New Report: U.S. Metros Propel America’s Economy and Might Drive Its Recovery
Researchers from the Brookings Institution recently released a new article arguing there is a mismatch between our nation’s policies and economic reality. According to the authors, policymakers have failed to realize that the American economy is not a national economy, or even a collection of 50 state economies, but rather, is composed of 363 distinct metropolitan economies. They argue for a change in federal structure and policymaking to reflect the increasing importance of these metropolitan hubs in the American economy.
Bruce Katz, Mark Muro, & Jennifer Bradley. 2009. ”Miracle Mets: Our Fifty States Matter a Lot Less than Our 100 Largest Metro Areas.” Democracy: A Journal of Ideas 12: 22-35.
The full report is available from the Brooking’s Institution: http://www.brookings.edu/articles/2009/0311_metro_katz.aspx
Submit a comment below.
More from this category
- The Geography of Jobs
- Poverty in America is Worse than First Believed
- New Census Poverty Data Reveal Deep Disparities Throughout Washington
- Community Vitality Project Team Members Present at Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference
More from this author
- The Geography of Jobs
- Poverty in America is Worse than First Believed
- New Census Poverty Data Reveal Deep Disparities Throughout Washington
- Community Vitality Project Team Members Present at Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning Conference
Subscribe to this author
This article is a lot more controversial than the authors make it out to be. Basically, they are arguing that America should disinvest in rural areas and pool all resources into metro areas. Doing so will lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy. If the metro areas that are already big players in the economy are given all the resources, their domination over the economy will continue to grow. In addition, non-metro areas that lose resources will lose their chance for survival. In the end we will be left with an even greater urban-rural divide.
This is an interesting observation, Amy. I keep thinking about values that enabled the spread of the telephone as tool in the latter part the 19th century–the idea that remote rural places had to be connected. This is arguing the precise opposite.
The thing is–are they wrong that Metro areas are the economic engine? If that’s true–and I think it is–what do we do about it? Do we better link non-metro places with metro places? Or do we focus all our efforts on metropolitan places?
I don’t think this article specifically advocates for abandoning the rural areas of the US - that is, after all, where most of the food comes from. The article accurately reflects the reality that urban centers are the drivers of national economic development and that this trend will continue to increase as more and more people migrate to cities. Furthermore, cities are no longer as isolated as they used to be. More and more people transit through metropolitan areas all the time, so support to a metropolitan area would not be isolated to supporting only that area. I agree with the authors that policies should align with the situation; it makes little sense to maintain a paradigm of funding where the state government is an intermediary when cities are where the support and funding should go.