The Metropolitan Influence of the 168 Standard Metropolitan Area Central Cities

The theoretical literature on metropolitanism usually conceives of a metropolis as a special type of city which performs integrating services for the hinterland. However, empirical studies of metropolitanism usually analyze uniits defined purely in terms of population size. This study analyzes the apparent taxonomic problem attached to the concept of metropolis by suggesting an answer to the questioni, "are all central cities of Standard Metropolitan Areas special types of cities performiiing integrative services for outlying areas far in excess of the average urban place?" Ranking central cities in terms of "per capita metropolitan activity performiied" answers this question in the negative. T he concept of dominantiice has been a part of ecological theory practically sinice the begininlg of the discipline.1 To service a hiinterland1 is the "raison d'etre" of cities, anid therefore one may suppose that all cities domiinate. The literature suggests, hiowever. that city dominianice varies in degree. One mavy lhypothesize, along with other autlhors, that the larger the city the greater the dominanlce it exerts. A somewhat more complex lypothesis has been put forth, however, whlich states that certain cities, adapting to particular conditions, perform services for a hiinterland to a much greater degree than other cities of a similar size, and thereby integrate (or domliinate) the activities in the hinterland to a greater degree than do the other cities.2 THE PROBLEM Thtis study investigates certain aspects of the contradiction between these two hypotheses. The problem is most fruitfully investigated by testing the efficacy of the following derivation: If, as the literature indicates, a special type of city exists which engages in integrative activities to a greater extent than average cities, and if, as metropolitan researchers tend to assume, the Census's cenitral cities of Standard Metropolitan Areas3 (definied miiainly in terms of size) adequately delineates this special type of city, then tlhese central cities shouldl be engaging in integrative activity to a greater degree than the average city. Ranking central cities of Standard Metropolitan Areas by the degree of service or integrative funictions which they perform, per capita, enables us to test the derivation. INDICATORS OF METROPOLITAN ACTIVITY Twenty activities are chosen as indicators of metropolitan activity. These activities portray importalnt city services; each indicates a facet of mietropolitan influence. The twenty indicators are divided into those which indicate 14cal activity and those which indicate regional activity. The literature on metropolitaiisni provides the basis for suclh a division. "Two different 1 Many autlhors have applied this concept to th human social system, describing types of cities as being dominant of outlying units. A few oif these authors are: D. J. Bogue, The Structure of the Metropolitant Conmmunity: A Study of Dominance and Subdomtinance (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1949); A. H. Hawley, Human Ecology (New York: Ronald, 1950); N. S. B. Gras, Introduction to Econtomic History (New York: Harper and Bros., 1922); R. D. McKenzie, The Metropolitan Communn(itity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1933); R. E. Park, Humant Commuttlnities (Glencoe, Ill.; The Free Press, 1952, a set of reprinted chapters anld articles); J. A. Quinn, Humstant Ecology (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1950); and R. B. Vance, and S. Snlith, "Metropolitain Dominiance and Integration," in R. B. Vance and N. J. Denierath (editors), The Urban South (New York: Van Rees, 1954), pp. 114-135. 2 N. S. B. Gras, ibid. 3 The census data on central cities of Standard Metropolitan Areas used in this study are from the 1950 census. Since then the definition of metropolitan area lhas been changed and the name is now Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.131 on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:23:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms METROI'OLIT.4N INFLUENCE 167 kind(Is of trade were involved,"' states Gras4 whein discussing metropolitain functions, 'whicl we may call the 'extendled' andl the 'local' or 'hiinterland'. The hiniterlanid trade takes place inside the area: it is intra-metropolitain. The extend(le( lies outsicle the area: it takes place between the metropolitani UnIit and( the great beyon(l. When the extended trade is between two ceniters that are both imietropolitani, wve may call it iiuter-miietropolitan. The hinterland trade is the wheel of the machinie; the extended trade the belt conniiecting the wheels."5 The distinction l)etweel "local" and "regional" metropolitan functions provides a framework for viewing netropolises, not as separate entities, but as organizatioiis tied into a larger interdependent unit-a nationial or mlietropolitani economy as Gras put it. By c-omparing, through use of the coefficiernt of dissimiiilarity, the percent (for eaclh activity) of the total activity in the U.S. located in each city with the percent of the total U.S. population in the city, one can estimiiate the (legree of concentration of each of 4N. S. B. Gras, ibid., p. 194. 5 The following are sonic of the items in the literature whiclh point to a division between local anid regiona(il metropolitan activity: R. D. McKenzie, ibid. MIcKenzie argued that metrol)olises are a(llinistratire seats for activities and interests sp)rea(l over a broad area; they are centers of domianlce for vast regionis; they are hubs of a lnationial econl0omiy. Riclhard B. Andrews, "Mechanics of the Urban Economiiic BSase" (a series of twelve articles Nvith various subtitles), Lan-d Econzomiiics, Vols. 2932, 1953-1956. This series represents the "economic base" literature which essentially involves the "local" vs. "regional" distinction. D. J. Bogue, ibid. Bogue divided the U.S. into 67 metropolitan areas each containinig a large central city and consequenitly a relatively local hinterland. J. A. Quinn, ibid. His discussioni of the conicepts of metropolitan district, inidustrial area, and metropolitain region reflects the notioni of a metrop)olis servicing a relatively local lhinterland. Untited States Cenistus of Population (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printinig Office, 1950). The Standard MIetropolitan Area is defined -by the census for 1950 as: c. . . containing at least one city of 50,000 or more in 1950. . . . In general, each standard Metropolitan area comprises the county containiing the city and any other contiguous counties which are decemed to be closely economically integrated with that city." S. Riemer, The Mloderni City (New York: Prentice-Hall, 1952). Riemer states, ". . . in its full bloom, the metropolitan center becomes an end in itself, gaininig increasing advantage as an agglomeration of a large resident population. It fulfills regiotnal (in our terms, local) as well as national and world-vide services (in our terms, regional) in the pursuit of governmental, educational, commercial, and industrial activities." A. Hawley, ibid. "A closer examination of inter-dependence," writes Hawley, "discloses that a commulnity may have not one boundary, be it a line or a zone, but twvo or miore. It is possible to observe a series of concentric zones about a center which differ in the degree of attachmenit of their occupants to the ceriter, anid in the frequenicy of movement to andr from the center, and in the extent to which contacts with the center are direct, ifivolving a circulationi of ideas and products rather than people. The intensity of local commuiiity life appears to diminiish with distance from the center, though it may niot be centirely vitiated even at maximum distances." p. 255. R. B. Vanice aild S. Smith, ibid Vancec and Smzith analyzed metropolitan dominance in a Southern Region, utilizing an interesting and insightful technique which enabled them to pay heed to Gras' particular conceptualization of a metropolis. This study draws heavily on their article. After an iniformative treatment of the historical developmenit of largc southern cities, the researchers empirically analyzc the metropolitan influence of cities in the south. Six indices of metropolitan funlctionis are used to rank southern cities on a scale of dominanice: (1) Wholesale sales, (2) Businiess services, (3) Number of branch offices of manufacturers, (4) Retail sales, (5) Bank clearings and (6) Value added by manufacturing. In the words of the authors, ". . . the first three factors stress high level distributioni, specialization, and control; and in the construction of the rank-score from the six indices, they are weighted two to one . . . the last three indices reflect the gross underpinnings a city has for building its market and amassing wealth." Vance and Smith do not discuss why these six items were choseni rather thani others, nor why the number of itetmis was limited to six. After ranking the southertn cities by averaging scores for the six indices, the authors were able to designate logical categories of cities in terms of their metropolitan status. Not all 29 cities in their study (all central cities of SMA's over 100,000) emerged as metropolises. Four categories were designated as follows: second order metropolises (none, the authors believed, were of the first magnitude such as New York and Chicago), third order metropolises, subdominants with metropolitan characteristics and subdominants. Atlanta and Dallas emerged "head and shoulders" above the other cities. Batonl Rouge aned Austin fell at the bottom of the list. This content downloaded from 207.46.13.131 on Sun, 16 Oct 2016 05:23:45 UTC All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms