A sensitivity analysis of repeat migration attrition in the study of migrant adjustment: The case of Bangkok

Abstract

Studies of migrant adjustment often conclude that results apply only to remaining migrants. This paper examines the potential bias in using the difference between remaining migrants and natives as a measure of migrant adjustment. The results document that differences between remaining migrants and natives contain bias caused by attrition due to repeat migration. Such bias is small, however, and is unlikely to change migrant-native comparisons. Unless one is concerned with details of differences between migrants and natives, it is unnecessary to be concerned about migration attrition bias in drawing conclusions from the observed differences.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  1. Bilsborrow, R.E. 1984. “Survey Design.” pp 60–87 in Migration Surveys in Low-Income Countries, edited by R.E. Bilsborrow, A.S. Oberai, and G. Standing. London: Croom Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Choi, J.H. 1984. “Urban to Rural Migration in Korea.” pp 21–108 in Rural Migration in Developing Nations, edited by C. Goldscheider. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  3. DaVanzo, J. 1983. “Repeat Migration in the United States: Who Moves Back and Who Moves On?” Review of Economics and Statistics 65:552–59.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. DaVanzo, J. and P.A. Morrison. 1981. “Return and Other Sequences of Migration in the United States.” Demography 18:85–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. De Jong, G., B.D. Root, R.W. Gardner, J.T. Fawcett, and R.G. Abad. 1986. “Migration Intentions and Behavior: Decision Making in a Rural Philippine Province.” Population and Environment 8:41–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Findley, S.E. 1982. “Migration Survey Methodologies: A Review of Design Issues.” IUSSP Papers, No. 20. Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Fuller, T.D. 1981. “Migrant-Native Socioeconomic Differentials in Thailand.” Demography 18:55–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Fuller, T.D., P. Lightfoot, and P. Kamnuansilpa. 1985. “Rural-Urban Mobility in Thailand: A Decision-Making Approach.” Demography 22:565–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. —. 1986. “Mobility Plans and Mobility Behavior: Convergences and Divergences in Thailand.” Population and Environment 8:15–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Gardner, R.W., G.F. De Jong, F. Arnold, and B.V. Carino. 1986. “The Best-Laid Schemes: An Analysis of Discrepancies between Migration Intentions and Behavior.” Population and Environment 8:63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Goldscheider, C., ed. 1983. Urban Migrants in Developing Nations: Patterns and Problems of Adjustment. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Goldstein, S. 1983. “Urbanization, Migration and Development.” pp 3–19 in Urban Migrants in Developing Nations: Patterns and Problems of Adjustment, edited by C. Goldscheider. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Goldstein, S. and A. Goldstein. 1981. Surveys of Migration in Developing Countries: A Methodological Review. Honolulu: East-West Population Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Green, S. 1978. “Comparative Studies of Migrant Adjustment in Asian Cities.” International Migration Review 12:66–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kallan, I.E. 1986. “The Assimilation of Internal Migrants to: Large Cities of the Third World: A Comparative Study.” Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

  16. Long, L.H. 1988. Migration and Residential Mobility in the United States. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Morrison, P.A. and J. DaVanzo. 1986. “The Prism of Migration: Dissimilarities between Return and Onward Movers.” Social Science Quarterly 67:1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Simmons, A.B. 1986. “Recent Studies on Place-Utility and Intention to Migrate: An International Comparison.” Population and Environment 8:120–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Simmons, A.B. and R.G. Cardona. 1972. “Rural-Urban Migration: Who Comes, Who Stays, Who Returns? The Case of Bogota, Columbia, 1928–68.” International Migration Review 6:166–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Sly, D.F. and J.M. Wrigley. 1986. “Migration Decision Making and Migration Behavior in Rural Kenya.” Population and Environment 8:78–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Speare, A., Jr. 1983. “Methodological Issues in the Study of Migrant Adjustment.” pp 21–40 in Urban Migrants in Developing Nations: Patterns and Problems of Adjustment, edited by C. Goldscheider. Boulder: Westview.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Speare, A., Jr., S. Goldstein, and W.H. Frey. 1975. Residential Mobility, Migration, and Metropolitan Change. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Initial funding for this research was provided through a William and Flora Hewlett Foundation postdoctoral fellowship (Grant 90-1673) at the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. I would like to thank the Carolina Population Center for its permission to use the data and Sidney Goldstein, Richard Bilsborrow, and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the paper.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yang, X. A sensitivity analysis of repeat migration attrition in the study of migrant adjustment: The case of Bangkok. Demography 31, 585–592 (1994). https://doi.org/10.2307/2061792

Download citation

Keywords

  • Migration Behavior
  • Labor Force Participation Rate
  • Urban Migrant
  • Recent Migrant
  • Intended Mover