Small-town foundation chief says we need a real rural policy, and offers some ideas for it

As America becomes less rural, it needs a real, effective rural policy, for the good of the nation, not just for rural people, Karl Stauber writes in a two-part series concluding today in the Daily Yonder. (Yonder photo from Howard, S.D., pop. 1,156)

Stauber, president of the Danville Regional Foundation in southern Virginia, says rural America has three basic challenges besides population loss: "It is highly diverse, so 'big, top-down' solutions rarely work. ... Much of Rural America is defined by what it used to be, rather than what it hopes to be," and "Rural areas often see themselves as separate from each other and urban centers rather than being parts of regional economic and ecological systems."

He lays out some core principles for a rural policy: equal access to government services, universal high-speed Internet accessm and the ability to create competitive advantage as sitiutations change, which often requires the help of universities. (Read more)

In the first part of his series, Stauber asks a question that will need good answers if we are to have good rural policy: "Why should urban people should want rural people and areas to succeed?" He answers:
• "Almost all of America’s water and much of its food and fiber come from rural regions of the U.S. For rural regions to produce what America needs, America must support rural opportunities. But in the future, those opportunities must be different, focused on constantly creating competitive advantage, rather than simply protecting old advantages. [See below.]
• "America’s exceptionalism is based, in part, on the concept of equal access to opportunity.
• "There is an old rural saying, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.”
• "Do we wish to curse rural people with poverty and poor education? That is starting to happen in some rural (and urban) parts of America.
• "Do you want to live with the population concentration or sprawl" suggested by experts who love megacities and say that's where public investment should go?
 
Regarding the first bullet, Stauber calls for investment in "New Ag" as opposed to "Old Ag," which he says "is largely about protecting the status quo supported by many of the major farm groups and commodity organizations.  New Ag is a combination of grassroots farmer and food organizations and environmental groups that challenge the status quo with a vision of agriculture as producing positive environmental benefits and healthier diets."
 
And Stauber reminds us that farming provides only about 5 percent of the jobs in rural America, and that 82 percent of farm-family farm income comes from off the farm. "There are parts of the U.S. where agriculture is dominant, but much less than 50 years ago.  Focusing on agriculture, especially Old Ag, ignores the vast majority of rural people and communities."
 
Given that, Stauber says, we should realize the differences in "Old Rural and "New Rural," as he calls them: "Old Rural is largely about protecting regionally dominant enterprises that produce single commodities, often with federal and state government support and protection (coal, timber, commodity crops, low-skill, low-wage manufacturing, etc.), while increasing the amount, but often not the distribution of wealth. . . . New Rural is about helping regional efforts to build diverse, evolving competitive advantage that grows the amount and distribution of wealth. ... Recruit entrepreneurs and immigrants, not low-wage manufacturing. Quality of life is critical. Environmental quality an asset to be protected, not expended." (Read more)