Introduction

In 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson declared a "War on Poverty." At that time, scholars and public officials were confident that poverty in the United States could largely be eliminated by the beginning of the twenty-first century (Ropers 1991). After the country had emerged from the Great Depression and two world wars, it was believed that the booming productivity of American industry and rapid developments in science and technology, with help from carefully implemented social programs, would result in an affluence that would reach all Americans. In his much acclaimed book The Affluent Society, the well-known economist John Kenneth Galbraith (1958) wrote that widespread poverty would soon largely be a thing of the past, and that only "pockets" of poverty would remain.

Nearly four decades later, in 2003, the number of Americans living in poverty¹ (35.9 million) surpassed the number living in poverty in 1965 (33.2 million). Obviously, poverty has proven to be much more persistent and entrenched than once believed. Over the past four decades, a variety of social programs intended to reduce poverty have been implemented, adjusted, and sometimes discarded when they were felt to be ineffective. Economic trickle-down theories and a variety of affirmative actions programs have been tried. Yet poverty remains (Haveman 1994). Since the 1960s, there has been considerable economic growth in the United States, and average incomes, even in constant dollars have increased significantly. However, the incomes of households at the bottom of the economic latter have grown very little, while the incomes of those at the top have grown substantially. Thus, the gap between the economic well-being of the affluent and those in poverty has greatly increased. Although an extensive amount of research has been conducted, it is apparent that our understanding of the causes of poverty is insufficient, and at least partly as a result, policy efforts have been inadequate.

While individuals who aid persons living in poverty and those who seek to understand poverty are engaged in a noble effort, living in poverty is anything but noble. The toll of poverty on the lives of individuals and the adverse consequences for communities is extensive. First, persons in poverty live shorter lives, have higher infant mortality rates and experience more health problems than persons who are not in poverty. This is largely a consequence of the poor eating a less nutritious diet and having limited access to medical care (Wolfe 1994). Persons in poverty face major economic constraints when attempting to purchase nutritious food and attempting to obtain adequate health care. Further, the poor are much less likely than other Americans to have health insurance which could help make medical care more affordable (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004).

Second, children growing up in poverty have significantly fewer educational opportunities than children from more affluent families (Murnane 1994). Persons in poverty often live in low-income neighborhoods and communities. Since public schools are heavily dependent on local property taxes, the result is that schools in low-income neighborhoods and communities are typically inadequate and under-funded and often fail to prepare or motivate students for either a college education or the job market. Further, the greatly increased cost of college education provides major obstacles to young people from low-income families. Thus, children growing up in poverty are less likely than others to graduate from high school and less likely to attend and complete college (Murnane 1994). From an inter-generational perspective, limited education often means limited employment opportunities, which then puts the next-generation family in a position where the educational opportunities of their children are subsequently limited, and the cycle continues (Gottschalk et al. 1994; Haveman et al. 2001).

In addition to the health and education costs of poverty, young girls growing up in poverty are more likely than other girls to become pregnant as teenagers, while young boys growing up in poverty are more likely than other boys to be in trouble with the law (Wu and Wolfe 2001). Finally, many of the costs of poverty are psychological. Living in poverty means living with constant fear and stress. The stress of wondering how next months rent and utility bills will be paid is staggering. The costs associated with feelings of inferiority when interacting with others is incalculable. In general, positions in the status hierarchy are strongly related to opportunities and obstacles, and these opportunities and obstacles are often a result of ascribed characteristics. Thus, life chances are largely determined by one's birth rather than by one's ability or effort (Duncan and Tickamyer 1988; Lichter and Eggebeen 1992; Lichter and McLaughlin 1995; Wilson 1987). The extensive levels of poverty and the subsequent inequality that exists in the United States, especially considering the cross-generational nature of this poverty and inequality, raise important questions of social justice.

In a society of tremendous wealth, such as the United States, there are additional unique problems associated with inequality that go beyond poverty. First, those with greater wealth typically have greater power and can generally assert their political will. Meanwhile the voices of the poor are seldom heard. Further, inequality results in a poverty of dignity, where those with less wealth generally feel less worthy. Frustration and anger are common results of this poverty of dignity.

Even the wealthiest members of our society pay costs that result from poverty (Danziger et al. 1994). Poverty rates in a community are positively associated with crime rates in that community. The financial costs from criminal damage and from the police, court, and prison system are immense. Further, the fear of crime is one of the major concerns of Americans and detracts significantly from the quality of life. As noted earlier, poverty reduces educational opportunities, which subsequently reduces worker productivity. As a result, ownership and management suffer. Medical treatment for poor people who lack health insurance is often passed on to the general public.

The primary focus of this paper will be on nonmetropolitan counties in the United States. While the causes and consequences of poverty in metro and nonmetro areas are very similar, there are unique differences. First, the job structure of nonmetro communities is significantly different from the job structure in metro communities. Nonmetro communities are much more dependent on agricultural and natural resource based jobs, are much more likely to be dependent on a single industry, and many of the jobs at the top of the employment structure are simply missing in nonmetro communities (Tigges and Tootle 1990). Further, nonmetro communities face unique obstacles in implementing programs to reduce poverty. It is hoped that this paper will help stimulate a discussion of research and policy issues and concerns that will result in policies and programs that will have a significant positive impact on this critical social issue.

The paper continues by providing an overview of trends in and the correlates of poverty. Some of the major theoretical efforts to understand poverty are then examined. Societal trends likely to impact levels of poverty and inequality in the future are then examined. Finally, suggestion for community leaders and practitioners at the local level for dealing with poverty are provided.

____________________

FOOTNOTE

¹The Census Bureau uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by household size and composition to determine who is in poverty. In 2003, average poverty thresholds varied from $9,393 for a one person household, to $37,656 for a household of nine or more persons. If a household's total income is less than that household's threshold, then that household and every individual in it is considered in poverty. Poverty thresholds are updated annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index (DeNavas-Walt et al. 2004). A variety of alternative poverty measures have been developed that consider the availability of other resources and costs for the household. For example, some measures exclude taxes and work-related expenses such as transportation and child care from household income (Dalaker 2005). While these alternative measures perhaps reflect the reality of conditions that households face, this paper will be based on the traditional measure because it will allow direct comparisons with other studies.

BACK       NEXT