i introduction - Lane Metro Partnership

THE SUITABILITY AND OPPORTUNITY FOR AN
ECONOMIC GARDENING PROGRAM
FOR RURAL LANE COUNTY
Grant Recipient: Lane County
Written by the Lane Metro Partnership
Jack Roberts
Phillip Hudspeth
Christina Lay
Mark Ruiz
September 26. 2012
Award Number: 07 46 06582
This Report was Prepared under an Award from the
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economic Development Administration
This publication was prepared by the Lane Metro Partnership
on behalf of Lane County. The statements, conclusions,
and recommendations are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Economic Development Administration.
ABSTRACT
This study is intended to do an assessment of economic gardening as a viable economic
development strategy for Lane County’s rural communities, i.e., small cities outside of Eugene
and certain unincorporated communities. While finding that many of the claims for economic
gardening seem to be inflated, our conclusion was that economic gardening can be an effective
set of tools in assisting local businesses if approached in conjunction with a cluster development
strategy and with sufficient buy-in from local government and private sector business leaders.
We concluded that is important not to simply emulate programs from other communities but to
allow each community to develop a plan that builds on its own strengths.
ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This study is intended as an assessment of Lane County’s stage two businesses and of the
opportunities for their development through economic gardening with particular focus on rural
communities, i.e., those outside of the City of Eugene.
Based on our research we developed the following working definition of economic
gardening:
“An entrepreneurial approach to economic development that seeks to grow the local
economy by offering access to critical market data and information, networking and support,
training, education and other assistance to existing stage two businesses to help them stay and
grow within the local community.”
In our examination, we limited our consideration of economic gardening to stage two
businesses, of which the customary definition is as follows:
“A business with 10 to 99 workers that is currently involved in traded sector business
activity or which is likely to embark on traded sector business activity with future growth,
particularly when such business is part of an existing local industry cluster or where local
conditions appear to be conducive to the development of a local industry cluster in which that
business is currently engaged or to which it is related.”
We then proceeded to evaluate the various elements of economic gardening from the
standpoint of both theory and practice. We started by exploring the apparent conflict between
business recruitment (“economic hunting”) and local business assistance (“economic gardening”)
and concluded that while there are advantages and disadvantages to each, there is no inherent
conflict.
We then explored the conflicting expert opinions and analysis of the primary claim on
which economic gardening is based, i.e., that small businesses (particularly stage two businesses)
create most of the jobs. A review of the literature, including the qualifications by economist
David Birch in his formulation of the original assertion, led us to conclude that the importance of
small businesses generally in generating employment growth had been largely overstated and
that, to the extent it retains validity, it is basically a tiny subset of high-growth small businesses
that Birch tabbed as “gazelles.”
The next issue we looked into was whether economic gardening is complementary to or
in conflict with cluster development. Our conclusion was that cluster development, properly
understood, was complementary to economic gardening and that the opportunity to develop
successful local businesses is enhanced when you have a cluster of similar or related industries
that feed off one another, attracting common suppliers and developing a quality workforce.
One of the most difficult qualities to attempt to pin down was entrepreneurship. While
the word “entrepreneur” is used widely today, there isn’t always agreement on who is an
entrepreneur and what kinds of business practices are entrepreneurial. We traced the
development of entrepreneurial theory since its first appearance in the early 18th century and
concluded that it often appears easier to paint a vision and provide illustrative examples than to
outline a specific path or concrete steps that will create and encourage entrepreneurship.
We examined the various tools used in existing economic gardening program and saw
that many of them are essentially the same as those used in any other local economic
development program. However, there is also a tendency of economic gardening programs to
provide access to commercial marketing assistance programs that seem particularly suited to
iii
retail, non-traded-sector companies that may assist those particular companies at the expense of
their competitors who are also local companies. These individual success stories may pay
political dividends for the economic gardening program but do not necessarily enrich the
community as a whole.
After exploring these generic aspects of economic gardening we began to drill down on
how to implement this program in small rural communities. Although for purposes of this
report, all of Lane County other than the city of Eugene is considered rural, we concluded that
Springfield is essentially part of the Lane County’s urban hub. That leaves ten small rural cities
each with fewer than 10,000 people struggling to create jobs and grow their economies with
limited resources and significant challenges. We discuss the impediments these small rural cities
face in attempting to adopt economic gardening programs but conclude that these impediments
are in most cases less than those associated with outside business recruitment.
Finally, we revisited the record of economic gardening programs across the country and
conclude that the only example of a truly successful program is the one in Littleton, Colorado,
which itself offers some unusual circumstances and now appears largely to have run its course,
as evidenced by the fact that after the retirement of Christian Gibbons, the father of economic
gardening, Littleton’s city manager announced that their new economic development director
“will focus on a proactive approach to recruiting new businesses, retaining existing businesses
and helping businesses who wish to expand."
Our final conclusion was that while the theory and practice of economic gardening has
been oversold it retains merit for most communities as part of a balanced, comprehensive
economic development program. We ended our report with ten recommendations for how rural
communities in Lane County can institute economic gardening to help create jobs and promote
economic growth:
1. Recruitment should be regional, retention should be local.
2. Economic gardening programs should be established at the city level.
3. Lane County is the natural facilitator for very small cities and, where applicable,
unincorporated areas.
4. A key contact person should be designated within each city that adopts an economic
gardening plan.
5. Start with existing staff and volunteers.
6. Coordinate efforts with existing local business assistance organizations.
7. Proceed cautiously in paying for training, databases and other economic gardening
resources.
8. Think about clusters but work with individual businesses.
9. Be prepared to modify your plan in response to reality; don’t expect reality to adjust
to your plan.
10. Be creative.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract …………………………………………………………………….... ii
Executive Summary ………………………………………………………….. iii
I. INTRODUCTION ………………………………………………………
2
II. WORKING DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS ………………………..
2
A. Definitions of Economic Gardening and Stage Two Businesses ……. 3
B. Recruitment vs. Cultivation (or “Economic Hunting” vs.
“Economic Gardening”) ……………………………………………... 4
C. Concentrating on Stage Two Businesses …………………………… 11
D. Cluster Development and Economic Gardening …………………… 16
E. An Entrepreneurial Approach to Economic Development ………….. 19
F. The Tools of Economic Gardening ………………………………….
25
G. Economic Gardening for Rural Communities ………………………. 28
H. Economic Gardening: Magic Bullet or Placebo Effect? ……………. 31
III. RECOMMENDATIONS ……………………………………………….. 35
APPENDIX A – Lane County Businesses (Organized by Industry Cluster) ... 41
APPENDIX B - Online Databases and Information Resources
Used in the Economic Gardening Program at
Littleton, Colorado ..………………………………………. 60
APPENDIX C - Local Business Assistance Resources …………………….. 62
BIBLIOGRAPHY …………………………………………………………... 84
ENDNOTES ………………………………………………………………... 88
1
I. INTRODUCTION
This study is intended to do an assessment of Lane County’s economy and of the
opportunities for the development of local businesses through economic gardening with
particular focus on rural communities, i.e., those outside of the City of Eugene.
Specifically, our plan was to:
(1) Review existing literature to determine working definitions for "stage two businesses"
and "economic gardening;"
(2) Survey Lane County businesses to identify ones that are likely to be candidates for an
economic gardening program;
(3) Identify industry clusters containing stage two businesses or ones which seem likely
candidates to develop into stage two businesses;
(4) Identify community resources, both governmental and non-governmental, that can
assist in developing stage two business through economic gardening; and
(5) Recommend strategies and implementation steps for an economic gardening program
that will help accomplish the goals established through this plan.
As we proceeded in this project, the relationship between steps (1) and (5) above became
complicated by our growing uncertainty that there really is a clear and consistent understanding
of what economic gardening means in practice and in particular whether an exclusive
concentration on utilizing economic gardening as a local economic development tool targeting
stage two businesses is an effective or practical approach to increasing jobs and economic
vitality in a region.
Based on our research, we came to the conclusion that economic gardening is an effective
way of looking at several important components of a balanced economic development strategy
and that stage two businesses are a particularly important and cost effective target to be a special
emphasis of a community’s local economic development efforts.
We learned that this is exactly how some communities that claim or aspire to be engaged
in economic gardening are already proceeding. We also learned that the term “economic
gardening” can itself become contentious and that in at least one case a community has largely
dropped the term even while continuing to engage in the same activities.
Complicating the use of economic gardening is the fact that Christian Gibbons, credited
with popularizing the phrase “economic gardening” to describe the techniques he originated in
Littleton, Colorado nearly 25 years ago, filed that label as a trade mark in 2009.1 While the legal
effect of that trademark is unclear it may discourage other communities from using the label for
their economic development efforts although it should not discourage them from adapting some
or all of the techniques.
II. WORKING DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS
After an initial investigation of economic gardening it was fairly easy to come up with a
working definition. But an understanding of its evolution, and in particularly its association with
stage two businesses, is important to understand both how and why these concepts developed as
they did and then determining what course a local community should take in implementing some
or all of the principles generally associated with economic gardening.
2
A. Definitions of Economic Gardening and Stage Two Businesses. The term
“economic gardening” was coined in Littleton, Colorado, in the late 1980s to distinguish their
new approach to local economic development from their previous approach of active recruiting,
which they characterized as “economic hunting.”
The idea is that in economic hunting, a community goes elsewhere to find a business they
can “bag” and bring back home with them.2 This analogy is in part intended to suggest the
natural evolution of early communities from hunters and gathers to more stable, more prosperous
and more sustainable agricultural settlements.
Early on, the idea of a community growing its own jobs rather than attempting to import
them from outside was merged with the complementary theory that most new job growth occurs
in small businesses. This insight was based on research by David L. Birch, an economist at MIT
whose original paper, The Job Generation Process, was published in 1979 reflecting four years
of research into the job creation record of small business.3
Only twelve copies of that paper were printed but its influence spread quickly. He then
devoted nearly a decade to updating and refining that work, resulting in his book Job Creation in
America: How Our Smallest Companies Put the Most People to Work.4 Its publication in 1987
helped lead to the development of economic gardening in Littleton, Colorado.
According to Birch’s research, the greatest net new job growth comes from businesses
that are past the start-up phase but are still small, entrepreneurial enterprises. Over time, the
concept of measuring company size in stages became popular, with each stage roughly
corresponding to stages in a company’s development.
Stage One businesses, generally start-ups, have zero to 9 employees (“zero” meaning it is
a sole proprietor working entirely with himself or herself). These are often considered
“microbusinesses.”
Stage Two businesses, usually relatively new companies that have surpassed the start-up
phase, have between 10 and 99 employees.
Stage Three businesses, primarily established businesses without many branches or
divisions, are between 100 and 499 employees. These are no longer considered small businesses
under certain federal definitions.
Stage Four businesses, mostly large established companies that may have several
branches and locations, have 500 or more employees. These are no longer considered small
businesses by the SBA.5
Birch’s research seemed to support the idea that each year the largest share of new jobs
were from Stage Two businesses or businesses that started with at least 10 and fewer than 100
employees. Consequently, this became the targeted business size for most economic gardening
programs, although some have narrowed this to businesses with 10 to 50 employees.6
We found the standard target group for economic gardening is Stage Two businesses and
that is what we are using in our working definition.
Less explicit is that the targeted businesses in an economic gardening program should be
traded sector businesses. This is rarely a stated condition for economic gardening programs but
it is a consistent policy in economic development programs generally. A traded sector company
is one that sells goods or services in a regional, national or global market thereby bringing new
money into the local community and not simply increasing its own revenue at the expense of
other local businesses.7
Local grocery stores and restaurants, for example, are considered non-traded sector
businesses. Generally speaking, when a new grocery store opens local shoppers don’t start
3
buying more groceries; some simply buy from the new stores rather than from the store where
the used to shop. But a business that prepares food products for sale locally as well as in other
communities is traded sector.
Sometimes a business can start out in the non-traded sector but grow into a traded sector
business. For example, a local grocery store or restaurant that develops a unique style or brand
and begins expanding into other communities can become a traded sector business insofar as
their headquarters, service centers, distribution or manufacturing activities take place locally but
serve a broader area and thereby bring additional money into the community and create jobs that
support those activities serving areas outside the local community.
Not all economic gardening programs limit themselves to assisting traded sector
businesses and it isn’t necessary that they do so. However, in determining the impact of
economic gardening on economic development we believe it is important to do so in connection
with the program’s effect on traded sector companies.
The final element that is important in creating and evaluating an economic gardening
program is the extent to which it recognizes and targets businesses in a local industry cluster.
Cluster development is in many ways an analytical tool that assists economic development
efforts by identifying the types of industries that may most profitably be assisted and encouraged
within a community. In that sense it is more diagnostic than prescriptive and shouldn’t be used
to preclude assistance to new or innovative companies simply because they don’t fit within a
preferred or existing industry cluster.
Based on these considerations, we have developed the following working definition of
economic gardening:
“An entrepreneurial approach to economic development that seeks to grow the local
economy by offering access to critical market data and information, networking and
support, training, education and other assistance to existing stage two businesses to help
them stay and grow within the local community.”
In our examination, we are basically limiting our consideration of economic gardening to
stage two businesses, which we define as follows:
“A business with 10 to 99 workers that is currently involved in traded sector
business activity or which is likely to embark on traded sector business activity with future
growth, particularly when such business is part of an existing local industry cluster or
where local conditions appear to be conducive to the development of a local industry
cluster in which that business is currently engaged or to which it is related.”
To assist communities in assessing local businesses and clusters that are the most
promising subjects for economic gardening, identifying the community resources available to
assist in this effort and making recommendations for how to proceed, we want to explore more
fully the implications of these definitions and the elements they contain, based on the academic
research and practical experience dealing with these subjects. In so doing we will also examine
the validity of the assumptions on which economic gardening is based and evaluate its success.
B. Recruitment vs. Cultivation (or “Economic Hunting” vs. “Economic
Gardening”). The debate over whether a local community (or, for that matter, a state or region)
can create more jobs and a healthier economy by recruiting new businesses from outside or by
helping existing businesses to grow and prosper has been raging in its current form at least since
the 1970s.
The debate is not based on any hostility to bringing new businesses into the community
from outside but on whether state and local governments should offer “incentives” to businesses
4
willing to expand or relocate there. In some cases the incentives take the form of infrastructure
investments such as transportation and utilities that were very much like the internal
improvements undertaken a century or two ago.
In other cases, the incentives are a more targeted benefit for the new company alone.
This sometimes takes the form of free land, low-interest loans, tax breaks and even grants for
purchasing equipment, training workers or otherwise developing their business.
The post-World War II economic boom saw a vast expansion of U. S. companies across
the continental United States and eventually around the world. While this brought Americans an
unparalleled degree of prosperity and opportunity, in the mad scrabble by each region, state and
city to get its “fair share” of this new prosperity, the willingness to provide economic incentives
to attract new jobs, new investment and new opportunities also became fiercely competitive.
It wasn’t until the postwar boom ended in 1973 that the conflict over state and local
incentives surfaced as a major political issue. Initially the dispute was between those who
supported tax incentives for new businesses, such as property tax abatements or state income or
sales tax reductions or exemptions, against those who supported public infrastructure
improvements geared especially to the needs of new enterprises.
The opposition to development incentives began to gain strength near the end of the
1970s, subsiding but not completely disappearing during the severe recession of the 1980s, then
reappearing in the late 1980s and gaining strength throughout the strong economic growth of the
1990s. In addition to those who saw the growth of their local community as a threat to their
quality of life, others focused their opposition, not on growth itself, but on subsidized growth.
Their goal was to “make growth pay for itself.”
This broad-based opposition to subsidized growth was not centered exclusively, or even
principally, on economic development incentives. It also included concern about the general
public sharing of costs of infrastructure improvements intended to accommodate new residential
development. Increasingly, the costs of roads, sewers, water systems, even school, bus lines,
police and fire protection—all of the public infrastructure that needs to be expanded when
communities grow—were considered subsidies to growth unless the cost could somehow be
targeted and imposed on the new development.
A full analysis of this changing sentiment is beyond the scope of this report. However, it
is important to recognize the underlying foundation of this thinking to better understand why the
notion of pitting outside business recruitment against cultivating growth of existing businesses
has been so widely accepted by the public at large and, correspondingly, among politicians who
wish to curry favor and support from that public.
This requires some effort to understand because, on the face of it, there is no inherent
conflict between recruiting business from elsewhere while at the same time cultivating local
businesses. In fact, in an ideal economy, there would be a healthy combination of new
businesses expanding or relocating into an area at the same time local businesses are also
growing and expanding.
That is in large part because an economy, like an ecosystem, is a combination of both
birth and death. Businesses and other economic organizations, just like biological organisms, are
constantly dying and being born. In each case, some deaths are the result of catastrophic events
and others are the natural consequence of age, obsolescence and the failure to adapt. And in
either case, growth occurs when the births (including in-migrations) exceed the deaths.
Where in-migrations of outside businesses destroy local businesses, much like invasive
species entering a local ecosystem, it is almost always a business that operates in the non-traded
5
sector of the economy. A big box retail store or bookstore chain may drive small local
competitors out of business. Former customers of the older pre-existing businesses may wipe
tears of regret from their eyes even as their cars line up to enter the new parking lots so that they
may take advantage of the lower prices, wider selections and better quality of the products now
available to them.
That isn’t generally how it works with traded-sector businesses. There may be some
initial competition for workers, reducing unemployment and driving up the price of labor, but the
ultimate effect of an increase in employment opportunities beyond the existing supply of workers
will be to spur in-migration of new workers or an up-grading in the skills and quality of the
current workforce through education, training and experience—just as would happen if existing
businesses were growing and creating a greater demand for workers.
For that matter, it isn’t clear that the infrastructure needs of an existing business that is
growing or expanding is less than the infrastructure needs of a business relocating or expanding
into the area from outside. The new business from outside may (but does not always) represent a
greater or more sudden increase in infrastructure but it is likely to provide a more sudden
increase in jobs and employment.
One argument that is sometimes made for preferring home grown companies over new
companies coming from outside the area is that the former is less likely to turn around and leave
when economic conditions change or new opportunities open up elsewhere. This seemingly
common sense view ignores the fact that births, deaths and relocations of companies are driven
more by tangible economic factors than by nostalgia or sentiment. Successful local companies
are often purchased by larger entities or, in some cases, go public and must answer to
shareholders who mostly live outside the area.
Most companies, local or national, rise and fall, move or stay, based on changes in the
economic environment. In our local area, we had a CD manufacturing plant built here by a
global entertainment company during the mid-1990s only to close less than a decade later when
technology changed and people were downloading music rather than buying CDs. Around the
same time, a global memory chip manufacturer built a fabrication plant here and also closed after
a little more than a decade, even after one major upgrade in their facility and while in the middle
of another, because of the global decline in the DRAM chip market.
Those examples would seem to support the suspicion about outside companies. But at the
same time, two large recreational vehicle manufacturers that were entirely homegrown
companies went bankrupt during the economic crisis of 2008-2009. One shut down completely,
the other was purchased out of bankruptcy by a large national company, downsizing dramatically
and then within two years moving the balance of its manufacturing to the Midwest.
We had a very successful home-grown wood products company operating here since
1946 that was acquired by a national company located in Portland, Oregon in 1991. The original
operation continued largely unchanged until 2002 when an even larger global company acquired
the new owners. What remains of the original company has been shut down or sold off with
none of it operated by companies headquartered in Oregon.
Another argument that is often made in support of local ownership of business is that at
least the profits from local companies remain in the local community. That assumes that
successful business owners never use their profits to buy second homes in places like Mexico,
Hawaii or Palm Springs, don’t invest their money in national or international stock markets or
bond markets, don’t vacation in Europe or other exotic places and otherwise utilize their
financial success to live a life not entirely centered on their hometown.
6
In economic development, the coin of the realm is jobs and the compensation paid to
workers, not the profits earned by owners. That’s because we know that the majority of money
earned by workers is spent locally—on food, clothing, housing, transportation, medical care and
entertainment. Whatever the business owners spend locally is gravy but is not the backbone of
the local economy or something on which economic development success should be measured.
Besides the argument over whether local grown businesses are intrinsically better than
companies that move in from outside there are also those who question the efficacy of incentives
and who wonder if the use of incentives isn’t an inefficient and ineffective way to attract and
keep desirable employers in your community. That’s where economic gardening comes in.
This is the way Christian Gibbons, the founding father of economic gardening in
Littleton, Colorado, describes its genesis on the city’s website:
“In 1987, I was hired as the director of economic development for Littleton. At the time,
the entire state was in a recession and Martin Marietta, the community's major employer, had
laid off several thousand employees. There were nearly a million square feet of vacant retail
space and downtown vacancies were approaching thirty percent.
“The Littleton city council expressed displeasure at having our future being dictated by
out-of-state corporations and directed staff ‘to work with local businesses to develop good jobs.’
. . . [W]e intended to grow our own jobs through entrepreneurial activity instead of recruiting
them. The idea was based on research by David Birch at MIT that indicated the great majority of
all new jobs in any local economy were produced by the small, local businesses of the
community. The recruiting coups drew major newspaper headlines but they were a minor part
(often less than five percent) of job creation in most local economies.
“Further, we had a sense that successful recruiting programs existed primarily in those
areas that were attracting new businesses any way, regardless of whether they had an economic
development program. For every successful recruiter who represented a hot office/industrial park
in a major metropolitan area, there were literally hundreds of economic developers in rural areas,
inner cities and small towns who struggled without much real success.” 8
In other words, the basic thrust behind the shift from recruiting outside businesses to
cultivating local companies was based primarily on the sense that cultivating was more effective
than recruiting, not that recruiting was a bad thing in itself. If a choice was made between
“economic gardening” and “economic hunting” it was based on limited resources and the need to
concentrate on the method that seemed likely to be more effective, not on any hostility toward
recruitment.
One consistent theme about which Littleton often boasts is that they don’t try to use tax
incentives to recruit businesses. Lest this seem like a self-serving claim, Littleton’s website
includes testimonials from several local newspapers and other independent sources to verify
this:9
“Refusing to offer financial incentives is a cornerstone of Littleton's unconventional
economic-development strategy. The city won't grant tax breaks or pose in corporate
beauty contests. It doesn't offer startup classes or micro-enterprise loans.
“Instead, the economic development department aids local entrepreneurs by acting like
an outsourced business development unit. It's based on the concept of 'economic
gardening' rather than 'economic hunting.' By this, the city attempts to grow jobs through
entrepreneurial activity instead of recruiting them.”
-- Denver Rocky Mountain News
7
“Littleton's economic gardening program is on the international map. Recently, about 15
people from as close as Steamboat Springs and as far away as Australia attended a
seminar at the Littleton Community Center to learn more about Littleton's program of
nurturing small businesses rather than offering incentives to attract large businesses.”
—Littleton Independent
“At a time when many local governments seek to lure new business to their
communities by offering incentives and big tax breaks, the city of Littleton is something
of a maverick—it prefers to grow its own.
“'We fundamentally believe helping entrepreneurs is the best way to help the economy,'
said Chris Gibbons, director of Littleton's Business/Industry Affairs office.
“To that end, the municipality engages in what Gibbons calls 'economic gardening.' In
its simplest form, economic gardening involves cultivating local businesses by providing
them with the tools and the information they need to be successful and grow.
—South Metro Business Ledger
“You won't catch Littleton city officials waving a fistful of dollars or flaunting a lengthy
list of incentives in an attempt to lure the Nikes of the world. No, they believe in growing
their own rather than casting about for the big one. It's a development philosophy dubbed
'economic gardening,' and the basis of the city's New Economy Program, which since its
launch in 1990 has attracted the interest of economic developers both nationally and
worldwide.”
—Colorado Business
Despite these claims, virtually all of Littleton’s industrial land is located within one of
Colorado’s Enterprise Zones. Under this program, any city, county or special district within an
Enterprise Zone is authorized to negotiate with individual taxpayers who have qualifying new
business facilities: a) an incentive payment or property tax credit equal to not more than the
amount of the increase in property tax liability over pre-Enterprise Zone levels; and b) a refund
of local sales taxes on purchases of equipment, machinery, machine tools, or supplies used in the
taxpayer's business in the Enterprise Zone.
The amount of the local tax break in an Enterprise Zone is negotiated on a case-by-case
basis with taxpayers who establish a new business facility or expand an existing facility which
qualifies as a new business facility. The total amount of the incentive payment or property tax
credit may be up to 50 percent of the jurisdiction’s levy on taxable personal property, used in
connection with operation of the new or expanded business facility for the current tax year.
There are other state tax incentives available to local businesses operating in the Littleton
Enterprise Zone. These include:10
(1) Investment tax credit for equipment used exclusively in an enterprise zone.
(2) Job Training Tax Credit for employers who carry out a qualified job training program
for their enterprise zone employees. The tax credit equals 10 percent of their eligible training
costs.
(3) New Business Facility (NBF) Jobs Credit for businesses hiring new employees in
connection with a "new business facility" located in an enterprise zone. This is a credit against
state income taxes of $500 for each such employee. An expansion of an existing facility may be
8
considered a "new business facility" if the expansion adds at least 10 employees or a 10 percent
increase over the previous annual average, if it is at least $1 million in investment, or, if less, at
least doubles the original investment in the facility.
(4) New Business Facility (NBF) Health Insurance Credit is provided in order to
encourage employer-sponsored health insurance plans, so that a taxpayer with a qualifying new
business facility is allowed a two-year $200 tax credit for each new business facility employee
who is insured under a qualifying employer-sponsored health insurance program.
(5) New Business Facility (NBF) Agricultural Processing Jobs Credit provides
an additional credit of $500 per new business facility employee may be claimed by businesses
which add value to agricultural commodities through manufacturing or processing. Businesses
that qualify for the NBF Ag Processing Jobs Credit also qualify for the NBF Jobs Credit, and can
take the $500 NBF Ag Processing Jobs Credit in addition to the $500 NBF Jobs Credit, for a
total of $1,000.
(6) R&D Increase Tax Credit allows taxpayers who make private expenditures on
research and experimental activities (as defined in federal tax law) conducted in an enterprise
zone qualify for an income tax credit. This credit equals 3 percent of the amount of the increase
in the taxpayer's R&D expenditures within the zone for the current tax year above the average of
R&D expenditures within the zone area in the previous two years.
(7) Vacant Building Rehabilitation Tax Credit allows owners or tenants of commercial
buildings in an enterprise zone which are at least 20 years old and have been vacant for at least
2 years to claim a credit of 25 percent of the cost of rehabilitating each building. The credit is
limited to $50,000.
(8) Manufacturing and Mining Sales and Use Tax Exemption is available when
machinery is used solely and exclusively in an Enterprise Zone. In that case the standard
statewide manufacturing/machinery exemption is broader:
(a) Machinery used solely and exclusively in a designated enterprise zone does not have
to be capitalized to qualify for the exemption.
(b) Materials for construction or repair of machinery or machine tools are exempt from
the state sales and use tax if the machinery is used exclusively in an Enterprise Zone.
(c) Mining operations are included in the definition of manufacturing when performed in
an Enterprise Zone.
(9) Commercial Vehicle Investment Tax Credit provides that a taxpayer who makes an
investment in a qualifying commercial vehicle on or after July 1, 2011, may submit an
application to the Economic Development Commission for their consideration to receive a tax
credit in the amount of 1.5% of the investment. The commercial vehicle must remain
predominantly housed and based in the Enterprise Zone for 12 months per statute.
(10) Contribution Tax Credit provides that a taxpayer who makes a contribution to
certain eligible Enterprise Zone economic development projects including business assistance,
job training, economic development marketing, community development and homeless
organizations in zones may claim a tax credit. To be eligible, a proposed project must be
approved by the local Enterprise Zone administrator and approved by the Colorado Economic
Development Commission. The amount of the credit is 25 percent of the value of the
contribution, up to $100,000 in tax credits (12.5% for in-kind contributions up to $50,000 in
credit
9
In addition to these incentives that are specific to businesses within an Enterprise Zone,
the state of Colorado offers additional incentives for which businesses locating or expanding in
Littleton can qualify, including:11
(1) The Job Growth Incentive Tax Credit provides a state income tax credit to businesses
undertaking job creation projects that would not occur in Colorado without this program.
(2) The Strategic Fund Cash Incentive program supports and encourages new business
development, business expansions and relocations that have generated new jobs throughout the
state. In some cases, the Strategic Cash Fund may also be able to provide support for initiatives
led by non-profit entities pertaining to key industries or regional development.
(3) Local governments can provide property tax credits or incentive payments based on
the amount of increased property taxes for qualifying new business activity in their
jurisdictions.
(4) The Colorado First and Existing Industry grants are jointly administered by OEDIT
and the Colorado Community College System. The state may be able to provide specific
support to retain jobs or offers business-friendly tools that assist in retaining jobs (such as the
Enterprise Zone Program) for this grant.
(5) The Infrastructure Assistance program is designed to create new permanent jobs and
retain existing jobs, primarily for low‐ and moderate‐income persons. The state may be able
to provide specific support to retain jobs or offers business-friendly tools that assist in retaining
jobs (such as the Enterprise Zone Program) for this grant.
(6) The Biotechnical Sales and Use Tax Refund allows Colorado to promote its
biotechnology industries by providing them with a taxpayer-friendly means to recover the sales
and use previously-paid tax expenses on equipment and supplies used for research and
development.
(7) The Colorado Aircraft Manufacturer Tax Credit allows Aircraft manufacturers located
in a Colorado aviation development zone to qualify for a state income tax credit of $1,200 per
new employee.12
Taken altogether this is a fairly robust suite of economic development incentives. While
not in the same league with the seven or eight figure incentives offered in the industrial
Midwest, the Southeast (plus Texas) or even, for some biotech and hitech companies, the
Northeast, these incentives compare favorably to what’s available in the rest of the country.
None of this is to suggest that Littleton hasn’t been sincere in depicting its economic
development strategy as one that does not rely primarily on incentives. It does indicate,
however, that having economic development incentives is not inconsistent with an economic
gardening program.
Nor are incentives exclusively a tool for recruiting outside businesses. All of the
economic development incentives listed above for Colorado, including those specifically tied to
enterprise zones, are available both to local businesses that are growing or expanding an also to
new businesses relocating or expanding into the area.
Advertising economic gardening as an alternative to outside business recruitment can be
a popular marketing tool in states or communities where there is strong public resistance to
economic incentives just as there was popular resistance to internal improvements and public
infrastructure investments in many places back in the 19th Century.
Still, there is nothing in the operation of an economic gardening program that necessarily
excludes the use of incentives or the recruitment of outside businesses along with cultivating
the growth of local businesses. In fact, as will be discussed later, when Christian Gibbons
10
retired from Littleton in June, 2012, the job of the new director of economic development hired
on August 30 was described as “a proactive approach to recruiting new businesses, retaining
existing businesses and helping businesses who wish to expand."13 (Emphasis added).
C. Concentrating on Stage Two Businesses. While the initial impetus for economic
gardening was a desire to find an alternative to recruiting new businesses from outside a
community a dual purpose quickly became concentrating on small businesses rather than large
businesses to provide steady, long-term job growth. Although the metaphor of “gardening”
versus “hunting” remains prominent, it is also common for people to revert to a baseball
metaphor and talk about trying to hit singles and doubles rather than just going for a home run.
While this intuitively made sense to a lot of people who had never heard of an economist
at MIT by the name of David Birch and his research into job creation, it was Birch who provided
much of the intellectual foundation for economic gardening starting with his 1979 paper titled
“The Job Generation Process” and culminating in his 1987 book Job Creation in America: How
our smallest companies put the most people to work.
Only twelve copies of the original 52-page paper were printed but it immediately created
tremendous interest and controversy. Organizations like the Small Business Administration
(SBA) and the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) immediately seized upon its
conclusions as evidence of what those organization have been saying for years; namely, that
small business is the lifeblood of the American economy.
Two years after this unpublished report appeared, Birch wrote a summary of its findings
in the form of an article in The Public Interest titled “Who Creates Jobs?”14 This article rather
than the unpublished paper, which primarily circulated among economists, drew the greatest
attention and created most of the excitement and controversy.
Of particular note was his observation, “Of all the net new jobs created in our sample of
5.6 million businesses between 1969 and 1976, two-thirds were created by firms with twenty or
fewer employees, and about 80 percent were created by firms with 100 or fewer employees.” 15
While Birch later backed away from the assertion that 80% of new jobs are created by
small businesses (or the subset of small businesses that others would come to concentrate on,
namely stage two businesses) this number has been cited often over the next three decades. It
remains the single most common—and compelling—argument made for economic gardening.16
Looking back almost twenty years later, a colleague identified some of the most
compelling, and controversial, findings of Birch’s early research:
“The majority of expansion growth consisted of independent firms, and independent
firms played a more important role in industries like farming, trade and service sectors, i.e.,
growing sectors of the economy during the 1970s.
“On average, about 60 percent of all jobs in the US were generated by firms with 20 or
less employees, and about 50 percent of all jobs were created by independent small
entrepreneurs, whereas large firms (with more than 500 employees) generated less than 15
percent of all net new jobs.
“Not all small firms were job providers. It was the smaller, younger firms that generated
jobs – once the firms were more than four years old, their job generation powers declined
substantially.”17
Much of the initial research was based on data compiled from multi-year data bases
compiled by Dun & Bradstreet for the purpose of determining individual companies’ credit
ratings not to document economic change or development. The SBA, while encouraged by
Birch’s conclusions, contracted with the Brookings Institution to review the same data but their
11
report, issued in 1982, showed a much smaller percentage of job growth generated from small
businesses (much of the discrepancy resulting from whether the size of a business was
determined on the basis of the entire enterprise or from a local establishment or branch).18
Both the interest and controversy produced by the initial paper led Birch to expand his
research and develop his theme more fully in the 1987 book, Job Creation in America. While
the book’s subtitle (“How our smallest companies put the most people to work”) emphasizes the
issue of business size, the text itself had more of an emphasis on the type of businesses Birch
believed had created and would continue to create the greatest number of new jobs, i.e., small
innovative and entrepreneurial businesses in the service and technology sector.
For the next decade and longer, Birch continued to refine his studies into indentifying the
businesses that created the best jobs and how they could be nurtured. In particular, he corrected
the earlier confusion between enterprise and establishment size and still demonstrated a
significant advantage in the job creation record of small enterprises, not just establishments. Sill,
by far the most lasting message that others took from his work was the idea that small businesses
create most new jobs and that growing a local economy was primarily a function of helping and
encouraging the growth of small businesses.
From the beginning, however, this point was disputed by a large number of critics. Three
years after Birch’s Job Creation in America was published, a book appeared that directly
challenged the notion that small businesses are the primary engine of economic growth and
prosperity. Titled Employers Large and Small19 it was written by three economists, James
Medoff and James Hamilton from Harvard University together with Charles Brown from the
University of Michigan.
“Perhaps the most widespread misconception about small businesses in the United States
is that they generate the vast majority of jobs and are therefore the key to economic growth,”
they wrote. “Our research, however, shows that small businesses do not create as many jobs as
advocates claim and that differences in the job creation rates of large and small firms have few
policy implications in any case.”20
Addressing Birch’s work specifically, these authors cited Birch’s earlier work and
criticized the failure to distinguish between small establishments and small enterprises.
“Moreover,” they wrote, “if short-lived jobs are excluded, the higher failure rates for small
businesses make the share of nontransitory jobs generated by small employers even lower.
Although subsequent research has revised estimates of job generation power of small business
downward, the early figures continue to live on in policy circles.”21
This book also tied the job creation discussion to a job quality discussion, pointing out
that on average large employers pay their employees more than small employers “even when
differences in employees’ education and experience and the nature of the industry are
considered” and in addition offer better benefits, including health insurance and retirement. 22
Another book that challenged the notion that small businesses are responsible for most
job creation was Job Creation and Destruction by three other economists, Steven J. Davis, John
D. Haltiwanger and Scott Schuh, research associates for the Center for Economic Studies.23
Their principal objection wasn’t to the definition of a small business (i.e., whether it was a small
enterprise or just a small establishment) but the confusion that often results from careless
statistical evaluations.
One such confusion results because, as firms grow and shrink, they often move from one
category to another. Using the SBA definition of a small business as one with fewer than 500
12
employees (which includes Stages One, Two and Three in our categories above), Davis,
Haltiwanger and Schuh gave the following example:
Year 1 employment
Year 2 employment
Net Change
Small Big All
Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firms Firms Firms
300
550
650
300 1,200 1,500
50
340 1,210
390 1,210 1,600
-250
-210
560
90
10 10024
If you look at only the aggregate numbers, it appears that small firms have created 90%
of the net new jobs while big firms only created 10%. But looking at the individual firms, it is
clear that the only small firm in Year 1 that lost more than 80% of its jobs, and the two big firms
had a mixed result, one losing nearly 45% of its jobs the other increasing employment by more
than 85%.
How can the results on an individual firm basis show such a dramatically different result
from the aggregate numbers? Basically, because Firm 2 was counted as a big firm in Year 1 but
became a small firm in Year 2. If you continued to classify the businesses according to their
starting employment, the aggregate numbers would show that the big firms created a net increase
of 350 jobs and the small firm a net loss of 250 jobs.
While the authors of Job Creation and Destruction concluded that “many claims about
the job-creating prowess of small businesses derive from a fallacious interpretation of data” they
admitted that “[s]ophisticated proponents of the view that small businesses create a
disproportionate fraction of new jobs recognize the fallacy . . .” including Birch and the SBA.
However, while acknowledging that they avoided this trap by using “longitudinal data on
individual establishments or firms” the authors nonetheless concluded that “they often present
results in a way that can mislead the statistically naïve.”25
Here is their example of how this can happen even if jobs continue to be counted based
on their Year 1 classification:
Year 1 employment
Year 2 employment
Net Change
Small Big All
Firm 1 Firm 2 Firm 3 Firms Firms Firms
300
600
600
300 1,200 1,500
350
400
800
350 1,200 1,550
50
-200
200
50
0
5026
In this example, most of the studies touting the robust growth among small businesses
would claim that 100% of net new jobs were created by small businesses, even though they
created only 20% of all of the total new jobs. To see how this can be confusing, imagine in the
table above, Firm 2 declined to 375 instead of 400. In that case, total employment would have
declined by 25 jobs and Firm 1 would have been responsible for 200% of all net new jobs.
On its face, that way of expressing the results appears ridiculous. But when those kinds
of discrepancies are buried within a larger aggregation of numbers, they are easily disguised and
lend unwarranted credence to the assessment of net new jobs created by a particular sector or
category.
In part this is a function of what is called the regression fallacy. This is largely the result
of picking a single base year for a statistical analysis among a series of numbers that tend to rise
13
and fall annual along some mean or average number. These discrepancies increase the
possibility that any particular sample will distort the results.27
The regression fallacy is derived from the phenomenon referred to as “regression toward
the mean” which was originally recognized as a biological phenomenon.28 In the 19th century Sir
Francis Galton, a British scientist studying inherited physical traits, noted that while tall fathers
tend to have tall sons and short father tends to have short sons, “sons of tall fathers are on
average shorter than their fathers, and the sons of short fathers are on average taller than their
fathers.”29
Galton found this tendency of fluctuations to regress or revert back to the mean to exist in
many areas besides biology and he eventually formulated a universal rule which has since been
applied by others to such non-biological phenomenon as stock market performance.30
Suppose in the table above all three firms returned to their original employment in Year
3. The aggregate job loss would be -50 for all three companies. But since Firm 2 started the new
period as a small business, the breakdown would now show 150 net new small business jobs and
-200 net big business jobs.
“The fallacy arises,” Davis, et al. explain, “because, each year, we reclassify firms into
size classes using base-year employment. The interaction between this reclassification and
transitory firm-level employment movements lies at the heart of the regression fallacy. On
average, firms classified as large in the base year are more likely to have experienced a recent
transitory increase in employment. Since transitory movements reverse themselves, firms that
are large in the base year are relatively likely to contract. Likewise, firms classified as small in
the base year are more likely to have experienced a recent transitory decrease in employment.
Hence, firms that are small in the base year are relatively likely to expand. . . . [T]his regression
phenomenon (i.e., regression to the firm’s long-run size) creates the illusion that small firms
systematically outperform large ones. . . .
“There is good reason to suspect that the regression fallacy operated with even greater
effect in the longitudinal data sets used in the widely cited studies by Birch (1979, 1987) and the
annual SBA reports. . . . In summary, the standard practice of measuring firm or plant size
according to base-year employment leads to a regression fallacy, which in turn paints an overly
favorable picture of the relative job growth performance of small employers.”31
The controversies inspired by Birch’s work still continue. In 2008, a paper written for
the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) by David Neumark, Brandon Wall and
Junfu Zhang titled “Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs? New Evidence From the National
Establishment Time Series”32 directly addressed the issues raised in Employers Large and Small
and Job Creation and Destruction while at the same time testing the Birch hypothesis about
small business creating the greatest share of new jobs using the NETS data base while also
applying the changes in methodology recommended by Davis et al. to avoid the regression
fallacy and other statistical fallacies they cited.
The authors of the NBER study found “that small establishments (and small firms as
well) create more jobs. At the same time, we confirmed that the concern of Davis et al. regarding
Birch’s methods is well grounded, and the base-year size definition used by Birch indeed badly
overestimates net job creation rates for small establishments.
“However, the result that small establishments create more jobs, on net, survives even
after we use the methodology proposed by Davis et al. to avoid the regression fallacy. Although
we still find that small establishments create more jobs, the difference is much smaller than that
originally suggested by Birch.”
14
There was one field where the authors found a discrepancy, however: “We also find that
the negative relationship between establishment size and job creation is much less clear for the
manufacturing sector. This likely explains why Davis et al. (1996a) conclude that the difference
in job creation between small and large firms highlighted by Birch is nonexistent, as they used
the LRD [Longitudinal Research Database] data, which cover the manufacturing sector only. The
NETS data (for a later period, and for California) yielded similar results for manufacturing.
However, the overall economy, unlike the manufacturing sector, does show a higher net job
creation rate among small establishments.”33
Not willing to let the debate end with this conclusion, John C. Haltiwanger, one of the coauthors of Job Creation and Destruction, together with Ron S. Jarmin and Javier Miranda,
answered with yet another NBER Working Paper in August, 2010, titled “Who Creates Jobs?
Small vs. Large vs. Young?”34 Building on the study by Neumark, Wall and Zhang paper
(which they refer to as NWZ), this study takes the further step and looks at firm age, and in
particular firm birth, to determine whether firm size alone is a major factor in job creation.
“Our main findings are summarized as follows,” they conclude. “First, consistent with
NWZ, when we only control for industry and year effects, we find an inverse relationship
between net growth rates and firm size, although we find this relationship is quite sensitive to
regression to the mean effects. Second, once we add controls for firm age, we find no systematic
relationship between net growth rates and firm size. A key role for firm age is associated with
firm births. We find that firm births contribute substantially to both gross and net job creation.
Importantly, because new firms tend to be small, the finding of a systematic inverse relationship
between firm size and net growth rates in prior analyses is entirely attributable to most new firms
being classified in small size classes.”35
So from all of the research to date, it appears that the basic proposition that small
businesses create most new jobs remains unproven and in any event is not as statistically
significant as most proponents of economic gardening have asserted. Furthermore, most of the
serious academic work has distinguished between businesses with fewer than 500 employees—
the Small Business Administration definition of small business—and those with 500 or more
employees.
Stage two businesses are a subset of small businesses, generally those with at least 10 but
fewer than 100 employees. Those who cite statistics based on how many net new jobs these
businesses create generally do not adjust for the statistical anomalies that Davis, et al. and other
critics identified above and, given the greater opportunity for businesses to grow out of, and
shrink back into, the Stage Two classification, the effect of the migration fallacy and regression
fallacy is likely to be much greater for this population than for small businesses generally.
The Edward Lowe Foundation is one of the main proponents and support organizations
for economic gardening. They have also helped establish and promote the concept of Stage Two
businesses as the foundation for economic gardening and, consequently, community economic
development.
According to the Edward Lowe Foundation, the stage two category seems to be more
functional than numerical. According to them, “Second-stage companies are those that have
grown past the startup stage but have not yet grown to maturity. They have enough employees to
exceed the comfortable control span of one owner/CEO and benefit from adding professional
managers, but they may not have a full-scale professional management team.”36
In addition to employee-count, the Edward Lowe Foundation also considers a company’s
gross revenue to be an important consideration as to whether it is a Stage Two
15
Business: “A business typically begins to enter its second stage when it approaches $1 million in
total receipts. The transition process may continue until it hits $100 million in receipts, although
for most companies $50 million represents the upper limit of second stage. By $100 million, a
firm will have to be professionally managed in order to continue to thrive and grow and be in its
third stage of development. Employee numbers and revenue ranges vary by industry, but the
population of firms with 10 to 100 employees and/or $750,000 to $50 million in receipts includes
the vast majority of second-stage companies.”37
The narrative portion of these definitions is more relevant, and more revealing, than the
numerical boundaries they attempt to set. The idea of economic gardening is to help small
companies that are already past the start-up phase, and past the point where the owner can also
serve as the sole manager of the business, but not yet at the point where they can afford to, or
need to, employ a full-scale professional management team.
For that reason, we left gross sales numbers out of our working definition of economic
gardening. If we ever run into a business with 25 employees and $500 million in sales or one
with 250 employees and only $25 million in sales maybe the answer of how to classify the
business will come to us.
Although the concentration on Stage Two businesses has become common in economic
gardening literature it is worth noting that Littleton did not focus on this distinction when they
originally developed and implemented the concept of economic gardening. In fact, it has been
their practice not to turn away any business that approached them for help.
As recently as 2004, Christine Hamilton-Pennell, the economic intelligence specialist for
the City of Littleton, Colorado, Business/Industry Affairs department, wrote: “Most of our
businesses are small, with less than 10 employees and under $200,000 a year in sales. These
microentrepreneurs come to us primarily because they want to be more competitive – to increase
their sales, improve their market share, and find new markets for their products or services.”38
Traditionally, the reason most economic gardening programs reject businesses with fewer
than 10 employees is that they are predominantly start-ups and thus have a notoriously high
fatality rate. While we prefer the narrative description of stage two businesses from the Edward
Lowe Foundation quoted above, from a practical standpoint it makes sense to use the standard
numerical guide of a business with 10 to 99 employees as a rule of thumb, though not as a ironclad rule.
In particular, it is not reasonable to stop working with a company once it exceeds 100
employees if that company continues to seek assistance. Nor should companies within a target
cluster be omitted simply because they fit into a numerical slot even though assisting such
companies would also assist a number of stage two companies.
D. Cluster Development and Economic Gardening. For the last decade, the hottest
economic development strategy hasn’t been economic gardening; it’s been cluster development.
Whether its popularity is because it is more readily understood than economic gardening or
because it’s even more obscure may depend either on who’s trying to explain it or who’s trying
to understand it.
In either case, its academic pedigree is impeccable. The modern father of cluster
development theory is Michael E. Porter, an economist who was then a professor of business
administration at the Harvard Business School. The concept of clusters was first introduced in
his classic treatise on competitiveness and international economic development, The Competitive
Advantage of Nations.39
16
According to Porter, “The basic unit of analysis for understanding national advantage is
the industry. Nations succeed not in isolated industries, however, but in clusters of industries
connected through vertical and horizontal relationships. A nation’s economy contains a mix of
clusters, whose makeup and sources of competitive advantage (or disadvantage) reflect the state
of the economy’s development.”40
It didn’t take long for Porter to see that measuring the competitiveness of a nation by the
success of its industry clusters wasn’t entirely different from measuring the success of
geographic areas within a nation such as states, counties and cities as well as regions that were
not separate political jurisdictions but which shared certain economic, geographic and resourcebased characteristics and relationships. Consequently, he expanded his vision of cluster
development in an article in the Harvard Business Review titled “Clusters and the New
Economics of Competition”41 along with two original articles included in his book On
Competition42 which were titled “Clusters and Competition”43 and “Competing Across
Locations.”44
The Harvard Business Review article was the most influential in promoting a cluster
approach to economic development in the United States. It flatly stated, “Clusters affect
competitiveness within countries as well as across national borders. Therefore, they lead to new
agendas for all business executives—not just those who compete globally. More broadly, clusters
represent a new way of thinking about location, challenging much of the conventional wisdom
about how companies should be configured, how institutions such as universities can contribute
to competitive success, and how governments can promote economic development and
prosperity.”45
The article also contained a map of the United States identifying clusters that then existed
in the United States. In retrospect, that map may be a warning that planning the future based on
the past and the present can be dangerous. For example, the clusters identified for Oregon were
electrical measuring equipment, woodworking equipment and logging and lumber supplies,
while the clusters for Seattle were aircraft equipment, metal fabrication and design, boat and
ship building.46
While Porter’s identification of existing clusters did not always provide a road map for
the future, he was convinced that clusters played an important role in helping regions or areas
compete successfully in a global economy:
“Clusters affect competition in three broad ways: first, by increasing the productivity of
companies based in the area; second, by driving the direction and pace of innovation, which
underpins future productivity growth; and third, by stimulating the formation of new businesses,
which expands and strengthens the cluster itself. A cluster allows each member to benefit as if it
had greater scale or as if it had joined with others formally—without requiring it to sacrifice its
flexibility.”47
Among the advantages Porter sited from companies being part of a cluster is enhancing
productivity by:
(1) Better Access to Employees and Suppliers.
(2) Access to Specialized Information.
(3) Complementarities (“A host of linkages among cluster members result[ing] in a
whole greater than the sum of its parts.”)
(4) Access to Institutions and Public Goods.
(5) Better Motivation and Measurement.48
17
Porter pointed out that in addition to enhancing productivity, “[s]ome of the same
characteristics that enhance current productivity have an even more dramatic effect on
innovation and productivity growth.”49
Based largely on these factors, Porter concluded, “many new companies grow up within
an existing cluster rather than at isolated locations. . . . The formation of new businesses within a
cluster is part of a positive feedback loop. An expanded cluster amplifies all the benefits I have
described—it increases the collective pool of competitive resources, which benefits all the
cluster’s members. The net result is that companies in the cluster advance relative to rivals at
other locations.”50
The logic behind a cluster approach to economic development seems entirely consistent
with the concept of economic gardening; that is, its aim is to create the optimal environment for
local businesses within the same cluster to innovate, grow and progress together. If the cluster
analysis of Porter and others is correct, then it would seem logical that this analysis should be a
crucial part of any economic gardening program.
Some areas have affirmatively joined these two concepts, such as the West Columbia
Gorge Consortium in southwest Washington.51 But there has also been an effort to modify the
theory of cluster development to conform more directly to the stage two business concept
embraced by economic gardening programs.
This approach has been promoted by the Center for Economic Vitality at the Western
Washington University College of Business and Economics. Tom Dorr, the director of the
program, argues that when classifying companies by size (primarily number of employees)
according to the typical economic gardening model, a traditional industry cluster combines
companies of several different sizes or stages into one cluster. Dorr calls these “Vertical
Industry Clusters.”
Dorr argues that this is inefficient because it combines high-growth, second-stage
companies with slower growth third and fourth stage companies, as well as high risk start-ups or
first stage companies. He proposes instead concentrating on clusters of local second stage
companies, presumably whether they are in the same industry or not, which he calls Horizontal
High Growth Second Stage Clusters.52
The problem with this approach is that it disregards the basic concept of clusters, which
Porter originally defined as “industries connected through vertical and horizontal
relationships.”53 But for Porter, whether these connections are vertical or horizontal connections
do not depend on the size of the various businesses involved but upon the nature of the
relationship between the businesses. Connections between a business and its suppliers and
customers are said to be vertical; connections with competitors as well as complementary
companies that help develop the workforce, suppliers and infrastructure needed by all of these
companies is said to be horizontal.54
In other words, the problem with Dorr’s approach is it that looks at clusters as a way to
meet the needs of the local community, which would like to develop a number of high-growth
second-stage businesses, when in fact clusters develop in order to meet the needs of companies
which grow and develop together based on each company’s interests, not those of the larger
community or economy.
The claim that most jobs are created by stage two businesses is at best overstated and
very likely false (see section C above and section E below for elaboration on this point). But to
suggest that, for economic development purposes, there is greater significance in lumping
together a 25-employee medical software company, a 75-employee machine parts manufacturer
18
and a 50-employee reservation call center makes more sense than recognizing all companies
related to medical supplies, services and providers into a single medical cluster frankly defies
understanding.
Cluster development makes sense in its own right. Grafting an economic gardening
program onto a cluster development strategy also makes sense. Warping cluster development
into a strict economic gardening format doesn’t make sense.
E. An Entrepreneurial Approach to Economic Development. Of all the terminology
involved in the definition of economic gardening, that of “entrepreneurial approach” is perhaps
the most vague and hardest to pin down. Yet this term, or some variation thereof, keeps coming
up in discussions of economic gardening. For some it refers to a different way to approach
economic development; for others, it refers to the type of businesses that are appropriate targets
of economic gardening.
The subtitle of Littleton Colorado’s web page on economic gardening is “An
Entrepreneurial Approach to Economic Development.”55 While this implies that economic
gardening itself is an entrepreneurial endeavor—and in many respects it is—a further reading of
Christian Gibbons’ narrative about how economic gardening developed in Littleton reveals that
the process itself evolved into an effort to indentify and assist small entrepreneurial businesses.
As Gibbons explained, Littleton’s economic gardening program began “with the simple
concept that small, local companies were the source of jobs and wealth and that the job of
economic developers should be to create nurturing environments for these companies. . . .
Almost immediately our thinking was challenged. As David Birch continued to refine his
pioneering work about the source of new jobs, it became clear that only three to five percent of
all companies were high growth and these were creating the great majority of new jobs. Birch
coined the term "gazelles" to describe these nimble, fast growing companies, a term which has
since come into widespread usage.
“This small percentage number turned out to be true for Littleton and seems to be
generally true for most communities (company towns being the obvious exception). At the time
small businesses were the sweethearts of the political world and indeed we had sold our own
program under that banner. However, data started coming in, which indicated that it wasn't small
business which were driving job creation but rather a few fast growing businesses (small
companies that would soon be large companies). So we got out of the small vs. large debate. The
real issue was about rate of growth.”56
As Gibbons pointed out, he and the other folks in Littleton were still following the work
of economist David Birch, who’s 1987 book Job Creation in America was widely cited for the
proposition that small businesses create most jobs even though he also noted that innovation and
entrepreneurship were more important to job creation than simply size. He distinguished
between small businesses that were created primarily “to establish a substitute form of income
that does not entail working for someone else” and those who “are trying to build a significant
corporation. . . . [I]ncome appears not to be their primary motivation. They are driven to create
an innovative force in the corporate world”57
These latter businesses, which Birch termed “entrepreneurial” (in contrast to the former,
which he calls “income substitutors”), are the three to five percent of “gazelles” Gibbons cited as
responsible for creating most of the net new jobs.58 The term gazelle was first popularized in a
paper co-written by Birch and his erstwhile critic James Medoff (one of the co-authors of
Employers Large and Small59) setting forth the common ground they had found regarding
gazelles as the most dynamic job creators in the economy.60
19
Defining small businesses as firms employing 100 or fewer employees, they agreed that
“the relative role of smaller firms in generating jobs varies enormously from time to time and
place to place” but that “most overall small-firm creation occurs within a relatively small number
of firms—the gazelles. During the 1988-92 period, among ongoing firms, 4 percent of all firms
(about 350,000) created 70 percent of the jobs. Ongoing firms, in turn, accounted for 83 percent
of all new jobs. The gazelles thus accounted for 60 percent of all new jobs in the economy, with
the remaining 40 percent being divided more or less evenly between the other (96 percent)
ongoing firms and the net of starts over closings.”61
According to Birch and Medow, “The relative roles of large and small firms are of only
modest importance, because most jobs are created by firms that are neither large nor small.
These Gazelles move between small and large quickly—and various times in either direction—
and to classify them by their size is to miss their unique characteristics: great innovation and
rapid job growth.”62
The other characteristics of gazelles were difficult for Birch and Medoff to identify.
They noted that most of them started very small and then grew fast, although they also noted that
“those few that started with more than 100 people accounted for more than one-fourth of the new
jobs.”63 They also learned that gazelles are not predominately found in any particular sector or
industry, not even high-tech which they found accounted for only 2.5% of the gazelles. “The
rest,” they said, “are predominately appliers of technology, not creators of it. . . . If there is any
pattern, it is that every industry has roughly the same proportion of its firms innovating and
growing at a rapid rate.”64
They also found that gazelles are extremely volatile so that “[o]ver any two- or three-year
period, the best predictor of growth is present decline, and the best predictor of death is stability.
. . . They are constantly taking risks, making mistakes, being pressured by other gazelles in their
industries (and being pounced upon with every misstep), and succeeding brilliantly when
everything goes right. If, by chance, they try to ‘bottle it’ and strive for stability, their odds of
failing double.”65
They also found that gazelles are “not indifferent where they locate” and typically “seek
places where skilled workforces want to live and where managers have easy home-to-work
commutes.’66 In their list of the Top 10 Entrepreneurial Cities, they noted “all but one of the
cities are hub sites for major airlines” and that “almost all of the smaller cities are home to major
universities” reflecting the fact that “their employees travel extensively and that the firms are
global leaders that rely on the intellectual core of a university.”67
Finally, they also observed that “Gazelles tend to be dominated by single strong
individuals (or families)” with a “generic tendency for an individual to play a strong role in
exploring new and different territory where no collective, professionally managed firm would
dare to wander.”68
All of these characteristics identified by Birch and Medow as describing gazelles are
more widely attributed to companies that Birch (and others) previously described as
entrepreneurial. Clearly what makes a business entrepreneurial is more than not being satisfied
simply to replace the owner’s lost income as someone else’s former-employee.
To start, we need a quick review of the concept of an “entrepreneur.” The word appears
to have first been coined by the French economist Richard Cantillon in his classic treatise Essai
Sur la Nature du Commerce en General or Essay on the Nature of Commerce in General.69
Writing in the early 18th century,70 Cantillon introduced the concept of the entrepreneur as
20
different from either the laborer who performs the work or the capitalist who owns the land,
building, equipment and other capital assets necessary to enable the work to be performed.
In Cantillon’s sense of the word, entrepreneurs are tenant-farmers, wholesalers,
shopkeepers and any other business person whose expenses are fixed (if not in advance, then at
least at the time the product is completed) but whose sales proceeds, particularly sales price, is
uncertain. In this sense, the entrepreneur knowingly accepts the risk of incurring costs to
produce goods without any certainty that the ultimate return upon sale will cover those costs,
much less produce a profit.
Cantillon’s introduction of the concept of the entrepreneur remained dormant until a
fellow French economist, Jean Baptist-Say, born 33 years after Cantillon’s death, popularized
and elaborated on the idea and added to it “the pithy statement that the entrepreneur’s function is
to combine the factors of production into a producing organism.”71
“The entrepreneur,” Say was quoted as saying, “shifts economic resources out of an area
of lower and into an area of higher productivity and greater yield.”72
It was Joseph Schumpeter, an Austrian-born economist who expatriated to the United
States in 1932, who first developed a theory of entrepreneurship as an essential element in
economic development, starting with The Theory of Economic Development originally published
in German in 1911 and published in English in 1934.73 He was also the first economist to
connect entrepreneurship with innovation and thus with real economic development.
Schumpeter began by insisting that “the mere growth of the economy, as shown by the
growth of population and wealth” is not “a process of growth. For it calls forth no qualitatively
new phenomena, but only processes of adaptation of the same kind as the changes in the natural
data.”74
Schumpeter believed “that the function of entrepreneurs is to reform or revolutionize the
pattern of production by exploiting an invention or, more generally, an untried technological
possibility for producing a new commodity or producing an old one in a new way, by opening up
a new source of supply of materials or new outland for products, by reorganizing an industry and
so on. . . . To act with confidence beyond the range of familiar beacons and to overcome the
resistance requires aptitudes that are present in only a small fraction of the population and that
define the entrepreneurial type as well as the entrepreneurial function.”75
Earlier, Schumpeter explained that “the entrepreneur and his function are not difficult to
conceptualize: the defining characteristic is simply the doing of new things or the doing of things
that are already being done in a new way (innovation).”76 He also distinguished
entrepreneurship from other vital business functions, even as he recognized that the same person
or group of people could fulfill several of these roles.
“One necessary distinction,” he wrote, “is that between enterprise and management;
evidently it is one thing to set up a concern embodying a new idea and another thing to head the
administration of a going concern, however much the two may shade off into each other. Again,
it is essential to note that the entrepreneurial function, though facilitated by the ownership of
means, is not identical with that of the capitalist.”77
Of perhaps greatest significance today, Schumpeter noted that “it is particularly important
to distinguish the entrepreneur from the ‘inventor.’ Many inventors have become entrepreneurs
and the relative frequency of this case is no doubt an interesting subject to investigate, but there
is no necessary connection between the two functions. The inventor produces ideas, the
entrepreneur ‘gets things done,’ which may be but need not embody anything that is
scientifically new.” 78 (Emphasis added.)
21
Schumpeter’s theory of entrepreneurship and how innovation produces economic
development had no immediate impact on public policy. From its genesis shortly before World
War I until well after World War II, there was little or no significant academic work attempting
to build upon Schumpeter’s insights. The man who, more than anyone, corrected that oversight
was the man often referred to as the “Father of Management” and certainly the leading writer and
speaker on the philosophy of management principles in the post-World War II era, Peter
Drucker.
Drucker was also born in Austria where his father was a friend of Schumpeter. Drucker’s
postgraduate studies in Frankfurt, Germany, however, were in international law and public law,
not economics. In 1933 he moved to London where he worked as a journalist and an economist
for a local bank. A few years later he came to the United States where he became a citizen in
1943. At first he was a professor of politics and philosophy at a small college in Vermont. His
early writings, The End of Economic Man and The Future of Industrial Man, were more works
about social and political theory than economics.
Drucker’s life changed with a study he undertook to examine the culture and practices of
General Motors which resulted in a book published in 1946 titled The Concept of the
Corporation. Suddenly, the study of how large business enterprises are run became the subject of
much attention with Drucker at the forefront. In 1950, he became a Professor of Management at
New York University, a post he held for twenty years until he moved to California in 1971 to
become the Clarke Professor of Social Studies and Management at Claremont Graduate
University.
It was in this role as the leading theorist and practitioner of management that Drucker
was able to revitalize Schumpeter’s teachings about entrepreneurship. It didn’t come all at once,
however. The first intimation came in his 1957 book titled Landmarks of Tomorrow, which did
not use the words “entrepreneur” or “entrepreneurship” but nonetheless resorted to Schumpeter’s
favorite synonym for those terms in its second chapter, “From Progress to Innovation.”79
Drucker’s view was that the idea of “inevitable progress” that inexorably led from one
advance to the next died with the Great Depression and World War II. “We do not, indeed,
believe any more in the inevitability, let alone the automaticity, of progress. But we practice
innovation—purposeful, directed, organized change. . . .But innovation is more than a new
method. It is a new view of the universe, as one of risk rather than of chance or of certainty. It is
a new view of man’s role in the universe; he creates order by taking risks. And this means that
innovation, rather than being an assertion of human power, is an acceptance of human
responsibility.”80
Because this book concentrated more on broader societal innovation than innovation on
the part of an individual firm, it didn’t deal directly with entrepreneurship and the role of
entrepreneurial action on the part of business. It would be more than a decade before Drucker
began to explicitly tie entrepreneurship to the role of management. This came in the keynote
address he delivered to the 15th Annual CIOS International Management Congress in Tokyo,
Japan.81
The speech on “Management’s New Role” outlined six outmoded assumptions which
Drucker maintained formed the foundation of the theory and practice of management for the
previous half-century. He then posited six contrary assumptions that he considered “a first
attempt to formulate assumptions that correspond to the management realities of our time.”82
The only assumption relating to the role of entrepreneurship is the third: “The primary,
perhaps the only, task of management is to mobilize the energies of the business organization for
22
the accomplishment of known and defined tasks. The tests are efficiency in doing what is
already being done, and adaption to changes outside. Entrepreneurship and innovation—other
than systematic research—lie outside the management scope.83 (Emphasis added.)
Drucker explained that this assumption had been valid during the previous fifty years
because the “new fact of the world of 1900, when concern with management first arose, was the
large and complex organization for production and distribution with which the traditional
managerial systems, whether of workshop or of local store, could not cope. . . . But the focus on
the managerial side of management—to the almost total neglect of entrepreneurship as a
function of management—also reflects the reality of the economy in the half-century since
World War I. It was a period of high technological and entrepreneurial continuity, a period that
required adaption rather than innovation, and ability to do better rather than courage to do
differently.”84
The new assumption Drucker proposed in place of the outmoded assumption was starkly
different: “Entrepreneurial innovation will be as important to management as the managerial
function, both in the developed and in the developing countries. Indeed, entrepreneurial
innovation may be more important in the years to come. Unlike the nineteenth century, however,
entrepreneurial innovation will increasingly have to be carried out in and by existing institutions
such as existing businesses. It will, therefore, no longer be possible to consider it lying outside
of management or even as peripheral to management. Entrepreneurial innovation will have to
become the very heart and core of management.”85 (Emphasis added.)
Drucker, writing in 1969, accurately predicted that “the closing decades of the twentieth
century will see changes as rapid as those that characterized the fifty years between 1860 and
1914” and that “unlike the last century, these innovations of our century will be as much social
innovations as they will be technical” and that “innovation in this century will be based
increasingly on knowledge of any kind rather than on science alone.”86
However, Drucker was dramatically wrong when he predicted that “innovation will
increasingly have to be channeled in and through existing businesses, if only because the tax
laws in every developed country make the existing business the center of capital
accumulation.”87 Here Drucker vastly underestimated the entrepreneurial response that capital
markets would be able to make in order to enable small firms to access venture capital and fuel a
NASDAQ stock market bubble for IPOs during the last decade of the twentieth century (and
cause a stock market crash in the first year of the twenty-first century when that bubble burst).
Roughly contemporaneous with this speech, a new book by Drucker touched on some of
these same issues. The Age of Discontinuity88covered a wide-range of subjects with an eye to the
future that even today deserves study. It was also the first time Drucker identifies Schumpeter as
the source of his thoughts on innovation and entrepreneurship.89
For our purposes, of greatest interest is Chapter 3 on “The New Entrepreneur” included
in Part One of the book on “The Knowledge Technologies.” Most of that chapter is an extended
exposition of the subjects contained in the Tokyo speech, particularly including specific
examples of entrepreneurial activity around the world.
One of the most important differences, however, appears in the next chapter, titled “The
New Economic Policies.” Here we find Drucker’s correction of his prediction in the Tokyo
speech that tax laws throughout the developed world would require innovation to be
accomplished within large established firms. It is not that Drucker changed his opinion of the
effect of tax laws in the developed world, particularly the United States. In fact, he argued, “the
tax laws are the greatest engine for monopoly ever devised.”90
23
Yet despite the influence of the tax laws, Drucker noted that “the little fellow, whether a
small company or the lone ‘garage inventor,’ has been more innovative than the large company. .
. . By and large, then, the big and established company has not been a good environment for the
new, small and growing. . . . In an age in which technological innovation is likely to be active,
rapid, and important, it will therefore be crucially important that small business can come into
being and grow.”91
All of this was simply a prelude to Drucker’s major work dedicated to this topic,
Innovation and Entrepreneurship which was published in 1985.92 The book was written as the
U. S, economy was rebounding from the deep recession of 1981-82 and Drucker’s emphasis was
on the strong growth both in jobs and in workforce participation over the period: “The American
development is unique. Nothing like it has happened yet in any other country.”93
In exploring this phenomenon, Drucker soon concluded that traditional manufacturing
and even the new high-tech companies did not create the net new jobs necessary to account for
the overall employment growth, which Drucker attributed to the “entrepreneurial economy.”94 In
Drucker’s view, the new jobs were a product of “new technology” by which he included “all new
applications of knowledge to human work, which is, after all, the definition of technology. Only
the ‘technology’ is not electronics or genetics or new materials. The ‘new technology’ is
entrepreneurial management.”95
Probably Drucker’s most unconventional example of the “new technology” was
McDonald’s hamburger chain where “management was being applied to what had always been a
hit-and-miss, mom-and-pop operation.” There was nothing new or original about their
hamburgers or, at least since World War II, the local hamburger stand. What McDonald’s was
able to do was to systemize the process, “provide consistency and quality of product, speed of
service, absolute cleanliness and friendless,” and then set uniform standards, training and
compensation geared to the performance they expected from their workers.96
Drucker hoped “to do for entrepreneurship and innovation what we first did for
management in general some thirty years ago: to develop the principles, the practice and the
discipline.”97 Throughout the balance of the book’s 268 pages, Drucker attempted to accomplish
this task with decidedly mixed results. As is the case with much of his work, Drucker does a
better job of painting a vision and providing illustrative examples than outlining a specific path
or concrete steps toward achieving his objectives.
More importantly, it is much easier to describe entreneurial success after the fact than to
predict it in advance. Nor is statistical analysis very helpful; if anything, it is even less
conclusive than the attempts to demonstrate that small businesses create most jobs. Since truly
entrepreneurial efforts generally represent attempts to take advantage of an opportunity others do
not recognize or to do so in a way others have not thought of, it is difficult to compile a
statistically valid comparison of what works and what doesn’t.
It is also true that more attention is paid to success stories than to failures, particularly
since most failures never rise to the level of public attention and are rarely subjected to the kind
of analysis as the successes. If they did, it is likely that many unsuccessful businesses made the
same decisions and followed the same path as the successes but ended up succumbing to bad
timing, a different competitive environment or a variety of unexpected circumstances that in the
high-risk work of the entrepreneurial “gazelles” make the difference between wild success and
utter failure.
There is an old joke about how to make money in the stock market: “Buy a stock, wait
until it goes up and then sell it. If it doesn’t go up, don’t buy it.” Picking a winning
24
entrepreneurial company—one of the “gazelles”—is very similar. While it is easy enough to do
in hindsight, it is a formidable task to do prospectively.
And if you can’t recognize the future gazelles, is there a way to encourage or even create
gazelles through economic gardening? Increasingly, the key to economic gardening has been
seen as creating the right economic environment--or “soil”—in which entrepreneurs can take
root and grow their companies, hoping that a certain small number will—to mix the metaphor—
turn into gazelles.
Once the gazelles identify themselves, it makes sense for local governments to focus on
helping them continue to grow and, to the extent possible, encouraging them to remain
headquartered in their community. This is where economic gardening can play a crucial role, for
while it has not unlocked the secret to creating gazelles, it should focus as much of its energy as
possible on assisting the gazelles reach their potential without having to relocate elsewhere.
F. The Tools of Economic Gardening. From the beginning, the primary case for
economic gardening has been that economic development efforts are more effective if focused
on (1) small business and (2) existing local businesses. The bigger challenge—and one the folks
in Littleton had to grapple with early--was what economic development tools are effective in
helping existing small businesses survive and grow.
In our working definition of economic gardening, we described the basic tools of this
approach to economic development as including access to critical market data and information,
networking and support, training, education and other assistance. Of these networking and
support, training, education and “other assistance” are also the tools used by economic
development organizations and their staff whether they are recruiting companies from outside or
assisting local businesses, both large and small, whether those organizations have ever heard of
economic gardening or not.
Not all areas approach economic gardening the same way. For example, in Littleton they
don’t include small business loans as part of their economic gardening program: “We don’t do
financial assistance,” Gibbons said. “There are other people out here who do that stuff. What
makes us strong is our technological capabilities. My experience is that with a small budget such
as ours, (small loans are) just a drop in the bucket for most businesses.”98
On the other hand, the Florida Economic Gardening Loan Fund was one of the key
elements to their economic gardening pilot program.99 Michigan has similarly embraced loans to
businesses as part of its economic gardening approach.100
More generally, as Christian Gibbons puts it, there are “at least three legitimate roles” for
the public sector in economic development: information, infrastructure and connections.101 In
an interview with the authors of a report for the Small Business Administration in 2006, Gibbons
described these three elements:
1. Infrastructure: building and supporting the development of community
assets essential to commerce and overall quality of life (e.g.
roads, education, and cultural amenities);
2. Connectivity: improving the interaction and exchange among
business owners and critical resource providers (e.g. industry trade
groups, public sector supporters, and academic institutions); and
3. Market information: access to competitive intelligence on markets,
25
customers, and competitors comparable to the resources
historically available only to large firms.102
The first two of these elements are common to every type of economic development,
including recruitment. As Gibbons observed, “Most communities, regardless of their approach to
economic development, recognize the need for basic infrastructure - good streets and water and
sewer systems.”103 Over time, however, Littleton seemed to emphasize traditional infrastructure
less and the “qualify of life” a bit more.
The most innovative is the third element. Drawing on an interview with Gibbons the
SBA report concluded, “Of these three critical themes forged over time through an adaptive
process tied to customer input and feedback, improved access to market information proved to be
of greatest value to the owners and operators of small businesses in Littleton, Colorado.”104
This began in Littleton by offering database searches to help companies gather information about
their competition then by extending this to include assistance with web-based services with the
growth of the internet and more recently moving into Geographic Information Services (GIS)
provided in order to assist companies with locational decisions about customers, supplies,
competitors, etc.
In fact, Christian Gibbons describes the following “sophisticated corporate tools”105 as a
critical part of economic gardening:
– Database searching
– Geographic Information Systems
– Search Engine Optimization
– Web marketing
– Social media and research tools
– Network mapping
So seriously did Littleton take these components in their economic development program
that out of their four full-time staff, one was dedicated to database searches and website
maximization while another was engaged exclusively in GIS analysis. These tools were used to
help businesses evaluate their competition and identify potential customers.
The Edward Lowe Foundation, which operates the National Center for Economic
Gardening, has identified a similar set of tools.106
Economic gardening research specialists typically assist in four key areas: strategic
market research, geographic information systems, search engine optimization and social media
marketing. For example, specialists help companies:
• Identify market trends, potential competitors and unknown resources.
• Map geographic areas for targeted marketing.
• Raise visibility in search engine results and increase website traffic.
• Track websites, blogs and online communities to better connect with customers.
These tools also form a part of what is called “competitive intelligence,” which refers to
information gathered about competitors and customers that can give a company a competitive
advantage. One of the principal advocates of competitive intelligence is Christine HamiltonPennell, the economic intelligence specialist for the City of Littleton, Colorado,
Business/Industry Affairs department from 2003 until 2007 when she left to work full-time for
her consulting company, Growing Local Economies, Inc., which provides training and
consulting to help communities stimulate their local economies by developing entrepreneurship
support initiatives and strategies such as economic gardening.
26
Most of these tools are to be acquired from vendors who sell access to information along
with specialized training. The only wrinkle that Littleton added was to have the city purchase
these tools and to make them available to local businesses without charge. See Appendix B for a
list of economic gardening tools and vendors used by the City of Littleton.
In Section E above, we distinguished between two potential meanings of the term
“entrepreneurial approach” in regard to economic gardening: “For some it refers to a different
way to approach economic development; for others, it refers to the type of businesses that are
appropriate targets of economic gardening.”
The use of these tools seems to offer an entrepreneurial approach in the first sense of the
word, i.e. as a “different way to approach economic development.” But for those selling and
providing the tools to communities who wish to engage in economic gardening, the extension of
the market for their services could be said to be an entrepreneurial business venture in its own
right.
One question to ask is whether these tools, even if effective, will help achieve the goal of
economic gardening to encourage the development of small, high-growth, entrepreneurial
companies. These tools are designed to help a company better connect with customers and gain
an advantage over its competitors to sell some or all of its existing product line, not how to
improve its product to satisfy new wants or satisfy existing wants in new and different ways.
In other words, these tools are not particularly geared to promoting innovative
entrepreneurial activity in the way Schumpeter or Drucker described. Neither do they seem
designed to help turn ordinary stage-two businesses into the “gazelles” that Birch identified as
the 3 to 5 percent of the small companies that produced all of the above-average growth among
stage-two businesses.
If anything, some of these tools seem better suited to non-traded sector businesses than to
traded-sector businesses—which is fair since Littleton never adopted the traded-sector
qualification that we have included in our working definition of economic gardening.
After leaving Littleton for her own economic development firm, Christine HamiltonPennell continues to make presentations on economic gardening. One such presentation, titled
“Economic Gardening: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Economic Development,” was given to
the IED/IRP Fall Conference in Boise Idaho on Oct. 29, 2008. In describing how the GIS system
was used in economic gardening, she gave examples of mapping expenditures on flowers in the
Littleton area to help a local florist focus its marketing efforts and mapping the location of
competitors to assist a company in deciding where best to locate a new sushi restaurant.107
Among some of the other non-traded sector businesses Hamilton-Pennell reported as
success stories for their “competitive intelligence” services while at Littleton included a high-end
grocery and deli retail store that wanted help in expanding its market, both geographically and in
terms of new offerings and a company that offered art instruction to children and adults.108
The argument in favor of this approach is that jobs are jobs and that in most communities,
there are far more non-traded-sector jobs than there are traded-sector jobs. However, unless
accompanied by a growth in traded-sector jobs, the addition of new non-traded-sector jobs
generally comes at the expense of existing non-traded-sector jobs.
Helping a new sushi restaurant pick the best location for its business is generally
designed to help it claim a larger share of local restaurant customers who otherwise would
patronize its competitors, which are also local restaurants. The same is true with helping a local
florist better focus its marketing and assisting a high-end grocery and deli retail store. Even
helping a company offering art instruction is most likely going help them attract people who
27
would be otherwise likely be engaged in other hobbies, recreational activities or selfimprovement courses that are provided by different local businesses.
Littleton has been very successful in collecting testimonials of grateful businesses that
have benefited from these economic gardening tools that the city provides them free of charge.
The competing businesses who have lost customers as a result probably don’t even realize it.
That makes economic gardening a political plus for the City of Littleton even when there may be
little or no real net economic gain.
G. Economic Gardening for Rural Communities. One of the greatest challenges in
economic development is how to attract, keep and grow businesses in small rural communities.
Because of the lack of success such communities have had in attracting new investment by
traditional business recruitment many are attracted by the notion of “growing their own” by
economic gardening.
Unfortunately, many of the constraints that make recruitment difficult are also barriers to
individual business growth: limited workforce, lack of transportation infrastructure and
connections, inadequate utilities, fewer business support services and a general lack of business
sophistication.
It is important to emphasize that many of these barriers are perceived, not real. Many
small rural communities contain, or have access to, skilled workers in adequate supply to meet
the needs of a growing business. Many also have very good transportation connections, some
alongside an interstate highway and most along a state highway. Here in Lane County, small
cities are well-served with reliable and affordable electricity, internet and (in most cases)
broadband. And many people would be surprised by the level of sophistication and experience
of small town city managers, public agency staff and business leaders in these communities.
Nonetheless, this perception does create a serious challenge to recruitment of businesses
to small rural communities. However, these perceptions should not present a barrier to business
retention and growth since those businesses are already active in the community and should
understand the reality rather than the perception.
On the other hand, to the extent some of these limitations are real, and not simply
perceived, it is important for rural communities to help their existing businesses figure out how
to mitigate or rectify them in order to survive and grow. This kind of assistance could be the
most crucial part of an economic gardening program for rural communities.
There is another way in which economic gardening in a small rural community may
differ from economic development in an urban center. In the definitions in Section A above it is
stated that economic gardening should concentrate on traded-sector businesses, i.e., businesses
that sell goods or services in a regional, statewide, national or global market. Local retail is
specifically excluded from most economic development strategies, including economic
gardening.
An exception is where small rural communities are losing a significant amount of their
local businesses to retail establishments outside their community. In that case, helping to
develop local retail establishments—including restaurants, department stores, car dealers and
movie theaters—can be a form of traded-sector businesses in reverse; that is, instead of attracting
dollars from outside the local economy, such businesses keep local dollars in the local economy
that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.
There is, of course, just a small jump from keeping local dollars local to attracting dollars
from surrounding communities because of the retail businesses in your community. For years,
small rural communities fought to get a Wal-Mart for this very reason. Not only did it allow
28
their own residents to benefit from a wide variety of affordable products without making a
shopping trip to a bigger city, it also attracted shoppers from surrounding communities. In this
sense, for many of these communities attracting a Wal-Mart was like winning the lottery in terms
of jobs and tax revenue (especially sales tax revenue, which we don’t currently have here in
Oregon).
Where such competition occurs, it may be hard to maintain a regional approach to
economic development even through economic gardening. Helping a restaurant in one city
succeed in attracting customers from nearby cities may seem less like economic development to
the latter than like helping one community poach customers from another. This is not to say
such competition shouldn’t be pursued—this is, after all, a competitive free enterprise
economy—but it may simply be an argument for local communities to pursue such competition
on their own.
We should start by identifying Lane County’s rural cities. We should start with the 12
incorporated cities in Lane County listed by population according to the 2010 U. S. Census:
2010
156,185
2000
137,893
1990
112,733
59,403
52,864
44,664
Cottage Grove
9,686
8,445
7,403
Florence
8,466
7,263
5,171
Junction City
5,392
4,721
3,692
Creswell
5,031
3,579
2,431
Veneta
4,561
2,762
2,519
Oakridge
3,205
3,172
3,063
Dunes City
1,303
1,240
1,080
Lowell
1,045
880
785
Coburg
1,035
969
763
Westfir
253
280
278
Unincorporated
97,150
99,789
99,115
Lane County - Total
351,715
322,977
282,912
Eugene
Springfield
According to the Economic Development Agency, for purposes of this report, all of the
cities in Lane County are considered rural except Eugene. For most practical purposes, however,
Eugene and Springfield are best considered a single urban center for Lane County including the
unincorporated areas within their urban growth boundaries, specifically River Road and Santa
29
Clara northwest of Eugene, and Glenwood southwest of Springfield and Jasper-Natron southeast
of Springfield.
In addition to the Eugene/Springfield urban hub and the ten incorporated rural cities there
are other unincorporated communities that are outside of any city’s urban growth boundary that
represent potential areas for economic development, particularly Goshen (south of Eugene and
Springfield along Interstate 5), Mapleton (West of Eugene along Highway 126), Walterville
(northeast of Springfield on the Highway 126) and Pleasant Hill (southeast of Springfield on
Highway 58).
While there are limits under Oregon’s land use laws on the extent unincorporated areas
can be developed for non-rural business use, there are efforts already underway to allow Goshen
to be developed for specific urban uses and there may be opportunities for the others as well.
What is lacking, however, is a local government entity to assist in economic development efforts
so that this responsibility would necessarily fall to Lane County.
For the incorporated communities, the primary responsibility for deciding whether to
implement an economic gardening program, setting it up and running it should be the city
government. That is not to suggest that they should add staff to do this or that they necessarily
even have to budget resources to pay for the program. It is possible that a small town could
organize a volunteer economic gardening effort using local business people, retirees or even
students to assist with some of these efforts.
Specific recommendations will be included at the end of this report for how small rural
communities can organize their efforts. One thing to consider up front is whether it is more cost
effective for some or all small towns to join together on a regional basis. This is what Christian
Gibbons proposes for his model of economic gardening: “Because the program is elite and fairly
expensive, it is not feasible to undertake it on a small scale. For smaller communities and rural
areas, regional approaches are a much better use of resources.”109
Economic Gardening didn’t start as an “elite and fairly expensive” program in Littleton
but it certainly became one. When it began in 1989, it was a one-man show with Chris Gibbons
being paid $70,000 in a town with around 35,000 people.110 By 1997 the department handling
economic gardening in Littleton had three employees and a total budget of $300,000.111 A
decade later, with a population just over 40,000 people, that department had 4 full-time
employees and a budget of $600,000.112
Included among Littleton’s staff were an Economic Intelligence Specialist, a Geographic
Information System (GIS) Analyst, an Economic Development Specialist and a Research
Analyst.
“You could probably run a pretty decent program on a smaller budget,” Gibbons
admitted. “But it is absolutely crucial that the program be headed by a person who is passionate
about these ideas. You need people willing to push the edge and try new things.”113
None of the cities in Lane County has an economic development department with a
$600,000 operating budget—not even Eugene, which is more than three times the size of
Littleton, much less Springfield which is about 25% larger than Littleton. The idea that any of
the smaller cities could begin to replicate what Littleton does by themselves is unthinkable; even
a consortium of several cities would be unable to approach what Littleton does in terms of
staffing or services.
In a broader sense, there are clear geographic distinctions between these small rural
cities. Cottage Grove, Creswell and Coburg are all located on I-5 and therefore enjoy a
30
significant trucking advantage over the other cities. Junction City is along Highway 99 and is
also along prime rail lines traveling north/south.
Florence and Oakridge are the farthest from the Eugene/Springfield urban center and
from I-5 but Florence is on the Oregon coast at the intersection of Highway 126 going east/west
and Highway 101 traveling north/south up and down the coastline. Meanwhile Oakridge is near
the borders of Deschutes and Klamath counties and generally offers a better truck route to
California via Highway 97 than does I-5 from Eugene. Lowell, and the nearby unincorporated
community of Dexter, are located alongside recreational amenities at Dexter Lake just as Veneta
is near Fern Ridge reservoir.
In other words, all of these communities have differentiated characteristics that enable
them to compete with one another and other communities. Nonetheless, these advantages
presuppose that the local community can support and serve the existing business and promote
future growth and success.
Economic gardening shouldn’t be expected to work miracles for any of these areas but
for most rural communities may be an approach that seems far more likely to be successful than
a purely outside recruitment strategy. But this approach should not begin with any expectation
that they will replicate anything like the staffing and budgeting in Littleton.
H. Economic Gardening: Magic Bullet or Placebo Effect? Economic gardening has
been celebrated as a new approach to economic development at least since 2006 when the Small
Business Administration published a study of economic gardening.114
The report principally centered on the Littleton program but also featured specialized
pilot programs in Oakland, CA (search engine optimization); Santa Fe, NM (cluster
development); Madison, WI (connectivity); and Cheyenne, WY (regional delivery of services).
It also introduced a larger statewide program in Georgia which was just getting underway
(although it limited itself to helping businesses with no more than just 19 employees).
Six years later, the only one of these programs or any other economic gardening
programs consistently cited as a success is the Littleton program. Other communities are
mentioned as engaging in economic gardening and may be identified as pleased by their results
but the only specific example that ever seems to be used is the claim that Littleton increased the
number of local jobs from 15,000 to 30,000 in two decades.
By comparison, in 2009, the Florida legislature appropriated $10 million for an economic
gardening program, including a University of Central Florida program called GrowFL. The
program was launched with considerable fanfare and drew on Littleton veterans Christian
Gibbons and Christine Hamilton-Pennell as consultants.
In 2011, a report prepared by TuckerHall estimated that the GrowFL program had created
1,419 direct jobs during the program’s first two years at an estimated labor cost of $80,199,470
or $56,518 per job. However, this was not a report on actual jobs and wages but rather are jobyear-equivalents calculated by the IMPLAN software based upon documented investment and
spending levels.115
The report also included “indirect” jobs of 823 and “induced” jobs of 1,04 created by the
progam, for a total of 3,285 jobs and a payroll $165,335,602, also computed using the IMPLAN
software.116
Omitted entirely is any effort to tie the job creation to the GrowFL programs. One of the
difficulties in measuring the effectiveness of any economic development effort targeted at
existing businesses is determining how many, if any, jobs were actually attributable to the
economic development effort. (To be fair, the same is also true of a business recruitment effort
31
where it is generally impossible to attribute a company’s decision to locate in a local community
to the incentives offered by the state or that community.)
In any event, the example everyone points to as proof of the success of economic
gardening remains Littleton, not Florida. And the numbers used are almost always the same in
each case: An increase in employment over twenty years from 15,000 to 30,000 and an increase
in local sales tax revenue from $6,000,000 to $20,000,000, while the population grew just
24%.117
Statistics for a small town located within a larger metropolitan area are often difficult to
verify. The U.S. Census population numbers confirm that from 1990 to 2010 Littleton’s
population grew from 33,685 to 41,737. However, by far the bulk of that growth occurred in the
first decade—population in 2000 was 40,340. In other words, of the 24% population increase
from 1990 to 2010, 83% of the growth occurred by 2000.
There is evidence that the job growth was front-loaded as well. For one thing, the 30,000
new job number has been used since the mid-2000s without being adjusted. Although the
Bureau of Labor Statistics is cited as the source, we have been unable to find the exact source for
the number of jobs (as opposed to people with jobs) in the city of Littleton. While Christine
Hamilton-Pennell frequently cited the growth of jobs from 15,000 to 30,000 during her years
working for the City of Littleton, in a paper published in 2010 after she had left Littleton, she
used more precise—and more modest—growth figures, claiming 14,907 jobs in 1990 growing to
25,483 in 2008 (which is before the real decline in employment during the recent recession took
place in 2009 and early 2010).118
Looking simply at employment numbers for Littleton residents (which means including
jobs outside Littleton to which Littleton residents commute but excluding jobs in Littleton filled
by commuters from outside Littleton), the total employment according to the U.S. Census data in
2010 was just 20,615 out of a civilian labor force of 22,082. Back in 2000, the census data
showed 21,722 Littleton residents employed out of a civilian labor force of 22,408. This suggests
that the growth spurt in the 1990s did not continue during the following decade.
When Martin Marietta downsized their Littleton facility, they laid off 7,000 workers—
which was reportedly half of their 14,000 person workforce.119 Add to that the 450 jobs lost
when Marathon Oil moved their research lab to Texas and it appears that simply replacing those
lost jobs accounted for roughly half of the 15,000 jobs generally attributed to Littleton’s
economic gardening program.
While the loss of so many good paying jobs no doubt had a devastating effect on the local
economy in Littleton, it also left the community with significant excess capacity—physical,
human and financial. Adding to that is the boom economy in the U.S. from 1992 through 2000.
GDP growth during the Clinton Administration from Jan. 1993 through Jan. 2001 was the
highest of any President since 1969, a robust 3.88% per annum.120 The national unemployment
rate steadily fell from a high of 7.4% at the end of the 1992 to a low of 3.9% at the end of
2000.121
In other words, if economic gardening was an effective approach to renew the Littleton
economy, the soil and environment to replenish the economic garden was also exceptionally
fertile.
Not that the replacement of those jobs didn’t constitute a major accomplishment and a
tribute to Littleton’s economic development efforts. But it isn’t necessarily something that can
be sustained—and in fact appears not to have been sustained during the second half of the 20-
32
year period since economic gardening began in Littleton. Neither is it necessarily something that
can be replicated—nor from the evidence available does it appear to have been replicated.
More importantly, there has never been a rigorous analytical study of Littleton’s success
story to determine what role economic gardening played in replacing those lost jobs or, as noted
above, verifying the full extent of job losses or job gains.
As noted in the 2006 SBA report on economic gardening, “No definitive analysis has
linked the economic gardening strategy of Littleton with its overall economic progress. Multiple
factors contribute to a community’s economic change, so only the most rigorous econometric
methodology could single out primary causes. But overall evidence indicates that economic
gardening has most likely been a positive force in Littleton, serving as an affirmative catalyst for
economic growth and encouraging a culture that supports entrepreneurship.”122
If any final evidence is necessary to demonstrate that economic gardening is not the
magic bullet to eliminate unemployment, sluggish growth and economic distress, consider the
news release issued on Aug. 30 of this year regarding the person hired to be the new head of the
economic development department at Littleton.
After announcing that the executive director of the local Jefferson County Business
Resource Center Denise Stephens would be their new economic development director, Littleton
City Manager Michael Penny noted, “She will focus on a proactive approach to recruiting new
businesses, retaining existing businesses and helping businesses who wish to expand."123
(Emphasis added.)
That’s right, 23 years after rejecting business recruitment as “economic hunting” while
embracing local business retention and development in the form of “economic gardening,” the
City of Littleton decided that business retention and recruitment can co-exist. Compare that to
just five years earlier, when Christian Gibbons was listing the major steps leading to Littleton’s
economic gardening program and led off with, “We quit recruiting, cold turkey. In retrospect, it
was the most productive change we made.”124
Quite a change of heart. But does this, together with the academic assaults on the theory
that small businesses create most jobs, mean that economic gardening is simply a sham or a
scam?
Of course not. Although the success of economic gardening may have been exaggerated
there is no reason to believe it has had no salutary effect. In fact, it’s hard to imagine any
positive interaction between local governments and local businesses designed to improve the
business climate of the community and the business environment of the company won’t have a
positive impact.
If nothing else, a deliberate and constructive policy for local governments to contact local
businesses regarding their opportunities, challenges, prospects and problems could scarcely fail
to improve the local economic climate and performance of local businesses (absent some major
exogenous economic disruption) by a placebo effect alone if nothing else.
Just as the fake pills they give some of the patients participating in a test of the
effectiveness of a new pharmaceutical drug will often produce a positive reaction, any effort at
nurturing and supporting local business would likely produce improved performances in many
businesses even if there is no real substantive benefit being bestowed on them. Merely feeling
valued and supported by the community and local authorities no doubt reduces anxieties and
promotes confidence in many local businesses.
But the positive impacts of economic gardening doubtless extend well beyond a mere
placebo effect. Business assistance from local governments not only provides support to
33
individual businesses but also to the local economic development network. The shared
knowledge and experience about resources and opportunities can’t help but increase the
preparedness and performance of both the individual business and the local economy as a whole.
The question is not whether economic gardening or some other form of active business
retention and expansion program is beneficial but whether it is worth the cost. There are plenty
of people in the “economic gardening industry” today and a severe shortage of independent
cost/benefit analyses of what they contribute.
Despite the absence of such independent analysis, every community should have some
kind of business retention and expansion program. There is no reason that local economic
development officials shouldn’t examine economic gardening programs to see what techniques
might be beneficial for them to adopt or adapt for their community.
The recommendations that follow are not intended to serve as a guide to “Economic
Gardening for Dummies”. On the contrary, we simply hope they can help local communities in
Lane County establish effective economic gardening programs that will meet their needs.
34
III. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. RECRUITMENT SHOULD BE REGIONAL, RETENTION SHOULD BE LOCAL.
The idea that business recruitment and business retention are incompatible is false, but
that doesn’t mean there aren’t some differences. For a dispersed area like Lane County with
nearly a dozen separate municipalities, it makes sense to combine their business recruitment
efforts and coordinate them with the state’s recruitment activity. Business retention, on the other
hand, starts with a good working relationship with the local government and public agencies
responsibility for providing the services and regulations that are part of a business’s regular
operations.
That doesn’t mean local governments shouldn’t request assistance from other cities as
well as the county and the state (on occasion, even the federal government) in helping to meet
the needs of a growing or struggling business. But even where services are being provided
exclusively by the state or federal government, the local government needs to stay directly
involved and clearly be seen to do so. Half the battle in business retention is making sure the
business knows that it has a supportive local government that is willing to go to bat for them
when they need help.
Economic gardening is a growth-oriented business retention strategy. If successful, it
often creates a need for business expansion. If a business can’t expand at its current location, the
business retention effort may become a business expansion project. At that point it becomes a
business recruitment effort as well, since convincing a business to stay in its current community
when it needs more space is in part a re-recruitment of the business to your community. It thus
becomes both a local and regional project at the same time.
2. ECONOMIC GARDENING PROGRAMS SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED AT THE
CITY LEVEL.
For the very reasons that business retention efforts should be focused at the local city level, an
economic gardening program should be established at the local city level as well. It doesn’t
necessarily have to be called “economic gardening” not does it have to contain all the elements
of a typical economic gardening program (assuming there is such a thing).
The initial decision to start an economic gardening program should at a minimum be made by the
city council. Appropriate community involvement, particularly from business groups such as the
chamber of commerce, is also important but to be effective the program itself should be a city
program. There is no other way to send the message to existing and future businesses that the
city is committed to improving the local economic climate and to assisting local businesses in
their pursuit of success.
If a city decides not to develop an economic gardening program, that’s okay, too—but the city
should accept the responsibility for that decision as well. The decision that is effectively being
made is whether or not to have an active business recruitment and assistance effort, not whether
it meets the popular definition of economic gardening (which in itself is quite pliable).
35
5. LANE COUNTY IS THE NATURAL FACILITATOR FOR VERY SMALL CITIES
AND, WHERE APPLICABLE, UNINCORPORATED AREAS.
If very small cities would like to implement an economic gardening plan but feel that
they lack the personnel or resources, then Lane County is the natural facilitator to assist them.
That doesn’t mean Lane County should run their program for them; the success of a true
economic gardening program depends on the buy-in from the local government. Easily half of
the benefit of an economic gardening program is the sense that local businesses have that their
local government is on their side, providing assistance where possible but always rooting for
them and looking for opportunities to help in any case.
Economic gardening is not suitable for most unincorporated areas outside a city’s urban
growth boundaries because (1) they are unlikely to have existing businesses suitable for growth
and development and (2) Oregon land use laws generally don’t permit the kinds of businesses to
develop that would be suitable objects of an economic gardening plan.
Goshen is potentially an exception to this since it is targeted for industrial development
outside of an urban environment but, initially at least, this will almost certainly be a recruitment
project rather than an effort to grow existing businesses (which will mostly relocate or close).
In any event, whether in Goshen, Mapleton or other unincorporated areas with some
significant development already, Lane County should be prepared to act as the local government
(which they are) in the event of a desire to adopt an economic gardening plan.
4. A KEY CONTACT PERSON SHOULD BE DESIGNATED WITHIN EACH CITY
THAT ADOPTS AN ECONOMIC GARDENING PLAN.
Someone should be identified as the key contact person for local business. It may be one
person for all businesses or it may be different people depending on the type of business or
industry cluster. That person isn’t expected to have the answers to every question or problem the
businesses raises but is expected to know where to direct that business in order to seek a solution
to his or her problem or to at least reassure the business that its problem will be addressed.
We’re starting with the key person rather than the actual programs or services available to
provide assistance for a couple of reasons. First, if a business, individual citizen or group of
citizens or businesses doesn’t know how to access assistance from their local government then it
doesn’t really matter how good or complete that assistance may be.
Second, the local government or community may not have a solution to a particular
business’s problem, particularly at first. Consequently, it is unlikely that anyone will have been
selected to deal with problems for which the local government has no solution and may not even
have anticipated. But by having a contact person, there is a higher likelihood that the problem
will at least be addressed and an appropriate response ultimately developed.
Third, by starting with a point of contact person rather than with a pre-established
economic gardening program, a community has a better chance of developing a program that
meets the needs and resources of that community rather than simply steering people into familiar
paths developed elsewhere in response to the problems of other communities.
In deciding who to select as the contact person it is more important to select someone
who is certain to be taken seriously within the organization than the person who may eventually
solve the problem. In a small city, the city manager or mayor is the best person to designate as
36
the contactcontact person—even if the problem gets immediately transferred to someone else or,
in some cases, someone else ends up responding to the initial call.
The important thing is that the problem be placed at the doorstep of a person at the top of
the organization and that everyone knows it—including the person who called with the problem
as well as the people in the organization who are best able to solve the problem and are likely to
do so, particularly once they know that the mayor or city manager is expecting a solution.
In bigger cities the city manager or mayor to may simply not have the time necessary to
handle the magnitude of expected calls on top of all of their other work. In that case, it’s
important to make it clear that the contact person answers directly to the city manager or mayor
so that the vicarious responsibility still leads to the top of the organization by the shortest route
practicable.
5. START WITH EXISTING STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS.
Somewhere there must be a Bureaucrat’s Code that contains the commandment “Thou
shalt not take on additional duties without adding additional staff.” The assumption, presumably,
is that if the same amount of people can take on new work, that’s evidence that you must have
had more staff than you needed in the first place.
The reality is that people can almost always adjust the use of their time at least for the
short-term to balance other duties without failing to perform any of the critical tasks, new or old.
With proper oversight and management, you should soon be able to tell whether the duties have
overwhelmed the available staff or if it is possible accommodate the additional work with the
same staff and, if not, how much additional staff is truly needed.
By contrast, if you attempt to estimate in advance how much additional staff it will take
to implement a new program, the activity level will invariably expand to fulfill those
expectations in any event. The word “activity” rather than “work” is used advisedly. While
“work” should be reserved to describe productive efforts that help produce positive results,
“activity” can also include unnecessary or unproductive endeavors designed to create the
impression of steady work and productivity in order to convince employers and employment
decision-makers of the need to retain the job(s).
That’s no doubt a cynical way of expressing a common perspective, it is particularly
important in the public and nonprofit sector for the work to drive the staffing rather than
allowing the staffing to drive perceptions of the work. Without the discipline of a bottom-line
profit/loss statement, needs are always limitless and means are always inadequate from the
perspective of those whose livelihood depends on the particular program under examination.
6. COORDINATE EFFORTS WITH EXISTING LOCAL BUSINESS
ASSISTANCE ORGANIZATIONS.
A successful economic gardening program needs to coordinate and leverage the efforts of
existing organizations that are already providing business assistance services.
The most critical connection is the local chamber of commerce, if there is one. Just as
leadership from the city or other local government is critical to demonstrate buy-in from the
public sector, the local chamber of commerce is typically the best indicator of buy-in from the
business community. In many cases, involvement by the chamber is particularly important in
getting the program started without hiring additional staff immediately.
37
Next in importance are the Lane Workforce Partnership and the local office of the
Oregon Employment Department, individually and also working together as Worksource Lane.
The latter is particular valuable as a source of information about the available workforce,
including the work experience of those who are unemployed as well as those who have jobs but
are seeking new employment. Despite continuing high unemployment, matching people with the
right skills to the right jobs remains a challenge.
Additional partners to the economic gardening collaboration can be added incrementally.
Initially, it’s more important to include people and organizations when there is an active role for
them to play than simply to build an inclusive list of organizational names that have no real
involvement in the program. Once it has become successful, people will want to be involved and
you’ll be in a better position to extract commitments in return for being allowed to participate.
Appendix C is a list of business assistance resources in Lane County that may be likely
participants in an economic gardening program in one or more communities.
7. PROCEED CAUTIOUSLY IN PAYING FOR TRAINING, DATABASES AND
OTHER ECONOMIC GARDENING RESOURCES.
Earlier we examined the cost to the City of Littleton of their economic gardening
program and recognized this isn’t affordable for the small rural communities in Lane County.
Based on many of the factors discussed above, it is by no means clear that economic gardening
programs are responsible for all of the jobs for which they take credit in Littleton or elsewhere.
Investing large amounts of money getting people trained in economic gardening
techniques that remain largely unproven is problematic. Providing things like access to database
information and website optimization services to local businesses free of charge—as Littleton
has done—when the same services are available to companies in the marketplace may be
burdensome for small cities and may not be an appropriate role for the public sector in any event.
That’s not to say that these are never appropriate expenditures but it is important to keep
your eye on the real objective—which is creating jobs through the financial success of local
businesses, not by hiring people and generating sales for those in the economic gardening
industry.
As a rule of thumb, you should only pay for resources after you have established a need
for them You should be very skeptical about purchasing a resource in the hopes that it will help
you create a demand for the service it provides.
8. THINK ABOUT CLUSTERS BUT WORK WITH INDIVIDUAL BUSINESSES.
At its core, economic gardening is a business retention and expansion program. It may
differ from tradition BRE programs by emphasizing growth rather than stability, particularly
rapid, entrepreneurial growth where possible but fundamentally it remains the same
Cluster development has gotten a bad name in some quarters because it seems to imply
that certain geographic regions can set out to create a cluster of choice almost out of whole cloth.
As such, it seems like a business recruitment strategy on steroids: A local community wants a
hi-tech or a bioscience or a natural food cluster and sets out on an aggressive mission to recruit
major members of that cluster to their community—building a cluster the way George
Steinbrenner used to build world series champions with the New York Yankees.
38
In reality, clusters typically develop in an area naturally due to natural resources,
location, historical circumstances or just plain luck. Once a cluster begins to develop naturally,
the local authorities may have the opportunity to encourage, promote or even leverage the
advantages already inherent in the cluster in an effort to help it grow faster or bigger.
Clusters play a somewhat different role in a traditional economic gardening program.
Typically, economic gardening focuses on improving the local economic environment in order to
help individual businesses grow rather than leveraging the development of existing businesses to
grow a cluster that will serve the economic interests of the region.
However, if you view clusters as constituting a positive element within the local economy
that will assist the growth and development of businesses within the cluster, supporting the
cluster or benefiting from the cluster, then evaluating and supporting local cluster development
becomes one of the tools that economic gardening can use.
For that reason, it is recommended that cities pay close attention to the clusters in and
near their own communities as well as the positive spillover effects from those clusters to help
assist local businesses take advantage of those opportunities to promote their own growth and
development.
So watching and understanding nearby clusters is important but local business retention
and expansion efforts must remain focused on what is good for the business you are working
with, and not simply as part of a larger cluster or economic region. In economic gardening,
clusters are a means to an end, not an end in itself.
Appendix A contains data on some businesses existing clusters in Lane County with
information on the members identified through a recent survey. This list is not intended to be
comprehensive and local communities are encouraged to constantly search for newly developing
clusters.
At the same time, it is not a good idea to try to create a new cluster that does not already
have a local presence unless there are particular circumstances or reasons to believe that the
cluster is especially suited for your location and would probably develop naturally anyway.
Even then, don’t be oblivious to the reasons such a cluster has not started to develop on it own.
9. BE PREPARED TO MODIFY YOUR PLAN IN RESPONSE TO REALITY;
DON’T EXPECT REALITY TO ADJUST TO YOUR PLAN.
Economic gardening is not a science, however hard some of its practitioners believe they
can make it one. The final test of an economic gardening plan, like any other economic
development program, is the number and quality of the jobs it creates and maintains. Its success,
therefore, is not measured by how faithful the execution is to the plan but how successfully it
changes and adapts to maximize its effectiveness in job creation in fact, not in theory.
The folks in Littleton decided during the 1990s that they couldn’t make a significant
contribution in helping finance local businesses and thus concentrated primarily on what they
called competitive intelligence. In Florida after the financial collapse in 2008 the need for
investment capital was the biggest challenge their small businesses faced and hence that became
a hallmark of their economic gardening efforts.
Economic gardening is nothing if not adaptive. The rationale behind economic gardening
is to help businesses grow and achieve their potential according to their own needs and abilities,
not to shape and form them according to some textbook theory of how businesses should
develop.
39
Still, it is necessary to start with a plan in order to have some results to measure against
reality. Drawing upon the experiences of other communities is a good place to start. You should
look for similar communities, not just (or even primarily) in size and location but also in natural
resources, existing mix of businesses, transportation connections and most of all in the education,
skills and abundance of their workforce.
Similarity of resources doesn’t ensure identity of results. However carefully one
community attempts to emulate the course of a seemingly similar one, there is no guarantee of
identical or even similar results. Over time, it is the success and failures of your community that
should determine the course adjustments that will allow it to build on its successes and rectify its
mistakes. But it doesn’t make sense to attempt to import wholesale the economic gardening plan
of some other community.
10. BE CREATIVE.
Not all the good ideas have already been tried. As important as it is to learn from your
own experience and that of others, don’t be afraid to try something entirely new. One of the
advantages of an economic gardening program is that it can help new businesses avoid mistakes
others have made. But it shouldn’t become an institutionalized conformity that discourages new
ideas or approaches.
If economic gardening is to be a truly entrepreneurial approach to economic
development, it shouldn’t simply be reduced to a means of providing database searches, website
maximization or GIS analysis for businesses too poor to afford those services themselves.
Economic gardening is a constant learning process, not unlike any other form of gardening. The
relationship between the people who run the program and the businesses who seek their help is
not a teacher/student relationship; it is a collaborative learning process which should leave
everyone enlightened and hopefully enriched.
Economic gardening, like life itself, is a work in progress.
40
APPENDIX A
LANE COUNTY BUSINESSES
CANDIDATES FOR ECONOMIC GARDENING
(Organized by industry cluster)
Biotech Cluster
BUSINESS NAME
EMPLOYEES
MEDICAL LABORATORIES
CLINICAL MICROSTAT OF WILLAMETTE
LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA
OMG LAB
OREGON MEDICAL LABORATORIES
PATHOLOGY CONSULTANTS, PC
QUEST DIAGNOSTICS
WOMEN'S CARE P.C.
Column2
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT IN BIOTECHNOLOGY
A-B TECHNOLOGIES INC
AIRMETRICS
ANN CHRISTENSEN-ENVIRONMENTAL
AQUERO CO
CLINCAL TRIALS OF AMERICA
Column2
CSC ENVIRONMENTAL
DECISION RESEARCH
DELTA ENVIRONMENTAL SVC
ELECTRONIC PRODUCT DESIGN
ELENA M RUDY
ENDOVASCULAR RESEARCH
ENVIRONMENTAL POYNTERS INC
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC
ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS LLC
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGIES GRP
1-4
10-19
10-19
1-4
ERGO DESK CO
ERGO SAFE OREGON
ERIK D STOWELL
EUGENE RESEARCH INSTITUTE
FACTOR TEN CONSULTING
FLORAGENEX INC
GOODFELLOW ENVIRONMENTAL
INNOVASA CORPORATION
JAMES J REGALI
JENCOURT ENVIRONMENTAL SVC LLC
KATHRIN A WELLER
LAURA MAGPALI
LAWYER'S RESEARCH SVC
M STEVEN BAKER
1-4
1-4
SALES
Column3
CITY
Column4
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column3
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
41
$680,000
Column4
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
BLUE RIVER
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
MARTHA J MACRITCHIE
MC KENZIE WATERSHED COUNCIL
MITO SCIENCE INC
OCCI INC
OMNICON ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT
OREGON CARDIOLOGY PC
ORGANIC CONSULTANTS
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL GROUP
PATRICK THOMPSON WETLAND
PES ENVIRONMENTAL INC
PETER W BERGREEN
PRO RESEARCH
QUALITY RESEARCH ASSOC
RESOURCE INNOVATION GROUP
ROADWAY DATA
SEQUOIA S WARNER
STORMWATER PROTECTION SYSTEMS
TECHNOLOGY INTERNATIONAL EXCH
TREE OF LIFE ENVIRONMENTAL
VICTOR K LIN
WATER REPORT
WILLIAM G GUTHEIM
EUGENE
1-4
EUGENE
EUGENE
ELMIRA
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
VENETA
10-19
5-9
5-9
10-19
1-4
1-4
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
OAKRIDGE
FLORENCE
EUGENE
1-4
1-4
5-9
10-19
10-19
1-4
1-4
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
1-4
RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT IN THE PHYSICAL,
ENGINEERING, & LIFE SCIENCES
APROVECHO
APROVECHO RESEARCH CENTER
BATTELLE MEMORIAL INSTITUTE
DEBROEKERT CLINICAL STUDIES INC
DUNE SCIENCES INC
FOREST PRODUCTS RESEARCH LABORATORY
HOWARD HUGHES MEDICAL INSTITUTE
INC RESEARCH INC
LIFE TECHNOLOGIES LLC
LIGHTSMYTH TECHNOLOGIES
MARKER GENE TECHNOLOGIES INC
OREGON CENTER FOR CLINICAL INVESTIG
ORGANIC CONSULTANTS INC
RADIX RESEARCH INC
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATL CORP
SRI INTERNATIONAL
THE JACKSON LABORATORY
THEISS RESEARCH
TURTLE MOUNTAIN LLC
SOCIAL SCIENCE & HUMANITIES RESEARCH
ABACUS RESEARCH LLC
BYRAM ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONSULTING LLC
CENTER FOR RESEARCH TO PRACTICE
Column2
Column4
COTTAGE
GROVE
CRESWELL
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column3
Column4
EUGENE
VENETA
EUGENE
5-9
Column2
42
Column3
COTTAGE GROVE CMNTY FOUNDATION
DESCHUTES RESEARCH INC
EUGENE EDUCATION FUND
FOUNDATION FOR GLOBAL SPORTS
HERITAGE RESEARCH ASSOC
IRIS MEDIA INC
LIBRI FOUNDATION
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
1-4
1-4
1-4
10-19
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
1-4
MACGREGOR-BATES, INC.
MARIST FOUNDATION
MARKET ANALYSIS INC
OREGON CENTER FOR APPLIED SCIENCE
OREGON RESEARCH INSTITUTE
OREGON SOCIAL LEARNING CENTER
ORI COMMUNITY & EVALUATION SERVICES
PACIFIC INSTITUTES FOR RESEARCH
PACIFIC WORLD HISTORY INSTITUTE
RG RESEARCH GROUP INC
THE CO-INTELLIGENCE INSTITUTE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
1-4
WOODARD FAMILY FOUNDATION
1-4
SYNTHETIC ORGANIC DYE & PIGMENT
MANUFACTURING
MOLECULAR PROBES INC
NORTHWEST SOLVENTS & SUPPLY
Column2
Column3
5-9
$9 million
$6.2
million
SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS
10-19
TESTING LABORATORIES
ANALYTICAL LABORATORY & CONSLT
ANY LAB TEST NOW
BIGHORN ENVIRONMENTAL AIR QUALITY L
CARLSON TESTING INC
GPR DATA INC
PONDEROSA ANALYTICAL LABORATORY &
PROFESSIONAL SERVICE INDUSTRIES INC
STRATEGIC DIAGNOSTICS INC
TECO
Column2
10-19
5-9
5-9
10-19
5-9
43
Column3
Column4
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
Column4
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
PLEASANT HILL
EUGENE
Call Center Cluster
BUSINESS NAME
CALL CENTERS
CHIEF SUPPLY
ENTERPRISE RENT A CAR
LEVI STRAUSS & CO.
PENTAGON FEDERAL CREDIT
UNION
ROYAL CARIBBEAN
SYMANTEC
EMPLOYEES
Column1
50
370
100
CITY
Column2
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
300
400
1200
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
44
Manufacturing Cluster
BUSINESS NAME
BEVERAGE MANUFACTURING
EMPLOYEES
Column3
CHATEAU LORANE
EUGENE WINE CELLARS LLC
FULL CITY COFFEE ROASTER
HINMAN VINEYARDS
KING ESTATE WINDERY LP
LAVELLE VINEYARDS LLC
1-4
1-4
35
5-9
100-249
10-19
MCKENZIE MIST
NINKASI BREWING COMPANY LLC
NOBLE ESTATE
OAKSHIRE BREWING
PEPSI NORTHWEST BEVERAGES LLC
RAINSONG VINEYARD INC
1-4
20-49
1-4
1-4
10-19
1-4
RALLY COFFEE ROASTERS
5-9
EST. ANNUAL
REVENUE
Column4
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$50 - 100 million
$5 - 10 million
$250,000 500,000
$20 - $50 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$190,000
$10 - 20 million
>$500,000
$500,000 - $1
million
SAGINAW VINEYARD
1-4
$1 - 2.5 million
SIDE POCKET FOODS CO
SWEET CHEEKS VINEYARD INC.
TERRITORIAL VINEYARDS LLC
5-9
5-9
1-4
WANDERING GOAT COFFEE ROASTERS
WOOD WATER INC
20-49
1
$5 - 10 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$43,000
CABINET MANUFACTURER
CLASSIC CABINET FRONTS
COURTLAND MFG.INC
DISTINCTIVE WOOD KITCHEN & BATH
EMERALD CABINETS INC
FOREFRONT DESIGNS INC
Column3
2
10-19
3-4
2
10-19
LONNES CABINET SHOP
1-4
MCCLUSKEY CABINETS INC
REDDINGS CABINETS
1-4
1
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
$100,000
CHEMICAL MANUFACTURING
ARCLIN USA
AURORA INNOVATIONS
CARSON SAW SHOP INC
FORBO ADHESIVES LLC
FORREST PAINT CO.
Column3
Column4
10
1-4
20-49
203
$500,000
$417,000
$20 - 50 million
$50 - 100 million
45
Column4
CITY
Column5
LORANE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
ELMIRA
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
CHESHIRE
COTTAGE
GROVE
COTTAGE
GROVE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
PLEASANT HILL
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
LEABURG
Column5
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
GEORGIA PACIFIC CHEMICALS
GRASS FIBER INC.
GRAYGO INDUSTRIES INC
HEXION SPECIALTY CHEMICALS INC
KINGSFORD MANUFACTURING COMPANY
MCCONNELL LABS INC
MERRY HEMPSTERS INC
REDUNDANT CARTRIDGE INC
TERRA FIRMA BOTANICALS INC
THE HALOX COMPANY
WILLAMETTE VALLEY CO. (THE)
YELLOW EMPEROR INC.
20-49
1-4
5-9
$20 - 50 million
$1 - 2.5 million
100-249
10-19
$50 - 100 million
$1 - 5 million
5-9
1-4
4
260
1-4
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
$100,000
$96 million
$2.5 - 5 million
COMPUTER & ELECTRIC PRODUCT
Column3
ALL MACHINE INC
ALL MACHINE INC
AMBER SCIENCE INC
COMPUTER EDGE
DATALOGIC MOBILE INC
DATALOGIC SCANNING INC
ELECTRICAL GEODESICS INC
ELECTRONIC PRODUCT DESIGN
LOGICAL CO
1-4
4
5-9
Column4
$500,000 - 1
million
$410,000
$1 - 2.5 million
500-999
60
3-4
10-19
$100 - $500 million
$9.5 million
LOGICAL COMPANY
METAL DETECTORS INC
PROSTOR SYSTEMS INC
ROSEN AVIATION DISPLAYS LLC
T MAR TAPES
10-19
20-49
$2.5 - 5 million
$5 - 10 million
20-49
1-4
EUGENE
EUGENE
TRIAL VISION INC
TURNBULL MARINE HYDRAULICS
VENTEK INC
VERSALOGIC CORP
1-4
1-4
20-49
65
$10 - 20 million
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$5 - 10 million
$14 million
DENTAL EQUIPMENT
ANDREW DENTAL LABORATORY INC
BIRCH DENTAL LABORATORY INC
Column3
Column4
1-4
CASCADE DENTAL RESTORATIONS INC
5-9
CREATIVE DENTAL DESIGNS
DENTURE CARE ASSOCIATES INC
DILWORTH DENTAL LAB
EMERALD DENTURE CENTER INC
HEATON DENTAL LAB INC
IMAGE DENTAL LAB INC
LE DENT FABRIQUE INC
5-9
1-4
3-4
1-4
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
>$500,000
Column5
EUGENE
EUGENE
LL DENTAL
1-4
1-4
2
46
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
JUNCTION CITY
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
JUNCTION CITY
CHESHIRE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
$4.5 million
>$500,000
>$500,000
$190,000
$500,000 - 1
million
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
BLUE RIVER
MASTERCRAFT CERAMICS DENTAL LAB
5
MCKENZIE DENTURE CLINIC
OMEGA DENTURE CLINICS
PHIL SMITH DENTAL ARTS INC
RUDD DENTAL LABORATORY INC.
SCOTT DENTAL LAB INC
SHROY DENTAL LABORATORY INC
VALINOR DENTAL LAB INC
VALLEY DENTAL LABORATORY INC
1-4
1-4
2
1-4
1
1-4
$230,000
$250,000 500,000
>$500,000
$170,000
>$500,000
$100,000
>$500,000
1-4
>$500,000
ELECTRIC EQUIPMENT & COMPONENT
LRI
MC DIARMID CONTROLS INC
Column3
Column4
10-19
MOTRON ELECTRONICS
US NATURAL RESOURCES INC
VISCO INC.
1-4
$5 - 10 million
$500,000 - 1
million
20-49
$5 - 10 million
FABRICATED METALS
ABC TOOL & DIE CO ENGINEERING
ALL PRO MACHINE
ALTECH FINISHES INC
ARDENT SALES CORP
Column3
5-9
5-9
5-9
10-19
Column4
ARMA ELECTROSTATIC POWDER COATINGS
1-4
ASF IRONWORKS LLC
ASTRO ENTERPRISES
BC FABRICATION & REPAIR INC
1-4
1-4
1
BROWNS MACHINE & HYDRAULIC CORP.
CAROTHERS & SON LTD
CASCADE PLATING & MACHINE INC
COMMERCIAL METAL PRODUCTS
10-19
20-49
35
5-9
COMPOSITE SOLUTIONS INC
ECO MACHINE TECHNOLOGIES
EDGE DEVELOPMENT & MFR
ELLIOTS SPECIALTY SHEET METAL INC
1-4
2
10-19
5-9
FAB TEK METAL
FARWEST STEEL
GHEEN IRRIGATION
GIBSON HOLDERS INC
GIBSON STEEL BASINS INC
HANGER ENTERPRISES
HARVEST VALLEY SPECIALTIES INC
1-4
280
50-99
10-19
20-49
10-19
1-4
IDEAL ENTERPRISES INC
INNOVATIONS IN IRON INC
IRON WORKS UNLIMITED
1-4
1-4
1-4
47
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
>$500,000
$25,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$10 - 20 million
$3,000,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$125,000
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$20 - 50 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$5 - 10 million
$2.5 - 5 million
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
BLACHLY
EUGENE
EUGENE
PORTLAND
EUGENE
Column5
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
KAISER STEEL BUILDING CT
KNIGHTS FABRICATION & WELDING INC
MASTER MACHINE & MFG INC
10-19
20-49
5-9
MCKENZIE CHROME PLATING
METAL PRODUCTS COMPANY
METALWORKS PAINT AND RUST REMOVAL
METRO-TEK TOOL & DIE LLC
MID VALLEY METALS
MILL SPROCKET AND MACHINERY CORP
MOHAWK METAL COMPANY
MONACO TOOL
MOSS COMPANY LLC
MYERS FABRICATION
NICHOLS MANUFACTURING
NORTHWEST STAMPING INC
O & L SHEET METAL COMPANY
OBIE CONSTRUCTION INC
OREGON COPPER BOWL LLC
OSPREY INDUSTRIES INC
5-9
20-49
million
$2.5 - 5 million
$5 - 10 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$5 - 10 million
10-19
10-19
10-19
3
5-9
$1 - 2.5 million
5-9
1-4
20-49
4
5-9
5-9
1-4
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
$10 - 20 million
$400,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
OUR COATING
PACIFIC METAL FAB LLC
PRECISION MACHINE AND MFG INC
PRECISION METAL POLISHING INC
PRECISION TUBE INC
PRODUCTION WELDING CO LLC
QUALITY MACHINE PRODUCTS, INC
QUALITY METAL FINISHING INC
RADIUS PIPE BENDING
3
50-99
20-49
1-4
$210,000
$10 - 20 million
$5 - 10 million
>$500,000
1-4
2-4
10-19
1-4
>$500,000
REBCO MFG INC
SMITTY-BILT INDUSTRIAL FANS INC
1-4
1-4
SPECIALIZED METAL POLISHING INC
STEEL DREAMS INC
SUPERIOR STEEL FABRICATION
THE BILL BENETREU COMPANY
1-4
1-4
100-249
20-49
THE STEEL HOUSE
TUMAC INC
1-4
10-19
TURBO PRECISION MACHINE INC
UNIQUE METAL PRODUCTS
UNIQUE METAL PRODUCTS LLC
VALLEY STAINLESS INC
WEST COAST STEEL FABRICATORS INC
1-4
4
2
5-9
20-49
WEST TECH ENTERPRISES INC
WILDERNESS MACHINE WORKS INC
ZOGS SASQUATCH GEAR INC
1-4
1-4
1
48
$2.5 - 5 million
$760,000
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
>$500,000
$20 - 50 million
$5 - 10 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
$230,000
$170,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$5 - 10 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000
$10,000
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
COTTAGE
GROVE
LOWELL
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
PLEASANT HILL
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
FOOD MANUFACTURING
Column3
ALVADORE DRYER
BARTELS PACKING
BLISS UNLIMITED LLC
BLUE LOTUS CHAI CO. LLC
CAFFE PACORI LLC
CARMEN'S CHIPS
1-4
20-49
15
2-4
1-4
5-9
CHOCOLATE DECADENCE
CIAO BELLA GELATO CO. INC
5-9
COTTAGE GROVE FARMHOUSE BAKERY
COUSIN JACK'S PASTY CO. LLC
D&S WHOLESALE DONUTS
DUTCH GIRL ICE CREAM
EQUATOR COFFEE COMPANY
EUGENE CITY BAKERY
EUPHORIA CHOCOLATE CO.
FOUR STAR MEAT CO. INC.
FRANZ BAKERY/ UNITED STATES BAKERY
FRESH CREAM INC.
GOLDEN TEMPLE OF OREGON LLC
GRAIN MILLERS INC.
5-9
GREAT HARVEST BREAD CO.
HEARTHSIDE FOOD SOLUTIONS
HUMBLE BAGEL CO. INC.
INCLUSILIFE INC
JB SERVICES INC
LE PETIT GOURMET INC
LOCHMEAD DAIRY
MARY ELLEN'S SALADS LLC
METROPOL BAKERY
MODERN FOOD SERVICES INC
MONSTER COOKIE COMPANY
MONTEREY PASTA COMPANY
MUFFIN MILL INC.
MUNCHY TREATS BAKERY
5-9
200
20-49
1-4
1-4
10-19
45
5-9
10-19
NEW DAWN BAKERY
NEW DAY BAKERY
OREGON LOX COMPANY
PLANETARY FOOD GROUP INC
SPRINGFIELD CREAMERY
STELLA GELATO INC
SURATA SOY FOODS INC
SWEET CREEK FOODS LLC
SWEET LIFE PATISSERIE
THE BREAD STOP BAKERY LLC
10-19
20-49
20-49
3
50-99
5-9
20
5-9
50-99
10-19
5
50-99
1-4
10-19
1-4
5-9
200
Column4
$500,000 - 1
million
$20 - 50 million
$5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$370,000
$20 - $50 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
100
5-9
10-19
10-19
5-9
49
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$500,00 - 1 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$5 - 10 million
$10 - 20 million
$5 - 10 million
$5 - 10 million
$250,000 500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$10 - 20 million
$300,000
$20 - 50 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$800,000
$5 - 10 million
$10 - 20 million
Column5
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
ELMIRA
EUGENE
EUGENE
THE DIVINE CUPCAKE
TOBY'S FAMILY FOODS LLC
TURTLE MOUNTAIN LLC
WILD PLUM PIES
WILDTIME FOODS
16
20-49
33
2-4
10-19
$540,000
$20 - 50 million
$4.1 million
FURNITURE & RELATED
9WOOD INC
ADVANCE CABINET DESIGN INC
AMERICAN MATTRESS MANUFACTURING INC
BUILT TO LAST WOODWORKING LLC
Column3
Column4
$46 million
$5 - 10 million
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
CHARLES MARPET
5
COUNTRY WOODWORKING
CREATIVE COMMERCIAL ENVIRONMENTS
CUSTOM BOXES
CUSTOM DESIGNS FINE WOODWORKING
DAVIS CABINETS INC
FRONTDOOR WOODWORKING
GREAT WEST COMPANIES OF OREGON INC
1-4
10-19
5-9
1-4
10-19
HEARTWOOD CARVING INC
10-19
HEATHER OAK ENTERPRISES INC
IMAGINWOOD INC
JDG INC
1-4
10-19
1
JENTZSCH ENTERPRISES INC
1-4
KUSTOM KRAFT CABINETS
LANZ CABINET SHOP INC
NEW DIMENSION HARDWOOD FLOORS
NEW DIMENSIONS CABINETS INC
NEWOOD DISPLAY FIXTURE MFG CO.
1-4
150
10-19
NORTHWEST WOOD REFLECTIONS INC
PACIFIC RIM WOODWORKING INC
PIVOTAL HEALTH SOLUTIONS
PREMIUM WOODWORKING & DESIGN
PRO CONTRACTING
ROBERTS & SONS FINE CABINETRY
2-4
10-19
SKYLINE FINE CABINETS & FURNITURE
ST. VINCENT DE PAUL
10-19
SWEARENGIN FAMILY CABINET CO
THE CABINET FACTORY
UGO FURNITURE LLC
WALLACE CABINETS INC
2
10-19
2
1-4
WC CABINETS INC
1-4
20-49
5-9
1-4
10-19
50-99
1-4
10-19
5-9
50
$10 - 20 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$2.5 - 5 million
$5 - 10 million
>$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$150,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$40,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$200,000
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
ELMIRA
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SCIO
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
CRESWELL
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
PLEASANT HILL
EUGENE
EUGENE
WESTWOOD LUMBER COMPANY INC
WHITTIER WOOD PRODUCTS CO.
100-249
20-49
$20 - 50 million
$5 - 10 million
MACHINERY MANUFACTURING
A & K DEVELOPMENT CO.
ACME MANUFACTURING INC
ADVANCED SOLAR MANUFACTURING LLC
ATW MANUFACTURING COMPANY INC
B & R SHEET METAL INC.
BOONE MACHINE & MANUFACTURING INC
BULK HANDLING SYSTEMS
CHASSIS REMOTE INC
CHUTE STOP CO. INC
CLARKE'S SHEET METAL INC
COMMERCIAL DEHYDRATOR SYSTEMS INC
CRAMERS GRINDING & TOLLING INC
CRANE EQUIPMENT MFG
DURABLE CRUSHERS INC
EMERALD STEEL FABRICATORS
EXPRESS BLOWER INC
FIRE SOLUTIONS LLC
FRESNO VALVES & CASTINGS
G&D CHILLERS INC
Column3
20-49
5-9
Column4
$10 - 20 million
$2.5 - 5 million
10-19
20 - 49
1-4
153
1-4
1
50 - 99
10-19
13
9
1-4
20-49
5-9
5-9
2
6
$1 - 2.5 million
$5 - 10 million
$500,000
$10 - 20 million
GRABLE GEAR & MACHINE COMPANY
10-19
HARRIS MACHINE & DESIGN INC
HEATH & SONS INC
HI TECH TRANSPORT ELECTRONICS INC
HOLTE MFG CO
JOHNSON CRUSHERS INTERNATIONAL INC
1-4
2
20 - 49
20-49
173
KIMWOOD CORPORATION
LIFT MAST & ATTACHMENTS COMPANY
MLD TECHNOLOGIES
NATIONAL STEELCRAFTERS OF OREGON
LLC
NOLCO
OREGON PRECISION INDUSTRIES INC.
PARKER HANNIFIN CORP.
PERFORMANCE PROCESSING GROUP
PETERSON PACIFIC CORP
PIERCE CORPORATION
PURAKAL CYLINDERS INC
REARS MFG CO
ROCKWELL AUTOMATION INC
SHAMROCK STEEL FABRICATORS
SIMONDS INTERNATIONAL CORP
20-49
6
20 - 49
5-9
20-49
$2.5 - 5 million
$5 - 10 million
SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURAL TECH INCS
5-9
$1 - 2.5 million
1-4
1-4
10-19
100 - 249
5-9
100-249
30
20 - 49
50-99
51
$110,000
$2.5 - 5 million
$1,000,000
$5 - 10 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$150,000
$1.5 million
$5 - 10 million
$5 - 10 million
$5 - 10 million
$10 - 20 million
>$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$50 - 100 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.7 million
$10 - 20 million
$10 - 20 million
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
Column5
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
COTTAGE
GROVE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
PLEASANT HILL
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
PORTLAND
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
COTTAGE
GROVE
TRELLEBORG SEALING SOLUTIONS US INC
VALLEY TOOL & DIE MACHINING INC
VANGUARD TECHNOLOGY INC
WESTERN PNEUMATICS INC
WILLAMETTE VALLEY CO. (THE)
1-4
5-9
1-4
132
100-249
EUGENE
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$32 million
WRIGHT MACHINE TOOL
MEDICAL EQIUPMENT MANUFACTURING
AMBER SCIENCE INC.
ELECTRICAL GEODESICS INC
FIANIUM INC
Column3
Column4
1-4
$1.6 million
MISC. MANUFACTURING
ACOUSTIC SCIENCES CORPORATION
ANGLERS MANUFACTURING
ASHFORD MANUFACTURING
BARNHART PROSTHETIC & ORTHOTIC
Column3
20-49
10-19
1-4
6
Column4
$5 - 10 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2 million
$430,000
BEESWAX CANDLE WORKS INC
BOW TECH
CARL MATHEWS NEON INC
CIRQUE MUSICAL INSTRUMENTS LLC
CITY GRAFX
COASTAL DENTURE CLINIC
CONIX RESEARCH INC
COPOLY TECH LLC
CREATIVE GRAPHICS LLC
CVR JEWELRY MANUFACTURING INC
DENTURE CARE ASSOCIATES INC
ES&A SIGN & AWNING CO.
1-4
250-499
1-4
$500,000
$50 - 100 million
1-4
1-4
10-19
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
50-99
>$500,000
$500,000
EUGENE SPEEDI SIGN
FULL CIRCLE HERB COMPANY
GRASS FIBER, INC.
GUNTERS JEWELERS INC
HANGER PROSTHETICS & ORTHOTICS INC
HORIZON CONCEPTS
HORIZON PRESTAIN INC
HYDRAULIC & MACHINE SERVICES INC
HYDRO FIT INC
IMAGE KING INC
IMAGINE GRAPHICS INC
JEAN TITUS SEWING INC
MARY'S SOFTDOUGH
MERRY HEMPSTERS INC
1-4
1-4
METRO-WESTERN SIGN & AWNING INC
MOSES INC
MYERS FIRESTICKS INC
1-4
6
1-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
10-19
5-9
10-19
10-19
10-19
1-4
1-4
52
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
>$500,000
$10 - 20 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$400,000
$250,000 -
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
Column5
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
EUGENE
FLORENCE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
FLORENCE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
MARCOLA
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
CRESWELL
OUT TO LUNCH
PAPA DON'S TOYS
PFS MED INC
PIXELJAM INC
POWER INVESTMENTS INC
PRESENTATION DESIGN GROUP
SACRED HOLLOW
SIGN LANGUAGE SIGNS & AWNINGS
SIGN PRO
SIGNS NOW 095
SOURCE3 CORP
1-4
1-4
7
500,000
$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$410,000
20-49
$5 - 10 million
1-4
5-9
3
2
SPRINGFIELD DENTAL LAB
TERRA FIRMA BOTANICALS INC
THE SIGN SHOP #1
THE TIN WOODSMAN PEWTER CO.
TRACK TOWN ORTHOTICS INC
1-4
1-4
>$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$250,000
$110,000
$250,000 500,000
$345,000
TRIPLE J & S SIGNS INC
WHITEWATER DESIGNS INC
WISE WOMEN HERBALS
WRIGHT GUITAR TECHNOLOGY INC
YELLOW EMPEROR INC
YOUNGS VALLEY CONTAX INC
1-4
$770,000
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
1-4
1-4
20-49
>$500,000
$2.7 million
$5 - 10 million
NONMETALLIC MINERAL PRODUCTS
CHRIS PAULSON GLASS
CLAY SPACE
CUSTOM ROTO MOLDING INC
LORE HAUS INC
MORSE BROS. INC.
SKY GLASS INC.
SKY GLASS INC.
SPEC INDUSTRIES INC.
THE GLASS FUSER LLC
WILLAMETTE-GRAYSTONE INC.
Column3
2
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
10
10-19
34
2
20-49
Column4
$99,000
>$500,000
PLASTICS & RUBBER
A-1 COUPLING & HOSE INC
ACME CONE COMPANY LLC
COLUMBIA INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS
EUGENE PIPE LLC
Column3
50-99
Column4
GILL MECHANICAL COMPANY
1-4
$5 - 10 million
$500,000 - 1
million
ID PLUS INC
MAC INDUSTRIES INC
OREGON SUPERIOR ROOFING INC
OREGON TREAD RUBBER CO.
PACIFIC MOLDING AND PLASTICS
1-4
10-19
8
20-49
$5 - 10 million
$420,000
$20 - 50 million
12
1-4
10-19
5-9
53
>$500,000
>$500,000
$1 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$3.5 million
$110,000
$5 - 10 million
WEST FIR
WALTON
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
CRESWELL
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
Column5
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
LEBANON
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
SPRINGFIELD
LEBANON
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS INC.
TOM SMITH FIBERGLASS INC
10-19
5-9
$5 - 10 million
$2.5 - 5 million
EUGENE
EUGENE
PRINTING & RELATED SUPPORT MFG
18TH AVE COPY AND PRINT INC
BINDERY WEST P35
BOURLAND PRINTING INC.
CLANCEY PRINTING COMPANY
CLARK PRINTING COMPANY
COPY RIGHT PRINTING
DANDY PRINTING INC
EUGENE SILKSCREEN INC
Column3
1-4
7
10-19
7
1-4
4
1-4
10-19
Column4
$500,000
$293,000
$2.5 - 5 million
$730,000
>$500,000
Column5
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EXPRESS PRESS PRINTING & GRAPHICS
EXPRESS YOURSELF GRAPHICS
GREEN SOLUTIONS PRINTING INC
HARRIS DESIGN & PRINT INC
HAUGEN ADVERTISING & GRAPHICS LLC
LABEL & BAR CODE INC
MCKINLEY PRINTING COMPANY
1-4
3-4
20-49
5-9
1-4
1-4
MINUTEMAN PRESS
OUT WEST PRINTING
PINE HILL GRAPHICS
POTTER MANUFACTURING COMPANY
QSL
1-4
5-9
3
20-49
20-49
ROBERT HOWARD CO. INC
SAFETYCAL INC
SHELTON TUNRBULL PRINTERS
STUDIO 9 INC
SUTTON PRINTING ENTERPRISES INC
TECHNAPRINT INC
10
100-249
5-9
5-9
10-19
$800,000
$20 - 50 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
THE BEST LITTLE PRINTHOUSE IN TOWN
THE PRINTER'S STUDIO
THE SLOW & EASY CORPORATION INC
TOWERS MARKETING INC
WEBFOOT PRINTING
5-9
$1 - 2.5 million
20-49
5-9
1-4
WEST COAST PRINT
5
WESTSIDE STAMP & PRINTING
WILLAMETTE RAPID PRINT
1-4
5-9
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
TEXTILE PRODUCTS
Column3
BIRDTRACS EMBROIDERY
COMMERCIAL DRAPERY & BLINDS
1-4
10-19
EUGENE CANVAS PRODUCTS INC
FLAPPIN' FLAGS LLC
1-4
1-4
54
$500,000
$1 - 2.5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
>$500,000
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$350,000
$2.5 - 5 million
Column4
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
million
$2.5 - 5 million
IMAGE SENSE
MILLIES DRAPERIES
MILLIES UPHOLSTERY
PACIFIC HEADWEAR & PROMOTIONS INC
10-19
PINNACLE PRODUCTS INC
RECREATIONS AND OUTLINE QUILTER
SEW ON AD ART/ IDENTITY BY SEW
1-4
5-9
20-49
>$100,000
$2.5 - 5 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
TRANSPORTATION EQUIPMENT
ARDELIS INC
BURLEY DESIGNS LLC
CASCADE COMPOSITES LLC
CHAMPION TECHNOLOGIES INC
CO-MOTION CYCLES INC
COUNTRY COACH
COZY CRUISER MANUFACTURING INC
GENERAL TRAILER PARTS LLC
GREEN GEAR CYCLING INC
Column3
Column4
9
20-49
10-19
$810,000
$10 - 20 million
$5 - 10 million
4
45
20-49
$20 - 50 million
H & O PRECURE RETREAD INC
HELI TECH INC
JS ALTERNATOR & STARTER
KELLY'S DIRECTIONAL INC
KOFFLER BOATS INC
LANE DUMP BODY PARTS & SERVICE
MARATHON COACH
MONACO RV LLC
RATCO INC
ROSEN SUNVISOR SYSTEMS LLC
1-4
10-19
10-19
5-9
10-19
$5 - 10 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
SKY MANUFACTURING LLC
SOUTHWORTH INC
SYNERGY AIR LLC
WESTERN SHELTER MOBILITY SYSTEMS LLC
1-4
10-19
3
5
WOOD PRODUCTS MANUFACTURING
ARCHITECTURAL MILLWORK
CASCADIAN COMPANY
COLLINS WOOD LATH INC
CONE LUMBER COMPANY
EAGLE VENEER INC.
EMERALD FOREST PRODUCTS
GOSHEN FOREST PRODUCTS LLC
GRIFFIN LUMBER CO.
HEARIN FOREST INDUSTRIES INC
INTERNATIONAL PAPER INC
J.H. BAXTER & CO.
JASPER WOOD PRODUCTS
LONDON LUMBER INC
Column3
20-49
20-49
1
5-9
50-99
20-49
50-99
5-9
10-19
300
10-19
50-99
4
2-4
20-49
1-4
20-49
55
$500,000
$5 - 10 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$1 - 2.5 million
$150,000
$430,000
Column4
$2.5 - 5 million
$5 - 10 million
$140,000
$10 - 20 million
$20 - 50 million
$5 - 10 million
$10 - 20 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$10 - 20 million
$300,000
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
SPRINGFIELD
Column5
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
OAKRIDGE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
COBURG
COBURG
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column5
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
JASPER
COTTAGE
LOST CREEK INDUSTRIES INC
MCFARLAND CASCADE
MID-VALLEY GLASS & MILLWORK
MOHAWK VALLEY GRILLWORKS INC
MURPHY COMPANY
NATRON WOOD PRODUCTS LLC
NORTHFORK ROOFING MATERIALS
NORTHWEST DOOR & SAH COMPANY
OREGON DOME INC
OREGON INDUSTRIAL LUMBER PRODUCTS
INC
OREGON YURTWORKS LLC
PACIFIC PALLET INC
PACIFIC RIM MANUFACTURING LLC
PACIFIC STATES PLYWOOD INC
PENDLETON MILLING CO INC
PENNINGTON CROSSARM CO
PLY VENEER PRODUCTS
REAL WOOD PRODUCTS
REXIUS FOREST BY-PRODUCTS
ROSBORO LLC
1-4
$1 - 2.5 million
100-249
5-9
$20 - 50 million
$1 - 2.5 million
20-49
1-4
10-19
1-4
$2.5 - 5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$1 - 2.5 million
20-49
10-19
10-19
20-49
17
1-4
50-99
10-19
20-49
20-49
250-499
RUTLEDGE STAIRCASE & HANDRAIL INC.
SENECA SAWMILL CO.
SIERRAPINE LTD
SPECIALTY CRATES INC.
SPECIALTY LAMINATE USA
SPRINGFIELD LUMBER PRODUCTS INC
1-4
250-499
$10 - 20 million
$2.5 - 5 million
$10 - 20 million
$10 - 20 million
$2.8 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$10 - 20 million
$10 - 20 million
$10 - 20 million
$20 - 50 million
$20 - 50 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$50 - 100 million
10-19
5-9
2
$5 - 10 million
$1 - 2.5 million
$250,000
STARFIRE LUMBER CO
STATES INDUSTRIES, INC
50-99
500-999
STERLING FOREST PRODUCTS
1-4
SUBURBAN DOOR COMPANY INC
SUNDANCE LUMBER CO
SWANSON-SUPERIOR
TRUSS CO. & BUILDING SUPPLY
WESTERN PANEL MANUFACTURING
WESTERN STRUCTURES INC
WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY
WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY
WEYERHAEUSER NR COMPANY
1-4
50-99
50-99
$10 - 20 million
$50 - 100 million
$500,000 - 1
million
$500,000 - 1
million
$10 - 20 million
$10 - 20 million
20-49
20-49
$20 - 50 million
$10 - 20 million
100-249
$20 - 50 million
WHITSELL MANUFACTURING INC
WOOD RECOVERY INC
ZIP O LOG MILLS INC.
20-49
10-19
50-99
$5 - 10 million
$5 - 10 million
$10 - 20 million
56
GROVE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
FLORENCE
SPRINGFIELD
VENETA
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
NOTI
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Software Cluster
BUSINESS NAME
EMPLOYEES
SALES
CITY
COMPUTER & SOFTWARE STORESS
1 2 3 PC REPAIR
ABEL COMPUTERS
ADEPT COMPUTER SVC INC
ASSURED COMPUTING INC
BKMS
Column2
Column3
Column4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
$326,000
$686,000
$815,000
$628,000
$343,000
BLACK DIAMOND ENGINEERING
BOWMAN INTERFACE TECHNOLOGIES
BRENT WRIGHT INC
BROWN ROOF SOLUTIONS
BURRITO VAN DITO
CATALYST SOFTWARE SYSTEMS
COMPUTER ASSISTANCE INC
COMPUTER BASE
COMPUTER GURU LLC
COMPUTER HOUSE CALLS
COMPUTER JUNCTION
COUNTERCLAIM
DISTRIBUTION NETWORK
EMBEREX INC
FAB TROL SYSTEMS INC
FOUR LEAF PRESS
FULL SPECTRUM COMPUTER SVC
GILLIS SOFTWARE & DEVELOPMENT
GILLIS SOFTWARE & DEVMNT LLC
GIZMOBYTE
GORDON'S SOFTPUTER
HIGHWAY 99 COMPUTERS
INTECHGRA
INTERNATIONAL COMPUTER CTR
INTERNET SOFTWARE SOLUTIONS
INTO CAREERS
K RIDLEY TECHNOLOGY CORP
KERNUTT STOKES BRANDT & CO LLP
LEGAL SOFTWARE SYSTEMS INC
LIGHTSPEED
LIONCREST SOFTWARE LLC
LUNAR LOGIC
MAC STORE
MANAGEMENT PLANNING SYSTEMS
MBS TEMPORARY SYSTEMS
MIKE'S PC REPAIR
MPULSE MAINTENANCE SOFTWARE
NEXTSTEP RECYCLING
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
20-49
1-4
1-4
20-49
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
50-99
1-4
1-4
1-4
20-49
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
$686,000
$1.7 million
$343,000
$343,000
$400,000
$343,000
$314,000
$489,000
$1.7 million
$343,000
$686,000
$2.1 million
$2.7 million
$3.4 million
$10.3 million
$1 million
$1 million
$6.2 million
$1 million
$1 million
$343,000
$686,000
$4.1 million
$343,000
$1 million
$5.8 million
$343,000
$10.4 million
$1.4 million
$343,000
$343,000
$6.3 million
$5.5 million
$1 million
$628,000
$489,000
$2.7 million
$1 million
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
FALL CREEK
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
CRESWELL
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
FLORENCE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
57
NEXTSTEP RECYCLING
PACIFIC CASCADE IT
PALO ALTO SOFTWARE INC
PAXON CORP
PIPEWORKS SOFTWARE INC
PRIME FACTORS INC
QUOTE SOFTWARE
REALLY GREAT COMPUTER GUYS
SAVAGE BUSINESS SUPPORT
SAX SOFTWARE
SCOTSMAN'S WORKSHOP
SMARTCAMCNC
STORMWOODS LLC
SYDEX
SYMANTEC CORP
TAKE/NOTE SOFTWARE
TECH AID INSTITUTE
THENOUSTEK
20-49
5-9
20-49
1-4
20-49
5-9
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
5-9
1-4
$6.9 million
$3.1 million
$7.2 million
$1 million
TROZCO
UGS
V P CONSULTING
VISIONS TECH IN EDUCATION INC
WEATHERGAGE SOFTWARE LLC
WESTRON SYSTEMS ENGINEERING
1-4
5-9
5-9
5-9
1-4
1-4
$343,000
$4.5 million
$4.1 million
$2.1 million
$686,000
$1 million
EDUCATIONAL SUPPORT SVCS
3-SC CO
AVANT ASSESSMENT
BEHAVIOR ASSOCIATES
CHARTER STARTERS
COLLEGE ENTRY CONSULTING
COLLEGE PLANNING CONSULTANTS
CREATIVE LEARNING
CRYMES VOCATIONAL CONSULTING
EARLY EDUCATION PROGRAM
EDUCATION INTERNATIONAL USA
EDUCATION OPPORTUNITIES
ENGINEERING EDUCATION CTR
FAMILY LEARNING SVC
LEARNING CONCEPTS INST
LITERACY COUNCIL EUGENE
NATIONAL INSTITUTE-DIRECT
OSHER LIFE LONG LEARNING
ROKA-TECHNOLOGY SKILLS
SILTCOOS LEARNING & RETREAT
SOI SYSTEMS
SOUTHWEST OREGON TRAINING
TEACHING STRATEGIES
WREN
Column2
1-4
20-49
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
5-9
5-9
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
20-49
20-49
1-4
1-4
1-4
1-4
5-9
1-4
Column3
$450,000
$9 million
$225,000
$450,000
$225,000
$450,000
58
$2.7 million
$3.1 million
$1 million
$343,000
$1 million
$686,000
$4.8 milion
$686,000
$1.4 million
$1.7 million
$1.4 million
$2.1 million
$326,000
$675,000
$450,000
$450,000
$1.1 million
$4.5 million
$675,000
$225,000
$2.7 million
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
COTTAGE
GROVE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
Column4
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
JUNCTION CITY
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
WESTLAKE
VIDA
EUGENE
EUGENE
EUGENE
SOFTWARE PUBLISHERS
BOTTOM LINE
GRUPO J DISTRIBUTION
SYMANTEC CORP
Column2
1-4
1-4
500-999
59
Column3
$255,000
$882,000
$375 million
Column4
EUGENE
EUGENE
SPRINGFIELD
APPENDIX B
Online Databases and Information Resources Used in the Economic
Gardening Program at Littleton, Colorado
10KWizard: up-to-the-minute SEC filings.
Adology: research reports and primary demographic research for marketers and advertisers with
consumer product focus.
Business Analyst Online: (ESRI) Web-based GIS package and service includes an easy to use,
business oriented front end with nationwide business data including demographic, expenditure,
and lifestyle information. Output comes in the form of maps, tables, and reports.
Choicepoint (Lexis-Nexis) nationwide public records, legal, and credit information; must be
used for permissible purposes such as official government business.
Claritas PRI ZM: Psychographic/lifestyle information.
DialogPRO : scientific, technical, medical, business, news, and intellectual property information
from 600 databases. Dialog provides company and industry intelligence covering nearly a half
million companies worldwide as well as market share and sales figures, business directories, and
financials on 17 million U.S. and international companies.
Dodge Construction Reports: commercial construction activity for bidders.
Dun & Bradstreet: profile of 18 million companies, including: financial information, payment
history and trends, history of a business, ownership details, operational information, and details
on related firms and special events (such as business moves, fires and other disasters, and
quarterly performance).
Factiva.com: 8,000 local, national and international newspapers; leading business magazines;
trade publications; and newswires in 22 languages. Businesses can monitor competitors,
customers, and industry, while also conducting in-depth research and gathering company
financial data.
Harris InfoSource: complete coverage of all 14 million U.S. businesses along with significant
Canadian firms. Includes products such as the Selectory online, which allows you to create
targeted lists of prospects using employment, SIC or NAICS codes, geography, D&B® Credit
Class Ratings and other factors.
Hoover’s: 12 million companies, with in-depth coverage of 40,000 major companies.
IBI SWorld: 700 US industry market research reports. Each report contains data on key
statistics, industry structure including market size, supply/demand chain, market segmentation,
major players and market share, industry analysis including current and historical performance,
5-year forecasts, key management and industry success factors, and other facts.
60
Jigsaw: online directory of free, downloadable company information and more than 16 million
business contacts.
Lexis-Nexis: 14,000 news sources ranging from news or journal articles to intellectual
information, financial reports, international and journalism reports, broadcast transcripts as well
as 4,800 legal materials such as senate bills and house reports. Public records comprise 3.3
billion documents. State regulatory tracking is also available via the Lexis-Nexis services.
MarketPro: real estate database that provides over 50 data categories relating to property and
ownership. Data includes owner address, parcel number, lot size, building square footage, and
sales information.
OneSource: public and private company profiles, executives, corporate families, industries,
financials, news, analyst reports, and trade and business press articles from over 2,500
information sources.
Plunkett Research Online (Plunkett Research, Ltd.) provides industry sector analysis and
research, industry trends, and industry statistics.
PRO -Net: Internet-based database of information on more than 195,000 small, disadvantaged,
8(a), HUBZone, and women-owned businesses.
Reed Construction Data (Reed Business Information) supplies national, regional and local
construction data; building product information; construction cost data; market analytics; and
advertising channels to construction industry professionals in the U.S. and Canada.
ReferenceUSA: 14 million U.S. and 1.5 million Canadian businesses searched by location, type
of business, business size, credit rating, phone/fax number, and executive name.
SkyMinder: aggregates information sources from many different international providers and
locally-based sources, and supplies online credit and business information on over 50 million
companies in 230 countries.
SRDS Direct Marketing List Source: online directory of marketing list rental information.
From “Economic Gardening by Christian Gibbons,” Economic Development Journal,
Summer2010, Vol. 9, No. 3, p. 8.
61
APPENDIX C
LOCAL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE RESOURCES
Chambers of Commerce
Eugene Area Chamber of Commerce
1401 Willamette St
Eugene, OR 97401
541-484-1314
www.eugenechamber.com/
For more than 100 years, the Chamber has been committed to meeting the needs of the local
business community. The Chamber offers their members networking opportunities,
workshops/seminars, referrals, market research and programs stimulate entrepreneurship.
Regional Prosperity Initiative (RPI)
Ben Sappington
Director
541-242-2359
[email protected]
RFI works directly with traded-sector businesses to help companies create and retain
jobs. By focusing on entrepreneurship and innovation, industry cluster development and
retention and expansion of existing businesses, RFI offers education, networking and
capital formation and promotion of the region for business and innovation.
Willamette Angel Conference (WAC)
JJ O'Connell
Director of Entrepreneurial Development
541-242-2366
[email protected]
www.willametteconference.com/
The Willamette Angel Conference is an investor conference, connecting early stage and
seed businesses with angel and venture investors. The goals of the WAC are to (1)
increase capital development within our region, (2) develop and educate angel investors
and entrepreneurs, and (3) promote the Southern Willamette Valley as a vital region for
supporting emerging growth start-up businesses.
62
SmartUps
JJ O'Connell
Director of Entrepreneurial Development
541-242-2366
[email protected]
www.smartups.org/
SmartUps is a new entrepreneurial support group in Oregon's Willamette Valley.
SmartUps is a local chapter of the Oregon Entrepreneurs Network (OEN) based in
Portland, OR. The mission is “To improve the climate for Oregon’s Willamette Valley
emerging growth-oriented companies.” "Pub Talk" events throughout the year that focus
on bringing start-ups together with community leaders, business leaders and people in the
venture and angel community in the surrounding area. SmartUps events currently take
place in Eugene and Corvallis.
Springfield Chamber of Commerce
101 S A St
Springfield, OR 97477
541-746-1651
www.springfield-chamber.org/
The Chamber of Commerce in Springfield is an active leader in promoting a healthy and
prosperous community.
Cottage Grove Chamber of Commerce
700 E Gibbs, Ste C
Cottage Grove, OR 97424
541-942-2411
www.cgchamber.com
Florence Area Chamber of Commerce
290 Hwy 101
Florence, OR 97439
541-997-3128
http://www.florencechamber.com/
Tri-County Chamber of Commerce
341 W 6th St
Junction City, OR 97448
541-998-6154
http://jch-chamber.org/
Serves the communities of Junction City, Harrisburg, and Monroe.
63
Creswell Chamber of Commerce
285 E Oregon Ave
Creswell, OR 97426
541-895-4398
http://www.creswellchamber.com/
Fern Ridge Chamber of Commerce
24949 Hwy 126
Veneta, OR 97497
541-935-8443
http://www.fernridgechamber.com/
Encompasses the communities of Alvadore, Crow, Elmira, Lorane, Noti, Triangle Lake, Veneta
and Walton.
Oakridge/Westfir Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 217
Oakridge, OR 97463
541-782-4116
http://www.oakridgechamber.com/
Coburg Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 8275
Coburg, OR 97408
541-345-6791
http://www.coburgorchamber.org/
McKenzie River Chamber of Commerce
PO Box 275
Blue River, OR 97413
541-896-3330
http://mckenziechamber.com/
[email protected]
Municipal
City of Eugene
125 E 8th Ave, 2nd Fl
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-5010
http://www.eugene-or.gov/
64
Eugene Business & Economic Development
99 W 10th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-5086
www.eugene-or.gov/index.aspx?nid=827
The City of Eugene's Business Development Fund (BDF) provides assistance to new and
existing businesses via the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program. Established to create jobs and stimulate private sector investment.
Denny Braud
Senior Development Analyst
541-682-5536
[email protected]
Amanda Nobel Flannery
Business Loan Analyst
541- 682-5535
[email protected]
City of Springfield
225 5th St
Springfield, OR 97477
541-726-3700
http://www.ci.springfield.or.us/
Springfield Business & Economic Development
225 5th St
Springfield, OR 97477
John Tamulonis
Community Development Manager
541-726-3656
[email protected]
Provides assistance with local government policies and procedures to new and existing
businesses in Springfield.
City of Cottage Grove
400 E Main St
Cottage Groove, OR 97424
541-943-5501
http://www.cottagegrove.org/
65
Cottage Grove Economic Development Partnership
700 E Gibbs, Ste C
Cottage Grove OR 97424
541-942-2411
http://www.growingthegrove.com/
The City of Cottage Grove, the Economic Development Committee (EDC) of the
Economic & Business Improvement District (EBID), and the Cottage Grove Area
Chamber of Commerce offer businesses and interested individuals a first stop to doing
business in Cottage Grove. They offer assistance for site searches, tax incentives,
financing options, regulatory assistance, market information and workforce development.
City of Florence
250 Hwy 101
Florence, OR 97439
http://www.ci.florence.or.us/
Junction City
680 Greenwood
Junction City, OR 97448
541-998-2153
http://www.junctioncityoregon.gov/
City of Creswell
13 S 1st St
Creswell, OR 97426
541-895-2531
http://www.ci.creswell.or.us/
City of Veneta
88184 8th St
Veneta, OR 97487
541-935-2191
http://www.ci.veneta.or.us/
City of Oakridge
48318 E 1st St
Oakridge, OR 97463
541-782-2258
http://www.ci.oakridge.or.us/
66
City of Oakridge - Economic Development Advisory Committee (OEDAC)
City Administrator/Economic Development Office
48318 E 1st St
Oakridge, OR 97463
541-782-2258
www.ci.oakridge.or.us
The OEDAC works with businesses and entrepreneurs to promote Oakridge as a viable
location for their business location grow and succeed.
Dunes City
82877 Spruce St
Dunes City, OR 97439
541-997-3338
http://www.dunescity.com/
City of Lowell
PO Box 490
Lowell, OR 97452
541-937-2157
http://www.ci.lowell.or.us/
City of Coburg
PO Box 8316
Coburg, OR 97408
541-682-7852
http://www.coburgoregon.org/
City of Westfir
47441 Westoak Rd
PO Box 296
Westfir, OR 97942
541-782-3733
http://www.westfir-oregon.com/
County
Lane County Community and Economic Development Division
1500 Valley River Dr Ste 150
Eugene, OR 97401
www.lanecounty.org/Departments/CAO/EconomicDevelopment/Pages/default.aspx
67
Lane County manages and utilizes state video lottery funds, Community Development Block
Grants and federal resources for business development and workforce training, improving water
systems, restoring contaminated properties, and developing telecommunications infrastructure.
Glenda Poling
Manager
541-682-7231
[email protected]
Sarah Mizejewski
Management Analyst
541-682-7218\\
[email protected]
Lane Metro Partnership (LMP)
1401 Willamette St 2nd Fl
Eugene, OR 97401
541-686-2741
lanemetro.com/
The Lane Metro Partnership provides business information and community assistance with
business recruitment and assistance to local businesses to help expand or maintain their
operations in Lane County. LMP maintains a comprehensive, computerized inventories of vacant
land, office and industrial, and existing office and industrial buildings. In addition, summaries of
various kinds of assistance and incentive programs; current fact sheets on utility rates, taxes,
demographics; and working knowledge of systems, development charges and related items is
information the Lane Metro Partnership develops and provides to local and outside companies.
Jack Roberts
Executive Director
[email protected]
541-242-2741
Phillip Hudspeth
Business Development Director
[email protected]
541-242-2372
Lane Business Link
www.lanebusinesslink.com/
Lane Business Link is your one-stop destination for everything you need to know about starting
or growing a business in the Eugene and Springfield areas. Use this tool to link your business to
a vast array of resources our cities, county and state have to offer.
68
State
Oregon Clusters (Oregon Business Council)
1100 SW 6th Ave Ste 1608
Portland, OR 97204
503-595-7604
www.oregonbusinessplan.org/Industry-Clusters.aspx
Networking, peer-to-peer counseling and referrals for businesses in the 19 identified clusters.
Oregon Entrepreneurs Network (OEN)
309 SW 6th Ave Ste 212
Portland, OR 97204
503-222-2270
www.oen.org/
OEN offers workshops/seminars, one-on-one counseling, peer-to-peer counseling, online
business resource library for emerging growth-oriented companies across Oregon.
Business Oregon
775 Summer St NE Ste 200
Salem, OR 97301-1280
503-986-0123
www.oregon4biz.com/
State of Oregon’s economic development agency. Offers a number of tools and services to help
Oregon businesses including finance programs as well as resources for manufacturing, supply
chain, and R&D.
Sean Stevens
Business Development Officer
South Valley Region
541-346-8620
[email protected]
Expand in Oregon
775 Summer St NE Ste 200
Salem, OR 97301
503-986-0156
www.oregon4biz.com/The-Oregon-Advantage/Expand-In-Oregon/
Oregon's official website for building and site information for businesses and site selection
consultants interested in relocating or expanding in Oregon
69
Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI)
800 NE Oregon St #1045
Portland, OR 97232
971-673-0761
cms.oregon.gov/boli/Pages/index.aspx
A state agency that provides labor law assistance for employers, compliance information,
seminars and publications; BOLI offers workshops/seminars, training classes and one-on-one
counseling.
Oregon Small Business Ombudsman for Worker's Compensation
350 Winter St NE
Salem, OR 97309
503-378-4209
cms.oregon.gov/dcbs/sbo/Pages/index.aspx
[email protected]
Provides information and assistance to small businesses regarding workers' compensation
insurance and refers them to the most likely carriers.
Business Referral Network
255 Capitol St NE Ste 151
Salem, OR 97310
503-986-2200
cms.oregon.egov.com/business/pages/index.aspx
Oregon Secretary of State's website providing general information and starting and operating a
business in Oregon.
Oregon Department of Consumer and Business Services, Small
Business Ombudsman
350 Winter St NE
PO Box 14480
Salem, OR 97309-0405
503-378-4209
cms.oregon.egov.com/dcbs/sbo/Pages/index.aspx
Provides information and assistance to small businesses regarding workers’ compensation
insurance and claims processing matters.
70
Federal
Small Business Administration, Oregon District Office
601 SW 2nd Ave #950
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 326-2682
www.sba.gov/about-offices-content/2/3140
Oregon office of the SBA, located in Portland. Provides financial assistance to small businesses
through guaranteed loans made by area bank and non-bank lenders. Also provides free
counseling and advice through SCORE and SBDCs.
U.S. Economic Development Administration, Oregon Representative
David Porter
One World Trade Center
121 SW Salmon St Ste 244
Portland, OR 97204
503-326-3078
The mission of the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) is to lead the federal
economic development agenda by promoting innovation and competitiveness, preparing
American regions for growth and success in the worldwide economy.
Small Business Counseling
Lane Small Business Development Center (SBDC)
1445 Willamette St
Eugene, OR 97401
541-463-5255
www.lanesbdc.com/
Supports all stages of business, start-up, growth and employee training. Counselors provide
business advising services and employee training support and can recommend programs and
courses that suit clients’ businesses.
SCORE (Counselors to America's Small Business)
1401 Willamette St
Eugene, OR 97401
541-465-6600
willamette.score.org/
SCORE provides cost free coaching and consulting for owners and managers of both startups
and existing businesses and non-profits. SCORE's counselors use the accumulated knowledge
71
and experience of their careers to help you solve problems and grow your enterprise. From one
time problem solving conferences to longer term business coaching and mentoring, SCORE can
be your first choice.
Financing
Entrepreneurial Development Services
1445 Willamette St
Eugene, OR 97401
www.edev.org
Eugene based microenterprise development organization that provides training, technical
assistance, and access to capital to startups and small businesses of five or fewer employees.
Juli Brode
541-463-4627
[email protected]
Lane Council of Governments (LCOG)
859 Willamette St Ste 500
Eugene, OR 97401
www.lcog.org/loans.cfm
LCOG’s Business Loan Program helps small businesses to utilize various government loan
resources including local, state and federal programs such as the US Small Business
Administration. These programs can offer numerous benefits including as attractive rate of
interest, higher loan-to-value, and easier access to capital.
Steve Dignam
Program Manager
541-682-7450
[email protected]
Dan Betschart
Senior Loan Officer
541-682-3359
[email protected]
Craft3
1000 SW Broadway Ste 1000
Portland, OR 97205
503-688-1700
www.craft3.org/Home
72
Craft3 is a certified non-profit Community Development Financial Institution serving urban and
rural communities of the Pacific Northwest specializing in higher risk business loans that are not
of interest to banks.
Technology
Oregon Nanoscience and Microtechologies Institute (ONAMI)
PO Box 2041
Corvallis, OR 97339
www.onami.us
ONAMI fosters research and commercialization of nanoscience and microtechnologies to create
new products, companies and jobs. ONAMI offers lab space.
University of Oregon Technology Transfer Services
677 E 12th Ave Ste 500
Eugene OR 97403
541-346-3176
techtran.uoregon.edu/
[email protected]
Tech Transfer Services helps develop and maintain relationships between UO researchers and
members of the public and industry involving use, development, or investment in UO innovation.
These connections are made throughout the research and commercialization cycle by providing
licenses or permissions to the intellectual property rights in UO innovation.
Tech Transfer staff can help businesses create Intellectual Property Plans and Project Rules to
manage innovation in support of your teaching, research and publication. They will work with
businesses to create and execute on models that enable the distribution of your innovative work,
whether through non-exclusive licensing programs, licensing to industry, or through the
formation of a startup company that will bring new technology to the marketplace.
University of Oregon, Center for Advanced Materials Characterization
(CAMCOR)
1252 University of Oregon
1371 E 13th St, Room 163
Eugene, OR 97403
541-346-4307
camcor.uoregon.edu/
CAMCOR is a full-service, comprehensive materials characterization center at the University of
Oregon open to outside clients. The CAMCOR facilities provide enabling infrastructure for
research in chemistry, geology, archaeology, nanoscience, materials science, bioscience, and
optics.
73
Oregon Health Sciences University, Technology Transfer & Business
Development
Bancroft Building
0690 SW Bancroft St
Portland, OR 97239
503-494-8200
www.ohsu.edu/xd/research/techtransfer/
[email protected]
The university serves as a catalyst for the region's bioscience industry and is an incubator of
discovery with more than 3,000 research projects currently under way.
In breaking new ground in the effort to improve life for Oregon and beyond, the university is
promoting commercialization of OHSU technologies and intellectual property. The Technology
Transfer and Business Development office licenses OHSU's intellectual property; links business
with OHSU technologies and expertise; negotiates industry research collaborations; and launches
companies based on OHSU technologies.
Technology Association of Oregon
222 NW Fifth Ave 3rd Fl
Portland, OR 97209
503-228-5401
www.techoregon.org/
The Technology Association of Oregon works to foster an environment that fuels growth in
Oregon's software industry. Members enjoy exceptional networking and educational
opportunities, critical workforce development programs, advocacy, and valuable corporate
benefits.
Members have access to professional development and business opportunities, Federal, State and
local representation, and inclusion in our many community initiatives and activities
Manufacturing
Oregon Manufacturing Extension Partnership (OMEP)
12909 SW 68th Pkwy Ste 140
Portland, OR 97223
503-406-3770
omep.org/
OMEP is a team of manufacturing professionals who provide high level technical assistance to
startups, established businesses, growing/expanding businesses, high growth potential and
revenue over $1 million.
74
Manufacturing 21 Coalition
1100 SW Sixth Ave Ste 1425
Portland, OR 97204
503-802-4101
www.manufacturing21.com
Is a private-public partnership created to support and advocate for the manufacturing economy
within local communities, city and state government. Manufacturing 21 Coalition offers
advocacy, manufacturing, employee training (job and career training at college level), workforce
development and high-tech development.
Emerald Valley High Performance Enterprise Consortium
Dave Oatman
541-517-5501
http://www.evhpec.org/
[email protected]
EV-HPEC is a regional learning network where of organizations share and apply best practices
in a lean/high performance environment.
EV-HPEC supports organizations in the southern Willamette Valley to: continue learning in the
principles of lean manufacturing, provide education and training for the implementation of Lean
methods, collaborate in solving common problems for improving lean practices, and promote
continuous improvement and reduction of waste.
Lane Manufacturing Skills Alliance
http://www.lanemanufacturing.org/
The Lane Manufacturing Skills Alliance is an initiative of the Lane Workforce Partnership,
funded in part with Oregon State Lottery Funds administered by Business Oregon Department.
The goal of the Lane Manufacturing Skills Alliance and this website is to raise awareness about
the importance of manufacturing to our community and about the diversity of career
opportunities in manufacturing. This site provides regularly updated information for both
manufacturers and for those interested in a career in manufacturing. Jobseekers and students can
research local high wage, high demand careers and explore the range of manufacturing
businesses in Lane County. Manufacturers can keep up to date with relevant manufacturing
training events in the area, download training resources, and share information with each other in
a safe, password protected collaborative workspace.
75
Government Contracting
Pacific Northwest Defense Coalition (PNDC)
2828 SW Corbett Ave Ste 113
Portland, OR 97201
503-517-8090
www.pndc.us/
PNDC is a membership organization dedicated to improving the defense industry climate in the
region through education programs, business-to-business networking, and outreach to
government decision makers.
Associated General Contractors - Oregon Columbia Chapter
9450 SW Commerce Cir Ste 200
Wilsonville, OR 97070
503-682-3363
www.agc-oregon.org/
Associated General Contractors (AGC) is a full service trade association dedicated to giving
member contractors the tools they need to make their businesses more competitive. AGC offers
networking opportunities, business resource library and employment/personnel and regulatory
assistance.
Government Contract Assistance Program (GCAP), Springfield Office
1144 Gateway Loop Ste 203
Springfield, OR 97477
(541) 736-1088
www.gcap.org/
Part of nationwide network of Procurement Technical Assistance Centers that helps small
businesses compete in the government contract market. GCAP counselors help identify federal,
state, and local agencies to target and aid in the development of marketing strategies. GCAP also
provides assistance in the registration process to become a qualified government contractor.
Trade
Northwest Trade Adjustment Assistance Center (NWTAAC)
1200 Westlake Ave N Ste 802
Seattle, WA 98109
206-622-2730
www.nwtaac.org/index.html
76
NWTAAC is a network of 11 regional, non-profit organizations working with manufacturers to
provide matching funds that strengthen operations and sharpen competitiveness. NWTAA
shares up to 50% of the cost of project aimed at improving a manufacturer's competitive
position.
International Trade Administration
Portland U.S. Export Assistance Center
One World Trade Center
1212 SW Salmon St Ste 242
Portland, OR 97204
(503) 326-6351
export.gov/oregon/index.asp
Federal agency office dedicated to helping small-to-medium sized Oregon companies develop
international markets. Provides export financing and SBA export loan information.
Legal
Oregon State Bar: Lawyer Referral Service
16037 SW Upper Boones Ferry Rd
Tigard, OR 97224
503-620-0222
www.osbar.org/index.html
Public referral service for anyone requiring legal assistance.
Utilities
Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB)
500 E 4th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-685-7000
www.eweb.org/
EWEB key accounts division works with state and local economic development agencies to
assist businesses moving into the Eugene service district and established businesses which are
growing and expanding. EWEB offers a low-interest loan program to for upgrading electric and
water infrastructure.
Steve Managan
Key Accounts Manager
541-685.7376
[email protected]
77
Springfield Utility Board (SUB)
250 A St
Springfield, OR 97477
541-746-8451
http://www.subutil.com/
SUB does an energy analysis, makes recommendations, offers financial incentives, and can assist
with tax credits.
Emerald People’s Utility District (EPUD)
33733 Seavey Lp
Eugene, OR 97405
541-746-1583
www.epud.org/
EPUD’s Industrial Energy Programs provides industrial users with incentives for cost-effective
energy efficiency projects. EPUD can coordinate a meeting between industrial customers and
Energy Smart Industrial program representatives to explain the details, and determine which
program components can be taken advantage of.
Rob Currier
541-744-7402
[email protected]
Pacific Power
825 NE Multnomah St
Portland, OR 97232
www.pacificpower.net/
Pacific Power’s customers can take advantage of Energy Trust services and cash incentives to
upgrade efficiency and save money.
Energy Trust
421 SW Oak St, Ste 300
Portland, OR 97204
866-368-7878
http://energytrust.org/
[email protected]
Energy Trust works with industrial users to make affordable upgrades existing buildings
or provide recommendations in new construction that help customers reduce energy
costs. Cash incentives may be available for projects as well.
78
Libraries
Eugene Public Library (Business Library)
100 W 10th Ave
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-5450
eugene.libguides.com/content.php?pid=128436&sid=2940792
The Eugene Public Library offers a business resource library and an online database.
University of Oregon, John E. Jaqua Law Library
1221 University St
Eugene, OR 97403-1221
541-346-3088
library.uoregon.edu/law/index.html
[email protected]
Holdings consist of primary materials for research in U.S. federal and state law, including
records and briefs of the U.S. Supreme Court, current statutes and caselaw for all 50 states, and
extensive holdings of law journals. The Law Library may be used the general public who need
to consult specific law materials held by the Library.
Paul J. Boley Law Library (Lewis and Clark Law School)
10015 SW Terwilliger Blvd
Portland, OR 97219
503-768-6676
lawlib.lclark.edu/
The largest law library in Oregon. Boley Law Library is the only law school library in the nation
designated as a federal patent and trademark depository. Includes federal, regional and select
state reports, digest, federal and state statutes and codes. Shepard's citators, loose leaf services,
legal encyclopedias, U.S. and foreign law reviews.
Workforce/Career Centers
Lane Workforce Partnership
1500 Valley River Dr Ste 150
Eugene, OR 97401
541-682-3800
laneworkforce.org/
Offers assistance to employers in workforce related services including recruitment, retention, and
training programs. Also provides rapid response services to businesses experiencing layoffs or
closures.
79
WorkSource Lane
Oakway Center
2510 Oakmont Way
Eugene, OR 97401
541-686-7736
laneworkforce.org/worksource-lane/
Helps employers with their recruitment needs and helps job seekers find work opportunities.
They offer workshops to job seekers and coordinate workshops for employers.
University of Oregon Career Center
220 Hendricks Hall
Eugene, OR 97403
541-346-3235
[email protected]
career.uoregon.edu/
The career center works directly with employers to assist with their recruitment needs and
students to find work while attending the university and after receiving graduation.
Lane Community College Career and Employment Services
4000 E 30th Ave
Eugene, OR 97405
541-463-3000
lanecc.edu/ces/
The career center works directly with employers to assist with their recruitment needs and
students to find work.
Women and Minorities
Office of Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business (OM/W/ESB)
350 Winter St NE Rm 200
Salem, OR 97301
503-947-7976
cms.oregon.gov/gov/MWESB/Pages/index.aspx
www.oregon4biz.com/Grow-Your-Business/Business-services/Minority-Owned-BusinessCertification/
The Office of Minority, Women and Emerging Small Business (OMWESB) administers the
Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE), Minority Business Enterprise (MBE), Women
80
Business Enterprise (WBE) and Emerging Small Business (ESB) certification programs. These
programs are designed to promote economic opportunities for small businesses.
As the sole certification authority in Oregon, OMWESB provides a “one-stop” certification
process for Oregon disadvantaged, minority- and woman-owned and emerging small businesses.
Certification opens the door to targeted government contracting opportunities.
Minority Business Opportunity Committee
PMB 202
3527 NE 15th Ave
Portland, OR 97212
503-802-8533
bdiweb.org/index.php
Non-profit organization which strives to enhance opportunities for small minority-owned
businesses to each contracts on public and private sector projects. BDI is managed on a
volunteer basis and includes representatives from the federal, state, and local government
agencies as well as several major construction companies, and local small businesses.
Women Entrepreneurs of Oregon
PMB 119
3 Monroe Pkwy Ste P
Lake Oswego, OR 97035
www.oregonweo.org/index.cfm
Membership organization that offers education, networking and mentoring opportunities for
women owned businesses.
Oregon Association of Minority Entrepreneurs
4134 N Vancouver Ave
Portland, OR 97217
503-249-7744
oame.org/default.cfm
Oregon chapter of a national organization to promote entrepreneurship among minorities. Oneon-one counseling, mentoring, workshops/seminars, business resource library, office facilities,
administrative/office services, loans/financing and networking opportunities are services offered.
Hispanic Metropolitan Chamber (HMC)
335 SW 5th Ave Ste 100
Portland, OR 97207
503-222-0280
hmccoregon.com/
81
A statewide organization which furthers Hispanic contributions to the community by increasing
business competency, developing future business leaders and increasing vender connections with
Oregon businesses. HMC offers networking opportunities, one-on-one counseling and
loans/financing.
African American Chamber of Commerce of Oregon and SW
Washington
P.O. Box 2979
Clackamas, OR 97015
800-909-2882
www.blackchamber.info/default.cfm
Provides education and training assistance, networking, one-on-one counseling and business
television advertising to African American owned businesses.
Philippine American Chamber of Commerce of Oregon
5424 N Michigan St
Portland, OR 97217
503-285-1994
pacco.org
Promotes trade, tourism and other economic relations between Oregon and the Philippines by
offering networking opportunities and workshops/seminars.
Oregon Native American Chamber (ONAC)
503-894-4525
www.onacc.org/index.html
ONAC promotes the development, growth and advancement of Native American businesses,
professionals and students in Oregon and Southwest Washington.
Minority Business Development Administration (MBDA)
Regional Office
221 Main St Rm 1280
San Francisco, CA 94195
415-744-3001
www.mbda.gov/
Federal agency created to foster the establishment and growth of minority-owned businesses in
the United States. They provide business concept feasibility, business planning, finances,
business basics, minority business certification, loans/funding, problem solving, marketing/sales,
government contracts/procurement.
82
Other
Food Innovation Center (FIC)
1207 NW Naito Pkwy
Portland, OR 97209
503-872-6680
fic.oregonstate.edu/
FIC offers workshops/seminars, lab facilities, one-on-one counseling and regulatory assistance
for food producers, processors, marketers and entrepreneurs.
Energy Trust of Oregon
421 SW Oak St Ste 300
Portland, OR 97204
866-368-7878
www.energytrust.org
A public-purpose organization that offers cash incentives and technical support to businesses
installing energy efficient measures in established commercials, institutional and agricultural
facilities.
Oregon Microenterprise Network (OMEN)
1220 SW Morrison Ste 805
Portland, OR 97205
503-546-9913
www.oregon-microbiz.org/
Statewide association that provides training, lending and other enterprise opportunities to
entrepreneurs with limited access to economic resources.
83
BIBLIOGRAPHY
____________________, City of Littleton CO, “Economic Gardening” web page,
http://www.littletongov.org/bia/economicgardening/default.asp.
____________________, City of Littleton, CO, “City Manager Hires New Economic
Development Director,” Littleton Press Release, Aug. 30, 2012
http://www.littletongov.org/news/releases/2012/stephensHired.asp
___________________, Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade
http://www.advancecolorado.com/sites/default/files/Assets/IncentivesFinance/Documents/Colora
doEnterpriseZoneProgram7.1.pdf
____________________, Colorado State, County & Local Economic I Incentives/Resources
http://www.coloradosprings.org/doc/files/toolkit/State_City_Local.pdf
____________________, “Economic Community of the Month – Littleton, Colorado”
http://www.energizingentrepreneurs.org/site/images/research/es/sec/sec2.pdf
____________________, “Innovations in Economic Development: The Evolving Direction of
Economic Development in the New Economy,” April 11-12, 1997, p. 46.
https://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/economic_development/principles_econ_dev/pdf/Innovati
onsinEconomicDevelopment.pdf
________________, West Columbia Gorge Consortium , http://wcgconsortium.biz/about.html
Birch, David L., 1979, “The Job Generation Process,” unpublished report prepared by the MIT
Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change for the Economic Development Administration,
U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
Birch, David L., “Who Creates Jobs?” The Public Interest (Fall, 1981)
Birch, David L., Job Creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to
work (The Free Press, 1987).
Birch, David; and Medoff, James, “Gazelles,” Chapter 4 of Solmon and Lenvson, ed., Labor
Markets, Employment Policy & Job Creation (The Milken Institute for Job & Capital Formation,
1994)
Brown, Charles; Hamilton, James; and Medoff, James, Employers Large and Small (Harvard
University.
84
Cantillon, Richard, An Essay on Economic Theory, translated by Chantal Saucier and edited by
Mark Thornton (Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2010) published under the Creative Commons
Attribution License 3.0 (Kindle edition). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon.
Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh, Job Creation and Destruction (MIT Press, 1996).
Dorr, Tom, “Economic Gardening—Practices, Principles and Innovation”
http://www.awcnet.org/portals/0/documents/training/materials/EconomicGardenPPT.pdf
Dorr, Tom, “Innovations in the Intersection of Workforce and Economic Development,” Pacific
Northwest Economic Region 21st Annual Summit, July 20, 2011, powerpoint available at
http://www.pnwer.org/Portals/0/2011 Summit/Presentations/PNWERCEVTomDorr.pdf
Drucker, Peter, Landmarks of Tomorrow (Harper & Brothers, 1957).
Drucker, Peter, The Age of Continuity (Harper & Row, 1969).
Drucker, Peter, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Harper & Row, 1985).
Drucker, Peter, “Management’s Role,” The Ecological Vision (Transaction Publishers, 1993).
(NOTE: In the introduction to Part Three of the book Drucker identifies the title of the speech as
“Management’s New Role” which appears appropriate for the text of the speech. However, the
title in the index and at the heading of the speech reads “Management’s Role.”)
Edward Lowe Foundation, “The Importance of the Second Stage” http://edwardlowe.org/whowe-serve/secondstage/
Edward Lowe Foundation, “Economic Gardening,” http://edwardlowe.org/edlowenetwp/wpcontent/themes/implementprogram/downloads/infosheets/EconomicGardening.pdf
Galton, Francis, “Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature,” The Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol 15, 246-263,
http://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton-1886-jaigi-regression-stature.pdf
Gibbons, Christian, “Economic Gardening: Using Information to Help Your Entrepreneurs
Grow” (2007), p.11 Economic America Website
http://www.iedconline.org/EDAmerica/Spring2007/Economic_Gardening.html or
http://www.ccredc.com/UserFiles/ExecutiveUpdate/Economic%20Gardening%20Article.pdf
Gibbons, “Littleton, Colorado: A Self Reliant Community in the Global Age,” New Village
Press, January 11, 2010, http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue2/2littleton.html
Gibbons, Christian, “Economic Gardening: An Entrepreneurial Alternative to Traditional
Economic Development Strategies,” The IEDC Economic Development Journal Volume 9,
85
Number 3, Summer 2010, p. 5-9
http://www.growfl.com/downloads/IEDC_EDJournal_Summer_10%20EG%20article.pdf
Green, John, “Tracking Job Growth in Private Industry” SBA Monthly Labor Review,
September, 1982, http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/09/art1full.pdf.
Haltiwanger, John C.; Jarmin, Ron S.; and Miranda, Javier, “Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large
vs. Young” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 16300 (August, 2010) ©
2010 by John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier Miranda.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w16300
Hamilton-Penner, Christine “CI for Small Businesses: Economic Development: The City of
Littleton’s Economic Gardening Program,” Competitive Intelligence Magazine Volume 7 •
Number 6 • November-December 2004, p.13.
http://growinglocaleconomies.com/files/pdf/CI%20Nov-Dec%2004%20Hamilton-Pennell.pdf
Hamilton-Pennell, Christine, “Economic Gardening: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Economic
Development,” IED/IRP Fall Conference, Boise ID, 10/29/08,
http://growinglocaleconomies.com/files/pdf/IEDA1.pdf
Hamilton-Pennell, Christine, “Strengthen Your Local Economy Through Economic Gardening,”
InFocus Vol. 42, No. 4, 2010, p. 4.
Hirschberg, David, The Job-Generation Controversy: The Economic Myth of Small Business
(M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1999
Leonard, Jonathan S. “On the Size Distribution of Employment and Establishments,” NBER
Working Paper No. 1951 (NBER, 1986) http://www.nber.org/papers/w1951.pdf.
Landström, Hans, “1996 Award Winner: David L. Birch’s Contributions to Entrepreneurship
and Small Business Research,” http://www.eaward.org/web/1996_David_L_Birch.aspx
Neumark, David; Wall, Brndon; and Zhang, Zunfu, “Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs?
New Evidence From the National Establishment Time Series” National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper 13818, © 2008 by David Neumark, Brandon Wall, and Junfu Zhang.
http://www.nber.org/papers/w13818
Porter, Michael E., The Competitive Advantage of Nations (The Free Press, 1990)
Porter, Michael E., “Clusters and the New Economics of Competition,” Harvard Business
Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998, pp. 77-90.
Porter, Michael E., On Competition (Harvard Business School Press, 1998).
86
Quello, Steve; and Toft, Graham, “Economic Gardening: Next Generation Applications for a
Balanced Portfolio Approach to Economic Growth,” The Small Business Economy for Data
Year 2005 (Small Business Association, Dec. 2006), pp.169-170.
http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/sbe_06_ch06.pdf
Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development, originally published 1914, first English
language edition 1934, (Oxford University Press edition, 1961).
Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edition (Harper & Row, 1950).
Schumpeter, Joseph, History of Economic Analysis (Oxford University Press, 1954).
Schumpeter, Joseph, Journal of Economic History, Nov. 1947, reprinted in Schumpeter, edited
by Richard V. Clemence, Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the
Evolution of Capitalism (Transaction Publishers, 1989) p. 223
Stuhldreher, Anne, “Grow Your Own: How economic gardening nurtures local businesses,”
Stanford Social Innovation Review,Winter 2010 , p. 63
http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2010WI_WhatWorks_Stuhldreher_New.pdf
TuckerHall, The Economic Impact of GrowFl 2009-2011 (2011).
http://www.growfl.com/downloads/2011%20GrowFL%20Impacts%20Final.pdf, p. 4.
87
Endnotes
1
See trademark information http://business.zibb.com/trademark/economic+gardening/30394803
A better analogy, we would argue, is “economic fishing,” where communities bait their “hook” as attractively as
possible in the hope of snaring a company that is already looking for somewhere to move or, more often, to expand
their operations.
3
Birch, David L., 1979, “The Job Generation Process,” unpublished report prepared by the MIT
Program on Neighborhood and Regional Change for the Economic Development
Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC.
4
Birch, David L., Job Creation in America: How our smallest companies put the most people to work (The Free
Press, 1987).
5
See Edward Lowe Foundation, “The Importance of the Second Stage” which outlines the four stages
http://edwardlowe.org/who-we-serve/secondstage/
6
See Sarasota County, Florida, http://www.edcsarasotacounty.com/subpage.asp?navid=0&id=279
7
The state of Oregon defines traded sector for purposes of the state economic development programs in ORS
285A.010 (17) “Traded sector means industries in which member firms sell their goods or services into markets for
which national or international competition exists.”
8
http://www.littletongov.org/bia/economicgardening/default.asp
9
The following quotes and more can be found at the City of Littleton website “What Others Say” at
http://www.littletongov.org/bia/economicgardening/othersay.asp
10
See Colorado Office of Economic Development and International Trade website, specifically
http://www.advancecolorado.com/sites/default/files/Assets/IncentivesFinance/Documents/ColoradoEnterpriseZoneP
rogram7.1.pdf
11
Ibid.
12
For a further overview of Colorado’s state and local economic development incentives see
http://www.coloradosprings.org/doc/files/toolkit/State_City_Local.pdf
13
“City Manager Hires New Economic Development Director,” Press Release, Aug. 30, 2012
http://www.littletongov.org/news/releases/2012/stephensHired.asp
14
Birch, “Who Creates Jobs?” The Public Interest (Fall, 1981), p. 3.
15
Ibid., p. 7.
16
Birch’s article also contained a rejection of tax breaks and other economic development incentives for specific
businesses: “At the heart of the matter is the age-old problem of choosing between a direct interventionist policy or
an indirect improve-the-climate policy. Those advocating a direct policy would have us provide assistance to
individual companies or industries through government actions of some sort--loans, loan guarantees, contracts,
grants, import restrictions, etc. Going the climate-improvement route involves changing the general tax and
regulating environments in ways that entrepreneurial business people find attractive, thus letting the market
determine who flourishes and who does not.” Ibid., p. 10.
17
“1996 Award Winner: David L. Birch’s Contributions to Entrepreneurship and Small Business Research,”
presentation by Hans Landström http://www.eaward.org/web/1996_David_L_Birch.aspx
18
Green, John, “Tracking Job Growth in Private Industry” SBA Monthly Labor Review, September, 1982,
http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1982/09/art1full.pdf . The SBA report also observed, “Virtually none of the difference
in the job generation capability of labor markets is due to firms moving their staffs and physical plants to different
areas. Few businesses relocate, and when they do, they move short distances.” p. 4.
19
Brown, Hamilton and Medoff, Employers Large and Small (Harvard University Press, 1990)
20
Ibid. p 1
21
Ibid. p 2
22
Ibid. p. 3
23
Davis, Haltiwanger and Schuh, Job Creation and Destruction (MIT Press, 1996).
24
Ibid. p. 63
25
Ibid. p. 64
26
Ibid. p. 65
27
See also Hirschberg, David, The Job-Generation Controversy: The Economic Myth of Small Business (M.E.
Sharpe, Inc., 1999), pp. 39-49 on “The Regression Fallacy.”
2
88
28
Ibid., p. 40.
Ibid. See also Francis Galton, “Regression towards mediocrity in hereditary stature,” The Journal of the
Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol 15, 246-263. http://galton.org/essays/1880-1889/galton1886-jaigi-regression-stature.pdf
30
Hirschberg, The Job-Generation Controversy, op cit., p. 45.
31
Job Creation and Distruction, op cit, pp. 67-8, 70. See also NBER Working Paper No. 1951 (NBER, 1986), “On
the Size Distribution of Employment and Establishments” by Jonathan S. Leonard (“In the case of the size
distribution of employment, previous studies have pointed to the disproportionate share of employment growth
accounted for by small establishments and argued that these small establishments are the wellsprings of growth. I
have argued here that part of the phenomenon these analysts have described may be regression to the mean. None of
the previously observed patterns need tell us anything more than that establishment size is subject to transient
shocks, from which it then requilibrates. Size is better thought of as an endogenous than as an exogenous variable.
The size distribution of establishments is a less dangerous guide to how economic conditions favor establishments of
any given size.”) See http://www.nber.org/papers/w1951.pdf.
32
Neumark, Wall and Zhang, “Do Small Businesses Create More Jobs? New Evidence From the National
Establishment Time Series” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 13818, © 2008 by David
Neumark, Brandon Wall, and Junfu Zhang. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13818
33
Ibid. p. 24
34
Haltiwanger, Jarmin and Miranda, “Who Creates Jobs? Small vs. Large vs. Young” National Bureau of Economic
Research Working Paper 16300 (August, 2010) © 2010 by John C. Haltiwanger, Ron S. Jarmin, and Javier
Miranda. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16300
35
Ibid. p. 2
36
The Edward Lowe Foundation website, specifically http://edwardlowe.org/who-we-serve/secondstage/
37
http://edwardlowe.org/who-we-serve/secondstage/
38
Hamilton-Penner, “CI for Small Businesses: Economic Development: The City of Littleton’s Economic
Gardening Program,” Competitive Intelligence Magazine Volume 7 • Number 6 • November-December 2004, p.13.
http://growinglocaleconomies.com/files/pdf/CI%20Nov-Dec%2004%20Hamilton-Pennell.pdf
39
Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations (The Free Press, 1990)0
40
Ibid. p. 73
41
Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998, pp. 77-90.
42
Porter, On Competition (Harvard Business School Press, 1998).
43
Ibid. at p. 197.
44
Ibid. at p. 309
45
Harvard Business Review, Nov.-Dec. 1998, pp. 78
46
Ibid. p. 82
47
Ibid. p. 80
48
Ibid. p. 81-83
49
Ibid. p. 83
50
Ibid. p. 84
51
See their strategic plan at http://wcgconsortium.biz/about.html (particularly Goal 2, i.e., “Promote and Implement
Economic Gardening and Industrial Cluster Development”).
52
Dorr, “Innovations in the Intersection of Workforce and Economic Development,” Pacific Northwest Economic
Region 21st Annual Summit, July 20, 2011, powerpoint available at http://www.pnwer.org/Portals/0/2011
Summit/Presentations/PNWERCEVTomDorr.pdf
See related powerpoint’s by Tom Dorr “Economic Gardening—Practices, Principles and Innovation”
http://www.awcnet.org/portals/0/documents/training/materials/EconomicGardenPPT.pdf
53
Porter, The Competitive Advantage of Nations, op. cit., p. 73.
54
See ibid., p. 164, particularly the comparison between the vertically deep clusters in Italy and the wide horizontal
clusters in Japan.
55
http://www.littletongov.org/bia/economicgardening/
56
Ibid.
57
Job Creation in America, op cit., pp. 30-1.
58
Ibid., 29-36
59
Op cit., at fn. 12.
29
89
60
“Gazelles” by David Birch and James Medoff, Chapter 4 of Solmon and Lenvson, ed., Labor Markets,
Employment Policy & Job Creation (The Milken Institute for Job & Capital Formation, 1994),
61
Ibid., pp162-3.
62
Ibid. p. 163.
63
Ibid.
64
Ibid., p. 164.
65
Ibid.
66
Ibid. See also Richard Florida, The Rise of the Creative Class (Basic Books, 2004).
67
Ibid.
68
Ibid. pp 164-5.
69
Quotations and references here are from the Kindle edition of An Essay on Economic Theory by Richard
Cantillon, translated by Chantal Saucier and edited by Mark Thornton (Ludwig Von Mises Institute, 2010)
published under the Creative Commons Attribution License 3.0.
70
The book wasn’t published until 1755, 21 years after Cantillon’s death, although it had circulated privately in
manuscript form since it was written around 1730. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Cantillon
71
Schumpeter, Joseph, History of Economic Analysis (Oxford University Press, 1954), p. 555.
72
Say quoted without identifying source in Peter Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Harper & Row, 1985)
p. 21.
73
Schumpeter, The Theory of Economic Development (Oxford University Press edition, 1961).
74
Ibid., p. 63
75
Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy, 3rd edition (Harper & Row, 1950).
76
Schumpeter, Journal of Economic History, Nov. 1947, reprinted in Schumpeter, edited by Richard V. Clemence,
Essays on Entrepreneurs, Innovations, Business Cycles, and the Evolution of Capitalism (Transaction Publishers,
1989) p. 223
77
Ibid. 223-4.
78
Ibid., 224.
79
Drucker, Landmarks of Tomorrow (Harper & Brothers, 1957) pp. 17-59.
80
Ibid., pp. 18-19.
81
A copy of this speech titled “Management’s Role” can be found in Drucker, The Ecological Vision (Transaction
Publishers, 1993). NOTE: In the introduction to Part Three of the book Drucker identifies the title of the speech as
“Management’s New Role” which appears appropriate for the text of the speech. However, the title in the index and
at the heading of the speech reads “Management’s Role.”
82
Ibid., 143.
83
Ibid 139-40.
84
Ibid., p. 140.
85
Ibid., p 146.
86
Ibid.
87
Ibid.
88
Drucker, The Age of Continuity (Harper & Row, 1969).
89
Ibid., p. 145 (“One twentieth-century economist, the late Joseph Schumpeter (first of Austria and then of
Harvard), pointed all this out sixty years ago, before World War I. He also developed the first approach to a theory
of economic growth. He identified innovation as the cause of economic growth, and the entrepreneur as its agent.
Bjut since then almost no work has been done in the field.”)
90
Ibid., p. 63. The discussion of why he believed this, and why history has not supported his conclusion, is beyond
the scope of this paper. Suffice it to say, his argument was principally based on the double-taxation of dividends at
both and corporate and shareholder level which he believed created irresistible pressure for companies to retain
earnings and invest them within the corporation itself rather than distribute them to shareholders to invest
themselves in a broader, more diversified manner. This was a common concern in the late 1960s, when large
corporations were becoming “conglomerates” of varied and often unrelated business activities, but the ensuring
decades have demonstrated the limitations of this investment strategy and produced various cycles of
conglomeration and divestment despite the continuation of double-taxation of corporate dividends.
91
Ibid., p. 62.
92
Drucker, Innovation and Entrepreneurship (Harper & Row, 1985).
93
Ibid., p. 1. Drucker pointed out that American population over 16 had grown by 40% during those two decades,
while the number of jobs increased by 50% in the same period.
90
94
Ibid, p.3 (“Of the four million-plus jobs created since 1965 in the economy, high technology did not contribute
more than 5 or 6 million. High tech thus contributed no more than the ‘smokestack’ lost. All the additional jobs in
the economy were generated elsewhere.”) and p. 7 (“So far, the entrepreneurial economy is purely an American
phenomenon.”)
95
Ibid., p. 11.
96
Ibid., p. 17.
97
Ibid.
98
“Economic Community of the Month – Littleton, Colorado”
http://www.energizingentrepreneurs.org/site/images/research/es/sec/sec2.pdf
99
http://www.manateeedc.com/News/PDF/EG_STATE_LOAN_PROGRAM_APPLICATION.PDF
100
http://www.gomega.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=GSa1hH%2F5iyE%3D&tabid=802
101
Gibbons, “Economic Gardening: Using Information to Help Your Entrepreneurs Grow” (2007), p.11 Economic
America website http://www.iedconline.org/EDAmerica/Spring2007/Economic_Gardening.html download at
http://www.ccredc.com/UserFiles/ExecutiveUpdate/Economic%20Gardening%20Article.pdf
102
Steve Quello and Graham Toft, “Economic Gardening: Next Generation Applications for a Balanced Portfolio
Approach to Economic Growth,” The Small Business Economy for Data Year 2005 (Small Business Association,
Dec. 2006), pp.169-170. http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/sbe_06_ch06.pdf
103
Gibbons, “Littleton, Colorado: A Self Reliant Community in the Global Age,” New Village Press, January 11,
2010, http://www.newvillage.net/Journal/Issue2/2littleton.html
104
Ibid. p. 170. (interview with Christian Gibbons May 24, 2006).
105
Gibbons, “Economic Gardening: An Entrepreneurial Alternative to Traditional Economic Development
Strategies,” The IEDC Economic Development Journal Volume 9, Number 3, Summer 2010, p. 5-9
http://www.growfl.com/downloads/IEDC_EDJournal_Summer_10%20EG%20article.pdf
106
“Economic Gardening” The Edward Lowe Foundation http://edwardlowe.org/edlowenetwp/wpcontent/themes/implementprogram/downloads/infosheets/EconomicGardening.pdf
107
Hamilton-Pennell, “Economic Gardening: An Entrepreneurial Approach to Economic Development,” IED/IRP
Fall Conference, Boise ID, 10/29/08, http://growinglocaleconomies.com/files/pdf/IEDA1.pdf
108
Hamilton-Pennell, “CI for Small Businesses: Economic Development: The City of Littleton’s Economic
Gardening Program,” Competitive Intelligence Magazine Volume 7 • Number 6 • November-December 2004, p.14.
http://growinglocaleconomies.com/files/pdf/CI%20Nov-Dec%2004%20Hamilton-Pennell.pdf
109
Gibbons, , “Economic Gardening: An Entrepreneurial Alternative to Traditional Economic Development
Strategies,” op cit., p. 9
110
Anne Stuhldreher, “Grow Your Own: How economic gardening nurtures local businesses,” Stanford Social
Innovation Review,Winter 2010 , p. 63
http://www.ssireview.org/images/articles/2010WI_WhatWorks_Stuhldreher_New.pdf
111
Innovations in Economic Development: The Evolving Direction of Economic Development in the New Economy,
April 11-12, 1997, p. 46.
https://www.hhh.umn.edu/centers/slp/economic_development/principles_econ_dev/pdf/InnovationsinEconomicDev
elopment.pdf
112
. “Entrepreneurial Community of the Month: Littleton, Colorado” (Center for Rural Entrepreneurship)
http://www.energizingentrepreneurs.org/site/images/research/es/sec/sec2.pdf.
113
Ibid.
114
Steve Quello and Graham Toft, “Economic Gardening: Next Generation Applications for a Balanced Portfolio
Approach to Economic Growth,” The Small Business Economy for Data Year 2005 (Small Business Association,
Dec. 2006), pp.157-194. http://archive.sba.gov/advo/research/sbe_06_ch06.pdf
115
TuckerHall, The Economic Impact of GrowFl 2009-2011 (2011).
http://www.growfl.com/downloads/2011%20GrowFL%20Impacts%20Final.pdf, p. 4.
116
Ibid.
117
Gibbons, “Economic Gardening: Using Information to Help Your Entrepreneurs Grow,”
http://www.ccredc.com/UserFiles/ExecutiveUpdate/Economic%20Gardening%20Article.pdf
118
Hamilton-Pennell, “Strengthen Your Local Economy Through Economic Gardening,” InFocus Vol. 42, No. 4,
2010, p. 4.
119
Stuhldreher, op cit., p.4.
120
http://www.davemanuel.com/2010/08/03/us-gdp-growth-by-president-1948-2009/.
121
http://data.bls.gov/pdq/SurveyOutputServlet
91
122
“Economic Gardening: Next Generation Applications for a Balanced Portfolio Approach to Economic Growth,”
op cit., p. 173
123
“City Manager Hires New Economic Development Director,” Press Release, Aug. 30, 2012
http://www.littletongov.org/news/releases/2012/stephensHired.asp
124
Gibbons, “Economic Gardening: Using Information to Help Your Entrepreneurs Grow,”
http://www.iedconline.org/EDAmerica/Spring2007/Economic_Gardening.html
92