This paper identifies major theoretical guidelines that emerge from recent migration research, and explores their bearing on model design. A conjunctive framework combining two phases is proposed. The first phase is a retention model based on a theory of differential perception and responsiveness; it portrays the decision to move in relation to a socially structured decision threshold. The second phase is an allocation model that portrays the aggregate process whereby a system of destinations compete with each other for shares of available outmigrants.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlonsoW., 1972, “Policy implications of intermetropolitan migration flows”, paper prepared for the Regional Economic Development Research Conference and Workshop, Washington.
2.
BartholomewD. J., 1967, Stochastic Models for Social Processes (John Wiley, New York).
3.
BeshersJ. M.EleanorNishiura, 1961, “A theory of internal migration differentials”, Social Forces, 39, 214–218.
4.
GinsbergR., 1969, “Mobility as a semi-Markov process”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Boston.
5.
GoldscheiderC., 1971, Population, Modernization, and Social Structure (little, Brown, Boston).
6.
GoodmanL. A., 1961, “Statistical methods for the ‘mover—stayer’ model”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56, 841–868.
7.
LadinskyJ., 1967a, “Occupational determinants of geographic mobility among professional workers”, American Sociological Review, 32, 253–264.
8.
LadinskyJ., 1967b, “Sources of geographic mobility among professional workers: A multivariate analysis”, Demography, 4, 293–309.
9.
LandK., 1969, “Duration of residence and prospective migration: Further evidence”, Demography, 6, 133–140.
10.
LansingJ. B.EvaMueller, 1967, The Geographic Mobility of Labor (Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, Ann Arbor).
11.
LeeE. S., 1966, “A theory of migration”, Demography, 3, 47–57.
12.
LeeE. S., 1970, “Migration in relation to education, intellect, and social structure”, Population Index, 36, 437–444.
13.
LeslieG. R.RichardsonA. H., 1961, “Life cycle, career pattern, and the decision to move”, American Sociological Review, 26, 894–902.
14.
LowryI. S., 1966, Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Analytical Models (Chandler, San Francisco).
15.
McGinnisR., 1968, “A stochastic model of social mobility”, American Sociological Review, 33, 712–722.
16.
MorrisonP. A., 1967, “Duration of residence and prospective migration: The evaluation of a stochastic model”, Demography, 4, 553–561.
17.
MorrisonP. A., 1971, “Chronic movers and the future redistribution of population”, Demography, 8, 171–184.
18.
MorrisonP. A., 1972, Population Movements and the Shape of Urban Growth: Implications for Public Policy (The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, California).
19.
PerloffH. S.DunnE. S.LampardE. E.MuthR. F., 1960, Regions, Resources, and Economic Growth (Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore).
RenshawV., 1970, The Role of Migration in Labor Market Adjustment, Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Economics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
22.
SabenS., 1964, “Geographic mobility and employment status, March 1962-March 1963”, Monthly Labor Review, 87, 873–881.
23.
SpeareA., 1970, “Home ownership, life cycle stage, and residential mobility”, Demography, 7, 449–458.
24.
TaeuberK.ChiazzeL.HaenszelW., 1968, Migration in the United States: An Analysis of Residence Histories, Public Health Monograph No.77, Public Health Service, US Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
25.
Van ArsdolM. D.SabaghG.ButlerE. W., 1968, “Retrospective and subsequent metropolitan residential mobility”, Demography, 5, 249–267.
26.
WolpertJ., 1965, “Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate”, Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, 15, 159–169.
27.
WolpertJ., 1966, “Migration as an adjustment to environmental stress”, Journal of Social Issues, 22, 92–102.
28.
ZipfG. K., 1946, “The P1/P2 hypothesis on the intercity movement of persons”, American Sociological Review, 11, 677–686.
