Social Capital in Rural and Urban Communities¹

Abstract

Conventional wisdom says that social capital is more common among families in rural communities than urban communities. Using data from the 1988 wave of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, we compare the prevalence, type, and extent of social exchanges in these places. Results indicate that families living in rural areas are more likely to exchange exclusively with kin than are families living in urban areas. In particular, families living in rural areas are more likely to receive money help from kin than families in urban areas. Results on patterns of giving are more complex, with rural origin families with younger household heads more likely to give support to kin, and rural origin families with older heads less likely to provide such support, as compared to otherwise similar families of urban origin. Finally, only modest urban‐rural differences in amounts exchanged (in dollars) are found among otherwise similar families. Overall, some of the urban‐rural differences in patterns of exchange are explained by different family characteristics; however, key urban‐rural differences remain, probably reflecting differences in norms and the availability of institutional support services in different areas.

Cumulative Social Risk, Parenting, and Infant Development in Rural Low-Income Communities

“…There are large entrenched racial differences in rural areas, where African American children are much more likely to live in a female-headed household and be poor (Graefe & Lichter, 2002). However, there are some advantages of rural areas, including more family home ownership, more two-parent families, less random violent crime, smaller schools, and more social and extended family social support (Hofferth & Iceland, 1998;Lichter, 2003;Lichter, Roscigno, & Condron, 2003; Rural Families Data Center, 2004; Whitener, Weber, & Duncan, 2001). For these reasons, the fourth aim of our study was to examine the extent to which cumulative risk is related to child outcomes in these settings because it is possible that findings from urban areas will not apply (Department of Health and Human Services, 2005).…”

Place matters: but does local leadership?

“…However, in respect of participation in decision-making, greater opportunities to become involved in local decision-making may materialise in more fragmented localities. The diverse urban/rural character of localities, which encapsulates both differing physical/socio-demographic characteristics and levels of deprivation, is also likely to demarcate urban neighbourhoods which experience continual population turnover, social diversity, and deprivation from rural areas that are often characterised by high levels of prosperity, social stability and levels of social capital (Hofferth & Iceland, 1998). Local economic circumstances, opportunities and levels of deprivation are also likely to mitigate the level of successful placeshaping that occurs within different localities.…”

Prioritising rural authenticity: Community members' use of discourse in rural healthcare participation and why it matters

“…There is evidence of rural community members working for collective benefit, to generate social capital (Hofferth and Iceland, 1998) and volunteer their time (Woolvin and Rutherford, 2013). Health services research tends to regard rural simply as a spatial category distinguished by small populations and distance from service centres (Mason, 2013).…”