Maine sits precisely across one of the socio-political fault lines revealed so starkly in our most recent presidential election. Maine split its electoral votes, and that split embodies the character of the national split that elected Donald Trump through the Electoral College – even though he lost the popular vote by more than 2 million ballots. According to an analysis of voting results conducted by researchers at the Brookings Institution, Trump’s electoral victory can be attributed to higher turnouts and higher Republican support in rural areas and small metropolitan areas.

And what is the economically distinguishing characteristic of such areas? High job loss? Emphatically, no!

Large metro areas lost far more jobs in the Great Recession than did rural and small metro areas. The key difference has been slow or no recovery since the recession. Donald Trump actually got fewer votes in major metro areas than did Mitt Romney in 2012. The key to his victory was the vastly higher turnout and movement to the Republican candidate in areas that had still not regained the jobs they had lost in a recession that was “officially” over by 2010. This trend was particularly true among voters who in 2008 and 2012 had supported the “change” candidacy of Barack Obama. This picture of failed recovery is the perfect characterization of Maine’s non-metro counties.

According to the federal Bureau of Economic Analysis, Maine’s metro areas (York, Cumberland, Sagadahoc, Androscoggin and Penobscot counties) have regained all the jobs lost since the recession, and added about 3,000 more jobs. Maine’s non-metro areas, in contrast, saw total employment fall by more than 18,000 over a drop that continued from the 2007 peak all the way to 2012. And in the recovery since 2012, these areas have regained only 6,700 jobs, leaving them still nearly 12,000 below their 2007 peak.

And this stagnant job recovery has carried over into many other aspects of life in our non-metro areas. Population has fallen by nearly 12,000 since its 2007 peak. And, in spite of this drop, the ratio of resident jobs to total population has fallen to 55 percent. This is far below the 65 percent ratio in Maine’ metro areas, meaning that the dependent population – those too young, too old or too discouraged to work – is far higher in the non-metro areas. Finally:

• earnings per worker were substantially lower in Maine’s non-metro areas ($38,400 versus $43,100 in metro areas);

• growth in earnings per worker was substantially lower in Maine’s non-metro areas (5.7 percent versus 8.4 percent in metro areas); and

• the share of pay earned by commuting to jobs outside of the region was substantially greater in non-metro areas (6.3 percent and steadily growing versus 0.8 percent in metro areas).

All of these statistics simply underline the Brookings finding that Maine’s non-metro areas have not shared equally in whatever economic recovery the nation has experienced since 2010. The central point, therefore, is that Maine has a unique opportunity to lead. Whatever policies we may undertake as a state to address these regional inequities could point the way to national revival and thus an opportunity to heal the rifts made so obvious by our recent election.

To my mind, such policies must focus on three essential characteristics:

First, they must identify economic activities uniquely suited to rural areas. In Maine’s case, this seems most obviously to be the local production of food and beverage products. This is an area where Maine’s abundance of arable land, water for irrigation, and access to the ocean provide a stable geographic base. It is also an area not dependent on pipe dreams of regaining lost manufacturing jobs. Expansion of locally traceable food has the advantage of requiring thousands of jobs in transportation, packaging, distribution, marketing, finance, research, food safety and other supply chain niches required to get Maine products to market. This would not be a naïve “replace lost manufacturing” strategy.

Second, they must include specific, short-term, inexpensive labor training initiatives that require participation of both employers and public educational institutions. Maine’s most underutilized resource today is the thousands of men in the 25 to 55 age cohort who have dropped out of the labor force. Ways of re-engaging these “discouraged workers” are not “rocket science.” They are simply ways to bring current skills to people whose forebears filled such occupations a century ago.

Third, they must directly address the reality that the vast majority of economic activity is increasingly concentrated in our major metro areas and include relocation subsidies including temporary wage replacement for those seeking to move to new job opportunities.

– Charles Lawton, Ph.D., is a consulting economist. He can be contacted at:

cttlaw3@gmail.com