The population of the Chicago metropolitan area grew by 869,000 (11.6%) between 1990 and 2000, the largest decade of growth in 30 years. The gain of 112,000 in the City of Chicago was the first in more than 50 years. Overall, gains were greatest in the outer suburbs and smallest in the city. Much of this growth was fueled by immigration and natural increase, with Hispanics contributing disproportionately to both

Johnson, Kenneth M.

English

UNH Scholars' Repository

University of New HampshireUniversity of New Hampshire Scholars' RepositorySociology Scholarship Sociology4-2002The changing face of Chicago: Demographictrends in the 1990sKenneth M. JohnsonLoyola University Chicago, ken.johnson@unh.eduFollow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/soc_facpubPart of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, and the Social Statistics CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted forinclusion in Sociology Scholarship by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, pleasecontact nicole.hentz@unh.edu.Recommended CitationJohnson, Kenneth M., "The changing face of Chicago: Demographic trends in the 1990s" (2002). Chicago Fed Letter. 76.https://scholars.unh.edu/soc_facpub/76Chicago Fed LetterThe changing face of Chicago: Demographic trends in the 1990sby Kenneth M. Johnson, demographer and professor of sociology, Loyola University–Chicago1The population of the Chicago metropolitan area grew by 869,000 (11.6%) between1990 and 2000, the largest decade of growth in 30 years. The gain of 112,000 in theCity of Chicago was the first in more than 50 years. Overall, gains were greatest in theouter suburbs and smallest in the city. Much of this growth was fueled by immigrationand natural increase, with Hispanics contributing disproportionately to both.ESSAYS ON ISSUES THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANK APRIL 2002OF CHICAGO NUMBER 176According to recent U.S. census data,the Chicago metropolitan area experi-enced widespread population gains be-tween 1990 and 2000. These populationgains are evident in the City of Chicago,as well as in suburban Cook Countyand the outer ring of the metropolitanarea. The overall popula-tion gain in the metro areawas 11.6%, making this thelargest decade of growth in30 years. The acceleratedrate of population increasein Chicago mirrors that inthe East North Centralcensus region (Illinois,Indiana, Ohio, Michigan,and Wisconsin) and in theU.S. Between 1990 and2000, the East North Cen-tral region grew 7.5% andthe U.S. grew 13.2%. Bothof these gains are the larg-est since the 1970s. Relativeto other cities, Chicago’spopulation gain in the1990s ranked sixth overallamong the ten largest metropolitanareas in the country.This Chicago Fed Letter summarizes recentdemographic trends in the Illinois por-tion of Chicago’s consolidated metropol-itan statistical area,2 based on data fromthe U.S. Census Bureau, the NationalCenter for Health Statistics, and theIllinois Department of Public Health.3These data reveal the complex interac-tion of demographic forces that togetherproduced the area’s population gain.Overview of population changeThe population of the Chicago metro-politan region grew by 869,000 (11.6%)between 1990 and 2000. The regionhad a total population of 8,376,601 inApril 2000, making it the third largestmetro region in the country. Gainswere greatest in the outer suburbs andsmallest in the city. The population in-crease of 112,000 in the City of Chicagowas the first in more than 50 years(figure 1). Suburban Cook Countygained 159,000 people during the pe-riod and the outer suburbs gained ap-proximately 598,000. Roughly 34.6%of the area’s population reside in theCity of Chicago, 29.6% live in subur-ban Cook County, and the remaining35.8% reside in the outer suburbs.Chicago’s share of regional popula-tion has declined over the past severaldecades, while suburban Cook County’sand later the outer suburbs’ shareshave increased.Hispanics fueled most of the growthin the City of Chicago, whereas thewhite and black populations declined.The Hispanic population of the city1. Population percent change, 1950–2000ChicagoCitypercent changeSOURCE: Data from U.S. Census Bureau.-200204060801950-19601960-19701970-19801980-19901990-2000ChicagoCitySuburbanCookRemainingCMSA (IL)ChicagoCMSA (IL)increased by 220,000 between 1990 and2000. This gain offset a substantial netloss of non-Hispanic whites (134,000)and a minimal loss of blacks (3,000).The “other” category (which is prima-rily Asians) also grew during the period(figure 2). The population of suburbanCook County also grew in the 1990s.Population gains there resulted fromthe growth of the Hispanic, black, andother groups. These gains offset the lossof 184,000 whites. Population growthwas greatest in suburban areas beyondCook County, because net migrationand natural increase gains were substan-tial. All four racial/ethnic groups gainedpopulation in the outer suburbs, withthe largest gain experienced by the whitepopulation (285,000). Hispanics expe-rienced substantial growth (204,000)as well, whereas gains to the black andother categories were more modest.The distribution of racial/ethnic groupswithin the three areas shifted duringthe decade as a result of these trends.Blacks (37%) were the largest groupin Chicago in 2000, followed by whites(32%) and Hispanics (26%). The oth-er group (largely Asian) and the new“two or more races” category represent-ed much more modest proportions ofthe city population. Suburban CookCounty remains nearly 68% white, de-spite a 10% decline in the 1990s. Theouter suburbs are approximately 78%white. Now, I consider the dynamicsunderlying this broad picture of popu-lation change in Chicago.Importance of migrationand natural increaseNatural increase (the ex-cess of births over deaths)is a significant source ofpopulation increase innearly every large metro-politan area. However, netmigration (the differencebetween the number of in-dividuals moving into andout of an area) has a farmore differential effect. Wecan break down overall mi-gration change into twoseparate components. Thefirst is domestic migration,which involves movementfrom one part of the U.S.to another. The second type of migra-tion is net immigration, which is thedifference between the number ofpeople coming into an area from out-side the U.S. and the number of peoplefrom the area leaving the U.S. Bothtypes of migration played an importantrole in the Chicago metropolitan re-gion between 1990 and 2000.Recent research4 suggests that somelarge metropolitan areas (e.g., NewYork, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)have experienced net domestic out-mi-gration, but have received a significantnet influx of immigrants. A secondgroup of metropolitan areas (e.g.,Atlanta, Denver, and Phoenix) havereceived a significant gain from domes-tic migration, but relatively few immi-grants. Chicago’s migrationexperience is consistentwith that of the first group.The Chicago metro areaexperienced an overall netmigration gain of 164,000(2.2%) between 1990 and2000. This gain resultedfrom a net influx of approx-imately 408,000 immigrantsthat was sufficient to offsetthe net loss of 244,000 do-mestic migrants. The at-tractiveness of the Chicagometro area to immigrantsdifferentiates it from therest of the East NorthCentral region. AlthoughChicago contains only 18.6% of the re-gion’s population, it received 63.1% ofall immigrants to the region between1990 and 2000.The City of Chicago experienced a netmigration loss of 176,000 in the 1990s.This loss occurred because the net out-flow of domestic migrants from the citywas only partially offset by a net gainfrom immigration (figure 3). Althoughstill substantial, the city’s migration lossbetween 1990 and 2000 is considerablysmaller than the losses during the threeprior decades. Suburban Cook Countygained approximately 18,000 net mi-grants during the decade, because netimmigration gains were sufficient to off-set a net loss of domestic migrants. Theremainder of the Chicago region ex-perienced a net migration gain of322,000, fueled by both domestic mi-grants and immigrants.Natural increase also contributed tothe growth of the population in eachof the three sub-regions of the metroarea. There were a total of 1,350,000births and 645,000 deaths in the regionbetween 1990 and 2000, producing apopulation gain attributable to naturalincrease of 705,000. The excess of birthsover deaths was 288,000 (10.3% of thetotal population) in the city, 142,000(6.1%) in suburban Cook County, and276,000 (11.5%) in the outer suburbs.These natural increases offset the mi-gration loss from the city, supplementedthe modest migration gain in suburban2. Change in racial/ethnic distribution, 1990–2000ChicagoCitychange in census countSOURCE: Data from U.S. Census Bureau.-300,000-200,000-100,0000100,000200,000300,000WhiteBlackHispanicOtherSuburbanCookRemainingCMSA (IL)ChicagoCity3. Components of population change, 1990–2000ChicagoCitypopulation changeNOTE: Chicago immigrants estimated at 50% of Illinois total.SOURCE: Data from Illinois Department of Public Health and U.S. Census Bureau.-600,000-400,000-200,0000200,000400,000600,000800,000Population changeNatural increaseDomestic migrationImmigrationChicagoCitySuburbanCookRemainingCMSA (IL)Cook County, and added to the substan-tial migration gain in the outer suburbs.An examination of net migration andnatural increase by racial/ethnic groupreveals the complex dynamics of demo-graphic change in the metropolitanregion. In the City of Chicago, the non-Hispanic white population experiencedboth net out-migration (–120,000) andnatural decrease (–13,000) between1990 and 2000 (figure 4). Natural de-crease occurred in the white populationbecause deaths exceeded births. Therewas also significant black net out-migra-tion (–132,000) from the city duringthe 1990s, though it was largely offsetby natural increase (129,000). In con-trast, Hispanics experienced both sub-stantial natural increase (156,000) andsignificant net migration gains (65,000).However, it is important to note thatmore than two-thirds of Hispanic growthin the city was a function of natural in-crease. This refutes a commonly heldnotion that Hispanic population growthin the city is mostly due to immigration.The primarily Asian population of theother category also enjoyed both naturalincrease and net migration in the 1990s.The white population recorded a netoutflow of 208,000 from suburban CookCounty between 1990 and 2000. Modestnatural increase only partially offsetthis loss. Most of the black populationgain in suburban Cook County result-ed from migration, though there wasalso significant natural increase. The twocombined to produce a 50% increasein the number of black residents insuburban Cook County. Hispanics alsoenjoyed significant natural increase andsubstantial in-migration in suburbanCook County, as did the other category.Part of the reason for the large percent-age gains in the black and Hispanicpopulations in the suburbs is that bothgroups were growing from a relativelysmall base in 1990. However, even ifmeasured in absolute rather than per-centage terms, the growth of the blackand Hispanic populations in the sub-urbs has been substantial. By 2000, blacksrepresented 13.8% of the populationof suburban Cook County and 5.6% inthe outer suburbs. Hispanics were 13%of the suburban Cook County popula-tion and 11.8% in the outer suburbs.In the outer suburbs, significant natu-ral increase combined with substantialnet migration gains to produce a largepopulation gain for each of the fourgroups. The outer suburbs are the onlypart of the metropolitan area that hada net inflow of whites. Population gainswere greatest among Hispanics, whogrew 136% between 1990 and 2000. Mostof this growth was from net migration.Migration gains were also substantialfor the largely Asian other category.Understanding a natural decreaseAlthough it does occur occasionally,natural decrease has been uncommonin metropolitan areas. Yet, deaths ex-ceeded births in the Cityof Chicago’s white popula-tion segment in every yearfrom 1990 to 1999. Thistrend likely developed inthe 1980s and is known tohave occurred in someparts of the city during the1970s. Most natural de-crease in the U.S. resultsfrom age structure shiftsthat leave an area with rel-atively few adults of child-bearing age and many olderadults with high mortalityrisk. The situation is rathermore complex in the Cityof Chicago. Whites do rep-resent a disproportionateshare of the city’s older population, butthey also constitute a significant shareof the population of childbearing age.Thus, while it is understandable thatdeaths in the white group represent49% of the city total, it is less clear whywhites produce only 21% of city births.Nor is white natural decrease restrictedto the city. In 1999, deaths among thewhite population in suburban CookCounty exceeded births—probably forthe first time in history. In 1998–99, 19other Cook County cities experiencedoverall natural decrease.Social and political implicationsof demographic changeTwo interesting findings illustrate theimplications of demographic changefor the area. The relatively small num-ber of births among whites in the cityhas significant implications for effortsby the school system to foster diversity.Indeed, the problem is exacerbated bythe age-specific migration patterns ofyoung white adults in the region. Few-er than 53% of the white babies bornin the city remain as five to nine yearolds. The only plausible explanationfor a decline of this magnitude is thatfamilies with young children leave thecity in significant numbers during theirchildren’s preschool years. Althoughthe out-migration of families with chil-dren from the city is a well-knownphenomenon, the magnitude of theMichael H. Moskow, President; William C. Hunter,Senior Vice President and Director of Research;  DouglasEvanoff, Vice President, financial studies; CharlesEvans, Vice President, macroeconomic policy research;Daniel Sullivan, Vice President, microeconomic policyresearch;  William Testa, Vice President, regionalprograms and Economics Editor; Helen O’D. Koshy,Editor; Kathryn Moran, Associate Editor.Chicago Fed Letter is published monthly by theResearch Department of the Federal ReserveBank of Chicago. The views expressed are theauthors’ and are not necessarily those of theFederal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the FederalReserve System. Articles may be reprinted if thesource is credited and the Research Departmentis provided with copies of the reprints.Chicago Fed Letter is available without charge fromthe Public Information Center, Federal ReserveBank of Chicago, P.O. Box 834, Chicago, Illinois60690-0834, tel. 312-322-5111 or fax 312-322-5515.Chicago Fed Letter and other Bank publicationsare available on the World Wide Web at http://www.chicagofed.org.ISSN 0895-01644. Natural increase and net migration, 1990–2000ChicagoCitypopulation changeSOURCE: Data from Illinois Department of Public Health; U.S. Census Bureau;and National Center for Health Statistics.-300,000-200,000-100,0000100,000200,000300,000Natural increaseNet migrationChicagoCitySuburbanCookRemainingCMSA (IL)White BlackHispanicWhiteBlackHispanicWhiteHispanicOtherOtherOther BlackPRESORTEDFIRST CLASS MAILUS POSTAGE PAIDCHICAGO, ILPERMIT 1942Public Information CenterP.O. Box 834Chicago, Illinois  60690-0834(312) 322-5111Return service requestedFEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF CHICAGOChicago Fed Letter1 This article is drawn from a lecture giv-en by the author at the Federal ReserveBank of Chicago on October 24, 2001.2 For purposes of this study, the Chicagoregion is defined as the Illinois portionof the Chicago, Kenosha, and Gary con-solidated metropolitan statistical area.This includes Cook, DeKalb, DuPage,Grundy, Kane, Kankakee, Kendall, Lake,McHenry, and Will Counties. It excludesKenosha County in Wisconsin and Lakeand Porter Counties in Indiana. TimWeddle of Loyola University–Chicagoproduced the graphics and contributedto the data analysis. Mark Flotow of theIllinois Department of Public Healthprovided timely and detailed birth anddeath data for Cook County. SteveMurdock of Texas A&M University pro-vided additional data.3 Data were obtained from the 1950 to 2000Censuses and the 1990 Modified Age-Race-Sex file (MARS) prepared by theU.S. Census Bureau. Additional datacome from the 1990–99 Federal StateCooperative Population Estimates Series(FSCPE). Detailed race-based birth anddeath data were obtained from theNational Center for Health Statisticsand the Illinois Department of PublicHealth. It was necessary to make a num-ber of estimates to adjust datasets to beconsistent for period covered and datatype. Although these estimates are sub-ject to minor revision, the overall find-ings will not change significantly. A de-tailed summary of the methods used isavailable from the author.4 W. H. Frey and R. C. DeVol, 2000,“America’s demography of the new cen-tury,” Milken Institute, Santa Monica,CA, policy brief, No. 9.loss among non-Hispanic whites is sur-prising. The data also show a smaller,but still significant loss of black children(74% remaining). In contrast, childrenof Hispanics (94% remaining) andthe largely Asian other group (91%remaining) are much more likely tobegin school in the city.The demographic changes occurringin the region also have political impli-cations. For example, the fact that theolder population in Chicago is dispro-portionately white means that althoughthey represent only 32% of the popu-lation, whites constitute 45% of regis-tered voters. Blacks are also slightlyover-represented among registeredvoters (37% of population and 39% ofregistered voters). In contrast, bothHispanics (26% of population and 13%of registered voters) and the largelyAsian other category (6% of populationand 3% of registered voters) constitutemuch larger proportions of populationthan of those registered to vote. Theunder-representation of Hispanics andAsians (other) underscores the linkagebetween demography and voting asboth of these groups have lower citizen-ship rates; the Hispanic populationalso is considerably younger than anyof the other groups.In conclusion, the significant popula-tion gains in each sub-area of theChicago metropolitan region between1990 and 2000 represent a sharp con-trast to the minimal gains in the sub-urbs and the population decline in thecity during the 1980s. These recentpopulation gains resulted from a com-plex interplay of fertility, mortality, do-mestic migration, and immigration.Most of the region’s growth was fueledby immigration and natural increase,with Hispanics contributing dispropor-tionately to both. The Chicago areacontinued to experience significantnet domestic out-migration, especiallyfrom the city and suburban Cook Coun-ty. Most of this net migration loss oc-curred among non-Hispanic whites.Predicting Chicago’s demographic fu-ture is perilous, as the roller coaster ofdemographic change over the past sev-eral decades clearly testifies. Migrationis the most volatile element in the de-mographic equation, affected as it isby a myriad of economic, social, andpolitical forces that are, in turn, influ-enced by a variety of local, national,and international factors.

The changing face of Chicago: Demographic trends in the 1990s

https://scholars.unh.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1075&amp;context=soc_facpub

The changing face of Chicago: Demographic trends in the 1990s

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

UNH Scholars' Repository