Search

Nonmetropolitan (nonmetro) inequality patterns are contrasted with those of metropolitan (metro) areas to assess the utility of neoclassical and restructuring theoretical frameworks. Inequality measures are constructed from March Current Population Surveys for the years 1968–1991. Results indicate that inequality is greater in nonmetro areas than in metro areas. Results of decomposition procedures suggest that the observed inequality is due to a mix of neoclassical and restructuring factors that account for more inequality in metro than nonmetro areas. National policies must take account of metro/nonmetro differences in patterns and sources of inequality.

Organizational assumptions embedded in the production function of neoclassical economics have served to structure production agriculture in the United States for the past 100 years. The narrow focus of the production function on the inputs of land, labor, capital, and management and the use of on-farm profitability as the primary definition of sustainability have come under attack from sustainable agriculturalists, who argue that the social and environmental consequences of production are as important as the economic outcomes. Using diversity of crops harvested as an indicator of sustainability, the production function is operationalized to inform the debate between the conventional, neoclassical model of production and the alternative, sustainable model. Census of agriculture data from 1978, 1982, and 1987 are used in both cross-sectional and temporal models. Results show that increases in expenditures for equipment and machinery, prevalence of corporate farms, higher rates of tenancy, and the prevalence of large farms are associated with lower levels of diversity at the county level. Conversely, higher levels of diversity are found in counties with greater farm labor expenses, where there are more medium-size farms, and where farmers are more likely to farm full-time.

Neoclassical theory in economics has served as the guiding paradigm for agricultural development in the United States. At one level, this model emphasizes the substitution of capital in the form of machinery and chemicals for land and labor. At another level, the paradigm calls for the introduction of mass production techniques, such as product standardization and the routinization of labor processes. Using data on dairy farms and dairy processors from the 50 states, the neoclassical model accounts for changes in productivity on dairy farms; however, the model is less useful in accounting for changes in dairy farm structure. To explain changes in structure, recent neostructural theory that links the structure of markets to the structure of production is used. It is concluded that persistence of family-size dairy farms may rest more on developing and protecting markets for the milk they produce than with tinkering with the neoclassical model.