Rural Manufacturing on the Crest of the Wave: A Count Data Analysis of Technology Use

Abstract

This study compares the extent of technology use by rural and urban manufacturing plants. Count data regression models explain technology use as a function of rural-urban indicator variables, plant characteristics, and location characteristics. The results show no difference in technology use due to rural-urban location. Characteristics of nonmetro plants, including size, prevalency of branch plants, and nature of production process, tend to raise nonmetro manufacturing technology use. Lower nonmetro schooling levels, an older labor force, and mix of industries with low technology use tend to reduce technology use in nonmetro areas. Copyright 1998, Oxford University Press.

Organisational motives and spatial effects in Internet adoption and intensity of use: evidence from French industrial firms

“…Using a sample of about 8,000 American firms (excl. low tech firms), Gale (1998) obtains the same result. Only Forman et al (2005) have recently observed a positive effect of industrial concentration.…”

Local Context and Advanced Technology Use by Small, Independent Manufacturers in Rural Areas

“…With respect to agglomeration, Harrison, Kelley, and Gant found that programmable automation was adopted by metal working plants more often in fringe counties than in either metropolitan core counties or more rural counties. Others, however, have found no effect of urbanization (Davelaar and Nijkamp;Little and Triest;Gale, 1997Gale, , 1998. Localization, clusters of like-industries, has shown little or no relationship with new technology adoption (Harrison, Kelley, and Gant;Gale, 1998).…”

“…Others, however, have found no effect of urbanization (Davelaar and Nijkamp;Little and Triest;Gale, 1997Gale, , 1998. Localization, clusters of like-industries, has shown little or no relationship with new technology adoption (Harrison, Kelley, and Gant;Gale, 1998). Gale (1998) and Little and Triest found local workforce education to be associated with adoption, but the presence of colleges and universities was not important (Gale, 1998).…”

“…The internationalization of product markets has heightened competition in manufacturing, eroding rural competitive advantage based on low labor costs. As rural areas have not attracted high-tech manufacturing (Glasmeier, Goetz and Rupasingha), the adoption of productivity-enhancing advanced technologies and management practices by existing producers seems essential to the viability of rural manufacturing (Barkley;Gale, 1998). This paper is concerned with location factors associated with the adoption of new technologies by small, nonmetropolitan manufacturers.…”

“…Localization, clusters of like-industries, has shown little or no relationship with new technology adoption (Harrison, Kelley, and Gant;Gale, 1998). Gale (1998) and Little and Triest found local workforce education to be associated with adoption, but the presence of colleges and universities was not important (Gale, 1998). Overall, aside from workforce education, it is not clear what, if any, bearing local context has on advanced technology adoption by manufacturers.…”