Abstract

Rural development and economic change has generally been associated with growth and the in-migration of nonlocal firms or their branch plants and offices. Such change has been critiqued and at times resisted because of its implicit “urbanism” and conflict with rural values and modes of social interaction. The inevitability of the conflict has always been assumed, given the perspectives of development groups and many rural residents. This paper examines the apparent conflicts between the rural ethos and the “growth ethos,” and the considers the necessity for the pursuit of the forms of growth that tend to undermine rural values. The severely limited set of changes in the local economy considered by the common forms of growth-sponsoring economic development groups is then examined. Finally, the existence of alternative forms of economic change are hypothesized and their viability demonstrated. We conclude that improved economic well-being for rural residents need not sacrifice their values and lifestyles on the altar of urban-influenced “economic growth.”