History Podcasts

Has there ever been a major migration from the New World to the Old World? If not, why?

Has there ever been a major migration from the New World to the Old World? If not, why?

We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Considerable research has been done on the ancient migration of humans from Northeast Asia to the Americas. Between that and Columbus, there were a few smaller migration events from elsewhere in the world - including the Viking travels to North America, and possible Austronesian travels to South America.

However, these are all in the direction of Old World -> New World. Has movement in the reverse direction ever been identified? I don't know of any. Even in modern times, it seems as though the direction of migration has always been Old World -> New World.

I assume the best bet for finding evidence would be by the Bering Sea. It seems like there was occasional contact between Alaska and Siberia in pre-Columbian times, which may hint that there was a major migration at some point.

As DevSolar mentioned in his comment, this really depends on how you define 'major', but here are several case of migrants moving from the New to the Old World.

From the Caribbean to Europe

According the (British) National Archives, between 1948 and 1970,

nearly half a million people left their homes in the West Indies to live in Britain

There were also significant migrations to France and the Netherlands. According to Migration from the Colonies to Western Europe since 1800

In 1975, more than 100,000 migrants from the Caribbean were living in metropolitan France.

Also, around 180,000 Surinamese immigrants arrived in the Netherlands, mostly between 1975 and 1980.

From North America to West Africa

Another, much smaller but nonetheless historically significant migration from New to Old led to the founding of Liberia. This involved the migration of around 13,000 African Americans during the nineteenth century.

Yes, there has been.

As this infographic shows, there has been a back-migration of the DNA haplogroups C1a and A2a from North America (well, Beringia… ) back into Asia.

The infographic is sourced as Tamm E, Kivisild T, Reidla M, Metspalu M, Smith DG, et al. (2007) Beringian Standstill and Spread of Native American Founders. PLoS ONE 2(9): e829. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000829.

Other (later) back-migrations might exist; I understood that your question would be answered with one "yes" already and stopped searching at this point.

In addition to Lars Bosteen's answer about modern migration, several hundred thousand South American people have migrated to Spain in the last decades, and Brazilians have became the largest group of foreigners in Portugal. Other European countries with fewer ties and common background with America seem to host smaller populations.

Furthermore, if the "native-americans" tag in the question means that the OP is more interested in migration of descendants of native Americans than migration of Americans of European descent, the migration of Ecuadorians to Spain may qualify as the largest trans-Atlantic migration of people of native American or mixed descent.

Horses evolved on the North American landmass, emigrated across the Bering land bridge, then went extinct in the Americas.

The question is taggednative-americansandalaskathough uses the termnew-world, which is a purely Eurocentric perspective. Also, it is not immediately clear what "Old World" means in regards to locales other than Europe proper; or if the question is focused on actual Native Americans or individuals and institutions who invaded Turtle Island and now claim the geography as their own by right of conquest. It must also be noted here that Native American prisoners of war (commonly referred to as "slaves") were shipped to Europe from the "New World" prior to the abolition of "slavery" in the "New World"; which is not migration, but rather a tactic of war to seize and control the land of the original people in the "New World"; i.e.g., see Colonists shipped Native Americans abroad as slaves by Gillian Kiley-Brown

While natives had been forced into slavery and servitude as early as 1636, it was not until King Philip's War that natives were enslaved in large numbers, Fisher writes in the study. The 1675 to 1676 war pitted Native American leader King Philip, also known as Metacom, and his allies against the English colonial settlers.

During the war, New England colonies routinely shipped Native Americans as slaves to Barbados, Bermuda, Jamaica, the Azores, Spain, and Tangier in North Africa, Fisher says.

Have inquired into why people of European descent do not migrate or "caravan" back to Europe en masse. The conclusion that have drawn is that the conditions which precipitated mass departure from Europe between 1500 and 1900 still exist; and people who claim to be of European descent in the "New World" actually have little interest in returning to the lands and culture they claim by virtue of purported ancestral lineage or "origin", as the evidence supports.

People who claim to be "Jew" do more frequently migrate to Isreal which could be considered "Old World", unless, again by the term "Old World" the question refers to only regions of Europe proper, or euphemistically; that is, the question does not present definitive nations or geographic locations specifying precisely where "Old World" supposedly begins or concludes, certainly not from the perspective of individuals who do not self-identify as "European"; or if such notions of "Old World" exist primarily as nostalgia in individuals' minds who claim to be of European descent, as an expression of Eurocentrism, negating the fact that "Old World" could also be applicable to "Africa" or "Australia", et al.; as the designation "Old World" is not commonly found on any map.

In any event, see Aliyah

(US: /ˌæliˈɑː/, UK: /ˌɑː-/; Hebrew: עֲלִיָּה‬ aliyah, "ascent") is the immigration of Jews from the diaspora to the Land of Israel (Eretz Israel in Hebrew). Also defined as "the act of going up"-that is, towards Jerusalem-"making Aliyah" by moving to the Land of Israel is one of the most basic tenets of Zionism.

Aliyah from Latin America

In the 1999-2002 Argentine political and economic crisis that caused a run on the banks, wiped out billions of dollars in deposits and decimated Argentina's middle class, most of the country's estimated 200,000 Jews were directly affected. Some 4,400 chose to start over and move to Israel, where they saw opportunity.

More than 10,000 Argentine Jews immigrated to Israel since 2000, joining the thousands of previous Argentine immigrants already there. The crisis in Argentina also affected its neighbour country Uruguay, from which about half of its 40,000-strong Jewish community left, mainly to Israel, in the same period. During 2002 and 2003 the Jewish Agency for Israel launched an intensive public campaign to promote aliyah from the region, and offered additional economic aid for immigrants from Argentina. Although the economy of Argentina improved, and some who had immigrated to Israel from Argentina moved back following South American country's economic growth from 2003 onwards, Argentine Jews continue to immigrate to Israel, albeit in smaller numbers than before. The Argentine community in Israel is about 50,000-70,000 people, the largest Latin American group in the country.

There has also been immigration from other Latin American countries that have experienced crises, though they have come in smaller numbers and are not eligible for the same economic benefits as immigrants to Israel from Argentina.

In Venezuela, growing antisemitism in the country, including antisemitic violence, caused an increasing number of Jews to move to Israel during the 2000s. For the first time in Venezuelan history, Jews began leaving for Israel in the hundreds. By November 2010, more than half of Venezuela's 20,000-strong Jewish community had left the country.51, 52

Aliyah from North America

More than 200,000 North American immigrants live in Israel. There has been a steady flow of immigration from North America since Israel's inception in 1948.82, 83

Several thousand American Jews moved to Mandate Palestine before the State of Israel was established. From Israel's establishment in 1948 to the Six-Day War in 1967, aliyah from the United States and Canada was minimal. In 1959, a former President of the Association of Americans and Canadians in Israel estimated that out of the 35,000 American and Canadian Jews who had made aliyah, only 6,000 remained.84

Following the Six-Day War in 1967, and the subsequent euphoria among world Jewry, significant numbers arrived in the late 1960s and 1970s, whereas it had been a mere trickle before. Between 1967 and 1973, 60,000 North American Jews immigrated to Israel. However, many of them later returned to their original countries. An estimated 58% of American Jews who immigrated to Israel between 1961 and 1972 ended up returning to the United States.85, 86

Like Western European immigrants, North Americans tend to immigrate to Israel more for religious, ideological, and political purposes, and not financial or security ones.87 Many immigrants began arriving in Israel after the First and Second Intifada, with a total of 3,052 arriving in 2005 - the highest number since 1983.88

Nefesh B'Nefesh, founded in 2002 by Rabbi Yehoshua Fass and Tony Gelbart, works to encourage Aliyah from North America and the UK by providing financial assistance, employment services and streamlined governmental procedures. Nefesh B'Nefesh works in cooperation with the Jewish Agency and the Israeli Government in increasing the numbers of North American and British immigrants.

Following the Global Financial Crisis in the late 2000s, American Jewish immigration to Israel rose. This wave of immigration was triggered by Israel's lower unemployment rate, combined with financial incentives offered to new Jewish immigrants. In 2009, aliyah was at its highest in 36 years, with 3,324 North American Jews making aliyah.89

As to "why": Unforced migration is opportunistic. Moving somewhere else is risky and requires effort so that a degree of suffering at the current location or at least a substantial promise of improvement at the target location is needed to start a migration.

Prominent examples are the Irish famine or the Californian gold rush. More generally, the migration of Europeans which was not the direct result of religious prosecution and famines was motivated by perceived opportunities abroad which were not present at home.

Some of the opportunities were social - the feudalistic, strictly organized societies of the 17th and 18th century were severely regulating the lives of the common people while the founding document of the United States explicitly stated that "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" were "inherent and inalienable rights" of man.

More direct, materialistic opportunities were present in the abundance of natural resources, mostly land, which is attractive to members of pre-industrial societies in full possession of their abilities (chiefly young, adventurous, energetic people).1

With this analysis we can predict that the direction of migration may reverse when opportunities in the Americas appear much worse than in Europe. An aging and shrinking European population may generate attractive job and housing opportunities, and bad governance in the Americas (including the U.S., if you look at it) may decrease opportunities there. As others have remarked such a trend can already be observed.

1 As an aside, I can observe some traits of people most likely to emigrate from Europe - e.g. being religious, entrepreneurial, adventurous, optimistic and energetic - in America still today, while they sometimes seem to lack in Europe.

The Exchange of Plant and Animal Species Between the New World and Old World

When Europeans reached North America's shorelines in the late 1400s and began to explore the continent's interior in the 1500s, they saw the vast land as a source of new plants, animals, and minerals for them to use and to transport back to Europe. As they colonized this New World, they also brought with them many familiar plants and animals for food, farming, and other purposes. This exchange of species between the two continents had positive and negative effects, and they continue today. On the positive side, the exchange introduced what would become important agricultural crops and beneficial animals to both continents. It also, however, expanded the range of species that carried disease and competed with beneficial native species, and it also permanently changed the face of each continent.

How immigration has changed the world – for the better

Is immigration good or bad? Some argue that immigrants flood across borders, steal jobs, are a burden on taxpayers and threaten indigenous culture. Others say the opposite: that immigration boosts economic growth, meets skill shortages, and helps create a more dynamic society.

Evidence clearly shows that immigrants provide significant economic benefits. However, there are local and short-term economic and social costs. As with debates on trade, where protectionist instincts tend to overwhelm the longer term need for more open societies, the core role that immigrants play in economic development is often overwhelmed by defensive measures to keep immigrants out. A solution needs to be found through policies that allow the benefits to compensate for the losses.

Around the world, there are an estimated 230 million migrants, making up about 3% of the global population. This share has not changed much in the past 100 years. But as the world’s population has quadrupled, so too has the number of migrants. And since the early 1900s, the number of countries has increased from 50 to over 200. More borders mean more migrants.

Of the global annual flow of around 15 million migrants, most fit into one of four categories: economic (6 million), student (4 million), family (2 million), and refugee/asylum (3 million). There are about 20 million officially recognized refugees worldwide, with 86% of them hosted by neighbouring countries, up from 70% 10 years ago.

In the US, over a third of documented immigrants are skilled. Similar trends exist in Europe. These percentages reflect the needs of those economies. Governments that are more open to immigration assist their country’s businesses, which become more agile, adaptive and profitable in the war for talent. Governments in turn receive more revenue and citizens thrive on the dynamism that highly-skilled migrants bring.

Yet it is not only higher-skilled migrants who are vital. In the USA and elsewhere, unskilled immigrants are an essential part of the construction, agriculture and services sector.

If immigrants play such a vital role, why is there so much concern?

Some believe that immigrants take jobs and destroy economies. Evidence proves this wrong. In the United States, immigrants have been founders of companies such as Google, Intel, PayPal, eBay, and Yahoo! In fact, skilled immigrants account for over half of Silicon Valley start-ups and over half of patents, even though they make up less than 15% of the population. There have been three times as many immigrant Nobel Laureates, National Academy of Science members, and Academy Award film directors than the immigrant share of the population would predict. Research at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco concluded that “immigrants expand the economy’s productive capacity by stimulating investment and promoting specialization, which produces efficiency gains and boosts income per worker”.

Research on the net fiscal impact of immigration shows that immigrants contribute significantly more in taxes than the benefits and services they receive in return. According to the World Bank, increasing immigration by a margin equal to 3% of the workforce in developed countries would generate global economic gains of $356 billion. Some economists predict that if borders were completely open and workers were allowed to go where they pleased, it would produce gains as high as $39 trillion for the world economy over 25 years.

In the future, it will become even more imperative to ensure a strong labour supply augmented by foreign workers. Globally, the population is ageing. There were only 14 million people over the age of 80 living in 1950. There are well over 100 million today and current projections indicate there will be nearly 400 million people over 80 by 2050. With fertility collapsing to below replacement levels in all regions except Africa, experts are predicting rapidly rising dependency ratios and a decline in the OECD workforce from around 800 million to close to 600 million by 2050. The problem is particularly acute in North America, Europe and Japan.

There are, however, legitimate concerns about large-scale migration. The possibility of social dislocation is real. Just like globalization – a strong force for good in the world – the positive aspects are diffuse and often intangible, while the negative aspects bite hard for a small group of people.

Yes, those negative aspects must be managed. But that management must come with the recognition that migration has always been one of the most important drivers of human progress and dynamism. Immigration is good. And in the age of globalization, barriers to migration pose a threat to economic growth and sustainability. Free migration, like totally free trade, remains a utopian prospect, even though within regions (such as Europe) this has proved workable.

As John Stuart Mill forcefully argued, we need to ensure that the local and short-term social costs of immigration do not detract from their role “as one of the primary sources of progress”.

Author: Ian Goldin is Director of the Oxford Martin School and Professor of Globalization and Development at the University of Oxford. This article draws on his book Exceptional people: How migration shaped our world and will define our future, co-authored with Geoffrey Cameron and Meera Balarajan and published by Princeton University Press. Twitter: @oxmartinschool. He is participating in the World Economic Forum’s Annual Meeting in Davos.

How U.S. Immigration Policy Has Changed Since 9/11

U.S. immigration policy is inextricably linked with national security and border control policies. But that wasn’t always the case. The Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks prompted a major shift in the way the country handles immigration, creating new government bodies and tightening restrictions on who is and isn’t allowed in.

“The 9/11 hijackers entered the country with ― a fact that immediately linked immigration with terrorism and national security,” explained the Migration Policy Institute in a 2011 fact sheet.

Here are some of the key ways immigration has changed since 9/11:

New Government Bodies And Policies

Arguably, the most significant difference is that the Department of Homeland Security didn’t exist before 9/11. Formed in November 2002 with the passing of the Homeland Security Act, the agency replaced the Immigration and Naturalization Service and became responsible for enforcing national security and protecting the U.S. from terrorism.

The three main bodies created within the DHS consist of Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

The main duties they fulfill in the post-9/11 era include screening and collecting data on international travelers, additional screenings and interviews of people of certain nationalities, and sharing information with other countries.

The U.S. began setting aside “huge funding for immigration enforcing, the creation of DHS, creating new and robust databases which were nonexistent,” Muzaffar Chishti, a director at Migration Policy Institute, told The Huffington Post. “We have an entry-exit system, where we fingerprint everyone who enters and we track people in many airports when they leave country. We also track every foreign student.”

“Today, if a local cop tracks you down for making a wrong left turn in downtown Atlanta, he’s going to know your entire immigration history within seconds,” Chishti added.

These tactics were extended to the nearly 2,000-mile border between the U.S. and Mexico, where many undocumented immigrants have crossed since the 1990s, according to the MPI report. “A mix of billions of dollars in new manpower, infrastructure, equipment and new or amended policies” went toward protecting the southern border, the report said, and the number of undocumented immigrants found to be crossing it declined.

Immigration Reform

While national security became a centerpiece of U.S. immigration policy after 9/11, undocumented immigrants’ entry into the country has remained a constant political issue.

Congress hasn’t been able to agree on bipartisan immigration reform ever since the attacks. Former U.S. President George W. Bush and former Mexican President Vicente Fox announced a bipartisan framework for comprehensive reform just five days before 9/11, but the proposal never resurfaced.

“The fact that we did not even consider picking up any reform until 2007 demonstrated that there was no political space to do it. We were only thinking about how to improve national security,” Chishti said.

Refugee Resettlement

The immigration debate in the U.S. has shifted to some degree in the last several years as the country considers whether it has a moral duty to welcome refugees ― and if so, how to ensure that they don’t pose a national security threat.

The U.S. has admitted more than 800,000 refugees since the 9/11 attacks, if this year’s figures are taken into account. Only three have been arrested on terrorism charges, according to MPI.

“The threat to the U.S. homeland from refugees has been relatively low,” Seth Jones, director of the International Security and Defense Policy Center at the RAND Corporation, testified to Congress in 2015. “Almost none of the major terrorist plots since 9/11 have involved refugees.”

Refugee screening ― which became prevalent in the years following 9/11 ― is as intense as it is lengthy, and entering the U.S. as a refugee is actually the least likely avenue for a radicalized individual to pursue, Chishti says. Refugee screening typically takes about two years, and requires that “the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, State Department, and national intelligence agencies independently check refugees’ biometric data against security databases,” MPI said.

Concerns about refugees have intensified as the world experiences the largest mass migration movement since World War II, largely due to wars in countries like Syria and Iraq.

Facing criticism that the U.S. was letting European and Middle Eastern nations bear much of the burden of absorbing refugees, President Barack Obama increased the U.S. refugee resettlement quota for the 2016 fiscal year to 85,000, setting aside 10,000 spots just for Syrians. The quota is expected to hit 100,000 people in 2017.

Some lambasted Obama for not taking in enough Syrian refugees ― Germany, in contrast, welcomed 1 million people last year ― while others opposed receiving any refugees at all, citing fears that they could be radicalized and pose a national security threat.

The administration successfully reached its goal of resettling 10,000 Syrians this fiscal year, but the debate over refugees is unlikely to be resolved anytime soon.

What Now?

Immigration has featured prominently in the U.S. presidential elections thanks to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, who went from calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” to demanding that the U.S. ban entry to all Muslims in the wake of the terrorist attacks in Paris last November. Building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border is another one of Trump’s mainstay policy proposals.

“He did announce his candidacy on the backdrop of immigration and it was mostly about illegal immigration, basically saying that immigration is out of control, that we don’t know who’s here, who’s coming, as we have lost control of our borders,” Chishti said. “In many ways, this has nothing to do with 9/11.”

Yet if Trump were to reduce legal immigration into the U.S., as he’s implied with his proposed Muslim ban, it would represent “the first time in recent history that any political party has called for any such reduction,” according to Chishti. And that’s very much tied to national security fears.

What Trump will actually do if he wins the presidency is still unclear.

Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, meanwhile, argues for comprehensive immigration reform and a path to citizenship for the 11 million undocumented immigrants in the country. She’s also taken the opportunity to lambast Trump’s proposals to ban Muslims and build a border wall. Still, some immigrant rights activists are wary of Clinton and critical of Obama’s legacy of deportations.

how can the stats for Australia be accurate? does “negative net migration” actually mean there are more people moving to a given country than immigrating from it to australia? that doesn’t seem possible… or am i reading it wrong?

nevermind, i see i misunderstood positive and negative

Perhaps clearer than the language is the direction that the dots are moving. All the dots are moving toward Australia, meaning there are more people moving *to* Australia.

Regarding the Brexit:
It’s not people migrating from the European countries to the UK which forms a problem (because those cultures match perfectly).
What does bring some difficulties is the uncontrolled inflow of non-European immigrants which is caused by weak policies of the EU.

How so? Britain has always had control over immigration from outside the EU. All the comments I’ve read from Nigel Farage are about immigration from Eastern Europe.

Correct especially the largest most visible group is from Poland.

You don’t need many bad people to enter unchecked to cause huge problems. Just a few is already enough.

True but many are now citizens yet remain culturally different, opposed. The big challenge is how to remove. Cannot be done without a civil war. Brexit is the first step to the right.

that’s exactly why the rest of Europe, and Remain voters always said that the “immigration” problem was a stupid point for the Leave campaign….anyway…

So-called refugees and economic immigrants from the Middle East and Africa enter Europe at various points and are permitted to do so. Angela Merkel’s outrageous policies have facilitated this unassimilable influx.

Once in Europe they are free to move around and huge numbers gravitate to the UK. Additionally the EU forces countries to accept these people against the wishes of the populace.

It is my understanding that these people, once inside Europe, are counted as European for the purposes of internal EU migration. If this is correct and these people are counted as European migrants, as opposed to non-Europeans (which they very clearly are), then the official figures become meaningless.

It is only by exiting the EU, and regaining it’s sovereignty, that the UK can refuse to accept these people and can stop this non-European invasion. Remain voters spewing lies as usual.

Why do the people from Ukrain migrates to the Russia?

Many of them also go to Czech republic but im not sure why is on the map Country-to-Country net migration (2010-2015) converse way.

It is probably Ukrainians migrating back to Ukraine? Same for Czech rep. – Vietnam.

Then, according to your theory Brits migrate back from Poland? Usually Polish people go to Britain.

Civil war, economic collapse, ability to work and live in Russia without visa, 100% ukranians know russian language, ukranian diplomas and other documents of education counts as equal. So, why not?

how did you make this map?

The background, the bubbles, and the yellow dots were each made separately using the Javascript plugins mentioned at the bottom.

Really beautiful map, thank you. I’m surprised at the net negative immigration into Greece, and the way we can’t see the immigration from Syria into the rest of Europe e.g. Germany. Would be interesting to get more recent data and see how the two maps compare. Is the refugee population in Greece and elsewhere in Europe being masked by something here, or is it just a more recent phenomenon?

Thanks Hannah!
The data is from each country’s 2015 population census, all collected in 2015, but different dates for different countries. In theory, refugees that arrived in a country before its census should be included. But even then, it’s not clear how accurate the numbers are for those that had just arrived.

Short answer: Some are included, most are not.

There is a bug in the Brazil visualization: all migration patterns to and from it are going to a point in the middle of the atlantic. It would be interesting if paths chose least distance on a round map, as it would be easier see migration patterns over the pacific, specially to the US, and it would crowd less the center of this map. Otherwise, beautiful and incredibly eye opening map, congratulations.

similar applies to Russia. All the flows going to the point somewhere in barely inhabited areas of Siberia. When you would expect such a point somewhere closer to Moscow

Thanks Alexandre. Discovered and fixed the bug with Brazil yesterday (y coordinate had the wrong sign). Thanks for pointing it out though, always appreciated.

I was originally going to make the paths great circles, as I did for this one: http://metrocosm.com/animated-immigration-map/. Though I thought with so much going on in so many directions, it might look even more crowded. You would actually have to follow a path from start to finish to see where it’s traveling from and to, whereas here you can get a decent idea by just looking at what direction it’s traveling.

That’s only a guess though, you may very well be right.

Nice plot. A couple of minor comments/questions.
1) Given you are discussing estimates of bilateral migration flows, why use the term immigration? From a sending countries perspective the flows you estimate could also be considered as all the worlds emigrants. Eurostat has a nice summary of specific migration terms: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Glossary:Migration
2) I managed to estimates of global bilateral migration flows between countries that appropriately account for births and deaths in each country over the
period and constrain to the net migration flow totals given by the UN. An article based on the methodology (and the estimates themselves) were published in Science: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/343/6178/1520.full

If we were free immigrating would be called moving house.

Open borders? I’ve heard some interesting arguments in favor of it. I’d like to think that that’s where things will end up eventually.

You can’t be serious? How can we be a country without borders? Every other country in the world has borders and immigration laws that are strictly enforced, except the UK. We have immigration laws but they’re ignored by politicians and not respected by illegal aliens. Without borders we wouldn’t be able to control who comes into America or what their intentions are. Drug cartels from Mexico and South America, Islamic Extremists wanting to kill us. It’s our Governments responsibility to put American lives first and protect us from all enemies who want to hurt us. Without borders that would be impossible. Do you have a lock on your front door? Why? It’s the same thing, because you don’t want someone to come in and hurt you or your family. Do you want people to move into your house uninvited because it’s nicer than where they were living before? You tell them to leave but they won’t and now you have to support all these people too. Now these people, in your house, tell you that you can’t put up a Christmas Tree because it offends them and you have to clear out a room for them to pray 3 times a day and they won’t allow any Easter baskets or Christian celebrations taking place in their presence. Do you see where I’m going with this. America is our home. It belongs to the American people. Our soldiers fought and died for us to live free here and not be told that our values and customs and traditions are offensive to immigrants who refuse to assimilate. Those are our rights, not theirs. If you honestly believe that you would be able to stand before all of those men and women who have given their lives for you, so that you can live in a free and safe country and tell them some of those interesting arguments that you hope will lead to open borders some day, then you have got to be the most selfish, unappreciative person who doesn’t understand anything about sacrifice or America at all.

Let me rephrase. I am firmly opposed to open borders. But in a theoretical future where these problems no longer exist, not needing to keep the door locked is a nice idea.

Let me rephrase. I am *firmly* opposed to open borders. But in a theoretical future where certain economic and security concerns no longer exist, I hope someday we don’t have to keep our doors locked.

Btw – What does religion have to do with it? Don’t you have any respect for the Constitution?

….. How can we be a country without borders? ….
Of course the U.S. has borders. Have you ever tried to cross one? Have you tried to fly into or out of the country, or drive or walk across? Customs takes a long time and always has. The borders are not at all “open” and many thousands are stopped every month trying to get in illegally.

…..Drug cartels from Mexico and South America, Islamic Extremists wanting to kill us….
You lump crossings from Mexico together with Islamic Extremists. They are very different. Drug dealers do not want to kill their customers and generally they don’t. Crime statistics from Mexican immigrants (legal & illegal) indicate lower crime statistics from the population as whole. This makes sense, especially if they are illegal because they do not want to draw attention to themselves.

As to Islamic fundamentalists (extremists) who do indeed want to kill us I point out that in the U.S. it is extremely rare. One analyst said you are more likely to be killed by your clothes than a terrorist. Here’s an article by an analyst from (the conservative) Cato Institute printed in Time: http://time.com/4489405/americans-fear-of-foreign-terrorists/ . From that article: “..your chance of being murdered is 253 times as great as dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreigner on U.S. soil.” And the risk of being murdered (averaged) is 1 in 14,000 – still pretty low, but not insignificant.

Interesting analogy, Mariann (sorry, just seeing this a year later) By assimiliate, do you mean live in a tipi or wigwam or adobe house? And carve a totem pole for their lawn decor? Or say their prayers to Wakan Tanka or Ahone or the Crow God? Food for thought…

I can’t believe you even asked that. No, immigrants who move here should assimilate to our current American way of life. We have our own lifestyle here. Just as other countries have their own lifestyles. If you moved to Japan, would that give you the right to demand they change their customs if they offend you? No and immigrants don’t have the right to demand we change ours if they’re offended. They don’t have to stay here. There’s nothing to think about. It’s that simple.

Wonderful map, absolutely fascinating, and much needed.

One tiny glitch you may want to tweak – Japan seems to have a lot of people migrating to the middle of the Atlantic.

Otherwise, terrific! Many thanks for a valuable contribution to public discourse!

Are you seeing that issue now? There was an issue with the Brazil coordinates, which I fixed yesterday, but it appears correct to me now.

Fascinating. You mention the mexico case in your text, but your map still shows Mexico to the US as a positive flow. Why? Not only gallup, but Doug Massey director of the mexican migration project at Princeton also shows that number to be either zero or negative. http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/DAED_a_00215

The source for the map is the UN data, which shows it as positive. Most other sources I’ve seen show it negative, but I didn’t think it would be right to modify just that one case, so I instead added the note.

Bug: The further across you scroll in wrap-around map, the worse it gets. Should probably disable wraparound map

But that aside, very informative map!

Congratulations for this great work.
I propose you to check again the data for both RDC and Republic of Congo. I suspect they have
been interchanged. The big flows towards Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi are supposed
to come from RDC Eastern Provinces.

Thank you for pointing it out. It’s unlikely I would have caught that.

Congratulations for this incredible data visualization! Could you please check the data for Romania? Romania is a country of emigration, while the map shows it as an immigration country (the flow between Romania and Spain surely has to be reverse). Also the map shows an outflow from Romania to Syria, which is not correct (I didn’t find any stock of Romanian born citizens in Syria in the UN data).

I think there is a problem with the formula used to estimate the migration flows between 2010 and 2015. In certain cases, the simple difference between the migrant stocks in 2015 and 2010, simply underestimates the real inflow / outflows. For example, in the case of immigrants from Syria to Romania, in 2010 there were 7254 Syrian citizens in Romania, while in 2015 the number drops at 2499. This is mainly because Romania is a transit country for immigrants / refugees from Central Asia, Middle East or even Northern Africa in their way to the Western European countries. This means that the flow from Syria to Romania has continued during this period, but most of the Syrian immigrants in Romania from 2010 moved to other countries. Another point is that many Romanian immigrants from Spain and Italy started to move towards other countries (UK and Northern countries) after the economic downturn in 2008.

Anyway for me the map is important because it shows that the largest share of migration flows are South to South, which many of the Western world citizens tend to ignore/forget. You could try to develop a similar map using the World Bank / IMF global remittances database. Many thanks!

Thanks Alex. Yes, the flows for Romania are indeed correct. The number of Spanish people in Romania tripled between 2010 and 2015. In the case of Syria, that migration reflects a drop in the number of Syrians living in Romania (not Romanians living in Syria).

You are correct that the formula does not always capture the true physical movement of people (migrants who live in one foreign country moving to a different foreign country), and there are two good reasons. One is that the data is just not available. But even if it were available, I’m not sure if (or how) I would have included it here. For example, if the map were to show Syrians moving from Romania to Germany, how would that be distinguishable from Romanians who move from Romania to Germany?

Either way, thanks for the smart, well-thought-out feedback. And also for the suggestion about the IMF remittances. That could make for an interesting one.

Internal migrations

The largest human migrations today are internal to nation-states these can be sizable in rapidly increasing populations with large rural-to-urban migratory flows.

Early human movements toward urban areas were devastating in terms of mortality. Cities were loci of intense infection indeed, many human viral diseases are not propagated unless the population density is far greater than that common under sedentary agriculture or pastoral nomadism. Moreover, cities had to import food and raw materials from the hinterlands, but transport and political disruptions led to erratic patterns of scarcity, famine, and epidemic. The result was that cities until quite recently (the mid-19th century) were demographic sinkholes, incapable of sustaining their own populations.

Urban growth since World War II has been very rapid in much of the world. In developing countries with high overall population growth rates the populations of some cities have been doubling every 10 years or less (see below Population composition).

Has there ever been a major migration from the New World to the Old World? If not, why? - History

Forced migration (also known as forced displacement) has caused millions of people around the world to be uprooted, including refugees, internally displaced persons, and migrants. 1 person is uprooted every 2 seconds, and the global total of forcibly displaced people currently stands at over 68.5 million.

There are technical differences between refugees, migrants, and internally-displaced persons . By definition, all fall under the category of forced migration (and of course all of them are people!) Forced migration refers to the movements that refugees, migrants, and IDPs make. These can be either within their country or between countries after being displaced from their homeland.

As of 2020, 1 person is uprooted every 2 seconds (often with nothing but the clothes on their backs). Currently, the global total of forcibly-displaced people is over 68.5 million. There are a number of different factors that lead hundreds of millions of people around the world to leave their homes. All of these factors, however, lead to one common goal: To have a better, safer, life.

Read on for 6 of the most common causes — and examples — of forced migration.

Get updates from our work with refugees

1. Drought

A single drought can spell disaster for communities whose lives and livelihoods rely on regular, successful harvests . In a number of African countries where Concern works — including Somalia , Kenya , and Ethiopia — droughts have become increasingly severe, leaving millions of citizens without the ability to grow food. They rely on this food to feed themselves, their livestock, and their livelihoods.

Drought also leaves families without access to clean water, often leading to them turning to dirty water as their only alternative for bathing, drinking, and growing crops. For families, this can mean going for days without food. They may also resort to using contaminated water.

Farmers carry fodder from an aid distribution to their valley in East Gojam, Ethiopia, where there has been virtually no rain for 3 years. Photo: Kieran McConville

Your Concern in Action

While drought can cause a family to leave for an area that’s more tillable, that’s not the only solution. In countries like Ethiopia, Concern works to build climate resilience. We’ve helped farmers switch from crops like barley, which aren’t drought-resistant, to harvesting potatoes. These survive on less water, and have led families like Ali Assen ’s to dramatically improve their lives, moving from a one-room hut to a two-story home with livestock. “We were eating two meals a day for six months and going hungry for the other half of the year,” he told Concern in 2016. “Now we have three meals a day, every day of the year.”

2. Hunger

Hunger’s connection to drought and other causes on this list is significant: What people in farming regions don’t consume from their own harvests is sold make a living. War and conflict can also mean a lack of access to markets and fields, or that crops and food supplie are destroyed or stolen. Other causes of hunger around the world add up to the same result: Without any other alternatives, families affected by food shortages are often separated by forced migration, with one parent (usually the father) seeking work in a city to cover costs. Other families leave as a unit to begin their life in a new country.

The World's 10 Hungriest Countries

Despite global hunger levels falling, one in nine people worldwide still face hunger. Here are the 10 hungriest countries according to the 2019 Global Hunger Index.

Your Concern in Action

In Niger, where farmers like Salifou Ahment would struggle to feed their livestock during the dry season, Concern established an animal feed bank. Salifou and other farmers in his village now have access to food year-round, at a fair and affordable price. This service is available a short walk from Salifou’s home, and means he and his family can remain at home.

3. Flooding

In Malawi, one of Concern’s focuses has been on resilience. But sometimes nature is just too strong, as we saw in the wake of Tropical Cyclone Idai earlier this year. During Concern’s assessments of the areas devastated by rains and heavy flooding in one village, our team only saw a few people who had ventured back to check on what was left of their homes. They didn’t want to their families back with them, in case the floods returned.

After Hurricane Matthew made landfall in Haiti in 2016, the storm’s lethal winds and rain left 200,000 homes in its wake of destruction. An estimated 1.5 million citizens — or more than 10% of the country — were left in need of humanitarian aid and damages clocked in at $1.9 billion.

According to a report published in 2017 by Cornell University , events prompted by climate change such as drought and flooding could account for up to 1.4 billion forced migrations by the year 2060 . By 2100, they estimate that number would surpass 2 billion .

Captain Mario Biñas sits in the wreckage of “Shipfas”, the fishing boat which he and his crew relied upon for their livelihoods. It was extensively damaged during Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines. Photo: Kieran McConville

Your Concern in Action

In March 2012, a flash-flood washed away the structure that sheltered 30-year–old Abdullah and his family in northeastern Afghanistan. The family followed the direction of the government to rebuild on a flat area of land about a mile away. Such relocation is a huge imposition for people who already live in extreme poverty. Abdullah’s family was one of 63 whose homes were rebuilt with the help of Concern. We also sponsored projects to control and divert the flow of floodwaters, helping to protect the most vulnerable parts of the region.

4. Earthquakes

Almost 60,000 Haitians currently live and work in the United States. Many were driven from their homes due to the devastating effects of two major hurricanes and one earthquake in recent years. In 2010, a 7.0-magnitude earthquake hit the capital city of Port-au-Prince , leaving 1.5 million Haitians homeless. No natural disaster had ever affected a capital city in such a way. The earthquake created a ripple effect that even paralyzed areas well outside the disaster zone.

In 2015, a devastating series of earthquakes hit Afghanistan, Pakistan, and India (7.5-magnitude) and Nepal (7.8-magnitude and 7.3-magnitude, respectively). These drove hundreds of thousands of residents from their homes.

Shiwani Sapkota, in front of the remains of her home in Kabhrepalanckok district, Nepal. It was destroyed on April 25th 2015 by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake. Photo: Kieran McConville

Your Concern in Action

With Our Return to Neighborhoods program in Port-au-Prince, we relocated more than 5,000 people from post-earthquake camps to safe, secure housing following. The program offers housing options, including repairs and rental subsidies. This enabled people to move back into their homes or into new ones. For internal relocation, we provided education vouchers so that children can go to school near their new homes. We also offered training and cash transfers so that people can set up small businesses.

5. War & conflict

The most common factor for forced migration around the world is conflict. Most recently, the world’s focus has been on the Rohingya crisis in Myanmar , with nearly 75% of the country’s Muslim population fleeing to neighboring Bangladesh in the wake of violence and ethnic cleansing. In 2017, amid the escalation of ongoing tension and violence, the United Nations deemed the plight of the Rohingya the “ fastest-growing refugee emergency ” in the world.

Forced migration has been a norm in the Middle East for most of the 21st Century, according to Oxford University’s Refugee Studies Centre . Syria’s deadly civil war has caused over 11 million instances of forced migration. To-date nearly 6.2 million Syrians are internally displaced , and over 5.6 million Syrians are counted as refugees. The Democratic Republic of Congo has the highest number of displaced people on the continent of Africa, with nearly 6 million people forced from their homes by various conflicts. South Sudan has been continuously plagued by war-induced migration during its short existence.

Many Rohingya families are seeking refuge from conflict in makeshift settlements in Bangladesh near the border with Myanmar. Photo: Kieran McConville

Your Concern in Action

Concern has been working in Bangladesh since 1972. In 2017, we swiftly ramped up our response to meet the needs of Rohingya refugees. We set up eight emergency nutrition centers in camps. Our teams screened hundreds of thousands of children under the age of 5 (who are most vulnerable to acute malnutrition). Nearly 40,000 have been treated to date.

We also help to address PTSD and other emotional issues refugees may face due to war. With Syrian refugees, we’ve seen success with community-developed “men’s committees,” which meet weekly over three months to consider how to apply methods of non-violent conflict resolution developed by Marshall Rosenberg, focusing on self-empathy, empathy for others, and honest self-expression. This helps to mitigate some of the unintended consequences of forced migration, including gender-based violence .

A family displaced by fighting in Unity State, South Sudan, sit by a fire near their temporary shelter on an island surrounded by swamps. Photo: Kieran McConville

6. Economic circumstances

One of the biggest factors for migration are the economic challenges that may affect individuals in their countries of origin. The UN’s 2018 World Migration Report notes that this is a major driver in West Africa, where temporary and permanent migrant workers commonly relocate from countries like Niger and Mali to Ghana and the Côte d’Ivoire for more opportunities to work and support their families. Niger , for example, has one of the fastest-growing populations in the world (by 2050 it is expected to triple compared to 2017 figures). However, the country is unable to keep up with the demand for jobs as more and more Nigeriens become old enough to enter the workforce.

Your Concern in Action

We’re committed to providing livelihoods activities in vulnerable communities. In 2013, for example, Concern started a project teaching Nigerien women how to extract oil from peanuts — a new crop to the area, to sell at market.

“Before the project started, we didn’t have any way to earn a living beyond making some millet or bean cakes,” says Hadijatou Cheihou. “But that wasn’t very profitable.” Now, people travel as far as 30 miles to buy the oil. The profits from this venture have gone back into the community.

We’ve also been working with Syrian refugees in Lebanon to build their skill-sets around dairy production, embroidery, and other trades that they can use in their host communities — and back home if they choose to return.

Syrian women look to the future

While the ordeal for those displaced during the Syrian conflict is not nearly over, many are now looking to the day when they can at last go home. Concern has been helping them both survive and prepare for the future.

Your concern helps bring them home

Public support enables Concern to assist millions of forced migrants around the world. We work with them to rebuild their homes in the wake of natural disasters. We work with them to adapt to climate change and other severe weather patterns. We help them resettle and regain dignity during man-made crises. We help to either find a new home, or work to prepare for a time when they can go back to their own.

Social Isolation: A Modern Plague

The best research confirms it: Americans are now perilously isolated. In a recent comprehensive study by scientists at Duke University, researchers have observed a sharp decline in social connectedness over the past 20 years.

Remarkably, 25% of Americans have no meaningful social support at all - not a single person they can confide in. And over half of all Americans report having no close confidants or friends outside their immediate family. The situation today is much worse today than it was when similar data were gathered in 1985. (At that time, only 10% of Americans were completely alone).

How could this happen? It's hundreds of little things. You can probably think of several off the top of your head: the longer work hours, the Internet, the ubiquitous iPod . . . and don't forget all the time spent sitting in traffic.

According to Robert Putnam, sociologist and author of the influential book, Bowling Alone, for every 10 minutes added to commute time, there's a roughly 10% decrease in social ties.

But we're truly not designed to live like this. For the great majority of human history, people resided in small, intimate hunter-gatherer communities. And anthropologists who spend time with modern-day hunter-gatherer bands report that social isolation and loneliness are largely unknown among them: group members spend the bulk of their time - virtually all day, every day - in the company of friends and loved ones.

Even Americans of a few generations ago used to benefit from a richness of community life that has all but disappeared, as we've witnessed a long, slow retreat into the hermetically sealed comfort of our fortress-like homes . . . deep friendships replaced by screens, gadgets, and exhausted couch-potato stupor.

The toll? Increased vulnerability to mental illness. Social isolation is a huge risk factor for the onset of major depression, which has more than doubled in prevalence over the past decade. And there's growing evidence that isolation increases vulnerability to various forms of addiction, as well.

In a future post, I'll discuss several strategies for enhancing social connection that I've outlined in a recent book. But here's a useful first step: Resolve to live each day as if your relationships are your highest priority. We all say that our loved ones matter to us far more than our work, our status, our things but it's important that this sentiment truly be reflected in our allocation of time and energy.

Who is deploying IPv6?

Carrier networks and ISPs have been the first group to start deploying IPv6 on their networks, with mobile networks leading the charge. For example, T-Mobile USA has more than 90% of its traffic going over IPv6, with Verizon Wireless close behind at 82.25%. Comcast and AT&T have its networks at 63% and 65%, respectively, according to the industry group World Ipv6 Launch.

Major websites are following suit - just under 30% of the Alexa Top 1000 websites are currently reachable over IPv6, World IPv6 Launch says.

Enterprises are trailing in deployment, with slightly under one-fourth of enterprises advertising IPv6 prefixes, according to the Internet Society’s “State of IPv6 Deployment 2017” report. Complexity, costs and time needed to complete are all reasons given. In addition, some projects have been delayed due to software compatibility. For example, a January 2017 report said a bug in Windows 10 was “undermining Microsoft’s efforts to roll out an IPv6-only network at its Seattle headquarters.”

Music And Dance

Māori people performing a traditional Haka. Image credit: ChameleonsEye/Shutterstock

Music and dance are some of the aspects that are central to any culture. The music and dance in the New Zealandic culture draw its influences from genres such as jazz, pop, hip-hop, or rock and roll. However, the music has a unique New Zealand twist from the incorporation of Māori singing traditions, dances and musical instruments. Traditional Māori music featured monotonal and harmonic signing, usually by a group of singers. Later on, the music developed through the adoption of European styles and instruments leading to the rise of contemporary Māori music. Dance styles of New Zealand descend from influences of the Pacific, Asian, and European cultures. Cultural dances and music are often seen at festivals and cultural events in New Zealand. The most famous dance is the Pacific dance, a part of the Pasifika festival. The traditional Māori dance, the Haka, has also gained prominence in New Zealand. Other dances in New Zealand include the Irish dance, Morris dance, Legong, Chinese lion and dragon dances, and Bharata Natyam.

Urbanization and the Mass Movement of People to Cities

World populations are increasingly moving from rural to urban centers, making for larger cities with greater population density than ever before. This is a global phenomenon across the spectrum of developed and developing economies. We are increasingly becoming an urban world.

The rates of change and specific migration patterns differ in various parts of the globe. The developing world congregates more in mega-cities, while Americans are increasingly moving to both downtowns and the urban sprawl around dominant business and industry-specific hubs. There are many questions about what this growth means, how prepared cities are, and if and when it will end. However, the world has clearly been urbanizing for some time, and experts from major development organizations project this trend to continue into the foreseeable future.

The data is eye-opening. The United Nations in 2009 and the International Organization for Migration in 2015 both estimated that around 3 million people are moving to cities every week. Approximately 54% of people worldwide now live in cities, up from 30% in 1950. Sources estimate this will grow to 2/3 of world population in the next 15-30 years. More than half of urban dwellers live in the 1,022 cities with greater than 500,000 inhabitants. There are currently 29 megacities with populations of over 10 million, up from 2 in 1950 and projected to grow to between 41 and 53 by 2030. Additionally, there are 468 cities with a population of over 1 million, up from 83 in 1950. A Yale research group projects that urban land coverage will expand by 463,000 square miles by 2030 to cover just under 10% of the planet’s land, equivalent to 20,000 football fields being paved over every day.

Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision-Population

This trend is more mature in the United States, but specific cities are still growing. Today, 82% of North Americans live in urban areas and are increasingly concentrating in mid-sized and large cities. In 2010 41 urban areas in the United States housed more than 1 million people, up from 12 areas in 1950 and projected to grow to 53 by 2030.

Learn how cities are changing and what it means for business and policy in our free ebook.

There are winners and losers in American migration patterns, as not all cities are growing. In 2012 and 2013 92 of the country’s 381 metropolitan areas lost population, but the cities that are growing are growing quickly. There is some debate about the sustainability and permanence of movement patterns into US downtown areas, but migration to more broadly defined urban clustering is clearly occurring.

Experts at the United Nations, US Census Bureau, and other bodies are aligned in expecting the urbanization trend to continue, but they differ in the anticipated rate of change. Our team at Grayline also expects this trend to continue and believes that there is a high likelihood that public projections may even be underrepresenting the rate of change over the next 10-20 years due to a variety of increasing pressures towards urbanization.

Drivers of Urbanization

Urbanization is a result of a number of factors, and deeper analysis will be required to determine causality and a more direct correlation between urbanization drivers and population projections. However, several drivers and factors stand out immediately. These drivers differ in some respects due to the unique regional, geographic, and cultural nuances in various parts of the world, as well as the level of development and economic maturity, which also influence the specific shape of migration patterns. Regardless of these differences, the urbanization trend is global, and many of the drivers seem to be common across regions and development levels.

One obvious driver is the agricultural revolution and increasing mechanization, automation, and innovation in the agriculture sector. Sophisticated agriculture methods and machinery decrease the number of workers required to sustain agricultural production. This currently drives a greater velocity of migration in developing nations that are just now transitioning to more efficient and mechanized agriculture techniques. However, it will be interesting to see if the integration of drones and autonomous vehicles in the agriculture sector of developed nations creates another round of efficiency and corresponding wave of urban migration.

Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision-Population

Another driver is the shape of modern economies, specifically the increasing concentration of wealth creation and the specialized nature of modern workforces. When wealth is concentrated in smaller groups and more occupations revolve around products and services that support these centers of wealth creation, there is a natural pull towards those centers. The specialized nature of jobs in the knowledge economy drives urbanization because hyper-specialization relies on a broader network of interconnected specialists to support the whole. While the Internet and global communications networks can, of course, facilitate these interconnections without physical co-location, we believe there remains pull towards cities due to network effects.

The increasing concentration of industry expertise and wealth into specific cities is also driving people towards fewer, larger cities in the United States and other developed economies. This is related to previous comments about the shape of the economy but is interesting enough to highlight independently, as industry centers continue to grow and become more important. Prime examples of areas where Americans move to build businesses and pursue careers in specific fields include Houston (energy), San Francisco (technology), and New York (finance). There are, of course, exceptions to this general trend, but it is striking to note the concentration of industry-specific companies in these areas.

A multitude of other factors drive urbanization. Lifestyle preferences and attitudes matter, such as in the shift of baby boomers back into cities in the United States. Opportunities matter, as cities facilitate wealth creation via scale, network effects, productivity, and efficiency gains realized in recent years. Concentrated wealth creation attracts people, which increases wealth creation potential in a virtuous cycle that accelerates urban growth. Technology also matters, as new technologies facilitate and improve the urban living experience.

As previously stated, our team will continue to research and develop more direct causal relationships to factor into our projections. At a high level, it is important to note that none of these factors appear to be temporary they are all likely to continue to exert pressure on people to move to cities. The world has been and will continue to urbanize, leading us to examine the structural pressures and changes that this theme creates on global systems.

Source: United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, World Urbanization Prospects: The 2018 Revision-Population

Direct and Secondary Effects

Urbanization results in more, larger cities. Larger cities create a new set of transportation, sanitation, and infrastructure requirements and change the fundamental market dynamics for companies in a wide variety of industries. New technologies, processes, products, and engineering solutions are being created to address the unique issues resulting from the unprecedented rate and scale of urbanization that is happening now.

The impact of urbanization falls into three primary categories. The first is infrastructure , as public officials and city planners need to build infrastructure to support larger populations in a sustainable fashion, which private companies will ultimately build and manage. Second are private development companies, which compete with their peers to build and manage large dwellings, venues, and facilities that people live, shop, eat, and are entertained in. The third are consumer products companies that sell goods and services to people whose consumption patterns are influenced by where and how they live.

While the United States is not projected to host the majority of new megacities , urbanization in the United States coincides with a deep need to modernize city infrastructure. The infrastructure for many American cities was created in the post-war era and has neared or surpassed its planned lifespan. Additionally, this infrastructure often supports a larger population than projected, and new technologies are available but have not yet been incorporated into infrastructure projects. We see abundant evidence that cities across the United States are looking for solutions to these issues. Among this evidence is the American Society of Civil Engineers, which scores United States infrastructure broadly as a D+ (on the traditional A-F academic scale), stating the United States requires $3.6 trillion in needed investment by 2020.

Urban markets are different from suburban or rural markets for companies who build and sell goods and services. This is not a new challenge, and some companies have adapted better than others as this new reality has started to take shape in recent years. However, the rate of change continues to increase, and the collision of more people and new types of infrastructure will impact markets and force companies to continue to adapt. There will be companies that gain and lose market share resulting from the decisions they make to prepare for shifting markets. There will also be companies that fail and new companies that emerge resulting from shifting market dynamics .

Cities, urban planners, and related public entities also face major challenges to accommodate sustainable growth and incorporate new technologies in an appropriate, cost-efficient, and environmentally sustainable fashion. Some cities will likely over-invest in the wrong technologies and design approaches. Others will underestimate the scale of impending change and fail to plan accordingly, resulting in deteriorating and dangerous cities. Public institutions that can plan from a base of accurate, useful information and learn from one another’s successes and mistakes will fare better during this transitory period.

In summary, we are focusing on urbanization as one of our core themes because we believe it represents a structural change to the global system that both companies and public institutions will spend money to plan for. There are some great public data sets available for us to base our products on, but they tend to be disparate, which makes them difficult to act upon. This disparate nature also creates a compelling product development opportunity for our business. Unlike some of our more early-stage themes, urbanization is occurring now and will continue for the foreseeable future.

Watch the video: Japanese Mixed Rice. Takikomi Gohan (June 2022).


  1. Renaldo

    Excellent and timely message.

  2. Macniall

    In my opinion you have misled.

  3. Lorence

    Very funny message

  4. Wareine

    wonderfully, and the alternative?

  5. JoJojin

    I congratulate, what necessary words ..., the excellent idea

  6. Wesley

    I mean you are wrong. Enter we'll discuss. Write to me in PM, we'll talk.

Write a message