104 replies to this topic

[krazeeboi]

These days, there seems to be two Souths--the "Old South" states and the "New South" states. The differences are rather apparent; the New South states have pretty much transitioned from the old economic paradigm of manufacturing and are investing heavily into education and skills (i.e., human capital). The "Old South" states still tend to go after manufacturing jobs, usually offering huge incentives for companies to do so while failing to invest in its people as they should in terms of education and skills. Most would say the "New South" states are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas, while the "Old South" states consist of Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. Would these portrayals of both groups be accurate? What exactly are "New South" states doing that "Old South" states seem to be missing?

[convulso]

this will be divisive.

it's a two-pronged issue: economics and urbanization (the case could be made that urbanization is also an economic issue.) people will say it's leadership, or cultural values (conservatism vs. liberalism), but those are functions of where a state is 'at' economically. a poor state in the south is largely a rural state. mississippi does not have a wachovia or a delta or some similar economic megalith that, by its nature, tends to cultivate urban centers. so it does what it can - offers incentives to heavy industry to locate in the state and build upon its economy and present standard of living. states that are past that stage (or were fortunate enough to bypass it altogether) do not have such worries, and they can afford to attack those segments of the economy that the poorer states cannot.

my limited knowledge would lead me to place south carolina and alabama equally in both of the categories you define. there is a recent push in both for manufacturing-based labor, but there is (at least in alabama - and my fuzzy memory makes me think the same of SC) also a 'cleaner,' more transparent component to the states' economies (in AL, bio-tech, aerospace, and high-level services such as finance and media).

other states may straddle your line as well (arkansas? tennessee?), but i am not knowledgable enough about their economies to comment further. georgia, save atlanta, swims in the same water as alabama and south carolina when it comes to wooing manufacturers.

Edited by convulso, 17 April 2007 - 04:31 PM.

[mallguy]

I'd need to see some statistics- such as percentage of population employed in manufacturing, per capita GDP growth, etc.- to back the division of states into Old vs. New.

[krazeeboi]

A lot of that info can be found here.

[Mr Downtown]

I may be wrong, but Virginia isnt a state, its a Commonwealth.    And therefore wouldnt fall under the "New South" group of states, its in a class of its own.  

One major difference between the two is the comparison of the major urban areas within the states.  NC has Raleigh-Durham, the Piedmont Triad, and Charlotte.  VA has Hampton Roads, Richmond, and Northern Virginia.  TN has Nashville, GA has Atlanta.  All of which are more dynamic and diverse in nature than any in the Old South States.  Also, I think the role of Higher Education is a component.  The New South overall has better Universities and Colleges, many of which are academic powerhouses with national reputations.  This cannot be overlooked.

[Aporkalypse]

Weird, I always thought of Arkansas as "New South", though it's a lot different in a lot of ways as it has more Southwestern and Midwestern influence.

[Arkansawyer]

krazeeboi, on Apr 17 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

These days, there seems to be two Souths--the "Old South" states and the "New South" states. The differences are rather apparent; the New South states have pretty much transitioned from the old economic paradigm of manufacturing and are investing heavily into education and skills (i.e., human capital). The "Old South" states still tend to go after manufacturing jobs, usually offering huge incentives for companies to do so while failing to invent in its people as they should in terms of education and skills. Most would say the "New South" states are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas, while the "Old South" states consist of Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. Would these portrayals of both groups be accurate? What exactly are "New South" states doing that "Old South" states seem to be missing?

The Old South and New South dichotomy you gave appears to be based on the presence or absence of a major metropolitan area; but rural areas of the South are similar irrespective of state lines. I think a more important question to ask is what can be done to improve the impoverished regions of the South? For example, here in Arkansas the Little Rock-North Little Rock and Fayetteville-Springdale-Rogers metros are doing very well. They could be called New South. Much of the rest of the state, particularly the Delta has a very poorly educated population and is mired in poverty. The Delta region (including Mississippi and Louisiana) is the poorest in the country. It’s never recovered from the decline of the sharecropping system.

Historically the Old South often refers to the colonial states, and the Deep South refers to post-colonial westward expansion into Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arkansas. These are the states whose economies became most heavily tied to cotton. The idea of a New South was popularized by Henry W. Grady of the Atlanta Constitution; it referred to a post-Civil War modern industrial South. The term has been used several different ways since then.

Aporkalypse, on Apr 18 2007, 10:26 AM, said:

Weird, I always thought of Arkansas as "New South", though it's a lot different in a lot of ways as it has more Southwestern and Midwestern influence.

What influences? Please explain.

[Aporkalypse]

Arkansawyer, on Apr 18 2007, 12:14 PM, said:

What influences? Please explain.

NWA is more like KC, Tulsa, or Springfield than Memphis or other Southern cities.  Texarkana and the Southwestern in the portion have a big Texas influence.  Most of the "New South" alluded to above kind of borders the "Mid-Atlantic" states and like them Arkansas is pretty heavily influenced by non-Southern (at least in part) border states of Oklahoma, Texas, and Missouri.

[PortofBama]

convulso, on Apr 17 2007, 05:30 PM, said:

this will be divisive.

it's a two-pronged issue: economics and urbanization (the case could be made that urbanization is also an economic issue.) people will say it's leadership, or cultural values (conservatism vs. liberalism), but those are functions of where a state is 'at' economically. a poor state in the south is largely a rural state. mississippi does not have a wachovia or a delta or some similar economic megalith that, by its nature, tends to cultivate urban centers. so it does what it can - offers incentives to heavy industry to locate in the state and build upon its economy and present standard of living. states that are past that stage (or were fortunate enough to bypass it altogether) do not have such worries, and they can afford to attack those segments of the economy that the poorer states cannot.

my limited knowledge would lead me to place south carolina and alabama equally in both of the categories you define. there is a recent push in both for manufacturing-based labor, but there is (at least in alabama - and my fuzzy memory makes me think the same of SC) also a 'cleaner,' more transparent component to the states' economies (in AL, bio-tech, aerospace, and high-level services such as finance and media).

other states may straddle your line as well (arkansas? tennessee?), but i am not knowledgable enough about their economies to comment further. georgia, save atlanta, swims in the same water as alabama and south carolina when it comes to wooing manufacturers.

    



I strongly agree with you ,I don`t know anything about South Carolina but  I can speak for my home state of aAabama. I would consider Alabama 60 % new and 40 % old because there are several biotech and aerospace jobs in Alabama Huntsville one of the research cities of the south and mobile is in bids with Aerobus and boing and a new steel 3.5 billion dollar steel plant, Alabama has several car manufacturing plants and will soon have Izuzu added in with like such as Mercedes Lincon, ETC . So there is defenently a mixed economy in Alabama just like any other state but I would say that it`s more new south than old

[davidals]

Ultimately, it's a perception thing:  which states have most successfully reshaped how they are perceived?  To do that, you have to back it up with something, like educational or infrastructure improvements, but from VA down to AR and LA you can find some of both.  The contrast between SC Upstate and the Pee Dee, or between NC east of I-95 vs NC along I-85, or between NoVA vs SW VA is pretty stark.  Economically, there are stretches of SW VA/NE TN/SE KY that might well recall the Delta region, with some mountains added in.

[Greenville]

I'm not sure how easily we can classify entire states as "new south" or "old south."  I think more in terms of metro areas, and in South Carolina alone, I would consider Charleston more "old south" and Greenville and Columbia more "new south."  In Georgia, Savannah is more "old south" while Atlanta is "new south."

I think there are too many variances in attitudes, customs, and vibes within a state (in most cases, at least) to classify it as one or the other.

[krazeeboi]

Greenville, on Apr 19 2007, 04:00 PM, said:

I'm not sure how easily we can classify entire states as "new south" or "old south."  I think more in terms of metro areas, and in South Carolina alone, I would consider Charleston more "old south" and Greenville and Columbia more "new south."  In Georgia, Savannah is more "old south" while Atlanta is "new south."

The way I'm using the terms primarily refers to things like the composition of the local economy and educational achievement instead of culture and attitude. I'm not as familiar with Savannah, but applying the indicators I mentioned, Charleston would very much be a "New South" city.

Even though most states, at least in the South, have their growing, prosperous metro areas and their stagnating rural areas, I still think that for some states, governmental policy and the size/influence of their metro areas make those states more or less one or the other. Using SC as an example, while I think we're slowly turning a corner, by and large we don't do well at all as a state when it comes to things like innovation, research and development, venture capital, etc., nor do we allocate as much money to our universities as some other states (which is connected to innovation, R&D, venture capital, etc.)--those would fall moreso on the side of policy. Also, while we have 3 significantly sized metro areas growing at a steady, healthy pace, we don't have any large metros (1.5M+) experiencing rapid population or economic growth (e.g. Atlanta, DFW, Houston, Austin, Nashville, Charlotte, Orlando, RDU, NOVA) that would give our state more of a "New South" image.

That said, there are still states with more of an obvious split identity, like Georgia. But Atlanta, being the behemoth that it is, really does give Georgia its progressive face, and being that its metro area constitutes over half of the state's population, I would be more inclined to consider Georgia a "New South" state.

[912]

krazeeboi, on Apr 17 2007, 02:04 PM, said:

Most would say the "New South" states are Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Tennessee, and Texas, while the "Old South" states consist of Arkansas, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina.

Please define "most".

[krazeeboi]

If you disagree with the categorizations, then just give your reasons for doing so; it will make for a worthwhile contribution to the topic at hand instead of just being overly nit-picky.

[Justiceham]

I am usually a black and white person, but not on this. I don;t think you can "stamp" a whole state as "Old South" and "New South." I think there are certain cities that show new south characteristics in each state while there are some that do not. To go on further, I also think you have to look at the way states handle job growth, population growth, or change in general. If you look at Kentucky, for example, one might argue that it is a "New South" thing to ban smoking in Louisville and Lexington, while it is an "Old South" thing for Murfreesboro to ban electronic signs, outside vendors, or Clarksville to limit the height of new buildings no taller than the courthouse. In summary, I do not think you can just label a state one or the other. Georgia is a classic case.

[krazeeboi]

^Good points, but I think that even if we use an "Old South-New South" continuum, most of the states I listed as "New South" would be more on that side of the continuum and the same would go for the "Old South" states.

[Spartan]

I see it as difficult to lump states into certain categories. I identify the "new south" mentality with being more urban, less rural, and therefore more educated more economically diverse, etc. Typically this comes with the presence of larger cities. But just because a state has a large city doesn't mean it should be "new south." you can look at any state and see varying degrees of success within that state.

For example, Georgia has Atlanta- but the rest of the state is no different than South Carolina or Alabama, IMO. South Carolina has its half dozen cities or so that seem to stand out above the rest of the state. Texas has its large cities, but what of the rest of the state? The rural parts of any Southern state are no different than the rural parts of any other Southern state.

[Alabadrock]

Spartan, on Apr 24 2007, 09:29 AM, said:

I see it as difficult to lump states into certain categories. I identify the "new south" mentality with being more urban, less rural, and therefore more educated more economically diverse, etc. Typically this comes with the presence of larger cities. But just because a state has a large city doesn't mean it should be "new south." you can look at any state and see varying degrees of success within that state.

For example, Georgia has Atlanta- but the rest of the state is no different than South Carolina or Alabama, IMO. South Carolina has its half dozen cities or so that seem to stand out above the rest of the state. Texas has its large cities, but what of the rest of the state? The rural parts of any Southern state are no different than the rural parts of any other Southern state.

You're exactly right.  Cause, really, if you went by stuff like test scores, schools, cities, urban areas, etc... Places like Alabama would be included in the "new south".  Compare the top 5 cities in Alabama, Tennessee, and Georgia.  

Alabama

1) Birmingham 230,000
2) Montgomery 201,000
3) Mobile 192,000
4) Huntsville 167,000
5)Tuscaloosa 80,000

Tennessee

1) Memphis 680,000
2) Nashville 607,000
3) Knoxville 180,000
4) Chattanooga 155,000
5) Clarksville 123,000

Georgia

1) Atlanta 483,000
2) Augusta 195,000
3) Columbus 186,000
4) Savannah 128,500
5) Athens 100,000

Now, yes, I realize that after the top 5, Tennessee and Georgia outdo Alabama.  But, I think that having two or three cities in the top five in AL that are larger than their counterparts in the other state would kinda put city size out of the requirement or identifier for a "new south" state.  

Also, look at the areas around Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, and Montgomery, it's all new, and nice.  Biotech, banking, hi tech industry, aerospace, THOSE ARE marks of a "new south" state.  

This isn't boosterism, this is just a few thoughts that you REALLY have to go in depth to examine which state qualifies as new or old.  Parts of Bama are more new than parts of Tenn, and same goes for Bama and Geo., or LA and FLA, and SC and GA.  It's all very odd.  Another example, the schools in North Alabama perform VERY well, compared to other parts of the South.  Test scores are above the national average, even the entire state's test scores are.  The Jefferson County International Baccalaureate School was ranked as the #2 public high school in the country by one firm (sorry, I don't know the firm).  The 8 largest bank in the country.  All of the rockets that NASA uses to send satellites in to space are built here.  The second largest research park in the U.S., and the 4th largest on earth.  

Large cities certainly help a "new south" image, but, it definitely doesn't make one.  The above are all markings of a "new state", but, you know every state has stuff like that ^ that make it special and "new".  Like I said, it's not boosterism, I'm just using these things to despute the bases that we're putting these definitions of a "new state" or "old state" on.

[monsoon]

^The flaw in your argument above is that you compare municipal city limits which we don't do here on UrbanPlanet because these are political boundaries that are subject to inconsistent local and state laws that vary greatly amongst the states.    If you insist on doing a population comparison then the only fair way to do it is to look at either county or metropolitan population statistics.    I will point out the Atlanta metro area has more people than the entire state of Alabama so it doesn't really make sense to make a comparison such as this.

Every state in the south has some bastions of new age industry.

[krazeeboi]

From what I gather so far, it seems as though some are implying that because a metro area is of a certain size, that in itself makes it "New South." I don't think I'd agree with that.

Even when accounting for the rural parts of any state (which tend to be poorer and less educated), one may still look at indicators such as per capita income to see how that state as a whole is doing.

Specifically, what seems to be the attributes of "New South" metro areas, and what role does the state and state governmental policy play when it comes to "New South" areas within that state versus the rest of the state?