Download Support for Rural and Community Development

Survey
yes no Was this document useful for you?
   Thank you for your participation!

* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project

Document related concepts
no text concepts found
Transcript
Support for Rural and
Community Development
H. Louis Moore and Theodore
Alter
Pennsylvania State University
• Rural Development a secondary issue in
Farm Bill
• Important politically, but vast differences in
priorities
• United States is a diverse country
• No one-size-fits-all policy
Some Pennsylvania Examples
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Losing people and jobs
Managing growth
Rural energy boom
Rapidly aging population
Losing farmland to houses
Booming tourism
Loss of infrastructure
Some Sizes and Populations
State
1000 sq. km.
1000 people
People/
Sq.km.
Wyoming
253
493
2.0
Pennsylvania
117
12,280
105.0
Texas
691
20,851
30.2
Mississippi
124
2,844
22.9
Massachusetts
21
6,349
302.3
Oregon
251
3,421
13.6
Four distinct rural problems
• Traditional structural base of rural
economies
• Smaller scale and lower density
• Workforce with lower level of marketable
skills
• Proportionately higher poverty population
Other Issues
•
•
•
•
Loss of small farms
Loss of manufacturing jobs
Few job opportunities
Loss of local infrastructure – banks,
merchants, etc.
People
Population
(in millions)
Population
Under 15
Life
Expectancy
Women Men
Urban
Population
Poland
36.6
16.3%
79.0
71.2
62.0%
Ukraine
48.2
14.9%
72.5
60.7
67.3%
Russia
140.0
15.3%
71.8
58.7
73.3%
United
States
306.0
20.8%
80.6
75.2
80.8%
The Economy
GDP
(in Billions)
Annual
Growth
GDP/head
GDP PPP
U.S.=100
Poland
242
5.4%
$6,280
32.7
Ukraine
65
4.0%
$1,340
16.1
Russia
581
7.5%
$4,080
25.0
United
States
11,712
1.5%
$39,430
100.0
Structure of Employment
Agriculture Industry
Services Unemployment
Poland
18.0
29.0
53.0
9.4%
Ukraine
19.0
30.0
51.0
8.6%
Russia
10.0
31.0
59.0
5.3%
United
States
2.0
22.0
76.0
6.1%
Society
Color TV
/ 100
Cell Phones Computer
/ 100
s / 100
Telephone
Lines
/ 100
Poland
85.6
59.9
19.1
31.9
Ukraine
76.9
28.5
2.8
25.2
Russia
75.2
51.6
13.2
27.5
United
States
99.6
62.1
76.2
60.6
Challenges
Agricultural
Employment
GDP – Agr.
Energy
Consumptio
n/ hundred
Kilogram oil
Equivalent
Poland
18.0%
3.0%
2,452
15
Ukraine
19.0%
12.0%
2,772
43
Russia
10.0%
5.0%
4,424
-73
United
States
2.0%
1.2%
7,843
28
Energy
Imports
Small isn’t always beautiful
Real Income and Food Prices
$30,000
2
Income
$25,000
real food
1.5
$20,000
$15,000
1
$10,000
0.5
$5,000
$0
0
1970
1975
1980
1985
1990
Source: Economic Report of the President
1995
2000
2005
real food prices
income
Three Farm Bills – Three
Approaches
• 1996 – each state develops its own plan
• 2002 – value added agriculture and
information technology
• 2008 – quality of life, new business
development, and expanding opportunities
for small producers
1996 Farm Bill
• Strategic development activities and
collaborative efforts by states and local
communities
• Optimize use of federal resources
• Assistance reflecting the complexity of
rural need
• Help states and local communities to
design responses to their unique needs
• Flexible and innovative approaches
2002 Farm Bill
• Value-added agriculture
• Community facilities, water and waste
facilities, and business assistance
• Information technology
2008 Farm Bill
• Health care and emergency needs – fire
and ambulance
• Infrastructure investments – water & waste
water
• Telecommunications – internet access
• New business development
• Expanding opportunities for small farmersmore value added
All Farm Bills
• Water and waste facilities
• Communication and information
technology
• Promotion of value-added agriculture
• General business assistance
A Holistic Approach Needed
• Fits into larger system
• Builds on local strengths
• Foster leadership to simultaneously build
individual skills and foster governance
capacity
Key Strategies
• Think and act regionally
• Identify indigenous assets
• Match assets with an existing or emerging
niche in the global market
• Make the investments and reinvestments
that allow communities and regions to
capitalize on assets
• Foster local entrepreneurship.
Summary
• Programs change
• Funding doesn’t increase
• Policy remains piecemeal