On the basis of almost any socio-economic indicator one wishes to use, rural and nonmetropolitan people in Oregon are not doing as well as those in urban and metropolitan places. Poverty, hunger, and unemployment are all more prevalent in rural areas, due in large part to the stagnation of rural wages and incomes over the past 30 years. From 1969-1979 real average earnings per job in nonmetro Oregon increased by 12% exceeding the increases in metro Oregon (10%) and the U.S. as a whole (11%). However, from 1979-1982 real average earning per job in nonmetro Oregon fell by 18% and two decades later, real average earnings per job in nonmetro Oregon are essentially unchanged from their 1969 level. Meanwhile real average earnings per job in metro Oregon and the U.S., which experienced more modest declines in the early 1980's, have grown steadily for the past two decades. In 2000, real average earnings per job in metro Oregon were 22% greater than their 1969 level and real average earnings in the U.S. were 30% greater than their 1969 level. These diverging economic fortunes have helped fuel the perceived rural-urban political divide or polarization.
Historically resource-dependent industries (i.e. farming, fishing and forestry) drove rural Oregon’s economies and were major contributors to the state’s economy. This began to change in the late 70's as these industries matured and underwent significant structural change and as other economic sectors were spawned and grew in importance. The drivers behind these changes in resource-dependent industries are varied and complex (e.g. technological change, globalization, changing demographics) but typically are global or national in scope.
Concurrently, but not necessarily coincidentally, natural resource and environmental management and policy issues have become front-page concerns nationally and Oregon has been on the forefront. This is to be expected in a state with Oregon’s remarkable natural resources. Concerns about pollution and resource exploitation resulted in efforts to protect and sustain this natural heritage. These decisions were typically made in Washington, D.C. or Salem, but the impacts are naturally concentrated in rural areas.
Rural Oregon is thus the stage upon which these two fundamental, national and global scale, social changes have played out with complex, confounded, and too often detrimental impacts on rural people and rural communities. Changes in wages and employment opportunities have impacted rural families and demographics which in turn have affected rural communities and institutions. Perhaps there is no more visible example of the complex challenges facing rural Oregon than the ongoing conflicts over water management in the Klamath Basin.
One perspective common in rural areas, is that the rise of environmental concerns, more specifically environmental regulations, is a major cause of the decline in resource-dependent industries. An alternative perspective, more common in urban areas, is that resource-dependent industries are on their way to extinction and that the future of natural resources in Oregon is as a source of “second paychecks” for urban residents.
Both of these perspectives are overly simplistic and ignore the essential aspects that define rural areas - space, distance, and population density. It is becoming increasingly obvious that these unique characteristics of rural areas are critical factors underlying both economic development opportunities and success of environmental policies. However, it is not obvious exactly what should be done about it. To know this requires a capacity to relate resource and environmental management, social problems, jurisdictional issues, and spatial considerations.
The juxtaposition of these two perspectives which helped fuel the perceived rural-urban divide also obscures the interdependencies between rural and urban Oregon. Depressed rural places should be a matter of concern to both urban and rural people. Both have important stakes in good rural education, environmental preservation, the alleviation of poverty, and other rural ills. Focusing on the differences rather than interdependencies, precludes more reasoned dialogue about the more realistic future of a sustainable rural Oregon which includes both space-dependent, natural resource based industries and a sustainable environmental and natural resource base for all Oregonians to enjoy.
The current challenges facing rural Oregon evoke Lewis Mumford’s challenge issued in his July 1938 speech to the City Club of Portland.
“I have seen a lot of scenery in my life, but I have seen nothing so tempting as a home for man and woman as this Oregon country...You have here a basis for civilization on its highest scale, and I am going to ask you a question which you may not like.
Are you good enough to have this country in your possession? Have you got enough intelligence, imagination and cooperation? Or do we take Oregon all too much for granted?”
Due in large part to Emery Castle’s leadership and influence, the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics is known for bringing the best possible techniques to bear on difficult real world issues. The Department has been on the forefront of problems and developments in farm management, natural resource and environmental economics, international trade, technical change, and rural economic welfare. A hallmark of the Department is that it has strived to be abreast, and has sometimes helped develop, new techniques for the analysis of the most complex problems facing Oregonians (e.g. placing economic values on unpriced natural resources such as grazing rights, recreational values, and water quality). This has equipped the department to bring both rigorous analysis and an understanding of the relevant economic and political contexts to bear on these issues. In doing so the Department has earned both a national reputation for the quality of its research (e.g. two faculty currently included in the International Who’s Who in Economics; four AAEA Fellows currently associated with the Department; recently ranked in the top 5 departments nationally based on quality-adjusted research productivity) and credibility in Salem for its contributions to important policy discussions.
The Department has established three contemporary specializations: resource and environmental economics, international trade and marketing, and regional and rural economics. All three specializations are relevant to understanding the complex challenges facing rural Oregon and the Department has done important and pioneering work in each area. Nobody else in Oregon has the capacity, the mandate, or the perspective to do this work.
The Department has the capacity (intelligence) that it can bring to bear on many of the key forces impacting rural Oregon (e.g. natural resource management, globalization, rural poverty, etc.). The missing ingredient is an individual with the unique ability and the opportunity to bring both intelligence and imagination to bear on the complex interactions between these forces. The Department proposes to establish an endowed professorship in order to attract an individual with the intellectual capacity to work at the interface of resource and rural economics and to provide that individual with the opportunity to focus on these complex issues. Doing so, would honor Emery Castle’s legacy by strengthening and catalyzing the department’s capacity to contribute to a deeper understanding of the challenges facing rural Oregon. Hopefully the intelligence and imagination reflected in these insights would help rural Oregonians and policy makers see the issues and opportunities in a new light and stimulate innovative thinking and cooperative solutions.
Prepared by: Bill Boggess
September 22, 2003
