Some things never change

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

—

Patrick, age 10

Our country has witnessed sweeping changes—from the untamed wild times of Buffalo Bill to the techno-

logical era of Bill Gates—but food has never lost its central role in our lives. Food not only sustains life but also

enriches us in many ways. It warms us on cold, dreary days, entices us with its many aromas, and provides end-

less variety to the everyday world. Food is also woven into the fabric of our Nation, our culture, our insti-

tutions, and our families. Food is on the scene when we celebrate and when we mourn. We use it for

camaraderie, as a gift, and as a reward (and sometimes as a crutch).

We are all aware of how food has changed. At the turn of the 20

th

century, home cooking

and canning were fixtures of life in America. Lard, seasonal vegetables, potatoes, and fresh

meats were the staples of our diet. And 40 percent of Americans lived on farms. Today, con-

venience foods and dining out are common. Ethnic diversity has influenced our tastes

and the variety of foods available. Technology and trade allow us to enjoy most foods all

year round. And only 1 percent of the population grows our food, while 9 percent are

involved in the food system in some way—in processing, wholesaling, retailing, serv-

ice, marketing, and inspection.

What Americans often forget, however, is the remarkable system that delivers

to us the most abundant, reasonably priced, and safest food in the world. The

American food system—from the farmer to the consumer—is a series of intercon-

nected parts. The farmer produces the food, the processors work their magic, and

the wholesalers and retailers deliver the products to consumers, whose choices

send market signals back through the system. Every piece fits every other piece,

notwithstanding an occasional gap and pinch. Our mission at the Economic

Research Service (ERS) is to understand this system and effectively communicate

our findings to the players in the system.

Some of those gaps and pinches currently receiving ERS scrutiny include

obesity and food choices, the need for better targeting of food assistance benefits,

as well as the environmental impacts of agriculture. The challenges of biotech

foods and of emerging global markets and competitors (including Brazil, China, and

Ukraine) are also among the issues analyzed by ERS.

At the end of the day, it is safe to say the U.S. food system has done a remarkable

job of using technology and inventiveness to its advantage and ultimately to the benefit

of the consumer. We get the foods we want, when we want them, in the form we want

them, all at affordable prices. Thanks to this system, Americans spend less of their income

on food than do consumers anywhere else in the world.

Despite the dramatic evolution of the American food system, there are some constants in

our ever-changing world. Americans will always love food. The American food system will continue

to adapt, grow, and provide us with the products we desire. And yes, that timeless advice stands:

Never trust a dog to watch your food.

James R. Blaylock, Associate Director

Food and Rural Economics Division, ERS

C

HINA’S

G

ROWING

A

FFLUENCE:

How Food Markets are Responding

H. Frederick Gale

VOLUME1

z

ISSUE3

AMBERWAVES

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA

C

O

N

T

E

N

T

S

2

FEATURES

P

LANT

G

ENETIC

R

ESOURCES:

New Rules for International Exchange

Kelly Day-Rubenstein and Paul Heisey

The increased spending power and changing eating habits of

China's 1.3 billion people are transforming the country's

food sector, creating new opportunities and challenges for

U.S. farmers.

With one of the largest collections of plant germplasm in

the world, the U.S. weighs the costs and benefits of a new

treaty in germplasm exchange.

4

MARKETS ANDTRADE

Nontraditional Exporters Increase Role in

Wheat Markets

Are U.S. and European Union Agricultural Policies

Becoming More Similar?

6

DIET AND HEALTH

Information Sways Consumer Attitudes

Toward Biotech Foods

U.S. Hog and Poultry Marketing:

Similar Paths, Similar Outcomes?

10

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

Manure Management:

A Growing Challenge in the Chesapeake

Bay Watershed

Will Land Degradation Prove Malthus Right

After All?

12

RURAL AMERICA

Low-Skill Workers Are a Declining Share

of All Rural Workers

The Dynamics of Hired Farm Labor

FINDINGS

22

14

A

M

B

E

R

W

A

V

E

S

J

U

N

E

2

0

0

3

C

O

N

T

E

N

T

S

3

WWW.ERS.USDA.GOV/

AMBERWAVES

R

URAL

W

ELFARE

R

EFORM:

Lessons Learned

Leslie A.Whitener

A

IMING

F

OR

T

ARGETS,

S

AVING

O

N

A

RROWS:

Recent Insights from Two USDA Food Assistance Programs

Mark Prell

38

30

Policymakers strive to make efficient use of taxpayer dollars

in the design and administration of USDA's food assistance

programs. Balance must be struck between keeping costs

low and serving program goals.

The transition from welfare to work is proving more difficult

in rural than in urban areas, especially in remote, sparsely

populated areas where job opportunities are few.

12

DATA FEATURE

Trends in U.S. Per Capita Consumption of

Dairy Products, 1909 to 2001

46

INDICATORS

Selected statistics on agriculture and trade, diet and health,

natural resources, and rural America

50

GLEANINGS

Snapshots of recent events at ERS, highlights of new

publications, and previews of research in the works

52

PROFILES

Recent accolades for ERS researchers

Though the volume of world wheat

trade has changed little in the past 15

years, shares of trade volume in exporting

countries have changed quite a bit. The

U.S. remains the largest exporter, but U.S.

farmers are increasingly producing other

crops, like corn and soybeans, so the U.S.

share of the wheat market has fallen from

40 percent in the 1970s to 23 percent

(forecast) for 2002/03. This shift in U.S.

agricultural production, combined with

rising prices caused by drought in three of

the largest exporters—U.S., Australia, and

Canada—has created opportunities for

“nontraditional” wheat exporters.

With their favorable climates and

large land bases, the former Soviet Union

(FSU) and Central and Eastern Europe are

traditional places for wheat production.

Reductions in agricultural subsidies dur-

ing the 1990s, however, caused a sharp

drop in livestock production, which, in

turn, curtailed domestic demand for

wheat as an animal feed. While wheat

output also fell, recent large harvests,

caused largely by favorable weather, have

supported wheat exports. FSU wheat

exports surged in 2001/02 and 2002/03 as

increasing world prices generated the

investment needed to expand port

capacity. In 2002/03, Russia is expected to

be the world’s third largest wheat

exporter, behind the U.S. and the

European Union (EU).

India, Pakistan, and China have also

become net exporters of wheat in recent

years. High government production sup-

ports during the 1990s boosted production

and stocks. When the cost of maintaining

these stocks became burdensome, exports

increased, particularly as prices increased

in 2002/03. However, these opportunistic

exports are not expected to persist

because these countries are unable to pro-

duce wheat cheaply enough to sustain

increased exports without large subsidies.

The EU continues to be a large wheat

exporter. Historically, EU wheat produc-

tion and exports depended on large

subsidies. Despite lower domestic wheat

prices, EU wheat production has grown

because of favorable net returns compared

with those for other crops. Lower prices

have increased the domestic feed use of

wheat, limiting exports.

The U.S. is expected to remain the

world’s largest wheat exporter, though its

share will likely decline if U.S. producers

continue to turn to other crops and if

other countries find wheat profitable. As

export shares shift, changes in U.S. supply

will not affect prices as much as in the

past. For example, when the U.S., Canada,

and Australia suffered from drought in

2002/03, nontraditional exporters and the

EU were able to export enough to keep a

lid on prices.

Edward W.Allen

,

ewallen@ers.usda.gov

RonaldTrostle

,

rtrostle@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

WheatYearbook

, 03.27.03, available at:

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/so/view.asp?f=

field/whs-bby

ERS Wheat Briefing Room, at www.ers.usda.

gov/Briefing/Wheat

4

AMBERWAVES

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA

VOL

UME1

z

ISSUE3

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

MARKETS AND TRADE

Nontraditional

Exporters

Increase Role in

Wheat Markets

U.S. share of world wheat market is declining

0

20

40

60

80

1960 62

64

66

68

70

72

74

76

78

80 82

84

86

88

90

92

94 96

98

00 02

100

120

Exports, million metric tons

Source:

USDA Production, Supply, and Distribution database.

Other

Former Soviet Union & Central and Eastern Europe

European Union 15

Canada, Australia, & Argentina

U.S.

Photo by Tim McCabe, USDA/NRCS

Throughout much of the post-World

War II period, agricultural policy in the

U.S. and European Union (EU) has focused

on supporting farm income primarily

through price supports. Both countries

supported commodity prices through pur-

chase and storage of surplus commodities.

The U.S. relied more on producer loans

secured by commodities and acreage con-

trols, while the EU relied more on export

subsidies to dispose of surpluses. Both the

U.S. and the EU have significantly changed

their commodity policies in the past

decade. While their policies have evolved

in similar directions in some respects,

important differences remain.

Both the U.S. and the EU have

reduced their reliance on price support for

several commodities for the same reasons:

to improve their competitiveness, reduce

burdensome stocks associated with high

support prices, and rein in rising costs of

operating commodity programs. Both

countries now make greater use of income

support through payments to producers.

Lower support prices and govern-

ment purchases have reduced the need for

surplus disposal, including export

subsidies. Since 1995, U.S. use of export

subsidies has been limited essentially to

dairy products and poultry. The EU con-

tinues to use export subsidies for many

price-supported commodities, although

World Trade Organization (WTO) obliga-

tions have required the EU to reduce

subsidy levels.

Despite similarities in policy changes,

EU and U.S. policies differ. The EU main-

tains a higher overall support level to its

farm sector and relies more on price sup-

port than does the United States. Although

some EU support prices have been

reduced, higher tariffs

contribute to market

price support by pre-

venting the entry of

lower priced imports.

Both U.S. and EU

agricultural policies

will

continue

to

respond to domestic

needs, the interna-

tional environment,

and obligations under

trade agreements. In

addition, public pres-

sure

on

broader

issues, including envi-

ronmental protection,

rural development, and food safety,

is increasingly shaping agricultural

policy.

Mary Anne Normile

,

mnormile@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

ERS Briefing Room on Farm and Commodity

Policy: www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/FarmPolicy

ERS Briefing Room on the European Union:

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/EuropeanUnion

WWW.ERS.USDA.GOV/AMBERWAVES

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

MARKETS AND TRADE

Are U.S. and European Union Agricultural

Policies Becoming More Similar?

Percent

1989-91

1999-01

1989-91

1999-01

Source: Producer support estimates, as reported in

Agricultural Policies in

OECD Countries:

Monitoring and Evaluation, 2002

, Organization for Economic

Cooperation and Development.

Income support

(producer payments)

Market price

support

U.S. and EU shift toward income support

U.S.

EU

100

80

60

40

20

0

PhotoSpin

6

AMBERWAVES

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA

VOLUME1

z

ISSUE3

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

DIET AND HEALTH

Information Sways Consumer

AttitudesToward Biotech Foods

Scientists use modern biotechnology

(biochemical manipulation of genes or

DNA) to develop new varieties of foods

and agricultural products, commonly

called biotech foods. Large shares of com-

mon crops, such as corn and soybeans, are

grown from bioengineered seed. Many

processed foods on U.S. supermarket

shelves contain biotech ingredients.

Labeling of biotech foods has been a

contentious issue in the U.S. and between

the U.S. and its trading partners.

Proponents of mandatory biotech food

labeling argue that consumers have a right

to know how their food has been pro-

duced. Opponents argue that such labeling

will confuse and, in many cases, unneces-

sarily alarm consumers. In the U.S., when

biotechnology introduces a known allergen

or substantially changes a food’s nutrition-

al content or composition, Federal regula-

tions require that the label indicate this

change. So far, no biotech foods on the

market have required labeling.

In 2001, ERS and university

researchers held experimental auctions to

gauge consumers’ willingness to pay for

food items with and without biotech

labels. In the absence of sales data, exper-

imental auctions more closely simulate

purchasing behavior and better gauge

consumer preferences than surveys of

consumer attitudes. Auction participants

could bid on and purchase three different

food products—potatoes, vegetable oil,

and corn tortilla chips—with and without

a label indicating that the food contained

biotech ingredients. None of the foods had

biotech-enhanced attributes or traits that

could be detected without sophisticated

testing technologies, if at all.

Before the bidding, each participant

received one of six information packets

containing statements about biotech-

nology gathered from a variety of sources.

Information played a powerful role in

shaping how the participants responded

to biotech foods. They reacted not just to

the information itself, but also to whether

the information came from biotech firms,

an environmental advocacy group, or

independent third-party sources.

Participants who received only pro-

biotech information actually put a slight

average premium of 2 percent on the

biotech-labeled foods relative to foods

without biotech labels for two of the three

products. Participants who received only

anti-biotech information discounted the

biotech-labeled foods by an average of 36

percent. Those who received both pro- and

anti-biotech information discounted the

biotech-labeled foods by an average of 23

percent. Interestingly, participants placed

a greater weight on negative information

than on positive information, a result

consistent with other studies. The ERS

study also looked at the role of science-

based information on consumer attitudes

towards biotech foods.

AbebayehuTegene,

ategene@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

The Effect of Information on Consumer Demand

for Biotech Foods: Evidence from Experimental

Auctions

, by Abebayehu Tegene,Wallace

Huffman, Matt Rousu, and Jason Shogren,

TB-1903, March 2003, available at:

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/tb1903

Consumers' reactions to biotech-

labeled foods depend on the

information they receive

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

-5

Vegetable

oil

Percent of price discount

Tortilla

chips

Potatoes

Participants who received only negative information.

Participants who received only positive information.

Participants who received both positive and negative

information.

Participants who received positive, negative, and

third-party information.

7

A

M

B

E

R

W

A

V

E

S

J

U

N

E

2

0

0

3

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

DIET AND HEALTH

Recent changes in the structure of the pork industry echo past

changes in the poultry industry.

How U.S. pork producers and processors sell and buy hogs has

changed significantly since 1990. The use of long-term contracts

has largely replaced production for the open, or spot, market. Over

70 percent of hogs are sold under contracts, where producers are

required to deliver a specified number of hogs to the processor at

a specified time. In return, the producer receives the spot price,

adjusted for the size and quality of the hogs.

These developments raise concerns by some about anticom-

petitive behavior of large processors and the demise of small,

independent farmers. Others emphasize how contracts facilitate

steady flows of high-quality farm products for processing, among

other benefits.

In the U.S. poultry industry, contracts and common owner-

ship of production and processing (called “vertical integration”)

expanded in the 1950s. By 1977, contracts and vertical integration

accounted for over 85 percent of broiler, turkey, and egg

production. Today, these arrangements account for over 90 percent

of production in each of the three sectors. At the same time, the

poultry industry significantly improved production efficiencies. It

also capitalized on consumers’ interest in lower fat sources of pro-

tein and responded to their quest for convenience with a wide

variety of processed, branded poultry products. These develop-

ments were reflected in large supplies of poultry products that

were priced low relative to other meats.

The pork indus-

try has also improved

production efficiency.

Offspring from a typi-

cal breeding hog pro-

duced 30 percent

more pork in 1999

than in 1990. The

industry is offering

more lean, further-

processed, case-ready

products. From 1995

to 1999, the number

of new pork items on

foodservice

menus

more than doubled, and the number of pork mentions on menus

exceeded all other meats in 1999, except for chicken, according to

a study by the National Pork Producers Council.

These efficiencies and expanded product offerings have led to

larger pork supplies that have lowered pork prices and may have

tempered declines in demand dating back to the 1970s. From 1990

to 2002, pork production increased by 2 percent per year, and

deflated retail pork prices fell by 1 percent per year. From 1980 to

1995, the demand for pork fell by 34 percent. Since 1995, the

demand for pork has increased by 8 percent.

The pork industry is also following the lead of poultry in

export markets. The U.S. poultry industry has experienced consid-

erable growth in exports, as indicated by its status as the world’s

largest exporter of poultry meat. Similarly, reliable supplies

tailored to customer specifications have helped boost U.S. pork

exports fivefold in the 1990s.

Steve Martinez

,

martinez@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

Vertical Coordination of Marketing Systems: Lessons From the Poultry, Egg,

and Pork Industries

, by Steve W. Martinez, AER-807, April 2002, available

at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer807 and from

Vertical Coordination

in the Pork and Broiler Industries: Implications for Pork and Chicken

Products

, by Steve W. Martinez, AER-777, April 1999, available at:

www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer777

U.S. Hog and Poultry

Marketing: Similar Paths,

Similar Outcomes?

Contracts dominate the share of

hogs delivered to processors

1970

80

93

99

2000

01

02

0

20

40

60

80

100

Percent of slaughter

WWW.ERS.USDA.GOV/AMBERWAVES

Corbis

Farmers who run confined animal feeding operations (hog,

cattle, dairy, and poultry farms) usually dispose of manure by

spreading it on cropland as a soil amendment and source of nutri-

ents. Because manure is expensive to transport, producers may

apply more than crops can use, especially on fields nearest the

production facility. Excessive manure applications increase the

potential for contamination of surface and ground water. To

address water quality concerns, USDA and the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA) together developed a strategy for improv-

ing manure management. A primary emphasis of the joint strate-

gy is to limit application of manure nutrients to rates that the soil

can store and crops can use. USDA will provide technical and

financial assistance to help operators develop and implement

comprehensive nutrient management plans (CNMPs). EPA pub-

lished regulations in February 2003 that will require over 15,000

concentrated animal feeding operations to implement CNMPs.

This emphasis on manure management presents a new challenge

to large livestock and poultry operations, particularly in areas with

relatively high animal concentrations such as the Chesapeake Bay

watershed, which covers parts of Maryland, Virginia, West

Virginia, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and New York.

Recent ERS analysis indicates that better manure manage-

ment will likely require manure to be applied to more land than

currently, raising hauling costs for many animal producers. An

operator’s need to access additional land for manure application

will depend on the volume of manure for disposal relative to crop-

land area currently receiving manure and the nutrient uptake of

the crops. The willingness of crop farmers to accept manure on

their land—considering manure’s variable nutrient content,

potential odor, and handling cost—affects the amount of land

available for manure application and the distance manure must be

hauled. A low willingness by crop producers to accept manure

may cause some manure to be hauled long distances to access

sufficient land to avoid overapplication of manure nutrients.

As part of the ERS study, analysts examined the feasibility

and cost of applying manure in the Chesapeake Bay watershed at

rates not exceeding crop uptake. For all the nitrogen in manure to

be used by crops within 100 miles of the manure’s origin, crop

farmers in the region would have to accept manure as the only

nitrogen fertilizer source on at least 20 percent of total cropland.

Under a more stringent standard, where applied manure does not

exceed crop phosphorus needs, crop farmers within a 100-mile

radius would have to accept manure as the only phosphorous

source on at least 60 percent of the total cropland.

USDA financial and technical assistance in managing

and utilizing the nutrients in manure could increase crop

farmers’ willingness to accept manure application on their

land. Where hauling costs for manure land application are

high, the ERS analysis indicates potential to reduce the

amount of land receiving manure by expanding industrial

processes that use manure to produce energy or commercial

fertilizer products, and by feeding animal rations that lessen

manure nutrient content.

Marcel Aillery

,

maillery@ers.usda.gov

Noel Gollehon

,

gollehon@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

A broader ERS study of farm, regional, and national level implica-

tions of new animal waste regulations and guidelines:

Manure

Management for Water Quality: Costs to Animal Feeding Operations of

Applying Manure Nutrients to Land

, by M. Ribaudo, N. Gollehon, M.

Aillery, J. Kaplan, R. Johansson, J.Agapoff, L. Christensen,V.

Breneman, and M. Peters,AER-824, USDA/ERS, June 2003,

available at: www.ers.usda.gov/publications/aer824

Manure Management: A Growing

Challenge in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed

8

AMBERWAVES

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA

VOLUME1

z

ISSUE3

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

60% willingness to

accept manure

100% willingness to

accept manure

Higher willingness of crop farmers to accept manure would

reduce out-of-county transport in the Chesapeake

Bay watershed

S ource: B ased on 1997 C ensus of A griculture data.

The Chesapeake Bay watershed is outlined in red.

Maps show all manure being applied under a

phosphorus standard that restricts manure

application to crop phosphorus needs.

Inter-county m anure m ovem ent

1,000 dry tons of net transfer

-60 to -40

-40 to -20

-20 to -5

-5 to 5

5 to 35

35 to 140

140 to 355

Im ports

Exports

Photo by Ken Hammond, USDA

Two hundred years ago, citing

concerns dating back to Plato and

Aristotle, English clergyman and econo-

mist Thomas Malthus argued that popula-

tion growth would inevitably outpace food

production—unless checked by “moral

restraint, vice, or misery.”

In 1960, his

concerns appeared well founded. Growing

at an unprecedented rate, the world’s pop-

ulation reached 3 billion, and a third of

those were undernourished.

Forty years later, the world’s popula-

tion has doubled to 6 billion, but food

production has grown even faster, and

fewer people are undernourished. Rising

food demand led to higher input use and

improved technology and efficiency. Even

so, more than 800 million people—mostly

in Asia and Africa—remain undernour-

ished. For many of these people, secure

and sustainable access to sufficient food

for active, healthy lives—food security—

depends on income from agriculture, and

thus on the productivity of agricultural

land and labor.

World-average cereal yields rose by

more than 2 percent per year during the

1960s and 1970s, driven by the improved

seed varieties and increased input use of

the Green Revolution. However, yield

growth has slowed since

then and the Food and

Agriculture

Organi-

zation (FAO) projects

that cereal yield growth

will slow to a global aver-

age of 0.8 percent per

year over the next three

decades. Do soil erosion,

soil fertility depletion,

and other forms of land

degradation

threaten

the productivity gains

achieved in the past?

Could Malthus be right

after all?

Because relevant

data are scarce, the extent to which yields

have been reduced by land degradation

has been difficult to determine. Recent

analysis by ERS economists, in collabora-

tion with soil scientists at USDA’s Natural

Resources Conservation Service and Ohio

State University, finds that yield losses to

soil erosion vary widely by crop and

region, but average 0.3 percent per year

worldwide when farmers’ practices are

held constant. Given FAO’s projections of

slower yield growth, further yield losses of

this magnitude could reverse recent reduc-

tions in the number of people who are

food insecure. However, farmers’ practices

do change over time in response to chang-

ing conditions, so actual yield losses to

land degradation are typically lower. For

example, ERS analysis finds that yield

losses to soil erosion in the North-Central

U.S. are less than 0.1 percent per year

when farmers choose management prac-

tices that are most profitable over the

long term.

ERS research suggests that land

degradation does not threaten food securi-

ty at a global scale, but impacts vary by

location. Yield losses due to land degrada-

tion do pose problems in areas where soils

are shallow, fields are steeply sloped,

property rights are insecure, and farmers

have limited access to inputs, informa-

tion, and markets. Any further slowing of

yield growth in the future would increase

the importance of measures to address

these challenges.

Keith Wiebe,

kdwiebe@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

Linking Land Quality,Agricultural Productivity,

and Food Security

, by Keith Wiebe,AER-823,

June 2003, available at: www.ers.usda.gov/

publications/aer823

9

A

M

B

E

R

W

A

V

E

S

WWW.ERS.USDA.GOV/AMBERWAVES

J

U

N

E

2

0

0

3

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

World food production has increased faster than

population, but food insecurity remains a challenge

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

1960

Food production index

(1961 = 100)

Population

(billion)

Food production

Total population

Food-insecure population

1970

Source: Based on FAO data.

1980

1990

2000

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Will Land Degradation

Prove Malthus

Right After All?

FAO photo/I. Valdez

Rural workers in jobs with low skill

requirements declined as a share of all

rural workers during the 1990s, a decade

when technological change seemed to

favor high-skill urban-oriented economic

activities. The share of workers in low-

skill jobs declined more in rural areas

(2.2 percentage points) than in cities and

suburbs (1.1 percentage point) in the

1990s. This trend suggests that rural

workers as a whole are participating in the

long-term national movement toward a

more skill-intensive economy marked by

higher labor productivity and wages. The

low-skill workforce includes a majority of

the rural working poor and near-poor pop-

ulation, who are the focus of recent

Federal policy initiatives designed to

ensure a sustainable wage. By 2000, 42

percent of rural America’s 25 million

workers were employed in jobs with low

skill requirements (6 percentage points

above the national average).

According to ERS research, the

declining share of rural workers in

low-skill jobs resulted from a shift in

industrial employment from the goods-

producing sector to the service sector.

Mining and manufacturing, major forces

in the goods sector, have historically

required a large number of workers with

limited skills, but now employ a much

smaller proportion of the rural workforce

than in previous decades. On the other

hand, service employment, with typically

higher verbal and quantitative skill

requirements, grew rapidly.

A shift

within

the service sector

toward less-skilled jobs, however, offset

the drop in goods-producing employment.

Most of the recent decline in the low-skill

share of rural employment is attributable

to occupational shifts

within

industries,

with the most pronounced shift in the

goods sector. These shifts reflect a

growing demand for workers engaged in

high-skill activities, such as administra-

tion and research associated with

corporate headquarters. Moreover, tech-

nological advances in the way that goods

and services are produced favor workers

who can perform more complex tasks and

are more proficient in verbal and quanti-

tative skills.

Other recent evidence corroborates

the picture of skill upgrading in rural

America. ERS research on rural and urban

differences in computer use and the

adoption

of

advanced

production

technologies in manufacturing has found

that technological skills are being upgrad-

ed at about the same rate in rural and

urban establishments. Furthermore,

educational attainment, which closely

tracks skill measures, rose as quickly

among rural adults as among urban adults

in the 1990s. In some rural communities,

the loss of low-skill jobs creates a

hardship for workers lacking training

opportunities or alternative employment.

But the growth in expertise and skills

needed for a more technologically

advanced economy should benefit the

rural workforce overall. These trends are

primarily evidenced by shifts in the

employment mix within industries,

rather than by the employment shifts

between industries that often attract the

most attention.

Robert Gibbs,

rgibbs@ers.usda.gov

Lorin Kusmin

,

lkusmin@ers.usda.gov

This finding is drawn from . . .

www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/LaborAnd

Education/lwemployment

Employment growth by sector in

metro and nonmetro areas,

1990-2000

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Goods

Percent

Low-skill

services

High-skill

services

Metro

Nonmetro

10

AMBERWAVES

VOLUME1

z

ISSUE3

RURAL AMERICA

ECONOMIC RESEARCH SERVICE/USDA

F

I

N

D

I

N

G

S

Low-Skill Workers Are a

Declining Share of All Rural Workers

Photo by Joe Valbuena, USDA