These are some thoughts Nils shared that come from his participation in the Aspen Institutes Rural Development Innovation Group.
Investment in entrepreneurial people is as important as capital investment. Many programs provide capital for specific business transactions, but few support the other tools necessary for entrepreneurial success. Just as in venture capital, investing in enterprising people is critical to build competency in rural places, which must dig deeper into their talent pool to fill leadership positions.
Capitalizing on market opportunities requires integrated and collaborative solutions. Because they wear multiple hats in the community, rural people are naturally resourceful. However, the “project” funding available to rural places typically does not allow the flexibility they need to work in integrative, systemic ways to achieve results that last.
Regional approaches are required to effectively connect rural and urban markets. In geographically large rural places with small populations, assembling the critical mass of people, ideas, resources and connections needed for success often requires working across sectors and geographic boundaries.
Community‐centered intermediary organizations are essential to successful rural community and economic development. These organizations engage the community in developing visions and solutions. They provide the technical and financial support to conceive and complete complex initiatives. But which type of intermediary takes the lead varies from rural place to rural place.
Short term investments will not yield desired long‐term results. Many government and financial resources available to rural places miss this reality. Those who want lasting solutions must recognize the need to be patient investors committed for the longer term.
The entry thresholds for investments often lock out rural players. Rural organizations often cannot operate at the numerical threshold – e.g., deal size, jobs created, population served – that investors require. For federal funding, meeting local match requirements can be a barrier to entry.
Rural projects are often of a smaller scale than investors seek. Investors typically are looking for “scale” – large numbers and volume. In rural, a project’s progress from its starting point is more important than its size. Indeed, well‐structured rural investments can provide rates of return comparable to those in urban areas and impact at a higher proportion.
Investors in rural must have a different expectation for return on capital. The expectations for return must go beyond financial to include a broader range of rural outcomes – natural, social, economic and infrastructure – that are essential to building thriving rural‐urban markets over time.