A critical review of rural poverty literature: Is there truly a rural effect?

被引:100
作者
Weber, B [1 ]
Jensen, L
Miller, K
Mosley, J
Fisher, M
机构
[1] Oregon State Univ, Dept Agr & Resource Econ, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA
[2] RUPRI Rural Poverty Res Ctr, Corvallis, OR 97331 USA
[3] Penn State Univ, Dept Agr Econ & Rural Sociol, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[4] Penn State Univ, Populat Res Inst, University Pk, PA 16802 USA
[5] Univ Missouri, Truman Sch Publ Affairs, Rural Policy Res Inst, Columbia, MO 65211 USA
[6] RUPRI Rural Poverty Res Ctr, Columbia, MO USA
关键词
rural poverty; place effects; neighborhood effects; research methodology;
D O I
10.1177/0160017605278996
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
Poverty rates are highest in the most urban and most rural areas of the United States and are higher in nonmetropolitan than metropolitan areas. Yet perhaps because only one-fifth of the nation's 35 million poor people live in nonmetro areas, rural poverty has received less attention than urban poverty from both policy makers and researchers. The authors provide a critical review of literature that examines the factors affecting poverty in rural areas. The authors focus on studies that explore whether there is a rural effect, that is, whether there is something about rural places above and beyond demographic characteristics and local economic context that makes poverty more likely in those places. The authors identify methodological concerns (such as endogenous membership and omitted variables) that may limit the validity of conclusions from existing studies that there is a rural effect. The authors conclude with suggestions for research that would address these concerns and explore the processes and institutions in urban and rural areas that determine poverty, outcomes, and policy impacts.
引用
收藏
页码:381 / 414
页数:34
相关论文
共 68 条
[1]  
Albrecht DE, 1998, RURAL SOCIOL, V63, P51, DOI 10.1111/j.1549-0831.1998.tb00664.x
[2]  
Albrecht DE, 2000, RURAL SOCIOL, V65, P87, DOI 10.1111/j.1549-0831.2000.tb00344.x
[3]  
Allard SW., 2004, Access to social services: the changing urban geography of poverty and service provision
[4]  
[Anonymous], IMPORTANCE PLACE WEL
[5]  
Bartik, 1991, WHO BENEFITS STATE L
[6]   The distributional effects of local labor demand and industrial mix: Estimates using individual panel data [J].
Bartik, TJ .
JOURNAL OF URBAN ECONOMICS, 1996, 40 (02) :150-178
[7]   Poverty, policy and place: How poverty and policies to alleviate poverty are shaped by local characteristics [J].
Blank, RM .
INTERNATIONAL REGIONAL SCIENCE REVIEW, 2005, 28 (04) :441-464
[8]   Spatial mismatch outside of large urban areas: an analysis of welfare recipients in Fresno County, California [J].
Blumenberg, E ;
Shiki, K .
ENVIRONMENT AND PLANNING C-GOVERNMENT AND POLICY, 2004, 22 (03) :401-421
[9]  
Brooks-Gunn J., 1997, Neighborhood poverty
[10]  
BROWN DL, 1995, RURAL SOCIOL, V60, P44