Small Business
Content
Small Business & Entrepreneurship
Entrepreneurs and small businesses have consistently proven to be drivers of jobs and innovation
and the backbone of most local economies. To support these critical sources of economic growth,
NLC helps city leaders understand the needs of their business community, support businesses
with high-growth potential, build the capacity to implement targeted policies and identify
partners to meet the needs of entrepreneurs and local small businesses.
Advocacy
About Us
Research and Statistics
o Frequently Asked Questions about Small Business Finance
o Frequently Asked Questions
o State Economic Profiles
o Firm Size Data
o Quarterly Bulletins
o Research Issues
o Requests For Quotations
o Small Business Facts
o Small Business Data Resources
o Annual Report of the Office of Economic Research, FY 2013
o Issue Briefs
Regulatory Affairs
Newsroom
Regulatory Roundtables
Regional Advocates
Innovation Initiative
Connect With Us
Our Blog
Resources
Search by Issue
Advocacy Article
The Role of Small Business in Economic Development of the United States: From the End
of the Korean War (1953) to the Present
A Working Paper by
Major L. Clark, III and Radwan N. Saade Office of Advocacy U.S. Small Business
Administration
Release Date: September 2010
The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations found in this study are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy, the United States
Small Business Administration, or the United States government.
The Role of Small Business in Economic Development of the United States: From the End
of the Korean War (1953) to the Present
Major L. Clark, III and Radwan N. Saade
Introduction
Let us suggest at the outset that the past is prologue (Shakespeare, The Tempest).
The United States (U.S.) Federal government’s acquisition budget is larger than the entire
budgets of some countries. The government uses this monetary strength to acquire the necessary
goods and services to provide for the health, welfare and security of its people and allies around
the world, and to promote and achieve other goals and objectives such as economic development.
“These government contracts, by means by which many of the community needs are satisfied
cannot be equaled with ordinary contracts….” (Turpin, 1968).
The goal of the present paper is to show a link between economic development and small
business. The reasons are varied, but one can consider the contribution small business has had in
the U.S. economy, both in terms of output and job creation. However, it has been argued that
small businesses are not always at the forefront of some federal policy discussions on economic
development (Chase, 1973). It is this assertion that we aim to either prove or disprove by looking
at the significant legislative initiatives since the end of the Korean War and the procurement tools
that ensued. To that end, the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 will define economic
development. Within this context, Sections 3-4 will provide a brief history of economic
development in the United States with a focus on several major legislative initiatives. Finally, we
will examine several procurement tools used by the Federal Government to promote job creation
and economic development. The first procurement tool is the Labor Surplus Area program. This
program was a creation of the Post Korean War. We also look at additional procurement tools
such as the 1977 Local Public Works Act, the HUBZone Act, and the Stafford Act, and conclude
with a review of the current effort to create economic development stimulus through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
We find that, overall, these tools and actions failed to incorporate comprehensively the unique
and valuable perspective of this nation’s economic strength, the small business community.
1. Definition of Economic Development
Economic development is fundamentally about enhancing the factors of productive
capacity - land, labor, capital, and technology - of a national, state or local economy. By
using its resources and powers to reduce the risks and costs that could prohibit
investment, the public sector often has been responsible for setting the stage for
employment-generating investment by the private sector (Valley County Economic
Development, 1998).
The public sector generally seeks to increase incomes; the number of jobs; and the
production of resources in regions, states, counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods.i
Drabenstott (2006) defines economic development as involving both the restructuring and
growth of an economy to enhance the economic well-being of people that live in a
particular place.
An increasing number of voices contend that economic development policies must pass
the tests suggested by the following definitions: Are the policies, programs, and practices
generating a higher standard of living and more and better jobs? Are programs becoming
more accountable, cost-effective, and user-friendly? Are they expanding opportunities for
all Americans? Are they becoming more compatible with conserving our environmental
assets and promoting a higher quality of life?ii
By definition, economic development is the nucleus of a nation’s master plan for
continued prosperity and existence. Economic development must link the sources of
production with the wellbeing of its people. If economic development is to occur, several
conditions must be present. One report refers to these conditions as the Five M’s which
are materials, manpower, markets, management and money (Bruno 1980). As also shown
by data from the Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) at the United States’ Small Business
Administration (SBA), small businesses are the gate keeper of the five M’s.
2. History of Economic Development in the United States
1. The period prior to 1953
The first significant impact of Federal Government involvement in the day-to-day
operation of the Country’s economic system was during the Civil War and lasting
through World War I. It was, according to Chase (1973), during this period that
the first indications of significant growth of big business began to emerge that
resulted in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914, both
designed to control the evils of economic concentration associated with monopoly
and oligopoly.
Even with these bold legislative initiatives, the national economic development
objectives of the United States did not begin to take shape in earnest until the
1930s and 1940s. Prior to the Great Depression the government had already
established legislation for select elements of area economic development (e.g.,
highways, vocational technical education). Areas not receiving attention included
the chronically depressed regions of the United States (Economic Development
Administration Legislative History)
In his state of the union message to Congress in1944, President Roosevelt
presented an "Economic Bill of Rights" to the American people. An essential part
of this doctrine was the right of every individual to a useful and remunerative job
in an atmosphere of economic security.v To insure this right, Roosevelt's advisors
set as the nation's post-war economic goal, "full and stable national productivity,
income and employment" (U.S. Department of Labor). Yet for over a decade, the
purposes of this Act were more symbolic than real.vi Perhaps the effort was not
fully successful because the Act did not recognize the importance small
businesses as a major player in helping this nation solve its post war
unemployment problem.
President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs were the first to have significant
application to depressed areas, although the focal point was national recovery,vii
with no specific emphasis on small business. The policies did not use the
regenerative and multiplier ability of the small business sector. While small
business benefited along with everyone else, small business could have been an
instrument of even stronger economic development policies. Several planning
authorities created through the New Deal had a substantial impact on the
evolution of regional economic development policy, but again, small business was
not a primary focus (Poverty in America). This type of regional economic
development is perhaps the forerunner to the Porter, Mills et.al theories and
contributions to the literature with respect to cluster economic development.
These New Deal planning authorities included the following:
i. The Public Works Administration (PWA): established via the National Industrial
Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933 for the purpose of completing a plan to construct,
repair, and improve public highways, buildings, and other publicly owned
facilities, as well as for the conservation and development of natural resources.
ii. The National Resources Planning Board (NRPB): originally the National
Planning Board, established in 1933 and renamed in 1934, was designed to
implement the public works planning and construction provision of the NIRA.ix
Besides examining the physical aspects of regional economic development,
NRPB recommended the creation of coordinated interstate, state, and local
planning boards and districts, which were conceived of as early predecessors for
the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 (ARA) and the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA).
iii. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA): designed to meet President
Roosevelt’s vision of a national system of interlocking river-valley regional
development projects. It is the most well-known and well-funded of more than
forty state planning commissions established during the 1930s to help coordinate
federal economic planning. The TVA planning approach served as a precedent for
other development commissions, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC).
In 1942, the Smaller War Plants Corporation (SWPC) was established to
determine how best small businesses could be used to assist in the production of
parts for World War II. The SWPC was a pioneer agency because it was the first
Federal agency established to assist small firms.xii Prior to the creation of SWPC,
Congress received numerous complaints that small businesses were being denied
the opportunity to participate in defense contracting and that these contracts were
being given mostly to large businesses.xiii This form of discrimination gave rise
to a fear in Congress that unless small businesses were included in defense
contracting, the United States might be weakened on the home front.xiv So
profound was this problem, that a slogan was coined, “If America will save the
small businessmen, then small businessmen will save America.”xv Congress also
recognized the severity of this crisis and in 1941 passed Resolution 294 that not
only authorized an investigation of the national defense program relative to small
business but also began the process of creating a specific Committee to focus on
the problesmall business.
The work of SWPC ended in 1946. It slowly became evident that small businesses
were good enough to help in the defense of this nation but not good enough to
enjoy the economic benefits of a peace time prosperity. It was not until another
war crisis that a new temporary small business agency emerged. The Small
Defense Plants Administration was created to help small firms participate in
defense production during the Korean War.
In the 1940s, legislation to aid depressed areas was largely driven by several
administration officials and congressional representatives, including Henry A.
Wallace, who, as Secretary of Commerce, negotiated congressional hearings on
the issue of chronically distressed regions.xviii Wallace focused on the South,
arguing that the nation could not achieve full employment when an entire region
was lagging (Wallace, 1945).xix Also, Wallace pointed out that in 1820, farm
employment represented 72 percent of the economically active population in the
United States. Between 1940 and 1970 the farm population declined from 30.5
million to 10.3 million.xx One reason for this drastic decline was the loss of
soldiers in war; and for those who returned home, many did not want to return to
a life of farming.
Wallace’s proposal was to develop a comprehensive federal strategy for depressed
areas but it did not explicitly focus on small businesses.xxi In 1945, two
legislative proposals on depressed areas reached Congress. The first bill became
the 1946 Full Employment Act. This Act was amended to assist underdeveloped
areas.xxii This bill was linked to underdeveloped areas, and focused on shifting
remedial action for rural problems from a people–to–jobs orientation (worker
mobility) to jobs–to–people orientation (employment establishment expansion). In
sum, it promised assistance to private economic initiatives.xxiii Presumably this
would include small businesses, but history does not provide a clear picture of
whether that was the case. The intent of the second bill was to provide
industrialization aid to underdeveloped areas.
During this period two significant statistical collection and distribution agencies
were established: the Bureau of Employment Security and the Area Development
Division. These additions reflected the Truman administration’s desire to narrow
regional differentials by raising productivity and incomes in lagging regions by
improving agricultural methods and land use, industrial expansion and
diversification, and increased health and education levels.xxv To achieve these
goals the Council of Economic Advisers began to study ways to integrate
programs in business, labor, agriculture, and all levels of government that would
benefit each and contribute to the whole.
President Truman's ascension to the presidency upon President Roosevelt's
passing produced little change. He continued the New Deal legacy and responded
to the predictions of massive post-war unemployment by reaffirming the nation's
commitment to full utilization of its material and human resources through the
Employment Act of 1946 .xxvii
2. The period after 1953
After President Truman, President Eisenhower believed that economic problems
stemmed from various causes.xxviii His deep concern over these issues surfaced
in a strong appeal for legislation to aid chronically depressed areas, and
opposition to bills that would establish policy for area assistance. In general, the
Eisenhower administration tended to favor technical assistance and loans to
depressed areas. This lead to the passage of the Small Business Act in 1953 and
the initiation of the Rural Development Program in 1955. xxix Overall, the
economic improvement programs of the Eisenhower administration focused more
on the efforts of state and local governments, as well as civic organizations, than
in the past. xxx This led to a new Area Assistance Program, designed to better
assist communities that had experienced persistent and substantial unemployment.
xxxi
Unemployment in some concentrated regions of the nation created a concern for
Congress. The Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Unemployment, of the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, held hearings on the causes of chronic
unemployment in March 1955.xxxii The flow of depressed area legislative
proposals continued, but at the close of 1959, none had received full legislative
and executive support. It was nearly six years later before Congress would enact
legislation creating the Economic Development Administration.
Within this historical economic backdrop in the United States, EDA was born in
1965.
3. Federal Economic Development Programs
A. Economic Development Administration. xxxiii
As appropriately suggested by Glasmeier and Farrigan (2006), President Johnson planned
to group together distressed counties and communities in economically viable
development districts, focusing planning and assistance on the area as a whole as well as
on individual counties and towns. The details of the proposal were laid out in PWEDA.
The PWEDA would be a permanent program to provide grants for public works and
development facilities, other financial assistance, and the planning and coordination
needed to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and
underemployment in economically depressed areas and regions. The bill contained
provisions for: 1) the majority of funding for grants for construction of public works
projects to attract industry; 2) loans mainly for construction of industrial plants; 3) the
guarantee of working capital loans by the government and help paying interest on certain
loans for private firms.
The primary and secondary objectives of the EDA were as follows:
i.Primary Objectives
a-Self-sustained economic development- EDA was to provide stimulus for self sustained
growth rather than effecting long-term income transfers to the unemployed. This
followed the concept of the agency that it could correct the negative effects of market
forces and that prosperity was a desirable political and economic goal.
b-Increased planning capacity- EDA’s goal was to promote sound, long range economic
planning at all levels of government necessary to aid in infrastructure development;
according to the act, this required the creation of regional commissions, development
districts, a national advisory board, planning grants, and technical assistance, as well as
community designed overall economic development plans.
c-Rural focus of aid- although not explicitly stated, the political perspective of urban ills
presented in the act was that they were largely a spin-off of the deterioration of rural life
and the resulting rural to urban migration. Therefore, a major objective of the EDA was to
curtail rural emigration.
ii.Secondary Objectives
a-Maximization of national economic efficiency.
b-The achievement of equity as compared to other regions through economic growth.
c-Relief of effects of cyclical economic distress.
d-Geographic dispersion of assistance limited to 15% of EDA expenditures per state.
B.The Small Business Administration
Notwithstanding a nearly 25-year effort to get a central point of reference for economic
development, the primary and secondary objectives of this historic EDA accomplishment
did not acknowledge small business. Some would suggest that this new EDA law did not
want to infringe on the jurisdiction of the Small Business Administration, but how can
one think of maximizing national economic efficiency without a primary role for small
businesses?
Excluded from consideration in the 1965 EDA Act was the question of why small
businesses are so vital to the well being of this nation’s economic fabric. During World
Wars I and II and the Korean War, the small business community rose to the fight. Small
businesses kept this nation at the doorstep of victory. “If America will save the small
businessmen, the small businessmen will save America.” Small business saved America
and America responded by creating the Small Business Act of 1953. The Korean War
ended in 1953, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that created the Small
Business Administration (SBA) on July 30, 1953. xxxv These two very separate events in
the archives of American History were very much connected to each other. SBA became
the first peacetime Agency of government whose purpose is to provide assistance to all
aspects of small business.
Passed in 1953, the Small Business Act established the SBA with the mandate to
"encourage" and "develop" small business growth, and to aid minorities and other
disadvantaged people in securing loans and learning management techniques. "The
essence of the American economic system of private enterprise is free competition," the
act reads, "Only through full and free competition can free markets, free entry into
business, and opportunities for the expression and growth of personal initiative and
individual judgment be assured. The preservation and expansion of such competition is
basic not only to economic well-being but to the security of this Nation." xxxvii
Congress adopted the Small Business Act during the Eisenhower Administration, a time
of economic expansion. Millions of G.I.'s returning from the Army in 1945 and 1946
injected a renewed workforce into the economy, and factory jobs filled up quickly.
Factories were no longer producing for the war effort, and many of the returning G.I.'s,
either unable or unwilling to find work in large industrial firms, sought out their own
business ventures. With the help of families and personal loans, businesses such as
camera stores, food services, and car dealerships sprang up across the country. Still, large
firms had tremendous advantages over smaller start-ups, and Congress created the SBA
to help even the playing field.
Small businesses currently represent 98 percent of all businesses in the United States and
they generate nearly 64 percent of all net new jobs in this country.xxxix Moreover, small
businesses are generally considered to be the first line of employment and thus the initial
training grounds for this nation’s workforce. xl There are twenty-nine million small
businesses in the United States.xli The SBA estimates that just over half of all employees
in the U.S. work for a small firm, and that small business employers provide
approximately 44.5 percent of payroll in the private sector. Ninety-seven percent of all
exporters are small business owners, comprising 29 percent of total exports.xlii The most
powerful statistic, however, is that 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs come from small
businesses. This number fluctuates when some small businesses grow enough to become
classified as large businesses, and when new small businesses are created. From 1999 to
2000, small businesses accounted for 75 percent of all new jobs created. By 2010, small
businesses account for three quarters of net new jobs in the United States. xliii
Small businesses have a long history of being this nation’s primary job creator, but as
outlined above in the history of this nation’s economic policy formation, small businesses
were not at the forefront in this nation’s policy manpower formation. The congressional
policy “…that the government should aid, counsel, assist…the interest of small business
concerns in order to preserve competitive enterprise….”, in the 1953 Small Business Act
carried very little potency as it can be seen in the creation of the Labor Surplus area
program.
Entrepreneurs and small businesses have consistently proven to be drivers of jobs and innovation
and the backbone of most local economies. To support these critical sources of economic growth,
NLC helps city leaders understand the needs of their business community, support businesses
with high-growth potential, build the capacity to implement targeted policies and identify
partners to meet the needs of entrepreneurs and local small businesses.
Advocacy
About Us
Research and Statistics
o Frequently Asked Questions about Small Business Finance
o Frequently Asked Questions
o State Economic Profiles
o Firm Size Data
o Quarterly Bulletins
o Research Issues
o Requests For Quotations
o Small Business Facts
o Small Business Data Resources
o Annual Report of the Office of Economic Research, FY 2013
o Issue Briefs
Regulatory Affairs
Newsroom
Regulatory Roundtables
Regional Advocates
Innovation Initiative
Connect With Us
Our Blog
Resources
Search by Issue
Advocacy Article
The Role of Small Business in Economic Development of the United States: From the End
of the Korean War (1953) to the Present
A Working Paper by
Major L. Clark, III and Radwan N. Saade Office of Advocacy U.S. Small Business
Administration
Release Date: September 2010
The statements, findings, conclusions, and recommendations found in this study are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Office of Advocacy, the United States
Small Business Administration, or the United States government.
The Role of Small Business in Economic Development of the United States: From the End
of the Korean War (1953) to the Present
Major L. Clark, III and Radwan N. Saade
Introduction
Let us suggest at the outset that the past is prologue (Shakespeare, The Tempest).
The United States (U.S.) Federal government’s acquisition budget is larger than the entire
budgets of some countries. The government uses this monetary strength to acquire the necessary
goods and services to provide for the health, welfare and security of its people and allies around
the world, and to promote and achieve other goals and objectives such as economic development.
“These government contracts, by means by which many of the community needs are satisfied
cannot be equaled with ordinary contracts….” (Turpin, 1968).
The goal of the present paper is to show a link between economic development and small
business. The reasons are varied, but one can consider the contribution small business has had in
the U.S. economy, both in terms of output and job creation. However, it has been argued that
small businesses are not always at the forefront of some federal policy discussions on economic
development (Chase, 1973). It is this assertion that we aim to either prove or disprove by looking
at the significant legislative initiatives since the end of the Korean War and the procurement tools
that ensued. To that end, the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 will define economic
development. Within this context, Sections 3-4 will provide a brief history of economic
development in the United States with a focus on several major legislative initiatives. Finally, we
will examine several procurement tools used by the Federal Government to promote job creation
and economic development. The first procurement tool is the Labor Surplus Area program. This
program was a creation of the Post Korean War. We also look at additional procurement tools
such as the 1977 Local Public Works Act, the HUBZone Act, and the Stafford Act, and conclude
with a review of the current effort to create economic development stimulus through the
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
We find that, overall, these tools and actions failed to incorporate comprehensively the unique
and valuable perspective of this nation’s economic strength, the small business community.
1. Definition of Economic Development
Economic development is fundamentally about enhancing the factors of productive
capacity - land, labor, capital, and technology - of a national, state or local economy. By
using its resources and powers to reduce the risks and costs that could prohibit
investment, the public sector often has been responsible for setting the stage for
employment-generating investment by the private sector (Valley County Economic
Development, 1998).
The public sector generally seeks to increase incomes; the number of jobs; and the
production of resources in regions, states, counties, cities, towns, and neighborhoods.i
Drabenstott (2006) defines economic development as involving both the restructuring and
growth of an economy to enhance the economic well-being of people that live in a
particular place.
An increasing number of voices contend that economic development policies must pass
the tests suggested by the following definitions: Are the policies, programs, and practices
generating a higher standard of living and more and better jobs? Are programs becoming
more accountable, cost-effective, and user-friendly? Are they expanding opportunities for
all Americans? Are they becoming more compatible with conserving our environmental
assets and promoting a higher quality of life?ii
By definition, economic development is the nucleus of a nation’s master plan for
continued prosperity and existence. Economic development must link the sources of
production with the wellbeing of its people. If economic development is to occur, several
conditions must be present. One report refers to these conditions as the Five M’s which
are materials, manpower, markets, management and money (Bruno 1980). As also shown
by data from the Office of Advocacy (Advocacy) at the United States’ Small Business
Administration (SBA), small businesses are the gate keeper of the five M’s.
2. History of Economic Development in the United States
1. The period prior to 1953
The first significant impact of Federal Government involvement in the day-to-day
operation of the Country’s economic system was during the Civil War and lasting
through World War I. It was, according to Chase (1973), during this period that
the first indications of significant growth of big business began to emerge that
resulted in the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Act of 1914, both
designed to control the evils of economic concentration associated with monopoly
and oligopoly.
Even with these bold legislative initiatives, the national economic development
objectives of the United States did not begin to take shape in earnest until the
1930s and 1940s. Prior to the Great Depression the government had already
established legislation for select elements of area economic development (e.g.,
highways, vocational technical education). Areas not receiving attention included
the chronically depressed regions of the United States (Economic Development
Administration Legislative History)
In his state of the union message to Congress in1944, President Roosevelt
presented an "Economic Bill of Rights" to the American people. An essential part
of this doctrine was the right of every individual to a useful and remunerative job
in an atmosphere of economic security.v To insure this right, Roosevelt's advisors
set as the nation's post-war economic goal, "full and stable national productivity,
income and employment" (U.S. Department of Labor). Yet for over a decade, the
purposes of this Act were more symbolic than real.vi Perhaps the effort was not
fully successful because the Act did not recognize the importance small
businesses as a major player in helping this nation solve its post war
unemployment problem.
President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs were the first to have significant
application to depressed areas, although the focal point was national recovery,vii
with no specific emphasis on small business. The policies did not use the
regenerative and multiplier ability of the small business sector. While small
business benefited along with everyone else, small business could have been an
instrument of even stronger economic development policies. Several planning
authorities created through the New Deal had a substantial impact on the
evolution of regional economic development policy, but again, small business was
not a primary focus (Poverty in America). This type of regional economic
development is perhaps the forerunner to the Porter, Mills et.al theories and
contributions to the literature with respect to cluster economic development.
These New Deal planning authorities included the following:
i. The Public Works Administration (PWA): established via the National Industrial
Recovery Act (NIRA) of 1933 for the purpose of completing a plan to construct,
repair, and improve public highways, buildings, and other publicly owned
facilities, as well as for the conservation and development of natural resources.
ii. The National Resources Planning Board (NRPB): originally the National
Planning Board, established in 1933 and renamed in 1934, was designed to
implement the public works planning and construction provision of the NIRA.ix
Besides examining the physical aspects of regional economic development,
NRPB recommended the creation of coordinated interstate, state, and local
planning boards and districts, which were conceived of as early predecessors for
the Area Redevelopment Act of 1961 (ARA) and the Public Works and Economic
Development Act of 1965 (PWEDA).
iii. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA): designed to meet President
Roosevelt’s vision of a national system of interlocking river-valley regional
development projects. It is the most well-known and well-funded of more than
forty state planning commissions established during the 1930s to help coordinate
federal economic planning. The TVA planning approach served as a precedent for
other development commissions, such as the Appalachian Regional Commission
(ARC).
In 1942, the Smaller War Plants Corporation (SWPC) was established to
determine how best small businesses could be used to assist in the production of
parts for World War II. The SWPC was a pioneer agency because it was the first
Federal agency established to assist small firms.xii Prior to the creation of SWPC,
Congress received numerous complaints that small businesses were being denied
the opportunity to participate in defense contracting and that these contracts were
being given mostly to large businesses.xiii This form of discrimination gave rise
to a fear in Congress that unless small businesses were included in defense
contracting, the United States might be weakened on the home front.xiv So
profound was this problem, that a slogan was coined, “If America will save the
small businessmen, then small businessmen will save America.”xv Congress also
recognized the severity of this crisis and in 1941 passed Resolution 294 that not
only authorized an investigation of the national defense program relative to small
business but also began the process of creating a specific Committee to focus on
the problesmall business.
The work of SWPC ended in 1946. It slowly became evident that small businesses
were good enough to help in the defense of this nation but not good enough to
enjoy the economic benefits of a peace time prosperity. It was not until another
war crisis that a new temporary small business agency emerged. The Small
Defense Plants Administration was created to help small firms participate in
defense production during the Korean War.
In the 1940s, legislation to aid depressed areas was largely driven by several
administration officials and congressional representatives, including Henry A.
Wallace, who, as Secretary of Commerce, negotiated congressional hearings on
the issue of chronically distressed regions.xviii Wallace focused on the South,
arguing that the nation could not achieve full employment when an entire region
was lagging (Wallace, 1945).xix Also, Wallace pointed out that in 1820, farm
employment represented 72 percent of the economically active population in the
United States. Between 1940 and 1970 the farm population declined from 30.5
million to 10.3 million.xx One reason for this drastic decline was the loss of
soldiers in war; and for those who returned home, many did not want to return to
a life of farming.
Wallace’s proposal was to develop a comprehensive federal strategy for depressed
areas but it did not explicitly focus on small businesses.xxi In 1945, two
legislative proposals on depressed areas reached Congress. The first bill became
the 1946 Full Employment Act. This Act was amended to assist underdeveloped
areas.xxii This bill was linked to underdeveloped areas, and focused on shifting
remedial action for rural problems from a people–to–jobs orientation (worker
mobility) to jobs–to–people orientation (employment establishment expansion). In
sum, it promised assistance to private economic initiatives.xxiii Presumably this
would include small businesses, but history does not provide a clear picture of
whether that was the case. The intent of the second bill was to provide
industrialization aid to underdeveloped areas.
During this period two significant statistical collection and distribution agencies
were established: the Bureau of Employment Security and the Area Development
Division. These additions reflected the Truman administration’s desire to narrow
regional differentials by raising productivity and incomes in lagging regions by
improving agricultural methods and land use, industrial expansion and
diversification, and increased health and education levels.xxv To achieve these
goals the Council of Economic Advisers began to study ways to integrate
programs in business, labor, agriculture, and all levels of government that would
benefit each and contribute to the whole.
President Truman's ascension to the presidency upon President Roosevelt's
passing produced little change. He continued the New Deal legacy and responded
to the predictions of massive post-war unemployment by reaffirming the nation's
commitment to full utilization of its material and human resources through the
Employment Act of 1946 .xxvii
2. The period after 1953
After President Truman, President Eisenhower believed that economic problems
stemmed from various causes.xxviii His deep concern over these issues surfaced
in a strong appeal for legislation to aid chronically depressed areas, and
opposition to bills that would establish policy for area assistance. In general, the
Eisenhower administration tended to favor technical assistance and loans to
depressed areas. This lead to the passage of the Small Business Act in 1953 and
the initiation of the Rural Development Program in 1955. xxix Overall, the
economic improvement programs of the Eisenhower administration focused more
on the efforts of state and local governments, as well as civic organizations, than
in the past. xxx This led to a new Area Assistance Program, designed to better
assist communities that had experienced persistent and substantial unemployment.
xxxi
Unemployment in some concentrated regions of the nation created a concern for
Congress. The Senate Subcommittee to Investigate Unemployment, of the
Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, held hearings on the causes of chronic
unemployment in March 1955.xxxii The flow of depressed area legislative
proposals continued, but at the close of 1959, none had received full legislative
and executive support. It was nearly six years later before Congress would enact
legislation creating the Economic Development Administration.
Within this historical economic backdrop in the United States, EDA was born in
1965.
3. Federal Economic Development Programs
A. Economic Development Administration. xxxiii
As appropriately suggested by Glasmeier and Farrigan (2006), President Johnson planned
to group together distressed counties and communities in economically viable
development districts, focusing planning and assistance on the area as a whole as well as
on individual counties and towns. The details of the proposal were laid out in PWEDA.
The PWEDA would be a permanent program to provide grants for public works and
development facilities, other financial assistance, and the planning and coordination
needed to alleviate conditions of substantial and persistent unemployment and
underemployment in economically depressed areas and regions. The bill contained
provisions for: 1) the majority of funding for grants for construction of public works
projects to attract industry; 2) loans mainly for construction of industrial plants; 3) the
guarantee of working capital loans by the government and help paying interest on certain
loans for private firms.
The primary and secondary objectives of the EDA were as follows:
i.Primary Objectives
a-Self-sustained economic development- EDA was to provide stimulus for self sustained
growth rather than effecting long-term income transfers to the unemployed. This
followed the concept of the agency that it could correct the negative effects of market
forces and that prosperity was a desirable political and economic goal.
b-Increased planning capacity- EDA’s goal was to promote sound, long range economic
planning at all levels of government necessary to aid in infrastructure development;
according to the act, this required the creation of regional commissions, development
districts, a national advisory board, planning grants, and technical assistance, as well as
community designed overall economic development plans.
c-Rural focus of aid- although not explicitly stated, the political perspective of urban ills
presented in the act was that they were largely a spin-off of the deterioration of rural life
and the resulting rural to urban migration. Therefore, a major objective of the EDA was to
curtail rural emigration.
ii.Secondary Objectives
a-Maximization of national economic efficiency.
b-The achievement of equity as compared to other regions through economic growth.
c-Relief of effects of cyclical economic distress.
d-Geographic dispersion of assistance limited to 15% of EDA expenditures per state.
B.The Small Business Administration
Notwithstanding a nearly 25-year effort to get a central point of reference for economic
development, the primary and secondary objectives of this historic EDA accomplishment
did not acknowledge small business. Some would suggest that this new EDA law did not
want to infringe on the jurisdiction of the Small Business Administration, but how can
one think of maximizing national economic efficiency without a primary role for small
businesses?
Excluded from consideration in the 1965 EDA Act was the question of why small
businesses are so vital to the well being of this nation’s economic fabric. During World
Wars I and II and the Korean War, the small business community rose to the fight. Small
businesses kept this nation at the doorstep of victory. “If America will save the small
businessmen, the small businessmen will save America.” Small business saved America
and America responded by creating the Small Business Act of 1953. The Korean War
ended in 1953, President Eisenhower signed into law legislation that created the Small
Business Administration (SBA) on July 30, 1953. xxxv These two very separate events in
the archives of American History were very much connected to each other. SBA became
the first peacetime Agency of government whose purpose is to provide assistance to all
aspects of small business.
Passed in 1953, the Small Business Act established the SBA with the mandate to
"encourage" and "develop" small business growth, and to aid minorities and other
disadvantaged people in securing loans and learning management techniques. "The
essence of the American economic system of private enterprise is free competition," the
act reads, "Only through full and free competition can free markets, free entry into
business, and opportunities for the expression and growth of personal initiative and
individual judgment be assured. The preservation and expansion of such competition is
basic not only to economic well-being but to the security of this Nation." xxxvii
Congress adopted the Small Business Act during the Eisenhower Administration, a time
of economic expansion. Millions of G.I.'s returning from the Army in 1945 and 1946
injected a renewed workforce into the economy, and factory jobs filled up quickly.
Factories were no longer producing for the war effort, and many of the returning G.I.'s,
either unable or unwilling to find work in large industrial firms, sought out their own
business ventures. With the help of families and personal loans, businesses such as
camera stores, food services, and car dealerships sprang up across the country. Still, large
firms had tremendous advantages over smaller start-ups, and Congress created the SBA
to help even the playing field.
Small businesses currently represent 98 percent of all businesses in the United States and
they generate nearly 64 percent of all net new jobs in this country.xxxix Moreover, small
businesses are generally considered to be the first line of employment and thus the initial
training grounds for this nation’s workforce. xl There are twenty-nine million small
businesses in the United States.xli The SBA estimates that just over half of all employees
in the U.S. work for a small firm, and that small business employers provide
approximately 44.5 percent of payroll in the private sector. Ninety-seven percent of all
exporters are small business owners, comprising 29 percent of total exports.xlii The most
powerful statistic, however, is that 60 to 80 percent of all new jobs come from small
businesses. This number fluctuates when some small businesses grow enough to become
classified as large businesses, and when new small businesses are created. From 1999 to
2000, small businesses accounted for 75 percent of all new jobs created. By 2010, small
businesses account for three quarters of net new jobs in the United States. xliii
Small businesses have a long history of being this nation’s primary job creator, but as
outlined above in the history of this nation’s economic policy formation, small businesses
were not at the forefront in this nation’s policy manpower formation. The congressional
policy “…that the government should aid, counsel, assist…the interest of small business
concerns in order to preserve competitive enterprise….”, in the 1953 Small Business Act
carried very little potency as it can be seen in the creation of the Labor Surplus area
program.
