Global reach and second-tier cities: An initial exploration of export activity from the bottom of the U.S. metropolitan hierarchy

ABSTRACT

Urban-economic research has long been dominated by a focus on the largest cities. Nonetheless, growing economic inequality and differences in connectivity throughout most advanced market economies has led scholars to acknowledge that second-tier urban places can function differently than their larger counterparts. Grounded within the research frameworks of the smaller city literature, as well as export base and urban-level export research, this paper seeks to examine the economic role of exports (and by extension, global trade) within smaller U.S. metropolitan areas, evaluating how export performance and export composition are related to the economic health and workforce characteristics of these second-tier urban regions. The analyses find that smaller metropolitan areas have a greater dependence upon goods-related exports than large metropolitan areas, consistent with the expectations of the product life cycle. Moreover, export intensity in second-tier metropolitan areas creates downward pressure on per capita GDP. Finally, the paper discusses export policy in terms of its impacts on second-tier metropolitan areas.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. As discussed in the methodology section, the present analyses are informed by many other studies in terms of the “larger versus smaller” cutoff (i.e., 100-largest versus a group of smaller metropolitan areas). In terms of the present analyses, other thresholds were tested (e.g., MSAs smaller/under 500,000 residents). If the 500,000-resident threshold is used (rather than the smallest 281 metros), the significant differences still exist. It appears that the critical cutoff appears to be in this range, in terms of the differences between the two groups. If the threshold is moved to 400,000, differences in export composition still exist. While acknowledging that different cutoffs can be employed, these analyses elected to go with the measures employed by Brookings and other studies (e.g., Plane, 2003).

2. Difference of means tests indicated that smaller metropolitan areas that were adjacent to a top-100 MSA (i.e., part of combined statistical area containing both) (n =137) had an export intensity of 11.4% versus 11.4% for those that were not (n = 144) (p = .998). Next, those cities adjacent to a top-100 MSA indicated US$5,352 in exports per capita set against US$5,891 for those that were not (p = .281). In both instances, there were no significant differences between the two groups of smaller MSAs for these key export metrics.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Ronald V. Kalafsky

Ronald V. Kalafsky is a Professor in the Department of Geography at the University of Tennessee. His research interests include regional economic development and the export-related performance, strategies, and challenges of manufacturers located within urban environments.

William W. Graves

William W. Graves is an Associate Professor of Geography and Public Policy at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Dr. Graves’ current research interests include regional economic transformation and resurgence, retail geographies and the cultural process of economic development.