Rural Brain Drain
Commentary by Taylor Brown
Taylor Brown is a third-year law student at the University of Nebraska College of Law. He grew up in a small town north of Dallas, Texas. Before law school, Taylor worked for the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, balancing the emergency medical needs during disasters in rural towns and urban cities. This Commentary reflects his original research and work.
Like all Commentary here on The Rural Review, this post expresses the personal opinions of the author.
Over the course of my work as a research assistant for the Rural Review over the last year and half, I have noticed concerns about education as a common thread throughout rural scholarship. I would describe it more as a common “dread” since it seems to be one topic no one knows how to address. There is always not enough money, not enough staffing, never enough of anything. One of the Project’s former research assistants, Aurora Kenworthy, brought together a truly staggering amount of scholarship on rural education and its many challenges in her popular piece here on the Rural Review, A Common Thread: Rural America and Education Policy. My work for the Project led me to another question: Once education is addressed in rural communities, then what? The term “brain drain” was new to me, but the concept was familiar. I was a part of it. I left my small community to gain higher education, and, like many of my peers, I have not returned to live and work in the small town where I am from.
Brain drain, in general, refers to a phenomenon where the young population of a rural area leaves to establish themselves in a more urban area. A wide variety of scholars have explored an even wider variety of potential causes, and others have claimed (perhaps a more outlier position) that brain drain does not exist as a permanent phenomenon but is a momentary demographic blip (Artz, 2003). The so-called blip theory has since fallen out of favor, but I discovered in my research that brain drain is not unique just to the United States (Beine, Docquier, & Rapoport, 2008; Rérat, 2014; Corbett, 2013). And even across the world, there are common themes in the data.
In this commentary, I synthesize some common themes arising in the plethora of literature on rural brain drain. The scope is limited to why and how brain drain occurs in rural areas of the United States. I do not venture into the sizable research on consequences, nor do I address the repercussions of brain drain on the economic, social, or political spheres. Instead, I attempt to bring together the most essential lessons of existing research to provide a baseline for further scholarship, awareness, and ultimately (perhaps optimistically) solutions to these issues. To reiterate, these are broad themes that I have found consistently recur in my research on brain drain.
In my assessment, there are three main theories on why and how brain drain occurs: economic, social, and academic. Those concerned with economic understandings theorize that the reason high school-age individuals (hereinafter “students”) leave rural areas is financially motivated, whether due to a lack of available jobs in their home communities or a desire to pursue higher wages in other urban settings. Meanwhile, the social theory asserts instead that the reason students leave is their associations. Students decide they have outgrown the community they grew up in and set out for greener pastures. Or, alternatively, when students first venture out for whatever reason, they find themselves identifying more with the new, urban community and do not return to their former homes. The final theory has to do with the academic environment that the students grow up in. Distinct from the social or economic theories, the academic theory distinguishes those who stay and those who go based on academic performance. Those who succeed in rural schools have more resources dedicated to them to “propel” them higher and higher on to secondary education and beyond. In what follows, I will summarize in a bit more detail the research supporting each of these three theories striving to identify what drives rural brain drain: economic, social, or academic reasons.
Economic
The first theory, and perhaps the one that comes to mind most quickly, is the theory that educated individuals leave rural areas for job opportunities. Indeed, this has been a theory from the beginning of the study of rural brain drain. (Hektner, 1994; Artz, 2003; Biddle & Azano, 2016). It makes sense after all: the more urban an area, the more people are around and the greater the demand for certain services. Economics have been shown to be a predominant reason for high school graduates relocating to a new area. (Parsons, 2022; Hektner, 1994; Gottlieb, 2011). In a study done in Central Appalachia, researchers found that the likelihood of getting a certain salary, opportunities for advancement, and “an interesting and challenging job” were the highest factors driving graduates to move to urban settings. (Vazzana & Rudi-Polloshka, 2019).
In some areas, the common belief among the graduates is that moving to another location is necessary in order to achieve more and to be successful. (Mitra, Movit, & Frick, 2007; Heinemann & Hadler, 2015; Mayer, Malin, & Olson-Hazboun, 2018). Rural education policy has even been proposed as a substitute for rural development and economic policy. (Schafft, 2016). The typical scenario involves the loss of factory or manufacturing jobs, which drive the more educated population elsewhere to search for opportunities. (Mitra, Movit, & Frick, 2007). However, economic theories have not sufficiently satisfied everyone. One international analysis analyzed a fuller migration picture and found more complexity and uncertainty in overall economic dynamics. (Gibson & McKenzie, 2011).
Social
Though economic drivers make up an influential theoretical explanation for rural brain drain, the social factors of the students’ communities often loom in the background. Remember that study done in Central Appalachia? The next highest factors on that list were “strong family ties and the desire to live close to family.” (Vazzana & Rudi-Polloshka, 2019). In fact, a common misconception is that those moving away simply could not wait to leave their hometowns in search of better opportunities. (Corbett, 2014; Demi, McClaughlin, & Snyder, 2009). In other words, social ties to home communities can be forces that prevent rural brain drain, even overcoming economic incentives that may exist to move elsewhere. Many students, though influenced by economic arguments, remain conflicted when contemplating moving from where their family is located. (McLaughlin, Shoff, & Demi, 2014; Corbett, 2013). A related function of the social theory is simply geography. It has been proposed that mere proximity to a college leads to an increased likelihood of higher education, though how closely that college is tied to the community socially heavily determines if the students move on to “greener pastures.” (Turley, 2009). Those in the “social” camp cite wanting to find other social ties outside the community, but as a whole fail to notice that social ties prevent more than contribute to brain drain.
There are other social factors that are beyond family or relationships, such as moving closer to urban centers for better access to healthcare or wanting to experience the arts and culture of the “big city.” One social theory is that no particular policy or type of community rejects or accepts higher education. Instead, it is simply a “like-attracts-like” situation as those who are more educated will flock to more educated populations, and vice versa; as a result “the spatial distribution of the highly educated population will become increasingly concentrated, creating disparities between brain-rich and brain-poor regions.” (Waldorf, 2007).
Academic
The final and most prevalent theory concerns academics. Perhaps the most authoritative voice in the academic camp, it would be impossible to discuss rural brain drain without including Hollowing Out the Middle: The Rural Brain Drain and What It Means for America by Patrick J. Carr and Maria J. Kefalas (2010). The authors discuss the brain drain phenomenon as witnessed first-hand in the pseudonymously named rural town of Ellis, Iowa. Over the course of their time conducting research in Ellis, Carr and Kefalas discovered specific trends in rural education. They placed students into four groups: achievers, stayers, seekers, and returners.
The achievers are the stereotypical “academic” students. They get “straight A’s,” excel in extra curriculars, and are told they are “going places.” The teachers and faculty of these individuals put all of their efforts behind these few, often at the expense of their classmates. Other studies lean on this idea, exploring how some education practices take the most accomplished students and push them out of their communities to achieve more. (Carr & Kefalas, 2010; Petrin, Schafft, & Meece, 2014; Sherman & Sage, 2011). The stayers are those who fulfill a separate stereotype. They remain in their communities, often taking blue-collar jobs or working in trades in the local community. Like the characters of Homer Hickam Jr.’s memoir, October Sky, this group is often comprised of students whose families have spent generations working in the town’s local industry. Often in school they are told, “College isn’t for everyone.” The seekers are students who don’t want to remain in the community, but don’t have the hopes and dreams of their community on their shoulders. Those who join the military to “get out” or to “explore the world” are usually seekers. These are the wanderers who are curious enough to see what is on the next horizon. The returners are a hybrid category in their own right. They are high achievers, but whether due to grant programs that send educated professions like doctors to rural communities or to a desire to move back to be with family (fulfilling the social camp’s hypothesis), returners come back to their small town. It has been proposed that a choice of major, like agriculture or life sciences, has more of an impact in deciding whether or not students return to their communities. (Huang et al., 1997; Estes et al., 2016). Regardless of the reason, the returners come back to build the community and become the next generation of leaders. Worthy of its own discussion, Hollowing Out the Middle unites the academic theorists and even attempts to explain some of the economic and social arguments as well. (Harmon, 2010; Korsching, 2011).
Conclusion
Whether driven by economic, social, or academic reasons, rural brain drain affects rural communities, including the community I grew up in. Throughout the research process, I could not help but recall specific moments from my own rural high school experience: being shown income distributions for those with college degrees versus those who join the workforce immediately after graduation, the academic advisors who encouraged my college applications, and the expectation that I would go on to secondary education, leaving my community behind.
As I stated at the beginning, these theories provide a starting point. Many factors will weigh in favor of keeping rural community members in place (i.e., affordability, family ties, the cost of mobility). Technological advances will also continue to play a part in rural movement. From my own experience, I was living in Boston when the COVID-19 pandemic hit and remote work became the norm. I, like many others, left the cities with their high rent and cost of living in favor of the Midwest which offered more “breathing room” and affordable groceries. Whether this survey starts discussion, provides contextualization, or offers a springboard to solutions, the hardest part is often knowing where to start.
Continue the Conversation!
The Rural Reconciliation Project thanks Taylor Brown for this thoughtful synthesis of literature on rural brain drain dynamics (and all of his work here on The Review). We welcome similar contributions from a range of rural and non-rural voices here on The Rural Review and have posted submission guidelines here.
