The Blackwell Companion to Sociology (49 page)

through the 1980s. Using 1980 and 1990 census data, they found that

deindustrialization had both direct and indirect effects. Its direct effects

were most visible in the declines in rural income and the shift from manufactur-

ing to low-wage service jobs. However, employment data alone do not explain

the differences in rural and urban poverty rates. Instead, they found that

the growth of female-headed families in rural communities had a larger

single effect on poverty rates than the demographic profile of community

residents (which included race, age, mobility, education, and region), the industrial structure, or the percentage employed. In their view, ``the effects of

industrial restructuring are partly indirect.'' Restructuring has affected female employment opportunities. For example, it has caused a decline in factory

work and increased the number of low-wage service jobs. When combined

with a growth in female-headed families, the result is an increased likelihood

of single mothers working for below poverty wages or choosing to rely on

welfare.

Lichter and McLaughlin (1995) conclude that addressing the problems

of poor rural people and places will require more than traditional labor

market or human capital development strategies. It will require developing

strategies that meet the needs of women and children. Citing the work of

Janet Fitchen, in which she showed that rural single mothers were not being

reached by anti-poverty strategies that stressed job growth, Lichter and

McLaughlin (1995) suggest that special attention should be paid to devel-

oping policies that will facilitate the entry of women into the labor market,

especially policies that would address such needs as childcare and health

benefits.

Brown and Hirschl (1995) offer an analysis similar to many others, but they

conclude that while both the concentration of people with limited education,

skills, and other human capital and the organization of local economies around

low-paid work are commonly associated with poverty in both rural and urban

areas, a full explanation must also include other aspects of rural community life.

In their view, such an explanation would require an examination of the effects of social isolation on access to and use of social welfare benefits and the effects of historical patterns of class and race.

The intersection of race and class is also central to the thesis of Hyland and

Timberlake (1993). In their essay on the rural Mississippi Delta, they concluded that understanding the social conditions in that region requires paying considerable attention to the social groupings whose identities, actions, and relations

have been formed within a rigid system of race, ethnic, class, and gender

stratification. For example, they argue that the role of race and class relations in determining access to educational and political resources in the region has

been fundamental (p. 77).

Rediscovering Rural America

201

The Continuing Legacy

Legacy of Race

Questions of labor market structure and human capital have been central to

examining the socio-economic well-being of people of color living in non-

metropolitan areas. Although urban±rural differences have moderated some-

what in the past thirty years (Jensen and Tienda, 1989), the poverty rates of

rural minorities exceed or equal those of both their urban counterparts and non-

metropolitan whites.

According to Jensen and Tienda (1989, p. 529), rural minorities are particu-

larly vulnerable to shifts in the economy. They ``sit toward the bottom of the

hiring queue'' (see also Sayer et al., 1998). They are the last hired during periods of economic expansion and the first fired during economic retrenchment. For the

most part, however, researchers agree that while improved human resources and

enhanced labor market opportunities are necessary to enhance the position of

rural minorities, they are not sufficient.

Consistent with the idea that ``development is the result of more than a

market-based economic process and involves a set of economic relations operat-

ing within a historical, sociopolitical and spatial setting,'' Swanson et al. (1995, p. 82) seek to account for historical patterns of social relations which have

relegated blacks to marginal positions in the Southern rural economy. They use

the concept ``legacy'' to capture the history of slavery, sharecropping, segregation, marginal employment opportunities, limited educational options, forced

migration and labor, social ostracism, and systematic discrimination that has

characterized the black experience in the South. And, in contrast to most

researchers who treat racial concentration as an independent variable, they

treat it as a dependent variable, examining the relationship of legacy to the

concentration of African Americans in a county. They find, as a result of their

analysis, that legacy persists as an explanation for high poverty rates of both

metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas in the South that have high concentra-

tions of African Americans. They argue that their findings provide support for

social policies that focus on region as a basis for public entitlements in order to correct injustices of the past (Swanson et al., 1995, pp. 107±8; see also Allen-Smith, 1995).

Most critical of the limitations of traditional explanations of rural poverty to understanding or offering solutions to the needs of rural minorities is the essay on racial and ethnic minorities written by Snipp et al. in Persistent Poverty in Rural America (1993). The authors argue that given the rates and intractability of

poverty among rural minorities, the subject has been given far less attention

than it deserves among rural poverty scholars, particularly regarding the status of Native Americans and Mexican Americans. Their essay points up the limitations of economic analyses focused on supply and demand as a way of accounting

for the unique status and history of rural minorities. While they do not discount the importance of either human capital or economic resources, they argue convincingly that those explanations are too often focused only on individuals, families, and households without placing them in the context of communities.

202

Bonnie Thornton Dill

They argue that a history of discrimination, colonial domination, and eco-

nomic exploitation cannot be reduced to a residual category in an economic

model. It is, in their view, a historical legacy that shapes both human capital and labor markets in these locations. The fact that rural Mexican Americans, Native

Americans, and African Americans ``share the experience of living nearby the

historical remnants of institutions designed to conquer and oppress them'' (Snipp et al., 1993, p. 193) has resulted in long-term patterns which have systematically denied opportunities and rights to people of color remaining in those locations.

This, in part, explains the overrepresentation of minorities among poor rural

people in poor rural places.

The legacy of racial exclusion and exploitation that people of color experi-

enced from their entry into the United States has shaped their current status in rural communities. The fact that rural poverty rates tend to be highest in areas with high proportions of minorities (Lichter and McLaughlin, 1995) and that

blacks, Native Americans, and Latinos living in rural communities are among

the poorest people in the United States is not coincidental. Nor can these

inequities be eliminated through policies that address only labor markets or

individual characteristics. Rectifying them requires a deeper look at the structure of rural communities and at the place of rural people within them.

Women, Children and Families

Among studies of the relationship between declining rural economies and the

well-being of children and families is the work of Lichter and Eggebeen (1992),

whose oft-cited essay studies this issue from a social demographic perspective.

Examining demographic changes since 1960, they find that changes in family

structure in the rural USA ± specifically the increase in female-headed house-

holds ± accounts for almost two-thirds of the increase in child poverty. In 1989, Porter concluded that the poverty risk of female-headed families is as high in

rural areas as it is in central cities (cited in Fitchen, 1992, p. 176). And as Ross and Morrissey point out, rural single parent families are apt to be poorer and to remain poor for a longer duration than do urban single parent families (cited in Fitchen, 1992, p. 176).

Although in a demographic analysis family structure stands out as a primary

explanation for child poverty, other analyses suggest that the reasons for recent increases in rural child poverty are quite complex. Sherman (1992, pp. 38±9), in his report on children in rural America, suggests that the nationwide trend of

declining wages, combined with inadequate government transfer programs, is at

least as important as the growth of female-headed families in explaining the

impoverishment of rural children.

Anthropologist Fitchen (1995) argues that the focus on households as a

measure of family structure ignores community and regional factors, as well as

the role of extended families and kin, in explaining family poverty. Finally, in addition to Fitchen, a number of other scholars, including Lichter and Eggebeen

(1992) and Tickamyer et al. (1993), argue that women in rural areas are

Rediscovering Rural America

203

especially vulnerable to poverty and that their low wages and limited employ-

ment opportunities are key elements in the production and maintenance of child

poverty.

Rural Women: Implications for Single Parent Households

Scholars studying women's poverty (Abramovitz, 1996; Albelda and Tilly, 1997)

have demonstrated convincingly that women and children make up the majority

of this country's poverty population. In fact, the two poorest groups in the USA are women raising children alone and women over 65 living alone. Women

living in rural communities are especially vulnerable to poverty. Employment

opportunities for women in non-metropolitan areas are limited by discrimina-

tion, traditional attitudes, and a lack of flexibility in home±work schedules (Dill and Williams, 1992; Tickamyer et al., 1993). In addition, women perform a

substantial amount of unpaid labor in the family that is not acknowledged.

Often this unpaid labor, which includes cooking, sewing, gardening, self-

employment, and piecework, stretches a meager paycheck to make survival

possible.

Women in non-metropolitan areas experience higher poverty rates than

women in metropolitan areas, and African American, Native American, and

Latino women experience greater levels of poverty than White women. While

metropolitan areas still have higher proportions of poor female-headed house-

holds, growth of these families has continued in non-metropolitan areas, while

slowing down in metropolitan areas. Wages for rural workers are low and it

appears that women's wages, which are often earned in the service sector, are

among the lowest of these low wages. Unfortunately, the lack of information on

women workers in a number of labor studies makes computing accurate estim-

ates difficult. It is known, however, that economic restructuring has provided

little relief to these women because the sectors of the economy that have grown, such as service industries and retail trade, are ones where women earn considerably less than men (Tickamyer, 1992, p. 206).

Thus, work is not likely to bring rural women with children out of poverty. If

they are single parents, their low wages and limited options in the workplace will be a source of their children's poverty. If they are members of a two parent

household, they still have a high likelihood of remaining among the working

poor. The poverty of rural children is inextricably linked to the economic

circumstances of parents, especially their mothers, who increasingly find them-

selves raising their children on their own.

Well-being of Rural Children and Families

In his 1992 report on rural children for the Children's Defense Fund, Sherman

(1992) provides data and an assessment of the lives of rural children using five broad indicators of well-being: accessible health care, affordable childcare,

quality public education, safe and adequate housing, and public assistance. His

discussion helps to convey a fuller picture of living conditions for rural children, 204

Bonnie Thornton Dill

women, and families, and reminds us that rural children indeed face additional

hardships when compared with their urban counterparts. I draw on Sherman's

discussion to provide a preliminary overview of some of the needs of rural

children and families.

Health Care

Geographic isolation and dispersion, a small supply of health care providers, a

declining number of less well equipped hospitals, and a greater likelihood of

being without health insurance coverage make rural residents especially vulner-

able to poor health. These deficiencies jeopardize child development and

achievement and have a particularly negative affect on the health status of

minority children (Sherman, 1992, pp. 69±92). According to Garrett et al.

(1993, pp. 246, 256), poor health care and poverty reduce people's capacity to

work, place children at risk for developmental delay, and increase the likelihood of preterm or low birth weight babies.