Tracking metropolitan America into the 21st century - Population ...

ResearchAs OMB’s suggestions indicate, oneimplication of the new metropolitanclassification system is thatresearchers now have more choices.Under the old system, metropolitanresearchers typically analyzed MSAstogether with either CMSAs orPMSAs. The new system offersresearchers, at the local level, theopportunity to examine MetroSAs,metro divisions, CSAs, and MicroSAs.In addition, the growth of metropolitanAmerica has produced a greaternumber of MetroSAs than MSAs andPMSAs, and more metropolitan principalcities than central cities.A potentially expansive researchcommunity, including federal and stateagencies, nonprofit research organizations,and private-sector marketresearchers, will use the new metropolitanclassifications. The federal statisticalagencies themselves willinfluence the speed at which otherresearchers move towards the new system,and the choices that researchersmake within that system. Some agencieslike the Bureau of EconomicAnalysis have already begun to releasedata that conform to the new metropolitanand micropolitan definitions.Many, like the Bureau of Labor Statisticsand the National Center forHealth Statistics, have yet to make thetransition, in part because their mostrecent data releases pre-date the June2003 announcement of the new classificationsystem.The greater number of choices availableto researchers under the new systemmay carry both advantages anddisadvantages. On the one hand,researchers may now have access todata that conform more closely to theirgeographic areas of interest. On theother hand, as different metropolitanresearchers choose to focus on differentclassifications, it may become moredifficult to compare across their findings.Some, as OMB suggests, maychoose to work with metropolitan divisionsfor comparability with PMSAs. 33Others may work with MetroSAsalone, or in combination withMicroSAs. Rural experts may focusonly on non-CBSAs, or on non-CBSAstogether with MicroSAs. This flexibilitycan enrich the field of inquiry, but itwill become even more important forresearchers to state their methodologyclearly and explain why they have chosentheir particular geographic frame.As discussed above, it is advised thatnational rankings of metropolitan areasand micropolitan areas employ theMetroSAs and MicroSAs, rather thanCSAs or metropolitan divisions.Regardless of their views on theclassification system itself, researchersshould welcome the new metropolitandefinitions for their basis in up-to-datecensus data on population, urbanization,and commuting patterns. Thesenew areas likely exhibit a greaterdegree of economic and social cohesiontoday than do the old metropolitandefinitions, which were rootedprimarily in 1990 census data. Thenew methods for defining metropolitanareas and principal cities are alsosimpler than under the old system,and help resolve some of the odderoutcomes apparent in the 1999 definitions(like King George County, VAappearing in the Washington, DCmetro area).What changes might the new systemproduce in actual researchresults? In this survey, we offer a lookat how certain demographic and economicindicators at the metropolitanlevel differ when viewed through theold and new lenses. For the most part,the notable differences are limited to afew large metropolitan areas thatunderwent significant definitionalchanges, like New York, San Francisco,Dallas, and Raleigh-Durham. Inmany other areas like Atlanta, Portland,Wichita, and Washington, theaddition, subtraction, or “relegation”to micropolitan of smaller counties atthe metropolitan fringe does not domuch to influence the overall empiricalpicture.20November 2004 • The Brookings InstitutionThe Living Cities Census Series