RURAL-URBAN 



SECTION V 



MIGRATION IN RELATION TO 

 QUALITY • 



LAND 



The back-to-tlie-land iiiovempnt diirino: the depres- 

 sion years has had a jnost profound sisrnificance in the 

 light of both long-time and emergency programs for 

 land-use planning and population redistribution. A 

 study recently comjjlcted by the land [)olicy section in 

 cooperation with the study of ])opulation redistribution 

 of the Wliarton School of Finance and Commerce - 

 shows an unmistakable inverse relationsliip between 

 the volume of rural-urban migration and tlic (|uality of 

 agricultural land. 



The conclusions of this study indicate that the poorer 

 subsistence farming areas, many of wliich are well- 

 known problem areas, lost larger proportions of their 

 population than good land areas during the period of 

 industrial activity from 1922 to 1920, and gained larger 

 proportions during the subsequent depression. J'ur- 

 thermore, the poorer the land, the greater were the 

 recent increases in population, especially in areas suit- 

 able for subsistence farming. Tliese increases are the 

 result of two separate influences; namely, (1) Cessation 

 of the normal city -ward flow of excess farm population, 

 and (2) actual migration from the city to the country. 

 Regardless of the comparative importance of these two 

 influences, it is apparent that many people, during the 

 depression, have acted on the assumption that the 

 country offered them greater economic opportunity 

 than did the city. It is particularly significant that an 

 important proportion of these people moved to areas, 

 not too remote from industrial and urban centers, 

 where opportunity existed for a subsistence type of 

 farming. Such areas are characteristically poor for 

 commercial agriculture, and offer meager prospects for 

 an adequate li%-ing. It follows logically that, as indus- 

 trial activity* is resumed, the people least favorably 

 situated in the rural areas are most likely to migrate to 

 the cities. 



During the present and preceding depressions the 

 land has provided a partial shock absorber for industrial 

 unemployment. This study shows conclusively that 



' By Kenneth H. Parsons, Land Policy Section. Agricultural Adjustment Ad- 

 ministration. 



' \ summary of ttii? study may he found in the Land Policy Review, VoL 1, Xo. 2. 

 March lO^.^l. monthly luiblication of the Land Policy Section, Program Planning Di- 

 vision of the Agricultural Adjustment Administration. \ more extended discu.ssion 

 of this stUiiy may he found in Supplement No. 1, of the Land Policy Review, June 

 1935, with accompanying maps and charts The complete treatise of this study is 

 to be published by the Wharton School of Finance and Commerce, Study of Popula- 

 tion Redistribution. 



ui the current depression the poorer subsistence fiirni- 

 ing areas have played the dominant role. A progiiim 

 designed to rehabilitate these back-to-the-land mi- 

 grants must recognize that the rural areas to which a 

 liirge ])iirt of these migrants have retreated are not 

 areas in which they would desu-e to stay, or should l)e 

 mduced to stay, witli a return to prosperity. In such 

 areas rehabilitiition efforts would be most likely to ftiil. 

 Furthermore, a program designed to prevent occupancy 

 of such areas must be accompanied by other provisions 

 for the economic security of the people affected. 



The above conclusions are based upon an analysis 

 of available annual school census data for States con- 

 ttiining a sizeable group of agricultural counties.' 

 Though changes in the number of children of school 

 age (usually from 6 to 20 years) will not correspond 

 exactly with changes in total population, the discrep- 

 ancies generally would not be sufficient to invalidate 

 the inferences drawn. Agricultiu-al counties were 

 arbitrarily considered to be those in which the rural- 

 farm population in 1930 represented more than 50 per- 

 cent of the total population. For each State, data on 

 agricultural counties so defined were arrayed according 

 to gross farm income per rural farm inhabitant in 1929, 

 and divided into quartiles. In most States where the 

 land and climate are adapted to subsistence farming, 

 the lowest or poorest quarter of counties, as classified 

 according to farm income, corresponds very closely to 

 the areas designated in this report, and in the recent 

 summary report of the National Resources Board, as 

 areas in which a substantial part of the land should be 

 permanently retired from arable farming. In general, 

 the division of agricultural counties into four groups, 

 on the basis of income per person in 1929, classified the 

 counties broadly according to land quality. To the 

 extent that this is true, the conclusions stated above 

 are valid, and may further be considered as applicable 

 to similar areas not included in the scope of this analysis. 



With little exception, the lowest-income counties 

 include well-known problem areas. In the poorest 

 quarter of counties, representing 21 percent of the 

 school census of all agricultural counties, in the five 



' Information was secured for many more States, but for the pnriwscs of this rei>ort 

 it seems advi.sahlc to limit the discussion to the followins l-V Iowa, Kansas, Ken- 

 tucky, Miehigiin, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio. Oklahoma, South 

 Dakota, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. 



53 



