• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Foreword
 Table of Contents
 List of Tables
 List of Figures
 Part I. General setting
 Part II. Major economic activi...
 Part III. Other influencing...
 Part IV. Summary and implicati...
 Reference














Title: changing economic structure of North and West Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00027783/00001
 Material Information
Title: changing economic structure of North and West Florida
Series Title: changing economic structure of North and West Florida
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Tyner, Fred H.
Publisher: University of Florida Agricultural Experiment Station
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00027783
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: ltuf - AHP0255
oclc - 00820906
alephbibnum - 001615814

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Front Cover 1
        Front Cover 2
    Foreword
        Page i
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    List of Tables
        Page v
        Page vi
    List of Figures
        Page vii
    Part I. General setting
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
    Part II. Major economic activities
        Page 22
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
        Page 57
        Page 58
        Page 59
        Page 60
        Page 61
        Page 62
        Page 63
        Page 64
        Page 65
        Page 66
        Page 67
    Part III. Other influencing factors
        Page 68
        Page 69
        Page 70
        Page 71
        Page 72
        Page 73
        Page 74
        Page 75
        Page 76
        Page 77
        Page 78
        Page 79
        Page 80
        Page 81
        Page 82
        Page 83
        Page 84
        Page 85
        Page 86
        Page 87
        Page 88
        Page 89
        Page 90
        Page 91
        Page 92
        Page 93
        Page 94
        Page 95
    Part IV. Summary and implications
        Page 96
        Page 97
        Page 98
        Page 99
        Page 100
        Page 101
        Page 102
        Page 103
        Page 104
        Page 105
    Reference
        Page 106
        Page 107
Full Text
3 ^ -7-^ <~-
March 1971
-i, I 7


Ag. Econ. Report 17


The Changing Economic Structure

Of North And West Florida


HUME LIBRARY

JUL 15 1uQ


JUFJ S. Ui

[Fl-,: S -U- .- ~ ~vl


Department of Agricultural Economics
Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
University of Florida, Gainesville


Fred H. Tyner


-e~-L L-PP-~IL~- CI








FOREWORD

The general objective of this report is to provide information on

recent changes in the economic structure of 29 counties in North and West

Florida. Particular emphasis is given to the types of data and questions

that must be considered in conscious planning for economic development.

Careful examination of recent changes in resources and types and levels

of economic activity reflects trends that may be expected to continue into

the future, influencing the economic and social well-being of the area's

residents. Concerned officials and informal and formal development agencies

should critically evaluate the area's opportunities and needs. As a pre-

liminary study on the growth problems of North and West Florida, this

report is intended to stimulate such critical appraisal by comparison of

changes among study-area counties in contrast to the Florida counties out-

side the study area.

Conclusions drawn and hypotheses developed in this report should

serve to guide further and more definitive exploration into the problems

of this and other underdeveloped rural areas.








ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Special appreciation is due Drs. B. R. Eddleman, J. E. Reynolds,

and W. W. McPherson for their critical review of earlier drafts of this

manuscript. Their penetrating questions and constructive suggestions

have been invaluable.

Mr. W. D. Ricker was responsible for assimilation of much of the

data presented in this report. Mrs. Shirley Haulman typed the original

versions of the manuscript and Miss Susan Farberow typed the final draft.

The author is also indebted to various other members of the Department

of Agricultural Economics for ideas garnered from formal and informal dis-

cussions of economic development needs in the study area. In this light,

the contributions of Dr. C. C. Moxley, Dr. K. R. Tefertiller, and Mr. Carl

Farler deserve acknowledgement.









CONTENTS Page

FOREWORD ......................................................... i

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................. ii

LIST OF TABLES ................................................... v

LIST OF FIGURES .................................................. vii


Part I: GENERAL SETTING

I-A INTRODUCTION ............................................. 1

The Problem and The Study Area ...................... 3

Procedure ........................................... 7

I-B POPULATION, INCOME, AND EMPLOYMENT ....................... 9

Population .......................................... 9

Income .............................................. 11

Family Incomes ................................. 11

Personal Income Per Capita .................... 13

Income from Production by Source ............... 13

Employment ......................................... 19


Part II: MAJOR ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

II-A AGRICULTURE .............................................. 22

Farm Numbers and Size ................ ............... 23

Farm Numbers by Type ........................ .. 26

Economic Classification of Farms ............... 31

Value of Farm Products Sold ......................... 35

Changing Capital Requirements ...................... 36

Employment .......................................... 38









II-B MANUFACTURING ............................................ 42

Shifts in Type of Manufacturing Activity ............ 43

New Plants and Jobs ................................. 52

Capital-Labor Ratios ................................ 55

Employment and Payrolls ............................. 59

II-C TRADE AND SERVICES ....................................... 61

Retail Trade ........................................ 63

Wholesale Trade ..................................... 63

Services ............................................ 66


Part III: OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS

III-A COUNTY GOVERNMENT ........................................ 69

Tax Structure ....................................... 69

Revenue ............................................. 71

Expenditures ........................................ 75

III-B EDUCATION ................................................ 80

Education Funds and Expenditures .................... 82

III-C FOREST RESOURCES ......................................... 83

III-D RECREATION AND TOURISM ................................... 94


Part IV: SUMMARY AND IMPLICATIONS

IV-A CURRENT STATUS AND PROSPECTS ............................ 96

IV-B NEEDED RESEARCH .......................................... 104

IV-C CONCLUDING STATEMENT ..................................... 105


LIST OF REFERENCES ............................................... 106








LIST OF TABLES Page

1. Population, study area counties, 1950, 1960, and 1967 ........ 10

2. Families with incomes below $3,000, study area counties, 1959 12

3. Personal income per capital and rank in state, study area
counties, 1960 and 1967 ................................. 14

4. Total personal income received by civilians for participation
in production and percentage distribution by major source,
study area counties, 1960 ............................... 15

5. Total personal income received by civilians for participation
in production and percentage distribution by major source,
study area counties, 1967 ............................... 17

6. Civilian labor force and non-agricultural employment, 1963
and 1967 (March) ........................................ 20

7. Changes in number of farms and land in farms, study area
counties, 1959-1964 ..................................... 24

8. Changes in cropland harvested, study area counties, 1959-1964 27

9. Number of "field crop" farms, study area counties, 1959 and
1964 .................................................... 28

10. Number of vegetable, fruit-nut, general, and miscellaneous
farms, study area counties, 1959-1964 ................... 29

11. Number of livestock, dairy, and poultry farms, study area
counties, 1959-1964 ..................................... 30

12. Number of commercial farms by economic class, study area
counties, 1959 and 1964 ................................. 33

13. Number of part-time, part-retirement, and commercial farms,
study area counties, 1959-1964 .......................... 34

14. Percentage change in commercial farms by economic class,
study area and rest of state, 1959 and 1964 ............. 35

15. Value of farm products sold, study area counties, 1959 and
1964 .................................................... 37

16. Average value of farm land and buildings, study area counties,
1959 and 1964 ........................................... 39








17. Farm labor, study area counties, 1959 and 1964 ............... 40

18. Change in employment by major manufacturing industry, United
States, 1950-1960 ....................................... 44

19. Manufacturing: Experienced civilian labor force and employment
by industry, Florida, 1950 and 1960 ..................... 46

20. Changes in experienced labor force and employment by selected
manufacturing industries, Florida, 1950-1960 ............ 47

21. Manufacturing plants with twenty or more employees, by
industry classification, study area counties, 1958 ...... 48

22. Manufacturing plants with twenty or more employees, by
industry classification, study area counties, 1963 ...... 50

23. Florida's new and expanded industrial plants, study area
counties, 1960-1967 ..................................... 53

24. Expected number of employees in new plants and expansions,
study area counties, 1960-1967 .......................... 54

25. Capital expenditures for new plants and expansion, study
area counties, 1958 and 1963 ............................ 57

26. Ratios of capital expenditures to new jobs, study area
counties, 1958 and 1963 ........................... ...... 58

27. Employment and payrolls of manufacturing workers covered
by Florida Unemployment Compensation Law, study area
counties, 1960 and 1967 ................................. 60

28. Employment and payrolls of wholesale and retail trade workers
covered by Florida Unemployment Compensation Law, study
area counties, 1960 and 1967 ............................ 62

29. Number of retail trade establishments and total sales, study
area counties, 1958 and 1963 ............................ 64

30. Number of wholesale trade establishments and total sales,
study area counties, 1958 and 1963 ...................... 65

31. Number of selected services establishments and receipts,
study area counties, 1958 and 1963 ...................... 67

32. Tax millages, taxes assessed, and value of all property, study
area counties, 1960 ..................................... 70

33. Tax millages, taxes assessed, and value of all property, study
area counties, 1968 ..................................... 72








34. County government receipts by source, study area counties,
1960 fiscal year ........................................ 73

35. County government receipts by source, study area counties,
1967 fiscal year ........................................ 74

36. County government expenditures by function, study area
counties, fiscal 1960 (September) ...................... 76

37. County government expenditures by function, study area
counties, fiscal 1967 (September) ....................... 77

38. Per capital expenditures of county governments by selected
function, study area and rest of Florida, 1960 and 1967 79

39. Education indicators, persons 25 years old and over, study
area counties, 1950 and 1960 ............................ 81

40. Receipts of educational funds from Federal and State sources,
study area counties (fiscal 1967-68) .................... 84

41. Expenditures of educational funds for current expenses, study
area counties, 1959-60 and 1966-67 ...................... 85

42. Total land, forest land, and commercial forest land, study
area counties, 1959 .... ................................ 88

43. Total land, forest land, and commercial forest land, study
area counties, 1969 ..................................... 89

44. Net volume of sawtimber by county and species group, study
area counties, 1959 and 1969 ............................. 91

45. Ownership of commercial forest land, study area counties, 1959 92

46. Ownership of commercial forest land, study area counties, 1970 93

47. Total employment and estimated components of employment change,
Florida, 1950 and 1960 ................................. 99


LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. The North and West Florida Study Area .................. 4

Figure 2. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Cities of

25,000 and More Population, Florida, 1965 .............. 5













THE CHANGING ECONOMIC STRUCTURE OF NORTH AND WEST FLORIDA


Fred H. Tyner*

Part I: GENERAL SETTING

I-A INTRODUCTION


To describe the economic structure of an area is to specify the

environment within which economic activity takes place--the manner in

which the parts of the economic system are related to one another and

to the whole. Webster defines structure as "a manner of building, form,

construction, the interrelation of parts as dominated by the general

character of the whole--as the structure of society." In a more technical

sense, economic structure is "the parameters describing the organization

of economic activity" in an area. In considering the economic structure

of an area we want to know how resources are organized for production

and how incomes or rewards are distributed among the factors of production

and the people involved. We want to know the numbers of people involved,

their characteristics and capabilities, their incomes, and their oppor-

tunities--as defined by the economic structure.

The structure of an area is a dynamic concept, changing from one

point in time to the next. Because the structure determines the availa-

bility of economic opportunities, we need to know how the structure

changes and how it affects the quantity and quality of resources over




*Associate Professor of Agricultural Economics and Associate
Agricultural Economist, Florida Agricultural Experiment Stations,
University of Florida.










time. If we understand more of the nature of the structure then plans

may be implemented to aid desirable changes and forestall undesirable

change.
1/
The concept of economic growth- is at the root of our interest in

economic structure. Economic growth implies an improvement in the way

people work and live. As a goal, "economic growth" has almost universal

acceptance. Attempts at measuring growth or expressing precisely what

is meant by the term leads, however, to a diversity of opinion.

Useful measures of economic growth may be made in terms of "welfare"

and in terms of "volume." Sustained increases in the level of real per

capital income (welfare measure) denote that the people of the specified

area are experiencing an enhancement of their economic well-being. Volume

measures such as population, employment, and total income may reflect the

same phenomenon as the welfare measure but they are not as reliable--

sometimes obscuring the basic facts of individual and family welfare.

All measures of monetary change presented in this report are in

terms of current dollars. Economic growth, however, can only be measured

in "real" terms; i.e., with adjustments made for changing price levels.

The use of current dollars in this study reflects the nature of comparisons

to be made. Our objective focuses more on examining the nature of resources

and the institutional setting as they bear on the potential for economic

growth rather than on measuring changes in economic welfare. Also, the




1/
The concept of economic growth relates to increases in welfare--
usually measured in terms of real per capital income. Economic development
refers to the process of achieving economic growth--conditions causing
changes in the quantity of resources to be distributed and the production
coefficients of these resources.









aggregative nature of indices for converting current dollars to

dollars to constant purchasing power precludes more precise distinc-

tion of changes in economic welfare at the county level. Rankings

among counties would be the same as found by converting to crude

measures of current dollars.

This study will attempt to portray the recent changes in economic

structure in the study area in terms of both welfare and volume criteria.

Other factors, because of their importance in economic development, will

be discussed briefly in an attempt to provide a more complete picture.


The Problem and the Study Area

The area selected for study is the 29 county area of North and

West Florida composed of Levy, Alachua, Bradford, Union, and Baker

and the counties west of those named. Figure 1 shows the geographic

location of the study area.

In 1965 the study area contained two standard metropolitan statis-

tical areas (SMSA's): Pensacola (composed of Escambia and Santa Rosa

Counties), and Tallahassee (Leon County). Population estimates indicated

that there were only two additional cities with more than 25,000 persons.

These were Panama City (Bay County) and Gainesville (Alachua County). No

city in the study area exceed 100,000 population. Figure 2 shows the loca-

tions of SMSA's and cities larger than 25,000 in Florida in 1965.

As a group, the counties in North and West Florida comprise an

area that is considerably less well developed than the remainder of the

state. Employment is limited and incomes are low in this area. In 1959

almost 35 percent of the 177,000 families in the study area had incomes





























































Figure 1. The North and West Florida

Study Area



TO MONR
















SMSA


Jacksonville
SMSA


SMSA


Tampa-St. Pet
SMSA


Standard Metropolitan
Statistical Area


& 25,000 100,000


D > 100,000


Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas
and Cities of 25,000 and More
Population, Florida, 1965.


TO MONROE COUNTY



Key West


Source: [22, p. 632]


Pensacola
SMSA


Panama


Figure 2.









below $3,000. Only 27.5 percent of the families in the other 38
2/
Florida counties had incomes below this level [22, p. 53].2/

Per capital personal incomes in 1967 reflect the same disadvantaged

position of the study area. Twenty-six of the 29 counties had per capital

incomes below the state average ($2,853) [10, p. 117]. Per capital incomes

in 20 of these counties were below $2,000 and seven of these were below

$1,500. When all Florida counties are ranked in terms of per capital

income, the last six positions (and 12 of the last 14) are filled by

counties from the study area.

Between 1950 and 1960 the population of the study area increased by

slightly over 30 percent (from 578,826 to 754,237) [10, p. 19]. However,

the population of the rest of the state increased by over 91 percent

(from 2,192,479 to 4,197,323). Despite the population increase in the

study area, 12 of the 29 counties lost population. These population

statistics, in conjunction with continuing low levels of income, denote

the lack of economic opportunity in the area and underscore the need for

development planning.

Although as a group these counties may be termed less developed than

the remainder of the state, certain counties do not necessarily conform

to this description. Escambia, Bay, Leon and Alachua are exceptions to

the broad term of underdeveloped, ranking reasonably high in comparisons

with other counties in the state. These and certain other counties likely




2/
Numbers in brackets refer to references cited at the end of
this report.








3/
form the basic center for potential development- of those counties

within the study area that are more poorly endowed in terms of economic

opportunity.

The area selected does not represent a closed economic area. Trade

and other economic activity is influenced by the proximity to trade

centers outside the area in Alabama, Georgia, and Florida. Attention

will be given to the influence of these external forces whenever possible,

although the major focus will be on the attributes and characteristics

of the study area itself.


Procedure

The premise underlying this study is that it is possible, through

research, to suggest a course of action that will result in economic

growthA-in the study area. The necessary initial step in such research

is an analytical consideration of what changes in the various types of

economic activity have occurred recently. Of particular significance are

changes in farm numbers and output; industrial mix and output; labor

availability, productivity and wages; and various other characteristics

of the population and resource base.

These and other basic subjects of interest will be examined in turn

to determine what changes have occurred in the recent past, reflecting

trends that might be expected to continue into the future and influence





The importance of growth "centers" will be discussed in more detail
later in this report.
4/Referring to both higher per capital incomes and a greater "volume"
of economic activity.









the possibilities for economic development. The county, being the basic
5/
unit of data availability, is the focus of attention in this study.-

Some comment about the data used to portray changes in the economic

structure is in order. Certain data, especially those from the 1960

Census, are out of date. These data, therefore, can not be expected to

provide an exact picture of the current situation in the study area

counties. However, it is felt that noparticular bias exists in the data,

and that the indicated relative positions of counties in the study area

(and as compared to other counties in Florida) are not different,

practically speaking, from the actual situation. The trends occurring

during the last 10-15 years have apparently been of a consistent and not

too radical nature, and are adequately covered by the data currently

available. As data from the 1970 Census become available more up-to-date

comparisons can be made.

One purpose of this study is to stimulate development agencies and

concerned officials in the area to more critically evaluate the area's

opportunities and needs. This is a preliminary research study on the

growth problems of North and West Florida. Its purpose is to describe

recent changes and raise questions as to the likely potentials for

development. Conclusions drawn and hypotheses developed from this initial

investigation should serve to guide further and more definitive research

into the problems of this and other underdeveloped rural areas.





5/The county as basic economic unit frequently lacks the resources
for implementing growth. Research on the economic potential of alternative
groupings of counties about some "growth center" is currently underway.









I-B POPULATION, INCOME, AND EMPLOYMENT


Population, income, and employment figures provide the most general

and enlightening information for initial analysis of the changing economic

structure. What have been the changes in the total population recently?

Is the rural-urban balance changing? How do incomes compare with incomes

in other areas? What is the size and what are the basic characteristics

of the labor force? Where is it employed?

Answers to these questions serve, in part, to emphasize changes in

economic activity. However, population level and composition are reflec-

tions--not explanations--of the type and intensity of economic activity.

Changes in income levels may reflect population movement. At any specific

time, however, they are highly indicative of how rapidly changes might

occur or how an area is doing relative to other geographic areas. Gross

changes in labor force numbers over several years are reflections of

income opportunity.


Population

From 1950 to 1960, the population of the study area increased by

slightly over 30 percent, while the population of the rest of the state

increased by over 91 percent (Table 1).

Estimates of population change between 1960 and 1967 show a much

smaller percentage increase both in the study area and in the remainder

of the state, but the relative increase is much greater outside the North

and West Florida area.

Table 1 shows the population changes occurring since 1950, and also

indicates the proportion of the population by rural residence in 1950




-10-


TABLE 1. Population, study area counties, 1950, 1960, and 1967


Rural

1950 1960


1950


Total

1960


Change in Total
1950 1960 1950
196760 -1967 -1967
-1960 -1967 -1967


-(percent)--


---------(number)---------


----(percent)-----


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


52.9
100.0
39.5
74.3
100.0
58.4
100.0
31.4
44.6
58.9
100.0
63.1
100.0
100.0
83.1
100.0
100.0
38.3
100.0
100.0
77.8
81.8
100.0
76.1
73.1
100.0
100.0
79.1
75.1

62.0


50.4
63.7
35.0
61.4
100.0
52.9
100.0
26.3
52.9
55.8
100.0
57.6
100.0
100.0
80.2
100.0
100.0
35.1
100.0
100.0
77.1
50.8
86.1
56.3
39.0
100.0
100.0
66.1
71.9

51.3


57,026
6,313
42,689
11,457
7,922
18,216
3,928
112,706
5,814
36,457
3,499
7,460
8,981
13,988
34,645
10,413
3,440
51,590
10,637
3,182
14,197
27,533
18,554
16,986
10,416
8,906
5,258
14,725
11,888


74,074
7,363
67,131
12,446
7,422
20,077
4,479
173,829
6,576
41,989
2,868
9,937
7,705
10,844
36,208
9,543
2,889
74,225
10,364
3,138
14,154
61,175
29,547
14,961
13,168
6,043
5,257
15,576
11,249


92,000
8,500
68,500
13,100
7,800
25,000
5,100
194,000
7,300
44,900
3,400
9,600
8,100
11,500
36,500
9,500
2,900
90,000
12,700
3,000
15,000
81,900
34,500
17,200
13,400
6,800
5,700
16,000
12,100


29.9
16.6
57.3
8.6
-6.3
10.2
14.0
54.2
13.1
15.2
-18.0
33.2
-14.2
-22.5
4.5
-8.4
-16.0
43.9
-2.6
-1.4
-0.3
122.2
59.2
-11.9
26.4
-32.1
0.0
5.8
-5.4


24.2
15.4
2.0
5.3
5.1
24.5
13.9
11.6
11.0
6.9
18.5
-3.4
5.1
6.0
0.8
-0.5
0.4
21.3
22.5
-4.4
6.0
33.9
16.8
15.0
1.8
12.5
8.4
2.7
7.6


61.3
34.6
60.5
14.3
-1.6
37.2
29.8
72.1
25.6
23.2
-2.8
28.7
-9.8
-17.8
5.4
-8.8
-15.7
74.5
19.4
-5.7
5.7
197.5
85.9
1.3
28.6
-23.6
8.4
8.7
1.8


578,826 754,237 856,000 30.3 13.5 47.9


27.3 21.5 2,192,479

34.5 26.1 2,771,305


4,197,377

4,951,560


5,227,000

6,083,000


91.4 24.5 138.4

78.7 22.8 119.5


Source: [10; 1968, pp. 24-29]


County





-11-


and 1960. Eleven counties in the area were still classed as 100 percent
6/
rural- in 1960, and 14 other counties had half or more of their population

living in rural areas. The percent classified as rural in the study area

decreased from 62.0 to 51.3 over this period. For the rest of Florida,

the change was from 27.3% rural in 1950 to 21.5% rural in 1960.


Income

Limited statistics on income are presented below. The data on family

incomes are to reflect the percentage of families receiving less than the

currently defined minimum standard.-/ Personal income per capital figures

indicate the disparity between economic opportunity in North and West

Florida as compared to the remainder of the state.

Income from production by source is presented to generate some rough

idea of the types of economic activity that are declining or increasing

in relative importance within the study area.


Family incomes

In 1959, almost 35 percent of the 177,000 families in the study area

had incomes below $3,000. Only 27.5 percent of the families in the other

38 Florida counties had incomes below this level. Nationally, in 1960,

only 21.4 percent of families had incomes below $3,000 [13, p. 7].

Table 2 shows the level of family income by county in 1959. Two-thirds

of the families in Holmes County had incomes below $3,000. In 12 other




6/
The United States Census of Population defines rural residents as
persons living in the open country or in communities of less than 2,500
people.
-/$3,000. See [20] for further discussion.




-12-


TABLE 2. Families with incomes below $3,000, study area
counties, 1959



Families with
Total Number Less Than
of Families $3,000 Income

County

(number) (percent)

Alachua 16,961 31.4
Baker 1,544 45.9
Bay 16,700 28.8
Bradford 2,932 37.6
Calhoun 1,842 54.9
Columbia 4,801 41.6
Dixie 1,111 46.0
Escambia 42,210 23.9
Franklin 1,635 56.7
Gadsden 7,632 52.5
Gilchrist 737 60.0
Gulf 2,326 30.0
Hamilton 1,753 56.0
Holmes 2,846 66.4
Jackson 8,430 52.3
Jefferson 2,052 54.4
Lafayette 725 45.8
Leon 16,449 27.3
Levy 2,631 52.2
Liberty 795 46.2
Madison 3,262 57.1
Okaloosa 14,855 22.0
Santa Rosa 6,937 30.0
Suwannee 3,592 54.0
Taylor 3,170 39.9
Union 1,040 42.8
Wakulla 1,229 53.4
Walton 3,927 48.2
Washington 2,742 55.4

TOTAL/AREA 176,866 34.8

REST/STATE 1,119,894 27.5

FLORIDA 1,296,760 28.5


Source: [10; 1968, pp. 152-153]




-13-


counties over 50 percent of the families had incomes below $3,000.

More current data to indicate trends in family income are not available

at this time.


Personal income per capital

When all Florida counties are ranked in accordance with per capital

incomes, the last six positions are filled by counties from the study

area (also, 12 of the last 14). Table 3 shows a comparison of the study

area counties by their rank in the state in 1960 and 1967. Between these

two dates, three counties held their rank, 10 counties dropped in rank,

and 16 counties gained in rank. Unfortunately, this improvement in rank

may be traced to out-migration on part of the low income population

rather than from an increase in economic activity.

In 1960, the average level of personal income per capital in all

counties in the study area was below the state average ($1,950) (See Table

3). In 1967, 26 of the 29 counties had levels of personal income per

capital below the state average ($2,853). Per capital incomes in 20 of these

counties were below $2,000, and of these, seven were below $1,500.


Income from production by source

One of the basic guides to potentials for growth is evidenced by

trends in income sources. Production income received by civilians in

1960 and in 1967 (by source) is given in Tables 4 and 5.

For the area, in 1960, civilian government accounted for 28.6 percent

of personal income. Next in order of importance were manufacturing,

wholesale and retail trade, and services and professions. For the rest

of the state, the major categories by order of importance were wholesale





-14-


TABLE 3. Personal income per capital
counties, 1960 and 1967



Income Per Capita


1960


1967


and rank in state, study area


Change


1960-67


Rank in State


Change


rank


1960


1967


County


---(dollars)---


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington


FLORIDA


(percent)


51.0
70.1
66.3
107.7
75.7
67.1
71.6
52.3
106.5
33.1
43.7
74.4
121.1
31.6
42.0
52.3
74.9
51.3
58.3
54.6
40.9
67.7
91.2
50.4
71.6
39.6
31.9
49.8
40.5


46.3


Source: [10; 1969, pp. 120-121]


1678
944
1523
865
762
1158
988
1882
964
1188
1051
1866
968
756
1115
962
1028
1735
1115
1039
931
1827
962
1151
1372
1622
909
810
902


1950


2534
1606
2532
1797
1339
1935
1695
2867
1991
1581
1510
3255
2140
995
1583
1465
1798
2625
1765
1606
1312
3063
1839
1731
2354
2265
1199
1213
1267


2853




-15-


TABLE 4. Total personal income received by civilians for participation
in production and percentage distribution by major source,
study area counties, 1960


Mining & Contract Manu-
Total Agriculture Fisheries Construction facturing

County

($1,000) ----------------(percent)---------------

Alachua 99,149 6.0 0.3 6.8 11.5
Baker 5,756 17.4 --- 6.7 11.1
Bay 67,651 0.7 0.3 8.7 18.4
Bradford 7,955 7.2 9.4 2.3 9.9
Calhoun 4,040 23.1 --- 3.0 14.8
Columbia 18,524 11.1 --- 3.8 12.1
Dixie 3,564 8.6 2.7 5.9 28.7
Escambia 239,489 0.8 0.2 9.1 28.2
Franklin 4,336 1.0 20.9 4.8 6.1
Gadsden 32,701 18.0 1.2 6.2 12.5
Gilchrist 2,486 37.9 --- 6.1 3.3
Gulf 13,063 0.8 0.9 4.2 50.5
Hamilton 6,277 43.3 --- 4.1 11.5
Holmes 5,574 32.8 --- 3.9 5.5
Jackson 31,598 18.6 a/ 4.3 8.0
Jefferson 7,393 36.8 --- 6.4 4.0
Lafayette 2,704 53.4 --- 4.7 7.1
Leon 105,850 1.6 0.1 8.1 6.7
Levy 9,091 14.6 3.5 17.8 9.3
Liberty 2,993 14.9 --- 3.8 43.3
Madison 10,871 30.9 --- 3.1 22.3
Okaloosa 67,362 1.1 0.2 6.6 18.5
Santa Rosa 23,452 8.8 0.2 18.0 24.3
Suwannee 13,975 33.6 1.6 3.5 5.6
Taylor 14,837 5.3 a/ 4.1 49.4
Union 4,130 26.7 --- 8.4 6.0
Wakulla 3,665 6.8 7.6 1.7 11.7
Walton 9,178 12.9 --- 11.2 4.9
Washington 9,725 12.3 2.3 20.3 7.7

TOTAL/AREA 827,389 6.5 0.6 7.9 18.3

REST/STATE 6,246,611 6.3 0.8 11.2 13.1

FLORIDA 7,074,000 6.3 0.8 10.8 13.7

-Less than .05%


Source: [10; 1968, pp. 131-133]




-16-


TABLE 4. Continued



Wholesale Finance Trans. Services Other
& Retail Ins. & and and Govt. Private
Trade R. Estate Comm. Profess. (civilian) Industry

County

------------------------(percent)--------------------------

Alachua 15.8 4.9 4.6 10.1 39.7 0.3
Baker 12.5 2.5 3.9 4.2 40.6 1.1
Bay 24.4 5.9 6.0 12.8 22.7 0.1
Bradford 19.4 3.4 5.3 14.8 28.0 0.3
Calhoun 17.4 4.5 0.1 9.1 27.1 0.9
Columbia 20.4 5.8 5.8 11.6 29.0 0.4
Dixie 14.4 3.2 3.9 6.8 25.2 0.6
Escambia 17.8 4.8 5.8 9.5 23.8 a/
Franklin 21.7 6.1 2.0 10.7 22.9 3.8
Gadsden 22.7 2.6 4.0 8.5 22.3 2.0
Gilchrist 15.6 1.6 3.4 6.5 24.7 0.9
Gulf 9.5 3.3 7.8 13.2 9.6 0.2
Hamilton 10.5 1.0 2.7 7.9 18.0 1.0
Holmes 12.7 3.8 4.5 8.4 27.8 0.6
Jackson 17.3 4.1 5.2 21.1 20.8 0.6
Jefferson 12.4 2.8 4.9 12.5 18.5 2.2
Lafayette 6.2 1.7 0.9 3.6 21.2 1.2
Leon 18.9 6.4 4.5 13.9 39.7 0.1
Levy 18.6 2.9 5.3 8.6 18.8 0.6
Liberty 4.1 0.4 3.2 2.4 27.7 0.2
Madison 14.8 2.1 2.0 7.9 15.8 1.1
Okaloosa 12.5 2.7 2.7 15.6 40.0 0.1
Santa Rosa 12.5 3.4 2.0 7.0 23.5 0.3
Suwannee 16.3 4.9 7.8 8.8 17.1 0.8
Taylor 15.2 2.5 3.0 7.7 12.7 0.1
Union 5.2 1.8 0.5 4.0 46.5 0.9
Wakulla 20.8 0.5 2.3 7.7 39.4 1.5
Walton 24.9 4.2 6.8 11.0 23.7 0.4
Washington 11.2 1.3 5.6 8.5 30.2 0.7

TOTAL/AREA 17.4 4.5 4.8 11.2 28.6 0.3

REST/STATE 24.3 8.2 8.2 16.9 10.7 0.3

FLORIDA 23.5 7.8 7.8 16.2 12.8 0.3
aLess than .05%
Less than .05%


Source: [10; 1968, pp. 131-133]




-17-


TABLE 5. Total personal income received by civilians for participation
in production and percentage distribution by major source,
study area counties, 1967


Mining & Contract Manu-
Total Agriculture Fisheries Construction facturing

County

($1,000) -----------------(percent)---------------

Alachua 190,895 4.2 0.4 6.9 10.4
Baker 9,063 16.7 a/ 3.3 7.4
Bay 111,440 0.3 0.8 6.2 16.5
Bradford 15,339 8.6 13.6 1.9 12.3
Calhoun 7,999 13.1 a/ 5.8 21.7
Columbia 37,621 9.6 a/ 2.8 21.5
Dixie 6,664 3.6 3.4 3.7 32.4
Escambia 366,638 0.7 0.3 7.2 24.2
Franklin 11,364 0.4 12.8 0.5 6.2
Gadsden 44,355 17.4 1.3 4.3 14.2
Gilchrist 3,953 37.3 a/ 0.6 2.3
Gulf 20,069 0.3 1.4 3.4 49.9
Hamilton 14,441 21.0 33.3 4.5 4.3
Holmes 7,553 20.5 a/ 3.2 11.7
Jackson 42,956 14.3 0.1 2.5 14.1
Jefferson 10,391 29.4 a/ 6.5 7.8
Lafayette 4,213 52.9 a/ 1.3 4.7
Leon 194,857 0.9 0.1 5.9 5.8
Levy 16,367 15.0 4.2 14.8 7.8
Liberty 3,653 4.5 0.1 2.6 36.1
Madison 14,513 24.4 a/ 2.3 19.2
Okaloosa 124,538 0.7 0.3 4.2 7.6
Santa Rosa 37,856 6.8 0.2 6.0 29.2
Suwannee 23,533 26.3 3.6 6.4 7.2
Taylor 25,779 2.1 0.9 6.6 49.4
Union 5,427 18.4 0.1 1.3 15.5
Wakulla 5,020 2.4 8.7 2.8 21.9
Walton 13,707 9.7 0.2 6.4 13.7
Washington 10,787 10.3 0.7 13.9 11.6

TOTAL/AREA 1,380,991 4.7 1.1 5.9 16.2

REST/STATE 10,718,009 3.8 0.7 7.9 16.8

FLORIDA 12,099,000 3.9 0.7 7.7 16.7

SLess than .05%


Source: [10; 1969, pp. 127-129]





-18-


TABLE 5. Continued



Wholesale Finance Trans. Services Other
& Retail Ins. & and and Govt. Private
Trade R. Estate Comm. Profess. (civilian) Industry

County

--------------------------(number)----- ------------------

Alachua 14.3 4.4 3.7 13.6 42.0 0.2
Baker 10.9 2.6 3.8 7.2 48.0 0.1
Bay 21.6 5.0 6.9 13.3 29.2 0.2
Bradford 15.1 3.0 3.7 12.2 29.5 0.2
Calhoun 16.1 3.5 0.9 8.4 30.3 0.2
Columbia 17.3 4.3 3.9 14.8 25.6 0.2
Dixie 14.5 3.5 5.0 7.9 25.9 0.2
Escambia 15.7 4.8 6.2 11.1 29.7 0.2
Franklin 13.5 2.4 1.8 7.6 54.7 0.1
Gadsden 19.8 3.4 3.5 9.5 26.4 0.2
Gilchrist 13.2 1.7 2.0 7.4 35.3 0.1
Gulf 7.8 2.9 9.8 11.5 12.6 0.3
Hamilton 13.2 1.6 1.1 5.9 14.9 0.2
Holmes 16.6 3.9 4.7 10.3 28.9 0.1
Jackson 17.7 4.3 5.7 8.7 32.5 0.2
Jefferson 12.7 2.2 1.1 15.0 25.2 0.1
Lafayette 7.1 2.6 1.9 5.3 24.0 0.1
Leon 16.1 5.2 2.9 13.9 49.1 0.1
Levy 24.7 2.9 4.6 11.5 17.4 0.2
Liberty 7.7 2.4 1.7 6.1 38.7 0.1
Madison 17.4 2.4 3.0 7.4 23.6 0.2
Okaloosa 12.4 3.6 2.9 24.4 43.8 0.2
Santa Rosa 12.2 4.3 4.0 9.8 27.3 0.2
Suwannee 17.9 5.0 9.0 7.1 17.2 0.2
Taylor 12.9 3.0 4.2 7.3 13.4 0.3
Union 8.2 2.1 2.5 10.4 41.4 0.1
Wakulla 14.0 2.0 6.0 7.8 34.3 0.1
Walton 20.0 4.1 7.4 13.5 24.8 0.2
Washington 14.0 2.8 9.3 13.3 23.9 0.2

TOTAL/AREA 15.7 4.3 4.7 12.8 34.3 0.2

REST/STATE 21.3 7.1 8.6 20.2 13.3 0.3

FLORIDA 20.7 6.8 8.2 19.3 15.7 0.2

a/Less than .05%


Source: [10; 1969, pp. 127-129]





-19-


and retail trade, services and professions, manufacturing, contract

construction, and civilian government.

In 1967, the leading source of income in the study area was still

civilian government (34.3 percent). Manufacturing, wholesale and retail

trade, and services and professions maintained their same relative positions.

For the rest of the state the order of importance also remained the same

as in 1960 except that the two categories of civilian government and

transportation and communications moved ahead of contract construction

(which declined from 11.2 to 7.9 percent).

Total personal income increased by 71.6 percent in the rest of

Florida and by 66.9 percent in the study area. The percentage increase

in 11 of the study area counties exceeded the average percentage increase

in the rest of the state.


Employment

Labor force and employment statistics are presented below to

assist in the appraisal of changes being experienced by the study area

counties.

Table 6 shows the civilian labor force and non-agricultural employ-

ment for each county in 1963 and in 1967. Unemployment figures are not

shown since our interest is centered on the number of people available

for work and the relative importance of agriculture and non-agriculture

in providing employment. Agricultural employment figures are presented

in the next section.

Over the period, the labor force increased by 37,490 workers, an

increase of 15.0 percent. At the same time, the labor force in the rest





-20-


TABLE 6. Civilian labor force and non-agricultural employment, study
area counties, 1963 and 1967 (March)


Civilian Labor Non-Agri.
Force Employment

1963 1967 1963 1967
County

-----------------(number)---------------

Alachua 32,800 38,500 30,950 38,380
Baker 1,950 2,260 1,650 1,880
Bay 19,400 23,140 18,050 22,260
Bradford 2,900 3,120 2,350 2,640
Calhoun 1,550 1,840 1,050 1,180
Columbia 7,700 9,180 6,400 7,940
Dixie 1,150 1,660 1,100 1,460
Escambia 69,700 74,700 64,000 68,900
Franklin 2,300 2,380 2,200 2,240
Gadsden 11,650 15,120 8,600 9,180
Gilchrist 750 760 400 380
Gulf 3,750 3,960 3,400 3,800
Hamilton 1,650 2,740 1,300 2,180
Holmes 2,150 2,540 1,100 1,240
Jackson 9,850 10,580 6,950 7,480
Jefferson 2,250 2,380 1,650 1,620
Lafayette 750 960 400 500
Leon 34,100 40,900 32,950 39,800
Levy 3,000 3,400 2,500 2,720
Liberty 850 840 550 560
Madison 4,050 4,300 2,850 3,100
Okaloosa 16,250 20,740 15,300 19,760
Santa Rosa a/ a/ a/ a/
Suwannee 4,800 5,660 3,550 4,060
Taylor 4,950 5,740 4,500 5,300
Union 1,750 1,740 1,400 1,520
Wakulla 1,250 1,160 1,050 1,040
Walton 3,500 3,640 2,650 2,680
Washington 2,700 3,000 1,900 1,920

TOTAL/AREA 249,450 286,940 220,750 253,720

REST/STATE 1,747,800b-,037,300 1,560,700-/1,886,480

FLORIDA 1,997,250b,324,240 1,781,450-b/2,140,200

a/
b/Combined with Escambia County
- Using 1964 data for Duval County


Source: [10; 1969, pp. 203-219]




-21-



of the state increased by 289,500 workers (16.6 percent), giving

a total increase for Florida of 326,990 workers (16.4 percent).

In the study area, non-agricultural employment increased by 14.9

percent over the 1963-1967 period, but its share of total employment

remained about the same (88.4 percent in 1967 as compared to 88.5

percent in 1963). In the rest of the state, however, non-agricultural

employment increased its share of total employment from 89.3 percent in

1963 to 92.3 percent in 1967.









Part II: MAJOR ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES

II-A AGRICULTURE


The traditional role of agriculture in the process of economic

development has been to provide for the population's food and fiber

needs with fewer and fewer resources. These resource savings are then

channeled, by the market mechanism, into the production of other goods

and services generally associated with a higher standard of living. It

it because agriculture has been fulfilling its role in economic growth

that rural areas are beset by many new problems.

The process of agricultural development has been accelerated by

the adoption of technological improvements in the techniques of pro-

ducing farm products. Public awareness of some of these adoptions is

high. For example, the potential effect of chemicals on our physical

environment is currently receiving widespread attention. Other inno-

vations have received less attention, although their effects on the

economic, social, and political environments of a large segment of

our society are equally as striking and far-reaching. Larger machines

have created a need for larger acreages in order to realize their

maximum potential in efficiency. Larger farming operations also achieve

other efficiencies, such as in the purchasing of inputs and marketing

of products.

In response to this demand for larger operations, many small farms

have been sold or leased to larger units. Such changes have reduced the

number of farms and increased their size. As a consequence, fewer farm

operators are needed. Tremendous increases in productivity per man hour


-22-




-23-


due to the use of machinery and other technological improvements have

also reduced the number of farm workers needed in the United States.

In Florida, agriculture has enjoyed what may be called a "regional"

advantage. Statistics to be presented later will show an increase in

agricultural employment both within Florida and the study area.

The economic effects of these changes are felt directly by indi-

viduals displaced from farming through technology adoption, and also by

the small towns and communities serving farm areas. The significance

of this phenomenon is exemplified in the following statements:

"... in areas without an alternative to agriculture for
employment, a rapid increase in farm size and a reduction
in farm numbers appears to result in stagnation or decline
in the local economy rather than growth" [16, p. 21].

"An outflow of labor from agriculture has long been a
characteristic of the process of economic development every-
where. From a narrower economic point of view it is desir-
able, but it does raise serious social problems if the sur-
plus labor released by the farm sector moves at the same time
from the country to the city. As long as agriculture is the
main source of income in rural areas the outflow from agri-
culture may indeed stimulate further outflows from sectors
dependent on agriculture" [14, p. 7].

The most recent county data for agricultural activity are those

gathered by the 1964 Census of Agriculture. Comparisons of these data

with those from the 1959 Census of Agriculture illustrate structural

changes occurring in the agricultural sector of the study area.


Farm Numbers and Size

Table 7 shows changes in the number of farms and their size from

1959 to 1964. Only three counties showed increases in the number of

farms: Dixie (26%), Levy (3%), and Taylor (6%). However, the total

number of farms added in these counties was only 68. This increase




-24-


TABLE 7. Changes in numbers of farms and
area counties, 1959-1964



Number of Farms


Total


land in farms, study





Land in Farms


Total


1964 Change 1959 1964
r)-- (percent) (1,000 acres)


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


1,073
257
180
472
333
700
142
782
27
669
334
68
479
962
2,145
557
359
589
488
187
829
598
846
1,247
274
289
142
755
687


1,041
175
139
353
298
691
179
642
15
543
296
63
439
950
1,870
531
327
377
505
147
749
447
624
1,155
291
239
89
741
669


16,470 14,585

28,630 25,957

45,100 40,542


- 3
-32
-23
-25
-11
- 1
+26
-18
-44
-19
-11
- 7
- 8
- 1
-13
- 5
-9
-36
+3
-21
-10
-25
-26
-7
+6
-17
-37
- 2
- 3


374
44
31
63
74
157
169
136
17
158
91
30
127
166
391
190
108
176
308
48
206
79
111
297
392
141
31
125
110


363
33
33
74
76
162
205
127
18
147
80
8
119
146
342
170
130
163
298
31
200
85
99
285
191
70
21
123
108


4,350 3,907


- 9 10,887 11,504

-10 15,237 15,411


Source: [23; pp. 316-323]


County


1959
---(numbe


Change
(percent)


-3
-25
+6
+17
+3
+3
+21
- 7
+6
- 7
-12
-73
-6
-12
-13
-11
+20
- 7
- 3
-35
- 3
+8
-11
-4
-51
-50
-32
- 2
-2

-10

+6

+ 1




-25-


compares with a decline in the number of farms in the remaining 26

counties of 1,953. One of these counties experienced a decline of 44

percent, declined in three other counties exceeded 30 percent, and

five other counties lost over 20 percent of their farm numbers. The

percentage change in farm numbers for the area was a drop of 11 percent,

compared to a drop of 10 percent for the state as a whole.

Total land in farms may be a better indicator of the relative

intensity of agriculture in a county. For the study area, land in

farms decreased by 10 percent, with 21 counties experiencing a decline

in land in farms. The most significant percentage declines were in

Gulf (-73), Taylor (-51), Union (-50), Liberty (-35), Wakulla (-32),

and Baker (-25). Some of these percentages may reflect the fact that

farm land figures were relatively small in 1959. The largest decreases

in acres of farmland occurred in Taylor (-101,000), Wakulla (-71,000),

Jackson (-49,000), Gulf (-22,000) and Holmes (-20,000). Farmland acres

declined by 10 percent in the study area, while increasing by one

percent for the entire state.

Average farm size is a composite of the two measures already

discussed, providing only limited additional information. Average farm

size increased by only two percent in the study area (due to the fact

that land in farms declined slightly less than farm numbers declined)

while farm size for the entire state increased by 12 percent. There

was no marked change in the distribution of farms by size for the study

area. Farms of less than 50 acres made up 33.4 percent of the total in

1959 and 31.4 percent in 1964.





-26-


Examination of these data suggests the need for further inves-

tigation. What caused the large declines in farm numbers in many

counties? What factors account for large decreases in the amount of

land in farms (for example, in Taylor County)? Other data presented

later in this report may help explain certain of these changes or

suggest hypotheses for further study.

Land in farms may be a deceptive measure of changes in agricultural

activity because these figures include unharvested cropland as well as

pastured and unpastured woodland and other pasture. Table 8 indicates

the change in harvested cropland over the period 1959-1964.

For the study area, the percentage decrease in cropland harvested

equaled the percentage decline in land in farms (10%). However, the

pattern of changes by counties is not nearly so consistent, indicating

the presence of a number of factors influencing these measures of

change in "farming."


Farm numbers by type

Changes in the agricultural structure of the study area are also

evidenced by changes in the number of farms by type of product. General

categories are farms predominately producing (1) field crops, (2) vege-

tables or fruit-nuts, (3) livestock, including poultry (4) general and

(5) miscellaneous [23; Appendix A, p. 14].

Tables 9, 10, and 11 show changes by type of farm in these broad

classifications from 1959 to 1964.

The statistics indicate that this area of Florida includes almost

all of the farms that are classified as "field crop." All of the State's





-27-


TABLE 8. Changes in
1959-1964


cropland harvested, study area counties,


Cropland Harvested


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


FLORIDA


1959
(acres)

61,585
3,530
4,209
6,417
15,850
34,087
3,376
23,722
39
37,347
32,332
508
31,410
41,171
118,127
42,820
13,876
26,229
34,930
1,557
54,326
16,691
40,788
87,682
2,960
10,282
3,323
26,360
16,031

791,565

1,090,314

1,881,879


1964
(acres)

51,728
3,679
2,545
5,022
19,114
31,787
2,372
28,934
47
32,059
26,385
478
27,771
32,962
106,643
39,792
13,737
19,308
26,326
1,398
45,700
18,738
41,225
81,095
2,134
9,489
1,837
20,202
16,633

709,140

1,494,536

2,203,676


Source: [23; pp. 316-323]


Change
(percent)


-16
+4
-40
-22
+21
- 7
-30
+22
+21
-14
-18
- 6
-12
-20
-10
- 7
- 1
-26
-25
-10
-16
+12
+ 1
- 8
-28
- 8
-45
-23
+4


+37

+17





-28-


TABLE 9. Number of "field crop" farms, study area counties, 1959
and 1964



Cash Grain Tobacco Cotton Other Field Total
County 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964
----------------------(number)------------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


5 11



25 27
15 27

58 136

5 21
5 26

16
31
21 47
23 36
-- 7
28 22
-- 12
--- 1
6 18
6 78
30 99
13 58
-- 2
-- 3
5 --
5 29
10 18


162
15

15

301
20


202
30

298

20
52
210
2
5

324


652
21
36


168
43

15
-- 5 --
224 --
20 --
-- 15 12

141
37

273 -- 1
9 70 40
8 55 27
61 15 17
194 -- 1
2 5 12
9 -- --

301 -- 3
- 5 6
50 40
505 5 1
47 -- --
65 -

15 15
20 8


260 725 2365 2122 260 183


5 19


0 13 0 0


265 744 2365 2135 260 183


585 872 3475 3934


Source: [23; pp. 340-347]


-- 9


--- 1
1 15
-- 4

5 1

5 8
--- 1

5 1
5 19
239 358
-- 10
-- 1
-- 5
22
-- 3
5 2
-- 3
25 40
--- 5
5 --
--- 1
5 5
-- 9
-- 9

300 532

285 340


167 188
15 43

15 16
31 42
316 255
20 20
78 149

212 170
35 64

303 291
75 99
335 440
90 124
210 203
35 41
5 43
-- 4
335 324
11 87
105 179
670 569
26 49
36 69
10 5
20 53
30 35

3185 3562

290 372


FLORIDA





-29-


Number of vegetable, fruit-nut, general, and miscellaneous
farms, study area counties, 1959-1964


Vegetable
1959 1964


Fruit-Nut General Miscellaneous
1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964
---------- (number)--------------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


543
188
135
372
162
294
91
517
26
323
120
70
112
501
1,025
331
97
453
224
137
308
401
517
418
218
199
87
522
480


171

1,512


498
107
102
194
158
299
126
359
10
253
108
53
108
468
796
271
69
248
255
118
225
275
295
321
218
128
72
492
430


97 118 1,201 1,228 8,871 7,056


1,254 8,101 7,257 142 186 14,691 13,772


1,683 1,567 8,198 7,375 1,343 1,414


23,562 20,828


Source: [23; pp. 340-347]


TABLE 10.


County


FLORIDA


l





-30-


TABLE 11.


Number of livestock, dairy, and poultry farms, study
area counties, 1959-1964


Livestock Dairy Poultry
County 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964
---------------------(number)---------------------

Alachua 129 148 15 8 41 42
Baker 24 12 3 4 -- 6
Bay 16 12 1 3 25 10
Bradford 35 32 -- 2 35 59
Calhoun 54 54 27 9 20 --
Columbia 81 76 -- -- 19 14
Dixie 25 31 -- -- 5 1
Escambia 87 62 37 29 25 17
Franklin 1 3 -- -- 5 2
Gadsden 65 66 1 4 16 10
Gilchrist 51 57 1 2 -- 4
Gulf 9 8 -- 1 -- -
Hamilton 6 14 1 -- 10 6
Holmes 195 173 11 13 31 8
Jackson 387 201 51 21 41 14
Jefferson 70 57 7 7 -- 3
Lafayette 27 26 10 15 -- 5
Leon 94 49 7 13 5 4
Levy 167 135 -- -- 10 4
Liberty 20 18 -- -- 15 4
Madison 72 106 7 6 10 16
Okaloosa 121 57 -- 2 5 4
Santa Rosa 124 53 20 16 20 5
Suwannee 81 109 5 3 15 10
Taylor 49 20 -- -- -- 2
Union 18 20 5 1 -- 5
Wakulla 37 10 -- -- 5 --
Walton 154 111 21 9 21 24
Washington 108 127 10 9 16 5


TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


2307 1847

2028 1985

4335 3832


230 177

533 401

763 578


395 284

1246 730

1641 1014


Source: [23; pp. 340-347]





-31-


cotton and tobacco farms, over 97 percent of the cash grain farms, and

over 60 percent of the "other field crop" farms were found in this

area in 1964.

Cotton and tobacco farm numbers declined by 30 percent and 10

percent respectively from 1959 to 1964. Cash grain and other field

crop farms increased significantly--by 179 and 77 percent respectively.

The increase in cash grain farms has been attributed primarily to the

rapid growth in soybean production.

Vegetable farms increased by 83 percent and fruit-nut farms increased

by 22 percent. This area included 87 percent of the farms in Florida

classified as general, and 34 percent of the miscellaneous farms in 1964.

The large numbers of farms in these categories illustrate the diverse

nature of agricultural production in North and West Florida--57 percent

of all farms in this area in 1964 were in these two groups.

Livestock farm numbers in the area declined by 20 percent, dairy

farms by 23 percent and poultry farms by 28 percent. For the remainder

of the state, numbers of farms of these types declined by 2, 25, and 41

percent respectively. The implication is that other alternatives may

be more profitable in other areas of Florida, while such alternatives

are more scarce or unrecognized in the study area.


Economic classification of farms

One useful classification of farms for planning purposes and for

determining the viability of agriculture is by gross income. Farms

are grouped into two major categories--commercial and other--primarily

on the basis of total value of products sold. Commercial farms are

divided into six economic classes as follows [23; Appendix A, pp. 13-14]:





-32-


Class Value of Products Sold

I $40,000 or more

II 20,000 to 39,999

III 10,000 to 19,999

IV 5,000 to 9,999

V 2,500 to 4,999

VI 50 to 2,499

*(provided the farm operator was under 65 years of age and worked
off the farm fewer than 100 days)

Farms are classed as part-time if they would otherwise be in

Class VI but the operator worked off-farm for 100 days or more. If

sales were between $50 and $2,499 and the operator's age was 65 or

more the farm is defined as part-retirement.

Table 12 shows the breakdown of commercial farms by the six classes,

and Table 13 provides for a comparison of commercial farms with the part-

time and part-retirement categories.

These figures show the relative lack of strength of agriculture

in the study area as compared to the rest of the state. Only 13 percent

of Florida farms grossing $40,000 or better were in the 29 counties. On

the other hand, of farms grossing between $2,500 and $4,999 in Florida,

43.5 percent were in North and West Florida, and 42.5 percent of those

grossing less than $2,500 were found here.

These figures, however, do not show changes occurring within the

study area. In the study area, the number of farms grossing above

$10,000 showed considerable increase, faring better than farms in the

remainder of the state (see Table 14). There was an almost negligible

decrease in Class IV farms. Figures for Classes V and VI are particularly





Number of commercial farms by economic class, study area counties, 1959 and 1964


Class I Class II Class III Class IV Class V Class VI
County 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964 1959 1964
--------- ------------------------------(number)------------------------------------------

Alachua 60 69 61 84 100 88 122 109 135 139 72 104
Baker 6 10 -- 4 7 8 2 12 22 34 15 15
Bay 1 2 2 5 6 6 16 6 38 10 5 30
Bradford 5 26 11 31 12 29 10 23 44 22 35 40
Calhoun 7 11 11 19 44 20 39 22 47 29 26 58
Columbia 11 16 29 30 45 50 121 106 181 121 45 100
Dixie 1 1 -- 1 3 9 20 10 21 11 10 27
Escambia 17 24 20 47 36 42 52 53 90 67 50 97
Franklin -- 1 -- -- 1 1 1 -- 5 -- 3
Gadsden 54 79 54 52 77 36 20 30 91 54 50 50
Gilchrist 3 6 6 15 40 35 51 54 55 39 50 461
Gulf -- -- -- 1 7 1 2 2 11 8 5 6W
Hamilton 7 15 37 51 97 83 71 86 86 60 55 44'
Holmes 2 4 17 16 43 48 52 88 146 131 165 237
Jackson 29 32 50 86 99 141 259 244 286 269 450 367
SJefferson 16 24 9 11 16 32 38 49 43 53 95 131
Lafayette 5 11 29 39 42 47 61 72 96 61 25 32
Leon 15 15 6 19 13 7 19 16 21 26 90 70
Levy 2 7 11 20 23 44 72 60 114 57 51 87
Liberty -- 1 7 -- -- 2 8 3 12 7 15 36
Madison 22 19 9 43 101 84 152 127 179 144 65 125
Okaloosa 1 7 2 13 6 17 25 41 63 46 60 78
Santa Rosa 1 24 31 40 46 73 92 73 132 72 75 71
Suwannee 13 39 58 68 118 168 267 223 275 194 145 162
Taylor 2 -- 3 4 3 12 6 16 43 28 25 33
Union 6 8 2 5 22 21 24 22 35 40 5 28
Wakulla -- -- 1 1 5 3 7 6 45 7 -- 13
Walton 3 11 13 11 26 23 26 52 66 68 125 128
Washington 1 7 -- 7 25 12 17 42 87 71 91 147

TOTAL/AREA 290 469 479 723 1,063 1,142 1,655 1.647 2,469 1.868 1,900 2,365
REST/STATE 2,674 3,128 2,143 1,735 2,819 2,158 3,307 2,404 3,176 2,461 1,354 3,202
FLORIDA 2,964 3,597 2,622 2,458 3,882 3,300 4,959 4,051 5,645 4,329 3,254 5,567


Source: [23; pp. 340-347]


TABLE 12.






-34-


Number of part-time, part-retirement, and commercial farms,
study area counties, 1959-1964


Part-time
1959 1964 Change
(number) (%)


Part-retirement
1959 1964 Change
(number) (%)


Commercial
1959 1964 Change
(number) (%)


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Co lumbi a
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
/Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
/faylor
Union
Wakulla
SWalton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST STATE

FLORIDA


361
140
111
326
110
240
61
415
25
226
90
50
76
330
695
240
80
292
102
105
190
316
410
246
150
131
56
415
383


6,372 4,325

9,230 7,063

15,602 11388


a/
- Less than .2 percent


Source: [23; pp. 340-347]


-16
-46
-50
-58
-16
-25
49
-41
-68
-32
-22
-30
-32
-13
-34
-46
-60
-48
58
-30
-33
-39
-51
-36
3
-35
-18
-28
-30


143
16
25
46
47
88
29
67
2
88
31
10
48
139
273
98
33
69
69
24
80
51
72
142
43
29
13
148
112


-32 2,206 2,035

-23 3,765 3,778

-27 5,971 5,813


- 5
-60
317
2
4
73
16
-21
100
9
3
100
60
-13
-9
15
106
-45
-37
- 4
-28
-40
-25
- 9
-35
-47
-57
64
18


550
52
68
117
174
432
55
265
7
346
205
25
353
425
1,173
217
258
164
273
42
528
157
377
876
82
94
58
259
221


593
83
59
171
159
423
59
330
5
301
195
18
339
524
1,139
300
262
153
275
49
542
202
353
854
93
124
30
293
286


- 8 7,853 8,214

0 15,473 15088

- 3 23,326 23302


TABLE 13.


County


8
60
-13
46
-9
-2
7
25
-29
-13
- 5
428
-4
23
- 3
38
2
- 7
a/
17
3
29
- 6
- 3
13
32.
-48
13
29




-35-


interesting--a decline of 24.3 percent in Class V and an increase of

24.5 percent in Class VI. In terms of farm numbers, Class V lost 601

farms while Class VI gained 465. One could easily draw the pessimistic

conclusion that some Class V farms ceased operations while the income

position of many of the others deteriorated to a level less than $2,500.

Because of the decline in part-time farms it cannot be assumed that

these losses from Class V were due to the operator being employed more

than 100 days off the farm.


TABLE 14.


Percentage change in commercial farms by economic class,
study area and rest of state, 1959 and 1964


Change in
Study Area

(%)

+61.7

+50.9

+ 7.4

.3

-24.3

+24.5


Change in
Rest of State

(%)

+17.0

-19.0

-23.4

-27.3

-22.5

+136.5


Source: Calculated from data in Table 12.



Value of Farm Products Sold

Additional relevant information is provided by changes in the

value of sales of farm products. Data from the 1959 and 1964 Cenuses

show the levels of sales, by county, for crops, livestock, and all farm

products (Table 15).


Class



I

II

III

IV

V

VI





-36-


Leading counties in sales of all farm products in 1959 and 1964

were (1) Alachua, (2) Jackson, (3) Gadsden, and (4) Suwannee, with sales

ranging from $7.1 million to $10.4 million in 1959 and from $9.2 million

to $13.0 million in 1964. Only eight other counties had sales exceeding

$4 million in 1964, and sales in seven counties were below $1 million.

Of the major agricultural counties, the balance between crop and

livestock sales in 1964 was, respectively: Alachua (45-55), Jackson

(57-43), Gadsden (60-40), and Suwannee (78-22). Notice that the rankings

of these counties corresponds to the relative importance of livestock

and livestock product sales. Gadsden County, which increased its sales

of all farm products by 36.1 percent over the 1959-64 period, did so

primarily because of a 72.1 percent increase in sales of livestock.

Little can be gained by further discussion of these data without

considering them in a broader context. In referring to Table 15 we see

that agriculture's relative importance to these four counties in 1964

was in reverse order to the value of sales. Certainly there are strong

implications here of the value of non-agricultural activity as a provider

of markets for farm products, either for local consumption, or as a

concentration point for packing, processing, and export.


Changing Capital Requirements

A major consideration in agriculture is the increasing requirement

for capital. Machinery to offset a decreasing farm labor supply and

provide for timely operations, purchase of land for expansion, etc.,

have made owning a farm more difficult for beginning farmers, as well

as decreasing the attractiveness of farming relative to other invest-




-37-


Value of farm products
and 1964


sold, study area counties, 1959


All Crops
1959 1964


All Livestock
& Products
1959 1964


All Farm Products
1959 1964


----------------------($1,000)o-------------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


4,695
961
260
346
567
1,778
158
1,305
22
5,699
910
42
3,497
798
4,019
2,295
1,523
742
680
59
3,238
313
1,528
5,187
601
696
84
514
298

42,815

476,415

519,230


5,769
1,218
209
954
1,215
2,702
223
2,430
3
6,790
1,102
22
4,120
1,431
6,667
2,790
2,326
905
1,287
35
3,467
1,040
3,473
7,234
444
1,342
63
827
579


5,656
523
435
968
1,014
1,631
276
2,168
31
2,679
613
57
689
1,792
5,521
1,218
719
1,641
1,779
473
1,652
722
1,860
1,929
472
792
285
1,392
930


7,177
928
392
3,062
730
3,108
149
2,087
68
4,610
850
87
551
1,517
5,014
1,757
947
2,352
2,859
471
1,750
646
1,249
2,003
167
660
106
1,497
1,068


10,351
1,484
695
1,314
1,581
3,408
433
3,472
54
8,378
1,523
99
4,186
2,590
9,539
3,513
2,242
2,384
2,459
532
4,890
1,035
3,388
7,116
1,073
1,489
369
1,906
1,228


12,968
2,146
603
4,016
1,946
5,811
373
4,518
71
11,402
1,952
110
4,671
2,950
11,684
4,553
3,274
3,266
4,146
513
5,218
1,691
4,724
9,237
613
2,003
170
2,328
1,654


60,667 39,917 47,862 82,731 108,611

667,318 141,329 177,365 617,745 845,436

727,983 181,246 225,227 700,476 954,047


Source: [23; pp. 340-347]


TABLE 15.


County




-38-


ments. Such conditions illustrate another aspect of the changing

structure of agriculture.

The 1969 DARE Report [8, pp. 159, 161] states that total capital

requirements for Florida's farm economy increased by one-half from 1959

to 1964. The most significant increase in the study area was in the

substantially enlarged total capital values for land and buildings on

farms (as well as average values per farm) in 1959 and 1964. These

figures reflect a changing number of farms in each county. Census of

Agriculture figures for average per-farm values (Table 16) emphasize

the substantial increase in capital requirements. The average value of

land and buildings increased by 54.5 percent in the study area.


Employment

Table 17 shows the agricultural employment in 1959 and 1964.

Total farm labor numbers increased in 25 of the 29 counties over

this period. For the study area the total increased by 31 percent.

In the rest of Florida the total farm labor force increased by 69

percent.

The reader is cautioned that these figures represent statistics

for a specified week during the Census reporting period. Thus, they

may best serve as an indicator of differences among counties rather

than as a measure of change within counties over the five year interval

between censuses. While the old saw that "figures don't lie, but liars

sometimes figure" is not literally true in this case, it does have

useful implications in the figurative sense.





-39-


TABLE 16.


County


Average value of farm land and buildings, study area counties,
1959-1964


Average per Farm
1959 1964
---(dollars)----


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty.
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


49,380
16,739
24,883
16,093
19 902
18,053
20,850
22,262
33,516
30,006
26,142
25,987
25,159
10,173
18,607
17,095
23,977
29,905
40,119
16,027
21,417
12,585
20,819
19,042
18,033
50,554
10,756
10,433
11,424

22,100

106,304


75,554


56,393
34,408
52,211
37,920
31,212
32,007
64,956
36,061
62,533
51,685
29,037
13,928
36,409
13,965
23,099
34,949
30,650
68,897
55,110
19,606
29,692
29,219
37,526
37,383
47,748
32,412
22,817
16,258
18,755

34,139

151,147

109,053


Change
1959-1964
(percent)


14.2
105.6
109.8
135.6
56.8
77.3
211.5
62.0
86.6
72.2
11.1
-46.4
44.7
37.3
24.1
104.4
27.8
130.4
37.4
22.3
38.6
132.2
80.2
96.3
164.8
-35.9
112.1
55.8
64.2

54.5

42.2

44.3


Source: [23; pp. 304-311]




-40-


a/
Farm labor-,- study area counties, 1959 and 1964


1959
Other a
Operator Family- Hired- Total


1959
Other b
Operator Family- Hired- Total


-- -----------------(number)---------- -----


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA
aWorking at
- Working at


461
45
66
117
137
359
39
220
6
315
179
10
279
341
1017
144
170
130
233
42
436
147
319
722
59
87
47
222
196


225
2
63
75
102
313
14
87

87
133
6
80
227
632
33
188
37
96
20
242
63
136
460
27
8
50
140
108


417
152
62
20
55
107
6
224

1798
44
14
60
39
390
334
15
188
79
8
197
11
93
72
10
67
15
72
24


1103
199
191
212
294
779
59
531
6
2200
356
30
419
607
2039
511
373
355
408
70
875
221
548
1254
96
162
112
434
328


6,545 3,654 4,573 14,772

10,069 1,979 27,584 39,632

16,614 5,633 32,157 54,404


769
119
125
170
158
510
171
361
13
407
196
26
277
496
1268
281
178
294
340
105
539
306
398
770
163
144
48
521
374


255
54
22
70
43
166
21
124
13
60
97
4
143
162
334
48
61
76
112
9
197
104
121
491
89
28
6
234
95


483
229
58
43
80
118
8
112
11
3352
54
15
114
59
459
379
17
240
105
24
221
61
91
117
11
48
11
49
84


1507
402
205
283
281
794
200
597
37
3819
347
45
534
717
2061
708
256
610
557
138
957
471
610
1378
263
220
65
804
553


9,527 3,239 6,653 19,419

14,361 4,475 48,099 66,935

23,888 7,714 54,752 86,354


least 15 hours per week


- 150 days or more


Source: [23; pp. 348-363]


TABLE 17.


County




-41-



It is apparent that the national trend of decreasing employment

in agricultural employment in Florida. The increase in farm labor

numbers predominates in Central and South Florida, however, and should

not be viewed as a factor likely to contribute significantly to economic

growth in North and West Florida.





-42-


II-B MANUFACTURING


Agriculture's relative importance as a provider of income and

employment in the economy of an area may diminish as a result of the

influx of manufacturing activity. More frequently, however, a declining

agriculture causes concerned citizens to look to the attraction of in-

dustry as a replacement for the former agricultural activity. In general,

this has been the case in North and West Florida.

Most local economic development programs are designed to influence

the location or growth rate of private business, with emphasis on in-

dustry attraction. The success of these efforts depends on a myriad of

factors, including costs of production and distribution for the firm

and the "community overhead" facilities and utilities available at the

proposed industrial site.

Because this approach to development is so widespread, it is highly

important that the general ability of manufacturing industry to provide

the needed development emphasis be carefully evaluated. It is for this

purpose that we consider the changes that have been occurring in the

study area in terms of such things as the level of manufacturing activity

and the type of manufacturing activity. Such knowledge is prerequisite to

sound decision-making in the industry-attraction process.

Let us consider briefly some general guidelines or criteria that bear

on the potential opportunity for attracting "beneficial" industry to the

community. Growth potential of a manufacturing firm depends on access to

basic inputs in the home region and from external sources, and on access

to markets in the home region and externally. These potentials are con-






-43-


ditioned by such factors as the income elasticity of demand for the

product and changes in the productivity of labor (adoption of technology).

In addition, some industries are characterized as "high-wage" while

others are traditionally "low-wage." The firm's capital investment in

relation to the number of workers employed is an indicator of its potential

for increasing per capital incomes in an underdeveloped area. A shift of

employment to merely any type of manufacturing or services is not a sure

path to higher per capital incomes.


Shifts in Type of Manufacturing Activity

The point has been made that not all types of manufacturing activity

have desirable long-run impacts on development. Growth industries (those

that are expanding in employment at a rate exceeding the average for all

industries) favorably influence the volume of economic activities in a

region. A region may also grow by gathering in slower growth industries.

Regions may experience growth even when they specialize in industries that

are declining nationally [17, p. 132]. This latter situation can only be

the case when the area possesses a comparative advantage (lower costs,

better market access, etc.).

Nationally, significant changes are occurring in employment by major

manufacturing industries. Table 18 compares changes for 15 manufacturing

industries between 1950 and 1960. Industries are classified as growth,

slow growth, or declining. It is interesting to note that three of the

six slow growth and declining industries list inexpensive labor as the

primary or secondary location factor (location factors are not listed for

two of the other three).








TABLE 18. Change in employment by major manufacturing industry, United States, 1950-1960


Industry


Change


Location Factors


(percent)

a/
"Growth" Industries:-


Transportation equipment (except motor vehicles)
Electrical machinery, equipment, and supplies
Fabricated metals
Chemicals and allied products
Printing, publishing, and allied products
Other durable goods
Machinery (except electrical)
Food and kindred products

"Slow Growth" Industries:b/
"Slow Growth" Industries:-


Apparel and other fabric products
Other non-durables
Primary metals


100.8
72.7
52.5
35.7
32.3
27.1
25.1
23.0


markets
markets, education, labor
industrial markets
markets, raw material
markets
no data
markets
local markets, raw material


inexpensive labor, markets
no data
markets, raw materials


"Declining" Industries:


-1.7
-10.8
-22.3


Motor vehicles and equipment
Furniture, lumber and wood products
Textile mill products

Total Manufacturing

-Change greater than 20 percent.

-Change positive but less than 20 percent.


no data
raw materials, inexpensive labor
inexpensive labor


19.3


Source: [13; p.21]





-45-


Table 19 shows data related to employment in Florida for 10 classifi-

cations of manufacturing industry between 1950 and 1960. In Table 20 the

number and percentage changes in experienced labor force and employment

by industry show structural changes in manufacturing in Florida. The

largest gain in experienced labor force numbers occurred in primary and

intermediate metals (25,706--a better than five-fold increase). The

machinery labor force increased by 480 percent (19,419). Change in em-

ployment for these industries slightly exceeded the labor force changes.

On the other end of the scale were food and tobacco--with a large

increase in labor force numbers (18,597), but a relatively small percent-

age increase (51.6 percent)--and lumber and furniture. The experienced

labor force in lumber and furniture declined by 3,463 (or 12.2 percent),

and employment decreased even more (4,246 or 15.4 percent).

Unfortunately, such labor force and employment data are not readily

available on a county basis. There are, however, data for the same in-

dustry classifications which show the number of manufacturing plants with

20 or more employees as of the 1958 and 1963 Censuses of Manufactures

(Tables 21 and 22). In the study area there was a new increase of only

two plants. By categories, increases were as follows: food and tobacco

(5); textile (2); chemicals (3); metals (1); and machinery (2). Decreases

occurred in lumber and furniture (-8); stone, clay and glass (-1); and

transportation and ordnance (-2).

In the rest of the state increases were observed in food and tobacco

(23); textiles (59); paper and printing (76); chemicals (40): metals (17);

machinery (67); and transportation (18). The only decreases were in lumber

and furniture (-14) and stone, clay, and glass (-6).








TABLE 19. Manufacturing: Experienced civilian labor force and employment by industry, Florida
1950 and 1960


Experienced
Civilian
Labor Force
1950 1960


Industry


-----(number)------


Food & Tobacco

Textile, Apparel,
& Leather

Paper & Printing

Chemical, Petroleum,
Rubber & Plastics

Lumber & Furniture

Stone, Clay & Glass

Primary & Int.
Metals

Machinery

Transportation

Instruments &
Miscellaneous


36,051


5,506

18,792


6,488

28,384

3,645


4,706

4,039

4,222


3,812


Employment
1950 1960


-----(number)-----


54,648 34,599


19,824

35,018


14,749

24,921

13,133


20,412

23,458

14,116


5,088

18,367


6,282

27,657

3,565


4,453

3,771

3,870


8,321 2,629


50,416


18,589

33,838


14,233

23,411

12,511


28,893

22,255

12,858


7,838


Unemployment


1950


1960


(number) (%) (number) (%)

1,452 4.0 4,232 7.7


418 7.6

425 2.3


183 6.5


1,235

1,180


516

1,510

622


1,519

1,203

1,258


6.2

3.4


3.5

6.1

4.7


5.0

5.1

8.9


483 5.8


Source: [24]






-47-


TABLE 20. Changes in experienced labor force and employment by selected
manufacturing industries, Florida, 1950 to 1960


Industry


Food and Tobacco

Textile, Apparel
& Leather

Paper & Printing

Chemical, Petroleum
Rubber & Plastics

Lumber & Furniture

Stone, Clay & Glass

Primary & Intermediate
Metals

Machinery

Transportation

Instruments &
Miscellaneous


Change in
Experienced
Labor Force
(number) (percent)

18,597 51.6


14,318

16,226


8,261

-3,463

9,488


25,706

19,419

9,894


5,509


260.0

86.3


127.3

-12.2

260.3


546.2

480.8

234.3


195.9


Change in
Employment
(number) (percent)

15,817 45.7


13,501

15,471


7,951

-4,246

8,946


24,440

18,484

8,988


5,209


265.3

84.2


126.6

-15.4

250.9


548.8

490.2

232.2


198.1


Source: [24]





-48-


TABLE 21. Manufacturing plants with twenty or more employees, by industry
classification, study area counties, 1958


Chemicals
Textile Petroleum
Food & Apparel & Paper & Rubber &
County Total Tobacco Leather Printing Plastics
-----------(number)------------------

Alachua 17 6 1 1 1
Baker 2 1
Bay 12 3 1 2 1
Bradford 4 1 -
Calhoun 2 -
Columbia 7 -
Dixie 3 2
Escambia 35 11 7 5
Franklin -- -
Gadsden 17 9 1 -
Gilchrist -- -
Gulf 3 2
Hamilton 4 -
Holmes 2 -
Jackson 11 5 1 1
Jefferson 1 -
Lafayette -- -
Leon 20 5 4 1
Levy 6 2 -
Liberty 4 -- 1
Madison 6 .
Okaloosa 5 1 -
Santa Rosa 4 2
Suwannee 3 1 -
Taylor 8 1 -
Union -- --
Wakulla 2 -- 1
Walton 2 2 -
Washington 3 -

TOTAL/AREA 183 44 5 18 16

REST/STATE 1,323 318 116 114 87

FLORIDA 1,506 362 121 132 103


Source: [24]





-49-


TABLE 21. Continued


Stone Primary & Elec. & Instruments
Lumber & Clay & Inter. Non-Elec. Trans. & & Misc.
County Furniture Glass Metals Machinery Ordnance Products
----------------------(number)----------------------

Alachua 4 2 2 -
Baker 1 -
Bay 3 1 1 -
Bradford 3 -
Calhoun 2 -
Columbia 4 1 1 1
Dixie 1 -
Escambia 8 2 1 1
Franklin -
Gadsden 7 -
Gilchrist -
Gulf 1 -
Hamilton 4 -
Holmes 1 1 -
Jackson 4 -
Jefferson 1 -
Lafayette -
Leon 5 2 2 1
Levy 4 -
Liberty 3 -
Madison 5 1 -
Okaloosa 3 1 -
Santa Rosa 2 -- -
Suwannee 2 -
Taylor 6 1
Union -
Wakulla 1 -
Walton -
Washington 3 -

TOTAL/AREA 75 11 5 4 5 0

REST/STATE 175 159 157 83 70 44

FLORIDA 250 170 162 87 75 44


Source: [24]





-50-


TABLE 22.


Manufacturing plants with twenty or more employees, by industry
classification, study area counties, 1963


Chemicals
Textile Petroleum
Food & Apparel & Paper & Rubber &
County Total Tobacco Leather Printing Plastics
------------------(number)------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


Source: [22]


23
2
13
4
2
10
4
38
1
13

5
2
1
8
1

18
3
3
6
5
3
4
6
1
3
3
3

185

1,641

1,826


1

1
1












1
1






1



1





7

175

182


1

3





7



2






4







1






18

190

208


3

1



1
5



2


1


2

1


2



1



19

127

146




-51-


TABLE 22. Continued




Stone Primary & Elec. & Instrument
Lumber & Clay & Inter. Non-Elec. Trans. & & Misc.
County Furniture Glass Metals Machinery Ordnance Products
----------------------(number)---------- -----

Alachua 6 1 4 -
Baker 2 -
Bay 1 2 1 1 -
Bradford 3 -
Calhoun 2 -
Columbia 5 1 1 1
Dixie 2 -
Escambia 9 4 1 1
Franklin -
Gadsden 4 1 -
Gilchrist -
Gulf -
Hamilton 2 -
Holmes 1 -
Jackson 3 -
Jefferson -
Lafayette -
Leon 5 1 -
Levy 2 -
Liberty 2 -
Madison 5 1 -
Okaloosa 3 1 -
Santa Rosa 1 -
Suwannee 3 -
Taylor 4 1
Union -
Wakulla -
Walton 1 -
Washington 3 -

TOTAL/AREA 67 10 6 6 3 0

REST/STATE 161 153 174 150 88 57

FLORIDA 228 163 180 156 91 57


Source: [22]





-52-


New Plants and Jobs


The idea of a new industrial plant is a stimulating one, especially

in an area where economic opportunity is relatively limited. Data in

Table 23 show the number of new plants and expansions locating in the

study area counties annually 1960-1967. The expected number of new jobs

(employees) created by the new plants or expansions (ordinarily expected
8/
to be employed within a year from the plant opening date)- are shown in

Table 24.

Over the eight-year period, the study area obtained about 8.5 percent

of the new plants locating in Florida (420 of 4,956). Of the 420, counties

most favored were those already enjoying a larger population and industry

base: Alachua (43), Bay (34), and Leon (33). Escambia, Okaloosa, and

Jackson each had 26 new plants or expansions.

The expected number of employees in the area due to these new plants

and expansions was 16,959, or 8.5 percent of the Florida total--the same

percentage as the number of new plants. The distribution of expected em-

ployment among counties differs slightly from the distribution of plants:

Columbia (2374), Okaloosa (2371), Jackson (1593), Alachua (1185), Bay (1156),

and Santa Rosa (1033). This would appear to lend support to the hypothesis

that counties without a strong economic base attract the labor-oriented

types of industry. The following section on Capital-Labor Ratios extends

this discussion.




8 Definitions of new plants, expansions and other associated concepts
are explained in [7].





-53-


TABLE 23.


Florida's new and expanded industrial plants, study area
counties, 1960-1967-


County 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 Total
-------------------------(number)-------------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington


TOTAL/AREA 51 48 62 51 47 58 41 62 420

REST/STATE 623 526 588 607 438 602 513 639 4,536

FLORIDA 674 574 650 658 485 660 554 701 4,956

a/ ing four or more persons.
-Employing four or more persons.


Source: [7]





-54-


Expected number of employees in new plants and expansions,
study area counties, 1960-1967


1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967


Total


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA


73 110 368 76 65 173 20 300
24 --- --- --- 6 17 --- ---
34 105 107 125 27 24 79 655
52 13 2 4 --- 18 175 53
--- 15 --- 190 --- 6 -
325 268 --- 670 241 --- 830 30
80 --- 20 20 70 37 --- 36
72 163 234 5 39 15 85 341
40 15 92 30 --- 70 72 30
226 --- 17 40 289 60 --- 10
5 --- 5 -- -- 10 -- --
15 40 -- --- 25 14 100 9
17 4 14 35 150 270 --- 4
--- 5 4 --- 50 140 60 22
9 95 532 69 111 160 32 585
--- 88 --- 33 200 4 --- 24
-- 20 --- --- 100 13
78 16 23 39 71 181 40 37
-- -- -- 12 354 ---
17 -- -- -- --- --- --- 28
--- 45 34 133 4 12 20
27 64 37 290 86 605 1110 152
--- 81 109 4 320 130 235 154
18 14 90 37 60 10 325 10
64 --- 8 16 35 315 230 124
52 --- 19 27 50 --- 35 ---
15 --- --- 17 60 9 --- 30
-- 20 17 --- 25 -
--- 9 34 --- --- --- 35 30

1253 1105 1780 1798 2100 2651 3575 2697


REST/STATE 22967 18782 19941 17183 17061 21000 29648 35047

FLORIDA 24220 19887 21721 18981 19161 23651 33223 37744


1185
47
1156
317
211
2374
263
954
349
642
20
203
494
281
1593
349
133
485
366
45
248
2371
1033
564
792
183
131
62
108

16959

181629

198588


Source: [7]


TABLE 24.


County


I






-55-


An interesting adjunct to this discussion is the number of new

jobs made available by these new manufacturing plants in relation to

changes in the civilian labor force. For the area, the civilian labor

force increased by 37,490 (or 15 percent) between March, 1963 and March,

1967. New plants and expansions during 1963 through 1966 were expected

to add 10,124 jobs--or one new job in manufacturing for each 3.7 persons

added to the labor force.

In the rest of Florida, the labor force increased by 289,500 (16.6

percent) and new manufacturing jobs by 84,892, for a ratio of one new

job for each 3.4 persons added to the labor force. There may be no

significance to the difference between 3.7 and 3.4, but on the surface

the study area appears less favored in terms of attracting manufacturing

industry--even assuming that labor-oriented industry favors the area.

This is perhaps a crude measure, but should raise questions for further

thought.


Capital-Labor Ratios

The level of income expected in an area is generally closely asso-

ciated with the industry structure. In looking at the economy of an

area, one needs to consider whether low-wage or high-wage industries

predominate. A positive association can be expected between per capital

incomes and fabricating industries and between per capital incomes and

business services. On the other hand, per capital incomes usually vary

inversely with the relative importance of agriculture and with the

relative importance of resource-processing production.






-56-


One useful indicator of such characteristics is the ratio of

capital to labor in new industries. A high ratio of capital to labor

implies a growth industry and higher paying jobs as opposed to the

labor-based industry relocating to seek relief from higher wage rates.

Higher relative capital expenditures imply higher levels of wages (re-

quires more skilled labor) which, in conjunction with the capital ex-

penditures, place more money in circulation and generate more associated

economic activity within the community.

Low local wage levels and a large force of unemployed and/or under-

employed workers can serve as an attraction for industry, and such re-

locations have been made. Table 18 suggests, however, that industry which

is attracted by inexpensive labor is declining nationally. The important

aspect is that such labor-oriented industry--although it may provide

higher-valued alternatives than farming or unemployment--will not provide

the stimulus which an underdeveloped community needs.

Unfortunately, data for making comparisons of relative capital and

labor emphasis within the study area are limited. Capital expenditures

for new plants and expansions and the number of new jobs created provide

one means for assessing trends. The available data are given in Table 25.

Capital-labor ratios are constructed from these data (new capital expendi-

tures to expected new jobs) for new plants and expansions in Florida for

1960 and 1967 (Table 26).

In 1958, reported new capital expenditures exceeded $1 million in only

three study area counties: Alaehua, Bay, and Escambia-Santa Rosa. In 1963,

Alachua, Bay, and Taylor Counties reported expenditures exceeding $1 million.

Information for four counties was withheld in each reporting year.






-57-


TABLE 25.


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


Capital expenditures for new plants and expansions, study
area counties, 1958 and 1963


1958 1963
-------------($1,000)------------


1,050
149
1,140
344
123
194
72
5,703a/
21
219
b/
b/
63
64
233
105
33
491
139
196
163
62
a/
117
b/
37
b/
132
58


120,789


3,867
119
5,993
206
125
369
175
b/
63
298
b/
b/
78
55
409
58
49
389
211
173
398
281
b/
180
1,541
109
95
41
60


190,617


a/Member Pensacola SMSA
-Withheld
c/Totals not available because of


withheld data


Source: [241






-58-


TABLE 26. Ratios of capital expenditures to new jobs, study area counties,
1958 and 1963


a!
Capital-Labor Ratio-
County 1958 1963


Alachua 7.4 50.9
Baker 11.5 b/
Bay 13.0 47.9
Bradford b/ 51.5
Calhoun 5.1 .7
Columbia 32.3 .6
Dixie 2.2/ 8.8
Escambia 40.7- c/
Franklin .2 2.1
Gadsden b/ 7.4
Gilchrist c/ c/
Gulf c/ c/
Hamilton 1.4 2.2
Holmes b/ b/
Jackson 58.2 5.9
Jefferson b/ 1.8
Lafayette 5.5 2.4
Leon b/ 10.0
Levy 3.5 b/
Liberty b/ b/
Madison 1.3 11.7
Okaloosa .1 1.0
Santa Rosa d/ c/
Suwannee b/ 4.9
Taylor c/ 96.3
Union b/ 4.0
Wakulla c/ 5.6
Walton .8 2.4
Washington .2 b/

TOTAL/AREA e/ e/

REST/STATE e/ e/

FLORIDA 5.2 10.0
a!
a Thousand dollars of new capital expenditure per new job.
c/No new employees indicated.
d/Capital expenditure data withheld.
-/Escambia and Santa Rosa Counties are combined for 1958.
Totals not available because of withheld data.
Totals not available because of withheld data.


Source: Calculated from Tables 24 and 25.





-59-


Florida's new capital expenditures were 58 percent higher in 1963

than in 1958. Capital-labor ratios were 5.2 in 1958 and 10.0 in 1963.

Of 16 study area counties for which ratios could be calculated in 1958,

only seven exceeded 5.2, and four were less than 1.0. Ratios were calcu-

lated for 20 study area counties in 1963, with only six equalling or

exceeding 10.0. Only two ratios were less than 1.0.

Admittedly, these are rough comparisons. Much more usefulness could

be obtained from such comparisons if they were made for each year. Data

should be developed for this purpose.


Employment and Payrolls

Changes in the aggregate level of manufacturing activity are observ-

able in statistics furnished by the Florida Industrial Commission. These

show the number of units, employees, and payrolls where workers are covered

by Florida unemployment compensation law. Data for 1960 and 1967 are

shown in Table 27. Data for firms not covered under the unemployment com-

pensation law are omitted. Payroll figures in Table 26 are therefore

slightly less than estimates of income of manufacturing workers indicated

by the dollar amounts and percentages previously given in Tables 4 and 5.

In the study area, reporting units declined from 785 to 778, with 11

counties showing fewer reporting units in 1967 than in 1960. Seven of

these counties showed smaller payrolls. For the rest of the state, employ-

ment and payrolls increased by 51.0 and 104.1 percent respectively, while

employment and payrolls in the study area increased by only 5.9 and 35.9

percent respectively.






-60-


Employment and payrolls of manufacturing workers covered by
Florida Unemployment Compensation Law, study area counties,
1960 and 1967


Reporting Units
1960 1967


-(number)-


Employees
1960 1967
----(number)---


Payroll
1960 1967
----(number)----


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


58
30
52
17
9
37
15
108
6
46
2
13
17
13
41
12
5
70
24
16
34
34
14
24
34
13
9
16
16


62
22
62
17
13
37
23
109
10
34

12
13
8
41
12
5
68
18
17
29
37
17
28
34
12
10
10
18


785 778

4,465 5,406

5,250 6,184


2,570
237
2,400
322
206
790
237
12,690
89
1,563
30
1,209
321
119
849
143
59
1,868
301
314
815
1,909
890
273
1,341
114
126
128
254


3,181
139
2,516
413
308
1,444
433
12,084
239
1,499

1,172
116
173
1,273
174
39
1,928
267
252
601
1,375
1,318
352
1,763
183
290
300
222


10,821
584
11,889
740
524
2,133
910
65,025
229
3,934
80
6,335
684
254
2,355
264
160
6,784
764
1,019
2,226
12,034
5,490
731
6,957
233
393
385
555


17,090
491
16,138
1,499
1,344
7,138
1,860
81,147
474
5,507

9,355
361
578
5,034
643
135
9,137
916
1,084
2,385
7,860
9,440
1,334
11,848
615
946
1,349
693


32,167 34,054 144,492 196,401

168,757 254,873 786,956 1,606,258

200,924 288,927 931,448 1,802,659


Source: [6]


TABLE 27.


County


---


--






-61-


II-C TRADE AND SERVICES


The areas of trade and services are generally thought of as being

of secondary or tertiary importance (growth in these areas is usually

generated by growth in others) as sectors of economic activity. Such

is basically true where development occurs in the traditional manner;

that is, beginning with export-based industry. Florida's development

has not been entirely of the traditional kind, however. Much economic

activity has been generated through sale of such intangible goods as

climate, scenery, recreation, and amusement. (More will be said of the

need for further development activity in these areas later.)

Employees engaged in wholesale and retail trade in the study area

in 1967 that were covered by Florida unemployment compensation laws

numbered 41,067. This figure apparently represents an increase over

1960, although lack of data in six counties precludes an accurate com-

parison. Total covered employment in these six counties in 1967 only

amounted to 504 (about 1.2 percent of the area total), so their exclusion

is likely inconsequential. Decreases in employment were observed in

three counties: Gadsden, Wakulla, and Walton. It is also likely that

most (if not all) of the six counties for which 1960 data were not

available also showed decreases.

Payrolls in 1967 amounted to something over $156 million, with only

Wakulla and Walton counties showing decreases. (The proceeding statement

regarding probable decreases in six unreported counties also applies here.)

Employment and payroll data from the Census of Business, 1958 and 1963, on

retail and wholesale trade are presented in Table 28.





-62-


Employment and payrolls of wholesale and retail trade workers


Unemployment Compensation Law, study area
1967


covered by Florida
counties, 1960 and


Reporting Units
1960 1967
--(number)--


Employees
1960 1967
---(number)----


Payroll
1960 1967
-----($1,000)----


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA


REST/STATE


- Not available


Source: [6]


FLORIDA


282
a/
293
43
21
115
a/
629
43
115
a/
28
30
23
115
25
a/
333
35
a/
45
205
76
67
59
a/
12
49
25


392
24
333
58
30
143
19
737
53
133
15
31
38
25
126
31
9
434
55
7
59
291
98
85
77
11
9
51
31


3,323
a/
3,497
315
119
876
a/
9,104
341
2,374
a/
212
159
153
1,268
183
a/
4,182
342
a/
346
1,792
553
521
490
a/
260
596
164


3,405

23,540


5,472
163
4,549
394
190
1,256
140
10,599
391
2,232
69
217
371
157
1,353
210
40
5,872
679
46
486
3,174
768
813
627
46
98
454
201

41,067

391,577


10,269
a/
10,995
735
292
2,312
a/
29,812
526
5,555
a/
547
301
337
3,382
423
a/
13,728
876
a/
834
5,175
1,436
1,325
1,244
a/
508
1,475
391


22,306 26,945 315,958 432,644 1,150,341


TABLE 28.


County


21,063
502
18,340
1,322
579
4,346
394
43,917
834
6,316
256
596
1,315
502
4,989
607
96
24,836
2,828
97
1,556
11,071
2,543
2,888
1,910
122
316
1,467
652

156,260


1,828,149

1,984,409


---





-63-


Retail Trade

Retail trade includes establishments primarily engaged in selling

merchandise to customers for personal, household, or farm use. The

number of such establishments in the study area increased from 6,839 to

7,348 between 1958 and 1963 (an increase of 7.4 percent).

Meanwhile, retail trade establishments in the rest of Florida

increased by 7.6 percent, indicating that the study area's record was

comparable. The increase area-wide presents a distorted picture, however,

for growth in number of establishments was concentrated in a few counties,

with 10 counties actually losing retail stores. Table 29 shows number of

retail establishments and sales by county.

In terms of volume of retail sales, the area showed a gain of 27.1

percent as compared to 30.7 percent for the rest of Florida. Retail sales

in the study area increased from $667,372 in 1958 to $848,510 in 1963.

These amounts represented 11.4 and 11.2 percent of Florida's retail trade

in each of the years. The percentage increase in retail sales was highest

in Okaloosa County and lowest in Wakulla County.


Wholesale Trade

Wholesale trade includes establishments primarily engaged in selling

merchandise to retailers; to institutional, industrial, commercial and

professional users; or to other wholesalers.

Table 30 shows the number of wholesale trade establishments and volume

of sales by county in 1958 and 1963. Establishments increased by 17.7

percent (from 789 to 929) within the study area, while sales increased by

only 14.2 percent. The magnitude of changes was different in the rest of





-64-


Number of retail trade establishments and total sales, study
area counties, 1958 and 1963


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA


Establishments
1958 1963 Change
----(number)--- (%)


607
83
654
162
88
219
69
1,360
105
302
50
115
98
110
363
104
42
577
162
21
162
444
206
177
186
34
56
150
133

6,839


REST/STATE 42,708

FLORIDA 49,547


681
74
711
172
88
260
80
1,480
85
323
36
105
95
114
335
107
32
658
188
32
145
530
270
190
194
35
50
152
126

7,348

45,945

53,293


12.2
-10.8
8.7
6.2
0.0
18.7
15.9
8.8
-19.0
7.0
-28.0
-8.7
-3.0
3.6
-7.7
2.9
-23.7
14.0
16.0
52.4
-10.5
19.4
31.1
7.4
4.3
2.9
-10.7
1.3
-5.3


1958


Total Sales
1963


------ (number) ------


70,331
5,034
69,997
10,192
5,198
20,314
3,612
181,859
5,839
25,997
2,893
9,137
5,081
5,412
28,200
6,224
1,939
79,563
9,817
1,598
9,444
39,975
16,223
13,888
13,754
2,475
2,649
14,565
6,180


7.4 667,372

7.6 5,172,228

7.6 5,839,600


100,192
5,782
88,857
13,449
5,959
29,108
4,259
217,950
7,001
31,038
3,378
7,269
5,746
6,502
30,893
7,264
1,636
102,688
12,465
1,418
11,018
67,225
23,932
20,096
16,492
2,406
1,750
15,743
6,994


Change
(%)

42.5
14.9
26.9
32.0
14.6
43.3
17.9
19.8
19.9
19.4
16.8
-20.4
13.1
20.1
9.5
16.7
-15.6
29.1
27.0
-11.3
16.7
68.2
47.5
44.7
19.9
-2.8
-33.9
8.1
13.2


848,510 27.1

6,761,207 30.7

7,609,717 30.3


Source: [10; pp. 168-69]


TABLE 29.





-65-


TABLE 30. Number of wholesale trade establishments and total sales, study
area counties, 1958 and 1963


Establishments


1958 1963
-(number)--


Change
(%)


Total Sales


1958 1963
------($1,000)-----


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


100
6
100
14
14
36
8
203
28
36
4
12
6
13
37
9
3
136
18
0
11
39
14
21
19
7
6
18
11


6,443 7,967


7,232


8,896


20.5
-14.3
20.5
75.0
75.0
12.5
60.0
13.4
27.3
5.9
-33.3
9.1
0.0
30.0
-2.6
-18.2
200.0
18.3
12.5

-8.3
85.7
27.3
50.0
-8.6
133.3
0.0
5.9
37.5

17.7


41,792
1,715
52,628
2,719
2,206
8,915
748
134,886
3,978
24,491
1,642
3,537
1,924
2,670
20,878
3,995
a/
44,866
4,647
a/
4,633
5,135
2,570
7,684
6,827
a/
10,524
8,035
2,880

406,525-/


23.7 5,105,374-/

23.0 5,511,899


49,913
1,062
43,597
4,873
3,208
12,287
1,678
135,592
12,373
31,995
2,103
3,130
10,082
3,988
18,022
1,813
a/
61,226
5,351
0
5,306
10,766
6,183
11,578
6,272
1,052
9,741
8,554
2,573

464,318/

7,022,492c/

7,486,810


a/
b-Withheld to avoid disclosing figures for individual
/Sales not reported in three counties in 1958 and in
Difference between Florida total and area estimate.


firms.
one county in 1963.


Source: [10; pp. 171-72]


County


Change
(%)


19.4
-38.1
17.2
79.2
45.4
37.8
124.3
0.5
211.0
30.6
28.1
11.5
424.0
49.4
-13.7
-54.6

36.5
15.1

14.5
109.7
140.6
50.7
-8.1

-7.4
6.5
-10.6

14.2

37.6

35.8






-66-


the state, as establishments increased by 23.7 percent and sales

increased by 37.6 percent. The difference in this pattern and that

observed for retail trade implies an encroachment of wholesale trading

from outside the study area.


Services

"Selected services," as reported by the Census of Business, include

the following:

1. hotels, rooming houses, camps, and other lodging places

2. personal services

3. miscellaneous business services (exclusive of accounting,

auditing, and bookkeeping)

4. automobile repair, automobile services and garages

5. miscellaneous repair services

6. motion pictures

7. amusement and recreation services (except motion pictures)

In Table 31 these various categories are lumped together, showing

the number of establishments and receipts in 1958 and 1963. Because

of the diversity of services included, little useful inference can be

made from the data except to point out that receipts increased by 51

percent in the study area as compared to 45 percent for the rest of Florida.

However, the area's share of total receipts increased only from 6.7 to

6.9 percent while the share of establishments remained above 10 percent.






-67-


a/
Number of selected services- establishments and receipts,
study area counties, 1958 and 1963


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


FLORIDA


Establishments
1958 1963 Change
--(number)--- (%)


353
19
414
71
31
124
38
754
32
100
11
49
26
40
131
32
5
328
70
13
50
252
95
60
79
18
24
55
39


3,313

29,248


405
33
533
82
34
107
36
923
45
94
17
51
39
34
131
30
15
413
75
16
61
353
138
68
85
19
20
81
34


3,972

35,519


32,561 39,491


14.7
73.7
28.7
15.5
9.7
-13.7
-5.3
22.4
40.6
-6.0
54.5
4.1
50.0
-15.0
0.0
-6.3
200.0
25.9
7.1
23.1
22.0
40.1
45.3
13.3
7.6
5.6
-16.7
47.3
-12.8

20.0

21.4


Receipts
1958 1963
-----($1,000)----


7,187
161
9,376
1,291
270
1,954
533
17,150
535
1,577
39
598
321
425
1,965
348
57
9,539
942
44
559
8,369
1,340
708
1,420
108
237
695
814

68,562


11,045
312
12,629
1,074
336
2,630
349
25,904
850
1,951
111
845
698
552
2,088
1,464
59
13,993
1,248
48
609
16,991
1,521
982
2,435
120
570
1,146
993


103,553 51.0


958,252 1,388,520


21.3 1,026,814


1,492,073


See text for explanation of selected services.
- See text for explanation of selected services.


Source: [10]


TABLE 31.


Change
(%)

53.7
93.8
34.7
-16.8
24.4
34.6
-34.5
51.0
58.9
23.7
184.6
41.3
117.4
29.9
6.3
320.7
3.5
46.7
32.5
9.1
8.9
103.0
13.5
38.7
71.5
11.1
140.5
64.9
22.0


44.9

45.3









Part III: OTHER INFLUENCING FACTORS


In addition to the changes occurring in the major sectors of

economic activity (i.e., agriculture, manufacturing, and trade) there

are numerous other factors that exert strong influences on the pattern

of development. One of these is the county government. While much of

the revenue of county governments is contingent on the level of economic

activity, there are supplementary revenue sources (State and Federal).

Much discretionary prerogative exists as to the manner in which funds

are expended. Therefore, the pattern of investment in services can

have major impact on economic development.

Education levels are basic to economic development. A discussion

of this factor here rather than in a separate section is not intended

to detract from its importance. In fact, the factors discussed here

are those that determine the productivity of resources on which economic

development depends. The "basic" sectors are the more evident manifes-

tations of the characteristics of the human or motivating resources.

A third major influence of economic development is the potential for

recreation and tourism. Apparently the fundamental resources for expansion

of these activities are present in the study area, but are not being

adequately exploited.

A related factor is the presence of extensive forest resources, which

can provide an arena for recreation and tourism, and which are presently

supporting major economic activity. Again, this is a resource whose full

potential is not being realized.


-68-





-69-


There are numerous other factors that bear strongly on economic

development, and which serve as measures of change in economic structure.

A few of these are educational facilities available, number and kind of

doctors and health facilities available, presence of adequate transporta-

tion facilities, and the adequacy of electric, water, and sewer facilities.

While these factors will not be discussed in detail, it is important that

we maintain an awareness of their essential nature in planning for growth

and change.


III-A COUNTY GOVERNMENT

The financial structure of county governments, including sources

of revenue and expenditures by function, is presented in this section.

This is a superficial examination, considering only the differences between

county financial operations and variables important to development to

determine means of increasing the efficiency of providing public services.-


Tax Structure

The levying of taxes is--within limits--determined on a county-by-

county basis. Table 32 lists the tax rates for the study area counties

in 1960, showing total taxes assessed and the total value of all property

in the county. More detailed data are available from the State Comp-

troller's Report, from which these data were taken.

Because of variations in assessment procedures among counties, inter-

county comparison would have little meaning. Property valuations range

from $3.6 million in Lafayette County to $754.7 million in Escambia County.


9/
- Such a study, covering all counties in Florida, is presently underway.





-70-


Tax millages, taxes assessed,
study area counties, 1960


General
County School
Millage Millage
------(mills)-----


and value of all property,


Total Total Value
Taxes All Property
Assessed in County
------($1,000)------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


15.30
20.00
24.00
17.25
34.50
18.60
12.75
8.09
14.00
7.50
18.50
12.80
34.00
19.00
30.00
10.00
13.00
15.00
12.94
10.00
13.20
24.50
48.60
21.50
14.33
14.00
10.00
27.00
24.00


9.5
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.5
6.0
4.5
10.0
3.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.0
8.0
10.0
4.0
7.0
10.0
10.0
8.5
10.0
9.0
6.0
10.0
10.0
9.0


FLORIDA


3,091
222
2,139
382
169
705
237
8,010
266
762
109
471
203
217
715
240
71
2,687
384
104
275
896
929
706
606
95
78
356
239

25,364

297,113

322,477


197,876
8,436
106,662
13,892
6,906
25,267
9,435
754,684
12,254
63,238
3,935
17,189
5,646
13,103
25,319
12,815
3,593
116.546
20,251
8,135
14.988
42,303
27,541
23,633
22,462
4,676
6,618
19,691
9,383


1,596,477

13,193,372

14,789,849


Source: [9]


TABLE 32.


County


----


-----






-71-


The same counties are at the extremes in taxes assessed, with Lafayette

assessing $71,000 and Escambia over $8 million in 1960. Tax rates vary

from 7.5 mills in Gadsden to 48.6 mills in Santa Rosa.

The ratios of total taxes assessed to total property valuation were

as follows in 1960: study area-- .016; rest of state-- .023; and Florida--

.022. This result casts an unfavorable light on taxation in the study

area, giving the appearance of "tax breaks" where county financing needs

are likely to be the greatest.

Changes in tax laws occurred between 1960 and 1968, causing changes in

millage levied and valuations as shown in Table 33. The range on property

valuations in 1968 was from $18.7 million in Lafayette (contrasted to $3.6

million in 1960) to $949.6 million in Escambia. Taxes assessed ranged from

$108,000 in Liberty to $13.5 million in Escambia.

The ratios of taxes assessed to property valuation were as follows

in 1968: study area-- .012; rest of state-- .018; and Florida-- .017.

The study area ratio still remains considerable below that in the rest

of Florida.


Revenue

County local revenue sources are primarily property taxes, but major

amounts are also derived from filing fees, fines and forfeitures, occupa-

tional licenses, beverage licenses, and fees of county officers. In addition

to these local sources, counties receive funds from State and Federal sources.

Tables 34 and 35 below indicate the level of county government receipts,

by source and by county, for 1960 and 1967. Total receipts for the study

area increased from $21.4 million to $36.5 million (or by 71 percent) over

the period. Receipts from revenue sources increased from $11.4 million to





-72-


Tax millages, taxes assessed,
study area counties, 1968


and value of all property,


General
County School
County Millage Millage
------ (mills)-------


Total
Taxes
Assessed
------($1


Total Value
All Property
in County
,000)------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


7.2500
6.5000
6.5700
6.6780
5.5000
8,3820
7.2000
8.0800
2.2800
6.5400
5,2600
13.9000
7.1170
4.5000
5.7300
5.1700
5.0000
7.4000
6.8100
4.0000
7.9000
6.1790
6.1850
7.9150
5.8793
5.2000
6.0000
10.7100
6.5000


10.600
8.000
6.400
10.000
8.000
10.375a-
10.870
10.000
6.300
10.450
10.000
10.590
9.000
7.500
6.700
9.610
5.300
10.000
7.800
4.000
10.500
10.000
5.500
9.370
10.260
9.630
9.000
11.000
9.000


FLORIDA


a/
/ Includes
School.


7,147
408
4,774
771
392
1,681
395
13,463
273
1,217
261
1,064
623
315
1,317
468
153
7,656
1,073
108
578
3,933
2,140
1,275
1,189
227
225
889
560

54,575

664,653

719,228


709,123
50,348
469,523
61,937
39,481
102,712
26,592
949,559
39,703
115,023
20,521
55,642
42,732
40,338
134,030
37,843
18,696
701,901
85,601
26,843
43,452
302,453
205,943
89,278
85,909
19,890
48,176
68,935
44,197


4,636,381

37,424,229

42,060,610


.375 mills for Lake City Junior College and Forest Ranger


Source: [9]


TABLE 33.


----





-73-


TABLE 34. County government receipts by source, study area counties,
1960 fiscal year


Source
a! b/
County County- State Federal Total-b
--------------------($1,000)----------------

Alachua 1,077 441 434 1,960
Baker 124 113 22 263
Bay 971 312 -- 2,758
Bradford 182 145 -- 329
Calhoun 99 154 -- 271
Columbia 288 209 22 521
Dixie 191 147 2 341
Escambia 2,862 313 19 3,195
Franklin 112 177 -- 296
Gadsden 651 197 -- 852
Gilchrist 68 222 3 320
Gulf 178 168 -- 363
Hamilton 125 135 -- 266
Holmes 130 125 -- 255
Jackson 414 269 -- 689
Jefferson 120 171 -- 294
Lafayette 61 144 -- 206
Leon 1,198 395 6 3,356
Levy 240 182 -- 422
Liberty 46 124 15 192
Madison 124 174 -- 299
Okaloosa 504 324 -- 828
Santa Rosa 532 212 53 797
Suwannee 311 282 -- 593
Taylor 311 217 -- 531
Union 45 147 -- 192
Wakulla 53 245 10 315
Walton 230 210 -- 442
Washington 138 134 -- 275

TOTAL/AREA 11,385 6,088 590 21,421

REST/STATE 136,209 13,721 301 180,453

FLORIDA 147,594 19,809 891 201,874

a/Revenue sources only.
b/Totals may not agree due to rounding and to exclusion of non-revenue
county sources from county column.


Source: [9]





-74-


TABLE 35.


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


County government receipts by source, study area counties,
1967 fiscal year


Source
a/ b/
County-/ State Federal Total-
----------------($1000)------------------


2,749
172
2,005
330
147
650
260
4,927
90
1,040
93
505
291
180
651
102
93
2,302
420
53
244
1,441
911
486
459
78
70
364
221

21,334

263,757

285,091


478
161
690
253
226
297
222
569
263
282
340
164
204
215
203
260
248
561
247
206
253
518
333
283
305
196
306
314
202


8,799

21,551

30,350


939


9,388

10,327


3,358
350
4,606
594
465
1,000
487
5,520
357
1,324
433
1,689
1,500
396
959
367
387
2,909
667
287
517
1,983
1,257
795
2,278
534
397
692
432

36,540

328,538

365,078


a/
a/Revenue sources only.
-Totals may not agree due to rounding
county sources from county column.


and to exclusion of non-revenue


Source: [9]





-75-


$21.3 million--or by 87 percent. The relatively greater dependency on

State and Federal Funds in the study area should be noted. In the study

area, receipts from State and Federal sources were 47 and 42 percent of

total receipts in 1960 and 1967 respectively. For the rest of the state,

non-county receipts comprised only 25 and 20 percent of total receipts in

the two years. In the rest of the state, total receipts increased by 82

percent and receipts from revenue sources increased by 94 percent, con-

siderably surpassing gains in the study area.


Expenditures

Expenditures by county governments are grouped by major functions

of general government, law enforcement, highway construction and main-

tenance, welfare, education, and other.0/ In order to best understand

the operation of the county government it is necessary to examine these

expenditures year by year. As this is not practical here, two points of

observations are taken--1960 and 1967.

Total expenditures listed include capital outlay, but the individual

categories of general government, law enforcement, highways and welfare

do not. These items should then be better measures of changes in the

level or intensity of these functions. Tables 36 and 37 list these ex-

penditures.

Comparisons of percentage changes in expenditures in the study area

with changes in expenditures in the rest of Florida between 1960 and 1967

are as follows:





10/Education funds and expenditures are presented in Section III-B
EDUCATION.





-76-


County government expenditures by function, study area
counties, fiscal 1960 (September)-


Function


Gen.
Govt.


b/
Law Highway Welfare Other- Total
------------($1,000)--------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA


REST/STATE


FLORIDA


408
65
310
84
75
135
112
870
48
233
63
96
86
66
246
96
57
400
132
73
87
199
189
166
128
44
55
131
79


2,953 3,628 4,733
(15.2) (18.7) (24.3)


71
16
46
18
25
15
23
115
17
16
6
8
19
11
38
14
14
81
17
14
17
31
12
4
34
13
12
19
4

730
(3.8)


21,001 22,602 21,836 29,289
(12.4) (13.4) (12.9) (17.3)

23,954 26,230 26,569 30,019
(12.7) (13.9) (14.1) (15.9)


aFigures in parentheses are percentages of total
Includes auxiliary operations, capital outlays,
butions, and refunds of prior year collections.


disbursements.
debt service, distri-


Source: [91


TABLE 36.


Cnuntv


1,341
44
613
84
50
251
54
881
108
401
72
100
63
50
92
68
49
954
124
58
80
302
816
99
167
37
31
342
63

7,394
(38.0)

74,251
(43.9)

81,645
(43.3)


2,353
245
1,476
329
248
600
332
3,345
274
821
225
340
261
236
628
290
201
1,931
433
238
288
835
1,266
431
520
188
169
667
268

19,438


168,979


188,417


..... Go ..





-77-


TABLE 37. County government expenditures by function, study area
counties, fiscal 1967 (September)-



Function
Gen.
County Govt. Law Highway Welfare Other- Total
----------------------($1,000)----------------------

Alachua 783 671 545 587 626 3,212
Baker 85 104 78 15 62 344
Bay 550 428 443 72 4,890 6,383
Bradford 103 122 106 14 306 651
Calhoun 71 56 81 20 208 436
Columbia 148 242 236 24 266 916
Dixie 96 99 106 25 238 564
Escambia 913 1,484 1,173 394 1,354 5,318
Franklin 100 49 55 20 72 296
Gadsden 140 128 278 11 689 1,246
Gilchrist 75 48 66 5 366 560
Gulf 104 74 182 11 1,155 1,526
Hamilton 82 83 117 21 144 447
Holmes 115 87 87 12 122 423
Jackson 165 192 218 22 363 960
Jefferson 73 82 111 30 101 397
Lafayette 61 49 60 19 472 661
Leon 504 513 572 139 1,162 2,890
Levy 123 127 198 30 158 636
Liberty 72 54 87 12 56 281
Madison 96 110 167 7 103 483
Okaloosa 278 329 350 13 1,428 2,398
Santa Rosa 204 195 359 7 601 1,366
Suwannee 147 124 224 13 271 779
Taylor 112 143 143 31 998 1,427
Union 63 70 50 4 277 464
Wakulla 83 47 81 20 192 423
Walton 137 156 197 8 162 660
Washington 74 86 124 5 106 395

TOTAL/AREA 5,557 5,952 6,494 1,591 16,948 36,542
(14.6) (15.6) (17.1) (4.2) (44.5)

REST/STATE 43,863 46,499 29,134 45,736 166,319 331,551
(12.0) (12.7) (8.0) (12.5) (45.4)

FLORIDA 49,420 52,451 35,628 47,327 183,267 368,093
(12.2) (13.0) (8.8) (11.7) (45.3)

a/Figures in parentheses are percentages of total expenditures.
/ Includes auxiliary operations, capital outlays, debt service, distri-
butions, and refunds of prior year collections.


Source: [10]





-78-


Study area Rest of state

General government + 88.2 +108.9

Law enforcement + 64.1 +105.7

Highways + 37.2 + 33.4

Welfare +117.9 + 56.2

It is difficult to assess the meaning of these comparative expendi-

tures with respect to economic development. Without additional information,

differences may be construed as favorable to the study or to the rest of

the state.

There is also a certain amount of ambiguity to per capital expenditures.

Table 38 shows these expenditures for the study area and the rest of Florida,

as well as their percentage increase, for 1960 and 1967. Figures for the

study area are lower except for highway expenditures. This likely reflects

the earlier development of better highway systems outside the study area

and an effort on the part of the study area counties to build up a comparable

system. Differences in expenditures for general government and law may

reflect scale diseconomies for larger populations since both increased in

about the same proportion. Differences in welfare payments obviously reflect

the popularity of counties outside the study area as retirement areas, as

well as a greater prevalence of welfare cases in more populous cities of

Central and South Florida.






-79-


TABLE 38. Per capital expenditures of county governments by selected
function, study area and rest of Florida, 1960 and 1967


government


Study Area
1960 1967 Change
--(dollars)-- (%)

3.92 6.49 65.6

4.81 6.95 44.5

6.28 7.59 20.9

.97 1.86 91.8


Rest of State
1960 1967 Change
--(dollars)-- (%)

5.00 8.39 67.8

5.38 8.90 65.4

5.20 5.57 7.1

6.98 8.75 25.4


Source: [22]


Function


General

Law

Highway

Welfare






-80-


III-B EDUCATION

Recent studies have focused on the central role of human resources

in economic development. The reader is referred to such a study by

Tweeten [21] for a definitive analysis of the importance of education

in alleviating rural poverty (i.e., as a factor in economic development).

As evidence of the correlation between absence of high educational

levels and the presence of poverty, Tweeten cites results of other studies

which considered such criteria as proportion of farm youths completing

the eighth grade, median years of school completed, and percentage of

youth between 20 and 24 years of age who had not completed high school

[21, pp. 3-4].

Admittedly, criteria by which to judge both the quality and quantity

of education are difficult to determine. We may, for the moment, ignore

differences in quality, and examine only measureable differences in quantity

of education within the study area counties and for Florida as a whole.

Table 39 shows comparisons of the educational level of persons 25 years of

age and older in 1950 and 1960.

Median school years completed for Florida increased by 1.3 years (from

9.6 to 10.9). Slightly more than half the study area counties registered

this much improvement, but still only four counties had levels above the

state figure.

Within the study area a much higher proportion have failed to complete

as much as five years of school. Fourteen counties showed more than 30 per-

cent in this category in 1950 with two of these at 44 and 45 percent. On a

statewide basis only 14.1 percent of persons 25 years old and above had com-

pleted less than five years. No study area county showed a percentage figure

this low.






-81-


Education indicators, persons 25 years old and over, study
area counties, 1950 and 1960


Median School
Years Completed
1950 1960
----(Years)----


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

FLORIDA


Source [22]


10.0
6.8
9.2
8.0
7.3
8.2
7.2
9.0
7.4
6.9
7.7
7.7
5.8
6.9
6.9
5.6
7.6
9.7
7.0
7.1
6.7
9.6
8.6
7.9
6.8
6.7
7.1
7.8
7.2

9.6


11.5
8.3
11.1
8.8
8.2
8.8
8.3
10.7
8.6
7.5
8.6
9.6
7.7
8.0
8.5
8.1
8.4
11.2
8.5
8.5
8.0
12.1
10.2
8.3
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.6
8.4

10.9


Completed Less
Than 5 yesrs
1950 1960


Completed High
School or more
1950 1960


------------- (percent)------------


19.5
32.7
15.5
24.9
27.8
24.5
31.9
15.1
33.0
36.1
22.9
26.2
43.8
31.7
33.5
45.0
24.8
21.1
31.2
31.2
37.0
14.2
19.5
24.9
35.6
36.4
34.0
24.5
29.6

14.1


13.6
22.9
10.2
15.7
22.2
19.2
24.0
9.6
17.9
31.1
16.4
17.1
31.1
21.4
23.6
31.1
17.2
12.8
19.4
21.5
30.6
6.5
11.8
23.2
25.7
20.9
23.5
19.5
21.4

9.2


40.2
10.7
35.0
15.8
12.9
23.2
14.4
30.3
19.1
17.4
18.1
20.3
12.0
9.5
14.7
12.5
11.1
39.6
14.7
10.9
17.6
35.1
22.2
17.9
13.5
11.0
13.4
16.7
13.6

35.9


47.5
20.5
43.9
26.8
20.4
30.1
21.2
40.4
27.5
21.9
22.9
32.8
22.5
16.9
26.3
26.1
23.7
49.4
24.1
23.3
23.0
54.4
37.6
23.6
25.8
19.9
21.7
24.3
21.9

42.6


TABLE 39.


i





-82-


In 1960 this percentage completing less than five years had dropped

to 9.2 for Florida. Four study area counties were still slightly above

30 percent. Five counties were below 15 percent with one as low as 6.5

percent.

The other criterion shown in Table 39 is percent completing high

school. Statewide, this figure increased from 35.9 percent in 1950 to

42.6 percent in 1960. One study area county exceeded the statewide per-

centage in 1950 and four achieved this status in 1960. Still, in 1960,

less than one-fourth of this age group had completed high school in 16

of the study area counties.


Education Funds and Expenditures

Statistics relating to financing education are presented separately

from other county government financial operations because of the special-

ized nature of the educational function, State requirements for minimum

expenditures, and source of funding.

The principal source of information on education in Florida is the

biennial report of the Florida Department of Education, Commissioner of

Education. Data on financing the public school system are available in

the annual report of the Comptroller of the State of Florida.

Counties receive funds for education from the Federal government for

elementary and secondary education, school lunch program, school milk

program, and for educational programs authorized under the Vocational

Education Act of 1963, National Defense Education Act, Manpower Develop-

ment Training Act, and Adult Basic Education Act. The majority of these

funds are for elementary and secondary education and the school lunch and

milk programs. Counties also receive State minimum foundation program






-83-


funds for instructional salaries, transportation, other current expenses,

additional capital outlay, county school sales tax fund, junior colleges,

and driver education. Minor amounts from a state trust fund are for

capital outlay, Board of Administration debt service, and interest on

investments.

Table 40 shows receipts of these educational funds for 1967-68.

Counties in the study area received almost 15 percent of such funds from

Federal sources, while counties in the rest of the State received only

slightly over 11 percent from this source.

County expenditures for education (current expenses--including ad-

ministration, instruction, maintenance, auxiliary services, and fixed

charges) are shown for 1959-60 and 1966-67 in Table 41.

In counties outside the study area, educational expenditures in-

creased by 135.1 percent. Within the study area the increase was only

89.6 percent. Without a more comprehensive analysis it is impossible

to say whether the quality of education offered study area students has

suffered relative to that outside the area. It is suggestive both of a

need for more definitive research and for greater consideration of the

important role of education in economic development. Industrial plants

can be built in a short time, but the educational level of people in an

area can be built up only gradually and over a longer period of time.


III-C FOREST RESOURCES

The forest resources of North and West Florida are perhaps the

area's greatest economic natural asset. A survey [11, 12] of the timber

resources in North and West Florida between July, 1968 and March, 1969





-84-


Receipts of educational funds from Federal and State sources,
study area counties (fiscal 1967-68)


a/
Source-a/
Federal State Minimum
Government Foundation Program Funds
------------($1,000)---------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


-/See text


881
141
867
418
197
592
101
1,676
101
776
55
116
172
241
1,014
221
50
720
158
57
430
578
324
399
397
67
91
265
453


11,585 (14.7)

36,725 (11.1)

48,310 (11.8)


6,866
661
5,396
1,170
723
2,484
392
14,955
492
3,206
299
798
668
858
3,424
808
208
6,229
880
294
1,917
6,630
2,446
1,296
1,065
354
474
1,171
1,060


67,224 (85.3)

294,782 (88.9)

362,006 (88.2)


for types of expenditures allowable from these funds.


Source: [10, pp. 432-436]


TABLE 40.


County





-85-


Expenditures of educational funds for current expenses, study
area counties, 1959-60 and 1966-67


1959-60 1966-67
-----------(Dollars)-----------


Change
(Percent)


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE


FLORIDA


4,249,301
569,886
3,686,589
960,044
657,158
1,441,107
416,433
9,259,568
422,690
2,141,029
314,165
803,133
659,785
865,866
2,315,797
742,008
267,756
4,064,111
846,496
315,147
1,016,964
2,879,760
1,711,629
1,149,604
928,751
339,920
530,112
1,159,829
871,751

45,586,389

215,378,826

260,965,215


8,782,260
995,828
6,251,270
1,620,769
1,294,696
2,863,141
799,552
18,549,252
712,934
3,936,921
545,773
1,340,819
1,035,530
1,322,748
3,289,218
1,241,957
420,335
8,420,722
1,462,300
502,427
1,611,504
7,649,471
3,331,664
2,029,101
1,736,493
646,482
711,452
1,928,675
1,414,286

86,447,580

506,292,570

592,740,150


Source: [9]


TABLE 41.


County


106.7
74.7
69.6
68.8
97.0
98.7
92.0
100.3
68.7
83.9
73.7
66.9
56.9
52.8
42.0
67.4
57.0
107.2
72.7
59.4
58.5
165.6
94.6
76.5
87.0
90.2
34.2
66.3
62.2


89.6


135.1

127.1





-86-


provides recent data for evaluation of trends and changes in this resource.

Results of the two reports are first summarized separately below, and later
11/
for the 29 counties.-

In the 16 western-most counties (reported in [11]) no significant

changes have occurred in the total area of commercial forest land since

1959. Commercial forests occupy 5.7 million acres, or about 79 percent

of the total land in the 16 counties.

There have, however, been significant changes in forestry activity

in these counties [11, p. 1]. Over one-half million acres have been arti-

ficially reforested (by planting of pine seedlings). The scrub oak forest

type has been reduced by about 300,000 acres (over one-third).

Little change has occurred in the forest ownership pattern. About

4.5 million acres (over 78 percent) of the commercial forest lands are

privately owned. The forest industry owns about 2.0 million acres of

this total. Practically all of the publicly owned forest land is in

Applachicola National Forest, Eglin Air Force Base, and the Blackwater

River State Forest.

Volume of growing stock has increased about 28 percent for softwood

and about 10 percent for hardwood. This represents a sustained rate of

increase over previous surveys. Although removals of growing stock in

1968 almost doubled the removals in 1958, net growth of growing stock in

1968 exceeded removals by 56 percent. Also, net growth of sawtimber in

1968 exceeded removals by 61 percent, indicating a strong growth in the

timber resources of this area.





11/certain pertinent data are not reported separately by counties,
thus the separate discussions.





-87-


Information pertaining to the forest resources of the remaining

13 counties in the study area are reported in bulletin SE-15 [12]. The

21 county area includes eight counties not in the study area. Generali-

zations from the report reflect a slightly different situation than that

existing in the eight study area counties but may be useful for considera-

tion in terms of changes occurring on the fringes of the study area.

The area of commercial forest land has declined by 190,000 acres

(less than 3.0 percent). Commercial forest land totaled 7.1 million

acres in 1969 and covered 72 percent of the total land area. About 1.3

million acres have been artificially reforested, making this area a

leader in the proportion of forest land in plantations.

The volume of softwood growing stock has increased by 29 percent

and the volume of hardwood growing stock by seven percent. In 1969--

even though removals of growing stock were up by two-thirds over 1959--

net growth exceeded removals by 48 percent. Net growth of sawtimber is

estimated to have exceeded removals by 28 percent.

The sampling procedure used by the Forest Survey was intended,

primarily, to furnish data for the 16 and 21 county units. County

estimates, therefore, have more limited applicability and variable

accuracy. However, these data can still provide useful information in

certain areas [12, p. 13].

Tables 42 and 43 show all land, total forest land, and commercial

forest in the study area in 1959 and in 1969. Commercial forests re-

presented more than 75 percent of the total land area in 18 counties in

1959 and in 17 counties in 1969. Suwannee County had the smallest pro-

portion of its land in commercial forest--46.6 percent.





-88-


Total land, forest land, and commercial forest land, study
area counties, 1959


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
, Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA

a!
-/Gross area,
Defined as


Forest Land
1 All


Land-/ Total
--(1,000 acres)-


570.3
374.4
476.3
187.5
355.3
503.7
434.7
415.9
344.0
324.5
221.6
351.1
326.2
307.3
588.4
382. 6
343.4
434.9
700.4
532.6
445.2
602.1
650.8
432.3
652.3
153.6
390.2
666.4
374.7


284.6
352.2
427.0
142.6
304.0
361.7
395.6
293.9
311.7
236.3
144.7
329.0
257.8
190.8
320.1
248.7
290.5
305.9
528.3
522.2
317.9
514.3
539.3
197.9
589.3
129.7
325.1
570.9
303.9


12,542.7 9,735.9

22,274.4 11,279.9

34,817.1 21,015.8


Commercial Forest


Land Total
(%) (1,000
acres)
49.9 282.1
94.1 350.3
89.6 426.5
76.1 142.6
85.6 304.0
71.8 352.2
91.0 388.4
70.7 291.4
90.6 311.0
72.8 236.3
65.3 144.7
93.7 327.6
79.0 256.7
62.1 190.8
54.4 318.5
65.0 248.7
84.6 290.3
70.3 304.9
75.4 525.9
98.0 515.2
71.4 317.9
85.4 514.3
82.9 539.3
45.8 197.2
90.3 578.8
84.4 129.7
83.3 323.6
85.7 566.0
81.1 303.9

77.6 9,678.8


50.6 9,907.0

60.4 19,585.8


% All
Land
(%)

49.5
93.6
89.5
76.1
85.6
69.9
89.3
70.1
90 4
72.8
65.3
93.3
78.7
62.1
54.1
65.0
84.5
70.1
75.1
96.7
71.4
85.4
82.9
45.6
88.7
84.4
82.9
84.9
81.1

77.2

44.5

56.3


b/
Landd-
% All
Forest
(%)

99.1
99.5
99.9
100.0
100.0
97.4
98.2
99.1
99.8
100.0
100.0
99.6
99.6
100.0
99.5
100.0
99.9
99.7
99.5
98.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.6
98.2
100.0
99.5
99.1
100,0

99.4


87.8

93.2


less water, from Bureau of the Census, 1950.
(a) producing or physically capable of producing, trees with


one sound saw log at least 8 feet long, (b) economically accessible now
or in the foreseeable future, and (c) not withdrawn from timber utilization,
such as parks and watersheds.


Source: [15]


TABLE 42.





-89-


Total land, forest land, and commercial forest land, study
area counties, 1969


County


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA


Forest
All
Land- Total
--(1,000 acres)-


588.2
375.0
494.8
188.5
362.1
515.3
456.7
417.4
348.8
328.1
227.0
363.2
329.0
309.0
601.1
384.4
352.0
430.5
729.5
540.2
456.8
586.8
649.8
439.1
668.2
158.0
395.8
686.9
387.1


311.4
350.6
423.2
148.1
309.6
389.4
393.6
281.7
307.0
229.6
150.8
334.2
253.3
203.7
340.5
275.2
294.9
319.0
521.7
525.3
323.9
471.3
531.5
204.8
611.5
133.8
349.0
544.5
306.9


12,769.3 9,840.0


st Land
% All


Commercial Forest Land
Commercial Forest Land-


---


a/
a/Gross area, less water, from Bureau of the Census, 1960.
/Defined as (a) producing or physically capable of producing, trees with
one sound saw log at least 8 feet long, (b) economically accessible now
or in the foreseeable future, and (c) not withdrawn from timber utilization
such as parks and watersheds.


Source: [11, 12]


TABLE 43.


Land Total
(%) (1,000
acres)
52.9 311.0
93.5 349.5
85.5 422.5
78.6 148.1
85.5 309.6
75.6 385.2
86.2 393.6
67.5 279.5
88.0 306.2
70.0 229.6
66.4 150.8
92.0 332.4
77.0 252.2
65.9 203.7
56.6 338.9
71.6 275.2
83.8 294.7
74.1 318.4
71.5 507.9
97.3 524.2
70.9 323.9
80.3 470.7
81.8 531.5
46.6 204.2
91.5 607.0
84.7 133.8
88.2 348.6
79.3 537.7
79.3 306.7

77.1 9,797.3


% All
Forest
(%)


% All
Land
(%)

52.9
93.2
85.4
78.6
85.5
74.8
86.2
67.0
87.8
70.0
66.4
91.5
76.7
65.9
56.5
71.6
83.8
74.0
69.6
97.0
70.9
80.2
81.8
46.6
90.8
84.7
88.1
78.3
79.2


99.9
99.7
99.8
100.0
100.0
98.9
100.0
99.2
99.7
100.0
100.0
100.0
99.6
100.0
99.5
100.0
99.9
99.8
97.4
99.8
100.0
99.9
100.0
99.9
99.3
100.0
99.9
98.8
99.9

99.6


76.7






-90-


Table 44 shows the estimated volume of softwood and hardwood

sawtimber by county, 1959 and 1969.

Of the commercial forest land in the study area in 1959, 14.6

percent was publicly owned. Slightly less than half of this (693,000

acres) was in national forests including parts of six counties (Table

45). In 1960 publicly owned acreage accounted for 14.3 percent of

commercial forest land (Table 46).

There is no breakdown of private ownership available for 1959.

In 1969-1970, however, the 8.4 million privately-owned acres were dis-
12/
tribute among ownership classes as follows: forest industry- --51.3

percent; farmer--18.8 percent; corporate--3.8 percent; and other indi-

viduals--26.1 percent.

The extent of forest industry ownership will be an important factor

in the development of this area. In 12 of the 29 counties over half the

commercial forest land is owned by the forest industry. In these counties

commercial forests represent better than 70 percent of the counties' land

area. At present there is little reason to expect changes in this owner-

ship pattern.

Within the forestry sector other changes are occurring. Pulpwood

cut is increasing and lumber cut is decreasing. The pulp industry has

taken first place in Florida's timber economy from the large sawmills.

Between 1936 and 1960, nine pulpmills were added to the one in existence

in 1936, giving Florida more pulping capacity than any other state in

the nation [15, p. 8].





12/Forest industry lands are lands owned by individuals or companies
operating a wood-using plant.





-91-


a/
Net voluge/of sawtimber by county and species group, 1959
and 1969-


Softwood
1959 1969 b/


Hardwood


1959


19
1969b


1959


Total


1969b/


-------------------(million bd. ft.) ------------------


Alachua
Baker
Bay
Bradford
Calhoun
Columbia
Dixie
Escambia
Franklin
Gadsden
Gilchrist
Gulf
Hamilton
Holmes
Jackson
Jefferson
Lafayette
Leon
Levy
Liberty
Madison
Okaloosa
Santa Rosa
Suwannee
Taylor
Union
Wakulla
Walton
Washington

TOTAL/AREA

REST/STATE

FLORIDA


201.2
640.3
111.0
159.6
125.1
474.7
323.2
292.5
221.2
160.7
58.4
194.9
419.0
105.3
140.9
481.9
238.9
476.1
360.1
679.5
363.0
386.2
565.8
96.8
725.6
112.4
416.3
142.2
211.5


319.2
742.9
222.9
210.7
183.7
705.6
504.9
413.9
295.1
283.4
64.4
311.8
288.2
149.0
226.5
382.0
315.7
444.2
641.7
882.2
361.2
586.2
870.1
124.6
864.9
168.3
498.3
488.5
248.2


112.6
120.7
15.8
37.1
146.0
65.6
443.7
121.2
102.2
239.8
54.2
239.3
72.0
100.2
344.7
241.5
142.5
266.0
349.8
502.1
139.2
123.9
256.2
173.5
233.1
54.7
202.8
115.0
129.8


267.1
150.9
27.7
17.1
143.0
151.9
493.9
214.3
196.2
223.8
55.9
275.7
93.7
128.9
282.5
326.4
110.6
256.7
458.2
582.3
217.0
119.2
190.2
157.6
422.4
57.6
239.2
250.4
147.1


313.8
761.0
126.8
196.7
271.1
540.3
766.9
413.7
323.4
400.5
112.6
434.2
491.0
205.5
485.6
723.4
381.4
742.1
709.9
1,181.6
502.2
510.1
822.0
270.3
958.7
167.1
619.1
257.2
341.3


586.3
893.8
250.6
227.8
326.7
857.5
998.8
628.2
491.3
607.2
120.3
587.5
381.9
277.9
509.0
708.4
426.3
700.9
1,099.9
1,464.5
578.2
705.4
1,060.3
282.2
1,287.3
225.9
737.5
738.9
395.3


8,884.3 11,798.3 5,145.2 6,257.5 14,029.5 18,155.8


5,860.0

14,744.5


--- 2,494.7

--- 7,639.9


--- 8,354.9

----- 22,384.4


a/
/Log Scale, International 1/4-inch rule.
- 1970 for 13 counties reported in [12].


Source: 1959: [18 and 19]
1969 and 1970: [11 and 12]


TABLE 44.


County


1959




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs