Title: Distribution of immigrants in Florida
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00074528/00001
 Material Information
Title: Distribution of immigrants in Florida
Physical Description: Book
Creator: Alleger, Daniel E.
Publisher: Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station, University of Florida
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00074528
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 123438166

Full Text



May 1952


Fig. l.--Delineation of Geographical Units, Florida, and Proportional Population
Growth by Units, 19h5 to 1950


Issued by
Department of Agricultural Economics, Florida Agricultural
Experiment Station, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida


Agricultural Economics
Series No. 52 4



DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA

by

Daniel E. Alleger








DISTRIBUTION OF IMMIGRANTS IN FLORIDA
by 1/
Daniel E. Alleger


INTRODUCTION

In completion of a territorial purchase agreement of 1819, Florida was trans-

ferred from Spain to the United States in 1821. Twenty-four years later -- in 1845 --

Florida, with a population of about 70,000, was admitted to the Union. A century

after she became a-state, her population had risen to more than 2,250,000 people.

From 1945 to 1950 Florida's population increased by more than half a million to a

total of 2,800,000.

A 46.1 percentage gain in population between 1940 and 1950 emphasizes the

rapidity of the state's growth. According to preliminary releases by the U. S. Cen-

sus Bureau, gains in the state's population between 1940 and 1950 were most marked

among young children and elderly persons. Specifically, the number of children un-

der five years of age increased by 139,961,or 92.4 percent, and the number of per-

sons 65 years of age or over increased by 106,278 or 81 percent, as compared with

the total state increase of 873,891 persons, or 46.1 percent.

S Notable gains in Florida's population, both totally and by specific age

groups, resulted from a combination of favorable factors. One factor was the up-

surge in the birth rate in the nation which in late 1948 reached the highest point

in more than a generation. Another was longer life expectancy. Since the turn of

the century there has been a marked decline in mortality in the United States. This

has enhanced the chances of living to or beyond age 65. As a matter of fact, the

aging of our population is now making itself felt in many phases of our social and

economic life.


I/Associate Agricultural Economist, Florida Agricultural Experiment Station,
University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.








An increase in the birth rate and a decrease in mortality, however, could

not have been wholly responsible for the 10-year population growth in Florida, even

on the assumption that all persons born in Florida had remained in Florida, which,

of course, was not true. Actually, the rise in population was far greater than pos-

sible from natural increase, which is the excess of births over deaths. The differ-

ence was made up by immigration.

Immigrants have not settled uniformly throughout Florida, but have tended

to concentrate in central and southern Florida. That Florida is attracting thou-

sands of immigrants annually demonstrates the drawing power of the state, for sev-

erance of long-established neighborhood ties is not lightly made. Those who face

this immediate issue are confronted with serious considerations. The considerations

involve appraisals of present and future economic advantages resulting from resi-

dential changes and alternative income opportunities. In thousands of instances

decisions were made to migrate to Florida. In the main, people have located in

those counties where employment opportunities were most favorable. This is shown

by relatively high correlations between county population gains and the number of

employed persons (1) covered by the Federal Social Security Act and (2) engaged in

Personal service activities.
2/
In analyzing the distrubition of immigrants, many measures can be employed.

This review is limited to two types of comparisons: First, by regional birth com-

parisons between residents in four geographical units of the state, arbitrarily
3/
chosen, and second, by regional birth comparisons between residents in economic

areas, as defined by two departments of the United States government.

2/These analyses are based upon state census reports, which list the county
populations by places of birth.
!/These units coincide with the U. S. Forest Service Survey Units, except
for the assigned numbers.
l/State Economic Areas, U. S. Department of Commerce, and U. S. Department
of Agriculture.








GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION
Florida's population on April 1, 1950, was 2,771,305, a 46.1 percent gain

over 1940, and a 23.2 percent gain over 1945. More than one-fourth of the decennial

population increase occurred in Dade County, and Duval, Hillsborough and Pinellas
accounted for another fourth of the gain, according to the U. S. Census. In 1950
the population was 65.5 percent urban, contrasted to 100 percent rural for 1830.


Unequal Population Growth
In 1950 more people lived in Central Florida (Unit 3) than in any of the
other three geographical units (Fig. 1. -- Cover Page). However, the 1945-50 rate

of population increase was highest in South Florida (Unit 4) and lowest in West
Florida (Unit 1).

In 1830 over 70 percent of Florida's people lived west of the Aucilla River

(Fig. 2), which separates Jefferson from Madison and Taylor Counties (Fig. 1). At
that time less than two percent of the population were living south of Marion County

(Units 3 and 4). By 1950 great changes had taken place. Nearly 60 percent of the

population lived south of Marion County, and only 16 percent west of the Aucilla

River, In 1950 even in West Florida, classified mainly as rural, the population was
characteristically urban, its principal cities being Panama City, Pensacola and

Tallahassee. As Fig. 2 indicates, more people lived in North Florida (Unit 2) be-

tween 1870 and 1920 than in any one of the other units, but by 1925 Central Florida

(Unit 3) had taken the lead. In 1960, if present differential rates of growth fol-

low the directions set between 1930 and 1950, more people will be living in South

Florida (Unit L) than in any of the other three units. The population in South

Florida may then reach 1,350,000, assuming the 1940-50 rate of growth continues.

Moreover, the 1945-50 rate of increase was 42.5 percent, which may presage a still
larger population for South Florida by 1960.

Presumably the war years (World War II) affected population growth in spot









100

90

80

70


1830 1860
Fig. 2.--Percentage of


1890 1920 1950
Total Florida Population in Each of Four Geographical
Units by Years, 1830 to 1950


areas because of armed services installations and expansion of industries and ser-

vice trades stimulated by the war effort. West Florida, for example, grew faster

during the war than it has since (Table 1).

Table 1.--Population by Geographical Units, Florida, 1940 to 1950.

Geographical Population by Years
Unit : 1940 : 1945 : 1950
: (number) : (number) : (number)
1. West Florida. .. : 306,264 : 365,509 : o40,824
2. North Florida .. 514,724 : 583,837 : 669,561
3. Central Florida : 634,296 : 757,595 : 923,023
South Florida : h42,130 : 543,120 773,897
State . . 1,897,414 2,250,061 2,771,305








Places of Birth
For any given community, the knowledge of the origin of its people is very

important. Given this knowledge, officials and others entrusted with the formation

of public policy and planning can realistically appraise future population problems.

Consequently it is of more than demographic interest for the people of the state to

know from whence immigrants come, and to what locations within the state they go.

American-born immigrants to Florida have come from many geographic divisions,

but as of 1945 nearly 50 percent of the white and over 96 percent of the Negro im-

migrants were born in the South Atlantic and the East South Central states (Table
2) .


Table 2.-- Geographic Divisions of Birth of American-born Immigrants and by Race,
Florida, 1945.*
Divisions o : Race : Race
Birth White : Negro : White : Negro
(number): (number) (Pot) (Pct)
New England. . ... : 46,956 273 5.5 0.1
Middle Atlantic. . .: 1 7,271 : 2,170 : 17.1 1.1
East North Central ... .: 142,06 : 1,137 : 16.5 0.6
West North Central . : 45,717 : 331 : 5.3 : 0.2
South Atlantic . . .: 265,250 161,770 30.8 80.4
East South Central . : 161,126 : 32,483 : 18.7 16.1
SWest South Central . .. 34,15 : 2,88 : : 1.4
Mountain . . : 7,319: 68 0.9 : -
Pacific. . . : 10,00 150 : 1.2 : 0.1
State. . . . 859,852 201,266 1 00.0 1 00.0

In addition about 86,000 persons living in Florida were born outside con-
tinental United States.


More than 300,000 immigrants were located in Central Florida in 1945, a much

larger number than was found elsewhere in the state (Table 3). Negro immigrants


Immigration data are based largely upon Florida State Census Reports for
1935 and 1945. Refinement of the state data has not reached the degree of accuracy
attained by the Federal Bureau of the Census. However, the state data do offer a
means of interpreting population migrations down to the county level, in spite of
some obvious inaccuracies and inconsistencies.








Table 3.--Distribution of Immigrants by Geographical Units, by Race and by Division
of Birth, Florida, 1945.

Division of Birth tt geographical Units
Division of Birth 2 4

White Immigrants: : (Pt) : (Pct) : (Pct) :(Pct) :(Pct)
All divisions. . ...: 100.0 100.0 : 100.0 100.0 : 100.0
New England . ... : 5.5 1.9 : 3.9 6.1 : 7.0
Middle Atlantic . .. 17.1 5.4 : 11.7 17.3: 24.9
East North Central. . : 16.5 : 7.0 : 11.1 :19.2 20.6
West North Central. . : 5.3 3.6 : .3 : 5.5 : 6.4
South Atlantic... ......... 30.8 : 22.0 : 49.3 29.9 : 23.3
East South Central. .... : 18.7 : 53.2 : 14.O 16.4 : 11.6
West South Central. ..... .. .0 : 5.0 3.9 : 3.8 3.8
Mountain. . . : 0.9 : 0.7 : 0.7 0.8 : 1.0
Pacific . . .: 1.2 1.2 1.1 : 1.0 : 1.4
Number... . .. 859,852 101,495 175,534 316,292 266,531

Distribution by Units. percent : 100.0 : 11.8 20.4 36.8 31.0

Negro Immigrants:
All'division. .... . .. 100.0 : 100.0 : 100.0 : 100.0 : 100.0
New England. . . : 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 : 0.1
Middle Atlantic. . .. : 1.1 : 0.6 : 0.9 1.0 1.5
East North Central . : 0. 0 07 :. 0.6 0.6
West North Central ..... : 0.2 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.2
South Atlantic ....... : 80. : 32.9 : 88.3 : 8.8 : 87.0
East South Central . : 16.1 .62.9 : 8.8 11.7 9.3
West South Central .. : 1.4 : 2.3 : 1.3 1.5 : 1.2
Mountain . . : -
Pacific. . . : 0.1 : 0.2 : 0.1 0.1 0.1
Number . . 201,266 23,605 60,646 58,666 58,369

Distribution by Units. percent : 00.0 11.7 30.1 29.2 29.0


were about equal in number in each of the three units -- North, Central and South

Florida. Most of the Negro immigrants in West Florida had come from the adjacent

East South Central states (Table 3).

More of the white immigrants in West Florida were born in the East South Cen-

tral states than elsewhere, and comparatively few had come from Northern states (Ta-

ble 3). White people from the North located in North Florida (Unit 2) in compara-

tively large numbers, although about half of the immigrants were from the South At-









lantic states. The proportion of white northerners locating in Central (Unit 3),

and South Florida (Unit 4) was much greater. Furthermore, more white immigrants en-

tered South Florida from the Middle Atlantic than from the South Atlantic states.

Even as migration to the state has varied as between geographical units, so

were there differences between counties within a unit -- even more so, in fact (Ta-

ble 4). Place of birth data for county populations indicate strongly the drawing

attraction of cities and, in some instances, of new economic opportunities. In some

counties economic activity was stimulated by Federal expenditures, some of which

were for the armed services.


STATE ECONOMIC AREAS

Demographic studies based on geographical units are useful, but such units

tend to include counties with unlike economic characteristics. The state economic

areas were designed to meet the need for units of area intermediate in size between

the county and the state (Fig. 3). They have been described by the U. S. Department

of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, as follows:

"State economic areas are relatively homogeneous subdivisions
of States. They consist of single counties or groups of counties
which have similar economic and social characteristics. The
boundaries of these areas have been drawn in such a way that each
State is subdivided into a few parts, with each part having cer-
tain significant characteristics which distinguish it from the
other areas which it adjoins....."

"In the establishment of State economic areas, factors in ad-
dition to industrial and commercial activities were taken into ac-
count. Demographic, climatic, physiographic, and cultural factors,
as well as factors pertaining more directly to the production and
exchange of agricultural and non-agricultural goods, were considered.
The name 'State economic areas' has been given to this grouping of
counties in order to convey the implication that each State has been
divided into its principal units and that within each unit a dis-
tinctive economy prevails, insofar as it is possible to do this using
county units. The term 'economy' is used here in its broadest sense;
it refers to the total adjustment which the population of an area has
made to a particular combination of natural resources and other envir-
onmental factors."
/State Economic Areas, Bogue, Donald J., Department of Commerce, Bureau of
the Census, Washington, 1951. p. 1.











o,
O





4%
0



p.4
0
























[-1
.4
























4-
0

0













J4
Co
4)-


I


0














0s







H
40





0










6-


*r
4
o



4. .4 4*


4)
0.






a



0
4. .. *
Ca.
O




m :' 4a





0





co
CO C1)







>0o a




o









*
C 0





o




















Ca 4
|o^rr

ts3

r
uP+
M~ ?- +
^!|
., *


, Ce- E- C- ON
I CM e r-1




C4 O CO \ CO t\
V\CMa l-


S0 CO Os c % r-I \ -rOI
L. t t .. CC) r-H IA M NfS













a s
LA CN



r\ -=tCf 0 C rL- o --t C\ I \o cq c r-
* *\ co OCM Oti r-- HH C
NO CM OO O*r






. . . 4 0
H t a r 0 0 CO 1 -0--
S0 : 3 0 -H X0 0 0-

+o ONo H H
H 0 H
Si 0 r) r 0 4
44 pOd .0 Oa *4)
Co5-


8

IA- H H 00rCO C-r Mn 0 54 \0 U N 0\0 a N 0
*O N H ONO 0 O- --t ONO HCO HCO
HHN rq< -:I t-4 H Nr j r-H OCcj CN (O CO
H p
awaooo amoHs


mO oNONecOH
H Cc. 0 r- -0.. '- (ov \ 0 c O r-, CO CO Mr
., ft I. ft ft, 4% ft 4 .N 4N o, %
CHj Hl














O\ CYo) 00 r-ON- c C% U IcO N r



~(- C 0oI o \-C0 Ico o I-CO
' aOO H N C) o o o H
--- 0 0 Lq t r- 0 a 0 C -. '.
o t r-l N I-
V\ r-1 C-


c\O N *10 --1 c-c0o0 1^ --'t\ ii (7\ O \0 co cLr~
CO c-- c- N t- ON N CO LsO ON \O E- If\ n
CO'sOmr-fHiO .~ o iOHCOCl-f'
coNr--la0 CO MO-JO n0 0 Hq a\N
A NC) C O NUN 00 C



Io C- rC H A CO 0 COE C\ CO r-)CO CPO R CR
.4 .-- r-4 4. 0 -T1 *.4Nr.
C)O n r S HH\ H


f c\ \ MC- CO




* m **e *e ** ** **

I r-H M i- M'IA



to 44 .. 44 04. 44 .

M -- '.0 --1 c- IA ON
Cj r-1 Cm
/'


. .. *- ...... 4 --.. .
H4 O C-eOf C r-) O\A E- H\ IA _: e4\lNt
oN H. HJ \ V\ N e E ON t- N w 0 Csa
HN- s\-H H CN'O-O




O ON 0 O -CO M rNi (\ CM- Nf 0CO H \O CO
V\j c r- ir C\1 r-I CU 1M r-1 r-1 M 0r ON







Sr0 C E M ..o .4 4 40 .O40 t-.
VN r- r-I r-) IrI H I n




nt' \ 100 NMs0' O H 4 -:'L CM--t W-m

A ON- M r-




ONO O\ N\M CO CC ON\ 0\-ACO m- ACO -zt 0 0 '0
^OHO"OH r-H'O0CNNCM Cj rCO CM CO
H- cj C- V\rl\ N

Hl a


r4
cv'


*4 *
* *
< f
* f

CMA
0
*3 H
Cz -


cr\







4. 4o .to *4 of 4. 4 44 44. .
0)
\ iAk A -O 0 L qi-
N, H







r 4 0)
ee 4 4 *r 4I 4 0
aE





4) V) C .
$04 .-i0 c* 4 4;
0 *Q0 *F).4 + I0 0 4 n
krH 0)rO -l Sir H, HO o

nif-1- Ori.g~ irt(d ta al d^'
CQ(X u .>Q~xm O ,-S^SS! ME


mo 0 0 r-i CO -3- 0- r-
.r r* 4 r-4 *




CO I0 C\ -- B







CM C\J D A--ICO r-1 H CM
I H M

LA H A- C-o ,--4

lf


'0 \0 r---:) ON c--' p T-3
Sr-COH 0 Cr-4CH
CC) oo H-i i-i --:
H.




CO -H \ NC oCO CN J C--I^
m 8 m
H- r N HN '











C 0\ C m -31 o C0- .\ c-- rt,3- a\ O-%0O \0 co lc
C'N 0 .O co C-- --1fI V\ n0 .2 m cMn 0 _: "J 0\
VUr1V.A- r r-\0 \.0 ON rr 0 0\- 0\HNo M\.0 0 Ceu CO
0 CC q COA Cn o CJ OV -IA r H '0 1
Hr4 C H r- V\ CO IL H H

. 4 ** 4 44 .. ,. .4 ae *4 *4 .. .. .. 44

S'LAO -H rH E- CJO 0-T -T r- 0 r-\O 0O r- H
1\ r-l rH- rH- C j- t-4 n-0 %D m mr _.t r-i lVN- H
Hr-4 C\ tr- -T me H


80 .-I0~IO E--UNO1 r-\r-H

. -% at d, 4% % 4%d "
NC0 O4 [ON -I '00-tr
B\ o ,o-,o cooMl c coOm-
:a1 r-H 0 CM pJrN- ~-
M ri 0\ r-H 10
r, r-


do Vo0 0 r- 0 r-o C-
\41 C \ rJ-f o10 '0U 0

h CM


dS


0 cd





-H
0
4O





*0
C.,

C.f











4. -




m -







0 0 00
** ** *4
cd 0



0 *H








+3 43 JA

r) 0e o
CC

SO




o 0






00 C



ekh















0
!a















S 0
a d
O 0


0 0 OLIN
Hc O 0 \
Cm Cm I'A A
CM ft H CM




f--V\ CM N<
CM r-I 1






CM4. 0\4 *t
r H r4



C\i






mr OX



\j co -


-r CCO --
E- m \0 \.O
I^A CM.-t
0\ 0




1.0 L- O rr
1N\ 0 O\ N r-
HH r-
H


S0 \O0 0 m r- 1- 0 CO 'lI- r4 -r l*- 0 000 .\-c
Ce coH I cc Oe E- er-e O e L\ee UOCO OU 0 \r- CMe0 0 \
C H r- O N C c\O CO C O Ho i \- 00 crm1r-- 0 NVo1...-O O

-- I H H0i -0 A rm 0 -i HcHO0 Ao 0--

v-% 4% 4% on r- %% Hcm r 4 c \0 ON4
r-4


0 (1 r-( M H0 r-C O'Jl 0 011 .4 or-1 1flVM -=-
et H (N re NH' 1rU 1-O i H1e t01oe-O -O V \e V \
A r-A H r1A CM_3 \ rI r-0 CM M f





CM 0 N r 0\ C Hr-l C \0 \0- r-1Q 0 H cS r- cOV\\OcO
0 Cm to r-- v\ 0 -t --1 0 Ci tr\o m no\--rc o\HN
O0 CO i- CM CM CM "1 r- O\0 \0 CMOC OCNOM1 1O ri-
4% 4' ,% %% w %
Sr- r H r- 01 CM C-v rH-
0 r-l rH-

S.4 4do .. to .* ** 4. 44 4. 44 44 4. 0. 44 .
a,- s -T C.-- Ni O C I- Mc H H r-Q O c tC--r 0 t rfM\c r. 0\
0 cO C- u- i \0 H- \0 rH9C O" 8COO 0 -\-t El mCO
cy-T H Hi-Hl H rMV\ 0 o\%o H L- C-co NO
Lr- r \ r H t- --T m r1


S CO > 4 4 4 44 4 -I CO 44 to 44 .. 4 0- 44c 4 4*0 4. 44

coN m *co E-- ON H H rco 10 -0 'o 0-g C -4 1 epo0 0 en
Co _t C'CO mC -H H4 H r-CO \H orO-M r-1 N CM

0(C4J C 0\CO r-Hr


44 .. 44 44 4 4 44 44 4 . 44. 4


S&0 0) 3 0 0
o *) 00* X *r- H
ro d 2. o 04 i* +ro 4

Nto c0 0 rt ,)Coo < V U)c

cpau0 a aHh OO o 4 U} coc Co
O&~tv


LACo H-1 ih o C r'0 L M -
e e e0 ( H 1H r-4 ef
cr1 CO r-lco H H- m 0 o-co




S,- \ .-l- r-t C



*
H


44 4- .44 M O 4 r- .




CNi H H r Me-
CM


o0 \o0 coiU\% 0o\U f m o0
3 r\ r- cn CM c0\_t f-lO C O0
C rno C O- 0 .- \DO 0
4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% ^ %h
H --I H M H
r- OC r-l r1-3 r-IC rr


Ll- C i\.j" \00 .-'-.C)0 m0,%
0 0 r-l m r,-- r-,-IA 0\
r- r-
HH r- O b r0 O\ 0 0\



L'--C 0 n i


HCL--O JH-r-40
% ** 4% 4 *4
ro 0 co O HO
r- e oe1e- O r-e 0-1e 1e e- O





0 CM0 -C1'r-H 0CO O0






H '0 i iHO


-4 H"
30 C r-1H






c 0H8 C ( (N rg 1
n H
* 4. 4 4 .4 44 44 4.
* 4 4 c 4 4 4 4 4 O4o


hO 4r h Q)




* * * a* ocl
4d)0 00

* *a* e

a~ uo ow(p
3


.** 44 4 ** ** .. Of .. e4 .4 .. .4. .. .* .. .. .. .. d4 44 4 .** 44 .. 4 ** *44 44


\0 r41'uA r-H '0-t Cm c- o- H \'OD --I N r-iL t1
H- r-H O Lf\ L\ C\ r-H
4o .. -44 0 44. .. .. .. .. .. 4 4 .4



c0" Ol AC cJ C r-lCO Cu Oc 0 rr\. 0D ON0 0 00 mco
co -- O0\ C \0 CO C0j OO C0 c Ir- i- CH r-s c
--1 'N C- r-H mC rC 0 O 0CM 0 V-T. C -- H
4ft 4 ft d%





1sr-- iO r-OH
-:VI CtN H-tEo-- N C,4J 0 \OGo 0\ 0.U\r-o O o\
N N-.-t0C IA ^1l O1--I \O N 0UNE- 0 0\0.t\r0 NOC\
M CM 4% "aOf 4\ 0\4 % 4% %fcM r-t
Sr--t CN H CO E-r- Hrr-
H H-1


co 0'\
H^


%10 r- O1V\\
C- V\IA r-H
N
H 0
$%







H 0
%V



r-1-,. O
r--. .- .-










OC
0)


o
a
r-


-t



0
6-


... .. .. .. .#" .. .. .. as .. .. .. .. .. 0. .. .. of 4. .. .. .. 0. .. ., .. ..


















Metropolitan Areas
A. Jacksonville, Duval County
B. Tampa-St. Petersburg,
Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties
C. Miami, Dade County


Fig. 3.-- State Economic Areas, Florida, 1951


Socio-economic Area Comparisons

A glance at the map of Florida economic areas shows irregular delineations

(Fig. 3). Area 1, for example, comprises a great deal of West Florida, but a portion

of it is in Area 3, which also includes a number of North Florida counties. In the

main, however, each area is distinguished by sets of characteristics which are more

representative of it than of any other area, as indicated by Tables 5 and 6.

It will be noted that Areas 1 and 3, which include much of North and West

Florida, reported the lowest values per farm. Most of the farms within these areas

are classified as general farms, although many farmers there specialize in one or

more of the leading cash crops grown, among them cotton, peanuts and tobacco, Areas

of specialization, such as h, 5 (cattle, citrus and vegetables) and 6 (cattle, vege-








tables and sugar cane) enjoyed the largest farm incomes, based on the value of their
farm products.

Table 5.--Selected Farm Characteristics by State Economic Areas,
Florida, 1945.


S: Value oa Farm Property, 19h4 : Value of
State 1/ : Land and :Implements:Livestock : Farm
Economic Area
: Buildings:& Machinery: on Farms : Products*
:- - -dollars per farm- - -
1 : 2,330 : 286 : 708 : 1,092
2 : 4,719 : 524 : 1,395 : 2,452
3 : 3,276 : 429 : 861 : 1,832
4 : 13,766 : 520 : 770 : 5,357
5 12,959 : 658 : 1,201 : 6,L32
6 14,264 : 1,461 : 2,051 : 9,113
The State /.. 8,149 : 600 1,111 4,212
All farm products sold or used by farm households.
Areas 1 and 2 each include part of Metropolitan Area A;
Area 5: includes Metropolitan Area B, and 6 includes Metropolitan
Area C.
2/ Values per farm are based upon the total number of farms
in the state.
Source: State Economic Areas, USDC, Washington, 1951.


Manufacturing activity, according to the number of employees engaged in man-

ufacturing, was greatest in citrus and phosphate producing areas (Area 5) and in the

Table 6.--Selected Manufacturing Sales, Service, and Demographic Characteristics
by State Economic Areas, Florida.
: Employees : Retail :1914 Service: Rural Level: Natural
Economic :M'f'g, 1947 :Sales, 1948: Receipts :of Living : Increase
Area :(thousands) :(mil. dol.) :(mil. dol) : Index, 1940: (1939-40)
1 : 7.7 : 10.2 : 7.0 : 61 : 15.2
2 4.6 : 65.3 : 2.6 : 66 : 11.0
3 6.5 : 18.6 : 7.1 : 63 : 15.2
S : 2.2 : 111.2 : 5.1 89 4.4
5 : 13.0 : 31.0 : 18.4 : 89 7.8
6 4.4 : 338.2 : 17.4 83 : 7.4
A : 12.8 : 266.9 : 20.6 104 5.9
B 18.1 : 362.8 : 23.3 : 120 : 4.3
C 9.3 : 588.8 50.8 : 119 6.2
The State : 78,6 2,336.0 : 152.3 : 77 8.4
Source: Data compiled from State Economic Areas, USDC, 1951.








Jacksonville (A) and Tampa-St.Petersburg (B) areas, where manufacturing enterprises

are diversified. Undoubtedly, manufacturing activities influenced retail sales, but

the correlation was low. As a matter of fact, the Miami area (C) received about 25

percent of all retail sales revenue, with only about 12 percent of the state's manu-

facturing employees being located there. In service receipts the Miami area was also

high, the area receiving about 33 percent of the total. The rural level of living

index, which measures the level of living of rural people in each area against the

average for the United States, was highest near the Metropolitan centers (A, B, and

C) and lowest in Areas 1, 2, and 3, where farm incomes were also much lower than

Elsewhere (Table 5).

In areas of low farm incomes, natural increase was greatest (Table 6). In

general, natural increase appeared to be inversely correlated with economic activity.

Thus, large numbers of Florida's rural population have migrated to cities. Moreover,

because of insufficient population replacements of their own, the cities have readily

absorbed the state's rural-urban migrants. Their..absorp'tion, however; has frequent-

ly.involved.problems of'housing and expansion of public' Services.


Population Distribution

The metropolitan areas and the warmer parts of the state reported the larg-

est proportional gains in the state between 1940 and 1950 (Table 7). Area 1 also

reported a large population increase. Its population gain was reflected mostly in

the growth of metropolitan centers and rural areas adjacent to them, principally

Panama City, Pensacola and Tallahassee. However, Okaloosa County, a county which is

predominantly rural, reported 113.4 percent growth. Although part of Escambia Coun-

ty was annexed to Okaloosa in 1947, the large growth probably was greatly influenced

by military expenditures.

The most recent place-of-birth data available are for 1945. An analysis of

these data is presented by Economic Areas in Table 8.







Table 7.-- Population of Florida by Economic Areas: 1940 and 1950

Economic : Population : Increase 1940 to 1950
Areas : 190 : 1950 : Number : Percent
1 2 181,261 : 257,731 : 76,470 : 42.2
2 : 95,854 : 112,185 : 16,331 : 17.0
3 : 25,769 : 284,657 : 38,888 : 15.8
4 93,688 : 133,301 : 39,613 : 42.3
5 311,365 : 429,377 : 118,012 : 37.9
6 : 219,595 : 345,798 : 126,203 : 57.5
A 210,143 : 304,029 : 93,886 : 44.7
B 272,000 : 409,143 : 137,143 : 50.4
C : 267,739 : 495,084 : 227,345 : 84.9
he State 1,897,1414 2 2,771,305 873,891 46.1


It will be observed that about 51 percent of the people of the Jacksonville
area (A) were born outside Florida as against 56 percent for the Tampa-St. Peters-
burg area (B) and 72 percent for the Miami area (C). For the non-metropolitan eco-
nomic areas, immigration from other states was highest for Areas 4, 5, and 6, and
lowest in Area 3, or 61 percent for Area 6 as compared to 23 percent for Area 3.

Table 8.-- Distribution of Inhabitants by Economic Areas
and by Nativity, Florida, 1945.


: Place of Birth
Economic : In Outside : Total
Area Florida a Florida : Population
: (number) : (number) : (number)
1 141,18 : 97,680 : 238,864
2 : 63,173 : 33,453 : 96,626
3 : 187,766 : 55,971 : 243,737
4 : 44,732 : 57,788 : 102,520
5 : 188,898 : 175,417 : 364,315
6 108,301 : 168,605 : 276,906
A : 133,893 : 139,950 : 273,843
B : 17,279 : 190,833 : 338,112
C ; 88,105 : 227,033 : 315,138
The State 1,103,331 1,146,730* 2,250,061
SU. S. born, 1,061,118: other, 85,612.


The net gain in the Florida population between 1935 and 1945 due to immigration, as








based upon the increase in the number of persons living in Florida who were born

outside the state, amounted to about 406,000 (Table 9).

Table 9.-- Increase in Number of Residents Born Outside the State,
by Economic Areas, Florida, 1935 to 1945.

Economic : Population t Increase 1935 to 1945
Areas : 1935 : 1945 :Number : Percent
1 : 51,085 : 97,680 : 46,595 : 91.2
2 : 29,306 : 33,453 : 4,1l7 : 14.2
3 : 52,040 : 55,971 : 3,931 : 7.6
4 : 46,103 : 57,788 : 11,685 : 25.3
5 : 13,204 : 175,417 : 32,213 : 22.5
6 86,324 : 168,605 : 82,281 : 95.3
A : 90,498 : 139,950 : 49,452 : 54.6
B : 113,642 : 190,833 : 77,191 : 67.9
C : 128,612 : 227,033 : 98,421 : 76.5
The State 740,814 : 1,1l6,730 : 05,916 : S.8


Comparatively small numbers of immigrants settled in the general farming

areas (Economic Areas 2 and 3) between 1935 and 1945. This situation would also

have held for Area 1, except for the urban gains there, as previously mentioned.

The percentage increase was highest in Area 6, but the numerical gain was highest in

Metropolitan Area C.

Conclusions

The rapidly expanding population of Florida raises problems in planning, con-

serving and utilizing the state's resources. The state has the spatial capacity to

absorb additional thousands of immigrants. Nevertheless, no one knows what the max-

imum population for a given area should be, as maximization involves proportioning

of productive resources, which varies with a given state of the arts and institution-

al set-up. Modern optima are continually shifting, being influenced by technological.
economic, and political changes, among others. Today, premium has been placed on a

rather high level of living, for Americans stress the importance of material posses-

sions.








The development of numerous and dependable means and methods of transporta-

tion in the United States has greatly facilitated human mobility. Our national in-

come is surpassing all expectations of a decade ago. New social concepts of securi-

ty in life and in ways to preserve it are incorporated in our laws. Pensions, So-

cial Security benefits, and other financial aids for retirement or old age assist-

ance stimulate migration. On the basis of observable population movements to Flor-

ida, immigrants have sought a warm climate as well as economic opportunity.

In general, migrations are characterized by two movements. The first move-

ment is toward concentration in or near cities, and the second is in the expansion

of peoples from the centers to unexploited margins of the urban areas. Both move-

ments are at present pronounced in Florida.

The relative degree of commercial and other activity in a community is re-

flected quite dramatically in land values. Land rents and values depend on the mar-

ginal productivity of the land, which in turn reflects growth and development. Im-

migration has thus been favorable to property values in most parts of Florida, How-

ever, it is well to examine some of the consequences arising from slowing down in

population growth, or from an economic depression. Land owners who acquire land

above the normal price -- that is, the price which equals its marginal productivity -

are likely to suffer severe loss, or even bankruptcy when population growth slows

up or ceases. Moreover, superior or high-priced land is more sensitive to depres-

sions than low value lands. For example, land values in the Miami Area. would ap-

pear to be vulnerable in case of a severe depression since its economy is deeply

rooted in service and retail trades. If, however, considerable amounts of capital

flowed in with immigrants, the danger may not be as real as the warning.

Population authorities agree that reasons for migration are profoundly im-

portant to the residents in the areas where immigrants locate. Migration, among

other things, affects taxes, relief, education, gainful employment, and especially








wages. Past research has indicated that the poorer the immigrants, the less likely

they are to be received without reservation. Moreover, the nearer immigrants are

like the people in the areas to which they migrate, the more quickly they can be ab-

sorbed and adjusted. The tendency for immigrants to settle with people of similar

heritage has long been recognized. This may partially account for the fact that im-

migrations to Florida have been differential and selective. This social phenomenon

is closely related with unequal distribution of imported capital. Conceivably some

local areas in consequence could suffer a lowering in the general level of living.

The principal purpose of population-inquiry, aside from lay interest, is to

discover bases for public policy. If effective community programs are to be in-

tegrated with the dynamics of a changing population, local agencies must assume the

initiative in the determination of social policy affecting them. This is a chal-

lenge to community organizations, civic groups, and public officials responsible

for the formulation of public policy. Their responsibility can be executed best

when they are cognizant of the origin and characteristics of their people.




















DEA:gg 5/8/52
Agr. Exp. Stat, Agr. Econ. 150




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs