Content uploaded by Spencer D. Wood
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Spencer D. Wood on Dec 08, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
O
Ownership and control
of land strongly
affects many aspects
of rural life, especial-
ly in the poorest regions of the
country. Land ownership in minori-
ty communities is particularly
important since it is often one of
the few (and largest) forms of
wealth. Beyond economics, land
ownership contributes substantially
to civic activities and political par-
ticipation. Land is also culturally
significant to minority groups like
American Indians, Hispanics, and
Blacks. Yet some argue that they are
losing ownership and control of
land at much faster rates than
Whites. In recent years, USDA has
been sued for racial discrimination
in Federal farm programs. For these
reasons among others, good
landownership data are essential
for better rural development prac-
tice as well as improved agricultural
policymaking.
In this article, we present the
most recent and thorough national
data on the racial/ethnic dimen-
sions of agricultural land ownership
in the United States, based largely
on USDA’s Agricultural Economics
and Land Ownership Survey of
1999 (AELOS). Of all private U.S.
agricultural land, Whites account
for 96 percent of the owners, 97
percent of the value, and 98 per-
cent of the acres. Nonetheless, four
minority groups (Blacks, American
Indians, Asians, and Hispanics) own
over 25 million acres of agricultural
land, with a value of over $44 bil-
lion: Blacks possess 7.8 million
acres ($14.4 billion), American
Indians 3.4 million private acres
($5.3 billion), and Hispanics nearly
13 million acres ($18 billion). The
large acreage and high value have
significant social, economic, cultur-
al, and political consequences for
minority communities in rural
America.
Blacks
For a century after the end of
slavery, Black farmers tended to be
tenants rather than owners. Since
the early 1970s, activists and schol-
ars have warned that the rural
Black community was in danger of
losing its entire land base. Land
ownership by Black farmers peaked
in 1910 at 16-19 million acres,
according to the Census of
Agriculture. However, the 1997
census reports that Black farmers
owned only 1.5 million acres. This
drastic decline contrasts sharply
with an increase in acres owned by
White farmers. Thus, the most sur-
prising finding in the 1999 AELOS
is that—despite many decades of
land loss—Blacks own 7.8 million
acres (table 1).
This estimate has not been
available to other researchers
because these data appeared only
last year, and previous national
studies have not counted minority
land owners as thoroughly as
AELOS. Analysts instead have used
the much smaller Census of
Agriculture figure (1.5 million
55
Winter 2002/Volume 17, Issue 4
Rural
America
Rural
America
Who Owns the Land?
Agricultural Land Ownership
by Race/Ethnicity
Of all private U.S. agricultural land, Whites account for 96 percent of
the owners, 97 percent of the value, and 98 percent of the acres.
Nonetheless, four minority groups (Blacks, American Indians, Asians,
and Hispanics) own over 25 million acres of agricultural land, valued
at over $44 billion, which has wide-ranging consequences for the
social, economic, cultural, and political life of minority communities in
rural America. This article presents the most recent national data
available on the racial and ethnic dimensions of agricultural land
ownership in the United States, based largely on USDA’s Agricultural
Economics and Land Ownership Survey of 1999.
Jess Gilbert
Spencer D. Wood
Gwen Sharp
Jess Gilbert is professor in the Department of Rural
Sociology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
and Co-Director of the Center for Minority Land and
Community Security; Spencer D. Wood and Gwen
Sharp are graduate students in sociology
at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
For assistance and suggestions, we thank Calvin
Beale, Charles Bernard, David Buland, Jim Burt,
Theresa Carmody, Anne Effland, Bob Hoppe, Lukata
Mjumbe, Jerry Pennick, Ross Racine, Gene ummers,
Frank Tolson, Raymond Winbush, and John Zippert.
The Center for Minority Land and Community
Security, based at Tuskegee University,
supported some of this work.
acres). In another major discrepan-
cy, the Census shows fewer than
19,000 Black farmers while AELOS
counts 68,000 Black agricultural
land owners. These seeming con-
tradictions, however, are due largely
to intentional differences between
the two sources: The Census of
Agriculture studies farmers whereas
the AELOS studies agricultural land
owners (see box, “Many Agricul-
tural Land Owners Are Not
Farmers,” pp. 58-59).
According to the AELOS, only
one-third of Black-owned acres are
operated by the owner (table 2),
with most Blacks renting their land
to others (mainly Whites). In fact,
61 percent of Black owners in 1999
56
Volume 17, Issue 4/Winter 2002
Rural
America
Rural
America
Table 1
All private agricultural land owners, acres owned, and value of land and buildings, by race and ethnicity, 1999
Minorities own only a small part of the U.S. agricultural land base
Land owners Acres
Average Value
Group Number Percent1(1,000) Percent1acres1($1,000) Percent1
United States 3,412,080 -- 932,495 -- 273 1,283,853,124 --
White 3,218,751 96.2 856,051 98.1 266 1,156,977,076 96.8
Black 68,056 2.0 7,754 0.9 114 14,366,319 1.2
American Indian 23,266 0.7 3,398 0.4 146 5,271,769 0.4
Asian 8,158 0.2 964 0.1 118 6,860,824 0.6
Other 27,290 0.8 4,640 0.5 170 11,753,114 1.0
Hispanic247,223 1.4 12,888 1.4 273 18,209,871 1.4
1Racial percentages are calculated based on the racial totals for all owners and all owner acres (3,345,521 and 872,807,000). The U.S. total is greater
than the sum of the races because it includes corporate and other non-individual owners that do not have racial characteristics, plus some individuals who
did not answer or did not receive a racial identifier. This also applies to average acres per owner.
2Hispanic percentages are calculated based on the U.S. totals for all owners and all owner acres (3,412,080 and 932,495,000).
Source: Table 68,
1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey
.
Table 2
Owner-operators, non-operator owners, and acres owned, by race and ethnicity, 1999
Most agricultural land owners, other than Blacks, are owner-operators
Owner-operators1Non-operator owners1
Acres Average Acres Average
Group Number Percent2(1,000) Percent2acres2Number Percent2(1,000) Percent2acres2
United States 1,966,715 58 542,890 58 276 1,445,365 42 389,605 42 270
White 1,892,676 59 533,642 62 282 1,326,075 41 322,410 38 243
Black 29,241 43 2,502 32 86 38,815 57 5,252 68 135
American Indian 17,479 75 2,615 77 150 5,787 25 783 23 135
Asian 6,116 75 655 68 107 2,042 25 309 32 151
Other 21,203 78 3,475 75 164 6,087 22 1,165 25 191
Hispanic333,834 72 10,160 79 300 13,389 28 2,728 21 204
1Percentages for owner-operators and non-operator owners are calculated row-wise based on the total number of owners and acres in each racial/
ethnic category.
2Racial percentages are calculated based on the racial totals for all owners and all owner acres (3,345,521 and 872,807,000). The U.S. total is greater
than the sum of the races because it includes corporate and other non-individual owners that do not have racial characteristics, plus some individuals who
did not answer or did not receive a racial identifier. This also applies to average acres per owner.
3Hispanic percentages are calculated based on the U.S. totals for all owners and all owner acres (3,412,080 and 932,495,000).
Source: Table 68,
1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey
.
were landlords, leasing 4.7 million
acres for over $216 million in rent
(table 3). Of all the racial groups,
Blacks own the smallest average
acreage (114 acres per owner).
Black agricultural land owners
are highly concentrated in the
South, from east Texas through the
Black Belt up into Virginia. Their
land use patterns are similar to
those for the region as a whole:
crops and woodland, with relatively
little land in pasture (table 4).
Blacks’ representation in the
Conservation Reserve Program is
higher than that of other minorities
but lower than Whites’ (table 5).
American Indians
Historically, of course,
American Indians had access to
practically all the land in the pre-
sent-day United States. White set-
tlers and the Federal Government
subsequently dispossessed them
of most of the land. Between the
Allotment Act of 1887 and the
Indian Reorganization Act of 1934,
American Indians lost an additional
90 million acres. Before discussing
current American Indian owner-
ship, it is important to note that
AELOS contains data only on
private Indian land, excluding
reservation land that is held by
the tribe or otherwise administered
communally. Thus, AELOS captures
only a small amount of the total
agricultural land of American
Indians. For instance, the 1997
Census of Agriculture reports that
only 2 million acres are held pri-
vately by American Indians, while
46 million additional acres are on
reservations.
AELOS reports over 3 million
acres of private agricultural land
held by 23,266 Indian owners, with
an average of 146 acres per owner
(table 1). Unlike Blacks, these
57
Winter 2002/Volume 17, Issue 4
Rural
America
Rural
America
Table 3
Private agricultural landlords and acres leased to others, by race and ethnicity, 1999
Nearly half of all land owners are landlords (less for most minorities)
Landlords Acres leased
Average Total rent
acres per received
Group Number Percent1(1,000) Percent2landlord3($1,000)
United States 1,638,033 48 394,336 42 241 17,379,889
White 1,505,648 47 321,711 38 214 14,492,197
Black 41,377 61 4,668 60 113 216,262
American Indian 6,487 28 726 21 112 27,384
Asian 2,634 32 378 39 144 42,648
Other 6,584 24 1,476 32 224 91,267
Hispanic 14,616 31 2,997 23 205 156,100
1Landlords as percent of all owners.
2Leased acres as percent of all owned acres.
3U.S. average is higher than race-specific averages because U.S. figures include corporate and other non-individual owners that do not have racial
characteristics, plus some individuals who did not answer or did not receive a racial identifier.
Source: Table 98,
1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey
.
Photo courtesy USDA/ERS.
Indian land owners tend to be farm
operators and rent their land to
others less often (table 2). Private
Indian agricultural land is worth
over $5 billion, and leased land
earned over $27 million in rent in
1999 (table 3). American Indian
land owners are generally concen-
trated in the West and Southwest.
They tend to specialize in pasture
(49 percent of all acres), with some
land in crops (39 percent) and less
in woodland (8 percent) (table 4).
Pastureland’s prevalence is proba-
bly due to the concentration of
Indian farmers and ranchers in arid
and semi-arid regions, which are
generally more suitable for live-
stock grazing than for growing
crops. Very few Indian owners,
and even fewer of their acres,
are enrolled in the Conservation
Reserve Program, which again
may reflect their concentration in
regions dominated by rangeland
(table 5).
To supplement the AELOS data
on private Indian ownership, we
used an Intertribal Agricultural
Council report based on Bureau
of Indian Affairs data from 1990
(McKean et al.). The BIA counted
over 18 million acres of agricultural
land on reservations, owned by
29,500 individual Indian farmers
or ranchers. Most of these farmers
(63 percent) raised livestock, main-
ly cattle. A more recent report from
USDA says that the BIA “manages
55 million acres in trust for Indian
tribes and individuals”: 2 million
acres of cropland, 36 million in
pasture and range, 11 million in for-
est land, and 6 million other acres
(Vesterby and Krupa, p. 24). As with
58
Volume 17, Issue 4/Winter 2002
Rural
America
Rural
America
Many Agricultural Land Owners Are Not Farmers
Comparing the AELOS and the Census of Agriculture
The 1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey (AELOS) was a follow-on survey to the 1997 Census of
Agriculture. The sample size included 37,182 farmers and 67,178 private landlords. The response rate was 71 percent
for farmers and 51 percent for landlords. Data for nonresponding landlords was taken from the reports of farmers who
rent from them. It is important to note that the AELOS focuses on agricultural (farm and ranch) land only. For more
information on research methods, see Appendix A of AELOS (USDA, 2001).
There are no ideal data sources on land ownership in the United States-other than in the 3,000-plus county
courthouses throughout the Nation. Every 5 years, the census of agriculture reports on “land in farms,” which accounts
for roughly half of all private land in the U.S. The Census offers the most comprehensive data on farms and farmers,
including the land they operate. Yet it is a poor source of information on agricultural land ownership; it covers land
owners only when they are also “farm operators” (farmers). Other landlords and nonoperator owners are intentionally
excluded from the census of agriculture.
The crucial distinction is between farmers and agricultural land owners. A farmer may rent rather than own land, and
an agricultural land owner may not operate a farm. The census of agriculture studies farmers, not land owners. Land
owners, though, are exactly the focus of the 1999 AELOS. It reveals much more than the Census about the ownership
of agricultural land. For example, the 1997 Census of Agriculture says that 16,560 Black farmers own 1.5 million acres,
whereas the 1999 AELOS shows 68,000 Black agricultural land owners with over 7.7 million acres. This discrepancy has
broad implications.
Researchers who work on these issues know that census of agriculture data are problematic. For one thing, small
farmers are more likely to be missed by the census, and minority farmers tend to be small-scale. The 1997 Census of
Agriculture (the first conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture instead of the Department of Commerce) made
special efforts to include more minority farmers, and seems to have produced results.
Another problem is the census handling of American Indians. The 1997 Census of Agriculture (tables 17, 19, and
appendix B) reports that 18,495 Indian farmers operate 52 million acres, for an average Indian farm size of 2,812
acres-almost seven times the average size for all U.S. farms. (See footnote to box table.) This measure is highly
unlikely; it results from the Census’s counting each reservation as a single farm. The 46 million acres on Indian
reservations is included (and constitutes the vast majority) in the total for Indian agricultural land. Thus, it is difficult to
Blacks, different data sources report
different amounts of land owner-
ship for American Indians (see box,
“Many Agricultural Land Owners
Are Not Farmers”).
Asians
Asians (and Pacific Islanders)
make up the smallest of the racial
groups in the AELOS. Some 8,158
Asians own slightly less than a mil-
lion acres, with an average of 118
acres per owner (table 1). Owner-
operators control over two-thirds of
this land, with the remainder held
by landlords who do not farm
(table 2). However, 39 percent of
all Asian-owned acres are rented
out, indicating that some owner-
operators are also landlords (table
3). The total value of agricultural
rent collected by Asian landlords is
almost $43 million. Asian-owned
land is highly concentrated in crops
(76 percent of all acres), and 90
percent of Asian owners have some
cropland (table 4). Only a small
percentage of Asian acreage is in
pasture, woodland, or the
Conservation Reserve Program
(table 5). Asian owners are concen-
trated in California and Hawaii,
areas that specialize in high-value
crop production such as orchards
and specialty crops.
Hispanics
The AELOS also gathers data on
Hispanic-owned agricultural land.
Individuals in this ethnic category
are included in the AELOS racial
categories, but are also reported
separately as being “of Spanish ori-
gin.” Thus, because Hispanics are
already counted in the racial cate- 59
Winter 2002/Volume 17, Issue 4
Rural
America
Rural
America
Comparison of 1997 Census of Agriculture and 1999 AELOS on owner-operators, by race and ethnicity
Major data sources disagree
Census of Agriculture AELOS
Owner-operators Acres owned Owner-operators Acres owned
Group Number Percent (1,000) Percent Number Percent (1,000) Percent
United States 1,720,730 553,705 1,966,715 542,890
White 1,679,861 97.6 501,683 90.6 1,892,676 96.2 533,642 98.3
Black 16,560 1.0 1,499 0.3 29,241 1.5 2,502 0.5
American Indian 9,406+10.5 48,043 8.7 17,479 0.9 2,615 0.5
Asian 6,502 0.4 786 0.1 6,116 0.3 655 0.1
Other 8,401 0.5 1,694 0.3 21,203 1.1 3,475 0.6
Hispanic 24,365 1.4 10,462 1.9 33,834 1.7 10,160 1.9
1The number of American Indian owner-operators is not reported in the 1997 Census of Agriculture. It is between the 9,406 owner-operators
reported in Table 17 and the 18,495 Indian farmers reported in Appendix B, Table A. The total number of Indian owner-operators is certainly closer to
18,495. Furthermore, the Census of Agriculture count of the acres operated by Indian owner-operators includes reservation land, which is excluded
from the AELOS.
Sources: Tables 16, 17, 46, and Appendix B, 1997 Census of Agriculture—United States Data, and Table 68,
1999 Agricultural Economics and Land
Ownership Survey
.
compare census of agriculture data on Indians with data on other groups, for whom individually held land is the
dominant type of ownership.
Finally, the AELOS shows many more owner-operators for all racial/ethnic groups (except Asians) than does the
1997 Census of Agriculture. AELOS estimates of acres owned by owner-operators are closer to the census figures,
but still considerably higher for Blacks (see table).
gories, data on these owners are
not strictly comparable to the data
by race.
The AELOS reports 47,000
Hispanic owners of agricultural
land, with almost 13 million acres
(table 1). Over 70 percent of these
owners operate the land themselves
(table 2). They have larger average
holdings (273 acres per owner)
than any racial group, including
Whites. Hispanics leased out almost
3 million acres, for $156 million in
rent (table 3). Over 60 percent of
Hispanic-owned agricultural land is
in pasture, and 28 percent in crops
(table 4). As with American
Indians, this is likely due to their
concentration in the Southwest,
where livestock operations predom-
inate. Only about 5 percent of
Hispanic owners participate in the
Conservation Reserve Program
(about half the rate for Whites), and
less than 3 percent of Hispanic-
owned land is in the CRP (table 5).
Racial/Ethnic Comparisons
Among agricultural land own-
ers, the most striking finding is that
minorities are truly in the minority.
Less than 4 percent of all owners
are non-White. They hold only 2
percent of all private agricultural
land and control just 3 percent of
its value. Still, the absolute num-
bers for minority land owners
(25 million acres worth $44 billion)
indicate agricultural land as a
tremendous resource for these
groups, who tend to reside in
particularly poor regions of rural
America.
Individual minority groups
vary significantly—in tenure status
(operator or landlord), value of
land, rents received, and land
uses. Compared with other races
60
Volume 17, Issue 4/Winter 2002
Rural
America
Rural
America
Table 4
Land use by agricultural land owners and acres, by race and ethnicity, 19991
Agricultural land use varies across groups
Cropland Pastureland
Owners Acres Owners Acres
Average Average
Group Number Percent 1,000 Percent acres Number Percent 1,000 Percent acres
United States 2,710,174 79 434,162 47 160 1,870,355 55 379,579 41 203
White 2,567,497 80 394,792 46 154 1,785,108 55 351,783 41 197
Black 48,916 72 3,772 49 77 28,421 42 2,169 28 76
American Indian 14,437 62 1,309 39 91 16,980 73 1,671 49 98
Asian 7,367 90 733 76 99 1,221 15 76 8 62
Other 14,921 55 1,689 36 113 17,390 64 2,400 52 138
Hispanic 29,619 63 3,632 28 123 27,992 59 8,055 63 288
Woodland Other
Owners Acres Owners Acres
Average Average
Group Number Percent 1,000 Percent acres Number Percent 1,000 Percent acres
United States 1,210,005 35 73,016 8 60 2,215,992 65 45,738 5 21
White 1,149,038 36 68,396 8 60 2,101,328 65 41,080 5 20
Black 28,938 43 1,244 16 43 41,923 62 569 7 14
American Indian 7,525 32 267 8 35 17,366 75 151 4 9
Asian 1,739 21 105 11 60 3,726 46 50 5 13
Other 4,740 17 250 5 53 19,650 72 300 6 15
Hispanic 8,978 19 678 5 76 29,967 63 524 4 17
1Owners usually own land in multiple land-use categories, but any given acre is devoted to only one land use. Therefore, if one sums all owners in the
land-use categories, they will be higher than the total number of owners, whereas the summed land-use acres equal the total number of acres.
Source: Table 74,
1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey
.
(including Whites), a large propor-
tion of Blacks are nonoperator
owners, who own two-thirds of all
Black-held agricultural land. The
other racial minorities are above
the national averages (58 percent)
for both owner-operators and the
acres they own.
Moreover, agricultural land use
patterns differ among racial/ethnic
groups. Blacks have above-average
percentages of woodland and
below-average pastureland, with
the largest proportion of their land
in crops. American Indian and
Hispanic owners use most of their
agricultural land as pasture, where-
as Asians have hardly any pasture-
land and a large majority of their
land in crops, especially high-value
ones. These land use patterns
reflect the regionalization of U.S.
agriculture and the concentration
of racial/ethnic populations.
Conclusion
This article only begins to doc-
ument minority land ownership.
Largely due to data sources, it has
several serious limitations. First, it
covers privately held land, thus
excluding the major resource base
of American Indians: reservations.
Second, it presents only national
data; State-level information (much
less county-level) is not available
from the AELOS by racial groups.
Third, it is cross-sectional, dealing
with ownership at only one point
in time (1999).
Trend data—ownership
changes over time—are essential
for both agricultural policymakers
and practitioners of land-based
community development. Activists
and analysts need more accurate
information on land ownership. In
minority communities, this can be
an especially pressing concern
since some are not reaping the full
value of their property, and others
are in danger of losing their land
base altogether. Several improve-
ments would strengthen our knowl-
edge of land ownership:
The AELOS could be conducted
every 5 (rather than 10) years
as a regular follow-on survey
to the Census of Agriculture.
Racial characteristics could be
reported at the State level, not
just the national level.
The Census of Agriculture
could break down the tenure
category of “part owner” by
owned and rented land by
race (cf. tables 17 and 46 in
the 1997 Census).
USDA could support a volun-
tary registry of minority land
owners (following recommen-
dation 28 of USDA’s 1997 Civil
Rights Action Team Report).
American Indian farmers and
land could be better counted.
Reservations, for instance,
are not single farms, as the
Census of Agriculture now
classifies them.
Many believe, and research
has shown, that land ownership is
of tremendous economic, cultural,
and political value to rural com-
munities (e.g., Salamon, Couto,
LaDuke, Mitchell). Major private
61
Winter 2002/Volume 17, Issue 4
Rural
America
Rural
America
Table 5
Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) participation of agricultural land owners and acres by race and ethnicity, 1999
Minority land owners use CRP less than Whites
CRP land
Owners Acres
All Acres Average
Group owners (1,000) Number Percent (1,000) Percent acres1
United States 3,412,080 932,495 320,323 9.4 39,759 4.3 124
White 3,218,751 856,051 308,052 9.6 37,936 4.4 123
Black 68,056 7,754 4,789 7.0 363 4.7 76
American Indian 23,266 3,398 537 2.3 52 1.5 97
Asian 8,158 964 252 3.1 39 4.0 155
Other 27,290 4,640 578 2.1 38 0.8 66
Hispanic 47,223 12,888 2,295 4.9 349 2.7 152
1Average acres in CRP for those participating in the program. U.S. average is higher than race-specific averages because U.S. figures include corporate
and other non-individual owners that do not have racial characteristics, plus some individuals who did not answer or did not receive a racial identifier.
Source: Table 74,
1999 Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey
.
foundations, as well as the Federal
Government, are also convinced.
They have invested millions of
dollars in research and community
development activities that bolster
land ownership. The 25 million
acres that the 1999 AELOS reports
for minority owners, worth over
$44 billion, are only a small frac-
tion of the amount and value of
all U.S. private agricultural land.
However, it is a major form of
wealth in minority rural America,
much as homeownership—a top
policy priority—is throughout
the Nation.
This currently existing asset
base, in some of the poorest areas
of the country, could be further
utilized in community development
efforts. Access to land means that
rural communities have more
options in addressing rural housing
needs. Minority land ownership is
being used to develop youth train-
ing programs in many rural areas.
Small producers and land owners
have created opportunities for
value-added agriculture (e.g., truck
crop operations and farmers’ mar-
kets). Additionally, of course, land
owners have greater financial possi-
bilities. Land often serves as collat-
eral for college educations and
entreprenurial ventures. These are
just some of the ways that land
ownership is crucially important to
rural minority communities. This
social asset base is too often over-
looked by race/ethnic scholars,
agricultural policymakers, and
sometimes even rural development
practitioners in the communities
themselves.
R
A
62
Volume 17, Issue 4/Winter 2002
Rural
America
Rural
America
For Further Reading . . .
David Buland and Fen C. Hunt, “Hispanics in Agriculture and Opportunities for
Resource Conservation,” paper presented at the National Organization of
Professional Hispanic NRCS Employees Conference, Washington, DC, 2000.
Richard A. Couto,
Ain’t Gonna Let Nobody Turn Me Round: The Pursuit of Racial
Justice in the Rural South
, Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1991.
Carl Flink, “Finding a Place for Low-Income Family Farmers in the Legal Services
Equation,”
Clearinghouse Review
, Vol. 35, Nos. 11-12, 2002, pp. 677-694.
Kathleen R. Guzman, “Give or Take an Acre: Property Norms and the Indian Land
Consolidation Act,”
Iowa Law Review
, Vol. 85, 2002, pp. 595-662.
Winona LaDuke,
All Our Relations: Native Struggles for Land and Life
, Boston:
South End Press, 1999.
J. R. McKean, W.L. Liu, and R.G. Taylor, “Inadequate Data Base for American Indian
Agriculture,” Agricultural Experiment Station Technical Bulletin TB93-2, Fort Collins,
CO: Colorado State University, 1993.
Thomas W. Mitchell, “From Reconstruction to Deconstruction: Undermining Black
Landownership, Political Independence, and Community through Partition Sales of
Tenancies in Common,”
Northwestern University Law Review
, Vol. 95, No. 2, 2001,
pp. 505-580.
Lester M. Salamon, “The Time Dimension in Policy Evaluation: The Case of the
New Deal Land Reform Experiments,”
Public Policy
, Vol. 27, No. 2, 1979,
pp. 129-183.
United States Department of Agriculture,
Civil Rights at the United States
Department of Agriculture: A Report by the Civil Rights Action Team
, Washington,
DC, February 1997.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,
1997 Census of Agriculture: United States Summary and State Data
, AC97-A-51,
USDA, 1999.
United States Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Statistics Service,
1997 Census of Agriculture: Agricultural Economics and Land Ownership Survey
(1999)
, AC97-SP-4, 2001. http://www.nass.usda.gov/census/census97/
aelos/aelos.htm.
Marlow Vesterby and Kenneth S. Krupa,
Major Uses of Land in the United States,
1997
, USDA, Economic Research Service, Statistical Bulletin No. 973, 2001.
Spencer D. Wood and Jess Gilbert, “Returning African-American Farmers to the
Land: Recent Trends and a Policy Rationale,”
Review of Black Political Economy
,
Vol. 27, No. 4, 2000, pp. 43-64.
Gene Wunderlich, “The Land Question: Are There Answers?”
Rural Sociology
,
Vol. 58, No. 4, 1993, pp. 547-559.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits
discrimination in all its programs and activities on the
basis of race, color, national origin, sex, religion, age,
disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation, or
marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases
apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who
require alternative means for communication of
program information (Braille, large print, audiotape,
etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at
202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination, write USDA,
Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW,
Washington, DC 20250-9410, or call 202-720-5964
(voice and TDD). USDA is an equal employment
opportunity provider and employer.
On the cover:
Photo courtesy
EyeWire Photography and
Digital Stock.
Contents
Feature Articles
2Understanding Rural Population Loss
David A. McGranahan and Calvin L. Beale
12 Nonmetro Recreation Counties: Their Identification
and Rapid Growth
Kenneth M. Johnson and Calvin L. Beale
20 Federal Funding in the Delta
Richard J. Reeder and Samuel D. Calhoun
31 Federal Funding in Appalachia and Its Three Subregions
Faqir S. Bagi, Richard J. Reeder, and Samuel D. Calhoun
38 Can Rural Employment Benefit From Changing Labor
Skills in U.S. Processed Food Trade?
Gerald Schluter and Chinkook Lee
44 Economic Impact of Water/Sewer Facilities on Rural
and Urban Communities
Faqir S. Bagi
50 Resource Conservation and Development Program
Reaches a Milestone
Dwight M. Gadsby
55 Who Owns the Land? Agricultural Land Ownership
by Race/Ethnicity
Jess Gilbert, Spencer D. Wood, and Gwen Sharp
63 How Does Growing U.S.-China Trade Affect
Rural America?
Fred Gale
Rural Updates
70 Migration:
Nonmetro Migration Continues
Downward Trend
John Cromartie
74 Rural Poverty:
Rural Poverty at Record Low in 2000
Dean Jolliffe
78 Jobs and Earnings:
Rural Earnings Up in 2000, But Much Less Than
Urban Earnings
Linda M. Ghelfi
Douglas E. Bowers, Executive Editor
Carolyn Rogers, Associate Editor
Dale Simms, Managing Editor
Victor B. Phillips, Jr., Layout and Design
Rural America
(ISSN 0271-2171) is published
four times per year by USDA’s Economic
Research Service.
Rural America
welcomes letters to the
editor. Address editorial correspondence and
inquiries to the Executive Editor,
Rural
America
, ERS-FRED, Room 2171, 1800 M
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-5831;
or call 202-694-5398.
Contents of this magazine may be reprinted
without permission, but the editors would
appreciate acknowledgment of such use and
an advance copy of the material to be reprint-
ed. Opinions expressed within do not neces-
sarily represent the policies of USDA. Use of
commercial and trade names does not imply
approval or constitute endorsement by USDA.
Rural
America
Rural
America
USDA/ERS Volume 17, Issue 4 Winter 2002
1
Rural
America
Rural
America
DDoouuggllaass EE.. BBoowweerrss
T
This is the final issue of Rural America, which will be replaced in February of 2003 with a magazine covering
all of ERS’s research areas. This issue begins with a new look at rural population loss by David A. McGranahan
and Calvin L. Beale. The counties most likely to lose people in the 1990s had low population densities, few
amenities, and were not near any metro centers—all characteristics that discourage development. The few counties with
these characteristics that did not lose people benefited from unusual circumstances, such as industrial agriculture or
casinos. Surprisingly, high-poverty counties were no more likely to lose people than were other counties.
Counties blessed with natural amenities, on the other hand, have been among the most rapidly growing. Kenneth M.
Johnson and Calvin L. Beale have identified 330 nonmetro recreation counties, many of which score high in amenities.
These counties have grown faster than most county types, largely from inmigration. Most are in the mountain West or upper
Great Lakes and can be classified according to their principal attraction, such as casinos, reservoir lakes, or ski resorts.
Two articles treat regional development efforts, an increasingly popular way of targeting rural development programs.
Richard J. Reeder and Samuel D. Calhoun discuss the new Delta Regional Authority, created in 2000 to assist the
Mississippi Delta counties in 8 States. This region made substantial progress in the 1990s but still lags the Nation in
poverty, unemployment, and per capita income. The new Authority is expected to leverage project funding, emphasizing
infrastructure and aid to distressed areas. Faqir S. Bagi, Reeder, and Calhoun studied Federal funding in the Appalachian
Regional Commission (ARC) area, which encompasses parts of 13 States. Appalachia has made significant strides in
recent decades but still suffers from high poverty and transportation problems. Central Appalachia is the
poorest section and, therefore, receives large per capita income support payments. ARC is concentrating on improving
highways to attract more industry.
Manufacturing employment has held up relatively well in rural areas, despite a long-running downward trend
nationally. However, the skill level of food processing employees has dropped, as noted by Gerald Schluter and Chinkook
Lee in their study of the skill needs of the U.S. processed food trade. The growth of overseas trade in meat and poultry
has led to higher demand for low-skilled workers. Many of these new jobs have been in rural areas, but the wages and
nature of the work make the jobs unattractive to local workers, necessitating immigrant and commuter workers.
Publicly supported water and sewer facilities can generate economic benefits well beyond the supply of water. Faqir
Singh Bagi uses a study of Economic Development Administration projects to show how water system projects create and
save jobs, increase private investment, and add to the local property tax base. The effects are greater in urban areas, but
rural areas receive substantial benefits.
One Federal program that has assisted with a wide variety of rural development projects is the Resource Conservation
and Development program (RC&D), which is explored by Dwight M. Gadsby. Established in the 1960s to counter
economic decline, locally planned RC&D projects have grown strongly over the past decade and were given permanent
status in the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002.
Interest in minority farmers has been increasing recently. Census of agriculture data can overlook minorities because of
its focus on farm operators. Jess Gilbert, Spencer D. Wood, and Gwen Sharp have used USDA’s 1999 Agricultural Economics
and Land Ownership Survey to look at land ownership by Blacks, American Indians, Asians, and Hispanics, as well as Whites.
Counting nonoperating land owners, especially Blacks, adds considerably to the number of minority people involved with
agriculture. While few in number, these people make up an important component of their local communities.
Finally, Fred Gale examines how growing trade between and United States and China might affect rural areas in this
country. Imports from China—often of goods that compete with rural American industries—have soared since the
mid-1980s. On the other hand, prospects for agricultural exports to China are promising. Chinese competition will
require adjustments in the rural economy.
In the Rural Updates section, John Cromartie reports on a significant reversal in rural migration. In 2000-2001, the
number of people moving from nonmetro to metro counties exceeded the number moving from metro to nonmetro by
more than 1 million for the first time since the 1980s. Rural areas had gained from migration during most of the 1990s,
but an aging rural population and more rapid job growth in metro areas has caused a turnabout. The biggest changes
occurred in the West and among college graduates.
Dean Jolliffe traces the decline in rural poverty, which reached its lowest recorded level of 13.4 percent in 2000.
Poverty rates are highest among minorities and children, and in the West and South. In all regions, nonmetro poverty is
higher than metro. Nonmetro earnings per job likewise improved in 2000, according to Linda M. Ghelfi, rising 0.7 per-
cent. But nonmetro earnings also continue to lag metro. The rural-urban earnings gap widened in the 1990s and now
stands at 33 percent. Because available poverty and earnings data only go through 2000, they do not yet record the effects
of the recent recession.
Rural
America
Rural
America
Winter 2002/Volume 17, Issue 4
