Project Form 1

Resource Dependency and Rural Development in Alabama

Introduction

The proposed research builds on over a decade of research focusing on forestry and other natural resource issues and how these relate to rural development in Alabama. The proposal integrates two of the three primary focal areas of my department=s program priorities: natural resources and rural development. External funds (three successful National Research Initiative Competitive Grant Program proposals, three grants from the USDA Forest Service) have supported work to date. A recently awarded Foundation Grant from the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station will contribute directly to objectives of this project.

CRIS Retrieval

Resource Dependency

A review of the CRIS database revealed seven projects related to the concept of resource dependency, three of which are relevant to this proposal.

ALA01-011 is a regional project (S-276, Rural Restructuring: Causes and Consequences of Globalized Agricultural and Natural Resource Systems) on which I serve as a member of the Technical Committee. A second project is the current NRI project on which I serve as Principal Investigator (ALAZ-00015, ACommodity Systems Analysis of Alabama=s Pulp and Paper Industry@). A third project (ALAZ-00029, AHuman Dimensions of Forestry and Natural Resources: a Cultural Assessment@), also is being conducted in Alabama by an Auburn colleague, Dr. Josh McDaniel. This project was recently initiated and involves oral histories of turpentine and other forest uses, the contemporary recruitment of forest workers (particularly migrant workers), and knowledge and perceptions of forests, natural resources, and ecosystems in West Georgia. This work will be complementary to my own work.

In Arkansas, Don Voth worked on a recently terminated project dealing in part with questions of resource dependency and rural development (ARK01801, ACommunity and Social Context of Natural Resource Management and Decision Making: Focus on Forestry@). In fact much of his work was done in association with the USDA Forest Service and related to public lands in Arkansas. Dr. Voth=s work is well known to me and he recently served as Guest Editor on s special issue on forestry in the South for the journal I edited, Southern Rural Sociology. He also served during May 2003 as a member of our department=s CSREES review team.

In Texas, researchers Gramann and Torres are involved in a project examining ASocioeconomic Well-being and Amenity Resource Dependence in Rural Counties@ (TEX08786). The primary focus of this research is on tourism development associated with counties with unique amenity values. No publications were reported as of the most recent report (2002). Dr. Torres is personally known to me and I will establish contact to exchange information on measures of resource dependency she and her colleague are employing.

Rural Development

There were four projects listed under the keywords ARural Development@ in the CRIS system, five of which are relevant for my proposed research.

C.W. Abdalla of Penn State worked on a recently terminated (2002) project (PEN03611, APolicies and Strategies to Address Rural Resource Conflicts in Pennsylvania@) designed to document conflict over rural resources and identify mechanisms for addressing these conflicts. Publications from this project focused on conflict resolution and public participation. The substantive focus related to public opposition to Confined Animal Feeding Operations.

Ford and Pelsue at the University of Vermont examined entrepreneurship emerging from trade in non-traditional agriculture and forestry products (VT-AE-00581, AGrowing Rural Entrepreneurs: Nontraditional Trade and Rural@). The project terminated September 2000.

Hammett at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute was involved in a recently terminated project oriented towards AIncreasing Markets for Sustainably Produced Non-Timber Forest Products from Central Appalachia,@ VA-136582). Much of the research reported in fact dealt with China and Nepal.

D=Souza and Smith from West Virginia University examined the interaction between local and non-local components of food systems in West Virginia (WVA00395, ACommodities, Consumers, and Communities: Local Food Systems in a Globalizing Environment@). This project recently terminated. The study is relevant because it explicitly focused on the connection between local and global markets, albeit for food rather than non-food natural resources.

Freudenburg=s work at Wisconsin (WIS04040, APoverty, Prosperity and Natural Resources in Wisconsin@) is closest to my own in examining the impact of natural resources on rural development, and explicitly focusing on the problem of persistent poverty. Freudenburg recently took a position at the University of California Santa Barbara and his work is well known to me.

Literature Review

Resource Dependency

The term 'resource dependency' has come into common usage to denote conditions under which particular communities or regions are heavily reliant on one type of economic activity (e.g., farming, mining, fishing, or logging). Resource dependency often is measured by percent of employment in a particular sector, with a threshold beyond which a community or (more commonly) a county is considered dependent upon a particular resource and associated economic activity. Additional measures, including percent of land devoted to or tax revenues generated by a particular activity also might be included. Counties are the standard unit of analysis because most economic data are reported at the county level.

The Economic Research Service of the USDA has established county typologies that characterize counties as dependent upon a variety of economic activities, defined as a percent of total employment within that sector. Classifications are provided for six economic activities (farming, mining, manufacturing, government, services, and nonspecialized dependent counties) as well as for counties that match five characteristics of special policy interest (persistent poverty and retirement destination). Farming dependent counties are defined as those which have a weighted average of 20% or more of total labor and proprietor income over a three year period coming from agriculture (Cook and Mizer1994). Manufacturing dependent counties are so defined if the 30% of labor and proprietor income comes from manufacturing activities.

The USDA does not provide a measure for resource dependency. Machlis and Force (1988) provide a review of timber dependency, noting that most measures are characterized by economic measures. In Alabama, Howze, Bailey, and Bliss (1994) defined timber dependent counties as those with more than 25% of total employment in manufacturing of forest products. This measure was adopted by Robinson, Howze and Norton (in press). Adoption of this measure provides a simple and straight-forward measure of economic activity. However, there is a need to examine a wider range of variables to identify the key issues associated with dependence on natural resources. In the case of forestry in Alabama, for example, issues related to the generation of tax revenue for county school systems and governments as well as the proportion of land devoted to commercial forestry, if included, may give a somewhat different image of timber dependency. Place of employment and where those workers actually live also may not be the same. Measuring dependency based on manufacturing employment alone would lead one to define Lawrence County as forest dependent due to the large pulp and paper mill in that county. However, a high proportion of the workforce live in an adjacent county (Morgan) and only 49% of the land in Lawrence County is forested, compared to a state average of 71% (Hartsell and Brown 2002). We need to develop measures which more accurately reflect problems associated with resource dependency in Alabama and the South. Concentration of land ownership, or control of land by one segment of the population (whites) to the near exclusion of others might create socially-meaningful dependency not addressed by the current conceptualization.

Interest in resource dependent communities is a well established tradition among rural sociologists. The discipline of rural sociology has long been concerned with the well‑being of farming communities (Goldschmidt 1947 [1978]; Korsching and Gildner 1986; Schwarzweller 1984). The connection between community stability and the status of natural resource systems has become a common theme in rural sociology (e.g., Field and Burch 1991; Flora et al. 1992; Lee, Field and Burch 1990).

Over the past decade, social and economic problems associated with timber dependency have been accorded nationwide attention due to structural changes affecting the forest‑based industries of the Pacific Northwest (Lee, Field and Burch 1990). These changes underscore what rural sociologists and others long have known: dependency creates vulnerability to sudden changes in policy, markets, or investment decisions made by distant corporations (Peluso, Fortmann, and Humphrey 1994). Vulnerability also takes on a spatial dimension in the context of physical isolation and the absence of alternative employment prospects that characterize many if not most timber dependent communities (Carroll and Lee 1990; Machlis and Force 1988; Machlis, Force, and Balice 1990).

A useful review of theoretical approaches to the study of persistent poverty in communities dependent on natural resources has been published by the Rural Sociological Society's Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty (Task Force 1993). This study categorized research on problems of persistent poverty as they related to four broad theoretical perspectives in sociology: human capital theory; power theory of natural resource bureaucracy; social construction of nature; and structural analysis and rural restructuring.

Researchers working from the human capital theory explain persistent poverty by pointing out factors that contribute to the devaluation of education and human resource development. Individuals growing up in an area where well‑paying work is readily available in the woods, on fishing boats, or in other natural resource‑based occupations are likely to place limited value on education. Under such conditions, there are few pressures for expanded community investment in education. The resulting 'rational underinvestment' in human capital limits future options available to members of the community if the natural resource‑based economy runs into rough times (Freudenberg 1992). Under these conditions, it is relatively easy for industries to use their political and economic power in shifting tax burdens to local residents by limiting taxation on land (Task Force 1993). Industry has little incentive to improve public education when their labor needs mostly are for semi‑skilled workers. The end result, however, is that workers and their communities are left vulnerable to economic restructuring and disinvestment of the type that has taken place in the Pacific Northwest.

A second perspective adopted to explain persistent rural poverty in resource dependent communities is to focus on the use of power by private and public bureaucracies in controlling access to scarce natural resources (West 1982, 1994). Much recent work by sociologists on issues of forest resource dependence has focused on the role of the U.S. Forest Service (e.g., Fortmann and Fairfax 1991; Peluso, Fortmann, and Humphrey 1994). The issues here involve agency culture and political influence of competing groups on public policy. Interest in this perspective is not surprising given the importance of public lands for the timber industry in the Pacific Northwest. The question of state control over the forest resource base is less of an issue in the southeastern United States due to the relatively small percentage of forested lands that are under USDA Forest Service jurisdiction. However, the connection between the Minerals Management Service of the U.S. Department of the Interior and the coal industry or the offshore oil and gas industry might prove fruitful grounds for research in Alabama and neighboring states.

A more recent focus of research attention has been on the social definition of nature. Increasing public concern for environmental issues has tended to put groups such as loggers in the Pacific Northwest on the defensive in public discourse (Caroll and Lee 1990). Environmentalists have challenged the legitimacy of the forest products industry in gaining access to trees on public lands, and loggers have been cast as people unconcerned for wildlife. In a similar vein, fishers in the Gulf of Mexico and off the Atlantic coast in the Southeast have been characterized by environmentalists as unconcerned over endangered species of marine turtles for opposing the imposition of turtle excluding devices from shrimp nets (Margavio et al. 1994). To the extent that these characterizations stick, they have a delegitimizing effect that affects public opinion and the decisions of regulatory agencies.

Structural analysis of resource dependent economies is the fourth theoretical tradition examined by the Task Force. The forest products industry in North America has to be understood as part of a larger global market for wood and paper products (Marchak 1991). These world markets are dominated by transnational corporations which control impressive financial resources, production technologies, and facilities that transform raw materials into finished products. The mobility of capital as a factor of production has led to industrial restructuring in the forest products sector (Sinclair, Bailey, and Dubois in press). In the fisheries sector, expanding imports of shrimp from tropics, mostly produced by intensive aquaculture operations in Asia and Latin America, have affected prices of shrimp landed in the Gulf of Mexico (Chapman 2003). Catfish farmers in the United States have filed an antidumping petition with the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S. Department of Commerce, claiming that Vietnamese producers are dumping frozen filets on the U.S. market, driving down prices (Rappaport 2002). The central point is that corporate restructuring and processes associated with globalization are significant sources of change, and that rural communities neither control nor often do they understand the nature of those changes that affect their lives.

Rural Development in Context of Resource Dependency in Alabama

Rural development as a concept refers to a complex process designed to meet the needs of individuals and communities characterized by geographic isolation from urban centers, where important institutional resources (economic, political, cultural) are concentrated (Galston and Baehler 1995). Rural development may involve efforts to improve access to these institutional resources in the form of economic investments and jobs, expanded involvement in the political decision-making process at local, state and national levels, improvements in the quality of public education and opportunities for personal expression through the arts or other media, and ensuring adequate access to health care facilities (Christenson and Robinson 1989; Rivera and Erlich 1998). The relative importance of such needs will vary from place to place and over time. In some areas, the primary concern will be economic growth and the creation of jobs, while other concerns may be more central elsewhere (Gaventa, Smith, and Willingham 1990). Rural development is not the same thing as economic development (Summers 1986), though often local elites would have us believe this is the case (Molotch 1976). Lee and Sumners (2003) argue that economic growth and improving the general quality of life in rural Alabama are inextricably linked.

Research conducted by the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station has demonstrated that large-scale industrial development in rural Alabama does not result in rural development in any socially meaningful sense. Over the last four decades, rural Alabama counties dependent on the forest products sector (as measured by employment) have suffered high rates of poverty, unemployment, infant mortality, and out-migration as well as low levels of support for public education and a low percent of local residents who complete high school education (Howze et al. 1994; Robinson in press). These problems are not caused by the forest products industry, but have continued to exist despite significant investment and increases in productivity on the land, in logging operations, and in the mills.

The forest products sector in Alabama is dominated by production of pulp and paper products, the manufacture of which is a capital-intensive operation where individual mills represent up to $2 billion in investment (Bailey et at. 1996). There are at present 14 large pulp and paper mills operating in Alabama and workers at these mills are among the best paid in Alabama=s rural economy. The rural development impact of this sector has been limited by two factors: changes in the labor market and the tax structure. The number of workers employed in the mills has shrunk both due to mill closings (two closed within the past five years) and the introduction of new technologies which replaced labor. In addition, mill management has adopted a strategy common in the private sector of sub-contracting many jobs, reducing wage and benefit costs (Bailey et al. 1996; Lupo 2003; Sinclair, Bailey and Dubois in press). The rural development impact of this sector also has been limited by extraordinarily low property taxes on forest land throughout Alabama (PARCA 2001), and tax abatements which have made it possible for pulp and paper mills annually to escape millions of dollars in property taxes (Joshi 1997; Joshi et al. 2000).

Indeed, an argument could be made that the forest products sector has had an adverse impact on rural development by encouraging concentration of forest land ownership. In contrast to national trends towards fragmentation, in Alabama small forest land tracts are being consolidated into larger holdings (Bliss, Sisock and Birch 1998; Sisock 1998). More than half (58%) of Alabama=s forest land is owned by 1% of all ownership units, and this concentration is most marked in the Black Belt region where the need for rural development is most serious (Bliss, Sisock and Birch 1998). Data from the 1980s indicate African-Americans in Alabama own only 4% of the private forest acreage (Rosson and Doolittle 1987). Research on the decline in African-American farm ownership in Alabama (Zabawa, Siaway, and Baharanyi 1990; Zabawa 1995), and on-going research on problems faced by minority forest land owners (Crim in prep.; Crim, Dubois and Bailey in prep.) suggest that conditions have not improved since then. The process of consolidation into ever larger tracts could continue (Bailey, Sinclair, and Dubois in prep.) if current research on genetic engineering were to yield dramatic increases in productivity promised by some proponents (Sedjo 1999).

The net result of these changes is that the connection between rural community and the forested landscape in Alabama has weakened. Forest land owners who have sufficient acreage to produce timber on a commercial basis have done well, as have those fortunate enough to be employed in mechanized logging operations, in the remaining saw mills, or in the large pulp and paper mills. However, during the period 1950-2000, when economic conditions in rural Alabama generally improved, non-metropolitan timber-dependent counties lagged behind both metro and non-metro counties which were not timber dependent (Bliss et al. 1993; Robinson, Howze and Norton in press). This finding also holds true for non-metro counties hosting large pulp and paper mills (Bliss and Bailey in press).

The forest products industry of Alabama is most heavily concentrated in the state=s timber dependent Black Belt counties, where problems associated with poverty and unemployment are most severe (Walkingstick 1996; Bliss, Walkingstick, and Bailey 1998). Northrup (1970) documented discriminatory labor practices that effectively excluded African-Americans from good jobs in the paper industry. Bailey et al. (1996) reported that racial discrimination in Alabama has not been entirely eradicated in this industry, which is centered in the Black Belt. This is significant because poverty in this region is most concentrated in minority households (U.S. Census Bureau 2000).

The connection between natural resources and persistent rural poverty is not limited to Alabama (Task Force 1993). One of the most common causes of this connection is the lack of local control over resources and the economy (Bailey et al. 1993; Peluso, Fortmann, and Humphrey 1994). The concentration of economic power in relatively few hands, and the absence of local hands holding this power, leaves local communities powerless to deal with decisions made far away (Task Force 1993). This in turn undermines the ability of local communities to promote development. Norton (2001) found that social capital (trust and civic mindedness) was strongest in those Alabama Black Belt counties where the economy was relatively diverse and weakest where it was not.

Justification

The research literature reviewed above suggests that there is ample scope for a critical examination of resource dependency as it relates to rural development in Alabama. Research to date has focused on the forest products industry. No comparable research on coal mining, marine fishing, catfish aquaculture or other natural resource systems has been conducted. The forest products industry plays a central role in Alabama=s economy. This is particularly the case in rural Black Belt counties of Alabama, where there is a concentration of forest-based industries and where problems associated with poverty and unemployment are widespread. The forest products industry did not create these contemporary problems, but the industry is in a position to contribute to their amelioration. Problems of inadequate funding for public education in rural Alabama, limited job opportunities available to minorities, and diversification of local economies all need to be addressed. Leaders of the forest products industry understand these problems but have not identified mechanisms by which they can be addressed. The constructively critical research program laid out here is designed to help identify such mechanisms. Among the range of possibilities to be considered are supporting reasonable tax reform (including abandonment of tax abatements in place since the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s), conscious efforts to increase minority hiring in the mills, and support for minority businesses which provide goods and services to the mills.

Many counties in rural Alabama are resource dependent. A total of 24 counties in Alabama have been defined as timber dependent (Robinson, Howze, and Norton in press), with many of these in the state=s Black Belt region where problems associated with persistent poverty are the dominant reality (Lee and Sumners 2003). Mirroring the experience of Black Belt counties across the South, Alabama=s Black Belt counties have suffered continual outmigration over the past fifty years (Wimberley and Morris 1996). Most of the forested landscape is owned by a relatively small number of owners engaged in commercial timber (including pulpwood) production. Highly-capitalized pulp and paper mills are the dominant buyer of timber in Alabama. These mills in turn are supplied by logging operations which use heavy equipment (feller-bunchers, skidders, loaders, tractors and trailers) requiring an investment of $500,000 or more. These large-scale operators are geared to harvesting large holdings and have all but completely supplanted the logging operations based on chain saws and shortwood trucks. Parallel technological developments have changed the nature of catfish farming from small-scale and labor-intensive to more highly capitalized operations that generate fewer jobs per unit production (Perez 2003). Other resource systems (coal, fishing) have gone through parallel patterns of development. Fewer job opportunities in local labor markets of rural Alabama is a key contributor to high rates of unemployment, poverty, and outmigration.

Procedures

Objective 1: Determine the extent and consequences of resource dependency in Alabama.

Task 1.1: Review literature on resource dependency and social consequences of resource dependency

Task 1.2: Evaluate the appropriateness of existing definitions and measures of resource dependency by developing alternative definitions and measures

Task 1.3: Evaluate the social consequences of resource dependency in Alabama for such important natural resources as forestry, coal, fishing, and agriculture

Task 1.1 will represent an on-going activity. I am familiar with most of the literature on resource dependency, but new literature and new connections to other literatures (e.g., on corporate consolidation, technological change) are constantly emerging.

Task 1.2 involves the application of a conceptual construct to differing empirical conditions. The primary measure of timber dependency, for example, has been a percentage of manufacturing employment in the forest products industry (where beyond a certain threshold dependency is said to exist). This has the merit of elegance and simplicity, but it is unclear whether this measure adequately reflects reality. Lawrence County, for example, would be defined as timber dependent even though forested acres in that County are well below the state average and most people who work in that industry are workers from a neighboring county employed in one large paper mill at Courtland. Under those conditions, what is the meaning of timber dependency? A simple definition of timber dependent based on manufacturing employment may be misleading in that case. Similarly, the expansion of forests in the coastal plains (replacing row crops) appears to have had an impact on employment opportunities. In this situation, creation of conditions of resource dependency involved changing land use and employment patterns. That is, perhaps resource dependency not only is about who is employed in what kinds of jobs, but what kinds of jobs are no longer available. Working with data to explore these dynamics might uncover some relationships that will help in development of a more useful definition of a key concept in natural resource sociology. Much of the work done by me and those working with me has been to document that timber dependency in the South does not have many of the same characteristics as timber dependency in the Pacific Northwest. That said, it is time that we come up with a definition that reflects conditions in Alabama. It may be that such a definition is more complex that a simple measure of manufacturing employment. Among the measures to be included would be percent of land and other resources (e.g., water) devoted to a particular activity, non-manufacturing employment directly associated with resource use (e.g., logging, fishing, farming), and county tax revenues from a particular activity. The research literature will provide an initial source of inspiration for variables to examine.

Task 1.3 involves analysis of secondary data to evaluate the social consequences of resource dependency. Considerable work has been done on this question as it relates to the forest products industry, but additional work will need to be done as new data become available. Among the data to be examined are those related to migration, employment, poverty, and land-ownership patterns.

Objective 2: Identify opportunities and obstacles affecting rural development in Alabama associated with resource dependency.

Task 2.1: Identify organizations within and related to various natural resource systems and how they relate to rural development needs

Task 2.2: Evaluate the contributions of different resource users to local employment, tax receipts, and other forms of support for rural development

Task 2.3: Identify rural development opportunities within the different resource systems

Task 2.4: Identify common interests in rural development within the community of natural resource users and an appropriate mechanism to bring these interests together to promote rural development

Task 2.1 involves developing an inventory of private firms and public agencies within particular natural resource systems. For example, in forestry there are a dozen or so major corporate actors as well as the Alabama Forestry Association, which represents many of the smaller firms in this industry. There are a number of organizations that represent forest landowners (ALFA, Treasure Foresters) as well as state agencies (Alabama Forestry Commission, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs) concerned with forestry and rural development. The Alabama Cooperative Extension System, and in particular the Community Resource Development Unit, needs to be included.

Similar inventories need to be developed for other natural resource systems in Alabama. The intent is not only to develop a list of interested actors, but to document what actions they have taken to promote, obstruct, or even think about the rural development consequences of resource use.

Task 2.2 will involve collection of both primary and secondary data. Employment data are available through the U.S. Census Bureau and the Alabama Department of Labor Relations. Tax receipts will involve primary data collected at the county level as well as the Alabama Department of Revenue. Additional primary data may involve voluntary contributions to public schools or other public activities that promote rural development. The functioning of local labor markets will be evaluated to determine whether dualistic tendencies (one group of workers in >core= jobs with good wages, benefits, and job security while other workers in >secondary > jobs have low wages, no benefits, and lack job security) exist.

Task 2.3 will involve an assessment of secondary manufacturing opportunities, small-scale harvesting and processing activities, or other resource based activities that may contribute to enhanced income and organizational capacity. In the forestry sector, owners of small wood lots often have no market for their timber because highly mechanized logging operations are geared towards larger holdings to supply large industrial consumers of fiber (e.g., pulp and paper mills). There may well be alternatives available for small-scale logging and wood processing that will lead to niche markets. Success in this arena will take entrepreneurial, technical, and organizational developments. There may also be opportunities for secondary processing of agricultural or other products which increase the value-added of basic commodities. Resource dependent regions often export raw materials and gain little from further processing activities.

Opportunities will be identified by investigating cases where such economic alternatives successfully operate, as well as through interactions with colleagues in other disciplines (e.g., wood products, harvesting technologies, food processing, agricultural marketing).

Task 2.4 will identify the organizational resources that might be available to focus attention on the needs of resource dependent communities and counties. In our market-based economy, individual economic actors engage in a competitive struggle. If one company pays higher taxes, higher wages, or devotes greater attention to promoting rural development, that company might find itself at a competitive disadvantage. Based on my experience talking with leaders within the forest products sector, they know that serious needs exist in those areas where they operate. I believe there is a willingness on the part of the industry, acting together, to contribute to improving local conditions. But this will require a collective action by industry. How this potential can be made into reality is the question to be addressed here. This is where research meets outreach. My intent is to engage in discussions with industry associations, interested industry leaders, and leaders within ADECA as well as the Community Resource Development unit with the Alabama Cooperative Extension System.

Schedule

Activity FY 04 FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08

Task 1.1: Literature review xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Task 1.2: Alternative measures XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Task 1.3: Social consequences XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Task 2.1: Identify organizations xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Task 2.2: Evaluate contributions XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Task 2.3: Identify opportunities XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Task 2.4: Promote development XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

XXXX = major effort

xxxxx = secondary effort

Estimated Costs

FY 04

FY 05

FY 06

FY 07

FY 08

A. Salaries and Wages^{^[1]}

1. Principal Investigator (0.6)

55452

58225

61136

64193

67402

2. Graduate Research Assistants (3@)

36000

37800

39690

41675

43758

B. Fringe

1. Principal Investigator @ 0.22

12199

12810

13450

14122

14828

2. GRA @ 0.0765

2754

2892

3036

3188

3347

C. Equipment and Maintenance

1. Computers

3000

D. Materials and Supplies

500

E. Travel

1. Vehicle 2000 miles @ $0.36/mi

720

2. Per diem 20 days @ $70/day

1400

3. Travel to conferences (4 @ $850)

3400

F. Publication costs 40 pages @$20

800

G. Other Departmental charges

1. Telephone

500

2. Photocopying

460

3. Postage

150

4. Office supplies

280

H. Total Estimated Costs

117615

119937

128522

131388

140545

I. Estimated support from contracts and grants (NRI, USDA-Forest Service, Foundations)

50000

TOTAL ESTIMATED COSTS FOR THE PROJECT PERIOD

638007

ESTIMATED ANNUAL COSTS

127601

Responsibilities

Conner Bailey, 0.6 FTE; Responsible for Objectives 1 and 2.

Literature Cited

Bailey, Conner, John Bliss, Glenn Howze, and Larry Teeter. 1993. ADependency Theory and Timber Dependency.@ Rural Sociological Society, Orlando, Florida, August 1993.

Bailey, Conner, Peter Sinclair, John Bliss and Karni Perez. 1996. Segmented labor markets in Alabama=s pulp and paper industry.@ Rural Sociology 61(3)::474-495.

Bailey, Conner, Peter Sinclair, and Mark Dubois. In prep. Genetic Engineering in Forestry: Forecasting Social Consequences. Under review with Society and Natural Resources (revised and resubmitted).

Bliss, John C. and Conner Bailey. In press. Pulp, Paper, and Poverty: Forest-based Rural Development in Alabama, 1950-2000. Robert Lee, Donald Field, and William Burch (eds.), Forestry and Community.

Bliss, John C., Mary L. Sisock, and Thomas W. Birch. 1998. Ownership matters: forest ownership and economic development in rural Alabama. Society and Natural Resources 11:401-410.

Bliss, John C., Tamara Walkingstick, and Conner Bailey. 1998. ASustaining Alabama=s Forest Communities: Development or Dependency?@ Journal of Forestry 96(3):24-31.

Bliss, John, C., Glenn R. Howze, Lawrence Teeter and Conner Bailey. 1993 Forestry and poverty in Alabama=s Black Belt. Policy and Forestry: Design, Evaluation, and Spillovers. Proceedings, 1993 Southern Forest Economics Workshop, April 21-23, 1993, Durham, N.C.

Carroll, Mathew S., and Robert G. Lee. 1990. "Occupational community and identity among Pacific Northwestern loggers: implications for adapting to economic changes." In: Robert G. Lee, Donald R.

Chapman, Dan. 2003. A sinking shrimping industry; Imports eating away at Georgians' livelihood. The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, February 26, 2003 Wednesday, Home Edition, p. 1F.

Christenson, James A. and Jerry W. Robinson, Jr. 1989. Community Development in Perspective. Ames: Iowa State University Press.

Cook, Peggy J. and Karen L. Mizer. 1994. The Revised ERS County Typology. Rural Development Research Report Number 89. Washington, D.C.: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/. Accessed 1 May 2003.

Crim, Sarah. In prep. Meeting Forest Landowner Needs: Women and Minority Forest Landowners in Alabama. MS. Thesis, School of Forestry and Wildlife Sciences. Expected: May 2003.

Crim, Sarah, Mark Dubois, Conner Bailey, and John Schelhas. In prep. Characterization of Underserved Forest Landowners in Rural Alabama. Paper to be presented at the 2003 meetings of the Southern Forest Economics Workers, New Orleans, March 2003.

Field, Don R. and William R. Burch. 1991. Rural Sociology and the Environment. Middleton, Wisconsin: Social Ecology Press.

Flora, Cornelia B., Jan L. Flora, Jacqueline D. Spears, Louis E. Swanson. 1992. Rural Communities; Legacy and Change. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Fortmann, Louise and Sally K. Fairfax. 1991. "Forest Resource Policy." In: Cornelia B. Flora and James A. Christenson (eds.), Rural Policies for the 1990s. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. pp. 270‑280.

Freudenburg, William R. 1992. "Addictive Economies: Extractive Industries and Vulnerable Localities in a Changing World Economy." Rural Sociology 57(3):305‑331.

Galston, William A. and Karen J. Baehler. 1995 Rural Development in the United States; Connecting Theory, Practice, and Possibilities. Washington, D.C.: Island Press.

Gaventa, John, Barbara Ellen Smith, and Alex Willingham. 1990. Communities in Economic Crisis; Appalachia and the South. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Goldschmidt, Walter. 1947 [1978]. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness. Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun & Co. Publishers.

Hartsell, Andrew J. and Mark J. Brown. 2002. Forest Statistics for Alabama, 2000. USDA Forest Service Southern Research Station, Resource Bulletin SRS-67. Ashville, NC: Southern Research Station.

Howze, Glenn, Conner Bailey, and John Bliss. 1994. "The Development of timber dependency: An analysis of historical changes in the demographic, social, economic and agricultural profiles of timber dependent counties in Alabama.@ Paper presented at the 1994 meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, Portland, Oregon, August 1994.

Joshi, Mahendra L.. 1997. Industrial Recruitment Policy and Rural Development: A Case Study of Pulp and Paper Industry in Alabama. Ph.D. Dissertation, School of Forestry, Auburn University.

Joshi, Mahendra L., John C. Bliss, Conner Bailey, Larry J. Teeter, and Keith J. Ward. 2000. Investing in Industry, Under-investing in Human Capital: Forest-based development in Alabama. Society & Natural Resources 13(5):291-319.

Korsching, Peter and Judith Gildner (eds.). 1986. Interdependencies of Agriculture and Rural Communities in the Twenty‑First Century: The North Central Region. Ames, Iowa: North Central Regional Center for Rural Development, Iowa State University.

Lee, Larry and Joe A. Sumners. 2003. Beyond the Interstate: The Crisis in Rural Alabama. Auburn: Economic Development Institute, Auburn University.

Lee, Robert G., Donald R. Field, and William R. Burch, Jr. 1990. Community and Forestry; Continuities in the Sociology of Natural Resources. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

Lupo, Crystal. 2003. Labor Markets and Occupational Communities: Case Studies from Alabama=s Pulp and Paper Industry. M.Sc. Thesis, Interdepartmental Graduate Program in Sociology, Auburn University.

Machlis, Gary E., and Jo Ellen Force. 1988. "Community stability and timber‑dependent communities." Rural Sociology 53(2):220‑234.

Machlis, Gary E., Jo Ellen Force, and Randy Guy Balice. 1990. "Timber, Minerals, and Social Change: An Exploratory Test of Two Resource‑Dependent Communities. Rural Sociology 55(3):411‑424.

Marchak, Patricia. 1991. "For Whom the Tree Falls: Restructuring of the Global Forest Industry." BC Studies 90:3‑24.

Margavio, Anthony V., Craig J. Forsyth, Shirley Laska, and James Mason. 1994. Shrimpers, Conservationists, and Coastal Development: A Case for Dependency Theory. Sociological Spectrum 14:1-23.

Molotch, H. 1976. "The City as a Growth Machine." American Journal of Sociology 88 (September): 309‑330.

Northrup, Herbert R. 1970. The Negro in the Paper Industry: The Racial Policies of American Industry. No. 9. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Norton, Joni Fisher. 2001. Social Capital, Economic Diversity and Timber Dependency in Rural West Alabama. M.Sc. thesis in Rural Sociology, Auburn University.

PARCA (Public Affairs Research Council). 2001. How Alabama=s Taxes Compare. The PARCA Report, Number 42. Birmingham: Public Affairs Research Council, Samford University.

Peluso, N.L., C.R. Humphrey, and L.P. Fortmann. 1994. The Rock, the Beach, and the Tide Pool: People and Poverty in Natural Resource-Dependent Areas. Society and Natural Resources 7:23-38.

Perez, Karni R. 2003. A History of Alabama=s Catfish Industry. Manuscript under review with the University of Alabama Press.

Rappaport, Stephen. 2002. Trade war escalates; US catfish farmers file antidumping petition. Fish Farming News 10, pages 1 and 14.

Rivera, Felix G. and John L. Erlich. 1998. Community Organizing in A Diverse Society. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Robinson, Laura, Glenn Howze, and Joni Fisher Norton. In Press. Historical Analysis of Timber Dependency in Alabama. Southern Rural Sociology. Forthcoming.

Rosson, J.F., Jr., and L. Doolittle. 1987. Profiles of Midsouth nonindustrial private forests and owners. Resource Bulletin SO‑125. New Orleans, LA: USDA Forest Service, So. Forest Exp. Sta. 39 pp.

Sedjo, Roger A. 1999. Biotechnology and Planted Forests: Assessment of Potential and Possibilities. Discussion Paper 00-06, December 1999. Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future.

Sinclair, Peter, Conner Bailey and Mark R. Dubois. In press. One Engineer and a Dog: Systemic Changes in Alabama=s Pulp and Paper Industry. Southern Rural Sociology. In press.

Sisock, M. 1998. Unequal Shares: Forestland Concentration and Well-being in Rural Alabama. Unpublished M.S. thesis, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 87 p.

Summers, Gene F. 1986. Rural community development. Annual Review of Sociology 12:347-71.

Schwarzweller, Harry K. 1984. Research in Rural Sociology and Development; A Research Annual, Focus on Agriculture. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. 1993. Persistent Poverty in Rural America. Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

USDA. 2002. Measuring rurality: county typology codes. Economic Research Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Rurality/Typology/. Accessed 1 May 2003.

West, Patrick. 1994. Natural Resources and the Persistence of Rural Poverty in America: A Weberian Perspective on the Role of Power, Domination, and Natural Resource Dependency. Society and Natural Resources 7:415-427.

West, Patrick C. 1982. Natural Resource Bureaucracy and Rural Poverty; A Study in the Political Sociology of Natural Resources. Ann Arbor: Natural Resource Sociology Research Lab Monograph # 2, University of Michigan.

Walkingstick, T. L. 1996. Pulpwood, Dinettes, and Doublewides: Comparative Case Studies of Forest Dependency in Alabama. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama. 256 p.

Wimberley, Ronald C. and Libby V. Morris. 1996. The Reference Book on Regional Well-being: U.S. Regions, the Black Belt, Appalachia . Starkville: Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State University.

Zabawa, Robert, Aurthur Siaway, and Ntam Baharanyi. 1990. The Decline of Black Farmers and Strategies for Survival. Southern Rural Sociology 7:106-121.

Zabawa, R. 1995. And the Devil got Alabama and Georgia: Black Land Ownership in the South. Paper presented at the conference AWho Owns America? Land and Resource Tenure Issues in a Changing Environment,@ Land Tenure Center, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, 21-24 June 1995.

^{^[1]} Assumes average of 5% salary increase for PI, GRA, and fringe.