No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Tobacco Mechanization and Potential Out-Migration*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 April 2015
Extract
This paper reports an investigation of the potential out-migration response to flue-cured tobacco harvest mechanization in an eight county area of eastern North Carolina. The study is unique in that lost harvest earnings and potential out-migration response are reported in a household context. In addition, as the adoption process of mechanization is still in its beginning stages, out-migration responses are those that could be anticipated.
The impact of increased agricultural productivity and substitution of capital for labor are familiar to agricultural economists. So, too, is the social concern about farm-to-city migration which accompanied the mechanization of agriculture.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 1977
Footnotes
*
Paper 5190 of the Journal Series of the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh. The opinions expressed are the authors' and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Department of Agriculture or North Carolina State University. Comments by colleagues and anonymous reviewers are appreciated
References
[1]Bowles, Gladys K., Beale, Calvin L. and Lee, Everett S.. Net Migration of the Population, 1960-70, By Age, Sex, and Color, Part 3-South Atlantic States, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga., December 1975.Google Scholar
[2]Crecink, John C. and Smith, Edward J.. Economic Activity in Multi-County Planning Region Q of North Carolina: A Base Study With Comparisons to Other Flue-Cured Producing Districts, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Washington, D.C., Unpublished Manuscript, 1976.Google Scholar
[3]Day, Richard H. “The Economics of Technological Change and the Demise of the Sharecropper,” American Economic Review, Volume 57, No. 3, 1967, pp. 427–449.Google Scholar
[4]Grise, Verner N., Shugars, Owen K., Givan, William D. and Hoff, Frederic L.. Structural Characteristics of Flue-Cured Tobacco Farms and Prospects for Harvest Mechanization, Agricultural Economics Report Number 277, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, January 1975.Google Scholar
[5]Hoff, Frederic L., Givan, William D., Shugars, Owen K. and Grise, Verner N.. Flue-Cured Tobacco Mechanization and Labor: Impacts of Alternative Production Levels, Agricultural Economics Report Number 368, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, April 1977.Google Scholar
[6]Hoover, Dale M. and Perkinson, Leon B.. Flue-Cured Tobacco Harvest Labor: Its Characteristics and Vulnerability to Mechanization, Department of Economics and Business, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, Forthcoming Publication, 1977.Google Scholar
[7]Morgan, Larry C. and Bordeaux, A. Frank Jr. “Urban Public Service Costs and Benefits of Rural-to-Urban Migration,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 6, No. 1, July 1974, pp. 91–96.Google Scholar
[8]Morgan, Larry C. and Deaton, Brady J.. “Psychic Costs and Factor Price Equalization,” Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 7, No. 1, July 1975, pp. 233–238.Google Scholar
[9]Sisler, D. G. and Kramer, J. M.. A Regional Summary of United States Farming, Agricultural Economics Research 75-2, Department of Agricultural Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., 1975.Google Scholar
[10]Sjaastad, Larry A. “The Costs and Returns of Human Migration,” The Journal of Political Economy, Volume LXX, No. 5, Part 2, Supplement: October 1962, pp. 80–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[11]U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Statistics: 1975, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1975.Google Scholar