Search

Executive Summary Economic growth in the United States has slowed in recent decades, but the negative effects have been especially severe in rural America. Although some rural communities continue to prosper, much of rural America has faced stagnant economic conditions. One possible cause of declining economic growth is declining economic 'dynamism' manifested through long-running trends such as fewer firm startups and deaths, declining entrepreneurship and innovation that leads to lower productivity growth, sclerotic labor markets, and less product market competition. When examining key indicators of dynamism, rural America appears to have faced even greater drops dating back to the late 1970s. These include greater relative declines in migration rates, especially rural-to-urban migration that has long been a key source of upward mobility. Rural areas have also seen larger declines in new-firm creation than their urban counterparts, and there has been a greater relative shift away from small to large firms and a relative reduction in the importance of self-employment. The concern is that both small and new firms are disproportionally responsible for net job growth, and localities with greater shares of small firms and self-employment tend to subsequently grow faster in the long run. When examining rural America as a whole, the eastern US experienced greater relative drops in measures of dynamism, especially in a wide swath of the northeastern region that trended toward President Donald Trump in 2016. These reductions appear to be associated with relatively worse rural economic performance, especially in the East. Although causation of local economic dynamism and performance is not established, some cautious policy suggestions are made. First, improve tax and regulatory policies to better support small firms and new startups relative to larger firms. Second, enhance labor supply incentives such as the earned income tax credit (EITC) and geographically target such programs by need at the local level by offering enhanced incentives in depressed regions. Third, increase local labor market flexibility, enhance migration incentives, and allow migrants from lagging regions to retain benefits such as enhanced geographically targeted EITC benefits to further incentivize migration. Finally, lessen legal and regulatory constraints that reduce labor market flexibility such as onerous state occupational licenses and noncompete legal agreements. Such place-based policies can be problematic because rent-seeking can lead to resources shifting to local elites rather than intended beneficiaries, meaning caution is needed in their application. Overall, since rural areas appear to be most hurt by declining economic dynamism, such reforms should have the most beneficial impacts for their residents., Economic growth in the United States has steadily slowed over the past few decades. Figure 1 shows average real annual gross domestic product (GDP) growth by decade dating back to [...]