“The concentration of economic growth and prosperity in large metro areas defines the modern global economy, creating both opportunities and challenges in an era in which national political, economic, and societal trends are increasingly influenced by subnational dynamics.” -Brookings Institute
“The concentration of economic growth and prosperity in large metro areas defines the modern global economy, creating both opportunities and challenges in an era in which national political, economic, and societal trends are increasingly influenced by subnational dynamics.” -Brookings Institute
The Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute has a new report out for 2018 called the Global Metro Monitor.
Here are some of the highlights (data is from 2014 to 2016):
- The 300 largest metro areas in the world accounted for 36% of employment growth and 67% of GDP growth.
- Metro areas in China and the Asia-Pacific region outperformed, whereas Latin American cities, and in particular the largest Brazilian cities, were weaker performers.
- The majority of large metro areas had growth rates that exceeded that of their respective regions. So again, cities are the driver.
And here is an interesting interactive chart (better to click through) that shows the % change in GDP per capita.
Look at how much of an outlier San Jose is. Though, check out Dublin in the footnote. And if you look at the actual data table, it is all China, except for Dublin at the top.
For the rest of the charts, click here. And to download the full Global Metro Monitor report, click here.
Below is a list of the US metro areas that saw a billion dollars or more in venture capital investment last year (2017). It is taken from a recent CityLab article by Richard Florida where he talks about the “geographic inequality of high-tech venture capital.”
It’s worth noting that San Francisco – not San Jose (Silicon Valley) – is at the top of the list with nearly 1/3 of the US total last year. It’s also interesting to note that when you look at each metro’s share of the total change from 2006-2017 (the chart below), you get Los Angeles now punching above San Jose.
Florida also gets into which economic and demographic variables seem to be associated with higher levels of venture capital investment. For the rest of the article, click here.
Throughout US history, economic growth has typically spurred an “enormous reallocation of population.” Here is a graph from a recent New York Times article called: What Happened to the American Boomtown?
The Metropolitan Policy Program at the Brookings Institute has a new report out for 2018 called the Global Metro Monitor.
Here are some of the highlights (data is from 2014 to 2016):
- The 300 largest metro areas in the world accounted for 36% of employment growth and 67% of GDP growth.
- Metro areas in China and the Asia-Pacific region outperformed, whereas Latin American cities, and in particular the largest Brazilian cities, were weaker performers.
- The majority of large metro areas had growth rates that exceeded that of their respective regions. So again, cities are the driver.
And here is an interesting interactive chart (better to click through) that shows the % change in GDP per capita.
Look at how much of an outlier San Jose is. Though, check out Dublin in the footnote. And if you look at the actual data table, it is all China, except for Dublin at the top.
For the rest of the charts, click here. And to download the full Global Metro Monitor report, click here.
Below is a list of the US metro areas that saw a billion dollars or more in venture capital investment last year (2017). It is taken from a recent CityLab article by Richard Florida where he talks about the “geographic inequality of high-tech venture capital.”
It’s worth noting that San Francisco – not San Jose (Silicon Valley) – is at the top of the list with nearly 1/3 of the US total last year. It’s also interesting to note that when you look at each metro’s share of the total change from 2006-2017 (the chart below), you get Los Angeles now punching above San Jose.
Florida also gets into which economic and demographic variables seem to be associated with higher levels of venture capital investment. For the rest of the article, click here.
Throughout US history, economic growth has typically spurred an “enormous reallocation of population.” Here is a graph from a recent New York Times article called: What Happened to the American Boomtown?
The argument, here, is that restrictions on development have made it so that the most prosperous cities are actually the slowest growing cities in terms of population. Here is a chart, from the same article, comparing population growth to average annual pay:
And here is an excerpt:
But these productive places aren’t growing as fast now as economists believe they should — and as they would if they didn’t impose so many obstacles on new development. Since the 1970s, land use restrictions have multiplied in coastal metros, making it harder to build in, say, San Jose, Calif., than in Phoenix. And the politics of development have become tense, too. In the Boston suburbs, the Bay Area, Brooklyn and Washington, people who already live there have balked at new housing for people who don’t.
We often talk about the impact of land use restrictions on supply and overall housing affordability. But here is an argument that it could also be impacting upward mobility.
The argument, here, is that restrictions on development have made it so that the most prosperous cities are actually the slowest growing cities in terms of population. Here is a chart, from the same article, comparing population growth to average annual pay:
And here is an excerpt:
But these productive places aren’t growing as fast now as economists believe they should — and as they would if they didn’t impose so many obstacles on new development. Since the 1970s, land use restrictions have multiplied in coastal metros, making it harder to build in, say, San Jose, Calif., than in Phoenix. And the politics of development have become tense, too. In the Boston suburbs, the Bay Area, Brooklyn and Washington, people who already live there have balked at new housing for people who don’t.
We often talk about the impact of land use restrictions on supply and overall housing affordability. But here is an argument that it could also be impacting upward mobility.
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
Share Dialog
