Natural Resource Dependence, Rural Development, and Rural Poverty. Rural Development Research Report Number 48.

Autor/inn/en	Deavers, Kenneth L.; Brown, David L.
Institution	Economic Research Service (USDA), Washington, DC.
Titel	Natural Resource Dependence, Rural Development, and Rural Poverty. Rural Development Research Report Number 48.
Quelle	(1985), (22 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Beigaben	Tabellen
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Studie; Community Development; Disadvantaged Environment; Economic Change; Income; Low Income Counties; Natural Resources; Policy Formation; Population Trends; Poverty Areas; Public Policy; Rural Areas; Rural Development; Rural Urban Differences; Social Change; Socioeconomic Influences; Trend Analysis; Urban to Rural Migration + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Community; Development; Entwicklung; Ökonomischer Wandel; Einkommen; Natural Ressource; Natürliche Ressource; Politische Betätigung; Bevölkerungsprognose; Öffentliche Ordnung; Rural area; Ländlicher Raum; Rural environment; Ländliches Milieu; Stadt-Land-Beziehung; Sozialer Wandel; Sozioökonomischer Faktor; Trendanalyse; Stadtflucht
Abstract	Rural areas' population growth, location, level of economic activity and social well-being depend less on natural resource endowments than on such factors as transportation, communication, labor force characteristics, and urbanization. General causes of the 1970's urban-to-rural migration included fewer changes in the structure of agriculture, decentralized nonextractive economic activities, modernized rural life, and a rural residential preference. This migration has accelerated changes in the nonmetro employment structure which is becoming increasingly diverse and decreasingly agricultural. Despite a narrowing of metro-nonmetro income differences, rural America continues to have a disproportionate share of poverty which falls mostly on Blacks and Hispanics. A recent comparison of demographic, income distribution, economic structure, and human capital differences was made among counties classified as being directly concerned with natural resources. Intercounty variations were explained by investigating the effect of all factors considered. Findings indicated that 42% of all rural counties are natural resource dependent, only farming dependent counties trailed all nonmetro counties in median family income, and what differentiates persistently low income counties is their population profile and location, not economic base. Given these findings, no single sectoral policy will be appropriate in assisting rural development. Welfare reform would greatly benefit these areas. (PM)
Anmerkungen	Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402.
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2004/1/01