Four Principles for Fostering Community Well-Being with Asset-Based Development
Insights and recommendations to foster rural & Indigenous well-being with asset based development.
Rural Resources, Insights, and Collaborations by Aspen CSG and Partners
Insights and recommendations to foster rural & Indigenous well-being with asset based development.
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.
This report, "A New Vision of the Heartland: The Great Plains in Transition," prepared by the Center for the New West in March 1992, examines the economic, social, political, and cultural dynamics of the Great Plains region. Funded by The Ford Foundation and the Aspen Institute, it challenges traditional views of decline in the Great Plains, arguing that perceived decline is often a misinterpretation of turbulent change.
This report, titled "State Economic Development Programs and Local Needs: Where Is The Common Ground?", explores the disconnect between the economic development needs perceived by local policymakers in rural Mississippi and the state-level policies designed to address them. The research, funded by the Aspen Institute and the Ford Foundation, was conducted by the John C. Stennis Institute of Government at Mississippi State University in 1992.
This report, "State-Federal Collaboration on Rural Development," by Thomas Unruh and Jay Kayne, published in 1992 by the National Governors' Association (NGA), examines intergovernmental and public-private collaboration in rural development. The NGA, a bipartisan forum for governors, conducts research through its Center for Policy Research, which supported the creation of this report with a grant from the Ford Foundation through The Aspen Institute.
This report, "WHO REPRESENTS RURAL AMERICA? An Analysis of Rural Development Needs, Policy, and Institutions," by Joshua Stein (November 1, 1992), evaluates the effectiveness of the Rural Economic Policy Program (REPP) of the Aspen Institute and explores the need for a new rural development organization
This document is a collection of papers from an April 1992 conference on "New Factory Workers in Old Farming Communities: Costs and Consequences of Relocating Meat Industries." The conference was sponsored by the University of Kansas and co-sponsored by other universities, with funding from The Ford Foundation in cooperation with The Aspen Institute's Rural Economic Policy Program.
This report from Jobs for the Future, published in August 1992, examines Strategic Development Organizations (SDOs) and their role in state economic development.
This report, "Poverty and Work: Utilization of Labor Resources Among the Rural Poor," by Jill L. Findeis and Stephen M. Smith, was prepared for the Ford Foundation's Rural Poverty Program and the Rural Economic Policy Program of the Aspen Institute in November 1992.
This document, titled "FORM WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, PAST OVER PRESENT: THE INSTITUTIONAL FAILURE OF NATIONAL U.S. RURAL POLICY" by William P. Browne, examines how Congress makes policy, particularly focusing on the use of information and sources of information. The central theme is that Congress is a reactive institution whose choices are limited by its rules.
This report explores the urgent need for policymakers to involve the public in discussions about the economy and the labor market. It also suggests ways policymakers can increase public awareness of these issues. The document highlights a gap between public and policy leaders' understanding of workforce issues, citing a 1991 study by the Public Agenda Foundation.
Document summarizes what the author sees as a failure of rural policy at the federal level, as trapped in an agricultural policy domain.
Report provides insight into five case studies in Iowa, North Dakota, Maine, Arkansas, and Michigan that show disparate rural economies in order to better develop strategies for rural new business entrepreneurship.