The Mighty Micropolis

New census designation puts small-town America on the map.

One of the most fascinating analyses about the electoral architecture of George W. Bush's reelection victory comes from the Metropolitan Institute at Virginia Tech, which recently examined the 2004 presidential vote in small-town America. According to the Metropolitan Institute's analysis, Bush won the nation's "micropolitan" areas by a landslide 61 percent to John Kerry's 39 percent.

Micropolitan America is not just another cutesy political catch phrase coined by academics, journalists or political consultants. It refers to a newly minted census category introduced by the Office of Management and Budget in June 2003. Traditional metropolitan statistical areas are now joined by "micropolitan statistical areas," smaller places composed of a central county or counties with at least one urban cluster of 10,000 to 49,999 people.

Democrats, understandably, need to get better ac-quainted with this demographic, which contains roughly one in 10 Americans. But they aren't the only ones discovering the political implications of the micropolis.

Ever since the federal government designed its metropolitan area program 55 years ago, the act of creating and revising the list of these areas has had a politics of its very own. This time is no different. In the beginning, the idea was to provide consistency and uniform standards in collecting, analyzing and publishing federal statistics for geographic areas by setting criteria for classification of those places before each decennial census.

In practice, the process works like this: After reviewing such factors as population density and commuting patterns, OMB defines its classification standards and adjusts its list of statistically designated areas accordingly. Some places are added, others are removed. Then the agency hunkers down to await a torrent of criticism from crestfallen local boosters and their representatives in Congress.

Civic pride is only a small part of why omission or removal from the list rankles so many. Achieving metropolitan statistical area (MSA) status has been important to local economic development, since corporations and retailers often factor it into decisions about where to locate. More important, though, is the role that MSA designation plays in federal funding. Since some federal and state agencies are required by statute to use MSA data to allocate program funds, set standards and implement other aspects of their programs-and because other agencies simply elect to do so-the OMB revisions can have weighty consequences.

Thus, if history is any guide, the creation of the micropolitan category-and the ripple effect it will have on the metropolitan category-is likely to expose OMB to even more pressure from those who value parochial interests above all others. Prior to the introduction of micros, the universe of potentially aggrieved localities was relatively limited, since only places that met a high population threshold were under consideration. Now, with more than half of the nation's 3,066 counties designated in either metropolitan or micro-politan areas-1,090 in metros and 674 in micros-that universe of prospective malcontents has doubled.

Of course, those who have long lobbied for statistical recognition of smaller cities that didn't quite qualify as metropolitan areas are thrilled.

Yet a few places are not so pleased, including some of the 41 counties that saw their status changed from metro to micro. For them, the prospect of a substantial alteration in their statistics-even if the change is only on paper-is worrisome because of the potential impact on business recruitment.

Until most micros and metros have a better feel for whether-and if so, how-the revised standards will affect federal funding decisions, they'll probably withhold judgment on the recent revisions. But one way or another, Micropolitan America is about to attract a lot more notice in Washington.