The Demography of Rural America Lszl J. Kulcsr The Pennsylvania - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

The Demography of Rural America

László J. Kulcsár

The Pennsylvania State University

Global urbanization trends

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Percent urban

World MDRs LDRs

The global crossover United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision

The rural narrative

• Until the 1970s, rural places were population reserves, with

persistent outmigration and predictable, high fertility

• The nonmetropolitan turnaround
• Changes in residential preferences
• Rural economic diversification
• Demographic fluctuation and diverging pathways since the

1980s

• Economic prosperity and demographic trends no longer go hand in

hand (agricultural dependence)

• Natural amenities have become more important
• Proximity to urban is crucial
• Many narratives

The rural narrative

• Rural as a social construct (mostly

from an urban perspective)

• From production to consumption
• The rural mystique
• Rural is not a place anymore, but a

lifestyle (for better of for worse)

US population, 1900-2010 (1000s)

50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 Metropolitan Nonmetropolitan

United States Bureau of Census

US population distribution, 1900-2010, %

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 metro core nonmetro suburb

United States Bureau of Census

Urban reclassification

• Nonmetropolitan

population was 46 million in 2016, an all- time low

• A lot of this erosion is

due to reclassification

• A net loss of 4.9

million people in 2013

Population change, 2000-2010

Percent population change in rural America

4.8 1.7 2.9 4.2 13.6 2.7 10.3 4.8

• 5.1
• 11.1
• 12.5
• 5.8

7.4

• 2.8

6.9 2.5 9.9 12.8 15.4 10 6.1 5.4 3.4 2.3

• 15
• 10
• 5

5 10 15 20 1930-40 1940-50 1950-60 1960-70 1970-80 1980-90 1990-2000 2000-2010 Population change Net migration Natural increase

United States Bureau of Census

Total fertility rates, 1950-2015

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 2.8 3 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4

1950-55 1955-60 1960-65 1965-70 1970-75 1975-80 1980-85 1985-90 1990-95 1995-00 2000-05 2005-10 2010-15

Japan Bulgaria Germany USA

United Nations, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division (2019). World Population Prospects: The 2019 Revision

Fertility decline, 2007-2017

2.21 2.1 1.95 1.71

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4

Nonmetro Large metro Total fertility rates by place

2007 2017 2.09 3.21 1.91 2.32

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

NH White Hispanic Total fertility rates by race, rural only

2007 2017

NCHS, National Vital Statistics System, 2007–2017.

Mortality

• The national mortality stagnation and persistent rural mortality /

morbidity disadvantage are exacerbated by the recent “deaths of despair”

Monnat, 2017

Cowley County, KS Sedgwick County, KS

Net migration rates by age

Finney County, KS

1980s and 1990s 2000s The Christmas fire, 2000

Population change, 1900-2010

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Seward County Smith County

Median age and projected age structure in Smith County, KS

25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50

1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

US Smith

Age structure, Smith County, 2030

• 200
• 150
• 100
• 50

50 100 150 200 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45-49 50-54 55-59 60-64 65-69 70-74 75-79 80-84 85+ female male

Rural depopulation

Depopulation

Economic change (labor displacement) Persistent net

• ut-migration of

young adults Distorted age structure and fertility decline Age transition Urban preference Changes in family formation Mortality and morbidity disadvantage

The vicious cycle

Population loss Loss of consumers Loss of businesses Loss of revenues Loss of services

More on the Great Recession

• 2.2

2.4 5.6 7.4

• 1.8
• 0.4

1.7 6.3

• 4
• 2

2 4 6 8 NM Manufacturing NM Recreation Metro

% population change

2001-08 2010-17 NM Farming

Conclusions I.

• Demographic trends will not change overnight
• Demography is almost destiny, but not quite
• Rural fertility
• Family formation norms will continue to follow the national trends
• Aging in place will continue to remove reproductive capacity
• Hispanic fertility will remain the key
• Mortality
• Long-term, structural disadvantages are unlikely to change
• New problems (opioids) disproportionately affect rural areas and

populations

• Migration
• Age-selective outmigration removes the most resourceful segment
• Specific local conditions can create favorable environments for in-

migration (natural amenities, proximity to metro, regional centers)

Conclusions II.

• Rural America has been facing more difficulties for several reasons
• Greater concentration of vulnerable populations (morbidity challenges,

aging in place)

• Less diversified economies
• Weaker institutions
• Persistent revenue and service deficiencies
• Most of rural America will see more of the same, as the

disadvantages are structural and (just like demography) change slowly over time

• Potential policy actions (Johnson and Lichter, 2019)
• Economic growth centers (either regional urban or well-performing rural)
• Boosting immigration and then integration
• No matter what, always keep the narrative in sight, as in our post-

truth world, the ultimate political decisions are often based on emotions and partisan agendas instead of facts and science

Thank you.