Canadian Regional Population Growth and the Local Socio-Economic Conditions *
Paper presented at the special session of the AAG annual meeting, entitled
"Exploring the New Spatial Patterns of Economic Diversification and
Restructuring in Europe and Canada”
Boston,
April 16, 2008
By
Alfred Hecht, PhD, Dr. (h.c.)
Professor Emeritus and Associate Director,
Viessmann Research Centre on Modern Europe at Laurier
(rough draft – not for quoting)
*the research was sponsored in part by the CEPRA/AUCC/CIDA project number 52,
entitled: “The Economic, Geographical and Institutional Aspects of Economic Growth in
Russian Regions”
•
Abstract
In this paper Canadian population growth rates, at the census division level,
for the 1991-2001 and the 2001-2006 periods and their differences, are
examined. It is hypothesized that population growth in the various census
divisions of Canada, is related significantly to the socio-economic conditions
in them as measured in 2000. The question is raised if growth in the 19912001 period relates more to the 2000 socio-economic conditions, then
growth between 2001-2006. In other words does population growth relate to
past socio-economic conditions or to future conditions. Two multiple
regression models are run with each of the growth rates as dependent
variables. For independent variables some 45 socio-economic variable were
collected from the 2001 Canadian census as found in the community profile
files of the 293 census divisions. The regression equations accounted for a
high proportion (R square in the high 70s) of the variance of the growth
variables. Each had 10 and 13 independent variables entering the equation
respectively. It seems that jobs, income, housing, skills, education and
language conditions do strongly affect population grows at the census
division level in Canada.
Provinces and Territories of Canada
Development/Growth Theories[1]
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
»
Growth Pole Theory
Staple Growth Theory
Comparative Advantage Theory
Core Periphery Theory
Myrdal’s Cumulative Causation Theory
Hirschman’s Backward and Forward Linkage Theory
Heckscher-Ohlin Trade Theory
Economic Base Multiplier Theory
Kondratieff Wave Theory
Export Base Theory
Schumpeterian Growth Theory
Productivity Growth Theory
Dependency Theory
Clark-Fischer Development Model
Input Output Model
Rostow’s Stage Growth Model
» Alternate Theory: growth depends on the socio-economic conditions in the
origin and destination region
[1] No one reference will cover and discuss all of these. A start can be found in J. O. Wheeler’s et all book
Economic Geography, Wiley, 1996. Readers will also find Peter Dicken and Peter E. Lloyd’s classical text Location
in Space: Theoretical Perspectives in Economic Geography, Harper, 1990 quite useful. Others of interest are: Paul
Krugman, Development, Geography, and Economic Theory, MIT Press, 1995, Klaus Grimm, Theorien der
Unterentwicklung und Entwicklungstrategien, Westdeutscher Verlag, 1997, James D. Cockcroft, Andre Gunther
Frank and Dale L. Johnson, Dependence and Underdevelopment, Anchor Books, 1972, Paul Knox and John
Agnew, The Geography of the World Economy , Edward Arnold, 1989 and L. Needleman (ed) Regional Analysis ,
Penguin, 1968.
What causes differential growth in the Canadian census division population
in the late 20th and early 21st century?
Hypothesis
It is hypothesised that in Canada the following human related conditions, in a census
division. are causing regions to attract or reject additional population:
Demographic,
Religion,
Language,
Education,
Mobility,
Income,
Labour,
Work Situation and
Housing
i.e. Population growth, in a census division, is a function of the above socio-economic
conditions i.
Table 1: Canadian Population Growth Variations, 1991-2001 and 2001-2006 at the Provincial/Territorial level
Provinces/Territories
Pop. growth,
1991-2001
Deviation
from CAD,
Deviation
from CAD
Pop. growth,
2001-2006
Deviation
from CAD
Deviation
from CAD
in %
Absolute
%
in %
Absolute
%
Newfoundland and Lab.
-7
-11
-275.0
-1.5
-6.9
-127.8
Prince Edward Island
0.5
-3.5
-87.5
0.4
-5
-92.6
Nova Scotia
-0.1
-4.1
-102.5
0.6
-4.8
-88.9
New Brunswick
-1.2
-5.2
-130.0
0.1
-5.3
-98.1
Quebec
1.4
-2.6
-65.0
4.3
-1.1
-20.4
Ontario
6.1
2.1
52.5
6.6
1.2
22.2
Manitoba
0.5
-3.5
-87.5
2.6
-2.8
-51.9
Saskatchewan
-1.1
-5.1
-127.5
-1.1
-6.5
-120.4
Alberta
10.3
6.3
157.5
10.6
5.2
96.3
British Columbia
4.9
0.9
22.5
5.3
-0.1
-1.9
Yukon Territory
-6.8
-10.8
-270.0
5.9
0.5
9.3
Northwest Territories
-5.8
-9.8
-245.0
11
5.6
103.7
Nunavut
8.1
4.1
102.5
10.2
4.8
88.9
Canada
4
-3.25
-81.15
5.4
-1.17
-21.65
Source: Statistics Canada, Community Profiles,
http://www12.statcan.ca/english/census06/data/profiles/community/Index.cfm?Lang=E
Table 2: Population growth components (1991-2001)
Period
Pop. in 96/01
Births
Deaths
Immigration
Emigration
1991-1996
29,611,000
6.54
3.46
3.78
1.14
1996-2001
31,021,000
5.50
3.50
3.92
1.21
Source: Statistics Canada, Census of Population.
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo03.htm
Table 3: Absolute components of population growth, by province and territory July 1,2005/June 30,2006
Pop/06
Birth
Death
Imm
Em
Nte
31,612,897
343517
234914
254359
38551
25,562
20505
4640
Newfoundland
505,469
4368
4494
450
140
105
66
-62
-4368
Prince Edward Island
135,851
1393
1231
343
139
33
61
76
-127
Nova Scotia
913462
8617
8446
2199
784
375
386
608
-3930
New Brunswick
729997
6837
6585
1387
337
223
330
66
-3788
Quebec
7,546,131
78450
52900
41983
6139
4074
3343
1255
-8155
Ontario
12,160,282
133170
90945
133116
16643
10627
9046
-7443
-21391
1,148,401
13915
10226
8884
1370
560
795
814
-8635
968,157
12031
9250
2112
522
513
376
268
-9073
Alberta
3,290,350
41989
20310
19869
5311
2932
3026
4745
57105
British Columbia
4,113,487
40926
30028
43858
7116
6068
3062
4206
3779
Yukon
30,372
365
149
76
15
24
7
42
-194
Northwest Teritories
41,464
686
214
73
20
18
4
48
-1327
Nunavut
29474
770
136
9
15
10
3
17
104
Canada
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
,Note:
Imm = Immigration, Em = Emigration, Nte = Net temporary emigration
Re = Returning emigrants, Nnpr = Net non-permanent residents,
Nipm = Net inter-provincial migration
Source: Statistics Canada, Components of population growth, by province and territory
http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo33c.htm
Re
Nnpr
Nipm
Table 4: Percent population growth, by province and territory July 1,2005/June 30,2006
Pop/06
Canada
Birth
Death
Imm
Em
Nte
Re
Nnpr
Nipm
31,612,897
1.09
0.74
0.80
0.12
0.08
0.06
0.01
Newfoundland and Lab.
505,469
0.86
0.89
0.09
0.03
0.02
0.01
-0.01
-0.86
Prince Edward Island
135,851
1.03
0.91
0.25
0.10
0.02
0.04
0.06
-0.09
Nova Scotia
913462
0.94
0.92
0.24
0.09
0.04
0.04
0.07
-0.43
New Brunswick
729997
0.94
0.90
0.19
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.01
-0.52
Quebec
7,546,131
1.04
0.70
0.56
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.02
-0.11
Ontario
12,160,282
1.10
0.75
1.09
0.14
0.09
0.07
-0.06
-0.18
1,148,401
1.21
0.89
0.77
0.12
0.05
0.07
0.07
-0.75
968,157
1.24
0.96
0.22
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.03
-0.94
Alberta
3,290,350
1.28
0.62
0.60
0.16
0.09
0.09
0.14
1.74
British Columbia
4,113,487
0.99
0.73
1.07
0.17
0.15
0.07
0.10
0.09
Yukon
30,372
1.20
0.49
0.25
0.05
0.08
0.02
0.14
-0.64
Northwest Teritories
41,464
1.65
0.52
0.18
0.05
0.04
0.01
0.12
-3.2
Nunavut
29474
2.61
0.46
0.03
0.05
0.03
0.01
0.06
0.35
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Note: Imm = Immigration, Em = Emigration, Nte = Net temporary emigration,
Re = Returning emigrants, Nnpr = Net non-permanent residents, Nipm = Net inter-provincial migration
Source: Calculated from table 3
Dependent variable,
measured at each of the 293 Canadian Census Divisions.
Growth
V4 Population increase 1991-2001 in %
V4b Population increase 2001-2006 in %
Independent variables,
measured at each of the 293 Census Division levels in 2001 or 2006.
Demographic, Religion and Linguistic
Demographic
V3
v6
v14
v41
2001 population
Median age in the community
% of visible minorities in the community
% of one-person households
Religion
v44
v45
% of population that are protestants
% of people with no religious affiliation
Linguistic
V7
V8
V22
Language first learned and still understood, % English
Language first learned and still understood, % French
Language used most often at work - English and/or French (as %)
Independent variables,
measured at each of the 293 Census Division levels in 2001 or 2006.
Education and Mobility
Education
V15
V16
V17
V18
V5
Population 20-24 years of age studying full time (%)
Population 20-34 years old with a university certificate, diploma or degree
Population 35-44 years old with a university certificate, diploma or degree
Population 45-64 years old with a university certificate, diploma or degree
University present; 1-yes, 0-no
Mobility
V9
V10
V11
v12
V13
% of population, one year or older, that did not move in the previous year
% of population, 1 year and older, that lived in a different province or country 1 year ago
% of population 5 years or older that did not move in the last 5 years
% of population 5 years and older, that lived in a different province or country 5 years ago
1991 to 2001 Census Division in-migration as a % of total population
Independent variables,
measured at each of the 293 Census Division levels in 2001 or 2006.
Income
Income
V19
V20
V21
V36
V37
V38
V39
V40
% of population that have some earnings and are working full time
Average income of all workers
Average income of full time workers only
Median total income of persons 15 years of age and over
Earned income as % of total
Income from government transfers as % of total income
Other money as % of total income
Median income ($) of couple families
Independent variables,
measured at each of the 293 Census Division levels in 2001 or 2006.
Labour
Labour
V25
V26
V27
V28
V29
V30
V31
V32
V33
V34
V35
Labour force participation rate - %
Labour force employment rate - %
Labour force unemployment rate - %
Experienced labour force in manufacturing industries - %
Experienced labour force in fire and real estate industries - %
Experienced labour force in education and health industries - %
Experienced labour force in business services industries - %
Management occupations (%)
Business, finance and administration occupations (%)
Natural and applied sciences occupations (%)
Social science, education, government service and religion Occupations (%)
Independent variables,
measured at each of the 293 Census Division levels in 2001or 2006
Work situation, Housing
Work situation
V23 Worked at usual place (%)
V24 Car transportation to work in %
Housing
V42 % of owned dwellings
V43 Average value of owned dwelling ($)
Table 5: Simple descriptive statistics for dependent variables v4 and v4b
variables
V4 (1991-01)
V4b(2001-06)
min
-13.8
-15.7
max
3.7
11.3
Average
-5.1
-2.2
standard deviation
5.68
6.23
Note: v4 = Population increase 1991-2001 in %;
Note: v4b = Population increase 2001-2006 in %
Table 6: Regression Model Summary Statistics for v4 and v4b as Y's
Dependent Variable
R
R Square
Adjusted
Std. Error
R Square
of Estimate
df
F value
4b
0.88
0.78
0.77
2.75
280
88.21
(v4b)
0.86
0.74
0.73
3.24
277
61.6
Note: v4 = Population increase 1991-2001 in %; v4b = Population increase 2001-2006 in %
Table 6: Independent variables in v4 and v4b regression equations
Variables in equation
V43
V19
log v6
V8
V21
V11
V9
V42
V37
V16
V31
v33
V41
V7
V39
V38
V26
V35
V28
Definition of variables
Average value of owned dwelling ($)
% of population that have some earnings and are working full time
Median age in the community
Language: French mother tongue as % of total population
Average income of full time workers only
% of population 5 years or older that did not move in the last 5 years
% of population, one year or older, that did not move in the previous year
% of owned dwellings
Earned income as % of total
Population 20-34 years of age with a university certificate, diploma or degree
Experienced labour force in business services industries - %
Business, finance and administration occupations (%)
% of one-person households
Language: English mother tongue as % of total population
Other money as % of total income
Income from government transfers as % of total income
Labour force employment rate - %
Social science, education, government service and religion Occupations (%)
Experienced labour force in manufacturing industries - %
v4
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
v4b
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Table 7a: Multiple Regression Summary Statistics for v4 (dependent, 1991-2001 population growth)
Model
v4
Un-standardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Std. Error
95.59
16.24
v43
0.00007
0.000007
v19
0.15
t
Sig.
Beta
5.89
0
0.56
10.16
0
0.033
0.2
4.65
0
-78.28
6.911
-0.72
-11.33
0
0.06
0.005
0.44
10.7
0
v21
-0.00024
0.00005
-0.26
-4.67
0
v11
-0.66
0.069
-0.99
-9.48
0
v9
0.73
0.139
0.45
5.26
0
v42
0.28
0.029
0.52
9.7
0
v37
-0.3
0.06
-0.36
-5.1
0
v16
0.18
0.043
0.18
4.22
0
v31
-0.15
0.067
-0.1
-2.32
0.02
logv6
v8
Note: v4 = Population increase 1991-2001 in %
Table 7b: Multiple Regression Summary Statistics for v4b (dependent, 2001-2006 population growth) )
Model
v4b
Un-standardized
Standardized
Coefficients
Coefficients
B
(Constant)
Std. Error
-27.27
9.83
v33
0.32
0.09
v41
-0.42
v42
t
Sig.
Beta
-2.77
0.01
0.16
3.59
0
0.07
-0.3
-5.67
0
0.3
0.04
0.51
6.84
0
v7
-0.09
0.008
-0.56
11.53
0
v11
-0.64
0.05
-0.88
13.09
0
v39
0.76
0.12
0.41
6.3
0
v6
-0.48
0.15
-0.32
-3.31
0
v38
1.21
0.15
1.1
7.92
0
v19
0.17
0.05
0.2
3.39
0
v26
0.42
0.07
0.59
5.67
0
v21
0.00034
0.00008
0.33
4.41
0
v35
0.52
0.16
0.18
3.32
0
v28
0.08
0.03
0.1
2.6
0.01
Note: v4b = Population increase 2001-2006 in %
Summary
•
Holding other things constant, population growth relate significantly to the following variables for both periods:
–
% of population that have some earnings and are working full time
+ive
–
Median age in the community
-ive
–
Average income of full time workers only
-ive
–
% of population 5 years or older that did not move in the last 5 years
-ive
–
% of owned dwellings
+ive
–
Earned income as % of total
+ive
•
Holding other things constant, population growth for the 1991-2001 period related significantly to the following socio-economic conditions:
–
Average value of owned dwelling ($)
+ive
–
Language: French mother tongue as % of total population
+ive
–
% of population, one year or older, that did not move in the previous year
+ive
–
Population 20-34 years of age with a university certificate, diploma or degree
+ive
–
Experienced labour force in business services industries, in %
-ive
•
Holding other things constant, population growth for the 2001-06 period related significantly to the following socio-economic conditions
% of one-person households
-ive
–
Language: English mother tongue as % of total population
-ive
–
Other money as % of total income
+ive
–
Income from government transfers as % of total income
+ive
–
Labour force employment rate - %
+ive
–
Social science, education, government service and religion Occupations (%)
+ive
–
Experienced labour force in manufacturing industries in %
+ive
–
Business, finance and administration occupations (%)
+ive
As can be seen the variables that were significant for the both periods and for the two different periods varied somewhat. It points in the
direction that during different periods the factors that cause people to migrate or to stay will vary. Hence it is somewhat dangerous to have
similar policies for growing and declining regions and for different economic cycles. Although there is some communality in the factors or
causes that relate to growth as table 10 shows, policies probably should be flexible. They should ‘kick in’ as conditions change.
Conclusion
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
The high regression value between the 2001 socio-economic variables and
population growth in the 1991-2001 and 2001-2006 periods, suggest a close
causal relationship between them
The fact that the R square value is slightly higher for the 1991-2001 increase,
suggest that people tend to move to regions with perceived better future conditions
The fewer explanatory variable for the 1991-2001 growth period would also
suggest that growth, due in part due to in and out-migration, may be based upon a
simple future condition evaluation
Most traditional growth theories may not be that important in broad regional growth
differences
The fact that, both past and future population growth, was strongly related to
conditions in 2001, suggest that Myrdal’s Cumulative Causation Theory may be
the underlying explanation
The fact that we are comparing 10 and 5 year population growth variables, may
have affected the results
Since this study did not remove different regional birth and death rates, also could
have affected the results
Maybe distance between census divisions could also have affected growth in any
one
Future regional growth studies should take into consideration regional
attractiveness as an explanatory variable