Journal of Family and Economic Issues

, Volume 28, Issue 1, pp 151–170 | Cite as

Migration Decisions of Dual-earner Families: An Application of Multilevel Modeling

Original Paper

Abstract

A comprehensive framework for guiding analyses of internal migration is lacking. This study contributes to the family migration literature in three important ways. We develop a multilevel theoretical framework emphasizing an integration of individual-, family-, and neighborhood-level effects; introduce multilevel statistical modeling; and explicitly assess how effects of economic-based explanatory variables vary by gender. Our data are from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). We find that the likelihood of a family migrating is affected by economic and non-economic factors, some of which vary by gender. We add to the dual-earner migration literature by finding that wives are not likely to be tied-movers, but husbands are likely to be tied-stayers. Neighborhood factors also are important to the decision to migrate.

Keywords

Dual-earner families Internal migration Migration Multilevel modeling Panel Study of Income Dynamics 

References

  1. Bielby, W. T., & Bielby, D. D. (1992). I will follow him: Gender role beliefs and reluctance to relocate to a better job. American Journal of Sociology, 97, 1241–1267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Blalock, H. M., Jr., & Wilken, P. H. (1979). Intergroup processes. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear methods: Applications and data analysis methods. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Chun, J. (1996). Interregional migration and regional development. Aldershot, England: Avebury.Google Scholar
  5. Ciscel, D., Sharp, D., & Heath, J. (2000). Family work trends and practices: 1971 to 1991. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 21(1), 23–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cooke, T. J. (2003). Family migration and the relative earnings of husbands and wives. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93, 338–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DaVanzo, J. (1972). An analytical framework for studying the potential effects of an income maintenance program on U.S. interregional migration. (R-1081-EDA). Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
  8. DaVanzo, J. (1978). Does unemployment affect migration: Evidence from micro data. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 504–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DaVanzo, J. (1981). Microeconomic approaches to studying migration decisions. In G. F. De Jong, & R. W. Gardner. (Eds.), Migration decision making: Multidisciplinary approaches to microlevel studies in developed and developing countries. New York: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  10. Detang-Dessendre, C., & Molho, I. (2000). Residence spells and migration: A comparison for men and women. Urban Studies, 37, 247–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duncan, R. P., & Perrucci, C. C. (1976). Dual occupation families and migration. American Sociological Review, 41, 262–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Findley, S. E. (1987). An interactive contextual model of migration in Ilocos Norte, the Philippines. Demography, 24, 163–187.Google Scholar
  13. Gabriel, P. E., & Schmitz, S. (1994). Favorable self-selection and the internal migration of young white males in the United States. The Journal of Human Resources, XXX, 461–471.Google Scholar
  14. Garasky, S. (2002). Where are they going? A Comparison of urban and rural youths’ locational choices after leaving the parental home. Social Science Research, 31, 409–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Garasky, S., Haurin, R. J., & Haurin, D. R. (2001). Youths’ choice of living group size during their transition to adulthood. Journal of Population Economics, 14(2), 329–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goldstein, H. (1987). Multilevel models in educational and social research. London: Griffin.Google Scholar
  17. Goldstein, H. (1995). Multilevel statistical models. London: Halstead.Google Scholar
  18. Greenwood, M. J. (1975). Research on internal migration in the United States: A survey. Journal of Economic Literature, 13, 397–433.Google Scholar
  19. Greenwood, M. J. (1981). Migration and economic growth in the United States. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  20. Greenwood, M. J. (1985). Human migration: Theory, models, and empirical studies. Journal of Regional Science, 25, 251–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guo, G., & Zhao, H. (2000). Multilevel modeling for binary data. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 441–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gurak, D. T., & Kritz, M. M. (2000). The interstate migration of U.S. immigrants: Individual and contextual determinants. Social Forces, 78, 1017–1039.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hanushek, E. (1974). Efficient estimates for regressing regression coefficients. The American Statistician, 28, 66–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, unemployment, and development: A two-sector analysis. American Economic Review, 60, 126–142.Google Scholar
  25. Hill, M. (1992). The Panel Study of Income Dynamics: A user’s guide. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  26. Holt, F. M. (1997). Family migration decisions: A dynamic analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Virginia, Charlottesville.Google Scholar
  27. Jacobsen, J. P., & Levin, L. M. (2000). The effects of internal migration on the relative economic status of women and men. Journal of Socio-Economics, 29, 291–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kaluzny, R. L. (1975). Determinants of household migration: A comparative study by race and poverty level. Review of Economics and Statistics, 57, 269–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3, 47–57.Google Scholar
  30. Lewis, G. J. (1982). Human migration. New York: St. Martins Press.Google Scholar
  31. Lichter, D. T. (1983). Socioeconomic returns to migration among married women. Social Forces, 62, 487–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Long, L. (1988). Migration and residential mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  33. Long, L. (1992). Changing residence: Comparative perspectives on its relationship to age, sex, and marital status. Population Studies, 46, 141–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lyson, T. A., & Falk, W. W. (1993). Forgotten places: Uneven development in rural America. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  35. Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56, 3–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mincer, J. (1978). Family migration decisions. Journal of Political Economics, 86, 749–773.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mimura, Y., & Mauldin, T. (2005). American young adults’ rural-to-urban migration and timing of exits from poverty spells. Journal of Family and Economic Issues, 26(1), 55–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Muthen, B. O. (1994). Multilevel covariance structure analysis. Sociological Methods and Research, 22, 376–398.Google Scholar
  39. Nivalainen, S. (2004). Determinants of family migration: Short moves vs. long moves. Journal of Population Economics, 17, 157–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nord, M. (1998). Poor people on the move: County-to-county migration and the spatial concentration of poverty. Journal of Regional Science, 38, 329–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Quillian, L. (1999). Migration patterns and the growth of high-poverty neighborhoods, 1970–1990. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Roseman, C. C. (1983). A framework for the study of migration destination selection. Population and Environment, 6, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Roseman, C. C., & Williams J. D. (1980). Metropolitan to nonmetropolitan migration: A decision making perspective. Urban Geography, 1, 283–294.Google Scholar
  44. Rossi, P. H. (1972). Community social indicators. In A.Campbell & P. E. Converse (Eds.), The human meaning of social change (pp. 87–126). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  45. Sandell, S. H. (1977). Women and the economics of family migration. Review of Economics and Statistics, 59, 406–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schachter, J. (2004). Geographical mobility: 2002 to 2003. Current Population Reports, P 20–549. Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  47. Shields, M. P., & Shields, G. M. (1993). A theoretical and empirical analysis of family migration and household production: US 1980–1985. Southern Economic Journal, 59, 768–782.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shihadeh, E. (1991). The prevalence of husband-centered migration: Employment consequences for married mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 53, 432–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70, 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smits, J., Mulder, C. H., & Hooimeijer, P. (2003). Changing gender roles, shifting power balance and long-distance migration of couples. Urban Studies, 40, 603–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spotila, J. (2000). Standards for defining metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas; notice. Federal Register, 65(249), 82228–82238.Google Scholar
  52. Sucoff, C., & Upchurch, D. (1998). Neighborhood context and the risk of childbearing among metropolitan-area black adolescents. American Sociological Review, 63, 571–585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Todaro, M. P. (1969). A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less-developed countries. American Economic Review, 59, 138–148.Google Scholar
  54. U. S. Census Bureau (206). Geographic mobility: 2005. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/mobility_of_the_population/007575.html on October 24, 2006.
  55. White, M. J. (1987). American neighborhoods and residential differentiation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  56. White, S. (1980). A philosophical dichotomy in migration research. Professional Geography, 32, 6–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. White, P., & Woods, R. (1980). The geographical impact of migration. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  58. Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago.Google Scholar
  59. Wilson-Figueroa, M., Berry, H. E., & Toney, M. B. (1991). Migration of Hispanic youth and poverty status: A logit analysis. Rural Sociology, 56, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National City CorporationHighland HillsUSA
  2. 2.Department of Human Development and Family StudiesIowa State UniversityAmesUSA

Personalised recommendations