america's forgotten people and places: ending the...

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 32,2(August 2000):319-329© 2000 Southern Agricultural Economics Association

America's Forgotten People and Places:Ending the Legacy of Poverty in the RuralSouth

Joyce E. Allen-Smith, Ronald C. Wimberley, andLibby V. Morris

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the longstanding impoverishment of the rural South and three of itssubregions-Appalachia, the Mississippi Delta, and the Black Belt. The poor quality of lifein rural Appalachia and along the Mississippi Delta has been publically acknowledged byprograms and commissions for improving conditions. However, the more comprehensiveBlack Belt subregion that links parts of Southern Appalachia and the Southern Delta hasnot received such regional policy attention. While the South as a whole is more rural andimpoverished than other U.S. regions, this is largely due to the poor conditions in theBlack Belt. In addition to region and rurality, a third feature of the pattern is race. It is inthe Black Belt that the South's poor socioeconomic conditions are most concentrated.Policy and program attention are needed for regional solutions that take rurality and raceinto account along with demographic and other subregional characteristics.

Key Words: Appalachia, Black Belt, Mississippi Delta, policy, poverty, quality of life,rural, South.

As we begin a new century, the rural South

continues to struggle with problems that haveplagued it through the twentieth century-per-

sistent poverty and uneven development. Geo-graphic areas of concentrated poverty are scat-tered across the South from Appalachiathrough the Lower Rio Grande Valley and in-cluding the Black Belt from Virginia to Texas.Every southern state except Delaware contains

Allen-Smith is an Associate Professor in the Depart-ment of Agricultural and Consumer Economics at theUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign; Wimber-ley is a William Neal Reynolds Professor of Sociologyat North Carolina State University; and Morris is anAssociate Professor and the Graduate Cordinator in theInstitute of Higher Education at the University ofGeorgia.

a group of contiguous counties with relatively

high poverty rates, and these counties lag be-

hind the rest of the United States on key in-

dicators of socioeconomic well-being. Living

in these pockets of poverty diminishes the life

chances of adults and especially children. As

Duncan points out, "It is harder to be poorand harder to escape poverty in depressed

communities (p. 131)."

The South does not quite have a monopoly

on areas with concentrated poverty. Indeed,

persistently poor counties and uneven devel-

opment can be found in every region. Yet the

greatest concentration of poverty is in the

South. More than four in ten of the nation's

poor are southerners (Wimberley and Morris1996, p. 43). Furthermore, the region does not

Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, August 2000

share proportionally in the prosperity enjoyedby the nation as a whole or in other U.S. re-gions.

In this analysis we review socioeconomicconditions for several high-poverty areas ofthe rural South, examine the characteristics ofthe population in these distressed areas, reportfactors found to contribute to impoverishedconditions, and review past policies and pro-grams to alleviate poverty and promote eco-nomic development. Our focus is on Appala-chia and the Mississippi Delta along with thelarger southern Black Belt subregion that con-nects them.

Appalachia

Appalachia has "symbolized poverty, exploi-tation and regional underdevelopment" (Bill-ings and Tickamyer, p. 7). The report issuedby the President's Regional Commission in1964 characterized Appalachia as "a regionapart-geographically and statistically." TheCommission found that Appalachia trailed thenation in income and education levels and inpopulation and employment growth and sur-passed the nation in poverty and unemploy-ment rates. The boundaries for the area offi-cially defined as Appalachia were set byCongress and thus reflect political consider-ations.

Stretching from New York to Mississippi,Appalachia is a subregion of the Northeast,Midwest, and South. It encompasses 404counties in 13 states. Three-fourths of thesecounties are in the South. About 111, or 28percent, of the Appalachian counties are clas-sified by the Appalachian Regional Commis-sion (ARC) as distressed due to low per-capitaincome plus high poverty and unemploymentrates. A relatively high proportion of the Ap-palachian population lives in rural areas. Us-ing the last classification of rural and urbangeography as found in the 1990 U.S. Census,53 percent of the Appalachian people are ruralcompared to 25 percent nationally (Wimberleyand Morris 1996, p. 13). Important sectors ofthe economy include manufacturing and coalmining, and-more recently-services andtourism.

Stereotypical images of Appalachia haveprevailed since the 1800s. Lewis and Billingsnote that Appalachia is depicted by scholars,policymakers, and reporters as "a homoge-nous region which is physically, culturally,and economically isolated from mainstreamAmerica" (p. 16). They concluded that "thecreators of the Appalachia myth were not ofthe people they described, and what the in-ventors saw was refracted through their ownparticular set of cultural and class lenses" (p.16). Moreover, Lewis and Billings found thatgeneralizations about Appalachia were basedon studies conducted in isolated rural com-munities. They contend that there is a body ofsound research which indicates, "a much morediverse and dynamic Appalachia than is pre-sumed to have existed (p. 16)."

Lewis and Billings' review of the literatureprovides some useful insights into the earlyhistory of the region and its economic evolu-tion. Although the mountains made travel dif-ficult, a network of roads and pikes along withthe railroad facilitated access to markets andenhanced communication beyond the region.In addition to subsistence farming, early set-tlers engaged in diverse economic activitiesincluding raising livestock such as cattle andhogs, growing corn, harvesting timber, andtrapping animals for their pelts. Early manu-facturing industries included salt and iron and,later, coal mining. Lewis and Billings reportthat two Appalachias emerged before thetwentieth century and noted that counties withsizable towns (i.e., growth centers) were at theforefront of the economic diversification.However, "counties without growth centersfailed to develop much commercialization ordiversity" (p. 20). The legacy of two Appa-lachias continues. One has poverty rates at orbelow the national level and has a vibranteconomy. The other has relatively high pov-erty rates, unemployment rates, and a low ratioof jobs to people.

Parts of Central Appalachia-counties inWest Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee-fit theprofile of the "other Appalachia." Indeed,Billings and Tickamyer argue that Central Ap-palachia "most closely resembles the stereo-type of persistent poverty and underdevelop-

320

Allen-Smith, Wimberly, and Morris: Ending Poverty in the Rural South

Table 1. Selected Socioeconomic Conditions in Appalachia by Subregion

Percentage ofAdults with

Appalachia Mean Household Unemployment High SchoolSubregion Money Income Poverty Rate Rate Diplomas

Central $23,858 25.9 10.2 53Northern $30,686 14.0 7.3 73Southern $31,858 14.1 5.7 66

Source: 1990 data from Cushing and Rogers "Income and Poverty," and Isserman, "Appalachia Then and Now: An

Update of 'The Realities of Deprivation' Reported to the President in 1964."

ment and that consistently has socialindicators far below those of other areas of thecountry (p. 9)." Notwithstanding, parts ofNorthern and Southern Appalachia are severe-ly impoverished, particularly in some countiesof Mississippi and Alabama as well as Ohioin the Midwest. Central Appalachia contains adisproportionate number of small nonmetro-politan counties that tend to be more impov-erished compared to metropolitan counties.

Data from the ARC document the disad-vantaged status of Central Appalachia com-pared to the rest of the United States and therest of Appalachia. As reported in Table 1,mean household income in 1990 averagedonly $24,000 in Central Appalachia or 61 per-cent of the average for the rest of the UnitedStates. By contrast, mean household incomein Northern Appalachia averaged 78 percentof the rest of United States and Southern Ap-palachia averaged 81 percent. In 1990, 13.1percent of the U.S. population lived in pov-erty. The poverty rate in Northern and South-ern Appalachia was slightly higher than theU.S. average while the rate in Central Appa-lachia was nearly double the U.S. average.

Given the relatively high poverty rates inCentral Appalachia, it is not surprising that thesubregion had a relatively high rate of unem-ployment and low educational levels. Datashow a 10.2 percent unemployment rate inCentral Appalachia in 1990 compared to 7.3percent in Northern Appalachia and 5.7 per-cent in Southern Appalachia. Isserman arguesthat the number of jobs per 100 people indi-cates a deficit in jobs in Appalachia and par-ticularly in Central Appalachia and in non-metropolitan parts of the region. Indeed,

nonmetro Appalachia had 45 jobs per 100people in 1992 whereas the rest of the non-metro United States had 49 and metropolitanAppalachia had 51.

Cushing and Rogers provide evidence thateducational attainment-a significant deter-minant of poverty-is lower in Central Ap-palachia than in the rest of the region. For ex-ample, only 53 percent of those persons ofages 25 and over in Central Appalachia hadcompleted high school in 1990 versus 73 per-cent in Northern Appalachia, 66 percent inSouthern Appalachia and 76 percent in the restof the United States.

Living standards have improved in Appa-lachia during recent decades. Rogers andCushing point out that, "while Central Appa-lachia might still be characterized as a 'worldapart,' even compared with the rest of Appa-lachia, Appalachia as a whole no longer fitsthis image (p. 31)." Indeed, Appalachia is onpar with the rest of the United States on sev-eral key indicators of well-being including in-fant mortality rates, home ownership rates,percent of occupied housing units with com-plete plumbing facilities, and percent of oc-cupied housing units with a vehicle available.

The Mississippi Delta

The Lower Mississippi Delta DevelopmentCommission, chaired at the time by GovernorBill Clinton of Arkansas, elucidated the Deltaas a place,

... where jobs are scarce and job skillstraining almost unknown; where infant mor-tality rates rival those in the Third World;

321


where dropping out of school and teenagepregnancy are commonplace; where capitalfor small farmers and small business is se-verely limited; where good housing andhealth care are unattainable for many; whereindustrial technology lags a decade behindand funds for research and developmentbarely trickle to college and universities;where illiteracy reigns as a supreme pieceof irony; [and where] the region has pro-duced some of the best writers and worstreaders in America (p. 101).

In a similar vein, Hyland and Timberlakecontend that "the Delta is to the United Statesas poor countries of the Third World are to theindustrialized countries of Western Europe,North America, and Japan (p. 77)."

The region, as defined by Congress,stretches from Louisiana to southern Illinoisand comprises 186 counties in the seven statesof Louisiana, Arkansas, Mississippi, Tennes-see, Kentucky, Missouri, and Illinois. Thesecounties are connected by their ties to the Mis-sissippi River as well as their economic, so-cial, and cultural traditions. Like Appalachia,the Delta is heterogeneous. Indeed, Reinsch-miedt and Green found that socioeconomicconditions are worse in the Central Delta sub-region (the 43 nonmetropolitan counties "ly-ing entirely within the flatland Delta region inArkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Missou-ri (p. 3)" than in the other two subregions des-ignated as the Fringe Delta (nonmetro countiesnot in the Central Delta) and the MetropolitanDelta. For instance, poverty and infant mor-tality rates were higher in the Central Deltathan in the other subregions while total per-sonal income per capita and percent of popu-lation over 25 years who completed highschool were lower.

Reinschmiedt and Green also note that eco-nomic structure varies by subregion in theDelta. In particular, agriculture-broadly de-fined to include agricultural services and themanufacturing of food and kindred productsand textiles-accounts for a larger share of theindustrial base in the Central Delta (40 percentin 1984-86) than in all Delta counties (16 per-cent). Furthermore, the structure of agriculture

varies across the Delta subregions. Farms tendto be much larger in the Central Delta than inthe Fringe Delta (659 acres versus 272 acresat the time of their analysis). The plantationsystem that evolved in the Central Delta left alegacy of uneven distribution of wealth thatthe region is still struggling to overcome.

The Black Belt

Within the South, however, there is an evenlarger but often unrecognized subregion thatcovers nearly half of the South, overlaps mostof the southern Mississippi Delta, and claimsa surprisingly large part of the AppalachianSouth. This is the historic Black Belt.

What exactly is the Black Belt? Taking thestarting point from Booker T. Washington'suse of the term, the Black Belt is a southernsubregion of counties with greater-than-aver-age concentrations of African-American resi-dents. This is a social definition rather thanone based on the geography of the South's richagricultural soils.

Wimberley and Morris (1996, 1997) oper-ationalize Black Belt counties as being in the11 Old South states and having at least thenational percentage of black population. In the1990 baseline census year-and the latest de-cennial census at the time of this writing-theUnited States was 12 percent African-Ameri-can. Therefore, counties where at least 12 per-cent of the population was black are designat-ed as the Black Belt counties. There are 623such counties in the 11 Old South states, a fewothers in the remaining southern states, andfewer still in states outside the South.

To consider either the Mississippi Delta orthe southernmost Appalachians apart from theBlack Belt is inadequate for understanding thesocioeconomic conditions of the U.S. South.Alabama, Georgia, Florida, North and SouthCarolina, Texas, and Virginia are not in theMississippi Delta. Neither are Texas, Louisi-ana, and Arkansas in Appalachia. But alongwith Mississippi and Tennessee, these statesconstitute the 11 states of the Old South andare the states containing the South's largestsubregion-the Black Belt. The Black Beltconnects the South's other subregions and pro-

322


Table 2. Selected Demographic and Socioeconomic Conditions for the U.S., South, the BlackBelt, and Appalachia

Non-metro

%

25 andOver

Non- Non- W/ONon- metro metro Hi.

% Total metro Black White Scho.Total Pop. % % Non- Pover- Pover- Pover- Pover- Diplo-

Area (1000s) White Black metro ty Rate ty Rate ty Rate ty Rate ma

Black Belt (623 Counties) 45,250 69 27 23 17 23 42 13 39Appalachia (404 Counties) 20,702 92 7 42 15 19 36 18 38Total South (1,425 Counties) 85,446 77 19 26 16 21 41 16 39United States (3,141 Counties) 248,710 80 12 20 13 17 40 14 31

Sources: 1990 U.S. Census as reported in Wimberley and Morris (1996), The Reference Book on Regional Well-Being,and Wimberley and Morris (1997), The Southern Black Belt: A National Perspective.Notes: The census-defined South consists of 16 states plus Washington, D.C.: Texas, TeOklahoma, Louisiana, Arkansas,Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, WestVirginia, and Delaware. The Black Belt includes parts of the 1 -state Old South: Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missis-sippi, Alabama. Tennessee, Florida, Georgia, North and South Carolina, and Virginia. The South's Appalachian Regionincludes parts of Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, North and South Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, WestVirginia, and Maryland. The nonsouthern Appalachia states are Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York. The Black Beltincludes 47 counties of Appalachia: 18 in Alabama, 17 in Mississippi, 4 in Georgia, 4 in South Carolina, 2 in Virginia,1 in North Carolina, and 1 in Tennessee.

vides a common, socioeconomic denominatorlinking poor living conditions across the largerSouth.

A product of the 1700s and 1800s, theBlack Belt is quite discernable even today.The historic Black Belt did not disappear withthe rural and southern outmigrations of theearly and mid-twentieth century. Neither didits poor conditions go away with the comingof New South prosperity in urban areas orwith technological advances and social pro-grams. The Black Belt's socioeconomic qual-ity-of-life conditions remain some of the worstin the nation. As Wimberley and Morris de-scribe the situation, "The Black Belt is stillhome to persistent poverty, poor employment,low incomes, low education, poor health, highinfant mortality, and dependence (1997, p.iii)."

With one-third of the nation's people, theSouth is by far the largest demographic regionof the country. The census-defined South con-sists of the 11 Old South States plusOklahoma, Kentucky, West Virginia, Mary-

land, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. TheNortheast and West each contain about one-fifth of the U.S. population, and the Midwesthas slightly over one-fourth.

Like the South itself, the Black Belt is largeboth geographically and demographically. TheBlack Belt's 623 counties hold 18 percent ofthe U.S. population. This is over half of theSouth's population and is nearly as many asthe population of the highly urbanized North-eastern United States. Some of these demo-graphic details are provided in Table 2 alongwith data on several social conditions to bediscussed. While the nation is 12 percent Af-rican-American and the larger South is 19 per-cent African-American, the Black Belt is 27percent black and 69 percent white.

The South and its Black Belt are not onlylarge in population. They also have dispro-portionately large shares of the nation's poorsocioeconomic conditions. In light of the factthat the South has the major portions of Ap-palachia and the Mississippi Delta in additionto the Black Belt, this may come as no sur-

323


prise. The South's historically high standingsin impoverishment are well above those of theother major U.S. regions. Somehow the bettersocioeconomic quality of life gained by thoseliving in other U.S. regions has left behindmany people and places in the South, its Delta,southern Appalachia, and-particularly-inthe Black Belt.

Unfortunately for the South, the 31 percentof the U.S. residents who lived in the Southat the time of the 1990 census had 41 percentof the nation's poverty (Wimberley and Morris1996, p. 43). Similarly, the South holds 40percent of the nation's people who have notgraduated from high school.

It is in the Black Belt that the South's poorquality-of-life conditions are concentrated.The Black Belt's 18 percent of the U.S. peopleexperience 23 percent of the nation's poverty,and represent 21 percent of the U.S. residentswho have not finished high school. Not onlydo these conditions characterize the region andsubregion, such conditions are further associ-ated with rurality and with race.

For example, the South is home to 45 per-cent-nearly half-of the nation's nonmetro-politan (i.e., rural) people. But these nonmetroresidents have 55 percent-over half-of the na-tion's nonmetro poverty. As a rule, poor con-ditions in rural areas, as measured by variousindicators, exceed those of urban areas.

The same pattern applies to racial differ-ences. While rural quality-of-life conditionsare generally poorer than those in urban areas,racial minorities in the South and many otherregions typically have lower levels of living,and rural racial minorities typically have theworst situations of all. Wimberley and Morris(1996, 1997) show that poverty rates, the lackof high school graduation, and unemploymentrun highest among nonmetro blacks in theSouth, the Black Belt, and Appalachia. To il-lustrate with statistics from Table 2, the pov-erty rate of nonmetro blacks in the Black Beltis 42 percent in comparison to 13 percent fornonmetro whites living in the Black Belt.

While the Black Belt essentially encom-passes the lower Mississippi Delta, it shares47 counties with the area served by the Ap-palachian Regional Commission. With this in

mind, how do conditions compare between theBlack Belt and Appalachia? As shown in Ta-ble 2, the Black Belt has more than twice asmany people as Appalachia-about 45 millionvs. 21 million. And although 42 percent ofAppalachia and 23 percent of the Black Beltare nonmetro, the larger Black Belt has nu-merically more nonmetro residents.

The overall poverty rate in the Black Beltis 17 percent and is 15 percent in Appalachia.Both subregions have poverty rates exceedingthat for the South as a whole or for the nation.Nonmetro white poverty runs high at 18 per-cent in Appalachia. Within nonmetro Appala-chia, however, the 36 percent poverty rate forblacks is twice that for whites. And the non-metro Black Belt poverty rate of 42 percentfor blacks is higher than the 36 percent pov-erty rate for blacks in Appalachia. Regardlessof the comparisons, poverty rates are high byU.S. standards for rural Appalachian whitesand blacks, and high for rural blacks in theBlack Belt.

In summary, poor conditions are worse inthe South than in other U.S. regions, and areworse for blacks than for whites. Furthermore,rural conditions are worse than the urban.When these factors of race, region, and rural-ity are combined as they are in the Black Belt,socioeconomic conditions are the worst of all.

The People Left Behind

The poor in the United States tend to sharecertain characteristics. A disproportionatenumber are racial or ethnic minorities, arechildren, live in female-headed families withno husband present, are poorly educated, havework-limiting disabilities, and live in nonmet-ropolitan areas. In the rural South, the faces ofthe poor tend to vary according to region. InAppalachia where 92 percent of the populationis white, an overwhelming 85 percent majorityof the poor are white, while in the Black Beltincluding much of the Lower Mississippi Del-ta, 57 percent of the poor are African-Ameri-cans. Although African-Americans are only 7percent of the population in Appalachia, theyare still besieged by poverty. In fact, they are

324


over twice as likely as whites to live in pov-erty (Wimberley and Morris 1996, p. 37).

Also, the youngest U.S. citizens have thehighest poverty rates. For example, 20 percentof children under five years of age were poorin 1990. In impoverished areas such as Ap-palachia, the rate was even higher at 23 per-cent (Cushing and Rogers). Because of thenegative outcomes associated with childhoodpoverty (e.g., being more likely to drop out ofschool or more likely to be poor as adults), thehigh poverty rates for children suggest that an-other generation will grow up without reach-ing its full potential and the United States willnot reap its full economic potential. For socio-economic well-being and quality of life, esti-mates of the costs of childhood poverty interms of lost productivity alone are staggering.The Children's Defense Fund estimated thatthe aggregate cost of child poverty for ap-proximately 14.5 million children was $130billion in 1998.

Only recently have social scientists usedthe concept of age-related dependence as ameasure of well-being. Since virtually all chil-dren and many of the elderly rely on othersfor economic support, dependence ratios pro-vide an indication of which places may bemore vulnerable to poverty because of theirdemographic characteristics.

The U.S. elder dependence ratio was 20 per100 persons of working age in 1990 whereasthe youth dependence ratio was 41 youths per100 persons of working age (Wimberley andMorris 1996, pp. 87-89; Morris and Wimber-ley 1997). Elders are defined as persons 65years old or older while youths are personsbelow 18 years old, and the working-aged are18 to 64 years old.

The overall demographic dependence ratiosfor the South and the Black Belt are essen-tially the same as those for the United States.However, due to the disproportionate numberof whites in Appalachia and due to the longerlife expectancies of whites, Appalachia had aslightly higher elder dependence ratio of 23.

Demographic dependence also varies ac-cording to metropolitan and nonmetropolitanlocations. For example, nonmetro portions ofboth the Black Belt and Appalachia have high-

er dependence ratios than the U.S. average.Nonmetro Appalachia has an elder depen-dence ratio of 24 and a youth dependence ratioof 42. The nonmetro Black Belt has a lowerelder dependence rate of 24 but a slightlyhigher youth dependence ratio of 47. Basical-ly, the high youth-to-elder dependence bur-dens make it more difficult to escape povertyfor those living in distressed areas.

In regard to escaping poverty, Duncan of-fers a vivid portrait of the Appalachian poorthat may be generalized to other areas ofsouthern poverty. She states that,

Poor Appalachians live precarious lives inunstable, unpredictable communities, vul-nerable to individual setbacks such as jobloss, illness of a family member, or even abroken-down car, as well as to the pervasivearbitrary control of those in power. They be-come trapped in poverty because there arefew opportunities for steady work and in-come in their own communities and few op-portunities to develop the skills and educa-tional background necessary to find workelsewhere (p. 112).

Factors Contributing to Poverty

Empirical studies have enriched the social-sci-entific understanding of factors that contributeto rural poverty. The studies can be dividedinto two categories. Some studies explain thevariation in poverty at the community or coun-ty level. Other studies explain household orfamily poverty. The former studies have foundthat the percentage of families headed bywomen, the percentage of the population thatis African-American, the percentage of the un-employed civilian labor force, the percentageof the population that did not complete highschool, and proximity to a high-poverty coun-ty significantly affect poverty rates (Allen-Smith and Appiah).

The latter studies (e.g., Allen and Thomp-son, Thompson and McDowell) indicate thatcertain characteristics-including rural loca-tion, female-headed family type, presence ofpreschool children, race, and human capital-

325


are statically significant predictors of povertyat the household level. Still others have em-phasized the importance of human capital-e.g., education, migration, health-in reducingthe likelihood of living in poverty and pro-moting economic development. For example,Bellamy and Parks argue that improving hu-man capital must be a top priority in BlackBelt counties. They contend that without im-provements, the Black Belt will, "continue toattract certain types of labor-intensive indus-tries which may bring low-paying jobs or theywill become chronically dependent areas (pp.99-100)." This argument can also apply toAppalachia and the Mississippi Delta.

Some researchers (e.g., Schiller) contendthat restricted opportunity, or discrimination,impacts the distribution and extent of poverty.Others (e.g., Bellamy and Parks) argue that abetter understanding of the opportunity struc-ture is needed. Recent studies have docu-mented inequality of opportunity in educationand employment in the rural South. For ex-ample, Duncan describes a social system inAppalachia where education, jobs, and train-ing are allocated on a patronage system. Shestates, "The inequality is apparent to peopleon both sides of the [income] spectrum; theyagree that your family's name-and whichside of that divide your family has historicallybeen on-is of the utmost importance in de-termining your opportunities (p. 121)." Hy-land and Timberlake indicate the publicschools in many Delta counties are poorlyfunded and largely black as a result of whiteflight. They show that per-pupil spending foreducation is much lower in the Delta than inthe United States overall and that much of thedisparity is due to differences in contributionsat the local level. Hyland and Timberlake con-tend that, "This lack of local support for pub-lic education must be understood not only interms of the poverty and subsequent weak taxbase of Delta counties, but also in terms ofrace relations (p 82)."

The R2 coefficients of determination for thestatistical models with poverty as the depen-dent variable indicates that very little of thevariation is explained. Thus, other factors be-yond economics may be critical in explaining

the continued existence of concentrated pov-erty. The sociological literature provides in-sights that can help enrich our understandingof factors that contribute to poverty. In partic-ular, some scholars contend that fractionalismand fatalism play a role in entrenched poverty.Fractionalism refers to differences in attributes(e.g., race, ethnicity, class, age, length of res-idence) which pit one group against anotherand keep them from working together to im-prove economic conditions. Given the racialdiversity in the Mississippi Delta, it is not sur-prising that fractionalism is often displayedbetween blacks and whites. According to Hy-land and Timberlake, "the role of race andclass relations in determining access to edu-cational and political resources in the regionhas been fundamental (p. 77)."

Hyland and Timberlake also acknowledgethat fatalism is "a dominant characteristic ofinterpersonal relations (p. 86)" in the Missis-sippi Delta. They explain that, "Partially con-ditioned by historical religious beliefs, manyperceive their own destiny as controlled byforces larger than themselves. The trust thatresidents put in government or a benign bossto take care of them often leads to a lack ofrisk taking and a lack of personal and insti-tutional accountability in the educational andbusiness worlds (p. 86)." They further notethat fatalism may be "as much an accurateassessment of risk as it is a product of aunique regional culture (p. 86)." Appalachianpeople have also been found to be fatalistic.Lewis and Billings report that fatalism may"have followed from the harshness of life inthe mountains for some of the population (p.7)." They contend that research indicates thatthe poor may have adapted fatalism as a de-fense mechanism although it was not a corecultural trait of the region.

Duncan's research on the patronage systemin Appalachia helps to put the concept of fa-talism into perspective. She notes that theretends to be a consensus regarding who con-trols jobs in the both the public and privatesectors. She argues, "This concentrated power... means that one cannot challenge the localelite without losing one's own job or havingone's relatives lose theirs. It is a complete sys-

326


tem in which jobs are awarded on the basis ofwho you know and who you support. Peoplethroughout the area take the system for grant-ed, and even those who want communitychange in the region feel that the system is tooentrenched to fight (pp. 126-127)." Recent ar-ticles in the popular press (e.g., Janofsky) sug-gest that fatalism continues to exist even dur-ing periods of unprecedented national growth.

Swanson et al. suggest that a legacy of dis-crimination contributes to high poverty ratesin the Black Belt. They define legacy as socialvalues, assumptions, and fears that are trans-mitted from one generation to another. Factorsthat have shaped the legacy of African-Amer-icans in the Black Belt include slavery, share-cropping, segregation, marginal employmentopportunities, and limited educational choices(Swanson et al.). As part of the Black Belt,the Mississippi Delta has the same legacy.Swanson et al. empirically estimated the im-pact of legacy in the South excluding Florida,Texas and the counties that comprise Appala-chia.

As mapped by Wimberley and Morris(1997), Swanson et al. found that concentra-tions of African-Americans in nonmetropoli-tan counties were associated with poverty, ser-vice sector employment and unemployment.Swanson et al. concluded that, "pockets ofsouthern poverty are not the consequence ofthe inability of their residents to improve theirown conditions or of a culture of poverty, butare intrinsically tied to the historical fate ofthe region (p. 117)."

Federal Policies and Programs

The New Deal (1933 to 1939) represented thefirst large-scale federal initiative to amelioratepoverty and hunger, to spur development, andto improve living conditions among impover-

The dependent variable in the model was percentof blacks in a county. Independent variables includedpercent of labor force in manufacturing, percent of thelabor force in the service sector, percent of the laborforce unemployed, percent of employed populationwho commute outside the county for work, percent ofthe adult population that graduated from high school,and percent of families in poverty.

ished people and places. Initiated during theGreat Depression, it consisted of programs toenhance the nation's infrastructure while pro-viding jobs to the unemployed (e.g., the PublicWorks Administration), protect the environ-ment (e.g., the Civilian Conservation Corps),and provide income support (e.g., Social Se-curity and Aid to Dependent Families). WorldWar II ushered in a period of low unemploy-ment and growth in personal income. Despitethe post war boom, millions continued tostruggle to satisfy their basic needs.

Launched in 1964, the War on Poverty at-tempted to address the root causes of poverty.Programs were established to provide jobtraining (e.g., the Job Corps), education (e.g.,Upward Bound, Elementary and SecondarySchool Act which established compensatoryprograms such as Head Start) and to aid com-munities in planning and implementing pro-grams to reduce poverty (e.g., the CommunityAction Program, Volunteers in Service toAmerica). The War on Poverty, of course, didnot eliminate poverty, but data indicate thatpoverty declined from 22.2 percent in 1960 to11.1 percent in 1973. Since the 1960s, thepoverty rate has fluctuated with the unemploy-ment rate-rising during recessionary periodsand falling as the economy recovers.

Given the estimated national poverty rateof 12.7 percent (34.5 million poor) in 1998and pockets of poverty when the national un-employment rate was 4.5 percent, some havewondered if poverty is intractable. Others havesuggested that the policy problem has beenmisdiagnosed and that appropriate strategieshave not been implemented.

Regional development planning waslaunched in 1965 with the establishment of theAppalachian Regional Commission (ARC)and the Ozarks Regional Commission. In Oc-tober 1988, the Lower Mississippi Delta De-velopment Commission was formed. Whilethese commissions represented opportunitiesfor partnerships and collaborations across statelines, they have not been without controversyregarding programs and funding.

The ARC's programs and activities areaimed at improving transportation (e.g., theAppalachian Development Highway System),

327


economic and human development (e.g., edu-cation, civic development), health care (e.g.,the J-1 Visa Waiver Program to facilitateplacement of international health-care profes-sionals), and business development (e.g., theEntrepreneurship Initiative and the BusinessDevelopment Revolving Loan Fund Program).In addition, the ARC targets assistance to thepoorest communities through its DistressedCounties Program.

Programmatic disagreements surroundingthe ARC can largely be traced to whether theemphasis should be on infrastructure for thedevelopment of places or human capital forthe development of people. Moreover, thelarge sums of money expended by the ARC-$7.4 billion over 35 years-have been ques-tioned along with the impact of those funds.And from 1981 through 1988, the Reagan ad-ministration attempted to eliminate the ARC.

In a landmark study, Isserman and Re-phann conducted an empirical assessment ofthe commission. They used quasi-experimen-tal control group methods to compare income,earnings, population, and per-capita income inthe ARC counties with counties outside theregion with similar characteristics (e.g., eco-nomic structure, per-capita income, populationand income growth rates) in 1959. They foundthat the ARC counties grew significantly fasteron each of the measures of well-being and thatthe results also held for Central Appalachia,the poorest subregion in Appalachia.

The ARC and the Lower Mississippi DeltaDevelopment Commission (LMDDC) differedin their activities and approaches. TheLMDDC conducted hearings and listeningsessions to obtain input from policymakers,community and business leaders, and the gen-eral populace regarding the economic prob-lems in the Delta and alternative strategies forovercoming them.

In the final report, referred to as a Hand-book for Action, LMDDC chairman Bill Clin-ton specified that the Delta needs to, "developleadership; change attitudes regarding tradi-tion and image; improve education at all lev-els; build institutional know-how and capacity;achieve comprehensive approaches to problemsolving; improve abilities to function in a mul-

ticultural society; face race and class problemsand bridge the gap; build on and protect ex-isting resources; streamline institutional pro-cesses; increase capital for development; cre-ate and penetrate markets; improve physicalinfrastructure; [and] build technical compe-tence." The LMDDC existed for two years,1988 to 1990, and was then scaled-down intoa development center that has had difficulty inobtaining funds from member states. Lack ofstate support jeopardized federal contributions.

In January 1999, President Clinton an-nounced a "New Markets" initiative thatwould view economically distressed urban andrural areas as untapped markets for new com-merce. Proposed activities include incentivesfor firms investing in high poverty areas, taxrebates for investments, loan guarantees, andinterest deferrals. According to the administra-tion, "New Markets" would cost about $1.6billion over five years and generate $15 billionin new investment. However, Congress has notacted upon bills to move the New Marketsprogram from proposal to action.

Conclusions

Regarding lagging growth and high povertyrates in rural areas, Deavers raised the ques-tion, "Do we care?" Currently, the UnitedStates enjoys unprecedented economic growththat provides an opportunity to close the gapand reduce inequality among regions and peo-ple. There is some consensus in the literatureabout needed programs and directions. Thesuggested strategies tend to emphasize botheconomic infrastructure development and hu-man capital development. The scientific liter-ature also points to the need to build sustain-able communities, develop local leadership,and change the opportunity structure.

If the impoverished people and places ofthe South and its historically poor subregionsare to finally improve to the level enjoyed byAmericans in other U.S. regions, the twenty-first century must bring the political will toadopt and fund these strategies.

References

Allen, J.E. and A. Thompson. "Rural Povertyamong Racial and Ethnic Minorities." Ameri-

328


can Journal of Agricultural Economics 72 (Dec.1990):1161-1168.

Allen-Smith, J.E. and E. Appiah. "Determinants ofGeographic Poverty: Evidence from Illinois."Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Agricultural Economics Association,Toronto, Canada, July 27-30, 1997.

Appalachian Regional Commission. URL:http://www.arc.gov

Bellamy, D.L. and A.L. Parks. "Economic Devel-opment in Southern Black Belt Counties: HowDoes It Measure Up?" in J. Stewart and J. E.Allen-Smith (editors), Blacks in Rural America:New Brunswick, Transactions Publishers, 1995.

Billings, D. and A. Tickamyer. "Uneven Develop-ment in Appalachia." in T.A. Lyson and W.W.Falk (editors), Forgotten Places: Uneven De-velopment in Rural America. (Lawrence): Uni-versity Press of Kansas, 1993.

Cushing, B. and C. Rogers. "Income and Poverty"in Socio-Economic Review of Appalachia.

Deavers, K. "Rural America: Lagging Growth andHigh Poverty ... Do We Care?" Choices

4(Spring 1989):4-5.Duncan, C.M. "Persistent Poverty in Appalachia:

Scare Work and Rigid Stratification." Chapter6 in C.M. Duncan (editor), Rural Poverty inAmerica. New York: Auburn House, 1992.

Hyland, S. and M. Timberlake. "The MississippiDelta: Change or Continued Trouble." in TA.Lyson and W.W. Falk (editors), Forgotten Plac-es: Uneven Development in Rural America.(Lawrence): University Press of Kansas, 1993.

Isserman, A. and T Rephann. "The Economic Ef-fects of the Appalachian Regional Commis-sion." Journal of the American Planning As-sociation 61(Summer 1995):345-364.

Janofsky, M. "Pessimism Retains Grip on Appa-lachian Poor." The New York Times, February9, 1998, pp. Al, A13.

Lewis, R.L. Bulletin 965. Department of Informa-tion Services, Division of Agriculture, Forestry,and Veterinary Medicine. Mississippi State Uni-versity, 1989.

Lewis, R.L. and D.W. Billings. "Appalachian Cul-

ture and Economic Development." www.rri.wvv.edu/arc.htm

Lower Mississippi Delta Development Commis-sion. Body of the Nation. Memphis, 1989.

Morris, L.V., and R.C. Wimberley. "Dependence."In G.A. Gorham (editor), Encyclopedia of RuralAmerica, Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, 1997,pp. 185-188.

Reinschmiedt, L. And B. Green. SocioeconomicConditions: The Mississippi Delta. Departmentof Information Services, Division of Agricul-ture, Forestry, and Veterinary Medicine, Missis-sippi State University.

Sherman, A. Poverty Matters: The Cost of ChildPoverty. URL: www.childrensdefense.org/fairstartprovmat.html.

Swanson, L.E., R.P. Harris, J.R. Skees, and L. Wil-liamson. "African Americans in Southern RuralRegions: The Importance of Legacy." Chapter5 in J. Stewart and J. E. Allen-Smith (editors),Blacks in Rural America: New Brunswick,Transactions Publishers, 1995.

Thompson, A. and D.R. McDowell. "Determinantsof Poverty among Workers." Chapter 8 in J.B.Stewart and J.E. Allen-Smith, editors. Blacks inRural America. New Brunswick: TransactionPublishers, 1995.

U.S. Bureau of the Census. Income and Poverty1998. URL: http://www.cens.gov/hhes/income

U.S. House of Representatives. Final Report of theLower Mississippi Delta Development Commis-sion, Joint Hearing Before the Subcommittee onEconomic Development of the Committee onPublic Works and Transportation and the Sub-committee on Economic Stabilization of theCommittee on Banking, Finance and Urban Af-fairs, May 16, 1990. Washington: U.S. Govern-ment Printing Office, 1990.

Wimberley, R.C. and L.V. Morris. The ReferenceBook on Regional Well-Being: U.S. Regions, theBlack Belt, Appalachia. Mississippi State, Mis-sissippi: Southern Rural Development Center,1996.

Wimberley, R.C. and L.V. Morris. The SouthernBlack Belt: A National Perspective. Lexington,Kentucky: TVA Rural Studies Press, 1997.

329

america's forgotten people and places: ending the...

Documents