Prospects for Rural/Urban Cooperation in Governance

Richard Clucas Professor Political Science, PSUBrent Steel Professor, Political Science, OSUMark Henkels Professor, Political Science, WOU

Moderator: Bruce Weber - Professor & Director, Rural Studies Institute, OSU

The Politics of One Oregon: The Causes, Consequences and Prospects of Overcoming the Rural-Urban Divide

Professor Richard ClucasDepartment of Political Science

Portland State UniversityPortland, OR 97207

Professor Mark Henkels

Department of Political ScienceWestern Oregon University

345 N. Monmouth Ave.Monmouth, OR 97361

Professor Brent S. Steel

Master of Public Policy ProgramDepartment of Political Science

Oregon State UniversityCorvallis, OR 97331

Post-industrial Society

• Economic dominance of the service sector over manufacturing and agriculture.

• A high degree of economic activity based on an educated workforce employing scientific knowledge and technology in their work.

• Increasing population growth and employment in urban areas (and subsequent decline in many rural areas).

• Unprecedented general societal affluence.• High level of public mobilization in society (including the rise

of new social causes and movements).

Socio-economic Characteristics of Transition from Agricultural Society to Postindustrial Society

Agricultural-Natural Resource Based Economy

Industrial Society Postindustrial Society

ECONOMIC FEATURES:

Sectoral Dominance Agriculture & Natural Resource Extraction

Manufacturing Services

Systemic Character Labor Intensive Capital Intensive Knowledge Intensive

Technical Change Slow Rapid Exponential

Material Condition Poverty/Subsistence Rising Productivity Relative Historical Affluence

SOCIAL FEATURES:

Population Rural Urban Megalpolitan

Community Intimate Eroding Impersonal

Education Low Medium High

Dominant Values Basic/Survival Needs Material Security Postmaterialist Values?

Post-industrial Driving Forces and Politics

• Urbanization• Demographic Change• Globalization & Economic Change• Technological Change• Value Change• Environmental Change & Concern

Rural and Urban Oregonians and Post-materialist Values: 2008

Portland Metro All Urban Rural

Materialist 17% 18% 26%

Mixed 49% 53% 57%

Postmaterialist 34% 29% 17%

n=346 n=537 n=137

Post-materialist Values and Self-Reported Political Ideology-2008

Materialist Mixed Postmaterialist

Very Liberal 6% 4% 21%

Liberal 6% 22% 34%Moderate 50% 41% 23%

Conservative 32% 28% 20%

Very Conservative 7% 5% 2%

n=161 n=497 n=224

Post-materialist Values and Support for Gender Equity Policies-2004

Percent Strongly Supporting

Materialists Mixed Postmaterialists

Comparable Worth 37% 53% 66%

Affirmative Action (employment)

8% 18% 34%

Affirmative Action (higher education)

11% 23% 41%

Title IX (9) 33% 48% 69%

Parental Leave (publicly funded)

20% 36% 65%

Day Care (publicly funded)

13% 26% 42%

Rural and Urban Oregonian Support for the New Ecological Paradigm-2008

Percent Agreeing and Strongly Agreeing

Portland Metro All Urban Rural

The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated.

27% 31% 33%

Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature.

26% 31% 40%

The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset by human activities.

78% 71% 54%

Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist.

70% 68% 53%

n=345 n=534 n=137

Democrats as aPercentage of Major Party Membership, By Region: 1968-2008

Eastern Southern Mid-Will N. Coast PDX-Subs Univ-Co Multno-Co

1968 56% 56% 50% 60% 51% 55% 60%

1972 58% 58% 54% 63% 54% 60% 64%

1976 59% 61% 57% 66% 57% 63% 67%

1980 56% 58% 55% 64% 54% 59% 64%

1984 54% 55% 53% 63% 52% 59% 65%

1988 52% 53% 52% 62% 50% 58% 64%

1992 51% 52% 51% 62% 50% 59% 65%

1996 47% 48% 48% 59% 48% 57% 65%

2000 45% 47% 47% 58% 48% 56% 67%

2004 42% 44% 46% 57% 49% 57% 69%

2008 44% 47% 49% 60% 55% 63% 77%

Oregon Regional Voting on Fiscal Measures

1994M5 1996M25 1990s 1990s 2004M30 2006M48 2006M41 2000s 2000s 1990M5

"Yes" "Yes" Average Variation "No" "Yes" "Yes" Average Variation "Yes"

Eastern 42.4 63.3 52.9 3.1 64.1 31.2 40.3 45.2 3.4 43.1

Southern 47.5 57.7 52.6 2.8 61.7 31.7 40.2 44.5 2.7 47.9

Mid-Willamette 47.2 59.3 53.2 3.4 61.7 33.7 42.1 45.8 4.0 54.0

North Coast 47.6 57.3 52.4 2.6 60.9 29.8 37.7 42.8 1.0 51.6

Multnomah 42.3 45.5 43.9 -5.9 55.0 22.9 29.3 35.8 -6.0 55.1

Portland Suburbs 48.6 54.7 51.6 1.8 62.4 31.7 40.5 44.9 3.1 57.7

University 35.8 47.8 41.8 -8.0 47.9 22.9 30.4 33.7 -8.1 44.7

County Average 44.5 55.1 49.8 59.1 29.1 37.2 41.8 50.6Popular vote 44.7 54.7 59 29.1 37.1 52.4

1994 M5: Public vote on taxes 2004 M30: Income tax1996 M25: Supermajority for taxes 2006 M48: Spending limit

2006 M41: Federal deductions1990 M5: Property tax rollback

Oregon Regional Voting on Education and Health Issues

1990M11 1996M44 Average Variation 2002 M19 2002 M23 2007 M50 Average Variation

REGIONS "No" "No" 1990s 1990s "No" "No" "No" 2000s 2000s

EASTERN 30.0 57.7 43.9 2.0 41.0 83.1 74.7 66.3 2.7

SOUTHERN 34.8 54.1 44.5 2.6 43.3 81.9 71.8 65.6 2.0

MID-WILLAMETTE 34.7 49.3 42.0 0.1 38.0 81.3 67.3 62.2 -1.4

NORTH COAST 30.1 49.5 39.8 -2.1 42.5 76.4 63.1 60.7 -2.9

MULTNOMAH 32.3 38.1 35.2 -6.7 35.9 68.9 43.0 49.3 -14.3

PORTLAND SUBURBS 31.0 38.8 34.9 -7.0 36.2 83.2 55.8 58.4 -5.2

UNIVERSITY 28.3 35.9 32.1 -9.8 38.2 73.6 53.0 54.9 -8.7

COUNTY AVERAGE 31.2 52.6 41.9 40.6 81.1 69.0 63.6

Popular 32.2 44.5 38.1 78.5 59.3

1990 M11: Vouchers 2002 M19: Education Fund

1996 M44: Tobacco tax 2002 M23: Health care

2007 M50: Tobacco Tax

Oregon Regional Voting on Environmental Values

1990M6 1992 m8 1994 M14 1994 M18 1990s Variation 2004 M34 2004 M 37 2007 M50 2000s Variation

REGIONS "No" "No" "No" "No" Average 1990s "No" "Yes" "No" Average 2000s

EASTERN 69.3 63.4 75.4 67.9 69.0 5.2 72.0 67.6 51.8 63.8 3.3

SOUTHERN 63.2 68.0 67.6 59.3 64.5 0.7 69.1 69.3 60.0 66.1 5.6

MID-WILLAMETTE 65.4 60.8 61.7 53.0 60.2 -3.6 69.8 63.6 38.3 57.2 -3.3

NORTH COAST 61.0 67.0 56.0 48.9 58.2 -5.6 70.4 61.7 39.4 57.2 -3.3

MULTNOMAH 46.6 53.0 46.7 35.4 45.4 -18.4 46.4 51.5 21.4 39.8 -20.7

PORTLAND SUBURBS 56.3 54.0 52.5 42.6 51.3 -12.5 61.2 62.2 33.4 52.3 -8.2

UNIVERSITY 57.2 60.4 55.6 50.6 55.9 -7.9 62.6 52.3 31.9 49.0 -11.5

COUNTY AVERAGE 65.1 63.2 67.5 59.7 63.8 69.4 65.2 47.1 60.5

Popular Vote 57.7 59.0 57.6 48.2 61.7 60.6 37.9

1990 M6: Recycling 2004 M34: Timber1992 M8: salmon 2004: M37: Pro-property rights1994 M14: mining 2007 M50: Anti-Property Rights1994 M18: hunting

Oregon Regional Voting on Cultural Values

1990M8 1990M10 1992M 1994M16 1994M19 1990s Variation 2004M36 2006M43 2000s Variation

"Yes" "Yes" "Yes" "No" "Yes" 1990s "Yes" "Yes" 2000s

EASTERN 35.6 54.3 53.9 49.8 46.5 47.1 0.7 70.9 55.2 63.1 4.6

SOUTHERN 34.8 54.1 54.0 49.9 49.9 48.6 2.2 66.8 53.7 60.3 1.8

MID-WILLAMETTE 40.1 55.6 52.9 48.7 52.2 49.0 2.6 66.1 54.6 60.3 1.8

NORTH COAST 30.1 47.9 44.5 48.1 47.3 44.9 -1.5 58.5 42.9 50.7 -7.8

MULTNOMAH 26.9 41.0 31.9 43.7 39.1 39.2 -7.2 40.3 29.5 34.9 -23.6

PORTLAND SUBURBS 31.0 45.6 39.5 47.2 47.0 43.0 -3.4 57.3 45.5 51.4 -7.1

UNIVERSITY 28.4 41.9 37.5 47.2 38.6 40.0 -6.4 47.6 38.2 42.9 -15.6

COUNTY AVERAGE 34.5 52.1 50.4 49.0 47.1 46.4 0.0 65.5 51.4 58.5 0.0

POPULAR VOTE 32.3 47.9 43.5 49.2 45.7 46.4 56.6 45.2 58.5

1990M8: anti-homosexual 2004M36: anti-gay marriage1990M10: anti-abortion 2006M43: Parental notice1992M : antihomosexual1994M16: Suicide1994M19: Regulating pornography

Uniting Oregon: Some Preliminary Conclusions

Oregon continues to split along political, economic

and cultural lines associated with uneven

movement towards post-industrial society.

Uniting Oregon: Some Preliminary Conclusions

Increasing convergence beyond the Metro area

in the northwest quadrant may lead to a

broader shared vision of Oregon’s future.

Uniting Oregon: Some Preliminary Conclusions

Social/cultural issues are the most rigid splits.

Isolating such issues from others would

facilitate pragmatic policies, particularly in

areas such as health and education.

Uniting Oregon: Some Preliminary Conclusions

Policy models incorporating elements of local

community control may serve state goals

while recognizing local context.

Uniting Oregon: Some Preliminary Conclusions

The need for economic renewal in rural areas creates opportunity for synergistic

development policies.

Example: There is strong state-wide support for

renewable energy development.