tUte botweaa urban and rural ways of life, thua Indleatlng the dogroa of "urbanism" of eaeh of the areae. Urbanism thus is the point of amphasls la this study, and ...
i>TUbY uF uhUAiUC.. Ui ThS 5TATii is.C'ui'iC'Mio iihcao OK TfciAAii by JAaiiio T. ftlLhARUSuW, 8.A. A THbc^iw
hiuuIoL^G]|C
Submitted t o the Graduate Faculty of Texaa Technological v.oliege i n i - a r t i a l i^ulfillment o f t h e Bequirementa f o r t h e iJegree o f
.Approved
Accepted
d
i^ean of the Uraduate/^chool riuguet, 1965
f)o.94 dop. 2
AOKfvOWL£i)Qi^KI4TS
1 am Indebted to i^r* *• ^* ^teglieh. Ur, Salter J. Cartwrlght. and L*r* W* t . AcOullen for their encouragement, patience, direction* and helpful critlclam on thla thaaia.
Alao I am grateful for the
ehaarful and willing aplrlt of akv* Blchard l o v e l l . a typlat par ajteallanca.
Jamea T. Rlchardaon
11
U S t OF TABLSa
Iv
LIST or ILLUSTRATIONS
T
I.
llffftODUCTiuIyj
I
Purpoaa
1
£aplanatlon
1
i)aflnitiona
3
Related ^tudlaa II.
•
9
MSThOiX;LOQX
^ i.
Conatruetlon of the Index of Urbanism
III. IV.
V.
. . • • . • • •
23
Cliaracterlzlng the 3£A*s of Texaa
2k
i^paclflc indicator £»ealaa
29
yLLLCtJii^ h^iul^klx.HB flUul^ui^
34
Ai\L> il4Tti.KPRETAlici\ti
52
Analyale of the Indicator Varlablaa
53
Analyala of the Index of Urbanism
67
oOi^CLu^l^i^t)
93
glBLIoaiiAFHX
95
ki>tii.iiijU
96
ill
LiaT OF TkbUi^ Table 1. 2.
3*
page Percentage Anglo« i^aniah sui^name. and nonwhite for state economic areas of Texas, I96O . . . . . . . . .
26
A comparlaon of the relative rank of the SL.^'s of Taxaa on the Index of Urbanism with the rank attained by the bLA*8 by ordering them according to the per cent of their populations in towns and citiaa of over 10.000 population •
91
Hslative rank of ^is.A*8 of Texas on 21 selected indi* eatora of urbanism iwith index for table) . . . . . .
99
IV
LIST uF lLLUaTRATIO.%5 Figure
page
1.
idtate C'Conomlc Areaa of Texas
2.
example of eompoalte Index of Urbaniam
« .
25
3*
i^ampla of apaeiflc indicator acalea uaed in theaia •
30
4.
Median family income, a l l claaaee. for a£A*8 of Texaa
55
5.
Median Income for malea, a l l o l a s s e a . for SEA*s of Texas . • •
56
Median income for femalaa. all elaaaes. for SEA*a of Texas
^
6.
4
7.
«hlte aoA ratio for ciii-A*s of Texas
39
6.
iionwhite eex ratio for aiiiA's of Texaa
60
9.
Working agae (19-.64) sex r a t i o , a l l classes^ for :3u,A*s o f Texaa
62
Anglo child-woman r a t i o (number of children under f i v e per 1,000 women)
^
10. 11.
Nonwhite child-woman ratio (number of children under f i v e per 1,000 women)
65
ohildren ever born per 1,000 women ever married, ages 15-24, a l l c l a s s e s
^7
children ever born per 1,000 women ever (oarried, ages 25-34, a l l c l a s s e s
6®
Oiildren ever born per 1,000 women ever married, ages 35-44, a l l classes
"^
15.
Mala age d i s t r i b u t i o n , Anglo, 0-19 yeare
72
16.
Male age d i a t r i b u t i o n , Anglo, 20-64 years
73
17.
Male a^e d i s t r i b u t i o n , Anglo, 65 years and over . . .
7^
16.
^ l e dependency rate, An^lo,(0-19 yaars f 65 years and over) . . . • • • • • •
12. 13. 14.
. . . . . .
vl 19.
Median school years completed for those 25 years and over, all classes
JQ
20.
'^nglo per cant foreign born
60
21.
Monwhite per cent foreign born
...........
62
22.
I^er cent of employed engaged in agricultural employment
63
23*
Anglo population per household
65
24.
I^onwtiite population per household
66
25.
Hanking of uh.A*s of Texas on Index of Urbanism
...
66
OiAPTER I II4TR0UUCTICIN ?WP9ff The purpose of thla thaaia la to use demographic varlablea a f f a e t l v e l y In a study of urbanism.*
This purpoaa la aceoaqpliahed
by f l r a t conatruotlng an Index of Urbaniam ualng certain aelectad
damographle varlablea that, according to prevalent theory, differentiate between rural and urban waya of l i f e .
Then the aelected
Indlcatora are uaed to oharaetarlse the atata economic areaa (S£A*a) of Texaa In aueh a way that theaa ^£A*a will be ranked on the Index of Urbaniam In an arrangement that will reliably indicate their relative degree of urbanism.
In 1950 the Bureau of the Qanaus aubdivldad the entire area of the United ^tatea into 509 state economic areas, which were, by definition, "homoganaoua atatiatlcal areaa."
i»lnca that time
The main sourcea for the Information uaed in this study were U. ii. Bureau of the Census, aighteentfa Census of the united atateai I960. Population. X, Parte 6, 15, 24, 34, 40, and 4b; II« IB, Paraona of Spanish i^ur-namei and I I I , lA, ^itate Economic Areas. Henceforth any references to these Census volumes will be done by citing them as Spanish iaur-name voliuae, State Economic Areaa volume, or Census, Part • ^Most of the inforaiatlon in this paragraph i s from Uonald Bogue, '*An outline of the Complete System of Economic Areas," American Journal of Soelolo£y. LA. (September, 195'>)» PP« 136-139»
the S&A'a have bean gro^pad, on the baala of certain almllarltlaa. Into 119 natlonal^-aeonomle aubraglona, which have been further grouped, again ualng the idea of almllltuda, into 13 economic regions.
Theaa 13 eoonomle regions alao have been arranged into
five eoonomle provlnoas. Thla arrangement and elaaalflcation of the area of the United statea Into economic provlneaa, economic regiona, economic aubraglona, and atata aeonomlc areaa constitutes a single integrated aystam of area elaaalflcation which offara many research p o e s i b i l l tlaa.
Ualng the data made available by the Bureau of the Cenaua,
thla atudy attSQ|>ta to take advantage of some of theaa roseareh poaaibllltlea. I f a reliable method of measuring the quality and quantity of urbaniam ( t h i s term will be defined) in the SEA*e of Texaa can be dsviaad, then thla method may be applied with much profit in any part of the country and on any level of the four-part economic area arrangement.
The method deacribed here could alao be uaed, with
adaptions made necessary because of limitationa of available data, to Indicate the "urbaniam" of any definable area or population segment for which equivalent information la available.
Such use of
thie method would allow a multitude of comparieona like the one preaantad in this theaia. Aa will be diacussad further in the theaia, there U a dearth of comparative studies in the area of urbaniam, particularly atudlea ualng demographic information, ualng demographic information are rare.
i^ven descriptive studies Any work in this area
of atudy will be a oontrlbutlon to both urban aoclology and demogimphy*
There are 509 atata economic areaa In the United States, 31 of which are in Texas.
These are shown in Figure 1.
The Bureau
of the Census in i960 dafinod SEA* a aa followai • • . aubdivlaiona of etatea that conalat of single eountlea or groupa of countlea which have aimllar aoclal and economic characterlatloa. The boundarlea of theee areas have been drawn in such a way that each atata i s aubdlvided Into relatively few parte, with each part having certain aignlflcant characterlatloa whidi dlatir^ gulah i t from the adjoining areaa . . . ^ By way of further explanation, the Bureau adds. In establishment of S£A*s, factors in addition to induatrlal and coamercial a c t i v l t i e a were taken into account* Uemographle, climatic, phyalographlc, and cultural factors, as well aa factora pertaining more directly to production and exchange of agrloultural and nonjagricultural gooda, were oonaidered.^ The 31 SiiiA*8 of Texaa are partitioned into 16 nvenbered areas, which are classified aa bein^, nonmetropolltan, and 15 l e t tered areaa which are claasified as being metropolitan.
The factor
uaed by Va^e Bureau to differentiate between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas la size of the central city*
^State iicononslc Areas volume, p. 9«
4
I b i d . , p. 10.
Since StiiA's, by
Fig. 1—'State economic areas of Texas.'
^Taken from State Economic Areas volume, rp. vi and vii.
doflnltlon« do not cross county l i n e s , the use of the standard m a t r ^ o l l U n s t a t l s t l e a l area designation (SMSA)^ was allowed la t h i s aatagorisatlon.
Those SMSA*s that eontainad a central city of 50,000
or more, and a total population of 100,000 or more, are daalgnated by the Bureau of the Cenaua aa being metropolitan SSA*a (indicated by l e t t e r a ) . ^
Thoaa areaa that do not f i t thla definition are
elasslflod as nonmetropolltan, and are labeled with numbers. This one faetor of aiae of the central city eeparatee the SM*a into two general oategorlea, metropolitan and nonmetropolltan, which of themaelvea Indleata nothing more than the minimum alze of the eontral city In one of the two oategorlea.
While thla claaal-
fleation la uaaful in working with SEA eenaus data, other much more meaningful and comprehenelve claaaifieationa of the S£;A*S can be made throuigh the use of theaa data.
9sMSA*a are defined by U. S. Bureau of the Cenaus, "Standard Metropolitan Statiatleal Areas," Uj^^uxi Raaearch aapthods. ed. Jack P. (ilbba (Prlneeton< L. Vam Noetrand Co., I96l), p. 53, aa being, "" • . • a county or group of countlea which containa at leaat one city of 50,000 inhabit tants or more or *twin cltiea* with a combined population of at leaat 50,000. In addition to the county, or countlea, containing such a city or c i t i e s , contiguous countlea are included if, according to certain c r i t e r i a , they are eaaentlally metropolitan in character and are aocially and economically Integrated with the central city.**" The criteria of liJSh^a are completely delineated in the a r t i c l e . ^An exception to thla in Texaa la Area ^ (iienton), with a total population of only 47,432 in I960. i4o explanation could be found for thla breach of definition.
Thla atudy attempts to eharaoterlze the SSA*a of Taxaa in aueli a mmnmar that a mora meanlagful elaaalflcation of them can be mado* l^la oharaetorlzatloa la made using variables that dlffereivt U t e botweaa urban and rural ways of l i f e , thua Indleatlng the dogroa of "urbanism" of eaeh of the areae.
Urbanism thus i s the
point of amphasls la t h i s study, and as such needs to be elaarly defined.
This daflnltloa of urbaniam can beet be effected by eoiv-
traating the term "urbaniam* with the ra^er limiting (and often looaely uaed) term "urbanisation." According to i^els Anderson, the term urbanization generally . . .
" . . .
mear^ the maaalng of people in cltiea and induatriea."'
Another more meaningful definition la that of the domographer, Harren S. Thompaon.
He defines urbanization as followai . . . the movement of people from comraimltiaa concerned ehlefly or solely with agriculture to other communitiea, generally larger, whoee a c t i v l t i e a are primarily centered in government, trade, manufacture or a l l i e d Intereat.^
Both theaa deflnitlona refer to the movement of a population from one spatial environment to another.
Neither emphaaizos the
concomitant changes that accrue in the l i f e - s t y l e s of ti.e people involved (although theaa changes are, of course, Implicit).
Crbani-
aatlon, then, ean be defined as a quantitative measure of the process
^liels Anderson, ''Urbaniam and Urbanization," The American Journal of SocloloiLy. UV (July, 1959), p. 69. iiels Anderson, The Urban Community (New Xorkt and Co., 1959;* P« k.
Henry Holt
of ahango of a aoeiaty from a rural to an urban way of l i f e . This quantitative measure Is quite objeatlve and ean be found rather e a s i l y , given only a rural-urban differentiating daflaltion and raw nimibara of people by place of reaidanoa.
Ono
aaaaqplo of thla mmaaurament method la used by Klngslay l^vls and Hilda Marts (Golden la a atudy of the dovalopmaat of urbanization.^ Thoy devise a ratio of urbanlaatloa which I s , . . . the urban people dlvldod by the t o t a l population, the formula being as followst u•
l» _^
where *u' i s urbanisation, 'P^* i s e l t y population, and *P^' Is total population. Hhat this study atteiapts to measure i s "urbanism," which Is something much leaa tangible and objeetive than urbanization. liela Andaraon aaya the following about urbaniami Urbaniam aa a way of l i f e la primarily, although not entirely, aaaociatad with living In towna and c l t i e a . It diffare from rurallam mainly in ways of work, habita of thotj^t, and with reapect to traditional controla.^^
Alngaley i^via and i^llda ^ertz Uolden, "Urbanization and the iuevelopment of Pre-Induatrlal Areas," Cltiea and Society, ed. Paul Matt, and Albert Reiaa, Jr. (tJlancoe* The Free Press, 1957)» pp. 120-140. Ibid,, p. 121. Another example of the quantitative measure of urbanization in this same a r t i c l e Is that of population density (p. 124). ^^The Urban Community. 0£. j s i i . , p. 22.
6 Another prominent eoolologlst, Louis ilrth, whoaa work, "Urbmaiam aa a iay of Llfs,"12 ^^
become a classle, has much to
say eoaceraiag the meaning of urbanlea.
Some extensive quotations
from this elassle work can best evldenee the point of difference between urbanization and urbanlea that has been labored here. . . . no definition of urbanism ean hope to be eompletely eatlsfylng aa long aa numbera are regarded aa the sole criterion. Groover, it la not difficult to demonatrate that comnunltiaa of leea than the arbitrarily eat number of inhabltanta, lying within the range of metropolitan centsra, have greater claim to reeognitlon aa urban communitiea than do larger onee leading a more leolated exlatence in a predominantly rural area. • .^^ He continuea, Aa long aa we identify urbanism with the phyeleal entity of the city, viewing It merely aa rigidly delimited in apace, and proceed aa if urban attrlbutea abriytly oaaaed to be manlfeatad beyond the arbitrary boundary line, we are not likely to arrive at any adequate coneeption of urbaniem as a mode of life.^^ Thua we realize that, while urbaniam is a quality that is usually aeerulng to urbanization, the relatlonehlp between urbanism and urbanisation la not neoeaaarily direct.
In fact, we could
^^Loule «lrth. Community Life and Social Policv. ed. Elisabeth ilrth Marvick and Albert Beiaa, *ir. (Chicago* The Unlveralty of Oileago Preee, 1956), pp. 110-133*
^^Xbid.. p. 113. 14 I b i d . . p. 114. For an excellent appralaal of the ideas of i l r t h and othere who have attainted to define "urbaniam" see Richard Uawey, "The Rural-Urban Continuumi ^veal but Relatively Unimportant," The American Jounml of Sociology. i.^VI (July, i960), pp. aO-66.
e n v i s i o n s i t u a t i o n s in which there would be an inverse relationship between urbanism and urbanization.^^ This study attempte t o evaluate and to quantify and measure the urban way of l i f e .
Much more w i l l be Involved than juet a
s l a p l e meaeurement of the number of people l i v i n g in a c e r t a i n area.
A survey of the l i t e r a t u r e in both the areas of demography and urbanism reveals that the type of study deeerlbed in t h i s t h e s i s i s nearly unique. turee of the etudy.
The uniqueness reeulte from several fea-
Among these features are the use of demographic
varlablee onlyi the broad range of indicators usedi the use of s t a t e economic area Informatloni and the f a c t that t h i s study i s comparat i v e rather than Juet d e e c r l p t l v e .
Some urbanism Indexes were
located, but none Involved a l l of these featuree.
^^An example of urbanization without urbanism (using the d e f l n l t l o n e of theee terms delineated in thla paper) would be the use of rural laborers in an industrial s i t u a t i o n which was constructed beeauae of lower c a p i t a l requlremente, a v a i l a b i l i t y of raw materia a l e , cheaper power, e t c . , in a rural area. Aa for examplea of urbanism without urbanization, s u f f i c e i t to say that any individual who haa urban valuea and an urban l i f e - s t y l e carries "urbanism" with him wherever he geea. For some discuaaion on theaa polnta, see United ^iations, "On the L i s t i n c t i o n Between Urban and Rurali National Practices and Recommendations," Uyban Reeeeret^ ^ U i o d s . SL£* 5 i i - # PP« ^72-473i and Lavla and Uolden, "Urbanization and the Uevelopment of Pre-Induatrial Areaa," Cltiea and >>oclety. 2E- .&ii«» P* ^^*
10 Ths moat pertinent work relating to thle area of study was dono by i^sat P. Schwlrlan and John •*. PrrtiB.^7
Their work, whleh Is
a oomparatlva study of urbanism using dsmographle Information, i s presented in "An Aziomatle Theory of Urbanization.*
In an abetract
of the a r t i c l e the authors state< A demogymphle theory of urbanization i s formu. lated through the use of an axiomatic model. Nine variables are i n i t i a l l y Ineluded within the theoretleally closed system.^^ • h l l e t h i s statement of direction eounds quite promising, some basic dlffsrenees in definition and area of study need to be noted.
The authors, at the outset of their presentation, point out
that there are three elaeses of definitions of urbanization. First, urbanization i s regarded ae a process of radiation of ideas and practlcea from urban centers Into surrounding hlnterlande. Second, urbanization i s viewed aa an Increaee in modea of behavior and in problema considered to be eesentlally urban. Finally, urbanization le portrayed ae the process of population concentration in whleh the ratio of the urban population increasee.^9 The study of urbanism In the Texas
S:::A*S,
which i s the eul>-
Jeet of t h i s t h e s i s , generally uses the flrat two portlona of thla definition, while accepting the third portion aa a given fact. Sehwlrian and Prehn etate that they use the third portion only, and 17 Hent P. Sehwlrian and John w. Prehn, "An Axiomatic Theory of Urbanization," American Sociological Review. A A V I I (Uecember, 1962), pp. 612-625. ^bld.. p. 612. ^S^Ibld.
11 thla represents a definite difference In the two atudlee. One other basle dlffsrenoe worthy of note ie that the Sehwlrian and Prehn study is a oooqparatlve etudy that makes use ot county data only. The variables selected by the researchers as Indicators of the relative degrao of urbaniem In eaeh county aret . . • else of county population, pereentaga of the county population urban, rate of county population ehange, median age of county population, pereentaga of county population eixtyflve years and older, median years of sehool eoopleted by persona twenty-five yeara of age and older per county, median fkmlly Ineome for county population, peroentage of employed in agriculture and percentage employed per county in manufacturing.20 Theaa varlablee are uaed aa part of a theoretical aeheme that la modeled after the ideaa of theory conatruetlon of Hana 2etterbeig, ae preaanted in hie book, Oi^ Theory and Verification in Socio logy. ^^ Sehwlrian and Prehn aleo uaa the terminology of Robert Merton and state that their theory is a theory of the "middle range."
They add
that their urbanization theory is a "micro-domain" in the "macrodomain" of demography* Their theory involves the relating of each aeparate variable to eaeh other variable by way of checking the correlation between the varlablea.
Ualng this correlation method, the two varlablee
referring to age of the population were diacardad aa being Incon-
20 Ibid., p. 615
^^Hana 2etterberg, On Theory and Verification in SociolQiUf (Stockholfflt Almqulat and i l d a e l l , 1954).
12 aistmnt with the system of possible hypothoses. The authors then have a closed system of hypothesee relatli% the seven remaining variables to the urbanism of the counties studied. ihlle no other studlee were found that were as elosely related to thle thesis area as the Schwirlan-Prehn study, several were found that warrant laelusloa here. Out of the eleven etudlee (counting the one done by Sehwlrian and Prehn) Included In thla aurvey of the literature aeetlon, five were either authored or co-authored by Otia ii. i>uncan, of the Unlverelty of Miehlgaa. Since this man haa ao greatly contributed to the area of etudy of thle theaia, that of the const ruction of urbanism Indexee, all euoh studies that he has been Involved in will be preeented eontlguously. One of these etudiea relatea retail apaclalization to urbanisation, by elty-aize groi^a.^ Uunean devlaea what he call a an "urbanization curve" and, uelng a apecial formula, finda an "urbanization coefficient" for eaeh retail apaclalization type. Thle aama curve and urbanization coefficient are referred to and uaed by Uunean and Albert Relea, Jr.
in their book. Social Characterlatics of Urban
and Rural oomaunities. 1950.^ as they relate nativity to urbanization and retail and wholesale trade to urbanization. In defining and explaining the urbanization curve and the coefficient of urbanU
22 . Otie u. Uunean, "Urbanization and Retail opecialization," Social Forces. AAA (March, 1952), pp. 267-271. 25 "^Otis D. Uunean and Albsrt Relee, Jr., Social Characterw Istles of Urban and Rural Communities. 1950 (New Yorki John illey and Sons, Inc., 1956), pp. 59-62 and 227-226.
15 aatlon as i t relates to retail s p e e U l l s a t l o a , i^uncan says. The urbanisation curve . . . la obtained by plotting olty-aize groupa, beginning with 'under 2,500,* the cumulative proportion of sales la a given kind of business (Y) against tho cumulative proportion of aalea in a l l klnda of bualneea U ) . • . In general, the greater the departure of the curve below the diagonal, the greater the degree of urbanise^ tlon, and the greater the deviation above ^ e diagonal, the greater the * ruralIzation. **2*» The formula ueed to find the coefficient of urbanization l e , ^"*'i " '*'i-l^ ^^i " ^ 1 1 ^ " * ^* "Here A. i s the eusulative proportion of t o t a l aalea through the i^th c i t y - s i z e group, tini Y^ the emulative proportion of aalee for the given kind of bueineea.^^ Theaa coefficlente of urbanization baaed on the varloue klnda of r e t a i l buainass are then uaed to determine the relative degree of urbanization Inherent in each type of retail trade.
The arbitrary 26 intervale on the coefficient continuum were deeignated ae followet -.20 -.19 -.09 .10 .20
and under to - . 1 0 to .09 to .19 and over
very rural eomewhat rural average somewhat urban very urban
Another aimllar example of thla kind of index la deacribed in Metropolia and Region.^^ a book co-authored by Uunean.
In this book
24 "Urbanization and Specialization, 2k*
JKAII** P*
267.
^^Ibld. 26 Ibid.. p. 266.
Otia i'. Uunean, 9. Richard Scott, Stanley Lieberson, Beverly i^uncan and rial H. iinsborough, ^ t r o p o l i s and i egion (Baltimore t John Hopklne i-reas, I S ^ ) .
14 the urbanisation eurve Is usod to Indleate the degree of urbanisation of e e r U l a Industries,
l a deeorlblng the curves, the authora atatet
Theaa eurvea are eonatrueted by plotting the ousulatlve peroentage distributioa of an industry gro^p against the eusulatod percentage distributioa of a l l workers by the size of the e l t y . ^ The same formula, with some variation, le also used to arrive at the eoeffloient of urbanization. Also in Metropolis and lieglon i s i^at the authore eall the *index of local urbanisation.*
Thle index, idilch i s a aummary
mmaaureaent of the alsa-of-place dietributlon of population in nonmetropolitan SUA*a, waa the only example of an urbaniam index found that waa baaed on SEA data*
The index of local urbanisation was used
in the explanation of the relationship between major patterns of manufacturing and urbanization.
The authore delineate the index as
follows! Thla index waa computed from 1950 cenaua data giving the eize-of-place diatribution of popu» latlon in each atata economic area by the following eategorleat (a) part of the urbanized areai (b) urban place of 50,000 or morei (e) urban place of 25,000 to 50,000; (d) urban place of 10,000 to 25,000; (e) urban place of 2,500 to 10,000; ( f ) rural nonfara; and (g) rural farm. Theaa seven categorlee were assigned arbitrary scores ranging from 1 for (g) to 7 for ( a ) , and the weighted average acora waa cooqputad with proportlone in each category aa weighta.^
^ I b i d . . p. 70 29 I b i d . . pp. 164-165.
19 ^uneaa also relates size to urbanisatioa in "Ooaaimity Size mad tho HuraUUrban Continuum. *^^
In demonstrating the relatloaship
he uses an elaborate breakdown of population according to e l s e .
This
eoamunity s i z e e l a s s i f l e a t i o a i^ich, says Uunean, * . • . stands for the *ruraUurban oontlaiAiS* as an Indepeadont variable,* Is as followst'^^ Urbanized areas 3*000,000 or aore 1,000,000 to 3f000,000 250,000 to 1,000,000 50,000 to 250,000 Places outside the urbanised areas
25,000 or more 10,000 to 25,000 2,500 to 10,000 1,000 to 2,500 imder 1,000 (Incorporated) iionvlllage rural nonfarm farm Uunean then relates several dependent variables that he eays indleate urbaniem to the Independent variable, which la coamunlty-elze. Ineluded in theee varlablee are per cent of employed males in farm oaei^ationa (negative indicator), per cent nonwhite, and per cent foreign-bom white.
He also relatee certain demographic, aocio-
eeonomic and fkmily charactariatica to this breakdown according to
*^^Otie u. Uunean, "Coaanunity Size and the Rural urban Con^ tiauUB," Citiea and Society. SiS.* J2it«# PP- 55-45.
^^ifeii., p. 37.
16 eoattimlty elao.
Theaa inolude per eent male, por eent 69 and over,
intraoounty mobility, per eent high aehool graduatea, i^lte eollar workers as por eent of a l l nonfara workers; median Ineome; per cent married, by sex; per cent f^malee in labor foree; f e r t i l i t y ratio; and average alze of primary ftmlllea.
liany of theaa aame dependent
rarlablea are Ineluded in the tventy^one Indieatora ehoaen for thla thaela. The other atudy done by l>uaean In the area of urbaniam liv dexea la hie "Note on Farm Tenaney and Urbanisation.*^^
In thla
study a relatloaship i s noted between urbanisation and the Incldenee of fkrm tenaney, the form of tenure, and farm characteristics related to tenanoy.
Ifolle admitting that hie offorte in thie partleular area
are crude, Uunean does state ^ a t he finde soma dlacemable correlat i o n s , thus indleatlng that farm tenaney can aerve aa an indicator of urbaniam. Another prominent eociologiet who hae done extenelve work in the study of urbanization le iClngeley Uavle of the Unlveralty of Oallfomia.
Mia worka, which have been mentioned in conjunetlon with
the definition of urbanization preeented earlier in the theaia, are not ae eloeely related to thla partleular aubject aa are the worka of i>unean, Sehwlrian and Prehn.
They do, however, merit mention here,
and two epeelflc articlee will be diacusaad. In one of the a r t i c l e s , "Urbanization and the Uevelopment of
52 Otia U. Uunean, "Mote on Farm Tenaney and Urbanization, Urban Reaearch ^»ethoda. sk* kl^*» PP* 556-561.
17 Pre-IaduatrUl Areas,•^^ whleh Uavls eo-authored with Hilda Herts Ooldoa, an index of urbanlaatloa i s preeented.
In dieeusslng this
ladox the authors s t a t e . One ean use as an index (of urbanisation) the proportion of people in placee of 10,000 and over, 20,000 and over, or ai^ other figure one wlshee. Actually, since there i s a oertain regularity about the pyramid of c i t i e s by s i z e , the proportion in any major else-claae tende to bear a systematic relation to the proportion in other size classes. Thus the peroentage of the pepu> latlon llviag In e l t i e e above 100,000 has a ratio to the pereentaga in placee above 5,000 which la roughly aimllar from one country to another. An index of urbanl^ satlon ie therefore feaaible for comparative purpoeea.54 In the aame a r t i c l e , Uavla and Golden note an inverae oojv relatlon between the degree of agrloultural lam (the per eent of gainfully oeeupled malea in agriculture) and the per eent of population in certain alze c i t l e e , thua leading to the acoeptance by the authore of "agricultureHem" aa a negative indicator of urbaniam. The aame negative relatlonehlp la noted between urbanization, aa indloated by the per cent of population in certain city-size gro^ps, and "agricultural density" (malee employed in agricultural occupations
53" Urbanization and the Uevelopment of Pre-Industrie I Areae," Cities and Society. Sk* il41«» PP* 120-140. - 54 Ib^d.. p. 121ff. For similar applications see Uavls and iillda nertz, "The Uiatribution of Urbanization," uemojJLraphlc Analysis. ed. Joeeph Spongier and Otia i^. Uunean (ulencoet The Free Preaa, 1956) pp. 525-357; and. Jack Oibba and Salter ^^artin, "Urbanization, Technology, and the Uiviaion of Labor* International Pattern," American Sociological Review. AXYII (October, 1962), pp. 667-677-
16 55 per equare mile of agricultural land).''^ I t ie intereetlng to note that iavle and Clolden include agricultural density aa part of a more inelualve "modernization index* which ueea other Indlcatora aimllar to those selected for thle atudy.
Ineluded are noi>»agrioultural employment, agricultural
density, urbanisation, literacy, and per capita Income. In another atudy of aimllar nature, "Urbanization in Latin «36 which Uavie co-authore with Ana Caeia, an Improvement la Amerloa,"'^ made on the idea of indicating the degree of urbanization in an area by the proportion of population in certain clty-aize groxipB. This iiiq>rovement allowe the authora to find a raw number that they call the index of urbaniam.
Thla figure la garnered by adding the per
cent of the total population in (1) cltiea of 5,0004*, (2) c i t i e s of 10,000+, (5) c i t i e s of 25,000+, and c i t i e s of 100,000+.
Then tnis sum-
mation figure is divided by four to get the pure "index of urbanism.* Another Important atudy of urbanism i s that of Stuart A. k\»9n and Uavid Carpenter, which i s presented in their book, T ^ American Clty.^^
In thie book they s t a t e .
Among the taeks we have set for oureelvee in this book are* (1) developing a yard-
^^See iituart A. 4ueen and i^avid B. Carpenter, The American (^^ty (i\ie« Xork» i^caraw-Hill Book Co., 1953)# PP- 55-56 for diecuasion of a aimllar "scale of rurality." ^^ik^ingalay Uavis and Ana oasis, "Urbanization in latin America," C^^^ea and Society. 5£- J£il*» P^* l ^ l - W -^^(iueen and Carpenter, 5£* SH*» PP* 28-33.
19 etiek by which to measure the degree to which any given population ie ecologically urban, 1. e . , the degree to i^lch any given population l i v e s in large population aggregateo of great deneity and occupational dlveraification, and (2) u t i l i z i n g our meaaure of ecological urbaniam in the analyela of thoae variatlona in behavior whleh are elgnlflcantly correlated with varlatlone in poaltlon on the rural-urban continuum.^ The index that they arrive at le aimply the arithmetic mean of ten eeparate measures of urbaniemi^^ 1. 2. 54. 5. 6. 7* 6. 910.
Percentage of population reeident placee of 500,000 or more Percentage of population resident placee of 2^,000 or more Percentage of population reeident placee of 100,000 or more Percentage of population resident places of 50,000 or more Percentage of population resident places of 25,000 or more Percentage of population resident placee of 10,000 or more Percentage of population resident places of 5,000 or more Percentage of population resident places of 2,500 or more Percentage of population resident placee of 1,000 or more Percentage of population resident places of 500 or more
in in in in in in in in in
ur-name volume were com. parable. The one exception to thie rule was sex ratio. This exception wae made because the ^tate figures for white sex ratio is 96.4 and the Spanish sur-name figure i s 9^.6.
ril I"' inii BUM
[IJf
26 Table 1 — Peroentage Anglo, Spanleh eur^name, and nonwhite for atata aeonoaie areae of Texae, I96O.
Percentagee
sia Anglo 1 2
76.96% 65.64% 69.96% 94.69% 72.71% 73.99% 69.73% 31.40% 62.66%
2.00% 5.25% .91% 2.66% 5.75% 4.69% 2.57% 16.96% 50.95% 16.429^ 5-97% 26.49% 29.26% 17.64% .56%
92.95% 65.61% 61.60% 76.64% 74.91> 55.68% 91.9^ 76.64% 91.9^ 90.27% 61.11% 70.10% 57.5C»& 91.67% 89.47%
43.56% 5.46% 5.46% 5.20% 12.29% 57.^0% 6.05% 2.65% 2.66% 2.7C^ 10.68% 8.46% 58.08% 1.67% 5.55%
^*^^%
10.71% 14.92% 16.16% 12.60% 6.92% 20.50% 20.71% 5.57% 7.05% 6.01% 21.44% 4.62% 6.26% 4.98%
7%*5*
l6.78Jt
10-50*
5 4 5 6
7
9^.n%
15
14 15 16
A B C u ik
F
a
H J IL L M »
0 P
...n
nonwhite
52«69% 16.15% 71.56% 7*59% 10.72% 6.20% 2,66% 4.06% 5.65% 15.6C^ 41.56% .60% 1.15% 12.65% 66.04% 54.69%
65,59?^ 76.62% 27.71% 69.55% 85.55% 66.91%
6 9 10 11 12
Spanleh aur-name
2.4l»t 11! III!
Sn»
r HI
r" ltd I
w
29 Method of Finding Anglo (^ild-ioman Ratio of Si^A Area i h l t e C-W r a t i o
Area f h l t e % of Total Population
White Impact on C i Ratio, All Claaaes
State CM Ratio for Spanleh
Area Spanleh % of Total Population
Spanish Impact on C-ff Ratio All olassee
Area Anglo Child-Aoman Ratio
Area Anglo 'M of Total Population
Anglo Impact on CLN Ratio All Classes
S p e c i f i c Indicator Scales The 21 e p e e l f l c Indieatore s e l e c t e d for uee i n t h i e study were choeen because, according to prevalent theory, they d i f f e r e n t i a t e between rural and urban waye of l i f e .
The indicator s c a l e s are ueed
t o l l l u e t r a t e graphically the differencee between the 31 SSA'e on the various i n d i c a t o r s , and thus allow the eventual ranking of the SSA's by t h e i r r e l a t i v e degree of urbaniem.
An example of a e p e e l f l c
indicator ecale i s given in Figure 3 .
•(••
fill
number being determined by the rank tied for.
To illuatrate such a
eatore, and thie value will rank them firet in degree of urbaniem on the Indicator ecale, then both receive one point toward their cumu-
EI'lln\ rIII I
in I
Bill
ifii I
lative t o t a l . The pointe garnered by each ^^iA on every specific indicator are then added to obtain a cumulative total for each -EA.
This
ctBaulative figure i s ueed to determine the relative rank of each -iA on the Index of Urbaniem deacribed earlier in this paper.
Thus, the
Index of urbanism i s a composite of the relative rank of each i^EA on every ecale.
Thie composite rank is a much more precise measure of
the degree of urbaniem preeent in each SE-A than could be obtained
mI I '
by ualng arbitrarily aelected and valued breaking pointe on the scales.
CHAPTER III SfiLSCTKU IMUICATORS Students of rural and urban sociology have traditionally aeeepted oertain varlablee as being indieatore of the degree to which a segment of the population ie either rural or urban. The measurement of the rather nebuloue quality of "urbaniam* haa alwaya been difficult and, beeauae of the tremendoue Influence of the urban culture on the rural culture, thla difficulty of meaeurement la Inoroaaing.
Neverthelesa, ualng certain Indieatore, one ean etill
discern baaic differencee in the two eulturea. Ihe eelected varlablea used in thie atudy were choeen with reference to their ability to diacriminate between urban and rural waye of life.
Current literature in the areae of urban and rural
eociology waa perused in an effort to locate every general dependent
5i
variable that dooe dlecrlminate.
Alao, the suggeationa of Ur. W. Q.
Xii|
Stegllch, Head of the uepartment of Sociology at Texas Technological
r
college, aa to iixe importance of certain indieatore, were heeded. Twenty^one epeelflc Indieatore in eight general dependent
Ill I
j[J[j
I
Mil
variable areas were finally eelected for t h i s etudy.
The eight
|[IM
If It I' i|'
areae include income, sex compoaition, f e r t i l i t y , age diatribution.
^wo other approaches to etudies of rural-urban differences are* John L. Haer, "Coneervatism-Radicallsm and the Rural-Urban Contlnuws,* Rural Sociology. AVII (i>ocember, 1952), pp. 543-3^7; and Howard «. Beers, "Rural-Urban Uifferencee* Some Evidence from iublic Opinion P o l l s , " Rural Sociology. A V I I I (March, 1955), PP- l - U .
54
55 education, n a t i v i t y , occupation, and houeehold s i z e , fiaoh of theee general areae and the e p e e l f l c indieatora in eaeh area w i l l be d l e cueeed i n the order given above. Ineome
Rural incomee in the United Statee have a 1 waye been lower than urban incomes.
This fact i s v e r i f i e d , a t l e a e t back through
1910, by Paul Landis, wno l i e t e , in Rural Life in Process.^ the per capita net income from 1910 to 1946 for both farm and nonfarm pereone. Wever i n t h i e period of ^6 yeare i s the per capita income of ftrm pereone even one h a l f of the nonfarm ineome.
H i e L. vuncan and
Albert J. Relss carry t h i s v e r i f i c a t i o n even further in Social ^Iftractarlatlof of Urban and Rural Communities. 1950.^ as they point •I
out median income differences by s i z e of p l a c e , according to age and
|!!jj 11»
eex.
In every
age group there l e the e a s i l y discernible direct
relatlonehlp between s i z e of place and income. Alvin Soakoff brlnga proof of the rural-urban income d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n up to date in h i s book. The Sociology of Urban Regions.^ as
HI
v\ u\ ITU I
m
lip
he compares family median Income by residence c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , according to age of head of household, family a l z e , and number of earnera
2 Paul Landia, Rural i*ife in Proceee (A^OW lork* Book Co., 194b;, p. 381.
"^cUraw-Hlll
'^Social Characteristics of orban and i^ural communities. 1950. op. c l t . . p . 104. Alvin Soskoff, The >JOclolo£y of Urban Regions (New Xork* Appleton-century Crofte, 1962), p. 7 9 .
[||U
present in 1959.
Again, in every category, urban median incomee were
higher than rural median incomes. More evldenee ie eupplled by Boekoff as he says, . . . urban populations have smaller proportionate eharee of low Income brackete (under 44000) and larger eharee of higher incomee (t10,000 and over^, compared to farm and euburban or fringe populations. The different i a l i s greateet between urban and farm populatione, ae we would expect.^ Thus there le ample evidence that thie variable does different i a t e between urban and rural areas.
The specific indieatore selected
for t h i e study were family median income ( a l l classes), male median Ineome ( a l l c l a s s e e ) , and female aedian Income ( a l l c l a s s e s ) .
Ae
these indicators are examined, i t ahould be remembered that they are for a l l classes.
The large discrepanclee that exlet between the in-
comee of subgroups in the population ehould be considered.
State
figuree for ^^panieh sur-name median income in I960 were 42,257 for malee, and «1,000 for females.
Comparable figures for nonwhitee,
, 'I y^\ IH'i (J ilir
i^ni
I ij
in I calculated as the mean of the siuA valuee, were 11866 and #777-
I* inn M
Sex Composition
iniii
Traditionally there have been obvious differences between the eex compoeition of rural and urban areas.
Usually this difference
hae been in the direction of high sex ratios in the rural areas and
^Ibld.. p. 77. For even more discussion and evidence on income aee The American City. Sk* J i l * • P^* 214-216; *alter w Solcum, Agricultural J>ociology (Wow iork* Harper and Brothere, 1962), p. l65; and, uarl Taylor and Othere, Hi^yal Life in the United i»tates (i^ew York* Alfred A. Anopf, 1992), p. 296.
57 eomparatlvmly lower ratios for urban areaa.
Boekoff haa the following
to way concerning thle varlatlont Focusing on the United -tatea, we find that urban areae tend to have conelatently lower sex ratios than rural areaa. indeed, the urban eex ratio has declined in succeeelve decades . • .^ Uist and Halbert point out the differences as follows* - . . there le an excess of females in most c i t i e s and a deflolt in rural areas, although in the general population the sexes are about equal.' Before eex eoapoeition can be aeeepted ae a dependent variable in thie study, however, further explanatlone muet qualify the usage. These explanatlone concern the differential sex ratios for ethnic subgroi^e in the population, for various types of c i t l e e , and for age categorlee of the population,
i-irat, the differential ratioo for
population eubgroupa will be examined.
fc' ittir
Km ^groea (who conatltute 96% of Texaa* nonwhite population®),
JjJ KI
when the Cenaua deeignatione of urban, rural nonfarm and rural farm
i^l |IMI •Ikii I
"Boekoff, p. 6^* Aleo see The Urban Community, by i^els Anderson, Sik* £lk*> PP* 138-139; Rural Life in the united s t a t e e . sik* c l t . . pp. 2>0-23l; Rural Life in Process. 0£. . s i i . , pp. 29-33; Janet Aba-Lughod, "Urban-Rural Uifferences as a i unction of the i^etcographic Tranaition* Egyptian i^ta and an Analytical ^odel," American Journal of ^QcioloK:y. L/vIA (.ifiarch, 1964>, p. 467, and Uonald Bogue, "Urbanism in the United s t a t e s , 1950," ^ e r i c a n Journal of Sociology. AL (March, 1955), pp. 471-466. ^Hoel P. tfiat and L. A. Halbert, Urban Society (4th ed. rev.; Hew Xork* Thomas I. Crowell Co., 1956), p. 252. a
R. i-. SkrabanoK, -^ i>ecade of iopulation Change in Texaa. ^boperative ujcteneion ««ori< in Agriculture and Home Economics, Texas A Jfr M University and United ;:>tate8 uepartment of Agriculture cooperating (u>llege •station, Texas, 1963)« P« 23-
irtji J'" (!,('
58 are eiqployed, have a emaller range of eex ratio values than do the whitee.
Alao, this range le lower than ie the range of sex ratio
valuee for whitee.
Theee dlfforencea are noted by both Boekoff and
Ulat and Halbert.'^
They point out that, in 1950, in the urban census
c l a e a l f i c a t l o a , Magroea in the United Statea had a eex ratio of 90.0 ae compared to 94.9 for whites, while in the rural claaslficatlon the comparable figuree were 101.7 for ^egroea and 111.4 for whitee. Skrabanek givee the state sex ratio figure of 99 for whitee and 95 for nonwhitee in 1960.^^ This further emphaaizea the differences between the nonwhite and white subgroups. The other large ethnic subgroup, the i^tin-Amerlcane, do not demonetrate euch variance.
In fact, the sex ratio figuree for Spanleh
aur-name and white eubgroupa are nearly the aame—96.4 for Letina and 98.6 for whites.^ The fact that the white and Spanleh figures were
^1
J[;[! tit
identical made possible the omission of the procedures whereby an Anglo sex ratio would be found. Aleo to be considered in evaluating t h i s variable are the different typee of urban areas in Texas.
Boekoff, in discussing
these differences, aaya*
Within tho same society, urban aex ratioa likewise f a l l into eeveral types, industrial c i t i e s and * military' citiea . . .
^Boekoff, 2k* Mi*» P* ^^* ®"*^ ^^^"^ *"^ Halbert, sk* SUL* » p. 25p. '^Iso see Uvmcan and Reiss, ££. joXk*» PP* 64-65. 10 ^dkrabanek, Sk* £lif» P* ^^* ^^^aniah Sur-name volume, 5£* i i i * * ^^'^ Census, Part 45, Texae, SJH. c i t .
i';;[ till
M
I
^9 have relatively high eex ratloe. Un the other extreme, commercial and adminlatratlve centere tend to have rather low eex ratioa . . . " Age category aex ratio differentiala muet aleo be noted*
Uun-
ean and Relea, who dlacuee theee difference, at length, uee 1950 ceneue data to Illuatrate the fluctuatione*^^
They point out that the rural-
f^rm eex ratio variee from peak valuea of 133 at age 19 and 130 at agee 69-74 to minimiA valuee of 98 at agee 28-32.
This reeult comparee with
the urban eex ratio which never goee higher than the sex ratio at birth figure (which le around 106;, and eventually f a l l e to 54.1 at age 85. Only at the time of birth are the two figures commensurate. Thus we can see that theee differentUl rates need to be coneldered in any valid use of sex compoeition as a dependent variable of urbaniem.
The epeelflc indieatore used in thie study were white
eex ratio, nonwhite eex ratio, and sex ratio of the working population
nl
tilt
m%
(agee 19-64) for a l l elaaees.
lii'll
Fertility
| ! «l I •km I
Concerning rural-urban differentials in f e r t i l i t y , Clyde Kieer eays, "Urban-rural differentials in f e r t i l i t y in thie country probably 14 exieted even in Colonial times." He then graphically deplete theee
12 Boekoff, ^ .
c i t . . p. 6^» also see p. 94 for added explana-
tlon. 15,Uunean and Reiss, Sk* clt-« pp- 52-55. i t l i * , p- ^» and i^indis, ^ . c i t . . pp. pl-32.
^^Iso see Boekoff, op.
14 V'lyde V. Aieer, "Lifferential Fertility in the United States," i^eiiOkraphic ana economic '^nani^e in developed Countries. Haticnal
i!|l sni
40 differencee for the United SUtee and i t e regions from 1800 to 1950, u«lng ae a meaeure "children under five per 1,000 white women, agee 20-44," by plaee of reeldenoe.
In no Inetance are the rates the same
for the rural and urban reeldence categories.^^ All etudlee done in thle area evidence this same trend,^^ a U thougli eome demographere do qualify their findings somewhat.
Since
thie variable is of euch iiaportanee to this atudy, aome of theee quallfleationo need to be noted in order that the results obtained can be more e a s i l y understood. I l r e t , a eriticiem by Lee Taylor and Arthur Jones, Jr., be noted.
will
In thie criticism, which i s aimed at moot etudlee done in
the area of f e r t i l i t y , they etate* In a demographic etudy of rural l i f e , i t becomes apparent that there hae not been a coneletent effort to hold cunstant the differential effeete on f e r t i l i t y by occupation, education, and ineome, in contract to the ecological location
tjj[ !tn|! m* ^*'^'
jrj nii!i
Bureau of Economic Reaearch (Princeton*
' rineeton Unlveralty Press,
I960), p. 78. ^^l^M*» PP- 7 9 - 8 1 . ^^See Ulet and Halbert, sk* c i t . - pp. 235-240; lyde V. Kieer, " F e r t i l i t y Trends and i^ifferentials in the united Statee," Uemographle Analyala. OP. c i t . . pp. 162-163; tee Taylor and Arthur R. Jonee, J r . , Rural Life and orbanized ^^ociety (Mew ^ork* Oxford University Preee, 1964J, pp. 3Su->3l; Landia, ^ . siXk*» PP* 42-57; Hural Life i n the Ufiited a t a t e a . Sk* c i t . . pp. 2y>2>9; The Urban Community. £ £ . . £ i l . , pp. 139-142; Uunean and h e i s a , sik* icii*» PP* 53* 4 8 - 5 1 , and I 4 l - l 4 2 j Boekoff, iaj.. c i t . . pp. 82-87; •^locum, ^£,, .fiil-» PP- 40-42; T. J. *ooft e r , "Trende in i ural and Urban F e r t i l i t y Rates," UxianJiftSaaifik Methods. 2B* c i t . . pp- 526-533; A. J. J a f f e , "Urbanization and Kert i l i t y , " American Journal of Sociology. AAA-vYiII(July, 1942), pp. 4 6 60; and, James H. ^^pp ( e d . ) , our ChanKin>; Rural Society* PfffffP^C^^ves and Trends (^taes, Iowa* Iowa State Univereity Prees, 1964), p. 179.
m\ afjjl
41 of the married pair . . . i t may well be that even thoee diminiehing differences whleh e t l l l obtain in the f e r t i l i t y rates of rural and urban people ean be better explained by oeeupatlon and education than by rural and urban reeldence.^7 Another characteriatlc of the f e r t i l i t y rate that muet be coneiderad i s the differential ratee for population eubgroups.
The two
large aubgroiq>a, iMigro and Wtin-American, were again examined to discern any differences between their f e r t i l i t y ratee and the rate for whitee.
Uiecrepanelea were found, thua forcing a eonelderatlon of
the proportion of eaeh SEA population In either of these groupe. Uelng the Spanleh sur-name data, the State child-woman ratio for ^tln-Americane wae found to be 619-
^His figure ie higher than
even the nonwhite figure, which, for the SEA*s of Texae, had a mean value of 716.
Therefore, using the procedure demonstrated in the
methodology chapter, the proportion of the population in each SEA with a Spanleh sur-name was allowed for by finding the Anglo child-
I" |H
woman ratio for eacia i^^* ^ne laet qualification ehould be made concerning urban-rural population d i f f e r e n t i a l s .
The gap between the rates of the two
cultures appeare to be diminiehing.
17
Cobb eaye of this*
Taylor and Jones, j ^ . s i l . , p- 551-
Ifi
These figurea were derived from Census volumes cited e a r l i e r . i-or other evidence of these ethnic variations see Gist and Halbert, kk* .aiJt.# PP* 2^0-241; Kieer, JJifa^Qgraphic Analysis. ££. j ^ - , p- 176; U e e r , Uemographle and Economic Change in i^eveloppd Ooun\r\n» kk* c i t . , p. 66-69; and Robert Bumight, i^athan Whetten, and Bruce .iaxman, •UiffOrential hural-urban F e r t i l i t y in Mexico," Affoyipar^ ^9
