Abstract
This article reports preliminary results of current research into the changing spatial pattern of manufacturing in the contiguous states. Complete results are not due for two years. Results reported here are general in nature but portray trends important to those involved in economic development, especially activities aimed at attracting manufacturing firms. Between 1965 and 1985 total employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 47.2 million to 80.2 million, a 70% increase. Manufacturing employment rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million, or just 10%. During this period employment in exurban counties rose by 86 percent, from 7.6 million to 14.1 million. Manufacturing employment rose from 3.4 million to 4.5 million, or 32%. While exurban areas accounted for only 20% of the total number of jobs created during this period, it accounted for 61% of the new manufacturing jobs. By comparison, urban counties lost manufacturing employment, suburban counties accounted for 21%, small metropolitan counties accounted for 18%, and rural counties accounted for just 27% of new manufacturing jobs (figures adjusted for the loss of nearly one-half million manufacturing jobs in urban counties). Manufacturing is moving farther into the countryside, away from central cities and their traditional suburbs, but not so far away that goods, workers, and services cannot be shipped easily within a day to nearby urban areas. Exurban industrialization will lead to greater population dispersal If population shifts occasioned by exurban industrialization create new demands for services, retail and service jobs may follow. Exurban industrialization may place new pressures on local governments not prepared to accommodate the special needs of manufacturing or new residents. In this article the author offers only insight into this phenomenon. Work must be done to ascertain its many dimensions, implications, and possible policy responses.
Original language | English (US) |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 320-333 |
Number of pages | 14 |
Journal | Economic Development Quarterly |
Volume | 4 |
Issue number | 4 |
DOIs | |
State | Published - Nov 1990 |
Externally published | Yes |
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Development
- Economics and Econometrics
- Urban Studies
Fingerprint
Dive into the research topics of 'Regional Patterns of Exurban Industrialization: Results of a Preliminary Investigation'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.Cite this
- APA
- Standard
- Harvard
- Vancouver
- Author
- BIBTEX
- RIS
In: Economic Development Quarterly, Vol. 4, No. 4, 11.1990, p. 320-333.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Regional Patterns of Exurban Industrialization
T2 - Results of a Preliminary Investigation
AU - Nelson, Arthur C.
N1 - Funding Information: Nelson Arthur C. Georgia Institute of Technology 11 1990 4 4 320 333 This article reports preliminary results of current research into the changing spatial pattern of manufacturing in the contiguous states. Complete results are not due for two years. Results reported here are general in nature but portray trends important to those involved in economic development, especially activities aimed at attracting manufacturing firms. Between 1965 and 1985 total employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 47.2 million to 80.2 million, a 70% increase. Manufacturing employment rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million, or just 10%. During this period employment in exurban counties rose by 86 percent, from 7.6 million to 14.1 million. Manufacturing employment rose from 3.4 million to 4.5 million, or 32%. While exurban areas accounted for only 20% of the total number of jobs created during this period, it accounted for 61% of the new manufacturing jobs. By comparison, urban counties lost manufacturing employment, suburban counties accounted for 21%, small metropolitan counties accounted for 18%, and rural counties accounted for just 27% of new manufacturing jobs (figures adjusted for the loss of nearly one-half million manufacturing jobs in urban counties). Manufacturing is moving farther into the countryside, away from central cities and their traditional suburbs, but not so far away that goods, workers, and services cannot be shipped easily within a day to nearby urban areas. Exurban industrialization will lead to greater population dispersal If population shifts occasioned by exurban industrialization create new demands for services, retail and service jobs may follow. Exurban industrialization may place new pressures on local governments not prepared to accommodate the special needs of manufacturing or new residents. In this article the author offers only insight into this phenomenon. Work must be done to ascertain its many dimensions, implications, and possible policy responses. sagemeta-type Journal Article search-text RESEARCH AND PRACTICE Regional Patterns of Exurban Industrialization: Results of a Preliminary Investigation Arthur C. Nelson Georgia Institute of Technology Arthur C. Nelson, Ph.D., AICP, is Associate Professor of Public Policy and City Planning at the Georgia Institute of Technology. His doctoral degree is from Portland State University in Urban Studies, focusing on regional economics and planning. His research interests include economic incidence of development exactions, urban containment policy, resource land development and conservation policy, and industrialization patterns of the twentieth century. He is principal investigator of a grant sponsored by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Economic Development Administration, to conduct research into exurban industrialization. This article reports preliminary results of current research into the changing spatial pattern of manufacturing in the contiguous states. Complete results are not due for two years. Results reported here are general in nature butportray trends important to those involved in economic development, especially activities aimed at attracting manufac- turingfirms. Between 1965 and 1985 total employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 47.2 million to 80.2 million, a 70% increase. Manufacturing employment rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million, or just 10%. During this period employment in exurban counties rose by 86 percent, from 7.6 million to 14.1 million. Manufacturing employment rose from 3.4 million to 4.5 million, or 32%. While exurban areas accounted for only 20% of the total number of jobs created during this period, it accounted for 61 % of the new manufacturing jobs. By comparison, urban counties lost manufacturing employment, suburban counties accountedfor 21%, small metropolitan counties accounted for 18%, and rural counties accounted for just 27% of new manufacturing jobs (figures adjusted for the loss of nearly one-half million manufac- turing jobs in urban counties). Manufacturing is moving farther into the countryside, away from central cities and their traditional suburbs, but not so far away that goods, workers, and services cannot be shipped easily within a day to nearby urban areas. Exurban industrialization will lead to greaterpopulation dispersal Ifpopulation shifts occasioned by ecxurban industrialization create new demands for services, retail and service jobs may follow. Exurban industrialization may place new pressures on local governments notprepared to accommodate the special needs of manufacturing or new residents. In this article the author offers only insight into thisphenomenon. Work must be done to ascertain its many dimensions, implications, andpossiblepolicy responses. A new form of development is emerging in the United States. It has very low density, extending more than 50 miles from the edge of most urban development and more than 100 miles from the center of the largest central cities in the U.S. Exurban development has largely escaped the notice of researchers. Yet, it is by some accounts the fastest growing component of the American landscape. One-fifth of the U.S. population already lives in the rural nonfarm portions of metropolitan counties and nonmetropolitan counties within commuting range of AUTHOR'S NOTE: I would like to thank David S. Sawicki for generating the maps used in this article. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY, Vol. 4 No. 4, November 1990 320-333 1990 Sage Publications, Inc. 320 Nelson / EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 321 metropolitan employment opportunities.' By the early part of the next century, much of the contiguous 48 states will no longer be distinguishable as either urban or rural; it will be char- acterized mostly by low-density, exurban development.2 Exurban development is a product of counterurbanization.3 Some misinterpret counterur- banization as resulting in a kind of rural population and industrial renaissance.4 Such literature generally asserts that during the 1 970s the two-century-long trend of population and manufacturing concentration in urban areas reversed, resulting in nonmetropolitan areas' gaining population and manufacturing jobs at a faster pace that metropolitan areas. Much of that rural renaissance disappeared, however, when formerly nonmetropolitan counties were deemed metropolitan by the census in 1983.V Thus, much of the rural renaissance was seen as nothing more than continuing urban spatial expansion. But the official census classification scheme caused researchers to overlook the most interesting phenomenon of counterurbanization: the emergence of the exurban landscape. That landscape is not discernable from analysis based on metropolitan/nonmetropolitan definitions. Nor is it easily grasped by analyses based on rural, urban, or suburban definitions. Likewise, exurban industrialization has not been detected by previous researchers largely because it spans the area between urban/suburban areas and the truly rural landscape. As a result of census statistical arrangements, some exurban industrialization is counted in metropolitan areas while the balance is counted in nonmetropolitan areas. The result is confusion about the dimensions of contemporary industrialization patterns. This leads to overstatement of rural development and understatement of urban fringe development. These uniform characterizations lead to unwise planning and economic development and policy. This article first reviews classical and modern manufacturing location to place exurban industrialization into historical and contemporary perspectives. It then defines exurban for purposes of this article. The article then reports the extent of exurban industrialization in the contiguous 48 states and focuses on its extent in each of the four major regions as defined by the census: Northeast, South, Midwest, and West (excluding Alaska and Hawaii). A summary of the im- plications of our research on rural and exurban economic development concludes the discussion. By the early part of the next century, much of the contiguous 48 states will no longer be distinguishable as either urban or rural; it will be characterized mostly by low-density, exurban development. MANUFACTURING LOCATION AND IMPLICATIONS FOR EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION Classical Manufacturing Location Weber's classical industrial location theory has firms attracted to locations that minimize the total transportation costs of inputs and outputs.6 Firms will tend to locate at resource sites and at sites where shipping cargoes are released, and at points where suppliers or consumers are present.7 As nodes of industrial activity emerge, they will exert city-building influences.8 The local market for output increases and more firms are attracted. A city is thus created that is based substantially on manufacturing.9 Webber and Scott offer succinct discussions of manufacturing location within nineteenth- century cities.'0 Near the core of those cities were located transportation services including ocean, river, canal or lake ports, or rail facilities. The cost of moving freight between cities by water or rail was far cheaper than by road. It was also relatively expensive to transport workers even short distances to manufacturing sites. Shipping of raw material for processing was relatively inefficient because much of its weight was lost during manufacture. Nineteenth-century cities were thus located where labor supply, intercity and local markets, and raw material location were found nearby. Those cities were densely populated and manufacturing highly centralized. Manufacturing Location in the Twentieth Century The relationships between labor, capital, material, and market have changed considerably during the twentieth century.11 Manufacturing has nearly abandoned the city core altogether for 322 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / November 1990 distant sites seemingly removed from labor, materials, and markets."2 Two factors help explain the decentralization of manufacturing. The first is the changing technology of many manufacturing processes. In general, modem technology allows for greater substitution of labor by machines. This has resulted in increasing plant size. Those plants are most efficient in horizontal and not vertical arrangements."3 Horizontal arrangements require extensive tracts of land. This factor alone makes location in the city core less important in the twentieth century.14 Second is declining transportation costs for both freight and labor."5 Freight is now moved long distances at low (subsidized) cost through the air, on the water, along rails, and especially along an extensive highway network by a relatively efficient mode: the truck. The highway network has made more markets accessible than has any other conveyance. Highways have also had the effect of increasing the supply of suitable manufacturing sites. The supply of those sites is now so abundant that site prices are relatively low. Land-extensive manufacturing arrangements are relatively economically accommodated. Furthermore, location in the countryside does not deprive manufacturers of labor since workers are willing to travel considerable distances to work. Some may argue that government policies subsidize decentraliza- tion of activity, including manufacturing."6 For those and other reasons, manufacturing firms have become more footloose in the latter quarter of the twentieth century than at any other time in history.'7 Many researchers also find that manufacturers locate away from urban areas for other reasons, including availability of a willing and reliable work force, often skilled in machinery but underem- ployed in current occupations;'8 the absence of labor unionization and presence of right-to-work laws among rural-dominated states;'9 environmental pollution capacity;20 readily available build- ings and sites;2' and community livability.22 Bergman, Haren and Holling, Till, Summers, and Tweeten report that between 1962 and 1979, nonmetropolitan counties gained manufacturing jobs at a faster pace than metropolitan counties.23 Between 1970 and 1979, for example, manufacturing employment rose by 23.9% in nonmetropol- itan counties, but only by 3.9% in metropolitan counties. During the 1960s and 1970s, 52% of all of the 4.4 million jobs added to manufacturing in the nation were located in nonmetropolitan areas. Researchers have come to the conclusion that new manufacturing operations are likely to locate away from urban areas and in the countryside.24 But the closer look offered here properly attributes growth in manufacturing to exurban, and not strictly to rural, locations. DEFINING EXURBAN AREAS FOR ANALYSIS Exurban areas are tied to urban areas, although they may appear rural in many respects. They are within about an hour's commute to jobs in cities, suburban centers, and beltways.7 They are also within easy trucking range to urban markets. In contrast, truly rural areas are well beyond reasonable commuting and trucking range to urban areas. Thus, activity is limited to areas proximate to urban development. Those areas may be loosely defined as an urban field.26 Lacking a census of exurban, there is no published count of exurban population and employ- ment. Some have preliminarily estimated that more than 40 million people live in rural nonfarm portions of metropolitan counties and in nonmetropolitan counties within commuting range of metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs) that exceed one-half million residents.27 Manufacturing jobs in this area are yet uncounted but are certainly in the millions and growing. To grasp some sense of exurbanization in general and exurban industrialization in particular, a definitional scheme founded on census data arrangements is adapted from Blumenfeld, Dueker et al., Lang, and Nelson and Dueker.28 Exurban areas are defined here as any county (including parish and township, as the case requires) that meets location criteria. The county is the level of analysis, since employment and population data are readily available at this level and because it is a suitable scale of analysis, with one important exception. Many counties in the western part of the contiguous 48 states are very large, some larger than some eastern states. Ideally, one would divide such counties into subcounty divisions, but employment data are not available at that level. County Status A , ~ ~ * * *, , S ~m0 IS1'CunySau r Ubrban/Suburban Figure 1: Assignment of Counties to Urban and Suburban, Exurban, and Rural Categories in the Contiguous 48 States (1985) SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population, 1985; Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, Exurban Sprawl (Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology, 1988). Exurban counties may be inside or outside metropolitan statistical areas. For all MSAs except those of less than one-half million population (small MSAs), exurban counties are all MSA counties outside the central-city county and all MSA counties defined as metropolitan in 1960 (suburban). For MSAs of less than one million in population, exurban counties are outside MSAs but within 60 miles of the outermost circumferential limited-access highway, or within 70 miles of the center of the central city, whichever defines the larger area. For MSAs with more than one million in population, exurban counties are outside MSAs but within 80 miles of the outermost circumferential limited access highway, or within 100 miles of the center of the central city, whichever defines the larger area.29 These distances are within the range that commuters are willing to travel to the central city, suburban centers, or perimeter/beltway areas for work.30 It is also a distance that allows relatively timely trucking of raw, finished, and repackaged materials to and from the urbanized area. Figure 1 illustrates the result of our classification scheme for the 48 contiguous states. Nelson I EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 323 324 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / November 1990 TABLE 1 Distribution of Total and Manufacturing Employment 48 Contiguous States, 1965-1985 (figures in thousands) Total Employment Share of Change % Change % Growth 1965 1975 1985 1965-1985 1965-1985 1965-1985 Urban 22,589 26,682 34,034 11,445 50.57 34.68 Suburban 5,628 7,986 11,863 6,235 110.77 18.90 Small MSA 8,207 10,863 14,611 6,405 78.04 19.40 Exurban 7,631 10,311 14,130 6,498 85.15 19.70 Rural 3,152 4,399 5,567 2,415 76.63 7.30 Total 47,207 60,242 80,206 32,998 69.90 100.00 Manufacturing Employment Share of Change % Change % Growth 1965 1975 1985 1965-1985 1965-1985 1965-1985 Urban 7,590 7,126 7,127 -463 -6.09 -26.19 Suburban 2,261 2,359 2,625 364 16.12 20.63 Small MSA 3,184 3,453 3,503 319 10.02 18.05 Exurban 3,437 4,272 4,507 1,070 31.13 60.56 Rural 1,039 1,328 1,515 476 45.79 26.94 Total 17,511 18,539 19,277 1,767 10.09 100.00 SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965, 1975, 1985. EXTENT OF EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION Consider the example of a firm locating the exurban region of the Cleveland, Ohio area. Lucas Aerospace Power Equipment Corporation, a manufacturer of aircraft motors, decided to move its 800 employees into a new, 300,000 square-foot, high-technology office and manufacturing building located in Portage County just outside the Cleveland MSA. The firm determined that, because the existing manufacturing facility was obsolete, it would cost $3 million more to rebuild the existing facility than to move it into Portage county.3" Thus, while the figures suggest that the Cleveland area would have lost 800 jobs in the high-technology aerospace industry, in fact those jobs are simply relocating to a county just 14 miles away. This example underscores the changing spatial patterns of manufacturing. The information that follows is general in nature, reflecting the preliminary nature of research just under way. Exurban industrialization is characterized by reviewing the changing distribution of manufac- turing jobs among urban, suburban, exurban, and rural areas. Manufacturing data come from the U.S. Bureau of the Census, County Business Patterns. The County Business Patterns section of the U.S. Bureau of the Census publishes an annual series of state and national level statistics on the number of establishments, total employment, and payroll on an establishment basis at the county level. Data for the years 1965, 1975, and 1985 are used. Manufacturing employment in some counties is suppressed. However, as the number of firms within each of nine employment-size categories is reported, manufacturing employment is input for counties where total manufacturing employment was suppressed. Population data were also collected. The overall data collection effort required four weeks of three, full-time graduate research assistants and another month of data checking, assembly, and assignment to county groups. Results reported here are preliminary and address only total and manufacturing employment (not divided into SIC codes), and population. Nelson / EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 325 TABLE 2 Population Distribution in 48 Contiguous States, 1960-1985 (figures in thousands) Share of Change % Change % Growth 1960 1970 1980 1985 1960-85 1960-85 1960-85 Urban 63,648 71,590 74,719 77,301 13,654 21.45 24.46 Suburban 20,810 26,425 29,391 30,899 10,089 48.48 18.08 Small MSA 30,312 34,850 39,479 42,182 11,870 39.16 21.27 Exurban 42,471 46,882 56,277 58,980 16,509 38.87 29.58 Rural 20,277 20,431 23,472 23,965 3,688 18.19 6.61 Total 177,518 200,179 223,337 233,328 55,810 31.44 100.00 SOURCE: U.S. Census of Population and Current Population Reports, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985. The purpose of the preliminary exercise was to identify significant trends. Indeed, trends were found for the nation and each of its four major regions as defined by the census (limited to the 48 contiguous states). Results are shown in Table 1. Between 1965 and 1985 total employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 47.2 million to 80.2 million, a 70% increase. Manufacturing employment rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million, orjust 10%. Clearly, the movement away from an industrial to a post-industrial economy is evident. Although total employment in urban counties rose by 51%, from 22.6 million to 34 million, manufacturing employment fell from 7.6 million to 7.1 million. In suburban counties, employment rose by 11 1% from 5.6 million to 11.9 million; but manufacturing employment rose by only 16%, from 2.3 million to 2.6 million. Employment in small MSAs rose from 8.2 million to 14.6 million, or 78%, while manufacturing employment rose from 3.2 million to 3.5 million, or 10%. Employment in rural counties rose from 3.2 million to 5.6 million, or 77% while manufacturing employment rose from 1 million to 1.5 million, or 46%. Some suggest that this rise in employment signals a kind of rural renaissance, but the number of jobs created in rural counties is far less than in suburban, small MSA counties, and exurban counties. Indeed, by factoring metropolitan counties within urban fields out of the rural component, the rural renaissance substantially disappears. Our findings show that overall employment in exurban counties rose by 85%, from 7.6 million to 14.1 million. Most interesting, and consistent with our thesis, is the finding that manufacturing employment rose from 3.4 million to 4.5 million, or 31%. This was the largest nominal increase in manufacturing jobs among all spatial types during this period. We further find that while total manufacturing employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million-a change of 1.8 million-manufacturing employment outside central cities rose from 9.9 million to 12.1 million-a change of 2.2 million. Thus, while exurban areas account for only 20% of the total number of jobs created during this period, it accounted for 48% of the location of new manufacturing jobs. More important, it accounted for 61% of the entire share of manufacturing change. By comparison, suburban counties accounted for 17% of the total increase and 21% of the shift; small metropolitan counties accounted for 6% of the increase and 18% of the shift; and rural counties accounted for 22% of the increase and 27% of the shift. Urban counties lost one-half million manufacturing jobs. And what of population distribution? During the period from 1960 to 1985, exurban counties added more population than any other area evaluated. Population rose from 42.5 million to 59 million, an increase of nearly 16.5 million. Exurban counties accounted for 30% of the share of continental U.S. growth. In fact, exurban counties grew faster than all other counties in both nominal and share-of-growth terms. By contrast, urban counties accounted for a one-quarter of the increase, suburban counties accounted for 18%; small MSAs accounted for 21%, and rural counties accounted for less than 7%. These figures are shown in Table 2. . . . while exurban areas account for only 20% of the total number ofjobs created during this period, it accounted for 48% of the location of new manufacturing jobs. 326 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / November 1990 It is important to note that our results differ slightly from those reported by Bluestone and Long.32 They evaluated population and employment growth between 1969 and 1984. They found that population and manufacturing employment growth in counties outside metropolitan counties fell sharply between 1979 and 1984, after substantial growth in the period from 1969 to 1979. Their method of assigning counties to categories, based purely on census distinction between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan, falls into the standard traps identified above. They found, however, that manufacturing was a leading source of employment growth in many adjacent metro and nonmetro counties, while a leading source of decline in others. Bluestone and Long's study is worth comparing to this one, but space prevents making detailed comparisons here. Suffice it to say that their study follows a widely different analytical approach, tailored to different questions. In contrast, our central question is specific: to what extent does manufacturing tend to locate in exurban areas? REGIONAL PATTERNS While the overall picture shows the exurbanization of manufacturing in the contiguous 48 states, regional variations are most interesting. The Northeast and Midwest, regions of mature urbaniza- tion and manufacturing, show the greatest amount of exurban industrialization. The South shows concentration of population and manufacturing employment primarily in cities and their suburbs, reflecting that region's relative youthfulness in development patterns. Exurban industrialization is substantial, however, and we conjecture will soon become dominant. In the West, manufacturing tends to locate the urban and suburban counties, primarily because landscape development constraints restrict development to developable areas and also for a statistical reason: the level of analysis is such that western counties are much larger, on average, than counties in the other three regions, and data at the county level thereby mask exurban development trends. Data and summary discussions of these regions are presented. Northeast Table 3 shows total and manufacturing employment and population in the northeastern United States. Notice that of the 5 million new jobs created in this region between 1965 and 1985, 30% were located in exurban counties, while one-half of those jobs were located in urban and suburban counties. The Northeast has seen the greatest relative share of employment deconcentration in the contiguous 48 states. Most interesting is the fact that this region lost nearly I million manufacturing jobs, yet exurban counties saw a total increase of 66,000 manufacturing jobs; rural counties saw an increase of fewer than 6,000 jobs. Urban, suburban, and small metropolitan counties all lost manufacturing jobs. Distribution of population is even more dramatic. Two-thirds of the share of population growth in the region was concentrated in exurban counties, while urban counties lost population. The Northeast shows evidence of being mature in its urban and suburban centers. New development is migrating ever farther outward, into exurban counties. Those counties are them- selves facing substantial new employment generation, primarily among nonmanufacturing jobs. Midwest As in the Northeast, the Midwest lost manufacturing employment between 1965 and 1985 -about one-quarter of a million jobs. However, as in the Northeast, a substantial number of manufacturing jobs were created in exurban counties-about one-quarter of a million. Urban and small metropolitan counties lost manufacturing jobs faster than they were replaced, but suburban, exurban, and rural areas gained manufacturing jobs, with exurban counties leading the way. Overall job creation in the Midwest surpassed 6 million, and the jobs were roughly evenly distributed among all county classes. Nelson / EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 327 TABLE 3 Distribution of Total and Manufacturing Employment Population in the Northeast (figures in thousands) Total Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 6,757 6,815 7,840 1,083 16.02 21.43 Suburban 3,127 3,600 4,488 1,362 43.54 26.94 Small MSA 1,651 1,978 2,598 947 57.32 18.73 Exurban 2,008 2,573 3,543 1,535 76.44 30.38 Rural 162 212 289 128 78.80 2.52 Total 13,704 15,177 18,756 5,052 36.87 100.00 Manufacturing Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 2,437 1,925 1,708 -729 -29.90 73.49 Suburban 1,265 1,126 1,067 -199 -15.67 -3.92 Small MSA 819 796 683 -137 -16.67 -2.70 Exurban 966 1,162 1,033 66 6.86 1.31 Rural 68 70 74 6 8.37 0.11 Total 5,556 5,080 4,564 -991 -17.84 -19.62 Population % Growth Change % Change Share 1960 1970 1980 1985 1960-85 1960-85 1960-85 Urban 18,683 19,543 18,168 18,253 -429 -2.30 -8.29 Suburban 10,165 11,109 10,691 10,769 604 5.94 11.95 Small MSA 5,690 6,470 6,874 7,062 1,372 24.11 27.15 Exurban 9,357 11,111 12,441 12,778 3,421 36.57 67.72 Rural 781 828 962 997 216 27.68 4.28 Total 44,676 49,061 49,135 49,860 5,184 11.60 2.59 SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965, 1975, 1985; U.S. Census of Population and Current Population Reports, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985. Exurban counties accounted for nearly half of the population increase in the Midwest. Suburban and small metropolitan counties added roughly equivalent amounts of population, while urban counties lost population and rural counties gained only slightly. These figures are reported in Table 4. South The South is the region of the most dynamic growth between 1965 and 1985. Its development is much discussed in literature. Only since World War II has the South seen widespread urbaniza- tion and industrialization. It is only now undergoing the kind of urbanization and industrialization experienced by the Northeast and Midwest prior to the 1960s. Development trends reported in Table 5 show its relative youthfulness. The South has added more than 13 million new jobs of which nearly 2 million are in manufacturing. Most jobs were created in urban and suburban counties and much of the rest have been created in small metropolitan and exurban counties. Rural counties, comprising the largest number of total counties, remained stagnant in job growth. 328 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / November 1990 TABLE 4 Distribution of Total and Manufacturing Employment Population in the Midwest (figures in thousands) Total Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 6,369 6,885 7,431 1,062 16.67 17.25 Suburban 1,176 1,829 2,633 1,457 123.87 23.67 Small MSA 2,983 3,744 4,432 1,449 4.59 23.55 Exurban 2,274 3,056 3,775 1,501 65.98 24.38 Rural 1,015 1,460 1,701 686 67.63 11.15 Total 13,817 16,975 19,972 6,155 44.54 100.00 Manufacturing Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 2,593 2,263 1,877 -716 -27.61 295.74 Suburban 576 657 715 139 24.12 -57.43 Small MSA 1,330 1,347 1,259 -71 -5.31 29.15 Exurban 1,021 1,260 1,296 275 26.98 -113.74 Rural 282 386 412 130 46.07 -53.73 Total 5,802 5,913 5,560 -242 -4.17 100.00 Population % Growth Change % Change Share 1960 1970 1980 1985 1960-85 1960-85 1960-85 Urban 17,204 18,240 17,011 16,868 -336 -1.95 -4.49 Suburban 4,649 6,057 6,712 16,870 2,221 47.78 29.65 Small MSA 10,110 11,432 11,543 11,874 1,764 17.45 23.55 Exurban 12,724 13,916 16,250 16,215 3,491 27.43 46.60 Rural 6,954 7,066 7,394 7,306 351 5.05 4.69 Total 51,641 56,712 58,910 59,132 7,491 14.51 100.00 SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965, 1975, 1985; U.S. Census of Population and Current Population Reports, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985. Interestingly, exurban counties accounted for only one-third of the new manufacturing jobs while urban and suburban counties accounted for an additional third. Population distribution reflects these urbanization trends. Unlike in the Northeast and Midwest, urban counties gained substantial population. About two-thirds of the more-than-25-million population increase is found in urban, suburban, and small metropolitan counties. Less than one-third is found in exurban areas, and only 5% is found in rural counties. As urban areas mature, we suspect that exurban development will dominate southern development. Our information suggests, however, that for the present the South is in the process of urbanization, albeit with substantial amounts of exurban development. In fact, the total volume of new jobs, manufacturing jobs, and population growth in exurban counties is higher in the South than in any other region, although it is overshadowed by the development in of urban, suburban, and small metropolitan counties. Nelson / EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 329 TABLE 5 Distribution of Total and Manufacturing Employment Population in the South (figures in thousands) Total Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 5,052 7,170 10,245 5,193 102.79 38.50 Suburban 615 1,254 2,296 1,681 273.17 12.46 Small MSA 2,651 3,736 5,306 2,654 100.10 19.68 Exurban 2,978 4,135 5,910 2,932 98.44 21.74 Rural 1,321 1,829 2,349 1,028 77.83 7.62 Total 12,618 18,124 26,106 13,488 106.89 100.00 Manufacturing Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 1,241 1,427 1,643 402 32.40 22.36 Suburban 197 244 319 122 61.94 6.79 Small MSA 848 1,043 1,176 328 38.63 18.22 Exurban 1,346 1,711 2,003 657 48.79 36.52 Rural 537 696 827 290 53.86 16.10 Total 4,169 5,121 5,967 1,798 43.12 100.00 Population % Growth Change % Change Share 1960 1970 1980 1985 1960-85 1960-85 1960-85 Urban 14,183 17,225 20,405 22,487 8,304 58.55 32.37 Suburban 3,032 4,518 5,566 5,993 2,961 97.67 11.54 Small MSA 10,017 11,441 13,723 14,998 4,982 49.73 19.42 Exurban 17,926 19,201 23,964 25,984 8,058 44.95 31.41 Rural 8,715 8,450 9,942 10,061 1,347 15.45 5.25 Total 53,872 60,835 73,601 79,523 25,651 47.61 100.00 SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965, 1975, 1985; U.S. Census of Population and Current Population Reports, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985. West Analysis of the West is made problematic by two factors. First, it is a region of very limited developable land. Most of California's nearly 30 million residents live hemmed in by oceans and mountains while most of that state's land area-which is equivalent to that of Japan-is wilderness. Virtually all major urban centers in the West are situated on about the only developable land in this region. Second, counties in the West are very large by comparison to other regions, thereby rendering difficult the classification of counties. For example, San Bernardino County, California, has clearly defined urban, suburban, exurban, and rural landscapes. It is also larger than any given New England state. Yet it can only be classified as suburban by our scheme. Development in the West is therefore heavily concentrated in spatially large urban counties, and only those with substantial volumes of buildable land. Nearly half of all the increase in total and manufacturing employment and one-third of the increase in population are found in urban 330 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / November 1990 TABLE 6 Distribution of Total and Manufacturing Employment Population in the West (figures in thousands) Total Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 4,411 5,812 8,519 4,108 93.14 49.48 Suburban 711 1,302 2,446 1,736 244.25 20.91 Small MSA 921 1,406 2,276 1,355 147.04 16.32 Exurban 371 549 902 531 143.12 6.40 Rural 654 898 1,228 573 87.61 6.91 Total 7,068 9,967 15,371 8,303 117.47 100.00 Manufacturing Employment % Growth Change % Change Share 1965 1975 1985 1965-85 1965-85 1965-85 Urban 1,319 1,511 1,899 580 43.96 48.24 Suburban 222 333 524 301 135.63 25.08 Small MSA 187 267 385 198 106.27 16.51 Exurban 104 139 176 72 68.67 5.95 Rural 151 176 202 51 33.50 4.22 Total 1,984 2,425 3,186 1,202 60.60 100.00 Population % Growth Change % Change Share 1960 1970 1980 1985 1960-85 1960-85 1960-85 Urban 13,578 16,583 19,135 19,694 6,116 45.04 34.98 Suburban 2,964 4,741 6,421 7,267 4,303 145.15 24.61 Small MSA 4,495 5,507 7,340 8,248 3,753 83.50 21.47 Exurban 2,464 2,654 3,621 4,003 1,539 62.47 8.80 Rural 3,828 4,087 5,174 5,602 1,774 46.35 10.15 Total 27,329 33,571 41,692 44,814 17,485 63.98 100.00 SOURCE: County Business Patterns, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, 1965, 1975, 1985; U.S. Census of Population and Current Population Reports, 1960, 1970, 1980, 1985. What these results suggest, however, is that those areas within long-distance commuting range of urban areas may be positioned to attract manufacturing firms that find location in urban areas to be too expensive. counties. Most of the remaining development is concentrated in suburban and small metropolitan counties. Exurban and rural counties account for very small shares of development. Figure 1 illustrates a vast rural landscape in the West that is not easily developed. Table 6 reports these figures for the West. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Local economic development officials should view these results with caution. As Bluestone and Long observe, manufacturing can lead to both employment growth and decline.33 What these results suggest, however, is that those areas within long-distance commuting range of urban areas may be positioned to attract manufacturing firms that find location in urban areas to be too expensive. Moreover, to the increasing number of relatively footloose firms, exurban areas may offer a bundle of attractions, including adequate proximity to markets or distribution centers, affordable land, willing communities, and access to urban labor force willing to engage in reverse Nelson / EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 331 commuting to exurban areas. The competition to attract these kinds of firms, however, could be intense. There is vastly more land area in exurbia than in suburban and urban areas. The supply of potential manufacturers is small. Officials in exurban areas could find themselves engaged in a kind of beggar-thy-neighbor competition to attract firms. There are also implications to local government. Small-town services may not be adequate to accommodate firms or the needs of population growth attributable to industrialization. More- over, such firms may locate in unincorporated areas, yet population growth may concentrate in incorporated areas, thereby exacerbating the fiscal revenue base of small cities. The population that may be attracted to exurban areas may demand urban-level services that would be distributed over a broader area and at a lower density than they were accustomed to in suburban and urban areas. Indeed, management of growth in exurban areas will require considerable improvement in managerial skills, infrastructure, and fiscal capacity. SUMMARY COMMENTS Literature and research has overlooked the most fascinating feature of the ongoing deconcentra- tion of population and manufacturing. The exurbanization of the 48 contiguous states foretells perhaps the most fundamental shift in population and manufacturing activity yet seen in the U.S. At the forefront of that emerging development form is exurban industrialization. The trend may spell economic relief for some presently distressed counties within long-distance commuting range of urban centers, but does not necessarily mean improved economic conditions for rural counties. Exurban counties able to capitalize on their location and amenity attributes will likely succeed in attracting manufacturing. Determining particular ways in which this may be accomplished is beyond the scope of this preliminary inquiry. Much additional research is needed to evaluate the cause, consequences, and implications of this trend. For example, how are product life-cycle and industrial location theories to be reconciled to each other? What is the precise nature of intraregional and transnational migration of manufacturing firms in terms of exurban settlement? Can a typology be developed suggesting that certain kinds of manufacturing firms would be attracted to exurban areas-perhaps only to particular exurban areas? To what extent does exurban industrialization stimulate local economic development in other sectors? These are among only a few of the questions raised by this preliminary investigation. Needless to say, however, we are at the forefront of a new development trend that is likely to influence the pattern of development into the next century. NOTES 1. Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications," Journal of Planning Education and Research 9 (2):91-100. 2. Ibid.; Hans Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" Research Paper No. 137, Centre of Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1982; Hans Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended," Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 52 (3): 346-348. 3. Brian J. L. Berry and Quentin Gillard, The Changing Shape of Metropolitan Areas (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977). 4. R. E. Lonsdale and H. L. Seyler, Nonmetropolitan Industrialization (New York: Wiley, 1979); David L. Brown and John M. Wardwell, ed., News Directions in Urban-Rural Migration (New York: Academic Press, 1980); G. V. Fuguitt and P. R. Voss, Growth and Change in Rural America (Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute, 1979); Calvin L. Beale, "The Recent Shift of United States Population to Non-Metropolitan Areas, 1970-75," International Regional Science Review 3 (1977): 113-122; Calvin L. Beale, "The Population Turnaround," National Community Reporter (National Association of Towns and Townships, 1982); Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs, Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982); Gene F. Summers, Sharon D. Davis, Frank Clemente, E. M. Beck, and Jon Minkoff, Industrial Invasion of Nonmetropolitan America (New York: Praeger, 1976); Gene F. Summers, "Industrializa- tion," in Rural Society in the U.S., ed. Don A Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1982), pp. 164-74; John Herbers, The New Heartland (New York: Times Books, 1986); Ted K. Bradshaw and Edward J. Blakely, Rural Communities in Advanced Industrial Society (New York: Praeger, 1979). 332 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT QUARTERLY / November 1990 5. Richard L. Forstall, "Is America Becoming More Metropolitan?" American Demographics (December 1981): 18-22; Richard A. Engles and Richard L. Forstall, "Metropolitan Areas Dominate Growth Again,"AmericanDemographics (1985). 6. A. Weber, Theory of the Location of Industries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909). 7. J. H. Bater, "Industrialization in Nineteenth-Century St. Petersburg: The Role of Linkages in Shaping Location Patterns," in Locational Dynamics of ManufacturingActivity, ed. L. Collins and D. F. Walker (London: John Wiley, 1975); J. H. Bater and D. F. Walker, "Further Comments on Industrial Location and Linkage,"Area 4 (1970): 59-63; J. Bergsman, P. Greenston, and R. Healy, "The Agglomeration Process in Urban Growth," Urban Studies 9 (1972): 263-288; J.N.H. Britton, "A Geographical Approach to the Examination of Industrial Linkages," Canadian Geographer 14 (1969): 185-198; D. Z. Czamanski and S. Czamanski, "Industrial Complexes: Their Typology, Structure and Relation to Economic Development," Papers ofthe RegionalScienceAssociation 38 (1977): 93-111; A. J. Scott, "Location Patterns and Dynamics of Industrial Activity in the Modern Metropolis," Urban Studies 19 (1982): 111-142; M. E. Streit, "Spatial Associations and Economic Linkages Between Industries," Journal of Regional Science 9 (1969): 177-188; P. M. Townroe, "Industrial Linkage, Agglomeration, and External Economies," Journal of the Town Planning Institute 56 (1970): 18-20; P. M. Townroe, "Employment Decentralization: Policy Instruments for Large Cities in Less Developed Countries," Progress in Planning 10 (1979): 85-154; Francis A. Walker, Statistical Atlas of the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1977); M. J. Webber, "Location of Manufacturing Activity in Cities," Urban Geography 3 (1983): 203-221; M. J. Webber, Geography of Industrial Location (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984); P. A. Wood, "Urban Manufacturing: A View From the Fringe," in Suburban Growth: Geographical Processes at the Edge of the Western City, ed. J. H. Johnson (London: Wiley, 1974), pp. 129-154. 8. R. L. Fales and L. N. Moses, "Land Use Theory and the Spatial Structure of the Nineteenth-Century City," Papers of the Regional Science Association 28 (1972): 49-80; R. L. Fales and L. N. Moses, "Thunen, Weber and the Spatial Structure of the Nineteenth-Century City," in Spatial, Regional and Population Economics, ed. M. Perlman, C. J. Leven, and B. Chinitz (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1972). 9. G. A. Carlino, "Increasing Returns to Scale in Metropolitan Manufacturing," Journal of Regional Science 19, No. 3, (1979): 363-373; B. Chinitz and R. Vernon, "Changing Forces in Industrial Location," Harvard Business Review 38, No. 2, (1960): 126-136; F. Clemente and R. B. Sturgis, "Population Size and Industrial Diversification," Urban Studies 8, No. 1 (1971): 65-68; Edgar M. Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948); Edgar M. Hoover and R. Vernon,Anatomy of a Metropolis. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959). 10. Webber, "Location of Manufacturing Activity in Cities"; Webber, Geography of Industrial Location; Scott, "Location Patterns and Dynamics of Industrial Activity in the Modern Metropolis." 11. Hugh 0. Nourse, Regional Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968); D. M. Smith, Industrial Location (New York: Wiley, 1971); D. M. Smith, "Modelling Industrial Location: Towards a Broader View of the Space Economy," in Spatial Analysis, Industry and the Industrial Environment: 1, Industrial Systems, ed. F.E.I. Hamilton and G.J.R. Longe (New York: Wiley, 1979), pp. 57-72; W. R. Thompson, "Internal and External Factors in the Development of Urban Economies," in Issues in Urban Economics, ed. H. S. Perloff and L. Wingo (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), pp. 43-62. 12. B.J.L. Berry, Geography of Market Centres and Retail Distribution (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967); B.J.L. Berry, "Commuting Patterns: Labor Market Participation and Regional Potential," Growth and Change 1 (1970): 3-10; B.J.L. Berry, Growth Centers in the American Urban System (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Books, 1973); G. C. Cameron, "Intra-Urban Location and the New Plant," Papers of the Regional Science Association 31 (1973): 125-143; Dennis W. Carlton, "Why New Firms Locate Where They Do: An Econometric Model," Working Paper 1978, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1978. 13. J. F. Kain, "The Distribution and Movement of Jobs and Industry," in The Metropolitan Enigma, ed. J. Q. Wilson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 1-39; Roger W. Schmenner, The ManufacturingLocation Decision: Evidence From Cincinnati andNew England (Washington, DC: Economic Development Administration, 1978); Roger W. Schmenner, Making Business Location Decisions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982). 14. William Bredo, Industrial Estates: Tool for Industrialization (Chicago: Free Press, 1960); D. M. Brown, "The Location Decision of the Firm: An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Papers of the Regional Science Association 43 (1979): 23-39; J. F. Kain, "The Distribution and Movement of Jobs and Industry"; D. N. Stone, Industrial Location in Metropolitan Areas (New York: Praeger, 1974). 15. C. Ball and M. Teitz, "Expressway and Industrial Location," Traffic Quarterly 12, No. 4, (1958): 589-601; L. N. Moses and H. F. Williamson, "The Location of Economic Activity in Cities," American Economic Review 57 (1967): 211-22; Webber, Geography of Industrial Location. 16. L. S. Bourne, "Alternative Perspectives on Urban Decline and Population Deconcentration," Urban Geography 1 (1980): 39-52. 17. T. R. Leinbach, "Locational Trends in Non-Metropolitan Industrial Growth: Some Evidence from Vermont," Professional Geographer 30 (1978): 30-36; E. Willard Miller, Manufacturing: A Study of Industrial Location (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977); Eva Mueller and James M. Morgen, "Location Decisions of Manufactures," American Economic Review (1962): 204-217. 18. R. E. Lonsdale, "Two North Carolina Commuting Patterns," Economic Geography 42, No. 2, (1966): 114-138; Rodney A. Erickson, "The Filtering-Down Process: Industrial Location in a Non-Metropolitan Area," Professional Geographer 28 (1976): 254-260. Nelson / EXURBAN INDUSTRIALIZATION 333 19. R. E. Lonsdale and C. E. Browning, "Rural-Urban Locational Preferences of Southern Manufacturers," Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61 (1971): 255-268. 20. R. E. Lonsdale and H. L. Seyler, Nonmetropolitan Industrialization (New York: Wiley). 21. Ibid. 22. James J. Zuiches and Glen V. Fuguitt, U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, "Residential Preferences," in Population Distribution and Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 617-30; James J. Zuiches and Michael L. Price, "Industrial Dispersal and Labor-Force Migration: Employment Dimensions of the Population Turnaround in Michigan," inNew Directions in Urban-Rural Migration, ed. David L. Brown and John M. Wardwell (New York: Academic Press, 1980); Larry G. Blackwood and Edwin H. Carpenter, "The Importance of Antiurbanism in Determining Residential Preferences and Migration Patterns," Rural Sociology 43 (1): 31-47. 23. Edward M. Bergman, ed., Rural Economics in Transition (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986); Claude C. Haren and Ronald W. Holling, "Industrial Development in Nonmetropolitan America," in Nonmetropolitan Industrializa- tion, ed. Richard E. Lonsdale and H. L. Seyler (Washington, DC: Winston & Sons, 1979), pp. 13-46; Thomas E. Till, "Manufacturing Industry: Trends and Impacts," in Nonmetropolitan America in Transition, ed. Amos H. Hawley and Sara Mills Mazie (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), pp. 194-230; Summers, "Industrialization"; Luther T~weeten, "Employment," in Rural Society in the U.S., ed. Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1982), 175-184. 24. Yehoshua S. Cohen and Brian J. L. Berry, Spatial Components of Manufacturing Change, Research Paper 172, University of Chicago, 1975; R. C. Estall and R. 0. Buchanan, Industrial Activity and Economic Geography, 3rd ed. (London: Hutchinson, 1973); Fantus Company, Inc., The Appalachian Location Research Studies Program: Summary Report and Recommendations (Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, 1966); Victor R. Fuchs, Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the United States Since 1929 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962); M. A. Goldberg, "Intrametropolitan Industrial Location: Some Empirical Findings," Annals of Regional Science 3 (1969): 167-178; M. A. Goldberg, "An Economic Model of Intra-Metropolitan Industrial Location," Journal of Regional Science 10 (1970): 75-79; Melvin L. Greenhut, "An Empirical Model and a Survey: New Plant Locations in Florida," Review of Economics and Statistics 41 (1959): 433-438; Paul A. Groves, Towards A Typology of Intermetropolitan Manufactur- ing Locations (Hull, England: University of Hull, 1971); F. E. Ian Hamilton, Spatial Perspectives on Industrial Organization and Decision-Making (London: Wiley); Alfred Hecht, "Exploring the Urban Industrial Relocation Pro- cess," Journal of Geography 76 (1977): a5-a8; Henry L. Hunker, Industrial Development (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1974); P. Kemper and R. Schmenner, "The Density Gradient for Manufacturing Industry," Journal of Urban Economics 1 (1974): 410-427; J. B. Kenyon, "Manufacturing and Sprawl," in Metropolis on the Move, ed. J. Gottmann and R. A. Harper (New York: Wiley, 1967), 102-121; H. Nishioka and G. Krumme, "Location Conditions, Factors and Decisions: An Evaluation of Selected Location Surveys," Land Economics 49 (1973): 195-205; C. G. Schmidt, "An Analysis of Firm Relocation Patterns in Metropolitan Denver, 1974-76," Annals of Regional Science 13 (1979): 78-91; M. J. Taylor, "Location Decisions of Small Firms," Area 2 (1970): 51-54; John M. Wardwell, "The Reversal of Nonmetropolitan Migration Loss," in Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s, ed. Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982); Wood, "Urban Manufacturing: A View From the Fringe." 25. Philip N. Fulton, "Changing Journey-to-Work Patterns: The Increasing Prevalence of Commuting within the Suburbs in Metropolitan America" (Paper presented to the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Board); John Herbers, The New Heartland (New York: Times Books, 1986); Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbaniza- tion of America and Its Planning Policy Implications." 26. J. Friedman and J. Miller, "The Urban Field," Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (1968): 312-19. 27. Hans Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" (Research paper No. 137, Centre of Urban and Community Studies, Toronto: University of Toronto, 1982); Hans Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended" Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 52, No. 3, (1983): 346-348; Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications". 28. Hans Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" (Research paper No. 137, Centre of Urban and Community Studies, Toronto: University of Toronto, 1982); Hans Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended" Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 52, No. 3, (1983): 346-348; Kenneth J. Dueker, James G. Strathman, Irwin P. Levin, and Alan G. Phipps, "Rural Residential Development Within Metropolitan Areas," Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 8 (2): 121-129; Marvel Lang, "Redefining Urban and Rural for the U.S. Census of Population," Urban Geography 7 (2): 118-134; Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications." 29. Adapted from Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" and Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended." 30. Philip N. Fulton, "Changing Journey-to-Work Patterns: The Increasing Prevalence of Commuting within the Suburbs in Metropolitan America". 3 1. Ulysses Torassa, "Maple Heights Loses 800-Job Plant, Taxes," Cleveland Plain Dealer, 25 May 1989, p. 1-F. 32. Herman Bluestone and Celeste A. Long, "Growth Falters in Most Rural Counties: Manufacturing Both Hero and Goat," Rural Development Perspectives (1989): 8-10. 33. Ibid. 1. Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications," Journal of Planning Education and Research 9 (2):91-100. 2. Ibid.; Hans Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" Research Paper No. 137, Centre of Urban and Community Studies, University of Toronto, 1982; Hans Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended," Journal of the American Planning Association 52 (3): 346-348. 3. Brian J. L. Berry and Quentin Gillard, The Changing Shape of Metropolitan Areas (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, 1977). 4. R. E. Lonsdale and H. L. Seyler, Nonmetropolitan Industrialization (New York: Wiley, 1979); David L. Brown and John M. Wardwell, ed., News Directions in Urban-Rural Migration (New York: Academic Press, 1980); G. V. Fuguitt and P. R. Voss, Growth and Change in Rural America (Washington, DC: The Urban Land Institute, 1979); Calvin L. Beale, "The Recent Shift of United States Population to Non-Metropolitan Areas, 1970-75," International Regional Science Review 3 (1977): 113-122; Calvin L. Beale, "The Population Turnaround," National Community Reporter (National Association of Towns and Townships, 1982); Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs, Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982); Gene F. Summers, Sharon D. Davis, Frank Clemente, E. M. Beck, and Jon Minkoff, Industrial Invasion of Nonmetropolitan America (New York: Praeger, 1976); Gene F. Summers, "Industrialization," in Rural Society in the U.S., ed. Don A Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1982), pp. 164-74; John Herbers, The New Heartland (New York: Times Books, 1986); Ted K. Bradshaw and Edward J. Blakely, Rural Communities in Advanced Industrial Society (New York: Praeger, 1979). 5. Richard L. Forstall, "Is America Becoming More Metropolitan?" American Demographics (December 1981): 18-22; Richard A. Engles and Richard L. Forstall, "Metropolitan Areas Dominate Growth Again," American Demographics (1985). 6. A. Weber, Theory of the Location of Industries (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1909). 7. J. H. Bater, "Industrialization in Nineteenth-Century St. Petersburg: The Role of Linkages in Shaping Location Patterns," in Locational Dynamics of Manufacturing Activity, ed. L. Collins and D. F. Walker (London: John Wiley, 1975); J. H. Bater and D. F. Walker, "Further Comments on Industrial Location and Linkage," Area 4 (1970): 59-63; J. Bergsman, P. Greenston, and R. Healy, "The Agglomeration Process in Urban Growth," Urban Studies 9 (1972): 263-288; J.N.H. Britton, "A Geographical Approach to the Examination of Industrial Linkages," Canadian Geographer 14 (1969): 185-198; D. Z. Czamanski and S. Czamanski, "Industrial Complexes: Their Typology, Structure and Relation to Economic Development," Papers of the Regional Science Association 38 (1977): 93-111; A. J. Scott, "Location Patterns and Dynamics of Industrial Activity in the Modern Metropolis," Urban Studies 19 (1982): 111-142; M. E. Streit, "Spatial Associations and Economic Linkages Between Industries," Journal of Regional Science 9 (1969): 177-188; P. M. Townroe, "Industrial Linkage, Agglomeration, and External Economies," Journal of the Town Planning Institute 56 (1970): 18-20; P. M. Townroe, "Employment Decentralization: Policy Instruments for Large Cities in Less Developed Countries," Progress in Planning 10 (1979): 85-154; Francis A. Walker, Statistical Atlas of the United States (Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1977); M. J. Webber, "Location of Manufacturing Activity in Cities," Urban Geography 3 (1983): 203-221; M. J. Webber, Geography of Industrial Location (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1984); P. A. Wood, "Urban Manufacturing: A View From the Fringe," in Suburban Growth: Geographical Processes at the Edge of the Western City, ed. J. H. Johnson (London: Wiley, 1974), pp. 129-154. 8. R. L. Fales and L. N. Moses, "Land Use Theory and the Spatial Structure of the Nineteenth-Century City," Papers of the Regional Science Association 28 (1972): 49-80; R. L. Fales and L. N. Moses, "Thunen, Weber and the Spatial Structure of the Nineteenth-Century City," in Spatial, Regional and Population Economics, ed. M. Perlman, C. J. Leven, and B. Chinitz (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1972). 9. G. A. Carlino, "Increasing Returns to Scale in Metropolitan Manufacturing," Journal of Regional Science 19, No. 3, (1979): 363-373; B. Chinitz and R. Vernon, "Changing Forces in Industrial Location," Harvard Business Review 38, No. 2, (1960): 126-136; F. Clemente and R. B. Sturgis, "Population Size and Industrial Diversification," Urban Studies 8, No. 1 (1971): 65-68; Edgar M. Hoover, The Location of Economic Activity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1948); Edgar M. Hoover and R. Vernon, Anatomy of a Metropolis. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959). 10. Webber, "Location of Manufacturing Activity in Cities"; Webber, Geography of Industrial Location; Scott, "Location Patterns and Dynamics of Industrial Activity in the Modern Metropolis." 11. Hugh O. Nourse, Regional Economics (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1968); D. M. Smith, Industrial Location (New York: Wiley, 1971); D. M. Smith, "Modelling Industrial Location: Towards a Broader View of the Space Economy," in Spatial Analysis, Industry and the Industrial Environment: 1, Industrial Systems, ed. F.E.I. Hamilton and G.J.R. Longe (New York: Wiley, 1979), pp. 57-72; W. R. Thompson, "Internal and External Factors in the Development of Urban Economies," in Issues in Urban Economics, ed. H. S. Perloff and L. Wingo (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1968), pp. 43-62. 12. B.J.L. Berry, Geography of Market Centres and Retail Distribution (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1967); B.J.L. Berry, "Commuting Patterns: Labor Market Participation and Regional Potential," Growth and Change 1 (1970): 3-10; B.J.L. Berry, Growth Centers in the American Urban System (Cambridge, MA: Ballinger Books, 1973); G. C. Cameron, "Intra-Urban Location and the New Plant," Papers of the Regional Science Association 31 (1973): 125-143; Dennis W. Carlton, "Why New Firms Locate Where They Do: An Econometric Model," Working Paper 1978, Department of Economics, University of Chicago, 1978. 13. J. F. Kain, "The Distribution and Movement of Jobs and Industry," in The Metropolitan Enigma, ed. J. Q. Wilson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 1-39; Roger W. Schmenner, The Manufacturing Location Decision: Evidence From Cincinnati and New England (Washington, DC: Economic Development Administration, 1978); Roger W. Schmenner, Making Business Location Decisions (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1982). 14. William Bredo, Industrial Estates: Tool for Industrialization (Chicago: Free Press, 1960); D. M. Brown, "The Location Decision of the Firm: An Overview of Theory and Evidence," Papers of the Regional Science Association 43 (1979): 23-39; J. F. Kain, "The Distribution and Movement of Jobs and Industry"; D. N. Stone, Industrial Location in Metropolitan Areas (New York: Praeger, 1974). 15. C. Ball and M. Teitz, "Expressway and Industrial Location," Traffic Quarterly 12, No. 4, (1958): 589-601; L. N. Moses and H. F. Williamson, "The Location of Economic Activity in Cities," American Economic Review 57 (1967): 211-22; Webber, Geography of Industrial Location. 16. L. S. Bourne, "Alternative Perspectives on Urban Decline and Population Deconcentration," Urban Geography 1 (1980): 39-52. 17. T. R. Leinbach, "Locational Trends in Non-Metropolitan Industrial Growth: Some Evidence from Vermont," Professional Geographer 30 (1978): 30-36; E. Willard Miller, Manufacturing: A Study of Industrial Location (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1977); Eva Mueller and James M. Morgen, "Location Decisions of Manufactures," American Economic Review (1962): 204-217. 18. R. E. Lonsdale, "Two North Carolina Commuting Patterns," Economic Geography 42, No. 2, (1966): 114-138; Rodney A. Erickson, "The Filtering-Down Process: Industrial Location in a Non-Metropolitan Area," Professional Geographer 28 (1976): 254-260. 19. R. E. Lonsdale and C. E. Browning, "Rural-Urban Locational Preferences of Southern Manufacturers," Annals of the Association of American Geographers 61 (1971): 255-268. 20. R. E. Lonsdale and H. L. Seyler, Nonmetropolitan Industrialization (New York: Wiley). 21. Ibid. 22. James J. Zuiches and Glen V. Fuguitt, U.S. Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, "Residential Preferences," in Population Distribution and Policy (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1973), pp. 617-30; James J. Zuiches and Michael L. Price, "Industrial Dispersal and Labor-Force Migration: Employment Dimensions of the Population Turnaround in Michigan," in New Directions in Urban-Rural Migration, ed. David L. Brown and John M. Wardwell (New York: Academic Press, 1980); Larry G. Blackwood and Edwin H. Carpenter, "The Importance of Antiurbanism in Determining Residential Preferences and Migration Patterns," Rural Sociology 43 (1): 31-47. 23. Edward M. Bergman, ed., Rural Economics in Transition (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1986); Claude C. Haren and Ronald W. Holling, "Industrial Development in Nonmetropolitan America," in Nonmetropolitan Industrialization, ed. Richard E. Lonsdale and H. L. Seyler (Washington, DC: Winston & Sons, 1979), pp. 13-46; Thomas E. Till, "Manufacturing Industry: Trends and Impacts," in Nonmetropolitan America in Transition, ed. Amos H. Hawley and Sara Mills Mazie (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1981), pp. 194-230; Summers, "Industrialization"; Luther Tweeten, "Employment," in Rural Society in the U.S., ed. Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1982), 175-184. 24. Yehoshua S. Cohen and Brian J. L. Berry, Spatial Components of Manufacturing Change, Research Paper 172, University of Chicago, 1975; R. C. Estall and R. O. Buchanan, Industrial Activity and Economic Geography, 3rd ed. (London: Hutchinson, 1973); Fantus Company, Inc., The Appalachian Location Research Studies Program: Summary Report and Recommendations (Washington, DC: Appalachian Regional Commission, 1966); Victor R. Fuchs, Changes in the Location of Manufacturing in the United States Since 1929 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962); M. A. Goldberg, "Intrametropolitan Industrial Location: Some Empirical Findings," Annals of Regional Science 3 (1969): 167-178; M. A. Goldberg, "An Economic Model of Intra-Metropolitan Industrial Location," Journal of Regional Science 10 (1970): 75-79; Melvin L. Greenhut, "An Empirical Model and a Survey: New Plant Locations in Florida," Review of Economics and Statistics 41 (1959): 433-438; Paul A. Groves, Towards A Typology of Intermetropolitan Manufacturing Locations (Hull, England: University of Hull, 1971); F. E. Ian Hamilton, Spatial Perspectives on Industrial Organization and Decision-Making (London: Wiley); Alfred Hecht, "Exploring the Urban Industrial Relocation Process," Journal of Geography 76 (1977): a5-a8; Henry L. Hunker, Industrial Development (Lexington, MA: Heath, 1974); P. Kemper and R. Schmenner, "The Density Gradient for Manufacturing Industry," Journal of Urban Economics 1 (1974): 410-427; J. B. Kenyon, "Manufacturing and Sprawl," in Metropolis on the Move, ed. J. Gottmann and R. A. Harper (New York: Wiley, 1967), 102-121; H. Nishioka and G. Krumme, "Location Conditions, Factors and Decisions: An Evaluation of Selected Location Surveys," Land Economics 49 (1973): 195-205; C. G. Schmidt, "An Analysis of Firm Relocation Patterns in Metropolitan Denver, 1974-76," Annals of Regional Science 13 (1979): 78-91; M. J. Taylor, "Location Decisions of Small Firms," Area 2 (1970): 51-54; John M. Wardwell, "The Reversal of Nonmetropolitan Migration Loss," in Rural Society in the U.S.: Issues for the 1980s, ed. Don A. Dillman and Daryl J. Hobbs (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1982); Wood, "Urban Manufacturing: A View From the Fringe." 25. Philip N. Fulton, "Changing Journey-to-Work Patterns: The Increasing Prevalence of Commuting within the Suburbs in Metropolitan America" (Paper presented to the 1986 Annual Meeting of the Transportation Board); John Herbers, The New Heartland (New York: Times Books, 1986); Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications." 26. J. Friedman and J. Miller, "The Urban Field," Journal of the American Institute of Planners 31 (1968): 312-19. 27. Hans Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" (Research paper No. 137, Centre of Urban and Community Studies, Toronto: University of Toronto, 1982); Hans Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended" Journal of the American Planning Association 52, No. 3, (1983): 346-348; Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications". 28. Hans Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" (Research paper No. 137, Centre of Urban and Community Studies, Toronto: University of Toronto, 1982); Hans Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended" Journal of the American Planning Association 52, No. 3, (1983): 346-348; Kenneth J. Dueker, James G. Strathman, Irwin P. Levin, and Alan G. Phipps, "Rural Residential Development Within Metropolitan Areas," Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems 8 (2): 121-129; Marvel Lang, "Redefining Urban and Rural for the U.S. Census of Population," Urban Geography 7 (2): 118-134; Arthur C. Nelson and Kenneth J. Dueker, "The Exurbanization of America and Its Planning Policy Implications." 29. Adapted from Blumenfeld, "Have the Secular Trends of Population Distribution Been Reversed?" and Blumenfeld, "Metropolis Extended." 30. Philip N. Fulton, "Changing Journey-to-Work Patterns: The Increasing Prevalence of Commuting within the Suburbs in Metropolitan America". 31. Ulysses Torassa, "Maple Heights Loses 800-Job Plant, Taxes," Cleveland Plain Dealer, 25 May 1989, p. 1-F. 32. Herman Bluestone and Celeste A. Long, "Growth Falters in Most Rural Counties: Manufacturing Both Hero and Goat," Rural Development Perspectives (1989): 8-10. 33. Ibid.
PY - 1990/11
Y1 - 1990/11
N2 - This article reports preliminary results of current research into the changing spatial pattern of manufacturing in the contiguous states. Complete results are not due for two years. Results reported here are general in nature but portray trends important to those involved in economic development, especially activities aimed at attracting manufacturing firms. Between 1965 and 1985 total employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 47.2 million to 80.2 million, a 70% increase. Manufacturing employment rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million, or just 10%. During this period employment in exurban counties rose by 86 percent, from 7.6 million to 14.1 million. Manufacturing employment rose from 3.4 million to 4.5 million, or 32%. While exurban areas accounted for only 20% of the total number of jobs created during this period, it accounted for 61% of the new manufacturing jobs. By comparison, urban counties lost manufacturing employment, suburban counties accounted for 21%, small metropolitan counties accounted for 18%, and rural counties accounted for just 27% of new manufacturing jobs (figures adjusted for the loss of nearly one-half million manufacturing jobs in urban counties). Manufacturing is moving farther into the countryside, away from central cities and their traditional suburbs, but not so far away that goods, workers, and services cannot be shipped easily within a day to nearby urban areas. Exurban industrialization will lead to greater population dispersal If population shifts occasioned by exurban industrialization create new demands for services, retail and service jobs may follow. Exurban industrialization may place new pressures on local governments not prepared to accommodate the special needs of manufacturing or new residents. In this article the author offers only insight into this phenomenon. Work must be done to ascertain its many dimensions, implications, and possible policy responses.
AB - This article reports preliminary results of current research into the changing spatial pattern of manufacturing in the contiguous states. Complete results are not due for two years. Results reported here are general in nature but portray trends important to those involved in economic development, especially activities aimed at attracting manufacturing firms. Between 1965 and 1985 total employment in the contiguous 48 states rose from 47.2 million to 80.2 million, a 70% increase. Manufacturing employment rose from 17.5 million to 19.3 million, or just 10%. During this period employment in exurban counties rose by 86 percent, from 7.6 million to 14.1 million. Manufacturing employment rose from 3.4 million to 4.5 million, or 32%. While exurban areas accounted for only 20% of the total number of jobs created during this period, it accounted for 61% of the new manufacturing jobs. By comparison, urban counties lost manufacturing employment, suburban counties accounted for 21%, small metropolitan counties accounted for 18%, and rural counties accounted for just 27% of new manufacturing jobs (figures adjusted for the loss of nearly one-half million manufacturing jobs in urban counties). Manufacturing is moving farther into the countryside, away from central cities and their traditional suburbs, but not so far away that goods, workers, and services cannot be shipped easily within a day to nearby urban areas. Exurban industrialization will lead to greater population dispersal If population shifts occasioned by exurban industrialization create new demands for services, retail and service jobs may follow. Exurban industrialization may place new pressures on local governments not prepared to accommodate the special needs of manufacturing or new residents. In this article the author offers only insight into this phenomenon. Work must be done to ascertain its many dimensions, implications, and possible policy responses.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84970735036&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84970735036&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1177/089124249000400403
DO - 10.1177/089124249000400403
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:84970735036
SN - 0891-2424
VL - 4
SP - 320
EP - 333
JO - Economic Development Quarterly
JF - Economic Development Quarterly
IS - 4
ER -