Article

Measuring the Impact of Meat Packing and Processing Facilities in Nonmetropolitan Counties: A Difference-in-Differences Approach

American Journal of Agricultural Economics (Impact Factor: 0.99). 01/2007; 89(3):557-570. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8276.2007.01003.x
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT Considerable controversy exists regarding the costs and benefits of growth in the meat packing and processing industry for rural counties. This study investigates the effects of this industry on social and economic outcomes in nonmetropolitan counties of 23 Midwestern and Southern states from 1990 to 2000. Results suggest that as the meat packing industry's share of a county's total employment and wage bill rises, total employment growth increases. However, employment growth in other sectors slows, as does local wage growth. Industry growth has little impact on local crime rates or on growth of government spending on education, health, or police protection. Copyright 2007 American Agricultural Economics Association.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
94 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In the past 20 years the average scale of hog operations has expanded more than fourfold, and some of the new large-scale hog feeding operations have been opposed by residents in some communities. While the environmental effects of such production have been relatively well studied, less examined are its potential positive effects on local labor markets and economies. Existing estimates based on production-function and input-output analysis imply that each additional 1000 hogs in inventory in a county generates between 3 and 7 local jobs. In this paper we adopt an econometric approach instead, to estimate the effects of changes in hog production on changes in both farm and non-farm outcomes. We find that total county employment increases by less than previously reported, with about two additional jobs being created per 1000 head of hogs in inventory.
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Proponents of value-added agricultural enterprises (VAAE) argue for favorable government policies and funds to promote these industries as a local development strategy. Though regularly advocated at all levels of government, the beliefs regarding the benefits of VAAE to local economies merit empirical investigation. A county-level analysis of the contiguous U.S. states for a ten-year time period was used to evaluate the contribution of selected VAAE to county economic well-being. The two-stage least squares regression coupled with spatial econometric methods suggests that the support for these selected VAAE as a tool of local economic well-being, measured using income and employment growth and change in poverty rates, is not well founded. Copyright 2009 Agricultural and Applied Economics Association
    Review of Agricultural Economics 01/2009; 31(3):511-534. · 0.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study examined the job satisfaction of 253 Latino/a newcomers in three rural communities in the Midwest. Specifically, the authors explored the effects of ethnic identity, Anglo acculturation, Latino/a acculturation, perceptions of the community (social relations, discrimination/racism, and language pressures), job tenure, work hours, and salary on participants’ job satisfaction. Results of a hierarchical regression analysis indicated that ethnic identity and Anglo acculturation had a positive effect, while perceptions of the community related to discrimination/racism had a negative effect on job satisfaction. Latino/a acculturation, perceived social relations in the community, perceived language pressures in the community, job tenure, hours worked, and wages were not significantly related to job satisfaction. The regression model accounted for 16% of the variance in job satisfaction. The implications of the findings for career counseling practice are discussed, and suggestions for future research on Latino/a immigrants’ career development are provided.
    Journal of Career Development 01/2012; 39(1):31-49. · 1.52 Impact Factor

Full-text (3 Sources)

View
577 Downloads
Available from
Jun 6, 2014