Contact: Maridith Geuder
Persons choosing to live outside of urban centers can expect to continue paying a certain social cost, primarily in their adult income levels.
According to a sociologist living in one of the nation's most rural states, those who move from rural areas to cities typically earn an average of $3,500 more annually. Urbanites who move to rural areas tend to lose that amount.
"This says something about local economies and opportunities in contemporary America," said Frank Howell of Mississippi State University. "It suggests to us that the differences aren't in people but in local factors."
The impact is significant since, as defined by population density, more than one-quarter of the U.S. is classified rural by the U.S. Census Bureau.
Howell said income differences are most striking for those who live in non-farm rural areas.
"Rural policy often tends to be just farm policy," he said. "Urban legislators who ignore the rural non-farm sector are ignoring a large constituency. We need to better understand that farm policy does not deal with all rural issues."
Howell, a senior researcher at the university's Social Science Research Center, recently completed a study titled "The Social Cost of Growing Up in Rural America." He and graduate student researchers Yuk-Ying Tung and Cynthia Wade-Harper examined the effects of rural origins on education, occupational status, and family income levels in adulthood since 1900. They covered six periods that coincide with major federal rural development programs.
Their thesis was that, if all the federal programs targeted at "developing" rural areas had worked, rural youth eventually would achieve levels of socioeconomic success on par with youth from cities, other things being equal.
In terms of completed years of schooling, occupational status and family income for most of the 20th century, Howell said the study shows that living to age 16 in a rural area relates to a social cost in adulthood.
Howell said the period after World War II begins to signal a turnaround, but not necessarily because of rural development programs.
"At the beginning of the century, those living in rural areas received significantly less education than those in non-rural areas," he explained. "By the end of the century, there was virtually no difference in the years of schooling they each obtained."
A contributing influence was the GI Bill and the rapid expansion of higher education after World War II, Howell said.
"Viewed in the context of social history, the GI Bill appears to have been a catalyst for enhancing educational opportunities," he said.
Using large national survey data, the researchers sorted rural individuals into historical periods according to when they were 16 years old. Then, with databases collected under sponsorship of the National Science Foundation and the U.S. Department of Education, they traced how rural origins affected socioeconomic achievement when the individuals had reached adulthood.
"We asked if those in rural areas have equal chances for education, higher-status jobs and economic reward," Howell said. The study also gauged whether outcomes could be changed if the person migrated from a rural to an urban environment.
To determine levels of success, the researchers applied statistical models that measure achievement. The result was a historical mosaic that, in general, reflects the impact on individual well-being of federal programs such as the federal highway act, the Rural Electrification Administration and a host of other rural development programs.
In addition to showing a clear deficit among young people coming from or moving to rural areas, Howell said the statistical models raise questions about the future quality of life in rural America.
"We don't have something like the GI Bill as a catalyst today," he said. "Education policy can profoundly affect rural areas.
"We might ask, 'What's the current catalyst?'"