"'1

/~~'ift,5~Y

,_"

",j'\j

J
I

1Q

~'0

<)
\
\

0i, ~)
1

~-

iV S,S J

Iff

1~'f

yf\

14 "

A~S;
r,

{\

Nlo~9frW

I gN' r(}f'-~

1/-: \
. .: /

'- ..---/

l' ur; Jo.J)

THE

IMPASSE

A SKETCH

IN MIGRATION

THEORY:

MAP FOR POTENTIAL

ESCAPEES

Wilbur Zelinsk y

l,w

Department of Geography
The Pennsylvania Stale University

~ifboJJ'O'

INTRODUCTION
Several veers ago, Sidney Goldstein observed,
"vvher eas the study of fertility
dominated demographic
research in the past several decades, migration may well become the
most important
branch of demography
in the last quarter
of the century"
(Goldstein,
1976: 424l. Questions
concerning
migration are indeed
rapidly coming to the fore, in
both practical and academic terms, in many parts of the world, and they have begun to
compete
strongly
with fertility
and other topics for the dominant
share of the demographer's attention.
Tnis sudden thrust toward the front of the stage has, unfortunately,
caught us students of migration
mumbling some of our key lines.

j-

The migration

script

is incomplete

for several

reasons:

1. Even allowing for the most relaxed definition of a social theory, no complete, coherent
theory of human migration
has yet been validated.'
Instead I've rely on a collection
of,
empirical
generalizations
which, among other f aiiinqs,
happens
to be ethnocentric
and tirnebound.
2. While these generalizations
have provided interesting
partial descriptions
and perhaps
pseudo-explanations
of migrational
events in certain places and periods, they have not
yielded the deeper explanations
or useful predictions
that would arise from a robust
theory.

.f

:t

,!
i

n- f

:... !;

3. Whatever
validity
this ad hoc set of lawlike formu lae may have had in the past is
greatly vitiated by two large phenomena
that show every sign of inducing paradigm
shock: the recent turnaround
in the net flow of migrants
between
metropolitan
and
nonmetropolitan
sections
in several of the most socioeconomically
advanced nations;
and the nature of the migrations
now going on in the Less Developed Countries
(LDCs).
My purpose
in this paper is suggested by the subtitle:
after diagnosing
the basic
causes for the impasse in migration theory, to sketch a possible solution, but only in the
most general terms. I am not attempting a definitive
review of the literature and its ideas,

Nor has there been much serious effort to find one in .he area of
general - if we overiook the eversmoldering
Malth:Jsian controversy.
as empirical as possible, limiting their disputes largely to questions
within safely circumscribed
zones. This is in sharp contrast
to the
211 the other social sciences.

migratio~
or in demography
in
lnsre ad demographers
have been
01 technique and interpretation
tneoreticel
brawling in virtually

fBiBLioTECA DO't~EPO'
(
ur:1.::,,~:,_.1_P__

')

a difficult project that badly needs doing.2 Instead I have cited the relevant literature
selectively, and I hope fairly: I propose to examine briefly two of the principal crisisinducing developments, mainly in terms of their theoretical implications. then survey
the currently available theoretical and methodological approaches that have been adopted by migration analysts and show wherein they are wsntinq: and, finally, sketch the
specifications for an adequate theory of migration. The prescription is offered apo 10
getically, in acute awareness of the folly of preaching periection, but with equal coqnizance of the probabi litv that. without a map of some sort, the traveler may never
reach his destination.
Offering at this point a truncated definition of the ideal migration theory may
make the passages that follow more digestible. I have in mind a logically ordered set of
concepts - abstractions
that withstand testing against reality - that will explain the
whole constellation of migration phenomena at a variety of scales - i.e., to describe
and explain past and present events, and anticipate future ones - how many of what
sorts of people will go where, in what patterns of flow, and when, for what reasons
and with what effects upon places of origin and destination, and upon themselves, and,
ideally, upon the entire social system of which they form a part. A heroic agenda perhaps, but one that has been attempted with other social theories that are subject to
verification through analysis of current or historical datil or the unfolding of future
events. Examples include the ambitious anthropological work on kinship systems and
on language, economic theories conceming market behavior, or various schemes postulated by historians and anthropologists concerning the evolution of civilizational systems.
The fact that all such schemes have been shown to be defective is beside the point: the
history of science is that of a procession of noble failures. My complaint, again, is that
the demographer.; haven't really tried. Indeed much of the migration literature contains
no discernible theory at all.

THE TURNAROUND

IN METRO-NONMETRO

THE CRISIS IN MIGRATION

MIGRATION

it: that the march of modem history has been one toward an ever-increasing concentration, in physical space and other spaces, of people, activities, the means of production,
wealth, information, power, and almost all other accoutrements
of advanced social
organization. The implication is that, even after the attainment of a very high level of
urbanization, a net cityward flow of migrants would continue as long as the countryside produces a surplus of births over deaths.
It comes, then, as an especially rude, unwelcome shock to discover in the United
States and in several other kindred countries that the surge of rural and small-town
folk to the great metropolis that had gone on time outof mind everywhere in the world
has, since 1970 or shortly before, stopped being larger than the reverse movement. It is
important to note that this abrupt tumaround had not been predicted, being totally
unexpected, and, in fact, was scancely believed at first. Neither can anyone guess how
long the new state of affairs will persist.
Questions have been raised, especially in the United States, about the reliability
of the data upon which the inference of a tumaround is based. Although these doubts
may not be fully laid to rest until the Census returns for 1980 or thereabouts become
available for the nations in question, the estimating procedures at issue have proved
valid in the past. Moreover, the doubters are confronted with a coincidence of a turnaround materializing at almost exactly the same historical instant in widely scattered
places. These include, in addition to the United States, Japan, Norway, Sweden, Italy,
the two Germanies, France, and, with some qualifications,
Great Britain (Kontuly,
1977; Vining and Kontuly, 1975 and 1978; Vining and Strauss, 19761. I suspect that,
when we acquire the necessary data, we will discover parallel trends in Australia, New
Zealand, Canada, and perhaps a few other Western Eu ropean nations.
Another technical explanation to the effect that the turnaround is nothing more
than simple spillover from cities and inner suburbs into outer suburbs and exurban
areas within daily commuting range of a metropolis fails 10 hold up under critical scrutiny (Beale, 1978; McCarthy and Morrison, 1978)_3 That metropolitan sprawl has extended ever deeper into the countryside, thanks in large part to improvements in transportation and communication, is readily demonstrable and is a fact accounting for some of
the apparent repopulation of rural areas. But many migrants have headed toward some
truly remote, cityless districts which are now experiencing growth, and even net inmigration, after decades of population decline.

AND

THEORY

In reviewing the great mass of empirical publications and the much smaller body of
theoretical literature in the field of migration .the.Jeader can detect a single common
axiom - almost always unstated - undergirding these efforts. It is the assumption that,
subject to the limitations imposed by social, political, physical, or other barriers and the
quantity and quality of available infonmation, human beings will tend to gravitate from
places having fewer advantages (however they are defined) to those having more. It goes
almost without saying that cities are universally regarded as more privileged places than
are rural areas. Even when migrations are activated by the quest for amenities, as in the
movements into Florida, Califomia, Arizona, Colorado, the Riviera or England's southern
coast, the result has been added urbanization.

Two other attractive hypotheses also collapse under critical scrutiny. Some of the
countries under consideration have officially adopted policies designed to encourage the
dispersion of popu lation and of manufacturing and other enterprises from congested
metropolitan zones into the more thinly settled, relatively depressed, peripheral tracts
of their national space (Sundquist, 1975). But others have not, and even where governments have tried to foster deconcentration,
any explicit action has materialized too
late or has been demonstrably too weak in its effects (De Jonq, 1977b) to explain the
new pattern of inter-regional migration. Attributing the apparent reversal in the net
direction of metro-nonmetro flo v.'S to a downward swing in the business cycle is no
answer either. Although business recessions may accelerate a back-to-the-countryside

The general axiom of personal optimization is enfolded within an even deeper

substratum of belief, one so obvious or intuitive few writers have bothered to articulate
2 Perhaps the most seardling critiques to date are Goldscheider, 1971 a and Kubat. 1976, while" briefer
review is available in Kosinski and Prothero, 1973: 117. Critical bibliographies covering important
segments of the migration literature are available in: Campbell and Johnson, 1976; Eiizapa, 1972;
Findley, 1977; Jansen, 1969; Mangalam, 1968. Olsson, 1965; Price and Sikes, 1974; Ritchev, 1976;
Shaw, 1975; Simmons, et al., 1977; and Thomas, 193&

?n

3 Morrill, 1979, offers a somewhat more sophisticated version of this idea, on~ that certainly merits
further investigation. The claim is for a sequence of stapes in the evolution of residential patterns,
with metropolitan concentration characterizing the initial period to be followed by dispersion into
nonrnetro terrirorv when a region, e.q., the Northeastern United Stales, reaches an advanced level of
social and economic maturity. What is not explained is why distant rural areas should be repopulated ,

-!
\

21

__

~ .

-=

.,')00.-.;...

.-----~---

movement
(as
surge began no
of the U.S., at
and has since

happened
in the American of the early 1930s), the present-day
outward
later than 1970, and perhaps two or three years earlier in some sections
the crest of the long, postwar boom in personal and collective affluence,
persisted
with scant correlation
with dips or spurts in the economic
indio

caters.
The moral to be drawn from the foregoing theoretical
strategies is that conventional
modes of explaining
migration
phenomena
are inadequate
in coping with that surprising
international
event, the turnaround.
Clearly, it's time to start searching for some theoretical apparatus
that will accommodate
both it and the earlier patterns of migration
that
are at least partially
explained
by traditional
formulae.
Two recent intellectual
developments
suggest that paradigm
shock may sooner or
later induce enlightenment.
First, there is the notion that human migration,
like other
spatial phenomena,
may be essentially
an equilibrium-seeking
process - a possibility
masked by the enonmously
rapid transformation
of society and places in recent history.
Thus if the transitional
phases of modernization
are indeed ending and some kind of
steadv-state
system
is evolving, then the turnaround
may be just the first of a series of
periodic oscillations
that occur as metropolis
and countryside
approach
a dynamic equilibnum."
Much more thinking
and a great deal of empirical work are needed before this
idea can be assessed fairly. In my own view, I find it difficult to envision a society whose
economy,
technology,
and social behavior are changing so rapidly achieving any sort of
nearstability
in its settlement
characteristics.
Another
suggestion,
with perhaps deeper implications,
enters the realm of social
psychology.
The postulate
is that circa 1970 a large number of people in a set of highly
developed
countries
(closely linked in psychic space by modern
communication
and
travel) simultaneously
attained a level of affluence that greatly broadened
their range of
locational
decisions,
and, at the same time, underwent
a potentially
irreversible
shift in
their place-preference
value system, aided and abetted
by economic
and technological
advances. An ancillary
factor could be the sheer burden of the combined
economic
and
ecological
costs of maintaining
very large urban agglomerations,
with special attention
to the problems
of energy (Sly and Tayman, 1977). Once again, the testing of this proposition might prove to be long and difficult, but the effort will almost certainly
stretch
theoretical

horizons.

MIGRATIONAL
ANOTHER

DEVELOPMENTS

THEORETICAL

IN THE

LESS

DEVELOPED

COUNTRIES:

DILEMMA

The challenge
to the theoretician
posed by migrational
developments
in the Less
Developed
Countries
may be less dramatic
than that emanating
from the turnaround,
but a careful look reveals implications
at least equally farreaching,
and with immensely
important
practical repercussions.
If the reversal in metro-non metro flows within countries such as the United States has serious policy implications
at the local level (Morrison,
19771. it hardly threatens
the survival of the national community.
In many of the LDes,
on the other hand, the appropriate
spatial redistribution
of popu lation may be one of

4 An explicit argument that includes some interesting but less than fully conclusive Australian evidence
is al'ailable in Rowland, 1976,1979. The case for the United Stares is presented in Wardwell, 1977a,
1977b.

the key factors in negotiating

the passage to a viable level of socioeconomic
ment, the alternative being consignment
to some unending
collective
misery.

develop-

The working assumption

behind nearly all the many recent analyses of migrational
events in the developing world is of the deja vu variety. It ho Ids that, after making gener
ous allowances
for differences
in timing, scale, and sociopolitical
circumstance,
cu ltural
peculiarities,
and recent technological
advances, events in these countries
are simply a
repeat performance
of the essential scenario already enacted
in the advanced nations.
The hope is that, even though the denouement
may lie some years ahead, the pocesses,
motivations,
sequence of flows and patterns, and general outcome
will not produce
any
surprises.
If there are differences
between the two categories
of countries,
they are
presumed to be 01 an equal or lesser order of magnitude
than those within each category.
After careful reflection,
I believe this initial impression,
which I shared a few short
years ago, is false and deceptive.
In fact, I wish to advance the thesis that the observable
facts suggest profound
differences
between the two sets of events, differences
that provoke fundamental
theoretical
quandaries.
Clearly, there are some large difficulties
with the empirical
evidence needed to
bolster either point of view. If the currently advanced
nations did indeed once undergo
a stage of migrational
evolution
comparable
with the present-day
situation in the LDCs,
the statistical
and other
relevant records for that period are seriously deficient
or at
least inadequately
studied to date.s Much of the scanty evidence for those bygone events
is indirect or inferential;
but there now exists a respectable
sampling,
from census and
survey sources, of population
shifts within an array of Less Developed
Countries
_ and
. much more data can be expected in the near future.
Equally troublesome
is the parochial character
of the large mass of recent research
on Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Not only are most investigators
reluctant
to go
beyond narrow disciplinary
concerns and "ask the broader
questions
that OJt across or
escape 'conventional
boundaries"
(Simmons,
et el., 1977: 9), but students of migration
too often confine their curlositv to just one of the three great continental
segments
of
the Third World, or perhaps
only a subregion
thereof,
making
little effort to share,
compare and integrate
results. This is a serious matter because of the great diversity
of
cultural, political, environmental,
and historical settings for the oommunities
in question.
Such diversity makes cross-national
analysis both more difficult
and more urgent than
has been the case with the fully developed
nations
- at least until Japan entered
this
group. I am not suggesting that all migration research in LDCs should be interdisciplinary
or cross-national
in character,
only that more such efforts are needed and that more 01
the localized studies should be cognizant of other areas and ccher approaches.
The superficial
similarity
between the two sets of phenomena
- earlier phases of
migration in the advanced
countries and present-day
processes
in the LDCs - is obvious
enough.
In both instances,
migration
has been dominated
by a great wave of ru ral-tourban movement,
along with much shifting about within the rural sector. For those f ortunate countries having a good supply of relatively empty,
resource-rich
territory,
pioneer
settlement
has also generated
significant
redistribution
of population;
and for many
of
the others, emigration
to labor- deficient and/or underpopulated
nations has been quite
5 Where early parish or town records are still extant, as they are for many communities in Europe and
the colonial Americas, historical demographer; can extract useful migration information from rnern
as was done, for example, in Greven, 1970. Unfortunately, the process is not only extremely labor i
ous but the results appreciably more inferential than for fertility Or rnortalitv.

....---_.---_. ~
--..~-.~

important. However, the less 'obvious diHerences between the two groups of countries
may be symptomatic of divergent paths of social change.
For one thing, the relationships between city and countryside in the LOCs are of a
different order from those 'hoe find in the developed countries of the past or present. If
there was a decided economic pull by the cities of Europe or America of an earlier era,
as well as a rural push, the extraordinary current levels of unemployment or underemployment indicate little, if any, discernible labor shortage in the metropolitan areas
of the LOCs. The apparent near-standstill in recent urbanization rates in India should
give one pause (Brush, 1970). There may be some personal social or economic benefits
for migrants transferring into cities, but no convincing case that the national welfare,
or the economy of the individual city, has enjoyed any net gain. Moreover, if the urbanization of developed countries was simultaneous with, and probably an integral factor
contributing to, the upward thrust of socioeconomic development (and this supposition
is, of course, hampered by weaknesses in the historical data), the available evidence for
LOCs seems, on balance, to argue just the opposite: a general stagnation, or even retrogression, of the physical level of living of much of the population in recent years. But
one cannot blame the ills of underdevelopment
on excessive urbanization; the latter is
just one symptom of a more basic malady.
The dynamics of rural-urban migration streams in the late2Oth-century LOG may
differ from those of its potential 19th-century
counterpart in the developed world
in two respects. First, there seems to be a strong pattern of periodic circulation
between city and countryside in the LOGs (Chapman, 1977a, 1977b; Bedford, 1973;
Gould and Prothero, 1973; McGee, 1971; Mitchell, 1971, 1978; Prothero, 1978); these
oscillatory movements, which may be especially important in Africa, Southeast Asia
and the Southwest Pacific, promise to endu re indefin itely and in large volume in contrast
to their relatively sliqht, transient significance in the developed countries. Circular migration rnav be a modem phenomenon, as in much of Central and Southern Africa, or an
extension of traditional
patterns. In any event, its existence helps explain the universal
increase in rural numbers and densities in the LOGs, whereas at the superficially analogous
phase of migrational history in the developed nations, rural depopulation was usually
far advanced.
Second, the phenomenon
of metropolitan
primacy - the tendency of cityward
migrants to favor the largest metropolis over its competitors - may be manifesting itself
more powerfully in some of the LOGs than elsewhere. Insofar as this is true - and it
remains a matter of sharp scholarly controversy 6 - it may reflect a weak development
of interactive, hierarchical urban systems such as those characterizing most highly developed nations, There is also much food for thought in the unquestioned fact that the
present-day metropolis within the LOCs is growing through a combination of net inmigration and positive natural increase, whereas, until fairly recently, the metropolises
of the developed countries had to rely upon migrants to cancel out an excess of deaths
over births.

6 I find it hard to believe that the disproportion between the primate metropolisesand the secondary

cities in early modern Europe began to approach what we observetoday in Thailand.the Philipines,
Guatemala, Burma, Taiwan, Guyana, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan or Peru to take some especially
hypercephalic nations, The general problem of metropolitan prirnacvis analyzed in Berry and Horton, 1970: 6475.

To the extent that inhabitants of LOGs have participated in international migration,

they have done so in ways bearing only a causal resemblance to the patterns observed in
the developed world. These emigrants have tended to gravitate to places of decidedly
higher levels of development; and many, perhaps most, have been temporary labor
migrants, i.e., essentially circular migrants. In contrast, the citizens of the del/eloped
world have moved or circulated to nations of comparable, or only slightly lower, levels
of development; and on the average, the incidence of return movements by emigrants has
been relatively 10w.7
.
There is an even more fundamental distinction between the migrational - and the
larger demographic - histories of the two sets of countries. Without exception, dUring
their earlier stages of development. the demographic transformation
of the advanced
nations was a spontaneous affair, neither monitored nor controlled by any central authority. Most LOCs, on the other hand, have tried varying degrees of official manipulation of mortality, fertility, and migration in recent decades or at the very least have
done a great deal of organized worrying, and much more can be anticipated. Obviously
some of these efforts have been inept and ineffectual; but, in certain instances, they have
been dramatically effective, Examples include the abrupt changes in patterns of emigration
not only from the semi-developed Soviet Union, and the nations of Eastern Europe, but
also the "underdeveloped" socialist countries of East Asia following the changeover in
political regimes. If reliable diachronic data can ever be acquired for Ghina, Vietnam, and
Cambodia, they may show that those nations succeeded in reversing or at least severely reducing the flow of migrants from countryside to city.
If any single moral can be drawn from the foregoing arguments, it is that the worldsystem - cap italstic-curn-socialist - as of the end of the 1970s is an immensely diHerent
creature from that of a century or two ago. It is much more complex, interactive, and
self-conscious, so that research must look far past the proximate economic or demographic factors to explain the true nature of migrational and other readily countable
events. I would suggest for a start that much can be learned by applying "dependency
theory,"
ICastes and Kosack, 1973; De Souza and Foust, 1979; Frank, 1969; Oxaal,
et et., 1975) which offers the thesis that social and economic processes throughout the
LOCs are contingent upon decisions made by governments and corporations based in
the more fortunate sections of a tightly interdependent world. Obviously, the developing
nations of the past epoch - now the advanced nations - experienced nothing approaching the current condition of dependency and external domination.
Setting aside for the time being the substantial achievements in generating mone and
better migration data and analytical tactics and in broadening the range of empirical
investications," how much progress has been made along the theoretical front? What are
the major strategies, and how effective have they proved to be in coping with the whole
range of rniqrationalphenomena,
including those discussed in the previous pages ?
Immigration into North America, for example, displays decided difference in rates of rerum migra.
tion as between natives of various nations of origin. Few of the Swedish or Irish immigrantsreverse
direction. but a large fraction of persons arriving from Italy, Greece, and Puerto Rico evenwall,.
re-enter the home country. Socioculruralfactors may be as influential as economic ones in accounting for the differentials.But, in any case, there is little or no organized effort in the host countries
of Europe 01 America to expel newcomersfrom lands of comparable developmental status, The
immigrantsfrom the LDCs cannot be so certain of lonq-terrnresidence.
8 Notably into such subjectsas intra-urbanmovements (Simmons, 1968; Quigleyand Weinberg,1977).
commuting (Vance.19601,and tourism (Matley, 1976; Svart, 1976).

25

---

NINE STRATEGIES, THEORETICAL

OR OTHERWISE,

A basic difficu ty with all the foregoing efforts is that they are in essence descriptive
as well as both time-bound and place-bound, and do not venture far into either prediction
or deeper explanations of migrational processes, such "laws" constituting at best a form
of "middle-ranqe theorv ", The desirability and possibility of bolder theoretical advances
have been sketched (e.q., Vance, 1952; Goldscheider, 1971 a, 1971 b). Perhaps the most
substantial accompfishment in both originating and testing migrational theory, at least
within the predorniaant lv demographic mode, is the hypothesis of multiphasic response
initiated by Davis (1963) and subsequently pursued in Fr.iedlander, 1969. These arthors
deal effectively with the question of whether citizens of countries passing through the
demographic transi:ion will opt for out-migration to a city or foreign lands, and when
and in what numbers this will be done, or whether they wi II adjust to economic stress
by means of family limitation. They have managed to connect migration phenomena with
the demographic transition, one of the few constructs in demography that has much
theoretical appeal.

FOR THE STUDY OF MIGRATION

I can discern in migration studies nine fairly distinct sets of ideas or emphases, only
some of which can be dignified as "theoretical." None, I hasten to add, is totally independent of one or more of the others; in fact, the overlap is considerable. Discussion of
them shou ld also be prefaced with the acknowledgement that several classificato ry
systems have been proposed for categorizing migrants and/or migrations on a basis other
than simple distance or permanence (Davis, 1959: 589-591; Eichenbaum, 1970; Kant,
1962, McGee, 1976: 14-21; Petersen, 1958, 1969; Roseman, 1971). These systems vary
in both approach and complexity, ranging from a minimum of two types in Roseman's
case to more than a dozen in Petersen's scheme. They are of interest insofar as they
embody some underlying theory, as all typologies must do, even if they are only partial
theories in these instances and expressed more implitictly than otherwise.
The explicit explanatory

strategies are as follows:

1. The general empirical approach : Within this classification lie various efforts to
describe and perhaps account for migration phenomena as the outcome of a combination
of some rather immediate factors - a generalized inductive approach based upon historical evidence. The most influential have been series of codifications of empirical findings,
sets of "laws" which may not technically qualify as theoretical statements but which have
certainly been pressed into service as such. The earliest, and still perhaps the most consequential, was Ravenstein's pioneering feat in bringing some order out of the chaos of
19th-Century migration data (Ravenstein, 1885, 1889). In a sense, all subsequent sets of
general "demographic laws" have amounted to "Variations upon Some Themes by Ravenstein." Uke most other theoretical efforts reported in this paper, Ravenstein drew
almost solely upon Westem experience, and more particularly the British and European
variety .. Within its empirical limitations, it was an extraordinary achievement, and one
which recognized economic dimensions and the shihing dynamics of migrational systems
over time as well as other factors.
Another highly durable codification, though one limited to migration differentials
(Thomas, 1938), has sti II not been fu Ily superseded after four decades. Dorothy Thomas'
distillation of a vast amount of published literature confirmed and extended some of
Ravenstein's notions although she dealt with a narrower span of topics. Quite recently,
and also in quasi.theoretical style, Campbell and Johnson (1976) have assembled available
knowledge of an even more limited segment of the migrational realm: counterstream
migrations. Undoubted Iy the most influential recent effort is Everett Lee's" A Theory of
Migration" (1966). Less empirical and more abstruse in character, it amounts nonetheless
to an updating of most of Ravenstein's propositions in the form of a model whereby
amount and direction of migrational flows are determinated by the relative strength of
positive and negative attributes summed at potential sources and destinations and moderated by intervening obstacles of all sorts. Some allowances are also made for the role of
information and cumulative inertia. Certainly the most elaborate and detailed set of
migrational laws is that promulgated by the historian George W. Pierson in his semipopular The Moving American (1973). Several scores of propositions and sub-propositions, all overtly based on the United States record and all thoroughly empirical, comprehensively set forth what is known or suspected in three chapters entitled "Any 'Laws
of Migrability'? ", 'Move Effects," and "And What Happens to Those Who Go" (Pierson,
1973: 165-228). Despite the somewhat breezy style of the volume, Pierson's ideas merit
close examination by academicians. In some ways they go deeper than Ravenstein's or
Lee's.

2. The economic epproecb: If any single strategy has dominated the migration scene
in recent decades, it has been one rooted in the calculus of economics _ the basic premise
being that for members of the labor force the decision whether and where to migrate
results primarily from a rational comparison of the known costs and benefits of alternative locations. (Of course, economic considerations also enter, in varying Degrees, into
all the other strajeqies noted here.I The practitioners of this approach in its simplest
form assume that unemployed workers will move, with or without their families, to
localities where jobs are believed to be available, and that those who are employed will
consider the possibilities of more remunerative or secure employment and the opportunities for advancement, along with such factors as moving expenses and differentials
in cost of living, before reaching a sensible decision as to whether to migrate or remain
in the same place, In more sophisticated versions of this model, various social and personal factors may be introduced (as was done in Mincer, 1978). Much of the voluminous
literature in this vein is critically summarized in Olsson, 1965, Ritchey, 1976, Shaw,
1975, Simmons, et el., 1977.
Two factors accounting for much of the enthusiasms for the economic approach
displayed by American students are that this approach fits snugly within the thought.
ways of a predominantly business civilization and, more immediately, that by far the
greater part of the spatial and temporal variance in migrational events can be accounted
for statistically by an array of economic variables. Indeed there has been much clever
tinkering with both spatial and a-spatial versions of push-pu II and related models of
migration, grounjed in economic assumptions, with some gradual improvements; but
much greater prcqress is unlikely, Indeed one begins to sense a growing disenchantment
with the fu rther prospects." There are several reasons.

.L
'.,

.:I

-r

Clearly, for any study period, the assumptions of perfect knowledge of the labor
market and of .otal economic rationality on the part of economically motivated migrants must be modified by the inclusion of political, social, and psychological factors.
But whatever vsliditv these assumptions may have had in the past is probably being
eroded by chanjes in preference structures and various changes in the social system.
Perhaps the most dramatic challenge comes from the recent migrational turnaround
discussed above. Furthermore, there are several large, spreading fissure~ in the migration
9

For an especialv
spirited.
closely reasoned attack on the shortcomings
thought in deali1g with migration,
see Amin, 1974: 85.110,

of

conventional

economic

27

in both empirical and theoretical studies (many of which are discussed in Olsson, 19:: 5,
Shaw, 1975: 41-42, and ter Heide, 1963). The basic notion has been refined by redefining
distance in terms of cost and dimensions other than simply physical extent and ':Iy
considering the effect of 'intervening opportunities' (Stouffer, 1940, 1960). A particolarIy interesting extension of the ideas of 'social physics' is the mapping of "popu lation
potential" (Stewart and Wamtz, 1958; Wamtz, 1964).

scene left unaccounted for by economic explanations.

At the relatively micro intrametropolitan scale, for example, economic considerations
furnish quite incomplete
explanations for residential relocation (Simmons, 1968). Similarly, to account for the
movements of students,
the fully or partially retired, institutionalized persons, the
unemployed, rentiers, and other individuals outside the regular labor force - and, in
the aggregate, they account for a large; increasing share of the total popu lation - the
definition of "economic" must be stretched almost to the point of absurdity to sustain
the economic model. It is, of course, possible to apply the economist's kit of tools to
non-monetary, non parametric variables by inventing some plausible quantitative measures for them, But it is likely that other modes of analysis might be more rewarding,
especially for the great volume of more or less permanent migration now inspired by
the a<Tlenities,not to mention more ephemeral kinds of movement in that genre (Svart,
1976; Ullman, 1954).

Once again, this general scheme with its assumpt-ions concerni ng Homo ecoriornicus
has yielded reassuring results up to a point, but apparently less so with the passage of
time and the ongoing transformation in social-psychological structure. If the gravity
model and its variants do a reasonable job of accounting for most "norma I," ecoriornicalIy motivated movements, they fail in several other contexts. For example, in the pr ocess
of pioneer colonization, a thin or nonexistent population is a positive inducement and
the friction of distance is of relatively little consequence. Simi larly, the remoteness and
population density of potential destinations are lightly regarded by amenity-inspired
migrants. When it comes to tourism, the ordinary relationship between movement and
distance is inverted in many cases.!? More fundamentally, the gravity model has also
been severely criticized in terms of its basic logic and philosophic underpinnings (Olsson,
1976; Sheppard, 1978).

3. The human ecology approach: The question is not whether to discard economic
formu lae but rather how they can be incorporated into more comprehensive, meaning.
ful general theories of migration. A promising move in this direction has been generated
by the adherents of the human ecology school among sociologists. The basic ideas first
enunciated by Hawley, 1950 and Duncan, 1959, 1961 have been fleshed out in empirical
tests of their dernoqraphic implications by Sly, 1972, Frisbie and Poston, 1975, and Sly
and Tayman, 1977. In their model of social dynamics, one which has the potentiality
of becoming a large component within a general theory of society, the human ecologists
postu late four interacting sets of phenomena: population, technology, environment, and
ornanization. In this context, "organization" is defined mainly as the constellation of
activities which contribute
to the survival of the population, in essence, the local subsistence base or, in anthropological parlance, the 'culture core." In the works cited,
"organization' is clearly treated as the most crucial of the four variables or rubrics; hence
the juxtaposition here of t he human ecology approach to the economic.

If the orthodox gravity model explains little about the evolution of migration systems over time, the time-path analysis initiated by Hagerstrand (1969) may open the way
for such development. It treats the shifting location of individual persons or households
in a biographical rather than a historical time-frame, but eaves unresolved the question of
how to relate individual acts to larger migratory flows.
Two other aspects of the spatial modeling of migration which perhaps may be better
classified as descriptive devices rather than as contributions to theoretical understanding
are: (1 J the delimitation of sets of migration fields and migration regions on the basis of
the network of migrational exchanges between groups of places (which need not be
contiguous) (Slater, 1976; Stave ley, 1973); and (2) the treatment of flows between pairs
of places as a stochastic process (Rogers, 1968).

There is much to be said for this approach, but its strengths and weaknesses as a
device for studying migration, or other phenomena for that matter, cannot be assessed
without a great deal of additional testing. Some basic flaws may be detected, however,
even upon a preliminary encounter. What is the optimal size, or physical area, for the
community to be studied in this manner? Are present data systems appropriate to the
demands of this methodology?
The relationships among factors within each of the four
rubrics are poorly understood (Sly and Tayman, 1978: 793). Furthermore, the scheme
is not as inclusive as may have been intended, for there is scant provision for items in
the ideational realm or for forms of spatial interaction aside from migration. Neither is
it clear just how change is initiated within this system from either internal or external
sources. Finally, this approach is more effective in describing the how of interactions
betveen various elements in the population-organization-environment-technoIDgy
system
than n offering true explanations of why they should be so.
4. The spatial modeling of migration: An explicitly spatial approach to migration one that considers distance and direction as major explanatory variables - ought logically to be subsumed under the economic approach, considering the orientation of the
geographers and economists who have cu Itivated it; but it has been persued so assiduously
on its own merits that perhaps it is not improper to single it out here. Following the
announcement of "The Law of Retail Gravitation" (Reilly, 1931), the idea of the Gravity
Model - essentially that the volume of migrations, or the movement of other items,
between two places is inversely proportional to some function of their distance and
positively related to the size of their population - has been elaborated with great vigor

5. The cultural approach. This is more a matter of attitude than a coherent theoretical apparatus. The premise is that the cultural system per se, or the cultural personality,
if you will, of a given national or sub-national community is a major, independent variable in the molding of migrational characteristics. This truism, more often than not
ignored by migration analysts, is, unfortunately difficult to translate into quantitative
terms or otherwise render operational. Nonetheless the historical and geographical evidence is most suggestive. In considering such questions as just where specific ethnic
groups settled within North America or, as previously noted, the differentials in rates
of return migration, much is left unexplained by standard economic factors or specific
historical circumstances. The residuals may simply reflect cultural proclivities.

.~
I

::I

To confound the problem, it is often difficult to separate cultural peculiarities

from those attendant upon various stages of socioeconomic development. (Do me migrational attributes of the American South reflect a certain developmental stage of a rela
tively retarded region, or the special cultural complex of the region, or_some combination

;'

.:::
I
:;

~I
-

10 In an analysis of international
tourism, Williams and Zelinsky,
1970 describe numerous
instance
where remoteness
lends enchantment.
and the traveler seeks out distant ilnd ex otic places, But ther e
are also cases where the friction of distance and time prevails. and the tourist settles for a neighbor.
jng country.

thereof?}
The general case for the cultural
approach
is offered in Zelinsky,
1966 and
elaborated in much detail for the United States in Pierson, 1973.'1
For the time being
the verdict must be: necessary but insufficient.

The most fundamental

objection,
the contention
that a unilinear mode of evolution
obtains for widely disparate civilizations separated
by both distance
and time, has been
raised against similar propositions
in history and anthropology
(Steward,
1955). But the
possibility
remains of convergent
evolution
toward
similar forms among independent
communities.
More specifically,
application
of the mobility transition
or other components of the demographic
transition,
which are essentially
derived
from Western, i.e..
European
and North American,
experience,
to the Third World has led to serious misgivings about its exportability.
It is not at all clear that the Western pattern
is being
faithfully
replicated
in, say, Southeast
Asia or the Southwest
Pacific (Bedford,
1973;
McGee, 1971, 1976). In such areas, there has been a much brisker development
of circulatory
migration with many wape-earners
shihing
between
rural and urban residence
in cycles covering some months
or years, a pattern of urbanization
different
from that
experienced
by the West, and there have been few signs as yet of the depopulation
01
the countryside
that signalled a critical stage of the demographic
transition
in the more
developed nations of the world.

6. The sociological approach : This is yet another approach that represents a set
of ani tudes. along with a number of immediate
ad hoc generalizations,
rather than a
formally stated
theory
and that also overlaps
most of the other approaches.
In this
instance, the generally
unspoken
assumption
is that nearly everything that needs explain
ing about the migrational
behavior of a population can be explained if we (a) have enough
information
about its social characteristics
and (b) then infer the various cause-and-effect
relationships
between
predisposing
attributes
and decisions as to whether and whither to
migrate. (Both literature
and ideas are reviewed in Mangalam and Schvvarzweller,
1970,
Ritchey, 1976, and Uhlenberg,
1973). Demographers,
especially those of the sociological
persuasion,
have leaned heavily on empirical
generalizations
concerning
the migration
implications of the age, educational
attainment,
sex, occupation,
income, marital status,
and ethnic or racial identity of individuals
or families and also the impact of migration
upon these characteristics
in both sending and receiving communities.
Much attention
has
also been given in recent years to the relationships
between critical stages of the Jife-cycle,
and the effects of economic
conditions
have not been overlooked.

Another
intriguing
suggestion
with large theoretical
implications
is the idea that
migrational
systems
may be basically
equilibrium-seeking.
Ponder,
for example,
the
contentions
recently espoused
by Rowland (1976) and Wardwell (1 977a, 19nb), that
rr
internal migration
is concerned
more with maintaining
the settlement
pattern
than
with modifying it" (Rowland,
1976: 1) and:

That these efforts have yielded useful results is beyond dispute; but, once again, too
many questions
have been left unexplored
or unexplained.
These include:
the linkages
between migration
and social structures
larger than the family, which are relatively hard
to quantify; the difficulties
of circumventing
the "ecological fallacy"; valid explanations
for historical
changes and cross-cultural
differentials
in the migration
effects of sociological variables; the impact of political
institutions,
when these are noticed at all; and
accounting for the whole array of relatively unconventional
forms of spatial mobility.

Just as the vital

semi.equilibrium
IDw fertility and
of the mobility
ization.'

transition
describes
the processes of fertility
and mortality
2S tending
from"
characterized
by high fertility and rnortallrv,
to a new semi-equilibrium
with
mDrtality,
SD tDO a migration equilibrium
may be approacheo
towards the enc
transition
as all parts of the se rtlernent system achieve a high level of "modern

(Rowland, 1976: 11)

7. The historical approach:

Perhaps the closest approach

to a general demographic
theory to meet with general interest
or approbation
has been the theory of the demographic transition,
which is, obviously,
inherently
evolutionary
and historical in character
(Gogwill, 1963; Vance, 1952). Although
the notion of an orderly, related series of phases
in demographic
development
was initially limited to fertility
and mortality,
it is selfevident that the same ideas can just as readily be applied to any set of demographic,
social, or economic
characteristics
affected
by the course of modernization.
Thus "The
Hypothesis
of the Mobility Transition"
(Zelinsky,
19711, involving successive temporal
and spatially diffused
phases of migration
and circulation,
was probably
an inevitable
development.
It is useful as a heuristic device and as a convenient
way of approximating,
and perhaps even predicting,
the broad outlines of changing mobility
conditions
in a
wide variety of regions and periods. Nonetheless,
it and the earlier versions of the demographic, or vital, transition,
have been subjected to severe criticism on various grounds.' 2

Thus the "normal" state of affairs for a society is posited as a dynamic

near-equiiibriurn
in which there is a low degree of efficiency
in migrational
currents,
i.e., much cross.
hauling of migrants, but with the net result of effecting slight adjustments
in a relative
Iy stable socioeconomic
system.
This hypothesis
has been set forth so recently that i1
stil/ awaits adequate
testing;
but it is especially
germane to the discussion
of the turn
around phenomenon.
One question
immediately
presents
itself. Are the United State:
and similar nations
indeed entering
an era of relative socioeconomic
stability,
ard, i
not, how pertinent, then, is the concept of equilibrial
migration?

11 His brief for American

exceptional
ism may strike many as extreme and unbalanced.
"For it is hard
to escape the conviction that somehow,
for some strange reason. Americans have had a special affinity for mobility,
have known it. used it, enjoyed it, and suffered its agonies, with a devotion and
an intimacy no other people has experienced.
We are, and will remain, a more fluid society:
(Pierson,
1973: 163).
12 Several scholars
have tested the mobility
transmon
in widely separated
parts of the world and at
different spatial scales. Representative
examples
include Bedford,
1973, Fuchs and Demko, 1978,
Skeldon, 1977, and Stavely, 1973. Although their results suggest some important
modifications,
they
also tend to support the basic features of the model.

Another
pregnant
possibility
still woefully
underdeveloped
is the application
0:
dependence
theory and other aspects of current Marxist thought
(as set forth, for exam
pie, in Frank, 1969 and de Souza and Porter, 1974) to spatial interaction
in general anc
mobility in particular,
as it develops over time, with special reference to the Third Worle
and to labor migrants Circulating
betv ..een the Third World and the advanced
nation
(Amin,1974;
Castles and Kosack, 1973). The only methodical,
explicit attempt
(whicl
could be just as readily classed under our economic
or spatial headings)
seems :0 b.
McGee's work on South and Southeast
Asia (McGee, 1976) wherein he proposes a s vsten
of migration and circulario-,
between capitalist and peasant economies
situated
in bot:
metropolitan
and ru ral localities.
A sharp debate seems to be developing
around the role of the present-day
labo
circulation
system in the LDCs. One school of thought
(Mabogunje,
1972) stoutly main
tains that this phenomenon
may be a continuation
of traditional
practice
(at least in Wes
Africa), but in any case is a healthy,
positive factor conducive to economic
progress an.

y:

~~

......:L
J.

development. In stark opposition are those of the Marxist persuasion (e.q., Amin, 1974,
Castles and Kosack, 1973) who argue that such circulation of Third World workers and
their families actually generates and intensifies underdevelopment.
If the latter view
prevails, then, obviously we are witnessing a major deviation from the course o i the
mobility transition as previously played out in the advanced nations.

Two considerable problems must be overcome before one can subscribe who lr
heartedly tc this approach. First, there is the question of aggregation, or scale, Ca
enough information be derived from a relatively small sample of individuals to dra\
sound inferences about large population movement? Ane findi ngs at one social or are,
level applicable to another level? Closely related is the question of whether individu:
attitudes and motivations have much meaning in trying to understand essentially soci,
phenomena involving complex interactions among numerous groups and individual:
Second, assuming that the psychological approach can be made to work for the cor
temporary period, how can it be applied to earlier eras? Documentary evidence is! ikel
to be of minimal utility.

8. The psychological approach: This strategy has enjoyed considerable popularity

in the past few years, especially among geographers and sociologists (Ritchey, 1976:
397399; Shaw, 1975: 105116), but not noticeably among psychologists. The basic
premise is that much of the migrational process - and, incidentally, a number of other
lively questions in social science - can be explained by considering the ways in which
ind ividuals cognize their present surroundinqs and other localities that are prospective
candidates for relocation or visits. The seminal essay which seems to have inaugurated
this line of inquiry is Julian Wolpert's "Behavioral Aspects of the Decision to Migrate"
(Woipert, 1965), although there ~re some earlier hints in the literature.

Obviously, the psychological approach holds much promise; but: it is equally plai.
that, as is the case for all the other strategies under discussion, it can provide only on
portion of the needed total theoretical structure. The last of the strategies to be cor
side red does at least aspire to that ambitious prospect.

The approach assurnes ta subjective place-utility evaluation by individuels" (Wolpert,

1965: 162, my emphasis). When feasible, migration will occur "as an adjustment to environmental stress, "to quote the title of another Wolpert essay (Wolpert, 1966), assurning also some necessarily limited search behavior, bounded rationality, and perhaps a
predisposing stage in the life-cycle. Although it is not easy to dispute this thesis, it raises
the difficult question of how individual personality differences, amidst all the many
other factors to be considered, enter into the migration decision; and thus far the relevant
research has been minimal.13 We do know that certain persons, who form a small, but
significant, minority of the total population, seem to be congenitally restless and, as
repeaters, account for a disproportionate share of all migrations (Morrison, 1971). A
related concept has been stated by Hagerstrand (1957), namely, that a small number of
"active migrants" may be the initiators of out-migration streams to distant localities,
to be followed later by a larger mass of former neighbors, the "passive migrants" (Hager
strand,1957).
The intractable problem of shihing from individual to mass behavior has been
partially overcome by charting the collective "mental maps: or place preferences, of
larger groups 0'1 persons who are tested to extract their relative evaluations of certain
specific places (Gould, 1965; Gould and White, 1974). In a related maneuver, the recent
surge of work on 'residential preferences' (Carpenter, 1977; Dejong, 1977a; Dejong and
Sell, 1977; Dillman and Dobash, 1972) has provided enlightenment as to how Americans
collectively rate the residential desirability of various categories 0'1 cities and places at
specified distances from cities. Of special interest in the American context is the probability of a deep, persistent anti-urban bias (Blackwood and Carpenter, 1977; Hadden and
Barton, 1973). All these efforts are of such recent date that there has been little opportunity to attack the crucial question: to what extent are these conscious, or perhaps
subconscious, preferences for, or revulsion against, various types of places and the set
of perceived regions of this country translated into actual movement?

131n a tangential
approach to the problem, the correlation
at the state level of rnigration al data with
membership
in se lecred voluntary associations
and readership
of special-inter est magazines,
I have
discerned strong hints of some relationships
between
certain personality
types and chronic propensitv to migrate and its reverse (Zelinsky, t974). On a quite different scale, Leiker (1976) indicates
sicnif icant psychologioal
differences
among a small sample of Kansas out-rnicr ants who selected
alterna1ive rnetr opotitan
destinations,

9. The system approach: General systems theory has gained great favor recentl
in several sectors of social science, so that its suggested application to migration stud
comes as no surprise (Mabogunje, 1970; Wolpert, 1966). In a similar vein, Gade (1970
has proposed 'a general human spatial interaction theory' to be developed and exploite
by geographers that seems close in spirit to the systems approach. Unfortunately, linl
seems to have been actually done beyond such programmatic statements; and the claim
by geographers to a special competence in approaching the world holistically, whi:
often announced, have yet to be thoroughly confirmed in practice.
In abstract terms, the systems approach is appealing, since it provides for the inte
action of all the known, and yet-to-be-discovereri, variables involved in migration ph!
nomena, including the flow of information. Yet it will not meet the criteria set fon
an ideal theory, for it remains a sophisticated descriptive method, as essentially mechar
ical one that allows for a near-infinirv of interrelationships, but which cannot reall
generate explanations for the origin, existence, nature, and dynamics of this web o
causes and effects.

THE IDEAL MIGRATION

THEORY SPECIFIED

So much, then, for a cursory review of the. principal theoretical approaches ("idel
loqies" might be a more accurate term) being used by laborers in the migration vineyan:
All suffer from one or several fundamental shortcomings in accounting for even tl.
traditional, 'normal' phenomena of migration. They are even more deficient in copir.
with the challenges of the turnaround or the peculiarities 'of present-day migration i
the Third World. But let us now consider as specifically as possible what a truly ide
theory of migration must embrace.

'1

~~~
.".',~~
.

-::.~ It
--

-- r

At the core of my argument lurks a profound paradox: teat we must strive vioo
ously toward an impossible goal. Now that the early enthusiasm for logical posit ivis
in the social science has weakened, most of us realize that the inherent nature of hum,
beings and human society rules out the possibility of any rigorous theory, large or srna:
that fully and accurately describes and explains, much less predicts, any significant pha:
of real,world human activity (Graham, 1976). Perhaps it is the realization, subcoriscioi

or otherwise, of the essential untidiness of humankind's affairs that has made demographers 14 so wa ry of grand theory (Heberle, 1955; Kubat, 1976; Vance, i 952).
At the same time, it is difficult not to recognize important similarities, regularities,
and at least panial recurrences of human phenomena among different communities in
various places ard eras that cry out for some theoretical attention, It will be many years,
if eyer, before debate is ended on the proper fonm, possibilities, and limitations of social
theory and how it should deviate from theory in the physical and bilogical sciences; but
clearly, in the meantime, in demography as in other social sciences, it is both possible
and desirable to formulate stronger generalizations that somehow take into account the
volatil ity and chanciness of human deeds along with certain lawlike relationships and
the deeper currents of social change.
Fertility and Migration: Two Very Different Sets of Challenges: An enormous
amount of attention has been devoted to measuring and analyzing fertility phenomena,
along with the related matters of population size, age and sex structure, and the dynamics
thereof. The result has been considerable progress and methodological refinement, at
least in short-ra'rqe analyses of empirical data and in various abstract formulations, but
no end of further analytical questions. To continue in a paradoxical vein, however, there
has been much less effort expended on migration topics; but, as I hope to demonstrate
shortly, the term 'migration" represents a much more complex set of phenomena than is
subsumed under the term "fertility," so that we can expect enormous difficulties if
students of migration are ever to overtake and surpass the students of fertility in their
technical achievements.
To specify the differences between the two sets of phenomena:
- It is fairly ~ mple to define a birth, or a death for that matter: but whether or not a
person has migrated depends on the specification of the distance and du ration of the
act, and perhaps also such additional elements among others as intent, volition, function, and social consequences. All these items can be defined any number of ways and quite arbitrarily. One man's migrant may be another's nonmigrant; an infant is an
infant.
- The extent of frequency of migration is immensely more sensitive to scale, be it
spatial, temporal, social, political, or whatever, than is the case for fertility. This is not
to deny some degree of scale-sensitivity in the measurement of the latter. but only to
assert a much lower order of magnitude. When it comes to the spatial aspect of rn iqration, such scale-dependence
is recognized in the conventional categories of international, internal, and intra-urban migration, each of which is usually treated quite
independen:ly ofthe others.
- One encounters a much greater quantitative range, as well as qualitative variety,
migration rates than is true for fertility. Moreover, negative rates are as frequent
positive ones, whereas negative fertility (or mortality) rates boggle the mind.

in
as

- Although migrational flows tend to be inertial, like fertility patterns. wide fluctuations
in fates call occur abruptly; and occasionally sudden basic alterations in pattern are

14 Along with most historians and. during the second quarter of this century at least, most human
ge09r aphers, On the other hand. an excessive preoccupation with theory by most economists has
done a cer ta'n vio lence to real ity.

observed. In contrast,
rather narrow limits.'

fertility rates tend to change relatively slowly, as well

2S

wit hi,

- All manner of human beings can migrate repeatedly any number of times in all sort
of ways with hardly any effective upward limit, whereas each of us dies only once
and giving birth is an act for which mly a minority of a population is eligible and ther
only under constraints of number and frequencvset by strong biological aid socia
factors. This fact, in tum, implies considerable perplexity for the student of migration
in deciding whom to observe, where, how, and over what spans of time; and, of course
the devising of appropriate indices to measure migration is inherently difficult, pro
bably much more so, in theory, if not in practice, than is the case for fertility.
- Although it is not entirely absent, the biological factor is much less significant in th.
study of migration than for fertility. In its place, there is the human will, expresser
individually or collectively, as the dominant force and a much less predictable 0
measurable one than the biological.
- All in all, then. whether performed singly or in groups, migration is inescapably;
social act, with all the potential for complexity, opacity, and fickleness that that fac
implies, to a much greater degree than is true for fertility events. This means the
migration is much more place-, time-, and cu lture-specific than most other dem 0
graphic phenomena (Shaw, 1975: 36-37), and more sensitive to technological chang,
and political policy. It is also more responsive to unique events, including catastrophes
both natural and man-made; and it is also more closely related, directly or indirectly
to the habitat, natural and man-made.
- Finally, the study of migration has been taken up by several disciplines, notab l.
sociology. economics, statistics; and geography; but each has tended to pursue anal
ysis in its own manner relatively independent of the others. In contrast, the variou
disciplines investigating fertility topics - principally medical science, sociology, ecc
nomics, statistics, and psychology - have managed to coordinate their attack to
greater degree, even though disciplinary differences do persist.
Toward a More Meaningful Definition of Migration:
Giver: all these consideration:
i.e., those that are mainly intrinsic to the nature of migration (with the exception of th
last), one can understand why progress in defining, describing, explaining, and theorizin
about migration has been slower than it ought to be, and why it will continue to be slo,
and difficult. Butthere are other obstacles essentially intellectual or institutional in natur
that should be recognized, and, once having been recognized, may conceivably be cor
rected and overcome.

First, there has been undue caution and opportunism in recognizing and definin
migration phenomena. At the simplest level, this has meant uncritical reliance on effie.
decisions and information. Thus in the U.S, we tend to accept the intercensal decade 0
some other arbitrary time period set by the Bureau of the Census or other govemment;
agency in deciding whether a person has migrated, or how many have done so, eve
though it is obvious that migrations do not respect official calendars. Longitudinal Sur
vevs have been making headway, but only slowly and sporadically. As-a result, the actu.
number of movements is grossly undercounted and their character seriously distorts
15 However, when fertilitY rates do change unexpectedly, as happened during the "baby boom" in
mediately after World War II or the decline that set in circa 1960 in most advanced countries, ir.
result is paradigm shock. In fact, it will be many years before the theoetical issues brought to lig~
by these unpredicted events are senled.

,~"

.<

relationships.
servation. 1 6

throu gh dependence on data for conventional intervals. Similarly, much valuable interrnation is missed by defining migrants as only those persons who within certain specified
periods cross certain political boundaries or censally defined lines, the location of which
may be totally irrelevant demographically; and occasionally the re;~:..s are downright
ludicrous. (Someone who moves from Alaska to Hawaii, perhaps the two most dissimilar
states in terms of physical and social environment, remains within the same Census Division, while the person who moves a couple of miles across the Mississippi from Minnesota
into a very similar habitat in Wisconsin is considered an inter-divisional migrant !) The
hazards in accepting convenient data are greater in migration work than for the student
of fertility or most other demographic items. If all population scholars need to pause and
think carefully before accepting various territorial categories, e.s., metropolitan and nonmetropolitan; rural and urban; incorporated areas vs. unincorporated; urbanized areas vs,
residual territory, the need is particularly urgent for the student of migration.
Several additional
problems have confounded the search for an optimal definition
of mi~ation and for truly adequate indices for measuring it. Migration occurs in multiple
dimensions of both space and time - distance and direction in the case of the former,
and various recurrent,
or partially recurrent, cycles and varieties of time other than
simple clock-time in the case of the latter. One must also take into account a number of
psychological, social, and demographic attributes in viewing migrants or the migrational
process. And there is the etemally intractable problem of viewing migration simultaneously as process and structure, of looking at a system of flows and counter-flows and
also at a group of people in transit, as well as stavers. and of bringing together sources,
destinations, migrationa I streams, causes, and effects into some single conceptual frame-

need not create social contact,

nor is it necessary for its pre-

Ample evidence exists that friends and kinfolk who wish to keep up steady contact
over long distances after migratory shifts manage to find the means to do just that.
Similarly, the categorical distinction between international and internal migration, which
is certainly of great importance in most instances, is .not universally valid. Residential
shifts and labor commuting across some international boundaries may be less difficult
or consequential in social and economic terms than movements within the indiviciJal
nations. One has only to consider Tropical Africa. And if credence can be given some
commentators in the current uproar over illicit movements between Mexico and the
United States, a good many hundreds of thousands of persons are engaged in a complex
array of trips that, in the aggregate, closely resemble the flow of internal mig-ants beween the American South and Northeast or between Puerto Rico and the U.S. mainland. In any case, given the increasing internationalization
of the world's economy,
various regional consortia for economic and social purposes, and the vigorous circulation of capital, talent, tourists, commodities, and information among so many nations,
the nature of the distinction between internal and international
migrations may be
changing. The same mode of reasoning applies in attempts to segregate "genuine rniqrations" from more ephemeral movements on the basis of duration, i.e., the penmanen1
vs. the temporary. There are simply no loqical cut-off points in the progression from
the briefest kind of jaunt, measured in minutes or hours, to the settling down at a new
location that lasts for decades." 7 Lest I be misunderstood, this is not a plea for a specific
new typology of migration. The intent is to induce the sort of rethinking of fundarneotals
that may lead to superior typologies and other dividends.

work.
Admittedly, specifying appropriate spatial and temporal dimensions is not easy
and the procurement of adequate data is even more difficult. but these accomplishments
are technically, if not always financially, feasible. Where continuous population registers
do not exist, it is quite practical to carry on detailed surveys of the migration history of
sample populations, and perhaps to do them longitudinally, along the same lines that
important fertility data have been collected. The adoption of geocoding for individual
household locations, an idea initiated in Sweden, makes it possible to devise study areas
of any size or shape for the entire censally enumerated population and to calcu late precise distances be ween successive residences.
What I am advocating is, however, much more fundamental than the mere irnprovement of the data base or establishment of more realistic sets of statistical areas, and an
idea which many of my readers will strongly resist. It is the realization that migration, as
conventionallY _ and usually crudely - defined, is only a rather arbitrary slice of a much
larger entity, namely, territorial mobility of every scale and description. Thus I wish to
argue that the population scholar must consider all manner of travel under the category
of territorial mobility: residential shifts, whether local or long-distance; daily and weekly
commuting; recreational
travel; business and shopping trips; seasonal labor migration;
student and military travel; religious pilgrimages; forced transfers of convicts and slaves;
nomadic wanderings; social visits; and so on down a lengthy list of human movements.
Although it is convenient for many purposes to mark off certain segments of what
is in actuality a seamless, if somewhat wrinkled, continuum, there are no absolutely clean
'breaks: natu ral or man-made, in the spatia-temporal spectrum of mobility. For example, I no longer believe we can in all cases meaningtully discriminate between local moves
and "genuine migration" on the basis that the latter means a decisive rupture in social

Propinquity

The argument does not stop here. Territorial mobility in all its forms, magnitudes,
durations, and recurrent patterns, if any, is only a sinq le aspect or dimension of thai
larger many-dimensional phenomenon that embraces all varieties of mobility. These
include, inter alia, movements through social space, cultural space, and economic spacr
(including the occupational ladder and income brackets) and, of evergrowing significance.
the transmission of information from place to place. Clearly, just as various forms 0;
territorial mobility are related and partially interchangeable,
e.q., labor commuting ir
lieu of residential shifts, there are also critical, intimate connections between territor ia
and nonterritorial forms of mobility that beg for much closer study than they hav.
received so far. For example, all too little is known about how travel in whatever form
on the one hand, relates to, augments, or substitutes for, some fonnn of comrnuriicati or
on the other, or how information can stimulate or stifle movement; but any reasonablr

16 The hackneyed
example
of lone-term,
next-door
apartment
house dwellers who have never COfT,
rnunicated
beyond a nod is still serviceable.
But there are also many examples
from bus ir-ess an.
professional
life. My departmental
colleaaues
and I have worked
across a narrow corridor
from,
group of palynologists
for a full decade without establishing
any real social or professional
com ac:
but we Chat almost daily with colleagues in WaShington,
Minneapolis,
Berkeley, and a half doze;
other places.

";

17 Under a oenuinelv radical definition

of mobility, no one _ not even the untorrunate
person who,
bed-ridden
for an entire life1ime - can be classified as a permanent
non-migrant.
Mobility
in th
extended sense may be regarded as the passage from a given social condition
10 another
signiliC4l"'
Iy different one, whether or not that transition
involves a new locale. And what transitions
are mar
rneaninqfu: socially and otherwise
than those from non-being
into being and then back again 10 nor
being that we call birTh and death?

person will concede

the existence
of interesting
connections
between the mobility
of
human beings and the wafting about of messages (Abler, 1977). Moreover, we all realize
that a change in social status or occupation
frequently
triggers migration,
or vice versa.
Indeed this truism is the basis for the serious attention
recently given the life-cycle as an
explanatory
oevice in migrational
studies.

and Schwartzwefler,
1969, 1970). The theorists have not striven for sufficient rigor in
their formulations,
nor have they been too explicit in describing the range or social or
historical
scope of their ideas. In part this is simply the familiar inertia of antiquated
ideas.
Among the greatest faults of which we are guilry in migration research is being locked into the
same kinds of questions related to the same concepts of migration that were developed years
ago for a particular setting at a p articular time. This may well help to explain why we are so
surprised at what is happening in the more developed world; it may go far in explaining why
we know so little about population movements elsewhere.
(Goldstein,
1976: 428)

If this is a convenient
point at which to rest my definitional
case, the trail does
lead further.
Plainly mobility
in all its penmutations
is no more than one phase of the
even larger phenomenon
of social change. Thus we find that the process of successive
enfoldings
- "migration"
within total territorial
mobility,
the latter within
mobility
in the broadest
sense, then that macro-mobility
encapsulated
within the immense phenomenon
of social change
- forces us, finally, to confront
the unavoidable,
ultimate
task: the discovery of a valid general social theory.

To be more specific, most migration research by American

students
(and by their
European
counterparts
as well) has been limited to their own society or similar ones to
the exclusion
of Third World experiences.
This ethnocentrism,
largely unconscious,
would be less serious if it concerned
only the processing
of empirical data, but it has
extended
into the theoretical
arena as well. In much the same way, theoretical
efforts
have tended to be a-historical,
set as they are in some presumably
timeless cosmos.
The
result, then, has been a preoccupation
with the here and now, and often a pretty narrow
now. There is more than one reason to broaden the geographical
and historical bounds of
the migration
enterprise.
Quite apart
from the fact that other eras and other cornrnunities may be inherently
interesting, our view of our own population
and our times _ and
the near future - will be seriously distOrted if we are not equipped
with a theory that
embraces
a broad range of societies and periods, Our parochial
self-interest
compels us
to seek intellectual catholicity.18

Obviously,
my position
will strike most readers as an extreme,
impractical
sort
of idealism.
In rejoinder
the most telling
point may be that the narrow pragmatism
of traditiona
I migration
research,
a largely a-theoretical
praxis that skims
lightly over
questions
of definition,
or avoids the larger implications
of the phenomena,
no longer
works too well. It may have sufficed
in an older, simpler era, but the increasing
complexity of human
movements
and the accelerating
interplay
between spatial mobility
and all manner of other phenomena,
social, psychological,
technological,
environmental,
and others,
compel
us to ponder
a deep definition
of migration.
The difficulties
of
generating
the additional
data called for by the suggested definition,
or of finding new
ways to manipulate
existinq data, are freely admitted;
but the rewards shou Id justify
the effort.
But, even in lieu of fresh statistics
or novel formulae,
I am lobbying for liberation from the straitjacket
of conventional
thoughtvvays,
or, to use the oft-quoted
Thomas Kuhn's pregnant term, for a 'gesalt switch.'

Another serious weakness in migration scholarship

has been the relative isolation of
one disciplinary
group from another, none with much interest
in evolving compatible
strategies
for attacking
questions
of mutual interest
(Mangalam,
1968: 6). Another
hindrance,
but one more difficult
to document,
are the biases introduced,
probably
unwiningly,
by the personal and class interests of the analysts and the clients to whom
their migrational
activities
are directed (Cowgill, 1963). This, of course, is a problem
endemic to all social science research.

After the assimilation of Franklin's paradigm, the electrician looking at a Leyden jar saw something different from what he had seen before. The device had become a condenser, for which
neither the jar shape nor glass was required ... Lavoisier... saw oxygen where Priestley has seen
dcphlogistated air and where others had seen nothing at all.
(Kuhn, 1962: 117)
Perhaps if we look at our migration
surprised at what we find.

data

through

new mental

spectacles,

we may

The most grievous lapse, however, has been a general failure to ground migration
work in any basic, comprehensive
social theory, or even to try seriously. What we have
instead is a series of ad hoc generalizations
or, at best, midd Ie-range theories
that float
within an intellectual
limbo. For once, the blame can be shared with nondemographers.
The grand theorists of social science - and their locus, quite properly,
lies in sociology
and anthropology
- have accorded
population
items little or no space in their scheme
of things. Even among the major architects
of economic
thought,
population
is a peripheral
issue, something
usually taken for granted
rather than an integral ponion
of
their philosophic
edifice. It is difficult to see how this situation
can persist much longer.

be

Other Conceptual Difficulties in Migration Research: If a major reason for the

weakness of migration
theory and praxis has been a superficial,
incomplete
definition
of the subject matter,
there are certainly
others. Perhaps the most obvious is the persistence of many inadequacies,
both quantitative
and qualitative,
in the available data
in nearly every nation; but there have been notable improvements
and even more are in
prospect
If there has been rather less serious interest in analytical methods by students
of migration
than has been displayed
by analysts of fertility and some other demographic
topics, aga in solid progress has been made in recent years (Bogue, 1959: 485509; Shryock
and Siegel, 1971: 616-672). These advantages
are heartening to the theorist because, as
is true for all scientific
endeavors,
the three modes of activity - collecting evidence in
laboratory
or field, inventing and applying
better analytical tools, and building stronger
theories
- are tightly
interdependent.
You cannot
go far in any of these directions
without progress in the others.
But, as already hinted, the more basic explanation
for the unsatisfactory
status of
migrational
work lies in the realm of the conceptual
and the social-psychological
(Elizaga,
1972: 121-127; Goldstein,
1976; Jackson,
1969: 3-6; Mangalam, 1968: 3-8; Mangalam

'T

It is impossible to function
as a scholar of any sort, or even a rank-and-the
human
being for that matter, without carrying in one's head a map of social reality, a kind of
mega-theory,
normally
buried deep within the subconscious.
In the case of Western
demography,
there has been a set of implicit assumptions
_ which in lieu of a better
label might be called liberalism - the remnants
of a weltanschauung
clearly articulated
a century ago by such major thinkers as Mill and Spencer.
Insofar as those postulates

%"t
i

18 A parallel imperative operates in environmental studies. Underslanding and solving the many eco
logical dilemmas that are making life difficult, we now realize, compel, us to adopt the perspecti'Jes
of several scientific disciplines and to consider large stretches of time and territory.

- 1

-f

,0

2. It will also operate at approximately the same level of effectiveness among all
societies, cultures, and historical periods; and it would take into account the evolutionary
processes of human society. .

are expressed in the demographic transition and its correlates (probably our closest
approach to grand theory in population studies, I must repeat), we find enough disjunction between theo ry and reality to force us to consider alternate starting points in
basic social theory.'
BUILDING

3. Within a given population, the theory will account for extreme, aberrant behavior
as well as the more numerous aggregation of "normal" events, and will also accommodate
unique events, including human and natural catastrophes. Indeed the abnormal occurrence would provide a rigorous test of the soundness of the theory.20

STRONGER

THEORY:

WHAT

IS NEEDED?

What must we look for in the ideal population theory? Before itemizing its characteristics, a brief recapitulation of ground already traversed may be helpful:

4. The theory will allow for the interrelationships among all forms of spatial rnobilitv, and also between the various aspects of spatial mobility and other forms of spatial
interaction (Gade, 1970) and, finally, between this extended category of spatial phenomena on the one hand and various forms of nonspatial mobility on the other.

1. Among all the major classes of demographic phenomena, including fertility,

none is inherently more. complex and challenging than is the set of events we call "rniqratiori."

5, It will be closely integrated with other theories covering fertility and other major
demographic phenomena,

2. For this and other reasons, current migration theory is unable to cope with the
scholarly and practical tasks at hand - or in near prospect - for the population scientist.
The general consternation
created by the recent turnaround in migration patterns in
certain advanced nations offers vivid testimony to this fact.

6. It will be firmly linked to a valid general social theory.

7. This theory will strive to be comprehensive, Thus it will apply to all phases of
spatial mobility, and will explain, for example, not only primary flows and various rnigration differentials but also counter-streams
return migration, nonrniqration (Uhlenberg, 1973)' periodicities and other temporal patternings, and all the other principal
forms of spatial mobility and their important attributes.

3. Within the realm of social science, a perfect or even near perfect theory is a
logical impossibility; but better theories are both feasible and necessary for the student
of migration.
4. The fundamental
diHiculty in arriving at robust migration theory has been less
a matter of adequate data or suitable methods of analysis, critical though such resources
may be, than a case of conceptual myopia.

8. And, finally, such a theory will be of some utility in anticipating

necessarily predicting) possible or probable future developments,

5. k, major a conceptual shortcoming as any has been the failure to define migration
realistically. fully, and properly, resting content instead with makeshift formulae that
follow paths of least resistance among oHicial designations of areas, periods, and other

A heroic shoppinq-Iist
yielded inspiring results.

no doubt, but the limited aspirations

(though not

of the past have not

If any final word is needed, it is simply this: If we seek to escape our theoretical
impasse in migration studies, methodological gimmickry and the piling up of bigger
and better masses of data will not do. What we really need are new ways of thinking
about the migrant and socierv.

variables.
Several of the positive attributes of the improved theory based upon the enriched,
expanded definition of migration advocated here have already been hinted at; but, again,
an orderly list, along with a few additions, may prove useful:
.;.

1. The desired theory will apply to all levels along the territorial, temporal, social,
and other relevant scales of rnobilitv from the most local and ephemeral up through the
most durable and intercontinental levels, and it will deal explicitly with questions of
scale.

"

19 S1rangely enough, the one obvious candidate. Marxism, a school of thought

which pur;:>oru to offer
insights into all facets
of human existence (although
it has never quite gonen
its theoretical
act
together!. has been interested
only tangentially
in questions
of migration
(Richmond
and Verma,
1978: 5.10), Nikolinakos
(1975) indicates some of the possibilities,
if only with respect to a single
con1emporary
phase of migration.
Further Marxist efforts should prove stimu lating, The example
of Malthus indicates
the immensity of the scholarly
dividends to be gained from bold theory, whatever the ultimate

judgment

of its correC1ness.

.:z-

20 The tru e test of a scientific

theory or the larger paradigm
in which it is imbedded
is not its capacity
10 explain
rcn-of.the
mill, ordinary phenomena,
since i1 is conceivable
that several alternative
theories
or models would suffice for that purpose,
but rather whether
it can furnish good scen ar ios for the
Extraordinary
event. In this respect, the social scientist should emulate his coJleagues in the physical
sciences; acceptino the first model that explains 80 or gO percent of the variance in a set of social data
implies intetlectual
lassitude.
Witness, for example,
the demise of Euclidean geometry,
Newtorrian
celestial mechanics,
19th Century atomic physics, or pre.Wegenerian
geophysics
(Kuhn, 1972). The
same kind of chaHenge
to conventional
migration
theory is forcefully
posed by runaways,
hobos,
hermits, and nomadic members of the counterculture
(Eichenbaum,
1970, 1975).

Duncan,
Otis Dudley. 1959. Human Ecology
tnveotory and Appraisal, P.M. Hauser
Press.

REFERENCES
Abler, Ronald. 1977.
tn Telephcne,
Amin, Samir.

1974.

of the American svnern

in The Social Impact
Massachuseru:
MIT Pres>.

The Telephone
.nd the Evolution
Ithiel de Sol. Pool, Ed. Cambridge,
in Modem Migration

Introduction

in Wesrem Africa, S. Amin,

The

'75, International

Regional Science Review 3, (in press).

Recent

Shift

of United

States

Population

to Nonmetropolitan

Bedlord,
R.D. 1973. New Hebridean Mobility:
A Srudy of Cirwlar Migration.
National University,
Research School of Pacific Studies Publication
HG/9.
Berry,

Brian J.L,

Oxford

and

Frank

E. Horton.

Areas,

Canberra:

1970.

ment of Agricultural
Economic>.
Bogue, Donald J. 1959a. Internal Migration in The Srudy of Population: An tnventorv
P.M. Hauser and 0.0. Duncan, Eds, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brush,

Donald

J. 1959b.

Internal

Migration

and

Residential

Mobility

in The Population

Frank,

.Rex R., and

Sociology,';
Carpenter,
Edwin
tional
Castles,

Daniel

M. Johnson.

1: 127145.
H. 1977. The Potential

Preferences,

Stephen,

1976.

'Propositions

for Population

on Counterstream

Dispersal:

A Closer

and Godula

Kosack.

1973.

Immigrant

Workers and CI=

California.
1977b. Circulation

Studies

at the

East-West

Institute,

Population

Theory,

1949. Human Society. New York:

Kingsley.

1963.

The Theory

lation Index, 29: 345366.

DeJong, Gordon F. 1977a. Residential

of Change
Preferences

Response

Social Forces, 41: 270274.

and Migration,

in Modern

Demographic

Demography,

versity, Population
Issues Research Office.
DeJong,
Gordon
F. 1977. Population
Redistribution,
Migra~ion, and Residential
of the American Acaaemy of Political and Social Science, 429: 1 3(}' 144.

deSouza,

and P.W. Poner. 1974. The Underdevelopment

and Mcdernization
Paper No. 28. Washington:
Association
of American Geographers.

Anthony

R., and J. Brady Foust.

1979.

World Spac~Economy.

and Population

Demography,

Change,

1978.

The

Modemization,

of Sustenance
Investigation,

6: 359381.

Postwar

Mobility

1976.

Facets

of Redistribution:

Peter,

and Rodney

White.

Rese

Organization
and Non
Amen'can Sociological

Transition

and Social Structure,

Boston:

arch Challenges

ar.d the Study of Human

Symposium
on Population

Generations: Populetion,
University Press.

Columbus:

Hiigernrand,
Torsten. 1957. Migration
T. Hagersuand.
and B. Odeving,
Hiigersuand,

Annals

Preferences,

fi.'

.
of the Third

World.

Populations.
Geography,

Mobility

1969.

in Colonial

-~

and Area in Migrau'on in Sweden _ A Symposium,

of Lund.

On the Definition

of Migration,

Scandinavian Population

Heberle,

RUdolf. 1955. Types

Clifford. 1969.
bridge: Cambridge

at th'
Andover

on the Histor-

D. Hanrerber.

Eds, Lund: University

Amos H. 195D. Human Ecology: A Theory of Community

Jansen,

in People or

Paper presented
Minsk, U.S.S.R.

Land, and Family

Hawley,

of Migration,

Jackson,
J.A 1969. Migration
Cambridge University Press.

Merrill.

Dillman,
Donald A., and Russell P. Dobash.
1972. Preferences for Community
Living and tbeir lmplieatio
for population Redistribution.
Bulletin 764. Pullman: Washington
State College .Agri
ns
cultural Experiment
Station.

Torsten.

of Matheme

Penguin.

Hadden, Jeffrey K., and Joseph J. Barton. 1973. An Image That Will Not Die: Thoughts
of Anti-Urbanism
Ideology,
Urban Affairs Annual Reviews, 7: 79116.
:',

Brown,

Demoqrzptiv

and Opportunities.

lnter-Univer sirv Community

Michiaan
-

1974. Menral Maps. Harmondsworth:

Greven, Philip J., Jr. 1970. Four

Massachusem. Ithaca: Cornell

Little.

Europe.

in Proceedincs of (he tntsrnetione.

Union for the Scientific
Study or

W.T.S., and R.M. Prothero.

1973. Space and Time in African Population
the Move, LA Kosinski and R.M. Prothero,
Eds. London:
Methuen.
F. 1976. Prediction
Geographical
Union

in Eastern

14: 169 178.

DeJong, Gorrion F. 1977b. The Demographic

Impact of Regional Population
Redistribution
Policies
in the Netherlands
anr! Great Britain. Working Paper No. 1977-08. The Pennsylvania
State Uni-

deSouza,
A.R.
Resource

Calvin. 1971 a. Populetion,

Graham,
Elspeth
International

Popu-

Hisrorv,

Responses

L. Poston, Jr. 1975. Components

Change:
A Human
ECological

Peter. 1965. On Menral Maps. Ann Arbor:

tical Geoqr aphers,

Gould,

tndo-

Macmillan.

and

Demographic

Ole. 1970. Geographic

Research and Human Spatial Interaction
Theory:
A Review of Pertinent
Studies
in Migration
in Migration and Anmropology,
Proceedings
of the 1970 Annual Sprinc
Meeting of the American
Ethnological
Society,
Robert
F. Spencer,
Ed. Seattle: American
Ethno
logical Society.

Gould,

Ajit. 1959. Types and Measures of Internal Migration in Proceedings of me tmemstiooet

Population Conference. Vienna: International
Union for the Scientific Study 01 Population.

Davis,

13: 21"': 1.

Review, 6: 121146.

Gade,

Goldstein,
Sidney.
13: 423-434.

Das Gupta,

Davis, Kingsley.

D. 1969.

Calvin. 1971b. An Outline of the Migration

Svstern
Populetion Conierence, 1969, Vol. IV. Lieoe: International
Population.
-

to Urbanin Ocean.

Honolulu,

rneetin:

Roland J., and George J. Demko.

Geographical Review, 68: 171182.

Goldscheider,

Structure in Western Europe.

Population

Intemetionsl Migration,
Migration

14(}'1~9.
at the annual

Fuchs,

Gould,

nesian Journal of Geography, 7: 1-4.

Cowgill, D.O. 1963. Transition
Theory as General

Movement,

An Over v iew, lntemstionsl

Goldscheider,

Loca-

Look at Residential

of Human

Migration:

31:

presented

W. Parker, and Dudley

meuopolitan
Population
Review,40: 773784.

Rural Sociology, 42: 253370.

London: Oxford University Press.

Chapman, Murray. 1977a. C:rculation
between
Home Places and Towns: a Village Approach
ization. Paper prepared for annual meeting of the Association
for Social Anthropology
ia, Monterey.
Chapman,
Murray,

Rural

Migration:

Jack. 1975. A Matrix

Paper

Frisbie,

the UniTed

Stares. Glencoe,
111: Free Press.
John E. 1970. Some Dimensions
of Urban Population
Pressure in India in Geography and a
Crowdinfl World, W. Zelinsky, et sl., Eds. New York: Oxford University Press.

Campbell,

Social Inquiry,

to Ecosystem,

Andre Gunder. 1969. Larin America: Underdevelopment or Revoluuof1.. Essays on me Develop

meat of Underdevelopment and the lmmediste Enemy. New York: Monthly
Review Press.

Friedlander,

and Appraisal,

ot

From Social Systems

Findley,
Sally. 1977. Planning for Internal Migration: A Review of Issues and Policies in Devel[Jinf
Countries. U.S. Bureau of the Census, ISP.RD-4. Washington:
Govemment
Printing Office.

Australian

Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems. Englewood

1970.

1961.

Elizaga, J.C. 1972. Internal

Cliffs, N.J.: PrenticeHall.

Blackwood,
Larry G . and Edwin H. Carpenter.
1977. The Importance
of Anti.Urbanism
in Determining
Residential
Preferences.
and Migration Patterns, Unpublished
paper, University of Arizona, Depart-

Bogue,

Otis Dudley.

Eichenbaum,
Jack. 1970. Some Anomalous
Views 01 Migration.
of the Association of American Geographers,
San Francisco.
Eichenbaum,

University Press.
Calvin L 1978.

Beale

Ed. London:

Duncan,

and Population
Studies in The So.;dy of Population: Ar
and 0.0.
Duncan,
Eds. Chicago:
University
of Chi::<l9'"

Editorial

Some Sociological
University
Press.

Structure:

Studies, 1: 6372.

New York:

Ronald

Press.

Southwestern Social Science QUarter!."., 36: 6570

Introduction
Aspects

in Migration,

of Migration

JA.

in Migration,

Jackson,

Ed. Carnbridqr

J.A. Jackson,

Ed. Cam

Oxaal, lvar, Tony Barrett, and David Booth, Eds. 1975. Beyond the Socioloov oi Devetopmeat:
nomy and Society in Latin America and Africa London: Routledge & Kecan Paul.

Kant, Edgar. 1962. Classification and Problems 01 Migralion in Readings in Culture! Geography, P.L.
Wagner and M.W. Mikesell, Eds. Chicago: University 01 Chicago Press.
Kontuly, Th~as M. 1977. The Reversal 01 population Concentration Trends in the Highly Industrializ
ed Countries. Paper presented at annual meeting 01 the Association 01 American Geographers,
Salt lAke cuv.
Kosinski, Les.z.ekA., and R. Mansell Prothero. 1973. Introduction

Packard, Vance. 1972. A Nation of Strangers. New York: David McKay.

Petersen, William. 195B. A General Typology of Migration, Arnericen Sociological Review, 23: 25&266
Petersen, William. 1969. The General Determinants of Migration in Poputstion , 2nd ed., Nt>wYork: Mac
millan.
.

in People on the Move: Srudies of

Pierson, George W. 1973. The Moving American. New York: Knopf.

tntemel Migrarion. London: Methuen.

Kubat, Daniel 1976. Introduction in tntemsl Migration: The New World and The Third World, Anthony
H. Richmond and Daniel Kubat, Eds. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Kuhn, Thomas. 1962. The StrUcture of Scientific RevoluTions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Price, Daniel 0., and Melanie M. Sikes. 1974. Rorzl-Urben Migration Research in the United Ststes .
DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 75-565. Washington: Government Printing OHi~.
Prothero, R. Mansell. 1978. Circulation in the Context of Total Mobility in Tropical Africa. Paper prepared for International Seminar on Cross-Cultural Study of Circulation, EastWes1 Center, Ho nolulu.

lee, Everen S. 1966 ." A Theory of Migration: Demography, 3: 4757.

nvesti
leiker, Karl K. i976. Spatial Irnspe: and the Mobility Decision Process: A Cognitive Behaviorall
.
gaTion of Grear Plains Ouunigrarion. Doctoral'dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University.
Mabogunje, A.L

1970 . Systems

Analysis,2: 118.
Mabogunje, Akin L 1972.

Approach to a Theory of Rural.Urban

Quigley, John M., and Daniel H. Weinberg. 1977. Intra-Urban

thesis, tnternstionst Regional Science Review, 2:.41-66.

Migration," Geographical

Ravenstein, E.G. 1885. The Laws of Migration, Journal of the Statistical Society , 48: 167227.

in Wesr Africa. Montreal:

McGill UniversitY Press.

Mangalam, J.J. '96B. Human Migration. A Guide to MigraTion t.itersture in English 1955-1.952

Reilly, William J. 1931. The Law of Retail Grsvltstion,

Rogers, Andrei. 196B. Matrix Analysis of ln terreqionsl Populetion

University of California Press.
Rosernan, Curtis C. 1971. Migration as a Spatial ard Temporary
Americen Geo!!raphers, 61: 589598.

Geogr.JPher,3: 55-65.
Morrison, Peter A. 1971. Chronic Movers and the Future Redistribution

Sheppard, Eric S. 1978. Theoretical Underpinninqso!

10: 386-402.

Simmons, Alan, Sergio Diaz-Briquets, and Aprodicio A Laquian. 1977. Social Change and In temel
Migration: A Review of Research Findings from Africa, Asia, and Larin America. Ottawa: lnte rnational Development Research Centre.
Simmons, James W. 196B. Changing Residence in the City, Geographical Review, 58: 622.051.
Skeldon, Ronald. 1977. The Evolution of Migration Patterns
phical Review, 67: 394-411.

of Population, Demography,

Distance and Human Inreroction: A Review and Bibliography, Philadelphia:

the Gravity Hypothesis, Geographical Analysis,

Shryock, Henry J., J.s. Siegel, and associates. 1971. The Methods srxi Marerials of Demography. W2sh
ington: Government Printing Office.

and Dispersion, Professional

Regional Science Research Institute.

Olsson, Gunnar. 1976. Birds in Egg. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan, De"artment of Geography.

of

Rowland, D.T. 1979, lriternsl Migrarion in Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

of tne

8: 171184.
Morrison, Pner A. 1977. Ernerging Public Concerns Over U.S. Populetion Movements in an Era of
Slowing Growth, P5873. Santa Monica: The Rand Corporation.
Nikolinakos, Marios. 1975. Notes Towards a General Theory of Migration in Late Capitalism, Race and

Process, Annsts of The Associstioo

Shaw, R. Paul. 1975. Migrarion Theory and Fact: A Review and Bibliography of Current Litereture ,
Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute.

Mitchell, J. Oyde. 1978. Wage. Labour Mobility as Circulation: A Sociological Perspective. Paper prepared for International Seminar on Cross.culrural Study of Circulation, East-West Center, Honolulu.
Morrill, Richard L 1979 .. Stages in Patterns of Population Concentration

Growth srd Distribu tlon. Berkeley:

Rowland, D.T. 1976. Equilibrium Migration: A Model of Internal Migration in Australie, Paper presented at lntemetional Geographical Union Symposium on Population Geography, Minsk, U.S.S.R.

London: G. Sell & Sons.

McGee, T.G. 1976. Rural.Urban Mobility in South and Southeast Asia. Ditierent Formulotions ...
Different Answers?
Paper presented at Seminar on Human Migrotions sponsored by Midwest
Council of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences,
Mincer, Jacob. 1978. Family Migration Decisions, Journal of Polirical Economy, B6: 749773.
ti:

of Immigrants: A Nev.'

Ritcbev, P. Neal. 1976. Explanations of Migration in Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 2, Alex lnk eles.
Ed. Palo Alto: Annual Reviews, Inc.

Association of American Geographers.

McCarthy, Kevin F., and Peter A. Morrison. 197B. The Changing Demographic and Economic StruC1\Jre
of Nonmetropolitan Areas in the 1970s, intemetionel Regional Science Review, ~
McGee, T.G. 1971. The Urbanization Process in tire Third World: Exploration in Search of a Theory.

Mitchell, J. Clyde. 1971. The Causes of Labour Migration in Migranr Labour in Africa Sou
Sahara. Abidjan: Commission for Technical Cooperation in Africa South of the Sahara.

52: 24130l.

New York: Knickerbocker Press.

Richmond, Anthony H., and Ravi P. Verma. 1978. The Economic Adaptation
Theoretical Perspective, Inremational Migration Review, 12: 338.

Lexing

ton' Universiry of Kenticky Press.

Mangalam, J.J., and Harry K. SchwarlZWelier. 1969. General Theory in the Study of Migration: Current
Needs and DiHiculties, inremational Migration Review, 3: 315.
Mangalam, J,J., and Harry K. Schwanzweller. 1970. Some Theoretical Guidelines toward a Sociology of
Migration, Inrernational Migration Review, 4: 520.
Matley, Ian M. 1976. The Geography of International Tourism, Resource Paper No. 761. Washington:

Class,17: 617.
Olsson, Gunnar. 1965.

Residential Mobiliry: A Review and Svn-

Ravenstein, E.G. 1B89. The laws of Migration, Journal of the StatisticaiSociery,

Regional Mobility and Resoorce Development

ECtJ

Slater, Paul B. 1976. A Hierarchical Regionalization

Flows, Public Use Dara, 4: 3256
. ~;

::l
~

During Urbanization

of State Economic

in Peru, Geogra-

Areas Based upon Migrztion

Sly, David F. 1972. Migration and the Ecological Complex, American Sociological Beview , 37: 615.028.
Sly, David F., and Jeff Tayman. 1977. The Ecological Approach to Migration Re-Examined, American
Sociological Review, 42: 783795.
Stavelev, Michael. 1973. Substantive and Theoretical Work on Migration; Migration and Mobility in
Newfoundland and Labrador. A Study in Population Geography. Doctoral dissertation. Uo iversitv of Alberta.

~yry;:n:

7_

;-tf!n

W1tp.' ntp"'"

.ft'titrE

tJtteY.

e&7Wfr

.~r

-----

!'

t
;tewartl,

Julian

The Th~ry

H. 1955.

of Cu/rural Change: The Mer/lodology

Urbaf)a: University of Illinois Press.

Stewart.
John Q, and William
Warntz.
1958_ Physics
Science, 1: 99-123_
Stouffer,
Samuel A. 1940.

01 Population

of MultiLinear

..~

Evolution

Journal of Regional

Distribution,

OpportUnities:

A Theory

Relating

Mobility

Ameri-

and Distance,

can Sociological Review, 5: 845-867.

OpportUnities
and Competing
Migrants, Joomal of Regional
Stouffer.
Samuel A. 1960_ Intervening
Science. 2: 1 26.
Sundquist,
J. 1975_ Dispersing Population:
What Americans Can Learn from Eutope_ Washington:
Svart.

Preference

Migration:

Research Council.
Tucker,
C_ Jack. 1976.
Areas if) the United

Models

and Their Significance

for population

P_ 1973.

James

E., Jr.

Noneconomic

1960_ Labor

Economic Geography,
Ruppert

Forec<sts.

Determinants

Diffenentials. New York:

01 Nonmigration:

Shed, Employment

Growth,

Field,

Social

Considerations

Geographical Review, 44:

Analysis in Urban

for

119132.

Geography,

36: 189220.

B. 1952_ Is Theory

Social Forces, 31: 9 \3.

for Demographers?,

of Regional Science.
Vining, D.R. Jr . nd T_ Konrulv.
International

1978_ Population
Inremational

Comparison,

Dispersal

from

Major Metropolitan

Regional Science Review,3:

Regions:

M. 1977a. Equilibrium

and Change

An

4973.

Vining, Daniel R., Jr. and A.nne Strauss. 1976. A Demonsrration ttiet Current Deconcenrration
are a Clesn Break wirh Pest Trends. Philadelphia:
Regional Scief)ce Research Institute.
John

in Nonmelropolitan

Growth,

Trends

Rural Sociology,

"'

42:

156179.
John

.,~

M. 1977b_ Equilibrium

change. Unpublished

paper,

Migration

Washington

Stare

WiJliam_ 1954. A New Map of the Surface

Warntz,

and

Metropolitan-Nonmetropclitan

Population

Anthony

V.,

and

Wilbur

Zelinsky.

Economic Geography, 46: 549567.

Wolpert. Julian. 1965. Behavioral
Aspects
Associarion_ 15: 159169.
Wolpert, Julian
1966_ Migration

University.

.~

of Population

Potentials

for the United

States,

1960,
-c

-'

1970_ On Some
of the

Decision

Patterns

to Migrate,

in International

Tourist

Papers of the Regional Science

to Environmer.1al

Stress, Jorrnsl

of Social Issues,

A Prologue ro Population

Wilbur.

1966.

WilbuL

1971 The Hypothesis

Zelinsky,

Wilbur.

1974_ Selfward
Economic

Geography.

of the Mobility

Bound?

~~
c

;:

as an Adjustment

Zelinsky,

can Society,

-e-

Flows.

22:92-102Zelinsky,

Ex-

Geographical Review, 54: 170-184.

Williams,

Personal

Geography, 50: 144-179_

Englevvood Clifis,

Trans.tion,

Preference

INTRODUCTION

Analysis of the interrelationships among migration, urbanization, and modernization

focuses on one of the dominant social transformations that has occurred in world history
- the transition toward urbanized societies. The major transformation
of places and the
people within them mat is associated with the urban revolution evolved in the 19th and
20th centuries: While the 19th century may be viewed as the era of urban growth and the
emergence of large industrial cities, the 20th century may be characterized as the period
when urbanized societies evolved. These new,largely urban societies and the far larger number of still overwhelmingly rural societies are major contrasting features of the co ntemporary
world scene. For most, if not all, of the nations of the world, urbanization levels have
increased during the last several decades and are like Iy to continue increasing in the near
future.

and Nonmetropolitan

Sociological

and Dynamic

Science

Daniel R., Jr. and Thomas

Kontuly.
1975. A Preliminary
Inquiry into the Possible Causes of
Interregional
Population
Dispersal, Occasioned
by Dr. Sundquist's
Dispersing Population:
What
Americans Can Learn from Europe. Unpublished
paper, University of Pennsylvania,
Department

Wardwell,

Calvin Go ldsche ider 1

,.

Milbank Memor-

Vining,

Wardwell,

URBANIZATION

<"

Changing
Patterns of Migriltion between
MetropolitDn
Statts:
Recent Evidence, Demography, 13: 435-443.

Migration Theory, Rural Sociology, 38: 296-311.

Ullman, Edwand L. 1954. Amenities
as a Factor in Regional

Vance,

AND

~.

H. 1963. Migr.tion

rial Fund Quarterly, 41: 56-7.6.

Thomas, Dorothy S. 1938. Research Memvrar>dum on Migration

Vance,

MIGRATION,

Geographical Review, 66: 314-

A Review,

330_

Uhlenberg,

MODERNIZATION,

-:f

Brookings Institute_
Larry M_ 1976. Environmental

rer Heide,

...

!".

Intervening

....;.::

N.J_: PrenticeHall.

Geographical Review, 61: 219-249.

Patterns

i
.~

and the Changing

Map of Ameri-

.;:.:.0.

--::;:;."

:?t

Most important from an analytic perspective is the fact that urbanized and rura!ized
societies are associated with different forms of social organization and demographic
processes. As a result, the transformation of places and the people within them is not
only amenable to comparative-historical analysis but also represents one of the master
themes linking population and modernization processes. With justification, urbanization
has often been equated with the modernization and industrialization of Westem nations and
has been identified as one of the major dimensions of population growth and change.
It is within urbanized societies and, more particularly, within the urban places of
urbanized societies that the transformation associated with modernization has been most
accentuated. Structural differentiation, specialization, economic growth, expansion of
socioeconomic opportunities, changing family patterns and values, and institutionalized
continuous change have been conspicuous features of the major cities in urbanized society. No less important is the fact that the demographic processes of fertility, mortality,
and migration have been most transformed in these same urban places.
Given these overriding empirical realities, it is not at all surprising that urbanization
has been conceptualized theoretically as an integral process of modernization and is
often used as an indicator of the degree of societal modernity and popu lation transformation. Nevertheless, several major distortions have characterized
the analysis of
the interrelationships between modernization, urbanization, and population-processes
:
l . While urbanization and urban-metropolitan
growth
quirements of modernization and industrialization,
I

The Hebrew

University,

Jerusalem,

Israel.

have been major functional rethe reverse has not necessarily