2017 study shows conflicting economic impacts of fracking in local communities, further complicating the debate.

“Well, you ought to vote for someone else.”

In early December 2019, Joe Biden was making a campaign stop at Water’s Edge Nature Center in Algona, Iowa. There he was approached by a climate activist who urged him to embrace a sweeping federal fracking ban. The Democratic primary candidate and former Vice President explained his intention to ban new drilling, but ultimately expressed that the activist should look elsewhere if he wanted a complete ban on hydraulic fracking.

Banning hydraulic fracking has become a polarizing political topic due to the potential environmental impacts and economic importance. The process is linked to groundwater contamination, air pollution, and earthquakes. When extracted through fracking, methane has the potential to leak, producing CH4, a potent greenhouse gas. When burned for fuel, methane produces carbon dioxide (CO2), another greenhouse gas that contributes to climate change. Some candidates cite these environmental damages and contributions to climate change as reasons to implement a comprehensive ban.

While other candidates do not disagree with the potential for environmental harm, some point to potential negative economic effects if a ban were implemented. But does fracking drive positive economic growth? Like other growing industries, fracking is often touted for great job growth. Some rural communities have become natural resource dependent, meaning their local economy relies on the extractive industries (e.g. coal mining, oil drilling, fracking). Banning the entire industry would require a just transition to cleaner forms of energy and different sources of employment.

A 2017 study published in Rural Sociology challenges the dominant narrative that fracking is an economic boon. Often applied to entire countries, the resource curse theory argues that dependency on a single natural resource leads to slower economic growth and an unstable local economy. The study asks if fracking is a resource curse, dragging down American communities.

To answer that question, the researchers measured the socioeconomic impact of fracking on rural and suburban/urban communities. Previous literature on extractive communities has largely focused on rural counties because that’s where industries like coal mining took place. Now, with advancing technology, fracking ventures have extended into urban and suburban communities.

To measure socio-economic wellbeing in rural and urban communities, the researchers looked at average wages, families below the poverty line, median household income, and ratio of total employment to population over eleven years (2000 to 2011). They compare this data to oil and gas production in each county and its level of urbanization.

The final results were mixed. Counties with increasing gas and oil production did see increases in employment. But, compared to counties with more varied local economies, the studied extractive communities tended to have higher poverty rates and lower earnings per job, median income, and employment. This lines up with the resource curse, which theorizes that extractive industries hinder local economic diversity, leaving the community vulnerable to instability. A potential explanation is that fracking might produce temporary jobs or hire workers from outside of the community, creating jobs, but failing to address the structural poverty of the communities.

So, what does this mean for the future of fracking in the United States? The results of this study add nuance to the already complex debate of about energy transitions and economic development. For the primary candidates that seek to ban hydraulic fracking, the negative socio-economic impacts of fracking on rural communities can be a powerful argument. On the other hand, candidates like Biden who only seek to simply regulate the fracking industry may see the increase in employment for extractive communities as further proof that fracking is integral to local economic prosperity. Either way, the candidates must be ready to back up their stance with a detailed plan for transitioning the US economy away from fossil fuels.

For more details on the individual stances of candidates, visit here.