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 1991-2001 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 Re Nnpr Nipm

Canada 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

Manitoba 1,148,401 13915 10226 8884 1370 560 795 814 -8635

Saskatchewan 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

,Note: Imm = Immigration, Em = Emigration, Nte = Net temporary emigrationRe = Returning emigrants, Nnpr = Net non-permanent residents, Nipm = Net inter-provincial migrationSource: Statistics Canada, Components of population growth, by province and territoryhttp://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo33c.htm

Table 4: Percent population growth, by province and territory July 1,2005/June 30,2006

Pop/06 Birth Death Imm Em Nte Re Nnpr Nipm

Canada 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

Manitoba 1,148,401 1.21 0.89 0.77 0.12 0.05 0.07 0.07 -0.75

Saskatchewan 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

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 2001 population

v6 Median age in the community

v14 % of visible minorities in the community

v41 % of one-person households

Religionv44 % of population that are protestants

v45 % of people with no religious affiliation

LinguisticV7 Language first learned and still understood, % English

V8 Language first learned and still understood, % French

V22 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 Population 20-24 years of age studying full time (%) 

V16 Population 20-34 years old with a university certificate, diploma or degree

V17 Population 35-44 years old with a university certificate, diploma or degree

V18 Population 45-64 years old with a university certificate, diploma or degree 

V5 University present; 1-yes, 0-no

Mobility

V9 % of population, one year or older, that did not move in the previous year 

V10 % of population, 1 year and older, that lived in a different province or country 1 year ago

V11 % of population 5 years or older that did not move in the last 5 years 

v12 % of population 5 years and older, that lived in a different province or country 5 years ago

V13 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 % of population that have some earnings and are working full time

V20 Average income of all workers 

V21 Average income of full time workers only 

V36 Median total income of persons 15 years of age and over 

V37 Earned income as % of total  

V38 Income from government transfers as % of total income  

V39 Other money as % of total income 

V40 Median income ($) of couple families 

Independent variables, measured at each of the 293 Census Division levels in 2001 or 2006.

Labour

Labour

V25 Labour force participation rate - % 

V26 Labour force employment rate - % 

V27 Labour force unemployment rate - % 

V28 Experienced labour force in manufacturing industries - %

V29 Experienced labour force in fire and real estate industries - %

V30 Experienced labour force in education and health industries - %

V31 Experienced labour force in business services industries - %

V32 Management occupations (%) 

V33 Business, finance and administration occupations (%) 

V34 Natural and applied sciences occupations (%) 

V35 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 situationV23 Worked at usual place (%)

V24 Car transportation to work in %

HousingV42 % 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

      Adjusted Std. Error    

Dependent Variable R R Square 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 Definition of variables v4 v4b

V43 Average value of owned dwelling ($)   x  

V19 % of population that have some earnings and are working full time x x

log v6 Median age in the community x x

V8 Language: French mother tongue as % of total population x 

V21 Average income of full time workers only x x

V11 % of population 5 years or older that did not move in the last 5 years x x

V9 % of population, one year or older, that did not move in the previous year x 

V42 % of owned dwellings x x

V37 Earned income as % of total x x

V16 Population 20-34 years of age with a university certificate, diploma or degree x 

V31 Experienced labour force in business services industries - % x

 v33 Business, finance and administration occupations (%) x

V41 % of one-person households x

V7 Language: English mother tongue as % of total population x

V39 Other money as % of total income x

V38 Income from government transfers as % of total income  x

V26 Labour force employment rate - % x

V35 Social science, education, government service and religion Occupations (%) x

V28 Experienced labour force in manufacturing industries - %  x

Table 7a: Multiple Regression Summary Statistics for v4 (dependent, 1991-2001 population growth)

Un-standardized Standardized t Sig.

  Coefficients Coefficients  

Model B Std. Error Beta  

v4 (Constant) 95.59 16.24   5.89 0

  v43 0.00007 0.000007 0.56 10.16 0

  v19 0.15 0.033 0.2 4.65 0

  logv6 -78.28 6.911 -0.72 -11.33 0

  v8 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

Note: v4 = Population increase 1991-2001 in %

Table 7b: Multiple Regression Summary Statistics for v4b (dependent, 2001-2006 population growth) )

Un-standardized Standardized t Sig.

  Coefficients Coefficients  

Model   B Std. Error Beta    

v4b (Constant) -27.27 9.83 -2.77 0.01

  v33 0.32 0.09 0.16 3.59 0

  v41 -0.42 0.07 -0.3 -5.67 0

  v42 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.

Conclusion1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. Most traditional growth theories may not be that important in broad regional growth differences

5. 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

6. The fact that we are comparing 10 and 5 year population growth variables, may have affected the results

7. Since this study did not remove different regional birth and death rates, also could have affected the results

8. Maybe distance between census divisions could also have affected growth in any one

9. Future regional growth studies should take into consideration regional attractiveness as an explanatory variable