Geography isn't all that useful here, either, as long as it's not so extreme as to eliminate the anchor city's ability to wield economic influence (at which poi

Geography isn't all that useful here, either, as long as it's not so extreme as to eliminate the anchor city's ability to wield economic influence (at which point, by definition, the region in question would no longer be in the same MSA as the anchor city). All we're trying to do here is come up with some way to compare cities that doesn't rely on the political and geographical borders that vary dramatically between regions. Why is Brooklyn part of NYC but West New York isn't? Why isn't East St. Louis in St. Louis? Why is Kansas City, KS something different from Kansas City, MO? Why does NYC get to claim Queens, but SFO doesn't get to claim Oakland? When Indianapolis politically joined with its surrounding county in 1970 to form Unigov, did something actually change about Indianapolis that justifies moving it around in regional rankings? Or is it the same as it was the day before, when those were two separate entities? The answers to those questions (or, really, the questions themselves) mostly confuse regional comparisons. If we want clarity, then we need something else. The MSA is usually a pretty good stand in. (But it's not the only one. What's important is just that you're aware of the core issue and try to account for it. Making anchor-city to anchor-city comparisons using only the borders of the anchor cities is almost always the worst means of comparison. Any measure that leads you believe that Austin, TX is "bigger" than Boston is a pretty bad one.)