leadership capacity than most of the distressed communities in rural
America could be expected to possess. Consequently, we find a nega-
tive association rather than a positive one between rurality and the
effectiveness of local mobilization for development (Wilkinson et al.).
The problem of community in rural America can be seen from
many angles. The rural-community territory tends to be so large-
measured by where residents actually meet their various daily
needs—as to limit the connections among the various networks
through which specific needs are met. Many rural peoples’ contacts
are located in distant centers and residents of a given rural area
travel to several different centers regularly. Consequently, rural resi-
dents typically meet few of their needs together in the place of resi-
dence they share and this limits the potential for community
cohesion and community action.
Another way of seeing this is with concepts from network theory.
Community depends on both weak ties and strong ties (Granovetter).
Weak ties are formal and passing contacts between strangers or near
strangers. Strong ties are intimate and recurring contacts between
family members or friends. Commimity needs the weak ties to bind
the strong ties into a larger community structure, otherwise the
strong ties can become overly intense in their isolation and disrup-
tive to the community as a whole. Applying this idea to the rural
setting reveals a community problem. Rural areas have probably
about the same number of strong ties per capita as urban areas, but
a shortage of weak ties. Rurality restricts the number of strangers or
near strangers in local social networks and the rural ties that do
occur tend to be strong and isolated. Thus, if this thesis has validity,
rural areas have a problem of community structure.
At another level, the community problem in rural America is a
matter of vulnerability to what can only be described as exploitation.
There is a debate in the literature (Browett) about whether spatial
inequality (i.e., rural-urban and regional inequality in economic
well-being) is a product of development or simply a boon to those who
invest in developing underdeveloped areas and regions. Clearly, it is
the latter if not also the former. Rural communities typically are ill-
prepared by virtue of the trends and problems noted earlier to protect
their members against profit seeking firms that have little or no
vested interest in community well-being. The free market system,
whereby community and firm interests are protected in the deals
they strike between themselves after proper negotiation, assumes an
ability of the community to act in its own self-interest. This condition
is rarely met in rural areas today. Problems of community solidarity
limit the potential for community self-protection and self-help in
rural America.
Finally, this problem is seen at close range by those who seek to
stimulate rural community development with the policy tools avail-
able under the governing philosophy of the current federal