|
Most Federal rural development programs provide funding
directly to local entities, such as individual businesses,
governments, nonprofit organizations, and tribes. However,
regional development programs fund projects through regional
organizations, using strategies that are aimed at addressing
regionwide issues. USDA's longstanding Resource, Conservation,
and Development Program funds multicounty local organizations
that initiate projects addressing local, multicounty concerns.
The U.S. Commerce Department's Economic Development Administration
(EDA) programs operate through similar multicounty regional
organizations. In addition there are several Federal-State
partnerships that provide development assistance to rural
(and urban) areas within single- and multi-State regions.
These include the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC),
the Delta Regional Authority (DRA), and the Denali Commission
in Alaska. Aside from focusing on problems of particular
importance to their regions, these regional authorities
or commissions also focus on distressed areas, many of
which are rural.
Key Changes in the 2008 Farm Act
The Food,
Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008 (2008 Farm Act) establishes the Collaborative Investment Program,
as well as a new health-care services program in the
Mississippi Delta region. The Delta Regional Authority’s
term is extended, as is that of the Northern Great Plains
Regional Authority. The Northern Border, Southeast Crescent,
and Southwest Border Regional Commissions are established.
Summary of Provisions
The 2002 Farm Act established the Rural Strategic Investment
Program (RSIP) to fund regional investment boards that
would plan and implement comprehensive regional strategies.
However, this program did not receive appropriations.
Title
VI of the 2008 Farm Act replaces the RSIP with the
Rural Collaborative Investment Program (RCIP), which will
create a national institute to provide technical assistance
in administering the program. RCIP is authorized to award
grants to regional boards that represent self-identified
multicounty regions (which must meet certain population-based
eligibility standards) and that propose projects meeting
certain standards, including addressing regional development
issues. Grants can be issued either for planning or implementing
development strategies, and grants can pay operating costs
of the local development organization heading up the regional
effort. Longterm loans may be provided to eligible community
foundations to assist in implementing the regional investment
strategies. RCIP is authorized to receive $135 million
for fiscal years 2009-12.
The Delta Regional Authority, which covers parts of eight
States (Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Missouri,
Illinois, Kentucky, and Tennessee), has some additional
counties in Missouri added to the region. A new health-care-services
grants program will assist consortiums of regional institutions
in developing health-related services, health education
and training programs, and public health facilities in
the Mississippi Delta region.
The Northern Great Plains Regional Authority (NGPRA) was
authorized in the 2002 Farm Act but never received significant
project funding. It is reauthorized in the 2008 Farm Act,
with new rules to expedite the authority's getting started
in the event that a Federal chair is not promptly appointed.
Additional rule changes include eliminating the prohibition
of funding nondistressed counties, reducing the share of
funding for infrastructure projects, and developing comprehensive
and coordinated multistate regional development plans.
NGPRA funding is also allowed for support of multistate
research and development organizations, local development
organizations, and resource conservation districts. The
NGPRA covers parts of six States (Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri,
Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota).
Title
XIV of the 2008 Farm Act establishes three new multistate
regional authorities (or commissions). The Northern Border
Regional Commission includes selected counties from four
States (Maine, New Hampshire, New York, and Vermont). The
Southeast Crescent Regional Commission includes all the
counties from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina,
Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and Florida that are not
already served by the ARC or the DRA. The Southwest Border
Regional Commission includes selected counties from four
States (Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas). The
rules for these new commissions are similar to those of
the other regional development authorities, including focusing
on infrastructure assistance, favoring assistance to distressed
places, developing multistate regional strategies, and
providing administrative-expense support to local development
organizations that are leading regional development efforts.
Each of the three commissions is authorized $30 million
per year for fiscal years 2009-12. Assuming they, as well
as the NGPRA, actually receive appropriations and become
operational, this would represent a substantial expansion
of national coverage of regional development authorities.
Economic Implications
The conventional wisdom among economists has long been
that regional approaches can be valuable in addressing
development situations that cannot be addressed simply
through local policies. For example, to help people in
one jurisdiction to find jobs, one may have to create jobs
for them in a neighboring "growth center" where
access to transportation, training, water, and other resources
are more favorable. Likewise, the source of local problems,
such as environmental pollution, often is located in neighboring
jurisdictions. Other persistent rural problems, such as
high rates of poverty and related health problems, tend
to be regionally concentrated, favoring regional solutions.
Regional approaches can also improve on existing national
policies in providing resources to help poor places or
small places that lack economies of scale required for
planning or implementing development policies. For example,
ERS research shows that rural high-poverty counties in
regions such as Appalachia, the Black
Belt (a crescent-shaped
region from Maryland to Louisiana where Blacks make up
a relatively high percentage of local residents), and the
Mississippi
Delta, have received lower funding levels from
Federal Community Resources programs (housing, infrastructure,
business assistance) that are important for rural development.
In addition to providing a new source of Federal funding,
these programs help to leverage funding from other sources,
including unused or underused regional resources.
In recent years, regional approaches have gained greater
support, in part because of the increased global competition
that rural communities face. Rural communities have found
it necessary to gain access to a wider array of development
assets, such as community colleges, airports, and broadband
networks, in order to improve local education levels and
connect local people and businesses with the global economy.
Regional approaches can also be used to support regional
clusters of businesses, address sprawl-related issues in
fringe areas near growing cities, and reduce local contributions
to global warming through policies that reduce auto emissions
through regulatory change or through investments in public
transit. In addition, some of the more significant Federal
programs that operate through regional organizations, such
as the Appalachian Regional Commission and EDA, have received
good grades from recent program evaluations indicating
these programs have been effective.
Among recent positive program assessments are several
studies examining the Appalachian Regional Commission and
studies of EDA's programs. Evaluations of the Appalachian
Regional Commission include:
- Andrew Isserman and Terance Rephann, "The Economic
Effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission: An Empirical
Assessment of 26 Years of Regional Development Planning," American
Planning Association Journal, Summer 1995, pp. 345-364.
- David Freshwater, Timothy Wojan, Dayuan Hu, and Stephan
Goetz, Testing for the Effects of Federal Economic
Development Agencies, TVA Rural Studies paper, April
23, 1997.
- Appalachian Regional Commission, Economic Impact
of the Appalachian Development Highway System,
prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates, 1998.
- John Brandow, Glen Weisbrod, Margaret Collins, and
Jinevra Howard, Evaluation of the Appalachian Regional
Commission's Infrastructure and Public Works Projects,
Camp Hill, PA: Brandow Company and Economic Development
Research Group, June 2000.
Evaluations of the Economic Development Administration
programs include:
- Rutgers University, et al., Public Works Program:
Performance Evaluation: Final Report, U.S. Department
of Commerce, EDA, May 1997.
- Rutgers University et al., Public Works Program:
Multiplier and Employment-Generating Effect, U.S.
Department of Commerce, EDA, May 1998.
See related links and recommended
readings covering issues on
regional development programs.
|
