WP 04-09: On the Empirical Finding of a Higher Risk of Poverty in Rural Areas: Is Rural Residence Endogenous to Poverty?
Monica Fisher. August 2004.

Research shows households are more likely to be poor in rural versus urban America. Does this phenomenon partly reflect that people who choose rural residence have unmeasured attributes related to human impoverishment? To address this, two models are estimated using Panel Study of Income Dynamics data. A single equation Probit model of household poverty replicates the well-documented finding of higher poverty risk in rural places. However, a two-stage instrumental variables approach accounting for residential choice finds no measured effect of rural location on poverty. Results suggest failure to correct for endogenous rural residence leads to over-estimation of the “rural effect”.

WP 04-08: Urban and Rural Differences in Utilization of State Earned Income Tax Credit Programs: Minnesota’s Experience.
Donald P. Hirasuna and Thomas F. Stinson. December 2004.

This paper examines utilization rates of Minnesota’s earned income tax credit program by households on welfare from 1992 through 1999. We examine urban and rural differences in the rate of filing an income tax return and receiving the earned income tax credit. Tabulations show that urban areas have the lowest utilization rates, but are catching up in both income tax filing rates and earned income credit receipt rates. Regression analyses identify correlates to urbanrural differences. A modeling exercise examines how urban and rural households might respond to a 10 percent increase in the credit. Finally, policy suggestions are offered, which are relevant to urban and rural areas and are appropriate for other states.

WP 04-07: The Cumulative Effect of Rural and Regional Residence Upon the Health of Older Adults.
Jessica S. Ziembroski and Erica L. Hauck. August 2004.

This article examines the independent and interactive effects of rural status and region of residence on health. Individual level factors related to poverty are also tested, in conjunction with rural and regional residence. Negative health effects of rurality were
found only in the South, while positive health effects of rurality were found, but only in the Midwest. The results indicate a cumulative risk of rural and Southern residence for older men and women. Living in a rural place in the Midwestern United States may
provide unique sources of health benefit as individuals age, which buffer previously observed rural risks to health overall. The findings are discussed in terms of health policy and interventions.

WP 04-06: Policy Intervention and Poverty in Rural America.
Hema Swaminathan and Jill L. Findeis. August 2004.

This paper attempts to explore interactions between welfare reform, employment growth and poverty rates across all U.S. counties for the period 1989 to 1999. What is the relationship between family assistance payments and employment rates at the county level? How does a changing employment rate affect poverty? Are these relationships similar across metro and nonmetro counties? These are the key questions that motivate this research. This research builds upon Goetz, Rupasingha and Zimmerman that models the relation between county-level change in food stamps per capita and the unemployment rate. Spatial autocorrelation is explicitly considered in a simultaneous equation context.

WP 04-05: Poverty over Time and Location: An Examination of Metro-Nonmetro Differences.
John M. Ulimwengu and David S. Kraybill. August 2004.

WP 04-04: Local Social and Economic Conditions, Spatial Concentrations of Poverty, and Poverty Dynamics.
Mindy S. Crandall and Bruce A. Weber. August 2004.

WP 04-03: Poverty and Place. A Critical Review of Rural Poverty Literature.
Bruce Weber, Leif Jensen. June 2004.

Poverty rates are highest in the most urban and most rural areas of the United States, and are higher in non-metropolitan (nonmetro) than metropolitan (metro) areas, yet rural poverty remains relatively obscured from mainstream political and popular attention. This fact has motivated considerable research by rural social scientists on the relationship between poverty and place generally, and rural-urban differences in poverty, in particular. We provide a critical review of the literature on rural poverty, paying particular attention to methodogical and statistical challenges facing quantitative analyses. This body of research confirms the higher prevalence of poverty in nonmetro areas, and finds that while both compositional (individual) and contextual (structural) factors are at play, a complete explanation remains elusive. We note endogenous
membership, omitted variable, and other challenges facing researchers, and conclude with suggestions for further research.

WP 04-02: Poverty, Policy and Place: How Poverty and Policies to Alleviate Poverty Are Shaped by Local Characteristics.
Rebecca M. Blank. March 2004.

WP 04-01: Does Economic Vulnerability Depend On Place Of Residence? Asset Poverty Across the Rural -Urban Continuum.
Monica G. Fisher, Bruce A. Weber. March 2004.

This paper uses Panel Study of Income Dynamics data for 1989, 1994, and 1999 to examine why some U.S. households are asset poor; that is, why households have insufficient resources to invest in their future or to sustain household members at a basic level during times of economic disruption. The study contributes to an improved understanding of asset poverty’s correlates by examining the influence of place of residence; the extant literature has focused on individuallevel explanations. We estimate a random-effects logistic model of the probability that an individual is asset poor at a given point in time as a function of household-level (e.g. age, gender, race of the household head and family structure) and place-level (regional and rural-urban continuum) variables. The central finding of the paper is that place of residence is an important determinant of asset poverty, above and beyond the influence of household characteristics. We find that living in a central metropolitan county and in a nonmetropolitan area is associated with a higher risk of being asset poor, all else being equal. Implications for future research are discussed.