In December 1986 the Institute of Government and Public Affairs at the University of Illinois held a two-day conference in Chicago. Its theme was "Illinois: A House Divided," and its more common reference — the "statewide regionalism conference" — indicates its subject. The institute describes Illinois as a state of six regions. Three cover the more populous northeastern corner of Illinois: Chicago, suburban Cook County and the five collar counties surrounding Cook. Three more cover the rest of the state: northern, central and southern Illinois. A briefing book, with essays by various experts, provided background material. A statewide poll conducted by the institute and reported in the Chicago Tribune, sought Illinoisans' views of each other's regions and their own. Illinois Issues here presents excerpts from the institute's final report: from the demographics section, "The Regionalism of Illinois Politics," and from the concluding section, "Where Do We Go From Here?" The final report, which drew on the briefing book, poll results and discussion at the conference, was authored by Anna J. Merritt, of the Institute of Government and Public Affairs.

Demographic trends for Illinois over the past century and a half have shown considerable regional variation and change. One of the most remarkable shifts is the near reversal of position in the weight of the population. In 1850 . . . the preponderance of Illinoisans lived downstate. More than seven in 10 resided in the state's center (45 percent) or the south (26 percent). The remaining 29 percent were in the north (with 5 percent in Chicago). Eighty years later, in 1930, about half the population claimed Chicago as their home. Today, the bulk of Illinoisans live upstate. More than seven in 10 Illinoisans live in the north, with 63 percent in the Chicago conurbation [continuous network of urban communities] and 26 percent in Chicago alone. The remainder resides in the central section (17 percent) or south (11 percent) .....

. . [T]his dramatic overall shift notwithstanding, the years since World War II have seen some equalization across the state. One aspect is Chicago's loss of residents. Chicago, like many metropolises in the North and East of the United States, has lost population (18 percent) both in absolute terms and relative to trends in the rest of the state. One reason is that, while Chicago enjoys a high birth rate, an extremely high infant mortality rate, generally associated with poverty levels, sharply curbs the natural growth rate. A more important reason is the out-migration of Chicagoans. Even so, the city continues to play a pivotal role in population movements. It attracts people to the state — in 1950-85 two-thirds of those who moved into the city came from out of state — and over half (55 percent) of Chicagoans who leave the city move elsewhere in Illinois.

Where do they go? Most move to Chicago's suburbs: suburban Cook County (that is, Cook County excluding the city of Chicago) and the five suburban counties around the city (DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will), popularly referred to as the "collar counties." Suburban Cook County has experienced dramatic growth during the last 35 years. Whereas in 1950 it ranked fourth among the six regions of the state (table 1), by 1985 it had risen to second place and accounts for 20 percent of the state's population. Much of this increase was due to net in-migration as well as a high natural rate of population growth. (It must be added, however, that from 1975 to 1980 even suburban Cook County lost population due to net out-migration; in fact, its loss rate was the state's second highest, after Chicago.) The area with the greatest population growth — 195 percent from 1950-1985 — comprises the collar counties. They have grown not only because of in-migration (primarily people leaving Chicago) but also because of a higher absolute birthrate.

Population changes in the other three regions of the state have been somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, two of the three have lost ground and the other has remained constant vis-a-vis Chicago and its suburbs. Central Illinois, which at one time had 45 percent of the state's population, today has only 17 percent. Southern Illinois, which has made the smallest gain among the gainers, has dropped from third to fifth place among the six regions [in terms of percentage of the state's population]. Only northern Illinois has held its own [in terms of growth], but even so it has dropped to last place. On the other hand, all three increased their population from 1950 to 1985. Northern Illinois' growth, the largest of the three (34 percent), may reflect to some measure Chicago's expansion into farther-distant suburbs. Still another important aspect of the figures for these three regions pertains to the kind of population: None had a strong rate of natural increase and both the central and southern regions experienced net out-migrations throughout our 35-year period. Also of some import to state leaders must be the fact that only 18 percent of those who left these areas stayed in Illinois. The remainder (82 percent) moved out of state.

As is true throughout most of the country, Illinois' population is becoming older. The percentage of people aged 65 or older grew from 1960 to 1980 by an average of 1.6 percentage points in the six regions, while the percentage of youth under the age of 18 dropped by an average of 6.6 percentage points. Differences by region, however, were not very great in 1980 (table 2). The collar counties had both the highest percentage of young people (31 percent) and the lowest percentage of the elderly (8 percent). Central and southern Illinois had the greatest share of elderly residents (13 and 14 percent, respectively); in fact their percentages were almost double those of the collar counties. Insofar as these differences have long-term implications, they suggest that the collar counties have the best prospects for a growing workforce, while the regions beyond Greater Chicago (including all of Cook County and the collar counties) are somewhat more likely to need the special services required for the elderly.

The racial composition of the six regions varies considerably and has also changed over time. Between 1950 and 1980 the number of blacks in Illinois doubled. One area with strong non-white representation is East St. Louis, in the southern region. It is useful to recall that this is also the region with the highest proportion of the states's elderly residents. Of greater significance is what is occurring in the Chicago area. While Chicago has long had a greater share of blacks than any other region, the percentage almost tripled between 1950 and 1980 (from 14 to 40 percent). If we include other nonwhite minorities, slightly over 50 percent of Chicago's population was in this category in 1980. Or, to put the figure in a slightly different perspective, 69 percent of the state's nonwhite population resided in this single city in 1980.

Like other demographic developments, Chicago's growing nonwhite population is far from unique. It is a phenomenon facing many northern urban centers in the United States, and has been written about extensively in popular news magazines and scholarly treatises. The growth is due to several factors, most prominent among them being (1) migration of blacks from the south and of Hispanics from Puerto Rico and Mexico, (2) differential birth rates between whites and nonwhites, and (3) "white flight" from the inner cities to their suburbs. The special importance of this growth for a study of regionalism in the state of Illinois is that it forces us to think seriously about a new region: an increasingly black, increasingly poor and relatively unknown Chicago. A racist response to this situation by blacks in Chicago and/or whites elsewhere could do more harm to the fabric of the state than any other regional antagonism we may have experienced in the past.

Other sections of the final report detailed Illinois' historical, political and economic development and reported the main findings of the statewide survey. (The team surveyed over 2,600 male and female heads of households throughout the state —448 in the north, 471 in central Illinois, 451 in the south, 613 in Chicago and 647 in the Chicago suburbs, including the collar counties.) The conclusions in the following excerpt are drawn from all the sections and make a strong case for recognizing the interdependence of the different regions of the state.

First of all, while Illinoisans recognize and acknowledge regional divisions in the state, they may best be described as a permissive public. They do not hold rigid attitudes and are quite willing to see public funds — their tax dollars — used to equalize burdens on the state's citizens. Moreover, they tend to think in terms of issues facing the entire state, not just their own problems. Indeed, they seem generally disappointed with the parochial stances sometimes taken by the state's political leaders. And they certainly do not subscribe to the notion, however jestingly it might be made, that Chicago go its separate way.

Then, too, the movement of people from the south to the north and then toward the northwest means that the state's population is now more evenly distributed than in recent history. This population shift could presage a more even distribution of industrial plants and other employment opportunities as well. Locating the Diamond-Star plant in Bloomington-Normal might thus be a harbinger of things to come.

The single most striking aspect of the demographic, economic, and political trends in Illinois has been the persistent northward shift and the recent emergence of the collar counties as a "new" region. While it is true that the influx of new industries and new residents dictates increased funding for services and that the unusually large number of those under the age of 18 may require expanded education facilities, these are the sorts of growth problems on which Americans thrive and are good at solving. More difficult than the internal adjustments will be the adjustments that residents of the new region must make toward the rest of the state and vice versa. The collar counties cannot go it alone. They need the support and cooperation of the rest of the state, certainly in the legislature but in other respects as well.

The central and southern regions should welcome the newcomer warmly. Its arrival returns to these downstate areas some of their former power in the political arena (for detail on the emergence of the suburban collar counties as a new power wedged between Chicago and the rest of downstate, see also Paul M. Green, ''Downstate is the key to victory." Illinois Issues. February 1978). Moreover, the changing international energy picture may once again, and in the not-too-distant future focus attention on the state's coal and oil reserves. And, as the agricultural sector pulls out of its current slump, the central region will also experience an economic upswing.

The renascence of the central and southern regions and emergence of the collar county region should not lead us to overlook or minimize the strength of the state's third major region: Chicago and its immediate suburbs. Many large U.S. cities that have experienced traumatic changes similar to those the Windy City has undergone are today showing signs of revitalization. People are not only moving back, but many who a few years ago might have moved away are staying. More significantly, Chicago continues to be an internationally recognized center for commerce and industry, and its airport continues to be the busiest in the world. An important issue that the city and the rest of the state must resolve if Chicago is to become a fully effective member of the state's regional triumvirate is the welfare of its inner-city population. Indeed, along with the agricultural problems in the south and the growth problems of the collar counties, the problems of inner-city residents are a major policy issue facing Illinois.