Changing spatial interconnectivity during the “Great American Migration Slowdown”: A decomposition of intercounty migration rates, 1990–2010

Abstract

Prior research on the “Great American Migration Slowdown,” or the declining rate of U.S. internal migration in recent decades, is dominated by two research foci. The first is concerned with the determinants of the migration slowdown. The second is concerned with spatial heterogeneity in the migration slowdown in and across places. With respect to the aim of this paper, many studies of spatial heterogeneity in the migration slowdown have implicitly raised questions about whether and to what extent places are connected to one another by migration flows, or the spatial interconnectivity of migration. The spatial interconnectivity of migration is a concrete manifestation of underlying spatial interdependence among places and, as such, deserves to be explicitly unpacked to further our understanding of the migration slowdown. Using county‐to‐county migration flow data from the Internal Revenue Service and a novel application of Das Gupta's demographic standardisation and decomposition procedures, we document changes in the spatial interconnectivity of migration during the migration slowdown between 1990 and 2010. We show that counties became more connected to one another by migration over time and that the increasing spatial interconnectivity of migration helped to keep the migration slowdown from slowing further. We also document changes in the spatial interconnectivity of migration for four types of migration flows: metro‐to‐metro, nonmetro‐to‐metro, metro‐to‐nonmetro, and nonmetro‐to‐nonmetro. Our work further elucidates the characteristics of the migration slowdown by describing changes in the spatial interconnectivity of migration. It also raises new questions for future research about the determinants and consequences of these changes.

Does Assimilation Shape the Economic Value of Immigrant Diversity?

“…But this does not imply that second-generation migrants do not contribute directly to productivity, only that they are not observably different from the rest of the Norwegian labor force in this respect. This is in fact indicative of successful integration, which is an important national policy goal in its own right (Brochmann and Hagelund 2012) and one that could be fruitfully taken up at the regional policy scale as well (Connor 2020;Gilmartin and Dagg 2020;Vogiazides and Mondani 2020). Immigration has complex effects on both natives and the immigrants themselves, even in narrow economic terms; it involves costs and benefits, with spillovers being only one part of a much more multidimensional picture.…”

“…We capture diversity using standard measures of birthplace fractionalization, but we subsequently also compare this to fractionalization measures that exclude more assimilated immigrants. Assimilation is a multidimensional process, interacting with language, culture, identity, social, and economic factors (Alba and Nee 1997;Brown and Bean 2006;Abramitzky, Boustan, and Eriksson 2014;Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Pietrantuono 2017;Jimenez 2017), as well as spatial factors, as noted in a growing area of geographic research (Goodwin-White 2008, 2016Iskander, Riordan, and Lowe 2013;Connor 2020;Gilmartin and Dagg 2020;Vogiazides and Mondani 2020). Nonetheless, several likely contributors to assimilation processes are observable in public registers.…”

Migration as a Vector of Economic Losses from Disaster-Affected Areas in the United States

“…To answer our second research question and determine whether and to what extent economic losses via migration from disaster-affected areas primarily reflect underlying economic or demographic changes, we employ demographic standardization and decomposition techniques (Das Gupta 1993; see also DeWaard et al 2020a;Sana 2008). Specifically, we decompose change over time in 𝑇𝑇 𝑝𝑝 into one economic component and two demographic components.…”

Rooted America: Immobility and Segregation of the Inter-county Migration Networks

“…Similarly, Fawcett (1989:673) argued that the migration systems framework "brings into focus the interconnectedness of the system, in which one part is sensitive to changes in other parts." While prior literature on migration systems mostly remained theoretical, recent years has witnessed the rise of empirical research that formalize and test migration systems theory, thanks to the emergence of migration-flow data and advancements in social network analysis (Abel 2018;Desmarais and Cranmer 2012;DeWaard et al 2012DeWaard et al , 2020Leal 2021;Windzio 2018;Windzio et al 2019). Yet, many of these papers focus on international migration, despite the fact that migration systems was theorized on both internal and international migration settings (Mabogunje 1970;de Haas 2010).…”