By Brian Depew
Living in cities makes us smarter, more efficient and more innovative and rural life would not be possible without a “raft of subsidies devoted to sustaining it.”
That is the claim made by Washington Post columnist Ezra Klein in a series of posts last week (one, two, three and four). Klein was repeating what has become unassailable conventional wisdom among urban commentators. The only problem with this claim? It’s not true.
Throughout four pieces, Klein never clearly defines what he means by “rural subsidies.” If by “rural subsidies” he means farm subsidies, that should be isolated and taken head on. Klein is right to question and challenge the current structure of farm commodity subsidies. Current farm programs provide unlimited benefit to the largest farm operators.
It cannot be said, however, that these subsidies are devoted to sustaining rural life. In fact, this subsidy system is literally undermining the economic and social foundation of rural communities.
In 2007 my organization analyzed farm subsidies in 13 leading farm states. We found the USDA spent nearly twice as much to subsidize just the 20 largest farms in each of those states as it invested in rural-development programs to create economic opportunity for the 3 million people living in 1,400 towns in the 20 most-struggling rural counties in the same 13 states. The report shows how badly skewed USDA investment is toward very large farm operators. Meanwhile, rural programs that build a future for all of rural American get left in the financial-aid dust.
Current policy encourages big farms to get even bigger, driving smaller farms out along the way. Fewer farmers means fewer people in rural America. As farms consolidate, the population in the countryside declines. As the farm population declines, small towns also decline as less farmers need supplies and services. Rather than sustaining rural life, the current farm commodity system subsidies the decline of rural life.
In a subsequent post Klein concedes the point about farm commodity subsidies, but holds his ground on the relative efficiency of city life. Rural living “ends up costing a lot more than urban living on a variety of measures,” Klein asserts. He cites roads, subsidized energy and postal services as examples.
But Klein, otherwise well known for his use of statistics, doesn’t offer any to back his claims this time.
Certainly, we invest in roads located in rural areas — roads often used by urban people driving from one city to another. We also invest in infrastructure in urban areas, including rather expensive airports, stadiums and rail lines.
Furthermore, Bill Bishop of the thoughtful rural blog Daily Yonder runs the numbers, and finds that per capita federal spending is higher in urban counties than it is in rural ones. And in the area of community facilities, environment, housing, regional development and transportation spending, per capita urban spending exceeds rural spending by nearly 40 percent.
Graph courtesy Daily Yonder.
But measuring spending only by whether it is “rural” and “urban” misses a larger point. Instead, it is better to focus on the type of development and the sorts of values we should incentivize, not just which community the investment is made in.
Incentives that drive the consolidation of wealth and limit opportunity for everyday people ought be avoided. That is as true of farm commodity subsidies that accrue to people in rural areas as it is of misguided financial policy that enriches investors while leaving working class people in Philadelphia or Miami stuck in an unaffordable mortgage.
Incentives that create economic opportunity for everyday people and help us to become more sustainable ought to be supported and pursued. And that is as true of federal programs that support soil and water conservation on farms and wind power development in rural areas as it is of investment in mass transit it more urbanized communities.
In his final urban vs. rural post, Klein expresses surprise at the debate his initial post has stirred. But it is not surprising. The underlying narrative that everyone should live in cities because that is most efficient or is what will make us richer or smarter is a biased analysis that rests on too many unchallenged assumptions about what is good or best for people, communities and our democracy.
Essays in the Range blog are not written by the High Country News. The authors are solely responsible for the content.
Brian Depew is the Assistant Director of the Center for Rural Affairs in Lyons, Nebraska (population 963) where he works on a wide range of federal rural policy issues. Brian also raises sheep and various crops on 12 acres at Thistle Root Farm.
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
