What is 'Economy'?

It is increasingly acknowledged that the view of the economy as a marketplace for the distribution of resources, goods and services with monetary value ignores necessary interactions to protect the environment, improve quality of life and ensure shared prosperity. In Canada, like other industrialized nations, rural economies are transitioning to a ‘hyper-connected and increasingly commodified global economy’ although primary production is still prominent (Ryser & Halseth, 2010). While acknowledging disparities across industrial nations, Ryser and Halseth identify four themes – namely, socio-economic restructuring, economic development barriers, community economic development and governance - underlying rural economic transitions in these nations using a meta-literature review of rural economic development (RED). They claim that capital mobility, labour flexibility, labour shedding technologies, increased professionalism and specialization of previous low-skill jobs create new socio-economic opportunities and concerns. Concerns, such as increased precarious employment, rural job losses, young workers out-migration, increased peri-urban and ‘rurban’ areas, low attraction and retention of industries and declining community cohesion are evident in non-metro regions in Ontario (Rural Ontario Institute, 2017). Hence, there is a growing consensus that approaches to RED need to change. In this paper, I explore four critical points on how to comprehend and approach of development of the ‘new rural economy.’

Defining RED

Firstly, Pike et al. (2006) suggest that any definition of RED appreciates geographical concepts of space, territory, place and scale since the socio-spatial world of RED is not a ‘uniform geographical plane.’ Spatially, ‘local’ and ‘regional’ refer to socially constructed physical, social and virtual spaces through which economic processes evolve whereas territorially they refer to the spatial units demarcated under the jurisdiction of an administrative and political authority where political and apolitical institutions interact in diverse ways and at multi-levels in RED, its government and governance. However, this definition, though more representative, leaves room for a different and sometimes conflicting understanding of what a ‘better’ local and regional economy should be because of evolving histories, cultures, social outlooks, economic trajectories, asset endowments and political structures.

Interpreting RED

Nonetheless, increasingly the development of prosperity of places is increasingly interconnected by themes, principles and values. Pike et al. propose that this intertwining of places presents an opportunity to define, interpret, understand and articulate what is meant by RED using a value-based approach. Principles and values shape how specific social groups and interests within localities and regions perceive, experience and acknowledge RED, which may be held independently of a country’s level of democratic, equitable, fair and resilient development. Hence, value judgements about the meaning, needs/wants, appropriateness, success and kinds of development of a locality or region within these interests, social groups and across time periods reflect the relations and nature of power-sharing between state, market, civil society and public.

Measuring RED

Furthermore, Pike et al. (2006) suggest that understanding RED is diverse, and this claim should be embraced in the definition and measurement of RED for policy analysis, development and practice. According to Pike et al., increasing frustration with geographical inequalities in social conditions, health, well-being and quality of life has motivated the need for an adequate measure of the distribution of economic growth benefits and approaches to development beyond increases in income per capita. Hence, future measurements of ‘development’ must consider multi-dimensional indices of RED, beyond GDP per capita, which consider the improvement of life expectancy, knowledge, the standard of living, employment and other social conditions for a more representative measure of RED.

Approaching RED

Lastly, approaches to RED must be community-driven. To adopt a community-driven, Ryser and Halseth suggest the use of planning tools such as asset mapping stems for development instead of a need-based approach. Asset mapping refers to the development of an inventory of assets, including natural and social capital, that already exist in a community. Approaching development through a community lens allows for the consideration of the cross-boundary nature of territorial development known as spill-over effects’. As a result, some analysts propose the use of census consolidated subdivisions to assess communities, which refers to a collective of census subdivisions who share many daily-life services and census divisions (CDs) or regions who share many services via commuting (Rural Ontario Institute, 2017). An example of this cross-territory implications is the dynamics of employment growth in rural Ontario. As of 2016, Rural Ontario Institute found that most communities in the non-metro CDs of Ontario faced declining population, especially in the core-age workforce (25-54 years), over seven intercensal periods from 1981 to 2016 partly due to regular reclassification of residents’ locality to metro due to changes in residents’ work commuting patterns. These interterritorial-demographic dynamics drove down employment growth in rural Ontario.

Conclusion

In sum, there is an emerging consensus that ‘local and regional development’ is socially determined by particular social groups, geographically-differentiated and changes over time, warranting new approaches to defining, measuring and approaching RED. These new approaches suggest that conceptual approaches to RED be multidimensional, planning for RED be value-based and practicing RED be community-driven. Thus, RED refers to the delivery of shared values on meaning, needs/wants, appropriateness, success and kinds of development in a dynamic system interconnecting people, resources and institutions across spaces and times to produce goods and services.

References

Pike, A., Rodriguez-Pose, A., & Tomaney, J. (2006). Chapter 2: What kind of local and regional development and for whom? In Local and Regional Development. London: Routledge.

Rural Ontario Institute. (2017). Focus on Rural Ontario Fact Sheet Series (2016 ed.). Toronto. Retrieved from http://www.ruralontarioinstitute.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/2015%20Focus%20on%20Rural%20Ontario%20%231%20Size%20and%20Change%20of%20Non-metro%20Population%202014(1).pdf

Rural Ontario Institute. (2017). Rural Ontario’s Demography: Census Update 2016. In Focus on Rural Ontario Fact Sheet Series (2016 ed.). Retrieved from http://www.ruralontarioinstitute.ca/uploads/userfiles/files/2015%20Focus%20on%20Rural%20Ontario%20%231%20Size%20and%20Change%20of%20Non-metro%20Population%202014(1).pdf

Ryser, L., & Halseth, G. (2010). Rural economic development: A review of literature from industrialized economies. Geography Compass, 4/6, 510-531.

Disclaimer: Views, thoughts, and opinions expressed in this text belong solely to the author, and not necessarily to the author's employer, organization, committee, funding agency or other group or individual.

Update funded by: