He effectively came up with a way to reverse engineer the district boundaries.
He effectively came up with a way to reverse engineer the district boundaries.
Also, note the strong separation between Virginia and West Virginia, which are part of the same district, but no separation between West Virginia and any part of district 4.
You can definitely see the effect of the Federal Reserve districts on the map, but there are clearly other important factors.
And there are some exceptions. For example, the north of Wisconsin and the north of Michigan are joined with the south of Wisconsin and Illinois, but they are in different Federal Reserve Districts. Perhaps there a cultural or economical reason for this?
I'd also wager that the relatively small discrepancies in the borders are due to the federal reserve being practical and slightly shifting the borders to be cost effective in transportation costs, to deal with one district having an excess of supply and a neighbor having an excess of demand, and so on. When I look at a lot of faint borders near each other on this map, it tells me that this is border movement caused by these kind of federal reserve actions.
The one thing that is blatantly obvious is that the author clearly did not find natural borders of economic activity as he or she claimed.