Popular Government

North Carolina is widely recognized as a hub of international commerce and “transnational population movements” (movements of people from other countries, especially Mexico and other parts of Latin America). Emblematic of its enlarged role in the world economy, the state’s aggressive efforts to recruit U.S.–based multinational corporations and to attract direct investment from foreign companies reportedly harnessed $41 billion in new investment during the 1990s, including $6.1 billion from foreign companies. Moreover, during the same decade, large numbers of native- and foreign-born migrants flocked to the state to take advantage of the burgeoning employment opportunities. The state’s jobless rate hovered around 4 percent for most of the 1990s. That rate was indicative of a full-employment economy, one that was creating far more jobs than there were people to fill them. Under such tight labor-market conditions, wage rates typically rise as employers compete for available workers. That appears to have happened in North Carolina in the 1990s. Real personal income per capita (in 2001 dollars) grew from $23,600 at the beginning of the decade to $27,935 at the end, an 18 percent increase.

However, the 2000 Census revealed that the incidence of poverty in North Carolina also increased during the 1990s, by 15.5 percent (compared with a 6.8 percent increase nationally), creating
what some have called a “poverty paradox.” How could poverty increase so sharply amid such prosperity?

This article answers that question by analyzing post-1990 changes in the incidence of poverty and describing current manifestations of poverty in North Carolina. In this article, “poverty” is defined as insufficient family income to cover basic needs. The article assesses North Carolina’s contemporary poverty problem on three geographic scales (state, region, and place of residence) and on three demographic dimensions (age, family type, and race or ethnicity), using data compiled by the U.S. Census Bureau. As background, it begins with a brief review of the recent history of the poor in America.

Situated on a quiet peninsula flanked by the Albemarle and Pamlico sounds in northeastern North Carolina, Tyrrell County once was called Place of the Sweet Bay Tree by local Indians. Today it is home to protected wildlife sanctuaries, fertile farmland—and one of the highest poverty rates in the state. For generations of families, poverty has come to be a devastating, disheartening way of life, permeating nearly every segment of the community and leaving an indelible mark not only on the 23 percent of county residents who live in poverty but on everyone else as well.

A major part of the problem is jobs, or rather, the lack of jobs in a county that still relies heavily on traditional farming, fishing, and forestry trades while the world increasingly becomes more technology driven. With virtually no industry except a seafood processing company in Columbia, nearly 38 percent of Tyrrell County workers commute each day to jobs in neighboring counties. Graduating high school seniors searching for job opportunities often choose to relocate, making it all the more unlikely that potential business investors will find Tyrrell County attractive.

An increasing number of voices, including academics, policy makers, and members of the popular press, suggest that an intangible asset called “social capital” is the missing link between poverty and prosperity. Social capital refers to relations among individuals, organizations, communities, and other social units that result in tangible economic benefits such as jobs, and social capital’s advocates claim that these relationships or networks are key to providing greater economic opportunity for residents of impoverished communities.

Marshall is the county seat of Madison County, right in the middle of southern Appalachia. Poverty, isolation, and lack of formal education and worldly experiences are harsh realities in sections of this and other North Carolina mountain counties. Television, movies, and cartoons have stereotyped residents of these mountains as “hillbillies,” projecting images that often are derogatory. They expect that audiences and readers will laugh at Lil’ Abner, Snuffy Smith, and the Beverly Hillbillies. Some characteristics of mountain people touch close to the image: independent, isolated, poor. Yet on closer observation the reality is broader and multidimensional. The richness of the history, culture, landscape, and people creates a distinctive warp and woof of social fabric. There is wisdom, pride, sensibility, self-sufficiency, ingenuity, artistry, music, and story here.