A general linear demographic model is derived which subsumes a wide variety of previously proposed population models. The general model includes in particular the linear model of interregional population growth and distribution developed by Rogers and others. One feature of this model is criticized, the allocation of outmigrants from any region in constant proportions among possible destination regions. Insofar as persons migrate to economic opportunities, outmigrants will distribute themselves among regions in proportion to these opportunities. Insofar as the economy of a region services its population, opportunities will vary directly with population. This suggests the introduction of a new model which allows for the variable allocation of outmigrants from each region according to the distribution of population among possible destination regions. Such a model is proposed, and it turns out to be nonlinear. The linear and nonlinear models are compared by applying them to the analysis of migration between three regions of the United States during 1955–1960. In the course of developing the new model, a set of interregional migration statistics is defined which eliminates the imperfect duality between interregional in- and out-migration rates.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BlumenI.KoganM.McCarthyP. J., 1955, The Industrial Mobility of Labor as a Probability Process, New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
2.
BogueD. J.ShryockH. S.Jr.HoermannS. A., 1957, Subregional Migration in the United States, 1935–1940. 2 Volumes. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution-Number 5, Scripps Foundation, Miami University, Oxford, Ohio.
3.
CoaleA. J., 1972, The Growth and Structure of Human Populations: A Mathematical Investigation (Princeton University Press, Princeton, N.J.).
4.
EnzerH., 1964, “On a useful capital growth matrix”, Econometrica, 34 (1), 183–192.
5.
FeeneyG. M., 1970, “Stable age by region distributions”, Demography, 7 (3), 341–348.
6.
FeeneyG. M., 1971, “Comment on a proposition of H. Le Bras”, Journal of Theoretical Population Biology, 2 (1), 122–123.
7.
GoodmanL. A., 1969, “The analysis of population growth when the birth and death rates depend upon several factors”, Biometrics, 25 (4), 659–681.
8.
HalmosP. R., 1958, Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces (Van Nostrand, Princeton).
9.
HalmosP. R., 1960, Naive Set Theory (Van Nostrand, Princeton).
10.
KeyfitzN., 1964, “The population projection as a matrix operator”, Demography, 1 (1), 56–73.
11.
KeyfitzN., 1968, Introduction to the Mathematics of Population (Addison—Wesley, Reading, Mass.).
12.
KeyfitzN.FliegerW., 1968, World Population: An Analysis of Vital Data (University of Chicago Press, Chicago).
13.
Le BrasH., 1971, “Équilibre et croissance de populations soumises à des migrations”, Journal of Theoretical Population Biology, 2(1), 100–121.
14.
LeslieP. H., 1945, “On the use of matrices in population analysis”, Biometrika, 33, 183–212.
15.
LeslieP. H., 1948, “Some further notes on the use of matrices in population analysis”, Biometrika, 35, 213–245.
16.
LipschutzS., 1956, Set Theory and Related Topics (McGraw-Hill, New York).
17.
LotkaA. J., 1924, Elements of Physical Biology (Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md.). Reprinted with corrections under the title Elements of Mathematical Biology (Dover Publications, New York), 1956.
18.
MatrasJ., 1962, “Differential fertility, intergenerational mobility, and change in the occupational distribution: Some elementary interrelationships”, Population Studies, 15, 187–197.
19.
MatrasJ., 1967, “Social mobility and social structure: Some insights from the linear model”, American Sociological Review, 32 (4), 608–614.
20.
MatrasJ., 1968, “Mobility, marriage, and natural increase: A further variant on the linear model”, Paper presented to the Cornell Converence on Human Mobility, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
21.
MatrasJ.WinsboroughH. H., 1969, “On the empirical study of population transformations”, Paper presented to the Second Conference on the Mathematics of Population, Berkeley and Asilomar, California, August, 1969.
22.
MurphyE. M., 1965, A Generalization of Stable Population Techniques, unpublished Ph. D. Dissertation, Department of Sociology, University of Chicago.
23.
NikaidoH., 1968, Convex Structures and Economic Theory (Academic Press, New York).
24.
OlssonG., 1965, Distance and Human Interaction (Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pa.).
25.
PraisS. J., 1956, “The formal theory of social mobility”, Population Studies, 9, 72–81.
26.
ReesP. H.WilsonA. G., 1972, “Accounts and models for spatial demographic analysis I: Aggregate populations”, Environment and Planning, 5.
27.
RogersA., 1966a, “Matrix methods of population analysis”, Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 32 (1), 40–44.
28.
RogersA., 1966b, “The multiregional matrix growth operator and the stable interregional age structure”, Demography, 3 (2), 537–544.
29.
RogersA., 1968, Matrix Analysis of Interregional Population Growth and Distribution (University of California Press, Berkeley).
30.
RogersA., 1972, “The mathematics of multiregional demographic growth”, Environment and Planning, 5, 3–29.
31.
StoneR., 1965, “A model of the educational system”, Minerva, 3 (2), 172–186.
32.
StoneR., 1966, “Input—output and demographic accounting: A tool for educational planning”, Minerva, 4 (3), 365–380.
33.
StoneR., undated, Demographic Accounting and Model Building, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, Paris.
34.
TarverJ. D.GurleyW. R., 1965, “A stochastic analysis of geographic mobility and population projections of the census divisions in the United States”, Demography, 2, 134–139.
35.
US Bureau of the Census, 1964, United States Census of Population: 1960. Subject Reports, Lifetime and Recent Migration. Final Report PC(2)-2D, US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
WilsonA. G., 1971, “Multiregional models of population structure and some implications for a dynamic residential location model”, Working Paper 6, Department of Geography, University of Leeds, and London Papers in Regional Science 3: Patterns and Processes in Urban and Regional Systems (Pion, London), pp. 217–242 (1972).
38.
ZipfG. K., 1946, “The P1P2/D hypothesis: On the intercity movement of persons”, American Sociological Review, II, 677–686.
39.
ZipfG. K., 1949, Human Behavior and the Principle of Least Effort (Addison—Wesley, Reading, Mass.).
