| Though the disparities which existed among regions of the United States in the 1920's and 1930's--most notably between the Southeast and the northern regions--had decreased by 1980, regional disparities still exist. Looked at from a sub-regional viewpoint convergence of factor incomes and access to markets over the past 50 years appears less uniform. This study is an investigation into the differential rates of economic development experienced by small areas in the Southeast during the past 50 years. Coffee County in Tennessee and Pope County in Arkansas were selected as representative of faster growing counties in their states, and McMinn County in Tennessee and Jackson County in Arkansas represent the slower growing counties.;Specifically, the investigation supports the hypothesis that differential growth and development in these four local economies of the Southeast over the past 50 years can largely be explained by (1) the regional setting, especially the relationship of the local economy to the established transaction network of the nation; (2) the presence of entrepreneurs including political and social enterpreneurs; and (3) the community's choice to pursue or not to pursue the path of economic development and change. The two faster growing counties showed clear evidence of individual leaders, positive community support for economic change, access to political decision-making, especially at the federal level, as well as good access to urban areas via transportation routes, among other things. The two slower growing counties did not exhibit a pattern of individual leadership during the 50 year period, had little access to political decision-making, had few ties to large urban areas, and rather than supporting ecomomic change showed clear evidence of internal conflicts and of powerful individuals or groups who saw economic change as inimical to their own interests.;Using secondary statistical data, local newspapers and other historical materials, and open-ended interviews, most of the growth factors traditionally stressed in regional economics were investigated. It was intended that the evidence should suggest an hypothesis of differential economic development in small areas, and the hypothesis that appears to explain the experience in these four counties rests more upon non-conventional, institutional factors than upon conventional considerations of comparative resources of infrastructure. |
