Column: Is it rural revitalization or is it deeper distress?
Published 12:00 am Friday, November 23, 2007
By Jon Bailey, Guest Column
The rural communities of the Great Plains and the Midwest are substantial communities with strong traditions and values. But they constitute a region in economic and demographic distress, one with unique and important characteristics, and one that presents a special challenge and a special opportunity.
Sadly, it may be that the federal government is not meeting the challenge. And the 2007 Farm Bill provides yet another opportunity to seriously address the economic and demographic challenges facing many rural communities.
In a recent analysis, we found the U.S. Department of Agriculture spent nearly as much in farm program payments to Minnesota&8217;s 20 biggest farm subsidy recipients as it spent supporting rural development in the 20 Minnesota counties suffering the greatest population loss. The 20 largest farm subsidy recipients received over $21 million in farm program payments over three years.
Meanwhile, 20 counties with over 201,000 residents in 154 municipalities received $27 million over a comparable period for business assistance, community facilities, community and regional development, housing and community infrastructure. Top farm program recipients received an average over $1 million over three years while residents of the greatest depopulation counties received about $45 per person per year in federal rural development support.
It should be noted that these figures represent not all USDA Rural Development programs, but 18 rural economic and community development grant programs USDA has categorized together.
In other words, our federal tax dollars supported the 20 biggest farmers in Minnesota nearly as much as we supported the rural development needs of 201,000 residents in rural communities suffering the greatest economic and demographic distress.
The rural development programs examined in our report are those most important for rural communities to maintain their population or attract new residents. Declining population is symptomatic of a spiral that begins with a troubled economy, more migration out of a community, economic and community institutional consolidation and eventually little in the way of economic opportunity for remaining residents.
The result of the spiral of depopulation is a lower tax base, leaving small towns hamstrung by an inability to replace or repair vital infrastructure &045; a key to keeping and attracting people and businesses. Recent events in New York and Minneapolis demonstrate how fragile the nation&8217;s core infrastructure is. It is no different in rural communities; aging infrastructure in nearly every community harms the quality of life of current residents and limits future development.
Often the only way to address this challenge is through federal programs. Yet unlike urban areas, rural communities must compete against one another for federal resources. And, as our report details, federal rural development resources are limited and caught in a trap of skewed policy priorities.
Unfortunately, the version of the 2007 farm bill recently adopted by the House of Representatives will only exacerbate this problem by failing to adequately fund rural development and balance the needs to all aspects of rural communities.
We believe Minnesota and the nation are well-served with strong and equitable farm programs. We do not advocate eliminating farm programs. Farm programs can and should be reformed, however, to benefit rural communities and all of society. Farm program payments to large farms should strictly be limited to benefit small &045; and mid-sized farmers and beginning farmers and their ability to access land. That would make farm programs fairer and save money to invest in the future of rural communities.
As Congress completes the 2007 farm bill the central issue is: Should the federal government provide bigger subsidies to the nation&8217;s biggest farms to drive their neighbors out of business?
Or, should the farm bill focus on supporting family-scale agriculture and investing in the future of rural communities? The answer will determine the future path of many rural communities &8212; revitalization or deeper distress.
Jon Bailey is director of the Rural Research and Analysis Program at the Center for Rural Affairs of Lyons, Neb., a private, nonprofit organization working to strengthen family-scale agriculture and rural communities. More information on the report mentioned here can be found at www.cfra.org.