Discussion: Rural Poverty in the United States

Abstract

The section title indicated an intent to evaluate policy and program approaches to rural poverty in United States and Canada. Presumably evaluation was to center on contemporary approaches rather than be an historical and comparative analysis. The limits space, and-more importantly-the relative lack empirical evaluative data on contemporary rural poverty programs in United States, may explain why Dr. Clawson covered a large topic broadly and with little documentation. His message, nevertheless, is clear enough. His evaluation contemporary public programs to meet problems rural poverty in United States is essentially negative. He says federal farm programs, in general, not been, and were not intended to be, of help to smallest commercial farmers and been none at all for rural nonfarm The programs aimed at helping smaller commercial farmers not reached farmers if they very poor production prospects; neither they reached rural nonfarm poor. And even among special federal poverty programs, the record is but little better, as far as aid to rural poor is concerned. Clawson's basic explanation disadvantaged position rural poor is in terms political power-they have had no effective political pressure group working for them, nor they mustered much political muscle on their own. In 1890 a Farmers' Alliance orator is reputed to exhorted hard-pressed Kansas farmers to raise less corn and more hell. Episodes direct action recur throughout history farmers' movement in United States. Dr. Clawson says-I am not sure how seriously-that today's realistic advice to rural poor is to go to nearest large city, and learn to riot-in effect, to adopt social conflict theory action. On program side, Clawson argues that effective programs for dealing with rural poverty must include approaches beyond individual-a community approach. Substantial support may be found for Clawson's critical assessment program effects on rural poor, for his views as to political weak-