Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Ernesto Castaneda
 -- 1959 2024-01-19 22:58:32 |
2 layout
Jessie Wu
 Meta information modification 1959 2024-01-22 03:14:56 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Dietz, J.; Li, B.; Castañeda, E. Internal Migration. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54139 (accessed on 02 May 2024).
Dietz J, Li B, Castañeda E. Internal Migration. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54139. Accessed May 02, 2024.
Dietz, Joshua, Bulin Li, Ernesto Castañeda. "Internal Migration" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54139 (accessed May 02, 2024).
Dietz, J., Li, B., & Castañeda, E. (2024, January 19). Internal Migration. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/54139
Dietz, Joshua, et al. "Internal Migration." Encyclopedia. Web. 19 January, 2024.
Internal Migration
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/soc13070162

Migration and urbanization go hand-in-hand, and a country’s economic development is closely linked to its urbanization. There is a strong correlation between urbanization and income per capita, and developing countries are urbanizing much faster than developed countries, a process now occurring over a few decades instead of a century or more as it did in the past.

city growth intercounty moves labor relocation hukou floating population migration urbanization economic development

1. Urbanization and Policy

The United States of America has been urbanizing since the first European settlements. Urbanization accelerated between 1830 and 1930, a period during which the U.S. went from being 9% to 56% urbanized. After more rapid growth from 1940 to 1970, urbanization slowed over the next four decades, stabilizing at 81% as of 2010 [1]. In 2022, the United States’ urbanization rate was around 83% [2].
Research shows that the oldest and largest metropolitan areas in the U.S. are seeing negative net migration and are losing population. By contrast, growth is occurring in the “established midsize, interior cities through all regions of the country” [3]. While there is a steady stream of people migrating out of core cities and into U.S. suburbs, Golding and Winkler [4] caution against declaring the end of urbanization in the U.S. because growth from rural migration is occurring in “exurbs” just outside metropolitan areas. They argue that the nation is still experiencing urbanization but as a phenomenon extending beyond urban cores. The suburb growth rate in the 1950s was 50%, and over 10% in the 1990s, but the share of the metro population living in the core city went from 60% in the 1940’s to less than 40% in the 1990s [1].
Urbanization and economic policies are intertwined, and much of developing countries’ urban acceleration can be explained by new economic systems or government policies and initiatives [5]. China’s economic transformation was the main contributor to the surge in internal migration, with an increasing percentage of jobs created by state, private, and foreign entities. With the normalization of relations between the United States and China following Nixon’s visit to China in 1972, Carter’s reopening of diplomatic relations in 1979, and the entrance of China into the World Trade Organization in 2001, U.S. foreign investment mushroomed, and China became the factory of the world for over a decade. Low labor costs and fewer environmental regulations meant cheap products, savings for U.S. consumers, and larger profits for companies and shareholders [6]. At the same time, jobs in manufacturing cities in the U.S. declined. Once scarce, urban jobs in China became abundant as it further industrialized to meet U.S. and global demand [7]. In recent decades, China’s urban residential migration has become less government-planned and more market-oriented. These driving factors created China’s explosion in internal migration. These relocations resulted in the nation going from a 20% rate of urbanization in 1978 to becoming an officially urban nation in 2011, with 56% of its residents living in urban areas and around 65% in 2022 [8].
Implemented in the 1950s, China’s household registration system (hukou) linked citizens to services based on their housing location and classified them as either agricultural or non-agricultural (urban). Those with an urban designation had access to jobs in cities and received substantially more state-sanctioned benefits, including food and housing. To a large extent, the hukou determined the receipt of benefits and the ability to get an education. A change in hukou registration needed government approval, which was hard to obtain. In 1978, reform to China’s hukou system, which historically has regulated migration and restricted mobility [9][10][11][12][13], partly opened the door for the most rapid urbanization in history, with massive amounts of rural workers migrating to urban areas [11][14]. There have been multiple phases of hukou reform since. While food supply and employment opportunities have not been hukou-based for a few decades, welfare services and benefits are still attached to hukous. These urban benefits center most around education, healthcare, and social security [7]. Only in 2003 were police banned from stopping and deporting people from cities for not having a local hukou [15]. Chan highlights how some local governments have used the hukou system to exploit and discriminate against migrants, regardless of intention, contributing to social gaps between urban and rural populations [9]. According to Zhou and Hui, the hukou system favors wealthier migrants and the highly skilled and educated [13]. Another unintended effect of the hukou was the separation of parents and children over long distances for long periods, similar to transnational families in other parts of the world with similar possible negative effects [16][17].
Some regions have had more support for urbanizing, resulting in economic growth and wealth becoming more concentrated [5][9][14]. Where others have theorized the effects of China’s hukou on migration choices, Zhou and Hui provide empirical evidence detailing how it influences self-selection for migrants [13]. They identify inter-regional selection patterns and describe how immigration policies create “segmented citizenship,” hindering undocumented migrants’ ability to integrate fully. Urbanization and migration have also produced social mobility, moving many families into the middle class, but the urban–rural wage gap remains [5].

2. Moving for Employment

Historically, scholars have considered employment as one of the most prominent factors driving internal migration [18][19][20][21]. Some people move if there is a better job or better pay elsewhere [12][13]. Many former rural residents work in Chinese cities and special economic zones in better-paying jobs, often in manufacturing [11][14] for U.S.-owned companies and for the U.S. market. Therefore, these internal population trends are related.
In examining the continuous decline in U.S. migration, there are disparities in the rates of decline between certain types of relocation and population segments. Annual moves have diminished most at the local level (same county) and among renters [22][23]. Local moves within a county are more likely to be related to changes such as marriage, growing families, and changing housing needs. These are life course events that have shifted as more recent generations wait longer to pursue them.
For the first time in well over a century, young adults (age 18–34) in the U.S. were most likely to live with a parent as of 2014. Chatterji et al. determined that the Affordable Care Act, with its provisions allowing children to stay on their parents’ insurance plan until age 26, had a substantial effect on the likeliness of young adults living with a parent [24]. Millennials between the ages of 25 and 34 account for a disproportionately high percentage of moving adults, but the rate at which they make short-distance moves is the lowest in twenty-five years [22].
Life cycle events affect the labor migration behavior of rural families. The probability of migrant work is higher during the family formation period (the period from marriage to first childbirth). During the expansion of the family, the pressure of child-rearing reduces the probability of migrant work. As the family enters the stable period and the children enter the labor force, the probability of migration increases again [25][26].
According to data from the Chinese Ministry of Civil Affairs, marriage rates in China have declined drastically since 2013. After increasing from 6.3% in 2005 to 9.9% in 2013, the marriage rate dropped to just 5.8% in 2020, the lowest in at least 20 years. Some argue that internal migration has made it harder for people to marry, as the income of migrants is lower compared to long-term urban residents, and cultural differences appear between them and the unmarried people in the villages.
The aging population also plays a role in China’s internal migration patterns. There is a significant inverted U-shaped relationship between age and migration [27][28]. Zhang and colleagues constructed a life table of rural migrant workers and found that from the age of 16 to 41, migrant workers tend to continue working in cities. After the age of 41, the number of migrant workers remaining in cities sharply decreases as they begin returning to family in their locations of origin [29]. Aging, along with a fertility rate under replacement rates, will likely slow internal migration in the years ahead.

3. Close to Home

Cities play a prominent role in migration patterns. “Fast locations”—those with high resident turnover—produced much of the United States’ migration in the late 20th century as they experienced rapid growth [30]. These included metros such as Las Vegas, Phoenix, and Miami. As the number of native-born people increased in these locations and populations’ roots grew deeper, with more people identifying as “from there,” attachment increased, and gross out-migration declined. Coate et al. argue that growth in “home attachment” accounts for a majority (roughly two-thirds) of the United States’ internal migration decline [30].
Furthering the notion of home attachment, research shows that most adults live near their mothers for most of their lives [31]. There are also racial differences in the distance from their mothers at which Blacks and Whites live, with Black adults living significantly closer (<5 miles) than White adults (approximately 10–15 miles), and demographic and socioeconomic factors accounting for much of the difference [31].

4. Geographic Immobility and Social Influences

Schewel [32] argues that there is a “mobility bias” in most migration studies. Scholars consistently focus on migration patterns and their catalysts, overlooking factors that create immobility and identifying themes for those who do not move or are stuck in place. Both economic and noneconomic determinants influence people’s propensity to move and contribute to racial and ethnic differences in migration. Minority households are less likely to migrate internally across relatively long distances that cross state or county borders. However, Black and Hispanic households are much more likely to migrate within the county than White households [33]. Internal migration also increases with education, leaving workers who are less “skilled” and less educated stuck in cities with high unemployment rates [34][35].
Huang and Butts proposed the concept of segmented immobility, arguing that internal migration is more relational than geographic because most people want to live near those who are similar to them along lines that are important to them [36]. They analyzed the impact of political partisanship, urbanization, and race on intercounty migrations from 2011 to 2015 and found that these factors immobilized migration between dissimilar counties, a significant finding as the U.S. becomes more politically divided, with a large percentage of the U.S. population living in neighborhoods comprised almost entirely of residents who vote like them [37].
In China, the mobility of some citizens is restricted based on their inability to become homeowners or live in certain areas because of their hukou status. In some cities, the requirements to obtain local hukou are unattainable [7][13] and can deter potential migrants. In the U.S., rising costs of living contribute to where people migrate [38] and may factor into whether people choose to relocate or even have the ability to do so. A study conducted by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation indicates there have been steep declines in affordable (unsubsidized) housing for very low-income renters. In costly states such as California, even median-income households saw the number of apartments considered to be affordable cut nearly in half between 2010 and 2016 [39]. A few years ago, the top 10% of counties with the highest housing costs (by % of income) accounted for one-third of the United States’ population growth. In 2021, those counties saw net losses in population, while counties with more modest housing costs experienced population growth [38].
Therefore, while international migration is relatively rare, less than 4% of the world's population, internal migration is constant. Rural-to-urban migration causes urbanization, but also internal migration patterns, even between cities and metropolitan regions, can have large social, economic, and political consequences for countries. Furthermore, something that escaped many researchers in the past is that internal migration patterns in a given country may be caused by policy decisions happening in other countries (e.g., offshoring, neoliberalism, colonization, de-industrialization) or how internal migration leading to industrialization abroad can have large effects locally such as increasing inequality, creating more complex supply chains, or creating certain dependency on imports. Thus, studying international and internal migration in tandem with demographic and socio-economic changes can give researchers a better sense of global systems and dynamics.  

References

  1. Boustan, L.P.; Shertzer, A. Population Trends as a Counterweight to Central City Decline, 1950–2000. Demography 2013, 50, 125–147.
  2. CSS, U.S. Cities Factsheet. Center for Sustainable Systems, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. Available online: https://css.umich.edu/publications/factsheets/built-environment/us-cities-factsheet (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  3. Mangum, K. No More Californias. Econ. Insights 2020, 5, 8–13.
  4. Golding, S.A.; Winkler, R.L. Tracking Urbanization and Exurbs: Migration Across the Rural–Urban Continuum, 1990-2016. Popul. Res. Policy Rev. 2020, 39, 835–859.
  5. Henderson, J.V. Cities and Development. J. Reg. Sci. 2010, 50, 515–540.
  6. Jaravel, X.; Sager, E. Trade with China Benefited US Consumers. LSE Bus. Rev. 2019. Available online: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/businessreview/2019/08/20/trade-with-china-benefited-us-consumers/ (accessed on 4 May 2023).
  7. Zhou, Y. Reform inside the System or Development Outside the System?—The Choice of Hukou Reform Path of Big Cities. Contemp. Econ. Res. 2020, 1, 74–82.
  8. Hou, M. A Literature Review of Research About Citizen Relocation Issues. J. Cap. Norm. Univ. 2014, 3, 95–100.
  9. Chan, K.W. Internal Migration in China: Integrating Migration with Urbanization Policies and Hukou Reform. KNOMAD Policy Note 2021, 16, 9.
  10. Au, C.-C.; Henderson, J. How Migration Restrictions Limit Agglomeration and Productivity in China. J. Dev. Econ. 2006, 80, 350–388.
  11. Chan, K.W.; Zhang, L. The Hukou System and Rural-Urban Migration in China: Processes and Changes. China Q. 1999, 160, 818–855.
  12. Chauvin, J.P.; Glaeser, E.; Ma, Y.; Tobio, K. What Is Different about Urbanization in Rich and Poor Countries? Cities in Brazil, China, India and the United States. J. Urban Econ. 2017, 98, 17–49.
  13. Zhou, J.; Hui, E.C.-M. The Hukou System and Selective Internal Migration in China. Pap. Reg. Sci. 2022, 101, 461–482.
  14. Shi, L.; Chen, W.; Xu, J.; Ling, L. Trends and Characteristics of Inter-Provincial Migrants in Mainland China and Its Relation with Economic Factors: A Panel Data Analysis from 2011 to 2016. Sustainability 2020, 12, 610.
  15. Gardner, B.M. China’s Great Migration: How the Poor Built a Prosperous Nation|Bradley M. Gardner; Independent Institute: Oakland, CA, USA, 2017.
  16. Castañeda, E.; Buck, L. Remittances, Transnational Parenting, and the Children Left Behind: Economic and Psychological Implications. Lat. Am. 2011, 55, 85–110.
  17. Castañeda, E.; Buck, L. A Family of Strangers: Transnational Parenting and the Consequences of Family Separation Due to Undocumented Migration. In Hidden Lives and Human Rights in America: Understanding the Controversies and Tragedies of Undocumented Immigration; Lorentzen, L.A., Ed.; Praeger: Santa Barbara, CA, USA, 2014.
  18. Chen, Y.; Rosenthal, S.S. Local Amenities and Life-Cycle Migration: Do People Move for Jobs or Fun? J. Urban Econ. 2008, 64, 519–537.
  19. Greenwood, M.J.; Hunt, G.L. Jobs versus Amenities in the Analysis of Metropolitan Migration. J. Urban Econ. 1989, 25, 1–16.
  20. Muth, R.F. Migration: Chicken or Egg? South. Econ. J. 1971, 37, 295–306.
  21. Yang, S.; Shu, T.; Yu, T. Migration for Better Jobs or Better Living: Shifts in China. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2022, 19, 14576.
  22. Frey, W.H.U.S. Migration Still at Historically Low Levels, Census Shows; Brookings: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
  23. US Census Bureau CPS Historical Migration/Geographic Mobility Tables. Available online: https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/geographic-mobility/historic.html (accessed on 27 June 2023).
  24. Chatterji, P.; Liu, X.; Yörük, B.K. Health Insurance and the Boomerang Generation: Did the 2010 ACA Dependent Care Provision Affect Geographic Mobility and Living Arrangements among Young Adults? Contemp. Econ. Policy 2022, 40, 243–262.
  25. Lin, S. Family Migration and Housing Tenure Choice: Empirical Evidence from 25 Chinese Cities. Econ. Geogr. 2021, 5, 95–102. (In Chinese)
  26. Liang, L.; Lin, S.; Zhang, Z. Effect of the Family Life Cycle on the Family Farm Scale in Southern China. Agric. Econ. Zemědělská Ekon. 2015, 61, 429–440.
  27. Chakraborty, D.; Kuri, P.K. The Household Level Determinants in the Choice and Level of Migration: A Micro Study in West Bengal. Environ. Urban. ASIA 2017, 8, 94–104.
  28. Hiwatari, M. Social Networks and Migration Decisions: The Influence of Peer Effects in Rural Households in Central Asia. J. Comp. Econ. 2016, 44, 1115–1131.
  29. Zhang, J.; Du, Z.; Qiao, X. Employment and Urbanization of Migrant Workers: An Age Structure/Lifecycle Approach. Chin. J. Popul. Sci. 2008, 6, 8–18.
  30. Coate, P.; Mangum, K.; Lambie-Hanson, T. Fast Locations and Slowing Labor Mobility; Working paper (Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia); Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2021; p. 120.
  31. Choi, H.; Schoeni, R.; Xu, H.; Reyes, A.; Thomas, D. Proximity to Mother over the Life Course in the United States: Overall Patterns and Racial Differences. Demogr. Res. 2021, 45, 769–806.
  32. Schewel, K. Understanding Immobility: Moving Beyond the Mobility Bias in Migration Studies. Int. Migr. Rev. 2020, 54, 328–355.
  33. Duca, B. Socioeconomics of Modern-Day Migration within the United States: Determinants and Economic Implications Across Race and Ethnicity. Ph.D. Thesis, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA, 2022.
  34. Moretti, E. What Workers Lose by Staying Put. Wall Str. J. 2012. Available online: https://online.wsj.com/arti-cle/SB10001424052702303610504577420701942867414.html (accessed on 27 May 2023).
  35. Badger, E.; Gebeloff, R.; Katz, J. Coastal Cities Priced Out Low-Wage Workers. Now College Graduates Are Leaving, Too. The New York Times. 15 May 2023. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2023/05/15/upshot/migrations-college-super-cities.html (accessed on 27 May 2023).
  36. Huang, P.; Butts, C.T. Rooted America: Immobility and Segregation of the Inter-County Migration Networks. arXiv 2022, arXiv:2205.02347.
  37. Brown, J.R.; Enos, R.D. The Measurement of Partisan Sorting for 180 Million Voters. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2021, 5, 998–1008.
  38. Gebeloff, R.; Goldstein, D.; Hu, W. Cities Lost Population in 2021, Leading to the Slowest Year of Growth in U.S. History. The New York Times. 24 March 2022. Available online: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/24/us/census-2021-population-growth.html (accessed on 27 June 2023).
  39. Schuetz, J. Yet More Evidence That Housing Affordability Is Getting Worse; Brookings: Washington, DC, USA, 2017.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Demography
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Joshua Dietz
,
Bulin Li
,
Ernesto Castañeda
View Times: 190
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 22 Jan 2024
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback