Economists have long studied persistent differences in labor market conditions across locations: urban versus rural, center-city versus suburbs, and large versus small cities. Have these labor market patterns changed during the past two decades? If so, what factors drove these changes: industrial shifts, differences in transportation infrastructure and lifestyle amenities, growing production externalities, or something else? Which level of geographic granularity is most relevant for policymakers who evaluate employment patterns: the state, city, or neighborhood level? And how do recent differences in employment growth relate to the regional rise in income inequality over time?

Economists have traditionally downplayed the importance of regional economic shocks. The lasting consequences of these shocks were thought to be small, as economists have assumed that residents living in adversely affected areas are free to migrate to places with better economic prospects. Recently, however, this sanguine view of regional shocks has been called into question. Why do some recent shocks—particularly those induced by trade—appear to have long-lasting effects on some communities? And should we expect future economic shocks to result in similar outcomes?

Education and health are two crucial components of human capital, and geography matters for the provision of both. But how does geography matter for education and health today? Do schools in large cities find it harder to provide adequate preschool, primary, and secondary educational opportunities than do schools in small cities or rural areas? How are health outcomes influenced by geographic differences in access to health care, whether these services encompass primary care or state-of-the-art medical advances? Do the ways that providers of education and health care are organized and incentivized matter for how well US cities and states supply these crucial services? Two papers will be presented at this session, the first on education and the second on health.

It is recognized that US residents now migrate to different regions of the country less frequently than in the past. What does the current research suggest about the reasons for this decline in internal migration? How much of the decline is related to local housing policies that restrict residential construction in high-productivity localities? Are there deeper forces behind the decline in US migration, such as the desire of some young adults to remain closer to the places where they went to college or to graduate school? If so, is this increased desire to live near urban centers due to the amenities in these areas, or the higher returns to labor in these areas, particularly for educated workers?

Assuming that people are free to migrate, economists predict that any variation in the quality of life between different locales should be short-lived. How well does the United States currently approximate this spatial equilibrium? Most economists also take it for granted that the high rents charged in thriving cities are prima facie evidence that cities improve the quality of life for urbanites. If so, then why do subjective measures of well-being, such as self-reported happiness surveys, indicate that rural residents are happier than their urban counterparts? This session uses two different perspectives to explore how spatial differences affect assessments of the quality of life. The first paper uses traditional econometric approaches from the economics literature, while the second paper exploits subjective survey data on well-being and happiness.

Economists have generally favored policies targeted towards people, not places. But given the growing geographical differences for many economic outcomes in the United States, should we reconsider our attitudes toward place-based economic policies? If so, should these policies be based on tax incentives to promote economic growth and employment opportunities, improvements in infrastructure, investments in public education, or something else?