J... . .~ no .. on. '0. Q \ 4- 5": n‘, t. a “II. 0 lq‘dd\ I. '- Mb.“ 0‘ D I“ . .o .‘I! 4-0;: O 0“... J ‘oll'v. {0.99. ‘z‘. t“. ,al ’1! a"... o - .‘I ' \O 4 ."IMI.D .o‘h:ll .v‘“.. .‘V “a: . u— .“ d O ..I—.L. . u‘ ’ . .3... “are...” u. ...\ .8 finch“: .\ C p u o i... C .I .. ...O.u 3....OKUH at“... ~N... t. 1...} 5; Id“. (3&1. o‘. ‘ for! LII. .‘l‘ ‘I ;.. t... s .13 o. to r” ' ‘IQ - w J... cl ~504- (o‘ to g I. \ J . 2. .4: .\ ‘V... ‘03..“ .v‘b f .0“ 0L3” ”h .\ . q A ? A . 0‘. 0 not!" 1‘3 1’1. “01‘. . . f 12.0.. rr. my! .7254 .4 \| ...\'o in: .91.... ‘“‘o u...“ I... . 5.5 n. . po‘c I‘VJZ Q30...» \5 .| fi‘lu .90.. o I. in 7“!- f. ‘0" ”Mk . .It‘ 3 0“"- nc-.L 0‘»... gfi‘r“ pn‘“ “HM-lo“ ”‘5” ok.’ vb on U“ n“ I... s...” .w" "u4.o..- I I. .s a. p .150. "Ina: 11W .0 U 1...“ 0“. ~ .5. o - .0. m. 0“. 3‘ I. “916 .II N ‘ . \. I o. of. 0 A if I. 3.. . a £3.30... 9‘ "I gonna. I. I! r .. o H i 09...... ”I"! x... 01.00... V.u.a‘ a... "I .5“ .‘ can. on. .o ,t ll... . 8 .u‘t m nob. .......$.. “.3. L .. u . D 1.1! ‘1‘ a ‘ o .‘ 3 3 o. o. .._.\... . u.“ c. .3 .. 3.... A: a. 3.2.... 3 Au .v “1-.” .2'; Olf‘h 0.. P. . u ‘-t‘o .‘chl I Q (95.... G4).- . ‘93:. s. ‘H‘ .O.’ In \ IL? .I...» b. ‘. In I ah\ lot \ k . ’f‘ oiod‘ '1’. -UO‘ 0: C'- . o... .904. .1 v05 . Max. 13.... 93.“ oil-sh.” .u‘ a. .4.‘ sq! . 0:03; 2.... .t 430" a . u (‘0; .N)‘ L Akin. nc‘ .:-rfl Div 1.; .a —o In. ‘ft‘ 31,. ‘I0 .0. 0“ . tI.-. ‘0 v.1 ’5 . -2. .. . i. q .. .. Wm .95.. O 2... Wu"! 6 » ‘Jv. 3 “(on . ‘ vlh oviwl' f."- v n'xlo “Q...“ 0'... o (I. -o! . .ul\'o. 0....I -‘ ‘ «'08. “id. .. u ¢ .. I ....L ....-u .. ~ 5 UV... ’3. o u: .z w in.“ «‘1'». “.Z I» Nov» vi 3‘! a" , I .1\ Ina. . ... ... 'H. o .f-i. § on b. “ v.0 h . “ o .Vorm. A}... .u. a.“ L P O . ‘9‘ at .0). K o . .vo‘ .Il'. 001:! .I If o“ .h."” ”T!!: ‘ oft... .7; ’ O k c u I 69MB” WI~.I .1 0“ POI-.9... u. I) in VI.- .. B 27" .u‘. ho'.‘ _, 4, .: d :2: 11111111111111. mummy «L 1293 00852 9384 ‘ ’ . -. 232:1 ‘. ...~i{;21}>13> ABSTRACT AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DOMINANCE AND THE AGE-SEX STRUCTURE OF THE RURAL-FARM POPULATION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION, 1960 by William L. Raiser The objective of this thesis is to study the influence of the ecological variables, metropolitan and urban dominance, upon demographicderivatives of the age-sex structure of the rural-farm population of the North Central region, 1960. Metropolitan dominance was operationalized in terms of in- creasing distance from the metropolitan center as measured in 50 mile distance bands. Urban dominance was operationalized in the form of a ten category scale,the first four categories of which are decreasing size of metropolitan population for SMSA counties and the last four categories are decreasing percent of the non- SMSA counties classified as urban. Utilizing these variables the following results were obtained: 1. Decreasing urban dominance, when controlled by distance, produces a gradient pattern within the distance band corresponding to that for the total rural~farm population for each of the age- sex correlates. 2. The proportion of persons under 5 years of age varies in- William L. Raiser versely with urban dominance. 3. The proportion of persons under 15 years of age varies inversely with urban dominance. 4. The proportion of persons 25-44 years of age varies in- versely with urban dominance. 5. The proportion of persons 45-64 years of age varies directly with urban dominance. 6. The proportion of persons 65 years of age and over varies directly with urban dominance. 7. The sex ratio varies inversely with urban dominance. 8. The fertility ratio varies inversely with urban dominance. 9. The youth dependency ratio varies inversely with urban dominance. 10. The aged dependency ratio varies directly with urban dominance. 11. The index of aging varies directly with urban dominance. Contrary to expectation it was found that the proportion of persons 15-24 years of age shows little variation with urban dom- inance. A partial explanation of this may be the dual nature of the age category itself. The second urbanity category -SMSA counties with central city of 500,000 to 999,999- consistently showed the most urban pattern. This was explained by its growth pattern in relation to the other SMSA categories. AN ANALYSIS OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN METROPOLITAN AND URBAN DOMINANCE AND THE AGE-SEX STRUCTURE OF THE RURAL—FARM POPULATION OF THE NORTH CENTRAL REGION, 1960 By William L. Raiser A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF ARTS Department of Sociology 1967 (3//f;‘7£/’? , f {/1 .~’ 5 I x ‘3 ,«.. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to express deep appreciation to the members of my guidance committee for their invaluable aid in the compiling of this thesis. The m e members were Drs. J. Allan Beegle, Chairman, Duane L. Gibson, and Denton Morrison. Without Dr. Beegle's ;77 guidance, support, and constructive criticism, Dr. Gibson's willingness to follow through on two separate projects, and Dr. Morrison's willingness to step in at the last moment this thesis could never have been completed. _r___ ____ 3 Special acknowledgements go to Gordon Grant who gave of his time and talents to print this thesis, and to Vera whose constant encouragement and help brightened the way. Lastly, to my wife whose typing help and moral support con- tributed greatly to the speedy completion of this thesis. ii TA BLE OF CONTENTS Chapter I O IhTTRODUCTION O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O The General Problem and Its Significance Theoretical Framework . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . Thesis Organization . . . . . . . . . . II. METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Operational Definitions . . . . . . . . Operational Hypotheses . . . . . . . . Statistical Techniques . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . IV. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . Unexpected Findings . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions and Implications . . . . . . LITEMTIJRE C ITED O O O D O I O O O O O O O O O O O 0 iii Page 10 13 14 14 18 19 20 39 43 43 44 49 LB.- Table 10. LIST OF TABLES Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under 5 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under 5 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960 Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under 15 Years of Age by [erani ty, 1960. O O O O O I O O O O 0 Percent of the Rural-Farm POpulation of the North Central Region Under 15 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960 Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 15~24 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 15-24 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 25-44 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 25-44 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 45-64 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 45-64 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. iv Page 23 23 25 25 27 27 29 29 31 31 Table 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. l6. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 65 Years of Age and Over by Urbanity, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 65 Years of Age and Over by Urbanity by Distance, 1960. . . . . . . . Sex Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, 1960. . . . Sex Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. . . . . . . . . . . . . Fertility Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, 1960. Fertility Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. . . . . . . Youth Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by urbanity, 1960. O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Youth Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. . . Aged Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, 1960. O I O O 0 O O O O O O O O O Aged Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. . Index of Aging of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, 1960. Index of Aging of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960. . . . . . . . . Page 33 33 35 36 36 38 38 4O 40 41 41 " s. I. LEAH.” I' CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The General Problem and its Significance The general problem of this thesis is the description of the patterns of settlement in the ruralefarm population and an analy- sis of the variation which appears in those patterns. The prob- lem, therefore, falls within the substantive areas of demography and ecology and is approached at the descriptive and hypothetical levels of analysis. Specifically, this thesis will focus upon variations in the age-sex structure of the rural-farm1 population of the North Central region. The agemsex structure of the ruralafarm popu- 2 lation will be described for varying degrees of urban dominance. Following this a more detailed analysis will be undertaken in which the rural-farm pepulation will be broken down into two sectors; that in SMSA3 counties and that in nonnSMSA counties. 1 "In the 1960 census, the farm population consists of per- sons living in rural territory on places of 10 or more acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $50 or more in 1959 or on places of less than 10 acres from which sales of farm products amounted to $250 or more in 1959." rom U.S. Bureau of the Census, Final Report PC (1)-1c, 1962, p. vii. 2 The North Central region includes Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, and Kansas. In this breakdown an analysis will be made of the individual and joint influence of metropolitan and urban dominance. The ecological framework of dominance theory will be utilized to predict and explain the variations in the age-sex structure. In such a framework the population of the region is viewed as a more or less integrated system (ecosystem). The ecosystem is organized in relation to certain dominant social sturctures, which, in this case, are either metropolitan or urban communities. The distinction made here derives from the fact that metropolitan pertains to the metropolis which is differentiated from other cities for various factors such as population size and concentra- tion, high level of specialization and division of labor, high level of technological development, etc., whereas urban pertains to all cities.4 The assumptions of such a viewpoint may, then, be summarized as follows: 1. The human community (including city communities) is an organization one purpose of which is adaptation to the environment. 3 "Except in New England, an SMSA is a county or group of contiguous counties which contains at least one city of 50,000 inhabitants or more or 'twin cities' with a combined population of at least 50,000. In addition to the county, or counties, con- taining such a city or cities, contiguous counties are included in an SMSA if, according to certain criteria, they are essentially metropolitan in character and are socially and economically in- tegrated with the central city." from U.S. Bureau of Census, Final Report PC (1)-1a, 1961, p. xxiv. 4 Donald J. Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitan Commu- nity (University of Michigan, 1949). and Rupert B. Vance and Sara Smith Sutker, "Metropolitan Dominance and Integration," in Rupert B. Vance and N.J. Demerath, eds., The Urban South (North Carolina, 1954), pp. 114-134. 2. New techniques of tran3portation and production (tech- nological change) have permitted great cities to dominate smaller cities and other communities surrounding them. 3. These outlying communities are subordinate to the metrop- olis and are integrated with it. 4. This integration of outlying territory (hinterland) with the metrOpolis has become a standard form of social or- ganization throughout the entire United States.5 "...there is consider- With regard to the rural population, able body of evidence which indicates that the rural population which lives within ready access of large urban centers differs in its characteristics from the rural population located at more re- mote distances from such centers. The research findings have generally indicated that both the size of the urban center and the distance away from the center are important factors in pro- ducing differentials in rural characteristics."6 The rural pop- ulation is, therefore, an integral part of the ecosystem; and it is within such a framework that it becomes the area of concern here. This thesis focuses upon the rural-farm population for sev- eral reasons. 1) The rural-farm sector of the population is a resource sector for the ruban and metropolitan centers in terms of man power and personnel as well as the raw materials of produc- tion and consumption. It is, therefore, of vital importance to 5 Donald J. Bogue, "The Structure of the MetrOpolitan Commu- nity," in George A. Theodorson, ed., Studies in Human Ecology (New York, 1961), p. 531. 6 0.D. Duncan and A. Reiss, Social Characteristics of Urban and Rural Communities, 1950 (New York, 1956), p. 151. determine a) the patterns of organization within this sector bf the population and b) any trends which appear within the organi- zation of this sector. 2) In an examinantion of the relevance of dominance theory, its adequacy in explaining variances in the patterns of organization of the rural-farm population lend it strength since this sector of the population is generally consid- ered to be the least influenced by dominant metropolitan and ur- ban centers.7 3) This sector of the population becomes increas- ingly interesting when its vital position in the economy of the region is viewed against the fact of its ever decreasing numerical size. The rural-farm population of the United States in absolute terms has decreased steadily -32 million in 1910, 30 million in 1930, 17 million in 1960 and a projected 12 million in 1980.8 This steady decrease is in drastic contrast to the steady in- crease of the total population of the United States. It is in the light of factors such as these that the problem of this thesis gathers descriptive and theoretical significance. The theoretical framework will now be treated specifically and in fuller detail. 7 This can be seen quite cleary in Bogue, Structure of the Metropolitan Community, in which the rural-farm sector of the pop- ulation is termed a subinfluent. 8 Philip M4 Hauser, Population Perspectives (New Jersey, 1960), p. 109. U1 Theoretical Framework In order to set the stage for the present discussion it is necessary to first review some of the more significant work done in the area of metropolitan and urban dominance. Any such discussion begins almost automatically with the work of N. S. B. Gras9 who did the pioneering work in the development of the concept of metrOpolitan dominance. His primary concern lay in the area of economics, but in analyzing the economic organiza- tional framework of the United States he deve10ped the concept of the metropolitan community. Such a community consists of a metrop- olis as its center and the surrounding area «the hinterland. The metropolis and hinterland form an integrated system with the me- tropolis as the managing and organizing center for the whole. Gras saw the development of metropolitan communities as being of central importance in the development of our society since "...the concen- tration of economic resources in large metropolitan centers has brought about the most effective utilization of resources, human and material, yet known to society." 10 Next we turn to the work of R. D.'.McKenzie.11 McKenzie saw 9 N.S.B. Gras, "Rise of the Metropolitan Community," in Ernest Burgess, ed., The Urban Community (Chicago, 1926) and also in Bogue, "The Structure of the Metropolitan Community." 10 Gras, p. 185. ll R.D. Mchnzie, The Metropolitan Community (New York, 1933). and also in Bogue, "The Structure of the Metropolitan Community." a developmental sequence in types of community structure in the United States. This development proceeded in three stages in con- junction with the varying modes of transportation and communication of the period. The first was the pre-railway era in which settle- ment was confined to areas accessible to navigable water. Such communities were relatively isolated and independent of one an- other. Second was the railway ara (1850-1900) in which settle- ment moved westward along the rail routes. The communities which developed at this stage were both child and servant of the rural, agricultural sector of the population. The third era in the de- velopment of community organization was the city regionalism era (1900- ). At this stage the urban sector of the population be- came dominant economically, culturally, and socially. The city became the center of organization and influence. The development of motor transportation in this era has allowed for the degree of mobility and flexibility necessary to effectually integrate and ' organize an entire region about the dominant center. The metropolitan region represents a constellation of centers, the interrelations of which are characterized by dominance and subordination. Every region is organ- ized around a central city or focal point of dominance in which are located the institutions and services that cater to the region as a whole and integrate it with other regions. The business subcenters are rarely con- plete in their institutional or service structure. They depend upon the main center for the more Special- ized and integrating functions.12 12 McKenzie, p. 70. Based upon this theoretical framework McKenzie makes a de- tailed study of various metropolitan regions. In this analysis he notes the consistent pattern of decreasing influence or dom- inance as distance from the metropolitan center increases. Building upon this theoretical and empirical base Donald J. Bogue has made an intensive study of the structure of the metro- politan community.13 In his research he divides the entire United States papulation into 67 metropolitan communities and proceeds to describe their structure. In undertaking his research he attempts to overcome two difficulties of previous research in the area. He contends that "...previous researches in this field have either: a. Studied only the area immediately surrounding the metro- polis and have ignored the outlying territory, or b. Studied one, or at best only a few, of the broader metro- politan areas -usually those surrounding the very larg- est cities." 14 According to various breakdowns of population thus categor- ized, Bogue provides an extensive descriptive analysis of the metropolitan community. When placing communities on a dominance continuum the rural-farm population is at the bottom of the scale and termed a subinfluent.15 In his discussion of the rural-farm 13 Bogue, The Structure of the Metrogolitan Community. and also Bogue, "The Structure of the Metropolitan Community." 14 Bogue, "The Structure of the Metropolitan Community," p. 528. 15 Metropolitan centers -dominants; hinterland cities - subdominants; rural-nonfarm population -influents; and rural- farm population -subinfiuents. pOpulation Bogue does not make an analysis of the age-sex struc- ture. His summary treatment of the rural-farm sector of the pop- ulation is indicative of the lack of quantitative empirical re- search dealing with this sector of the population. 0. D. Duncan and A. Reiss have also done significant research in this area.16 While their analysis includes much in relation to the urban sectors of the population, their discussion of the “u New; urban influences on the rural population are of specific interest here. By ordering counties into four county type categories they studied the differential effect of decreasing urban influence.17 Their findings may be summarized as follows. As urban influence u decreases: 1. Percentage of youth increases. 2. Middle age groups decrease in size. 3. Percent 65 years of age and over decreases. 4. Little difference is seen in the sex ratio. 5. The fertility ratio increases. These results make it clear that blanket characterizations of the rural pOpulation tend to be less accurate to the de- gree that the rural population falls into the area of dom- inance of urban centers. Probably no part of the rural pop- ulation in the United States is completely free from urban l6 0.D. Duncan, et. a1., Metrppolis and Region (Baltimore, 1960). and also Duncan and Reiss. 17 The county types were as follows: MetrOpolitan, by size of largest place in SMA 1. 250,000 or more 2. Under 250,000 NoneMetropolitan, by size of largest place in county 1. 25,000 or more 2. Under 25,000 as found in Duncan and Reiss, pp. 151-152. influence. But the degree of such influence varies greatly, at least partly as a function of proximity to urban centers and the size of those centers. 18 Various other studies support the theory that the rural- farm sector of the population is indeed organized in a gradient pattern with regard to the distance from the nearest metropolitan center and the size of that center.19 One study which states ex- plicitly a factor which has been implicit in many of these works will be examined next. Theodore Anderson and Jane Collier conducted a study in Missouri to determine the influence of metropolitan dominance upon farm size, number of tractors, and level of living of rural people.20 In general their findings supported the hypotheses that decreasing deminence would be associated with decreasing farm size, level of living, and number of tractors. However, the interesting finding in terms of the present thesis was that 18 Duncan and Reiss, p. 168. 19 See James D. Tarver, "Ecological Patterns of Land Tenure, Farm Land Uses, and Farm Population Characteristics," in Rural Sociology, 28 (June, 1963), pp. 128-145; Harold F. Goldsmith and James H. Copp, "Metropolitan Dominance and Agriculture," in Rural Sociology, 29 (December, 1964), pp. 385-395; E.T. Hiller, "Ex- tension of Urban Characteristics into Rural Areas," in Rural Sociology, 6 (Septermber, 1941), pp. 242-257; J. Allan Beegle, "Social Structure and Changing Fertility of the Farm Population," in Rural Sociology, 31 (December, 1966), pp. 415-427; and John E. Stoeckel and J. Allan Beegle, "The Relationship Between the Rural-Farm Age Structure and Distance From a Metropolitan Area," in Eggal Sociology, 31 (September, 1966), pp. 346-354. 20 Theodore R. Anderson and Jane Collier, "Metropolitan Dominance and the Rural Hinterland," in Rural Sociology, 21 (June, 1956), pp. 152-170. 10 urban dominance as opposed to metropolitan dominance may be a better indicator of rural patterns. The discussion of this thesis is couched in the framework of dominance theory. To summarise, then, the populations and popula- tion characteristics of metropolitan communities are expected to exhibit gradient patterns with increasing distance from the met tropolis and decreasing size of the metropolis. Similarly, urban centers produce gradient patterns in the rural-farm sector of the population as their influence is decreasingly felt. From this more general discussion attention is now turned to specific theoretical hypotheses which are developed within this framework. Theoretical Hypotheses It is necessary to state explicitly once again that the con- cern of this thesis is the rural-farm population of the North Central region in 1960. Specifically, it is concerned with the age-sex structure of this sector of the population. In light of explicit and implicit statements of the various authors, both metropolitan and urban centers are expected to pro- duce similar gradients in the age-sex structure of the rural- farm papulation. Hence, the following theoretical hypothesis is posited: Hypothesis I. Metropolitan and urban dominance will pro- duce similar gradients in the age-sex struc- ture of the rural-farm population. Based upon the assumption that this hypothesis is accurate, the 11 following hypotheses will make references only to dominance and thereby indicate both metropolitan and urban dominance. The question now becomes one of determining the nature of the gradient pattern of dominance in the age-sex structure of the rural-farm papulation. In an effort to answer this question two modes of dominance must be investigated along with their effect upon the appropriate sectors of the age-sex structure. The first mode of dominance assumes that the rural-farm population becomes decreasingly like the dominant center as dominance decreases. In other words, that portion of the rural-farm population immediately under the influence of the dominant center is expected to mani- fest characteristics similar to the center while that portion less influenced is expected to display more dissimilar characteristics. The second mode of dominance is based upon the assumption that the rural-farm population is a resource sector for the urban portion of the population and that these population resources are differ- entially utilized with decreasing dominance. The first mode of dominance is expected to be the prime source of explanation for gradient variations in the fertility ratio and because of this for the percentage of youth in the rural-farm papulation. Since this sector of the population is little affected by out-migration of its members any differences which exist under varying degrees of dominance can be primarily attributed to differential fertility. As was noted above in the discussion of the findings of Duncan and Reiss and as has been 12 noted by others,21 dominance is inversely related to fertility. Hence, the following theoretical hypotheses are posited: Hypothesis II. Dominance is inversely related to the fertility ratio of the rural-farm pop- ulation. Hypothesis III. Dominance is inversely related to the percentage of youth in the rural-farm population. The second mode of dominance is expected to be the prime source of explanation for gradient variations in the sex ratio, percent of the rural-farm population 15-44 years of age, percent of the rural-farm population 45-64 years of age, and percent of the rural-farm population 65 years of age and over. That portion of the rural-farm population in the active age groups is a prime target for rural-urban migration. Loomis and Beegle list two significant characteristics of this type of migration. 1) The younger age group (15-24) is the most mobile cohort. And 2) more females than males migrate.22 The Opposite effect occurs in the older age groups. This sector of the pOpulation becomes the res- idue -those who, because of their age, are not desirous and/or not able to migrate. Hence, the following theoretical hypotheses 23 are posited: Hypothesis IV. Dominance is inversely related to the sex ratio of the rural-farm pepulation. 21 Beegle, 92. cit., and Ralph Thomlinson, Population Dynamics (New York, 1950), p. 212. 22 Charles P. Loomis and J. Allan Beegle, Rural Social Systems (New York, 1950), p. 212. 23 Stoeckel and Beegle, and Duncan and Reiss. 13 Hypothesis V. Dominance is inversely related to the per- cent of the rural-farm population 15- 24 years of age. Hypothesis VI. Dominance is directly related to the per- cent of the rural-farm population 45-64 years of age. Hypothesis VII. Dominance is directly related to the per- cent of the rural-farm population 65 years of age and over. Thesis Organization The remainder of the thesis consists of Chapters II thru IV. Chapter II will deal with methodology. Operational definitions of the independent and dependent variables will be stated and the theoretical hypotheses will be reformulated into operational hypotheses. This chapter will also discuss the statistical tech- nique which is utilized. 0f the remaining two chapters, Chapter III will report the results of testing the hypotheses and provide a descriptive an- alysis of the rural-farm population under varying degrees of dom- inance. Chapter IV will deal with the implications and conclu- sions of this analysis. CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY This chapter presents the operational definitions of the in- dependent and dependent variables, the operational hypotheses, and the statistical technique to be utilized. Operational Definitions Two independent and five dependent variables need to be spec- ified and formulated in operational terms. These are the inde- pendent variables metropolitafieand urban dominance and the depend- ent variables sex ratio, fertility ratio, youth dependency ratio, aged dependency ratio and aging index. The first variable which will be operationally defined is the independent variable metropolitan dominance. This variable is treated in the traditional manner. Varying distances from the dominant? center are determined and the counties of the region are appropriately classified according to this distance variable. The distance segment utilized in this analysis is fifty miles. In this manner each county in the region is classified according to the degree to which it is dominated by the metrOpolitan center. This manner of classification lends geographic scope to the anal- ysis and overcomes Bogue's criticism of the lack of geographic sc0pe of previous research in the area. Specifically, the indi- 14 15 cator of metrOpolitan dominance -distance- was operationalized in the following manner: 1. Locate the central city of each SMSA on a map which in- cludes the state and county boundaries as well as the location of SMSA's. 2. Using the central city of each SMSA as the center, draw concentric circles around each QMSA. The first or inner~most cir- cle will have a radius of 50 miles, the second circle will have a radius of 100 miles, the third circle will have a radius of 150 miles, etc. This creates bands around each SMSA, each band being 50 miles wide. 3. Assign the value of "1" to the first band, i.e., the band formed by the area of the inner most circle. 4. Assign the value "2" to the second band, i.e., the band formed by the area between the first and the second circle. 5. Continue assigning values to bands. Each band is as- signed one more than the value of the preceding band. 6. The major portion of each county will be covered by one or more bands. (A county will be covered by more than one band only when the bands from two or more SMSA's overlap.) Determine for each county the band or bands which cover it. (a) If only one band covers the county, assign the value of that band to the county. (b) If more than one band covers the county, assign the value of the lowest valued band to the county. 16 This operationalization of the independent variables, metro- politan and urban dominance, has been adapted from the previous research of Stoeckel and Beegle. In developing the distance in- dicator of metropolitan dominance the use of the fifty mile band was essentially arbitrary. This figure was chosen, however, because it was assumed that such a distance represented the ap- proximate maximum distance one would regularly commute to work. In addition this roughly represents the broadcast area of local TV stations and circulation areas of newspapers. Therefore, fifty miles has become the unit of distance employed.1 The second independent variable, urban dominance, was oper- ationally defined by ranking all SMSA counties according to popu- lation size and all noanMSA counties according to the percent of their population categorized as urban. Due to the very high per- centage of the population of SMSA counties classified as urban it was felt that classification according to size was the more meaningfull distinction. In like manner it was felt that ranking non-SMSA counties according to population size would obscure var- iations in the relative proportion of each county which was urban 1 John Stoeckel, "The Impact of Metropolitan Dominance Upon the Status Structure and Status Consistency of Rural-Farm and Ur- ban Populations," Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity, 1966, pp. 20-21; John Edwin Stoeckel, "An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Age Structure and Sex Composition of the Rural-Farm Population and Distance from Standard MetrOpolitan Sta- tistical Areas," Unpublished M.A. theSis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1964, pp. 20-22; and John E. Stoeckel and J. Allan Beegle, "The Relationship Between " the Rural-Farm Age Structure and Distance from a Metropolitan Area," in Rural Sociology, 31 (September, 1966), pp. 346-354. 17 or rural in character. Ranking the counties in this manner pro- vides a measure of the nature of the local urban population there- by providing a measure of urbanity. This measure of urbanity, then, becomes the measure of urban dominance utilized. It was specifically operationalized in the following manner: SMSA Counties burrow-i 2 1 million and over 500,000 to 250,000 to SMSA under 999,999 499,999 250,000 Non-SMSA Counties OKOCDNO‘U‘I 1 70.0% or more urban 55.0-69.9% 40.0-54.9% 25.0-39.9% some-24.9% no urban population The operational definitions of the dependent variables which are corollaries of the age structure and sex composition of the population correspond to normal practice.3 They are specifically defined as follows: sex ratio: number of males X 1,000 number of females fertility ratio: number of persons under 5 X 1,000 number of females 15-44 2 Stoeckel, "The Impact of Metropolitan Dominance Upon the Status Structure and Status Consistency of Rural-Farm and Urban Populations," pp. 21-22. 3 William Petersen, Population (New York, 1961), pp. 72, 76-83, and 210. 18 youth dependency ratio: number of persons under 15 X 100 number of persons 15-64 aged dependency ratio: ppmber of persons 65 and over X 100 number of persons 15-64 aging index: percent of population 65 and ovepp X 100 percent of population under 15 Operational Hypotheses Given the operational definitions of the independent and de- pendent variables and the theoretical hypotheses of the previous chapter, it is now necessary to formulate the operational hypoth- eses. The hypotheses are here stated in operational form for the rural-farm population of the North Central region of the United States. 1. Decreasing urbanity, when controlled by distance, will produce a gradient pattern within the distance band corresponding to that for the total rural-farm pop- ulétion of the North Central region. 2. The percent of persons under 5 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. 3. The percent of persons under 15 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. 4. The percent of persons 15-24 years of age in the rural- farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. 5. The percent of persons 25-44 years of age in the rural- farm pOpulation of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. 8. 10. 11. 12. 19 The percent of persons 45-64 years of age in the rural- farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. The percent of persons 65 years of age and over in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. ‘The sex ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will Vary inversely with urban- ity. The fertility ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with ur- banity. The youth dependency ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. The aged dependency ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. The index of aging for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. Statistical Technigues Kendall's Tau with ties was used in analyzing the relation- ship between urbanity and the age-sex structure of the rural- farm population of the North Central region. The data is ordinal in nature and the utilization of this statistical measure indi- cates the degree to which therhypothesized relation increases the ability to predict the ordering of the raw data. In this manner 4 a rough measure of the strength of the hypothesized relationship is arrived at. Further analysis Of the data invOlves the use of contingency tables. 4 For a complete discussion of Kendall's Tau with ties see William.L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York, 1963), pp. 652-655. CHAPTER III HYPOTHESIS-TESTING AND RESULTS This chapter gives a descriptive account of the age-sex structure of the rural-farm population of the North Central re- $3M gion by urbanity and reports the results of testing the operation- al hypotheses. The following format will be utilized: l) a statement of the hypothesis, 2) a descriptive analysis of that __A____ __ ___.__ __ _______ segment of the age-sex structure of the rural-farm population of the North Central region by urbanity, 3) an analysis of the ur- banity pattern 6f SMSA counties, and 4) an analysis of the urban- ity pattern of non-SMSA counties by distance over 50 miles.l Before entering on the more detailed discussion of specific characteristics of the rural-farm population of the North Central region it is perhaps helpful to note quickly some of the more general characteristics of the region which bear upon the present analysis. Just naming the states included in the region -0hio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, South Dakota, Nebraska, and kansas- is sufficient to suggest their diversity. They stretch from the highly urbanized and industrial- I See John Edwin Stoeckel, ”An Analysis of the Reiationship Between the Age Structure and Sex Composition of the Rural-Farm Population and Distance from Standard MetrOpolitan Statistical Areas." Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1964, for descriptive analysis and hypothesis-testing by distance. 20 21 ized East to the Great Plains of the West. Change, eSpecially urbanization and industrialization, has proceeded unequally throughout the region. That is, the forces of urbanization and industrialization have been felt at different times and at vary- ing rates. No controls for this type of variation have been in- troduced into the present analysis and this is a distinct disad- vantage. In evaluating the results of this analysis one should also consider that the age-sex structure is being viewed at a given point in time -l960- and a given point in the developmental process of the various sectors of the region. Keeping these fac- tors in mind, we now turn to an analysis of the data. Hypothesis 1: Decreasing urbanity, when controlled by distance, will produce a gradient pattern within the distance band corresponding to that for the total rural- farm population of the North Central region. Due to the nature of this hypothesis a test of its validity will be implicit in the analysis of each of the following hypoth- eses. A more general statement of the validity of this hypothesis will, then, be included in the summary at the end of this chapter. Hypothesis 2: The percent of persons under 5 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. The expected relation between the percent of persons under 5 years of age in the rural-farm p0pulation of the North Central region and urbanity is supported. Table l indicates that the per- cent of persons under 5 years of age increases with decreasing urbanity. The statistical analysis based upon Kendall's Tau also supports the hypothesis. The hypothesized inverse association is 22 .70 more probable than any other rank order. Combining both distance and urbanity (metropolitan and urban dominance) indicators, the SMSA counties will be viewed in more detail. The SMSA counties are treated as a group since they rep- resent all those counties in the first distance band with the ex- ception of two non-SMSA counties which also fit in this category. it was felt that indluding these two counties in the analysis would be unnecessarily tedious while their deletion does not ma- terially alter the results. Therefore, the SMSA counties comprise the first distance band. The hypothesized relation obtains gen- erally in this category. The rather extreme exception in the sec- ond urbanity category will be discussed in more generality in the next chapter, following the reporting of the findings for the re- mainder of the hypotheses. Attention is now turned to the non-SMSA counties which will be analyzed in terms of both distance and urbanity patterns. As indicated by the data of Table 2, the hypothesized relation is supported in that there is a consistently higher percent of per- sons under 5 years of age in the lowest urbanity category as compared to the highest. With the exception of the 200 and over distance band, however, the relation is not linear. The varying urbanity pattern by distance is not consistent with the expecta- tions of Hypothesis i. it will be noted that the use of Only the urbanity indicator or the distance indicator of dominance presents a rather oversimplified picture. Hence, both metropolitan and ur- 23 Table 1. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under 5 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960.* Urbanity, Percent under 5 SMSA Counties 1 million and over 9 500,000 to 999,999 7 250,000 to 499,999 9. SMSA under 250,000 9 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 55.0-69.9% urban 1 40.0-54.9% urban 25.0-39.9% urban l some-24.9% urban 1 no urban population 1 Kendall’s Tau = .70 Table 2. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under 5 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance Urbanity Distance 55.0%+ 25.0-54.9% 24.9%- Tgtal 50-100 9.9 9.4 10.3 9.7 100-150 9.9 9.9 10.0 9.9 150-200 10.2 10.9 10.7 10.7 200 & over 11.4 11.9 12.6 12.3 * Based on U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Final Report PC (l)-c, 1963. 24 ban dominance exercise important influences. Hypothesis 3: The percent of persons under l5 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. The expected relation between the percent of persons under l5 years of age in the rural-farm pepulation of the North Central region and urbanity is supported. As can be seen from Table 3, the percent of persons under i5 years of age increases with de- creasing urbanity. The statistical analysis supports the hypoth- esis since the hypothesized inverse association is .67 more probable than any other rank order. Turning attention to the SMSA counties, Table 3 indicates that the expected relation is generally supported. Again, the noted exception is the second urbanity category. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, the general relation is once again supported by the data of Table 4. As before, the urbanity pattern is not totally confirmed with the exception of the 200 and over distance band. Hypothesis 1 is, therefore, only partially supported. Hypothesis 4: The percent of persons l5-24 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. The expected relation between the percent of persons l5-24 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central re- gion and urbanity is not supported. As can be seen from Table 5, the percent of persons l5-24 years of age decreases slightly with increasing urbanity. The statistical analysis also supports the Table 3. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under l5 Years of Age by Urbanity, l960.* Urbanity Percent Under 15 SMSA Counties l million and over 30.4 500.000 to 999,999 27.5 250,000 to 499.999 31.9 SMSA under 250,000 31.9 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 3l.l 55.0-69.9% urban 32.7 40.0-54.9% urban 31.3 25.0-39.9% urban 32.3 some-24.9%. urban 33.2 no urban population 33.0 Kendali's Tau = .67 Table 4. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region Under 15 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance Urbanity Distance 55.0%+ 25.0-54.9% 24.9%- Total 50-100 32.2 31.0 32.4 31.6 100-150 31.9 31.9 32.0 31.9 150-200 32.5 34.4 33.7 33.8 200 & over 35.1 36.3 37.1 36.7 * Based on U. 8. Census of Pepulation: 1960. Final Report PC (l)-c, 1963. 26 observation that there is a slight relation in the direction op- posite to that predicted. Caution needs to be exercised in in- terpreting a value of Kendall's Tau as low as this, however. It may indicate either the virtual lack of association or that the form of the relation tends to be nonmonotonic.2 In this case there is a virtual lack of relation, and one partial explanation of this lack of association may be that the age group is in ac- tuality composed of two separate subgroups. The younger segment -perhaps those from 15 to 17 or l8- is probably relatively non- mobile thereby offseting, by its lack of mobility, the out-migra- tion of the older segment of the age group. The SMSA counties exhibit a parabolic urbanity pattern, as seen in Table 5, instead of the inverse linear relation predicted. If the second urbanity category is disregarded as beingzatypieil the hypothesized relation is still only slightly confirmed. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 6 indicates that the hypothesized relation is only slightly supported in the l50-200 and 200 5 over distance bands. An in- verse reiation obtains in the 50-l00 distance band and there is no difference by urbanity in the l00-l50 distance band. The pic- ture, therefore, is far from clear for this age group. in general, 2 William L. Hays, Statistics for Psychologists (New York, 1953). P. 655. 3 John E. Stoeckel and J. Allan Beegle, ”The Relationship Between the Rural-Farm Age Structure and Distance From a Metro- politan Area,” Rural Sociology, 3] (September, I966), pp. 346- 354. 27 Table 5. Percent of the Rural-FarmPopulation of the North Central Region 15-24 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960.* Urbanity, Percent 15-24 SMSA Counties 1 million and over 12.2 500,000 to 999,999 13.3 250,000 to 499,999 13.0 SMSA under 250,000 12.9 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 12.3 55.0-69.9% urban 12.5 40.0-54.9% urban 12.7 25.0-39.9% urban 12.6 some-24.9% urban 12.8 no urban population 12.3 Kendall's Tau = -.18 Table 6. Percent of the Rural-Farm POpulation of the North ‘Central Region 15-24 Years of Age by Urbanity, by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance Urbapépy Distance 55.0%+ 25,0-§&,2Z 24,21- Total 50-100 12.7 12.8 12.5 12.7 100-150 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 150-200 12.2 13.0 12.7 12.7 200 & over 12.5 12.9 12.6 12.6 * Based on U. S. Census Population: 1960. Final Report PC (1)-c, 1963. 28 neither Hypothesis 4 nor Hypothesis l is supported. Hypothesis 5: The percent of persons 25-44 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. The expected relation between the percent of persons 25-44 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region and urbanity is supported. As can be seen from Table 7, the percent of persons 25-44 years of age increases with de- creasing urbanity. The statistical analysis supports the hypoth- esis since the hypothesized inverse association is .57 more prob- able than any other rank order, Considering the SMSA counties according to urbanity, Table 7 indicates that the hypothesized relation is generally supported. Again, the exception is the second urbanity category. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 8 indicates that the hypothesized relation is not supported except in the 200 5 over distance band. With the above exception git seems that distance and urbanity affect the percent of persons 25-44 years of age in the rural-farm population inversely. Such a relation is the inverse of that proposed in Hypothesis l. At present no explanation of the phenomenon is given. The necessity of further research is indicated. Hypothesis 6: The percent of persons 45-64 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. The expected relation between the percent of persons 45- 64 years of age in the rural-farm population of the North Central 29 Table 7. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 25-44 Years of Age by Urbanity, 1960.* Urbanity, Percent 25-44 SMSA Counties 1 million and over 21.3 500,000 to 999,999 20.8 250,000 to 499,999 21.7 SMSA under 250,000 21.9 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 22.0 55.0-69.9% urban 22.4 40.0-54.9% urban 21.8 25.0-39.9% urban 22.0 some-24.9% urban 21.9 no urban population 22.2 Kendall's Tau - .57 Table 8. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 25-44 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance Urbgpipy: Distance 55,0z+ 25,0-54,2% 24.9%- Tpggl 50-100 22.7 21.8 22.0 22.0 100-150 22.2 22.0 21.8 21.9 150-200 21.8 21.6 21.7 21.7 200 & over 23.6 23.1 24.0 23.7 * Based on U. S. Census Population: 1960. Final Report PC (l)-c, 1963. 30 region and urbanity is generally supported. As can be seen from Table 9, the percent of persons 45-64 years of age generally decreases with decreasing urbanity. The statistical analysis supports the hypothesis since. the hypothesized direct association is .39 more probable than any other rank order. As can be seen by Table 9 and as is indicated by the relatively low value of Kendall's Tau, the relation is not monotonic. Therefore, only partial and qualified support is given to the hypothesis. As in the 15-24 year age group, the low level of support for this hy- pothesis may be due to the lack of homogeneity of the population within the category. The lower ages may continue to exhibit a pattern of out-migration in partial opposition to the stability of the older ages. Analyzing the SMSA counties, Table 9 indicates that the hy- pothesized relation is supported. Once again, the second urban- ity category is an exception although not in the extreme. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table l0 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported in the last two distance bands but not in the first two. As in the 25-44 year age group there seems to be a slight inverse re- lation between metropolitan and urban dominance. Therefore, both Hypothesis 6 and Hypothesis l are only partially supported. Hypothesis 7: The percent of persons 65 years of age and over in the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. The expected relation between the percent of persons 65 31 Table 9. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 45-64 Years of Age by Urbanity, l960.* Urbggity Percent 45-64 SMSA Counties l million and over 25.2 500,000 to 999,999 26.0 250,000 to 499,999 23.4 SMSA under 250,000 23.3 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 25.2 55.0-69.9% urban 23.0 40.0-’4.9% urban 23.9 25.0-39.9% urban 23.3 some-24.9% urban 23.] no urban population Kendall's Tau = .67 Table 10. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 45-64 Years of Age by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance Urbanity Distance 55.0% 425.0-54.9%, 24.9%- Totg1_ 50-100 22.8 23.8 23.4 23.5 100-150 23.7 23.9 24.4 24.1 150-200 24.5 22.6 23.7 23.4 200 & over 21.8 21.5 20.6 21.0 * Based on U. S. Census Population: PC (1)-c, 1963. 1960. Final Report 32 years of age and over in the rural-farm population of the North Central region and urbanity is supported. As can be seen from Teble ll, the percent of persons 65 years of age and over de- creases with decreasing urbanity. The statistical analysis sup- ports the hypothesis since the hypothesized direct association is .78 more probable than any other rank orderr'. Analyzing the SMSA counties, Table ll indicates that the hy- pothesized relation is generally supported. The notable exception is, again, the second urbanity category. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 12 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported with the exception of the first urbanity category. This slight drop may be caused by the increased availability of rest home facilities in the 50-l00 mile distance category and highly urban- ized counties. Both Hypothesis 7 and Hypothesis l are supported. Hypothesis 8: The sex ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with ur- banity. The expected relation between the sex ratio for the rural- farm population of the North Central region and urbanity is sup- ported. As can be seen from Table l3, the sex ratio increases '° with decreasing urbanity. The statistical analysis supports the hypothesis since the hypothesized inverse association is .68 more probable than any other rankforder. Analyzing the SMSA counties, the hypothesized relation is given very little support. There is little difference in the 33 Table ll. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Cegtral Region 65 Years of Age and Over by Urbanity, l9 0.* Urbanity Percent 65gnd Over SMSA Counties l million and over 1 500,000 to 999,999 l 250,000 to 499.999 l SMSA under 250,000 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 9 SS.O-69.9% urban 9 40.0-54.9% urban lO 25.0-39.9% urban 9, some-24.9% urban 9 no urban population 8 Kendall's Tau = .78 Table 12. Percent of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region 65 years of Age and Over by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, l960.* Distance iggpggity Distance 55.0% 25.0-54-2/0 24.2% Total 50-lOO 9.6 lO.7 9.7 10.2 lOO-lSO 9.8 9.6 9.4 9.5 lSO-ZOO 9.0 8.4 8.2 8.4 200 8 over 7.0 6.3 5.7 6.0 * Based on U. 3. Census Population: l960. Final Report PC (])'C, 1963. 34 sex ratio with the obvious and expected exception of the second urbanity category. This and the pattern for the non-SMSA counties is in accord with the findings of Duncan and Reiss. They found 1. that the sex ratio remained roughly the same until one got into the most rural of categories. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, the hypothesized relation is supported by the data in Table l4. Hypothesis l is only partially supported, however, since the re- lation in the various distance bands tends to be parabolic instead of the hypothesised linear. t-—; A Hypothesis 9: The fertility ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Cehtral region will vary inversely with urbanity. The expected relation between the fertility ratio of the rural-farm papulation of the North Central region and urbanity is supported. As can be seen from Table l5, the fertility ratio in- creases with decreasing urbefiity. The statistical analysis sup- ports the hypothesis since, the hypothesized inverse association is .73 more probable than anjioeherzrankiordet. Analyzing the SMSA counties, Table l5 indicates that the hy- pothesized relation is supported. The exception is, again, the second urbanity category. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 16 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported. Both Hypothesis 9 and Hypothesis l are strongly supported. 4 0.D. Duncan and A. Reiss, Social Characteristics of Urban and Rurgi Cpmmgnigies, l2§0 (New York, i956), p. 33. 35 Table i3. Sex Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, l960.* Urbanity Sex Ratio SMSA Counties “ i million and over 1085 500.000 to 999.999 1055 250,000 to 999.999 1085 SMSA under 250,000 l086 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban i093 55.0-69.9% urban l093 h0.0-5#.9% urban i083 25.0-39.9% urban i093 some-29.9% urban i097 no urban population il2l Kendall's Tau - .68 Table lh. Sex Ratio of the Rural-Farm POpulation of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, l960.* Distance Ur_§nitv Distance 55. 07¢ 25,0-§&,% 21+,9Z- 19:11 50-l00 l075 l067 l080 1072 loo-150 i088 l092 iilh ilOO i50-200 ll25 lii8 ll26 ll23 200 C over lll3 ll35 ll33 il3i * Based on U. 5. Census Population: l960. Final Report PC (l)-c, l963. 36 Table l5. Fertility Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, l960.* Urbanity FertilitykRgtio SMSA Counties i million and over 560 500,000 to 999,999 455 250,000 to 499,999 567 SMSA under 250,000 579 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 577 55.0-69.9% urban 598 #0.0~59.9% urban 56h 25.0-39.9% urban 612 some-29.9% urban 622 no urban population 639 Kendall's Tau = .73 Table l6. Fertility Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, l960.* Distance Urbanity Distance 55.0%& 25.0-SH.9% 2h.9%- Totgjfifi 50-100 572 555 605 573 loo-150 588 592 60l 595 l50-200 622 655 653 6h9 200 5 over 653 686 729 705 * Based on U. S. Census Population: l960. Final Report PC (i)-C, ‘963e 37 Hypothesis i0: The youth dependency ratio for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary inversely with urbanity. The expected reiation between the youth dependency ratio of the rural-farm population of the North Central region and urban- ity is supported. As can be seen from Table )7, the youth de- pendency ratio increases with decreasing urbanity. The statis- tical analysis supports the hypothesis since, the hypothesized in- verse association is .60 more probable than anyfotherurlnk3024IRg Analyzing the SMSA counties, Table l7 indicates that the hypothesized relation is moderately supported. Once again, the second urbanity category is an exception to the slight upward trend in the youth dependency ratio. Analyzing" the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 18 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported. The last two distance categories conform to the expectations of Hypothesis 1, but the first two exhibit variations. Therefore, this hypothesis is only moderatety supported. Hypothesis ii: The aged dependency ratio for the rural-farm pop- ulation of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. The expected relation between the aged dependency ratio of the rural-farm papuiation of the North Central region and urban- ity is supported. As can be seen from Table l9, the aged depend- ency ratio decreases with decreasing urbanity. The statisticai analysis supports the hypothesis since, the hypothesized direct association is .69 more probable than anyiotheraraakIOtdbt.h. 38 Table l7. Youth Dppendency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, l960.* .unbgnjtv Youth Depgndggty figtio ‘71 §B§A_£suntlss i million and over 5l.80 5009000 to 9999999 45e72 250,000 to h99.999 5#.93 SMSA under 250,000 54.80 Non-SMSA Cognties 70% or more urban 52.l9 55.0-69.9% urban 56.30 [+0.0‘5Ll’,9% urban 53e‘l’7 25.0-39.9% urban 56.59 some-2h.9% urban 57.36 no urban population 56.5i Kendall's Tau - .60 Table l8. Youth Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, l960.* Distance 55.0%w 2Ur%gnltv 29 - Distance So-Ioo 55.38 53.15 56.08 5#.36 loo-150 54.70 54.63 55.59 59.56 l50-200 55.5l 60.07 58.02 58.38 200 C over 60.67 63.16 64.97 63.95 * Based on U. 5. Census Population: l960. PC (I)‘C, 1963. Final Report 39 Analyzing the SHSA counties, Table i9 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported. Again, the Second urbanity category is an exception. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 20 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported with the exception of the 50-i00 distance band. Both Hypothesis ii and Hypothesis i are strongly supported by the data. Hypothesis i2: The index of aging for the rural-farm population of the North Central region will vary directly with urbanity. The expected relation between the index of aging for the rural-farm population of the North Central region and urbanity is supported. As can be seen in Table 2i, the index of aging de- creases with decreasing urbanity. The statistical analysis sup- ports the hypothesis since. the hypothesized direct association is .78 more probable than anyiothet.rank~ofdeisn. Analyzing the SMSA counties, Table Zl indicates that the hy- pothesized relation is moderately supported. Again, the second urbanity category is an exception. Analyzing the non-SMSA counties by urbanity and distance, Table 22 indicates that the hypothesized relation is supported with the exception of the first distance band. Both Hypothesis i2 and Hypothesis l are strongly supported by the data. Summary of Findings Hypothesis 1, which states that: Decreasing urbanity, when controlled by distance, will pro- 40 Table 19. Aged Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity, 1960.* ‘I' Ugbanity Aged Dependency Ratio SMSA Counties 1 million and over 18.45 500,000 to 999.999 20.78 250,000 to 499,999 17.27 SMSA under 250,000 17.08 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 15.86 55.0-69.9Z urban 16.00 h0.0-54.9% urban 17.63 25.0-39.9% urban 15.93 some-29.9% urban 15.56 no urban population 14.68 Kendall's Tau = .69 Table 20. Aged Dependency Ratio of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance Ugbgnity Distance 355tO%+ 25;O:5&.9% 25.9%- tIthl 50-100 l6.h4 18.31 16.83 17.58 loo-150 16.73 16.48 15.9A 16.29 150-200 15.35 19.77 lh.19 14.59 200 8 over 12.10 10.87 9.99 10.99 * Based on U. S. Census Population: 1960. PC (1)-c, 1963. Final Report Table 21. index of Aging of the Rural-Farm Population of the 41 North Central Region by Urbanity, 1960.* Urbanity SMSA Counties 1 million and over 500.000 to 999.999 250.000 to 499.999 SMSA under 250,000 Non-SMSA Counties 70% or more urban 55.0-69.9% urban h0.0-54.9% urban 25.0-39.9% urban some-29.9% urban no urban population 35.52 16.1.2 31.3h 31.03 30.22 28.hh 32.90 28.09 27.10 26.06 Index of Aging Kendall's Tau - .78 Table 22. Index of Aging of the Rural-Farm Population of the North Central Region by Urbanity by Distance Over 50 Miles, 1960.* Distance 4_55,g%+ 2U0.nity Zh A- Distance 50-100 29.81 39.51 29.93 32.27 100-150 30.72 30.09 29.37 29.78 150-200 27.69 29.91 2#.33 29.85 200 s over 19.99 17.35 15.36 16.3“ * Based on U. 5. Census Population: 1960. Final Report PC (1)-c, 1963. 42 duce a gradient pattern within the distance band correspond- ing to that for the total rural-farm population of the North Central region; was generally supported by the data. The one notable exception to this is found in the group 25-44 years of age. In this group an inverse relation was found in the non-SMSA counties when con- trolled by urbanity and distance. It was also found that the hy- pothesized relation was a better predictor in the higher distance categories. The data, therefore, moderately supported the con- teneention that metropolitan and urban dominance produce similar effects in the hinterland population and operated jointly. The data generally supported the hypothesis that there is an inverse relation between urbanity and the percent of the rural- farm population of the North Central region under 5 years of age, under 15 year s of age, 25-44 years of age and between urbanity and the sex ratio, fertility ratio, and youth dependency ratio. The data also generally supported the hypothesis that there is a direct relation between urbanity and the percent of the rural- farm population of the North Central region 45-64 years of age and 65 years of age and over, and between urbanity and the aged dependency ratio and the index of aging. The data did not sup- port the hypothesis that there is an inverse relation between ur- banity and the percent of the rural-farm population of the North Central region 15-24 years of age. There was a general lack of relation between urbanity and the percent of the population in this age group. CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS This chapter discusses the unexpected findings associated with the second urbanity category (SMSA's 500,000 to 999,999). Following this, conclusions and implications of the present anal- "M ysis will be presented. Unexpected Findings .‘VF‘n In reporting the results of hypothesis-testing it will be re- membered that the second urbanity category consistently did not fit the pattern expected. This category designated the SHSA coun- ties with central city of 500,000 to 999,999. If this category is viewed in relation to the entire urbanity pattern, in each group- ing of the population it represents the peak of urban organization. In other words, if the first and second urbanity categories were interchanged the patterning of the population would follow more closely the predicted ordering. (The 15-24 year old age group is an exception but it will also be remembered that this same age group did not conform to the hypothesized relation.) The question now becomes that of explaining why this particular category pre- sents the most urban pattern. In an attempt to answer this ques- tion, attention is turned to the growth pattern of the various ur- banity categories. In examining the rate of change in satellite 43 areas compared to that in the central city, Hawley found that SMSA's correSponding to the second urbanity category exhibit the highest ratio of change.1 Further, in examining the percent change of satellite incorporated population in SMSA's by size of SMSA and distance from the SMSA, Hawley found that in the 35 miles and over distance band the SMSA's of category two exhibit a change rate slightly over three times as high as that in any other cate- gory. (52.3% versus 18.3% for the next highest category.)2 The 35 miles and over distance band was utilized for it was felt that this would be the segment of the population and the portion of the land area in closest contact with the rural-farm segment of the population. Since one of the major modes of dominance affecting the rural-farm population is its utilization as a resource sector for the urban areas, a rapidly growing urban population would be expected to draw more heavily on such resources. If this is the case, it may offer at least a partial explanation of the excep- tional nature of the data regarding this urbanity category. Conclusions and Implications This research points to the utility of a sociological per- spective when dealing with the interrelationships among the var- ious parts of society. The importance of structural variables in 1 Amos H. Hawley, The Changing Shape of Metropolitan America (Glencoe, Illinois, 1956), p. 44. 2 Ibid., p. 54. 45 dealing with society is brought to the fore. Too often a micro- cosmic view of a situation is taken and, thereby, the structural position of the part within the larger whole is overlooked. This has, perhaps, been especially true in dealing with the rural- farm population sector since it is usually approached in the frame- work of the rural-urban dichotomy. Even when speaking of metro- politan or urban dominance the tendency is to see the overshadow- ing influence of the dominant urban center upon the rural hinter- land. Instead, the interpenetration and interrelation of each of the parts within the whole needs to be viewed. The metropolitan system consists of what might be termed urban and rural parts, but all are inseparably bound together in mutual interdependence within the structure of the whole. Perhaps this point is being belabored, but its importance cannot be minimized. Structure and position in the structure are important variables in the determination of the inner functionings of the part itself. This research has indicated some of the ways in which the nature of various parts of the rural-farm population is affected by structural position. Proximity to a metropolitan center, the characteristics of that center, and the characteristics of the local urban population have all been seen to be correlated with characteristics of the age-sex structure of the rural-farm popula- tion. This research is, perhaps, more relevant in what it indi- cates for future research in these areas than in any specific con- clusions which it has reached. 46 The differences which appear in the broad groupings of SMSA types indicates that more needs to be done in determining the specific relationship between various metrOpolitan characteristics and the structure of the metropolitan system. The data which has been utilized in the present study has aggregated across metro- politan types, levels of urbanization, and regiaial location. The fact that such a high level of ordinal association was found, in most cases, between the independent and dependent variables suggests that there is an underlying similarity in the structure of metropolitan systems; but variations in pattern between various metropolitan types need to be studied and integrated into a more inclusive theoretical framework.3 Specifically, variations be- tween national, regional, and local metropolitan types needs to be investigated. And, the above research indicates that varia- tions associated with the size and growth rate of the metropolitan center need to be investigated. This ecological framework implies that the rural-farm sector can not be viewed as merely "rural-farm" but must be viewed in relation to its structural position, as was stated above. There- fore, its role in relation to the workings of the larger whole needs to be determined along with the effects of this role upon its inner relationships. One role of the rural-farm sector is to act as a population 3 Donald J. Bogue, "Population Distribution," in The Study of Population, ed. Philip M. Hauser and Otis D. Duncan (Chicago, 1959), pp. 383-399. 47 resource -a manpower reserve. The educational system in this sector should reflect this fact and provide the type of education which will allow for a rather high portion of the youth to make the transition from a rural to an urban setting. Education needs to meet the dual role of equipping those who will become out- migrants and at the same time providing equivalent educational stimulus and opportunity for those who will remain. Service organizations need to be oriented to the fact that a high proportion of aged reside in rural areas and the proportion increases with increasing proximity to the center. Proper facil- ities need to be maintained without placing undue burden upon the relatively low proportion of the population in the active age years. This indicates the need for easy access to the service facilities of the center for the aged. In any attempt to implement changes within the rural-farm population or to attempt to understand changes which are occur- ing structural) position and structural factors need to be consid- ered. Are the requirements for the resources -human, fiber, and foodstuffs- changing, diminishing, or increasing thereby, changing the nature of the rural-farm role? With increasing access to mass communication and first hand experience in urban environments, is the nature of urban influence upon the rural-farm sector chang- ing? With the changing structure of society and increasing empha- sis upon and concentration in urban centers, what changes have taken place and are taking place in the power structure of the 48 metropolitan, state, regional, and national systems? All these and many other questions require that the Structure of the metro- politan system and the interrelationships of the parts be the focus of further research and investigation. LITERATURE CITED Anderson, Theodore R. and Jane Collier. ”Metropolitan Dominance and the Rural Hinterland,” Ruggl Sociology, XXI (June, 1955). PP- 152-170. Beegle, J. Allan. ”Social Structure and Changing Fertility of the Farm Population," Rurpl Soplplogy, XXXI (December, 1966). pp- 415-427. Bogue, Donald J. ”POpulation Distribution,’I In The Study of Population, ed. Philip M. Hauser and Otis D. Duncan. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1959. Pp. 383- 399. . ”The Structure of the Metropolitan Community,“ in Studies in Human Ecology, ed. George A. Theodorson. Evanston, Illinois: Row 5 Peterson, 1961. Pp. 524-537. . Ihp Sttgctugp pf thg MgtrOpplitan Community. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 1949. Duncan, Otis D. and A. Reiss. Socipl Characteristics of Urpgp 8 Rural Communities. New York: John Wiley, 1956. Duncan, Otis D., pt, 31, Metropolis and Region. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 19 O. Goldsmith, Harold F. and James H. Copp. “Metropolitan Dominance and Agriculture,“ in Rural Sociology, xxv111 (June, 1963). pp. 385-395. Gras, N. S. B. “Rise of the Metr0politan Community,” in ng Urban Community, ed. Ernest W. Burgess. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1926. Hauser, P. Po ulation Pers actives. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University Press, 1960. Hawiey, Amos. The Changing Shape of Metropolitan America. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free Press, 195 . Hiller, E. T. ”Extension of Urban Characteristics into Rural Areas,” in Rural Socioigpy, VI (September, 1941), pp. 242- 257. 49 50 Loomis, Charles P. and J. Allan Beegle. Rural Social Systems. New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1950. McKenzie, R. D. The Metropolitan Community. New York: McGraw- H1”. 1933. Petersog, William. POpulation. New York: The Macmillan Company, 19 1. Stoeckel, John E. and J. Allan Beegle. ”The Relationship Between the Rural-Farm Age Structure and Distance from a Metropolitan Ariei’afll in Rural Sociology, XXXI (September, 1966), pp. 346- 35 - Stoeckel, John. “An Analysis of the Relationship Between the Age Structure and Sex Composition of the Rural-Farm POpula- tion and Distance from Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas.‘I Unpublished M.A. thesis, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Michigan State University, 1964. ”The Impact of Metropolitan Dominance Upon the Status Structure and Status Consistency of Rural-Farm and Urban Populations.” Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Department of Sociology, Michigan State University, 1966. Tarmer, James D. ”Ecological Patterns of Land Tenure, Farm Land Uses, and Farm Population Characteristics,” in Rural Soci- ology, XXVIII (June, 1963), pp. 128-145. Thomlinson, Ralph. Populption Dyppmics. New York: Random House, 1965. U. S. Bureau of the Census. U. S. Censgs of Pppuiation: 1260, General Social and Economic Characteristics, United States Summary. Final Report PC (l)-c. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1962. U. 5. Bureau of the Census. U. 5. Census of POpulation: 1260, N ber h bi nts Un d Sum r . Final Report PC (1)-a. U. S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1961. Vance, Rupert.B. and Sara Smith Sutker. ”Metropolitan Dominance and Integration,” in The Urban South, ed. Rupert B. Vance and N. J. Demerath. North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1954. Pp. 114-134. Warren, Roland L. The Community in Americp, Chicago: Rand McNally 8 Company, 1963. HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES 31293008529384