Search results

Showing 1 – 11 of 11 results.

Curated

Agrarian Typology of Provinces of European Russia at the Turn of the 20th Century (ICPSR 8380)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: Global, Soviet Union, Russia

This collection consists of data describing agricultural organization, production, and land management in 50 provinces of European Russia at the turn of the century. Data are derived from the first universal Russian census of population (1897), statistics on landowners (1905), and the Cavalry Censuses of 1896 and 1899-1900. The agricultural model is presented in terms of the number of agricultural workers per place of employment, land allotment per capita, ratio of land leased to peasants to investment property, per capita collection of crops and sown area, productivity of livestock, and cost of land and crops.

Self-published

Armenia Compact: Rural Road Rehabilitation, 2006-2011 (ICPSR 307491)

Released/updated on: 2026-07-01

Geographic coverage: Armenia

Time period: 2006-09-30--2011-09-29

MCC’s $177.7 million Armenia Compact (2006-2011) funded the $8.4 million Rural Road Rehabilitation Project to improve the quality of 24 kilometers of rural roads. The project was designed on the theory that improved rural roads would reduce transportation costs, enhance residents’ access to markets and social infrastructure, and increase vehicular activity, thereby increasing employment opportunities (both short- and long-term) and agricultural investment and production, eventually resulting in increased household income. In addition, about a quarter of the project cost went to fund the design of 430 kilometers of rural roads that were subsequently rehabilitated by the World Bank and the Government of Armenia.

Study Type: Independent Evaluation

Study Status: Completed

Program at a Glance

Program Name: Armenia Compact
Program Type: Compact
Region: Europe, Asia, and Pacific
Country: Armenia
Program Dates: September 30, 2006 – September 29, 2011

Study

General Metadata

Contractor: Mathematica
Sector: Transportation
Intervention Type(s): Transport infrastructure
Cross-Sector Theme(s): agriculture productivity
Project Objective:The Objective of the Rural Road Rehabilitation Project is to expand the access of rural communities to agricultural markets, non-farm income opportunities and social infrastructure by improving the condition of rural roads.

Evaluation Methodology

Evaluation Type: Impact
Evaluation Methodology Type: Differences in Differences with matching
Location Type: Rural

Milestones

Contract Start: September 2006
Evaluation Design Report Published: June 2010
Interim Report Published: NA
Final Data Package Published: April 2015
Final Report Publication: February 2017

Self-published

ECIN Replication Package for "Broadband and Rural Development: Impacts of the USDA Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) on Saving and Creating Jobs" (ICPSR 194442)

Released/updated on: 2023-11-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2008-01-01--2015-01-01

We study the impact of the USDA’s Broadband Initiatives Program (BIP) on business outcomes in program recipient areas. The BIP was established by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 and implemented by the Rural Utilities Service (RUS) of the USDA Rural Development Mission Area. It was a $2.5 billion program (appropriations) that provided grants and loans to support broadband provision in unserved and underserved areas that were primarily rural. This research combines RUS program administrative data on BIP loans and grants and business outcomes and attributes data from the National Establishment Time Series (NETS) data. We use a quasi-experimental research design that combines matching with difference-in-differences (DiD) estimation to identify the causal effect of the BIP program on employment change at the establishment level and on business survival. Focusing on businesses that already existed in 2010, we find that the average employment decreased in both BIP and non-BIP area businesses during the post-program period, but the decline was slower for businesses in BIP areas. The statistical significance of the differences in employment change between the two groups indicates a positive impact of the program. A disaggregated view of the employment impacts show that the positive employment impact is mainly found to be statistically significant in metro counties, the service sector, and employer establishments. Results also show that businesses in BIP areas were less likely to fail compared to businesses in non-BIP areas and this effect is found to be different across metro/nonmetro counties, employer vs. nonemployer businesses, and broad industrial sectors.

Curated

Eurobarometer 66.3: Social Reality, E-Communications, Common Agricultural Policy, Discrimination and the Media, and Medical Research, November-December 2006 (ICPSR 21523)

Released/updated on: 2010-06-16

Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Turkey, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia

Time period: 2006-11-17--2006-12-19

This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the Standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on the following major areas of focus: (1) social reality, (2) e-communications, (3) Common Agricultural Policy, (4) discrimination and the media, and (5) medical research. For the first area of focus, a sequence of questions covered a broad spectrum in terms of social reality, asking the respondents to evaluate their life and job satisfaction, work environment, confidence in their job skills, ability to keep or find a job, and what they expected would happen to their jobs in the near future, e.g., promotion, job loss, relocation, and pensions. Respondents were then asked their opinions on the effectiveness of social welfare, which social issues they considered most important, whether they had or wanted children, how the presence of minority groups affect their countries in a cultural and economic sense, and what necessities are required in order to get ahead in life. The second major focus called for respondents to provide information on the availability, or lack there of, of each of these communication systems: television, fixed telephone, mobile phones, and Internet in their household. Respondents were asked to share reasons why they owned or did not own certain systems, including telecommunication bundles, and to explain how accessible the systems were to their household. Respondents also were asked to assess the performance of each system, to share their expectations as consumers, and to rate the effectiveness of their service providers and the available features (e.g., personal data protection, costs, tariffs, and flexibility with account changes). Respondents indicated, from lists of service providers included in the survey, the specific provider they used for each communication system they used. Respondents answered additional questions about viruses and spam, and how they dealt with such issues, as well as their knowledge of the phone numbers to contact in case of emergencies. Only one question was asked in the next topic as respondents were shown a European label and asked what it symbolized. For the third major area of focus, the survey asked respondents about their knowledge of and their interest in learning about the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). Respondents also were asked their opinions on the importance of agriculture and rural development in their countries, what the European Union's (EU) main priorities should be in terms of CAP, and the effectiveness of its role in policy development. Respondents were further asked if the EU's reduction of the subsidy for farmers was justified if farmers failed to attend to their responsibilities and rules of policy, and whether the current amount of budgeting for agriculture was adequate. The fourth major topic focused on people's opinions about discrimination and the media. Respondents were requested to assess the importance of the media's role in combating discrimination and the particular actions the media may use to do this. The survey further asked respondents how they felt about viewing people of different ethnic origins on television, and the media's use of ethnic origin or religious affiliation when discussing people. Also, respondents shared whether they believed the media contributed to the creation of ethnic tensions between different communities. For the fifth and final topic, the survey queried respondents about their knowledge of and interest in scientific research, their access to information on science and subjects of interest (e.g., exhibitions, lectures, professors, doctors, family, and periodicals), and whether they were aware of the projects funded by the EU. Demographic and other background information include respondent's age, gender, nationality, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status, left-to-right political self-placement, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, and ownership of a fixed or a mobile telephone and other durable goods. In addition, country-specific data include the type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (select countries).

Curated

Eurobarometer 68.2: European Union Policy and Decision Making, Corruption, Civil Justice, E-Communications, Agriculture, and Environmental Protection, November 2007-January 2008 (ICPSR 25162)

Released/updated on: 2011-04-25

Geographic coverage: Cyprus, Portugal, Global, Malta, Greece, Netherlands, Sweden, Austria, Latvia, Luxembourg, Ireland, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, France, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary, Europe, United Kingdom, Spain, Czech Republic, Belgium, Finland, Denmark, Italy, Germany, Estonia

Time period: 2007-11-09--2008-01-16

This round of Eurobarometer surveys diverged from the Standard Eurobarometer measures and queried respondents on the following major areas of focus: (1) European Union policy and decision-making, (2) corruption, (3) civil justice, (4) e-communications, (5) agriculture, and (6) environmental protection. For the first major focus, European Union (EU) policy and decision-making, respondents were queried about whether more or less decision-making should take place at the EU level in regards to the following topics: asylum and migration policy, exchange of police and judicial information between member states, the fight against drug abuse, the control of external borders of the EU, the fight against terrorism, and the promotion and protection of fundamental rights, including children's rights. Of these, respondents were asked which topics they thought should be the three priorities of the EU, which topics they felt well informed on, and which topics they would like to be better informed. For the second major focus, corruption, respondents were asked whether they agreed that corruption is a major problem in their country and a major problem in local, regional, national, and EU institutions. They also answered questions regarding how widespread they thought bribery and abuse of power were, if in the last 12 months they had been asked or expected to pay a bribe for services, whether they agreed that most corruption is caused by organized crime, and whose responsibility it is to prevent and fight corruption. For the third major focus, civil justice, respondents were asked if they had ever been involved in civil justice procedures in another EU member state, and what their opinion was about the ease of accessing civil justice outside of their own country. Respondents were also asked if additional measures should be taken to assist in access to civil justice in another EU member state, what their main concerns were about the procedures, and their preference for contract terms in purchasing products in other EU member states. In addition, respondents were queried about whether there should be uniform procedures in the EU for civil and commercial claims, if rulings made in one member state should freely apply in another member state, the main difficulties in enforcing rulings in another member state, if the EU should intervene in the enforcement of civil court rulings between member states, and the usefulness of having access to civil justice in another member state via the Internet. For the fourth major focus, e-communications, respondents provided information on the availability within their own households of each of the following communication systems: television, fixed telephone, mobile phones, and the Internet. Respondents were asked to identify reasons why they owned or did not own certain systems, including television, fixed/mobile phones, and telecommunication bundles, the accessibility of these systems in their household, their use of public payphones and telephone directories, and their knowledge of emergency service numbers. In addition, respondents assessed the performance of each system, shared their expectations as consumers, and rated the effectiveness of their service providers and available features of the systems (e.g., costs, tariffs, and flexibility with account changes). For the fifth major focus, agriculture, respondents shared their opinions about the importance of agriculture in the EU, their knowledge of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), whether they wanted more information about CAP, and from what sources they would gather that information. The survey also asked what should be the main priorities of the EU in terms of CAP, how well CAP fulfills its role, and what the main responsibilities of farmers should be. Respondents were further questioned in regard to the EU's reduction of the subsidy for farmers, what their opinions were about trade barriers, and whether the current amount of budgeting for agriculture was adequate. For the sixth major focus, environmental protection, queries included how important environmental protection was, what was meant by "the environment," what were the main environmental issues that worried them, how informed they felt about the environment, what issues they would like more information on, their main sources of environmental information, and who they trusted the most for information on environmental issues. In addition, respondents were queried about the best way to evaluate progress in environmental protection, the comparison of environmental protection versus economic competitiveness, personal efforts to protect the environment, what should be the priorities of citizens in daily life, and how environmental decisions should be made by government and by public authorities. Further questions included what the most effective way to tackle environmental problems should be, whether an EU civil protection force should be set up, and their opinions about the labeling of environmentally friendly products and the use of genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Demographic and other background information includes age, gender, nationality, origin of birth (personal and parental), marital status, left-right political self-placement, occupation, age when stopped full-time education, household composition, ownership of other durable goods, Internet use, type and size of locality, region of residence, and language of interview (in select countries).

Curated

National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Land Cover by Census Tract and ZIP Code Tabulation Area, United States, 1985-2023 (ICPSR 38598)

Released/updated on: 2025-04-07

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1985-01-01--2023-12-31

This collection contains measures of land cover (e.g., low-, medium-, or high-density development, forest, wetland, open water) derived from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) and aggregated by United States census tract and ZIP code tabulation area (ZCTA). For each land type, land cover is measured both in total square meters and as a proportion of all land of that type within the tract or the ZCTA.

Curated

National Survey of Economic Development Organizations, 1999 (ICPSR 4434)

Released/updated on: 2007-09-17

Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection was a part of a larger research project designed to examine the role of public-private partnerships and local development organizations (LDO) in rural America. Most studies of local development policy have examined the activities of local governments, or, in a few cases, the effects of LDOs. There has been, however, little research on how local governments and development organizations interact, the effects of their activities on policies, and the outcomes of those policies on job and income growth. The purpose of this research project was to gain a better understanding of the organization of economic development in nonmetropolitan areas, specifically, what factors led to policy adoption and the creation of an LDO in a community.

In the fall of 1999, this survey was sent to the local development organizations listed on the NATIONAL SURVEY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, 1998 (ICPSR 4433) or found through a variety of Web sites that included lists of development organizations operating in the given community.

Each local economic development organization was surveyed on labor unions, business incentives, and economic development activities (small business development, business attraction, and business retention/expansion). A series of questions were asked about the board of directors, their primary professions/affiliations, race/ethnic composition, gender, and how they were selected. Respondents were also asked about their relationships with other organizations, like private lending institutions, Chamber of Commerce, real estate or property developers, and citizen advisory groups.

Curated

National Survey of Local Government Economic Development, 1998 (ICPSR 4433)

Released/updated on: 2007-09-17

Geographic coverage: United States

In the fall of 1998, this survey was sent to local government officials in United States cities with a population between 2,500 and 50,000 (nonmetropolitan areas).

The survey included questions on what was being done to promote economic development and attract new businesses, whether new businesses were created or moved into the community as a result of the development efforts, funding for economic development, and sources of the funding (e.g., state grants-in-aid or local revenues). Additional topics included types of business incentives, performance agreements, labor surveys (identifying wages and benefits), job training programs, and types of barriers experienced. Each local government agency was also surveyed on their interaction with organizations like the Chamber of Commerce, private lending institutions, neighborhood associations, churches, and regional planning commissions, and whether any of these organizations helped in developing local economic development strategies and in what manner.

Curated

Rural Establishment Innovation Survey (ICPSR 36544)

Released/updated on: 2016-11-29

Geographic coverage: United States

In 2014, the United States Department of Agriculture's Economic Research Service (USDA ERS) conducted the Rural Establishment Innovation Survey (REIS). This survey provides a nationally representative sample of innovation processes in rural businesses. REIS defines innovation as the introduction of new goods, services, or ways of doing business that are valued by consumers. Traditional measures from secondary data sources, such as patents or research and development (R&D) expenditures, focus on science and engineering-based innovation, which usually depict rural innovation as rare or idiosyncratic. By focusing instead on a broader definition of innovation, the REIS provides a fuller assessment of rural innovative capacity.

The main research questions for this survey were:

Are rural firms as innovative as urban firms?
What constraints are impeding the innovative capacity of firms?
What strategies are innovative firms using to mitigate these constraints?

The target population for the survey was Nonmetro and metro establishments with 5 or more employees in tradable sectors (mining, manufacturing, wholesale trade, transportation and warehousing, finance, information, professional/technical/scientific services, arts and management of businesses). REIS used the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages Business Register for its sampling frame. Responses from 11,600 businesses were usable.

These data include responses from businesses in the Arts & Museums industry category. These businesses were oversampled by a factor of 3.3 to ensure reliable statistics.

The REIS data are restricted and require users to apply for access to the data. For permission to access to these data, visit the ERS Rural Economy Population: Business Industry page and scroll to the bottom of the page for contact information. If permission to access the data is granted, the data can be viewed through the NORC data enclave.

Curated

Social Structure of Argentina: Census Data on Economic Development, 1965 (ICPSR 57)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: South America, Argentina, Global

This study contains data on the social structure of Argentina in 1965. Principal variables in the study cover the active population and its occupational segments, extent of commerce, industry, and rural development, production per capita, density of population, illiteracy, family size, and agricultural production. Derived measures include indices of rural occupational stability, dependency within the urban middle class, and rural landowners.

Curated

State Farms in European Russia, 1917: Districts and Provinces (ICPSR 8377)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: Global, Soviet Union, Russia

This data collection aggregates district- and province-level data from the All-Russian Agricultural and Land Census of 1917 to provide indicators of farm management, production, and consumption in revolutionary European Russia. Information is provided on two models of collective land management and agricultural organization that existed in European Russia between the revolutions of 1905 and 1917. The data allow for analysis of agricultural organization and resource allocation in both private and state enterprises. The study is available in two parts. Part 1, Province Level, contains data on 21 provinces only. Part 2, District Level, contains information on 332 districts and 37 provinces. Districts comprising the provinces in Part 1 are also contained in Part 2. Information is provided on the same 26 variables in both parts. The variables include the portion of privately-owned farms with unsown areas for crops, the portion of privately-owned farms without any livestock, the portion of privately-owned farms without working livestock, the portion of privately owned farms with land for rent, the number of hired workers on the farms with land for rent, the amount of arable land on one property (measured in desyatina, which is roughly equal to 2.7 acres), the amount of sown area on one property (in desyatina), the amount of ploughed field on one property, the quantity of hired labor on one property, the quantity of working livestock on one property, the quantity of productive livestock on one property, the number of ploughs per farm property, the number of farming-related working tools on one property, the number of hired workers per desyatin of sown land, the number of working livestock per desyatin of sown land, the number of productive livestock per desyatin of sown land, the number of ploughs per desyatin of sown land, the number of farming-related working tools per desyatin of sown land, the share of ploughs per privately-owned, arable landholdings, the portion of hayfields per privately-owned, arable landholdings, the portion of forested area per privately-owned, arable landholdings, the portion of sown area per privately-owned, arable landholdings, the portion of privately-owned crops in the entire sown area, the portion of privately-owned, arable land in the total area of arable land, the percentage of privately-owned sown area tilled at own expense, and the share of sown grassland in the entire sown area under private ownership.