An Introduction to the Study, Along with the Data and Methods Used

1. INTRODUCTION

Poverty in the United States is a chronic and seemingly intractable problem 
(Rubinstein 1989; Ropers 1991; Bishaw 2014; Miller and Weber 2014; U.S. Census 
Bureau 2018), which first came into public focus in the early 1960's when 
President Lyndon B Johnson declared an "unconditional war on poverty" 
(Matthews, 2014; Burch 2017). During the 1960s and 1970s poverty was addressed 
by a host of development and social programs (Mathews 2014) and the topic of 
poverty engendered a flurry of academic interest (Brunn and Wheeler 1971; 
Morrill and Wohlenberg 1971). The results of this focus on poverty was dramatic, 
with the poverty rate falling from 22.2% (39.85 million) in 1960 to 12.6% 
(25.42 million) just 10 years later in 1970. However, the spotlight on 
development of disadvantaged regions dimmed as by the mid 1970's it appeared 
that the war against poverty had been all but won. As is now clear such a 
celebration of victory was premature. Using the Census Bureau definition of 
poverty both the percentage (11.1), and the number of people (22.97 million) 
who were poor, reached a low in 1973. Since 1973 the percentage of people in 
poverty rose back above the 1970 12.6% level from 1980 through 1998, in 2004, 
and from 2008 through 2016, reaching 15% or above in 1982, 1983, 1993, 2010, 
2011, and 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). It is disturbing to note that since 
2000, when 11.3 percent or 31.58 million people were officially poor, the 
poverty rate was on the rise (Eberstadt 1988; Proctor and Dalaker 2003) until 
2012. Since 2012 the rate has fallen somewhat; in 2017 12.3 percent or 39.7 
million people were impoverished (Fontenot et al 2018) which, in terms of 
sheer numbers, is significantly more than there were in 1965 (33.19 million) 
during the early years of Johnson's war (Figure 1). 

Figure 1. Number of Poor and Percent Poor in the U.S., 1959 to 2017
  

In the years since poverty hit the high point of 15.2 percent in 1983 
(O'Hare 1985), research has often focused on particular segments of the 
population, including children, female-headed households, African Americans, 
and the working poor (Jones and Kodras 1990; Eggers and Massey 1991; Hanson 
and Pratt 1991; Nord and Sheets 1992; Arrighi and Maume 2007; Iceland 2014; 
Bischoff 2016), as well as on national poverty levels. In addition, there 
have been some studies that sought to explore the spatial dimensions of U.S. 
poverty (Brunn and Wheeler 1971; Shaw 1996; Shaefer 2012). Recent studies 
touching on the geography of U.S. poverty at the county level suggest that 
it may not only be people in rural counties that are disadvantaged, but 
also in urban of even suburban counties (Murphy and Allard 2015; 
Kneebone 2016). 

While there has been significant focus on poverty in the United States, 
including on its spatial characteristics, since the 1960s there has been 
relatively little research on the concomitant geography of affluence. The 
geographies of poverty and affluence give a view of spatial segregation.  
The affluent are mobile and have a great deal of latitude in choosing where 
they live.  In contrast, the poor have few options and very little mobility 
(Burns, 1980; Higley 1995; Shaw 1997).

The purpose of this study is to explore the changing spatial distribution 
of America's poorest and most affluent counties over the 30 years from 1980 
to 2010. At the country level the spatial distribution of poverty in 1980 
and 1990 was mapped and analyzed by Shaw (1996) and was clearly rural in 
nature at that spatial scale (Shaw 2000). The geography of affluence for 
the same period was also discussed by Shaw (1998). The release of the 2000 
census data made a preliminary update of the poverty study possible 
(Shaw 2004), and now the 2010 census data makes it tenable to expand that 
study and investigate changes in the geography of U.S. poverty since 1980, 
expressed at the spatial scale of the county. This study is also extended to 
explore the most affluent counties over the same time period.  Spatial aspects 
of both the poorest and most affluent counties are focused on, as well as the 
changing gap and relative geographies between rich and poor over three decades.

Data and Methods

References