POPULATION MOBILITY AND MIGRANT-VILLAGE TIES A Case Study of Two Villages in East Java by Tukiran A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in Demography at the Australian National University February, 1986 i DECLARATION Except where otherwise indicated, this thesis is my own work. T ukira n February, 1986. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There are many people to whom I would like to express my gratitude for their help and assistance in completing this study. I am indebted to Dr. Paul Meyer, my supervisor, for his guidance and valuable suggestions. In particular, thanks also to Dr. Dean Forbes for his advice and suggestions. Thanks also to other teaching staff of the M.A. Program in Demography, Dr. D. Lucas, Dr. S.E. Khoo and Dr. G. Santow, who introduced me to the area of the population studies, the staff of the NCDS (especially Mr. R.V. Cole, Mrs Carol Mehkek and Ms. Sylvia Boyle), and the staff of Menzies Library were very helpful during my studies. I also wish to thank Mrs. Chris McMurray for her comment, English correction and for all assignment during my studies in the M.A. Program in Demography. Thanks are also due to a number of individuals and organizations for permitting and supporting my study: the Mucia-Indonesia World Bank Project which awarded my scholarship; to the deans of the Faculty of Geography, Gadjah Mada University (Prof. Surastopo Hadisumarno and Dr. Karmono Mangunsukardjo), and to Dr. Sofian Effendi, director of Population Studies Centre, Gadjah Mada University. I am deeply indebted to Dr. Masri Singarimbun, Dr. Graeme Hugo and Dr. Ida Bagus Mantra for their advice and permission to use the data. I wish to thank all my colleagues of the Faculty of Geography, particularly the Department of Population Geography, and the Population Studies Centre who greatly helped me during my study. Finally, I would like to thank my wife and my two children, who let me leave them so that I could study in Australia for two years. iii ABSTRACT For rural people in Java, population mobility, particularly temporary movement, is usually seen as a compromise between the high living costs and marginal wages in the destination places and the psychological trauma of separation from family and friends in the home village. This thesis investigates these aspects of population mobility in East Java, and in particular migrant-village ties. The data used are from the National Population Mobility Survey, conducted in eight provinces in Indonesia in 1980. Two villages were studied in East Java, and the analyses here are based mainly on information from 153 migrants who were visiting their home village at the time of the survey. The study found that the main reasons for migrants to leave their home village were economic, while fam ilial and socio-cultural motives were stated as the main reasons for choosing the destination place. The presence of kin and friends in the destination place can serve as a source of information and increase the probability of getting a job, and therefore the location of relatives or friends can affect the migrants' choice of destination place. The migrants reported that their incomes were higher after they moved. Migrants who had surplus cash were more likely to spend i t on modern goods and education of their families, while poorer migrants used their incomes to supplement basic consumption. Chain migration was extensive among migrants, particularly those who moved within Java. Assistance from kin and friends in the process of moving was iv high. Migrants often provided housing, food and skill training to newer migrants, which temporarily reduced the living costs of the latter and made their adjustments to the new way of life easier. V CONTENTS Page DECLARATION i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii ABSTRACT iii CONTENTS v LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF APPENDICES • x CHAPTER 1 : INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 Importance of Population Mobility in Indonesia 1 1.2 Aims and Objectives of the Study 2 1.3 The Study Area 3 1.4 Data Source and Limitations 8 1.4.1 Source of Data 8 1.4.2 Data Limitations 10 1.5 Plan of Analysis 10 CHAPTER 2 : REVIEW OF LITERATURE ON POPULATION MOBILITY AND MIGRANT-VILLAGE TIES 12 2.1 Introduction , 12 2.2 Motivation for Moving 13 2.2.1 Reasons for Leaving Rural Areas 13 2.2.2 Reasons for Choosing the Destination Areas 14 2.3 The Effect of Population Mobility 15 2.3.1 On the Areas of Destination 16 2.3.2 On the Areas of Origin 19 2.3.3 Visits to the Village and Return Migration 20 vi Page 2.3.4 The Flows of Cash 21 2.4 Summary 22 CHAPTER 3 : THE CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS AND NON-MIGRANTS 24 3.1 Age and Sex 25 3.2 Education 27 3.3 Marital Status 30 3.4 Occupation 32 3.5 Special Characteristics of Migrants 33 3.5.1 Duration Since Migrating 33 3.5.2 Household Landowning Status of Migrants 35 3.6 Discussion 38 CHAPTER 4 : FACTOR AFFECTING POPULATION MOBILITY 40 4.1 Reasons for Leaving Rural Areas 40 4.2 Reasons for Choosing the Destination Place 44 4.3 Mediating Factor 47 4.3.1 Information Source 47 4.3.2 Frequency of Visits 50 4.4 The Decision to Move 52 4.4.1 Person Who Decided to Move 53 4.4.2 Time Taken to Make Decision to Move 56 4.5 Transportation 58 4.6 Person Who Paid Migrants' Moving Cost 59 4.7 Discussion 63 CHAPTER 5 : MIGRANT-VILLAGE TIES 65 5.1 Migrants' Contact with Village 65 5.1.1 Frequency of Visits 66 vii Page 5.1.2 The Usual Length of Visits to the Village 69 5.1.3 Main Reason for Visiting Village 72 5.2 Flows of Cash and Goods 74 5.2.1 Remittances from Migrants to Village 74 5.2.2 Use of Cash in Village Households 78 5.2.3 Village to Migrants Flows 81 5.3 The Effect of Population Mobility 84 5.4 Migrants' Assistance to Newer Migrants 88 5.5 Discussion 89 CHAPTER 6 : CONCLUSION 92 REFERENCES 96 APPENDICES 102 viii LIST OF TABLES Page 1.1 Population Distribution According to Age and Sex in Ngadirenggo and Sumberdawesari in 1980 7 3.1 Percentage Distribution of Migrants and Non-Migrants by Age and Sex (age 15 and over). 26 3.2 Percentage Distribution of Migrants and Non-Migrants by Level of Education and Sex (age 15 and over). 29 3.3 Percentage Distribution of Migrants and Non-Migrants by Marital Status and Sex (age 15 and over). 31 3.4 Percentage Distribution of Migrants and Non-Migrants by Type of Main Occupation and Sex (age 15 and over). 34 3.5 Percentage Distribution of Duration Since Migrating by Sex (age 15 and over). 36 3.6 Percentage Distribution of Duration Since Migrating by Household Landowning Status (age 15 and over). 37 4.1 Reason for leaving Place of Origin According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 43 4.2 Reason for Choosing Place of Destination According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 46 4.3 Main Information Source About Place of Destination According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 49 4.4 Frequency of Visits to Place of Destination Before Moving According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 51 4.5 Person Who Made Decision to Move According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 55 4.6 Time Taken for Decision to Move According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 57 4.7 Type of Transportation Used by Migrants Moving to the Destination Place According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 60 4.8 Person who Paid Majority of Moving Costs According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 62 5.1 Frequency of Visits to Villages According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 68 ix LIST OF TABLES Page 5.2 Usual Length of Stay in Village According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 71 5.3 Main Reason for Visits to Village According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 72 5.4 Amount Money Remitted Back to Village According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 75 5.5 Main Type of Goods Remitted to Village Household, According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 79 5.6 Main Use of Money Remitted Back to Village According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 80 5.7 Amount of Money Received from Village According to Age, Duration Since Migrating and Household Landowning Status (percentage). 82 5.8 Opinion About Expected Change in Migrant's Income Resulting from Moving to Another Place According to Migrants, Non-Migrants and the Leaders (percentage). 86 5.9 The Living and Housing Conditions of Migrants Resulting from Moving to Another Place by Migrants, Non-Migrants and the Leaders (percentage). 86 5.10 Migrants Quality of Diet Better Now than Before they Moved According to the Migrants, Non-Migrants and the Leaders (percentage). 87 5.11 Type of Support Given to the Newer Migrants by Migrants and Non-Migrants (percentage). 90 X LIST OF APPENDICES Page 1. Frequency of V isits to the Home Village According to the Destination Place. 102 2. Length of Stay in the Village According to the Frequency of V isits During a Year.