Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-15T12:59:24.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Effects of Industrialization on Farm Income Distribution and Farm Numbers in New England

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 May 2017

A. Somwaru
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268
T. C. Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268
S. K. Seaver
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, The University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06268
Get access

Abstract

Affected by industrialization, agriculture in New England adapts to economic changes. Farms have become either large commercial units or small part time farms. Distributions of farm income have changed from an inverted-J distribution to a U-shaped distribution in the past three decades. Farm income grows slower and shows a larger dispersion in urban counties than in rural counties. Analyses of census data support the hypotheses (1) that farm income is lognormally distributed and (2) that industrialization has a complementary effect on agriculture while growth of urbanization essentially reduces farm numbers mostly in middle income classes.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Scientific Contribution No. 888. Connecticut (Storrs) Agricultural Experiment Station.

References

Aitchison, J. and Brown, J. A. C., The Lognormal Distribution, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1969.Google Scholar
Bogue, D. and Harris, D., Comparative Population and Urban Research Via Multiple Regression and Covariance Analysis, Scripps Foundation for Research in Population Problem, Miami University and Population Research and Training Center, University of Chicago, 1958.Google Scholar
Eisner, G. and Hoch, I., “Analysis of California Farm Income Relationships,” Giannini Foundation Research Report, No. 297, August 1968.Google Scholar
Kingsley, D. and Hertz (Golden), H., “Urbanization and the Development of Pre-Industrial Areas,” Economic Development and Cultural Changes, October 1954, p. 8.Google Scholar
McDonald, J. B. and Ranson, M. R., “Functional Forms, Estimation Techniques and the Distribution of Income,” Econometrica, 47 (1979): 15131526.Google Scholar
Nicholls, W. H., “Industrialization, Factor Markets, and Agricultural Development,” The Journal of Political Economy, LXIX (1961): 319340.Google Scholar
Ruttan, V. W., “The Impact of Urban-Industrial Development on Agriculture in Tennessee Valley and the Southeast,” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 37 (1955): 3856.Google Scholar
Sale, T., “Interstate Analysis of the Size Distribution of Family Income, 1950–1970,” Southern Economic Journal, 40 (1974): 434441.Google Scholar
Salem, A. B. Q. and Mount, T. D., “A Convenient Descriptive Model of Income Distribution: The Gamma Density,” Econometrica, 42 (1974): 11151127.Google Scholar
Schriore, L., “The Statistical Measurement of Urbanization and Economic Development,” Land Economics, 37 (1967): 229.Google Scholar
Sinclair, L. S., “Urbanization and the Incomes of Farm and Nonfarm Families in the South,” Journal of Farm Economics, 39 (1957): 510516.Google Scholar
Sisler, D. G., “Impact of Urban-Industrial Development in Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, 41 (1959): 11001112.Google Scholar
Tang, A. M., “Economic Development and Changıng Consequencies of Race Discrimination in Southern Agriculture,” Journal of Farm Economics, 41 (1959): 11131126.Google Scholar
Thurow, L. C., “Analyzing the American Income Distribution,” American Economic Review, 60 (1970): 261269.Google Scholar