SOUTHERN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS JULY 1991
PEOPLE LEFT BEHIND: TRANSITIONS OF THE RURAL
POOR
Joseph J. Molnar and Greg TYaxler
ABSTRACT
Compared to their urban counterparts, the rural
poor are more likely to be employed, more apt to be
members of married-couple families, less likely to
be children, less likely to be minority, and more
likely to have assets but a negative income. This
paper examines poverty rates and factors that affect
mobility in and out of poverty among major catego-
ries of the rural poor. Particular attention is paid to
farm workers and the rural farm population in the
South. It endeavors to identify both structural con-
ditions that perpetuate rural poverty and government
interventions that ameliorate human suffering and
break the cycle of poverty reproduction.
Key words: poverty, minorities, rural development
A discussion of rural America’s “people left be-
hind” could be organized around either of two con-
cepts. The first would focus on those individuals
who are “chronically poor,” unable to rise above
poverty for more than brief periods. Unfortunately,
relatively little is known about this segment of the
population. The information that is available allows
us to surmise that the chronically poor constitute
about half of those Americans officially defined as
living in poverty (Bane and Ellwood, 1986). Amuch
larger portion of the U. S. population has experienced
a “spell of poverty,” to use Bane and Ellwood’s
terminology. Duncan found that 24.4 percent of
those surveyed in the Panel Study of Income Dy-
namics (PSID) was poor during at least one year
between 1969 and 1978. Our discussion will focus
on the statistically well defined and documented
poverty rate which has been tracked for various
demographic categories for several decades.
Rural poverty appears to have become more en-
trenched relative to urban poverty in the past ten
years. During this period, rural rates have remained
higher, and rural residents have been trapped below
the poverty line for a longer time (O’Hare). Rural
poverty is more likely to be caused by low wages,
unemployment, depression in the agricultural and
other extractive sectors, and state and local welfare
eligibility rules that exclude significant proportions
of those who are poor by national standards.
The rural poor also are less likely to be children,
less likely to be minority, more likely to be em-
ployed, more apt to be members of married-couple
families, and more likely to have assets but a nega-
tive income (Harrell and Weiher). This paper exam-
ines poverty rates and factors that affect mobility in
and out of poverty among major categories of the
rural poor. Particular attention is paid to farm work-
ers and the rural farm population in the South. It
endeavors to identify structural conditions that per-
petuate rural poverty as well as government inter-
ventions that ameliorate human suffering and break
the cycle of poverty reproduction in different seg-
ments of the population.
DEFINING POVERTY
Starting with the intuitive concept of poverty as
lack of income and perhaps assets, it is important to
understand the statistical definition of poverty that
dominates the policy dialogue and empirical knowl-
edge base (Bryan; Bonnen). The official poverty
level was developed in the mid-1960s by determin-
ing how much income a family needed to maintain
a minimally adequate diet and then multiplying by
three—since low income families spent roughly one
third of their income on food. Varying by family size,
the standard has remained largely unchanged since
initiation. Nonetheless, it is adjusted each year for
overall inflation as measured by the Consumer Price
Index (Bane and Ellwood, 1989).1
ɪ The decennial census is the primary source of detailed specification of poverty rates for specific socioeconomic categories and
geographic units. The Current Population Survey conducted in March of every year is the main source of annual poverty estimates
for States and the nation. The Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP) is a major source of information on the economic
situation of persons and families in the U.S. The 35,000 household surveyed annually provide metro-nonmetropolitan comparisons
and a great deal of information on the distribution of cash and noncash income (Nelson, McMillen, and Kasprzyk).
Joseph J. Molnar is Alumni Professor, and Greg Traxler is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Agricultural Economics and
Rural Sociology, and the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Aubum University. This study also appears as Journal Paper
1-912942P of the Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station. The authors wish to thank Kami Perez, Sue Raftry, and Julie Harrington for
editorial assistance and helpful comments.
Copyright 1991, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
75