Households The Size Composition and Growth of Population by liaoqinmei


									                                       Households: The Size,
                                     Composition, and Growth of
                               "Of all the forces that will change the world over the next generation, demography is
                                         probably the most important" Hamish McRae The World in 2020

Interest in demographics extends at least back to Thomas Malthus who, in his Essay on the Principle of Population
published in 1798, made a forecast of population growth that turned out to be spectacularly wrong. Malthus was
responding to Adam Smith who had "stunned" the world a few years earlier (1775) when he "promised" a rosy
future of economic growth in his Wealth of Nations. It was an amazing concept for a world that had never
experienced sustained economic growth, but Thomas Malthus would have no part of it. Malthus had a grimmer
view of the future, one in which population growth, if left unchecked, would produce a world of human misery
because the "power of population is indefinitely greater than the power of the earth to produce subsistence for
man." Population grows exponentially 1:2:4:16... while food grows arithmetically 1:2:3:4: ... so eventually
population's growth would eventually wipe away any surplus and produce a miserable subsistence. Fortunately, it
did not turn out quite that way as the world, at least in the developed world that dodged the Malthusian population
bullet and where most people forgot the forecasts of Malthus and lost interest in demographics.

Well, demographics is back. Interest in it has resurfaced with a vengeance. In the early 1970s the Club of Rome's
book Limits to Growth (1972) warned of the impending depletion of the world's resources under the combined
pressure of population and economic growth, and two decades later the theme of overpopulation was showing up
everywhere as the world prepared for the 1994 United Nation's International Conference on Population and
Development. Paul and Anne Ehrlich's The Population Explosion (1990) focused on the environmental impact of
an expanding population, US News & World (1994) ran a special on "Population Wars," Robert Kaplan wrote
"The Coming Anarchy in which he described an especially grim future for a world that had exceeded the carrying
capacity of the world, and Hamish McRae wrote The World in 2020 where he wrote, "[o]f all the forces that will
change the world over the next generation, demography is probably the most important." If you remain
unconvinced, just check out the titles of a sampling of articles taken from recent newspapers and magazines from
around the world.1

By the turn of the millennium we were looking at a demographic perfect storm, with researchers using words like
tectonic and seismic to describe the demographic changes on the horizon. The Boston Federal Reserve Bank's
annual conference in 2001 was devoted to demographics (Seismic Shifts: The Economic Impact of Demographic
Change) and the International Monetary Fund was writing that "At the outset of this 21st century, policymakers
confront a number of profound developments, in their societies, and in the natural world, whose significance is
certain to increase over the next several decades. … [and one] of the most important of these developments is
demographic in nature.”2a Some of that significance can be seen in the quote below from The Economist.

         The move to replacement-level fertility is one of the most dramatic social changes in history. It
         manifested itself in the violent demonstrations by students against their clerical rulers in Iran this year. It
         almost certainly contributed to the rising numbers of middle-class voters who backed the incumbent
         governments of Indonesia and India. It shows up in rural Malaysia in richer, emptier villages surrounded
         by mechanized farms. And everywhere, it is changing traditional family life by enabling women to work
         and children to be educated. At a time when Malthusian alarms are ringing because of environmental
         pressures, falling fertility may even provide a measure of reassurance about global population trends. 2b

Before we look at the data, take a minute to fill in the table below. You are to assume there are 100 people in the
world and then allocate them in a way that would reflect the shares of the world's population living in each

                                      Distribution of the World's Population
                                             Area                      Number of people
                           Latin America
                           North America
                           Oceania (Australia & New Zealand)
                           World                                              100

If your estimates are like those of hundreds of previous students, there is a big gap between your estimates and
reality - and here we try to reduce that gap.3 A good place to start is the Demographics link on the Data Sources
Index. The primary keeper of world data is the UN, including a number of Excel tables from the UN plus their
annual World Population Prospects. The primary keeper of demographic data on the US is the US Census

Today most conversations about population are about growth – about how 7 billion people now live in the world
and how that number is projected to grow to 9+ billion before stabilizing by mid century – but population growth,
like GDP, is a relatively new phenomenon. If you compare the graph of world population below to the GDP per
capita graph in the opening unit, you will see that the two graphs look remarkably similar.4 The appearance of
economic growth in Europe is closely associated with the takeoff in the world's population. In 1800, as the
industrial revolution was taking hold in England, the world's population stood at about 1 billion, and it took a little
more than a century to double to 2 billion. To double again it took only 50 years so that by the mid 1970s the
world's population was 4 billion, and by the beginning of the 21st century it had reached 6 billion. Looking
forward, the world's population is projected to reach 9 billion by the year 2050.

As with GDP, growth was not evenly distributed across the world’s continents or countries. Population growth
rates have varied substantially across the world's continents, and this will have potentially enormous consequences
as pointed out by Goldstone in “The New Population Bomb.”

         But twenty-first-century international security will depend less on how many people inhabit the world
         than on how the global population is composed and distributed: where populations are declining and
         where they are growing, which countries are relatively older and which are more youthful, and how
         demographics will influence population movements across regions4a

In this unit we briefly examine the four historic shifts in the patterns of growth that Goldstone identified.
     1. Rich v Poor: Balance of people will shift to developing world (poor)
     2. Old v Young: Developed countries will age and contract raising demand for immigrants

      3.   Christian v Muslim: Population growth will be concentrated in poorest, youngest, and Muslim countries
      4.   Urban v Rural: Majority of population will be urbanized

Rich v Poor
The industrial revolutions of Europe and the US created unprecedented wealth, and with that wealth came people.
In 1700 - at the end of the Renaissance period and before the industrial revolution - about 17 percent of the world’s
people were living in Europe and the US, but after the industrial revolutions and at the end of WW II nearly one
quarter of the world’s people lived there - about the size of China. Things changed dramatically after WW II. In
the post WW II period, the fastest growing continents were Africa and Latin America, while growth was slowest
in Europe, slow enough so that its share of the world's population in 2010 was less than half its 1950 share.
Africa’s population, meanwhile, which at the end of WW II was about half the size of Europe’s, was nearing twice
the size by 2010. Looking forward, the overall continental pattern of growth looks very similar, although growth is
slower everywhere - and Europe is actually projected to lose population.

The table below allows you to see what is happening at the country level. Among the fifty largest countries in the
world in 2000, the table identifies those countries with the largest and smallest growth, and those with the fastest
and slowest growth rates for the last half of the 20th century and projections for the first half of the 21st
century.5 For example, between 1950 and 2000, the US population increased by 130 million people, and in the
next fifty years it is projected to increase by 137 million - enough to place it 5th on the list of countries ranked by
population growth. This growth would not, however, put the US on the list of the world's most rapidly growing
nations - a list dominated by nations in Africa and the Middle East. Three of the more notable on this list are
Afghanistan and Iraq, where George Bush directed his "War on Terrorism," and Saudi Arabia, where the world's
largest reserves of oil are located.

                               World Population: Growth and Percentage Growth5
                    Population growth:   Population growth:                    Population growth    Population growth
                       1950-2000            2000-2050                           rate: 1950-2000      rate: 2000-2050
 India              632,828,291           598,296,281         Saudi Arabia           471%                 314%
 Nigeria             91,952,650           183,670,466         Uganda                 326%                 256%
 China              699,894,522           155,156,329         Congo                  282%                 250%
 Bangladesh          84,760,630           149,548,811         Afghanistan            218%                 160%
 US                 130,067,631           137,741,956         Iraq                   339%                 149%

 Germany             13,813,337            (8,580,788)        Romania                 37%                  -18%
 South Africa        28,755,505           (11,395,859)        Russia                  43%                  -19%
 Ukraine             12,378,173           (11,426,626)        Japan                   51%                  -21%
 Japan               42,894,784           (26,813,216)        Ukraine                 34%                  -23%
 Russia              44,064,360           (27,767,933)        South Africa           212%                  -27%

Among the countries expected to lose population, Russia is by far the biggest loser with population projected to
decline by 41 million. It is not alone, however, with many of European nations and Japan projected to also lose
population. In fact one of the BIG stories in upcoming years will be the actual population decline in many
European countries, Russia, and Japan that will put enormous strains on their economies and raise the specter of
economic decline. You can see it in the titles of two articles from The Economist in 2003-2004: "Japan: the
incredible shrinking country," and "Europe's population implosion." The other big loser is South Africa, the
epicenter of the sub Saharan AIDS epidemic.6 The US, meanwhile, is the largest of the world's wealthy countries
with a 2000 population of 283 million that is projected to grow to nearly 400 million by 2050. In fact the US is the
only major "rich" country that is expected to experience population growth over this period of time.

The dramatic reordering of the world's largest countries that results from these large differentials can be seen in the
table below. The 1950 column provides a snapshot of the world the baby boomers were born into, one where
Europe was home to many of the world's largest and most powerful nations and where these nations took leading
roles in the international organizations established after WW II including the UN, NATO, World Bank, and
International Monetary Fund. But this was also a slow growing part of the world, so by 2000 the high income
countries of Germany, the UK, and Italy fell out of the top ten, replaced by the low income countries Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Nigeria. In the next 50 years the high income Japan and Russia, both with substantial population
declines, will be replaced by the Congo and Ethiopia. By the year 2050, Europe and North America share of the
world's population will have fallen roughly from 30% to 10%, while the share in Africa and Asia will have risen
from 65% to 80%. It is definitely shaping up to be an Asian century. China and India are home to about 2 of every
5 people in the world, and once the decisions had been made to engage with the world, you understand why the
business press during this time was filled with stories about emerging markets in China and India and why
businesses were investing tens of billions in factories and offices in the two countries.7

                                                 World Population Estimates7
         1950                             2000                          2010                               2050
    World           2 519 495     World             6 056 715    World                6 908 688     World              9 322 251
    Less                          Less                           Less                               Less
    Developed       1,717,320     Developed         4,920,400    Developed            5,671,460     Developed          8,156,576
    Developed         812,026     Developed         1,194,967    Developed            1,237,228     Developed          1,284,524
    China             554 760     China             1 275 133    China                1,354,146     India              1 572 055
    India             357 561     India             1 008 937    India                1,214,464     China              1 462 058
    US                157 813     US                  283 230    US                     317,641     US                   397 063
    Russia            102 702     Indonesia           212 092    Indonesia              232,517     Pakistan             344 170
    Japan              83 625     Brazil              170 406    Brazil                 195,423     Indonesia            311 335
    Indonesia          79 538     Russia              145 491    Pakistan               184,753     Nigeria              278 788
    Germany            68 376     Pakistan            141 256    Bangladesh             164,425     Bangladesh           265 432
    Brazil             53 975     Bangladesh          137 439    Nigeria                158,259     Brazil               247 244
    UK                 50 616     Japan               127 096    Russia                 140,367     Congo                203 527
    Italy              47 104     Nigeria             113 862    Japan                  126,995     Ethiopia             186 452
Source: US Census Bureau's International Data Base, Countries Ranked by Total Population & UN World Population Prospects, the 2008

Embedded in these geographical patterns of growth and decline is a significant change in the distribution of
population by level of development - what you can think of as rich and poor. The developed countries, which
include Europe, North America, Japan and the Asian Tigers, and Oceania (Australia and New Zealand), accounted
for about 33% of the world's population, but that share had fallen to 20% by 2000. And that is only the beginning
since only 2% of the world's projected population growth by the year 2050 will be located in these developed
regions. By 2050 the developed countries' share will be reduced to 13%. It will not be the meek that populate the
earth, it will be the poor, and the world and its organizations will look very different as a result.

Old v Young

In addition to dramatic changes in the balance of power between rich and poor, there will also be a dramatic shift
in the balance of power between young and old. The UN, in World Population Ageing, 2009, states the resulting
“Population ageing is unprecedented, a process without parallel in the history of humanity.” The changes in the
age distribution of population are driven by two phenomena: the aging of the baby boom generation in the world’s
rich countries and substantial differentials in birth and death rates between rich and poor countries. The low birth
rates in Europe has contributed to countries with very small cohorts of children and large cohorts of elderly, while
the high birth rates and low death rates in the poorer countries have contributed to nations of kids. In the developed
countries this means BIG problems down the road as their public pension systems may crumble under the demands
of populations in which nearly one of every four people is at least 65. In the poorer, most rapidly growing parts of
the developed world, meanwhile, this means BIG problems since the costs of education in a population where
nearly one of every two people is under 15 will put enormous financial strains on the economy, plus it will mean
more young women and continued high birth rates. In Yemen, half of the population is under 15, and in much of
Africa and the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Iraq, children represent over 40% of the
population. Imagine the difficulties of "managing" a society of children - and then throw in the fact that they are
unemployed - and you begin to understand why the Middle East and Northern Africa “exploded” in 2011.

Despite the high birth rates in some parts of the world, the world is without doubt aging, as evident in the chart
below. According to the UN, “Globally the population of older persons is growing at a rate of 2.6 per cent per
year, considerably faster than the population as a whole, which is increasing at 1.2 per cent annually,” which
explains the projected doubling of the elderly’s share of the population between 2009 and 2050. It also explains
the fall in the support ratio – the number of working age people to “support” each elderly that was 12 in 1950 and
is projected to all to 4 in 2050.

  Proportion of population aged 60 or over: world,             Ratio of 15-64 year olds to 65+: world, 1950-2050

                                          Source: World Population Ageing, 2009

As for individual countries, the US shows up in the "middle of the pack" with 20% of its population under 15 and
16 percent over 60. And for those not yet concerned about a world of young and unemployed children, what about
a world of old and retired people? Based on the same UN data, the projection for the year 2050 is for many of the
older and wealthier countries to have more than 40 percent of their population 60 or over, and you can only

imagine what that will do to their social security systems. Goldstone notes that “European countries, Canada, the
United States, Japan, South Korea, and even China are aging at unprecedented rates,” and uses South Korea’s
situation as the most extreme example.

         Even as its total population is projected to decline by almost 9 percent by 2050 (from 48.3 million to 44.1
         million), the population of working-age South Koreans is expected to drop by 36 percent (from 32.9
         million to 21.1 million), and the number of South Koreans aged 60 and older will increase by almost 150
         percent (from 7.3 million to 18 million). By 2050, in other words, the entire working-age population will
         barely exceed the 60-and-older population. Although South Korea's case is extreme, it represents an
         increasingly common fate for developed countries. Europe is expected to lose 24 percent of its prime
         working-age population (about 120 million workers) by 2050, and its 60-and-older population is expected
         to increase by 47 percent.8

This is a crisis that can be ignored, but not avoided.

                                         The "oldest" and "youngest" of 2000
                                                Shares of population
                                 Ages                    0-14   15-59       60+
                                Yemen                    50.1    46.3        3.6
                                Niger                    49.9    46.9        3.3
                                Uganda                   49.2    47.0        3.8
                                Dem. Ö Congo             48.8    46.7        4.5
                                Burkina Faso             48.7    46.5        4.8

                                Germany                  15.5    61.2        23.2
                                Greece                   15.1    61.5        23.4
                                Spain                    14.7    63.5        21.8
                                Japan                    14.7    62.1        23.2
                                Italy                    14.3    61.7        24.1

A second measure of the age composition of the population is the dependency ratio that measures the ratio of the
young (0-14) and elderly (65+) to the working age population (15-64). When this ratio is high it signifies that the
working age population must ‘support’ a large number of non-workers – the elderly and the young. In the chart
below derived from the UN data, the highest rates were in Africa, the lowest in Europe, and the two continents that
gained the most from changes in the age composition since WW II have been Asia and Latin America. The highest
rates are Niger and Uganda that are both > 100 due to high birth rates, while the US is 49, below most of Europe
and Japan that has the highest rate at 55.7 because of its large elderly population that was on display during the
tsunami crisis in 2011.9

A third way of looking at the age distributions are population pyramids, such as you see below that can be found at
the US census site (Population Pyramids). The first pyramid is the age distribution in Afghanistan in 2012, which
looks very much the same for other high birth-rate countries that have few elderly and many children. In
Afghanistan 43 percent of the population is under 15, while in Russia and South Korea 15 percent are under 15. In
the pyramid for Russia in 2012, the "missing" older men can be seen if you look closely - a testament to the
decimation of young men during WWII.

In China's pyramid, if you look very carefully, you might see the "missing" generation of women, the result of the
country's experiment with a one-child policy that and the deaths of many female infants that accompanied it. In
most countries the number of females outnumbers the number of males, but in China you see that the right side of
the graph has fewer women than you would expect. In the final diagram you have the pyramid for Russia and you
can see the impact of WW II in the “missing” men over age 80 who would have been in the war.10

In the pyramids below are two wealthy countries with projected population declines that are typical of the shape
you would expect from a wealthy country. What you see in Japan for 2012 is a bulge around the 60-year bracket
that would include a baby boom generation born after WWII, and a second bulge that is 35-45 years younger that
might be called an "echo effect" representing children of the large baby boomers cohort. In South Korea,
meanwhile, the bulge was a bit later – probably because economic growth after WW II did not start as early there.
Below these diagrams are projected pyramids for 2035 where you can see the aging of the population as the bulge
move up into higher age brackets. You also can see the low birth rates in the small cohort of young and the high
concentration of elderly that we could see in the images after the tsunami in 2011. In 2012 24% of Japan’s
population was 65+ years old, twice the share in South Korea and ten times the share in Afghanistan. By 2035,
35% of Japan’s and 28% of South Korea’s population will be 65+ years old.

The ageing of the population evident in the pyramids for Japan are not peculiar to Japan and South Korea. A
similar pattern can be seen in the pyramids for the US and China. In the US we see the baby boom generation
(ages 40-60) and in China we see the effects of Mao Zedong’s policy promoting population growth in the 1950s-
1970s with the bulge in those aged 30-55. Where they differ most is in the base, with the much narrower base in
China representing the impact of Deng Xiaoping’s one-child policy. As a result China is ageing faster than many
of the world’s rich countries and it is going to be the first country to get old before it gets rich.

In these pyramids it should be evident that the world is getting older, which may be why the UN designated 1999
as The Year of the Older Person. Unfortunately, while the shock is fairly predictable, as are some of its more
important effects on society and the economy, little is being done to make the public policy adjustments necessary
to accommodate the shock. We are very confident that the numbers of the old, and very old, will "explode" in the
developed countries and this will strain retirement and health care systems beyond the breaking point. As these
societies begin to hit the demographic wall, we can expect the beginning volleys in an intergenerational conflict
that will have both national and international dimensions.

For a glimpse of the problem, you can look at the table below. In Europe, for example, the share of the population
over 65 will rise from 17 percent in 2012 to 25 percent in 2035, slightly above the share in Japan in 2012 - the
world's "oldest" country with 24 percent of its population over 65. This was followed by Italy, Greece, and
Sweden all with the elderly’s share of the population at least 20 percent - and all of these countries were in
Europe. By 2035, 1 of every 4 Europeans and 1 of every 5 North Americans will be 65+. The most dramatic
change, however, will be in China where the elderly’s share of the population will rise from about 9% to nearly
22%, which will be higher than in the US.

                                                Population Projections
                                                  2012                                     2035
                                 0-14          15-64         65+          0-14          15-64            65+
          Africa                        40.7          55.9          3.4          34.8          60.5       4.7
          Asia                          24.8          67.9          7.3          19.6          66.3      14.1
          Europe                        15.4           68          16.6          13.9          61.4      24.7
          L America                     27.1          65.8          7.1          20.8          65.8      13.5
          N America                     19.6          66.6         13.8          18.8          60.5      20.8
          Oceania                       22.6          65.8         11.6          19.2          63.5      17.3

There should be no surprise here that the elderly represent a larger share of the population in the wealthy countries,
but many seem surprised by the fact that the majority of the world's elderly live in the poorer countries and this is
where the expected growth is forecast to be highest. This aging of the population is reflected in what the Census
Department calls the Elderly Support Ratio – the number of people aged 65 and over per 100 people aged 20-64.
After remaining relatively unchanged between 1960 and 2010, this ratio is forecast to rise rapidly. In Japan, for
example, the rate that stood at nearly 25 in the year 2000, but is projected to nearly double by 2030, while in Korea
the rate is expected to nearly triple.

Another way of looking at the ageing would be a comparison of the young and elderly support ratios. In China, for
example, as a result of the rapid ageing of the population, the elderly in 1985 were outnumbered nearly 8:1 by
youths, and by 2040 they are expected to be equal in numbers, which is a HUGE problem since China got old
before it got rich so its elderly will be hard pressed to support themselves. The implication of the trends will be a
substantial increase in the number of families caring for frail relatives, and in the developing countries we will see
an increase in the so-called "sandwich generation - "people who find themselves caring for elderly parents while
still caring for / supporting their own children or grandchildren and often participating in the labor force." (US
Census An Aging World: 2001). We can also expect a substantial increase in aggregate health care costs since,
according to the US Census, average health care costs for the elderly average more than triple the costs of the non-

The population growth imbalances projected will create pressure for migration that acts as a population safety
valve. The pressure of population growth in the poor countries will be relieved by migration, so you can expect
considerable pressure for increased migration in upcoming years from the poor to the wealthy countries. This was
the theme in Paul Kennedy's article, "Must it be the West vs. the Rest" in The Atlantic Monthly (Dec 1994). In
some sense this is a replay of what we saw in the early 20th century when Europeans migrated to North America,
but in the future it will be Africans and Asians migrating to Europe and America.

The international migration component of population change is by far the most difficult to forecast with any sense
of accuracy. For example, it is unlikely anyone would have predicted the massive migration of Irish to the US in
the mid 1800s because there was no way to forecast the potato blight that "pushed" the Irish out of their
homeland. There was also no way to forecast the passage of immigration restriction laws in the US that
dramatically cut migration to the US in the 1920s, and we have limited ability to estimate illegal immigration that
can be considerable. With that said, migration cannot be ignored. It is important because it promises to be a BIG
political issue, at least in the US, and because it acts as a safety valve of sorts for population growth differentials.
The top senders and receivers in 2002, according to the US Census (US Census Global Population Profile: 2002)
are listed in the table below. What may be surprising is how high net migration to the US is - more than three
times the level of any other country - which is why the US is the only "rich" country expected to have continued
population growth. In fact, Little and Triest project that nearly two-thirds of projected population growth in the
21st century in the US will be from immigration. (Seismic Shifts: The Economic Impact of Demographic Change,)
What you also see is that the wealthy nations (US, Canada, Germany, UK..) tend to "pull" immigrants searching

for economic opportunity, while poorer countries tend to "push" migrants out in search of better opportunities. The
outlier here is Afghanistan, a poor country that is surprisingly near the top of the list of countries with net in

                                               Net Migration: 2002
                                                                               Net in
                               Country    Net out migration       Country     migration
                            Mexico               280          United States     1040
                            China                230          Afghanistan       300
                            Tanzania             180          Canada            190
                            Congo                150          Germany           180
                            Philippines          130          Russia            140
                            Pakistan             120          UK                130
                            Kazakhstan           100          Italy             120
                            Bangladesh           100          Singapore         120
                            India                 80          Australia          80
                            Burma                 80          East Timor         50

Christian v Muslim

Even I am not old enough to have lived through the Crusades when Christians of Europe battled with Muslims of
the Middle East and North Africa, but I do remember president Bush describe the war in Iraq as a crusade. It may
have been a poor choice of words, but it was in fact largely a war between Christian and Muslim, which has raised
everyone’s awareness of religion. Below is a Wikipedia map of the world with countries identified by their
predominant religion. The US, Europe, Latin America and Oceania are Christian, while North Africa, the Middle
East, and Malaysia are Muslim, and as we know from our earlier discussion of differential growth rates, there are
substantial differences between the two regions. In the 23 countries listed in Wikipedia’s with the highest share of
population that is Muslim, the combined 2012 population is 866 million and population is projected to grow 35
percent by 2035 – nearly five times as fast as in Christian Europe, the Americas an Oceania.

Goldstone, in his Population Bomb article describes the future as:

         These forces will act strongly on the Muslim world, where many economically weak countries will
         continue to experience dramatic population growth in the decades ahead. In 1950, Bangladesh, Egypt,

        Indonesia, Nigeria, Pakistan, and Turkey had a combined population of 242 million. By 2009, those six
        countries were the world's most populous Muslim-majority countries and had a combined population of
        886 million. Their populations are continuing to grow and indeed are expected to increase by 475 million
        between now and 2050 -- during which time, by comparison, the six most populous developed countries
        are projected to gain only 44 million inhabitants. Worldwide, of the 48 fastest-growing countries today –
        those with annual population growth of two percent or more -- 28 are majority Muslim or have Muslim
        minorities of 33 percent or more.11

Urban v Rural

The rapid growth of the world’s population has been accompanied by an increasing concentration in urban areas –
a process known as urbanization. At the end of WW II, less than 1/3rd of the world’s population was urban, but by
2010 more than ½ were living in urban areas and by 2050 2/3rds will be in urban areas. Between 2010 and 2050
the world’s population is projected to grow 2.3 billion, while its urban areas will grow by 2.6 billion as they
continue to pull people in from rural areas. Regional difference in urbanization rates were substantial in 2010 –
ranging from 82% in North America to 39% in Africa – but they were declining. By 2050 Africa is projected to
have 58% of its people living in urban areas – about what Europe was in 1960 and the US in 1945 – while in North
America nearly 90% will be living in urban areas.

Behind the convergence in urbanization rates is a massive movement of people in the world’s poor countries into
urban areas – especially in Asia. According to UN projections, of the 2.6 billion projected increase in urban
population, 1.4 billion will be in Asia and .9 billion in Africa – and increasingly they will be living in very big
urban areas.12 The UN classifies cities as mega cities if they were urban agglomerations of more than 10 million
inhabitants, and in 1970 there were only two megacities in the world – Tokyo and New York City with
populations of 23.3 and 16.3 million. By 2011 nearly 10 percent of the world’s people lived in the 23 megacities.
Tokyo was still the largest at 37.2 million, but Delhi in India and Mexico City had moved ahead of New York City
where 20.4 million lived. Of the 19 other new additions to the list, only 4 are in the world’s rich countries (Los
Angeles, Moscow, Osaka, and Paris), while 9 are in Asia including 4 in China (Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou, and
Shenzhen) and two in India (Mumbai and Kolkata). By 2025 ten cities in the world will be at least as big as New
York City was in 2011 and there are projected to be 37 megacities where 13.6 percent of the world’s people live.
Of these, the top 4, 7 of the top 10, and 13 of the next 27 will be in Asia.

The rise of these urban giants in the world’s poor countries is the result of mind-numbing growth rates. For
example, Lagos, Nigeria went from a city of 1.4 million in 1970 – about the size of Providence in 2010 – to 18.9
million in 2025 – about the size of New York City in 2010, but this was nothing when you look at Shenzhen that
grew at double-digit rates for over 40 years. In forty years Shenzhen grew from a small fishing village of about
90,000 near Hong Kong with to a city of 10.6 million – a transformation that would be on the order of magnitude
of a rise from Newport County, RI to Paris in forty years.

                                        Population of Large Urban Areas
                                             Population (Millions)             Average Annual Growth Rate
                                                                             1970-    1990-      2011-
                                      1970       1990      2011      2025    90       2011       2025
              Lagos, Nigeria           1.4        4.8      11.2      18.9       6.08        4.08       3.71
              Dhaka, Bangladesh        1.4        6.6      15.4      22.9       7.86        4.02       2.84
              Karachi, Pakistan          0        0.9      10.6      15.5       4.15        3.16       2.68
              Shenzhen, China            0        0.9      10.6      15.5     18.44       12.89        2.71
              Shanghai, China            6        7.8      20.2      28.4        1.3        4.52       2.43
              Beijing, China           4.4        6.8      15.6      22.6       2.14        3.96       3.66
              Sao Paulo, Brazil        7.6       14.8      19.9      23.2       3.31        1.42       1.08
              New York City, US       16.2       16.1      20.4      23.6      -0.03        1.12       1.05
              Paris, Europe            8.2        9.3      10.6      12.2       0.64        0.62       0.97

This massive urbanization will present the world’s poorest countries with many challenges. One implication of the
rapid urbanization of the population in poor countries will be the serious difficulties encountered as they try to
build the infrastructure needed to supply basic necessities to the people and maintain peace and order among the
millions of unemployed or underemployed. There is no question that the poverty stricken areas of these rapidly
growing areas will be the breeding ground for potential terrorists, just as we saw in Iraq in 2004 where the urban
slums such as Sader City in Baghdad provided "troops" for the attacks on the American forces

Population dynamics and demographic transition

To better understand the wide disparity in population growth rates across countries and the projections of future
population, it is helpful to disaggregate the population growth into three separate components - births, death, and
net immigration. A nation's population will grow more rapidly because there are more births, fewer deaths, or
more immigrants entering the country.

                               Δ Population = Births - Deaths + Immigration
In the table below you can see that birth and death rates vary dramatically across countries and continents. In
developed countries birth rates and death rates are both low, while in the less developed world birth rates tend to
be higher and death rates lower. In fact the primary difference between the rich and poor countries is the birth rate,
something we will discuss at some length in the following unit.

                                                Population Projections
                                         2002                                             Population
                                                        Births per 1,000    Deaths per
                                       Population                                        Change (2002-
                                                              pop           1,000 pop
                                       (millions)                                          2050) %
                    Africa                840                 38               14           120%
                    Asia                 3766                 24               8             41%
                     W Asia               197                 27               7            105%
                     S&C Asia            2057                 25               8             60%
                     E Asia              1512                 13               7              6%
                    Europe                728                 10               11            -11%
                    Latin America         531                 23               6             53%
                    North America         319                 14               9             41%
                    Oceania               32                  18               7             44%

                    More Developed        1197                11               10            3%
                    Less Developed        5018                24               8             57%
                    World                 6216                21               9             46%
         Source: UN's Excel Tables

If we move from a snapshot such as the table above to a movie, we find one of the enduring relationships in
demographics - the demographic transition. The demographic transition describes a process of change in birth and

death rates that countries tend to follow – and one that tends to be related to economic growth. In phase I, a
country experiences high birth and death rates with substantial cycles in the death rates so the net population
growth rate is very small - the world prior to the 18th century. This was the world envisioned by Malthus where
people were not seen as different from other animals when it came to reproduction and population would be
regulated by the environment. When population rose there would be widespread famine that would lower birth
rates and raise death rates to lower the population to sustainable levels.

                                             Demographic Transition

In phase II the death rate drops sharply, usually associated with advances in hygiene and sanitation that may
accompany economic prosperity. Birth rates, meanwhile, only slowly adjust downward - a relationship we will
explore in more detail in the next unit where we look at the model of individual choice – and as a result population
growth begins to rise, just as it did in Europe in the 18th century. Phase III is characterized by declining birth rates
and stabilizing death rates that show up in positive, but declining population growth rates – what we saw 19th and
20th centuries in Europe. And finally, a country enters phase IV where the low birth and death rates result in a
stable, or in some cases, declining population. This is where Europe is as we head into the 21st century.

And it turns out that poorer countries have surprised demographers with the speed with which they are progressing
through the stages of the demographic transition.

         The fall in developing countries now is closer to what happened in Europe during 19th- and early 20th-
         century industrialization. But what took place in Britain over 130 years (1800-1930) took place in South
         Korea over just 20 (1965-85).

         Things are moving even faster today. Fertility has dropped further in every Southeast Asian country
         (except the Philippines) than it did in Japan. The rate in Bangladesh fell by half from six to three in only
         20 years (1980 to 2000). The same decline took place in Mauritius in just ten (1963-73). Most sensational
         of all is the story from Iran.

         When the clerical regime took over in 1979, the mullahs, apparently believing their flock should go forth
         and multiply, abolished the country’s family-planning system. Fertility rose, reaching seven in 1984. Yet
         by the 2006 census the average fertility rate had fallen to a mere 1.9, and just 1.5 in Tehran. From fertility
         that is almost as high as one can get to below replacement level in 22 years: social change can hardly
         happen faster.

How these countries progress through this transition will have an enormous impact on the future of the world’s
population – and thus on the economic welfare of billions. There is a clear relationship between population growth
and economic growth – and the causality seems to run two ways. A rising standards of living reduce fertility rates,

and the smaller family size tends to raise living standards. As we will see later, the higher income tends to bring
with it better education of women and their entry into the workforce. This addition to the labor force is a real plus
for a nation’s economy, and with the increased income generated by the larger labor force will raise savings that
will help expand the capital base – the equipment that helps make these workers more productive.

We’ll talk more about some of this in the next unit, but first we will turn our attention to demographic change in
the US.

It's now time to be a little more provincial and look at the demographics of the US. In the 20th century the
demographic profile of the US, like that of the world, changed substantially, and we can expect more of the same
in the 21st century. In this unit we will look at the changes that have occurred and are projected to occur and we’ll
look at five dimensions of that change. For those interested in either this past, or an equally "exciting" 21st
century, a good place to "get up to speed" would be the US Census Bureau's publication Demographic Trends in
the 20th Century.

1.   Old v Young
2.   East v West
3.   Native v Foreign
4.   White v Nonwhite

The demographic structure of the US, like the economic structure, differs substantially from that of the other rich
countries. With a 2012 population of about 310 million, nearly 4.5% of the world’s people live in the US in the
world’s third largest country, which is nearly 2.5 times the population of the next largest rich country – Japan. The
country’s population growth also differentiates it from the world’s other rich countries. In the first decade of the
21st century population in the US grew 10%, five times faster than Europe and ten times faster than Japan, and in
Western Europe the population actually declined 3%. Despite its positive growth, the rate of increase has been
trending downward.14 Only in the Great Depression decade has the growth rate for a decade been lower. 14

Old v Young
As a result of falling birth rates, the aging of the boomers, and rising life expectancies, the US population is aging
– although much slower than the world’s other wealthy countries. We’ll begin with those often-mentioned baby
boomers, a generation very evident in the diagram below. The baby boomers represent the generation born
between WW II (1946) and the beginning of the Vietnam War (1964). A good picture of the baby boom
generation can be found in the time-series graph of births. The boomers represent the 'bulge' in the live births
graph during the 1950s and 1960s, and after falling through the early 1970s, the number of births resumed its
upward trend. This is called the baby boomers' "echo effect" as the boomers began to have kids (remember the
population pyramid in Japan). In 2006 there were nearly 78 million baby boomers that represented more than one
quarter of the US population, so as they get older the US gets older.

                          Source: Vital Statistics site of the National Center for Health Statistics web site

The size of the cohort and its aging is evident in the left-side graph below. As the baby boomers aged, the peak of
the age distribution curve moved to the right, and given the size of this cohort it should be obvious why these
boomers have been a favorite generation of marketers, why they continue to have an impact on the economy, and
why you are still listening to 60s music on the radio. In the 1950s the country was building homes for the boomers'
parents to house the new babies. Then it built schools for the boomers - first grade schools and high schools, then
colleges and universities. And when the boomers left school, apartments, houses, and something new, condos,
were constructed for them to live in. You may also note the aging of the baby boomers in your own communities
as you drive by the grade schools that housed children in the 1950s that have been converted to elderly housing,
although some may have been reactivated in the late 1990s to educate the boomers' children.

Longer life expectancies have also affected the country’s age distribution. Since 1940 life expectancies of males
and females have increased by about 15 years. In 1940, when the Social Security system was taking form, life
expectancies at birth for males and females were 60.3 and 65.2, sharply lower than the 2006 figures of 75.1 and
80.2 (National Center for Health Statistics). Looked at somewhat differently, in 1940 a 20 year old male could be
expected to live only 2.8 years beyond retirement at age 65, while in 1990 he could be expected to live nearly 8
years beyond retirement at age 65. Life expectancies of females have followed the same pattern and remain
substantially higher than those of males.

The impact of the ageing boomers and longer life expectancies is also evident in the population pyramids below.
The boomers are the bulge in the 2012 pyramid centered on the 50-54 age bracket, which can be found in a
number of the rich countries. What is different is the projection for 2035 where you do not see a bulge because the
lower age cohorts are being filled with immigrants and babies.

                                                Population Pyramids

The net effect of the longer life expectancies and lower birth rates has been a dramatic increase in the size of the
elderly population. In the decade of the 2010s, when the leading edge of those boomers begins turning 65, the
population of elderly will grow around 35%, six times as fast as the non elderly population (6%) and that
differential will be maintained through the 2020s. As the baby boomers begin to die off in larger numbers in the
2030s the growth differential narrows and by the 2040s it is projected to virtually disappear.

                                         Source: US Census and Statistical Abstract

This aging is also reflected in stats on the elderly’s share of the population. In 2000, about one of every eight
individuals in the US (12.4%) was over 65, up from one of twelve in 1950, but by 2030 that number will rise to
20%. And the elderly are getting older. In the decade ending in 2000, the population over 75 grew two-thirds faster
than the population aged 65-74. By 2020, when the baby boomers begin reaching retirement age, the number not
so old (65-74) is projected to represent a full 20% of the population, with nearly 50% percent of these being over

Within the US Florida is the nation's oldest state with 17.3% of the population 65 and older, which should come as
no big surprise. What may be a little more surprising are the other states in the top ten. The other old states are
located in the Plains (IO, MT, ND) the Appalachians (WV and PA), and New England (ME and RI) where net out
migration has been significant. It is the younger people who move out leaving behind an older population in many
areas in northern New England, the Great Plains, and the Mountain Region that can be seen in the map below.

In these states the high concentrations of elderly also show up in low dependency rate – how many working age
residents there are for every dependent resident (Children + elderly). In all of the states other than RI there are 1.5
to 1.6 working age adults for every dependent. The figure is higher in Rhode Island because of a smaller than
average number of young.

                                                 Population in 2010
                                                  % >65                     ratio
                               Florida              17.3    Utah                   1.5
                               West Virginia        16.0    Idaho                  1.5
                               Maine                15.9    Arizona                1.5
                               Pennsylvania         15.4    South Dakota           1.6
                               Iowa                 14.9    Nebraska               1.6
                               Montana              14.8    Kansas                 1.6
                               Vermont              14.6    Iowa                   1.6
                               North Dakota         14.5    Florida                1.6
                               Arkansas             14.4    Arkansas               1.6
                               Delaware             14.4    Oklahoma               1.6
                               Rhode Island         14.4    Rhode Island           1.8

As we look forward, the real unknown is the extent to which the promises of the biotech industry will be realized
and reflected in longer life expectancies. What we can be certain of is that those boomers will continue to age. By
the early 2020s the US’s age profile will begin to look like Florida’s 2010 profile, but after that the US will enter
uncharted territory with the elderly representing more than 1 of every 5 Americans. At the top of the list of 'effects'
of the aging of the boomers would have to be the forecasts of falling home prices, the expected rise in health care
costs, and the insolvency of Social Security. The obvious problem will be: who will be working to pay the taxes
for the retirement checks? It appears there may not be enough people, at least if we are to maintain the current
system. The real "known" as we look forward is that the retirement systems; both private and public systems that
were designed when life expectancies were much shorter will need to be revised since it is impossible to reconcile
the lengthening life expectancies with retirement at 65 or 67. In fact many of the policies and financial "deals" that
were brokered back in the 1940s probably need to be reconsidered given the changes in life expectancy

East v West
The "story" of regional population growth is simple - we are moving west and south - which shows up in the
Census’ map of the population center of the US. The westward movement has been a given each decade, but it was
not until after WW II with the rise of the auto, air conditioning and the eventual collapse of the northern
manufacturing that the southern drift became apparent.

The shift is also evident in the graph of regional population shares indicates.15 The Northeast (NE), which in 1790
accounted for nearly half of the nation's population, has seen its share of the population fall as a result of slower
than average growth, although this movement was temporarily slowed around the turn of this century as a result of
massive immigration, mostly through the port of New York, that accompanied the rapid industrialization and
urbanization of the U.S. The movement west of the Appalachians into the Midwest (M) began in colonial times
and continued to raise the region's share of the nation's population until the turn of the 20th century when it peaked
at about 33%. Following WW I the share of the nation's population living in the Northeast and Midwest began an
uninterrupted fall that gained momentum in the 1970s as the population continued its westward move into the
Mountain and Pacific Regions. Since it first appeared in the US Census data in 1850, the West has been the fastest
growing region in the country, and during the 20th century growth rates in the West have averaged about 2.7 times
the rate for the rest of the country so its share of the nation's population rose from 6% to 22%. In recent years the
movement west has been accompanied by a movement south seen in the previous map. In fact the population
history of the South looks very much like the history of the Northeast through 1940. At that time, however, the
Northeast's population continued its slide due to slower than average growth while the South's share stabilized
until 1970 when it began to grow faster than the US average and its share of the US population rose from 31% to
37% in 2010.16

The geographic pattern of population growth for the US is reflected in the Census Bureau maps below. In terms of
growth, there are two focal points - the Southeast and Mountain regions. Florida, Georgia, and North Carolina in
the Southeast and California, Arizona, and Texas in the Mountain are the only states that added more than a

million people during the decade of the 2000s - or about 2,000 a week. The pattern is similar when one looks at the
growth rates - the fastest growing being Nevada, Utah, Idaho, Arizona and Texas where growth exceeded 20%. Of
the 30 states growing less than the national average of 9.7%, only 4 were in the South or Mountain regions (MS,
AL, AK, LA). The Census Brief Population Distribution and Change: 2000 to 2010 also has a map that clearly
identifies the centers of rapid population growth and the centers of population decline. In the first set of maps
below the changes over three decades reveal two constants we already noted – growth is centered in the West and
Southeast, while the Northeast and Midwest are growing slowly.

If you look beyond the state data at the county data a somewhat different pattern emerges. The slow growth in the
middle part of the country actually “hides” a number of areas that are losing population - primarily the rural
counties in the Plains states running south from North Dakota to Texas and in the rust belt extending eastward
from Illinois through northern New York. The impact of this can be seen in the reapportionment of the US House
of Representatives. The states gaining two seats are AZ, FL, GA, and TX, while those losing two seats are PA and

The spatial pattern of growth can be attributed in large part to differentials in international immigration, and
interstate immigration. In the table below you will see the biggest winners and losers for the years 2000 through
2011. Each year there was a net inflow 742,000 people into the South – 256,000 from other regions and 486,000
from abroad. In the West the inflow was 443,000 with an almost equal split of in migrants from other states and
abroad. In the Northeast, meanwhile, there was a net gain of 29,000 people as a result of in migration from abroad
(216,000) move than compensating for the loss of 188,000 who moved to other regions. What you do not see here
is the slowdown in mobility caused by the Great Recession. Annual interstate migration after the onset of the
recession (2007-2011) was down nearly 500,000 from the pre-recession years (2000-2006) and international
immigration was down 400,000.

                                         Mobility of Population 2000-2011
                                                 (1,000s per year)
                   Mobility period and type of migration Northeast Midwest                   South   West
                   .In-migrants                                  353      537                1,056    611
                   .Out-migrants                                 540      630                  801    585
                   .Net internal migration                     (188)      (94)                 256     26
                   .Movers from abroad                           216      193                  486    418
                   .Net migration (including abroad)               29     100                  742    443

If we look at the state level, there were eight states that in the 2000-2009 years lost more than 250,000 people
through interstate migration and two that lost more than a million. Included on the list are the expected northern
states of NY, ILL, MI, NJ, OH, and MA plus LA, which is a reflection of the power of hurricane Katrina, and
California. In fact, New York and California both lost more than 1.5 million to interstate migration. Some of these
losses were offset by international immigration. The population in CA, PA, MD, IN, MN, and WI all increased
more than 50,000 despite suffering a net loss of interstate movers, but in five states the net loss was still more than
250,000 – NY, MI, LA, OH, IL. In New England, Rhode Island (-15,000) and Massachusetts (-32,000) were the
only New England states to experience a net loss due to migration. The big winner was Florida with net interstate
in-migration of 1.2 million, and TX, AZ, NC, GA, NV, TN, and SC all gained more than 250,000.

We can also look at the migration of another important component of the population - the young (ages 25 and 39),
single, and college educated. Many of the patterns we saw in the above two tables hold, but there are some
interesting differences. Among the biggest gainers are Washington and Oregon, which makes one wonders how
much of this is related to the region having some of the nation's more progressive public policies. You also see
gains in Virginia and Maryland, which indicates the pull of Washington, DC. The losers, meanwhile, are heavily
weighted toward the Midwest and New England, including RI. In Massachusetts, where the higher education
industry is HUGE, net migration is close to zero.

                      Interstate Migration of Young, Single, College Educated (1995-2000)
                                                    Rate %)                             Rate %)
                              Nevada                  281        Nebraska                -130
                              Colorado                157        Mississippi             -134
                              Georgia                 150        Indiana                 -142
                              Arizona                 109        Vermont                 -143
                              Oregon                  103        Rhode Island            -147
                              Washington              96         Montana                 -161
                              California              93         West Virginia           -197
                              North Carolina          50         South Dakota            -215
                              Texas                   49         Iowa                    -220
                              Florida                 40         North Dakota            -282
                                      Source: State-to-State Migration Flows: 1995 to 2000

It is clear that interstate migration has played a significant role in the changing regional distribution of the nation’s
population, and now we will turn to international immigration that is playing a major role in the nation’s changing
demographic profile.

Native v Foreign
International migration has had a major impact on many dimensions of the demographic profile of the US. First,
the rising level of immigration has been a driver behind the nation’s higher than average population growth rate. In
the years of 'peace' since Vietnam, political and economic upheavals worldwide have created a massive movement
of people across international borders, a process that accelerated with the restructuring of Eastern Europe in the
1990s. And the US has been a favorite destination of the displaced because of its high income and openness. Since
the end of W.W.II, the number of individuals moving into the U.S. has risen steadily so that by the 1990s, the
number of legal immigrants into the U.S. was exceeding the record highs recorded in the first decade of the 20th
century. In the early 21st century (2000-2009) nearly 9 million immigrants entered the country, but because the

size of the population more than tripled during the 20th century, the rates of immigration into the US in the 1990s
remain substantially below the high rates in the 1900s.

The impact of the immigration on the nation’s population can be seen in the graph below. The rise in immigration
in recent decades has meant that immigration has increased the share of the nation’s population that is foreign
born. In the opening decade of the 20th century nearly 1 of every 8 people in the US is foreign born, four times the
share in 1970 and only slightly below the peak that occurred about a century earlier. The speed-up of immigration
also means that in the 2000s the increase in foreign-born population accounted for over 40% of the country’s
population growth, down from 50% in the 1990s. 17

The composition of the immigrants has also changed substantially in recent years, just as it did a century earlier in
the last big immigration wave. In the 19th century immigrants to the US overwhelmingly came from Europe -
averaging above 90 percent of the total. Among the Europeans, there was a substantial change in the composition
of immigration during the 19th century. In the 1820s Ireland accounted for a full half of immigrants from Europe
and England accounted for another quarter, but by the late 1800s the leadership position had switched to Germany
- home of one-third of Europe's immigrants - and by the 1900s to Italy, Austria-Hungary, and Russia which
accounted for nearly two-thirds of the immigrants to the US. This "mismatch" between the new arrivals and the
resident population that accompanied the shift in migration from the north and west of Europe to the east and south
of Europe plus the large numbers of new immigrants, brought with it anti immigration sentiment, and eventually
anti immigration policies in the early 20th century.

                                                Legal Immigration
                               1820s         1880s         1900s         1960s         1990s       2000-2009
               Total          143,439      5,246,613     8,795,386     3,321,677     9,095,417     10,299,430
        Europe                  69%           90%           92%           34%           15%              13%
         Ireland                35%           12%           4%            1%            1%                0%
         UK                     17%           15%           6%            6%            2%                2%
         Germany                5%            28%           4%            6%            1%                1%
         Italy                  0%            6%            23%           6%            1%                0%
         Soviet Union           0%            4%            18%           0%            5%                2%
         Austria-Hungary        0%            7%            24%           1%            0%                0%
        Asia                    0%            1%            4%            13%           31%              34%
         China                  0%            1%            0%            1%            5%                6%
         Philippines            0%            0%            0%            3%            6%                5%
         India                  0%            0%            0%            1%            4%                6%
        America                 8%            8%            4%            52%           49%              43%
         Mexico                 3%            7%            1%            14%           25%              17%

In the late 20th century it was immigration from Europe that was declining while immigration from Asia and
Mexico increased in importance. In the 1960s, 52% of the nation's immigrants originated in the Americas - many
from Cuba in response to Castro's takeover of the country in the 1950s - and by the beginning of the 21st century
the pattern of migration had shifted even more - with increasing shares of immigrants originating in Asia (34%)
and Mexico (17%). It is therefore not surprising that the increasing numbers and changing composition of new
arrivals brought with it renewed calls for restriction on immigration in the US in the early 1990s, and again in the
mid 2000s. The backlash against immigrants in the late 20th century was not constrained to the US as Europe
experienced its share of 'skin heads' attacks that gained notoriety in Germany in 1993, and then the surprise
preliminary election victory of Le Pen in France in 200218.

The regional pattern of the foreign-born population that reflects immigration is evident in the two maps below –
one from 1970 and one from 2010. A quick comparison of the two maps indicates the rise of the foreign-born
population. In 1970 there was only one state in which foreign-born represented more than 10 percent of the
population and seven with more than 5 percent. In New York, where Ellis Island was the entry point for millions
of immigrants, nearly 12 percent of the population was foreign-born and four neighboring states had 5+ percent.
The only other states were the coastal states of Florida and California and Illinois.

Things changed quite dramatically in the next forty years, however, and by 2010 foreign-born represented more
than 15 percent of the population in six states (NY, CA, TX, FL, NJ, and MA) and more than 10 percent in seven
(WA, AZ, IL, VA, MD, CT, RI). In 2010 New York and California remain entry points to the US, and they have
been joined by Texas where the foreign-born share of the population increased more than five-fold. The rise of the
foreign-born population in Texas, Arizona and much of the Southwest is a testament to the rise of immigration
from Mexico. On the other end of the spectrum are the Appalachian states running from West Virginia and Ohio
down through Mississippi and Alabama where less than 5 percent of the population is foreign born.

The inflow of immigrants to the US has had a significant impact on the size, age, and location of the population.
As a result of it the US is larger, younger because migrants tend to be younger, its population center is moving
west and south because of the rise of immigration from the Asia and Latin America, and it is also having an impact
on the racial and ethnic composition of the population – an issue we will look into now.

White v Nonwhite

The US population is increasingly diverse, although there are also strong regional patterns here also as you can see
in the two maps below. In 2010 42 million people identified themselves as Black or African American, which was
nearly 14 of the population - a slight increase from 2000. Of the 42 million, more than half (55%) lived in the
South, 10 percent lived in he West, and the remaining 35 percent was split evenly between the Northeast and
Midwest. The highest concentrations were in the Old South where Blacks accounted for over 30 percent of the
population in Mississippi, Georgia, South Carolina, Louisiana, and Maryland.

The situation looks very different when we look at the Hispanic and Latino population that has been expanding
rapidly. The Hispanic population in 2010 was 50.5 million – up from 35 million in 2000. In the 2000s the Hispanic
population increased 43%, nearly two times faster than the non Hispanic population, and in 2010 about 1 of every
6 people in the US. As with the Black and African American, there is s pronounced regional pattern, but here the
concentration is in the Southwest, which probably reflects the fact that nearly 60 percent of the Hispanic
population is Mexican. California and Texas account for nearly half of the nation’s Hispanic population and in

these states more than 30 percent of the population are Hispanic. The highest concentration is in New Mexico
where Hispanic’s share is over 40 percent.

The age, ethnic and racial profiles of an area’s population also depend on immigration and what we are seeing is a
widening gap between the profiles of the young and the old. In 2000, 25% of the US population was under 18
years, but this figure ranged from 35% for Hispanics to 23% of Whites. At the other end of the spectrum, those
over 65 represent, 15% of the White are in this age range while only 5% of the Hispanic are over 65. Looked at a
bit differently, 63% of the population less than 18 years old was non Hispanic Whites, while 81% of those over 65
were non Hispanic White. Hispanics represented 5% of the elderly and 17% of the young. What this means is the
future difficulties the nation faces as a result of aging will also have a definite racial and ethnic dimension. As the
nation makes decisions on the allocation of funds across ages it will also be across ethnicities and this will make
those choices more difficult.

As for the future, we can expect to see an increasing diversity of the population. According to the US Census, the
Hispanic population will increase 77 percent between 2010 and 2035, nearly 9 times as fast as the non Hispanic
population. The number of Hispanics is projected to increase by 38 million - 61 percent of the nation’s population
growth. Non Hispanic Whites, meanwhile, is the largest segment of the population in 2010 with about 2/3rds of
the entire population, but it is projected to increase only 2% in 25 years, which translates into 7% of the projected

                                        Population Projections: 2010-2035
                                                  Numeric                             Share of
                                                  Change        Percentage           Population
                                                  (1,000s)        Change              Change
                      Total                           61,432           20%                 100%
                      Hispanic                        37,602           77%                  61%
                      Non Hispanic White               4,093            2%                   7%
                      Non Hispanic Black               7,669           20%                  12%
                      Non Hispanic Asian               6,799           51%                  11%

There is no question that the demographic landscape will change markedly in the coming decades, and these
changes will greatly impact our lives. The environmental implications are potentially enormous as a result of a
projected growth that will add approximately 3 billion people to the world by 2050, and they are overwhelmingly

going to be in the world's poor countries that will be working very hard to grow their economies. There will also
be major political implications of the projected changes in the distribution of the population. Growth will be
centered in the world's poor countries, so you can expect them to seek greater representation on key international
agencies such as the IMF and World Bank. As a result of this rapid growth in the population in poor countries we
can also expect to see migration at unprecedented rates because we are experiencing wage gaps between the rich
and poor nations that exceed the gaps that led to the massive migration from Europe to the US before 1914.
(Jeffrey G. Williamson, Demographic Shocks and Global Factor Flows ) As transportation and communications
technology continues to improve, it will only be official barriers to entry that will slow the movement from poor
and rapidly growing to the rich and slowly growing - and the US is likely to remain the number one destination.

And we mustn't forget the rapid aging of the population. The aging of the population, coupled with the projections
of actual population decline in nearly all of the world's wealthy nations, will wreak havoc on government finances
in all of the world's wealthy countries in the upcoming years and force a change in the structure of government
transfer programs including public retirement. In the US, immigration is seen as the "solution" to the problem of
an ageing population, but a workforce becoming increasingly nonwhite will be asked to pay social security taxes
to support an increasing number of retired whites, and this could create its own set of problems.

Now that you have a better idea of how many individuals there are, it's time to turn our attention to explaining
their behavior.

1. Check out the following sample of recent articles.
     • Conflict thrives where young men are many; Demographics of discord
     • Population aging and the rising cost of public pensions
     • China's pensions: Time bomb
     • Where the bucks are: Youth-obsessed Madison Avenue is missing the biggest, richest market of the future: boomer
     • Brown-Forman's Well-Stocked Bar; The maker of Jack Daniel's, Southern Comfort, Finlandia, Fetzer, Korbel, and
           more is thriving on strong demographic trends
     • The demographic writing is on the wall GREY DOLLARS: Ageing populations and falling birthrates are changing
           all the conventional rules
     • State budget faces demographic crunch; State budget faces demographic crunch, study says
     • Demographics will drive this (luxury) market over the next decade with Baby
     • The '60s begin to fade as liberal professors retire
     • Minorities often a majority of population under 20
2a. “Go forth and multiply a lot less,” The Economist, October 31, 2009
2b. " (Who Will Pay? Coping with Aging Societies, Climate Change, and Other Long-Term Fiscal Challenges). Demographics
was a factor in the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. Despite all of the hype about WMD, in the long run it was the demographics of
the region that was most terrifying. The war can be seen as an attempt to bring democracy and capitalism to the Middle East, a
land where the economic and demographic trends were seen as leading the world toward true disaster - a region with a very
young and rapidly growing population and a dwindling resource base. (Robert Kaplan, "Angry Young Men Don't Want Mid
East Peace," 12/7/2000) that build up momentum slowly, but forcefully - and the driving force will be decreased fertility,
decreased mortality, and increased migration from poor to rich countries.
A good example of the impact of demographics on the economy, or a specific market, would be the aging of the baby boomers
on the stock market that became a hot topic in the late 1990s. One of my favorite images, the source of which I cannot recall, is
reproduced below. You can see from the two curves that they tend to track each other pretty well - enough to look into the link.
The age wave is the percent of the labor force in the 35-64 age bracket, which in the 1960s heads down as the leading age of
the baby boomers enter the work force, and in the 1980s heads up as those boomers begin reaching 35. The ratio of S&P Stock
Index to Personal Consumption Expenditures, meanwhile, is viewed as the price of corporate stock relative to "stuff" that
people purchase such as food, clothing, and transportation. The ratio tracks the age wave because the young workers are buying
"stuff" so the price of stuff is pushed higher and the price of stock pushed lower, which pushes the ratio down. Once the
boomers begin to reach their mid 30s, however, they begin to think about their future and retirement and buy stock, and this
pushes the price of stock, and the ratio, up - at least that is the theory. And for those who want to peer into the future - ask
yourself what will happen when the leading edge of the boomers reaches retirement age and start selling the stock.

3. This question first appeared on an email with a link to a web site. Based on the 2002 population estimates of world
population provided by the Population Reference Bureau, the table should be:
                                             Distribution of the World's Population
                                                 Area                         Number of people

                               Africa                                                13
                               Asia                                                  60
                               Europe                                                12
                               Latin America                                          9
                               North America                                          5
                               Oceania (Australia & New Zealand)                      1
                               World                                                100
Past surveys have revealed a tendency for students to substantially overestimate the size of North America and underestimate
the size of Asia. Asia contained 60 percent of the world's population in 2006, far more than the estimates of my
undergraduates (ECN201) and my graduate students (ECN590). North America, meanwhile, contains only 5 percent of the
world's population, far less than the percent estimated by my students.

4. One measure of this would be the number of years the population takes to double. In the year 0 the world's population was
near 150 million, and it took about 1100 years to double to 300 million, but it only took 600 years to double again to 600
million by 1700. What is not evident in the slow-growth is the variations around the trend. Included in this time was the
bubonic plague that "traveled" from China to Europe in the mid 1300s, and before it had run its course, one-third of Europe's
people were dead. [The spread of the plague can be seen on an animated map of Europe.] The next doubling of the population
to 1.2 billion took about 160 years (.44% per year between 1700 and 1860) - and the next doubling to 2.4 billion took 90 years
(.8% per year between 1860 and 1950). The next doubling to 4.8 billion took 35 years (2% per year between 1950 and
1985). For those interested, check out a series of maps tracing out the geography of this growth and a table containing
numerous estimates of the world's population.

                                  Population       year (estimate)        years in between
                                  1 billion             1804                      -
                                  2 billion             1927                     123
                                  3 billion             1960                     33
                                  4 billion             1974                     14
                                  5 billion             1987                     13
                                  6 billion             1999                     12
                                  7 billion             2013                     14
                                  8 billion             2028                     15
                                  9 billion             2054                     26
4a. Jack Goldstone, “The new population bomb,? FA J/F 2010
5. Here are the second tier of countries.
                                               World Population Growth Change
                                    1950-2000        2000-2050                       1950-2000        2000-2050
                     ...                  ...            ...              ...            ...              ...
             Congo                  38,241,068     129,450,268     Nigeria                  289%              148%
             Pakistan             102,105,543      126,259,720     Sudan                    336%              140%
             Indonesia            141,160,046      112,108,990     Tanzania                 326%              122%
             Saudi Arabia           18,163,705      69,088,759     Nepal                    175%              116%

            Philippines             58,608,561         67,891,027     Bangladesh                186%            115%
            Uganda                  17,974,165         60,165,759     Malaysia                  139%              98%
             Romania                 6,100,121         (4,070,721)    Germany                    20%             -10%
             Spain                   11,953,118        (4,451,788)    Spain                      43%             -11%
             Poland                  13,822,023        (4,866,455)    Poland                     56%             -13%
             Italy                   10,614,337        (7,329,496)    Italy                      23%             -13%
             Germany                 13,813,337        (8,580,788)    Romania                    37%             -18%
                      ...                  ...              ...               ...            ...            ...
6. What's missing in our discussion of demographic trends so far is the AIDS pandemic that is wreaking havoc on many
societies around the world. It is nearly impossible to comprehend the devastation caused by AIDS in some of the most affected
areas that tend to be in developing countries, with the highest concentration in Sub Saharan Africa, but we'll try to paint the
picture with some numbers. At the turn of the 21st century, over 90 percent of the people with HIV live in developing countries
and over 70 percent - 28.5 of the 40 million - live in Sub-Saharan Africa. The highest concentrations are in the southern tip of
Africa. The UN has published some tables in which they examine the impact of the current AIDS epidemic on projected
population and life expectancies, and more information is available at the US Census Report, The AIDS Pandemic in the 21st
Century. As you can see from the table below, South Africa's population in 2015 will be almost 12 million less because of AID,
a decrease of approximately 21%. Botswana's differential in population growth, meanwhile, will be 28 percent.
                                                   Impact of Aids on Population

                          Country                               Population             Percentage
                                                                difference (000)       difference

                          Botswana                                               675                28
                          Lesotho                                                731                25
                          Swaziland                                              332                25
                          Zimbabwe                                             4 677                22
                          South Africa                                        11 675                21
                          Namibia                                                465                17
                          Zambia                                               2 895                16
                          Djibouti                                               136                16
                          Malawi                                               2 856                15
                          Mozambique                                           3 888                14
                          Kenya                                                6 563                14
                          Burundi                                              1 535                14
                          Rwanda                                               1 496                12
                          Central African Republic                               638                12
                          Ethiopia                                            11 558                11
                          CÙte d'Ivoire                                        2 608                11

7. Here are the second ten largest countries and you can see a substantial change in the rankings with a number of countries
from the Middle East, Asia and Africa rising on the list and European countries falling.
                   Country           1950           Country             2000            Country           2050
              France                   41 829 Mexico                        98 872 Mexico                   146 651
              Bangladesh               41 783 Germany                       82 017 Philippines              128 383
              Pakistan                 39 659 Viet Nam                      78 137 Viet Nam                 123 782
              Ukraine                  37 298 Philippines                   75 653 Iran                     121 424
              Nigeria                  29 790 Iran                          70 330 Egypt                    113 840
              Spain                    28 009 Egypt                         67 884 Japan                    109 220
              Mexico                   27 737 Turkey                        66 668 Russia                   104 258
              Viet Nam                 27 367 Ethiopia                      62 908 Yemen                    102 379
              Poland                   24 824 Thailand                      62 806 Uganda                   101 524

8. Jack Goldstone, “The new population bomb,? FA J/F 2010

9. If you rank countries by the expected growth rate in the elderly population between 2000 and 2003, only Canada and the US
make it on the list of nearly 30 nations expecting at least a doubling of the elderly population, and they are at the bottom of the
list. Other differences between the developed and less developed countries show up in living arrangements. In developing
countries the elderly are far less likely to be living alone than they are in developed countries. For example, during the 1990s,
in the US nearly 37 percent of the elderly were living alone, while in South Korea and the Philippines the rates were 12 and 6
percent - a pattern that reflects the greater ability of the elderly in the wealthy countries to support themselves. (US Census An
Aging World: 2001)
10. Before leaving the world situation, there is one additional table you should look at. In the table below you have the
countries with the highest and lowest ratio of men to women, all significantly different from the ratio of 102 that is the average
for the world. As you look at the table you should be able to see geographic clusters in the numbers - the countries with the
high ratios (missing women) being in the Middle East, and the countries with the low countries (missing men) tend to be in
Eastern Europe. Think about what these numbers signify - and while you are at it, think about why the number for China is
among the countries with the highest ratio.
                                                                                  2000 Sex ratio
                                                                                 (males per 100
                                         United Arab Emirates                               195
                                         Qatar                                              184
                                         Kuwait                                             139
                                         Bahrain                                            135
                                         Saudi Arabia                                       115

                                        Russian Federation                                88
                                        Cape Verde                                        87
                                        Belarus                                           87
                                        Estonia                                           87
                                        Ukraine                                           87
                                        Latvia                                            86
11. Jack Goldstone, “The new population bomb,? FA J/F 2010
12. The world's largest cities are listed below.

                                          Population of World's Largest Cities (est. 2004)
                                            Rank                City1            Population
                                               1     Shanghai, China             13,278,500
                                               2     Mumbai (Bombay), India 12,622,500
                                               3     Buenos Aires, Argentina 11,928,400
                                               4     Moscow, Russia              11,273,400
                                               5     Karachi, Pakistan           10,889,100
                                               6     Delhi, India                10,400,900
                                               7     Manila, Philippines         10,330,100
                                               8     Sao Paulo, Brazil           10,260,100
                                               9     Seoul, South Korea          10,165,400
                                              10     Istanbul, Turkey             9,631,700
                                                     Source: World Gazateer
Dwarfing these cities are the metropolitan areas that include these large cities. The largest metropolitan area in the world, since
1975, has been Tokyo that had a population of 35 million in 2003, and the US had two metropolitan areas on the list - New
York City ranked 3rd with 18 million people and Los Angeles with 12 million was ranked 11th. The overwhelming majority of
the urban agglomerations, however, were in the world's poor countries. The largest are in the Americas (Mexico City, Sao
Paulo, and Buenos Aires) and Asia (Bombay, Delhi, Calcutta, Shanghai, and Jakarta), and many of these have been growing at
fantastic rates and are projected to continue to grow at high rates 2015. Dhaka and Lagos both grew almost 10 percent a year
for the 28-year period (1975-03), and they are projected to grow at more that 3% a year through 2015. In Delhi, Jakarta, and
Karachi, meanwhile, the past growth rates were all 5 percent per year and they are projected to grow at more than 2.5 percent a
year. As a frame of reference, New York City is projected to grow at less than 1 percent per year.

                                             World's Largest Urban Agglomerations
                                                                                                                     residing in
                                                                                                       annual rate
Agglomeration                           Country                               Population (millions)                agglomeration
                                                                                                        of change
                                                                                                                      , 2003, as
                                                                                                        (per cent)
                                                                                                                   percentage of

                                                                                               200 201 1975 -
                                                                                         1975     3    5 -03 2015 Total Urban
Tokyo                                    Japan                                           26.6 35 36.2 1.5 0.2 27.4              41.9
Mexico City                              Mexico                                          10.7 18.7 20.6 3.1 0.8           18    23.9
New York 3                               USA                                             15.9 18.3 19.7 0.8 0.6          6.2      7.7
S„o Paulo                                Brazil                                            9.6 17.9 20 3.5 0.7            10      12
Mumbai (Bombay)                          India                                             7.3 17.4 22.6 4.9        2    1.6      5.8
Delhi                                    India                                             4.4 14.1 20.9 6.7 2.8         1.3      4.7
Calcutta                                 India                                             7.9 13.8 16.8 3.2 1.7         1.3      4.6
Buenos Aires                             Argentina                                         9.1 13 14.6       2 0.8        34    37.7
Shanghai                                 China                                           11.4 12.8 12.7 0.6 0.3            1      2.5
Jakarta                                  Indonesia                                         4.8 12.3 17.5 5.3 2.5         5.6    12.3
Los Angeles 2                            USA                                               8.9 12 12.9 1.7 0.6           4.1      5.1
Dhaka                                    Bangladesh                                        2.2 11.6 17.9 9.7 3.3         7.9    32.5
Osaka-Kobe                               Japan                                             9.8 11.2 11.4 0.7        0    8.8    13.5
Rio de Janeiro                           Brazil                                            7.6 11.2 12.4 2.2 0.7         6.3      7.6
Karachi                                  Pakistan                                            4 11.1 16.2 5.8 3.1         7.2    21.2
Beijing                                  China                                             8.5 10.8 11.1 1.3 0.4         0.8      2.2
Cairo                                    Egypt                                             6.4 10.8 13.1 2.9 1.7 15.1           35.8
Moscow                                   Russia                                            7.6 10.5 10.9 1.8 0.1         7.3      10
Metro Manila                             Philippines                                         5 10.4 12.6 4.1 1.7 12.9           21.2
Lagos                                    Nigeria                                           1.9 10.1 17 9.8 3.9           8.1    17.4
It should be clear from these data that demographic change is no longer boring. In upcoming decades there will be some
dramatic changes in the makeup of the world's population. The wealthy nations of the world will see a continual decline in their
share of the world's population as the list of the world's largest nations is dramatically shuffled. Furthermore, these projected
international demographic patterns can be expected to exert a substantial influence over countless business decisions - where
to sell, where to buy, where to produce, and where to invest; and public policies on trade, competition, and the environment, as
well as defense spending and national security strategies. And just to give you some additional reason for concern, you might
check out the UN's 2003 publication, The Challenge of Slums UN-HABITATís new Global Report on Human Settlements
where you will find some remarkable statistics on the dimensions of urban slums around the world, a real problem if you
believe that the centers of discontent in the world could be the urban slums. Here are a few that were reported on the City
mayors (of the world) web site.
      1. Some 923,986,000 people, or 31.6 per cent of the world’s total urban population, live in slums; some 43 per cent of
           the urban population of all developing regions combined live in slums; some 78.2 per cent of the urban population in
           the least developed countries live in slums; some six per cent of the urban population in developed regions live in
           slum-like conditions.
      2. The total number of slum-dwellers in the world increased by about 36 per cent during the 1990s and in the next 30
           years, the global number of slum-dwellers will increase to about two billion if no concerted action to address the
           challenge of slums is taken.
      3. More than 41 per cent of Kolkataís (Calcutta) slum households have lived in slums for more than 30 years.
      4. In most African cities between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the population lives in slums or squatter settlements.
           Many African cities will be doubling their population within two decades. In a city like Nairobi, 60 per cent of the
           population lives in slums that occupy about five per cent of the land.
13. “Go forth and multiply a lot less,” The Economist, October 31, 2009
14. If you ever wanted proof of the horrors of the US Civil War, you can see it in the low growth rate for the decade ending in
1870. The decline in the decades ending in 1940 was also a low point, which was due in large part to the economy's collapse in
the Great Depression. After bottoming-out in the Great Depression of the 1930s, the birth rate rose slightly through the mid
1940s and then increased sharply in the late 1940s, ushering in the "Baby Boom Generation." These 'boomers' are the
individuals born between the late 1940s and the early 1960s (1946-1964), a generation bracketed by the end of WW II and the
beginning of the Vietnam War. At the close of the 21st century the leading edge of the boomers had reached 50 and became
eligible to join the American Association of Retired People (AARP), a powerful lobbying group likely to gain political power
with the ageing of the baby boomers. Just remember never to lose sight of these boomers because they will continue to exert an
enormous impact on US society in the coming decades.
15. For those who want a little refresher on the "map" of the US, you can check out some on-line maps that include maps of
the four census regions mentioned below. As The westward movement can also be seen in the movement of the mean center of
the population - the point where the US would be balanced if each area in the country is weighted by the number of people in
that area. This point has moved from Maryland in 1790 through West Virginia and Ohio by the mid 1800s into Illinois by the
mid 1900s and then across the Mississippi River into Missouri in 1980.
16. The movement of the population west and south is also evident in the growth rates of the nation's metropolitan areas - its
cities and surrounding suburbs. The table below contains the list of the twenty largest metropolitan areas in 2000 plus the
growth and growth rates of the ten areas with the largest gains and largest losses. Among the metropolitan areas that gained

more than 1 million people - 2,000 people a week - only New York was outside of the West and South, and Chicago is the only
other non western or southern city to make the list of ten gainers. The large gainers were Los Angeles and San Francisco in the
West, Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston in the Southwest, and Atlanta and DC in the South. The two metropolitan areas that have
grown most rapidly during the decade are Las Vegas, NV and Naples, FL - the first being a center of the tourism and gambling
industries and the second being a center for retirees. The rest of the list of BIG gainers are all areas in the West or South. The
story is very different, however, when you look at the list of losers. The ten largest losses were concentrated in the states of
NY, PA, OH and WV. In addition to these areas, some of the highest percentage losses were incurred in the Midwest (ND) and
deep South (LA, and MS). The Providence metropolitan area, which includes Warwick and Fall River, had a 2000 population
of almost 1.2 million an increase of 4.8% from 1990s level.

                                   Fastest and Slowest Metropolitan Area Population Growth
                                          2000                                              Change
                                       Population     Rank             Area name             1990-       Area name
                                         (1000s)                                             2000
New York--Northern New Jersey--                               Los Angeles--Riverside--               Las Vegas, NV--
Long Island, NY--NJ--CT--PA               21,200        1     Orange County, CA         1,842        AZ
                                                              New York--Northern New
Los Angeles--Riverside--Orange
                                                              Jersey--Long Island, NY--              Naples, FL         65.3%
County, CA                                16,374        2                               1,650
Chicago--Gary--Kenosha, IL--IN--WI                            Dallas--Fort Worth, TX                 Yuma, AZ           49.7%
                                           9,158        3                                  1,185
Washington--Baltimore, DC--MD--
                                                              Atlanta, GA                            Edinburg--         48.5%
VA--WV                                     7,608        4                                  1,152
                                                                                                     Mission, TX
San Francisco--Oakland--San Jose,                                                                    Austin--San
                                                              Phoenix--Mesa, AZ                                         47.7%
CA                                         7,039        5                                  1,013     Marcos, TX
Philadelphia--Wilmington--Atlantic                            Houston--Galveston--
                                                                                                     Springdale--       47.5%
City, PA--NJ--DE--MD                       6,188        6     Brazoria, TX                 938
                                                                                                     Rogers, AR
Boston--Worcester--Lawrence, MA--                             Chicago--Gary--Kenosha,
                                                                                                     Boise City, ID     46.1%
NH--ME--CT                                 5,819        7     IL--IN--WI               918
                                                              Washington--Baltimore,                 Phoenix--Mesa,
Detroit--Ann Arbor--Flint, MI                                                                                           45.3%
                                           5,456        8     DC--MD--VA--WV           881           AZ
                                                              San Francisco--Oakland--
Dallas--Fort Worth, TX                                                                               Laredo, TX         44.9%
                                           5,222        9     San Jose, CA             786
Houston--Galveston--Brazoria, TX                              Las Vegas, NV--AZ                      Provo--Orem, UT 39.8%
                                           4,670        10                                 711

Atlanta, GA                                                   Wheeling, WV--OH                       Anniston, AL       -3.3%
                                          4,112        271                                 (6)
Miami--Fort Lauderdale, FL C                                  Youngstown--Warren, OH                 Johnstown, PA      -3.6%
                                          3,876        272                                 (6)
                                                                                                     Wheeling, WV--
Seattle--Tacoma--Bremerton, WA                                Johnstown, PA                                             -3.8%
                                          3,555        273                                 (9)       OH
Phoenix--Mesa, AZ                                             Syracuse, NY                           Alexandria, LA     -4.0%
                                          3,252        274                                 (10)
                                                              Steubenville--Weirton, OH-
Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI                                                                        Elmira, NY         -4.3%
                                          2,969        275    -WV                        (11)
Cleveland--Akron, OH                                          Binghamton, NY                         Pittsfield, MA     -4.5%
                                          2,946        276                                 (12)
San Diego, CA                                                                                        Binghamton, NY -4.6%
                                          2,814        277    Hazleton, PA                 (14)
St. Louis, MO--IL                                             Utica--Rome, NY                        Utica--Rome, NY -5.3%
                                          2,604        278                                 (17)
                                                                                                     Grand Forks, ND-
Denver--Boulder--Greeley, CO                                  Buffalo--Niagara Falls, NY                              -5.5%
                                          2,582        279                                 (19)      -MN
Tampa--St. Petersburg--Clearwater,
                                                              Pittsburgh, PA                         Weirton, OH--    -7.4%
FL                                        2,396        280                                 (36)

17. For more information on the nature of the nation's foreign-born you can check out the Census 2000 Briefs where you will
find a number of publications including Coming to America: A Profile of the Nation's Foreign-Born
18. It is also possible to look at the decomposition of these flows by native-born and foreign-born and by race and ethnicity.
Nearly 1 million native-born and .2 million foreign-born left the Middle Atlantic states, while the South Atlantic gained 1.2
million native-born and .2 million foreign-born. Not surprisingly, the rates of migration for the foreign-born were substantially
higher than the natives, but what was somewhat of a surprise was the substantial net out migration from the Pacific region. In
New England, there was a net loss of population through migration, while in RI there was a net gain for both foreign and
native-born. (Migration of Natives and the Foreign Born: 1995 to 2000)

                                              Interstate Migration (1995-2000)
                                               Natives                                         Foreign born
                                      Number               Rate                     Number                        Rate
New England                               (88,134)                  -7.5                          5,849                       5.3
Middle Atlantic                          (987,413)                 -30.8                     (200,960)                      -39.7
E. N. Central                            (517,695)                   -13                        (4,884)                      -2.3
W. N. Central                             (46,779)                  -2.7                        28,169                       57.2
South Atlantic                           1,217,230                  29.1                       217,891                       59.8
E. S. Central                              218,189                  14.3                        15,005                       64.2
W. S. Central                              108,953                   4.3                        22,531                          9
Mountain                                   591,543                    41                       132,677                      111.4
Pacific                                  (495,894)                 -15.4                     (216,278)                      -24.9

And then there is the breakdown of migration by race and ethnicity that also reveals some interesting patterns, some of which
we'll look at here. (Migration by Race and Hispanic Origin: 1995-2000) In New England, 83,000 White Non-Hispanic Whites
and 15,000 Blacks moved out of the region, but they were more than offset by the 149,000 White Hispanics and 34,000 Blacks
moved into the region from abroad. During the period, the region also gained 69,000 Asians, 5,000 that moved in from other
states, and 110,000 Hispanics, 99,000 of which moved in from abroad. Taken together the region lost 82,000 people to other
regions, while gaining 346,000 immigrants from abroad. For those from the Middle Atlantic region, this was the only region to
lose overall population when you combined foreign and domestic migration - about 25,000 - and it shared the distinction with
the Pacific region as the only regions experiencing a net loss of its people moving to other states and losing people in all four
racial and ethnic categories. There is a wide-spread mass movement from the two regions, and the favorite destinations of
Americans relocating to other states was the South Atlantic region accounting for about 60 percent of the total movers, 54
percent of the White Non-Hispanics and 80 percent of Blacks. This latter movement is interesting since it marks a dramatic a
reversal of the earlier massive out migration of Blacks from the region. The biggest push came from the Middle Atlantic region
that was home to almost 50 percent of the relocators - 47 percent of the White Non-Hispanics and 58 percent of the Blacks. As
a group, Asians relocating within the US was negligible, while Asian immigrants accounted for about 25 percent of
immigration and they tended to choose the Pacific (31 percent) and the South Atlantic (20 percent). Relocating Hispanics left
the Pacific and Middle Atlantic regions and their favorite destinations were the South Atlantic (43 percent) and the Mountain
(34 percent) regions. The picture looks quite different if you look at the rate columns - in large part because of the small
population bases in some regions. For example, there were only 9,000 Asians relocating into the West South Central region and
46,000 Hispanics relocating into West North Central, but in both cases these represented a doubling of the population, and the
25,000 moving into the West South Central represented an increase of 149 percent.


To top