THE HISTORIC ROOTS OF POVERTY IN CERTAIN REGIONS IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM ARE TRACED, AND THE EVOLUTION OF FEDERAL EFFORTS TO DEAL WITH THESE POVERTY POCKETS IS DESCRIBED AND ANALYZED. MOST OF THE INFORMATION IS ON THE UNITED STATES, SINCE THE AUTHOR ASSUMES THAT THE MAJORITY OF READERS (THE ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN THE UNITED KINGDOM) ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE SYSTEM IN THE UNITED KINGDOM. PLANNING FRAMEWORKS ARE DESCRIBED, AND THE CRITERIA OF SELECTION OF THE REGIONS TARGETED UNDER SPECIFIC FEDERAL SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LEGISLATION ARE INDICATED. SUBSTANTIAL AND PERSISTENT UNEMPLOYMENT, COUPLED WITH LOW MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME WERE INCLUDED AMONG SUCH CRITERIA. STRATEGIES FOR REGIONAL CHANGE DEVISED IN THE UNITED STATES AND THE UNITED KINGDOM ARE COMPARED. IT IS NOTED THAT WHEREAS THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS EMPHASIZED THE NEED TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY IN LAGGING AREAS THROUGH SUCH MEANS AS FINANCIAL INCENTIVES FOR PRIVATE INDUSTRY TO LOCATE IN SUCH AREAS, THE UNITED STATES HAS FOCUSED ON THE CREATION OF AN ENVIRONMENT FOR PRODUCTION THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURAL INVESTMENT, SUCH AS HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION. IT IS BELIEVED THAT THE RESULT IN THE UNITED STATES HAS FREQUENTLY BEEN A DISPROPORTIONATE INVESTMENT IN HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTIN COMPARED TO INVESTMENT IN ENTERPRISES WITH A MORE DIRECT LINK TO REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT. BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE DIFFUSED THEIR EFFORTS OVER BROAD ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS RATHER THAN CURTAILING ACTIVITIES TO THE BOUNDARIES OF NEED, THUS REDUCING IMPACT WHERE THE NEED IS GREATEST. ALSO, BOTH COUNTRIES HAVE ADOPTED STANDARDIZED PROGRAMS FOR ALL AREAS, WITHOUT REGARD TO UNIQUE FACTORS AFFECTING UNDERDEVELOPMENT IN EACH REGION. A DIVORCE BETWEEN REGIONAL AND URBAN POLICY, WITH NO COORDINATION BETWEEN THE TWO, IS INDICATED FOR BOTH COUNTRIES. SUGGESTIONS FOR IMPROVED POLICY ARE OFFERED. (RCB)