1 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Surviving On Their Own: 
How Leaders In Apalachia’s Remote Rural Communities Make 
Economic Development Policy  
 
 
 
 
 
 
Stefanie Grimes Feldman 
 
Sanford School of Public Policy 
Undergraduate Honors Thesis 
December 4, 2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I offer special thanks to my advisors Jenni Owen and Ken Rogerson, both at the Sanford School 
of Public Policy at Duke University, for their guidance, encouragement, and motivation. The 
friendship and advice offered by Teresa Collins, De Davis (Center for Rural Strategies; 
Whitesburg, Kentucky), and Bil Bishop (the Daily Yonder) were fundamental to the conception 
of this thesis.  
ii 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
“Smal towns like [mine] frequently get bypased in favor of larger metropolitan areas with 
higher population density. That is to be understood, but the result is that the metro areas grow 
larger while the smaler communities are left to survive on their own.” 
 
- Director, County Economic Development Authority, Kentucky 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
iii 
 
Table of Contents 
 
I. Rural Communities in a Metropolitan America                                      1                                         
 
I. Rural Economic Development: Theory and Practice                                     3 
 
II. Methodology               12 
  
IV. Economic Development Insight From Local Leaders                        18 
 
V. Making Rural Policy                            34 
 
VI. Appendices   
 
 A: Criteria Counties                                      41 
 
 B: Local Leaders Survey                                43 
 
 C: Selected Survey Responses                                       54 
 
VI. References                                                               57 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1 
 
I. Rural Communities in a Metropolitan America 
 
There is growing support for metropolitan-focused economic development policy in the 
United States. The Brookings Institution’s Metropolitan Policy Program, located in Washington 
D.C., is a driving force behind this strategy. The Metro Program’s advocates argue that the 
United States is a metropolitan nation – not a collection of fifty states but an agglomeration of 
metropolitan areas that are the engines of the nation’s economy – and our policies and dollars 
should reflect this spatial reality (Katz, 2008).  In The New Republic, Brookings’ scholars wrote 
that “metros, not smal towns, are where our economy is, where our population is, and where our 
country's future is” (Bradley & Katz, 2008). Whether intentional or not, this discourse has set up 
a batle betwen rural and urban America as they compete for scarce financial resources. 
Defenders of this metropolitan agenda push aside concerns regarding whether rural 
communities are left out of this framework by pointing out that over half of rural residents live 
within metropolitan areas. Additional rural areas that are outside of metropolitan boundaries are 
stil interconnected with metropolitan areas through the exchange of goods and people. Hence, 
the argument goes, when metropolitan economies grow, benefits spil into rural communities. In 
July 2009, President Barack Obama echoed this sentiment when he told the Urban and 
Metropolitan Policy Roundtable that investment in beter transportation in metropolitan areas 
“boosts rural areas that harnes that energy.”  “Our urban and rural communities are not 
independent; they are interdependent,” President Obama stated (Obama, 2009). 
But arguments that rural and metropolitan areas are not so diferent leave the most remote 
rural areas out of economic development discussions. Historical disadvantages created persistent 
poverty in remote areas: a lack of aces to urban markets, poor infrastructure and 
underinvestment, and policies that have pulled human capital out of the rural communities and 
into distant urban centers. Unfortunately, there is no clear strategy for how to help these 
2 
 
communities thrive and there is a void in academic literature that aseses development from the 
perspective of remotenes. 
This thesis offers an analysis of economic opportunities for the most remote rural 
communities in the United States. Given that there has been so litle focus on economic 
development opportunities in remote rural areas, what economic development programs are 
being implemented at the community level today in remote rural counties? To what extent do 
local leaders play a proactive role in creating the economic development strategy compared to 
implemented state and federal mandates? What information and resources do these local leaders 
depend on to shape economic development policy? 
A survey was used to gather information from local leaders regarding development 
strategies in remote counties in Appalachia. Analysis finds a great deal of variance across the 
selected remote rural counties and justification for local-specific development policies. The 
insight from local leaders offers a starting point for pushing toward economic policy that takes 
into acount the unique hurdles and opportunities of remotenes and begins by focusing on post-
secondary education and leadership development. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3 
 
I. Rural Economic Development: Theory and Practice 
 
 After disentangling various definitions of rural, this review of literature justifies the study 
of local leadership in remote rural communities by summarizing evidence that metropolitan 
economic development is not enough to spur remote rural growth. Given that growth impacting 
remote rural communities must to some extent originate within their boundaries, previous 
frameworks for understanding the hurdles and opportunities for economic development in 
remote rural communities are explored. Finaly, an asesment of what we do know about rural 
economies and a review previous case studies regarding leadership in economic development 
policy provide background for further research into remote rural development. 
Distiling the Definitions Debate 
Analysis of rural development must begin with a clarification of what is meant by 
“rural,” as various colloquial and statutory definitions permeate research and policy. In this 
thesis, rural refers to the U.S. Census definition of rural. Urban and rural communities are 
defined based on population density. Acording to the 2000 United States Census, urban 
teritories are comprised of core areas with a population greater or equal to 1,000 people per 
square mile plus any adjacent areas with density of greater than or equal to 500 people per square 
mile. Teritories outside of these urban areas are defined as rural (Census Bureau, 2002). 
 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, in contrast, contain an urban core with a population of at 
least 50,000 and “adjacent teritory that has a high degre of social and economic integration 
with the core as measured by commuting ties.” There are several additional complications to this 
definition, including the fact that public opinion regarding whether a community is sufficiently 
connected to the urban core is sometimes considered (Nussle, 2008). Non-metropolitan areas lie 
4 
 
outside of the boundaries of Metropolitan Statistical Areas.  Academic literature and 
policymakers often refer use “non-metropolitan” as a synonym for “rural.” 
Importantly, definitions of rural and non-metropolitan do not precisely overlap even 
though they are often used interchangeably. Acording to U.S. Census Bureau definitions, it is 
true that the majority of rural America lives within metropolitan statistical areas. Further, 65.5 
percent of residents in non-metro counties live adjacent to metro areas ("What is Rural?," 2007).  
But not al rural communities are included in a metropolitan area. Remote communities, 
distinguished from rural communities adjacent to metropolitan areas, are left out of advocacy for 
metropolitan development. 
A Case for Rural-Centered Economic Development Policy 
At its most basic level, economic development here refers to increased wages and lower 
unemployment. Literature advocating for a more comprehensive model of development 
including quality of life provide valuable criteria for analysis to be considered in later studies. 
However, a baseline definition is useful here for first-cut analysis. Economic development 
eforts invest in infrastructure and human capital in order to promote higher wages and lower 
unemployment.
1
 
The argument for the importance of rural economic development policy relies on 
evidence that not al rural areas share in the gains of metropolitan areas. Some rural areas lie 
outside of the range of metropolitan economic spilover. Wood (1999) analyzed the extent to 
which the benefits from development in Appalachia’s growth centers flowed into other parts of 
the region. He found that betwen 1960 and 1990 progres in Appalachian growth centers, or 
urban areas, did not spil over far beyond the center boundaries. 
                                                
1
 For the purpose of this thesis, direct provision such as providing emergency food and housing, 
is not considered an economic development efort because the interest here is in strategic and 
long-term eforts to advance rural economies. 
5 
 
The spatial distribution of poverty in the United States places the rural-metro 
interdependence argument into further doubt. Poverty in rural counties increases with increasing 
spatial distance from a metropolitan area. Partridge and Rickman (2008) performed a multiple 
regresion that finds a strong correlation betwen spatial proximity to an urban area and poverty 
rates for non-metropolitan counties in year 1999. This correlation persists as statisticaly 
significant even when potential confounding factors such as the natural amenities, demographic 
characteristics, and population of a rural county. Some rural communities are more remote than 
other rural communities, and the most remote rural communities in the United States confront 
relatively higher levels of poverty. 
The Partridge and Rickman (2008) analysis, evidence that proximity to a metropolitan 
area is an indicator of poverty, thus opens the door for an expansion of research into the isue of 
remotenes. Given evidence that remote communities wil not benefit from purely metropolitan-
focused development, an understanding of what economic development does occur in remote 
rural areas is critical for the formulation of remote economic development strategies. 
Hurdles for Remote Economic Development 
There are several explanations for why remote rural communities fare particularly poorly 
in the national economy. Several scholars explain the correlation betwen poverty and 
remotenes by suggesting that remotenes creates a “rural spatial mismatch” betwen labor 
supply and wel-suited labor demand (Partridge & Rickman, 2008; Wood, 1999). Acording to 
Partridge and Rickman (2008), the demand for labor in remote rural communities is low because 
geographic hurdles to seling goods in urban markets where demand is located and a lack of 
services compared to urban areas makes locating in rural communities les atractive to 
companies than locating in metropolitan areas. Because long distances to metro areas makes 
commuting more chalenging, rural workers cannot overcome this geographic hurdle by filing 
6 
 
urban jobs. Further, high relocating and communicating costs in remote areas means that labor 
supply in such communities is relatively inelastic, and hence when jobs are available it is les 
likely that enough individuals with the specified skil set wil have the mobility necesary to 
travel to the positions (Partridge & Rickman, 2008). Thus, rural workers are dependent on job 
creation in a smal geographic area, but jobs are centralized in urban areas. 
Another explanation considers the acumulated decisions that have placed remote rural 
areas in a disadvantage. Bird et al. take a more proces-oriented approach to explaining why 
remote rural areas
2
 fal in “spatial poverty traps” (p2) and propose that chronic poverty in these 
areas is a result of “state failure,” “market failure,” and “social failure”. In terms of “state 
failure,” these areas lack the same infrastructure and social services as other areas due to failed 
public policy or government officials. “Market failure” results in extraction of environmental 
resources and subsequent lack of reinvestment, halting growth. “Social failure” creates exclusion 
and discrimination within the communities and expands inequality (p15). 
Oportunities for Remote Economic Development 
Most theories regarding economic development among rural areas do not distinguish 
betwen varying levels of remotenes. Because remote rural areas face distinct and perhaps 
more extreme disadvantages compared to rural areas adjacent to urban centers, the applicability 
of these theories to remote economic development is questionable. Nevertheles, they do 
provide a starting point for analyzing the types of economic development eforts that could be 
occurring in remote rural communities. 
                                                
2
 Bird et al. analyze rural areas in an international context, but the elements of isolation and 
exclusion can be applied here. 
7 
 
Rural development strategies can be grouped acording to what extent the rural 
community is dependent on outsiders (Daniels, 1991). Daniels (1991) explains the 
categorization as follows: 
There are four kinds of external dependency that are found in rural communities: 
1) direct dependency, when outside owners control key sectors of the local 
economy; 2) trade dependency, when localy produced goods and services are 
exported to distant markets where demand and prices may fluctuate considerably; 
3) financial dependency, when a community needs to import capital to stimulate 
economic development; and 4) technical dependency, when a community needs to 
import trained personnel and technology in order to improve productivity, 
develop new products and proceses, and thus achieve economic growth. (p2) 
Acording to Daniels, dependency can be detrimental for economic growth because it makes a 
rural community vulnerable to “exploitation” and leads to large fluctuations in economic boom 
and bust periods (p2). The benefit of dependency, however, is that it provides the potential for 
economic growth beyond the resources within the town (Daniels, 1991). When selecting an 
economic development policy, the tradeoff for rural communities is thus be to find the right 
amount of dependency so as to have external resources to expand but not lose autonomy over the 
local economy. 
A strategy with maximal dependency is busines recruitment.  Busineses could benefit 
from locating in rural areas if they are able to capitalize on lower labor and land costs. 
Recognizing this opportunity, much of rural economic development has focused on ofering 
incentives for outside busineses to relocate or create satelite branches in rural communities. A 
variety of criticisms of this model note, however, the limited local economic benefit of 
companies that export to an urban market and are managed externaly. Acording to the Daniels 
8 
 
(1991) framework, the external dependency established when a rural community’s economy is 
based on busineses that are managed and owned by individuals outside of the community make 
the community vulnerable to exploitation. 
An alternative to offering incentives for corporate relocation is a more internaly focused 
entrepreneurship initiative. Unlike corporate relocation, entrepreneurship is based on utilizing 
resources already within a community and entails local ownership, although products may or 
may not stil be primarily consumed by outsiders. Entrepreneurship alows for the unique 
cultural characteristics of rural regions to be transformed into commodities that have value in the 
economy. Anderson studied entrepreneurs in rural areas, which he cals the “periphery,” of 
Scotland to understand how normative perceptions of the periphery as “other” as having unique 
“non-material values” create an opportunity for entrepreneurs (Anderson, 2000). Acording to 
Anderson, the value of the perception of othernes imposed on rural communities can be 
capitalized into opportunities for commodification. Entrepreneurial succes requires a skil set 
that alows for individuals to become aware of the opportunities for commodification (Anderson, 
2000).   
Rural clusters lie somewhere in betwen corporate recruitment and entrepreneurship in 
terms of dependency on outsiders. Clusters combine the various components of one particular 
industry in a geographicaly connected area (Porter, 2004). The benefit of clusters is that the 
system of linkages and specialization alows for a community to develop a competitive 
advantage for a product that they can sel globaly and, in return, increase wages (Cortright, 
2003). While Porter (2004), one of the major proponents of the clusters model, primarily focuses 
on metropolitan areas, rural clusters do exist. Rural clusters are smaler and thus harder to 
recognize (Cortright, 2003). Gibbs & Bernat (1996) have found that rural clusters succesfully 
increase wages. The dificulty with rural clusters, however, is determining how much they are 
9 
 
dependent on manufacturing and whether they can realy be succesful in rural areas due to 
transportation costs. 
Technological innovations are clearly changing the definitions of periphery and 
development opportunities for these areas. Copus (2001) argues that in Europe spatial location is 
no longer, or at least for not much longer, a key influence on economic activity because of 
infrastructure improvements from national highways to information technology. There is a new 
patern of “aspatial peripherality,” based not on location but the prevalence and strength of 
several factors: information technology infrastructure, human capital, networks betwen 
busineses, “civic society,” and institutions (Copus, 2001). Similarly technological 
improvements are reshaping the United States economy. Investments in these factors can erase 
the disadvantage faced by the more remote rural areas. Information technology could create the 
opportunity for service industries in Appalachia to develop where they were previously thwarted 
by lack of proximity to areas were services are consumed. 
During the 1960s, the Appalachian Regional Commision (ARC) focused on regional 
growth as the means through which to promote economic development throughout the region 
(Wood, 1999). This strategy centers investments in areas with high population density in hopes 
that the surrounding regions wil benefit as wel. However, Wood (1999) analyzed the ARC 
regional growth model and found no spilover of benefits into more remote areas. Wood argues 
that “a growth center strategy was not only an unsuitable solution to Appalachia’s most presing 
problems, but is potentialy an unsuitable policy for regional development elsewhere as wel” 
(Wood, 1999).  
Rural Policymakers and a Community-Based Aproach 
While there is some analysis of the theoretical potential of economic development 
initiatives in rural areas, there has been litle efort to se what realy works in practice. Graham, 
10 
 
Healy, and Byrne (2002) used the method of community surveys to understand rural economic 
proceses and undercover alternative market activities. While this thesis is evaluating more 
traditional economic forms, using a community survey as the method alows for the researcher to 
uncover local knowledge that may esential for discovering innovative approaches to 
overcoming the spatial disadvantage. 
A report by the N.C. Rural Economic Development Center and the University of North 
Carolina School of Government legitimates the value of local leaders’ insights. This report is 
comprised of case studies of economic development strategies in smal towns with populations 
smaler than 10,000 individuals. Lambe interviewed leaders in forty-five diferent communities 
in order to create qualitative naratives of the strategies these communities pursue in order to 
thrive economicaly. Lambe then categorizes the communities into four types: towns that benefit 
form tourism from natural amenities, recreation, and retirement; towns that have cultural and 
historical benefits; towns that are located in close proximity to college campuses; and towns with 
proximity to metropolitan areas or highway systems. By focusing on communities defined as 
succesful, the commonalities betwen the communities were determined to be qualities of 
succes. These characteristics include risk-taking communities, communal planning leading to 
widespread support of development strategies, maximizing on unique resources that offer a 
competitive advantage, innovative development strategies, short-term goal seting and 
measurement; and comprehensive approaches (Lambe, 2008).  
“Smal” does not equate to “rural,” but the method and succes characteristics here are 
useful for an efort to understand remote strategies. The idea that community leaders can provide 
the guide for good policy is not new. Further, these case studies bolster the rationale for further 
case studies by reporting that community leaders found value in hearing naratives regarding 
other communities that have been succesful (Lambe, 2008). 
11 
 
The case study of Pike County, Kentucky, is one of only a few comprehensive analyses 
of remote rural economies. This study is part of the report “Case Studies of Local Economic 
Development Growth Proceses,” prepared on behalf of the Appalachian Regional Commision 
(Economic Development Research Group, 2007). Pike County, located in Eastern Kentucky, has 
a history of coal mining and the industry is stil dominant in the local economy. However, this 
report finds that the arival human and financial capital into the county has led to economic 
growth exceding that of many surrounding counties. Several asets located within the county 
offer reasons for this, such as good as aces to highway system, a nearby federal prison system, 
and a Kelogg Company plant “recruited by former Kentucky Governor Paul Paton when he was 
Pike County Judge Executive,” employing 400 people, and an “innovative telecommunications 
company, and a “partnership betwen Pikevile College and Pikevile Medical Center” 
(Economic Development Research Group, 2007, p54).  
Most importantly, this report credits a large amount of the growth in Pike County to 
political leadership. This finding suggests a great deal may be learned from local leaders in 
remote rural communities regarding their understanding of economic development programs in 
their community. What models are remote rural communities pursuing today to encourage 
economic development? Is it the case that local leaders are key figures in economic 
development in many rural counties? If these leaders are an integral part of formulating remote 
rural economies, what do they view as succesful economic development programs and what 
information, resources, or people do they rely on to make development decisions? 
 
 
 
12 
 
II. Methodology 
In this study, a survey of county leaders in a selection of Appalachian counties was used 
to ases the characteristics of economic development programs and policymaking in remote 
rural counties in the United States. The focus of the survey was to understand the proces by 
which economic development eforts are shaped in remote rural communities. 
Focus on Apalachia 
The United States Congres pased the Appalachian Redevelopment Act in 1965 to foster 
economic development in a region of the country that was facing significantly levels of poverty. 
This legislation established the boundaries of the Appalachian region based on unemployment 
and poverty indicators. This same legislation established the Appalachian Regional Commision 
as an agency to work to improve the economic conditions in these counties (Eler, 2008). 
            Image 1: Map of Apalachia 
 
 Source: Apalachian Regional Comision, http:/ww.arc.gov. 
13 
 
Today, the Appalachian region contains 420 counties in thirten states: Alabama, Georgia, 
Kentucky, Maryland, Misisippi, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, South 
Carolina, Tennese, Virginia, and West Virginia. 
Counties in Appalachia share several characteristics that make the region an ideal pool 
for analysis. This region, due to a history of natural resource exploitation and minimal 
investments in infrastructure, is chronicaly poor. One third of Appalachians lived under the 
poverty line in 1965. In the past several decades, the region as a whole has largely caught up to 
the rest of the United States in terms of key economic indicators. In 1990, poverty rate in 
Appalachia was only fifty percent of what it was in 1965. Many rural counties in the region, 
however, have not followed suit. The poverty rate in rural counties in central Appalachia, the 
portion of the region with the highest poverty rate, was stil almost twenty-seven percent in 1990 
("Economic Overview: Appalachian Region"). And rural economies are important for the health 
of Appalachia, since forty-two percent of Appalachians live in rural areas. Comparatively, only 
twenty percent of the United States’ population lives in rural areas ("The Appalachian Region"). 
There are, indeed, many other remote rural communities across the United States. It is 
plausible that some facets of the particular chalenges and opportunities created by remotenes 
are universal regardles of the remote area’s location. However, the unique characteristics of 
each location mean that findings regarding development eforts in Appalachia are not necesarily 
applicable elsewhere. 
Counties Within Apalachia 
Counties to be targeted by the survey were selected based on two indicators. First, the 
counties selected for this analysis place in the botom ten percent of al counties in the United 
States in terms of economic performance. This ranking is based on data released yearly by the 
Appalachian Regional Commision (ARC).  These yearly County Economic Status (CES) data 
14 
 
clasify counties acording to per capita market income, thre-year average unemployment rate, 
and poverty rate. The ARC then uses these values to formulate a composite index for counties, 
which are used to create a national ranking. Al counties analyzed here were categorized as 
distresed in fiscal year 2002, the first year for which comprehensive CES data is available 
("County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2002"). They are, acording to ARC, “the most 
economicaly depresed counties” ("Source and Methodology: Distresed Designation and 
County Economic Status Clasification System"). This indicator is not a comprehensive picture 
of economic development levels, but provides a simplified baseline that reflects the basic 
definition of economic development as increased wages and employment used in this research’s 
survey. 
Second, the United States Department of Agriculture’s Rural-Urban Continuum Codes 
(RUC) further refines the list of counties to only those that are remote and rural. The most 
recent RUC were released in 2003, based on data from the 2000 Census ("Measuring Rurality," 
2008). The RUC separate al counties in the United States into nine categories based on the 
size of the urban population in each county and adjacency to a metropolitan area. Six of these 
categories are clasified as non-metropolitan. Of the six non-metropolitan groups, thre are 
nonadjacent to metropolitan areas, which wil be used as the standard for remotenes from 
metropolitan areas. In order to minimize the amount of urban population in each county, 
counties with urban populations greater than 20,000 individuals were also excluded.
3
 
The resulting list of survey targets (se Appendix A) contains forty-six counties from six 
diferent states: Kentucky, Misisippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Virginia, and West Virginia. None 
                                                
3
 Rural is defined on a tract level, not a county level, meaning that very few counties are actualy 
completely rural. However, county level analysis is valuable because it is often the level at 
which local development policy is made. This thesis is hence stil drawing an ambiguous line 
betwen rural and non-rural, but the criteria counties selected are some of the most remote and 
most rural counties in the nation. 
15 
 
of these counties contain urban populations above 20,000 individuals.  By 2009, thirty-one of 
the counties remained distresed. Thirten counties that were categorized by CES as Distresed 
in 2002 were considered At-Risk in 2009, an improvement in performance ("Couunty Economic 
Status in Appalachia, FY 2009; Source and Methodology: Distresed Designation and County 
Economic Status Clasification System," 2009). Only one county Distresed in 2002 advanced 
to the level of Transitional, a label asociated with counties performing in the middle fifty 
percent of national counties. No counties progresed to Competitive or Atainment levels. 
Table 1: Criteria Counties and County Economic Status 
County Economic 
Status Level
4
 
Category 
Description: 
Composite index 
performance 
compared to 
counties nationwide
5
 
Number of Criteria 
Counties in this 
Category in 202 
Number of Criteria 
Counties in this 
Category by 209 
Distresed Botom 10 percent 45 31 
At-Risk Boto 10 to 25 
percent 
0 13 
Transitional Middle 50 percent 0 1 
Competitive Top 25 percent, but 
below top 10 percent 
0 0 
Attainment Top 10 percent 0 0 
 
The examples of economic development strategies found in these criteria counties is 
hence only a picture eforts occurring in the worst performing counties as of 2002. Focusing on 
succes stories as those iluminated by Lambe (2008) provides unique policy recommendations, 
but it is unclear what constitutes a remote rural succes story, an isue analyzed in the 
conclusion. The value of focusing on the worst performing counties is that insight into their 
economic development strategies has the potential of offering an explanation of which types of 
                                                
4
 Appalachian Regional Commision, “County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2002, from 
http:/ww.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=941. 
5
 Appalachian Regional Commision, “Source and Methodology: Distresed Designation and 
County Economic Status Clasification System,” from 
http:/ww.arc.gov/images/maps/cty_econ09.html. 
16 
 
development eforts the counties with the most limited resources and greatest hurdles are 
pursuing. The counties that did improve by 2009, although they did not progres to Competitive 
or Atainment levels, can provide an initial basis for developing strategies for the most 
struggling, most remote rural communities that do not yet have an answer as to what is the path 
to succes. 
Survey Targets Within Counties 
 The analysis is based on a survey of multiple leaders per each criteria county. Each leader 
represents a diferent role in promoting economic development within the community. The 
intended result of surveying more than one individual per county was to gather a more 
comprehensive and diverse perspective. 
Contact information for each of these individuals was collected over the internet and 
follow-up phone cals. Some roles were not applicable to a county or contact information was 
unavailable. When contact information was available, the survey was sent to the following 
leaders
6
 within each criteria county: 
• County elected chief executive or administrator 
• Chamber of commerce president or executive 
• Industrial development authority president or executive 
Several organizations that could be potentialy considered as afiliated with economic 
development were not included in this list. Tourism boards are active in almost every rural 
community, but the specific focus on tourism as the economic development model evaded the 
atempt of this survey to understand a diversity of approaches. Organizations that distribute 
welfare funds, such as Community Action Agencies, and do not engage in development 
                                                
6
 Additional contacts recommended by survey respondents and city mayors were originaly 
targeted as potential respondents, but null responses led to a narower target of leaders. 
17 
 
programs were also not included. Although they do provide valuable resources, they do not 
encourage long-term development, which is the area this analysis is studying. Finaly, non-profit 
organizations are an important mising link in the list compared to a traditional list of players in 
economic development. No list or variety of local non-profits in these communities was found.
7
 
Survey and Disemination 
 The survey (se Appendix B) contains 35 questions regarding the types of economic 
development eforts occurring and the influences on what types of economic development eforts 
are occurring in the respondents’ communities. Economic development eforts that have 
occurred from 2003 to the present are specificaly evaluated given the CES data used to clasify 
development in the criteria counties. There are both open-ended questions and questions in 
which potential choices are specified. The survey was emailed to each respondent and then a 
series of follow-up emails and phone cals were placed to each respondent as wel. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
7
 Se conclusion for a discussion of why this may be the case. 
18 
 
IV. Economic Development Insight From Local Leaders 
 Survey responses from local leaders offer insight into which types of economic 
development eforts are occurring in their communities and why communities are pursuing these 
types of eforts. After describing demographic characteristics of survey respondents, this section 
analyzes survey responses in thre key categories. First, leaders’ responses regarding the hurdles 
and eforts occurring in their communities provide a basis for understanding what economic 
development in remote rural communities has looked like since 2003. Second, responses explore 
which organizations are responsible for the selection and succes of economic development 
eforts in these communities, providing context for the role of the respondents’ organizations 
among many organizations making economic development policy at the local level. Finaly, the 
focus is narowed down to analyze the influences on the choice of economic development efort 
types by the respondents’ organizations. 
Survey Response Demographics 
 A total of twenty
8
 survey responses were submited betwen August and November of 
2009. Respondents represent seventen diferent counties, one-third of the original criteria 
counties.
9
 Reflecting the composition of the larger set of criteria counties, the majority 
                                                
8
 The response rate among the thre major categories of leaders outlined in the methodology 
section is 17.7 percent. The proces of requesting responses provided two pieces of information 
that may explain the relatively low response rate. First, community leaders in thre counties 
reported that the community’s Chamber of Commerce was no longer operating; perhaps, this is 
also the case in other counties. Second, responders who submited answers after second or third 
contact continuously reported computer trouble or poor internet connection as reasons why their 
responses were delayed. These comments raise the possibility that acesibility was an isue in 
terms of gathering responses. 
9
 Nineten surveys were from leaders in individual counties, and one response was from the 
leader of a multi-county development organization. The responses from the later were left out of 
most of the analysis in order to isolate perspectives from county-level leaders. The responses 
from the multi-county leader were confounded by the fact that he works with diferent 
19 
 
(fourten) of respondents’ counties are located in Kentucky. Most of the respondents’ counties 
remained Distresed, as categorized by the 2009 County Economic Status, but there are also 
responses from leaders in counties that improved their economic status from 2002 to 2009. 
The respondents themselves fil a variety of roles within their communities. Table 2 
categorizes the primary leadership positions of respondents. Al but two respondents have 
worked at their organization for more than thre years, and the majority of respondents have 
worked at the organization for more than six years. Several respondents hold multiple leadership 
positions within their communities, including positions on their local Tourism Board. 
Table 2: Primary Leadership Positions of Respondents 
 
Respondents represent communities that, while al clasified as not adjacent to a 
metropolitan area by the USDA ERS, vary in terms of the reported driving distance to the nearest 
metropolitan area (Graph 1).  It takes longer than one hour for more than two-thirds of the 
respondents to drive to the nearest reported metropolitan area. However, when asked which 
metropolitan area is closest to their community, respondents did not always report communities 
that are in fact Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Several respondents named micropolitan areas or 
county seats. It is unclear what these non-metropolitan areas indicate regarding how respondents 
perceive metropolitan communities, but the implication is that these communities are in fact even 
further away from metropolitan areas than reported. 
                                                                                                                                                       
organizations that the local leaders. However, multi-county leaders can provide valuable insight 
into the varying types of eforts occurring in these counties. 
Organization Position Number of Respondents 
County Government Elected Oficial 3 
County Government Administrator/Clerk 2 
Chamber of Commerce President or Executive 
Director 
7 
Economic or Industrial 
Development Authority 
Director or Administrator 7 
20 
 
Graph 1: Reported Driving Distance to Nearest Metropolitan Area 
 
More teling of the degre of remotenes in these communities is that, when asked how 
much the long distance to metropolitan areas afects economic development in their counties, 
every respondent acknowledged proximity was a factor afecting development. The extent to 
which proximity to a metropolitan area is considered a factor afecting development relative to 
other factors if further explored in the next section. 
Economic Development, 2003 to 2009 
Factors Afecting Economic Development 
Respondents were asked how much eleven diferent factors impact economic 
development eforts in their communities (see Appendix C for factors and complete responses). 
The decision as to whether the factor is a positive or negative influence on economic 
development was left to the respondent in order to minimize built-in asumptions. Thus, 
responses merely reflect the degre of impact each factors has on economic development in 
respondents’ jurisdictions. 
Results were first analyzed by asigning numerical values to responses and comparing the 
average perceived impact of each factor on economic development (se Appendix C). The 
21 
 
results show on average which factors on average are more influential on economic development 
in remote rural communities the respondents represent. The average perceived impact of each of 
these factors does not vary greatly, but there are some noticeable diferences. As would be 
expected given previous literature regarding the hurdles faced by rural communities, these 
respondents from remote rural communities perceive out-migration of young people, natural 
beauty, and limited entertainment for young people as the factors with the greatest impact on 
economic development eforts in their respective jurisdictions. 
More interesting is the distribution of responses within each factor. Several factors have 
mostly homogenous responses. Community leaders in various counties have similar perceptions 
as to how much the out-migration of young people, natural beauty, limited entertainment for 
young people, culture and history, and an aging population afect economic development in their 
communities. For example, al respondents except for one saw their community’s culture and 
history as having some or very much impact on local eforts, as previous literature predicts. 
Later questions about types of economic development eforts ilustrate that leaders are spending 
a great deal of time atempting to capitalize on these cultural and historical asets. These results 
suggest that these factors are a commonality among the criteria counties. 
Contrarily, the responses for other factors were heterogeneous. The absence of a 
community college or university within the home county of six respondents led this factor to 
have the lowest average impact value, although those respondents who do have a community 
college or university in their community reported that the educational presence does have an 
impact on development eforts. While five respondents think the lack of broadband internet 
aces had a high degre of impact on local eforts, thre respondents report that this factor does 
not apply to their communities. Similarly, seven respondents report that aging roads have a large 
impact on economic development eforts, while four respondents do not think aging roads is a 
22 
 
factor applicable to their towns. These results suggest where some of the variance and unique 
aspects of county-level economic development may emerge. 
The long distance from these communities to a metropolitan area is a factor of particular 
interest in this analysis. Al responses indicate that the local leaders believe that long distance to 
a metropolitan area is a factor applicable to their communities. More than two-thirds of 
respondents respond that the long distance to a metropolitan area afects economic development 
in their communities “very much” or “somewhat.” However, four of the respondents do not 
think this factor has an impact on economic development eforts in their community.  
Graph 2: Reported Impact of Long Distance to Metropolitan Area on Economic 
Developent Eforts in Respondents’ Jurisdictions 
 
There are no clear correlations betwen responses to this question and distance to the 
nearest metropolitan area or 2009 County Economic Status. It is unclear whether the responses 
reflect that individuals perceive remotenes diferently or if remotenes is truly afecting 
economic development in some communities more than others. These responses, combined with 
perceptions of the influence of other factors and the types of eforts pursued, ilustrate what the 
situational context for economic development looks like in these remote rural counties. 
 
23 
 
Types of Economic Development Eforts Ocurring Within Criteria Counties 
 Respondents were next asked to report how much emphasis their jurisdiction as a whole 
has placed on various types of economic development eforts since 2003. The results suggest 
that these communities do, on average, place greater emphasis on some types of eforts that 
make them les dependent on outside influences than other types of eforts with higher 
dependency levels. When numerical values are atributed to responses and averaged, leaders 
report that their communities place great emphasis on maintaining busineses already located in 
their jurisdictions and supporting localy owned busineses and entrepreneurs that. In contrast, 
leaders atribute much lower levels of emphasis to recruiting new busineses into the jurisdiction 
and improving products exported to metropolitan areas. Tourism, both for natural asets and 
cultural asets, perform in the median range as wel, which means these eforts are stil 
prominent but perhaps not as emphasized as suggested in other literature. Encouraging 
enrollment in post secondary education, improving kindergarten and primary education received 
median average emphasis scores. In contrast, leaders atributed some of the lowest emphasis 
values to support for worker retraining programs and community college programs that train 
workers, which are fundamental components of cluster models for development (Porter, 2004). 
An open-ended question asked community leaders to list additional economic 
development eforts occurring in their community. Responses largely fal into the previous 
categories, but provide ilustrations of the kinds of projects that are occurring in the 
communities. Many of the eforts are fostering strategic development. At least one county is 
currently working on constructing a vision statement and new, writen strategic plan. Another 
county has developed a Community Fund “to help support local community development eforts 
24 
 
by providing a source of grant funds. “
10
  One response demonstrates that a community is 
prioritizing what they view as their greatest weaknes, their lack of sufficient highways. 
Several of the responses suggest that leaders view part of community development eforts 
as framing their community’s role in the economy. One respondent says his county is “Seling 
ourselves as the regional hub that we are. We service the 7 rural counties bordering our county. “  
Another respondent wrote, “We tel of the beauty of the area. We also stres the work ethic of the 
local population.” 
To promote tourism, one respondents says that her community is “continuing 
improvements to local [Agricultural]/Expo Center and event bookings.” In another county, the 
Tourism Commision is “in the early stages of building a regional tourism center,” reports a local 
leader. As a demonstration of how a community can take a unique resource in their community 
can capitalize on it to make it an asets, one county has redeveloping a former rail yard and 
Brownfield site and used “downtown revitalization and mixed use commercial development” to 
create a “tourism agnet […] through the atraction of a scenic train/short line railroad operation 
and a live performance music theater that promotes it shows to bus groups and motor coach 
operations,” said a represent from the county’s Development Authority. 
 Evidence of Porter’s (2004) clusters model was found in the response of another local 
leader, who wrote that his “[…] community is known as the houseboat manufacturing capital of 
the world. We have six houseboat manufacturing plants and one pontoon boat manufacturing 
plant. In short, we have developed a cluster of houseboat manufacturers employing some 700 
workers.” 
                                                
10
 Quotations in this section are direct survey responses by community leaders. They are 
minimaly atributed in compliance with Institutional Review Board protocol to protect the 
privacy of community leaders. This privacy was protected in hopes of alowing community 
leaders to speak frely about their perspectives. 
25 
 
Organizations That Shape Economic Development in Remote Counties 
 Beyond merely what types of eforts are occurring in these communities, an 
understanding of how economic development occurs requires a grasp of which individuals and 
organizations are shaping economic development policy. The survey asked respondents how 
much several categories of organizations afect the types of economic development eforts 
pursued and contribute to the succes of these eforts in the region. The definition of succes 
was left up to the respondents. Each potential response was asigned a number such that 
responses correlated with greater impact and succes received greater values. A ranking system 
of averages is used to ases the relative level of various organizations’ impact and succes (se 
Table 3).  
Table 3: Organization Impact and Suces Rankings
11
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                
11
 A ranking of “1” signifies that the organization had the greatest average impact or succes 
value 
Type of Organization Impact Rank Succes Rank 
One or more county or local 
government agency 
1 2 
One or more state government 
agency 
2 1 
Multi-county (regional) task 
force (area development district) 
or quasi-governmental agency 
3 3 
Appalachian Regional 
Comision 
4 7 
Federal/national government 
organization besides USDA 
Rural Dev 
5 4 
USDA Rural Development 5 5 
Local chamber of 
comerce/local businesses 
7 6 
County-wide or local non-
profit(s) 
8 9 
Multi-county (regionaly) based 
non-profits 
9 8 
Nation-wide non-profit(s) 10 11 
State-wide non-profit(s) 
10 10 
State-wide for-profit(s) 12 12 
26 
 
When organizations had an identical average value, organizations with a distribution more 
clustered around higher impact and succes values were ranked higher than organizations with 
more heterogeneous responses. 
The rankings of types of organizations acording to their succes and impact rankings are 
almost identical. However, average succes rankings were uniformly lower than average impact 
rankings, with the exception of multi-county task forces, which performed slightly beter in the 
succes category. Respondents selected from the same scale for both questions. Hence, this 
trend highlights the diference betwen an organization playing an influential role in the 
community and actualy contributing to what the respondents perceive as positive economic 
development results. 
 An analysis of rankings shows that perceived importance of local level government 
organizations. Government or quasi-governmental groups comprise the top five organizations 
when ranked acording to the reported impact on which types of economic development eforts 
are pursued in the respondents’ counties. Potentialy reflecting the bias of the local-level 
respondent population, it is in fact the local government that respondents rank as most 
influential, and the subsequent ranking of government organizations correlate with increasing 
jurisdiction levels.  
 Rankings show that government organizations categoricaly outperform for-profit and 
non-profit organizations. Non-profit and for-profit organizations fal to the bottom of the impact 
rank list. This could signal that these organizations are not very active in remote rural 
communities in Appalachia, which would explain the dificulty of finding contact information 
for such organizations in the region. Alternatively, the fact that non-profits were not surveyed 
may bias perspectives as to which organizations are most efective. The survey responses could 
27 
 
capture a larger disconnect betwen the non-profit organizations and government and Chamber 
of Commerce representatives. 
 Surprisingly, the Chamber of Commerce and local busineses performed relatively poorly 
compared to government agencies in both impact and succes rankings. Although over half of 
the respondents represent a local Chamber of Commerce, Chambers of Commerce have an 
average impact ranking in the botom half of the organization list. Hence, the respondents did 
not merely rank their respective organizations as having the greatest impact. But the respondents 
do stil consider their organizations as having an impact on economic development in their 
communities. 
Respondents’ Organizations: Impact, Eforts, and Influences 
 Given that their organizations do play a role in economic development proceses in these 
communities, analysis of the decision-making proces regarding which economic development 
strategies to pursue within respondents’ own organizations can offer insight into how decisions 
are made on the local level. Overal, respondents indicate that their organizations do impact the 
types of development eforts occurring in their jurisdictions. 
Graph 3: Responses to Statement That Respondent’s Organization Impacts 
Types of Development Eforts Ocuring in The Jurisdiction 
 
28 
 
This result suggests that their organizations’ decision-making proceses are relevant to an 
understanding of how economic development eforts occur in their communities at large.  
Generaly, the types of economic development strategies the respondents’ organizations 
are pursuing align with the reported types of eforts occurring in the jurisdictions at large. 
Diferences reflect delegation in responsibilities. For example, we would not expect nor do we 
se that Chambers of Commerce spend much time working to improve roads in their 
jurisdictions, as this responsibility is delegated to the government. 
Factors That Influence Decision-Making At Respondents’ Organizations 
 Leaders base decisions as to which types of eforts to pursue based on a variety of 
influences. Personal knowledge and requests or stated priorities of other community members 
and constituents are the primary influences on the respondents’ organization priorities as to 
which types of economic development eforts to pursue. Previous organization priorities and 
Graph 4: How Much Factors Influence Respondents’ Organizations Selection of Efort Types 
(3=very much) 
 
 
economic development plans have some of the least influence on organization priorities, 
indicating that any extent to which the priorities of the organization are fixed is likely due to 
litle turnover of leaders as opposed to strategic decisions that have long-term implications. Like 
29 
 
many of the other responses to questions in this survey, there is great variation among responses 
to influences except for in the case of personal and constituent knowledge, which responses 
almost uniformly report as having the maximum influence. The higher influence values of 
personal and local level sources compared to federal and state level grants suggests that it is 
important to understand what local leaders are experiencing in their own communities in order to 
understand how economic development policy is made. 
Information Used To Make Decisions 
When respondents were asked what information the their organizations depend on to 
make decisions as to which types of economic development eforts to pursue, some similar 
trends appear. On average, leaders depend on personal and community knowledge more than 
any other resource. Responses regarding the influence of personal and community knowledge 
are also highly consistent across respondents. Again, when organizations are ranked acording 
to average influence, non-profits and busineses are ranked on average near the bottom of 
information sources. 
Graph 5: How Much Respondents’ Organizations Depend on Various Information 
(3=Very much) 
 
 
 
30 
 
The prioritized dependence on local versus national resources paralels previous 
responses regarding which types of organizations are influencing the types of eforts occurring in 
a community. In addition to personal and community knowledge, collaboration with 
neighboring communities, information from the state government, information from local 
busineses, and information from regional agencies have much higher average dependency 
values than the Appalachian Regional Commision and the USDA Rural Development program. 
These later two organizations, the two traditional national-level rural development programs, are 
clearly overshadowed by local influences on the types of economic developments being pursued 
in the region. 
 When asked whether there is any information that their communities need to make 
economic development decisions but are currently not receiving, four respondents offered 
suggestions. Two respondents noted that they have dificulty gathering information regarding 
available grant money. One respondent particularly noted that by the time his community 
receives information regarding national programs and funding opportunities “it is usualy to late 
to get applications and apply.” These responses suggest there is a potential disconnect betwen 
development eforts promoted by state and national level organizations and local leaders because 
information is not sufficiently transfered betwen government organizations. A need for more 
localized information was also reported as important, as one leader requested information 
regarding education in his county, citing high dropout rates, and another leader requested 
analysis of the economic impact of busineses located in his community. 
Models for Succes 
 
 Based on the trend in previous research to create naratives regarding succesful 
community development, this survey asked whether local leaders could point to any 
communities that their jurisdiction could be like after undergoing succesful economic 
31 
 
development. Five local leaders ofered suggestions. While some of the counties are in 
Appalachia or non-adjacent to metropolitan areas, no reported succes story is located in a 
county that shares both of the characteristics that were used to select the survey pool for this 
study. The responses and reasons for considering these areas as models for succes are 
summarized in Table 4. 
Acording to one respondent, her community is indeed atempting to learn from what 
they se as a succes story. Her Economic Development Authority has been visiting with the 
leaders that have made succes happen in Alen County. She writes, “Alen County is a rural 
county, in a rather remote area. This is why it is so impresive to se what they have done and 
their leadership in action.” This fedback suggests that leadership, as in rural development 
literature, is in practice viewed as fundamental to the community’s economic development 
succes. 
There are thre important factors to consider when analyzing model communities, 
however.  The first is that the model cities and counties that fal within Appalachia are not 
achieving improved economic status. The reported succes is either not captured by the CES 
categorization, respondents perceive succes in terms of diferent indicators than used in the CES 
categorization, or the definition of succes used by respondents is on a more marginal scale than 
captured by the discrete CES categorizations. Second, the models are demographicaly quite 
diferent from the respondents’ communities. Mt. Dora, Florida, for example, lies within a 
Metropolitan Statistical Area. Most of the counties have much larger population sizes and are 
adjacent to metropolitan areas. These diferences bring into question the appropriatenes of 
using these communities as models for remote rural development succes. Third, many of the 
factors admired by respondents are not within their control. While one model county reportedly 
benefited a great deal from congresional representation, there is litle remote rural counties can  
32 
 
Table 4: Reported Comunity Suces Stories
12
 
Comunity Name Reason Ofered By 
Respondent 
County RUCC
13
 
2003 
Adjac
ent to 
Metro 
In 
Appalachia 
County Economic 
Status (ARC) FY 
2006 
Mt. Dora, Florida A “town in the midle of 
nowhere” that has “sucesfully 
transformed their downtown into 
a day-trip destination aimed at a 
mature demographic” 
1 (“County in 
metro area with 1 
milion population 
or more”) 
- No - 
Boone, North 
Carolina (Watauga 
County) 
“I am told Bone […] but I have 
never been there.” 
6 (“Nonmetro 
county with urban 
population of 
2,500-19,999, 
adjacent to a metro 
area”) 
Yes Yes Transitional 
Pulaski 
County/Somerset 
Congresional representation - 
“They have ben sucesful 
largely in part because the 
Congresman for this 
Congresional District is from 
that city/county. It sems to 
surounding counties in this 
region that al development takes 
place there because they are 
always getting additional jobs, 
many of which are government 
contracted jobs.” 
5 (“Nonmetro 
county with urban 
population of 
20,000 or more, 
not adjacent to a 
metro area) 
No Yes At-Risk 
(Transitional in 
2002) 
City of Scotsvile, 
Kentucky (Allen 
County) 
“The City of Scotsvile, 
Kentucky (Allen County) has 
renovated al the old buildings in 
their entire down-town, 
complete renovation of streets, 
parking lots, lighting and 
landscaping. Several of the old 
buildings in the downtown have 
beautiful "roof" apartments. One 
huge buildings has been 
renovated and made into smal 
shops for entrepreneurs. (arts, 
crafts, and al types of 
busineses. (incubator) for 
entrepreneurs. They pay very 
little rent for the first 3 years in 
operation. By that time most are 
able to move out and into their 
own or rented building. A 
waiting list of entrepreneurs are 
waiting to move in where the 
others had vacated. A real 
sucessful program.” 
6 (“Nonmetro 
county with urban 
population of 
2,500-19,999, 
adjacent to a metro 
area) 
Yes No - 
Lewisburg 
(Grenbrier 
County), West 
Virginia 
“Lewisburg has revitalized their 
downtown, restored their historic 
sites and made the town a true 
cultural, heritage, and historic 
destination for al people.” 
 
7 (“Nonmetro 
county with urban 
population of 
2,500-19,999, not 
adjacent to a metro 
area”) 
No Yes At-Risk 
                                                
12
 Eight respondents replied that there is no model succes story. Six respondents did not reply 
to this question. 
13
 Source: USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). 
33 
 
do to advance their own congresional representation. These isues provide support for Daniel’s 
(1991) claims that models are perhaps not a succesful method of creating economic 
development policy, but they do show that local leaders in these remote areas are taking part in a 
discourse regarding what economic development they desire for their communities. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
34 
 
V. Making Rural Policy 
During a United States Senate hearing in July 2009, Secretary of Agriculture Tom 
Vilsack stated that he thinks “we are just on the cusp of a revitalized rural America” (Moving 
America Toward A Clean Energy Economy And Reducing Global Warming Pollution: 
Legislative Tools, 2009). It is unclear, however, whether a revitalized rural America includes 
remote rural communities that have historical faced the greatest economic struggles and an 
additional set of hurdles for development. 
Some local leaders in remote area explicitly report a bias by the state or national 
government toward more populated areas. At the conclusion of her response to survey used in 
this analysis, the Director of a county Economic Development Authority in Kentucky wrote that 
communities like hers “frequently get bypased in favor of larger metropolitan areas with higher 
population density. That is to be understood, but the result is that the metro areas grow larger 
while the smaler communities are left to survive on their own.” Reflecting a similar sentiment, 
a Judge-Executive in Kentucky wrote, “Our state only sems to want to help the more populated 
areas with more voters in them.” A discourse regarding unequal treatment based on remotenes, 
in addition to density, is not yet found in writen viewpoints from remote leaders, just as it is a 
les common frame used in academic literature. Yet difering economic outcomes for rural areas 
suggests remotenes is an important factor to consider. 
Community leaders in remote rural communities do sem to suggest that they fel they 
are “left to survive on their own.” The responses to this rural leaders survey do not prove that 
federal policy is leaving out rural communities, but they do show that community leaders in 
these counties fel that local eforts and local information are the primary influences on 
economic development. Respondents consider more local government agencies to be the most 
35 
 
influential policymaker in terms of economic development eforts in their counties, and local 
knowledge is the greatest influence on which types of eforts leaders pursue. Given the 
importance of local eforts and information for the economic development eforts in remote rural 
communities, understanding the local perspective is a valuable step toward understanding how to 
foster beneficial remote rural development policy. 
The State of Remote Rural Development 
Understanding the local perspective is dificult, however, because there is a large amount 
of variation among remote rural communities. Several examples clearly ilustrate the prevalence 
of variation. While one respondent considers his county to be the regional hub of commerce, 
suggesting excelent transportation infrastructure, another respondent claims that his community 
is focusing on improving the highway system because his county lacks a four-lane highway. 
Another leader, when asked to name other economic development contacts in his community, 
replied “I’m prety much the guy. We are spread thin on personnel.” While this one individual 
fils multiple leadership roles in his community, another respondent reported that her county has 
a ten-person board working on promoting planned development. Finaly, while some 
respondents report that there is not a community college in their county, those that do have a 
community college report that it has a high impact on local economic development.  
Even though the criteria counties share similar population sizes, regional location, and 
metropolitan proximity, leaders from diferent counties have diferent responses to questions 
regarding local economic development. There are surely lesons to be learned from studying this 
specific subgroup of remote rural counties in Appalachia, but the results are not necesarily 
applicable to remote rural communities elsewhere. Policymakers thus need further research 
regarding why these diferences among remote rural counties exist. The diferences could be the 
36 
 
result of varying priorities across communities or unequal opportunities, and these explanations 
would lead to diferent policy recommendations. 
Determining What Works 
 The variation across remote rural communities in this study supports previous research 
suggesting that determining an economic development strategy that can be generaly applied is 
dificult and possibly inefective. But ascertaining what types of eforts are succesful in remote 
rural communities would be valuable in order to create policy that improves the economic status 
of counties like those that are the focus of this study. 
 The models that respondents say reflect what they would like their community to look 
like after succesful economic development, while not clearly applicable to the uniquenes of 
remote rural communities, highlight types of eforts perceived as succesful. The communities 
of Mt. Dora, Florida and Lewisburg, West Virginia were cited as succes stories because of their 
eforts to promote tourism in their communities. Alen County, Kentucky succeded in 
revitalizing the community’s downtown and fostering entrepreneurship. Both of these types of 
endeavors are considered prominent by rural economic development writings, and are listed 
when respondents were asked which types of economic development eforts they think are 
succesful. If these are prominent eforts occurring in remote rural communities, analysis of 
their costs and benefits is important. Research needs to further explore the potential pitfals of a 
tourism based economy, which makes the community very dependent on outsiders for economic 
growth and vulnerable to seasonal change. Entrepreneurship creates les dependency but, as 
proposed by Daniels (1991), perhaps slower growth results. 
 Analysis the survey data for counties that had no improved in their CES by 2009 
compared to responses from leaders in counties that did improve offers promising economic 
development ideas for further research. When responses are grouped acording to whether the 
37 
 
county underwent economic improvement, several trends emerge. Two organizations reportedly 
have more of an impact on economic development eforts in improvement counties compared to 
non-improvement counties: Chambers of Commerce and state-level for-profits. 
 Interestingly, counties that improved their economic development status reported that the 
federal government impacts economic development eforts in their communities far les than 
reported by non-improvement counties. Exploring this trend further could be a fruitful endeavor. 
Is this finding reflecting that federal policies are inefective because they are designed poorly on 
the federal level or implemented poorly on the local level? One local leader wrote that he 
Would like to have more information on what the Cabinets for Economic 
Development on the National level has regarding the projects, money available 
and data and research done on the projects. If Counties had this information 
would be of tremendous help. Usualy do not know about them until it is to late to 
get applications and apply. (Rural Leaders Survey) 
This response suggests that perhaps there is a mising link translating federal programs to 
individuals who need to implement the program on the ground. Thorough analysis of the 
eficacy of federal programs to promote rural development would help policymakers understand 
where the failure in federal policy is occurring.  
Respondents from improvement counties cited the presence of a community college or 
university in their county as impacting economic development to a much greater extent than 
reported by respondents from non-improvement counties. The presence of a community college 
is far more common in counties with improved CES than those that did not advance. Investment 
in transportation infrastructure and the presence of a community college or university in a nearby 
county also had prominently greater impact values, on average, for improvement county 
respondents than non-improvement county respondents. 
38 
 
 Hence, the diversity among criteria counties makes a policy prescription dificult, but 
focusing on education might be a good place to begin. A specific emphasis on post-secondary 
education appears to be a particularly important characteristic of counties that improved their 
economic status over the past six years. The development of community college programs that 
directly collaborate with busineses to create specialized skil-training programs is a fundamental 
characteristic of rural clusters models, as advocated by Porter (2004). It is unclear, however, 
how the idea that post-secondary education a key for remote rural economic development aligns 
with the labor supply-demand mismatch model. Increasing post-secondary education does not 
sem like it would create economic growth for a remote community unles there are jobs within 
the county that require the unique set of skils developed in the education program. 
Given that there is no clear path for remote economic development but local knowledge 
and leadership plays an important role in creating the path for each community, investing in 
efective leaders could be a first step to promote remote rural economic development. Rural 
development literature and the responses in this survey both acknowledge that local leadership is 
important for remote rural economic development. The dilema thus becomes how to create the 
type of local leadership that can have a positive impact. Funding larger county-level stafs 
working on economic development or strategic planning training could provide remote rural 
counties with greater opportunities to develop strong economic development eforts in their 
communities. 
Rethinking Rural 
Rural leaders make it clear that remotenes is a factor afecting economic development in 
their communities, but it is not clear how this factor does or should alter economic development 
eforts.  The long distance to a metropolitan area is reported to be an important factor afecting 
economic development, but it is by no means the most important factor. There were no specific 
39 
 
types of economic development eforts that were revealed in this survey that suggest unique 
approaches being taken in these communities, as we perhaps would expect. However, remote 
rural communities continue to be some of the worst performing counties in the United States in 
terms of economic indicators, and solving this problem ay require a first step of rethinking 
“rural.” 
The dichotomy betwen “rural” and “urban” alows for remote rural areas to be silently 
pushed aside in economic development discourse. The collective results of the rural leaders 
survey suggest that the types of economic development eforts occurring in remote rural areas 
largely miror those reported as rural development strategies more generaly. There are key 
diferences betwen a rural town on the outskirts of metropolitan Atlanta and the most remote 
towns in eastern Kentucky, however. Perhaps diferent economic development strategies need to 
be pursued in metro-adjacent and remote rural communities. The insight offered by local leaders 
in Appalachia’s remote rural counties suggest that policymakers might need to redefine 
economic development eforts based on a spectrum of geographic proximity. 
It could be that part of the isue of developing good economic policies for remote rural 
communities is the dificulty in defining succes. The definition used for economic development 
in the survey was simply increased wages and employment levels. A healthy and succesful 
community clearly needs much more than money. A clean environment, a sense of place, 
community interaction, and quality schools are several of many diferent factors that can be 
valued as necesary for succes. Further, an underlying question in a discussion of remote rural 
development is to what extent succesful economic development for these communities equates 
to urbanization or integration into a Metropolitan Statistical Area. Whether the needs of a 
community can be met without changing the fundamentaly rural characteristics is unknown. 
40 
 
The argument for why consolidation of America’s population into metropolitan areas is 
bad for not only rural Americans but the country as a whole thus needs to be outlined in order for 
rural economic development to become a national priority. In the end, the sentiment that 
metropolitan America is our nation’s future and corelated disregard for rural communities 
thwarts any atempt for comprehensive rural policy. A belief in the value of rural America may 
be mostly personal. Rural advocates cite the important ecological role of healthy rural 
communities, the right to live where one wishes to live, the generational ties to one’s land that is 
common in rural areas, plus the importance of rural America as a symbol of American. The rural 
advocate’s first step is to share these arguments with Americans from al types of communities. 
When policymakers begin to rethink rural and acknowledge that remote communities require 
unique development policy, local leaders wil have the insight needed to make policy as varied as 
the counties in rural America. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
41 
 
VI. Appendices 
Apendix A: Criteria Counties 
FIPS State County Rural Urban Continum 
Code (203) 
ARC ounty Economic 
Status (209) 
21013 Kentucky Bell 7 Distresed 
21025 Kentucky Breathit 7 Distresed 
21045 Kentucky Casey 9 Distresed 
21051 Kentucky Clay 7 Distresed 
21053 Kentucky Clinton 9 Distresed 
21057 Kentucky Cumberland 9 Distresed 
21063 Kentucky Elliot 9 Distresed 
21071 Kentucky Floyd 7 Distresed 
21095 Kentucky Harlan 7 Distresed 
21109 Kentucky Jackson 9 Distresed 
21115 Kentucky Johnson 7 Distresed 
21119 Kentucky Knot 9 Distresed 
21121 Kentucky Knox 7 Distresed 
21129 Kentucky Lee 9 Distresed 
21131 Kentucky Leslie 9 Distresed 
21133 Kentucky Letcher 9 Distresed 
21137 Kentucky Lincoln 7 Distresed 
21153 Kentucky Magofin 9 Distresed 
21147 Kentucky McCreary 9 Distresed 
21165 Kentucky Menife 9 Distresed 
21171 Kentucky Monroe 9 Distresed 
21175 Kentucky Morgan 7 Distresed 
21189 Kentucky Owsley 9 Distresed 
21193 Kentucky Pery 7 Distresed 
21203 Kentucky Rockcastle 7 Distresed 
21207 Kentucky Rusel 9 Distresed 
21231 Kentucky Wayne 7 Distresed 
21235 Kentucky Whitley 7 Distresed 
21237 Kentucky Wolfe 9 Distresed 
54089 West Virginia Sumers 7 Distresed 
54101 West Virginia Webster 9 Distresed 
42 
 
21001 Kentucky Adair 7 At-Risk 
21195 Kentucky Pike 7 At-Risk 
21205 Kentucky Rowan 7 At-Risk 
28095 Misisipi Monroe 7 At-Risk 
28117 Misisipi Prentis 7 At-Risk 
37075 North Carolina Graham 9 At-Risk 
39079 Ohio Jackson 7 At-Risk 
51027 Virginia Buchanan 9 At-Risk 
51195 Virginia Wise + Norton city 7 At-Risk 
54021 West Virginia Gilmer 9 At-Risk 
54041 West Virginia Lewis 7 At-Risk 
54075 West Virginia Pocahontas 9 At-Risk 
54097 West Virginia Upshur 7 At-Risk 
54083 West Virginia Randolph 7 Transitional 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
43 
 
Apendix B: Survey 
 
LOCAL INSIGHT INTO RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 
 
PART I – General: This section asks about background regarding your work and 
overal economic development perspectives. Your responses to the following 
questions (1-12) may be paired with your name or other identifiers in my report of 
this research. 
 
1. Your name: 
 
2. The jurisdiction I serve is: 
a. a county 
b. a city or town 
c. other: ___________ 
 
3. The name of my jurisdiction is (please include county name(s): _______________ 
 
4. My jurisdiction is located in 
a. Kentucky 
b. Misisippi 
c. North Carolina 
d. Ohio 
e. Virginia 
f. West Virginia 
 
5. I serve my jurisdiction as (please select al that apply): 
a. elected official 
b.  county executive 
c.  city or town executive 
d.  appointed official 
e.  chair or President of Chamber of Commerce's Board of Directors 
f.  director or executive director of Chamber of Commerce 
g.  member of Chamber of Commerce 
h.  member, Tourism Board or Commision 
i.  president or chair, Tourism Board or Commision 
j.  member, leadership, or staf of Industrial Development Authority 
k.  other economic development role – please specify: ________________ 
 
6. The name of my organization or office is: ________________ 
 
7. I have been a part of this organization for 
a. les than 1 year 
b. 1-2 years 
c. 3-5 years 
d. 6-10 years 
44 
 
e. more than 10 years 
 
8. My official title in this organization is: ______________ 
 
9. I have held this position for 
a. les than 1 year 
b. 1-2 years 
c. 3-5 years 
d. 6-10 years 
e. more than 10 years 
 
10. I have lived in the jurisdiction I serve for 
a. I do not live in this jurisdiction 
b. les than 1 year 
c. 1-2 years 
d. 3-5 years 
e. 6-10 years 
f. more than 10 years 
 
11. Name of metropolitan area closest to downtown in your jurisdiction: ________ 
 
12. On average, how long does it take to drive from your jurisdiction’s downtown to the 
nearest metropolitan area named in the previous question? 
a. Under 30 minutes 
b. 30 minutes to an hour 
c. 1-2 hours 
d. 2-3 hours 
e. 3-4 hours 
f. 4-5 hours 
g. more than 5 hours 
 
Economic development is defined in many ways. For all of the remaining 
questions, please answer with the following basic definition of economic 
development in mind: economic development is a proces that leads to job creation 
and increased wages. 
 
PART I – Current Eforts: This section asks about types of economic development 
eforts occurring in your jurisdiction since 2003 in order to create a comprehensive 
picture of what economic development strategies local leaders are pursuing in your 
region. Your responses to the following questions (1-3) are confidential. Your 
name or other identifiers wil not be paired with your responses 
 
 
 
 
45 
 
1. How much does each of the following factors impact economic development in your 
jurisdiction? Please select one response for each factor. 
 Very much Somewhat A litle Applies to my 
town but no 
impact 
Does not 
apply to my 
town 
Natural beauty 1 2 3 4 5 
Aging roads 1 2 3 4 5 
Long distance to 
metropolitan area 
1 2 3 4 5 
Community college or 
university in county 
1 2 3 4 5 
Community college or 
university in nearby 
county 
1 2 3 4 5 
Aging population 1 2 3 4 5 
Aging water and sewer 
facilities 
1 2 3 4 5 
Lack of broadband 
internet aces 
1 2 3 4 5 
Culture and history 1 2 3 4 5 
Limited entertainment 
for young people 
1 2 3 4 5 
Out-migration of young 
people 
1 2 3 4 5 
 
 
2. In your opinion, how much emphasis has your jurisdiction as a whole placed on each of 
the following types of eforts from 2003 to the present? Please select one response for each 
efort. 
 Very much Somewhat A litle Not at al 
Investments in roads and 
transportation 
1 2 3 4 
Investments in broadband 
internet 
1 2 3 4 
Supporting localy owned 
busineses and entrepreneurs 
1 2 3 4 
Maintaining busineses 
already located in your 
jurisdiction 
1 2 3 4 
Recruiting new busineses to 
come to your jurisdiction 
1 2 3 4 
Supporting community 
college training programs 
that train workers for a 
specific busines 
1 2 3 4 
Supporting worker retraining 
programs 
1 2 3 4 
46 
 
Promoting tourism for 
environment/natural asets 
1 2 3 4 
Promoting tourism for 
cultural asets/crafts/arts 
1 2 3 4 
Encouraging residents to buy 
local or support local 
busineses first 
1 2 3 4 
Improving K-12 education 1 2 3 4 
Encouraging enrollment in 
post-secondary education 
(college or community 
college) 
1 2 3 4 
Increasing products exported 
to metropolitan area(s) 
1 2 3 4 
 
 
3. Please list and describe in as much detail as possible AL OTHER types of economic 
development eforts currently occurring or that have occurred in since 2003 in your 
jurisdiction (but not mentioned in question 14).  In particular, mention unique or inovative 
eforts your county is pursuing that you think decision makers in other counties or regions 
might not know about. 
 
 
 
 
 
PART II – Decision-making: This section asks about the decision-making behind 
economic development eforts in your jurisdiction in order to understand why 
certain strategies are pursued. Your responses to the following questions (1-15) are 
confidential. Your name or other identifiers wil not be paired with your 
responses. 
 
1. Does your jurisdiction have writen economic development plan(s)? 
            a.  Yes - Please continue to the next question. 
      b. No - Please skip to question 3 
 
2. Please submit al writen economic development plans or other materials/decision making 
tools that have at any time betwen 2003 and the present guided your organization’s 
economic development decisions. Your organization and/or another organization may have 
writen the plan(s). These materials could include strategic plans, comprehensive 
development plans, and any regional or multi-county economic development plans that may 
be pertinent to your jurisdiction. For each document, please provide a weblink below if 
available or submit an electronic copy of the document to sgf3@duke.edu. 
 
 
 
47 
 
   3. Are there formal goals or benchmarks for economic development in your 
   jurisdiction? 
                  a.  Yes - Please continue to the next question. 
    b. No - Please skip to question 9 in this section 
   c. Unsure - Please continue to the next question and provide as much  
      information as possible. 
 
      4. If yes, are these goals or benchmarks writen in any plan listed in question 2? 
       a. Yes 
       b. No 
    c. Unsure 
 
   5. Please write name of document(s) that contain the goals or benchmarks in the 
   comment box below. 
 
 
 
 
 
6. I fel that to date, my jurisdiction has achieved the following percent of goals/benchmarks 
set up by the plan named in response to question 15 (please select percentage closest to your 
opinion): 
a. 100% 
b. 75% 
c. 50% 
d. 25% 
e. 0% 
 
7. Is there a formal proces for evaluating your county’s progres towards achieving the 
strategic goals/benchmarks in this plan? 
a. Yes 
b. No 
 
8. If yes, when did this evaluation proces most recently occur? 
a. before 2003 
b. 2004 
c. 2005 
d. 2006 
e. 2007 
f. 2008 
g. 2009 
 
 
 
 
 
 
48 
 
9. How much have each of the following organizations impacted what types of economic 
eforts have taken place in your jurisdiction since 2003? 
 Very much Somewhat A litle Not at al 
One or more state 
government agency 
1 2 3 4 
One or more county or local 
government agency 
1 2 3 4 
Local Chamber of 
Commerce/county busineses 
1 2 3 4 
Multi-county (regional) task 
force (Area Development 
District) or quasi-
governmental agency 
1 2 3 4 
Appalachian Regional 
Commision 
1 2 3 4 
United States Department of 
Agriculture Rural 
Development 
1 2 3 4 
Federal/national government 
(besides USDA Rural 
Development) 
1 2 3 4 
State-wide non-profit(s) 1 2 3 4 
County-wide or local non-
profit(s) 
1 2 3 4 
Multi-county (regionaly) 
based non-profit(s) 
1 2 3 4 
State-wide for-profit(s) 1 2 3 4 
Nation-wide non-profit(s) 1 2 3 4 
 
10. How much have each of the following organizations contributed to the sucess of 
economic development in your jurisdiction since 2003? 
 Very much Somewhat A litle Not at al 
One or more state 
government agency 
1 2 3 4 
One or more county or local 
government agency 
1 2 3 4 
Local Chamber of 
Commerce/county busineses 
1 2 3 4 
Multi-county (regional) task 
force (Area Development 
District) or quasi-
governmental agency 
1 2 3 4 
Appalachian Regional 
Commision 
1 2 3 4 
United States Department of 
Agriculture Rural 
Development 
1 2 3 4 
49 
 
Federal/national government 
(besides USDA Rural 
Development) 
1 2 3 4 
State-wide non-profit(s) 1 2 3 4 
County-wide or local non-
profit(s) 
1 2 3 4 
Multi-county (regionaly) 
based non-profit(s) 
1 2 3 4 
State-wide for-profit(s) 1 2 3 4 
Nation-wide non-profit(s) 1 2 3 4 
 
11. My organization impacts what types economic development eforts take place in my 
jurisdiction. 
a. Strongly agre 
b. Agre 
c. Disagre 
d. Strongly disagre 
 
12. In your opinion, how much emphasis has your organization placed on each of the 
following eforts from 2003 to the present? Please select one response for each efort. 
 Very much Some A litle Not at al 
Investments in roads and 
transportation 
1 2 3 4 
Investments in broadband 
internet 
1 2 3 4 
Supporting localy owned 
busineses and entrepreneurs 
1 2 3 4 
Maintaining busineses 
already located in your 
jurisdiction 
1 2 3 4 
Recruiting new busineses to 
come to your jurisdiction 
1 2 3 4 
Supporting community 
college programs that train 
workers for a specific 
busines/corporation 
1 2 3 4 
Supporting worker retraining 
programs 
1 2 3 4 
Promoting tourism for 
environment/natural asets 
1 2 3 4 
Promoting tourism for 
cultural asets/crafts/arts 
1 2 3 4 
Encouraging residents to buy 
local or support local 
busineses first 
1 2 3 4 
Improving K-12 education 1 2 3 4 
Encouraging enrollment in 1 2 3 4 
50 
 
post-secondary education 
(college or community 
college) 
Increasing products exported 
to metropolitan area(s) 
1 2 3 4 
 
13. How much has each of the following influenced which types of economic development 
eforts your organization has prioritized since 2003? 
 Very much Some A litle Not at al 
Previous policy priorities of 
your organization 
1 2 3 4 
State mandates and grants 1 2 3 4 
Grants and objectives of the 
Appalachian Regional 
Commision 
1 2 3 4 
Federal mandates and grants 1 2 3 4 
Personal knowledge from 
living in the community 
1 2 3 4 
Requests or stated priorities 
of local community 
members/constituents 
1 2 3 4 
Faith or spirituality 1 2 3 4 
Your Jurisdiction’s strategic 
or comprehensive economic 
development plan 
1 2 3 4 
 
14. Please list and briefly describe al other influences on your organization’s prioritization of 
types of economic development eforts besides those listed in the previous question. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
51 
 
15. When making decisions as to which types of economic development eforts to pursue, 
how much does your organization currently depend on the following sources of information 
(data, research, or other)? 
 Very much Somewhat A litle Not at al 
Personal knowledge from 
living in the community 
1 2 3 4 
Knowledge from local 
community members 
1 2 3 4 
Collaboration 
with/knowledge gained from 
neighboring counties 
1 2 3 4 
Information from federal 
government 
1 2 3 4 
Information from national 
non-profits 
1 2 3 4 
Information from national 
for-profit busineses 
1 2 3 4 
Information from state 
government 
1 2 3 4 
Information from state-wide 
non-profits 
1 2 3 4 
Information from state-wide 
busineses 
1 2 3 4 
Information from local 
busineses 
1 2 3 4 
Information from local non-
profits 
1 2 3 4 
Information from regional 
(multi-county) agencies 
1 2 3 4 
Information from the 
Appalachian Regional 
Commision 
1 2 3 4 
Information from USDA 
Rural Development 
1 2 3 4 
Information from local or 
regional college or university 
1 2 3 4 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
52 
 
PART IV – Vision: This section asks about which counties exemplify succesful 
economic development to you and offers you a chance to provide any information 
or fedback that could be constructive for local leaders like yourself in other 
counties. Your responses to the following questions (1-5) may be paired with your 
name or other identifiers in my report of this research. This is the final section. 
 
1. Are there specific pieces of data and research that you currently do not have aces to but 
that would help economic development eforts in your jurisdiction? Please describe this data 
or research. 
 
 
 
2. Is there a county or city/town that you think models what your jurisdiction could be like if 
it undergoes succesful economic development? If yes, please give the name of that county 
and briefly explain why it is an example of succes. If no, please explain. 
           a.  Yes 
      b. No 
 
 
If you responded yes to question 2, please give the name of that county or city/town and 
briefly explain why it is an example of succes. If you responded no to question 2, please 
briefly explain why you do not think there is an example of succes. 
 
 
 
 
 
   3. Do you know of any types of economic development eforts that work in remote 
   rural jurisdictions but have not yet been mentioned in this survey? These could be 
   eforts that your jurisdiction pursues, is interested in pursuing, or that you are aware 
   of other jurisdictions pursuing. 
 
 
 
 
 
   4. Please name and provide contact info for up to thre additional people, either in 
   your organization or elsewhere in your jurisdiction, to whom you think it would be 
   most valuable for me to talk. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
53 
 
   5. Is there anything else that you think would be helpful for me to know about 
   economic development in your community or rural areas? If you would like to add  
   comments in response to any of the above questions, please note the survey part(s) and 
   question number(s). 
 
 
 
 
 
As mentioned in part II, Please submit al writen economic development plans or other 
materials/decision making tools that have at any time betwen 2003 and the present guided your 
organization’s economic development decisions. For each document, please provide a weblink in 
part I or submit an electronic copy of the document to sgf3@duke.edu. 
 
Thank you so much for your candor, time, and responsivenes. If you have any questions, fel 
fre to contact me at sgf3@duke.edu or (678) 471-1535. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
54 
 
Apendix C: Selected Survey Responses 
 
Part I 
 
1. How much does each of the folowing factors impact economic development in your jurisdiction? Please 
select one response for each factor. 
 
Out-
migration 
of young 
people 
Natural 
beauty 
Limited 
entertainment 
for young 
people 
Comunity 
colege or 
university in 
nearby county 
Culture 
and 
history 
Long distance 
to metropolitan 
area 
Aging 
population 
Aging 
roads 
Very Much (=4) 12 10 9 8 2 7 3 7 
Somewhat (=3) 4 6 8 6 15 6 12 5 
A litle (=2) 2 2 1 3 1 2 2 3 
Applies to my town 
but no impact (=1) 0 1 0 1 1 4 2 0 
Does not aply to my 
town (=0) 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 4 
Average 3.37 3.32 3.26 3.00 2.95 2.84 2.84 2.58 
 
(cont.) 
Aging 
water and 
sewer 
facilities 
Lack of 
broadband 
internet aces 
Comunity 
colege or 
university in your 
county 
Very Much (=4) 8 5 5 
Somewhat (=3) 4 5 5 
A litle (=2) 2 4 3 
Applies to my town 
but no impact (=1) 0 2 0 
Does not aply to my 
town (=0) 5 3 6 
Average 2.53 2.50 2.16 
 
2. In your opinion, how much emphasis has your jurisdiction as a whole placed on each of the following types 
of eforts since 2003?  Please select one response for each effort. 
 
Maintaining 
busineses 
already 
located in 
your 
jurisdiction 
Suporting 
locally owned 
busineses and 
entrepreneurs 
Promoting 
tourism for 
environment/
natural asets 
Improving 
K-12 
education 
Encouraging 
enrolment in 
post-sec. ed. 
Promoting 
tourism 
for 
cultural 
assets 
Encouraging 
residents to 
suport local 
busineses 
first 
Recruiting 
new 
busineses 
to your 
jurisd. 
Very much (=3) 13 12 11 11 11 9 9 9 
Some (=2) 3 5 6 6 5 8 8 6 
A litle (=1) 3 2 2 1 2 2 2 4 
None at al (=0) 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 
Average 2.53 2.53 2.47 2.42 2.37 2.37 2.37 2.26 
 
(cont.) 
Investing in 
roads and 
transportation 
Suporting 
worker 
retraining 
programs 
Investing 
in 
broadband 
internet 
Suporting 
comunity colege 
programs that train 
workers for a specific 
busines 
Improving 
products 
exported to 
metropolitan 
area(s) 
Very much (=3) 8 7 5 3 3 
Some (=2) 8 7 9 10 3 
A litle (=1) 2 3 4 3 10 
None at al (=0) 1 2 1 3 3 
Average 2.21 2.00 1.95 1.68 1.32 
 
55 
 
Part II 
 
9. How much have each of the following organizations impacted what types of economic eforts have taken 
place in your jurisdiction since 203? 
 
One or more 
county or local 
government 
agency 
One or 
more state 
government 
agency 
Multi-county 
(regional) task 
force or quasi-
governmental 
agency ARC 
National 
government 
organization 
(besides USDA 
Rural Dev) 
USDA 
Rural 
Dev 
Local 
chamber of 
comerce/
local 
busineses 
County-wide 
or local non-
profit(s) 
Very much (=3) 10 9 5 7 5 4 3 3 
Somewhat (=2) 7 6 7 3 5 6 8 5 
A litle (=1) 1 2 5 4 4 5 5 6 
Not at al (=0) 0 1 0 2 3 2 2 3 
Average 2.50 2.28 2.00 1.94 1.71 1.71 1.67 1.47 
 
(cont.) 
Multi-county 
(regionaly) 
based non-
profits 
Nation-
wide non-
profit(s) 
State-
wide non-
profit(s) 
State-
wide for-
profit(s) 
Very much (=3) 2 1 0 0 
Somewhat (=2) 6 3 3 4 
A litle (=1) 4 8 10 7 
Not at al (=0) 4 5 4 6 
Average 1.38 1.00 0.94 0.88 
 
10. How much have each of the folowing organizations contributed to the suces of economic development 
efforts in your jurisdiction since 203? 
 
One or 
more state 
government 
agency 
One or more 
county 
government 
agency 
Multi-county 
(regional) task 
force or quasi-
governmental 
agency 
National 
government 
organization 
(besides USDA 
Rural Dev) 
USDA 
Rural 
Dev 
Local 
chamber of 
comerce/
county 
busineses ARC 
Multi-
county 
(regionaly) 
based non-
profit(s) 
Very much (=3) 9 7 7 4 4 3 2 1 
Somewhat (=2) 6 8 8 5 4 6 7 7 
A litle (=1) 2 2 2 4 6 5 6 6 
Not at al/No response 
(=0) 1 1 1 5 4 4 3 4 
Average 2.28 2.17 2.17 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.44 1.28 
 
(cont.) 
Countywide 
non-
profit(s) 
State-
wide non-
profit(s) 
Nation-wide 
non-profit(s) 
State-wide 
for-profit(s) 
Very much (=3) 2 0 0 0 
Somewhat (=2) 3 4 3 3 
A litle (=1) 9 9 9 8 
Not at al/No response 
(=0) 4 5 6 7 
Average 1.17 0.94 0.83 0.78 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
56 
 
12. In your opinion, how much emphasis has your organization placed on each of the folowing efforts from 
2003 to the present? Please select one response for each efort. 
 
Maintaining 
busineses 
already 
located in 
your 
jurisdiction 
Suporting 
locally owned 
busineses and 
entrepreneurs 
Encouraging 
residents to 
buy local 
first 
Promoting 
tourism for 
environment/
natural asets 
Recruiting 
new 
busineses to 
locate in 
your 
jurisdiction 
Encouraging 
enrolment in 
post-sec. 
education 
Promoting 
tourism 
for 
cultural 
assets 
Improvi
ng K-12 
edu. 
A lot (=4) 13 12 11 12 9 11 10 10 
Some (=3) 5 6 5 5 8 4 7 2 
A litle (=2) 0 0 2 1 1 2 2 5 
None at al (=1) 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 
Average 2.72 2.67 2.50 2.47 2.44 2.39 2.42 2.17 
 
 (cont.) 
Suporting 
worker 
retraining 
programs 
Investing in 
roads and 
transportation 
Suporting 
comunity colege 
programs that train 
workers for a 
specific business 
Investing in 
broadband 
internet 
A lot (=4) 8 9 9 4 
Some (=3) 6 3 2 8 
A litle (=2) 2 3 5 4 
None at al (=1) 2 3 2 2 
Average 2.11 2.00 2.00 1.78 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
57 
 
VII. References 
Anderson, A. R. (2000). Paradox in the periphery: an entrepreneurial reconstruction? 
Entrepreneurship & Regional Development 12(2), 18. 
Bradley, J., & Katz, B. (2008). Vilage Idiocy: Enough with smal-town triumphalism. The New 
Republic. 
Census Bureau, U. S. C. (2002, December 30, 2008). Census 2000 Urban and Rural 
Clasification from http:/ww.census.gov/geo/ww/ua/ua_2k.html. 
Copus, A. K. (2001). From Core-periphery to Polycentric Development: Concepts of Spatial and 
Aspatial Peripherality. European Planning Studies, 9(4), 13. 
Cortright, J. e. a. (2003). Developing Rural Knowledge Indicators. Washington, D.C.: U.S. 
Department of Agriculture. 
County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2002. from 
http:/ww.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=941. 
County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2009. from 
http:/ww.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=3304. 
Daniels, T. L. (1991). The Goals and Values of Local Economic Development Strategies in 
Rural America. Agriculture and Human Values(Sumer), 7. 
Economic Development Research Group, I. a. R. T. S., Inc. (2007). Case Studies of Local 
Economic Development Growth Proceses: Appalachian Regional Commision. 
Economic Overview: Appalachian Region. from http:/ww.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=26. 
Eler, R. D. (2008). Uneven Ground: Appalachia since 1945. Lexinton: The University Pres of 
Kentucky. 
58 
 
Gibbs, R. M., & Bernat, G. A. (1996). Rural Industry Clusters Raise Local Earnings. Rural 
Development Perspectives 12(3), 8. 
Graham, J., Healy, S., & Byrne, K. (2002). Constructing the Community Economy: Civic 
Profesionalism and the Politics of Sustainable Regions. Journal of Appalachian Studies, 
8(1), 11. 
Katz, B. (2008). MetroPolicy: A New Partnership for a Metropolitan Nation. Paper presented at 
the The Sumit for American Prosperity, Washington, D.C. 
Lambe, W. (2008). Small Towns, Big Ideas: Case Studies in Small Town Community Economic 
Development. Chapel Hil: UNC School of Government and N.C. Rural Economic 
Development Center. 
"Measuring Rurality" (2008). from http:/ww.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/rurality/. 
Moving America Toward A Clean Energy Economy And Reducing Global Warming Pollution: 
Legislative Tools, United States Senate (2009). 
Nussle, J. (2008). Update of Statistical Area Definitions and Guidance on Their Uses . 
Obama, B. (2009). Remarks By The President At Urban And Metropolitan Policy Roundtable. 
Partridge, M. D., & Rickman, D. S. (2008). Distance From Urban Agglomeration Economies and 
Rural Poverty. Journal of Regional Science, 48(2). 
Porter, M. E. (2004). Competitivenes in Rural U.S. Regions: Learning and Research Agenda. 
Cambridge: Institute for Strategy and Competitivenes, Harvard Busines School. 
"Source and Methodology: Distresed Designation and County Economic Status Clasification 
System." from http:/ww.arc.gov/search/method/cty_econ.jsp. 
"Source and Methodology: Distresed Designation and County Economic Status Clasification 
System (2009)." from http:/ww.arc.gov/images/maps/cty_econ09.html. 
"The Appalachian Region." from http:/ww.arc.gov. 
59 
 
"What is Rural?" (2007). Measuring Rurality, from 
http:/ww.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/WhatIsRural/. 
Wood, L. E. (1999). Spread Efects From Growth Centers in and Around Appalachia: 1960-
1990. Middle States Geographer, 32.