This report, “Hand in Hand: Community and Economic Development in Tupelo,” by Vaughn Grisham and Rob Gurwitt, is a case study published by the Aspen Institute Community Strategies Group. It details how Tupelo, Mississippi, transformed itself from one of the poorest counties in the poorest state in 1940 to a model for community and economic development.Key aspects of Tupelo’s development include:
- Emphasis on Human and Social Capital: The report highlights George McLean’s belief that a community’s greatest asset is its people, and that investing in their education, training, and engagement (human capital) is crucial for building social capital (trust, social networks, and norms).
- “Coffee-cup Diplomacy” and Grassroots Involvement: McLean, publisher of the Tupelo Daily Journal, initiated efforts to convince local merchants and leaders that their self-interest lay in improving the lives of all residents, especially the poor farmers. This led to initiatives like the artificial insemination program for dairy cows, which helped poor farmers gain a consistent income.
- Rural Community Development Councils (RCDCs): Established in 1946, these councils provided a structure for mobilizing rural residents to become involved in their own community development. They fostered self-help through projects ranging from improving physical appearance to increasing farm production and leadership development.
- Community Development Foundation (CDF): Formed in 1948, the CDF became the central organization for driving development in Tupelo and Lee County. It was designed to be broadly representative of the community, involving people from all walks of life, and focused on investing in the community as a whole.
- Integrated Economic and Community Development: Tupelo’s approach consciously linked economic development with community development. The CDF attracted and retained businesses while simultaneously working to make Tupelo and Lee County good places to live and work, understanding that a high quality of life would attract desirable employers.
- Shift from “Cheap Labor” Model: Unlike many Southern towns that sought industrialization through low wages and subsidies, Tupelo, under McLean’s influence, rejected this “BAWI” (Balance Agriculture With Industry) approach after an initial trial. Instead, it emphasized mutual responsibilities between employers, workers, and the community, prioritizing fair treatment and good wages.
- Importance of Education: Investing in education became a central component of Tupelo’s development strategy. Initiatives like vocational development centers, the establishment of Itawamba Community College and a branch of the University of Mississippi, and programs to improve reading skills in elementary schools were all driven by the understanding that a well-educated workforce would attract higher-quality employers and improve residents’ quality of life.
- Strong Partnerships: The success was also attributed to strong partnerships between the public and private sectors, with significant local financial support complemented by federal resources from the Tennessee Valley Authority and the Appalachian Regional Commission.
The report emphasizes that Tupelo’s journey was not a “one-size-fits-all blueprint” but rather a testament to common-sense guiding principles that built on the one asset all small communities possess: their people.
