Brookings—AEI Commission on U.S. Rural Prosperity• Apr 29, 2026• 54:22Interview

Brookings—AEI Commission on U.S. Rural Prosperity | A conversation with John Roy Price

From Brookings—AEI Commission on U.S. Rural Prosperity

John Roy Price•Historian Advisor to the Commission, former Special Assistant to President Nixon

Executive Summary

The discussion provides a historical analysis of U.S.
rural policy, focusing on the Nixon administration as the last period of comprehensive federal review.
Key Nixon-era policies discussed include 'New Federalism,' which featured revenue sharing to replace rigid categorical grants, and the Family Assistance Plan, a form of universal basic income.
The 'growth centers' strategy, which aimed to concentrate investment in viable rural towns of 25,000-50,000 people, faced political opposition and highlights the enduring challenge of place-based investment.
These ambitious reforms ultimately failed due to political opposition, notably from conservative figures like Ronald Reagan against the Family Assistance Plan and from powerful congressional subcommittee chairs who controlled the categorical grants that revenue sharing sought to consolidate.

9 quotes

Concerns Raised

Entrenched political interests in Congress often block efforts to streamline or consolidate federal programs.
Devolving funds to states can lead to misuse or diversion of resources away from their intended purpose, as seen with TANF.
Place-based investment strategies like 'growth centers' are politically difficult to implement because they inevitably create 'winners' and 'losers'.
The U.S. currently lacks a coherent, overarching national rural development policy, instead relying on hundreds of fragmented categorical programs.

Opportunities Identified

Learning from the failure of Nixon's revenue sharing to design more politically viable ways to give local communities flexible funding.
Revisiting the concept of a universal basic income (like the Family Assistance Plan) as a tool for transforming rural economies, particularly in low-income regions.
Developing federal programs that provide technical expertise and data analysis to complement devolved funding, improving local decision-making.
Re-establishing the policy link between rural prosperity and urban stability to build broader coalitions for rural investment.

Key Themes

The Interconnectedness of Urban and Rural Policy

In the 1960s and 70s, policymakers understood that urban crises like riots and overcrowding were directly linked to the out-migration of economically disadvantaged populations from rural areas. This perspective framed rural development not just as a standalone issue, but as a crucial component of national stability and urban health.

This historical linkage is often lost in modern policy debates, which tend to treat urban and rural issues in separate silos, potentially missing opportunities for more holistic and effective national development strategies.

New Federalism and Policy Devolution

The Nixon administration's 'New Federalism' aimed to shift power and resources from Washington D.C. to state and local governments. This was embodied in proposals for revenue sharing, which would consolidate dozens of restrictive categorical grants into flexible block grants, and the Family Assistance Plan, which would provide direct cash assistance to families.

The debate over federal control versus local flexibility is a central, ongoing tension in U.S. governance. Understanding the political dynamics that defeated these earlier attempts at devolution provides critical context for current policy discussions.

The 'Growth Centers' Strategy

This place-based policy concept proposed concentrating federal investment in stable or growing rural towns (25,000-50,000 population) to act as regional economic hubs. The strategy was a pragmatic attempt to triage resources, but it faced political backlash from leaders of smaller towns who felt they were being abandoned.

This illustrates the classic political challenge of place-based economic development: concentrating resources for maximum impact often conflicts with the political need to distribute funds more broadly, a dilemma that continues to shape regional investment policies today.

Political Obstacles to Systemic Reform

Despite bipartisan and expert support for ideas like the Family Assistance Plan and revenue sharing, they failed due to powerful political opposition. Congressional subcommittee chairs resisted ceding control over categorical grants, and rising conservative figures like Ronald Reagan strategically opposed the welfare reforms to build their political base.

This serves as a case study on how entrenched political interests and ideological battles can derail major policy reforms, even those with sound analytical foundations. It underscores that technical policy design is often secondary to political strategy and coalition-building.

Get started free

Topics

Rural Policy Nixon Administration New Federalism Revenue Sharing Family Assistance Plan (FAP)Universal Basic Income (UBI)Growth Centers Place-Based Policy Devolution Categorical Grants Urban-Rural Divide US Domestic Policy Economic Development Administration (EDA)Daniel Patrick Moynihan Welfare Reform

Processed May 4, 2026 yt-dlp + mlx-whisper + Gemini

You're reading a preview

Get started free →