DOCSLIB.ORG

The Size, Place of Birth, and Geographic Distribution of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1960 to 2010

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Size, Place of Birth, and Geographic Distribution of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1960 to 2010 The Size, Place of Birth, and Geographic Distribution of the Foreign-Born Population in the United States: 1960 to 2010 Elizabeth M. Grieco, Edward Trevelyan, Luke Larsen, Yesenia D. Acosta, Christine Gambino, Patricia de la Cruz, Tom Gryn, and Nathan Walters Population Division Population Division Working Paper No. 96 U.S. Census Bureau Washington, D.C. 20233 October 2012 This paper is released to inform interested parties of ongoing research and to encourage discussion of work in progress. Any views expressed on methodological, technical, or operational issues are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the U.S. Census Bureau. Abstract During the last 50 years, the foreign-born population of the United States has undergone dramatic changes, shifting from an older, predominantly European population settled in the Northeast and Midwest to a younger, predominantly Latin American and Asian population settled in the West and South. This paper uses data from the 1960 to 2000 decennial censuses and the 2010 American Community Survey to describe changes in the size, origins, and geographic distribution of the foreign-born population. First, the historic growth of the foreign- born population is reviewed. Next, changes in the distribution by place of birth are discussed, focusing on the simultaneous decline of the foreign born from Europe and increase from Latin America and Asia. The geographic distribution among the states and regions within the United States will then be reviewed. The median age and age distribution for the period will also be discussed. This paper will conclude with a brief analysis of how the foreign-born population has contributed to the growth of the total population over the last 50 years. Introduction During the last 50 years, the foreign-born population of the United States has undergone dramatic changes in size, origins, and geographic distribution.1 Representing about 1 in 20 residents in 1960 – mostly from countries in Europe who settled in the Northeast and Midwest – today’s foreign-born population make up about 1 in 8 U.S. residents, composed mostly of immigrants from countries in Latin America and Asia who have settled in the West and South.2 This transformation was triggered, at least in part, by U.S. immigration policy implemented after 1960. New waves of immigrants began arriving in the United States following amendments to the Immigration Act in 1965 that abolished the national origins quota system, resulting in a shift away from traditional source countries to a greater diversity in the origins of the foreign born (CBO 2006; Vialet 1991). Unlike during the great migration of the late 1800s and early 1900s, when the majority of immigrants to the United States came from countries in Europe, most of the immigrants who arrived after 1970 were from countries in Latin America and Asia (Grieco 2009; Grieco and Trevelyan 2010; Walters and Cortes 2010). In addition to abolishing national quotas, the new law established a categorical preference system that prioritized admissions based on family relationships and needed skills and expanded the categories of family members who could enter without numerical limit (CBO 2006; Vialet 1991). The 1965 Act also restricted Eastern Hemisphere immigration to 170,000 and Western Hemisphere immigration to 150,000, but legislation enacted in 1978 combined the separate limits into a single annual worldwide ceiling of 290,000. In the 1980s and 1990s, growth in the foreign-born population was further augmented by the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986, which legalized approximately 2.7 million immigrants residing illegally in the United States, and the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased the worldwide immigration ceiling to a “flexible” cap of 675,000 1 The foreign-born population includes anyone who was not a U.S. citizen at birth, including those who have become U.S. citizens through naturalization. Conversely, the native-born population includes anyone who is a U.S. citizen at birth. Respondents who were born in the United States, Puerto Rico, a U.S. Island Area (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, or the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands), or abroad of a U.S. citizen parent or parents, are defined as native. In this paper, the terms “native” and “native born” are used interchangeably. 2 Unless otherwise noted, the data presented in this report were derived from the 1960 through 2000 decennial censuses, as presented by Gibson and Jung (2006), and the 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimates. 3 per year (Rytina 2002; Vialet 1991).3 Over the last four decades, the foreign-born population has continued to increase in size and as a percentage of the total U.S. population. While not a direct result of immigration policy, the geographic distribution of the foreign-born population has also changed. In 1970, when the number of foreign born reached its lowest point in the 20th century, the majority of states had less than 5 percent foreign born in their total populations. Over two-thirds of the foreign-born population lived in the Northeast and Midwest regions.4 As the nation’s foreign-born population increased throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the greatest proportion resided in the “gateway” states of California, New York, Texas, and Florida, but there is evidence to suggest that by 2000 more had settled in nontraditional destinations, such as North Carolina, Georgia, and Nevada (Singer 2004; also see Figures 7 through 12 discussed later in this paper). By 2010, most states had at least 5 percent foreign born in their total populations, and over two-thirds of the foreign born lived in the West and South.5 As the foreign-born population increased and dispersed geographically, most of the United States – including places with little recent history of immigration – gained a greater immigrant presence. The foreign-born population in the United States has undergone considerable transformation during the last 50 years. The purpose of this report is to describe in some detail changes in the size, origins, and geographic distribution that have occurred between 1960 and 2010. This paper begins by reviewing the historical growth of the foreign-born population, discussing the number of foreign born and the proportion of the total population they have represented through time. Next, broad shifts in the regions of origin will be reviewed, focusing on the simultaneous decline of the foreign born from Europe and increase from Latin America and Asia. Changes in the number of foreign born from specific source countries, such as Mexico, will also be discussed. The geographic distribution of the foreign-born population among the regions within the United 3 The cap is “flexible” because it can exceed 675,000 in any year when unused visas from the family-sponsored and employment-based categories are available from the previous year. If only 625,000 people were admitted during the year, for example, the cap would be raised to 725,000 the following year. 4 The Northeast region includes the states of Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The Midwest region includes the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. 5 The West region includes the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The South region includes the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and West Virginia and the District of Columbia. 4 States – Northeast, Midwest, South, and West – will then be reviewed, as will changes in the distribution among the states. The median age and age distribution of the foreign-born population will also be presented. This paper will conclude with a brief analysis of the role the growth in the foreign-born population has played in the increase in the total population of the United States over the last 50 years. Historical Trends in the Size of the Foreign-Born Population In 1960, there were 9.7 million foreign born in the United States, representing 5.4 percent of the total resident population (see Figure 1). Between 1960 and 1970, the size of the foreign-born population declined to 9.6 million – or about 4.7 percent of the total population – and marked the end of a period of continuous decline that began in the 1930s. During the next four decades, the foreign-born population increased in size and as a percent of the total population: from 14.1 million (or 6.2 percent) in 1980 to 40.0 million (or 12.9 percent) in 2010. While the number of foreign born in 2010 represented a historical high, the proportion of the total population was lower than during the great migration wave of the later 1800s to early 1900s, when it fluctuated between 13 and 15 percent. Between 1910 and 1930, the foreign-born population ranged from 13.5 to 14.2 million, then experienced continual decline until 1970, when it reached its lowest number in the 20th century. By comparison, between 1970 and 2010, the foreign-born population experienced continual growth, increasing to its current historical high.6 Changes in the Origins of the Foreign-Born Population Perhaps more notable than the growth in the foreign-born population is the change in distribution of origin countries over time. During the 1960 to 2010 period, the number of foreign born from Latin America and Asia grew rapidly, while the number from Europe first declined then remained relatively stable. In 1960, there were fewer than 1 million foreign born from Latin America, but by 2010, there were 21.2 million (see Figure 2).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Latin America and Caribbean Region LIST of ACRONYMS
    Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial Development in Latin America and Caribbean Region LIST OF ACRONYMS ALBA Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas IPs Industrial Parks BIDC Barbados Investment and Development INTI National Institute of Industrial Corperation Technologies (Argentina) BRICS Brazil, Russian Federation, India, China ISID Inclusive and Sustainable Industrial and South Africa („emerging economies“) Development CAF Development Bank for Latin America ITPOs Investment and Technology Promotion CAIME High Level Centre for Research, Offices Training and Certification of Production LATU Technological Laboratory of Uruguay (Uruguayan Project) MERCOSUR Southern Common Market CAN Andean Community MoU Memorandum of Understanding CARICOM Caribbean Community ODS Ozone Depleting Substances CELAC Community of Latin American and OESC Organization of Eastern Caribbean States Caribbean States OFID OPEC Fund for International Development CFCs Chloro-Fluoro-Carbons PCBs Poly-Chlorinated Biphenyls CIU Uruguayan Chamber of Industries POPs Persistent Organic Pollutants CNI National Confederation of Brazil PPPs Public Private Partnerships COPEI Peruvian Committee on Small Industry RO Regional Office ECLAC Economic Commission for Latin America SDGs Sustainable Development Goals EU European Union SELA Latin American Economic System FAO Food and Agriculture Organization (UN SEZs Special Economic Zones System) SICA Central American Integration System GEF Global Environmental Facility SMEs Small and Medium-sized Enterprises GNIC Great Nicaraguan Interoceanic
    [Show full text]
  • ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the World of Work. Sixth Edition Updated Estimates and Analysis
    � ILO Monitor: COVID-19 and the world of work. Sixth edition Updated estimates and analysis 23 September 2020 Key messages Latest labour market developments � The latest data confirm that working-hour losses are reflected in higher levels of unemployment and Workplace closures inactivity, with inactivity increasing to a greater � At 94 per cent, the overall share of workers residing extent than unemployment. Rising inactivity in countries with workplace closures of some sort is a notable feature of the current job crisis remains high. The share of workers in countries calling for strong policy attention. The decline in with required closures for all but essential employment numbers has generally been greater workplaces across the entire economy or in for women than for men. targeted areas is still significant, though there are large regional variations. Among upper- Labour income losses middle-income countries, around 70 per cent of � workers continue to live in countries with such These high working-hour losses have translated strict lockdown measures in place (whether into substantial losses in labour income. nationwide or in specific geographical areas), while Estimates of labour income losses (before taking in low-income countries, the earlier strict measures into account income support measures) suggest have been relaxed considerably, despite increasing a global decline of 10.7 per cent during the first numbers of COVID-19 cases. three quarters of 2020 (compared with the corresponding period in 2019), which amounts Working-hour losses: Again higher to US$3.5 trillion, or 5.5 per cent of global gross domestic product (GDP) for the first three quarters than previously estimated of 2019.
    [Show full text]
  • Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: Statistical Information
    Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: Statistical Information Updated August 5, 2021 Congressional Research Service https://crsreports.congress.gov R46225 SUMMARY R46225 Indigenous Peoples in Latin America: Statistical August 5, 2021 Information Carla Y. Davis-Castro This report provides statistical information on Indigenous peoples in Latin America. Data and Research Librarian findings vary, sometimes greatly, on all topics covered in this report, including populations and languages, socioeconomic data, land and natural resources, human rights and international legal conventions. For example the figure below shows four estimates for the Indigenous population of Latin America ranging from 41.8 million to 53.4 million. The statistics vary depending on the source methodology, changes in national censuses, the number of countries covered, and the years examined. Indigenous Population and Percentage of General Population of Latin America Sources: Graphic created by CRS using the World Bank’s LAC Equity Lab with webpage last updated in July 2021; ECLAC and FILAC’s 2020 Los pueblos indígenas de América Latina - Abya Yala y la Agenda 2030 para el Desarrollo Sostenible: tensiones y desafíos desde una perspectiva territorial; the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and World Bank’s (WB) 2015 Indigenous Latin America in the twenty-first century: the first decade; and ECLAC’s 2014 Guaranteeing Indigenous people’s rights in Latin America: Progress in the past decade and remaining challenges. Notes: The World Bank’s LAC Equity Lab
    [Show full text]
  • AMAE Open Issue Association of Mexican American Educators Journal
    Association of Mexican American Educators Journal A peer-reviewed, open access journal Volume 14 Issue 1 2020 AMAE Open Issue Editors Patricia Sánchez The University of Texas at San Antonio Antonio J. Camacho AMAE, Inc. Associate Editors Julie L. Figueroa Sacramento State Lucila D. Ek The University of Texas at San Antonio http://amaejournal.utsa.edu ISSN: 2377-9187 Martinez Negrette Immigration Patterns and History of Mexican-origin Latin@s in the Midwest: Educational Implications and Future Considerations Giselle Martinez Negrette University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Abstract The accelerated growth of the Latin@ population in the United States in the last few decades represents one of the most significant demographic changes in the nation. Alongside this population shift, some other trends have started to emerge: the Latin@ population, especially Mexican-origin people, has begun to move and settle outside traditional large cities (Murillo & Villenas, 1997; Stamps & Bohon, 2006). The numbers of Mexican-origin Latin@s concentrated in so-called “gateway” states, such as California and Texas, have started to decline and populations of immigrants settling in non-traditional destinations are now growing (Passel & Zimmerman 2001; Zuñiga & Hernandez-Leon, 2005). This demographic flow has been referred to in academic literature as the new Latino diaspora (Murillo & Villenas, 1997) or new Latino destinations (Suro & Singer, 2002). Against this background, this essay explores the literature with a focus on the history of Mexican-origin Latin@ presence in the Midwest, as well as the more recent immigration trends of this population in the region. The essay aims to extend current understandings of Latin@ immigration patterns in the Midwest, analyze their implications for education and policy, and offer additional questions and considerations for future research in the field.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin America and the Caribbean Hub Source: Globocan 2020
    Latin America and the Caribbean Hub Source: Globocan 2020 Number of new cases in 2020, both sexes, all ages Geography Prostate 206 447 (14.4%) Breast 204 944 (14.3%) Other cancers Colorectum 729 831 (50.9%) 131 394 (9.2%) Lung 95 314 (6.6%) Stomach 65 589 (4.6%) Total: 1 433 519 Number of new cases in 2020, males, all ages Numbers at a glance Total population Prostate 206 447 (29.4%) 633392345 Other cancers 310 245 (44.2%) Number of new cases Colorectum 65 411 (9.3%) Lung 55 965 (8%) 1433519 Number of deaths Bladder Stomach 24 027 (3.4%) 39 299 (5.6%) Total: 701 394 690671 Number of new cases in 2020, females, all ages Number of prevalent cases (5-year) Breast 3760911 204 944 (28%) Other cancers Data source and methods 312 995 (42.8%) Colorectum 65 983 (9%) Incidence Cervix uteri Population weighted average of the rates of the group- 57 748 (7.9%) specific countries included in GLOBOCAN 2020. Mortality Lung Thyroid 39 349 (5.4%) 51 106 (7%) Population weighted average of the rates of the group- specific countries included in GLOBOCAN 2020. Total: 732 125 Prevalence Summary statistic 2020 Sum of group-specific prevalent cases. Males Females Both sexes Populations included Population 311 494 138 321 898 202 633 392 345 Number of new cancer cases 701 394 732 125 1 433 519 Argentina, Bolivia, Plurinational State of, Brazil, Chile, Age-standardized incidence rate (World) 199.5 179.5 187.0 Colombia, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Risk of developing cancer before the age of 75 years (%) 20.5 17.7 18.9 El Salvador, Guatemala,
    [Show full text]
  • The Asian Diaspora in Latin America: Asian in the Andes
    The Asian Diaspora in Latin America: Asians in the Andes Three years ago, as a result of my studies in the dual major of Photography and Asian Studies, and motivated by my own personal experiences, I began a long-te1m commitment to document the Asian Diaspora in Latin America. In this project, which has so far taken me to Cuba and Mexico, I explore the presence and reveal the stories of the displaced and disregarded Asians of Latin America. I would use the opportunity given to me, should I be awarded a Mortimer Hays-Brandeis Traveling Fellowship, to continue this project in the Andean countries of Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Chile. My intention as a photographer is to trace and record what has been overlooked or forgotten. Despite the undisputed Asian contribution to Latin American history, the economy and politics, their significance has been relatively neglected, as much by Asians 1 as by the world at large. This project will consist of photographic images and essays based on interviews and individual stories I will conduct while on location in and around Lima, Peru. My exploration of the Asian presence in Latin America began when I came to New York City for my studies and I encountered Spanish-speaking Asian communities. The 2000 Census showed that 11,500 Hispanic Asians live in New Y ork,2 and Professor Evelyn Hu-DeHa1i, director of the Center for the Study of Race and Ethnicity in America 1 Recognizing the ongoing debate amongst scholars to define what ethnicities the term "Asian" includes, I choose for this proposal and only for matter of clarity to stay focused on Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans.
    [Show full text]
  • We the American...Hispanics
    WE-2R e the American... Hispanics Issued September 1993 U.S. Department of Commerce Economics and Statistics Administration BUREAU OF THE CENSUS Acknowledgments This report was prepared by staff of the Ethnic and Hispanic Statistics Branch under the supervisionJorge ofdel Pinal. General direction was providedSusan by J. Lapham, Population Division. The contents of the report were reviewed byJanice Valdisera andMichael Levin, Population Division, and Paula Coupe andDwight Johnson, Public Information Office. Marie Pees, Population Division, provided computer programming support. Debra Niner andMary Kennedy, Population Division, provided review assistance. Alfredo Navarro, Decennial Statistical Studies Division provided sampling review. The staff of Administrative and Publications Services Division, Walter C. Odom, Chief, performed publication planning, design, composition, editorial review, and printing planning and procurement.Cynthia G. Brooks provided publication coordination and editing.Theodora Forgione provided table design and composition services.Kim Blackwell provided design and graphics services.Diane Oliff–Michael coordinated printing services. e, the American Hispanics Introduction We, the American Hispanics traceWe have not always appeared in the our origin or descent to Spaincensus or to as a separate ethnic group. Mexico, Puerto Rico, Cuba, and In 1930, Mexicans" were counted many other SpanishĆspeaking counĆand in 1940, persons of Spanish tries of Latin America. Our ancesĆmother tongue" were reported. In tors were among the early explorers1950 and 1960, persons of Spanish and settlers of the New World.surname" In were reported. The 1970 1609, 11 years before the Pilgrimscensus asked persons about their landed at Plymouth Rock, our MestiĆorigin," and respondents could zo (Indian and Spanish) ancestorschoose among several Hispanic oriĆ settled in what is now Santa Fe,gins listed on the questionnaire.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin America's Missing Middle
    Latin America’s missing middle: Rebooting inclusive growth inclusive Rebooting middle: missing Latin America’s Latin America’s missing middle Rebooting inclusive growth May 2019 McKinsey Global Institute Since its founding in 1990, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) has sought to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. As the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, MGI aims to provide leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors with the facts and insights on which to base management and policy decisions. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Our “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on six themes: productivity and growth, natural resources, labor markets, the evolution of global financial markets, the economic impact of technology and innovation, and urbanization. Recent reports have assessed the digital economy, the impact of AI and automation on employment, income inequality, the productivity puzzle, the economic benefits of tackling gender inequality, a new era of global competition, Chinese innovation, and digital and financial globalization. MGI is led by three McKinsey & Company senior partners: Jacques Bughin, Jonathan Woetzel, and James Manyika, who also serves as the chairman of MGI. Michael Chui, Susan Lund, Anu Madgavkar, Jan Mischke, Sree Ramaswamy, and Jaana Remes are MGI partners, and Mekala Krishnan and Jeongmin Seong are MGI senior fellows.
    [Show full text]
  • Mapping the Collaboration Between Europe and Latin America/Caribbean for Research on Biodiversity
    A COLLABORATION BETWEEN The ERA-Net promoting pan-European research on biodiversity and ecosystem services Mapping the collaboration between Europe and Latin America/Caribbean for Research on Biodiversity DRAFT AN ANALYSIS OF COLLABORATION NETWORKS BASED ON PUBLICATIONS INVOLVING ERA AND LAC RESEACHERS (2003-2013) To cite this report Olivier Dangles, Jean Loirat & Xavier Le Roux 2016. Mapping the collaboration between Europe and Latin America/Caribbean for research on biodiversity. ALCUE NET- BiodivERsA report, xx pp. Photography credits Cover: IRD - Olivier Dangles - François Nowicki / Une Autre Terre Other pictures, order of appearence: Partners: CNRS Photothèque_GRAILLE Roland - Contents: IRD - Olivier Dangles - François Nowicki / Une Autre Terre - Page 6: Paul Kempf - Page 8: IRD - Olivier Dangles - François Nowicki / Une Autre Terre - Pages 10 and 11: Biogéosciences-Dijon/CNRS Photothèque_MONNA Fabrice - Page 12: IRD - Olivier Dangles - Page20: naturexpose.com / Olivier Dangles et François Nowicki - Pages 22 and 23: Pixabay - Back cover: IRD - Olivier Dangles - François Nowicki / Une Autre Terre. Layout Thibaut Lochu To contact BiodivERsA BiodivERsA Coordination To contact ALCUE-NET Xavier Le Roux, Coordinator and CEO [email protected] ALCUE-NET Coordination Tel: +33 (0)6 31 80 38 20 Monica Silenzi, Project Manager [email protected] BiodivERsA Secretariat Tel: +54 (11) 4899 5000 Claire Blery, Secretariat Executive Manager [email protected] ALCUE-NET Secretariat Tel: +33 (0)1 80 05 89 36 Ministry
    [Show full text]
  • Lost Decades: Postindependence Performance in Latin America and Africa
    Lost Decades: Postindependence Performance in Latin America and Africa The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters Citation Bates, Robert H., John H. Coatsworth, and Jeffrey G. Williamson. 2007. “Lost Decades: Postindependence Performance in Latin America and Africa.” The Journal of Economic History 67 (04) (December). Published Version doi:10.1017/S0022050707000447 Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:12211559 Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA Lost Decades: Postindependence Performance in Latin America and Africa ROBERT H. BATES, JOHN H. COATSWORTH, AND JEFFREY G. WILLIAMSON Africa and Latin America secured independence from European colonial rule a century and half apart: most of Latin America by the 1820s and most of Africa by 1960. Despite the distance in time and space, they share important similari- ties. In each case independence was followed by political instability, violent conflict, and economic stagnation lasting for about a half-century. The parallels suggest that Africa might be exiting from a period of postimperial collapse and entering one of relative political stability and economic growth, as did Latin America almost two centuries ago. frica and Latin America secured their independence from Euro- Apean colonial rule a century and half apart: most of Latin America by the 1820s and most of Africa by 1960.1 Despite the distance in time and space, independence was followed in each case by a half-century of political instability, violent conflict and economic stagnation—lost dec- ades.
    [Show full text]
  • Latin America and the Caribbean: U.S. Policy Overview
    Updated June 30, 2021 Latin America and the Caribbean: U.S. Policy Overview U.S. interests in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) almost every country in recession. As a result, poverty and are diverse and include economic, political, security, and inequality have increased throughout the region, and many humanitarian concerns. Geographic proximity has ensured countries may struggle with protracted economic strong economic linkages between the United States and recoveries. The economic setback associated with the LAC, with the United States a major trading partner and pandemic contributed to increased protests in the region in source of foreign investment for many regional countries. late 2020 and 2021. Beginning in late April 2021, mass Free-trade agreements (FTAs) have augmented U.S. protests in Colombia against a pandemic-related tax reform economic relations with 11 countries in the region. LAC is turned into broader anti-government protests. also a large source of U.S. immigration, both authorized and unauthorized; economic and security conditions are Concern about democracy and human rights has increased major factors driving migration trends. in several countries in 2021. Haiti is experiencing heightened insecurity and political unrest against President Curbing the flow of illicit drugs from LAC has been a key Jovenel Moïse, who has ruled by decree since January component of U.S. relations with the region for decades. 2020; legislative and presidential elections are scheduled The flow of illicit drugs—including heroin, for September 2021. The government of Nicaraguan methamphetamine, and fentanyl from Mexico and cocaine President Daniel Ortega has arrested prominent opposition from Colombia—poses risks to U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Where Will Latin America's Growth Come From?
    WHERE WILL LATIN AMERICA’S GROWTH COME FROM? APRIL 2017 DISCUSSION PAPER Andrés Cadena | Bogotá Jaana Remes | San Francisco Nicolás Grosman | Mexico City André de Oliveira | Costa Rica Since its founding in 1990, the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) has sought to develop a deeper understanding of the evolving global economy. As the business and economics research arm of McKinsey & Company, MGI aims to provide leaders in the commercial, public, and social sectors with the facts and insights on which to base management and policy decisions. For the second year running, the Lauder Institute at the University of Pennsylvania ranked MGI the world’s number-one private-sector think tank in its 2016 Global Think Tank Index. MGI research combines the disciplines of economics and management, employing the analytical tools of economics with the insights of business leaders. Our “micro-to-macro” methodology examines microeconomic industry trends to better understand the broad macroeconomic forces affecting business strategy and public policy. MGI’s in-depth reports have covered more than 20 countries and 30 industries. Current research focuses on six themes: productivity and growth, natural resources, labor markets, the evolution of global financial markets, the economic impact of technology and innovation, and urbanization. Recent reports have assessed the economic benefits of tackling gender inequality, a new era of global competition, Chinese innovation, and digital globalization. MGI is led by four McKinsey & Company senior partners: Jacques Bughin, James Manyika, Jonathan Woetzel, and Frank Mattern, MGI’s chairman. Michael Chui, Susan Lund, Anu Madgavkar, Sree Ramaswamy, and Jaana Remes serve as MGI partners. Project teams are led by the MGI partners and a group of senior fellows, and include consultants from McKinsey offices around the world.
    [Show full text]