1971Japanese Sociological ReviewOpen access

“U-turn” Population Movement in Japan

Makoto Okada

Open full text 4 citations

Abstract

It has long been assumed to be natural that population moves from rural to urban area, not from urban to rural area. But recently, some Japanese urbanologists pointed out the existence of so called “U-turn population movement”. According to them, a number of population is now overflowing from “Japanese Megalopolis” to local cities.As is shown on Tab. 1, the amount of population moving from Tohoku (non-metropolitan) district to three metropolitan areas is decreasing, and, on the contrary, the amount of inhabitants returning back to Tohoku district is remarkably increasing.On the analysis of this table, Mr. Kuroda insisted on the existence of “U-turn” population movement.But there are even those who are not willing to agree with Kuroda's thesis. Mr. Ono is among those who stand against Mr. Kuroda.Ono, intending to show that the “U-turn” is not so remarkable a social phenomenon, prepared Tab. 2. This table includes three items concerning population movements between several metropolitan areas, one item of population movement within a metropolitan area, and one item of population movement from metropolis to non-metropolitan areas.Ono culculated χ2, and concluded that it is not reasonable to assume “Population U-turn” was so remarkable a movement.But, for all the methodological conscienceness of Ono. It seems to me he missed on his model-building. First of all, what he accounted was chiefly the amount of population moving within or between metropolitan areas, and not the amout of inhabiants who were moving between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.Secondly, what he compared with the state of 1968 was the state of 1965. But it must be impossible for any social phenomenon to show so remarkable a change within three years.I re-culculated χ2, modifying Ono's model and using Kuroda's data.Then, following numbers of χ2 could be found out.Between metropolitan areas and Tohoku 26.404Between metropolitan areas and Kyushu 38.817Between metropolitan areas and Hokuriku 2.239Between metropolitan areas and Shikoku 10.388Between metropolitan areas and Chugoku 20.139Between metropolitan areas and To-san 2.300

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

It has long been assumed to be natural that population moves from rural to urban area, not from urban to rural area. But recently, some Japanese urbanologists pointed out the existence of so called “U-turn population movement”. According to them, a number of population is now overflowing from “Japanese Megalopolis” to local cities.As is shown on Tab. 1, the amount of population moving from Tohoku (non-metropolitan) district to three metropolitan areas is decreasing, and, on the contrary, the amount of inhabitants returning back to Tohoku district is remarkably increasing.On the analysis of this table, Mr. Kuroda insisted on the existence of “U-turn” population movement.But there are even those who are not willing to agree with Kuroda's thesis. Mr. Ono is among those who stand against Mr. Kuroda.Ono, intending to show that the “U-turn” is not so remarkable a social phenomenon, prepared Tab. 2. This table includes three items concerning population movements between several metropolitan areas, one item of population movement within a metropolitan area, and one item of population movement from metropolis to non-metropolitan areas.Ono culculated χ2, and concluded that it is not reasonable to assume “Population U-turn” was so remarkable a movement.But, for all the methodological conscienceness of Ono. It seems to me he missed on his model-building. First of all, what he accounted was chiefly the amount of population moving within or between metropolitan areas, and not the amout of inhabiants who were moving between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.Secondly, what he compared with the state of 1968 was the state of 1965. But it must be impossible for any social phenomenon to show so remarkable a change within three years.I re-culculated χ2, modifying Ono's model and using Kuroda's data.Then, following numbers of χ2 could be found out.Between metropolitan areas and Tohoku 26.404Between metropolitan areas and Kyushu 38.817Between metropolitan areas and Hokuriku 2.239Between metropolitan areas and Shikoku 10.388Between metropolitan areas and Chugoku 20.139Between metropolitan areas and To-san 2.300

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 4 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

It has long been assumed to be natural that population moves from rural to urban area, not from urban to rural area. But recently, some Japanese urbanologists pointed out the existence of so called “U-turn population movement”. According to them, a number of population is now overflowing from “Japanese Megalopolis” to local cities.As is shown on Tab. 1, the amount of population moving from Tohoku (non-metropolitan) district to three metropolitan areas is decreasing, and, on the contrary, the amount of inhabitants returning back to Tohoku district is remarkably increasing.On the analysis of this table, Mr. Kuroda insisted on the existence of “U-turn” population movement.But there are even those who are not willing to agree with Kuroda's thesis. Mr. Ono is among those who stand against Mr. Kuroda.Ono, intending to show that the “U-turn” is not so remarkable a social phenomenon, prepared Tab. 2. This table includes three items concerning population movements between several metropolitan areas, one item of population movement within a metropolitan area, and one item of population movement from metropolis to non-metropolitan areas.Ono culculated χ2, and concluded that it is not reasonable to assume “Population U-turn” was so remarkable a movement.But, for all the methodological conscienceness of Ono. It seems to me he missed on his model-building. First of all, what he accounted was chiefly the amount of population moving within or between metropolitan areas, and not the amout of inhabiants who were moving between metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas.Secondly, what he compared with the state of 1968 was the state of 1965. But it must be impossible for any social phenomenon to show so remarkable a change within three years.I re-culculated χ2, modifying Ono's model and using Kuroda's data.Then, following numbers of χ2 could be found out.Between metropolitan areas and Tohoku 26.404Between metropolitan areas and Kyushu 38.817Between metropolitan areas and Hokuriku 2.239Between metropolitan areas and Shikoku 10.388Between metropolitan areas and Chugoku 20.139Between metropolitan areas and To-san 2.300

Key concepts: Metropolitan area, Population, Geography, Economic geography, Movement (music), Rural area, Socioeconomics, Demography

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
“U-turn” Population Movement in Japan — Research Paper | ScholarLens