V HEN the Congress passed the Appalachian Regional Development Act in 1965, it established a new agency, provided it with a new set of operating instructions, and told it to work on a relatively old problem. That problem, of course, is the record of relatively low incomes, high unemployment and underemployment, out-migration, poor health, and inadequate education that have been generally characteristic of Appalachia-symptoms also characteristic of America. The approach of the Appalachian program to these problems, therefore, has significance for all areas of the country and, in fact, for all areas. In the debates and discussions of recent years concerning balance, rural renewal, and a national policy, one thread of agreement seems to exist-the intertwining of and problems. We simply cannot separate the solution of our and problems into separate compartments. The historic exodus from our areas has depleted their most valuable resource, their young people, who have too frequently been redundant and ill-equipped in their new environment. An approach to overcoming typically problems that holds even modest promise would be welcome in the effort to reduce problems of and areas to manageable proportions. Another thread of agreement in the discussion of urban-rural policy, though less overtly stated, is that there is no possibility for a program to stimulate a return to the land. For better or worse, we are an and urbanizing nation and national policy must both recognize this fact and, simultaneously, avoid confusing the term urban with metropolitan. The former does not necessarily mean the latter, and wise public policy must capitalize on what both can offer. There have been numerous attempted explanations of this urbanizing phenomenon. Some seek an explanation in a hierarchical structure of cities whose size and placement follow some regular pattern. Others seek it in agglomerative economies that confer pecuniary and non-pecuniary advantages. Still others seek it in an increasingly greater rate of invention and innovation as size increases. And there are those who seek the explanation in a higher degree of income elasticity of demand for services than for goods. Candor requires that we admit that a preference for one of these expla-
Read full abstract