Push and Pull Forces and Migration in Vietnam
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Munich Personal RePEc Archive Push and pull forces and migration in Vietnam Huynh Truong, Huy and Walter, Nonneman April 2012 Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/39559/ MPRA Paper No. 39559, posted 19 Jun 2012 22:22 UTC cimda Centre for ASEAN Studies Centre for International Management and Development Antwerp Push and pull forces and migration in Vietnam Huynh Truong Huy1 W. Nonneman2 CAS Discussion paper No 80 April 2012 1 School of Economics & Business Administration (Can Tho University), e-mail: [email protected] 2 University of Antwerp, Faculty of Applied Economics, e-mail: [email protected] 2 Abstract This paper adopts the push and pull model of migration to explain inter-provincial migration flows across 63 provinces or cities of Vietnam in the period 2004-2009. We used a solution to a quadratic cost migration problem by combining the total number of in and out-migration of various provinces and inverse distances between provinces that aims at calculating the push and pull factors of each province. The result confirms the hypothesis that push factors correlate well with total out flows of provinces and pull factors with total inflows of provinces. In addition, it is found that pull and push factors are explained rather well by population size and income, but not so by urbanization and poverty. Keywords: push factors, pull factors, migration, distance. 3 1. Introduction In Vietnam – as in many other emerging economies – internal migration, predominantly rural to urban migration, has increased rapidly over the past three decades. Interprovincial migration increased from 1.3 million in 1989 to 2 million in 1999 to 3.4 million in 2009 or, in relative terms, from 2.5% of the population in 2009, to 2.9% in 1999 and 4.3% in 2009 (VGSO, 2010b, 99). Rural to urban migration creates “urban congestion problems” in different forms such as urban unemployment, environmental pollution, traffic congestion, housing shortage, and lack of public sanitation and access to clean water. This creates challenging problems in a wide range of policy domains. Hence, a proper understanding of what drives migration and its consequences is important to underpin fact and science driven policies. Rural to urban migration in particular is challenging as it tends to increase socio-economic disparities between typically rural regions of origin and more urban regions of destination. The growing disparity between the main rural areas of Vietnam - namely the Central Coast and the Mekong River Delta (MRD) region – and the urban areas – the large cities and the Southeast region - is of particular policy concern. The main purpose of this paper is to explain recent migration flows in Vietnam by using a push-pull framework of analysis. The first section of the paper briefly reviews stylized facts on internal migration in Vietnam. Next, some key references to literature on internal migration and specifically on a push pull framework are discussed. The following section presents a simple push-pull-cost model suited to estimate an indicator of “pull” separately from an indicator of “push” for each location. Beside, estimates of both pull and push indicators for each of the 63 provinces of Vietnam are presented by solving the model. Finally, results and applications are discussed. 2. Stylized facts about internal migration in Vietnam The VGSO (Vietnam General Statistics Office) recently published a monograph on “Migration and Urbanization in Vietnam: Patterns, Trends and Differentials” - based on a 15% sample survey included in 3 the 2009 Census – from which a number of stylized facts on internal migration in Vietnam (VGSO, 2010b, 99-100). The most important stylized facts on interprovincial migration4 are: - A rapid increase in interprovincial migrants – both in absolute and relative terms – over the last two decades namely from 1.3 million (or 2.5% of the total population of Vietnam) in 1989 to 3.4 million (or 43% of the total population of Vietnam) in 2009. Feminization of migration with females accounting for more than half the migrant population for the whole of Vietnam. - Clear evidence of a positive relationship between migration and urbanization with central city provinces of Vietnam having a high migrant share of the population; 3 Migrants are defined as “people whose place of residence 5 years prior to the time of the census is different from their current place of residence” and non-migrants are “people whose place of residence 5 years prior to the time of the census is their current place of residence”. Only the population aged 5 or older are taken into consideration (VGSO, 2010b, 19). 4 Vietnam is divided into a hierarchy of regions, provinces, districts and communes (6 regions, 63 provinces, 690 districts and 11,066 communes). 4 - Migrants are typically young (especially females) while the non-migrant population is ageing. The median age of interprovincial migrants is 24 compared to a median of 30 years for non-migrants for the whole country; - The differences in the share of total regional and provincial population of in-migrants are large. For the whole of Vietnam some provinces have more than 10% of total population in-migrants but others have less than 1% in-migrants. These stylized facts on internal migration in Vietnam and more specific the MRD echo the “laws of 5 migration” established in the late 1800s by the British demographer Ravenstein (Ravensteins, 1885, 1889). This is no surprise as in Ravenstein’s time the industrial structure of the British economy underwent a structural transformation from agriculture to manufacturing (and services) and coped with a similar process of rural to urban migration not too different from the structural shift and urbanization of present day Vietnam. Ravenstein’s main “laws” are empirical generalizations rather than “natural” laws. They were derived from a painstakingly careful analysis of census data rather than from some logically consistent theory or mathematical model. Although Ravenstein’s laws do not have an explicit theoretical basis, most of his laws can be derived from a simple mathematical formulation emphasizing the importance of “pull” and “push” factors in combination with distance as a limiting factor. 3. Economic models of migration Most economic models explain the choice to migrate as the outcome of a maximization or a rational choice process. The human capital model considers migration as an investment (Sjaastad, 1962). Migration occurs when the net present value of the income differentials between source and destination exceed the cost of migration. The larger the net present value of income gains over costs, the more likely people will migrate. The fact that it takes time for the accumulated benefits to exceed the costs of migration predicts that younger people are more likely to migrate than older people. In a seminal article Todaro (1969) explicitly included labor market risk by comparing expected income at source and at destination over the life cycle. Expected income depends on both labor earnings and on the probability of finding a job. Hence, differences in unemployment rates at source and destination, determining job opportunities, also enter the decision. The model predicts that migration increases with increasing wage differentials but also with differences in employment opportunities. The model also implies that as individual with more human capital are less likely to be unemployed, the model implies that migrants typically are better educated than non migrants. 5 Keeping in mind that Ravenstein talked about “centers of absorption” as destinations and “centers of dispersion” as sources, his original seven laws were: (i) most migrants proceed over a short distance, towards centers of absorption (ii) migrants moving to centers of absorption leave gaps filled by migrants from more distant regions (iii) the process of dispersion is inverse to that of absorption (iv) each current of migration produces a countercurrent (v) migrants for a far prefer to go to great centers of commerce or industry (vi) natives of towns are less migratory than those of rural areas and (vii) females are more migratory than males. 5 The “new economics of labor migration” – term coined by Stark and Katz (Katz & Stark, 1986; O Stark & Bloom, 1985) – argues that migration should be looked at in a family context rather than at the level of an individual. The decision to migrate is seen as a strategy to diversify the portfolio of risky income sources and is a way to insure against the risks of agricultural activity. Stark also developed a model based on “relative deprivation” as a reason for migration (O Stark, 1991; O. Stark & Yitzhaki, 1988). It assumes that people are not motivated by absolute income gains but rather by their rank and relative income position at the source. The possibility to improve their relative position, will be a strong push factor for migration. Some economic models focus on differences in the utility of consumption at source and destination countries (Faini & Venturini, 1994). In these models utility does not solely depends upon consumption but also upon a location factor summarizing the attractiveness and the amenities of a location. Income differentials are a necessary but not sufficient condition for migration as differences in attractiveness of regions may or may not be compensated by wage differentials. Sociological approaches recognize that differences in life time prospects between source and destination are major determinants of migration (Massey et al., 1993) but also emphasize the presence of earlier migrants. The “chain migratory” approach stresses that these earlier migrants are channels of information and support for newcomers or act as role models. This approach offers an explanation for many dynamic paths of migration flows. A common feature in all models is that potential migrants are “repelled” by conditions and circumstances at the source or ”pushing” people to emigrate, and attracted by conditions and circumstances at the destination or “pulling” people into immigration.