View this Publication
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. Key findings of the study include:
- Dissonance between State and Local Perspectives: Local officials tend to prioritize immediate, short-term infrastructure improvements, while state-level economic development professionals focus on long-range strategies to create an atmosphere conducive to growth.
- Desire for State Assistance: Over 80% of respondents believe state government should assist local economic development efforts, particularly through direct financial aid for tangible and intangible infrastructure (like training).
- Infrastructure and Education Priorities: While tangible infrastructure improvements are seen as most important when investing limited resources, a strong majority (over 80%) also consider adequate funding for K-12 and adult education to be crucial for economic development.
- Local Autonomy and State Hindrance: Officials from larger cities (30,000-200,000 population) expressed a desire for more local autonomy in raising tax revenues for economic development, feeling that state bureaucracy often hinders local initiatives.
- Importance of Local Economic Development: Over 75% of local officials believe economic development is their most important issue, and over 70% feel they can significantly contribute to it.
- Cooperative Efforts: There is strong agreement (nearly 80%) that local economic development strategies should be cooperative efforts involving business, government, and local development councils. However, actual cooperation is often hindered by personal clashes and a denial of common interests among towns.
- Preferred Development Type: Most respondents prefer attracting several small manufacturing facilities over one large industry or increasing agricultural yields, indicating a shift towards diversification.
- Local Sales Tax: Nearly two-thirds of officials support generating revenue for local economic development through a local sales tax, though they are split on whether a referendum should be required.
- Influence of Size: A significant portion of local policymakers, especially from rural areas and small towns, feel disenfranchised from the state policymaking process and believe that larger cities/counties have more influence with the legislature and state agencies.
- Capacity Building: While direct financial assistance is highly desired, the study also reveals a strong preference for “capacity building” functions such as loan and grant application assistance, leadership development programs, and training for economic development officials.
The report concludes that a new, integrated approach to rural economic development is needed, recognizing that it encompasses a broad range of issues beyond just economics, including education, environment, public health, housing, public services, leadership capacity, and cultural heritage. It emphasizes the need for state-level policies to acknowledge economic development as a potential outcome across all these areas and for local governments to have a broad role in policy development and flexibility in implementation.
