Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
ED 415 057
AUTHORTITLE
INSTITUTION
SPONS AGENCY
REPORT NOPUB DATENOTECONTRACTAVAILABLE FROM
PUB TYPE
EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS
IDENTIFIERS
ABSTRACT
DOCUMENT RESUME
RC 021 326
Howell, Frank M.; Tung, Yuk-Ying; Wade-Harper, CynthiaThe Social Cost of Growing Up in Rural America: RuralDevelopment and Social Change during the Twentieth Century.Social Research Report Series 96-5.Mississippi State Univ., Mississippi State. Social ScienceResearch Center.Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station,Jackson.MAFES-D-89851996-10-00152p.MIS-4334Social Science Research Center, P.O. Box 5287, MississippiState, MS 39762-5287 (MAFES-D-8985).Numerical/Quantitative Data (110) -- Reports - Research(143)
MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Educational Attainment; *Employment Level; *Family Income;Place of Residence; Public Policy; Rural Areas; *RuralDevelopment; Rural Farm Residents; Rural Nonfarm Residents;Rural to Urban Migration; *Rural Urban Differences; *RuralYouth; Social Stratification; Sociocultural Patterns;Socioeconomic Status; Tables (Data)General Social Survey; *Life Chances; Long Term Effects;National Longitudinal Study High School Class 1972
This report examines the extent and process by which ruralorigins may affect socioeconomic attainments in adulthood and how these"costs" have changed during this century. Introductory sections reviewresearch and theories of rural differentiation and stratification and thehistory of major federal policy initiatives for rural development. Data aredrawn from the General Social Surveys, 1972-94, (categorized to provide dataon cohorts of 16-year-olds during major periods of rural developmentpolicy--1900-20, 1921-32, 1933-40, 1941-52, 1953-66, and 1967-80) and theNational Longitudinal Survey (NLS-1972) of high school seniors in 1972 tracedinto mid-adulthood. The NLS-1972 database was used to estimate a socialpsychological model of status attainment. Migration variables were then addedto the model to determine whether rural youth could "migrate away" from thesocial costs of their origins. Across the major periods of rural developmentpolicy, rural-associated deficits in completed education showed a cleardecline. Moreover, education is the conduit by which rural origins influenceoccupational status. However, family income continued to showrural-associated deficits, especially for rural nonfarm residents. The modelsuggests that reduced expectations of family and friends influence theeducational planning and eventual status attainment of rural youth. Trends inmigration effects were inconsistent. Implications for public policy issuesinvolving rural development programs are discussed. Contains 79 referencesand extensive statistical tables. (Author/SV)
II a .
0 1
The Social Cost of Growing-Upin Rural America:
Rural Development and Social Changeduring the Twentieth Century
1
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
r;dt M.ilOtot)e-1
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Frank M. HowellYuk-Ying Tung
Cynthia Wade-Harper
U.S. DEPARTMENT Of EDUCATIONOffice of Educational Research and Improvement
EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC)
(fill'us document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating it
0 Minor Changes have been made to improvereproduction Quality.
Points of view or opinions stated in this docu-ment do not necessarily represent officialOERI position or policy.
Social Science Research CenterOctober 1996
Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station
MAFES D-8985
Verner G. Hurt, Director
R. Rodney Foil, Vice President
Donald W. Zacharias, President
9
Mississippi StateUNIVERSITY
BEST COPY AVAILABLE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
One of the most prominent transformations in U.S. social history has been thefarm-to-city migration pattern. This trend has largely been predicated on theimproved social opportunities available to people in urban areas. Many Federalprograms and initiatives have been designed to "develop" rural areas in order tomitigate the deficits that would accrue to rural residents. Fuguitt et al. 's (1989)recent contention that there is a "persistent importance" of rural residence in theUnited States is but the latest round in this long-term scholarly debate. Thequestion of whether or not any observable social contrast between rural and non-rural places implies a significant difference in the life chances of individualsresiding there, however, has not received the empirical attention that it deserves,especially in light of the immense amount of public policy attention that ruraldevelopment has received since the turn of this century.
This report reviews the research on rural differentiation and the history ofmajor federal rural development policy initiatives to compensate for socialdeficits experienced by rural residents. We empirically examine the extent andprocess by which rural origins may affect socioeconomic attainments in adulthoodand how these "costs" may have changed during this century in the U.S. Twoprimary databases are used: the NORC GSSs, 1972-1994 [reorganized to reflectthe six major periods of rural development policy-making (categorized as: 1900-1920; 1921 -1932; 1933-1940; 1941 -1952; 1953-1966; and 1967-1980) when GSSrespondents were age sixteen] and the NLS- 1972 panel survey of high schoolseniors who were traced into mid-adulthood. We then examine how rural originsmay affect socioeconomic achievements later in adulthood, using the NLS-72database to estimate a social psychological model of status attainment. Finally,we examine whether rural-origin youth can "migrate away" from the social costsassociated with their residential origins by re-estimating status attainmentmodels with the addition of migration variables measuring rural-to-urban andurban-to-rural migration from age 16 to adulthood.
The results show a clear decline in the deficits associated with rural origins incompleted education by major period of rural development during this century.Moreover, education is the conduit by which rural origins influence occupationalstatus. However, family income continued to show evidence of social costs relatedto rural origins, especially for those of a rural non farm background. The processby which educational and occupational status consequences are realized by ruralyouth is through the reduced expectations of parents and friends which results inlower educational plans, completed schooling, and occupational status. Trends inmigration effects are inconsistent, except for the results using the most recentNLS-72 data. These results show that rural-to-urban migration results in higheroccupational status and family income, whereas urban-to-rural movement has theopposite set of outcomes. Public policy issues involving rural developmentprograms are discussed in light of these results and the current debate over thescope and meaning of rural development in the context of agricultural legislation.
3
FORE WA/PT DNNN
At the beginning of this century, Americans lived predominantly on farms, in the open country or insmall towns. Their traditions and perspectives, and some would say the national character, had evolvedfrom and had been shaped by a strong rural heritage. As the twentieth century progressed, the nationchanged from a rural-oriented country to a mass culture, urban-dominated society. The great migrationstreams from Appalachia, the agricultural South and most other rural areas of the country contributedsignificantly to the growth of large metropolitan and suburban population centers. In spite of thesechanges, rural America is and will continue to be a highly important, if smaller, part of our nation.While urban areas have grown faster, rural populations have also increased. Current census estimatesindicate there are almost 70 million rural Americans, an all time high. Clearly, the one-in-four Ameri-cans now living in rural areas constitute a population of sufficient magnitude to deserve continuedscientific investigation.
The Social Cost of Growing-Up in Rural America is an ambitious, intellectual enterprise that assessesthe complexities and consequences of rural origins on status attainment in adulthood. It is empiricalresearch played out on a grand temporal and spatial scale. The scope of the analyses spans both thetime frame of the twentieth century and the entire cross-section of the American population. Takencollectively, the report contributes to our understanding of a very American commodity: individualopportunity.
Dr. Frank M. Howell and his associates, Mr. Yuk-Ying Tung and Ms. Cynthia Wade-Harper, haveselected and combined information from extant social surveys, thereby providing new and importantinsights into the dynamics of American achievement. They have then interpreted these data within thecontext of changing rural and agricultural development policies and initiatives. The authors haveskillfully organized data from the NORC General Social Surveys and from the National LongitudinalSurvey of the High School Class of 1972 into an effective research tool for quantitatively estimating theconsequences of ruralness. From this strategic research vantage point, they pose and respond to suchquestions as: Do rural origins depress the level of attainment opportunities? Through what social andpsychological processes do rural origins transmit their impact upon attainment? Have the depress-ing effects of ruralness varied by historical period? Are the consequences different for farm andnonfarm rural youth? What part does migration play? What have been the impacts of rural andagricultural development policies on the life chances of rural youth?
The report is both thorough and well written. The reader should be aware, however, that the researchutilizes relatively sophisticated, quantitative social science techniques which can be quite challengingfor the statistically uninitiated. The authors should be recognized for the selection and definition of thisimportant research problem and for the new knowledge they bring to our understanding of rural America.
Arthur G. CosbyMississippi State University
October 10, 1996
4 BEST COPY AVAILABLE
The Social Cost of Growing-Up in Rural America:Rural Development and Social Change
during the Twentieth Century*
Frank M. Howell, Yuk-Ying Tung & Cynthia Wade-Harper**
One of the most prominent transforma-tions in United States social history has beenthe farm-to-city migration pattern, the "rural-to-urban turnaround" of the 1970s notwith-standing (Fuguitt 1985). This long-term trendhas largely been predicated on the notion thatbetter social opportunities are available inurban areas. As a consequence, many publicpolicy initiatives and programs have beendesigned to "develop" rural areas in order toalleviate the deficits that accrue to residents of"underdeveloped" rural areas of the U.S. Thescholarly debate over whether social, cultural,and economic deficits experienced by ruralAmericans still exist in the latter half of this
**
1
century has ranged from Dewey's (1960)famous declaration that they are "real, butrelatively unimportant" to the more recentcontention by Fuguitt et al. (1989) that thereis a "persistent importance" of rural residencein the United States.
The question of whether or not anyobservable social contrast between rural andnon-rural places actually occurs also implies asignificant difference in the social opportuni-ties of individuals residing there. However,this key question has not received theattention that it deserves, given the massivepublic and private investment that has beenmade toward "developing" rural America. The
This report was supported by the USDA/CREES Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry ExperimentStation Project, "Business Dynamics and Local Community Development in Mississippi" (MIS-4334).The authors wish to acknowledge the source of the Cumulative NORC General Social Survey data-base used in this study as the Inter-University for Social and Political Research at the University ofMichigan and the source of the National Longitudinal Surveys of the Class of 1972 as the NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. This study has benefitted from theextensive review by John K. Thomas and lengthy discussions with Arthur G. Cosby. Appreciation isalso expressed to the peer review team of: William W. Falk, Cornelia Flora, Daryl Hobbs, and JamesZuiches. Feinian Chen provided critical editorial assistance. Any errors of fact or interpretation, how-ever, are solely those of the authors. Direct all communications to: Frank M. Howell, Social ScienceResearch Center, P.O. Box 5287, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS 39762; via Inter-net: fmhl @ra.msstate.edu.
Frank M. Howell, Ph.D., is Professor of Sociology and Research Scientist in the Social Science Re-search Center at the Mississippi State University. Yuk-Ying Tung is a Graduate Research Assistantat the Social Science Research Center and is pursuing his Ph.D. in sociology at Mississippi StateUniversity. Cynthia Wade-Harper is a former Graduate Research Assistant at the Social ScienceResearch Center and a Ph.D. candidate in sociology at Mississippi State University.
2
life-chances of those growing-up in rural areastoday may be commonly thought to equal thoseof urban center residents. At worst, this logicmight argue, given an eventual migration tothe city upon reaching adulthood, the lifechances of rural-origin persons might beviewed as being on par with everyone else inthe nation, ceteris paribus. While complexpatterns of commuting may have created theappearance that, by now, the U.S. reflects alevel of spatial permeability (Svalastoga 1959)so as to neutralize any size-of-place inequali-ties in the opportunities afforded young adults,there remain substantial variations in socialdifferentiation among communities of varioussizes. As Fuguitt et al. (1989: 421) stated insummarizing their recent study of Censusdata:
"Once more size of place has been confirmed asan important source of community variation.Such a result is hardly surprising. Indeed,more than thirty years ago Duncan and Reissnoted that the sheer physical contrast betweena large urban center and a town of 2,500 is sostriking that we would be amazed if there werenot important social contrasts. Our findingsfor 1980 and 1970 tend to be quite consistentwith theirs based on the 1950 census...it isimportant to underscore the fact that suchdifferentials ... continue to be found despite thefact that many recent demographic andorganizational changes over the past thirtyyears have contributed to a blurring of rural-urban distinctions." (1989: 421)
As their conclusions suggest, rural andurban America have moved closer to oneanother in a number of ways during recentdecades but some important socioeconomiccleavages remain. Moreover, one importantelement of what we do not understand verywell is the consequences of rural origins forone's life chances in the United States. While afew studies have examined some contempo-rary short-term effects of rural origins onsocioeconomic and other outcomes (e.g.,Pollard and O'Hare 1990), we believe that it isimportant to examine them in more detail oversome period of time so that an historicalcontext to rural development programs can beobserved.
A great body of Federal legislation and
initiatives exists that is aimed at improvingthe level-of-living and social opportunitiesavailable to rural residents and we overviewsome of them below. Given this fact, however,surprisingly little empirical research linksevolving rural development policy with thesocial stratification of rural origins in theUnited States. The U.S. General AccountingOffice recently released the results of a study ofrural development legislation and extantprograms (U.S. GAO 1994). The conclusions ofthis study by the GAO suggest that, while it is"difficult to gauge the impact that federalexpenditures have had on rural areas..." (1994:6), it is also apparent that "federal agencieshave made only limited efforts to evaluate theimpact of federal rural development pro-grams." (1994: 6). This same GAO report findsthat federal rural development programs,policies, and initiatives have been "toonarrowly focused" and are poor substitutes foran "integrated federal approach" to economicdevelopment in rural America. It is indeedbeyond the scope of a single study to evaluatethe impact of rural development programs orinitiatives, but a more criterion-based ap-proach is within reach. If one part of ruraldevelopment is to improve the opportunitiesfor social and economic success in rural areas,then one social indicator of the results of thisdevelopment activity is the decline in theinfluence of rural origins on the life chances ofsuch residents over the period of ruraldevelopment initiatives.'
1 This argument emphasizes human capitalfactors to the general exclusion of organizationalor macro-level ones. It is important, for instance,to understand the characteristics of labor marketsas well as individual workers and the interdepen-dence of these multiple dimensions of societyconstitutes the social bond. For a similarargument focusing on rural schools and ruralyouth, see Howell (1989).
SCOPE AND PURPOSE
This study estimates trends in the effects ofrural origins on the socioeconomic attainmentsof adults in the United States during thiscentury. We first overview existing theory andresearch as to why rural America might differfrom non-rural areas. Using the work ofseveral agricultural historians, we thenpresent a classification of major periods ofFederal and state-level rural developmentprograms and initiatives during the twentiethcentury. Thirdly, trends in the size and scope ofthe rural population are examined to see howthis segment of the U.S. population hasdeclined during this century. Focusing oneducation, occupational status, and familyincome as key outcomes of the stratification ofsocioeconomic opportunity, we then examinehow living on a farm or in a rural non-farmsetting at or about age sixteen is linked toattainments in adulthood using the NORCGeneral Social Survey database. In the firstphase, the effects of rural origins on theseoutcomestermed the "social costs"areestimated for each major period of ruraldevelopment. Using data from a fourteen-yearpanel study of a single high school senior-yearclass (1972), these estimates are supple-mented for the most recent period of ruraldevelopment since NORC GSS members of therecent period of rural development are early intheir work careers. In the second phase, weexamine, through the panel data on the seniorclass of 1972, how the social deficits of ruralorigins observed in the first phase of analysisare manifested through a critical part of theachievement process: the formation of aspira-tions and their translation into attainmentsduring adulthood. A third phase of thisanalysis addresses the role of rural-urbanmigration between adolescence and adulthoodin shaping the social "costs" of rural origins.Essentially, this part of the analysis assesseswhether rural youth who migrate to citiesovercome their "origins" through migration tourban areas of the U.S.
More specifically, we first empiricallyexamine the extent and process by which rural
3
origins may affect socioeconomic attainmentsin adulthood and how these costs may havechanged during this century in the UnitedStates. Two primary databases are utilized:the cumulative NORC General Social Surveys,1972-1994 (GSS) and the National Longitudi-nal Survey of the High School Class of 1972(NLS-72) panel study of high school seniorswho were traced into mid-adulthood. Using thetraditional Blau-Duncan model of statusattainment (Blau and Duncan 1967) as a pointof departure, the cumulative GSS data arereorganized to reflect the period when GSSrespondents were age 16 and corresponding tosix landmark periods of rural developmentpolicy: 1900-1920; 1921-1932; 1933-1940;1941-1952; 1953-1965; and 1966-1980. Be-cause GSS respondents born during the mostrecent period (1965-1980) had not collectivelyreached career peaks in their life course, asecond database was also used to supplementthe analysis. The NLS-72 panel data wereused to estimate a similar model for a morerecent cohort of youth who have reached mid-adulthood.
A second phase of the analysis utilizes theNLS-72 database to extend the Blau-Duncanmodel to approximate the Wisconsin model ofstatus attainment (see Otto and Haller 1979)in order to more fully understand theindividual-level (human capital) process ofhow rural origins may affect socioeconomicattainments in adulthood. In this case, wefocus on rural origins' influence through theformation of educational and occupationalaspirations and their translation into achieve-ments.
A third issue examined in this study is thequestion of whether rural youth can "migrateaway" from the social costs associated withtheir origins. This is addressed by comparingthese two status attainment models forsubgroups of respondents, in both the GSS andNLS-72 datasets, who reported differentmigration patterns between adolescence andadulthood.
4
THEORIES OF RURAL DIFFERENTIATIONAND STRATIFICATION
We begin by reviewing the theory andresearch on rural differentiation, brieflysummarizing work involving how and whyrural America has been distinct from urbanAmerica. In order to provide a context for howrural areas have fared in the public policyarena, a brief history of major federal ruraldevelopment initiatives, most designed tocompensate for "social deficits" experienced byrural residents, is then presented. This reviewborrows heavily from previous work ofagricultural historians (Lapping et al. 1989;Rasmussen 1985; Carlson et al. 1981;McGovern 1967; Effland 1993). Finally, therole that migration has played in socioeco-nomic attainment levels of adults from ruralorigins is reviewed.
Rural-Urban Differences in America
The study of social differentiation betweenrural and urban people is a long-standingobject of inquiry for both urban and ruralsociologists (see Carlson et al. 1981).Establishing the patterns of social differencesbetween rural and urban areas has been acontinual focus in this body of literature. Of themany issues considered in these studies,perhaps the major debate has been whether ornot there are distinct cultures, or "ideologies,"existing within rural and urban areas (Millerand Luloff 1981). In essence, the question hasamounted to whether or not distinctive ruraland urban "ideologies" exist at opposite ends ofa continuum where their respective values andbeliefs are separated by a "cultural gap".Willits et al. (1982) have concluded that rural-urban differences represent "small, butpersistent" patterns of social differentiation, incontrast to Dewey's (1960) earlier contentionthat the small observable differences are "real,but relatively unimportant."
One of the persistent problems giving riseto these generalizations is how to define who isrural or urban. Both physical characteristics ofa geographic location and the attributes of the
people living in those areas have been used todescribe "rural" and "urban" populations.Miller and Luloff (1981) have argued thatthere seems to be three main definitions orconceptualizations of ruralness. They are: (1)the ecological, (2) occupational, and (3)sociocultural dimensions.
The ecological dimension of ruralness isdefined as dealing with the causes and effectsof the distribution of the population. This ischaracterized as a geographic area with asmall population, relatively isolated fromurban areas (Miller and Luloff 1981). Thisdefinition is the one most frequently under-stood by the public. It is in keeping with theU.S. Bureau of the Census definition of rural;that is, places with a population of 2,500 orless.
The occupational dimension refers to thoseoccupations most commonly associated withrural areas e.g. agriculture, fishing, mining,forestry, and other extractive industries(Miller and Luloff 1981). This definition is verylimited in scope. With the diffusion of urbanindustry into more rural areas, a more carefulinterpretation of this definition is needed. Thisdefinition is problematic because those whoimpose an occupational definition to "rural"have trouble keeping within the specificboundaries set forth, coupled with theempirical reality of large-scale farm produc-tion where "farmers" do not actually live onfarms (see Fuguitt et al. 1989: Chapter 10).
The sociocultural dimension is moreabstract and difficult to define. Not only doesthis dimension encompass behavior, it alsoincorporates the structured values andattitudes which serve as the normativeguidelines for the behavior (Miller and Luloff1981). It refers to "the culture and/or behaviorof people defined as "rural" in regard to ecologyor occupation rather than some distinctivecultural or interactional form" (Bealer et al.1965: 264). Rural people are seen as beingtraditional in their orientations, slow to acceptchange, ideologically and religiously conserva-tive, and so forth. (Miller and Luloff 1981;
Willits et al. 1982; Ford 1978). Urban people,however, are seen as quite the opposite: lesstraditional and more liberal in their ideologies(Willits, et al. 1982; Ford 1978). Socioculturalecologists suggest that one needs to includevalues and culture with the ecologicalapproach in order to fully understand ruralpopulation growth (Lyon 1987).
Given these three conceptual distinctions,rural and urban areas may exist at oppositeends of a physical, economic and socioculturalcontinuum. The problem with defining rurallies in the fact that there is no one dimensionthat can be singled out to comprehensivelyrepresent the concept. It has been suggestedthat a composite definition, including each ofthese three dimensions, would be appropriate(Bealer et al. 1965; Miller and Luloff 1981).Nonetheless, such a composite definition lacksan operational consensus in the literature todate (see Falk and Pinhey 1978). Partially outof practical convenience, the size-of-placedefinition is by far the most often usedoperational measure in research and it is theone we adopt in this study, for the same reason.
Three Perspectives onRural-Urban Social Change
There are three specific perspectives onsocial and cultural change among rural andurban areas in the United States. Eachattempts to understand how and why ruraland urban places differ from each other andhow this differentiation has changed overtime. Two of them suggest a decrease in thedifferences between rural and urban areas.The third indicates that there has been arestructuring in the social and economicorganization of rural and urban settings,reversing any trend toward rural-urbansimilarity, and moving toward a growingdivergence between the two ecological areas.These perspectives are: (a) the massificationhypothesis, (b) convergence theory, and (c) theeconomic restructuring of rural America.
Massification Hypothesis. Themassification hypothesis originated in the1930s as the impact of the emerging massmedia on the United States and Europe wasbeing felt. Massification is a term denoting the
5
creation of a "mass" society with respect tovalues, beliefs and attitudes as well asincreased exposure to a more "urban" way oflife (Glenn 1963). The basic idea underlyingthe massification hypothesis is that diversitiesexisting with respect to ethnicity, region, andclass are destroyed by the emergence of acritical "mass" of standardized culture andexperiences. Due to increased exposure tomass media across different social classes,combined with the processes of urbanizationand industrialization, extant cultural diversi-ties are reduced to relative cultural homogene-ity (Peterson and DiMaggio 1975).
The massification theorists propose that a"mass culture" is being created where valuesand tastes are relatively similar. "Massculture," according to MacDonald,
is a dynamic, revolutionary force, breakingdown the old barriers of class, tradition, taste,and dissolving all cultural distinctions. Itmixes and scrambles everything together,producing what might be called homogenizedculture...It thus destroys all values, since valuejudgments imply discrimination. Mass Cul-ture is very, very democratic: it absolutelyrefuses to discriminate against, or between,anything or anybody (1957: 62).
The first factor that is said to havecontributed to the "massification" of society isan increase in exposure to the mass media. Themass media are considered to be the center ofAmerican leisure time (Wilensky 1964). Weknow that rural people are increasingly beingexposed to the same newspapers, magazines,television shows, movies at the cinema, and soforth, that are available to urban people(Willits et al. 1982). Youth in both residentialareas are being exposed to the samecontemporary popular culture. Advertisingagencies directly target youth, therebycreating a virtual mass youth consumermarket. Howell (1989) has tied advertisingand the consumption of popular culture toresidential location among youth in thefollowing way:
The penetration of television into virtually allhomes in the United States, coupled with theincrease in mass-circulation teen magazines,has put rural youth on par in popular culture
6
with their peers virtually anywhere in thecountry. The increasing presence of satellitedish antennas in rural areas also suggests thatrural youth are increasingly consumers ofinformation geared toward this mass youthmarket ( 1989: 11).
This creates a common bond shared by youthall over the United States. Since we know thatyouth are indeed influenced by what they seeon television (Greeson and Williams 1986), wewould expect that this exposure to "popularculture" would lead to similarities in thebehaviors and attitudes of youth, regardless ofplace of residence.
This line of reasoning means thattelevision viewing has introduced an "aware-ness" of diverse (urban) ways of life to ruralyouth that they might not have been exposedto otherwise. However, media exposure maynot be as influential in its "massification"ability as was once thought. Being exposed tosimilar television programs and magazinesdoes not necessarily mean a convergence invalues. Individuals can be selective in whatthey view and read. They may exposethemselves only to materials that are inkeeping with their own values and beliefs(Willits et al. 1982).
However, with the increasing sophistica-tion in communications technology coupledwith the increasing availability of thistechnology across most rural and urban areas,all types of information may be transmitted torural areas at the same time and as easily asthey are to urban areas (Dillman 1983). Thus,mass media exposure contributes to the"massification" of society by reducing therelative "cultural isolation" of rural youth.
A second contributor to "massification" isthe process of urbanization. Kasarda (1980)pointed out that the nonmetropolitan popula-tion turnaround of the 1970's was partly aresult of urbanization. What were previouslyconsidered as primarily urban occupationshave spread to the more rural areas. Onesource of the urbanization of rural areas is thegrowth and access to interstate highways(Fuguitt 1985). Improvement in transporta-tion gives ready access to and from rural andurban areas. Urbanization reduces thephysical isolation as well as the cultural
isolation of rural residents from urbanresidents, thereby creating a "mass" society. Aconsequence of this process is the decline ofattitudes and values that might have oncebeen considered traditional. Research evi-dence, for instance, points to only a slightnegative association between size of commu-nity and traditionalism (Fischer 1975).
The trend toward the industrialization ofrural areas has also contributed to the processof "massification". Since the late 1950's, atechnological shift has occurred in agriculturaland other extractive industries (Ford 1978;Lyson 1989). Manufacturing spread to therural areas, creating a decline in the farmemployment sector. By the 1970's, approxi-mately 17% of those employed were employedin manufacturing industries. Urban technol-ogy has been expanding into rural areas,creating relative occupational similarities. The1970s showed a diffusion of "industrial andservice activities" especially in areas whererecreational activities are important andretirement communities are present. Theseoccupational similarities have contributed tothe reduction of rural and urban differences(Ford 1978).
Convergence Theory. A second theoreti-cal perspective that may aid in the under-standing of change in rural-urban differencesis the convergence model. This model of changeis derived from a human and urban ecologyperspective. The redistribution of the popula-tion has prompted ecologists to hypothesizethat there has been a convergence betweenrural and urban areas. Kasarda (1980) refersto this convergence as simply an extension ofthe process of urbanization. He proposedseveral reasons for the "nonmetropolitanpopulation - turnaround ". They are as follows:
( 1) the extension of the interstate highwaysystem through many remote areas and theexpanded all-weather surfacing of rural roads;(2) the expansion and linkage of locally ownedtelephone companies into the Bell system; (3)the extension of power lines and other publicutilities and services, such as new, centralized,rural water systems, throughout mostnonmetropolitan counties; (4) telecommunica-tion advances, including cable TV; (5) theproliferation of nationally standardized con-
sumer goods and service establishments innonmetropolitan counties; (6) dual residencesassociated with rising real incomes andincreased leisure time; (7) a growing footlooseretirement population; and (8) life-stylechanges oriented to more bucolic, less denselysettled environments (1980:381).
Illustrated by Wilson (1984), the conver-gence model suggests that several factors havecontributed to the decrease in the divergence ofrural and urban areas. Wilson (1984)summarizes these factors as, first, an increasein "personal affluence" and an associatedincreased emphasis on time spent in leisureactivities and, second, a lower retirement agewith its corresponding increase in the numberof retirement communities across the U.S. Thefastest growing communities in the 1970'swere those found to have facilities forrecreation and retirement communities(Carlson et al. 1981). A third factor in thedecrease of diversities of rural and urban areasis the diffusion of what has traditionally beenconsidered urban occupations and services tothe more remote rural areas. With theimprovement in transportation, rural areasare more easily accessible (Carlson et al. 1981).This enables businesses to expand, thereby,increasing the population in rural areas. Theimprovement of transportation and communi-cation has also made interactions betweenrural and urban areas much easier.
In summary, urban ecologists view theconvergence of rural and urban areas ascreating a balance, or a "state of equilibrium,"regarding the concentration of the U.S.population. This is essentially a result of theexistence of new technological breakthroughsas well as the modification of existingtechnologies.
Economic Restructuring of RuralAmerica. While the massification hypothesisand convergence theory both depict rural andurban youth becoming more homogeneous, thegrowing literature on the recent economicrestructuring of rural America suggests adifferent set of expectations. In the last decade,rural areas have been experiencing a type of"economic distress" resulting from two promi-nent factors (Dewitt et al. 1988).
First, this decline is marked by a decreasein the rural population. The 1970s showed a
7
nonmetropolitan population turnaround whererural areas were increasing in size morerapidly than metropolitan areas (Fuguitt1985). However, the 1980s showed apopulation decline similar to the one experi-enced in the 1950s (U.S. Department ofAgriculture 1987). The net migration ratebetween the years 1985 and 1986 wasestimated to be approximately 500,000. Thisrate increased tremendously to approximatelythree-quarters of a million the next year(Dewitt et al. 1988). One source of theincreased net migration from rural to urbanareas is those residents with a collegeeducation. College-educated individuals aremore likely to migrate to metropolitan areas,resulting in a "brain-drain" in rural areas.Between the years 1985-1986, "net migrationfrom rural to urban areas was two and one-halftimes higher for college graduates...than forhigh school students" (Dewitt et al. 1988: 3).However, the most recent population esti-mates from the U.S. Census suggests thatthere has been a significant increase in thenonmetropolitan population since 1990, largelydue to net in-migration (Johnson and Beale1995).
Second, the rural economic decline ismarked by high unemployment rates, slow jobgrowth and the weakening of already existingindustries which are creating a financial crisisin rural areas (Dewitt et al. 1988; U.S.Department of Agriculture 1987). Unemploy-ment in rural areas, many of which have highpoverty rates, has increased. Those rural areasdependent upon the mining and energyindustries have had employment cutbacks andincreased unemployment rates ranging any-where from 10-15 percent between the years1982-1985 (Dewitt et al. 1988). These lowunemployment rates are a result of low jobgrowth in rural areas. Industries showing lowrates of growth are the "natural resource andgoods-producing industries" (U.S. Departmentof Agriculture 1987). Moreover, manufactur-ing industries that are slightly growing areproviding low-skill, low-wage jobs (Dewitt etal. 1988; Lyson 1989; Lyson and Falk 1993).Since these industries have traditionally beenseen as the dominant ones in rural areas, wecan see why a deterioration of the ruraleconomy is evident.
8
Brief Summary of Theoretical Per-spectives. In short, little doubt exists that theurbanization process in the United States isreaching the point to where new forms of citiesare emerging (e.g., Garreau 1991). Amassification of social life has occurred suchthat both rural and urban people are largelyexposed to a fairly common culture and a socialawareness, fostered by a prevalent, althoughdiverse, system of media and consumer-related standards of cultural symbols andmeanings (see Howell 1989a). Finally, therestructuring of the rural economic fabricunderlying small towns and rural communi-ties has fostered a reorganization of socialopportunities within these settings (Fuguitt etal. 1989). How the life chances of individualsresiding today in rural America will fare in thelong-term remains to be seen, but theprospects appear bleak for those who do notwish to migrate from rural communities whichdo not share a strategic proximity tometropolitan areas. It may be that the recenteconomic restructuring of rural Americaduring the previous two decades has put inplace a reversal of the commonality of socialexperiences for rural and urban individuals.As we note in the following section, themassification hypothesis and convergencetheory perspectives are consistent with thegoals of rural development. That is, bothperspectives articulate an increasingly homog-enous social organization and culture betweenrural and urban America which is consistentwith the goals of a set of Federally-basedinitiatives whose purpose is to "develop" ruralareas to be somewhat similar to urban ones.The economic restructuring perspective, point-ing to a recent period of change in ruralAmerica, suggests trends which run counter tothese rural development goals.
Rural-Urban Migration inSocioeconomic Attainment
According to the push-pull theory ofmigration, some people move because they areattracted to someplace, whereas others movebecause they are pushed out of their formerliving areas (Weeks 1993). According to a life-course perspective, the underlying motivations
for migration may vary, depending upon thestage in the life course. Children migrate alongwith their parents due to their dependencyupon adults. Many teenagers "migrate" awayto college or to find employment; their firstmove away from home might be the mostimportant determinant of size-of-place migra-tion, especially among rural youth (Howell andFrese 1983). On the other hand, it seems clearthat rural youth are more likely to be schooldropouts, owing to greater experiences with animpoverished background (Lichter et al. 1993).While migration represents an individualchoice, comprised of a multitude of economicand non-economic factors (Williams 1981), anissue important for this study is whether ruralresidents must migrate in order to becomesuccessful according to some common stan-dards of achievement in American society.
Previous empirical work on the role ofmigration in the socioeconomic achievementprocess shows that migration to largerpopulation centers may be associated withpositive economic returns. For example, Longand Heitman (1975), using data from the 1970census, found that migrants from rural-to-urban areas had better socioeconomic achieve-ment than nonmigrants. Wang and Sewell(1980) tested the effects of migration onpersonal earnings based on data from theWisconsin longitudinal study of 1957 highschool seniors using the 1964 follow-up survey.Their definition of migrant was simply that aperson lived in different communities between1957 and 1964. In Wang and Sewell's model,which was a respecification of the Wisconsinmodel of status attainment, migration andplace of current residence were specified asbeing partly determined by a respondent'seducational attainment, but were themselvesdeterminants of occupational achievementand earnings (1980: 192). Wang and Sewell'sresults indicated that current residence has asignificant effect on individuals' earnings,controlling for residence during the high schoolsenior year. This finding suggests thatmigration itself is linked to higher personalearnings among men in the Wisconsin panel.
More recently, Wenk and Hardesty (1993)used data from the NLSY panel to examine theeffects of rural-to-urban migration from 1980to 1988 on poverty status. Their results
Vie'
showed that women moving from rural areasto urban areas improved their economiccondition, but this was not the case for men.Wenk and Hardesty (1993) explained thatwomen in urban areas had more employmentopportunities than in rural areas.
Pollard and O'Hare (1990) studied theHigh School and Beyond (HSB) databaseregarding metropolitan and non-metropolitanseniors in 1980 and how they faredsocioeconomically as of 1986. They found thatabout equal proportions of metro and non-metro seniors migrated from their hometownsas of six years after high school. Theireducational attainments were approximatelyequal but migration seemed to play animportant role in shaping the occupational andearnings achievements of non-metropolitan("rural") youth early in their career. Migrantswere more likely to be in white-collar jobs (53to 42 percent) with non-migrants more likely tohold blue-collar positions (35 to 27 percent). Interms of income, non-migrants were makingonly 79 percent of the average 1985 income ofmigrants. While these patterns do notadequately deal with the differential age-income curves prevalent in many occupations,they do indicate that in the short-term, ruralyouth who migrate from their home communi-ties fare better at .occupational and incomeattainments than their peers who stay behind.
In a companion study, Pollard et al. (1990)examined the selectivity factors related toHSB seniors migrating away from theirhometowns. Personal and community factors,
9
such as being schooled in a college preparatorycurriculum in high school and if the nearestcollege or university was "far-off," provedimportant. However, local labor marketfactors proved very important as well: low per-capita income of the home county and(paradoxically) the amount of expenditures thelocal community invested in their schoolsystems were factors that tended to driveseniors to other locales as of six years afterhigh school.
Thus, studies of the process of individualsocioeconomic achievement find that migra-tion, especially away from rural areas, plays asignificant role in adulthood attainments.While the structure of socioeconomic opportu-nities in rural communities has been on thedecline in recent years (e.g., Lyson 1989;Barkley 1993), the logical extension that ruralyouth must migrate in order to forego therelative deficits associated with continuing tolive in places of their origin is an importantelement of the stratification of place in theUnited States. Migration is important, both forindividuals, in terms of the likelihood of theirpersonal attainments, and for rural communi-ties, which must compete with non-rural areasfor economic growth, stability, and, for some,survival. The question of whether or not ruralyouth can "migrate away" from the social costsof their origins is a compelling hypothesis, forboth research and public policies related torural development (Glenn and Hill 1977;Fuguitt et al. 1989: Chapter Two; Lichter et al.1993).
HISTORY OF MAJOR FEDERAL POLICY INITIATIVESFOR RURAL DEVELOPMENT
In this section, a brief history of major ruraldevelopment programs and initiatives at theFederal level during this century is presented.It is organized by era, based on our integrationof historical characterizations by McGovern(1967), Carlson et al. (1981), Rasmussen(1985), Lapping et al. (1989), and, mostrecently, Effland (1993). In addition we
identify some important factors influencingrural development programs since circa 1980which affect the current state of Federal policy-making (Flora and Flora 1990; Effland 1993;GAO 1993, 1996). These policies are classifiedinto six distinct periods, as shown in Figure 1.
McGovern (1967) divided rural develop-ment policy in the United States into five
3
10
different periods: The Golden Age (1900-1920);The Farm Depression (1921-1933); The NewDeal (1933-1940); World War II and NewHorizons (1941-1952); and The Crisis and theOpportunity of Abundance (1953-1965). Later,Carlson and his co-workers (1981) called theperiod from 1966 to 1980, A Broader RuralPerspective (see Figure 1). Effland (1993)organized major Federal policy efforts byPresidential administration but these effec-tively operate as subsets of the McGovern-Carlson et al. scheme. We briefly overview therationale for this historical classificationscheme, followed by some consideration of howthese periods of rural development initiativesmay have influenced the life chances of ruralyouth.
During the Golden Age, thirty-eightpercent of those employed participated inagriculture (McGovern 1967). From 1900 to1920, the prices of farm products rose fasterthan those of industrial production. Thefederal government focused on constructingmaterial infrastructure in rural areas, forexample the Office of Public Roads wasorganized in 1905. The Country Life Commis-sion, appointed in 1908, tried to solve the needsand problems of families in rural areas and theFederal Highway Act (1916) initiated thebeginnings of a long-distance transportationsystem for the nation.
In the Depression era, rural developmentwas somewhat arrested in the United States,although a number of initiatives wereestablished. McGovern (1967) reported that bythe end of 1921, farm earnings decreased byforty percent. The main purpose of federalrural development programs during thisperiod was to maintain farm incomes bycontrolling farm prices. For example, theAgricultural Marketing Act in 1929 fosteredthe federal program to purchase farmsurpluses to sustain the price of United Statesfarm products.
Following the general trend in the countryduring the period, New Deal rural develop-ment policies were very eventful programs,serving as catalysts to try to improve thequality of rural life (and enhance the lifechances of rural children) which was ravagedby the Great Depression (see, for instance,Elder 1977). Lapping et al. (1989) reported
that the goals of these policies and programsincluded increasing rural incomes by manipu-lating farm prices and building a great deal ofthe new infrastructure in rural areas. In fact,McGovern (1967) declared that "the basicstructure of American farm legislation wasestablished in the 1930's" (1967: xxvi). TheNew Deal introduced the national concept ofplanning and societal guidance which "culti-vated" rural areas to become more modernizedand led to their increasing pattern ofurbanization.
In World War II and the subsequent periodof "New Horizons" (1941-1952), the U.S.government primarily focused on increasingfarm production as a mechanism for ruraldevelopment. This was based on the belief that"food will win the war" (Carlson et al. 1981:45). Between 1942 and 1943, the emergencyPrice Control Act was passed to maintain theprice of farm products. The Food Productionand Distribution Administration was estab-lished to improve the quantity and quality offarm production. However, there were otheractions that undoubtedly led to a continuanceof the betterment of the physical infrastruc-ture in rural areas. The beginnings of thecommunications system in rural America waslaunched through the Rural Telephone LoanProgram. This initiative, coupled with theauthorization of the Tennessee Valley Author-ity and the Federal Highway Act duringprevious periods of rural development (seeFigure 1), complemented the rise of bettercommunications and transportation capacityfor rural communities across the country. Thisera might be characterized as one of greatstrides in the enhancement of basic "access" torural America and from rural areas to the restof the country, from an urban-centricperspective. Thus, while crop production was atargeted venue of Federal rural developmentfrom a policy-making point of view, severalimportant other initiatives continued thedevelopment of rural America to have access tothe rest of the Nation and vice-versa.
During the period from 1953 and 1966,Federal rural development efforts have beencharacterized as the "Crisis and Opportunityof Abundance." Following the Korean Conflict,the Federal government not only continued toimprove the physical infrastructure in rural
I4
Figu
re 1
. His
tory
of
Maj
or F
eder
al P
rogr
ams
for
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent b
y Pe
riod
The
Gol
den
Age
Far
m D
epre
ssio
nT
he N
ew D
eal
Wor
ld W
ar II
& N
ewH
oriz
ons
The
Cris
is a
nd th
eO
ppor
tuni
ty o
fA
Bro
ader
Rur
al P
ersp
ectiv
e(1
900-
1920
)(1
921-
1932
)(1
933-
1940
)(1
941-
1952
)A
bund
ance
(19
53-1
966)
(196
7-19
92)
1905
Offi
ce o
f Pub
lic R
oads
1921
Cap
per-
Vol
stea
d19
33T
enne
ssee
1942
Em
erge
ncy
Pric
e19
53N
atio
nal A
gric
ultu
ral
1969
Pre
side
ntia
l Tas
k F
orce
on
(US
DA
) or
gani
zed
Act
cre
ated
rur
alco
-op
s.V
alle
y A
utho
rity
esta
blis
hed
Con
trol
Act
appr
oved
Adv
isor
y C
omm
issi
ones
tabl
ishe
dR
ural
Dev
elop
men
t
1908
Cou
ntry
Life
Com
mis
sion
1970
US
DA
Com
mitt
ees
for
Rur
alap
poin
ted
1923
Agr
icul
tura
l Cre
dits
Act
app
rove
d19
33T
he A
gric
ultu
ral
Adj
ustm
ent A
ct19
43F
ood
Pro
duct
ion
and
Dis
trib
utio
n19
53In
ters
tate
Hig
hway
Sys
tem
rec
eive
s fir
stD
evel
opm
ent s
at u
p in
eac
h st
ate
1912
Offi
ce o
f Pub
lic R
oads
enac
ted
Adm
inis
trat
ion
appr
opria
tions
1971
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent S
ervi
ce(U
SD
A)
rece
ives
1926
Div
isio
n of
esta
blis
hed
orga
nize
dap
prop
riatio
ns to
Co-
oper
ativ
e19
33T
he F
arm
1954
Agr
icul
tura
l Tra
desu
perv
ise
build
ing
of r
ural
post
roa
dsm
arki
nges
tabl
ishe
d in
Dep
artm
ent o
f
Cre
dit A
ctpa
ssed
1949
Rur
al T
elep
hone
Loan
pro
gram
begu
n
Dev
elop
men
t and
Ass
ista
nce
Act
appr
oved
1971
Firs
t Reg
iona
l Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent
Cen
ter
Est
ablis
hed
1914
Sm
ith-L
ever
Act
esta
blis
hed
Agr
icul
ture
1935
Rur
alE
lect
rific
atio
n19
55R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t19
72R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t Act
ena
cted
Coo
pera
tive
Ext
ensi
onS
ervi
ce19
29N
atio
nal C
ham
ber
of A
gric
ultu
ral
Adm
inis
trat
ion
orga
nize
dC
omm
ittee
s or
gani
zed
1973
Con
gres
sion
al R
ural
Cau
cus
orga
nize
dC
o-op
erat
ives
1959
Inte
rdep
artm
enta
l19
16F
eder
al H
ighw
ay A
ctap
prov
edes
tabl
ishe
d19
35R
eset
tlem
ent
Adm
inis
trat
ion
Com
mitt
ee o
n R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t19
78U
SD
A R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t Ser
vice
mer
ged
into
Fm
HA
1929
The
Fed
eral
Far
mor
gani
zed
esta
blis
hed
1916
Fed
eral
Far
m L
oan
Act
Boa
rd e
stab
lishe
d19
80R
ural
Pol
icy
Act
appr
oved
1936
Soi
l19
61R
ural
Dev
elop
men
tP
asse
d19
29A
gric
ultu
reC
onse
rvat
ion
Com
mitt
ees
repl
aced
1920
Am
eric
an F
arm
Bur
eau
Fed
erat
ion
orga
nize
dM
arke
ting
Act
appr
oved
and
Dom
estic
Allo
tmen
t Act
pass
ed
by R
ural
Are
aD
evel
opm
ent
1980
Nat
iona
l Adv
isor
y C
ounc
il on
Sm
all C
omm
unity
and
Rur
alD
evel
opm
ent e
stab
lish
1964
Eco
nom
ic O
ppor
tuni
ty19
37M
arke
tA
ct p
asse
d19
81U
SD
A O
ffice
of R
ural
Agr
eem
ent A
ctD
evel
opm
ent P
olic
y es
tabl
ish
Ena
cted
1965
Hou
sing
and
Urb
anD
evel
opm
ent A
ctpa
ssed
1985
Foo
d S
ecur
ity A
ct
1990
Pre
side
ntia
nnst
itute
1965
Offi
ce o
f Rur
al A
reas
Dev
elop
men
t rep
lace
dby
Rur
al C
omm
unity
1992
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent
Adm
inis
trat
ion
fund
edD
evel
opm
ent S
ervi
ce19
92S
tate
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent
1966
Nat
iona
l Adv
isor
yC
ounc
il fo
rmed
Com
mis
sion
on
Rur
alP
over
ty
1900
1921
1933
1941
1953
1967
Sou
rces
:M
cGov
ern,
G. 1
967.
Agr
icul
tura
l Tho
ught
in th
e T
wen
tieth
Cen
tury
. New
Yor
k T
he B
obbs
-Mer
rill.
p. X
V-X
IVI
Ras
mus
sen,
W. D
. 198
5. "
90 Y
ears
of R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t Pro
gram
s."
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent P
ersp
ectiv
es. O
ct. p
. 2-9
.C
arls
on, J
. E.,
M. L
. Las
sey,
and
W. R
. Las
sey.
198
1. R
ural
Soc
iety
and
Env
ironm
ent i
n A
mer
ica
New
Yor
k M
cGra
w-H
ill. p
. 37-
53.
Lapp
ing,
M. B
., T
. L D
anie
ls, a
nd J
. W. K
elle
r. 1
989.
Rur
al P
lann
ing
and
Dev
elop
men
t in
the
Uni
ted
Sta
tes.
New
Yor
k T
he G
uilfo
rd P
ress
.p.
22-
44.
Effl
and,
Ann
e B
. W. 1
993.
"F
eder
al R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t Pol
icy
Sin
ce 1
972.
" R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t Per
spec
tives
9:8
-13.
1992
CO
PY A
MA
LE
16
12
areas but also focused attention on ruralunemployment and poverty. The former was toameliorate the degree of rural isolation thatexisted while the latter was geared to solve themore directly human problems of differencesin personal well-being. For example, the RuralAreas Development Office was charged withreducing and managing rural unemployment.Moreover, the goal of the EconomicOpportunity Act was to end rural poverty(Rasmussen 1985). In this period, one mightobserve that there was the shift in thedirection of federal programs, from a singularfocus on the development of rural areas, per se,to comparisons of their level of developmentrelative to urban areas. This distinction isimportant because it renders somewhat of a"baseline" for assessing the ultimate goals ofFederal-based rural development programs.These goals became two-fold: (a) equalizing thecomparative opportunity for success by ruralAmericans to their urban counterparts; as wellas (b) equality in the objective standards ofsocioeconomic development across these spa-tially different rural-urban areas of thecountry.
In the period classified by agriculturalhistorians as a "Broader Rural Perspective"(1967-1992), Federal efforts in rural develop-ment primarily focused on promoting theoverall socioeconomic development of ruralareas.2 These actions were highlighted by theauthorization of the first monies for theInterstate Highway System, passing theEconomic Opportunity Act and the Agricultural Trade Development and Assistance Act.New industrial development extended intorural areas during this period but there was
2 The schema developed by Carlson et al. (1981)ends with 1980 as the conclusion of the "BroaderRural Perspective" era. However, this closure wasessentially a function of bringing this period to thethe then-present day. We have used the work ofFlora and Flora (1989) and Effland (1993) to extendthis period to the "present day" of circa 1992. Indoing so, this may not adequately reflect theopinions of these authors and, as such, thisorganization of events involving Federal ruraldevelopment policy should not be attributed tothem.
also the negative effect of foreign exports onthe price of U.S. farm products (Carlson et al.1981). The federal government also coordi-nated the organization of rural developmentprograms within states themselves (Rasmussen1985), a somewhat signal event. In this period,Carlson et al. (1981: 46) characterized theseactions as reflecting "new policies .. which takeinto greater account the broadening base ofrural occupations and communities."
This historical schema offered by ourintegration of Carlson et al. (1981) withvarious others formally ends with circa 1980.We have not yet seen precisely how the eventsof the previous decade or so will fit into themosaic of rural development history (for aglobal perspective, see Flora 1990). However,we can borrow from Flora and Flora's (1989)accounting of federal policy during the decadeand its effect on rural America. Effland (1993)also gives us some accounting of Federal ruraldevelopment policy-making during this period.
Flora and Flora (1989) have identified fivetypes of policies which have restricted thedevelopment of rural areas during the 1980s:inappropriate cost assessments; deregulation;relaxation of anti-trust laws; tax laws coveringcapital investments, and the demise offormula-based funding.
First, federal government reimbursementsfor rural communities have been inappropri-ately based on the assumption that living costsin rural areas were less than those in urbanareas. As a result, there was the unequal levelof government reimbursement between ruraland urban areas. Rural communities alwaysobtained fewer resources from the federalgovernment than did urban communities.
Second, due to the policy of deregulation,there was the economic disadvantage in ruralcommunities because of monopoly capital.Flora and Flora argued that "Deregulation hasaided large corporations by allowing them todrop services in marginally profitable places"(1989: 51). This situation negatively influ-enced the quality and availability of semi-public services in rural communities.
Third, the relaxation of Anti-Trust Lawsallowed large companies to take over smallcompanies, which frequently created jobs bylocating in rural areas, and shifted capitalfrom productive investment to speculative
enterprises. Small companies have beengradually merged with larger firms, decreas-ing both production capacity and localemployment. Consequently, the options ofeconomic development in rural areas becamelimited because of confinements imposed byhigher capital costs.
Fourth, the change in tax laws in the early1980s favored urban and suburban develop-ment, but disadvantaged rural development."The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981encouraged capital-intensive development inlarge metropolitan areas by providing morerapid cost recovery for certain types of realestate development" (1989: 52).
Finally, the shift away from formula-basedfunding fostered a change to competitivegrants which required writing skills for funds.Urban communities were able to obtain manygrants because of a greater likelihood of havinga college or university in the area. However,rural areas tended to lack necessary technical-writing talent due largely to the economy-of-scale required to keep such a position fullyemployed. Flora and Flora (1989) also reportedthat "many states have used these funds tosupport state bureaucracies, not rural commu-nities" (1989: 52). Zuiches (1991) discusses theviability of rural communities along thesesame lines and concludes that one strategicasset not accessible in these communities is a"think-tank" capacity for assessment andplanning. He argues that the changing socialand physical landscapes in rural Americarequire such capacity to be economically viablein today's marketplace of commerce and thatthe land-grant system is one mechanism thatneeds "reinventing" for delivering this type ofasset (e.g., the Cooperative Extension Service).
Efiland (1993) provided another view ofpost-1980 events that have shaped ruraldevelopment efforts. One is the antagonisticrelationship between alternate ideologiesgauging the nature of "successful" develop-ment. That antagonism occurs when ruralareas appear to show signs of improvement,there are social interests who argue that ruralAmerica needs no further Federal attention.On the other hand, there are counter-interestswho advocate an even stronger role by Federalpolicy toward rural areas because of the"demonstrated positive effects" that previous
13
efforts have created. This dialectic has fueledthe debate over rural development initiativesfor about 15 years. She notes that a hallmarkevent occurred during the Carter administra-tion in that it was concluded that "Federalrural development effort consisted of pro-grams, rather than policy" [emphasis ours](Effland 1993: 10). Subsequent Carter direc-tives produced an attempt at a comprehensivepolicy during 1979. "This new policy...combinedthe poverty focus of the Kennedy/Johnsonrural policy with the state and local direction ofthe Nixon/Ford New Federalism" (1993: 10-11). With this apparent new vista in how theFederal government approached rural devel-opment, the next administration lost interestin this strategy, resulting in a 50-percentreduction in rural development programs inUSDA during the 1980's. Moreover, the end oflocal revenue sharing in 1986 producedanother cut in Federal aid to rural America. Toconclude, Effland's analysis observed that"Rural development policy since 1972 hasfollowed a rather frustrating path, repeatedlyreaching a comprehensive set of national goalsand a coordinated strategy for achieving them,only to find a new set of political and economiccircumstances as attempts at implementationbegin...the early 1990's have witnessed furtherweakening of the national economy. " (1993:13).
This era of rural development began torecognize the increasing differentiation in therural population, both in terms of industrialand occupational composition and in theattractiveness of rural areas to city dwellers(Brown and Wardwell 1980). Moreover, it hadto grapple with the increasingly divergentissues of crop production economics and ruralnon-farm development. In short, the review offederal policies of the 1980s and into the 1990ssuggests that the economic restructuring ofrural America has been at least partiallyinduced as a consequence of actions taken onthe basis of other policy agendas: a type ofindirect rural "un-development" scenario. Thereality that the farming sector represents onlyone element of rural America's social andeconomic development and, yet, constututesan undeniably irresistable focal point forFederal policy perhaps best represents thedialectic which has characterized rural
14
development from circa 1980 until the presentday (e.g., see Thurow's argument withComstock's rebuttal; Thurow 1991; Comstock1991).
To conclude this section on the history ofFederal rural development efforts, there aretwo distinctive elements of federal policy: onedirected at agriculture and the other at non-farm, rural development. Lapping et al. (1989)summarized the scope and purpose of federalpolicies for rural development during thetwentieth century in the following way:
Federal planning policy for rural America hasfeatured four broad themes: the distributionand management of land; the development ofhuman resources and physical infrastructuresupport for farmers; and the alleviation ofpoverty in peripheral regions (1989: 22).
A few years later, Wimberley's (1993) analysisof what he called agricultural sustainabilitypolicy sorted such actions into three types: (a)social, reflecting the interests of society at-large; (b) agricultural sector; and (c) ruralpeople and places. He argues that agriculturalpolicy is often a substitute for rural policywhich serves as an inadequate mechanism toserve any one, or all, of the three sectors.Wimberley states that all three policy typesdeserve appropriate attention in the policyarena for any of them to be well-attended in thepolitical process.
This evolution of federal rural development
policy, from land-use management to thedevelopment of human resources, and fromagricultural sector-policy to societalsustainability, is particularly important forthe examination of the relationship betweenrural origins and socioeconomic attainments inadulthood. How the physical infrastructure ofrural America has benefited the farmingpopulation has been well-documented by theseagricultural historians and policy analysts butmuch less is known about the linkage of ruraldevelopment policies and initiatives on humanresources and the life chances of individualsbounded by space and place in the UnitedStates. While we can probably agree with thegeneral hypothesis that one outcome ofFederal rural development programs would bethe reduction of rural-origin deficits duringthis century, it is nearly impossible to deducespecific testable hypothesis about the effects ofthese programs on individuals. However, inthe spirit of the recent GAO report on Federalrural development initiatives (GAO 1994), thisshould not preclude the attempt to gauge theimpact of these programs on their constitu-ents. Given our organization of ruraldevelopment initiatives into major historicalperiods, the general research hypothesis isthat rural-origin "costs" have declined overthese periods. On the other hand, we are left toinductively discover when and how thesepresumptive declines occurred across thesemajor periods of rural development.
DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS IN SIZE AND SHAREOF RURAL U.S. POPULATION
Perhaps the most prominent demographictrend in the United States has been the growthof urban centers, fueled by a steady rural-to-urban migration stream. While the "ruralturnaround" (Brown and Wardwell 1980) ofthe 1970s represented a surprising moment inthis long-term pattern, the clearest publicimage of the U.S. population is one of anincreasingly urbanized people with a declining
share that might be classified as rural. As thebook by Fuguitt et al. (1989) documents inmore detail, there are two elements of ruraldemography that render contrasting implica-tions about the rural population. One is the"share" of the U.S. population that lives onfarms and in small towns and communitiesclassified as rural, while the other is theabsolute size of the rural population.
i 9
To illustrate these points, Figure 2contains a graph of the size and share of therural population in the United States from1900 to 1990. These data include both theadult population and, for the 1950-90 period,the youth population, defined as individualsless than 25 years of age. We have placed thisdata series as an overlay to the six majorperiods of rural development policy in the U.S.for a contextual sense of how population sizeand share correspond to major Federal ruraldevelopment initiatives.
The share of the country's populationclassified as rural declined systematically fromabout 1940 to around 1970, where it hasstabilized at about one-quarter. Since 1950,the share of the youth population that is ruraldeclined until 1970 where it, too, leveled-off atabout 25 percent. Thus, these data show thatfully one-quarter of the total U.S. populationlives in areas small enough to be classified asrural by the Census Bureau.
In terms of the absolute size of the ruralpopulation, this figure shows that the ruralpopulation has grown in a fashion thatparallels that of the total U.S. population(Fuguitt et al. 1989: 16). Since 1900, the size ofthe rural population grew until just before thesecond World War (1940), where it reached aplateau of between 50 and 60 million. In 1970,however, there has been a noteworthy growthin the size of the rural population to just under70 million. The rate of this twenty-year growthappears to be on par, if not exceeding, thatobserved from 1900 to 1940. In other words,there are more people living in rural Americatoday than ever before and the share that ruralpeople are of the total U.S. population is notdeclining. While the growth in absolutenumbers is partly due to the growth trend of
15
the entire U.S. population, the fact remainsthat the largest growth in the number of ruralAmericans during this century occurred in thepast twenty years. While we do not provide anyprojections of the rural population into thefuture, the latest population estimates suggestthat there have been clear population gains,due largely to net in-migration, in the non-metropolitan sector of U.S. counties since 1990(see Johnson and Beale 1995).
One reviewer of this report in draft formsuggested that we substitute non-metropoli-tan net migration rates for population size andfocus instead on the rural-to-urban and urban-to-rural migration patterns within each majorperiod of rural development policy. While thisapproach would indeed emphasize the loss ofrural people to urban locations, and, sporadi-cally, the converse (see Fuguitt et al. 1989), itwould ignore the simpler, yet equallyimportant, point that the sheer size of the ruralpopulation has been on the increase, rightalong with the rest of the country.
To summarize, the demographic trends inthe size and share of the rural U.S. populationsuggest that it is riding along with the overallgrowth in the nation's increase in size. Theshare of the country's population that isclassified as rural appears to be stable ataround one-quarter of the total. The numbersof persons who are classified as rural, however,seems to be on a twenty-year growth trendthat is as strong as any other period during thiscentury. Our impression of the social andpolitical discourse regarding rural develop-ment and policy-making in the recent past isthat it virtually ignores the demographicgrowth in the size of the rural population.Instead, the typical focus is on the decliningfarm population and "shrinking" rural economy.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This section describes the research objec-tives, sources of data, the measurement ofvariables, and the models and methods ofanalysis used in the study. The research
objectives are to examine the effects of ruralresidential origins on socioeconomic attain-ments during adulthood and to investigate therole of migration in shaping this process. We
n0
Figu
re 2
. Siz
e an
d Sh
are
of th
e R
ural
Pop
ulat
ion
in th
e U
nite
d St
ates
,19
00-1
990
Gol
den
Age
Far
mW
orld
War
II &
Cris
is &
Opp
ortu
nity
Dep
ress
ion
New
Dea
lN
ew H
oriz
ons
of A
bund
ance
Bro
ader
Rur
alP
ersp
ectiv
e
Rur
al P
opul
atio
n S
ize
(Mill
ions
) (Y
1)
Rur
al P
opul
atio
n P
erce
nt (
Y2)
Rur
al Y
outh
(<
25
Yea
rs)
Pop
ulat
ion
Siz
e (M
illio
ns)
(Y1)
Rur
al Y
outh
(<
25
Yea
rs)
Pop
ulat
ion
Per
cent
(Y
2)
Sou
rces
:U
. S. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus,
196
0 U
nite
d S
tate
d C
ensu
s of
Pop
ulat
ion,
Gen
eral
Pop
ulat
ion
Cha
ract
eris
tics.
U. S
. Bur
eau
of th
e C
ensu
s, C
ensu
s of
the
Pop
ulat
ion:
197
0.U
. S. B
urea
u of
the
Cen
sus,
198
0 C
ensu
s of
Pop
ulat
ion
Gen
eral
Pop
ulat
ion
Cha
ract
eris
tics.
U. S
. Bur
eau
of th
e C
ensu
s, R
esid
ents
of F
arm
s an
d R
ural
Are
as: 1
990.
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
r -g <
1.
make use of one theoretical perspective on theprocess of socioeconomic achievement, that ofstatus attainment (Blau and Duncan 1976;Otto and Haller 1979), to the exclusion of anumber of others which are more structurally-oriented. This decision is based largely onpragmatic grounds, because it would beimportant to incorporate dual-economic or neo-Marxist conceptualizations into this study.Nonetheless, the requisite data are notavailable to us in order to render a trend studyin the long-term linkage of rural origins tosocioeconomic outcomes in adulthood.
Sources of Data
This study uses data from the cumulativeNORC General Social Surveys (GSS), con-ducted from 1972 to 1994. GSS data in thisstudy are organized into six cohorts, corre-sponding to the major periods of ruraldevelopment identified in Figure 1. Unfortu-nately, the youngest cohort only contains asmall subsample of GSS respondents who wereborn between 1945 and 1964. Moreover, theGSS data do not allow the examination ofimportant details in the status attainmentprocess (e.g., the formation of aspirations). TheNational Longitudinal Study of the HighSchool Class of 1972 (NLS-72) is also used inthis study. This large panel dataset providesan additional coverage of this most recentperiod of rural development. In addition, itfacilitates a more detailed examination of asocial psychological view of socioeconomicattainment (Otto and Haller 1979).
NORC General Social Surveys, 1972-94. The cumulative 1972-1994 GSS wereconducted by the National Opinion ResearchCenter at the University of Chicago. A total of32,380 English-speaking persons 18 years ofage or over were surveyed from 1972 to 1994with the exceptions of 1979, 1981, and 1992. Amodified probability sample was used for the1972 through 1974 data but a full probabilitysample design was employed in the 1975 to1994 surveys. The average rate of responseover the 22-year period was 76.8 percent (formore details, see Davis and Smith 1994).
The data were reorganized into six periods,which matched the major periods of rural
2 3
17
development policy (see Figure 1 above) whenGSS respondents were age sixteen. Theseperiods and the sample sizes for each are asfollows: 1900-1920 [n1=6,030]; 1921-1932[n2 5,242]; 1933-1940 [n3 = 3,595]; 1941-1952
= 8,064]; 1953-1966 [n5=7,519]; and 1967-1976 [n6=1,137]. A small proportion ofcumulative GSS respondents failed to reporttheir ages [n=793] and were omitted from theanalysis.
NLS -1972. Sponsored by the NationalCenter for Educational Statistics, the NationalLongitudinal Study of the High School Class of1972 (NLS-72) consisted of a base-year (1972)survey, gathered by the Educational TestingService; the first follow-up (1973), secondfollow-up (1974), third follow-up (1976), andthe fourth follow-up (1979) surveys, collectedby the Research Triangle Institute; and thefifth follow-up (1986) survey conducted by theNational Opinion Research Center. The NLS-72 traced students for fourteen years, fromtheir senior year in high school until 1986,when most respondents were in their earlythirties (see Riccobono et al. 1981; Tourangeauet al. 1987). Using the set of NLS-72 variablesdescribed below resulted in an unweightedsample size of n = 8,729 respondents over thefive waves.3
Measurement of Variables
In the GSS data, the variables includedmeasures of measures of family socioeconomicbackground, residential location and migra-tion experiences, and socioeconomic achieve-ment in adulthood. Besides comparable
3 Data collection from 1972 to 1979 wasconducted using a stratified random sample. Thefifth follow-up to the NLS-72 was also a stratifiedtwo-stage probability sample conducted in 1986.The fifth follow-up sample was an unequalprobability subsample of the 14,489 students, whoparticipated in at least one of the five previouswaves of NLS-72, and was stratified by: type ofschool, geographic region, enrollment size, highereducational system, minority group, income level,and degree of urbanization (Tourangeau et al.1987:8).
18
versions of these variables, the NLS-72indicators also included measures of academicability, grades, significant others' influencesfor schooling, and educational aspirations.
NORC GSS. For personal and familybackground, gender (GENDER) was scored0=male or 1=female. Number of years offormal schooling completed was used tomeasure father's (FRED) and mother'seducation (HOED). Father's occupational status(Focc) was in Duncan SEI scores. To measureresidential origins, respondents were asked inwhat type of place they lived at 16 years of age.The responses were collapsed into dummyvariables (1=yes; 0=no) for rural farm (FARmis)and rural non-farm (RNF16) areas. Region oforigin at age 16 was also coded into dummyvariables (1=yes; 0=no). These included: NewEngland (NE's), foreign (mom), Middle Atlantic(mms), East North Central (ENc is), West NorthCentral (wNcis), South Atlantic (sAls), EastSouth Central (Esc's), West North Central(wNcls), and Mountain (mms), with the Pacifcregion omitted as the reference category. Theadequacy of family income (Fn' com is) when therespondent was 16 years old was based on thequestion, "Thinking about the time when 16years old, compared with American families ingeneral then, would you said your familyincome was?" The response choices werescored as: 1=far below average, 2=belowaverage, 3=average, 4=above average, and5=far above average. (Parental income per sewas unavailable, so this variable, at best,represents a subjective recall estimate of therelative income of the respondent's family atage 16.)
Migration was measured by comparingwhere respondents lived at age 16 and place ofcurrent residence at the time of the interview.Migration included three dummy variables,each scored 1=yes and 0=no: from farm-to-city(FARmcrrY), from non-farm-to-city (RNFcrrY), andfrom city-to-rural area (cITYRuR).
The number of years of schoolingcompleted was used to measure therespondent's education (EDuc). Respondents'occupational status (occsEl) was also DuncanSEI scores. Total family income (Fusic) wascollected in income ranges and was recoded tothe midpoint of the original income categories(for example, less than $1,0004500, etc.) To
adjust for inflation during the 1972-94 period,the Consumer Price Index was used totransform family income into constant 1993dollars (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993).
NLS-72. Gender (GENDER) was coded as adummy variable (0=male or 1=female). Fivelevels of education were used to measurefather's (FRED) and mother's education (HOED).These included: 1=did not complete highschool, 2=finished high school, 3=some college,4=finished four years college, 5=obtained agraduate or professional degree. Father'soccupational status (Focc) was in Duncan SEIscores. Respondent's residence in their senioryear was collapsed to a dummy variableindicating whether or not it was rural (1=rural;0=otherwise).4 Family income (FmcoM) wasgiven by respondents with a set of dollarcategories as possible response choices. Theseresponses were recoded to the midpoint of theincome categories (for example, less than$3,00041,500, etc.). Region in 1972 wascollapsed into a set of dummy variables(1=yes; 0=no): Northeast (NEAsT), NorthCentral (NcENT), South (souni), with the Westas the omitted category.
Migration consisted of two dummy vari-ables (scored 1=yes; 0=no): a person movedfrom a rural to an urban location (RuRcrrY), anda respondent moved from an urban to a ruralarea (cITYRuR). Respondents not meeting theseconditions constitute the reference category forthese two dummy variables (i.e., one who didnot change from rural-to-urban or from urban-to-rural). Unfortunately, this migration periodcompared 1972 with 1979 (the fourth follow-up) instead of 1986 (the fifth and final follow-up) because the NLS-72 instrument for 1986did not include an item for residence and thepublic-use version of this database does nototherwise facilitate a size-of-place identifica-tion for the final wave.
For the academic performance variables,the measurement of mental ability (ABIL)consisted of the first principal component of thefollowing test scores: vocabulary formulascore, reading formula score, letter groups
The rural non-farm versus farm distinctionwas unavailable in the NLS-72 dataset.
2
formula score, and mathematics formula score(see Riccobono et al. 1981). High school grades(HSGPA) were reported by the respondent andscored into the following categories: 8=mostlyA, 7=about half A and half B, 6= mostly B,5=about half B and half C, 4=mostly C,3=about half C and half D, 2=mostly D, and1=mostly below D.
For significant-other influences, father's(FsoI) and mother's (MsoI) educational expecta-tions for students, were each scored as:1=wants me to quit high school withoutgraduating, 2=wants me to graduate fromhigh school and stop here, 3=wants me tograduate from high school and then go to avocational, technical, trade, or business school,4=wants me to go to a two-year or juniorcollege, 5=wants me to go to a four-year collegeor university, and 6=wants me to go to agraduate or professional school. For teacher'seducational expectations (TsoI), the responsecategories were: 1=discouraged me, 2=didn'ttry to influence me, and 3=encouraged me. Forpeers' plans, the question, "Will your friendsplan to go to college?" was used to construct adummy variable (1=yes; 0=no) for friends'educational plans (FPLAN).
Respondents' educational plans weremeasured as the highest education the studentplanned (EDEx) to attain. Responses included:1=less than high school, 2=graduate from highschool only, 3=go to a vocational or technicalschool, 4=go to a junior college, 5=go to a four-year college, and 6=go to a graduate orprofessional school.
For socioeconomic achievement in adult-hood, the following variables were measured inthe 1986 follow-up. Respondent's occupationalstatus (occsEi) was in Duncan SEI scores.Education (EDuc) completed as of the 1986 wasscored in the following categories: 1=some highschool, 2=high school diploma, 3=two-yearcollege, 4=some college, 5=college graduate,6=master degree, and 7=Ph.D. or M.D. Totalfamily income (FiNc) was in actual dollars forthe year 1985.
Models and Methods of Analysis
Two versions of the status attainmentmodel are used: modified versions of the
19
original Blau-Duncan model and the subse-quent social psychological Wisconsin model.
Blau-Duncan status attainment model.Shown graphically in Figure 3 below, wespecify social background factors, such asfather's and mother's education, father'soccupational status, and parent's (relative)income level, as exogenous variables alongwith region of the country, gender, and ruralfarm or rural non-farm origins. Therespondent's completed schooling intervenesbetween social origins to affect occupationalstatus and family income during adulthood. Ina subsequent respecification of this model, weinclude dummy variables reflecting adoles-cent-to-adulthood migration behaviors asintervening factors between completed school-ing and occupational status, following Wangand Sewell (1980).
Wisconsin social psychological modelof status attainment. This social psychologi-cal model is shown graphically in Figure 4, andis specified as follows within the confines of theNLS-72 database upon which it is estimated.Socioeconomic background, such as mother'sand father's completed schooling, father'soccupational status, parental income, arespecified as exogenous variables in conjunctionwith region of the country and whether or notthe NLS-72 respondent lived in a ruralcommunity. These fully exogenous variablesare sequentially linked to measured mentalability and high school grades. This recursivesequence shapes the perceptions of significant-other influence from parents (mother andfather), teachers and friends. Educationalplans during the senior year of high school arepartly an outcome of this block-recursiveprocess. These plans combine with previousstages in the model to sequentially determinecompleted schooling, occupational status, andfamily income (see Otto and Haller 1979 for anexpository report).
Model estimates and inter-periodcomparisons. The principal strategy used inthe analysis is to, first, estimate the relevantmodel using conventional OLS multipleregression procedures and, second, comparethe effects for variables pertaining to ruralorigins (dummy variables for rural farm andrural non-farm residence in the GSS data,rural versus other in the NLS-72 data) on
Figu
re 3
. Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el
4
Edu
catio
nof
Fat
her
Occ
upat
ion
of F
athe
r
Edu
catio
nof
Mot
her
Gen
der
Rur
al
Fam
ilyIn
com
e
Reg
ion
Figu
re 4
. Wis
cons
in S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el
Men
tal
Abi
lity
rPto
gtin
com
e
Occ
upat
ion
Hig
h Sc
hoo
Sign
ific
ant
Gra
des
Oth
ers
Fath
er
Edu
catio
nPl
ans
Edu
catio
n
Mot
her
Ed.
Pla
nsof
Fri
end
Tea
cher
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
.
22
socioeconomic outcomes across the six majorperiods of rural development.5 This is theapproach taken in the first phase of theanalysis which focuses on the Blau-Duncanmodel. In the second phase of analysis we usethe Wisconsin social psychological model andthe NLS-72 database to examine one processby which rural-origins influence these achieve-ments in adulthood. In this second phase, weare concerned with the effects that ruralorigins have on all stages of the model so as toisolate the intervening mechanism by whichhaving a rural background is transferred intolower attainments. In the third phase, ourinterest shifts to the role of migration awayfrom rural-origins on the socioeconomicachievement process. Both the Blau-Duncanand Wisconsin models of status attainmentare used and chimmy variables indicatingvarious types of migration patterns arespecified as intervening variables (see above).We compare the direct effects of rural originson attainments after controls for migrationbehavior are applied as one means of
5 Variable nonresponse was examined in bothdatabases. For the GSS data, thirty-one percent offather's occupational prestige scores were missing,by far the most offending variable regardingmissing values. In order to deal with the problemof these missing cases, the listwise deletion andpairwise deletion procedure were used to compareresults. The results of both of these deletionprocedures produced no great differences in thestandardized regression coefficient (maximallybetween 0.03 and 0.04). There were a fewindependent variables whose standardized regres-sion coefficients were reduced by approximately0.1 through the use of pairwise deletion incomparison to listwise deletion. For example, inPeriod 5 (1953 to 1966), the standardizedcoefficient of individual education on familyincome is 0.0647 with listwise deletion and 0.1994with pairwise deletion. In Period 6 (1967 to 1976),the standardized coefficient of mother's education
. on an individual's occupational prestige is 0.1156with listwise deletion and 0.2167 with pairwisedeletion. Based on these results, the pairwisedeletion procedure has been utilized. In the NLS-72 dataset, pairwise-present deletion was alsoused, after a similar examination of missing datatreatments.
assessing how migration influences achieve-ment. In addition, urban youth who migratedto rural areas are also identified through asimilar dummy variable arrangement as away of examining a comparative migrationeffect. Our hypotheses would be that migrationfrom rural origins to urban residence wouldhave a positive effect on socioeconomicattainments while migration from urbanorigins to a rural setting would have anegative effect.6
The GSS and NLS-72 databases haveweights which are to be applied to correct forsampling stratification or panel attrition, etc.,and these are used in the analyses reportedbelow. However, our reorganization of thecumulative GSS database presents us withunknown problems in this regard. Conven-tional procedures might suggest that thedesign-effect of the GSS or NLS-72 databasebe estimated and used as a rule-of-thumb forcomputation of standard errors in the multipleregression analysis (e.g., see Davis and Smith1994; Tourangeau et al. 1987). Recentsimulation studies, on the other hand, suggestthat this procedure could be misleading forOLS multiple regression estimation (Winshipand Radbill 1994). The estimates providedherein are based on weighted samples butwithout any adjustments for an estimateddesign effect and, for better or worse, assume asimple random sampling model. We have notreconciled these issues at this time so readersshould interpret our tests of statisticalsignificance with due caution.
6 A reader of a previous draft of this report raisedthe question about those youth who remain in theirresidential origins (e.g., are there "costs," to use ourdefinition here, to remaining in a rural area and anurban area as compared to migrated from one toanother?). We use those who "remained" in theirresidential origins as a comparison (or control)group and have no reasonable means to judge thisquestion, except to reverse the set of dummyvariables to reflect whether a NLS-72 panelmember remained in a rural location or remainedin an urban location. This would compare thoserespondents who "remained" with those who"migrated," effectively the converse of the researchdesign used here.
RESULTS
The results are presented in three phases,with each section addressing: the issues oftrends in the effects of rural origins onsocioeconomic attainments, the social psycho-logical process by which rural origins affectattainments, and the issue of how (micro-level)migration affects this process.
Socioeconomic Effects of Rural Originsby Major Period of Rural Development
The Blau-Duncan model estimates for theGSS data are presented in Tables 1-6 for each ofthe six major rural development periods andcontain both unstandardized and standardizedregression coefficients. Table 7 presents asummary of the trends in the unstandardizedcoefficients across these six periods for the totaleffects of the rural farm and rural non-farmvariables on education, occupational status, andfamily income. Table 8 contains a similarsummary of trends in the direct effects of thesevariables. While there are a several ofinteresting results contained in these tables, wewill focus on the effects of specific interest to ourresearch objectives.
As shown in a comparison of the detailedtables across periods or perusing the summaryin Table 7, rural origins has had an observablenegative effect on socioeconomic outcomes formost of this century. For completed years ofschooling, occupational status, and familyincome, having lived at age sixteen in a 'ruralarea is related to a social cost in adulthood, evenwith controls for region of the United States andparental socioeconomic standing. There are atleast three important observations that can bemade from these results.
In general, this effect has produced more of adeficit for individuals of farm-origins than ruralnon-farm areas. During most periods of ruraldevelopment, the negative effect of rural farmbackground is larger than that of rural non-farm. This was the case during the Golden Age,the Depression, and the New Deal eras.However, the World War II and New Horizonsperiods mark a turnaround in this pattern. For
23
both education and occupational status, themagnitude of the negative effects changes suchthat rural non-farm origins are at least as largeas those for farm origins and perhaps evenlarger.
A second observation is thatthe trend in theseestimates clearly implies a decline in these socialcosts linked to rural origins.
Beginning with the Golden Age, growing-upon a farm was associated with slightly less thana one-and-a-third year loss in completedschooling and almost nine-tenths of a year forrural non-farm youth. The trend in theseeducational deficits is that they have declined tovirtually no detectable difference based onresidential origins by the 1970's.
For occupational success, rural backgroundcost United States youth about 2.5 units on theDuncan SEI scale. A somewhat similar trend foroccupational status is observed. While farmyouth continued to face an even stronger statusdeficit during the Depression, rural non-farmyouth experienced a slight decline. By WorldWar II, however, the relative burden was onrural non-farm youth as they continued to havea slightly larger negative effect from theirresidential background than did farm youth.Although the sample size and the cohort's short-term in the career cycle precludes any firmconclusion, the most recent period of ruraldevelopment, since 1967, suggests that bothgroups of rural youth may have experienced aslight positive benefit from these origins. Wesubsequently show using the NLS-72 database,however, that this may be an aberration of thesmall sample size of the GSS data from this mostrecent period.
The pattern for family income, adjusted toconstant 1993 dollars, is generally similar with acouple of noteworthy differences. While therehas been a general decline in the deficits infamily income linked to rural farm and ruralnon-farm origins, these negative effects have notdeclined to zero. During the first two decades ofthis century, an adulthood deficit of -$3,800 for
(Text continues on Page 38)
Tab
le la
.U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
00-1
920:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=3,
012)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.259
***
.579
***
.042
911.
344*
**35
7.32
3**
348.
270*
*FO
CC
.031
***
.150
***
.086
***
130.
888*
**64
.306
45.6
29FA
ED
.152
***
.391
***
.074
388.
749*
**62
.521
46.3
12FA
RM
16-1
.314
***
-2.6
80**
*.0
47-3
804.
286*
**-9
93.4
27-1
003.
591
RN
F16
-.88
3***
-2.4
49**
-.61
6-2
223.
470
-333
.373
-199
.203
FIN
CO
M16
.324
***
1.18
3***
.511
*10
79.1
25**
386.
401
275.
103
GE
ND
ER
-.04
6-3
.422
***
-3.3
26**
*-8
288.
369*
**-8
189.
196*
**44
64.4
37**
*N
E16
-.10
9-.
518
-.29
2-1
203.
081
-969
.680
-906
.058
FRG
16-1
.179
***
-2.2
59.1
87-3
316.
693
-795
.140
-835
.926
MA
16-.
188
-.00
7.3
83-1
33.3
2526
8.72
218
5.19
7E
NC
16-.
053
-.70
4-.
593
-358
5.32
5-3
471.
008
-334
1.83
9W
NC
16.0
25.6
21.5
69-2
222.
791
-227
7.37
2-2
401.
247
SA16
-1.0
15**
*-1
.701
.405
4981
.814
*-2
810.
632
-289
8.94
2E
SC16
-1.2
04**
*-2
.480
.019
-764
6.09
3***
4887
.892
*48
92.0
12*
WSC
16-.
639*
-2.9
93*
-1.6
67-6
808.
669*
*-5
442.
041*
*-5
078.
891*
MT
N16
-.11
4-.
392
-.15
5-3
843.
467
-359
9.28
7-3
565.
538
ED
UC
2.07
6***
2139
.355
***
1687
.123
***
OC
CSE
I21
7.89
0***
Con
stan
t6.
251
25.2
8612
.312
1619
6.40
028
23.8
4514
1.10
8
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est
year
of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le lb
.St
anda
rdiz
ed R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
00-1
920:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=3,
012)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.276
***
.157
***
.011
.158
***
.062
**.0
60**
FOC
C.0
97**
*.1
19**
*.0
68**
*.0
66**
*.0
33.0
23FA
ED
.181
***
.118
***
.022
.075
***
.012
.009
FAR
M16
-.17
6***
-.09
1***
.002
-.08
3***
-.02
2-.
022
RN
F16
-.06
6***
-.04
7**
-.01
2-.
027
-.00
4-.
002
FIN
CO
M16
.079
***
.074
***
.032
*.0
43**
.015
.011
GE
ND
ER
-.00
6-.
121*
**-.
117*
**-.
187*
**-.
184*
**-.
168*
**N
E16
-.00
7-.
008
-.00
5-.
012
-.01
0-.
009
FRG
16-.
063*
**-.
031
.003
-.02
9-.
007
-.00
7M
A16
-.02
0-.
001
.010
-.00
2.0
05.0
03E
NC
16-.
006
-.02
0-.
017
-.06
6-.
064
-.06
2W
NC
16
.002
.014
.013
-.03
3-.
033
-.03
5SA
16-.
105*
**-.
045
.011
-.08
4*-.
047
-.04
9E
SC16
-.10
2***
-.05
3.0
01-.
102*
**-.
067*
-.06
7*W
SC16
-.05
1*-.
061*
-.03
4-.
089*
*-.
071*
*-.
066*
MT
N16
-.00
6-.
005
-.00
2-.
031
-.02
9-.
029
ED
UC
.528
***
.348
***
.274
***
OC
CSE
I.1
39**
*
R2
.352
.171
.352
.143
.222
.234
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
34B
ES
T C
OP
Y A
VA
ILA
BLE
35
Tab
le 2
a.U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
21-1
932:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=2,
908)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.177
***
.476
***
.069
735.
888*
**27
3.02
924
5.38
0FO
CC
.031
***
.187
***
.117
***
232.
263*
**15
2.59
0***
105.
698*
FAE
D.1
67**
*.3
00**
*-.
084
522.
301*
**85
.462
119.
029
FAR
M16
-1.0
89**
*-3
.180
***
-.67
940
87.6
08**
*-1
244.
115
-972
.295
RN
F16
-.74
0***
-1.2
44.4
5441
51.6
45**
-222
1.34
9-2
403.
017
FIN
CO
M16
.348
***
.975
***
.177
2482
.663
***
1575
.678
**15
04.8
66**
GE
ND
ER
-.30
9**
-2.7
86**
*-2
.076
***
-.73
39.9
73**
*-6
532.
704*
**-5
701.
664*
**N
E16
-.20
8.2
93.7
69-1
820.
722
-127
9.00
6-1
586.
939
FRG
16-1
.771
***
-2.8
931.
173
-627
3.47
2*-1
650.
378
-211
9.67
5M
A16
-.01
9.2
81.3
25-5
84.7
00-5
34.2
68-6
64.2
97E
NC
16-.
081
-.54
3-.
358
-214
7.58
2-1
937.
428
-179
4.10
5W
NC
16.1
551.
025
.669
-338
1.34
5-3
786.
649
-405
4.30
5SA
16-.
996*
**-1
.862
.424
-672
2.09
8**
4122
.786
*42
92.6
04*
ESC
16-1
.202
***
-2.4
27.3
33-1
0208
.812
***
-707
0.70
0**
-720
4.08
6**
WSC
16
-.72
2**
-1.2
64.3
93-5
858.
949*
-397
5.72
3-4
132.
878
MT
N16
-.23
7-.
693
-.14
8-5
011.
842
-439
2.65
0-4
333.
423
ED
UC
2.29
5***
2610
.016
***
1691
.286
***
OC
CSE
I40
0.23
7***
Con
stan
t7.
640
25.9
508.
411
1990
4.66
0-3
7.02
1-3
403.
613
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RIV
I16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
'soc
cupa
tion
stat
us(S
EI)
;FA
ED
=fa
ther
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; MO
ED
=m
othe
r's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16(1
=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
ehi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
J *
Sign
ific
ant a
t .05
leve
l.
Tab
le 2
b.St
anda
rdiz
ed R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
21-1
932:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=2,
908)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.191
***
.123
***
.018
.101
***
.038
.034
FOC
C.1
08**
*.1
59**
*.0
99**
*.1
05**
*.0
69**
*.0
48*
FAE
D.2
08**
*.0
89**
*-.
025
.083
***
.014
.019
FAR
M16
-.14
2***
-.09
9***
-.02
1-.
068*
**-.
021
-.01
6R
NF1
6-.
064*
**-.
026
.009
-.04
6**
-.02
4-.
027
FIN
CO
M16
.091
***
.061
***
.011
.083
***
.053
**.0
50**
GE
ND
ER
-.04
6**
-.09
9***
-.07
4***
-.13
9***
-.12
4***
-.10
8***
NE
16-.
014
.005
.013
-.01
6-.
011
-.01
4FR
G16
-.10
6***
-.04
1.0
17-.
048*
-.01
3-.
016
MA
16-.
002
.007
.009
-.00
8-.
008
-.00
9E
NC
16-.
010
-.01
5-.
010
-.03
3-.
029
-.02
7W
NC
16.0
14.0
22.0
14-.
039
-.04
4-.
047
SA16
-.11
1***
-.05
0.0
11-.
095*
*-.
058*
-.06
1*E
SC16
-.10
4***
-.05
0.0
07-.
113*
**-.
078*
*-.
080*
*W
SC16
-.06
1**
-.02
5.0
08-.
063*
-.04
3-.
044
MT
N16
-.01
3-.
009
-.00
2-.
035
-.03
1-.
030
ED
UC
.550
***
.333
***
.216
***
OC
CSE
I.2
13**
*
R2
.306
.146
.355
.132
.209
.238
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est
year
of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
33B
ES
T C
OP
Y A
VA
ILA
BLE
3 9
40
Tab
le 3
a.U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
33-1
940:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4(N
=2,
149)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.221
***
.543
***
-.04
310
69.7
69**
*45
1.36
0*46
6.28
4*FO
CC
.026
***
.169
***
.101
***
216.
711*
**14
4.33
3**
109.
294*
FAE
D.1
26**
*.2
50*
-.08
539
6.16
4*42
.328
71.9
36FA
RM
16-.
821*
**-2
.252
**-.
075
-180
4.43
549
3.53
751
9.60
5R
NF1
6-.
370*
-1.0
69-.
088
-284
.476
750.
839
781.
388
FIN
CO
M16
.280
***
1.29
9***
.556
2055
.479
**12
70.8
66*
1077
.630
GE
ND
ER
-.40
3***
-2.5
02**
*-1
.433
**-6
204.
803*
**-5
077.
021*
**45
78.7
62**
*N
E16
.027
1.57
41.
502
7387
.602
*73
11.9
51*
6789
.712
*FR
G16
-.24
0-.
989
-.35
212
31.2
4919
04.0
6120
26.4
46M
A16
.046
.658
.537
1528
.863
1400
.527
1213
.864
EN
C16
-.20
0-.
260
.271
1397
.561
1957
.839
1863
.578
WN
C16
-.07
2.5
38.7
2814
13.8
9116
14.8
6713
61.7
61SA
16-.
600*
-1.9
16-.
327
-348
8.89
4-1
811.
103
-169
7.51
5E
SC16
-.48
3-.
724
.556
-274
6.77
1-1
394.
902
-158
8.38
2W
SC16
-.04
21.
045
1.15
6-1
610.
576
-149
3.11
2-1
895.
163
MT
N16
.081
.696
.483
-422
7.43
7-4
452.
731
-462
0.59
8E
DU
C2.
651*
**27
98.2
59**
*18
76.5
56**
*O
CC
SEI
347.
676*
**
Con
stan
t7.
985
25.1
483.
981
1624
8.98
5-6
094.
044
-747
8.06
0
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SCI6
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16(1
=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 3
b.St
anda
rdiz
ed R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
33-1
940:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=2,
149)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.249
***
.130
***
-.01
0.1
42**
*.0
60*
.062
*FO
CC
.104
***
.145
***
.086
***
.103
***
.069
**.0
52*
FAE
D.1
67**
*.0
70*
-.02
4.0
62*
.007
.011
FAR
M16
-.10
9***
-.06
3**
-.00
2-.
028
.008
.008
RN
F16
-.04
0*-.
024
-.00
2-.
004
.909
.010
FIN
CO
M16
.080
***
.078
***
.033
.069
**.0
42*
.036
GE
ND
ER
-.06
6***
-.08
7***
-.05
0**
-.12
0***
-.09
8***
-.08
9***
NE
16.0
02.0
23.0
22.0
59*
.058
*.0
54*
FRG
16-.
018
-.01
6-.
006
.011
.017
.018
MA
16.0
06.0
17.0
14.0
22.0
20.0
17E
NC
16-.
026
-.00
7.0
07.0
21.0
30.0
28W
NC
16-.
007
.011
.014
.016
.018
.015
SA16
-.07
5*-.
051
-.00
9-.
051
-.02
7-.
025
ESC
16-.
046
-.01
4.0
11-.
030
-.01
5-.
018
WSC
16-.
004
.021
.023
-.01
8-.
016
-.02
1M
TN
16.0
05.0
09.0
06-.
030
-.03
2-.
033
ED
UC
.562
***
.329
***
.221
***
OC
CSE
I.1
93**
*
R2
.274
.128
.357
.118
.197
.221
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R.=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
42B
ES
T C
OP
Y A
VA
ILA
BLE
43
4
Tab
le 4
a.U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
41-1
952:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4(N
=5,
046)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.170
***
.651
***
.193
**71
4.37
0***
347.
375*
*29
9.71
1*FO
CC
.024
***
.151
***
.086
***
104.
095*
**51
.777
30.5
54FA
ED
.159
***
.289
***
-.13
8*36
3.32
6**
20.6
1354
.765
FAR
M16
-.49
5***
-1.3
74*
-.03
9-1
162.
866
-92.
292
-82.
698
RN
F16
-.46
2***
-2.0
48**
*-.
802
-148
7.10
9-4
87.9
34-2
89.5
67FI
NC
OM
16.1
34**
.426
.063
1993
.927
***
1703
.200
***
1687
.517
***
GE
ND
ER
-.44
0***
-.25
8.9
27**
-340
7.75
4***
-245
7.59
6***
-268
6.91
3***
NE
16.2
131.
906
1.33
035
25.1
2430
63.7
8227
34.7
61FR
G16
-.20
0.9
871.
526
2408
.983
2841
.681
2464
.149
MA
16.0
732.
036*
*1.
839*
*26
88.9
31*
2531
.497
*20
76.5
33E
NC
16-.
059
.306
.465
570.
490
697.
498
582.
593
WN
C16
.081
1.23
31.
015
-185
.874
-361
.185
-612
.157
SA16
-.42
3**
-.06
51.
075
-131
6.59
5-4
02.8
43-6
68.7
06E
SC16
-.29
7-.
422
.379
-255
2.92
8-1
910.
847
-200
4.53
6W
SC 1
6-.
186
.188
.690
-234
0.80
8-1
938.
298
-210
9.02
5M
TN
16.0
70.1
77-.
011
-237
0.70
2-2
521.
488
-215
8.70
1E
DU
C2.
697*
**21
61.8
70**
*14
94.8
36**
*O
CC
SEI
247.
334*
**
Con
stan
t8.
875
24.2
05.2
7118
100.
805
-108
5.07
7-1
152.
071
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed;-
MO
ED
=m
othe
r's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
thC
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 4
b.St
anda
rdiz
ed R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
41-1
952:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=5,
046)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.196
***
.151
***
.045
**.0
97**
*.0
47**
.041
*FO
CC
.114
***
.142
***
.081
***
.058
***
.029
.017
FRE
D.2
26**
*.0
83**
*-.
039*
.061
**.0
03.0
09FA
RM
16-.
060*
**-.
033*
-.00
1-.
017
-.00
1-.
001
RN
F16
-.05
3***
-.04
7***
-.01
9-.
020
-.00
7-.
004
FIN
CO
M16
.040
**.0
25.0
04.0
69**
*.0
59**
*.0
59**
*G
EN
DE
R-.
078*
**-.
009
.033
**-.
072*
**-.
052*
**-.
056*
**N
E16
.015
.027
.019
.030
.026
.023
FRG
16-.
015
.015
.023
.022
.025
.022
MA
16.0
10.0
55**
.050
**.0
43*
.040
*.0
33E
NC
16-.
008
.009
.013
.010
.012
.010
WN
C 1
6.0
08.0
24.0
20-.
002
-.00
4-.
007
SA16
-.05
4**
-.00
2.0
28-.
020
-.00
6-.
010
ESC
16-.
028
-.00
8.0
07-.
028
-.02
1-.
022
WSC
16-.
019
.004
.014
-.02
8-.
023
-.02
5M
TN
16.0
05.0
02-.
001
-.01
9-.
020
-.02
0E
DU
C.5
41**
*.2
55**
*.1
76**
*O
CC
SEI
.146
***
R2
.261
.117
.333
.067
.115
.129
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
co
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LEq
4 ?
Tab
le 5
a.U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
53-1
966:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4(N
=3,
873)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.141
***
.341
***
-.04
663
5.78
8***
329.
228*
334.
757*
FOC
C.0
22**
*.0
88**
*.0
2832
.669
-14.
571
-17.
993
FAE
D.1
52**
*.4
69**
*.0
5131
3.46
1*-1
7.58
0-2
3.66
6FA
RM
16-.
116
-.25
4.0
66-1
009.
437
-756
.591
-764
.505
RN
F16
-.25
3*-1
.008
-.31
2-2
083.
949
-153
3.27
3-1
495.
713
FIN
CO
M16
.119
*.5
98*
.279
2999
.762
***
2747
.630
***
2714
.063
***
GE
ND
ER
-.07
22.
249*
**2.
446*
**-3
739.
637*
**-3
583.
563*
**-3
877.
936*
**N
E16
.082
2.05
31.
827
4291
.900
*41
12.9
12*
3893
.039
*FR
G16
.821
***
2.26
1.0
01-3
06.6
52-2
093.
554
-209
3.67
7M
A16
.233
.628
-.01
223
64.5
2518
58.5
6818
60.0
43E
NC
16
.145
.432
.033
210.
490
-105
.215
-109
.207
WN
C 1
6.3
06*
.752
-.09
0-3
694.
431*
4360
.155
**-4
349.
354*
*SA
16.0
71-.
461
-.65
8-2
433.
390
-258
8.86
6-2
509.
725
ESC
16-.
103
-.97
2-.
690
4993
.812
**47
70.6
72**
4687
.643
**W
SC16
.042
1.81
01.
695
-396
2.94
9*40
54.3
52**
4258
.326
**M
TN
16.1
55.6
81.2
54-3
635.
888
-397
3.28
3*40
03.9
03*
ED
UC
2.75
1***
2175
.729
***
1844
.612
***
OC
CSE
I12
0.34
6***
Con
stan
t8.
380
21.6
37-1
.421
1304
1.86
1-5
191.
678
-502
0.68
1
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1 =
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 5
b.St
anda
rdiz
ed R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
53-1
966:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=3,
873)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.175
***
.075
***
-.01
0.0
86**
*.0
44*
.045
*FO
CC
.125
***
.090
***
.029
.020
-.00
9-.
011
FAE
D.2
42**
*.1
32**
*.0
14.0
54*
-.00
3-.
004
FAR
M16
-.01
4-.
005
.001
-.01
3-.
010
-.01
0R
NF1
6-.
035*
-.02
4-.
008
-.03
1-.
023
-.02
2FI
NC
OM
16.0
38*
.035
*.0
16.1
07**
*.0
98**
*.0
97**
*G
EN
DE
R-.
015
.082
***
.089
***
-.08
3***
-.08
0***
-.08
6***
NE
16.0
07.0
33.0
29.0
42*
.040
*.0
38*
FRG
16.0
69**
*.0
34.0
01-.
003
-.01
9-.
019
MA
16.0
34.0
16-.
001
.037
.029
.029
EN
C16
.024
.013
.001
.004
*-.
002
-.00
2W
NC
16.0
34*
.015
-.00
2-.
044
-.05
3**
-.05
2**
SA16
.011
-.01
2-.
017
-.04
0-.
042
-.04
1E
SC16
-.01
1-.
018
-.01
3-.
057*
*-.
054*
*-.
053*
*W
SC16
.005
.037
.035
-.04
9*-.
051*
*-.
053*
*M
TN
16.0
14.0
11.0
04-.
034
-.03
8*-.
038*
ED
UC
.486
***
.235
***
.199
***
OC
CSE
I.0
74**
*
R2
.235
.082
.263
.071
.113
.117
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
D; F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
5051
Tab
le 6
a.U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral
Equ
atio
ns f
or B
lau-
Dun
can
Soci
oeco
nom
icA
chie
vem
ent M
odel
, Per
iod
1967
-198
0: G
ener
al S
ocia
l Sur
rvey
s 19
72-1
994
(N=
211)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.149
**.5
52.3
1474
2.23
763
4.40
160
6.30
3FO
C C
.003
.252
***
.247
***
35.4
3233
.472
11.3
71FA
ED
.113
*-.
567
-.74
7*-3
51.7
55-4
33.4
01-3
66.6
69FA
RM
16.0
282.
296
2.25
1-1
454.
498
-147
4.61
4-1
675.
771
RN
F16
-.05
23.
154
3.23
6-3
052.
224
-301
4.75
0-3
303.
907
FIN
CO
M16
.309
-1.5
09-1
.999
6243
.225
**60
20.7
25**
6199
.366
**G
EN
DE
R.0
144.
563*
*4.
540*
*-3
575.
254
-358
5.41
9-3
991.
079
NE
16-.
133
3.41
03.
622
1223
5.21
212
331.
186
1200
7.57
9FR
G16
.331
-1.4
02-1
.929
421.
772
182.
864
355.
196
MA
16-.
155
.210
.456
3945
.750
4057
.665
4016
.893
EN
C 1
6-.
187
-3.0
44-2
.748
892.
982
1027
.473
1272
.978
WN
C 1
6.3
89-4
.223
-4.8
41-5
139.
017
-541
9.23
0-4
986.
699
SA16
-.00
1-2
.815
-2.8
13-1
574.
290
-157
3.47
7-1
322.
103
ESC
16-.
625
-.03
7.9
57-4
424.
703
-397
3.92
6-4
059.
408
WSC
16.0
84-2
.382
-2.5
16-3
451.
098
-351
1.56
7-3
286.
803
MT
N16
-.25
6.3
78.7
84-4
260.
266
-407
5.92
8-4
146.
020
ED
UC
1.58
9***
720.
752
578.
752
OC
CSE
I89
.347
Con
stan
t8.
397
24.8
1611
.468
5446
.641
-606
.727
-163
1.32
9
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est
year
of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
thC
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
ED
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 dol
lars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 6
b.St
anda
rdiz
ed R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
63-1
980:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urrv
eys
1972
-199
4 (N
=21
1)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)O
CC
SEI
(3)
OC
CSE
I(4
)FI
NC
(5)
FIN
C(6
)FI
NC
MO
ED
.217
**.1
35.0
77.0
95.0
81.0
78FO
CC
.020
.315
***
.310
***
.023
.022
.007
FAE
D.1
92*
-.16
1-.
213*
-.05
3-.
065
-.05
5FA
RM
16.0
03.0
45.0
44-.
015
-.01
5-.
017
RN
F16
-.00
8.0
85.0
87-.
043
-.04
2-.
047
FIN
CO
M16
.121
-.09
9-.
131
.216
**.2
08**
.214
**G
EN
DE
R.0
03.1
89**
.188
**-.
078
-.07
8-.
087
NE
16-.
012
.053
.057
.101
.102
.099
FRG
16.0
27-.
020
-.02
7.0
03.0
01.0
03M
A16
-.02
6.0
06.0
13.0
59.0
60.0
60E
NC
16-.
036
-.10
0-.
090
.015
.018
.022
WN
C16
.054
-.09
8-.
112
-.06
3-.
066
-.06
1SA
16-.
001
-.08
4-.
084
-.02
5-.
025
-.02
1E
SC 1
6-.
076
-.00
1.0
20-.
048
-.04
3-.
044
WSC
16.0
13-.
062
-.06
5-.
047
-.04
8-.
045
MT
N16
-.03
1.0
08.0
16-.
046
-.04
4-.
045
ED
UC
.267
***
.064
.051
OC
CSE
I.0
47
R2
.198
.161
.218
.101
.104
.106
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16; G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC 1
6=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Tab
le 7
.Su
mm
ary
of T
rend
s in
Tot
al E
ffec
ts o
f R
ural
Ori
gins
on
Soci
oeco
nom
ic A
ttain
men
ts in
Adu
lthoo
dby
Maj
or P
erio
d of
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent,
1900
-198
0
1900
Rur
al F
arm
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
Edu
catio
n(Y
ears
)O
ccup
atio
nal
Stat
us (
SEI)
Fam
ily I
ncom
e(C
onst
ant 1
993
$)E
duca
tion
(Yea
rs)
Occ
upat
iona
lSt
atus
(SE
I)Fa
mily
Inc
ome
(Con
stan
t 199
3 $)
1910
The
Gol
den
Age
(190
0-19
20)
-1.3
14-2
.680
-$38
04.2
9-.
883
-2.4
49-$
2223
.47
1920
Farm
Dep
ress
ion
-1.0
89-3
.180
-$40
87.6
1-.
740
-1.2
44-$
4151
.65
(192
1-19
32)
1930
-.82
1-2
.252
-$18
04.4
4-.
370
-1.0
69-$
284.
48T
he N
ew D
eal
(193
3-19
40)
1940
Wor
ld W
ar I
I &
-.49
5-1
.374
-$11
62.8
7-.
462
-2.0
48-$
1487
.11
New
Hor
izon
s19
50(1
941-
1952
)
The
Cri
sis
and
the
the
Opp
ortu
nity
of
-.11
6-.
254
-$10
09.4
4-.
253
-1.0
08-$
2083
.95
1960
Abu
ndan
ce(1
953-
1966
)
1970
A B
road
er R
ural
Pers
pect
ive
.028
2.29
6-$
1454
.50
-.05
23.
154
-$30
52.2
2(1
967-
1980
)
1980
Sour
ce: N
OR
C G
ener
al S
ocia
l Sur
veys
, 197
2-19
9451
Tab
le 8
.
1900
Sum
mar
y of
Tre
nds
in D
irec
t Eff
ects
of
Rur
al O
rigi
ns o
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Atta
inm
ents
in A
dulth
ood
by M
ajor
Per
iod
of R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t, 19
00 -
198
0,
1910
The
Gol
den
Age
(190
0-19
20)
1920
1930
1940
Farm
Dep
ress
ion
(192
1-19
32)
The
New
Dea
l(1
933-
1940
)
Wor
ld W
ar I
I &
New
Hor
izon
s19
50(1
941-
1952
)
1960
The
Cri
sis
and
the
the
Opp
ortu
nity
of
Abu
ndan
ce(1
953-
1966
)
1970
A B
road
er R
ural
Pers
pect
ive
(196
7-19
80)
1980
Rur
al F
arm
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
Edu
catio
n(Y
ears
)O
ccup
atio
nal
Stat
us (
SEI)
Fam
ily I
ncom
e(C
onst
ant 1
993
$)E
duca
tion
(Yea
rs)
Occ
upat
iona
lSt
atus
(SE
I)Fa
mily
Inc
ome
(Con
stan
t 199
3 $)
-1.3
14.0
47-$
1003
.59
-.88
3-.
616
-$19
9.20
-1.0
89-.
679
-$97
2.30
-.74
0.4
54-$
2403
.02
-.82
1-.
075
$519
.61
-.37
0-.
088
$781
.39
-.49
5-.
039
-$82
.70
-.46
2-.
802
-$28
9.57
-.11
6.0
66-$
764.
51-.
253
-.31
2-$
1495
.71
.028
2.25
1-$
1675
.77
-.05
23.
236
-$33
03.9
1
58
Sour
ce: N
OR
C G
ener
al S
ocia
l Sur
veys
, 197
2-19
94
59
38
rural farm youth and -$2,200 for rural non-farm youth occurred. About the time of WorldWar II and the New Horizons perspective inrural development policy-making, the eco-nomic experiences of adults growing-up inrural non-farm settings were more negativethan those of their peers who grew-up on farms(compare -$1,162 vs. -$1,487). This unfortu-nate distinction grew stronger during the post-war period and into the 1960s where ruraldevelopment policy faced the opportunitiesassociated with national economic prosperity(1953-1966). The relative social cost insubsequent total family income duringadulthood was twice as large for rural non-farm youth born during this period (-$2,083 vs.-$1,009). While the results for the latest periodof rural development must remain speculativedue to the small sample size, the estimates arethat the farm vs. rural non-farm differentialhas grown larger. Unfortunately, the NLS-72database does not permit us to distinguishbetween these two rural subgroups and so weleave these results as tentative, at best.
A third observation is that the total effect ofrural origins, whether farm or non-farm,appears to be almost all transmitted throughdeficits in completed schooling. ComparingTable 8 with Table 7, as well as the detailedresults in Tables 1-6, we can see that almost allof the total effects of rural background on(lower) occupational status is through itsimpact on completed schooling. This is the casefor both the farm and rural non-farm groups.(The nominal exception is the most recentperiod of rural development policy, the post-1960 era.) A less consistent but similar patternoccurs for family income. A larger share of thetotal effect on income remains unmediated byeducational and occupational attainments, butour provisional estimates of statistical signifi-cance indicate that these direct effects maywell be due to sampling fluctuations (seeTables 1-6). Thus, it appears that for each ofthe six major periods of rural developmentpolicy-making, the social costs born by ruralyouth are due to their deficits in lowercompleted schooling relative to their urbancontemporaries. This cost is less the case withfamily income than with occupational status.The die, nevertheless, appears to be cast: lowerlevels of educational credentials obtained by
61)
rural youth in the United States leads to loweroccupational status, and this only explainspart of the lower family incomes that thesesame youth experience upon reaching adult-hood.
The NLS-72 data were used for theestimates shown in Table 9. While the metricof the educational attainment variable is not inyears of schooling completed, but rather anordinal set of educational credentials, anegative effect of rural origins on completededucation occurred in these data as well. Asshown for occupational status, the NLS-72data produce effects at least equal to, if notlarger, than the GSS results. The totalnegative effect on occupational status isaround 5 units in the SEI and this effect is onlypartly mediated through educational attain-ment (compare -5.332 with -3.184 in Table 9).For family income, the rural deficit is over twothousand dollars (-$2,248). Almost one-half ofthis effect is due to unequal educationalattainment (-$2,248 vs. -$1,283). Onceoccupational status is controlled, in contrast tothe GSS results, the deficits associated withrural origins are reduced by about two-thirds.Thus, the NLS-72 panel data on young adultsborn during the early 1950s, is generallyconsistent with those of the cumulative GSSs:rural origins have observable negative effectson adulthood socioeconomic attainments,which are largely due to the social costsproduced through unequal completed school-ing.
Mediating Factors in the SocioeconomicEffects of Rural Origins
We now turn to the issue of how are thesocial costs of rural origins manifested? TheWisconsin social psychological model wasestimated using the NLS-72 data; theseresults are presented in Table 10.
Prior to examining the principal results foradulthood attainments, we overview theeffects of rural background on the priorvariables in the model. Rural background hassmall but positive effects on academic
(Text continues on Page 48)
Tab
le 9
.C
oeff
icie
nts
of R
educ
ed-F
orm
and
Str
uctu
ral E
quat
ions
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el:
Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Stu
dy o
f th
e H
igh
Scho
ol C
lass
of
1972
(N
LS-
72)
(N=
8,72
9)
Pred
eter
min
ed V
aria
bles
:
Dep
ende
ntV
aria
bles
:R
UR
AL
GE
ND
ER
FOC
CFA
ED
MO
ED
FIN
CO
MN
EA
STN
CE
NT
SOU
TH
ED
UC
OC
CSE
IC
onst
ant
A. U
nsta
ndar
dize
d R
egre
ssio
n C
oeff
icie
nts
1) E
DU
C-.
292*
**-.
147*
**.0
05**
*.2
21**
*.1
98**
*.0
01**
*.1
67**
*.0
38.1
23**
2.54
8
2) O
CC
SEI
-5.3
32**
*3.
530*
**.0
81**
*1.
526*
**1.
835*
**.0
01**
*1.
796*
*-.
675
2.41
5**
31.1
78
3) O
CC
SEI
-3.1
84**
*4.
609*
**.0
45**
*-.
100
.375
.001
***
.568
-.95
81.
509*
7.36
5***
12.4
15
4) F
INC
-224
8.93
5***
-709
.719
39.0
18**
*60
7.33
8**
412.
530
.751
***
1704
.081
**-1
89.7
7710
37.3
6420
539.
108
5) F
INC
-128
3.16
1**
-224
.597
22.8
02*
-123
.750
-243
.769
.683
***
1151
.904
-316
.792
629.
930
3310
.904
***
1210
3.78
1
6) F
INC
-746
.618
-100
1.31
9**
15.1
78-1
06.8
26-3
07.0
12.6
31**
*10
56.1
97-
155.
359
375.
655
2069
.896
***
168.
507*
**10
011.
781
B. S
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
sR
2
1) E
DU
C-.
093*
**-.
055*
**.0
85**
*.2
04**
*.1
52**
*.0
45**
*.0
54**
*.0
13.0
42**
.183
2) O
CC
SEI
-.10
2***
.080
***
.085
***
.085
***
.085
***
.093
***
.035
**-.
014
.050
**.1
01
3) O
CC
SEI
-.06
1***
.105
***
.047
***
-.00
6.0
17.0
73**
*.0
11-.
020
.031
*A
44**
*.2
61
4) F
INC
-.04
8***
-.01
8.0
54**
*.0
38**
.021
.191
***
.037
**-.
004
.024
.071
5) F
INC
-.02
7**
-.00
6.0
27*
-.00
8-.
013
.181
***
.025
-.00
7.0
15.2
23**
*.1
12
6) F
INC
-.01
6-.
025*
*.0
18-.
007
-.01
6.1
67**
*.0
23-.
004
.009
.139
***
.188
***
.138
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
; FA
ED
=fa
ther
's e
duca
tion;
MO
ED
=m
othe
r'sed
ucat
ion;
FIN
CO
M=
fam
ily in
com
e in
sen
ior
year
; NE
AST
=N
orth
east
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); N
CE
NT
=N
orth
Cen
tral
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); S
OU
TH
=So
uth
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s);
ED
UC
=re
spon
dent
's e
duca
tion;
OC
CSE
I=re
spon
dent
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
resp
onde
nt's
tota
l fam
ily 1
985
earn
ings
(do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
61
B.E
SI c
oPY
MA
RA
LE
62
Tab
le 1
0a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or W
isco
nsin
Soc
ioec
onom
icA
chie
vem
ent M
odel
: Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Stu
dy o
f th
e H
igh
Scho
ol C
lass
of
1972
(N
LS-
72)
(N=
6,63
8)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed1) (L
Var
iabl
es:
A(1
)(3
)(4
)H
SGPA
HSG
PAFS
OI
R
FSO
I(5
)FS
OI
(6)
MSO
I(7
)M
SOI
(8)
MSO
I(9
)(1
0)(1
1)(1
2)
UR
AL
-.02
7
FPL
AN
FPL
AN
FPL
AN
GE
ND
ER
.038
-.24
1***
267*
**26
3***
-.25
2***
-.28
0***
-.09
7***
-.09
3***
102*
**
FOC
C.0
03**
*.0
02*
.627
***
597*
**16
0***
-.17
8***
-.25
8***
-.26
9***
-.28
5***
-.36
8***
.001
-.00
1-.
004
-.02
9**
FAE
D.1
31**
*.1
32**
*.0
29*
.003
***
.003
***
004*
**.0
03**
*.0
03**
*.0
01**
*.0
01.0
01*
MO
ED
.101
***
.097
***
.017
.243
***
.184
***
.180
***
.178
***
.122
***
.118
***
055 * **
.036
***
.034
***
FIN
CO
M.0
01**
*.0
01**
*00
1**
.001
***
.001
.131
***
.084
***
.082
***
.187
***
.143
4".1
41**
*.0
49**
*.0
34**
*.0
34**
*.0
01*
.001
***
.001
NE
AST
.211
***
.162
***
-.00
5-.
069
-.16
6***
-.16
5***
-.09
9*
.001
***
.001
.001
NC
EN
T.0
27-.
130*
*-.
152*
**-.
140*
**-.
152*
**-.
132*
**-.
120*
*-.
065*
**-.
065*
**
.001
SOU
TH
-.09
3**
.179
***
.252
***
.085
*.1
28**
*.0
94*
-132
***
-.11
1**
-.04
1**
-.04
5**
-.03
8*
-.19
0"*
-.18
9***
-.03
5*
AB
IL.7
87**
*.4
56**
*.3
49**
*
.144
***
.184
***
.149
***
-.04
4**
-.03
1*-.
041*
*
HSG
PA.1
35**
*14
5***
.112
***
FPL
AN
MSO
IFSOI
042*
**
.430
***
.320
***
.139
***
TSO
IE
DE
XE
DU
CO
CC
SEI
Con
stan
t
R1
-1.0
844.
370
5.22
33.
113
3.60
72.
900
3.24
83.
714
2.98
8.3
57.5
14.2
96
(Con
tinue
d)
6'4
Tab
le 1
0a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or W
isco
nsin
Soc
ioec
onom
ic(c
ontin
ued)
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
) (N
=6,
638)
v
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(1
Var
iabl
es:
TSO
I3)
(14)
(15)
(16)
TSO
IT
SOI
ED
EX
ED
EX
(17)
ED
EX
(18)
ED
EX
(19)
ED
UC
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
ED
UC
ED
UC
ED
UC
ED
UC
RU
RA
L-.
004
.001
-.01
5
GE
ND
ER
.041
***
.035
**-.
010
-.28
3***
-.26
9***
-.32
0***
-.08
8***
-.29
2***
-.27
7***
-.32
2***
-.17
7***
-.14
7***
FOC
C.0
01-.
001
-.00
1
-.24
8***
-.26
8***
-.41
4***
-.18
3***
-.14
7***
-.16
7***
-.29
7***
-.16
1***
100*
**
.002
*.0
01.0
01-.
002*
*
FAE
D.0
47**
*.0
27**
*.0
25**
*.2
67**
*.1
99**
*.1
92**
*.0
79**
*
.003
***
.003
***
.002
**.0
02**
*
MO
ED
.011
-.00
5-.
006
.145
***
.092
***
.088
***
-.00
5
.150
***
.143
***
.072
***
.046
***
.005
***
FIN
CO
M.0
01...
ow.*
*-0
01*
001*
**.0
01**
*.0
01**
*.0
01**
*
.083
***
.085
***
.221
***
NE
AST
.022
-.01
1-.
011
-.06
3-.
174*
**-.
173*
**-.
022
001*
**-.
001*
-.00
1-.
001*
*-.
01**
*.1
98**
*14
3 *
**13
9***
NC
EN
T-.
041*
-.04
5**
-.03
3*-.
255*
**26
9***
-.23
2***
-.13
3***
.167
***
.052
.053
.146
***
.154
***
SOU
TH
.096
***
.110
***
.091
***
.036
.084
.023
-.05
0
.038
.024
.057
118*
*16
2***
AB
IL.1
56**
*.0
96**
*.5
23**
*.3
30**
*.0
51**
*
.123
**.1
74**
*.1
19**
.085
*.1
01**
HSG
PA.0
75**
*.2
45**
*.1
29**
*
.543
***
.372
***
.200
***
.183
***
FSO
IM
SOI
.267
***
.217
***
.148
***
.105
***
FPL
AN
.403
***
.203
***
.114
***
.455
***
.199
***
.065
"
TSO
I.0
64"
.342
***
.190
***
ED
EX
-.00
7-.
028
OC
CSE
I
ED
UC
.334
***
Con
stan
t2.
422.
589
2.19
42.
917
3.48
32.
205
-.04
72.
548
3.13
72.
002
.732
.747
(Con
tinue
d)
65R
6
Tab
le 1
0a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
lE
quat
ions
for
Wis
cons
in S
ocio
econ
omic
(Con
tinue
d)A
chie
vem
ent M
odel
: Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Stu
dy o
f th
e H
igh
Scho
ol C
lass
of
1972
(NL
S-72
) (N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(2
5)O
CC
SEI
(26)
OC
CSE
I(2
7)O
CC
SEI
(28)
OC
CSE
I(2
9)O
CC
SEI
(30)
OC
CSE
I
RU
RA
L-5
.33*
**-5
.153
***
-5.7
52**
*-4
.740
***
-4.5
27**
*-3
.694
***
GE
ND
ER
3.53
0***
3.27
8***
1.53
7**
2.45
3***
2.89
8***
3.46
3***
FOC
C.0
81**
*.0
59**
*.0
62**
*.0
53**
*.0
57**
*.0
43**
*FA
ED
1.52
6***
.653
*.5
69*
.098
-.09
5-.
352
MO
ED
1.83
5***
1.16
0***
1.11
0***
.711
*.7
25*
.244
FIN
CO
M.0
01**
*.0
01**
.001
**.0
01**
.001
*.0
01**
*N
EA
ST1.
796*
.386
.399
1.05
81.
111
.242
NC
EN
T-.
675
-.85
7-.
415
.020
.342
-.57
6SO
UT
H2.
415*
*3.
037*
**2.
302*
*2.
046*
*2.
166*
*1.
593*
AB
IL6.
672*
**4.
377*
**3.
145*
**3.
021*
**1.
986*
**H
SGPA
2.91
6***
2.39
6***
2.08
3***
1.48
7***
FSO
I.9
01*
.252
-.39
1M
SOI
1.59
9***
.620
.253
FPL
AN
3.06
5***
1.95
9***
.887
TSO
I.6
44.4
88.6
49E
DE
X2.
431*
**.5
42E
DU
C5.
654*
**O
CC
SEI
Con
stan
t31
.178
38.4
0823
.176
13.4
6513
.580
9.35
4
(Con
tinue
d)
r6
7
Tab
le 1
0a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or W
isco
nsin
Soc
ioec
onom
ic(C
ontin
ued)
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
) (N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(3
1)FI
NC
(32)
FIN
C(3
3)FI
NC
(34)
FIN
C(3
5)FI
NC
(36)
FIN
C(3
7)FI
NC
RU
RA
L-2
248.
935*
**-2
147.
266*
**-2
497.
111*
**-2
092.
964*
**-2
054.
507*
**-1
719.
455*
*-1
159.
882*
GE
ND
ER
-709
.719
-852
.631
-186
8.65
1***
-160
0.34
9***
-152
0.18
5**
-129
2.72
0**
-181
7.35
1***
FOC
C39
.018
**26
.533
*28
.043
*24
.525
25.3
28*
19.7
7613
.233
FAE
D60
7.33
8*11
3.64
664
.941
-157
.533
-192
.175
-295
.699
-242
.358
MO
ED
412.
530
30.6
001.
539
-119
.790
-117
.412
-310
.799
-347
.733
FIN
CO
M.7
21**
*.5
87**
*.6
03**
*.6
00**
*.5
95**
*.6
22**
*.5
90**
*
NE
AST
1704
.081
*90
6.50
891
4.55
311
68.4
8011
78.1
0082
8.58
679
1.90
0
NC
EN
T-1
89.7
77-2
92.3
35-3
4.15
616
0.49
821
8.53
6-1
50.7
70-6
3.46
3
SOU
TH
1037
.364
1388
.661
959.
891
895.
696
917.
409
686.
921
445.
569
AB
IL37
72.5
47**
*24
32.9
91**
*18
94.1
89**
*18
71.8
17**
*14
55.3
95**
*11
54.5
72**
*
HSG
PA17
02.0
95**
*14
72.1
87**
*14
15.7
50**
*11
76.2
22**
*95
0.92
4***
FSO
I82
3.77
1*70
6.82
744
8.16
250
7.39
1
MSO
I-.
835
-177
.201
-324
.917
-363
.192
FPL
AN
1707
.726
**15
08.4
53**
1077
.241
*92
4.84
5
TSO
I62
8.43
260
0.40
066
4.90
056
6.66
0
ED
EX
437.
995
-321
.595
-403
.759
ED
UC
2274
.108
***
1417
.661
***
OC
CSE
I15
1.48
1***
Con
stan
t20
539.
108
2462
7.07
215
737.
098
1146
5.94
811
486.
737
9786
.851
8369
.883
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
; FA
ED
=fa
ther
's e
duca
tion;
MO
ED
=m
othe
r'sed
ucat
ion;
FIN
CO
M=
fam
ily in
com
e in
sen
ior
year
; NE
AST
=N
orth
east
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); N
CE
NT
=N
orth
Cen
tral
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); S
OU
TH
=So
uth
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s);
HSG
PA=
high
sch
ool g
rade
s; F
SOI=
sch
oolin
g fa
ther
exp
ects
for
stu
dent
; MSO
I=sc
hool
ing
mot
her
expe
cts
for
stud
ent;
FPL
AN
=R
's f
rien
ds p
lan
to g
o to
col
lege
(1=
yes)
; TSO
I=te
ache
rsaf
fect
pla
ns f
or c
olle
ge; E
DE
X=
high
est e
duca
tion
stud
ent p
lans
; AB
IL=
R's
abi
lity
fact
or s
core
; ED
UC
=R
's e
duca
tion;
OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
tota
l fam
ily 1
985
earn
ings
(do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
70
Tab
le 1
0b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or4
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72(W
isco
nsin
Soci
oeco
nom
icN
LS-
72)
(N=
6,63
8)4
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Var
iabl
es:
Pred
eter
min
ed(1
)(B
ILV
aH
SGPA
HSG
PA(2
)(3
)A
FSO
I(4
)FS
OI
(5)
FSO
I(6
)M
SOI
(7)
MSO
I(8
)(9
)(1
0)(1
1)(1
2)
RU
RA
L-.
011
MSO
IFP
LA
NFP
IAN
FPL
AN
GENDER
.019
.055
***
.061
***
-.08
4***
-.08
0***
-.08
9***
-.08
9***
-.08
5***
085*
**-.
081*
**08
9***
FOC
C.0
76**
*.0
28*
.220
***
.210
***
-.06
3***
-.07
0***
-.10
2***
-108
***
-.11
4***
-.14
8***
.001
-.01
4-.
004
-.03
0**
FRED
.160
***
.113
***
.025
*
.085
***
.058
***
.060
***
.078
***
.052
***
M54
***
.048
***
.025
.027
*
MO
ED
.103
***
.069
***
.012
.234
***
177*
**.1
73**
*.1
74**
*.1
19**
*11
5***
138*
**.0
90**
*.0
87**
*
FIN
CO
M.1
86**
*.0
68**
*-.
035*
*.0
84**
*.0
18
.104
***
.067
***
.066
***
.152
***
.117
***
.115
***
.103
***
.072
***
.071
***
.023
*.0
77**
*.0
13NEAST
.090
***
.049
***
-.00
1-.
023
.056
***
056*
**-.
034*
.056
***
.001
.004
NCENT
.012
042*
*-.
049*
**-.
050*
**-.
056*
**-M
47**
*-0
44"
-.05
8***
058*
**
.019
SOU
TH
-.04
3**
.057
***
.081
***
.031
*.0
46**
*.0
34*
048*
**-.
041"
1.03
8**
-.04
2"-.
036*
065*
**-.
065*
**-M
31*
ARIL
.553
***
.358
***
.275
***
.053
***
.068
*".0
55**
*04
2**
-.02
9*-.
039"
HSG
PA.1
51**
*.2
99**
*.2
31**
*
FPL
AN
MSO
IFS
OI
.122
***
.345
***
.257
***
.158
***
TSO
I
EDEX
ED
UC
OCCSEI
R2 f1
.193
.096
.344
.197
.300
.315
.185
.281
.298
.096
.168
.178
(Con
tinue
d)
72
Tab
le 1
0b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
orSo
cioe
cono
mic
(Con
tinue
d)A
chie
vem
ent M
odel
: Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Stu
dy o
f th
e H
igh
Scho
ol C
lass
(Wis
cons
in
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:
RU
RA
L
(13)
TS0
1
-.00
3
(14)
TSO
I
.001
GE
ND
ER
.038
***
FOC
C
.033
**
FAE
D
.006
.108
***
-.01
6
.062
***
MO
ED
FIN
CO
M
.021
-.00
9
.020
-.03
4"N
EA
ST.0
17-.
009
NC
EN
T-.
035*
-.03
9"SO
UT
H.0
82**
*
AR
IL
.094
***
of 1
972
(N.-
-6,6
38)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
(15)
(16)
(17)
(18)
TSO
IE
DE
XE
DE
XE
DE
X
-.01
2-.
086*
**-.
081*
**-.
097*
**
-.00
9-.
089*
**-.
096*
**-.
148*
**
-.01
3.0
33*
.004
.008
.057
***
.234
***
.174
***
.168
***
-.01
1.1
06*"
.067
*".0
64**
*
-.02
7*.1
17*"
.047
*".0
56"*
-.00
9-.
019
-.05
3*"
-.05
3*"
-.02
9*-.
084*
"-.
088*
"-.
076*
**
.078
"*.0
12.0
28.0
07
.292
"*.1
81*"
375*
**.2
37**
*
HSG
PA.2
01"*
.250
***
FSO
IM
SOI
FPL
AN
TSO
I
ED
EX
ED
UC
OC
CSE
I
R2
73
.028
.096
.123
.195
.309
.350
(Con
tinue
d)
BE
SI C
OPY
AV
AIL
ISL
E
(19)
ED
EX
-.02
7***
-.06
6***
-.03
0**
.069
***
-.00
4
.044
"*-.
007
-.04
3***
-.01
6
.037
*".1
31**
*
.244
*".3
60*"
.158
*".0
24"
.645
(20)
ED
UC
-.09
3***
-.05
5***
.085
***
.204
***
.152
*".0
45*"
.054
***
.013
.042
"
183
(21)
ED
UC
-.08
8***
-.06
3***
.054
***
.138
***
.110
***
-.03
1*
.017
.008
.060
***
.410
*"
.319
(22)
ED
UC
-.10
2***
-.11
2***
.057
***
.132
***
.107
*"-.
023
.017
.020
.041
**
.281
***
.233
***
.355
(23)
ED
UC
-.05
6***
-061
***
.032
".0
66**
*
.064
***
-.03
1".0
47*"
.041
".0
29*
.15P
"15
9*"
.195
***
188"
*.1
25*"
-.00
3
.477
(24)
ED
UC
-.04
7***
08**
*.0
42**
*
.042
*".0
65**
*
-.04
7***
.050
"*.0
56*"
.035
".1
38**
*
.113
***
.109
***
.061
**
.069
***
-.01
1
.351
*"
.521
74c.
n
Tab
le 1
0b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or W
isco
nsin
Soc
ioec
onom
ic(C
ontin
ued)
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(2
5)O
CC
SEI
(26)
OC
CSE
I(2
7)O
CC
SEI
(28)
OC
CSE
I(2
9)O
CC
SEI
(30)
OC
CSE
I
RU
RA
L-.
102*
**-.
099*
**-.
110*
**-.
091*
**-.
087*
**-.
071*
**G
EN
DE
R.0
80**
*.0
75**
*.0
35**
.056
***
.066
***
.079
***
FOC
C.0
85**
*.0
62**
*.0
64**
*.0
55**
*.0
59**
*.0
45**
*FA
ED
.085
***
.036
*.0
32*
.005
-.00
5-.
020
MO
ED
.085
***
.054
***
.051
***
.033
*.0
33*
.011
FIN
CO
M.0
93**
*.0
37**
.043
**.0
041*
*.0
34*
.050
***
NE
AST
.035
*.0
08.0
08.0
21.0
22.0
05N
CE
NT
-.01
4-.
018
-.00
9.0
01.0
07-.
012
SOU
TH
.050
**.0
63**
*.0
48**
.043
".0
45"
.033
*A
BIL
.303
***
.199
***
.143
***
.137
***
.090
***
HSG
PA.1
89**
*.1
55*"
.135
***
.096
***
FSO
I.0
52*
.015
-.02
3M
SOI
.091
***
.035
1.0
14FP
LA
N.0
67**
*.0
43**
*.0
20T
SOI
.016
.012
.016
ED
EX
.154
***
.034
ED
UC
.341
***
OC
CSE
I
R2
.101
.175
.198
.220
.228
.284
(Con
tinue
d)
75
Tab
le 1
0b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or W
isco
nsin
Soc
ioec
onom
ic(C
ontin
ued)
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
) (N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(3
1)FI
NC
(32)
FIN
C(3
3)FI
NC
(34)
FIN
C(3
5)FI
NC
(36)
FIN
C(3
7)FI
NC
RU
RA
L-.
048*
**-.
046*
**-.
054*
**-.
045*
**-.
044*
**-.
037*
*-.
025*
GE
ND
ER
-.01
8-.
022
-.04
7***
-.04
1***
-.03
9**
-.03
3**
-.04
6***
FOC
C.0
45**
.031
*.0
33*
.029
.029
*.0
23.0
15
FAE
D.0
38*
.007
.004
-.01
0-.
012
-.01
8-.
015
MO
ED
.021
.002
.001
-.00
6-.
006
-.01
6-.
018
FIN
CO
M.1
91**
*.1
56**
*.1
60**
*.1
59**
*.1
58**
*.1
65**
*.1
56**
*
NE
AST
.037
*.0
20.0
20.0
25.0
26.0
18.0
17
NC
EN
T-.
004
-.00
7-.
001
.004
.005
-.00
4-.
001
SOU
TH
.024
.032
.022
.021
.021
.016
.010
AB
IL.1
92**
*.1
24**
*.0
96**
*.0
95**
*.0
74**
*.0
59**
*
HSG
PA.1
23**
*.1
06**
*.1
02**
*.0
85**
*.0
69**
*
FSO
I.0
53*
.046
.029
.033
MSO
I-.
001
-.01
1-.
021
-.02
3
FPL
AN
.042
**.0
37**
.026
*.0
23
TSO
I.0
17.0
16.0
18.0
15
ED
EX
.031
-.02
3-.
029
ED
UC
.153
***
.096
***
OC
CSE
I.1
69**
*
R2
.071
.101
.111
.116
.116
.127
.148
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
; FA
ED
=fa
ther
'sed
ucat
ion;
MO
ED
=m
othe
r'sed
ucat
ion;
FIN
CO
M=
fam
ily in
com
e in
sen
ior
year
; NE
AST
=N
orth
east
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); N
CE
NT
=N
orth
Cen
tral
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); S
OU
TH
=So
uth
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s);
HSG
PA=
high
sch
ool g
rade
s; F
SOI=
scho
olin
g fa
ther
exp
ects
for
stu
dent
; MSO
I= s
choo
ling
mot
her
expe
cts
for
stud
ent;
FPL
AN
=R
's f
rien
ds p
lan
to g
o to
col
lege
(1=
yes)
;TSO
I=te
ache
rsaf
fect
pla
ns f
or c
olle
ge; E
DE
X=
high
est e
duca
tion
stud
ent p
lans
; AB
IL=
R's
abi
lity
fact
or s
core
; ED
UC
=R
's e
duca
tion;
OC
CSE
I=R
's o
ccup
atio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
;FI
NC
=R
's to
tal f
amily
198
5
earn
ings
(do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel. 77
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE78
14
48
performance in the form of grades received, eventhough it has no influence on measuredacademic ability. For virtually each variable inthe block of significant-other influences, ruralbackground has modest negative effects, whichare somewhat smaller than the standardizedcoefficients obtained for parental education,grades, and gender. The sole exception to theseeffects on significant-other influence is perceivedteacher's expectations: rural origins have almostno effect on the expectations of teachers for theseseniors. There are also somewhat smaller effectson friends' plans relative to those of parents'expectations by rural background. Finally, ruralorigins have a depressing effect on educationalplans, most of which is transmitted throughsignificant-other influences. In other words,rural-origin youth plan to get less schooling,largely because their parentsbut not theirteachersexpect them to do so and their friendstend to expect less. The linkage of teacherexpectations to the formation of their plans,however, is almost nil, removing the potentialfor teachers to counteract the lower expectationsof important "others" in the student's socialenvironment.
The pertinent results for socioeconomicattainments during adulthood are also shown inTable 10. For educational attainment (see Table10a,b; equations 20-24), it can be observed thatabout one-half of the total negative effect of ruralbackground is mediated through significant-other influences (equation 23; compare -.093 vs.-.056) and educational plans (equation 24). Foroccupational status, about one-third of transmit-ted through completed schooling (compareequation 25, -.102 vs. equation 30, -.071).Finally, the total effect of rural residence onadulthood income is mostly mediated byeducation and occupational status, suggestingthat rural differences in schooling completedaccounts for the costs of rural origins in terms ofthe status of jobs attained and income received.
Rural-to-Urban Migration and the SocialCosts of Rural Origins
The role of migration in socioeconomicattainments has been viewed as one avenue ofsocial opportunity (Fuguitt et al. 1989). Toinvestigate how this might occur within the
79
context of the status attainment model that weare using, we re-estimated the Blau-Duncanmodel with dummy variables for rural farm-to-city, rural non-farm-to-city and city-to-ruralpatterns as intervening between completededucation and current occupational status (seeabove). Our hypothesis is that migration fromeither rural origin to any urban setting will havea positive effect on attainments while, as a"counter-treatment" condition, migration froman urban origin to any rural setting will have anegative effect. In experimental terminology,respondents who do not migrate serve as acontrol group in the regression analysis.
For the cumulative GSS data, these resultsare shown in Tables 11-16. A summary of theeffects of rural origins on attainments by majorperiod of rural development policy-making,controlling for these migration effects throughdummy variables, is presented in Table 17.
For the effects of migration itself, we canobserve by comparing the results across Tables11 through 16 that they are small to non-existent and certainly not clearly patternedacross these historical periods of rural develop-ment. The only noteworthy exceptions are asfollows. Migrating from a rural non-farm settingto an urban area had a small negative effect onoccupational status during the 1921-1932 period(beta = -.070). The unstandardized coefficientsuggests that this effect was around 4 units onthe SEI (b = -4.138). During the 1933-1940period, the effect of farm-to-city migration waspositive and was "worth" about $4,500 in 1993dollars (b = $4,498). A similar effect alsooccurred during the 1941-1952 period. For the1955-1966 period, moving from the city to a ruralarea cost a GSS respondent over $4,000 in 1993dollars (-$4,340). Thus, the hypotheses aboutmigration effects on socioeconomic attainmentsduring this century are rather easily discarded.One result was contrary to the direction of thehypotheses while two additional results wereindeed consistent with them but, overall, the setof results do not provide a solid foundation uponwhich to confirm that rural-to-urban migrationbehaviors have reaped clear and observablesocioeconomic rewards for rural youth.
While the effects of migration itself may not
(Text continues on Page 62)
Tab
le 1
la.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
nsw
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
00-1
920:
Gen
eral
Soci
al S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
=3,
012)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FI
NC
MO
ED
.259
.001
.001
.001
.001
-.00
1-.
001
.579
.042
.045
911.
344'
"35
7.32
235
2.56
034
2.63
9"
FOC
C.0
31-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1.0
01.0
01.1
50.
.086
..0
8313
0.88
864
.306
66.4
0647
.912
FAE
D.1
52.0
04.0
04.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01.3
91.0
74.0
8238
8.74
962
.521
62.0
8043
.758
FAR
M16
-1.3
14.4
86.4
91.0
08.0
09-.
052
-.05
3'"
-2.6
80."
.047
1.17
6-3
804.
286.
"-9
93.4
27-2
028.
587
-229
0.42
4*
RN
F16
-.88
3".
.007
.010
.618
.619
-.05
2"-.
053.
"-2
.449
"-.
616
.558
-222
3.47
0-3
33.3
73-1
083.
006
-120
7.23
5
FIN
CO
M18
.324
-.01
4"-.
015'
-.00
3-.
003
-.00
1-.
001
1.18
3.5
11'
.473
1079
.125
'38
6.40
141
2.54
530
7.35
6
GE
ND
ER
-.04
6.0
13.0
13-.
002
-.00
2-.
004
-.00
4-3
.422
".-3
.326
."-3
.296
**.
-828
8.36
9".
-818
9.19
6."
-822
8.31
5".
-749
4.70
0."
NE
16-.
109
-.00
5.0
02.0
02-.
034
-.03
4-.
518
-.29
2-.
258
-120
3.08
1-9
69.6
80-1
122.
175
-106
4.71
4
FRG
16-1
.179
.".0
48.0
52.0
31.0
32-.
019
-.02
0-2
.259
.187
.380
-331
6.69
3-7
95.1
40-9
97,0
82-1
081.
651
MA
16-.
188
-.01
2-.
012
.001
.001
-.00
5-.
005
-.00
7.3
83.3
66-1
33.3
2526
8.72
226
4.52
318
2.97
8
EN
C16
-.05
3-.
018
-.01
8-.
021
-.02
1-.
005
-.00
5-.
704
-.59
3-.
660
-358
5.32
5-3
471.
008
-345
2.52
8-3
305.
685
WN
C16
.026
-.08
6"-.
086"
-.01
2-.
012
-.00
1-.
001
.621
.569
.363
-222
2.79
1-2
277.
372
-213
1.29
5-2
211.
999
SA16
-1.0
15'"
-.08
9"-.
085"
-.03
1'-.
031*
-.01
4-.
014
-1.7
01.4
05.1
87-4
981.
814'
-281
0.63
3-2
719.
245
-276
0.81
0
ESC
16-1
.204
-.02
0-.
015
-.00
4-.
003
-.01
9-.
019
-2.4
80.0
19.0
04-7
464.
093.
-488
7.89
2.-4
953.
169'
-495
4.21
7'
WSC
16-.
639'
.019
.021
-.00
5-.
004
-.02
9-.
029
-2.9
93*
-1.6
67-1
.592
-680
8.66
9"-5
442.
041"
-561
0.40
3"-5
256.
026'
MT
N16
-.11
4-.
010
-.00
9-.
008
-.00
8-.
036
-.03
6-.
392
-.15
5-.
144
-384
3.46
7-3
599.
287
-374
9.86
3-3
717.
920
ED
UC
.004
.001
-.00
12.
076
2.08
5.21
39.3
5521
31.9
6916
68.0
08
FAR
MC
ITY
-2.1
37"
1585
.889
2061
.536
RN
FCIT
Y-1
.757
783.
013
1173
.999
CIT
YR
UR
1.24
2-4
740.
029'
-501
6.56
5"
OC
CSE
I22
2.57
0.
Con
stan
t6.
251
.041
.019
.011
.007
.064
.066
25.2
8812
.312
12.2
8416
198.
400
2823
.845
3099
.580
365.
616
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ilyin
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al n
onfa
rm a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
86
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
81
Tab
le 1
1b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
lE
quat
ions
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts f
or B
lau-
Dun
can
Soci
oeco
nom
ic A
chie
vem
ent M
odel
, Per
iod
1900
-192
0: G
ener
alSo
cial
Sur
veys
197
2-19
94 (
N=
3,01
2)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7)
CIT
YR
UR
(8)
()M
BE
!(9)
OC
CSE
I(10)
OC
CSE
I(11)
FIN
C(12)
FIN
C(13)
FIN
C(14)
FIN
C
MO
ED
.276
.014
.005
.014
.011
-.01
7-.
016
.157
.011
.012
.158
.062
".0
61"
.059
"FO
CC
.097
-.02
5-.
014
-.01
5.0
04.0
05.1
19.0
68"
.066
".0
66.0
33.0
34.0
24FA
ED
.181
.047
.040
'.0
25.0
23.0
29.0
30.1
18.0
22.0
25.0
75"
.012
.012
.008
FAR
M16
-.17
6.6
31.
.637
....0
18.0
20-.
141.
"-.
142.
"-.
091.
".0
02.0
40-.
083"
-.02
2-.
044
-.05
0*R
NF1
6,0
66.
.005
.007
.775
.776
-.07
9***
-.07
9-.
047"
-.01
2.0
11-.
027
-.01
3-.
016
FIN
CO
M16
.079.
-.03
3.-.
036*
-.01
3-.
014
-.00
1-.
001
.074
.032
'.0
29.0
43'
.015
.016
.012
GE
ND
ER
.018
.018
-.00
6-.
005
-.01
1-.
011
-.12
1-.
117.
"-.
116"
-.18
7."
- .1
84-.
185*
"-.
169*
**N
E18
-.00
3-.
003
.002
.002
-.04
1-.
041
-.00
5-.
012
-.01
0-.
011
-.01
0FR
G16
-.06
3".
.025
.027
.028
.029
-.02
1-.
022
-.03
1.0
03.0
05-.
029
MA
16-.
020
-.01
3-.
012
.002
.002
-.00
9-.
010
-.00
1.0
10.0
10.0
05.0
04.0
03E
NC
18-.
020
-.01
9-.
039
-.03
9-.
012
-.01
2-.
020
-.01
7-.
019
-.06
8-.
061
WN
C 1
6.0
02-.
075"
-.07
6"-.
019
-.01
9-.
001
-.00
1.0
14.0
13.0
08-.
033
-.03
3-.
031
-.03
3SA
16-
.105
"'
-.09
0"-.
086"
-.05
4'-.
053*
-.02
9-.
030
-.04
5.0
11.0
05-.
084
-.04
7-.
046
-.04
7E
SC16
-.10
2-.
016
-.01
3-.
032
-.03
3-.
063
.001
.001
,102
-.06
7'-.
068'
-.06
8'W
SC16
-.05
1'.0
15.0
17-.
046
-.04
7-.
061'
-.03
4-.
033
-.08
9"-.
071"
-.07
3"-.
069'
MT
N16
-.00
6-.
038
-.03
6-.
005
-.00
2-.
031
-.02
9-.
031
-.03
0E
DU
C.0
34.0
11-.
005
.528
.531
..348
.347
*FA
RM
CIT
Y.2
71-.
056"
.027
.035
RN
FCIT
Y-.
027
.008
.011
CIT
YR
UR
.018
-.03
8'-.
041
OC
CSE
I.1
42
.352
.375
.375
.603
.603
.029
.029
.171
.352
.354
.143
.222
.224
.237
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est
year
of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16(1
=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
ehi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
alno
nfar
m a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
E 2
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 1
2a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns w
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
21-1
932:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
=2,
908)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
(14)
FIN
CFI
NC
MO
ED
.177
.001
-.00
1-.
002*
-.00
1.0
01.4
76.0
69.0
5973
5.88
827
3.02
928
2.47
725
8.35
8
FOC
C.0
31.0
01.0
01.0
01-.
001
.001
.001
.187
*.1
17.1
1723
2.26
3.15
2.59
015
4.07
110
6.77
4"
FAE
D.1
67.0
01-.
001
.002
'.0
01.0
01.0
01.3
00-.
078
522.
301
85.4
6281
.096
112.
774
FAR
M16
-1.0
89".
.513
.520
.".0
08.0
12-.
044*
**-.
045*
**-3
.180
."-.
679
-.16
1-4
087.
608
-124
4.11
5-2
729.
341
-266
4.04
4
RN
F16
-.74
0..0
02.0
07.6
44.
.647
-.04
4*"
-.04
5"-1
.244
.454
3.16
1"-4
151.
645"
-222
1.34
9-4
898.
769.
-618
0.64
5*
FIN
CO
M16
.348
.-.
016"
-.01
8".0
02.0
01-.
002
.945
.177
.167
2482
.663
1575
.678
"16
13.9
48"
1546
.369
"
GE
ND
ER
-.30
9".0
07.0
09.0
02.0
03.0
10.0
10-2
.786
".-2
.076
".-2
.060
."-7
339.
973*
**-6
532.
704*
**-6
543.
287.
"-5
707.
752"
.
NE
16-.
208
-.01
6-.
014
-.00
8-.
035
-.03
5.2
93.7
69.7
46-1
820.
722
-127
9.00
6-1
301.
493
-160
4.18
3
FRG
16-1
.771
..0
07.0
19.0
15.0
22-.
032
-2.8
931.
173
1.29
6-6
273.
472*
-165
0.37
8-1
867.
589
-239
3.19
7
MA
16-.
019
-.01
9-.
019
-.01
6-.
018
.008
.008
.281
.325
.240
-584
.700
-534
.268
-404
.306
-501
.640
EN
C16
-.08
1-.
033
-.03
2-.
023'
-.02
3.0
05.0
05-.
543
-.35
8-.
484
-214
7.58
2-1
937.
428
-175
2.65
9-1
556.
500
WN
C16
.155
- .0
78-.
079.
"-.
019
-.01
9-.
016
-.01
61.
025
.669
.530
-338
1.34
5-3
786.
649
-354
9.86
7-3
764.
851
SA16
-.99
6***
-.08
2."
-.07
6-.
042.
"-.
038"
-.01
9-.
020
-1.8
62.4
24.2
13-6
722.
098"
-412
2.78
6*-3
829.
385
-391
5.58
7*
ESC
16-1
.202
-.02
5-.
017
-.02
8-.
022
-.02
2-.
023
-2.4
27.3
33.2
41-1
0208
.812
-707
0.70
0"-6
998.
738"
-709
6.27
8"
WSC
16-.
722"
.004
.009
-.01
8-.
015
-.02
2-.
023
-1.2
64.3
93.3
48-5
858.
949*
-397
5.72
3-3
993.
955
-413
5.05
1
MT
N16
-.23
7.0
04.0
01.0
02-.
018
-.01
8-.
693
-.14
8-.
127
-501
1.84
2-4
392.
650
-445
5.72
3-4
404.
3'28
ED
UC
.006"'
.004
-.00
12.
295
2.31
726
10.0
16."
2576
.538
1636
.931
FAR
MC
ITY
-.85
725
51.0
0728
98.4
87
RN
FCIT
Y-4
.138
"39
36.9
6156
15.2
36
CIT
YR
UR
.501
-'246
5.01
5-2
668.
367
OC
CSE
I40
5.57
0
Con
stan
t7.
640
.041
-.00
8.0
06-.
022
.036
.043
25.9
508.
411
8.29
019
904.
660
-37.
021
178.
915
-318
3.22
7
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; F
AR
MC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
far
m a
reas
(1=
yes)
; RN
FCIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om r
ural
non
farm
are
as (
1=ye
s); C
ITY
RU
R=
mig
ratio
n fr
om c
ity a
reas
(1=
yes)
; OC
CSE
I=R
'soc
cupa
tiona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
0011
evel
.Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
Sign
ific
ant a
t .05
leve
l.
84B
EST
CO
PY A
VA
ILA
BL
E8
5
Tab
le 1
2b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
nsw
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
21-1
932:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
=2,
908)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(1
)(2
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(6
)(7
)(8
)(9
)(1
0)(1
1)(1
2)(1
3)(1
4)V
aria
bles
:E
DU
CFA
RM
CIT
YFA
RM
CIT
YR
NFC
ITY
RN
FCIT
YC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RO
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
FIN
CFI
NC
FIN
CFI
NC
MO
ED
.191
.012
-.00
1-.
025
-.03
5'-.
001
.003
.123
*.0
18.0
15.1
01*
.038
.039
.036
FOC
C.1
08.0
10.0
03.0
02.0
36.0
38.1
59.099
.099..
.105"
AM.
.070
".0
48"
FAR
O.2
08"
.010
.037
'.0
26.0
03.0
07M89
-.02
5-.
023
.083
.014
.013
.018
FAR
M16
-.14
2***
AO
.678
*.0
15.0
22-.
107.
"-.
110.
"-.
099.
"-.
021
-.00
5..0
68-.
021
-.04
5-.044
RN
F16
-.06
4.0
02.0
06.7
91.7
94.
-.07
2."
-.07
3-.
028
.009
.065
"-.
046"
-.02
4-.
054'
-.06
8'FI
NC
OM
16.091
-.04
2"-.
048"
.009
.004
-.01
0-.
008
.061
.011
.010
.083.
.053
".0
54"
.052
"G
EN
DE
R-.
046"
.010
.013
.005
.007
.029
.028
-.07
4***
-.07
3***
-.13
9."
-.12
4***
-.12
4."
,108.
NE
16-.
014
-.01
1-.
010
-.04
4-.
046
.005
.013
.012
-.01
8-.
011
-.01
1-.
014
FRG
16,108
.011
.013
.018
-.03
6-.
038
-.04
1.0
17.0
18-.
048'
-.01
3-.
014
-.01
8M
A16
-.02
1-.
021
-.02
5-.
025
.017
.017
.009
.006
-.00
8-.
006
EN
C16
-.01
0-.
038
-.04
0'-.
039
.011
.010
-.01
5-.
010
-.01
4-.
029
-.02
7-.
024
WN
C16
.014
-.07
0."
-.07
1***
-.02
4-.
024
-.02
7-.
027
.022
.014
.011
-.04
4-.
041
-.04
3SA
16-.
111.
"-11191."
-.08
4-.
067
-.06
0"-.
040
-.04
2-.
050
.011
.006
-.09
5"-.
058.
-.05
5'E
SC16
-.104...
-.02
2-.
015
-.03
2-.
027
-.03
6-.
038
-.05
0.0
07.0
05-.
113"
.-.
078"
-.07
8"-.
079"
WSC
16-.
061"
.003
.007
-.02
2-.
018
-.03
5-.
037
-.02
5.0
08.0
07-.
063'
-.04
3.0
43-.
044
MT
N16
-.01
3.0
01.0
02.0
01.0
02-.
019
-.01
900
900
200
203
5-.
031
-.03
1-.
031
ED
UC
.065
.052
-.01
8.5
50.5
55.3
33.3
29.
.209
**FA
RM
CIT
Y-.
021
.033
.037
RN
FCIT
Y-.
070"
.035
.050
CIT
YR
UR
.006
.017
-.01
8O
CC
SEI
.216
"
11'
.306
.441
.444
.623
.625
.026
.026
.146
.355
.357
.132
.209
.210
.240
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
area
s w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
= f
athe
r's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est
year
of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al n
onfa
rmar
eas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 1
3a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns w
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
33-1
940:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
.2,1
49)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FI
NC
MO
ED
.221
.004
.003
-.00
1.0
04.0
04"
.543
-.04
3-.
041
1069
.769
451.
360
442.
099'
456.
372*
FOC
C.0
26-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1.0
01.0
01.1
69.1
01.1
0021
6.71
114
4.33
2"14
6.38
7"11
1.31
6
FAE
D.1
26.0
01.0
01.0
02.0
02-.
003*
-.00
3*.2
50-.
082
396.
164'
42.3
2838
.388
67.2
02
FAR
M16
-.82
1m.5
42.5
46.0
04.0
06-.
049"
-.04
9m-2
.252
"-.
075
.887
-180
4.43
549
3.53
7-1
716.
979
-202
8.51
6
RN
F16
-.37
0'.0
08.0
10.634*
.635
-.05
1m-.
051
-1.0
69-.
291
-284
.476
750.
839
1670
.468
1772
.753
FIN
CO
MI8
.280
m.0
01-.
001
.001
-.00
1.0
06.0
061.
299
.556
.548
2055
.479
"12
70.8
86*
1284
.855
1092
.401
GE
ND
ER
-.40
3m.0
05.0
07-.
005
-2.5
02m
-1.4
33"
-1.4
16"
-620
4.80
3m-5
077.
021m
-511
9.04
8m-4
621.
885m
NE
I6.0
27-.
027
-.02
8-.
006
1.57
41.
502
1.51
073
87.6
0273
11.9
5172
79.4
8267
49.0
95
FRG
16-.
240
.022
.023
.008
.008
.005
.005
-.98
9-.
350
-.32
312
31.2
4919
04.0
6118
37.8
17-1
951.
196
MA
16.0
46-.
025
-.02
5-.
012
-.01
2.0
31.0
31.6
58.5
37.4
6815
28.8
6314
00.5
2715
33.2
2213
68.8
78
EN
C16
-.20
0-.
031
-.03
0-.
011
-.01
0.0
21.0
21-.
260
.271
.204
1397
.561
1957
.839
2093
.498
2021
.735
WN
C16
-.07
2-.
049*
-.04
9*-.
005
-.00
5.0
01.0
01.5
38.7
28.6
4814
13.8
9116
14.8
6717
99.1
0015
71.6
71
SA18
-.60
0*-
.085
"-.
062"
-.03
2*-.
031*
.018
.019
-1.9
16-.
327
-.43
7-3
488.
894
-181
1.10
3-1
584.
886
-143
1.27
3
ESC
16-.
483
-.02
6-.
024
-.01
2-.
011
.022
.022
-.72
4.5
58.4
98-2
746.
771
-139
4.90
2-1
280.
100
-145
5.00
2
WSC
16-.
042
.023
.023
-.00
8.0
17.0
171.
045
1.15
61.
181
-161
0.57
6-1
493.
112
-156
8.76
6-1
983.
767
MT
N16
.081
-.04
2-.
043
.018
.018
.696
.483
.396
-422
7.43
7-4
452.
731
-426
8.86
0-4
408.
057
ED
UC
.004
.002
.001
2.65
12.
657
2798
.259
2785
.031
1851
.818
***
FAR
MC
ITY
-1.6
7439
10.5
1644
98.6
02
RN
FCIT
Y.4
28-1
646.
088
-176
9.33
1
CIT
YR
UR
1.03
3-1
749.
261
-211
1.92
9
OC
CSE
I35
1.20
9
Con
stan
t7.
985
-.01
8-.
052
.011
.005
.001
25.148
3.98
03.
896
1624
8.98
5-6
094.
044
-589
9.85
1-7
268.
049
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16 =
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; F
AR
MC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
far
m a
reas
(1=
yes)
; RN
FCIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om r
ural
non
farm
are
as (
1=ye
s); C
ITY
RU
R=
mig
ratio
n fr
om c
ity a
reas
(1=
yes)
;OC
CSE
I=It
'soc
cupa
tiona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Tab
le 1
3b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns w
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
33-1
940:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
=2,
149)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pre
dete
rmin
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)F
AR
MC
ITY
(3)
FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NF
CIT
Y(5
)R
NF
CIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SE
I(9
)O
CC
SE
I(1
0)O
CC
SE
I(1
1)F
INC
(12)
FIN
C(1
3)F
INC
(14)
FIN
C
MO
ED
.249
.049
'.0
38-.
018
-.02
4.0
79"
.077
".1
30-.
010
-.01
0.1
42"
.060
'.0
59'
.061
'
FO
CC
.104
-.01
8-.
022
-.00
5.0
03.0
02.1
45.0
88.0
85".
.103
*.0
69"
.070
".0
53'
FA
ED
.167
.013
.005
.033
.029
-.06
8'-.
069'
.070
'-.
024
-.02
3.0
62'
.007
.006
.010
FA
RM
16-.
109*
**.7
06*
.710
".0
06.0
09-.
108"
-.10
8***
-.06
3".0
25-.
028
.008
-.02
7-.
032
RN
F16
-.04
0'.0
08.0
10.7
80.7
81,0
91-.
090*
"-.
024
.009
.021
.022
FIN
CO
MI6
.080
.001
-.00
3.0
01-.
002
.029
.028
.078
"..0
33.0
33.0
69"
.042
'.0
43*
.036
GE
ND
ER
-.06
6***
.008
.011
-.01
2-.
010
-.01
0-.
010
-.08
7*"
-.05
0"-.
049"
-.12
0***
-.09
8***
-.08
9*N
E18
.002
-.02
1-.
021
.023
.022
.022
.059
'.0
58'
.058
'.0
54'
FR
G16
-.01
8.0
18.0
17.0
07.0
07.0
07.0
07-.
016
-.00
5.0
11.0
17.0
17.0
18
MA
16.0
06-.
030
-.03
0-.
017
-.01
7.0
63.0
62.0
17.0
14.0
12.0
22.0
20.0
22.0
20
EN
C16
-.02
6-.
039
-.03
8-.
016
-.01
5.0
45.0
45.0
07.0
06.0
21.0
30.0
32.0
31
WN
C16
-.04
5'-.
045"
-.00
5-.
005
.002
.002
.011
.014
.013
.016
.018
.020
.017
SA
16-.
075'
-.08
0"-.
076"
-.04
6'-.
044'
.038
.039
-.05
1-.
012
-.05
1-.
027
-.02
3-.
021
ES
C16
-.04
6-.
024
-.02
2-.
013
-.01
2.0
34.0
34-.
015
.011
.010
-.03
0-.
015
-.01
4-.
016
WS
C 1
6.0
21.0
22.0
27.0
27.0
21.0
23.0
23-.
018
-.01
6-.
017
-.02
2
MT
N16
.005
-.02
5-.
025
.018
.018
.009
.006
.005
-.03
0-.
032
-.03
0-.
031
ED
UC
.044
.024
.008
.562
**.5
63.3
29".
.328
**.2
18**
*F
AR
MC
ITY
-.03
6.0
47.0
54R
NF
CIT
Y.0
08-.
017
-.01
8
CIT
YR
UR
.013
-.01
2-.
015
OC
CS
EI
.195
*
.274
.482
.483
.603
.603
.025
.025
.128
.357
.358
.118
.197
.198
.223
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
'soc
cupa
tion
stat
us(S
EI)
;FA
ED
=fa
ther
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; MO
ED
=m
othe
r's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16-,
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al n
onfa
rm a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
area
s (1
=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 1
4a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns w
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
41-1
952:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
=5,
046)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FI
NC
MO
ED
.170
".0
02.0
02.0
01.0
01.0
03"
.003
".6
51.1
93"
.191
"71
4.37
034
7.37
5"34
2.60
7"29
5.41
0
FOC
C.0
24-.
001
-.00
1.0
01.0
01-.
001
-.00
1.1
51m
.086
.085
"10
4.09
551
.777
50.6
4029
.530
FAE
D.1
59.0
01-.
001
.001
-.00
1-.
002*
-.00
2.2
89"
-.13
8'-.
137
363.
326"
20.6
1317
.271
51.1
44
FAR
M16
-4 9
5*.4
75.4
75.0
09.0
10-.
053m
-.05
2"-1
.374
*-.
039
.141
-116
2.86
6-9
2.29
2-
1912
.618
-194
7.33
3
RN
F16
-.46
2m.0
05.0
05.6
19.6
20-.
056*
"-.
055*
"-2
.048
m-1
.477
-148
7.10
9-4
87.9
34-3
331.
537*
-296
6.77
0
FIN
CO
M16
.134
"-.
005
-.00
6.0
01.0
01.0
07.0
07.4
26.0
63.0
5819
93.9
2717
03.2
00'"
1731
.788
1717
.545
GE
ND
ER
-.44
0".0
03.0
04.0
01.0
02-.
001
-.00
1-.
258
.927
".9
27"
-340
7.75
4'"
-245
7.59
6m-2
480.
477"
-270
9.31
4m
NE
16.2
13-.
003
-.00
3.0
12.0
12-.
039*
-.03
9"1.
906
1.33
01.
329
3525
.124
3063
.782
2940
.085
2611
.829
FRG
16-.
200
.028
.028
.013
.013
-.01
6-.
015
.987
1.52
61.
527
2408
.983
2841
.681
2654
.495
2277
.407
MA
16.0
73.0
01-.
001
.001
.001
-.01
6-.
016
2.03
6"1.
839"
1.84
5"26
88.9
3125
31.4
97'
2497
.070
*20
41.5
79
EN
C16
-.05
9-.
012
-.01
2-.
008
-.00
8-.
025*
-.02
4".3
06.4
65.4
7757
0.49
069
7.49
972
0.52
660
2.75
4
WN
C16
.081
-.02
5'-.
025
-.00
8-.
008
-.03
6"-.
036"
1.23
31.
015
1.02
7-1
85.8
74-3
61.1
85-3
14.4
47-5
68.1
35
SA16
-.42
3"-.
038'
"-.
037m
-.03
3m-.
033m
-.02
0-.
020
1.07
51.
105
-131
6.59
5-
402.
843
-173
.026
-445
.812
ESC
16-.
297
-.01
6-.
015
-.01
0-.
019
-.01
9-.
422
.379
.390
-255
2.92
8-1
910.
847
-185
7.28
0-1
953.
587
WSC
16-.
186
-.00
5-.
005
-.01
9-.
019
.188
.690
.705
-234
0.80
8-1
938.
298
-192
2.62
3-2
096.
680
MT
N16
.070
-.02
3-.
023
-.03
0-.
031'
-.01
9-.
019
.177
-.01
1.0
21-2
370.
702
-252
1.48
8-2
348.
395
-253
5.61
0
ED
UC
.001
.001
.001
2.69
72.
695
2161
.870
2153
.594
""14
88.0
58m
FAR
MC
ITY
3501
.308
'35
90.8
69'
RN
FCIT
Y1.
122
4362
.642
'40
85.4
80'
CIT
YR
UR
.340
-217
8.01
1-2
261.
936
OC
CSE
I24
6.91
8
Con
stan
t8.
875
.001
-.01
1-.
025
-.03
8.0
44.0
3424
.205
.271
.298
1810
0.80
5-1
085.
077
-809
.114
-882
.635
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16
=ru
ral n
onfa
rm a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
;FA
ED
=fa
ther
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; MO
ED
=m
othe
r's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
S.C
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; F
AR
MC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
far
m a
reas
(1=
yes)
; RN
FCIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om r
ural
non
farm
are
as (
1=ye
s); C
ITY
RU
R=
mig
ratio
n fr
om c
ity a
reas
(1=
yes)
; OC
CSE
I=R
'soc
cupa
tiona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
92B
ES
T C
OP
YA
VA
ILA
BLE
53
Tab
le 1
4b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns w
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
41-1
952:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N=
5,04
6)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FI
NC
MO
ED
.196
**.0
30'
.027
.017
.014
.053
".0
50"
.151
.045
".0
44"
.098
.047
".0
47"
.040
FOC
C.1
14.0
16.0
14-.
003
-.00
5.1
42.0
81.0
81*
.058
.029
.028
.016
FAE
D.2
26.0
01.0
01-.
003
-.03
9'-.
043'
.083
-.03
9'-.
039'
.061
".0
03.0
03.0
09FA
RM
18-.
060*
**.6
70.6
70."
.012
.013
-.08
8.**
-.08
7***
-.03
3.-.
001
.003
-.01
7-.
001
-.02
7-.
028
RN
F16
-.05
3.0
07.0
07.7
71.7
72-.
088'
"-.
088"
-.04
7'-.
019
-.03
4-.
020
-.04
5'-.
040
FIN
CO
M16
.040
"-.
019
-.01
9.0
05.0
04.0
28.0
27.0
25.0
04.0
03.0
69.0
59.0
60*
.060
"G
EN
DE
R-.
078
.007
.008
.002
.003
-.00
3-.
001
.033
".0
33"
-.07
2***
-.05
2***
-.05
2"'
-.05
7"N
E16
.015
-.00
3.0
09.0
09.0
39'
-.03
9'.0
27.0
19.0
19.0
30.0
26.0
25.0
22FR
G16
-.01
5.0
25'
.025
.010
.011
-.01
6-.
016
.015
.023
.023
.022
.025
.024
.020
MA
16.0
10.0
01-.
001
.001
.001
-.02
9-.
029
.055
".0
50"
.050
".0
43'
.040
'.0
40'
.032
EN
C16
-.00
8-.
021
-.02
1-.
012
-.01
2-.
048'
-.04
8.0
09.0
13.0
14.0
10.0
12.0
12.0
10W
NC
16.0
08-.
029'
-.02
9'-.
049"
-.04
9".0
24.0
20.0
20-.
006
SA16
-.05
4"-.
057*
**-.
056*
**-.
046*
**-.
045*
**-.
036
-.03
5.0
28.0
28-.
020
-.00
6-.
003
ESC
16-.
028
-.01
7-.
017
-.01
0-.
025
-.02
4-.
008
.007
.007
-.02
8-.
021
-.02
0-.
021
WSC
16-.
019
-.00
6-.
010
-.01
0-.
027
-.02
7.0
04.0
14.0
14-.
028
-.02
3-.
023
-.02
5M
TN
16.0
05-.
019
-.01
9-.
023'
-.02
3"-.
018
-.01
8.0
02-.
001
.001
-.01
9-.
020
-.01
9-.
019
ED
UC
.015
.016
.016
.541
*.6
40**
.255
.254
*.1
76"
FAR
MC
ITY
.035
".0
36'
RN
FCIT
Y.0
21.0
48'
.045
'C
ITY
RU
R.0
05-.
019
-.01
9O
CC
SEI
.145
IP.2
61.4
36.4
36.5
86.5
86.0
20.0
20.1
17.3
33.3
33.0
67.1
15.1
17.1
31
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
;FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al n
onfa
rmar
eas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Tab
le 1
5a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns w
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
53-1
966:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys 1
972-
1994
(N
=3,
873)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(8
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FI
NC
MO
ED
.141
".0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01.3
42-.
046
-.04
663
5.78
832
9.22
8*33
0.00
4'33
5.47
6
FOC
C.0
22.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01-.
001
-.00
1.0
88*
.028
.028
32.6
69-1
4.57
1-1
6.25
1-1
9.55
2
FAE
D.1
52**
-.00
1-.
001
.002
.002
-.00
1-.
001
.469
.051
.051
313.
461
-17.
580
-20.
180
-26.
197
FAR
M16
-.11
6.4
61.4
61 *
*.0
12.0
13-.
057"
-.05
7-.
254
.066
-.92
5-1
009.
437
-756
.591
-293
4.74
5-2
825.
613
RN
F16
-.25
3*.0
03.0
03.5
70.5
70*
-.05
6"-.
056"
-1.0
08-.
312
-208
3.94
9-1
533.
273
- 33
43.8
97'
-327
3.10
0*
FIN
CO
M16
.116
-.00
1-.
001
.003
.003
.010
.010
.598
.279
.286
2999
.762
*"
2747
.630
*27
86.9
75 *
2753
.226
**
GE
ND
ER
-.07
2-.
001
-.00
1.0
03.0
03.0
10.0
102.
249*
2.44
6***
2.45
4-3
739.
637*
**-3
583.
563*
-354
3.13
4***
-383
2.61
1***
NE
16.0
82-.
014
-.01
4-.
022
-.02
3.0
03.0
032.
053
1.82
71.
867
4291
.900
4112
.912
4244
.878
4024
.570
*
FRG
16.8
21.0
06.0
05.0
08.0
07.0
03.0
032.
261
.001
-.01
0-3
06.6
52-2
093.
554
-211
6.87
1-2
115.
745
MA
TS
.233
-.01
4-.
015
-.00
5-.
005
.628
-.01
2.0
1623
64.5
2518
58.5
6819
06.2
3219
04.3
19
EN
C16
.145
-.01
2-.
012
-.01
7-.
017
-.00
2.4
32.0
33.0
6421
0.49
0-1
05.2
15-1
9.67
6-2
7.25
2
WN
C16
.306
-.03
9"-.
039
-.03
9"-.
040"
.011
.011
.752
-.09
0.0
15-3
694.
431*
-436
0.15
5"-4
043.
908*
-404
5.62
2*
SA18
.071
-.03
4-.
034*
**-.
035"
-.03
5".0
31.0
31-.
481
-.65
8-.
553
-243
3.39
0-2
588.
866
-222
0.33
4-2
155.
045
ESC
16-.
103
-.03
1"-.
031"
-.03
5"-.
035"
.011
.011
-.97
2-.
690
-.60
5-4
993.
812"
-477
0.67
2"-4
502.
913"
-443
1.52
6"
WSC
16.0
42-.
015
-.01
6-.
020
-.02
0.0
07.0
071.
810
1.69
51.
740'
-396
2.94
9*-4
054.
352"
-390
7.05
5*-4
112.
300"
MT
N'6
.155
-.01
4-.
014
-.03
7*-.
037*
.048
".0
48"
.681
.254
.331
-363
5.88
8-
3973
.283
'-3
600.
751
-363
9.80
0
ED
UC
.001
.001
.001
2.75
1***
2.74
9*21
75.7
29**
*21
68.8
11**
1844
.533
."
FAR
MC
ITY
2.05
640
98.3
1138
55.7
71
RN
FCIT
Y.4
3127
17.9
1426
67.0
41
CIT
YR
UR
-.64
1-4
416.
606"
-434
0.95
2"
OC
CSE
I11
7.97
7 **
Con
stan
t8.
380
.012
.003
-.03
5-.
046
.008
.006
21.6
37-1
.421
-1.4
0313
041.
861
-519
1.67
8-5
052.
601
-488
7.07
2
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; F
AR
MC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
far
m a
reas
(1=
yes)
; RN
FCIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om r
ural
non
farm
are
as (
1=ye
s); C
ITY
RU
R=
mig
ratio
n fr
om c
ity a
reas
(1=
yes)
; OC
CSE
I=R
'soc
cupa
tiona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
97
Tab
le 1
5b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
lE
quat
ions
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts f
or B
lau-
Dun
can
Soci
oeco
nom
ic A
chie
vem
ent M
odel
, Per
iod
1953
-196
6: G
ener
al S
ocia
l Sur
veys
197
2-19
94 (
N=
3,87
3)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(8
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FI
NC
MO
ED
.175
.008
.005
.017
.015
.019
.019
.075
*"
-.01
0-.
010
.086
.044
'.0
44'
.045
FOC
C.1
25"
.011
.010
.005
.004
-.01
4-.
014
.090
.029
.028
.020
-.01
0-.
012
FAE
D.2
4200
8-o
n.0
27.0
24-.
003
. I32
.014
.014
.054
-.00
3-.
003
FAR
M16
-.01
4.6
65.6
65.0
14.0
14-.
081*
**-.
081*
**-.
005
.001
-.02
0-.
013
-.01
0-.
038
-.03
7R
NF1
6-.
035'
.004
.005
.737
.738
-.091***
-.09
1."
-.02
4-.
014
-.031
-.023
-.049.
-.04
8'FI
NC
OM
I6.0
38'
.009
.009
.038
'.0
37.0
35'
.016
.017
.107
.098
.099.
.098
GE
ND
ER
-.01
6.0
06.0
06.0
24.0
24.0
82.0
89.089
-.08
3."
-.08
0-.079***
-.08
5***
NE
16.0
07-.
015
-.01
5-.
019
n019
.003
.003
.033
.029
.030
.042
'.0
40.0
41'
.039
'FR
GI6
.069 **
.008
.005
.008
.006
.003
.003
.034
.001
-.00
1-.
019
-.01
9-.
020
MA
16.0
34-.
025
-.02
6-.
010
.018
-.00
1.0
01.0
37.0
29.0
30.0
30E
NC
16.0
24-.
024
-.02
5-.
027
-.02
7-.
005
-.00
5.0
13.0
01.0
02.0
04-.
002
-.00
1-.
001
WN
C16
.034
'-
.052
'-.
052"
-.04
2"-.
042"
.015
.014
.015
.001
-.04
4'-.
053"
-.04
9'-.
049'
SA16
.011
- .0
61-.
061*
**-.
049"
-.04
9".0
55'
.055
'-.
012
-.01
7-.
015
-.04
0-.
042
-.03
6-.
035
ESC
16-.
011
-.03
9"-.
039"
-.03
5"-.
035.
.014
.014
-.01
8-.
013
-.01
1-.
057"
-.05
4"-.
051"
-.05
0"W
SC16
.005
-.02
1-.
022
-.02
2-.
022
.009
.009
.037
.035
.035
-.04
9'-.
051"
-.04
9"-.
051"
IVIT
NI6
.014
-.01
5-.
015
-.03
0'-.
031.
.050
".0
50"
.011
.004
.005
-.03
8'-.
034
-.03
4E
DU
C.0
14.0
13.0
04.4
86.4
86*
.235
..2
34.
.199
."FA
RM
CIT
Y.0
30.0
37.0
35R
NFC
ITY
.008
.031
.030
CIT
YR
UR
-.01
0-.
040"
-.04
0.*
OC
CSE
I.0
72**
*
R'
.235
.435
.436
.536
.536
.020
.020
.082
.263
.264
.071
.113
.116
.120
9 8
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der (
1=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
;FA
ED
=fa
ther
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
sch
ool c
ompl
eted
; MO
ED
=m
othe
r's th
e hi
ghes
tye
ar o
f sc
hool
com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ily in
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WN
C16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; SA
16=
Sout
hA
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
SC16
=E
ast S
outh
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; WSC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
TN
16=
Mou
ntai
n w
hen
16(1
=ye
s); E
DU
C=
R's
the
high
est y
ear
ofsc
hool
com
plet
ed; F
AR
MC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
far
m a
reas
(1=
yes)
; RN
FCIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om r
ural
non
farm
area
s (1
=ye
s); C
ITY
RU
R=
mig
ratio
n fr
om c
ity a
reas
(1=
yes)
; OC
CSE
I=R
'soc
cupa
tiona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's f
amily
inco
me
( co
nsta
nt 1
993
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
Sign
ific
ant a
t .05
leve
l.
Tab
le 1
6a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
nsw
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
for
Bla
u-D
unca
n So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t Mod
el, P
erio
d 19
67-1
980:
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys19
72-1
994
(N=
211)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(3
)FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NFC
ITY
(5)
RN
FCIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SEI
(9)
OC
CSE
I(1
0)O
CC
SEI
(11)
FIN
C(1
2)FI
NC
(13)
FIN
C(1
4)FD
IC
MO
ED
.150
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
.001
-.00
1.5
52.3
14.3
1174
2.23
763
4.40
162
6.18
859
7.97
6
FOC
C.0
03-.
001
-.00
1.0
01.0
01.0
02.0
02.2
52.2
47.2
435
.432
33.4
7243
.839
21.3
38
FAE
D.1
13.0
01.0
01.0
05.0
05.0
01.0
01-.
567
-.74
7.-.
725
-351
.755
-433
.401
-435
.902
-370
.216
FAR
M18
.028
.438
".4
38.0
11.0
112.
296
2.25
12.
587
-145
4.49
8-1
474.
614
-944
.951
-117
9.39
7
RN
F16
-.05
2.0
02.0
02.5
58.5
58-.
059
3.15
43.
236
5.77
5-3
052.
224
-301
4.75
0-4
027.
150
-455
0.42
5
FIN
CO
M16
.309
.002
.002
-.00
3-1
.509
-1.9
99-2
.014
6243
.225
6020
.725
6002
.621
6185
.094
GE
ND
ER
.014
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.01
2-.
012
4.56
34.
540
4.53
3"-3
575.
254
-358
5.41
9-3
661.
434
-407
2.14
1
NE
16-.
133
-.01
2-.
012
-.04
0-.
039
-.02
0-.
019
3.41
03.
622
3.43
212
235.
212
1233
1.18
612
231.
351
1192
0.42
5
FRG
16.3
31.0
04.0
03-.
024
-.02
4.0
21.0
19-1
.402
-1.9
29-2
.033
421.
772
182.
864
343.
846
528.
051
MA
16-.
155
-.01
2-.
012
.011
.012
.028
.029
.210
.458
.505
3945
.750
4057
.665
4209
.459
4163
.685
EN
C16
-.18
7-.
002
-.02
4-.
024
.018
.020
-3.0
44-2
.748
-2.8
5489
2.98
210
27.4
7311
82.5
6114
41.1
78
WN
C16
.389
-.03
4-.
043
-.04
3.0
39.0
36-4
.223
-4.8
41-5
.055
-513
9.01
7-5
419.
230
-520
1.95
8-4
743.
936
SA16
-.00
1-.
016
-.01
6-.
049
-.04
9.1
19.1
19-2
.815
-2.8
13-3
.030
-157
4.29
0-1
573.
477
-764
.684
-490
.105
ESC
16-.
625
-.03
4-.
034
-.05
9.0
34.0
39-.
037
.957
.672
-442
4.70
3-3
973.
926
-371
7.51
8-3
778.
421
WSC
16.0
84-.
015
-.01
5-.
012
-.01
3.0
50.0
49-2
.382
-2.5
16-2
.576
-345
1.09
8-3
511.
567
-320
1.90
8-2
968.
541
MT
N16
-.25
6-.
023
-.02
3-.
075
-.07
4.0
57.0
59.3
78.7
85.4
39-4
260.
266
-407
5.92
8-3
644.
577
-368
4.33
6
ED
UC
.001
.001
.007
1.58
91.
597*
*72
0.75
276
9.26
462
4.55
9
FAR
MC
ITY
-.67
0-2
053.
296
-199
2.59
3
RN
FCIT
Y-4
.558
1194
.783
1607
.779
CIT
YR
UR
-.14
8-6
583.
181
-656
9.74
2
OC
CSE
I90
.607
Con
stan
t8.
399
.011
.005
-.03
3-.
044
-.05
9-.
121
24.8
1611
.468
11.2
5054
46.6
41-6
06.7
27-1
342.
051
-236
1.42
2
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16 =
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
;FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fat
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; F
INC
OM
16=
fam
ilyin
com
e w
hen
16; N
E16
=N
ew E
ngla
nd w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s);
FRG
16=
Fore
ign
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MA
16=
Mid
dle
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; EN
C16
=E
ast
Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al n
onfa
rm a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tionf
rom
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
1.00
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
101
Tab
le 1
6b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
lE
quat
ions
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts f
or B
lau-
Dun
can
Soci
oeco
nom
ic A
chie
vem
ent M
odel
, Per
iod
1967
-198
0: G
ener
al S
ocia
l Sur
veys
197
2-19
94 (
N =
211)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pre
dete
rmin
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)E
DU
C(2
)F
AR
MC
ITY
(3)
FA
RM
CIT
Y(4
)R
NF
CIT
Y(5
)R
NF
CIT
Y(6
)C
ITY
RU
R(7
)C
ITY
RU
R(8
)O
CC
SE
I(9
)O
CC
SE
I(1
0)O
CC
SE
I(1
1)F
INC
(12)
FIN
C(1
3)F
INC
(14)
FIN
C
MO
ED
.216
-.02
5-.
027
-.00
3-.
005
.003
-.01
2.1
35.0
77.0
76.0
95.0
81.0
80.0
77F
OC
C.0
20-.
005
.011
.011
.119
.117
.315
.310
m.3
11.0
23.0
22.
.029
.014
FA
ED
.192
".0
24.0
22.0
67.0
65.0
16.0
02-.
161
-.21
3.-.
206*
-.05
3-.
055
FA
RM
16.0
03.6
55.
.655
..0
11.0
11-.
061
-.06
1.0
45.0
44.0
51-.
015
-.01
5-.
010
-.01
2R
NF
16-.
008
.004
.004
.734
.735
**-.
082
.085
.087
.155
-.04
3-.
042
-.05
7
FIN
CO
M18
.121
.010
.009
-.01
1-.
015
-.09
9-.
131
-.13
2.2
16.2
08"
.208
.214
GE
ND
ER
.003
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
3-.
028
-.02
8.1
89.1
88.1
88-.
078
-.07
8-.
080
-.08
9N
E16
-.01
2-.
014
-.01
4-.
030
-.03
0-.
018
-.01
7.0
53.0
57.0
54.1
01.1
02.1
01.0
98F
RG
16.0
27.0
04.0
04-.
016
-.01
6.0
17.0
15-.
020
-.02
7-.
028
.003
.001
.003
.004
MA
16-.
026
-.02
6-.
026
.016
.016
.045
.047
.006
.013
.014
.059
.060
.062
.062
EN
C16
-.03
6-.
005
-.00
5-.
039
-.03
8.0
35.0
37-.
100
-.09
0.0
15.0
18.0
20.0
25W
NC
16.0
54-.
060
-.04
9-.
049
.052
.048
-.09
8-.
112
-.11
7-.
063
-.05
8S
A18
-.00
1-.
035
-.03
5-.
072
-.07
2.2
05.2
05-.
091
-.02
5-.
025
-.01
2E
SC
16-.
076
-.05
3-.
053
-.06
0-.
059
.040
.046
-.00
1.0
20.0
14-.
048
-.04
3-.
040
-.04
1
WS
C16
.013
-.03
0-.
030
-.01
6-.
016
.075
.074
-.06
2-.
065
-.08
7-.
047
-.04
8-.
044
-.04
0M
TN
16-.
031
-.03
6-.
036
-.07
8-.
075
.068
.070
.008
.016
.009
-.04
6-.
044
-.04
0-.
040
ED
UC
.009
.011
.072
.267
.269
.064
.068
.055
FA
RM
CIT
Y00
9-.
014
-.01
4R
NF
CIT
Y-.
093
.013
.017
CIT
YR
UR
-.00
3-.
060
OC
CS
EI
.048
.198
.424
.424
.528
.528
.059
.063
.161
.218
.222
.101
.104
.108
.110
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: FA
RM
16=
rura
l far
m a
reas
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; RN
F16=
rura
l non
farm
are
as w
hen
16(1
=ye
s); G
EN
DE
R=
Gen
der
(1=
fem
ale)
; FO
CC
=fa
ther
's o
ccup
atio
n st
atus
(SE
I);
FAE
D=
fath
er's
the
high
est y
ear
of s
choo
l com
plet
ed; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
the
high
est
year
of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FIN
CO
M16
=fa
mily
inco
me
whe
n 16
; NE
16=
New
Eng
land
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
;FR
G16
=Fo
reig
n w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); M
A16
=M
iddl
e A
tlant
ic w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); E
NC
16=
Eas
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
NC
16=
Wes
t Nor
th C
entr
al w
hen
16(1
=ye
s); S
A16
=So
uth
Atla
ntic
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ESC
16=
Eas
t Sou
th C
entr
al w
hen
16 (
1=ye
s); W
SC16
=W
est N
orth
Cen
tral
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; MT
N16
=M
ount
ain
whe
n 16
(1=
yes)
; ED
UC
=R
's th
e hi
ghes
t yea
r of
scho
ol c
ompl
eted
; FA
RM
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om f
arm
are
as (
1=ye
s); R
NFC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al n
onfa
rmar
eas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); O
CC
SEI=
R's
occu
patio
nal s
tatu
s (S
EI)
; FIN
C=
R's
fam
ily in
com
e (
cons
tant
199
3 do
llars
).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
011e
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
Tab
le 1
7.Su
mm
ary
of T
rend
s in
Dir
ect E
ffec
ts o
f R
ural
Ori
gins
on
Soci
oeco
nom
ic A
ttain
men
ts in
Adu
lthoo
d w
ith M
igra
tion
Con
trol
led
by M
ajor
Per
iod
of R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t, 19
00-1
980
1900
Rur
al F
arm
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
Edu
catio
n(Y
ears
)O
ccup
atio
nal
Stat
us (
SEI)
Fam
ily I
ncom
e(C
onst
ant 1
993
$)
Edu
catio
n(Y
ears
)
Occ
upat
iona
lSt
atus
(SE
I)
Fam
ily I
ncom
e(C
onst
ant 1
993
$)
1910
The
Gol
den
Age
(190
0-19
20)
-1.3
141.
176
-$22
90.4
2-.
883
.558
-$12
07.2
4
1920
Farm
Dep
ress
ion
-1.0
89-.
161
-$26
64.0
4-.
740
3.16
1-$
6180
.65
(192
1-19
32)
1930
-.82
1.8
87-$
2028
.52
-.37
0-.
291
$177
2.75
The
New
Dea
l(1
933-
1940
)19
40
Wor
ld W
ar H
&-.
495
.141
-$19
47.3
3-.
462
-1.4
77-$
2966
.77
New
Hor
izon
s19
50(1
941-
1952
)
The
Cri
sis
and
the
the
Opp
ortu
nity
of
-.11
6-.
925
-$28
25.6
1-.
253
-.60
0-$
3273
.10
1960
Abu
ndan
ce(1
953-
1966
)
1970
A B
road
er R
ural
Pers
pect
ive
.028
2.58
7-$
1179
.40
-.05
25.
775
-$45
50.4
3(1
967-
1980
)
1980
Sour
ce: N
OR
C G
ener
al S
ocia
l Sur
veys
, 197
2-19
94
105
104
62
prove to be clearly important, perhaps thesebehaviors do serve to mediate the backgroundeffects of rural origins. Comparing the directeffects of rural origins on status attainments inadulthood, both with (Table 8) and without(Table 17) controls for migration, shows thefollowing results which are pertinent to thisissue. While the direct effects of the migrationdummies on attainments were small, thesevariables seem to manifest "suppressor"relationships with rural origins (see Alwin andHauser 1975). Table 8 shows the direct effectsof rural and rural non-farm origins and thesecoefficients are generally larger after control-ling for migration. For example, during theGolden Age of rural development (1900-1920),the effect of growing-up on a farm onoccupational status during adulthood isnegligible (b = .047), but it increasessubstantially when migration is controlled (b =1.176). Similar patterns occur for familyincome. In other cases (e.g., during theDepression period for occupational status),migration reduces the direct effect of farmorigins, in essence serving as a conventionalmediating variable. In general, the GSS dataproduce somewhat inconsistent results re-garding the role of migration effects onadulthood attainments.
Turning to the results for the NLS-72 data(shown in Table 18), we observe positiveevidence for our hypotheses about migrationinfluences on attainments. The effect of rural-to-urban migration raises occupational statusby about 6 units on the SEI (b = 6.350). Thecounter migration behavior of moving from anurban origin to a rural setting lowersoccupational status by about 5 SEI units (b =4.946). The same pattern can be observed forfamily income: rural-to-urban migration raisesincome by about $3,200, whereas, the conversereduces it by a similar margin ($3,100).
The Wisconsin social psychological modelwas also estimated with migration effectsspecified as intervening between educationand occupational attainment. The results arepresented in Table 19. There are two aspects tothese results that are of interest to ourhypotheses. One is the "selectivity" of specificmigration patterns: are these exogenousvariables shaping the completion of educa-tional credentials related to migration at all
and, if so, which specific pattern of migration?The second is whether these additionalvariables contained in the social psychologicalversion of the status attainment model changethe effects of migration that we observed inTable 17 above.
Regarding the first issue, an examinationof the results in which the migration variablesare endogenous (equations 25-36) revealssome selectivity in the migration experiencesof NLS-72 panel members. Education andregion of the country play the major rolesobserved in shaping migrants into theirbehaviors.
For rural-to-urban migrants, academicperformance, mother's educational expecations,and completed schooling all have positiveeffects. However, education clearly appears tochannel these influences onto migration fromrural origins to urban residence by adulthood.Women are more likely to move to urbanlocations from rural origins. Region is alsorelated to migration from rural-to-urbanlocations. NLS-72 panel members living in allother regions, as compared to the omittedWestern region, were more likely to be rural-to-urban migrants.
The converse migration behavior, movingfrom an urban origin to a rural area inadulthood, is also shaped by completedschooling. However, the effects of educationalplans held by seniors and those of their friendsare not fully mediated through educationalattainment as they have direct effects on thistype of migration pattern. Seniors in theNortheast are more likely to migrate fromurban to rural areas as well.
The second issue, concerning possiblechanges in the effects of migration onattainments when the social psychologicalvariables are included in the specification ofthe model, suggests that this is not the case.Comparing the regression coefficients in Table18 with those in Table 19, the addition of thesocial psychological component, while impor-tant for shaping "selective migration," does notappreciably change the effects of migration onoccupational status or family income duringadulthood.
106
(Text continues on Page 75)
Tab
le 1
8a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or B
lau-
Dun
can
Soci
oeco
nom
icA
chie
vem
ent M
odel
, with
Mig
ratio
n: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=8,
729)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Dep
ende
ntV
aria
bles
:R
UR
AL
GE
ND
ER
FOC
CFA
ED
MO
ED
FIN
CO
MN
EA
STN
CE
NT
SOU
TH
ED
UC
RU
RC
ITY
CIT
YR
UR
OC
CSE
IC
onst
ant
1) E
DU
C-.
292
-.14
74"
.005
4.2
21'
.198
'".0
01"
.167
4.0
38.1
23"
2.54
8
2) R
UR
CIT
Y.5
0644
.013
".0
014
.003
.004
-.00
1-.
026*
"-.
0284
44-.
031
-.00
1
3) R
UR
CIT
Y.5
11**
*.0
16"
.001
-.00
1.0
01-.
001
-.02
9"-.
0294
44-.
0334
".0
1644
-.04
3
4) C
ITY
RU
R-.
1044
".0
04-.
0014
-.00
1-.
009*
*-.
001
.021
'.0
34 4
4.0
13.1
12
5) C
ITY
RU
R-.
1094
".0
02-.
001
.004
-.00
5-.
001
.024
".0
34**
*.0
15-.
0184
".1
78
6) O
CC
SEI
-5.3
324"
3.53
0".0
814*
*1.
526
1.83
5444
.001
"1.
796"
-.67
52.
415"
31.1
78
7) O
CC
SEI
-3.1
844"
4.60
9..0
454"
-.10
0.3
75.0
01.5
68-.
958
1.50
9*7.
365*
**12
.415
8) O
CC
SEI
-6.9
694"
4.51
9.043.
-.07
8.3
46.0
01.8
67-.
607
1.79
3"7.
173
6.35
04-4
.946
4"13
.466
9) F
INC
-224
8.93
54"
-709
.719
39.0
1860
7.33
8"41
2.53
0.7
21 *
1704
.081
"-1
89.7
7710
37.3
6420
539.
108
10)
FIN
C-1
283.
161"
-224
.597
22.8
02-1
23.7
50-2
43.7
69.6
83"
1151
.904
-316
.792
629.
930
3310
.904
44*
1210
3.78
1
11)
FIN
C-3
275.
379*
**-2
69.5
7321
.449
4-1
10.2
99-2
61.5
31.6
864"
1318
.091
*-1
17.6
7178
3.06
132
02.9
36'.
3235
.366
4-3
102.
4774
**12
731.
018
12)
FIN
C-2
130.
968*
**-1
011.
666"
14.4
12-9
7.48
2-3
18.4
14.6
344"
1175
.698
'-1
8.06
748
8.68
220
25.0
244"
2192
.666
**-2
290.
288"
164.
2164
4*10
519.
647
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
; FA
ED
=fa
ther
's e
duca
-tio
n; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
edu
catio
n; F
INC
OM
=fa
mily
inco
me
in s
enio
r ye
ar; N
EA
ST=
Nor
thea
st in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; NC
EN
T=
Nor
th C
entr
al in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; SO
UT
H=
Sout
h in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; RU
RC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
resp
onde
nt's
educ
atio
n; O
CC
SEI=
resp
onde
nt's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=re
spon
dent
's to
tal f
amily
198
5 ea
rnin
gs (
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
108
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
107
Tab
le 1
8b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or B
lau-
Dun
can
Soci
oeco
nom
icA
chie
vem
ent M
odel
, with
Mig
ratio
n: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Dep
ende
ntV
aria
bles
:R
UR
AL
GE
ND
ER
FOC
CFA
ED
MO
ED
FIN
CO
MN
EA
STN
CE
NT
SOU
TH
ED
UC
RU
RC
ITY
CIT
YR
UR
OC
CSE
I
1) E
DU
C-.
093*
**-.
055*
**.0
85.2
04.1
52*
.045
***
.054
.013
.042
**.1
83
2) R
UR
CIT
Y.6
65**
.021
".0
20*
.011
.012
-.01
2-.
035*
**-.
040*
**-.
044*
**.4
33
3) R
UR
CIT
Y.6
71**
.024
".0
14-.
003
.002
-.01
5-.
038"
-.04
1***
-.04
7.0
68.4
37
4) C
ITY
RU
R.
-.16
9***
.009
-.02
8*-.
002
-.03
4"-.
007
.034
*.0
59**
*.0
22A
)29
5) C
ITY
RU
R-.
177*
**.0
04-.
020
.017
-.02
0-.
003
.039
".0
60**
.026
-.09
0".0
36
6) OCCSEI
-.102***
.080**
.085***
.085*
.085*
.001 *
.035*
-.014
.050
.101
7) OCCSEI
-.061***
.105**
.047 **
-.006
.017
.073*
.011
-.020
.031*
.444***
.261
8) O
CC
SEI
,134***
.103***
.045***
-.004
.016
M74***
.017
-.013
.037**
.432**
.093***
-.059***
.270
9) F
INC
-.04
8."
-.01
8.045**
.038*
.021
.191
***
.037
".0
24.0
71
10)
FIN
C-.
027"
-.00
6.0
27-.
008
-.01
3.1
81**
*.0
25-.
007
.015
.223
**
.112
11)F
INC
-.07
0***
-.00
7.0
25-.
007
-.01
4.1
82**
*.0
29-.
003
.018
.216
**
.053
**-.
041*
**.1
15
12)
FIN
C-.
046*
**-.
026"
.017
-.006
-.016
.168***
.026*
-.00
1.0
11.1
36**
*.0
36"
-.03
0".1
84**
.139
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
; FA
ED
=fa
ther
's e
duca
-tio
n; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
edu
catio
n; F
INC
OM
=fa
mily
inco
me
in s
enio
r ye
ar; N
EA
ST=
Nor
thea
st in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; NC
EN
T=
Nor
th C
entr
al in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; SO
UT
H=
Sout
h in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; RU
RC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); E
DU
C=
resp
onde
nt's
educ
atio
n; O
CC
SEI=
resp
onde
nt's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=re
spon
dent
's to
tal f
amily
198
5 ea
rnin
gs (
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
109
Tab
le 1
9a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
, Wis
cons
in M
odel
: Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Stu
dy o
f th
e H
igh
Scho
ol C
lass
of
1972
(N
LS-
72)
(N=
6,63
8)
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(1
)A
BIL
(2)
HSG
PA
RU
RA
L-.
027
.184
***
GE
ND
ER
.038
.627
*"FO
CC
.003
***
.002
*
FAE
D.1
31"*
.132
***
MO
ED
.101
*".0
97*"
FIN
CO
M.0
01**
*.0
01*"
FEA
ST.2
11**
*.1
62**
*
NC
EN
T.0
27-.
130"
SOU
TH
-.09
3"A
BIL
.179
***
HSG
PA
MSO
I
FSO
I
FPL
AN
TSO
IE
DE
X
ED
UC
RU
RC
ITY
CIT
YR
UR
OC
CSE
I
Con
stan
t-1
.084 11
1
4.37
0
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
HSG
PAFS
OI
FSO
IFS
OI
.597
***
.206
***
-.25
3***
-.24
1***
-.26
7***
-.00
1
-.16
0***
-.17
8*"
-.25
8*"
.005
"*.0
03**
*.0
03*"
.029
*.2
43"*
.184
***
.180
***
.017
.131
"*.0
84**
*.0
82*"
-.00
P*.0
01**
*.0
01.0
01*
-.00
5-.
069
-.16
6*"
-.16
5***
-.15
2***
-.14
0"*
-.15
2***
-.13
2***
.252
*".0
85*
.128
*".0
94*
.787
*"45
6***
349*
**
.135
*"
5.22
3
(7)
MSO
I
-.26
3*"
-.26
9*"
.004
***
.178
"*.1
87"*
.001
***
-.09
9*
-.12
0".1
44**
*
(8)
MSO
I
-.25
2*"
-.28
5*"
.003
*".1
22**
*
.143
*".0
01
-.19
0*"
-.13
2***
.184
***
.430
*"
(9)
MSO
I
-.28
0*"
-.36
8*"
.003
***
118*
".1
41"*
.001
-.18
9***
-.11
1**
.149
*".3
20**
*
.139
*"
(10)
FPL
AN
-.09
7***
.001
.001
***
.055
***
.049
*".0
01**
*
-.03
5*
-.04
1**
-.04
4"
(11)
FPL
AN
-.09
3***
-.00
4
.001
.036
***
.034
***
.001
-.06
5*"
-045
**-.
031*
.145
***
(12)
FPL
AN
-.10
2***
-.02
9".0
01*
.034
***
.034
***
.001
-.06
5***
-.03
8*
-.04
1".1
12"*
.042
"*
3.11
33.
607
2.90
03.
248
3.71
42.
988
.357
.514
.296
(Con
tinue
d)
B.E
ST t;
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
112
Tab
le 1
9a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(1
3)(1
4)(1
5)(1
6)(1
7)(1
8)(1
9)(2
0)(2
1)(2
2)(2
3)(2
4)V
aria
bles
:T
SOI
TSO
IT
SOI
ED
EX
ED
EX
ED
EX
ED
EX
ED
UC
ED
UC
ED
UC
ED
UC
ED
UC
RU
RA
L-.
004
.001
-.01
5-.
283*
**-.
269*
**-.
320*
**-.
088*
**-.
292*
**-.
277*
**-.
322*
**-.
177*
**-.
147*
**
GE
ND
ER
.041
***
.035
**-.
010
-.24
8***
-.26
8***
-.41
4***
-.18
3***
-.14
7***
-.16
7***
-.29
7***
-.16
1***
-.10
0***
FOC
C.0
01-.
001
-.00
1.0
02*
.001
.001
-.00
2**
.005
***
.003
***
.003
***
.002
**.0
02**
*FA
ED
.047
***
.027
***
.025
***
.267
***
.199
***
.192
***
.079
***
.221
***
.150
***
.143
***
.072
***
.046
***
MO
ED
.011
-.00
5-.
006
.145
***
.092
***
.088
***
-.00
5.1
98**
*.1
43**
*.1
39**
*.0
83**
*.0
85**
*
FIN
CO
M.0
01-.
001*
*-.
001*
.001
***
.001
*".0
01"*
.001
***
.001
***
-.00
1*-.
001
-.00
1**
-.00
1***
NE
AST
.022
-.01
1-.
011
-.06
3-.
174*
**-.
173*
**-.
022
.167
***
.052
.053
.146
***
.154
***
NC
EN
T-.
041*
-.04
5**
-.03
3*-.
255*
**-.
269*
**-.
232*
**-.
133*
**.0
38.0
24.0
57.1
18**
.162
***
SOU
TH
.096
***
.110
***
.091
***
.036
.084
.023
-.05
0.1
23**
.174
***
.119
**.0
85*
.101
**A
BIL
.156
***
.096
***
.523
***
.330
***
.051
***
.543
***
.372
***
.200
***
.183
***
HSG
PA.0
75**
*.2
45**
*.1
29**
*.2
17**
*.1
48**
*.1
05**
*FS
OI
.267
***
.203
***
.114
***
MSO
I.4
03**
*.1
99**
*.0
65**
FPL
AN
.455
***
.342
***
.190
***
TSO
I.0
64**
-.00
7-.
028
ED
EX
.334
***
ED
UC
RU
RC
ITY
CIT
YR
UR
OC
CSE
I
Con
stan
t2.
422.
589
2.19
42.
917
3.48
32.
205
-.04
72.
548
3.13
72.
002
.732
.747
1.y3
(Con
tinue
d)
rn rn
114
Tab
le 1
9a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(2
5)(2
6)(2
7)(2
8)(2
9)(3
0)(3
1)(3
2)(3
3)(3
4)(3
5)(3
6)V
aria
bles
:R
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
R
RU
RA
L.5
06**
*.5
06**
*.5
05**
*.5
07**
*.5
08**
*.5
10**
*-.
104*
**-.
104*
**-.
104*
**-.
110*
**-.
111*
**-.
113*
**
GE
ND
ER
.013
*.0
13*
.008
.012
.013
*.0
14*
.004
.005
.007
.003
-.00
1-.
001
FOC
C.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01.0
01-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1
FAE
D.0
03.0
02.0
02.0
01.0
01-.
001
-.00
1.0
01.0
01.0
04.0
05.0
05
MO
ED
.004
.003
.003
.001
.001
.001
-.00
9*-.
008*
-.00
8*-.
006
-.00
6-.
005
FIN
CO
M-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1-.
001
-.00
1.0
01-.
001
NE
AST
-.02
6**
-.02
8**
-.02
7**
-.02
6**
-.02
6**
-.02
8**
.021
*.0
22*
.022
*.0
18*
.017
.019
NC
EN
T-.
028*
*-.
028*
*-.
027*
*-.
026*
*-.
025*
*-.
028*
*.0
34**
*.0
34**
*.0
33**
*.0
31**
.029
**.0
30**
SOU
TH
-.03
1***
-.03
0**
-.03
3***
-.03
4***
-.03
3***
-.03
5***
.013
.012
.013
.013
.012
.013
AB
IL.0
07*
.001
-.00
2-.
002
-.00
5-.
005
-.00
2.0
05.0
06.0
08H
SGPA
.008
**.0
07**
.006
*.0
05-.
003
-.00
1.0
02.0
03
FSO
I-.
003
-.00
5-.
006
-.01
2*-.
008
-.00
6
MSO
I.0
12*
.009
.008
.001
.006
.007
FPL
AN
.001
-.00
2-.
005
-.03
1***
-.02
3**
-.02
1**
TSO
I-.
004
-.00
4-.
004
-.00
2-.
001
-.00
1
ED
EX
.007
.002
-.01
6***
-.01
2**
ED
UC
.015
***
-.01
2***
RU
RC
ITY
CIT
YR
UR
OC
CSE
I
Con
stan
t-.
001
.007
-.03
6-.
055
-.05
5-.
066
.112
.107
.123
.170
.169
.178
(Con
tinue
d)
115
16
1.1
7
Tab
le 1
9a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(3
7)(3
8)(3
9)(4
0)(4
1)(4
2)(4
3)V
aria
bles
:O
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
RU
RA
L-5
.33*
**-5
.153
***
-5.7
52**
*4.
740*
**4.
527*
**-3
.694
***
-7.4
51**
*
GE
ND
ER
3.53
0***
3.27
8***
1.53
7**
2.45
3***
2.89
8***
3.46
3***
3.36
6***
FOC
C.0
81**
*.0
59**
*.0
62**
*.0
53**
*.0
57**
*.0
43**
*.0
41**
FAE
D1.
526*
**.6
53*
.569
*.0
98-.
095
-.35
2-.
323
MO
ED
1.83
5***
1.16
0***
1.11
0***
.711
*.7
25*
.244
.216
FIN
CO
M.0
01"*
.001
**.0
01*
.001
**.0
01*
.001
***
.001
"*N
EA
ST1.
796*
.386
.399
1.05
81.
111
.242
.513
NC
EN
T-.
675
-.85
7-.
415
.020
.342
-.57
6-.
251
SOU
TH
2.41
5**
3.03
7***
2.30
2**
2.04
6**
2.16
6**
1.59
3*1.
879*
*
AB
IL6.
672*
**4.
377*
**3.
145*
**3.
021*
**1.
986*
**2.
058*
**
HSG
PA2.
916*
**2.
396*
**2.
083*
**1.
487*
**1.
473*
**
FSO
I.9
01*
.252
-.39
1-.
382
MSO
I1.
599*
**.6
20.2
53.2
37
FPL
AN
3.06
5***
1.96
0***
.887
.814
TSO
I.6
44.4
88.6
49.6
67
ED
EX
2.43
1***
.542
.474
ED
UC
5.65
4***
5.50
0***
RU
RC
ITY
6.25
4***
CIT
YR
UR
-5.0
22**
*
OC
CSE
I
Con
stan
t31
.178
38.4
0823
.176
13.4
6413
.580
9.35
410
.664
(Con
tinue
d)
Tab
le 1
9a.
Uns
tand
ardi
zed
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:(4
4)FI
NC
(45)
FIN
C(4
6)FI
NC
(47)
FIN
C(4
8)FI
NC
(49)
FIN
C(5
0)FI
NC
(51)
FIN
C
RU
RA
L-2
248.
935*
**-2
147.
266*
**-2
497.
111*
**-2
092.
964*
**-2
054.
507*
**-1
719.
455*
*-3
722.
789*
**-2
629.
111*
**G
EN
DE
R-7
09.7
19-8
52.6
31-1
868.
651*
**-1
600.
349*
**-1
520.
185*
*-1
292.
720*
*-1
343.
742*
*-1
837.
787*
**FO
CC
39.0
18**
26.5
33*
28.0
43*
24.5
2525
.328
*19
.776
18.3
0612
.341
FAE
D60
7.33
8*11
3.64
664
.941
-157
.533
-192
.175
-295
.699
-277
.412
-229
.975
MO
ED
412.
530
30.6
001.
539
-119
.790
-117
.412
-310
.799
-328
.246
-360
.010
FIN
CO
M.7
21**
*.5
87**
*.6
03**
*.6
00**
*.5
95**
*.6
22**
*.6
24**
*.5
93**
*N
EA
ST17
04.0
81*
906.
508
914.
553
1168
.480
1178
.100
828.
586
980.
223
904.
890
NC
EN
T-1
89.7
77-2
92.3
35-3
4.15
616
0.49
821
8.53
6-1
50.7
7036
.228
72.9
97SO
UT
H10
37.3
6413
88.6
6195
9.98
189
5.69
691
7.40
968
6.92
184
2.08
056
6.35
1A
BIL
3772
.547
***
2432
.991
***
1894
.189
***
1871
.817
***
1455
.395
***
1497
.603
***
1195
.591
***
HSG
PA17
02.0
95**
*14
72.1
87**
*14
15.7
50**
*11
76.2
22**
*11
70.8
48**
*95
4.65
0***
FSO
I82
3.77
1*70
6.82
744
8.16
244
8.81
750
4.88
6M
SOI
-.83
5-1
77.2
01-3
24.9
17-3
28.1
73-3
63.0
23FP
LA
N17
07.7
26**
1508
.453
**10
77.2
41*
1026
.265
906.
727
TSO
I62
8.43
260
0.40
066
4.90
067
3.72
557
5.83
5E
DE
X43
7.99
5-3
21.5
95-3
64.3
75-4
33.9
02E
DU
C22
74.1
08**
*21
86.8
77**
*13
79.7
29**
*R
UR
CIT
Y32
13.8
66**
*22
95.9
40*
CIT
YR
UR
-322
1.90
8***
-248
4.77
5**
OC
CSE
I14
6.78
0***
Con
stan
t20
539.
108
2462
7.07
215
737.
098
1146
5.94
811
486.
737
9786
.851
1057
4.03
590
08.8
37
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occ
upat
ion
stat
us(S
EI)
; FA
ED
=fa
ther
's e
duca
tion;
MO
ED
=m
othe
r'sed
ucat
ion;
FIN
CO
M=
fam
ily in
com
e in
sen
ior
year
; NE
AST
=N
orth
east
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); N
CE
NT
=N
orth
Cen
tral
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s); S
OU
TH
=So
uth
in s
enio
r ye
ar (
1=ye
s);
RU
RC
ITY
=m
igra
tion
from
rur
al a
reas
(1=
yes)
; CIT
YR
UR
=m
igra
tion
from
city
are
as (
1=ye
s); H
SGPA
=hi
gh s
choo
l gra
des;
FSO
I=sc
hool
ing
fath
er e
xpec
ts f
or s
tude
nt; M
SOI=
scho
olin
gm
othe
r ex
pect
s fo
r st
uden
t; FP
LA
N=
R's
fri
ends
pla
n to
go
to c
olle
ge (
1=ye
s); T
SOI=
teac
hers
aff
ect p
lans
for
col
lege
; ED
EX
=hi
ghes
t edu
catio
n st
uden
t pla
ns; A
BIL
= R
's a
bilit
y fa
ctor
scor
e; E
DU
C=
R's
edu
catio
n; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's to
tal f
amily
198
5 ea
rnin
gs (
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
1 le
vel.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
n 9
BE
ST
CO
PY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
Tab
le 1
9b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
tw
ith M
igra
tion
Eff
ects
, Wis
cons
in M
odel
: Nat
iona
l Lon
gitu
dina
l Stu
dy o
f th
e H
igh
Scho
ol C
lass
of
1972
(N
LS-
72)
(N.-
-6,6
38)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(1
)(3
)(4
)(5
)(6
)V
aria
bles
:A
BIL
HSG
PA(2
)FS
OI
FSO
IH
SGPA
(7)
(8)
(9)
RU
RA
L
GE
ND
ER
FOC
CFA
ED
MO
ED
FIN
CO
MN
EA
ST
NC
EN
TSO
UT
HA
BIL
HSG
PAFS
OI
MSO
I
FPL
AN
TSO
I
ED
EX
ED
UC
OC
CSE
I
.019
.076
***
.160
***
.103
***
.186
***
.090
***
.012
.043
**
.220
***
.028
*
.113
***
.069
***
.068
***
.049
***
-.04
2**
.057
***
.061
***
.210
***
-.01
4
.025
*.0
25035 **
-.00
1
-.04
9***
.081
***
.553
***
-.08
4***
-.06
3***
.085
***
.234
***
084*
**
-.02
3
-.05
0***
.031
*
R2
121
.193
.096
.344
.197
FSO
I(1
0)M
SOI
MSO
IM
SOI
FPL
AN
-.08
0***
-.08
9***
-.08
9***
-.08
5***
-.09
5***
-.08
5***
-.08
1***
-.08
9***
-.07
0***
-.10
2***
-.10
8***
114 * **
148*
**.0
01
.058
***
.060
***
.078
***
-.00
4-.
030*
*
.177
***
.173
***
.174
***
.052
***
.054
***
.048
***
.025
.027
*
.067
***
.066
***
.152
***
.119
***
.115
***
.138
***
.090
***
.087
***
.018
.023
*.0
77**
*
.072
***
.071
***
.117
***
.115
***
.103
***
-.05
6***
-.05
6***
.013
.019
.056
***
(11)
FPL
AN
(12)
FPL
AN
-.03
4*
-.05
5***
-.04
7***
-.04
4**
.046
***
.034
*.0
53**
*
.358
***
.275
***
.151
***
.300
.315
(Con
tinue
d)
.185
-.06
5***
-.04
8***
,068
***
.345
***
-.06
5***
-.04
1**
.055
***
.257
***
.158
***
-.03
1*
-.03
8**
-.04
2**
.001
.004
-.05
8***
-.05
8***
-.04
2**
-.03
6*
-.02
9*-.
039*
*
.299
***
.231
***
.122
***
.281
.298
.096
.168
.178
9 2
Tab
le 1
9b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
n d S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t
(N=
6,63
8)(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)
Pred
eter
min
edV
aria
bles
:
RURAL
GENDER
FOCC
FRED
MOED
FINCOM
NEAST
NCENT
SOUTH
ARIL
HSGPA
FSOI
MSOI
FPLAN
TSOI
EDEX
EDUC
OCCSEI
R2
(13)
TSOI
-.003
.038***
.006
.108***
.021
.020
.017
.035*
.082***
.028
(14)
TSOI
.001
.033**
-.016
.062**
-.009
-.034**
-.009
-.039**
.094***
.292***
.096
(15)
TSOI
-.009
-.013
57***
-.011
-.027*
-.009
-.029*
.078***
.181***
.201***
.123
(16)
EDEX
-.089***
.033*
.234***
.106***
.117***
-.019
-.084***
.012
.195
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
(17)
(18)
(19)
EDEX
EDEX
EDEX
-.097***
-.027***
-.096***
-.148***
-.066***
.004
.008
-.030**
.174***
.168***
.069***
.067***
.064***
-.004
.047***
.056***
.044***
-.053***
-.053***
-.007
-.088***
-.076***
-.043***
.028
.007
-.016
.375***
.237***
*
.037***
.250***
.131***
.244***
.360*"
.158***
.024**
.309
.350
.645
(20)
EDUC
-.093***
-.055***
085***
.204***
.152***
.045***
.054***
.013
.042**
.183
(21)
EDUC
-.088***
063***
054***
.138***
1M***
-.031*
.017
.008
.060***
.410***
.319
(22)
EDUC
-.102***
112***
057 ***
.132***
.107***
-.023
.017
.020
.041**
.281***
.233***
.355
(23)
.
EDUC
-.056*** *
.032**
.066***
.064"*
-.031**
.047***
.041**
.029*
.151***
.159***
.195***
.188***
.125***
-.003
477
(24)
EDUC
-.047***
038***
.042***
.042***
.065***
-.047***
050 * **
.056***
.035**
.138***
.113***
.109***
.061**
.069***
-.011
.351***
.521
(Con
tinue
d)
123
124
125
Tab
le 1
9b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(2
5)(2
6)(2
7)(2
8)(2
9)(3
0)(3
1)(3
2)(3
3)(3
4)(3
5)(3
6)V
aria
bles
:R
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YR
UR
CIT
YC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
RC
ITY
RU
R
RU
RA
L.6
65**
*.6
65**
*.6
63**
*.6
66**
*.6
67**
*.6
70**
*-.
169*
**-.
170*
**-.
168*
**-.
178*
**-.
180*
**-.
183*
**G
EN
DE
R.0
21*
.021
*.0
13.0
18.0
20*
.022
*.0
09.0
09.0
13.0
05-.
001
-.00
3FO
CC
.020
.018
.019
.017
.018
.015
-.02
8-.
027
-.02
7-.
022
-.02
4-.
022
FAE
D.0
11.0
07.0
06.0
03.0
01-.
001
-.00
2.0
01.0
02.0
17.0
22.0
25M
OE
D.0
12.0
10.0
09.0
05.0
05.0
01-.
034*
-.03
2*-.
032*
-.02
4-.
024
-.02
0FI
NC
OM
-.01
2-.
016
-.01
5-.
016
-.01
7-.
014
-.00
7-.
003
-.00
4-.
003
.001
-.00
2N
EA
ST-.
035*
*-.
037*
*-.
037*
*-.
034*
*-.
034*
*-.
037*
*.0
34*
.036
*.0
36*
.029
*.0
29.0
32N
CE
NT
-.04
0**
-.04
0**
-.03
8**
-.03
7**
-.03
6**
-.03
9**
.059
***
.059
***
.059
***
.054
**.0
50**
.054
**SO
UT
H-.
044*
**-.
043*
*-.
046*
**-.
048*
**-.
048*
**-.
050*
**.0
22.0
21.0
23.0
23.0
21.0
23A
BIL
.023
*.0
03-.
005
-.00
6-.
015
-.01
8-.
009
.021
.024
.032
HSG
PA.0
37**
.032
**.0
28*
.021
-.01
7-.
001
.010
.017
FSO
I-.
012
-.01
9-.
025
-.05
7*-.
037
-.03
0M
SOI
.046
*.0
36.0
32.0
01.0
30.0
34FP
LA
N.0
01-.
004
-.00
8-.
057*
**-.
044*
*-.
039*
*T
SOI
-.00
6-.
007
-.00
6-.
003
-.00
1-.
002
ED
EX
.029
.007
-.08
4***
-.06
2**
ED
UC
.062
***
-.06
1***
RU
RC
ITY
CIT
YR
UR
OC
CSE
I
R2
.433
.433
.434
.435
.435
.437
.029
.030
.030
.036
.038
.040
(Con
tinue
d)
Tab
le 1
9b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
ns f
or S
ocio
econ
omic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(3
7)(3
8)(3
9)(4
0)(4
1)(4
2)(4
3)V
aria
bles
:O
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
OC
CSE
IO
CC
SEI
RU
RA
L-.
102*
**-.
099*
**-.
110*
**-.
091*
**-.
087*
**-.
071*
**-.
143*
**
GE
ND
ER
.080
***
.075
***
.035
**.0
56**
*.0
66**
*.0
79**
*.0
77**
*
FOC
C.0
85**
*.0
62**
*.0
64**
*.0
55**
*.0
59**
*.0
45**
*.0
42**
FAE
D.0
85**
*.0
36*
.032
*.0
05-.
005
-.02
0-.
018
MO
ED
.085
***
.054
***
.051
***
.033
*.0
33*
.011
.010
FIN
CO
M.0
93**
*.0
37**
.043
**.0
41**
.034
*.0
50**
*.0
51**
*
NE
AST
.035
*.0
08.0
08.0
21.0
22.0
05.0
10
NC
EN
T-.
014
-.01
8-.
009
.001
.007
-.01
2-.
005
SOU
TH
.050
4*.0
63**
*.0
48**
.043
**.0
45**
.033
*.0
39**
AB
IL.3
03**
*.1
99**
*.1
43**
*.1
37**
*.0
90**
*.0
94**
*
HSG
PA.1
89**
*.1
55**
*.1
35**
*.0
96**
*.0
95**
*
FSO
I.0
52*
.015
-.02
3-.
022
MSO
I.0
91**
*.0
35.0
14.0
13
FPL
AN
.067
***
.043
***
.020
.018
TSO
I.0
16.0
12.0
16.0
16
ED
EX
.154
***
.034
.030
ED
UC
.341
***
.331
***
RU
RC
ITY
.091
***
CIT
YR
UR
-.05
9***
OC
CSE
I
R2
.101
.175
.198
.220
.228
.284
.292
127
(Con
tinue
d)
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
128
Tab
le 1
9b.
Stan
dard
ized
Reg
ress
ion
Coe
ffic
ient
s of
Red
uced
-For
m a
nd S
truc
tura
l Equ
atio
nsfo
r So
cioe
cono
mic
Ach
ieve
men
t(C
ontin
ued)
with
Mig
ratio
n E
ffec
ts, W
isco
nsin
Mod
el: N
atio
nal L
ongi
tudi
nal S
tudy
of
the
Hig
h Sc
hool
Cla
ss o
f 19
72 (
NL
S-72
)(N
=6,
638)
Dep
ende
nt V
aria
bles
:
Pred
eter
min
ed(4
4)(4
5)(4
6)(4
7)(4
8)(4
9)(5
0)(5
1)V
aria
bles
:FI
NC
FIN
CFI
NC
FIN
CFI
NC
FIN
CFI
NC
FIN
C
RU
RA
L-.
048*
**-.
046*
**-.
054*
**-.
045*
**-.
044*
**-.
037*
*-.
080*
**-.
056*
**G
EN
DE
R-.
018
-.02
2-.
047*
**n0
41**
*-.
039*
*-.
033*
*-.
ow*
-.04
7***
FOC
C.0
45**
.031
*.0
33*
.029
.029
*.0
23.0
21.0
14FA
ED
.038
*.0
07.0
04-.
010
-.01
2-.
018
-.01
7-.
014
MO
ED
.021
.002
.001
-.00
6-.
006
-.01
6-.
017
-.01
9FI
NC
OM
.191
***
.156
***
.160
***
.159
***
.158
***
.165
***
.166
***
.157
***
NE
AST
.037
*.0
20.0
20.0
25.0
26.0
18.0
21.0
20N
CE
NT
-.00
4-.
007
-.00
1.0
04.0
05-.
004
.001
.002
SOU
TH
.024
.032
.022
.021
.021
.016
.020
.013
AB
IL.1
92**
*.1
24**
*.0
96**
*.0
95**
*.0
74**
*.0
76**
*.0
61**
*H
SGPA
.123
***
.106
***
.102
***
.085
***
.085
***
.069
***
FSO
I.0
53*
.046
.029
.029
.033
MSO
I-.
001
-.01
1-.
021
-.02
1-.
023
FPL
AN
.042
**.0
37**
.026
*.0
25.0
22T
SOI
.017
.016
.018
.018
.016
ED
EX
.031
-.02
3-.
026
-.03
1E
DU
C.1
53**
*.1
47**
*.0
93**
*R
UR
CIT
Y.0
52**
*.0
37*
CIT
YR
UR
-.04
3***
-.03
3**
OC
CSE
I.1
64**
*
R2
.071
.101
.111
.116
.116
.127
.130
.150
Not
e: V
aria
bles
are
: RU
RA
L=
rura
l are
as in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; GE
ND
ER
=G
ende
r (1
=fe
mal
e); F
OC
C=
fath
er's
occu
patio
n st
atus
(SE
I); F
AE
D=
fath
er's
edu
catio
n; M
OE
D=
mot
her's
educ
atio
n; F
INC
OM
=fa
mily
inco
me
in s
enio
r ye
ar; N
EA
ST=
Nor
thea
st in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; NC
EN
T=
Nor
thC
entr
al in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
; SO
UT
H=
Sout
h in
sen
ior
year
(1=
yes)
;R
UR
CIT
Y=
mig
ratio
n fr
om r
ural
are
as (
1=ye
s); C
ITY
RU
R=
mig
ratio
n fr
om c
ity a
reas
(1=
yes)
; HSG
PA=
high
sch
ool g
rade
s; F
SOI=
scho
olin
g fa
ther
exp
ects
for
stu
dent
; MSO
I=sc
hool
ing
mot
her
expe
cts
for
stud
ent;
FPL
AN
=R
's f
rien
ds p
lan
to g
o to
col
lege
(1=
yes)
; TSO
I=te
ache
rs a
ffec
t pla
ns f
orco
llege
; ED
EX
=hi
ghes
t edu
catio
n st
uden
t pla
ns; A
BIL
= R
's a
bilit
y fa
ctor
scor
e; E
DU
C=
R's
edu
catio
n; O
CC
SEI=
R's
occ
upat
iona
l sta
tus
(SE
I); F
INC
=R
's to
tal f
amily
198
5 ea
rnin
gs (
dolla
rs).
***
Sign
ific
ant a
t .00
11ev
el.
**Si
gnif
ican
t at .
01 le
vel.
*Si
gnif
ican
t at .
05 le
vel.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this section, we summarize the results ofthis study and draw conclusions regarding thetrends in the life chances of rural youth andhow they may be related to rural developmentpolicy in the United States. This summary isorganized around the three issues of: (a)estimating the existence and magnitude of anysocial costs of growing-up in rural America forsocioeconomic achievements later in adult-hood; (b) identifying some mechanisms withina status attainment model by which socialcosts are manifested into adulthood; and (c)assessing whether rural-to-urban migrationrepresents a means to escape any systematicsocial costs which may be identified. Finally,the future of Federal rural development policyis discussed in terms of both these findings andthe context of policy-making regarding ruralAmerica.
Trends in the Social Costsof Rural Origins in America
The specific results pertaining to the effectsof rural background at age sixteen onsocioeconomic outcomes in adulthood wererather detailed, particularly for the cumula-tive GSS database. To facilitate the summaryof these results, we constructed bar charts ofthe trends in the effects of rural farm and ruralnon-farm origins on education (Figure 5),occupational status (Figures 6 and 7), andfamily income (Figures 8 and 9) by majorperiod during this century.
Clearly, the effects of rural origins oncompleted schooling have diminished duringthis century (see Figure 5). The larger deficitobserved for rural farm youth has also becomenear zero in recent decades. This seemed tooccur during and just after World War II,coinciding with the G.I. Bill and the rapidexpansion of higher education throughout theUnited States. While we cannot isolate theeffects of specific legislation with these data,twenty years or so after this important avenueof social opportunity was implemented, thenegative effects of rural origins, after
75
controlling for other social background factors,have become generally ameliorated.
Occupational success, in terms of the socialstatus attached to the job title, has a generallysimilar pattern, as shown in Figures 6 (totaleffects) and 7 (direct effects). Both rural farmand non-farm youth fared lower on theoccupational status ladder during the GoldenAge of rural development policy (1900-1920),averaging from two to three points lower on theDuncan Socioeconomic Index. In absoluteterms, this differential in the SEI is not largebut, considering that parental background andother demographic factors are statisticallyheld constant, it is a demonstrable impedimentto success faced by rural youth around the turnof the century. During the Depression era(1921-1932), farm youth continued to face thiscost of their birth whereas rural non-farmyouth experienced smaller deficits in occupa-tional status. This pattern reversed by WorldWar II, as the shift occurred during theexpansion of the American economy in thepost-war boom period of the fifties. The effectsof rural origins had subsided to less than asingle point on Duncan's SEI. While the mostrecent period suggests a complete reversal insocial costs, toward an actual social "benefit,"or positive effect of rural origins onoccupational attainment, we must cautionthat the sample size makes these resultstenuous to interpret. From an inspection ofFigure 7, we might conclude that all of theseoccupational status differentials are attribut-able to unequal educational attainments. Thedirect effects by period shown in this graphhave all been reduced to near-zero, with theexception of the most recent period (1967-1980).'
(Text continues on Page 79)
While the "deficits" in this late period haveapparently turned into "assets," we urge cautionconcerning the results for this period with the GSSdata due to the relatively smaller sample size.
131
1 32
Figu
re 5
. Tre
nds
in T
otal
Eff
ects
of
Rur
al O
rigi
ns o
n E
duca
tion
in A
dulth
ood
by M
ajor
Per
iod
of R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t, 19
00-1
980
0.2 0
- 0.
2
- 0.
4 -
-0.6
-0.8 -1
-1.2
Gol
den
Age
Far
mD
epre
ssio
n
Cris
is &
Wor
ld W
ar II
&O
y.rt
unity
New
Dea
lN
ew H
oriz
ons
of 1
.und
ance
Bro
ader
Rur
alP
ersp
ectiv
e
-1.4
,i
Ii
II
1900
190
5 19
10 1
915
1920
192
5 19
30 1
935
1940
194
5 19
50 1
955
1960
196
5 19
70 1
975
1980
Rur
al F
arm
Sou
rce:
NO
RC
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys, 1
972-
1994
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
Figu
re 6
. Tre
nds
in T
otal
Eff
ects
of
Rur
al O
rigi
ns o
n O
ccup
atio
nal S
tatu
s in
Adu
lthoo
dby
Maj
or P
erio
d of
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent,
1900
-198
0
4 3 2 0 -1 -2 -3 -4
Gol
den
Age
Far
mD
epre
ssio
nN
ew D
eal
Cris
is &
Wor
ld W
ar II
&O
ppor
tuni
tyN
ew H
oriz
ons
of A
bund
ance
Bro
ader
Rur
alP
ersp
ectiv
e
1900
190
5 19
1019
1519
20 1
925
1930
1935
194
0 19
4519
5019
5519
6019
65 1
970
1975
1980
Rur
al F
arm
Sou
rce:
NO
RC
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys, 1
972-
1994
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
134
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LE
135
136
Figu
re 7
. Tre
nds
in D
irec
t Eff
ects
of
Rur
al O
rigi
ns o
n O
ccup
atio
nal S
tatu
s in
Adu
lthoo
dby
Maj
or P
erio
d of
Rur
al D
evel
opm
ent,
1900
-198
0
Gol
den
Age
Cris
is &
Far
mW
orld
War
II &
Opp
ortu
nity
Dep
ress
ion
New
Dea
lN
ew H
oriz
ons
of A
bund
ance
Bro
ader
Rur
alP
ersp
ectiv
e
1900
190
5 19
10 1
915
1920
192
5 19
3019
35 1
940
1945
1950
195
5 19
6019
65 1
970
1975
1980
Rur
al F
arm
S'
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
Sou
rce:
NO
RC
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys, 1
972-
1994
1J
The results for family income among thosewho speht all or part of their youth in ruralAmerica paints a strikingly different picture(see Figures 8 and 9). These results suggest thatfamily income inequalities for rural-originpersons-especially those not living on farmswhere rural development efforts have been mostdirected-have actually become greater sinceWorld War II. The average social cost of a ruralfarm background amounted to just under$4,000 in 1993 dollars for the 1900-1920cohort. For rural non-farm youth, the samecost during this period was just over $2,000.During the Depression period, both groupsexperienced a social deficit of about $4,000 dueto the residential origins of their youth. Duringthe New Deal (1933-1940) these burdens werecut by at least one-half, to just under $2,000 forfarm-origin youth and to less than $500 forrural non-farm youth. Since the second WorldWar era, these effects for rural farm originshave fluctuated around $1,000. However, forthe rural non-farm population, these familyincome effects have increased steadily. Whilethe estimate for the most recent period of ruraldevelopment must be regarded cautiously (seefootnote 6), we are struck with how the patternof effects seems to fall in line with the trends forthe preceding two periods and in balance withthe farm versus. non-farm rural populations.
When we examine the period-to-periodtrends in the direct effects of rural origins onfamily income, we can observe a pattern thatseems fundamentally distinct from that foreducation and occupational status. Forexample, education and occupational statustend to serve as substantial mediators of theinfluence of rural origins on family income forfarm youth in the United States. The directeffects of rural farm origins on income aresystematically smaller once education andoccupational status are controlled in themodel. For rural non-farm youth, however,rural background retains larger portions of itstotal effects on family income, independent ofcompleted schooling and occupational statusduring adulthood. The shape of the trends forrural non-farm youth mirror those of the totaleffects shown in Figure 8. Thus, education notonly serves as somewhat less of an importantarbiter of income inequality between rural andurban youth for their economic well-being in
79
adulthood, it appears to function significantlyless so for the non-farm segment of the ruralpopulation.
The Construction of Social Costs amongRural Youth in America
Using the status attainment perspectiveon the social psychological process shapingindividual life chances in the United States, wetried to identify how the negative effects ofrural origins are manifested in socioeconomicoutcomes during the adult years.8 Analyzingthe cumulative GSS series, we found thateducation is the conduit through which most ofthese deficits occur for occupational status,aside from being an important element of theseoutcomes itself. That is, once completedschooling entered the equation, the effects ofrural background on occupational attainmentsare almost zero. As is well-known in theliterature (Otto and Haller 1979), the majordeterminants of family income appear to workthrough a process not captured through thespecification of the status attainment models.
The results from the Wisconsin socialpsychological model estimated using NLS-72data revealed a pattern of effects which doeshelp identify mechanisms which lead to ruralyouth obtaining less education and occupa-tional status. Most of the effects of rural originsare mediated through completed educationand the effects on education are transmittedthrough the formation of a student's plans as of
8 This perspective places much of it's emphasison individual-level human capital factors in theexplanation of socioeconomic achievements, to theexclusion of more structural elements of labormarkets and the economy (see Falk and Lyson1988 and citations therein). We would havepreferred to have measures of economic sectors,class position, and local labor markets and theircharacteristics, for example, to examine simulta-neously with human capital factors in this study.However, their unavailability for earlier periodsserves as a practical constrain on most researchwhich wishes to understand periods of socialchange which precede the previous couple ofdecades or so. That constraint is certainly true forour study as well.
138
3 9
Figu
re 8
. Tre
nds
in T
otal
Eff
ects
of
Rur
al O
rigi
ns o
n Fa
mily
Inc
ome
in A
dulth
ood
by M
ajor
Per
iod
of R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t, 19
00-1
980
(Con
stan
t 199
3 $)
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
Gol
den
Age
Far
mD
epre
ssio
n
Cris
is &
Wor
ld W
ar II
&O
ppor
tuni
tyN
ew D
eal
New
Hor
izon
sof
Abu
ndan
ceB
road
er R
ural
Per
spec
tive
1900
190
5 19
10 1
915
1920
192
5 19
3019
3519
40 1
945
1950
1955
196
019
6519
70 1
975
1980
Rur
al F
arm
Sou
rce:
NO
RC
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys, 1
972-
1994
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
Figu
re 9
. Tre
nds
in D
irec
t Eff
ects
of
Rur
al O
rigi
ns o
n Fa
mily
Inc
ome
in A
dulth
ood
by M
ajor
Per
iod
of R
ural
Dev
elop
men
t, 19
00-1
980
(Con
stan
t 199
3 $)
10 0
-10
-20
-30
Gol
den
Age
Far
mD
epre
ssio
n
Cris
is &
Wor
ld W
ar II
&O
ppor
tuni
tyN
ew D
eal
New
Hor
izon
sof
Abu
ndan
ceB
road
er R
ural
Per
spec
tive
-40
-t
I
1900
1905
1910
191
5 19
20 1
925
1930
193
5 19
40 1
945
1950
195
5 19
60 1
965
1970
197
5 19
80
Rur
al F
arm
M.!
Sou
rce:
NO
RC
Gen
eral
Soc
ial S
urve
ys, 1
972-
1994
Rur
al N
on-F
arm
1 4
BE
ST C
OPY
AV
AIL
AB
LF
142
82
the senior year of high school. Educationalplans are influenced negatively by a ruralresidence, largely because a student's motherand father do not appear to expect the studentto complete as much schooling as other non-rural adolescents. Friends of rural youth do notexpect to attain as much schooling either andthe influences of parents and friends serve totransmit the lion's share of the negative effectof rural origins. Thus, the construction of thesocial costs of rural origins on education andoccupational status appears to largely be aconstructed reality through the. "definition ofthe situation" applied by two powerful sets ofsignificant-others: parents and peers (see Ottoand Haller 1979).
Ironically, the expectations held byteachers are unaffected by the rural back-grounds of high school seniors, unlike those ofthe students' parents and friends. The fact thatthese expectations also have no effect on thestudents' own plans compounds the inability ofthe school to intercede in this process ofresidential inequality. While this study cannotbegin to adequately examine the role thatrural families or schools play, either separatelyor in concert (e.g., Howell 1989b), in fosteringor hindering educational equality for ruralyouth, our findings can certainly contribute todemonstrating the need for more multi-levelstudies which allow this type of assessment.
It is important to understand the processthrough which rural-origin adults incur socialcosts in family income and the scope of thisstudy was unable to do that. However, part ofthe story is already being told in the work ofother scholars who have more thoroughlyexamined the institutional changes that havetaken place in rural America, especially in theSouth (Lyson 1989; Lyson and Falk 1993; Falkand Lyson 1988; Swanson and Brown 1993).When the industrial and labor marketstructures from earlier in this century aremapped into empirically-demonstrable form,perhaps it will be possible to incorporate moreelements of the structural organization of localeconomies and labor markets into historical-comparative assessments of the social costs ofrural origins.9
Can Rural Youth Move Awayfrom the Costs of Their Origins?
In one sense, the clearest answer is,simply, no. We did not observe any substantialeffects of rural-to-urban migration on socioeco-nomic attainments in adulthood during themajor periods of rural development policyusing the cumulative GSS database. The onlysuch effects were sporadic and not patternedaccording to our theoretical expectations,which were that migration from the ruralhinterlands to the city during the early part ofthe century would have produced largepositive effects on status attainments and themagnitude of these effects would havedeclined, perhaps even diminished, approach-ing the most recent period of rural develop-ment policies.
On the other hand, the specification ofmigration during the adolescent-to-adulthoodperiod of the life course as causally occurringbetween education and occupational attain-ments makes the disentanglement of educa-tion and migration difficult. Given that wefound the conduit of rural origins onoccupational status and, partially, familyincome to be completed schooling, we believethat migration behavior would be an unlikelymediating factor for these effects. Otherstudies of the migration behavior of ruralyouth have found that the most important size-of-place move was the first one after highschool (Howell and Frese 1983; Zuiches andRieger 1978). Thus, our results using the GSSdatabase may not rule out the importance ofmigration in the life chances of rural youth, butthey do not serve to confirm it or indicate anytrends related to major periods of ruraldevelopment policy-making.
We did observe in the NLS-72 panel data,
9 For instance, if we had operationalizations oflabor markets or segments of the economy (e.g.,Killian and Tolbert 1993) that went back to theturn of the century, then we might be able to usemulti-level models to examine the structural andhuman capital effects on family income or personalearnings among rural- and urban-origin individu-als. That work must remain an agenda item for thefuture.
1 "4 a0A
however, that migration behaviors operate aswas hypothesized: rural-to-urban movementenhanced occupational status and familyincome while urban-to-rural migration re-duced these socioeconomic outcomes. Themagnitude of these effects are importantenough to warrant further study and leave uswith the acknowledgment that, at least amongthe most recent period of rural developmentpolicies, migration away from rural originsmight indeed be linked to better socioeconomicwell-being. On the down-side, that rural-originadults in the NLS-72 panel had to move awayfrom their residential environs for socioeco-nomic advantages, ceteris paribus, is less thandesirable from the perspective of the goals ofrural development. Moreover, for urban-to-rural adults to encounter similar economicdeficits through moving to a rural area (and,ostensibly, a rural labor market), while not adesirable outcome, tends to corroborate theneed for further study of the linkage betweenmicro-level migration processes and institu-tional-community characteristics (Fuguitt1993). In short, one inference from the NLS-72data is that it seems to be rural areas thatproduce lower family incomes rather than thesocioeconomic origins or human capitalcharacteristics of persons choosing to remainthere or to move there from urban-origins.
Rural Development Policy:Where to from Here?
We began this study with the observationthat rural development policy programs havebeen justified on the premise of improving thelives of rural citizens. But, as the U.S. GeneralAccounting Office recently concluded, therehas been little in the way of a commonperspective among these initiatives over theyears (U.S. GAO 1994). The GAO alsorecognized that rural development programshave been "too narrowly focused," anassessment generally shared by other analystsof policies created to better the well-being ofrural entities (Wimberley 1993; Zuiches 1991;Deaton et al. 1994). Those issues are growingin their importance to both scientific audiencesand the general public, for the latter's shifttoward an "urban-centric" view of America
83
creates a shrinking constituency which isclearly supportive of production-agriculture(see Cosby 1996).
While those authors' already mentioned(e.g., Deaton et al. 1994; Wimberley 1993)have assessed rural development policy in abroader perspective, we approach our discus-sion of the future of these policy actions from aconcern with the life chances of people of ruralorigins. If the principal purpose of ruraldevelopment action is to make the livingconditions of rural citizens better, and theopportunities for greater well-being to be onpar with those residents of urban areas, thenthe life chances of those whose origins is anaccident of birthplace is a criterion-basedindicator of the success of these actions.
Even so, we should point out someimportant social context to the logic of thisassertion. Our discussion has placed a largeweight on the importance of Federal ruraldevelopment policies and program initiativesto affect the lives of rural residents and,moreover, to be the only source of influence ontheir well-being. Even if the legislativejustification for such Federal initiatives isconsistent with such weighty goals (Wimberley1993), there are a number of other programswhich may simultaneously influence both"rural development" and the life-chances of therural population.1°
Perhaps the most sanguine assessment ofthe context of these results is that, if the costsof rural origins had been observed to havedeclined to zero (i.e., the negative effects ofrural origins systematically declined over eachsuccessive period to approach non-signifi-cance), then programs aimed at ruraldevelopment objectives may or may not havebeen responsible. On the other hand, if thecosts of growing-up in rural America did notdiminish, then the relevant question is: wererural development programs themselves toblame? It could just as easily be argued thatthe socioeconomic deficits experienced by ruralyouth later in adulthood would have been even
to Many of these other "program effects" are fromalternate public sectorsstate and local govern-mentsand from the private sector.
144
84
greater had these programs not been in place.In short, it is virtually impossible to completelyisolate a "program effect" which has as broad amandate and target audience as do Federalrural development initiatives, particularlyafter-the-fact using post-hoc research designs.But, an incentive to make such programs moreefficient (GAO 1994), is the realization that theopportunities faced by rural youth are lessthan those growing-up in urban areas.
With these qualifications in mind, the mostcritical conclusion about Federal rural devel-opment programs aligns itself with the spirit ofthe GAO report (1994). Educational comple-tion deficits associated with rural origins haveappeared to diminishperhaps largely due tothe unintentional "rural development" effectsof the GI Billand, as a consequense, so havedeficits in occupational status. But theseprograms may have, at best, reduced rural-origin costs in real family incomes for thosefrom farms. We find no evidence for sucheffects which benefit rural non-farm originyouth. To the contary, their "costs" haveappeared to increase in real dollars sinceWorld War II.
Future rural development policy shouldconsider the following issues, among others, indefining a course of action. Some of theseissues are part of FederalStateinitiatives thatare currently underway.
Recognize the pluralism of ruralAmerica. The rural-to-urban demographicshift over most of this century coincided with aredefinition of the cultural "pulse" of Americaas residing in "urban centers," where highculture, communications, transportation, andcommerce became concentrated. The "typifica-tion" of rural America became that of"farming." Rural-ness became defined in termsof the lack of urbanization (see Cosby 1996).This definition-of-the-situation reduces publicpolicies on rural development today toinitiatives which are largely agriculturalpolicy actions (Wimberley 1993). The heatedcongressional debate over the 1996 Farm Billreflects some of the consequences of thishistorical shift in definitions about what is"rural" and what is not (Swanson and Brown,1993; see also Falk and Pinhey 1978). Whereasthere seems to be a declining political base ofsupport for government action to intervene in
production-agriculture, based on the numbersof farms and the farm population itself, thecontinued justification of these actions assimilarly contributing to all rural developmentfurther masks the pluralism of rural America.
The demographic patterns in the U.S. overthis century show that the total ruralpopulation (primarily non-farm) has stabilizedat around one-fourth of the population of thenation as a whole. The growth of the ruralsegment of the U.S. population has beenincreasing during the past twenty-five years asmuch or more than at any point since 1900.Essentially, the rural population is not "goingaway" and an urban-centric perspective onrural issues as synonymous with those ofproduction-agriculture is in error and, webelieve, fundamentally misguided. Moreover,agriculture's importance is not diminished bythe recognition of this rural pluralism.
Agricultural policy does not necessar-ily reflect rural (non-farm) development.While the periodic Farm Bill is perhaps thesingle most important federal policy which isjustified partly under the rubric of ruraldevelopment, it is critical to understand thesocial system and context which underlies thepluralistic landscape defined largely in termsof its lack of "urban-ness" (USDA EconomicResearch Service 1996; Cosby 1996). Forinstance, in this study using the GSS data, wefind that in recent decades the consequences ofrural farm origins for family income in realdollars has a much less negative effect than itdoes for rural non-farm origins. Is thissomehow an unintended result of the Federalpolicies directed at the farm population andnot at the rural non-farm population? Frankly,we do not know, but it represents either ananomaly in these data or a subtle indicator forfurther investigation along the lines of thisissue. We hope that, indeed, it is furtherinvestigated in ways that may more accuratelyidentify it's root causes.
Determining Rural Development PolicyDomains. How should the Federal govern-ment assess the dimensions and priorities inrural development policy? Wimberley (1993)uses employment in certain sectors of theeconomy as a vehicle for measuring themagnitude of the "policy domains" involvingrural America. While this is a novel approach,
145
the indicator used to create the size of thepolicy domain has its drawbacks andlimitations." Nonetheless, his attempt toindicate how non-agricultural, nonmetropolitanemployment reflects an important sector of thelabor force, to which agricultural policy doesnot directly address, is indeed insightful.
More work which falls outside theparameters of conventional thinking aboutrural development is needed to thoroughlydevelop these dimensions of the federal policynexus involving rural America. We believethat it will require the attention of scholars,policy-makers, and citizens from many sizes-of-place to do so.
11 For instance, the use of employment, asopposed to resident population, excludes the"dependency ratio" of children and the elderly forpolicy-relevance as well as over-represents themale population in any given area since men tendto commute further on the average to their place ofemployment, in comparison to women (Howell andBronson 1996).
146
85
86
REFERENCES
Alwin, D.F. and R.M. Hauser. 1975. "TheDecomposition of Effects in PathAnalysis." American Sociological Re-view 40: 37-47.
Barkley, David L. 1993. "ManufacturingDecentralization: Has the Filtering-Down Process Fizzled Out?" Pp. 29-48in Economic Adaptation: Alternativefor Nonmetropolitan Areas, edited byDavid L. Barkley, San Francisco:Westview Press.
Bea ler, R.C., F.K. Willits and W.P. Kuvlesky.1965. "The Meaning of 'Rurality' inAmerican Society: Some Implicationsof Alternative Definitions." RuralSociology 30: 255-266.
Blau, P.M. and O.D. Duncan. 1967. TheAmerican Occupation Structure. NewYork: John Wiley and Sons.
Brown, D.L. and J.M. Wardwell (eds.). 1980.New Directions in Urban-Rural Migra-tion: the Population Turnaround inRural America. New York: AcademicPress.
Carlson, J., M.L. Lassey and W. Lassey. 1981.Rural Society and Environment inAmerica. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Comstock, Gary. 1991. "Discussion of theChapter by Dr. Thurow," Pp. 1-65 - 1-68in Glenn L. Johnson and James T.Bonnen (eds.), Social Science Agricul-tural Agendas and Strategies. EastLansing, MI: Michigan State Univer-sity Press.
Cosby, Arthur G. 1996. "The Future of RuralAmerica." forthcoming in Gary A.Goreham (ed.), Encyclopedia of RuralAmerica. Unknown city: GarlandPublishing Co..
Davis, J.A. and T.W. Smith. 1994. GeneralSocial Survey, 1972-1994: CumulativeCode Book. Connecticut: The RoperCenter for Public Opinion Research,University of Connecticut.
Deaton, Brady J., Glen C. Pulver and ThomasR. Harris. 1994. "Rural Developmentand Human Resource Adjustment," Pp.341-362 in Milton C. Hallberg, Robert,
G.F. Spitze and Daryll E. Ray (eds.),Food, Agriculture, and Rural Policyinto the Twenty-First Century: Issuesand Trade-Offs. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Dewey, R. 1960. "The Rural-Urban Con-tinuum: Real but Relatively Unimpor-tant." The American Journal ofSociology 66: 60-66.
Dewitt, John, Sandra S. Batie and Kim Norris.1988. A Brighter Future for RuralAmerica? Strategies for Communitiesand States. Washington D.C.: NationalGovernor's Association.
Dillman, Don A. 1983. "Rural North Americain the Information Society: An Invita-tion to the 1984 RSS Meeting." TheRural Sociologist 3: 345-357.
Effland, Anne B.W. 1993. "Federal RuralDevelopment Policy Since 1972." RuralDevelopment Perspectives 9: 8-13.
Elder, Glen H. 1977. Children of the GreatDepression: social change in lifeexperience. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.
Falk, William W. and Thomas A. Lyson. 1988.High Tech, Low Tech, No Tech: RecentIndustrial and Occupational Change inthe South. Albany, NY: State Univer-sity of New York Press.
Falk, William W. and Thomas K Pinhey.1978. "Making Sense of the ConceptRural and Doing Rural Sociology: anInterpretive Perspective." Rural Sociol-ogy 43 (4): 547-558.
Fischer, Claude S. 1975. "The Effect of UrbanLife on Traditional Values." SocialForces 53: 420 -432.
Flora, Cornelia Butler. 1990. "PresidentialAddress: Rural Peoples in a GlobalEconomy." Rural Sociology 55 (2): 157-177.
Flora, C.B. and J.L. Flora.1989. "Rural AreasDevelopment: The Impact of Change."Forum for Applied Research and PublicPolicy 4:50-52.
Ford, Thomas R. 1978. "Contemporary RuralAmerica: Persistence and Change." Pp.
14?
3-16 in Rural U.S.A.: Persistence andChange, edited by Ford, Thomas R.Ames: Iowa State University Press.
Fuguitt, Glenn V. 1985. "The NonmetropolitanPopulation Turnaround." AnnualReview of Sociology 11: 259-280.
. 1993. "Internal Migration andPoulation Redistribution: Issue Brief."Pp. 93-103 in Linda L. Swanson andDavid L. Brown (eds.), PopulationChange and the Future of RuralAmerica: Conference Proceedings. Ag-riculture and Rural Economy Division.Economic Research Service. UnitedStates Department of Agriculture,Staff Report No. AGES 9324.
Fuguitt, Glenn. V., D.L. Brown and C.L. Beale.1989. Rural and Small Town America.New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Garreau, Joel. 1991. Edge Cities: Life on theNew Frontier. New York: Doubleday.
Glenn, N.D. 1963. "Massification VersusDifferentiation: Some Trend Data fromNational Surveys." Social Forces 46:172-180.
Glenn, N.D. and L. Hill, Jr. 1977. "Rural-Urban Differences in Attitudes andBehavior in the United States." Annalsof the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science 429: 36-50.
Greeson, L. and R.A. Williams. 1986. "SocialImplications of Music Videos for Youth:An Analysis of Content and Effects ofMTV." Youth & Society 18: 177-189.
Hallberg, Milton C., Robert G.F. Spitze andDaryll E. Ray. 1994. Food, Agriculture,and Rural Policy into the Twenty-FirstCentury: Issues and Trade-Offs. Boul-der, CO: Westview.
Howell, Frank M. 1989a. "Rural EducationReform and Rural Youth in the U.S.:Some Thoughts with Special Referenceto the South." Pp. 9-16 in RuralEducation: A Changing Landscape,edited by Joyce D. Stern, Washington,D.C.: Government Printing Office.
Howell, Frank M. 1989b. Financial Disparityand the Delivery of Education DuringReform: A Model of School DistrictPerformance in Mississippi. FinalReport to the Mississippi State Depart-ment of Education. Mississippi State
87
University: Social Science ResearchCenter.
Howell, Frank M. and Deborah RicheyBronson. 1996. "The Journey to Workand Gender Inequality in Earnings: ACross-Validation Study for the UnitedStates." The Sociological Quarterly 37(3): 429-447.
Howell, Frank M. and Cynthia K. Wade. 1995.Rural Youth in America, 1976-1987:Trendlets Among Social Indicators forHigh School Seniors. Mississippi State,MS: Social Science Research Center,Mississippi State University, Febru-ary.
Howell, Frank M. and Wolfgang Frese. 1983."Size of place, residential preferencesand the life cycle: how people come tolike where they live." AmericanSociological Review 48: 569-580.
Johnson, Kenneth M. and Calvin L. Beale.1995 "The Rural Rebound Revisited."American Demographics July: 46-55.
Kasarda, John D. 1980. "The Implications ofContemporary Redistribution Trendsfor National Urban Policy." SocialScience Quarterly 61: 373-400.
Killian, Molly Sizer and Charles M. Tolbert.1993. "Mapping Social and EconomicSpace: The Delineation of Local LaborMarkets in the United States," Pp. 69-106 in Joachim Singelman and ForrestA. Deseran (eds.), Inequalities in LaborMarket Areas. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Kirkendall, Richard S. 1991. "A History ofAmerican Agriculture from Jefferson toRevolution to Crisis," Pp. 1-14 - 1-25 inGlenn L. Johnson and James T.Bonnen (eds.), Social Science Agricul-tural Agendas and Strategies. EastLansing, MI: Michigan State Univer-sity Press.
Lapping, M.B., T.L. Daniels and J.W. Keller.1989. Rural Planning and Develop-ment in the United States. New York:The Guilford Press.
Lichter, Daniel T., Gretchen T. Cornwell andDavid J. Eggebeen. 1993. "HarvestingHuman Capital: Family Structure andEducation Among Rural Youth." RuralSociology 58 (1): 53-75.
148
88
Long, L.H. and L.R. Heitman. 1975. "Migra-tion and Income Differences betweenBlack and White Men in the North."American Journal of Sociology 80:1391-1409.
Lyon, L. 1987. The Community in UrbanSociety. Illinois: The Dorsey Press.
Lyson, T.A. 1989. Two Sides to the Sunbelt:The Growing Divergence between theRural and Urban South. New York:Praeger Publishers.
Lyson, T.A. and W.W. Falk (eds.). 1993.Forgotten Places: Uneven Develop-ment in rural America. Kansas:University Press of Kansas.
McGovern, G. 1967. Agricultural Thought inthe Twentieth Century. New York: TheBobbs-Merrill.
MacDonald, D. 1957. "A Theory of MassCulture," Pp. 59-73 in BernardRosenberg and David Manning White(eds.), Mass Culture. New York: FreePress.
Miller, M.K. and A.E. Luloff. 1981. "Who IsRural? A Typological Approach to theExamination of Rurality." RuralSociology 46: 608-625.
Otto, L.B. And A.O. Haller. 1979. "Evidence fora Social Psychological View of theStatus Attainment Process: Four Stud-ies Compared." Social Forces 57: 887-914.
Peterson, R.A. and P.D. Maggio. 1975. "FromRegion to Class, the Changing Locus ofCounty Music: A Test of theMassification Hypothesis." SocialForces 53: 497-506.
Pollard, K.M. and W.P. O'Hare. 1990. "BeyondHigh School: The Experience of Ruraland Urban Youth in the 1980s."Population Reference Bureau StaffWorking Papers. Washington D.C.
Pollard, K., W.P. O'Hare and R. Berg. 1990."Selective Migration of Rural HighSchool Seniors in the 1980s." Popula-tion Reference Bureau Staff WorkingPapers. Washington D.C.
Rasmussen, W.D. 1985. "90 Years of RuralDevelopment Programs." Rural Devel-opment Perspectives Oct. 2-9.
Riccobono, J., L.B. Henderson, G.J.Burkheimer, C. Place and J.R.Levinsohn. 1981. National Longitudi-nal Study: Base Year (1972) throughFourth Follow-Up (1979) Data FileUsers manual, Volume I. N.C.: Centerfor Educational Research and Evalua-tion, Research Triangle Institute.
Sewell, W.H., A.O. Haller and G.W. Ohlendorf.1970. "The Education and EarlyOccupational Status Attainment Pro-cess: Replication and Revision. Ameri-can Sociological Review 35: 1014-1027.
Svalastoga, Kaare. 1959. Prestige, Class, andMobility. Copenhagen: Gyldendal.
Swanson, Linda L. and David L. Brown (eds.),Population Change and the Future ofRural America: Conference Proceed-ings. Agriculture and Rural EconomyDivision. Economic Research Service.United States Department of Agricul-ture, Staff Report No. AGES 9324.
Swanson, Louis E. 1991. "The Rural Develop-ment Dilemma," Pp. 111-45 - 111-47 inGlenn L. Johnson and James T.Bonnen (eds.), Social Science Agricul-tural Agendas and Strategies. EastLansing, MI: Michigan State Univer-sity Press.
Thurow, Lester C. 1991. "Agricultural Institu-tions Under Fire," Pp. 1-55 - 1-64 inGlenn L. Johnson and James T.Bonnen (eds.), Social Science Agricul-tural Agendas and Strategies. EastLansing, MI: Michigan State Univer-sity Press.
Tourangeau, R., P. Sebring, B. Campbell, M.Glusberg, B. Spencer and M. Singleton.1987. The National Longitudinal Studyof the High School Class of 1972 (NLS-72) Fifth Follow-Up (1986) Data FileUser's Manual. Washington, D.C.: U. S.Department of Education.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1961. 1960 UnitedStates Census of Population, GeneralPopulation Characteristics, UnitedStates Summary. Final Report PC(1)-1B. Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office.
'49
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970. Census of thePopulation: 1970, Vol 1, Characteris-tics of the Population, Part 1, UnitedStates Summary-Section 1. Washing-ton, D.C.: Government Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1980. 1980 Censusof Population, General PopulationCharacteristics. Washington, D.C.: Gov-ernment Printing Office.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1990. Residents ofFarms and Rural Areas: 1990, CurrentPopulation Reports, Population Char-acteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Commerce.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1993. 1970-1992,Statistical Abstract of the UnitedStates. Washington, D.C.: GovernmentPrinting Office.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1983.U.S. Department of Agriculture. 1987.
Economic Research Service, EconomicResearch Service Agriculture andRural Economy Division, Rural Eco-nomic Development in the 1980's:Preparing for the future. WashingtonD.C.: Department of Agriculture.
U.S. General Accounting Office. 1994. RuralDevelopment: Patchwork of FederalPrograms Needs to Be Reappraised.Washington, D.C.: General AccountingOffice.
Wade, C.K. 1991. "Trends in Social Differen-tiation between Rural and UrbanYouth in the United States, 1976-1987:The Case of Family Belief System."Master Thesis, Department of Sociol-ogy, Mississippi State University,Mississippi State, MS.
Wang, Yun Shiang C. and W.H. Sewell. 1980."Residence, Migration, and Earnings."Rural Sociology 45: 185-206.
Weeks, John R. 1993. Population: AnIntroduction to Concepts and Issues.California: Wadsworth.
Wenk, D. and C. Hardesty. 1993. "The Effectsof Rural-to-Urban Migration on thePoverty Status of Youth in the 1980s."Rural Sociology 58:76-92.
Wilensky, H.L. 1964. "Mass Society and MassCulture: Interdependence or indepen-dence?" American Sociological Review29: 173-197.
89
Williams, J.D. 1981. "The NonchangingDeterminants of Nonmetropolitan Mi-gration." Rural Sociology 46: 183-202.
Willits, F.K., R.C. Bealer and M. Crider. 1982."Persistence of Rural-Urban Differ-ences." Pp. 69-76 in Rural Society inthe U.S.: Issues for the 1980's, edited byDillman, D.A. and D.J. Hobbs, Boulder,CO: Westview.
Wilson, F.D. 1984. "Urban Ecology: Urbaniza-tion and Systems of Cities." AnnualReview of Sociology 10: 283-307.
Wimberley, Ronald C. 1993. "Policy Perspec-tives on Social, Agricultural, and RuralSustainability." Rural Sociology 58 (1):1-29.
Winship, C. And L. Radbill. 1994. "SamplingWeights and Regression Analysis."Sociological Methods & Research 23:230-257.
Zuiches, James J. 1991. "The Viability of RuralPopulations and Communities," Pp.107-124 in Wava G. Haney and DonaldR. Field (eds.), Agricultural andNatural Resources: Planning for Edu-cational Priorities for the Twenty-FirstCentury. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Zuiches, James J. and Jon H. Rieger. 1978."Size of Place Preferences and LifeCycle Migration: A Cohort Compari-son." Rural Sociology 43: 618-637.
Mississippi State University does notdiscriminate on the basis of race, color,
religion, national origin, sex, age,handicap/disability, or veteran status.
151
The Social Science Research Center(SSRC) has over 45 years experienceanalyzing economic and social issues in
Mississippi, the southeastern region and the nation.Some 45 research fellows, cooperating faculty andresearch associates, supported by an administrativestaff and graduate and undergraduate researchassistants annually conduct around 20-25 sponsoredand numerous unsponsored research projects. TheSSRC is a university-level, multi-disciplinaryresearch unit, organized with university-wideresponsibilities under supervision of the VicePresident for Research. The SSRC has administra-tive responsibilities, for certain programs, to theDirector of the Mississippi Agricultural andForestry Experiment Station (MAFES). The Centeralso serves as the administrative home of theNational Black Graduate Student Association andhas had administrative responsibility for the conductof the Mississippi Alcohol Safety EducationProgram since its inception as an offshoot of anSSRC research project in 1972. Total expendituresfor research and development activities in theCenter exceed three million dollars a year. TheCenter has a strong tradition of research,development and evaluation projects in the areas ofsocial and economic development, the family andchildren, community development, alcohol safetyand substance abuse, race relations, information-agesocietal monitoring, natural resources, gaming,social services, and crime, delinquency and justice.
Housed in the Mississippi Research and TechnologyPark adjacent to the Mississippi State Universitycampus, SSRC researchers benefit from theextensive research infrastructure of the Centerwhich has seven major research and developmentdivisions: the Monitor Laboratory, the SurveyResearch Unit (SR U), the Social and EconomicDevelopment Research Program, the MississippiAlcohol Safety Education Program (MASEP), theMississippi Crime and Justice Research Unit(MCJRU), the Family and Children Research Unit(FCRU) and the Gaming Research Group. Withinthis structure the Center provides support for socialscience researchers to develop individual researchagendas as well as collaborative, interdisciplinaryresearch endeavors.
Director: Dr. Arthur G. CosbySeries Editor: Dr. J. Gipson Wells
Associate Editor: Tan H. Tsai
SSRC Home Page:http://www.ssre.msstate.edu/
Recent Titles in the Social Research Report Series:
93-1 Education and Vicious Circles in Mississippi (MAFES Publication D-8189)
93-2 Families and Households in Mississippi: 1960-1990 (MAFES Publication D-8190)
93-3 Health in the Mississippi Delta: Prevention and Policy (SSRC Publication)
93-4 The Life Activities Inventory as a DUI Countermeasure: An Attempted Replication
(MASEP/SSRC Publication)
93-5 Flood Control and Water Management in the Yazoo-Mississippi Delta (SSRC Publica-
tion)
93-6 Background, Development and Utilization of Drinker Assessment in Mississippi Alcohol
Safety Education Program Classes (MASEP/SSRC Publication)
94-1 Best Management Practices for Manufacturing in the Mississippi Delta (SSRC Publication)
94-2 Patterns of Financial Expenditures among College Seniors in Mississippi Public Univer-
sities (MAFES Publication D-8542)
95-1 Social and Economic Characteristics of Mississippi Counties, 1990 (MAFES Publication
D-8775)
95-2 A Summary of Mississippi 5-Year Plan: Family Preservation/Family Support ServicesThe Mississippi Department of Human Services Planning Document (SSRC Publication)
95-3 Geodemographic Approaches to Identifying U.S. Furniture Markets (SSRC Publication)
96-1 Stability and Change in Mississippians' Political and Partisan Views: Insights from 14
Years of Opinion Polling (SSRC Publication)
96-2 Social and Economic Change in the Mississippi Delta: An Update of Portrait Data
(SSRC Publication) .
96-3 Characteristics of Convicted Drinking Drivers Who Attended the Mississippi AlcoholSafety Education Program, 1992-1994: A Statistical Summary(MASEP/SSRC Publica-
tion)
96-4 Recidivism Among Convicted Drinking Drivers: An Analysis of DUI Offenders Referred to
the Mississippi Alcohol Safety Education Program in 1992 (MASEP/SSRC Publication)
To order publications, write or call:
Series EditorSocial Science Research CenterP.O. Box 5287Mississippi State, MS 39762-5287(601) 325-8055
152
U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)
National Library of Education (NLE)Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)
REPRODUCTION RELEASE(Specific Document)
I. DOCUMENT IDENTIFICATION:
0
Title: Se 5.0e,h4 eerf 040444.19_ ZM 7 7-1,44( liseg
Author(s):
-up ,icisi,ak kola Aveeoptest
K Her, VVE4-- VAA7 rim, al apteN4lei 4'a/ 4 94,-"---Corporate Source:
of Sellfmct Eaatud 041P-4;,1(tkriZ40; rit4t Vritiarre??Publication Date:
ti.46. 64t-i-viogs)
II. REPRODUCTION RELEASE:In order to disseminate as widely as possible timely and significant materials of interest to the educational community, documents announced in the
monthly abstract journal of the ERIC system, Resources in Education (RIE), are usually made available to users in microfiche, reproduced paper copy,and electronic media, and sold through the ERIC Document Reproduction Service (EDRS). Credit is given to the source of each document, and, ifreproduction release is granted, one of the following notices is affixed to the document.
If permission is granted to reproduce and disseminate the identified document, please CHECK ONE of the following three options and sign at the bottomof the page.
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 1 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS
BEEN GRANTED BY
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level I
Check here for Level 1 release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche or other ERIC archival
media (e.g., electronic) and paper copy.
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 2A documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE, AND IN ELECTRONIC MEDIAFOR ERIC COLLECTION SUBSCRIBERS ONLY,
HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
2A
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 2A
Check here for Level 2A release, permitting reproductionand dissemination in microfiche and In electronic media
for ERIC archival collection subscribers only
The sample sticker shown below will beaffixed to all Level 28 documents
PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE ANDDISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL IN
MICROFICHE ONLY HAS BEEN GRANTED BY
2I3
TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCESINFORMATION CENTER (ERIC)
Level 25
Check here for Level 28 release, permittingreproduction end dissemination in microfiche only
Documents will be processed as Indicated provided reproduction quality permits.If permission to reproduce is granted, but no box is checked, documents will be processed at Level 1.
I hereby grant to the Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC) nonexclusive permission to reproduce and disseminate this documentas indicated above. Reproductkin from the ERIC microfiche or electronic media by persons other than ERIC employees and its systemcontractors requires permission from the copyright holder. Exception is made for non-profit reproduction by libraries and other service agenciesto satisfy information needs of educators in response to discrete inquiries.
Sign sign."'Yhere,4
Organization/Address:please SSPCI pb. Oar 5-247
144"-C(/* 2 kiss. Ltf 5 3riCO2.,
Printed Name/Positionf ritle:
pluticHaaell/Wm"-
eririne;- ?U."' 20/FAX
r25." -WCE =il s:
ra ,Date:
0 2 U 5 2 13 (over)
III. DOCUMENT AVAILABILITY INFORMATION (FROM NON-ERIC SOURCE):
If permission to reproduce is not granted to ERIC, or, if you wish ERIC to cite the availability of the document from another source, pleaseprovide the following information regarding the availability of the document. (ERIC will not announce a document unless it is publiclyavailable, and a dependable source can be specified. Contributors should also be aware that ERIC selection criteria are significantly morestringent for documents that cannot be made available through EDRS.)
Publisher/Distributor:
Address:
Price:
IV. REFERRAL OF ERIC TO COPYRIGHT/REPRODUCTION RIGHTS HOLDER:
If the right to grant this reproduction release is held by someone other than the addressee, please provide the appropriate name andaddress:
Name:
Address:
V. WHERE TO SEND THIS FORM:
Send this form to the following ERIC Clearinghouse: ERIC/CRESS AT AEL1031 QUARRIER STREET - 8TH FLOOR
P 0 BOX 1348CHARLESTON WV 25325
phone: 800/624-9120
However, if solicited by the ERIC Facility, or if making an unsolicited contribution to ERIC, return this form (and the document beingcontributed) to:
ERIC Processing and Reference Facility1100 West Street, 2nd Floor
Laurel, Maryland 20707-3598
Telephone: 301.497-4080Toll Free: 800-799-3742
FAX: 301-953-0263e-mail: [email protected]
WWW: http://ericfac.piccard.csc.com
EFF-088 (Rev. 9/97)PREVIOUS VERSIONS OF THIS FORM ARE OBSOLETE.
![Um guia para ser bom tanto em casa quanto você é no …gazetaonline.globo.com/_midias/pdf/miolo_capa_pai_iniciais_cap1_1...Caires Coelho]. - São Paulo : Saraiva, 2011. 152p. : 21](https://img.pdfslide.net/doc/110x75/5ab945347f8b9ab62f8da696/um-guia-para-ser-bom-tanto-em-casa-quanto-voc-no-coelho-so-paulo-saraiva.jpg)
