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