Maine’s challenge for the next decade was neatly packaged recently by a think tank called the Northeast Midwest Institute. With a few broad indicators it chronicled the state’s economic record since the mid ’70s, covering the blip of prosperity of the late ’80s and the longterm lag in progress. The past, however, is not necessarily prologue if Maine can spread its concentrations of real economic gain statewide.

The institute’s analysis goes only until 1996, a relatively long time ago in this rapidly changing economy, but the work remains useful in describing where Maine has been. For instance, Maine was last in personal income in New England and 41st nationally in 1977 and by ’96 it had risen then fell again to last in New England and 37th nationally. It did this while Massachusetts and New Hampshire joined Connecticut in the top 10 nationally.

More, on the percent of increase in personal income between ’77 and ’96, Maine was last in New England and second to last during that same time in growth of gross state product. Even a bright spot is diminished: the institute concludes in its understated way that, “Maine ranks 6th in the nation in the magnitude of its change in defense expenditures from 1981 to 1997, a positive growth that belies the negative experience of much of the Northeast-Midwest region during these years.”

But the Maine State Planning Office isn’t overjoyed by Maine’s first-class ticket on the federal gravy train. It recently pointed out that the state not only depends heavily on federal defense dollars, but also is in the top 10 for Medicaid receivers. “This increased dependence has made us much more vulnerable to changes in federal spending policies,” it writes.

The good news is that several of Maine’s economic indicators have brightened in the last couple of years — it recently bumped ahead of the national average in gross state product; its job growth has been toward the top of the national scale. The trick is to spread these benefits statewide.

Doing so will require that Maine people break historic patterns and set a course far bolder than they have done so far. That will demand huge investment and sacrifice; the alternative is spelled out in the institute’s numbers.