Reexamining Rural Decline: How Changing Rural Classifications Affect Perceived Growth
This article illustrates the commonly overlooked sample selection problem inherent in using rural classification methods that change over time due to population changes. Since fast-growing rural areas grow out of their rural status, using recent rural definitions excludes the most successful places from the analysis. Average economic performance of the areas remaining rural significantly understates true rural performance. We illustrate this problem using one rural classification system, rural-urban continuum codes. Choice of code vintage alters conclusions regarding the relative speed of rural and urban growth and can mislead researchers regarding magnitudes and signs of factors believed to influence growth.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Robert J. Barro & Paul M. Romer, 1991.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number barr91-1, August.
- Glenn Fuguitt & Tim Heaton & Daniel Lichter, 1988. "Monitoring the metropolitanization process," Demography, Springer, vol. 25(1), pages 115-128, February.
- Baumol, William J, 1986. "Productivity Growth, Convergence, and Welfare: What the Long-run Data Show," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 76(5), pages 1072-85, December.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rre:publsh:v:36:y:2006:i:2:p:163-91. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Mark L. Burkey)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.