Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

U.S. internal Migration and Occupational Attainment: Assessing Absolute and Relative Outcomes by Region and Race

  • Published:
Population Research and Policy Review Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates the occupational implications of contemporary migration flows by region and race. Even though the expectation of a positive link between geographic and social mobility is a central tenet in the stratification literature, empirical assessments are rare and have produced inconsistent results. Our analysis departs from traditional frameworks by integrating both absolute and relative notions of occupational standing for evaluating migration outcomes, comparing migrants against non-migrant peers both at origin and destination. Results document that for whites, migration is associated with higher occupational attainment both in absolute and relative terms, irrespective of the regional direction of the move. For blacks, on the other hand, absolute occupational gains are markedly absent for migration to the South, which is instead characterized by significant improvement in relative terms. The differences in absolute and relative gains by race and direction of the move helps contextualize the considerable black over representation in north–south migration and highlight the implications of current internal mobility for racial stratification.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. A difference between the international and internal migration case is worth highlighting. For international migrants, cultural, language, and other social discontinuities across societies are argued to prevent, or at least significantly delay, immigrants from comparing themselves to members of the host community. As a result, the community of origin remains the salient reference group. In the case of internal migration, on the other hand, the absence of language and rigid cultural barriers within most national boundaries means that internal migrants quickly substitute the reference group from origin to host communities (Stark and Taylor 1989). This reference group substitution is also implicit in Stouffer’s classic elaboration of relative deprivation.

  2. To facilitate estimation, the white sample was further reduced to a quarter of the 5 percent sample, which yields a sample size comparable to the black sample (approximately 600,000).

  3. Our historically grounded definitions are in fact very similar to the Census’ regional classifications, though our definition of the South excludes Maryland, West Virginia, and Delaware. While there has been considerable black mobility into Maryland between 1995 and 2000, it is not currently regarded as a southern state. West Virginia and Delaware have relatively small black populations and were never historical areas of black settlement. We tested models employing conventional Census Bureau definitions of regions and found substantive findings, particularly for the North–South comparison, did not vary across specifications.

  4. It is important to note that this classification results in a heterogeneous group that combines primary, return, and repeat migrants; migration outcomes could vary across these groups.

  5. Characteristics such as marital status and disability are measured in 2000 and serve as proxies for pre-migration characteristics, which are unavailable. It is possible that for some respondents, these characteristics changed in the five year interval during which migration is observed.

  6. To illustrate, a resident of the South in 1995 that remains in the South in 2000 has a value of 1 for South95 and 0 for both North–South and South-North. A resident of the South in 1995 who moves north by 2000 has a value of 1 for South95 and 1 for the South-North mover dummy. A resident of the North in 1995 has 0 for all the variables. Thus, the effect for the South-North dummy (β 1 ) captures the difference in occupational standing associated with migrating south-north relative to southern non-migrants. In turn, a northern resident in 1995 that moves south has 0 for South-North and South95 but 1 for North–South, so the effect for the North–South dummy (β 3 ) captures the difference in occupational standing associated with migrating north–south relative to southern non-migrants. The effect for the South95 variable (β 7 ) captures overall differences in occupational opportunities across regions.

  7. We report the estimates from the selection equation in Table 8 in Appendix 3. The determinants of migration are not the main focus of our analysis but allow us to control for unobserved factors jointly affecting migration and occupational outcomes. Results mirror those of prior studies with the likelihood of migration higher at intermediate ages and among those with greater educational attainment. Residents of areas with higher wages and homeownership rates are less likely to migrate, as are residents of the South.

References

  • Bernat, G. A. (2001). Convergence in state per capita personal income, 1950–1999. Survey of Current Business, 81, 36–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blau, P., & Duncan, O. D. (1967). The American occupational structure. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buchel, F., & van Ham, M. (2003). Overeducation, regional labor markets, and spatial flexibility. Journal of Urban Economics, 53, 482–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushway, S., Johnson, B., & Slocum, L. A. (2007). Is the magic still there? The use of the Heckman two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 151–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cebula, R. (2005). Internal migration determinants: Recent evidence. International Advances in Economics Research, 11, 267–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Champion, T. (2011). Testing the return migration elements in the ‘escalator region’ model: An analysis of migration into and out of south-east England, 1966-2001. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy, and Society, 4, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Clark, W. (1986). Human migration. London: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collins, P. H. (2000). Gender, black feminism, and black political economy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 568, 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowder, K., Tolnay, S., & Adelman, R. (2001). Intermetropolitan migration and locational improvement for African American males, 1970–1990. Social Science Research, 30, 449–472.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cushing, B., & Poot, J. (2004). Crossing boundaries and borders: Regional science advances in migration modelling. Papers in Regional Science, 83, 317–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • DaVanzo, J. (1981). Microeconomic approaches to studying migration decisions. In R. W. Gardner (Ed.), Migration decision making: Multidisciplinary approaches to microlevel studies in developed and developing countries. New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D. (1961). A socioeconomic index for all occupations. In A. Reiss (Ed.), Occupations and social status. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichenlaub, Suzanne, Tolnay, S., & Alexander, J. T. (2010). Moving out but not up: Economic outcomes in the great migration. American Sociological Review, 75, 101–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Falk, W., Hunt, L., & Hunt, M. (2004). Return migrations of African-Americans to the south: Reclaiming a land of promise, going home, or both? Rural Sociology, 69, 490–509.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feldman, D., Leana, C., & Bolino, M. (2002). Underemployment and relative deprivation among re-employed executives. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 75, 453–471.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fielding, A. (1992). Migration and social mobility: South east england as an escalator region. Regional Studies, 26, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frey, W. (2004). The new great migration: Black Americans’ return to the south: 1965–2000 living cities census series. Washington DC: The Brookings Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Geist, C., & McManus, P. (2008). Geographical mobility over the life course: Motivations and implications. Population, Space and Place, 14, 283–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood, M. (1997). Internal migration in developed countries. In M. R. Rosenzweig & O. Stark (Eds.), Handbook of population and family economics (1B ed.). New York: North Holland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, James. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodson, R. (1989). Gender differences in job satisfaction: Why aren’t women workers more dissatisfied. Sociological Quarterly, 30(3), 385–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, L., Hunt, M., & Falk, W. (2008). Who is headed south? U.S. migration trends in blacks and white, 1970–2000. Social Forces, 87, 95–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobsen, J., & Levin, L. (1997). Marriage and migration: Comparing gains and losses from migration for couples and singles. Social Science Quarterly, 78, 688–709.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krieg, R. G. (1997). Occupational change, employer change, internal migration, and earnings. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 27, 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J.-Y., Toney, M., & Helen Berry, E. (2009). Social status inconsistency and migration. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 27, 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lelièvre, E., & Bonvalet, C. (1994). A compared cohort history of residential mobility, asocial changes and home-ownership in Paris and the rest of Lelièvre and Bonvalet van haFrance. Urban Studies, 31, 1647–1665.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, S. F., & Yu, S. (1996). On the choice between sample selection and two-part models. Journal of Econometrics, 71, 197–229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Li, X., & Zhang, W. (2013). The impacts of health insurance on health care utilization among the older people in China. Social Science and Medicine, 85, 59–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S. (1978). A reconsideration of the income differences found between migrants and northern born blacks. American Journal of Sociology, 83, 940–966.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S., & Wilkinson, C. (1976). A comparison between northern and southern blacks residing in the North. Demography, 13, 199–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Luttmer, E. F. P. (2005). Neighbors as negatives: Relative earnings and well-being. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 120, 963–1002.

    Google Scholar 

  • Madden, D. (2008). Sample selection versus two-part models revisited: The case of female smoking and drinking. Journal of Health Economics, 27, 300–307.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maxwell, N. (1988). Economic returns to migration: Marital status and gender differences. Social Science Quarterly, 63, 48–57.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mincer, J. (1978). Family migration decisions. Journal of Political Economy, 86, 749–773.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nissan, E., & Carter, G. (1993). Income inequality across regions over time. Growth and Change, 24, 303–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pham-Kanter, G. (2009). Social comparisons and health: Can having richer friends and neighbors make you sick? Social Science and Medicine, 69, 335–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puhani, P. A. (2000). The Heckman correction for sample selection and its critique. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14(1), 53–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, M. (2006). Relative deprivation, wage differentials and Mexican migration. Review of Development and Economics, 10, 135–153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, J. (1999). Living and dying in Dixie. Southern Culture, 5, 106–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schachter, J. (2003). Migration by race and Hispanic Origin: 1995–2000. Washington D.C: Census 2000 Special Report.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scholttmann, A., & Herzog, H. (1984). Career and geographic mobility interactions: Implications for the age selectivity of migration. The Journal of Human Resources, 19, 72–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjaastad, L. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70S, 80–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smits, J. (2001). Career migration, self-selection and the earnings of married men and women in the Netherlands, 1981–1993. Urban Studies, 38, 541–562.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stark, O., & Taylor, E. (1989). Relative deprivation and international migration. Demography, 26, 1–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stark, O., & Wang, Y. Q. (2000). A theory of migration as a response to relative deprivation. German Economic Review, 1, 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steven, R., Alexander, T., Genadek, K., Goeken, R., Schroeder, M. B., & Sobek, M. (2010). Integrated public use Microdata Series: Version 5.0. Minneapolis, MN: Minnesota Population Center.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stouffer, S., Edward, S., DeVinney, L., Star, S., & Williams, R. (1949). Studies in social psychology in world war II: The American soldier. Adjustment during army life (1st ed.). Princeton: University of Princeton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sweeney, P., McFarlin, D., & Inderrieden E. (1990). Using relative deprivation theory to explain satisfaction with income and pay level: A multistudy examination. The Academy of management Journal, 33, 423–436.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tienda, M., & Wilson, F. (1992). Migration and the earnings of Hispanic men. American Sociological Review, 57, 661–678.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tolnay, S. (2003). The African American ‘great migration’ and beyond. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 209–232.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vigdor J 2006. The new promised land: Black–white convergence in the American south, 1960–2000. NBER working paper Series. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Wilson, F. (1985). Migration and occupational mobility: A research note. International Migration Review, 19, 278–292.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Population Studies Center, Department of Sociology, University of Pennsylvania, 3718 Locus Walk, Philadelphia, PA, 19104-6298, USA

    Chenoa Flippen

Authors
  1. Chenoa Flippen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Chenoa Flippen.

Appendices

Appendix 1

See Table 5.

Table 5 Descriptive statistics for models predicting occupational standing
Full size table

Appendix 2

See Table 6.

Table 6 Comparison of coefficients from race-specific and full sample models predicting SEI
Full size table

Appendix 3

See Table 7.

Table 7 Results from probit models predicting selection into migration
Full size table

Appendix 4

See Table 8.

Table 8 Pearson correlation among SEI, migration status, and contextual level indicators
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Flippen, C. U.S. internal Migration and Occupational Attainment: Assessing Absolute and Relative Outcomes by Region and Race. Popul Res Policy Rev 33, 31–61 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9308-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9308-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation