Richard Florida
by Richard Florida
Wed Apr 6th 2011 at 7:30am UTC

The Metro Story: Growth without Growth

The conventional wisdom presumes that growing populations bring economic growth. But what drives wealth isn’t how many people a place is adding, but how much more productive its workers are becoming.  Yesterday, I showed that population growth and productivity growth are unrelated on the level of states. Today, drawing on my ongoing research with Kevin Stolarick of the Martin Prosperity Institute and Jose Lobo of Arizona State University, I’ll take a look at the pattern for 350 plus U.S. metro areas. The disconnect is even more pronounced.

The map above charts population growth across metros. Sunbelt metros (from dark to lighter blue on the map) grew at the fastest clip. East and West Coast metros (shaded green) grew at a considerably slower pace. The slowest-growing metros (beige) are concentrated in the Midwest.

The second map charts the change in productivity – measured as gross metropolitan product per capita. This map looks completely different than the first one.  The top productivity gainers (highlighted in blue) are spread throughout the country. They include metros like Pascagoula, Mississippi; Corvallis, Oregon; Casper and Cheyenne, Wyoming, and Vallejo, California.  College towns like Manhattan, Kansas; Durham-Chapel Hill, North Carolina and Binghamton, New York also register impressive gains. Among large metros (those with over one million people), San Jose, California, Portland, Oregon and Oklahoma City, Oklahoma saw the largest productivity increases.  But the productivity laggards are concentrated in two areas: the Sunbelt and the Midwest.

The third map also charts the change in productivity, this time measured as gross metropolitan product per worker. This map is even more telling.

The same large metros and the same college towns as on the last map are well-represented, as are heartland metros like Casper, Wyoming; Sioux Falls, South Dakota, and De Moines, Iowa, which saw impressive gains of 15 percent better. Even Frostbelt metros like Buffalo, Baltimore, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, whose very names have become bywords for decline, registered productivity gains of between 7 and 10 percent. But the five metros with the fastest population growth all saw their productivity decline. Palm Coast, Florida’s dropped a whopping 18 percent, the fourth worst figure in the nation. Cape Coral, Florida’s fell by 13 plus percent, Raleigh, North Carolina’s by 9 percent (more than Frostbelt metros like Dayton or Toledo, Ohio), St. George, Utah’s by more than 5 percent, and Las Vegas, Nevada by 1 percent. Atlanta’s productivity fell by more than 12 percent, which puts it in the same league with Detroit.

A decade ago, urban economist Paul Gottlieb coined a term for this disconnect between population and economic growth. He called it “growth without growth,” a construct former Ventura Mayor Bill Fulton has picked up on in recent writings.  When Gottlieb compared population growth to growth in real per-capita income in the 100 largest U.S. metropolitan areas, he found a pattern similar to what we discovered for states. Like states, U.S. metros divided into four categories.  Some – like Atlanta, Austin, and Dallas — were above the national average in both categories. Others, including many older Rustbelt metros, were below average in both. But it’s the last two categories that were more interesting.  Much as we found with states, half of the 100 largest metros divided into “population magnets” — places where population grew but not income, and “wealth builders,” where incomes rose much faster than population.

When Stolarick, Lobo and I looked at the connection between population growth and productivity across America’s 350 metro regions over the past decade, we found that, if anything, the disconnect has become even more pronounced. Just one in three metro areas experienced gains in both productivity and population that exceeded the national average—and we found no statistical association whatsoever between population growth and productivity growth, either for metros or states. This not only challenges the notion that population growth is a proxy for economic growth, it puts the lie to economic development strategies that encourage population growth as an end in itself. A rising population can create a false illusion of prosperity, as it did in so many Sunbelt metros, which built their house-of-cards economies around housing construction and real estate development, leaving ghost towns, mass unemployment, and empty public coffers in their wake when the bubble inevitably burst.

The south and the west may be winning the demographic race, but America’s economic winners are the places that have improved their productivity—something which doesn’t turn on the sheer numbers of workers they have on tap, but rather on how skilled and innovative they are.

2 Responses to “The Metro Story: Growth without Growth”

  1. Rob Jones Says:

    I wonder if these maps are telling us that the areas that are losing population but gaining in productivity simply reflect an outmigration due to lack of opportunity, and that the ratio of jobs relative to the population is narrowing. That these areas are enjoying the benefits of a more innovative workforce is an attractive thought, but this could also reveal a temporary plateau effect as the initial outmigration wave tapers off. On the other hand, I would look at the population growth areas to find their legs at some point and experience a pop in productivity, making themselves more attractive to their neighbors up north by market effect. I wonder if the datasets upon which these maps are based might contain more granular data that can track growth by industry/age group?

  2. Tom Christoffel Says:

    Considering that the south and west are often retirement locations, all new population is not focused on having jobs or being productive. They may add to retail expenditures and transfer income, but not local wages.

    Although the MSA nominally captures commuting, a significant number of workers can reside outside the MSA and commute in. Job-hog central localities are often trying to balance their tax base and zoning is aimed at balancing tax base, not providing housing for workers in local industry.