The Paradox of Prison-Based Economic Development in Rural America

The Paradox of Prison-Based Economic Development in Rural America

Introduction

Whereas prison facilities were once viewed with aversion as threats to a community’s well-being, prisons today are the focus of competitive bids by rural communities desperate for economic stability. As non-metro economies deteriorated and prison populations exploded over the last two decades, rural America and prison facilities have developed a symbiotic relationship. This paper investigates whether prison-based economic development policies in rural America provide benefits that exceed their costs.

Proponents of the prisons-as-development strategy contend that prison jobs offer better wages and create more stability than the few industries that remain in non-metro America. Yet, critics cite higher crime rates and reduced property values as the social externalities and economic drawbacks that result from prison siting. Impact studies of prison-based development strategies, although far from conclusive, suggest that the truth may lie somewhere in the middle. However, it is also clear that the varied impacts this strategy has, both good and bad, are rarely if ever considered in the prison siting process. Nonetheless, the prison-as-development approach continues as a tactic to create jobs and to bring hope to the struggling communities of non-metro America.

Two Trends: Rural Economic Deterioration and Rising Prison Populations

Prison siting as a form of economic development resulted from the convergence of two unrelated trends in America: the economic downturn in rural America and the increase in U.S. prison populations. Over the last several decades, economic distress was brought on to non-metro regions as family farms were consolidated and manufacturing industries found cheaper labor elsewhere; Almost all sources of well-paying employment drained out of rural America. The consequence, as Huling identifies, was that the poverty rate of working rural families actually increased in the 1980s (4). With demoralized populations and stagnant economies, non-metro America looked to all but vanish by the end of the century.

One of the few economic development strategies that remained was the acceptance of generally undesirable industries and facilities to create jobs. Samara suggests that rural communities were “priced out of contests to attract manufacturers, as local development agencies in more prosperous areas offer[ed] aggressive packages of tax breaks, cheap loans, free land and more” (27).