Integrated Approach To Rural Development
Melvin E. Walker, Jr.

The general way in which the phrase rural development has been used tends to imply that it is a theoretical concept that can be justified on theoretical grounds and addressed by research activity. Rural development is also assumed to be multidisciplinary in nature, involving the disciplines of agricultural economics and rural sociology. The purpose in this chapter is to call attention to the broadness of the rural development concept and to present an admittedly oversimplified integrated approach to the subject with special attention being directed to the roles of land grant institutions.

In order to lay the foundation for subsequent discussions of an integrated approach to rural development, it is necessary to provide an overview of rural development activities within the land grant complex. Specifically, this chapter will: (1) briefly describe the context out of which emerged concern with and programs for rural development; (2) identify key participants in the rural development process, namely ,he land grant complex, bureaucratic structures at the federal, state and local levels, and the public for whose benefit the land grant complex and the bureaucracies exist; (3) identify approaches defining and pursuing the process of rural development; and finally (4) establish a broad c6nceptural framework for examining rural development as a policy goal. This approach is intended to provide direction and to facilitate efforts to delineate an integrated approach to rural development.

It is well known that rural development, as it is practiced within the land grant complex of teaching, research, and extension, rests primarily on six (6) major pieces of legislation: the Morrill Acts, of 1862 and 1890, the Hatch Act of 1887, the Smith-Lever Act of 1914, the Rural Development Act of 1972, and the Rural Development Policy Act of 1980.

When the Morrill Act of 1862 was passed, America was very rural and as Hightower puts it, farming was the domain of the rural man. Eighty percent of the population in 1890 lived in rural areas, and 59 percent of the labor force was engaged in agriculture. The land grant complex was conceived for the specific purpose of aiding in the development of rural, agrarian America. The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 established "people's universities," often referred to as Land Grant Colleges and Universities, where tillers of the soil could have their own college and their own department of agriculture.

The Hatch Act of 1887 authorized federal funds for direct payment to each state that would establish an agricultural experiment station in connection with its land grant college. The Hatch Act directed the research stations to:

conduct original and other researches, investigations, and experiments bearing directly on and contributing to the establishment and maintenance of a permanent and effective agricultural industry in the United States, including research basic to the problems of agriculture in its broadest aspects, and such investigations as have for their purpose the development and improvement of the rural home and rural life and the maximum contribution by agriculture to the welfare of the consumer.

Thus, contained in the Hatch Act of 1887 is perhaps the first. "official definition and goal of rural development the development and improvement of the rural home and rural life and the maximum contribution by agriculture to the welfare of the consumer."

The Smith-Lever Act of 1914 created the Cooperative Extension Service and reflected the need to carry educational and demonstration projects to rural persons not in residence at institutions of higher education. The basic purpose of the Cooperative Extension Service is "to aid in diffusing among the people of the United States useful and practical information on subjects relating to agriculture and home economics and to encourage application" of the teaching of the colleges and the research of the experiment stations (Smith-Lever Act of 1914, Section 1). The extension principle was to go to people where they were, to help them solve problems they were facing in their work, in their homes and in their communities. Thus, the mission of the extension agent was to,"give leadership and direction along all lines of rural activities - social, economic and financial." In the Smith-Lever Act, as in the Hatch Act, is another clue to what rural development is all about - helping rural people solve social, economic and financial problems that they are facing in their work, in their homes, and in their communities.

The Rural Development Act of 1972 provided federal funds to promote the involvement of all segments of higher education in efforts "to provide for improving the economy and living conditions in rural America." More specifically, Title V of this legislation directs the cooperation and coordination of land grant institutions in the following programs:

Rural Development Research - to provide information to rural developmental agencies and organizations and to those citizen's organizations contributing to rural development.

Rural Development Extension Programs - to collect, interpret and disseminate useful information and knowledge from all governmental agencies; and

Small Farm Extension -- research and development programs regarding new approaches for small farm management, production techniques, machine technology, products, cooperative agricultural marketing and distribution.

The Rural Development Policy Act of 1980 directs the Secretary of Agriculture to develop a "grass-roots" strategy with input from local communities in coordination with USDA and other federal agencies involved in rural development. As specified by law, the strategy is to take into account the need to:

"improve the economic well-being of all rural residents and alleviate the problems of disadvantaged rural residents";

"improve business and employment opportunities, health care, educational and training opportunities, housing, transportation, community services and facilities and accessibility to private and public financial resources for employment purposes";

"improve state and local government management, institutions and programs related to rural development":

"strengthen the family farm system"; and

"maintain and protect the environment and natural resources of rural areas."

Thus, as enacted by Congress and as initially established, the mission of the land grant complex of instruction, research, and extension was to bring the benefits of science to rural Americans. More specifically, through the development of new knowledge and the extension of this knowledge to farm residents, the land grant complex was designed to help farmers by improving efficiency and optimizing income from the production of crops and livestock. In later years, the complex expanded its focus and was designed to help rural farm and non-farm families with such problems as household textiles, housing needs, improvement of economic opportunities, communication processes, individual and family adjustment to change and improvement of rural institutions and services and family living.

The essence of the areas of program emphasis of all of the legislative foundations of rural development is generally included in the nebulous concept of "improved quality of life." Consequently, when one speaks about rural development, the tendency is to incorporate notions ,bout various processes and goals associated with bringing about positive changes which contribute to the enhancement, betterment, self-actualization, well-being or satisfaction with conditions in which individuals and families living outside urban areas find themselves.

For what seems to be fairly obvious reasons, it is sufficient to note that while quality of life, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder, "quality of life" generally reflects conditions of life as perceived by individuals and families. Like rural development, it incorporates ideas of "what ought to be" and in some sense, reflects goals attainable through fairly specific processes which may or may not be easily achievable. Quality of life is the result of a subjective evaluation of conditions relating to current as well as changing economic, environmental,. societal and physical conditions.

While most traditional definitions of rural development incorporate their goal of improving the quality of life of rural residents, one major point of divergence related to how this improvement is to be achieved continues to surface. Copp, for example calls attention to the fact that definitions of rural development vary according to the place of the definer in the general social order. He notes that as a USDA employee, he holds the private conception of rural development as consisting of broad planning and programs based on macrosociological analysis of the ecology, economy and social character of rural areas." This definition is quite different from that of top administrators in the Department of Agriculture and relevant White House staff whose notions of rural development emphasized doing and not planning in a macro sense Copp further states:

Their emphasis was on telephone, housing, water systems, plant locations and improved agricultural productions. They were not fundamentally concerned with economics of location, with regional growth patterns, or with socio-cultural factors. Theirs was a symptom-oriented approach, applying band-aids and blow-out patches to the battered rural community. Theirs was a strong emphasis on self-help and local encounter therapy. They were not particularly interested in the underlying causes or the dynamic of rural socio-economic systems.

The major-differences in the two perspectives on rural development identified by Copp rest upon the fact that one is based on the belief that it rural development, to be successful has to be based on data and analytical knowledge about our economy and society" and the other is not. A related tendency has been to view rural development as a theoretical concept or as a "research problem -area which could be segmented into smaller, more manageable research problems." Hobbs shares this observation and notes the tendency . In sociology, economics, extension and government to regard rural development as a substantive area or a specialty instead of as a frame of reference, which he considers the more appropriate alternative.

The point to be made here is that rural development has been defined in many ways - e.g., in terms of infrastructure such as factories, educational systems, housing, and community services; as a research problem addressable with appropriate infrastructure and technology; and as a normative policy goal when it is considered in light of the broader context and idealogy of development.

The view adopted in this chapter is consistent with the position taken by Copp and Hobbs that rural development is a policy goal rather than a theoretical construct. For the purpose of discussion, rural development is defined as the process, through collective efforts, aimed at improving the quality of life of persons living in rural areas. And as noted previously, improved quality of life is a goal pursued through changes in social, economic, physical and environmental conditions which contribute to the enhancement, betterment, self-actualization, and satisfaction regarding the conditions of life in which individuals and families find themselves.

Having so defined development, the immediate task becomes that of discerning the following: (1) what is involved in the process Of rural development, (2) whose collective efforts are necessary for effective development, and (3) how the process will be evaluated, that is, what mechanisms will be used to access the degree to which the goal of improved quality of life has been achieved.

Rural development involves several processes; the most essential process is that of helping rural people help themselves - helping them identify their problems and needs and then aiding them in the acquisition and mobilization of resources necessary for alleviating or satisfying these problems and needs. Too often, "experts" who are outsiders look at in area and decide what is needed, such as new industries for employment or increased mechanization of farms for efficiency, only to discover later that these prescribed "remedies" have created a greater number of more serious problems such as higher taxes for the same rural residents, who remain unemployed and higher financial liabilities for farmers as they attempt to adjust to resulting change. Helping rural people help themselves means involving those affected in identifying and planning for activities which may result in changes in the economic, social, physical and environmental conditions in their lives and communities.

The approach to rural development adopted here does not necessitate reference to specific change projects addressing the potential for industrial development, better educational, medical and recreational facilities or projects focusing on making small farms more, efficient., although projects such as these are important means to accomplishing the desired goal of improved quality of life. Instead, attention is focused on facilitating the organization and problem-solving capacity of rural communities at the appropriate level be it local, state, regional or national. This problem-solving capacity is then directed toward bringing about positive change at least three (3) levels: (1) individual maintenance - helping individuals and families meet current needs for basic necessities such as food, clothing, and shelter-, (2) individual capacity - helping individuals and families improve their long-term ability to sustain themselves through the provision of education, health care, mental health programs, family counseling, etc., and (3) community service programming -providing new or extended programs or services to groups of individuals and families with maintenance and capacity needs rather than directing help to individuals or individual families.

Efforts to bring about changes at these levels in turn will result in specific problem-solving activities or projects in the following areas: (1) human development, (2) economic development, (3) environmental enhancement or preservation, and (4) improvements in public facilities. But again, the delineation of specific project activities and potential contributions from various disciplines is secondary. The emphasis is on developing the mechanisms involved in determining needs and goals and on developing problem-solving capacity because specific projects which may be initiated to accomplish the goals will often vary from community to community and from one rural area to another.

Thus, the position taken here is that a truly integrated approach to rural development, of necessity, involves (1) the land grant functions of teaching, research, and extension; (2) local, state, and federal agencies; and (3) the public - potential beneficiaries or victims of changes resulting from developmental efforts.

In summary, it can be stated that given (1) all adequate resource base, (2) a behavioral framework to guide actions, (3) participants from land grant and other educational institutions, agency personnel, and the public, and (4) sufficient coordination among these units, the goal of all improved quality of life is possible. This improved quality of life will be evidenced through positive changes in human development, economic development, environmental enhancements and preservation, and improvement in community facilities and services. These components or elements of the development process are more vividly presented in Figure 2 - a model originally developed by Tweeten and Brinkman (1976) and revised by Carlson et al. (1981). Focus here is on the "participants" segment of the model with special attention being devoted to the most effective ways to organize or involve individuals, families, organizations, agencies, special interest groups, business firms, personnel from the land grant complex, and others in the delineation of problems and the coordination of activities necessary to bring about positive change in the four major areas in the lower portion of the model.

Figure 2: Elements of Rural Development

The Behavioral framework

Mores, institutions, property rights, laws, prohibitions

Status, rank, power, sanctions, decision-making mechanisms

The Resource base (physical and human)

Participants

Individuals, families, private associations, firms, government bodies, etc.

Major areas

Human Development, sociocultural development, job training, education, health services, food and nutrition, care of the elderly, youth activities, cultural activities, income security, leadership participation, recreation

Comprehensive planning, land use planning and zoning, coordination among governmental units, fiscal management

Economic development

Job development, agriculture, business, industry, services, materials and equipment, credit, markets, taxation, research and information, public grants and loans

Conservation, parks and recreation, forests, wildlife, and farmland, pollution control, population dispersal, community beautification

Housing, transportation, utilities, communication systems, waste disposal and water supply, schools, churches, and public buildings, shopping and service facilities.

Source: Model originally presented by Tweeten and Brinkman, 1976:8 and revised by Carlson, et al., 1981:338.

The ideal rural development plan is one which is based on careful planning and evaluation and one which involves all participants from start to finish, beginning with "grass- roots" people and proceeding through the highest level in the bureaucracy. Persons at the individual and family levels should be consulted for the purpose of determining needs as they perceive them and to provide their assessment of what is needed to bring about positive change or an improvement in quality of life. Persons at the leadership level - including businessmen, local politicians, organization leaders, etc. - should also be consulted to gain their opinion and knowledge about problems facing the community and what they feel is needed to bring about positive change. Problems, needs and potential solutions provided by these two groups should be compared and reconciled where differences exist since it is very likely that problems and proposed solutions as perceived by members of these two groups will be somewhat different. Land grant and agency personnel can assist with this process at various levels beginning with problem identification and needs assessment.

Summaries of these "reconciled" problems, needs and proposed solutions from communities across the affected area or unit should then be evaluated by appropriate professionals from the land grant complex, agencies and other relevant entities to determine, from a logical, theoretical and practical perspective, whether these problems are real and to determine the suitability of solutions proposed. It is at this level that alternatives, subject to the resource base, the behavior framework, and potential impact on the community, will be explored and evaluated. Each viable alternative should be presented along with expected positive as well as negative influences. These alternatives should then be prioritized by persons at the individual, family, leadership, academic and agency levels. Community leaders, with input and assistance from the residents and professionals in the area, will select the alternatives holding the greatest potential for positive change. The plans should include: (1) mechanisms for providing for or compensating those persons adversely affected, (2) mechanisms for aiding individuals in developing the capacity to sustain themselves over the long run as well as (3) provisions for those persons unable to participate in the development process because of physical or other handicaps. The foregoing series by necessity implies that the rural development plan must be balanced and must include provisions for programs aimed at (1) human development, (2) economic development, (3) environmental enhancement and preservation, and (4) improvement in community facilities and services. As identified by the participants, specific projects or programs within these broad categories (see Figure 1) can be delineated and addressed utilizing assistance from persons or professionals in the appropriate disciplines.

In addition to participants from the various groups being involved in the development process, they should also be involved in developing the strategy for implementation. Programs should be available and assessable to all persons in need of the set-vice or assistance without undue hardship. This can be accomplished only through cooperation and coordination among the participants at the various levels in the development of the delivering system.

Finally, on-going evaluation is an essential part of successful rural ,development. Participants as well as sponsors at the local, state, regional and national levels, should establish mechanisms for assessing the degree to which steady progress is being made in effectively and appropriately addressing the needs and problems which have been identified.

In planning for rural development, there is a tendency to focus attention on specific projects, usually concerned with improvements in nutritional well-being, housing conditions, and employment opportunities, or with the survival of small farms. This brings us to the second point stressed in this chapter, that is, a truly integrated approach to rural development requires careful planning, cooperation, and coordination of efforts by all involved in the rural development process - the land grant complex, federal agencies, other public and private organizations, and citizens who are most affected by proposed programs and changes. Rural development programs are often initiated and planned by concerned "specialists" in the federal and land grant bureaucracies with little or no input from the intended recipients of the benefits of such programs. We must not forget that the most effective developmental programs are those where the people affected understand the proposed program and its purpose and can anticipate both its costs and benefits. Therefore, the importance of involving rural people in the planning and implementation process of rural development cannot be overemphasized.

The time has long since passed when unlimited federal-funds are available for rural development programs. While limited funding continues, the government has also recognized the need for local people to take a more active role in solving local problems. One of the most recent indications in this area is the effort of the Office of Rural Development Policy (ORDP) to involve "grass-roots" people in the strategies to total development. The mandate here for citizen input into rural development processes in many respects may be inconsistent with both our present ways to doing things and with our perceptions of how rural development should be pursued. But based on the numerous "almost" unsuccessful experiences with rural development programs, it may be time for, us to reevaulate our present process and begin putting forth concerted effort to make sure that rural development programs benefit those for whom they are intended.

Fort Valley State University