Capital of Nomads:
Part 3
Mapping Mobility in the Nation’s Capital
Yesterday, I explored how demographic factors like age, income, and family status impact migration in the DC area. Today, I’m going to focus on mapping out migration in the DC metro area, exploring exactly where people are moving. Migration in the DC metro area follows distinct patterns with a clear center and a clear periphery. Certain counties or towns appeal more to some migrants than others. By tracking more detailed and localized migration flows, we should be able to tell a better story about how the DC metro area is changing.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
Nationwide Net Migration Rates
The two maps above may look similar, but they’re actually slightly different. The left map shows the DC metro area’s net migration balance with each state, as a percent of DC’s population. The map on the right, however, shows DC’s net migration balance with each state as a share of that state’s population. The left map shows us DC’s biggest migration ties, and the right map shows us its unusually prominent migration ties.
In both maps, the DC metro area loses out to Virginia and Maryland, swamping every other state. But when we go beyond those immediate border states, we find some more interesting stories. For example: while DC does lose people to Texas and Florida, those losses are actually very small compared to those states’ size, and so we would say that DC is not losing an unusually large amount of people to Florida and Texas.
Compared to the local populations, DC’s losses to Texas and Florida are much smaller than its losses to Arkansas or Louisiana.
Meanwhile, when we look at the places where DC gains migrants, we can see that New York, New Jersey, and California are the big “senders.” But compared to their local populations, these flows are again not that large: most of this tie is just population gravity at work.
When we adjust for partner-state population, it turns out DC’s biggest gains are from Alaska, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
Ultimately, while big-population states have large net flows compared to DC’s population, these ties are almost entirely just the result of big population. Once we adjust for partner state population, DC tends to disproportionately gain from rural western states, and disproportionately lose to rural southern states.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
State Migrant Replacement Ratios
While the first two maps showed a net migration rate, this map shows a replacement ratio. The replacement ratio is simply inflows divided by outflows. It shows how lopsided or unbalanced a given bilateral migration corridor may be, regardless of either partner state’s population or the size of the flows in question. As such, it provides us an ideal index of where DC has the most extraordinarily unbalanced net migration flows.
This map makes the relationship we noticed earlier even more clear: DC has very lopsided inflows from the upper plains and mountain states. Very few Washingtonians move to Wyoming, and a much larger number of Wyomingites move to Washington.
But DC also lopsidedly benefits from Michigan, New Jersey, and Alaska migrants. I’m not entirely sure why this is; I haven’t broken these state flows out by demographic categories. But the reality is that, for every person who moves from DC to Mississippi, two will move from Mississippi to DC. But just across the Mississippi River in Arkansas, the trend is reversed: for every two Arkansans who move to DC, three Washingtonians will move to Arkansas.
DC disproportionately gains from the upper plains and mountain states, as well as Alaska, New Jersey, Mississippi, and Michigan.
On the losing side, DC has strong negative relationships with Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Arkansas, and of course Virginia and Maryland. These states do not seem to have much of a geographic trend, and, again, I don’t know the specific demographic characteristics of each bilateral relationship. But each of these relationships is large enough and lopsided enough that there would seem to be some kind of ongoing imbalance.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
Local Migration and Suburbanization
The above maps show migration within the metro area. The left map shows the net intrametro migration rate. This is each county’s inflows from the rest of the metro area minus each county’s outflows to the rest of the metro area, divided by the county’s population. For my purposes, Virginia’s independent cities are treated as counties as well. The right map shows the Virginia, Maryland, and DC parts of the metro area, as well as the gross number of people migrating from each metro state section to the others.
Looking at the county map of net rates, there’s a strong pattern: core counties like Alexandria and DC lose people at high rates, while suburban and exurban counties like Culpeper and Fredericksburg City make big gains. Stafford County is the big exception, but that may be due to effects from a large military presence. Put plainly, people still like the suburbs. You may have heard that urban cores are experiencing a revival of sorts, that more people are moving into urban centers. But the evidence from Washington, DC (a standard example of this alleged urban renewal) is unconvincing: Washingtonians are moving further and further out into the ‘burbs.
Core counties are losing local migrants while suburban or exurban counties are gaining.
When we look at the sectional map of gross flows, we can see that DC is the clear overall loser, Maryland the biggest winner, and Virginia is slightly positive too. One reason Virginia loses people is because it has high-density urban centers like Alexandria and Arlington. Again, this is heresy for today’s urban evangelists, but the reality is that people are moving away from high-density areas more than the reverse. Maryland’s DC metro counties have comparatively little in the way of a dense urban core, and are more completely suburban or exurban, so see somewhat more migration overall.
Virginia’s much-lauded higher-density developments in Arlington and Alexandria are the source of its migration losses.
If I split Virginia into two sections, one for Fairfax County and all its various enclaves up to the Potomac, and another for the rest of the Virginia metro part, the result would make the Virginia suburbs and exurbs into big local migration gainers, and “core” Northern Virginia into big migration losers. I don’t adopt that division because I’ve chosen to stick with just state-part divisions through the rest of this series, but, if there’s interest in the future, maybe I’ll revisit the issue.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
Migration Beyond the Metro Area
The map on the right is the same intrametro migration map I showed earlier. The map on the left, however, shows the net extrametro migration rate, i.e. net migration from the rest of the United States, excluding the DC metro area. Just look at that. The pattern is visually striking, even if the actual statistical correlation is fairly low. What is notable, however, is that, for the most part, suburban and exurban areas that are gaining intrametro migrants are losing extrametro migrants. If you recall my demographic breakouts yesterday, you’ll remember that DC loses kids, retirees, and college freshmen at high rates. Well, kids and retirees disproportionately reside in suburbs. And college freshmen going away from school are most likely to come from good high schools, and those good high schools are most likely to exist in… suburbs and exurbs.
Metro counties with high extrametro net migration often have low intrametro net migration.
In other words, the very amenities that make suburbs appealing for family life create high out-migration. This is a paradox people don’t always understand, because most people, when they think of migration, have an amenities-based “revealed preference” model in their head: migration is people voting with their feet. And that’s often true. But there’s also, as I’ve said many times, a life cycle to migration. When high schools graduate a larger number of qualified 18-year-olds than there are desirable spots in local universities, out-migration ensues. And for many high-achieving graduates, going away from home for college has an inherent appeal.
However, this same dynamic drives the opposite trend in the “core” counties. These counties are closer to large, selective universities, and the employment dynamo at the core of the DC metro area, the Federal government. High schoolers from around the nation may leave home to attend college in Washington, DC, even as many young people migrate there for work. Disproportionately likely to be renters and to not own a car, these young people are likely to live closer to the urban core. Partly because they like urban lifestyle no doubt, and partly because that just happens to be where there are job and school opportunities.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
Metro Area International Migration
The two maps shown here both show international migration data. The left map shows the foreign-born population in each county, the right map shows the net international migration rate. First of all, it’s notable that a third of the population of Manassas Park City and Montgomery County is foreign-born. That’s some serious accumulated net international migration right there.
We can also see in the foreign-born map a pretty clear concentration around inner ring suburbs and urban centers. While the foreign-born aren’t necessarily concentrated exactly in the city center, their population share drops off dramatically in the further out suburbs and exurbs.
International migrants in the DC metro area show a strong preference for the urban core and inner suburbs.
The map on the right shows net international migration rates. Instead of showing the amount of foreigners, it simply shows net migration from abroad. Here, we see that Alexandria City has the highest net international migration rate, while exurban Culpeper County has essentially no international migration. This is a pretty stark difference.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
Sources of the Foreign-Born Population
The above chart shows the foreign-born population in each state section of the DC metro area, broken out by major global region of origin. The first thing that may stand out is how much lower DC’s foreign born share is than MD or VA, but we covered that in an earlier map. Looking at the origins, however, we can see that European-origin immigrants disproportionately land in DC, while Central American (including Mexican) and East or Southeast Asian immigrants are much more prominent in Maryland and Virginia. Indeed, as a share of the foreign-born population, Europeans are twice as prominent in DC as in Virginia, while Central Americans and Asians are twice as prominent in Virginia as in DC.
There are large variations in the composition of the foreign-born population around the DC metro area.
These differences in origin composition likely stem from different reasons for migration: migrants in DC proper may be somewhat more likely to be students, diplomats, or otherwise wealthy, while many suburban migrants may be more recent and drawn by service jobs, or else are simply more comfortable having a long commute for one reason or another. The exact causes of these differences will have to wait for another day, but for now it is notable that such large differences do exist.
Mapping the Capital’s Migration
Conclusion
In this post, I’ve shown that DC’s nationwide migration ties vary widely across different states and regions. It prominently gains from the upper plains and mountains, and loses to various states around the nation. Within DC, extrametro migrants tend to settle in the urban core, while intrametro migrants move out to the suburbs and exurbs. This reflects both a life cycle process involving education and family, but also reveals some preferred amenities. There is little evidence of any general preference for density in metro area migration. International migrants generally tend to move to the urban centers or inner suburbs. This may reflect existing information networks, preference for urban living, or lack of familiarity with the area. The result is that foreign-born populations are highly concentrated in inner suburbs, such that some of these suburban counties are over a third foreign-born. But, within the foreign-born population, there is significant variation in origins and preferences. The foreign-born population in DC proper is more European, while the foreign-born population in the suburbs is more Asian and Latin American. Exactly what drives these differences is not clear, but they are large.
Throughout this series, I have offered an account of migration in the DC metro area, explaining the broad trends, specific migration patterns for different groups of people and demographics, and offering maps and visualizations. The result is fairly clear. While the DC metro area is experience real growth fueled by migration, that migration is highly selective and transient. DC loses families and older residents especially, struggling to hold on to these long-term residents who are especially likely to built neighborhood and community social capital. Instead, the DC metro area attracts young professionals and students, especially to the urban core. When they’re a bit older, they move to the suburbs, and establish some roots there. However, many move away from the metro area entirely, and even if they do raise a family, their children are very likely to have their sights set on going somewhere else.
These trends imply that the DC metro area may provide amenities that serve mobile, low-family-commitment individuals very well. For those without large families and who are comfortable moving frequently and not putting down deep roots, the DC metro area will work well. In other words, high-performing, long-hour professionals are likely to thrive. But on the other hand, the metro area does not appear to provide the right benefits to attract and retain families and older people. The reality is that families and older people aren’t sticking around. Maybe the amenities aren’t good, or maybe the prices are too high, but these groups are in fact valuable for promoting the formation of social capital in a locality. Family ties, and especially multi-generational family ties, encourage people to make social (and financial) investments in their communities and their neighbors that they might not otherwise make. Parents with kids care about the local schools and parks more than 20-somethings. By alienating these essential social builders, the DC metro area makes for itself a situation of ongoing social disconnection, high and persistent inequality, contentious gentrification debates, and perpetual transiency.
See my next post, on migration and the life cycle.
See part 1 of this series, offering a brief overview of migration in DC.
See part 2 of this series, getting into the demographic details of migration in DC.
Start my series on migration from the beginning.
If you like this post and want to see more research like it, I’d love for you to share it on Twitter or Facebook. Or, just as valuable for me, you can click the recommend button at the bottom of the page. Thanks!
Follow me on Twitter to keep up with what I’m writing and reading. Follow my Medium Collection at In a State of Migration if you want updates when I write new posts. And if you’re writing about migration too, feel free to submit a post to the collection!
I’m a graduate of the George Washington University’s Elliott School with an MA in International Trade and Investment Policy, and an economist at USDA’s Foreign Agricultural Service. I like to learn about migration, the cotton industry, airplanes, trade policy, space, Africa, and faith.
My posts are not endorsed by and do not in any way represent the opinions of the United States government or any branch, department, agency, or division of it. My writing represents exclusively my own opinions. I did not receive any financial support or remuneration from any party for this research. More’s the pity.
