T h i - PowerPoint Presentation

Slide1

T

hinking Bigger About Smaller Places: Collective Impact Investing, Adjacent-Possible Innovation, and the Power of a New Rural Narrative

P

r

esen

t

ed

to

the

Delta Leadership Institute

Point Clear, Alabama

July 21, 2015

Charles

W

.

Flu

h

arty

President

&

C

EO

Rural

P

o

l

i

cy

R

e

search

I

n

st

i

tuteSlide2

F

ive ConsiderationsRecalibrating the rural/urban paradi

gm and dia

l

ogue

The global rationale for “Regional Rural Innovation”

Rural imperatives, given this regional evidenceChallenging the hegemony of the urban metaphor, in a disruptive milieu“Adjacent Possible” rural opportunitiesSlide3

I. Recalibrating

the rural/urbandialogue and paradigmSlide4

Rural

and Urban DefinitionsNo definition is perfect at capturing rural and urban p

opu

lation

d

ynamicsOfficial Census Bureau definition of urbanincludes places from 2,500 to several millionOMB Core Based Statistical Areas include some very rural counties in metro

ar

e

as,

because of commuting pattersNo categorical definition can properly capturethe continuum.Slide5

The

U.S. Census Bureau defines urban areas:Core blocks and block groups with population density of 1,000 people per square mile.

Surrounding

blocks

with

overall density of 500 ppmi2Range in size from 2,500 people to over 18 million people.Rural is everything that is not urban.Based on the 2010 Decennial Census:59 million people live in rural areas (19%)

249

m

i

l

lion people live in urban areas (81%)Urban and Rural Areas5Slide6

6Slide7

B

ellevue, IAPopulation 2,543New York-NewarkPopulation 18 million

7Slide8

De

fined by the Office of Management and Budget.Designed to be

functio

nal

r

egions around urban centers.Classification is based on counties.Three classifications of counties:MetropolitanNonmetropolitan counties are divided

in

t

o

two types:MicropolitanNoncoreCore Based Statistical Areas8Slide9

9Slide10

Usua

lly, metropolitan is equated withurban and nonmetropolitan

is

equat

e

d

with rural.So, if metropolitan is urban,then…10Slide11

This

is urban:Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA Metro Area Population 12

.8

m

i

l

lionSlide12

And

so is this:Armstrong County, TexasPopulation 1,

901

Part

of the

Amarillo TexasMetropolitan AreaSlide13

And

if nonmetropolitan is rural,then…Slide14

This

is rural:Loving County, Texas Population 82Slide15

And

so is this:Paducah, Kentucky Population 48,791Slide16

Most Counties

are Urban and Rural!Coconino County, Arizona Population 13

4,421

Flag

st

aff Metro AreaSlide17

Most met

ropolitan areas contain ruralterritory and rural people.In fact…Over half of all rural

people

l

i

ve inmetropolitan counties!Slide18

Popu

lation Dynamics, 2010Percent of U.S. Population by CBSA and

Rur

a

l/

U

rban Status, 2010Urbanized AreaUrban ClusterRuralTotalMetropolitan99.9%36

.

7

%

53

.8%85.0%Micropolitan0.1%47.2%

22

.

0

%

8

.

8

%

N

o

n

c

o

r

e

0

.

0

%

16

.

1

%

24

.

2

%

6

.

2

%

100

.

0

%

100

.

0

%

100

.

0

%

100

.

0

%

53

.

8

%

o

f

t

h

e

rural population is in Metropolitan AreasSources: U.S. Census Bureau and OMBSlide19

The Urban

-Rural ContinuumImportant to look beyond the categories of “metropolitan” and “micr

opolitan”

Metro

p

olitan

and micropolitan counties areeither “central” or “outlying”– Outlying counties are included based oncommuting flows onlyOutlying metropolitan counties are often very rural (G

u

thrie

C

ounty, IA) , and are often even more rural than “noncore” countiesSlide20

Chan

ges in Population Dynamics105 counties became relatively more urban58 counties became re

lativ

e

l

y

less urbanU.S.Metro Central 2013Micro Central 2013Outlying or Noncore 2013Metro Central 20096584

10

M

i

c

ro Central 20093451144Outlying or Noncore 2009

37

34

1811Slide21

II.

The Global Rationale for “Regional Rural Innovation”Slide22

Th

e OECD New Rural Paradigm (2006)Gu

aran

t

e

e

an adequate attention to rural issues And empower local communities and governmentsRural is not synonymous with agriculture Rural is not synonymou

s

wit

h

economic declineOld Paradigm

New

Para

d

i

g

m

O

b

jec

t

i

v

es

Eq

u

alizatio

n

.

F

ocus

on

farm

inco

m

e

Co

m

p

etit

i

v

e

n

ess

of

r

ur

a

l

ar

e

as

K

ey

tar

g

et sect

o

r

Sector

based

Ho

listic approach to include various sectors of rural economiesMain toolsSubsidiesInvestmentsKey actorsNational governments, farmersMultilevel-governanceSlide23
Slide24
Slide25

On

ly 45% of metro-regions grow faster than the national average.

20000

40000

60000

6

.

0

%

7

.

0

%

8

.

0

%

Ini

t

i

a

l

G

D

P

p

e

r

w

o

r

ke

r

i

n

PPP

III

-3

.

0

%

-2

.

0

%

-1

.

0

%

0

.

0

%

1

.

0

%

2

.

0

%

3

.

0

%

4

.

0

%

A

v

e

r

a

g

e

a

nnu

a

l

g

r

o

w

t

h

r

a

t

e

s

i

n

G

D

P

p

e

r

ca

p

i

t

a

199

5

-

2005

5

.

0

%

B

udape

s

t

W

ar

s

aw

N

ap

l

e

s

I

z

m

ir

A

n

k

ar

a

I

st

anbul

IV

D

ub

lin

P

ragu

e

M

on

t

err

e

y

B

u

s

an

II

I

P

ueb

la

K

ra

k

ow

W

a

s

h

i

ng

t

on

S

a

n

F

ran

c

i

sc

o

S

a

n

D

i

ego

D

e

t

ro

it

A

t

la

n

t

a

P

hoen

ix

O

s

a

k

a

B

er

lin

D

eagu

Metro-re

g

i

o

ns a

p

p

e

ar

to

h

a

ve e

n

t

e

r

e

d

in

a p

r

o

c

e

ss

of c

o

n

ve

r

g

e

n

ce.

…

s

i

gns of

i

ne

f

fi

ci

en

c

i

es appear

i

n

signi

f

ic

ant

nu

m

ber of

metro-regions…

…but not necessarily faster growthSlide26

Contri

butions to aggregate growth depend on few hub regions……the fat tail is equally important

-

if

not

more - to aggregate growth…Slide27

III.

Rural imperatives,given this regional evidenceSlide28

Th

e Critical Question:“What policy framework will best integrate rural and

ur

b

an

initiatives and programs, to advantage both ag and non-ag rural constituencies, their communities and regions, and enhance their children

’

s

pot

ential to thrive there in the 21st century?”Slide29

T

he Framework for Regional Rural Innovation

Cri

t

ic

a

l Internal ConsiderationsWealth Creation, Intergenerational Wealth Retention, and Appropriate Wealth DistributionYouth Engagement, Retention, and Leadership DevelopmentSocial

Inclusion

and

Social Equity ConsiderationsSpecific Attention to Social Mobility and Inequality

New

Narra

t

i

v

es

& Ne

t

w

o

r

ks

Kn

o

w

ledge Ne

t

w

or

k

s

&

W

orkforce

Qual

i

ty

of

P

lace

E

-ship

& Inn

o

v

ation

Collaborati

v

e

Leadersh

i

pSlide30

Eight Form

s of Rural HealthPhysicalFinancialNaturalHumanIntell

ec

tual

Social

Cul

turalPoliticalSlide31

W

hat is Demanded?Asset-based developmentRegiona

l fra

m

ew

o

rksRegional Innovation Policies Which AlignRural and Urban InterestsSupport for New IntermediariesSlide32

Attention

to Working LandscapesBridging Innovation and Entrepreneurship Supp

ort

System

s

,

Across the Rural/Urban ChasmAddressing Spatial Mismatch in KeySectoral AlignmentsInnovative and Linked Investment Approaches Which Enhance Jurisdictional and Cross-Sector

a

l

Colla

borationSlide33

I

V. Challenging the hegemony of the urbanmetaphor, in a disruptivemilieuSlide34
Slide35
Slide36

h

ttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/world/asia/

ch

i

n

a

s-great- uprooting-moving-250-million-into- cities.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Slide37

“All

great truths begin as blasphemies.”--George Bernard ShawSlide38
Slide39

V

. “Adjacent Possible” RuralOpportunitiesSlide40

Ad

jacent PossibilitiesRWJ’s Signature Strategy: A Culture of Health

Collec

tive

Im

pact: The SOAR Example as aFramework for Rural FuturesFormer USDA Secretary Dan Glickman’s recent Op-EdSlide41
Slide42

Op-Ed by

former USDA Secretary Dan Glickman: The Hill, November 14, 2014“The food, agriculture, health, hunger

,

and

nut

rition sectors need to create new ways of working together that harness their shared commitment to improving health through food and nutrition … We also need to

explo

r

e

new approaches to integrate programs, so together they support better health outcomes … There are a var

iety

of govern

m

ent,

f

oundat

i

on,

and coopera

t

ive

ini

t

iat

i

ves

underwa

y

,

and ne

w

, innovative

m

odels are

being

explo

r

ed

ac

r

oss

the countr

y

.

But

the

s

e

e

f

forts often operate

in funct

i

onal

si

los, instead of setting a common table for all.”Slide43
Slide44

Three Questions:

Innovating What?Diversifying How?Transitioning Where?Slide45

Innovating What?

How “we” consider “us”How we “see” our regionHow we

“con

si

d

er”

our optionsHow we support the “connectors”Slide46

Diversifying How?

In our vision of the futureIn our sense of

po

s

sibility

In

our actions and alignmentsIn our new collaborationsIn our narrative and networksSlide47

T

ransitioning Where?Slide48
Slide49

Five Conditions for Collective Impact

SuccessCommon AgendaShared vision for changeMutually Reinforcing ActivitiesDi

ff

eren

t

ia

ted, but still coordinatedBackbone OrganizationServes entire initiative, coordinating participatingorganizations, firms and agenciesSlide50

Five Conditions for Collective Impact

Success (cont’d)Continuous CommunicationConsistent, open, unmediat

ed

Rig

oro

us

and Shared MeasurementCollecting predictive indicators, regional data: thenmeasuring ongoing results consistentlySlide51
Slide52

“

What lies behind us, and what lies before us are tiny matters com

pare

d

to

what lies within us.”-Ralph Waldo EmersonSlide53

C

harles W. Fluharty cfluharty@rupri.org President & CEORural Policy Research Institute Clinical Professor

Department of

Hea

l

th

Management and Policy University of Iowa College of Public Health 145 N. Riverside DriveIowa City, IA 52242 (319) 384-3816http://www.rupri.org/Slide54

Addendum:

OECD GraphsSlide55

Pro

moting Growth in All RegionsSlide56

The

re is no single/unique path to growth

…Slide57

C

oncentration  high levels of GDP pc

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

60000

21%

50000

N

A

P

L

E

S

D

E

A

G

U

B

E

R

L

I

N M

O

N

T

R

E

A

L V

A

N

C

O

U

V

E

R

L

I

LLE

T

A

M

P

A

B

A

Y

F

U

K

U

OK

A M

A

N

C

HE

S

TE

R

L

EE

D

S

VA

L

E

N

CI

A

B

I

R

M

I

N

GH

A

M

A

N

K

A

R

A

S

E

O

U

L

K

R

A

KO

W M

I

A

MI

P

H

O

E

N

I

X

O

S

A

K

A

R

H

I

N

E

-

R

U

H

R

S

T

.

L

O

U

I

S

P

I

TT

S

B

U

R

G

H

T

O

R

O

N

T

O

I

Z

M

I

R

I

S

T

A

N

B

U

L

P

U

E

B

LA M

E

L

B

O

U

R

N

E

A

U

C

K

L

A

N

D

B

U

S

A

N

C

OP

E

N

H

A

GE

N

G

U

A

D

A

L

A

J

A

R

A

B

A

L

T

I

M

O

R

E

S

Y

D

N

E

Y

R

A

N

D

S

T

A

D

-

H

O

LL

A

N

D

T

U

RI

N

D

ET

R

O

I

T

PO

R

T

L

A

N

D M

E

X

I

C

O

C

I

T

Y

H

A

N

B

U

R

G BARCELONA CLEVELAND ZURICH TOKYO DUBLIN AICHILOS ANGELES FRANKFURTLYON BRUSSELS H

ELSINKI CH

ICAGO LISBO

N OSLOSAN D

IEGO STUTTGAR

T MADRID VIENN

APHILADELPHIA

ATHE

NS ATLAN

TA MILANM

ONTERREY MUNICH ROMEPR

AGUE LO

NDON B

UDAPEST S

TOCKHOLM

DALLAS MINNEAPOLIS N

EW YORK DENVER SE

ATTLEHOUSTO

N WARSAW PARI

SBOSTON SA

N FRANCISCO WASH

INGTON

GDP

per capitanational GDP per cap

ita

79%Slide58

On

ly 45% of metro--regions growfaster than the national average.

20000

40000

60000

6

.

0

%

7

.

0

%

8

.

0

%

Ini

t

i

a

l

G

D

P

p

e

r

w

o

r

ke

r

i

n

PPP

III

-

3

.

0

%

-

2

.

0

%

-

1

.

0

%

0

.

0

%

1

.

0

%

2

.

0

%

3

.

0

%

4

.

0

%

A

vera

g

e

a

nnu

a

l

g

r

o

w

th

ra

t

e

s

i

n

G

D

P

p

e

r

ca

pi

ta

199

5

-

2005

5

.

0

%

B

u

d

a

p

e

s

t

W

ar

s

aw

N

apl

e

s

I

z

m

ir

A

n

k

a

r

a

Ist

anbul

IV

D

u

b

lin

Prague

M

o

n

t

e

r

r

e

y

Bu

s

an

II

I

P

u

e

b

la

K

r

a

k

ow

W

a

s

h

i

n

g

t

on

Sa

n

F

r

a

n

c

i

sc

o

Sa

n

D

i

e

go

D

e

t

r

o

it

A

t

lan

t

a

P

h

o

e

n

i

x

O

s

a

k

a

B

e

rlin

D

e

a

gu

Metr

o

-re

g

i

o

ns

a

p

p

e

ar

to h

a

ve e

n

ter

e

d

in

a pr

o

cess

of co

n

ver

g

e

n

ce.

…

s

i

gns

of

i

ne

f

fi

c

i

enc

i

es

app

e

ar

i

n signif

icant number ofmetro-regions……but not necessarily fast

er

g

r

ow

t

hSlide59

Contribut

ions to aggregate growth depend on few hub regions……the fat tail is equally important --

if

no

t

more

-- to aggregate growth…Slide60

Cont

ributions to growth OECD TL3 regions

y

=

0

.

5031

x

-

1

.

20

1

0%

5

%

10

%

15

%

2

0

%

25

%

30

%

35

%

40

%

45

%

50

%

5

5

%

6

0

%

65

%

70

%

75 % 80% 85% 90% 95%TL3 regions2% SeoulMadridLondon West Roma MilanoAichiBarcelona1%3%4%5%Contribution toOECD growthTokyoGyeonggi-doAttikiMiasto WarszawDublinHauts-de-Seine

S

t

o

ck

hol

m

s

län

I

nner

London

--

Ea

s

t

C

hung

c

heongn

a

m

-

do

G

y

eon

s

angbu

k

-

do

Pa

ris

M

ün

c

hen

G

y

eon

s

angna

m

-

do

27

%

of

g

r

o

w

t

h

d

r

iv

e

n

by

2

.

4

%

(

or

20

)

r

e

gi

on

s

..

.

...

a

nd

73

%

of

g

r

o

w

th

by the rem

ainingSlide61

La

gging regions contribute to national growthLagging Regions Contribution to Aggregate

Growth

Overall,

th

ey contributed to 44% of aggregate OECD growth in 1995-2007.In eight OECD countries lagging regions contributed more to national growth than leading regions.

B

o

t

t

om line: support for lagging regions need not be merely a “

social” polic

y

.

T

h

e

y

c

o

n

tribu

t

e

a

la

r

g

e

s

ha

r

e

of

n

a

tional

g

r

owt

h.

l

a

gg

i

n

g

l

e

a

d

i

n

g

A

u

s

t

r

ali

a

29%

71%

A

u

stria53%47%Canada26%74%Czech Republic62%38%Finland35%65%France68%32%Germany27%73%G

r

ee

c

e

-

16

%

116%

H

un

g

a

r

y

34%

66%

I

t

al

y

26%

74%

J

a

p

a

n

27%

73%

K

o

r

e

a

23%

77%

M

e

x

i

c

o

44%

56%

N

e

t

h

e

r

la

nd

s

49%

51%

N

o

r

w

a

y

61%

39%

P

o

la

n

d

44%

56%

P

o

r

t

u

g

a

l

54%

46%

S

l

o

v

a

k

R

e

pub

li

c

67%

33%

S

p

ai

n

48%

52%

S

w

e

d

e

n

58%

42%

T

u

r

k

e

y

47%

53%U

nited Kin

gdom57%

43%

United S

tates

51%49%

aver

age unweig

hted43%

57%

average

weighted

44%

56%