Search

Distance is an integral dimension of migration; yet, in recent years, ignored in migration research except as a control variable. This study examines distance of 1975–80 interstate migration and several explanations for the relations between distance and characteristic of migrants and locations. While earlier research provides only a few findings to replicate, the literature is replete with suggestions concerning the relation between distance and both areal and individual characteristics. These include that distance represents transportation costs, psychic costs — e.g., separation from family and friends and cultural dissimilarity of areas — intervening opportunities and competing migrants, geographic scope of labor market and diminishing information about opportunities. Observations are individual records from the 1980 one-in-ten-thousand PUMS files. The sample is restricted to nonblack, noninstitutionalized head of households, age 25 to 64 in 1980. Respondents must be civilians and residing in ...

A major finding of the 1960 'Growth of American Families' (GAF) study was that whites and blacks without southern rural experience had similar fertility. This paper reports on a re-examination of this finding with a substantially larger black sample. Data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity demonstrated that the residence background classification utilized in the GAF study defeated, in part, the attempt to remove the effects of rural experience on fertility. Indigenous urban blacks had 25% higher fertility than indigenous urban whites. The fertility of urban black migrants out of the rural South was sharply curtailed in contrast to those remaining in the rural South. Although urban blacks of southern rural background had nominally higher fertility than indigenous urban blacks, the difference was neither statistically nor substantively significant. These results demand a re-ordering of the interpretation of the impact that migration has on urban black fertility and the white-black differential in fertility.

This paper attempts to clarify confusion concerning residence background and migration, and to demonstrate that each of these factors exerts an independent effect on fertility. Basic premises underlying the direction of the effect of these variables on fertility are examined. Data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity indicate that migration and residence background do have independent effects. It is concluded that present generalizations as to the direction of their influence should be submitted to closer scrutiny with additional data in the future. In addition, an index of rural exposure is developed to test the proposition that fertility varies directly with degree of rural experience. The data only partially support this hypothesis. Moreover, rural-to-urban migrants are found to have only slightly higher fertility than the receiving urban-origin population.