1 

Building an Entrepreneurial Future: Ideas for Appalachia’s 

Ecosystem Builders and Champions 

September 2018 

EntreWorks Consulting with the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship 

and the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness 

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in 

Appalachia 

Prepared for: 
 2

About This Report

This report was prepared under contract to the Appalachian Regional Commission on a project entitled 

Documenting and Strengthening Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Appalachia (CO-18608-2016). The 

project was led by EntreWorks Consulting, in partnership with the Center for Regional Economic 

Competitiveness and the Center for Rural Entrepreneurship. The Appalachian Regional Commission 

(ARC) is an economic development agency of the federal government and 13 state governments 

focusing on 420 counties across the Appalachian Region. ARC’s mission is to innovate, partner, and 

invest to build community capacity and strengthen economic growth in Appalachia to help the Region 

achieve socioeconomic parity with the nation. www.arc.gov.

This report, Building an Entrepreneurial Future: Ideas for Appalachia’s Ecosystem Builders and 

Champions, was written by Erik R. Pages (EntreWorks Consulting), with support from Deborah Markley 

(Center for Rural Entrepreneurship), and the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness’ Cathy 

Katona and Lindsay Johnson. We are grateful to our partners at the Appalachian Regional Commission 

and the many committed ecosystem builders around Appalachia who helped with this research, but 

more importantly are working to nurture Appalachia’s entrepreneurs. 

This report is part of a larger project entitled Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Appalachia. Additional 

project materials can be accessed at www.arc.gov, as well as the project’s website: 

http://arceco.creconline.org.
 3

For most of its recent history, a few major industries -- resource extraction (mainly coal and forestry), 

agriculture, and manufacturing – dominated Appalachia’s economy. The prosperity of Appalachian 

communities rose and fell with the fortunes of these sectors, and for many coal-dependent regions, the 

boom and bust cycles were quite severe. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector suffered greatly from 

global competition, especially with imports from China and other low-cost countries. Over the past ten 

to twenty years, busts have dominated the booms, and most of the core sectors of the Appalachian 

economy have suffered from structural business and job loss along with community disinvestment and 

decline. 

The Appalachian entrepreneur is largely missing from this economic narrative. Of course, 

entrepreneurs started the mines or opened new factories, but most of those investments were decades 

ago when coal became king; when textiles and furniture sought out cheap energy; and when tourists 

began seeking out Appalachian cultural assets and the Region’s natural beauty. Even so, the Region 

spawned few new scale-up businesses or technologies; it was not known as a place of innovation. Ideas 

that developed here tended to enrich people from far away. Wider global technology and economic 

forces and corporate decisions made elsewhere determined the economic circumstances of the Region 

and its early entrepreneurs. 

Relatively higher levels of economic distress in Appalachia and the Region’s relatively weaker 

performance on various measures of economic dynamism and technology-led economic development 

reflect these legacies. For example, throughout the 1990s and 2000s, West Virginia consistently ranked 

as the weakest national performer in the annual Kauffman Foundation Index of Entrepreneurial 

Activity.1 Other states within the Appalachian Region, including Ohio and Pennsylvania, also performed 

poorly. Similarly, the 2010 State New Economy Index ranked five ARC region states in the bottom ten in 

its assessment of state capacity to support innovation and technology-led development.2

However, in recent years, the Region’s performance on key measures of innovation and 

entrepreneurship has improved. In the 2017 edition of the State New Economy Index, Tennessee 

showed the greatest improvement in relative performance, and several other ARC states (Georgia, 

Kentucky, Ohio, and Virginia) also saw big jumps in their rankings.3 The Kauffman Index finds that 

 

1

Robert W. Fairlie, Kauffman Index of Entrepreneurial Activity, 1996-2012. Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, 

April 2013. The research also found that many states within the Appalachian region, such as Georgia and South 

Carolina, were among the nation’s top performers. 

2

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation and the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation, The 2010 State 

New Economy Index: Benchmarking Transformation in the States. Available at: http://www.kauffman.org/whatwe-do/research/2010/11/2010-state-new-economy-index.

3

Robert D. Atkinson and J. John Wu, The 2017 State New Economy Index: Benchmarking Transformation in the 

States. Information Technology and Innovation Foundation Report available at: http://www2.itif.org/2017-statenew-economy-index.pdf. 
 4

Appalachian states perform extremely well in terms of growth companies, although performance in 

measures of new startups and Main Street businesses is less promising.4

The Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Appalachia Project

Data from the Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in Appalachia project also suggest an optimistic take on 

Appalachia’s economic prospects. These data compare the performance of every county in the 

Appalachian Region on many measures to national, state, and regional averages. The data are available 

at the Appalachian Entrepreneurial Dynamism Dashboard at http://arceco.creconline.org/dash/. The 

Dashboard tracks county economic performance on several fronts:

 What does the local business base look like?

o Share of Startup Establishments

o Share of High Growth Companies

o Share of Stage 2 Companies (i.e., those with 10-99 employees)

 How are local firms performing?

o Growth in the number of establishments, 2010 to 2015

o Growth in jobs, 2010-2015 

o Growth in sales, 2010-2015

As Figure 1 shows, county performance on these measures varies greatly. Yet, in general, there are few 

sizable differences between the overall performance of the Appalachian Region and national averages. 

In reviewing the data, researchers found a higher concentration of entrepreneurial activity in 

metropolitan centers within and near the Appalachian Region, and also in communities with research 

universities. In states that include both ARC and non-ARC counties, counties within the ARC service area 

show similar performance to statewide averages after controlling for the location of metro areas and 

university centers.

This mixed performance makes it difficult to speak of common entrepreneurial dynamism trends across 

Appalachia. There is significant variation in performance across and within states. For example, in Ohio, 

the Appalachian counties are strong performers when compared to national and Appalachian Region 

averages. However, they underperform in comparison to non-Appalachian counties in Ohio. Most 

other states show a similar mix in outcomes. However, West Virginia consistently lags behind other 

states on all of these measures. 

Digging deeper into the various sub-measures also yields some interesting insights. At the broadest 

level, entrepreneurial dynamism levels appear to be low and/or below average in parts of Central and 

Southern Appalachia (eastern Kentucky and Tennessee, Alabama, and north Georgia). In the case of 

 

4

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, The Kauffman Index: Entrepreneurship Series. Available at: 

http://www.kauffman.org/kauffman-index
 5

Central Appalachia, this subregion also shows some of the highest levels of economic distress in the 

Region.5

Figure 1: Entrepreneurial Dynamism in Appalachia: Performance by County, 2011-2015

The share of startups and the growth of new establishments often serve as markers of a location’s 

economic dynamism, as economic growth generates new opportunities for new businesses. Across 

Appalachia, startup concentrations fall slightly below U.S. averages. In Appalachia as a whole, startup 

establishments made up 26.3 percent of all firms in 2015. In the U.S., startups comprised 30.7 percent 

 

5

See County Economic Status and Distressed Areas in Appalachia at 

https://www.arc.gov/appalachian_region/CountyEconomicStatusandDistressedAreasinAppalachia.asp.
 6

of all establishments in the same year. The Appalachian Region outperformed the U.S. average in terms 

of the growth in the number of establishments between 2010 and 2015 (see Figure 2). In Appalachia, 

new establishments jumped by 6.1 percent between 2010 and 2015. Across the U.S., this figure was 5.8 

percent.

Figure 2: New Establishment Growth in Appalachia, By County: 2011-2015

Startup establishment concentrations vary greatly by county. Lower startup shares and new 

establishment growth rates are concentrated in central and southern Appalachia. Stronger 

performances can be found in the Appalachian portions of Ohio, South Carolina, North Carolina, 

Pennsylvania, and New York. Several of these locations, including counties in New York, North Carolina, 

and Ohio, are the subject of deep dive case studies as part of the larger Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in
 7

Appalachia Project. These reports can be found online at arc.gov, as well as the project website at 

http://arceco.creconline.org.

Successful ecosystems help spawn new startup companies, and though these companies are essential to 

the entrepreneurial health of any particular area, high growth ventures tend to be the real drivers of 

new job and wealth creation. As such, Appalachia’s overall performance in terms of high-growth 

establishments is promising (see Figure 3). Our data show that between 2010 and 2015, Appalachia’s 

share of high-growth companies (1.7%) is slightly higher than the national average (1.5%). Sales and job 

growth data also suggest few differences in performance between Appalachia and the U.S. over this 

time frame. 

Figure 3: Growth in the Number of High Growth Establishments in Appalachia, By County: 

2011-2015
 8

Across counties, local performance in terms of high-growth companies varies greatly and few common 

patterns emerge (see Figure 3). Several locations in Mississippi, Alabama, and Pennsylvania show higher 

levels of high-growth companies. The strong performance of counties in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West 

Virginia may be the result of shale gas development in those locations.

Figure 4: Growth in the Number of Stage 2 Establishments in Appalachia, By County: 2011-

2015 

The share of Stage 2 establishments, those employing between 10-99 people, varies little between 

Appalachia (15.3%) and the U.S. (15.6%). Some analysts suggest that higher shares of Stage 2 

companies are a potential sign of local business growth opportunities. However, Stage 2 firms are 

typically older as well, as these figures may simply indicate the presence of older companies in a local 
 9

economy (see Figure 4). These factors may explain the relatively high concentrations of Stage 2 

companies found in Central Appalachian counties that underperformed on the other measures of 

economic dynamism. Further research that assesses the age of local establishments is needed to better 

understand these development patterns. 

This analysis offers a single snapshot in time, using only one source of data on business establishment 

performance. While we caution against broad generalizations, the research suggests some cause for 

optimism about the economic prospects for much of Appalachia. Appalachia’s improved economic 

performance has many causes. Like other parts of the United States, Appalachia is benefitting from 

overall economic growth and the broader recovery underway since the Great Recession. It is also 

possible that the Region’s shifting economic development strategies are playing a role, as states and 

localities invested more in ecosystem development during the past decade. These investments appear 

to be paying dividends in terms of new and growing businesses, new jobs, and greater buzz about 

Appalachia’s entrepreneurial potential. 

ARC’s own investments to build regional and local ecosystems date back to the 1990s with the first 

Entrepreneurship Initiative, which operated from 1997 to 2005. During this period, ARC and its partners 

invested $43 million in a wide range of projects that help put entrepreneurship “on the map” in 

Appalachia. These investments helped spur the creation of 12,000 jobs and 1,700 new businesses.6 

Many of the programs highlighted in the project case studies got their start during this period, or 

received critical early stage investments that helped solidify local ecosystem building efforts. Specific 

examples include the Shoals Entrepreneur Center, Ohio’s ACENet and the Ohio University Innovation 

Center, North Carolina’s Mountain BizWorks, the Garrett County (MD) Information Enterprise Center, 

and various community development programs operating in Southwest Virginia. Thanks to technical 

assistance, network building support, and seed funding from ARC and other sources, these emerging 

organizations and their partners have catalyzed the long-term process of transforming Appalachia’s 

economy. States in the Region have also reinforced ARC and local efforts. Projects like Maryland’s 

TEDCO, Georgia’s Entrepreneur-Friendly Communities program, and the North Carolina Rural Center’s 

Institute for Rural Entrepreneurship also spread the message that entrepreneurship promotion and 

ecosystem building were essential to economic transformations. 

The Current Challenge

When ARC began its original Entrepreneurship Initiative in the 1990s, it was in many ways the only game 

in town. Few other federal agencies were making similar investments and local entrepreneurship 

advocates were rare at the community level. Programs were emerging in large cities and technology hot 

spots, but most subregions throughout Appalachia did not view entrepreneurship as a core part of 

community building, economic development, or placemaking efforts.

 

6

For background, see Deborah Markley et al. Creating an Entrepreneurial Appalachian Region, Center for Rural 

Entrepreneurship Report, April 2008, pp. 1-2. Available at: 

https://www.arc.gov/assets/research_reports/creatinganentrepreneurialappalachia.pdf
 10

Today, this market environment is completely transformed. The Region’s economic development 

portfolio now includes entrepreneurship at its core and entrepreneurs are taking on a more visible 

leadership role in Appalachia’s ongoing economic transition. At the national level, federal agencies are 

engaged, and major national efforts, such as the Kauffman Foundation’s Ecosystem Building Community 

and private efforts such as the “Rise of the Rest” initiative, invest in entrepreneurs and regional 

ecosystem champions. 

Faced with this new and inviting marketplace, ARC and its partners no longer need to focus on putting 

entrepreneurship “on the map.” Instead, future investments can focus on sustaining progress in 

promising subregions and programs, building closer connections within the regional ecosystem, 

targeting investments to distressed regions, and ensuring that all parts of Appalachia share in the 

benefits of this ongoing economic transformation. 

Below, we present initial ideas for how ARC and its state and local partners can best sustain the ongoing 

entrepreneurial transformation of Appalachia. As noted in the other Entrepreneurial Ecosystems in 

Appalachia materials, effective ecosystem building engages multiple stakeholders and partners. No one 

organization “owns” the ecosystem. Instead, entrepreneurs are forming networks, supported by public, 

nonprofit, and private organizations to build and sustain a robust and effective regional ecosystem. 

What’s true at the local level is true for all of Appalachia. Building an entrepreneurial future will require 

new directions from ARC, its state and local partners, and Appalachia’s entrepreneurs as well. Some 

proposed new directions are presented below. 

Ideas for the Appalachian Regional Commission

The Commission should continue its ongoing efforts to both promote entrepreneurship as a core 

economic development strategy and to invest in local ecosystem building initiatives. These objectives 

are a core component of ARC’s current strategic plan which lists “Invest in entrepreneurial and business 

development strategies that strengthen Appalachia’s economy” as Investment Goal #1 for its 2016-2020 

focus areas.7 Unlike the early stages of ARC’s entrepreneurship work, however, the Region has a much 

broader group of stakeholders committed to building a strong entrepreneurial ecosystem. There are 

more partners in the public, private and philanthropic sectors investing in entrepreneurial development. 

While ARC’s efforts should continue, they must also evolve to recognize this more developed landscape 

and identify the best cross-regional leadership and investment roles for the Commission. 

Beyond continued high-level support for entrepreneurial development across Appalachia, the 

Commission should consider several other potential policy directions.

 Support an Appalachian Ecosystem Builder Network

For years, ARC has consciously sought to build connections within and across Appalachia so that local 

leaders can share ideas and learn from one another. A number of network and region-wide projects 

 

7

Strategic Plan p.9
 11

have resulted. Examples include the Network Appalachia group that focuses on transportation issues 

and the ARC Export Trade Advisory Council, which has been in operation since 1995. Similarly, the Bon 

Appetit Appalachia project helps to market and promote the Region’s unique food assets. In the 

entrepreneurship area, the Commission has helped build strong regional and global networks focused 

on angel investing via the Appalachian Angel Investor Alliance and entrepreneurship education via the 

America’s Entrepreneurial Schools Initiative. 

The Commission should consider supporting a similar network for ecosystem builders. This effort could 

be formally chartered or simply rely on regular meetings or an annual summit to share ideas and lessons 

learned. It could also link (formally or informally) to other ongoing community building efforts such as 

the work of Global Entrepreneurship Week USA or the Kauffman Foundation ecosystem building efforts. 

The network will be especially helpful for partners working in distressed regions, where they can benefit 

from links and knowledge sharing from more developed regional ecosystems.

While the network’s specific structure and functions are still to be determined, it should primarily focus 

on supporting all ecosystem builders across Appalachia. This wide lens focus will require outreach and 

engagement with new partners that may have not been past ARC grantees or stakeholders. As noted in 

our case studies and other research, new specialized community organizations are often leading 

ecosystem building work. These organizations often focus solely on ecosystem development. Groups 

like LAUNCH Chattanooga or Huntsville’s Rocket Hatch operate as independent non-profits. They are 

bringing fresh ideas and approaches to local ecosystem development. These new organizations would 

benefit from connections to traditional ARC partners and stakeholders, and at the same time, they can 

bring new energy and fresh ideas to these core ARC partners. 

 Champion Appalachian Entrepreneurs

Successful communities champion their entrepreneurs. Our case studies revealed that forward-thinking 

community leaders consciously seek out ways to promote entrepreneurship as a career option and to 

recognize local people who have succeeded in starting or growing new ventures. ARC could assume a 

larger role as this champion for the wider Appalachian Region. Beyond simply promoting the Region’s 

entrepreneurs in ARC reports and materials, the Commission might consider annual awards programs to 

recognize the best businesses and ecosystem champions. Such programs have succeeded in the past as 

ARC developed a popular entrepreneurship education awards program in the late 1990s and early 

2000s. Other activities might occur under the auspices of the ecosystem builder network described 

above. Examples might include training programs, peer networks, or state-level meetings that bring 

together ecosystem builders from across a state or subregion. 

 Target Ecosystem Gaps

As more subregions gain traction in building the framework for local ecosystems, the Commission’s 

investments can transition away from making the case for ecosystem building to targeting gaps in these 

regional networks. Specific target areas may vary, but the Commission and its partners may consider 

Region-wide programs that focus on common areas of concern or under-investment. For example, the 
 12

Commission has invested for several years to improve capital access for businesses in the Region. 

Specific projects include the work of Appalachian Community Capital to link Community Development 

Financial Institutions (CDFI) lenders across Appalachia, and partnerships with the Appalachian Funders 

Network to encourage investment in emerging sectors such as food systems, health and energy. Future 

areas for focus might include youth entrepreneurship or business scale-up programs, both of which are 

areas where ecosystem gaps are common across Appalachia. These ideas are also discussed below in 

recommendations for regional and local partners.

 Link Ecosystem Building to other Commission Priorities

Our research also found that successful places often link ecosystem building to other community 

development or placemaking strategies. For example, food systems development is a core part of 

ecosystem building in Athens, Ohio and Alabama’s Shoals region. In Southwest Virginia, tourism 

promotion and ecosystem building go hand in hand. Links to downtown development, in communities 

such as Abingdon, Marion, and St. Paul, have also been closely aligned to entrepreneur support efforts 

in Virginia. Building stronger communities across Appalachia will require investments that go beyond 

economic development and include more holistic strategies that focus on strengthening community 

leadership capacity, attracting and retaining younger residents and entrepreneurs, developing natural 

and other amenities needed to ensure quality of place, and engaging a broad set of partners to advance 

a common vision for community prosperity. Commission staff and leadership should use investments in 

entrepreneurship strategies as a tool to leverage this broader, “system focused” strategic development 

among its state, regional and local partners.

These connections spurred by the Commission also help open other investment opportunities for 

ecosystem builders. Philanthropic investments are and should remain as important resources. Group 

such as the Appalachian Funders Network are bringing in numerous outside investors to support 

sectoral strategies, which include entrepreneur support in areas such as food systems, health, and 

energy.

Ideas for State Partners

States are political entities; they are not natural economic units. Thus, it is rare to speak of a state 

entrepreneurial ecosystem. Ecosystem building typically occurs at the regional level, and successful 

regional ecosystems often cross state lines. State leaders should recognize that they do not need to 

create or recreate ecosystems at the state level. But, they can and should work to nurture regional 

ecosystems and to connect them with one another. This work could include some of the following 

ideas:

 Fund and Promote State/Regional Gateways

A number of states have invested in web portals or online clearinghouses that compile listings of 

support programs or provide advice or troubleshooting support to residents seeking help with business 
 13

questions. Examples include Business Link North Carolina, Kentucky’s One Stop Business Portal or 

Pennsylvania’s new PA Business One-Stop Shop. These websites and support desks are relatively easy to 

set up and operate, and they should be a core part of any state’s basic customer service programs. 

Ideally, these sites should also connect people to local or regional ecosystems where they can become 

more closely engaged in peer networks and other support services. 

 Link State Programs to Regional Ecosystems 

States can also improve their outreach and linkages to regional ecosystem builders. Many states do this 

already through efforts such as Pennsylvania’s Partnerships for Regional Economic Prosperity (PREP) 

networks or North Carolina’s statewide Business Resource Alliance. These existing groups typically serve 

as peer networks of staff/leaders from government-backed business service providers, such as Small 

Business Development Centers, Cooperative Extension, or Manufacturing Extension Partnership offices. 

These existing networks could be further strengthened by engaging new types of ecosystem building 

organizations to supplement the current publicly funded network participants. 

States could also embrace a more active role by seeding regional networks (PA PREP) or by investing in 

regional networks of entrepreneur centers. This latter strategy has been adopted by LaunchTN which, 

among other things, manages a statewide network of six entrepreneur centers. Via TEDCO, the state of 

Maryland has also invested in the creation of a statewide network of incubator facilities. Another option 

would be to invest in “circuit riders” or regional representatives who provide additional support to local 

or regional ecosystem builders. This support could be as simple as providing regularly scheduled office 

hours at an entrepreneurial hub organization so that local partners have easier access to state 

organizations. Finally, states should embrace a more expansive role in tracking the entrepreneurial 

economy by developing and sharing new data on startups and small business performance.

 Support Regulatory Review

States can also help nurture local ecosystems by ensuring that state rules and regulations are as 

“entrepreneur friendly” as possible. This step involves regular review of existing rules and regulations 

and outreach to business owners and others to identify potential problem areas. Some states, such as 

Maryland and West Virginia, have opted to create ombudsman offices to help oversee this review 

process. 

 Build Youth Entrepreneurship Capacities

State and regional ecosystems vary in their strengths and gaps; however, one clear pattern did emerge 

across nearly all Appalachian subregions. With a few exceptions, most states and subregions lack 

dedicated programming and resources to promote youth entrepreneurship. Given the importance of an 

“entrepreneur-friendly culture” to successful ecosystems, this gap poses serious challenges. States and 

localities should more actively embrace youth entrepreneurship, by encouraging the inclusion of 

entrepreneurship into formal education curricula, infusing entrepreneurship into workforce and other 

training programs, and creating new opportunities, such as summer camp programs, for young people 
 14

to learn about entrepreneurship as a career option. Community college programs, such as the 

Commission-backed America’s Entrepreneurial Schools Initiative, can also be tapped to support this 

work.

Ideas for Regional and Local Partners

Ecosystems operate at the regional and local level, so the work of regional and local officials is the most 

important factor in successful ecosystem building. Local leaders can now tap into a large and growing 

literature on what works in ecosystem building as well as new national and global networks that support 

ecosystem builders. The Kauffman Foundation has developed “Seven Design Principles for Building 

Entrepreneurial Ecosystems” that provide excellent guidance for local and regional entrepreneurship 

advocates:8

1) Put Entrepreneurs Front and Center: Effective ecosystems are led “by and for” entrepreneurs.

2) Foster Conversations: Effective ecosystems engage multiple partners in conversations that are 

focused on hope and action.

3) Enlist Collaborators. Everyone is invited: Effective ecosystems engage partners from all walks of 

life, multiple disciplines, and multiple sectors.

4) Live the Values: Effective ecosystems do not have a “leader.” They are built on an invisible 

social contract of shared values. 

5) Connect people bottom-up, top-down, outside-in: Effective ecosystems bridge social 

boundaries and build tribes of trust. 

6) Tell a Community’s Authentic Story: Effective ecosystems champion role models and create 

stories out of strength.

7) Start, be patient: Effective ecosystems take time to build.

Beyond embracing and operating according to these compelling principles, Appalachia’s local ecosystem 

builders should consider the following ideas: 

 Think Bigger

Successful regions think and act like regions when it comes to building entrepreneurial ecosystems. 

Several of our case studies focus on county-level ecosystem building efforts, but our findings suggest 

that most parts of Appalachia need to think bigger in terms of regional partners and service areas. 

Working at a wider regional level can engage more entrepreneurs and increase the density of networks. 

Such strategies also allow business service providers to share resources and ideas, and more effectively 

and efficiently support local companies. Working at the regional level also enables entrepreneurs to 

more effectively tap external markets. ACEnet’s work with food sector entrepreneurs across the broader 

Appalachian Ohio region was accelerated by building a regional brand – Food We Love – and then 

 

8

Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, The Entrepreneurial Ecosystem Building Playbook (Version 1.0) (2017) is 

available at: https://www.kauffman.org/entrepreneurial-ecosystem-building-playbook/introduction.
 15

tapping markets in metro areas outside this region. Efforts by the Appalachian Partnership for Economic 

Growth (APEG) are targeting wood products entrepreneurs in a similar regional footprint. 

In addition to expanding the geographic scope of ecosystems and related programs, local leaders should 

also consider developing partnerships beyond their regions. These could take the form of industryfocused networks (e.g., trade associations), where local firms in a given sector, such as food systems or 

information technology, can network and connect with national or global partners operating in the same 

industry. Other opportunities could be based on developing formal partnerships or even new forms of 

sister city relationships. For example, the International Business Innovation Association (InBIA) operates 

a “soft landings” program that links US-based incubators with overseas partners for the shared purpose 

of attracting new clients and new foreign investments.9These global ties can be particularly important in 

terms of accessing new and different sources of capital to serve the Region’s entrepreneurs. 

 Target Ecosystem Gaps

While each region’s ecosystem strengths and weaknesses will vary, two prominent gaps are common. 

First, many regions could do a better job of promoting youth entrepreneurship and providing 

opportunities for young people to learn about entrepreneurship as a career option. Second, more 

regions should embrace new programs that help companies scale-up, or move from the startup phase to 

high-growth phase.

A number of places throughout Appalachian have developed effective scaleup programs. For example, 

Mountain BizWorks in western North Carolina is continuing to build on the SBA-supported ScaleUp WNC 

effort launched in 2015. Six cohorts of 15-16 growth-oriented companies have gone through the 

intensive effort, receiving mentorship, management assistance, and connections to growth capital. 

Other efforts like One Million Cups and Startup Weekend are also gaining traction around the Region. 

These scaleup efforts will also benefit from new programs to bring new sources of equity capital to the 

Region’s emerging ecosystems. A number of promising efforts have been established, but capital 

access gaps still exist in much of Appalachia.10 Continued efforts to enhance local capital access, via 

continued support for regional angel funds, crowdfunding and other similar steps, will also help on this 

front. The Appalachian Regional Commission has supported a number of important initiatives to spur 

local angel investments via the ARC Capital Policy Initiative. This project provides funding and technical 

assistance, and has helped seed the creation of six new angel funds that have raised more than $8 

million to invest in promising local ventures. 

Ideas for Appalachia’s Entrepreneurs

As noted above, strong and successful ecosystems are “by and for” entrepreneurs where entrepreneurs 

lead local efforts and design initiatives that address their most pressing needs and issues. Further 

 

9

https://inbia.org/global-programs/soft-landings/

10 For background see https://www.arc.gov/research/researchreportdetails.asp?REPORT_ID=104
 16

development of Appalachia’s ecosystems will not happen without the time, commitment, and resources 

of the region’s entrepreneurs. How can they help?

 Start and Engage

If you are an entrepreneur based in Appalachia, find and tap into local, regional or statewide ecosystem 

services and networks. (You can find an inventory of resources at the accompanying Appalachian 

Entrepreneurial Resources Inventory at http://arceco.creconline.org/inventory/). If you find a local 

network, please get involved. If you cannot find local resources, create them yourself. The Resources 

Inventory and our related project materials offer lots of ideas on what works and what doesn’t, but the 

most important thing is to just get started.

• Speak Up and Participate

Local elected officials and community leaders want to help, but they often do not know where to start. 

That’s where you come in! Share your experiences with community leaders, provide feedback on what 

resources are valuable and what are not. Most local leaders want to help and value the contributions 

and insights of entrepreneurs. Local leaders are much more willing to support local partners in the 

ecosystem if they know these networks operate by and for entrepreneurs, but those local partners 

cannot succeed without entrepreneurs willing to speak out, participate, and lead. 

• Give Back 

There are many ways to give back to the community and the ecosystem, such as:

 Serve as a mentor

 Host a networking event at your business 

 Make a charitable donation to support entrepreneurial efforts

 Coach young entrepreneurs

 Invest in a startup or growing entrepreneur