Bigger is better, but so is just better

It goes without saying that the last several decades have been difficult for small towns in rural America.

The agricultural revolution has led to bigger farms, bigger equipment and a significantly reduced need for farm labor.

In earlier days, the small rural community obviously served as the hub for families living and working on the farm -- such certainly was the case throughout our own region of East Arkansas.

We know the trend started earlier in the 20th Century, but from 1975 to 1996, 38.3 percent of farm production employment was lost in the Delta States. Some of those jobs in the last quarter of the 20th Century were replaced by manufacturing facilities moving into the southern states, with industries such as footwear and garment production ranking at the top in this immediate region.

As area residents and economic development strategists know only too well, East Arkansas benefited from the southern shift of relatively low-skilled industrial production and then suffered immensely as those jobs went overseas in the latter part of the century.

This trend is a double blow for small towns as there is not the diversity of employment in rural areas as compared to urban, plus the level of retraining opportunities is much lower in such communities.

Some of the economic problems of Eastern Arkansas were detailed by columnist Rex Nelson in a recent piece in a statewide newspaper.

Nelson has experience with this subject due to his service as an official with the eight-state Delta Regional Authority, serving an area that includes East Arkansas.

"For many years, economic development in the rural South meant appealing to Northern companies to move to a region where there were weaker unions, fewer regulations, a lower cost of living and an ability to pay lower wages," Nelson writes.

Nelson goes on to say that, essentially, those days are over. Merely improving the infrastructure and putting up an "industrial park" sign at the edge of town is not a panacea, he notes.

He goes on to say that improving the quality of life in rural communities may be the most important first step, involving better educational opportunities and enhanced health care.

As opposed to focusing primarily on industrial development efforts that may not materialize, Nelson says "community leaders probably would have been better off supporting downtown revitalization efforts, working to improve the quality of the existing housing stock, hiring grant writers, supporting the expansion of medical facilities, developing more entertainment and recreational assets and protecting their environment."

While Nelson certainly isn't discounting the need to continue with industrial development efforts, we do believe he is asking leaders and residents of rural communities to be realistic in their goals -- this coming in light of declining manufacturing numbers nationwide and the overwhelming manner in which recruitment of such jobs favors larger towns with highly-developed infrastructure, educational institutions, leisure-time advantages and (in many cases) straight cash outlays.

"Quit obsessing on landing the Acme Widget Co.," Nelson writes. "Maybe that water line, rail extension or new road is not the best way to spend taxpayer money. No longer can economic development be measured solely by the number of jobs created. Those new manufacturing plants that employ hundreds of people will become a rarity. Get away from the idea that bigger is better, the concept that has driven economic development for decades. Focus instead on the idea that better is better."

There are lots of ways to approach the concept that Nelson is advocating. Foremost, he says, is to work to improve the quality of small-town life. Other realistic goals, in addition to still trying to attract industry, are helping to bring back natives to open local businesses or developing a viable program for the recruitment of retirees, most of whom will have some ties to the community.

--REK