with only secondary and delayed benefits to working
people and the poor. Property value increases, sub-
sequent real estate speculations, and other sudden
shifts flow primarily to the monied segment of a
rural community. Some have questioned the relative
fairness of attracting new industry with the offer of
taxpayer subsidies associated with the provision of
infrastructure and worker preparation. So-called
leakages of the benefits of new industry are many
and tend to flow to the larger region. Nevertheless,
without such extra assistance, the poor often lack the
skills, work experience, and other desirable worker
qualities that lead to improvement in rural poverty
rates.
Little research has explored the experience of wel-
fare recipients in rural locales relative to discrimina-
tion and differential access to benefits. Clearly,
discrimination plays a role in the recruitment of
minorities to available jobs and in the location of
new industry. The so-called “30 percent rule,”
whereby corporations have purposively avoided de-
veloping facilities in counties with minority popula-
tions greater than 30 percent, reflects an explicit bias
against poor counties. The exclusion of locales on
the simple basis of racial composition directly per-
petuates rural poverty.
AMELIORATING RURAL POVERTY
Many of the problems of rural poverty are societal,
generational, and not directly tractable through local
initiative. Rural poverty remains a product of power
relations with urban centers, nonresident land-
owners, and resource corporations that determine
the course of life in many rural communities. Exter-
nally determined investment decisions, lack of cor-
porate reinvestment in institutions for rural
populations, and an urban bias in national policy
making serve to extend the conditions that reproduce
rural poverty. Given the dispersed nature of rural
populations, the interest-oriented nature of their po-
litical representation, and the overall organization of
the economy, few prospects for private sector solu-
tions for rural poverty can be said to exist.
A number of federal policies and programs have
focused on the problems of the rural poor. Food
stamps have provided a comprehensive floor for the
well-being of rural people and have a stabilizing
effect on the demand for food for agricultural pro-
ducers and manufacturers. Mechanisms to alter the
fundamental structural conditions that cause and
perpetuate rural poverty are subject to retrospective
evaluation (Deaton and Weber).
Institutional structures such as the Tennessee Val-
ley Authority have combined conservation, agricul-
tural development, and poverty alleviation
objectives to effect major transformations over a
60-year period. Similarly, the Appalachian Regional
Commission endeavors to coordinate and fund pro-
jects giving special attention to the problems of
mountain areas in the East (Lapping, Daniels, and
Keller).
Southern policy makers have been unwilling or
unable to effect direct transfers as a primary source
of poverty alleviation. This is based, in part, on
acceptance of the suspected adverse effects of wel-
fare payments on family structure, work, and sav-
ings. Despite the many studies, little convincing
empirical support has been found for such linkages
(Sawhill; Danziger et al.; Ellwood and Crane). The
majority of people in poverty did not receive welfare
assistance in 1986; rural people are less likely than
urban residents to be beneficiaries.
State development programs are highly variable
and, until recently, have tended to center on manu-
facturing as the primary mechanism of rural devel-
opment. Growing recognition of tourism, recreation,
and the service industry in general have somewhat
enlightened the efforts of these entities. Neverthe-
less, most of the rhetoric remains focused on the
aggregate flow of income and jobs, and not on the
distribution of employment and the net gains of what
development does take place.
The failure to invest in education has placed a
burden on rural communities. Few would argue, for
example, that rural and suburban schools compara-
bly equip their graduates to compete for high paying
jobs in today’s economy. Low per pupil expenditures
are explained not simply by the more modest tax
base of rural schools, but also by lower federal and
state assistance levels, which are rationalized by the
presumed lower cost of living in rural areas. The
generally lower educational attainment of rural
populations perpetuates rural economies based upon
low wage, unskilled industries (O’Hare). Poultry
production and processing is a particularly striking
example of an industry which has expanded rapidly
in the rural South, but which has done little to
alleviate poverty. However, even the expansion that
has occurred in “low tech” industries has failed to
increase demand sufficiently to raise rural unskilled
wage rates (Lyson).
The family is the crucible for the reproduction of
poverty, and rural areas are often in the weakest
position to support families in need. School systems
often lack the resources and leadership to focus on
family reinforcement and development. Families
without stable, productive breadwinners with self-
esteem cannot imbue offspring with the attitudes,
values, and desire to develop personal capabilities
and seek opportunity.
80