Entrepreneurial Social Infrastructure and Growth Machine Characteristics Associated with Industrial-Recruitment and Self-Development Strategies in Nonmetropolitan Communities

Abstract

Elements of entrepreneurial social infrastructure and the growth machine perspective are used to contrast industrial recruitment and self-development activities-two different types of community economic development. Data come from a purposive survey of 287 key informants associated with successful economic development projects in nonmetropolitan places throughout the U.S. The pattern of resource mobilization, and individual and organizational support for or opposition to both types of projects, is analyzed. Self-development projects are found to have access to more diverse resources and engage a greater diversity of local actors, while industrial recruitment is found to frequently engage local growth machine actors. Industrial recruitment is also found to rely heavily on resources and support from local and state governments. Opposition to projects, regardless of type, occurred in about one-third of the projects and was generally associated with occupations anticipated to be anti-growth. These findings have several implications for development professionals, including increased understanding of how to improve a community's overall capacity for engaging in economic development.

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

“…Economic development involves the purposeful action of community members to create local jobs and to raise the real incomes of residents (Shaffer and Summers 1989;Summers 1986). Several researchers of economic development distinguish between two economic development strategies: industrial recruitment and self-development (Eisinger 1999;Flora et al 1992;Sharp and Flora 1999). These two forms are often pitted against one another as opposing approaches to development.…”

“…Third, some communities are limited in attracting outside employers due to their physical remoteness (Sharp et al 2002). While self-development has some advantages over industrial recruitment, such as new jobs requiring higher skills and stronger job security, a higher number of jobs tend to be created from successful industrial recruitment endeavors than from self-development (Green et al 1993;Sharp and Flora 1999;Sharp et al 2002). The next section explores some of the social capital literature in anticipating how a community's social infrastructure impacts the two forms of economic development.…”

Do Rural Residents Really Use the Internet to Build Social Capital? An Empirical Investigation

“…Another example might be a person who is simultaneously part of local and national organizations and uses their experiences from one to inform the other. Research supports the assertion that rural communities rely on these bridges for development (J. L. Flora, 1998;Sharp & Flora, 1999).…”

Tourism as Economic Self-Development in Rural Nebraska: A Case Study

“…Since the 1970s, rural communities in the United States have been forced to respond to economic restructuring (Sharp & Flora, 1999). The restructuring of rural communities has occurred for several reasons, including the rural farm crisis, the loss of federal community aid, and the loss of population.…”

“…According to Sharp and Flora (1999), rural community economic development usually consists of one of two theoretical methods: The first is industrial recruitment where a community attempts to attract a manufacturing company or factory to its community. In a community that has undertaken industrial recruitment, it is hoped that the industry will generate revenue, tax dollars, employment, and other resources that may be lacking in the commu-154 LEWIS AND DELISLE et al, 1990;Reid, 1988;Sharp, Agnitsch, Ryan, & Flora, 2002).…”