ing it was Lincoln County with 88.9 percent. The remaining counties were distributed as follows by proportion of farms where value of production sold or traded was less than $2,500: Between 80 and 90 percent, 8; between 70 and 80 percent, 19; between 60 and 70 percent 26; between 50 and 60 percent, 30; between 40 and 50 percent, 24; and under 40 percent 25 (table II). 5. Percentage of farms with electricty.-In the United States 93 percent of the farms had electricity. Georgia as a whole was nearly up to that level with 92 percent, thanks to the TVA. The unweighted county average of these 134 counties was 90.4 percent. There were 2 counties with under 70 percent of their farms having electricity, 14 with 70 to 80 percent, 29 with 80 to 90 percent, and 89 counties with 90 percent or over. 6. Percentage of farms with telephones.-The low proportion of farms with telephones is indicative of the low standards of living. While the U.S. average is 48.8 percent, the average for Georgia is 22.1 percent and the unweighted average for these 134 counties was 18.4 percent. The highest percentage of farms with telephones was in Dougherty County with 45.9 percent. The distribution of the remaining counties was as follows: counties with more than 30 percent of farms with telephones, 20; with 20 to 30 percent, 29; with 10 to 20 percent, 51; with less than 10 percent, 33. 7. Percentage of farms with automobiles.-Automobile ownership adds considerably to the standard of living, as it opens new horizons not otherwise within reach. Of course, if income is inadequate to maintain and operate the automobile, it is of little use but the proportion of automobile ownership is a general indication of living standards. Department of Agriculture declares that "farm families with automobiles are more likely to be able to take advantage of various services located away from the farm, such as health facilities, libraries, and recreation, than those who do not own automobiles." The proportion of farms with automobiles in the United States was 88.9 percent whereas in the State of Georgia the ratio was 57.8 percent, and the unweighted average among these 134 counties was 55 percent. The counties were distributed as follows as to the percentage with automobiles: in 43 counties 60 percent or more of the farms had automobiles; 48 counties had 50 to 60 percent; 33 counties had 40 to 50 percent; 9 counties with 30 to 40 percent, and 1 county had less than 30 percent. Charlton County had the lowest percentage with 28.3. 8. Percentage of outmigration.—The population of the United States increased by 13 percent between 1950 and 1957. In Georgia the increase was 8.5 percent during this period. Only 32 counties among the 134 recorded a rise in population. The remaining 102 lost population due to outmigration. The percentage decline in population among these was as follows: 34 counties showed a less than 5 percent drop; 27 counties, a 5 to 10 percent drop; and 41 counties, a 10 to 20 percent drop. The county with the highest drop in population was Dawson County, with 19.2 percent. II. LOW-INCOME CLASSIFICATION The area redevelopment bill provides that aid is to be given to 300 rural counties with "the largest number and percent of low income farm families" and where there exists "substantial and persistent unemployment." In order to select the counties and economic areas which should secure immediate attention, one approach suggested is to list the counties in the United States with the lowest levels of living, obtain a second list of those with the highest percentages of farms earning less than $2,500 on products sold or traded, and to focus on those counties which appear on both lists. A list of 500 counties in the first category and another list of 500 in the second category was developed and from these was derived a list of 315 counties which met both of these conditions. In the above list for the United States, 15 counties of the 134 under consideration are to be found. The disproportionately high ratio of such counties meeting this test of priority provides a measure of the great need in this State. III. BASIC CAUSES OF SUBSTANDARD LIVING STANDARDS Depressed living conditions in the very small labor market and rural areas are the result of insufficient land and capital, the improper choice of farm product and the absence of adequate off-farm employment opportunities. To promote the economy of such an area it is necessary to redesign it in order to assure a base for further development. The above conditions themselves handicap the area in dealing with its own problems, because the population is without the wealth and experience and resources on which to build a sound economy. IV. EFFORTS AT AIDING SUBSTANDARD AREAS A. Federal rural development program The rural development program is a long-range cooperative effort built around local efforts and Federal technical aid for substandard counties. The program was initiated in June 1955. The primary responsibility for coordinating the efforts rests with the Department of Agriculture. At present only four Georgia areas are being assisted. They are Meriwether, Twiggs, Habersham, and Wayne. The program emphasizes the need of improving the economic base of low income rural counties by increasing productivity of low income farmers in commercial agriculture, increasing the productivity and prospects of nonfarm jobs by encouraging new industry in these rural areas, and raising the social and economic standards within the area. This Federal program enjoys limited funds and depends primarily on voluntary effort. It cannot provide the extensive technical assistance required for the thorough economic study of rural areas leading to redevelopment. It can provide no funds for the construction of new local public facilities or for the construction of industrial plants if such may be required in order to stimulate industrial development. B. State and local programs We have already indicated the limited nature of State and local efforts in Georgia and the difficulty of expecting sufficient expansion in the light of the limited resources of this State. V. CONCLUSION The population of the very small labor markets and rural areas in Georgia is not sharing in the benefits of our economy. Their economic development has hardly begun. Beset by the discouragements, the shackles of poverty and low living standards, the people cannot be expected to rise through their own efforts. The present programs are inadequate. Average per capita income in Georgia is not rising at the same rate as in the remainder of the country and is held back by the absence of a sound base for economic expansion and by its low income. Both urban and rural areas are handicapped by these conditions. The Federal Government can provide the assistance which will stimulate this area to attain the prevailing American levels of economic well-being. TABLE I-Population, nonagricultural_employment and per capita income in 134 low-income rural counties in Georgia TABLE I.-Population, nonagricultural employment and per capita income in 134 low-income rural counties in Georgia-Continued 1 Employees covered by Georgia Employment Security Law, September 1957, related to population as of Jan. 1, 1957. Sources: Population-U.S. Bureau of the Census and "Survey of Buying Power," Sales Management; "Nonagricultural Employment," Georgia Department of Labor. Income "Survey of Buying Power,' Sales Management. |