Recent news about rural population trends reminded me of a line from a Tom Stoppard play. We’ll return to the exact spot later, but for now, the rub of it is that the proportion of U.S. urban populations declined slightly from 2010 to 2020, while the proportion of U.S. rural populations increased during the same period. Yet while the narrative is good news, the changes seem to be less about people moving in or out of rural and urban places and more about how the Census Bureau defines “rural.” So, while this may affect perception, it does not fundamentally affect the imperative for rural spaces to continue to build growth strategies.
Specifically, the Census Bureau (1) increased from 2,500 to 5,000 people the population threshold at which a place moves from rural to urban; (2) decreased from 2.5 to 1.5 miles “jump distance,” which describes road lengths connecting urban areas with rural places, and (3) eliminated the separate “urbanized areas” and “urban cluster” categories. In sum, the Census Bureau changes tally more places as rural.
Metrics are funny things. Programs and policies can live or die based on seemingly arbitrary definitions. In 2021, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget proposed to increase the minimum population of metropolitan statistical areas from 50,000 to 100,000. NTCA advised against the change, since it could risk mistaking stable conditions in high-population places with less stable conditions in smaller places. Stated differently, if lower population places were to be lumped with large places that are doing well, people might assume that things are going swimmingly in the smaller places, too, and be less inclined to develop vital policies that support those smaller spaces.
This type of definitional meandering should be familiar. Those with a sharp broadband memory will recall a time when suddenly millions of Americans who had access to broadband one day did not have access on the following day. Not because their provider went out of business; not because they cut the cord; not because they forgot the pay the bill, but because the FCC upgraded the definition of broadband from 4/1 to 25/3.
Definitional changes that don’t change realities bring to mind the wordplay in Stoppard’s work. In Rosencrantz and Guildenstern Are Dead, two characters, not even sure whether they are alive, puzzle over their being on a boat. One asks each other, “Do you think death could possibly be a boat?” “No, no, no . . .” the other replies. “Death is . . . not. Death isn’t. You take my meaning. Death is the ultimate negative. You can’t not-be on a boat.”
It's not yet clear whether the Census Bureau redefinitions will affect policy (realities) as much as it may affect perceptions. Left unchanged are the needs to develop strategies to grow rural spaces – regardless of whether they are home to 2,500 people or 5,000 people, or whether they are 1.5 or 2.5 miles from urban areas. McKinsey & Company, a New York-based research and consulting firm, recently published “Rural Rising: Economic Development Strategies for America’s Heartland.” The article touches on many of the issues we’ve discussed in this blog (and its predecessor incarnations) over the years: There is no single “rural America” (if you’ve seen one rural place, you’ve seen . . . one rural place); strategies should focus on “silver buckshot,” as opposed to the elusive silver bullet; jobs, access to healthcare, and good schools are critical for rural spaces. Notably, McKinsey emphasizes the value of recruiting (and retaining) small and medium sized businesses. The factory that opens 500 new jobs might be a gold mine, but the greater likelihood is that the “silver buckshot” of numerous smaller employers will offer diversified economic stability for the community.
A final point: People are paying attention to rural. Pundits can debate what inspired the shift, but rural investment is a growing topic of interest across many sectors. And even if the extent of post-COVID migrations into rural areas is still being measured, there is little debate that broadband opens opportunities in rural spaces and that public and private sector investments are poised for action. So, whether rural is defined one way or another, the imperatives (and opportunities) remain – and interest in building them is strong.