SlideShare une entreprise Scribd logo
1  sur  68
Télécharger pour lire hors ligne
W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION


Corporation for Enterprise Development
About the Corporation
About the W.K. Kellogg Foundation                  for Enterprise Development

The W.K. Kellogg Foundation was established        The Corporation for Enterprise Development is
in 1930 “to help people help themselves            a nonprofit organization that creates economic
through the practical application of knowledge     opportunity by helping the poor save and
and resources to improve their quality of life     invest, succeed as entrepreneurs, and partici-
and that of future generations.” Its program-      pate as contributors to and beneficiaries of the
ming activities center around the common           economy. By helping individuals and communi-
vision of a world in which each person has a       ties harness latent potential, we build long-
sense of worth; accepts responsibility for self,   term models to help people move from poverty
family, community, and societal well-being; and    to prosperity while strengthening the overall
has the capacity to be productive, and to help     economy. The Corporation for Enterprise
create nurturing families, responsive institu-     Development identifies and researches promis-
tions, and healthy communities.                    ing ideas, collaborates with the private and
                                                   public sectors to test them, and helps drive the
To achieve the greatest impact, the Foundation     application and adoption of proven concepts.
targets its grants toward specific areas. These
include health; food systems and rural develop-    Established in 1979, the Corporation for
ment; youth and education; and philanthropy        Enterprise Development works nationally and
and volunteerism. Within these areas, attention    internationally through its offices in
is given to the cross-cutting themes of leader-    Washington, DC, Durham, North Carolina,
ship; information systems/technology; capital-     San Francisco, California, and St. Louis,
izing on diversity; and social and economic        Missouri.
community development programming. Grants
are concentrated in the United States, Latin
America and the Caribbean, and the southern
African countries of Botswana, Lesotho,
Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and
Zimbabwe.

More information about the W.K. Kellogg
Foundation and its programs is available on the
Foundation’s Web site at www.wkkf.org.
Table of Contents




Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................3

Executive Summary ..................................................................................................4

Introduction ..............................................................................................................7

Economic Context for Rural America ......................................................................9

Entrepreneurship as a Rural Economic Development Strategy ..............................12

Rural Entrepreneurship by the Numbers ................................................................17

Policy Context ..........................................................................................................25

The Components of Entrepreneurship Development ..............................................31

A Closer Look at Two States ....................................................................................45

Orchestrating an Entrepreneurial Climate in Rural America ..................................56

Endnotes ..................................................................................................................60




                                               W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development         1
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Acknowledgements



The authors thank Deborah Markley, co-director       Special thanks to David Dangler, Ray Daffner,
of the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI)       Cornelia Flora, Jay Kayne, Tom Lyons (again),
Center for Rural Entrepreneurship for her guid-      Don Macke, Erik Pages, and Nancy Stark for
ance in structuring this study and for allowing      their helpful counsel on the “big picture.”
her meeting on entrepreneurship research spon-       Much appreciation is also due to the 60 experts
sored by the Farm Foundation to be used to test      and practitioners who agreed to be interviewed
some methodological assumptions.                     by phone about their perspectives and experi-
                                                     ences on different aspects of entrepreneurship
Thanks also go to a number of people in              in rural America.
Kentucky and Nebraska for their insights and
hospitality during the two main field visits: in     Finally, thanks to Rick Foster, Caroline
Kentucky, Jim Clifton, Phillip Danhauer, Kris        Carpenter, and Gail Imig for the opportunity to
Kimmel, Joanne Lang, Tom Lyons, Justin               carry out this study and for their continuing
Maxson, Becky Naugle, Jerry Rickett, Kevin           support and encouragement.
Smith, and Cheryl Moorhead Stone; and in
Nebraska, John Allen, John Bailey, Greg              Brian Dabson, Jennifer Malkin, Amy Matthews,
Christensen, Janelle Anderson Ehrke, Doug            Kimberly Pate, and Sean Stickle
Friedli, Rob Hamer, Chuck Hassebrook, Rose           Corporation for Enterprise Development
Jasperson, Loren Kucera, Glennis McClure,            August 2003
Judy Meyer, Stuart Miller, Lance Morgan, Jeff
Reynolds, Marilyn Schlake, Sandra Scofield,
Cory Smathers, Brian Thompson, and Jeff Yost.




                                      W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   3
Executive Summary



At the invitation of the W. K. Kellogg
Foundation, the Corporation for Enterprise
Development conducted a study to gather infor-
mation on institutions, programs, and activities
that support entrepreneurship in rural America;
to assess the distribution and scale of entrepre-
neurial activity; and to identify potentially
influential contextual factors. The study includ-
ed the collection of best available published
data to map entrepreneurial activity, an exten-
sive literature and Internet search, and a series
of telephone interviews with 60 experts and
practitioners. In addition, site visits and person-
al interviews were held with practitioners and
entrepreneurs in Kentucky and Nebraska.

Rural America comprises an extraordinary and
dynamic variety of economic, geographical, and
cultural characteristics. Many rural communi-         entrepreneurial climate where all kinds of
ties face enormous economic challenges of low         entrepreneurs can succeed, lays the ground-
population size and density and remoteness,           work for the five out of 100 small businesses
which in turn bring diseconomies of scale and         that evolve into the fast-growing drivers of the
increased costs of doing business. Poorly edu-        national economy.
cated and low-skilled workers, weak entrepre-
neurial cultures, and entrenched racial inequali-     Efforts to measure entrepreneurial activity and
ties inhibit full participation in the new econo-     performance across rural America are still in
my. The public policy context is not encourag-        their developmental stages, but it is possible to
ing with rural policy dictated by agri-business       create an initial impression of the scale and dis-
interests, fiscal crises at the state and county      tribution of entrepreneurial activity. Whereas
levels, and no organized constituency for rural       such activity is broadly distributed across the
America in all its diversity. There is an urgent      country, there appear to be particular concen-
need for rural people and communities to              trations in heartland and northern mountain
define the future they want for themselves and        states and in Appalachia.
their children. This will take vision, innovation,
and risk-taking – the work of the entrepreneur.       Using a two-part framework – creating a
                                                      pipeline of entrepreneurs and enhancing busi-
There is growing understanding that economic          ness services for entrepreneurs – the study
development strategies founded primarily on           team gathered a large amount of information
business recruitment are not in rural America’s       on national, regional, and local programs and
best interests and that there needs to be a           initiatives. The components of the pipeline are
greater emphasis on homegrown development.            entrepreneurship education in kindergarten
Many observers see entrepreneurship as being a        through the 12th grade and at the post-second-
critical, if not major piece of rural economic        ary level and entrepreneurship networks; for
development, although not all are convinced           business services, the components are training
that entrepreneurship is likely to be an engine       and technical assistance, and access to capital.
of economic growth in rural areas. However,           There is a very wide array of programs and ini-
there is a compelling argument that creating an       tiatives, ranging from the old-established to


4       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
exciting new experiments, but it is impossible             be sufficient scale, resources, and expertise
to gauge whether on the ground these come                  to enable individual communities to play
together in coherent, entrepreneurial systems              their full role. There are issues and concerns
of support or as disconnected, bureaucratic                common to both urban and rural areas that
programs. These were the concerns that                     can best be addressed through regional solu-
became the focus of site visits and interviews in          tions; regions represent the economic
Kentucky and Nebraska.                                     engines and markets that rural enterprises
                                                           have to serve.
The study concludes that what is needed is a
                                                       • Entrepreneur-focused: Systems thinking is
new framework that will animate people and
                                                         required to align the plethora of training,
institutions at all levels around four principles
                                                         technical assistance, and financing programs
for entrepreneurship development in rural
                                                         to meet the variety of needs of entrepreneurs
America:
                                                         and their different levels of education, skills,
• Community-driven: Local communities                    and maturity.
  need the tools and resources to identify and
                                                       • Continuously learning: Networks for peer
  build upon their assets; to make choices that
                                                         support and learning are essential for entre-
  appropriately balance economic, social, and
                                                         preneurs and for practitioners, community
  environmental imperatives; to learn from the
                                                         leaders, and policymakers. Learning about
  experiences of others; and to be open to
                                                         entrepreneurship should be part of the
  experimentation and innovation.
                                                         school curriculum. The need for rigorous
• Regionally oriented: Only through regional             evaluation of the effectiveness of entrepre-
  cooperation across multiple jurisdictions              neurship strategies and returns on invest-
  and through regional institutions can there            ment is pressing.




                                       W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   5
The study also highlighted a number of other        Four main strategies are recommended to cre-
important essentials for promoting an entrepre-     ate a more supportive environment climate in
neurial climate:                                    rural America:
• Anchor institutions: Universities, community      •   Investment strategies: Create incentives
  colleges, community development financial             and long-term investments that encourage
  institutions, and research and advocacy               urban-rural and regional collaborations and
  groups can play a vital role in articulating a        the development of effective systems and
  vision, building partnerships, and attracting         accountable systems of entrepreneurial sup-
  and mobilizing resources for entrepreneurship         port. Invest in innovations in entrepreneur-
  development.                                          ial education, technical assistance and
                                                        training, capital access, and networking
• Supportive public policy: Creative public
                                                        that show promise for widespread replica-
  policy can unlock resources and channel
                                                        tion in rural communities.
  efforts into rural counties, but demonstrat-
  ing effectiveness and returns on investment       •   Learning strategies: Ensure rigorous evalua-
  is crucial for generating further support at          tion of strategies, systematic case studies,
  federal and state levels. The need is not nec-        training programs for elected officials and
  essarily to create special legislation for            opportunities for peer exchanges. Encourage
  entrepreneurship in rural areas but to ensure         experiential education in schools, colleges,
  that all programs have the capability and             community centers, and camps.
  flexibility to be tailored to the needs of dif-
                                                    •   Advocacy strategies: Energize networks of
  ferent rural regions and their entrepreneurs.
                                                        organizations and institutions that can use
• All entrepreneurs welcome: Fostering a                the results of the investment and advocacy
  diverse pool of entrepreneurs with different          strategies to support entrepreneurship
  motivations, whether for survival, lifestyle,         development in rural America.
  or wealth, increases the odds that there will
                                                    •   Information strategies: Develop method-
  be some that will become the fast-growth
                                                        ologies and statistical tools that adequately
  enterprises that will bring improvement to
                                                        describe and measure entrepreneurial activ-
  economic conditions to rural communities
                                                        ity and climates, including report cards and
  and regions.
                                                        other benchmarking and assessment tools.

                                                    The study presents ample evidence of organiza-
                                                    tions, institutions, and agencies pursuing vari-
                                                    ous types of programs and initiatives that are
                                                    meant to encourage greater entrepreneurship in
                                                    rural America. The task ahead is to make their
                                                    efforts more community-driven, regionally ori-
                                                    ented, entrepreneur-focused, and continuously
                                                    learning.




6       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Introduction



Scope of Work

The W. K. Kellogg Foundation invited the
Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED)
to carry out a consulting assignment that would:
•   Gather data on current institutions, pro-
    grams, and activities that support rural
    entrepreneurship;
•   Develop a narrative and graphic presenta-
    tion of the data in ways that would high-
    light “hotspots” of activity that might offer
    models and/or potential investment targets;
•   Determine the factors that influence the
    development of these “hotspots;” and
•   Present an analysis of the findings leading
    to observations and options for Foundation
    intervention.



Definitions                                                 –         Growth entrepreneurs: those who are
                                                                      motivated to develop and expand their
For the purposes of this report, the following                        businesses that create jobs and wealth.
definitions have been used:
                                                            –         Serial entrepreneurs: those who go on
• Rural refers to geographical areas outside sta-                     to create several growth businesses.
  tistical metropolitan areas and thus includes
  over 80 percent of the U.S. land mass and its         • Social entrepreneurs are people who create
  wide array of economic, physical, cultural,             and grow enterprises or institutions that are
  and demographic characteristics.                        primarily for public and community purposes.

• Entrepreneurs are people who create and               • Entrepreneurship is the process through
  grow enterprises. This definition is deliber-           which entrepreneurs create and grow enter-
  ately widely drawn to encompass the follow-             prises. This process includes four critical
  ing types of entrepreneurs:                             elements: opportunity recognition, idea cre-
                                                          ation, venture creation and operation, and
    –   Aspiring entrepreneurs: those who are
                                                          creative thinking.
        attracted to the idea of creating enter-
        prises, including young people.                 • Entrepreneurship development refers to the
    –   Survival entrepreneurs: those who                 infrastructure of public and private supports
        resort to creating enterprises to supple-         that facilitate entrepreneurship.
        ment their incomes.                             • Entrepreneurial communities are those
    –   Lifestyle entrepreneurs: those who                where there is significant economic and
        create enterprises in order to pursue a           social entrepreneurial activity and where
        certain lifestyle or live in a particular         there is an effective system of entrepreneur-
        community.                                        ship development.



                                        W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development    7
Methodology

                                     The consulting assignment was conducted in
                                     three main stages:
                                     • A quantitative assessment that used best
                                       available published data to prepare maps of
                                       entrepreneurial activity across rural
                                       America;
                                     • An assessment of institutions, programs, and
                                       activities that support entrepreneurship
                                       development in rural America based on an
                                       extensive literature and Internet search and
                                       a series of telephone interviews with 60
                                       experts and practitioners; and
                                     • Site visits and interviews with practitioners
                                       and entrepreneurs in Kentucky and Nebraska.



                                     Report Structure

                                     This report begins with an overview of the eco-
                                     nomic realities and options for rural America
                                     and explores the role that entrepreneurship
                                     plays (or could play) as a rural economic devel-
                                     opment strategy. The next section presents the
                                     quantitative assessments, including some of the
                                     challenges for measuring rural entrepreneur-
                                     ship, followed by a description of both the poli-
                                     cy context at national, regional, and local levels
                                     and of the institutions and programs that sup-
                                     port different facets of entrepreneurship. This
                                     national overview is then followed by a closer
                                     look at entrepreneurship development in
                                     Kentucky and Nebraska. The report concludes
                                     with some thoughts about what the assessments
                                     have revealed and what opportunities may exist
                                     for policy and practical action.




8   Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Economic Context for
Rural America


Within rural America, there is an extraordinary                      tions. Map 1 shows the location of distressed
variety of economic, geographical, and cultural                      rural counties using an index devised by the
characteristics. Moreover, the situation is very                     Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) for
dynamic, with significant depopulation across                        its 10-state region and applied to all non-met-
the Great Plains and net population growth in                        ropolitan America. The index combines meas-
rural counties that are within reach of sprawl-                      ures of a three-year average of unemployment,
ing metropolitan regions or in areas of high                         per capita market income, and poverty rates.
amenity. In addition, many counties with man-
ufacturing or food processing plants are experi-                     A critical issue for many rural counties is edu-
encing a rapid growth in immigrant workers                           cation. Although overall, rural high school
and the challenges associated with sudden                            graduation rates match or exceed their urban
expanding diversity.                                                 counterparts, out-migration of the youngest and
                                                                     more highly-educated is a primary export for
Poverty rates tend to be higher in rural areas –                     many communities. The result is that the adult
7.5 million rural residents are in poverty. Two-                     workforce is less well-educated. In fact, a study
thirds of them live in households where at least                     of the rural South showed that 38 percent of
one member is working. Measures of persist-                          adults do not have high school diplomas.
ently high poverty levels or of economic dis-
tress show that the greatest hurt found in the                       From an economic development viewpoint,
Delta and the Cotton Belt, Appalachia, the                           rural communities, especially those located
Texas border, and Native American reserva-                           some distance from larger cities, face a number




Map 1: Distressed Rural Counties
(Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, Appalachian Regional Commission)




                                                  W.K. Kellogg Foundation     •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   9
of major challenges. Low population size and         tracts of federally-owned land have become
density and associated limited local demand,         battlegrounds around forestry, mining, recre-
make it difficult for rural businesses and serv-     ational, and water rights issues, with local com-
ice providers to achieve economies of scale.         munities and local jobs left as merely by-
This has an impact on the cost and availability      standers. Fiscal crises at the state level are
of goods and services and drives many attempts       being passed onto counties in the form of
to achieve efficiencies through consolidation in     reduced financial support, resulting in severe
everything from schools to banking.                  service cuts with disproportionate impacts on
Remoteness from markets and from key infra-          the rural poor. Unfortunately, there is no organ-
structure limits the range of economic opportu-      ized constituency for rural America, with polit-
nities that can be supported and often results       ical power increasingly suburban and no coher-
in a lack of connection to regional and global       ent public understanding of how and where
possibilities. Poorly educated and low-skilled       national and rural interests intersect.
workers, weak entrepreneurial cultures, and
entrenched racial inequalities all serve to inhib-   So what of the future? One of the more
it the participation of rural families and com-      thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses
munities in the new economy.                         comes from Northwest Area Foundation presi-
                                                     dent, Karl Stauber.1 He first divides rural
The public policy context for rural America is       America into four main types:
not encouraging. Powerful agri-business inter-
ests have ensured that commodity price sup-          • Urban periphery: rural areas within a 90-
port is the primary rural policy, leaving little       minute commute of urban employment,
scope for diversified rural development. Large         services, and social opportunities;



10       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
• High amenity: rural areas of significant sce-       •    Create new markets and linkages so as to
  nic beauty, cultural opportunities, and                  increase regional competitive investments
  attraction to wealthy and retired people;                in urban periphery and sparsely populated
                                                           areas – primarily investments in value-
• Sparsely populated: areas where the popu-
                                                           added production rather than commodity
  lation density is low and often declining and
                                                           price supports.
  therefore demand for traditional services,
                                                      •    Develop and use new technology to over-
  employment, and social opportunities are
                                                           come remoteness to produce an infrastruc-
  limited by isolation; and
                                                           ture that expands competitive advantage in
• High poverty: rural areas characterized by               sparsely populated and high-poverty areas
  persistent poverty or rapid declines in                  – creating and reinforcing links between
  income.                                                  metropolitan and rural economies.
                                                      •    Encourage immigration to rural communi-
Stauber then lays out four outcomes for a rural            ties to increase human capital in sparsely
public policy: increased human capital, conser-            populated and high-poverty areas – with
vation of the natural environment and culture,             a particular emphasis on attracting entre-
increased regional competitive investments,                preneurs.
and investments in infrastructure that support
the expansion of new competitive advantage.           Two other expert rural observers, Thomas
From these elements, he then proposes a set of        Rowley and David Freshwater, contend that the
strategic directions:2                                answers to the current challenges of rural
•   Redefine and restructure the rural-serving        America will only be found “by finally coming
    college and university so as to increase          to terms with what we as a nation want our
    human capital in sparsely populated and           rural areas to be. If we want them to be sources
    high poverty rural areas – essentially dis-       of cheap commodities, then the people who
    mantling the 19th century land-grant sys-         will provide [them]…will be low-wage labor. If
    tem in favor of a 21st century information        we desire pristine wilderness, the people will
    grant system.                                     not fit at all. If receptacles for our refuse are
                                                      what we seek, then trash heaps are what we
                                                      will get. What we want (and what we are will-
                                                      ing to pay for) will go a long way in determin-
                                                      ing what we get.” 3

                                                      There is no shortage of urban, suburban, and
                                                      newly settled rural dwellers willing to define a
                                                      future for rural America, but if rural people and
                                                      communities are to take matters into their own
                                                      hands and succeed, it will take vision, innova-
                                                      tion, and risk – the work of the entrepreneur.




                                     W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   11
Entrepreneurship
as a Rural Economic
Development Strategy
Among researchers, policy advocates, and oth-       economic changes, fewer communities are host-
ers engaged in community and economic               ing large facilities that provide jobs over long
development in rural America, there is broad        periods of time…At the same time, small and
agreement that relying on recruiting companies      medium-sized businesses are growing in impor-
from other states or overseas should not and        tance…Entrepreneurial growth companies –
cannot be the answer to struggling rural            fast-growing new businesses – account for at
economies. Yet each year, state governments         least two-thirds of new jobs in the American
have been willing to commit through tax             economy…These firms will drive the future of
incentives, tax breaks and direct investments,      innovation and prosperity in nearly every
billions of dollars to snag a car assembly plant,   American community, and thus should be the
a high technology production unit, or some          focus of our economic development efforts.”5
other potentially transformative industrial
activity. Increased public scrutiny has shed        The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City
light on some of the more egregious examples        observed: “Rural policymakers, who once fol-
of “investments” that were poorly structured,       lowed traditional strategies of recruiting manu-
had inadequate reporting or accountability          facturers that export low-value products, have
requirements, or yielded disappointingly low        realized that entrepreneurs can generate new
returns in terms of jobs and local multiplier       economic value for their communities.
effects. And this in turn has led to a greater      Entrepreneurs add jobs, raise incomes, create
emphasis on transparency, clear expectations        wealth, improve the quality of life of citizens,
on returns on investment, and clawbacks if          and help rural communities operate in the glob-
expectations are not met. But concern remains       al economy…Rural policymakers are respond-
that recruitment has to be balanced, if not         ing to these challenges by making entrepreneur-
replaced altogether by policies that support        ship the cornerstone of many economic devel-
homegrown development.                              opment strategies.”6 In a similar vein, the ARC
                                                    “views entrepreneurship as a critical element in
An Aspen Institute report that looks at the         the establishment of self-sustaining communi-
economy of rural Kentucky, noted: “Traditional      ties that create jobs, build local wealth, and
approaches to economic development…have             contribute broadly to economic and community
their place, but only as they help to create the    development.”7 And this was the basis of a
conditions for dynamic, indigenous economic         commitment by the Commission in 1997 to
activity. In a very real sense, Kentucky’s future   commit $17.6 million over a number of years to
rests on its ability to nurture homegrown firms     an initiative to build entrepreneurial communi-
and to encourage the innovation, risk-taking        ties across Appalachia.
and investment that are the hallmarks of a vital
economy…In short, entrepreneurship must
become a matter of course and a habit of mind       In 1999, the National Governors Association
if Kentucky is to thrive.”4                         (NGA) surveyed its members to gauge each
                                                    state’s perspective on entrepreneurship and its
The National Commission on                          importance as part of an overall state economic
Entrepreneurship in its guide for candidates        development strategy. While 34 of the 37 states
for elected office put the argument this way:       that responded indicated that they did indeed
“While winning a new manufacturing facility         consider entrepreneurship as part of their eco-
may be a home run in economic development           nomic development strategy, only four had a
terms, these home-run opportunities are             clearly articulated statement within the strategy
becoming scarcer every day. As a result of glob-    document. Jay Kayne observed a “distinction
alization, technological evolution, and other       between states that try to meet the specific


12       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
needs of aspiring and emerging entrepreneurs         investigation into the relationship between
and states that view entrepreneurs as a segment      entrepreneurship and economic growth. By
of the state economy who can take advantage          2002, 37 countries were being surveyed
of state programs.”8 In other words, the survey      according to a common protocol. The national
emphasized the difference between active and         report on the United States10 provides some
passive support for entrepreneurship.                good contextual information on the role and
Interestingly enough, given the assessments          importance of entrepreneurship:
described later in this report, Kentucky was
identified as having one of the best articulated     GEM estimates that 10.5 percent of the U.S.
goals of creating an entrepreneurial economy.        adult population (aged 18-64) are engaged in
                                                     some form of “entrepreneurial activity,” defined
An important obstacle to a more vigorous pur-        by the 2002 GEM as being involved in the
suit of entrepreneurship as an economic devel-       start-up process or is the owner/manager of an
opment strategy is the lack of hard evidence         active young business less than 42 months old.
that it actually yields the results claimed. As      This population can be divided into two broad
the Federal Bank of Kansas City noted, “As           categories: opportunity entrepreneurs, those
policymakers stretch the frontier of entrepre-       who are starting a business to take advantage of
neurial development, the impacts of these pro-       a business opportunity, and necessity entrepre-
grams will need to be assessed to identify the       neurs, those who are starting a business
costs and benefits of supporting high-growth         because they had no better choices for work.
entrepreneurs in rural America.”9
                                                     In the United States, approximately 90 percent
The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM)            fall into the opportunity category.
was created in 1997 by Babson College and the        This high level of opportunity entrepreneur-
London Business School with support from the         ship appears to be the result of a strong econo-
Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial                  my, although recession, mass layoffs, and
Leadership as a long-term, multi-national            increasing unemployment are likely to spur a



                                    W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   13
sharp rise in necessity entrepreneurship. As the     The relationship between level of education
2001 GEM report notes: “The difficulty with          and entrepreneurial activity is not straightfor-
this scenario is that although necessity entre-      ward. The highest entrepreneurial participation
preneurship often creates self-employment, it is     rate is for those who have completed high
not a strong driver for creating new jobs.           school; for those who do not have a high
Because the primary concern of necessity entre-      school diploma, the tendency is self-employ-
preneurs is survival, they typically have a limit-   ment and little vision for job creation; for those
ed vision for growth. Opportunity entrepre-          with college degrees, there is some drop-off in
neurs, however, tend to create high-potential,       participation, possibly because of the greater
high-growth ventures. The majority of jobs cre-      opportunities to earn high incomes as employ-
ated from entrepreneurial activity in the United     ees of other businesses.
States is a result of fast-growth businesses.”11
                                                     A potentially contentious conclusion comes
                                                     from the 2002 GEM report, which makes the
                                                     point that entrepreneurship is an urban phe-
                                                     nomenon, presumably as urban areas are where
                                                     the highest density of entrepreneurship is to be
                                                     found. The report went on to assert: “It should
                                                     be noted that entrepreneurship in rural areas
                                                     may not be the best mechanism for economic
                                                     growth.”12

                                                     Another recent effort to provide evidence of the
                                                     effectiveness of entrepreneurial strategies is an
                                                     Organization for Economic Development and
                                                     Cooperation (OECD) publication,
                                                     Entrepreneurship and Local Economic
                                                     Development, researched and written by Alistair
                                                     Nolan. He noted: “For a variety of reasons, pro-
                                                     moting entrepreneurship enjoys support from
                                                     governments at both ends of the political spec-
                                                     trum. Pro-entrepreneurship policies have been
                                                     embraced as a means of increasing economic
                                                     growth and diversity, ensuring competitive
                                                     markets, helping the unemployed to generate
                                                     additional jobs for themselves and others,
U.S. entrepreneurs, compared with their coun-        countering poverty and welfare dependency,
terparts overseas, tend to be older – 36 percent     encouraging labor market flexibility, and draw-
of entrepreneurs are in the 45 to 64 age brack-      ing individuals out of informal economic activ-
et. Older Americans, the report asserts, are         ity. In short, an enterprise initiative has been
more likely to have deep industry experience         charged with addressing a broad array of eco-
and networks that help with identifying and          nomic and social aspirations…However, given
financing opportunities. At the same time, the       the widespread interest in promoting enter-
proportion of women entrepreneurs is increas-        prise, it is perhaps surprising that few empiri-
ing. There is one female entrepreneur for every      cal studies have systematically examined the
1.5 male entrepreneurs, with parity in the 45 to     relationship between the birth of new firms and
64 age bracket.                                      local economic change.”13


14       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
The following are some of the main conclusions       Research on the impact of microenterprise
of Nolan’s analyses of 30 OECD countries:            development in the United States by The Aspen
                                                     Institute14 provides some counter-evidence:
• There are many obstacles that hinder entre-
  preneurship in disadvantaged areas, influ-         • Low-income microentrepreneurs reduced
  encing both the extent and form of entrepre-         their reliance on government assistance by
  neurial activity and its prospects for sur-          61 percent with the greatest reduction in the
  vival. Such obstacles range from limited net-        amount of cash benefits received. Average
  works, low levels of effective local demand,         benefits fell by $1,679 per year.
  finance constraints, lack of role models, and
                                                     • Seventy-two percent of low-income
  cultural barriers – all familiar to rural com-
                                                       microentrepreneurs experienced gains in
  munities in the United States.
                                                       household income over five years. The aver-
• Efforts to stimulate self-employment can raise       age gain was $8,485.
  incomes and provide a cost-effective alterna-
                                                     • Fifty-three percent of low-income entrepre-
  tive to paying unemployment insurance, but
                                                       neurs had large enough household gains to
  only for the small sub-section of the unem-
                                                       move out of poverty, with the business being
  ployed who are more motivated, have work
                                                       the major source of earnings.
  experience, and some accumulated assets.
                                                     • Average household assets of low-income entre-
• Entrepreneurship strategies yield important
                                                       preneurs grew by $15,909 over five years.
  benefits but do not constitute a panacea.
  Such strategies inevitably favor those who
                                                     Earlier research conducted by CFED15 indicated
  possess superior financial, human, and
                                                     that:
  social assets. There may not be a significant
  expansion in employment opportunities for          • Forty-nine percent of microenterprises
  the most disadvantaged. Entrepreneurship             owned by low-income entrepreneurs sur-
  strategies are long-term in their effects and        vived after five years – a rate comparable to
  therefore not appropriate to short-term              the national average for all small businesses.
  crises. There may be issues of displacement        • On average, microenterprises create 1.5 full-
  in local markets as new entrants cause losses        and part-time jobs per business
  in revenues or employment among existing
  enterprises rather than create an expanded         During field work in Kentucky, there was some
  economy.                                           suggestion that a significant number of emerg-
• Although every community hopes to                  ing entrepreneurs were in fact making the tran-
  encourage fast-growing businesses that will        sition from the informal to the formal economy.
  generate wealth and good jobs, the reality is      A recent literature review on the informal econ-
  that in most cases, the direct employment          omy by Institute for Social and Economic
  effects will be modest – a reflection of the       Development and The Aspen Institute,16 con-
  small average size of start-ups, low survival      firms that the informal economy – defined as
  and growth rates, and displacement.                individuals operating unregistered businesses
  Moreover, employment in small enterprises          or engaging in “under the table” work – is
  does not necessarily translate into good jobs      indeed especially important to rural residents:
  with family-supporting wages and benefits.         • Essential services are more likely to be
                                                       unavailable or deficient in less densely settled
                                                       areas, forcing people to develop and rely on
                                                       informal alternatives.



                                    W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   15
• The extent to which informal activities         around 10 percent of the gross domestic prod-
  require access to land – crops, wood prod-      uct. Those who work in some form of subcon-
  ucts, game – increase their prevalence in       tracting capacity, often outside the framework
  rural areas.                                    of regulation, benefits, and health and safety
                                                  protections. And those who work in odd jobs
• Austerity – in the form of lower wages and
                                                  for cash or operate microenterprises outside
  declining demand for labor and less public
                                                  the realm of regulation and taxation. “In all
  spending – promotes informal economies as
                                                  cases, the greatest competitive advantage that
  an important survival strategy.
                                                  these workers bring to the market is a price
• Informal economies exist in part because of     advantage built on lower labor and overhead
  the social interdependence of community         costs. While this creates access to income and
  members, thus the “connected feeling” typi-     employment for many, it also constrains earn-
  cal of rural places makes them more con-        ing power…and…for many microentrepreneurs
  ducive to informal economic activity.           it is not clear whether the benefits of formaliza-
                                                  tion would outweigh the costs involved. [It
The authors point to the fact that there are in   would appear that] the desire to grow and a
fact two main components of the informal          corresponding need for financing [are] the
economy – in total estimated to represent         most compelling triggers.”17




     Commentary

  The conclusion to be drawn from these           scope for income supplementation and a way
  expert observations and research is that        out of poverty. While this is undoubtedly
  entrepreneurship development appears to be      important for individual families, it is unlike-
  a logical and appropriate counterpoint to       ly that in the aggregate, such enterprises will
  business recruitment strategies in rural        have a significant transforming impact on
  America. There are strong advocates and         local economies. Nevertheless, in many hard-
  arguments at the national level for lauding     pressed communities, small improvements
  and supporting opportunity-driven entrepre-     can make the difference between community
  neurs – those most likely to create jobs and    survival and collapse. Moreover, there is the
  wealth at any scale.                            compelling argument that creating an entre-
                                                  preneurial climate where all kinds of entre-
  There are also benefits for encouraging         preneurs can succeed, lays the groundwork
  necessity-driven entrepreneurs and those        for the five out of 100 small businesses that
  with only modest aspirations for their small    develop into the fast-growing drivers of the
  enterprises. For some, microenterprise offers   economy.




16       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Rural Entrepreneurship
by the Numbers


Efforts to measure entrepreneurial activity and                which generally accorded with expectations.
performance by geographical area are still in                  However, the authors observed, “Some results
their developmental stages. Progress is hampered               are perplexing: Florida, Nebraska, and
by a lack of any agreed and coherent framework                 Kentucky do not make large investments in
for understanding the essential factors (and their             entrepreneurial activity, but they perform far
interactions) that shape the entrepreneurial                   better than the model predicts…they get very
process and by the dearth of available data that               strong returns.”19 As will be described later,
serve as meaningful proxies for these factors.                 this became one factor in the selection of
                                                               Nebraska and Kentucky for further assessment.
Goetz and Freshwater in a recent paper18 pre-
sented their framework for capturing state-level               The strong technology and innovation bias in
determinants of entrepreneurship and for                       the Goetz and Freshwater analysis and the
measuring what they called “entrepreneurial                    absence of any differentiation between urban
climate.” They focused on states, recognizing                  and rural makes this less than ideal as a means
that although these are not functional econom-                 to measure entrepreneurship in rural America.
ic units, they do have the power to influence                  Nevertheless, the authors did draw some inter-
many of the factors important to economic                      esting preliminary conclusions, the most signifi-
development. Using a regression model that                     cant of which was that entrepreneurship activity
equated entrepreneurial activityi within a state               can be expanded by improving the human capi-
with a set of inputs that related to ideas and                 tal base of a state – a better educated workforce
innovation, human capital, and financial capi-                 increases the effectiveness with which ideas are
tal, they derived a measure of entrepreneurial                 translated into entrepreneurial opportunities.
climate. If entrepreneurial activity exceeded the
level of inputs, that would suggest a positive                 In 2002, the National Commission on
entrepreneurial climate – a set of factors con-                Entrepreneurship published the results of
ducive to or supportive of entrepreneurship.                   research20 on the location of the fastest growing
Conversely, if the level of entrepreneurial activ-             companies across the United States. The
ity did not match the level of inputs, a poor                  research led to the creation of the Growth
entrepreneurial climate would be assumed.                      Company Index, which weighs the percentage
Goetz and Freshwater also thought it important                 of existing firms with high growth (at least 15
to distinguish entrepreneurial activity that                   percent per year over the period 1992-1997)
involves fundamental change in an economy                      and the percentage of firms that started in 1992
based on new products, combination of inputs,                  or 1993 and had at least 20 employees by 1997.
or production processes from that which is                     The data was presented at the level of Labor
driven by income and population growth.                        Market Areas as defined by the U.S.
                                                               Department of Agriculture.
The resultant entrepreneurial climate measures
ranked Colorado, California, Massachusetts,                    Map 2 shows the top-performing labor market
Virginia, and Maryland as the top five states,                 areas with populations between 100,000 and


i “Entrepreneurial activity” for the purposes of the model was measured by the number of Inc Magazine’s 500 fastest
growing firms in the state and the number of initial public offerings (IPOs) per million population. “Ideas and innova-
tion” was measured by the number of Small Buisness Innovation Grants and patents, “human capital” by the proportion
of college graduates in the population, and “financial capital” by the number of venture capital commitments and Small
Business Investment Companies. Goetz and Freshwater’s definition of “entrepreneurial climate” was based on the work
of David Birch on what constituted “entrepreneurial hotspots” – a series of intangibles relating to political engagement,
media interest, and supportive public policies.



                                             W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development      17
150,000 (the smallest and assumed to be the          tors are ranked and combined into indexes
most rural). Each of the nine labor market           which in turn are ranked and graded. However,
areas shown on Map 2 had between 109 and             the need to determine entrepreneurial activity
232 high-growth companies with their                 within rural areas raised a number of data
strongest business sectors being local market        availability and methodological challenges.
(4), extractive (3), retail (2), distributive (1),
and manufacturing(1). The strengths of this          The basic unit of measurement is the county
Index are that it uses the Census Bureau’s           and for the purpose of this analysis, the focus
Business Information Tracking System database        was on non-metropolitan counties – the gener-
that allows researchers to track the employ-         ally accepted definition of rural, encompassing
ment growth of individual firms over time and        as it does a wide range of economic and demo-
it seeks to measure the number of entrepre-          graphic characteristics. But there are immediate
neurial companies rather than local economic         limitations on the availability of key data at the
growth. Its weaknesses are that the data is          county level. For instance, SBA data on new
somewhat out of date and it makes no distinc-        firm starts is only available at the state level, as
tion between size of company.                        is information on small company payroll;
                                                     moreover, the level of analysis achieved by
CFED’s initial approach to the challenge of          Goetz and Freshwater seems currently unat-
mapping rural entrepreneurship was heavily           tainable for rural areas. The closest available
influenced by its Development Report Card for        proxies for entrepreneurial activity were meas-
the States methodology where multiple indica-        ures of self-employment and small firms:




Map 2: Top-performing Small Labor Market Areas for Fast Growing Companies
(Source: National Commission on Entrepreneurship)



18       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
• Number of firms with no paid employees,                        data, with all its limitations, in a separate and
  annual business receipts of $1,000 or more,                    straightforward manner.
  and subject to federal income taxes, by
  county. (Source: Census Bureau, 2000 and                       Map 3 shows the distribution of self-employer
  change 1997-2000)                                              firms expressed as a proportion of jobs in each
• Number of companies that employ 20                             county in 2000. The darkest green counties are
  employees or less by county. (Source:                          those in the top third of counties nationwide.
  Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns,                      These are concentrated in the Central Belt from
  2000 and change 1997-2000)                                     North Dakota to Texas, in the northern moun-
                                                                 tain states, central Appalachia, and northern
• Number of private, non-farm jobs by county.                    New England.
  (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000)
                                                                 Map 4 shows the change that counties have
At a special meeting on rural entrepreneurship
                                                                 experienced in the number of self-employer
research convened by the RUPRI Center for
                                                                 firms expressed as a proportion of jobs in each
Rural Entrepreneurship and the Farm
                                                                 county from 1997 to 2000. Again, the darkest
Foundation in May 2003, CFED staff presented
                                                                 green counties are those in the top third of
proposals for creating multi-factor indices that
                                                                 counties nationwide. These are more broadly
included the above measures along with firm
                                                                 scattered across the Southeast, Appalachian and
income data. However, it was the consensus of
                                                                 mid-Atlantic states, the Western mountain
the academic researchers that it would be
                                                                 states and across the Heartland.
advisable to avoid such indices and present the




Map 3: Self-Employer Firms 2000
(Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis)



                                                W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   19
Map 4: Growth in the Number of Self-Employer Firms 1997-2000
(Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis)




Map 5: “Top-performing” Counties for Self-employer Firms, 2000




20       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Map 6: “Top-performing” Counties for Growth in Self-employer Firms, 1997-2000




Maps 5 and 6 show the results of a Z-score             In Map 6, the distribution is mainly to the east
analysis to identify those counties whose              of the country with a few in the central states;
indices were positive two or more standard             clusters are evident in Kentucky and Georgia.
deviations from the mean; in other words the
“top-performing” counties for self-employer            The following maps begin a second series of simi-
firms in 2000 and growth from 1997-2000.               lar presentation using data on small companies
                                                       that employ 20 or fewer people.
In Map 5, there is broad distribution across 17
states, with clusters of counties in Nebraska
and Kentucky.




                                      W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   21
Map 7: Small Companies, 2000
(County Business Patterns, Bureau of Economic Analysis)




Map 8: Growth in the Number of Small Companies, 1997-2000
(Source: County Business Patterns, Bureau of Economic Analysis)



22         Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Map 9: “Top Performing” Counties for Small Companies, 2000




Map 7 shows the distribution of small firms            Maps 9 and 10 show the results of a Z-score
expressed as a proportion of jobs in each coun-        analysis to identify those counties whose
ty in 2000. The darkest green counties are             indices were positive two or more standard
those in the top third of counties nationwide.         deviations from the mean; in other words the
These are concentrated in the central and              “top-performing” counties for small firms in
north-west states.                                     2000 and growth from 1997-2000.

Map 8 shows the change that counties have              Map 9 shows a concentration in western states
experienced in the number of small firms               with two outliers in the east and clusters of
expressed as a proportion of jobs in each coun-        counties in Colorado and Nebraska.
ty from 1997 to 2000. Again, the darkest green
counties are those in the top third of counties        Map 10 indicates a broader spread across the
nationwide. These more broadly scattered               central and south-eastern states.
across the country.




                                      W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   23
Map 10: “Top-performing” Counties for Growth in Small Companies, 1997-2000




     Commentary

  The data presented in this chapter provide         necessity-driven, or what the underlying fac-
  only glimpses of what constitutes entrepre-        tors are that make one area more active than
  neurial activity in rural America. It shows        another. As mentioned previously, the chal-
  that high-performing small labor markets are       lenge is the lack of both data at the county
  found widely distributed across the country –      level that adequately captures entrepreneurial
  there appears to be no obvious common loca-        activity and of an accompanying framework
  tional characteristics. Counties in the heart-     of the kind developed by Goetz and
  land and northern mountain states and in           Freshwater. It is evident that some consider-
  Appalachia appear consistently as being com-       able intellectual and statistical resources need
  paratively strong for both small business and      to be invested so that entrepreneurship can
  self-employment. But there is no sense of          be measured with greater confidence.
  how much of this activity is opportunity- or




24       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Policy Context



National Policy
Ten years ago, CFED suggested that the notion
of rural development policy was misplaced.
“Because rural areas are evolving into distinctly
different economic entities…an off-the-rack fed-
eral strategy or state development policy based
on outmoded assumptions about rural areas is
likely to be ineffective…Instead, state and feder-
al policymakers should focus on building local
and regional capacity to use flexible programs
and tools, designing effective delivery systems,
and creating supportive development institu-
tions.”21 The report went on to recommend that
“Rural advocates must work to ensure that
mainstream programs are designed so that rural
people, as well as urbanites and suburbanites,
can benefit from them, and to ensure that rural
community leaders are well-equipped to be
active and equal participants in local and
regional development efforts. Effective urban
and rural development policies cannot be devel-
oped separately, but instead must recognize
their interrelationships. Thus regional strategies     cy was narrowly defined as funding for agricul-
are increasingly important.”22                         ture through programs supported by the United
                                                       States Department of Agriculture (USDA), but
In any event, many rural economic develop-             the changing nature of the rural economy has
ment leaders regard America’s national rural           spurred a broadening of the rural economic
policy as unfocused, if not non-existent.              development policy framework. There appears
Organizations such as RUPRI note that federal          to be a growing national, state, and local policy
rural development policies and programs “con-          consciousness that rural communities matter
sist of a fragmented constellation of programs         and that entrepreneurship development should
dispersed among several agencies… [and] a              be a core component of economic development
comprehensive, goal-driven, community-based            policy for rural America.
and regionally appropriate national rural policy
doesn’t exist.”23                                      Despite increased attention to non-farm rural
                                                       development issues, a national policy around
While fiscal crises have hit government fund-          rural entrepreneurship still has a long way to
ing at all levels, including rural community           go. A recent analysis by the USDA Economic
development in the federal policy agenda is            Research Service found that the highest level
still a priority for rural advocates nationwide,       of per capita business financial assistance from
including the Center for Rural Affairs, the            federal government programs was concentrated
National Association of Development                    in the West, North Central, and New England
Organizations (NADO), National Rural                   regions of the country and that 332 non-metro
Development Partnership, National Association          counties received no federal assistance at all.24
of Towns and Townships, and the National               Additionally, numerous federal agencies invest
Association of Counties. In the past, rural poli-      more resources in rural development than the


                                      W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   25
USDA (when agricultural programs are exclud-           contribute (either directly or indirectly) to
ed) – the agency congressionally mandated to           promoting entrepreneurship development in
promote the economic interests of rural                rural areas by creating incentives for private
America.                                               investments in rural enterprises or building
                                                       the capacity of communities or institutions
Industry leaders note a vacuum in the field with       to support rural entrepreneurs. Rural eco-
regard to organizations that promote federal           nomic development advocates maintain that
rural entrepreneurship development policy. The         rural community development is not getting
Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation has signif-           adequate support from the USDA and would
icantly scaled back the policy activities of the       like to see it more involved in promoting
National Commission on Entrepreneurship,               rural entrepreneurship. The good news is
once the primary champion for federal entre-           that although there is a long way to go in
preneurship development policy. Other poten-           equalizing support between entrepreneur-
tial champions for rural entrepreneurship are          ship focused programs and agricultural sub-
either in their early stages of development (such      sidies through the USDA, within the last few
as the newly formed rural subcommittee of the          years the budgets for USDA business devel-
Association for Enterprise Opportunity [AEO]),         opment programs have increased.
are not primarily focused on policy (such as the
RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship), or        • The U.S. Small Business Administration’s
are not specifically focused on entrepreneurship      (SBA) SBA 7(a) guaranteed lending program
development issues (such as the Congressional         continues to be the largest single business
Rural Caucus or the National Rural                    assistance program. However, financing per
Development Partnership).                             capita data shows that non-metropolitan
                                                      areas receive less than three-quarters of their
Consequently, the majority of national rural          counterparts in metropolitan areas, the result
development policies and programs still focus         of both lower levels of economic activity and
on natural resource conservation and industrial       fewer private lending institutions. The main
development, and very few resources support           rural beneficiaries are counties specializing
entrepreneurs specifically and directly.25 The        in services, retirement-destination counties,
following is not intended to be a comprehensive       and non-metropolitan areas in Western
overview of every government program or poli-         states.26 Other programs such as the 504
cy effort that contributes to rural entrepreneur-     Certified Development Program, Microloan
ship development, but rather highlights some          Program, Program for Investment in
key efforts that have recently emerged and/or         Microentrepreneurs (PRIME), Women’s
have significant impact on rural America.             Business Centers program, Service Corps of
                                                      Retired Executives program, and Small
• USDA business assistance programs primari-          Business Development Center (SBDCs) pro-
  ly function through loan guarantees or sup-         gram, among others, are all elements of the
  port to community entrepreneurship devel-           national small business development infra-
  opment initiatives and institutions.                structure that can support entrepreneurship
  Programs such as the Business and                   in low-income rural areas.
  Industrial Guarantee and Direct Loan
  Programs, Intermediary Re-lending                    The potential benefits of these programs,
  Program, Rural Business Enterprise and               however, have not been fully realized in
  Opportunity Grants, Rural Economic                   rural areas, according to a 2001 report by
  Development grants and loans and Rural               the SBA Office of Advocacy, Advancing
  Enterprise and Empowerment Zones all                 Rural America, as well as from feedback



26       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
from six rural roundtable meetings spon-               status within the SBA is unclear. Funding
sored by the SBA in 2000. The roundtables              for SBA programs that support disadvan-
and report revealed that rural communities             taged (rural and urban) entrepreneurs is
face significant barriers in accessing SBA             tenuous. Quoting the Administration’s 2003
programs. Specifically, there has been a               budget rationale, “economically distressed
decline in SBA guaranteed rural lending and            communities and individuals have access to
a lack of outreach by SBA programs such as             a wide range of private for-profit and non-
the 504 and SBDCs to rural entrepreneurs.              profit microenterprise organizations includ-
Participants in the rural roundtables cited            ing federally supported CDFIs, which calls
the high cost of fees, lower guaranty levels,          into question the necessity for separate SBA
centralization of servicing, lack of decision-         programs.” SBA Microloan and PRIME pro-
making authority at the local level, high lev-         grams, the only two supporting microenter-
els of paperwork, and difficulties obtaining           prise development, are consistently under-
technical assistance as key reasons for inade-         funded.
quate rural deal flow.27
                                                   • Other federal programs include the CDFI
                                                     Fund of the U.S. Department of Treasury,
Also of concern are the attempts by the cur-
                                                     which provides capital to community devel-
rent administration to cut SBA programs,
                                                     opment financial institutions (CDFIs) in dis-
particularly those that serve low-income
                                                     tressed areas and could potentially be a valu-
entrepreneurs such as the PRIME,
                                                     able source of funding for organizations that
Microloan, and New Markets Venture
                                                     promote and support rural entrepreneurship.
Capital Programs. Moreover, the SBA’s rural
                                                     However, in 2002, only 11 percent of these
initiative, created during the Clinton admin-
                                                     awards went to rural America, reflecting the
istration in response to the findings of the
                                                     relative lack of eligible rural CDFIs.
Rural Roundtable, has been stalled and its
                                                     According to NADO, the majority of rural


                                  W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   27
and small metropolitan regional development           initiative, charged with ensuring that all HHS
     organizations are ineligible for CDFI certifica-      programs and policies meet the needs of
     tion and support due to their quasi-govern-           HHS’s rural constituents.
     mental status.28 Other agencies, such as the
     Economic Development Administration and            Although there have been significant shifts in
     ARC have for years funded local and regional       federal policy in recent years, the major focus
     intermediaries (Economic Development               remains on farming and on physical infrastruc-
     Districts and Local Development Districts)         ture investment. Rural entrepreneurship devel-
     that support local economic development            opment is still a new concept to many local,
     across rural America.                              state, and federal policymakers. While, there is
                                                        no shortage of government programs that, in
     In recent years, efforts have been made to         various ways, provide some sort of small busi-
     enable some of these regional development          ness support, there is much that can be done to
     organizations to play greater and more effec-      increase the effectiveness and outreach of fed-
     tive roles in entrepreneurship and business        eral entrepreneurship programs in rural areas.
     development. ARC’s Entrepreneurship                Findings from the ARC initiative reveal that
     Initiative is an example of a focused public       effective rural entrepreneurship development
     sector effort to promote entrepreneurial edu-      policy needs to be brought to scale, sustained
     cation and training, entrepreneurial net-          over time, focused on enhancing the capacity
     works and clusters, technology transfer,           of local and regional intermediary institutions,
     access to capital and financial assistance,        and valued as a legitimate economic develop-
     and technical and managerial assistance to         ment strategy.
     rural entrepreneurs. Through September
     2001, ARC’s Entrepreneurship Initiative had
     funded 237 projects, providing a total of          State Policy
     more than $20.1 million of support and
                                                        According to a 1999 report by the Kaufman
     leveraging an additional $19.3 million.
                                                        Center for Entrepreneurship Leadership
     Ninety-one projects had been completed,
                                                        (KCEL), State Entrepreneurship Policy and
     creating 389 new businesses and retaining
                                                        Programs, state commitment in support of
     1,283 jobs. One hundred forty-six ongoing
                                                        entrepreneurs is mixed. The report notes that,
     programs were projected to create 859 new
                                                        “while state funding for entrepreneurship
     businesses and create or retain 2,726 jobs.29
                                                        development lags behind other economic
     The initiative, although clearly successful,
                                                        development activities, many states have creat-
     has been constrained by the continuing lack
                                                        ed programs or adopted policies that have a
     of local institutional capacity in rural
                                                        positive impact on entrepreneurs.”30 Some
     Appalachia to support entrepreneurs.
                                                        states are intentionally providing direct or indi-
                                                        rect financing, promoting entrepreneurship
     The Department of Health and Human
                                                        support services, and providing tax incentives
     Services (HHS) also offers programs and
                                                        to emerging entrepreneurs, while other states
     funding that support entrepreneurship devel-
                                                        are focused primarily on business recruitment,
     opment in rural communities, such as the Job
                                                        which translates into resources for marketing
     Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals
                                                        and incentives and continued expenditures on
     Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement
                                                        basic physical infrastructure. In addition, many
     Microenterprise Development Project, Asset
                                                        states lack a vehicle for entrepreneurs and
     for Independence Demonstration Program
                                                        entrepreneurship development organizations to
     and Community Services Block Grant fund-
                                                        network, share best practices, build new skills
     ing. HHS also recently launched a new rural


28         Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
ings from the USDA Economic Research
                                                        Service’s Rural Manufacturing Survey reveal
                                                        that state business assistance programs benefit-
                                                        ed three fifths of rural manufacturing establish-
                                                        ments. The national research notes, however,
                                                        that only a “modest” amount of state business
                                                        development services are targeted to small
                                                        manufacturing establishments in non-metro
                                                        distressed areas as compared to their larger
                                                        urban counterparts. To encourage states to
                                                        increase their funding for [rural] entrepreneur-
                                                        ial friendly policies and programs, a variety of
                                                        foundations and state policy stakeholders have
                                                        sponsored state entrepreneurship policy and
                                                        research initiatives:

and competencies, or pursue an agenda of poli-          • NGA convened two State Entrepreneurship
cy advocacy. Overall, findings from the                   Policy Academies in 2000 and 2001 to
Kaufman study revealed that state entrepre-               assist nine state economic development
neurship programs:                                        teams (Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan,
                                                          Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and
• Do not generally focus on the needs of
                                                          Wyoming). These teams learned about the
  entrepreneurs during the start-up stage.
                                                          role that entrepreneurship plays in state eco-
• Provide debt, either through direct loans or            nomic competitiveness and about develop-
  loan guarantee programs, rather than equity             ing strategic and implementation plans to
  capital.                                                promote a positive state entrepreneurial cli-
                                                          mate. The initiative provided state economic
• Support entrepreneurship education at the
                                                          development officials with exposure to the
  post-secondary, rather than early education
                                                          leading thinking on entrepreneurship devel-
  level.
                                                          opment strategies and individualized techni-
• Promote linkages to innovation and research             cal assistance in the development of an
  primarily through universities.                         implementation plan.

While these elements of support are important,               While state budget crises retarded much of
they do not make up a comprehensive “pack-                   the potential impact of the academies, there
age” of services for emerging or established                 were some notable successes. Michigan
entrepreneurs. Yet, researchers and advocates                integrated entrepreneurship development
agree that state support is critical to the success          into the formal mission of the state eco-
of entrepreneurship development programs. A                  nomic development administration. Nevada
recent three-state study of Maine, Nevada, and               linked networks of angel investors and
Pennsylvania by the National Commission on                   technology centers into formal economic
Entrepreneurship and ACCRA’s Center for                      development planning activities and inte-
Regional Competitiveness found that state                    grated entrepreneurship education into the
funding represents an important revenue                      state’s economic education standards.
source (between 37-42 percent of a program’s                 Washington is developing a statewide
budget) for entrepreneurship development                     entrepreneurship assistance portal managed
organizations in these states. In addition, find-            by the governor’s office to serve as a central


                                       W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   29
clearinghouse for all organizations serving     –   Missouri: The state team is building a
     entrepreneurs.                                      more focused and integrated support
                                                         system for Missouri’s small businesses
     NGA’s Center for Best Practices is develop-         and has launched an initiative to pro-
     ing a Governor’s Guide to Entrepreneurial           mote core skill development for recipi-
     Policies and Programs drawing from the              ents of public assistance.
     findings of the research and the policy         –   Texas: Higher education institutions
     academies.                                          and nonprofit organizations are leading
• Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative was                  an effort to implement a statewide com-
  launched in 1999 with support from the                 munity-focused entrepreneurial support
  Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation,                      system.
  Partners for Rural America, the National           –   West Virginia: A public-private partner-
  Rural Development Partnership, and the                 ship is working to develop a statewide
  Nebraska Community Foundation. The ini-                intermediary organization to build
  tiative assisted six state teams (Colorado,            entrepreneurial capacity and programs
  Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, and                 among non-governmental organiza-
  West Virginia) in enhancing their climate for          tions, and promoting demonstration
  entrepreneurship development in rural areas            projects such as the Entrepreneurial
  and was designed to provide a national                 League System and the Virtual
  learning forum on rural entrepreneurship.              Entrepreneur Network.
  The state teams received guidance and cus-
  tomized technical assistance in assessing          Of the six states, only Colorado failed to
  their state entrepreneurship climate and           make progress. There, the rural develop-
  developing a strategy and action plan for          ment council folded due to federal and
  implementing policies and programs that            state budget cuts. The state’s SDBC system
  benefit rural entrepreneurs:                       also has been defunded. Results of the ini-
     –   Maine: The Rural Development Council        tiative thus far suggest that those efforts
         launched a “prototype” rural entrepre-      rooted outside state government have
         neurial community and completed a           proved to be the most robust and consis-
         study on the needs of rural entrepre-       tent over time. As Don Macke observed,
         neurs in the state. The project grew into   “While state governments tend to think in
         a collaboration with the Ewing Marion       terms of programs, comprehensive state
         Kauffman Foundation and the Maine           entrepreneurship policy development can-
         governor’s office to develop a compre-      not be a programmatic approach and the
         hensive statewide entrepreneurship          role of nonprofit organizations is crucial to
         development plan.                           its success.”31
     –   Minnesota: Practitioners have expanded
         the Minnesota Virtual Entrepreneurship
         Network, linking entrepreneurs
         throughout the state to resources, mar-
         kets, and support services. A number of
         other states, including North Dakota
         and Nebraska have or are in the process
         of adopting this approach.




30        Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
The Components of
Entrepreneurship Development


The starting point for gathering information on       cations were reviewed and 60 experts and prac-
entrepreneurship development efforts across           titioners were interviewed. The result is not a
rural America was a framework developed by            comprehensive directory of national, regional,
CFED for the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation          and local programs and initiatives, but a cross-
and published early in 2003.33 This framework         section of efforts that currently have or poten-
has two main parts: creating a pipeline of entre-     tially have a significant impact on stimulating
preneurs and enhancing business services for          entrepreneurship in rural America in each of
entrepreneurs. The pipeline notion was that           these four components.
“there should be an infrastructure of lifelong
learning from elementary school to the golden         Entrepreneurship Education
age, based on the simple principle that it is
never too early or too late to be an entrepre-        For the past two years, ARC in partnership
neur…The aim is to create a large and diverse         with the U.S. Department of Education has
pool of people, across a spectrum of entrepre-        held an awards competition – the Springboard
neurial motivations, out of which there will          Awards – to recognize outstanding youth entre-
flow a steady stream of high achievers with an        preneurship education programs targeted at
interest in creating jobs and wealth in their         rural communities across the region. ARC’s
communities.”34 With business services, “the          Federal Co-Chair, Ann Pope, captured the
aim is to “graduate” significant numbers of           essence of this component when she com-
start-up enterprises into companies and organi-       mended the 2003 winners, “The educators
zations that will provide quality jobs…”34            receiving this award are inspiring Appalachian
                                                      youth to reach as far as their imagination and
The key components of the pipeline are entre-         energy can take them…By giving our young
preneurship education and entrepreneur net-           people the confidence and know-how to initi-
works; for business services, the components          ate their own business ventures, they are help-
are training and technical assistance and access      ing to prepare the region for the challenges of
to capital. For this assessment, some 65 publi-       the 21st century.”35




                                     W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   31
The Consortium for Entrepreneurship                 target markets. Still others choose to provide
Education (CEE), an association of entrepre-        broad support and development of tools for
neurship educators and advocates, reports that      young entrepreneurs of all ages.
entrepreneurship education is becoming a prior-
ity within all systems of education beginning in
kindergarten and continuing through college as      Elementary Through High School
well as for adults in continuing education and      The following is a selection of efforts currently
entrepreneurship training programs. CEE has         underway in the mainstream education systems
developed an on-line guide, with support from       and through special initiatives.
ARC, which highlights model entrepreneurial
education initiatives and provides a clearing-      • Public schools and vocational education
house of information on entrepreneurship edu-         tracks traditionally have been closely linked
cation resources. This year in Seattle, CEE will      to vocational education the majority of
sponsor its 21st annual Entrepreneurship              entrepreneurship efforts within the public
Education Forum, bringing together hundreds           school systems.38 The vocational tracks and
of practitioners from across the country.36           their corresponding associations such as
                                                      Distributive Education Clubs of America
In the mid-1990s, the Ewing Marion Kauffman           (DECA) – an association of marketing stu-
Foundation commissioned Gallup to survey              dents, Future Farmers of America (FFA),
youth on knowledge of and attitudes towards           Business Professionals of America (BPA),
entrepreneurship and small business. One sig-         Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA),
nificant finding was that 65 percent of youth         and Family, Career, and Community Leaders
surveyed expressed interest in starting their         of America (FCCLA) see entrepreneurship
own business. Walstead and Kourilsky noted,           as a career opportunity for students who
“This interest in entrepreneurship is an              may not go on to college. Neither the
untapped reservoir with the potential to direct-      Department of Education nor these associa-
ly affect standards of living and the economy. If     tions track penetration of their programs
just a third of the youth who expressed an            into rural schools or encourage state depart-
interest in starting a business actually acted on     ments of education or state affiliates to
their aspirations at some point over their life-      reach out to rural students. That said, it was
times, such initiative could significantly            reported that the education departments in
increase new business formation in the United         Nebraska and New Mexico have model
States.”37                                            efforts underway.39
                                                    • Junior Achievement is distinguished by its
Additionally, recent conferences on rural devel-      program design that links real world entre-
opment and interviews with rural economic             preneurs with students and its strong part-
development leaders underline the importance          nership with classroom instruction. Junior
of entrepreneurship and youth development in          Achievement programs are offered in 120
any rural economic development strategy as a          countries, all 50 states and reach 4 million
means to population retention, leadership             U.S. high school and 2.8 million U.S. ele-
development, and economic growth. In                  mentary school students. Currently, Junior
response, an increasing number of programs,           Achievement does not track its outreach into
both in-school and after school, are providing        rural areas or gather demographic data from
entrepreneurship education to rural youth.            individual students. There is no focused
Some programs cast a wide net and have small-         effort at the national level to promote out-
er impact on a greater number of students,            reach into rural communities, although there
while others focus more in-depth programs on


32       Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
are efforts to develop a distance learning ini-         active state organizations (Alabama, Georgia,
  tiative for hard-to-reach areas. Examples of            Mississippi, North Carolina, Upper Peninsula
  model programs include Ft. Wayne, Indiana               Michigan, Vermont, Virginia, Washington,
  and Pueblo Colorado Springs.40                          and West Virginia) and the curriculum is
                                                          being offered in over 20 additional states
• National Council for Economic Education
                                                          nationwide. There has been little sustained
  (NCEE) offers Economics America, a class-
                                                          evaluation of REAL programming due to
  room and standards-based curriculum,
                                                          lack of funding. The best example of a
  which is focused on economics education,
                                                          statewide commitment to REAL is North
  with entrepreneurship as one part of the
                                                          Carolina where REAL programming is repre-
  broader curriculum. NCEE courses are inte-
                                                          sented in 84 out of 100 counties in the state.
  grated into K-12 classroom curricula. NCEE
  does not track its outreach into rural com-         • National Foundation for Teaching
  munities. Examples of model states include            Entrepreneurship (NFTE) aims to teach
  Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, and Washington.41        entrepreneurship to low-income youth (ages
                                                        11-18). Historically much of its work has
• Rural Entrepreneurship through Action                 been targeted to inner-city youth and has
  Learning (REAL) Enterprise program began              not had any targeted rural focus. Since 1987
  in 1990 and was originally designed for               NFTE has trained 1,200 teachers and more
  school students in rural communities.                 than 30,000 youth in 43 states and 14 coun-
  Whereas REAL Enterprises offers a full range          tries. The most recent analysis of programs
  of entrepreneurship development products              found that NFTE graduates had improved
  and teacher training services across the              communications skills, increased interest in
  country, it is the only national program              starting a business, and started a business at
  specifically developed for and targeted to a          much higher rates than non-NFTE students.
  rural target market. REAL currently has nine          NFTE’s internet-based learning program,



                                     W.K. Kellogg Foundation   •   Corporation For Enterprise Development   33
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship

Contenu connexe

Tendances

Well Paid Audiences
Well Paid AudiencesWell Paid Audiences
Well Paid Audiencesjobdegraaf
 
Top Devex Impact stories of 2016
Top Devex Impact stories of 2016Top Devex Impact stories of 2016
Top Devex Impact stories of 2016Devex
 
Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation Fund
Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation FundRockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation Fund
Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation FundThe Rockefeller Foundation
 
Volunteerism and Capacity Development
Volunteerism and Capacity DevelopmentVolunteerism and Capacity Development
Volunteerism and Capacity DevelopmentUNV Philippines
 
Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...
Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...
Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...Berea College
 
Enhansing Business-Community Relations
Enhansing Business-Community RelationsEnhansing Business-Community Relations
Enhansing Business-Community RelationsUNV Philippines
 
Concept People help People - One World
Concept  People help People - One WorldConcept  People help People - One World
Concept People help People - One WorldPHPOW
 
Volunteering and the United Nations System
Volunteering and the United Nations SystemVolunteering and the United Nations System
Volunteering and the United Nations SystemUNV Philippines
 
Community driven developement:Methods and Approaches
Community driven developement:Methods and ApproachesCommunity driven developement:Methods and Approaches
Community driven developement:Methods and ApproachesAr. Salma Akter Surma
 
Seminar Registration 2020 - 2030 Orientation
Seminar Registration 2020 - 2030  OrientationSeminar Registration 2020 - 2030  Orientation
Seminar Registration 2020 - 2030 OrientationAnthony Rippon
 
Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)
Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)
Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)Amouzou Bedi
 
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to ProsperityEnergizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to ProsperityCommunity Development Society
 
What happened at Future Search
What happened at Future SearchWhat happened at Future Search
What happened at Future SearchModcomadmin
 
Community development & its impact on life
Community development & its impact on lifeCommunity development & its impact on life
Community development & its impact on lifeMahmudul Hasan Tushar
 
247 media kit 082108
247 media kit 082108247 media kit 082108
247 media kit 082108carylmktg
 

Tendances (20)

Well Paid Audiences
Well Paid AudiencesWell Paid Audiences
Well Paid Audiences
 
Top Devex Impact stories of 2016
Top Devex Impact stories of 2016Top Devex Impact stories of 2016
Top Devex Impact stories of 2016
 
Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation Fund
Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation FundRockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation Fund
Rockefeller Foundation Evaluation of the Cultural Innovation Fund
 
Volunteerism and Capacity Development
Volunteerism and Capacity DevelopmentVolunteerism and Capacity Development
Volunteerism and Capacity Development
 
BPR Community Programs
BPR  Community ProgramsBPR  Community Programs
BPR Community Programs
 
Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...
Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...
Social Media as a Tool for Building an Alternative Economy in KRADD Communiti...
 
Enhansing Business-Community Relations
Enhansing Business-Community RelationsEnhansing Business-Community Relations
Enhansing Business-Community Relations
 
Concept People help People - One World
Concept  People help People - One WorldConcept  People help People - One World
Concept People help People - One World
 
The Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Center
The Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio CenterThe Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Center
The Rockefeller Foundation's Bellagio Center
 
Volunteering and the United Nations System
Volunteering and the United Nations SystemVolunteering and the United Nations System
Volunteering and the United Nations System
 
Community driven developement:Methods and Approaches
Community driven developement:Methods and ApproachesCommunity driven developement:Methods and Approaches
Community driven developement:Methods and Approaches
 
MyWorld2030
MyWorld2030MyWorld2030
MyWorld2030
 
Seminar Registration 2020 - 2030 Orientation
Seminar Registration 2020 - 2030  OrientationSeminar Registration 2020 - 2030  Orientation
Seminar Registration 2020 - 2030 Orientation
 
Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)
Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)
Development Aid Support/Knowledge For Development Without Borders (KFDWB)
 
Aid effectiveness final
Aid effectiveness finalAid effectiveness final
Aid effectiveness final
 
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to ProsperityEnergizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
 
What happened at Future Search
What happened at Future SearchWhat happened at Future Search
What happened at Future Search
 
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCEINTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
 
Community development & its impact on life
Community development & its impact on lifeCommunity development & its impact on life
Community development & its impact on life
 
247 media kit 082108
247 media kit 082108247 media kit 082108
247 media kit 082108
 

En vedette

Ssrn id2203122
Ssrn id2203122Ssrn id2203122
Ssrn id2203122Samir Sami
 
SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)
SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)
SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)GK Dutta
 
USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...
USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...
USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...Swati Dudhale
 
Igniting Young Minds for Entrepreneurship
Igniting Young Minds for EntrepreneurshipIgniting Young Minds for Entrepreneurship
Igniting Young Minds for EntrepreneurshipResurgent India
 
Women enterpreneur in india
Women enterpreneur in indiaWomen enterpreneur in india
Women enterpreneur in indiaRahul Jain
 
Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...
Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...
Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...Venera Fusha
 
A Case Study on Rural Entrepreneurship
A Case Study on Rural EntrepreneurshipA Case Study on Rural Entrepreneurship
A Case Study on Rural EntrepreneurshipAbhilash Ravishankar
 
Self help group ( women saving scheme)
Self help group ( women saving scheme)Self help group ( women saving scheme)
Self help group ( women saving scheme)Revati Thevar
 
Satya prakash_project report on Flipkart
Satya prakash_project report on FlipkartSatya prakash_project report on Flipkart
Satya prakash_project report on FlipkartSatya Prakash Tripathi
 
Rural Entrpreneurship
Rural EntrpreneurshipRural Entrpreneurship
Rural EntrpreneurshipTrupti Musale
 
Self help groups in india
Self help groups in indiaSelf help groups in india
Self help groups in indiaHarjote007
 

En vedette (13)

Ssrn id2203122
Ssrn id2203122Ssrn id2203122
Ssrn id2203122
 
SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)
SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)
SCHEME GUIDELINES OF NATIONAL PROGRAMME FOR YOUTH ADOLESCENT DEVELOPMENT (NPYAD)
 
USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...
USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...
USE OF TECHNOLOGY FOR SELF HELP GROUP OF MAHARASHTRA,IN WARDHA AND DHULE DIST...
 
Igniting Young Minds for Entrepreneurship
Igniting Young Minds for EntrepreneurshipIgniting Young Minds for Entrepreneurship
Igniting Young Minds for Entrepreneurship
 
Women enterpreneur in india
Women enterpreneur in indiaWomen enterpreneur in india
Women enterpreneur in india
 
Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...
Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...
Young Entrepreneurs program annual report submitted by Education Development ...
 
A Case Study on Rural Entrepreneurship
A Case Study on Rural EntrepreneurshipA Case Study on Rural Entrepreneurship
A Case Study on Rural Entrepreneurship
 
Self help group ( women saving scheme)
Self help group ( women saving scheme)Self help group ( women saving scheme)
Self help group ( women saving scheme)
 
Satya prakash_project report on Flipkart
Satya prakash_project report on FlipkartSatya prakash_project report on Flipkart
Satya prakash_project report on Flipkart
 
Rural Entrpreneurship
Rural EntrpreneurshipRural Entrpreneurship
Rural Entrpreneurship
 
Self help groups in india
Self help groups in indiaSelf help groups in india
Self help groups in india
 
Entrepreneurship development
Entrepreneurship developmentEntrepreneurship development
Entrepreneurship development
 
“Youth Entrepreneurship & Empowerment” (UN-HABITAT) 2007
 “Youth Entrepreneurship & Empowerment” (UN-HABITAT) 2007 “Youth Entrepreneurship & Empowerment” (UN-HABITAT) 2007
“Youth Entrepreneurship & Empowerment” (UN-HABITAT) 2007
 

Similaire à Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship

Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to ProsperityEnergizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to ProsperityCommunity Development Society
 
Building Prosperity in Rural Maine
Building Prosperity in Rural MaineBuilding Prosperity in Rural Maine
Building Prosperity in Rural MaineSheila Jans
 
HUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobs
HUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobsHUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobs
HUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobsKristin Wolff
 
The Week Malaysia Brief
The Week Malaysia BriefThe Week Malaysia Brief
The Week Malaysia BriefKengyew Tham
 
ScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit Series
ScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit SeriesScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit Series
ScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit SeriesScaleUp Partners LLC
 
Child Poverty Is A Harsh Condition
Child Poverty Is A Harsh ConditionChild Poverty Is A Harsh Condition
Child Poverty Is A Harsh ConditionLorie Harris
 
CED) Community Economic Development.pptx
CED) Community Economic Development.pptxCED) Community Economic Development.pptx
CED) Community Economic Development.pptxzsmith6
 
Mike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLC
Mike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLCMike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLC
Mike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLCScaleUp Partners LLC
 
The Pillars of Future Economic Development
The Pillars of Future Economic DevelopmentThe Pillars of Future Economic Development
The Pillars of Future Economic DevelopmentJeff Finkle, CEcD
 
CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016
CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016
CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016Imani Duncan-Price
 
The role of the tourism sector in expanding economy
The role of the tourism sector in expanding economyThe role of the tourism sector in expanding economy
The role of the tourism sector in expanding economysaranyapugazh
 
The missing piece in the development puzzle
The missing piece in the development puzzleThe missing piece in the development puzzle
The missing piece in the development puzzleIDS Knowledge Services
 
Experience Corps After School Toolkit
Experience Corps After School ToolkitExperience Corps After School Toolkit
Experience Corps After School ToolkitEunice Nichols
 
Support for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi District
Support for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi DistrictSupport for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi District
Support for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi DistrictS.T. Seelan
 
Barry Callebaut Mission Statement
Barry Callebaut Mission StatementBarry Callebaut Mission Statement
Barry Callebaut Mission StatementLindsey Jones
 
Role of info and communication tec sector=harvard
Role of info and communication tec sector=harvardRole of info and communication tec sector=harvard
Role of info and communication tec sector=harvardNico A. Cotzias Jr.
 
Role of youth in rural development
Role of youth in rural developmentRole of youth in rural development
Role of youth in rural developmentJayesh Shewale
 

Similaire à Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship (20)

Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to ProsperityEnergizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
Energizing Entrepreneurial Communities: A Pathway to Prosperity
 
Building Prosperity in Rural Maine
Building Prosperity in Rural MaineBuilding Prosperity in Rural Maine
Building Prosperity in Rural Maine
 
Perspectives
PerspectivesPerspectives
Perspectives
 
HUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobs
HUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobsHUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobs
HUD Sustainable Communities Learning Network Jobs Convening #SCLNjobs
 
The Week Malaysia Brief
The Week Malaysia BriefThe Week Malaysia Brief
The Week Malaysia Brief
 
ScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit Series
ScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit SeriesScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit Series
ScaleUp America: Inclusive Competitiveness Summit Series
 
US Chamber Awards
US Chamber AwardsUS Chamber Awards
US Chamber Awards
 
Child Poverty Is A Harsh Condition
Child Poverty Is A Harsh ConditionChild Poverty Is A Harsh Condition
Child Poverty Is A Harsh Condition
 
CED) Community Economic Development.pptx
CED) Community Economic Development.pptxCED) Community Economic Development.pptx
CED) Community Economic Development.pptx
 
Mike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLC
Mike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLCMike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLC
Mike Green - Co-founder of ScaleUp Partners LLC
 
The Pillars of Future Economic Development
The Pillars of Future Economic DevelopmentThe Pillars of Future Economic Development
The Pillars of Future Economic Development
 
CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016
CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016
CaPRI's Mission Document_New Logo_March 2016
 
The role of the tourism sector in expanding economy
The role of the tourism sector in expanding economyThe role of the tourism sector in expanding economy
The role of the tourism sector in expanding economy
 
The missing piece in the development puzzle
The missing piece in the development puzzleThe missing piece in the development puzzle
The missing piece in the development puzzle
 
Experience Corps After School Toolkit
Experience Corps After School ToolkitExperience Corps After School Toolkit
Experience Corps After School Toolkit
 
Support for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi District
Support for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi DistrictSupport for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi District
Support for Sustainable Livelihood Proposal -Kilinochchi District
 
Barry Callebaut Mission Statement
Barry Callebaut Mission StatementBarry Callebaut Mission Statement
Barry Callebaut Mission Statement
 
Role of info and communication tec sector=harvard
Role of info and communication tec sector=harvardRole of info and communication tec sector=harvard
Role of info and communication tec sector=harvard
 
Role of youth in rural development
Role of youth in rural developmentRole of youth in rural development
Role of youth in rural development
 
ExperienciaScout_ReporteFinal_Externo_EN
ExperienciaScout_ReporteFinal_Externo_ENExperienciaScout_ReporteFinal_Externo_EN
ExperienciaScout_ReporteFinal_Externo_EN
 

Plus de led4lgus

Proceedings of the LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSE
Proceedings of the  LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSEProceedings of the  LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSE
Proceedings of the LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSEled4lgus
 
Subnational Full Toolkit
Subnational Full ToolkitSubnational Full Toolkit
Subnational Full Toolkitled4lgus
 
SMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RP
SMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RPSMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RP
SMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RPled4lgus
 
Strategy Mapping
Strategy MappingStrategy Mapping
Strategy Mappingled4lgus
 
Public Private Partnership Handbook
Public Private Partnership HandbookPublic Private Partnership Handbook
Public Private Partnership Handbookled4lgus
 
SMEDSED Organizational Review Project
SMEDSED Organizational Review ProjectSMEDSED Organizational Review Project
SMEDSED Organizational Review Projectled4lgus
 
Performance mgt using balanced scorecard
Performance mgt using balanced scorecard Performance mgt using balanced scorecard
Performance mgt using balanced scorecard led4lgus
 
Negros Tourism Marketing Agency
Negros Tourism Marketing AgencyNegros Tourism Marketing Agency
Negros Tourism Marketing Agencyled4lgus
 
Appropriate Coordinating Structures Chapter 2
Appropriate  Coordinating Structures Chapter 2Appropriate  Coordinating Structures Chapter 2
Appropriate Coordinating Structures Chapter 2led4lgus
 
Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3
Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3
Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3led4lgus
 
The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9
The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9
The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9led4lgus
 
Financial Challenges Chapter 5
Financial Challenges Chapter 5Financial Challenges Chapter 5
Financial Challenges Chapter 5led4lgus
 
Managing Cities as Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2
Managing Cities as  Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2Managing Cities as  Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2
Managing Cities as Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2led4lgus
 
Assessing City Competitiveness Frameworks
Assessing City Competitiveness FrameworksAssessing City Competitiveness Frameworks
Assessing City Competitiveness Frameworksled4lgus
 
Toolkit on LRED
Toolkit on LREDToolkit on LRED
Toolkit on LREDled4lgus
 
Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009
Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009
Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009led4lgus
 
Local and Regional Economic Development in Leyte Province
Local and Regional Economic Development in Leyte ProvinceLocal and Regional Economic Development in Leyte Province
Local and Regional Economic Development in Leyte Provinceled4lgus
 
Strategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local Governments
Strategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local GovernmentsStrategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local Governments
Strategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local Governmentsled4lgus
 
Making Local Economic Development Strategies: A Trainer’s Manual
Making Local Economic Development  Strategies: A Trainer’s ManualMaking Local Economic Development  Strategies: A Trainer’s Manual
Making Local Economic Development Strategies: A Trainer’s Manualled4lgus
 
Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009
Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009
Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009led4lgus
 

Plus de led4lgus (20)

Proceedings of the LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSE
Proceedings of the  LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSEProceedings of the  LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSE
Proceedings of the LED FUNDAMENTALS COURSE
 
Subnational Full Toolkit
Subnational Full ToolkitSubnational Full Toolkit
Subnational Full Toolkit
 
SMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RP
SMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RPSMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RP
SMEDSEP Business Reg Licensing in RP
 
Strategy Mapping
Strategy MappingStrategy Mapping
Strategy Mapping
 
Public Private Partnership Handbook
Public Private Partnership HandbookPublic Private Partnership Handbook
Public Private Partnership Handbook
 
SMEDSED Organizational Review Project
SMEDSED Organizational Review ProjectSMEDSED Organizational Review Project
SMEDSED Organizational Review Project
 
Performance mgt using balanced scorecard
Performance mgt using balanced scorecard Performance mgt using balanced scorecard
Performance mgt using balanced scorecard
 
Negros Tourism Marketing Agency
Negros Tourism Marketing AgencyNegros Tourism Marketing Agency
Negros Tourism Marketing Agency
 
Appropriate Coordinating Structures Chapter 2
Appropriate  Coordinating Structures Chapter 2Appropriate  Coordinating Structures Chapter 2
Appropriate Coordinating Structures Chapter 2
 
Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3
Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3
Effective Financing Responses Chapter 3
 
The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9
The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9
The Compass of Local Competitiveness v0.9
 
Financial Challenges Chapter 5
Financial Challenges Chapter 5Financial Challenges Chapter 5
Financial Challenges Chapter 5
 
Managing Cities as Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2
Managing Cities as  Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2Managing Cities as  Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2
Managing Cities as Drivers of the Economy Chapter 2
 
Assessing City Competitiveness Frameworks
Assessing City Competitiveness FrameworksAssessing City Competitiveness Frameworks
Assessing City Competitiveness Frameworks
 
Toolkit on LRED
Toolkit on LREDToolkit on LRED
Toolkit on LRED
 
Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009
Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009
Project Programming & Prioritisation Toolkit September 2009
 
Local and Regional Economic Development in Leyte Province
Local and Regional Economic Development in Leyte ProvinceLocal and Regional Economic Development in Leyte Province
Local and Regional Economic Development in Leyte Province
 
Strategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local Governments
Strategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local GovernmentsStrategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local Governments
Strategic Local Economic Development: A Guide for Local Governments
 
Making Local Economic Development Strategies: A Trainer’s Manual
Making Local Economic Development  Strategies: A Trainer’s ManualMaking Local Economic Development  Strategies: A Trainer’s Manual
Making Local Economic Development Strategies: A Trainer’s Manual
 
Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009
Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009
Pre-Feasibility Study Guideline September 2009
 

Dernier

.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx
.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx
.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptxHansamali Gamage
 
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FESTTechnical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FESTBillieHyde
 
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie WorldTrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie WorldTrustArc
 
Top 10 Squarespace Development Companies
Top 10 Squarespace Development CompaniesTop 10 Squarespace Development Companies
Top 10 Squarespace Development CompaniesTopCSSGallery
 
Scenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenarios
Scenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenariosScenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenarios
Scenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenariosErol GIRAUDY
 
The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)
The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)
The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)codyslingerland1
 
Outage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedIn
Outage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedInOutage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedIn
Outage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedInThousandEyes
 
3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data
3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data
3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud DataEric D. Schabell
 
Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...
Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...
Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...DianaGray10
 
Where developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is going
Where developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is goingWhere developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is going
Where developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is goingFrancesco Corti
 
Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.
Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.
Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.IPLOOK Networks
 
GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptx
GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptxGraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptx
GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptxNeo4j
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 1
UiPath Studio Web workshop series  - Day 1UiPath Studio Web workshop series  - Day 1
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 1DianaGray10
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2DianaGray10
 
Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024
Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024
Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024Alkin Tezuysal
 
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024Brian Pichman
 
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENTSIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENTxtailishbaloch
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3
UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3
UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3DianaGray10
 
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - TechWebinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - TechProduct School
 
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptxEmil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptxNeo4j
 

Dernier (20)

.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx
.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx
.NET 8 ChatBot with Azure OpenAI Services.pptx
 
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FESTTechnical SEO for Improved Accessibility  WTS FEST
Technical SEO for Improved Accessibility WTS FEST
 
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie WorldTrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
TrustArc Webinar - How to Live in a Post Third-Party Cookie World
 
Top 10 Squarespace Development Companies
Top 10 Squarespace Development CompaniesTop 10 Squarespace Development Companies
Top 10 Squarespace Development Companies
 
Scenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenarios
Scenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenariosScenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenarios
Scenario Library et REX Discover industry- and role- based scenarios
 
The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)
The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)
The New Cloud World Order Is FinOps (Slideshow)
 
Outage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedIn
Outage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedInOutage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedIn
Outage Analysis: March 5th/6th 2024 Meta, Comcast, and LinkedIn
 
3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data
3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data
3 Pitfalls Everyone Should Avoid with Cloud Data
 
Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...
Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...
Explore the UiPath Community and ways you can benefit on your journey to auto...
 
Where developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is going
Where developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is goingWhere developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is going
Where developers are challenged, what developers want and where DevEx is going
 
Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.
Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.
Introduction - IPLOOK NETWORKS CO., LTD.
 
GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptx
GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptxGraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptx
GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - Neo4j Vision and Roadmap.pptx
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 1
UiPath Studio Web workshop series  - Day 1UiPath Studio Web workshop series  - Day 1
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 1
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2
UiPath Studio Web workshop series - Day 2
 
Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024
Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024
Design and Modeling for MySQL SCALE 21X Pasadena, CA Mar 2024
 
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
CyberSecurity - Computers In Libraries 2024
 
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENTSIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
SIM INFORMATION SYSTEM: REVOLUTIONIZING DATA MANAGEMENT
 
UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3
UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3
UiPath Studio Web workshop Series - Day 3
 
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - TechWebinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
Webinar: The Art of Prioritizing Your Product Roadmap by AWS Sr PM - Tech
 
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptxEmil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
Emil Eifrem at GraphSummit Copenhagen 2024 - The Art of the Possible.pptx
 

Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship

  • 1. W.K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION Corporation for Enterprise Development
  • 2. About the Corporation About the W.K. Kellogg Foundation for Enterprise Development The W.K. Kellogg Foundation was established The Corporation for Enterprise Development is in 1930 “to help people help themselves a nonprofit organization that creates economic through the practical application of knowledge opportunity by helping the poor save and and resources to improve their quality of life invest, succeed as entrepreneurs, and partici- and that of future generations.” Its program- pate as contributors to and beneficiaries of the ming activities center around the common economy. By helping individuals and communi- vision of a world in which each person has a ties harness latent potential, we build long- sense of worth; accepts responsibility for self, term models to help people move from poverty family, community, and societal well-being; and to prosperity while strengthening the overall has the capacity to be productive, and to help economy. The Corporation for Enterprise create nurturing families, responsive institu- Development identifies and researches promis- tions, and healthy communities. ing ideas, collaborates with the private and public sectors to test them, and helps drive the To achieve the greatest impact, the Foundation application and adoption of proven concepts. targets its grants toward specific areas. These include health; food systems and rural develop- Established in 1979, the Corporation for ment; youth and education; and philanthropy Enterprise Development works nationally and and volunteerism. Within these areas, attention internationally through its offices in is given to the cross-cutting themes of leader- Washington, DC, Durham, North Carolina, ship; information systems/technology; capital- San Francisco, California, and St. Louis, izing on diversity; and social and economic Missouri. community development programming. Grants are concentrated in the United States, Latin America and the Caribbean, and the southern African countries of Botswana, Lesotho, Mozambique, South Africa, Swaziland and Zimbabwe. More information about the W.K. Kellogg Foundation and its programs is available on the Foundation’s Web site at www.wkkf.org.
  • 3. Table of Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................3 Executive Summary ..................................................................................................4 Introduction ..............................................................................................................7 Economic Context for Rural America ......................................................................9 Entrepreneurship as a Rural Economic Development Strategy ..............................12 Rural Entrepreneurship by the Numbers ................................................................17 Policy Context ..........................................................................................................25 The Components of Entrepreneurship Development ..............................................31 A Closer Look at Two States ....................................................................................45 Orchestrating an Entrepreneurial Climate in Rural America ..................................56 Endnotes ..................................................................................................................60 W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 1
  • 5. Acknowledgements The authors thank Deborah Markley, co-director Special thanks to David Dangler, Ray Daffner, of the Rural Policy Research Institute (RUPRI) Cornelia Flora, Jay Kayne, Tom Lyons (again), Center for Rural Entrepreneurship for her guid- Don Macke, Erik Pages, and Nancy Stark for ance in structuring this study and for allowing their helpful counsel on the “big picture.” her meeting on entrepreneurship research spon- Much appreciation is also due to the 60 experts sored by the Farm Foundation to be used to test and practitioners who agreed to be interviewed some methodological assumptions. by phone about their perspectives and experi- ences on different aspects of entrepreneurship Thanks also go to a number of people in in rural America. Kentucky and Nebraska for their insights and hospitality during the two main field visits: in Finally, thanks to Rick Foster, Caroline Kentucky, Jim Clifton, Phillip Danhauer, Kris Carpenter, and Gail Imig for the opportunity to Kimmel, Joanne Lang, Tom Lyons, Justin carry out this study and for their continuing Maxson, Becky Naugle, Jerry Rickett, Kevin support and encouragement. Smith, and Cheryl Moorhead Stone; and in Nebraska, John Allen, John Bailey, Greg Brian Dabson, Jennifer Malkin, Amy Matthews, Christensen, Janelle Anderson Ehrke, Doug Kimberly Pate, and Sean Stickle Friedli, Rob Hamer, Chuck Hassebrook, Rose Corporation for Enterprise Development Jasperson, Loren Kucera, Glennis McClure, August 2003 Judy Meyer, Stuart Miller, Lance Morgan, Jeff Reynolds, Marilyn Schlake, Sandra Scofield, Cory Smathers, Brian Thompson, and Jeff Yost. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 3
  • 6. Executive Summary At the invitation of the W. K. Kellogg Foundation, the Corporation for Enterprise Development conducted a study to gather infor- mation on institutions, programs, and activities that support entrepreneurship in rural America; to assess the distribution and scale of entrepre- neurial activity; and to identify potentially influential contextual factors. The study includ- ed the collection of best available published data to map entrepreneurial activity, an exten- sive literature and Internet search, and a series of telephone interviews with 60 experts and practitioners. In addition, site visits and person- al interviews were held with practitioners and entrepreneurs in Kentucky and Nebraska. Rural America comprises an extraordinary and dynamic variety of economic, geographical, and cultural characteristics. Many rural communi- entrepreneurial climate where all kinds of ties face enormous economic challenges of low entrepreneurs can succeed, lays the ground- population size and density and remoteness, work for the five out of 100 small businesses which in turn bring diseconomies of scale and that evolve into the fast-growing drivers of the increased costs of doing business. Poorly edu- national economy. cated and low-skilled workers, weak entrepre- neurial cultures, and entrenched racial inequali- Efforts to measure entrepreneurial activity and ties inhibit full participation in the new econo- performance across rural America are still in my. The public policy context is not encourag- their developmental stages, but it is possible to ing with rural policy dictated by agri-business create an initial impression of the scale and dis- interests, fiscal crises at the state and county tribution of entrepreneurial activity. Whereas levels, and no organized constituency for rural such activity is broadly distributed across the America in all its diversity. There is an urgent country, there appear to be particular concen- need for rural people and communities to trations in heartland and northern mountain define the future they want for themselves and states and in Appalachia. their children. This will take vision, innovation, and risk-taking – the work of the entrepreneur. Using a two-part framework – creating a pipeline of entrepreneurs and enhancing busi- There is growing understanding that economic ness services for entrepreneurs – the study development strategies founded primarily on team gathered a large amount of information business recruitment are not in rural America’s on national, regional, and local programs and best interests and that there needs to be a initiatives. The components of the pipeline are greater emphasis on homegrown development. entrepreneurship education in kindergarten Many observers see entrepreneurship as being a through the 12th grade and at the post-second- critical, if not major piece of rural economic ary level and entrepreneurship networks; for development, although not all are convinced business services, the components are training that entrepreneurship is likely to be an engine and technical assistance, and access to capital. of economic growth in rural areas. However, There is a very wide array of programs and ini- there is a compelling argument that creating an tiatives, ranging from the old-established to 4 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 7. exciting new experiments, but it is impossible be sufficient scale, resources, and expertise to gauge whether on the ground these come to enable individual communities to play together in coherent, entrepreneurial systems their full role. There are issues and concerns of support or as disconnected, bureaucratic common to both urban and rural areas that programs. These were the concerns that can best be addressed through regional solu- became the focus of site visits and interviews in tions; regions represent the economic Kentucky and Nebraska. engines and markets that rural enterprises have to serve. The study concludes that what is needed is a • Entrepreneur-focused: Systems thinking is new framework that will animate people and required to align the plethora of training, institutions at all levels around four principles technical assistance, and financing programs for entrepreneurship development in rural to meet the variety of needs of entrepreneurs America: and their different levels of education, skills, • Community-driven: Local communities and maturity. need the tools and resources to identify and • Continuously learning: Networks for peer build upon their assets; to make choices that support and learning are essential for entre- appropriately balance economic, social, and preneurs and for practitioners, community environmental imperatives; to learn from the leaders, and policymakers. Learning about experiences of others; and to be open to entrepreneurship should be part of the experimentation and innovation. school curriculum. The need for rigorous • Regionally oriented: Only through regional evaluation of the effectiveness of entrepre- cooperation across multiple jurisdictions neurship strategies and returns on invest- and through regional institutions can there ment is pressing. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 5
  • 8. The study also highlighted a number of other Four main strategies are recommended to cre- important essentials for promoting an entrepre- ate a more supportive environment climate in neurial climate: rural America: • Anchor institutions: Universities, community • Investment strategies: Create incentives colleges, community development financial and long-term investments that encourage institutions, and research and advocacy urban-rural and regional collaborations and groups can play a vital role in articulating a the development of effective systems and vision, building partnerships, and attracting accountable systems of entrepreneurial sup- and mobilizing resources for entrepreneurship port. Invest in innovations in entrepreneur- development. ial education, technical assistance and training, capital access, and networking • Supportive public policy: Creative public that show promise for widespread replica- policy can unlock resources and channel tion in rural communities. efforts into rural counties, but demonstrat- ing effectiveness and returns on investment • Learning strategies: Ensure rigorous evalua- is crucial for generating further support at tion of strategies, systematic case studies, federal and state levels. The need is not nec- training programs for elected officials and essarily to create special legislation for opportunities for peer exchanges. Encourage entrepreneurship in rural areas but to ensure experiential education in schools, colleges, that all programs have the capability and community centers, and camps. flexibility to be tailored to the needs of dif- • Advocacy strategies: Energize networks of ferent rural regions and their entrepreneurs. organizations and institutions that can use • All entrepreneurs welcome: Fostering a the results of the investment and advocacy diverse pool of entrepreneurs with different strategies to support entrepreneurship motivations, whether for survival, lifestyle, development in rural America. or wealth, increases the odds that there will • Information strategies: Develop method- be some that will become the fast-growth ologies and statistical tools that adequately enterprises that will bring improvement to describe and measure entrepreneurial activ- economic conditions to rural communities ity and climates, including report cards and and regions. other benchmarking and assessment tools. The study presents ample evidence of organiza- tions, institutions, and agencies pursuing vari- ous types of programs and initiatives that are meant to encourage greater entrepreneurship in rural America. The task ahead is to make their efforts more community-driven, regionally ori- ented, entrepreneur-focused, and continuously learning. 6 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 9. Introduction Scope of Work The W. K. Kellogg Foundation invited the Corporation for Enterprise Development (CFED) to carry out a consulting assignment that would: • Gather data on current institutions, pro- grams, and activities that support rural entrepreneurship; • Develop a narrative and graphic presenta- tion of the data in ways that would high- light “hotspots” of activity that might offer models and/or potential investment targets; • Determine the factors that influence the development of these “hotspots;” and • Present an analysis of the findings leading to observations and options for Foundation intervention. Definitions – Growth entrepreneurs: those who are motivated to develop and expand their For the purposes of this report, the following businesses that create jobs and wealth. definitions have been used: – Serial entrepreneurs: those who go on • Rural refers to geographical areas outside sta- to create several growth businesses. tistical metropolitan areas and thus includes over 80 percent of the U.S. land mass and its • Social entrepreneurs are people who create wide array of economic, physical, cultural, and grow enterprises or institutions that are and demographic characteristics. primarily for public and community purposes. • Entrepreneurs are people who create and • Entrepreneurship is the process through grow enterprises. This definition is deliber- which entrepreneurs create and grow enter- ately widely drawn to encompass the follow- prises. This process includes four critical ing types of entrepreneurs: elements: opportunity recognition, idea cre- ation, venture creation and operation, and – Aspiring entrepreneurs: those who are creative thinking. attracted to the idea of creating enter- prises, including young people. • Entrepreneurship development refers to the – Survival entrepreneurs: those who infrastructure of public and private supports resort to creating enterprises to supple- that facilitate entrepreneurship. ment their incomes. • Entrepreneurial communities are those – Lifestyle entrepreneurs: those who where there is significant economic and create enterprises in order to pursue a social entrepreneurial activity and where certain lifestyle or live in a particular there is an effective system of entrepreneur- community. ship development. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 7
  • 10. Methodology The consulting assignment was conducted in three main stages: • A quantitative assessment that used best available published data to prepare maps of entrepreneurial activity across rural America; • An assessment of institutions, programs, and activities that support entrepreneurship development in rural America based on an extensive literature and Internet search and a series of telephone interviews with 60 experts and practitioners; and • Site visits and interviews with practitioners and entrepreneurs in Kentucky and Nebraska. Report Structure This report begins with an overview of the eco- nomic realities and options for rural America and explores the role that entrepreneurship plays (or could play) as a rural economic devel- opment strategy. The next section presents the quantitative assessments, including some of the challenges for measuring rural entrepreneur- ship, followed by a description of both the poli- cy context at national, regional, and local levels and of the institutions and programs that sup- port different facets of entrepreneurship. This national overview is then followed by a closer look at entrepreneurship development in Kentucky and Nebraska. The report concludes with some thoughts about what the assessments have revealed and what opportunities may exist for policy and practical action. 8 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 11. Economic Context for Rural America Within rural America, there is an extraordinary tions. Map 1 shows the location of distressed variety of economic, geographical, and cultural rural counties using an index devised by the characteristics. Moreover, the situation is very Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) for dynamic, with significant depopulation across its 10-state region and applied to all non-met- the Great Plains and net population growth in ropolitan America. The index combines meas- rural counties that are within reach of sprawl- ures of a three-year average of unemployment, ing metropolitan regions or in areas of high per capita market income, and poverty rates. amenity. In addition, many counties with man- ufacturing or food processing plants are experi- A critical issue for many rural counties is edu- encing a rapid growth in immigrant workers cation. Although overall, rural high school and the challenges associated with sudden graduation rates match or exceed their urban expanding diversity. counterparts, out-migration of the youngest and more highly-educated is a primary export for Poverty rates tend to be higher in rural areas – many communities. The result is that the adult 7.5 million rural residents are in poverty. Two- workforce is less well-educated. In fact, a study thirds of them live in households where at least of the rural South showed that 38 percent of one member is working. Measures of persist- adults do not have high school diplomas. ently high poverty levels or of economic dis- tress show that the greatest hurt found in the From an economic development viewpoint, Delta and the Cotton Belt, Appalachia, the rural communities, especially those located Texas border, and Native American reserva- some distance from larger cities, face a number Map 1: Distressed Rural Counties (Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Economic Analysis, Census Bureau, Appalachian Regional Commission) W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 9
  • 12. of major challenges. Low population size and tracts of federally-owned land have become density and associated limited local demand, battlegrounds around forestry, mining, recre- make it difficult for rural businesses and serv- ational, and water rights issues, with local com- ice providers to achieve economies of scale. munities and local jobs left as merely by- This has an impact on the cost and availability standers. Fiscal crises at the state level are of goods and services and drives many attempts being passed onto counties in the form of to achieve efficiencies through consolidation in reduced financial support, resulting in severe everything from schools to banking. service cuts with disproportionate impacts on Remoteness from markets and from key infra- the rural poor. Unfortunately, there is no organ- structure limits the range of economic opportu- ized constituency for rural America, with polit- nities that can be supported and often results ical power increasingly suburban and no coher- in a lack of connection to regional and global ent public understanding of how and where possibilities. Poorly educated and low-skilled national and rural interests intersect. workers, weak entrepreneurial cultures, and entrenched racial inequalities all serve to inhib- So what of the future? One of the more it the participation of rural families and com- thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses munities in the new economy. comes from Northwest Area Foundation presi- dent, Karl Stauber.1 He first divides rural The public policy context for rural America is America into four main types: not encouraging. Powerful agri-business inter- ests have ensured that commodity price sup- • Urban periphery: rural areas within a 90- port is the primary rural policy, leaving little minute commute of urban employment, scope for diversified rural development. Large services, and social opportunities; 10 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 13. • High amenity: rural areas of significant sce- • Create new markets and linkages so as to nic beauty, cultural opportunities, and increase regional competitive investments attraction to wealthy and retired people; in urban periphery and sparsely populated areas – primarily investments in value- • Sparsely populated: areas where the popu- added production rather than commodity lation density is low and often declining and price supports. therefore demand for traditional services, • Develop and use new technology to over- employment, and social opportunities are come remoteness to produce an infrastruc- limited by isolation; and ture that expands competitive advantage in • High poverty: rural areas characterized by sparsely populated and high-poverty areas persistent poverty or rapid declines in – creating and reinforcing links between income. metropolitan and rural economies. • Encourage immigration to rural communi- Stauber then lays out four outcomes for a rural ties to increase human capital in sparsely public policy: increased human capital, conser- populated and high-poverty areas – with vation of the natural environment and culture, a particular emphasis on attracting entre- increased regional competitive investments, preneurs. and investments in infrastructure that support the expansion of new competitive advantage. Two other expert rural observers, Thomas From these elements, he then proposes a set of Rowley and David Freshwater, contend that the strategic directions:2 answers to the current challenges of rural • Redefine and restructure the rural-serving America will only be found “by finally coming college and university so as to increase to terms with what we as a nation want our human capital in sparsely populated and rural areas to be. If we want them to be sources high poverty rural areas – essentially dis- of cheap commodities, then the people who mantling the 19th century land-grant sys- will provide [them]…will be low-wage labor. If tem in favor of a 21st century information we desire pristine wilderness, the people will grant system. not fit at all. If receptacles for our refuse are what we seek, then trash heaps are what we will get. What we want (and what we are will- ing to pay for) will go a long way in determin- ing what we get.” 3 There is no shortage of urban, suburban, and newly settled rural dwellers willing to define a future for rural America, but if rural people and communities are to take matters into their own hands and succeed, it will take vision, innova- tion, and risk – the work of the entrepreneur. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 11
  • 14. Entrepreneurship as a Rural Economic Development Strategy Among researchers, policy advocates, and oth- economic changes, fewer communities are host- ers engaged in community and economic ing large facilities that provide jobs over long development in rural America, there is broad periods of time…At the same time, small and agreement that relying on recruiting companies medium-sized businesses are growing in impor- from other states or overseas should not and tance…Entrepreneurial growth companies – cannot be the answer to struggling rural fast-growing new businesses – account for at economies. Yet each year, state governments least two-thirds of new jobs in the American have been willing to commit through tax economy…These firms will drive the future of incentives, tax breaks and direct investments, innovation and prosperity in nearly every billions of dollars to snag a car assembly plant, American community, and thus should be the a high technology production unit, or some focus of our economic development efforts.”5 other potentially transformative industrial activity. Increased public scrutiny has shed The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City light on some of the more egregious examples observed: “Rural policymakers, who once fol- of “investments” that were poorly structured, lowed traditional strategies of recruiting manu- had inadequate reporting or accountability facturers that export low-value products, have requirements, or yielded disappointingly low realized that entrepreneurs can generate new returns in terms of jobs and local multiplier economic value for their communities. effects. And this in turn has led to a greater Entrepreneurs add jobs, raise incomes, create emphasis on transparency, clear expectations wealth, improve the quality of life of citizens, on returns on investment, and clawbacks if and help rural communities operate in the glob- expectations are not met. But concern remains al economy…Rural policymakers are respond- that recruitment has to be balanced, if not ing to these challenges by making entrepreneur- replaced altogether by policies that support ship the cornerstone of many economic devel- homegrown development. opment strategies.”6 In a similar vein, the ARC “views entrepreneurship as a critical element in An Aspen Institute report that looks at the the establishment of self-sustaining communi- economy of rural Kentucky, noted: “Traditional ties that create jobs, build local wealth, and approaches to economic development…have contribute broadly to economic and community their place, but only as they help to create the development.”7 And this was the basis of a conditions for dynamic, indigenous economic commitment by the Commission in 1997 to activity. In a very real sense, Kentucky’s future commit $17.6 million over a number of years to rests on its ability to nurture homegrown firms an initiative to build entrepreneurial communi- and to encourage the innovation, risk-taking ties across Appalachia. and investment that are the hallmarks of a vital economy…In short, entrepreneurship must become a matter of course and a habit of mind In 1999, the National Governors Association if Kentucky is to thrive.”4 (NGA) surveyed its members to gauge each state’s perspective on entrepreneurship and its The National Commission on importance as part of an overall state economic Entrepreneurship in its guide for candidates development strategy. While 34 of the 37 states for elected office put the argument this way: that responded indicated that they did indeed “While winning a new manufacturing facility consider entrepreneurship as part of their eco- may be a home run in economic development nomic development strategy, only four had a terms, these home-run opportunities are clearly articulated statement within the strategy becoming scarcer every day. As a result of glob- document. Jay Kayne observed a “distinction alization, technological evolution, and other between states that try to meet the specific 12 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 15. needs of aspiring and emerging entrepreneurs investigation into the relationship between and states that view entrepreneurs as a segment entrepreneurship and economic growth. By of the state economy who can take advantage 2002, 37 countries were being surveyed of state programs.”8 In other words, the survey according to a common protocol. The national emphasized the difference between active and report on the United States10 provides some passive support for entrepreneurship. good contextual information on the role and Interestingly enough, given the assessments importance of entrepreneurship: described later in this report, Kentucky was identified as having one of the best articulated GEM estimates that 10.5 percent of the U.S. goals of creating an entrepreneurial economy. adult population (aged 18-64) are engaged in some form of “entrepreneurial activity,” defined An important obstacle to a more vigorous pur- by the 2002 GEM as being involved in the suit of entrepreneurship as an economic devel- start-up process or is the owner/manager of an opment strategy is the lack of hard evidence active young business less than 42 months old. that it actually yields the results claimed. As This population can be divided into two broad the Federal Bank of Kansas City noted, “As categories: opportunity entrepreneurs, those policymakers stretch the frontier of entrepre- who are starting a business to take advantage of neurial development, the impacts of these pro- a business opportunity, and necessity entrepre- grams will need to be assessed to identify the neurs, those who are starting a business costs and benefits of supporting high-growth because they had no better choices for work. entrepreneurs in rural America.”9 In the United States, approximately 90 percent The Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM) fall into the opportunity category. was created in 1997 by Babson College and the This high level of opportunity entrepreneur- London Business School with support from the ship appears to be the result of a strong econo- Kauffman Center for Entrepreneurial my, although recession, mass layoffs, and Leadership as a long-term, multi-national increasing unemployment are likely to spur a W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 13
  • 16. sharp rise in necessity entrepreneurship. As the The relationship between level of education 2001 GEM report notes: “The difficulty with and entrepreneurial activity is not straightfor- this scenario is that although necessity entre- ward. The highest entrepreneurial participation preneurship often creates self-employment, it is rate is for those who have completed high not a strong driver for creating new jobs. school; for those who do not have a high Because the primary concern of necessity entre- school diploma, the tendency is self-employ- preneurs is survival, they typically have a limit- ment and little vision for job creation; for those ed vision for growth. Opportunity entrepre- with college degrees, there is some drop-off in neurs, however, tend to create high-potential, participation, possibly because of the greater high-growth ventures. The majority of jobs cre- opportunities to earn high incomes as employ- ated from entrepreneurial activity in the United ees of other businesses. States is a result of fast-growth businesses.”11 A potentially contentious conclusion comes from the 2002 GEM report, which makes the point that entrepreneurship is an urban phe- nomenon, presumably as urban areas are where the highest density of entrepreneurship is to be found. The report went on to assert: “It should be noted that entrepreneurship in rural areas may not be the best mechanism for economic growth.”12 Another recent effort to provide evidence of the effectiveness of entrepreneurial strategies is an Organization for Economic Development and Cooperation (OECD) publication, Entrepreneurship and Local Economic Development, researched and written by Alistair Nolan. He noted: “For a variety of reasons, pro- moting entrepreneurship enjoys support from governments at both ends of the political spec- trum. Pro-entrepreneurship policies have been embraced as a means of increasing economic growth and diversity, ensuring competitive markets, helping the unemployed to generate additional jobs for themselves and others, U.S. entrepreneurs, compared with their coun- countering poverty and welfare dependency, terparts overseas, tend to be older – 36 percent encouraging labor market flexibility, and draw- of entrepreneurs are in the 45 to 64 age brack- ing individuals out of informal economic activ- et. Older Americans, the report asserts, are ity. In short, an enterprise initiative has been more likely to have deep industry experience charged with addressing a broad array of eco- and networks that help with identifying and nomic and social aspirations…However, given financing opportunities. At the same time, the the widespread interest in promoting enter- proportion of women entrepreneurs is increas- prise, it is perhaps surprising that few empiri- ing. There is one female entrepreneur for every cal studies have systematically examined the 1.5 male entrepreneurs, with parity in the 45 to relationship between the birth of new firms and 64 age bracket. local economic change.”13 14 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 17. The following are some of the main conclusions Research on the impact of microenterprise of Nolan’s analyses of 30 OECD countries: development in the United States by The Aspen Institute14 provides some counter-evidence: • There are many obstacles that hinder entre- preneurship in disadvantaged areas, influ- • Low-income microentrepreneurs reduced encing both the extent and form of entrepre- their reliance on government assistance by neurial activity and its prospects for sur- 61 percent with the greatest reduction in the vival. Such obstacles range from limited net- amount of cash benefits received. Average works, low levels of effective local demand, benefits fell by $1,679 per year. finance constraints, lack of role models, and • Seventy-two percent of low-income cultural barriers – all familiar to rural com- microentrepreneurs experienced gains in munities in the United States. household income over five years. The aver- • Efforts to stimulate self-employment can raise age gain was $8,485. incomes and provide a cost-effective alterna- • Fifty-three percent of low-income entrepre- tive to paying unemployment insurance, but neurs had large enough household gains to only for the small sub-section of the unem- move out of poverty, with the business being ployed who are more motivated, have work the major source of earnings. experience, and some accumulated assets. • Average household assets of low-income entre- • Entrepreneurship strategies yield important preneurs grew by $15,909 over five years. benefits but do not constitute a panacea. Such strategies inevitably favor those who Earlier research conducted by CFED15 indicated possess superior financial, human, and that: social assets. There may not be a significant expansion in employment opportunities for • Forty-nine percent of microenterprises the most disadvantaged. Entrepreneurship owned by low-income entrepreneurs sur- strategies are long-term in their effects and vived after five years – a rate comparable to therefore not appropriate to short-term the national average for all small businesses. crises. There may be issues of displacement • On average, microenterprises create 1.5 full- in local markets as new entrants cause losses and part-time jobs per business in revenues or employment among existing enterprises rather than create an expanded During field work in Kentucky, there was some economy. suggestion that a significant number of emerg- • Although every community hopes to ing entrepreneurs were in fact making the tran- encourage fast-growing businesses that will sition from the informal to the formal economy. generate wealth and good jobs, the reality is A recent literature review on the informal econ- that in most cases, the direct employment omy by Institute for Social and Economic effects will be modest – a reflection of the Development and The Aspen Institute,16 con- small average size of start-ups, low survival firms that the informal economy – defined as and growth rates, and displacement. individuals operating unregistered businesses Moreover, employment in small enterprises or engaging in “under the table” work – is does not necessarily translate into good jobs indeed especially important to rural residents: with family-supporting wages and benefits. • Essential services are more likely to be unavailable or deficient in less densely settled areas, forcing people to develop and rely on informal alternatives. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 15
  • 18. • The extent to which informal activities around 10 percent of the gross domestic prod- require access to land – crops, wood prod- uct. Those who work in some form of subcon- ucts, game – increase their prevalence in tracting capacity, often outside the framework rural areas. of regulation, benefits, and health and safety protections. And those who work in odd jobs • Austerity – in the form of lower wages and for cash or operate microenterprises outside declining demand for labor and less public the realm of regulation and taxation. “In all spending – promotes informal economies as cases, the greatest competitive advantage that an important survival strategy. these workers bring to the market is a price • Informal economies exist in part because of advantage built on lower labor and overhead the social interdependence of community costs. While this creates access to income and members, thus the “connected feeling” typi- employment for many, it also constrains earn- cal of rural places makes them more con- ing power…and…for many microentrepreneurs ducive to informal economic activity. it is not clear whether the benefits of formaliza- tion would outweigh the costs involved. [It The authors point to the fact that there are in would appear that] the desire to grow and a fact two main components of the informal corresponding need for financing [are] the economy – in total estimated to represent most compelling triggers.”17 Commentary The conclusion to be drawn from these scope for income supplementation and a way expert observations and research is that out of poverty. While this is undoubtedly entrepreneurship development appears to be important for individual families, it is unlike- a logical and appropriate counterpoint to ly that in the aggregate, such enterprises will business recruitment strategies in rural have a significant transforming impact on America. There are strong advocates and local economies. Nevertheless, in many hard- arguments at the national level for lauding pressed communities, small improvements and supporting opportunity-driven entrepre- can make the difference between community neurs – those most likely to create jobs and survival and collapse. Moreover, there is the wealth at any scale. compelling argument that creating an entre- preneurial climate where all kinds of entre- There are also benefits for encouraging preneurs can succeed, lays the groundwork necessity-driven entrepreneurs and those for the five out of 100 small businesses that with only modest aspirations for their small develop into the fast-growing drivers of the enterprises. For some, microenterprise offers economy. 16 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 19. Rural Entrepreneurship by the Numbers Efforts to measure entrepreneurial activity and which generally accorded with expectations. performance by geographical area are still in However, the authors observed, “Some results their developmental stages. Progress is hampered are perplexing: Florida, Nebraska, and by a lack of any agreed and coherent framework Kentucky do not make large investments in for understanding the essential factors (and their entrepreneurial activity, but they perform far interactions) that shape the entrepreneurial better than the model predicts…they get very process and by the dearth of available data that strong returns.”19 As will be described later, serve as meaningful proxies for these factors. this became one factor in the selection of Nebraska and Kentucky for further assessment. Goetz and Freshwater in a recent paper18 pre- sented their framework for capturing state-level The strong technology and innovation bias in determinants of entrepreneurship and for the Goetz and Freshwater analysis and the measuring what they called “entrepreneurial absence of any differentiation between urban climate.” They focused on states, recognizing and rural makes this less than ideal as a means that although these are not functional econom- to measure entrepreneurship in rural America. ic units, they do have the power to influence Nevertheless, the authors did draw some inter- many of the factors important to economic esting preliminary conclusions, the most signifi- development. Using a regression model that cant of which was that entrepreneurship activity equated entrepreneurial activityi within a state can be expanded by improving the human capi- with a set of inputs that related to ideas and tal base of a state – a better educated workforce innovation, human capital, and financial capi- increases the effectiveness with which ideas are tal, they derived a measure of entrepreneurial translated into entrepreneurial opportunities. climate. If entrepreneurial activity exceeded the level of inputs, that would suggest a positive In 2002, the National Commission on entrepreneurial climate – a set of factors con- Entrepreneurship published the results of ducive to or supportive of entrepreneurship. research20 on the location of the fastest growing Conversely, if the level of entrepreneurial activ- companies across the United States. The ity did not match the level of inputs, a poor research led to the creation of the Growth entrepreneurial climate would be assumed. Company Index, which weighs the percentage Goetz and Freshwater also thought it important of existing firms with high growth (at least 15 to distinguish entrepreneurial activity that percent per year over the period 1992-1997) involves fundamental change in an economy and the percentage of firms that started in 1992 based on new products, combination of inputs, or 1993 and had at least 20 employees by 1997. or production processes from that which is The data was presented at the level of Labor driven by income and population growth. Market Areas as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The resultant entrepreneurial climate measures ranked Colorado, California, Massachusetts, Map 2 shows the top-performing labor market Virginia, and Maryland as the top five states, areas with populations between 100,000 and i “Entrepreneurial activity” for the purposes of the model was measured by the number of Inc Magazine’s 500 fastest growing firms in the state and the number of initial public offerings (IPOs) per million population. “Ideas and innova- tion” was measured by the number of Small Buisness Innovation Grants and patents, “human capital” by the proportion of college graduates in the population, and “financial capital” by the number of venture capital commitments and Small Business Investment Companies. Goetz and Freshwater’s definition of “entrepreneurial climate” was based on the work of David Birch on what constituted “entrepreneurial hotspots” – a series of intangibles relating to political engagement, media interest, and supportive public policies. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 17
  • 20. 150,000 (the smallest and assumed to be the tors are ranked and combined into indexes most rural). Each of the nine labor market which in turn are ranked and graded. However, areas shown on Map 2 had between 109 and the need to determine entrepreneurial activity 232 high-growth companies with their within rural areas raised a number of data strongest business sectors being local market availability and methodological challenges. (4), extractive (3), retail (2), distributive (1), and manufacturing(1). The strengths of this The basic unit of measurement is the county Index are that it uses the Census Bureau’s and for the purpose of this analysis, the focus Business Information Tracking System database was on non-metropolitan counties – the gener- that allows researchers to track the employ- ally accepted definition of rural, encompassing ment growth of individual firms over time and as it does a wide range of economic and demo- it seeks to measure the number of entrepre- graphic characteristics. But there are immediate neurial companies rather than local economic limitations on the availability of key data at the growth. Its weaknesses are that the data is county level. For instance, SBA data on new somewhat out of date and it makes no distinc- firm starts is only available at the state level, as tion between size of company. is information on small company payroll; moreover, the level of analysis achieved by CFED’s initial approach to the challenge of Goetz and Freshwater seems currently unat- mapping rural entrepreneurship was heavily tainable for rural areas. The closest available influenced by its Development Report Card for proxies for entrepreneurial activity were meas- the States methodology where multiple indica- ures of self-employment and small firms: Map 2: Top-performing Small Labor Market Areas for Fast Growing Companies (Source: National Commission on Entrepreneurship) 18 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 21. • Number of firms with no paid employees, data, with all its limitations, in a separate and annual business receipts of $1,000 or more, straightforward manner. and subject to federal income taxes, by county. (Source: Census Bureau, 2000 and Map 3 shows the distribution of self-employer change 1997-2000) firms expressed as a proportion of jobs in each • Number of companies that employ 20 county in 2000. The darkest green counties are employees or less by county. (Source: those in the top third of counties nationwide. Census Bureau’s County Business Patterns, These are concentrated in the Central Belt from 2000 and change 1997-2000) North Dakota to Texas, in the northern moun- tain states, central Appalachia, and northern • Number of private, non-farm jobs by county. New England. (Source: Bureau of Economic Analysis, 2000) Map 4 shows the change that counties have At a special meeting on rural entrepreneurship experienced in the number of self-employer research convened by the RUPRI Center for firms expressed as a proportion of jobs in each Rural Entrepreneurship and the Farm county from 1997 to 2000. Again, the darkest Foundation in May 2003, CFED staff presented green counties are those in the top third of proposals for creating multi-factor indices that counties nationwide. These are more broadly included the above measures along with firm scattered across the Southeast, Appalachian and income data. However, it was the consensus of mid-Atlantic states, the Western mountain the academic researchers that it would be states and across the Heartland. advisable to avoid such indices and present the Map 3: Self-Employer Firms 2000 (Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis) W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 19
  • 22. Map 4: Growth in the Number of Self-Employer Firms 1997-2000 (Source: Census Bureau, Bureau of Economic Analysis) Map 5: “Top-performing” Counties for Self-employer Firms, 2000 20 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 23. Map 6: “Top-performing” Counties for Growth in Self-employer Firms, 1997-2000 Maps 5 and 6 show the results of a Z-score In Map 6, the distribution is mainly to the east analysis to identify those counties whose of the country with a few in the central states; indices were positive two or more standard clusters are evident in Kentucky and Georgia. deviations from the mean; in other words the “top-performing” counties for self-employer The following maps begin a second series of simi- firms in 2000 and growth from 1997-2000. lar presentation using data on small companies that employ 20 or fewer people. In Map 5, there is broad distribution across 17 states, with clusters of counties in Nebraska and Kentucky. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 21
  • 24. Map 7: Small Companies, 2000 (County Business Patterns, Bureau of Economic Analysis) Map 8: Growth in the Number of Small Companies, 1997-2000 (Source: County Business Patterns, Bureau of Economic Analysis) 22 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 25. Map 9: “Top Performing” Counties for Small Companies, 2000 Map 7 shows the distribution of small firms Maps 9 and 10 show the results of a Z-score expressed as a proportion of jobs in each coun- analysis to identify those counties whose ty in 2000. The darkest green counties are indices were positive two or more standard those in the top third of counties nationwide. deviations from the mean; in other words the These are concentrated in the central and “top-performing” counties for small firms in north-west states. 2000 and growth from 1997-2000. Map 8 shows the change that counties have Map 9 shows a concentration in western states experienced in the number of small firms with two outliers in the east and clusters of expressed as a proportion of jobs in each coun- counties in Colorado and Nebraska. ty from 1997 to 2000. Again, the darkest green counties are those in the top third of counties Map 10 indicates a broader spread across the nationwide. These more broadly scattered central and south-eastern states. across the country. W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 23
  • 26. Map 10: “Top-performing” Counties for Growth in Small Companies, 1997-2000 Commentary The data presented in this chapter provide necessity-driven, or what the underlying fac- only glimpses of what constitutes entrepre- tors are that make one area more active than neurial activity in rural America. It shows another. As mentioned previously, the chal- that high-performing small labor markets are lenge is the lack of both data at the county found widely distributed across the country – level that adequately captures entrepreneurial there appears to be no obvious common loca- activity and of an accompanying framework tional characteristics. Counties in the heart- of the kind developed by Goetz and land and northern mountain states and in Freshwater. It is evident that some consider- Appalachia appear consistently as being com- able intellectual and statistical resources need paratively strong for both small business and to be invested so that entrepreneurship can self-employment. But there is no sense of be measured with greater confidence. how much of this activity is opportunity- or 24 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 27. Policy Context National Policy Ten years ago, CFED suggested that the notion of rural development policy was misplaced. “Because rural areas are evolving into distinctly different economic entities…an off-the-rack fed- eral strategy or state development policy based on outmoded assumptions about rural areas is likely to be ineffective…Instead, state and feder- al policymakers should focus on building local and regional capacity to use flexible programs and tools, designing effective delivery systems, and creating supportive development institu- tions.”21 The report went on to recommend that “Rural advocates must work to ensure that mainstream programs are designed so that rural people, as well as urbanites and suburbanites, can benefit from them, and to ensure that rural community leaders are well-equipped to be active and equal participants in local and regional development efforts. Effective urban and rural development policies cannot be devel- oped separately, but instead must recognize their interrelationships. Thus regional strategies cy was narrowly defined as funding for agricul- are increasingly important.”22 ture through programs supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), but In any event, many rural economic develop- the changing nature of the rural economy has ment leaders regard America’s national rural spurred a broadening of the rural economic policy as unfocused, if not non-existent. development policy framework. There appears Organizations such as RUPRI note that federal to be a growing national, state, and local policy rural development policies and programs “con- consciousness that rural communities matter sist of a fragmented constellation of programs and that entrepreneurship development should dispersed among several agencies… [and] a be a core component of economic development comprehensive, goal-driven, community-based policy for rural America. and regionally appropriate national rural policy doesn’t exist.”23 Despite increased attention to non-farm rural development issues, a national policy around While fiscal crises have hit government fund- rural entrepreneurship still has a long way to ing at all levels, including rural community go. A recent analysis by the USDA Economic development in the federal policy agenda is Research Service found that the highest level still a priority for rural advocates nationwide, of per capita business financial assistance from including the Center for Rural Affairs, the federal government programs was concentrated National Association of Development in the West, North Central, and New England Organizations (NADO), National Rural regions of the country and that 332 non-metro Development Partnership, National Association counties received no federal assistance at all.24 of Towns and Townships, and the National Additionally, numerous federal agencies invest Association of Counties. In the past, rural poli- more resources in rural development than the W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 25
  • 28. USDA (when agricultural programs are exclud- contribute (either directly or indirectly) to ed) – the agency congressionally mandated to promoting entrepreneurship development in promote the economic interests of rural rural areas by creating incentives for private America. investments in rural enterprises or building the capacity of communities or institutions Industry leaders note a vacuum in the field with to support rural entrepreneurs. Rural eco- regard to organizations that promote federal nomic development advocates maintain that rural entrepreneurship development policy. The rural community development is not getting Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation has signif- adequate support from the USDA and would icantly scaled back the policy activities of the like to see it more involved in promoting National Commission on Entrepreneurship, rural entrepreneurship. The good news is once the primary champion for federal entre- that although there is a long way to go in preneurship development policy. Other poten- equalizing support between entrepreneur- tial champions for rural entrepreneurship are ship focused programs and agricultural sub- either in their early stages of development (such sidies through the USDA, within the last few as the newly formed rural subcommittee of the years the budgets for USDA business devel- Association for Enterprise Opportunity [AEO]), opment programs have increased. are not primarily focused on policy (such as the RUPRI Center for Rural Entrepreneurship), or • The U.S. Small Business Administration’s are not specifically focused on entrepreneurship (SBA) SBA 7(a) guaranteed lending program development issues (such as the Congressional continues to be the largest single business Rural Caucus or the National Rural assistance program. However, financing per Development Partnership). capita data shows that non-metropolitan areas receive less than three-quarters of their Consequently, the majority of national rural counterparts in metropolitan areas, the result development policies and programs still focus of both lower levels of economic activity and on natural resource conservation and industrial fewer private lending institutions. The main development, and very few resources support rural beneficiaries are counties specializing entrepreneurs specifically and directly.25 The in services, retirement-destination counties, following is not intended to be a comprehensive and non-metropolitan areas in Western overview of every government program or poli- states.26 Other programs such as the 504 cy effort that contributes to rural entrepreneur- Certified Development Program, Microloan ship development, but rather highlights some Program, Program for Investment in key efforts that have recently emerged and/or Microentrepreneurs (PRIME), Women’s have significant impact on rural America. Business Centers program, Service Corps of Retired Executives program, and Small • USDA business assistance programs primari- Business Development Center (SBDCs) pro- ly function through loan guarantees or sup- gram, among others, are all elements of the port to community entrepreneurship devel- national small business development infra- opment initiatives and institutions. structure that can support entrepreneurship Programs such as the Business and in low-income rural areas. Industrial Guarantee and Direct Loan Programs, Intermediary Re-lending The potential benefits of these programs, Program, Rural Business Enterprise and however, have not been fully realized in Opportunity Grants, Rural Economic rural areas, according to a 2001 report by Development grants and loans and Rural the SBA Office of Advocacy, Advancing Enterprise and Empowerment Zones all Rural America, as well as from feedback 26 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 29. from six rural roundtable meetings spon- status within the SBA is unclear. Funding sored by the SBA in 2000. The roundtables for SBA programs that support disadvan- and report revealed that rural communities taged (rural and urban) entrepreneurs is face significant barriers in accessing SBA tenuous. Quoting the Administration’s 2003 programs. Specifically, there has been a budget rationale, “economically distressed decline in SBA guaranteed rural lending and communities and individuals have access to a lack of outreach by SBA programs such as a wide range of private for-profit and non- the 504 and SBDCs to rural entrepreneurs. profit microenterprise organizations includ- Participants in the rural roundtables cited ing federally supported CDFIs, which calls the high cost of fees, lower guaranty levels, into question the necessity for separate SBA centralization of servicing, lack of decision- programs.” SBA Microloan and PRIME pro- making authority at the local level, high lev- grams, the only two supporting microenter- els of paperwork, and difficulties obtaining prise development, are consistently under- technical assistance as key reasons for inade- funded. quate rural deal flow.27 • Other federal programs include the CDFI Fund of the U.S. Department of Treasury, Also of concern are the attempts by the cur- which provides capital to community devel- rent administration to cut SBA programs, opment financial institutions (CDFIs) in dis- particularly those that serve low-income tressed areas and could potentially be a valu- entrepreneurs such as the PRIME, able source of funding for organizations that Microloan, and New Markets Venture promote and support rural entrepreneurship. Capital Programs. Moreover, the SBA’s rural However, in 2002, only 11 percent of these initiative, created during the Clinton admin- awards went to rural America, reflecting the istration in response to the findings of the relative lack of eligible rural CDFIs. Rural Roundtable, has been stalled and its According to NADO, the majority of rural W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 27
  • 30. and small metropolitan regional development initiative, charged with ensuring that all HHS organizations are ineligible for CDFI certifica- programs and policies meet the needs of tion and support due to their quasi-govern- HHS’s rural constituents. mental status.28 Other agencies, such as the Economic Development Administration and Although there have been significant shifts in ARC have for years funded local and regional federal policy in recent years, the major focus intermediaries (Economic Development remains on farming and on physical infrastruc- Districts and Local Development Districts) ture investment. Rural entrepreneurship devel- that support local economic development opment is still a new concept to many local, across rural America. state, and federal policymakers. While, there is no shortage of government programs that, in In recent years, efforts have been made to various ways, provide some sort of small busi- enable some of these regional development ness support, there is much that can be done to organizations to play greater and more effec- increase the effectiveness and outreach of fed- tive roles in entrepreneurship and business eral entrepreneurship programs in rural areas. development. ARC’s Entrepreneurship Findings from the ARC initiative reveal that Initiative is an example of a focused public effective rural entrepreneurship development sector effort to promote entrepreneurial edu- policy needs to be brought to scale, sustained cation and training, entrepreneurial net- over time, focused on enhancing the capacity works and clusters, technology transfer, of local and regional intermediary institutions, access to capital and financial assistance, and valued as a legitimate economic develop- and technical and managerial assistance to ment strategy. rural entrepreneurs. Through September 2001, ARC’s Entrepreneurship Initiative had funded 237 projects, providing a total of State Policy more than $20.1 million of support and According to a 1999 report by the Kaufman leveraging an additional $19.3 million. Center for Entrepreneurship Leadership Ninety-one projects had been completed, (KCEL), State Entrepreneurship Policy and creating 389 new businesses and retaining Programs, state commitment in support of 1,283 jobs. One hundred forty-six ongoing entrepreneurs is mixed. The report notes that, programs were projected to create 859 new “while state funding for entrepreneurship businesses and create or retain 2,726 jobs.29 development lags behind other economic The initiative, although clearly successful, development activities, many states have creat- has been constrained by the continuing lack ed programs or adopted policies that have a of local institutional capacity in rural positive impact on entrepreneurs.”30 Some Appalachia to support entrepreneurs. states are intentionally providing direct or indi- rect financing, promoting entrepreneurship The Department of Health and Human support services, and providing tax incentives Services (HHS) also offers programs and to emerging entrepreneurs, while other states funding that support entrepreneurship devel- are focused primarily on business recruitment, opment in rural communities, such as the Job which translates into resources for marketing Opportunities for Low-Income Individuals and incentives and continued expenditures on Program, Office of Refugee Resettlement basic physical infrastructure. In addition, many Microenterprise Development Project, Asset states lack a vehicle for entrepreneurs and for Independence Demonstration Program entrepreneurship development organizations to and Community Services Block Grant fund- network, share best practices, build new skills ing. HHS also recently launched a new rural 28 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 31. ings from the USDA Economic Research Service’s Rural Manufacturing Survey reveal that state business assistance programs benefit- ed three fifths of rural manufacturing establish- ments. The national research notes, however, that only a “modest” amount of state business development services are targeted to small manufacturing establishments in non-metro distressed areas as compared to their larger urban counterparts. To encourage states to increase their funding for [rural] entrepreneur- ial friendly policies and programs, a variety of foundations and state policy stakeholders have sponsored state entrepreneurship policy and research initiatives: and competencies, or pursue an agenda of poli- • NGA convened two State Entrepreneurship cy advocacy. Overall, findings from the Policy Academies in 2000 and 2001 to Kaufman study revealed that state entrepre- assist nine state economic development neurship programs: teams (Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Mississippi, Nevada, Utah, Washington, and • Do not generally focus on the needs of Wyoming). These teams learned about the entrepreneurs during the start-up stage. role that entrepreneurship plays in state eco- • Provide debt, either through direct loans or nomic competitiveness and about develop- loan guarantee programs, rather than equity ing strategic and implementation plans to capital. promote a positive state entrepreneurial cli- mate. The initiative provided state economic • Support entrepreneurship education at the development officials with exposure to the post-secondary, rather than early education leading thinking on entrepreneurship devel- level. opment strategies and individualized techni- • Promote linkages to innovation and research cal assistance in the development of an primarily through universities. implementation plan. While these elements of support are important, While state budget crises retarded much of they do not make up a comprehensive “pack- the potential impact of the academies, there age” of services for emerging or established were some notable successes. Michigan entrepreneurs. Yet, researchers and advocates integrated entrepreneurship development agree that state support is critical to the success into the formal mission of the state eco- of entrepreneurship development programs. A nomic development administration. Nevada recent three-state study of Maine, Nevada, and linked networks of angel investors and Pennsylvania by the National Commission on technology centers into formal economic Entrepreneurship and ACCRA’s Center for development planning activities and inte- Regional Competitiveness found that state grated entrepreneurship education into the funding represents an important revenue state’s economic education standards. source (between 37-42 percent of a program’s Washington is developing a statewide budget) for entrepreneurship development entrepreneurship assistance portal managed organizations in these states. In addition, find- by the governor’s office to serve as a central W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 29
  • 32. clearinghouse for all organizations serving – Missouri: The state team is building a entrepreneurs. more focused and integrated support system for Missouri’s small businesses NGA’s Center for Best Practices is develop- and has launched an initiative to pro- ing a Governor’s Guide to Entrepreneurial mote core skill development for recipi- Policies and Programs drawing from the ents of public assistance. findings of the research and the policy – Texas: Higher education institutions academies. and nonprofit organizations are leading • Rural Entrepreneurship Initiative was an effort to implement a statewide com- launched in 1999 with support from the munity-focused entrepreneurial support Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, system. Partners for Rural America, the National – West Virginia: A public-private partner- Rural Development Partnership, and the ship is working to develop a statewide Nebraska Community Foundation. The ini- intermediary organization to build tiative assisted six state teams (Colorado, entrepreneurial capacity and programs Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Texas, and among non-governmental organiza- West Virginia) in enhancing their climate for tions, and promoting demonstration entrepreneurship development in rural areas projects such as the Entrepreneurial and was designed to provide a national League System and the Virtual learning forum on rural entrepreneurship. Entrepreneur Network. The state teams received guidance and cus- tomized technical assistance in assessing Of the six states, only Colorado failed to their state entrepreneurship climate and make progress. There, the rural develop- developing a strategy and action plan for ment council folded due to federal and implementing policies and programs that state budget cuts. The state’s SDBC system benefit rural entrepreneurs: also has been defunded. Results of the ini- – Maine: The Rural Development Council tiative thus far suggest that those efforts launched a “prototype” rural entrepre- rooted outside state government have neurial community and completed a proved to be the most robust and consis- study on the needs of rural entrepre- tent over time. As Don Macke observed, neurs in the state. The project grew into “While state governments tend to think in a collaboration with the Ewing Marion terms of programs, comprehensive state Kauffman Foundation and the Maine entrepreneurship policy development can- governor’s office to develop a compre- not be a programmatic approach and the hensive statewide entrepreneurship role of nonprofit organizations is crucial to development plan. its success.”31 – Minnesota: Practitioners have expanded the Minnesota Virtual Entrepreneurship Network, linking entrepreneurs throughout the state to resources, mar- kets, and support services. A number of other states, including North Dakota and Nebraska have or are in the process of adopting this approach. 30 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 33. The Components of Entrepreneurship Development The starting point for gathering information on cations were reviewed and 60 experts and prac- entrepreneurship development efforts across titioners were interviewed. The result is not a rural America was a framework developed by comprehensive directory of national, regional, CFED for the Winthrop Rockefeller Foundation and local programs and initiatives, but a cross- and published early in 2003.33 This framework section of efforts that currently have or poten- has two main parts: creating a pipeline of entre- tially have a significant impact on stimulating preneurs and enhancing business services for entrepreneurship in rural America in each of entrepreneurs. The pipeline notion was that these four components. “there should be an infrastructure of lifelong learning from elementary school to the golden Entrepreneurship Education age, based on the simple principle that it is never too early or too late to be an entrepre- For the past two years, ARC in partnership neur…The aim is to create a large and diverse with the U.S. Department of Education has pool of people, across a spectrum of entrepre- held an awards competition – the Springboard neurial motivations, out of which there will Awards – to recognize outstanding youth entre- flow a steady stream of high achievers with an preneurship education programs targeted at interest in creating jobs and wealth in their rural communities across the region. ARC’s communities.”34 With business services, “the Federal Co-Chair, Ann Pope, captured the aim is to “graduate” significant numbers of essence of this component when she com- start-up enterprises into companies and organi- mended the 2003 winners, “The educators zations that will provide quality jobs…”34 receiving this award are inspiring Appalachian youth to reach as far as their imagination and The key components of the pipeline are entre- energy can take them…By giving our young preneurship education and entrepreneur net- people the confidence and know-how to initi- works; for business services, the components ate their own business ventures, they are help- are training and technical assistance and access ing to prepare the region for the challenges of to capital. For this assessment, some 65 publi- the 21st century.”35 W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 31
  • 34. The Consortium for Entrepreneurship target markets. Still others choose to provide Education (CEE), an association of entrepre- broad support and development of tools for neurship educators and advocates, reports that young entrepreneurs of all ages. entrepreneurship education is becoming a prior- ity within all systems of education beginning in kindergarten and continuing through college as Elementary Through High School well as for adults in continuing education and The following is a selection of efforts currently entrepreneurship training programs. CEE has underway in the mainstream education systems developed an on-line guide, with support from and through special initiatives. ARC, which highlights model entrepreneurial education initiatives and provides a clearing- • Public schools and vocational education house of information on entrepreneurship edu- tracks traditionally have been closely linked cation resources. This year in Seattle, CEE will to vocational education the majority of sponsor its 21st annual Entrepreneurship entrepreneurship efforts within the public Education Forum, bringing together hundreds school systems.38 The vocational tracks and of practitioners from across the country.36 their corresponding associations such as Distributive Education Clubs of America In the mid-1990s, the Ewing Marion Kauffman (DECA) – an association of marketing stu- Foundation commissioned Gallup to survey dents, Future Farmers of America (FFA), youth on knowledge of and attitudes towards Business Professionals of America (BPA), entrepreneurship and small business. One sig- Future Business Leaders of America (FBLA), nificant finding was that 65 percent of youth and Family, Career, and Community Leaders surveyed expressed interest in starting their of America (FCCLA) see entrepreneurship own business. Walstead and Kourilsky noted, as a career opportunity for students who “This interest in entrepreneurship is an may not go on to college. Neither the untapped reservoir with the potential to direct- Department of Education nor these associa- ly affect standards of living and the economy. If tions track penetration of their programs just a third of the youth who expressed an into rural schools or encourage state depart- interest in starting a business actually acted on ments of education or state affiliates to their aspirations at some point over their life- reach out to rural students. That said, it was times, such initiative could significantly reported that the education departments in increase new business formation in the United Nebraska and New Mexico have model States.”37 efforts underway.39 • Junior Achievement is distinguished by its Additionally, recent conferences on rural devel- program design that links real world entre- opment and interviews with rural economic preneurs with students and its strong part- development leaders underline the importance nership with classroom instruction. Junior of entrepreneurship and youth development in Achievement programs are offered in 120 any rural economic development strategy as a countries, all 50 states and reach 4 million means to population retention, leadership U.S. high school and 2.8 million U.S. ele- development, and economic growth. In mentary school students. Currently, Junior response, an increasing number of programs, Achievement does not track its outreach into both in-school and after school, are providing rural areas or gather demographic data from entrepreneurship education to rural youth. individual students. There is no focused Some programs cast a wide net and have small- effort at the national level to promote out- er impact on a greater number of students, reach into rural communities, although there while others focus more in-depth programs on 32 Mapping Rural Entrepreneurship
  • 35. are efforts to develop a distance learning ini- active state organizations (Alabama, Georgia, tiative for hard-to-reach areas. Examples of Mississippi, North Carolina, Upper Peninsula model programs include Ft. Wayne, Indiana Michigan, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Pueblo Colorado Springs.40 and West Virginia) and the curriculum is being offered in over 20 additional states • National Council for Economic Education nationwide. There has been little sustained (NCEE) offers Economics America, a class- evaluation of REAL programming due to room and standards-based curriculum, lack of funding. The best example of a which is focused on economics education, statewide commitment to REAL is North with entrepreneurship as one part of the Carolina where REAL programming is repre- broader curriculum. NCEE courses are inte- sented in 84 out of 100 counties in the state. grated into K-12 classroom curricula. NCEE does not track its outreach into rural com- • National Foundation for Teaching munities. Examples of model states include Entrepreneurship (NFTE) aims to teach Virginia, Indiana, Illinois, and Washington.41 entrepreneurship to low-income youth (ages 11-18). Historically much of its work has • Rural Entrepreneurship through Action been targeted to inner-city youth and has Learning (REAL) Enterprise program began not had any targeted rural focus. Since 1987 in 1990 and was originally designed for NFTE has trained 1,200 teachers and more school students in rural communities. than 30,000 youth in 43 states and 14 coun- Whereas REAL Enterprises offers a full range tries. The most recent analysis of programs of entrepreneurship development products found that NFTE graduates had improved and teacher training services across the communications skills, increased interest in country, it is the only national program starting a business, and started a business at specifically developed for and targeted to a much higher rates than non-NFTE students. rural target market. REAL currently has nine NFTE’s internet-based learning program, W.K. Kellogg Foundation • Corporation For Enterprise Development 33