The Effect of Population Density on Welfare Participation

This article addresses the paradox of rural and urban differences in poverty and welfare participation. That is, the poverty rate in rural America is higher than that found in urban America, yet the rural poor are less likely to use welfare. Results from an analysis of all U.S. counties indicate that population density is a major factor influencing participation in public assistance. Controlling for population compositional differences across counties, we find that residents in communities with lower population densities participate in welfare programs to a lesser extent. This study identifies possible explanations for this density effect. A paradox of the American welfare system is found in rural and urban differences in poverty and welfare participation. Although the poverty rate in rural America is higher than that found in urban America, the rural poor are less likely to use welfare (Bentley 1988; Duncan & Tickamyer 1988; U.S. Bureau of the Census 1990). Consequently, where the need for public assistance is largest, the use of such programs is smallest. This paradox is consistent with the perception that (1) rural community values are contrary to welfare program participation (O'Hare 1988), (2) access to welfare programs may be more constrained in rural areas (Bachrach 1981), and/or (3) urban welfare dependency is exacerbated by concentration and social isolation factors found in inner cities (Wilson 1987). Each of these perceptions implies that contextual factors across regions may mediate individual decisions whether ol not to use welfare. On the other hand, this paradox could result from quite different factors, namely, from population compositional differences that account for the discrepancies in rural/urban welfare participation rates. Perhaps urban areas have individuals with more favorable characteristics regarding welfare eligibility and use (e.g., greater numbers of female-headed families). Thus, a population * This research was supported by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Hatch Project NYC-159402, Thomas A. Hirschl and Mark R. Rank, Co-principal Investigators. Direct correspondence to Thomas A. Hirschl, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853. i) The University of North Carolina Press Social Forces, September 1991, 70(1):225-235 This content downloaded from 157.55.39.180 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:41:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms 226 / Social Forces 70:1, September 1991 compositional effect rather than a contextual effect could be generating the above welfare use pattems (Gans 1962). Surprisingly, research on welfare participation has ignored this intriguing paradox. The only study to date focusing on this issue has found a strong population density effect on the length of welfare use, independent of compositional differences (Rank & Hirschl 1988). However, the Rank and Hirschl study examined welfare patterns in only one state. This analysis extends that research by examining welfare participation rates for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children program (AFDC) and the Food Stamp program in 1980 for the entire 3,137 counties in the United States. It represents the first study to use all U.S. counties and county equivalents in analyzing welfare participation rates. If the earlier Rank and Hirschl findings are correct, then urban areas should exhibit higher rates of welfare participation than rural areas, net of the appropriate controls. The relevant control variables include various population compositional measures, as well as several measures that account for programmatic differences across counties. The hypothesis under consideration is that urbanity has an influence on participation rates, above and beyond the effect(s) of composition variables (Tittle 1989). Prior research has indicated that those participating in welfare programs are highly stigmatized by the general population (Coleman, Rainwater & McClelland 1978; Kluegel & Smith 1986; Waxman 1983). There are several reasons behind such stigmatization. First, use of welfare tends to jar the ethos of rugged individualism embraced by many Americans (Gans 1988). From this ethos, those who rely on government assistance for financial support rather than on their own efforts are perceived as failures. Consequently, individuals receiving welfare tend to be highly stigmatized by a public who hold strongly to individualistic beliefs. A second reason behind the overall stigmatization of those using welfare is the fear of encouraging dependency upon the state. As Goodban (1985) notes, "afraid that handouts will encourage dependency, assistance programs stigmatize those who receive benefits to prevent them from asking for more, and to make it clear to others that there is an emotional price to pay" (404). The hypothesis that urbanity influences the frequency of such stigmatized behavior is consistent with two major urban sociological theories. Both determinist theory (Wirth 1938) and subcultural theory (Fischer 1984) argue that deviancy and stigmatized behavior are more likely to occur in cities. According to determinist theory, urban size, density, and heterogeneity weaken primary social bonds, attenuate social control, and foster alienation of individuals. Cities are thus centers of social deviance and disorganization. On the other hand, Fischer argues that stigmatized behavior is more likely to flourish in urban areas as a result of subcultures that reinforce such behavior. As Fisher (1984) notes, "according to subcultural theory, the signs of disorganization appear, not because social worlds break down and people break down with them, but quite the reverse because social worlds are formed and nurtured" (39). Although these two urban sociological theories provide quite different rationales for predicting greater incidence of stigmatized behavior in areas with greater population density, the direction of the respective predictions are the same. This content downloaded from 157.55.39.180 on Mon, 25 Apr 2016 06:41:02 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms Population Density and Welfare Participation / 227 Altematively, other reasons, such as physical access, may be responsible for rural and urban differences in welfare participation. For example, since urban communities have greater size and density, they also possess more favorable economies of scale for public transportation. Transportation to a welfare office might constitute a greater obstacle to participation in rural communities. This should be especially true for very low income families who have fewer resources to pay for transportation services. However, the purpose of this article is not to adjudicate between explanations for an urbanity effect. Our purpose is to see whether such an urbanity effect exists, and if it does, to encourage subsequent investigations into the potential reasons behind it.