This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (7) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Isserman, A. M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

In the National Interest: Defining Rural and Urban Correctly in Research and Public Policy

Departments of Agricultural and Consumer Economics and Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois, Urbana isserman{at}uiuc.edu

Researchers and policy makers depend on two federal systems when defining urban and rural. One, designed by the U.S. Census Bureau, separates the territory of the nation into urban and rural. Its intent is to differentiate urban and rural. The other, designed under the leadership of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), focuses on the integration of urban and rural within metropolitan and micropolitan areas. Forgetting the distinction between separation and integration is dangerous, for example, when (mis)using the OMB system as if it differentiated between urban and rural. At stake is the misunderstanding of rural conditions, the misdirection of federal programs and funds, and a breakdown of communication that confuses people. This article presents two alternatives that can strengthen the foundations of research and policy and uses one of them to analyze rural distress and prosperity. Much can be gained by using these better rural definitions to replicate important research to see whether key findings hold true and to review eligibility requirements and funding procedures to determine whether government programs are reaching the rural people and places they are intended to serve.

Key Words: urban and rural definitions • rural distress and prosperity • poverty • federal funding

International Regional Science Review, Vol. 28, No. 4, 465-499 (2005)
DOI: 10.1177/0160017605279000


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				M. Woods Rural geography: blurring boundaries and making connections Progress in Human Geography, December 1, 2009; 33(6): 849 - 858. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. Isserman, E. Feser, and D. E. Warren Why Some Rural Places Prosper and Others Do Not International Regional Science Review, July 1, 2009; 32(3): 300 - 342. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. J. Peters Typology of American Poverty International Regional Science Review, January 1, 2009; 32(1): 19 - 39. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. M. Isserman and J. Westervelt 1.5 Million Missing Numbers: Overcoming Employment Suppression in County Business Patterns Data International Regional Science Review, July 1, 2006; 29(3): 311 - 335. [Abstract] [PDF]

				B. Weber, L. Jensen, K. Miller, J. Mosley, and M. Fisher A Critical Review of Rural Poverty Literature: Is There Truly a Rural Effect? International Regional Science Review, October 1, 2005; 28(4): 381 - 414. [Abstract] [PDF]

				M. D. Partridge and D. S. Rickman High-Poverty Nonmetropolitan Counties in America: Can Economic Development Help? International Regional Science Review, October 1, 2005; 28(4): 415 - 440. [Abstract] [PDF]