research paper on rural poverty

Rural Poverty: Research and Policy for U.S. Families

• First Online: 07 March 2020

Cite this chapter

• Ann R. Tickamyer 7  

Part of the book series: National Symposium on Family Issues ((NSFI,volume 10))

646 Accesses

3 Citations

The depth and breadth of rural poverty in the United States have been recognized but misunderstood and neglected for as long as poverty statistics have been collected. Over 50 years ago a government commission on The People Left Behind examined issues of the severity of rural poverty and issued recommendations for actions to counter it. Yet, half a century later many of the problems remain, and the policies for addressing them are still relevant but unrealized. In the current time of social and political polarization that appears to partly reflect a rural and urban divide, there has been new attention to the causes and consequences of economic distress among rural families and communities. However, the issues remain under-examined and relatively obscure for scholars, policy makers, and the public. This chapter examines the depth, extent, forms, and locations of rural poverty; its social and geographic diversity; its causes and correlates; reasons for neglect; and obstacles to designing policies and programs to address rural poverty and economic distress. The chapter concludes with suggestions for moving a rural poverty research and policy agenda forward.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Subscribe and save.

• Get 10 units per month
• Download Article/Chapter or eBook
• 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
• Cancel anytime
• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Climbing up the Ladder and Watching Out for the Fall: Poverty Dynamics in Rural Bangladesh

Why is Poverty Higher in Rural America According to the Supplemental Poverty Measure? An Investigation of the Geographic Adjustment

Bringing Context to Poverty in Rural Rwanda: Added Value and Challenges of Mixed Methods Approaches

Alexander, J. T., Andersen, R., Cookson, P. W., Jr., Edin, K., Fisher, J., Grusky, D. B., … Varner, C. (2017). A qualitative census of rural and urban poverty. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 (1), 143–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716217714156

Article   Google Scholar  

Biddle, C., & Mette, I. (2017). Education and information. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 322–338). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Google Scholar  

Billings, D. B., & Blee, K. M. (2000). The road to poverty: The making of wealth and hardship in Appalachia . New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Billings, D. B., & Tickamyer, A. R. (1993). Uneven development in Appalachia. In T. Lyson & W. Falk (Eds.), Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America (pp. 7–29). Lawrence, KS: Kansas University Press.

Bishaw, A., & Posey, K. G. (2016). Comparison of rural and urban America: Household income and poverty. Census Blogs . Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/random-samplings/2016/12/a_comparison_of_rura.html

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., & Katz, L. F. (2016). The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. American Economic Review, 106 (4), 855–902.

Chetty, R., Hendren, N., Kline, P., & Saez, E. (2014, November). Where is the land of opportunity? The geography of intergenerational mobility in the United States. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129 , 1553–1623.

Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Massey, D. S. (2008). Neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency: A reconsideration of the moving to opportunity experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 114 (1), 107–143.

Clark, W. A. V. (2008). Reexamining the Moving to Opportunity study and its contribution to changing the distribution of poverty and ethnic concentration. Demography, 45 (3), 515–535.

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Duncan, C. M. (2014). Worlds apart: Poverty and politics in rural America (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Edin, K., & Schaefer, H. L. (2015). $2.00 a day: Living on almost nothing in America . Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.

Falk, W. W., Schulman, M. D., & Tickamyer, A. R. (2003). Communities of work: Rural restructuring in local and global contexts . Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC). (2018). 2018 Broadband deployment report .Retrieved from https://www.fcc.gov/reports-research/reports/broadband-progress-reports/2018-broadband-deployment-report

Fisher, G. M. (1992). The development and history of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 55 (4), 3–14. Retrieved from http://www.socialsecurity.gov/history/fisheronpoverty.html

PubMed   Google Scholar  

Fisher, G. M. (2008). Remembering Mollie Orshansky—The developer of the poverty thresholds. Social Security Bulletin, 68 (3). Retrieved from https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v68n3/v68n3p79.html

Fitchen, J. (1995). Spatial redistribution of poverty through migration of poor people to depressed rural communities. Rural Sociology, 60 (2), 181–201.

Fox, L. (2017). The supplemental poverty measure: 2016 (Report No. P60-261). U.S. Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2017/demo/p60-261.html

Green, G. P. (2017). The opportunities and limits of economic growth. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 416–438). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Harvey, M. (2011). Welfare reform and household survival: The interaction of structure and network in the Rio Grande Valley, Texas. Journal of Poverty, 15 (1), 43–64.

Harvey, M. (2017). Racial inequalities and poverty in rural America. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 141–162). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Housing Assistance Council. (2012). Taking stock: Rural people, poverty, and housing in the 21st Century . Washington, DC: Housing Assistance Council. http://www.ruralhome.org/storage/documents/ts2010/ts_full_report.pdf

Jensen, L., & Ely, D. (2017). Measures of poverty and implications for portraits of rural hardship. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 67–83). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Jensen, L., & Jensen, E. B. (2011). Employment hardship among rural men. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 40–59). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Johnson, K. (2017). Where is rural America and who lives there? In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 3–27). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Krause, E., & Reeves, R. V. (2017). Rural dreams: Upward mobility in America’s countryside . Washington, DC: Center on Children and Families at Brookings. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2017/08/es_20170905_ruralmobility.pdf

Lewis, O. (1959). Five families: Mexican case studies in the culture of poverty . New York: Basic Books.

Lewis, O. (1966). The culture of poverty. Scientific American, 215 (4), 19–25.

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Lichter, D. T. (2018, March 21). The demography of rural poverty since the people left behind . Washington, DC: Presentation at the Rural Policy Research Institute 2018 Rural Poverty Research Conference.

Lichter, D. T., & Jensen, L. (2002). Rural America in transition: Poverty and welfare at the turn of the 21st century. In B. A. Weber, G. J. Duncan, & L. A. Whitener (Eds.), Rural dimensions of welfare reform (pp. 77–112). Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Institute Press.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Lichter, D. T., & Ziliak, J. P. (2017, July). The rural-urban interface: New patterns of spatial interdependence and inequality in America. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 , 6–25.

Ludwig, J., Duncan, G. J., Gennetian, L. A., Katz, L. F., Kessler, R. C., Kling, J. R., & Sanbonmatsu, L. (2013). Long-term neighborhood effects on low-income families: Evidence from moving to opportunity. American Economic Review, 103 (3), 226–231.

Lyson, T. A., & Falk, W. W. (Eds.). (1993). Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America . Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

Maldonado, L. C., & Nieuwenhuis, R. (2015). Family policies and single parent poverty in 18 OECD countries, 1978–2008. Community, Work & Family, 18 (4), 395–415.

Neumark, D., & Simpson, H. (2014). Place-based policies (Working Paper 20049). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research. https://www.nber.org/papers/w20049 .

Nolan, L., Waldfogel, J., & Wimer, C. (2017). Long-term trends in rural and urban poverty: New insights using a historical supplemental poverty measure. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 672 (1), 123–142.

Partridge, M. D., & Rickman, D. S. (2008). Place-based policy and rural poverty: Insights from the urban spatial mismatch literature. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 1 (1), 131–156.

Pickering, K., Harvey, M. H., Summers, G. F., & Mushinski, D. (2006). Welfare reform in persistent rural poverty: Dreams, disenchantments and diversity . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

President’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. (1967). The people left behind . Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED016543.pdf

Reimer, B., & Markey, S. (2008). Place-based policy: A rural perspective . Canada: Human Resources and Social Development Canada. Retrieved from https://www.crcresearch.org/files-crcresearch_v2/ReimerMarkeyRuralPlaceBasedPolicySummaryPaper20081107.pdf

Rose, M., & Baumgartner, F. R. (2013). Framing the poor: Media coverage and U.S. poverty policy, 1960–2008. Policy Studies Journal, 41 , 22–53.

Rural Sociological Society (RSS) Task Force on Persistent Rural Poverty. (1993). Persistent poverty in rural America . Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Schott, L., Pavetti, L., & Floyd, I. (2015). How states use federal and state funds under the TANF block grant . Washington DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Retrieved from https://www.cbpp.org/research/family-income-support/how-states-use-federal-and-state-funds-under-the-tanf-block-grant

Schram, S. E., Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Houser, L. (2009). Deciding to discipline: Race, choice, and punishment at the frontlines of welfare reform. American Sociological Review, 74 (3), 398–422.

Sherman, J. (2009a). Bend to avoid breaking: Job loss, gender norms, and family stability in rural America. Social Problems, 56 (4), 599–620.

Sherman, J. (2009b). Those who work, those who don’t: Poverty, morality, and family in rural America . Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.

Sherman, J. (2017). Rural poverty and symbolic capital: A tale of two valleys. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 205–230). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Slack, T., Thiede, B., & Jensen, L. (2018, March). Race, residence and underemployment: 50 Years in comparative perspective, 1964–2017 . Presented at RUPRI conference: Rural Poverty, Fifty Years After The People Left Behind—A Research Conference. Looking Backward and Forward, Washington, DC. www.rupri.org/wp-content/uploads/slack-thiede-and-jensen.-RACE-RESIDENCE-AND-UNDEREMPLOYMENT-50-YEARS-IN-COMPARATIVE-PERSPECTIVE-1964-2017-.pdf

Smith, K. E. (2011). Changing roles: Women and work in rural America. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being (pp. 60–81). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Smith, K. E. (2017). Changing gender roles and rural poverty. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 117–132). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Smith, K. E., & Tickamyer, A. R. (Eds.). (2011). Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America . University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Soss, J., Fording, R. C., & Schram, S. F. (2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race . Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Thiede, B., & Slack, T. (2017). The o ld versus the n ew economies and their impacts. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 231–249). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Tickamyer, A. R. (2006). Rural poverty. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney (Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 411–426). London: Sage Publications.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Henderson, D. A. (2010). Devolution, social exclusion, and spatial inequality in U.S. welfare provision. In P. Milbourne (Ed.), Welfare reform in rural places: Comparative perspectives, research in rural sociology and development (Vol. Vol. 15, pp. 41–59). Bingley: Emerald Publishing Group.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Henderson, D. A. (2011). Livelihood practices in the shadow of welfare reform. In K. Smith & A. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 294–319). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Tickamyer, A. R., Henderson, D. A., White, J. A., & Tadlock, B. (2000). Voices of welfare reform: Bureaucratic rationality vs. participant perceptions. Affilia, 15 (2), 173–192.

Tickamyer, A. R., Sherman, J., & Warlick, J. (Eds.). (2017). Rural poverty in the United States . New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Smith, K. E. (2011). Conclusions. In K. E. Smith & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Economic restructuring and family well-being in rural America (pp. 226–346). University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.

Tickamyer, A. R., White, J., Tadlock, B., & Henderson, D. (2007). Spatial politics of public policy. In L. Lobao, G. Hooks, & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), The sociology of spatial inequality (pp. 113–139). New York, NY: SUNY.

Tickamyer, A. R., & Wornell, E. J. (2017). How to explain poverty? In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 84–114). New York, NY: Columbia University.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-a). Comparison of rural and urban poverty rates using official (OPM) and supplemental poverty measures (SPM), 2013 . Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/chart-gallery/gallery/chart-detail/?chartId=82270

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-b). Rural poverty & well-being . Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-poverty-well-being/

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-c). Rural-urban continuum codes . Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/rural-urban-continuum-codes/

USDA Economic Research Service (ERS). (n.d.-d). What is rural ? Retrieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/topics/rural-economy-population/rural-classifications/what-is-rural.aspx

Warlick, J. (2017). The safety net in rural America. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 389–415). New York, NY: Columbia University.

Weber, B., Duncan, G., & Whitener, L. (Eds.). (2002). Rural dimensions of welfare reform . Kalamazoo, MI: W. E. Upjohn Institute.

Weber, B., Fannin, J. M., Miller, K., & Goetz, S. (2018, June). Intergenerational mobility of low-income youth in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan America: A spatial analysis. Regional Science Policy and Practice, 10 , 87–101.

Weber, B., Farrigan, T., Glasmeier, A., & Gagin, C. (2018, March). Rural poverty fifty years after The People Left Beind: An unfinished legacy [PowerPoint slides]. Presented at RUPRI conference: Rural poverty, fifty years after The People Left Behind —A research conference. Looking backward and forward, Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.rupri.org/wp-content/uploads/Overview_Unfinished_Legacy.final_.pptx

Weber, B., & Miller, K. (2017). Poverty in rural America then and now. In A. R. Tickamyer, J. Sherman, & J. Warlick (Eds.), Rural poverty in the United States (pp. 84–114). New York, NY: Columbia University.

White, J., Tickamyer, A. R., Henderson, D., & Tadlock, B. (2003). Does Welfare-to-Work work? Rural employers comment. In W. W. Falk, M. D. Schulman, & A. R. Tickamyer (Eds.), Communities of work: Rural restructuring in local and global context (pp. 240–264). Athens, OH: Ohio University Press.

Widerquist, K. (2005). A failure to communicate: What (if anything) can we learn from the negative income tax experiments? The Journal of Socio-Economics, 34 (1), 49–81.

Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor . New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Wilson, W. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy (2nd ed.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Ziliak, J. P. (2019). Economic change and the social safety net: Are rural Americans still behind? (Working paper). Washington, DC: Washington Center for Equitable Growth. https://equitablegrowth.org/working-papers/economic-change-and-the-social-safety-net-are-rural-americans-still-behind/

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture Multistate Research Project PEN04623 (Accession#1013257): Social, economic and environmental causes and consequences of demographic change in rural America .

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Ann R. Tickamyer

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ann R. Tickamyer .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Population Research Institute, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Jennifer E. Glick

Social Science Research Institute, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Susan M. McHale

Department of Sociology, Penn State, University Park, PA, USA

Valarie King

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Tickamyer, A.R. (2020). Rural Poverty: Research and Policy for U.S. Families. In: Glick, J., McHale, S., King, V. (eds) Rural Families and Communities in the United States. National Symposium on Family Issues, vol 10. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37689-5_1

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37689-5_1

Published : 07 March 2020

Publisher Name : Springer, Cham

Print ISBN : 978-3-030-37688-8

Online ISBN : 978-3-030-37689-5

eBook Packages : Behavioral Science and Psychology Behavioral Science and Psychology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

This site uses cookies to optimize functionality and give you the best possible experience. If you continue to navigate this website beyond this page, cookies will be placed on your browser. To learn more about cookies, click here .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• v.9(9); 2023 Sep
• PMC10558749

The welfare effects of impoverished rural areas: Review and research prospects

Associated data.

Data will be made available on request.

The relationship between rural poverty and welfare effects is a significant social issue, as poor areas face challenges like fragile livelihoods, nutritional imbalances, and inadequate policy regulation. Studying welfare effects in impoverished rural areas is vital for addressing capability poverty and achieving the United Nations SDGs. This study examines three decades of research, using a quantitative literature analysis and traditional literature review. It identifies three research characteristics: focus on poverty and inequality, the impact of rural vulnerability on welfare effects, and farm households' higher psychological needs. Research encompasses four key areas: theoretical research, measurement of welfare effects, factors influencing welfare effects, and strategies for improvement. Future research should link welfare policies to enhance rural nutrition, clarify rural-community interactions, and improve subject relations to boost overall welfare.

1. Introduction

Low levels of nutrition, poor education, low economic development, and poor infrastructure in impoverished rural areas significantly impact the welfare effect. Poverty is a major global social problem, and its reduction has become a real challenge that is waiting for an urgent solution. The International Fund for Agricultural Development estimates that even by 2025, more than 60% of the poor will still live in rural areas [ 1 ]. Internationally, welfare effects have become a growing concern in the social, economic, and policy responses to rural poverty due to trade liberalization. At the same time, the welfare effects in impoverished rural areas have also received increasing attention from international organizations or regional groupings, with international organizations such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the OECD considering the welfare effects in impoverished rural areas a critical issue [ 2 ].

In recent years, the financial crisis, war, climate change, and underdevelopment have led to ecological fragility and resource scarcity in rural areas, resulting in low productivity, backward production methods, and a sharp decline in agricultural food production in some villages [ 3 , 4 ]. Many rural households cannot achieve average agricultural output due to poor resources, and livelihood activities are severely affected, with limited long-term options that keep people's per capita incomes below the poverty line. 1 At the same time, the lack of nutritional needs, access to education, and participation in community social functions contribute to their 'viability' poverty. The low standard of living exacerbates rural poverty, thus creating a 'vicious circle of poverty [ 5 ].

In response to rural poverty, governments have attempted to assist impoverished rural areas by designing welfare systems, economic measures, and welfare programs. Welfare programs based on basic security include social assistance, social insurance, social work, and public services, which can be seen as meeting the basic welfare needs of rural people, such as children's health, primary employment, basic medical care, and old-age support [ 6 , 7 ]. There are also studies on specific welfare programs such as cross-subsidies for electricity, food subsidies, and support for rural industries from an agricultural perspective [ 8 ]. The academics have conducted in-depth research on welfare effects from the aspects of welfare programs, welfare subsidies, and welfare systems. The systematic study of literature on welfare effects in rural poverty areas is of great significance for understanding and improving the phenomenon of rural poverty. Further deepening the systematic review of research on welfare effects in rural poverty areas is needed based on the current research. Therefore, by systematically reviewing the existing research, constructing a scientific research framework, and collecting and analyzing relevant data, the article can objectively assess the effects of welfare policies and provide a scientific basis for relevant decision-making.

This paper contains six sections, see Fig. 1 . In section 2 , we provide a conceptual analysis of welfare, welfare effects, and the welfare effects of rural poverty in the context of the research questions. In section 3 , we then use CiteSpace to quantify trends, salient features, and topical issues in the study of welfare effects in impoverished rural areas, using the keywords 'welfare effects' and 'rural poverty'. In Section 4 , we summarize the theories on welfare effects research in rural deprived areas (Section 4.1 ) and sort out the measurement (Section 4.2 ) and influencing factors (Section 4.3 ) of welfare effects as well as enhancement strategies (Section 4.4 ). We discuss the challenges and future directions regarding the welfare effects in rural deprived areas in Section 5 and conclude Section 6 .

Key elements of the study of welfare effects in rural impoverished areas.

2. Conceptual framework

2.1. welfare and welfare effects.

The definition of welfare is the total of a country's community or socially satisfactory welfare programs [ 10 ]. In contrast, narrow welfare refers to the subsidy behavior for particular groups [ 11 ]. In the form of welfare, welfare is considered the state of provision and the satisfaction of the whole society [ 12 ]. At the level of government responsibility, welfare is a kind of "institutionalized government responsibility," which includes the welfare system and welfare policy, which are essential in social development [ 13 ].

A review of the welfare effects literature reveals that scholars have focused on different levels of rural needs. In the dimension of welfare programs, research focuses on improving social welfare and economic efficiency by guaranteeing the primary livelihood, the right to survival, and health equity of members of society.

2.2. Welfare effects in impoverished rural areas

A lack of means of subsistence, poor economic development, lagging infrastructure, fragile ecology, poor production conditions, and backward production methods usually characterize impoverished rural areas. Their per capita income is below the poverty line, or a standard of living for residents that can be generally described as generally below the average standard of living [ 14 ]. The welfare effects in impoverished rural areas encompass both economic and non-economic aspects.

The central aspect of the economic welfare effect is that the government and society, through social assistance, provide relief payments or means of subsistence to particularly vulnerable groups and guarantee the supply of energy to sustain the main livelihoods of the rural population, such as water, electricity, and consumer durables [ 15 ]. They are ensuring the primary income of rural households and expanding livelihood options for farmers through small-scale financial lending and support for agricultural projects, increasing the rural population's payment [ 16 ].

The non-economic effects of welfare are mainly in terms of institutional security, infrastructure, and the well-being of the rural population. The essence of the rural welfare effect requires the government to meet the basic needs of the rural population through institutionalized social security based on legislation, improve rural poverty, achieve universal welfare, and provide individual farmers with basic livelihood welfare such as basic employment, basic medical care, basic pension and so on [ 17 ]. Recently, farmers' psychological satisfaction and happiness are believed to be the most critical factors of the welfare effect [ 18 ].

3. Bibliometric analysis

3.1. data and methods.

The data in this article are from the core collection of Web of Science databases (literature search period 1991–2022, last search date 2022-11-8). The scientific knowledge maps generated by CiteSpace are scientifically reliable, umfangreich, and aesthetically pleasing and are widely used in practice as they are scientifically effective and easy to use. The generated knowledge maps allow researchers to understand the macrostructure of scientific knowledge in a field and identify key literature, research hotspots, and brand-new front directions in the field.

Search terms for studies of welfare effects in impoverished rural areas are as follows: TS=("rural poverty") And ("welfare effects"), TS=("rural poor regions") And ("welfare effects"), TS=("poor rural areas") And ("welfare effects"), TS=("less developed regions") And ("welfare effects") TS=("less developed areas") And ("welfare effects"), TS=("village poverty") And ("welfare effects") and TS=("rural vulnerabilities") And ("welfare effects") spanning the period 1900–2022, 1101 literature data were retrieved, with the earliest year being 1991. The search results from the Web of Science database core collection in a fully documented plain text format and parameters were using CiteSpace software (6.1.R3), with "English" selected as the language and "Article" as the article type. After eliminating articles unrelated to the research topic, 1061 articles were included. The period of the literature source was set from January 1991 to November 2022. The cut time is 1a year; The term sources are title, abstract, author, and keywords and the threshold positioning is top 50. The node type determined the purpose of the CiteSpace analysis, so keywords were selected in the node type. The corresponding visualization is author, country, reference, and keyword.

3.2. An Overview of welfare effects in impoverished rural areas

The statistics on the number of research papers published in a subject area provide a temporal perspective on the development of the subject area. The statistics derived from the Web of Science Core Collection data, as depicted in Fig. 2 , provide a visual representation of the historical trends in research within the subject area. We analyzed the number of publications and trends in the literature on the welfare effects of research in rural poverty areas from 1991 to November 8, 2022. We found an overall upward trend in the literature in the field, with the number of papers published showing a rapid increase after 2009. Based on the number of papers published each year, research on welfare in the context of rural poverty can be roughly divided into two phases.

• (1) Slow growth phase (1991–2009). The official launch of the ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA) has promoted globalized and market-oriented economic development. Some countries have begun conducting relevant studies on impoverished rural areas' welfare effects to stimulate overall economic growth and promote monetary circulation.
• (2) Rapid development stage (2009 to present). In the wake of the global financial crisis in 2008, research on the welfare effects of rural poverty areas has gradually gained attention. The number of papers related to it has rapidly increased, and scholars have started to conduct a series of studies based on their disciplinary development and knowledge systems, using a variety of methodologies and technical tools from different perspectives.

Number of literature concerning welfare effects research from 1991 to 2021.

According to Web of Science, by November 8, 2022, the top three countries in terms of the number of research papers on welfare effects in impoverished rural areas were the USA (232), China (103), England (97), followed by Germany, Australia, Japan, South Africa, Sweden, India Italy ( Table 1 ). Research on welfare in the context of rural poverty has attracted widespread attention in various fields. Statistical analysis shows that research on interest in the context of rural poverty was over 600 SSCI/SCI-indexed journals. These include World Development, Journal of Development Studies, Sustainability, Food Policy, Agricultural Economics, Social Indicators Research, Ecological Economics, Journal of International Development Journal of Development Economics, International Journal of Social Welfare, etc.

Major countries that have published research on welfare in the context of rural poverty.

3.3. Evolving research hot topics

3.3.1. analysis of keywords and hot topics distribution.

Based on the keyword co-occurrence network analysis, the CiteSpace software timeline graph 2 shows the emergent analysis of keywords in the literature. Each chronological wheel in the chart represents a node. The area of the annual wheel represents the number of articles, co-occurrence frequency, or citation frequency of the corresponding node.

In CiteSpace, Modularity (Q) and Silhouette (S)should be noted. Q > 0.3 is generally considered to mean that the cluster structure is significant and the larger the Q, the more consistent the components in the cluster. S > 0.5 means that the clustering is reasonable, and S > 0.7 means that the clustering is convincing [ 9 ]. The comprehensive timeline displaying the study of welfare effects in rural deprived areas between 1991 and 2022 has been compiled and is presented in Fig. 3 . The results show that Modularity (Q) and Silhouette (S) are 0.5902, 0.7911, respectively, indicating that the clustering results are scientifically sound. The hot topics of related research include 11 categories: technology adoption, weather shocks, poor, south Africa, mangrove forest, animal welfare, employment, mental health, country, food security, and sustainability index. 20 keywords with frequencies above 25 are poverty, impact, interest, growth, income, food security, determinant, model, health, risk, household welfare, inequality, development, poverty reduction, climate change, policy, vulnerability, productivity, and management. The analysis of high-frequency words reveals that the research keywords on welfare effects in impoverished rural areas cover a wide range of areas and highlight the focus and hotspots of research at different stages. Based on the development of rural poverty areas and changes in the content of welfare effects, they are generally divided into the following two steps.

• (1) The stage at which the welfare effect becomes apparent (1992–2005). This phase focused on the macro-regulation of agricultural liberalization, market reforms, insurance, and policies, for the welfare effects of equality due to inequality, low agricultural productivity, and rural poverty caused by population congestion. The focus was on providing basic security at an individual level for the rural family unit, targeting different rural audiences such as children and women, and pursuing equitable welfare effects at all levels of need within other groups.
• (2) The welfare effects development phase (2005–2022). Related studies have explored the welfare effects of measures such as market transformation, economic reform, and trade liberalization in impoverished rural areas in the context of globalization. During this period, the hotspots included credit programs, investment models, and food prices. It was found that with the globalization of markets, there is a negative relationship between welfare effects and rural poverty. However, as poverty and inequality decreased, the field of welfare effects research began to pursue welfare measures such as rural development and health management, where welfare effects increased.

Timeline map of welfare effects research.

3.3.2. Burst words analysis

Keyword prominence is the detection of keywords that increase over time to reveal the hot research topics in that period and predict which hot keywords will continue the explosive trend in the future and become the research hotspots in that research area. The keyword detection results show 20 burst words ( Table 2 ). As seen in Table 2 , there are significant differences in research focus and hotspot areas at different stages. The first word to emerge was the United States, which appeared in 1992 and lasted the longest, lasting 14 years from 1992 to 2005, indicating that welfare effects research first began in the US and continued around welfare effects for a long time. Between 1991 and 2013, emergent words show that researchers started to dissect risk factors in rural areas and to develop research to reduce risk and raise incomes. Between 2013 and 2018, research focused more on the impact of marketization on rural migration and work opportunities and explored the impact of income inequality and rural vulnerability on welfare effects. 2018 to the present, welfare effects research has increasingly focused on the well-being of rural individuals, households, and families, leading to welfare support to promote rural poverty alleviation.

Top 20 keywords with the most substantial citation bursts during 1991–2021.

3.3.3. Analysis of institutional cooperation networks

The institutional collaboration network map provides valuable insights into the connections among institutions and their respective contributions to the field of welfare research in rural poverty. Fig. 4 illustrates the network with research institutions serving as nodes, enabling us to identify exceptional researchers and institutions in the field. The results show that the World Bank is central to the collaborative network in the field of welfare research in the context of rural poverty. Four institutions greater than 20 times are the World Bank, Int Food Policy Res Inst, the University of Oxford, Chinese Academy of Sciences. University Goettingen, Penn State University, Cornell University, and Michigan State University are the connecting points of the network. In addition, Columbia University, Stanford University, Beijing Normal University, and other research institutions have also published fruitful results.

Institutional cooperation network map of welfare effects research.

4. Key fields and hot topics

The essence of the welfare effect in impoverished rural areas requires the provision of institutional, economic, and social protection for poor areas and poor populations to enhance the area's total economic and non-economic welfare. In recent years, academics have conducted theoretical studies on the welfare effect based on aspects such as rural areas' needs and populations' needs. They have discussed the methods of measuring the welfare effect, which is vital in addressing rural poverty and improving the welfare effect. However, rural poverty areas have ecological fragility, insufficient production capacity, and lack of nutrition knowledge, and the welfare effect is often affected by the conditions in rural poverty areas. Therefore, exploring the factors influencing the welfare effect in rural poor and poor rural neighborhoods and the strategies to enhance the welfare effect have successively become a hot topic of research.

4.1. Theories of welfare effects

The concept of welfare economy was first introduced by Arthur Cecil Pigou in 1920 in Welfare Economics, which introduced the concept of social welfare (in the broad sense) and economic welfare (in the narrow sense). Its main content is to ensure the basic livelihood of the population through income redistribution and achieve Pareto optimality of exchange and production through the efficient allocation of resources and the satisfaction of individual preferences, thereby increasing the total social utility and enhancing the total social welfare [ 19 ]. Subsequently, continued welfare economics, a theory based on the Pareto concept of 'optimal conditions,' which is grounded in the ordinal theory of marginal utility. Through redistribution, those who have lost out are compensated by those who have gained, resulting in an overall improvement in welfare [ 20 ].

Research on improving the welfare of rural poverty is also growing daily, enriched by introducing new conceptual perspectives and theories in the study of welfare effects based on rural poverty from various disciplines. As an extension of welfare effects research, proposed the hierarchy of needs theory, which encompasses physiological needs, security needs, belonging and love needs, respect needs, and self-actualization needs [ 21 ]. This theory was applied to the study of welfare effects in impoverished rural areas, allowing welfare measures to meet the needs of rural populations according to different levels, thus affecting the total utility of welfare. Although research has mainly focused on livelihood needs, typically in terms of material needs such as food, housing, and transportation. However, research has gone further to pursue the welfare effects of meeting rural populations' subjective well-being and higher psychological needs [ 22 , 23 ].

Impoverished people often face disadvantages in social development, with unequal resources and opportunities. The welfare level of a society directly influences the welfare level of the poorest individuals within that society. Hence, society should prioritize the well-being of the poor and strive to maximize the utility of the most vulnerable groups in society (also known as the least-maximization principle) to ensure equal opportunities for everyone [ 24 ]( Table 3 ).

Theoretical studies related to welfare effects in rural deprived areas.

4.2. Measuring welfare effects

The literature review revealed that relevant research has shifted from focusing on a single dimension of rural welfare effects to a multi-dimensional study of welfare effects. Research methods have also diversified, including interdisciplinary approaches such as econometric analysis and mathematical modeling.

The welfare effect is a complex concept at the rural level, and there are different measures for examining it ( Table 4 ). In economics, common methods include willingness-to-pay, which focuses on the subjective willingness of consumers to pay a certain amount. However, because consumers' perception of payment often does not align with their actual consumer behavior, this can lead to biased assumptions, and inaccurate results [ 25 ]. The equivalent income approach examines changes in welfare-based income levels to achieve the same utility under the same reference price and budget constraint [ 26 ]. However, due to the limitation of data availability, it is not easy to collect data on different consumption combinations of the rural population. Based on the concepts of utility and welfare economics, a compensatory change approach has emerged that examines the additional amount people must pay to compensate for the reduction in their utility level following a price change [ 27 ]. This method provides a simple calculation method for measuring the welfare effect of price fluctuations and offers a theoretical basis for the government to formulate reasonable subsidy policies.

Measurement methods of welfare effects.

4.3. Mechanisms of influence

The welfare effect is a complex systemic issue [ 28 ], influenced by multiple factors such as factors, structures, and functions, such as livelihood choices, policy implementation, and level of socioeconomic development. Elements such as farm households, government institutions, and the ecological environment are central to driving changes in welfare effects. Farming households are the subject of the driving mechanism, government institutions provide policy support for their survival and development, and the ecological environment provides a spatial vehicle for farming households. Due to inadequate policy guidance, farmers rely on predation for their livelihoods, exacerbating ecological degradation. The fragile ecological environment, in turn, limits the development of rural society, thus creating a vicious cycle of poverty [ 29 ]. With globalization, urbanization, and informatization, information transfer, and material circulation has developed between internal and external rural territorial systems. When information transmission and material circulation are fluid, it will bring positive effects on the welfare effects of rural areas. However, if the flow of information transfer and material circulation is poor, it will bring about rural poverty [ 30 ] ( Fig. 5 ). Thus, the welfare effect in poor rural areas can be considered to be influenced by a variety of adverse factors, such as farmers' livelihood choices, lack of nutritional knowledge, lack of viable capacity, and ecological vulnerability. Identifying the main influencing factors and their underlying mechanisms to enhance the welfare effect is a prerequisite and key to alleviating rural poverty areas.

Mechanisms influencing welfare effects in impoverished areas.

4.3.1. Livelihood vulnerability

Due to the unequal foundations and variable development rates between rural and urban areas, the scope for welfare policy development varies, resulting in significant differences in the implementation of welfare measures in the production of welfare effects. Urban construction takes up a lot of rural resources such as water, electricity, and land. Rural households have migrated to change their livelihood strategies. Migration is a livelihood strategy for families in ecologically fragile communities. Rural populations seek to diversify their income sources and overcome the adverse welfare effects of social, economic, and institutional constraints in their places of origin. People moved from areas with a labor surplus to regions with a labor deficit to improve their living conditions [ 31 ]. However, rural populations need more knowledge and experience to live in modern cities, so many individuals and families who migrate for better income opportunities cannot improve their living conditions. These challenges may affect the motivation to migrate and the welfare of rural families.

4.3.2. Imbalance in the nutritional level of the poor

Compared to urban areas, the social and economic development level in rural areas is relatively backward, the financial income level of rural residents is relatively low, and the assistance funds from rural finances are relatively weak. Resulting in a fairly heavy burden of living for rural residents, who are very vulnerable to disease risks and threaten their health [ 32 ]. In addition, poor rural areas are relatively isolated or backward in terms of environment, transportation and material exchange, lack of health care resources, and poor people living near the subsistence level for a long time. When health conditions arise, they are often trapped in a vicious cycle of "health loss - poverty".

Good dietary habits play an essential role in maintaining health. Unscientific nutritional habits are often an important factor in the development of acute and chronic diseases, such as diabetes and hypertension, due to excessive intake of sugar and salt, and stunting and sepsis due to insufficient protein and vitamins. Poor people in rural areas generally lack adequate knowledge of nutrition and neglect the nutritional combination of food in daily life, leading to a variety of acute and chronic diseases [ 33 ]. Poor, low-income people are constrained by economic pressures and cannot respond effectively, leading to a much higher incidence of health problems [ 34 ].

4.3.3. Lack of viable capacity of the poor

Similarly, those who remain in rural areas find it challenging to keep pace with agricultural technology development, mainly because they need more knowledge and technology to increase agricultural productivity. Agricultural technology is one of the essential farming tools to reduce the impact of climate. However, the lack of means to integrate agricultural technology in impoverished rural areas limits crop choice, resulting in seasonal production and income cycles. Farmers convert rural land use seasonally to achieve productive agricultural expansion. However, the lack of experience with high-tech farming has damaged the surrounding ecosystem, leading to changes in land cover and, in turn, drought-reduced water quality and soil erosion.

The demand for education makes it difficult for low-income families to increase their income effectively through business activities. The lack of education also means that access to information and raising revenues through participation in market transactions is lower, especially for uneducated rural workers who find it more challenging to earn an income through part-time work in the future [ 35 ]. The lack of education and technical skills development is a significant cause of rural poverty and a deep-seated reason for the greater vulnerability of poor rural households.

4.3.4. Ecosystem fragility in impoverished rural areas

The rural poor often live in environmentally fragile areas, and their livelihoods are closely dependent on natural resource use and ecosystem services [ 36 ]. The inability of rural ecosystems to self-heal in recent years due to climate change and environmental degradation can lead to a range of problems. Rural areas in ecologically fragile regions cover a wide area. They are generally in poor natural conditions, making them prone to natural disasters such as floods, droughts, mudslides, landslides, and sandstorms. These natural disasters cause varying degrees of damage to rural land and crops, directly affecting the income levels of rural residents in ecologically fragile areas and leading to the recurrence of poverty [ 37 ].

On the other hand, due to the lack of effective system design and adequate ecological compensation mechanism, the implementation of natural forest nature reserves, ecological public welfare forests, and other protection projects are too much emphasis, and economic assistance or compensation is insufficient, ignoring the economic interests of the poor people. The disregard for the ecological benefits of ecological resource conversion has resulted in the deterioration of water resources, land resources, and air quality in ecologically fragile rural areas [ 38 ]. To a certain extent, this leads to the poor being trapped in a vicious eco-poverty cycle [ 39 ].

4.3.5. Lack of policy regulation

To do this effectively, governments must first identify who is in need, which is difficult in government infrastructure and developing countries, especially in rural areas. Governments often manage this eligibility option centrally or decentralize it to local communities, and these projects are often formally managed by local leaders. The economic performance of leaders at both the macro and micro levels is essential (e.g., enterprise, village, and farm livelihood strategies). Moreover, Besley and Reynal-Querol (2011) argue that the persistence of elite capture is responsible for the mixed results of welfare improvements in farmers' livelihoods.

The extent to which leaders are essential for welfare to improve rural conditions manifests in two ways. First, at the macro level, leaders influence economic policy, promote the provision of public goods, enhance cooperation, and mobilize community labor [ 40 ]. However, quantifying the causal impact of leaders on welfare is difficult because we cannot exclude the effects of other factors on interest, such as different institutional characteristics that may influence leaders and welfare outcomes. Secondly, at the micro level, local leaders may be more aware of the relative needs of villagers to whom local leaders will be accountable, appropriate methods and data must address the relevant endogeneity of leaders and associated welfare effects [ 41 ].

4.4. Enhancement strategies

4.4.1. improve livelihood compensation mechanisms for farmers.

Livelihood compensation is the primary regulatory measure implemented by the government to compensate for the difference between less developed, less-developed rural areas and developed areas due to the consumption consumer surplus. Currently, the principal instruments of livelihood compensation include welfare subsidies and welfare projects based on the current state of rural development.

As a constituent unit of the village, the rural household is the most critical group in making livelihood strategies. Land and natural resources become the reference for farming households to make livelihood strategies [ 42 ]. Implementing a sustainable land management plan in impoverished rural areas. This plan coordinates environmental and agricultural policies, addresses inefficient rural land use, guarantees land transfer rights to poor rural households, and fully involves low-income rural families in the transaction process. Livelihood compensation measures through local governments include industrial support, multi-product co-development through contract farming, the market circulation of agricultural products, commercialization of agricultural products, market benefits of globalization and marketization, and increased incomes in rural areas [ 43 ].

4.4.2. Balancing the nutrition levels of the poor

The Global Nutrition Report 2022 states that existing food and health systems do not treat everyone equitably, which leads to hardship for some vulnerable groups (e.g., poor people, women, and children, people living in civil war, ethnic minorities, etc.) [ 44 ]. In poor rural areas, the main manifestations are imbalances in nutrition levels - malnutrition and overnutrition. Adjusting for malnutrition and overnutrition requires addressing food insecurity, poverty, lack of nutritional knowledge, and unhealthy diet plans.

Adjusting diet plans with improved nutrient composition is one of the most fundamental ways of balancing the poor's nutritional levels. Before changing diets to improve nutrient composition, it is crucial to determine the dietary intake of the target population. Studies have found that rural people consume large amounts of protein and carbohydrate-containing foods, while most respondents' diets do not contain sufficient dietary fiber [ 45 ]. Although protein intake was high, it was mainly of plant rather than animal origin. The main reason is that many rural areas need access to a wide variety of foods and rely on informal convenience stores found in rural areas that sell small amounts of food or buy starchy foods such as maize flour [ 46 ]. How to adjust to good nutrition, World (2003) suggests can be achieved through access to nutritious foods and the correct use of these foods. Alternatively, the nutritional status of rural populations can be improved by providing healthier and cheaper types of food and by informing rural people about the correct processing and preparation of these crops [ 47 ].

4.4.3. Building viable capacity of the poor

The lack of viable capacity is a fundamental cause of rural poverty and improvement. Improving the rural population's possible ability is critical to addressing rural poverty, enhancing welfare, and improving the education system's security and the rural population's overall quality. It also strengthens the capacity for learning of the rural population and connects it with marketization. Promoting rural technology with the help of agricultural technology is to achieve technological convergence in the context of globalization, increase agricultural production through the integration of technology and agriculture, and ensure the welfare effect in rural areas. The next step is to promote livelihood diversification. Provide non-agricultural employment for farmers and improve rural infrastructure. It is creating more jobs in agriculture, forestry, livestock, and fisheries (such as agricultural conservationists or environmental maintenance and health workers, or due to the creation of other processing industries based on agriculture) to promote commodity linkages while increasing the income for the rural population.

In rural areas, there is a strong correlation between welfare program innovation and transformative rural development [ 48 ]. Alleviating poverty in some areas is a transfer of the rural poor from rural to urban areas, which could be more sustainable [ 49 ]. Therefore, proposes sustainable and innovative welfare policies to improve rural poverty to coordinate rural social and welfare policies to address rural poverty [ 50 ].

4.4.4. Enhancing the capacity of rural ecological security

The ecological environment is an essential basis for the survival of the rural poor. In recent years, the environment has become too harsh for rural ecosystems to self-heal due to climate change. However, the rural poor often live in environmentally fragile areas, so their livelihoods are close, and natural resources and ecosystem services are relevant [ 51 ]. Improving the ecological impacts of human activities in impoverished rural areas has become one of the priorities of global change research in the context of socioeconomic development. Implementing ecological energy conservation, carbon reduction, and environmental protection policies promotes sustainable livelihoods and rural development for poor farmers. Thus, it enhances impoverished rural areas' welfare.

Addressing the trade-offs between the value of new land use and the cost of lost ecosystem services becomes very important. Rapid land cover conversion and fragmentation can lead to many problems, such as loss of biodiversity, land degradation, reduced water quality, inadequate food supplies, and environmental degradation [ 52 ]. Some researchers propose an ecological scenario for agroforestry and urban greening projects. They then relieve the pressure of overexploitation of environmental-land resources by producing high-income and price-elasticity commodities to promote agroecological transformation [ 53 ].

4.4.5. Strengthening rural public service provision

Improve the lives of rural and low-income families by improving rural housing systems and protecting rural populations from displacements by establishing shelters and relief stations. Research into the welfare of specific groups of the rural poor has found that most elderly people and children in rural areas tend to be marginalized in agricultural production [ 54 ]. The research on children's education welfare proposes to improve the education system, promote social assistance and social services, protect children's right to study and rural population construction, and improve the welfare system. Poor health of older persons in rural areas will lead to increased poverty levels. Governments should ensure the health of older persons in rural areas and establish effective health risk management mechanisms [ 55 ].

5. Challenges and prospects

Welfare research's focus on rural poverty cuts across rural development, and previous research is relevant to the topic. The contribution of this paper is to sort out and summarize previous research to provide a multidimensional perspective on the theory, practice, and policy formulation of welfare research. A literature review reveals that rural poverty alleviation measures include rural household and individual levels and community and regional levels. The above literature review shows that research on the welfare effects of rural poverty areas faces significant challenges. Research faces data, methodological and theoretical limitations in addressing welfare improvements in rural poverty research, and future directions for welfare research in rural poverty areas need further clarification.

5.1. Clarifying farmer-community interactions and improving subject relations

Focusing on how individual and community characteristics of farmers influence welfare effects. There are precise interactions between rural residence and individual and community characteristics, but the impact of rural residence on individual and community factors can be direct and indirect. Rural areas have weak economic regulation and greater environmental vulnerability, often associated with poverty. Rural communities are often used directly as units of analysis or as a context around households and individuals. Therefore, if area-based, welfare considers a combination of area factors from unemployment rates, economic regulation instruments, and environmental ecology to improve household poverty effectively.

5.2. Improving nutrition policies and linking multiple types of welfare policies

Welfare policies are related to the nutritional level and health status of farm households, and attention to the health of the poor is critical to achieving self-sufficiency. Focus on how to dovetail nutrition policies with welfare policies to provide the necessary and equitable entitlements for the poor in developing nutritionally and healthily. To facilitate interaction and feedback between rural areas and the present era by developing a more extensive policy network. Specifically in terms of policies on education, employment, childcare, and transport, the establishment of schools in rural areas, and the strengthening of vocational and technical training opportunities. Promote research on the linkage of multiple welfare policies to strengthen the welfare effects in poor rural areas.

5.3. Strengthen regional studies to enhance comprehensive welfare

Regional studies can provide a better understanding of rural areas and rural populations. Rural areas represent a unique socially constructed region, and improving rural poverty has national significance. Rural poverty is correlated with rural settlement in the region and other variables, so the measurement of welfare effects is biased in areas of rural poverty. The rural environment may affect the identification of poverty risk due to differences in governance pathways, so there is a need to accurately describe the 'local' environment, from a simple reduction in rural poverty to an overall improvement in rural well-being. The relative regional poverty in rural areas is a matter of spatial interest or, more precisely, of improving spatial welfare through public investment in rural areas.

6. Conclusion

Based on the literature measurement and systematic review, this paper compares the progress of research on welfare effects in impoverished rural areas, summarizes the key areas and hot issues in research on welfare effects in impoverished rural areas, and then identifies potential directions for future research. The conclusions are as follows.

• (1) The number of publications per year shows a general upward trend from 1991 to 2021, indicating the growing importance of research on the welfare effects of rural poverty areas in social science research. Research networks and collaborations have been established, including in developing and developed countries, with people from multiple disciplines.
• (2) Research into the welfare effects in impoverished rural areas needs to focus on complex rural social issues and be driven by real needs so that the research sector becomes more transparent and systematic. Key areas and hot matters existing research on welfare in poor rural regions: i. theoretical research on the welfare effect in impoverished rural areas; ii. measurement methods and model construction of the welfare effect; iii. research on the driving mechanism and influencing factors of the welfare effect in impoverished rural areas; iv. research on the enhancement strategies and policy optimization of the welfare effect; research on the enhancement strategies of the welfare effect in Impoverished rural areas.
• (3) There are many unanswered questions about the welfare effects of research in Impoverished rural areas. Rural areas represent a condensed picture of many of the country's social problems. However, our interpretation of the rural future remains limited because we have neglected to take a holistic, stratified, and sustainable perspective on welfare research issues. Strengthen research on the interplay between welfare effects and sustainability and pursue theoretical deepening.

'This item belongs to the item group IG000071'.

Author contribution statement

All authors listed have significantly contributed to the development and the writing of this article.

Funding statement

National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 42101203); Natural Science Foundation of Chongqing (Grant No. 2018GXNSFDA281032); Graduate Scientific Research and Innovation Foundation of Chongqing (CYS20058); Central Universities Basic Scientific Research Business Fund Project (Grant No. 2022CDJSKPY23).

Data availability statement

Declaration of interest's statement.

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.

Declaration of competing interest

1 The World Bank divides the poverty measure into those living in poverty on average on less than $3.10 a day, and those living in extreme poverty on less than $1.90 a day.

2 The timeline view focuses on delineating the relationships between clusters and the historical span of the literature in a given cluster.