Laserfiche WebLink
a <br />10 <br />understar�ding of the sources of �conomic change had influenced the program <br />implementation, the program could have had more significant results.18 <br />Although the technocratic vicw seems import�nnt in accounting for the effects of the <br />Pragram on econornic growth, the perspective is less satisfactory in explaining the program's <br />failure to redistribute :�.cJnomic activity to ths most distressed areas of th�; state. The <br />Program's staff did not distribute f�nds in, y�►ays that refl�cted the information on ecanomic <br />. . <br />di. ;-ess that they used. Aithou�h they did �ow vvhat to do to accom lish red' ' <br />P istnbut�on to <br />dist�essed ar�as and although they said the� were �ioing this, the results were r, � <br />P� e . <br />distr�bution of funds only weakfy carrelated with the staff s measures of distress. Co <br />unhes <br />with higher unennpioyment rates and vbritll higt�er poverty rates and lower median incom <br />es in <br />1979 tended to receive more grant funds per capi�a, Ho�,�rever, less distressed counties <br />re�eYved more funds th�an mor� distressed ones. �'he 30 percent of �ounties with the lo <br />west <br />poverty xates in I979 received 42 percent of all pragrann fu�ds! the 50 percent of counties <br />with ti�e lowest pQvercy rat�s r�e�v�i n��y 60 �r�ent of tatal ro <br />p gram funds granted to <br />communities.'° <br />Part of the rea�on for the bias oi funding t�ward more pxosperaus cnunties was that <br />the evaluation of appIications did not plac� �nough importance on economic distres <br />s• Other <br />project characteristics could give an appiicaaor� enough poir�ts—up �u 44p�to exceed <br />the 400 <br />points required for �unding without a proje�t's do►ing well on the rr��asur�s of corn <br />muruty <br />distress. <br />'�Dewar, "Inside State and Loca1 Economic Development Programs, * <br />'.. <br />