James W. Hughes |
Joseph J. Seneca |
Americans on the Move
Population Slump Saps Our Political
and Economic Strength |
New Jersey's lagging population growth, evident since 1970, slowed even more during the past several years. This trend will affect our national representation and our ability to attract federal funding. |
In September
2006 the U.S. population is expected to top 300 million
for the first time. This is just 37 years after
it reached 200 million persons in 1969.
This year’s rate of growth will be one person every
14 seconds. However, based on its snail-like demographic
experience of 2005, New Jersey will be only a minor contributor
to this gain. Belying ever-growing highway congestion and
sustained housing and commercial development, the state’s
lagging population growth, evident since 1970, slowed even
more during the past several years. If this trend continues,
New Jersey could lose a congressional seat following the
2010 census, a full decade sooner than has been previously
projected. At a minimum, it will result in the loss of
population-based federal aid and national economic clout.
Let’s take a quick look in the demographic rear
view mirror in order to understand our current position.
The Long-Term
Perspective As shown in Figure 1, New Jersey accounted
for 3.2 percent of the nation’s population
in 1950. But tract-house suburbanization engulfed the state
over the next 20 years, as middle-class families with children
moved out of New York City and Philadelphia and into New
Jersey. As a result, the state’s population growth
accelerated markedly, with our share of the nation’s
population increasing to 3.4 percent by 1960 and to 3.5
percent by 1970. But then a demographic slowdown began,
as the nation’s population and job growth increasingly
shifted to the South and West. By 1990, our population
share fell to 3.1 percent, below that of 1950, and then
declined further to 2.9 percent in 2005.
In 1970, the Northeast Region contained 24.1 percent
of the nation’s population, while the Middle Atlantic
Division—consisting of New Jersey, New York and
Pennsylvania — accounted
for 18.3 percent. By 2005, the region’s share fell
to 18.4 percent while the division’s share fell
to 13.6 percent. The “winners” of this demographic
repositioning have been the South and West, while the
Midwest joined the Northeast as “losers.” In
1970, the Northeast and Midwest together still had a
slight majority
of the nation’s population (51.9 percent), while
the South and West had a slight minority (48 percent).
By 2005, the population share of the South and West (59.3
percent) had soared to an overwhelming majority, while
the Northeast and Midwest (40.7 percent) were reduced
to an “under-whelming” minority. Very simply,
New Jersey is riding in the caboose of the national
demographic train.
The Recent
Slowdown In addition, since 2002, New Jersey’s
annual population growth has steadily declined, from 71,225
persons in 2002 (0.84 percent), to 63,939 persons in 2003
(0.75 percent), to 45,138 persons in 2004 (0.52 percent),
and to 32,759 persons in 2005 (.38 percent). New Jersey’s
2005 annual population growth was less than half
that of 2002, and the 2005 growth rate ranked 39th
among the 50
states. As a result of our slow growth, Georgia replaced
New Jersey as the ninth most populous state in 2002
and, by the end of 2006; North Carolina should replace
New Jersey
as the tenth most populous state. So, New Jersey,
which ranked eighth in total population in 1970,
fell to ninth
by 1980, and to tenth by 2002. By the end of this
year, we will rank 11th.
The Components
of Change The reduction of New Jersey’s
growth to a virtual crawl was principally due to
the slowing of net international immigration flows into
the state,
and to a growing net internal outmigration from
it. Net internal migration consists of the difference
between the
number of people moving from New Jersey to the
balance of the nation and the number of people moving
into New
Jersey from the balance of the nation. In 2005,
the state had a net internal migration loss of 56,989
people, i.e.,
56,989 more people left New Jersey than entered
it. This is far higher annual outflow than earlier in
the decade.
At the same
time, New Jersey had a positive net inmigration from
abroad of 47,392 people in 2005,
which was far
lower than earlier in the decade. As a result,
the state had
an overall net migration loss of 9,597 people
(47,392-in, versus 56,989-out) in 2005, compared with
positive
overall net migration gains earlier in the decade.
In total,
New Jersey still had an overall population growth
(32,759 people)
in 2005 because the state’s net natural increase
(births minus deaths) of nearly 42,341 people more than
offset the net migration losses (-9,597 people). But, New
Jersey’s demographic bottom line still
is a tortise-like pace of growth.
The Consequences
If the 2005 experience sets the pattern for the balance
of the decade, New
Jersey
could be
in danger of losing one of its current 13 seats
in the House
of Representatives.
The state had 15 seats as recently as 1970,
but lost one seat in 1980 and another in 1990 as
New Jersey’s
population growth lagged the nation. The loss
of seats in New Jersey is symptomatic of what
has been happening
across the Northeast. New York, which currently
has 29 seats in the House of Representatives,
has lost 14 seats
since 1950 and is projected to lose another
two seats by 2010. Massachusetts, with 10 seats
currently, has lost
4 seats since 1950 and is likely to lose another
by 2010. Pennsylvania currently has 19 seats,
but has experienced
a loss of 11 seats since 1950.
Thus, the political
balance of power continues to shift in favor of the South
and West. In
1940, the
Northeast
and Midwestern states had 251 seats in the
House of Representatives (57.7 percent) compared
to
184 seats
for the South and
West (42.3 percent). By 1970s, differential
population growth rates across the regions
had resulted
in a near equal balance with the Northeast
and Midwestern
states
having 225 seats and the South and West with
210 seats. And now in 2006, 36 years later,
the current
distribution
of seats in the House of Representatives
is nearly exactly reversed from the 1940—the Northeast
and Midwest have 183 seats (42 percent) and the South
and West have
252 seats (58 percent).
With shifts
of this magnitude, and the likelihood of further erosion
based on current population
trends, the political
and economic muscle of the Northeast will
continue to atrophy. For New Jersey, a
state deeply
concerned with
sprawl, land
use, housing affordability, congestion
and environmental quality, the reduction in population
growth offers
some welcomed relief from what seems like
ever increasing pressures from these vexing
problems.
However, the
downside
of the
slowdown in population growth is the loss
in economic opportunity and all-important
federal
influence
that inevitably follows
from the reduction in representation in
Congress
for
New Jersey and for its sister states in
the Northeast Region.
James W. Hughes is Dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
Josep
NJLM - Population Growth
James W. Hughes |
Joseph J. Seneca |
Americans on the Move
Population Slump Saps Our Political
and Economic Strength |
New Jersey's lagging population growth, evident since 1970, slowed even more during the past several years. This trend will affect our national representation and our ability to attract federal funding. |
In September
2006 the U.S. population is expected to top 300 million
for the first time. This is just 37 years after
it reached 200 million persons in 1969.
This year’s rate of growth will be one person every
14 seconds. However, based on its snail-like demographic
experience of 2005, New Jersey will be only a minor contributor
to this gain. Belying ever-growing highway congestion and
sustained housing and commercial development, the state’s
lagging population growth, evident since 1970, slowed even
more during the past several years. If this trend continues,
New Jersey could lose a congressional seat following the
2010 census, a full decade sooner than has been previously
projected. At a minimum, it will result in the loss of
population-based federal aid and national economic clout.
Let’s take a quick look in the demographic rear
view mirror in order to understand our current position.
The Long-Term
Perspective As shown in Figure 1, New Jersey accounted
for 3.2 percent of the nation’s population
in 1950. But tract-house suburbanization engulfed the state
over the next 20 years, as middle-class families with children
moved out of New York City and Philadelphia and into New
Jersey. As a result, the state’s population growth
accelerated markedly, with our share of the nation’s
population increasing to 3.4 percent by 1960 and to 3.5
percent by 1970. But then a demographic slowdown began,
as the nation’s population and job growth increasingly
shifted to the South and West. By 1990, our population
share fell to 3.1 percent, below that of 1950, and then
declined further to 2.9 percent in 2005.
In 1970, the Northeast Region contained 24.1 percent
of the nation’s population, while the Middle Atlantic
Division—consisting of New Jersey, New York and
Pennsylvania — accounted
for 18.3 percent. By 2005, the region’s share fell
to 18.4 percent while the division’s share fell
to 13.6 percent. The “winners” of this demographic
repositioning have been the South and West, while the
Midwest joined the Northeast as “losers.” In
1970, the Northeast and Midwest together still had a
slight majority
of the nation’s population (51.9 percent), while
the South and West had a slight minority (48 percent).
By 2005, the population share of the South and West (59.3
percent) had soared to an overwhelming majority, while
the Northeast and Midwest (40.7 percent) were reduced
to an “under-whelming” minority. Very simply,
New Jersey is riding in the caboose of the national
demographic train.
The Recent
Slowdown In addition, since 2002, New Jersey’s
annual population growth has steadily declined, from 71,225
persons in 2002 (0.84 percent), to 63,939 persons in 2003
(0.75 percent), to 45,138 persons in 2004 (0.52 percent),
and to 32,759 persons in 2005 (.38 percent). New Jersey’s
2005 annual population growth was less than half
that of 2002, and the 2005 growth rate ranked 39th
among the 50
states. As a result of our slow growth, Georgia replaced
New Jersey as the ninth most populous state in 2002
and, by the end of 2006; North Carolina should replace
New Jersey
as the tenth most populous state. So, New Jersey,
which ranked eighth in total population in 1970,
fell to ninth
by 1980, and to tenth by 2002. By the end of this
year, we will rank 11th.
The Components
of Change The reduction of New Jersey’s
growth to a virtual crawl was principally due to
the slowing of net international immigration flows into
the state,
and to a growing net internal outmigration from
it. Net internal migration consists of the difference
between the
number of people moving from New Jersey to the
balance of the nation and the number of people moving
into New
Jersey from the balance of the nation. In 2005,
the state had a net internal migration loss of 56,989
people, i.e.,
56,989 more people left New Jersey than entered
it. This is far higher annual outflow than earlier in
the decade.
At the same
time, New Jersey had a positive net inmigration from
abroad of 47,392 people in 2005,
which was far
lower than earlier in the decade. As a result,
the state had
an overall net migration loss of 9,597 people
(47,392-in, versus 56,989-out) in 2005, compared with
positive
overall net migration gains earlier in the decade.
In total,
New Jersey still had an overall population growth
(32,759 people)
in 2005 because the state’s net natural increase
(births minus deaths) of nearly 42,341 people more than
offset the net migration losses (-9,597 people). But, New
Jersey’s demographic bottom line still
is a tortise-like pace of growth.
The Consequences
If the 2005 experience sets the pattern for the balance
of the decade, New
Jersey
could be
in danger of losing one of its current 13 seats
in the House
of Representatives.
The state had 15 seats as recently as 1970,
but lost one seat in 1980 and another in 1990 as
New Jersey’s
population growth lagged the nation. The loss
of seats in New Jersey is symptomatic of what
has been happening
across the Northeast. New York, which currently
has 29 seats in the House of Representatives,
has lost 14 seats
since 1950 and is projected to lose another
two seats by 2010. Massachusetts, with 10 seats
currently, has lost
4 seats since 1950 and is likely to lose another
by 2010. Pennsylvania currently has 19 seats,
but has experienced
a loss of 11 seats since 1950.
Thus, the political
balance of power continues to shift in favor of the South
and West. In
1940, the
Northeast
and Midwestern states had 251 seats in the
House of Representatives (57.7 percent) compared
to
184 seats
for the South and
West (42.3 percent). By 1970s, differential
population growth rates across the regions
had resulted
in a near equal balance with the Northeast
and Midwestern
states
having 225 seats and the South and West with
210 seats. And now in 2006, 36 years later,
the current
distribution
of seats in the House of Representatives
is nearly exactly reversed from the 1940—the Northeast
and Midwest have 183 seats (42 percent) and the South
and West have
252 seats (58 percent).
With shifts
of this magnitude, and the likelihood of further erosion
based on current population
trends, the political
and economic muscle of the Northeast will
continue to atrophy. For New Jersey, a
state deeply
concerned with
sprawl, land
use, housing affordability, congestion
and environmental quality, the reduction in population
growth offers
some welcomed relief from what seems like
ever increasing pressures from these vexing
problems.
However, the
downside
of the
slowdown in population growth is the loss
in economic opportunity and all-important
federal
influence
that inevitably follows
from the reduction in representation in
Congress
for
New Jersey and for its sister states in
the Northeast Region.
James W. Hughes is Dean of the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
Joseph J. Seneca is University Professor at the Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy at Rutgers University.
Article published in March 2006, New Jersey Municipalities |
|
|
|
