A 53

^^ United States

y\] Department of

.^ Agriculture

Economie

Research

Service

Rural

Development

Research

Report

Number 77

c 3

Political Leaders as

Entrepreneurs?

Economie Development in^

Small Communities

Alvin D. Sokolow

Julie Spezia

u>

yCx .., ^

lu oO

<*r--'P'

O

03

VO

-<
It's Easy To Order Another Copy!

Just dial 1-800-999-6779. Toll free in the United States and Canada.

Other areas, please call 1-301-725-7937.

Ask for Political Leaders as Entrepreneurs? Economic Development in Small Communities (RDRR-77).

The cost is $8.00 per copy. For non-U.S. addresses (including Canada), add 25

percent. Charge your purchase to your VISA or MasterCard, or we can bill you.

Or send a check or purchase order (made payable to ERS-NASS) to:

ERS-NASS

P.O. Box 1608

Rockvllle, MD 20849-1608.

We'll fill your order by first-class mail.
Polii^ical Leaders as Entrepreneurs? Economic Development in Small

Communities. By Alvin D. Sokolow and Julie Spezia. Agriculture and Rural

Economy Division, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Rural Development Research Report No. 77.

Abstract

While local government officials are heavily involved in the implementation of

rural economic development efforts in rural and other small communities, they

are much less represented among the initiators of such projects. A major

reason is that elected political leaders generally lack the skills,

motivations, and priorities demanded of economic development entrepreneurship.

A review of 17 successful cases of smalltown development, which compares

project initiators and their actions, suggests several critical differences

between local political leadership and entrepreneurship. Elected officials in

small towns generally are adverse to risk-taking, easily become preoccupied

with routine matters, lack the driving force of political ambition, and accept

the preeminence of business people and other leaders in the economic

development arena.

Keywords: Local government, small communities, economic development,

political leaders.

Acknowledgments

This work was funded by the Agriculture and Rural Economy Division, Economic

Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, through a cooperative

agreement with the University of California, Davis.

Washington, DC 20005-4788 October 1990
Contents

Summary. . . • iii

Introduction 1

Entrepreneurs and Political Leaders 2

Cases of Economic Development in Small Communities. 3

Methodology 4

Community and Project Characteristics. 4

Leaders and Process 12

Comparing Elected and Noneleeted Leaders 19

Motivations and Perceptions. 19

Responsibility and Risk-Taking. 20

Limits on the Role of Local Government................. 21

How Much Democracy? 22

Why Few Political Leaders are Economic Development

Entrepreneurs.. 23

Risk-Taking and Political Leaders 23

Heavy Workloads 24

Limited Personal Ambition.............................. 24

Other Organizations 24

A Final Note: Researching Economic Development in Small

Communities 25

Annotated Bibliography 27

Appendix—Phone Interview Items. . 33

IX
Summary

While elected officials and their local governments are heavily involved in

the implementation of economic development efforts in rural and other small

communities, they are much less inclined to initiate and lead such projects.

In large part, this is due to differences between smalltown elected office and

economic entrepreneurship in the tasks and styles of leadership.

This study examines the relationship between local political leadership and

rural economic development. It is based on a review of published case studies

of "successful" projects in 17 communities, fortified by phone interviews with

knowledgeable persons involved in the projects. The projects, all initiated

in recent years, produced new businesses, added jobs, or brought forth other

community benefits. Elected officials—primarily mayors—were the identified

project leaders in eight of the cases, while business people or development

professionals took the lead in the other nine cases.

The leadership and processes of the 17 economic development projects had these

characteristics;

* An identifiable "leader" in virtually every case who initiated the

activity.

* Random or unplanned actions (such as informal conversations) which

originated most projects.

* Later development of more formal organization, including the creation

of new mechanisms^—committees, task forces, corporations, and so

forth—to implement the detailed aspects of development.

* Formal local government activity in the implementation of projects,

including local funding and grant acquisition.

* Later conflict and frustrations in some cases, illustrated by

community divisions over particular plans, newcomer-oldtimer tensions,

and leader burnout.

What motivated the elected officials identified as project initiators in this

study to provide leadership to economic development activities? In possessing

a mixture of community service attitudes, self-interest, and personal energy,

they were not substantially different in motivation from the nongovernmental

leaders of projects. Some, however, had a high degree of political ambition,

and all were disposed to community change and had an expansionist view of

their formal responsibilities.

Judging from other research, these few officials were exceptions to the usual

pattern of smalltown development, in which private citizens—primarily

business people and organization professionals—initiate projects. The study

elaborates on the factors which prevent a closer match between political

leadership and economic entrepreneurship, primarily (1) the tendency of

elected officials to avoid risk-taking; (2) their heavy workloads and

preoccupation with routine matters; and (3) the general absence among

smalltown officials of the driving force of political ambition. Also, a

widespread view maintains that leadership in rural economic development is

best handled by individuals and organizations, which have more flexibility and

freedom to act than do elected officials and their local governments.

The study also notes the paucity of generalized understanding about rural

economic development processes and outcomes. Research on the topic is

dominated by prescriptive materials, single-community cases, and descriptions

of unique "success" stories. More systematic and productive research would

instead seek out failures as well as successes, examine community variations,

and look more closely at leadership, conflicts, goal implementation, and the

role of outside assistance.

iii
Political Leaders as Entrep

Economic Development in Small Communities

Alvin D. Sokolow

JulieSpezia*

Introduction

Local governments are important actors in the economic development projects of

rural and other small communities. The serious work of creating the

conditions for attracting new or expanded business activity depends on the

public tools and resources that only general-purpose governments^—

municipalities, counties, and townships—can provide. In numerous communities

nationwide, local governments contribute the public services, capital works,

land-use controls, access to outside aid, and other public resources which are

critical to building a community's economic health.

But these contributions, valuable as they are, are only a part of the local

economic development process. All the contributions are essentially

implementing activities: they are steps taken to carry out specific goals

already decided upon. But, local economic development also has its more

creative aspects. It is an entrepreneurial activity, in which new ideas,

directions, and strategies are initially brought forward. Successful (and

even unsuccessful) projects usually begin with the leadership of one or a few

persons. These leaders identify problems, propose solutions, seize

opportunities, and involve others. However, judging from popular accounts and

the scarce research literature on the subject, few of these initiators come

from the ranks of mainstream local government officials. Most are business

leaders or professionals in other types of organizations.

Certainly, there is an important leadership function in small-Gommunity

governments. That implicit function is in the role of elected officials:

mayors, supervisors, trustees, councilmembers, and others. Their public

purpose is broader than only the management of progrsLms and resources. They

are the political leaders of their communities, the legitimate representatives

of fellow citizens' values and needs. Such popularly elected officials are

expected to take the initiative in their communities. They are expected to

identify problems and seek appropriate solutions in public policies and

programs. But, they do not do so, as a rule, in matters of economic

development, and the leadership in this important sector commonly passes

them by.

Why the political role does not generally translate into the leadership of

local economic development projects is the topic of this report. The study

will examine the relationship between political leadership and

entrepreneurship. It will review 17 cases of successfui projects in small

communities. These cases, drawn from published accounts supplemented by phone

interviews with key participants, are divided almost equally between projects

in which elected officials were the major initiators and those in which they

were not. This exploration, although of largely secondary raaterials, will

reveal some aspects of the local economic development process which deserve

further study.

*The authors are, respectively, professor of political science and research

associate at the University of California, Davis.
Entrepreneurs and Political Leaders

Economic development projects in small communities usually start off as the

work of one or a few inspired and energetic people. Such people act as

entrepreneurs to identify and pursue economic opportunities for their

communities. The concept of entrepreneurship originally referred to the

creation of individual business enterprises. But, that concept is now

increasingly applied to economic development at the community level. In one

important study, the authors refer to "macroentrepreneurs." These are leaders

who stimulate growth and development by tapping underused resources already

existing in a community or brought from elsewhere (Schell and Davig, 1981).

Whether they are individual business people or community leaders,

entrepreneurs are creative, original, and innovative (Frederick, 1988; Kent,

1984; Shapero, 1984). Such people are visionaries, looking to the future and

seeing possibilities not apparent to others. Most significantly, they are

also risk-takers, investing scarce resources to carry out their commitments to

particular schemes. They may use unconventional methods and work outside of

existing routines, and in this way, entrepreneurs are often distinguished from

administrators and managers (Ghiselin; Kent, 1984). But, this does not mean

that they are loners and merely idea people. Entrepreneurs need also to build

Support for their innovations by acquiring resources and developing

organizational relationships. Thus, they become brokers of ideas for action,

making connections and drawing others into their schemes.

The term "entrepreneurial communities" is used in a study of 16 counties in

the rural Midwest that succeeded in maintaining high rates of employment by

attracting new firms. The key leaders of economic development projects in

these communities were willing "to invest energy and take risks in order to

create wealth" (John, Batie, and Norris, 1988, p. 38). Such leaders were

called "sparkplugs" in the study sponsored by the National Governors

Association. These were people with "a record of unfailing energy and

commitment to the economic growth of the community" (p. 48). When new

economic prospects appeared, they could mobilize others at short notice to

provide expertise and other resources.

The concept of entrepreneurship, however, need not be confined to a

description of economic development activity. Entrepreneurship is

characterized by innovation, vision, risk-taking, and brokerage, and the term

can refer to a variety of other activities undertaken by leaders and

organizations in both private and public sectors. Thus, a recent study of

public innovation centered on national Government describes the work of

"entrepreneurial leaders" (Doig and Hargrove, 1987). Included are such wellknown pioneers of public programs as David Lilienthal of the Tennessee Valley

Authority, Admiral Hyman Rickover of the Navy, and James Webb of the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration. These leaders created new missions and

programs, developed supporting constituencies, and changed organizations.

They were able to do so, the authors suggest, because of personal

characteristics—analytical talent, vision, the desire to make a difference—

as well as because of opportunities created for them by external events.

In their national visibility and impact, Lilienthal, Rickover, Webb, and the

others described in that study were probably exceptional examples of public

sector creativity and innovation. We know relatively little about such traits

among the many thousands of far less visible leaders of local governments

throughout the Nation. Still, it could be expected that a considerable number

of those elected to local office would act in an entrepreneurial fashion.

They are political leaders, after all, carrying out the important job of

representing fellow citizens. They are supposed to solve public problems by

translating local preferences into governmental policies and programs. This

implies the obligation and discretion to exercise some degree of creativity,

vision, and innovation on behalf of constituents. Political leadership in

this view carries with it an underlying promise of entrepreneurship.

Political leadership is widely shared in American communities, since most

local governments contain numerous elected posts. Nationwide, we elect almost

a half million local officials, most of them members of councils, boards, and
commissions. But, the power and responsibility of leadership rest most

heavily on the shoulders of the politicians who are independently elected to

chief executive posts: mayors and others. More than the rest, they are

supposed to be the entrepreneurs of local government. They are especially so,

when resource-acquisition and support-building functions are added to the

requirements of creativity, innovation, and vision.

Big-city mayors in particular are assumed to be resourceful innovators. Often

they are "strong" executives with budgetary, personnel, and other formal

powers. Howitt describes the role: "Head of government, preeminent

politician, symbolic leader—a mayor is the focal point of public expectations

and hopes" (Howitt, 1987). In theory, expectations, formal powers, and

personal incentives combine to bring about innovative behavior in the office

of mayor. Ambition plays an important part; mayors are frec[uently motivated

to create new programs by the desire for political advancement, reelection, or

recognitioTi. They play to their constituents (Ferman, 1985; Howitt, 1987).

In fact, there is ample evidence of entrepreneurial activity on the part of

big-city mayors, much of it applied to economic development work. Prime

examples include the major urban renewal projects of the post-World War II

period, in which mayors used Federal funds and redevelopment powers to rebuild

downtov/n areas and neighborhoods. While these projects had objectives broader

than just economic development, they were the precursors of more focused and

recent job- and business-creation efforts. In the 1970's, Mayor Williaun

Donald Schaefer of Baltimore personally promoted industrial and commercial

development in his city (Berkowitz, 1984). Kevin White of Boston and Joseph

Alioto of San Francisco similarly committed personal and organizational

resources to economic development projects in their communities (Ferman,

1985). In Battle Creek, Michigan, a medium-sized city, a new mayor—-more

aggressive than his predecessors—initiated the project to turn an abandoned

military base into a municipally owned industrial park (Thompson, 1983).

But, not all big-city mayors are innovators, whether in economic development

or other municipal programs. Some are quite passive in their approach to

community problems, as suggested in a study of Mayor John Reading of Oakland,

California, in the late 1960's (Pressman, 1972), Even chief executives

generally predisposed to seeking policy and prograunmatic change may be quite

selective in what projects they undertake. Also, some are concerned about

getting credit for visible and quickly appearing accomplishments, and such

executives may eschew long-term economic development activities which offer

few immediate political payoffs (Howitt, 1987). Entrepreneurship is a highly

variable condition. It is more a result of an individual political leader's

priorities and personal skills than formal position and powers.

Big-city mayors, of course, operate in a governmental and political

environment quite different from that of the great majority of smalItown

officials. Organizational resources, political opportunities, and the sense

of individual ambition are much more limited in small communities. Still, the

model of the entrepreneurial mayor is a useful reference for the following

examination of a group of exceptional cases of economic development leadership

in small communities.

Political leadership is an expected quality of popularly elected officials

everywhere. The key question is how it is applied, or not applied, to

different problems and in different communities.

Cases of Economic Development in Small Communities

How are economic development projects initiated in rural and other small

communities? Who are the leaders in this process? How do they lead? Answers

to these questions will be sought in 17 cases of successful economic

development projects in individual communities. In eight of the cases, the

project initiators were elected local government officials. Business people

and others initiated in the other nine cases.
Methodology

The cases were selected from published accounts of such projects which were

reviewed in journals and monographs. We searched primarily for descriptions

of successful projects which appeared to be fairly complete histories of

origins, events/ and participants. (We had to settle for reasonably detailed

accounts, since most of the descriptions were short, and few satisfied our

standard of a "complete" history. ) "Success'' was broadly defined to include

organized efforts which brought economic benefits to the affected communities,

especially new businesses and added jobs. Less directly, we looked for a

mixture of economic development situations in terms of community

characteristics, project types, and leaders.

The most useful source of cases was Profiles in Rural Economic Development,

1988, a collection of more than 60 "success stories" prepared by the Midwest

Research Institute for the Economic Development Administration, in a project

headed by Margaret G. Thomas. We relied on the two-page descriptions in this

collection for 15 of our 17 cases. Other publications provided the starting

point for researching the other two cases.

We followed up the selection and review of the published accounts with phone

interviews to fill in information gaps, add data on perceptions and

motivations, and provide a more consistent basis for comparative community

analysis. We interviewed, between July and October 1988, from one to three

key participants (including most of the identified project initiators) or

otherwise knowledgeable persons in each of the 17 communities, in phone

conversations lasting up to 40 minutes. The appendix contains the questions

used in the phone interviews.

Information from the published accounts and the phone interviews form the

basis of this analysis. The comparative profiles presented in tables 1-4

summarize the circumstances of each of the 17 cases. The tables are organized

according to type of project initiator:: elected officials or others. As

analyzed further in the following sections, the profiles detail the

characteristics of individual communities and projects and describe the

project initiators and their actions.

Community and Project Cbaracteristics

The 17 cases are not a statistically representative sample of small

communities nationwide. The selection process, relying on available published

case studies, precluded such sampling. Although it is somewhat heavily

weighed in favor of the Midwest (7 cases) and incorporated municipalities (13

cases), the sample does offer a mixture of community and project types in

other respects.

Communities

As tables 1 and 2 show, 15 States are represented in the sample. With one

exception, the communities included have a population (1980) range of 3,000-

5,000. The one larger community is a county of 85,000 population in Hawaii,

where the county government organized a project in an agricultural area. The

communities are quite diverse in economic base and social characteristics.

Included are farm trade centers, mill towns and small manufacturing centers,

bedroom communities, and a couple of tourist areas. Most are incorporated

municipalities with small city or village governments. Exceptions inelude

counties in Arizona and Hawaii, a rural township in Pennsylvania, and a tiny

unincorporated community in Virginia.

The communities generally were experiencing economic distress at the time

projects commenced. Although we have no comparative data on income levels or

other quantitative indicators, most places in the sample had high levels of

unemployment (in some cases exceeding 20 percent), low family incomes, and

declining commercial sectors. A few communities were relatively more

prosperous, suffering more from a sense of community stagnation than from

absolute economic decline.
Table 1—Community and project characteristics: Leadership by elected officials

Factor Seaford, Delaware 2« Maui County, Hawaii 3> Fruitland, Idaho

Population (1980)

Community

characteristics

Impetus

Activity period

Nature of project

Reported benefits

5,500

Large nylon processing

plant a dominant employer

Plant retooling; job losses

1983-present

Rural industrial park

28 new jobs; 2 new plants;

park improvements

Source of published "A Successful Rural Area

case study Industrial Park...,"

Profiles 1/

85,000 (community 6,495)

Island economy dependent

on tourism, sugar, and

pineapples

Preserving prime

agricultural land

1974-84

Agricultural park for

small farmer-tenants

29 small farm lots; 80 jobs

"Development of an Agricultural Park— , "

Profiles 1/

2,500

Small city near Oregon

border with growing economy;

previously bedroom community

to county seat

Heard food processor was

looking for a cannery site

1985-present

Industrial recruitment

200-300 new jobs; tax base

increase; lower property

taxes; positive attitude

"Rural Industrial Development ...," Profiles 1/

See footnotes at end of table. Continued—
Table 1—Community and project characteristics: Leadership by elected officials—Continued

Factor 4. Baraqa, Michigan 5. Adamsville, Tennessee 6 > Guttenberq^ Iowa

Population (1980)

Community

characteristics

Impetus

o\ Activity period

Nature of project

Reported benefits

Source of published

case study

1,055

Upper peninsula village on

Lake Superior; forest area

Sawmill in neighboring

town destroyed by fire

1984-present

Industrial park expansion

48 new jobs; other jobs

retained; prospect of more

with prison

"Building a $900,000

Revolving Loan Fund...,"

Profiles 1/

1,486

Garment industry town in

southwestern part of State

Closing of garment (350

jobs) and shoe (650 jobs)

factories

1985-present

Pilot program for economic

development; industrial

parks; business recruitment

Numerous new jobs affecting

the entire county

"Dramatic Recovery from High

Unemployment—A Strong

Mayor...," Profiles 1/

2,428

Farm-trade center on

Mississippi River near

timber belt

Factory closing (200

jobs); farm crisis; high

unemployment

1981-present

Industrial park; facade

restoration to foster

tourism

New jobs; new small

businesses

"The •R-spirit• Flourishes f" Regeneration 2/

See footnotes at end of table. Continued—
Table 1—Community and project characteristics: Leadership by elected officials—Continued

Factor Wauzeka, Wisconsin

8. Cross Creek Townships

Pennsylvania 9. Cuba, Missouri

Population (1980)

Community

characteristics

Impetus

Activity period

Nature of project

Reported benefits

658

Farm trade center in

southwestern Wisconsin

Lack of jobs; declining

farm economy

1981--present

Industrial park; small

business expansion

200 jobs; united community

Source of published "Home-grown Leadership,

case study National Community

Reporter 3/

1,700

Rural township with sheep

industry

Planning commission became

aware of grant

Late 1970's-present

Wool mill

Two employees with

potential of 20

"A Homegrown Industry Built

on Tradition...,"

Profiles 1/

2,120

City in the Ozarks foothills

Declining shoe industry;

21-percent jobless

1984-present

Business recruitment and

retention; education;

c apital improvements

15 new firms; 850 jobs

"Creation of Industrial

Jobs to bring a Town...",

Profiles 1/

1/ Thomas.

2/ "The R-spirit Flourishes."

3/ Brown.
Table 2—Community and project characteristics: Leadership by others

Factor 10, Blue Mound, Illinois 11, Evansville, Wisconsin 12> Brunswick, Maryland

CO

Population (1980)

Community

characteristics

Impetus

Activity period

Nature of project

Reported benefits

Source of published

case study

1,338

Village in agricultural area

Business closures; empty

stores

Early 1980's-present

Downtown renewal; business

assistance

New businesses; jobs

increased tax income

"Revitalization and

Renovation-..r" Profiles 1/

2,835

Economy dependent on auto

plant and other

manufacturers

Desire to diversify and

revitalize, as identified

by study

1977-present

Industrial park; downtown

renewal

3 new firms; 125 jobs

"A Comprehensive Development

Strategy...," Profiles 1/

4,572

Historic railroad town

in farming area, within

DC-Baltimore region

Business people concerned

about deteriorating downtown

1984-present

Main Street program

New businesses and jobs

"Central Business

District,,•," Profiles 1/

See footnotes at end of table. Continued—
Table 2—Community and project characteristics: Leadership by others—Continued

Factor 13. Ivanhoe> Virginia 14. La Paz County, Arizona 15. Helen, Georgia

vo

Population (1980)

Community

characteristics

Impetus

Activity period

Nature of project

Reported benefits

Source of published

case study

600

Unincorporated town in

Appalachians

Decision by 2 counties

to sell land dedicated

to local development

1986-present

Variety of community

development act ivit ie s

New jobs pending;

nutrition-recreation

programs ; pr ide

"A Gritty Little Community

Fights for...," Profiles 1/

12,557

Desert communities near

Colorado River

Flood and negative tourist

publicity

1983-present

Industrial recruitment;

community promotion

New manufacturing firm;

30 new jobs; small

business starts

"Diversifying From a

Tourism Economy...,"

Profiles 1/

365

Mountain town 75 miles

northeast of Atlanta

"Ghost town," depressed

economy

1969-present

Downtown renewal; tourist

development

1,400 jobs; many new

businesses

"Bootstrapping: A Small

Town's Regenesis.•.,"

Profiles 1/

See footnotes at end of table. Continued—
Table a—Community and project characteristics: Leadership by others—Continued

Factor 16> St. Pauls, North Carolina

Population (1980)

Community

characteristics

ímpetus

M.

^ Activity period

Mature of project

Reported benefits

Source of published

case study

2,341

Mill town on interstate

highway

Depressed attitudes; lack

of job prospects

1986-89

Delicatessen run by students

Successful business

employing 15

"Way off Broadway Deli—A

Rural School...," Profiles 1/

17. Delavan, Wisconsin

6,000

Bedroom city for industrial

area

Decline of retail businesses

1986-present

Clown Hall of Fame; town

circus theme

Commercial growth;

new stores

"The Clown Hall of Fame:

Recapturing...," Profiles 1/

1/Thomas*
What conditions stimulate people to act? Economic development activities

originate when people identify community-level problems. In some of our

cases, the impetus was a specific event or events: plant closings or

employment reductions, a natural disaster such as a flood which discouraged

tourism, or a decision by an outside government agency to sell a piece of

community property. In other cases, project initiators responded to more

long-term trends: declining industry, downtown deterioration, depressed local

farming conditions, or a sense of forgone economic opportunities. Even in

most communities where specific events triggered project activity, conditions

underlying the desire for change had been accumulating for some time. Said

the mayor of one city:

Ten years ago, diversification started to become a catch word. Every

community was starting to realize that you could not depend on one or

two industries. Some of us thought we ought to do something, to be

proactive, not reactive. (Phone interview, 9/26/88)

New opportunities provided by outside agencies helped in a few cases to bring

about local action. Information that a major canning firm was seeking a site

in the State spurred to action the mayor of Fruitland, Idaho. Availability of

Federal, State, or other outside funds for community study were the stimuli in

a few other communities.

Projects

The cases demonstrate that there are many paths to economic development for

small communities. While economic diversification was a common objective,

some communities attracted one or a few relatively large employers

(traditional industrial recruitment), while others relied on more diffused and

incremental technic[ues for job creation. Industrial parks were major projects

in eight cases, downtown revitalization was carried out in six communities,

and assistance to new or expanding small businesses was a technique used in at

least five places. Some of the communities in the sample organized more than

one kind of project.

Especially interesting were projects which took advantage of unique local

characteristics. Delevan, Wisconsin, tapped into its history as the winter

quarters for many circuses and the one-time residence of P.T. Barnum by

developing the Clown Hall of Fame. Local leaders, aided by the county

extension agent, used the circus theme to attract shoppers and visitors to the

downtown area. To counter a perceived overdependence on tourism, Maui County,

Hawaii, organized an agricultural park for small farmers. Residents of the

Cross Creek Township in Pennsylvania established a woolen mill to use the

abundant wool from the area's sheep farms.

Results

Specific economic gains in the form of new jobs and businesses were reported

as the result of the projects in at least 15 of the communities. Future

economic benefits were expected in several other instances where projects were

too new at the time of the published accounts and phone interviews to have

produced firm results. Along with the job and business creations were reports

of lowered unemployment rates, increased property tax bases, and decreased tax

rates. While the new jobs and businesses for the most part were concentrated

within municipal boundaries, the benefits also accrued to larger areas,

including entire counties.

The momentum from economic development projects in a few cases produced

improvements in other areas of community life. These included new community

centers, educational progrsuns, park areas, and low-income housing. A less

tangible, but still positive, impact of such projects was a frequent boost in

community identification and spirit. "Attitudes have changed, and that

feeling is contagious," noted one mayor. People who worked on the projects

reportedly experienced a renewed enthusiasm about their towns. Such

enthusiasm was most apparent in Ivanhoe, the unincorporated Virginia community

where previously uninvolved and unorganized residents formed a civic league

11
in their struggles with county government over the disposition of a parcel

of land.

Leaders and Process

We define "leadership" as the initiation of projects. One person was ^easily

identified as the initiator in the great majority of the 17 cases, as tables 3

and 4 indicate. Initiators were not solo actors. Usually, they worked

closely with, or were supported by, a small number of other active

participants. Still, an initiator stood out as the fir^st leader of a project,

the individual who took the first, often tentative and unplanned, steps that

led to a more elaborate and organized process involving many others.

Initiators

Six of the eight initiators who held elected public offlee were the elected

chief executives of their local governments: four mayors and two village

presidents. The other two were members of collégial bodies—a city

councilmember (who later stepped up to the mayor - s post) and a member of a

Pennsylvania township board of supervisors (Who also was the township

secretary-treasurer). All but two were part-time local government officials

with full-time occupations elsewhere^ Represented occupations included

housewife, elem^entary school principal and realtor, corporation executive,

insurance salesman^, and grants administrator.

Among the nine leaders who were notr elected officials^ retail merchants were

thé identified leaders in three communities. Others included a retired

teacher, a housewife, and a superihteruieñt of schools. Twts initiators in the

nonelected group held formal or professional positions in development-related

organizations—a county extensión agent who worked with small communities on

development projects and the executive director of a local chamber of

commerce.

Initial Actions

Some projects began in an apparently random or spontaneous manner, with

leadership quickly springing forth. Buring conversation one day during lunch,

several businessmen in Helen^ Georgia, decided to do something to "save the

town," which had been declining asr a trade center. Using sketches prepared by

a local artist, they and other merchants renovated their storefronts in a

Bavarian theme, the first phase in thé eventual develbpiftént of a good-si^ed

tourism economy. In Delavan, Wisconsin, A county extension agehtV hearing a

comment about a local clown convention^ was sufficiently intrigued to

investigate the potential of building on the community's circus-related

history. A retired teacher in Blue Mound, Illinois, sent letters to 45 other

residents of the community, inviting them to a meeting where a planning

committee was formed.

The origins of the project in Ivanhoe, Virginia, were similarly unplanned, but

the emergence of leadership was less immediate. Residents of the

unincorporated community came together in a spontaneous meeting to vent their

anger about the decision of the county government to sell off a vacant land

parcel that had been left to the community 20 years earlier for industrial

development. The 57 persons in attendance agreed to appear as a group at the

regular session of the county board of supervisors thé fo^llowihg week .But,

only two people from Ivanhoe actually showed Aip at the meeting, both of them

uncomfortable and unfamiliar with making speeches to formal public bodies.

Prodded by the other, one liesitantly got up to address the board. Expressing

the grievances of the bypassed community, toer speech cauight the attention of

the board, made the front page of tlie county newspaper, gave her the

confidence to organize further activities in the tiny community, and

eventually got her elected as the first president of the town's civic league.

Informal conversations and gatherings may have been the very first steps, but

most projects in the sample soon took a more deliberate direction. Local

study groups were organized in some cases. A mayor-appointed committee in

Seaford, Delaware, visited develoíMnent sites in South Carolina as its first

12
Table 3—People and process: Leadership by elected officials

Factor

Identified

initiators(s)

Initial action

Later actions

New organizations

created

Seaford, Delaware 2. Maui County, Hawaii Fruitland, Idaho

Mayory supported by council

majority

Mayor-appointed committee

visited development projects

in South Carolina

City bought 121 acres for

industrial park; hired

professional developer;

financed improvements

Economic development

committee

Full-time mayor

Consultant evaluation;

purchased 450 acres of

farmland with outside

and local money

Road and water improvements;

31 lots rented to small

farmers

Mayor, aided by city

administrator

Approached firm seeking

relocation with review of

5 sites; direct contact

with president of firm

Mayor interceded with

others—landowner,

utilities—to assist

relocating firm; $10

million bond issue for

improvements; recall

election.

Committee to examine longrange goals

Identified

initiator(s)

Initial actions

Later actions

New organizations

created

4. Baraaa/ Michigan

Village president

40 acres added to industrial

park; site prepared and

sawmill from neighboring

town resettled

Additional grants; revolving

loan fund; State prison

attracted to community

Area development committee

5. Adamsville. Tennessee

Mayor

Foundation grant supported

3-year pilot project;

consultant prepared plan

Employed economic

development coordinator;

established 2 industrial

parks; community

improvements

6> Guttenbera> Iowa

City council member

(later mayor)

Formed an economic development committee; planted

flowers

Revitalized main street;

purchased land for

industrial park; tourism

development

Council-appointed economic

development committee

Continued—
Table 3~Pebple and process: Leadership by elected officials-—Continued

Factor 7. Wauzeka^ Wisconsin

8. Cross Creek Township,

Pennsylvania 9. Cubaf Missouri

Identified

ihitiátor(s)

Initial actions

Later act ions

Village president and others

Hired a consultant to woirk

with extension agent and

cOrnmunity to form a S-y^ar

'pian;.''':'

Sold shares in developtnent

corporation to citizens ;

established industrial park;

reGruited firms; Federal

Community Development Block

Grant

Township supervisor (1 of 3)

and secretary-treasurer

Obtained State grant to

start sMall wool mill using

products of local sheep

industry'.

Aid from VISTA volunteer;

grant for advertising

president of induötrial

corporation

Mayor appointed initiator to

head iridustr ial corporat ion

Financed new bus ines ses;

induötrial park; workers

skills program

New organizations

created

For-profit economic

development corporation

Community development

corporation to oversee

mill arid other projects

Industrial development

corporation
Table 4—People and process: Leadership by others

Factor 10, Blue Mount, Illinois 11. Evansville, Wisconsin 12> Brunswick, Maryland

Identified

initiator(s)

Initial actions

Later actions

New organi z at ions

created

Retired teacher (later

mayor)

Meeting of citizens;

conunittee formed

University students

prepared development plan;

business expansions assisted

Development corporation

Teacher and store owner

City formed a development

committee? industrial park

completed

Business recruitment;

streetscape design;

storefronts refurbished

Economic development

committee

Antique store owner, other

merchants, mayoral candidate

Discussions among business

owners; recruitment and

election of supportive

mayor

Specialist hired to promote

downtown; participation in

Main Street program; grants

City revitalization

committee

CJl

Identified

initiator(s)

Initial actions

Later actions

New organizations

created

13. Ivanhoe, Virginia 14. La Paz Countv, Arizona 15. Helen, Georgia

Cit i zen-housewife

Ad hoc citizens' meeting;

speech at county board

meeting; series of town

meetings

Civic league formed; town

reunion; nutritioii and

other programs; numerous

grants

Civic league

Executive director of area

chamber of commerce

Economic development

committee formed within

chamber; 4-week seminar on

development

Promotional brochure;

grants

Industrial development

authority

Several local business

owners

Restaurant conversation;

storefronts renovated with

advice of artist

Resort development,

including golf course and

shopping center

Continued—
Table 4~People and process: Leadership by others—Continued

Factor 16> St. Pauls, North Carolina 17. Deiavan, Wisconsin

œ

Identified

initiator(s)

Initial actions

Later actions

Superintendent of school

district

Survey to determine viable

enteirprise; started deli

in vacant store

Courses to train students;

deli divested

County extension agent

Discovered local circus

history; economic ahalysis;

proposal to city council

Promotion of circus history;

fundraising; land acquiifed

fot Clown Hall of Fame

New organizations

created

Nonprofit corporation
major activity and returned with useful ideas. Professionally prepared

studies and plans—written by private consultants or university groups—were

commissioned by at least eight communities. Some of these studies dealt just

with commercial and industrial prospects, while others covered a broader set

of community development goals. As well as providing direction for specific

actions, the plans in some cases helped to secure community support for

economic development projects* One mayor explained:

We hired a consultant to design a community development plan. Based on

this, we held many community meetings and worked with a university

extension to come up with a 5-year plan. It had specific goals, like

resurfacing the main street, as well as more general statements on

ideals. The plan was the primary thing that made economic development

work here. It built public support. For the first time as a community,

we had a chance to write down goals. (Phone interview, 10/18/88)

Later Actions

What the original leaders initiated as simple or straightforward ideas soon

turned into more elaborate undertakings. Most projects turned out to be more

than quick solutions to immediate problems. Such projects developed into

long-term activities, in some cases seemingly permanent enterprises.

Transforming initial ideas into specific actions recjuired funding, expertise,

and wider support. Additional leaders and organizations had to be recruited

to the cause. Several of the communities constructed industrial parks and

other public works to attract new industries, and these involved major

outlays. Local governments in at least four of the communities partially

financed such improvements, either directly or through their bonding

authority, or used private sector loans and Federal or State grants. Support

from municipal treasuries—whether for industrial parks or other projects—was

not possible in some of the smallest communities in the sample, where city and

village governments were relatively impoverished. Instead, grants and some

private fundraising drives were the major means of financing.

At least 11 of the sample communities received outside grants in support of

their projects. This included sizable amounts from the Federal Community

Development Block Grants (CDBG) and Economic Development Administration (EDA)

programs. Most individual grants, however, came from State government

sources* County governments backed some local projects with funds and staff

work. Private foundation support was given in a few cases. When Levi Strauss

closed a factory in Adamsville, Tennessee, the community was assisted by a

grant from the garment company's foundation for economic development planning.

As well as funding land acquisition and public works improvements for

industrial recruitment, the Federal and State funds supported building

rehabilitation, historic renovations, small business starts, and planning

activity. Revolving loan funds for business assistance and rehabilitation

work were created in some communities. The unincorporated community of

Ivanhoe alone received grants from 10 different sources, for a variety of

economic development and other programs, within a 2-year period. Such

successful grantsmanship on the part of small communities may have been

remarkable in the early and mid-1980's, a period of Federal aid retrenchment,

although State aid programs were expanding at this time. Quite likely, the

resourceful efforts displayed by the emerging projects, combined with

indicators of community need, were attractive to State and Federal grant

allocators.

In these later stages, some of the original leaders dropped out of the

projects they had initiated, a development which could be expected in

activities which continue for some years. The principal reason was turnover

in elected office, as some initiators served out their terms and went on to

other pursuits. We would expect also that some original leaders, especially

those not holding elected positions, would drop out for reasons such as

personal burnout and family or work obligations. Possibly the skills and

interests which made them successful initiators would no longer be as useful

17
in the later, implementing stages of a project. None of these factors showed

up in the review of the 17 cases. Such considérations, however, could appear

in the near future, since most of the projects were fairly new undertakings

(11 had been in existence for 5 or fewer years at the time of the research).

At least 12 of the initiators were still actively involved with the economic

development projects at the time of the research. Several had changed

positions since their initial activities. Two who had started off as citizen

leaders later joined their municipal governments, one as the elected mayor and

the other as the first appointed economic development coordinator. A third

leader who had been a member of the eouneil at the time of the first activity

later moved up to the office of mayor. Another initiator who was village

president later left elected office but retained his involvement in economic

developnent work as one of the organizers of an area development commission.

New Organizations

Individual leaders may come and go, but continuity can be maintained through

organizations formed for specific economic development purposes. We see this

in 14 of the sample communities. While a few groups were formed in the

initial stages of projects as study committees with the assignment to explore

development prospects, most came into existence at a later point and were

given ongoing responsibilities.

These new groups varied in composition, degree of formalization, and

relationship to local government. Some were committees of local leaders

appointed by elected officials to serve as the economic development arm of

local government. Others had a more independent status as nonprofit or forprofit corporations with the authority to raise funds to develop industrial

parks and help businesses. The corporation in Wauzeka, Wisconsin, raised the

capital to purchase 90 acres for an industrial park by selling 2,800 shares of

stock to local residents. In the case of Baraga, Michigan, the organization

formed was a county area development committee. After the village government

successfully recruited a sawmill by adding to its industrial park, the village

president and other local leaders turned to the rural county as the logical

locus for further activity:

Once we finished with our project, we just kept going. The county

is so small with just our village and one other. The county

government did not have an administrator, and it never was able to

follow through on economic development. {Phone conversation, 9/11/88)

The economic development committees were generally more democratic and

representative of local populations than the boards which governed the

development corporations. A few of the committees had broader community

development objectives than just job and business creation. Most evident in

this regard was the civic league organized in Ivanhoe, Virginia, which becsune

virtually a mechanism for self-government in this unincorporated community.

In 2 years of operation, the league sponsored community events, started

nutrition and literacy programs, secured grants for a community building, and

planned to establish a new park, as well providing a contrast to the county

government. The leaders of an industrial park and business expansion project

in Wauzeka, Wisconsin, obtained considerable public participation through

public hearings and the sale of stock to local citizens.

Conflicts and Frustrations

Accounts of successful economic development projects often overlook the

tensions and controversies that are bpund to occur when leaders seek to change

their small communities. Our superficial examination of the 17 cases found

some evidence of such natural slips in the processes leading to successful

projects; a deeper examination of interactions in these cases undoubtedly

would reveal much more.

Project initiators and their allies inevitably encountered political and

economic resistance to their plans. One leader attributed this to "petty

jealousies and personality conflicts, *• but more basic differences in values

18
and policies can also be at issue. Economic development plans in at least two

towns reflected an underlying division between newcomers and long-term

residents over the desirability of change.

Some of the elected officials who were project initiators faced political

risks. Strong opposition surfaced in one community over a proposal to

institute zoning as part of the development plan. "I almost got thrown out of

town on that one," explained the village president. The mayor in another

community was threatened with recall because of his industrial recruitment

activities; however, he survived the election, and his two opponents on the

city council were recalled. In still another community, all incumbent

aldermen who supported a nationally recognized project were defeated in the

following election.

The initial enthusiasm of project leaders may turn to burnout and frustration

if others fail to join in to share some of the work. This often happens in

very small places composed largely of inactive residents, where the pool of

actual or potential leaders is limited. Ivanhoe, the tiny unincorporated

Virginia town with the active civic league, does not fit this picture. But,

in another small town in the research sample, the overworked initiator of a

project expressed frustration at the lack of support from neighbors:

There are so many good people who won't get involved....Many of

them are retired mine and mill workers. They probably worked hard

then, but now they will not volunteer for anything. The fire

department just built a new firehouse. Lots of people watched the

construction every day, but no one volunteered their time to help.

The department eventually had to float a loan to pay for some of

the costs. (Phone interview, 12/12/88)

Comparing Elected and Nonelected Leaders

In this section, we will explore further the relationship between political

leadership and entrepreneurship, and compare more closely the two groups of

initiators, the elected officials and the others. We will seek answers to

some questions. Do we find that elected leaders approach the task of economic

development differently from nonelected initiators, when we review their

motives and actions? Such leaders have formal responsibilities and powers not

available to other citizens. They control public funds and other

organizational resources of their governments, and they have the power of

representing and acting for others. How were these powers of elected office

used for economic development projects?

Motivations and Perceptions

Clearly, our economic development leaders were exceptional citizens. Mostly

part-time elected officials or private individuals acting as volunteers, they

devoted many hours to the job of initiating and following through on projects.

Surely, the time and energy could have profited them more on more personal

pursuits. Elected officials could have emphasized other priorities aunong the

many policy areas and functions of local government. What motivated these

leaders to get so involved in taking on the leadership of economic development

projects?

Often these men and women felt a concern for the economic well-being of their

respective communities. But, no dominant answer emerged from the spotty

responses to this question in the phone interviews when we inquired into more

personal perspectives. Community service, self-interest, and natural energy

looking for an outlet were are cumong the motives. These factors were combined

in various ways, as these comments suggest:

I saw the town closing up. I was just an interested citizen who

didn't want to see my town die. (Phone interview, 9/26/88)

I love this town. It is easy to badmouth what others are doing.

It is harder to get involved. (Phone interview, 10/6/88)

19
It all started with failure. I was on the city council and ran

for mayor and lost. I was looking for something to do. Someone

suggested that we form an economic development committee and that

I chair it. (Phone interview, 10/6/88)

One important difference separated the elected officials from the other

initiators. For four of the elected officials, political ambition played a

part in stimulating the leadership of projects. These four were activists

eager to use their offices to bring about community change and were looking

for a chance to engage in major innovations. At least two were recent

arrivals in town (one returning to his home community after education and

work, brimming over with energy and ideas learned elsewhere). Economic

development projects, offering the prospect of dramatically improving

community and individual citizen conditions, provided the opportunity to

accomplish a great deal for the public benefit and thus earn community

gratitude and support for other activities. Other initiators may have seen

success in local government as a stepping stone to higher political office.

Indeed, two of the leaders who were local elected officials later ran for

State legislative positions—both unsuccessfully^—although it is not clear

whether the interest in higher office developed during or before their local

government service. Another elected official, active in State political party

work and a delegate to her party's national nominating convention, expressed

an interest in seeking statewide office.

However, ambition was not implicit in the motivations of the other four

elected officials in the sample. Along with a sense of obligation inherent in

holding public office, devotion to community was apparently the major factor

causing them to jump into the development projects. Two commented on the

"satisfaction" of doing something for their neighbors and friends. Such

officials generally had long records of community activity beginning before,

and continuing after, their election to public office. Leadership in the

economic development area, they perceived, was largely a continuation of

normal community service. One leader, who received a "grassroots leadership"

award from the National Association of Towns and Townships, was concurrently

an elder of her church, secretary of a local grange and of a public library

center, president of a local women's political club, and chairman of the

regional planning commission.

In their devotion to community service, half of the elected officials were not

very different from half or more of the nonelected initiators. Community

service was a prevailing, if underplayed, motive in the actions of most

project leaders. To be sure, there were other motivating factors as well

among the nonelected citizens. "Positive rage," directed to the actions of

county government, was a reason given by one leader. Another referred to the

personal "challenge" presented by the opportunity to take on a major project.

Occupational and professional incentives were obviously implicit in the

activities of three nonelected leaders: a cooperative extension agent, the

executive director of an area chamber of commerce, and a school

superintendent. They initiated projects in the course of their jobs, yet the

innovations so introduced went beyond the normal run of assignments.

Economic self-interest cannot be entirely dismissed, since a number of

nonelected initiators (as well as several elected officials) were local

merchants or owners of other businesses who obviously stood to profit,

directly or indirectly, from added jobs and other economic gains in their

communities. We have no evidence, however, to indicate that this was a

dominant motivation for any one initiator. In any case, it is difficult to

distinguish between self-interest and service in small towns where

communitywide change and individual circumstances are so closely interrelated.

Responsibility and Risk-Taking

That local elected officials have a special responsibility for helping to

boost the economies of their communities was a view expressed by some

initiators. "The mayor can do things other citizens can't," one official

said. Others said that extensive knowledge of the community and the

representation of other citizens made such elected leaders uniquely equipped

20
to lead in the economic development area. In some communities, it was a

matter of filling a leadership vacuum created by the absence or inactivity of

other organizations, as one mayor noted:

Yes, it (economic development) is my responsibility. The people

in the chamber of commerce are volunteers with their own

businesses. They don't have the time. Somebody has to head it

up. Economic development, especially for a small community, is

very important. (Phone interview, 9/15/88)

Such views compelled some elected officials to act in a decidedly

entrepreneurial fashion. They saw the developmental potential of certain

community features and were willing to take risks. "You have to have some

kind of vision for the community, where it will be in 10 or 15 years," one

mayor explained* The risk was most evident in local government commitments of

money and other resources in the early stages of projects*

We were successful because the council put up the money (from a

loan and city reserves) for the industrial park. If this had

fallen flat, the elected officials would have had to answer for

it. But, they all felt they had to do something. (Phone

interview, 9/19/88)

Another elected official also stressed the necessity of risking municipal

funds:

You have to prepare in advance. A business can't wait for you to

extend the water and sewer. The village took a risk and spent a

lot of money. You have to have a plan and then implement it.

There is a lot of competition, so it isn't enough to have a

cornfield and to talk about rural development. (Phone interview,

10/5/88)

Limits on the Role of Local Government

Not all initiators who held elected office, however, were willing or able to

commit their local governments to spending funds or taking other actions to

implement projects. Strategic considerations or the small and inflexible

budgets of local governments were responsible for these omissions. Whatever

risks were inherent in these projects, these risks were passed on to private

sector organizations, including voluntary citizen groups*

Basically, there were differences of opinion among elected and nonelected

leaders alike about the appropriateness of having local governments implement

projects. The differences were most apparent in the kinds of organizations

formed specifically for economic development purposes. As committees

appointed and controlled by elected officials, some were primarily extensions

of local governments. Others were established as separate development

corporations with governing boards acting largely independently of local

government influence. Six such corporations were formed in the sample

communities, three each in communities with and without elected officials as

project initiators.

The underlying reason for keeping industrial park and other project

responsibilities separate from local governments (and from mainstream business

organizations, in some cases) was to pursue economic development as a singleminded and specialized activity. The president of one industrial development

corporation believed that his board had more freedom to act than elected

officials:

Anyone involved in economic development should not become

political or run for elected office. We were recognized

nationally as an economic success, yet none of the city aldermen

survived the next election. If you were the mayor, you couldn't

say some of the things that have to be said and survive

politically. (Phone interview, 10/4/88)

21
A contrary view, expressed in another city, was that elected officials needed

to control the implementation of projects in order to make them compatible

with other policies and programs:

By ownership (of an industrial park) the city has flexibility. We

have a tight set of covenants on the park. We want good, clean

industry. We turned down one company because they would have

created too much pollution. There is a residential area not too

far from the park. (Phone interview, 9/26/88)

This suggests that the initiating and implementing roles in smalltown economic

development are distinct and can be carried out by different actors and

organizations. When elected officials originate projects, they do not

necessarily turn to their own governments for the resources and means of

implementation. Likewise, projects which start out as the initiatives of

private citizens can later become governmental responsibilities.

How Much Democracy?

As well as having the authority to apply government funds and other public

tools, elected officials in small communities also bring to economic

development work their representation of all citizens in the community,

another unique attribute of political leadership. Pfesumably, then, they are

more likely to approach the organization of development projects in a

democratic and citizen-oriented fashion than are leaders without the

obligation and authority of political office.

Some elected initiators did seek widespread coimnunity participation in their

economic development projects through the formation of citizen committees,

town meetings, and other devices. Yet other elected officials were opposed to

involving many others in their projects, preferring to avoid complications and

move as expeditiously as possible. Opening up plans and proposals to

widespread scrutiny, in this view, would have been counterproductive to

accomplishing their objectives, particularly the recruitment of new

businesses.

The two most extreme examples of open and closed leadership processes in our

sample, in fact, were cases in which the initiators were an elected official

and a nonelected citizen, respectively. The mayor, in the first case,

assisted only by the city administrator and by periodic checks with the

council, essentially completed the project—a successful industrial

recruitment—by himself. He purposely avoided the creation of a citizens'

committee and instead devoted his energies to getting a landowner to lower his

price and to overcoming procedural obstacles:

I made sure that the red tape and bureaucracy were eliminated.

Sometimes we get too hung up on zoning, rules, and regulations.

You have to ask yourself—what is the final outcome for the

community, good or bad? If it's good, then maybe we can make a

few variances. (Phone interview, 9/16/88)

In the second case, the most democratic exauftple of project initiation and

implementation, the impetus came from the rank-and-file citizen leadership in

the unincorporated community of Ivânhoer Virginia. Here, the newly formed

civic league, with a sizable membership of local residents, organized a series

of town events and programs which attracted many participants and also pursued

a strategy of grantsmanship and business encouragement.

The objectives of the two projects differed: the recruitment of a specific

business in the first case and the broader goal of building community

institutions in the seconds The two called for different leadership

strategies: quick action and the brokering of resources in the first instanGe

and citizen participation in the second. We cannot infer from this limited

comparison that elected leaders are less likely than private citizens to

follow democratic strategies. What is suggested, however, is that elected

leaders in the pursuit of community improvements are not necessarily confined

to the specific tools of their public office. Nor are some of these tools

22
unavailable to others, especially the ability to represent and organize

citizens for purposive action.

Why Few Political Leaders are Econoaic

Development Entrepreneurs

More similarities than differences characterized the elected officials and

nonelected citizens identified in this study as initiators of smalltown

economic development projects. All operated as entrepreneurs, to one degree

or another. They acted in creative and risky ways to initiate bold new

ventures for their communities.

The 17 cases varied in goals, strategies, and types of projects undertaken but

not in ways that distinguished between the elected officials and the other

initiators. The former were not more likely than the latter to adopt

strategies emphasizing citizen participation nor to use local governments to

implement projects. About the only unique aspect of political leadership

which we can single out in this study as possibly related to economic

development activity was the political aunbition that in part motivated half of

the elected officials to become project initiators.

Why the eight elected officials identified in this study as project initiators

willingly took on this role cannot be explained by any particular attribute of

local elected office. The motivating factors, rather, were specific to

personalities, opportunities, and individual community circumstances. The

formal obligations and responsibilities of public office played a limited

part. More generally, the elected officials saw themselves as acting in the

capacity of citizens who were also community leaders, as did most of the other

project initiators.

Our conclusion from this exploratory study was that the elements of political

leadership in small communities do not closely match the demands of

entrepreneurship in economic development work. This is the implication of

surveys and other studies which note that leadership in this area comes

primarily from private sector actors (John, Batie, and Norris, 1988; McGowan

and Stevens, 1983). Our eight project initiators who were elected officials

were then exceptions to the general pattern.

Why is there not a greater affinity between local political leadership and

economic development entrepreneurship? At least three aspects of political

leadership help explain the gap. Elected officials in small communities

generally (1) are averse to risk-taking in their public duties, (2) are

preoccupied with more routine matters, and (3) lack the driving force of

political ambition. Furthermore, they often find—and accept—the preeminence

of other community leaders and organizations in the economic development area.

Risk-Taking and Political Leaders

Risk-taking is not a natural attribute of local governments and their leaders

(Shapero, 1984). Subject to a high degree of public scrutiny and challenge,

and needing to defend their actions before constituents, local elected

officials tend to be cautious in dealing with new ideas and plans. Especially

in small communities, where the relationship between officials and

constituents is a relatively personal one, political leadership is more a

matter of responding to expressed needs and demands than of promoting

innovations (Sokolow, 1982). Smalltown officials hesitate to get too far out

in front of their neighbors; there is political comfort in keeping to routine

issues and the housekeeping functions of government.

At least two aspects of the initiation of local economic development projects

make this a relatively risky endeavor for elected officials. One is the

length of time it takes for many economic development projects to come to

fruition. Political leaders prefer more immediate payoffs, certainly

occurring during their tenure in office (Howitt, 1987). The second factor is

that economic development innovations, which promise to bring growth and other

23
changes, can easily generate community conflicts, an unappealing prospect for

most elected officials.

The several elected officials in the case study sample who were project

initiators understood well the risks but were willing to take the gsimble. As

visible leaders, several became the subjects of criticism and electoral

attacks, A strategy of bypassing or miniinizing political risk was taken by

nonelected initiators in one community who recognized the probable opposition

of elected officials but wanted to recruit them to their cause.

Heavy Workloads

Smalltown elected officials certainly have more than enough to keep them

occupied without taking on major economic development responsibilities. They

carry heavy workloads, and this is another reason for staying clear of the

demanding tasks of project leadership. The great majority of mayors and

councilmembers in small communities are part-time officials. In practice,

many devote considerably more hours to their public duties than the part-time

status would suggest. Without professional administrators or sizable staffs,

most small local governméTits are administered by their elected officials.

Mayors and counGilmembers thus have multiple responsibilities, serving as

managers of programs as well as representatives and policymakers {Sokolow,

1984).

Some surveys suggest that smalltown officials place a high priority on

economic growth for their communities (Matlock and Peterson, 1987; McGowan

and Stevens, 1983; Russo, Waltzer and Gump, 1987). It is far easier for

political leaders to express support for economic development activities than

to translate such sentiments into personal commitments and actions.

Limited Personal Ambition

Even if such enterprise is risky for many elected officials, the leadership of

major economic development projects offers the possibility for at least a few

to help satisfy their political ambitions, as we have seen. With success,

they can point to a record of accomplishing good works for the community as a

means of building a constituency for higher office. A further advantage of

economic development work for the ambitious local official is the honing of

entrepreneurial and other skills which can be useful in other political

arenas.

Political ambition, however, is generally a scarce comraodity among smalltown

officials. Put simply, there are far too few offices at higher levels of

American government to entice more than a tiny number of the several hundred

thousand officeholders who serve in local government nationwide, most in small

communities. The more common incentives for seeking and holding elective

office^ instead, involve several variations on the desire to serve one's

community (Sokolow, 1989).

This means that few smalltown officials are looking for the one or two big

projects by which to score major political points. Some may have personal

agendas, goals to be accomplished before leaving publia office. But, the

goals tend to be relatively modest ones, such as more efficient governmental

programs, revamped procedures and ordinances, and st resit improvement s •

Relatively few smalltown offieials take office with the intention of promoting

long-term community building efforts.

Other Organizations

Even if they wanted to take a more active part in the leadership of economic

development projects, some elected officials would find the territory alrectdy

dominated by other leaders and organizations. Businessmen, bankers,

development professionals, and other private sector actors are more typically

the prime initiators of projects than are government officials. Community

development organizations, varying in the formality of their relationship to

local governments, are widely used to promote and coordinate local projects.

By one estimate, there are 15,000 such organizations throughout the Nation

24
(Rubin, 1986). Some are regional planning and development agencies, which

offer their expertise to rural communities within their areas.

Indeed, one view expressed in the literature on economic development—a view

also echoed by a few of the initiators in the case studies we reviewed—is

that political leaders are not the appropriate persons to take charge of

projects. Since they are often hindered by procedural and political

requirements, they are not able to act quickly enough to take advantage of

economic opportunities. Thus political leaders are best confined to a

supporting role, with the key entrepreneurial activities left to those more

familiar with the business world (John, Batie, and Norris, 1988; Thompson,

1983). As visualized in one study, that support role is largely one of

assisting private interests to make locational decisions by providing a

"stable and predictable environment for the creation of a new plant or

facility" (Bachtel and Molnar, 1980).

The hesitancy of political leaders in the mainstream work of economic

development seems to apply primarily to industrial recruitment projects. We

may ask if political leadership is more suited to the job of directing other

kinds of projects, smaller in scale, which do not depend on negotiations with

outside corporations as the central activity. Efforts to stimulate small

enterprises by working largely with friends and neighbors, for example, may

match more closely the leadership skills of elected officials (Stark, 1987;

Weinberg, 1987). However, we have no evidence from the 17 cases surveyed that

elected officials are more inclined to initiate certain kinds of projects than

others. An extensive study of a larger and more representative sample of

small-community cases could very well lead to such findings.

A Final Note: Researching Economic Development

in Small Communities

What we know about the hows and whys of economic development in rural and

other small communities is minimal, despite a proliferating literature on the

subject. There are good reasons for desiring a better understanding of the

process, besides a basic intellectual curiosity about community dynamics.

Foremost is the practical necessity to know more about the kinds of results

that given strategies and forms of community organization are likely to

produce and how these linkages vary from one community to another and over

time within individual localities. In the absence of such understandings,

national and State policies which determine funding and other priorities for

rural development purposes operate largely in the dark. Much the same point

can be made for the "frontline" people who work in this area, community

leaders and the professionals who provide assistance, such as extension

specialists and development experts.

Rural development is rarely examined systematically and empirically as a

process involving the interaction of individual leaders and organizations.

Some studies do present useful ideas and generalizations. But such studies

are overshadowed by the inherent weaknesses of the two kinds of published

works which dominate the field: prescriptions on "how to do" economic

development, and single-community case studies. The prescriptions assume that

there are standard principles and practices which are readily applicable to

all situations. Likewise, the isolated case studies proceed as if the

"lessons" they impart can be broadly generalized. Both approaches lack a full

appreciation of the varied landscape of smalltown America. Their findings,

which often reflect only common sense, fail to dig into the complexities which

even small comj^unities possess.

Still, local economic development is not composed of largely random events.

There are regularities; there are patterns which can help explain relative

successes and failures. Also, to sort out the complexities of local

situations is to exannine differences among communities and situations, not

merely to search for common features. The productive research strategy looks

for such patterns, which show how local conditions, perceptions, motivations,

and events are related in individual communities and between communities.

25
Our comparative study of 17projects in small con^ tries to trace out

such relationships. But, based as they are on secondary sources----short,

individually prepared cases, suppiemented by a few phone interviews—the

findings lack the depth and comprehensiveness which more systematic research

could produce. Nevertheless, they do suggest the following key questions

about economic development processes.

1. Who leads and why? Leadership in economic developätönt matters can be

understood only in the context of both personal incentives and conmmñity

conditions. Sma1Itown c it izens do not compete with one another for the

privilege of initiating projects. Few step forward, as the ré^

cases indicates. That most of these are voluriteers, not professionals in

public or private agencies, points out the elusive character of leadership in

this area.

2. How do leaders overcome adversitv? Most published case studies of rural

economic development lack sufficient detail to show the relationship of

leadership to later activities amd especially fail to show how opposition and

other obstacles are overcqmjB as projects develop. In straining to present

success stories, they gloss over whatever conflicts and frustrations occ^

Realism requires that such cases provide a careful look at all sides of the

sequence of events and personal interactionsv

3. How are goals implemented? We need to know more about the transformcttion

of goals into concrete activity. But, some successful smalltown projects do

not originate from written and comprehensive plans. Gonventional wisdoin

aside, not all economic development activities proceed according to

articulated goals. Without formal plans, are projects less likely to succeed?

4. What Strateaies work under what circumstances? Among all types of projects

selected (industrial recruitment, small business stimulation, local

cooperatives, and so forth) and methods used (development corporations,

citizen participation, and so forth), economic development efforts vary

widely• Why some strategies are selected rather than others in certain

situations or by particular leaders, and what may be the coir^pàrative impacts

of different kinds of projects and methods, are questions that are largely

unanswered in the literature. We suspect that there is a causal link between

objective and method, that a certain kind of^ project or set of desired results

calls for a particular strategy rather than another. StraLtégies which

emphasize widespread citizen invblvement do not seem to work effectively for

certain kinds of projects and objectives, as several of the cases included in

this study suggest.

5. How is outside assistance most effectivêlyemploved? Rural economic

development is inherently a local process, primarily^^d^ the will and

energy of community leaders. Yet/ as our cases also show, outside assistance

is also frequently present. While the benefits of Federal and State funds are

obvious, we lack a good understanding of how and when other forms of outside

assistance—primarily information and technical aid--are best used. It is,

however, apparent that effective intervention strategies employed by

cooperative extension specialists and other assistance providers have to be

sensitive to local circumstances. Small communities vary greatly in 4*esources

and^ skill; the outside help which can profit some communities and leaders may

be irrelevant or even counterproductive elsewhere.

6. What about "failure" stories? ease studies tend to point out exceptional

success stories. By definition, then, there must be many more unexceptional

small communities in the country, towns lacking a record of economic

development activity or with a record of starting projects which achieved

minimal or no benefits* Only by comparing the successes with the failures can

we pin down a basic understanding of the ingredients of success.

26
Annotated Bibliography

Bachtel, Douglas C., and Joseph J. Molnar. "Black and White Leader

Perspectives on Rural Industrialization." Rural Sociology 45 (Winter^: 663-

680/ 1980.

A comparison of views in eight nonmetropolitan counties in the

South which finds that black leaders were relatively sensitive to

labor-related matters in economic develdpnent, while white leaders

placed a greater emphasis on general community growth issues.

Local governments are seen as providing a "stable and predictable

environment" for economic development.

Berkowitz, Bernard L. "Economic Development Really Worksî Baltimore,

Maryland." In Urban Economic Development. Ed. Richard D. Bingham and John P.

Blair. Urban Affairs Annual Review 24. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1984.

An analysis of economic development activity in Baltimore since

the 1960's, describing a variety of projects with leadership from

a strong mayor and the business community. Pertinent mayoral

powers included the control over budgets and appointments and the

potential for "coordination and consistency" of city programs.

Brown, Hamilton. "Home-grown Leadership Shines in Small Communities."

National Community Reporter 49 (February): 1985.

Doig, Jameson W., and Erwin C. Hargrove, eds. Leadership and Innovation; A

Biographical Perspective on Entrepreneurs in Government. Baltimore, MD:

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1987.

Strategies used by "entrepreneurial leaders," as revealed in the

biographies of several well-known innovators (David Lilienthal,

Gifford Pinchot, Admiral Hyman Rickover, and others) in the

executive branch of the U.S. Government. Key aspects of the

personality and skill of such leaders include the capacity to

engage in systematic rational analysis, the ability to see new

possibilities in a situation, and the desire to make a difference.

Felbinger, Claire L. "Economic Development or Economic Disaster? Joliet,

Illinois." In Urban Economic Development. Ed. Richard D. Bingham and John P.

Blair. Urban Affairs Annual Reviews 27. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage

Publications, 1984.

A study of a medium-sized (77,000 population) city, which shows

the effects of both external (strikes, aging plants, market

problems) and internal (city government attitudes) forces on local

economic distress. Especially noted is the absence of proactive

government leadership on economic development matters. Political

leaders were resistant to working with industry to renoyate plants

and retain jobs, reflecting longstanding antagonisms, broader

community sentiments, and protectton of the status quo. The

article also contains a general commentary on the role of local

government in facilitating economic development.

Ferman, Barbara. Governing the Ungovernable City; Political Skills,

Leadership^ and the Modern Mavor. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press,

1985.

A comparison of mayoral leadership during the 1970's in Boston and

San Francisco. Factors which contribute to strong executive

leadership are explored. Mayoral power in the two cities is

compared according to political skills, political culture, and the

characteristics of the political system. Some examples of

leadership in economic development projects are used.

Frederick, Martha. "Directions in Rural Entrepreneurship: Insights Gained

from a Review of the Literature." Paper presented at the 1988 meeting of the

Southern Regional Science Association in Morgantown, WV, April 14-16, 1988.

This paper applies the concept of entrepreneurship to rural

economic development. Twelve attributes of environments conducive

27
to entrepreneurship are listed, followed by a dis<:ussibn of the

elements of rural infrastructure.

Ghiselin, Bernie. "l-eadership Development: The Need and Response*" In

Community Leadership Development; Present and Future. Regional Center for

Rural Development, National Extension Task Force for Community Leaderships^

university Park/ PA^ n.d.

A comparison of leaders and managers which notes that the "great

enemy of leadership is specialization".

Hibbard, Michael. "Reversing Economic Decline: State Policy and Local

Politics in Oregon." Paper presented at the National Conference of the

American Society for Public Administrationr Anaheim, CA, Aprii 13*16; 1S86.

Hibbard examines the "fatal fLawv in an otherwise exciting local

development program in Oregoñ--thé absence of "development

catalysts." These people help interpret programs for^1^

"In addition to cultivating^ financial and technical resources/ the

developnent catalyst seeks to create a sense of community efficacy

and an analytical understanding of t^he economic, social> and

political environment the community is operating in."

Howitt, Arnold M. "Mayors and Policy innovation*" Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Political Science Association/ Washington, DC,

September 1-4, 1987.

An examination of the motivations and limits of policy innovâtion on the

part of municipal mayors (nearly all in big cities}. The political

costs and benefits of mayoral innovation are described, especially those

which are affected by the timing of projects.

John, Dewitt, Sandra S. Batie, and Kim Norris. Brighter Future for Rural

America? Strategies for Communities and States. National Governors

Association, Washington, DC, 1988.

A report on how State governments can contribute to prosperity in

their rural areas. Chapter 3 is an examination of local

strategies, based on a study of 16 high growth {new business)

creations in the midwestern farm belt. The findings identify

"eight keys to success,." several of which deal with the actions of

local leaders. The appropriate role of local government officials

is characterized as being "supportive" of business leaders and

others.

Kent, Calvin A. "The Rediscovery of the Entrepreneur." In The Environment

for Entrepreneurship. Ed. Calvin A> Kent/ Lexington, MA: D.C^ Heath and

Company, 1984*

Economists have not always been clear on the concept of

entrepreneurship* Reviewing the ideas of several major writers,

the articles note a coimnon view of thé entrepreneur as an

instigator of change.

Lawrence, Kathleen. "Changing Rural Landscapest It's Time for Coalition

Building." Choices 2; 4-7/ 1987/

The answer to rural development problem^ lies within the

communities themselves, in the human infrastructure. Local

governments are best suited to tackle rural development, but they

lack the fiscal resources to undertake the task. Lawrence

suggests a coalition of local, State, and Federal governments

working with the private sector to achieve economic development.

Malizia, Emil E*, and Sarah Rubin* "A Grass Roots Development Strategy with

Local Development Organizations." Rural Development Perspectives 1(3):

7-13, 1985.

A review of the experiences of local development organizations in

small cities and rural areas, which makes the case for greater

State government support for local development organizations

(LDO's). Several examples are given of how LDO's can stimulate

small enterprises which build on resources already in the

community.

28
Matlock, Linda McGregor^ and Douglas D. Peterson. The State of the Small

Gitv; A Survey of the Nation's Cities and Towns Under 50,000. The National

League of Cities, Washington, DC, 1987.

A survey of small city problems, as reported for a sample of 395

responding cities and towns. The top problem identified by many

was lack of "the ability to attract industry and jobs."

McGowan, Robert P, and John M. Stevens. "Local Government Initiatives in a

Climate of Uncertainty." Public Administration Review 43 (2): 127-136, 1983.

An examination of measures taken by local governments to deal with

changes in Federal-State-local relations, based on a survey of

managers and mayors of 90 Pennsylvania municipalities. The local

officials tended to be passive in their policy actions, innovating

mainly under conditions of "extreme revenue abundance or

deprivation." The study includes several findings which relate to

economic development programs. Economic development was seen as

belonging at the community level, with the focus on private sector

initiatives.

Miller, James P. "Rethinking Small Businesses as the Best Way to Create Rural

Jobs." Rural Development Perspectives 1 (2): 9-12, 1985.

Some recent data may temper the enthusiasm for a strictly smallscale approach to rural economic development. Affiliates of large

corporations create most new jobs. Independent firms create fewer

permanent jobs than affiliated firms. Small independent firms

create many jobs when new, but high failure rates and low job

expansion lead to net losses after 5 years. Large independent

firms create fewer jobs, but they are more stable, and they

account for fewer plant closures and layoffs.

Murphy, Russell D. "The Mayoralty and the Democratic Creed: The Evolution of

an Ideology and an Institution." Urban Affairs Quarterly 22 (1): 3-23, 1986.

This historical review of the development of the "strong" mayor in

American local government highlights ambiguities in how the office

is supposed to enhance democratic control.

Pressman, Jeffrey L. "Preconditions of Mayoral Leadership." American

Political Science Review 66 (2): 511-524, 1972.

An analysis of "weak" mayoral leadership in Oakland, CA, in the

late 1960's.

"The R-Spirit Flourishes." Regeneration (Mar.-Apr.): p. 50, 1988.

Reid, J. Norman. "Development Strategies for Rural Areas." Paper presented

at the Fifth Annual Conference of the Virginia Economic Developers Association

on "Virginia's Position in the Global Economy,"Fredericksburg, VA, Sept. 11,

1987.

Self-development is suggested as the most plausible way to improve

the rural economic climate, since this strategy maximizes the

human capital already available to rural communities. Reid argues

that, while the State should have an increased role in rural

development, the primary role should be reserved for regional

agencies. Regional agencies can pool resources while maintaining

the decisionmaking authority at a more local level.

. "Increasing the Effectiveness of Local Government

Institutions." Paper prepared for presentation at the symposium on "The Great

Plains of the Future," Denver, CO, Nov. 4, 1987.

A self-development strategy offers improvements that include more

equitable income levels and distribution, better health, more

opportunities for self-actualization, better quality environment,

and a more constructive community life. Local politicians might

be reluctant to embrace self-development because the results are

slow in coming, and successes may not come during their term of

office.

29
Rubin, Herbert J. "Local Economic Devélopinent Organizations and the

Activities of Small Cities in Encouraging Economic Growth." Policy Stuáies

Journal 14 (3): 363-388, 1986.

A study of local development organizations which finds that

communities with LDO'sexperietiçe an increase in economic

development activities. Variations in LDO forms {not-for-profits,

commissions, chambers of commerce, and the like) and relationships

to local conditions are exflimined.

Russo, Philip A., Jr., Herbert Waltzer, and W. Robert Gump. "Rural Local

Government Management and the New Federalisms Local Attitudes in Southwestern

Ohio." Publius: The Journal of Federalism 17 (4): 147-159/1987.

A survey of technical assistance needs, as reported by elected and

appointed officials in a sample of Ohio small cities, villages,

and townships. Respondents tended to emphasize general policy and

management issues more than specific service delivery items.

Assistance in economic development matters was ranked as the top

item by city and village councilmembers.

Schell, Douglas VÍ., and William Davig. "The Community Infrastructure of

Entrepreneurship: A Sociopolitical Analysis." In Frontiers of

Entrepreneurship Research. Ed. Karl H. Vesper. Babson Center for

Entrepreneurial Studies, Babson Parky PA, 1981.

A study of entrepreneurship in Alabama counties which notes the

role of "macroentreprenèurs," leaders who exploit underutilized

resources at the community level.

Shapero, Albert. "The Entrepreneurial Event." In The Environment for

Entrepreneurship. Ed. Calvin A. Kent. Lexington, MAî D.C. Heath and CO.,

1984.

A description of how the environment influences entrepreneurship.

"The primary effect of the political-legislative-administrative

environment on entrepreneurship is negative." But, "There is an

area that lies between the economic and politica:l elements in the

environment. Public bodies can make public resources available to

entrepreneurs and potential entrepreneurs." Entrepreneurs are an

asset to a rural community since they can help rural economies

diversify and become dynamic.

Snavely, Keith, and Alvin D. Sokolow. "Who Advises the Council? Sources of

Advice in Smalltown Governments." Rural Development Perspectives 3 (2): 25-

29, 1987.

With small staffs and lacking professional administrators, local

government policymakers in small communities rely on informal

sources of information and advice. Personnel carry out caul tiple

tasks; part-time municipal attorneys and engineering consultants,

for example, are called upon to provide info beyond their

specialties. The article was based on a comparative study of

management and palicymaking in eight small California and Illinois

municipal governments.

Sokolow, Alvin D. "The Local Dimension: Finding and Using Community

Resources for Rural Governments." In Rural Governments in a Time of Change;

Challenges and Opportunities. Rural Governments Coalition, Washington, DC,

83-111, 1982.

A survey of the resources available to local governments in rural

communities which emphasizes the capability of small governments

to control their environment. Examined are the resources

represented by elected officials and other individuals,

organizational abilities, and fiscal resources.

"The Elected Official as Expert: Governing Boards in Rural

Communities." Rural Development Perspectives 1 (l)z 4-8, 1984.

An exploration of the extent to which city council and county

board members in rural communities, without professional

administrators, serve as their own policy and program experts,

major finding is that such generalists are most competent in

30
dealing with routine matters, including the ongoing management of

their governments. Based on a study of 12 small municipal and

county governments in California and Illinois*

"Legislators Without Ambition: Why Small-Town Citizens Seek

Public Office." State and Local Government Review 21 (1): 23-30, 1989.

This study of governing board members in 12 small county and

municipal governments in California and Illinois examines the

motivations for seeking office. Few smalltown candidates and officials

are motivated by ambition for higher office, since such opportunities

are quite limited. Instead, one or another variant of "community

service" is the usual motivating factor.

Stark, Nancy. "11 Ways Officials Can Help Local Business." National

Association of Towns and Townships Reporter 75 (9): 1987.

"^Finding jobs for our people* is today's local government

agenda," Stark argues. Local officials have an important role in

helping to create small businesses, through such actions as

accommodating local zoning to business needs, providing a one-stop

information center, establishing revolving loan funds, and

promoting positive community attitudes.

Sundquist, Jêunes L. Making Federalism Work. The Brookings Institution,

Washington, DC, 1969.

This study, an examination of the implementation of development

programs in urban and rural areas, emphasizes the use of

multicounty agencies.

Thomas, Margaret G. Profiles in Rural Economic Development. Kansas City, MO:

Midwest Research Institute, 1988.

A series of case studies which briefly describe projects and

events. The following were reviewed in this report:

"Diversifying From a Tourism Economy: La Paz County, Arizona,"

19-20.

"A Successful Rural Area Industrial Park: Seaford, Delaware,"

29-30.

"Bootstrapping: A Small Town's Regenesis: Helen, Georgia," 37-38.

"Development of an Agricultural Park: Maui County, Hawaii," 39-40.

"Rural Industrial Development: Fruitland, Idaho," 41-42.

"Revitalization and Renovation in a Very Small Community:

Blue Mound, Illinois," 43-44.

"Central Business District Revitalization: Brunswick, Maryland,"

57-58.

"Building a $900,000 Revolving Loan Fund for Small Business Expansion

and Development: Baraga, Michigan," 63-54.

"Creation of Industrial Jobs to Bring a Town Back: Cuba, Missouri,"

75-76.

"Dramatic Recovery From High Unemployment—A Strong Mayor and Help

From Levi Strauss: Adamsville, Tennessee," 103-104.

"A Comprehensive Development Strategy: Evansville, Wisconsin,"

111-12.

"Way Off Broadway Deli—^A Rural School Enterprise: St. Pauls,

North Carolina," 127-129.

31
"A Homegrown Industry Built on Tradition: Gross Creek Valley,

Pennsylvania," 131-132.

"A Gritty Little Community Fights for Survival, One Step at a Time:

Ivanhoe, Virginia," 137-138.

"The Clown Hall of Fame: Recapturing a Town's Heritage: Delavan,

Wisconsin," 141-142.

Thompson, Lyke. "The Polities of Economic Development: A Qualitative Case

Study." Urban Resources 1 (Summer): 33-40, 1983.

A case study of the transfer of an old military base, acquired by city

government^ into an industrial park development in Battle Creek, MI.

Supported by the local economic elite, the city government created a

nonprofit, independent corporation to market the development, which

bypassed municipal proGedures and politics. The mayor (more

aggressive than his predecessors) and the city manager initiated the

project.

Waltzer, Herbert, Philip A. Russo, Jr., and W. Robert Gump. "Professional

Networks and Local Officials: A Missing Link in Small Government Management."

Rural Development Perspectives 2 (3): 35-39, 1986.

A study of municipal and township officials in Ohio, which suggests

that officials of rural local governments are linked only marginally

to professional networks that exchange public management information,

services, and resources.

Wareing, Bryan. "The Case for Council Involvement." Municipal World 97 (2):

103, 1987.

Published in a Canadian journal, this article makes the case for the

leadership of economic developmeTit projects by local government

officials.

Weinberg, Mark L. "Business Incubators Give New Firms in Rural Areas a Head

Start." Rural Development Perspectives 3 (2): 6-10, 1987.

A description of various types of business incubators, including the

elaboration of techniques for overcoming the problem of limited clientele

pools. Rural local governments can serve as sponsors of incubators.

Although this is a fairly new business development tool, the number of

incubators nationwide has increased dramatically since 1980.

32
Appendix—Phone Interview Items

Questions asked in phone interviews with key participants in 17 economic

deve1opment cases:

1. As I understand it, this project involved ____^ (summary of

description in published case study). Is this correct?

2. How did the project get started?

—As a result of a particular problem or community condition?

3. Who initiated the project?

4. Who provided the leadership for the project?

5. What did the leader(s) do?

6. Who else was involved in the project? What did they do?

7. What assistance was sought from agencies outside the community? What

agencies?

8. How did the project develop or change over time?

—In participants? —In activities?

9. Was a specific plan developed to guide the project?

10. What funding was provided for the project? From what sources?

11. What new community organizations, if any, were established during the course

of the project?

—How were they constituted?

12. Exactly how were local governments involved in the project?

13. (If a particular local government official is identified as a project leader)

Why this person? Particular motivations?

14. (If no local government official is identified as a project leader) Why not?

Was there any official who could have acted in a leadership capacity?

15. In your view, do officials elected to run local government in small

communities—^such as mayors—have a unique responsibility to lead economic

development efforts?

—Why? —Why not?

16. Finally, what did this project accomplish? What specific benefits?

Additional questions asked of elected officials who were project leaders:

1. Would it be accurate to say you provided "leadership" for the project? In

what ways?

2. Why did you get involved in this project in the first place?

3. Did you have a prior interest, before coming into office, in economic

development ?

4. I imagine that there are many other responsibilities and demands on your time

and effort in this office. Why, then, did you give this project a high

priority?

5. Do you have any ambition for higher public office?

33

T^U.S. Government Printing Office : 1990 - 282-958/20908
Get these timely reports from USDA's

Economic Research Service

These periodicals bring you the latest information on food» the farm, and rural

America to help you keep your expertise up-to-date. Order these periodicals to

get the latest facts, figures, trends, and issues from ERS.

Agricultural Outlook, Presents USDA's farm income and food price forecasts. Emphasizes the short-term

outlook, but also presents long-term analyses of issues ranging from international trade to U.S. land use and

availability. Packed with more than 50 pages of charts, tables, and text that provide timely and useful information.

Economic Indicators ofthe Farm Sector. Updates economic trends in U.S. agriculture. Each issue explores a different aspect of income and expenses: national and State financial summaries, production and efficiency

statistics, and costs of production for livestock and dairy and for major field crops.

Farmline, Concise, fact-filled articles focus on economic conditions facing farmers, how the agricultural environment is changing, and the causes and consequences of those changes for farm and rural people. Synthesizes farm

economic information with charts and statistics.

ForeignAgricultural Trade ofthe United States, Every 2 months brings you quantity and value of

U.S. farm exports and imports, plus price trends. Subscription includes two big 3(X)-page supplements containing data

for the previous fiscal or calendar year. A must for traders/

Journal of AgriculturalEconomicsResearch. Technical research in agricultural economics, including

econometric models and statistics on methods employed and results of USDA economic research.

National FoodReview. Offers the latest developments in food prices, product safety, nutrition programs, consumption patterns, and marketing.

Rural Conditions and Trends. Tracks rural events: macroeonomic conditions, employment and underemployment, industrial structure, earnings and income, poverty and population.

Rural DevelopmentPerspectives. Crisp, nontechnical articles on the results of the most recent and the

most relevant research on rural areas and small towns and what those results mean.

I I Check here for a free subscription to Reports^ a quarterly catalog describing the latest ERS research reports.

It's designed to help you keep up-to-date in all areas related to food, the farm, the rural economy, foreign trade, and the

environment.

See other side for other periodicals available from ERS!

1 year 2 years 3 years

Agricultural Outlook ( 11 per year) $26 $51 $75

Economic Indicators of the Farm Sector (5 per year) $14 $27 $39

Farmline (11 per year) $12 $23 $33

Foreign Agricultural Trade of the United States (8 per year) $25 $49 $72

Joumal of Agricultural Economics Research (4 per year) $8 $15 $21

National Food Review (4 per year) $11 $21 $30

Rural Conditions and Trends (4 per year) $14 $27 $39

Rural Development Perspectives (3 per year) $9 $17 $24

Complete both sides of this order form.

Single copies of all periodicals available for $8.00 each.

SSSgffi
Save by subscribing for up to 3 years!

Situation cuid Outlook Reports. These reports provide timely analyses and forecasts of all major

agricultural commodities and related topics such as finance, farm inputs, land values, and world and

regional developments.

Agricultural Exports (4 per year)

Agricultural Income and Finance (4 per year)

Agricultural Resources (5 per year, each devoted to

one topic, including Inputs, Agricultural Land Values

andNiarkets, and Cropland, Water, and Conservation.)

Aquaculture (2 per year)

Cotton and Wool (4 per year)

Dairy (5 per year)

Feed (4 per year)

Fruit and Tree Nuts (4 per year)

Livestock and Poultry (6 per year plus 2 supplements)

Livestock and Poultry Update (monthly)

Oil Crops (4 per year)

Rice (3 per year)

Sugar and Sweetener (4 per year)

Tobacco (4 per year)

Vegetables and Specialties (3 per year)

U.S. Agricultural Trade Update (monthly)

Wheat (4 per year)

World Agriculture (4 per year)

Agriculture and Trade Reports (5 per year)

Supplement your subscription to World Agriculture

by subscribing to these five annuals: Western Europe,

Pacific Rim, Developing Economies, China, and USSR.

Forfastest service, call toll free: l'800-999-6779 (8:30-5:00 ET in

the U.S. and Canada; other areas please call 301-725-7937)

lyear 2 years 3 years

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$17 $33 $48

$15 $29 $42

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$15 $29 $42

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

$12 $23 $33

• Use purchase orders, checks drawn

on U.S. banks, cashier's checks, or

international money orders.

• Make payable to ERS-NASS.

• Add 25 percent for shipments to

foreign addresses (includes Canada).

Bill me. Enclosed is $_

Credit Card Orders:

Name

Organization

Address

City, State, Zip

Daytime phone (_

MasterCard D VISA Total charges $.

Credit card number:

Month / Year

Expiration date:

IMWWWWWWWWWWftW

Complete both sides of this order form and mail to:

ERS-NASS

P.O. Box 1608

RockviUe.MD 20849-1608