METROS | Real GDP 2012 Growth 2.5%

Bureau of Economic Analysis map out today shows healthy real-GDP growth in metro areas in 2012. The average of all U.S. metros was 2.5 percent.

Urban economists, politicians and economic consultants watch regional data closely for competitive reasons.

Growth rates provide clues as to the success or failure of regional economic and tax policies.

Metro growth was especially strong (dark and light blue) in in Texas, the Midwest and Northwest, and was weak (brown and beige) in much of upstate New York and New England, Southwest and western Florida.

Growth in the NYC area, which includes Long Island and Northern New Jersey, is middle of the road, about 2 percent.

The map shows the uneven nature of economic growth in the United States. Decline and growth may be close neighbors. California was mixed. Also Florida - some parts, notably Greater Miami, grew rapidly while other metro areas in the state's northwest declined, while mid-Florida grew moderately.

GDP data are a better measure of a local economy than job numbers (unemployment, payroll job growth), but they take much longer to see the light of day. Job numbers for large metro areas are published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics within a month after they are collected. The good news this year is that the BEA is back to getting out the metro GDP data within nine months after the end of the year for which they are reporting. They had slipped to taking more than 12 months. Data delayed are data denied.

For the whole story and a high-resolution map, go to the release on the BEA website.

Recovery Not Done - Neg GDP Growth 4Q12

One use of the quarterly GDP growth figures is a check on how hot the economy is.

Watching the GDP figures is like a cook's tasting the soup periodically to see how hot it is.  

The Bureau of Economic Analysis came out with its "Advance" estimate of fourth-quarter 2012 growth and it is slightly negative, minus 0.1 percent. Not too hot.

The figure for 2012 comes to 2.2 percent real GDP growth, in line with the last two years after the horrendous drop in 2008-2009 (see the chart above that I created easily from the helpful BEA Excel spreadsheet on its website - http://www.bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp).

The negative figure is surely a surprise to most economists. Maybe not Paul Krugman, who has been arguing that the deficit-reduction talk is way premature and we must keep stimulating the economy until the evil effects of the meltdown in 2008 are fully played out.

But the BEA emphasizes in its press release this morning - which I tweeted as @cityeconomist - that the Advance estimate is based on early and incomplete data - the message is that it may well be revised up to a positive figure next month, but meanwhile Dr. Krugman has the opportunity to tell the GOP members of Congress: "I told you so."

On the other hand, world GDP has been slowing down (http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/focus-world-gdp) and this could be a drag on U.S. growth.