Building Rural Capacity in the New Economy: A Canadian research project

1. Tom Beckley David Bruce Omer Chouinard Ivan Emke Greg Halseth Bruno Jean Patrice LeBlanc Diane Martz Steve Plante Doug Ramsey Ellen Wall Derek Wilkinson Anna Woodrow Building Rural Capacityin the New Economy:A Canadian research project Bill Reimer with the NRE2 Team reimer@vax2.concordia.ca 2005/07/15

2. Outline • What are CRRF and the NRE? • Research Design • Theoretical Framework • Capacity, social capital, social cohesion • Measurement • Key Findings • Challenges • Strategies • Emerging Issues

3. What is CRRF? • Researchers, Policy-Makers, Business-People, Activists, Rural People • Established in 1987 • Research and Education • Spring Workshops, Fall Conferences • Not-For-Profit • Improve Quality of Life for all Rural Canadians

4. Why establish the NRE? • Lack of appropriate information • Lack of comparisons • Lack of communication and collaboration

5. The NRE Project • Established in 1997 • 15-20 researchers from all across Canada • Rural Observatory – 32 rural sites • 2 sites in Japan • Data collection and analysis • Workshops and conferences • Researchers, Policy-makers, Rural People • International collaboration

6. exposure to global economies stability of the local economy adjacency to metro regions social and institutional capacity leading or lagging status NRE Sample Frame Dimensions

7. Lead Lag 175 27 46 15 251 13 124 44 Adjac. 4 26 8 19 Distant 5 16 18 30 Fluctu-ating Adjac. 4 5 4 9 Distant 12 16 5 13 Stable Adjac. 12 100 7 45 Distant 15 99 16 56 The NRE Sample Frame High Capacity Low Capacity Lead Lag Global Exposed Fluctu-ating Adjac. Distant Stable Local Exposed

8. NRE…The Rural Observatory …an International Network

9. Common-Boundary Census CSDs CSD Trajectories Field Site Profile Series Household Survey 2001 Municipal Finances Capacity Interviews 1999 Capacity Interviews 2000 Capacity Interviews 2001 Capacity Interviews 1986 Census CSDs 1991 Census CSDs 1996 Census CSDs 2001 Census CSDs Profile 1998 Profile 2000 Profile 2003 Field Site Taxfiler Series 1994-99 HH Survey 2001

10. to the household to the site NRE Project both ways linkingthe world

11. Linkages create challenges Constant boundary CSDs

12. How can rural Canada (re)vitalize? • Identify the conditions that have contributed to devitalization • Organize assets and resources to do the things considered important This ability to organize is: Capacity Capacity transforms assets into valued outcomes

13. Capacity Model RELATIONS & CHOICES Bureaucratic Market Associative Communal OUTCOMES • Economic wealth • Social and political inclusion • Social Cohesion • Environmental security • Social and self-worth • Health • Personal security ASSETS • Economic Capital • Human Skills and Abilities • Social Capital • Natural Resources outcomes can become new assets and liabilities

14. Context Matters OUTCOMES • Economic wealth • Social and political inclusion • Social Cohesion • Environmental security • Social and self-worth • Health • Personal Security PROCESSES • Market • Bureaucratic • Associative • Communal ASSETS • Economic Capital • Human Skills and Abilities • Social Capital • Natural Resources CAPACITY MODEL outcomes can become new assets and liabilities • exposure to global economies • stability of the local economy • adjacency to metro regions • social and institutional capacity

15. Market Bureaucratic Associative Communal Capacity is embedded in Social Relations High Capacity = Agility among systems

17. Social Capital • One type of asset or resource (stock) • Social assets potentially useful for outcomes • Based in four types of social relations and action relationships, networks, and associated norms that can facilitate collective action

18. How is social capital to be measured? • Social capital is about social relations • Reflected in institutions, organizations, groups, networks (AVAILABLE social capital) • Reflected in the USE of these groups and networks • Rooted in 4 types of social relations

19. Measuring AVAILABLE Social Capital • Market relations: Enterprises, Financial institutions (formal and informal), commercial services • Bureaucratic relations: Schools, Gov’t organizations, corporations • Associative relations: Voluntary associations • Communal relations: Family networks, Daycares, Senior citizens’ centres, Religious organizations, Community-integration events

20. Measuring USE of Social Capital • Market-based: Employment, M-Internet, market services, employment organizations, market support • Bureaucratic-based: B-Internet, bureaucratic services, actions re. bureaucracies, bureaucratic support • Associative-based: A-Internet, associative services, associative-based groups, associative actions, associative support • Communal-based: C-Internet, sharing goods, sharing services, family support

21. AVAILABLE Social Capital is not always USED • (r) (N=1849) Unless otherwise indicated p<.01; * p<.05 • Availability is measured at the site level (Source: NRE Site Profiles 2000) • Use is measured at the household level (Source: NRE HH Survey 2001) Focusing on one type will distort results and policies

22. Correlations are all positive for types of social capital used • No substitutions Policy: Weak safety net • But: Complementary Policy: Local strength in one can be used to build capacity in others (r) 1995 HHs – sums of logged items p<.01 Source: NRE HH Survey 2001

23. Context Matters for Capacity HH Income by Associative Social Capital and Global Exposure The use of social capital increases HH incomes …but not if exposure to the global economy is low Public expenditure on associative social capital will have higher impact in globally exposed sites NRE HH Survey 2001 (N=1698) Adj. R2 = .04

24. Employment Interactions

25. High income Income Interactions Low income

26. Global Exposure Interactions High Exposure Low Exposure Global Exposure

27. Perception vs. Behaviour-based Indicators of Social Cohesion Return (r) All correlations significant at .01 level (2-tailed) Source: NRE HH survey 2001: 1991 respondents

28. Challenges of NRE-Style Research • Finances: long term and multiple sites • Multiple disciplines • Research, Citizen, Policy collaboration • Institutional Obstacles • Academics and participation-based research • Small universities and careers • Hierarchal analysis

29. Strategies • CRRF (inclusive) and NRE (inclusive) • Field site day, workshops, conferences • Junior and Senior division of labour • Integrate students and prepare for turnover • Integrate policy-makers in multiple ways • Multiple forms of knowledge mobilization

30. Emerging Issues • Rural-Urban relations • Changing functions: carbon sequestration, pollution processing, natural amenties • Common interests: food, water, environment • Immigration and rural revitalization • New forms of governance • Challenges of private, public, civic sector relations • Accountability and representation

31. Building Rural Capacity in the New Economy:A Canadian research project The New Rural Economy Project http://nre.concordia.ca http://www.crrf.ca 2005/07/15

32. Administration • Central Administration • PI – Primary responsibility • Project Administrator – Operationalization of policy • Office Manager – Day-to-day demands • Liaison Officer – Liaison and support • Communications Officer and Controller - Communications

33. Students • 49 students (23 UG, 18 MA, 7 PhD, 1 Post-Doc.) • Strong record (NRE1) • Academic Careers (MA, PhD, College, University) • Revitalization of non-students • Statistics Canada Professional Training Program • Health Canada • BC Centre of Excellence on Women’s Health

34. Building rural student capacity • Challenges • Smaller pool of students • Long process of training and mentoring • High demand for our students • Strategies • Build cross-institution opportunities • Build student support network • Maintain ‘diaspora’

35. Building Capacity through… • Environment and Natural Resources • Governance • Communications • Services • Integration

36. Cross-Cutting Projects • Capacity Analysis • Multiple capacities, Multiple options • Context matters • The Informal Economy • Growing in the new economy • Integrated with the formal economy • The Social Economy • Under reorganization • Under-recognized in rural areas • Rural-Urban Relations • Rural at risk • Many common interests, Strategic options

37. The Rural Canada Database • Completed: • Census (CSD) databases • Site profiles (1998, 2001, 2003) • Rural Editors’ survey (1999) • Capacity interviews (1998, 2001, continuing) • Household survey (2001) • Municipal finances (2003) • Activities Ongoing and Planned: • Innovative Services • Environmental Values • GIS and key indicators (with Rural Secretariat) • Integrate health data • Integrate Justice data • Update on Rural Canada Profile

38. Capacity Issues • Process or condition • Potential or actual • Static or dynamic • Levels: capacity of who? • Outcomes: capacity for what • Types of capacity • Positive or negative • Endogamous and Exogenous

39. Social Capital Issues

40. The Rural Observatory • Common focus for discussion and development • Common challenge for ‘ground-truthing’ • Common basis for comparison • Common commitment

41. Common Venues • Think Tanks • Workshops • Conferences

42. Common Products • Books • Academic articles • Policy documents • Community materials

43. Themes and Steering Committee • Theme teams • Environment • Governance • Communications • Services • Steering Committee • 6 Members • Bi-weekly contact • 2+ meetings/yr

44. NRE Field Sites by AVAILABLE Types of Social Capital Return Source: 19 NRE Site Profiles 2000

45. Type of USE of Social Capital matters for HH Incomes Return • Adj. R2 = .37 • Constant = $9102 • N = 1697 • Logged values for USE of social capital • P < .05 • Source: NRE HH survey, 2001 • Total HH income • Market, bureaucratic, communal, associative: indexes of types of social capital • Education of the respondent • HH Size: number of people in the household

46. Census Proxies for Social Capital Next Return • (r) (N=19) * p<.05; ** p<.01 • Average social capital by site (Source: NRE HH Survey 2001; Statistics Canada, Census 2001)

47. Use of Associative Social Capital by Census Proxy • R2(Adj)=.56 • Census Variables: • IQV for Visible Minorities and others • % English Mother Tongue • Average of Use of Associative social capital • NRE HH Survey 2001 Return

48. Use of Social Capital by NRE Sample Frame Dimensions • (r) (N=1995) * p<.05; ** p<.01 (confirmed by ANOVA) • Use is measured at the site level (Source: NRE Site Profiles 2000) Return

49. Total Local Global Stable Fluct. N.Adj Metro Adj. LoCap. HiCap. R2 .37 .42 .35 .29 .43 .41 .31 .43 .35 Market 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Educ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 HH Size 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 5 3 Bureau. 4 4 6 3 5 6 4 6 4 Comm. 5 5 5 4 3 4 Assoc. 6 3 5 6 5 3 • Regression of HH Income on Social Capital, etc. under NRE Sample Frame conditions • Ranks based on standardized coefficients • Source: NRE HH Survey 2001 (1995 HHs) • USE of social capital Context Important for Transforming Assets into Outcomes (e.g. Income) Return

50. What are the most appropriate levels of analysis for evaluating collective social capital? What are the limits of aggregation of individual social capital for estimating collective social capital? • Depends on the purpose • Our objective: Rural Revitalization • Strategy: • Examine multiple levels (households, sites, regions, provinces, nation) • Examine social capital within and across levels