population

How Electricity and TV Diffused the "Population Bomb"

Michael Shellenberger and Ted Nordhaus — Wed, 15 May 2013 10:19:37 -0400

In the late sixties, India was the poster child of Third World poverty. In 1965, the monsoon rains failed to arrive, food production crashed, and much of the country was on the brink of starving. Asked for help, President Lyndon Johnson is reported to have told an aide, "I'm not going to piss away foreign aid in nations where they refuse to deal with their own population problems." Johnson came around, but by the end of the decade India was viewed in the West as, at best, a basket case and, at worst, a "population bomb" that threatened the entire planet.

Given this history, it's hard not to see the success India has had feeding its people and slowing population growth as the finale to a Bollywood movie — one most Americans stopped watching in 1970. "In a recent exercise," Stanford's Martin Lewis writes in a new article for The Breakthrough, "most of my students believed that India’s total fertility rate was twice that of the United States. Many of my colleagues believed the same. In actuality, it is only 2.5, barely above the estimated U.S. rate of 2.1 in 2011, and essentially the replacement level."

What did it? Lewis created a series of fascinating maps comparing Indian fertility rates to per capita wealth, female education level, electrification, access to TV, and other metrics to answer this question. His first map is one of the most striking. It shows the entire southern half of the country, plus the northern pan handle, as having fertility rates below replacement levels.

Wealth, electricity, education, and moving to the city are all loosely correlated with lower fertility, but the strongest correlation is watching television. "The map of television ownership in India," writes Lewis, "does bear a particularly close resemblance to the fertility map." He notes that two Indian states with a low level of female education, which is traditionally inversely correlated with low fertility, still had low fertility rates, a fact that may be explained by its high levels of TV penetration. Lewis bolsters his argument by pointing to a study from India that found declining fertility after cable TV was introduced into poor neighborhoods.

How does TV act as a contraceptive? Lewis notes it may be because "many of its offerings provide a model of middle class families successfully grappling with the transition from tradition to modernity, helped by the fact that they have few children to support." It may not be TV generally, but rather soap operas specifically that paint a vision for poor women of how much better life with fewer kids might be.

Maybe the reason the West has been so slow to appreciate this Indian success story, Lewis speculates, is because it contradicts everything we've come to believe about overpopulation. Back in the late sixties, some prominent Western ecologists called for the sterilization of Indian men and the halting of food aid, so as to not prolong the suffering. A book called The Population Bomb that proposed these things sold four million copies.

Hopefully now, anyone concerned about both human development and the environment will come to see electricity, rising wealth for the poor, and even TV not as anathema to human development but, at least in many parts of the world, essential to it.

Read the article at The Breakthrough: "Population Bomb? So Wrong, How Electricity, Development, and TV Reduce Fertility"

New Metropolitan Area Definition Winners: New York, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis

Wendell Cox — Thu, 21 Mar 2013 10:21:35 -0400

Metropolitan America continues to expand. The new Office of Management and Budget metropolitan area definitions, based upon the 2010 census indicate that the counties composing the 52 metropolitan areas with more than 1 million population increased by 1.65 million from the previous definition. This includes more than 1.4 million new residents in the previous 51 major metropolitan areas and more than 200,000 in Grand Rapids, which has become the nation's 52nd metropolitan area with more than 1 million population.

The fastest growers due to the addition of counties were New York, Charlotte, Grand Rapids, and Indianapolis. New York had a 670,000 increase in its metropolitan population, resulting from the addition of Dutchess and Orange counties. New counties also increased the population of the Charlotte metropolitan area by 459,000, the Grand Rapids metropolitan area by 215,000 and Indianapolis by 132,000. The largest percentage gains were in Grand Rapids (28%) and Charlotte (26%).

Ten metropolitan areas had population increases under 100,000 from expansion of the metropolitan area definitions.

For the most part, the major metropolitan area county components were unchanged, with 31 having the same boundaries as under the previous definition. Six metropolitan areas were reduced in geographic size.

The changes in population for 2000 based upon the new metropolitan area definitions are indicated in the table. The components of metropolitan areas are determined by commuting patterns to urban areas (not to the historical core municipalities).

Effect of New Metropolitan Area Geographic Definition on Population: 2010
Population Change Rank	Metropolitan Area	Old Definition	New Definition (2013)	Change	% Change
12	Atlanta, GA	5,268,860	5,286,728	17,868	0.3%
15	Austin, TX	1,716,289	1,716,289	0	0.0%
15	Baltimore, MD	2,710,489	2,710,489	0	0.0%
15	Birmingham, AL	1,128,047	1,128,047	0	0.0%
15	Boston, MA-NH	4,552,402	4,552,402	0	0.0%
15	Buffalo, NY	1,135,509	1,135,509	0	0.0%
2	Charlotte, NC-SC	1,758,038	2,217,012	458,974	26.1%
15	Chicago, IL-IN-WI	9,461,105	9,461,105	0	0.0%
46	Cincinnati, OH-KY-IN	2,130,151	2,114,580	(15,571)	-0.7%
15	Cleveland, OH	2,077,240	2,077,240	0	0.0%
7	Columbus, OH	1,836,536	1,901,974	65,438	3.6%
8	Dallas-Fort Worth, TX	6,371,773	6,426,214	54,441	0.9%
15	Denver, CO	2,543,482	2,543,482	0	0.0%
15	Detroit, MI	4,296,250	4,296,250	0	0.0%
3	Grand Rapids, MI	774,160	988,938	214,778	27.7%
15	Hartford, CT	1,212,381	1,212,381	0	0.0%
49	Houston, TX	5,946,800	5,920,416	(26,384)	-0.4%
4	Indianapolis. IN	1,756,241	1,887,877	131,636	7.5%
15	Jacksonville, FL	1,345,596	1,345,596	0	0.0%
48	Kansas City, MO-KS	2,035,334	2,009,342	(25,992)	-1.3%
15	Las Vegas, NV	1,951,269	1,951,269	0	0.0%
15	Los Angeles, CA	12,828,837	12,828,837	0	0.0%
51	Louisville, KY-IN	1,283,566	1,235,708	(47,858)	-3.7%
13	Memphis, TN-MS-AR	1,316,100	1,324,829	8,729	0.7%
15	Miami, FL	5,564,635	5,564,635	0	0.0%
15	Milwaukee,WI	1,555,908	1,555,908	0	0.0%
6	Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN-WI	3,279,833	3,348,859	69,026	2.1%
5	Nashville, TN	1,589,934	1,670,890	80,956	5.1%
11	New Orleans. LA	1,167,764	1,189,866	22,102	1.9%
1	New York, NY-NJ-PA	18,897,109	19,567,410	670,301	3.5%
15	Oklahoma City, OK	1,252,987	1,252,987	0	0.0%
15	Orlando, FL	2,134,411	2,134,411	0	0.0%
15	Philadelphia, PA-NJ-DE-MD	5,965,343	5,965,343	0	0.0%
15	Phoenix, AZ	4,192,887	4,192,887	0	0.0%
15	Pittsburgh, PA	2,356,285	2,356,285	0	0.0%
15	Portland, OR-WA	2,226,009	2,226,009	0	0.0%
15	Providence, RI-MA	1,600,852	1,600,852	0	0.0%
15	Raleigh, NC	1,130,490	1,130,490	0	0.0%
52	Richmond, VA	1,258,251	1,208,101	(50,150)	-4.0%
15	Riverside-San Bernardino, CA	4,224,851	4,224,851	0	0.0%
10	Rochester, NY	1,054,323	1,079,671	25,348	2.4%
15	Sacramento, CA	2,149,127	2,149,127	0	0.0%
47	St. Louis,, MO-IL	2,812,896	2,787,701	(25,195)	-0.9%
50	Salt Lake City, UT	1,124,197	1,087,873	(36,324)	-3.2%
15	San Antonio, TX	2,142,508	2,142,508	0	0.0%
15	San Diego, CA	3,095,313	3,095,313	0	0.0%
15	San Francisco-Oakland, CA	4,335,391	4,335,391	0	0.0%
15	San Jose, CA	1,836,911	1,836,911	0	0.0%
15	Seattle, WA	3,439,809	3,439,809	0	0.0%
15	Tampa-St. Petersburg, FL	2,783,243	2,783,243	0	0.0%
14	Virginia Beach-Norfolk, VA-NC	1,671,683	1,676,822	5,139	0.3%
9	Washington, DC-VA-MD-WV	5,582,170	5,636,232	54,062	1.0%

	Total	167,861,575	169,512,899	1,651,324	1.0%

Moving to North Dakota: The New Census Estimates

Wendell Cox — Wed, 26 Dec 2012 20:26:17 -0500

The new state (and DC) population estimates indicate a substantial slowdown in growth, from an annual rate of 0.93 percent during the 2000s to 0.75% between 2011 and 2012. This 20 percent slowdown in growth was driven by a reduction in the crude birth rate to the lowest point ever recorded in the United States (12.6 live births per 1000 population).

The big surprise was the population growth leader, North Dakota, which has experienced a strong boom in natural resource extraction. Between 1930 and 2010, North Dakota had lost population. However in the first two years of the new decade, North Dakota has experienced strong growth, and reached its population peak, according to the new estimates, in 2012. North Dakota's population growth rate between 2011 and 2012 was 2.17%. Nearby South Dakota also grew rapidly, ranking 10th in population growth. The other fastest-growing states were all in the South or the West. The District of Columbia, located in the strongly growing Washington, DC Metropolitan area ranked second in growth rate behind North Dakota (Figure 1).

Two states lost population, Vermont and Rhode Island, as the Northeast and Midwest represented all but one of the 10 slowest growing states. West Virginia, in the South, was also included among the slowest growing states (Figure 2).

The domestic migration trends continue to favor the South and West. Texas continues to attract the largest number of domestic migrants (141,000), followed by Florida (101,000). These two states have been the domestic migration leaders in the nation every year since 2000 (Figure 3). Four states gained from 25,000 to 35,000 domestic migrants (Arizona, North Carolina, Tennessee and South Carolina).

Generally, the same states continued to dominate domestic migration losses, with New York losing the most migrants, Illinois ranking second, followed by California, Ohio and Michigan. With the exception of California, all of the 10 states losing the largest number of domestic migrants were in the Northeast or the Midwest (Figure 4).

Overall, domestic migration continues to be dominated by the South, which attracted 354,000 residents from other states. The West added 52,000 domestic migrants, however virtually all of this gain occurred in the Intermountain West. Gains in Oregon and Washington were far more than offset by the large losses in California, as well as losses in Hawaii and Alaska. The Intermountain West gained more than 70,000 domestic migrants. The Northeast lost 221,000 domestic migrants, while the Midwest lost 185,000.

Census Bureau Finds 3.2 Million More People in Salt Lake City?

Wendell Cox — Thu, 27 Sep 2012 23:46:37 -0400

Today the US Bureau of the Census released a fascinating report on metropolitan area population growth by radius from the corresponding city halls. The report provides summary tables indicating the metropolitan areas that had the greatest and least growth, for example, near the downtown areas. I was surprised to find that Salt Lake City had done so well, having seen is population rise from 336,000 to 355,000 within a two mile radius of city hall (Table 3-7). That struck me as odd. A two mile radius encompasses an area of only 12.6 square miles, for a density of about 28,000 per square mile. Only the city San Francisco has densities that high over such a large area in the West. Moreover, all of the municipality of Salt Lake City is within two miles of city hall, and the 2010 census counted only 186,000 people in the entire city of more nearly 110 square miles.

In reviewing the backup file, Worksheets "Pop2000", Pop2010", "Density2000" and "Density 2010"), I discovered that Salt Lake City's data was actually that of San Francisco and that metropolitan Salt Lake City was credited with 3.2 more people than it had Another surprise was that the San Francisco metropolitan area was reported with 260,000 people, less than one-third the population reported for the core city of San Francisco in 2010. Santa Fe had a reported population 3.4 million people, about 1.4 million people more than live in the entire state of which it is the capital. Further, in at least 35 cases, the populations for metropolitan areas did not correspond to those reported in the 2010 census.

Obviously this is the kind of automated (computer) error that can happen to anyone or any agency. Nonetheless, an immediate correction would be appropriate.

With considerable effort, we were able to get through to the public information office at the Bureau of the Census to notify them of the error.

Until a corrected report is issued, any analysis of the report will need to be very cautious indeed. We look forward to the revision.

Tokyo: Population Swan Dive Predicted

Wendell Cox — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 14:58:27 -0400

In a recent Evolving Urban Form article, we speculated that Tokyo, the world's largest urban area (population more than 35 million) could be displaced by fast-growing Jakarta or Delhi as early as 2030. If the prediction of central jurisdiction administrators and academics come true, Tokyo could be passed by many other urban areas in population by 2100.

The Japan Times reports forecasts that the population of the Prefecture of Tokyo, the central jurisdiction of the metropolitan area, could decline by nearly 50 percent (chart) between 2010 and 2100 (Note). Yet, while the overall population is dropping in half, the elderly population would increase by more than 20 percent. The resulting far less favorable ratio of elderly to the working population would present unprecedented social and economic challenges.

The article provides no information on the population of the entire urban area in 2100. The Prefecture of Tokyo constitutes somewhat over one third of the present population of the urban area.

During the last census period (between 2005 2010) the four prefecture Tokyo metropolitan area (Tokyo, Kanagawa, Saitama and Chiba), gained approximately 1,100,000 new residents, while the balance of the country was losing 1,400,000 residents. Japan is forecast to suffer substantial population losses in the decades to come. The United Nations forecasts that its population will decline from approximately 125 million in 2010 to 90 million in 2100. This is the optimistic scenario. The National Institute of Population and Social Security Research forecasts a drop to under 50 million, a more than 60 percent population reduction.

There are serious concerns about the projected population decline. According to the Japan Times, the researchers said that " ... it will be crucial to take measures to turn around the falling birthrate and enhance social security measures for the elderly," A professor the National Graduate Institute for Policy Studies, expressed concern that "If the economies of developing countries continue growing, the international competitiveness of major companies in Tokyo will dive."

----

Note: the Prefecture of Tokyo government is called the Tokyo Metropolitan Government. This term can mislead, because the prefecture itself is not the metropolitan area, but only part of the four prefecture metropolitan area. The pre-– amalgamation predecessor of the current city of Toronto was called the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto. Like the Prefecture of Tokyo, the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto comprised only part of the Toronto metropolitan area. Confusion over these terms not only resulted in incorrect press reports, but even misled some academic researchers to treat these sub-metropolitan jurisdictions as metropolitan areas.

Observations on Exurban Trends

Wendell Cox — Mon, 14 May 2012 01:12:20 -0400

Getting the Migration Story Straight: Analysts continue to misunderstand the recent metropolitan area census estimates. Much of the misunderstanding arises from a misinterpretation of a chart produced by the Brookings Institution, which indicates that the rate of population growth has fallen in exurban counties and was, last year, less than the rate of growth in what Brookings calls emerging suburbs and "city/high density suburbs." However, the Brookings chart characterizes only total population growth, which is the combination of the natural growth rate, net international migration and net domestic migration. In other words, the Brookings Institution chart includes both people who move between areas of the United States and the net of those who move from outside the United States, are born or died.

Perhaps the most befuddled was the Arch Daily, which says that "people are leaving the suburbs and once again flocking to the cities..." In fact exurban and suburban areas continue to grow, though their growth rates have fallen. The highly touted decline in exurban growth rates is for one year only (2010-2011) and represents only the first year in the last 20 that the exurban has trailed that of the "city/high density suburbs." It is also the first year out of the last 20 that the "city/high density suburbs" did not trail both the suburbs and exurbs.

However, aggregate growth rates say nothing about moving to or from cities. Only one of the components of population change, domestic migration, can possibility indicate movement from the suburbs and exurbs to the cities. People who migrate from outside the nation, for example, are not moving from suburbs to the city (the suburbs of Paris don't count). People who are born or die are not migrating from the suburbs to the cities (where they might come from or are going has been the source of endless debate through history). The only people who can possibly be moving from suburbs and exurbs to the city are domestic migrants ---people who move within the United states.

Figure 1 indicates the components of population change in the core counties of the nation's 51 metropolitan areas with more than 1,000,000 population (there are no city level migration data).

There was a net gain in natural growth of 556,000 (births minus deaths)
There was a net gain in international migration of 295,000 (people who moved from outside the nation to the core counties.
There was a net loss in domestic migrants of 67,000. These US residents moved away from the core counties.

As we indicated in Still Moving to the Suburbs and Exurbs: The 2011 Census Estimates, there was net domestic migration to the suburbs and exurbs between 2010 and 2011. There was net domestic migration out of the central counties (there is no "city" migration data). This is illustrated in Figure 2, which has been annotated to make the actual moving of people clear.

If it should ever occur, it will be very clear when people are moving to the cores from the suburbs and exurbs. There will be PLUS domestic migration numbers to the core counties and MINUS domestic migration numbers from the suburbs and exurbs. Until that time any flocking (though that is too strong a word for current trends) will be away from the cores and to the suburbs and exurbs.

Of course, in the greatest economic downturn in more than 75 years, domestic migration has slowed considerably. It is not surprising, therefore that population growth rates in the exurbs and suburbs have fallen, since far fewer people are moving.

All Domestic Migration was to the Suburbs: Finally, all of the net domestic migration in the nation was to the suburbs and exurbs of the nation's major metropolitan areas (Also see Figure 2).

On the Health of Exurban Housing Markets

On a related subject, University of South Florida Professor Steven Polzin offered an interesting comment on the Planetizen site:

While I have not explicitly researched the distribution of home foreclosures as a function of the transportation costs of residents, I would caution analysts to more fully explore the nature of the housing foreclosure trend before jumping to the assumption that transportation costs were a significant contributor to geographically differential rates of foreclosure. Foreclosures were more prominent in homes purchased more recently relative to the housing crash. These new home purchasers were more often highly leveraged, had little equity in their home, and in many cases younger workers with less job seniority and more susceptible to layoffs. In addition, in fringe areas that had been growing there was a high concentration of homes all purchased recently. Thus, new growth areas were more susceptible to both foreclosures and the cascading effect of home depreciation spreading based on nearby foreclosed properties.

In a new suburb a young financially extended family may lose their job, have no equity in the house and quickly lose their house. Its depreciated value is soon reflected in adjacent appraisals cascading the stress throughout relatively fragile neighborhoods. On the other hand in established neighborhoods only a relatively small share of the homes changed hands near the peak of the building bubble. Thus, many of those homeowners had far more equity in their home and perhaps more job seniority and security enabling them to whether a housing downturn. In addition, the diversity of home ages and types and the less frequent occurrence of foreclosed properties will control the pace at which home value depreciation will cascade through the neighborhood.

If commuting cost was as big a contributor to suburban fringe foreclosure rates then one would have expected downtown condominiums to weather the housing bubble. In many locations like Florida large clusters of new downtown residential properties suffered the same rapid depreciation as did suburban fringe areas. The concentration of new units seemed to be more critical than the location.

Similar sentiments have been posted on these pages from time to time, such as here and here.

New US Urban Area Data Released

Wendell Cox — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:16:24 -0400

This morning the US Bureau of the Census released data for urban areas in the United States. The urban population of the US rose to 249.3 million in 2010, out of a total population of 308.7 million. Urbanization covered 106,000 square miles, representing 3.0 percent of the US land mass. Overall urban density was 2,342 per square mile (905 per square kilometer).

The Los Angeles urban area was again the nation's most dense, at 6,999 per square mile (2,702 per square kilometer), a slight reduction from the 7,068 figure (2,729 per square kilometer) in 2000. The most dense urban areas with more than 1,000,000 population were Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, New York and Las Vegas (in that order).

Overall, the 41 major urban areas had an average density of 3,245 per square mile (1,253 per square kilometer). The table below provides data for the major urban areas and overall data.

United States Urban Area Data: 2010 Census
Major Urban Areas & Summary

Rank	Urban Area	Population	Land Area (Square Miles)	Density	Density per Square KM
1	New York--Newark, NY--NJ--CT	18,351,295	3,450	5,319	2,054
2	Los Angeles--Long Beach--Anaheim, CA	12,150,996	1,736	6,999	2,702
3	Chicago, IL--IN	8,608,208	2,443	3,524	1,361
4	Miami, FL	5,502,379	1,239	4,442	1,715
5	Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD	5,441,567	1,981	2,746	1,060
6	Dallas--Fort Worth--Arlington, TX	5,121,892	1,779	2,879	1,112
7	Houston, TX	4,944,332	1,660	2,979	1,150
8	Washington, DC--VA--MD	4,586,770	1,322	3,470	1,340
9	Atlanta, GA	4,515,419	2,645	1,707	659
10	Boston, MA--NH--RI	4,181,019	1,873	2,232	862
11	Detroit, MI	3,734,090	1,337	2,793	1,078
12	Phoenix--Mesa, AZ	3,629,114	1,147	3,165	1,222
13	San Francisco--Oakland, CA	3,281,212	524	6,266	2,419
14	Seattle, WA	3,059,393	1,010	3,028	1,169
15	San Diego, CA	2,956,746	732	4,037	1,559
16	Minneapolis--St. Paul, MN--WI	2,650,890	1,022	2,594	1,002
17	Tampa--St. Petersburg, FL	2,441,770	957	2,552	985
18	Denver--Aurora, CO	2,374,203	668	3,554	1,372
19	Baltimore, MD	2,203,663	717	3,073	1,187
20	St. Louis, MO--IL	2,150,706	924	2,329	899
21	Riverside--San Bernardino, CA	1,932,666	545	3,546	1,369
22	Las Vegas--Henderson, NV	1,886,011	417	4,525	1,747
23	Portland, OR--WA	1,849,898	524	3,528	1,362
24	Cleveland, OH	1,780,673	772	2,307	891
25	San Antonio, TX	1,758,210	597	2,945	1,137
26	Pittsburgh, PA	1,733,853	905	1,916	740
27	Sacramento, CA	1,723,634	471	3,660	1,413
28	San Jose, CA	1,664,496	286	5,820	2,247
29	Cincinnati, OH--KY--IN	1,624,827	788	2,063	796
30	Kansas City, MO--KS	1,519,417	678	2,242	865
31	Orlando, FL	1,510,516	598	2,527	976
32	Indianapolis, IN	1,487,483	706	2,108	814
33	Virginia Beach, VA	1,439,666	515	2,793	1,078
34	Milwaukee, WI	1,376,476	546	2,523	974
35	Columbus, OH	1,368,035	510	2,680	1,035
36	Austin, TX	1,362,416	523	2,605	1,006
37	Charlotte, NC--SC	1,249,442	741	1,685	651
38	Providence, RI--MA	1,190,956	545	2,185	844
39	Jacksonville, FL	1,065,219	530	2,009	775
40	Memphis, TN--MS--AR	1,060,061	497	2,132	823
41	Salt Lake City--West Valley City, UT	1,021,243	278	3,675	1,419
	Total	133,490,862	41,139	3,245	1,253

	Other Urban Areas	115,762,409	65,247	1,774	685
	Total Urban	249,253,271	106,386	2,343	905
	Rural	59,492,267	3,431,052	17	7
	Total Population	308,745,538	3,537,439	87	34
	Share Urban	80.7%	3.0%

The Great Dakota Boom

Matthew Leiphon — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 17:55:45 -0500

The Census Bureau released their yearly population estimates today. As noted by Wendell Cox, the estimates showed signs of the South's continued leadership in population expansion. While the overall numbers of people involved are much smaller, the Dakotas, in particular North Dakota, also showed signs of growth worthy of note. According to the Census Bureau, North Dakota now has an estimated population of around 683,000, up over 11,000 in just one year. This made it the 6th fastest growing state in the nation over the past year- a notable achievement in its own right for a state more accustomed to dealing the challenge of outmigration.

However, the most interesting thing about the new estimate is that it represents a new record population for the state. There have never been more North Dakotans then there are today. The previous high count was about 680,000 way back in 1930. With the onset of the depression, the state entered a long period largely marked by periods of population decline and stagnation.

As a lifelong North Dakotan, I've occasionally found myself having difficulty coming to grips with our state's recent prosperity. North Dakotans can be a self effacing lot, and it sometimes seems that there’s a still a healthy dose of skepticism among my fellow citizens regarding our current good fortune. We’re not used to being on top like this, seeing our often ignored home highlighted in the press for its economic strength and tagged as "the state the recession forgot." For decades, we've been trying to find ways to deal with what seemed an inexorable cycle of rural decline and depopulation. While the new estimate is just a number, it does serve to break a bit of a psychological barrier for the state. We’re not just making up lost ground anymore- we’re now in uncharted territory and building beyond previous limits. It's a refreshing change.

Historians refer to the 1880s and period from 1900-1915 as the “Great Dakota Booms”. Growth was unchecked in what became North and South Dakota, and the population soared as immigrants poured into the region in search of economic opportunity. While oil has taken the lead role in place of land in this performance, it appears that our corner of the nation is in another "Great Dakota Boom" for many of the same reasons. Hopefully it will prove lasting. I, and my fellow North Dakotans will just have to learn to deal with prosperity. Call it “How North Dakota (and Matthew) Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Boom”.

All in all, it's a good time to be a Nodak.

Population Growth in Australia Has Normalized

Leith van Onselen — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 18:01:58 -0500

Yesterday’s Daily Telegraph contained an interesting article on the increasing number of Australians departing Australia permanently:

OVERALL migration from Australia has soared to a record high – with 88,000 leaving in the past year, almost half from NSW.

The stampede abroad is a 90 per cent increase 10 years ago, figures from the Department of Immigration show.

Half the emigrants are Australian-born who have chosen to start new lives in Britain (15,119), New Zealand, (14,596), the US (8046 and Singapore (6952)…

At the same time, the number of people emigrating to Australia has dropped, by 9 per cent to 127,458 in the past year, making the ratio of departures to arrivals a record high…

Upon reading this article, I decided to crunch the numbers to determine how Australia’s migration numbers are tracking. The below chart shows the permanent arrivals vs permanent departures numbers alluded to in the above article. The ratio of arrivals to departures is also shown:

As you can see, the number of net permanent arrivals into Australia – around 45,000 for the 12 months to September 2011 – is well below the long-run average (around 65,000). The ratio of arrivals to departures is also in long-term decline and currently sits at a 35-year low of 1.5 times.

However, the broader net overseas migration (NOM) statistics published by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, which measures in/out migration of anyone residing/leaving Australia for a period of 12 months or more (rather than permanently), paints a different picture.

According to these statistics, NOM is still above long-term trends, but has declined sharply from the peak level seen in the year to September 2008, from around 315,000 to 170,000:

With the decline in NOM, Australia’s population growth has also fallen significantly, from a peak of just under 470,000 in the year to September 2008 to just under 320,000. The share of population growth coming from immigration has also fallen over the same period from a peak of 67% to 54%.

Finally, in percentage terms, it appears that Australia’s population growth and immigration are returning to average levels after surging in the 3 years to 2008:

With the ABS scheduled to release the June quarter NOM data in mid-December, it will be interesting to see whether Australia’s NOM mirrors the permanent arrivals/departures figures and registers another fall.

This piece originally appeared at Macrobusiness.

Leith van Onselen writes daily as the Unconventional Economist at MacroBusiness Australia. He has held positions at the Australian Treasury, Victorian Treasury and currently works at a leading financial services company. Follow him @leithVO.

Shanghai: Torrid Population Growth

Wendell Cox — Sun, 17 Apr 2011 10:01:57 -0400

The population of the provincial level municipality of Shanghai exceeded 22 million at the end of 2010, according to the Shanghai Population and Family Planning Commission. The population of 22.21 million exceeds the 2000 population of 16.41 million by 35 percent. This growth of nearly 6 million is more people than live in all but three Western European urban areas (Paris, London and Essen-Dusseldorf).

Virtually all of the population gain was among migrant (non-permanent) residents who lack official Shanghai registration (Shanghai Hukou status). The migrant population rose from 5.9 million to 8.1 million, an increase of 153 percent (Estimates place the number of non-permanent urban residents of China as high as 200 million). There were 14.1 million permanent residents (with Shanghai Hukou status), a seven percent increase from the 2000 figure of 13.8 million (Figure).

Non-permanent residents, who must have lived in Shanghai for six months to be counted, now account for 36.4 percent of the provincial level municipality's population, nearly double the 19.4 share in 2000.

Results are expected soon from the China national census, which began in November of 2010. Ding Jinhong, director of East China Normal University's School of Social Development has suggested that the census may report a population as much as 23 million, with a non-permanent resident population of 9 million.

It is estimated that the Shanghai urban area, which is wholly contained within the provincial level municipality, will have a mid-year 2011 population of 18.7 million, with a land area of 1,125 square miles (2,900 square kilometers). The Shanghai urban area, the 10th largest in the world, has a population density of 16,500 per square mile or 6,400 per square kilometer.

This urban density is more than double that of Western European urban areas with more than 500,000, however it is less than one-fourth that of the Mumbai urban area. As in Mumbai, there has been substantial population dispersion from the core to suburban areas, with only 14 percent of growth in the urban core (generally inside the inner-ring expressway) between 1982 and 2000.

The population density of the provincial municipality, which is analogous to a metropolitan area and includes considerable rural land, is much lower, at 9,100 per square mile (3,500 per square kilometer).