Download Determinants of international migration flows:

Determinants of international
migration flows:
Canada 1986-1996
Ann H. Kim
Department of Sociology
Population Studies and Training Center
Brown University
• Shift from thinking of origin and destination states as discrete
units to thinking of them as part of dynamic networks.
• Example 1. France. Garson (1992), “Migration and
interdependence: The migration system between France and
Africa.”
• Example 2. US. Sassen (1988), “The mobility of labor and
capital: A study in international investment and labor flow.”
• Example 3. US. Yang (1996), “Post-1965 immigration to the
US: Structural determinants.”
And for Canada?
•
Simmons (1999), “Immigration policy: Imagined futures.”
The Migration System – The Systems Perspective
In the context of an increasingly interconnected world, international
population movements can naturally be seen as complements to other
flows and exchanges taking place between countries. Indeed
international migrations do not occur randomly but take place usually
between countries that have close historical, cultural or economic ties
(Kritz and Zlotnik 1992).
The Migration System – The World Systems Perspective
Nation-states occupy a class position within the world capitalist
economy and unequal exchange between countries results in some
countries reaping the benefits of surplus value (Portes and Walton
1981; Wallerstein 1974).
Study Objective: To examine the empirical link
between migration flows and economic exchanges in
Canada’s international migration system.
Top 5 Countries in Canada’s Migration System
Immigrants
Exports
Imports
CDIA*
1986
1986
1986
1986
USA
India
Vietnam
Hong Kong
Poland
USA
Japan
United Kingdom
West Germany
USSR
USA
Japan
United Kingdom
West Germany
Korea
USA
United Kingdom
Bahamas
Singapore
Australia
1996
1996
1996
1995
Hong Kong
India
China
Taiwan
Philippines
USA
Japan
United Kingdom
Germany
China
USA
Japan
Mexico
United Kingdom
China
USA
United Kingdom
Ireland
Japan
Australia
Increase 86-96
Hong Kong
China
India
Taiwan
Philippines
Decrease 86-96
Vietnam
Poland
El Salvador
Portugal
Guyana
Increase 86-96
USA
Japan
Korea
China
United Kingdom
Decrease 86-96
Cuba
Iraq
Portugal
Bulgaria
Bangladesh
Increase 86-96
USA
Mexico
China
Japan
Norway
Decrease 86-96
Nigeria
El Salvador
Bermuda
Nicaragua
Zaire
Increase 86-95
USA
United Kingdom
Ireland
Japan
Hong Kong
Decrease** 86-95
Antilles (Netherlands)
Greece
South Africa
Norway
Immigration Trends – The Numbers
300000
250000
200000
150000
100000
50000
Source: Citizenship & Immigration Canada Statistics, 1996
19
96
19
95
19
94
19
93
19
92
19
91
19
90
19
89
19
88
19
87
19
86
19
85
19
84
19
83
19
82
19
81
19
80
0
Immigration Trends – The Flows
Data
Sources:
• Citizenship & Immigration Canada Statistics
• Statistics Canada
• World Bank Development Indicators
• Human Development Reports – UN
Sample:
• 117 countries, account for 93% of immigrants in 1986, 85% in
1996.
• Scale of immigration increased from 1986 to 1996. Numbers
from the top sending country quadrupled, 7,275 (USA) to
29,966 (Hong Kong).
• ¼ countries experienced decreases in flows.
• Average decrease ~ 660 immigrants.
• Average increase ~ 1,300 immigrants.
• Export values increased, on average, over the period.
• Import values decreased, on average, over the period.
Cross-sectional multivariate regression results
1986 & 1996
1986
Variables (logged)
1996
B
Standard
Errors
B
Standard
Errors
GDP per capita
Population size
Population density
-0.197
-0.016
0.129*
0.12
0.11
0.07
-0.071
0.151
0.157*
0.12
0.11
0.08
Size of co-immigrant network
0.350**
0.13
0.937**
0.15
Export value
Import value
0.173**
-0.020
0.08
0.12
0.253**
-0.088
0.09
0.07
Adjusted R2
**p<0.05, *p<0.10
0.704**
0.581**
First-difference regression results
on change in logged flows
1986-1996
Model 1
Variables
∆ GDP per capita
∆ Population size
∆ Population density
∆ Size of coimmigrant network
∆ Export value
∆ Import value
Adjusted R2
**p<0.05, *p<0.10
Model 2
Model 3
B
Std
Errors
B
Std
Errors
B
Std
Errors
-0.845**
-1.672
3.963
0.37
5.81
5.79
-0.956**
-2.340
-2.672
0.35
4.51
4.50
-0.736*
-2.765
-3.057
0.41
4.54
4.53
1.821**
0.45
1.745**
-0.084
-0.054
0.46
0.10
0.07
0.095**
0.204**
0.199**
Conclusions
• No systematic pattern of association between changes in
economic relations and migration flows but for a given year,
there is a positive relationship between export trade and
migration numbers.
• Exports not imports.
• The social network is one of the key driving forces behind
contemporary migration streams.
• Lack of significance in the first difference model may be
attributed to the pooling of developed/developing countries.
• Future work, with more complete and reliable data, might reexamine these models or conduct longitudinal case studies
to investigate particular trajectories of bilateral relations, e.g.
China.