![Sample our Politics & International Relations journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5947/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Politics-International-Relations.jpg"})
Abstract
Over the last thirty years, nonmetropolitan regions across the United States have experienced volatile population shifts ranging from rapid growth to persistent decline. Several authors have suggested that the age structure of the population may contribute to these population trends. In the 1970s, the older baby boomers were entering labor and housing markets, while the younger boomers were enrolling in nonmetropolitan colleges and universities. By the 1980s, this large cohort was aging into a different stage in the life course. This article examines metropolitan and nonmetropolitan population shifts during the 1970s and 1980s within an age-cohort framework. Using Public Use Microsample data from 1980 and 1990, the analysis explores relationships between housing market, labor market, place characteristics, and the migration flows of different age cohorts. The analysis focuses on cohort-specific in-migration to two regions: New England and the Four Corners states of Utah, Colorado, Arizona, and New Mexico. The results are consistent with a life-course understanding of migration behavior, especially during the late 1970s, with older cohort shifts directed towards nonmetropolitan destinations and younger cohort shifts more influenced by labor and housing-market variables. The results further demonstrate a large potential for future nonmetropolitan population growth, yet these growth experiences are likely to be regionally differentiated. These results have important policy implications for nonmetropolitan regions.
∗The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Mellon Foundation and the comments of Dr. John Cromartie of the Economic Research Service and those of two anonymous reviewers. This work is supported by a Mellon Foundation Grant for undergraduate education in environmental studies and social sciences. This “status report” presents the results of a pilot project exploring age-cohort perspectives on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan migration streams. The results are preliminary, and the authors are grateful for the insightful comments of the anonymous reviewers. Their comments have been highly influential in the continued development of this project.
Notes
∗The authors would like to acknowledge the support of the Mellon Foundation and the comments of Dr. John Cromartie of the Economic Research Service and those of two anonymous reviewers. This work is supported by a Mellon Foundation Grant for undergraduate education in environmental studies and social sciences. This “status report” presents the results of a pilot project exploring age-cohort perspectives on metropolitan and nonmetropolitan migration streams. The results are preliminary, and the authors are grateful for the insightful comments of the anonymous reviewers. Their comments have been highly influential in the continued development of this project.
1Migration is traditionally defined as movement across county boundaries, but since PUMAs and county groups may contain multiple counties, we adopted a more conservative definition relying on crossing a PUMA or county group boundary.
2For the regional dummy variable, the Four Corners Region received a value of 1 and New England a value of 0. For the metropolitan dummy variable, metropolitan PUMAs/County groups received a value of 1 and nonmetropolitan PUMAs/county groups received a value of 0.
3Currently, there are debates in Congress about whether or not funds will be appropriated to continue the ACS.