Mapping income index for 1980 and 1990 supports the view
that the spatial distribution of American poverty remained
essentially unchanged during the 1980s. The five distinct
major cores of poverty identified to have existed in 1980
clearly persisted until 1990. However, the spatial extent
of the cores underwent some change. The poverty area in
South Dakota appeared to have contracted just a little.
This contraction is not typical of the other cores of
poverty. The poverty core centered in northeastern Arizona
remained as extensive as in 1980, and the Texas-Mexican
border core not only persisted but also expanded and became
linked by a band of poverty to the Mississippi Delta poverty
region. The Mississippi Delta poverty region also expanded,
especially at its southern extreme in Louisiana. In 1990 the
north-south axis of this poverty core stretched along both
sides of the Mississippi River from central Arkansas to the
Gulf coast. The east-west axis spanned the southern coastal
plain to South Carolina to the east, and to the west expanded
to include parts of east Texas that had been identified as poor
in 1959 by Brunn and Wheeler (1971). The node of intense poverty
at the conjunction of the two axes that form this core was still
apparent in 1990. Finally, there was also an expansion of the
Appalachian Kentucky core as its southern extent encompassed
a large area of West Virginia.
Thus it seems that United States poverty became increasingly
spatially concentrated from 1980 to 1990 and poverty cores
also become more spatially extensive. The five poverty cores
identified to exist in 1980 persisted through the decade of
the 1980s. Only one of the five poverty regions indicated any
sign of contraction while the other four expanded.
Using 2000 and 2010 census information reinforces the notion of
extremely stable regions of poverty. While some flux does occur,
and some counties such as Tunica County, Mississippi appeared to
make substantial progress out of poverty, there are five core
areas in the Dakotas, the four corners region, the Texas-Mexico
border area, Appalachian Kentucky, and the lower Mississippi
valley / southern coastal plain. These clusters have remained
within the poorest of the poor for over twenty years. Only 6 of
the 88 counties that were in the poorest 5 percent in 1980, 1990,
and 2000 lie outside these five cores. Of these outliers one is
in Arkansas, one in Missouri, one in South Carolina, two in West
Virginia, and one in New York. These spatially stable poorest of
the poor counties are essentially rural with the exception of the
Bronx, New York and Hidalgo and Webb Counties, Texas.
However, the geography of poverty in 2000 compared to the decades
previously does indicate some changes. In both 1980 and 1990 only
one New York County, the Bronx, appeared among the poorest 5
percent of counties. By 2000 the Bronx had been joined by two
more New York Counties (Kings and New York). Together these three
New York counties form a cluster that is difficult to see on the
national map because of the small area involved, but this cluster
is intensely urban and is home to a large number of people. Of the
almost 9 million residents of the most impoverished 156 U.S.
counties in 2000, over 5 million (55.8 percent) lived in these
three New York counties. While the other 153 counties are
certainly much more visible when mapped, they are less significant
in terms of the population impacted. Thus, it seems that at the
turn of the 20th century it is urban poverty that is most
significant even when poverty is viewed at the county level, a
spatial scale that in the past has directed attention to rural
poverty regions.
By 2010 it is clear that the five cores of poverty that were
identified to exist in 1980, have persisted over the 30-year
study period. The New York cluster of impoverished counties
was reduced to two (Bronx and Kings) with New York County no
longer appearing in the poorest 5 percent. However, the Bronx
emerged as the poorest county in the conterminous United States
in 2010. While poverty remains a largely rural condition when
viewed from the spatial scale of the county, experienced in five
distinct geographic cores, it seems deeply impoverished urban
counties have also emerged beginning in 2000.
This study of poverty at the county level highlights two points
with respect to application and policy. Clearly there are rural
regions within the United States where poverty is endemic. These
regions are frequently home to minority populations and policy to
address impoverishment is these areas must address their very
particular cultural, social, and economic landscapes. However,
even if poverty in these poor regions were eliminated it would
have a limited impact. It is urban counties, such as New York,
New York, that are densely populated where large numbers of
impoverished people live. In these areas it is cost of living,
specifically housing costs, which must be addressed in order
alleviate poverty for the substantial number of Americans who
live in urban areas.
Over the 30-year study period affluent counties may also be
characterized as quite spatially stable. In 1980, while not as
spatially clustered as poor counties, they were clearly associated
with metropolitan areas. By 1990 affluent counties were even more
associated with major metropolitan areas, and the 'BosWash'
megalopolis, that crosses multiple state boundaries, stands out as
a particular region of affluence. As we entered the first decade
of the twenty first century, metropolitan (and micropolitan)
counties continue to dominate spatial affluence. Regionally, it
is the 'BosWash' megalopolis that stands out with the Washington
DC and New York county clusters, along with affluent counties in
Baltimore, Boston, Hartford, Philadelphia, Providence, Richmond,
Roanoke, and Virginia Beach. In addition, Denver seems to have
developed as a prominent core of affluence west of the Mississippi.
By 2010 the concentration of affluence in the 'BosWash' megalopolis
remains apparent, along with counties associated with multiple other
metropolitan areas. There does appear to be an increase in affluent
counties west of the Great Plains and in micropolitan counties than
in previous study years.
In terms of change over the 30-year study period, a majority of
states experienced a widening percentage gap between 1980 and 1990
as well as from 2000-2010, while from 1990 to 2000 the gap narrowed.
Over the entire thirty year period the percentage gap increased in
33 states and narrowed in 15. Texas showed the largest increase in
percentage gap at 107.48, while Michigan’s gap shrank the most by
36.23 points. Thus indications are that there has been little
progress in geographic inequality over the last thirty years, and
in most states such inequality has increased. This conclusion is
supported by looking at changes applied to all counties in the
contiguous United States.
Finally, if the data for all counties in the contiguous United
States is explored (Table 11), it is clear that spatial inequality
in general has been sustained or even strengthened over the 30-year
study period. The gap between rich and poor, expressed spatially at
the scale of the county, widened between 1980 and 2010. If more evidence
is needed of the widening gap, consider that in 1980 INDEX in the
poorest county was 1107.60 which had risen to 2683.03 in 2010; an
increase of 142% or 1575.43 dollars. By contrast the most affluent
county had an INDEX of 8126.07 in 1980 compared to 34990.13 in 2010.
This is an increase of 26,864.06 dollars or 330.6 percent. The
distinctive geographies of both poverty and affluence are stable
and increasingly spatially pronounced. The poor and the rich
clearly continue to live in two different worlds within the
United States, just as they did when Lyndon B. Johnson made his
declaration of an unconditional 'War on Poverty' in 1964.
