Top 2019 Cities for Economic Strength (live, best, state, better)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The greater Nashville, TN area was ranked as the strongest Metropolitan area economy in the United States in POLICOM’s latest annual community “economic strength” rankings. The area has enjoyed consistent economic growth for a very long time due to its diversified economy.
For the second year in a row, Bozeman, MT ranked number one among the Micropolitan areas as a result of rapid growth in professional services and manufacturing.
POLICOM is an independent economics research firm which specializes in analyzing the dynamics of local and state economies. Each year, the firm ranks the 383 Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 551 Micropolitan Statistical Areas in the U.S. for “economic strength” — the long-term tendency for an area to consistently grow in both size and quality.
“The top rated areas have had rapid, consistent growth in both size and quality for an extended period of time,” explained William H. Fruth, President of POLICOM. “The rankings do not reflect the latest ‘hotspot’ or boom town, but the areas which have the best economic foundation.”
2019 Ten Strongest Metropolitan Areas (Out of 383)
Nashville TN
Seattle WA
Austin TX
San Jose CA
Napa CA
Salt Lake City UT
San Diego CA
Indianapolis IN
Raleigh NC
Atlanta GA
2019 Ten Strongest Micropolitan Areas (Out of 551)
The greater Nashville, TN area was ranked as the strongest Metropolitan area economy in the United States in POLICOM’s latest annual community “economic strength” rankings. The area has enjoyed consistent economic growth for a very long time due to its diversified economy.
For the second year in a row, Bozeman, MT ranked number one among the Micropolitan areas as a result of rapid growth in professional services and manufacturing.
POLICOM is an independent economics research firm which specializes in analyzing the dynamics of local and state economies. Each year, the firm ranks the 383 Metropolitan Statistical Areas and 551 Micropolitan Statistical Areas in the U.S. for “economic strength” — the long-term tendency for an area to consistently grow in both size and quality.
“The top rated areas have had rapid, consistent growth in both size and quality for an extended period of time,” explained William H. Fruth, President of POLICOM. “The rankings do not reflect the latest ‘hotspot’ or boom town, but the areas which have the best economic foundation.”
2019 Ten Strongest Metropolitan Areas (Out of 383)
Nashville TN
Seattle WA
Austin TX
San Jose CA
Napa CA
Salt Lake City UT
San Diego CA
Indianapolis IN
Raleigh NC
Atlanta GA
2019 Ten Strongest Micropolitan Areas (Out of 551)
The top 10 make sense when you look at city growth the past couple of decades or so. People are moving to these cities and areas. Those cities on top have "recession-proofed" their economies as best they can, to not focus on just 2 or 3 big industries.
The top 10 make sense when you look at city growth the past couple of decades or so. People are moving to these cities and areas. Those cities on top have "recession-proofed" their economies as best they can, to not focus on just 2 or 3 big industries.
To me, this list doesn't make sense. Going off the GDP by county (which was posted on another thread), Davidson County (Nashville), despite seeing significant population growth, grew its GDP by 8.9 billion from 2012-2015. On the same token, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) grew its GDP by 11.5 billion, despite seeing a slight population decrease.
Since that was just county level, I added up the county numbers by CSA and despite a significant population increase, the Nashville CSA's GDP grew by 18.8 billion from 2012-2015. The Cleveland CSA GDP grew by 23 billion (and the Cleveland-Akron portion alone ... the seven counties that border Cuyahoga ... accounted for 18.6 billion of that) in the same period.
Looking at Detroit, it's similar. Wayne County, despite still suffering significant population losses, grew it's GDP by 9.6 billion. The Detroit CSA overall grew by 35 billion in that same time, despite very little population growth.
In Chicago, Cook County, which is losing population at the largest overall numbers in the country, grew its GDP by over 30 billion. Overall, Chicago's GDP grew by 76 billion at the CSA level.
Since this is about economic strength, wouldn't Cleveland, Detroit or Chicago be in a better position since all are growing GDP at a higher overall number, and doing it without any extra population? Seems to me that Nashville's GDP isn't keeping up with its population increase; while Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago are doing more with less.
BTW, I see this list is by MSA and I used county and CSA numbers, but I doubt going to the MSA level changes anything. Also, I'm using Nashville as an example because it's ranked No. 1, though looking at numbers Austin and San Diego also look like they are in the same boat in population growth outpacing GDP increases. Napa, too, which is weird to have listed anyway as while it has its own metro, you are talking about one-county with a population of 140,000.
I can't argue with the others ... all seem to being growing in population at a similar rate as GDP growth.
To me, this list doesn't make sense. Going off the GDP by county (which was posted on another thread), Davidson County (Nashville), despite seeing significant population growth, grew its GDP by 8.9 billion from 2012-2015. On the same token, Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) grew its GDP by 11.5 billion, despite seeing a slight population decrease.
Since that was just county level, I added up the county numbers by CSA and despite a significant population increase, the Nashville CSA's GDP grew by 18.8 billion from 2012-2015. The Cleveland CSA GDP grew by 23 billion (and the Cleveland-Akron portion alone ... the seven counties that border Cuyahoga ... accounted for 18.6 billion of that) in the same period.
Looking at Detroit, it's similar. Wayne County, despite still suffering significant population losses, grew it's GDP by 9.6 billion. The Detroit CSA overall grew by 35 billion in that same time, despite very little population growth.
In Chicago, Cook County, which is losing population at the largest overall numbers in the country, grew its GDP by over 30 billion. Overall, Chicago's GDP grew by 76 billion at the CSA level.
Since this is about economic strength, wouldn't Cleveland, Detroit or Chicago be in a better position since all are growing GDP at a higher overall number, and doing it without any extra population? Seems to me that Nashville's GDP isn't keeping up with its population increase; while Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago are doing more with less.
BTW, I see this list is by MSA and I used county and CSA numbers, but I doubt going to the MSA level changes anything. Also, I'm using Nashville as an example because it's ranked No. 1, though looking at numbers Austin and San Diego also look like they are in the same boat in population growth outpacing GDP increases. Napa, too, which is weird to have listed anyway as while it has its own metro, you are talking about one-county with a population of 140,000.
I can't argue with the others ... all seem to being growing in population at a similar rate as GDP growth.
You might want to download the PDF document with the full rankings from the POLICOM website. It explains the methodology up front. The rankings are based on time series data; in the past, the company used data over a 20-year period from the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis. The data set released in October 2018, however, only includes figures back to 2001, so it covers only a 17-year period (2001-17).
They explain the various sector figures and how they use them, and what weights they give to what data.
The rankings emphasize consistency of growth, so boomtowns won't rank as highly as they otherwise might, nor would communities that have posted strong growth recently but not further back in time.
Overall, I'd say this is one of the more useful rankings I've seen. I note, however, that the truncation of the data may have caused some sharp changes in the rankings of some MSAs. Greater Philadelphia, for instance, hovered around No. 25 in the previous five surveys, but dropped to 55th this year.
Clearly there's issue with the methodology when an example of Raleigh at #9 and neighboring Durham-Chapel at #65 exists. Especially considering the primary driving force in the region's economy (Research Triangle Park) is located mostly within the city/county limits of Durham, versus Raleigh.
Clearly there's issue with the methodology when an example of Raleigh at #9 and neighboring Durham-Chapel at #65 exists. Especially considering the primary driving force in the region's economy (Research Triangle Park) is located mostly within the city/county limits of Durham, versus Raleigh.
not sure how the rankings work or what criteria they go by but I agree...
Clearly there's issue with the methodology when an example of Raleigh at #9 and neighboring Durham-Chapel at #65 exists. Especially considering the primary driving force in the region's economy (Research Triangle Park) is located mostly within the city/county limits of Durham, versus Raleigh.
Almost regardless of methodology, Wake County almost always scores better head-to-head. Wealthier, safer, better schools, more diverse economy. Most people who work in RTP live in Wake.
Almost regardless of methodology, Wake County almost always scores better head-to-head. Wealthier, safer, better schools, more diverse economy. Most people who work in RTP live in Wake.
But they typically don't rank this far apart in other rankings...both usually fall in the top 10-20.
But they typically don't rank this far apart in other rankings...both usually fall in the top 10-20.
No, that’s Charlotte’s range. Durham is usually back, above Greensboro but otherwise quite a bit below the top 2 in the state. The metrics they usually do best on our quite a bit narrower, like tech incubation hubs or biotech dollars invested. Their broader livability rankings have gotten better, but not that high yet.
No, that’s Charlotte’s range. Durham is usually back, above Greensboro but otherwise quite a bit below the top 2 in the state. The metrics they usually do best on our quite a bit narrower, like tech incubation hubs or biotech dollars invested. Their broader livability rankings have gotten better, but not that high yet.
I'm talking about economic rankings which is what the POLICOM ranking is (although more comprehensive than most others). Off the top of my head, Raleigh and Durham typically rank quite close in the annual Forbes rankings, both usually in the top 10-20 and Charlotte not that far behind. I've also seen them pretty close in several others, which only makes sense as they are two halves of the same metro in the most practical sense of the term.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
