What to Do About Rural American Disproportionate Disadvantage & Disproportionate Inattention

Abstract

This thesis has highlighted that the farm bill is the largest source of federal policy concerning rural America, while arguing that it doesn’t directly, nor proportionately address the majority of rural Americans’ industries metrics of disadvantage. Rather, the farm bill disproportionately favors agricultural and other “special interests”. This is reflected through the farm bill’s provisions concerning various agricultural financial instruments and SNAP provisions (making up for 99.9% of total farm bill provisions), and its typical lobbying profiles. Meanwhile, “rural development” provides rural Americans with industry-indiscriminate, special-interest-avoiding assistance such as small business loans and infrastructure development, but it receives just 0.1% of total farm bill provisions. Because only 1 in 10 rural Americans are in the agriculture industry, roughly 9 out of 10 of Americans, then, receive disproportionate federal inattention especially as a result of the current nature of the farm bill. The Introduction includes an overview while including highlights from interviews performed with a rural resident and a C-Suite executive at a Fortune 500 company within the food industry. Chapter 1 addresses various disproportionate metrics of rural American disadvantage (as compared to urban areas), addresses three popular misconceptions of rural America, includes a highlight from a third interview with a rural resident, and sets the larger argument forward that rural America faces “disproportionate disadvantage and disproportionate inattention”. Chapter 2 reviews political science and sociological literatures and largely brings forward respective arguments for: one, how collective-action and an understanding of institutions (generally) is essential for changing current policy practically; and two, how rural disadvantage has largely been treated through cultural explanations while urban disadvantage largely continues receiving institutional explanations. Chapter 3’s extensive analysis of rural counties builds on USDA “County Typology” data: my rural county analysis by region, industry specialization, and particular metrics of disadvantage (e.g., child poverty and population loss) demonstrates rural economic and disadvantage diversity across six geographic regions in America that the farm bill especially fails to address. Case studies of key states within each region (demonstrating particularly prevalent disadvantages) are included throughout the chapter to further illustrate regional findings, relate them to current federal policy concerning rural America, and convey current policy limitations. Finally, Chapter 4 builds on multidisciplinary findings from all previous chapters in making an argument that the share of “rural development” under the farm bill should be substantially increased, for it has the greatest potential within federal policy to achieve proportionate attention and assistance for the majority of rural Americans experiencing diverse disadvantage. However, policy recommendations within the chapter for doing so rest upon understanding collective action and its challenges: rural American business leaders should form a national collective while overcoming several collective action challenges (outlined in the chapter) to achieve the strength possible to lobby the farm bill for the purpose of directing attention and assistance to the majority of rural Americans via rural development strategies.