3 \a<*i -cos -20-1 CDS-80-1 SPECIAL DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSES Is It Being Narrowed by a Back-to-the-City Movement? Larry H. Long and Donald C Dahmann U. S. Department of Commerce BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2012 with funding from LYRASIS Members and Sloan Foundation http://archive.org/details/citysuburbincomeOOIong CDS-80-1 SPECIAL DEMOGRAPHIC ANALYSES Is It Being Narrowed by a Back-to-the-City Movement? Larry H.Long and Donald C. Dahmann Issued March 1980 f w s Jul U.S. Department of Commerce Philip M. Klutznick, Secretary Luther H. Hodges, Jr., Under Secretary Courtenay M. Slater, Chief Economist BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Vincent P. Barabba. Director BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Vincent P. Barabba, Director Daniel B. Levine, Deputy Director George E. Hall, Associate Director for Demographic Fields CENTER FOR DEMOGRAPHIC STUDIES James R. Wetzel, Chief Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Long, Larry H The city-suburb income gap— is it being narrowed by a back-to-the-city movement? (Special demographic analyses ; CDS-80-1) Includes bibliographical references. 1. Income distribution— United States. 2. Suburbs- United States. 3. Urban renewal— United States. 4. Residential mobility-United States. I. Dahmann, Donald C, joint author. II. Title. III. Series. HC110.I5L66 339.2'2'0973 80-11852 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Stock No. 003-024-02378-4 Preface This study launches a new series of publications from the Census Bureau's Center for Demographic Studies. The purpose of these publications is to provide insight and perspective on important demographic trends and patterns. Most bring together data from several sources and attempt to enhance the use of Census Bureau data by pointing out the relevance of the statistics and population developments for policy analysis and policy planning. A distinguishing feature of the studies is the inclusion of broad speculative analyses and illustrative hypotheses offered by the authors as aids in identifying the reasons underlying population changes. The authors are research associates in the Center for Demographic Studies. Larry Long holds a Ph.D. degree in sociology. His work has appeared in a number of social science journals and as Bureau publications, including The Geographical Mobility of Americans: An International Comparison (with Celia Boertlein, 1976), Racial Succession in Individual Housing Units (with Daphne Spain, 1978), Interregional Migration of the Poor: Some Recent Changes (1978), and Reasons for Interstate Migration: Jobs, Retirement, Climate, and Other Influences (with Kristin Hansen, 1979). Donald Dahmann received his doctorate in geography from the University of Chicago in 1976. He joined the Census Bureau in 1977 after spending a \ ear on the staff of the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. His recent publications include Population Redistribution in the United States in the 1970s (with Brian J. L. Berry, National Academy of Sciences, 1977) and "North-South Differences in Housing and the Housing and Community Development Act of 1977" (Journal of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, Summer 1979). He is currently analyzing subjective indicators of neighborhood quality, including the relationship between perceptual and evaluative indicators and their variation by size of place and between cities and suburbs. iii One of the major urban trends in the United States during recent decades has been the growing disparity between residents of the central city and suburban portions of metropolitan areas. Cities and suburbs in the aggregate have tended to become increasingly dissimilar in a number of respects, perhaps most notably in terms of racial composition and socioeconomic status. The percentage of Blacks in many central cities has increased greatly since World War II (Long, 1975), and the income level of central city residents has tended to fall farther behind that of suburbanites (Schnore, 1972). The growing socioeconomic disparity within metropolitan areas stands in sharp contrast to the many decreasing socioeconomic differences between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations during the 1 970's (Zuiches and Brown, 1978). The processes producing increased city-suburb socioeconomic differentiation within metropolitan areas while metropolitan-nonmetropolitan differentia- tion was decreasing are not entirely unrelated. Extensive rural-to-urban migration during the 1 950's and 1 960's carried many Blacks and low-income, low-skilled persons to central cities at a time when large numbers of Whites and middle-income families were departing cities for suburban residences. More recently, this suburbanization has extended into the "exurban" fringe where metropolitan areas encroach upon nonmetropolitan territory. The outcome of these opposing movements was that cities became increasingly Black and contained a growing proportion of the Nation's low-income population, while suburban and nonmetropolitan populations were often registering above-average increases in personal income. Wide disparities between the compositions of city and suburban populations are a matter of concern because they can create numerous problems in achieving effective governmental action. For example, when a central city finds that to an increasing degree it is home to the poor and unemployed, its I policies and programs understandably tend to focus on welfare, public housing, and the creation of jobs for the unemployed; but priorities of neighboring suburban communities composed of mostly affluent, pro- fessionally employed households likely reflect a vastly different set of interests. Such opposing policy outlooks of neighboring jurisdictions can sometimes stand in the way of cooperation on issues that are of mutual concern, like development of regional transportation systems, water supplies, waste treatment, and other projects that require a metropolitan wide approach (Nathan and Adams, 1976). Moreover, growing city-suburb economic disparities may have a tendency to steer population patterns toward still more differentiation within metro- politan areas. There may be bandwagon effects, so that as more middle- income households move out of cities, there are fewer reasons for others to stay; as one econometric study concluded, "central cities are caught in a vicious circle, whereby the more rapidly the middle class families move to the suburbs, the greater is the incentive for the exodus of those remaining" (Bradford and Kelejian, 1973). A good deal of speculation— and some statistical evidence— suggests that the potential for halting this "vicious circle" already exists. In fact, several indicators may be cited (e.g., in Long, forthcoming), including: (1) an apparent decline in the rate of rural-to-urban migration, which by itself may have previously created pressures for middle-income households to move from cities to suburbs (Tucker, 1976); (2) an apparent increase in the incidence of Black-to-White household successions in central cities accompanied by a rise in the socioeconomic status of White replacement households (Spain et al., 1980); (3) numerous media accounts of the "gentrification" of lower income neighborhoods and case studies (see examples in Laska and Spain, forthcoming) of a back-to-the-city or stay-in-the-city trend among younger households who find housing bargains by investing "sweat equity" in renovating inner-city townhouses; and (4) demographic trends that entail falling fertility levels and more two-earner households who apparently feel less pressure to establish a home in the suburbs than earlier child-oriented households and whose affluence and commitment to professional careers constitute a demand for renovated inner-city residences. Furthermore, the urban poor who are displaced by these processes may be squeezed out of cities altogether, perhaps to older housing in the "inner suburbs." Quite clearly, the formulation of effective urban policies would be enhanced through assessment of the strength and momentum of each of these processes. One of the dilemmas of current policy planning, however, is the absence of precise estimates of either (1) the number and characteristics of back-to-the-city /stay-in-the-city types, and (2) the number and destinations of low-income persons displaced by the gentrifying trends. Even if such data were available, there would still be a need to gauge the effects of such trends on the overall composition of city populations, as it is entirely possible that urban revitalization is concentrated in only a few urban neighborhoods and has not yet reached sufficient magnitude to affect citywide averages. A very significant citywide average is the income level, especially in relation to the suburban population. If continued long enough and with enough force, inner-city revitalization should halt the expansion of the city-suburb income gap and even bring about a narrowing of it. Hence, if we cannot measure directly the number of gentrifying movers and the persons they displace, perhaps we can approach the matter indirectly and try to measure the results of such processes by looking at trends in city-suburb income differences. The following sections examine national trends in city-suburb income differences since 1960 as well as trends in the 20 largest metropolitan areas during the 1970's. We stress the importance of alternative income measures (income per family versus income per person) in making city-suburb income comparisons and present an attempt to differentiate the close-in, inner suburbs that lie along city boundaries and the newer more distant suburbs. Throughout, we will be trying to use the most recent available data to see if a narrowing of the city-suburb income gap is occurring. These efforts should be looked upon as a preliminary assessment, however, for not until the 1980 census data are available will there be information on changes in the demographic, racial, and socioeconomic composition of individual city and suburban neighborhoods since 1970. GENERAL BACKGROUND A widening of the income gap between city and suburban families can be seen in figure 1, which shows the median income of city and suburban families (solid lines) for the Nation as a whole and also the ratio of the median income of city families to median income of suburban families, for income received in selected years between 1 959 and 1 977. The numbers on which the chart is based are shown in table 1. In interpreting the figure, remember that the data come from censuses or surveys taken in March or April following each of the years shown; for example, the most recent data are for the calendar year 1977 and come from the March 1978 Current Population Survey, which asked respondents to report their total money income received in 1977. In this figure and elsewhere "suburban" refers to the entire portion of standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA's) lying outside the central city or cities. The chart's solid lines clearly diverge, indicating a widening income gap between city and suburban families. Figures in table 1 show that in 1960 (income in 1959) suburban families had incomes, on the average, that exceeded those of central city families by $867 per year. By 1978 (income in 1977) that gap had widened to $3,967. More important, however, is the relative difference between the median incomes of central city and suburban families. As seen from the bars in figure 1, central city families in 1960 (income in 1959) had a median income that was 89 percent as large as that of Figure 1. Widening income gap between cities and their suburban rings, in relative terms (left-hand scale) and absolute values (right-hand scale), for all SMSA's: Selected years, 1959 to 1977 1.00 .90 .80 70 .60 .50 .40 .30 .20 10 Median income of suburban families (right-hand scale) Median income of central city fami- lies (right-hand scale) $20,000 $18,000 $16,000 - $14,000 - $12,000 - $10,000 = c n3 $8,000 ^ 1959 •69 '74 '77 Income year $6,000 $4,000 $2,000 $0 Table 1 . Median Income of Families and Per Capita Income of All Persons Living in Central Cities of SMSA's, Balance of SMSA's, and Nonmetropolitan Areas: Selected Years, 1959 to 1977 Year income received 1 Income base and area 1959 1969 1974 1975 1976 1977 Amount Median family income: Central cities of SMSA's 5,940 9,507 12,275 12,990 13,952 14,933 Balance of SMSA's 6,707 11 ,411 15,126 16,122 17,440 18,900 Nonmetropolitan areas 4,485 7,8 32 1 1 ,045 11,600 12,831 13,789 Per capita income: Central cities of SMSA's NA 3,267 NA NA 5,236 5,771 Balance of SMSA's NA 3,554 NA NA 5,921 6,496 Nonmetropolitan areas NA 2,483 NA NA 4,435 4,858 Ratio Median family income: Central city/balance of SMSA's 0.89 0.83 0.81 0.81 0.80 0.79 Central city/nonmetro- politan areas 1.32 1.21 1.11 1.12 1.09 1.08 Balance of SMSA/ nonmetropolitan areas 1.50 1.46 1.37 1.39 1.36 1.37 Per capita income: Central city/balance of SMSA's NA 0.92 NA NA 0.88 0.89 Central city/nonmetro- politan areas NA 1.32 NA NA 1.18 1.19 Balance of SMSA/ nonmetropolitan areas NA 1.43 NA NA 1.34 1.34 NA Not available. 1 Data for 1959 refer to city boundaries and metropolitan area definitions in use in 1 960. All other data are for city boundaries and metropolitan area definitions as of 1 970. Source: Estimates prepared by the authors with data from the 1960 and 1970 cen- suses and March Current Population Surveys, as reported by the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1964, 1973, 1976, 1977a, 1978a, 1 979a). suburban families; the ratio dropped to 83 percent in 1 970 and since then has dropped further, to 79 percent in 1978, indicating a widening relative difference between city and suburban families in terms of income. This growing income gap between city and suburban families results from the fact that incomes of suburban families have increased faster than the average income of city families. Furthermore, it is important to point out that the median income of city families has failed to keep up with inflation, and in real terms, i.e., adjusted for inflation, the average income of city families was lower in 1977 than in 1969. During this 8-year period, the median income of city families rose 57 percent but the Consumer Price Index rose even faster, 65 percent. Suburban families approximately kept up with inflation, as their median income rose 66 percent during the same period. A somewhat rosier view of income levels in central cities is obtained when one looks at income on a per capita basis (table 1 ). On a per capita basis, the income of central city residents rose 77 percent— faster than the rate of inflation— between 1969 and 1977. How is it that per capita income of city residents kept up with inflation but income per family did not? The basic explanation is that the size of families has been falling nationally and as of 1977 averaged 3.29 members for central city families and 3.40 members for suburban families, so that family income (which increasingly comes from more than one family member) is spread among fewer persons (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1978c). Furthermore, growing numbers of persons do not live in families at all but live alone or belong to households not ordinarily recorded as families by the Census Bureau (cohabiting couples, roommates, etc.). As of 1977, one of three central city households consisted of a person living alone or only with nonrelatives compared with about one of five households in the suburbs (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1978b). The reasons for the declining family and household size are many and include falling fertility, marital dissolutions, and simply an apparent preference to live independent ot other family members (one's parents or one's grown children). City-suburb income differences are smaller when measured on a per person basis than when measured on a per family basis. The city-to-suburb income ratio for income gained during 1977 was .79 for family income and .89 for per capita income. Thus, the median income of central city families is 79 percent of suburban families, while the per capita income in central cities is 89 percent of the per capita income in suburbs. The smaller difference associated with per capita income reflects the fact that central city households tend to be smaller than suburban households, so that household incomes are typically spread among fewer persons than in the suburbs. Even on a per person basis, however, the city-suburb income gap has widened in the 1970's. In 1970 (income year 1969) the per capita income of city residents was 92 percent of that of suburban residents; by 1978 (income in 1977) the per capita income of city residents was only 89 percent of that of suburbanites. These data do suggest, however, that the city-suburb income gap may have stopped increasing between the last two years for which data are available. The city-suburb per capita income ratio (table 1) was .88 for income received in 1976 and .89 for income received in 1977. The apparent rise between these two years is subject to sampling variability and by itself does not constitute unequivocal evidence that the past trend toward widening of city-suburb income differences has been reversed. The very broad view portrayed in figure 1 (and table 1) can actually be misleading because the age, size, and regional location of individual metropolitan areas have previously been found to affect the direction and degree of city-suburb socioeconomic differentiation. More specifically, metropolitan areas that are small, have recently achieved metropolitan status, or are located in the South or West have been found to have relatively small city-suburb socioeconomic differentiation and sometimes have a central city of higher socioeconomic status than the suburban ring (Brazer, 1967; Smith, 1970; Schnore, 1972). Since metropolitan areas with these characteristics- small size, young age, and a southern or western location— have been accounting for a disproportionate amount of the total metropolitan popula- tion growth in the 1 970's, there is a built-in force for narrowing of city-suburb differences when examined in the aggregate. That there has not been a clearer narrowing of city-suburb income differences indicates that other trends have tended to override this factor. THE 20 LARGEST METROPOLITAN AREAS The logical extension from a national perspective on these trends is to examine the city and suburban parts of individual metropolitan areas. In an attempt to do this, we examined median family incomes in the central city and suburban balance of the 20 largest SMSA's, using data from the 1970 census and Current Population Surveys taken in March of 1976, 1977, and 1978. The survey data are subject to sampling variability (see, for example, U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1 979a), and in view of the sample size we decided not to examine city and suburban family incomes in SMSA's smaller than the 20 largest. As a counterpoint to these data, per capita income in the city and suburban portions of the same 20 SMSA's were also computed using the data from administrative records (income tax returns) compiled for the distribution of Federal funds under the revenue-sharing program. These data are not subject to sampling error, although they are subject to other types of error, like misreporting of place of residence (see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977b, 1979b). For the central city and suburban components of the 20 largest SMSA's, median family income is shown in table 2, and per capita income is shown in table 3 for 1969 and subsequent income years. In both tables, 1970 boundaries are utilized to define the metropolitan areas (U.S. Office of Management and Budget, 1976). We want to pay particular attention to the cities most frequently mentioned as having extensive back-to-the-city trends. A great many cities arc cited in this regard; Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, Baltimore, and Boston are often mentioned, perhaps because they have been intensively observed and studied (see, for example, references in Laska and Spain, forthcoming; Connecticut Housing Investment Fund, 1979, p. 1; A City Revival, 1978, p. 28; Rouse, 1979, p. E1 ). Washington, D.C., has been viewed as the "vanguard of the back-to-the-city movement" (Peirce, 1978). 8 Table 2. Median Income of Central City and Suburban Families and Ratio of City-to-Suburb Family Income, for the 20 Largest SMSA's: 1969, 1975 to 1977 Y ear income received Average, 1 975 to Area of SMSA 1969 1975 1976 1977 1977 Amount CENTRAL CITIES New York,N.Y. 9,682 12,246 12,618 13,287 12,717 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. 10,503 13,770 14,287 14,369 14,142 Chicago, III. 10,242 13,533 13,508 14,859 13,967 Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J. 10,431 11,975 12,268 13,169 12,471 Detroit, Mich. 7,944 12,401 15,123 17,991 15,172 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. 10,190 12,555 15,376 15,763 14,565 Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. 9,583 14^00 13,145 14382 14,142 Boston, Mass. 9,133 13,298 13570 15,377 14,082 Pittsburgh, Pa. 8,800 1 1 ,642 12,907 16,407 13,652 St. Louis, Mo.-lll. 8,182 9,535 10,640 11 ,224 10,466 Baltimore, Md. 8,815 10,744 13,070 13546 12,453 Cleveland, Ohio 9,107 11,593 11,911 12^17 12,140 Houston, Texas 9,875 14,596 16,636 16,875 16,036 Newark, N.j. 7,735 7,339 7,864 8,985 8,063 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. 9,960 14,288 16,634 16,764 15,895 Dallas, Texas 10,019 15,023 16,604 16,891 16,173 Seattle-Everett, Wash. 10,946 15,683 15,049 14,694 15,142 Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. 11,260 15,682 14,192 20,750 16,875 Milwaukee, Wis. 10,262 13,737 13^01 14,95 3 14,164 Atlanta, Ga. 8,399 10,346 11 515 11,717 11,193 BALANCE OF SMSA's New York,N.Y. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. Chicago, III. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J. Detroit, Mich. San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. Boston, Mass. Pittsburgh, Pa. St. Louis, Mo.-lll. Baltimore, Md. Cleveland, Ohio Houston, Texas Newark, N.J . Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. Dallas, Texas Seattle-Everett, Wash. Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. Milwaukee, Wis. Atlanta, Ga. 13,560 18,978 19,145 21,889 11,293 13,461 11,675 13,253 12,533 13,893 12,058 10,039 10,393 11,755 12,704 10,593 12,878 12,170 10,764 12,168 13,123 12,512 11,675 14,688 19,948 16,424 18,510 18,203 19,754 16,532 15512 16,838 17,581 17,309 17,067 18,128 19,525 15,101 20,352 17,270 18,148 15,672 15,276 21,761 16^71 20,712 19,813 23,083 18,074 15^21 19,197 20,358 19501 17,233 17202 21 ,249 1 7 ,408 19214 18,417 20,449 18,602 17,428 22,212 19526 21258 20,732 24,158 18,980 16290 19,083 21,453 20,542 19,243 21 ,320 23,536 18,381 21,180 20,336 24,674 19,672 20,004 15,797 21 ,307 17,640 20,393 19583 22,332 17,862 16,141 18,373 19,797 19,117 17,848 19,117 21,437 16,963 20,482 18,674 21 ,090 17282 Table 2. Median Income of Central City and Suburban Families and Ratio of City-to-Suburb Family Income, for the 20 Largest SMSA's: 1969, 1975 to 1977-Continued Area of SMSA 1969 Year income received 1975 1976 Average, 1975 to 1977 1977 Ratio CENTRAL CITY FAMILIES TO SUBURBAN FAMILIES New York,N.Y. .71 .65 .66 .61 .64 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. .93 .94 .94 .82 .90 Chicago, III. .76 .68 .62 .67 .66 Philadelphia, Pa.-NJ. .89 .73 .72 .67 .71 Detroit, Mich. .60 .67 .73 .82 .74 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. .81 .69 .78 .76 .74 Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. .69 .75 .57 .60 .63 Boston, Mass. .76 .80 .75 .81 .79 Pittsburgh, Pa. .88 .75 .81 .97 .84 St. Louis, Mo.-lll. .79 .57 .55 .59 .5 7 Baltimore, Md. .74 .61 .64 .63 .63 Cleveland, Ohio > 72 .67 .61 .63 .64 Houston, Texas .93 .86 .97 .88 .90 Newark, N.J . .60 .40 .44 .42 .42 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. .82 .73 .78 .71 .74 Dallas, Texas .93 .99 .95 .92 .95 Seattle-Everett, Wash. .90 .77 .76 .69 .74 Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. .86 .91 .77 1.02 .90 Milwaukee, Wis. .82 .76 .67 .61 .67 Atlanta, Ga. .72 .66 .62 .60 .62 Source: 1969 data are from the 1970 census (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1973). Data for income years 1975, 1976, and 1977 are from March Current Population Surveys of 1976, 1977, and 1978 (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977a, 1978a, 1979a) and unpub- lished data. To reduce the sampling variability associated with city and suburban median family incomes, data for income years 1975, 1976, and 1977 were averaged (figures in the last column of table 2). In 4 of the 20 metropolitan areas the averaged data give some evidence of a rise in the ratio of central city to suburban median family incomes, indicating a possible reduction of the income gap. The four metropolitan areas are Detroit, Boston, Dallas, and Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove. But the apparent rise in the city-suburb ratios of median family income is small in every case and probablv best interpreted simply as presenting some evidence that in these four areas the city-suburb gap in family incomes was not widening in the latter half of the 1970's. The data on per capita income (table 3) present another view of the 20 metropolitan areas. In four of the metropolitan areas there is evidence of a 10 Table 3. Per Capita Income of Central City and Suburban Residents and Ratio of Citv-to-Suburban Income Per Capita, for the 20 Largest SMSA's: Selected Years, 1969 to 1975 Year income received Area of SMSA 1969 1972 1974 1975 Amount CENTRALCITIES New York,N.Y. 3,698 4,25 6 4,975 5,222 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. 3,952 4,526 5,289 5,692 Chicago, III. 3,403 3,998 4,701 4,984 Philadelphia, Pa.-N. J. 3,017 3,672 4,329 4,660 Detroit, Mich. 3,199 3,800 4,460 4,661 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. 4,025 4,717 5,672 6,178 Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. 3,842 4,808 5,565 6,007 Boston, Mass. 3,095 3,663 4,261 4,503 Pittsburgh, Pa. 3,072 3,704 4,496 4,919 St. Louis, Mo. -III. 2,726 3,306 3,976 4,278 Baltimore, Md. 2,876 3,602 4,237 4,577 Cleveland, Ohio 2,823 3,263 3,908 4,084 Houston, Texas 3,375 4,125 5,184 5,723 Newark, N.J. 2,492 2,903 3,375 3,586 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. 3,446 4,181 5,093 5,439 Dallas, Texas 3,697 4,399 5,347 5,715 Seattle-Everett, Wash. 3,990 4,602 5,699 6,348 Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. 3,442 3,998 4,724 5,018 Milwaukee, Wis. 3,183 3,856 4,642 4,902 Atlanta, Ga. 3,156 3322 4,556 4^20 BALANCE OF SMSA's New York, N.Y. 4,292 5,049 5,918 6,182 Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. 3,792 4,398 5,166 5,504 Chicago, III. 4,180 4,971 5,983 6,270 Philadelphia, Pa.-N. J. 3,662 4,394 5,238 5,562 Detroit, Mich. 4,013 4,772 5,644 5,824 San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. 4,135 4,982 6,052 6,516 Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. 4,418 5,586 6,574 7,199 Boston, Mass. 3,888 4,620 5,415 5,694 Pittsburgh, Pa. 3,170 3364 4,758 5,125 St. Louis, Mo.-lll. 3,499 4,177 5,012 5,308 Baltimore, Md. 3,624 4,502 5,486 5,806 Cleveland, Ohio 4,115 4,720 5,722 5,987 Houston, Texas 3,163 4,008 5,059 5,601 Newark, N.J . 4,329 5,209 6,229 6,602 Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. 3,727 4,463 5,444 5,760 Dallas, Texas 3,317 4,008 4,922 5,291 Seattle-Everett, Wash. 3,732 4,147 5,258 5,854 Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. 4,067 4345 5,856 6,263 Milwaukee, Wis. 3,808 4,586 5,620 5,930 Atlanta, Ga. 3,674 4,65 3 5,623 5,869 11 Table 3. Per Capita Income of Central City and Suburban Residents and Ratio of City-to-Suburban Income Per Capita, for the 20 Largest SMSA's: Selected Years, 1969 to 1975-Continued Area of SMSA 1969 Year income received 1972 1974 1975 CENTRAL CITY FAMILIES TO SUBURBAN FAMILIES Ratio New York, N.Y. Los Angeles-Long Beach, Calif. Chicago, III. Philadelphia, Pa.-N.J. Detroit, Mich. San Francisco-Oakland, Calif. Washington, D.C.-Md.-Va. Boston, Mass. Pittsburgh, Pa. St. Louis, Mo. -III. Baltimore, Md. Cleveland, Ohio Houston, Texas Newark, N.J . Minneapolis-St. Paul, Minn. Dallas, Texas Seattle-Everett, Wash. Anaheim-Santa Ana-Garden Grove, Calif. Milwaukee, Wis. Atlanta, Ga. .86 .84 .84 .84 1.04 1.03 1.02 1.03 .81 .80 .79 .79 .82 .84 .83 .84 .80 .80 .79 .80 .97 .95 .94 .95 .87 .86 .85 .83 .80 .79 .79 .79 .97 .96 .94 .96 .78 .79 .79 .81 .79 .80 .77 .79 .69 .69 .68 .68 1.07 1.03 1.02 1.02 .58 .56 .54 .54 .92 .94 .94 .94 1.11 1.10 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.11 1.08 1 .08 .85 .83 .81 .80 .84 .84 .83 .83 .86 .82 .81 .82 Source: Administrative records (income tax returns) used in the revenue-sharing program (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1977b, 1979b). narrowing of the city-suburb income gap, but they are not the same four metropolitan areas identified from table 2. With income measured on a per capita basis, the city-suburb income ratio was higher (indicating a smaller difference) in 1975 than in 1969 in the Philadelphia, St. Louis, Minneapolis-St. Paul, and Seattle-Everett metropolitan areas. As with the median family income figure, however, the changes are quite small. The overall conclusion is that in most (12) of the 20 largest metropolitan areas, there is no evidence of closing of the city-suburb income gap. The other eight metropolitan areas present a mixed pattern, showing some evidence of narrowing (or halt in the widening) of city and suburban incomes when measured on either a per family or per person basis. Importantly, no metropolitan area exhibited narrowing of the city-suburb income gap on both a per family and a per person basis. 12 Especially surprising is that the Washington, D.C., SMSA— the "vanguard of the back-to-the-city movement"— did not show a narrowing of the city-suburb income gap on either a per family or a per person basis. As the data in table 2 show, the median income in 1969 of families in the District of Columbia was 69 percent as large as the median income of families in its surrounding suburbs; when averaged over the 1975-77 period, families in the District had a median income only 63 percent as large as suburban families. On a per capita basis the ratio of city-to-suburban incomes in the Washington, D.C., SMSA fell from .87 in 1969 to .83 in 1975. Whatever the exact scale of the back-to-the-city movement in Washington, D.C., it is not reducing city-suburb income differences, at least not according to the most recent available data. Of course, subsequent data may show a narrowing of city-suburb income differences in Washington, D.C., and in other metropolitan areas as well. And somewhat different results than those reported here might be obtained if one conceptualized "suburban" in ways other than the residual part of SMSA's (as defined in 1970) lying outside the central city. Ways of disaggregating suburbia are discussed in the next section. But for now, our conclusion is that back-to-the-city trends, although highly visible and of significance in individual neighborhoods, do not yet appear to be large enough to clearly establish a new trend toward convergence of city and suburban income levels. Perhaps an appropriate analogy is that back-to-the-city trends are creating or expanding relatively affluent "islands" of middle-income households in cities where the overall income level is not yet clearly rising relative to suburban income. In fact, city incomes outside the "resettlement neighborhoods" (Gale, 1979) are almost certainly falling relative to suburban income. Middle-income islands in cities will have to grow larger or increase in number before city incomes are raised enough to reduce the city-suburb income gap. SUBURBAN VARIABILITY For the sake of convenience and because data are often produced in terms of the "balance of the SMSA," to this point we have referred to this entire noncentral city portion of metropolitan areas as suburban. While this practice seems to be satisfactory for most purposes, one should avoid inferring that this outer portion of SMSA's is uniformly suburban and consists of homogeneous white-collar middle-income families. Variability within the balance-of-SMSA aggregate arises from many causes, including numerous longstanding suburban enclaves of moderately priced housing, factories that moved to the suburbs and took their workers with them, the spillover that occurs when low-income areas of cities expand outward along sectors that push into suburban territory (Rose, 1976), and previously existing settle- ments that were engulfed by expanding metropolitan areas. New forces may also be altering the face of suburbia and adding new dimensions to suburban differentiation. Many older suburbs lie adjacent to 13 central city boundaries, and because they were built several decades ago they are likely to have aging housing and aging populations (Sternlieb and Lake, 1975). Even the original Levittown, in many ways the prototypical post-World War II suburb, has now passed its 30th birthday. Numerous suburban communities that had expanding populations in the high-fertility years of the 1 950's now consist of growing numbers of small "empty-nest" households whose baby-boom children have left the parental home (Gutowski and Feild, 1979). These considerations suggest the possibility that a ring of inner suburbs may well start to show population declines and perhaps some evidence of sluggish income growth or even the signs of decay and deterioration customarily identified with central cities. The reasons, as mentioned, involve the relative deterioration and the filtering of older housing in the inner suburbs to successively lower income households leaving the central cities. Then too, the aging population that remains in the inner suburbs may be past its peak earning power and include many residents relying on pensions. Farther removed from the city, in a metropolitan area's "intermediate" or "outer" suburbs, more affluent residents can still afford to move to newer more desirable housing, often on larger lots and in communities that have carefully regulated the mix of commercial and residential usage of land. In one sense, this view of metropolitan areas is simply a way of saying that they grow at their fringes. The relevance of this point in examining city-suburb income differences is that changes in the relative mix over time between the inner and outer suburbs can affect the ratio of central city income to that in the "suburban balance." More specifically, it is possible that gentrifying central city neighborhoods may be raising the city income level enough to reduce the gap between the city and the ring of inner suburbs. Among currently available data sources, the one that comes closest to providing a test for these effects is the set of figures on population and per capita income used in the revenue-sharing program. The Census Bureau, for selected years since 1970, has published population and per capita income for each of the more than 39,000 jurisdictions that participate in this program, which range in size from small incorporated places of less than 100 persons to the largest cities. Of the 20 SMSA's previously examined, three were chosen— Washington, D.C., St. Louis, and Cleveland— to identify inner, intermediate, and outer- suburbs. These three were selected simply because they had central cities that were most completely surrounded by revenue-sharing jurisdictions and in addition included counties that most nearly lent themselves to identification of intermediate and outer suburbs. Revenue-sharing jurisdictions contiguous to the central city were labeled the inner suburbs, except in the case of Washington, D.C., for which we also compiled data for additional jurisdic- tions inside interstate highway 495, the beltway that encircles the District of Columbia. The rationale for showing places inside the I-495 beltwa\ is that 14 "[i]n the Washington region, the Capital Beltway [I-495] forms a convenient division between the inner suburbs and the outer suburbs" (Goldfield, 1976, p. 94). In all three metropolitan areas, the intermediate suburbs consist of places beyond the inner suburbs but within counties containing or adjacent to the central city and include the population of these counties not living in a revenue-sharing jurisdiction. The outer suburbs are counties that are at least one county removed from the central city. Data on population and per capita income changes since 1970 for these three SMSA's and their inner, intermediate, and outer suburbs are shown in table 4. In all three cases, the inner suburbs have decreased in population since 1970. In the case of the Washington, D.C., SMSA, the population of revenue-sharing jurisdictions inside the beltway experienced population decline about as rapidly as that of the District of Columbia, whose population fell by 7.5 percent between 1970 and 1976. In the inner suburbs of Cleveland and St. Louis, population declines also occurred but were not quite as large as in their central cities. In each of these three cases the rate of population growth also tended to increase with increasing distance from the central city. The intermediate suburbs in all three metropolitan areas are shown to have experienced moderate (but positive) rates of population growth since 1970 and even faster growth in the outer suburbs. These data are important in demonstrating that even metropolitan areas experiencing decline in total population, as in the Cleveland and St. Louis SMSA's, cart possess rapidly growing fringe areas. In other words, metropolitan areas that are shrinking in terms of total population can still be growing on their peripheries as has traditionally been the experience of growing metropolitan areas. These population patterns appear to be broadly characteristic of many SMSA's, as shown in a recent study that compiled data for all SMSA's, showing population change in 1950-60 and 1960-70 for revenue-sharing jurisdictions for which 1970-75 data were available (Guest, 1979). That study reported an increasing tendency over the 25-year period for the suburbs within 10 miles of the central city to shift toward population decline. It also found a tendency for more and more suburban municipalities located 10 to 20 miles from the central city to shift toward population decrease in the 1970's. Contrary to our expectations, there is little evidence to suggest that per capita income growth in the inner suburbs is appreciably slower than in central cities. In fact, in the Washington, D.C., and St. Louis metropolitan areas, the inner suburbs actually experienced growth in per capita income between 1969 and 1975 that exceeded that of the central cities. Our expectation was that if, for instance, gentrification in Washington was not narrowing the overall city-suburb income gap, then maybe it was nonetheless beginning to narrow the gap between the central city and its older inner suburbs. But in each of the successively more distant suburban rings identified for the 15 o r- +-> cr\ a r— rt 1/1 C/1 . — 03 E o o c o c rr! s p 'a. >- : — nj — o <~> cd q. i_ > O 1/1 s- Q- in ■*-> CD (1) 3 CO 3 C O — _1 -a . c ^ 03 (7-) >> -a ■*-" c (j ^ 75 "5 i_ c +-» 03 C o c U 3 o ci Q. O If Q- C OJO ~~ c -t-J JZ • — 1/1 CX 03 (J ^ !_ <^> ^ T3 O. i/i o "^ o_ d c — c 1/1 03 , n C D CTi nj D >- 55S rt CD X) ai to m to to Tf en CN 00 cn -3; co ■^ r- lO «— r-; r-- <— to to to r- t f*1 CO CO "^ -^ -^r r<~> r- to o 00 o to co tj- r~~ ai r- o <— cn CN 00 en ^t 00 tO tO CO„T^ co 00 •*" in tj- CN 00 CO m r— to Ol CN r- ai oo CN Tj- r- r- CO oo oo to to to ro o »— _ to_ q, to ^ to to to co co r- o en rt CN CO Ol Cn tO 00^ CN_ "^ co^ n cn ^ ^ ro ^ cn r- co to *n vo O _ O r— CN -t °i r-^ MD °i MD °\ vq ON CN O ,_ 00 ,— O r- to to CO o LO o , — o to 00 to CN to cn oc °1 r^ oo <— tq «— o\ to to m ro CN i— «— 00 oo O ■^- cn to Tt r^ to to CN O r— O CO T— tO t— cn CT\ CN *T -T cn r- r- oo cn r-^ oq r% t— ^ oq Tt O CO t— CO to to cn r*~ ^t O r- to co co CN r0 00 ^ 'G -Q U - ai a; a; -O !! £0 a> ^3 3 3 «, e : 16 o r- *■» G\ C r- n i/i f . — rcj -7T O u « Q. !_ > o Q_ i/i .«_> - -a .tj c (j rt * "2 i_: c +-> n3 c — C _£ u J2 c Li 3 o .c QL 4-1 ^3 C l+- rtJ l/J C c t o O T3 a> rd o 3 ZJ •a C D. 1/5 '.J3 iZ C a. 3 o c ' U c O or. n3 C 3 cr> ra JZ t-" -C 3 o '^< l/l f" U -C ra t-; a\ CN 00 v\ ^t yo r» i-^ r-^ in vi in m ^ CTi oo <— - cn Q, °i °1 ''I ^t in rf m in - r— l£> 0\ (N ^t r- 00 cn r^ m o ' r- ■ CN t|- in m, wo oo t— -^t r- r— r- "^ **! Q, °Q> r "v m r- m oo o cn in cn cn^ c"> cn — oo WO CN t— CT\ m CI CT\ 00 CN r* cn oq cn rn m cn rt- co co wo cn in ro in ro wo CN CN CN 3 '5 « 3 f o -> *" £ -* ~ = 2 o 03 ^ E ^_ s I SI O *- o *j 3 •*-• 15 ^ £ =5 O C +-' c l/> •— O -C 3 *-" • o "O 3 ~ "O oo *- .E .E.E£ g £ o 4> ^_. ^ ? o g ^8 c ^ o U 0X3 n3 C >. C 3 ro (J il m 3 » « « «J 17 Washington, D.C, SMSA, per capita income increased more rapidly than in the central city. Of course, individual jurisdictions within the inner suburbs exhibit considerable variability in income level and other measures, and the 1980 census will provide a better means than currently available for disaggregating the "balance of SMSA." The present results, however, seem to reinforce the previous suggestion that the neighborhoods where back-to-the-city/stay-in-the-city movers are settling constitute islands whose impact is still not large enough to raise overall income levels of cities to the point that the city-suburb income gap is reduced. In Washington, D.C, where such "turnaround" neighborhoods are thought to be especially prominent, both the inner and the outer suburbs had greater increases in per capita income than the central city between 1 969 and 1 975. NONMETROPOLITAN INCOME TRENDS The persistence of income differences between city and suburban populations stands in sharp contrast to the narrowing of income differences between metropolitan and nonmetropolitan populations, as observed earlier. What is not obvious is that in the 1970's not only have the incomes of city residents failed to keep pace with increases in income of suburban residents but city residents' incomes have also been outpaced by income increases in the nonmetropolitan population. Changes in income per family and per person in the three residential locations are illustrated in figure 2. As can be seen, the percent change between the 1969 and 1977 income years was 57.1 percent for central city families, 65.6 percent for suburban families, and 76.1 percent for families living in nonmetropolitan areas. Interestingly, of the three residential locations, only in the nonmetropolitan category has family income clearly increased faster than inflation. Between 1969 and 1977 the Consumer Price Index rose by 65.3 percent— faster than the income of city families, about as fast as the income of suburban families, but more slowly than the income of nonmetropolitan families. The faster rate of increase in family income in nonmetropolitan areas holds up even when we take into account the fact that some of the termors included in the nonmetropolitan category in figure 2 could be reclassified as metropolitan as a result of the expansion of existing metropolitan areas and as nonmetropolitan towns and cities have grown to metropolitan status since 1970. The data in figure 2 reflect city boundaries and metropolitan areas defined as of 1970, but even in the nonmetropolitan counties that would not be reclassified as metropolitan, family income increased at a faster pace than in the cities or suburban territory included in figure 2 and faster than the rate of inflation (see U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1978b, pp. 104-105). On a per capita basis, income in all three residential categories has increased more rapidly than inflation, but again the increase has been greater \'oi those Figure 2. Change and rate of change between 1 969 and 1 977 in median family income and per capita income in central cities, balance of SMSA's, and nonmetropolitan areas Central cities Balance of SMSA's Nonmetropolitan areas Median family income $18,900 76.1 $11,411 $9,507 $7,832 1969 $14,933 $13,789 65.6 57.1 1977 Percent change, 1969 to 1977 $3,554 $3,267 $2483 Per capita income $6,496 $5,771 $4,868 1969 1977 95.7 82.8 76.6 Percent change, 1969 to 1977 19 living in nonmetropolitan areas than for central city or suburban residents. Between 1969 and 1977, per capita income increased 76.6 percent for city residents, 82.8 percent for suburbanites, and 95.7 percent for non- metropolitan residents. While it is true that residents of cities and suburbs continue to have higher median family and per capita incomes than nonmetropolitan residents, faster income growth in nonmetropolitan areas (and apparently even those areas that have achieved metropolitan status since 1970) is narrowing traditional metropolitan-nonmetropolitan income differences. If the generally lower cost of living in nonmetropolitan areas could also be taken into account, metropolitan-nonmetropolitan income differences would be even less than indicated in figure 2. There is, however, some evidence that on a per capita basis the income of city residents improved relative to the income of suburbanites and nonmetro- politan residents between income years 1976 and 1977. As shown in table 1, the ratio of city income per capita to suburban income per capita seemingly rose from .88 in 1 976 to .89 in 1 977, with the ratio of city income per capita to nonmetropolitan income per capita rising from 1.18 to 1.19. But these apparent improvements of city per capita incomes relative to suburban and nonmetropolitan incomes should not be overemphasized because they are subject to sampling variability and may simply be a reflection of population redistribution away from high-income metropolitan areas (which often have wide city-suburb income differentiation) toward nonmetropolitan and small metropolitan areas (which often have relatively small city-suburb income differentiation). CONCLUSION Using currently available data for the mid- to late 1970's, we found little evidence of a systematic narrowing of family incomes in cities and suburbs, as might be expected if a gentrifying back-to-the-city/stay-in-the-city trend is causing large numbers of middle-income families to choose a residence in the city rather than the suburbs. Since the number of back-to-the-city/ stay-in-the-city movers is not precisely known, neither is their average income level, but numbers sometimes cited in this regard suggest fairly substantial incomes relative to citywide averages. According to the President's National Urban Policy Report, "much of this so-called 'gentrification' is occurring among households with incomes above $25,000" (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1978, p. 56). A $25,000-per-vear income in 1 977 would be large relative to citywide averages and, in fact, would be 67 percent larger than the median income in 1977 of all families in central cities of SMSA's. Although the number of gentrifying households may be largo in an absolute sense, it apparently is not large enough to raise the average income of city families to the point of reducing the income sap between c i t\ and suburban families. Of course, many of the back-to-the-city /stay-in-thc-citv movers do not live as families but live alone, as cohabitingcouples, as roommates, or in some other 20 living arrangement that may not be considered a family in Census Bureau data. To take account of this fact, we examined income on a per capita basis, and for the Nation as a whole we found some evidence of recent improvement in city income per capita relative to income per capita in suburban and nonmetropolitan territory. But in Washington, D.C., per capita income differences between the central city and the balance of the SMSA increased between 1969 and. 1975. This finding held up even when we disaggregated the Washington, D.C., suburbs into those that are older and lying immediately adjacent to the central city (and where sluggish income growth was expected) and those farther out. In none of the 20 largest SMSA's was there evidence of narrowing the city-suburb income gap on both a per person and a per family basis. All things considered, the data suggest that gentrifying trends are probably expanding the size and number of middle-to-upper-income enclaves (Richard Nathan [1979, p. 5] calls them "pockets of plenty") in some large cities, without raising city incomes enough to establish a new trend toward convergence of city and suburban income levels. This conclusion suggests a continuation of some patterns evident in the 1 960's, when a number of gentrifying central city neighborhoods could be identified but whose size and number never became large enough to offset the general deterioration of personal income of city residents relative to that of suburbanites. In Washington, D.C., and a number of other central cities, for example, an increase occurred between 1960 and 1970 in the number of census tracts where median family income was above the SMSA average (Lipton, 1977), but the average income of city residents still fell relative to the income level of suburbanites in the 1 960-70 decade. The 1980 census will show the degree to which these gentrifying neighborhoods have further increased in number and size in the 1 970's. When they have increased to the point of raising personal incomes in cities so as to start closing the city-suburb income gap, an important turning point will have been reached. Until then, the challenge that faces urban policy makers and local administrators is reconciling the interests of city residents who live in the expanding middle-income enclaves and those who do not. REFERENCES Bradford, David F., and Harry H. Kelejian. 1973. "An Econometric Model of the Flight to the Suburbs." Journal of Political Economy 81 : 566-589. Brazer, Marjorie Cahn. 1967. "Economic and Social Disparities Between Central Cities and Their Suburbs." Land Economics 43: 294-302. "A City Revival." January 15, 1 978. Newsweek. Connecticut Housing Investment Fund, Inc. 1979. Strategies for Diversity: How to Maintain an Ethnic and Economic Mix in Reinvestment Neighbor- hoods. Hartford, Connecticut: Connecticut Housing Investment Fund, Inc. 21 Gale, Dennis. 1979. "Middle Class Resettlement in Older Urban Neighbor- hoods." Journal of the American Planning Association 45: 293-304. Goldfield, David R. 1976. "The Limits of Suburban Growth: The Washington, D.C. SMSA." Urban Affairs Quarterly 1 2: 83-1 16. Guest, Avery M. 1979. "Patterns of Suburban Population Growth, 1970-75." Demography 1 6: 401 -41 5. Gutowski, Michael, and Tracey Feild. 1979. The Graying of Suburbia. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute. Laska, Shirley, and Daphne Spain, eds. Forthcoming. Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press. Lipton, S. Gregory. 1977. "Evidence of Central City Rev ival." Journal of the American Institute of Planners 43: 136-147. Long, Larry H. 1975. "How the Racial Composition of Cities Changes." Land Economics 51 : 258-267. . Forthcoming. "Back to the Countryside and Back to the City in the Same Decade." In Shirley Laska and Daphne Spain, eds., Back to the City: Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. Elmsford, New York: Pergamon Press. Nathan, Richard P. 1979. "New Crisis Downtown?" Society 16: 5-8. Nathan, Richard P., and Charles Adams. 1976. "Understanding Central City Hardship." Political Science Quarterly 91 : 47-62. Peirce, Neal R. 1978. "Nation's Cities Poised for Stunning Comeback." Nation's Cities, March, pp. 1 2 and 36. Rose, Harold M. 1976. Black Suburbanization. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Ballinger Publishing Company. Rouse, James. 1979. "Government, Developers Unite to Turn City Decay Into Retail Boom." The Washington Post, September 1 5. Schnore, Leo F. 1972. Class and Race in Cities and Suburbs. Chicago: Markham Publishing Co. Smith, Joel. 1970. "Another Look at Socioeconomic Status Distributions in Urbanized Areas." Urban Affairs Quarterly 5: 423-453. Spain, Daphne, John Reid, and Larry Long. 1980. Housing Successions Among Blacks and Whites in Cities and Suburbs. U.S. Bureau of the Census. Sternlieb, George, and Robert W. Lake. 1975. "Aging Suburbs and Black Homeownership." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 422: 105-117. Tucker, C. Jack. 1976. "Changing Patterns of Migration Between Metro- politan and Nonmetropolitan Areas in the United States: Recent Evidence." Demography 13: 435-443. U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1964. Characteristics of the Population. U.S. Summary. Census of Population: 1960, vol. 1. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1973. Characteristics of the Population. Reports for individual states. Census of Population: 1970, vol. 1. Washington, D.C: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1976. "Money Income in 1974 of Families and Persons in the United 22 States." Current Population Reports, series P-60, no. 101. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1 977a. "Money Income in 1 975 of Families and Persons in the United States." Current Population Reports, series P-60, no. 105. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1977b. "1973 (Revised) and 1975 Population Estimates and 1972 (Revised) and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties, Incorporated Places, and Selected Minor Civil Divisions." Current Population Reports, series P-25, nos. 649-699. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1 978 a. "Money Income in 1 976 of Families and Persons in the United States." Current Population Reports, series P-60, no. 114. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1978b. "Social and Economic Characteristics of the Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Population: 1977 and 1970." Current Population Reports, series P-23, no. 75. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1978c. "Household and Family Characteristics: March 1977." Current Population Reports, series P-20, no. 236. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern- ment Printing Office. . 1 979a. "Money Income in 1 977 of Families and Persons in the United States." Current Population Reports, series P-60, no. 118. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. . 1979b. "1976 Population Estimates and 1975 and 1974 Per Capita Income Estimates for Counties, Incorporated Places, and Selected Minor Civil Divisions." Current Population Reports, series P-25, nos. 740-789. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 1978. The President's National Urban Policy Report. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 1976. Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Rev. ed. 1975. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Zuiches, James J., and David Brown. 1978. "The Changing Character of the Nonmetropolitan Population, 1950-1975." In Thomas R. Ford, ed., Rural USA: Persistence and Change. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press. ft U.S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1980 -311-046/1144 Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office Washington. D.C. 20402 Official Business Penalty for Private Use, $300 A000070U1102 COM-202 Special Fourth-Class Rate-Book