Repeat Migration in the United States: Who Moves Back and Who Moves On? Export

@article{citeulike:366746, author = {Davanzo, Julie}, citeulike-article-id = {366746}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1935923}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://www.jstor.org/stable/1935923}, comment = {Migration is an investment -> individuals migrate because they expect the benefits to outwiegh the costs. However, they also have to estimate these costs and benefits and make a decision on the basis of these estimates. Most often, people either over-estimate or under-estimate the costs and benefits of a residential move. That is, they over or under-estimate net returns on migration. Those who under-estimate net-returns are less likely to move than those who over-estimate. Ability to make more accurate estimates is likely to depend on the information available about the new location (Allen, 1979). Will availability of information through information/communication technologies improve these estimates? Migrants that over-estimate the net benefits of migration may be disappointed with what they find and, thus, more likely to move again. This may explain why recent migrants are more likely to move again than people who never migrated. Essentially, the longer an individual stays in one location the less likely they are to migrate again. This is true even for frequent migrants - as tenure in a location increases, likelihood of subsequent migration decreases. Also, people who have moved once, are more informed about the "moving process" and may be less intimidated by it. When people move, especially when they move far, they give up location-specific capital they've acquired in the old location (job seniority, incidental social relationships, close friendships). Thus if migrants are disappointed in the new locations they may move back in an attempt to recoup some of that location-specific capital which deteriorates with time. Conceptual model presented in this paper: 1) imperfect information generates a possible mismatch of migrants and locations 2) accumulation of capital specific to a place deters changing this place 3) there exists a possibility of returning to an earlier location 4) there is a strong negative relationship between duration of residence in a location and the likelihood of leaving it. Method: Sample - 1968-1975 UofM panel study of income dynamics (PSID) - 8 years of data on over 5000 U.S. families. Units of analysis - person-year observations representing on year in which a person is at risk to migrate. Moves classified as - primary move, return move and onward move. Estimated a multivariate model explaining short-interval return moves and short-interval onward moves which together account for the majority of moves in the sample. Hypotheses: 1. The more locatoin-specific capital a person has at the current resident, the less likely he will be to leave. Results: Homeowners are less likely to move, which is especially true of long-term residents. Census data confirms this (only 1 in 10 homeowners moves in any 12 months period compared to 1 in 3 renters). 2. A person making a repeat move should be drawn to some former place of residence by his location-specific capital there. Other things (including length of absence) being the same, the more location-specific capital that is left behind, the greater should be the propensity to return. Results: The longer the tenure in the old location, the more likely migrants were to return to it. This however reverses for people who owned their dwelling before the move, reflecting a more "final" decision to leave because the costs are so great due to the process of selling the home prior to departure. 3. Since most location-specific capital depreciates in value over time, the attraction of location-specific capital in drawing people back to a place where they lived before should weaken as the interval of absence lengthens. Results: The pull of location-specific capital appears to weaken as absence lengthens and this capital depreciates. 4. The sounder the basis of information for an initial move, the lower the propensity for subsequent migration, especially return migration. Results: The more educated the migrant, the less likely he is to return, compared both the alternative of not moving again and that of moving onward. Less educated may base their initial moves on more limited information, lowering the success rate of their moves and hence increasing the likelihood of "corrective" return moves. Obviously this looks like an opportunity for information communication technologies to step in and make things better. Also, this study did not measure the presence of strong or weak ties at the new location. Could it be that poorer people relied more on strong ties and had fewer weak ties in the new locaiton, thus reducing the quality of information they could obtain? Younger people are especially likely to return within a year of their initial move. This could be because younger people are simply less experienced decision makers (remember about that wayward son). Longer distance moves are more susceptible to failure ad more likley to require subsequent corrective moves. It is more costly to inform self about the opportunities at a location that is more distant. The farther the initial move the likelier the subsequent move. The Internet may, in fact, affect the impact of distance here, reducing the costs of information regardless of distance. Relevance: This paper has many implications for the analysis of my data - must consider repeat moves and return moves. Must figure out ways of measuring that. Also, repeat moves within the area after a long distance move are less likely to count that long distance moves after a long distance move. How to deal with winter-birds?}, doi = {10.2307/1935923}, journal = {The Review of Economics and Statistics}, keywords = {demography, distance, economics, migration}, number = {4}, pages = {552--559}, posted-at = {2005-10-27 15:12:31}, priority = {0}, title = {Repeat Migration in the United States: Who Moves Back and Who Moves On?}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1935923}, volume = {65}, year = {1983} }

TY - JOUR ID - citeulike:366746 L3 - citeulike-article-id:366746 IS - 4 JF - The Review of Economics and Statistics EP - 559 TI - Repeat Migration in the United States: Who Moves Back and Who Moves On? VL - 65 SP - 552 KW - demography KW - distance KW - economics KW - migration N1 - Migration is an investment -> individuals migrate because they expect the benefits to outwiegh the costs. However, they also have to estimate these costs and benefits and make a decision on the basis of these estimates. Most often, people either over-estimate or under-estimate the costs and benefits of a residential move. That is, they over or under-estimate net returns on migration. Those who under-estimate net-returns are less likely to move than those who over-estimate. Ability to make more accurate estimates is likely to depend on the information available about the new location (Allen, 1979). Will availability of information through information/communication technologies improve these estimates? Migrants that over-estimate the net benefits of migration may be disappointed with what they find and, thus, more likely to move again. This may explain why recent migrants are more likely to move again than people who never migrated. Essentially, the longer an individual stays in one location the less likely they are to migrate again. This is true even for frequent migrants - as tenure in a location increases, likelihood of subsequent migration decreases. Also, people who have moved once, are more informed about the "moving process" and may be less intimidated by it. When people move, especially when they move far, they give up location-specific capital they've acquired in the old location (job seniority, incidental social relationships, close friendships). Thus if migrants are disappointed in the new locations they may move back in an attempt to recoup some of that location-specific capital which deteriorates with time. Conceptual model presented in this paper: 1) imperfect information generates a possible mismatch of migrants and locations 2) accumulation of capital specific to a place deters changing this place 3) there exists a possibility of returning to an earlier location 4) there is a strong negative relationship between duration of residence in a location and the likelihood of leaving it. Method: Sample - 1968-1975 UofM panel study of income dynamics (PSID) - 8 years of data on over 5000 U.S. families. Units of analysis - person-year observations representing on year in which a person is at risk to migrate. Moves classified as - primary move, return move and onward move. Estimated a multivariate model explaining short-interval return moves and short-interval onward moves which together account for the majority of moves in the sample. Hypotheses: 1. The more locatoin-specific capital a person has at the current resident, the less likely he will be to leave. Results: Homeowners are less likely to move, which is especially true of long-term residents. Census data confirms this (only 1 in 10 homeowners moves in any 12 months period compared to 1 in 3 renters). 2. A person making a repeat move should be drawn to some former place of residence by his location-specific capital there. Other things (including length of absence) being the same, the more location-specific capital that is left behind, the greater should be the propensity to return. Results: The longer the tenure in the old location, the more likely migrants were to return to it. This however reverses for people who owned their dwelling before the move, reflecting a more "final" decision to leave because the costs are so great due to the process of selling the home prior to departure. 3. Since most location-specific capital depreciates in value over time, the attraction of location-specific capital in drawing people back to a place where they lived before should weaken as the interval of absence lengthens. Results: The pull of location-specific capital appears to weaken as absence lengthens and this capital depreciates. 4. The sounder the basis of information for an initial move, the lower the propensity for subsequent migration, especially return migration. Results: The more educated the migrant, the less likely he is to return, compared both the alternative of not moving again and that of moving onward. Less educated may base their initial moves on more limited information, lowering the success rate of their moves and hence increasing the likelihood of "corrective" return moves. Obviously this looks like an opportunity for information communication technologies to step in and make things better. Also, this study did not measure the presence of strong or weak ties at the new location. Could it be that poorer people relied more on strong ties and had fewer weak ties in the new locaiton, thus reducing the quality of information they could obtain? Younger people are especially likely to return within a year of their initial move. This could be because younger people are simply less experienced decision makers (remember about that wayward son). Longer distance moves are more susceptible to failure ad more likley to require subsequent corrective moves. It is more costly to inform self about the opportunities at a location that is more distant. The farther the initial move the likelier the subsequent move. The Internet may, in fact, affect the impact of distance here, reducing the costs of information regardless of distance. Relevance: This paper has many implications for the analysis of my data - must consider repeat moves and return moves. Must figure out ways of measuring that. Also, repeat moves within the area after a long distance move are less likely to count that long distance moves after a long distance move. How to deal with winter-birds? AU - Davanzo, Julie PY - 1983/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1935923 ER -