Economic Development Response to the

Economic Development Response to the Dutchess County, New York Case Study Are the expected financial benefits quantified? 2) if so, what are they and how much? If not, what could have been addressed? Agriculture is described as being "perceived to be a major component of the economy" (2). This is not backed up by any real figures on the value of agriculture.

It is also stated that agriculture is at risk with "too many farms going out of business." Once again, this is not backed up by any real figures about the number of farms that have gone out of business of what economic impact the farms had. The other benefits of farming to the area are also stated vaguely. This includes suggested tax benefits and a statement that agriculture has an economic impact. These statements are made and it is concludes that agriculture needs to survive.

However, since no facts or quantitative details were given, this conclusion is not justified. The report describes a Cost of Community Services Study. This study compared "the costs of providing municipal services to agriculture and other sectors of the community with the tax revenues generated by each sector" (4). This study found that farmers paid more in taxes than they received in governmental services. This was used to conclude that the net costs to a community increase when agricultural land is converted to housing.

The problem that seems to exist with this data is that it does not show that the input into agriculture is justified in comparison to it being used to support other industries. Instead, it only seems to conclude that money spent has a greater return on investment when spent on agriculture as compared to residential housing. The report also describes various marketing efforts aimed at increasing tourism dollars. This includes creating brochures, organizing events such as the Duchess County Crop Art, and advertising in New York travel magazines.

There is no indication of the costs of these promotion activities or the potential economic benefits. It is suggested that studies should have been completed to determine the expected value of tourism before investing money in promoting it. The report also describes a New England Study Tour, where 40 people from the area toured through Massachusetts and Connecticut to find out how those communities where managing issues associated with agriculture.

The problem with this action is that it considers what other areas are doing, but this is not based on how effective the other communities are. It is suggested that the time and money spent touring other areas would have been better spent researching the economic effectiveness of such programs. The article also describes a study where $50,000 was allocated to identifying strategies for agriculture-based economic development.

The problem is that this money is spent on agricultural development without their being any previous studies to determine whether agriculture is a valuable investment. It is suggested that other areas should have been considered before determining that agriculture should be the primary industry. The article concludes by describing the investments in Dutchess County and says that "no comprehensive assessment of the total costs of AED" (12). This includes the statement that "many different agencies and organizations have contributed resources of staff time and funding" (12).

It is suggested that the AED efforts should have been more controlled. The fact that the input of different agencies is quite vague suggests that there is not enough control over the process. Without having a clear knowledge of the inputs, it is not possible to determine the return on investment. The achievements of AED are also stated in vague terms, with no quantified results given. This makes it impossible to decide whether AED has been an economic success.

3) Assume you are a citizen in another county in New York State. What would be your questions, criticisms, and concerns? As a citizen in another county, I would be concerned that the focus is so exclusively on agriculture without considering other alternatives. Another related concern is that there seems to be an investment made in convincing people that farming is important.

This is seen in the Hudson Valley Harvest campaign, which is described as having a mission of creating public awareness of the importance of farming and promoting agriculture and food literacy (7). It seems that this is partly meant to influence the people of the region in accepting agriculture as their main focus. The problem is that it is not clear that this will provide any economic benefits.

The same is seen where the Hudson Valley Harvest organizers created an ambassador program to "recruit and train volunteers from the community to share the message of the importance of agriculture" (9). The significant concern is.