for Manufacturers;” Website, “Georgia Manufacturing Extension Alliance and EDI 

Homepage,” http://www.edi.gatech.edu; Website, “Alabama Technology Network Homepage,” 

http://www.atn.org. 

30 For example, Markusen’s research of dynamic industrial networks in United States regions suggests 

that business associations support SMEs and other firms in “Italianate Marshallian Industrial Districts,” but 

other industrial configurations like those in Seattle and North Carolina show little evidence of business 

associations, consortia, or other intermediary organizations. Markusen, “Sticky Places.” 

31 Glasmeier and Sugiura, “Japan’s Manufacturing System;” Lynn and McKeown, Organizing Business; 

Smith et al., “There are Two Sides.” 

32 Storper, “Regional Technology Coalitions.” 
65 

33 Both the German and Japanese industrial models display a mix of SME-oriented versus large-firmoriented interfirm institutions—in marked contrast to the Italian industrial districts. Pyke, Small Firms; 

Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg.” When mixing both large and small firms in 

the same institutions, some researchers find that large firms dominate associations and consortia. For 

instance, Semlinger argues that, in regard to Germany, large firms are more likely than SMEs to engage in 

cooperative behavior, to make use of externally provided and often government-subsidized services (e.g., 

for research and development, training), and to disproportionally influence the agendas of collective 

associations with smaller-firm members due to their relatively larger resource bases and contributions to 

dues. His argument points to a public policy that fosters collective institution-building for SMEs only or, 

at least, separately from large firms. Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg.” 

34 Astley and Fombrun classify firms as belonging to either commensalist communities, where individual 

firms make similar demands on an environment (in terms of resources utilized) or symbiotic communities, 

made up of mutually interdependent firms such as those connected in a supply chain. These are each 

subdivided into collectivities of a few versus a large number of members. Schmitz offers a similar 

typology, distinguishing between horizontal/vertical and bilateral/multilateral cooperation between firms. 

Polenske also distinguishes between transactional relations between firms that are required to co-design or 

co-produce a product or service ( she calls this form of vertical interaction, “collaboration”) and ties which 

do not require this close of a relationship (which she calls “cooperation,” like the horizontal ties described 

by Schmitz). This report uses the terminology of “peer” communities to represent horizontal relationships 

among firms and “supply-chain” communities to represent vertical interfirm connections. Astley and 

Fombrun, “Collective Strategy;” Schmitz, “Collective Efficiency;” Polenske, “Competition, Collaboration, 

and Cooperation.” 

35 Nadvi and Schmitz, “Industrial Clusters;” Pyke, Small Firms; Schmitz, “Small Shoemakers;” Schmitz, 

“Collective Efficiency;” Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg.” 

36 Astley and Fombrun, “Collective Strategy.” 

37 Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg.” 

38 Polenske, 1998; Williamson, The Economic Institutions of Capitalism. Williamson’s transaction cost 

model originally posited only two outcomes of exchange situations: competitive, non-cooperative relations 

among firms (i.e., the “market”) or vertical integration (“hierarchy”) and the absorption of one firm by 

another to avoid “opportunism” by an untrustworthy supplier or by disloyal customers who leave suppliers 

that have made specific investments to serve them. 

39 Grandori, and Soda, “Inter-firm Networks;” Kelley and Arora, “The Role of Institution-Building.” 

40 McCormick, “A Life Cycle Model.” 

41 Following national governmental devolution and the creation of regional governments in the 1970s, 

leaders in the Emilia-Romagna region in the “Third Italy” constructed a novel set of progressive industrial 

development policies on their own—such as technical assistance service centers for firms in different 

sectors, the organization of business associations, and the provision of subsidized incubator or 

manufacturing space in small business areas. Putnam, Making Democracy Work; Capecchi, “Case 4: 

Emilia-Romagna.” 
66 

42 Most national industry policy efforts have been described as benefiting the Tokyo metropolitan area 

almost exclusively (e.g., see Glasmeier and Sugiura, “Japan’s Manufacturing System;” Markusen, “The 

Interaction Between Regional and Industrial Policies”). 43 For instance, the regional government of Baden-Wuerttemberg has stimulated a novel set of industrial 

development institutions over many decades—such as agencies to assist firms in adopting advanced 

foreign technology, in acquiring business training and technical assistance, in organizing trade fairs for 

local products, and in utilizing a comprehensive and coordinated system of vocational training and 

education. Industrial support programs are also promoted at the national level for firms in all regions. 

Business associations can also shape or create industrial policies at the regional, state, or national levels. 

For example, German Employers Associations and Trade and Industry Associations have chapters at the 

local and regional levels which aggregate upward into the Federal Employers’ Association (BDA) or 

Federal Association of German Industry, respectively. Schmitz and Musyck, “Industrial Districts in 

Europe;” Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg.” 

44 Another example includes the Tri-State Manufacturers Association in western Minnesota which 

proactively serves the metals industry there and has led to growth among participating firms and the region. 

Also, the Tooling and Manufacturing Association has offered training, technological seminars, pooled 

resources, and lobbying to its 1500 member firms in the greater Chicago region for more than half a 

century in spite of several failed attempts in the distant past to “go national” to expand its influence. 

Saxenian, Regional Advantage; Rosenfeld, “Does Cooperation Enhance;” McCormick, “A Life Cycle 

Model.” 

45 Skocpol et al., “Casting Wide Nets.” 

46 Others have studied the role of community colleges and community development organizations in detail; 

see Rosenfeld, New Technologies and New Skills; Rosenfeld and Kingslow, Advancing Opportunity in 

Advanced Manufacturing; Fitzgerald, “Is Networking Always the Answer;” Harrison and Weiss, 

Workforce Development Networks; National Congress for Community Economic Development, “Tying It 

All Together.” 

47 Gale Press, Encyclopedia of Associations. 

48 U.S. Department of Commerce, County Business Patterns. 

49 In calculating aggregate employment for various industrial sectors in each state’s Appalachian region, 

these statistics are summed for each ARC-designated county in that state. County level statistics, however, 

are often stated in ranges to protect the identify of certain firms. Hence, the mid-point of such ranges was 

used in these aggregates. (For example, apparel employment in a county may have been listed as between 

100 and 249 workers; this averages to 175.) These statistics may also be inaccurate because they may 

suppress reporting when few establishments comprise the sector in that county and they may miss many 

smaller firms. However, they are one of the best sources of data at a disaggregated geographic level. These 

estimates were produced by ARC staff based on the Clean County Business Patterns Program using 1996 

data. 

50 Rosenfeld, “Industrial-Strength Strategies.” 

51 Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996 County Business Patterns, utilized for all statistics 

in this section. 
67 

52 Austin and Betten, “Rural Organizing.” 

53 Mississippi maintains specialist extension agents for the polymer, paint, and plastics industries which 

are concentrated in the south, in conjunction with the University of Southern Mississippi’s Polymer 

Institute. All other manufacturing extension agents offer generalist assistance to any manufacturer (e.g., 

help with technologies or plant layout) in all other sectors and communities. 

54 Rosenfeld, New Technologies and New Skills; Willis, Personal Interview, NCMEP. 

55 Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce’s 1996 County Business Patterns utilized for all statistics. 

56 Gale, Encyclopedia of Associations. 

57 Glasmeier et al., “How Firms Acquire Strategic Information.” 

58 The Hardwood Council is comprised of the following business associations: American Walnut 

Manufacturers Association, Appalachian Hardwood Manufacturers, Inc., Canadian Lumbermen’s 

Association, Hardwood Distributors Association, Hardwood Manufacturers Association, National 

Hardwood Lumber Association, National Oak Flooring Manufacturers Association, National Wood 

Flooring Association, Northeastern Loggers’ Association, Southeastern Lumber Manufacturers 

Association, Wood Component Manufacturers Association. 

59 Website, “AHEC Homepage,” http://www.ahec.org, January, 1998. 

60 Website, “SLMA Homepage,” http://www.slma.org, January, 1998. By contrast, the SFPA’s mission, 

for example, is to “develop, maintain, and expand demand for Southern Pine Lumber products, and to 

engage in such activities and programs that the members deem useful to advance and protect their 

interests” (Website, “SFPA Homepage,” http://www.sfpa.org, January, 1998). 

61 Glasmeier et al., “How Firms Acquire Strategic Information.” 

62 Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996 County Business Patterns, utilized for all statistics 

in this section except industry business volume (from Julian, Personal Interview). 

63 James Young, Textile Leaders of the South. 

64 GTMA (Georgia Textile Manufacturers Association), “Textiles: Georgia’s Biggest and Best,” brochure, 

1994. 

65 Website, “ATMI Homepage,” http://www.apparelexchange.com/atmi, January 1998. 

66 UNITE is a merger of the former International Ladies Garment Workers Union and the Amalgamated 

Clothing and Textile Workers of America. 

67 DAMA Industry Project, Organizational brochures, 1997. 

68 Data from the U.S. Department of Commerce, 1996 County Business Patterns, utilized for all statistics 

in this section. 
68 

69 Mike Todaro, at the American Apparel Producers Network, stated that there was much consolidation 

occurring in textile, apparel, and related retail operations as well as a blurring of lines between industries. 

For example, textile companies now cut piece goods and manufacturers are expanding into retail outlets 

and catalogues to deal with globalization of markets (Todaro, Personal Interview). 70 Todaro, Personal Interview. 

71 GIDC also carries out extensive marketing activities for its membership, including significant export 

promotion activities (Cleckley, Personal Interview). 

72 Fitzgerald, “Is Networking Always the Answer?”; Harrison and Weiss, Workforce Development 

Networks; Rosenfeld, Industrial-Strength Strategies; Rosenfeld, New Technologies and New Skills; 

Rosenfeld and Kingslow, Advancing Opportunity in Advanced Manufacturing. 

73 The AFMA is heavily involved in supporting the FMMC at North Carolina State University that 

provides management training and technical assistance to firm owners and management personnel. 

74 Local chapters of the NTMA are currently representing groups of metalworking firms in Appalachian 

states. Local NAM organizations exist at the state level but most do not work with manufacturers along 

sectoral lines, and usually only do lobbying. Some are beginning to help promote vocational training to 

increase the competitiveness of state manufacturers (e.g., the Associated Industries of Kentucky—a NAM 

affiliate). 

75 Semlinger, “Economic Development in Baden-Wuerttemberg;” Villaran, “Small-scale Industry.” 

76 Gereffi, “The Organization of Buyer-Driven Global Commodity Chains;” Harrison, Lean and Mean; 

Storper and Harrison, “Flexibility, Hierarchy and Regional Development.” 
An Analysis of the Economic Development Role 

of Business Associations 

and Other Intermediary Organizations 

Serving Appalachian Industries

VOLUME II: APPENDIX

Submitted to 

the Appalachian Regional Commission 

Second Edition 

 April 2000 

Lynn E. McCormick 

Department of Urban Affairs and Planning 

695 Park Avenue 

Hunter College at The City University of New York 

New York, New York 10021 

Email: mccormil@aol.com 
VOLUME II: APPENDIX

 Manufacturing Employment in Appalachian States 2 

Figure 1 - Manufacturing Employment in Appalachian States 3 

 Figure 2 - Manufacturing Employment in Alabama 4 

 Figure 3 - Manufacturing Employment in Georgia 5 

 Figure 4 - Manufacturing Employment in Kentucky 6 

 Figure 5 - Manufacturing Employment in Maryland 7 

 Figure 6 - Manufacturing Employment in Mississippi 8 

 Figure 7 - Manufacturing Employment in New York 9 

 Figure 8 - Manufacturing Employment in North Carolina 10 

 Figure 9 - Manufacturing Employment in Ohio 11 

 Figure 10 - Manufacturing Employment in Pennsylvania 12 

 Figure 11 - Manufacturing Employment in South Carolina 13 

 Figure 12 - Manufacturing Employment in Tennessee 14 

 Figure 13 - Manufacturing Employment in Virginia 15 

 Figure 14 - Manufacturing Employment in West Virginia 16 

 Community Development Organizations Serving the Appalachian Region 17 

 Business Associations for Manufacturing Industries 19 
2 

Manufacturing Employment in Appalachian States 

The following tables list employment for two-digit manufacturing industries for the 

Appalachian region as a whole and each of the states comprising the region. 

Employment for the Appalachian portion of each state is also broken out. West Virginia, 

as a whole, is included in Appalachia, so only statewide statistics are listed for that state. 
Figure 1: Manufacturing Employment in Appalachia

 ARC ARC as State as  Region State % of % of ARC State  Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 7,608,685 34,590,815 102,198,864 7.4% 33.8% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 1,925,215 6,869,883 18,558,100 10.4% 37.0% 1.4 1.1 MANUFAC

20 Food Products 132,386 503,686 1,541,700 8.6% 32.7% 1.2 1.0 20 Food Pr

21 Tobacco Products 4,391 28,859 31,115 14.1% 92.7% 1.9 2.7 21 Tobacco 22 Textile Mill Products 200,117 479,767 582,188 34.4% 82.4% 4.6 2.4 22 Textile M23 Apparel 136,127 432,877 843,140 16.1% 51.3% 2.2 1.5 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 107,954 293,702 732,400 14.7% 40.1% 2.0 1.2 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 102,645 235,795 498,464 20.6% 47.3% 2.8 1.4 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 58,795 247,296 625,764 9.4% 39.5% 1.3 1.2 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 89,667 512,527 1,490,400 6.0% 34.4% 0.8 1.0 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 90,092 333,516 833,230 10.8% 40.0% 1.5 1.2 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 6,797 25,281 108,378 6.3% 23.3% 0.8 0.7 29 Petroleu30 Rubber/Plastics Products 103,968 385,614 997,421 10.4% 38.7% 1.4 1.1 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 9,840 24,866 86,480 11.4% 28.8% 1.5 0.8 31 Leather32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 71,156 205,164 495,480 14.4% 41.4% 1.9 1.2 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 118,633 298,287 683,433 17.4% 43.6% 2.3 1.3 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 130,101 482,492 1,462,001 8.9% 33.0% 1.2 1.0 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 174,541 643,346 1,920,533 9.1% 33.5% 1.2 1.0 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 136,518 490,112 1,545,179 8.8% 31.7% 1.2 0.9 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 90,876 448,231 1,521,541 6.0% 29.5% 0.8 0.9 37 Transpo38 Instruments 50,774 218,983 813,682 6.2% 26.9% 0.8 0.8 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 28,258 127,146 391,657 7.2% 32.5% 1.0 1.0 39 Miscella399 Administrative 81,579 452,336 1,353,914 6.0% 33.4% 0.8 1.0 399 Admi

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 2: Manufacturing Employment in Alabama

 ARC ARC as State as  Region State % of % of ARC State  Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 1,033,634 1,568,825 102,198,864 1.0% 1.5% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 267,927 387,622 18,558,100 1.4% 2.1% 1.4 1.4 MANUFAC20 Food Products 27,315 37,323 1,541,700 1.8% 2.4% 1.8 1.6 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 707 31,115 0.0% 2.3% 0.0 1.5 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 30,704 37,271 582,188 5.3% 6.4% 5.2 4.2 22 Textile M23 Apparel 19,626 38,279 843,140 2.3% 4.5% 2.3 3.0 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 21,705 35,425 732,400 3.0% 4.8% 2.9 3.2 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 10,629 12,890 498,464 2.1% 2.6% 2.1 1.7 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 6,130 19,157 625,764 1.0% 3.1% 1.0 2.0 26 Paper P

27 Printing/Publishing 9,992 13,894 1,490,400 0.7% 0.9% 0.7 0.6 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 6,478 14,383 833,230 0.8% 1.7% 0.8 1.1 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 1,094 1,491 108,378 1.0% 1.4% 1.0 0.9 29 Petroleu30 Rubber/Plastics Products 14,214 19,694 997,421 1.4% 2.0% 1.4 1.3 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 412 459 86,480 0.5% 0.5% 0.5 0.3 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 6,724 8,943 495,480 1.4% 1.8% 1.3 1.2 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 22,615 25,613 683,433 3.3% 3.7% 3.3 2.4 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 18,250 24,908 1,462,001 1.2% 1.7% 1.2 1.1 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 23,170 29,099 1,920,533 1.2% 1.5% 1.2 1.0 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 17,921 23,205 1,545,179 1.2% 1.5% 1.1 1.0 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 12,405 19,680 1,521,541 0.8% 1.3% 0.8 0.8 37 Transpo38 Instruments 3,411 4,360 813,682 0.4% 0.5% 0.4 0.3 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 2,940 5,837 391,657 0.8% 1.5% 0.7 1.0 39 Miscella399 Administrative 12,192 15,004 1,353,914 0.9% 1.1% 0.9 0.7 399 Admi

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 3: Manufacturing Employment in Georgia

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 666,533 3,037,062 102,198,864 0.7% 3.0% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 197,069 597,199 18,558,100 1.1% 3.2% 1.6 1.1 MANUFAC20 Food Products 21,802 64,411 1,541,700 1.4% 4.2% 2.2 1.4 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 2,700 31,115 0.0% 8.7% 0.0 2.9 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 57,744 92,251 582,188 9.9% 15.8% 15.2 5.3 22 Textile M23 Apparel 12,936 45,662 843,140 1.5% 5.4% 2.4 1.8 23 Apparel 

24 Lumber/Wood Products 5,088 34,963 732,400 0.7% 4.8% 1.1 1.6 24 Lumber

25 Furniture/Related Products 3,520 11,754 498,464 0.7% 2.4% 1.1 0.8 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 4,265 30,860 625,764 0.7% 4.9% 1.0 1.7 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 9,869 38,758 1,490,400 0.7% 2.6% 1.0 0.9 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 5,349 21,076 833,230 0.6% 2.5% 1.0 0.9 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 117 986 108,378 0.1% 0.9% 0.2 0.3 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 7,699 24,553 997,421 0.8% 2.5% 1.2 0.8 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 654 1,160 86,480 0.8% 1.3% 1.2 0.5 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 5,016 17,734 495,480 1.0% 3.6% 1.6 1.2 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 6,098 11,336 683,433 0.9% 1.7% 1.4 0.6 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 8,062 25,303 1,462,001 0.6% 1.7% 0.8 0.6 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 12,582 37,667 1,920,533 0.7% 2.0% 1.0 0.7 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 11,832 30,699 1,545,179 0.8% 2.0% 1.2 0.7 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 6,775 40,421 1,521,541 0.4% 2.7% 0.7 0.9 37 Transpo38 Instruments 6,624 12,684 813,682 0.8% 1.6% 1.2 0.5 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 1,939 7,305 391,657 0.5% 1.9% 0.8 0.6 39 Miscella399 Administrative 9,098 44,916 1,353,914 0.7% 3.3% 1.0 1.1 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of all jSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 4: Manufacturing Employment in Kentucky

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 247,248 1,370,658 102,198,864 0.2% 1.3% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 53,233 304,305 18,558,100 0.3% 1.6% 1.2 1.2 MANUFAC20 Food Products 3,285 22,250 1,541,700 0.2% 1.4% 0.9 1.1 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 3,020 31,115 0.0% 9.7% 0.0 7.2 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 2,341 8,711 582,188 0.4% 1.5% 1.7 1.1 22 Textile M

23 Apparel 9,690 23,976 843,140 1.1% 2.8% 4.8 2.1 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 5,623 12,624 732,400 0.8% 1.7% 3.2 1.3 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 826 4,759 498,464 0.2% 1.0% 0.7 0.7 25 Furnitu

26 Paper Products 144 9,542 625,764 0.0% 1.5% 0.1 1.1 26 Paper P

27 Printing/Publishing 2,955 24,002 1,490,400 0.2% 1.6% 0.8 1.2 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 884 13,698 833,230 0.1% 1.6% 0.4 1.2 28 Chemic

29 Petroleum Products 1,632 1,888 108,378 1.5% 1.7% 6.2 1.3 29 Petroleu30 Rubber/Plastics Products 2,197 19,101 997,421 0.2% 1.9% 0.9 1.4 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 1,381 1,493 86,480 1.6% 1.7% 6.6 1.3 31 Leather32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 2,643 10,712 495,480 0.5% 2.2% 2.2 1.6 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 3,585 16,768 683,433 0.5% 2.5% 2.2 1.8 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 2,668 22,502 1,462,001 0.2% 1.5% 0.8 1.1 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 5,850 35,696 1,920,533 0.3% 1.9% 1.3 1.4 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 2,545 22,994 1,545,179 0.2% 1.5% 0.7 1.1 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 2,428 31,112 1,521,541 0.2% 2.0% 0.7 1.5 37 Transpo38 Instruments 777 2,741 813,682 0.1% 0.3% 0.4 0.3 38 Instrum

39 Miscellaneous Products 356 4,677 391,657 0.1% 1.2% 0.4 0.9 39 Miscella

399 Administrative 1,423 12,039 1,353,914 0.1% 0.9% 0.4 0.7 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 5: Manufacturing Employment in Maryland

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 81,039 1,831,503 102,198,864 0.1% 1.8% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 15,520 187,538 18,558,100 0.1% 1.0% 1.1 0.6 MANUFAC20 Food Products 1,069 17,810 1,541,700 0.1% 1.2% 0.9 0.6 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 0 31,115 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 890 1,458 582,188 0.2% 0.3% 1.9 0.1 22 Textile M

23 Apparel 833 5,599 843,140 0.1% 0.7% 1.2 0.4 23 Apparel 

24 Lumber/Wood Products 680 4,386 732,400 0.1% 0.6% 1.2 0.3 24 Lumber

25 Furniture/Related Products 666 3,222 498,464 0.1% 0.6% 1.7 0.4 25 Furnitu

26 Paper Products 1,889 7,116 625,764 0.3% 1.1% 3.8 0.6 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 1,546 28,893 1,490,400 0.1% 1.9% 1.3 1.1 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 210 13,103 833,230 0.0% 1.6% 0.3 0.9 28 Chemic

29 Petroleum Products 92 1,224 108,378 0.1% 1.1% 1.1 0.6 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 976 9,122 997,421 0.1% 0.9% 1.2 0.5 30 Rubber

31 Leather/Related Products 575 815 86,480 0.7% 0.9% 8.4 0.5 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 498 5,178 495,480 0.1% 1.0% 1.3 0.6 32 Stone/C

33 Primary Metals 18 7,642 683,433 0.0% 1.1% 0.0 0.6 33 Primary 

34 Fabricated Metals 603 9,129 1,462,001 0.0% 0.6% 0.5 0.3 34 Fabrica

35 Industrial Machinery 2,024 14,692 1,920,533 0.1% 0.8% 1.3 0.4 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 202 11,437 1,545,179 0.0% 0.7% 0.2 0.4 36 Electron

37 Transportation Equipment 1,744 9,228 1,521,541 0.1% 0.6% 1.4 0.3 37 Transpo38 Instruments 719 14,917 813,682 0.1% 1.8% 1.1 1.0 38 Instrum

39 Miscellaneous Products 123 2,757 391,657 0.0% 0.7% 0.4 0.4 39 Miscella

399 Administrative 163 19,810 1,353,914 0.0% 1.5% 0.2 0.8 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 6: Manufacturing Employment in Mississippi

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 187,021 883,297 102,198,864 0.2% 0.9% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 81,908 238,527 18,558,100 0.4% 1.3% 2.4 1.5 MANUFAC20 Food Products 3,574 27,968 1,541,700 0.2% 1.8% 1.3 2.1 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 2 31,115 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 1,537 4,369 582,188 0.3% 0.8% 1.4 0.9 22 Textile M

23 Apparel 10,703 23,907 843,140 1.3% 2.8% 6.9 3.3 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 8,123 26,060 732,400 1.1% 3.6% 6.1 4.1 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 22,433 27,393 498,464 4.5% 5.5% 24.6 6.4 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 2,209 9,522 625,764 0.4% 1.5% 1.9 1.8 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 1,779 7,147 1,490,400 0.1% 0.5% 0.7 0.6 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 1,130 6,772 833,230 0.1% 0.8% 0.7 0.9 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 17 1,999 108,378 0.0% 1.8% 0.1 2.1 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 5,635 12,262 997,421 0.6% 1.2% 3.1 1.4 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 554 705 86,480 0.6% 0.8% 3.5 0.9 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 1,592 5,196 495,480 0.3% 1.0% 1.8 1.2 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 1,710 5,117 683,433 0.3% 0.7% 1.4 0.9 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 4,868 12,548 1,462,001 0.3% 0.9% 1.8 1.0 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 6,671 18,001 1,920,533 0.3% 0.9% 1.9 1.1 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 3,597 19,915 1,545,179 0.2% 1.3% 1.3 1.5 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 2,634 20,860 1,521,541 0.2% 1.4% 0.9 1.6 37 Transpo38 Instruments 1,127 1,949 813,682 0.1% 0.2% 0.8 0.3 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 1,232 3,377 391,657 0.3% 0.9% 1.7 1.0 39 Miscella399 Administrative 783 3,458 1,353,914 0.1% 0.3% 0.3 0.3 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 7: Manufacturing Employment in New York

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 348,524 6,791,036 102,198,864 0.3% 6.6% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 89,957 920,521 18,558,100 0.5% 5.0% 1.4 0.7 MANUFAC20 Food Products 5,773 51,455 1,541,700 0.4% 3.3% 1.1 0.5 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 343 31,115 0.0% 1.1% 0.0 0.2 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 757 17,076 582,188 0.1% 2.9% 0.4 0.4 22 Textile M

23 Apparel 1,721 82,774 843,140 0.2% 9.8% 0.6 1.5 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 3,101 13,507 732,400 0.4% 1.8% 1.2 0.3 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 4,002 17,450 498,464 0.8% 3.5% 2.4 0.5 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 1,053 31,656 625,764 0.2% 5.1% 0.5 0.8 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 6,773 128,551 1,490,400 0.5% 8.6% 1.3 1.3 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 2,292 43,347 833,230 0.3% 5.2% 0.8 0.8 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 216 1,467 108,378 0.2% 1.4% 0.6 0.2 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 2,826 34,342 997,421 0.3% 3.4% 0.8 0.5 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 189 5,789 86,480 0.2% 6.7% 0.6 1.0 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 4,277 19,255 495,480 0.9% 3.9% 2.5 0.6 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 1,349 20,417 683,433 0.2% 3.0% 0.6 0.4 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 6,429 55,678 1,462,001 0.4% 3.8% 1.3 0.6 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 15,368 79,999 1,920,533 0.8% 4.2% 2.3 0.6 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 20,606 83,900 1,545,179 1.3% 5.4% 3.9 0.8 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 2,775 31,128 1,521,541 0.2% 2.0% 0.5 0.3 37 Transpo38 Instruments 6,611 78,499 813,682 0.8% 9.6% 2.4 1.5 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 675 36,470 391,657 0.2% 9.3% 0.5 1.4 39 Miscella

399 Administrative 3,164 87,418 1,353,914 0.2% 6.5% 0.7 1.0 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 8: Manufacturing Employment in North Carolina

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 558,915 3,059,041 102,198,864 0.5% 3.0% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 187,111 861,525 18,558,100 1.0% 4.6% 1.8 1.6 MANUFAC20 Food Products 8,486 56,430 1,541,700 0.6% 3.7% 1.0 1.2 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 3,941 11,444 31,115 12.7% 36.8% 23.2 12.3 21 Tobacco 22 Textile Mill Products 42,665 172,933 582,188 7.3% 29.7% 13.4 9.9 22 Textile M23 Apparel 14,624 56,979 843,140 1.7% 6.8% 3.2 2.3 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 8,570 43,771 732,400 1.2% 6.0% 2.1 2.0 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 27,360 75,586 498,464 5.5% 15.2% 10.0 5.1 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 6,152 22,520 625,764 1.0% 3.6% 1.8 1.2 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 4,389 31,334 1,490,400 0.3% 2.1% 0.5 0.7 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 4,879 38,919 833,230 0.6% 4.7% 1.1 1.6 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 16 739 108,378 0.0% 0.7% 0.0 0.2 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 8,058 44,172 997,421 0.8% 4.4% 1.5 1.5 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 1,303 2,376 86,480 1.5% 2.7% 2.8 0.9 31 Leather32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 3,246 22,697 495,480 0.7% 4.6% 1.2 1.5 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 2,373 13,671 683,433 0.3% 2.0% 0.6 0.7 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 6,260 34,852 1,462,001 0.4% 2.4% 0.8 0.8 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 9,431 69,893 1,920,533 0.5% 3.6% 0.9 1.2 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 12,805 65,200 1,545,179 0.8% 4.2% 1.5 1.4 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 4,377 28,807 1,521,541 0.3% 1.9% 0.5 0.6 37 Transpo38 Instruments 3,404 13,741 813,682 0.4% 1.7% 0.8 0.6 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 1,586 9,147 391,657 0.4% 2.3% 0.7 0.8 39 Miscella399 Administrative 13,186 46,314 1,353,914 1.0% 3.4% 1.8 1.1 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 9: Manufacturing Employment in Ohio

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 374,690 4,640,371 102,198,864 0.4% 4.5% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 96,741 1,083,429 18,558,100 0.5% 5.8% 1.4 1.3 MANUFAC20 Food Products 5,468 53,210 1,541,700 0.4% 3.5% 1.0 0.8 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 0 31,115 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 484 3,727 582,188 0.1% 0.6% 0.2 0.1 22 Textile M

23 Apparel 3,254 13,817 843,140 0.4% 1.6% 1.1 0.4 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 10,485 23,856 732,400 1.4% 3.3% 3.9 0.7 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 1,166 14,970 498,464 0.2% 3.0% 0.6 0.7 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 5,282 32,248 625,764 0.8% 5.2% 2.3 1.1 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 4,829 68,542 1,490,400 0.3% 4.6% 0.9 1.0 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 5,863 41,633 833,230 0.7% 5.0% 1.9 1.1 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 216 5,290 108,378 0.2% 4.9% 0.5 1.1 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 8,296 93,510 997,421 0.8% 9.4% 2.3 2.1 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 579 1,896 86,480 0.7% 2.2% 1.8 0.5 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 6,574 39,196 495,480 1.3% 7.9% 3.6 1.7 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 11,764 80,851 683,433 1.7% 11.8% 4.7 2.6 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 8,791 135,140 1,462,001 0.6% 9.2% 1.6 2.0 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 8,439 151,537 1,920,533 0.4% 7.9% 1.2 1.7 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 3,373 72,116 1,545,179 0.2% 4.7% 0.6 1.0 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 5,429 120,288 1,521,541 0.4% 7.9% 1.0 1.7 37 Transpo38 Instruments 2,637 27,510 813,682 0.3% 3.4% 0.9 0.7 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 2,382 17,685 391,657 0.6% 4.5% 1.7 1.0 39 Miscella399 Administrative 1,430 86,407 1,353,914 0.1% 6.4% 0.3 1.4 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 10: Manufacturing Employment in Pennsylvania

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 2,059,921 4,729,704 102,198,864 2.0% 4.6% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 416,403 925,852 18,558,100 2.2% 5.0% 1.1 1.1 MANUFAC20 Food Products 25,256 78,390 1,541,700 1.6% 5.1% 0.8 1.1 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 287 683 31,115 0.9% 2.2% 0.5 0.5 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 10,092 20,868 582,188 1.7% 3.6% 0.9 0.8 22 Textile M23 Apparel 17,233 43,673 843,140 2.0% 5.2% 1.0 1.1 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 20,448 30,068 732,400 2.8% 4.1% 1.4 0.9 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 7,435 16,183 498,464 1.5% 3.2% 0.7 0.7 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 15,733 33,756 625,764 2.5% 5.4% 1.2 1.2 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 26,504 83,862 1,490,400 1.8% 5.6% 0.9 1.2 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 11,293 31,468 833,230 1.4% 3.8% 0.7 0.8 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 2,685 7,742 108,378 2.5% 7.1% 1.2 1.5 29 Petroleu30 Rubber/Plastics Products 24,849 46,197 997,421 2.5% 4.6% 1.2 1.0 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 2,371 4,641 86,480 2.7% 5.4% 1.4 1.2 31 Leather32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 21,862 34,028 495,480 4.4% 6.9% 2.2 1.5 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 43,035 70,463 683,433 6.3% 10.3% 3.1 2.2 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 44,654 81,027 1,462,001 3.1% 5.5% 1.5 1.2 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 45,159 91,763 1,920,533 2.4% 4.8% 1.2 1.0 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 28,810 67,742 1,545,179 1.9% 4.4% 0.9 0.9 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 18,915 43,940 1,521,541 1.2% 2.9% 0.6 0.6 37 Transpo38 Instruments 15,705 33,577 813,682 1.9% 4.1% 1.0 0.9 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 8,604 19,475 391,657 2.2% 5.0% 1.1 1.1 39 Miscella399 Administrative 25,473 86,306 1,353,914 1.9% 6.4% 0.9 1.4 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 11: Manufacturing Employment in South Carolina

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 461,577 1,433,051 102,198,864 0.5% 1.4% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 136,462 367,565 18,558,100 0.7% 2.0% 1.6 1.4 MANUFAC20 Food Products 3,705 15,844 1,541,700 0.2% 1.0% 0.5 0.7 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 0 31,115 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 32,104 73,459 582,188 5.5% 12.6% 12.2 9.0 22 Textile M23 Apparel 8,446 28,333 843,140 1.0% 3.4% 2.2 2.4 23 Apparel 

24 Lumber/Wood Products 1,880 14,878 732,400 0.3% 2.0% 0.6 1.4 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 884 4,655 498,464 0.2% 0.9% 0.4 0.7 25 Furnitu

26 Paper Products 3,317 14,266 625,764 0.5% 2.3% 1.2 1.6 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 4,042 11,073 1,490,400 0.3% 0.7% 0.6 0.5 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 9,898 40,592 833,230 1.2% 4.9% 2.6 3.5 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 9 315 108,378 0.0% 0.3% 0.0 0.2 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 10,612 22,600 997,421 1.1% 2.3% 2.4 1.6 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 9 23 86,480 0.0% 0.0% 0.0 0.0 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 3,280 10,174 495,480 0.7% 2.1% 1.5 1.5 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 2,459 8,501 683,433 0.4% 1.2% 0.8 0.9 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 5,564 19,434 1,462,001 0.4% 1.3% 0.8 0.9 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 17,504 34,834 1,920,533 0.9% 1.8% 2.0 1.3 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 13,071 29,470 1,545,179 0.8% 1.9% 1.9 1.4 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 8,073 17,213 1,521,541 0.5% 1.1% 1.2 0.8 37 Transpo38 Instruments 1,771 4,911 813,682 0.2% 0.6% 0.5 0.4 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 1,900 3,279 391,657 0.5% 0.8% 1.1 0.6 39 Miscella399 Administrative 7,934 13,711 1,353,914 0.6% 1.0% 1.3 0.7 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 12: Manufacturing Employment in Tennessee

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 873,912 2,193,276 102,198,864 0.9% 2.1% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 246,476 519,373 18,558,100 1.3% 2.8% 1.6 1.3 MANUFAC20 Food Products 19,982 37,117 1,541,700 1.3% 2.4% 1.5 1.1 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 871 31,115 0.0% 2.8% 0.0 1.3 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 13,275 18,689 582,188 2.3% 3.2% 2.7 1.5 22 Textile M23 Apparel 27,023 43,006 843,140 3.2% 5.1% 3.7 2.4 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 10,316 21,006 732,400 1.4% 2.9% 1.6 1.3 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 18,372 26,203 498,464 3.7% 5.3% 4.3 2.4 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 9,611 19,458 625,764 1.5% 3.1% 1.8 1.4 26 Paper P

27 Printing/Publishing 11,034 35,980 1,490,400 0.7% 2.4% 0.9 1.1 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 24,681 35,015 833,230 3.0% 4.2% 3.5 2.0 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 247 1,092 108,378 0.2% 1.0% 0.3 0.5 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 12,084 36,056 997,421 1.2% 3.6% 1.4 1.7 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 1,176 3,821 86,480 1.4% 4.4% 1.6 2.1 31 Leather32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 7,492 14,516 495,480 1.5% 2.9% 1.8 1.4 32 Stone/C33 Primary Metals 9,674 18,007 683,433 1.4% 2.6% 1.7 1.2 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 15,190 40,007 1,462,001 1.0% 2.7% 1.2 1.3 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 17,180 48,469 1,920,533 0.9% 2.5% 1.0 1.2 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 14,966 33,680 1,545,179 1.0% 2.2% 1.1 1.0 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 18,209 47,034 1,521,541 1.2% 3.1% 1.4 1.4 37 Transpo38 Instruments 5,607 8,956 813,682 0.7% 1.1% 0.8 0.5 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 5,030 11,822 391,657 1.3% 3.0% 1.5 1.4 39 Miscella399 Administrative 5,327 18,568 1,353,914 0.4% 1.4% 0.5 0.6 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 13: Manufacturing Employment in Virginia

 ARC ARC as State as 

 Region State % of % of ARC State 

 Empt. Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 186,421 2,523,741 102,198,864 0.2% 2.5% 1.0 1.0 TOTAL EC

MANUFACTURING 58,816 398,835 18,558,100 0.3% 2.1% 1.7 0.9 MANUFAC20 Food Products 1,595 36,496 1,541,700 0.1% 2.4% 0.6 1.0 20 Food Pr21 Tobacco Products 0 8,930 31,115 0.0% 28.7% 0.0 11.6 21 Tobacco 

22 Textile Mill Products 6,267 27,814 582,188 1.1% 4.8% 5.9 1.9 22 Textile M

23 Apparel 8,192 24,763 843,140 1.0% 2.9% 5.3 1.2 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 3,535 24,692 732,400 0.5% 3.4% 2.6 1.4 24 Lumber25 Furniture/Related Products 4,738 20,126 498,464 1.0% 4.0% 5.2 1.6 25 Furnitu26 Paper Products 2,023 16,129 625,764 0.3% 2.6% 1.8 1.0 26 Paper P27 Printing/Publishing 1,079 35,624 1,490,400 0.1% 2.4% 0.4 1.0 27 Printing28 Chemical Products 3,987 20,317 833,230 0.5% 2.4% 2.6 1.0 28 Chemic29 Petroleum Products 47 584 108,378 0.0% 0.5% 0.2 0.2 29 Petroleu

30 Rubber/Plastics Products 3,608 21,166 997,421 0.4% 2.1% 2.0 0.9 30 Rubber31 Leather/Related Products 0 981 86,480 0.0% 1.1% 0.0 0.5 31 Leather

32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 2,174 11,500 495,480 0.4% 2.3% 2.4 0.9 32 Stone/C

33 Primary Metals 1,366 7,692 683,433 0.2% 1.1% 1.1 0.5 33 Primary 34 Fabricated Metals 2,691 15,915 1,462,001 0.2% 1.1% 1.0 0.4 34 Fabrica35 Industrial Machinery 6,433 26,914 1,920,533 0.3% 1.4% 1.8 0.6 35 Industri36 Electronic Equipment 4,251 27,297 1,545,179 0.3% 1.8% 1.5 0.7 36 Electron37 Transportation Equipment 4,784 36,154 1,521,541 0.3% 2.4% 1.7 1.0 37 Transpo38 Instruments 1,061 13,928 813,682 0.1% 1.7% 0.7 0.7 38 Instrum39 Miscellaneous Products 568 4,345 391,657 0.1% 1.1% 0.8 0.4 39 Miscella

399 Administrative 417 17,468 1,353,914 0.0% 1.3% 0.2 0.5 399 Admin

* The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
Figure 14: Manufacturing Employment in West Virginia

 State as 

 State % of State 

 Empt. U.S. Empt. U.S. 

Empt. 

 LQ* 

TOTAL ECONOMY 529,250 102,198,864 0.5% 1.0 TOTAL ECONOMY 

MANUFACTURING 77,592 18,558,100 0.4% 0.8 MANUFACTURING 20 Food Products 4,982 1,541,700 0.3% 0.6 20 Food Products 21 Tobacco Products 159 31,115 0.5% 1.0 21 Tobacco Products 22 Textile Mill Products 1,141 582,188 0.2% 0.4 22 Textile Mill Produc23 Apparel 2,109 843,140 0.3% 0.5 23 Apparel 24 Lumber/Wood Products 8,466 732,400 1.2% 2.2 24 Lumber/Wood Prod25 Furniture/Related Products 604 498,464 0.1% 0.2 25 Furniture/Related P26 Paper Products 1,066 625,764 0.2% 0.3 26 Paper Products 27 Printing/Publishing 4,867 1,490,400 0.3% 0.6 27 Printing/Publishing 28 Chemical Products 13,193 833,230 1.6% 3.1 28 Chemical Products 29 Petroleum Products 464 108,378 0.4% 0.8 29 Petroleum Products 30 Rubber/Plastics Products 2,839 997,421 0.3% 0.5 30 Rubber/Plastics Pro31 Leather/Related Products 707 86,480 0.8% 1.6 31 Leather/Related Pro32 Stone/Clay/Glass Products 6,035 495,480 1.2% 2.4 32 Stone/Clay/Glass Pr33 Primary Metals 12,209 683,433 1.8% 3.4 33 Primary Metals 34 Fabricated Metals 6,049 1,462,001 0.4% 0.8 34 Fabricated Metals 35 Industrial Machinery 4,782 1,920,533 0.2% 0.5 35 Industrial Machiner36 Electronic Equipment 2,457 1,545,179 0.2% 0.3 36 Electronic Equipme37 Transportation Equipment 2,366 1,521,541 0.2% 0.3 37 Transportation Equ38 Instruments 1,210 813,682 0.1% 0.3 38 Instruments 39 Miscellaneous Products 970 391,657 0.2% 0.5 39 Miscellaneous Prod399 Administrative 917 1,353,914 0.1% 0.1 399 Administrative * The Location Quotient (LQ) is calculated by dividing the local employment share for a sector (i.e., the proportion that a sector in the is of all jobs in the ARC region or State) by the national employment share for that sector (the proportion of that sector in the U.S. of aSOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1996. 
17 

Community Development Organizations Serving the Appalachian Region 

As part of this project, an attempt was made to locate a list of community development 

organizations that are active in economic development and interfirm networking 

activities in the Appalachian region. No comprehensive listing of community 

development organizations exists for the United States. A partial list of such 

organizations serving the Appalachian counties in different states was obtained from the 

national trade association of community development organizations—the National 

Congress of Community Economic Development (NCCED), Washington, DC. This list 

only represents organizations that are members of NCCED; hence, it is very incomplete 

in regard to the population of such organizations. 

Community Service Program, 601 17th Street, Tuscaloosa, AL, 35401. 

CAA of North Central Alabama, P.O. Box 1788, Decatur, AL, 35602. 

Kentucky Highlands Investment Corp., P.O. Box 1738, London, KY, 40743. 

Mountain Association for CED, 433 Chestnut Street, Berea, KY, 40403. 

Brighton Center, Inc., P.O. Box 325, Newport, KY, 41072. 

Kentucky Communities EOC, P.O. Box 490, Barbourville, KY, 40906. 

Garrett County CAC, Inc., 104 East Center Street, Oakland, MD, 21550. 

Rural Revitalization Corporation, 67 Main Street, Salamanca, NY, 14779. 

Chautauqua Opportunities, Inc., 17 West Courtney Street, Dunkirk, NY, 14048. 

Delaware Opportunities, Inc., 47 Main Street, Delhi, NY, 13753. 

Western Door Development Corp., 25 Church Street, Salamanca, NY, 14779. 

Wachovia CDC, 100 North Main Street, Winston-Salem, NC, 27150. 

Appalachian Center for Economic Networks, 94 North Columbus Road, Athens, OH, 

45701. 

Enterprise Development Corporation, 9030 Hocking Hills Drive, The Plains, OH, 45780. 

Pittsburgh Partnership, 130 7th Street, Suite 1200, Pittsburgh, PA, 15222. 

Hill CDC, 2015-17 Centre Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA, 15219. 

Fayette County CAA, Inc., 137 N. Beeson Ave., Uniontown, PA, 15401. 
18 

Greater Erie Community Action Commission, 18 W. 9th Street, Erie, PA, 16501. 

Mercer County CAA, P.O. Box 667, Sharon, PA, 16146. 

SHARE/Homeless Service Division, 1425 Augusta Street, Greenville, SC, 29605. 

United Neighborhood EDC, P.O. Box 384, Greenville, SC, 29602. 

Scott Morgan CDC, P.O. Box 270, Robbins, TN, 37852. 

Hope for Chattanooga, 2412 E. 4th Street, Chattanooga, TN, 37409. 

Westside CDC, 1200 Grove Street, #205, Chattanooga, TN, 37403. 

CDC of 28th Legislative District, P.O. Box 4703, Chattanooga, TN, 37405. 
19 

Business Associations for Manufacturing Industries 

The following listing of business associations was extracted from the Encyclopedia of 

Associations. The listing is incomplete in that it does not include strictly local associations; 

there are other gaps, as the fieldwork for this project uncovered (i.e., missed organizations). 

Nevertheless, it indicates to what extent an industrial sector is institutionally organized or not. 

Associations serving the manufacturers of transportation equipment (SIC 37) were not listed in 

this publication—although other auto-related associations (e.g., serving auto parts wholesalers). 

NA = Not Available. 

Sector/Association Name City State Member

 

SIC 20-Food Processing and related 

D.C. Area Location: 

Snack Food Assn. (SFA) Alexandria VA 900

American Frozen Food Institute (AFFI) McLean VA 550

Intl. Fresh-Cut Produce Assn. (IFPA) Alexandria VA 550

Natl. Food Processors Assn. (NFPA) Washington DC 500

Natl. Confectioners Assn. of the U.S. (NCA) McLean VA 310

American Sugar Alliance (ASA) Washington DC 300

Peanut and Tree Nut Processors Assn. (PTNPA) Potomac MD 160

Grocery Manufacturers of America (GMA) Washington DC 135

Flavor and Extract Manufacturers Assn. of the U.S. Washington DC 130

 (FEMA) 

Natl. Pasta Assn. (NPA) Arlington VA 80

US Cane Sugar Refiners' Assn. (USCSRA) Washington DC 56

US Canola Assn. (USCA) Washington DC 50

Natl. Frozen Pizza Institute (NFPI) McLean VA 40

Council of Food Processors Assn. Executives (CFPAE) Washington DC 30

North American Natural Casing Assn. (NANCA) Falls Church VA 30

Intl. Food Information Council (IFIC) Washington DC 27

Natl. Seasoning Manufacturers Assn. (NSMA) Potomac MD 25

Sugar Assn. (SAI) Washington DC 23

Intl. Federation of Grocery Manufacturers Assns. Washington DC 20

 (IAGMA) 

Sweetener Users Assn. (SUA) Arlington VA 15

Glutamate Assn. U.S. (TGA) Washington DC 12

Chocolate Manufacturers Assn. of the USA (CMA) McLean VA 11

Intl. Technical Caramel Assn. (ITCA) Washington DC 10

US Beet Sugar Assn. (USBSA) Washington DC 10

Corn Refiners Assn. (CRA) Washington DC 9
20 

Frozen Potato Products Institute (FPPI) McLean VA 7

Soy Protein Council (SPC) Washington DC 3

American Wholesale Marketers Assn. (AWMA) Washington DC NA 

Food Processors Institute (FPI) Washington DC NA 

Animal Industry Foundation (AIF) Arlington VA NA 

Intl. Frozen Food Assn. (IFFA) McLean VA NA 

 

Appalachian State Location: 

 American Beekeeping Federation (ABF) Jesup GA 1800

Natl. Barbeque Assn. (NBBQA) Charlotte NC 900

Natl. Frozen Food Assn. (NFFA) Harrisburg PA 800

Guard Society (GS) Worthington OH 400

Pennsylvania Manufacturing Confectioners Assn. Center Valley PA 320

 (PMCA) 

Assn. for Dressings and Sauces (ADS) Atlanta GA 250

Natl. Assn. of Food and Beverage Recruiters Richmond VA 250

Natl. Poultry and Food Distributors Assn. (NPFDA) Gainesville GA 250

Refrigerated Foods Assn. (RFA) Atlanta GA 200

Intl. Jelly and Preserve Assn. (IJPA) Atlanta GA 75

Calorie Control Council (CCC) Atlanta GA 60

Intl. Glutamate Technical Committee (IGTC) Atlanta GA 50

Vinegar Institute (VI) Atlanta GA 45

Chilled Foods Assn. (CFA) Atlanta GA 22

Northamerican Ingredient Marketing Specialists (NIMS) Atlanta GA 19

Northwest Cherry Briners (NCB) Corvallis OR 17

Intl. Food Additives Council (IFAC) Atlanta GA 9

Entreal Nutrition Council (ENC) Atlanta GA 4

Comsource Independent Foodservice Companies (CIFC) Atlanta GA

 

Other: 

Intl. Maple Syrup Institute (IMSI) Hortonville WI 15000

American Institute of Food Distribution Fair Lawn NJ 2400

Natl. Assn. for the Specialty Food Trade (NASFT) New York NY 1500

Les Amis D'Escoffier Leicester MA 1350

International Dairy-Deli-Bakery Assn. (IDDA) Madison WI 1100

Intl. Foodservice Manufacturers Assn. (IFMA) Chicago IL 630

Retail Confectioners Intl. (RCI) Glenview IL 600

Assn. of Food Industries (AFI) Matawan NJ 370

American Spice Trade Assn. (ASTA) Englewood NJ 340

Natl. Candy Brokers Assn. (NCBA) Naperville IL 300

Natl. Assn. of Flour Distributors (NAFD) Montville NJ 225
21 

Natl. Prepared Frozen Food Assn. (NPFFA) Oradell NJ 200

Pickle Packers Intl. (PPI) St. Charles IL 188

Tortilla Industry Assn. (TIA) Encino CA 150

Natl. Assn. of Fruits, Flavors, and Syrups (NAFFS) Matawan NJ 139

Cocoa Merchants' Assn. of America (CMAA) New York NY 111

Fresh Produce Assn. of the Americas (FPAA) Nogales AZ 100

Natl. Sugar Brokers Assn. (NSBA) New York NY 100

Italian Wine and Food Institute (IWFI) New York NY 71

Natl. Honey Packers and Dealers Assn. (NHPDA) Matawan NJ 42

Popcorn Institute (PI) Chicago IL 41

Home Baking Assn. (HBA) Englewood CO 39

Food Service Marketing Institute (FSMI) Lake Placide NY 35

Vermont Maple Industry Council (VMIC) Burlington VT 33

Maraschino Cherry and Glace Fruit Processors (MCGFP) Matawan NJ 25

Natl. Assn. of Chewing Gum Manufacturers (NACGM) Moorestown NJ 25

Greek Food and Wine Institute New York NY 18

Intl. Wheat Gluten Assn. (IWGA) Prairie Village KS 18

North American Maple Syrup Council (NAMSC) Hortonville WI 16

Frozen Vegetable Council (FVC) Burlingame CA 9

California Olive Assn. (COA) Sacramento CA 7

Culinarians Yorktown Hts. NY NA 

Green Olive Trade Assn. (GOTA) Carlstadt NJ NA 

 

SIC 22-Textiles 

D.C. Area Location: 

US Industrial Fabrics Institute (USIFI) Washington DC 45

Am. Textile Manufacturers Institute (ATMI) Washington DC 40

Am. Fiber, Textile, Apparel Coalition (AFTAC) Washington DC 19

Institutional and Service Textile Distributors Assn. Washington DC 18

 (ISTDA) 

Am. Fiber Manufacturers Assn. (AFMA) Washington DC 17

 

Appalachian State Location: 

The National Needlework Assn. (TNNA) Zanesville OH 1200

Am. Home Sewing and Craft Assn. (AHSCA) New York NY 900

Crafted with Pride in USA Council (CPUSAC) New York NY 515

Fabric Salesmen's Assn. (FSA) New York NY 375

Textured Yarn Assn. of America (TYAA) Gastonia NC 350

Knitted Textile Assn. (KTA) New York NY 200

Textile Distributors Assn. (TDA) New York NY 200
22 

US Assn. of Importers of Textiles and Apparel (USA-ITA) New York NY 200

INDA, Assn. of the Nonwoven Fabrics Industry Cary NC 170

Textile Fibers and Byproducts Assn. (TFBPA) Atlanta GA 166

Textile Quality Control Assn. (TQCA) Kannapolis NC 151

National Assn. of Decorative Fabric Distributors Columbia SC 130

Am. Yarn Spinners Assn. (AYSA) Gastonia NC 120

National Assn. of Textile Supervisors (NATS) Roebuck SC 120

Am. Printed Fabrics Council (APFC) New York NY 80

Textile Information Users Council (TIUC) Philadelphia PA 30

Intl. Silk Assn.-USA (ISA) New York NY 28

Acrylic Council New York NY 9

Burlap and Jute Assn. (BJA) New York NY 8

Durene Assn. of America (DAA) Gastonia NC 2

Southeastern Fabric Notions and Crafts Assn. (SEFA) Duluth GA NA 

Wool Bureau (WB) New York NY NA 

 

Other: 

Embroidery Trade Assn. (ETA) Gilbert AZ 2500

Surface Design Assn. (SDA) Oakland CA 2200

Industrial Fabrics Assn. Intl. (IFAI) St. Paul MN 2000

National Machine Embellishment Instructors and Artists Benicia CA 300

 (NMEIA) 

Northern Textile Assn. (NTA) Boston MA 300

Schiffli Lace and Embroidery Manufacturers Assn. North Bergen NJ 220

 (SLEMA) 

Boston Wool Trade Assn. (BWTA) Weymouth MA 130

Embroidery Council of America (ECA) North Bergen NJ 100

Schiffli Embroidery Manufacturers Promotion Fund North Bergen NJ 100

 (SEMPB) 

Am. Flock Assn. (AFA) Boston MA 60

Narrow Fabrics Institute (NFI) St. Paul MN 34

Elastic Fabric Manufacturers Council of the Northern Boston MA 32

 Textile Assn. (EFMCNTA) 

Am. Reuseable Textile Assn. (ARTA) Mulberry FL 30

Wool Manufacturers Council (WMC) Boston MA 30

Cashmere and Camel Hair Manufacturers Institute Boston MA 9

 (CCHMI) 

Felt Manufacturers Council (FMC) Boston MA 6

Am. Wool Council (AWC) Englewood CO NA 

TRI/Princeton (TRI) Princeton NJ NA 

 
23 

 

SIC 23-Apparel 

D.C. Area Location: 

American Apparel Manufacturers Assn. (AAMA) Arlington VA 670

Custom Tailors and Designers Assn. of America (CTDA) Washington DC 350

Knitwear Division-Am. Apparel Manufacturers Assn. Arlington VA NA 

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Bureau of Wholesale Sales Representatives (BWSR) Atlanta GA 14000

Bureau of Salesmen's National Associations (BSNA) Atlanta GA 12000

National Assn. of Men's Sportswear Buyers (NAMSB) New York NY 1000

Professional Assn. of Custom Clothiers (PACC) New York NY 700

Young Menswear Assn. (YMA) New York NY 650

Greater Blouse, Skirt, and Undergarment Assn. (GBSUA) New York NY 500

Underfashion Club (UC) New York NY 500

National Assn. of Hosiery Manufacturers (NAHM) Charlotte NC 425

Fashion Assn. (TFA) New York NY 400

National Costumers Assn. (NCA) Fremont OH 375

American Apparel Contractors Assn. (AACA) Atlanta GA 345

Associated Fur Manufacturers (AFM) New York NY 300

Fur Information Council of America (FICA) New York NY 300

Intl. Assn. of Clothing Designers (IACD) New York NY 300

Apparel Manufacturers Assn. (AMA) New York NY 250

National Assn. of Fashion and Accessory Designers Cleveland OH 240

 (NAFAD) 

Apparel Guild (AG) East Meadow NY 225

Clothing Manufacturers Assn. of the USA (CMA) New York NY 200

National Knitwear and Sportswear Assn. (NKSA) New York NY 200

United Better Dress Manufacturers Assn. (UBDMA) New York NY 200

Council of Fashion Designers of America (CFDA) New York NY 190

Affiliated Dress Manufacturers (ADM) New York NY 179

National Assn. of Blouse Manufacturers (NABM) New York NY 150

Metropolitan Area Apparel Assn. (MAAA) Bronx NY 122

American Fur Merchants' Assn. (AFMA) New York NY 100

Assn. of Rain Apparel Contractors (ARAC) New York NY 100

Ladies Apparel Contractors Assn. (LACA) New York NY 100

National Fashion Accessories Assn. (NFAA) New York NY 100

Neckwear Assn. of America (NAA) New York NY 100

Headwear Information Bureau (HIB) New York NY 80

Pleaters, Stitchers and Embroiders Assn. (PSEA) New York NY 75

National Assn. of Uniform Manufacturers and Distributors New York NY 72
24 

 (UME) 

United Knitwear Manufacturers League (UKML) New York NY 57

Infants', Children's and Girls' Sportswear and Coat Assn. New York NY 50

 (ICGSCA) 

United Infants'a nd Children's Wear Assn. (UICWA) New York NY 50

Industrial Association of Juvenile Apparel Manufactures New York NY 45

 (IAJAM) 

Knitwear Employers Assn. (KEA) Brooklyn NY 40

New York Raincoat Manufacturers Assn. (NYRMA) New York NY 35

New York Skirt and Sportswear Assn. (NYSSA) New York NY 32

Professional Apparel Assn. (PAA) Wayne PA 29

Associated Corset and Brassiere Manufacturers (ACBM) New York NY 25

Infant and Juvenile Manufacturers Assn. (IJMA) New York NY 15

Intimate Apparel Manufacturers Assn. (IAMA) New York NY 15

Jeanswear Communication New York NY 13

Bow Tie Manufacturers Assn. (BTMA) Brooklyn NY 10

New York Clothing Manufacturers Assn. (NYCMA) New York NY 10

Chamber of Commerce of the Apparel Industry (CCAI) New York NY NA 

Educational Foundation for the Fashion Industries (EFFI) New York NY NA 

National Neckwear Assn. (NNA) Brooklyn NY NA 

Professional Knitwear Designers Guild (PKDG) Wilmington NC NA 

 

Other: 

American Fashion Assn. (AFA) Dallas TX 350

Intl. Formal Wear Assn. (IFA) Chicago IL 350

Costume Designers Guild Sherman Oaks CA 310

Childrenswear Manufacturers Assn. (CMA) Moorestown NJ 160

Western and English Manufacturers Assn. (WAEMA) Denver CO 130

Sunglass Assn. of America (SAA) Norwalk CT 105

Expo West Trade Assn. (EWTA) Arvada CO 45

New England Knitwear and Sportswear Assn. (NEKASA) Lowell MA 20

 

SIC 24-Lumber and Wood Products 

D.C. Area Location: 

Kitchen Cabinet Mfrs. Assn. (KCMA) Reston VA 350

Hardwood Plywood and Veneer Assn (HPVA) Reston VA 190

Am. Wood Preservers Institute (AWPI) Fairfax VA 150

Am. Lumber Standard Cmte (ALSC) Germantown MD 28

Natl. Lumber and Bldg. Material Dealers Assn. Washington DC 23

 (NLBMDA) 

Composite Panel Assn. Gaithersburg MD 21
25 

 

Appalachian State Location: 

National Hardwood Lumber Assn. (NHLA) Memphis TN 1300

Appalachian Hardwood Mfrs Institute (AHMI) High Pt. NC 180

Hardwood Mfrs. Assn. (HMA) Pittsburgh PA 116

Wood Component Mfrs. Assn (WCMA) Marietta GA 115

Lignin Institute Atlanta GA 18

Cork Institute of Am. Lancaster PA 15

 

Other: 

National Wood Flooring Assn. (NWFA) Manchester MO 1500

Am. Wood Preservers’ Assn. (AWPA) Granbury TX 1400

Wood Products Mfrs. Assn. (WPMA) Westminster MA 647

Am. Institute of Timber Construction Englewood CO 400

Cedar Shake and Shingle Bureau (CSSB) Bellevue WA 250

NE Lumber Mfrs. Assn. (NELMA) Cumberland Ctr. ME 200

Engineered Wood Research Foundation (PRF) Tacoma WA 178

National Wood Window and Door Assn. (NWWDA) Des Plaines IL 140

APA: The Engineered Wood Assn. Tacoma WA 120

Wood Moulding and Millwork Producers Assn. Woodland CA 120

 (WMMPA) 

Fine Hardwood Veneer Assn/Am. Walnut Mfrs. Assn. Zionsville IN 40

 (FHVA/AWMA) 

CA Redwood Assn (CRA) Novato CA 6

 

SIC 25-Furniture 

D.C. Area Location: 

Office Furniture Dealer Alliance Alexandria VA 700

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Natl. Home Furnishings Assn. (NHRA) High Pt. NC 13500

Intl. Home Furnishings Representatives Assn. (IHFRA) High Pt. NC 3200

Am. Furniture Mfrs. Assn. (AFMA) High Pt. NC 336

Am. Society of Furniture Designers (ASFD) High Pt. NC 262

Intl. Wholesale Furniture Assn. (NWFA) High Pt. NC 127

Summer and Casual Furniture Mfrs. Assn. (SCFMA) High Pt. NC 93

Intl. Home Furnishings Marketing Assn. (IHFMA) High Pt. NC 56

Upholstered Furniture Action Council (UFAC) High Pt. NC 5

 

 
26 

Other: 

Home Furnishings Intl. Assn. (HFIA) Dallas TX 1600

Futon Assn. Intl. (FAI) Chico CA 450

Natl. Assn. of Casual Furniture Retailers (NACFR) Chicago IL 400

Specialty Sleep Assn. Moorestown NJ 334

Business and Institutional Furniture Mfrs. Assn. (BIFMA) Grand Rapids MI 240

Furniture Rental Assn. of Am. (FRAA) Indianapolis IN 60

Grand Rapids Area Furniture Mfrs. Assn. (GRAFMA) Grand Rapids MI 50

Natl. Rep/Wholesaler Assn. (NR/WA) Richardson TX 40

 

SIC 27-Printing 

D.C. Area Location: 

Printing Industries of America (PIA) Alexandria VA 13780

Master Printers of America (MPA) Alexandria VA 9500

Screenprinting and Graphic Imaging Assn. Intl. (SGIA) Fairfax VA 3300

Web Offset Assn. (WOA) Alexandria VA 1500

Digital Printing and Imaging Assn. (DPI) Fairfax VA 800

Non-Heatset Web Section (NWS) Alexandria VA 650

Graphic Communications Assn. (GCA) Alexandria VA 350

Assn. for Suppliers of Printing and Publishing Reston VA 300

 Technologies (NPES) 

Graphic Arts Marketing Information Service (GAMIS) Alexandria VA 70

Magazine Printers Section (MPS) Alexandria VA 28

Screen Printing Technical Foundation (SPTF) Fairfax VA

 

Appalachian State Location: 

American Institute of Graphic Arts (AIGA) New York NY 6700

Graphic Arts Technical Foundation (GATF) Pittsburgh PA 5000

National Assn. of Litho Clubs (NALC) Cincinnati OH 4500

Flexographic Technical Assn. (FTA) Ronkonkoma NY 1700

Graphic Arts Sales Foundation (GASF) West Chester PA 1500

National Metal Decorators Assn. (NMDA) Timonium MD 800

Assn. of Graphic Communications (AGC) New York NY 525

Women in Production (WIP) New York NY 500

Direct Marketing Assn. Catalog Council (DMACC) New York NY 378

Research and Engineering Council of the Graphic Arts Chadds Ford PA 325

 Industry (RECGAI) 

Gravure Assn. of America (GAA) Rochester NY 250

Assn. of College and University Printers (ACUP) University Pk. PA 100

Graphic Arts Council of North America (GACNA) Sewickley PA 4

Assn. for Graphic Arts Training Nashville TN NA 
27 

Graphic Artists Guild Foundation (GAGF) New York NY NA

 

Other: 

Intl. Assn. of Printing House Craftsmen (IAPHC) Minneapolis MN 10000

National Assn. of Quick Printers (NAQP) Chicago IL 5000

National Assn. of Printers and Lithographers (NAPL) Teaneck NJ 3700

Xplor Intl. (XPLOR) Torrance CA 2300

Intl. Publishing Management Assn. (IPMA) Liberty MO 2200

Printing Brokerage/Buyers Assn. (PB/BA) Palm Beach FL 1100

Binding Industries of America (BIA) Chicago IL 325

California Society of Printmakers (CSP) Berkeley CA 300

National State Publishing Assn. (NSPA) Liberty MO 125

Library Binding Institute (LBI) Edina MN 92

Book Manufacturers Institute (BMI) Wellesley MA 90

 

SIC 28-Chemicals 

D.C. Area Location: 

Chemical Specialties Manufacturers Assn. (CSMA) Washington DC 425

Natl. Assn. of Chemical Distributors (NACD) Arlington VA 265

Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy Arlington VA 250

Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturers Assn. Washington DC 235

 (SOCMA) 

Chlorine Institute (CI) Washington DC 221

Halogenated Solvents Industry Alliance (HSIA) Washington DC 200

Chemical Manufacturers Assn. (CMA) Arlington VA 195

American Crop Protection Assn. (ADFA) Washington DC 87

Automotive Chemical Manufacturers Council (ACMC) Washington DC 45

Sulphur Institute (TSI) Washington DC 28

Natl. Lime Assn. (NLA) Arlington VA 28

Institute for Polyacrylate Absorbents (IPA) Washington DC 18

Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Task Force (MTBETF) Washington DC 11

The Acrylonitrile Group Washington DC 10

Silicones Environmental Health and Safety Council Reston VA 10

 (SEHSC) 

Petrochemical Energy Group (PEG) Washington DC 9

Alkyl Amines Council (AAC) Washington DC 7

Styrene Butadiene Latex Manufacturers Council Washington DC 7

 (SBLMC) 

Aniline Assn. (AA) Washington DC 5

Basic Acrylic Monomer Manufacturers Assn. (BAMM) Washington DC 5
28 

Tributyl Phosphate Task Force (TPTF) Washington DC 4

Chlorinated Paraffins Industry Assn. (CPIA) Washington DC 3

Chlorobenzene Producers Assn. (CPA) Washington DC 3

Methyl Chloride Industry Association (MCIA) Washington DC NA

Chemtrec Center Non-Emergency Services Arlington VA NA

Council of Chemical Assn. Executives (CCAE) Arlington VA NA

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Chemical Coaters Assn. Intl. (CCAI) Cincinnati OH 1000

Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS) New York NY 87

Natl. Aerosol Assn. (NAA) Annapolis MD 50

Pulp Chemicals Assn. (PCA) Atlanta GA 50

Fire Retardant Chemicals Assn. (FRCA) Lancaster PA 42

Oleochemicals Division of the Soap and Detergent Assn. New York NY 15

Synthetic Amorphous Silica and Silicates Industry Assn. Pittsburgh PA 9

 (SASSI) 

 

Other: 

Western Crop Protection Assn. (WCPA) Sacremento CA 170

Materials Technology Institute of the Chemical Process St. Louis MO 42

 Industries (MTI) 

Embalming Chemical Manufacturers Assn. (ECMA) Stratford CT 5

 

SIC 30-Rubber/Plastics 

D.C. Area Location: 

Society of the Plastics Industry (SPI) Washington DC 2000

Rubber Manufacturers Assn. (RMA) Washington DC 97

American Society of Electroplated Plastics (ASEP) Herndon VA 56

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Rubber Division, American Chemical Society Akron OH 4300

SPI Composites Institute New York NY 415

Plastic and Metal Products Manufacturers Assn. New York NY 150

 (PMPMA) 

Polyurethane Divison, Society of the Plastics Industry New York NY 45

Rubber Trade Assn. of North America (RTA) Rockville Ctr. NY 43

Chemical Fabrics and Film Assn. (CFFA) Cleveland OH 32

 

Other: 

Latex Advisors Assn. (LAA) Santa Ana CA 1300
29 

Intl. Assn. of Plastics Distributors (IAPD) Leawood KS 450

Assn. of Rotational Molders (ARM) Oak Brook IL 430

Polyurethane Manufacturers Assn. (PMA) Glen Ellyn IL 120

Society for Women in Plastics (SWP) Sterling Hts. MI 102

Polyurethane Foam Assn. (PFA) Wayne NJ 71

Intl. Institute of Synthetic Rubber Producers (USRP) Houston TX 50

EPS Molders Assn. (EPSMA) Glenview IL 45

 

SIC 33-Metal/Steel 

D.C. Area Location: 

Independent Zinc Alloyers Assn. (IZAA) Washington DC 10

The Ferroalloys Assn. (TFA) Washington DC 11

American Zinc Assn. (AZA) Washington DC 18

Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA) Washington DC 19

Cold Finished Steel Bar Institute (CFSBI) Washington DC 22

Silver Users Assn. (SUA) Washington DC 28

American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) Washington DC 50

Silver Institute (SI) Washington DC 54

Intl. Cadmium Assn. (CCI) Reston VA 55

Steel Manufacturers Assn. (SMA) Washington DC 61

Aluminum Assn. (AAI) Washington DC 70

Gold Institute (GI) Washington DC 80

Intl. Magnesium Assn. (IMA) McLean VA 124

American Institute for Intl. Steel (AIIS) Washington DC 200

Non-Ferrous Metals Producers Committee (NFMPC) Washington DC NA

 

Appalachian State Location: 

American Iron Ore Assn. (AIOA) Cleveland OH 8

Cemented Carbide Producers Assn. (CCPA) Cleveland OH 23

Custom Roll Forming Institute (CRFI) Richmond Hts. OH 30

Lead Industries Assn. (LIA) New York NY 41

Copper and Brass Servicenter Assn. (CBSA) King of Prussia PA 86

National Assn. of Aluminum Distributors (NAAD) Philadelphia PA 102

American Copper Council (ACC) New York NY 175

Forging Industry Assn. (FIA) Cleveland OH 210

Steel Service Center Institute (SSCI) Cleveland OH 570

 

Other: 

American Foundrymen's Society (AFS) Des Plaines IL 13500

Metal Treating Institute (MTI) Jacksonville FL 415
30 

Intl. Titanium Assn. Boulder CO 400

Assn. of Steel Distributors (ASD) Chicago IL 180

Aluminum Extruders Council (AEC) Wauconda IL 169

National Institute of Steel Detailing (NISD) Arlington TX 141

American Tin Trade Assn. (ATTA) Howell NJ 60

Intl. Hard Anondizing Assn (IHAA) Moorestown NJ 30

Foundry Educational Foundation (FEF) Des Plaines IL NA 

 

SIC 34-Fabricated Metals 

D.C. Area Location: 

Copper and Brass Fabricators Council (CBFC) Washington DC 23

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Precision Metalforming Assn. (PMA) Richmond Hts. OH 1500

National Ornamental and Miscellaneous Metals Assn. Forest Park GA 650

 (NOMMA) 

National Metal Spinners Assn. (NMSA) Farmingdale NY 17

 

Other: 

Fabricators and Manufacturers Assn., Intl. (FMA) Rockford IL 2200

Institute of Metal Repair (IMR) Escondido CA 800

Foil Stamping and Embossing Assn. (FSEA) Portland OR 350

Metal Powder Industries Federation (MPIF) Princeton NJ 240

National Assn. of Architectural Metal Manufacturers Chicago IL 118

 (NAAMM) 

National Assn. of Graphic and Product Identification Irvine CA 105

 Manufacturers (NAME) 

Association of French Mechanical Industries (AFMI) Chicago IL 59

Industrial Perforators Assn. (IPA) Milwaukee WI 15

 

SIC 35-Machinery/Machining 

D.C. Area Location: 

National Tooling and Machining Assn. (NTMA) Fort Washington MD 2600

National Assn. of Hose and Accessories Distributors Annapolis MD 540

 (NAHAD) 

Manufacturers Alliance for Productivity and Innovation Arlington VA 500

 (MAPI) 

American Machine Tool Distributors Assn. (AMTDA) Rockville MD 475

Machinery Dealers National Assn. (MDNA) Silver Spring MD 470
31 

American Gear Manufacturers Assn. (AGMA) Alexandria VA 375

Secondary Materials and Recycled Textiles (SMART) Bethesda MD 300

American Boiler Manufacturers Assn. (ABMA) Arlington VA 115

American Textile Machinery Assn. (ATMA) Falls Church VA 115

Council of Industrial Boiler Owners (CIBO) Burke VA 100

American Wire Producers Assn. (AWPA) Alexandria VA 98

Manufacturers Standardization Society of the Valve and Vienna VA 93

 Fittings Industry (MSS) 

Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Assn. (CEMA) Manassas VA 92

Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Assn. Washington DC 70

 (WWEMA) 

Woodworking Machinery Importers Assn. of America Baltimore MD 70

 (WMIA) 

Sewn Products Equipment Suppliers Assn. (SPESA) Falls Church VA 50

Process Equipment Manufacturers Assn. (PEMA) Falls Church VA 45

American Bearing Manufacturers Assn. (ABMA) Washington DC 35

American Paper Machinery Assn. (APMA) Falls Church VA 35

Portable Power Equipment Manufacturers Assn. Bethesda MD 17

 (PPEMA) 

Mechanical Power Transmission Assn. (MPTA) Manassas VA 13

Remanufacturing Industries Council Intl. (RICI) Fairfax VA 12

American Chain Assn. (ACA) Manassas VA 6

Paper Machine Clothing Council Washington DC NA

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Industrial Distribution Assn. (IDA) Atlanta GA 2000

National Welding Supply Assn. (NWSA) Philadelphia PA 1200

American Supply and Machinery Manufacturers Assn. Cleveland OH 600

 (ASMMA) 

Abrasive Engineering Society (AES) Philadelphia PA 400

Material Handling Industry (MHI) Charlotte NC 200

Uniform Boiler and Pressure Vessel Laws Society Louisville KY 200

 (UBPVLS) 

Wood Machinery Manufacturers of America (WMMA) Philadelphia PA 170

Woodworking Machinery Distributors Assn. (WMDA) King of Prussia PA 105

US Cutting Tool Institute (USCTI) Cleveland OH 100

Fluid Sealing Assn. (FSA) Wayne PA 95

Gasket Fabricators Assn. (GFA) Wayne PA 92

Industrial Diamond Assn. (IDA) Skyland NC 86

National Industrial Glove Distributors Assn. (NIGDA) Philadelphia PA 84

National Assn. of Vertical Transportation Professionals Brooklyn NY 71
32 

 (NAVTP) 

Resistance Welder Manufacturers' Assn. (RWMA) Philadelphia PA 50

Assn. of Ingersoll-Rand Distributors Cleveland OH 45

Compressed Air and Gas Institute (CAGI) Cleveland OH 37

Elevator Industries Assn. (EIA) Southhampton NY 26

Rack Manufacturers Institute (RMI) Charlotte NC 26

Crane Manufacturers Assn. of America (CMAA) Charlotte NC 23

Grinding Wheel Institute (GWI) Cleveland OH 23

North American Punch Manufacturers Assn. (NAPM) Lockport NY 23

American Wire Cloth Institute (AWCI) Ossining NY 20

Conveyor Section of the Material Handling Institute (CS) Charlotte NC 19

Hoist Manufacturing Institute (HMI) Charlotte NC 17

American Apparel Machinery Trade Assn. (AAMTA) Long Island City NY 14

Automatic Guided Vehicle Systems Section of the Charlotte NC 14

 Material Handling Institute (AGVS) 

Lift Manufacturers Product Section-Material Charlotte NC 14

 Handling Institute 

Iron Casting Research Institute (ICRI) Columbus OH 13

Shelving Manufacturers Assn. (SMA) Charlotte NC 13

Diamond Wheel Manufacturers Institute (DWMI) Cleveland OH 11

Machine Knife Assn. (MKA) Cleveland OH 11

Automated Storage/Retrieval Systems (AS/RS) Charlotte NC 10

Die Set Manufacturers Service Bureau (DSMSB) Tarrytown NY 10

Monorail Manufacturers Assn. (MMA) Charlotte NC 10

Overhead Components Manufacturers Product Section Charlotte NC 10

 of the Material Handling Institute 

National Assn. of Chain Manufacturers (NACM) York PA 9

Loading Dock Equipment Manufacturers Assn. (LODEM) Charlotte NC 8

Abrasive Grain Assn. (AGA) Cleveland OH 7

Automated Electrified Monorail Product Section- Charlotte NC 7

 Material Handling Institute 

Coated Abrasives Manufacturers Institute (CAMI) Cleveland OH 5

 

Other: 

Surface Mount Technology Assn. (SMTA) Edina MN 3600

North American Die Casting Assn. (NADCA) Rosemont IL 3200

Specialty Tools and Fasteners Distributors Assn. Elk Grove WI 2085

 (STAFDA) 

Associated Equipment Distributors (AED) Oak Brook IL 1250

Michigan Tooling Assn. (MTA) Farmington Hills MI 775

Material Handling Equipment Distributors Assn. Vernon Hills IL 600
33 

 (MHEDA) 

Construction Industry Manufacturers Assn. (CIMA) Milwaukee WI 500

Intl. Assn. of Diecutting and Diemaking (IADD) Crystal Lake IL 500

Power Transmission Distributors Assn. (PTDA) Rosemont IL 500

Fluid Power Distributors Assn. (FPDA) Cherry Hill NJ 482

American Mold Builders Assn. (AMBA) Roselle IL 425

Power-Motion Technology Representatives Assn. Shawnee KS 350

 (PTRA) 

National Industrial Belting Assn. (NIBA) Brookfield WI 280

Investment Casting Institute Dallas TX 275

Non-Ferrous Founders Society (NFFS) Des Plaines IL 185

National Fluid Power Assn. (NFPA) Milwaukee WI 165

Diecasting Development Council (DDC) La Grange IL 130

Bearing Specialists Assn. (BSA) Glen Ellyn IL 78

Steel Founders' Society of America (SFSA) Des Plaines IL 77

Hydraulic Institute (HI) Parsippany NJ 70

Assn. of Vacuum Equipment Manufacturers (AVEM) Albuquerque NM 66

Cating Industry Suppliers Assn. (CISA) Des Plaines IL 66

Converting Equipment Manufacturers Assn. (CEMA) Springfield NJ 50

Web Sling and Tiedown Assn. (WSTDA) Naperville IL 50

National Elevator Industry (NEII) Fort Lee NJ 40

Pressure Vessel Manufacturers Assn. (PVMA) Chicago IL 26

Manufacturers of Aerial Devices and Digger-Derricks Chicago IL 21

 Council 

Contractors Pump Bureau (CPB) Milwaukee WI 19

Manufacturers of Telescoping and Articulating Cranes Chicago IL 15

 Council 

Hydraulic Tool Manufacturers Assn. (HTMA) Racine WI 12

National New England Lead Burning Assn. Woburn MA 10

Power Crane and Shovel Assn. (PCSA) Milwaukee WI 10

Powder Actuated Tool Manufacturers Institute (PATMI) St. Charles MO 7

Institute of Caster Manufacturers (ICM) Chicago IL 3

 

SIC 36-Electronics 

D.C. Area Location: 

Electronic Industries Assn. (EIA) Arlington VA 1500

Joint Electron Device Engineering Council (JEDEC) Arlington VA 260

Closed Circuit Television Manufacturing Assn. (CCTMA) Arlington VA 50

Electromagnetic Energy Assn. (EEA) Washington DC 30

Industry Coalition for Technology Transfer (ICOTT) Washington DC 5
34 

 

Appalachian State Location: 

Assn. for High Tech Distribution (AHTD) Philadelphia PA 163

Technical Ceramics Manufacturers Assn. (TECMA) Tarrytown NY 11

 

Other: 

American Electronics Assn. (AEA) Santa Clara CA 3000

Intl. Auto Sound Challenge Assn. (IASCA) Phoenix AZ 3000

North American Retail Dealers Assn. (NARDA) Lombard IL 2500

Institute for Interconnecting and Packaging Electronic Northbrook IL 2200

 Circuits (IPC) 

Intl. Society of Certified Technicians (ISCET) Fort Worth TX 2000

Electronics Technicians Assn., Intl. (ETA-I) Greencastle IN 1750

Electronics Representatives Assn. (ERA) Chicago IL 1650

Semiconductor Equipment and Materials Intl. (SEMI) Mountain View CA 1400

National Electronics Service Dealers Assn. (NESDA) Fort Worth TX 1000

Asian American Manufacturers Assn. (AAMA) Menlo Park CA 650

National Electronic Distributors Assn. (NEDA) Chicago IL 400

American Loudspeaker Manufacturers Assn. (ALMA) Arlington Hts. IL 50

Surface Mount Equipment Manufacturers Assn. Highland Park IL 50

 (SMEMA) 

Assn. of Electronic Distributors (AED) Los Angeles CA 35

Variable Resistive Components Institute (VRCI) Vista CA 30

 

SIC 38-Precision Instruments 

D.C. Area Location: 

SAMA Group of Assns. Alexandria VA 200

Measurement, Control, and Automation Assn. (MCAA) Vienna VA 135

Medical Device Manufacturers Assn. (MDMA) Washington DC 130

Laboratory Products Assn. (LPA) Alexandria VA 125

 

Appalachian State Location: 

American Precision Optics Manufacturers Assn. Rochester NY 122

 (APOMA) 

 

Other: 

American Scientific Glassblowers Society (ASGS) St. Paul MN 950

National Assn. of Scientific Material Managers New Orleans LA 450

 (NAOSMM) 

Ultrasonic Industry Assn. (UIA) Cherry Hill NJ 60
35