The Weird Politics of the Underdeveloped South

That map of states by human development index score reminded me of something. Remember this New York Times map of voting shifts from 2004 to 2008?



The bluer counties shifted more towards the Democrats in the presidential elections from 2004 to 2008, and red counties shifted more towards the Republicans. The country as a whole shifted about 9.7% more Democratic; but one region stands out for having a lot of counties that actually went more Republican in 2008 - and it sure looks like it correlates pretty strongly with what I described yesterday as the underdeveloped core: the eight states with human development index scores well outside the mainstream for other developed economies. Those states all went for John McCain in 2008, just like they all went for Bush in 2004 and 2000 (though Bill Clinton did pretty well in the region in his two elections). They're not the most Republican states (though Oklahoma's close to the top of that list), but they all seem to be moving towards the Republicans, even as most of the rest of the country moves toward the Democrats.

If anything, this correlation is even more striking when you make the apples-to-apples comparison of state HDI vs. state voting shift from 2004 to 2008.



This shows the voting shift towards the Democrats from 2004 to 2008. The scale is set so that red states shifted less toward the Democrats than the nation as a whole (even though most of them shifted somewhat toward the Democrats) and blue states shifted more toward the Democrats than the nation as a whole. Again, the vote shift in the underdeveloped core was less toward the Democrats than in any other region; five of the 8 states actually shifted toward the Republicans - the only states to do so. Based on Dave Leip's US Election Atlas, here are the states that moved the least toward the Democrats, with their percentage change in the Democratic margin:

1. Arkansas, -10.09
2. Louisiana, -4.12
3. Tennessee, -0.79
4. West Virginia, -0.25
5. Oklahoma, -0.15
6. Massachusetts, +0.65
7. Arizona, +1.99
8. Kentucky, +3.64
9. Alaska, +4.01
10. Alabama, +4.04
11. Mississippi, +6.52

Massachusetts was the home state of the Democrat in 2004, and Arizona and Alaska were the home states of the Republican presidential and vice-presidential candidates in 2008. If you take out those three states, the top 8 states that shifted the least toward the Democrats were precisely those eight states that constitute the underdeveloped core. Does that seem like an odd correlation to you? The states that seem to be moving towards the Republicans are exactly those that have the lowest human development index scores.

One possible explanation for this would hold if Republicans were generally increasing their vote share among poorer people: if that were so, it would be most evident in the poorest states. But according to this compilation of exit poll data, that's not the case; lower income voters moved about as much toward the Democrats as the country as a whole.

Other people have explained the relatively strong Republican showing in this region as a phenomenon of Appalachia or the Upland South. But that doesn't account for the pattern of voting shifts in the Deep South. Some moron also argued that the areas of Republican improvement in 2008 should best be conceptualized as those parts of the South where there are few blacks. But that wouldn't account for the fact that Republicans did well relative to 2004 in some states with lots of blacks, like Louisiana and Mississippi, and not as well in some other states with large black populations, like Georgia and North Carolina. The pattern of areas of relative Republican improvement and the states with very low HDI scores makes for a much tidier correlation.

This is a bit hard to figure out. I mean, it's not like the Republicans are avowedly interested in addressing poverty or issues of human development in any direct way. And it's not as if they're popular among lower income people. Yet here they are making inroads in the one region of the country where levels of human development diverge widely from the norms of the developed world. The only explanation I can think of is that, in areas with lower levels of human development, traditionalist values have a firmer hold, and Republican appeals to those values have been paying off in the underdeveloped South. But it still seems odd that such values would swamp material concerns for voters in the one region of the country where the material standard of living really isn't up to snuff.

Is Part of the United States in the Third World?

EDIT WITH HUGE DISCLAIMER: The US HDI is not at all comparable to the world HDI. The data which this map represent are not, in fact based on the American Human Development Project; and the AHDP's data are not, in fact, suitable for making international comparisons - they were specifically designed with the American context in mind. So consider this a sort of interesting thought exercise, but go to the AHDP's website for the real data. They also have some very nice maps of their own.
___________________

A little while ago I asked if the United States was becoming a third world country. The purpose of that post was to point out that the US had rates of income inequality that were totally out of line with other developed countries, but would have been typical for countries in the developing world.

But there's a much more direct measure of the actual level of development of a country: the human development index. The HDI combines measures of various social indicators, including life expectancy, literacy, education, and per capita GDP, to measure overall human development, which "refers to the process of widening the options of persons, giving them greater opportunities for education, health care, income, employment, etc." By this measure, the United States ranks rather high - 15th out of all countries, with an HDI of .950, according to this table, which is based on 2006 data. But the HDI of individual states varies quite a bit. Here is a map from Wikipedia of states by their human development index score:



This map is based on numbers from this table, which come from the American Human Development Report. It gives a good sense of regional patterns of human development in the US and the comparative relationship of states to each other. But the numbers in the abstract don't tell us much; to see what these numbers mean, we need to compare them to other countries. And when we do that, we see that the HDI of many states are comparable to some of the most developed countries in the world. However, other states have HDI scores well outside the range of the developed economies of Europe and Asia.

To illustrate the point, I am now going to make a long list. These are the 76 top countries ranked by human development index score, with the 50 states interposed to show their relative level of development, based on the two tables linked above:

1. Iceland - .968
2. Norway - .968
3. Canada - .967
4. Australia - .965
5. Ireland - .962
Connecticut - .962
Massachusetts - .961
New Jersey - .961
District of Columbia - .960
Maryland - .960
Hawaii - .959
New York - .959
6. Netherlands - .958
7. Sweden - .958
New Hampshire - .958
Minnesota - .958
Rhode Island - .958
California - .958
Colorado - .958
Virginia - .957
Illinois - .957
8. Japan - .956
9. Luxembourg - .956
10. Switzerland - .955
11. France - .955
Vermont - .955
Washington - .955
Alaska - .955
12. Finland - .954
Delaware - .953
13. Denmark - .952
Wisconsin - .952
14. Austria - .951
Michigan - .951
15. United States - .950
Iowa - .950
Pennsylvania - .950
16. Spain - .949
17. Belgium - .948
18. Greece - .947
Nebraska - .946
19. Italy - .945
20. New Zealand - .944
21. United Kingdom - .942
22. Hong Kong - .942
Kansas - .941
23. Germany - .940
Arizona - .939
North Dakota - .936
Oregon - .935
Maine - .932
Utah - .932
Ohio - .932
24. Israel - .930
Georgia - .928
Indiana - .928
25. South Korea - .927
North Carolina - .925
26. Slovenia - .923
27. Brunei - .919
28. Singapore - .918
Texas - .914
29. Kuwait - .912
30. Cyprus - .912
Missouri - .912
Nevada - .911
31. United Arab Emirates - .903
32. Bahrain - .902
South Dakota - .902
33. Portugal - .900
34. Qatar - .899
Florida - .898
35. Czech Republic - .897
Wyoming - .897
New Mexico - .895
36. Malta - .894
Idaho - .890
37. Barbados - .889
Montana - .885
38. Hungary - .877
39. Poland - .875
40. Chile - .874
41. Slovakia - .872
42. Estonia - .871
South Carolina - .871
43. Lithuania - .869
44. Latvia - .863
45. Croatia - .862
46. Argentina - .860
47. Uruguay - .859
48. Cuba - .855
49. Bahamas - .854
50. Costa Rica - .847
51. Mexico - .842
52. Libya - .840
53. Oman - .839
54. Seychelles - .836
55. Saudi Arabia - .835
56. Bulgaria - .834
57. Trinidad and Tobago - .833
58. Panama - .832
59. Antigua and Barbuda - .830
60. Saint Kitts and Nevis - .830
61. Venezuela - .826
62. Romania - .825
63. Malaysia - .823
64. Montenegro - .822
65. Serbia - .821
66. Saint Lucia - .821
Kentucky - .820
67. Belarus - .817
Tennessee - .816
Oklahoma - .815
Alabama - .809
68. Macedonia - .808
69. Albania - .807
70. Brazil - .807
71. Kazakhstan - .807
72. Ecuador - .807
73. Russia - .806
Arkansas - .803
74. Mauritius - .802
75. Bosnia and Herzegovina - .802
Louisiana - .801
West Virginia - .800
Mississippi - .799
76. Turkey - .798

As you can see, there's a number of states, mostly in the Northeast but some in the Midwest and West, that are as highly developed as just about anywhere in the world. Other states are more similar to the Asian Tiger countries or the more marginal areas of Western Europe. Still others are most comparable to some of the emerging economies of Eastern Europe or the Petrostates of the Middle East.

And then there is a group of Southern States that is a good jag farther down the list. These eight states - Kentucky, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, West Virginia, and Mississippi - form a core region where human development index scores are well below the HDIs of any other country that would clearly be considered "highly developed." Among the nations that have a higher HDI than each of these states are Cuba, Mexico, Libya, Bulgaria, Panama, Malaysia, Montenegro, and Serbia. Four of these states rank below Albania, which has a per capita GDP of $6,000. In terms of human development, this clutch of states in the Upland and Deep South is well outside of the mainstream of developed economies.

The 2008 Election and Southern Whites

Two maps:



This one shows how Obama and Clinton did in the primaries. The redder the county, the better Clinton did; the bluer the county, the better Obama did. (Ignore Michigan and Florida; they didn't have real primaries.) You can see Clinton had an obvious region of strength from her home state of NY, down the spine of the Appalachians and through the Ozark states. This region is also known as the Upland South, or Appalachia.



And this one shows the voting shifts from 2004 to 2008. Bluer areas shifted towards the Democrats; redder areas shifted towrds the Republicans.

Notice anything about these two maps? There sure seems to be a strong correlation between the red areas in both of them, huh? In other words, it sure looks like Obama was unpopular in Appalachia. Indeed, that was a common theme in political commentary, during the primaries and right through the aftermath of the general election.

This analysis was wrong, though. It's true Obama underperformed in Appalachia. But another way to characterize Appalachia is as the area of the South which has few blacks. Now consider this map:



It shows the percentage of blacks in every county. And as you can see, they're concentrated in much of the south - much of the south outside Appalachia, that is. Of course, Obama did really well among blacks, boosting both the Democratic percentage of their vote and raising turnout among that demographic. So he actually did comparatively well in parts of the south with large black populations. In the remainder of the south - not so much.

But what the conventional wisdom sometimes missed was that Obama did just as poorly among southern whites in areas with lots of blacks, if not more so. A final map, from dreaminonempty, to drive the point home:



Obama's worst states among whites were Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia (all of which, along with South Carolina, went for Goldwater in 1964, incidentally: the only states besides Goldwater's home state of Arizona to do so). He did slightly better in those states overall, though, thanks to his huge margins among blacks. So Obama didn't have an "Appalachia problem," as some have alleged. He had a southern whites problem. (Though the better way to say it, probably, is that Southern whites had an Obama problem.)

Of course, not every region in the south was so hostile. He actually won Virginia and North Carolina, for instance. These are all areas where the New South has taken hold - areas which are more urbane, cosmopolitan, wealthier and more educated. He didn't win whites in these states, but he did do better among them than he did in the more rural and economically stagnant areas of the south.

It's fair to say that race has something to do with this pattern. But obviously, despite this obstacle (which was limited mostly just to the South), Obama won anyway. And this is progress. What will be interesting to see is what the results will be in 2012. Obama may or may not win, but here's a bet: those areas of the south will not diverge from the rest of the country as much as they did in 2008. They're among the most conservative parts of the US, of course, and I don't expect that to change. But I don't think they'll be quite so divergent. I think four years of an African American president will have an effect in these areas; I think whites will get used to the idea. And in so doing, the country may actually be able to make even more racial progress than was made in electing the first black president in the first place.