- Email: [email protected]
The continuing importance of agriculture in american rural development
4gricultural Administration 19 (1985) 29-31
The Continuing Importance of Agriculture in American Rural Development Eric B. Herzik Department
of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA (Received:
11 June, 1984)
SUMMARY One of the more signtficant demographic changes in American society during the past two decades has been the movement of population away from major urban centers and into non-metropolitan areas. This reversal ofpopulationpatterns has prompted an analysis of the demographics and policy needs of rural America. This paper analyzes the observed changes within the context of local governmental decision-making. SpeciJically, we assess the perceptions of rural oficials concerning economic development in their counties and regions. Our results indicate that rather than undergoing massive modernization and change, non-metropolitan economies are now and will continue to be based upon agriculture. This suggests that a more cautious interpretation and policy course may be appropriate in dealing with the ‘new’ phenomenon of non-metropolitan growth.
INTRODUCTION One of the more significant demographic changes in American society during the past two decades has been the movement of population away from major urban centers and into non-metropolitan areas. During the last decade growth in rural areas has surpassed that of the nation at large and especially metropolitan counties. While population increased in the nation as a whole by 11.4 % and by 9.8 % in US Census defined Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs, i.e. counties containing a city of at least 50 000 inhabitants), rural counties recorded a robust 15.8 % 29 Agricultural Administration 0309-586X/85/$03.30 Ltd, England,
1985. Printed
in Great Britain
0 Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers
30
Eric B. Herzik
increasein population. This growth cannot be attributed to metropolitan spillover because non-adjacent counties with no city over 10000 population or more grew at a rate of 13.6%,’ In addition, new residentsin rural areasoften bring in a wide variety of skills and outlooks. This hasled to a general convergencebetweenurban and rural areas in such basic demographic variables as educational attainment and per capita income.2-4 Reflecting these statistics, rural economies are also undergoing very real and important changesin demographic and economic growth. The growth of the economic base of rural counties has been in areasoutside the traditional economic sector of agriculture. Farm employment declined from 7.057 million in 1960 to 3.075 million in 1980, or by 56.4%.” As the mechanization trend continues, the decline in the number of farms also continues. There are 530000 fewer farms in 1981 than in 1970 representing an 18% drop.6,7 The observed demographic and economic changeshave produced a new environment in which rural county government must operate. Traditionally, county governmentshaveprovided the bulk of servicesfor rural citizens. Their traditional activities have included the assessmentof property, collection of taxes, recording of deeds and other property documents, the maintenance of rural roads, and the administration of electoral and judicial functions.’ However, the recentchangesrequire the county to do more than provide traditional services.County governments are now being called upon to make decisions that directly affect the economic make-up of the county. Rural administrators are now required to compete for industrial and other projects of economic development just as their municipal counterparts have done. This is done through tax incentives, the development of industrial parks, and the offering of land at low prices. However, policy choicesmade in favor of oneeconomic area may have direct and possibly negative effects on the economy of the county as a whole.g All of the changescited above are clear reversalsof establishednorms and may portent fundamental changes in traditionally rural areas. Politically, long dormant and insignificant regions may have new muscle to flex in state and national politics. Economically, rural areas may be new competitors for industrial location and employment centers. Socially, the often idealized rural lifestyle may give way to more ‘efficient’ and modern ways perhaps suggesting‘greater institutional conformity and less freedom to enjoy the fruits of non-metro existence’.l’
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
31
The purpose of our researchis to analyze the observedchangesin nonmetropolitan America* within the context of local government decisionmaking. Specifically, in what directions do rural county administrators foreseetheir counties developing?Will there be a shift from agriculture to other economic sectors as the fundamental base of rural social, political and economic organization? What is the perceivedimportance, both now and for the future, of these various ‘sectors’ of economic activity (e.g. agriculture, manufacturing, servicesand mining)? Given the increasing importance of county officials in charting the course of a revitalizing rural America, the answersto thesequestions are of no small importance. The perceptions of county officials concerning future development will have effects for both their immediate constituencies and more long range effectson metropolitan areas.Clearly, a concerted move towards increased development will change the basic organization of many rural counties and place them in direct competition with urban counterparts. A more traditional outlook emphasizing agriculture, may well hold the line on increased development, thus mitigating many claims of a ‘takeoff’ in American rural development.lo To addressthesequestions and the larger context from which they are raised, our analysis is organized into four sections. First, is a theoretical consideration of how various trends reported for non-metropolitan America have beeninterpreted. Secondly, is a discussion of the data and methodology. Thirdly, is our analysis of the attitudes of county administrators towards development in their counties. Finally, we discuss our findings in light of competing claims and theories. This concluding section offers both a summary of our findings and notes their policy implications for American rural counties. NON-METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT: THEORY
1N SEARCH OF A
As the statistics cited briefly above attest, non-metropolitan America is in a state of transition. After decades of population loss and economic * We use the terms ‘non-metropolitan’ and ‘rural’ interchangeably. As is based upon specific population totals it is the more precise metropolitan areas are defined by the federal government wherever concentration of at least 50000 people. Urban areas are defined population concentrations-either incorporated or unincorporated-of inhabitants.
‘non-metropolitan’ term. In general, there is an urban by the census as 2500 or more
32
Eric B. Herzik
decline, America’s rural areasare now attracting more people than they are losing and aregrowing faster than metropolitan areas.This reversalof non-metropolitan development patterns caught both policy makers and analysts by surprise. Few, in any way, anticipated thesechangesand an even smaller number have yet to begin to sort through the data in an attempt to draw together coherent explanatory theories. Reviewing recent literature on the topic, Guess notes (Ref. 10, p. 278) this same theoretical vacuum and concludes that: ‘no well-developed body of theory as yet exists to inform American rural development policymakers’. The emphasison policy-making is important becausehow thesechangesare both interpreted and then projected into the future will greatly influence the entire structure of non-metropolitan America. Data on trends and changes are being rapidly collected, but there remains a distinct lacuna by way of conceptual framework. The danger here, Freudberg observes, is that such inadequacies can distort policy assessmentand lead to a premature choice among alternatives.l1 Fortunately (and perhaps remarkably) the bulk of the analysis concerning American rural development has adopted a cautious stance. Prefacing perhaps the most comprehensive volume on the subject, Hawley and Maize conclude (Ref. 3, p. 20): ‘The reversal of the trends of population decline in many non-metro countries has been describedas a resurgence of non-metro America, as a rediscovery of non-metro America, and in various other optimistic phrases.But the many state-ofknowledge papers comprising this volume counsel a more restrained interpretation of what is taking place. That there has in fact been a turnaround in the movements of population is subject to one’spoint of view . . . The implications of the renewal of growth in non-metro counties must be put forward with more than a few reservations. In the first place, the available data pertaining to correlated trends is surprisingly deficient. . . A second basis for caution lies with the early stage in the processat which present observations are made.’ Our present effort is not so grand an attempt as to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for contemporary rural development. Such a conceit would be beyond our data and perhaps beyond the arrays of data available elsewhere.Our effort, instead, is an attempt to focus the viewpoints concerning development held by rural county officials. Our concentration on the attitudes of rural county officials is based upon the p.rimary assumption that the attitudes of these individuals
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
33
toward the development of the areasthey representare meaningful to the decision-making process. Following Seroka,’ 2 this assumption should not imply that leader attitudes determine decisionstowards development, becauseseveralintervening factors may impede or promote the adoption of decisions. For example, the lack of available resourcescan prevent leaders from initiating change, or the reluctance of leaders to consider changemay result in a rotation of the leadership. Nevertheless,a further analysis of leadership attitudes towards modernization can be very useful in attempting to determine the propensities and direction of rural governmental systems. Our assumption is not made without both statistical or theoretical foundation. The importance of the county as the keystone unit of government in non-metropolitan areasis documented by the fact that of the 3080 county governments in the IJS, 78 % have less than 50000 residents.l3 The central place of county officials in both day-to-day governance and in setting a developmental course is explicated by Duncombe,8 and by Torrence who highlights the special role of counties in coordinating essential services(Ref. 14, p. 11): ‘Counties, thanks to their large geographic bases, have the potential for handling areawide servicesand coordinating those programs of smaller governmentswhich effect the entire region.’ A focus on county officials has also proved fruitful in fleshing out themes in the rural development literature, especially concerning the ability of rural governments to respond to increased service delivery pressures. With respect to improving administrative competence and expertise-‘capacity’ in the public administration literature-a number of studies have teased out how and if non-metropolitan governments respond to increasing population levels.I5 - i 8 Summarizing this literature, Sokolowlg notes not only the ability of rural local governmentsto respond to the demands of increasingpopulations but also their centrality in setting priorities among available resourcesand demands. DATA The data for this study are derived from the results of a mail survey questionnaire sent to rural county officials in six statesduring 1982.The total number of respondentsfor the sample was 463, representinga 35 % responserate. The six statesselectedfor the study were Arizona, Illinois,
34
Eric B. Herzik
New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Utah. This sample provides a rough geographical balance, as every major region of the country is represented except for the Northeastern US. In addition, although not directly relevant for our presentpurpose, the sample covers the full spectrum of political cultures as modeled by Elazar.20 Fifteen rural counties were selectedfrom each of the states,with the exceptions of Arizona and New Mexico which have fewer than 15 rural counties. Following censusdefinitions, each county selectedhas no more than 30 % of its population living in urban places.If possible, the counties selectedare not contiguous to counties contained in an SMSA. Arizona and New Mexico are again exceptionshere due to the smaller number of counties and the sheergeographical size of counties in thesetwo states. Respondents to the survey included county board members, major elected and appointed county officials, administrative officials, agricultural officials, county agents,and regional planning directors. Response rates are not statistically biased along any salient dimension (i.e. state, position, tenure) of analysis. The survey instrument can be divided into two basic parts. First, a personal profile of each respondent consisting of such information as education, experience,ideology, age, sex and length of residencein the county. The second section is an assessmentby officials of the relative value of their county’s various economic resources and activities, Included among these resourcesand activities are agriculture, manufacturing, mining and services.The questions in this section utilize both a retrospective and prospective orientation in assessingvalues.* ANALYSIS Several hypothesescan be readily generated concerning administrative attitudes towards non-metropolitan development. The basic issue of interest for our researchis how agricultural interests are to be balanced against competing economic sectors in non-metropolitan areas. We believe that the interpretation of this balance is affected by the current economic structure of a county (whether it is currently predominately * The questions read as follows: ‘Rank order your personal estimation of the three most important of the following economic activities for your county/region.’ For either the retrospective or prospective evaluation the phrases ‘over the past 10 years’ or ‘for the next 10 years’ followed the term ‘county/region’.
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
35
linked to agriculture or if agriculture is of lesser importance) and to a lesserdegreeby assortedprofile attributes of the county officials surveyed. Set against the general environment of change in non-metropolitan areas, it would appear that the perceived importance of agriculture should diminish with time for all respondents. Using the retrospective-prospective evaluation of economic sectors in the survey question (seefootnote on p. 34), we hypothesize that the importance of agriculture in the economic structure of counties should exhibit a pattern of decreasingimportance from past, to present, to future. A corollary to this generalhypothesis is that the importance of the servicesector should exhibit the opposite pattern; steadily increasing in importance in past, presentand future evaluations. Becausethe other two sectorsevaluatedmanufacturing and mining-are tied to more specificattributes of a given county, we speculatethat no discernable aggregatepattern will emerge. As the evidencein Table 1 demonstrates, the data run nearly opposite to our expectations. Instead of a decline, there is a slight increasein the perceived importance of agriculture with time. Of equal substantive importance are the raw ‘support’ scoresfor agriculture, rising from more than 60 % to more than 72 % of respondents.The servicesector, thought by many to bethe backbone of emerging non-metropolitan areas,receives little recognition as the most important economic activity. Surprisingly, given our hypothesis, it ranks below even the other two sectorssurveyed. (It does show, as hypothesized, an increase in importance, but this increase might at best be described as slight.) Again, contrary to our expectations, the sectors of mining and manufacturing do exhibit a pattern, of steady, albeit slight, decline. At one level these results are surprising. As noted, much of the data Most Important
Past 10 years Present Next 10 years
Economic
TABLE 1 Activity for County
Agriculture
Services
60.8** 66.5** 72.5**
0.7 0.9 2.0
n=463. ’ Don’t know or unranked. ** Significant at 0.05 level. * Significant at 0.1 level.
Manujbcturing 9.7* 7.0* 4.7*
(All Officials) Mining
DK”
15.8” 11.0” 10.0”
13 14.6 10.8
36
Eric B. Herzik
concerning non-metropolitan America focuses upon declining farm populations and incomes and concomitant increases in the vaguely defined servicesector.In contradistinction to thesetrends, it appearsthat agriculture remains, in the attitudinal perspective of non-metropolitan administrators, at the foundation of rural county economic structuring. This may, however, be an artifact of the sample used. In particular, we must control for pre-existing county economic activity levels. In other words, our 15county samplefrom eachstate, by excluding thosecounties adjacent to SMSAs, may be disproportionately involved with agriculture and away from the mainstream of non-metropolitan development. Therefore, our hypotheses concerning the importance of various economic sectors should be examined using controls for levels of agricultural activity. To control for this artifact we have divided the survey counties into three categoriesbasedupon existing levels of agricultural employment.* Adjusting our hypotheses, we expect that the pattern of agricultural decline and servicesincreasewill emergein counties with moderate and low levelsof agricultural employment. Secondly,countieswith high levels of agricultural employment should exhibit little change through time. Finally, in the least agricultural counties we should detect evaluations noting increased importance for the sectors of manufacturing and mining. With this control for county structure our results are, at best, mixed (Table 2). County economic structure appears to have a slight independent effect on the evaluations of county officials, particularly in the least agricultural counties. For counties either predominately or moderately agricultural, agriculture is perceivedto havebeen,is now, and will continue to be the most important economic activity. Indeed, the perceivedimportance of agriculture is overwhelming and thought to be increasing. Somewhat more in line with our hypotheses, attitudes in the least agricultural counties are different. Here agriculture is still the most * The division of counties is based upon the ratio of farm population to county population. The range of the distribution is 1.2 % to 88.6 %, with a mean of 20.6 “/,. The three groups divide the distribution into thirds. Thus, ‘Predominately Agricultural counties are those with more than 23.8 % of residents working in agriculture; ‘Moderately Agricultural’ counties are those with no more than 23.8 % and no less than 13.7 % of workers in agriculture; ‘Least Agricultural’ counties are those with less than 13.8 “i, of workers in agriculture.
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
31
a No response.
Job experience < 5 years > 5 years Workload < 10h per week > 10 h per week Education High school College Post graduate Residence in county < 5 years 5 to 10 years 15 to 30 years > 30 years Age under 25 25-35 35-45 over 45
Agriculture
67.2 74.4 90.0 68.0 77.4 70.1 71.4 80 80 70 70.2 50.0 78.2 68.5 72.9
84.4 88.0
90.9 82.9
84.6 89.4 86.2
57.1 83.3 92.0 90.1
100 72.7 76.0 92.0
PA
Economic
Past IO years MA
as Most Important
NR” NR” 23.0 25.4
NR” 11.1 13.3 28.3
31.8 17.8 19.4
30.8 19.5
18.0 23.4
LA
Activity
Characteristics
66.3 72.7 87.5 94.0
57.1 83.3 92.0 91.5
88.9 88.1 86.2
87.9 85.5
83.3 90.8
PA
50.0 86.9 85.7 80.0
80.0 92.0 78.2 78.0
79.2 77.9 87.1
92.3 78.2
77.8 82.1
MA
Value of agriculture Present
TABLE 3 by Personal
NR” 18.9 26.9 32.2
15.4 21.1 21.4 39.2
38.1 25.0 34.5
33.3 29.1
27.1 32.6
LA
and County
66.3 81.8 91.6 89.9
85.7 83.3 96.0 89.1
88.7 87.9 87.7
83.9 89.5
84.6 90.7
PA
100 91.3 100 81.1
100 96.0 80.0 87.5
88.9 86.6 90.3
94.7 87.0
86.9 88.3
MA
Next 10 years
Type (All Officials)
NR” 18.9 38.4 40.6
21.4 21.1 40.0 47.1
42.9 40.5 35.1
61.5 33.8
32.0 40.0
LA
$ 5s
2 h b
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
39
important activity and its importance is thought to be increasing, but a more varied economic structure is apparent. In these counties manufacturing is a significant competitor to agriculture, although its importance is thought to be decreasing. In this same vein, the service sector’s importance is again minimal, either presently or for the future. Indeed, the projections of officials in the least agricultural counties focusedmore on increasedvalues from mining. This may be an artifact of the timing of the survey, when both coal and oil prices were more stable. A further distinction that may reveal some more varied perspectiveson rural development beyond the rather singular structuring of the agriculturally dominated attitudes observed so far may result from assorted personal profile attributes of the respondents. It might be suggested that, older, long-time residents, less educated, part-time officials-local ‘homebodies’-should be more likely to perceive the importance of agriculture. In juxtaposition, younger, newer, better educated officials may perceive a different cutting edge in nonmetropolitan development. Again, the strength of these hypothesesmay be further attenuated by county structure. In predominately agricultural counties we would expect to find more county ‘homebodies’ and expect their attitudes favoring agriculture to be virtually unanimous. In the least agricultural counties the younger, more professional group should reign with a more varied perspective on development. Once again the hypothesized distinctions have little effect. Performing simple cross-tabular analysis, only the relationships demonstrating the continuing importance of agriculture hold any substantive significance. As Table 3 illustrates, these findings are consistent with our previous findings. The primary importance of agriculture is noted by all, failing to receive acknowledgementby an overwhelming majority only in the least agricultural counties. Here again, in line with previous distinctions, the importance of agriculture is noted by all groups. There appearsto be no gradation basedupon personal attributes in the support that agriculture receivesas the economic foundation in non-metropolitan America.
CONCLUSIONS The results of our analysis document the fundamental importance of agriculture in American rural economies. Simultaneously, it appearsthat
40
Eric B. Herzik
for either definitional or substantive reasons, the importance of nonagricultural economic sectorsin non-metropolitan development may be more problematic than often hypothesized. Far from declining in importance, agriculture’s role is seenas expanding, at least by those in charge of non-metropolitan decision-making. Unless we are willing to dismiss out of hand the attitudes of these decision makers, our results should give pause to any policy programs based upon some model of quasi-urbanization or economic change and modernization in rural America. Our analysis has been exploratory and we recognize particular limitations in its overall generalizability. However, the overwhelming bulk of evidence suggeststhat, regardlessof selectedcontrol variables thought to modify its influence, agriculture is and will continue to be the primary sector guiding rural development. This is not to say that all is unchangedand businessproceedsas usual in non-metropolitan America. It does,however,suggestthat a comprehensivetheory of rural changewill have to first account for a substantial element of continuity rather than focusing solely on change. Failing this our policy efforts may well follow that pattern highlighted by Wildavsky,21 with programmatic solutions bumping into each other and thus creating even larger problems in themselves. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Kent Wirth, Mike Gant, Mary Dodson and Jim Seroka for their help. Data were provided through a researchgrant from the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES 1. Beale, C., The population turnaround in rural and small town America. Policy Studies Review, 2( 1) (1982) pp. 43-55. 2. Bryan, I?. WI., Politics in the Rural States, People, Parties and processes. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 198 1. 3. Hawley, A. H. and Maize, S. M. (Eds), Nonmetropolitan America in Transition. Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1981. 4. Ploch, L., The reversal in migration patterns-some rural development consequences. Rural Sociology, 43(2) (1978), pp. 293-303.
The continuing importance of’ agriculture in American rural development
41
5. US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Report, Series No. 176. Money Income of Households in the United States. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1980. 6. US Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, Statistical Report Bulletin, No. 507. Number of Farms and Land in Farms. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1971. 7. US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of’the 7,X: 1981. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1981. 8. Duncombe, H. S., County Government in America. Washington, DC, National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1966. 9. Buttel, F. H., Environmental quality and protection. In: Nonmetropolitan America in Transition (Hawley, A. H. and Maize, S. M. (Eds)). Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 198 1. 10. Guess, G. M., The political economy of American rural development. Public Administration Review, 43(3) (1983), pp. 277-85. 11. Dillman, D. A. and Hobbs, D. J. (Eds), Rural Society in the US, Issuesfor the 1980s. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1982. 12. Seroka, J., Receptivity to change and modernization in rural county administration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, New York, April 1983. 13. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Projile of County Government. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1972. 14. Torrence, S. W., Grass Roots Government: The County in American Government. Washington, DC, Robert B. Lute, 1974. 15. Brown, A., Technical assistance to rural communities: stopgap or capacity building? Public Administration Review, 40(l) (1980), pp. 18-23. 16. Groesnick, L. E., Grass roots capacity building and the intergovernmental system. National Conference on Nonmetropolitan Community Services Research. Washington, DC, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, US Senate, 1977. 17. Hawkins, R., What is Capacity Building? A Study of Capacity Building in CaliJornia. Davis, Cooperative Extension Service, University of California, 1980. 18. Honadle, B. W., A Capacity-Building Framework. Washington, DC, US Department of Agriculture, State and Local Government Program Area, 1980. 19. Sokolow, A. D., Population growth and administrative variations in small cities. Policy Studies Review, 2(l) (1982), pp. 72-85. 20. Elazar, D., American Federalism: A Viewfrom the States. New York, T. Y. Crowell, 1966. 21. Wildavsky, A., Speaking Truth to Power. Boston, Little Brown and Co., 1979.
The Continuing Importance of Agriculture in American Rural Development Eric B. Herzik Department
of Political Science, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas 77843, USA (Received:
11 June, 1984)
SUMMARY One of the more signtficant demographic changes in American society during the past two decades has been the movement of population away from major urban centers and into non-metropolitan areas. This reversal ofpopulationpatterns has prompted an analysis of the demographics and policy needs of rural America. This paper analyzes the observed changes within the context of local governmental decision-making. SpeciJically, we assess the perceptions of rural oficials concerning economic development in their counties and regions. Our results indicate that rather than undergoing massive modernization and change, non-metropolitan economies are now and will continue to be based upon agriculture. This suggests that a more cautious interpretation and policy course may be appropriate in dealing with the ‘new’ phenomenon of non-metropolitan growth.
INTRODUCTION One of the more significant demographic changes in American society during the past two decades has been the movement of population away from major urban centers and into non-metropolitan areas. During the last decade growth in rural areas has surpassed that of the nation at large and especially metropolitan counties. While population increased in the nation as a whole by 11.4 % and by 9.8 % in US Census defined Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs, i.e. counties containing a city of at least 50 000 inhabitants), rural counties recorded a robust 15.8 % 29 Agricultural Administration 0309-586X/85/$03.30 Ltd, England,
1985. Printed
in Great Britain
0 Elsevier Applied
Science Publishers
30
Eric B. Herzik
increasein population. This growth cannot be attributed to metropolitan spillover because non-adjacent counties with no city over 10000 population or more grew at a rate of 13.6%,’ In addition, new residentsin rural areasoften bring in a wide variety of skills and outlooks. This hasled to a general convergencebetweenurban and rural areas in such basic demographic variables as educational attainment and per capita income.2-4 Reflecting these statistics, rural economies are also undergoing very real and important changesin demographic and economic growth. The growth of the economic base of rural counties has been in areasoutside the traditional economic sector of agriculture. Farm employment declined from 7.057 million in 1960 to 3.075 million in 1980, or by 56.4%.” As the mechanization trend continues, the decline in the number of farms also continues. There are 530000 fewer farms in 1981 than in 1970 representing an 18% drop.6,7 The observed demographic and economic changeshave produced a new environment in which rural county government must operate. Traditionally, county governmentshaveprovided the bulk of servicesfor rural citizens. Their traditional activities have included the assessmentof property, collection of taxes, recording of deeds and other property documents, the maintenance of rural roads, and the administration of electoral and judicial functions.’ However, the recentchangesrequire the county to do more than provide traditional services.County governments are now being called upon to make decisions that directly affect the economic make-up of the county. Rural administrators are now required to compete for industrial and other projects of economic development just as their municipal counterparts have done. This is done through tax incentives, the development of industrial parks, and the offering of land at low prices. However, policy choicesmade in favor of oneeconomic area may have direct and possibly negative effects on the economy of the county as a whole.g All of the changescited above are clear reversalsof establishednorms and may portent fundamental changes in traditionally rural areas. Politically, long dormant and insignificant regions may have new muscle to flex in state and national politics. Economically, rural areas may be new competitors for industrial location and employment centers. Socially, the often idealized rural lifestyle may give way to more ‘efficient’ and modern ways perhaps suggesting‘greater institutional conformity and less freedom to enjoy the fruits of non-metro existence’.l’
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
31
The purpose of our researchis to analyze the observedchangesin nonmetropolitan America* within the context of local government decisionmaking. Specifically, in what directions do rural county administrators foreseetheir counties developing?Will there be a shift from agriculture to other economic sectors as the fundamental base of rural social, political and economic organization? What is the perceivedimportance, both now and for the future, of these various ‘sectors’ of economic activity (e.g. agriculture, manufacturing, servicesand mining)? Given the increasing importance of county officials in charting the course of a revitalizing rural America, the answersto thesequestions are of no small importance. The perceptions of county officials concerning future development will have effects for both their immediate constituencies and more long range effectson metropolitan areas.Clearly, a concerted move towards increased development will change the basic organization of many rural counties and place them in direct competition with urban counterparts. A more traditional outlook emphasizing agriculture, may well hold the line on increased development, thus mitigating many claims of a ‘takeoff’ in American rural development.lo To addressthesequestions and the larger context from which they are raised, our analysis is organized into four sections. First, is a theoretical consideration of how various trends reported for non-metropolitan America have beeninterpreted. Secondly, is a discussion of the data and methodology. Thirdly, is our analysis of the attitudes of county administrators towards development in their counties. Finally, we discuss our findings in light of competing claims and theories. This concluding section offers both a summary of our findings and notes their policy implications for American rural counties. NON-METROPOLITAN
DEVELOPMENT: THEORY
1N SEARCH OF A
As the statistics cited briefly above attest, non-metropolitan America is in a state of transition. After decades of population loss and economic * We use the terms ‘non-metropolitan’ and ‘rural’ interchangeably. As is based upon specific population totals it is the more precise metropolitan areas are defined by the federal government wherever concentration of at least 50000 people. Urban areas are defined population concentrations-either incorporated or unincorporated-of inhabitants.
‘non-metropolitan’ term. In general, there is an urban by the census as 2500 or more
32
Eric B. Herzik
decline, America’s rural areasare now attracting more people than they are losing and aregrowing faster than metropolitan areas.This reversalof non-metropolitan development patterns caught both policy makers and analysts by surprise. Few, in any way, anticipated thesechangesand an even smaller number have yet to begin to sort through the data in an attempt to draw together coherent explanatory theories. Reviewing recent literature on the topic, Guess notes (Ref. 10, p. 278) this same theoretical vacuum and concludes that: ‘no well-developed body of theory as yet exists to inform American rural development policymakers’. The emphasison policy-making is important becausehow thesechangesare both interpreted and then projected into the future will greatly influence the entire structure of non-metropolitan America. Data on trends and changes are being rapidly collected, but there remains a distinct lacuna by way of conceptual framework. The danger here, Freudberg observes, is that such inadequacies can distort policy assessmentand lead to a premature choice among alternatives.l1 Fortunately (and perhaps remarkably) the bulk of the analysis concerning American rural development has adopted a cautious stance. Prefacing perhaps the most comprehensive volume on the subject, Hawley and Maize conclude (Ref. 3, p. 20): ‘The reversal of the trends of population decline in many non-metro countries has been describedas a resurgence of non-metro America, as a rediscovery of non-metro America, and in various other optimistic phrases.But the many state-ofknowledge papers comprising this volume counsel a more restrained interpretation of what is taking place. That there has in fact been a turnaround in the movements of population is subject to one’spoint of view . . . The implications of the renewal of growth in non-metro counties must be put forward with more than a few reservations. In the first place, the available data pertaining to correlated trends is surprisingly deficient. . . A second basis for caution lies with the early stage in the processat which present observations are made.’ Our present effort is not so grand an attempt as to provide a comprehensive theoretical framework for contemporary rural development. Such a conceit would be beyond our data and perhaps beyond the arrays of data available elsewhere.Our effort, instead, is an attempt to focus the viewpoints concerning development held by rural county officials. Our concentration on the attitudes of rural county officials is based upon the p.rimary assumption that the attitudes of these individuals
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
33
toward the development of the areasthey representare meaningful to the decision-making process. Following Seroka,’ 2 this assumption should not imply that leader attitudes determine decisionstowards development, becauseseveralintervening factors may impede or promote the adoption of decisions. For example, the lack of available resourcescan prevent leaders from initiating change, or the reluctance of leaders to consider changemay result in a rotation of the leadership. Nevertheless,a further analysis of leadership attitudes towards modernization can be very useful in attempting to determine the propensities and direction of rural governmental systems. Our assumption is not made without both statistical or theoretical foundation. The importance of the county as the keystone unit of government in non-metropolitan areasis documented by the fact that of the 3080 county governments in the IJS, 78 % have less than 50000 residents.l3 The central place of county officials in both day-to-day governance and in setting a developmental course is explicated by Duncombe,8 and by Torrence who highlights the special role of counties in coordinating essential services(Ref. 14, p. 11): ‘Counties, thanks to their large geographic bases, have the potential for handling areawide servicesand coordinating those programs of smaller governmentswhich effect the entire region.’ A focus on county officials has also proved fruitful in fleshing out themes in the rural development literature, especially concerning the ability of rural governments to respond to increased service delivery pressures. With respect to improving administrative competence and expertise-‘capacity’ in the public administration literature-a number of studies have teased out how and if non-metropolitan governments respond to increasing population levels.I5 - i 8 Summarizing this literature, Sokolowlg notes not only the ability of rural local governmentsto respond to the demands of increasingpopulations but also their centrality in setting priorities among available resourcesand demands. DATA The data for this study are derived from the results of a mail survey questionnaire sent to rural county officials in six statesduring 1982.The total number of respondentsfor the sample was 463, representinga 35 % responserate. The six statesselectedfor the study were Arizona, Illinois,
34
Eric B. Herzik
New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota and Utah. This sample provides a rough geographical balance, as every major region of the country is represented except for the Northeastern US. In addition, although not directly relevant for our presentpurpose, the sample covers the full spectrum of political cultures as modeled by Elazar.20 Fifteen rural counties were selectedfrom each of the states,with the exceptions of Arizona and New Mexico which have fewer than 15 rural counties. Following censusdefinitions, each county selectedhas no more than 30 % of its population living in urban places.If possible, the counties selectedare not contiguous to counties contained in an SMSA. Arizona and New Mexico are again exceptionshere due to the smaller number of counties and the sheergeographical size of counties in thesetwo states. Respondents to the survey included county board members, major elected and appointed county officials, administrative officials, agricultural officials, county agents,and regional planning directors. Response rates are not statistically biased along any salient dimension (i.e. state, position, tenure) of analysis. The survey instrument can be divided into two basic parts. First, a personal profile of each respondent consisting of such information as education, experience,ideology, age, sex and length of residencein the county. The second section is an assessmentby officials of the relative value of their county’s various economic resources and activities, Included among these resourcesand activities are agriculture, manufacturing, mining and services.The questions in this section utilize both a retrospective and prospective orientation in assessingvalues.* ANALYSIS Several hypothesescan be readily generated concerning administrative attitudes towards non-metropolitan development. The basic issue of interest for our researchis how agricultural interests are to be balanced against competing economic sectors in non-metropolitan areas. We believe that the interpretation of this balance is affected by the current economic structure of a county (whether it is currently predominately * The questions read as follows: ‘Rank order your personal estimation of the three most important of the following economic activities for your county/region.’ For either the retrospective or prospective evaluation the phrases ‘over the past 10 years’ or ‘for the next 10 years’ followed the term ‘county/region’.
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
35
linked to agriculture or if agriculture is of lesser importance) and to a lesserdegreeby assortedprofile attributes of the county officials surveyed. Set against the general environment of change in non-metropolitan areas, it would appear that the perceived importance of agriculture should diminish with time for all respondents. Using the retrospective-prospective evaluation of economic sectors in the survey question (seefootnote on p. 34), we hypothesize that the importance of agriculture in the economic structure of counties should exhibit a pattern of decreasingimportance from past, to present, to future. A corollary to this generalhypothesis is that the importance of the servicesector should exhibit the opposite pattern; steadily increasing in importance in past, presentand future evaluations. Becausethe other two sectorsevaluatedmanufacturing and mining-are tied to more specificattributes of a given county, we speculatethat no discernable aggregatepattern will emerge. As the evidencein Table 1 demonstrates, the data run nearly opposite to our expectations. Instead of a decline, there is a slight increasein the perceived importance of agriculture with time. Of equal substantive importance are the raw ‘support’ scoresfor agriculture, rising from more than 60 % to more than 72 % of respondents.The servicesector, thought by many to bethe backbone of emerging non-metropolitan areas,receives little recognition as the most important economic activity. Surprisingly, given our hypothesis, it ranks below even the other two sectorssurveyed. (It does show, as hypothesized, an increase in importance, but this increase might at best be described as slight.) Again, contrary to our expectations, the sectors of mining and manufacturing do exhibit a pattern, of steady, albeit slight, decline. At one level these results are surprising. As noted, much of the data Most Important
Past 10 years Present Next 10 years
Economic
TABLE 1 Activity for County
Agriculture
Services
60.8** 66.5** 72.5**
0.7 0.9 2.0
n=463. ’ Don’t know or unranked. ** Significant at 0.05 level. * Significant at 0.1 level.
Manujbcturing 9.7* 7.0* 4.7*
(All Officials) Mining
DK”
15.8” 11.0” 10.0”
13 14.6 10.8
36
Eric B. Herzik
concerning non-metropolitan America focuses upon declining farm populations and incomes and concomitant increases in the vaguely defined servicesector.In contradistinction to thesetrends, it appearsthat agriculture remains, in the attitudinal perspective of non-metropolitan administrators, at the foundation of rural county economic structuring. This may, however, be an artifact of the sample used. In particular, we must control for pre-existing county economic activity levels. In other words, our 15county samplefrom eachstate, by excluding thosecounties adjacent to SMSAs, may be disproportionately involved with agriculture and away from the mainstream of non-metropolitan development. Therefore, our hypotheses concerning the importance of various economic sectors should be examined using controls for levels of agricultural activity. To control for this artifact we have divided the survey counties into three categoriesbasedupon existing levels of agricultural employment.* Adjusting our hypotheses, we expect that the pattern of agricultural decline and servicesincreasewill emergein counties with moderate and low levelsof agricultural employment. Secondly,countieswith high levels of agricultural employment should exhibit little change through time. Finally, in the least agricultural counties we should detect evaluations noting increased importance for the sectors of manufacturing and mining. With this control for county structure our results are, at best, mixed (Table 2). County economic structure appears to have a slight independent effect on the evaluations of county officials, particularly in the least agricultural counties. For counties either predominately or moderately agricultural, agriculture is perceivedto havebeen,is now, and will continue to be the most important economic activity. Indeed, the perceivedimportance of agriculture is overwhelming and thought to be increasing. Somewhat more in line with our hypotheses, attitudes in the least agricultural counties are different. Here agriculture is still the most * The division of counties is based upon the ratio of farm population to county population. The range of the distribution is 1.2 % to 88.6 %, with a mean of 20.6 “/,. The three groups divide the distribution into thirds. Thus, ‘Predominately Agricultural counties are those with more than 23.8 % of residents working in agriculture; ‘Moderately Agricultural’ counties are those with no more than 23.8 % and no less than 13.7 % of workers in agriculture; ‘Least Agricultural’ counties are those with less than 13.8 “i, of workers in agriculture.
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
31
a No response.
Job experience < 5 years > 5 years Workload < 10h per week > 10 h per week Education High school College Post graduate Residence in county < 5 years 5 to 10 years 15 to 30 years > 30 years Age under 25 25-35 35-45 over 45
Agriculture
67.2 74.4 90.0 68.0 77.4 70.1 71.4 80 80 70 70.2 50.0 78.2 68.5 72.9
84.4 88.0
90.9 82.9
84.6 89.4 86.2
57.1 83.3 92.0 90.1
100 72.7 76.0 92.0
PA
Economic
Past IO years MA
as Most Important
NR” NR” 23.0 25.4
NR” 11.1 13.3 28.3
31.8 17.8 19.4
30.8 19.5
18.0 23.4
LA
Activity
Characteristics
66.3 72.7 87.5 94.0
57.1 83.3 92.0 91.5
88.9 88.1 86.2
87.9 85.5
83.3 90.8
PA
50.0 86.9 85.7 80.0
80.0 92.0 78.2 78.0
79.2 77.9 87.1
92.3 78.2
77.8 82.1
MA
Value of agriculture Present
TABLE 3 by Personal
NR” 18.9 26.9 32.2
15.4 21.1 21.4 39.2
38.1 25.0 34.5
33.3 29.1
27.1 32.6
LA
and County
66.3 81.8 91.6 89.9
85.7 83.3 96.0 89.1
88.7 87.9 87.7
83.9 89.5
84.6 90.7
PA
100 91.3 100 81.1
100 96.0 80.0 87.5
88.9 86.6 90.3
94.7 87.0
86.9 88.3
MA
Next 10 years
Type (All Officials)
NR” 18.9 38.4 40.6
21.4 21.1 40.0 47.1
42.9 40.5 35.1
61.5 33.8
32.0 40.0
LA
$ 5s
2 h b
The continuing
importance
of agriculture
in American
rural development
39
important activity and its importance is thought to be increasing, but a more varied economic structure is apparent. In these counties manufacturing is a significant competitor to agriculture, although its importance is thought to be decreasing. In this same vein, the service sector’s importance is again minimal, either presently or for the future. Indeed, the projections of officials in the least agricultural counties focusedmore on increasedvalues from mining. This may be an artifact of the timing of the survey, when both coal and oil prices were more stable. A further distinction that may reveal some more varied perspectiveson rural development beyond the rather singular structuring of the agriculturally dominated attitudes observed so far may result from assorted personal profile attributes of the respondents. It might be suggested that, older, long-time residents, less educated, part-time officials-local ‘homebodies’-should be more likely to perceive the importance of agriculture. In juxtaposition, younger, newer, better educated officials may perceive a different cutting edge in nonmetropolitan development. Again, the strength of these hypothesesmay be further attenuated by county structure. In predominately agricultural counties we would expect to find more county ‘homebodies’ and expect their attitudes favoring agriculture to be virtually unanimous. In the least agricultural counties the younger, more professional group should reign with a more varied perspective on development. Once again the hypothesized distinctions have little effect. Performing simple cross-tabular analysis, only the relationships demonstrating the continuing importance of agriculture hold any substantive significance. As Table 3 illustrates, these findings are consistent with our previous findings. The primary importance of agriculture is noted by all, failing to receive acknowledgementby an overwhelming majority only in the least agricultural counties. Here again, in line with previous distinctions, the importance of agriculture is noted by all groups. There appearsto be no gradation basedupon personal attributes in the support that agriculture receivesas the economic foundation in non-metropolitan America.
CONCLUSIONS The results of our analysis document the fundamental importance of agriculture in American rural economies. Simultaneously, it appearsthat
40
Eric B. Herzik
for either definitional or substantive reasons, the importance of nonagricultural economic sectorsin non-metropolitan development may be more problematic than often hypothesized. Far from declining in importance, agriculture’s role is seenas expanding, at least by those in charge of non-metropolitan decision-making. Unless we are willing to dismiss out of hand the attitudes of these decision makers, our results should give pause to any policy programs based upon some model of quasi-urbanization or economic change and modernization in rural America. Our analysis has been exploratory and we recognize particular limitations in its overall generalizability. However, the overwhelming bulk of evidence suggeststhat, regardlessof selectedcontrol variables thought to modify its influence, agriculture is and will continue to be the primary sector guiding rural development. This is not to say that all is unchangedand businessproceedsas usual in non-metropolitan America. It does,however,suggestthat a comprehensivetheory of rural changewill have to first account for a substantial element of continuity rather than focusing solely on change. Failing this our policy efforts may well follow that pattern highlighted by Wildavsky,21 with programmatic solutions bumping into each other and thus creating even larger problems in themselves. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Kent Wirth, Mike Gant, Mary Dodson and Jim Seroka for their help. Data were provided through a researchgrant from the National Science Foundation.
REFERENCES 1. Beale, C., The population turnaround in rural and small town America. Policy Studies Review, 2( 1) (1982) pp. 43-55. 2. Bryan, I?. WI., Politics in the Rural States, People, Parties and processes. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 198 1. 3. Hawley, A. H. and Maize, S. M. (Eds), Nonmetropolitan America in Transition. Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1981. 4. Ploch, L., The reversal in migration patterns-some rural development consequences. Rural Sociology, 43(2) (1978), pp. 293-303.
The continuing importance of’ agriculture in American rural development
41
5. US Bureau of the Census, Current Population Report, Series No. 176. Money Income of Households in the United States. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1980. 6. US Department of Agriculture, Statistical Reporting Service, Statistical Report Bulletin, No. 507. Number of Farms and Land in Farms. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1971. 7. US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of’the 7,X: 1981. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1981. 8. Duncombe, H. S., County Government in America. Washington, DC, National Association of Counties Research Foundation, 1966. 9. Buttel, F. H., Environmental quality and protection. In: Nonmetropolitan America in Transition (Hawley, A. H. and Maize, S. M. (Eds)). Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 198 1. 10. Guess, G. M., The political economy of American rural development. Public Administration Review, 43(3) (1983), pp. 277-85. 11. Dillman, D. A. and Hobbs, D. J. (Eds), Rural Society in the US, Issuesfor the 1980s. Boulder, Colorado, Westview Press, 1982. 12. Seroka, J., Receptivity to change and modernization in rural county administration. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, New York, April 1983. 13. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Projile of County Government. Washington, DC, Government Printing Office, 1972. 14. Torrence, S. W., Grass Roots Government: The County in American Government. Washington, DC, Robert B. Lute, 1974. 15. Brown, A., Technical assistance to rural communities: stopgap or capacity building? Public Administration Review, 40(l) (1980), pp. 18-23. 16. Groesnick, L. E., Grass roots capacity building and the intergovernmental system. National Conference on Nonmetropolitan Community Services Research. Washington, DC, Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, US Senate, 1977. 17. Hawkins, R., What is Capacity Building? A Study of Capacity Building in CaliJornia. Davis, Cooperative Extension Service, University of California, 1980. 18. Honadle, B. W., A Capacity-Building Framework. Washington, DC, US Department of Agriculture, State and Local Government Program Area, 1980. 19. Sokolow, A. D., Population growth and administrative variations in small cities. Policy Studies Review, 2(l) (1982), pp. 72-85. 20. Elazar, D., American Federalism: A Viewfrom the States. New York, T. Y. Crowell, 1966. 21. Wildavsky, A., Speaking Truth to Power. Boston, Little Brown and Co., 1979.