Several major hypotheses have been proposed to explain and predict the effect of migration on fertility. This article conducts a highly disaggregated analysis of migrant and stayer fertility, using Brazilian data for 1976, to ascertain the extent to which the observed patterns of fertility variations are compatible with one or another hypothesis. The study controls for origin, destination, and recency of migration, as well as for age, education, and marital status of migrants and stayers. The regional breakdown consists of a cross-classification of rural/urban status with modern/traditional categories based on the level of economic development of the region.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BachR.L.1981 “Migration and Fertility in Malaysia: A Tale of Two Hypotheses”. International Migration Review, 15(3):502–521.
2.
Brazil1980 “Sistema de Informacao para Analise de Dados: Pesquisa Nacional de Amostra Domiciliar – 1976”, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Superintendencia de Estudos Geograficos e Socio-Economicos, Rio de Janeiro.
3.
Brazil1978 “Pesquisa Nacional por Amostra de Domicilios – 1976”, Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatistica, Superintendencia de Estatisticas Primarias, Rio de Janeiro.
4.
DuncanO.D.1965 “Farm Background and Differential Fertility”, Demography, 2:240–249.
5.
EdmondstonB.1976 “Migrant-Nonmigrant Fertility Differentials in Metropolitan Areas of Latin America”. In The Dynamics of Migration: Internal Migration and Fertility. Occasional Monograph Series, Vol. 1, No. 5, Interdisciplinary Communications Program, Smithsonian Institution.
6.
GoldbergD.1960 “Another Look at the Indiana Policy Fertility Data”, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 38:23–36.
7.
GoldbergD.1959 “The Fertility of Two Generation Urbanites”, Population Studies, 12:214–222.
8.
GoldsteinS.1978 “Migration and Fertility in Thailand, 1960–1970”, Canadian Studies in Population, 5:167–180.
9.
GoldsteinS.1973 “Interrelations Between Migration and Fertility in Thailand. Demography, 10:225–241.
10.
GoldsteinS. and GoldsteinA.1982 “The Impact of Migration on Length of Birth Intervals: An Analysis Using Life History Data for Malaysia”. Presented at the Annual Meeting of The Population Association of America, San Diego, California.
11.
GoldsteinS.1981 “The Impact of Migration on Fertility: An ‘Own Children’ Analysis for Thailand”, Population Studies, 35:265–284.
12.
GoldsteinS. and TirasawatP.1977 “The Fertility of Migrants to Urban Places in Thailand”, East-West Population Institute, Paper No. 77.
13.
HendershotG.E.1976 “Social Class, Migration, and Fertility in the Philippines”. In The Dynamics of Migration: Internal Migration and Fertility, Occasional Monograph Series, Vol. 1, No. 5, Interdisciplinary Communications Program, Smithsonian Institution.
14.
HidayV.1978 “Migration, Urbanization, and Fertility in the Philippines”, International Migration Review, 12(3):370–383.
15.
LeeB.S. and FarberS.1982 “Fertility Adaptation by Rural-Urban Migrants in Developing Countries: The Case of Korea”. Presented at the Annual Meeting of The Population Association of America, San Diego, California.
16.
MaciscoJ., BouvierL. and RenziM.J.1969 “Migration Status, Education, and Fertility in Puerto Rico, 1960”, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 47:167–187.
17.
MartineG.1975 “Migrant Fertility Adjustment and Urban Growth in Latin America”, International Migration Review, 9(2):179–191.
18.
McGirrN.J. and HirschmanC.1979 “The Two Generation Urbanite Hypothesis Revisited”, Demography, 16:27–35.
19.
MerrickT.W. and BerquoE.1983 “The Determinants of Brazil's Recent Rapid Decline in Fertility”. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press.
20.
ParkJ.Y. and ParkI.H.1976 “Migration and Female Labor Force Impact on Korean Fertility”. In the Dynamics of Migration: Internal Migration and Fertility. Occasional Monograph Series, Vol. 1, No. 5, Interdisciplinary Communications Program, Smithsonian Institution.
21.
RibeH. and SchultzT.P.1980 “Migrant and Native Fertility in Colombia: Are Migrants Selected According to their Reproductive Preferences?”. Yale University Economic Growth Center Discussion Paper No. 355.
