"Most Americans—taxpayers, politicians, and policy makers—have an urban-centric world view," Cornell University professors Daniel T. Lichter and David L. Brown write in Choices Magazine. "Big cities and suburbs are where most of us live and work. Urban issues
and interests understandably dominate our everyday discussions; they
also define America’s problems and policy solutions. Urban America is
where culture is shaped and reshaped by politics, media, and money,
where new jobs and technology are incubated, and where big ideas start
and flourish. Rural Americans—all 46 million of them—are often left on
the sidelines, presumably waiting to develop, prosper, and join the
American mainstream."
"For many rural Americans, waiting for rural development is no longer an option," Lichter and Brown write. "Between 2010 and 2012 alone, 179,000 people on balance left America’s rural areas (also referred to as non-metropolitan areas), escaping the perceived cultural and economic disadvantages of rural and small-town life. Rural natural increase (births minus deaths) no longer fully offsets population losses from net out-migration. As a result, for the first time ever, nonmetro areas overall are now experiencing population declines. Rural natural decrease—deaths exceeding births—is the new demographic norm."
"The so-called urban-rural divide is not a divide at all," Lichter and Brown write. "It is a space of intense social, economic, political, and environmental interaction. It also is space where rural and urban interests are sometimes in competition, for example over land use management, while in other instances rural and urban interests are conflated."
"The new interdependency of urban and rural America is perhaps illustrated best in the agricultural sector. America’s 'food system' cannot be examined in isolation from other aspects of the economy and society," Lichter and Brown write. "The restructuring of the meatpacking industry makes our point. Rather than shipping cattle or hogs to slaughterhouses in faraway cities, such as Chicago and Kansas City, most are now processed close to where they are raised in rural areas. For some small towns, this has been a demographic and economic boon, especially in the Midwest and Southeast, such as poultry and pork processing."
"Research and education focused on the urban-rural interface potentially benefits everyone, rural and urban alike," Lichter and Brown write. "Most college-age young adults today, unlike their grandparents, have had little or no real exposure to rural issues. Higher education, and especially land grant universities, should target social science research at the rural-urban interface, and produce educational and training programs that translate research into innovative applications and public engagement. Colleges and universities arguably must endeavor to provide a curriculum that is spatially inclusive, that views rural and urban as symbiotic rather than competitive or distinct."
"The immediate challenge is that rural issues typically are segregated, both intellectually and administratively, in land grant institutions and throughout the academy," Lichter and Brown write. "By narrowly focusing on rural issues or uncoupling them from urban, national, or global concerns, land grant universities may be missing opportunities to move forward in creative and responsive ways to pressing problems. The land grant university system should not abandon its traditional technical focus on farming and agriculture, but the current disproportionate focus on such issues can be short-sighted if it misses emerging opportunities that acknowledge the shared destinies of rural and urban people and places. Higher education, like other publicly supported institutions, is increasingly accountable to taxpayers. Targeting resources on the highest priority issues is essential for institutional sustainability." (Read more)
"For many rural Americans, waiting for rural development is no longer an option," Lichter and Brown write. "Between 2010 and 2012 alone, 179,000 people on balance left America’s rural areas (also referred to as non-metropolitan areas), escaping the perceived cultural and economic disadvantages of rural and small-town life. Rural natural increase (births minus deaths) no longer fully offsets population losses from net out-migration. As a result, for the first time ever, nonmetro areas overall are now experiencing population declines. Rural natural decrease—deaths exceeding births—is the new demographic norm."
"The so-called urban-rural divide is not a divide at all," Lichter and Brown write. "It is a space of intense social, economic, political, and environmental interaction. It also is space where rural and urban interests are sometimes in competition, for example over land use management, while in other instances rural and urban interests are conflated."
"The new interdependency of urban and rural America is perhaps illustrated best in the agricultural sector. America’s 'food system' cannot be examined in isolation from other aspects of the economy and society," Lichter and Brown write. "The restructuring of the meatpacking industry makes our point. Rather than shipping cattle or hogs to slaughterhouses in faraway cities, such as Chicago and Kansas City, most are now processed close to where they are raised in rural areas. For some small towns, this has been a demographic and economic boon, especially in the Midwest and Southeast, such as poultry and pork processing."
"Research and education focused on the urban-rural interface potentially benefits everyone, rural and urban alike," Lichter and Brown write. "Most college-age young adults today, unlike their grandparents, have had little or no real exposure to rural issues. Higher education, and especially land grant universities, should target social science research at the rural-urban interface, and produce educational and training programs that translate research into innovative applications and public engagement. Colleges and universities arguably must endeavor to provide a curriculum that is spatially inclusive, that views rural and urban as symbiotic rather than competitive or distinct."
"The immediate challenge is that rural issues typically are segregated, both intellectually and administratively, in land grant institutions and throughout the academy," Lichter and Brown write. "By narrowly focusing on rural issues or uncoupling them from urban, national, or global concerns, land grant universities may be missing opportunities to move forward in creative and responsive ways to pressing problems. The land grant university system should not abandon its traditional technical focus on farming and agriculture, but the current disproportionate focus on such issues can be short-sighted if it misses emerging opportunities that acknowledge the shared destinies of rural and urban people and places. Higher education, like other publicly supported institutions, is increasingly accountable to taxpayers. Targeting resources on the highest priority issues is essential for institutional sustainability." (Read more)
No comments:
Post a Comment