A tale of three cities!
Figures for Paris are based on the results of the 2012 French census released last month. http://i62.tinypic.com/168s7js.png During WW2, Paris (1,572 km²) lost 200,000 inhabitants, Greater London lost 400,000 inhabitants, and Berlin lost 1 million inhabitants. http://i61.tinypic.com/30rl9up.png |
I've looked at the fastest growth rates over a decennial period for the 3 cities since the 19th century (I wouldn't be surprised if London experienced its fastest growth rates in the 18th or even 17th centuries, but there are no data for these ancient periods).
Decennial period of fastest growth: - Greater London: 1871-1881 (+2,07% per year during those 10 years) - Paris (1,572 km²): 1851-1861 (+3,13% per year during those 10 years) - Berlin (892 km²): 1861-1871 (+4,28% per year during those 10 years) Berlin surprised me. I imagined the fastest growth took place in the first decades after the German unification, but in fact it took place in the 10 years preceding German unification. That being said, the city (in its 1920 borders, i.e. 892 km²) managed to keep growth rates of nearly +4% per year until 1890. Paris's decennial period of fastest growth took place in the first 10 years of Haussmann's administration, which I guess makes sense. London is harder to interpret, but I suspect its fastest growth took place actually in the 18th or even 17th centuries. If we look at absolute population growth now, the picture is slightly different. Decennial period of largest absolute growth: - Greater London: 2003-2013 (+102,174 people per year during those 10 years; during these 10 years, Greater London managed to beat its previous absolute growth record established between 1891 and 1901) - Paris (1,572 km²): 1954-1962 (+127,468 people per year during those 8 years) - Berlin (892 km²): 1903-1913 (+112,880 people per year during those 10 years) What's interesting is that none of these three cities have managed to have absolute growth larger than +127,468 people per year during their entire history. To be compared with the likes of Lagos, Karachi, or some large Chinese and Indian cities which currently grow by +300,000 people per year or more. The current wave of urbanization in the Third World is unlike anything the First World experienced during its period of greatest expansion! Finally, I looked at the time it took for each city to grow from 2 million to 4 million people. F. Moriconi-Ebrard (of the Geopolis project) defines the 2 million mark as what sets apart the metropolises of the ancient world and those of the modern industrialized world. Historically, several metropolises in Asia and Europe managed to pass 1 million people, but none managed to pass 2 million people, because the agricultural and transport technologies simply made it impossible to feed so many people. It is only with the Industrial Revolution and the improvements in the agricultural and transport technologies that the 2 million barrier could finally be broken. London was the 1st city in the world to reach 2 million people, in 1836. Paris was 2nd city in the world to reach 2 million people, in 1858. New York was the 3rd in the world, in 1875; Berlin the 4th, in 1892; Chicago the 5th, in 1893. "City" here refers to "urban area" of course, not cities within administrative borders. So how long did it take for London, Paris, and Berlin to double their population after entering the unchartered territory of 2 million+ cities? Greater London: 1836-1874: 38 years Paris (1,592 km²): 1858-1901: 43 years Berlin (892 km²): 1892-1914: 22 years Berlin really had stratospheric growth (in absolute terms) in the last years of the German Empire. It should be noted, however, that the population of Berlin declined below 4 million immediately after 1914, and it is not until 1925 that the city managed to break the 4 million mark again. But then of course at the end of WW2 the population of Berlin went from 4.36 million in January 1945 to 2.81 million in August 1945, and since then the city (892 km²) has never managed to recover a population larger than 4 million (let's note that in a territory of 1,572 km², encompassing the city-state of Berlin + 680 km² of suburbs in Brandenburg, there lived about 3.5 million people in January 2012, and in the Berlin metro area, covering 5,421 km², there lived 4,366,045 people). |
+ Tokyo! :D
(all maps at the same scale) http://i62.tinypic.com/28cizh0.png What's crazy is Tokyo manages to pack the population of London and Paris combined in the same space without having to resort to super high densities. The densest urban district of Tokyo, Toshima, has a population density of only 22,008 inh. per km² (57,001 ppsm), whereas Paris's 11th arrondissement has a population density of 42,236 inh. per km² (109,391 ppsm), and in fact the entire City of Paris inside the Périphérique (excluding the Bois de Boulogne and Bois de Vincennes) has a population density of 25,757 inh. per km² (66,711 ppsm), higher than the densest district of Tokyo. |
Hi!!, I have a few questions for the demography experts here, (please forgive my english)
1-Do the asylum seekers are somehow included in the immigration numbers published by each country´s statistics agencies??. For instance..., Germany reported a net migration of about 430K for 2013, the same year they reported asylum seekers to be about 200K. As you might know, Asylum or the permission to stay, is usually granted to about 20% of Asylum seekers in Germany, that would be about 40K. I asume, if at all, the 40K recognised cases are included in the migration figures but the remaining 160K not, in this case, wouldn´t the remaining 160K have a big impact in population in the middle to long term??, given that only the minority of them are forced to abandon the country if, say.. 50K would illegally stay in the country each year, that would be about 500K in 10 years... and given the big conflicts around the world, asylum seekers numbers are not expected to drop, on the contrary... 2-I can´t find a logical explanation to Italy´s high migration numbers, they´re usually relatively high, about 200K to 300K in recent years, even during a hard economic downturn, I mean... I´d love to live in a warm house with a view to the mediterranean sea, but I think that´s not the case for most migrants if they can´t find a job, , Italy receives a lot of asylum seekers, ok, but as far as I know, Germany is accepting far more asylum seekers, and even having a booming economy with the lowest youth unemployment in the EU, while Italy being the opposite, they have relatively similar absolute migration. Maybe the retirees from Europe migrate to Italy but I don´t think that can account for 300K migrants... Quote:
3- What´s the difference between Metropolitan France, France, and French Republic? I thought they only differentiated between Metropolitan France and France as a whole with overseas colonies... and why these numbers are different from Wikipedia?? they state 811 510 live births for 2013 which I asume is for France as a whole but it doesn´t mach any of your numbers... Thanks all in advance!! |
For question #2, I would think Italy receives tons of immigrants for the same reason the Southwest U.S. receives tons of immigrants- location.
Most immigrants to Europe are coming via North Africa and the Middle East. Italy is basically the easiest "rich" country to reach for many, especially because some Italian islands are extremely close to Africa. And Italy's economy, while not exactly robust, is not that bad. They are still one of the richest major countries on earth, and have excellent social benefits. |
Quote:
The French Republic is the entire territory under French sovereignty. In other words all the territories where you'll have to cross a French border check to enter, and where the local inhabitants are French citizens and carry a French passport. So that's Metropolitan France + all the overseas departements and territories. What I've termed "France" here is a different notion. It's larger than Metropolitan France but smaller than the French Republic. It's the part of the French Republic that fully applies the laws passed at the national level and does not enjoy any specific degree of autonomy. It's also the part of the French Republic that belongs to the EU. It is made up of Metropolitan France + the 5 overseas departments. When you see figures about "France" at an international level (like IMF, World Bank, EU), they refer to Metropolitan France + the 5 overseas departments (although Mayotte is not yet integrated in the data due to its recent accession to overseas department status and lack of statistical time series). As for the birth figures quoted here, that 811,510 figure in the Wikipedia article refers to Metropolitan + the 4 old overseas departments (without Mayotte), whereas my 818,000 figure refers to Metropolitan France + the 5 overseas departments (including Mayotte). PS: There are no overseas "colonies" anymore. Colonies were legally disbanded in 1946, and replaced either with overseas departments or overseas territories. All French territories have enjoyed full political representation and full French citizenship since 1958 at the latest. |
INSEE has published the detailed countries of birth of the mothers who gave birth in France in 2013. I've grouped the countries by geographic regions of origin for births in Metropolitan France (the European part of France).
Share of births in Metropolitan France in 2013: - mothers born in Metropolitan France: 78.8% (i.e. 78.8% of the births that took place in Metropolitan France in 2013 were due to mothers themselves born in Metropolitan France) - mothers born in Overseas France: 1.1% (i.e. 1.1% of the births that took place in Metropolitan France in 2013 were due to mothers born in Overseas France and now living in Metropolitan France) - mothers born in the Maghreb: 7.9% - mothers born in sub-Saharan Africa outside of Réunion and Mayotte: 4.6% - mothers born in Europe outside of Metropolitan France: 3.7% - mothers born in Turkey: 1.0% - mothers born in East Asia and countries of former French Indochina: 0.8% - mothers born in Latin America and the Caribbean outside of the French territories there: 0.7% (of which mothers born in Haiti: 0.2%) - mothers born in the Indian sub-continent: 0.5% - mothers born in Egypt, Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran: 0.3% - mothers born in North America outside of SP&M: 0.1% - mothers born in countries not included above: 0.5% TOTAL: 100% Regarding the 35,729 births due to mothers born in sub-Saharan countries that took place in Metropolitan France in 2013 (a historical record which is probably due to be broken every year in the coming years), I've used to excellent religious statistics by the Pew Research Center for all the countries of the world to determine how many of these births were due to Muslim mothers and how many to Christian mothers (most people assume that the Black Africans in France are essentially Muslim), assuming that the ratio of each religion among the sub-Sahara African mothers in Metropolitan France is the same as in their country origin. Well it appears that out of those 35,729 births, 47.2% were due to... Christian mothers, 44.7% were due to Muslim mothers, 3.6% where due to mothers who practice folk religions, and 3.3% were due to mothers with no religion. |
New Brisavoine, I have a question about French birthrates.
Obviously everyone knows that the French have surprisingly high birthrates for a rich, secular country, and many attribute it to cultural factors and generous social programs. For whatever reason, France, unlike, say Germany, has been able to maintain high birthrates. Germany now has very generous programs for new mothers but there are still cultural factors at play that make it more difficult for some families. But here's my question- are the high birthrates reflected in the entire French population? In other words, do "native", non-immigrant stock French also have high birthrates? Or is it mostly immigrants, and their descendants? Obviously when you say "born in Metropolitan France" it could be a second or third-generation family with roots in the Maghreb or something, and France doesn't classify people by race/ethnicity, so would this data even be available? |
Quote:
|
The London stats are a bit outdated the population stands at 8.6m and the job market at 5.6m
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-31082941 http://data.london.gov.uk/dashboard-summary/jobs/ |
Quote:
Quote:
Lol, it might be that for an argentinian, like me, it´s difficult to consider a far away territory part of the same country, besides, I don´t think that representation prevented france from blowing up mururoa with nuclear tests in the 90´s or from ignoring local languages.:cool: by the way... is there a more updated figure for that 818,000 number??, it seems too rounded, or maybe it´s a final? |
Quote:
There is virtually no difference between the fertility rate of the women with French ancestry and the women with immigrant ancestry born in France. So the fertility rate of the women with French ancestry was approximately 1.88 in 2013. In comparison, the fertility rate of the non-Hispanic White women in the US was 1.75 in 2013. |
Quote:
Distance doesn't matter, especially in this age of internet and mass aviation. In fact even in far-flung New Caledonia, which is 16,800 km from Paris, young people go to Paris to study at university level. There is much more integration between Metropolitan France and Overseas France than what people imagine. As for nuclear tests, the US blew up atomic bombs in Nevada, and that doesn't make Nevada any less American for that. Quote:
|
Lyon compared to the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th largest cities of Germany. Population living within the same land area.
Population figures as of January 1, 2012 for all cities. Figures come from the 2012 French census published last month, and the post-censal German population estimates. To reach the land area of Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, and Frankfurt, I have grouped the densest communes around Lyon to form a contiguous area without enclaves or exclaves. Lyon vs Hamburg: - City-State of Hamburg (755.2 km²): 1,718,187 inh. - City of Lyon + 84 suburban communes (755.2 km²): 1,440,390 inh. 1962 >>> 2012: - Hamburg (755.2 km²): 1,841,800 >>> 1,718,187 - Lyon (755.2 km²): 984,192 >>> 1,440,390 Lyon vs Munich: - City of Munich (310.7 km²): 1,364,920 inh. - City of Lyon + 27 suburban communes (309.6 km²): 1,173,593 inh. 1962 >>> 2012: - Munich (310.7 km²): 1,102,500 >>> 1,364,920 - Lyon (309.6 km²): 880,080 >>> 1,173,593 Lyon vs Cologne: - City of Cologne (405.2 km²): 1,013,665 inh. - City of Lyon + 43 suburban communes (404.4 km²): 1,256,480 inh. 1987 >>> 2012: - Cologne (405.2 km²) 928,309 >>> 1,013,665 - Lyon (404.4 km²): 1,101,100 >>> 1,256,480 Lyon vs Frankfurt: - City of Frankfurt (248.3 km²): 676,533 inh. - City of Lyon + 20 suburban communes (248.4 km²): 1,097,471 inh. 1987 >>> 2012: - Frankfurt (248.3 km²): 618,266 >>> 676,533 - Lyon (248.4 km²): 974,100 >>> 1,097,471 |
I lived two years in Réunion island (July 2000-July 2002). There is a lot integration with Mainland France.
Most of things there were the same than in Mainland France. There is obviously some difference but not as much as you may believe. |
Quote:
Anyway, obviously you´re french and I´m not, and I don´t think french Guyana or other territories Independence is around the corner, it´s just that when a far away place or región becomes prosperous and/or their "ex" colony power´s influence declines, these Independence issues arise |
Quote:
The French government is elected also by people in Overseas France, so their interest is also their own, unless they wish to be defeated at the next election. Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...orial_disputes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decolonization Quote:
Quote:
But let me doubt that a country like france will be able to keep it´s current geopolitical and economic influence in the long term, in regions like south america or the pacific to ensure its sovereignty in all of its overseas departments if it has to compete with emerging economic powers like brazil (which already surpassed france´s GDP last year), australia or Mexico. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...s_by_GDP_(PPP) Surinam and former english Guyana are already a step ahead check these: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guyana http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suriname Of course all this is still based on assumptions, so if those regions still benefit from being part of france noone can deny its right to do so, as noone should deny its right to be independent |
^ Sorry but I find you're just somewhat showing some kind of stereotypical bitterness from the so-called New World to so-called old Europe, which is nothing much of a novelty to us. We've been used to it for generations, while we are still here, right? Excuse-me but as far as I can go past, none of my freaking ancestors felt the need to leave our country, while they weren't all well off. Some were from the working class and nonetheless found future for themselves over here. You see what I mean? I think you should clean up your front door before charging any foreigner, including Europeans. That's what I usually do myself, which is much more elegant.
There's a precedent when it comes to French-American territories taking their independence from metropolitan France, that is Haiti. We all know, especially people from Martinique, Guadeloupe or any French overseas territory about the outcome that's been pretty disastrous so far. That's partly why we'd rather think twice before voting for a prospective dismemberment of our nation that will not last forever, however, granted. We're too small to achieve big things on our own, we're quite aware. But then our foreseeable future belongs to a better integrated and federal European Union, nowhere else. Quote:
|
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 8:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.