Rural prosperity and federal expenditures, 2000–2010

Abstract

Abstract. Rural development policy in the US lacks coordination and coherence, but sustaining prosperous rural communities should be a primary aim. We identify rural non-core counties that remained prosperous during the recent recession and use regression analysis to model the relationship between rural prosperity and per capita federal expenditures. The number of prosperous rural non-core counties increased from 2000 to 2010. Social capital and educational attainment are now more important predictors of rural prosperity than economic diversity. Prosperous rural non-core counties are associated with higher rates of expenditure and the distribution of federal expenditures across these counties exhibits positive spatial dependence.JEL classification: R58, R11, I31, H50

State Management of Rural Territories Development Using the Program Approach

“…Sustainable rural development is possible with a balance of economic, social and environmental goals [5]. The impact of funding for rural support programs on sustainable development does not always correspond to the expected level [6], but there is a correlation between government spending on rural support and sustainable development [7]. An integrated approach to rural development should also take into account such a fundamental factor as the need to build social and human capital [8].…”

Assessment of Public Services Distribution in African Urban Areas: a Cost-Benefit Analysis Based on Bid Rents from Spatial Interaction Models

“…This has led to the concentration of population in major towns and their detachment from their territories and resources, consequently promoting spatial and social inequalities. The analysis of the relation between public expenditure and regional development has been studied (Isserman et al, 2009;Wilson & Rahe, 2016) but they do not attend the network features of most public expenditures that we want to address in this paper. Furthermore, although the provision of public services is not profit maximization, spatial equity concerns that do not consider that public marginal benefits should equal provision marginal costs tend to inefficient (Justi, 1764, Samuelson, 1954 and unsustainable (Dentinho, 2011).…”