Urban, Suburban, Rural: Economic Growth Patterns Connecting Carolina
Creators: name: Carter, James
Publisher: name: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill University Libraries
Year: 2019

description: Academic and political leaders have contributed public discourse, research efforts, and public policy proposals to address the “urban-rural” divide in North Carolina. This phrase is the term given to the concentration of economic growth in a few urban metropolitan regions versus continued economic decline for many of the state’s rural counties. While analysis of North Carolina’s economic and demographic data does validate assertions of concentrated economic growth, sole focus by academics, economic developers, and policymakers on this dichotomy misplaces the limited resources available to address statewide equitable economic growth.  State-level institutions have focused economic development policy generation on the basis that each community is dichotomous. This reinforces that urban and rural areas are competitors for investment (Dabson, 2007). As a result, the subsequent policy and legislation do not strengthen either urban or rural areas (Tandoh-Offin, 2010). Such effects fail because they do not acknowledge the systematic interdependence of these regions (Tandoh-Offin, 2010) (Kubisch, 2018). If actors and lawmakers continue to entrench around the “urban-rural divide” narrative, opportunities for collaborative and creative policy solutions will be missed. Potential collaborative policies areas include: transportation, education, and workforce training (JN & Rossmiller, 1964). North Carolina has fallen victim to such ill-balanced proposals and legislation. For example, legislators considered a bill to amend the sales tax formula to reallocate revenue generated in urban cities to economically-depressed rural counties. Some proposals have been enacted as legislation like the 1996 William S. Lee Act which authorized the County Distress Ranking system. Administered by the Department of Commerce, the annual process categorizes all 100 counties into three tiers based on factors measuring economic distress. The subsequent formula allocates greater state resources—including discretionary incentives for economic development—to entice industry location in distressed counties. There are several problems with the County Distress Ranking policy. First, it has been continuously adjustment due to inadequate formula/index inputs which fail to accurately reflect communities’ economic distress. The underlying factor is that counties and metropolitan regions have blended urban and rural populations (Isserman, 2005). Its greatest flaw is its redistributive nature aimed at redirecting market forces instead of encouraging strategic capacity building in rural communities such as workforce development and infrastructure (Assembly, 2015). It ultimately pits urban and rural jurisdictions against each other ignoring their interdependencies (Tandoh-Offin, 2010) (Assembly, 2015). The tier system’s county-level unit of analysis also neglects counties classified as urban which have concentrated areas of distress. The reality is metropolitan regions are a continuum of urban and rural land areas (Isserman, 2005). A 2014 report concluded some of North Carolina’s most distressed communities were in fact in urban areas (High & Owen, 2014). Lastly, the tier system punishes the state’s overall economy by providing less economic incentive to urban areas. Urban areas are the primary job creators in North Carolina. Such shortsightedness hampers urban centers’ competitiveness with other metropolitan regions across the county. Analysis of commuter data reveals individuals living in rural localities consistently commute to urban areas for employment (Tippett, Urban Impact on North Carolina , 2019). North Carolina cannot achieve sustainable economic growth with a misguided economic strategy that fails to prescribe solutions for rural communities while lauding the healthy growth of urban areas. Successful economic development strategies reinforce urban-rural linkages instead of engaging in “zero-sum” reallocation from urban areas to rural ones (Isserman, 2005). One solution maybe to “look to the middle” at North Carolina’s suburbs. While urban counties are still engines of population and employment growth—suburban jurisdictions situated geographically between North Carolina’s urban and rural localities—are ironically removed from greater conversations of economic equity. Growth patterns in North Carolina are shifting more broadly reflecting the emerging role of the suburbs (Tippett, Are NC county growth patterns shfiting?, 2018). Suburban growth in North Carolina follows a nationwide trend (Parker, 2018). As the metropolitan cities anchoring the “urban crescent” such as Charlotte (Mecklenburg County), Winston-Salem (Forsyth County), Greensboro (Guilford County), Chapel Hill (Orange County), Durham (Durham County), and Raleigh (Wake County) continue to grow, so to do their proximate suburban towns and neighboring counties. Such economic expansion places North Carolinians in rural counties in closer proximity to economic opportunities and connects the three Carolinas—urban, suburban, and rural.