by Mark Mather, associate vice president, Domestic Programs
With the 2010 Census enumeration winding down, we demographers are getting excited about data. The census happens just once every 10 years and no one knows exactly what the results are going to show. If the Census Bureau’s latest population estimates correctly foretell the 2010 Census count, then the official tally for April 2010 should come in around 309 million.
But there’s a lot of wiggle room around that number, and the final count could come in several million people higher or lower than we expect. Back in 2000, the official census tally, at 281.4 million, was nearly 7 million people higher than expected based on intercensal population estimates. That’s like missing the entire population of Arizona.
Why is there so much uncertainty? After all, the population balancing equation is pretty straightforward: Just add births, subtract deaths, and add net international migrants (immigrants minus emigrants) to last year’s population to get the population for the current year.
One of the challenges is getting reliable estimates of net international migration. Immigrants are a diverse population, consisting of legal immigrants, refugees, unauthorized migrants, temporary migrants (such as students or temporary workers), and migrants from Puerto Rico (see the table here for more detail). Of these groups, unauthorized migrants are by far the most difficult to track, and their migration flows can change in response to short-term social, economic, or political factors. The Migration Policy Institute has linked a decline in unauthorized immigrants to the recent recession, but we do not have any hard numbers on this trend.
Here is another challenge: U.S. population estimates are only as good as the decennial census counts on which they are based. You can think of annual estimates as hands on a clock. Every 10 years we reset the clock to the “correct” time based on the decennial census enumeration. Then, over the next 10 years, we move the hands of the clock forward (or backward) based on the estimated numbers of births, deaths, and net international migrants. Part of the challenge is setting the hands to move at the right speed. But arriving at the correct time in 2010 also assumes that we set the clock to the right time back in 2000. In many ways, the 2000 Census was considered to be one of the most accurate in history, but there were still millions of people who were missed and millions more who were counted twice. To the extent that the Census Bureau corrects these erroneous omissions and duplicates in 2010, the population could come in significantly higher or lower than expected.
The first official national and state population counts from the 2010 Census, which are used to apportion seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, must be delivered to the President of the United States by December 31 of this year. What will the data show? I’m going to put the U.S. population as of April 1, 2010 somewhere between 304 million and 314 million. And if I had to pinpoint a number, I’d put the final tally at around 307 million, slightly below the Census Bureau’s current estimate. What do you think the official count will be?
Yesterday my household was one of millions nationwide to receive an advance letter from the U.S. Census Bureau, encouraging me to fill out and return my 2010 Census questionnaire when it arrives sometime next week. The Census Bureau sent out a similar letter in 2000, in an effort to boost participation in the once-a-decade count of the U.S. population. In 2000, the national participation rate—or the percent of forms mailed back by households that received them—was around 72 percent.
How well will your community do? You can keep track by visiting the Census Bureau’s Take 10 Map, where they will track participation rates for communities across the country in real time. For more information, you can also visit PRB’s website.
by Mark Mather, associate vice president, Domestic Programs
Today, Census Bureau Director Robert Groves is headed to Noorvik Alaska to kick off the 2010 Census enumeration of the U.S. population. By mid-March, the Census Bureau will have mailed out more than 120 million questionnaires to residential addresses around the country. Earlier this month, the Census Bureau also launched its $133 million advertising campaign to boost awareness of the census and why it’s important.
A report released last week by the Pew Research Center showed that 9 in 10 people know about the census and understand that it’s important, but getting everyone to send back their completed forms is another matter. Nearly one in five people are ambivalent about participating in the once-a-decade enumeration of the U.S. population. Among those who said they won’t participate, most reported they are either too busy, not interested, or don’t know much about the census. But more than one-fourth of the census doubters—those that keep Census Bureau staff up at night—said they either don’t trust the government, don’t think the census is important, or have concerns about invasion of privacy.
There is more at stake here than the accuracy of the data. For every 1-percentage-point increase in the initial mail-back response rate, taxpayers save up to $90 million in costs associated with in-person, follow-up interviews to collect the missing information. For more information about the 2010 Census and why it’s important, visit PRB’s website.
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has long advocated a rise in Russia’s very low birth rate. In 2007, with his bidding, the government took the dramatic step of providing women with a $9,000 payment for the birth of a second child. The incentive certainly seems to have worked. In 2007, births jumped nearly 9 percent over 2006 and, in 2008, by 6.4 percent over 2007. Russia’s total fertility rate (TFR) now stands at 1.49 (2008), up from its nadir of 1.16 in 1999. And several other developments may combine so that Russia’s population size avoids the decline begun in 1995. This was not lost on Mr. Putin, who has been widely quoted celebrating the prospect of a year with no decrease.
Official demographic data have been released by the state statistical bureau, GOSKOMSTAT, for January 2009 through November (Russia releases vital statistics very quickly). Those show an increase in births for the January-November 2009 period of 2.8 percent, lower than the previous two years but still an increase. At the same time, deaths dropped by 3.7 percent so that natural decrease, birth minus deaths, was “only” -224,310. I say only because that figure was an astounding -958,000 in 2000. So for population to grow in 2009, net international migration will have to offset that -224,310. That certainly seems to be well within reach since net immigration from January to October was reported as 210,446, much of it from Central Asia and other former Soviet republics which the Russians often refer to as the “near abroad.” Based on typical migration patterns in Russia in November and December, about 250,000 net immigration can be expected. So, population-watchers, look for some celebrations in Russia later this month.
But, hold the phone. The Russian TFR, at about 1.5 is still very low and the country still depends upon non-Russian migration to keep its head above water. But there’s more and it’s even more important. Russia’s age-sex pyramid took a body blow during the period of high natural decrease. The number of young people moving up the age ladder into the prime childbearing ages is much less than those now in the childbearing years. As of January 1, 2009, there were 6.2 million females in the age group 20-24. The 15-19 age group was only 4.5 million and both the 5-9 and 10-14 age groups taken together totaled 6.5 million. As those younger age groups begin childbearing, births will certainly decline even if the TFR rises. Beyond that, deaths will rise as the elderly population grows significantly in size.It may be a short party.
It’s hard to believe, but 2010 is just around the corner. Next April, the 2010 U.S. Census will determine how many people live in the United States, who they are, and where they live. The Census is not only used to draw federal congressional and state legislative districts, but its data are also used to allocate more than $400 billion in federal funding, vital to state and local governments, schools, businesses, and researchers.
As the 2010 U.S. Census gets closer and final preparations get underway, the Census Project, a nonpartisan coalition committed to educating policymakers, the media, and other stakeholder organizations about the importance of an accurate census, has launched a new blog. It will be updated every Tuesday over the next year with updates as census offices open around the country, advertising campaigns begin, census forms are mailed, and a million census takers are recruited and deployed across the country. Visit the blog, written by the project’s consultant, Terri Ann Lowenthal, and the project’s co-director, Phil Sparks at censusprojectblog.org. PRB is also highlighting developments as the 2010 Census gets closer at our PRB 2010 Census page.
On August 12, PRB launched the annual World Population Data Sheetand accompanying Population Bulletin in Washington, DC, highlighting country, regional, and global population, health, and environment data and patterns. This year’s data sheet places special emphasis on youth.
The share of world’s youth population is growing in Africa and shrinking in More Developed Countries (MDCs). In 1950, 9 percent of the world’s youth lived in Africa and 30 percent lived in MDCs (Europe, North America, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan). By 2050, that share will change to 29 percent in Africa and 11 percent in the MDCs. “The great bulk of today’s 1.2 billion youth—nearly 90 percent—are in developing countries,” said Carl Haub, PRB senior demographer and co-author of the data sheet. Eight in 10 of those youth live in Africa and Asia. “During the next few decades, these young people will most likely continue the current trend of moving from rural areas to cities in search of education and training opportunities, gainful employment, and adequate health care.” With the right investments in health, education, agricutlural develomment, and entrepreneurship, a large youth population can be an opportunity for development and change. However, these investments are not being made in many countries. The fundamental question facing many developing countries is whether the needs of their large youth populations will be met. The answer to this question will largely determine the development, stability, and future of developing countries.
The data sheet shows just how stark the contrasts are between rich and poor countries in terms of population growth, life expectancy, income, and other indicators. Stay tuned for a webcast on prb.org of the data sheet launch at the National Press Club over the next week.
We welcome your comments, input, questions on our findings and the implications of this on the world’s future.
Here are just a few stories on the data sheet launch from around the world:
by Jason Bremner, program director, Population, Health, and Environment
Andy Revkin’s post this week on The New York Times’ DotEarth blog highlights a recent paper published in Nature that indicates that countries with the highest Human Development Index are seeing rises in fertility. Revkin asks if this is a boon or trouble, and refers specifically to what impact rising fertility among the richest countries might have on climate change.
At first glance, the article suggests a fundamental change in our understanding of the relationship between fertility and development. However, the United Nations Population Division’s (UNPD) medium projections for world population already account for an increase in fertility among developed countries. The medium variant projection, which would put world population at about 9 billion by 2050 assumes that fertility in more developed countries will increase from a low level of 1.56 in the 1990’s to 1.8 by 2050. The world population projections are an aggregation of individual country level projections based on the most recent census and the best available data on fertility, mortality, and migration trends. Even for countries that have continued to experience fertility declines, such as Japan and Canada, the UNPD medium variant projection assumes an eventual reversal of the trend and an increase in fertility. More information about these assumptions can be found on UNPD’s website.
As for the second part of the question (how will this increase impact the environment and specifically climate change), there is already quite a bit of research on the link between population and climate change, and population projections are already one of the backbones of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) carbon emissions scenarios. The IPCC actually uses the UNPD’s medium variant population projections in their emissions scenarios, which suggests that the observed fertility increase among the most developed countries of the world is already accounted for in current scenarios.
A more important question, however, is whether the consideration of population growth alone is adequate in current IPCC scenarios. Research summarized by Population Action International suggests that age composition, the urban and rural distribution of a population, and the number of households as well as the number of people living in each household all have an impact on emissions. For example, estimates of carbon emissions in China are 45 percent greater if aging and urbanization trends are considered in scenarios in combination with population size, while in the United States, aging results in reduced emissions scenarios.
Instead of asking whether rises in fertility in the most developed countries is a boon or trouble, perhaps we should examine what other types of demographic shifts are occurring and how these affect the environment. Are aging, urbanization, and household size affecting climate change more than fertility rates? If so, what should be done?
by Farzaneh (Nazy) Roudi, program director, Middle East and North Africa
Iran’s demographic momentum is in favor of those who aspire for social and political change. According to the 2006 Iranian census, one in three people in Iran is between the ages of 15 and 29. Furthermore, half the Iranian population of more than 70 million is under age 30, born around the 1979 Islamic revolution or after (see the age pyramid below). For them, the Islamic revolution is history and they want change now to address today’s needs. By their very nature, young people throughout the world aspire for a life different from and better than their parents, and in fact they are often the force behind changes in their societies.
Source: Statistical Center of Iran
The youth bulge is more evident in Iran than any other country in the world because Iran has experienced the fastest fertility decline in the last two decades or so, according to a recent United Nations report (see table A.14). According to the Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education, fertility declined by more than two-thirds, from 6.6 births per woman in the mid-1970s to about 2 births per woman in 2006. The most surprising and impressive decline occurred in rural areas. In one generation (a period of about 30 years), Iranian women living in rural areas moved from giving birth to 8 children to around 2 children, on average.
Iran’s Falling Fertility Rate by Area for Selected Years, 1977-2006
Births per woman
1977
1996
2000
2006
Urban
4.5
2.2
1.8
1.8
Rural
8.1
3.5
2.4
2.1
Total
6.6
2.8
2.0
1.9
Source: Iranian Ministry of Health and Medical Education.
The rapid decline in the total fertility rate is due to simultaneous reduction at all ages: delay in childbearing by young couples, increased spacing of births by married women, and cessation of births by older women. These changes coincided with the revival of the national family planning program, delivered free through a nationwide network of primary health care facilities. Today, nearly 80 percent of married women of reproductive age use family planning and 60 percent of married women use a modern method.
Iranian women have been an accelerating force of development in the country, as manifested in their fertility behavior and desire to improve their life—55 percent of students enrolled in colleges and universities in 2005 were female. Having achieved their reproductive rights, Iranian women are now at the forefront of movements in the country that demand more rights and equality for all its citizens.
Whether Iran will manage to reap the benefits of its demographic dividend (having a large working-age population relative to the younger and older population groups who depend on the working-age population) all depends on how well its economy is equipped to create jobs for its rapidly expanding and mostly educated labor force. The youth unemployment rate (15 to 24 years old) stands at 23 percent, twice that of the total labor force. Finding a job is even more challenging for young women. One in three young Iranian women in the labor force (defined as either working or looking for a job) are unemployed. Young Iranians have been leaving the country in large numbers to find jobs in faraway places as Canada and Australia. The cost to the country for losing its human capital is estimated to be $40 billion a year.
Unemployment and high costs of living, coupled with social and political restrictions, have made it increasingly difficult for young Iranians. The sudden uprising that erupted following the disputed presidential election of June 12 is a manifestation of all the underlying frustrations. Young people’s demands for more political and social freedom and economic security cannot be ignored, not only because they are living at the dawn of 21st century and their demands are legitimate, but also because of their sheer numbers.
by Mark Mather, associate vice president, Domestic Programs
With the 2010 Census right around the corner, the Census Bureau is gearing up for one of the biggest hiring frenzies the United States has ever seen. Between 2009 and 2010, the Census Bureau hopes to hire 1.4 million temporary workers to help conduct census operations.
Let’s put those 1.4 million workers into perspective:
The 1790 Census was conducted by 16 U.S. Marshals on horseback and their 650 assistants. (Today, most census enumerators must have a valid driver’s license and use of a car.)
By April 2010, there will be about 130 million households in the United States. That means there will be more than one census worker for every 100 U.S. households.
If all of the new census employees were drawn from the current ranks of the unemployed, the unemployment rate in would drop from 8.9 percent to 8.0 percent, almost a full percentage point.
Maine’s total population, according to the latest census estimates, is around 1.3 million.
Why are so many workers needed? Census 2010 is being billed as the “largest peacetime operation” ever conducted by the U.S. federal government. This spring, the Census Bureau hired 140,000 workers to help update more than 145 million addresses in the Census Bureau’s database. We recently spied one of these workers in Dupont Circle, the DC neighborhood where PRB’s offices are located. She wore a census badge and was entering data into a handheld computer.
However, most of the census workers will be hired in early 2010. Their main job is to interview—by phone or in person—people who fail to fill out and return their questionnaires. “Nonrespondent” households present a serious and growing problem for the Census Bureau. There were 42 million nonrespondent households in 2000 and more are expected in 2010, including many immigrants and others who fear and/or distrust the federal government.
Counting the U.S. population is not an easy job. But it is a critically important one. The federal government uses decennial census data to apportion congressional seats, draw state and local legislative districts, and to allocate billions of federal funds to states and local communities. Private organizations, such as PRB, use decennial census information to look at long-term demographic trends and to compare important population subgroups across states and local areas.
So we hope you will apply for the job. In the process, you might learn some interesting facts about your own community. For information about how to become a census taker in 2010, visit the Census Bureau’s website . For more information about the 2010 Census and why it’s important, visit PRB’s website.
(Thanks to O.P. Sharma, PRB’s consultant in India, for providing the data for this post and checking it for accuracy)
With the 2010 U.S. Census, used to allocate seats in the House of Representatives, just around the corner and national elections now underway in India, this is a good time to look at how seats are allocated in both countries.
In the United States, the constitutional purpose of the census is to allocate seats in the House. Of the 435 seats, each state receives one seat and the balance are allocated based on population size using the “method of equal proportions,” an ingenious method devised by Edward Vermilye Huntington, a Harvard instructor. Huntington’s method was established as the only method to be used in the future in 1941 in order to avoid the political squabbles that had erupted after previous censuses. The method allocates seats keeping the population size of each Congressional district as equal as possible. It is not possible for them to be exactly equal, of course. The number of seats is also important since a state’s electoral votes in Presidential elections is the number of House seats plus two (the number of Senate seats).
In India, seats are also allocated based on population, but with a twist. India’s population policy was established in 1952 to lower the birth rate and slow population growth. Some states, such as Kerala and Tamil Nadu in southern India, have performed very well. Others, such as Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh in the north have not. These are very populous states as well as being India’s poorest. They are often referred to by the acronym “BIMARU,” which, by coincidence, also means “sick” in Hindi. Allocation of seats in the Lok Sabha, India’s lower, and more powerful chamber, was frozen back in 1973 to the 1971 Census count so as not to reward poorly-performing states on the family planning program with an increasing number of seats. As a result, as of 2001, Kerala and Tamil Nadu have 1.6 million population per seat, while Bihar and Uttar Pradesh have 2.1 million and Rajasthan a lofty 2.3 million per seat. So there.
by Mark Mather, associate vice president, Domestic Programs
