According to Johnson\u27s analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, the nation continues to experience reduced levels of domestic migration (movement from one state to another) as a result of the economic recession, and natural increases (births versus deaths) are an increasingly important factor in population gains

Johnson, Kenneth M.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

		 C a r s e y 	 I n s t I t u t eCarseyI n s t I t u t eFact Sheet No. 17Fall 2009With	Less	Migration,	natural	Increase	is	now	More	Important	to	state	GrowthK enn e t h 	 M . 	 J o h n s onData	released	by	the	u.s.	Census	Bureau	on	December	23,	2009,	documents	the	continuing	reduced	levels	of	domestic	migration	(movement	from	one	state	to	another)	in	the	united	states	as	a	result	of	the	economic	recession.	For	states	that	gained	the	most	from	domestic	migration	during	the	mid-decade	boom	years,	the	impact	of	the	migration	slowdown	has	been	substantial.	Florida,	long	a	major	recipient	of	migrants	from	other	states,	saw	its	domestic	migration	drop	from	a	gain	of	263,000	in	2005	to	a	loss	of	31,000	last	year	(Figure	1).	This	is	the	second	straight	year	for	domestic	out-migration	from	Florida,	and	the	loss	last	year	is	considerably	larger	than	the	loss	of	9,000	in	2008.	nevada	also	suffered	a	domestic	migration	loss	of	4,000	last	year	after	gaining	as	many	as	56,000	domestic	migrants	as	recently	as	2005.	arizona’s	inflow	dropped	from	124,000	to	only	15,000	last	year.	even	Georgia	and	north	Carolina,	which	appeared	to	be	weathering	the	domestic	migration	downturn,	now	show	sharply	reduced	levels	of	domestic	migration	gain.among	states	that	suffered	large	domestic	migration	losses	during	the	boom	years,	the	situation	is	quite	different.	With	huddleston	hall,	73	Main	street,	Durham,	nh		03824(603)	862-2821	•	www.carseyinstitute.unh.eduThis	work	is	supported	by	the	annie	e.	Casey	Foundation’s	initiative	to	strengthen	rural	families	and	the	W.	K.	Kellogg	Foundation.Building	Knowledge	for		Families	and	Communities		in	the	21st	Centurythe	exception	of	Michigan,	each	of	the	five	states	with	the	great	migration	losses	in	2005	either	lost	fewer	domestic	migrants	last	year	or	actually	gained	some.	In	new	york,	the	domestic	migration	loss	last	year	was	98,000	compared	to	a	loss	of	nearly	233,000	in	2005.	Massachusetts	enjoyed	a	modest	domestic	migration	gain	of	4,000	last	year	after	losing	more	than	60,000	domestic	migrants	as	recently	as	2005.	ohio	and	Illinois	also	experienced	less	migration	loss	than	they	had	in	2005.natural	Increases	now	More	ImportantWith	domestic	migration	at	record	postwar	lows	and	with	immigration	also	reduced,	population	growth	in	the	united	states	depends	increasingly	on	the	excess	of	births	over	deaths.	at	the	national	level,	natural	increase	(the	excess	of	births	over	deaths)	accounted	for	67	percent	of	the	total	population	gain	last	year.	But	there	are	distinct	regional-	and	state-level	differences	in	how	much	influence	natural	increase	has	on	population	growth.	In	the	Midwest,	natural	increase	accounted	for	all	the	population	gains	last	year—offsetting	migration	losses.	In	the	northeast,	natural	increase	accounted	for	most	(88	percent)	of	the	population	gain,	but	it	only	accounted	for	51	percent	of	the	growth	in	the	south	and	68	percent	of	the	growth	in	the	West.	The	heightened	influence	of	natural	increase	is	most	evident	in	the	states	that	enjoyed	the	largest	migration	gains	during	the	mid-decade	boom.	With	migration	gains	sharply	lower	in	these	states,	continuing	growth	now	depends	less	on	migration	and	more	on	natural	increase.	In	Florida,	population	gains	dropped	from	404,000	in	2005	to	114,000	last	year.	In	2005,	migration	fueled	virtually	the	entire	population	gain	in	Florida,	with	natural	increase	accounting	for	only	14	percent	of	state	population	increase.	Last	year,	Key	Findings• With migration at record lows, births and deaths fueled most population increase.• Population gains declined sharply in Florida, Nevada, and arizona due to reduced migration.• Population gains increased in Massachusetts and New York due to less outmigration.		 C a r s e y 	 I n s t I t u t ethe	excess	of	births	over	deaths	accounted	for	51	percent	of	the	population	gain	(see	Figure	2).	similar	trends	are	evident	in	other	fast-growing	states.	In	arizona,	natural	increase	accounted	for	25	percent	of	the	growth	during	the	boom	years	but	56	percent	last	year.	In	nevada,	only	19	percent	of	the	growth	during	2005	was	from	natural	increase,	but	last	year,	it	caused	a	full	75	percent	of	the	state’s	population	gain.	In	north	Carolina	and	Georgia,	where	migration	gains	diminished	less,	natural	increase	still	accounted	for	40	percent	and	58	percent	of	the	population	gain	last	year.In	states	that	suffered	significant	domestic	migrant	loss	during	the	boom—like	Massachusetts	and	new	york—the	story	is	quite	different.	here	natural	increase	combined	with	immigration	and	smaller	domestic	migration	losses	has	reduced	or	even	reversed	population	loss.	This	is	a	striking	contrast	to	the	situation	during	the	migration	boom,	when	natural	increase	together	with	immigration	had	to	offset	huge	domestic	migration	losses.	In	2005,	new	york’s	population	diminished	by	26,000	because	it	lost	233,000	migrants	in	exchanges	with	other	states.	even	with	99,000	more	births	than	deaths	and	109,000	immigrants,	new	york’s	domestic	migration	loss	was	too	great	to	offset.	In	contrast,	new	york	grew	by	74,000	last	year	because	the	domestic	migration	loss	diminished	to	95,000,	and	this	was	more	than	offset	by	a	natural	increase	of	95,000	and	75,000	immigrants.	In	Massachusetts,	the	change	was	even	more	dramatic.	In	2005,	the	state	had	a	natural	increase	of	24,000	and	an	immigration	gain	of	nearly	27,000,	but	the	state	lost	9,000	people	because	more	than	60,000	people	left	Massachusetts	for	other	states.	Last	year,	Massachusetts	actually	gained	nearly	4,000	domestic	migrants,	and	this	combined	with	a	natural	increase	of	22,000	and	an	immigration	gain	of	25,000	produced	a	population	gain	for	the	state	of	nearly	50,000.	Implications	of	Demographic	trendsChanging	demographic	trends	and	the	growing	importance	of	natural	increase	in	the	face	of	reduced	migration	has	important	implications	for	the	reallocation	of	seats	in	the	u.s.	Congress	next	year.	recent	media	speculation	regarding	whether	Minnesota	will	retain	its	eight	congressional	seats	underscores	this.	research	by	the	Brookings	Institution	suggests	that	had	the	demographic	trends	of	the	migration	boom	years	continued,	Minnesota	would	likely	lose	a	seat	in	Congress.	however,	with	migration	slowing,	the	question	of	whether	the	state	will	lose	the	seat	is	now	in	doubt.	If	Minnesota	does	hang	on	to	the	seat,	it	will	be	in	no	small	part	due	to	the	state’s	continued	natural	increase.	some	97	percent	of	Minnesota’s	population	growth	last	year	was	from	natural	increase.	utah	just	missed	getting	the	435th	seat	in	Congress	in	2000	by	a	few	hundred	people,	and	74	percent	of	the	state’s	growth	came	from	natural	increase	last	year—even	though	it	also	has	a	net	inflow	of	domestic	migrants.	utah’s	substantial	natural	increase	comes	because	it	has	the	highest	ratio	of	births	to	deaths	on	any	state.	There	are	nearly	four	births	for	every	death	in	utah.	The	national	average	is	only	1.7.	such	sustained	high	natural	increase,	together	with	migration,	virtually	guarantees	utah	will	get	another	seat	in	Congress	following	the	2010	election.aBout	the	authorKenneth	M.	Johnson	is	a	professor	of	sociology	and	a	senior	demographer	at	the	university	of	new	hampshire’s	Carsey	Institute	(ken.johnson@unh.edu).

With less migration, natural increase is now more important to state growth

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1083&amp;context=carsey

With less migration, natural increase is now more important to state growth

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository