|
has
been to
save funding for rural economic development
activities.
This
may
be part of the Governor’s general infatuation
with things agricultural, which, as has been ably
pointed out in this publication, does not seem to
make a lot of sense from an economic return on
investment perspective. Or it could spring from
that deep sense of obligation to the noble farmer
that is a recurrent theme in American politics.
Or,
perhaps the governor is a close student of World War
II and realizes that the United
States
was not only the “Arsenal of Democracy” but the
“Breadbasket of Democracy” during that great
national trial. Indeed, there is a school of thought
that says that if a nation can produce
enough foodstuffs to feed its populace and enough
goods to allow its economy to operate with perhaps a
small surplus for trading, said nation is “good to
go.” In a way, this is the old colonial Virginia
plantation model of self-sufficiency carried to the
national level but, unfortunately, some economic
realities have inserted themselves into this cozy
equation over the intervening years.
Agriculture
has become a victim of its own tremendous
productivity growth. Despite some creative attempts
in
Washington
to prop up prices either directly or through
contrived scarcities, the number of individuals who
can make a decent living for their families from the
farm steadily declined throughout the 20th
century.
Manufacturing,
the other great economic pillar of the rural
economy, has become a victim of the globalization of
research and development, labor markets, technical
expertise, and production know-how. U.S.
jobs have steadily moved overseas, especially in
labor-intensive manufacturing segments, such as
textiles, located in rural regions of the country
and the Commonwealth.
Governors all over the country, not just here in
Virginia,
have attempted to offset these losses by attracting
new jobs to rural areas. For the most part, the
strategy hasn’t worked. There may be a surprising
reason: Rural residents don’t want new
jobs -- they want the ones they had.
As
a generality, these are socially conservative
regions. Inhabitants very clearly want to stay
within their comfort zone – which isn’t
especially extensive. They tend to greet the
dazzling brain bubbles floating up from the state
capitals with suspicion and fear – suspicion that
new industries will exploit their land, and fear
that they will lead to pollution and congestion,
negatively impacting their “way of life.”
In
the final analysis, their way of life is more
important to rural communities than jobs. They can figure out how to get by without
jobs; they can always commute out of the area to
work. But they fear that once development comes,
they will lose attributes that can never be
reclaimed.
We are not making this stuff up. In our extended
families, we have two successful local politicians
in rural areas of Virginia.
One is a sitting county supervisor and the other is
preparing his campaign for supervisor, having been
recruited to run by the majority party in the
county. Both were born and bred of farm families but
had successful non-agricultural careers that took
them elsewhere before they returned to the land.
Although
their respective counties are far apart, they sing
very much the same song. Their voters fear economic development worse
than the plague. In fact, they are pretty well
convinced that development is the plague, and
they want no part of it.
This
may sound strange in light of the carefully
coordinated caterwauling that has erupted in the
past and will, no doubt, break out again during the
2003 session of the General Assembly. The (you fill
in the blank) area of the state is hurting and the
final budget needs to ensure funding for programs
that will lift it from the doldrums.
We
would argue that the real aim of these protestations
is not to develop a new, more competitive basis for
rural economies but to ensure a sufficient flow of
the Commonwealth’s money to ease the pain of a
long, slow death -- all the while, of course
avoiding the perceived social dislocations and other
aggravations associated with development.
If
our conclusions are true, then rural economic
development is a poor investment, indeed. It may
have been an acceptable investment when state
coffers were running over with revenues from a
booming economy, but it isn’t now, when every
dollar has to show an explicit ROI. Metro Virginians
need some assurances that rural Virginians are
prepared to make the changes that are necessary for
economic development to take place.
Proposing
“solutions” to this tough issue doesn’t have
to be done with a wink and a nod. In the incredibly diverse economy that will
characterize the 21st Century, it is
possible to find industries and jobs that will fit
into rural areas in such a way that the residents
don’t have to give up their legitimate
environmental and quality of life concerns.
State
leaders,
however, are going to have to provide some real
vision and
assistance. Just as it doesn’t do a blind person
much good to install a higher wattage light bulb, it
doesn’t help rural areas to set aside funds to
recruit industries they are unfamiliar with and have
no cultural basis for reaching out to. We learned
that lesson in our foreign aid programs over a
quarter century ago. Isn’t it time to apply the
lesson domestically?
So,
rather than have another round of wasted oxygen and
ink over coalfields, tobacco farms, and sock
factories, let’s start a real dialogue designed to
have us all meet in the middle on this tough, but
important issue. In these times and for the
foreseeable future, we need a contribution from
everyone.
--
January 13, 2003
|
