View this Publication
This report, titled “The Economic Development Strategies of the Great Plains States,” was prepared by the Center for the New West in June 1992. The principal author is Louis D. Higgs, with Claudia Giannetti as contributing author. Funding for the report was provided in part by the State Rural Policy Program of the Aspen Institute and The Ford Foundation, the Denver Regional office of the US Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, and the Center for the New West. The report examines the economic development strategies of 12 Great Plains states based on their formal planning and promotional documents from January to October 1991. The purpose was to understand how these state governments perceive their role in economic development, their strategies, and programs in the context of the “New Economy.”The study identified four transformational themes:
- Adapting to the New Economy (characterized by global competition, niche markets, technology intensiveness, entrepreneurship, rapid product turnover, and the growing importance of leisure and tourism).
- A changing role for government (moving towards responsive, mobilizing, catalytic, and enabling roles, rather than directive or primary service provider).
- The growing interdependence of community and economic development (with states increasingly recognizing the importance of quality of life and holistic approaches).
- The changing relationship between community and place (highlighting the development of grassroots regionalism, though this was the least recognized and exploited theme by states).
The report’s findings indicate that states are strongly aware of the dynamics of these themes and show a growing consensus on policies and strategic approaches for a vital economy. States are focusing on entrepreneurship, innovation, technology transfer, and market expansion, moving beyond traditional industrial recruitment. They also recognize the interdependence of economic and community development, with many programs addressing community development and quality of life.However, a significant challenge for states is implementing policies and strategies that empower communities to develop their own futures, rather than dictating or primarily providing services. The “bad news” section highlights substantial obstacles, particularly the reluctance of states to share or give up control and shift from a “provider” to an “enabler” role. This is attributed to ingrained attitudes, mandated practices, and political incentives that favor direct action and visible job creation by the state, rather than enabling local success. The report suggests that unless state policy recognizes the primary role of the private sector and communities in development, and defines its own crucial but secondary role as creating a conducive climate and resolving conflicts, the mistakes of past federal interventions may be repeated at the state level.
