Smith, Stephen M.

English

Research Papers in Economics

Invited Presentation
Toward a Development Policy
for Rural America: Discussion
Stephen M. Smith
The issue of a rural policy—whether or not we
have one, what one should look like, should we
have one—has been discussed more specifically in
the mid- 1980s. This is a result of the general eco-
nomic crisis that has affected rural areas, and the
realization that agricultural policy has only a lim-
ited impact. Professor Barkley has provided us with
a valuable and interesting context within which to
examine the need for and content of a nrral de-
velopment policy. His paper should force us to
ram
1.
2.
3.
such questions as:
Have the ways we dealt with rural problems,
i.e., our rural policy, changed in any sub-
stantial way?
Have we had any successes, and substantially
affected rural problems?
Or, do we continue to propose the same so-
lutions to the same problems?
One of Professor Barkley’s opening statements,
that a series of rural problems has always been with
us, is with us now, and will be in the future, implies
a negative answer to the first two and positive to
the third question. Can we do anything about this
situation? Apparently we have not been able to.
What I would like to do is focus on his major points
and provide my own perspective and opinions.
Barkley’s first issue concerns the employment
opportunities for young people in rural areas. The
dismal forecast leads him to the conclusion that
education, or human capital formation, must be a
cornerstone of rural policy. I heartily agree with
the absolute necessity of this thrust, but think that
limiting it to youth is far too narrow. We must
develop a broader human capital policy to provide
education and training for those whose opportuni-
ties have disappeared or will disappear in the near
future, These people are the workers in the ex-
tractive industries, in the industries adding value
to extracted resources, and in the low skilled man-
ufacturing industries that previously have been the
focus of rural economic diversification efforts. These
Associate Professor. Depanment of Agricultural E&momics and Rural
Sociology, The Pennsylvania State University.
are the lost opportunities and the lost people. The
young are likely to leave rural communities any-
way, because that is what the young do. The mid-
dle-aged workers, on the other hand, tend not to
leave when their jobs disappear, and when they do
they usually have a much harder time finding em-
ployment that fits their skills.
A second issue is what Barkley calls the ‘‘re-
sidual population, ” or the increasing number of
elderly and retired people. He makes the very in-
teresting point that future economic growth poten-
tial from this source for rural communities may be
limited. Policy makers and development advisors
at all levels should heed this warning. Demo-
graphic research should be directed at the issue,
and all disciplines connected witl rural develop-
ment should examine the results and implications.
The third issue raised is infrastructure. This is
part of the advantage that urban areas have. The
range of infrastructure issues that Barkley describes
are an integral part of the rural problems and so-
lutions. One example of the key role of infrastruc-
ture in the late 20th century is telecommunications.
In order for rural areas to be competitive locations
for business and industry, modern telecommuni-
cations facilities are as important as electricity and
telephones were several decades ago. I wonder if
we are not in a situation similar to that when the
Rural Electrification Administration (REA) was born;
one requiring special effort to provide rural areas
with the infrastructure that urban areas take for
granted, and that provides urban areas the foun-
dation for economic growth and competitiveness.
In his fourth main point, Barkley speculates that
it may be time to “rethink growth points. ” This
is being suggested with increasing frequency. I was
not enamored of a growth pole policy when it was
previously in vogue, and I continue to be skeptical
of its vah.re. Most, if not all, areas that would be
designated as growth poles have the advantages
that will lead to growth anyway. The location of
much high technology industry is a case in point.
I think a growth poles focus may lead to a rural
policy that is too inflexible, which is contrary to
the policy characteristics Barkley would like.100 October 1988 NJARE
In one of his policy suggestions, Barkley men-
tions that it may be time to consider conscious
population redistribution efforts. In saying this he
implies a break with our traditional philosophy; that
we need a more proactive approach, as opposed to
the pseudo market approach that historically has
governed our rural policy. Continuing this line of
thinking, why not implement an active rural em-
ployment generation policy? For example, such a
policy could stipulate that a certain percent of fed-
eral nonlabor procurement be made in nonmetro-
politan counties. If the concern is with generating
growth industries (high tech) in rural areas, then
defense procurement could be particularly targeted
to rural areas. The stipulation also could include a
distribution between counties adjacent to and not
adjacent to metropolitan areas. Of course, such a
policy certainly would require a discussion and res-
olution of the question of what exactly do we want
from or in rural America, and a specific value de-
cision about how to do it.
Has Professor Barkley taken us toward a devel-
opment policy for rural America? This probably
has been the most difficult of his recent undertak-
ings. It certainly is easier to respond than to be
charged with setting the context. He has provided
us with a valuable historical perspective and some
direction, but not much hope. I believe he has set
the proper tone. I would set a similar one, perhaps
even more pessimistic with respect to the existing
policy approaches. The problems outlined certainly
exist, and in the 1980s they have become more
evident. 1, too, am unhappy with the development
policies or models. What is proposed seems either
a business-as-usual response from people who are
tired of being asked the questions, or are answers
that have been given repeatedly before and now
someone is willing to listen.
At the same time, I think we can say something
useful to a state Department of Economic Devel-
opment. It is not likely to b~ the specific what,
when and where that ideally would be desired, but
it is something that should be a key to guiding our
rural policies. We can make agencies, and local
and state policy makers aware that change will be
inevitable. Whatever is going well now likely will
not do so in the future. There likely will be fewer
of the same types of jobs in most of the industries
on which rural economies are now based. New
opportunities will require different skills and more
education. These new opportunities are coming,
and changing, in shortened cycles than in the past.
Recognizing these facts says to me that a rural
policy should focus on those factors that will allow
rural communities and rural people to adapt to, and
adopt, changing opportunities. Professor Barkley
says that a policy must be flexible if it is to achieve
anything. At the same time, the policy must be
designed to make rural America flexible. This leads
directly to Professor Barkley’s policy cornerstone,
human capital formation-education and training,
basic and adult; information provision to rural lead-
ers and policy makers, and help in using that in-
formation. A rural policy of the type implied and
suggested will not be cheap, cannot be short term,
and cannot be turned off and on if it is to be suc-
cessful.

TOWARD A DEVELOPMENT POLICY FOR RURAL AMERICA: DISCUSSION

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics