Encyclopedia of Sociology Vol

conflicts with family due to objections to their marital choice (Sung 1990).

Fourth, Crohn discusses how attraction across religious, ethnic, or racial barriers may be grounded in cultural values and traditions, such as collectivism or individualism, that the individual is attracted to.

According to social exchange theory, relationships are exchanges of valued resources and involve an analysis of costs and benefits. Pierre Van den Berghe (1960) theorizes that racial or ethnic intermarriage is an instance of such an exchange, in this case that of hypergamy. Hypergamous means that women marry up in status; while hypogamous means that the racial and ethnic status of the husband is lower than that of his wife. In the past, most black men who married white women were of a higher social status than their wives. In fact, this marrying down was so common that sociologists formulated a theory about it, hypothesizing that the black groom was trading his class advantage for the racial caste advantage of the white bride (Davis 1941; Merton 1941). Kalmijn’s (1993) study of marriage license data from 33 states between 1968 and 1996 indicates that black/white intermarriages have been on the rise, most prominently between black males and white women. Kalmijn notes that these marriages involved white women and high-status black men, meaning that white women moved up in socioeconomic status.

Other factors may propel people into an interracial marriage. Some students of the subject assert that uneven sex ratios are a basic cause. Wherever a group near another group has an imbalance in sex ratio, there is a greater likelihood of intermarriage. If the groups have a relatively wellbalanced distribution of the sexes, members will marry more within their own group (Guttentag and Secord 1983; Parkman and Sawyer 1967).

As for the sociocultural factors that promote or deter interracial marriages, several explanations have been put forth to explain the variation in intermarriage patterns in the United States. Tucker and Mitchell-Kernan (1990) hypothesized that certain environments are more racially tolerant of intermarriage than are others. Their hypothesis is based on findings from U.S. census data showing that interracial marriage rates are highest

in the West and lowest in the South (U.S. Bureau of the Census 1985). Similar to their explanation is the argument by Blau and Schwartz (1984) that the larger the group size as a proportion of the population, the less likely it is that members will marry outside their group. Second, they suggested that the more heterogeneous an area’s population, the more likely it is that people will marry outside their group. Both the aforementioned propositions imply that intermarriage is a function of environmental forces, not individual motivations.

In addition to the normal problems of working out a satisfactory marital relationship, interracial couples must cope with social ostracism and isolation. While the motivation for an interracial marriage may or may not differ from that of intraracial marriages, there are problems that are unique to interracial marriages. When researchers studied interracially married couples they discovered that courtship in most cases had been carried on clandestinely and, further, that many of them were isolated from their families following the marriage. Other outstanding social problems encountered by the couples centered on such factors as housing, occupation, and relationships with family and peers. Several of the spouses lost their jobs because of intermarriage, while others felt it necessary to conceal their marriages from their employers.

In addition to these strains, intermarried couples also face stressors within the family. Conflicts with in-laws contributed to marital instability (Chan and Smith 1995). Moreover, intermarried couples experienced not only the greatest conflict with inlaws but also differences that arose in terms of child rearing. According to Chan and Smith (1995), intermarried couples may face more problems because of their concerns with raising biracial children. They may worry about the children’s psychosocial development because of their mixed heritage. The children may look more black than white and ‘‘this may create more stress for the mother who is most likely to be the primary caretaker and have to deal with the prejudice others might have about her children’’ (Chan and Smith 1995, p. 383).

Further research needs to be done to investigate the factors involved in intermarriages, as well to assess marital stability and instability among

intermarried couples. However, there are several data problems in conducting research on intermarriages. First, marriage data collected by the National Center for Health Statistics (NCHs) is incomplete, since not all states are required to submit data and only about forty states submit such information (Besharov and Sullivan 1996). Moreover, many states do not ask questions about race on marriage licenses. Currently, only thirtytwo states report race information to the NCHS (Besharov and Sullivan 1996). Even if data on race and ethnicity are available, the analysis is quite limited when conducting research on the secondgeneration intermarriage experience (Roy and Hamilton 1997). Moreover, data on interfaith marriage are also sparse, since the census and other government surveys rarely ask a respondent’s religion (Salins 1997). In addition, the General Social Survey, which collects information on attitudes toward intermarriages, is quite limited because only two questions are presented in this survey: ‘‘How do you feel about having a close relative or family member marry a Black person?’’ And ‘‘Do you think there should be laws against marriages between Blacks and Whites?’’ According to St. Jean (1998), these questions do not adequately address current attitudes on intermarriages. Rather, St. Jean (1998) suggests that qualitative research, such as focus groups, provide more insight and information than the existing quantitative research on the topic.

SUMMARY

As barriers between different groups of people come down, intermarriage will continue to take place. This article has discussed the history and trends of black/white intermarriages, past and future directions of Asian-American intermarriages, trends in interfaith marriages, and factors involved in intermarriages. High intermarriage rates have been mostly among white ethnics (Salins 1997). Despite the increases in interracial marriage, black/ white intermarriages are still quite low compared to other interracial and interfaith marriages. Racist attitudes still persist. Of these various types of intermarriage, black/white intermarriage is still one that is fraught with controversy. Those who oppose it often combine a hostility toward racial equality with invidious assessments of the private

thoughts and lives of interracial couples. Many men and women mate for no more complex reasons than meeting, liking each other as individuals, and choosing to transcend the societal barriers to their relationship. Only in societies similar to that of the United States does a biracial union take on any greater significance. For centuries, Latin American nations have undergone such a fusion of the races that only nationality, language, and religion remain as sources of identity. But the painful history of race relations in North America militates against the natural mixing of individuals from different races. Instead of regarding interracial dating and marriage as a matter of personal choice, many minorities have taken up the call for racial purity so common to their white supremacist adversaries of the past.

Despite the opposition to biracial unions, they will continue to increase as long as the social forces that set intermarriage in motion exist. There is, for example, the class factor. As long as middle-class blacks occupy token positions in the upper reaches of the job hierarchy, most of the people they meet in their occupational world will be white. Considering the fact that the job setting is the paramount place for meeting mates, it is only natural that many blacks will date and marry whites. Those whites will be the people they most often encounter and with whom they share common values, interests, and lifestyles. In the 1950s, E. Franklin Frazier (1957) predicted:

The increasing mobility of both white and colored people will not only provide a firsthand knowledge of each for the other but will encourage a certain cosmopolitanism. That means there will be a growing number of marginal people who will break away from their cultural roots. These marginal people will help create not only an international community but an international society. In becoming free from their local attachments and provincial outlook, they will lose at the same time their racial prejudices, which were a product of their isolation. Many of these marginal people will form interracial marriages because they are more likely to find suitable marriage partners in the cosmopolitan circles than within their native countries.

A careful reading of history indicates that the intermarriage rate often rises or fall for reasons

related more to political and economic factors than individual desire. Within the developed world, the United States has the lowest rate of interracial marriage because it is the most racially diverse of all those nations. Due to a combination of economic factors, many white Americans feel less secure about the racial privileges they have long enjoyed and the impact intermarriage would have on their life chances and that of their children. The increasing presence of people of color and their competition for the best jobs, houses, incomes, and lifestyles heighten these insecurities. Increasingly, they are willing to turn back those challenges by racial scapegoating in the political arena, resulting in a number of reactionary voting patterns by the Anglo majority on affirmative action and immigrant issues, which largely affect African Americans, Asian Americans, and Latino citizens. In defense of their right to participate equally in the political and economic life of the United States, people of color have forged movements of racial and ethnic solidarity to counter the white backlash.

However, racial divisions are doomed to eventual failure in large part because race itself is a social construct used more as an opiate or divisive strategy than for any other purpose. Just as religion is the divisive force in much of the world, racial differences serve to mask the underlying causes of class inequality in the United States. The political and economic elite have found it expedient to exploit minor differences in physical traits among groups to detract from public consciousness of the most pronounced case of economic inequality in the developed world. Only when economic justice becomes a social reality can we expect to see dating and marriage choices based on merit and not a group’s standing in the racial and class hierarchy.

Chan, Anna Y., and Ken R. Smith 1995 ‘‘Perceptions of Marital Stability of Black–White Intermarriage.’’ In Cardell K. Johnson, ed., American Families: Issues in Race and Ethnicity. New York: Garland Publishing.

Crohn, Joel 1995 Mixed Matches: How to Create Successful Interracial, Interethnic, and Interfaith Relationships. New York: Ballantine Books.

Davis, Kingsley 1941 ‘‘Intermarriage in Caste Societies.’’

American Anthropologist 43:376–395.

Day, Beth 1972 Sexual Life Between Blacks and Whites: The Roots of Racism. New York: World Publishing.

Degler, Carl N. 1971 Neither Black nor White. New York: Macmillan.

Dollard, John 1957 Caste and Class in a Southern Town. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday.

Espiritu, Yen Le 1992 Asian American Panethnicity: Bridg-

ing Institutions and Identities. Philadelphia: Temple

University Press.

Frazier, E. Franklin 1957 Race and Cultural Contacts in the Modern World. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Gallup Organization 1997 Special Report: Black–White Relations in the US. Princeton, N.J.: Gallup Organization.

Golden, Joseph 1954 ‘‘Patterns of Negro–White Intermarriage.’’ American Sociological Review 19:144–147.

Gordon, Milton 1964 Assimilation in American Life: The Role of Race, Religion, and National Origins. New York, Oxford University Press.

Guttentag, Marcia, and Paul F. Secord 1983 Too Many Women? The Sex Ratio Question. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage.

Hare, Nathan, and Julia Hare 1984 The Endangered Black Family. San Francisco: Black Think Tank.

Hwang, Sean-Shong, Rogelio Saenz, and Benigno E. Aguirre 1997 ‘‘Structural and Assimilationist Explanations of Asian American Intermarriage.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 59(August):758–772.

REFERENCES

Bernard, Jessie 1966 Marriage and Family Among Negroes. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.

Besharov, Douglas, and Timothy Sullivan 1996 ‘‘One Flesh: America Is Experiencing an Unprecedented Increase in Black-White Intermarriage.’’ The New Democrat, July/August, 8(4):20–22.

Blau, Peter, and Joseph E. Schwartz 1984 Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations. Orlando, Fla.: Academic Press.

Cash, Wilbur Joseph 1960 The Mind of the South. New York: Vintage.

Jordan, Winthrop D. 1968 White Over Black: American Attitudes Toward the Negro 1550–1812. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Kalmijn, Matthijs 1993 ‘‘Trends in Black/White Intermarriage.’’ Social Forces 72(1):119–146.

Kalmijn, Matthijs 1991 ‘‘Shifting Boundaries: Trends in Religious and Educational Homogany.’’ 56(6):786–800.

Kosmin, Barry A., Sidney Goldstein, Joseph Waksberg, Nava Lere, Ariella Keysay, and Jeffrey Scheckner 1991 Highlights of the CJF 1990 National Jewish Population Survey. Washington D.C.: Council of Jewish Federations.

Lee, Sharon, and Marilyn Fernandez 1998 ‘‘Trends in Asian American Racial/Ethnic Intermarriage: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census.’’ Sociological Perspectives 41(2):323–343.

Lehrer, Evelyn L. 1998 ‘‘Religious Intermarriage in the United States: Determinants and Trends.’’ Social Science Research 27(3):245–263.

Lehrer, Evelyn L., and Carmel U. Chiswick 1993 ‘‘Religion as a Determinant of Martial Stability.’’ Demography 30(3):385–404.

Lewis, Richard, Jr., George Yancey, and Siri S. Bletzer 1997 ‘‘Racial and Nonracial Factors that Influence Spouse Choice in Black/White Marriages.’’ Journal of Black Studies 28(1):60–78.

Lieberson, Stanley, and Mary Waters 1988 From Many Strands: Ethnic and Racial Groups in Contemporary America. New York: Russell Sage.

Merton, Robert 1941 ‘‘Intermarriage and Social Structure: Fact and Theory.’’ Psychiatry 4:361–374.

Pang, Gin Yong 1997 Asian American Intermarriage and the Language of Assimilation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley.

Stember, Charles Herbert 1976 Sexual Racism. New

York: Elsevier.

Sung, Betty L. 1990 ‘‘Chinese American Intermarriage.’’

Journal of Comparative Family Studies 21(3):337–352.

Tucker, M. Belinda, and Claudia Mitchell-Kernan 1990 ‘‘New Trends in Black American Interracial Marriage: The Social Structural Context.’’ Journal of Marriage and the Family 52:209–218.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1985 Census of the Population, 1980: Vol. 2. Marital Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

——— 1998 Intermarried Married Couples: 1960–present. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Van den Berghe, Pierre 1960 ‘‘Hypegamy, Hypergenation and Miscegenation.’’ Human Resources 13:83–89.

Wilson, Deborah, and Cardell K. Johnson 1995 ‘‘White Attitudes Toward Black and White Interracial Marriage.’’ In Cardell K. Johnson, ed., American Families: Issues in Race and Ethnicity. New York: Garland Publishing.

GRACE J. YOO

Parkman, Margaret A., and Jack Sawyer 1967 ‘‘Dimensions of Ethnic Intermarriage in Hawaii.’’ American Sociological Review 32:593–608.

Paset, Pamela, and Ronald D. Taylor 1991 ‘‘Black and White Women’s Attitudes Toward Interracial Marriage.’’ Psychological Reports 69(3):753–754.

Porterfield, Ernest 1982 ‘‘Black-American Intermarriage in the United States.’’ In Garv A. Cretser and Joseph J. Leon, eds., Intermarriage in the United States. New York: Haworth Press.

Rosenblatt, Paul C., Terri A. Karis, and Richard D. Powell 1995 Multiracial Couples: Black and White Voices. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications.

Roy, Parimal, and Ian Hamilton 1997 ‘‘Interethnic Marriage: Identifying the Second Generation in Australia.’’ International Migration Review 31(1):128–143.

Salins, Peter D. 1997 Assimilation, American Style. New

York: Basic Books.

Shinagawa, Larry Hajime, and Gin Yong Pang 1996 ‘‘Asian American Panethnicity and Intermarriage.’’

Amerasia Journal 22(2):127–152.

Spickard, Paul R. 1989 Mixed Blood: Intermarriage and Ethnic Identity in Twentieth-Century America. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

St. Jean, Yanick 1998 ‘‘Let People Speak for Themselves: Interracial Unions and the General Social Survey.’’ Journal of Black Studies 28(3):398–415.

ROBERT E. STAPLES

INTERNAL MIGRATION

Migration is the relatively permanent movement of individuals or groups over varying distances to change places of residence; permanence and distance are its major defining dimensions. Internal migration occurs within the boundaries of a given country. (International migrants, not considered here, are called immigrants.) Internal migration, therefore, is a type of geographic mobility status.

DEFINITIONS

The following definitions are standard in the field of social demography (Bogue 1985):

Mobility status. A classification of the population based on a comparison between the place of residence (destination) of each individual in a census enumeration or survey and the place of residence (origin) at some specified earlier date. Mobility status in terms of the distance of the move falls into four main categories: nonmovers, local movers, intrastate migrants, and interstate migrants.

They may be examined more specifically in the list below:

I.Nonmovers, or nonmobile persons, live in the same house at the time of the census as at the date of origin.

II.Movers, or mobile persons, live in a different house and are further classified as to where they were living at the earlier date.

a.Local movers are mobile persons who live in the same county at census time as at the date of origin.

b.Internal migrants are mobile persons who live in a different county at census time than at the date of origin. Internal migrants may be further subclassified:

1.Intrastate migrants live in a different county but within the same state.

2.Interstate migrants live in a different state.

3.Interregional migrants live in a different geographic division or census geographic region; they are also interstate migrants.

Mobility interval. The lapsed time between the date specified for previous residence and the date of enumeration is usually either one year or five years. Recent census enumerations specify five years, and the Current Population Surveys have specified intervals of one, two, three, four, and five years.

Metropolitan mobility. A system of subdividing mobile persons into categories by place of residence at the beginning and the end of the mobility interval and, according to metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs), is as follows:

1.Within the same MSA

2.Between MSAs

3.From outside MSAs to MSAs

4.From MSAs to outside MSAs

5.Outside MSAs at both dates

Mobility rates. The number of persons in a specified mobility status per 100 or 1,000 in the

population of the area in which they resided at the end of the mobility interval is a mobility rate. Such rates may refer to any of the categories of nonmobile or mobile persons specified above. Mobility rates may be specific for age, race, sex, or other traits. The denominator may also be the origin date or the midpoint of the migration interval.

Migration flows. The key distinction of flows is that either the origin or the destination is unknown. There are two types of flows:

1.In-migration is comprised of migrants arriving at a particular place of destination, with no reference to the place of origin. In-flows could also arrive at specified types of places, such as central cities or metropolitan areas.

2.Out-migration is comprised of migrants departing from a particular area, with no reference to the place of destination. Outflows may also depart from specified types of places, such as places outside MSAs or suburban metropolitan rings of MSAs.

Migrations streams. These connect an origin to a destination. There are three types of migration streams:

1.Specific streams. Streams that connect particular places within a category, such as streams between specific cities, counties, states, or regions. This is the major use of the term.

2.Typological streams. Streams that connect types of places, such as streams between all central cities and suburbs in a state or the nation.

3.Counterstreams. When a stream between two places endures, it usually generates a counterstream, a smaller stream in the opposite direction. The stream and counterstream are referred to as an exchange.

Net migration. This is the difference obtained when the number of out-migrants is subtracted from the number of in-migrants in a particular place or type of place. A location that experiences a loss of population through migration is said to have a negative net migration; one that gains

population through migration has a positive net migration. Because of its birth and death rates, an area may have a negative net migration and continue to have a growing population. There is no such thing as a net migrant, however.

Return migration. The census contains an item that identifies the state of birth. Return migrants are those persons who return to their state of birth during the mobility interval. There is no way of knowing how long they have been away from their state of birth when they return.

WHY STUDY MIGRATION?

Migration is important to social scientists because an increase or decrease in the size of a population, due to excess inor out-migration, causes many social conditions to change. Community infrastructure, such as highways and schools, may become overburdened due to population growth, while public services may become difficult to maintain when population declines. Furthermore, social scientists study the equilibrating effects of population movement on national and regional economic systems. Growth or decline in the local economy is an incentive for people to move, which redistributes the population to balance the system.

The ability to predict the impacts of population growth or decline on the institutional sectors of a community and the ability to understand regional population dynamics, of course, provide many practical benefits to government and business planners.

MIGRATION RESEARCH

Net migration rates before 1940 were estimated using a survival-rate method. This method takes the population in one census as its base. It adjusts the number by adding births and subtracting deaths during the next decade. The amount of population change not accounted for is attributed to migration (Bogue and Beale 1961). The 1940 census was the first to include a mobility item. It asked where persons lived five years earlier. In 1950, after World War II, there was so much population movement that a one-year interval was substituted in the census. In 1960 the five-year mobility interval was restored and has been retained in subsequent decades. Because of these measurement

changes, the 1960 and 1970 censuses were the first from which decade changes could be derived. Thus several landmark studies appeared in the 1960s, breaking new ground and setting patterns for future migration research (Long 1988). Shryock’s (1964) work showed the importance of studying gross migration flows in addition to the prevailing dependence on net migration. Lowry (1966) introduced econometric modeling to migration research. Finally, Lansing and Mueller (1967) helped introduce survey approaches to analyzing internal migration.

U.S. MOBILITY

Americans are unusually mobile (Bogue 1985). Only Canada and Australia have populations as mobile as that of the United States. In a single year, from March 1995 to March 1996, 17 percent of U.S. inhabitants moved from one domicile to another and about 6 percent changed their county of residence. At current mobility rates, average Americans live at fourteen different addresses during their lifetimes. Of these thirteen moves, three are as a dependent moving with parents and ten are of their own volition. People who have lived their entire lives at the same address account for no more than 2 or 3 percent of the adult population. Perhaps no more than 10 to 15 percent of people spend their entire lives in their county of birth.

When using the five-year mobility interval, mobility rates are not five times as large as those for a single year because persons who move several times within the interval are counted only once. Nearly one-half of the population is mobile over a five-year period, and more than one-fifth are migrants. Since 1980 there appears to have been no diminution in the tendency to migrate, but there has been an apparent reduction in local mobility.

One can discover contradictory findings in mobility literature. These contradictions are often due to the specific databases under analysis. Some databases use mortgage data and leave out renters; others, such as the Annual Housing Survey, use households; and some, such as most census publications, use individuals as units of analysis, each database giving somewhat different results. In addition, some data sources offer little information on the characteristics of migrants. The individual

master file of the Internal Revenue Service includes state and county migration data but no personal characteristics, and several large moving companies provide data on their customers also without personal characteristics (Kahley 1990).

Reasons for Migration. Migration may occur in response to changing economic, social, or political conditions. Push factors are conditions in the sending population that impel or stimulate migration. Conditions that attract in-migrants are classified as pull factors (Ravenstein 1889).

Declining economic opportunities, political instability, or the weakening of place ties may stimulate out-migration. Expanding economic opportunities, potential for advancement, the presence of family members and friends, or previous vacationing or residential experience tend to attract migrants. Not surprisingly, rural communities with high birthrates and regions with limited opportunities are areas of high out-migration, whereas urban, industrial regions and communities with expanding opportunities tend to have high in-migration (Prehn 1986). Marriage, divorce, increasing or decreasing family size, and housing adequacy top the list in surveys. A sizable majority of respondents to the Annual Housing Survey reported housing or family dynamics as reasons for their move (Gober 1993).

The average age at which young adults leave home declined from the low twenties to the upper teens between 1920 and 1980, and then the median age began to rise again. These trends mirror another one; for the Vietnam cohort of young adults forward, those who return to live at home at some time holds at about 40 percent. About 25 percent had moved back in earlier cohorts. The expectation of a permanently empty nest for parents of young adults now seems a less certain one (Goldscheider and Goldscheider 1994).

Zelinski (1971) proposed a macro-level threestage model of national internal migration. First, with the onset of modernization, the overall level of migration increases, primarily in the form of rural-to-urban moves. Second, as industrialization and modernization spread to more regions, migration may continue to increase; improved transportation and communication increase the availability of information and decrease the uncertainty of

moving. Interurban moves become the majority of all moves. Finally, at advanced stages, when lev- el-of-living differences among areas have diminished, there may be more urban-to-rural movement and more ‘‘consumer-oriented’’ migration toward warm climates or locations with other amenities (Long 1988).

Differential Migration. What population characteristics predict migration? Characteristics that indicate less entanglement with social obligations, greater need for employment, and higher job skills are good predictors. Men are more mobile with respect to residence than women, although the difference is small. The single migrate at higher rates than the married. For several decades, blacks have been more mobile than whites. However, in 1980 whites migrated at higher rates than blacks, although blacks continued to be more mobile locally. Hispanics migrated internally at a rate between those of the black and white populations. Persons with higher levels of education are more likely to migrate than those who are less well educated.

Age and Mobility. The shape of the age profile of migrants in the United States has been consistent for decades, changing only gradually over time. The younger children are, the more likely they are to migrate. The migration rate of children bottoms out in the early teens and does not increase rapidly until the late teens. More than onethird of Americans in their young adult years, ages twenty to twenty-four, the peak migration years during the life course, moved at least once between 1982 and 1983, and nearly one-half of this mobility was migratory. Not surprisingly, this age corresponds with college graduation and marriage for many. The increasing age of children in the home, particularly once they begin their formal schooling, dampens the attractiveness of migration for parents. The age-specific migration rate declines slowly at first, then more steeply until age thirty-five, after which it slowly declines throughout the middle years to a life-course low point just before the retirement years. The retirement migration hump between ages sixty and seventy is small by comparison to the early adulthood migration bulge. The final increase in age-specific migration rises at the end of life and relates largely to health issues. The elderly as a broad category are

only about one-half as mobile as the general population.

MIGRATION AND REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF POPULATION

Three large interregional flows of internal migration have been occurring in the United States for many decades.

Westward Movement. For a long time, there was a high-volume flow of persons into the Pacific region, principally California, as well as a highvolume flow into the mountainous southwestern states. The 1970–1980 decade had a higher volume of westward movement than any previous one. Mountain states that previously suffered losses all made positive gains, and Colorado, Nevada, and Arizona continued the large gains of the previous decade. In the 1990s, there was a net flow out of California, largely to other western states, reversing a long-term trend for that state.

Northward Movement from the South. The southern region lost population heavily between the close of the Civil War and 1950. Industrial centers in the northeast and east-north-central regions absorbed a very large share of the migrating population. Both white and black migrants flowed along these channels in great numbers. Some southern states, however, particularly Florida and Texas, were exceptions. Between 1970 and 1980 the net outflow from the South completely disappeared. Those who left the South preferred the West to the North as a destination, and inmigrants to the South balanced the out-migrants. Every state in the northeast and north-central regions suffered a net migration loss during the decade, resulting in a major regional migration turnaround (Bogue 1985). By 1990 there were no net flows out of the South to other regions, but the Northeast, Midwest, and West all contributed to the southern region (Gober 1993).

The Southward Movement to the Gulf Coast and the Southern Atlantic Seaboard. The entire Gulf Coast, from the mouth of the Rio Grande in Texas across the coastal portions of lower Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama and on to include all of Florida, experienced much more rapid and intensive economic development than the southern and southeastern parts of the United States

lying away from the coast. Although this trend is a very old one, it accelerated rapidly in the 1970s.

As of 1980 there were only two regional migration streams instead of three: movement toward the South and Southwest and movement toward the West. The northeast and the north-central regions are the sources from which these migrants came (Bogue 1985). But in the 1980s, the South gained more through net migration than did the western states (Weeks 1996), a trend that accelerated by 1990. The geographic redistribution of knowledge-based industries of the information age carries in its wake a college-educated work force to the Sunbelt, including the South (Frey 1995).

Metropolitan Deconcentration. One of the macro-level processes that affects geographic mobility in our time is metropolitan deconcentration. Many nonmetropolitan counties in the United States experienced a slowing of population decline in the 1960s, and in the 1970s their net migration rates climbed above the break-even point, which signaled a genuine and widespread ‘‘ru- ral–urban turnaround.’’ Older people seem to have been in the vanguard of migration to nonmetropolitan counties; the turnaround for them happened in the 1960s rather than the 1970s. This reversal of a long-term trend of rural-to-urban migration is of great interest to demographers. Mounting evidence now indicates that although deconcentration continues in nonmetropolitan America as a whole, by the late 1980s metropolitan counties were outgrowing nonmetropolitan ones (Long and DeAre 1988). In the 1990s there is an uneven urban revival, with a few metropolitan areas with more flexible and diverse economies, mostly outside the Northeast and Midwest, gaining migrants. The new dominance of the suburbs over the central city is key to metropolitan deconcentration in the 1980s and 1990s. During this period, the suburbs are capturing the bulk of employment and occupational growth (Frey 1995).

RETIREMENT MIGRATION

Demography traditionally tends to focus on youthful migration, and labor-force migration in particular. Increasing attention, however, is being given to non–labor-force-motivated migration, particularly to the migration of persons of retirement

age (Longino 1996). For the elderly, interstate flows are highly channelized—that is, half of the interstate migrants, regardless of their origin, flow into only eight of the fifty states. Florida dominates the scene, having received about one-quarter of all interstate migrants aged sixty or over in the five years preceding the 1960, 1970, 1980, and 1990 censuses. Although Florida, California, Arizona, and North Carolina have different major recruitment areas, they are the only states that attract several unusually large streams from outside their regions. Florida and North Carolina draw primarily from east of the Mississippi River, and Arizona and California draw from west of it. Among the elderly, the special characteristics of the destination tend to be more important than the distance. Warm climate, economic growth, and lower cost of living are still important pull factors.

Distance selectivity of elderly migration has been studied. Local movers are generally not as economically and socially well-off as nonmovers, and migrants are more well-off. Interstate migrants tend to have the most positive characteristics.

Permanence is an important but difficult dimension of migration to study. The census assumes that one’s ‘‘usual place of residence’’ is not temporary. In reality, however, much of the migration among older people may be temporary. So far, studies of elderly seasonal migrants show them to be relatively advantaged, attracted by non– labor-force issues such as climate, cost of living, and the locations of family members and friends.

Metropolitan-to-metropolitan migration predominates among the elderly. Of the one-third who changed environmental types, no increase occurred between the 1960 and 1980 censuses in the proportion moving out of metropolitan areas in each decade. However, the movement in the opposite direction, up the metropolitan hierarchy, declined, both among older intrastate and interstate migrants. The net difference made it appear as though the flow from cities increased. Metro- politan-to-metropolitan migrants, especially those moving longer distances, tend to have more income, to be married, and to live in their own homes. A higher proportion of nonmetro-to-met- ro migrants is older, widowed, and living dependently, especially with their children. Coding revisions in

the 1990 census made updates of these comparisons impossible to calculate.

The cycle of migration for a job when one is young and returning to one’s roots after retirement is an appealing notion to theorists. In contrast, Rogers (1990) demonstrated that elderly persons are not any more likely to return home than are the nonelderly; in fact, the probabilities of return migration by the elderly are lower than those of the general population, even after controlling for the different mobility levels of the two populations. There is wide state variability, however. The southeastern region is unusually attractive to older return migrants, and return migration is uncommonly high among the older black population moving into that region. Some evidence from the 1990 census shows that regional return migration patterns are shifting away from the Sunbelt states. Some migrants, apparently, return to their home states after an earlier retirement move (Longino 1995).

Some dubbed retirement migration as the growth industry of the 1990s. The amount of income transferred between states through retirement migration is quite substantial. Not surprisingly, economic development agencies are mounting efforts to attract mature migrants. This is leading to sharp competition among destinations for these migrants as new residents. The impact of elderly migration as a social phenomenon has yet to generate enough research to provide definite statements.

INTERNATIONAL COMPARISONS OF

INTERNAL MIGRATION

Little research exists to compare countries on internal migration because measures, data sources, and units of analysis differ widely among nations. Consequently, international organizations have not published compendia of national comparative data on migration as they have on fertility and mortality. In addition, certain types of cultures conceive internal migration differently. In some small countries, such as England, lack of new housing stock limits residential movement. Migration is also limited in countries such as France, where transportation routes primarily connect the peripheral towns to a central national capital for historical reasons. Conversely, internal migration is amplified and culturally expected in nations of

immigrants with widely dispersed regional centers and major cities, such as the United States, Canada, and Australia.

Nonetheless, existing studies provide some tentative generalizations that compare internal migration in the United States with that in other countries (Long 1988). The U.S. national average for moves is higher than that of most other countries because (1) cities in the South and West are growing; (2) a relatively large minority of people who repeatedly move elevates the U.S. average for lifetime moves above that for most other countries; and (3) during the 1980s and 1990s the baby boom generation in the United States has moved through the life-cycle stages that have the highest rates of geographic mobility.

Comparative studies also give attention to older migrants, although their mobility rates are lower than for the young. Rogers (1989) argues that as the populations of industrialized nations age, the internal migration patterns of elderly persons will change. Elderly migration levels are low in countries in the first stage of this population transition. In the second stage of the transition, large, long-distance flows to particular principal destination regions appear. The third stage continues to exhibit large numbers of elderly migrants, but their moves now include a significant number of short-distance moves to more dispersed inland regions. Rogers and colleagues (1990) argue from comparative data that England is in the third stage, the United States is transitioning between the second and the third stages, Italy is well into the second stage, and Japan is in the first stage.

Since 1970, for most developed countries, population aging has brought declining national rates of internal migration (Long 1988). For the United States, the decline appears to be greater for local moves than for long-distance movement. Urbanization was the dominant redistribution trend in the 1950s in fourteen European countries studied by Fielding (1989). The relationship between net migration and settlement size began to break down, however, in the 1960s—first in the countries of northwestern Europe in the mid-1960s, then in the countries and regions of the southern and western European periphery through the 1960s, and in the case of Spain, into the 1970s. By the 1970s, most of the countries of western Europe were recording counterurbanization, where

the net flow was away from cities and toward small settlements. That counterurbanization became less dominant in the early 1980s but was not replaced by urbanization. Only in West Germany and Italy did the counterurbanization relationship persist. The United States experienced a similar pattern of long-term urbanization, reversed in the 1970s and then nearly reversed again in the 1980s (Frey 1990).

PREDICTING FUTURE MIGRATION

Migration rooted in labor movement will change in the future as the geographical basis of the economy changes. Robust new industry will attract migrants. Such developments in the southern region may extend several more decades into the future. On the other hand, migration not related to the labor force, such as retirement migration, is more sensitive to lifestyle issues. Eventual overcrowding, which results in a decline in the quality of life of local residents, will tend to discourage retirement migration. Florida’s dominance of retirement destinations in 1990 lost 2 percent of the migrant retiree market.

Migration for better jobs increases in times of economic expansion. Thus, studies of the late 1990s may find migration to have increased in response to an improved economy. Other trends could also increase migration rates. First, the age composition is always shifting. In the 1980s, there were more persons in the twenty-to-thirty age range, their prime mobility years. The baby boom generation has a lower migration rate for long moves than others. However, because of its large size, a large number of baby boomers migrated. In the 1990s, the incidence of moving will likely dampen as baby boomers age and leave their prime mobility years. Second, the rising level of education may increase migration. Each new cohort of adults has a higher level of education than its predecessor. The third factor, household change, contains counterindicators. Married couples are increasingly likely to divorce, a situation favoring migration, but at the same time there are more dualcareer couples in the population, a situation favoring nonmobility (Long 1988).

As we have seen, many factors motivate migration. These factors need further study, which will certainly generate new research hypotheses to be tested by migration researchers in the twenty-first century.