The Character of Urban and Rural Communities: Different Worlds of Welfare and Local Governance?

• In Event: 20803 - Fragile Communities: Residents Coping with Shocks, Changes, and Inequities

Abstract

We examine the character of urban and rural communities focusing on their policy paths and governance practices. Departing from Molotch et al. (2000), diverse elements combine to give communities a distinct place-character at any one time which stems from rolling inertia, the unfolding of historical differences between places in their economies, institutions, socio-political attributes, and physical environment. These defining elements illustrate lines along which urban and rural communities are thought to vary. We develop a novel theoretical framework that addresses whether the character of communities leads to different worlds of policy processes for urban and rural communities. We focus on policies associated with community well-being, public and social service provision, and conversely business-friendly economic development. We question which communities are most likely to support these policies and the degree of urban-rural difference. Theoretically we link conceptualizations of place-character with theory on welfare-related policies to develop a new, “community character” framework that illustrates mechanisms by which it operates to influence policy adoption. Our study uses original primary data we collected for 1,086 counties in 2018-2019, the most recent generalizable information across US communities. We find support for our framework. The character of communities varies along economic, socio-political, and governmental lines and significantly differentiates large, metropolitan counties from others, especially remote rural counties. Large metro counties are pulling apart from others, creating a different world of welfare where they are much better able to protect the social safety-net. The different worlds of welfare and governance are starkest between core metro and remote rural communities, the latter having minimalist government and weak public and social services. Our findings have important implications given current attempts to dismantle the federal government and social safety-net which will leave communities (especially counties, the direct provider of social services in most states) to pick up the pieces.

Authors

• Linda Lobao, The Ohio State University

• Paige Kelly, Penn State University