In the national interest: Defining rural and urban correctly in research and public policy

International Regional Science Review

Volumn 28, Issue 4, 2005, Pages 465-499

  Isserman, Andrew M ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

Author keywords

Federal funding; Poverty; Rural distress and prosperity; Urban and rural definitions

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC RESEARCH; PLANNING METHOD; RURAL PLANNING; RURAL-URBAN COMPARISON;

EID: 26444485741     PISSN: 01600176     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0160017605279000     Document Type: Review

References (31)

1. Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC). 2004. The ARC code. Washington, DC: ARC. http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=100.
2. Carlino, Gerald A., and Edwin S. Mills. 1987. The determinants of county growth. Journal of Regional Science 27: 39-54.
3. Cortright, Joseph, and Andrew Reamer. 1999. Socioeconomic data for understanding your regional economy. Washington, DC: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. http:// www.econdata.net/pdf/uguide.pdf.
4. Feser, Edward, and Stuart Sweeney. 2003. Outmigration, depopulation, and the geography of U.S. economic distress. International Regional Science Review 26: 38-67.
5. Ghelfi, Linda M. 2002. Overview of ERS typologies. Paper prepared for the Measuring Rural Diversity Conference, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://srdc.msstate.edu/measuring/ overview.pdf.
6. Glasmeier, Amy, and Kurt Fuellhart. 1999. Building on past experiences: Creating a new future for distressed counties. Report to the Appalachian Regional Commission. http://www.arc.gov/index.do?nodeId=1374.
7. Glasmeier, Amy, Lawrence Wood, and Kurt Fuellhart. 2002. Measuring economic distress: A comparison of designations and measures. Paper prepared for the Measuring Rural Diversity Conference, Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://srdc.msstate.edu/ measuring/glasmeier.pdf.
8. Henderson, Jason, and Nancy Novack. 2005. An economic resurgence in the rural economy. The Main Street Economist, January. http://www.kc.frb.org/ RuralCenter/mainstreet/MainStMain.htm.
9. Isserman, Andrew M. 2001. Competitive advantages of rural America in the next century. International Regional Science Review 24: 38-58.
10. Isserman, Andrew M. 2002. Defining regions for rural America. In The new power of regions: A policy focus for rural America, 35-54. Kansas City, MO: Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.
11. Isserman, Andrew, and Terance Rephann. 1995. The economic effects of the Appalachian Regional Commission: An empirical assessment of 26 years of regional development planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 61: 345-64.
12. Lake, Robert W., Robin Leichenko, and Amy K. Glasmeier. 2004. EDA and U.S. economic distress 1965-2000. Washington DC: Economic Development Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce. http://www.eda.gov/Research/ ResearchReports.xml.
13. Johnson, Thomas G. 2001. The rural economy in a new century. International Regional Science Review 24: 21-37.
14. Jolliffe, Dean. 2004. Rural poverty at a glance. Rural Development Research Report 100. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr100/ rdrr100.pdf.
15. Kandel, William, and John Cromartie. 2004. New patterns of Hispanic settlement in rural America. Rural Development Research Report 99. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/rdrr99/rdrr99.pdf.
16. Kilkenny, Maureen, and Sonya Kostova Huffman. 2003. Rural/urban welfare program and labor force participation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 914-27.
17. Kurre, James A. 2003. Is the cost of living less in rural areas? International Regional Science Review 26: 86-116.
18. Morrill, Richard, John Cromartie, and Gary Hart. 1999. Metropolitan, urban, and rural commuting areas: Toward a better depiction of the United States settlement system. Urban Geography 20: 727-48.
19. National Association of Development Organizations (NADO) Research Foundation. 2003. Federal state regional commissions: Regional approaches for local economic development. Washington, DC: National Association of Development Organizations. http://www.nado.org/pubs/ rcreport.pdf.
20. Nord, Mark. 2000. Does it cost less to live in rural areas? Evidence from new data on food security and hunger. Rural Sociology 65: 104-25. Quotation from http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/erselsewhere/ eejs0001/eejs0001.pdf.
21. Office of Management and Budget. 1998. Alternative approaches to defining metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas: Notice. Federal Register 63: 70526-61.
22. Office of Management and Budget. 1999. Recommendations from the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee to the Office of Management and Budget concerning changes to the standards for defining metropolitan areas: Notice. Federal Register 64: 56628-44.
23. Office of Management and Budget. 2000a. Final report and recommendations from the Metropolitan Area Standards Review Committee to the Office of Management and Budget concerning changes to the standards for defining metropolitan areas: Notice. Federal Register 65: 51060-77.
24. Office of Management and Budget. 2000b. Standards for defining metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas: Notice. Federal Register 65: 82228-38.
25. Renkow, Mitch. 2003. Employment growth, worker mobility, and rural economic development. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85: 503-13.
26. Swaminathan, Hema, and Jill L. Findeis. 2004. Policy intervention and poverty in rural America. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 86: 1289-96.
27. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 1953. Census of population: 1950. Vol. 2, Characteristics of the population, Part 1, United States summary. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
28. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001a. Urban area criteria for Census 2000: Notice. Federal Register 66: 17018-33.
29. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2001b. Urban area criteria for Census 2000 - Proposed criteria. Federal Register 66: 39143-45.
30. U.S. Department of Commerce, Census Bureau. 2002. Urban area criteria for Census 2000. Federal Register 67: 11663-70.
31. Wood, Lawrence E., and Gregory A. Bischak. 2000. Progress and challenges in reducing economic distress in Appalachia: An analysis of national and regional trends since 1960. Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission. http://www.arc.gov/images/reports/progress/progress.pdf.