Michael Tanner documents the challenges associated with rural poverty in America.
The common image of poverty in the United States is a primarily urban phenomenon. This preconception helps shape the policy responses to poverty on both left and right. In reality, however, rural poverty is both more common and deeper than urban poverty.
Roughly 56 million Americans live in areas that could broadly be defined as rural. And, 17.6 million of them live in families with incomes below the poverty line. Unemployment is higher in rural areas and average wages are lower, even after adjusting for cost-of-living. Rural students are less likely to go to college. And, the proportion of children living in single-parent households is increasing more rapidly in rural areas than in urban ones. A successful rural poverty reduction strategy must be multi-faceted, dealing with a range of issues across the policy spectrum.
For a number of factors, rural America is undergoing a period of economic upheaval perhaps unrivaled since the Great Depression. But this turmoil offers policymakers an opportunity to promote real change.
In the 60 years since the launch of the War on Poverty, a broad consensus has emerged that at least part of the answer to poverty lies with the “success sequence.” That is, that finishing high school, getting a job, and avoiding pregnancy until after marriage—in that order—can play an important role in helping a young person avoid poverty.
However, rural populations trail urban and suburban areas in work, education, and marriage, and continue to fall further behind. Unemployment is higher in rural areas and average wages are lower. Rural students are less likely to go to college. Roughly 54 percent of children in rural areas are born outside of marriage, compared to 45 percent of those born in urban areas. Moreover, the proportion of children living in single-parent households is increasing more rapidly in rural areas than in urban ones.
