National rural policy for America

The nation’s new farm bill, called the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, passed the U.S. House and Senate last week. President Bush signed the bill early on May 13 following a radio address to America’s farmers and ranchers.

Like its predecessors, the bill is complex, convoluted, controversial and tediously lengthy. The conference report alone had more than 400 pages. The final bill document itself will easily exceed 1,000.

Maine’s congressional delegation was divided on the bill – with Sen. Olympia Snowe and Rep. John Baldacci voting for it and Sen. Susan Collins and Rep. Tom Allen casting their dissent. The latter claimed – rightly – that the new bill is too expensive ($74.4 billion for FY2002), has little to offer to New England states (and the small farmers), and is once again driven by myriad agri-business interests. In their dramatic dissent, however, they missed a fundamental policy question.

Rural America is at a crossroad. Recent studies show that the nation’s rural economy – and it is reflected here in Maine – will continue to remain a mix of weakness and strength for the near term. One-third of all rural counties in the nation captured three-quarters of all rural economic gains in the 1990s.

Many rural areas face complex problems. These range from growth pressure on rural communities and the working landscape, to the mire of poverty that some communities have been stuck in ever since the Great Depression of the 1930s. The tenacity of rural poverty’s grip on the nation can be seen in the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s classification of the 535 “persistent poverty counties” in the nation. Maine does not necessarily escape this grip. There are many isolated pockets of poverty in rural areas throughout our state; they are often invisible. While no Maine county is classified as suffering from “persistent poverty,” there are many census tracts in the state which come under that classification.

The fundamental policy question, then, is what shall we do strategically in response to these problems. The answer lies only in part in a national farm policy. The other part of the answer lies in a coherent national rural policy that is explicitly connected to the building of vibrant rural communities – in Maine and throughout the nation.

There are some footprints of such a national rural policy in the 2002 farm bill, for example: the titles calling for a new rural strategic investment program ($100 million), rural broadband access ($30 million) and rural business development ($15 million). But these are paltry sums next to the $73.5 billion that has been mandated for farm commodity and income support over the 2002-2011 period.

A viable rural policy process is not born only of the necessary political tradeoffs in the real world between and among interest groups. It should also be grounded in what we collectively know from research and practice – also in the real world – about what is rural development, how to do it and do it well. What we know is that there are basic principles we must consider in the formulation of a national rural policy in this millennium. Let me offer some of these below:

1. Shift the policy focus from sectors (e.g., agriculture, forestry, fishery) to regions – that is, put the focus on “community” and “place.” This is not to say that “sectors” are not important. I am simply saying that the issues and needs confronting a specific sector can be more effectively responded to in the context of place. Economic and geographic regions are more sensible and relevant policy boundaries. The needs of the heartland states, of Appalachia and of northern New England are all different. Such a policy shift has already taken place in many European Union countries.

2. Use the practice of “community agriculture” as a tool to preserve the nation’s working landscape.

3. Bridge the disconnects between rural, suburban and urban – particularly around what Maine state planning director Evan Richert calls the competing functions of land – for consumption or for production.

4. Promote entrepreneurship as a strategy for rural development. According to recent studies, there is a clear correlation between the level of entrepreneurial activity and economic growth. Imaginative ways must be found to promote and support entrepreneurship in rural places.

5. Close the digital divide. This is not only an issue of infrastructure; it is also an issue of application – that is, knowing what to do with the technology for small farmers and micro businesses in rural places, for example. The USDA Distance Learning and Tele-medicine Loan Program is a good start.

6. Enhance civic capacity and human capital in small rural places. We cannot underestimate the importance of local institutions, local strategic thinking, local leadership and local work force to economic development.

7. Better coordinate national policies affecting rural areas. Let me provide just one example. Think about how the farm bill can tap into the new Workforce Investment Act or HUD’s Rural Housing and Economic Development initiative.

To pull off this national rural policy, we should “reinvent” the rural development title of the farm bill – a long-neglected stepchild of USDA. Reframe this important title around the seven policy principles just mentioned and put it on the front end of the farm bill. (The pre-eminent place of Title I has always been given to “commodity programs.”)

Some will think this is wishful thinking. But I believe the wind is shifting, for the 2002 farm bill also calls – once again – on the president to create the quasi-Cabinet level position of Special Assistant to the President for Rural Affairs and to sponsor a White House Conference on Rural America. Further, it authorizes the National Rural Development Partnership (NRDP) at $1 million each year. NRDP was established in 1990 as a nonpartisan initiative whose mission is to “contribute to the vitality of the nation by strengthening the ability of all rural Americans to participate in determining their futures.”

The Maine Rural Development Council is one of 40 councils that make up the national partnership. Indeed, this is what we need to do as a nation – take the public policy process out of the grips of special-interest groups and return it to the people and communities of rural America.

Robert P. Ho is a rural economic development specialist and the executive director of the Maine Rural Development Council with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension.