Category: Specialty Topics

Amid widespread decline and disinvestment, numerous small towns and rural communities throughout the US have taken action to restore their downtown as the focal point for economic, social, and civic activity in the region.

Downtown revitalization approaches—such as the widely adopted “Main Street Program”—typically operate from the principle of “if you build it, they will come,” requiring community leaders, business owners, and volunteers to invest their resources and efforts in a vision that is hoped for, but not guaranteed. This involves capital investment toward building rehabilitation and corridor beautification, as well as less tangible investments of time and coordination toward promoting downtown, organizing events, and managing limited resources. 

But does it work? The continuing popularity of the Main Street Program—with 1,500+ participants and counting—would suggest that downtown revitalization programs are, to some degree, effective. For many policymakers, however, anecdotal data is not sufficient to justify the investment of time and resources required to engage in revitalizing downtown.

In a pair of recent articles, I examined the quantitative effect of the Main Street Program. The first study focused on job growth, finding that small towns in Iowa gained new retail jobs and establishments in the years after adopting the program. In the other study, I focused instead on residential property values, finding that homebuyers placed a higher premium on homes located closer to downtown districts with an active Main Street Program. Together, the two studies provide evidence for the idea that revitalization efforts go a lot further than simply beautifying a town’s historic business district. Vibrant downtowns are building momentum as places where people increasingly desire to live and work, creating the conditions for strong rural economies to flourish.

Van Leuven, Andrew J. . “In Historic Town Centers Beauty is More Than Skin Deep“. Southern Ag Today 2(19.5). May 6, 2022. Permalink

Access to farm labor continues to be a significant challenge for specialty crop growers,¹ who face challenges filling positions with domestic workers. This is due in part to the physical and temporary nature of employment, and the ability of employers to offer salaries that are competitive against employment opportunities in other sectors. Farm wages were only 59% of the wage rate of comparable positions in other industries in 2020.²

The decline in the farm labor supply has resulted in a growing reliance on the H-2A temporary agricultural program. This program allows employers to recruit foreign workers to fill seasonal positions. During the last decade, the number of H-2A visas issued increased at an approximate average rate of 17% annually, quadrupling from 65,345 in 2012 to 257,898 in 2021 (Figure 1). This growth was stronger in the specialty crop sector. The expansion in H-2A employment is, in part, the result of an increase in the number of workers petitioned and the number of operations—including small and medium-scale—employing H-2A workers.³ The H-2A program has its challenges and can be costly for producers who must provide transportation and housing for H-2A workers and pay the state’s Adverse Effect Wage Rate, which is often higher than the local worker hourly pay. 

With an aging farm labor force³, agricultural labor issues are likely to persist, posing a significant limitation to the specialty crop industry. Mechanization and immigration policies that improve the H-2A program and make it more accessible for farmers will be crucial for maintaining the competitiveness of the U.S. industry.

References

¹ American Vegetable Grower. 2020 State of the Vegetable Industry Survey. Available online: https://www.growingproduce.com/tag/2020-state-of-the-vegetable-industry/

² US Department of Agriculture. Economic Research service. Farm Labor. Available online: https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/farm-economy/farm-labor.aspx³ 2019 State of the Vegetable Industry Survey – American Vegetable Grower Magazine. Available online: https://www.growingproduce.com/vegetables/which-issues-have-your-attention-2019-state-of-the-vegetable-industry/

Canales, Elizabeth. “Reliance on H-2A Workers Continues to Spike as Specialty Crop Producers Face Labor Shortages“. Southern Ag Today 2(18.5). April 29, 2022. Permalink

Annual harvested U.S. blueberry acreage has increased from 40,820 to 91,400 from 2000 to 2020 (Figure 1). In this same period, average blueberry yields increased from 4,480 to 6,630 pounds per acre, and the value of utilized production jumped from $177.8M to $904.8M. Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida were among the top eight producing states, with 21,700, 7,500, and 5,200 acres harvested, respectively, representing 30% of all U.S. blueberry acreage in 2019. Most of these Southeastern-grown blueberries are sold to the fresh market during the early season window of March through June. The 2019 average farm gate value for these three states was $256.2M, or 28.2% of the overall U.S. average farm gate value for cultivated fresh and frozen blueberries. While yields are relatively lower compared to northern growing states, ranging from 4,160 to 4,740 pounds per acre, grower prices are relatively higher, from $2.64/lb. in Florida to $1.42/lb. in Georgia.

As evidenced by the improved U.S. demand for blueberries, coordinated research and promotion efforts have proven successful drivers of industry profitability. Growers are encouraged to inform production decisions based on historical market trends and current price movements, with the goals of producing to market specifications and building in swift targeted responses to anticipated consumer demand shifts. Produce buyers possess the market side data metrics and timely analytics while growers are capable of manipulating inputs and varietal choices. Adopting a grow-on-demand approach built on shared data analysis between producers and retailers may allow the industry to capture added revenues and provide higher quality fresh berries to consumers.

Morgan, Kimberly L. . “Market Trends for U.S. Blueberry: Implications for Southeastern U.S. Producers“. Southern Ag Today 2(13.5). March 25, 2022. Permalink

Broadband access has increasingly become a basic utility, but it is still out of reach for many rural communities. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) claims that broadband internet is not available to 24.7 million people in the United States, data from Microsoft indicated that 162.8 million (almost half the population of the United States) do not use internet at broadband speeds. Digital Divide Index provides an overview of the disparity across the United States. COVID-19 pandemic further emphasized the need for broadband as schools and businesses shifted to virtual mode. The digital divide can be addressed by:

1. Reducing Municipal broadband restrictions: As of 2021, municipal broadband was restricted in eighteen states across the United States. Some states have allowed electric co-operatives to provide broadband in their service territories.
2. Providing Incentives for Internet Service Providers: Population density in rural areas is much lower than urban areas, thereby increasing the relative cost of installing fiber-optic cable. Providing incentives for internet service providers would help reduce the costs of providing internet to rural areas.
3. Reducing the Burden on Right-of-way and Easements: Obtaining permissions for right-of-way and easements to lay fiber-optic cable are often difficult and slow. A public-private partnership that can reduce the costs and time delays in obtaining right-of-way and easement will expedite the process.
4. Improving Adoption and affordability: Lower-income residents experience a higher economic burden due to lack of devices and affordable broadband subscription plans. Programs such as Emergency Broadband Benefit and the new Affordable Connectivity Program can help improve adoption of broadband. Further, demand-side management programs if offered through internet service providers can improve access to broadband.
5. Supporting Broadband Programs: Library mobile hotspot lending programs, downtown wi-fi programs have been widely successful A public-private partnership promoting these programs will improve education, business development, healthcare, tourism and recreation opportunities across communities.

Upendram, Sreedhar. “Digital Divide in Rural Communities“. Southern Ag Today 2(12.5). March 18, 2022. Permalink

As a result of COVID-19 grocery store shortages, federal and state governments are investing in local food systems with meat processing high on the list. However, once local meat processing bottlenecks have been relieved, additional obstacles will need to be overcome. Clemson surveys of consumers and restaurants in 2020 and 2021 reveal that additional obstacles for increasing local meat sales are availability, price, and inconsistent quality¹.

A lack of availability points out that there are not enough sales outlets for local meats and purchasing local meats is often inconvenient for potential customers. For instance, most local meat consumers visit a farmers’ market once a month² yet shop at a grocery store 2-3 times per week³. Even the most dedicated local food consumer sources less than 50% of their groceries from local producers⁴. For local meats to grow long-term, producers must work together to supply grocery stores and restaurants while addressing the remaining issues of quality inconsistency and price.

One of the best ways for farmers to work together is to form a cooperative or similar collaborative business arrangement. Through collaborative business arrangements, local meat producers can adopt quality guidelines, provide a consistent supply to more sales outlets, and operate at a more efficient scale (possibly becoming more price-competitive). In short, business collaborations will give local meat producers a shot at gaining and maintaining a competitive position in the market.

For more information about cooperatives and collaborative business formation, contact a land grant university or cooperative development center in your region. Contact information for USDA rural cooperative development centers can be found at this link:

https://www.rd.usda.gov/sites/default/files/cooperative_development_centers_february2022.xlsx

References

1. Richards, S. (2021). National Restaurant Buyer Survey Results. Clemson University (Unpublished report). Copy in possession of the first author.
2. Richards, S. (2020). Local Meat Consumer Survey Results. Clemson University (Unpublished report for Berkeley Electric Cooperative and the South Carolina Cattlemens’ Association). Copy in possession of the first author.
3. Ver Ploeg, M., Larimore, E., & Wilde, P. (2017). The Influence of Food Store Access on Grocery Shopping and Food Spending. ers.usda.gov
4. Cicatiello, C. (2020). Alternative food shoppers and the “quantity dilemma”: a study on the determinants of their purchases at alternative markets. Agricultural and Food Economics, 8(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40100-020-00160-6

Richards, Steve. “Locally Raised Meats: Cooperatives Needed“. Southern Ag Today 2(11.5). March 11, 2022. Permalink