NOT FOR QUOTATION WITHOUT PERMISSlON OF THE AUTHOR
REPEAT MIGRATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
WHO MOVES BACK
AND
WHO MOVES ON?J u l i e D a V a n z o
November 1980 WP-80- 158
Working
P a ; : ~ e r sare interim reports on work of the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis and have received only limited review. Views or opinions expressed herein do not necessarily repre- sent those of the Institute or of its National Member Organizations.
INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR APPLIED SYSTEYS AN;ALYSIS
A-2361 Laxenburg, Austria
FOREWORD
Declining rates of national population growth, continuing differential levels of regional economic activity, and shifts in the migration patterns of people and jobs are characteristic empirical aspects of many developed coun- tries. In some regions they have combined to bring about relative (and in some cases
absolute)
population decline of highly urbanized areas; in others they have brought about rapid metropolitan growth.The objective of the Urban Change Task in IIASA's Human Settlements and Services Area is to bring together and synthesize available empirical ant1 theoretical information on the principal determinants and consequences of such urban growth and decline.
This paper focuses on the repeat moves that many people in the United States make during their lifetime. The analysis is based on the capital that individuals accumulate in a specific location and on the quality of informa- tion that migrants obtain before making their decision to move. The careful examination of why people move and the focus on migration sequences make this essay a particularly important contribution to our understanding of current patterns of migration behavior and spatial population change.
A
list of publications in the Urban Change Series appears at the end of this paper.Andrei Rogers Cha
i
rmanHuman Settlements and Services Area
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America at Atlanta in April of 1978, and of the Western Economic Association at Kona, Hawaii in June of 1978. The paper was extensively revised while the author was a visiting scholar at IIASA
in June 1980.
This paper draws on research supported by grants from the Center for
Population Research of the National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, Department of Health and Human Services. For their helpful
suggestions on an earlier draft, special thanks are due to my Rand col-
leagues Peter A, Morrison (with whom I have collaborated on other parts
of this research), William P. Butz, James R. Hosek, and Lee Lillard. I
would also like to thank Victor Fuchs, Nathan Keyfitz, and Andrei Rogers,
as well as the other visitors and staff participating in the Human Settle-
ments and Services Area IIASA Summer Research Seminar in Demography. The
programing assistance of Franklin Berger and Christine Peterson is grate-
fully acknowledged.
ABSTRACT
Migration often occurs more than once in an individual's lifetime. Many people may move back to the location where they were born after a stay in another area, or they may move on to yet another new location. In this paper the migrant's location-specific capital and information costs are examined, and empirical findings for the United States are presented and discussed.
CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
11. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES
111. DATA, SAMPLE, AND ESTIMATION TECHNIQUE
I V
.
EMPIRICAL F I N D I N G S V.
CONCLUSIONSREFERENCES
PAPERS O F THE URBAN CHANGE S E R I E S
REPEAT MIGRATION I N THE UNITED STATES:
WHO MOVES BACK AND WHO MOVES ON?
I . INTRODUCTION
Most s t u d i e s o f m i g r a t i o n i m p l i c i t l y t r e a t it a s a one-time e v e n t , p a y i n g no heed t o t h e p o s s i b l e d i s t i n c t i o n between a f i r s t - t i m e move and s u b s e q u e n t r e p e a t moves. Yet t h e demographic l i t e r a t u r e ( e . g . , Gold- s t e i n , 1964; Morrison, 1971) has f o r some t i m e n o t e d t h a t most moves a r e n o t p e o p l e ' s f i r s t moves, b u t r a t h e r a r e r e p e a t m o v e s - - e i t h e r onward t o new l o c a t i o n s o r back t o p l a c e s where t h e y l i v e d b e f o r e ( i . e . , r e t u r n moves )
.
T h i s p a p e r f o c u s e s on t h i s m a j o r i t y o f moves and i n q u i r e s i n t o how t h e p e o p l e who may p o t e n t i a l l y make such moves ( i . e . , p e o p l e who have moved b e f o r e ) choose among t h e a l t e r n a t i v e s of ( 1 ) r e t u r n i n g t o a l o c a - t i o n where t h e y l i v e d b e f o r e , ( 2 ) moving on t o a new l o c a t i o n , and ( 3 ) s t a y i n g p u t . I f o c u s i n p a r t i c u l a r on r e t u r n moves, which a r e i m p o r t a n t i n t h e i r own r i g h t because t h e y have t h e p o t e n t i a l of r e v e r s i n g l o n g - s t a n d i n g m i g r a t i o n s t r e a m s , such a s t h e h i s t o r i c o u t f l o w of b l a c k
m i g r a n t s from t h e South o r t h e contemporary exodus o f m i g r a n t s from t h e i n d u s t r i a l N o r t h e a s t i n t h e United S t a t e s .
To a n a l y z e how p e o p l e s e l e c t among t h e s e t h r e e a l t e r n a t i v e s t h e human c a p i t a l model of m i g r a t i o n i s broadened t o i n c o r p o r a t e t h e con- c e p t s of l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l and i n f o r m a t i o n c o s t s . I t h e n t e s t t h e model u s i n g l o n g i t u d i n a l micro d a t a f o r t h e United S t a t e s ( t h e P a n e l
Study of Income Dynamics) t h a t e n a b l e one t o measure m i g r a t i o n a t one- y e a r i n t e r v a l s and t h u s d e t e c t a l a r g e f r a c t i o n of a l l moves t h a t a r e made.* I f i n d t h a t t h e m i g r a t i o n of people t o new l o c a t i o n s conforms w i t h r e l a t i o n s h i p s long accepted i n t h e s t u d y of m i g r a t i o n , whereas t h e m i g r a t i o n o f people who r e t u r n s h o r t l y a f t e r l e a v i n g sometimes c o n t r a - d i c t s t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . For example, t h e n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e and m i g r a t i o n , a n e a r l y u n i v e r s a l f i n d i n g o f m i g r a t i o n s t u d i e s , does n o t h o l d f o r r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n .
S e c t i o n I1 d i s c u s s e s t h e conceptual framework, d e s c r i b e s t h e hypotheses t e s t e d , and e x p l o r e s c e r t a i n formal s i m i l a r i t i e s between r e p e a t m i g r a t i o n on t h e one hand and m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n and job t u r n - over on t h e o t h e r . S e c t i o n I11 d e s c r i b e s t h e d a t a analyzed and how t h e y were s t r u c t u r e d . S e c t i o n I V p r e s e n t s t h e e m p i r i c a l f i n d i n g s . The paper concludes i n S e c t i o n V w i t h a summary o f main f i n d i n g s and a d i s c u s s i o n of t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s , i n c l u d i n g r e l e v a n c e t o t h e "one-year
-
f i v e - y e a r m i g r a t i o n problem" t h a t has been s t u d i e d i n r e c e n t IIASA r e s e a r c h ( e . g . , K i t s u l and P h i l i p o v , 1980).11. CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK AND HYPOTHESES Conceptual Framework
Our b a s i c model r e g a r d s a person ( o r f a m i l y ) a s m i g r a t i n g i n t h e
"Many s t u d i e s of r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n (Bowman and Myers, 1967; DaVanzo, 1976; Kau and Sirmans, 1976; Yezer and Thurston, 1976; Long and Hansen, 1977a and b ; M i l l e r , 1977; and A l l e n , 1979) u s e a g g r e g a t e U.S. Census d a t a , which measure r e t u r n and o t h e r r e p e a t m i g r a t i o n by comparing a p e r s o n ' s p l a c e s of r e s i d e n c e a t ( 1 ) t h e time of t h e c e n s u s , ( 2 ) f i v e y e a r s b e f o r e t h e c e n s u s , and ( 3 ) b i r t h .
e x p e c t a t i o n of b e i n g b e t t e r o f f by doing s o ; i . e . , t h e person moves i f he b e l i e v e s t h e b e n e f i t s w i l l exceed t h e costs.;: Usually t h e model i s s e t f o r t h a s a one-period model--the person has o n l y one o p p o r t u n i t y t o d e c i d e whether o r n o t t o m i g r a t e (and i f s o , where). However, i f we want t o e x p l a i n why people might choose t o l e a v e p l a c e s t o which t h e y r e c e n t l y decided t o move, and i n p a r t i c u l a r , why t h e y might move back t o p l a c e s t h e y p r e v i o u s l y d e c i d e d t o l e a v e , t h e model must be extended t o a m u l t i p e r i o d framework. I n each time p e r i o d t h e person d e c i d e s whether he ill move, and i f s o , where.
A person moves i n i t i a l l y because he e x p e c t s t h e b e n e f i t s of t h e move t o outweigh t h e c o s t s . He may i n t e n d a t t h e time t o remain i n t h e new l o c a t i o n f o r t h e f o r s e e a b l e f u t u r e o r he may a n t i c i p a t e moving a g a i n soon, e s p e c i a l l y i f he i s moving t o t h e new l o c a t i o n t o r e c e i v e s c h o o l - i n g o r t r a i n i n g , o r t o u n d e r t a k e a l i m i t e d - t e r m assignment. However, n o t a l l r e p e a t moves a r e preplanned; some a r i s e because i n i t i a l moves d i d n o t "work o u t .I1
Only w i t h p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n and p e r f e c t f o r e s i g h t would t h e p o t e n t i a l i n v e s t o r i n m i g r a t i o n always weigh c o r r e c t l y t h e advantages
*The b e n e f i t s of m i g r a t i o n i n c l u d e n o t o n l y i n c r e a s e d e a r n i n g s arid f rirlge b e n e f i t s over one
'
s l i f e t i m e , b u t a l s o i n c r e a s e d nonwage income ( e . g . , h i g h e r w e l f a r e payments o r h i g h e r a g r i c u l t u r a l s u b s i d i e s ) o r b e t t e r a m e n i t i e s ( e . g . , a more p l e a s a n t c l i m a t e ) . S i m i l a r l y , t h e c o s t s i n c l u d e n o t o n l y o u t - o f - p o c k e t expenses f o r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and moving of belongings ( d i r e c t c o s t s ) , b u t a l s o such f a c t o r s a s e a r n i n g s foregone w h i l e moving and l o o k i n g f o r a n o t h e r job ( o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s ) ; t h e psych-i c c o s t s of l e a v i n g f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s , and f a m i l i a r s u r r o u n d i n g s , a l o n g w i t h t h e monetary and time c o s t s o f s t a y i n g i n touch w i t h t h o s e l e f t behind ( e . g . , v i s i t s b a c k ) ; t h e c o s t of f i n a n c i n g t h e investment i n m i - g r a t i o n ; t h e c o s t of a c q u i r i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about moving and about oppor- t u n i t i e s i n p o t e n t i a l d e s t i n a t i o n a r e a s ; and l o s s e s i n t h e v a l u e of
l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c a s s e t s ( e . g . , a c l i e n t e l e ) whose worth i s t i e d t o t h e o r i g i n a l l o c a t i o n .
and disadvantages of specific locations or of moving at all. But infor- mation is not costless, and uncertainty is a fact of life. The poten- tial migrant is assumed to invest in search only as long as the benefits of having more information are perceived to outweigh the costs. With imperfect information, some investors will overestimate or underestimate the net benefits of migrating.
Since only those who expect the net benefits of migrating to be positive will move, initial migration should select against "pessimists"
(those who underestimate the net returns of migration) and tend to involve persons who in general overestimate the net benefits of moving
(Allen, 1979). Such selectivity should be stronger, the less accurate the information about the potential destination is; therefore, the less accurate the information, the greater should be the proportion of
migrants who overestimate the net benefits of moving, and hence are likely to be disappointed and prone to move again (Allen, 1979).
When a person who has migrated recently considers doing so again, he should have more information about the moving process in general.
The information costs of the repeat move should be lower than those of the initial move--a learning-by-doing phenomenon (Bowman and Myers, 1967). In addition, the potential repeat migrant will have a great deal of first-hand knowledge about certain potential destinations--locations where he lived before. Furthermore, he might have left other forms of
location-specific capital behind in those locations. Location-specific capital is a generic term denoting the diverse factors
hat
tie a person to a particular place. It refers both to concrete and intangible assetswhose v a l u e would be l o s t , c o s t l y t o r e p l a c e , o r s t e a d i l y diminished i f t h e person moved somewhere e l s e : f o r example, job s e n i o r i t y , an e s i s t - i n g c l i e n t e l e ( a s i n t h e c a s e of a w e l l - r e g a r d e d d o c t o r o r c a r p e n t e r ) , a l i c e n s e t o p r a c t i c e a p a r t i c u l a r p r o f e s s i o n i n a c e r t a i n geographic a r e a , a nonvested p e n s i o n , language f l u e n c y , p r o p e r t y ownership, p e r - s o n a l knowledge of an a r e a , and community t i e s and c l o s e f r i e n d s h i p s . Thus r e t u r n i n g t o a p l a c e where he l i v e d b e f o r e may e n a b l e a person t o recoup one of t h e c o s t s of t h e i n i t i a l d e p a r t u r e from t h a t a r e a - - t h e v a l u e of l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l he l e f t behind.
When a person who has migrated p r e v i o u s l y does s o a g a i n , he should f a v o r some former p l a c e of r e s i d e n c e because he has l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l t h e r e . Other f a c t o r s ( i n c l u d i n g l e n g t h of absence) b e i n g t h e same, t h e more l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l l e f t behind, t h e g r e a t e r should be t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o r e t u r n . The longer t h e absence, however, t h e
weaker should be t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o r e t u r n , s i n c e l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i - t a l t y p i c a l l y d e p r e c i a t e s i n v a l u e . " For example, t h e c a r p e n t e r ' s c l i e n - t e l e cannot w a i t i n d e f i n i t e l y f o r him t o r e t u r n ; o l d f r i e n d s may d i e o r m i g r a t e ; and, of c o u r s e , t h e v a l u e of i n f o r m a t i o n about an a r e a d e p r e c i - a t e s a s c o n d i t i o n s t h e r e change.**
;?Consistent w i t h t h i s , a number o f s t u d i e s ( e . g . , Kiker and Trayn- ham, 1974; B l e j e r and Goldberg, 1980; DaVanzo and Morrison, 1981)
p r e s e n t evidence showing an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n between t h e l i k e l i h o o d of r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n and t h e l e n g t h of t h e i n t e r v a l of absence. Other pos- s i b l e reasons f o r t h e n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n and i n t e r v a l of absence a r e g i v e n on page 7 .
**However, some people who l e a v e an a r e a may i n t e n d a l l a l o n g t o r e - t u r n , and may c o n t i n u e t o i n v e s t i n t h e i r l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l t h e r e t o keep i t from d e p r e c i a t i n g . I n developing c o u n t r i e s , f o r exam- p l e , people who l e a v e t h e i r home v i l l a g e sometimes a t t e m p t t o m a i n t a i n t h e v a l u e of t h e i r l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l through f r e q u e n t v i s i t s back o r through r e t a i n i n g ownership of p r o p e r t y . [For example, Speare
S i m i l a r i t i e s w i t h Models of J o b Turnover and M a r i t a l D i s s o l u t i o n
The c o n c e p t u a l model d e s c r i b e d above, w i t h i t s emphasis on s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l and i n f o r m a t i o n c o s t s , resembles t h a t used i n a n a l y s e s of job t u r n o v e r ( s e e review by P a r s o n s , 1977) and m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n (Becker, Landes, and Michael, 1977). I n a l l t h r e e models, i m p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n g i v e s r i s e t o a p o s s i b l e mismatck-of m i g r a n t s t o l o c a t i o n s , employees t o employers, o r husbands t o w i v e s . The l i k e l i h o o d o f mismatch i s l a r ~ e r t h e g r e a t e r t h e i n f o r m a t i o n c o s t s , a l t h o u g h even p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n would n o t p r e v e n t r e p e a t moves, j o b changes, o r m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n s . *
I n a l l t h r e e a p p l i c a t i o n s , p e o p l e accumulate c a p i t a l t h a t i s
s p e c i f i c t o e i t h e r a l o c a t i o n , a job o r f i r m , o r a s p o u s e , and t h i s a c t s a s a d e t e r r e n t t o changing state.*;k The more s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l t h e y accu- m u l a t e i n a s t a t e , t h e l e s s l i k e l y t h e y s h o u l d be t o l e a v e . Reverse c a u s a t i o n i s , of c o u r s e , a p o s s i b i l i t y i n each c a s e . People s h o u l d b e l e s s l i k e l y t o i n v e s t i n s t a t e - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l ( e . g . , t o buy a home, i n v e s t i n f i r m - s p e c i f i c t r a i n i n g , o r have c h i l d r e n ) t h e l i k e l i e r t h e y a r e t o change t h e i r c u r r e n t s t a t e .
(1971) found t h a t o n l y 18 p e r c e n t of t h e Taiwanese m i g r a n t s i n h i s sam- p l e who had been homeowners b e f o r e moving s o l d t h e i r homes when t h e y moved. Also s e e Nelson ( 1 9 7 6 ) .
1
Indeed, t h e p e r s o n may " c i r c u l a t e "between h i s home v i l l a g e and a c i t y i n o r d e r t o g a i n some o r a l l of t h e b e n e f i t s of t h e l a t t e r l o c a t i o n w h i l e r e t a i n i n g t h o s e of t h e former
(Hugo, 1 9 7 9 ) .
*A r e p e a t move, j o b change, o r m a r i t a l d i s s o l u t i o n might be a n t i c i - p a t e d i f t h e t i m e p a t h s of n e t b e n e f i t s t r e a m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h a l t e r n a - t i v e o p t i o n s c r o s s e d . A n t i c i p a t e d changes a r e undoubtedly more l i k e l y i n t h e m i g r a t i o n and j o b t u r n o v e r c a s e s ( e . g . , moves f o l l o w i n g a term i n m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e s o r completion of c o l l e g e , o r a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s a b b a t i - c a l l e a v e s ) t h a n i n t h e m a r r i a g e / d i v o r c e c a s e , where presumably few d i s - s o l u t i o n s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d a t t h e o u t s e t .
*;\The term " s t a t e " i s u s e d h e r e i n t h e g e n e r a l r a t h e r t h a n t h e geo- g r a p h i c s e n s e .
F i n a l l y , f o r a l l t h r e e a p p l i c a t i o n s , e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e has been found o f a s t r o n g n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d u r a t i o n i n a s t a t e and t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f l e a v i n g i t . T h i s may be due t o any of s e v e r a l c a u s e s : t h e e a r l y d e t e c t i o n and c o r r e c t i o n of "mismatches," p r i o r t o an i n t e n - s i v e investment i n s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l ; t h e accumulation o v e r t i m e o f s t a t e - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l t h a t d e t e r s people from l e a v i n g t h a t s t a t e ; o r t h e e a r l y d e p a r t u r e o f p e o p l e more prone t o l e a v e a s t a t e , " l e a v i n g behind an i n c r e a s i n g l y s e l e c t i v e sample of t h o s e l e s s prone t o leave.;$*
However, m i g r a t i o n d i f f e r s from job t u r n o v e r and m a r r i a g e l d i v o r c e i n two important r e s p e c t s . F i r s t , i n job t u r n o v e r and m a r r i a g e / d i v o r c e , t h e r e a r e two a c t i v e decisionmakers--employee and employer, husband and wife--whereas ( f a m i l y c o n s i d e r a t i n s a s i d e - - s e e Mincer, 1 9 7 8 ) i n migra- t i o n , t h e r e i s o n l y one. ( I t should be n o t e d , however, t h a t because employment and m i g r a t i o n a r e c l o s e l y r e l a t e d , employers a t d e s t i n a t i o n may p l a y a s u b s t a n t i a l r o l e i n t h e m i g r a n t ' s d e c i s i o n . ) Second, t h e r e i s no meaningful c o u n t e r p a r t t o t h e r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n o p t i o n i n t h e c a s e of job t u r n o v e r o r m a r r i a g e / d i v o r c e . * ~ ~ * I n o u r model, t h e l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l i n a p l a c e where people l i v e d b e f o r e may draw them back i f t h e y choose t o move a g a i n , and t h i s o f t e n happens.
*This h i g h e r p r o p e n s i t y could be due e i t h e r t o an i n t r i n s i c a l l y h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t y ( e . g . , wanderlust i n t h e c a s e of m i g r a t i o n ) o r t o g e n e r a l l y lower s e a r c h c o s t s o r t h e p o s s e s s i o n of l e s s s t a t e - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l ( e . g . , t h e m i g r a t i o n of c o l l e g e p r o f e s s o r s ) .
**For t h e m i g r a t i o n c a s e , a t l e a s t , we would add a f o u r t h item t o t h e l i s t : t h e d e p r e c i a t i o n over t i m e of l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l i n a p r e v i o u s a r e a of r e s i d e n c e .
**Returning t o a p r e v i o u s employer, remarrying a p r e v i o u s spouse, r e t u r n i n g t o t h e s t a t e of being s i n g l e ( a s opposed t o immediate remar- r i a g e t o someone e l s e ) , and r e c o n c i l i a t i o n f o l l o w i n g a m a r i t a l s e p a r a - t i o n a r e p o s s i b l e , b u t most of them r a r e l y o c c u r .
In short, the formal properties of return and other repeat migra- tion have meaningful counterparts in other demographic and social processes where decisions depend partly on information costs and on state-specific capital.
Hypotheses Tested
The concept of location-specific capital implies several hypotheses about migration generally, and about return and other repeat migration in particular (the latter being our focus here):
( 1 )
The more l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l a person has a t t h e current residence, t h e l e s s l i k e l y he should be t o leave.
We test this hypothesis by examining the relationship between the likel- ihood of repeat migration and one especially salient indicator of
location-specific capital: whether or not the person owned the house he occupied before the move in question."
( 2 )
When a person who hos migrated previously does so again, he should favor some former place o f residence because he has lo- c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l there. Other t h i n g s (including l e n g t h o f absence) being t h e same, t h e more l o c a t f o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l
t h a t i s l e f t behind, t h e greater s&ouZd be t h e propensity t o r e t u r n .
We test this hypothesis by inquiring whether, when length ofabsence is held constant, people who moved in the recent past are more likely to return the more location-specific capital they had in their original location.
In
our empirical analysis, our indicators oflocation-specific capital before the initial move include a dummy vari-
"There is the possibility here of reverse causation. People who plan to stay in the new location may be more likely to buy homes (and to invest in other forms of location-specific capital).
a b l e i n d i c a t i n g whether t h e p e r s o n owned a home i n t h e a r e a where he l i v e d o r i g i n a l l y ( i . e . , b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l move) and a v a r i a b l e measur- i n g t h e number of y e a r s he r e s i d e d i n t h e d w e l l i n g u n i t where he l i v e d b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l move."
( 3 )
Since most location-specific c a p i t a l depreciates i n value
over time, the a t t r a c t i o n of location-specific c a p i t a l i n drawing people back t o a pZace where they l i v e d before should weaken as the i n t e r v a l of absence lengthens.
To t e s t h y p o t h e s i s 3 , we examine whether t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between o u r p a r t i c u l a r i n d i c a t o r s of l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l a t t h e i n i t i a l
l o c a t i o n and t h e l i k e l i h o o d of a p e r s o n ' s r e t u r n i n g t h e r e weakens a s t h e i n t e r v a l of absence l e n g t h e n s .
The concept of i m p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n l e a d s t o t h e f o l l o w i n g h y p o t h e s i s :
( 4 )
The sounder t h e information on which t h e migrant based h i s
i n i t i a l move, t h e l e s s prone he s b u l d be t o move again.
The more c l o s e l y t h e outcome of t h e i n i t i a l move a c c o r d s w i t h p r e - move e x p e c t a t i o n s , t h e more l i k e l y i t i s t h a t t h e m i g r a n t w i l l be s a t i s -
f i e d and want t o s t a y a t t h e new location.""
;+In a companion p a p e r (DaVanzo and Morrison, 1 9 8 1 ) we show t h a t , a t each i n t e r v a l of a b s e n c e , t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of a r e t u r n move i s always a t l e a s t t w i c e a s h i g h i f t h e p o t e n t i a l r e t u r n d e s t i n a t i o n i s t h e a r e a where t h e p e r s o n grew up ( a p l a c e where he presumably h a s more
l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l t h a n i n o t h e r a r e a s ) . I n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y we r e s t r i c t o u r sample t o p e o p l e who a r e a t r i s k t o o n l y one r e t u r n ; hence, n e a r l y a l l t h e r e t u r n moves c o n s i d e r e d h e r e a r e back t o p l a c e s where t h e m i g r a n t s grew up.
**An e x c e p t i o n would be r e t u r n and o t h e r r e p e a t moves t h a t were p r e - planned and a r e , hence, n o t n e c e s s a r i l y t h e r e s u l t of i m p e r f e c t informa- t i o n . We cannot d e t e r m i n e whether o r n o t each r e p e a t move i n our d a t a was p r e p l a n n e d . However, we do c o n t r o l i n o u r e m p i r i c a l a n a l y s i s f o r one major c a t e g o r y of moves t h a t presumably were foreseen--moves by peo- p l e l e a v i n g m i l i t a r y s e r v i c e .
Although we l a c k d i r e c t measures of t h e soundness of m i g r a t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n , we do have s e v e r a l i n d i r e c t i n d i c a t o r s of t h i s . One i s t h e p e r s o n ' s e d u c a t i o n , an i n d i c a t o r of t h e q u a n t i t y and q u a l i t y of informa- t i o n t h e p e r s o n has about o p p o r t u n i t i e s e l s e w h e r e . We assume a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e d u c a t i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n , due both t o t h e s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y of e d u c a t e d p e o p l e t o p r o c e s s i n f o r m a t i o n e f f i c i e n t l y ( s e e
S c h u l t z , 1975, and r e f e r e n c e s t h e r e i n ) , and t o t h e i r tendency t o compete f o r jobs i n l a b o r markets t h a t a r e n a t i o n a l i n s c o p e , f o r which informa- t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e t h r o u g h t r a d e j o u r n a l s , p r o f e s s i o n a l m e e t i n g s , and t h e
l i k e (Schwartz, 1973).
Another i n d i c a t o r of i n f o r m a t i o n examined h e r e i s t h e d i s t a n c e - of t h e p e r s o n ' s i n i t i a l
move.
To t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e c o s t s of i n f o r m a t i o n - -about a l t e r n a t i v e o p p o r t u n i t i e s a r e p o s i t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e d i s t a n c e t o t h o s e o p p o r t u n i t i e s , t h e f u r t h e r t h e i n i t i a l move, t h e l e s s r e l i a b l e s h o u l d be t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on which it was b a s e d . Migrants who move a hundred m i l e s should have e a s i e r r e p e a t e d a c c e s s t o f i r s t - h a n d informa- t i o n t h a n t h o s e who move a thousand m i l e s . Moves based on l e s s r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n s h o u l d be l e s s l i k e l y t o prove " s u c c e s s f u l , " making a s u b s e - q u e n t " c o r r e c t i v e " move more l i k e l y (Yezer and T h u r s t o n , 1976).
We a l s o examine dummies i n d i c a t i n g t h e p e r s o n ' s employment s t a t u s b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l move and b e f o r e t h e p o t e n t i a l r e p e a t move. Unemploy-
- - ---- -
ment o r underemployment a f t e r t h e i n i t i a l move ( i . e . , b e f o r e t h e p o t e n - t i a l r e p e a t move) presumably was an u n i n t e n d e d consequence of t h e i n i - t i a l move and c a n be assumed t o i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e m i g r a n t would n o t con- s i d e r t h a t move t o have been s u c c e s s f u l . Unemployment b e f o r e t h e i n i - t i a l move may have prompted t h a t move and may have a f f e c t e d t h e manner
i n which t h e p e r s o n g a t h e r e d i n f o r m a t i o n p r i o r t o making t h e i n i t i a l move. On t h e one hand, unemployed p e o p l e have more t i m e t o s e a r c h ; on t h e o t h e r hand, t h e s t i g m a o f unemployment ( l a b e l e d a s a "lemon") o r f i n a n c i a l p r e s s u r e may l i m i t t h e a b i l i t y t o do s o e f f e c t i v e l y . F u r t h - ermore, unemployed p e o p l e have l i t t l e o r no j o b - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l t o t i e them t o an a r e a .
Our f i n a l h y p o t h e s i s i s :
(51
The
poorer t h e labor-market opportunities i n t h e place here t h e migrant formerly l i v e d , the l e s s l i k e l y he should be t o return there.To t e s t t h i s h y p o t h e s i s , we c o n s i d e r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h e l i k e l i h o o d of r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n and t h e unemployment r a t e i n t h e a r e a of r e s i d e n c e b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l move. The v a r i a b l e we u s e r e f e r s t o t h e t i m e b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l move. (We would have p r e f e r r e d t o measure t h e economic c o n d i t i o n s a t t h e p o t e n t i a l r e t u r n d e s t i n a t i o n f o r t h e t i m e immediately b e f o r e t h e r e p e a t move--and, i n p a r t i c u l a r , t o c o n s i d e r t h e e f f e c t o f changes i n t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s s i n c e t h e p e r s o n l e f t t h a t
l o c a t i o n - - b u t t h o s e d a t a were n o t r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e f o r a l l p o t e n t i a l r e t u r n e e s . )
111. DATA, SAMPLE, AND ESTIMATION TECHNIQUE
Data
The d a t a used h e r e a r e from t h e U n i v e r s i t y of P l i c h i g a n f s 1 9 6 8 - 7 5 Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), which p r o v i d e s e i g h t y e a r s of
d a t a on o v e r 5000 f a m i l i e s i n t h e United S t a t e s . " These d a t a e n a b l e one t o examine sequences of moves ( w i t h i n which i n d i v i d u a l moves can be i n t e r p r e t e d ) and t o measure m i g r a t i o n a t o n e - y e a r i n t e r v a l s , t h e r e b y d e t e c t i n g a l a r g e f r a c t i o n of a l l moves t h a t a r e made.
For t h e purposes of t h i s s t u d y t h e PSID d a t a have been r e s t r u c t u r e d s o t h a t t h e u n i t s of a n a l y s i s a r e "person-yearl' o b s e r v a t i o n s . * *
A p e r s o n - y e a r r e p r e s e n t s one y e a r i n a p e r s o n ' s l i f e d u r i n g which he i s a t r i s k t o m i g r a t e and may o r may n o t move. Our sample c o n s i s t s of p e r s o n - y e a r o b s e r v a t i o n s d u r i n g which t h e p e r s o n was t h e head o f a fam- i l y , f o r which a t l e a s t one a d d i t i o n a l y e a r o f i n f o r m a t i o n i s a v a i l a b l e ( t o show whether o r not he moved t h e f o l l o w i n g year).*:"*
Although i t i s p o s s i b l e w i t h t h e PSID d a t a t o a n a l y z e m i g r a t i o n down t o a c o u n t y l e v e l , a somewhat l a r g e r a g g r e g a t i o n i s employed h e r e . Counties have been combined i n t o S t a n d a r d M e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t i s t i c a l Areas
(SMSAs) and n o n m e t r o p o l i t a n S t a t e Economic Areas (SEAs), a r e a s t h a t approximate l a b o r markets i n t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . H e n c e f o r t h , when I
11 I1 I 1 I I
r e f e r t o "move, m i g r a t i o n , " o r a r e a , I am u s i n g t h e t e r m s w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o SMSAs and n o n m e t r o p o l i t a n SEAs.
D e f i n i t i o n of Moves
I n t h e PSID, sample members' a r e a of r e s i d e n c e i s r e c o r d e d a n n u a l l y between 1968 and 1975. The a r e a where t h e p e r s o n l i v e d when "growing up" a l s o i s r e c o r d e d , b u t i t s p r e c i s e p o i n t i n c h r o n o l o g i c a l t i m e c a n n o t
*As n o t e d below, t h e sample used h e r e i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r .
**For t e c h n i c a l d e t a i l s on o u r r e s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e d a t a , s e e DaVanzo and Morrison (1978, Appendix).
*+*The PSID oversampled f a m i l i e s w i t h low incomes, and hence. t h e d a t a a r e n o t s t r i c t l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of a l l U.S. f a m i l y h e a d s .
b e a s c e r t a i n e d ( e x c e p t t h a t i t l o g i c a l l y f a l l s e a r l i e r i n t h e sequence of l i f e e v e n t s ) . I r e f e r t o t h i s e a r l i e r l o c a t i o n a s t h e p e r s o n ' s " o r i - g i n . " The e i g h t - y e a r r e s i d e n c e h i s t o r y , a l o n g w i t h i n f o r m a t i o n on t h e o r i g i n ( t h e a r e a of r e s i d e n c e a t an i n d e f i n i t e l y e a r l i e r p o i n t i n l i f e ) , e n a b l e s us t o i d e n t i f y and c l a s s i f y moves o v e r each one-year i n t e r v a l a s f 01 lows :
( 1 ) P r i m a r y move. Defined as a f i r s t move between y e a r s t and t
+
1by a person who h a s grown up i n and ( w h i l e t r a c k e d by t h e PSID) r e - mained i n t h e same a r e a through y e a r t . No more t h a n 29 p e r c e n t of t h e a n n u a l l y r e c o r d e d moves between 1968 and 1975 i n t h e PSID d a t a a r e primary (DaVanzo and Morrison, 1981)
.*
(2)Retw"n move. Defined as a move between 1968 and 1975 back t o a p l a c e where t h e p e r s o n l i v e d p r e v i o u s l y ( e i t h e r h i s o r i g i n o r a l o c a t i o n i n h a b i t e d between 1968 and 1973). Twenty-six p e r c e n t of t h e moves
r e c o r d e d a n n u a l l y between 1968 and 1975 i n t h e PSID d a t a a r e r e t u r n moves. We can i d e n t i f y two (not m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e ) t y p e s of r e t u r n moves :
( 2 a ) S h o r t - i n t e r v a l
r e b m
move. Defined as a move between 1969 and 1975 back t o an a r e a where t h e p e r s o n p r e v i o u s l y l i v e d i n any y e a r between 1968 and 1973. An i n t e r v a l of a b s e n c e , o r migra- t i o n i n t e r v a l (MI), i s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h each s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n move. The maximum p o s s i b l e MI t h a t we o b s e r v e i n o u r d a t a i s s i x y e a r s (an i n i t i a l move i n 1968-69 and a r e t u r n move*This i s d o u b t l e s s an o v e r e s t i m a t e . S i n c e we cannot a s c e r t a i n p r e - v i o u s r e s i d e n c e s (and hence p r e v i o u s moves) between o r i g i n and 1968, some r e p e a t moves a r e undoubtedly m i s c l a s s i f i e d a s primary.
i n 1974-75). S i x t e e n p e r c e n t of t h e moves r e c o r d e d a n n u a l l y between 1969 and 1975 i n t h e PSID d a t a (and 62 p e r c e n t o f t h e r e t u r n moves) a r e s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n s .
(2b) Origin r e t u r n move. Defined as a move between 1968 and 1975 back t o t h e a r e a where t h e p e r s o n grew u p . An o r i g i n r e t u r n may a l s o b e a s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n , o f c o u r s e , a s when a n a t i v e of A l e a v e s A i n 1969 and r e t u r n s i n 1970. For o r i g i n r e t u r n s t h a t a r e n o t s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n s ( " o r i g i n o n l y t ' r e t u r n s ) , t h e m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l i s i n d e t e r m i n a t e , b u t i s l i k e l y t o be q u i t e l o n g , e s p e c i a l l y f o r o l d e r a d u l t s . One- f i f t h o f t h e a n n u a l l y r e c o r d e d moves between 1968 and 1975 (and o v e r t h r e e - q u a r t e r s o f t h e r e t u r n moves) i n o u r d a t a a r e
r e t u r n s t o o r i g i n ; t h r e e - f i f t h s o f t h e s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n moves between 1969 and 1975 i n t h e PSID d a t a a r e a l s o r e t u r n s t o o r i g i n .
( 3 ) Ozward move. Defined as any n o n r e t u r n r e p e a t move, i . e . , a move whose d e s t i n a t i o n ( s o f a r a s can b e d e t e r m i n e d ) does n o t d u p l i c a t e a p r e v i o u s a r e a of r e s i d e n c e . Onward moves, l i k e r e t u r n moves, have a m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l . (Once a g a i n , t h e l o n g e s t s p e c i f i c MI we c a n d e t e c t h e r e i s six y e a r s . ) F o r t y - f i v e p e r c e n t o f t h e moves between 1968 and 1975 i n t h e PSID d a t a a r e onward moves.
H y p o t h e t i c a l i l l u s t r a t i o n s o f each t y p e of move a r e shown i n T a b l e 1.
I n t h i s s t u d y we e s t i m a t e a m u l t i v a r i a t e model e x p l a i n i n g s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n moves and s h o r t - i n t e r v a l onward moves, which t o g e t h e r
--
a c c o u n t f o r t h e m a j o r i t y o f moves r e c o r d e d i n t h e PSID d a t a . We have
T a b l e 1
H y p o t h e t i c a l I l l u s t r a ~ i o n s of Noves and M i g r a t i o n I n t e r v a l s ("1)
L o c a t i o n of R e s i d e n c e i n : Type of
Move I l l u s t r a t e d O r i g i n 1 9 6 8 1 9 6 9 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 1 1 9 7 2 1 9 7 3 1 9 7 4 1 9 7 5
P r i m a r y move A A A - B B B B
S h o r t - i r , t e r v a l r e t u r n move
MI=^-+
M I = 1 ( a l s o t o o r i g i n ) A A A
1 -
A A A AM I = t! ( n o t a l s o t o A B C C C C
o r i g i n ) c
~ B I
6
M I i n d e t e r m i n a t eO r i g i n v n l y r e t u r n move A B B A A A
MI=2 7
Onward move ( s h o r t i n t e r v a l ) A A B
-1
C C C CSOURCE: DaVanzo and M o r r i s o n (.1951)
r e s t r i c t e d o u r sample t o p e r s o n - y e a r o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t a r e a t r i s k t o o n l y a s i n g l e s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n , i . e . , p e r s o n - y e a r o b s e r v a t i o n s p r e - ceded by e x a c t l y o n e move."
"This r e s t r i c t i o n e n a b l e s u s t o a v o i d t h e c o m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t a r i s e when some o b s e r v a t i o n s a r e a t r i s k t o o n e r e t u r n and o t h e r s a r e a t r i s k t o m u l t i p l e r e t u r n s . The r e s t r i c t i o n means t h a t we c o n s i d e r a r o u n d t h r e e - f i f t h s o f a l l o f t h e s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n moves r e g i s t e r e d i n o u r d a t a s e t ; n e a r l y a l l of t h e s e s h o r t - i n t e r v a l r e t u r n s a r e a l s o r e t u r n s t o o r i g i n . (We a l s o c o n s i d e r a few c a s e s a t r i s k t o o n l y one s h o r t -
i n t e r v a l r e t u r n whose " o r i g i n 1 ' i s unknown.)
S i n c e t h e m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l ( i n t e r v a l of absence) p l a y s an impor- t a n t r o l e i n o u r h y p o t h e s e s , and s i n c e i n t e r p r e t a t i o n becomes more com- p l e x when it i s n o t c o n t r o l l e d , we s u b d i v i d e our sample i n t o observa- t i o n s a t r i s k t o r e p e a t moves a f t e r a one-year m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l
(MI=l), on which we have 564 o b s e r v a t i o n s , and t h o s e a t r i s k t o r e p e a t moves w i t h a two- t o s i x - y e a r i n t e r v a l (MI=2-6), f o r which n=790; we e s t i m a t e s e p a r a t e e q u a t i o n s f o r each subsample. I d e a l l y , we would have looked a t each m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l s e p a r a t e l y , b u t t h e sample s i z e s beyond MI=2 a r e t o o s m a l l t o p e r m i t t h i s . ; $
A g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l may appear more t h a n once i n t h e MI=2-6 sample.""
(For example, t h e p e r s o n who does n o t r e t u r n a t MI=2 i n , s a y , 1971 w i l l t h e n be a t r i s k t o r e t u r n w i t h MI=3 i n 1972, and w i l l appear a g a i n i n t h e MI=2-6 sample a s long a s we have i n f o r m a t i o n on h i s 1973 l o c a t i o n . ) The 790 o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r t h e MI=2-6 sample a r e on 331 i n d i v i d u a l s . Of t h e s e 331 i n d i v i d u a l s , 10.9 p e r c e n t r e t u r n e d and 16.9 p e r c e n t moved onward w i t h i n t h e MI=2-6 p e r i o d . (These t r a n s l a t e i n t o average annual p r o b a b i l i t i e s of 4 . 6 p e r c e n t f o r MI=2-6 r e t u r n and 7 . 1 p e r c e n t f o r
*The number of o b s e r v a t i o n s becomes p r o g r e s s i v e l y s m a l l e r t h e longer t h e m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l , f o r t h e f o l l o w i n g r e a s o n s . People who moved between 1968 and 1969 a r e a t r i s k t o r e t u r n w i t h MI=1 between 1969 and 1970. S i m i l a r l y , p e o p l e who moved between 1973 and 1974 a r e a t r i s k t o an MI=1 r e t u r n between 1974 and 1975. Hence we have o b s e r v a t i o n s f o r s i x s e t s of y e a r s on MI=1 m i g r a t i o n . However, we have o n l y one s e t of o b s e r v a t i o n s on p e o p l e a t r i s k t o MI=6 m i g r a t i o n - - o n l y people who moved between 1968 and 1969 and who had n o t r e t u r n e d t o t h e 1968 l o c a t i o n by
1974 a r e a t r i s k t o an MI=6 r e t u r n (which would o c c u r between 1974 and 1975). Furthermore, when a p e r s o n r e t u r n s t o a p a r t i c u l a r p l a c e , he i s no longer a t r i s k t o r e t u r n t h e r e . Thus, from a g i v e n c o h o r t of i n i t i a l movers--say, 1968-69 movers--the number a t r i s k t o r e t u r n t o t h e 1968
l o c a t i o n s h r i n k s a s t h e m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l i n c r e a s e s . For b o t h o f t h e s e r e a s o n s , o u r MI=2-6 sample is b i a s e d toward s h o r t e r m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l s .
*To my knowledge, s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h n i q u e s do n o t y e t e x i s t t o h a n d l e error-components problems i n a polytomous c h o i c e c o n t e x t .
fII=2-6 onward m i g r a t i o n . )
A l l i n d i v i d u a l s r e p r e s e n t e d i n t h e MI=2-6 sample were a l s o i n t h e
MI=]
sample (and a r e c l a s s i f i e d t h e r e a s HI=l s t a y e r s ).
Of t h e e n t i r e MI=1 s a m p l e - - i . e . , a l l p e o p l e who moved f o r t h e f i r s t t i m e t h e p r e c e d i n g y e a r - - 1 2 . 6 p e r c e n t r e t u r n e d t o t h e i n i t i a l l o c a t i o n and 15 p e r c e n t moved onward by t h e f o l l o w i n g y e a r . Thus, i n o u r sample 28 p e r c e n t of t h o s e who moved one y e a r moved a g a i n t h e n e x t , and o f t h o s e who d i d n ' t move t h e n , a t l e a s t 28 p e r c e n t made a r e p e a t move b e f o r e s i x y e a r s hadp a s s e d . " Thus, n e a r l y h a l f o f t h e primary moves i n o u r d a t a a r e followed by a r e p e a t move w i t h i n t h e f o l l o w i n g two t o s i x y e a r s .
E s t i m a t i o n Technique
I n S e c t i o n I V we p r e s e n t e q u a t i o n s e s t i m a t e d by t h e maximum l i k e l i - hood polytomous o r m u l t i n o m i a l l o g i t t e c h n i q u e , a l s o known a s "condi- t i o n a l l o g i t . " Each c o e f f i c i e n t ,
,
shows how a change i n a v a r i a b l e ,' j
X a f f e c t s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y o f choosing a l t e r n a t i v e j r e l a t i v e t o some j
'
o t h e r a l t e r n a t i v e . I n t h i s s t u d y we c o n s i d e r t h e p r o b a b i l i t i e s o f mak- i n g a r e t u r n move o r an onward move r e l a t i v e t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f n o t m i g r a t i n g a g a i n . The g e n e r a l form of t h e e q u a t i o n i s :
where j ( k ) indexes a l t e r n a t i v e s , i i n d e x e s i n d i v i d u a l s , J i s t h e t o t a l number o f c h o i c e s f a c i n g each i n d i v i d u a l , and X i s t h e v e c t o r o f
"This i s undoubtedly an u n d e r e s t i m a t e s i n c e we do n o t o b s e r v e a l l m i g r a n t s f o r a f u l l s i x y e a r s f o l l o w i n g t h e i r i n i t i a l moves.
J
e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e s ;
C
P . ( j ) = 1 f o r each i. I n t h e e q u a t i o n s J = l 1e s t i m a t e d below, t h e v a l u e of each e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e X ( e . g . , educa- t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t ) i s t h e same o v e r a l l j f o r each i n d i v i d u a l . The e f f e c t of each X i s allowed t o d i f f e r between r e t u r n i n g and moving onward r e l a t i v e t o s t a y i n g .
IV. EMPIRICAL FINDINGS
The r e s u l t s o f o u r polytornous l o g i t e s t i m a t i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 2 .
L o c a t i o n - S p e c i f i c C a p i t a l Before t h e Repeat Move
L o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l accumulated i n t h e c u r r e n t l o c a t i o n i s indexed h e r e by home ownership. I n T a b l e 2 we s e e t h a t , c o n s i s t e n t w i t h Hypothesis 1, t h e more l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l a p e r s o n h a s (gauged h e r e by whether o r n o t t h e p e r s o n owns t h e home h e p r e s e n t l y o c c u p i e s ) t h e l e s s l i k e l y he i s t o l e a v e t h i s new l o c a t i o n , e i t h e r t o move onward o r t o r e t u r n . " The d e t e r r e n t e f f e c t o f t h i s l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l i s always s t r o n g e r f o r p e o p l e who have l i v e d i n t h e new l o c a t i o n f o r two t o s i x y e a r s t h a n f o r t h o s e who have l i v e d t h e r e f o r j u s t one y e a r ( t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s a r e n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o f o r t h e l a t t e r ) . Thus l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l a p p e a r s t o more f i r m l y t i e t h e m i g r a n t t o
*As p o i n t e d o u t e a r l i e r t h e c a u s a t i o n may ruri t h e o t h e r way a s w e l l ; i . e . , t h o s e who i n i t i a l l y i n t e n d t o s t a y may b e more l i k e l y t o buy homes t h a n t h o s e who a r e n o t y e t committed t o s t a y i n g .
Other i n d i c a t o r s o f l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l e x a m i n e d - - e . g . , a dummy i n d i c a t i n g t h e p r e s e n c e o f r e l a t i v e s nearby b e f o r e t h e p o t e n t i a l r e p e a t move--were a l s o n e g a t i v e l y r e l a t e d t o t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f r e p e a t m i g r a t i o n , though t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s were n o t s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 5 per-
c e n t l e v e l .
T a b l e 2
Polytomous L o g i t Equations E x p l a i n i n g Choice of S t a y i n g , R e t u r n i n g , o r Moving Onward, By Migration I n t e r v a l (MI)
-- -- p-~~
EXPLANATJRY VARIABLES Location--Specific Capita 2
Before Repeat Move Own House ( D P b Before Initial Move
Ovn House (D)
D u r a ~ i o n of Residence in Dwelling Unit (years)
Distnncr of Initial Move (logarithm of miles) Dnp2oyncvt'~tutus
Before Initial Move Unemployed (D)
Area Unemployment Pate ( I ) Before Repeat Move
Unemployed (D) Zlnderemployet& (D) Military (D)
f ntercept Mean of Dep. Var.
I
Log Likr lihood Sample Size NOTES :See text for a description of the estimation technique.
Unless othervise uoted, explanatory variables are measured at the time of the survey before the repeat move.
-- -
OD
-
dummy variable.bl%ese variables are measured at the time of the survey before the initial move. They are only defined for persons whose characteristics we observe the year before the initial move. The sample here includes Some "split-offs" for whom we observe location of residence before the initial move, but not their characteristics (see Appendix of DaVanzo and Morrison. 1978). For split-offs, the before-initialmove variables are all zero. To adjust for this, a split-off dummy.is included. Thus. the before-initial-m~ve variables and coefficients are only defined and relevant for the sample of nonsplit-offs.
Migration
C~mployed. but desiring to work more hours.
4 1 2 6
1
9 1 1 0 - )11
0.046I
0.071MI RETURN
Coeff t
-0.319 (-0.61) -1.89 (-2.10)
0.147 ( 2.95) -0.0575 - 1 2 1
0.183 ( 1.60)
2.03 ( 3.76) -0.0760 (-0.88) 0.486 ( 0.99) 0.758 ( 2.39) 1.23 ( 2.20) 0.385 ( 0.76) -2.40 (-2.34)
Interval (MI)
M - 2 - 6
%ilitary starus is not reported in the 1968. 1969, and 1970 PSID burveya. For these years, the 'military dummy was set equal to zero and a missing data d u m y (not reported here) vas included to correct for this.
-
1ONWARD Coef f t
-0.513 (-1.02) 0.310 ( 0.56) 0.00281 ( 0.05) 0.157 ( 2.71) 0.162 ( 1.37)
1.04 ( 1.58) 0.169 ( 2.13) 0.745 ( 1.36) 0.642 ( 1.74) 1.44 ( 2.57) 0.927 ( 1.72) -6.30
RETURN Coef f t
-1.61 (-2.55) 0.0565 ( 0.08) 0.0731 ( 1.35) 0.0387 ( 0.59) 0.155 ( 1.06)
e e
-0.202 (-1.45)
e e
0.358 ( 0.81) 1.95 ( 2.95) -0.420 (-0.63) -3.59 (-2.58)
'This variable is excluded because 2 or fewer people fell in the type-of-moveld~~my-1 category.
ON WARD Coef f t
-0.956 (-2.35) 0.383 ( 0.79) 0.0159 ( 0.37) 0.0607 ( 1.15) 0.212 ( 1.81)
-0.0534 (-0.05) 0.00858 ( 0.10)
e e
-1.10 (-1.98) 1.38 ( 7.21) 0.324 ( 0.65) -4.37 (-3.98)
his new location the longer he has lived there.
Location-Specific Capital Accumulated Before the Initial Move at the Potential Return Destination
Hypothesis 2 suggests that, other things being the same, people who become returnees should possess more location-specific capital in the place they return to than do those who could return but do not. Thus, we expect the coefficients of the variables measuring location-specific capital before the initial move to be ,positive in explaining return migration. Moreover, from Hypothesis 3, we expect these coefficients to be larger for MI=1 than for MI=2-6, because most location-specific capi- tal depreciates the longer one is away.
Consistent with Hypothesis 2, the longer the person lived at the pre-initial move dwelling (a proxy for the length of time he lived in that location), the likelier he is to return to that location. Con- sistent with Hypothesis 3, the Duration of Residence coefficient is highly significant in explaining MI=1 return migration, but is smaller and less significant for MI=2-6 return migration. That is, the pull of location-specific capital at the initial location appears to lessen as the interval of absence lengthens and this capital depreciates.
Contrary to expectation, however, the coefficient of our other indicator of location-specific capital before the initial move--whether the person owned the home he lived in before moving--is significantly negative for MI=1 returnees. This implies that, other things being the same, persons who owned their homes before initially moving are less likely to return than those not owning homes before leaving the area.
This relationship could well reflect a more deliberate and final deci-
s i o n t o l e a v e by t h o s e p e r s o n s who i n c l i r r e d t h e t r a n s a c t i o n c o s t s n e c e s - s a r y t o s e l l a home b e f o r e t h e y l e f t an area.:': For persoris who d i d n o t f a c e t h i s c o s t , d e p a r t u r e would b e l e s s c o s t l y and more e a s i l y "undone"
by r e t u r n i n g . However, i f t h i s i s t h e c a s e , t h i s same s e l e c t i v i t y a r g u - ment c o u l d b e a p p l i e d e q u a l l y w e l l t o o u r o t h e r measures of l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l b e f o r e t h e i n i t i a l move, making o u r p r e d i c t i o n about t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e i r n e t e f f e c t on r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n ambiguous.**
E d u c a t i o n
For MI=l r e p e a t m i g r a n t s , e d u c a t i o n a l a t t a i n m e n t i s a c r i t i c a l v a r i a b l e i n f l u e n c i n g whether t h e p e r s o n r e t u r n s o r m i g r a t e s onward. The more e d u c a t e d t h e m i g r a n t , t h e g r e a t e r t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a new ( r a t h e r t h a n t h e p r e v i o u s ) a r e a w i l l b e chosen a s t h e destination.;\;\* The h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e d u c a t i o n and t h e l i k e l i h o o d of f l I = l onward m i g r a t i o n ( r e l a t i v e t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of n o t moving a g a h ) , means t h a t MI=1 onward m i g r a n t s a r e doubly s e l e c t e d . Primary m i g r a t i o n i s s e l e c t i v e o f t h e more h i g h l y e d u c a t e d o f t h e p o p u l a t i o n a t
*We cannot d e t e r m i n e from t h e PSID d a t a whether t h e p e r s o n s o l d h i s home when he l e f t t h e i n i t i a l l o c a t i o n , b u t o u r e m p i r i c a l r e s u l t s s u g - g e s t t h a t t h i s i s u s u a l l y t h e c a s e .
**In r e s t r i c t i n g our working sample t o p e r s o n s a t r i s k t o o n l y one r e t u r n , we u n i n t e n t i o n a l l y l i m i t e d i t almost e x c l u s i v e l y t o p e r s o n s whose p o t e n t i a l r e t u r n d e s t i n a t i o n i s t h e i r " o r i g i n , 11 a p l a c e where t h e y a r e l i k e l y t o have a l a r g e q u a n t i t y of l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l . Ex- panding t h e sample t o i n c l u d e o b s e r v a t i o n s a t r i s k t o m u l t i p l e r e t u r n s s h o u l d i n t r o d u c e a h e t e r o g e n e i t y t h a t would p r o v i d e a s t r o n g e r t e s t o f t h e draw o f l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l i n p r e v i o u s l o c a t i o n s . A l s o , p e r h a p s a combined a n a l y s i s o f t h e d e c i s i o n t o move i n i t i a l l y and t h e d e c i s i o n t o move a g a i n c o u l d h e l p d i s e n t a n g l e t h e two opposing e f f e c t s o f l o c a t i o n - s p e c i f i c c a p i t a l a t t h e i n i t i a l l o c a t i o n .
***Similar r e s u l t s emerge i n ~ i l l e r ' s (1977) a n a l y s i s of a g g r e g a t e c e n s u s d a t a . Deaton and Anschel (1974) a l s o f i n d r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n t o b e s e l e c t i v e of t h e l e s s e d u c a t e d among o u t m i g r a n t s .
l a r g e , and MI=1 i s s e l e c t i v e o f t h e most h i g h l y e d u c a t e d of t h e s e . T h i s r e s u l t , t o g e t h e r w i t h t h e f a c t t h a t onward m i g r a n t s t e n d t o be young (because primary m i g r a n t s a r e young), s u g g e s t s t h a t flI=l onward migra- t i o n may incude a number o f i n d i v i d u a l s s e a r c h i n g f o r an o p t i m a l l o c a - t i o n a f t e r l e a v i n g c o l l e g e .
The n e g a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between e d u c a t i o n and t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f MI=1 r e t u r n m i g r a t i o n ( a g a i n r e l a t i v e t o t h e a l t e r n a t i v e of n o t moving a g a i n ) i s n e a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t t h e 1 0 - p e r c e n t l e v e l and o b v i o u s l y d i f f e r s s u b s t a n t i a l l y from t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f e d u c a t i o n w i t h flI=l onward m i g r a t i o n . The MI=1 r e t u r n e e , t h e n , i s an e x c e p t i o n t o t h e gen- e r a l r u l e t h a t t h e p r o p e n s i t y t o m i g r a t e i s h i g h e r f o r more h i g h l y edu- c a t e d p e r s o n s . Our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s t h a t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n on which less e d u c a t e d p e r s o n s b a s e t h e i r i n i t i a l moves may be more l i m i t e d and,
hence, t h e i r moves may be l e s s l i k e l y t o p r o v e and more l i k e l y t o e v e n t u a t e i n a subsequent " c o r r e c t i v e " r e t u r n move."
For m i g r a t i o n i n t e r v a l s o f two t o s i x y e a r s , e d u c a t i o n has no s i g - n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on whether a p e r s o n s t a y s , r e t u r n s , o r moves onward. A s i n t h e c a s e of MI=1 m i g r a n t s , t h e more e d u c a t i o n a p e r s o n h a s , t h e more l i k e l y he i s t o move on t o a new l o c a t i o n ; however, t h e magnitude o f t h e e f f e c t i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r f o r MI=2-6 t h a n f o r MI=l, and i s n o t s i g - n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from z e r o .
"Our c o n c l u s i o n t h a t moves i n MI=1 r e t u r n move sequences seem t o be based on l e s s r e l i a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h DaVanzo and
