increased by 220,000 between 1990 and
2000. This gain offset a substantial net
loss of non-Hispanic whites (134,000)
and a minimal loss of blacks (3,000).
The “other” category (which is prima-
rily Asians) also grew during the period
(figure 2). The population of suburban
Cook County also grew in the 1990s.
Population gains there resulted from
the growth of the Hispanic, black, and
other groups. These gains offset the loss
of 184,000 whites. Population growth
was greatest in suburban areas beyond
Cook County, because net migration
and natural increase gains were substan-
tial. All four racial/ethnic groups gained
population in the outer suburbs, with
the largest gain experienced by the white
population (285,000). Hispanics expe-
rienced substantial growth (204,000)
as well, whereas gains to the black and
other categories were more modest.
The distribution of racial/ethnic groups
within the three areas shifted during
the decade as a result of these trends.
Blacks (37%) were the largest group
in Chicago in 2000, followed by whites
(32%) and Hispanics (26%). The oth-
er group (largely Asian) and the new
“two or more races” category represent-
ed much more modest proportions of
the city population. Suburban Cook
County remains nearly 68% white, de-
spite a 10% decline in the 1990s. The
outer suburbs are approximately 78%
white. Now, I consider the dynamics
underlying this broad picture of popu-
lation change in Chicago.
2. Change in racial/ethnic distribution, 1990-2000
-300,000
source: Data from U.S. Census Bureau.
Importance of migration
and natural increase
Natural increase (the ex-
cess of births over deaths)
is a significant source of
population increase in
nearly every large metro-
politan area. However, net
migration (the difference
between the number of in-
dividuals moving into and
out of an area) has a far
more differential effect. We
can break down overall mi-
gration change into two
separate components. The
first is domestic migration,
which involves movement
from one part of the U.S.
to another. The second type of migra-
tion is net immigration, which is the
difference between the number of
people coming into an area from out-
side the U.S. and the number of people
from the area leaving the U.S. Both
types of migration played an important
role in the Chicago metropolitan re-
gion between 1990 and 2000.
Recent research4 suggests that some
large metropolitan areas (e.g., New
York, Los Angeles, and San Francisco)
have experienced net domestic out-mi-
gration, but have received a significant
net influx of immigrants. A second
group of metropolitan areas (e.g.,
Atlanta, Denver, and Phoenix) have
received a significant gain from domes-
tic migration, but relatively few immi-
grants. Chicago’s migration
experience is consistent
with that of the first group.
The Chicago metro area
experienced an overall net
migration gain of 164,000
(2.2%) between 1990 and
2000. This gain resulted
from a net influx of approx-
imately 408,000 immigrants
that was sufficient to offset
the net loss of 244,000 do-
mestic migrants. The at-
tractiveness of the Chicago
metro area to immigrants
differentiates it from the
rest of the East North
Central region. Although
3. Components of population change, 1990-2000
□ Immigration
-600,000 ------------------------------------------------------------
note: Chicago immigrants estimated at 50% of Illinois total.
source: Data from Illinois Department of Public Health and U.S. Census Bureau.
Chicago contains only 18.6% of the re-
gion’s population, it received 63.1% of
all immigrants to the region between
1990 and 2000.
The City of Chicago experienced a net
migration loss of 176,000 in the 1990s.
This loss occurred because the net out-
flow of domestic migrants from the city
was only partially offset by a net gain
from immigration (figure 3). Although
still substantial, the city’s migration loss
between 1990 and 2000 is considerably
smaller than the losses during the three
prior decades. Suburban Cook County
gained approximately 18,000 net mi-
grants during the decade, because net
immigration gains were sufficient to off-
set a net loss of domestic migrants. The
remainder of the Chicago region ex-
perienced a net migration gain of
322,000, fueled by both domestic mi-
grants and immigrants.
Natural increase also contributed to
the growth of the population in each
of the three sub-regions of the metro
area. There were a total of 1,350,000
births and 645,000 deaths in the region
between 1990 and 2000, producing a
population gain attributable to natural
increase of 705,000. The excess of births
over deaths was 288,000 (10.3% of the
total population) in the city, 142,000
(6.1%) in suburban Cook County, and
276,000 (11.5%) in the outer suburbs.
These natural increases offset the mi-
gration loss from the city, supplemented
the modest migration gain in suburban