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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
Popular UsageThe new system may, at least over thelong run, exert as much influence onour popular understanding of metropolitanareas as on our researchunderstanding. Popular notions ofmetropolitan areas are shaped not onlyby what geographies they contain, butalso by name recognition. Both maycontribute to the economic and socialidentity of local residents, businesses,and governments.With respect to their geographicmakeup, it is not surprising that thenew metropolitan definitions are still“off the radar” in large swaths of metropolitanAmerica, given that the policyand research communities have yetto completely embrace the changes. Inpart, this is because institutions likeregional media and chambers of commercemediate between what the federalgovernment decides is ametropolitan area, and what averagecitizens consider to be their region.Newspaper “Metro” sections, forinstance, typically report on jurisdictionsin which they have a substantialsubscriber base. Thus, news in TheWashington Post covers roughly 14counties, rather than the 18 that makeup the Washington-Arlington-Alexandria,DC-MD-VA-WV Metro SA. TheMid-America Regional Council, themetropolitan planning organization forgreater Kansas City, is composed ofeight counties, while the new KansasCity, MO-KS Metropolitan StatisticalArea contains 15 counties.At the same time, several of themetro areas that underwent significantchanges might find more local receptivitythan their older versions. The oldNew York PMSA, consisting of the fivecity boroughs and three upstate NYcounties, bore little relation to theaverage citizen’s conception of themetro area. The revised New YorkMetro SA, which captures suburbanLong Island and much of northernNew Jersey, probably comes muchcloser. Similarly, the Los Angelesmetro area, which before includedonly Los Angeles County, now takes inOrange County as well, better reflectingthe economic ties between thesetwo jurisdictions.Names, however, seem to carry evenmore weight than geographic compositionin the public eye. The status ofsuburban places like Sandy Springs,GA (Atlanta), Sugar Land, TX (Houston),Edison, NJ (New York), andNaperville, IL (Chicago) was thusimmediately elevated when they eachfound a spot in their respective metroarea’s name. 34 While some of thoseplaces might earn greater acceptanceas a result—Sandy Springs is currentlyin a pitched battle to incorporate as acity—others caused confusion and dismay.Consultations with local officialsresulted in OMB changing the NewYork-Newark-Edison, NY-NJ-PA MetroSAto the New York-Northern NewJersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MetroSAin December 2003. Public opinionsimultaneously dislodgedCheektowaga and Tonawanda, NY,both principal cities in the Buffalometro area, from that area’s name infavor of the fourth-largest principalcity, Niagara Falls, which is both atourist destination and source ofregional identity.Of course, the power of a name iseven more evident in micropolitanareas, and new metropolitan areas.Hundreds of smaller counties andtowns formerly part of “rural America”suddenly acquired their own identity,and increased attention fromresearchers and businesses. 35 Evencounties that formerly resided at thefringe of large metropolitan areas, likeAshtabula, OH (formerly in the Clevelandmetro area) and Nye, NV (formerlyin the Las Vegas metro area),may gain more stature from a micropolitanlabel than they lost in separatingfrom a metropolitan center.These examples of definitionalchanges demonstrate that federal statisticalpolicy can impact how we liveand work. In the end, both researchand policy have an important role toplay in bridging the gap between thestatistical versions of metropolitanareas and the popular notions of theregions in which metropolitan residentslive. To the extent that researchcan narrow this gap over time, metropolitan-levelresearch will providegreater insights for government andbusiness decisions. OMB’s new metropolitanclassification system thus presentsboth a unique challenge and afresh opportunity for metropolitanresearch to make a real-world impact.November 2004 • The Brookings Institution The Living Cities Census Series 21
Page 1 and 2: Metropolitan Policy ProgramTracking
Page 5 and 6: the MSA/CMSA combined list (276area
Page 7 and 8: Table 1. Geographic and Demographic
Page 9: Table 3. County TransitionsPercent
Page 14 and 15: most cases, the result is a longern
Page 16 and 17: analysis in one large region, New Y
Page 18 and 19: over time as users gradually adapt
Page 22 and 23: Appendix A. Definitions of Metropol
Page 24 and 25: Appendix B. Comparing Old and New S
Page 26 and 27: Appendix C. Metropolitan Statistica
Page 28 and 29: Endnotes1. In 1947, the Bureau of t
Page 30 and 31: ReferencesBrown, David L. and Louis
Page 32: About the Living Cities Census Seri

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?