Political Economy of Rural Devlopment: Discussion

Abstract

Barkley, Chicoine, and Jahr presented various facets of the political economy of rural development. Barkley investigated the impact of federal deregulation policies on rural economies; Chicoine discussed the relationship of the 1980 federalism on local economies; and Jahr used the characteristics of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate to imply prospects for national rural policy. Barkley, in particular, provoked thought when he questioned how information on deregulation impacts can be used for policy action. He concluded the answer is not clear. Yet, the answer appears to be germane to the design of rural development policy. My response to Barkley's important query is conditioned by two factors. The first is my view of why the current interest exists in the political economy of rural development. The second is my perception of the role of the economic analyst in rural development issues. Why the current interest in the political economy of rural development? It is doubtful the explanation can be found in the serious difficulties of much of rural over the last decade nor in the migration from urban areas to rural areas which had first reversed and then accelerated (Brown; Henry, Drabenstott, and Gibson; Pulver). Adverse change in rural has been a dominant state-of-affairs since the country's founding. Change and suffering are among the most enduring qualities of rural life in America (Wilkinson, p. 3). While the existence of distress in rural economies does not adequately account for the recent revival of interest in the role of the government in rural development, it is possible that the rapidity of change has proven to be a catalyst. However, a chief factor that differentiates current interest in rural development programs from past such episodes is the shifting responsibility from federal to state governments. The Barkley, Chicoine, and Jahr papers appropriately emphasized the importance of this new federalism in describing new realities for rural citizens. As Jahr noted, despite the truism that farm policy does not equate with rural development policy, federal programs targeted to rural areas are heavily skewed toward the farm sector. The inability of farm programs to redress rural decline, coupled with the general retreat of the federal presence in other rural development programs, has left a vacuum which is forcing state governments to develop their own responses to rural needs. States are inc easing their rural development activitie:s-in many cases taking on roles formerly in the purview of the federal government. States face many obstacles in designing improved rural development programs. In addition to limited funds, many states lack instituonal capacity for rural development assisance. Since much of the federal development programs have been based on partnerships of federal agencies with local development authorities, bypassing the state agencies, state governments have limited experience in meeting ew rural needs. Federal farm programs, many Extension Service activities, Economic Development Administration Funds, and Appalachian Regional Commission programs, for exa ples, are directed mainly to locall governments, and not state governments, are the primary beneficiaries (John 1987b). Thus, many state governments, while under considerable pressure to respond to the rural recession, lack experience and remain uncertain as how to proceed. In the early 1980s, few states had rural initiatives. What experience existed at the state level tended to be focused in less-thanef ective ways for the conditions of the 1980s. Existing state rural-oriented agencies have been mainly regulatory agencies and have tended to address agricultural or mining conSandra S. Batie is a professor of agricultural economics, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University.