High Quality
Open the downloaded document, and select print from the file menu (PDF reader required).
county population changes in michigan
HE ECONOMIC IMPACS
s u m m a r y r e p o r t
NEW ECONOMY REPORT SERIES
December 1, 2009
O F
Soi Adelaa
Distinguished Proessor in Land Policy and Director
Yohannes G. Hail
Visiting Assistant Proessor and Associate Director or Land Policy Research
Melissa A. Gibson
Special Initiaties Coordinator, Land Policy Research
Other Contribtors from the Land Policy Research Team:
Mad Abdlla
Visiting Scholar
Chck McKeown
Renewable Energy Program Manager and Inormatics Coordinator
Ben Calnin
Inormatics Analyst
Tyler Borowy
Research Analyst
Treor Lewis
Summer Intern
B Y
12.01.09
Tis report #2009-PD-03 o the LPI New Econom Report Series is the Summar Report. Its aim is to provide science-based inormation to local, regional, state and national polic and decision makersand others involved in place-based strategies or economic development.
Partial unding or this project camerom the W.K. Kellogg Foundationthrough the People and Land Initiativeadministered b the Land PolicInstitute (LPI) at Michigan StateUniversit. We would also like tothank the Population Dnamics ProjectAdvisor Group or their guidance andsupport:
Albert Ratner, Co-Chairman o theBoard,
Forest City Enterprises Inc.,Cleveland, OH
Kenneth Darga, State Demorapher,
State of Michigan, Lansing, MI
Kenneth Core, Senior ResearchAdvisor to the Vice President orResearch and Graduate Studies,
Michigan State University, East Lansingh, MI
Gar Heidel, Manager, ProgramPolic and Market Research,
MichiganState Housing Development Authority, Lansing, MI
Kurt Metzger, Director,
Detroit AreaCommunity Information System, Detroit, MI
Mulugetta Birru, Former Director,
Wayne County Economic Development,Wayne County, MI About Land Policy Research
Research and analsis is supported b theLand Polic Research (LPR) team at theLand Polic Institute. LPR constitutesthe research arm o the Institute.
Acknowledgements
HE LAND POLICy INSIUE A MICHIGAN SAE UNIVERSIy
he state o Michigan aces signicanteconomic challenges as a result o substantiallosses in manuacturing jobs. Most Michigancounties have experienced economic stagnationor decline, and man have lost population due todwindling job opportunities. In act, Michigan, asa whole, lost 9,388 people between 2005 and 2006,34,088 people between 2006 and 2007 and anadditional 46,368 people between 2007 and 2008.Considering the current global and nationwideeconomic crises, these losses ma continue to worsen.Te decline in population is expected to have urtherimpacts on local economies through the erosion o demand or services that are an increasing part o thestate’s econom. Tese collateral economic impacts o population loss on local economies are not generall well-known and, hence, are the subject o this report.Local economies have become increasingl dominatedb service and other non-manuacturing activities inMichigan. Tereore, population loss now translatesinto a greater loss o subsequent service-related jobs.oda, a signicant percentage o wages in Michiganis tied to the broader service sector. For the ear2007, while the manuacturing sector generatedabout $54.1 billion in wages and other income, thenon-manuacturing sector—which includes services,government, utilities, etc.—contributed over $208.2billion. Within the broader area o services, retail and wholesaleservices generated about $29.1 billion in wages andother income; healthcare-related services generatedabout $27.5 billion; proessional and technicalservices generated about $27.1 billion; nance andreal estate services contributed about $18.9 billion;and inormation and transportation services generatedabout $12.5 billion (Bureau o Economic Analsis,2007). Most o these services are local to the state, andman are locall delivered within a region, count orcommunit. Tereore, a signicant proportion o thespending o individuals orhouseholds thatmove out o aregion movesout along withthem, potentiallcreating adownward spiralin economicactivit.In the “Old Econom,”
1
which was manuacturing-dominated, the precursors to and primar determinantso economic success were largel traditional growthdrivers, such as capital accumulation and xedmanuacturing assets, phsical inrastructure to supporta manuacturing-oriented econom, qualit skill-based labor to maximize manuacturing productivit,managerial capacit to manage productivit and accessto exhaustible natural resources to be transormedinto durable and non-durable manuactured goods.Tese actors tended to be spatiall xed so that places pre-endowed with these assets had strong potentialto achieve economic prosperit and retain economicactivit. In the “New Econom,” however, which is
THE LOSS OF POPuLATION TRANSLATES INTO THE LOSS OF ADDITIONAL ECONOMICACTIvITY. WHEN PEOPLE MOvE OuT OF TOWN, THE ANCILLARY SERvICES THEY uSuALLY DEMAND ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, LEAvING THE COMMuNITY FuRTHER COMPROMISED.
Introduction
3
l a n d p o l i c y i n s t i t u t e
conty poplation changes in michigan
LOSING PEOPLE
As people rely more onserices, their departremeans that theireconomic impact reachesfar deeper into thecommnities they left.
1
. LPI’s
Chasing the Past
ull report provides the descriptions o the“Old Econom” and the “New Econom.”
Add a Comment