6.0 CONCLUSION
Between 1986 and 1991 changes in population, employment and service provision, differed between minor urban and rural areas and regions. In general minor urban areas were considerably more affected by employment losses than rural areas. Similarly so were the regions heavily reliant on a large sheep and beef farming or forestry base, and/or with large amounts of manufacturing, including food processing industries, than those with large service sectors. More positively however, the rural areas of a number of regions gained significant amounts of population in many of the age groups over 30 years, and rural areas as a whole lost considerably less employment on a proportional basis, than either minor urban or urban areas. Regions with large areas of relatively marginal agricultural land such as the East Cape tended to lose relatively more population and employment than the average, while the minor urban and rural areas of regions containing large urban areas were generally much less affected.
The 1986 to 1991 period saw continued restructuring both in the public and private sectors, as well as deflated agricultural commodity prices, which affected both minor urban and rural areas. Minor urban areas in particular were caught by reduced expenditure by rural sector primary producers, and by large contractions in manufacturing operations. Despite these changes both rural and minor urban areas shared some of the positive changes taking place in the economy as a whole, such as increased employment in many service industries, and increasing employment of women in many industries. The rural and minor urban areas of some regions suffered disproportionate losses in employment and population, but generally speaking decreases in rural employment reflected national trends for particular industries or age groups. It is the above average representation of particular industries and population groups in some regions which largely explains the differences between regions. This does not detract however, from the very real economic and social impacts of dramatic changes in population and employment.
Like part one of this study, part two has shown that there is considerable diversity in the characteristics of rural and minor urban areas, and in the changes occurring within them. Examining these characteristics and changes at the aggregate level masks some of the important differences between areas. These differences must be appreciated when attempting to address issues if policies and solutions are to be relevant to local communities and economies.
In an ideal world the best unit of analysis for a study such as this, would be a functional community with a distinct social and economic character. Unfortunately official statistics are available corresponding with administrative boundaries and definitions only, which do not always correspond with distinct communities. A rural area for example is classified as such judged on its total population, not on the nature of its economy or community structure. Similarly minor urban areas are also defined by their total population and not by their social and economic characteristics. This study has examined rural and minor urban areas as they are officially defined for administrative purposes. It seems likely that the truly "rural" New Zealand will have similar general characteristics and have experienced similar changes from the administratively defined rural New Zealand.
| © MAF 1999 | ||
| MAFnet Help | Important Disclaimer |
Contact for Enquiries
Rural Affairs Coordinator
Sector Performance Policy
MAF Policy
Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry
PO Box 2526
Wellington
NEW ZEALAND
Phone: +64 4 894 0675
Fax: +64 4 4 894 0745
Contact this person
