Spatial Perspective of Population Dynamics in Georgia, 1960-1980

Southeastern Geographer Vol. 23. No. 1. May 1983, pp. 35-50 SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE OF POPULATION DYNAMICS IN GEORGIA, 1960-1980 Ronald L. Mitchelson and James S. Fisher The purpose of this study is to examine the spatial aspects of population growth in Georgia in the 1960s and 1970s. It is argued that scrutiny at a subnational level is necessary for an accurate and detailed account of the population redistribution taking place upon the North American landscape. Georgia's recent experience is reported as a case study which contributes to the current debate concerning the appropriate interpretation of North America's "population turnaround." BACKGROUND. The population of metropolitan areas within the United States grew by about 10 percent during the 1970s. This figure embodies a significant addition to the nation's largest urban centers, but the rate seems modest when compared to the 15 percent population growth experienced by nonmetropolitan areas during the same decade. (J) The difference is especially distinctive in view of the fact that the number of Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) increased from 243 to 318 during the same decade. It has been recognized for nearly a decade that people were leaving metropolitan origins for nonmetropolitan destinations at rates that provided gains for the latter. In fact, the addition of nearly three million individuals to nonmetropolitan areas between March, 1970 and March, 1979 resulted from the migration process. (2) These figures, as well as others that might be cited, are indicative ofwhat has come to be termed a "population turnaround." Metropolitan regions, in the aggregate, formerly grew more rapidly than their nonmetropolitan counterparts and were net recipients of people from rural areas in the process. Today, the opposite is said to be true. Nonmetropolitan areas are growing faster, and they are net receivers of people from metropolitan areas as a result of the turnaround process. An interesting debate has developed regarding the most appropriate interpretation of the population turnaround. For instance, the tradiDr . Mitchelson is Assistant Professor ofGeography at the University ofGeorgia in Athens, GA 30602. Dr. Fisher is Associate Professor of Geography at the University of Georgia in Athens, GA 30602. 36Southeastern Geographer tional urban models of Wingo, Alonso, and Mills suggest that rising real incomes in concert with declining travel costs provide flatter bid-rent curves for the use of urban lands and concurrent metropolitan expansion . (3) The results of one set of empirical investigations align nicely with this perspective of the turnaround as being little more than urban expansion in a continuous fashion. Nonmetropolitan growth is then said to result primarily from simple spill-over of metropolitan residents into adjacent areas that are merely classified as nonmetropolitan. The turnaround , therefore, does not represent a clean break with past population dynamics in the spatial distribution of North America's population, and exists only as a statistical illusion that is explained quite well by existing theories of urban expansion and suburbanization. Finally, it is argued that with an appropriate redefinition of metropolitan areas, the turnaround would statistically vanish. (4) The results of other empirical investigations suggest that current spatial redistribution of population is something much more distinctive than a continuous metropolitan expansion. It is posited that a clean break with past population dynamics is indeed taking place, and that the turnaround process affects nonmetropolitan areas well-removed from direct metropolitan influence. (5) Several studies indicate that functional dependence on a metropolitan center through extended commuting , for instance, was not a necessary condition for population growth to occur in nonmetropolitan areas even during the decade of the 1960s. (6) One viable interpretation of the turnaround as a clean break with past population dynamics suggests that the hierarchy of urban centers is breaking down, and nonmetropolitan areas gain population as a result of economic expansion of smaller urban centers within these areas. The ultimate urban spatial pattern would then involve a large number of highly specialized and interdependent centers with strong horizontal linkages and a reduced dependence on higher-order centers. (7) It has also been argued that the agglomeration economies associated with larger cities may actually contribute to their decline. All else being equal, the real incomes of residents in big cities are larger than the incomes of...