Poploss Summ Report 120109 Final for Release

8/14/2019 Poploss Summ Report 120109 Final for Release

1/24

county population changes in michig

HE ECONOMIC IMPACS

summary

report

N E W E C O N O M Y R E P O R T S E R I E S

December 1, 2009

OF


2/24

Soi AdelaaDistinguished Proessor in Land Policy and Director

Yohannes G. HailVisiting Assistant Proessor and Associate Director or Land Policy Research

Melissa A. GibsonSpecial Initiaties Coordinator, Land Policy Research

Other Contribtors from the Land Policy Research Team:

Mad AbdllaVisiting Scholar

Chck McKeownRenewable Energy Program Manager and Inormatics Coordinator

Ben CalninInormatics Analyst

Tyler BorowyResearch Analyst

Treor LewisSummer Intern

BY

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 makeand 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 Research

Advisor to the Vice President orResearch and Graduate Studies,Michigan State University, EastLansingh, 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 INSIU E A MICHIGAN SAE UNIVER SIy


3/24

he state o Michigan aces signicant

economic challenges as a result o substantial

losses in manuacturing jobs. Most Michigan

counties have experienced economic stagnation

or decline, and man have lost population due to

dwindling job opportunities. In act, Michigan, as

a whole, lost 9,388 people between 2005 and 2006,

34,088 people between 2006 and 2007 and an

additional 46,368 people between 2007 and 2008.Considering the current global and nationwide

economic crises, these losses ma continue to worsen.

Te decline in population is expected to have urther

impacts on local economies through the erosion o

demand or services that are an increasing part o the

states 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 dominated

b service and other non-manuacturing activities in

Michigan. Tereore, population loss now translates

into a greater loss o subsequent service-related jobs.

oda, a signicant percentage o wages in Michigan

is tied to the broader service sector. For the ear

2007, while the manuacturing sector generated

about $54.1 billion in wages and other income, the

non-manuacturing sectorwhich includes services,

government, utilities, etc.contributed over $208.2billion.

Within the broader area o services, retail and wholesale

services generated about $29.1 billion in wages and

other income; healthcare-related services generated

about $27.5 billion; proessional and technical

services generated about $27.1 billion; nance and

real estate services contributed about $18.9 billion;

and inormation and transportation services generated

about $12.5 billion (Bureau o Economic Analsis,

2007). Most o these services are local to the state, and

man are locall delivered within a region, count or

communit. Tereore, a signicant proportion o the

spending o

individuals or

households thatmove out o a

region moves

out along with

them, potentiall

creating a

downward spiral

in economic

activit.

In the Old Econom,1 which was manuacturing-dominated, the precursors to and primar determinants

o economic success were largel traditional growth

drivers, such as capital accumulation and xed

manuacturing assets, phsical inrastructure to support

a manuacturing-oriented econom, qualit skill-

based labor to maximize manuacturing productivit,

managerial capacit to manage productivit and access

to exhaustible natural resources to be transormed

into durable and non-durable manuactured goods.

Tese actors tended to be spatiall xed so that places

pre-endowed with these assets had strong potential

to achieve economic prosperit and retain economic

activit. In the New Econom, however, which is

THE LOSS OF POPuLATION TRANSLATES INTO THE LOSS OF ADDITIONAL ECONOMIC

ACTIvITY. WHEN PEOPLE MOvE OuT OF TOWN, THE ANCILLARY SERvICES THEY uSuALLY

DEMAND ARE NO LONGER NEEDED, LEAvING THE COMMuNITY FuRTHER COMPROMISED.

Introduction

3

l d l i

i i

conty poplation changes in michigan

LOSING PEOPLE

As people rely more on

serices, their departre

means that their

economic impact reaches

far deeper into the

commnities they left.

1. LPIs Chasing the Pastull report provides the descriptions o theOld Econom and the New Econom.


4/24

increasingl service-oriented, economic success is

driven primaril b knowledge and the abilit toattract new growth (Florida, 2002). New Econom

growth actors include venture capital, private equit

and capital, entrepreneurship, talent and knowledge

workers. Tese are increasingl concentrated at places

with social, economic, creative and other alluring

assets. More than ever beore, imbalances in alluring

assets drive population movement to and awa rom

places as people seek a better qualit o lie.

In short, as this report and other research suggests,population growth is tied to economic growth. Tus,

as is the case in Michigan, the loss in population

is a major signal that prosperit is lacking in a

place. Moreover,

population loss inman Michigan

counties in the ace

o growing national

population is cause

or concern. Tere

is a need to better

understand the

sources o population

dnamics, the

reversibilit o

population shis, and the optimal strategies or

population attraction and retention.

4

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS

LEAVING TOWN

Michigan is one

of only two states

to lose poplation

between 2006-2008;

Rhode Island is the

other. Rhode Island

lost 2,000 people,

while Michigan lost

80,000 people.

Conty Aerage Poplation Change 2006-2008


5/24

l d l i

i i


Conty Aerage Poplation Change

Between 2002 and 2008, the national average

or count population change remained stead,

with an average gain o 865 people per ear (see

below). However, Michigans average count population

change declined since 2001 (rom about 795 in 2001 to

a loss o nearl 560 people b 2008). Further, the gap

between the national and Michigan averages is widening,

suggesting a decrease in average count population in the

state.

Te average count net domestic migration is an

indicator o the net changes between domestic in-

migration and out-migration. With respect to count

net migration, Michigans average count net internal

migration has increasingl become negative, rom an

average count net loss o nearl zero people in 2000 to

net loss o 480 b 2004, and 981 people b the end o

2006, to an average count net loss o 1,316 people b

2008. In relative terms, Michigan has lost its population

to counties in other states.

Net international migration, or the U.S. and Michigan,

increased signicantl rom 2000-2001. United States

counties peaked around 382 people and Michigan

counties around 281 people. From 2001-2003, it

declined to 262 people or U.S. counties and 226 people

or Michigan counties. Since 2003, the net international

migration has been uctuating around 280 people or

U.S. counties and about 213 people, dropping to 200

or 2007 and 2008 or Michigan counties. It, thereore,

appears that Michigan has recentl remained constant

in attracting immigrants, but underperorms when

compared to the count average or the rest o the nation.

While Michigan gained population between 2000 and

2005, 31 o its 83 counties actuall lost population.

More notabl, Michigan itsel experienced a declining

population in the 2005-2008 time period, when 63

Michigan counties lost population. For the 2000-2005

period, counties with the greatest population losses were

Wane (-36,978), Saginaw (-3,585), Berrien (-2,421),

Trends in Population Change in Michigan


6/24

Huron (-1,996) and Ba (-1,626); and or the 2005-2008

period: Wane (-74,254), Genesee (-10,323), Saginaw

(-5,712), Oakland (-3,703) and Ingham (-2,806).

Te act that the counties that have lost population

include such cities as Detroit, Saginaw, Flint, Benton

Harbor and Ba Cit, suggests that urban Michigan

will continue to ace signicant challenges as the ripple

efects o population loss maniest themselves on the

local econom. Tese urban areaswith manuacturing

baseshave traditionall been the engines o state

economic development. Cities losing population must

grapple with maintaining service levels in the ace

o dwindling tax revenues. With depleted resources,

their abilities to transorm themselves to regain vitalit

become compromised.

Michigans Ranking

For the 2006-2007 period, three Michigan conties were in the top 25 for highest conty poplation

loss in the nation (Wayne, 1st, Genesee, 16th and Saginaw, 22nd).

For 2005-2008 period, the same three conties were in the top 25.

For the 2000-2007 period, two conties from Michigan were also in the top 25 in highest conty

poplation loss (Wayne, 4th and Saginaw, 25th).

Wayne Conty led the nation in poplation loss in 2006 - 2007.

95% of poplation loss in the nation is from Michigan.

6

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS

Poplation Change 2006-2008


7/24

l d l i

i i


THE LOSS OF jOBS TRANSLATES INTO SuBSEquENT LOSSES IN SuPPORTIvE SERvICES AND

RELATED ECONOMIC ACTIvITY. THE INCREASED MOBILITY OF jOBS, PEOPLE AND INCOME

MEANS THAT PLACES THAT ARE ECONOMICALLY vuLNERABLE ARE EvEN MORE ExPOSED

WHEN THEY LOSE POPuLATION.

One important polic question that relates

to population loss is: When people

move, what do the take with them?

When a person or amil moves rom one location to

another, certain economic activities move along with

them. Man towns were once largel deined b their

manuacturing prowess, such as in nationall and

internationall traded goodsautos, or example.

Local economies enjoed long-term stabilit as

short-term instabilities eventuall sel-corrected.

In the Old Econom, in a strong job market when a

number o people moved awa, others simpl moved

in to replace them, with perhaps little long-term

losses to the local econom. I the job market was

weak, the cclicalit o the econom allowed local

communities to rebound.

In the New

Econom, where

service activities

have come to

represent a largershare o the

econom, job

losses translates into subsequent losses in supportive services

and related economic activit. Te increased mobilit

JOB LOSS AT A GLANCE

Michigan leads the

nation in nemployment

rate: 15% and climbing.

Some predict it may

reach beyond 20%.

When People Move, What Do They Take With Them?

unemployment Rate Change 2000-jne 2009


8/24

Money spent on serices and, therefore,

associated serice-related obs, wages, rent,

mortgage payments and economic otpt.

Taes related to these losses, inclding

state income ta, local income and property

taes, sales taes on those goods that will no

longer be boght and sales taes on those

serices that are taable bt that will no

longer be taed.

What Shrinks When a Community Loses People Due to Job Losses and Other Factors?

o jobs, people and income means that places that are economicall vulnerable are even more exposed when the lose

population. On the other hand, buoant places have the benet o being population attraction and destination points, and

service jobs ollow them. Indeed, the literature has shown that knowledge-jobs ollow knowledge-workers who choose where

the wish to live rather than just ollowing jobs to places with little appeal (Florida, 2002).

Various sectors are particularl afected, including domestic trade, home construction, real estate rental, oreign

trade, healthcare services, ood services and drinking places, wholesale trade, insurance and nancial services and

entertainment activities, such as movie theatres. In a service-oriented econom in which people are more apt tomove, these services are also more likel to move with them.

8

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS

unemployment Rate in jne 2009


9/24

While man o the people who move out o a people-exporting count ma have moved to

nearb counties in-state, the losses in economic activit rom the exporting location cannot

be ignored. his report explores which economic activities are collaterall impacted b

the movement o people, and generates estimates o the economic costs o population loss. It speciicall

ocuses on selected Michigan counties that have lost signiicant population and all other counties that have

lost some population.

Economic and Tax-Based Impact

Assessments Methodology

o assess the economic and tax impacts o population

loss, an input-output methodological ramework is

utilized. Tis method allows or the estimation o

economic output and tax impacts associated with

population loss. o implement the methodolog, we

rst assumed that the characteristics o people whomove out o a count are similar to the average count

resident. o the extent to which knowledge-workers

who command higher pa and perhaps consume more

services are more apt to move, the adverse efect o

population loss could be higher. Communities should

be concerned that the most talented, who also have the

most options and opportunities to move, ma leave

places that do not aford them job opportunities and

critical assets or qualit o lie.

Population loss was rst converted to average

households lost b utilizing the average count

household size. Te estimated average household size

and U.S. Census Bureau gures on median household

income were then used in calculating the household

income lost as a result o population (household)

loss. B utilizing the IMPLAN economic impact

analsis tool (a recognized procedure in estimating the

economic impacts as a result o an event, in this case

population loss), the total economic impacts associated

with lost population were estimated. Tese impacts were

then traced through the efects o population loss on

labor income, propert-related income, emploment

and value o economic output in the count. Te are

decomposed into direct impacts (the rst impacted

sectors b population loss); indirect impacts (efects

on other sectors, as a result o impacts on rst-afected

sectors); and induced efects (subsequent efects due

to income and consumption changes in the local

econom). Te total economic impact traces all o

these efects across interconnected sectors. In addition,

ederal, state and local tax impacts resulting rom

the population changes were identied through the

IMPLAN process.Home Value Impact Assessment Method

As a component o demand, migration has the potential

to impact home value. Counties with a signicant loss

o population should experience sluggish growth or

reductions in housing demand and, hence, a reduction

To inform policy makers at the state and local

leels, and the pblic in general, abot the

costs and economic impacts of poplation

loss to local economies in Michigan.

To eplore the magnitde of these impacts

and the possible need for policies and

strategies related to poplation retention and

attraction, in addition to the crrently tilized

ob attraction and retention strategies.

Objectives

Te main goals o this summar report are as ollows:

Objectives and Methodology

9

l d l i

i i



10/24

in propert values. On the other hand, counties with

robust population growth should experience a strong

demand or housing and, hence, an increased value o

residential properties in the short-run and in the long-

run.

o estimate the impact on home values, and or the

purpose o this stud, the elasticit estimate o 0.9731b Goodman (2005) is utilized. Tis recent stud was

conducted with multiple cities, including Detroit,

covering the period between 1990 and 2000 and

provides a conservative elasticit estimate or home

value impact estimation. When combined with the

percentage o count population loss, and applied

to the median home value, the result is an estimated

impact o population change on the tpical home. Tis

value is multiplied

b the total number

o owner-occupied

dwelling units in

order to estimate the

total loss in homevalues or a count or group o counties. It is important

to note that Mankiw and Weil (1989) estimated a much

larger elasticit o 5.3, which would result in ar higher

housing value impacts.

HOME VALUES PLUMMET

Michigan home ales are

below the national aerage

by almost $100,000, and

Detroit is below that.

10

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS

Median Home vale in 2007


11/24

Conty Impact Category Total

Wayne Labor Income - $176,805,034Property-Type Income - $113,358,562

Employment (people) - 4,666

vale of Otpt - $552,090,214

Saginaw Labor Income - $14,965,377

Property-Type Income - $10,249,509

Employment (people) -498

vale of Otpt - $47,992,047

Berrien Labor Income - $9,558,583


Employment (people) - 344

vale of Otpt - $31,348,338

Hron Labor Income - $5,221,448



vale of Otpt - $19,641,807

Bay Labor Income - $6,296,596



vale of Otpt - $20,737,581

Estimated Efects o Population Loss on Income, Employment and Economic Output

Collateral losses in labor and propert-tpe income, emploment and the value o economic output to a

communit, as a result o population losses include the loss o mone spent on services and, thereore, associated

service-related jobs, wages, rent, mortgage paments and economic output.

In the 2000-2005 period, those 31 Michigan counties that lost population are estimated to have experienced losses o: $246 million in labor income,

$164 million in propert-tpe income,

7,327 jobs and

$790 million in economic output.

Te ve counties with the highest population loss between 2000 and 2005 experienced losses o:

Findings

1

l a n d p o l i c y i n s t i t u t e



12/24

Conty Impact Category Total

Wayne Labor Income - $359,548,593



vale of Otpt - $1,110,216,496

Genesee Labor Income - $48,466,977



vale of Otpt - $152,846,826

Saginaw Labor Income - $24,261,051



vale of Otpt - $75,426,595

Oakland Labor Income - $29,328,910Property-Type Income - $16,473,796


vale of Otpt - $87,099,130

Ingham Labor Income - $12,860,203



vale of Otpt - $40,230,008

In the 2005-2008 period, those 63 Michigan counties that lost population are estimated to have experienced losses o:

$585 million in labor income,

$346 million in propert-tpe income,

15,855 jobs and

$1.9 billion in economic output.

Te ve counties with the highest population loss

between 2005 and 2008 experienced losses o:

A COUNTY UNTO ITS OWN

Approimately 65% to 71% of the losses

from 2000-2007 and arond 57% to

89% of the losses from 2006-2007

in labor income, obs and economic

otpt came from Wayne Conty alone.

These signicant losses put pressure

on local public ofcials.

12

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS


13/24

Estimated Efects o Population Loss on Property Values

Population losses are also expected to have propert value (home equit) impacts, with implications or the wealth-

base o communities. Te departure o people translates into an excess suppl o residential units (owned or rented),

driving down the value o homes and eroding the net worth o amilies and businesses. Te estimated losses in

propert values are provided below or those Michigan counties that lost population. Tese losses are in addition to

income, indirect business taxes, emploment and output losses.

Those 31 conties that lost poplation between

2000 and 2005 are estimated to hae

eperienced a loss of $1.38 billion in home

eity ale.

The ve counties with the greatest population

loss between 2000 and 2005 are estimated to

hae eperienced home eity ale losses of:

Wayne Conty, $889 million;

Saginaw Conty, $84 million;

Berrien Conty, $63 million;

Hron Conty, $51 million and

Bay Conty, $43 million.

Those 63 conties that lost poplation

between 2005 and 2008 are epected to hae

eperienced a loss of $2.49 billion in home

eity ale.

The ve counties with the greatest population

loss between 2005 and 2008 are epected to

hae eperienced home eity ale losses of:

Wayne Conty, $1.8 billion;

Genesee Conty, $270 million;

Saginaw Conty, $136 million;

Oakland Conty, $191 million and

Ingham Conty, $63 million.

Tese propert-value losses associated with population loss alone are quite substantial. Even accounting or

population gains in some counties, a net o $2.42 billion was lost in propert values in Michigan between 2005and 2008. Tese losses add another laer o constraint on the nancial health o propert owners and on uture

prospects or economic growth.

1

l

d

l



14/24


15/24

Otpt Loss Impacted Sectors

Economic vale-Added Owner-Occpied Dwellings

Food Serice and Drinking Places

Real Estate Establishments

Priate HospitalsOfces of Physicians, Dentists and Other Healthcare Providers

Wholesale Trade

Monetary Athorities and Depository Credit Intermediaries

Power Generation and Spply

Motor vehicle and Parts Dealers

Insrance Carriers

Labor Income Ofces of Physicians, Dentists and Other Healthcare Providers

Priate Hospitals


Wholesale Trade



Food and Beerage Stores

Legal Serices

Nrsing and Residential Care Facilities

Monetary Athorities and Depository Credit Intermediaries

Indirect Bsiness Taxes Owner-Occpied Dwellings


Wholesale Trade



Electric Power Generation and Spply

General Merchandise Stores

Food and Beerage Stores

Bilding Material and Garden Spply Stores

Clothing and Clothing Accessories Stores

Estimated Sectoral Impacts o Population Loss

Service activities should dwindle when population is lost. Service is an important part o the Michigan econom,

and local services tend to dominate service activities within a given communit. Tereore, when population

dwindles, local services dwindle. Tose services that are provided locall are the most important. Te sectors

particularl afected or both the 2000-2005 and the 2005-2008 time periods are as ollows below.

1

l d l i

i i


Otpt Loss for Impacted Serice Sectors

(2000-2005 and 2005-2008)


16/24

16

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS

Otpt Loss Impacted Sectors

Employment Food Serices and Drinking Places

Ofces of Physicians, Dentists and Other Healthcare Providers

Priate Hospitals

Food and Beerage StoresGeneral Merchandise Stores

Nrsing and Residential Care Facilities

Wholesale Trade



Non-Store Retailers

Otpt Loss for Impacted Serice Sectors

(2000-2005 and 2005-2008) (Cont.)

Much o the above losses are related to services that are provided in the local econom, as local residents consume

man services that are collateral to their local existence (dining, housekeeper, lawn service, drcleaners, doctors,

lawers, etc.). In an increasingl service-oriented econom where people are more apt to move, these services are also

more likel to move with them. Te potential or population loss to urther erode an econom should be cause or

concern or economic development proessionals.


17/24

1

l d l i

i i


hereore, in order to mitigate population loss,

the ollowing strategies ma be appropriate:

Population attraction strategies.

Right-sizing or down-sizing.

Policies targeted to enhance the stabilit othe service sector.

ourism-attraction strategies.

Immigration-based strategies or economicdevelopment.

Te pursuit o ederal resources to salvageMichigans econom.

I jobs do ollow people, as proponents o the New

Econom concept propose, it makes sense to add to the

retinue o existing strategies such policies that have the

potential to attract population. Man states, including

Michigan, continue to ocus on the attraction o job-laden

businesses. However, in states experiencing population

losses, it ma be prudent to also consider policies to

attract population, especiall people with greater

tendenc to create jobs b their presence in the local

econom. Evidence rom the literature suggests that the

entrepreneurial class, the talented, the creative class and

other knowledge-based workers are attracted to places

that are rich in amenities and that ofer a great qualit olie (McGranahan and Wojan, 2007; Deller et al., 2001).

Tereore, strategies to recruit people to an area ma well

be ruitul i the result in raising the demand or services

and attracting knowledge-based workers.

THE LOSS OF ECONOMIC ACTIvITY DuE TO POPuLATION LOSS IS LIKELY TO BE AN INCREASINGLY

IMPORTANT ISSuE AS THE ECONOMY TRANSITIONS FuRTHER FROM A MANuFACTuRING-BASED

ECONOMY TO A SERvICE-BASED ONE.

Policy Implications

Percentage of Employment in the Creatie Class in 2000


18/24

Population groups who create more than their jobs are the ones to target. Population attraction and retention

polic is particularl relevant in places that are losing signicant population. Te Land Polic Institutes Land Polic

Research eam is currentl completing research on drivers o population change and the most efective strategies or

specic places. Tis research could provide useul insights on what works where in population attraction.

Based on this and other research b the Land Polic Institute and others across the countr, the ollowing polic

considerations should be taken into account:

Population and growth: Population growth is tied to economic growth. Te loss in population is a major signalthat prosperit is lacking in a place. A place can not be successul i its people are leaving. For example, Detroit,

toda, is 50% o its 1950 population and 25% o its 1950 economic activit. Other places with population

growth thrived at the expense o Detroit.

Population dynamics: Population loss in man Michigan counties in the ace o growing national population is

cause or concern. Tere is a need to better understand the sources o population dnamics, the reversibilit o

population shis, and the optimal strategies or population attraction and retention.

o the extent to which we know how to manage population and can target economicall benecial people,

population attraction can be a viable strateg. Te alternative strateg is being talked about more seriousl in thepopular press toda, and that is right-sizing or down-sizing cities to align the provision o services and thus,

cit service costs more in line with population.

Te Service sector: Since this sector is an important source o recent job growth in the nation, the impact o

population loss on this sector needs to be careull understood, and appropriate policies to sustain its growth

need to be considered. Te service sector, however, is growing.

18

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS

Relatie Home vales Rela

Income($)


19/24

1

l d l i

i i


Our cities are ar more versed in strategies to attract manuacturers, but much less versed in the attraction

methods or service companies and how to maximize their economic impacts.

ourism: ourism looks promising. Te expansion o the tourism industr can provide relie to the service sector

b attracting local spending b visitors that can mitigate the efect o demand reduction caused b population

losses.

Immigration: In some parts o the countr, immigrants add more substantiall to population growth than

the do in Michigan. On average, immigrants also tend to be more prolic in creating jobs than their averagenon-immigrant counterparts. Michigan needs to consider its strategies to attract targeted immigrants. Special

consideration ma need to be given to attracting high-net-worth oreign investors b leveraging the EB-5 visa

provision to recruit wealth immigrants.

Stimulus package: Given the dire economic situation in Michigan-and the persistence o unemploment,

increasing povert, a declining growth rate, home oreclosures, devaluation o propert values and population

losses-the econom needed the special boost (stimulus) that ederal stimulus unds provided. However, more

ederal relie unds ma well be needed to adequatel revitalize Michigans econom. Michigan has been strategic

in making a case or ederal dollars but can be ever more strategic and competitive b showing greater multiplier

efects o ederal dollars spent in the state. Funds must also be utilized in thoughtul, innovative was to trul betransormational to Michigans econom.

er Capita Income Relatie unemployment jne 2009


20/24

20

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS


21/24

Adelaja, A., y. Hailu, M. Abdulla, C.McKeown, B. Calnin, M. Gibson andK. McDonald. 2009. Chasing the Pastor Investing in Our Future: Placemak-ing or Prosperity in the New EconomyFull Report.Michigan State UniersityLand Policy Institute. Available at

http://www.landpolic.msu.edu/ChasingthePastReport.

Bureau o Economic Analsis. 2007.SA0SN Personal Income b MajorSource and Earnings b NAICSIndustr. Available at http://bea.gov/regional/spi/action.cm. AccessedMarch 10, 2009.

Deller, S.C., .H. sai, D.W. Mar-couiller and D.B.K. English. 2001.Te Role o Amenities and Qualito Lie in Rural Economic Growth.

American Journal o AgriculturalEconomics 83 (2): 352-365.

Florida, R. 2002. Te Economic Geog-raph o alent.Annals o AmericanGeographers 92 (4): 743-755.

Goodman, A.C. 2005. Te Other Sideo Eight Mile: Suburban Populationand Housing Suppl. Available athttp://www.questia.com/google-Scholar.qst?docId=5010939207.

Mankiw, N.G. and D.Weil. 1989. Te

Bab Boom, the Bab Bust, and theHousing Market.Regional Scienceand Urban Economics 19 : 235-258.

McGranahan, D. and . Wojan. 2007.Recasting the Creative Class to Ex-amine Growth Processes in Rural andUrban Counties.Regional Studies 41(2): 197-216.

References

2

l d l i

i i


Photos by Mike Forsyth: font cover (house). Stock photography: font cover, back cover.


22/24

22

summaryreport

ECONOMIC IMPACS


23/24

23

l a n d p o l i c y i n s t i t u t e


Te ull report is available or download at www.landpolic.msu.edu/

MICountPopulationChangesReport.

Tis summar report is also available online at

www.landpolic.msu.edu/MICountPopulationChangesReport/Summar.

Additional New Econom research reports are orthcoming rom the Land Polic Institute. Check our

website or updates at www.landpolic.msu.edu.

The Full Report

Tis series o New Econom reportscontinues with upcoming research indings on how states grow,

drivers o population movement and economic impacts, place productivit o talent in the U.S. and

understanding gazelle growth in the United States, among others.

Michigan State Universit has been advancing knowledge and transorming

lives through innovative teaching, research and outreach or more than 150ears. MSU is known internationall as a major public universit, with global

reach and extraordinar impact. Its 17 degree-granting colleges attract

scholars worldwide who are interested in combining education with practical

problem solving. www.msu.edu.

Te Land Polic Institute at Michigan State Universit provides polic makers

at the ederal, state and local level with science-based tools and solutions that

help build a better qualit o lie, strengthen the econom and protect theenvironment in was that are air to all. LPI works to encourage collaboration

among land use researchers, polic makers and communit organizations.

www.landpolic.msu.edu.


24/24

LAND POLICY RESEARCH

Land Polic InstituteMichigan State Universit1405 S. Harrison Road3rd Floor Manl Miles BuildingEast Lansing, MI 48823

517.432.8800517.432.8769 ax

www.landpolic.msu.edu

Documents

Poploss Summ Report 120109 Final for Release