essay on rural poverty

Essay on Rural Poverty

Students are often asked to write an essay on Rural Poverty in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.

Let’s take a look…

100 Words Essay on Rural Poverty

Understanding rural poverty.

Rural poverty refers to poverty found in rural areas, including factors of rural society, rural economy, and rural poverty. It’s different from urban poverty.

Causes of Rural Poverty

The main causes are lack of education, poor infrastructure, and limited access to services. Also, rural areas have fewer job opportunities.

Effects of Rural Poverty

Rural poverty affects people’s health and education. It also leads to low agricultural productivity.

Addressing Rural Poverty

Solutions include improving education, infrastructure, and access to services. Also, creating more job opportunities can help fight rural poverty.

250 Words Essay on Rural Poverty

Introduction.

The causes of rural poverty are complex and intertwined. Lack of access to quality education and healthcare, limited employment opportunities, and low agricultural productivity are key contributors. Additionally, rural areas often suffer from inadequate infrastructure, such as poor transportation and communication networks, which can further limit economic opportunities.

Implications of Rural Poverty

Rural poverty has far-reaching implications. It not only affects the individuals living in these areas, but also has broader societal and economic impacts. It can lead to increased migration to urban areas, which can strain urban resources and contribute to urban poverty. Furthermore, it can perpetuate cycles of poverty, as children born into impoverished rural families often have limited opportunities to escape their circumstances.

Addressing rural poverty requires comprehensive, multi-pronged strategies. These could include improving access to education and healthcare, investing in rural infrastructure, and implementing policies to increase agricultural productivity. Additionally, empowering rural communities to participate in decision-making processes can help ensure that solutions are tailored to their specific needs and circumstances.

Rural poverty is a pressing issue that demands urgent attention. By understanding its causes and implications, and by implementing effective strategies to address it, we can strive towards a more equitable world where everyone, regardless of where they live, has the opportunity to thrive.

500 Words Essay on Rural Poverty

Rural poverty, a global phenomenon, is a complex issue that extends beyond the mere lack of financial resources. It is a multidimensional problem, encompassing not only economic aspects such as income and employment but also social factors such as education, health, and access to services.

The Scope of Rural Poverty

In developed countries, rural poverty is often associated with the decline of traditional industries such as farming, fishing, and mining. The rural poor in these countries often suffer from isolation, lack of infrastructure, and limited opportunities for non-agricultural employment.

Underlying Causes of Rural Poverty

At the heart of rural poverty are systemic issues such as unequal land distribution, weak rural institutions, and poor infrastructure. These factors limit the potential of the rural poor to improve their situation.

The Impact of Rural Poverty

The impacts of rural poverty are far-reaching and devastating. It not only affects individuals and families but also has broader implications for society and the economy.

Rural poverty contributes to food insecurity and malnutrition, as the poor often lack the resources to purchase or produce enough food. It also leads to poor health outcomes due to inadequate access to healthcare services and clean water. Furthermore, rural poverty perpetuates a cycle of poverty as it limits access to education, thereby reducing the opportunities for the next generation to escape poverty.

Furthermore, there is a need for policies that promote rural development and diversification of the rural economy. These could include measures to promote non-agricultural employment, improve access to credit and markets, and support the adoption of modern agricultural technologies.

Rural poverty is a complex issue that requires a nuanced understanding and a multifaceted approach. While the challenge is enormous, the potential for change is equally significant. By addressing the root causes of rural poverty, we can not only improve the lives of millions of people but also contribute to the broader goals of sustainable development and social justice.

That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.

Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .

Happy studying!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

To move the needle on ending extreme poverty, focus on rural areas

Subscribe to global connection, homi kharas , homi kharas senior fellow - global economy and development , center for sustainable development constanza di nucci , constanza di nucci senior adviser, strategy and knowledge department - ifad kristofer hamel , and kristofer hamel chief operating officer - world data lab baldwin tong baldwin tong research analyst - world data lab.

February 21, 2020

The considerable gains made worldwide in poverty reduction over the last 10 years have been widely recognized. And indeed, in a year when China aspires to complete its 40-year project of lifting some 770 million people across the poverty line, it is clear that a greater proportion of the human population is wealthier today than at any other moment in history.

But of course, further efforts are needed as today some 600 million people still live in extreme poverty , a number greater than the entire population of the European Union. In addition, in several countries, poverty is actually increasing , not decreasing, while in others, poverty levels are falling but not nearly fast enough to reach SDG1 by 2030. Thus, the year 2020 will not mark the end of the global fight against poverty. If anything, it can mark the beginning of a critical decade that will determine whether the global objective of eliminating poverty by 2030 will be reached or not.

A critical element for truly eradicating extreme poverty (meaning bringing it  below 3 percent of the population in each country—the tolerance level of our measurement systems) is understanding where poor people live and how to develop virtuous circles of market-led growth among cities, towns, and rural areas . It is surprising to us that there is no official cross-country dataset that distinguishes between urban and rural poverty. The World Bank only provides such a breakdown for China, India, and Indonesia. This poses a challenge for policymaking as poverty is such a geographically-specific phenomenon, with drivers—and potential solutions—of poverty alleviation dependent on the context that surrounds and connects communities and markets. Rural poverty often stems from limited access to markets, education, quality infrastructure, employment opportunities, health, and financial products. Urban poverty is often marred by weak or hazardous living conditions related to sanitation, employment, and personal security. Understanding the difference between the two is fundamental for a national poverty alleviation strategy.

Related Books

Lael Brainard, Abigail Jones, Nigel Purvis

July 15, 2009

William G. Gale, Janet Rothenberg Pack

July 1, 2001

July 30, 2002

Responding to this challenge, World Data Lab , with support from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), has developed new rural and urban poverty data for all countries in the world. With this data now made publicly available on the World Poverty Clock , (see methodology section on that website for details) policymakers have a point of departure for quantifying, forecasting, and analyzing rural/urban poverty dynamics. The headline findings from the new dataset are presented below.

Most of the world’s poorest live in rural areas. Roughly two out of three people living in extreme poverty live in rural settings. In total, some 400 million rural men and women live in extreme poverty, more than the populations of the United States and Canada combined. At the same time, roughly half that amount (approximately 200 million) live in cities.

Rural poverty is poised to decline, while urban poverty is likely to persist. According to the World Poverty Clock’s projections, rural poverty is expected to decline by 100 million (or 26 percent) from 395 million to 293 million over the next decade, largely due to economic growth and rural-urban migration that is reducing the absolute size of the rural population in many countries. Urban poverty on the other hand is not expected to decline very much (from 203 million today to 200 million), due to the expected increase in urbanization over the next decade, especially in Africa.

Figure 1. Rural poverty is expected to decline faster than urban poverty

Rural poverty is largely an African phenomenon. Seven out of 10 countries with the most people living in poverty in rural areas are in sub-Saharan Africa. Together they represent three-quarters (76 percent) of global rural poverty, or some 305 million people. While this number is expected to decline over the next decade to 245 million, Africa’s share of global rural poverty is also expected to increase to 85 percent by 2030. A handful of countries drive this forecast. If current trends continue and significant actions are not taken, Nigeria and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) may not make any gains in reducing rural poverty over the next decade. For instance, unless major actions are taken, projections indicate that rural poverty in Nigeria would increase by nearly 4 million people (7 percent) over the next 10 years. While we have previously reported Nigeria to be the country with the highest poverty numbers in the world , it is also one of the few places where poverty numbers are actually growing. Indeed, Nigeria tops the lists in terms of poverty numbers in both rural and urban areas.

Rural poverty reduction will have a number of success stories over the next decade. If they continue their rate of poverty reduction, several countries are expected to make significant progress before the end of the Sustainable Development Goals in 2030. Ethiopia is projected to lift nearly 16 million rural people out of poverty by 2030 while India is expected to reduce rural poverty by nearly 20 million. Projections also indicate that Tanzania and Uganda will reduce rural poverty by nearly 9 million, roughly halving their total current rural poverty levels. Indeed, the top 10 countries in terms of rural poverty in 2030 are still expected to include eight countries from sub-Saharan Africa.

Figure 2. Top 10 expected reductions in rural poverty, 2020-2030

Source: World Poverty Clock, World Data Lab

There remain methodological issues in refining numbers for rural and urban poverty and some assumptions need to be made to derive order-of-magnitude estimates. But without such data, national governments, as well as international organizations like the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD), are flying blind. We believe that they now can tailor their poverty reduction strategies and investments to take into account rural and urban differences, and can start to benchmark data against which to monitor progress. We believe that although the policy instruments for reducing poverty may differ in urban and rural areas, there are commonalities that link the two agendas. Stronger integration and connectivity between rural and urban markets can reduce migration flows to cities and improve income levels in rural areas. They can improve food and nutrition security and build resilience to climate shocks. Commodity supply chains and integrated food systems need to be developed, complemented with a broader view of spatial development and targeting of public interventions to specific areas that are being left furthest behind. This could help reduce both rural and urban poverty.

Note: For any questions on the methodology and underlying data models, please direct your requests to [email protected] .

Related Content

Homi Kharas

January 16, 2020

Jennifer L. Cohen, Raj M. Desai, Homi Kharas

September 24, 2019

Homi Kharas, Kristofer Hamel, Martin Hofer

June 19, 2018

Global Economy and Development

Addisu Lashitew, Tanner Methvin, Annika Surmeir

August 30, 2024

Cameron F. Kerry

August 29, 2024

Robin Brooks, Ben Harris

• Department of Economic and Social Affairs Social Inclusion
• Meet our Director
• Milestones for Inclusive Social Development.
• Second World Summit For Social Development 2025
• World Summit For Social Development 1995
• 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development
• Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)
• UN Common Agenda
• International Days
• International Years
• Social Media
• Second World Summit 2025
• World Summit 1995
• Social Development Issues
• Cooperatives
• Digital Inclusion
• Employment & Decent Work
• Indigenous Peoples
• Poverty Eradication
• Social Inclusion
• Social Protection
• Sport for Development & Peace
• Commission for Social Development (CSocD)
• Conference of States Parties to the CRPD (COSP)
• General Assembly Second Committee
• General Assembly Third Committee
• Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) on Ageing
• United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII)
• Publications
• World Social Report
• World Youth Report
• UN Flagship Report On Disability And Development
• State Of The World’s Indigenous Peoples
• Policy Briefs
• General Assembly Reports and Resolutions
• ECOSOC Reports and Resolutions
• UNPFII Recommendations Database
• Capacity Development
• Civil Society
• Expert Group Meetings

Reducing poverty and inequality in rural areas: key to inclusive development

Introduction

Extreme poverty is mainly a rural phenomenon. Four of every five people below the $1.90-a-day international income poverty line lived in rural areas in 2013 (Castañeda and others, 2018). Over the last decades, however, there has been tremendous progress in reducing rural poverty, partly as a result of successful policies promoting economic opportunities for the rural poor and expanding social protection in rural areas.

This progress has not been equitable across the board. The same economic forces that reduce poverty, including rural development and urbanization, can increase inequalities. Moreover, poverty is now rising due to the COVID-19 crisis. All evidence points to increasing inequality as well. The pandemic and subsequent lockdown measures have affected urban areas disproportionately but have had a substantial impact on rural residents. Travel and transport restrictions disrupt the livelihoods of the rural poor, many of whom depend on mobility, seasonal and migrant work and remittances. In some countries, there has been a massive return of migrants to rural areas, largely due to job loss.

This policy brief focuses on the linkages between poverty and inequality in rural areas. It illustrates that rural poverty and rural inequalities, although interlinked, follow different dynamics. The brief concludes by discussing policies that promote inclusive development in rural areas.

Rural development and poverty reduction

Poverty remains mainly a rural challenge: 80 per cent of people in poverty live in rural areas; many developing countries present a large size of rural population; 18 per cent of rural residents lived in extreme poverty in 2013, compared to around 5 per cent of urban residents (Castañeda and others, 2018). Much like national poverty rates, rural poverty rates are the highest in sub-Saharan Africa, where more than 50 per cent of the rural population live in extreme poverty in numerous countries (see map).

The situation of the rural poor is made worse by inadequate access to public services, infrastructure and social protection. The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded their already vulnerable position by reducing incomes, limiting mobility and undermining food security. Despite persistent rural disadvantage, poverty is declining faster in rural than in urban areas. A study of 19 countries with data shows that the rate of rural poverty reduction has been higher than that of urban poverty reduction in all countries but one. However, reaching the very poorest remains challenging. Over the past 30 years, developing countries have made little progress in raising the level of consumption of the poorest – they have been left behind (Ravallion, 2016a).

Rural development and inequalities

While the rate of poverty is higher in rural than in urban areas, income inequality is often lower in the former, since top incomes are mostly earned in cities. This is the case in 44 of the 56 countries for which rural and urban income inequality estimates (based on the Gini coefficient) are available. Despite differences in inequality levels, trends are qualitatively similar in urban and rural areas. The fact that inequality tends to move in the same direction in both rural and urban areas – at least in countries with data – is not surprising. At the national level, rural and urban areas share common institutions and development patterns. Rural development is thus affected by national and regional contexts, particularly linkages between urban and rural areas.

Aside from income inequality, there has been some reduction in rural-urban gaps in access to basic services and opportunities. On average, progress in secondary school attendance, the reduction of stunting and access to electricity has been somewhat faster in rural than in urban areas since the 1990s (United Nations, 2020). Nevertheless, even if the progress observed in these dimensions of well-being continues at the same pace, it will take more than four decades to close rural-urban gaps in these dimensions of opportunity (ibid.). That is, under a business- as-usual scenario, rural areas will still lag far behind urban areas by 2030.

Within rural areas, inequalities in basic markers of opportunity – such as child health and school attendance – remain high and are persistent for specific groups. As shown in the United Nations World Social Reports 2020 and 2021, wealthier rural households with a well-educated head are almost as well off as the average urban household, while rural households in the bottom wealth quintiles with an uneducated head are far worse off. For indigenous peoples and ethnic minority groups, the available evidence suggests that wealth and opportunity gaps between them and the ethnic majority are greater in rural than in urban areas. The overlay of gender with rural residence confers additional disadvantages to rural women, who face more obstacles to accessing education than rural men or women in urban areas and have lower levels of ownership and control of assets (including land), less access to paid employment and lower access to public services.

Reducing poverty and inequality in rural areas as complementary goals

Reductions in rural poverty have not always led to reductions in rural inequalities or in inequalities between rural and urban areas. The available data indicate that efforts to reduce rural poverty in the past did not always occur in tandem with efforts to reduce inequality. In China, India and Indonesia, for example, rural inequality increased or remained constant while rural poverty fell significantly between the 2000s and the 2010s.

Regional and time trends suggest that declines in inequality are not a systematic outcome of growth and development. The same economic forces that drive falling poverty can cause a rise in inequality within rural areas and between urban and rural areas. Agricultural development, a key driver of rural poverty reduction, can exacerbate rural inequality if those who are better off reap greater benefits from agricultural growth. Differences in the ability to take advantage of growth can arise from disparities among population groups in their access to resources such as land, education and labour markets. Inequality trends may also vary depending on the sector and nature of economic growth. Urbanization and diversification away from agriculture in developing countries, for instance, can concentrate economic returns in urban areas and wealthier households.

Persistent and growing inequality can be detrimental to growth and poverty reduction. In rural areas with high inequality, people in poverty – who are already disadvantaged in access to resources – benefit less from subsequent growth, or even from periods of agricultural expansion. Left unaddressed, challenges faced by the rural poor in trying to escape poverty and fulfil their potential ultimately lead to constraints on rural economic growth.

Inequalities and rural areas: which policies matter?

Most rural development strategies are designed to promote growth and reduce rural poverty. Few aim explicitly at reducing inequality (Ravallion, 2016b). Yet more equitable and inclusive rural development does not occur naturally or in isolation of wider national trends. It requires promoting access to quality education, health and other services as well as opportunities for decent work, especially for the rural poor. It also calls for building resilience to shocks, addressing the degradation of natural resources and reducing inequality of opportunity both within rural areas and between rural and urban areas. Inclusive rural development therefore requires both localized rural policies and action at the national level. The right mix of economic and social policies, both rural and national, can spur economic development while reducing poverty and inequality in rural areas. There are five broad policy lessons from countries that have succeeded in reducing both rural poverty and rural inequality.

• Invest in infrastructure and public services. Sustained investments in roads, electrification, improved sanitation, safe drinking water, education, health care and the bridging of the digital divide in rural areas will be required to eradicate extreme poverty and to close rural-urban disparities. Such investments must also address inequalities in access to public infrastructure and services within rural areas to ensure that no area or group of people are left behind.

• Promote inclusive agricultural development. Agricultural growth is estimated to be two to three times as effective in reducing poverty as growth in other sectors and benefits mainly the poorest in society (Christiaensen and Martin, 2018). The benefits of promoting inclusive agricultural development are both direct, through increased incomes and food security, and indirect, through increased investment in health and education.

• Ensure a fair distribution of and secure access to land and its natural resources. As populations and economies grow, and climate change affects natural resources, constraints on available land and natural resources may arise. Policy choices will influence whether this increased competition for resources leads to innovation and inclusive development or to degradation, scarcity and inequalities of access and control over these resources. A fair distribution is essential, regardless of whether tenure is based on individual or collective rights. Moreover, it is vital to ensure rural women’s equal access to land and natural resources and address discriminatory laws and practices that impede their rights in this regard.

• Improve social protection coverage in rural areas. Social protection coverage in rural areas is generally lower than in urban areas. Few social protection programmes are explicitly tailored to rural populations or take into account their specific circumstances. There are legal, administrative and financial barriers that must be addressed in order to increase coverage of social protection in rural areas (ILO and FAO, 2021). To overcome these structural barriers, legal frameworks can be adjusted – such as through modifying contributory schemes – to account for informal employment and other forms of employment common in rural areas; participation in contributory schemes can be improved through subsidies; and the hidden costs of participation in all forms of social protection can be lowered, for example by offering one-stop shop solutions, utilizing digital platforms and reducing administrative red tape.

• End all forms of discrimination. Discrimination remains a persistent driver of inequality. Because of the systematic exclusion of ethnic minorities, indigenous peoples, women and other groups, the benefits of rural growth are likely to be unevenly distributed, unless swift action is taken to promote their inclusion, including by addressing prejudice and discrimination.

Authors: Yern Fai Lee and Martijn Kind, Division for Inclusive Social Development, UN DESA. This Policy Brief is based on World Social Report 2021: Reconsidering Rural Development, available at  http://www.bit.ly/wsr2021

• Search Search

Rural Poverty: Research and Policy for U.S. Families

• First Online: 07 March 2020

Cite this chapter

• Ann R. Tickamyer 7  

Part of the book series: National Symposium on Family Issues ((NSFI,volume 10))

650 Accesses

3 Citations

The depth and breadth of rural poverty in the United States have been recognized but misunderstood and neglected for as long as poverty statistics have been collected. Over 50 years ago a government commission on The People Left Behind examined issues of the severity of rural poverty and issued recommendations for actions to counter it. Yet, half a century later many of the problems remain, and the policies for addressing them are still relevant but unrealized. In the current time of social and political polarization that appears to partly reflect a rural and urban divide, there has been new attention to the causes and consequences of economic distress among rural families and communities. However, the issues remain under-examined and relatively obscure for scholars, policy makers, and the public. This chapter examines the depth, extent, forms, and locations of rural poverty; its social and geographic diversity; its causes and correlates; reasons for neglect; and obstacles to designing policies and programs to address rural poverty and economic distress. The chapter concludes with suggestions for moving a rural poverty research and policy agenda forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Climbing up the Ladder and Watching Out for the Fall: Poverty Dynamics in Rural Bangladesh

Why is Poverty Higher in Rural America According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure? An Investigation of the Geographic Adjustment

Bringing Context to Poverty in Rural Rwanda: Added Value and Challenges of Mixed Methods Approaches

Alexander, J. T., Andersen, R., Cookson, P. W., Jr., Edin, K., Fisher, J., Grusky, D. B., … Varner, C. (2017). A qualitative census of rural and urban poverty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 (1), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217714156

Article   Google Scholar  

Biddle, C., & Mette, I. (2017). Education and information. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 322–338). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Google Scholar  

Billings, D. B., & Blee, K. M. (2000). The road to poverty: The making of wealth and hardship in Appalachia . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Billings, D. B., & Tickamyer, A. R. (1993). Uneven development in Appalachia. In T. Lyson & W. Falk (Eds.), Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America (pp. 7–29). Lawrence, KS: Kansas University Press.

Bishaw, A., & Posey, K. G. (2016). Comparison of rural and urban America: Household income and poverty. Census Blogs . Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/12/a_comparison_of_rura.html

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. American Economic Review, 106 (4), 855–902.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014, November). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 , 1553–1623.

Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Massey, D. S. (2008). Neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency: A reconsideration of the moving to opportunity experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 114 (1), 107–143.

Clark, W. A. V. (2008). Reexamining the Moving to Opportunity study and its contribution to changing the distribution of poverty and ethnic concentration. Demography, 45 (3), 515–535.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Duncan, C. M. (2014). Worlds apart: Poverty and politics in rural America (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Edin, K., & Schaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a day: Living on almost nothing in America . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Falk, W. W., Schulman, M. D., & Tickamyer, A. R. (2003). Communities of work: Rural restructuring in local and global contexts . Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2018). 2018 Broadband deployment report .Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2018-broadband-deployment-report

Fisher, G. M. (1992). The development and history of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 55 (4), 3–14. Retrieved from http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/fisheronpoverty.html

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fisher, G. M. (2008). Remembering Mollie Orshansky—The developer of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 68 (3). Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n3/v68n3p79.html

Fitchen, J. (1995). Spatial redistribution of poverty through migration of poor people to depressed rural communities. Rural Sociology, 60 (2), 181–201.

Fox, L. (2017). The supplemental poverty measure: 2016 (Report No. P60-261). U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.html

Green, G. P. (2017). The opportunities and limits of economic growth. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 416–438). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Harvey, M. (2011). Welfare reform and household survival: The interaction of structure and network in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Journal of Poverty, 15 (1), 43–64.

Harvey, M. (2017). Racial inequalities and poverty in rural America. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 141–162). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Housing Assistance Council. (2012). Taking stock: Rural people, poverty, and housing in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/ts2010/ts_full_report.pdf

Jensen, L., & Ely, D. (2017). Measures of poverty and implications for portraits of rural hardship. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 67–83). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Jensen, L., & Jensen, E. B. (2011). Employment hardship among rural men. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 40–59). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Johnson, K. (2017). Where is rural America and who lives there? In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 3–27). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Krause, E., & Reeves, R. V. (2017). Rural dreams: Upward mobility in America’s countryside . Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/es_20170905_ruralmobility.pdf

Lewis, O. (1959). Five families: Mexican case studies in the culture of poverty . New York: Basic Books.

Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 215 (4), 19–25.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lichter, D. T. (2018, March 21). The demography of rural poverty since the people left behind . Washington, DC: Presentation at the Rural Policy Research Institute 2018 Rural Poverty Research Conference.

Lichter, D. T., & Jensen, L. (2002). Rural America in transition: Poverty and welfare at the turn of the 21st century. In B. A. Weber, G. J. Duncan, & L. A. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 77–112). Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lichter, D. T., & Ziliak, J. P. (2017, July). The rural-urban interface: New patterns of spatial interdependence and inequality in America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 , 6–25.

Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J. R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2013). Long-term neighborhood effects on low-income families: Evidence from moving to opportunity. American Economic Review, 103 (3), 226–231.

Lyson, T. A., & Falk, W. W. (Eds.). (1993). Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Maldonado, L. C., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2015). Family policies and single parent poverty in 18 OECD countries, 1978–2008. Community, Work & Family, 18 (4), 395–415.

Neumark, D., & Simpson, H. (2014). Place-based policies (Working Paper 20049). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20049 .

Nolan, L., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2017). Long-term trends in rural and urban poverty: New insights using a historical supplemental poverty measure. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 (1), 123–142.

Partridge, M. D., & Rickman, D. S. (2008). Place-based policy and rural poverty: Insights from the urban spatial mismatch literature. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1 (1), 131–156.

Pickering, K., Harvey, M. H., Summers, G. F., & Mushinski, D. (2006). Welfare reform in persistent rural poverty: Dreams, disenchantments and diversity . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

President’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. (1967). The people left behind . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED016543.pdf

Reimer, B., & Markey, S. (2008). Place-based policy: A rural perspective . Canada: Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Retrieved from https://www.crcresearch.org/files-crcresearch_v2/ReimerMarkeyRuralPlaceBasedPolicySummaryPaper20081107.pdf

Rose, M., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Framing the poor: Media coverage and U.S. poverty policy, 1960–2008. Policy Studies Journal, 41 , 22–53.

Rural Sociological Society (RSS) Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. (1993). Persistent poverty in rural America . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schott, L., Pavetti, L., & Floyd, I. (2015). How states use federal and state funds under the TANF block grant . Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/how-states-use-federal-and-state-funds-under-the-tanf-block-grant

Schram, S. E., Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Houser, L. (2009). Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74 (3), 398–422.

Sherman, J. (2009a). Bend to avoid breaking: Job loss, gender norms, and family stability in rural America. Social Problems, 56 (4), 599–620.

Sherman, J. (2009b). Those who work, those who don’t: Poverty, morality, and family in rural America . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Sherman, J. (2017). Rural poverty and symbolic capital: A tale of two valleys. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 205–230). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Slack, T., Thiede, B., & Jensen, L. (2018, March). Race, residence and underemployment: 50 Years in comparative perspective, 1964–2017 . Presented at RUPRI conference: Rural Poverty, Fifty Years After The People Left Behind—A Research Conference. Looking Backward and Forward, Washington, DC. www.rupri.org/wp-content/uploads/slack-thiede-and-jensen.-RACE-RESIDENCE-AND-UNDEREMPLOYMENT-50-YEARS-IN-COMPARATIVE-PERSPECTIVE-1964-2017-.pdf

Smith, K. E. (2011). Changing roles: Women and work in rural America. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being (pp. 60–81). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Smith, K. E. (2017). Changing gender roles and rural poverty. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Smith, K. E., & Tickamyer, A. R. (Eds.). (2011). Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Thiede, B., & Slack, T. (2017). The o ld versus the n ew economies and their impacts. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 231–249). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Tickamyer, A. R. (2006). Rural poverty. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 411–426). London: Sage Publications.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Henderson, D. A. (2010). Devolution, social exclusion, and spatial inequality in U.S. welfare provision. In P. Milbourne (Ed.), Welfare reform in rural places: Comparative perspectives, research in rural sociology and development (Vol. Vol. 15, pp. 41–59). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Henderson, D. A. (2011). Livelihood practices in the shadow of welfare reform. In K. Smith & A. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 294–319). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Tickamyer, A. R., Henderson, D. A., White, J. A., & Tadlock, B. (2000). Voices of welfare reform: Bureaucratic rationality vs. participant perceptions. Affilia, 15 (2), 173–192.

Tickamyer, A. R., Sherman, J., & Warlick, J. (Eds.). (2017). Rural poverty in the United States . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Smith, K. E. (2011). Conclusions. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 226–346). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Tickamyer, A. R., White, J., Tadlock, B., & Henderson, D. (2007). Spatial politics of public policy. In L. Lobao, G. Hooks, & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), The sociology of spatial inequality (pp. 113–139). New York, NY: SUNY.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Wornell, E. J. (2017). How to explain poverty? In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 84–114). New York, NY: Columbia University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-a). Comparison of rural and urban poverty rates using official (OPM) and supplemental poverty measures (SPM), 2013 . Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=82270

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-b). Rural poverty & well-being . Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-c). Rural-urban continuum codes . Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-d). What is rural ? Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural.aspx

Warlick, J. (2017). The safety net in rural America. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 389–415). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Weber, B., Duncan, G., & Whitener, L. (Eds.). (2002). Rural dimensions of welfare reform . Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.

Weber, B., Fannin, J. M., Miller, K., & Goetz, S. (2018, June). Intergenerational mobility of low-income youth in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan America: A spatial analysis. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 10 , 87–101.

Weber, B., Farrigan, T., Glasmeier, A., & Gagin, C. (2018, March). Rural poverty fifty years after The People Left Beind: An unfinished legacy [PowerPoint slides]. Presented at RUPRI conference: Rural poverty, fifty years after The People Left Behind —A research conference. Looking backward and forward, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.rupri.org/wp-content/uploads/Overview_Unfinished_Legacy.final_.pptx

Weber, B., & Miller, K. (2017). Poverty in rural America then and now. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 84–114). New York, NY: Columbia University.

White, J., Tickamyer, A. R., Henderson, D., & Tadlock, B. (2003). Does Welfare-to-Work work? Rural employers comment. In W. W. Falk, M. D. Schulman, & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Communities of work: Rural restructuring in local and global context (pp. 240–264). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Widerquist, K. (2005). A failure to communicate: What (if anything) can we learn from the negative income tax experiments? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34 (1), 49–81.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, W. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ziliak, J. P. (2019). Economic change and the social safety net: Are rural Americans still behind? (Working paper). Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/working-papers/economic-change-and-the-social-safety-net-are-rural-americans-still-behind/

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Multistate Research Project PEN04623 (Accession#1013257): Social, economic and environmental causes and consequences of demographic change in rural America .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Ann R. Tickamyer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann R. Tickamyer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Population Research Institute, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Jennifer E. Glick

Social Science Research Institute, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Susan M. McHale

Department of Sociology, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Valarie King

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Tickamyer, A.R. (2020). Rural Poverty: Research and Policy for U.S. Families. In: Glick, J., McHale, S., King, V. (eds) Rural Families and Communities in the United States. National Symposium on Family Issues, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37689-5_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37689-5_1

Published : 07 March 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-37688-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-37689-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research