Population Research and Policy Review

, Volume 29, Issue 5, pp 659–685 | Cite as

Increasing Migration, Diverging Communities: Changing Character of Migrant Streams in Rural Thailand

  • Filiz GaripEmail author
  • Sara Curran


This paper studies how increasing migration changes the character of migrant streams in sending communities. Cumulative causation theory posits that past migration patterns determine future flows, as prior migrants provide resources, influence, or normative pressures that make individuals more likely to migrate. The theory implies exponentially increasing migration flows that are decreasingly selective. Recent research identifies heterogeneity in the cumulative patterns and selectivity of migration in communities. We propose that this heterogeneity may be explained by individuals’ differential access to previously accumulated migration experience. Multi-level, longitudinal data from 22 rural Thai communities allow us to measure the distribution of past experience as a proxy for its accessibility to community members. We find that migration becomes a less-selective process as migration experience accumulates, and migrants become increasingly diverse in socio-demographic characteristics. Yet, selectivity within migrant streams persists if migration experience is not uniformly distributed among, and hence not equally accessible to, all community members. The results confirm that the accumulation and distribution of prior migrants’ experiences distinctly shape future migration flows, and may lead to diverging cumulative patterns in communities over time.


Internal migration Cumulative causation Selectivity Thailand 



This research was funded by research grants from Center for Migration and Development at Princeton University and NSF (SES-0525942). The authors thank the research team from the Carolina Population Center at the University of North Carolina and the Institute for Population and Social Research at Mahidol University for their data collection efforts and the villagers of Nang Rong district, Buriram province, Thailand for their cooperation.


  1. Balan, J., Browning, H. L., & Jelin, E. (1973). Men in a developing society: Geographic and social mobility in Monterrey, Mexico. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bauer, T., & Zimmerman, K. (1997). Network migration of ethnic Germans. International Migration Review, 31, 143–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bello, W., Cunningham, S., & Poh, L. K. (1998). A Siamese tragedy: Development and disintegration in Modern Thailand. London: Zed Books, Ltd.Google Scholar
  4. Chamratrithirong, A., Archavanitkul, K., Richter, K., Guest, P., Varachai, T., Boonchalaksi, W., et al. (1995). National Migration Survey of Thailand. Bangkok, Thailand: Institute for Population and Social Research, Mahidol University.Google Scholar
  5. Cornelius, W. A. (2001). Death at the border: Efficacy and unintended consequences of US Immigration Control Policy. Population and Development Review, 27, 661–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Curran, S., & Rivero-Fuentes, E. (2003). Engendering migrant networks: The case of Mexican Migration. Demography, 40, 289–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Curran, S. R., Garip, F., Chung, C., & Tangchonlatip, K. (2005). Gendered migrant social capital: Evidence from Thailand. Social Forces, 84, 225–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dunlevy, J. A. (1991). On the settlement patterns of recent Caribbean and Latin immigrants to the United States. Growth Change, 22, 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Durand, J., & Massey, D. S. (2003). The costs of contradiction: US Border Policy 1986–2000. Latino Studies, 1, 233–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eschbach, K., Hagan, J., Rodriguez, N., Hernandez-Leon, R., & Bailey, S. (1999). Death at the border. International Migration Review, 33, 430–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Fuller, T. D., Lightfoot, P., & Kamnuansilpa, P. (1985). Rural-urban mobility in Thailand: A decision-making approach. Demography, 22, 565–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fussell, E., & Massey, D. S. (2004). The limits to cumulative causation: International migration from Mexican urban areas. Demography, 41, 151–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Garip, F. (2008). Social capital and migration: How do similar resources lead to divergent outcomes? Demography, 45, 591–617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hagan, J. M. (1998). Social networks, gender, and immigrant incorporation: Resources and constraints. American Sociological Review, 63, 55–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kanaiaupuni, S. (2000). Reframing the migration question: An analysis of men, women, and gender in Mexico. Social Forces, 78, 1311–1347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kandel, W., & Massey, D. S. (2002). The culture of Mexican migration: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Social Forces, 80, 981–1004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Massey, D. S. (1990). Social structure, household strategies, and the cumulative causation of migration. Population Index, 56, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Massey, D. S., & Espinosa, K. (1997). What’s driving Mexico-U.S. migration? A theoretical, empirical, and policy analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 102, 939–999.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Massey, D. S., & Garcia-Espana, F. (1987). The social process of international migration. Science, 237, 733–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Massey, D. S., Goldring, L., & Durand, J. (1994). Continuities in transnational migration: An analysis of nineteen Mexican communities. American Journal of Sociology, 99, 1492–1533.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Massey, D. S., & Zenteno, R. M. (1999). The dynamics of mass migration. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 96, 5328–5335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mills, M. B. (1997). Thai women in the global labor force: Consuming desires, contested selves. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University.Google Scholar
  23. Nidhiprabha, B. (1994). determinants of private investment expenditures and driect foreign investment in Thailand. Bangkok: Thailand Development Research Institute.Google Scholar
  24. Phongpaichit, P. (1980). The open economy and its friends: The “development” of Thailand. Pacific Affairs, 53, 440–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (1998). Thailand’s boom and bust. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Press.Google Scholar
  26. Piore, M. J. (1979). Birds of passage: Migrant labor and industrial societies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Rindfuss, R. R., Kaneda, T., Chattopadhyay, A., & Sethaput, C. (2007). Panel studies and migration. Social Science Research, 36, 374–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Stark, O., & Taylor, J. E. (1991). Migration incentives, migration types: The role of relative deprivation. The Economic Journal, 101, 1163–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Taylor, J. E. (1986). Differential migration, networks, information and risk (Vol. 4). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
  30. Warr, P. (1993). The Thai economy in transition. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  31. Warr, P., & Nidhiprabha, B. (1996). Thailand’s macroeconomic miracle: Stable adjustment and sustained growth. Washington, DC: The World Bank.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Winters, P., de Janvry, A., & Sadoulet, E. (2001). Family and community networks in Mexico-U.S. migration. Journal of Human Resources, 36, 159–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of SociologyHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  2. 2.Henry M. Jackson School of International Studies and Daniel J. Evans School of Public AffairsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations