Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
19
R. S. Franklin
20
Table 1. State population change, 20002010.
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Population change,
number
332,636
83,299
1,261,385
242,518
3,382,308
727,935
168,532
114,334
29,664
2,818,932
1,501,200
148,764
273,629
411,339
403,317
120,031
164,700
297,598
64,396
53,438
477,066
198,532
54,804
384,446
122,639
Population
change (%)
7.48
13.29
24.59
9.07
9.99
16.92
4.95
14.59
5.19
17.64
18.34
12.28
21.15
3.31
6.63
4.10
6.13
7.36
1.44
4.19
9.01
3.13
0.55
7.81
4.31
State
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
Population change,
number
393,716
87,220
115,078
702,294
80,684
377,544
240,133
401,645
1,486,170
30,391
183,364
300,697
409,675
421,325
4,248
613,352
59,336
656,822
4,293,741
530,716
16,914
922,509
830,419
44,650
323,311
69,844
Population
change (%)
7.04
9.67
6.72
35.15
6.53
4.49
13.20
2.12
18.46
4.73
1.62
8.71
11.97
3.43
0.41
15.29
7.86
11.54
20.59
23.77
2.78
13.03
14.09
2.47
6.03
14.14
Total population
Hispanic
White
Black/African American
American Indian or Alaska Native
Asian
Native Hawaiian or Pacic Islander
Some other race
Two or more races
2010
Total
(%)
Total
(%)
281,421,906
35,305,818
194,552,774
33,947,837
2,068,883
10,123,169
353,509
467,770
4,602,146
12.55
69.13
12.06
0.74
3.60
0.13
0.17
1.64
308,745,538
50,477,594
196,817,552
37,685,848
2,247,098
14,465,124
481,576
604,265
5,966,481
16.35
63.75
12.21
0.73
4.69
0.16
0.20
1.93
Source: US Census Bureau. Aside from the two or more races category, all others are for one race alone. Apart from the Hispanic category, all other
groups are non-Hispanic.
21
Nevada
Arizona
Utah
Idaho
Texas
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Colorado
South Carolina
Delaware
Wyoming
Washington
Alaska
New Mexico
Virginia
Hawaii
Oregon
Tennessee
California
Montana
Arkansas
Maryland
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Minnesota
Alabama
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Indiana
New Hampshire
Kansas
Wisconsin
District of Columbia
Connecticut
North Dakota
New Jersey
Mississippi
Maine
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Massachusetts
Vermont
West Virginia
New York
Ohio
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Michigan
Hispanic Youth
White Youth
Black Youth
AIAN Youth
Asian Youth
NHOPI Youth
SOR Youth
Hispanic Adult
White Adult
Black Adult
AIAN Adult
Asian Adult
NHOPI Adult
SOR Adult
R. S. Franklin
22
shift to a majorityminority population: youth
population composition. Their use of a diversity
index to measure the mix of population shows a
positive relationship between diversity and age
cohort, and maps of youth diversity show extensive
geographical variation.
In addition, this paper offers a different approach
to the sources of change question by using shift
share analysis to look at the contributions made by
individual groups to overall change at the state
level. At its most basic, fundamental level, shift
share analysis parses regional change in employment, population, or births between two periods
into a national effect, an industry mix effect and a
competitive effect, that is, change due to national
circumstances, change due to regional emphasis
on fast-growing sectors, and change that can
be attributed to regional competitiveness.
Shift share has traditionally been used to understand the sources of regional economic growth in
a region relative to some larger, benchmark area
and in the years since its introduction has been the
subject of innumerable tweaking and extensions
(Arcelus, 1984; Barff and Knight, 1988; Haynes
and Dinc, 1997; Knudsen and Barff, 1991). Although it has been criticised for its lack
of predictive ability, among other weaknesses
(see e.g. Knudsen, 2000), it remains a commonly
used regional analysis tool. In more recent
decades, its application has been expanded to
include migration (Ishikawa, 1992; Ishikawa,
1999; Plane, 1987; Plane, 1989) and fertility change
(Franklin and Plane, 2004) over time.
DATA
This paper uses national, state, and county level
data for 2000 and 2010 on race and ethnicity, as
well as age. One of the rst sets of data to be
released following each decennial census in the
United States is the redistricting data le, which
provides population counts at various levels of
geography by not only race and ethnicity but also
for two age cohorts: those under 18 and those
above (US Census Bureau, 2011a; US Census
Bureau, 2011b; US Census Bureau, 2011c). For these
two age cohorts, the population is classied by
ethnicity, Hispanic, and non-Hispanic, and then,
for non-Hispanics, into different race categories.
The race classication used here is for nonHispanics reporting only one race alone. Those
reporting two or more races are placed into one
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
METHODS
As noted earlier, the analysis is conducted in two
parts. First, indices are calculated at the state and
county level to assess not only how diversity
varies across the country, but also how the distribution of different race and ethnic groups can be
characterised vis vis the nation as a whole.
Second, population change at the state level is
decomposed to show state-level variation in the
sources of population growth between 2000 and
2010.
Popul. Space Place 20, 1836 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
23
N
1X
jXi Y i j
2 i1
R. S. Franklin
24
the 16 population categories described in the data
section in place of economic sectors for the years
2000 and 2010 for the fty US states plus the
District of Columbia and takes the nation as the
benchmark region. The method disaggregates
the change experienced between the two periods
into three effects: a national, a cohort mix, and a
competitive effect, such that total change between
the two periods is the sum of the three effects:
Pri Nir Mri Cri
The national effect (Nir ) isolates the increase in
cohort is population in state r that would have
been expected had it grown at the same rate as
the nation as a whole (a rising tide that lifts all
boats). The cohort mix effect (Mri) captures cohort
population change attributable to a states
specialisation in cohorts that are growing
fast at the national level. So, for example, the
adult Hispanic population in the Unites States
grew by 45% between 2000 and 2010, whereas
the White youth population declined by 10%.
States with larger shares of adult Hispanics
would benet, whereas states with more young
Whites would see declines. States with fewer
young Whites would still experience a decline
in that cohort for the cohort mix effect, but the
impact would
be lessened. The competitive
effect Cri is intended to measure the contribution state-specic characteristics make to overall
population change. Suppose cohort growth is
higher at the state level than at the national level;
this suggests that there are regional particularities
that make this area stand out.
As Arcelus (1984) notes, the competitive effect in
this traditional specication conates growth because of overall population increase at the state level
and the actual competitive portion that would be the
result of state-level cohorts growing faster than their
national level counterparts. To mitigate this weakness, the following analysis further disaggregates
the competitive effect into two additional components, as suggested by Arcelus (1984):
Cri Rri RMri
where Rri is a regional effect that measures growth
because of overall population growth at the state
level and RMri is a regional cohort mix effect, which
measures growth/decline in cohort population
because of cohort growth rates at the national
and regional levels.
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
25
Interaction Index
0.00 - 0.14
0.15 - 0.27
0.28 - 0.42
0.43 - 0.54
0.55 - 0.79
Cluster Type
Not Significant
High-High
Low-Low
Low-High
High-Low
Adult II-Youth II
-0.32 - -0.15
-0.14 - -0.12
-0.11 - -0.084
-0.083 - -0.060
-0.059 - 0.00
0.010 - 0.35
R. S. Franklin
26
Finally, Figure 2(c) compares diversity at the
county level for the adult population with that
for the population under 18. Counties in blue are
those in which diversity for the adult population
exceeds that measured for the youth population.
These places are fairly rare and tend to be concentrated in places with a longer history of signicant
minority populations (e.g. California, southern
Texas, and the Mississippi Delta), but there are also
a few counties located in the relatively undiverse
New England/Midwestern belt. In those locations,
the blue colour is likely indicative of the low numbers of minority youth present. Red counties, on
the other hand, are those in which youth diversity
exceeds diversity for the total population. Here,
the younger generation exhibits more racial and
ethnic diversity than the adult cohort. These are
places undergoing a great deal of population
composition transition.
Diversity is the result of the mix of several
groups. These groups do not tend to be uniformly
distributed across the country, however, which is
why overall diversity varies. Table 3 uses the
index of localization described earlier to measure
how uniformly distributed each race/ethnicity/
age category is across US states and counties.1
The lower the index value, the more uniformly
distributed the group is, relative to the benchmark
population. Several conclusions may be drawn
from the table. First, for every group and each
age, populations are more uniformly distributed
at the state level than at the county level. This
is quite normal for indices of this type, which
display more extreme value for smaller units. That
said, this result is consistent with the supposition
that subgroup populations are fairly evenly
distributed across states but that, within states,
they are more concentrated. Second, variations
in concentration exist across groups. Whites
are the most uniformly distributed group, but
the trend over the past decade was towards
increased geographic concentration for young
and adult Whites at both state and county levels.
Young Whites are more concentrated than adult
Whites, in contrast to Hispanics, Blacks, and
Asians, who tend have more uniformly distributed
youth than adult populations. Native Hawaiians
and American Indians are the most concentrated
subgroup at both the state and county levels but
are also small groups. In terms of the Hispanic
population, both age cohorts are less concentrated
in 2010 than in 2000, but the under-18 cohort saw a
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Hispanic
Under 18
18 and up
White
Under 18
18 and up
Black/African
American
Under 18
18 and up
American Indian
or Alaska Native
Under 18
18 and up
Asian
Under 18
18 and up
Native Hawaiian
or Pacic
Islander
Under 18
18 and up
Some other race
Under 18
18 and up
Two or more races
Under 18
18 and up
2010
State
County
State
County
38.31
37.95
38.67
8.54
10.49
8.00
25.05
45.55
45.73
45.59
13.02
16.41
12.25
40.65
33.18
31.69
34.36
9.87
12.23
9.29
24.52
39.24
37.97
40.18
14.58
18.50
13.87
39.43
24.99
25.08
46.04
41.29
40.43
53.92
24.39
24.61
46.44
40.40
39.28
54.72
52.12
43.04
35.24
33.41
35.96
58.34
60.93
50.73
44.21
43.05
44.83
60.42
52.21
44.10
32.24
28.84
33.30
56.17
61.83
52.04
41.38
39.60
42.19
59.94
61.56
56.90
24.24
16.53
30.63
18.35
17.72
19.92
64.27
58.85
29.37
23.83
35.72
22.62
22.04
24.34
57.95
55.51
23.22
16.95
28.51
14.76
13.37
17.00
63.20
58.86
28.16
23.16
33.21
18.11
18.88
20.42
Aside from the two or more races category, all others are for one
race alone. Apart from the Hispanic category, all other groups are
non-Hispanic.
27
Coeff. of Specialization
3.32 - 18.93
18.94 - 24.90
24.91 - 30.08
30.09 - 32.81
32.82 - 94.41
R. S. Franklin
28
at the state level to the national effect, the national
cohort mix effect, and competitive effect described
in the methodology section.
Homothetic distribution
lHispanic
Under 18
18 and up
123,381
200,496
Under 18
18 and up
1,879,122
5,927,569
Difference
435,868
810,960
312,487
610,464
1,554,821
5,315,830
324,301
611,739
White
Under 18
18 and up
Under 18
18 and up
Under 18
18 and up
Under 18
18 and up
Under 18
18 and up
Under 18
18 and up
Total
Black
449,091
374,703
952,956
824,169
American Indian or Alaska Native
16,571
24,223
36,850
48,840
Asian
47,432
85,472
127,879
272,029
Native Hawaiian/Pacic Islander
574
3,867
1,571
8,617
Some other race
5,915
6,792
5,550
9,727
Two or more races
73,681
67,317
89,806
95,208
9,938,444
9,938,444
74,388
128,787
7,652
11,990
38,040
144,150
3,293
7,046
877
4,177
6,364
5,402
0
Aside from the two or more races category, all others are for one race alone. Apart from the Hispanic category, all other groups are non-Hispanic.
29
Figure 4. Selected cross-comparisons of different homothetic and actual populations (Pri HPri ).
individual state results impossible. Instead, the approach here is to continue the focus on Michigan
that commenced earlier. This permits a thorough
discussion of one state and a comparison of
cohort level results. Following the evaluation of
results for Michigan, discussion of results then
continues at the state level.
Table 5 shows the full results for the state of
Michigan. Here, each component is the sum of
the expected and specialisation calculations, and
the competitive effect is the sum of the regional
and regional cohort mix effects. For all cohorts,
the total national effect is positive and, indeed,
is positive for all cohorts in all states as this
component measures solely the potential growth
attributable to national population growth. The
specialisation element of the national effect may
be positive or negative, however, and the sign is
dependent on whether Michigans share of population in a particular cohort is larger or smaller
than the share at the national level. In this case,
Michigan gains an extra boost in both young
and adult cohorts of Whites and Blacks but has
a much smaller boost from the positive national
effect for Hispanics because the homothetic
Popul. Space Place 20, 1836 (2014)
DOI: 10.1002/psp
R. S. Franklin
30
population in those cohorts was larger than the
actual, observed population in those groups in
Michigan and the resulting difference between
the two is negative. That is, the small positive
values for Hispanics under the national effect
occur in spite of Michigans population distribution and not because of it, whereas the growth
due to this effect for Whites and Blacks can be
traced in part to population distribution.
Of course, population gures attached to any
one shiftshare component do not reect actual
population change, but rather hypothetical change
that can be linked to each shiftshare effect. And
these effects, in turn, are based on collections of
differences in growth rates. This means that
although Michigan would have added 182,446
Whites under age 18 between 2000 and 2010 had
this cohort grown at the national pace of growth,
in fact, the cohort lost 269,881 during this period.
The difference in outcomes can be traced to the
cohort mix effect, although the competitive effect is
Expected
Under 18
18 and up
42,319
78,737
Under 18
18 and up
150,960
516,121
Under 18
18 and up
36,380
80,020
Under 18
18 and up
2,352
4,742
Under 18
18 and up
8,299
26,412
Under 18
18 and up
375
837
Under 18
18 and up
659
944
Under 18
18 and up
Total
6,536
9,244
964,937
Specialisation
Expected
Hispanic
11,979
126,792
19,466
287,945
White
31,487
182,446
303,186
59,395
575,516
283,914
Black/African American
7,222
43,603
45,141
12,504
92,524
60,750
American Indian or Alaska Native
743
1,609
3,715
1,164
3,578
2,915
Asian
3,693
4,605
18,394
13,996
12,416
100,232
Native Hawaiian/Pacic Islander
320
56
546
684
153
2,765
Some other race
85
574
432
406
539
2,785
Two or more races
618
7,154
24,661
524
8,719
7,741
0
964,937
0
30,340
59,271
Specialisation
Total
90,901
216,755
35,891
71,189
63,238
32,672
366,424
316,586
8,962
9,493
54,103
70,243
1,173
716
2,541
2,199
8,187
53,113
10,208
47,118
465
2,261
81
504
56
1,196
376
1,589
2,331
439
465,963
26,992
7,302
465,963
Aside from the two or more races category, all others are for one race alone. Apart from the Hispanic category, all other groups are non-Hispanic.
31
Table 5. (Continued)
Regional effect
Expected
44,723
83,209
Specialisation
32,063
62,637
159,534
545,434
33,275
62,768
38,447
84,564
7,633
13,214
2,485
5,011
785
1,230
8,770
27,912
3,903
14,791
397
884
338
723
697
998
90
429
6,907
9,769
1,019,741
653
554
0
Total
Expected
Specialisation
Hispanic
46,827
33,572
24,547
18,478
White
192,809
88,455
18,450
608,202
342,937
39,465
Black/African American
46,079
5,894
1,170
97,779
16,981
2,654
American Indian or Alaska Native
1,700
958
303
3,781
1,624
399
Asian
4,867
6,957
3,096
13,121
2,040
1,081
Native Hawaiian/Pacic Islander
59
1,178
1,003
161
2,048
1,675
Some other race
607
1,968
254
569
3,131
1,345
Two or more races
7,560
3,278
310
9,215
3,070
174
1,019,741
427,704
38,259
12,660
20,572
Total
Total
population
change
13,255
6,069
48,466
64,015
106,905
382,402
269,881
33,129
7,064
19,635
63,644
45,353
656
1,225
1,977
3,221
3,861
959
13,807
47,372
175
373
97
122
1,714
1,786
1,371
228
3,588
2,896
465,963
22,998
3,911
54,804
R. S. Franklin
32
Table 6. Shiftshare results, US states.
Competitive effect
State
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
District of
Columbia
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
National
effect
Cohort mix
effect
431,775
60,870
498,140
259,564
3,288,644
417,615
330,651
76,081
55,542
208,630
15,685
202,512
135,677
3,799,197
20,824
74,709
25,842
20,459
1,551,751
794,834
117,630
125,632
1,205,806
590,362
284,121
261,022
392,421
433,899
123,784
514,243
616,442
964,937
477,639
276,192
543,247
87,595
166,149
194,013
119,984
816,961
176,614
1,842,450
781,519
62,352
1,102,292
335,029
332,188
1,192,384
101,783
389,532
73,289
552,380
2,024,531
216,821
59,112
687,263
572,268
222,422
193,435
249,145
62,948
19,562
349,406
191,275
108,269
270,996
168,596
97,466
93,462
181,882
465,963
273,047
117,565
327,218
61,244
89,141
66,040
88,919
106,412
197,944
442,430
266,121
46,644
669,291
116,941
99,866
628,875
27,465
157,465
53,532
301,728
1,543,072
96,152
46,071
175,835
102,164
Total
population
change
20002010
Regional
effect
Regional cohort
mix effect
109,491
38,114
560,733
118,631
3,705,533
289,496
87,410
64,095
46,337
99,139
22,429
763,245
17,046
93,664
310,320
162,119
38,253
25,878
208,630
15,685
202,512
135,677
3,799,197
20,824
74,709
25,842
20,459
332,636
83,299
1,261,385
242,518
3,382,308
727,935
168,532
114,334
29,664
1,044,759
899,801
218,011
210,946
774,905
162,360
27,186
11,947
176,174
200,907
27,120
56,285
236,028
553,778
179,854
35,987
177,688
60,869
38,071
442,241
49,619
545,828
134,425
1,883,235
970,772
14,683
249,637
82,609
177,353
142,184
70,070
381,285
39,579
406,170
726,138
410,046
3,873
411,081
360,315
1,267,181
706,366
31,134
147,997
794,467
187,045
164,090
96,322
94,823
369,503
70,346
37,177
417,910
1,019,741
93,193
153,553
149,531
375
51,071
508,281
39,300
439,417
63,519
1,440,805
704,651
31,961
918,928
34,332
77,487
771,059
97,535
223,820
13,953
104,442
2,269,210
313,895
42,198
235,246
258,151
222,422
193,435
249,145
62,948
19,562
349,406
191,275
108,269
270,996
168,596
97,466
93,462
181,882
465,963
273,047
117,565
327,218
61,244
89,141
66,040
88,919
106,412
197,944
442,430
266,121
46,644
669,291
116,941
99,866
628,875
27,465
157,465
53,532
301,728
1,543,072
96,152
46,071
175,835
102,164
2,818,932
1,501,200
148,764
273,629
411,339
403,317
120,031
164,700
297,598
64,396
53,438
477,066
198,532
54,804
384,446
122,639
393,716
87,220
115,078
702,294
80,684
377,544
240,133
401,645
1,486,170
30,391
183,364
300,697
409,675
421,325
4,248
613,352
59,336
656,822
4,293,741
530,716
16,914
922,509
830,419
Total
(Continues)
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
33
Table 6. (Continued)
Competitive effect
State
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming
National
effect
Cohort mix
effect
Total
175,575
520,766
47,942
132,407
302,744
26,219
1,482
105,288
48,121
Regional
effect
130,925
197,455
21,902
Regional cohort
mix effect
Total
population
change
20002010
132,407
302,744
26,219
44,650
323,311
69,844
Nevada
Arizona
Utah
Idaho
Texas
North Carolina
Georgia
Florida
Colorado
South Carolina
Delaware
Wyoming
Washington
Alaska
New Mexico
Virginia
Hawaii
Oregon
Tennessee
California
Montana
Arkansas
Maryland
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Minnesota
Alabama
Kentucky
Missouri
Nebraska
Indiana
New Hampshire
Kansas
Wisconsin
District of Columbia
Connecticut
North Dakota
New Jersey
Mississippi
Maine
Iowa
Pennsylvania
Illinois
Massachusetts
Vermont
West Virginia
New York
Ohio
Louisiana
Rhode Island
Michigan
National Effect
Competitive Effect
competitive mix effects. Those states with population growth attributable to both shiftshare
components tended to be in the south of the
country, as were those displaying a positive cohort
mix combined with a negative competitive effect
(with New York and New Jersey proving the
exception to the rule). Gold-coloured states are
those with projected negative values for both
effects. Figure 6 makes clear another aspect of
geography not easily gleaned from the table: the
bulk of US states during this period have
negative scores for the cohort mix but positive
values for the competitive effect. In general, positive
Copyright 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
R. S. Franklin
34
Competitive Effect
+
Figure 6. State-level geography of shiftshare analytical results, the competitive and cohort mix effects.
35
36
REFERENCES
Anselin L. 1995. Local indicators of spatial associationLISA. Geographical Analysis 27: 93115.
Arcelus F. 1984. An extension of shiftshare analysis.
Growth and Change 15: 38.
Barff RA, Knight PL. 1988. Dynamic shift share analysis.
Growth and Change 19: 110.
Dougherty C. 2010. U.S. nears racial milestone: Whites are
on verge of becoming a minority among newborns in
long-expected shift. Wall Street Journal. June 11.
[Accessed on 04/26/2012 at http://online.wsj.com/
article/SB10001424052748704312104575298512006681060.
html]
Franklin RS. 2011. Benchmarking student diversity at
public universities in the United States: accounting
for state population composition. The Annals of
Regional Science. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-011-0454-4
Franklin R, Plane D. 2004. A shift-share method for the
analysis of regional fertility change: an application
to the decline in childbearing in Italy, 1952-1991.
Geographical Analysis 36: 121.
Frey WH. 1996. Immigration, domestic migration, and
demographic balkanization in America: new
evidence for the 1990s. Population and Development
Review 22: 741763.
Haynes KE, Dinc M. 1997. Productivity change in
manufacturing regions: a multifactor/shift share
approach. Growth and Change 28: 201221.
Hoover EM. 1941. Interstate redistribution of population, 1850-1940. The Journal of Economic History 1:
199205.
Humes KR, Jones NA, Ramirez RR. 2011. Overview of
Race and Hispanic Origin: 2010. 2010 Census Brief
#C2010BR-02. Available at: http://www.census.
gov/population/race/.
Isard W. 1960. Methods of Regional Analysis: An Introduction to Regional Science. MIT Press: Cambridge.
Ishikawa Y. 1992. The 1970s migration turnaround in
Japan revisited: a shift share approach. Papers in
Regional Science 71: 153173.
Ishikawa Y. 1999. Contribution of the demographic factor
to the migration turnarounds in Japan, Sweden and
Canada. International Journal of Population Geography 5:
117.
Johnson KM, Lichter DT. 2010. Growing diversity
among Americas children and youth: spatial and
temporal dimensions. Population and Development
Review 36: 151176.
Knudsen DC. 2000. Shiftshare analysis: further examination of models for the description of economic
change. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 34: 177198.
Knudsen DC, Barff R. 1991. Shiftshare analysis as a linear
model. Environment and Planning A 23: 421431.
R. S. Franklin
Lichter DT, Johnson KM. 2009. Immigrant gateways
and Hispanic migration to new destinations.
International Migration Review 43: 496518.
Long L, Nucci A. 1997. The Hoover index of population concentration: a correction and update. The
Professional Geographer 49: 431440.
Massey DS. 2008. New Faces in new Places. Russell Sage
Foundation: New York.
Mulligan GF, Schmidt C. 2005. A note on
localization and specialization. Growth and Change
36: 565576.
Plane D. 1987. The geographic components of change
in a migration system. Geographical Analysis 19:
283289.
Plane DA. 1989. Population migration and economic
restructuring in the United States. International
Regional Science Review 12: 263280.
Plane DA, Rogerson PA. 1994. The Geographical Analysis
of Population: With Applications to Planning and Business.
Wiley: New York.
Rogerson PA, Plane DA. 2012. The Hoover index of
population concentration and the demographic
components of change: an article in memory of Andy
Isserman. International Regional Science Review. DOI:
10.1177/0160017612440811
Singer A. 2004. The Rise of new Immigrant Gateways. The
Living Cities Census Series. Brookings Institution:
Washington DC.
Smith D. 1977. Patterns in Human Geography. Penguin:
Harmondsworth.
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011a. 2010 Census Redistricting
Data Summary File. P2: Hispanic or Latino and
Not Hispanic or Latino by Race. [Accessed: 03/
24/2011 at http://factnder2.census.gov]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011b. 2010 Census Redistricting
Data Summary File. P4: Hispanic or Latino and
Not Hispanic or Latino by Race for the Population
18 Years and Over. [Accessed: 03/24/2011 at
http://factnder2.census.gov]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011c. 2000 Summary File 1. PCT012:
Sex by Age [Accessed for each race/ethnicity group:
03/23/2011 at http://factnder2.census.gov]
U.S. Census Bureau. 2011d. 2010 Census Shows
Americas Diversity. [Accessed: 04/26/2012 at http://
2010.census.gov/news/releases/operations/cb11cn125.html]
Vining DR, Strauss A. 1977. A demonstration that the
current deconcentration of population in the United
States is a clean break with the past. Environment
and Planning A 9: 751758.
Yen H. 2010. U.S. minority population could be majority
by mid-century census shows. Hufngton Post. June 10.
[Accessed: 04/26/2012 at http://www.hufngtonpost.
com/2010/06/10/us-minority-population-co_n_607369.
html]