DEMOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH
IN SEVEN CITIES OF CENTRAL JAVA : 1961-1971
by
RININGSIH SALADI
A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirement for the degree of Master of Arts in Demography in the Australian National University
Canberra, March 1981.
' UBRARY O DECLARATION
Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is my own work.
Riningsih Saladi i
DEMOGRAPHIC COMPONENTS OF POPULATION GROWTH
IN SEVEN CITIES OF CENTRAL JAVA : 1961-1971
ABSTRACT
This thesis presents the results of an attempt to estimate, through the use of demographic analysis, the components of population growth in the seven cities of Central Java having municipal statuses. Special tabulation runs on the 1971
Population Census of Indonesia are the main source of data for the estimates. The average crude birth rates during the period
1961-1971 were obtained by multiplying the 1971 population age distributions by the given age specific fertility rates during the period assuming little change in the age structure. The average crude death rates and crude net migration rates were obtained from the life tables produced by the Brass method, West
Model Life Tables and the logit system. The results indicate that the cities experienced mostly net out migration, which in some cases was explained by overspill beyond the official city's boundaries. ii
CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT i
LIST OF TABLES iV
LIST OF FIGURES V
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION 1
1.1 Research Problem 1
1.2 Predominant Characteristics of the Seven Cities 3
1.3 The Approach 8
2 AGEDISTRIBUTION 10
2.1 The Importance of Age Distribution 10
2.2 The Reliability of Age Data 12
2.3 Differences in Age Distribution 16
2.4 Conclusion 20
3 FERTILITY AND MORTALITY 23
3.1 Fertility 23
3.1.1 Age at First Marriage 23
3.1.2 Measures of Fertility 32
3.2 Mortality 36
3.2.1 Estimation of Life Table 37
3.2.2 Crude Death Rate 41
3.3 Conclusion 41
4 MIGRATION 43
4.1 Estimation of Net Migration 43
4.2 Characteristics of Inmigrants from Other Provinces 52
4.2.1 Age at Migration and Sex 54
4.2.2 Marital Status and Duration of Residence 56 iii
Page
4.3 Motives for Moving 60
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS 62
APPENDICES 67 iv
LIST OF TABLES
Table Title Page
1.1 Some Characteristics of the Seven Cities 2
2.1 Deviation of Per Cent Blended Population from Ten by Terminal Digit in the Seven Cities of Central Java and Indonesia, 1971 14
2.2 Scores for Age and Sex Ratios for Quinquennial Groups for the Seven Cities in Central Java and Indonesia, 1971 17
2.3 Percentage of Population in Various Age Groups, Median Age and Dependency Ratio (1971) and Population Growth Rates (1961-1971) for the Seven Cities and Jakarta 18
3.1 Percentage of Women Single by Age Group and Singulate Mean Age at Marriage for the Seven Cities in Central Java, 1971 25
3.2 Percentages of Single Women Aged 15-19 Attaining Primary School Plus and Percentages of Population Who Are Moslem, for the Seven Cities in Central Java, 1971 25
3.3 Percentage of Single Women in Selected Age Groups and Years in Java 28
3.4 Percentages of Single Women Aged 15-19 for Provinces in Selected Series of Population Surveys 28
3.5 Percentage of Women with No Schooling by Age, for the Seven Cities in Central Java, 1971 30
3.6 Trend of Fertility Rates at Ages 15-19 for the Seven Cities in Central Java, 1961-71 30
3.7 Mean Number of Children Ever Born, Born to Ever Married Women of the Seven Cities in Central Java, by Age, 1971 34
3.8 Average Age Specific Fertility Rates and Total Fertility Rates During 1961-1970 for the Seven Cities of Central Java 34
3.9 Estimates of Q(2), Q(3) and Q(5) Using Brass' Method and 'West' Level of Mortality, for the Seven Cities of Central Java, 1971 38
3.10 Standard Logit l-I(xs) for Males and Females of the Seven Cities in Central Java 42
4.1 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Semarang 45
4.2 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Salatiga ' 46
4.3 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Tegal 47 V
Table Title Page
4.4 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Magelang 48
4.5 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Surakarta 49
4.6 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Yogyakarta 50
4.7 Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Pekalongan 51
4.8 The Calculation of the Average Annual Rates of Net Migration During 1961-1971, for the Seven Cities in Central Java 52
4.9 Number and Sex of Inmigrants to the Seven Cities of Central Java from Other Provinces, 1961-1971 54
4.10 Percentage Distribution of Migrants to the Seven Cities in Central Java from Other Provinces by Age at Migration, 1971 55
4.11 Percentage of Inmigrants to the Seven Cities in Central Java from Other Provinces, by Sex and Age at Migration, 19'71 57
4.12 Percentaqe Distribution of Inmigrants to the Seven Cities in Central Java from Other Provinces bv Current Age, Duration of Residence, Marital Status, and Activities, 1971 58
5.1 Rates and Components of Population Growth for the Seven Cities of Central Java 62
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Age-Sex Distribution of the Cities 21 2.1
Map Site of Seven Cities in Central Java 4 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Research Problem
This thesis considers the overall level of population growth
in seven cities of Central Java, namely Semarang, Salatiga,
Tegal, Magelang, Surakarta, Yogyakarta and Pekalongan. During
the decade 1961-1971, these cities experienced low growth rates
compared to Jakarta, the capital city of Indonesia. In this
decade Jakarta"s population grew at 4.6% per annum (McNicoll et
al,1973:47) while that of the seven cities grew much more slowly
(Table 1.1). The rates of population growth for the seven cities
differ from one another quite substantially (indicated by this
table) and the factors contributing to these differences form a
research problem of as much interest and importance as their
overall low rate of growth when compared to Jakarta. Therefore,
the main focus of this research will be to explain the variations
in population growth of the seven cities in terms of the
demographic components of growth.
The components of population growth of a city are births,
deaths, migration and changes of boundary definitions. Because
there were no annexations or detachments of rural areas to or
from any of the seven cities during the intercensal decade of
1961-1971, the components of population growth in this study are
only natural increase (the difference between the numbers of
births and deaths) and net migration (the difference between the
numbers of in-migrants and out-migrants). Page 2
Table 1.1
Some Characteristics of the Seven Cities
CHARACTER SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK ISTICS
Pop. :
(1).1961 503153 58135 89016 96454 367626 312648 102380
(2).1971 641795 69668 105481 109938 413077 340908 110865
% rate of growth* 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.2 .9 .8
Density:*)
(3).1961 5062 3844 7026 5323 8478 9265 5966
(4) .1971 6457 4608 8325 6067 9527 10101 6461
(7).Number of industries:
(5).M size 303 12 136 74 887 629 391
(6).L size 126 2 20 8 101 54 22
Number of univ.: 2 1 -- 3 6 -
(8) Site Coastal Upland Coastal Upland Lowland Lowland Coastal port non-port non-port
Source: (1),(3),(5),(6),(7) Milone:1966 (2) Central Bureau of Statistics, 1971 Census, Series E (4) Subset, 1971 Census (8) Withington:1963 Note : * annual, geometric *) per square Km. M = medium; L = large Page 3
Despite this, the absence of boundary changes may still be
important in explaining low growth rates as some of these cities may well have experienced suburbanization outside the official boundary. For example, in Yogyakarta, many government employees have moved out of congested areas in the city centre to new housing estates outside the city boundary.
The seven cities are the only cities in Central Java having municipal status. To gain this status, a city must fulfil two main criteria. Namely, they must have a population of at least
50,000 and be a capital of either a province, residency or
regency (Milone, 1966:65). Furthermore, cities designated as municipalities are functionally more important than the other
cities in the sense of their role in regional development
planning. Out of the seven cities, Semarang, Yogyakarta,
Surakarta and Magelang are planned to become secondary growth
poles after the primary centres; which are Medan, Jakarta,
Surabaya and Ujung Pandang (Sugijanto et al,1976:77). A
secondary growth pole is a center for stimulating development at
a regional level.
1.2 Predominant Character-istics of the Seven Cities
Most of the discussion concerning the characteristics of the
seven cities is developed from Table 1.1 and Map 1.1. By showing
the distribution of the seven cities, this map displays the types
of "site" of these cities, a term which refers to the actual
physical characteristics of the location on which a city is built
(Berry et al,1977:11). The three types of site are shown in
Table 1.1. M A P 1.1 SITE OF SEVEN CITIES IN CENTRAL JAVA Seele 1: 1.400.000 ae 4 Page
LEGEND Page 5
In historic time, these physical characteristics played an
important role in population growth.
In 1971, the seven cities ranged in size from 69,668 people
in Salatiga, to 641,795 people in Semarang, which is the capital city of the province of Central Java. In addition to this
administrative function, the city of Semarang is both capital of
the regency and the residency of Semarang. Also, Semarang, in
1971, was the fourth largest city in Indonesia after Jakarta
(4,576,009), Surabaya(l,332,249) and Bandung(1,201,730).
Semarang has a higher rate of growth than Bandung(2.1%), and a
rate .3% lower than Surabaya. 1) However this comparison may be
somewhat misleading as the population growth in the areas
surrounding Bandung and Surabaya would have been greater than in
the areas around Semarang.
Semarang not only has the largest population among the seven
cities, but it also has the largest city area (99.40 sq.Km) and
the most large-scale industry. The population density of
Semarang is therefore lower than that of Surakarta or Yogyakarta,
which have city areas of only 43.36 and 33.75 sq.Km.,
respectively. Among the cities located in the coastal areas only
Semarang maintains its status as a city port. Pekalongan is no
longer a city port because of silting of the rivers and the
increasing size of ships. In terms of higher education
functions, one of the existing universities in Semarang,
Diponegoro University, has attracted students from all over
Indonesia.
1) The 1961-1971 rate of growth for Surabaya of 2.8 per cent refers to the growth rate based on the 1961 boundaries of Surabaya. In fact, between 1961 and 1971, the boundary of Surabaya was extended to take account of the expansion of the n i HfTMrr'in rl i 4- c K/-\i m v i Page 6
Although Salatiga is the smallest city, its rate of growth is second to that of Semarang. The population density though, and the number of industries for this city are the lowest.
Satyawacana University, a privately owned religious university, is located here. The higher proportion of Christians (10%) in this city may be closely related to its being a Protestant educational centre.
Surakarta and Yogyakarta are the second and third largest cities. Like Semarang, Yogyakarta is a provincial capital, being the capital of the Yogyakarta Special Region, which is at the same level as a province. The two cities, Yogyakarta and
Surakarta have some similarities. Both are former court cities, located in a central position on a fertile agricultural plain.
In addition to this, the "batik" industry with its research centre and silverwork handicrafts make Yogyakarta and Surakarta the outstanding centres of Javanese culture and art. The designation of Yogyakarta as a student city is due to the great number of higher educational institutions which exist in this city. Gadjah Mada University is one of the oldest, largest and most highly regarded universities in Indonesia, and is in fact
the main stimulus for the extension of these institutions. The
Academy of Art and Music reflects Yogyakarta"s role as a centre of Javanese culture.
Three of the cities have populations of about the same size.
They are Tegal, Magelang and Pekalongan. These cities have, however, experienced substantial differences in population growth, population density and industrial development. With
respect to their physical background, fishing is an important
source of livelihood for Tegal and Pekalongan, and in the case of Magelang, its upland site is cooler during the dry season. The existence of a school for fishermen in Tegal is closely related to the presence of this natural resource. The existence of a military academy in Magelang, has meant that this city has become a garrison city.
Map 1.1 does not only show the distribution of the seven cities, but also indicates that Tegal, Pekalongan, Semarang,
Surakarta and Yogyakarta are situated on the railroad connecting
Jakarta and Surabaya. Therefore, they can act as alternative centres of attraction for people moving to the largest cities if the regional planning development mentioned above is realized.
As a rule, population growth of an area is positively related to the processes of social and economic development in the area. Therefore, we may expect higher growth rates for cities having, for example, more industries and schools than those cities having fewer or no such components of growth. 1)
This relationship is easily identified in some cities, generally those located outside of Java. Extractive industries, such as petroleum and timber have led Pakanbaru and Samarinda to grow in the decade of the 1960s at the very high rates of 7.4% and 7.0% per annum, respectively (McNicoll et al,1973:47). For the seven cities, as briefly shown in Table 1.1 or as evidenced by other characteristics, the above expectation is not easily identified.
The relationship between population growth and demographic processes is more easily identified than that with the
socioeconomic processes.
1) It should be realized, however, that this is not necessarily always the case. As the declining textile towns of New England testify, it is not the number of industries or schools in a city that determine its growth rate, but rather the prospects for future industrial and educational development. However, in the developing country situation, the relationship between population growth and the number of industries and schools is likely to be stronger. Page 8
1.3 The Approach
The explanation of the variation in population growth for the seven cities in terms of demographic components of growth will be preceded by a discussion and evaluation of the age distribution of the population of each city. For this purpose the subset of the 1971 Census becomes the main source of data because the 1961 Census only provides data on the total population for each city. It is worth noting that the subset is a special tabulation run of the 1971 Population Census of
Indonesia which covered 3.8 per cent of the total population of
Indonesia (Cho, 1976:78). According to the availability of data, it is expected that cities showing higher rates of growth will have younger age distributions than those showing lower rates of growth. Besides, the age distributions may provide some insight into the interaction of demographic processes during the past decades.
The estimated components of growth are obtained indirectly
from life tables for both sexes for each city and age specific
fertility rates for each city arrived at by the "own children" method (Cho et al,1976:18-19). The life tables are used to
estimate the crude death rate and the crude net migration rate,
and the fertility rates are used to estimate the crude birth
rate. This estimation procedure is necessitated by the
unavailability of vital statistics and statistics on migration.
Since all the three components of growth are to be estimated, the
rate of growth derived from these components may not match the
observed population growth between the two census counts. Thus
the consistency between the two calculated rates of growth serves Page 9 as a means of evaluating the results.
To simplify the analysis, the seven cities will sometimes be divided into four groups; they are firstly Semarang, secondly
Salatiga and Tegal, thirdly Magelang and Surakarta, and lastly
Yogyakarta and Pekalongan. The grouping is based on the observed pace of population growth; cities having about the same rate being grouped together. Page 10
CHAPTER 2
AGE DISTRIBUTION
2.1 The Importance of Age Distribution
The study of population growth in terms of the demographic components of growth, births, deaths and migration, generally requires vital statistics and statistics on migration. In the absence of these statistics, the age distribution of a population plays an important role as it is useful for tracing back or for forecasting the components of growth so that the pace of growth can be explained. However, the contribution of each component in fixing the observed rate of growth will not be known precisely.
In this thesis, the age distribution of the population is important because vital statistics are not available. As age data are only available from the subset of the 1971 Census, these data are used for tracing back the components of growth in line with the purpose of the study of population growth during the decade 1961-1971.
The importance of the age distribution for tracing back the components of growth is due to the fact that age distribution of a population at any point of time is a result of the interaction of the number of births, deaths and migrations of the past decades. In a life table or stationary population, the age distribution is smooth because the number of persons at each age
is greater than the number at the next older age. Actual populations, however, experience varying numbers of births and deaths and some of them are subject to large migrant streams. As a result, the population may not exhibit a smooth age distribution. However, irregularities in the age distribution Page 11 cannot always be attributed to fluctuations in the number of births, deaths and migration changes in the population but can also be attributed to errors in age reporting as well as errors of coverage. It is important, therefore, to consider the accuracy of the recorded age data.
The explanation that the age distribution is important for forecasting the components of growth is basically biological, and the biological potential for influencing the pace of growth varies according to age. In terms of births, only women in the age range of about 15-49 are exposed to the risk of pregnancy; in terms of deaths, the risk of dying starts high at birth, falls rapidly to a minimum at about age 10 and thereafter increases throughout life (Pollard et al,1975:59-76). In terms of migrations, people at late adolescent and young adult ages are more exposed to the risk of migrating than the other ages as evidenced by the fact that in both internal and external migrations these age groups are usually preponderant. Although these people are often migrating to their first job, they adjust themselves more easily to their new environment than people in other age groups (Clarke,1965:124). Accordingly, a population having larger proportions in the childbearing and low-mortality ages tends to grow faster than one having smaller proportions of people in these categories. This natural growth is then either impeded or accelerated by the loss or gain of population through net migration to produce overall growth.
Finally, the age distribution and components of growth are in a reciprocal relationship, that is, the age distribution affects the demographic processes, while in turn, these processes affect the age distribution. Page 12
Ideally, of course, data on age distributions for subsequent points of time are available. This would mean that contributions of births, deaths and migrations would be more easily inferred from the changes of age distribution. The most detailed manner of analysis would be to examine changes in numbers of persons by single years of age, however, there are two major problems with that approach. First, for a large data set (one hundred separate age intervals, for example) it is difficult to detect major trends, and second, the possibility of errors is great. Instead, analysis is usually based on grouped age data.
Ways used in the examination of age distribution for tracing back or for forecasting the components of population growth are usually in the form of a table or a pyramid which group the age data, or in the form of an index, whether a median age or a dependecy ratio.
2.2 The Reliability of Age Data
Mis-reportings of age are usually dominated by errors of the
digital preference type, that is, a person"s age is rounded to
ages ending in certain digits. In order to check digit
preference in the single-year age reportings, Myers" index was
calculated for both males and females, using the ages 10-49 as
input. As shown in Table 2.1 digit preference or age heaping
occurs as usual at ages ending in 5 and 0, and the extent of
heaping is higher for terminal digit 0 than for 5. Furthermore,
negative deviations for the other digits indicate unpopular ages
and accordingly, fewer persons at these ages. The sum of
absolute deviations, or Myers" index, is higher for females than
that for males. When the indices for the seven cities are Page 13 compared to those of the urban population of all Indonesia, the table indicates that in the seven cities the indices for females are generally higher, whereas those for males are generally lower than for the Indonesian urban population as a whole.
In addition to the large number of people who reported their ages ending in digits 0 and 5, the 1971 Census for the whole of
Indonesia indicates a comparatively large number of people who reported their ages with terminal digits 1 and 6. This unusual
feature proved to be a result of the rounding of year of birth to calendar years ending in 0 and 5 (McDonald, et al.1976:13).
In fact, the possibility of errors in age data are most
serious when age classification is based on single years, less
serious when 5-year categories are used, and least serious when
age distributions are grouped into even larger categories such as
"less than 15 years old," "15 to 59 years of age," and "60 years
of age and over. Page 14
Table 2.1
Deviation of Per Cent Blended Population From Ten by Terminal Digit in the Seven Cities of Central Java and Indonesia,1971
CITY Terminal digit
5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 Sum*
SEM
M 3.5 -1.3 -2.1 - .0 - .9 5.8 - .7 - .4 -1.4 -2.4 18.6
F 6.3 -1.6 -2.1 - .5 -1.8 8.1 -1.8 -1.6 -2.1 -2.8 28.8
SAL
M 3.5 -1.2 -1.8 -3.3 -2.1 6.7 - .1 - .7 -1.4 -2.7 20.4
F 5.5 .0 -1.6 .8 -1.5 5.9 -1.3 -2.5 -2.1 -3.2 24.5
TEG
M 5.9 -3.1 - .4 - .6 - .9 8.4 -2.4 -1.7 -2.1 -3.1 28.7
F 9.6 -2.1 -1.6 - .4 -3.6 12.6 -4.3 -1.7 -4.6 -4.0 44.4
MAG
M 4.5 - .4 -1.9 -1.2 - .7 3.9 .2 -1.7 -1.0 -1.7 17.4
F 5.1 -1.9 -2.1 .2 - .9 9.5 -3.3 .7 -3.2 -4.0 30-9
SUR
M 3.7 -1.3 -1.0 - .1 -1.6 5.5 -1.4 -1.0 -1.0 -1.9 18.5
F 4.3 -1.8 - .3 - .0 -2.1 7.7 -1.9 -1.6 -2.1 -2.2 24.1
YOG
M 3.5 -1.9 -1.1 .3 -1.1 5.6 -1.1 - .3 -1.8 -2.2 19.0
F 6.1 -1.2 -1.2 .2 -2.0 8.6 -2.5 -2.4 -2.1 -3.5 29.8
PER
M 8.6 -2.1 -1.3 -1.4 -3.4 13.0 -1.7 -2.6 -5.1 -4.1 43.4
F 13.2 -1.6 -3.0 -1.7 -4.9 14.8 -3.0 -2.9 -5.0 -5.9 55.9 Page 15
Table 2.1 cont.
IND*)
M 4.7 -1.1 -1.1 .0 -1.3 5.6 - .9 -1.1 -2.4 -2.6 20.7
F 5.9 -1.0 -1.4 - .1 -2.0 7.4 -1.6 -1.9 -2.4 -2.9 26.7
Source: Subset, 1971 Census *) Central Bureau of Statistics, 1971 Census, Series E Note : * of absulute deviations; M=males; F=females
A method (United Nations, 1952:23) developed by the United
Nations Secretariat is used to check the accuracy of age data
after being grouped into 5-year age intervals. This method is
based on the assumption that the sex ratios and the numbers in
each age group should change smoothly with increasing age and it
attempts to measure the differences which occur from a steady
trend. The indices are called the sex ratio score, the age ratio
score, and the joint score as the combination of the first two
scores. However, when the United Nations approach is applied to
areas such as a city, it is important to remember that observed
distortions in the age-sex structure may not be due to
inaccuracies but rather to the impact of migration.
Table 2.2 indicates that the differences of each score among
the cities are substantial. Compared to the score for urban
Indonesia, most of the seven cities have much higher scores
Those cities having scores of less than that of the average, are
Surakarta for the sex ratio score, Surakarta and Semarang for the
male age ratio score, Salatiga and Semarang for the female age
ratio score, and Semarang and Surakarta for the joint score. Page 16
Age mis-statements can also be examined using population pyramids, because irregularities can reflect faults in the data.
If this is the case, for the seven cities, only Semarang"s population distribution has no marked irregularities (Figure
2.1). Besides mis-statements of age, the 1971 Census of
Indonesia indicates an underenumeration, especially of those aged
0 (McNicoll et al,1973:7) . The smaller proportion of population
aged 0-4 than those aged 5-9 indicated by the population pyramid
for Yogyakarta, may be due to the underenumeration of children
under 1 year of age.
2.3 Differences in Age Distribution
As has been stated earlier, the age distribution of a
population influences its growth; it is therefore expected that
differences in population growth will be reflected in differences
of age distribution. Figure 2.1 as well as Table 2.3 indicate
that the populations in the seven cities of Central Java in 1971
were heavily weighted in the young age group of 0-14. The table
also indicates the same phenomenon for Jakarta. Consequently, a
great potential for growth during 1961-1971 was expected to be
observed. Actually the table indicates substantial growth only
for Jakarta and Semarang, moderate growth for Salatiga and Tegal,
and low growth for the rest of the cities.
The exception to the above general phenomenon is Yogykarta;
that is, the proportion of population in age group 15-34 is
higher than in age group 0-14, and it is highest compared to the
other cities. The higher proportion of population in age group
15-34 in Yogyakarta is largely explained by the existence of a
large number of schools and universities in the city. The Page 17 age-pyramid (Figure 2.1) shows that the students are concentrated in the age range of 15-24 years old.
Table 2.2
Scores for Age and Sex Ratios for Quinquennial Groups for the Seven Cities in Central Java and Indonesia,1971
Scores SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK IND.*)
Sex ratio 9.8 20.5 17.3 15.4 6.9 12.4 18.3 7.8
Age ratio:
Male 5.8 15.8 16.7 10.9 6.1 10.4 12.5 7.4
Female 6.2 11.3 12.0 17.4 12.0 12.2 27.4 11.4
Joint score 41.4 88.7 80.7 74.4 38.9 59.9 94.8 42.2
Source: Subset, 1971 Census :*) Central Bureau of Statistics, 1971 Census, Series E Note :*) Indonesia urban Page 18
Table 2.3
Percentage of Population in Various Age Groups, Median Age and Dependency Ratio (1971), and Population Growth Rates (1961-1971) for the Seven Cities and Jakarta
CHARACTER SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PER JAR*) ISTICS
AGE
0-14 39.7 40.6 39.8 39.3 37.9 35.5 37.9 43.0
15-34 33.2 31.4 33.4 31.4 32.5 37.7 32.5 37.2
35-59 22.8 23.0 22.8 23.5 23.4 21.0 25.4 17.1
60 + 4.3 5.1 4.0 5.8 6.3 5.7 4.2 2.6
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Med. age 19.8 18.8 19.0 19.6 20.0 20.2 20.3 18.1
Dep. ratio 79.0 84.0 78.0 82.0 79.0 70.0 73.0 84.0
Rate of gr. 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.2 .9 .8 4.6
Source: Subset, 1971 Census :*) Central Bureau of Statistics, 1971 Census, Series E Note :Med.=median; Dep.=dependency; gr.=growth; JAK=Jakarta
Looking at the sex ratios of age group 15-24 for the seven
cities, the pyramid indicates that for Tegal, Magelang and
Yogyakarta, there are more males than females in this age group.
It is likely that for" Tegal and Magelang, this phenomenon is
related to schools which are only available for males; they are,
the School for Fishermen in Tegal and the Military Academy in
Magelang. As for Yogyakarta, the high sex ratio (128 males per
100 females) in age group 20-24 may reflect priority for boys
over girls for furthering education to the university level.
Greater emphasis on higher education for males compared to
females in Java more generally is evident from the proportions of
population aged 5 years and over who were enumerated in the 1971 Page 19
Census as still attending school.
The lower proportion of population in the age group 0-14 in
Yogyakarta compared to the other cities in Central Java may indicate a lower crude birth rate here compared to those in the other cities. This conclusion is supported by the lower crude birth rate in Yogyakarta Special Region than in Central Java province during the decade 1960-1970; these rates being 37 per
1000 and 42 per 1000, respectively (McNicoll et al,1973:45).
In terms of the proportion of the population aged 0-14, the seven cities" populations are older than the population of
Jakarta because these proportions are lower. This suggests that the population growth rate of Jakarta is higher than the overall population growth rate in the seven cities, which is indeed the case. For the seven cities, this phenomenon, that is the relationship between the proportion aged 0-14 and growth, applies in the expected direction for all cities except Semarang and
Pekalongan. If the age distribution of each city is measured by the median age, instead of proportion of population aged 0-14, the relation between age distribution and growth is mostly confirmed, the only exception being Semarang, where migration may serve to inflate the numbers in the working ages.
A median age is an age which divides a population into two equal parts, half above the median age and half below it. Table
2.3 also shows the dependency ratio which indicates the number of the non-productive population to every 100 population in the productive age range. With respect to economic development, the dependency ratio is a useful concept because economic development is related in several ways to age distribution. Their Page 20 relationship is inverse, as high dependency ratio is a hindrance to economic development. The non-productive population in Table
2.3 are indicated by those in the age groups 0-14 and 60+, whereas the productive population are those in the age range
15-59. The table shows that Jakarta has a higher dependency ratio than all the cities in Central Java.
2.4 Conclusion
The age distributions of the seven cities were not very different because they were concentrated in the age group of
0-14. The only exception was Yogyakarta. The analysis of age structure is a necessary preliminary step in the calculation of crude birth and death rates, but the similarity of the age
structures does not give any clear picture as to the causes of
the inter-city differences in growth rates. Therefore, the next
chapter is concerned mainly with estimation of the components of
natural increase. 85-99 Page 21 80-84 figure 2.1 75-79 * 70-74 ~k Age-Sex D istriburion * 65-69 of tue cities ** 60-64 k k *** 55-59 k k k **** 50-54 ***** ***** 45-49 k k k k k k m al e******* 40-44 ******* f emal e ******** 35-39 ********* *-*•****•*■* 30-34 ********* ******* 25-29 ********** * ********* 20-24 ************ k *-Jr *** * ** * * * * 15-19 ************** * * ** * * * ** * * * -k * * * 10-14 *************** **************** 5- 9 ***************** ****************** 0- 4 ****************** S em aran g
85-99 80-84 * 75-79 * * 70-74 ** * 65-69 ** ** 60-64 ** *** 55-59 *-*** ***** 50-54 **** ***** 45-49 ****** m ale ******** 40-44 ******* f em a l e ******* 35-39 ********** ******* 30-34 ********* ****** 25-29 ******** ********* 20-24 ********* *************** 15-19 **************** ***************** 10-14 **************** **************** 5- 9 ***************** ****************** 0- 4 ************** * * * S a l a t i g a
85-99 - - 80-84 75-79 k 70-74 k * 65-69 * • ** 60-64 ** *** 55-59 ****
***** 1 ***** 4> 0 s/l ****** 45-49 ***** male ******* 40-44 ******** i emal e ******* 35-39 ********* ****** 30-34 ******** ******** 25-29’ ********* ************ 20-24 ********* ***************** 15-19 **************** ***************** 10-14 **************** *************** 5- 9 ************** ******************* 0- 4 ******************* •re g a l Page 22
2 ^
8 5 - 9 9 k 8 5 - 9 9 8 0 - 8 4 k 8 0 - 8 4 k 7 5 -7 9 'k 7 5 - 7 9 k k 7 0 - 7 4 kk * 7 0 -7 4 kk kk 6 5 - 6 9 kk kk 6 5 - 6 9 kk kk 6 0 -6 4 kkk ** 6 0 - 6 4 kkkk kkkk 5 5 - 5 9 kkkk kkk 5 5 -5 9 kk kkkkk 5 0 -5 4 kkkkkk ***** 1 kkkk -O O '•V' kkkkk 4 5 - 4 9 kkkkkk ******* 4 5 - 4 9 ***** *** a.1 e ^***** 4 0 - 4 4 kkkkkkkk 1 em ale j^j_0 ********* 4 0 - 4 4 kkkkkkk female kkkkkkk kkkkkkkk ******** kkkkkkkkk 3 5 - 3 9 CO 3 5 - 3 9 o kkkkkk l kkkkkkkk * * * * * * * * 3 0 - 3 4 ******** kkkkkkk 2 5 -2 9 kkkkkkkk * * * * * * * * 2 5 -2 9 kkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkk 2 0 -2 4 kkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkk 2 0 -2 4 kkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkk 1 5 -1 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 1 5 -1 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkk k k k k k k kk k k k kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 1 0 -1 4 1 0 -1 4 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 5 - 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk 5 - 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk Q— 4 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk kkkkkkkkkkkkk kk 0 - 4 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk S u r a k a r ta magelang
8 5 - 9 9 8 5 - 9 9 3 0 - 8 4 * 8 0 - 8 4 7 5 -7 9 7 5 -7 9 k 7 0 -7 4 kk k 7 0 -7 4 * * 6 5 - 6 9 kk k 6 5 - 6 9 * kkk 6 0 —64 kkk kk 6 0 - 6 4 kkk kkk 5 5 -5 9 kkk kkk 5 5 -5 9 kkk kkkk 5 0 - 5 4 kkkkk kkkkk 5 0 - 5 4 ***** kkkkk 4 5 - 4 9 kkkkkk kkkkkk 4 5 - 4 9 ****** m ale ****** 4 0 - 4 4 kkkkkkk f e m a l e m ale ******** 4 0 - 4 4 ******** fem ale kkkkkk 3 5 - 3 9 kkkkkkkk ********* 3 5 - 3 9 *********** kkkkkkk 3 0 - 3 4 kkkkkkk ******** 3 0 -3 4 ********** kkkkkkkkk 2 5 - 2 9 kkkkkkkk ******** 2 5 - 2 9 ******** ********* kkkkkkkkkkkkk 2 0 - 2 4 kkkkkkkkkkkk ********* 2 0 -2 4 *************** kkkkkkkkkkkkk 1 5 -1 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk ************** 1 5 -1 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkk 1 0 -1 4 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk *************** 1 0 -1 4 ************* ***************** kkkkkkkkkkkkk 5 - 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk **************** 5 - 9 kkkkkkkkkkkkk 0 - 4 kkkkkkkkkkkkkk ***************** 0 - 4 ***************** logyakarta Pekalongan i?ig. 2.1 com, Page 23
CHAPTER 3
FERTILITY AND MORTALITY
3.1 Fertility
Before discussing measures of fertility, age at first marriage is regarded worth discussing as it may indirectly affect population growth through its effect on fertilty.
3.1.1 Age at First Marriage
In general, age specific fertility is a result of age at marriage, proportions married and intervals between marriage and
first birth and subsequent births. Accordingly, higher fertility
rates tend to be associated with earlier marriage, higher proportions marrying and shorter intervals between marriage and
first birth and successive births. Due to the unavailability of
data, only the first factor among these influencing components of
fertility will be identified. That is, examination will be made
of whether cities indicating lower ages at first marriage are
those indicating higher fertility. This matter will be discussed
below but firstly this section discusses some possible factors
leading to differences of age at first marriage.
Because no direct data on female age at first marriage are
available, the study will be based on the composition of the
population by age and marital status. The proportion single in
the younger adult age range is a good indicator of age at first
marriage. In the case of females in urban areas of Indonesia,
the age group 15-19 is most appropriate. The increased
aspirations concerning education for girls seem to be responsible
for the observed high proportions single in the ages 15-19 for Page 24 the seven cities in particular (Table 3.1) and for urban
Indonesia in general (77%) in comparison with all of Indonesia.
Educational attainment for a child attending school until age 16 would be junior high school and for age 19 senior high school. These levels of education are therefore regarded as desirable instead of primary school education for those who are still single in the age range 15-19. Therefore, even before the promulgation in 1974 of the new marriage law, which fixed the ages at first marriage at 16 and 19 for a girl and boy respectively, there were indications of an increasing age at first marriage. This trend coincides with increased education aspirations for both sexes (Hull,1975:200), reflected in the dramatic rise in levels of education among 15-19 year olds.
The proportions of single women in the age range 15-19 with an educational level of primary school and above are presented in
Table 3.2. The highest proportion for Yogyakarta seems to confirm that furthering education to junior high school and/or senior high school is the main reason for staying single in the age group 15-19, as inducement for higher education is great in this city. In fact, up to completion of secondary education
(i.e., senior high school) the norm is to stay single. However, among those who go on to tertiary educational level some are married while students. Page 25
Table 3.1
Percentage of Women Single by Age Group and Singulate Mean Age at Marriage for the Seven Cities in Central Java, 1971
Percentage of women single
AGE SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PER
15-19 81 88 76 83 87 93 81
20-24 44 44 33 49 46 64 35
25-29 14 11 15 9 15 22 14
30-34 6 4 7 4 7 9 4
35-39 4 2 3 2 4 4 2
40-44 3 2 1 1 2 3 1
45-49 1 2 - 3 3 2 2
SMAM 22.1 21.9 21.7 22.0 22.7 24.5 21.1
Source:Subset, 1971 Census Note:SMAM=Singulate Mean Age at Marriage
Table 3.2
Percentages of Single Women Aged 15-19 Attaining Primary School Plus and Percentages of Population Who Are Moslem, for the Seven Cities in Central Java,1971
CHARACTER SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PER ISTICS
Single women 85 89 83 87 90 94 86 aged 15-19 with PS+
Moslem 81 78 91 82 79 83 93 population
Source: Subset, 1971 Census Page 26
In most countries age at first marriage is strongly influenced by religious affiliation, age at completion of education, social class, and age at attainment of a steady income large enough to support a family (Thomlinson,1976:208). In considering the influence of religion on age at first marriage, the proportion Moslem, which is the ratio of the Moslem population in each city to the total population of the city, is used as an index. Table 3.2 indicates some differences in the proportion Moslem among the seven cities.
The Moslem religion is claimed to be conducive both to early and universal marriage because celibacy is condemned
(Korson,1969:153; Momeni,1972:548). This table indicates that, in general, the cities having a higher proportion Moslem are those indicating a lower singulate mean age at marriage. The table indicates, however, that there are two exceptions to this pattern, namely, Yogyakarta and Salatiga. The anomaly for these cities is reflected by the higher proportion Moslem for
Yogyakarta than that for Salatiga but the singulate mean age at marriage for Yogyakarta is much higher than that for Salatiga.
This may be related to the higher proportion of students who are
likely to delay marriage in Yogyakarta than in Salatiga .
Throughout Indonesia, an upward trend of age at first marriage through the 1960s and early 1970s has been identified.
McNicoll and Mamas (1973:22) came to this conclusion using data
from the first four rounds of the National Socioeconomic Survey
and the 1971 Census, whereas McDonald (1978:4) studied the matter
in more detail with data from three large population
enumerations; the 1971 Census, 1973 Fertility-Mortality Survey
and the 1976 Intercensal Population Survey. The results for Java Page 27 are presented in Table 3.3 and Table 3.4. The suggested increase in age at first marriage for females is derived in these two tables from the comparison of the proportions single in the early adult age groups at successive enumerations. The increasing proportions single at successive enumerations are obvious especially in the age group 15-19. When data for Central Java and Yogyakarta are separated it is clear that among the provinces in Java, in every enumeration, age at first marriage is always highest in Yogyakarta Special Region (Table 3.4). Altthough no single factor leading to the indicated increase of age at first marriage was mentioned, increasing education of women is probably the most likely determinant. To identify the increasing education of women, Table 3.5 is presented. This table shows the proportions of adult women to the total women in each age bracket, Page 28
Table 3.3
Percentage of Single Women in Selected Age Groups and Years in Java
A g e
YEAR 15-19 20-24 25-29
1963 49.6 11.2 3.3
1964 50.4 8.9 2.5
1967 54.2 12.3 2.9
1969 57.9 14.2 2.8
1971 56.0 14.5 3.5
1976 59.2 - -
Source: McNicoll, et al. 1973:Table 7 McDonald, 1978:Table 1
Table 3.4
Percentages of Single Women Aged 15-19 for Provinces of Java in Selected Series of Population Surveys
PROVINCE 1971 CENSUS 1973 FM SURVEY 1976 SUPAS
Jakarta 68.5 - 73.7
West Java 47.0 55.3 44.8
Central Java 60.1 65.4
Central Java 75.0
Yogyakarta 85.4 86.0
East Java 55.0 62.8 59.6
Source: McDonald, 1978:Table 1 Note : FM=Fertility-Mortality;SUPAS=Intercensal survey. Page 29 who have never attended school. As the table indicates an increasing proportion of women with no schooling as age increases, the existence of increasing educational attainment by women is confirmed. It is not clear whether the variation in trends between cities is due to differences in educational facilities or to regional differences in the social demand for education.
Indirect evidence supporting the finding of an upward trend in age at first marriage in the cities of Central Java is shown by Table 3.6. Comparing the first three periods of time shown in this table, all the seven cities of Central Java indicate a downward trend of fertility in age group 15-19. If this trend means a decrease in the proportion of women entering into married life at ages less than 20, a delay of marriage would be the explanation. However, this trend might also be interpreted as a delay of first births. If this was the case, it is unlikely to have been due to the success of the Family Planning Program, because the program only started in 1970. Since having a child as soon as possible after marriage is still the norm, it is almost certain that there was a delay in age at first marriage rather than a delay in first births. This norm is reflected in a study on the value of children in Java that showed only 32% of the Javanese respondents approved of usage of family planning to delay the first birth (Singarimbun et al,1977:14).
Table 3.1 indicates that the proportion of single women in the ages 15-19 to total women in the age bracket and the singulate mean age at marriage vary considerably between the cities. Age at first marriage as indicated by these indices is found to be higher for women in Yogyakarta than for those in the Page 30
Table 3.5
Percentage of Women with No Schooling by Agef for the Seven Cities in Central Java,1971
AGE SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK
15-19 10 7 12 4 9 4 12
20-24 14 10 11 8 10 6 11
25-29 26 17 23 18 21 14 31
30-34 44 37 47 27 41 34 55
35-39 53 47 59 43 48 42 59
40-44 58 52 59 48 57 44 71
45-49 64 63 62 57 61 56 77
Source: Subset, 1971 Census
Table 3.6
Trend of Fertility Rates at Ages 15-19 for the Seven Cities in Central Java, 1961-1970
PERIOD SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK
1961-"63 102 115 136 118 97 65 128
1964-"66 88 72 108 135 84 56 115
1967-"70 79 55 103 49 64 27 95
Source: Cho, 1976:Table 2.2 other cities, the difference in the mean being about two years
There is however no indication that cities having higher rates of
growth are cities having lower ages at first marriage. Even when
the comparison is between cities having about the same rate of
population growth, the ages at marriage in terms of the singulate
mean age at marriage, are not very different in the case of
Salatiga and Tegal, but are very different in the case of Page 31
Yogyakarta and Pekalongan, while Magelang and Surakarta show a medium level difference. This suggests that for the seven cities in Central Java, there is no relationship between age at first marriage and population growth.
It should be noted, however, that the singulate mean age at marriage is calculated in this study adopting Hajnal"s method
(1953:130) based on the proportions single in successive age groups as presented in Table 3.1. The limitation of this method is that it does not take migration into consideration; and, in fact, in and out migration from the seven cities was very substantial. As migration is generally selective for those who are single, consequently, for places of origin this factor will depress the singulate mean age at marriage, whereas for places of destination migration will increase the singulate mean age at marriage. As indicated later, Semarang and Tegal experienced net inmigration whereas the other cities experienced net outmigration during the intercensal decade of 1961-1971. Therefore, the estimated age at first marriage may be too high for Semarang and
Tegal, and too low for the rest of the cities presuming that the direction of total net migration is indicative of the migration of females aged 15-24. Page 32
3.1.2 Measures of Fertility
Three kinds of fertility measure will be discussed in this thesis. They are, children ever born to women, the total fertility rate, and the crude birth rate. The first one is derived from the 1971 Census (subset) data on children ever born to ever married women, the second one was estimated by Cho (1976) using the "own children" method, the data of own children being derived from the 1971 Census. Finally the crude birth rates are derived from the age specific fertility rates of the second measure and the city age distributions from 1971 Census (subset).
According to Table 3.7, the mean number of children ever born to ever married women in all the cities increases steadily up to age group 35-39, except in Yogyakarta where it continues to increase up to age group 40-44. For most cities, therefore, the mean number of children ever born falls at age groups of 40-44 and 45-49. It is unlikely that all of this decline is real; it
is more likely to be caused in part by "recall lapse", the fact that women are more inclined to omit births which occurred a long
time in the past. Furthermore, it may also be due to
interviewers forgetting to ask widows and divorcees about their
children ever born. However, the impact of low fertility rates
during the revolutionary years of 1940s may also account for some
of the decline.
Given the strong likelihood of understatement of children
ever born by women at ages 40 and above, children ever born to
women in the age group 15-39 is used to display fertility
differences among the younger women of each city. The index used
is the mean number of children ever born to women aged 15-39. Page 33
The table indicates that Tegal and Pekalongan have relatively the highest fertility rates for women in the age range 15-39 compared to the other cities. The higher fertility rates in Tegal and
Pekalongan are also evident from the higher mean number of children ever born from ages 25 and over. As the singulate mean ages at marriage for these cities are the lowest, the higher fertility in Tegal and Pekalongan may be related to younger ages at first marriage.
Table 3.8 presents the second measure of fertility for the seven cities. The total fertility rate is very similar in five of the seven cities with a somewhat higher rate being observed for Magelang and a somewhat lower rate for Pekalongan. The low total fertility rate for Pekalongan contrasts sharply with the Page 34
Table 3.7
Mean Number of Children Ever Born Born to Ever Married Women of the Seven Cities in Central Java, by Age, 1971
AGE SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK
15-19 .6 .7 .8 .6 .5 .5 .6
20-24 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.5 1.4 1.3 1.4
25-29 2.5 2.5 3.1 3.0 2.6 2.5 2.8
30-34 3.5 3.7 4.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 4.0
35-39 4.0 4.7 5.2 4.7 4.3 4.5 5.0
40-44 3.8 4.6 4.9 4.7 4.1 4.9 4.7
45-49 3.9 4.2 4.8 4.1 3.7 4.5 4.6
15-39 2.8 3.2 3.4 3.3 2.9 3.0 3.4
Source: Subset, 1971 Census
Table 3.8
Average Age Specific Fertility Rates and Total Fertility Rates During 1961-1970 for the Seven Cities of Central Java
AGE SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK
15-19 89 78 115 95 80 47 111
20-24 216 215 223 251 228 196 214
25-29 231 232 227 263 234 237 191
30-34 178 198 159 217 181 201 150
35-39 102 119 96 113 99 120 89
40-44 36 36 38 28 38 42 30
45-49 5 11 10 3 8 13 6
TFR*) 4260 4390 4290 4835 4300 4215 3925
Source: Cho, 1976: Table 2. 2 Note :*) Total fertility rate Page 35 higher fertility indicated for this city by the children ever born data while the high fertility for Magelang based on the total fertility rate is less evident from the children ever born data. In general, the levels of fertility indicated by the children ever born data are higher than those based on the total fertility rates. The discrepancies between the levels of fertility in Tables 3.7 and 3.8 may be related to the different time periods to which the estimates apply or, alternatively, may reflect inaccuracy in one or the other set of estimates.
Looking at the more detailed fertility rates presented in this table, the age specific fertility rates in the age range
15-19 are highest for Tegal and Pekalongan. It is likely that this phenomenon is related to younger ages at first marriage.
The younger age at first marriage for Pekalongan is also supported when the age specific fertility rates for the age ranges 20-24 and 25-29 are compared. Except for Pekalongan, the age specific fertility rate for age group 25-29 is the highest age specific rate for all cities. However, for Pekalongan, the age specific fertility rate in the age range 20-24 is highest.
On the other hand, the much lower age specific fertility rates in the age range 15-24 for Yogyakarta are likely related to older age at first marriage.
Given the age specific fertility rates for the seven cities
in the period 1961-1971 (Table 3.8), the estimated average crude birth rates for the period were obtained by multiplying these
rates by the 1971 population age distributions on the assumption
that the age structure would not have changed very much during
the decade. Although the crude birth rate includes the effect of
the age structure of the population, this is the rate which must Page 36 be used in explaining the observed growth of the population during the intercensal decade of 1961-1971.
The estimated annual crude birth rates per thousand for the seven cities are as follows: Semarang (36) , Salatiga (33),
Tegal (33) , Magelang (34) , Surakarta (33) , Yogyakarta (31), and
Pekalongan (32). It is evident that Semarang, which experienced the highest rate of population growth during the 1960s, also had the highest crude birth rate among the seven cities. At the other end of the scale, Yogyakarta and Pekalongan which had the lowest rates of growth also had the lowest crude birth rates. It is interesting also to note the impact of differences in age distributions upon the crude birth rates. For example, although the total fertility rate for Magelang was somewhat higher than that for Semarang, the crude birth rate was higher in Semarang.
3.2 Mortality
The crude death rate is the mortality component of the rate of population growth. However, since death registration statistics are not available, this index has to be estimated using life table age specific death rates, M(X). To produce the life table, Brass" method (1975) , "West" model life tables
(United Nations,1967) and the logit system are to be used. Page 37
3.2.1 Estimation of Life Table
Table 3.9 shows the results of the Brass" method for estimating the proportions dying before the exact ages of 2, 3, and 5, respectively, for children born to women in successive age groups. Each of the Q(X) values are the result of the multiplication of the proportion dead (to the ever born) and the multiplying factor k using P(2) over P(3) as the parameter. This parameter is preferred to P(l) over P(2) because P(l) is sensitive to undercount of children ever born and children still living (Hull et al,1978:15). They presumed that the problem was more likely interviewers "not asking" the question than the women
"not stating" the number of children ever born or still living.
P(l), P(2) and P(3) denote the mean parity (number of children) per woman in the 15-19, 20-24 and 25-29 age groups, respectively.
The Q(2), Q(3), and Q(5) values in Table 3.9 provide estimates of child mortality. Since data on adult mortality are not available, it is assumed that the level of the adult mortality can be estimated from the level of child mortality.
Therefore, the average of the "West" levels implied by each Q(X)
value is accepted as the estimate of the level of childhood mortality for each city (column 9). Accordingly, this table
indicates that Yogyakarta has the lowest child mortality whereas
Pekalongan and Tegal have the highest child mortality. The
Indonesian fertility-mortality survey for Central Java (1973:17)
suggested that educational differentials are more substantial
than rural-urban differentials for differences in child
mortality. Page 38
Table 3.9
Estimates of Q (2), Q(3) and Q (5) Using Brass" Method and "West" Level of Mortality, for the Seven Cities of Central Java,1971
CITY NO. OF CEB CSL k Q(X) X WL AWL AND AGE FEMALES
SEM
20-24 31314 23610 21806 1.128 .0862 2 17.6
25-29 24641 53707 47216 1.054 .1274 3 15.5 15.5
30-34 24513 82525 67917 1.046 .1851 5 13.3
SAL
20-24 2492 1852 1632 1.139 .1353 2 14.5
25-29 2280 5110 4440 1.059 .1388 3 14.9 14.6
30-34 2541 9084 7702 1.049 .1596 5 14.5
TEG
20-24 3914 4155 3325 1.092 .2182 2 10.1
25-29 3762 9852 7496 1.038 .2482 3 9.7 10.0
30-34 3540 14273 10700 1.034 .2588 5 10.2
MAG
20-24 3521 2738 2394 1.177 .1478 2 13.7
25-29 3808 10361 9257 1.076 .1147 3 16.2 15.3
30-34 3513 12248 10727 1.060 .1317 5 15.9
SUR
20-24 17434 13526 12267 1.123 .1046 2 16.3
25-29 13334 29185 26009 1.052 .1145 3 16.2 15.8
30-34 13691 44553 38102 1.044 .1512 5 14.8 Page 39
Table 3.9 cont.
YOG
20-24 16625 7572 6976 1.220 .0960 2 16.9
25-29 11331 22212 20246 1.095 .0969 3 17.3 16.7
30-34 9205 29051 25495 1.072 .1312 5 15.9
PEK
20-24 3946 3612 3246 2.311 .2341 2 9.4
25-29 3667 8935 7066 1.046 .2188 3 10.96 9.7
30-34 4662 17328 12354 1.040 .2985 5 8.6
Source: Subset,1971 Census (col.2,3,4) Brass,1975,Table 14 (col.5) Note : CEB=children ever born; CSL=children still living WL="West" level; AWL=average "West" level
It is likely that the lower child mortality in Yogyakarta than in
Pekalongan and Tegal reflects the differences in educational
levels of these places. If the proportion of women with no
schooling in the age group 15-19 to total women in the same age
bracket is taken as an index of education, then for Yogyakarta
this index is 4% compared to 12% for both Tegal and Pekalongan
(Table 3.5).
Based on these "West" levels of mortality for each city, the
proportions of males and females surviving to exact ages 5 and 1
1(5) and 1(1) were estimated. Accordingly, there are 14 values
of 1(5) and 1(1), respectively, for each city. These 1(5) values
are then used to estimate the mortality parameter, "a" , using
the logit system formula :logit 1-1(5) ="a"+"b" logit 1-1(5s)
assuming "b"=l. This means that the relation between the child
mortality and the adult mortality in the derived life tables is
the same as that in the standard life table. The logit 1-1(Xs)
values are shown in Table 3.10. The I(X) values for each city Page 40 are obtained by substituting the estimated "a" into the logit system formula for X=10,15,20,...... 80.
All the I(X) values are then used to estimate the probability of dying between age X and X+l using the formula
I(X+N) Q (X) = 1 ------I(X) where n=5. Lastly, the other values in the life table shown in
Table III.1-III.7 can be derived from these Q(X) values. They
are:
(1) . The number dying at age X last birthday,
D (X) = Q (X) .1 (X)
(2) . The number living at age X last birthday,
L(X) = 2.5 I(X)+ 1 (X+5)
(3) . The central death rate at age X,
D (X) M (X) = ------L (X) Page 41
(4). The five-year survival ratio,
L(X+5) S(X) = ------L(X)
(5). The total population aged X and over,
T(X) = cummulative sum of L(X)
(6). The expectation of life,
T (X) E(X) = ------I(X)
3.2.2 Crude Death Rate
Applying the M(X) values from the life tables to the population of each city at successive age groups, the total number of deaths and the crude death rates are obtained. The
estimated annual crude death rates per one thousand for the seven cities are as follows: Semarang (12), Salatiga (14), Tegal (21),
Magelang (14), Surakarta (12), Yogyakarta (11), and Pekalongan
(21) . It is clearly indicated that Tegal and Pekalongan
experienced much higher death rates compared to the other cities.
The rates of natural increase and the possible explanation
of the differences are discussed below in Chapter 5.
3.3 Conclusion
The interesting point arising out of the analysis in this
chapter is that the crude death rates vary more between cities
than do the crude birth rates. Table 3.10
Standard Logit 1 - I(xs) for Males and females of the Seven Cities in Central Java
AGE MALES FEMALES
5 -.7420 -.8005
10 -.6821 -.7294
15 -.6531 -.7007
20 -.6209 -.6661
25 -.5816 -.6240
30 -.5364 -.5717
35 -.4810 -.5095
40 -.4108 -.4401
45 -.3252 -.3640
50 -.2177 -.2774
55 -.0858 -.1666
60 .0818 -.0054
65 .2837 .1940
70 .5310 .4423
75 .8395 .7425
80 1.2518 1.1306
Source: National Research Council,1979 Page 43
CHAPTER 4
MIGRATION
4.1 Estimation of Net Migration
The 1971 Census (subset) contained three questions relating to migration: province of birth, province of last residence and duration of residence in current province. With this information, intercensal net migration can only be estimated for provinces, and not for cities. Therefore, an indirect method has to be used to estimate intercensal net migration for the seven cities under study: the method is called the survival ratio method.
This method takes mortality into account by using age specific survival ratios to estimate from the 1971 Census
(subset) age distribution how many people were alive in specific age groups at the time of the 1961 Census. These ratios are computed from the L(X) values of the life tables in Tables III.l-
L(X+10) III.7, in the appendix, using the relevant formula ------MX)
The estimated population is obtained by dividing the number of people in a given age interval, say 15-19 year olds in 1971, by the survival ratio of that age group during the ten-year period.
The result is an estimate of the number of 5-9 year olds in 1961. Page 44
61 P(X+10) Actually, the general formula for the estimate is P = ------
L(X+10)
L(X)
However, for the estimate of the population in the age group 71 P + 61 80 70+, the formula is modified to P + = --- 70 T + 80
T 70 Of course, the validity of the estimate is dependent upon the accuracy of the age specific survival ratios.
Details of the estimated 1961 population are given in Tables
4.1-4.7. The total number of the estimated 1961 population is then compared with the enumerated total number of population at the 1961 Census; and the difference is taken as an estimate of the net number of migrants during the period, 1961-1971. The annual intercensal net migration rates for each city are then
0.1 (the net number of migrants) calculated using the formula: ------61 71 0.5 (P + P ) 61 71 where P and P are the total populations at the census dates of
1961 and 1971.
Table 4.8 (column 6) shows the average annual rates of net migration for the seven cities in Central Java. It indicates that most cities experienced outmigration in the period
1961-1971. Page 45
Table 4.1
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Semarang
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO *) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM. POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .94721 .94625 40,109 37,567 42,344 39,701
5 - 9 .97571 .97634 33,729 35,822 34,569 36,690
10-14 .97690 .97788 25,557 31,314 26,161 32,022
15-19 .97123 .97123 18,688 24,641 19,242 25,371
20-24 .96352 .96215 20,254 24,513 21,021 25,477
25-29 .95176 .95146 20,026 23,886 21,041 25,105
30-34 .93429 .93986 18,451 17,512 19,749 18,633
35-39 .90941 .92567 13,628 14,892 14,986 16,088
40-44 .87340 .90259 10,277 12,392 11,767 13,729
45-49 .82034 .85594 7,498 8,411 9,140 9,827
50-54 .74594 .77940 4,868 6,305 6,526 8,090
55-59 .65053 .68012 2,992 4,376 4,599 6,434
60-64 .53380 .56175 1,859 2,958 3,483 5,266
65-69 .39762 .42816 566 1,151 1,423 2,688
70-74 .17312 .18958 875 1,577 5,054 8,318
Total 241,105 273,439
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 46
Table 4.2
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Salatiga
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO *) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM . POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .93974 .93691 4,821 4,560 5,130 4,867
5 - 9 .97274 97326 4,060 4,560 5,130 4,716
10-14 .97409 .97507 2,450 2,492 2,515 2,556
15-19 .96783 .96759 1,600 2,280 1,653 2,356
20-24 .95931 .95746 1,840 2,541 1,918 2,654
25-29 .94637 .94558 1,902 2,670 2,010 2,824
30-34 .93732 .93282 2,290 1,901 2,469 2,038
35-39 .90047 .91744 1,391 1,591 1,545 1,734
40-44 .86204 .89237 1,311 1,201 1,521 1,346
45-49 .80626 .84232 771 1,000 956 1,188
50-54 .72954 .76210 550 680 754 892
55-59 .63338 .66087 320 531 505 803
60-64 .51831 .54347 251 590 484 1,086
65-69 .38623 .41398 140 140 362 338
70-74 .16824 .18316 140 200 832 1,092
Total 26,888 30,883
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 47
Table 4.3
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Tegal
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO*) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM . POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .89237 .89207 7,252 6,835 8,127 7,662
5 - 9 .95561 .95551 7,110 6,664 7,440 6,974
10-14 .96090 .95907 5,104 3,914 5,312 4,081
15-19 .95404 .94748 3,279 3,762 3,437 3,971
20-24 .93877 .93211 2,428 3,540 2,586 3,798
25-29 .91742 .91471 2,794 3,907 3,045 4,271
30-34 .89070 .89696 2,912 3,341 3,269 3,724
35-39 .85479 .87655 2,393 2,254 2,800 2,571
40-44 .80630 .84449 2,086 2,047 2,587 2,424
45-49 .74100 .78289 1,156 1,557 1,560 1,989
50-54 .65849 .69147 932 955 1,415 1,381
55-59 .56431 .58809 383 566 679 962
60-64 .46031 .47859 363 364 789 761
65-69 .34606 .36625 163 142 471 388
70-74 .15175 .16266 261 122 1,720 750
Total 45,237 45,707
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 48
Table 4.4
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Magelang
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO*) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM . POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .94739 .94441 6,829 6,808 7,208 7,209
5 - 9 .97507 .97579 6,563 6,317 6,731 6,474
10-14 .97625 .97739 3,726 3,521 3,817 3,602
15-19 .97044 .97049 3,297 3,803 3,397 3,919
20-24 .96259 .96117 3,638 3,513 3,779 3,655
25-29 .95064 .95024 3,281 3,790 3,451 3,988
30-34 .93280 .93836 3,830 3,174 4,106 3,382
35-39 .90746 .92389 2,953 2,264 3,264 2,451
40-44 .87095 .90041 2,289 1,652 2,628 1,835
45-49 .81730 .85306 1,434 1,063 1,755 1,246
50-54 .74238 .77566 936 1,587 1,261 2,046
55-59 .64670 .67588 696 841 1,076 1,244
60-64 .53024 .55770 387 720 730 1,291
65-69 .39499 .42499 165 248 418 584
70-74 .17201 .18812 248 475 1,442 2,525
Total 45,053 45,453
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 49
Table 4.5
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Surakarta
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO*) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM. POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .94954 .94904 25,649 26,820 27,008 28,260
5 - 9 .97655 .97738 23,336 26,518 23,896 27,132
10-14 .97769 .97887 16,971 17,434 17,358 17,810
15-19 .97221 .97246 11,382 13,334 11,707 13,712
20-24 .96475 .96372 10,556 13,691 10,952 14,206
25-29 .95337 .95336 10,850 13,845 11,381 14,522
30-34 .93646 .94209 10,534 13,339 11,249 14,159
35-39 .91230 .92835 8,804 9,949 9,650 10,717
40-44 .87712 .90594 7,853 9,069 8,953 10,011
45-49 .82496 .86039 5,772 6,117 6,997 7,110
50-54 .75144 .78515 3,955 5,473 5,263 6,971
55-59 .65639 .68668 2,756 3,172 4,199 4,619
60-64 .53915 .56816 2,216 3,280 4,110 5,773
65-69 .40164 .43326 680 1,060 1,693 2,447
70-74 .17489 .19191 1,075 2,085 6,147 395
Total 160,563 177,844
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 50
Table 4.6
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Yogyakarta
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO*) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM. POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .95302 .95739 19,737 20,104 20,710 20,999
5 - 9 .97948 .98036 24,262 22,955 24,770 23,415
10-14 .98040 .98155 21,327 16,625 21,753 16,937
15-19 .97552 .97591 12,429 11,331 12,741 11,611
20-24 .96882 .96823 9,282 9,205 9,581 9,507
25-29 .95859 .95907 8,299 10,716 8,658 11,173
30-34 .94327 .94902 7,747 9,314 8,213 9,814
35-39 .92116 .93658 6,633 7,942 7,201 8,480
40-44 .88869 .91610 5,332 6,179 6,000 6,745
45-49 .83985 .87418 4,648 4,225 5,534 4,833
50-54 .76944 .80366 3,447 4,267 4,480 5,309
55-59 .67586 .70841 1,876 2,453 2,776 3,463
60-64 .55741 .58983 1,534 2,671 2,752 4,528
65-69 .41559 .45088 391 635 941 1,408
70-74 .18107 .20012 517 1,552 2,855 7,755
Total 138,965 145,977
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 51
Table 4.7
Survival Ratio, 1971 Population, and 1961 Estimated Population, by Age and Sex, in Pekalongan
AGE SURVIVAL RATIO*) 1971 POPULATION 1961 ESTIM . POP.*
Males Females Males Females Males Females
0 - 4 .88898 .88870 6,583 5,690 7,405 6,403
5 - 9 .95443 .95433 6,306 6,690 6,607 7,010
10-14 .95721 .95794 4,181 3,946 4,368 4,119
15-19 .94747 .94607 3,357 3,667 3,543 3,876
20-24 .93461 .93043 3,378 4,662 3,614 5,011
25-29 .91561 .91276 3,926 5,001 4,288 5,479
30-34 .88845 .89470 3,777 3,547 4,251 3,964
35-39 .85204 .87399 2,641 2,464 3,100 2,819
40-44 .80310 .84162 2,182 2,422 2,717 2,878
45-49 .73744 .77950 1,191 1,121 1,615 1,438
50-54 .65482 .68658 878 1,341 1,341 1,953
55-59 .56096 .58232 448 461 799 792
60-64 .45764 .47456 422 560 922 1,180
65-69 .34433 .36413 63 120 183 330
70-74 .15101 .16175 100 280 662 1,731
Total 45,415 48,983
Note:*) Ten year survival ratio * Estimated population Page 52
Table 4.8
The Calculation of the Average Annual Rates of Net Migration During 1961-1971, for the Seven Cities in Central Java
CITY 1961 POPULATION 1971 POP. MIGRANTS* RATE*)
EST. CENSUS + N> SEM 514,544 503,153 641,795 +11,391 •
SAL 57,373 58,135 69,668 - 757 -.1
TEG 90,944 89,016 105,481 + 1,928 + .2
MAG 90,506 96,454 109,938 - 5,948 -.6
SUR 338,407 367,626 413,077 -29,219 -.7
YOG 284,942 312,698 340,908 -27,756 -.8
PEK 94,398 102,380 110,865 - 7,982 -.7
Note: * number of net migrants ♦annual rate of net migration (%) EST.=estimated
4.2 Characteristics of Inmigrants from Other Provinces
As mentioned above, inmigrants to the cities of Central Java from within the province of Central Java cannot be separately identified from the 1971 Census results. Moreover, it is not possible to identify persons who moved out of the cities of
Central Java, whether to another part of the province or outside of the province. The only group of migrants which can be examined from the Census tape are inmigrants to the seven cities of Central Java who came from other provinces. This section examines the characteristics of these inmigrants. It should be remembered, however, that many of these inmigrants may in fact have been return migrants, that is former residents of the city who moved to another province but have since returned. Page 53
To enable some degree of comparison with the net migration estimates in the previous section, this study of inmigrants is restricted to persons who were aged 10 and over, who had ever migrated and who had lived in the current residence for less than
10 years at the time of the 1971 Census.
Due to the limitations of the data, not only net migration, but also some characteristics of inmigrants have to be measured indirectly. This measurement can be made by studying the characteristics of inmigrants at the time of the census, for example, age at migration was estimated from current age and duration of residence at the time of the census. The number and distribution by sex of the inmigrants to the seven cities is set out in Table 4.9. Yogyakarta had the highest number of inmigrants, probably reflecting the attraction of the city"s centres of higher education. However the high figure for
Yogyakarta City compared with the other cities is somewhat misleading as it includes migrants from the province of Central
I Java, while these migrants are not included for other cities.
Generally, however, the number of inmigrants to these cities from other provinces was small. In Salatiga, Magelang, Tegal and
Yogyakarta, all of which contain educational institutions which
attract students from all over Indonesia, the number of male
inmigrants was much greater than the number of female inmigrants.
For the other three cities, the numbers of males and females
among the inmigrants were rather similar. Page 54
Table 4.9
Number and Sex of Inmigrants to the Seven Cities of Central Java from other Provincies, 1961-1971.
CITY Males Females Total
Semarang 13191 14215 27406
Salatiga 1170 680 1850
Tegal 3461 1692 5153
Magelang 4940 3279 8219
Surakarta 10674 9317 19991
Yogyakarta 31754 20050 51806
Pekalongan 1217 1003 2220
Total 66407 50236 116643
Source: Subset, 1971 Census.
4.2.1 Age at Migration and Sex
As the estimate of age at migration was based on the population aged 10 and over, the proportion of those migrating at ages less than 10 years indicates a smaller percentage than if the population in the age group 0-9 had been included (Table
4.10). Page 55
Table 4.10
Percentage Distribution of Migrants to the Seven Cities in Central Java from other Provincies by Age at Migration, 1971.
AGE AT SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK MIGRATION
0- 4 1.8 2.2 3.1 2.4 2.5 1.1 5.5
5- 9 8.4 5.4 9.7 11.0 10.6 4.8 6.4
10-14 9.8 11.9 8.2 11.4 11.9 11.6 10.1
15-19 19.6 15.7 27.6 14.5 18.5 36.0 15.7
20-24 19.0 22.2 16.8 18.0 16.9 23.4 18.8
25-29 12.5 14.1 9.8 14.3 11.9 7.7 12.5
30-34 10.4 9.2 8.2 11.6 9.5 4.9 14.4
35-39 7.1 7.6 3.5 7.4 6.7 3.2 6.1
40-44 4.3 4.3 5.1 4.6 4.5 2.6 3.1
45 + 7.2 7.6 7.8 4.8 7.0 4.5 7.4
Total: % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
N 27406 1850 5153 8219 19991 51804 2220
Source: Subset, 1971 Census. Note: N = Number.
The larger proportions of inmigrants in age groups 15-19 and
20-24 shown in this table suggest that the age range from 15-24
is the most likely one for people to move to the seven cities in
this study. After age 25, the table indicates a steadily
decreasing proportion of inmigrants with advancing age. This
tendency implies that it is easier for people to move during the
age range 15-24 rather than later in life, presumably because of
the lack of commitments. As a general phenomenon, those in this
age category are single people and/or married persons without
children or with a small number of children. Page 56
Based on the proportion of inmigrants aged less than 20,
Table 4.10 shows that Yogyakarta(53.5), Tegal(48.6), and
Surakarta(43.5) had relatively younger inmigrants than the other cities (Semarang:39.6; Salatiga:35.2; Magelang:39.3). At least in the cases of Yogyakarta and Tegal, this was related to the high number of 15-19 year old male inmigrants who made up almost a quarter of the total movement to these cities from other provinces (Table 4.11).
4.2.2 Marital Status and Duration of Residence
Table 4.12 points out that only three cities have a higher proportion of inmigrants of single status compared to those of married status. These cities are, in order of highest to lowest,
Yogyakarta, Tegal, and Salatiga, all of which had a large excess of males in the movement. This indication is contrary to the expectation that migration is dominated by those who are still unmarried. Page 57
Table 4.11
Percentage of Inmigrants to the Seven Cities in Central Java from Other Provinces, by Sex and Age at Migration,1971
CITY A G E A T M I G R A T I 0 N AND SEX 0-4 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-39 40-44 45+ TOTAL*
SEM ' M 1.0 4.0 4.4 7.3 9.7 7.1 4.9 4.1 2.3 3.3 F .8 4.4 5.4 12.3 9.3 5.4 5.5 2.9 1.9 3.9 27406
SAL M 1.1 2.7 8.1 6.5 15.1 10.3 7.0 5.9 2.7 3.8 F 1.1 2.7 3.8 9.2 7.0 3.8 2.2 1.6 1.6 3.8 1850
TEG M 1.6 5.1 4.7 24.1 12.1 6.3 3.5 2.0 2.8 5.1 F 1.6 4.7 3.5 3.5 4.7 3.5 4.7 1.6 2.4 2.7 5153
MAG M 1.0 5.7 5.7 8.0 11.0 8.5 8.3 5.8 3.8 2.2 F 1.3 5.3 5.8 6.5 6.9 5.8 3.3 1.6 .8 2.6 8219
SUR M 1.6 4.8 5.7 8.6 9.6 7.0 4.8 4.4 3.1 3.8 F .9 5.8 6.2 9.9 7.3 4.9 4.7 2.3 1.4 3.2 19991
YOG M .6 2.3 6.3 23.7 15.9 4.3 2.7 1.7 1.3 2.3 F .5 2.5 5.4 12.3 7.5 3.4 2.2 1.5 1.3 2.2 51804
PEK M 3.6 5.5 6.4 5.7 9.6 5.9 7.9 3.4 2.2 4.7 F 1.8 .9 3.7 10.0 9.1 6.6 6.5 2.7 .9 2.7 2220
Source: Subset, 1971 Census Note : * total number of males (M) and females (F) Page 58
Table 4.12
Percentage Distribution of Inmigrants to the Seven Cities in Central Java from Other Provinces by Current Age, Duration of Residence,Marital Status,and Activities,1971
CHARACTER SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PEK ISTICS
AGE
10-14 11.1 12.4 13.2 14.4 15.0 9.4 13.7
15-29 49.5 51.3 54.3 41.6 45.9 69.5 45.6
30-44 27.7 25.4 20.3 35.5 28.8 14.1 31.9
454- 11.6 10.8 12.2 8.4 10.3 5.7 8.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
DURATION OF RESIDENCE
0-4 27.8 31.5 42.3 21.1 28.1 43.9 24.4
5-9 20.1 15.9 21.8 25.1 25.5 16.9 17.8
104- 52.1 52.6 35.9 53.8 46.4 39.2 57.8
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
MARITAL STATUS
Single 44.2 52.4 58.5 37.5 44.2 67.1 38.0
Married 49.5 43.8 33.3 58.3 49.5 28.7 55.1
Widowed and divorced 6.3 3.8 8.2 4.2 6.3 4.2 6.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
ACTIVITIES (pop. aged 15-■29)
Working 44.5 49.5 20.8 42.0 41.2 17.4 50.2
Looking for work 6.2 2.1 3.6 1.9 5.9 1.5 4.0 Page 59
Table 4.12 cont.
Schooling 24.7 31.6 56.8 27.1 25.7 69.1 8.4
House keeping 20.5 15.8 15.1 24.2 21.3 9.1 36.2
Others 4.1 1.1 3.6 4.8 5.9 2.9 1.1
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Source: Subset, 1971 Census
In fact, however, this phenomenon is related to the age of the inmigrants. The table indicates that the seven cities have the largest proportion of inmigrants in the age group of 15-29.
Cities having a larger proportion of inmigrants in this age group are also the cities which had a larger proportion of inmigrants in the single state. In addition, the table indicates that the second largest proportion of inmigrants is in the age group of
30-44. Cities having a relatively high proportion in this age group are also the cities having a high proportion in the married state.
It is interesting to note that the table also indicates a close relationship between proportions single and duration of residence. The larger the proportion single, the higher the proportion of inmigrants who had been resident for less than 5 years. As single status is closely related to younger age, the relationship between duration of residence and single status may confirm the fact that inmigrants were mostly young and single. Page 60
4.3 Motives for Moving
In some ways the characteristics of migrants are closely
related to the purposes for moving. It was found, for example,
in a survey of rural-urban migration in Indonesia, that the
principal motives of the young adult urban migrants for moving were schooling and looking for a job (Suharso et al,1976:35).
The examination of these specific motives for moving to the seven
cities can to some extent be inferred from the estimated age at migration.
The above mentioned survey concluded that rural migration to
large cities tends to be for work whereas migration to small
cities tends to be for school. For the purposes of that survey,
among the cities studied here, Semarang and Yogyakarta were
classified in the large city category, whereas Tegal and
Surakarta were classified in the small city category. 1)
However, among large cities Yogyakarta is an exception because it
is a centre of higher educational institutions. Many people had
moved there for the purpose of study.
Since Table 4.10 shows only interprovincial inmigrants, the
high proportion in the age range 15-24 in Yogyakarta almost
certainly reflects movement to both high schools as well as
tertiary education institutions. Surprisingly, the second
largest proportion in this age range is indicated for Tegal, but
it should be remembered that the overall number of inmigrants to
Tegal was small, so that one or two educational institutions may
have a large effect. Moreover, at least in the cases of Salatiga
1) It should be noted that this classification is somewhat strange as, at the 1971 Census, the population of Surakarta was considerably larger than that of Yogyakarta. Page 61 and Magelang, the higher proportion in age group 20-24 than 15-19 probably reflects a movement to the two prominent tertiary education institutions in these cities; Satyawacana University in the case of Salatiga and the Indonesian Military Academy for the case of Magelang.
In order of importance, the most probable reasons for moving to these seven cities were working, schooling and housekeeping
(refers mostly to housewives following husbands), as reflected by the activities being performed by inmigrants aged 15-29 according to the 1971 Census (Table 4.12). This conclusion in fact is contrary to the expectation that the main reason for moving to the seven cities was for schooling, except in the cases of
Yogyakarta and Tegal. However,many of those currently working may have moved to further their schooling, and then taken a job. Page 62
CHAPTER 5
CONCLUSION AND IMPLICATIONS
It is not easy to explain observed differences in population growth in terms of non demographic factors. For example,
Semarang and Yogyakarta indicate a great difference in population growth even though both are capital cities of the same level of administrative unit. Moreover, Yogyakarta indicates only a slightly higher rate of growth compared to Pekalongan although
there are many more higher education institutions in Yogyakarta
than in Pekalongan assuming that such institutions promote growth
through migration.
The demographic components of population growth for the
seven cities are summarized in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Rates and Components of Population Growth for the Seven Cities of Central Java
CHARACTERISTICS SEM SAL TEG MAG SUR YOG PER
1.Observed rate of 2.5 1.8 1.7 1.3 1.2 .9 .8 growth(r)
2.Crude birth rate 3.6 3.3 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.2
3.Crude death rate 1.2 1.4 2.1 1.4 1.2 1.1 2.1
4.Crude net + .2 -.1 + .2 -.6 -.7 -.8 -.7 migration rate
5.Estimated rate of 2.6 1.8 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.2 .4 growth(r")
Note: r"=(2)-(3)+or-(4)
The estimated rates (r") of population growth are similar to
those observed (r), except in the cases of Tegal, Pekalongan and Page 63
Yogyakarta. In proportional terms, the greatest difference applies for Pekalongan. The rank order of the rates is also slightly changed if r" is used, that is, the rates for Magelang and Surakarta are no longer lower than that for Tegal but become the same. Given the wide possibilities for error in the estimated rates of growth the observed rates of growth are likely to be more reliable.
The fertility estimate is evidently the cause of the great difference between the observed and the estimated rates of growth. That is, the crude birth rates for Tegal and Pekalongan in particular may be too low. If they were as high as that for
Semarang, the estimated rates of growth for these cities would become the same as those observed. In fact, higher fertility rates than those estimated by Cho et al (1976) for Tegal and
Pekalongan are suggested by the 1971 Census fertility levels based on children ever born (see Chapter 3). However, this argument cannot be applied to the discrepancy in the two rates of growth for Yogyakarta. In this case, the discrepancy may be related to difficulties of measurement in a population with a high turnover of students.
Two points stand out in Table 5.1, namely, the high mortality for Tegal and Pekalongan and the loss of population
through migration for most of the cities. There are a number of possible reasons for the high mortality rates applying in Tegal
and Pekalongan. Firstly, these are both northern coastal cities where the standard of living is very low. The workforce of these
two cities is heavily engaged in manufacturing industry (46% in
Pekalongan and 25% in Tegal) which is usually small scale manufacturing paying very low wages. Secondly, as the levels of Page 64 mortality have been based on estimates of child mortality, the lower education levels of women in these two cities probably plays an important role because childhood mortality is strongly
related to the mother"s education. Thirdly, it has been observed
that women in the southern areas of Central Java practice long periods of breast-feeding and while data for the northern areas
are difficult to obtain, it is likely that the average length of
breast-feeding is shorter in the north. Finally, it is
interesting to note that the Indonesian Sample Vital Registration
Project found very high mortality rates applying in Kabupaten
Pekalongan, the rural area surrounding the city (Central Bureau
of Statistics,1979:81).
To investigate whether the low growth rates and the observed
outmigration were due to spillover growth into the areas outside
the designated city boundaries, the pace of growth of the
population in the surrounding areas was examined. The selected
areas are Kabupatens Semarang, Tegal, Magelang, Sukoharjo, Sleman
and Pekalongan for the cities of Semarang, Tegal, Magelang,
Surakarta, Yogyakarta, and Pekalongan, respectively. The
observed rates of population growth per annum during the
intercensal decade 1961-1971 for these kabupaten were as follows:
1.8%(Semarang), 1.3%(Tegal), 1.5%(Magelang), 2.0%(Sukoharjo),
1.3%(Sleman) and 1.6%(Pekalongan). However, when the examination
was extended to the kecamatan level, some high growth rates were
observed (see appendix Tables V.1-V.6). The high rate of growth
for Ungaran(3.1%) in kabupaten Semarang while it may reflect
development of a commuting area for Semarang, is undoubtly also
due to the separate development of Ungaran through the location
of many new factories in the area. For the cities of Tegal, Page 65
Pekalongan and Magelang, the nearby kecamatans of
Kedungbanteng(2.6%), Talun(3.4%) and Mertoyudan(3.3%) experienced high rates of growth. In fact, the administration of the city of
Tegal is presently attempting to have the boundaries of the city extended (personal communication with Walikota, Tegal).
Mertoyudan, on the other hand is located on the busy road linking
Magelang with Yogyakarta which has experienced a lot of industrial development (McDonald, 1976:70). It is worth noting that 70 % of all kecamatans in kabupaten Sukoharjo grew at more than 2%, in most cases reflecting the growth of the city of
Surakarta beyond its boundaries. Although the data for kabupaten
Sleman do not reflect city growth beyond the official boundary of the city of Yogyakarta, overspill, for this city has been documented at the kecamatan level. McDonald (1976:77) has observed that kecamatan Depok not only grew at the fastest rate
(3.0%) but is located also close to the city.
Examining each component of growth, Table 5.1 suggests that for Semarang, fertility and inmigration play important roles in fixing the higher rate of growth. Compared to the other cities,
Semarang has the most large-scale industry. In addition it is the capital city of the province and is a port city. These are factors inducing migration to Semarang. Looking at the population density which is fourth lowest, Semarang may be regarded as still having enough space for population to grow.
For Tegal and Pekalongan, the high mortality rates have depressed
their rate of growth. The lower rates of growth for Magelang and
Surakarta were determined by outmigration at least in the latter case probably reflecting movement to the surrounding areas. For
Yogyakarta the low fertility and spillover growth to the Page 66 surrounding areas seem to be the most probable reasons for the low rate of population growth. Table II 1.1 ,\bri (i r eri life Table Page 67 b e - ’M r 1 nr , 1 71
Fema’l e
age: ü ( x ) n c x ) h ( x) i < x > l. ( x ) s ( x ) i ex > E(X)
0 0.00770 8 7 7 0 . . 09332 100000 , 93976. . 89831 5190606. 5 1 . 9 1 1 0.01570 1 I 6 9 . .01171 9 1 2 3 0 . 3 5 5 t 9 7. . 95973 5396630. 59 . 1 5 5 0.01 ? <10 1689 . . 00392 87061. 131082 . . 98595 5011138. 5 7 . 9 l 10 0.00860 731 . . 00.1.73 85372. 125021. . 99025 16 1.0357 . 51.00 15 0.01090 923 . . 00219 81638. 120882. .98751 1.1.85333 . 19.15 20 0 . 01110 1 180 . .00281 83715. 115621 . .98352 3761152. 11.9 7 95 0.01890 1560 . .00382 82535, 108771. .97028 3318827. 1 0.5 7 30 0.02160 1992 . . 00198 8 0 9 7 5 . 399891. .97259 7910051 . 3 6 . 31 35 0.030 30 2393 . . 0061.5 78983. 388931. .96635 2510160 . 3 2 . 16 10 0.03710 2811 . . 00756 7 6 5 9 0 , 07581 ^ . .95790 a 11. I a a 9 . 2 8 . 09 15 - 0.01730 3188 ., 00969 7 3 7 1 8 . 3 60 0 20 . . 91226 1775381 . 2 1 . 07 7 / (J "> Z *> 50 0 . 06870 182 7 . .01123 7 0 2 6 0 . \ . »8 / A*.. %./ A- ♦ . 90039 Ill 5361 . 2 0 . 11
55 0 . 1 1620 7603 .. 02167 6 5 1 3 3 . 3 0 8 1 5 7 . . 85000 1 . 076.1 32 . J 6 . 15 60 0.17120 V 9 0 0 .. 03715 5 7 8 3 0 . 2 61 3 97 . . 79268 767975 . 1 3.28 65 0.25090 12025. . 05738 4 7 9 2 9 . 2 09 5 83 .. 70867 503578. 1 0.51 70 0 . 31530 12398 .. 08317 3 5 9 0 1 . 118525 . . 60117 2 93996 . 8 . 1.9 .....75 0 . 17300 11118. . 12390 - 23506. 89735 . ♦ 38311 115171. . 6 . 19 '•> o n '•> /. r i- 7 7 / GO 1 . 00000 12388 . ♦ A.. A.. A- V. 1.) 12388 . 5 5 7 3 6 . .00000 % J \ J / a.; O ♦ 1 . 50
M ale
AGE U< X ) Ii ( X ) M t X ) I ( X ) 1. ( X ) 8 ( X ) I ( X ) I: ( X )
0 ■ 0.10510 105 U) . . 1 1 J 0 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 . 92958. ,87956 5255256. 5 2 . 55 1 0.01700 1206 . . 01 213 89190. 316822. .96070 5 .1 62298 , 5 7,6 9 5 0 .0 1 8 4 0 1 5 69 , .00371 85281. 12219 7. .90596 1815475. 56.4 6 10 0 . 00960 801 . .00193 83715. 1 16 5 6 5 . .98960 4392978. 5 2 . 18 15 0.01120 929 . .00225 02911. 11.2231 , .98716 3976114. 17.96 70 0.01150 1 189 . , 00792 8.1982 . 1 06 9 4 1 . . 98386 3561180 . 13.17 25 0.01780 1 138 . . 00359 80791. 1 00 3 7 3 . . 9 7933 3157239. 39.08 30 0 . 02360 1 8 , 3 . .00170 79356. 392096. . 97185 2756866. 3 1 . 71 35 0 . 03280 7 5 41 . , 0066 7 7 7 1 8 3 . 3 8 1 0 6 0 . . 96.135 2361770. 3 0 . 52 40 0 , O il 70 3350 . .00911 7 1 9 4 1 . 3 6 6 3 3 2 . . 91597 1983709 . 2 6 , 17 45 0 . 06380 4568 . .01318 71591 . 3 1 6 5 3 9 . . 92329 1. 617377 . a '•> cr 9 50 0 . 09050 V*) 0 6 X . . 0.189 6 6 7 0 2 1 . 3 1 9 9 5 6 . .08850 1270839 . 1 8 . 96 55 0.13160 8205 .. 02886 6 0 9 5 8 . 2 8 1 2 7 9 . .83956 950883 . 15.60
60 0.19030 10039 . .01206 52753. 238669. .77185 666604 . 1 2 . 61 65 0.26820 11156 . . 06195 1 2 7 1 1 . 101932 . . 68091 427935 . 10.02 70 0.36970 11556 . .09071 3 1 2 5 0 . 127101 . .57718 243003. 7.77 75 0 . 50710 9 9 9 1 . . 13587 19702 . 7 3 5 3 3 . . 3639 1. 1 1.5602 . 5 . 8 7 BO 1 . 00000 9 7 1 t . . 23081 “ ' l l . 1 2 0 6 8 . . 00000 42068 . 1 . 3 3 Table ITT.2 Abridged life Table Page 68 S alati^a , 1971
Female
AGE Q < X > n (x ) M< X) I ( X) L. ( X ) 8 ( X ) T < X > E ( X )
0 -0.09840 98 40 . .10518 100000. 93557. .88572 5270771. 52.71 J 0.05430 4(396 . .01402 90160. 349302. .95207 51 772.14 . 5 7.4 2 5 0.02200 1876 . .00445 85264. 421632. .98408 4827912. 56.62 19 0.009 70 809. .00195 03308. 414920. .98901 4406280. 52.84 lb 0.01230 1 0 16 . .00240 82580. 410359. ♦98591 3991360. 48.33 20 0.01590 1297. .00321 81564. 404577. .98142 3581001. 43.90 ~ 25 - 0.02130 1710 ; .00431 80267. 397061. .97558 3176424. 3 V .57 30 0.02760 2168 . .00560 78557. 387366. . 9692 4 2779363. 35.38 35 0.03400 259 7 . .00692 76389. 375453. .96241 2391996. 31.31 4 0 0.04130 304 8 . .00843 73792. 36 1341. . 95327 2016544. 27.33 45 0.05240 3707 . .01076 70744. 344454. .93612 .1 655203 . 23.4 0 50 0.07600 5095. .01580 67037 * 322450. .89980 1310749. 19.55 55 —0.12640 7830. .02699 61942. 290139. .84698 988299. 15.96 60 0 . 18350 9930 . .04041 54113. 245740. .78027 698 1 6.1. . 1 2.90 65 0.26410 11669, . 06086 44183. 191744♦ ,69652 452420. 10.24 70 0.35700 11608. .08691 32514 . 133553. .59435 260676. 8.02 75 0.48130 10062♦ .12677 20907. 79378. .37558 12 71 2 3 . 6.08 80 1.00000 10844 . ♦ na .. '*>d, 7/ 1JL 2)x 10844. 47745. .00000 47745. 4.40
Mai e
AGE Q ( X ) I- ( X > M ( X ) I ( X ) L. ( X ) S ( X ) f C X ) E ( X )
0 0.11700 11700. . 12695 100000. 92161. .86505 5047672. 50.4 8 1 0.05490 4848. .01424 88300. 340363. .95478 4v55511, 56 . 12 5 0.02060 t 71 9 . .00416 83452. 412964, .98425 4615148. 55.30 10 0.01080 883. . 002.17 81733. 406459. .98830 4202184. 51.41 15 0.01260 1019. .00254 80850. 401706. ♦98561 3795725. 46,95 20 0.01620 1293 . .00327 79832. 395926. .98197 3394019. 42.51 25 0.01990 1563. .00402 78539. 388785. .97693 2998093. 38.17 30 0.02630 2024 . . 00533 76976. 379017. .96872 2609308. 33.90 35 - 0.03640 2728. -.00741 74951 . 367935. .95727 2229491, 29 . 75 4 0 0.04930 3561 . . 01011 7 * : > '} '? 7 , 35221 3-. . 94066 1861556. 25 , 78 4 5 0.06990 4799 . . 01449 68662 . 33.1313 . ,91641 1.50934 3 . 21.98 50 0.09830 6278 . .02068 63863. 303620. . 87979 11.78030 , 18,45 r: cr q 0 g n n sJ J 0.14 450 8321 . .03115 57585 . 267123. ♦ O A,. / id. A- 874410 . .1.5 . 18 60 0.20150 9927 . .04482 49264 . 221504 . .76383 607287 . 1 2 . 3 3 65 0.27960 10999 , .06501 39337 . 169190 . .67857 385784 . 9 . HI 70 0 . 37950 10755 . .09367 28339 . 114807. . 56919 216594. 7 . 64 75 0 . 51350 9029 . . 13818 17584 . 65347 . .35800 101787. 5 . 7 9 80 1 . 00000 0 ' ■ 5 , .23476 8555. 36440. . 00000 36440. 4 . 26 Ta Me I I I , 7, 7 \ ri'\ v v<\ I.i f e 7 ab 1 e Tr/v.-r, ]°71 Page 69
F e e rIh
a nr: g
0 0 . 16190 16190. . 10094 100000 . 89477. . 80272 4225813 . 42 . 26
1 0 . 10560 0850 . .02838 83810. 31188 4 . . 91659 4136336 . 4 9.35
5 0,03690 27 66. . 00752 74960. 367883. .97326 3824452. 5 1 , 02
10 0.01620 1 1.70 . .00327 72194 . 35804 4 . , 98177 3456569 . 4 7 . 88
15 0 . 02030 1 4 4 2 . .00410 71024 . 351516 . . 97688 3098524 . 4 3 . 63
• 20 0.02600 1809. . 00527 69582. 343389 .. 96990 2747008 . 39 , 48 n i ' ) r-; 25 0 . 03430 •L. O a.. v j ♦ . 00698 67773 . 333054 . .96103 2403620 . 35 . 4 7
30 0 . 04380 2867 . .00896 65449. 320076. . 95180 2070565. 31.64 35 0.05280 3304. .01085 62582. 304649♦ .94238 1750489. 27.97
40 0.06270 3717 , .01295 59278. 287096. .93014 1445840. 2 4 . 39 4 5 0.07750 4 306. . 016 1 2 55561 ♦ 267040. .90791 1158744. 20.86 — 50 0.10790 5530. .02201 51255. 242449. .86230 891704. J. 7.40
55 0.17110 7023 . .03742 45725. 209064 . .80189 649256. .14. 20
60 0.23070 874 4 ♦ . 05216 37901. 167646. .73339 440192. 1 1. . 61
65 ~ 0.31330 9135 . . 07430 29157. 122949. ♦ OAS a.. \.) U 272546. 9 . 35
70 0.39710 7951 . . 09910 20022. 80234 . .56122 149597. 7 . 47
75 0.50790 6 1 31 . ,13616 12071 . 45030 . .35081 69363. 5.75
CO 1.00000 594 0 . .24412 5940 . 24333. . 00000 24333 . 4.10
bale
AGE Q ( X > Li ( X ) M< X ) I ( X ) 1... ( X ) S < X ) I ( X ) 1." < X )
0 0.18950 18950 . .21706 100000. 87304. .77746 4025716. 4 0.26 1 0 . 1 6 1 0 8599 . .02853 ,81050. 301429. ,91609 3938412, 4 8 ♦ 59 5 0.03390 2456 . . 00690 72 4 5.1 . 3561| 3. .97411 3636984. 50.20 10 0.01760 1 232 . .00355 69995. 34 6893 . .98101 3280871. 4 6.07 15 0 . 02040 1403 . .00412 68763. 340306, ,97950 2933970. 42.67 2 0 0.02060 1388. .00416 67360. 3 33330 . .97401 2593672. 38.50 25 0.03150 20 78 . .00640 65972. 324666. . 9638 3 2260342. 34.26 30 0.04100 26 20 . .00037 63894. 312921 . .95185 1935676. 30.30 35 0.05560 3 407 . .01144 6.1274 . 297855. ,93575 1.622754 . 26.4 8 40 0.07340 4247. .01524 57868. 278719, .9.1347 1324099. 22.90 45 •“ 0.10070 5 400 . .02121 53620. 254602. .88268 1046100. 1 9.51 50 0.13580 654 8 . .02914 48221. 224732. . 83949 791578. 16.4 2 55 0.10910 7880 . .04177 41672. 188661 . .78439 566846. 1 3,60 60 0.24830 8391 . .05670 33792. 147904. .71943 378185. 1. 1.19 65 0.32350 821 7 . .07718 25401 . 1064 64 . . 63982 230202. 9 . 06 7 0 0.41440 7 1 21 . . 10454 17184, 60118. .54087 123738. 7 . 20 V. L. X 75 0.53550 5389 . .14626 • 10063. 36843. . 33760 55620. s.) ♦ JO 80 1.00000 4 67 4 . .24893 4674 . 18777. . 00000 18777. 4 . 02 Ta b ] e I I I . 4 . b ri ö g eil life Ta b 1 e T-again ng, I 071 Page 70
l'e na 1 e
AGE Q (X ) D(X) M ( X ) I ( X ) !.. ( X ) 8 ( X ) MX) E (X)
0 0,09000 9000 . .09587 100000 . 93880. .89566 5444162. 54.4 4 t 0,04740 4 3 t 3 . . 01 21 9 91000. 353952. .95822 5350282. 58.79 er 0.01.990 1 725. .00402 86687 . 429120 . . 98559 4996330. 5 7 . 64 1: x ‘"J i 1 0 0 . 00090 7 48. .00177 84962 . 422939. .99006 4567210. \J kJ ♦ / O 1 5 0.01110 9 35 . .00223 84214. 418732. .98721 4144271. 4 9.21
20 0.01450 1208. . 00292 83279. 413377. . 98307 3725539. 4 4 . 74
25 0 . 0.194 0 1592. . 00392 82072 . 406377. . 97773 3312162 . 40.36
30 0.02520 2028 . .00510 80479. 397327 . . 9 71.89 2905785. 36 . 1.1 7 er 0.031 10 24 40. . 00632 78451 . 386137. . 96550 2500458 . 31.97 . , ) -;) j /\ ,;> ' > 7 0 '•> 40 0 . 03800 2888 . .00775 76011 . 372836 . . 95690 A. 1 A.. A-. K.J \/ A. ♦ 7 1 i O 7 4 b 0 . 04840 3539 . . 00992 / O .1 *1. kJ * 356767 . . 94097 1. 749465 . 2 3 , 9 2
50 0 . 07020 4885 . .01455 69584 . 335707 . .90658 1392698. 20.01
55 0.11840 7660 . .02517 64699 . 304344 . . 85560 1056991. 1.6. 34 — 60 0.17390 9919 . .03809 5703?. 260396 . .78995 752646. 13.20
65 0.25380 11959. .05814 47120. 205701 . .70599 492251. 1 0 . 45
70 0 . 34790 1 2 2 3 2 . .08423 35161 . 145222 . .60197 236550. 8 . 1. 5
75 0 . 4 74 90 10889 . ♦ 12456 22928 . 87420 . . 38144 141.327 . 6 .1 . 6
BO 1 . 00000 12040 . . 22334 12040 . 53907 .. 00000 53907 . 4 . 4 8
Male
AGE: «< X ) IK X > M< X ) I < X ) !... ( X ) 8 < X ) T < X > E< X )
0 0.1114 0 11140. .12039 100000. 92536. .87501 5209942. 52.10 1 0.04450 3954 . .01146 08860. 344969. . 96122 5117405. 5 7.59 5 0.01880 159 6 . .00300 *84906. 420538. .98561 4772436. 56.21 — 10 0.00990 825.- -.00199 83310. 414486. .98930 4351898. 52.2 4 15 0.01150 9 4 9 . .00231 82485. 410052. .90681 3937413. 47,74 20 0.01490 1215. .00300 81536. 404644. . 9834 1. 3527360. 4 * . 26 25 0.01830 14 70. . 0.0369 80321. 397932. .97083 3122717 . 38.88 30- 0.02 410 1900 . .00400 ,78851 . 309506. .97121 2724785. 34.56 35 0.03360 2506. .00683 76951. 378292. .96045 2335279 . 30.35 • 1 /, / ■ > 4 0 0.04570 339° . .00935 74366. 363331. .94483 1956987. A. * sJ 45 0.06510 4 620. .01346 70967. 343285. .92181 1593656. 22.46 50 0.09220 6117. .01933 66347. 316442. ♦88663 1250371, 18.85 55 0.13670 023 3 . ♦02935 60230. 280566. ♦83731 933928. 15.51 60 0.19280 10025. .04267 51996. 234920. .77236 653363. 1 2 .5 7 65 0.27080 11366. ♦06264 41972. 181443. .68652 4 18443. 9,97 — 70 0.3 7200 -11385 .- -. 091.4 0 30606. 124565. .57535 237000. 7.74 75 0.50850 97 7 4 . .13637 19220. 71668. .36258 1 1.24 35 . 5.85 00 1.00000 94 47 . .23173 94 47 . 40767. .00000 40767. 4.32 Tn hie 111. r' ‘ b r i d f e d I. i f e G,n b 1 e F u r n k n itn , 1°71
Fe ;nn 1 c
AGE 0 < X ) n < x ) M < X > T ( X ) L. ( X ) S ( X ) MX) E ( X )
0 0.08 4 30 8 430. .00956 100000. 94123. . 90230 5563019. 55.63 S g 7 '•) 1 0.04520 3956 . .01100 91570. 357028. ,96190 5468895. X .J 7 • / C-'j 0,01.060 1630 , .00375 87614. 433997. .90655 5111067. t: < > i rr 10 0 , 00020 705 . .00165 05985. 423160. .99070 4677071 , 54.4 0 15 -0.01040 OB7 . .00209 85279. 424180. .90806 4249711. 49.03 20 0.01350 1 1 39 . .00272 84393 . 419115. .98422 3025530, 45.33 o r* 0.01010 1507 . .00365 83253. 41249?. .97918 3406416. 40.92 3 0 0.02360 !
M ell, e
AGE . 0 ( X ) 11 ( X ) M c X ) I ( X ) I. ( X > S < X ) T < X ) E ( X )
0 0 . 10.1 30 1 0 1. 3 0 . . 1.0860 100000. 93213 . .00421 5322961 . 53.23
t 0.04450 3999 . . 0 1 1 4 6 09070. 340090 , , 96257 5229740. 50.1 9 5 0.01770 1520 . .00357 85871 . 4 25554 . .98646 4000850 . 56.04 1 0 0.009 30 7 0 4 . , 0 0 I 8 7 0 4 351 . 419793. .90995 4455304. 52.02
.1 5 0.01000 903 . . 002L 7 03566 . 415576 . .90761 4035511 . 40.29 20 0.01400 1 1 57 , . 00282 82664 . 410426 . . 904 4 .1 361993 5 . 4 3.79 -
25 0 , 01720 1 4 0 2 , .00347 0 1 507. 404020. . 90002 3209509 . 39.38
30 0 . 0 2200 1 026 . . 00461 80105 . 395957 . . 97200 20054 8.1 , 35 . 02
3 5 0 . 03170 2 4 0 1 . . 00644 78278 . 305100 . . 96264 2409523 . 3 0 . 70
4 0 0 . 04 320 3 27 4 . . 00883 75797 . 370790 . , 9 4 77.1 2024335 . 26 , 7 1 “ 7 ' > tr '1 > g ' > t:, «•:; O i / u: *j r r 7 y 4 5 0 . 06 1.00 4 4 02 . . 0 1. 2 75 / A — J •_ t 351400, » 7 a‘.. \.J a'.. .1 O x.) v.7 x.) O / ♦ 22.80 5 0 0.08000 5900 . . 0.18 4 1 68041. 325234. .09135 1302130. 19.14 r: r xJ vJ 0.13130 0 1 4 0 . . 020t 1 62053 . 209096 . . 0 4 304 976096 . 15.74
60 0 . 10650 10053. . 0 4 1 1 4 53905 . 24 4 394 .. 77060 607000 . 12.74
65 0 , 26430 11590, . 060?1 43852 . 190205 . . 69247 442606 . 10 . 09
7' 0 0 , 36X30 1 1 0 ■ . 0096? 32262 . 131766 . .50002 2 5 2 3 2 1 . 7.82
75 0.50470 1 0 310. . 1 3501 20 4 4 4 , 76426 .. 36604 120555. 5 . 90 '•> M g n h 1 , u < e O O ! r ' ' •' > 1 a 1 / * A 1 > < ) -1 ' > o rl * 1. Table 11T ß . b r i d r ed I i f e T a u 1 e page 7 2 Yojivyakart: , 1971
resales
AGE Q ( X ) D ( X ) M < X ) 1 ( X ) L. ( X ) 8 ( X ) T ( X ) E (X)
0 0.07410 7 410. .07832 100000. 94608. . 91111 5791030. 5 7.91 1 0,03560 3 296 . . 00909 92590. 362596. .96866 5696123 . 61.52 5 0.0161. 0 1438 . .00325 89294. 442875. »98836 5333827. 59.73 r. 1.:* / - y 10 0.00710 62 4 . ,00143 87856. 437721. .99190 1890952. x ) x J ♦ O / — 13" 0.00910 794. -.00183 87232. 431177. .98956 1153230, 51 .05 20 0.01180 1020. .00237 06439. 429643. .98621 4019053. 46.50 2 b 0.01580 1350. ♦00319 85419 . 423719. ,90177 3589410. 42.02 30 0.02070 1740. ,00418 84069, 415991. .97688 3165691 , 37.66 35 0.02560 2108. ,00519 82329. 106375. . 97119 2749697. 33.40 #:> x 4 x x ':> 9 , 40 0.03150 2327 . .00640 00221. 391788. . 96107 A.. X.t 1 \7 »./ ». A.- » 2 9 . 21 —*-43- 0.04050 3147. -.00827 77694 . 380601 . . 95025 1948534. 25.08 30 0.05940 4 4 28. .01224 74548 . 361667. .91995 1567929. 2.1 .03
35 0 . 10200 7 .152 . , 02150 70119. 332717. .87359 1206262. 1 7 , 20 60 0.15360 9672 . .03328 62967. 290657 . .81092 873545. 13.07 *7 '*> 7 / r:; 65 0.23100 12311 . .05223 53295. 235699 . ♦ J A.. / x j >J 582888 . 10.94 70 0 . 32680 13394. .07813 40984 . 171137. .61989 347189 . 0.4 7 . .... ^ ------7 5 — 0.45930 12672. -.1192-1 27591. 106272. .39533 .1. / %.) / x j A - « 6.37
BO 1.00000 14918 . .21471 14918. 69180 , . 00000 69480 . 4,66 jTOF'
Ha 1 e
AGE G ( X ) It ( X ) M ( X ) I (X L < X ) 8 < X ) I ( X ) E ( X )
0 0.09000 9000 . .09604 100000 , 93 71 1. . 90133 5540387. 55.4 0
1 0.03730 3391 . .00951 91000 . 356954. .96443 5446676. 5 9 . 85 r 0.01550 1358 . .00312 87606. 434634. .98817 5089722. 58 . 10
1 0 0.00810 699. .00163 86248. 429493. , 99 .1 20 4655088. 5 3 . 97 15 0.00950 813. .0019.1 05549 .. 425714. . 9891 1 4225596. 49.39
20 0.01230 1 012 . .00248 84736, 421077, . 98626 3799881 . 4 4,84
------25 “ 0.01520 X 2 7 2 . .00306 83694 . 415291 . . 98232 3378805 . 4 0 . 37
r * a . 30 0.02020 1665 . .00408 8 407948. .97584 2963514. 35 . 96 ■•*) c: i:r «::• l .’ / / 35 0.02820 2277 . . 00572 80757 . 398092 . . 96663 aL. x.) \.l • J vJ O O ♦ 3 1 ♦ 65
10 0.03870 30 3 7 . . 00789 78480. 334806 .. 95297 21 5 74 73 , 2 7.49 o "Z ') r -‘ t*:* 15 0 , 05570 1202 . .0 1146 75443 . 366708 ♦ ♦ ) A - J X.) 1772667 . 2 3 . 50
50 0.07990 569 2 . . 01664 71240. 341972 . . 90060 1405960, 19 , 7 4
- — 55 - 0 . 1 2060 7905 . .02567 65548 . 307979 . . 85437 1063987 , I 6.23
60 0.17410 10036. .03814 57643. 263127. .79107 756008 . 1 3 . 12
65 0,25110 1 1 954 . . 05743 47608. 208152. . 70462 492082 . 1 0 . 35
70 0.35150 12639 . . 08617 35653 , 146669 .. 58980 284729 . 7.99 “7 C* / vJ 0.19650 1 1 4 2 7 . . 13209 23014 . 86505 . . 3 734 3 1 >806 J . 6 , 00 i*« rv lt / i i l r.r / 80 1.00000 t 1588 . . 22476 J. 1 588 , \.) 1 U vJ O ♦ .00000 x j 1 \ ) .J O ♦ 4.4 5 T able I T 1.7 \ h rid p e d Life T.a Lie Page 73 ]'eka]cII«:an , 1971
Fernale
AGE (MX) IK X) M ( X ) I ( x:> L ( X ) s < x) r (x) £ (x)
0 0.16670 16670. * 1 8 6 9 6 100000. 89165. .79694 4160923. 0 1 . 61 1 0.10920 91 00 . .02942 83330. 309306. .91379 5 0.03790 28 I 3 . 4071758. 48.86 .00773 74230. 36 41.18 , .97254 3762452. 50,6? . 10 0.01660 11 86 . .00335 71417. 354.1 21 . ' 15 0.02090 1 468 . .98 1.27 3398334. 4 7.50 .00422 70232. 347488. .97623 20 0.02670 1836 . 3044212. 43.35 . 005 4 :1 68764. 339228. .96911 2696724. 39.22 ' ) 7 c r / 25 0.035.20 . J O ♦ .00717 66928. 3287 4? , 30 0.04400 2893 , . 00917 .96009 2357496. 35.22 64572. 315627 . .95071 2028747. 31.42 35 0.05400 3331 . .0111,0 61679. 300068. .941,0? 1713120 . 27.77 4 0 0.0641 0 . 374 0 . 0132 4 583 4 8 . 282391 , . 928 70 4 5 0.07900 4 3 I. 4 . . 016 4 5 1413052. 24.22 54608, 262256 . .90623 1 1 . 30660 . 20.70 50 • i -j n ' ) t 0.10980 .02324 50294 , c t :• 237665, . 860 1.5 868404. 17.27 vJ U 0.17360 . 7 772 . 03802 44972. 204428. .79821 630739. 1 4.09 60 . 0 23590 8728 , . 05349 . 36 999 163177. .72954 4 263.1 L . 1 1.52 65 . . 0 31570 8925 . . 07497 28271 119043. .65050 263134, 9.31 70 . 0 39890 7717. . . 09966 J93 4 6 77437. .559 77 144091. 7 .45 . 75 0 50900 5919. . . n '7 r :( 3655 1J 6 2? 43347. . 34 96 7 66653, J ♦ / 0 8 0 . . 1 00000 5 7.1 0 . 24499 . . 5710 2 3 3 0 7 . 00000 23307, 4 .08
Male
AGE (MX) M ( X ) M ( X ) I ( X E ( X ) 5 ( X ) I ( X E < X )
0 0.19490 19490. .22417 1. 00000, 86942. . 77119 3949326. 3 9.4 9 - 1. 0.10970 8832 , .02957 805 1. 0 ♦ 298653 . .91328 3862384. 4 7,97 5 0,03480 2 4 94. .00708 7.1678 , 35215 4 . .97340 3563731, 4? , 72 1 0 0.01 8 1 0 1252 . .00365 69184. 342788. .98051 3211577. 4 6.4 2 1 8 0.02090 1 420 . .00422 67931 . 336.108 , .97623 2860789, 4 2.23 2 0 0,02670 i 7 76 . . 005 Ml. 665 12. 3 28 1. .1 9 , .97054 2532682. 38.08 25 0.03230 2091 . .0065 7 6 4 736 , 318452. .96298 2204563. 3 4.05 30 0.04170 26 25 , .00856 62645, 306662. .95081 18861 11, . 30.1 1 3 5 0 . 05680 3 409 . .0 L169 60020. 291577. . 9 3 4 4 1 1579449, 26.32 4 0 0.07490 4 2 4 0 . .01556 5 6 6 1 1 . 2724 54 . .9118 4 1287072. 22,75 4 5 0. t 0250 5368 . .02161 52371. 2 4 8434 . .88076 1015418, 1 9.39 5 0 0.13790 6482 , .02962 47003. 21880?. .83728 766984. 16.3 2 55 0,19150 7760 , .04236 40521. 183206. . 78208 548175. .1 3.53 6 0 0,25060 8210 , .05730 32761. 14 3281. . .71727 36496?. 11,14 6 5 0,32560 799 4 . .07778 24551. 102772. .63803 221688, 9.03 70 0.41590 6886 . -i / c: c: 7 1 irr c r i .10502 .1. O v J / ♦ O sJ y.) / 1 ♦ . 539 6 7 t 18916. 7.10 7 5 0.5 3 6 4 0 5188 . ,14660 96 71 , 35387. .33664 53344 . 5 , 52 80 1.00000 4 48 4 . * 2 4967 4 48 4. 1 7958. .00000 17958. 4.01 Table V.l
Per Cent Rate of Population Growth by Kecamatan in Kabupaten Semarang,1961-1971
KECAMATAN P 0 P U L A T I 0 N RATE OF
1961* 1971*) GROWTH
Getasan 36311 39094 .7
Tengaran 39672 47338 1.8
Susukan 56719 64861 1.5
Suruh 42484 49009 1.4
Salatiga 29399 35794 2.0
Tuntang 41706 48022 1.4
Banyubiru 26320 31749 1.9
Jambu 26677 32487 2.0
S umowono 17144 21267 2.2
Ambarawa 52514 62770 1.8
Bawen 28742 33629 1.6
Bar ingin 47428 51898 .9
Klepu 55181 68573 2.2
Gunung Pati 23998 30285 2.4
Ungaran 44475 60491 3.1
Source:* 1961 Census, Series no. 23 *) 1971 Census, Series B no. 1 Table V.2
Per Cent Rate of Population Growth by Kecamatan in Kabupaten Tegal,1961-1971
KECAMATAN P 0 P U L A T I 0 N RATE OF
1961* 1971*) GROWTH
Sumurpanggang 40162 46533 1.5
Surodadi 41450 47185 1.3
Kramat 37280 42856 1.4
Warurejo 30703 35546 1.5
Talang 41787 45948 1.0
Tarub 37420 41264 1.0
Dukuhturi 54133 60251 1.1
Lebaksiu 45251 52554 1.5
Slawi 64523 72641 1.2
Pangkah 49067 56091 1.3
Kedung- 20708 26732 2.6 banteng
Jatinegara 34403 38349 1.1
Balapulang 44981 51488 1.4
Pagerbarang 29851 32328 .8
Margasari 51909 61275 1.7
Bumijawa 44871 50984 1.3
Bojong 33579 37215 1.0
Adiwarna 57519 66267 1.4
Source:* 1961 Census, Series no.23 *) 1971 Census, Series B no.l Table V.3
Per Cent Rate of Population Growth by Kecamatan in Kabupaten Magelang,1961-1971
KECAMATAN P 0 P U L A T I 0 N RATE OF
1961* 1971*) GROWTH
Bandongan 29861 36132 1.9
Kaliangkrik 30112 34960 1.5
Windusari 24491 29356 1.8
Grabag 46682 55900 2.0
Ngablak 27706 30488 1.0
Secang 37388 48461 2.6
Tegalrejo 26325 31397 1.8
Candimulyo 31374 35645 1.3
Pakis 35476 38586 .8
Mer toyudan 43666 60476 3.3
Muntilan 48395 54006 1.1
Dukun 32605 34819 .7
Sawangan 40191 43701 .8
Mungkid 42028 47710 1.3
Salam 30282 33525 1.0
Ngluwar 25938 28679 1.0
Srumbung 36424 35770 -.2
Salaman 38626 46379 1.8
Borobudur 32546 37764 1.5
Tempuran 23532 28586 2.0
Kajoran 31569 37801 1.8
Source:*1961 Census, Series no.23 *) 1971 Census, Series B no.l Table V.4
Per Cent Rate of Population Growth by Kecamatan in Kabupaten Sukoharjo,1961-1971
KECAMATAN P 0 P U L A T I 0 N RATE OF
1961* 1971*) GROWTH
Wiru 37212 45846 2.1
Bulu 28209 35831 t o
Tawangsari 32072 37626 1.6
Sukoharjo 40468 51480 2.4
Nguter 41581 49664 1.8
Bendosari 31776 38806 2.0
Pulokerto 37786 46153 2.0
Mojolambar 35447 44326 2.3
Grogol 31718 39114 2.1
Baki 26057 31174 1.8
Gatak 26717 30761 1.4
Kartosuro 34003 42870 2.3
Source:* 1961 Census, Series no.23 *) 1971 Census, Series B no.l Table V.5
Per Cent Rate of Population Growth by Kecamatan in Kabupaten Sleman,1961-1971
KECAMATAN 1971 POP. RATE OF GROWTH
Depok 48,688 3.0
Sleman 41,061 1.9
Mlati 40,970 1.5
Gamping 40,705 1.4
Berbah 29,383 1.3
Kalasan 38,790 1.2
Tempel 38,516 1.2
Godean 39,452 1.1
Sayegan 33,655 1.1
Prambanan 33,220 1.1
Ngaglik 37,562 1.0
Ngemplak 32,202 .9
Cangkringan 22,870 .9
Tur i 25,692 .6
Moyudan 29,296 .5
Minggir 30,518 .5
Pa kern •25,690 .3
Source: McDonald, 1976:Table 6.4 Table V.6
Per Cent Rate of Population Growth by Kecamatan in Kabupaten Pekalongan,1961-1971
KECAMATAN P 0 P U L A T I 0 N RATE OF
1961* 1971*) GROWTH
Tirto 39626 46310 1.6
Buwaran 47373 53172 1.2
Wiradesa 46015 53141 1.5
Sragi 57969 67893 1.6
Kedungwuni 55355 66726 1.9
Wonopringgo 22461 26050 1.5
Bojong 33345 38486 1.4
Doro 15972 20413 2.5
Talun 10688 14894 3.4
Patungkriyono 8009 8909 1.1
Lebakbarang 6606 8015 2.0
Kajen 31909 36484 1.3
Kosesi 37811 44692 1.7
Karanganyar 19513 23717 2.0
Paninggaran 22603 24036 .6
Kandangseran 18805 21178 1.2
Source:* 1961 Census, Series no.23 *) 1971 Census, Series B no.l Page 80
REFERENCES
BERRY,B.J.L. et al. 1977; Contemporary Urban Ecology. New York: McMillan Publishing Co.,Inc.
BRASS, William 1975; Methods for Estimating Fertility and Mortality from Limited and Defective Data. Chapel Hill: The University of North Caroline.
BREESE,G. 1966; Urbanization in Newly Developing Countries. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS 1974; 1971 Population Census, Central Java, Series E. Jakarta.
" 1972; 1971 Population Census, Java-Madura by Sub-District. Series B no. 2 Jakarta.
" 1972; 1971 Population Census, by Province and Regency. Series B no. 1. Jakarta.
"1980; "1961 Population Census, Central Java Yogyakarta. Book II no.23. Jakarta.
"1974; 1971 Population Census, Yogyakarta. Series E. Jakarta.
CHO, Lee Jay, et al. 1976; Estimates of Fertility and Mortality in Indonesia. Jakarta: Central Bureau of Statistics.
CLARKE, John, I. 1965; Population Geography. London: Pergamon Press Ltd.
COX, Peter R. 1970; Demography London: The University Press.
DAVIS, Kingsley and Judith BLAKE 1956; "Social Structure and Fertility: an Analitical Framework." Economic Development and Cultural Change, vol.4, (Apr.),pp.211-35.
DEMOGRAPHIC INSTITUTE 1974; Indonesian Fertility- Mortality Survey 1973 Preliminary Report. Jakarta.
HAJNAL, John 1953; "Age at Marriage and Proportions Marrying."Population Studies, vol.7, (Nov.), pp.111-36.
HUGO, Graeme 1978; Indonesia:Level, Trends and Patterns of Urbanization. Draft Chapter 3 for Country Report on Indonesia, Comparative Study of the Relationship of Migration and Urbanization to Development in the ESCAP Region, ESCAP, Bangkok.
HULL, Terence,H. and SUNARYO 1978; Levels and Trends of Infant and Child Mortality in Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Population Institute. Page 81
HULL, Valerie,J. 1975; Fertility, Socio-economic Status and the Position of Women in a Javanese Village. Ph.D. Thesis, Australian National University.
KEYFITZ, Nathan 1976; "The Ecology of the Indonesian Cities", in Yeung C.P.Lo (eds.), Changing South-East Asian Cities: Readings on Urbanization. Kuala Lumpur: Oxford University Press pp.125-30.
KORSON,J.Henry 1969; "Student Attitute Toward Mate Selection in a Moslem Society: Pakistan." Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 31,no.l (Febr.),pp.153-65.
MCDONALD, Peter, F. and Alip SONTOSUDARMO 1976; Response to Population Pressure:the Case of the Special Region of Yogyakarta. Yogyakarta: GMU Press.
MCDONALD, Peter F. 1978; "Nuptiality Pattern in Indonesia". Mimeograph, National Research Council, Washington, D C
MCNICOLL, Geoffrey et al. 1973; The Demographic Situation in Indonesia, Papers of the East West Population Institute, no. 28 (Dec.), Honolulu: E^W^Center.
MILONE, Pauline D. 1966; Urban Areas in Indonesia: Administrative and Concepts. Institute of International Studies, University of California. Research Series no. 10.
MOMENI, Djamchid A. 1972; "The Difficulties of Changing the Age at Marriage in Iran". Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 34, no. 3 (August), pp.545-51.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL 1970; Draft Report on Fertility and Mortality Trends in Indonesia. Washington:National Research Council.
POLLARD,A.H., Farhat YUSUF, G.N.POLLARD 1975; Demographic Techniques. New South Wales: Pergamon Press Ltd.
SUGIJANTO,S and DUDI TJAHYATI S. 1976; "Daerah Per kotaan:Tinjauan Menuju Perumusan Strategi Pembangunan Perkotaan", Prisma, vol.5, no.3 (April), pp.75-82.
THOMLINSON, Ralph 1976; Population Dynamics - Causes and Consequences of World Demographic Change. New York:Random House,Inc.
THOMPSON,Warren,T and LEWIS Dadid T. 1965; Population Problems. New York:McGraw Hill,Inc. Page 82
UNITED NATIONS 1967; Methods of Estimating Basic Demographie Measures from Incomplete Data. New York:United Nations.
WITHINGTON,William ,. 1963; "The Kotapradja or "King Cities" of Indonesia". Pacific Viewpoint, vol.4, no.l, (March), pp.75-86.