Regional Profile: The Fourth Federal Reserve District

Regional Profile: The Fourth Federal Reserve District


The Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland serves the Fourth Federal Reserve District, which comprises Ohio, western Pennsylvania, eastern Kentucky, and the northern panhandle of West Virginia. The placement and proportions of Federal Reserve Districts were determined primarily by the geographic distribution of the U.S. population at the time the Federal Reserve System was created in 1913.

Metropolitan Statistical Areas: An overview of the 16 Metropolitan Statistical Areas, or "MSAs," of the Fourth Federal Reserve District.

Population: Population statistics and trends since 1970.

Income: Distribution of income per capita and in comparison with national averages.

Industry: The mix of major industries in the Fourth District, as well as a count of Fortune 500 companies whose headquarters reside here, and the distribution of their earnings.

Banking: An overview of major bank holding companies and their assets in the Fourth District.

There are 169 counties in the Fourth District, and 68 of these counties are located within the District’s 16 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). An MSA is an area with a large population core, combined with adjacent communities that have a high degree of social and economic integration with that core.

The four most populous MSAs in the Fourth District—Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Columbus—contain about half of the District's total population of nearly 17 million people.

Ten Largest MSAs in the Fourth District
Metropolitan Area 2000 2010 2000-2010 Percent Change
Pittsburgh 2,429 2,356 -2.9
Cleveland 2,148 2,077 -3.2
Cincinnati 2,015 1,625 -19.3
Columbus 1,620 1,837 13.4
Dayton 848 842 -0.7
Akron 696 703 1.0
Toledo 659 651 -1.1
Youngstown 602 449 -25.4
Lexington 410 472 15.2
Canton 407 404 -0.6
Fourth District 16,759 16,944 1.1
United States 282,166 309,051 9.5

Source: Census Bureau


Not surprisingly, the District's four most populous metropolitan areas also include the District's four most populous cities. Interestingly, while the Columbus MSA is the third most populous metropolitan area in the District, Columbus itself is the District's most populous city, with over three-quarters of a million people. The only large cities that grew much in the last decade were Columbus and Lexington. They were the only cities in the District with more than 100,000 people to show significant population growth from 2000 to 2010.

Fourth District Population by City (thousands)
City 2000 2010 2000-2010 Percent Change
Columbus 715.9 787.0 9.9
Cleveland 476.5 396.8 -16.7
Pittsburgh 333.7 305.7 -8.3
Cincinnati 331.2 296.9 -10.3
Toledo 313.6 287.2 -8.4
Lexington-Fayette 261.1 295.8 13.2
Akron 216.8 199.1 -8.1
Dayton 165.8 141.5 -14.6
Erie 103.6 101.7 -1.8


Average annual increases in population since 1970 have also been consistently higher for the United States than for the District. Annual population growth has averaged about 1.1 percent for the United States over this period, whereas annual increases in the District have averaged 0.1 percent.

In recent decades, the District's population has grown at a significantly slower pace than nation's. Since 1970 the District's population has seen a slight increase of just over 6 percent. By contrast, throughout the same period, U.S. population has grown by about 52 percent.

Nominal personal incomes in the District have also tended to grow more slowly than in the United States as a whole. Since 1970, aggregate nominal income growth in the District has averaged approximately 6 percent annually; by contrast, nominal income in the United States rose roughly 7 percent through the same period. The result has been an increase in income of about 9.5 times for the District since 1970 versus an increase of about 15 times for the nation.

Income growth per person has been rather similar for the District and nation since 1970, although the gap has grown somewhat in recent years. As of 2009, annual per capita personal income was approximately $36,000 in the District, compared with $40,000 for the country as a whole.


Health care has now surpassed manufacturing has the largest employing industry within our District. Districtwide, those employed in the health-care industry make up about 16 percent of the workforce, whereas the comparable figure for the country is about 15 percent. The share of employment the District devotes to manufacturing (about 13 percent) is still greater than the attendant shares for the United States (roughly 11 percent).



The District's Top Ten Fortune 500 Companies
Company
2011 Rank
City Revenues
(Billions of U.S. Dollars)
Cardinal Health 19 Dublin, OH 98.6
Kroger 25 Cincinnati, OH 82.1
Proctor & Gamble 26 Cincinnati, OH 79.6
Macy's 107 Cincinnati, OH 25
Nationwide 127 Columbus, OH
20.2
Goodyear Tire & Rubber 139 Akron, OH 18.8
United States Steel 148 Pittsburgh, PA 17.3
PNC Financial Services Group 151 Pittsburgh, PA 17
Progressive 164 Mayfield Village, OH 14.9
American Electric Power 169 Columbus, OH 14.4

The share of earnings that comes from the health-care and manufacturing industries is much larger in the District than it is in the nation. Also worth noting is that even though more people in the District work in the health-care industry, the share of overall earnings is slightly higher for the manufacturing industry.

With combined assets totaling more than $500 billion, four of the nation's largest 50 bank holding company headquarters are located within the District.



Assets of Major Bank Holding Companies
Company City Assets
(Billions of Dollars)
PNC Financial Services Group Pittsburgh, PA 263.2
Fifth Third Bancorp Cincinnati, OH 108.5
Keycorp Cleveland, OH 84.7
Huntington Bancshares Columbus, OH 52.7

Source: Call Reports

A larger share of state banking assets are located outside the major metropolitan areas in Kentucky and West Virginia, a reflection of the relatively rural character of each state. By contrast, Ohio's top three banking markets contain about 65 percent of the state's banking assets.



Distribution of Bank Assets in Fourth District States
Metropolitan Area Number of Banks Fourth District Banking Assets (Percent)
Total 294 $412.8
Cincinnati 23 28.8
Cleveland 13 21.3
Columbus 20 15.2
Pittsburgh 26 9.2
Akron 6 3.6
Lexington 11 1.6
Other 196 20.3

Source: Call Reports

September 6, 2012
Kyle Fee and Nelson Oliver

As of March 2012 the unemployment rate for the Fourth District stood at 7.6 percent. Typically, the Fourth District unemployment rate tends to be higher than that of the nation, but it now rests below the national rate of 8.2 percent. Declines in unemployment throughout most of 2011 were constrained due to various supply chain shocks and overall economic uncertainly. However, unseasonably warm winter months helped to strengthen employment gains throughout late 2011 and early 2012.

Unemployment rates across Fourth District counties ranges from a low of 4.6 percent (Mercer County, Ohio) to a high of 16.8 percent (Magoffin, Kentucky), with the median county unemployment rate at 8.3 percent. In the three months since December 2011, the unemployment rate has steadily declined in the majority of Fourth District counties, and the median unemployment rate has fallen by 0.4 percentage points. Despite considerable declines in overall Fourth District unemployment, 21 percent of Fourth District counties (mainly rural Kentucky) have actually seen unemployment rates increase since December 2011.

County-level patterns reflect statewide unemployment rates. For example, as of March 2012, the unemployment rate was 7.5 percent in Ohio, 8.6 percent in Kentucky, 7.5 percent in Pennsylvania, and 6.8 percent in West Virginia. Compared to March 2011, all states within the District experienced declines in unemployment levels ranging from 0.5 percent to 1.4 percent. There are significant differences in unemployment rates across counties in the Fourth District. Of the 169 counties that make up the District, 80 had an unemployment rate at or below the national rate. Conversely, 23 percent of the District’s counties have a double-digit unemployment rate, which is a strong improvement from the 41 percent recorded this time last year. This is an even more dramatic improvement from the peak of over 77 percent in October 2009. Geographically, unemployment remains the highest in remote areas of Ohio and Kentucky, while rural Pennsylvania has maintained a stronger labor market.

Since September 2011 both the national and Forth District unemployment levels began to notably decline and have fallen by 0.8 and 0.9 percentage points respectively. Changes in county level unemployment rates range from an increase of 1.6 percent to a decline of 3.4 percent. Over the past six months all but seven Fourth District counties, all in Kentucky, have seen an improvement in employment levels.

Since September 2011, both the national and Fourth District unemployment levels have fallen—nationally by 0.8 percentage points and District-wide by 0.9 percentage points. Changes in county-level unemployment rates over this time period range from an increase of 1.6 percent (Letcher County, Kentucky) to a decline of 3.4 percent (Rockcastle County, Kentucky). Interestingly, the general pattern of a high unemployment rate in September 2011 equating to a larger fall in the unemployment rate between September 2011 and March 2012 is only clearly evident in Ohio counties. The pattern is actually reversed in the District’s small number of West Virginia counties. Also striking is that, over the past six months, all but seven Fourth District counties—all of which are within southeastern Kentucky (Letcher, Harlan, Perry, Morgan, Magoffin, Leslie and Knott)—have seen lower unemployment rates.

About the Author

Kyle Fee
  |  Senior Research Analyst


Kyle Fee is a senior research analyst in the Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. His research interests include economic development, regional economics and economic geography...Read full bio



About the Author

Nelson Oliver
  |  Research Analyst


Nelson Oliver is a research analyst in the Research Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. His primary interests include urban revitalization, housing policy, and applied microeconomics...Read full bio