It's unclear to me how these charts support your statement that the rural economies were adversely affected by the Reagan policies, NAFTA, and globalization. I'd like to see a more vivid depiction of those impacts. It's difficult to see how the rural economies will improve, especially with the added burden of climate change and soil erosion; the government's income transfer programs if they continue, would be a stabilizing influence.
Hey John. Thanks for commenting. In the 1970s, federal policies prioritized regional equity through programs that started with New Deal (1930s) and Great Society (1960s) programs. This included rural infrastructure investments like agricultural price supports, the Rural Electrification Administration, and investments in rural education and healthcare.
Protectionist trade policies and progressive tax systems also helped stabilized rural economies, limiting income disparities between urban and rural areas. This contrasts with Reagan-era (and Clinton and others) policies that reduced federal spending, dismantled protections, and embraced globalization, causing the divergence shown in the data from EIG.
For a more detailed and vivid depiction of the alignment of rural areas with Republican politics and how the Reagan era helped lay the groundwork for today’s stark political and economic divides, I recommend Jonathan A. Rodden's, "Why Cities Lose."
I agree with you that it's difficult to see how rural economies will improve without stabilizing forces. Despite the self-reliant image, rural areas have consistently depended on federal intervention to survive and thrive. From military forts for Westward expansion, to roads, and later railways...to the Homestead Act and the Morrill Land-Grant Acts...to subsidies and soil conservation...they all relied on federal programs to facilitate commerce and improve lives. (of course urban area did to!)
But shifts toward globalization, consolidation of farms, and skewed wealth concentration make it much harder for a diverse and thriving array of commerce and lives to exist in rural America today.
Thank you for this insightful analysis of how policy affects places and vice versa. Great charts/graphs!
Thank you! I wanted to include some maps, but decided the charts told the best story. 👍
Great, insightful piece, thank you
Thanks, Mike!
It's unclear to me how these charts support your statement that the rural economies were adversely affected by the Reagan policies, NAFTA, and globalization. I'd like to see a more vivid depiction of those impacts. It's difficult to see how the rural economies will improve, especially with the added burden of climate change and soil erosion; the government's income transfer programs if they continue, would be a stabilizing influence.
Hey John. Thanks for commenting. In the 1970s, federal policies prioritized regional equity through programs that started with New Deal (1930s) and Great Society (1960s) programs. This included rural infrastructure investments like agricultural price supports, the Rural Electrification Administration, and investments in rural education and healthcare.
Protectionist trade policies and progressive tax systems also helped stabilized rural economies, limiting income disparities between urban and rural areas. This contrasts with Reagan-era (and Clinton and others) policies that reduced federal spending, dismantled protections, and embraced globalization, causing the divergence shown in the data from EIG.
For a more detailed and vivid depiction of the alignment of rural areas with Republican politics and how the Reagan era helped lay the groundwork for today’s stark political and economic divides, I recommend Jonathan A. Rodden's, "Why Cities Lose."
I agree with you that it's difficult to see how rural economies will improve without stabilizing forces. Despite the self-reliant image, rural areas have consistently depended on federal intervention to survive and thrive. From military forts for Westward expansion, to roads, and later railways...to the Homestead Act and the Morrill Land-Grant Acts...to subsidies and soil conservation...they all relied on federal programs to facilitate commerce and improve lives. (of course urban area did to!)
But shifts toward globalization, consolidation of farms, and skewed wealth concentration make it much harder for a diverse and thriving array of commerce and lives to exist in rural America today.