Download Continuity and Change in Place Stratification

Rural Sociology 69(1), 2004, pp. 1–30
Copyright 2004 by the Rural Sociological Society
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽ cation: Spatial
Inequality and Middle-Range Territorial Units*
Linda Lobao
Rural Sociology Program,
Department of Human and Community Resource Development,
The Ohio State University
ABSTRACT Sociologists have produced large, well-known literatures on
inequality across geographic territory at two ends of the spatial scale
continuum, within the city and across nation-states. In this paper, I discuss
a different scale of focus, subnational stratiŽ cation processes across middlerange spatial units, those between the city and nation-state. While
characterizing much contemporary rural sociological research, this approach to spatial inequality does not tend to be seen as a coherent tradition
that cross-cuts substantive areas. First, I discuss why attention to subnational
inequality, rural regions, and middle-range spatial units are important to
social science understanding of stratiŽ cation processes. Second, I provide an
overview of contemporary research traditions in rural sociology which, taken
together, form a distinct and innovative approach to spatial inequality. Third,
I draw from my own work to explain how factors affecting socioeconomic
inequalities across middle-range territorial units may be conceptualized and
provide two sets of empirical examples. Finally, I discuss what should be done
in terms of furthering rural sociology’s regional approach to spatial
inequality.
In this paper I address a research theme, spatial inequality, that, while
present in rural sociology since its inception, is generally not recognized
as an innovative contribution to the social sciences. Neither have we
tended to see spatial inequality as a coherent substantive topic that ties
together diverse rural sociological literatures as well as a bundle of social
issues facing rural society. By spatial inequality, I refer to place
stratiŽ cation or inequality within and between territorial units. This
topic deals with two central questions: 1) How do markers of stratiŽ cation, such as those re ected in economic status, race/ethnicity,
gender, health, education, and other statuses, vary across geographic
territory? 2) How do places themselves become markers of stratiŽ cation?
* An earlier version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Rural
Sociological Society in Montreal, July 2003. I thank Gary Green, Larry Brown, and three
anonymous reviewers for their comments and Erick Lobao for producing the maps and
for his comments. Research reported here was supported by funding from the USDA,
National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, project 00-35401-9254; the
Inter-Institutional Research Program for North America, project on ‘‘Sustainability of
Rural Communities in a Global Perspective’’ administered by the El Colegio de Mexico;
and the Center for Urban and Regional Analysis, The Ohio State University. Direct
correspondence to: Linda Lobao, Department of Human and Community Resource
Development, The Ohio State University, 2120 Fyffe Rd., Columbus OH 43210. E-mail:
[email protected]; phone: 614-292-6394.
2
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
That is the question of place-making or how distinct places, such as
prosperous or poor regions, emerge through uneven development processes. Rural sociology has a rich heritage of research on territorial-based
stratiŽ cation, which poises us centrally given the ‘‘spatial turn’’ across the
social sciences. Continuity and change, noted in the title of this paper,
refers to both the ways in which sociologists analyze spatial stratiŽ cation
and how territorial processes themselves have changed over time.
Spatial inequality can be conceptualized at different scales or territorial
units (e.g., neighborhood, intra-city, cross-national) and between scales
(e.g., neighborhood embedded in labor market). Sociologists have
produced well-known bodies of work on stratiŽ cation at two territorial
extremes, cross-nationally (Wallerstein 1974) and intra-city or neighborhood (Wilson 1987). In this paper, I focus on middle-range scale units
between the intra-city and nation, which are most relevant to rural
sociology. My concern is comparative, subnational inequality across units
such as states, labor markets, counties, and metropolitan-nonmetropolitan areas. To make the discussion more succinct, I refer to this focus as
a ‘‘regional approach to spatial inequality.’’1
By taking a regional approach, signiŽ cant stratiŽ cation issues can be
addressed. One example is the rise of new inequality ‘‘hot spots’’ in the
wake of economic growth. This type of development is illustrated by the
‘‘Denver phenomena’’ and ‘‘Aspen effect’’ where natural amenities-led
growth culls the middle class (Purdum 2001); Midwestern, rural areas
experiencing rapid in ux of low-income immigrants; and recent
expansions of industrialized agriculture and processing facilities that
cluster farm production in some communities but drain it off from
others (Drabenstott and Smith 1996). A second example is persistent
poverty across regions, long studied by rural sociologists (RSS Task
Force on Persistent Rural Poverty 1993). A third example is how
seemingly aspatial government policy may have important spatial
outcomes. Devolution of federal responsibilities to lower governmental
units affects spatial patterns of inequality, with rural areas experiencing
greater challenges in adapting to this trend (Kraybill and Lobao 2001;
Lichter and Jayakody 2002; Weber et al. 2002; Warner and Hebdon
2001).
1
In referring to subnational units as regions, I build from Markusen (1987:55).
Regions refer to real or imagined places where social structure, population, and physical
environment are attached to distinct territorial formations. Regions can be political
administrative units like states, counties, and cities; functionally linked such as labor
markets or metro-areas with suburban hinterlands; and/or may be ‘‘homogenous’’ in
terms of sharing certain common elements such as manufacturing or farm belts, urban or
rural areas, and the U.S. North/South. My concern is the region as the unit of analysis and
comparative analyses across them.
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
3
Figure 1. Median Family Income
The general case of spatial inequality in the U.S. is illustrated by
mapping median family income, a commonly used indicator of
development and well-being. Maps in Figure 1 show the relative
rankings of counties into high (top third of distribution), moderate
(middle third) and low income categories (bottom third). Evidence of
spatial continuity is shown insofar that most counties retain relative
rankings from 1969–1999. There are also some shifts, particularly where
northern and western counties lost advantaged positions over time.
Sociologists have barely scratched the surface of understanding the
reasons behind these temporal-spatial patterns.
This paper centers on carving out the topic of spatial inequality
across middle-range units. First, I discuss the signiŽ cance of the topic,
both in terms of why attention to spatial inequality contributes to rural
sociology and why rural sociologists’ distinct approach is critical to the
social sciences. Second, I provide an overview of contemporary schools
within rural sociology that address spatial inequality. Third, I draw from
my own work to explain inequality across middle-range territorial units.
I provide two set of empirical examples, one on how markers of
inequality vary across geographic territory, the other on place-making.
Finally, I discuss needed directions to further rural sociology’s distinct
approach to spatial inequality.
4
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
Rural Sociology’s Distinct Regional Approach to Spatial Inequality
Before continuing, a few caveats are in order. First, I focus on spatial
inequality not as a replacement for traditional interest areas, but as
a way to bring together conceptually and substantively what encompasses much on-going work. Current rural sociology is a sociology of
spatial inequality insofar that we are inherently concerned with ‘‘who
gets what where.’’ This focus challenges a view of rural sociology as
segmented in thematic scope and limited in overarching conceptual
concerns—which has sometimes been a critique from within rural
sociology. At the same time, spatial inequality cannot be reduced to any
one topical area, but rather cross-cuts most existing ones. Sonya
Salamon (2003a), David Brown (2002), Louis Swanson (2001), Jan
Flora (1998), and Ann Tickamyer (1996) all have discussed the spatial
foundations of rural sociology in recent presidential addresses. Thus,
while the term ‘‘spatial inequality’’ has come into more recent use, the
topic itself is not new. There are also a number of rural sociologists who
identify their work as under the rubric of spatial inequality.2
However, while continuity is evident in our research pursuits, change
has engulfed the external scholarly and political environment. In brief,
widespread interest in spatializing the non-geographic social sciences
provides an unprecedented opportunity to make rural sociology’s
distinct spatial approach more visible externally and to contribute to
burgeoning cross-disciplinary literatures. The current U.S. political
environment, where ideologies of individual blame for social misfortune guide public policy, calls for social scientists to document the
alternative structural, economic, and social safety net sources of
hardship. Focusing on geographic location inherently calls attention
to social forces beyond the individual that produce hardship and
inequality (Lobao and Saenz 2002).
Numerous studies now analyze the spatial turn across the social
sciences. Insofar that innovations are deŽ ned as things ‘‘perceived as
new,’’ the outpouring of literature suggests that many nongeographer
social scientists take this spatial turn as innovative, though certainly it
builds from older traditions. I do not revisit the large literature on
space and place.3 Rather, I treat spatial inequality as a subset of this
activity and focus on rural sociology’s distinct regional approach.
Nevertheless, this still leaves much ground to cover. I necessarily rely on
2
For recent examples, see the presentations at the 2003 annual Rural Sociological
Society meeting whose theme was ‘‘spatial inequality’’ and the December 2002 Rural
Sociology special issue on the topic.
3
For reviews see Gieryn (2000), Lobao (1993, 1996), Swamstrom et al. (2002), and
Tickamyer (2000).
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
5
use of generalizations in portraying our accomplishments and the
distinctiveness of ‘‘rural’’ places. Studying across middle-range units is
an approach taken in studies of various nations, not just the U.S. (for
a Latin American example, see Lobao and Brown 1998). While most
literature reviewed here is from U.S. sources, subnational inequalities
concern rural sociologists globally.
The SigniŽ cance of Spatial Inequality for Rural Sociology
The topic of spatial inequality strengthens rural sociology in several ways.
Most broadly, it promotes a more cohesive Ž eld. Focus on middle-range
territorial units, subnational inequality, and rural places establishes
a distinct niche for rural sociology in the social sciences. The topic also
helps ties together our Ž elds substantive strands, a point elaborated
further.
Spatial inequality also enhances rural sociology through introducing
new conceptual perspectives and methodologies. Like urban sociology,
rural sociology, largely developed from human ecology, which gave little
attention to power and con ict (Walton 1993). Spatial inequality represents a fundamental shift from past human ecology approaches and
joins rural sociology to the critical traditions found in urban sociology
and, more recently, demography (Horton 1999). It also enriches our
Ž eld with new substantive literatures, conceptual frameworks, and
spatial analytical methods drawn from geography and regional science
(Lobao and Saenz 2002).
Finally, spatial inequality is important from a rural development
standpoint. To understand the fate of rural regions and populations
over time, we must address a bigger project—how territorial asymmetries are created, maintained, and changed.
Why Rural Sociologists’ Approach is Critical to the Social Sciences
Rural sociologists’ focus on rural regions, subnational inequality, and
middle-range territorial units is central to social science understanding of
spatial inequality for several reasons. In highlighting the uniqueness of
our approach, I treat ‘‘rural regions’’ as an ideal type, whose purpose is to
open up thought tests about social science’s taken-for-granted assumptions.
First, rural regions provide a needed corrective to recent literature on
contemporary development. As social scientists increasingly focus on
large cities to understand development processes, they have produced
a unitary view of the social ecology of capitalism. In this view, rural regions
appear only indirectly and/or as a mirror to urban regions. Some
examples illustrate how rural regions have become the unstudied or
6
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
‘‘default’’ category in recent literature. A large body of work now focuses
on metropolitan regions as functional economic and governance units,
with this work tending to reduce national development to a chain of
metropolitan systems (Amin and Thrift 2002:58; Byrne 2001; Scott 2001).
Globalization has been recast as a new geography of centrality (Sassen
2001) that revolves around the world cities (Knox and Taylor 1995; Sassen
1995, 2000). Most perspectives on the political economy of U.S.
development (such as on industrial restructuring, Fordism/Post-Fordism, modernity or post-modernity) are urban-biased, insofar as they are
grounded in the experience of northern and Sunbelt cities. Certain cities
also become the model territorial social formation from which to
generalize upward, to the path other cities and the nation as a whole
might follow. The model city has shifted with industrial restructuring,
Chicago giving way to Los Angeles (Dear and Flusty 2001). The
propulsive, dynamic marks of capitalism are seen as embodied in Los
Angeles and other exceptional cities, from industrial sectors, consumer
trends, to most recently the ‘‘creative class’’ (Florida 2002).
Studying rural regions counters urban-biased perspectives. It lets us
look at the large swathe of places left out of academic discussion, the
‘‘unexceptional’’ or ordinary settings in which people live and work. By
including these areas, a different view of social life is added to the
development narrative, one which places greater emphasis on the
extractive sector, traditional manufacturing, the working class, and mass
population with high school attainments. Focusing on exceptional
places and missing traditional regions has contributed to an overemphasis of change, as opposed to inertia, and globalization over
localization in regional processes. In sum, by attending to rural regions,
social science gains a more balanced view of development.
Second, rural regions raise broader questions about the national
spatial division of labor. As Massey’s (1984) classic work illuminated,
different stages of development allocate different industries, Ž rms, and
jobs to different kinds of regions. Geographers have a tradition of studying the role of certain types of regions in development, such as frontiers,
manufacturing belts, and farm belts (Brown et al.1992; Page and Walker
1991), but U.S. sociologists have done much less in this area. The
contribution of rural areas to national production and consumption in
different historical periods is an important topic, and I return to this later.
Third, new forms of national inequality have their territorial
expression in rural regions (Purdy 1999). These inequalities often re ect
class struggles over the use value of rural areas. Some examples are: global
corporations seeking to locate vertically integrated livestock processing
facilities in cash starved rural communities; con icts between newcomer
middle class and less af uent residents at the urban-rural interface;
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
7
property rights disputes; and prison construction in rural areas which
balkanizes the interests of the rural and urban poor (Hooks et al. 2003).
Fourth, subnational spatial differences are critical to understanding
the current U.S. political environment. While urban-rural differences in
political beliefs were long thought to be dissipating, the experience of
recent years casts doubt on this assumption. Voting patterns from the
2000 presidential election show that Bush took the ‘‘red’’ or more rural
states. Public stigma against food stamp recipients is reported to be
greater in nonmetro than metro areas (McConnell and Ohis 2001).
Nonmetro county ofŽ cials face a constituency more anti-tax than that
faced by their urban counterparts (Kraybill and Lobao 2003). Media
accounts routinely pit the urbanized east and west coasts against the
rural heartland in competition for government funding and voter
sentiment (Hulse 2003; Krugman 2003). Beyond scattered reports,
however, there is little research on the degree to which the neo-liberal
(that is, anti-government, anti-poor) rollback has indeed become
spatialized into urban-rural differences.
In addition to attention to subnational difference across rural places,
other aspects of rural sociology’s approach to spatial inequality are
noteworthy. Rural sociologists have always grappled with conceptual
questions about space that have only more recently permeated much
general sociology. By focusing on middle-range spatial units, rural
sociologists address a repertoire of signiŽ cant conceptual questions
different from conventional cross-national or neighborhood studies.
Finally, rural sociologists’ attention to analyzing urban and rural
regions jointly and comparatively provides the only comprehensive
sociological lense on spatial inequality, a lense capable of providing
powerful insights. In taking a comparative approach, one is confronted
with considerable inertia in regional processes, particularly evident in
persistent regional differences in economic well-being. These persistent
patterns are a challenge both to conventional trickle-down development theories as well as to critically oriented theories anticipating sharp
breaks in regional fortunes due to post-war capitalist transformations.
Rural Sociology and Other Traditions
Rural sociologists’ distinct approach to spatial inequality shares some
similarities with regional traditions outside sociology, an issue that can
be only brie y noted here. Though geography, regional science, and
economics differ from rural sociology in theory and substantive focus,
researchers from these disciplines today treat subnational regions as
incorporating a composite of economic, social, and location attributes
and share similar interest in spatial analytic methods (Hudson 2001;
Kratke 1999; Krugman 1991). Interdisciplinary traditions also address
8
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
subnational inequality across middle-range units. A longstanding
example is social indicators research (Land 1983). Another example
is the body of work by USDA-ERS social scientists on rural socioeconomic well-being, economic activities, and demographic change,
much of which uses counties as spatial units.4
Contemporary Rural Sociological Research Traditions and
Spatial Inequality
While rural sociologists have produced various literatures on subnational inequalities, these literatures tend not to be treated as linked
or as offering a distinct approach to the topic. I present a brief overview
of these bodies of work.
The Rural Inequality Tradition: Rural Poverty, Labor Markets,
and Demography
Research on spatial inequality is most central to three literatures: rural
poverty, labor markets, and demography. These literatures overlap
substantively and conceptually, comprising a general rural inequality
tradition. Most attention is given to how markers of inequality, typically
poverty, income, or other economic well-being indicators, vary across
geographic territory. In terms of causal determinants, focus tends to be
on economic structure, such as manufacturing and service employment. Aggregates such as counties, labor market areas, cities, and towns
are typically used as either units of analysis directly or as contexts
surrounding households and individuals. Comparative urban-rural
relationships are often a focus. While each literature below is distinct,
individual rural sociologists’ work often spans all three areas.
Rural Poverty. Rural sociology’s large literature on poverty contrasts
with sociology’s conventional focus on the inner-city. This literature
tends to focus on long-term poverty and historically poor rural regions,
but it can be extended to explain more general, subnational inequalities. The Rural Sociological Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty
pushed forward much of this work in their 1993 volume. In addition to
numerous articles, books include Billings and Blee (1995), Duncan
(1999), Fitchen (1991), Lyson and Falk (1993), and Maril (2000).
Rural Labor Markets. This literature represents a unique contribution
by systematically tackling conceptual and empirical issues involved in
subnational inequality (Falk and Lyson 1988; McGranahan 1980;
Singelmann and Deseran, 1993). A second innovation comes with con4
For example, see the USDA-ERS website at http://www.ers.usda.gov and reports by
Peggy Cook, John Cromartie, Linda GhelŽ , Robert Gibbs, Dave McGranahan, Mark Nord,
Linda Swanson, Leslie Whitener and others.
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
9
ceptualization and measurement of ‘‘labor markets’’ and ‘‘work’’ from
a rural standpoint. Arguing that traditional (BEA) labor markets were too
small to capture rural work-residence relationships, Killian and Tolbert
(1993) developed new ecological units to re ect this labor market
geography. These are used in a number of studies, most recently Cotter
(2002). Rural labor market sociologists further argue that ofŽ cial employment statistics miss key work activities of rural people, hence the need for
primary data that includes the informal sector (Tickamyer 1996). A third
innovation has been to challenge neo-classical human capital theory
explanations. By attending to the structural determinants of inequality,
labor market sociologists demonstrated the inadequacy of neo-classical
economic explanations and showed how returns to human capital
attributes vary by urban-rural context (Beaulieu and Mulkey 1995; Cotter
2002; Tickamyer 1992; Tigges and Tootle 1990; Tomaskovic-Devey 1987).
Rural Demography. Rural demographers have long employed population aggregates to address central demographic questions and forms
of inequality (Fuguitt et al. 1989). In comparison to the two traditions
above, demographers’ research moves beyond economic inequalities to
a variety of well-being indicators such as migration, fertility, mortality,
family formation, and health status (Brown 2002; Cossman et al. 2002,
2003; Lichter et al. 1997; McLaughlin et al. 1999, 2001). Rural demographers also cast a wider net in determinants of inequality, focusing on
both economic structure as well as sociodemographic factors (Fosset
and Seibert 1997; Lichter and McLaughlin 1995). Finally, they point to
the complexity of analyzing spatial inequality, stressing the considerable
variation within and between urban-rural regions (Brown and Lee 1999;
Brown and Hirschl 1995) and ethnic groups (Fosset and Seibert 1997;
Saenz and Thomas 1991).
Though the three previous literatures remain distinct, there seems to
be greater blending over time. While economic structure still tends to
be treated as the main determinant of inequality, other determinants,
including civil society (Tolbert et al. 1998, 2002) and state policy
(Dewees et al. 2003; Jensen and Eggebeen 1994; Lee et al. 2002;
Mencken 2000; Tickameyer et al. 2000; Warner and Hebdon 2001), are
increasingly emphasized. Most attention to state policy is on welfare
reform, with this topic linking researchers from all three traditions
(Zimmerman 2002; Weber et al. 2002).
The Rural Spatial Segregation Tradition
Rural sociology has a rich tradition of studies on racial and ethnic
segregation at the subnational level. Regional patterns of race/ethnic
segregation and concentration are examined through attention to
10
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
Native American reservations, the Southern Black Belt, Mexican
American border enclaves, and communities with newer ethnic
immigration (Falk et al. 2002; Saenz 1997; Snipp 1996; Snipp et al.
1993; Wimberley and Morris 2002). Wimberly and Morris (2002:294)
summarize this tradition by noting that: ‘‘Poverty has three r’s. They are
race, region, and rurality .’’ This research varies somewhat from the
‘‘rural inequality’’ tradition above, by giving greater attention to placemaking and high-poverty areas. It also goes beyond sociology’s urban
segregation literature in its breath of territorial scale and depth of
historical analysis. Researchers consider how distinct regions are
produced and constrain subsequent development, such as through
past political-economic changes and public policies.
The Sociology of Agriculture
The sociology of agriculture addresses spatial inequality through
research linking agricultural change and ‘‘communities.’’ This research
tradition is unique in its focus on an economic sector long neglected by
general sociology. While it has developed independently from the
traditions above in terms of scholars and theories, it shares commonalities with them. Attention is given to the impact of economic
structure, in this case farming and nonfarm agribusiness, on various
well-being indicators. Causality is also seen to  ow the other way, in that
regions offer different contexts for sustaining farming. This literature
takes a comparative, subnational approach using middle-range units,
operationalized by communities, counties, and states. Three types of
agricultural changes have been of interest: changes in the demography
of farming, such as fewer farms and farm population loss historically
and, more recently, at the urban rural interface; farm structural
changes, such as the relative growth of industrialized farms and decline
of traditional family farming, as re ected in the Goldschmidt hypothesis (1978); and agro-food system changes, as seen in the commodity
chains literature that connects different stages of the production process to geographic regions (Friedland 2001; Marsden et al. 2000;
Tregear 2003). All three literatures share the insight that places are
differentiated by agricultural production, which in uences quality of
life within and between them.5
This research tradition contributes to understanding spatial inequality in a number of ways. First, it shows that even in a post-industrial
5
The second topic, the effects of agricultural structure on communities, has generated
the largest literature and is closest to the rural inequality tradition. For reviews, see Lobao
(1990), Lobao and Meyer (2001), and Swanson (1988).
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
11
society, farming affects socioeconomic well-being (Lobao 1990; Molnar
1986; Swanson 1988). Family farming itself appears to be a marker of
a strong civic society, related to regional growth and reduction of social
problems (Tolbert et al. 1998). This research also gives attention to
newer forms of spatial inequality, such as those stemming from livestock
industry concentration (Bonanno and Constance 2001; NCRCRD 1999;
Stretesky et al. 2003) and suburbanization (Salamon 2003a, 2003b).
Environment/Natural Resources Sociology and
Social Impact Assessment
Studies on the environmental and social impacts of public/private
sector development initiatives constitute another tradition that addresses spatial inequality. This tradition can be found in three bodies of
literature—environmental sociology, natural resources sociology, and
social impact assessment. Researchers are concerned about the impacts of extractive industries, particularly mining and forestry, in resource-dependent regions globally. They are also concerned about
environmental and social impacts of industrial development, such as
production of hazardous waste and other pollution. This tradition
contributes to understanding spatial inequality in a number of ways.
First, it stresses that modes of extraction are connected to life chances
of the population within and across places, again emphasizing an economic sector that general sociology has ignored (Bunker 1985). Development processes involving extractive industries work out in different
ways than in manufacturing or services, with boom and bust cycles
generating greater swings in regional fortunes (Bunker 1985; Freudenburg and Gramling 1994). Second, this tradition analyzes a range of
inequality indicators beyond economic well-being, including environmental and social problems (e.g., Albrecht et al. 1996; Murdock et al.
1999; Seydlitz et al. 1993) and has generated a distinct methodological
approach, ‘‘social impact assessment’’ (Burdge 1999; Freudenburg
1986). It also attends to both how inequality is generated across places
and place-making processes (Molotch et al. 2000; Rudel 2002; Ribot
and Peluso 2003). Finally, this tradition has had considerable in uence
within broader sociology (Dunlap et al. 2002; Buttel 1987).
Other Traditions
Attention to subnational inequality across middle-range units spans
both domestic U.S. and international work in the traditions above and is
certainly found elsewhere in rural sociology. For example, a comparative
12
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
communities literature exists that examines adaptations to various types
of rural restructuring, such as plant closings, other downturns, as well as
new industrial development across small and nonmetro communities
(Falk et al. 2003; Schulman and Anderson 1999; Summers and Branch
1984; Winson 1997). This literature provides an important corrective to
the urban-based industrial restructuring literature. Rural areas tend to
be more vulnerable than urban areas to the effects of global
competition and trade policies such as NAFTA (McMichael 1994).
They are particularly hard hit by business downturns because they have
a less varied industrial mix, fewer options for other employment, lower
quality jobs, and a less educated workforce. Social capital literature in
rural sociology builds upon this comparative community tradition.
Social capital networks vary tremendously across small communities,
affecting resiliency to downturns, economic development initiatives,
and general community well-being (Flora et al., 1997; Flora 1998).
Gender and family researchers also address spatial inequality. For
example, research on farm and rural women considers subnational
variations in women’s labor market and other social statuses (Allen
2002; Barlett et al. 1999; Dodoo and Tempenis 2002; Lobao and Brown
1998; Rogers 1997; Sachs 1996). Family researchers often take
a comparative communities approach to understand family well-being
and youth development (e.g., Elder and Conger 2000).
Spatial Inequality: Conceptualization and Empirical Examples
The previous discussion highlights rural sociology’s contributions to
understanding spatial inequality across middle-range territorial units.
In terms of further carving out this rich legacy, however, there is much
to be done and I return to this in the conclusions. Our most notable
limitation is that we have tended not to realize our unique contribution
and to make it more visible to the social sciences. In part, this is because
we tend to work in segmented traditions, which affects knowledge
accumulation in theory as well as empirical Ž ndings. For the most part,
rural sociologists’ use of theory comes through focus on a speciŽ c social
construct, largely economic structure (e.g., industrial restructuring,
farm structure, the extractive sector) and its relationship to different
forms of inequality. While there has recently been expansion of interest
into other concepts such as state policy (particularly welfare reform),
civic society, and social capital, the repertoire of inequality determinants remains limited and often disconnected from one another. There
is less attention to examining broad theories of society, such as critical
political economy, to see if they work out on the ground to explain
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
13
inequality across regions. Also, most research has emphasized how
inequalities vary across space as opposed to place-making. In sum, there
is need to consolidate and broaden our work on different determinants
of inequality and use of theory, and to give greater attention to placemaking.
I now to move to my own research to highlight how building from rural
sociologists’ distinct regional approach can increase our understanding
of spatial inequality. I give particular attention to extending focus beyond
economic structure as a determinant of inequality, to broadening theory,
and attending to place-making. First, I explain the conceptual framework
guiding my work and then apply it to the two questions I noted at the
outset: 1) Why does inequality vary across subnational space? 2) How do
distinct places arise from uneven development processes?
Conceptualizing Inequality Across Middle-Range Territorial Units
To understand inequality subnationally, my purpose is not to reinvent
the wheel of uneven development or to rehash work done by
geographers. Rather, my concern is to understand from a sociological
framework ‘‘who gets what, where’’ across subnational space. In brief,
inequality across middle-range territorial units calls for more general
theories beyond the city and neighborhood that take into consideration
principles of social change and stratiŽ cation and apply them across
space. Social change theorists stress that patterns of development and
inequality vary by historical period, with economic structure and class
relations important determinants of both (Lenski 1966). StratiŽ cation
theorists observe that socioeconomic inequalities arise from institutional relationships among social actors, labor, capital, the state, and
civic society (Bourdieau 1989; Giddens 1981). Building from these
sociological insights, I use the framework below to understand socioeconomic differences among regions (see also Lobao 1990; Lobao et al.
1999; Lobao and Hooks 2003). Variations in socioeconomic well-being
across regions are related to the following:
1. Economic structure or the ways in which surplus is accumulated from
economic activities. Different types of industries, Ž rms, and jobs result in
different levels of economic growth and also affect the degree to which
beneŽ ts of growth are distributed. That is, industries, Ž rms, and job
positions vary in their pay-offs for employees and multiplier effects for
regions. For example, core-sector durable manufacturing (e.g., steel,
automotives) tends to be associated with better well-being across
regions (Lobao et al. 1999).
14
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
2. Institutional arrangements between key social actors: employers, labor, the
state, civic society/citizens.6 Employers have differential interests in
supporting and capacity to support the work force at certain material
levels. Workers possess different resources, such as education, skill
levels, and labor organizations to press for material demands from
employers. Citizens possess different resources, including a vibrant civic
society and social climate empowering of women and racial/ethnic
groups, that enable them to press for concessions from the state. The
state varies in intensity of support for the interests of employers vis-a-vis
interests of workers and citizens. For example, where poor people are
able to press for greater income transfers or in-kind support from
government, the poor, as well as the population at large, have better
well-being (Lobao and Hooks 2003).
To sum, institutional arrangements established by rounds of struggle
among social actors and economic structure affect the social wage or
levels at which at population is able to reproduce itself. However, there
are also space-time paths and contingencies in the above relationships.
3. Spatial site and situation factors. Regions have different internal or
site characteristics related to their location, such as population density,
natural resource amenities, roads, and other transportation infrastructure, and other ecological features. Their situation or external location
in the national and global economy also varies, such as remoteness
from trade and global centers.
4. Past history of economic structure, institutional arrangements, spatiallocation position in global/national economy. To understand regional
differences, recognition of path dependency in regional processes is
needed. This entails recognition of place-making and ‘‘glocalization’’—
how the interaction of local and global forces create regional
distinctiveness (Cox 1997).
The interplay of economic structure/institutional arrangements,
site/situation, and past history affect present day variations in
socioeconomic well-being across places. These same factors are key in
understanding the process of place-making or path of development of
ordinary regions.
The framework put forth above is useful for several reasons. It is
grounded in sociology’s stratiŽ cation heritage: there is recognition that
social actors struggle over economic surplus, with the outcomes of this
struggle dependent upon time and place. It builds empirically from
6
By institutional relationships, I refer to the relationships established between social
actors via customary social practices, laws, and organizations that regulate economic
growth and distribution of social beneŽ ts. In contemporary societies, because
a populations’ sustenance comes from two sources, private sector business and the state,
social actors center their claims on concessions from the employers and the state.
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
15
much rural sociological work. It extends focus beyond economic
structure as a determinant of regional differences, calling attention to
the role of institutional arrangements and place-making processes.
Using this general framework, I provide two sets of empirical
examples to address the questions noted earlier, how inequality varies
across space and place-making processes. Both examples illustrate why
taking a regional approach that attends to economic structure,
institutional forces, and rural regions is important for theory. The Ž rst
example addresses Ž ndings from quantitative work, which considers
how economic structure and institutional arrangements relate to
inequality across subnational space. The second is a qualitative example
addressing how these same forces affect place-making.
Inequality across Subnational Space: Economic Structure and
Institutional Arrangements
The framework above has been elaborated in a number of quantitative
studies which have examined how economic structure, denoted by
various industries, and institutional arrangements, denoted by the
social safety net and other government indicators, affect well-being
intra-nationally across time (Lobao 1990; Lobao et al. 1999; Lobao and
Hooks 2003). Overview Ž ndings from these studies can be illustrated
visually in maps (see Figures 2 and 3), which show the ranking of
counties into three tiers (low, moderate, and high) on three variables:
economic structure, measured by proportion employment in higher
wage or core sector, mainly durable manufacturing; institutional arrangements re ecting social safety net generosity, here measured by the
dollar value of income transfers divided by the number of individuals
in poverty; and median family income, an indicator of socioeconomic
well-being.7
The 1970 period is generally considered to be prior to industrial and
government restructuring. Theorists argue that in the pre-1970s, or
Fordist period, core sector manufacturing and institutional arrangements, such as unionization and a strong social welfare safety net, promoted general public well-being (Aglietta 1979; Peck 1996). Figure 2
7
Data source for median family income and core employment is the Census of
Population. The social safety net generosity measure is the total annual dollar amount of
social insurance and means-tested programs transferred directly to individuals (available
from the Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Economic Information System) divided
by the number of county residents below the poverty line. At the county level, dollar
amounts for transfer programs are available but number of recipients is not. Income
transfers/poverty population denotes the level at which government programs serve the total
needy population. Data on core manufacturing and income transfers are not yet available
for Census year 2000.
16
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
Figure 2.
Economic Structure, Institutions, and Well Being (1970)
provides a partial description of this relationship. In 1970, regions
where core manufacturing is higher and regions with a stronger social
safety net or greater generosity to poor tend to have higher median
family income.8 In the post-1970 period, however, theorists argue that
these industrial and institutional channels of redistribution became
disrupted due to industrial restructuring and changes in the social
compact. Thus, the geography of redistribution should change. Figure
3 shows that in 1990, as compared to 1970: core sector manufacturing
has experienced some deconcentration; parts of the northern manufacturing belt and west have lost their relative ranking in providing the
strongest social safety net; and the links between core manufacturingmedian family income and between social safety net generosity-median
family appear somewhat weaker. However, comparing the maps in
Figures 2 and 3 still shows general continuity in terms of the public wellbeing beneŽ ts of core manufacturing and social safety net generosity
over time and place.
8
The maps provide visualization of the association of greater manufacturing and
a stronger social safety net with greater economic well-being. These relationships are
conŽ rmed through multivariate cross-sectional and longitudinal regression models, net of
controlling for other variables and spatial effects (Lobao et al. 1999; and Lobao and
Hooks 2003).
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
Figure 3.
17
Economic Structure, Institutions, and Well Being (1990)
To assess more recent institutional changes, those involving devolution of responsibilities to local governments, secondary data are not
yet available. In a project collecting primary data from county
governments nationwide, with county ofŽ cials as key informants, our
goal was to examine how devolution affects spatial inequality (Kraybill
and Lobao 2001, 2003; Lobao et al. 2001). We found that while service
demands by residents were reported to rise at a similar rate in recent
years for both nonmetro and metro counties, nonmetro governments
report greater Ž scal constraints in meeting those demands. Nonmetro
governments were more likely to report signiŽ cant problems with
reduced federal and state revenues, declining local tax base, pressure
from citizens to reduce taxes, and mandates from higher levels of
government, with these problems greatest for nonmetro, nonadjacent
counties. We conclude that nonmetro county governments are more
likely to lack the capacity, resources, and possibly commitment (given
voter sentiment) required to successfully carry out functions previously
executed by the federal government. The low quality of public services
in rural areas has historically presented barriers in raising human
capital and improving public well-being, with current tendencies
toward devolution likely to compound these problems.
In summary, these examples point to the importance of going
beyond economic structure, to examine institutional forces affecting
18
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
spatial inequality. They also illustrate path dependency in development.
Regions that fall behind in one era are likely to do so in the next.
Place-Making: Economic Structure, Institutional Arrangements, and
Territorial Consumption Complexes
The second example turns to the topic of place-making. I focus on how
economic structure and institutional arrangements give rise to distinct
places or, in this case, a distinct region, the Ohio River Valley (ORV),
a more rural part of the old American manufacturing belt. This region
further serves an analytical purpose for sorting out claims of political
economy theories of development (Aglietta 1979; Piore and Sable 1984;
Scott 1988; Storper 1997). Throughout U.S. history, the Ohio River
Valley was a primary source of raw materials for the entire northern
manufacturing belt. Our study area spans 222 counties in six states and
extends from Pittsburgh to Cairo, Illinois. While containing other
metropolitan centers, such as Cincinnati and Dayton, it remains largely
a dense network of small urban places and rural communities. About
70% of the population is nonmetropolitan. Localities in the ORV are
interrelated through river transportation and watershed development;
the Valley’s function as a national power grid and source of coal (and
target of the Clean Air Act), and specialization in manufacturing and
mining. Data for this research is from archival and census sources,
primary data from key informants, and surveys of residents. I brie y
describe three periods, early manufacturing belt development, the 1970
pre-industrial restructuring era, and the contemporary era. Research
reported draws extensively from Brown et al. (1999; 1996) and Lobao
et al. (2003).
The historical part of our research builds from Page and Walker’s
(1991) work on the development of the American manufacturing belt.
By focusing on the more rural Midwest, as opposed to the Northeast,
Page and Walker (1991) argue that 19th century manufacturing belt
development was premised on ‘‘agro-industrialization’’—with relatively
widespread use of mass production technologies, farmers who served as
mass consumers of industrial products, and a rural heartland dotted
with urban settlements producing industrial goods.
Page and Walker’s (1991) model is essentially a growth model focused
on economic structure, not institutional arrangements. We have also
considered institutional arrangements involving the state and capitallabor relationships that fostered manufacturing belt growth. An
important state policy is the 1787 Northwest Ordinance, which assured
that territory north of the Ohio River would be the demarcation line for
slavery and also established bases for local government and educational
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
19
infrastructure. This made possible the system of free labor and small
family farms that underwrote 19th century agro-industrialization. The
importance of small communities as a growth engines also affected ORV
capital-labor relations. Small communities often were characterized by
low labor force bargaining power and paternalistic relationships, as
opposed to the greater labor militancy of the urban cores. Although
mining company towns may have been an exception in quiescence, small
ORV towns, isolated from the growing labor movement and offering
greater social control over workers were sought-after locations by large
manufacturing Ž rms in the late 19th and early 20th centuries (Varano
1999:42). In small towns, community fortunes hinged on labor
quiescence rendered by local and state control and community ideologies boostering local Ž rms and products (Contosta 1999). Thus the ORV
re ects a convergence of economic structure, institutional arrangements, and spatial structure that does not Ž t with conventional portrayals
of the manufacturing belt that stress the high bargaining power of
workers and large cities as regional growth machines.
Past-forwarding the Ohio River Valley to the high point of the U.S.
manufacturing belt in 1970, shows the region continued to Ž t
descriptions of an industrial and energy heartland. Compared to the
rest of the nation, the ORV had much greater employment in core
sector or durable manufacturing and mining and a larger blue-collar,
white, masculine labor force, employed as craftspeople, machine
operators, and general laborers. Institutional arrangements show that
although the ORV spans more highly unionized states, the region had
higher unemployment and lower education attainments, indicating
that labor’s ability to bargain for better jobs remained relatively weak.
The social safety net, indicated by welfare beneŽ ts per capita, was also
somewhat lower than nationally.
Past-forward again to the post-industrial restructuring period and
massive effects of de-industrialization. On average, while ORV counties
lost about 23% of their core-sector manufacturing from 1970–1990, they
still retain a much larger share of this employment than other regions.
Also, relative to other regions, the same relationships for worker
bargaining power and the social safety net persist today. Thus, by
focusing on a less urbanized segment of the American manufacturing
belt, we Ž nd that with the exception of unionization, institutional
arrangements in the ORV did not provide strong support for labor or
citizen well-being, even during the pinnacle of Fordism. Further, the
contemporary period shows no strong evidence of de-territorializationor
loss of regional distinctiveness, an expected outcome according to much
political economy and de-industrialization literature. Despite dramatic
declines in manufacturing, the ORV retains much of its past character.
20
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
In addition to elaborating theory, this brief historical account
illuminates a new twist in place-making as the region adapts to the
post-industrial era. We use the term territorial consumption complex to
describe this form of place-making (Lobao et al. 2003). Other literature
has addressed the rise of new industrial spaces or ‘‘territorial production complexes,’’ seen by some as a heralding a post-Fordist
economy (Piore and Sabel 1984; Scott 1988). Territorial production
complexes re ect new or revitalized industries that take on distinct
territorial organization due to learning and production-based Ž rm
networks. In this view of the new economy, industries and Ž rms create
regions. A common Midwestern example of territorial production
complexes is the Japanese supplier-assembly plant complex (Storper
and Walker 1989). In the ORV, however, we found another type of
growth enclave which is better described as a ‘‘territorial consumption
complex.’’ Here, the Ž rm could not exist without its regional
embeddedness. The region itself serves as a marketing tool, legitimizing
the Ž rms’ products and, less critically, serves production needs of raw
materials and supplier inputs. We are studying several examples of
these Ž rms. Most are indigenous, locally-owned, in traditional industries, and for decades have remained at or near the same business
sites in small communities at some distance from metro areas. Hotels,
restaurants, and Ž rms making related products emerge in these
communities to capture trade from regional and national consumers
of their retail products.
One of the prime examples of a territorial consumption complex is
Longaberger Baskets. Established in Dresden, Ohio, in the mid-1970s,
Longaberger Baskets is a family-owned business which produces high
quality, hand woven maple baskets, considered collectors’ items. Basket
weaving was a common industry in this region, but largely ceased after
the Depression. In 2003, Longaberger Baskets had 5,350 paid employees and 71,000 independent sales associates nationwide. It generated
$906 million dollars in sales in 2002 (Niquette 2003: D1, D2; Niquette
and Sheehan 2003, D1, D2). Much like traditional paternalistic
capitalists, the family owners have long invested in local infrastructure,
schools, labor force training, and community organizations. A near cultfollowing for Longaberger baskets has turned the small community of
Dresden into a national tourist destination. In the late 1990s,
Longaberger expanded along about 20 miles of state highway from
Dresden to Newark, altering the landscape with its signature whitepicket fences and construction of a new $30 million headquarter’s
building in the shape of its main product—a wooden basket, complete
with handles. The building stands seven stories tall, visible for miles
across a  at landscape, impressing upon viewers that the company has
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
21
progressed beyond establishing a company town and is creating
a company region. A massive, Disney-like shopping and entertainment
complex, Longaberger Homestead opened in 1999. OfŽ cials interviewed in other ORV communities indicate they want to emulate the
Longaberger model. For Longaberger Baskets, Ž rm and community are
intertwined and part of an extra-local marketing strategy.
The glass industry in southeastern Ohio and western West Virginia
provides another example where corporate tourism generates territorial consumption complexes, although these are less coherent than
Longaberger’s. Much of the region’s glass industry, which  ourished in
the early 1900s, entered into decline by the 1960s due to global imports.
Large Ž rms, such as Anchor Hocking, ceased regional operations in the
1980s (Contosta 1999). Existing Ž rms are generally locally owned, small
to moderate in size, serve national and international markets, and
produce traditional products, often collectors’ items. For example,
Fenton Glass in Williamstown, West Virginia, is a major destination for
carnival and other decorative glass collectors. Blenko Glass, Milton,
West Virginia, is also known nationally for its art glass. Booming interest
in Victorian-era glass gazing globes have made tourist destinations out
of Marietta Silver Globe Manufacturing and other small producers
along the Ohio-West Virginia border (Aeppel 1996).
Pottery is another indigenous industry spawning corporate tourism.
Large companies, such as Homer Laughlin, the maker of Fiestaware in
Newell, West Virginia, have thriving domestic and international
markets, but also maintain local outlets for regional retail trade. Many
small pottery companies that currently or once operated throughout
eastern Ohio also have loyal collector followings, such as McCoy, Hall,
Hull, and Roseville. Present manufacturers build retail support
networks from the interest shown by collectors of now antique pieces
made from the 1870s to the 1930s.
Roots of territorial consumption complexes like Longaberger and
general pursuit of corporate tourism extend from traditional community boosterism of local industries and products. Present-day corporate
tourism, however, is different from traditional celebration of local
products. Corporate branding is much more important, particularly as
old companies decline and products become irreplaceable antiques.
This type of development is also different from conventional rural
tourism, where ‘‘a nowhere strives to be a somewhere’’ (Bahney 2003:
D1), because for the most part, these places have always been
a ‘‘somewhere’’ in terms of the unique items produced. National
demographic changes have created consumer segments, such as babyboomers, with nostalgic interest and discretionary income to support
these niche market producers. The ‘‘rural’’ or ‘‘regional’’ aspect of these
22
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
products involves not only where they are produced, but also their
common use in County Living, Country Home, and other media to convey
rustic design interiors (see also Molotch 2003; Salamon 2004).
In sum, focus on a traditional region helps to assess how broader
theoretical claims work out and how industrial structure and institutional arrangements affect place-making. There has been a productionists bias to the study of the manufacturing belt, which
underestimates the role of institutional arrangements and consumption
practices. The ORV historically provided weak institutional support for
workers and citizens relative to capital, which limits development
options. While territorial consumption complexes are a sign of growth,
they still depend on niche markets, tourism, and a labor force with high
school attainments. Over time, the region has lost ground relative to
the nation. During the 1970s, the region had lower poverty rates than
nationally, but by 1990 this relationship reversed. The example of the
Ohio River Valley shows that theories of development are incomplete
and overly generalized insofar that they neglect traditional regions.
Conclusions
I have argued that attention to spatial inequality runs through rural
sociology and that rural sociologists’ distinct approach to this topic has
broad social science signiŽ cance. Our overriding contribution comes in
asking the right questions for theory and policy. These are the ‘‘big’’
questions about how power and privilege are distributed across places
and populations and questions that get at the heart of the spatial
knowledge gap in sociology—inequality at subnational levels—beyond
the city. In giving leadership to the topic of subnational inequality, rural
sociologists have also addressed pressing policy questions, arguing that
policies to alleviate poverty must be place-based, at the community and
regional levels, not just at the neighborhood, household, or individual
level (Swanson 2001). In addressing central social science questions, we
have faced data, methods, and theoretical limitations. Much remains to
be done and I brie y outline some directions below in terms of missing
links and fertile areas for study.
First and most broadly, it is important to continue to carve out the
topic of spatial inequality and our attention to rural regions and
comparative, subnational patterns of inequality. Research traditions in
rural poverty, labor markets, demography, environment/natural resources, and agriculture offer linked conceptual approaches and
empirical Ž ndings about spatial inequality. We must continue to
appreciate and build from these overlapping rural sociological
literatures. At the same time, we need to stress to broader audiences
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
23
that rural regions are relevant to theories of social change, to an
understanding of national social problems, and to state policy. Without
understanding the ‘‘rural’’ we cannot understand the development of
advanced societies.
Second, a regional approach also allows us to better understand rural
America. Rural places represent a distinct kind of socially constructed
region that continues to have national signiŽ cance. It is important to
view rural regions comparatively with urban, to see the fortunes of
countryside and city as linked, and to avoid overgeneralizing about
rural marginality. For instance, depending on the historical period,
some rural people and places may beneŽ t more from existing
arrangements than those living in urban core metropolitan places.
Taking a comparative ‘‘regional’’ approach also brings us closer to
geography, regional science, and urban sociology.
Third, the two types of questions noted at the outset—how various
inequalities are distributed across space, and the process of placemaking—are interrelated. These are often treated as two different
questions, which limits building a more coherent approach to spatial
inequality. To understand inequality across space, one must understand
how places come to have their distinguishing characteristics in the Ž rst
place. And to fully understand place-making, a comparative, regional
approach is necessary.
Fourth, we should work toward a larger project, developing a better
sociological understanding of the geography of inequality and, more
progressively, a sociologically-cast geography of social justice. This will
entail modiŽ cations in how we use and build from current theory. For
example, by drawing more fully from theories of stratiŽ cation, rural
sociology gains a number of insights. With regard to class, this means
going beyond customary focus on the rural poor and disenfranchised,
the bulk of rural sociological research, to give comparable attention to
the powerful, the rural and nonrural elites in the public and private
sector who create jobs and oversee public policy. The Ž eld of
stratiŽ cation also points to the need for greater focus on race/ethnicity
and gender inequalities and how they are manifest across space (McCall
2001). Another way to contribute to sociology’s spatial project is to
develop more holistic frameworks about inequality across subnational
space. As noted earlier, rural sociologists tend to focus on a limited set
of determinants of inequality, such as farm or industrial restructuring.
There are other approaches, however, that make broader theoretical
headway; for example, synthetic approaches and competitive tests
among different theories; spatial extensions of aspatial or macro-level
theory; and developing general principles about stratiŽ cation at the
subnational level. This larger project of spatializing sociology entails
24
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
building from other spatially-oriented subŽ elds within sociology,
geography, and other disciplines.
Fifth, a number gaps need to be sorted out in existing rural
sociological research. Regions still remain largely black boxes, both
conceptually and methodologically. We have not given much attention
to the pathways by which economic structure or other concepts of
interest come to affect inequality and how regional processes intervene
in relationships. Dependency on secondary data limits the scope of
research questions and understanding of regional processes (Tickamyer 1996). Regional, aggregate-level data introduce a number of
empirical concerns; among these are spatial dependencies and
endogeneity in regional processes. Research using middle-range units
is not yet routinized to the point where there is widespread consensus
over how to appropriately address many of these spatial-analytical
concerns.
Sixth, there is a need to address newly emerging and overlooked
research and policy questions. We know little about new but important
topics not conventionally part of the sociology heritage, such as the
Denver and Aspen effects, health, and other noneconomic spatial
inequalities. Regions introduce complex inequalities of race/ethnicity
and gender that have been insufŽ ciently explored (McCall 2001).
Concern for policy tends to center on a few select issues, such farm
policy and, more recently, welfare reform. Casting a broader policy net,
such as on the spatial effects of the roll-back of the social safety net and
roll-out of neo-liberal social and economic policy (Peck and Tickell
2002), would broaden rural sociology’s social justice agenda.
Finally, in order to understand the future of rural America, we need
a better understanding of how rural regions Ž t into the social ecology of
capitalism. That is, how are rural regions situated into the national spatial
division of labor and how do they contribute to our understanding of
national development? For example, as production regions, rural
regions have been central in U.S. history, Ž rst as an energy and
agricultural reserve and later as a site for low-skilled manufacturing
and services. Rural regions have linked production and consumption at
the national level, underwriting cheap food so that urban workers could
be paid less, and serving as markets for urban goods. Rural regions have
historically served to regulate the nation’s labor markets and, more
recently, its housing markets. Rural regions serve various ideological
functions that legitimate capitalism and democracy as well as a host of
consumption functions, from environmental needs to production of
rustic products. In the contemporary period, remote rural regions are
taking on newer functions discarded by the cities, such as those re ected
in food system consolidation, prison construction, and hazardous waste
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
25
storage. In a sense, rural regions represent a spatial Ž x for many of the
nation’s social problems. Adequate understanding of the future of rural
America, however, is limited insofar that we have neglected the broader
social ecology of capitalism.
Given the contemporary policy and economic environment, there is
likely to be deepening social polarization relative to the past at all
spatial scales. Rural sociology’s distinct spatial approach positions us
uniquely to contribute to social science understanding of these spatial
inequalities and the social justice responses they entail. To do so,
however, rural sociologists need to consider territorial-based stratiŽ cation issues as a bundle, insofar as they raise distinct opportunities and
challenges for our discipline.
References
Aglietta, M.A. 1979. Theory of Capitalist Regulation: The U.S. Experience. London: Verso.
Aeppel, T. 1996. ‘‘Neither Lawn Jockey Nor Pink Flamingo Compares to Orb.’’ Wall Street
Journal, November 21:1.
Albrecht, S.L., R.G. Amey, S. Amir. 1996. ‘‘The Siting of Radioactive Waste Facilities: What
are the Effects on Communities?’’ Rural Sociology 61(4):649–673.
Allen, B.L. 2002. ‘‘Race and Gender Inequality in Homeownership: Does Place Make
a Difference?’’ Rural Sociology 67(4):603–621.
Amin, A. N. Thrift. 2002. Cities: Reimagining the Urban. Cambridge, UK: Polity.
Bahney, A. 2003. ‘‘A Nowhere Striving to Be a Somewhere.’’ New York Times, June
27:D1, D8.
Barlett P., L.M. Lobao, K. Meyer. 1999. ‘‘Diversity in Attitudes Toward Farming and
Patterns of Work among Farm Women: A Regional Comparison.’’ Agriculture and
Human Values 16:343–354.
Beaulieu, L.J. D. Mulkey, eds. 1995. Investing in People: The Human Capital Needs of Rural
America. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Billings, D.B. K.M. Blee. 1995. ‘‘Agriculture and Poverty in the Kentucky Mountains,
Beech Creek, 1850–1910.’’ Pp. 233–269 in Appalachia in the Making: The Mountain
South in the Nineteenth Century, edited by N.B. Pudup, D.B. Billings, and A.L. Waller.
Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Bonanno, A. D.H. Constance. 2001. ‘‘Corporate Strategies in the Global Era: The Case of
Mega-Hog Farms in the Texas Panhandle Region.’’ International Journal of Sociology of
Agriculture and Food 9(1):3–28.
Bourdieu, P. 1989. ‘‘Social Space and Symbolic Power.’’ Sociological Theory 7(1):14–25.
Brown, D.L. 2002. ‘‘Migration and Community: Social Networks in a Multilevel World.’’
Rural Sociology 67(1):1–23.
Brown, D. T.A. Hirschl. 1995. ‘‘Household Poverty in Rural and Metropolitan Core Areas
of the United States.’’ Rural Sociology 60:44–66.
Brown, D.L. M.A. Lee. 1999. ‘‘Persisting Inequality between Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan America: Implications for Theory and Policy.’’ Pp. 151–167 in A Nation
Divided, edited by P. Moen, D. Dempster-McClain, and H.A. Walker. Ithaca NY:
Cornell University Press.
Brown, L., L. Lobao, A. Verheyen. 1996. ‘‘Continuity and Change in an Old Industrial
Region.’’ Growth and Change 27(Spring):175–205.
Brown, L., L. Lobao, S. Digiacinto. 1999. ‘‘Economic Restructuring and Migration in an
Old Industrial Region: the Ohio River Valley,’’ Pp. 37–57 in Migration and Restructuring
in the United States: A Geographic Perspective, edited by K. Pandit and S. Withers.
Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and LittleŽ eld.
26
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
Brown, L.A., R. Sierra, D. Southgate, L.M. Lobao. 1992. ‘‘Complementary Perspectives as
a Means of Understanding Regional Change: Frontier Settlement in the Ecuador
Amazon.’’ Environment and Planning 24:453–475.
Burdge, R.J. 1999. A Conceptual Approach to Social Impact Assessment. Middleton, WI: Social
Ecology Press.
Bunker, S. 1985. Underdeveloping the Amazon. Chicago: University of Illinois Press.
Byrne, D. 2001. Understanding the Urban. Houndmills, UK: Plagrave.
Buttel, F.H. 1987. ‘‘New Directions in Environmental Sociology.’’ Annual Review of Sociology
13:465–488.
Contosta, D.R. 1999. Lancaster, Ohio 1800–2000. Columbus: The Ohio State University
Press.
Cossman, R.E., J.S. Cossman, R. Jackson, A. Cosby. 2003. ‘‘Mapping High or Low Mortality
Places Across Time in the United States: A Research Note on a Health Visualization
and Analysis Project.’’ Health and Place 9(4):361–369.
Cossman, R.E., T. Blanchard, W. James, R. Jackson-Belli, A. Cosby. 2002. ‘‘Healthy
and Unhealthy Places in America.’’ Proceedings of the 22n d Annual ESRI International User Conference, http://gis.esri.com/library/userconf/proc02/abstracts/
a1064.html
Cotter, D.A. 2002. ‘‘Poor People in Poor Places: Local Opportunity Structure and
Household Poverty. Rural Sociology 67(2):534–555.
Cox, K., ed. 1997. Spaces of Globalization: Reasserting the Power of the Local. New York:
Guildford Press.
Dear, M.J. S. Flusty. 2001. ‘‘The Resistible Rise of the L.A. School.’’ Pp. 3–16 in From Chicago
to L.A.: Making Sense of Urban Theory, edited by M.J. Dear. Thousand Oaks, C.A.: Sage.
Dewees, S., L. Lobao, L.E. Swanson. 2003. ‘‘Local Economic Development in and Age of
Devolution: The Question of Rural Localities.’’ Rural Sociology 68(2):182–206.
Dodoo, F.N. M. Tempenis. 2002. ‘‘Gender, Power, and Reproduction: Rural-Urban
Differences in the Relationship Between Fertility Goals and Contraceptive Use in
Kenya.’’ Rural Sociology 67(1):46–70.
Dunlap, R.E., F.H. Buttel, P. Dickens, A. Gijswijt. 2002. Sociological Theory and the
Environment. Lanham, MD:Rowman and LittleŽ eld.
Drabenstott, M. T.R. Smith. 1996. ‘‘The Changing Economy of the Rural Heartland.’’ Pp.
1–11 in Economic Forces Shaping the Rural Heartland. Kansas City: Federal Reserve Bank.
Duncan, C.M. 1999. Worlds Apart: Why Poverty Persists in Rural America. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Elder, G.W. R.D. Conger. 2000. Children of the Land: Adversity and Success in Rural America.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Falk, W., M.D. Schulman, A. Tickamyer, eds. 2003. Communities of Work: Rural Restructuring
in Local and Global Contexts. Athens OH: Ohio University Press.
Falk, W.W. T.A. Lyson. 1988. High Tech, Low Tech, No Tech: Recent Industrial and Occupational
Change in the South. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Fitchen, J.M. 1991. Endangered Spaces, Enduring Places: Change, Identity, and Survival in Rural
America. Boulder: Westview.
Flora, J.L. 1998. ‘‘Social Capital and Communities of Place.‘‘ Rural Sociology 63:481–506.
Flora, J.L., J. Sharp, C. Flora, B. Newlon. 1997. ‘‘Entrepreneurial Social Infrastructure and
Locally-Initiated Economic Development.’’ Sociological Quarterly 38:623–645.
Florida, R. 2002. The Rise of the Creative Class and How It’s Transforming Work, Leisure,
Community, and Everyday Life. New York: Basic Books.
Fosset, M.A. T.M. Seibert. 1997. Long Time Coming: Racial Inequality in Southern
Nonmetropolitan Areas. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Freudenburg, W.R. 1986. ‘‘Social Impact Assessment.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 12:
451–478.
Freudenburg, W.R. R. Gramling. 1994. Oil in Troubled Waters: Perceptions, Politics, and the
Battle Over Offshore Drilling. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Friedland, W.H. 2001. ‘‘Reprise on Commodity Systems Methodology.’’ International
Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food 9(1):82–103.
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
27
Fuguitt, G.V., D.L. Brown, C.L. Beale. 1989. Rural and Small Town America. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Giddens, A. 1981. A Contemporary Critique of Historical Materialism. London: MacMillan.
Gieryn, T.F. 2000. ‘‘A Space for Place in Sociology.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 26:
463–96.
Goldschmidt, W. 1978. As You Sow: Three Studies in the Social Consequences of Agribusiness.
Montclair, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun and Company.
Hooks, G., C. Mosher, T. Rotolo, L. Lobao. 2003. ‘‘The Prison Industry: Carceral
Expansion and Employment in US Counties, 1969–1994.’’ Social Science Quarterly (in
press).
Horton, H.D. 1999. ‘‘Critical Demography: The Paradigm of the Future?’’ Sociological
Forum 14(3):363–367.
Hudson, R. 2001. Producing Places. New York: Guilford.
Hulse, C. 2003. ‘‘Humbled by Blackout, Congress Girds for Beyond-the-Beltway Energy
Fight.’’ New York Times, August 20:A16.
Jensen L., D.J. Eggebeen. 1994. ‘‘Nonmetropolitan Poor Children and Reliance on Public
Assistance.’’ Rural Sociology 59(1):45–65.
Killian, M.S. C.M. Tolbert. 1993. ‘‘Mapping Social and Economic Space: The Delineation
of Local Labor Markets in the United States.’’ Pp. 69–82 in Inequalities in Labor Market
Areas, edited by J. Singelmann and F.A. Deseran. Boulder: Westview.
Knox, P.L. P.J. Taylor, eds. 1995. World Cities in a World System. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge
University Press.
Kratke, S. 1999. ‘‘A Regulationist Approach to Regional Studies.’’ Environment and
Planning 31:683–704.
Kraybill, D. L.M. Lobao. 2001. County Government Survey: Changes and Challenges in the New
Millenium. Washington, DC: The National Association of Counties.
Kraybill, D. L. Lobao. 2003. ‘‘The Emerging Roles of County Governments in
Metropolitan and Non-Metropolitan Areas: Findings from a National Survey.’’ Paper
presented at the annual meetings of the Rural Sociological Society, Montreal, August.
Krugman, P. 2003. ‘‘Red-Blue Terror Alert.’’ New York Times April 1:A23.
———. 1991. Geography and Trade. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Land, K.C. 1983. ‘‘Social Indicators.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 9:1–26.
Lee, M.A., M. Harvey, A. Neustrom. 2002. ‘‘Local Labor Markets and Caseload Decline in
Louisiana in the 1990s.’’ Rural Sociology 67(4):556–577.
Lenski, G. 1966. Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social StratiŽcation. New York: McGraw Hill.
Lichter, D.T. D.K. McLaughlin. 1995. ‘‘Changing Economic Opportunities, Family
Structure, and Poverty in Rural Areas.’’ Rural Sociology 60:688–706.
Lichter, D., D.K. McLaughlin, D. Ribar. 1997. Welfare and the Rise in Female Headed
Families. American Journal of Sociology 103:112–143.
Lichter, D.T. R. Jayakody. 2002. Welfare Reform: How Do We Measure Success.’’ Annual
Review of Sociology 28(117–141).
Lobao, L. 1990. Locality and Inequality: Farm and Industry Structure and Socioeconomic
Conditions. Albany: The State University of New York Press.
———. 1993. ‘‘Renewed SigniŽ cance of Space in Social Research: Implications for Labor
Market Studies.’’ Pp. 11–31 in Inequalities in Labor Market Areas, edited by J.
Singelmann, and F.A. Deseran. Boulder: Westview.
———. 1996. ‘‘A Sociology of the Periphery Versus a Peripheral Sociology: Rural
Sociology and the Dimension of Space.’’ Rural Sociology 61:77–102.
Lobao, L.M. L.A. Brown. 1998. ‘‘Development Context, Regional Differences Among
Young Women, and Fertility: The Ecuadorean Amazon.’’ Social Forces 76(March):814–
849.
Lobao, L.M., L.A. Brown, J. Moore. 2003. ‘‘Old Industrial Regions and the Political
Economy of Development.’’ Pp. 3–30 in Communities of Work: Rural Restructuring in
Local and Global Contexts, edited by W. Falk, M. Schulman, and A. Tickamyer. Athens,
OH: Ohio University Press.
28
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
Lobao, L. and G. Hooks. 2003. ‘‘Public Employment, Social Welfare and Local WellBeing: Does a Lean and Mean Government BeneŽ t the Masses?’’ Social Forces 82(2)
(in press).
Lobao, L., D. Kraybill, L.C. Swanson, L.A. Brown. 2001. Decentralization, Capital Mobility,
and Local Well-Being: Rural Counties in a New Policy Era. Proposal funded by The United
States Department of Agriculture, National Research Initiative Competitive Grants
Program. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Lobao, L. K. Meyer. 2001. ‘‘The Great Agricultural Transition: Crisis, Change and Social
Consequences of Twentieth Century U.S. Farming.’’ The Annual Review of Sociology
27:103–124.
Lobao, L., J. Rulli, L.A. Brown. 1999. ‘‘Macro-level Theory and Local-Level Inequality:
Industrial Structure, Institutional Arrangements, and the Political Economy of Redistribution.’’ The Annals of the Association of American Geographers 89(December):
571–601.
Lobao, L. R. Saenz. 2002. ‘‘Spatial Inequality and Diversity as an Emerging Research Agenda.’’ Rural Sociology 67(4):497–512.
Lyson, T.A. W. Falk, eds. 1993. Forgotten Places: Uneven Development in Rural America.
Lawrence, Kansas: University of Kansas Press.
Maril, R.L. 2000. Waltzing with the Ghost of Tom Joad: Poverty, Myth, and Low Wage Labor in
Oklahoma. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
Markusen, A. 1987. Regions: The Economics and Politics of Territory. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and
LittleŽ eld.
Marsden, T., J. Banks, G. Bristow. 2000. ‘‘Food Supply Chain Approaches: Exploring Their
Role in Rural Development.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 40(4):424–439.
Massey, D. 1984. Spatial Divisions of Labour: Social Structures and the Geography of Production.
Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
McCall, L. 2001. Complex Inequality: Gender, Class, and Race in the New Economy. New York:
Routledge.
McConnell, S. J. Ohis. 2001. ‘‘Food Stamp Participation Rate Down in Urban Areas But
Not in Rural.’’ Food Review 24(1):8–12.
McGranahan, D. 1980. ‘‘The Spatial Structure of Income Distribution in Rural Regions.’’
American Sociological Review 45(April):313–324.
McLaughlin, D.K., E.L. Gardner, D.T. Lichter. 1999. ‘‘Economic Restructuring and
Changing Prevalence of Female-headed Families in America.’’ Rural Sociology
64(3):394–416.
McLaughlin, D.K., C.S. Stokes, A. Nonoyama. 2001. ‘‘Residence and Income Inequality:
Effects on Mortality Among U.S. Counties.’’ Rural Sociology 66(4):579–598.
McMichael P., ed. 1994. The Global Restructuring of Agro-Food Systems. Ithaca NY: Cornell
University Press.
Mencken, F.C. 2000. ‘‘Federal Spending and Economic Growth in Appalachian Counties.’’
Rural Sociology 65(1):126–147.
Molnar, J.J., ed. 1986. Agricultural Change: Consequences for Southern Farms and Communities.
Boulder: Westview.
Molotch, H. 2003. Where Stuff Comes From. New York: Routledge.
Molotch, H., W. Freudenburg, K.E. Paulsen. 2000. ‘‘History Repeats Itself, but How? City
Character, Urban Tradition, and the Accomplishment of Place.’’ American Sociological
Review 65(6):791–823.
Murdock, S.H., R.S. Krannich, F.L. Leistritz. 1999. Hazardous Wastes in Rural America:
Impacts, Implications, and Options for Rural Communities. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
LittleŽ eld.
Niquette, M. 2003. ‘‘Basket Maker Trims 150 More Jobs.’’ Columbus Dispatch, May 17, 2003:
D1, D2.
Niquette, M. T. Sheehan. 2003. ‘‘New Round of Cuts to Cost 461 Jobs.’’ Columbus Dispatch,
April 23, 2003: D1, D2.
North Central Regional Center for Rural Development (NCRCRD). 1999. The Impact of
Recruiting Vertically Integrated Hog Production in Agriculturally-Based Counties of Oklahoma.
Continuity and Change in Place StratiŽcation — Lobao
29
(Report to the Kerr Center for Sustainable Agriculture). Ames, IA: Iowa State
University.
Page, B. R. Walker. 1991. ‘‘From Settlement to Fordism: The Agro-Industrial Revolution in
the American Midwest.’’ Economic Geography 67(4):281–315.
Peck, J. 1996. Work-Place: The Social Regulation of Labor Markets. New York: The Guildford
Press.
Peck, J. A. Tickell. 2002. ‘‘Neoliberalizing Space.’’ Antipode 34(3):380–404.
Piore, M. C. Sable. 1984. The Second Industrial Divide. New York: Basic Books.
Purdum, T.S. 2001. ‘‘Bleak Statistics Tarnish Nevada’s Glitter.’’ New York Times, May 19
A1, A9.
Purdy, J. 1999. ‘‘The New Culture of Rural America.’’ The American Prospect 11(3) http://
www.prospect.org/archives/V11-3/purdy.html
Ribot, J. N.L. Peluso. 2003. ‘‘A Theory of Access.’’ Rural Sociology 68(2):153–181.
Rogers, C.C. 1997. Changes in the Social and Economic Status of Women by Metro-Nonmetro
Residence. Agriculture Information Bulletin Number 732. Washington, DC: Economic
Research Service, USDA.
Rudel, T. 2002. ‘‘Paths of Destruction and Regeneration: Globalization and Forests in the
Tropics.’’ Rural Sociology 67(4):622–636.
Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. 1993. Persistent Poverty in
Rural America. Boulder: Westview Press.
Saenz, R. 1997. ‘‘Ethnic Concentration and Chicano Poverty: A Comparative Approach.’’
Social Science Research 26:205–228.
Saenz, R. J.K. Thomas. 1991. ‘‘Minority Poverty in Nonmetropolitan Texas.’’ Rural Sociology
56:204–223.
Sachs C.E. 1996. Gendered Fields: Rural Women, Agriculture, and the Environment. Boulder:
Westview.
Salamon, S. 2003a. ‘‘From Hometown to Nontown: Rural Community Effects of
Suburbanization.’’ Rural Sociology 68(1):1–24.
———. 2003b. Newcomers to Old Towns: Suburbanization of the Heartland. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
———. 2004. ‘‘The Rural Household as a Consumption Site.’’ In Handbook of Rural Studies,
edited by P. Cloke, T. Marsden, and P. Mooney. London: Sage (forthcoming).
Sassen, S. 1995. ‘‘On Concentration and Centrality in the Global City.’’ Pp. 63–75 in World
Cities in a World System, edited by P.L. Knox and P.J. Taylor. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
———. 2000. Cities in a World System. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
———. 2001. ‘‘Global Cities and Global City-Regions: A Comparison.’’ Pp. 78–95 in Global
City Regions, edited by A.J. Scott. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Schulman, M.D. C. Anderson. 1999. ‘‘The Dark Side of the Force: A Case Study of
Restructuring and Social Capital.’’ Rural Sociology 64(3):351–372.
Scott, A.J. (ed.). 2001. Global City Regions. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
———. 1988. New Industrial Spaces: Flexible Production Organization and Regional Development
in North America and Western Europe. London: Pion.
Seydlitz, R., S. Laska, D. Spain, E.W. Triche, K.L. Bishop. 1993. ‘‘Development and Social
Problems: The Impact of the Offshore Oil Industry on Suicide and Homicide Rates.’’
Rural Sociology 58(1):93–110.
Singelmann, J. F.A. Deseran, eds. 1993. Inequalities in Labor Market Areas. Boulder:
Westview.
Snipp, M., H.D. Horton, L. Jensen, J. Nagel, R. Rochin. 1993. ‘‘Persistent Poverty and
Racial and Ethnic Minorities.’’ Pp 183–199 in Persistent Poverty in Rural America, edited
by the Rural Sociological Society Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. Boulder:
Westview Press.
Snipp, M. 1996. ‘‘Understanding Race and Ethnicity in Rural America.‘‘ Rural Sociology
61:125–142.
Storper, M. 1997. The Regional World: Territorial Development in a Global Economy. New York:
Guildford Press.
30
Rural Sociology, Vol. 69, No. 1, March 2004
Storper, M. R. Walker. 1989. The Capitalist Imperative: Territory, Technology, and Industrial
Growth. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
Stretesky, P.B., J.E. Johnston, J. Arney. 2003. ‘‘Environmental Inequity: An Analysis of
Large-Scale Hog Operations in 17 States, 1982–1997.’’ Rural Sociology 68(2):231–252.
Summers, G.F. K. Branch. 1984. ‘‘Economic Development and Community Social
Change.’’ Annual Review of Sociology 10:141–166.
Swanson, L.E. 2001. ‘‘Rural Policy and Direct Local Participation: Democracy, Inclusiveness, Collective Agency, and Locality-Based Policy.’’ Rural Sociology 66(1):1–21.
———. 1988. Agriculture and Community Change in the U.S.: The Congressional Research
Reports. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Swamstrom, T., P. Dreier, J. Mollenkopf. 2002. ‘‘Economic Inequality and Public Policy:
The Power of Place.’’ City and Community 1(4):349–371.
Tickamyer, A.R. 1992. ‘‘The Working Poor in Rural Labor Markets: The Example of the
Southeastern United States.’’ Pp. 41–61 in Rural Poverty In America, edited by C.M.
Duncan. New York: Auburn House.
———. 1996. ‘‘Sex, Lies, and Statistics: Can Rural Sociology Survive Restructuring?’’ Rural
Sociology 61:5–24.
———. 2000. ‘‘Space Matters: Spatial Inequality in Future Sociology.’’ Contemporary
Sociology 29(6):805–813.
Tickamyer, A.R., D.A. Henderson, J.A. While, B.L. Tadlock. 2000. ‘‘Voices of Welfare
Reform: Bureaucratic Rationality Versus the Persceptions of Welfare.’’ AFFILIA
15(2):173–192.
Tigges, L.M. D.M. Tootle. 1990. ‘‘Labor Supply, Labor Demand, and Men’s Underemployment in Rural and Urban Labor Markets.’’ Rural Sociology 55:328–356.
Tolbert, C.M., T.A. Lyson, M. Irwin. 1998. ‘‘Local Capitalism, Civic Engagement, and
Socioeconomic Well-Being.’’ Social Forces 77:401–428.
Tolbert, C., M.D. Irwin, T.A. Lyson, A.R. Nucci. 2002. ‘‘Civic Community in Small Town
America: How Civic Welfare Is In uenced by Local Capitalism and Civic
Engagement.’’ Rural Sociology 67:90–113.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D. 1987. ‘‘Labor Markets, Industrial Strucutre, and Poverty: A
Theoretical Discussion and Empirical Example.’’ Rural Sociology 52(1):56–74.
Tregear, A. 2003. ‘‘From Stilton to Vinto: Using Food History to Re-think Typical Products
in Rural Development.’’ Sociologia Ruralis 43(2):91–107.
Varano, C.S. 1999. Forced Choices: Class, Community and Worker Ownership. Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Wallerstein, I. 1974. The Modern World System. New York: Academic Press.
Walton, J. 1993. ‘‘Urban Sociology: The Contribution and Limits of Political Economy.’’
Annual Review of Sociology 19:301–320.
Warner, M. R. Hebdon. 2001. ‘‘Local Government Restructuring: Privatization and Its
Alternatives.’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 20:315–336.
Weber, B.A., G.J. Duncan, L.A. Whitener, eds. 2002. Rural Dimensions of Welfare Reform.
Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.
Wilson, W.J. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, The Underclass, and Public Policy.
Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Wimberley, R.C. L. Morris. 2002. ‘‘The Regionalization of Poverty: Assistance for the Black
Belt South.’’ Southern Rural Sociology 18(1):294–306.
Winson, A. 1997. ‘‘Does Class Consciousness Exist in Rural Communities? The Impact of
Restructuring and Plant Shutdowns in Rural Canada.’’ Rural Sociology 62(4):429–453.
Zimmerman, J. 2002. ‘‘Contextualizing Cash Assistance in the South.’’ Southern Rural
Sociology 18(1):1–20.