Schmidt, Frederick E.

English

Research Papers in Economics

IMPLICATIONS  OF DEMOGRAPHIC  CHANGE  FOR
RURAL  COMMUNITIES
Frederick E. Schmidt
University of Vermont
Demographic  concepts,  historically  relegated  to the  academy,  are
enjoying  a  newfound  popularity.  Buoyed  by  the  best-selling  Mega-
trends, pushed by the private sector (as evidenced  in Dow Jones' pur-
chase  of the  trendy American Demographics), and  sustained  by  the
appeal of catchy phrases - the rural renaissance, baby boomers, chil-
dren of the echo, Yuppies,  Guppies, et.  al. - the implications of these
demographic  foci are eagerly sought by nearly everyone.
Demographics  and Rural Community  Policy
Much  useful  information  for  those  concerned  with  rural  policy  is
drawn from the most simple, basic areas of demographic analysis:  pop-
ulation totals,  density, household  composition,  birth and death mea-
sures.  Other  useful  indicators  include  sex,  age,  ethnicity,  and  the
indicators of socioeconomic status [10, p. 2; 3]. Megatrends  readers will
certainly recognize these fundamental  demographic  indicators as they
underpin  many of institutional  trends Naisbitt  describes  at national
and regional  levels.
While  this  list  seems  reasonably  straightforward,  policy  impact
analysis  requires careful  attention  to the  form one  uses to express  a
given  demographic  indicator.  In work with rural  policy activists,  the
following operations are essential:  1. specification  of aggregation  level,
2.  introduction of multiple data points to yield measures amenable to
the  calculation  of change,  and  3.  elaboration  of absolute  figures  to
create ratios or percents in order to compare one place with another.
No single indicator has the power of that most basic of demographic
indicators,  total population.  A  total population  count  - a  key  com-
ponent  in the  very definition  of a rural  community  (a matter  of no
small policy import in itself) - provides  a fundamental  indication  of
local need, or, from  a private sector perspective,  the ceiling  on volume
of sales - mouths to feed, bodies to cloth, residents to house. Indicators
of changes in basic population, be they increases or decreases, provide
policy planners  with the information  necessary to  align utilities,  an-
ticipate  traffic demands,  zone, apply for state  and federal aid,  etc.
24The relationship  of base  population  to the  areal  properties  of that
particular  global niche  in which  a community  finds itself is yet one
more fundamental element in the definition of rural. Simply, the sparsity
or density of the population per square mile lends the policy formulator
insight into the configuration  of the  program  recipient's location.  By
definition,  we  anticipate  great  differences  between  urban  and  rural
communities in population  per square mile. In fact,  it is this "friction
of  space"  issue  that has  led  a generation  of rural  activists  to  point
directly  to  federal  inequity  in the  per  capita  allocation  of program
dollars  in rural,  as  contrasted  with  urban,  areas.  Many  argue  that
equitable  distribution  of program  dollars  will  require  greater  rural
per capita outlays in order to compensate for delivery and access charges.
Such  positions belie  the fact that within the  rural  sector, great  vari-
ations in the spatial distribution  of population require community  spe-
cific  strategies.  Consider  variations  in Vermont  towns alone,  where,
in  some cases,  75  percent of a rural  population  live  within  walking
distance  of a town commons,  and yet adjacent communities may have
up to 75 percent of their population  in an open country residence  pat-
tern.  Distinctions  within  the  more  densely  populated rural  areas  of
New  England  pale  when contrasts  are drawn  to the  big sky country
of the northern Rockies or the concentrated residential clusters within
isolated  open country typical  of Indian reservations.
Changes  in  family  or  household  composition  will provide  critical
information  for rural community policymakers  as  well.  Cal Beal has
pointed  out that household  size,  in both rural and  urban areas,  has
declined for many years [1]. The creation of new, nontraditional house-
holds and of one-parent-family  households - which  are typically rather
small in size  - suggest  some  dramatic changes  in consumption  pat-
terns as well  as forcing  many traditional  family  service providers  to
rethink their service package.
Critical indicators, which serve to qualify simple indications of com-
munity population change, are provided by birth, death, and migration
measures.  High birth rates will suggest the increasing  needs of a so-
called "dependent" population; those  residents too young to be part of
the  labor  force.  Such  crude  indicators  suggest  to  the  policymakers
changing institutional demands such as day care, school expansion, or
renewed concerns for public recreation facilities.  Of late, employment
for teens  in the  summer  has  been  a major urban political  issue  and
there  is  no  reason  to  assume  that such  programmatic  struggles  are
limited to urban policymakers.
These observations  regarding community  impacts for  the basic de-
mographic trends certainly suggest that we may profitably pursue the
likely  impacts  of the  other  key  concepts  suggested  above  (age,  sex,
ethnicity, and socioeconomic  status). Several good sources toward this
end are presented in the bibliography.  However, there  is much more
here than meets the eye. It would be misleading to suggest that simply
25a concern for the form in which demographic  data is expressed  solves
all  the  problems  in  seeking  the  meaningful  application  of national
trends to rural communities.
Obstacles  to Use  of Demographics  in Rural Community Policy
At the very  outset of this consideration  of obstacles to analysis, re-
call the  point made  several times  in the examples  above:  While na-
tional trends will not necessarily be evident in any given rural  community,
critical  impacting trends discovered in one community will rarely serve
to characterize  events in other rural  communities. Consider, for exam-
ple,  the  much  ballyhooed  rural  renaissance,  discovered  and  docu-
mented by Cal Beale. Despite the major significance  of this finding (it
made its way  into Naisbitt's  Megatrends), it hardly characterized  all
rural communities. But it did characterize the United States and was
used by Naisbitt as one  major trend to document  his emphasis  upon
the growing importance of decentralized organization. Three other ob-
stacles stand in the way of the would-be rural community  impact an-
alyst.
One  is the danger inherent  in using data collected at a community
level to describe properties of individuals within the community. This
was identified  some 35 years ago as the ecological  fallacy [8].  Simply,
most  demographic  indicators  are  percentages  or  ratios,  descriptive
properties  of groups,  not of individuals.  Most of the data utilized  for
community demographic analysis comes from the United States census
which  often uses the small rural community  as the smallest common
denominator  in its work. Descriptive  community  characteristics,  e.g.
a high percentage  of inadequate  housing,  cannot be directly  assigned
to  a given neighborhood  or identifiable  subgroup (such  as some resi-
dent ethnic group)  without field level confirmation.
Similarly,  many  trends  of a regional  or national  level  have  abso-
lutely no  meaning  at a local  level.  National data depicting  dramatic
reduction  in  illiteracy,  for example,  need local  confirmation  before  they
can be  accepted  by  specific community  policy  activists.  This problem
in  data reduction  to  a local  level  often  belies  ongoing  issues  in  the
rural pockets  of this  society.  While  national  and  regional  media  are
so persuasive,  rapid,  and reasonably  accurate  in informing  us of na-
tional events,  they are rarely,  if ever,  useful in informing us of what
is  happening  locally.  A  wide variety  of social  ills,  for which specific
policy  stimulated  programs  have  emerged,  bear local  monitoring to
adequately assess  impact.
And finally, demographic concepts occasionally simply mask critical
differences  in human experience.  One illustration occurred recently in
a housing  market study  we conducted.  We began  field  work  seeking
to identify  low- and moderate-income  elderly persons willing to move
to a public project. We began the effort with a "pool" of more than 400,
an estimate  we had drawn for this rural town from  census materials.
26It rapidly became  clear that the  life style  of those  low-income  rural
elderly was  quite different  from that of those  who currently  lived  in
the village.  The latter were typically proper,  small-town,  socially-ori-
ented widows  and the former tended to be more earthy, independent,
and  iconoclastic  country folks.  A melding  of representatives  of these
two groups,  emerging from the same  town level demographic  profile,
in the context of a small, 16-to-24-unit  senior home,  seemed likely to
present an unworkable tenant arrangement despite the best intentions
of the local  policy and program advocates.
Conclusions:  The Larger Issues
Despite  the  obstacles  that  face  those  involved  in  bringing  demo-
graphic and other socioeconomic  and political indicators into the policy
and program arena, I don't want to leave the impression that the effort
should be abandoned.  Quite the opposite.  The fact is that the prevail-
ing intellectual  condition of this society is one of profound  ignorance.
In an address  several years  ago to the  American  Association  for the
Advancement  of Science,  Dr.  Lewis  Thomas  called  attention  to this
situation  by  characterizing  Americans  as,  "....profoundly  ignorant
about how we work, about where we fit in, and, most of all, about the
enormous,  imponderable  system of life in which we  are embedded as
working parts"  [3,  p. 45].  Most of us here today are convened because
we  have  chosen  a course  of action  that  attempts  to  fill  the  void  of
public  information  about  critical  economic,  social,  and political  con-
ditions in which  we are "embedded  as working parts."
Sadly,  at the  community  level  of policy  formation  and  implemen-
tation, potential  information  consumers demonstrate  a marked anti-
data orientation.  In Vermont towns, I have been informed that I could
never  capture  the  essence  of the  local  community  through  a  set  of
social  and economic indices.  "Don't dazzle us with numbers,"  is a pre-
vailing anti-research  orientation.  Currently,  little information  is uti-
lized to:  1. establish local need, 2. assign policy and program priorities,
and,  most critically,  3.  evaluate  the  impact of given programs  upon
the needs  they are  designed  to address by  utilizing  measurement  of
local need  before and after policy implementation.
In our work  we must seek to  address this local ignorance.  And one
key way to do it is to  lay the challenge  of such research  more clearly
on the  doorstep  of local  community  leaders.  We must share  more  of
our data collecting techniques and less of our data in an effort to more
closely involve local activists in the process. Just as we would advocate
community  autonomy  and participation  in appropriate  local decision
making, so too, this involvement must stress greater accountablity for
what is happening locally.
In concluding,  I am reminded of a tale from T. H. White's treatment
of Camelot  wherein  Merlyn  advises  a  despondent  young  Prince  Ar-
thur, "The best thing for being sad is to learn something.  Learn why
27the  world wags  and what  wags  it. That is  the only  thing which the
mind can  never exhaust, never alienate,  never  be tortured  by, never
fear  or distrust,  and  never  dream  of regretting"  [12,  p.  185].  Those
engaged in promoting  rural community  analysis of demographic  trends
and their policy impact may draw cheer  from Merlyn's  advice.
REFERENCES
[1]  Beale, Calvin  L. "Six Demographic  Surprises." Unpublished  paper, USDA ERS, 1982.
[2]  Beale, Calvin L. and Glenn V. Fugitt. "Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Growth Differentials
in the United States Since 1980." Paper presented at the General Conference of the International
Union for the Scientific Study of Population, Florence,  Italy, June 1985.
[3]  Bernstein, Jeremy. "Profiles:  Biology Watcher."  The New Yorker, Jan. 2,  1978, pp.27-46.
[4]  Butler,  Lorna  Michael.  "Population  Change:  Do You Know  the Trends in Your  Community?"
Coping with Growth. Western Rural Development  Center, No. 45, Oregon State University,  1980.
[5]  Dillman,  Don  A. and  Daryl J. Hobbs. Rural Society in the U.S., Issues for the 1980s. Boulder
CO:  Westview  Press, Inc.,  1982.
[61  Elo, Irma T. and  Calvin L. Beale. Natural Resources and Rural Poverty: An Overview. Wash-
ington  DC: Rural Development, Poverty,  and Natural  Resources Workshop Paper,  National Cen-
ter for Food and Agricultural  Policy, Resources  for the Future,  Inc.,  1983.
[7]  Florea, Bruce. "The Public Policy Process: Its Role in Community Growth."  Coping with Growth.
Western  Rural  Development  Center,  No. 23,  Oregon State University,  1979.
[8]  Naisbitt, John. Megatrends. New York  NY: Warner  Books, 1982.
[9]  Robinson, W.S.  "Ecological  Correlations  and the Behavior  of Individuals." American Sociolog-
ical Review. 15(1950):351-357.
[10]  Schmidt, Frederick  E.  "Recent  Demographic Changes  and Their Implications  for Local Initia-
tives." Local Initiatives in Rural Communities, How to  Do It Ourselves.  Winooski  VT:  Saint
Michael's College,  1984.
[11]  Schmidt,  Frederick  E.  and Barbara  L. Haslam.  Key Indicators  for Planning  Economic Devel-
opment and Expansion Activities. Burlington  VT: Center  for Rural  Studies,  University of Ver-
mont,  1983.
[121  White, T.H.  The Once and Future King. Berkeley  CA: Berkeley  Publishing Corp.,  1958.
28

Ecological Correlations and the Behavior of Individuals.&quot;

Key Indicators for Planning Economic Development and Expansion Activities. Burlington VT:

Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Growth Differentials in the United States Since

Population Change: Do You Know the Trends in Your Community?&quot; Coping with Growth.

Profiles: Biology Watcher.&quot; The

Recent Demographic Changes and Their Implications for Local Initiatives.&quot; Local Initiatives in Rural Communities, How to Do It Ourselves. Winooski VT: Saint Michael's College,

Rural Society in the U.S., Issues for the 1980s. Boulder CO:

Six Demographic Surprises.&quot; Unpublished paper, USDA ERS,

The Public Policy Process: Its Role in Community Growth.&quot; Coping with Growth.

IMPLICATIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

IMPLICATIONS OF DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGE FOR RURAL COMMUNITIES

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Research Papers in Economics