Community Economic Development Strategies in Rural Washington: Toward a Synthesis of Natural and Social Capital*

Abstract

Routes to economic development attract considerable attention in community and rural sociology. Social scientists draw increasingly on studies of social capital and environmental surroundings as they examine the factors that facilitate and inhibit economic development. However, few empirical analyses exist that analyze the impact of the combination of social infrastructure and natural capital on different forms of economic development such as on industrial recruitment and self‐development. Using data collected from six communities in Washington State, the interaction of a community's social infrastructure and natural capital on industrial recruitment and self‐development efforts is examined. Results suggest that while natural capital positively impacts a community's successful recruitment of outside industries, it is not significant for a community's level of self‐development. However, a community's social infrastructure, measured by the existence of active civic organizations, local businesses that support local community projects, community‐wide fund‐raising capacity, and extra‐local linkages to nearby communities, state, and national agencies, positively affects both industrial recruitment and self‐development. These findings illustrate the need for communities and local activists to carefully weigh their advantages and potential shortcomings when deciding on an economic development strategy.

Recommendations for Economic Development in Guadalupe, CA

“…It was found not only that job creation was common in several definitions (Blakely and Bradshaw, 2002;Lyons and Hamlin, 2001), but also that others had used job creation as a measure for economic development achievements in previous studies (Crowe, 2006). Respondents were also given the opportunity to identify their own success when asked the openended question, 'What do you think the main benefits of the program are?'…”

“…• Construct validity: It was found not only that job creation was common in several definitions (Blakely and Bradshaw and Lyons and Hamlin, 2001), but also that others had used job creation as a measure for economic development achievements in previous studies (Crowe, 2006). • Internal validity: A major obstacle for researchers and economic development practitioners alike is that, even when anecdotes or statistics of jobs created are documented, it is not possible to claim that the job creation was 'caused' by the program.…”

“…(Crowe, 2006). As with all economic development the overarching goal is to create jobs and/or wealth.…”

“…For example, industries may degrade the local environment and over-exploit natural resources. Also, subsidies given to industry may take money away from public services in the area (Crowe, 2006). This is a significant issue because these practices may, in fact, negatively affect the area's future prospects for development and degrade quality of life.…”

“…It is also important because the provision of public services is already comparatively more expensive in rural areas due to low population densities (Flora and Flora, 1993). In exchange for these increased community costs, jobs provided by large outside firms tend to be low-paying (Crowe, 2006) and there is no guarantee that firms will remain in the area long enough to recuperate the costs of the recruitment strategy (LeRoy, 2005).…”