NEWSLETTER
POPULATION SPECIALTY GROUP
ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN GEOGRAPHERS

(Presidential Letter from Brigitte Waldorf, University of Arizona)

The Relative Importance of the Annals and the Professional Geographer

for Population Geographers

In early December of last year, I e-mailed members of the Population Specialty Group some information regarding the proposed merger of the Annals and the Professional Geographer, and encouraged members to comment on the merger. In the same message, I promised to summarize the statements and forward them to the AAG office. Well ... I received one response. One! The lack of response is puzzling, especially after witnessing the heated debates going on in other specialty groups. I am wondering whether population geographers do not have an opinion, do not care, or feel that others have already expressed their opinions? Perhaps the lack of response is rooted in the belief that population geographers do not consider the Annals and Professional Geographer as good outlets for their research anyway?

This last issue, the suitability of our profession's main journals as an outlet for population research, intrigued me. So I decided to get a better idea of the representation of population geographers in our two flagship journals. Competently assisted by Rachel Martin (University of Arizona), I analyzed the research articles published in the Annals and Professional Geographer during the 1990s. For each article, we recorded whether the author, or at least one coauthor in the case of multiple authors, is a PSG member or indicated an interest in population, based on the entries in the 1998 AAG Directory. In the following, these articles are referred to as "PSG articles." The Table below lists the absolute numbers and percentages of PSG articles in the Annals and in the Professional Geographer from 1990 to 1998. First, during the 1990s, the Professional Geographer published 1.6 times as many PSG articles as the Annals. Of the 232 research articles published in the Annals, only 24 or 10.3 percent are PSG articles. In contrast, of the 210 research articles published in the Professional Geographer, 39 or 18.6 percent are PSG articles.

Second, looking at individual years the percentages of PSG articles in the Annals vary from a minimum of 3.5 percent in 1996 to a maximum of 16.7 percent in 1994. For the Professional Geographer, a distinct trend over time can be observed: the representation of PSG articles in the Professional Geographer is substantially higher in the latter half of the 1990s than in the earlier years, reaching an all time high of nine articles (31 percent of all research articles) published in 1998. This recent increase of PSG articles in the Professional Geographer has led to a pronounced gap in PSG representation between our two flagship journals: during the last five years, the Professional Geographer published nearly three times as many PSG articles as the Annals. Thus, those seeking interesting reading by population geographers are much more likely to find it in the Professional Geographer than in the Annals.

The PSG publication records in the Annals and the Professional Geographer depend on the number of article submissions by PSG members and the rejection rates in the two journals. Assuming that rejection rates of submitted PSG manuscripts do not differ substantially between the two journals or are smaller for the Annals than for the Professional Geographer, I must conclude that PSG members view the Professional Geographer as a more viable outlet for their research than the Annals. Alternatively, if rejection rates for PSG manuscripts in the Annals exceed those in the Professional Geographer, the door is open for all kinds of (politically dangerous?) implications. I will leave this issue to the imagination of the readers: you ponder, come up with your own speculations, converse with others ...

The 63 PSG articles published in our flagship journals were written by 45 different authors or co-authors. The vast majority of (co-) authors, 56 percent, published in the Professional Geographer only. Twenty-four percent published in both journals, and 20 percent published in the Annals only. Clearly, over a nine-year period PSG members are much more productive than indicated by these figures. The interdisciplinary nature of population research provides PSG members with a wide choice of alternative outlets that they seem to utilize extensively. For example, Plane and Bitter (1997) provide a detailed analysis of migration and other population related articles in regional science journals. They show that during 1990-94 the two flagship journals of the Regional Science Association International published a large amount of population-related articles: 15.7 percent of all articles published in the Papers of Regional Science and 14 percent of all articles published in the Journal of Regional Science are related to migration and other population issues (Plane, D. and C. Bitter 1997: The Role of Migration Research in Regional Science. Papers in Regional Science: The Journal of the RSAI 76 (2): 133-153). Given the interdisciplinary character of Regional Science, these articles are not only written by geographers but by researchers from many different disciplines. However, geographers seem to be well represented among the authors. Did this (admittedly somewhat superficial) analysis of research articles in the Annals and Professional Geographer solve the mystery of non-responses regarding the proposed merger of our flagship journals? I am afraid, it did not. I realize that PSG members have many journals other than the Annals and Professional Geographer available for their research, and thus may not care about the proposed merger. However, given the strong representation of PSG articles in the Professional Geographer relative to the Annals in recent years and given that the majority of authors are only represented in the Professional Geographer, shouldn't PSG members be unified in a strong and openly expressed interest in maintaining the Professional Geographer in the future? Why is the PSG so silent about this issue?
 

U.S. Supreme Court rules that the 2000 Census

Can't Use Sampling

In the last issue (Fall 1998) of the PSG Newsletter it was pointed out that two federal courts had invalidated the Census Bureau's plans to use statistical sampling for the 2000 Census. Now the U.S. Supreme Court has reached the same conclusion. This is a decision of major importance to areas with large numbers of minorities and poor people. By a 5-4 decision, the justices said population figures may not be statistically adjusted to determine how many representatives each state will send to Congress. On the other hand, it left the Clinton administration free to press for the adjustment, based on sampling, for other far-reaching purposes, such as dividing up $180 billion in federal money to states and localities, and redrawing voting districts at all levels of government. Whether that option materializes will depend on whether the Republican-led Congress provides enough money to pay for two sets of population figures (one based on the raw count and the other based on an adjustment).

The 1990 Census missed about 4 million people, for a coverage error of 1.6 percent. However, this was the first census during the past 50 years that was less accurate than the one before it (the 1980 Census coverage error was only 1.4 percent). The people missed were primarily city dwellers, children, recently arrived immigrants, poor people, renters, and minorities, just the types of people who could benefit most from many federal programs.

The areas most affected by the 1990 undercount were places such as South Florida, New Mexico, Los Angeles, New York, and cities where Blacks or Hispanics make up the majority. For the 2000 count, the Census Bureau predicts that it will miss more than 5 million people if sampling is barred. The Bureau also estimates that conducting the count the same way it was done in 1990 would cost at least $675 million more than if sampling were used as a supplement.

The Supreme Court said federal law bars the use of sampling for one vital purpose ­ apportionment of the 435 seats among the states in the House of Representatives. That means, for apportionment purposes, the Census must be conducted in the traditional way, through direct head counts and responses to mailed questionnaires. Agreeing members of the Supreme Court felt that allowing the use of statistics to estimate rather than actually count the population for apportionment purposes would allow the party controlling Congress the power to distort representation in its own favor. It is important, however, to note that the Supreme Court decision applies only to apportionment for the House of Representative, thereby apparently allowing sampling to be used for other purposes such as drawing election district boundaries and doling out federal aid to the poor and disadvantaged.

President Clinton's plan to use statistical sampling was challenged by taxpayers in six states ­ Connecticut, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. They contended that adjusting the "real" count would cost them money and political clout.

The five justices agreeing with the majority decision to not allow sampling were Sandra Day O'Conner, William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. The four dissenting justices were John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. (This article is excerpted from: Aaron Epstein, "Census Can't 'Sample' Population in 2000, Supreme Court Rules," The Miami Herald, January 26, 1999, p. 1A.)
 

Editorial in The Washington Post Responds to Supreme Court Ruling Disallowing Sampling for the 2000 Census

The following Editorial in The Washington Post (Friday, February 19, 1999, p. A22.) is a response to the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Census Bureau's proposal to use sampling techniques in the 2000 Census:

"Before they do such issues as Social Security and a tax cut, the President and Congress need to do the Census. The question is to what extent the Bureau will be permitted to use sampling and related techniques to adjust for the chronic undercount of poor people, and minority groups particularly, that has plagued the Census in recent decades.

The administration favors the step as the only practical way of achieving final figures that are accurate and fair. Republicans are opposed, on grounds that the Constitution requires an "actual enumeration" and that adjusting figures would be subject to political manipulation. Their underlying fear is that the adjustment process could cost them seats and conceivably their majority in the House in the next redistricting.

The parties have deferred the issue up to now. The Republicans also asked the courts to resolve what the political process could not. The Supreme Court recently issued a decision that in effect handed the issue back. It didn't reach the constitutional question, holding instead that the relevant statute requires the use of unadjusted figures in apportioning House seats among the states but appears to require the use of adjusted figures for such other purposes as allocating federal funds and perhaps even drawing congressional district lines within states.

Statutory issues are for the elected branches to work out. That seems especially right in this case, since the issue is fundamentally political. But the Bureau is fast approaching the point where it needs a decision, to avert a fiasco for which the faltering politicians would themselves be to blame.

The census money is in the appropriations bill for the departments of State, Justice, and Commerce. The bill was written to expire this summer, at which point those major departments would be without funds unless the census issue could be resolved. It's a game of chicken that has been set up; which party will flinch at the approach of a possible partial governmental shutdown?

The administration is right on this one. Congress should give the ground and permit the sampling. The opponents who fear manipulation are engaging in a form of manipulation of their own if they compel the undercount that they well know will otherwise occur. To leave the vulnerable in society undercounted, underrepresented, and without funds to which they are entitled is especially unfair. The issue can't be resolved at the committee level, where too much of the fighting has gone on so far. The President and the Speaker of the House need to step up to it."
 

Statement by the New Director of U.S. Bureau of the Census About the 2000 Census
 

The following is excerpted from a press release issued by Dr. Kenneth Prewitt, Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, presented at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on February 24, 1999:

"...The results of the 1990 census did not please the Census Bureau, or the Bush administration, or the Congress, or governors, mayors, and other state and local officials, or a large number of private and public sector data users, or the American public. It was a costly census; it was less accurate than what the country has a right to expect. The Census Bureau was charged to design a more modern census, one that would reduce the number of Americans who are missed ­ either because we cannot find them or because they won't cooperate. It did so. That design, however, quickly became mired in political disputes, was litigated, and a month ago was set aside by the Supreme Court.

The Census Bureau had, of course, planned for that possibility. It had presented an alternative design to the Administration and the Congress in mid-January, before the Court ruling. Based on our recently completed evaluation of our Dress Rehearsal experience, we have further refined that plan. Its principle features are the subject of this press conference.

The Dress Rehearsal tells us two things: First, however hard we try and whatever the level of resources available, Census 2000 will not count everyone [my bolding]. Moreover, this "undercount" will not be equally distributed across demographic groups. There is what we refer to as a differential undercount. For instance, in 1990 we counted nearly all White Americans, but only approximately 95 percent of African-Americans and Hispanics, and an even lower rate of Native American Indians. Insofar as these less well counted groups are concentrated in some states, not others; in some cities, not others; in some neighborhoods, not others, those states, cities, and neighborhoods do not get their fair share of either the political or economic benefits allocated on the basis of census numbers.

Second, the Census Bureau design should include a procedure described in the updated summary as the Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation (ACE) that will identify the magnitude and distribution of the differential account, and correct for it. The Dress Rehearsal confirms the statistical soundness of this procedure. Consequently, I have today informed the Secretary of Commerce and the Congress that it is feasible for Census 2000 to include this procedure, and that by doing so we will produce a more accurate and complete census than would otherwise be the case.

Because the Supreme Court ruled that this more accurate number is not to be used for apportionment purposes, our design also includes a major, labor intensive (and expensive) effort to find and enumerate as many Americans as is humanly possible in the time-frame available. In pursuit of this goal, our first and most important effort is to put a census form in the hands of every single household in America. Census 2000 features many improvements and technical innovations not available in 1990, for example, a completely re-engineered Master Address File, the most comprehensive ever constructed in U.S. history; first-ever use of paid advertising; intensified partnerships with tens of thousands local governments, tribal organizations, private groups, and non-profit organizations nationally and locally, a census-in-the-schools initiative.

This plan is operationally robust, and will be conducted with complete dedication by the Census Bureau professionals. This said, the apportionment counts are not likely to be an improvement on the 1990 accuracy levels [my bolding]. How can this be? How can you spend more money, mount improved operations, and yet not increase accuracy? Because all the factors that made it difficult to count Americans in prior censuses are today even more present. In more American families, both parents work, making it difficult to find anyone at home. Transient lifestyles are on the rise. People are busy. More people live in irregular housing. Greater numbers of people are linguistically isolated. Large immigrant populations avoid government officials. Census forms must compete with huge flows of junk mail. More persons are cynical about or actively hostile to any of the works of government. Census 2000 must overcome decreased levels of civic engagement by the American people. In short, the Census Bureau has to work harder to stay in place. We will produce the best apportionment counts that we can; they will not include everyone.

Allow me to summarize the points just covered, so as to leave no ambiguity. Between the 1^st of April and the 31^st of December, the Census Bureau will count (and assign to an address) everyone it possibly can. The results of this effort will meet our obligation to present apportionment counts without the use of modern statistical methods. But the work will not then be finished. Census 2000 will continue its work with an Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation in order to produce more complete and accurate numbers, which will be ready prior to April 1, 2001. It is the task of the Census Bureau to produce the best numbers possible, not to decide how they will be used. The more complete census counts will be made available in a form that allows them to be used, if it is so decided, for redistricting purposes, for determining the allocation of federal funds, and for ongoing statistical and program purposes. Some may describe this as a "two-number census," but it in fact is a census that is progressively more complete, more accurate.

I conclude by reminding us all that the census clock ticks ­ relentlessly, ceaselessly. In just 372 days the first Census 2000 forms get delivered. Given the lateness of the hour, we must acknowledge the hard reality that we no longer have the luxury of debates about alternative designs, or substitute procedures. No matter how well intentioned, we cannot now take a chance on untested operations or late additions. The largest peacetime mobilization in U.S. history must go forward based on the considered professional judgement of the career scientific and operational experts at the Census Bureau, who stand with me here today. We are up to the task, but only if we are allowed to do the task."
 

Alternate PSG Travel Award Given

Ronald Cossman (University of Colorado) has withdrawn the student paper which he had originally planned to present during the Hawaii AAG meetings. This makes available one of the three travel student grants awarded by the Population Specialty Group. The alternate winner of this award is Sandra Holland from the University of Arizona. PSG congratulates Sandra on this accomplishment.
 

PSG's Bill Frey Moves from the

University of Michigan

After 23 years in Ann Arbor and Madison, PSG's Bill Frey announces new bi-coastal affiliations: as Professor of Sociology with SUNY-Albany; and as Senior Fellow of Demographic Studies at the Milken Institute in Santa Monica. The Social Science Data Analysis Network (SSDAN) "census in the classroom" project (which Bill directs) and staff will now be relocated to SUNY-Albany (www.ssdan.net). Bill's current e-mail address is: bill.frey@usa.net.
 

Program for the PSG-Sponsored Sessions for the AAG Meetings in Honolulu
 

The following is a list of the sessions sponsored by the Population Specialty Group for the AAG meetings to be held March 23-27, 1999 in Honolulu, Hawaii. The number at the beginning of each session corresponds with the program number listed in the official program for this conference. John Cromartie (U.S. Department of Agriculture) served as coordinator for these sessions and we thank him for his efforts.
 

Wednesday, March 24, 9:00 am to 10:40 am
 

3208. Geography in America: Human Geography I (Sponsored by Geography in America at the Dawn of the 21st Century). South Pacific I (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Cort J. Willmott, University of Delaware, Gary Gaile, University of Colorado-Boulder

Chair: Sallie A. Marston, University of Arizona

9:00 David Rigby, Univ of California-Los Angeles, Trevor Barnes, University of British Columbia, Amy K. Glasmeier, Pennsylvania State University, Dean Hanink, University of Connecticut, James W. Harrington, Jr., University of Washington, Economic Geography

9:20 Fred M. Shelley, Southwest Texas State University, Gearoid O Tuathail, Virginia Tech, Political Geography: From the "Long 1989" to the Millenium

9:40 James A. Tyner, Kent State University, Patricia Gober, Arizona State University, Population Geography

10:00 Andrew R. Goetz, University of Denver, Thomas R. Leinbach, University of Kentucky, Bruce A. Ralston, University of Tennessee, Frederick Stutz, San Diego State University, Transportation Geography

10:20 Stuart C. Aitken, San Diego State University, Don Mitchell, Syracuse University, Lynn A. Staeheli, University of Colorado-Boulder, Urban Geography
 

11:00 am to 12:40 pm
 

3316. Demographic Modeling in Population Geography (Sponsored by Population and Mathematical Models and Quantitative Methods Specialty Groups). Sea Pearl VI (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizer: Andrei Rogers, University of Colorado-Boulder

Chair: Andrei Rogers, University of Colorado-Boulder

11:00 Andrei Rogers, University of Colorado-Boulder, Regional Fertility Patterns of Foreign-Borns in the United States: Their Impacts on Population Growth, Age Composition, and Spatial Distribution

11:20 Richard G. Rogers, University of Colorado-Boulder, Robert A. Hummer, University of Texas-Austin, Regional Variation in Race/Ethnicity, Nativity, and U.S. Adult Mortality

11:40 Ge Lin, University of Victoria, Assessing Education and Cohort Effects in US Mobility

12:00 Jacques Ledent, INRS-Urbanization, Salahudin Muhidin, University of Groningen, Recent Population Movement in the Extended Jakarta Metropolitan Region

12:20 Frans Willekens, University of Groningen, Migration Analysis with Incomplete Data
 

1:00 pm to 2:40 pm
 

3417. Spatial Dynamics of US Migration (Sponsored by Population Specialty Group). Sea Pearl VI (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizer: John Cromartie, USDA

Chair: Larry Long, US Bureau of the Census

1:00 James Raymer, University of Colorado-Boulder, The Relationships Between Patterns of Immigration and Internal Migration in the United States

1:20 Sandra C. Holland, University of Arizona, David A. Plane, University of Arizona, Methods of Mapping Migration Flow Patterns

1:40 Larry Long, US Bureau of the Census, Alfred Nucci, US Bureau of the Census, Metro-Nonmetro Migration: A Gross Flow Analysis, 1981-1997

2:00 John Cromartie, USDA, Mark Nord, USDA, Migration and Job-Worker Mismatch, 1985-90
 

3:00 pm to 4:40 pm
 

3523. Migration and Social Change. Iolani VI (Tapa Conference Center).

Chair: Lisa Law, Australian National University

3:00 Wardlow Friesen, University of Auckland, Elite or Illegal: The Polarization of Global Labor Mobility

3:20 Alison Mountz, University of British Columbia, Ines Miyares, Hunter College, Adrian Bailey, Dartmouth College, Richard Wright, Dartmouth College, Negotiating the Field in a Migrant Community

3:40 Lisa Law, Australian National University, Home Cooking: Filipino Diasporic Women and Sensuous Geographies of Hong Kong
 

5:00 pm to 6:40 pm
 

3610. Redefining Metropolitan and Nonmetropolitan Spaces (Sponsored by Population, Economic Geography, and Applied Geography Specialty Groups). South Pacific III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Michael R. Ratcliffe, US Bureau of the Census, James D. Fitzsimmons, US Bureau of the Census

Chair: James D. Fitzsimmons, US Bureau of the Census

Panelists: Michael R. Ratcliffe, US Bureau of the Census, Patricia Gober, Arizona State University, James W. Harrington, Jr., University of Washington, David A. Plane, University of Arizona
 

5:00 pm to 6:40 pm
 

3614. Migration in Europe. Sea Pearl IV (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Chair: Jacquelin Tylzynski, Central Michigan University

5:00 Gunnar Malmberg, Umea University, Mobile, Rooted, or Rootless - Social and Geographical Mobility in Sweden

5:20 Bruno Jansson, Umea University, Migrate or Commute: Strategic Household Choices in Sweden During the 1990s

5:40 Rachel F. Martin, University of Arizona, Recent Citizenship and Immigration Legislation in France

6:00 Anita Drever, Univ of California-Los Angeles, Housing Equality? A Comparison of the Living Conditions of Immigrants and the Native Born in Germany

6:20 Jacquelin Tylzynski, Central Michigan University, Eldor C. Quandt, Western Michigan University, The Recent Migration of Ethnic Germans from Russia and Kaszakhstan to Germany
 

Thursday, March 25, 9:00 am to 10:40 am
 

4213. Population. Sea Pearl III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Chair: Michelle Behr, Western New Mexico University

9:00 William Preston, California Polytechnic State Univ, The Pre-Mission Demography of Native California: A Reappraisal

9:20 Alasdair Drysdale, University of New Hampshire, Oman's Non-Omani Population: A Geographic and Demographic Profile

9:40 Michelle Behr, Western New Mexico University, Investigating Hungary's Population Decline
 

11:00 am to 12:40 pm
 

4313. Tourism and Migration (Sponsored by Population and Recreation, Tourism, and Sport Specialty Groups and IGU Sustainable Tourism Study Group). Sea Pearl III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: C. Michael Hall, University of Otago, Allan M. Williams, University of Exeter, Alan A. Lew, Northern Arizona University

Chairs: C. Michael Hall, University of Otago, Allan M. Williams, University of Exeter

11:00 Allan M. Williams, University of Exeter, C. Michael Hall, University of Otago, Tourism and Migration: New Relationships Between Production and Consumption

11:20 Martin Bell, University of Adelaide, Gary Ward, Queensland Govt Statistician's Ofc, Comparing Permanent Migration with Temporary Mobility: Analysis of Australian Data

11:35 Allan M. Williams, University of Exeter, International Retirement Migration in Europe: From Tourism to Residence in the Mediterranean Regions

11:50 Richard Butler, University of Surrey, Tourism and Migration: The Changing Role of Second Homes

12:05 David J. Truly, University of South Carolina, Retirement Migration and Tourism Development Along the Lake Chapala Riviera, Jalisco, Mexico

12:20 Carmen Aitken, University of Otago, C. Michael Hall, University of Otago, Migrant and International Skills and Their Relevance to the Tourism Industry
 

1:00 pm to 2:00 pm
 

4403. Past President's Address. Coral III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).
 

Chair: William L. Graf, Arizona State University

1:00 Patricia Gober, Arizona State University, In Search of Synthesis
 

2:15 pm to 3:55 pm
 

4506. Future Research Directions in American Ethnic Geography (Sponsored by American Ethnic Geography, Population, and Urban Geography Specialty Groups). Nautilus III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizer: James P. Allen, California State Univ-Northridge

Chair: James P. Allen, California State Univ-Northridge

Panelists: Curtis C. Roseman, University of Southern California, Kevin E. McHugh, Arizona State University, David H. Kaplan, Kent State University, Ines Miyares, Hunter College, Thomas D. Boswell, University of Miami, James P. Allen, California State Univ-Northridge
 

4:15 pm to 5:55 pm
 

4609. Major Directions in Population Geography (Sponsored by Population Geography Specialty Group). South Pacific IV (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizer: James D. Fitzsimmons, US Bureau of the Census

Chair: James D. Fitzsimmons, US Bureau of the Census

4:15 Graeme Hugo, University of Adelaide, Population Geography: Challenges and Prospects

5:00 Discussants: Ellen P. Kraly, Colgate University, Brigitte Waldorf, University of Arizona
 

6:15 pm to 7:30 pm
 

4705. Population Specialty Group Business Meeting. South Pacific IV (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).
 

Chair: Brigitte Waldorf, University of Arizona

Friday, March 26, 7:00 am to 8:40 am
 

5109. Melting Pot or Marble Cake? Immigrant Identities and Cultural Politics I: Policy, Power, and Populations (Sponsored by Urban Geography, American Ethnic, Geographic Perspectives on Women, Population, Cultural Geography, and Human Rights Specialty Groups). South Pacific III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Susan P. Mains, University of Kentucky, Laurel Smith, University of Kentucky

Chairs: Susan P. Mains, University of Kentucky, Laurel Smith, University of Kentucky

7:00 Ellen P. Kraly, Colgate University, Jeffrey Rurka, Colgate University, Health Care Utilization Among Undocumented Immigrants in the United States

7:20 Thomas D. Boswell, University of Miami, Richard Langendorf, University of Miami, June Nogle, University of Florida, Immigrants and Non-Immigrants in Florida and Metropolitan Miami

7:40 James P. Allen, California State Univ-Northridge, Eugene Turner, California State Univ-Northridge, Measuring Biracial Identities in the 1990 and 2000 Censuses

8:00 Laura Y. Liu, Rutgers University, Constructions of the US Nation and Its Citizens: The Case of Chinese Immigrant Women

8:20 Sabine Gaag, Dundee University, Cool Britannia? Hong Kong Migrants' Experiences in a Multicultural Society
 

9:00 am to 10:40 am
 

5210. Melting Pot or Marble Cake? Immigrant Identities and Cultural Politics II: Stories, Communities, and Identities (Sponsored by Urban Geography, American Ethnic, Geographic Perspectives on Women, Population, Cultural Geography, and Human Rights Specialty Groups). South Pacific III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Susan P. Mains, University of Kentucky, Laurel Smith, University of Kentucky

Chairs: Susan P. Mains, University of Kentucky, Laurel Smith, University of Kentucky

9:00 David Howard, University of Oxford, Reappraising Race? Dominicans in New York City

9:20 Laurel Smith, University of Kentucky, Locating "the Field": Community, Identity, and Advocacy

9:40 Susan P. Mains, University of Kentucky, A Life Less Ordinary (?): Traveling, Identity, and an Immigration Paradox

10:00 Sheila Hones, Keisen University, Narrating Japanese America: Toshio Mori's Yokohama, California

Discussant: Richard Wright, Dartmouth College
 

12:45 pm to 2:25 pm
 

5407. Migration, Institutions, and Economic Reforms in China (Sponsored by China and Population Specialty Groups). Ti Leaf (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizer: Kam Wing Chan, University of Washington

Chair: C. Cindy Fan, Univ of California-Los Angeles

12:45 Kam Wing Chan, University of Washington, Disaggregating Interprovincial Migration in China

1:05 C. Cindy Fan, Univ of California-Los Angeles, Heterogeneity of Population Movements in China

1:25 Ta Liu, University of Washington, Planned Labor Migration and Economic Reforms in China

1:45 Youqin Huang, Univ of California-Los Angeles, Mobility and Housing Tenure Choice in Transitional China

2:05 Brian Hammer, University of Washington, Kam Wing Chan, University of Washington, A Study of Circular Migration from Poor Counties in China
 

2:45 pm to 4:25 pm
 

5524. Implications of Retirement Migration and Aging in Place (Sponsored by Aging and the Aged Specialty Group). Iolani VII (Tapa Conference Center).

Organizer: Gordon Bennett, Univ of North Carolina-Greensboro

Chair: Gordon Bennett, Univ of North Carolina-Greensboro

2:45 Gordon Bennett, Univ of North Carolina-Greensboro, Roy S. Stine, Univ of North Carolina-Greensboro, Gregory D. Bowles, Univ of North Carolina-Greensboro, The Ecological Impact of Retirement Development in High-Amenity, Rural Coastal Areas

3:05 Jamie L. Strickland, University of Georgia, Transitions Toward a Retirement Move? Linking Employment Transitions to Migration Among Older Americans

3:25 Philip Smith, University of Idaho, Gundars Rudzitis, University of Idaho, The Importance of Place Histories and Racial Ethnic Factors Among Older Migrants

3:45 Kevin E. McHugh, Arizona State University, Societal Scripts in "Successful" (Anti)Aging: Marketing Arizona to Seniors

4:05 Cara L. Bailey, Virginia Tech, Social Change in Aged Suburban Spaces: A Temporal-Spatial Analysis
 

4:45 pm to 6:25 pm
 

5614. Population Related Issues in the United States. Sea Pearl IV (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Chair: Christiane von Reichert, University of Montana

4:45 Susan W. Hardwick, Southwest Texas State University, Teresa Ploszajska, Liverpool Hope Univ College, Scousers to Cowboys: Texan Acculturation of British Child Migrants

5:05 Samuel M. Otterstrom, Brigham Young University, Manufacturing and Population Concentrations in the United States, 1820-1990

5:25 Kristen M. Gibson, Ohio State University, Pasquale Pellegrini, Ohio State University, Intra-Urban Mobility and What It Reveals About Central City Vitality

5:45 Julian Ware, Univ of California-Los Angeles, Region, Race, Wealth, and Housing Tenure Outcomes 1973-1992

6:05 Christiane von Reichert, University of Montana, Why Many Left and Why Some Returned: Interviews with Missoula High School Graduates
 

Saturday, March 27, 7:00 am to 8:40 am
 

6107. Internal and International Migration in Germany and the United States I (Sponsored by Population Specialty Group). South Pacific I (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Sabine Henning, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, Brigitte Waldorf, University of Arizona

Chair: Sabine Henning, University of Arkansas-Little Rock

7:00 Brad T. Dearden, University of Utah, Thomas Kontuly, University of Utah, Internal Population Redistribution in Western German Regional Urban Systems

7:15 Hans D. Laux, University of Bonn, Ethnic Germans (Aussiedler): Immigration Policies, Migration Patterns, and Problems of Integration

7:30 Guenter H. Thieme, University of Dortmund, Andreas Pott, University of Osnabrueck, Conflicts of Ethnic Change in Germany's Ruhr Conurbation

7:45 Guenther Glebe, Heinrich Heine Univ-Dusseldorf, Transient Settlers: Development and Residential Behavior of Highly Skilled International Migrants in German Cities

Discussants: Brigitte Waldorf, University of Arizona, James Huff, University of Colorado-Boulder
 

9:00 am to 10:40 am
 

6207. Internal and International Migration in Germany and the United States II (Sponsored by Population Specialty Group). South Pacific I (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Sabine Henning, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, Brigitte Waldorf, University of Arizona

Chair: Rachel F. Martin, University of Arizona

9:00 Sabine Henning, University of Arkansas-Little Rock, Secondary Migration Patterns of the Foreign Born Population in the United States: A Comparison of 1980 and 1990 Census Data

9:15 K. Bruce Newbold, University of Illinois, Evolutionary Immigrant Settlements: The Case of U.S. Immigration

9:30 Max Lu, Kansas State University, Coming to the USA: Geographic Distribution of New Immigrants from the Top Five Countries of Origin in 1995

9:45 James Huff, University of Colorado-Boulder, Jani Little, University of Colorado-Boulder, Housing and Mobility Decisions in High Immigration Neighborhoods

10:00 Curtis C. Roseman, University of Southern California, Across the "Divide": Ethnic Population Change in Small Places in the United States

Discussants: David A. Plane, University of Arizona, Kevin E. McHugh, Arizona State University
 

1:00 pm to 2:40 pm
 

6412. Migration in Third World Contexts I: Internal Migration (Sponsored by Political Geography and Population Specialty Groups). Sea Pearl III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Sunita George, University of Georgia, Johnathan Walker, University of Georgia

Chair: Johnathan Walker, University of Georgia

1:00 Jennifer A. Paine, Ohio State University, Rural-Urban Migration in Vietnam: Deja Vu?

1:20 Sunita George, University of Georgia, Occupational Mobility of Urban Migrants: A Case Study of Migrants to Hyderabad, India

1:40 Mohammad Hemmasi, University of North Dakota, Women, Work, and Mobility in Iran
 

3:00 pm to 4:40 pm
 

6511. Migration in Third World Contexts II: Globalization and Migration (Sponsored by Political Geography and Population Specialty Groups). Sea Pearl III (Mid-Pacific Conference Center).

Organizers: Johnathan Walker, University of Georgia, Sunita George, University of Georgia

Chair: Sunita George, University of Georgia

3:00 Ines Miyares, Hunter College, Alison Mountz, University of British Columbia, "Transnational Orphans": Generational Impacts of Transnationalism on Salvadoran Families

3:20 Johnathan Walker, University of Georgia, The Role of the State in Labor Migration: Labor Export and Import to Taiwan

Discussant: James A. Tyner, Kent State University
 

Draft of Proposed New Bylaws for PSG
 

PSG's officers and Board of Directors have labored over the revision of our bylaws. During PSG's 1998 business meeting in Boston it was agreed that the proposed bylaws should be published in the issue of the Newsletter mailed just before the AAG meetings to be held in Honolulu, so members would have an opportunity to review them before a final decision is made. During the Honolulu business meeting the new bylaws will be determined. Any G13

PSG member wishing to comment on these bylaws who is unable to attend the Hawaii AAG meeting is invited to send their suggestions or comments to:

Brigitte Waldorf (PSG President)
Dept. of Geography and Regional Development
University of Arizona
Tucson, AZ 85721
E-mail: bwaldorf@u.arizona.edu
Fax: (520) 621-2889 Phone: (520) 621-7486

If all the proposed changes are adopted, the Bylaws would read as follows.
 

BYLAWS (1999) OF THE AAG POPULATION SPECIALTY GROUP
 

Article I. Name and Purpose
 

1. The name of this organization shall be the Population Specialty Group (PSG) of the Association of American Geographers (AAG).
 

2. The purpose of this organization shall be to (a) promote research, teaching, and service in the general field of population geography; (b) stimulate the exchange of information among members of PSG; (c) encourage the development of population geography as a science and a profession; (d) develop close relations and interchange with other sciences, especially those dealing with population; and (e) develop close relations and interchange with other AAG specialty groups.
 

Article II. Membership
 

1. Membership. The PSG is open to regular members, student members, and associated members. Regular members are those who are AAG non-student members and who pay annual dues to the PSG, generally through AAG. Student members are those who have AAG student membership and pay PSG dues at the student rate. Associate members are those who are not AAG members, but who do pay dues to the PSG. Associate members are not eligible to vote or hold PSG office.
 

2. On all matters called for action by the PSG membership each member shall have one vote. Voting by proxy is disallowed.
 

Article III. Officers
 

1. The officers of the PSG shall be a President, Vice President, immediate Past President, Secretary-Treasurer, the Editor of the PSG Newsletter, and three other Members-at-large of the Board of Directors.
 

2. The term of office for the President shall be one year, preceded by one year as Vice President and followed by one year as Past President; for the Secretary-Treasurer, three years; and for Board Members-at-large, three years. The Secretary-Treasurer and the Newsletter Editor may be re-elected to succeed themselves, but no other officers may succeed themselves in the same office without at least one year intervening between terms. The terms of Board Members-at-large shall be so maintained as to provide for staggered terms.
 

3. The President shall preside at all business meetings of the PSG, serve as chairperson of the Board, [to] exercise supervision over the affairs of the PSG, serve as an ex-officio member of all committees, and perform such other duties as may properly be required of the President by vote of the Board or of the membership.
 

4. The PSG Past President, for the year following his/her term of office as the President, shall serve on the Board and carry out such other duties as may be delegated by the President.
 

5. The PSG Vice President shall serve as a member of the Board, shall preside in the absence of the President, and shall carry out such other duties as may be delegated by the President.
 

6. The Secretary-Treasurer shall serve on the Board, shall keep the records of all meetings of the PSG and the Board, shall have custody of all funds and property of the PSG, shall collect dues from Associate Members, shall collect any special dues that may be voted in accordance with Article VIII of these bylaws, and shall make disbursements as authorized by the PSG Executive Committee or as legally required of the group.
 

7. The Board Members-at-large shall advise the President on current PSG issues and shall carry out such other assignments as may be properly imposed by the President or Executive Committee. For example, the newest Member-at-large may be asked to take a major role in organizing PSG sessions at the AAG annual meeting.
 

8. In the case of the death, incapacity, or resignation of the President, the Vice President shall become President. The vacancy left by the Vice President shall not be filled until the next regular election. In the case of the death, incapacity, or resignation of any other officer (except in the case of the President-Elect becoming President), the Executive Committee shall, by majority vote, elect a successor to serve until the next annual meeting of the PSG.
 

Article IV. Board of Directors
 

1. There shall be a Board of Directors of the PSG, consisting of the President, Vice President, the [immediate] Past President, the Secretary-Treasurer, the four Members-at-large, and chairpersons of all standing and ad hoc committees.
 

2. Members-at-large shall serve terms of three years, except for those elected at the first election whose tenure may be fewer than three years in order to establish staggered terms. The other members of the Board shall serve for the duration of their terms of elected office or appointment.
 

3. The Board shall exercise general supervision over the affairs of the PSG, legislating such policies as may seem proper to the interests of the group. It shall use mail ballots whenever they are deemed appropriate in matters affecting specialty group policy. Actions of the Board are subject to reversal by a majority vote of the members present and voting at an annual business meeting or voting by special mail ballot.
 

Article V. Nominations and Elections
 

1. Elections for officers and Members-at-large of the Board of the PSG shall take place at the annual business meeting of the group and shall be determined by majority vote of members attending. Nominations and elections shall be conducted in general accordance with the rules and procedures of the AAG. If unusual circumstances require it, the Board may hold an election by mail ballot.
 

2. Nominations shall be solicited from the membership through regular channels of communication.
 

3. At its discretion, in order to broaden representation as to field of interest, geographic location, sex, institutional affiliation, age, etc. of the officers of the group, the Board may place one additional name on the ballot for each office for which election is being held.
 

4. Before a nominee is placed on the ballot, his/her willingness to be a candidate must be confirmed by the Board.
 

5. Officers and Members-at-large of the Board shall assume office on the first day following the close of the annual business meeting at which their elections are announced, and shall hold office until their successors are elected and assume office [in their stead]. If an officer or Member-at-large of the Board fails to accept his/her election, that place shall be filled by action of the Board under Article II, Section 8, of these bylaws.
 

Article VI. Meetings
 

1. The annual business meeting of the PSG shall take place during the annual convention of the AAG and in the same locality. The group shall seek to coordinate its program with and participate in the program of the AAG, and shall transact such business and arrange for such activities as are proper to its aims.
 

2. Other meetings may be called, as are considered appropriate and feasible, by action of the Board.
 

3. A quorum shall consist of those members present and voting at the annual business meeting and at any other properly called and announced meeting.
 

Article VII. Committees
 

1. The committees of the PSG shall consist of such standing committees as may be specified in these bylaws and such special committees as may be created by the President with the advice of the Board or established by vote of the voting membership.
 

2. Committees shall serve for terms designated by the President with the advice of the Board. Their membership shall be determined by appointment by the President, subject to the provisions of these bylaws, with the approval of the Board.
 

Article VIII. Dues and Assessments
 

1. Annual dues for the PSG paid to the AAG by PSG members revert to the group as determined by AAG regulations. Dues and assessments for Associates shall be established by the PSG Board.
 

2. The PSG Secretary-Treasurer shall collect the dues and assessments from all those to whom such dues and assessments apply, except those whose dues are remitted to the PSG by AAG.
 

3. Changes in assessments shall be recommended by the PSG Executive Committee and shall be decided by a majority vote of those Members voting at an annual meeting or by mail ballot of the members. Dues and assessments may be levied against all members.
 

Article IX. Amendments
 

1. The PSG, by vote of two-thirds of the voting membership present at any annual meeting, or by a majority vote of the membership voting on a mail ballot, may adopt such amendments to these bylaws as have been (a) read at the preceding annual meeting, or (b) mailed to the voting membership at least two months prior to the vote, or (c) published in an appropriate communication of the PSG, at least two months prior to the vote.
 

Article X. Enabling Action
 

1. These bylaws shall be in force when the AAG and the Board of its presently established Population Specialty Group have approved them.
 

PSG's William A.J. Clark Writes Book About Immigration to California

A new book about the immigration to California has recently been written by UCLA's Bill Clark, also a member of PSG. Once a prime destination for westward-moving young Americans, California has become the nation's primary magnet for a new wave of immigration in recent years. Changes in immigration law and the ebbs and flows of the increasingly global economy have led to an unprecedented influx of newcomers from every continent and every cultural, ethnic, and socioeconomic group. How has the demographic structure of California changed during the past 15 years of this heavy in-flow? What are the social and spatial consequences of this transformation? Where are the new immigrants living, and how successfully are they realizing their versions of the American dream? Examining the impact of large-scale immigration on local communities, this book presents an in-depth geographical case study of the most active "melting pot" in the United States today.

Look for a review of this book to appear in the next issue of this newsletter. The book sells for $27.95 and is available from :

Guilford Publication, Inc.
Dept. 5R, 72 Spring Street
New York, N. Y. 10012
Telephone: 1-800-365-7006
Fax: (212) 966-6708 E-mail: info@guilford.com
Website: http://www.guilford.com
 

BSPS Annual Conference 1999 to Be Held at the University of Dublin

The British Society for Population Studies (BSPS) will have its first meeting outside of the U.K. in Ireland at the University of Dublin this coming September. The topics of the sessions (they call them "strands") are yet to be decided. If you would like to participate and have an idea for one of the topical sessions you should communicate your ideas to: j.cleland@lshtm.ac.uk. BSPS announces that they have a small number of student travel grants available on a competitive basis. Anybody interested in attending this conference should contact the same e-mail address mentioned above.
 

Poverty in Russia: A New Problem

Prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, that country's economic and social system worked in a practical sense ­ meaning most people had a place to live and enough food to eat. Although standards of living were below those in the West, daily life was predictable. The Soviet leadership was legitimately able to say that their form of socialism had succeeded in virtually eliminating the kind of poverty that existed in Czarist Russia.

Russian citizens now live in different times. The country's transformation to a more open economic system has created, temporarily at least, a large new group of people living in poverty. According to official Russian estimates, more than one-third of Russia's people were living below poverty in 1992, one year after the breakup of the Soviet Union. Consumer prices increased 26 times and earning power fell one-third in these first 12 months. By 1994, real income had fallen to 60 percent of 1991's level.

By 1995, there were tenuous signs of economic improvement. The percentage living in poverty in Russia, according to their official data, declined from 33.5 percent in 1992 to 24.7 percent in 1995. The likelihood of being in poverty fell from 1992 to 1995 for households with unemployed, female, or younger householders. The surge of poverty, nonetheless, is a new development for millions of Russians, and poses an obstacle to economic growth that may take years to overcome. (Excerpted from: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Russia's New Problem ­ Poverty," Census Brief, CENBR/98-5, issued September 1998.)
 

Income Rises and Poverty Falls in

the U.S. Latest Study Finds

Three years of positive growth in real median income have restored household income and poverty rates to their 1989 pre-recessionary levels, according to the latest information from the Census Bureau. Nationwide the proportion of the population living below the poverty level declined from 13.7 percent in 1996 to 13.3 percent in 1997. Still, there remained significant differences among racial and ethnic groups. While the poverty rate in 1997 for Whites was 11.0 percent, comparable figures for Blacks and Hispanics were 26.5 percent and 27.1 percent, respectively. Still, the decline in the nation's overall poverty rates was mostly caused by declines in poverty experienced by Blacks and Hispanics.

Despite their lower percent in poverty, non-Hispanic Whites comprised the largest share (46.4 percent) of all persons living in poverty in the United States. Blacks accounted for 25.6 percent of the poor, and Hispanics accounted for 22.2 percent. ("Income and Poverty in the USA," Census and You, Vol. 33, No. 10/11, October/November 1998, p. 5).
 

The Rust Belt Rebounds from

Economic Restructuring

One of the more dramatic demographic and economic turnarounds is taking place in the American Manufacturing Belt of the Middle West. Often referred to as being "The Rust Belt" because of the decline in its manufacturing industries, this region has rebounded by restructuring its economy towards service-based jobs. During the late 1970s and early 1980s major manufacturing experienced major downturns in both domestic and international markets. Many metropolitan areas of the Middle West suffered high unemployment, expanding welfare rolls, rising crime, declining wages, and net out-migration. However, by the early 1990s these trends either stopped or reversed direction. Although there are some exceptions (e.g. Steubenville-Weirton, Ohio; Wheeling, West Virginia; Decatur, Illinois; Youngstown-Warren, Ohio; Toledo, Ohio) it appears that recovery is well on its way here. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, "'Rust Belt' Rebounds," Census and You, CENBR/98-7, issued December 1998.)
 

"Beyond Malthus": A New Study Produced by the Worldwatch Institute

Many countries that have experienced rapid population growth for several decades are showing signs of demographic fatigue. Overwhelmed by the need to educate children, create jobs, and deal with the environmental effects of population growth, governments faced with a major new threat-such as AIDS or aquifer depletion-often cannot cope.

In our demographically divided world, fertility has dropped and population has stabilized or is declining in some countries; but in others where fertility is still high, population is projected to double or even triple before stabilizing. As recent experience with AIDS in Africa shows, some of these high-fertility countries are simply overwhelmed when a new threat appears. While industrial countries have held HIV infection rates among their adult populations to 1 percent or less,

infection rates are as high as 26 percent of the adult population in some African countries. With their rising mortality trends, more reminiscent of the Dark Ages than the bright millennium so many had hoped for, these countries are falling back to an earlier demographic stage with high death rates and high birth rates, and no growth in population.

In examining the stakes involved in potentially adding another 3.3 billion people over the next 50 years, the study calls for immediate expansion of international family planning assistance to the millions of couples who still lack access, and new

investment in educating young people, especially women, in the Third World, to promote a shift to smaller families.

(This study is available in Paperback from the Worldwatch Institute, [http://www.worldwatch.org], "Beyond Malthus: Sixteen Dimensions of the Population Problem," Worldwatch Paper 143 by Lester R. Brown, Gary Gardner, and Brian Halweil, September 1998, Single copies costs $5.00)
 

The Challenge of Food Scarcity

Food scarcity is emerging as one of the defining issues of the new era now unfolding, much as ideological conflict was a defining issue of the era that recently ended. More fundamentally, food scarcity may be the first major economic manifestation of an environmentally unsustainable global economy.

An early hint of the shift to an economy of scarcity came in late April 1996, when wheat prices on the Chicago Board of Trade soared above $7 a bushel, the highest level in history and more than double the price a year earlier. Corn prices also doubled, moving above $5 a bushel, a new record. And the price of rice, the other major grain, was climbing.

A new booklet, entitled: "Tough Choices: Facing the Challenge of Food Scarcity," is the seventh volume in the Worldwatch Environmental Alert series. Its author, Lester Brown, observes that food prices were climbing because world carryover stocks of grain had fallen to 48 days of consumption, the lowest level on record. Production was falling behind demand. Brown, president of the Worldwatch Institute, argues that the continually expanding demand for food is colliding with some of the earth's natural limits, including the sustainable yield of oceanic fisheries, the sustainable yield of the aquifers that supply irrigation water, and the physiological limits of crop varieties to use fertilizer.

The study notes that while the growth in production is slowing, the growth in demand may be growing faster than ever before. The world continues to add 90 million people a year, but in addition, the Asian economy, led by China, is growing by 8 percent a year, boosting incomes and the consumption of grain-intensive livestock products at record rates. As the region's 3.1 billion people, more than half the world total, move up the food chain, it puts great pressure on the earth's land and water resources.

"Tough Choices" is about just that. For some developing country governments that have waited too long to stabilize, their populations may now have to choose between quickly slowing population growth or sacrificing any hope of dietary

improvements. In water-scarce regions, governments will have to choose between water for indoor plumbing and water for irrigation. Densely populated countries, such as China, India, and Indonesia, will have to decide whether to use land for automobile-centered transportation systems or to satisfy food needs.

In a world where the need for seafood and grain for the 90 million people being added each year is being satisfied, in part by reducing consumption among those already here, the world has little choice but to try and quickly slow population growth. Historically, farmers and fishermen bore the primary responsibility for balancing food supply and demand. Now with the fish catch no longer expanding and with the growth in grain production slowing, the principal responsibility rests with the family planners.

(This study is available in Paperback from the Worldwatch Institute, [http://www.worldwatch.org], "Tough Choices: Facing the Challenge of Food Scarcity," by Lester R. Brown, 1996, single copies costs $11.00)
 

U.S. Welfare rolls Are Falling Dramatically

About 8.3 million Americans received welfare in 1998, down significantly from 14.1 million five years earlier. Every state except Hawaii has contributed to this 41 percent decline. Three states report 80 percent fewer welfare recipients than in 1993. Many experts credit the decline, at least in part, to a tough federal law ­ called the "Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996" ­ which mandates a lifetime cap of 5 years on receipt of welfare assistance and contains work requirements in exchange for benefits. However, the law also allows states to design their own systems, making it difficult to collect in-depth data despite intense media and political interest.

Although a lifetime limit for receiving welfare exists of 5 years, there is another limit under the 1996 law that requires recipients to work after two years of continuous receipt of public assistance. However, many states have reduced the allowed limit of continuous assistance to less than two years. The federal government is offering $1 billion to states that make the most progress in moving individuals from welfare to work. In California, counties receive bonuses if more families stay off welfare for six months because of work or "diversion" (one time lump-sum cash payments instead of continuous smaller payments) activities. Wisconsin offers local governments incentives of a different kind ­ competition from for-profit companies.

(Charles Dervarics, "Is Welfare Reform Reforming Welfare?", Population Today, Vol. 25, No. 10, October 1998, p. 1.)
 

Abortion Restriction May Undermine

Welfare Reform

More restrictive abortion laws may have led to an increase in the number of single mothers, even in the face of new welfare reform laws that make unmarried childbearing more costly to mothers. Welfare reform has fueled the demand for abortion, while at the same time abortion laws have restricted access. As a result, an increasing number of unmarried women on welfare have chosen childbearing over abortion.

States now can require abortion providers to notify the parents of minors who want to have abortions, and can establish 24-hour waiting periods. Abortion has thus become a less viable option for some single women. The findings of the study suggest that the public policy goal of reducing unmarried childbearing and female-headed families may be partly undermined by the increasing geographic and legal barriers aimed at discouraging abortion. For more information contact Daniel Lichter, Population Research Institute, Pennsylvania State University, Phone: (814) 863-3529 and e-mail address: lichter@pop.psu.edu. The title of the report is "State Abortion Policy, Geographic Access to Abortion Providers, and Changing Family Formation." (This article is based on: "Abortion Restriction May Undermine Welfare Reform," Population Today, Vol. 27, No. 2, February 1999, p. 3.)
 

Intergroup Married Couples in 1998

Intergroup couples accounted for 5 percent of all married couples living in the United States in 1998. The number of married couples who are of different racial/ethnic groups (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian/Pacific Islander, and Native American) has nearly doubled from 1.5 million in 1980 (then 3 percent of the total) to 2.9 million in 1998 (5 percent). Slightly more than half (52 percent) of intergroup couples in 1998 were made up of non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics, followed by those made up of non-Hispanic Whites and

Asians/Pacific Islanders (19 percent). White-Black couples, by contrast, constituted less than one-tenth of intergroup couples. ("Speaking Graphically," Population Today, Vol. 27, No. 6, February 1999, p. 6.)
 

U.S. Denies Funding to UNFPA

The U.S. Congress did not include funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) in appropriations for the coming fiscal year. Last year Congress allocated $20 million to the agency. It is estimated that the lack of funding will deprive more than 870,000 women of effective modern contraception, the UNFPA said, resulting in an estimated 1,200 maternal deaths, 22,500 infant deaths, and 200,000 abortions.

The cut was mainly because of opposition to UNFPA's proposed assistance to family planning programs in China, whose government imposes childbearing quotas. According to the UNFPA, the programs in China would encourage families to make their own choices regarding the number and spacing of births, under the assumption that most families would voluntarily limit childbearing. In return for UNFPA support, Chinese officials have agreed to eliminate quotas in areas where family planning programs are instituted. ("U.S. Denies Funding to UNFPA," Population Today, Vol. 26, No. 12, December 1998, p. 8.)

Thomas D. Boswell NON-PROFIT ORG
Department of Geography & Regional Studies U.S. POSTAGE
School of International Studies PAID
University of Miami MIAMI FL
Coral Gables, Florida 33124-2060 PERMIT # 438