Morrison P A
Science. 1974 Aug 30;185(4153):757-62. doi: 10.1126/science.185.4153.757.
The population changes in San Jose and St. Louis between 1960 and 1970 exemplify the two broad trends-urban formation followed by metropolitan dispersal-that have shaped 20th-century urbanization in this country. The fact that these developmental trends were expressed through demographic processes found to be common to both cities, despite their contrasting recent experiences, suggests that generalizations can be made about the complex forces underlying urbanization. The formation of metropolitan San Jose's population parallels the traditional process whereby a region's growth comes to be focused, through migration, on a few urban centers. The modern variant is not characterized by a rural-to-urban shift, however, but by migration flows among urban areas, and particularly to a few most-favored areas, such as San Jose. Migratory growth has left a powerful demographic legacy in San Jose. This legacy is also instructive for studying the migratory formation of any new city's population. Its demographic character determines its demographic destiny, whose likely variations we can now perceive with some clarity. San Jose's population is both youthful and chronically migratory. The presence of many prospective parents and relatively few elderly persons lays a broad foundation for the population's continued growth through natural increase, despite the national downturn in fertility (14). Even without further net in-migration, the population of new cities like San Jose would continue to grow at an above-average rate. The hypermobility of San Jose's population (that is, its propensity for further migration) also has an important bearing on the future. With about 21 migrants entering and 17 departing each year per hundred residents, San Jose's rapid migratory growth rests (as it would in other new cities) on a precarious arithmetic balance. A significant dip in local employment growth could easily reduce net migration to a small fraction of its present high level. Even a slight decline would result in the inflow's no longer exceeding the high volume of outflow. Demographic analysis alone cannot foresee such an employment downturn, but if it happened, the migratory downturn probably would be swift. Hypermobility also works the other way; and given San Jose's focal position in California's expanding metropolitan structure (with its virtually endless supply of migratory growth), net migration could resume with equal swiftness. The outward dispersal of population from central cities that has occurred in St. Louis has been accelerating in other cities as well, and will remain a prominent feature of U.S. urban growth. It may seem paradoxical that in a period noted for something called "urban growth" there are so many declining central cities, but that is merely one indication that the "central city" no longer is the real city, except in name. Real city or not, the central city can expect to come into political conflict with other jurisdictions created in the process of dispersion. In cities like St. Louis, where population is dispersing but old political boundaries are fixed, the problems of the central city are separated from the resources in the suburbs. Transitional problems associated with persistent and severe outmigration also arise: accumulation of disadvantaged citizens, declining demand for city housing, and a diminished replacement capacity in the population. Carried far enough, the last of these problems results in natural decrease, and thereafter the population's decline acquires its own dynamic. As noted earlier, the white population in St. Louis has reached this point: The number of persons dying now exceeds the number being born. For two reasons, this natural decrease can do little other than intensify. First, a substantial proportion of whites are either entering or already within the high-mortality age brackets. The white population's crude death rate therefore will continue to rise. Second, prospective parents are becoming scarce among St. Louis's whites, and the national evidence that parents in general will choose to have smaller families continues to mount. The white population's crude birth rate is therefore likely to fall, barring a dramatic increase in fertility or a strong and sustained inflow of childbearing families. Nor is St. Louis's black population likely to grow substantially. It is expanding steadily through natural increase, but black migration out of the city is more than enough to cancel that increase.
1960年至1970年间,圣何塞和圣路易斯的人口变化体现了两大主要趋势——城市形成后接着是大都市扩散,这两大趋势塑造了美国20世纪的城市化进程。尽管这两个城市近期经历不同,但这些发展趋势通过被发现对两者都普遍适用的人口过程表现出来,这表明可以对城市化背后的复杂力量进行概括。大都市圣何塞人口的形成与传统过程相似,即一个地区的增长通过迁移集中在少数几个城市中心。然而,现代变体的特征并非农村到城市的转变,而是城市地区之间的迁移流动,尤其是流向少数几个最受欢迎的地区,如圣何塞。迁移增长在圣何塞留下了强大的人口遗产。这一遗产对于研究任何新城市人口的迁移形成也具有指导意义。其人口特征决定了其人口命运,我们现在可以较为清晰地察觉到其可能的变化。圣何塞的人口既年轻又长期处于迁移状态。尽管全国生育率下降(14),但众多准父母的存在以及相对较少的老年人为人口通过自然增长持续增长奠定了广泛基础。即使没有进一步的净迁入,像圣何塞这样的新城市人口仍将以高于平均水平的速度继续增长。圣何塞人口的高度流动性(即其进一步迁移的倾向)对未来也具有重要影响。每百名居民中每年约有21人迁入、17人迁出,圣何塞快速的迁移增长(其他新城市也是如此)依赖于不稳定的算术平衡。当地就业增长的显著下降可能轻易地将净迁移减少到目前高水平的一小部分。即使略有下降也会导致流入量不再超过高流出量。仅靠人口分析无法预见这样的就业下滑,但如果发生这种情况,迁移下滑可能会迅速出现。高度流动性也会产生相反的作用;鉴于圣何塞在加利福尼亚不断扩张的大都市结构中的核心地位(其迁移增长几乎源源不断),净迁移可能会同样迅速地恢复。圣路易斯所出现的人口从中心城市向外扩散的情况在其他城市也一直在加速,并且仍将是美国城市增长的一个显著特征。在一个以所谓“城市增长”著称的时期,却有如此多中心城市在衰落,这似乎自相矛盾,但这仅仅表明“中心城市”除了名称之外已不再是真正的城市。无论是不是真正的城市,中心城市都可能会与在扩散过程中形成的其他辖区发生政治冲突。在像圣路易斯这样人口正在分散但旧政治边界固定的城市,中心城市的问题与郊区的资源相分离。与持续且严重的人口外流相关的过渡问题也会出现:弱势公民的积累、城市住房需求下降以及人口更替能力减弱。如果这种情况持续下去,最后一个问题会导致自然减少,此后人口下降会形成自身的动态变化。如前所述,圣路易斯的白人人口已达到这一阶段:现在死亡人数超过出生人数。由于两个原因,这种自然减少只会加剧。首先,相当一部分白人要么已进入高死亡率年龄段,要么已经处于该年龄段。因此,白人人口的粗死亡率将继续上升。其次,圣路易斯的白人中准父母越来越少,而且全国范围内普遍表明父母一般会选择生育更少子女的证据不断增加。因此,除非生育率大幅上升或有大量生育家庭持续强劲流入,白人人口的粗出生率可能会下降。圣路易斯的黑人人口也不太可能大幅增长。它通过自然增长稳步扩大,但黑人迁出城市的数量足以抵消这一增长。