ARTICLES
Race and Primary, Return, and Onward Interstate Migration*
K. Bruce Newbold
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
This paper uses the U.S. 1990 Public Use Micro Sample to characterize the 1985–1990 primary, return, and onward
interstate migration patterns for blacks and whites. The classiªcation of these three types of migration is based on
the state of birth and state of residence at the start and end of the census interval. Major migration streams, migration
rates, and net migration are evaluated for each migrant type and compared for blacks and whites. Overall, the
migration patterns of blacks resemble those of whites, with an attraction to the South and the Southwest and
movement out of the Northeast and the Midwest. Some differences were observed, however, between the two races.
Return migration rates were somewhat higher for black migrants as compared with whites, and onward migration
rates were lower. Black primary out-migrants represented a larger proportion of the total ºows from the southern
states as compared with white out-migrant ºows, and they represented a larger share of the out-migrants from the
rust belt states. The major migration streams also had different regional and national patterns by race and migrant
type. Key Words: black migration, return migration, onward migration.
Introduction
D
ifferences in the migration patterns of
blacks and others in the United States are
well documented (see, e.g., Long 1988), pointing to the selectivity of migration with respect
to sociocultural and socioeconomic effects.
Migration records reveal, for example, that
black migration to the northern U.S. states was
minimal until World War I. The generally low
black migration rates before this time were
most likely due to the combined effects of
foreign immigration, which reduced employment opportunities in the northern states for
blacks, and attempts by Southern landowners
to prevent the out-migration of blacks engaged
in agricultural production (Long 1988). Following World War I, both the Northeast and
Midwest were recipients of large ºows of
blacks from the South. After 1950, there was a
net in-migration of whites into the South, but
it was not until the 1970s that the South had
a net in-migration of blacks, with a large portion of the in-migrants actually returning to
their place of birth (Long 1988; Cromartie and
Stack 1989; Longino 1995). The history of
black interstate migration suggests that they
may display different migration patterns in
terms of both type and geographic patterns of
migration. This paper investigates this proposition in more recent times, speciªcally 1985–
1990.
The distinction among primary, return, and
onward migrants is based on three points in
time: the state of birth, the state of residence
in 1985, and the state of residence in 1990.
Individuals who have migrated out of their
state of birth prior to 1985 (and therefore have
migration experience) may migrate again between 1985 and 1990. Those who do can become either onward migrants (by migrating to
a state other than their state of birth) or return
migrants (by returning to their state of birth)
(see Table 1). Alternatively, individuals who
migrate out of their state of birth between
1985 and 1990 are primary migrants. Return
and onward migrants are also known as nonnatives, and primary migrants are known as
natives. Onward migrants typically include a
high proportion of those searching for better
opportunities, while return migration may be
motivated either by a disappointing initial migration (DaVanzo 1976; Yezer and Thurston
1976; Grant and Vanderkamp 1986) or as part
of a planned return migration.
*The author wishes to acknowledge the financial support of the University of Illinois Research Board, his research assistant Derek Peterson,
and the invaluable comments made by the reviewers and editor.
Professional Geographer, 49(1) 1997, pages 1–14 © Copyright 1997 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, April 1995; revised submissions, October 1995, April 1996, June 1996, July 1996; ªnal acceptance, July 1996.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road,
Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.
2
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
Table 1 Deªnitions of Natives, Nonnatives, Primary, Return, and Onward Migrants
Nativity Status
Native
Nonnative
Nonnative
Migrant Type
State of Birth
State in 1985
State in 1990
Primary
Return
Onward
A
A
A
A
B
B
B
A
C
But what role might race play in primary,
return, and onward migration decisions? Differences between the two groups in terms of
relative opportunities, the effects of discrimination, or their geographic distribution across
states may mean that certain types of migration
are more (or less) likely. Racial and ethnic
groups have been observed to participate in
cultural and ethnic networks that reduce the
non-pecuniary costs of migration, increasing
the likelihood of certain patterns of migration.
Indeed, among certain groups, social ties may
motivate (or impede) migration (Uhlenberg
1973; Trovato and Halli 1988, 1990; Moore et
al. 1990), with family ties and community
afªliation important considerations in the migration decision. Return migration, for example, may be more likely to occur from areas
where social networks are not in place, returning the migrant to an area with a similar cultural or racial makeup (Uhlenberg 1973).
Where other persons of the same ethnic group
are located, movement and transition into the
community are eased by aiding the social
and economic integration of the new arrivals
(Kobrin and Spear 1983).
The observed differences in migration patterns and rates between groups may also be
due to variations in sociodemographic and
socioeconomic factors, as opposed to independent effects based on race per se. Differences in migration between groups may be a
function of inequities with respect to opportunities, education, income, and other events or
characteristics that shape migration, rather
than differences in ethnic or racial social organization. Once discrepancies in these socioeconomic variables disappear, migration differences would be expected to disappear (Trovato
and Halli 1990). With the introduction of legislation aimed at removing the disadvantages
of blacks, the gulf between blacks and whites
has narrowed, but remains substantial ( Jaynes
and Williams 1989). For instance, median
overall household income in 1990 was $31,200,
yet for blacks, the median household income
was only $19,500. Similarly, blacks experience
a lower educational attainment, with only
11.3% completing four or more years of college, compared with 21.3% in the total population (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1993). Despite improvements in their overall economic
and social status from the 1930s onward, blacks
continue to be marginalized in U.S. society.
Consequently, differential migration patterns
and reasons for migration can be expected between the two groups.
Other variations in black interstate migration patterns may also be due to their geographical distribution, as the black population
tends to be regionally concentrated. Blacks
represent approximately 12% of the U.S.
population, but nearly 53% reside in the
South. In comparison, only 33% of the white
population reside in the South (U.S. Bureau of
the Census 1993). Blacks also represent relatively large proportions of the northeastern
and midwestern industrial states, which were
important destinations for black out-migrants
from the South after World War I. Approximately 16% of New York’s population is black,
while 15% and 14% of the total population in
Illinois and Michigan, respectively, is black.
Net black migration to the southern states
in the 1970s was in contrast to previous decades of large out-migration ºows (Cromartie
and Stack 1989). Longino (1995) reported that
a majority of older blacks making an interstate
migration moved to the southern states (particularly the deep South), with return migration ºows representing a large proportion of
the total ºows. For those in the labor force,
favorable employment conditions in the South
and Southwest in the past 20 years prompted
both ªrst-time migration and return migration
into these areas, echoing the large-scale redistribution of the general population to the
South and Southwest. Return migrants may
also be able to take advantage of existing social
networks, location-speciªc capital, and economic growth (DaVanzo 1981; Cromartie and
Stack 1989).
Race and Interstate Migration
The general lack of research contrasting
black versus white migration patterns, and
more speciªcally the lack of emphasis on potential differences in primary, return, and onward migration by race, motivates the current
paper. The apparent geographical concentration of blacks, their marginalized position relative to overall U.S. society, and the potential
differences in the migration ºows between
them and the general population raise questions about the generalization of migration
ªndings from the whole population to speciªc
population groups. The purpose of this paper
is therefore to identify the patterns and general
characteristics of primary, return, and onward
migration among blacks and to contrast these
patterns with white migration patterns. This is
accomplished by considering interstate migration rates and major interstate migration
streams in the United States between 1985 and
1990.
3
out-migrants by the corresponding at-risk
populations for each racial group and migrant
type (Long 1988), i.e., as a percentage of persons eligible to make each of the three types
of moves to and from each state. The at-risk
populations for computing each of the three
types of out-migration rates from state X are:1
• For primary out-migration, the number of
people born in state X and residing in state
X at the start of the census interval.
• For return and onward out-migration, the
number of people residing in state X at the
start of the census interval (1985) and born
in one of the remaining states. Note that the
at-risk populations for return and onward
out-migration are identical.
The at-risk populations for each of the three
types of in-migration rates are deªned as follows:
• The base for the primary in-migration rate
Data and Methods
Drawing on the 5% Public Use Micro Sample
(PUMS) of the 1990 U.S. census, the distinction among primary, return, and onward migration is based on information on the state of
birth, the state of residence in 1985, and the
state of residence in 1990. All foreign-born
individuals, those who resided outside of the
United States in 1985, the institutionalized
population, and those on active military duty
(and their immediate families) were excluded.
Individuals were classiªed as interstate migrants if their state of residence in 1985 differed from that in 1990.
While important, analysis of migration
streams or net migration does not identify the
relative importance of primary, return, and onward migration. Further insight can thus be
gained by interpreting these ºows with respect
to propensities to migrate (migration rates).
For example, knowing that some states have a
high proportion of returnees among their inmigrants does not reveal whether this is due to
a high rate of return movement (suggesting the
inability to adjust to the new destination), or
to a lack of other potential migrants who want
to move there. To measure the propensities for
leaving and entering a state, primary, return,
and onward out- and in-migration rates are
deªned by dividing the number of in- and
to state X is all individuals born in the
United States but outside of state X and
living in their state of birth in 1985. This
base is quite large, so rates appear small
when compared with the others.
• The base for the return in-migration rate to
state X is all people born in state X and
living outside of state X in 1985.
• The base for the onward in-migration rate
to state X is the number of people born in
the United States but outside of state X, but
not living in their state of birth in 1985.
Since the nonnative population may make
an onward migration to any state except
their state of birth, the rates appear to be
small since it is a large at-risk population.
Note that the in-migration rates of state X
are really the destination-speciªc outmigration rates of the rest of the system, with
the destination being state X. The rates of
in-migration represent the appropriate measures of the propensity to in-migrate, whereas
the conventional in-migration rate (number of
migrants divided by destination population
size) is not. The latter would be more appropriately termed the population growth rate due
to in-migration (DaVanzo 1976). The advantage of the rates used in this paper is that they
allow the researcher to reveal whether a large
return in-migration is due to the high propen-
4
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
sity of the previous out-migrants from the state
to return, or simply to the large stock of them
residing in the rest of the system (Long 1988).
In order to identify the major features of
black and white interstate migration, this paper
explores the similarities and/or differences between the two races and is organized as follows. The ªrst section looks at the national
interstate migration rates and proportions by
race for the three migrant types. The analysis
then shifts to the state level, with the aim of
determining the importance and contribution
of the three different types of migration to
each state. This part of the analysis focuses on
net migration effects, migration rates, and the
proportional size of migrant ºows. The ªnal
section identiªes the most important state-tostate migration streams by migrant type and
race.
Empirical Results
The National View
Table 2 displays the proportional size of the
migrant groups and the primary, return, and
onward migration rates. Overall, primary migrants accounted for nearly 40% of all white
ºows and 44% of the black interstate migration ºows. Even though nonnatives represent
a smaller proportion of the at-risk population,
they accounted for a majority of the total ºows
(60.2% of all white interstate migrations and
56.4% of all black migrations). Onward migrants represented the second largest group
(40.0% and 29.5% for whites and blacks, respectively), and return migrants the smallest
(20.2% and 26.6%, respectively). Turning to
the migration rates, whites were somewhat
more likely to make an interstate migration
than blacks, with overall out-migration rates of
9.6% and 6.7%, respectively (i.e., the 1985–
1990 interstate out-migration rate regardless
of migration history).
Four important conclusions are immediately
apparent from the migration rates in Table 2.
First, nonnatives (both return and onward migrants), with an out-migration rate of 12.8%
for blacks and 17.6% for whites, were approximately three times as likely to migrate as were
natives, regardless of race. Second, among
nonnatives, the probability of making an onward migration was greater than that associated with a return migration. This ªnding also
holds regardless of race. Third, blacks were
more likely to return “home” than were
whites, with a return out-migration rate of
6.1%, compared with 5.9% for whites. The
difference between these two rates was statistically signiªcant. Differences in the return migration propensities were most likely due to
differences in opportunities available to migrants and also to socioeconomic and sociocultural differences between the two groups. The
greater preference among blacks to return is
reinforced by contrasting the rate of return
migration to their nonnative migration (return
plus onward) propensities (Rogers 1990). The
resulting ratio for blacks (6.1/12.8 = 0.48) was
greater than that of whites (15.9/17.6 = 0.34),
even after controlling for their lower level of
mobility as a group. Finally, the in-migration
rates presented in Table 2 reveal that the attraction of returning to the state of birth was
strong for both black and white nonnatives,
while the attraction of an interstate migration
was weaker for those residing in their state of
birth.
The greater propensity for blacks to return
(as compared with whites) is a reversal of earlier census periods. In an analysis of return
Table 2 Migration Rates and Proportions by Race and Migrant Status: 1985–1990 a
Nonnative
Total
Native Primary
Return
Onward
Total Nonnative
Blacks
Percent distribution
Out-migration rate
In-migration rate
6.7
0.2
43.6
4.1
0.1
26.9
6.1
6.1
29.5
6.7
0.1
56.4
12.8
6.2
Whites
Percent distribution
Out-migration rate
In-migration rate
9.6
5.7
39.8
5.7
0.1
20.2
5.9
5.9
40.0
11.7
0.2
60.2
17.6
6.1
a
All values are percentages. See text for explanation of the calculations.
Race and Interstate Migration
migration between 1955–1960 and 1965–1970,
Lee (1974) noted that whites were as much as
two times as likely to return home as blacks.
For whites, a more diverse set of origin states
and fewer barriers to return migration, as well
as the continued net out-migration of blacks
from the southern states, likely accounted for
the greater rate of return. At the same time,
Lee found evidence suggesting that the differences between the two races in the propensity
to return decreased between the two census
periods.
A View From the States: Migration Rates
and Population Change
At ªrst glance, black and white interstate migration ºows were similar for 1985–1990: migrants of both groups were attracted to the
southern and western states and migrated from
the northern and midwestern states (see Tables
3 and 4). In particular, states such as California,
Georgia, North Carolina, and Florida were
highly attractive for primary, return, and onward migrants, as well as having relatively
strong abilities to retain their population, regardless of race. These states also had substantial net in-migration, so it is not surprising to
see high in-migration rates and a strong ability
to attract individuals with varying exposure to
previous migration experience.
Further analysis suggests that black and
white migration patterns are not as similar as
ªrst thought. For example, while both whites
and blacks were attracted to southern states,
Florida had the highest primary, return, and
onward white in-migration rates (0.86%,
10.15%, and 1.47%, respectively). Florida also
had a moderate ability to retain its native-born
population and a very strong ability to retain
its nonnative population. Among blacks,
Georgia had the highest primary in-migration
rate (0.46%) and onward in-migration rate
(0.70%), but its ability to attract its own
native-born population was moderate, with a
return in-migration rate of 5.6%. Similarly, no
one state had a clear advantage in its ability to
retain its black population.
Weak, but positive, correlations among the
three migrant types suggest that both races
reacted in somewhat similar ways to the attractions (or disattractions) of particular states.
With a correlation coefªcient of 0.64 between
the black and white primary in-migration
5
rates, and a coefªcient of 0.73 between black
and white onward in-migration rates, it would
appear that primary and onward migrants behaved somewhat similarly in terms of their
attraction to states, regardless of race. However, a correlation of only 0.38 between black
and white return in-migration rates suggests
substantial differences in their patterns. That
is, black and white return in-migrants differed
more in their destination choices. Black and
white return out-migrants were leaving a more
similar set of states (r = 0.63) than were primary (r = 0.45) or onward migrants (r = 0.46).
All correlations are statistically signiªcant, but
small, suggesting only a modest similarity in
terms of migration patterns.
Avenues of Population Change
The similarities and dissimilarities in white and
black migration streams can be more clearly
seen by looking at individual states. Most of
the states with net in-migration between 1985
and 1990 were concentrated in the South Atlantic, Paciªc, and Mountain divisions. Still,
the attraction of these states was more evident
with respect to white than black migration, as
several of the northeastern and midwestern
states, including Indiana, Ohio, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, posted positive net migration among blacks. Conversely, states that lost
population through migration were located
predominately in the northeastern, midwestern, and central states, but this was again more
apparent for whites than for blacks.
The set of states with high out-migration
rates suggests a rapid and ongoing emptying
out of the central states, including those states
in the oil-patch, rust belt, and farm belt regions of the country. Although these states
typically lost population, states such as Alaska
or the Dakotas with the highest out-migration
rates did not lose the greatest number of migrants, because of their small populations. Instead, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and
Louisiana had the largest net out-migration
ºows for both blacks and whites. Flows from
states with high levels of net out-migration
were composed largely of primary outmigrants, most likely reºecting the relative
economic decline of these states and large retirement outºows, while the relatively small
proportion of nonnatives residing in these areas meant that the proportion of the ºows that
6
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
Table 3 Black Primary, Return, and Onward Migration Rates and Net Migration by State:
1985–1990 a,b
Primary
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
a
b
c
Return
Onward
Inc
Outc
Net
In
Out
Net
In
Out
Net
0.09
—
0.05
0.03
0.34
0.05
0.04
0.06
0.03
0.29
0.46
—
—
0.12
0.07
0.02
0.04
0.03
0.07
—
0.35
0.06
0.12
0.06
0.06
0.07
—
0.02
0.04
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.08
0.22
—
0.13
0.04
—
0.10
—
0.11
—
0.11
0.31
—
—
0.21
0.05
0.01
0.08
—
3.60
21.3
7.4
5.6
3.7
9.2
4.8
16.4
4.1
3.0
2.2
—
11.3
5.9
5.4
9.7
8.1
4.7
4.4
5.6
2.4
6.4
3.8
6.1
4.4
4.3
—
9.8
4.5
—
5.6
17.2
6.6
2.6
18.9
3.3
5.1
4.7
4.0
8.3
13.0
—
3.4
2.1
14.8
22.4
3.0
8.6
10.5
4.9
—
−15405
−882
5765
−10454
26716
5248
2421
224686
2467
21657
50473
619
118
239105
−377
1368
2546
−3551
236829
334
47651
2489
−7110
8877
224456
−1524
99
645
7013
927
−1915
138
266895
9059
−75
−324
296
1836
−11521
710
−6665
15
793
22053
705
412
13939
5988
−2832
9884
−419
3.8
—
8.2
2.9
13.7
8.1
11.2
5.7
9.4
12.1
5.6
—
—
9.6
10.0
—
5.7
4.4
3.9
—
13.9
8.7
11.0
13.7
2.8
7.2
—
7.5
—
—
10.4
—
7.5
6.4
—
11.4
4.3
—
8.5
—
4.2
—
5.3
7.8
2.5
—
7.2
5.0
1.9
15.3
—
11.4
11.7
8.1
6.6
5.3
9.4
6.7
7.0
5.6
5.8
10.1
—
—
4.0
5.1
7.8
9.5
11.3
11.8
—
4.6
6.5
3.6
6.4
10.2
4.7
—
—
6.7
—
5.4
14.2
5.8
8.9
—
2.8
10.8
6.7
4.6
17.1
10.0
—
5.3
8.6
—
—
7.7
8.4
10.1
5.0
—
13561
-1389
−2408
6346
231434
24856
−3250
196
−264
4123
8775
−3349
−146
-1084
20
−324
-1744
−849
3039
−364
−4436
−1832
−3961
−1078
14005
2268
−426
−39
−1493
−498
26127
−1736
215822
17217
−299
7853
−2362
−607
2994
−1504
12446
−312
6284
27126
−511
−171
8409
−3300
−84
-1992
−359
0.1
—
0.1
0.1
0.7
0.1
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.4
0.7
—
—
0.3
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.1
0.1
—
0.6
0.1
0.2
0.1
0.1
0.1
—
0.0
0.1
—
0.2
0.0
0.3
0.3
—
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.2
—
0.1
—
0.2
0.4
0.0
—
0.4
0.1
—
0.1
—
10.0
25.2
11.7
9.1
4.9
12.1
7.3
12.0
5.2
5.0
7.3
32.7
17.1
5.1
5.7
12.5
10.4
12.8
12.4
33.2
5.4
8.9
3.7
7.6
8.0
6.4
—
10.6
8.0
21.8
6.2
15.1
5.8
7.2
36.2
4.5
13.0
10.5
5.1
11.4
10.9
21.8
5.7
9.1
19.8
20.1
9.8
11.9
14.1
6.1
—
−521
-1850
3571
−845
−2487
-1383
−782
28361
1726
10328
28314
−2411
−80
212841
359
608
-284
−62
28388
−111
16767
−175
−2981
2289
−1734
−1519
−207
−759
3723
198
26521
−594
222006
5752
−290
−2307
−2099
518
−371
−52
−1523
25
4368
−4317
388
94
9641
649
−1128
316
−645
Bold numbers identify top ten net gainers and losers of migrants.
— = not signiªcant.
In- and out-migration rates (%)
were return out-migrants had to be small. For
example, only 10% of the white out-migrants
from New York were returning to their state
of birth, while 66% were primary outmigrants. In comparison, primary migrants
represented a much smaller share of the total
out-migration streams from most of the southern and western states. Similar effects were
also observed for blacks: in states with large
net out-migration, the out-migration streams
were composed largely of primary migrants. In
several cases, including out-migration from Illinois, New York, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC, primary migrants represented over
50% of the total black outºow, far greater than
proportions observed among whites.
While primary out-migrants represented a
large share from states with chronic net outmigration regardless of race, it might be reasonable to expect that a large proportion of the
Race and Interstate Migration
7
Table 4 White Primary, Return, and Onward Migration Rates and Net Migration by State:
1985–1990 a
Primary
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
D.C.
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania
Rhode Island
South Carolina
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
a
b
Return
Onward
Inb
Outb
Net
In
Out
Net
In
Out
Net
0.07
0.02
0.23
0.07
0.38
0.14
0.08
0.02
0.03
0.86
0.19
0.03
0.04
0.16
0.13
0.05
0.07
0.07
0.05
0.04
0.11
0.10
0.11
0.09
0.05
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.10
0.08
0.18
0.05
0.12
0.19
0.01
0.15
0.07
0.10
0.20
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.14
0.30
0.05
0.03
0.18
0.16
0.03
0.09
0.02
3.9
19.1
8.4
4.8
6.0
9.4
6.6
31.8
7.2
6.0
3.8
9.5
10.9
6.6
5.3
7.4
6.6
4.4
6.6
4.0
5.7
6.6
4.7
4.7
4.5
4.9
10.6
6.9
8.6
7.2
7.9
7.7
7.2
2.9
9.8
5.1
7.0
7.2
4.6
5.7
3.7
8.5
4.1
4.3
7.4
5.5
4.9
5.0
7.8
4.6
15.4
6799
7959
205097
24057
−19030
53688
−12268
10561
20143
857009
124699
22051
−3371
2236307
−36036
−95296
−5667
−27859
−86583
17918
33600
−133413
2148558
−35909
5214
−6273
−19821
−29147
109193
64895
−73697
22287
2553076
128814
−28556
2176763
−28952
36718
2160994
228
71246
−13233
51721
−972
−20821
19009
100192
86618
−66419
−53495
−7200
7.0
3.4
7.8
5.2
9.6
5.7
5.4
0.5
5.8
10.2
7.9
2.2
5.2
4.7
7.1
4.4
4.4
4.9
5.9
7.1
6.1
5.6
7.1
6.5
6.1
6.1
3.9
3.5
7.6
7.0
4.2
4.9
4.2
8.8
2.2
6.5
4.1
9.7
5.1
5.2
7.8
3.1
7.1
8.3
9.0
5.5
5.9
9.6
3.6
6.2
3.7
6.5
12.1
5.8
6.5
3.9
6.7
5.9
11.1
5.3
4.7
6.7
15.1
6.5
6.7
5.2
7.0
7.0
7.5
10.5
5.6
4.5
6.4
4.9
4.9
7.6
5.5
6.7
6.9
7.0
5.9
5.4
7.0
6.5
7.1
13.4
4.7
8.4
4.7
5.8
7.0
7.4
8.2
6.2
7.6
8.2
5.6
6.4
4.2
7.7
5.7
9.8
18662
−34861
269611
9261
−24993
256715
−9393
−9903
−3135
2171464
−16034
−25312
−5650
39586
52835
25898
−1815
22759
−34933
11426
−12979
34280
84708
40246
4684
43670
−5918
4613
−29432
−9678
−29987
−17920
106785
5538
−8031
96149
−28500
4383
114881
3296
−13772
1254
19536
2123964
2268
−153
242733
14028
13651
31900
−19411
0.18
0.06
0.54
0.15
1.20
0.35
0.17
0.06
0.06
1.47
0.45
0.07
0.10
0.34
0.22
0.09
0.14
0.13
0.10
0.08
0.30
0.26
0.22
0.16
0.09
0.26
0.06
0.08
0.24
0.12
0.23
0.13
0.33
0.42
0.02
0.31
0.15
0.27
0.36
0.06
0.24
0.03
0.30
0.67
0.11
0.06
0.47
0.41
0.07
0.14
0.04
11.8
19.4
10.8
11.5
8.2
15.8
15.4
34.1
11.7
6.8
12.1
25.6
14.8
14.3
10.4
15.3
13.8
13.0
17.8
11.8
12.3
15.9
10.4
10.7
12.6
11.8
17.1
15.7
12.2
12.1
11.8
14.1
15.2
12.5
18.7
10.3
14.3
9.1
13.3
14.6
12.3
15.7
11.8
13.3
16.1
12.0
14.3
8.9
13.7
11.0
19.6
15132
−28937
105182
14042
−21548
−52431
−40596
−5509
7405
348716
76404
−8823
−8416
274770
−1047
−27271
−20531
−9264
268683
13410
−1719
−18356
−25421
−3206
−5366
8721
−19370
−12130
68254
6834
2102327
−646
288027
80707
−14834
−40996
−55759
44545
2339
2876
46673
−8541
40959
2150710
−5074
7042
7916
76214
−12371
−11848
−28924
Bold values indicate top ten net gainers and losers of migrants.
In- and out-migration rates (%)
in-migrants to such states would be composed
of nonnatives returning home. For example,
over 40% of the white in-migrants to New
York were return migrants, yet New York’s
return in-migration rate was a moderate 4.2%.
More generally, over one-third of the inmigrants to the rust belt states were return
migrants. Similar conclusions were reached
when black migration streams and rates were
examined. That is, return in-migration was an
important source of population growth for the
black community in economically depressed
states, even though their return in-migration
rates were modest. Therefore, return migration can represent an important source of
population growth for those states with
chronic net out-migration.
Differences in the size and composition of
migration ºows were also observed by race.
First, in addition to representing a large (i.e.,
greater than 50%) proportion of out-migrant
ºows from the rust belt states, black out-
8
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
migration from the southern states with proportionally large black populations, such as
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, and
Alabama, was dominated by primary outmigrants. In fact, nearly 72% of all black outmigrants from Mississippi were primary migrants, and over 60% of the blacks leaving
Mississippi and Alabama were primary outmigrants, even though their primary outmigration rates were moderate to low. These
states also experienced a net out-migration of
blacks, which would appear to be a continuation of the historical patterns of black outmigration from these southern states.
Second, among the same southern states,
return in-migrants represented 50% (or
greater) of the total black in-migration stream,
and return in-migration rates were moderately
high. Consequently, these southern states held
little attraction for either primary or onward
black migrants. Such large return ºows into
the southern states by blacks were likely a
product of the long history of black outmigration from the South, with blacks returning home after retirement or with improving
economic conditions. In fact, the southern
states displayed the most geographically “focused” pattern of black return net migration,
which most likely represents a component of
the ongoing in-migration of blacks seen in the
previous decade (Robinson 1986). Local ties,
past experience, and a lower cost of living
could also be important attractors. Because of
the large primary out-migration ºows from the
southern states and the corresponding large
return in-migration ºows, migration among
the black population into and out of these
states would seem inefªcient.
Major Streams
Figures 1A-C show the ten largest interstate
migration streams from 1985 to 1990 by migrant type and race. Only the largest migration
streams are presented in the following discussion, illustrating how a large volume of migrants between areas is sometimes derived
from a high rate of exodus at the origin or
represents the product of large populations
within neighboring states. Most striking is the
almost complete north-to-south movement of
both black and white migrants, although the
white streams are much more focused on one
speciªc state (Florida) than are black migration
streams. The two largest white streams (Fig.
1A) originate in New York, with one terminating in Florida (227,063) and the other in New
Jersey (101,213). Both of these migration
streams have been observed since the late
1950s (Long 1988). The large New York-toNew Jersey stream almost surely represents
the continuing growth of suburban communities around New York City. Other major
streams terminating in Florida, including those
originating in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan,
and Illinois, represent the wide-scale attraction
of Florida to residents of the Northeast and
Midwest. Florida’s economic growth most
likely exerted a strong attraction for those still
in the labor force, in addition to its role as an
important destination for retirees (Longino
1994).
However, the attraction of Florida was not
universal. Although Florida was an important
destination, it was clearly not the prime attractor for black interstate migrants, with only one
major stream originating in New York and
terminating in Florida. While some of the
largest streams were directed toward the
southern states, the largest stream of black primary migrants was from Washington, DC, to
Maryland (27,870) and most likely represents
the continuing suburbanization of the capital
region. Their destinations within the South
also differed from their white counterparts.
The second largest stream, between Louisiana
and Texas (15,266), has been observed since
the 1965–1970 census period (Long 1988).
Other major streams originating in New York
terminated in New Jersey (likely including a
large number of suburban migrants), Georgia,
and North Carolina.
Also apparent in Figure 1A is the lack of
large, primary migration ºows entering or
leaving California, regardless of race. Although it did not rank in the top ten, California was still a major contributor and receiver
of primary migrants. Destinations such as Nevada, Oregon, or Washington each received
more than 40,000 primary white migrants and
a much smaller number (fewer than 3,000) of
black migrants from California. Nevertheless,
these ºows were not nearly as large as the
predominant ºows noted above. In absolute
numbers, Oregon and Washington received
their largest inºux of black and white migrants
from California. The presence of the relatively
Race and Interstate Migration
WHITE
Flow Size by Migrants
= Largest Flow
> 65,000
< 65,000
BLACK
Flow Size by Migrants
= Largest Flow
> 10,000
< 10,000
Figure 1A: The ten largest primary migration streams by race: 1985–1990.
Washington
DC
9
10
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
WHITE
Flow Size by Migrants
= Largest Flow
> 25,000
< 25,000
BLACK
Flow Size by Migrants
= Largest Flow
> 5,000
< 5,000
Figure 1B: The ten largest return migration streams by race: 1985–1990.
Washington
DC
Race and Interstate Migration
WHITE
Flow Size by Migrants
= Largest Flow
> 50,000
< 50,000
BLACK
Flow Size by Migrants
= Largest Flow
> 4,000
< 4,000
Figure 1C: The ten largest onward migration streams by race: 1985–1990.
Washington
DC
11
12
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
large white out-migration ºows from California to its neighboring states echoes Frey’s
(1995) suggestion of white ºight from the state
of California, with portions of these ºows attributable to changes in the racial and ethnic
composition of California through increased
foreign immigration and greater competition
for employment, particularly in the lesserskilled and poorly paying occupations. Further,
it suggests that the movement out of California
is not just a white phenomenon.
Return and onward migrants did not follow
these same paths. For whites, the major return
migration streams tended to originate in the
southern or southwestern states and move
North, apparently reversing primary ºows (see
Figure 1B). The origin of black return migration streams was more diverse, but the streams
were predominantly oriented toward the
South. The largest stream of white return migrants was made up of persons leaving New
Jersey and returning to Pennsylvania (35,225).
The second largest stream was New Jersey to
New York (30,698), the reverse of what was
observed for primary white migration; but this
most likely represents an ongoing population
exchange within the greater New York City
area. Alternatively, these streams could reºect
the reported state of birth, as opposed to the
place of residence. Two other large streams of
return migrants originated in Florida, terminating in New York and Ohio. These ºows
could be characterized as counterºows to primary white migration from the Northeast to
Florida, and are suggestive of old-elderly return migration to the state of birth motivated
by the need for assistance after an initial amenity migration (Longino and Serow 1992;
Longino 1994). Large white return ºows were
also observed between California and its
neighboring states, Texas and California, and
California and Texas.
While white return migration was oriented
toward the northern states, black migration
was southward bound. Black migration history
leads to the expectation that the South will be
an important destination, particularly for elderly black migrants reversing an earlier southto-north migration in search of employment
(Longino 1995). Although there is some evidence of a general north-to-south movement,
these ºows were not necessarily the most
dominant ones. The most important return
migration stream originated in New York and
terminated in North Carolina (7,881). New
York was also the origin for the ªfth largest
return migration stream, this one ending in
South Carolina (5,910). The second largest
stream of black return migrants was from
Maryland to DC (7,631). The reason (beyond
proximate location) for this ºow is not immediately apparent.
The major onward migration streams
among blacks and whites tended to be even
more dispersed, representing a seemingly
wider array of origins and destinations (Figure
1C). California was an important origin or
destination for white nonnative migrants in
general, with these ºows originating or concluding west of the Mississippi. Further reinforcing Frey’s (1995) observations, California
sent large numbers of both return and onward
migrants to its neighboring states. For example, the largest white onward migration stream
originated in California, sending migrants to
Arizona (62,056). The ªfth largest ºow also
saw onward migrants departing California and
migrating to Washington (50,139). In addition,
Oregon and Nevada were the recipients of
large streams of white onward migrants from
California. Texas was also a large contributor
of onward migrants, sending the second and
third largest streams to California and Florida,
respectively. The fourth most important
stream was New Jersey to Florida. A second,
smaller set of onward migration ºows focused
on Florida, with Florida receiving white onward migrants from Texas, New York, and
New Jersey.
California was much less important as an
origin or destination of black onward migration, although there was an important exchange of migrants between it and Texas. Instead, the four most important streams represent an exchange between Washington, DC,
and its neighbors. Of the ªve largest streams,
the largest was DC to Maryland (13,742), but
Maryland to Virginia (4,941), Virginia to
Maryland (4,938), and Maryland to DC (4,847)
were also sizeable ºows. An interesting feature
of this exchange was the nearly equal exchange
of migrants between Maryland and Virginia.
The ªfth most important stream of black onward migrants was New York to Florida. Im-
Race and Interstate Migration
portant streams also moved from Texas to
Georgia, Florida to Georgia, and New York to
Georgia.
Conclusions
The black population has historically displayed
migration and distribution patterns different
from the rest of the population. Such differences were related, in part, to the lower levels
of education and income of blacks that limited
their access to employment opportunities, but
more importantly these differences were due
to discrimination in the housing and labor
markets. Advances in civil rights and the
changing structure of the space-economy
should lead to increasing opportunities for
blacks throughout the South and the United
States in general (Cromartie and Stack 1989),
with a corresponding change in migration patterns to more closely echo those of the overall
population.
With a narrowing of the disparities between
blacks and whites, the migration patterns of
the two races are likely to be more similar now
than in the past, with (albeit limited) evidence
to suggest that this is true (Lee 1974). The
disaggregation of internal migration ºows by
place of birth has shown some similarity between blacks and whites. For instance, nonnatives were more migratory than natives regardless of race, nonnatives were more likely to
make an onward migration than a return migration, and both blacks and whites were
drawn toward the southern and western states
and pulled away from the Midwest and Northeast. In this respect, it would appear that the
conclusions reached in previous studies regarding primary, return, and onward migration
are relatively generalizable, at least in so far as
migration propensities and the composition of
migration ºows into and out of regions.
Differences in the spatial structure, rates,
and patterns between the two groups, however,
were also observed. For instance, blacks were
more likely to select the return migration option, especially for those born in the South.
They were also less likely to make an onward
migration and less likely to make a primary
migration than were whites. More generally,
although a general movement out of the
Northeast and Midwest and into the South and
13
Southwest was observed, this was more apparent for whites than for blacks. Often, the actual
origin and destination states differed or the
composition of the ºows was weighted in favor
of different migrant groups. Thus, while black
and white migration patterns would appear to
be more similar now than in the past, differences persist in terms of both types of migration and geographic patterns of migration.
These differences are most likely a product
of social and cultural discrimination in
employment and educational opportunities or
the existing geographical distribution of the
groups. ■
Note
1
As noted by one reviewer, the in-migration rates
are size-dependent due to the deªnitions of the atrisk populations. Thus, the at-risk population for a
primary migration into California is approximately
the same as that for in-migration to Delaware.
Literature Cited
Cromartie, J., and C. B. Stack. 1989. Reinterpretation of black return and nonreturn migration to
the South 1975–1980. Geographical Review 79:297–
310.
DaVanzo, J. S. 1976. Differences between return and
nonreturn migration: An econometric analysis. International Migration Review 10(1):13–27.
———. 1981. Repeat migration, information costs
and location speciªc capital. Population and Environment 4(1):45–73.
Frey, W. H. 1995. Immigration and internal migration “ºight”: A California case study. Population
and Environment 16(4):353–75.
Grant, E. K., and J. Vanderkamp. 1986. Repeat migration and disappointment. Canadian Journal of
Regional Science 9:299–322.
Jaynes, G. D., and R. M. Williams. 1989. A Common
Destiny: Blacks and American Society. Washington
DC: National Academy Press.
Kobrin, F. E., and A. Speare. 1983. Outmigration
and ethnic communities. International Migration
Review 17(3):425–44.
Lee, A. S. 1974. Return migration in the United
States. Demography 11(1):283–300.
Long, L. 1988. Migration and Residential Mobility in
the United States. New York: Russell Sage.
Longino, C. F. 1994. From sunbelt to sunspot.
American Demographics 18:22–31.
———. 1995. Retirement Migration in America.
Houston: Vacation Publications.
14
Volume 49, Number 1, February 1997
Longino, C. F., and W. J. Serow. 1992. Regional
differences in the characteristics of elderly return
migrants. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences
47(1):S38–43.
Moore, E. G., B. K. Ray, and M. W. Rosenberg.
1990. The Redistribution of Immigrants in Canada.
Paper presented at the John Deutsch Policy
Roundtable on Immigration, Queen’s University,
Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
Robinson, I. 1986. Back to the South. American
Demographics 8:40–43.
Rogers, A. 1990. Return migration to region of birth
among retirement-age persons in the United
States. Journal of Gerontology: Social Sciences
45(3):S128–34.
Trovato, F., and S. S. Halli. 1988. Ethnicity and
immigration in Canada. International Migration
Review 17(2):245–67.
———. 1990. Ethnicity and geographic mobility. In
Ethnic Demography, ed. S. S. Halli, F. Trovato, and
L. Driedger, 75–89. Ottawa: Carleton University
Press.
Uhlenberg, P. H. 1973. Noneconomic determinants
of nonmigration: Sociological considerations for
migration theory. Rural Sociology 38(3):296–311.
United States Bureau of the Census. 1993. Statistical
Abstract of the U.S., 1987–1992. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Ofªce.
Yezer, A., and L. Thurston. 1976. Migration patterns and income change: Implications for the
human capital approach to migration. Southern
Economic Journal 42:693–702.
K. BRUCE NEWBOLD (Ph.D, McMaster University) is Assistant Professor of Geography at the University of Illinois, 607 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL
61801. His research interests include migration and
the geography of health.
Constraints of Housing Age and Migration on
Residential Mobility*
Dowell Myers
S. Simon Choi
University of Southern California
Southern California Association of Governments
Seong Woo Lee
University of Southern California
This paper investigates the role of housing age in constraining residential mobility, measured as the percent of
households that have moved into their homes in the past 15 months. The leading explanation for why mobility
rates differ so much among regions of the United States has been the overall level of growth. The present analysis
shows that the growth effect operates through both the newness of population (migration) and the newness of
housing available for occupancy by all local residents. The posited explanation for this housing age effect is that
progressively older units contain increasingly settled occupants, yielding fewer opportunities for in-movers in areas
with older housing. It is empirically demonstrated that households in older housing have lower likelihood of recent
mobility even after controlling for age, tenure, migration status, and state location of residence. The analysis reveals
the temporal interdependency of mobility, migration, person age, and housing age. Key Words: residential
mobility, housing age, migration, temporal process, growth.
R
esidential mobility is an important spatial
behavior that has attracted the attention of
researchers from an unusually broad number
of disciplines (Clark 1982). Its importance
stems both from the pivotal role mobility plays
in meeting individual households’ needs for
housing and also from the aggregate consequences of moves for urban areas. In contrast
to migration, which is motivated by economic
opportunity and involves movement between
states or regions, residential mobility entails
*Research underlying this paper was supported by a grant from the National Science Foundation (SES-9308889). The authors thank the editor and anonymous reviewers for their helpful criticisms.
Professional Geographer, 49(1) 1997, pages 14–28 © Copyright 1997 by Association of American Geographers.
Initial submission, September 1995; revised submissions, July 1996, August 1996; ªnal acceptance, August 1996.
Published by Blackwell Publishers, 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, and 108 Cowley Road,
Oxford, OX4 1JF, UK.