Search

Prior to his Nobel Prize-winning work in economic development and human capital, T.W. Schultz focused his attention most centrally on the economics of U.S. agriculture. His research on this subject, published mostly between 1932 and 1951, laid the foundation for his later work. However, the lasting value of Schultz's earlier work may appear to have been called into question even by the author himself. In the three books of collected writings he published toward the end of his life (Schultz, 1990, 1993a, 1993b), very few early writings are reprinted or even cited. Nonetheless, among agricultural economists, Schultz's earlier work has been as influential as his later work became among economists generally. In the American Economic Association's (1969) compilation, Schultz was referenced in the index more than any other economist, and all twenty-two references to his works refer to studies of U.S. agriculture (and only two of them to his work on human capital). In this paper, I review Schultz's contributions under two headings: the economics of farming and agricultural policy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of EuroChoices is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The article aims to present a conceptual framework for the analysis of ecosystem services (ES) supply in the U.S. It will also discuss some of the data and modeling issues that arise in predicting farmers' participation in ES contracts and the supply of ES resulting from them. To frame the discussion, the researchers outline a model of the supply of ES that illustrates the ways that spatial and system complexity can affect it. This model is used to discuss the data and modeling issues that arise in empirical implementation.

Government policy has long linked resource production with economic development in surrounding rural communities. The purpose of this article is to examine how the 's (USFS) resource-based, rural development policies have shifted due to economic restructuring and environmental challenges to the “management” of nature. Historical data was gathered on USFS timber harvests and policies toward forest-dependent communities. Data was also gathered through interviews and participant-observation on a USFS-supported, locally planned ecotourism project. USFS rural development policies have shifted from predominantly providing federally determined, sustained timber harvests in the industrial era to increasingly emphasizing local, amenity-based entrepreneurship and economic diversification in the post-industrial era. USFS rural development policies and resource production have been de-coupled. However, amenity-based development may depend both on amenity migrants and sustained commitment from external sources to support local initiative, given limited entrepreneurship in rural areas long dependent on high-wage extraction and manufacturing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The objective of this article is to assess locality-based development efforts - called self-development - in rural America during the decade of the 1980's. Self-development is defined as the implementation of a local project, or creation of firms, that increases income to the community and/or generates a net increase in jobs. Findings of a study suggest that self-development should not be considered the primary economic development strategy for most rural communities. If self-development efforts are evaluated strictly on the basis of the number of jobs created and/or saved or the amount of income generated in the community, one would have to conclude that self-development efforts have produced modest economic results in a small proportion of the rural communities in the U.S.

The rural renaissance of the 1970's in the U.S. turned into the rural bust of the 1980's. Meanwhile, the growth sectors of the national economy-high tech manufacturing, knowledge-intensive industries, and business services-became increasingly concentrated in urban areas. While the recession that began in mid-1990 has dealt a heavy cyclical blow to these sources of metropolitan economic growth, it is unlikely to alter long-term trends. The future of rural America will be determined by the interaction of structural facts that delimit a range of possibilities and public choices that select and implement policy alternatives from within that range.

The article reflects on the timeliness of the topic of ecosystem services (ES) in the arena of agricultural policy in the U.S. According to the author, policies and programs founded in ES science and economics can provide genuine alternatives to decades of commodity-based federal farm policy. The evolution of agricultural policy as it transforms to incorporate ES measures and transactions is uncertain. It will be marked by analytic challenges and policy retreats to old ways. ES assessments will enable budget allocation, planning and priority setting on the part of public agencies.