Ten years ago, on the eve of the last open presidential contest in 2008, the Metropolitan Policy Program convened leaders from the Great Lakes to discuss the region's unique economic and social history and push for economic answers. A group of us then worked to develop and implement a roadmap for economic revitalization under the banner of the Great Lakes Economic Initiative. As a result, expanded federal investment in energy, manufacturing, and health care innovation flowed to the region's world-class universities and their business partners, while billions of dollars in Great Lakes cleanup funds began to flow in recognition of economic growth, power centered around clean water and restored waterfronts. In addition, new public-private investment partnerships were created to fund infrastructure projects and bridge venture capital shortfalls to ensure that the region's vast technological invention led to new business growth.
The election of Donald Trump in 2016 – keyed by these same states – has focused national attention on our region and the state of Michigan like never before. As mentioned in our 2006 report 'The Vital Centre', there is a unique economic, social and cultural history in the area. But here's the thing: while one part of this story helps explain why the Midwestern electorate Mobilized to turn out and vote for Donald Trump, another part points to different results.
The cradle of America's great industrial economy, the region brought inventions such as the automobile and the assembly line manufacturing process courtesy of Henry Ford. Industrial cities such as Detroit boomed in the upper Midwest and spurred the growth of an interdependent network of small and medium-sized factory towns sprinkled liberally among the region's cornfields and forests. A highly integrated supply chain developed, making everything from cars to chemicals, dishwashers to tool paints, grains and steel. The advance of industry extended from Minnesota and Iowa in the West, along the Great Lakes through western New York, and into Pennsylvania and the “Chemical Valley” and coal mines of West Virginia in the East. But when new global competitors, technological change and automation led to a dramatic restructuring of the region's heavy industry, it eliminated a huge number of well-paying assembly-line jobs and shut out employers in Rust Belt company towns. In so many once-thriving communities, young people have left and residents who remain are disillusioned by diminished job prospects and anxious about the future. The same anger and anxiety that found its way to the polls in 2016.
In so many once-thriving communities, young people have left and residents who remain are disillusioned by diminished job prospects and anxious about the future. The same anger and anxiety that found its way to the polls in 2016.
It is wrong, however, to paint the Rust zone with a brush or even paint. The economic and social truth is actually a tale of two Rust Belts. Some communities have assets (and advanced strategies to leverage those assets) that now find them and their residents not only participating, but actually leading the transition to a more knowledge-based, knowledge-driven economy. technology and urbanized. Pittsburgh, Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis and Milwaukee are today economically diverse, dynamic and growing metro economies. Big university towns like Madison, Ann Arbor and Bloomington are magnets for state talent, centers of innovation and largely recession-proof. All of these communities attract and retain highly educated populations, generate growing incomes, and maintain a diversified economic base. They are no longer regarded as industrial monocultures, as was the rule throughout the region fifty years ago, when Minneapolis was the “Flour City” or Pittsburgh the “Steel City.”
And all of those communities voted “blue” last fall.
However, it's a very different story in many other Rust Belt communities. The small and medium-sized factory towns that dot the highways and byways of Michigan, Indiana, Ohio and Wisconsin have lost their employers and are struggling to fill the void. Many of these communities, including once-strong Democratic voters, union heavyweights, blue-collar strongholds, turned to Trump in 2016.
Many of these communities, including once-strong Democratic voters, union heavyweights, blue-collar strongholds, turned to Trump in 2016.
Let's illustrate with examples from my home state of Michigan, where Trump carried a total of 75 of 83 counties, but only won the state overall by a scant 10,000 votes out of over four million ballots.
Twelve Michigan counties that had gone reliably blue turned red for Trump in 2016. Among those flipped counties include historic Democratic strongholds like Bay and Saginaw counties in the I-75 auto plant corridor. Monroe County in the heavily industrialized (and unionized) “Downriver” area south of Detroit. and Calhoun County, home of Battle Creek “Cereal Town.” All of these counties and more swung to Trump in 2016. And for that matter, Trump nearly carried several other Democratic strongholds. Democrats posted very narrow margins in Genesee (Flint's home), Muskegon and Marquette counties. A common denominator in all these communities is population trends, loss of income and lower levels of education – adding up to making residents feel more at sea in today's economy.
But aside from Wayne County, the seat of Detroit's Democratic base and stronghold of the African-American population — the big blue votes came from places that are growing and arguably succeeding in a changed economy — with more optimistic residents. As Table 1 shows, these metros include:
- Washtenaw County, home to the world-class University of Michigan and Eastern Michigan University, as well as a growing highly educated population that includes nearly all of the state's business investors and innovation community.
- Ingham County, home to the state capital and Michigan State University, Michigan's other top research university.
- Kalamazoo County: The Kalamazoo Promise, which pays tuition for all high school graduates, has contributed to downtown recovery, helping economic development efforts that have worked to replace the loss of large corporations like Pfizer Corporation and brought back middle-class families back to the urban core; and
- Once solidly Republican Oakland County, which surprisingly also turned blue. Oakland is home to a well-heeled professional class, a growing community of African-American and middle-class immigrant professionals, high levels of education, and a very diverse economic base.
These communities are growing in population and income and attract and retain well-educated people. In other words, it is no longer “Rust-Belt”.
You'll find this same pattern in the other Rust Belt states. Within each of these, there are a number of larger, more economically diverse metros. colleges and university towns; and communities with special history, culture, or geography to capitalize on (spectacular waterfronts are one)—thriving. Instead, many more Rust Belt communities are shrinking, aging and stressed.
This tale of two Rust Belts, and the economic opportunities and challenges facing the region, are now being recently and dramatically exposed to a wider audience. They raise big questions: How are our states and our nation helping residents of once-thriving “company” cities find a new place in the economy of today and tomorrow? How do they adapt to change? Can they provide a measure of financial security in the process? But they also ask us: what can we learn from those Rust Belt communities like Pittsburgh and Kalamazoo that survived the collapse of the factory economy and achieved a new kind of economic success?
These topics will be addressed in future posts and future work.
John Austin is Director of the Michigan Financial Center. As a non-resident senior fellow, Austin created and directed the Brookings Great Lakes Economic Initiative.
