54 



Land Planning Report 



Middle Western States (Iowa, Missouri, Wisconsin, 

 Michigan, and Obio), school population decreased 

 about 10 percent from 1922 to 1929, and incrensed 

 about 7 percent from 1929 to 1933. In the best 

 quarter of counties school population declined only 4 

 percent between 1922 and 1929, and increased only 2 

 percent between 1929 and 1933. Slight decreases in 

 all groups since 1933 are apparent. 



Changes in the school census of agricultural counties 

 in these five States have been generally similar in direc- 

 tion, though different in degree. The most extreme 

 change occurred in the low-income counties of Michi- 

 gan. In this group, the census fell more from 1922 to 

 1929 and has risen more since 1929 than that of any 

 comparable group of counties in the other four States. 

 This may be attributed to the comparative nearness of 

 large industrial centers, the wide fluctuations in em- 

 ployment characteristic of the major industries of the 

 area, and the availabihty for "squatting" and subsist- 

 ence farming of cheap land generally undesirable for 

 commercial agriculture. The school census for this 

 poorest Michigan group declined 21.1 percent from 1922 

 to 1929, and increased 16.1 percent from 1929 to 1934. 

 In marked contrast with the Michigan figiu-es are those 

 for Iowa for the same period. Unquestionably the 

 high quality of Iowa land, the stability of prevailing 

 types of farming, and the relatively greater distances 

 of most of the State from large industrial centers ex- 

 plain the greater stabihty of Iowa's rural population. 

 In this State, the lowest income group of counties 

 showed only a 6-percent decline in rural population 

 from 1922 to 1929, and a tendency to level off after 

 1930. 



In Wisconsin and Ohio the rural population of all 

 four groups from 1922 to 1929 increased at relatively 

 uniform rates. WhUe the proportionately greater 

 increase for the poorer Ohio counties since 1929 is quite 

 obvious, that for the correspondmg counties in Wiscon- 

 sin is partially concealed by the fact that the reversal 

 in trend did not take place until 1930. The more 

 obvious increases in Ohio further support the assump- 

 tion that nearness to industrial centers influences the 

 migration of people to relatively poor subsistence farm- 

 ing areas in times of industrial depression. A further 

 significant fact in this connection is shown by the pro- 

 nounced dip, since 1933, in the rural census of all 

 groups of counties for all States except Iowa. These 

 dips are in pronounced inverse relationship to the trend 

 of industrial employment for the same period. In 

 Missouri the declines were shnilar for all groups from 

 1920 to 1929, but the two poorest groups have each 

 seen sharp increases since 1929. In 1934 the rural 

 census of the second poorest group of agricultural 

 counties in this State reached the highest level in 14 



years, while that of the poorest group closely ap- 

 proached the peak for the same period. In this State, 

 the declines in rural population since 1933 are some- 

 what less pronounced thnn those shown for Michigan 

 and Ohio. 



The poorest groups of agricultural counties in Ken- 

 tucky and West Virginia show population trends essen- 

 tially similar to those of the comparable group of coun- 

 ties in Michigan, except that declines prior to 1929 

 were decidedly less pronounced. Since 1929, however, 

 the increases in population in these counties have been 

 very pronounced. The relative stability prior to the 

 depression may be accounted for in part by the high 

 birth rate in these areas. This factor also contributes 

 somewhat to the great increases since 1929. However, 

 the birth rate can hardly account for all the recent 

 increases in the census of these areas. This is especially 

 true of West Virginia, where the increase since 1929 

 was 26.7 percent. Apparently large numbers of people 

 have migrated to these counties, probably from nearby 

 industrial centers. While the poorest groups of coun- 

 ties have not shown actual decreases in population 

 ^vith the expansion of business activity since 1933, as 

 was the case with Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri, they 

 liave shown a significant deceleration in the rate of 

 increase. 



Farm income does not provide as accurate an index 

 of land quality in the five Great Plains States as in 

 the States previously discussed. The differences in 

 income per rural farm inhabitant, as between the 

 lower and higher income groups of counties in these 

 States, reflect other factors as well as variations in 

 land quality. Differences in the density of popula- 

 tion, in the prevailing types of farming, and in the 

 variation of rainfall and other climatic factors from 

 year to year, perhaps have as great an influence on 

 Lacome per farm inhabitant as does the relative qualitj^ 

 of the land. In this area, trends in the census are 

 almost the reverse of those described for the Middle 

 West and for Kentucky and West Virginia. This 

 difference may be attributed in part to the greater 

 distance from industrial centers, but chiefly to the 

 fact that the land and climate of the Great Plains 

 States are not generally adapted to subsistence farm- 

 ing. An exception is seen in Oklahoma, where much 

 land is not only adapted to subsistence farming, but 

 has long been used in this way. In this State the 

 declines in rural population prior to 1929, and the 

 increases subsequent to 1929, most nearly resemble 

 those sho\vn for similar areas in Michigan. In 

 Nebraska, on the other hand, good land areas showed 

 gains, wliile poor land areas showed losses throughout 

 the period covered by the study. Kansas, however, 

 showed a tendency to reverse in all groups after 1929. 



