using cooperatives to create rural development uwcc brown bag seminar september 25, 2003 kim zeuli...
TRANSCRIPT
Using Cooperatives to Create Rural Development
UWCC Brown Bag SeminarSeptember 25, 2003
Kim ZeuliUWCC
“Cooperatives are a valuable tool for rural community development.”
Why?
Economic impacts:Job creationInvestor returnsProvision of goods and servicesCorrection of market failure
Social impactsSelf-help vehicle
Are they really a tool?
In rural areas, we mostly see unintentional or passive community development.
Vast majority of co-ops are agriculture.
Do cooperatives ever act as the driving force behind rural community development; i.e., intentionally focus on development?
Why would they?
There is a need.Vanishing Main Street stores
Increasing non-farming population
Decreasing acceptance of manufacturing plants
Rural development is still the ugly step-child of farm policy
Existing studies
The relationship between cooperatives and communities is a neglected research issue.
Most studies focus on impacts of agricultural cooperatives.
Non-agricultural cooperatives treated mostly anecdotally (especially in the US).
A few unique cases (Mondragon, Evangeline, etc.) treated largely as unique cases.
Theory
Fulton and Ketilson (1992) provide some theory to explain cooperative behavior in communities.Wilkinson and Quarter (1996) describe theory of co-op/community development process.Classic paradigm: cooperatives are either unifunctional or multifunctional
Methodology
Objectives: (a) identify non-ag. cooperatives that play an intentional role in rural development; and (b) identify challenges/factors for success.
Team:Myself
David Freshwater, University of Kentucky
Ron Shaffer, UW—Madison
David Barkley, Clemson University
Deb Markley, Policy Research Group, N. Carolina
Methodology
Conducted case studies of 14 cooperative organizations across the US in 2001-2002.
Site visitsInterviews with co-op managers, board members, and key community individuals.
Case study criteria:Location (different regions in US)Innovation (non-agricultural, non-service sector)Success
Results—FrameworkTwo cooperative entry points into community
development:1. Unintentional
a) Business relatedb) Structure related
2. Intentionala) Extrinsic
Planned and Reactive Investments
b) Inherentc) Community cooperatives
Extrinsic Community Development
Flathead Electric Cooperative, Montana (Evergreen Rail Industrial Park)Pee Dee Electric Cooperative, South Carolina
(Pee Dee Electricom) Central Iowa Power Cooperative, Iowa (Iowa Capital Corporation) Rural Electric Cooperative, Oklahoma
(Country Living Homes)
Flathead and Pee Dee
Co-ops interested in developing industrial parks for business recruitment.Created subsidiary development corporations.Given permission by city/county governments because of their strong ties to community, “pure” motives.Partner with university/community colleges for business recruitment.
Central Iowa Power
Operates a comprehensive economic development program: recruitment, land development and construction.Partnered with another power co-op and state government to create venture capital firm (ICC).Bought out partners because of conflicting objectives.
Central Iowa Power
Manages ICC to maximize internal rate of return, not to maximize development.
Uses returns to cover losses at parent co-op.
Management of ICC would like to use returns for growth, so conflict with co-op.
Rural Electric
Created housing construction company (CLH) to increase business attraction (affordable housing in short supply).
Initially developed CLH with 7 other co-ops, but abandoned group effort.
Other co-ops were driven by membership concerns regarding the investment (their capital).
Also changed focus to high-end, custom homes (more profitable market). Successful.
Extrinsic—Reactive Investments
Northern Electric Cooperative, Montana
Purchased Granrud’s Lefse Shack in 1997
No other local buyer
27 jobs
Profitable
Inherent Community DevelopmentThe North Coast Co-op, CaliforniaA full service grocery store with strong community commitment
FarmersCommunity residents
Rural Wisconsin Health CooperativeProvides services to member hospitals and promotes rural health care at state and national level.
Community Cooperatives
Garrett Rural Information Cooperative, Maryland
Internet service provider created by local community college for students and to attract “virtual” employees from DC area
Struggles with member commitment and advances in technology (capital).
Community Cooperatives
Foodworks Culinary Center, California
A kitchen incubator created by community economic development corporation to capture comparative advantage
Failed as co-op.
Findings
Community support is keyCo-op may have advantages
If entering a competitive area, may not
Not necessarily automatic
Finding support within cooperative can be difficultConservative decisions about handling member equity
Diverse memberships may not share support
Members may want return from investment (especially if not community residents)
Findings
Community cooperatives are great examples of self-help community development.
Top down initiatives hard to sustain.
Individual interests tend to overwhelm community interest.
Need to be innovative and adaptiveCan be constrained by co-op structure
Need knowledge about business taking over (unless leaving it alone).
Conclusion
Co-op model still unknown; new opportunities for growth in rural areas.
Many practical reasons why co-ops may not pursue community development objectives
Relationship between cooperatives and communities is complex—interdependencies.