Charles W' Fluharty

1
The U.S. Rural Development Framework Comparative
Context Change DynamicsPresented to
theEuropean Union Rural Development
ConferenceBrno, Czech RepublicJune 9, 2009

• Charles W. Fluharty
• Vice President, Policy Programs
• Rural Policy Research Institute
• http//www.rupri.org

2
Four Considerations

• U.S. Rural Development Overview
• Lessons Learned from European Rural Development
  Policies Programs
• Comparative Comments
• The Way Forward, From a U.S. Perspective

3
Why Rural Development Investments are Critical to
the Future of Americas Farm FamiliesSeven
Considerations forCommittee Review

• Presented to the Senate Committee
• on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry
• October 3, 2007

4
1. Farming remains a strategically significant
sector of the national economy. However, on many
measures, farmings impact is declining in all
regions of the United States.

• Farm earnings have remained relatively steady
  over the last 30 years, while non-farm earnings
  have increased three-fold.

5
Agricultures contribution to total U.S. gross
domestic product (GDP) has also remained
relatively constant over the past decade, while
GDP overall has increased by nearly two-thirds.
6
Even in nonmetropolitan America, farm employment
has fallen from just over 14 percent of the total
in 1969 to 6 percent in 2005. The number of
counties with farm employment accounting for 20
percent or more of total employment has shrunk
dramatically from 1,148 in 1969 to 348 in 2005.
7
2. Farming is no longer a stand-alone economic
activity. Farm families depend on healthy local
and regional economies for their very survival on
the land.

• Nationally, 82 of all farm household income
  comes from off-farm sources. Even large family
  farm operators rely on off-farm sources for up to
  30 of their household income.

8
3. Federal expenditures on farming and rural
economic development fail to address these
realities.

• The FY2008 USDA Budget Outlays include 19 to
  Farm Commodity Programs, 11 to Conservation
  Forestry, and just 3 to Rural Development (up
  from 2 in FY2007).

9
4. Farm payments continue to be highly
concentrated, by crop and geography.

• In 2005, 43 of farms received government
  payments about 10 of farms received almost 60
  of these payments (USDA/ERS).
• Direct payments to farmers tend to be
  concentrated in the Heartland, Mississippi
  Valley, and California.
• Specialty crops, which now represent almost half
  of the U.S. farm crop value and continue to grow
  in value, are not similarly supported by these
  subsidy programs. (USDA)

10
5. Farm payments have limited impact on the
broader rural economy.

• Counties receiving the most farm payments (direct
  payments) significantly lag other nonmetropolitan
  counties in employment growth.

11
The U.S. Rural Development Framework

• Federal / State Regional Commissions
• U.S. Regional Planning Development
  Organizations
• Emergent Federal Initiatives
• Micropolitan Designations

12
U.S. Regional Commissions
13
Current Regional Commissions

• Appalachian Regional Commission (1965)
• 65.4 million, plus 490 million for highway
  systems
• Denali Commission (1998)
• 50 million
• Delta Regional Authority (2000)
• 12 million
• South East Crescent Authority
• Southwest Regional Border Authority

14
The U.S. Rural Development Framework

• Federal / State Regional Commissions
• U.S. Regional Planning Development
  Organizations
• Emergent Federal Initiatives
• Micropolitan Designations

15
Regional Planning Development Organizations

• National network of 500 sub-state planning and
  development organizations 320 RDOs primarily
  serve small metro and rural America
• Governed and owned by local governments, with
  increasing private sector involvement
• Primary roles
• Promote regional cooperation of local officials
• Develop professional planning program expertise
  
• Package and administer complex grants projects

16
U.S. Regional Development Organizations
17
The U.S. Rural Development Framework

• Federal / State Regional Commissions
• U.S. Regional Planning Development
  Organizations
• Emergent Federal Initiatives
• Micropolitan Designations

18
The U.S. Rural Development Framework

• Federal / State Regional Commissions
• U.S. Regional Planning Development
  Organizations
• Emergent Federal Initiatives
• Micropolitan Designations

19
U.S. Micropolitan Areas
20
U.S. Moving Toward Regional Rural Innovation
Systems

• Moving from attraction strategies to
  entrepreneurship
• Identifying and encouraging functional economic
  regions
• Asset-based development
• Higher education institutions anchoring and/or
  supporting new regional compacts
• New rural governance
• New regional intermediaries

21
The Promise of a Regional Rural Innovation Policy

• Place-based policies are WTO-compatible,
  non-trade distorting.
• This approach is consistent with the fact that
  national competitiveness is increasingly
  determined by regional actions.
• Enables a rethinking of core missions and a
  leadership renaissance across all governments.
• Improves potential to retain existing funding
  baseline for Ag Committees, and continuing Ag
  Committee responsibility for rural development.

22
Concerns and Considerations

• Assuring community, culture and landscape
  considerations remain central to new regional
  frameworks
• Defining our being, purpose and knowledge
  framework
• Avoiding devastating defaults
• Homogenization
• Commoditization
• Urbanization
• Colonialization

23
II. Lessons Learned from European Rural
Development Policies Programs
24
III. Comparative Comments

• Comparative Strengths Weaknesses
• Future Policy Direction Considerations

25
IV. The Way Forward,From a U.S. Perspective

• Impacts of the Obama Presidency
• New USDA Priorities
• The Critical Importance of Continuing
  Transatlantic Dialogue

26
One Final Consideration
All great truths begin as blasphemy. George
Bernard Shaw
27
Rural Policy Research Institute214 Middlebush
HallColumbia, MO 65211(573) 882-0316Fax
[phone]http//www.rupri.orgThe Rural
Policy Research Institute provides objective
analysis and facilitates public dialogue
concerning the impacts of public policy on rural
people and places.