The Loss and Persistence of Black-Owned Farms and Farmland: A Review of the Research Literature and Its Implications *
A method of forming an improved planarization mask for shallow trench isolation process area in integrated circuit manufacturing is disclosed. The planarization mask is generated automatically by using actual mask data as a reference. The invention discloses an algorithm which measures the geometric and relative separation distances of the active areas and performs the necessary merging, deletion and differential biasing to produce the planarization mask which has relaxed geometric boundaries, thereby allowing low cost and simplified manufacturing.
Structural changes in U.S. agriculture: Implications for African American farmers
Structural changes in U.S. agriculture, influenced by technological and institutional forces, have altered the economic and social characteristics of rural America, especially that segment of rural America populated by farmers and their families. Changes in the structure of agriculture have greater implications for small scale farmers, many of whom are African American, in that strategic options for their farm-firms are constrained to: increasing their farm size, exiting farming, and obtaining off-farm employment to survive. This article presents a rationale for public support of limited resource farmers, identifies structural trends in U.S. agriculture and their impacts on African American farmers, discusses economic problems unique to these farmers, and recommends needs for specific public policies and development programs.
Socioeconomic Differences Between White and Nonwhite Farm Populations of the South
Data from the Censuses of Agriculture and Censuses of Population and Housing are used to compare the socioeconomic status of the white and nonwhite farm population of 14 southern states in 1950 and 1960. The farm operator level-of-living index, and measures of income, educational attainment, and housing are used as indicators of socioeconomic status. Each indicator shows an improvement for both whites and nonwhites over the decade, but also shows that socioeconomic differences between whites and nonwhites had widened over the period. nalyses of socioeconomic status (SES) in the United States almost invariably show substantial differences between whites and non-whites regardless of the populations considered-rural or urban, farm or nonfarm, North or South. Compared with the white population, the nonwhite has lower income, fewer years of schooling, poorer housing, and a labor force disproportionately concentrated amolng lower status occupations and among the unemployed or underemployed. In general, white-nolnwhite differences in SES are greatest in the farm segment of the rural population and in the South.' X The views expressed are those oI the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Agriculture. 1 For recent data on socioeconomic characteristics by color and residence, see, for example: U. S. Bureau of the Census, U. S. Census of Popuilation: 1960, General Social and Econtomic Characteristics, United States Sutmmary, Final Report PC(1)-IC (Washington, D. C.: 1962), tables 76, 88, and 95. For a brief description of the current status and changes in the position of the Negro, see U. S. Department of Labor, The Economic Situation of Negroes in the United States, Bulletin S-3, Revised 1962 (Washington, D. C.: 1962); and Marion Hayes, "A Century of Change: Negroes in the U. S. Economy, (1860-1960)," This content downloaded from 207.46.13.64 on Sat, 03 Sep 2016 04:17:12 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms WHITE-NONVWHITE SOCIOECONOMIC DIFFERENCES 355 The very existence of white-nonwhite differences in SES raises the question of whether these differences have narrowed, widened, or remainied relatively stable in recent years. In view of the sociological relevance of the question and the widely-voiced concern that substantial segments of the population are characterized by low income, low levels of educational attainment, and high rates of unemployment and underemployment, it is curious that so little recently published work has included systematic analyses of the very segments of the population in which the problems are most apparent.2 Our purpose here is to analyze white-nonwhite differences in SES within the farm population of the South and to determine the changes that occurred between 1950 and 1960. SOURCES OF DATA AND METHODS OF COMPARISON The measures of SES discussed below are derived from three sources-the Census of Agriculture for 1950 and 1959 and the Census of Population and of Housing for 1950 and 1960-and are limited to the southern states in which there were at least 500 nonwhite farm operators in 1959. Data from the Agricultural Census refer to farmn operators, regardless of place of residence, whereas data from the Population and Housing Censuses relate to rural-farm residents, regardless of labor force status or principal occupation. The nonsymmetrical relationship between "farm operator" and "rural-farm resident" means that the data do not refer to completely identical populations, but the great majority of persons are identical. We use "farm population" in a broad sense to refer to farm operators and to rural-farm residents.3 The indicators of SES are: (1) the farm operator level-of-living index (1950 and 1959); M onthly Labor Reviezw (December 1962), 13591365. Comparative data on urban and rural areas for 1950 are detailed in Otis Dudley Duncan and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Social Characteristics of Urban and Rural Commun ities, 1950 (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1956). For earlier discussions, see Arthur F. Raper, "Rural Social Differentials," in Rural Life in the United States, edited by Carl C. Taylor, et al. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1952), pp. 309-326, and Edgar A. Schuler and Walter C. McKain, Jr., "Levels and Standards of Living," in Carl C. Taylor, ibid., pp. 295308. 2 Rural sociologists might be expected to pursue these questions, but an admittedly incomplete review of recent books suggests that research on socioeconomic differentials within the farm population has not been a leading interest in the field. See, for example, the limited discussions in: Walter L. Slocum, Agricultural Sociology (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1962), pp. 150-168 and Alvin L. Bertrand, Rural Sociology (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1958), pp. 127-141. White-nonwhite differences in levels of living are not included in George L. Wilber's discussion of changes in levels of living in Rural Land Tenture in the United States, edited by Alvin L. Bertrand and Floyd L. Corty (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1962), pp. 240-242; and only brief mention is made of white-nonwhite differences in tenure status in the South by James D. Tarver, in Bertrand and Corty ibid., pp. 253-5. The status of the Negro population is briefly mentioned in Everett M. Rogers, Social Change in Rural Society (New York: Appleton-Century Crofts, Inc., 1962), pp. 374 and 466. We are not aware of any recent discussion in rural sociology comparable in scope with that in Gunnar Myrdal, An Amierican Dildemnma (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1944), Chs. 11 and 12, pp. 230-278. a The most important limitation of the comparisons between 1950 and 1959-60 results from changes in the definition of a "farm" and of "farm residence." The effect of the change in definition was to reduce the number of southern farm operators by eight percent in 1959 and lower the count of southern rural-farm residents by a fourth in 1960. For a discussion of the change in definition, see: "Effect of Definition Changes on Size and Composition of the Rural-Farm Population: April 1960 and 1959." Farm Population, Series Census-AMS (P-27), No. 28, April 17, 1961. It was not possible to adjust published data to account for the changes in definition. In general, the people removed from the farm operator and farm population data by the changes in definition had little or no dependence on agricultuire, but were of average or above-average SES. Inadequacies in the measures of SES are equally important, e.g., current income is not necessarily a full indication of economic position; the level-of-living index is only a partial measure of level of living in its broader connotations; and years of school completed says nothing about the quality of the schooling received. We are fully aware of these limitations, but believe that the data do yield valid restilts. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.64 on Sat, 03 Sep 2016 04:17:12 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms