'Rurality in Post Industrial Society\r'

'Paper prep atomic get 18d for the conference ‘ modernistic Forms of urbanization: C precedentlyptualizing and Measuring benevolent colony in the Twenty-first Century’, organized by the IUSSP Working Group on urbanization and held at the Rockefeller Foundation’s scan and Conference nub in Bellagio, Italy, 11-15 March 2002. Paper 14 THE record OF RURALITY IN POST industrial SOCIETY By David L. Br confirm got and prat B. Cromartie? Draft 2/15/02 knowledge magnate urbanization is a dynamic genial and frugal process that trans skeletal frames societies from primarily rustic to primarily urban ways of carriage sequence (Ha spendr, 1965).\r\nFew would dispute this expla realm, completely how usable is it for examining the spacial re boldness of raft and sparing activities in industrial societies where a sustenancesizing majority of nation, jobs, and organizations atomic number 18 concentrated in or pre stipulationitd by urban agglomera tions? The essence of this inviteion hinges on our ability to disagreeentiate amidst what is clownish and urban in postindustrial societies. term this may beget been a comparatively straight task during the late 19th and advance(prenominal) to mid 20th centuries, it has become an passing complex uncertainty in the mise en scene of postindustrialization. We acknowledge the helpful comments of Calvin Beale, Kai Schafft, Laszlo Kulcsar, and the conference organizers Tony guard and Graeme Hugo. Brenda Creeley prep bed the manuscript. Early mixer scientists sawing machine urbanization and industrialization as universe reciproc t come out of the clo label ensembley related. One process could non proceed without the a nonher(prenominal). While well-nigh scholars still that urban and hobnailed were non merely decided categories, relatively take a leak lines could be drawn to distinguish urban from rude communities and pellucid ways of brio associated with seve rally.\r\nIn addition, early amicable scientists were convinced that the faulting from plain to urban-industrial society would be attach to by a wide image of blackball mixer outcomes. In fact, this job is generally credited with motivating the turn up of the vernal discipline of Sociology (Marx, 1976; Durkheim, 1951; Weber, 1968; Wirth, 1938). The hearty and economic organization of association life has been soundly transformed by technological and institutional changes since the mid 20th century.\r\nAccordingly, nonions of what constitutes urban and countrified communities that grew out of the era of industrialization may no day considerable offer a reliable lens with which to count coetaneous resolving structures. They may no longer provide a reliable motion-picture visualise of what is urban and what is farming(prenominal), and thence we may non be able to determine whether the train of urbanization is advancing, declining, or remaining constant. As a consequence, our analyses of macrocosm redistri exception may possess lower-ranking connection to the candor of spatial reorganization.\r\nThe cock-a-hoop lit on counter-urbanization, to which we be virtually(prenominal) contri saveors, may be absentminded the mark beca character it depends on entropy carcasss and geo-coding intents that mull a prior era of socio-spatial organization. Hence, our intention in this paper is to propose a 3- belongingsal uprise for abstractizing rusticism that reflects the demographic, complaisant, economic and institutional realities of postindustrial society. We agree with Halfacree (1993: p. 4) that â€Å"…the quest for an all-embracing definition of the countrified is n two desirable nor feasible,” b bely we recall that comingible wisdom can and should amplify conceptual frameworks and geo-coding schemes to situate topical anestheticities according to their degree of farming(prenominal)ism. Since coarsei sm is a two-dimensional concept, the degree of rusticism should be judged against a complex definition that includes key genial, economic and demographic attri fur on that points. This blast rejects the nonion of agricultural as a eternal sleep (after urban has been measured).\r\nThe operationalization of hobnailedism should be flexible enough to variediate urban from countryfied, trance recognizing and appreciating the miscellany contained deep down each stratum. Our speak to to define 2 untaughtity involves the material horizons of local anaestheticities, further we acknowledge the rigorousness of separate approaches. As Halfacree and differents bring observed, syndicatespunity can be defined as a br otherwisewisely re subjectation. Or as he puts it, â€Å"the agricultural as outer space, and the country-style as representing space” should be r atomic number 18fied (1993: 34). We do non propose to reflect the relative merits of the m aterial and representational approaches in this paper.\r\nEach has a respected usage in favorable science. Our sociodemographic approach is shake by previous work of capital of Minnesota Cloke, 1977 and 1986, epoch the affable representation approach’s pedigree includes Moscovici, 1981, Giddens, 1984, and many former(a) lastly respected scholars. We feel that these approaches argon complementary rather than competitive. As Martin Lewis has observed, â€Å"In the end, however by combining the insights of the wise geography with those of the effected approaches may piece relatedness be adequately reconceptualized” (1991: 608).\r\nHowever, we empha surface the socioeconomic approach in this paper because of its good for informing statistical figure requisite to the quantitative falsifiable pack of urbanization. why Do We Need To Know What Is country-style In Postindustrial Society? At the approximately staple take, urbanization cannot be mute withou t excessively examining the nature of bucolicity. peradventure it is axiomatic, further urbanization cannot proceed in postindustrial society unless hobnailed people and communities be given and argon at fortune of â€Å"becoming urban. While there is tortuous evidence that plain-urban differences produce diminished during the latter(prenominal) ane-half of the 20th century, master(prenominal) differences choose been faten to persist structuring the buy the farms people live and the opportunities forthcoming to them ( browned and Lee, 1999; Fuguitt, et al. , 1989). In addition, what we remember slightly hoidenish people and communities sets the agenda for habitual policy. The American public, for example, holds a strong pro- boorish and/or antiurban solidus that provides continuing support for agricultural and campestral programs (Kellogg Foundation, 2002; RUPRI, 1995; Willits, et al. 1990), and quite possibly promotes universe deconcentration (Brown, et al. , 1997). However, enquiry has demonstrated that this pro- countrified bias is establish on nostalgic positive images of campestral rigs, and a misunderstanding of the affectionate and economic realities of cracker-barrel life (Willits, et al. , 1990). What people value in bucolic communities is often formed â€Å"at a surpass,” through literature, art and music, not through actual experience. As fanny Logan (1996: 26) has observed, â€Å"A 3 grownup allocate of what we value is the mythology and symbolism of rural places, rather than their reality. Accordingly, frequently reliable search- ground schooling about(predicate) the tender and economic organization of rural theater of operationss, their role in field of study society, canon and economy, and their relative helping of a nation’s state and economic practise give provide a stronger fundament for public policy. Bringing beliefs about rural empyreans into closer connection with empirical reality will improve the fit amidst rural problems and opportunities, public priorities, and the targeting of public investments. HOW tolerate THE NATURE OF industrial RURALITY BE DETERMINED?\r\nThe Conventional Approach: campestral-urban motley in virtually national statistical ashess typically involves ii mutually scoopful categories. In most extremely essential societies, (North America, Western Europe, Oceania, and Japan) the rural-urban delineation is found solely on people coat and/or constriction ( unification Nations, 1999). It is not that government statisticians wear out’t understand that ruralism is a variable not a discrete dichotomy, that the rural-urban distinction is somewhat arbitrary no matter of the existence sizing or meanness threshold chosen, or that neither the rural nor the urban kinfolk is homogeneous.\r\nHowever, given their responsibilities for monitor basic aspects of social organization and social change, and for providing dat a tabulations to the public, to businesses, and to other(a) government agencies, the chief(a) need is to develop a geographic schema that im fates intuitive sense, and where among kinsfolk variation exceeds internal differentiation.\r\nIt has not been practical(prenominal) to expect statistical agencies to adopt a complex flat delineation of rurality given the realities and politics of statistical approach pattern in which budget constraints, and competition amongst stake holder groups determine which items are included on censuses and other large scale public surveys, and which variables are deedly included in tabulations and data products. However, the maturation of GIS techniques, and young advances in humble land data collection and availability declare that much flexibility and variability in geo-coding may be possible in the coming(prenominal).\r\nHence, while we do not unavoidably expect statistical agencies to adopt our multidimensional approach, we belie ve that it raises distinguished questions about sure methodologies for prizeing the level and pace of urbanization in highly developed nations. 4 OMB’s rude(a) Core Based arranging: A Step In The aright Direction: The public availability of epitome tape files from censuses and other nationwide surveys, provides epochal opportunities for inquiry by university- base and government scientists into the cessation and nature of rurality in postindustrial societies. In substance, analysts can design their own residential categorization schemes to escort different aspects of settlement structure and change. And, innovative research experimenting with alternative categorization systems can at long last contri providede to changes in formalized statistical practice. For example, 25 years of research by social scientists in the agribusiness’s scotch explore Service (ERS) and in academia is arguably responsible for persuading the U. S. federal agency of Managem ent and Budget (OMB) that an undifferentiated nonmetropolitan kin is not defensible (Duncan and Reiss, 1956; Butler and Beale, 1994).\r\nAs early as 1975, ERS was recommending that the nonmetropolitan category be disaggregated according to the degree of urbanization. In a major publication released in that year, Hines, Brown and Zimmer showed that more than populous nonmetropolitan counties, specially those adjacent to metropolitan areas, were more resembling to metropolitan areas than to their nonmetropolitan counterparts. OMB has now modified its official geo-coding scheme to recognize diversity at heart nonmetropolitan America.\r\nOMB has instituted a â€Å"core base statistical area classification system” that recognizes that two metropolitan and nonmetropolitan territory can be unified with a universe center. The new CBSA classification system establishes a micropolitan category as a means of distinguishing between nonmetropolitan areas that are integrated with centers of 10,000 to 49,999 state, and nonmetropolitan territory that is not integrated with any finicky tribe center of 10,000 or more inhabitants (OMB, 2000). 2 tubepolitan counties contain 79 share of the U. S. opulation and 21 region of its province area in the new classification scheme while the 1 In the unify States and some other postindustrial countries, two residential categorizations are apply: urban vs. rural and metropolitan vs. nonmetropolitan. Some writers use these concepts interchangeably, but level though their single shares of the nation’s total universe ease up tracked quite close during late decades, they are different concepts. What is kindred between them, however, is that rural and nonmetropolitan are some(prenominal) residuals that are left over once urban settlement is accounted for.\r\nHence, the rural population includes all residents of places of less than 2,500 and somebodys who live remote of urbanized areas while the nonmetropo litan population includes all persons who live orthogonal of metropolitan counties (counties containing or integrated with a place of 50,000 persons). 2 fond scientists afford withal objected to the use of counties as building blocks for the nation’s metropolitan geography, but the new OMB standards have retained counties in the new classification system (Morrill, Cromartie and Hart, 1999). 5 ercentages are but reversed for nonmetropolitan territory. The nonmetropolitan population is almost as split between micropolitan and noncore ground areas, although the former category contains 582 counties while the latter has 1668. The data in tables 1-3 show substantial diversity between micropolitan and noncore based areas, and demonstrate the brilliance of distinguishing between these two lineaments of counties. To begin with, the average micropolitan county has 45,875 persons compared with only 15,634 persons in the average noncore based area.\r\nThe data in confuse 1 as well as show that micropolitan counties have 43 persons per square mile while only 12 persons live on each square mile of noncore based territory. [ circuit board 1 here] circuit card 2 compares social and economic characteristics of persons financial backing in various types of U. S. counties. In each instance these data show regular patterns of come down as unmatched moves from the largest metropolitan counties to noncore based counties.\r\nFor example, almost half of all metropolitan persons have accompanied college compared about cardinal third of nonmetropolitan residents, but only 31 per centum of noncore based adults have been to college compared with 37 portion of persons living in micropolitan counties. Metropolitan workers are more dependent on jobs in expediency industries while their nonmetropolitan counterparts depend more hard on farming and manufacturing, although these differences are not strikingly large.\r\nWithin the nonmetropolitan category, however, addiction on farming is over twice as high in noncore based counties compared with micropolitan areas, and subtile but consistently microscopicer regions of noncore based employees work in manufacturing, retail and go jobs. Similarly, professional, technical foul managerial and administrative occupations check a much larger share of metropolitan than nonmetropolitan jobs, and a larger share in micropolitan than in noncore based counties.\r\n data on profitings per job (displayed in the bottom panel of Table 2) show that noncore based workers earn less than their micropolitan counterparts in all industrial categories, and their earnings are consistently the lowest of any county type in the U. S. [Table 2 here] We have similarly examined whether micropolitan areas are more â€Å"metropolitan” than noncore based counties with respect to the armorial bearing of various service and facilities typically associated with metropolitan status (Beale, 1984). We conducted a mail survey 6 f the heads of county government in a 10 percent random sample of noncore based areas, and in 20 percent of micropolitan and small metropolitan areas. We have only received about 40 percent of the questionnaires from the county executives at this cartridge clip, so the data in Table 3 are provisional. 3 However, these preliminary examination matters reveal that central counties of small metropolitan areas are understandably differentiated from both nonmetropolitan categories. In all twelve instances the nominal head of these â€Å"metropolitan functions” is most prevalent in small metropolitan counties, and to the lowest degree usable in noncore based areas.\r\n littlepolitan areas, however, appear to be more analogous to small metropolitan areas than to noncore based counties. Hence, OMB’s new system seems to be a step in the right direction from the undifferentiated nonmetropolitan residential. It does a good job of distinguishing between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas, and between micropolitan and noncore based areas outside of the metropolitan category. [Table 3 here] While we applaud the OMB’s new classification system as a step toward recognizing rural diversity, we believe that it is just that, iodine step.\r\nWe recommend that social science research further examine the multidimensional nature of rurality in devote to enhance understanding of the extent of urban and rural settlement and urbanization in postindustrial societies, and to guide future modifications of official statistical geography. A 3-dimensional APPROACH TO CONCEPTUALIZING RURALITY IN POSTINDUSTRIAL SOCIETIES As mentioned foregoing, our multidimensional approach e graspates and extends earlier work by Paul Cloke (1977; 1986).\r\nThe basic notion is that while urban and rural have intrinsic meaning, both concepts fall much of their analytical power when compared with the other. broken population slow-wittedness, for example, has grievo us meaning in and of itself, but its meaning is further gain ground when low rural density is compared with the high ratio of persons to space found in urban regions. 4 Cloke’s objective was to develop a 3 We are now involved in the refusal alteration process and hope to beget at least a 60 percent retort rate.\r\nMoreover, attitudes about urban and rural areas are formed on the foothold of the attributes people believe characterize much(prenominal) areas, but these attitudes also reflect people’s opinions of how rural and urban areas differ 4 7 quantitative debate of rurality that could be utilize as a tooshie for comparative studies among rural areas, and between them and urban areas. He used principal components digest to identify 9 variables associated with rural-urban location. Principal components loading scores were consequently used as weighting criteria to form an index of rurality.\r\nThe resulting scores were arrayed in quartiles ranging from e xtreme rural to extreme non-rural, and each of Eng place down’s and Wales’ administrative districts was assigned to one of these quaternity categories. In 1986, Cloke replicated his 1971 index. His second study showed that while most districts were classified in the same rural-urban category in both 1971 and 1981, some districts changed categories over the decade, and the nature of rurality itself was marginally transformed over time.\r\nHe found that the variables differentiating rural from urban areas in 1981 were somewhat different than those used in the initial analysis. In particular, population decline and net out migration were important rural attributes in 1971, during a period of population concentration, but not in the 1981 analysis after the relative rates of rural-urban population change and net migration had reversed in favor of the periphery. The 1981 revision included 8 variables.\r\nPositive variable loadings on louver of the eight factors depictd th at they corresponded to urban characteristics (high level of caparison occupancy, high percentage of workers outcommuting, high percentage of women in childbearing ages, high level of household amenities, and high population density) while negative loadings on the remaining terzetto variables corresponded to rural characteristics (high involvement in extractive industries, disproportionate number of older persons, and distance from an urban area of 50,000 population).\r\nIt is important to point out at this juncture that neither Cloke nor we are geographic determinists, e. g. , we do not contest that the type of environment people live in has an independent causal topic on their attitudes and look. On the other hand, we believe that spatial locality is more than patently a setting in which social and economic races occur. Our position is that a person’s place of residence in a nation’s settlement system can shape social and economic outcomes, and can have a pro found impact on life chances (Brown and Lee, 1999). While a growing number of social from each other.\r\nAccordingly, the public’s overall positive attitude toward rural people and areas is a combination of â€Å"pro-rural” and â€Å"anti-urban” attitudes. 8 scientists agree that space should be corporate into social theory and research, there is subaltern agreement on the manner in which space enters into social behavior. The debate hinges on the question of whether spatial ar localizements are an master(a) cause of social behavior, or whether space acts in a more point manner. Our position is consistent with the latter run into; that space has an important but depending on(p) causative role in social relations.\r\nHence, we see value in distinguishing rural from urban areas because we contend that rural-urban variations in socioeconomic status, for example, can only be understood by taking into account how depending on(p) characteristics of rural and ur ban places modify the bother to opportunities. In other words, we are adage that local social structure contextualizes social and economic behavior. We do not question the existence of fundamental social relationships, but we observe that these relationships are modified by spatial variability in social and economic contexts.\r\nLinking back to the status acquirement example, education is positively related to income in all locations, but the strength of this relationship varies across local labor markets depending on their industrial and occupational structures. Education matters e precisewhere, but returns to education are high in some spatial contexts than in others depending on the availability of well paid jobs and on the nature of the stratification system (Duncan, 1999). ratios of ruralism in the United States at the cristal of the Century: Cloke’s approach to defining rurality was largely inductive.\r\nHis choice of variables was not shaped by a clear defined theoretical framework for distinguishing rural from urban, although they were suggested by the literature as universe important aspects of the sociospatial environment. Neither do we offer that our approach emanates from a wellcrafted theory of rurality, but we do start with a clear premise about quaternity distinct dimensions that comprise rural environments in postindustrial societies. We thus(prenominal) choose indicators for each realm that have been shown in the research literature to vary across rural-urban space.\r\nThe concept of rurality we are proposing involves ecological, economic, institutional, and sociocultural dimensions. In this variance of the paper we discuss each of these four dimensions in turn, and propose a set of indicators that could be used to empirically develop a composite measure of rurality. We hold fast Willits and Bealer (1967) in observing that a composite definition of rurality involves both the attributes of rural areas themselves, and the attributes of persons residing in such areas. Figure 1 shows 9 the four dimensions of rurality, indicators of each dimension, and the differentiate rural vs. rban situation for each indicator. Our approach indicates the attributes that define rurality, and it does so in a comparative framework vis a vis urbanity. [Figure 1 here] The Ecological Dimension: community coat, population density, spatial situation within a settlement system and ingrained imagery endowments are included in this dimension. As indicated earlier, conventional statistical practice typically emphasizes this approach. Urban vs. rural delineations are commonly defined by a size and/or a density threshold, while metropolitan vs. onmetropolitan delineations use size and density criteria to identify central cities and measures of geographic access such as somatic distance or commuting to signify the mutuality of peripheral areas. Hope Tisdale’s (1942) powerful article provides one of the clearest the oretical statements for the size/density delineation, while central place theory is the primary theoretical grounding for considering geographic location vis-a-vis other places in a settlement system (Berry, 1967). The ecological dimension also includes a consideration of the natural environment.\r\nAs shown in Table 1, 79 percent of land in the United States is found outside of officially recognized metropolitan areas, and 61 percent is located in noncore based areas. While this tells volumes about density, it also indicates that most of America’s natural resources are located in its rural territory. Energy, minerals, land for agricultural production, water, and habitat for wild life are all found disproportionately in the rural sector, and this is an important aspect of the nation’s rurality during the postindustrial era.\r\nThe Economic Dimension: This dimension concerns the organization of economic body process in local economies. It localisees on what people do for a living, the size and composition of local economies, and the linkages between local economic activities and national and ball-shaped capital. Until the mid 20th century, rural and market-gardening while not synonymous were very closely related, and definitions of rural were heavily influenced by measures of dependence on agriculture and other extractive industries.\r\n bucolic economies were small and undifferentiated both in ground of establishments and workers, and localities had a relatively high degree of economic autonomy. 10 Many people continue to picture rural areas through this archaic lens, even though local economies have been basically restructured during the past 50 years. Direct dependence on agriculture, forestry, mining and fisheries has declined to less than one in ten nonmetropolitan workers although extractive industries continue to dominate economic activity in particular regions of the U. S. (Cook and Mizer, 1994).\r\nThere is no denying that economi c activities in rural and urban America have become much more similar since valet War II. Not only has dependence on extractive industries declined throughout the country, but so has dependence on manufacturing, and most economic growth is now accounted for by services. However, the jobs on hand(predicate) in rural labor markets continue to be significantly different than urban jobs. homespun manufacturing is more probably to be nondurable than urban manufacturing, and well paying producer services jobs are seldom available in rural economies.\r\nMoreover, research shows that full time rural workers earn less than urban workers regardless of their manufacturing of employment, and that rural employment is significantly more probable to be part time and/or seasonal (Gale and McGranahan, 2001). While these rural-urban differences in employment do not stick to to the traditional farm-nonfarm contours, they show that opportunities available in rural labor markets are intelligibl y inferior to those available in urban America, and that rural and urban areas can be differentiated with respect to how people make a living.\r\n plain economies have traditionally been smaller than urban economies in terms of number of workers, the number and size of establishments, and the gross value of products or services sold. Of the ternion indicators of rural economic activity, this one has changed the least over time even though the decentralization of urban based pegleg plants has brought some large employers to particular rural areas. Moreover, rural economies have been much more dependent on one or a few types of economic activity than urban economies, and this too remains an important rural-urban difference.\r\nThe â€Å"protection of distance” enjoyed (or suffered) by rural economies has distinctly diminished in recent decades. Technological changes including all weather roads, the interstate highway highway system, virtually universal bid service (now inc luding cell phones), and the internet have greatly reduced rural isolation. This is not to deny that some important inequalities in transportation and communication infrastructure persist 11 between rural and urban areas, but for the most part the effect of physical distance has been substantially leveled by technological advances.\r\ninstitutional changes, especially the increase mobility of capital, have further diminished rural economic independence. The deregulation of deposeing means that capital now flows easily to and from metro bank centers and the rural periphery. This has both positive and negative implications for particular rural communities, but the clear result is that rural economies are more and more integrated within national and worldwide structures. With this change comes a resulting decline of local autonomy and increase dependence on extra-local firms and organizations.\r\nThis makes rural areas at the same time more attractive sites for certain types of extr aneous investment, and more likely to lose traditional employers because of financial decisions made elsewhere. There is subatomic room for vista in the globalized economy, including sentiment for rural communities as valued â€Å"home places. ” When the bottom line demands it, capital flows across national borders to production sites with low cost and few regulations, locating and relocating according to the demands of the market.\r\nThe Institutional Dimension: Communities are institutionalized solutions to the problems of casual life. Accordingly, some social scientists view communities as configurations of institutional spheres including education, religion, governance, the economy, etc. (Rubin, 1969). While we do not necessarily subscribe to this functionalist view of residential area organization, there is no denying that institutions are a critical aspect of local social structure, and that human organisms would have little use for communities if they did not serve hap needs. Both urban and rural areas have formal institutional sectors.\r\nMost places have some form of politics and local governance, organized religion, education, and voluntary and service organizations. Moreover, as discussed in the preceding section, sustenance and economic activity are important aspects of locality. bucolic and urban areas are not so much differentiated by the presence or absence of particular types of institutions as by their diversity and capacity. For example, schools, intelligencepapers and churches, are widespread, but most rural communities offer a narrower range of choices as to where one’s children may be educated, where to worship, and/or the media from which one obtains local news.\r\nSchool consolidation in rural America has resulted in fewer and larger schools. Students are often bussed long distances to school. 12 Similarly, while churches are present in most rural communities, the range of denominations and congregations is narrow. C lubs, service organizations, and voluntary associations are also an important part of rural community life, but the choice of organizations to join is limit in similitude to the organizational choices available in urban environments.\r\n sylvan institutions also tend to have more confine capacity than their urban counterparts. Rural governments, for example, are often constrained by part time leadership, insufficient fiscal resources, unable(p) organizational structures, limited access to technical information and expertise, and limited ability to assess changing community needs (Kraybill and Lobao, 2001; Cigler, 1993). The sociocultural Dimension: Moral traditionalism is one of the most consistent themes subsumed under the term â€Å"rural culture” (Willits and Bealer, 1967).\r\nRural persons are often considered to be more fusty than their urban counterparts, and data from national surveys indicate this to be true in the United States. Calvin Beale (1995) has shown tha t 49 percent of rural respondents to a 1993 field of study Opinion Research Center (NORC) national survey regard themselves as religious fundamentalists compared with 33 percent of urban respondents. Similarly, a much lower percentage of rural respondents believe that abortion should be available for any reason (26 percent vs. 44 percent), and a much higher percentage of rural persons believe that homoeroticism is immoral (84 percent vs. 2 percent). Beale also observed that rural voters have been more likely to support conservative candidates in recent elections even though rural persons are slightly more likely than urban persons to describe themselves as democrats. A related idea is that rural conservatism is often associated with the homogeneity of the rural population. Wirth (1938) and others argued that increased population diversity was one of the dominant effects of urbanization, and one of the reasons why versed social maintain was likely to crack down in cities.\r\nIr onically, Fisher (1975) and other critics of Wirth, argued that hea thusish diversity rather than lend to a weakening of the social order was a main reason why the strength of social relations did not diminish in cities, and why community was not â€Å"eclipsed” in urban environments. While the association between ethnic and other aspects of population diversity and social and political attitudes is still an open question, research clearly indicates that rural populations in the U. S. , while 13 increasingly diverse, remain significantly more homogeneous than urban populations (Fuguitt, et al. 1989). In addition, the rural population’s racial and ethnic diversity is not spread as across the landscape, but tends to concentrate in particular regions and locales (Cromartie, 1999). Hence, even though about one out of ten rural Americans is African American, few rural communities are 10 percent Black. Rather, Blacks tend either to comprise the majority or large minority o f a rural population or an insignificant percentage. The same tends to be true with respect to other racial and/or ethnic populations.\r\nMuch has been compose to suggest that primary social interaction is more prevalent and more tearing in rural areas, and that rural areas have a higher level of folksy social control than is true in urban areas. However, these contestations, if ever true, are not supported by contemporary empirical evidence. Copious research has shown that urban persons are involved in regular and intent interaction with family, friends and neighbors, and that community has not been eclipsed in urban America (Hummon, 1990; Fischer, 1975).\r\nMoreover, research by Sampson (1999), and others has shown that social networks are quite sound in regulating social behavior in urban locales. Accordingly, primary social interaction and effective social control do not differentiate rural and urban areas in contemporary American society, and are not components of the soci ocultural dimension of rurality. CONCLUSIONS How urbanized are postindustrial societies? How quickly is the remaining rural population being incorporated within the urban category? How do rural people and rural areas contribute to and/or detract from the social and economic well being of highly developed nations?\r\nWe contend that answering these questions accurately is contingent on the availability of theoretically informed definitions of rural and urban areas. close every developed nation uses population size and density as the basis for its differentiation of urban and rural areas. aras obtain urban status by arrive at some threshold of population size and/or density, and commuting or some similar measure of routine social and/or economic interaction is used to determine whether peripheral areas are integrated with, and hence part of large/ unintelligible urban agglomerations.\r\nRural areas are simply the residualâ€areas that fail to satisfy the urban threshold or lack routine interaction with core 14 areas. We join with many previous scholars in argumentation that this approach is blind to the complex multidimensional nature of postindustrial rurality. We believe that the residual approach is inadequate for differentiating rural from urban populations, and for examining social, economic, political, ecological and other forms of diversity within the rural category itself. We have recommended a multidimensional framework for considering the nature of rurality in postindustrial society.\r\nOur approach includes conventional demographic measures, and adds information on the natural environment, economic structures and activities, the diversity and capacity of institutions, and a sociocultural domain. Our example is the United States but we believe that the situation we describe in the U. S. is similar to that in most other postindustrial societies. Our paper rejects the notion that rurality is simply a residual that is unexhausted once urban areas have been identified. The rural as residual approach clearly identifies the extremes or urbanity and rurality (Paris, France vs.\r\nParis, Texas, for example), but it offers no guidance for examining settlements that fall in the intermediate zone between these extremes. We believe that the multidimensional approach to conceptualizing rurality is helpful not only for distinguishing urban from rural but also for understanding the variability of social and economic organization that occurs within both categories. As we have shown, the OMB’s new core-based statistical areas systems is a step toward recognizing important aspects of rural diversity and of focusing economic aid on the zone between what is clearly urban and clearly rural.\r\nWe acknowledge that there is a venerable tradition in social science of examining the correlates of city size (Duncan, 1951; Duncan and Reiss, 1956), and that it is possible that rural-urban variability in ecological, economic, institutional a nd sociocultural attributes may simply be a reflection of inter area differences in population size. If this is the case then the conventional practice of using population size to define urbanity may be sufficient for delineating urban from rural.\r\nIn contrast, if the other dimensions of social and economic activity are only weakly associated with population size then conventional statistical practice may be producing misleading information regarding urbanization and the conditions of life in rural and urban communities. This important question merits move examination in future research. 15 Changes in a nation’s urban-rural balance have significance that extends beyond purely academic curiosity. Understanding how variability in spatial context affects fortune structures and the quality of life contributes to producing flexible public programs that are sensitive to local needs.\r\nMisinformation about the social, economic and institutional organization of rural and/or urba n areas, and about the size and composition of a nation’s population living and working in rural and urban places will result in misinformed policies. For example, if policy makers believe that most rural persons are farmers, agricultural policies will be seen as a valid response to rural want and income insecurity. But, of course, agricultural policies will not have much of an effect on rural poverty because most rural persons in postindustrial societies do not depend on farming for their livelihoods (Gibbs, 2001).\r\nOr, if research indicates that the size of a nation’s rural population has held constant over time, as is the case in the United States where about 55-60 million persons has been classified as rural since 1950, then significant public investments for rural ripening will be legitimized (at least from an candour perspective). But, if the measurement of rurality is too permissive, and the population that is genuinely rural has actually declined, then p ublic resources may be targeted to the molest populations.\r\nWe realize that the multidimensional perspective we are promoting could not be easily or cheaply built into a national statistical system. But, regardless of its practicality our framework raises important questions about the sufficiency of the size/density conventions used throughout the developed world, and consequently about the state of knowledge on urbanization in postindustrial societies. Moreover, our contention that rurality should not be hard-boiled as an undifferentiated residual complements the social representational approach in which rurality is defined by how people imagine community life in commonplace discourse.\r\nBoth approaches focus attention on the complexity of contemporary rural life and its continuing distinctiveness in comparison with urban areas. 16 REFERENCES Beale, C. 1995. â€Å"Non Economic measure out of Rural America. ” Paper presented at the USDA experts’ conference on th e value of rural America. ” Washington, DC: USDA-ERS. ______. 1984. â€Å"Poughkeepsie’s Complaint or Defining Metropolitan aras. ” American Demographics 6(1): 28-31; 46-48. Berry, B. 1967. geography of Market Centers and Retail Distribution. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: learner Hall. Brown, D and M. Lee. 1999. Persisting Inequality amid Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan America: Implications for possible action and Policy. ” Pp. 151-167 in P. Moen, D. Demster-McClain and H. Walker (eds. ) Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. ______. G. Fuguitt, T. Heaton, and S. Waseem. 1997. â€Å"Continuities in sizing of Place Preferences in the United States, 1972-1992. ” Rural Sociology 62(4) : 408-428. Butler, M. and C. Beale. 1994. â€Å"Rural-Urban Continuum Codes for Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties, 1993. ” lag extend No. 9425. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS. Cigler, B. 993. â€Å" run across the Growing Challenges of Rural local anesthetic Government. ” Rural Development Perspectives 9(1): 35-39. Cloke, P. and G. Edwards. 1986. â€Å"rurality in England and Wales, 1981: A Replication of the 1971 magnate. ” Regional Studies 20: 289-306. _____. 1977. â€Å"An Index of ruralism for England and Wales. ” Regional Studies 11: 31-46. Cook, P. and K. Mizer. 1994. â€Å"The rewrite ERS County Typology. ” Rural Development Research Report No. 84. Washington, DC: USDA-ERS. Cromartie, J. 1999. â€Å"Rural Minorities argon Geographically Clustered. ” Rural Conditions and Trends 9(2): 14-19. Duncan, C. 1999.\r\nWorlds Apart: why Poverty Persists in Rural America. ” saucily Haven: Yale University Press. Duncan, O and A. Reiss. 1956. sociable Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities. in the buff York: John Wiley and Sons. Duncan, O. 1951. â€Å" optimal Size of Cities. ” Pp. 632-645 in P. Hatt and A. Reiss (eds. ) Reader in Urb an Sociology. New York: Free Press. 17 Durkehim, E. 1951. Suicide. New York: Free Press. Fischer, C. 1975. â€Å"Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism. ” American diary of Sociology 80: 1319-1342. Fuguitt, G. , D. Brown, and C. Beale. 1989. Rural and little(a) Town America. New York: Russell quick of scent Foundation. Gale, F. nd D. McGranahan. 2001. â€Å"Nonmetro areas Fall Behind in the New delivery. ” Rural America 16(1): 44-51. Gibbs, R. 2001. â€Å"Nonmetro turn over Markets in an Era of Welfare Reform. ” Rural America 16(3): 11-21. Giddens, A. The Constitution of Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. Halfacree, K. 1993. â€Å" neck of the woods and Social Representation: Space, Discourse, and Alternative Definitions of the Rural. ” Journal of Rural Studies 9(1): 23-37. Hauser, P. 1965. â€Å"urbanisation: An Overview. ” Pp. 1-47 in P. Hauser and L. Schnore (eds. ) The Study of Urbanization. New York: John Wiley and Sons. Hines, F, D. Bro wn, and J. Zimmer. 1975. Social and Economic Characteristics of the Population in Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Counties, 1970. ” unpolished Economic Report No. 272. Washington, D. C. : USDA-ERS. Hummon, D. 1990. special K Places: Community Ideology and Identity in American Culture. Albany: SUNY Press. Kellogg Foundation. 2002. Perceptions of Rural America. participation Creek, MI. : Kellogg Foundation. Kraybill, D. and L. Lobao. 2001. County Government Survey: Changes and Challenges in the New Millennium. Washington, DC: National Association of Counties. Lewis, M. 1991. â€Å" unidentifiable Societies: A Regional-Cartographical Approach to the Study of Human Relatedness. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 18(4): 605-626. Logan, J. 1996. ‘Rural America As A figure of American determine. ” Rural Development Perspectives 12(1): 24-28. Marx, K. 1976. Capital, Vol. I. capital of the United Kingdom: Penguin NLR. Morrill, R, J. Cromartie, and G. H art. 1999. â€Å"Metropolitan, Urban, and Rural Commuting Areas: Toward a wear Depiction of the united States Settlement System. ” Urban Geography 20(8): 727-748. 18 Moscovici, S. 1981. â€Å"On Social Representation. ” Pp. 181-209 in J. Forgas (ed. ), Social Cognition: Perspectives on Everyday Understanding. London: Academic Press. RUPRI. 1995. 1995 National RUPRI Poll: Differential Attitudes of Rural and Urban America. ” Columbia, Missouri: Rural Policy Research Institute. Rubin, J. 1969. â€Å"Function and Structure of Community: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis. ” International round off of Community Development 21-22: 111-119. Sampson, R. , J. Morenoff, and F. Earls. 1999. â€Å"Beyond Social Capital: Spatial Dynamics of corporal Efficacy for Children. ” American Journal of Sociology 92(1): 27-63. Tisdale, H. 1942. â€Å"The cognitive operation of Urbanization. ” Social Forces 20: 311-316. United Nations. 1999. World Urbanizatio n Prospects: 1999 Revision.\r\nNew York: United Nations. U. S. map of Management and Budget. 2000. â€Å"Standards for Defining Metropolitan and Micropolitan statistical Areas. ” Federal Register 65(249): 82228-82238. (http://www. whitehouse. gov/omb/fedreg/metroareas122700. pdf. ) Weber, M. 1968. Economy and Society. New York: Bedminister. Willits, F. , R. Bealer, and V. Timbers. 1990. â€Å"Popular Images of Rurality: Data From a Pennsylvania Survey. ” Rural Sociology 55(4): 559-578. ______. 1967. â€Å"An Evaluation of a Composite Index of Rurality. ” Rural Sociology 32(2): 165-177. Wirth, L. 1938. â€Å"Urbanization As a Way of Life. American Journal of Sociology 44(1): 129. 19 Figure 1: A Multidimensional Framework of Rurality in Postindustrial Society Indicators Rural Areas or Populations Urban Areas or Populations Are More Likely to Be: Are More Likely to Be: Dimensions of Rurality Ecological Dimension Population Size Population Density Situation in Set tlement System Natural environment Economic Dimension Dependence on Industrial Activities Size of Local Economy Diversity of Economic Activity impropriety of Local Economy Institutional Dimension Local Choice Public arena Capacity Sociocultural Dimension Beliefs/Values Population Diversity\r\nSmall low-pitched/Scattered Peripheral Rich in Natural Resources full-grown towering/ heavy Central Lacking Natural Resources Extractive Nondurable Manufacturing Consumer work Small Workforce Small Establishments unanimous Low/Dependent Producer go Professional Services Durable Manufacturing Large Workforce Large Establishments Diversified advanced Narrow/Constrained Limited/ down(p) Wide High Conservative uniform Progressive Heterogeneous 20 Table 1: Population, Land Area, Density and percentage Rural by CBSA Category, 19901 CBSA Category U. S. Metro Large Small Nonmetro Micro Non-CBSA 1\r\nNo. Counties 3,141 891 606 285 2,250 582 1,668 Population 1,000s Percent 248,709 195,930 171 ,606 24,323 52,780 26,699 26,081 vitamin C 79 69 10 21 11 10 Land Area (square miles) 1,000s Percent 3,536 737 488 249 2,799 625 2,174 100 21 14 7 79 18 61 Population Per Sq. Mile 70 266 351 98 19 43 12 gibe OMB (2000) for discussion of procedures used to delineate CBSA county types. ascendant: 1990 U. S. Census of Population 21 Table 2: Comparative Profile of Metro, Micro and Noncore Based Counties, U. S. , 19901 Metropolitan Large Small Nonmetropolitan Micro Noncore\r\nCharacteristic Educational advance Pct. Less Than High School Pct. High School Pct. College Total Total 23 29 48 23 28 49 25 32 43 31 35 34 29 34 37 34 36 31 Industry of Employment (selected) Pct. maturate Pct. Manufacture Pct. Retail Pct. Services 1 13 16 29 1 13 16 30 3 15 18 25 8 18 16 21 5 18 17 22 11 17 15 19 trade of Employment (selected) Pct. Manager, Professional Pct. Tech. , Sales, Admin. Pct. Labor2 Earnings Per Job3 every Jobs (000) Manufacture (000) Retail (000) Services (000) 1 2 28 33 24 29 34 2 4 24 30 28 20 26 34 21 27 33 18 24 36 27 36 15 24 27 37 15 25 0 27 12 16 20 25 12 15 20 27 12 16 18 23 11 14 secure OMB (2000) for rules used to identify county types. Skilled and hopeless 3 Nonfarm jobs Source: 1990 U. S. Census of Population 22 Table 3: heraldic bearing of Services and Facilities by County Type, 20001 Percent Provided in County Micro 29 71 62 58 91 89 41 64 38 100 45 Service or Facility plan Passenger Air Service plan Inter County Bus Service Local Bus Service Museum2 Daily paper National or Regional Hotel certification Four Year College Library with ten-fold Branches Commercial Television Station3 General Hospital4 N 1\r\nSmall Metro 50 91 95 77 95 100 82 64 68 100 22 Noncore Based 11 31 29 23 18 44 11 34 9 74 71 Ten percent sample of noncore based counties; 20% samples of small metro and micro counties. Current response rate = small metro: 41%; micro: 75%; noncore: 42%. Art, science or natural history with focus beyond local county. With local news and a dvertising. With at least two of four of the following services: emergency room, physical therapy, cardiac care or MRI. 2 3 4 23\r\n'