With the passage of the Rural Development Act of 1972 (Public Law 92–419), every state in the nation was challenged to provide rural development assistance through the land-grant universities. Operating under flexible guidelines, each state has proceeded differently. Comparison of various states’ programs provides some new insights on effective rural development programming.

There is widespread use at this time of various tax incentives (1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 16) to stimulate property owners to maintain agriculture or open space on their land. The success of such programs will depend to a great extent upon the monetary incentives that they provide to property owners. The existence of preferential treatment in the taxing system prior to the implementation of preferential farmland assessment legislation has been proven by several authors (2, 4, 12). Such de facto preferential assessment has been noted in areas other than agricultural land (13, 20). This type of preferential assessment may be innate to the system that assessors use in determining the value of farmland (17, 18), or it may be the result of a conscious effort on the part of the assessing authorities to give preferential assessment to farm land and open space (15). The following quotation is taken from the Lehigh-Northampton County Joint Planning Commission Study, “Act 515 in Lehigh County – A Follow-Up Study”.

Agricultural problems associated with population growth have been analyzed in the Northeast for some time. The loss of cropland and the effect on agricultural output have been documented by Otte and Krause. In addition to the actual loss of agricultural land, changes in land-use, taxation and agricultural input infrastructure continue to be analyzed. Indeed, rural land-use policy researchers in the Northeast have provided national leadership for several institutional innovations, e.g. agricultural districts, transferable development right sales and differential assessments. The Conference on Rural Land-Use Policy in the Northeast held at Atlantic City in 1974 and the on-going regional research project, “Rural Land Use Policy in an Urbanizing Environment” attest to the continued research in this area.

This paper contains new but preliminary agricultural projections to 1985 for the Northeast and for the United States. The projections reflect our best judgement of the future agricultural production and resource use, but these are subject to additional review and revision before becoming official projections of the U. S. Department of Agriculture.

In October 1976, President Ford signed into law PL 94–566 (the “Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1976,” henceforth the law), which among other items extends unemployment insurance (UI) coverage to agricultural workers in establishments employing 10 or more workers for 20 weeks or more or with a high quarter payroll of at least $20,000, (henceforth the ‘10 in 20 or $20,000’ provision).

Extremely volatile price behavior is characteristic of the markets for apples and cherries. Unstable price behavior makes it particularly difficult for the industry to accurately anticipate future prices. Accordingly, uncertainty regarding the nature of the price determination forces can lead to serious marketing inefficiencies. To enable more effective production and marketing decisions, improved price forecasting methods are needed. Thus, the purpose of this paper is to examine the nature of the price structure within the apple and cherry industries by suggesting an appropriate analytical model and empirically evaluating its performance.

Federal and state laws require all communities to construct and operate facilities to treat domestic sewage. The 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (P.L. 92–500) require that all facilities provide the “best practical treatment” by 1977. They established the goal of “best available treatment” by 1983. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines best practical treatment as secondary treatment. It is the premise of this paper that required treatment levels and cost sharing arrangements specified in the current wastewater treatment laws impose relatively greater economic costs on small rural communities than on larger communities.

The development of new food and agricultural legislation in 1977 has been subject to a number of constraints almost from the outset. First, the 95th Congress decided, after earlier trial use, to use the new budget process “in earnest” this session. This mandated that committees have bills reported to their respective bodies by May 15. Second, the President very early issued guidelines as to the levels of acceptable Federal outlays for programs in the bills — more expensive ones faced the strong threat of veto. Third, it was widely recognized that the basic or permanent legislation which comes in force if new legislation is not enacted would be virtually unworkable in today's economy. This provided further incentive for development of legislation acceptable to both branches. The Congress thus had to develop new legislation in a very short period to meet the new budget schedule, avoid writing a bill certain to be vetoed, and rush to complete action on the bill before the month-long August recess to avoid having the permanent legislation become operative.

The interests of American consumers in our food policy can be set forth rather simply. Consumers are concerned about ensuring adequate supplies of safe and nutritious food at reasonable prices. The real problem, of course, is finding policies which can lead toward these goals, and enacting them.

The proposed changes in commodity programs which are now being considered by Congress will not have a major impact on the incomes of farmers in the Northeast nor on sales of firms supplying inputs or services to farmers. This conclusion is based on the assumption that the principal changes finally adopted will be to raise target prices for wheat, and to a lesser degree for corn, and to encourage on-farm storage of these commodities. Neither commodity, of course, is an important source of farm income in most of the states represented at this meeting. One of the consequences of raising target prices, however, will be to increase the cost of farm programs. Substantial government payments are likely to be made once again to producers of wheat and perhaps to those growing corn and cotton as well.

About two years ago a small group of agricultural economists from throughout the United States met to discuss the possibility of developing an educational program on possible alternative institutional arrangements associated with the marketing of agricultural commodities. The group identified eleven options for further investigation. And then gathered together a total of 26 colleagues to make the study.

Federal regulation of various commodities is under attack bycritics who take the position that regulation no longer achieves public interest goals. The critics have been more successful in the realm of changing degrees of control by reducing or refocusing regulation than they have been in eliminating regulation. In this paper we take the position that reduction of regulation in the dairy industry would be socially beneficial and consistent with the original goals of the regulation. The policy variable we consider is the amount by which the regulated price for milk for fluid uses is elevated above that for manufacturing (cheese, etc.) uses.

Industrial deconcentration or restructuring refers to the break up or diffusion of large firms in markets with high concentration. The idea of carving up large companies into two or more separate entities is not new. A number of prominent economists, including Stigler, Kaysen and Turner, and Mueller, have argued persuasively for just such an action. Since passage of the Sherman Act, the courts, while generally reluctant to perform surgery on large firms, have ordered corporate split-ups in at least 26 cases. Some of the early orders were quite drastic, including the division of Standard Oil of New Jersey into 33 parts, the break up of American Tobacco into 16 pieces, the splitting of DuPont into three separate powder manufacturing firms. With the exception of the Pullman and Paramount cases in the 1940's, both of which are of interest because they involved vertical as well as horizontal dimensions of market power, more recent divestitures have been mild.

In 1976 the Massachusetts Commission on Organic Recycling was formed to assess the feasibility of recycling several organic materials. One of the Task Forces operating under the auspices of the Commission was called the Task Force on “The Feasibility of Application of Municipal Sewage Sludge on Agricultural Land in Massachusetts”. The Task Force, composed of scientists and technical specialists from several public agencies prepared and submitted a report to the Commission.

The Report of the President's Task Force on Rural Development, issued in 1970, makes recommendations as to what might be done in the public and private sectors to stimulate the economic and social development of the rural communities of America. Although these recommendations include such things as financial investment, expanding educational facilities and programs to increase the nutritional level in rural communities, the report maintains that the creation of employment opportunities in rural communities is a most essential part of their economic and social development. Since manufacturing activities are one possible source of jobs in rural areas, it is relevant to determine what factors influence the growth (location of new establishments or expansion of existing ones) of manufacturing industries in rural areas.

Growth in residential land use is a relatively visible and permanent change taking place in communities across Massachusetts and in many parts of New England. These changes have generated considerable public concern and have been the subject of professional study by several disciplines.

During the past decade, the cost of constructing new homes has risen dramatically. While the overall consumer price index rose by 74 percent between 1967 and the end of 1976, the cost of constructing new housing rose by about 103 percent nationally. This trend in costs has priced a growing proportion of lower and middle income groups out of the market for new houses. The national average price for new housing is currently $52,000 per unit. This has led to expressions of public concern that efforts need to be undertaken to find ways by which these low and middle income groups can obtain access to new housing.

This study analyzes the performance of Northeastern nonmetropolitan counties regarding income, employment, population growth, and net migration, 1970–1974. By comparing these data with comparable data for other Census regions, an economic and demographic picture of the Northeast in a national setting is presented. This comparison shows that Northeast nonmetropolitan counties had smaller income gains than any other nonmetropolitan area, yet, many of the counties experienced high rates of population growth and net migration. This observation runs opposite to contemporary theories that indicate a positive relationship between income and population growth. The final sections of this paper develop criteria for analyzing these observations and offer an explanation for their existence.

The dwelling unit is often described as the focal point or hub in the delivery of a whole array of services to a household. It delivers “physical space … sanitary and cooking facilities …” and its geographic location provides access to a particular neighborhood and affects proximity and access to jobs, retail stores, public services, association with other people, and cultural and religious facilities. Thus, housing has a very important role in human resource development, and, subsequently, in economic growth and development. In general, housing plays an important role in the quality of life and living.