A group of hunters look at 11 deer hanging on a buck pole at Skip's Sporting Goods in Grayling, Mich., Sunday, Nov. 15, 1998. Motels and sports shops in northern Michigan are already reaping the benefits of the hunting season. The firearms deer season is Nov. 15-30. (AP Photo/Brad Coville)

Northbound traffic slows on the 5-mile-long Mackinac Bridge Friday, Nov. 14, 1997. Deer hunters are heading to camps in Michigan's Upper Peninsula for the opening of the firearms season Saturday, the first to fall on a weekend since 1986. (AP Photo/Liz Raffaele)Tourists to Cabela's pose next to a sculpture of two

grizzley bears in Dundee, Mich., Aug. 30, 2000. The 17,000 pound statue was created by Mark Hamby, a former defensive end for the Buffalo Bills. (AP Photo/Carlos Osorio) Source:

http://accuweather.ap.org/cgi-bin/aplaunch.pl

Economic Benefits of Deer

Hunting in Michigan:

What do you count?

Source: www.arc.gov

About ARC History of ARC In the mid 1960s, at the urging of two U.S. presidents, Congress created legislation to address the persistent poverty and growing economic despair of the Appalachian Region.

Examples of ARC Projects by Goal Area

GOAL 1—Education and Workforce Training

Making Appalachia’s Wood Industry More Competitive

Developing Teaching Skills: Extending a Professional Development Network

GOAL 2—Physical Infrastructure

Revitalizing a Downtown Business District

Building Water and Sewer Systems through Self-Help

GOAL 3—Civic Capacity and Leadership

Training Grassroots Leaders for Community Development

Creating Practical Models for Community Change

GOAL 4—Dynamic Local Economies

Expanding Microloan Programs to Generate Business Growth

Growing Businesses and Jobs through Incubators

GOAL 5—Health Care

Expanding Appalachians’ Access to Dental Care

Creating Healthier Lives through Local Outreach

Source and more details: http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=1869

Not all ARC counties fit the stereotype of a rural, isolated, distressed area.e.g., see the data on suburban Atlanta counties:http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=56#Query1

Atlanta Regional Commissionhttp://www.atlreg.com/

Counties in Appalachia Georgia: Banks, Barrow, Bartow, Carroll, Catoosa, Chattooga, Cherokee, Dade, Dawson, Douglas, Elbert, Fannin, Floyd, Forsyth, Franklin, Gilmer, Gordon, Gwinnett, Habersham, Hall, Haralson, Hart, Heard, Jackson, Lumpkin, Madison, Murray, Paulding, Pickens, Polk, Rabun, Stephens, Towns, Union, Walker, White, and Whitfield

Other ARC maps(reference and thematic):http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=58

Or look at the the Cincinnati region

Counties in Appalachia Ohio: Adams, Athens, Belmont, Brown, Carroll, Clermont, Columbiana, Coshocton, Gallia, Guernsey, Harrison, Highland, Hocking, Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lawrence, Meigs, Monroe, Morgan, Muskingum, Noble, Perry, Pike, Ross, Scioto, Tuscarawas, Vinton, and Washington Kentucky: Adair, Bath, Bell, Boyd, Breathitt, Carter, Casey, Clark, Clay, Clinton, Cumberland, Edmonson, Elliott, Estill, Fleming, Floyd, Garrard, Green, Greenup, Harlan, Hart, Jackson, Johnson, Knott, Knox, Laurel, Lawrence, Lee, Leslie, Letcher, Lewis, Lincoln, McCreary, Madison, Magoffin, Martin, Menifee, Monroe, Montgomery, Morgan, Owsley, Perry, Pike, Powell, Pulaski, Rockcastle, Rowan, Russell, Wayne, Whitley, and Wolfe

Other ARC maps(reference and thematic):http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=58

17140 Cincinnati-Middletown, OH-KY-IN Metropolitan Statistical Area17140 18029 Dearborn County, IN17140 18047 Franklin County, IN17140 18115 Ohio County, IN17140 21015 Boone County, KY17140 21023 Bracken County, KY17140 21037 Campbell County, KY17140 21077 Gallatin County, KY17140 21081 Grant County, KY17140 21117 Kenton County, KY17140 21191 Pendleton County, KY17140 39015 Brown County, OH17140 39017 Butler County, OH17140 39025 Clermont County, OH17140 39061 Hamilton County, OH17140 39165 Warren County, OH

County Economic Status in Appalachia, FY 2003

Subregions in Appalachia

Source: http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=58

Percent Population Change in Appalachia, 1990–2000

§How do you determine the counterfactual? Several approaches:

•Regression analysis •Matched pair•before and after. However, this can be unreliable.•Random assignment: control and experimental groups (Role of placebos -- to separate psychological and physical effects)•Quasi-experiments (using the logic of experimental design, even though no control; use a pre-existing division of subjects into several groups. Example later in the presentation: the Gautreaux case in Chicago)

before after

Matched pairs

controlexperimental

Random assignment

Identical in all but one characteristic (variable)

Matched pairs: criteriaEstimating the counterfactual: find counties outside Appalachia that are otherwise similar

Matched pairs: the results

1965 -- the start of the “treatment”

treatment

treatment

treatment

Conclusion

Between 1969 and 1991 the counties of Appalachiagrew faster than did their control-group twins.They averaged 48 percent more growth in income, 5percent more in population, and 17 percent more inper capita income. These findings suggest that the Appalachianregion has done relatively well since the AppalachianRegional Commission began its programs.Translated into dollar terms, the income growth differencesbetween Appalachian counties and theirtwins meant $8.4 billion more income for Appalachiain 1991.

Are the ARC programs responsible for this progress?Did the $13 billion dollars in expenditures onARC programs since 1965 produce a handsome return-$8.4 billion in additional income in one yearalone? The two questions cannot be answered yes withcertainty. As already mentioned, control group researchultimately requires a leap of faith. Some skepticsstill insist that cigarette smoking has not beenproven to cause higher incidence of lung cancer, andthat perhaps some unknown factor, a gene maybe,causes some people both to smoke and to be more susceptibleto lung cancer. Likewise, a skeptic might proposean alternative to the ARC to explain the findingsof this study.

The role of research is to make the leap of faith assmall as possible by systematically eliminating alternativeexplanations. For example, this analysis did notconsider racial composition when matching counties.Arguably, ignoring factors associated with race in theU.S. might have caused the positive Appalachian finding.If predominantly white Appalachian countieswere matched to predominantly black counties andthe latter grew more slowly because of economic consequencesof their racial composition, then the Appalachiangrowth effect might have been caused by theconsequences of racial composition, not by the ARC.Racial composition can affect county growth ratesthrough the historical legacy of segregated school systems,firms' biases against locating in places with largeAfrican-American populations, and an unequal distributionof public infrastructure, including roads andsewage facilities. If Appalachian counties do not sufferfrom similar legacies, biases, and inequitable distributions,ignoring race could have caused this study tofind larger Appalachian growth differences than arewarranted.

This possibility can be evaluated by adding percentblack to the variables used to make countymatches and then repeating the growth rate measurements.When doing so, new twins whose racial compositionsbetter match those of the Appalachian countiesreplace the original twins for some counties. Fewertwins are drawn from Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia,and South Carolina. The mean growth rate differencesusing the new twins, however, contradict the racialcomposition hypothesis. The Appalachian countiesoutgrew their new twins by even more than they didthe original ones. Therefore, ignoring racial compositiondid not cause the results reported here. In thismanner, control group research narrows the leap offaith by considering and eliminating competing explanations.

The primary conclusion still stands. The countiesserved by ARC programs grew faster than their twinsdid. Exactly why some counties grew faster than theirtwins while others did not, and why some growth ratedifferences are large and others small remain beyondthe scope of this study. To push the analogy withsmoking studies further, control group research onthat problem does not tell us precisely why somesmokers died sooner than others. In both the smokingresearch and this Appalachian research, the crucialfirst step was the discovery that statistically significantdifferences exist. Now more research is needed to identifywhich ARC programs have been particularly successfuland which ones ought to be adopted elsewhereunder what conditions. The results presented here argueregional development planning has been successfulin Appalachia. The next step is to learn more aboutwhy and how.

Source of images: http://www.bmwusfactory.com/media_center/photography

€

23,050

5,400= 4.3

€

1216

514= 2.4

€

TOTAL

BASIC=BASIC+NONBASIC

BASIC≈direct + indirect + induced

direct= multiplier

Why is 2.4 income multiplier < 4.3 employment multiplier?

From “break bulk” to containerization

From center city to peripheral, deep-water ports

“land bridge”

“from intra-regional tointer-regional port competition

“land bridge”

“from intra-regional tointer-regional port competition

Dispersed economic benefits well into the hinterlands

(last slide)