Gross Domestic Product by Metropolitan Area: New Statistics for 2016 and Updated Statistics for 2001-2015.
* Professional and business services; information services; and finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing led growth across metropolitan areas.
* Mining and nondurable-goods manufacturing declined in many areas across the country.
The importance of metropolitan areas
Collectively, metropolitan areas accounted for more than 90 percent of U.S. GDP in 2016, with the five largest metropolitan areas accounting for almost a quarter of national GDP. In most states, metropolitan areas represent a large share of the state's GDP. Among metropolitan areas located within a single state, Urban Honolulu, HI, accounted for the largest share of GDP by state in 2016 (77.2 percent).
The size of metropolitan areas varies significantly. Most metropolitan areas have populations of less than 500,000. GDP for these small metropolitan areas ranges from $31.2 billion (Trenton, NJ) to $2.0 billion (Sebring, FL). GDP for medium metropolitan areas, which include areas with populations between 500,000 and 2,000,000, ranges from $252.5 billion (San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA) to $17.1 billion (Deltona-Daytona Beach-Ormond Beach, FL). GDP for large metropolitan areas, which include areas with populations greater than 2 million, ranges from $1.7 trillion (New York-Newark-Jersey City, NY-NJ-PA) to $111.1 billion (Las Vegas-Henderson-Paradise, NV).
Metropolitan areas also vary in terms of their economic output. Much of this variation can be explained by the industries that are concentrated in the areas. Often the trends shown in national GDP are driven by a few metropolitan areas in which specific industries are most heavily concentrated.
Growth in the U.S. metropolitan portion was led by professional and business services, information services, and finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing. One or more of these three industry groups contributed to growth in 362 of the 382 metropolitan areas nationwide, while mining and nondurable-goods manufacturing declined in many areas across the country (table 1).
Professional and business services. Professional and business services grew 2.7 percent in the nations metropolitan areas in 2016. This industry group contributed to growth in 273 of the nation's 382 metropolitan areas, most notably in Ocala, FL, and Oshkosk-Nennah, WI, which had overall growth of 5.0 percent and 2.6 percent, respectively (chart 2).
Information services. Information services grew 6.5 percent in the nations metropolitan areas in 2016. This industry group contributed to real GDP growth in 260 metropolitan areas, most notably in Provo-Orem, UT, and in Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA, which had overall real GDP growth of 6.1 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively (chart 3).
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing.
Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing was the third-largest driver of growth for the nation s metropolitan areas, growing 1.2 percent in 2016. It contributed to growth in 217 metropolitan areas, most notably in St. Cloud, MN, and Elizabethtown-Fort Knox, KY, which had overall real GDP growth of 5.3 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively (chart 4).
Mining. Real GDP for this industry group declined 9.3 percent for the nation s metropolitan areas. It subtracted from growth in 241 metropolitan areas. Sizable declines in this industry group occurred in Victoria, TX, and Tuscaloosa, AL, which had overall declines in real GDP of 10.2 percent and 4.3 percent, respectively (chart 5).
Nondurable-goods manufacturing. The U.S. metropolitan portion experienced a 0.2 percent decline in this industry in 2016. The industry also declined in 201 metropolitan areas. The largest declines occurred in Rocky Mount, NC, and Utica-Rome, NY. Overall real GDP declined 6.2 percent in Rocky Mount, NC, while it was flat (0.0 percent) in Utica-Rome, NY (chart 6).
Growth by size of metropolitan area
Large metropolitan areas generally showed less volatility than medium and small metropolitan areas. Large metropolitan areas had a narrower range of growth rates, 8.4 percentage points, while medium and small metropolitan areas had larger ranges of growth rates, 9.5 percentage points and 21.4 percentage points, respectively.
Large metropolitan areas. Of the large metropolitan areas, San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA (5.4 percent) and Austin-Round Rock, TX (4.9 percent) were the fastest growing (table 2). San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA, was led by strong growth in finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing (7.1 percent), while growth in Austin-Round Rock, TX, was led by professional and business services (8.9 percent). (1)
The largest decline among large metropolitan areas was in Houston-The Woodlands-Sugarland, TX (-3.0 percent), due to a decline in mining (-13.1 percent). The slowest growth occurred in Pittsburgh, PA (0.1 percent), due to a decline in professional and business services (-2.4 percent) that offset growth in other industries.
Medium metropolitan areas. Of the medium metropolitan areas, Provo-Orem, UT (6.1 percent) and San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA (5.9 percent) were the fastest growing. Services industries such as information services drove growth in Provo-Orem, UT, while professional and business services drove growth in San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA.
The medium metropolitan areas with the largest declines were Tulsa, OK (-3.3 percent) and Durham-Chapel Hill, NC (-2.7 percent). The decline in Tulsa, OK, was mainly due to a decline in mining (-10.1 percent), while nondurable-goods manufacturing (-15.7 percent) mainly caused the decline in Durham-Chapel Hill, NC.
Small metropolitan areas. Of the small metropolitan areas, Lake Charles, LA (8.1 percent) and Bend-Redmond, OR (8.1 percent) were the fastest growing, and the fastest and second-fastest growing metropolitan areas overall. Growth in Lake Charles, LA, was led by a strong contribution from nondurable-goods manufacturing, and growth in Bend-Redmond, OR, was led by strong growth in finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and leasing (9.1 percent).
The small metropolitan areas with the largest declines were Odessa, TX (-13.3 percent) and Casper, WY (-11.6 percent). The declines in Odessa, TX, and Casper, WY, were mainly due to declines in mining.
Per capita real GDP by metropolitan area
Per capita real GDP for the nation s metropolitan areas was $53,645 in 2016, which is 6.1 percent higher than the national average ($50,577), which includes non-metropolitan areas. (2) The five metropolitan areas with the highest per capita real GDP in 2016 were Midland, TX; San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, CA; Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, CT; San Francisco-Oakland-Hay-ward, CA; and Boston-Cambridge-Newton, MA-NH (table 3). Midland, TX, had the highest per capita real GDP at $175,837, which was 247.7 percent higher than the national average; a strong concentration of the mining industry in this area contributed greatly to its per capita real GDP.
The five metropolitan areas with the lowest per capita real GDP in 2016 were Sebring, FL; Lake Havasu City-Kingman, AZ; The Villages, FL; Homosassa Springs, FL; and Punta Gorda, FL. Sebring, FL, had the lowest per capita real GDP in the nation at $17,666, which was 65.1 percent lower than the national average.
The statistics on GDP by metropolitan area for 2001-2015 that were released in September 2016 have been updated. The updated statistics incorporate the annual updates from GDP by industry (released in November 2016), GDP by state (released in May 2017), and local area personal income (released in November 2016).
Current-dollar statistics. The updates to the current-dollar GDP statistics, measured as a percentage of the previously published statistics, were modest for most metropolitan areas. The mean absolute revision (MAR) was 2.8 percent for 2001-2015. The MARs were 10 percent or less for all metropolitan areas except Tyler, TX, and Midland, TX (table 4).
Real growth rates. The updates to real GDP growth rates are measured as a percentage point difference from the previously published growth rate. The MAR of annual growth rates for metropolitan areas was 1.4 percentage points for 2001-2015. The MAR of annual growth rates was less than 5 percentage points for all metropolitan areas except Midland, TX.
By Jacob R. Hinson, Sharon D. Panek, and Ralph M. Rodriguez
(1.) These growth rates are available on BEA's Web site.
(2.) Per capita real GDP by metropolitan area was computed using Census Bureau midyear population estimates.
Table 1. Real Gross Domestic Product for Selected Industries in the Metropolitan Portion of the United States 2015 2016 Growth Percent Contribution in 2015 change to percent to 2016 change (percentage points) Millions of chained (2009) dollars Professional and business services 1,960,971 2,013,050 52,079 2.7 0.35 Information 828,894 882,600 53,706 6.5 0.32 Finance, insurance, real estate, rental, and 3,033,805 3,069,256 35,451 1.2 0.25 leasing Mining 295,910 268,444 -27,466 -9.3 -0.13 Nondurable-goods manufacturing 684,719 683,113 -1,607 -0.2 -0.01 Table 2. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and Population for Large, Medium, and Small Metropolitan Areas, 2016 [Ranked by percent change in real GDP] Large metropolitan areas (population of more than 2 million) Current- dollar Percent Population GDP change (millions in Real of GDP dollars) Fastest growing San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, 4,679,166 470,529 5.4 CA Austin-Round Rock, 2,056,405 135,010 4.9 TX Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, WA 3,798,902 330,409 4.3 Slowest growing San Diego-Carlsbad, CA 3,317,749 215,343 0.3 Pittsburgh, PA 2,342,299 138,187 0.1 Houston-The Woodlands-Sugar Land, TX 6,772,470 478,618 -3.0 Medium metropolitan areas (population between 500,000 and 2 million) Current- dollar Percent Population GDP change (millions in Real of GDP dollars) Fastest growing Provo-Orem, UT 603,309 23,251 6.1 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa 1,978,816 252,487 5.9 Clara, CA Raleigh, NC 1,302,946 79,843 5.3 Slowest growing Oxnard-Thousand 849,738 48,517 -2.7 Oaks-Ventura, CA Durham-Chapel Hill, NC 559,535 43,908 -2.7 Tulsa, OK 987,201 58,248 -3.3 Small metropolitan areas (population less than 500,000) Current- dollar Percent Population GDP change (millions in Real of GDP dollars) Fastest growing Lake Charles, LA 207,483 16,472 8.1 Bend-Redmond, OR 181,307 9,364 8.1 Brunswick, GA 116,784 4,114 7.2 Slowest growing Lafayette, LA 491,528 20,645 -11.5 Casper, WY 81,039 5,859 -11.6 Odessa, TX 157,462 8,718 -13.3 Table 3. Highest and Lowest Per Capita Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for Selected Metropolitan Areas, 2016 Population Real Per GDP Capita (millions Real of GDP chained (2009) dollars) Highest per capita Midland, TX 168,288 29,591 175,837 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa 1,978,816 236,855 119,695 Clara, CA Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, 944,177 88,026 93,231 CT San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, 4,679,166 406,294 86,830 CA Boston-Cambridge-Newton, 4,794,447 371,577 77,502 MA-NH Lowest per capita Punta Gorda, FL 178,465 3,608 20,214 Homosassa Springs, 143,621 2,654 18,477 FL The Villages, FL 123,996 2,282 18,406 Lake Havasu City-Kingman, 205,249 3,726 18,153 AZ Sebring, FL 100,917 1,783 17,666 Table 4. Metropolitan Areas With the Five Largest Mean Absolute Revisions (MARs) in Current-Dollar and Real Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Rank Current-dollar GDP MAR (percent) 1 Midland, TX 45.8 2 Tyler, TX 21.4 3 Dalton, GA 10.0 4 Laredo, TX 9.9 5 Casper, WY 8.9 Rank Real GDP growth MAR points) (percentage 1 Midland, TX 9.5 2 Punta Gorda, FL 4.8 3 Crestview--rt Walton Beach-Destin, FL 4.7 4 Carson City, NV 4.6 5 Casper, WY 4.1
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Author:||Hinson, Jacob R.; Panek, Sharon D.; Rodriguez, Ralph M.|
|Publication:||Survey of Current Business|
|Date:||Oct 1, 2017|
|Previous Article:||GDP and the Economy: Third Estimates for the Second Quarter of 2017.|
|Next Article:||U.S. Net International Investment Position: Second Quarter of 2017.|