1 Innovations in Rural Policy: Building Stronger Rural Communities by Building Stronger Regions...

1

Innovations in Rural Policy: Building Stronger Rural Communities by

Building Stronger Regions

Presented at

Rural/Urban Linkages and PolicymakingCAIRN AAFC Rural Secretariat Workshop

Ottawa, Ontario January 25, 2008

___________

Mark PartridgeSwank Professor in Rural-Urban Policy

The Ohio State UniversitySwank Program in Rural-Urban Policy

2

Outline: Why are we here?1. Rural Secretariat facilitates and brokers better policy

—need to understand best practice that is generalizable

• The presentations are to start a conversation about policy

2. Need to understand why places prosper if we want to help them prosper

• Hundreds of regions in North America that are centered on one or more urban areas of at least 10,000—smaller than that implies a lack of critical mass.

• These regions are competing across the world whether they know it or not. If a region is not a profitable place for business and/or offers a good quality of life, they lose!

Swank Program in Rural-Urban Policy

3

Motivation Continued • I will discuss ways to help Canada’s regions to be

competitive—lifting rural and urban alike.• Bad policies include chasing fads or good intentions

combined with wishful thinking—often done to avoid doing best practice policies, but some are more effective. Some various ‘saviors’ for rural Canada:

• Agriculture Policy—productivity growth vs. providing jobs.

• Value Added-Clusters—transport issues, private sector

• Rural immigration—beachhead, chained migration, networks, urban amenities

• Biofuels and the green economy—subsidies, opportunity costs, and capitalized in land values.

• Amenities and tourism—smaller in Canada than U.S.• Social Capital—building QOL or administering

morphine?

4

Most Realistic is using urban trends to build strong rural communities.

1. Rural Myth—Today’s rural Canada is more diverse than 1950—needs to be dispelled.

• Policies are based on the myth• Rather, good policy builds a broad-based foundation for

the entire region 2. Rural-Urban interdependence

• In 1950, communities detached from their neighbors• In 21st Century—communities linked in a web of inter-

relationships• Governance trails what the people are doing across

regions.• Should rural communities compete or cooperate?

3. Successful cooperation builds strength• Leverage growth in an entire region—town and country

5

Rural Myths: Back to the FutureThe 1950s Rural Economy

1950 Myth: rural areas are only natural resource based– This is a common media story– Too often, federal and provincial policy is aimed at making

this imaginary place “healthy” with policies mostly aimed at supporting resource based sectors

• The reality is that there are 3 rural North Americas:1)Amenity/recreation rich near mountains, lakes, oceans

• Ex: Since the 1960s, Cottage Country remarkably transformed to an amenity driven economy: was mining, timber, farming (Okanagan reg.)

• Less of a pattern in Canada than US, though increasing this decade

2)Metro adjacent with commuting & wrestling with sprawl, growth

3)Remote rural that is dependent on natural resource sectors


6

% Employment in Agriculture

1931

1931

19711971

2004 2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Ontario Canada

% of Total Employment

Source: 1931 Census, 1971 Census, Statistics Canada. 1931, 1971 Industries classified by SIC. codes. 2004 Industries classified by NAICS codes.

7

% Employment in Other Primary Industries

1931

1931

1971

1971

2004

2004

0

1

2

3

4

Ontario Canada



8

% Employment in Manufacturing

1931

1931

1971

1971

2004

2004

0

5

10

15

20

25

Ontario Canada



9

% Employ. in Rural & Small Town Ontario, 2004

% Other Primary

% Agriculture

%Manufacturing

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

% Total Employment

Source: S tatis tics Canada. 2004 Indus tries class ified by NAICS codes .

10

Even Agri-food sector “small”

Processing, input supply, grain storage is only 1.5% of employment in predominantly rural regions; Not huge multipliers.Source: Statistics Canada, Ray Bollman


11

Farm HH’s rely on other sources

• 87% of Canadian farm household income is from off-farm sources

• Source: AAFC Canada

• 89% of U.S. farm household income is from off-farm sources

• 68% of U.S. farm households have one or both spouses working off farm

– source: U.S.D.A., 2006, described in the notes below

• But what about other natural resources?– Natural Resources Curse—MT/ND today.

• Wyoming vs. Alberta• Amenity driven growth can trump it: Phoenix v. Calgary


12

Wyoming: Alberta on Steroids!

14.43%

3%

7.13%

39.6%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45%

WY 1981 mining share

WY 1981-2004 population growth

AB 1981 mining share

AB 1981-2004 population growth

13

Lessons!• The 1950s Rural Canada no longer exists.

– Natural resource led growth is usually not sustainable: need to evolve.

• Farm/food policy is sub-optimal when linked to rural revitalization.

• Rural growth and development is far more complex than farm policy. – Note the contradiction, farm competitiveness requires

producing more food with fewer workers—not the same as community prosperity!

• Sector-based policy often conflicts with place policy.• This lesson also underscores the growing rural-urban

interdependence and the needs for place policy.

14

Measuring Success in Rural & Urban Canada

• Success is long-run population growth– Combines good economy & quality of life

• People vote with their feet• Not subjective such as rankings in (say) the

Economist

• Some people move to cities/suburbs• Some people move to exurbs/rural areas for rural

quality of life and commute back to city• Some people move to high-amenity rural areas


15

1990/91-2006 North American Population Growth

16

Basic Lessons of Pop Change• Cities are Canada’s engine of growth

• Not as true in the U.S.

• North American rural development• Critical mass & threshold effects• Growth poles or growth clusters• Not everyone in small communities/neighborhoods

commutes in their growth cluster, enough to stabilize their population and build critical mass

• This North American pattern underlies why rural & urban communities should work together.


17

Rural Depends on Urban for:

Urban Depends on Rural for:

Employment Labor Force

Private and Public Services Market for Private and Public Goods and Services

Urban Amenities Market for Urban Amenities

Market for recreation activities

Recreation

Market for agriculture products

Food Safety and Security

Demand for Environmental Stewardship

Natural Environmental

Property taxes/land market Land for Residential and Industrial Expansion

18

Communities should band together• Large cities have the most growth spillovers

• Metro areas >500,000 population• Calgary vs. Tulsa in their importance

• Canada’s pop. growth is also centered near urban areas of at least 10,000 people (CAs)

• Evidence: growth does not end at city border!• Growth spreads out for hundreds of kms, though

the growth effects decrease with distance • Both rural and urban participate in growth.


19

Eastern Canada’s Engines of Growth2001-2006 Population Growth

An Engine of Growth is defined as a metropolitan area with at least 500,000 population. Halifax is one “contender” Engine of Growth.

20

Western Canada’s Engines of Growth2001-2006 Population Growth

An Engine of Growth is defined as a metropolitan area with at least 500,000 population. Sastoon is one “contender” Engine of Growth.

An Engine of Growth is defined as a metropolitan area with at least 500,000 population. Saskatoon is one “contender” Engine of Growth.

21

1996-2001 Population in Manitoba and Saskatchewan at the CCS level: With 100 km rings around CAs and CMAs

Source: Statistics Canada—1996 CCS Boundaries

22

2001-2006 Population in Manitoba and Saskatchewan at the CCS level: With 100 km rings around CAs and CMAs


23

2001-2006 Population Growth in S. Ontario: With 100 km rings around Large CMAs


24

Commuting shows range of rural-urban interdependence

• Commuting zones extend far outside of CA/CMA boundaries—show a growth cluster extending through an entire region.

• If someone can commute, they likely shop, utilize health care, participate in service organizations, etc.

• Such regions share common interests and these should be exploited regionally.– Live & work & shop & play in broad regions in a web

of interdependencies—not like the 1950s

25

Percent of Local Labour Force Commuting to Winnipeg CMA—CCS Level Data

Source: See notes to the slide

26

http://www.crerl.usask.ca/infrastructure/SK_album/images/Saskatoon2001_jpg.jpg

27

Percent of Local Labour Force Commuting to Brandon CA—CCS Level Data

Source: See notes to the slide

28

Percent of Local Labour Force Commuting to Montreal CMA—CCS Level Data

http://www.crerl.usask.ca/infrastructure/QC_album/images/Montreal2001_jpg.jpg

29

Moral• Building stronger regions is a world-wide issue.

• France recently cut # of sub-national gov’ts by ¾ to enhance planning and efficiency. If a country that is thought to be adverse to change can do it, Canada can have its own version of governance changes.

• Source, Economist, “Failure at the Top.” A Special Report on Cities. May 5, 2007, pgs 12-14.

• Japan is working on regional collaboration in areas facing declining population to reduce gov’t costs and make regions competitive.Economist, “Cloud or Silver Lining.” A Special Report on Japan, July 28, 2007, pp 24-26.

• Indiana realizes that it has too much local gov’t for its own sake and proposes the elimination of 1,000+ of units. Source: Wall Street Journal, Sept. 5, 2007, p. A1 and Indiana Commission on Government Reform, (2007).

– “Despite the enormous economic, social, and technological changes that have occurred…, Indiana’s system of local government would still be very recognizable to Hoosiers from the Civil War era…” Indiana Commission on Gov’t Reform, p. 42.


30

How can we cooperate?• This can be a formal consolidation of gov’ts or it

could be collaboration to make regions competitive.– Need a consensus!

• Why rely on borders drawn for the needs of the 19th century

– Further regional needs for “neighbors”:• Economic development• Broadband service in remote areas—e.g., rural Saskatchewan • Transport people/access to services and amenities• Environment/Land use• Education/health• Quality of life initiatives• Increased political clout for common interests: lobby Ottawa,

Regina and be heard in Toronto and elsewhere.


31

• Need to build regional identity.– Despite the interdependence of communities, too

many towns think as if they are an island.• My “favorite” is how nearby towns compete for each

other’s business—destroying everyone’s tax base.

– E.g., can the Tweed region brand itself as an unspoiled alternative for tourism?

• Nongovernmental: Chambers of Commerce• Overlay regional gov’t on top of municipalities

– Regional economic development authorities– Transportation—critical to build regional clusters


32

Communities/Regions need tools• Provinces should devolve some authority

– A positive case is Quebec

• More tax tools & tax sharing for regions– This facilitates cooperation.– Regional fuel/use taxes for transportation– Sales taxes (say 1% regional levy)


33

Local Devolution—continued • Regional approaches stop the ‘city’ from

keeping all of the gains while the ‘remote’ communities lose– Currently, (say) Regina keeps all of its tax

revenues from region’s shoppers. Regional approaches would disperse some back to the country for needed regional projects.

• Then there would be regional support for job creation.– Weakness of Conference Board (Globe and Mail) ‘cities’

approach. What’s in it for the rest of the Country?– Does not consider smaller hubs (just big 10) and does not

require cities to share their prosperity with rural residents.

34

Examples of Cooperation• Action Southwest centered around Swift

Current, Saskatchewan is proactive.

• Outlook, SK is a good example of 1st Nations participating in a regional plan.• 1 hour away, Saskatoon reflects an opportunity• This is an opportunity in this larger region.

• Ft. McMurray/Wood Buffalo (growing pains).

• Gander, NFLD and surrounding villages


35

Example of Growth Clusters• An urban area as small as 10-15,000 can

be a growth cluster for rural communities (not just Toronto or Winnipeg)

• Brandon, MB or Swift Current, SK are important far outside of their borders.

• Not Zero Sum!

• But governance structure needs to ensure everyone benefits and everyone participates.

• Need to abandon the notion that rural and urban regions can be separated.


36

How can the RS facilitate success?• Help build Cooperate & Build Trust with $:

• Maybe better to think of towns as ‘neighborhoods’ rather than municipalities in an interdependent region (Mayor Ayling, Grande Prairie)

– Everyone benefits, but not necessarily equally– Build supporting infrastructure:

• Soft: governance and grassroots ‘buy-in’ and cooperation.

• Hard: such as roads


37

Summary• Clinging to the rural myth of the 1950s is not

helpful• Refocus policy, don’t perpetuate myths or fads.

• Growth in much of rural North America depends on linking to urban areas

• Groups of communities can form viable regions with critical mass to form growth clusters.

• The status quo of going it alone will mean the death of far too many rural communities in the Great Plains/Prairies, Atlantic Canada. Northern Ontario.


38

Thank you Presentation will be posted at The Ohio

State University, AED Economics, Swank Program website:

http://aede.osu.edu/programs/Swank/ (under presentations)

• For commuting maps for all urban areas of Canada:

• Canada Rural Economy Research Lab (CRERL) Mapping the Rural Urban Interface Project. http://www.crerl.usask.ca/infra.php


39

Appendix SlidesThe First Five Slides are directly from Ray Bollman of Statistics Canada on MIZ and RST

population growth.

40

In Saskatchewan, population growth only in the CMAs of Regina and Saskatoon in the 1986 to 2001 period

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

All LUCs CMAs CAs All RST areas Strong MIZ Moderate MIZ Weak MIZ No MIZ

Percent change in total population

1986 to 1991 1991 to 19961996 to 2001 2001 to 2006

Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population, 1986 - 2006. Data are tabulated within constant boundaries.Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) have 100,000 or more in the urban core and includes all neighbouring towns and municipalities where 50 percent or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core. Census Agglomerations (CAs) have 10,000 to 99,999 in the urban core and includes all neighbouring towns and municipalities where 50 percent or more of the workforce commutes to the urban core.Metropolitan Influenced Zones (MIZ) are assigned on the basis of the share of the workforce that commutes to any CMA or CA (Strong MIZ: 30 to 49 percent; Moderate MIZ: 5 to 29 percent; Weak MIZ: 1 to 5 percent; No MIZ: no commuters).

Larger urban centres (LUCs) Rural and small town (RST) areas

Figure F8

41

In Manitoba, consistent strong population growth in strong MIZ (metropolitan influenced zones)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20



1986 to 1991 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 2001 to 2006



Figure F7

42

In Ontario, 2001 to 2006 strong population growth in the larger cities (CMAs) and in No MIZ (metropolitan influenced zones)

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20



1986 to 1991 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 2001 to 2006



Figure F6

25%

43

In each period, strong MIZ grew faster than moderate MIZ which, in turn, grew faster Weak MIZ, Canada

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

All LUCs CMAs CAs All RST

areas

Strong MIZ Moderate

MIZ

Weak MIZ No MIZ RST

Territories


1986 to 1991 1991 to 1996 1996 to 2001 2001 to 2006



Figure 10

44

Table 1. Percent Change in Rural and Small Town Population, Canada and Provinces, 1966 to 2006

1966 to 1971

1971 to 1976

1976 to 1981

1981 to 1986

1986 to 1991

1991 to 1996

1996 to 2001

1996 to 2001

Newfoundland and Labrador 3.8 5.1 0.5 -0.3 -3.0 -5.1 -10.6 -5.6

Prince Edward Island 0.9 9.5 1.9 1.2 -0.2 2.4 -1.0 -1.3

Nova Scotia 4.9 5.4 1.9 2.7 0.5 -0.6 -2.3 -1.8

New Brunswick 1.4 9.2 3.5 1.7 -0.2 1.3 -2.7 -2.5

Quebec -0.3 2.8 5.9 -0.7 1.6 3.5 -0.8 2.2

Ontario 7.1 5.4 3.0 0.9 9.3 4.7 1.5 2.4

Manitoba -1.4 1.3 0.2 0.4 0.5 4.4 0.5 2.4

Saskatchewan -6.8 -4.0 1.3 -1.0 -6.9 -2.0 -3.5 -4.7

Alberta 3.0 11.2 22.0 2.5 3.1 7.8 5.5 3.8

British Columbia 16.3 20.8 17.0 -0.4 7.2 12.8 -1.1 0.8

Yukon 27.9 18.7 6.0 -0.4 18.9 16.0 -18.9 2.8

Northwest Territories 21.1 22.4 7.3 14.2 4.9 11.0 -7.0 9.3

Nunavut n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 8.1 10.2

CANADA 3.3 6.3 6.7 0.6 3.0 3.9 -0.4 1.0

Source: Statistics Canada. Census of Population, 1971 to 2001.

Note: Rural and small town refers to the population outside Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs) and outside Census Agglomerations (CAs).

Note: Population change is calculated within constant "Rural and Small Town" (non-CMA/CA) boundaries.

45

Alberta Rural & Small Town--non CA/CMA, 2005

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

% Agriculture % Other Primary % Manufacturing

Percent of Total Employment

46

% Employment in Quebec Non-CMA and Non-CA Areas, 2004

% Agriculture

% Other Primary

% Manufacturing

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

% Agriculture % Other Primary % Manufacturing

% Total Employment

Source: Statistics Canada. 2004 Industries c lassif ied by NA ICS codes.

1 Innovations in Rural Policy: Building Stronger Rural Communities by Building Stronger Regions...

Documents

Transcript of 1 Innovations in Rural Policy: Building Stronger Rural Communities by Building Stronger Regions...