Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Social group wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of the family wikipedia , lookup
Economic inequality wikipedia , lookup
Development theory wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of terrorism wikipedia , lookup
Structural inequality wikipedia , lookup
Postdevelopment theory wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of culture wikipedia , lookup
Public sociology wikipedia , lookup
Sociological theory wikipedia , lookup
Sociology of knowledge wikipedia , lookup
Rural Sociology 69(1), 2004, pp. 1–30 Copyright 2004 by the Rural Sociological Society Continuity and Change in Place Strati 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 strati 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 strati 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 strati cation or inequality within and between territorial units. This topic deals with two central questions: 1) How do markers of strati 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 strati 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 strati 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 strati 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 strati 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, signi cant strati 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 Stratication — 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 signi 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 de 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 Stratication — 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 Signi 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 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 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 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, 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 Stratication — 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 of 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 signi 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 Ghel , Robert Gibbs, Dave McGranahan, Mark Nord, Linda Swanson, Leslie Whitener and others. Continuity and Change in Place Stratication — 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 of 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 Stratication — 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 ndings. For the most part, rural sociologists’ use of theory comes through focus on a speci 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 Stratication — 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 strati 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). Strati 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, rms, and jobs result in different levels of economic growth and also affect the degree to which bene ts of growth are distributed. That is, industries, 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 strati 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 bene 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 Stratication — 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 rst example addresses 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 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 bene 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 con 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 Stratication — 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 of 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 scal constraints in meeting those demands. Nonmetro governments were more likely to report signi 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 Stratication — 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 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 rms and products (Contosta 1999). Thus the ORV re ects a convergence of economic structure, institutional arrangements, and spatial structure that does not 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 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 bene 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 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 rm networks. In this view of the new economy, industries and 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 rm could not exist without its regional embeddedness. The region itself serves as a marketing tool, legitimizing the rms’ products and, less critically, serves production needs of raw materials and supplier inputs. We are studying several examples of these 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 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 Stratication — 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. Of cials interviewed in other ORV communities indicate they want to emulate the Longaberger model. For Longaberger Baskets, 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 rms, such as Anchor Hocking, ceased regional operations in the 1980s (Contosta 1999). Existing 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 signi 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 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 Stratication — 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 signi 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 bene 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 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 modi cations in how we use and build from current theory. For example, by drawing more fully from theories of strati 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 eld of strati 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 strati 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 sub 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 insuf 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 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, 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 Stratication — Lobao 25 storage. In a sense, rural regions represent a spatial 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 strati 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 Little 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 Little 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 Stratication — 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 Stratication. 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 Signi 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 Bene 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 Little 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 Little 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 Stratication — 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.