Population mobility and development issues: Thailand 9745685658

Citation preview

POPULATION MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT ISSUES Thailand

Bhassorn Limanonda Penporn Tirasawat

Institute

of Population

Chulalongkorn

Studies

University 1987

International

Standard Book Number: 974-568-565-8

Copyright 1987 by Institute All rights reserved Printed

of Population

in Bangkok by Chulalongkorn

Studies

University Press

CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES

.......................................................

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

.......................................................

ix

...............................................................

xi

I. INTRODUCTION A. GENERAL OVERVIEW OF POPULATION MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT ............................................ B. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................... C. OBJECTIVES OF THE MONOGRAPH ................................ D. DEFINITION OF POPULATION MOBILITY .......................... E. SOURCES OF DATA ....................... F. SCOPE OF STUDY ............................................ G. ORGANIZATION OF THE MONOGRAPH ..............................

1 3 6 8 9 9 10

IT. POPULATION MOBILITY SITUATION A. POPULATION PROFILE ........................................ 1. Population Size and Growth . ..................... 2. Mortality .............................................. 3. Fertility .............................................. 4. Population Distribution ................................ B. POPULATION MOBILITY AND REDISTRIBUTION ................... 1. Five-year and lifetime migration ........................ 2. Intra-regional movement ............... 3. Inter-regional movement ................................

11 13 14 16 17 19 20 21 23

III. POPULATION MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT: MACRO PERSPECTIVES A. OVERALL DEVELOPMENT POLICIES .............................. B. MIGRATION-RELATED POLICIES ................................ 1. Rural Development Policies and Programs ................. 2. Urban Development Policies and Programs ................. 3. Other Policies on Population Distribution ............... C. DETERMINANTS OF POPULATION MOBILITY: MACRO LEVEL ............................................

29 33 34 35 36

PREFACE CHAPTER

IV. POPULATION MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT: MICRO PERSPECTIVES A. MACRO-MICRO LINKAGES ...................................... B. CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS ............... . . 1. Age Selectivity ........ ........................ 2. Sex Selectivity ........................................ 3. Marital Status .......................................... 4. Education .................................... . . . . . 5. Economic Activities and Occupational Differentials ............................ C. DETERMINANTS OF MIGRATION: MICRO LEVEL ................... V. IMPACT OF POPULATION MOBILITY A. IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON DEMOGRAPHIC COMPOSITION ............. B. IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON SOCIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS .............................................. C. IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON ECONOMIC STRUCTURE .................

38

41 43 43 44 46 48 49 51 60 61 64

v

Page VI. CONCLUSION A. LINKAGES BETWEEN MACRO-MICRO PERSPECTIVE ON POPULATION MOVEMENT ............... B. POLICIES AND PLANNING OUTLOOK .............................. REFERENCES

..

..............................................

69 72 75

LIST OF TABLES Page 1 2 3 4 5 6

7 8

9 10

11

12 13

14 15

16 17 18

Land area, population, and population density by ........................................ geographic region, 1980

11

Population size and rate of growth according to ........................................ . censuses of 1911-1980

14

and fertility indicators by region, to 1974-1976 ..........................................

15

Number and percentage distribution of population by region, 1960-1980 ............................ . .............

17

Percentage distribution of urban population and ................... , level of urbanization by region, 1960-1980

18

Number and percentage distribution of in-migrants and migration rate, lifetime and five-year . . . . ........................ migration, 1960-1970

21

Mortality 1960-1964

......

Number of migrants and migration rate, lifetime ............................ and five-year, by region, 1980 .

22

Number of five-year inter-regional migrants, by region of usual residence and region of previous residence, 1980 .................................... .

.

27

Gross domestic product and per capita income by region, 1960-1979 ................................................

31

Heads of households in the metropolitan area and intermediate-sized urban areas classified by .................................. age, migration status and sex

45

Heads of households in metropolitan area and intermediate-sized urban areas classified by marital status, migration status and sex ........................

47

Male heads of households in the rural areas classified by marital status and migration status ...............

47

Heads of households in metropolitan area and intermediate-sized urban areas classified by educational level, migration status and sex .....................

48

Male heads of households in rural areas classified by educational level and migration status ........................

49

Heads of households in metropolitan area and intermediate-sized urban areas classified by occupation, migration status and sex ............................

50

Male heads of households in rural areas classified by occupation and migration status ..............................

50

Reason for moving away from place of destination (of the first move) ..............................................

52

Reason for moving into present place of residence (last move) .......................................................

53

Page 19 20

21

22

viii

Percentage of male migrants by reason for move, age at move and migration status ................................

54

Percentage of male heads of households in urban areas who specified the place they preferred to live, if having a choice ..................................

56

Percentage of male heads of households in urban areas classified by their knowledge of the expected place of destination ....................................

56

Percentage of male heads of households in urban areas classified by reason for choosing the expected place of destination . ...................

57

LIST OF FIGURES Page 1

The regions of Thailand .

2

Volume of inter-regional net migration to Bangkok Metropolis, 1955-1960 .........

24

Volume of inter-regional net migration to Bangkok Metropolis, 1965-1970 ....................................

25

Volume of inter-regional net migration to Bangkok Metropolis, 1975-1980 . . . . ............................

26

3 4

....................................

12

ix

PREFACE

Australia

Philippines

components

of project activities

of

monograph

country

a

Mobility

assessment

of

the country's

assessment

of

the

country's

a

c)

an

d)

an

internal

its

and

process

metropolitanization

and

processes;

and

patterns

urbanization

country;

the

in

b)

Issues;

and Development

of urbanization

micro-dimensions

selected

on

survey

They are: a) preparation

have been implemented.

on Population

four

country,

participating

each

In

Thailand.

and

Malaysia,

Indonesia,

Project:

this

in

participating

are four countries

There

of

Government

April 1984.

starting

for a period of four years,

of

under Phase III

is funded by the

the Project

Programme,

Population

ASEAN

the

Like other projects

Mobility and Urbanization.

Population

on

project

ASEAN

an

of

component

a

represents

monograph

This

dynamics. Based on existing data, especially

I and II of the ASEAN Population

projects

of Phases

presents

the relationship settings

development

Present

a part.

efforts also and

of

cooperation Population research

the

of

Mr.

Coordination

Benjamin

D.

for the

Programme.

Population

ASEAN

Programme

of Australia

de Leon,

Unit, are sincerely

teams in other participating

and to

Programme

deserve recognition Programme. financial The

Executive appreciated.

countries

success

the

of

of which this monograph

in Thailand

the ASEAN Population

due to the Government

widely available

the

to

and former ASEAN Heads of Population

in making possible

III

contribute

Project

the ASEAN Population

of

Coordinators

population

in this country and elsewhere.

individuals

Mobility and Urbanization

Population is

and

agencies

monograph

this

Programme,

It makes such information

and academicians

under the migration

mobility of Thailand's

between spatial

in Thailand.

policy makers, planners Many

those collected

and

Country their

for

are

Acknowledgements support

Thanks

and

support

continuous Director

to Phases II

of

the

ASEAN

are also due to

for their technical

assistance

and cooperation. Acknowledgements the

Institute

Project,

and

are due to Dr. Pichit Pitaktepsombati,

of Population to his staff,

Studies for his encouragement especially

Director

of

in

the

and concern

Mr. Sathid Aschasomboon,

Ms. Ma-yuree

Sirithorn,

Ms. Nantana Srion,

for their clerical Special Research

Associate

assistance

Ms. Porntip Sophon and Ms. Waewpun in the preparation

thanks are due to Dr.

of this monograph.

Carl M. Frisen, Visiting Lecturer

to the Institute of Population

edited this monograph.

U-phongphitak

His comments and criticisms

Studies,

who

are gratefully

reviewed

and and

appreciated.

Bhassorn Limanonda Penporn Tirasawat

xiii

I

Chapter

INTRODUCTION

A.

devoted

and development

employment

for

migration

rural-urban

of

the implications

on

or

migrants

rural-urban

of

behavior

on the economic

was available

information

little

Very

differentials

of migration.

and determinants

of migrants versus non-migrants,

of

processes

1885; and Lee, 1966), characteristic

Ravenstein,

migration (e.g.,

of these studies

and

patterns

to examining

of attention

deal

great

a

The majority

and geographers.

anthropologists,

sociologists,

of

domain

the

largely

was

research

migration

years

earlier

In

MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT

OF POPULATION

OVERVIEW

GENERAL

Eicher,

and

in both rural and urban areas (Byerlee

1972) .

transition",

"demographic

the

experiencing

countries

were

mortality

followed by the reduction of fertility, lead

can

situation

changing

This

rate.

to

developing

of

and 1970's the majority

1960's

the

during

However,

the

growth

resulting in a lower

population

unbalanced

an

of

decline

distribution.

between

migration

The Governments

results conducted

present patterns to

it.

failure

of

migration

flows

growth

of

considerable

a

Enquiry

among

dissatisfaction

with

of the countries

and a further 12 per cent

reflects a concern to

been

has

has become a center of

Population

Two-thirds

distribution.

This dissatisfaction

internal

planners.

1978 showed the high level of

of population

enormous

owes much to

of the United Nations Fourth in

The

This new situation

slow the rate of rural-urban migration

reverse and

countries

and development

migration

cityward

migration stream.

from rural areas.

for governments

and

regions

big cities in developing

of

influx of migration attention

the

in

significant

particularly population

within

and

pattern of population

but there has been also a massive

is rural-rural migration,

movement

the major internal

countries

many developing

In

serve

as

an

wanted

wanted

to

with regional

inequality

equilibrating

mechanism;

General Overview

sometimes,

migration

appears

to

exacerbate

these

inequalities

(Jones

and

Richter, 1981). Unplanned questions

about

development. This

and

its

effects

Migration,

is particularly

unguided

in

population

on the fact,

overall

in

economic result stagnant

countries

social maladjustment.

from

national

economic

true in most developed countries

developing

and

has

led

of population

and

also has the potential

but rather from population

government

the

interrelationship

late

1970's

and

the

early

1980's

between migration and development

many researchers in the field of migration study. felt the need to include comprehensive

as integral parts of national development formulation

of

and

complex

complex

which

govern

mobility

pressure

not

and

a

plans.

the

development

It is

obvious

issue

of

and reciprocal.

For instance,

other

hand,

there

is

migration

a concerted

redistribution

policies

It is also recognized that the in achieving

activities.

behavior

This

(Kongsiri,

the goal

development

is evident in

areas.

development into

could On the

provided productive

developed

countries

migration has played an important role in the growth of urbanization

industrialization. necessary

In this case, migration has become an established ingredient in the

development

process

the

is found to be very

the energy of migrants

relationship

of

The

economic and social development

could encourage a higher rate of

reciprocal

of

1980) .

movement to the more developed

effort to channel

the

Both planners and researchers

population

between migration and socioeconomic

induce greater rates of population

(Piampiti,

and

phenomenon 1976:26;

1977:224). At the present time, population

however,

research into the complex

mobility and development

is still in its early

relevance for policy makers is not always clear (Jones

2

does

rural balance depend largely on the degree of understanding

relationship

between

to

has occupied the interest of

such policies and their effectiveness

factors

Adepoju,

But

contribute

concern over the impact of migration on

during

a

to

economy in rural areas (Kongsiri, 1980).

that

and

helps

countries

has come a change in the direction of migration research.

where

social

resources.

to

there

urban

raising

and

since migration

Urban growth in some

economic opportunities

With

have

to

is perceived as a mechanism of development.

maintain the balance between the distribution migration

movement

relationship stages.

Its

and Richter, 1981) .

Over

Literature

although views on the impact of migration on development

the years,

is primarily beneficial

migration Lewison, and

and Richter,

1981; Pryor, 1979:322).

between migration

the relationship at

different nation,

and

recommendations

in

They suggested

and development.

levels of analysis

such as

making it difficult

Studies

have dealt with the

individual,

the

household, set

comprehensive

to derive a

on

of

or suggestions.

Kuznets migration

of research which provides differing views

is a summary

Following

community

always

not

REVIEW

LITERATURE

problems

macro

and partly because the research covers such a wide range of movement

understood,

B.

and

(Kols

nature of

which is

movement,

whether

on

development

or harmful to economic

of research into population

levels

have shifted

consensus

no

there is still

This may be a result of the complementary

1983:14276).

micro

(Jones

negative,

quite

to

positive

from

Review

Thomas

and

(1958:3-5)

examined the

functions

relation to economic growth at the aggregate level a series of relationships

of of

internal analysis.

of the two factors as follows.

1)

effects The unequal population-land ratios will have varying upon the economy in different parts of the country and would stimulate internal migration.

2)

More population in thinly settled areas is likely to uncover This should natural resources valuable to the settled areas. stimulate further migration.

3)

The greatest and most pervasive effect of economic growth on of effect is through the differential migration internal associated progress on economic opportunities technological with different locations.

4)

in response to the differential redistribution Population in opportunities growth on economic of economic impact parts of the country could presumably be carried different through either by differing rates of natural increase or by internal increase, Compared to natural internal migration. migration provides the main mechanism of economic adjustment; that accounts for most of the migration it is internal redistribution indispensable as an accompaniment population to economic growth.

The views expressed by these two authors seem to be very much in favor of

internal migration as an important factor contributing

economy on

the

within a country. positive

migration

During this period there were other views expressed

relationship

according

to

the

to the growth of

these

between

migration

and

groups of researchers

development. was considered

Internal to

be

a

3

Literature

Review

desirable

process

in which surplus

modern

growing

provide cheap manpower to fuel a

to

agricultural

traditional

from

withdrawn

gradually

rural labor was

industrial complex.

perceived as a link in the process of change.

new ideas,

of diffusing

means

techniques

of

is an investment

migration

perspective,

techniques,

productive

organization,

of these mechanisms

leaders.

All

migrants

from

(1983:200)

et al.

examining the impact of migration

became agents of change

management,

and as potential

-

recently

As

as

to be a desirable

thought

development

as

techniques

and

a substantial

career; these can generate

suggested

looking at different

in

aspects

such as:

on development,

movement

unbalanced uncontrolled

process and a stimulus

the detrimental Concern

on national development.

and

Among the economic

sending (rural) areas.

(urban)

migration

that have been taken into consideration

(Miro and Potter,

exacerbating economic

and

because

the

exceed

rates

is the

now

viewed

already serious

structural

Migration,

1980:122-123). being

more seriously

on wages and employment,

economic growth and productivity,

areas,

over negative

as

the

major

urban employment

imbalances

rates of rural to urban migration of urban job creation

of

effects in

both

effects

of

those

on

are

and on technological

especially

from rural factor

contributing

problems

between urban and

and

rapid

effects of

migration seems to center around the economic consequences

receiving

change

Numerous

growth.

to economic

was

migration

a decade ago a high rate of internal

have since documented

studies

migration

4

skills,

local

the tradeoffs between urban migration and developmental investment, as household strategies; spatial adjustment in the availability and the characteristics of labor; the stimulus to economic growth provided by migrant labor; the effects of urban experience on the lives of migrants and on the lives of non-migrants as a result of their contact with migrants.

-

urban

many

In

stayers.

who were left behind in the community.

spread effect among non-migrants Fuller

Migrants serve as a

can foster social change and

gained during the migration

experiences

this

economically

areas are usually equipped with

urban

migrants In

objects.

material

and skill to the

attitudes,

level,

At the individual and

be

in many ways can

in human capital.

return migrants who were successful

cases, in

diffusion

of

agents

be

can

migration

Adepoju (1977:219-220),

to

According

caused

rural

in developing

and surpass the capacity

by

areas.

countries of

both

to to

growing This

is

tend

to

industry

Literature

it is also argued that the economic

However,

more difficult

are

areas

benefits or harms cities.

underemployment,

fragmentation

because

However, through

obvious

adequate

planners,

(Findley,

interpersonal

for

beneficial

1977:133) .

urban migration contributes

increases

migrants)

concerned

and organizations rather than

to the welfare of

It

seems

some

rural

and the return of

(such as remittances

and inter-household

social

and

observed.

easily

can be more

as on development

while

and

the effects of migration on economic

its effects and aftereffects

households,

scholars

is harmful

that massive migration

well

that

1980:123).

Potter,

and

providing

the rural side,

as

structure

(Miro

migration

the economic cycle

into

migrants

urban and regional development On

and

indirect

or

problems can be the direct

and

problems

many of the officials,

concluded

in urban unemployment

Increases

of the inability of large cities to cope with urban

absorbing

services, have

rural-to-urban

the

of

consequences

over

of the urban labor market into traditional

and other urban-related

sectors

receiving

effects of migration on

As yet there is still disagreement

to unravel.

whether migration

modern

1980:362).

(Todaro,

to absorb these labors effectively

and urban social services

Review

within

inequality

and

between villages (Fuller et al., 1983:14-17).

infrastructure benefit

from migration

still there is the optimistic

view expressed

gain

not

capital.

largely because of the loss of human

of

services,

income,

employment,

it is evident that rural areas do

on,

so

and

of

terms

impacts

the

relevant literature to assess

in

development

on

migration

the

reviewing

After

much-

However,

that

" . . . In the long run, however, migration may foster change by over time Also, to other communities. links establishing a force and change individual stimulate may migration redistribution of people and resources to patterns more favorable to development objectives ... " (Findley, 1977:133). Fuller

Moreover,

movement,

rural-urban households

is

and individuals. movement

effects

of

benefit

but

of

(1983:199) highly

a

both

have argued that complex process

The attempt to generalize

migration, in

terms

particularly

Lipton (1980:1)

on the numbers absence

and

involved,

possible

suggested

on

of

about the "good" or "bad"

the duration

return

types

of

must be viewed with great caution since some

others would not.

depends

migration effects

et al.

would impact

that the of

migrants

absence and

and

their

gain of the home

communities.

5

Literature Review

Research

on migration

importance

in recent years.

migration

and

in relation to development

The literature reviewed discusses

development

are generally

two areas tends to induce migration, the

other

hand,

has assumed

interactive

especially

growing

the evidence that

as economic inequality

in

to the more developed areas.

On

migration could have both positive

and

negative

impacts

on

national economic and social development.

C.

OBJECTIVES

OF THE MONOGRAPH

When endogenous

population

factors

developing

variables

in national

countries,

were first perceived

development

concentrated

other

on

areas

fertility

concern.

Now,

however,

to areas beyond family planning,

attention

and

Population

Programme

in 1976 these had received little attention.

components

Programme,

Population

Development

and

projects

common

participating The of

Development research

countries,

of two projects the

designs

were developed Malaysia,

of

the

in

four

Relation

ASEAN

and

ASEAN

understanding

of

1984.

adopted

the Philippines,

involving

by

project ASEAN

Rural

Migratory For

both

the

four

program is unique in

experts,

planners,

population

countries.

the pool of knowledge

to

and Thailand.

of experts

and

distribution,

in the region has led to the incorporation

and develop

paid

ASEAN

Project of the

effort in its population

cooperation

of

distribution,

the

during 1980 to

oriented programs on these issues in their respective the need to strengthen

of

of

in earlier phases of the

Migration

conducted

Indonesia,

and development

one

being

during 1978 to 1980, and the Population

Project,

growing

is

Mobility and Urbanization

ASEAN collaborative

A

monograph

namely:

conducted

inter-country

policy-makers. migration

this

and is expansion

Programme,

Project,

Movement

terms

of

under the Population

Population ASEAN

preparation

prior to the development

rate

neglect

is

including population

movement

The

key

The primary

relative

migratory

urbanization;

as

like many other

of family planning services.

reduction programs meant the

of demographic

increasingly

the Thai Government,

its efforts on reducing the high

natural increase through the provision concentration

in Thailand

of action-

Nevertheless, in the field

of migration

and urbanization

is an urgent one.

The current state of knowledge

of migration

and urbanization

is roughly parallel

to that of fertility

decade or two ago. 6

The ASEAN migration

studies

studies

a

in Phase I and Phase II provided

Objectives

the

initial thrust in the direction

integrative

efforts.

This

of regional technical The Development extensive

in Thailand"

between

factors

affect

can

incorporate the

national

understand

monograph

each

other.

redistribution

process.

determinants

and consequences

also

help to achieve urban

mind, to

also

the

how

the

these

two

felt

to

necessary

to

would

and better understanding

and

relevant policies

so

of the country.

resources.

They

in

should

both

rural

It should be kept

primary attention of other

of

This knowledge

a more balanced distribution of population

however, that because of data limitations

that

and into more productive

in formulating

only limited consideration

on

been

policies

of the movement of population.

movement benefits the development

with

and

considered

locations

areas in relation to the country's

migration,

despite

that could hinder efforts toward

knowledge

are believed to be essential

population

and

policies as an integral part

In order to identify

planners must have sufficient

and

It is

patterns

activities,

Mobility

First,

recently a need has

to direct migration to more appropriate

that

the

benefits

there is a lack of information

Second,

population

development

range

strengthen

on "Population

movement and development

and economic growth.

understanding

and

is intended to meet baisic needs.

and not to ignore migration

modernization seek

of a country

population

comprehensive

to continue

long

to which they have contributed.

study on migration in Thailand,

relationship

of

seeks

for

I and II and to expand and extend the

cooperation

preparation

of work that has potential

monograph

momentum achieved through Phases

of the Monograph

forms

in

is restricted of

population

mobility . In 1)

to

examine

development development of and

this

context the main objectives

individual

settings;

2)

migration behavior against the to

evaluate

plans as they influence

socioeconomic

of this country

of

the migration process;

and demographic factors

4) to assess the implications

the effects

monograph

different social

types

and

of

economic

3) to explore a range

which govern the population

of migration

are:

movement;

for future development

policies

in Thailand. Thus,

the

preparation

of

this monograph

thrust

beyond

inputs

and making the resulting analysis

and academicians

the migration

in Thailand,

represents

studies in Phases I and II by available

to policy

a

significant

utilizing makers,

them

as

planners

the rest of the ASEAN region and elsewhere.

7

Definition

D.

of Population

DEFINITION

Mobility

OF POPULATION

MOBILITY

It has been widely accepted among researchers that

one

of

different

the most acute problems

concepts

is that

of

in the study of mobility

definition.

Variations

of migration present a problem especially

when

and

comparisons

are to be made. Migration usually involves three elements: of

destination;

days,

and 3) period over which migration

months or years) .

distance

Some researchers

1) area of origin; 2) area is measured

have included "intention

and

censuses lifetime

place

of

previous

were asked. migrants:

who

had

to stay"

or

Data

were

of migrants

on place of

the

respective

to identify

1)

province than that in

and 2) recent migrants: persons five years of age and

and nonmunicipal

definitions

it is possible

changed their place of residence (village

1983e:32).

municipal

questions

five years preceding

persons who were living in a different

within the five years preceding and

residence

From these two questions

which they had been born, older

hours,

of move in the definition. In the 1960, 1970 and 1980 censuses of Thailand,

birth,

(i.e.,

the census date (CSO,

tabulated

area,

for lifetime

by province

and its tabulations

or

municipal

1962:iv; and

NSO,

recent

and by region.

area)

1973b:xv,

migrants

The 1980

by

census

are basically the same as those

of

1970. Another

definition

Longitudinal

study

(Prachuabmoh

et

of

al.,

migration

Economic, 1972:21).

boundary or a municipal from

of

is

that

Social and Demographic Migration

area boundary,

is any move

area,

same

who

persons boundaries

district

across

in a

province.

Thailand provincial

area to another, area to a

In this survey,

classified

place of as

destination

migrants

themselves.

include those

who

adult

With move

no

this across

and those who move from one district to another within the

Those

who

had been away from home longer than one

month

are

as migrants. The

8

moved and selected

province.

classified

change

National

was made between child migrants who moved with the family and

definition, provincial

the

or from a nonmunicipal

municipal area, whether in the same or a different

migrants

in

i.e., from one municipal

a municipal area to a nonmunicipal

distinction

used

Longitudinal

boundaries

Study

defines

a local move

as

any

within the same province when both place of

move

across

previous

and

Sources of Data

present

residence

are located in nonmunicipal

areas or as a

district

boundaries

within Bangkok and Thonburi

provinces

present).

Change

of residence

to

the

compare

findings

sources of data used in the analysis with those

of migration and development

Statistical

Central

by

published

in

included

Office

National Statistical

the

Thailand

in

published

of Population

(NSO) .

censuses

The

movement within the

that inhibit detailed analysis

migration

of

questions

them the narrow range of migration-relevant

among

A further limitation

each census.

and

other

on

is the lack of data

change of

and return migration,

etc.

residence,

To and

supplement

the censuses

other variables

of the Longitudinal

and to provide more information

for the analysis,

this study

has

on

the dynamics

Programme.

socio-

utilized

Study, cited above, and the Thai .migration

Phases I and II of the ASEAN Population

also used to illuminate

F.

nor

presented

issues in Thailand

1970 and 1980 Censuses

Office (CSO) ,

types of movement such as circulatory, seasonal

of

to

participating

These include the reports of the 1960

but they have limitations

development,

findings

other

of

that gives a broad picture of population

provide information

economic

try

this Monograph does not

are based on several sources of data collected

monograph

this

Housing,

and

address within a

OF DATA

SOURCES

country

in definition

of this analysis

during the past three decades. by

at

in this Project.

The analyses in

Metropolis

area of a district.

of the different

the findings

countries

E.

variations

of

Because compare

refers to change of residential

area or the nonmunicipal

municipal

(Bangkok

the

across

move

projects

Other relevant data

of the interrelationship

the

are

on a micro level.

SCOPE OF STUDY In

section,

the

development,

striving monograph including

migration and population decades. through

The

five

1982-1986)

to

achieve examines patterns

the objectives

specified

various aspects of of

redistribution

population

population movement

the

previous

mobility

and

particularly

and

within the country during the past three

national economic and social development are reviewed.

in

Special attention

plans

is given to

(1961-1965

policies

and

9

Organization

of the Monograph

determinants

at macro and micro levels as they affect population

movement

well as distribution.

coverage

G.

as

is presented

ORGANIZATION

the development

The

1 the introductory

movement.

Internal

of the monograph

growth,

to

are described

overview

literature.

and the data sources

urban-rural

profile of

distribution

migration within the country

3 reviews the national

the

present time.

policies

development

and

and

the

and

Thailand.

It

and patterns of

covers

population

during the past three decades

Special

programs

like

economic and social development

designed

attention to

is

promote

which in turn affect

given

growth

population

to

plans

national

center,

rural

distribution

and

movement. Chapter

determinants

4

examines

the

characteristics

of

of migration at both micro and macro levels.

economic,

information

social,

made available

attitudinal to potential

place of origin and possible Chapter

5

effects of migration developments

policies

The recommendations

10

is a general

on

extensively.

Chapter

include

There

information

followed by a review of the

2 focuses on the population

size,

population

presents background

are also discussed.

population

population

part,

mobility and development

Chapter

1961

section.

of the project and the monograph.

their limitations

from

monograph's

includes six chapters:

specific objectives

is discussed

and

OF THE MONOGRAPH

Chapter

population

A more detailed outline of the

in the following

This monograph

of

mobility

deals

and geographic migrants,

expectations primarily

migrants

and

The factors factors,

the

examined

sources

of

reasons for the move from the

to move again.

with

demographic,

in both urban and rural settings

social

and

economic

and their implications

for

and programs.

overall

conclusions

are presented

of

in Chapter 6.

the

discussion

and

the

resulting

Chapter

POPULATION

A.

POPULATION

is

subdivided

C e n t r a l , N o r t h , Northeast The

largest

imat e ly

170,000

total

area,

land

The

population. fertile

living

than

and

SITUATION

square it

but

and

products

geographically

S o u t h (see in

region

region

valleys,

agricultural

MOBILITY

PROFILE

Thailand

approx

II

is

F i g u r e 1 and of

terms

1 kilometers, contained

only

supply

permit

t h e population as

is

with

country's

country's

1980

forests

and

As

result,

its

a

a better

t h a t in

with

thick

ample.

h i g h as

the

of the

of

maintain

namely

North,

the

one-third

endowed

to

regions,

1) .

area

generally

is

four

Table

one-fifth

and

water

b u t not

land

o r almost

mountainous

in t h e Northeast,

into

standard

t h e Central

i of

region o r

t h e South. T h e second covers

approximately

country's

total

population.

Table

It

1

l a r g e s t r e g i o n , in 169,000

land

area,

land

square kilometers, and

accounted

is c h a r a c t e r i z e d by

or

f o r 35.0

a r e a is almost

Land

and

population

area*

Region Number

33.0

p e r cent

1,565.2 102,336.0 103,901.2 169,644.3 168,854.3 70,715.2 513,115.0

density

NSO

(1983e:2-7;

1986:5-7).

per

cent

Per cent 0.3 19.9 20.2 33.1 32.9 13.8 100.0

Number 4,697 9,726 14,423 9,074 15,699 5,628 44,824

It of

of Thailand's

by

f o r m a t i o n of

geographic

Population** Per cent

Population density***

10.5 21.7 32.2 20.2 35.0 12.6 100.0

3,001 95 139 53 92 80 87

* N u m b e r i n s q u a r e k i l o m e t e r s , as o f 30 June 1985. ** Number i n thousands. *** Number of persons per square kilometer. Sources:

t h e Northeast.

a u n i q u e g e o l o g i c a l plateau

Land a r e a , population, r e g i o n , 1980

Bangkok (BKK) Central e x c l u d i n g BKK Central North Northeast South Total

t e r m s of

the 1980 red

Population Profile

Figure 1

The regions of Thailand

k20°N

LAOS North BURMA '

T H

N D Northeast

Centra/ gBanjkok

Andaman Sea

KAMPUCHEA

VIETNAM

— 10°N

Gulf of Thailand

J South

Mu

North

100

200 100

100°e)

MALAYSIA

Source: Goldstein and Goldstein (1986:5).

12

300

km.

200 mi.

Profile

Population

infertile soils and a relatively

The

sandstone.

only

with

geographic

region

population

constituted

and fish as sources

about one-fifth

described

of the country's

country's

capital the

as

internationally Thailand's

greatest

of the Chao Phraya River,

the

stands

Asia;

as the rice bowl of Southeast

mouth

the

1980 population

of 1,565 square kilometers is

Thailand

region

This

rivers which form Thailand's

main

on

tin

103,900 square kilometers,

or

the South also relies

but accounted for almost one-third

total area,

population.

1980

Thailand's

Bangkok

it receives the waters from

four

River.

Near

the Chao Phraya

river,

as it flows into the

city,

Krung Thep Maha Nakhon Slightly

Metropolis.

at

functions

and

administration

or 0.3 per cent of the country's

least

situated

the municipality

both

one municipality

1.

for its inhabitants.

in a municipality

total land area.

by

less

(provinces)

Each district

to

which is located in

provincial

of a

district;

and the district take the same name as the province. in most studies,

For

certain

perform

seat

is

the localities

All

defined

Size and Growth

first census of Thailand,

8.3 million persons. in 1919.

The

area

areas" are taken to be urban.

Population The

is designated

of

one-tenth

over

into several villages.

and each commune

together there are 122 municipalities; as "municipal

known

is

which

changwat

divided into 73

administratively

provide services is

Thailand,

of

Gulf

lived in the capital city which extends over an

subdivided into tambon (communes), province,

Plain,

Central

the

contains

which are further divided into a number of amphoe (districts) .

each

plentiful.

of income.

region covers approximately

The Central

region

This

total.

country's

thus rainfall and water are generally

to its rich agricultural products,

addition

deposits

of the

1980

It's

kilometers.

square

70,700

about one-eight

a double monsoon,

experiences

about

is the smallest

to Malaysia,

which forms a narrow peninsula

The South,

of

lower

a

maintains

of living than that in other regions.

standard

In

and its population

region in the country,

favoured

least

the

poor water supply make it

The Thai population

During this eight-year

conducted

in 1911 reported a total

was enumerated

inter-censal

period,

at 9.2 million the population

than one million persons or at an annual growth rate of 1.3

of

persons increased per

cent

13

Population

Profile

Table 2

Population 1911-1980

April April July May May April April April

Sources:

(see

Table

following in

Inter-censal Inter-censal interval increase in population (years)

Total population

Census date 1 1 15 23 23 25 1 1

size and rate of growth according to censuses

— 940,947 2,298,852 2,957,898 2,978,584 8,815,227 8,139,458 10,427,166

8,266,408 9,207,355 11,506,207 14,464,105 17,442,689 26,257,916 34,397,374 44,824,540

1911 1919 1929 1937 1947 1960 1970 1980

2) .

The

annual

two inter-censal

growth rate increased

periods,

respectively.

The

1937

reflects the low fertility

and 1949

World

War II.

sharp

drop

in

continuation level the

of

during

and the high mortality

annum

between

rates

during

This high growth rate resulted from a

the high level of fertility.

war

II,

combined

Growth continued

The 1970 census

at

Fulton,

figure is assumed to be an under-count,

with

about

a

this

is regarded as under-counting

by about 5 per cent and the adjusted total is about 36 1975:8;

the

and between 1929 and 19.39 Censuses

the level of mortality after world

(Arnold and Phananiramai ,

population

consistently

growth for the period between 1947 and 1960 is

3.2 per cent per annum.

during the 1960's decade.

population

NSO (1983e:2-7).

growth rate of 1.9 per cent for the period

The inter-censal

most significant,

— 1.3 2.2 2.9 1.9 3.2 2.7 2.6

to 2.2 per cent and 2.9 per cent per

the years between 1919 and 1929 Censuses annual

Exponential rate of growth

8.00 10.28 7.85 10.00 12.92 9.93 10.00

Arnold, Retherford and Wanglee (1977:4);

of

1979:109).

million

Although the 1980 Census

there is also evidence of a decline

in

growth and the rate of growth for the 1970's decade probably did not

exceed 2.7 per cent per annum.

2.

Mortality Thailand's

War

II.

mortality level has been declining

According

to Bourgeois-Pichat ' s yearly estimates

rate for the period 1920-55, with a slightly lower rate, between 1938 and 1944.

since World

of the crude

death

the rate before 1938 was close to 30 per thousand, ranging between 24-28 per thousand,

for the

years

During the World War II years of 1945-47 the crude death

rate increased to 30-32 per thousand,

14

consistently

and showed a steady decline thereafter

to

3

1960-1964 1960-1970 1960-1969 1964- 1965 1965- 1969 1970-1975 1970-1974 1974-1976

Total fertility rate P/F, registered births Own children Cohort parity Adjusted registered births Survey of population change Own children Cohort parity Adjusted registered births Survey of population change

Central

Source:

to 1974-1976

Buri.

and Demography (1980:30).

Buri) and Bangkok-Thon

Region -------------------North Northeast South

Selected from Panel on Thailand, Committee on Population

* Excludes Bangkok and Thon Buri. ** Weight average of Central (excluding Bangkok-Thon *** Indirect measure.

1964-1965 1966 1970 1971 1974-1976

Infant mortality rate Survey of population change 1970 population census*** 1974 survey of population change 1975 survey of population change Survey of population change

Time period

Mortality and fertility indicators by region, 1960-1964

Parameter estimated and source

Table Whole Kingdom

Population Profile

15

Population

Profile

18 per thousand by 1955 (Bourgeois-Pichat,

1974:25).

The crude death rate

was

estimated to have declined further to 13 per thousand by 1960 (Das Gupta et al., 1974:60). 1970s

Data from two national

indicated

1978:50).

The

former figure,

not collected.

that, during

conducted

during the mid 1960s and mid

crude death rates of 10.8 in 1964-65 however,

Bangkok and Thon Buri (presently were

surveys

the

and 8.6 in 1974-75

does not include the twin

known as the Bangkok Metropolis)

According to the United Nations (1979:49)

first half of 1980s the country's

(NSO,

cities

of

for which data

it was estimated

crude death

rate

will

be

around 8 per thousand. In addition to mortality increase

in

the expectation

life expectancy to 56 years years

estimate

in 1970;

respectively

rates,

of 40 years in 1947 increased to 51 years

(Rungpitarangsi, Change,

1974:59-64).

The

84

rates derived from various sources

unusually decline The

occurred

in all regions,

rate

of infant mortality

low

in infant mortality

rate

in

the

and

and 60 round of

was estimated at 58

years

level for the country

are shown

as a

per thousand 1964-65 to 52 per thousand for the period 1974

decline

male

1978:68-69) .

in Table 3 and indicate a decline in mortality from

55,

Based on the 1974-75

the life expectancy

on infant mortality

A

in 1960,

figures for females are 44,

for males and 64 years for females (NSO, Data

data also show considerable

of life at birth after the World War II.

the corresponding

the Survey of Population

available

except for the south in 1964-65.

It is

whole

to

1976.

which

showed

evident

that

an the

rate did not occur at the same pace in all regions.

North declined

at a much slower pace

than

rates

in

other

regions.

3.

Fertility Unlike mortality,

fertility

around the end of the 1960's. show

that

thousand, time

Yearly estimates

with

the

exception

per

of a moderate drop to 40-44 per thousand at

the

of World War II (Bourgeois-Pichat,

collected)

1974:25) .

ranging between

1920-55

45-50

By the mid 1960s the

crude

Bangkok and Thon Buri for which data

was still at a relatively

1970 the rate had declined only slightly

16

of crude birth rate for

the rate remained high over the period,

birth rate for the country (excluding not

levels appear to have remained high until

high level,

42 per thousand;

to 37 per thousand (NSO,

by

1978:45).

were mid

Population

According to the United Nations estimates,

1980s (United Nations,

of

half

the

estimated that

however,

Policy and Planning,

Population

on

Subcommittee

second

Thailand's

of

A working group

54).

1979:49,

was

rate

the

and it was estimated at 32 per thousand by the

47 per thousand,

around

crude birth rate

Thailand's

since the second half of 1950s when

declined

consistently

has

Profile

crude birth rate would be under 30 per thousand by early 1980s (NESDB,

country's 1983:9).

a slight decline,

With

1960s.

as a whole was close to 6.5 in the first half

rate for the country

fertility

the rate remained over 6.0 throughout

reached a level under 5.0 by the mid-1970 's.

decade,

and

declined

more rapidly in the Central and North regions.

fertility

total

Population The

of Thailand

population

population

having

a slightly

North;

and

mid 1970s,

the

while that for

the

By the

the

region;

In 1980,

among

about two-thirds

of the

rest,

about

when

one-eight,

lived in

for the relatively

Bangkok Metropolis

the

South.

country's

distribution Number*

by

the

Bangkok

The

the region's

of population

former

lived in

large share of population

is excluded,

four

the

with the

regions,

of the population

only one-fifth

larger share;

Number and percentage 1960-1980

Table 4

unevenly

is distributed

lived in the Northeast and Central

was responsible

Metropolis Central

level

Distribution

regions (see Table 4) .

geographic total

the 1960s

The fertility

rate for these two regions was under 4.0,

of

and South regions remained at a level over 6.0.

Northeast

4.

total

The

level.

in fertility

3 also show the decline

in Table

Data

in

share

the of

region,

Percent

Region 1960 Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total

1970

1980

2,136 3,077 4,697 7,535 9,726 6,135 8,271 10,612 14,423 5,723 7,489 9,074 8,992 12,025 15,699 3,272 4,272 5,628 26,258 34,397 44,824

1960

1970

1980

8.1 8.9 10.5 23.4 21.9 21.7 31.5 30.8 32.2 21.8 21.8 20.2 34.2 35.0 35.0 12.5 12.4 12.6 100.0 100.0 100.0

* Number in thousands. Sources:

CSO (1962:1-3);

NSO (1973b:l-3,

and 1983e:2-7). 17

Profile

Population

population

was

population

have

mentioned

above

small,

country's

total

per cent

The

1970

The

in 1970

(see

indicated

data

census

and Tirasawat, The Almost

that

influenced

is substantially

of all

70 per cent

suggests

heads This

of residence. been

that migration has

i n t h e growth of the urban population

of its 1980

population

was

lived in urban places.

this high level decreased

Percentage urbanization

to only

urban distribution of by region, 1960-1980

9.9

per

population

and

region.

However, cent,

level

Bangkok (BKK) excluding BKK Central Central North Northeast South Total percent (Total number)** ratio*** Primacy

of

Level of urbanization*

1960

1970

1980

1960

1970

52.0 17.2 69.2 11.2 9.5 10.1 100.0 (2,374) —

54.8 15.8 70.6 9.7 9.8 10.0 100.0 (4,553) —

61.5 12.6 74.1 8.6 8.4 8.9 100.0 (7 ,633) —

79.7 9.2 27.4 6.4 3.5 10.1 12.5 — 26

81.1 100.0 9.9 9.5 39.2 30.3 7.2 5.9 4.1 3.7 12.1 10.7 17.0 13.2 — — 60 30

1980

in living the proportion of total population * Representing urban places. ** Number in thousands. Bangkok of the the ratio between the population *** Representing to that of t h e Chiang Mai municipality. Metropolis NSO (1973b:4-7, CSO (1962:4-7); 1983d, and 1983e) .

1982,

1933a,

1983b,

when

slightly

Region

18

and

(Goldstein

urbanized

by far t h e most

Urban population

Sources:

to

migration.

by

household

male

their current place

heads

Central region as a whole

Bangkok is excluded,

5

in 1960

1977:10).

two-fifths

Table

designated

per cent

from 12.5

increased

the

of

cent

5).

household

to b e a major factor

continues

had

born outside

were

of migrant

proportion

Table

in Thailand

growth

living in urban places high

proportion

areas.

per

17.0

t h e localities

lived in 120 urban places,

population

Urban

only

that

indicate

population

distribution of the In 1980,

1982:13) .

Nations,

(United

increased

consistently

Metropolis,

for t h e Bangkok

except

1940,

primarily a rural country.

is

municipal

since

distribution

of population

general pattern

of

in relative share

changes

Regional

North.

and the

urban-rural

on

Thailand

13.2

been

has persisted

Data

as

that

share of population

whose

of the

about

1983c,

Population

lower than that of the South, area

and population,

1980 population

was the least urbanized

Metropolis

and

urbanization

The Northeast, region;

was

contributed

responsible

importantly

for the

marked

between the Central and other regions.

million

persons

dwellers

lived in 118 municipalities

city.

only 4.1 per cent of its

lived

in

was approximately

the Metropolis. (NSO,

to the overall regional

In 1960,

and in 1970 about 55 per cent of all urban dwellers

Metropolis

despite its large

lived in urban places.

Bangkok urbanization,

12.1 per cent.

Mobility and Redistribution

level

of

differences

in

about 52 per cent

or about 4.7 million out 7.6

The remaining

2.9

1980; NESDB, 1984) .

million

urban

In 1980, Bangkok

50 times larger than Chiang Mai, the second largest

This primacy ratio increased from 26 times in 1960 and 30 times in 1970.

From

the dominance

the distribution

of Bangkok in Thailand's

of urban population

regions.

as 74.1 per cent of the 1980 urban population

where the metropolis

is located;

it is evident

and the level of urbanization

a uniform pattern among the four geographic high

urban structure

by contrast,

that

do not follow

As shown in Table

4,

lived in the Central

region

the relative share of each of the

other three regions was under 9.0 per cent.

However,

from the Central

declined to only 12.6 per cent.

B.

POPULATION

Thai

six

were located.

Bangkok,

capital

several

region has been the

was

city,

center

established

The

present

in 1782 by the founder of the

across the Chao Phraya River from Thon

Bangkok,

Chao

capital royal

Buri.

The

town

for

had played its role as a pre-industrial

decades.

with

Britain and other western countries.

export, and the export-oriented Plain

the

of the

present

As a result of the Bowring Treaty concluded in 1855, Thailand trade

of

The former served as the capital

for 417 years and the latter for 15 years.

dynasty who moved the capital new

the Central

It is the region within which two previous Thai capitals,

and Thon Buri,

Kingdom

city,

centuries,

of Thailand.

Ayutthaya

when Bangkok is excluded

MOBILITY AND REDISTRIBUTION

For kingdom

region, this high proportion

as

where Phraya

the Central

rice cultivation

soil was relatively

was concentrated

most

more accessible

which comprises

important

in the Central

more fertile and the inland waterways

River system made this area, region,

Rice was the

began to

the southern

relative to other regions and the

of part

the of

northern

19

Population

Mobility and Redistribution

part of the Central emerged

in

region itself.

Bangkok

had relatively

regions became more accessible the

1900s;

this

increasingly Central

together

reinforced

region.

established

since

with the administrative

of capital

economy which first

Central

Other

of railway network begun in reforms

and economic

region.

during

power of

the

Bangkok

1890s

and

the

and labor began to flow from the outlying

migration of farm labor to the Central Plain has been

while enhancing

reduced the productive the

through the extension

the turn of this century (Fuller

migration of labor,

increase

more impact on the

the political

Resources

regions and seasonal

Thus, the new commercial

capacity

economic

et

al.,

1983:26).

the economic progress of the Central

of the sending

disparities

regions.

well

This,

Such region,

in turn, began to

between regions and between

the

city

of

Bangkok and the rest of the country.

1.

Five-year

and lifetime

The analysis on

province

migration

of the 1960 Census data on migration,

of birth and province

of residence,

based on questions

indicated the high

level

migration to Bangkok Metropolis

while very low levels of rural-to-rural

were

led to the conclusion

found.

characterized

These

by a high degree of stability

the 1960 Census, of 26.3

evidences

approximately

migration

constitutes

The

number

of

the five-year

migration migrants

in the 1960 Census

million

or about 13.7 per cent of the total population

6) .

migrants The

population per year

cent of the population i.e.

According to population

migrants

was

and it

to

and the number of

that almost 13 per cent of the

boundaries

4.7

(Table

native-born

of birth; and slightly

those who moved across provincial

0.8

five-

1970

five years of age and over were classified

the census date (see Table 7) .

This

about

increased

increased to about 1.7 million (or 6.2 per cent) by

in 1980 did not live in their province

years preceding

20

The number of lifetime

1980 Census data indicated

migrants,

1978:22).

was

rate for the period between 1955-

(or

year

Thailand

other than their province of birth.

million

3.8 per cent) .

movement

about 11 per cent of the total population

is about 3.5 times that of five-year 60.

(Goldstein,

rural

2.8 million persons out of the total

million resided in a province

lifetime

that

of

under 5

as

within

fivefive

Population

Table 6

Number and percentage distribution of rate, lifetime and five-year migration,

Mobility and Redistribution

in-migrants 1960-1970

1960 Region of present residence

Number

and

migration

1970

Per cent

Rate*

Number

Per cent

Rate*

Lifetime migration** Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total

584,689 633,560 1,218,249 624,559 765,423 250,863 2,859,094

20.5 22.2 42.6 21.8 26.8 8.8 100.0

30.6 10.5 15.3 11.0 8.6 7.8 11.1

1,019,832 1,085,724 2,105,556 943,975 1,198,858 424,729 4,673,118

21.8 23.2 45.1 20.2 25.6 9.1 100.0

35.0 14.6 20.3 12.7 10.0 10.3 13.7

Five-year migration*** Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total

167,802 210,211 378,013 156,721 206,149 84,555 825,438

20.3 25.5 45.8 19.0 25.0 10.2 100.0

9.3 4.1 5.4 3.3 2.8 3.1 3.8

394,295 456,081 850,376 315,734 430,668 173,330 1,770,108

22.3 25.8 48.1 17.8 24.3 9.8 100.0

14.7 7.2 9.4 5.0 4.4 4.9 6.2

,

* Representing the ratio of persons classified as in-migrants to 100 population residing in their place of present residence at the time of the census. ** Includes native born population only. *** Includes population 5 years of age and over, and excludes international migration. Excludes in addition, for 1970, persons whose place of previous residence was unknown. Sources:

rural

The

1980

Census data also show a relatively

areas;

over

70 per

originated provide on

CSO (1961 and 1962); NSO (1973a and 1973b).

in rural areas.

information

migration

rural-to-urban

migration;

Result

was

confined

Census of

moves.

inter-provincial

from

migration

Although published data from the 1980 Census do not

on the urban-rural

status of the place of destination, of a significant

64 per cent of the five-year

inter-provincial

data

volume

of

migrants

came from rural areas.

Intra-regional

distance

five-year

into Bangkok indicate the occurrence

in the metropolis

2.

cent of the

high out-migration

from

movement the

1960

Census

Most of the population

within the same geographic

indicated the

predominance

movement across provincial and administrative

regions.

of

short

boundaries The

1960

data indicated that 76 per cent of the lifetime migrants and 74 per cent

five-year

migrants moved within their respective

geographic

regions.

The

21

22 4,564,207 9,632,624 14,196,831 9,030,516 15,663,033 5,601,138 44,491,536

1,188,342 1,576,496 2,764,838 1,122,820 1,279,462 521,639 5,688,759 194,578 517,562 712,140 343,745 603,510 221,318 1,880,713

936,649 1,297,586 2,234,235 1,000,869 1,872,702 580,953 5,688,759 195,576 45,195 240,771 -15,632 -218,046 -7,093

251,693 278,910 530,603 121,951 -593,240 -59,314

Number of migrants* --------------------------------In Out Net

O CM CM co in o cs ko in cm co i—i co m m o co co cm co

Migration rate** ----------------In Out Net

Sources: NSO (1982,

1983a, 1983b, 1983c, and 1983d).

* Adjusted figures based on the 1980 census data. ** Representing the ratio of native-born persons classified as migrants to 100 native-born population living in their province of usual residence at the time of the census. *** Includes population 5 years of age and over.

Five-year migration Bangkok (BKK)*** Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total

Lifetime migration Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total

Number of native-born population

Number of migrants and migration rate, lifetime and five-year, by region, 1980

Place of usual residence

Table 7

Population Mobility and Redistribution

Population

proportion for

the

of migrants who moved within the same region was found to be Northeast and lowest for the Central

intra-regional rural

migration

migration.

contains

in

Metropolis

and Tirasawat,

However,

with

region.

The high

which

migrants

from

the

improvement

of transportation

the pattern of intra-regional

than did those in 1955-60.

During the period,

alone accounted

million lifetime

intra-regional

migrated to Bangkok Metropolis

3.

Inter-regional The

1980.

This

movement accounts within

which

activity lived

has

the

excluded,

higher

however,

that

it

regions

has changed.

migration

of the national

in the Central

communication

moved longer distances

intra-regional

(Chamratrithirong,

in

the

total and of

1.5

region,

about one-third

1976:160).

three figures show the regional participation during 1955-1960,

not changed up to

Bangkok Metropolis

this region,

significantly

migrants

and

the

1965-1970

present.

The

for about 30 per cent of total migration.

in Thailand.

in

for one-third

of Bangkok Metropolis

trend

to

movement

following

metropolitanization

rural

other

migration

is evident from the 1970 Census that 1965-70 migrants

region

of

1974:29) .

system within the country,

Central

of

region reflects the fact

attracts

highest

percentage

the Northeast showed the importance

The pattern in the Central

Bangkok

(Prachuabmoh

It

Mobility and Redistribution

is located,

of

and

and its lifetime and five-year

in-migration

those of other

regions.

the

region,

migration

five-year

When

its in-migration rate and proportion

and 1975-

The Central

is the center

the

inter-regional

About one half of all lifetime

than

in

migrants

rates

were

Metropolis

is

of all migrants living

in the region became closer to those of the other three regions. Bangkok Metropolis

itself gained both lifetime

from every other region.

During 1955-1960,

Bangkok

from

Metropolis

Northeast

was

contributed

(Prachuabmoh

the

and Tirasawat, The

Northeast

1974:38;

largest

to

the

share

Central

region.

The

in-migrants

to

Bangkok

region in

the

country,

It had lost almost 198,000

lifetime

which is the least developed

other regions in 1960,

which is the smallest

in

into

IPS, 1981:6).

experienced the largest net out-migration. migrants

migrants

the largest volume of migration

nearby provinces second

and five-year

but economically

and 309,000 persons most developed

in 1970.

region,

The

although

South, it

lost

23

Population Mobility and Redistribution

Figure 2

Volume of inter-regional Metropolis, 1955-1960

net

migration

to

Bangkok

North

Source: Based on data from Goldstein and Goldstein (1986:31) .

24

Figure 3

Volume of inter-regional Metropolis, 1965-1970

net

migration

to

Bangkok

North

100.000

Source: Based on data from Goldstein and Goldstein (1986:31).

25

Figure 4

Volume of inter-regional Metropolis, 1975-1980

net

migration

to

Bangkok

North

100,000

Source: Based on data from Goldstein and Goldstein (1986:31).

26

migrants,

24,548 112,823 22,034 159,405

Net gain and net loss Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total 14,090 68,502 -1,226 81,366

— — -60,141 107,288 22,150 189,579

38,638 181,325 20,808 240,771

— — — 109,581 244,319 60,556 414,456

NSO (1982,

1983a, 1983b, 1983c, and 1983d).

* Adjusted figures based on the 1980 census data.

— — — 49,440 137,031 38,406 224,877

Number* Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK Central North Northeast South Total

Sources:

by region of usual residence and

27,174 -4,168 -15,632

-24,548 -14,548 -38,638

24,892 46,051 70,943 — 48,206 4,286 123,435

9,547 218,046

112,823 -68,502 181,325 -27,174

5,113 89,139

24,208 38,786 62,994 21,032

-7,093

-22,034 1,226 -20,808 4,168 9,547

Region of usual residence ---------------------------------------•---------------------Central Bangkok excluding Central North Northeast South Bangkok

Number of five-year mter-regional previous residence, 1980

Region of previous residence

Table 8

-159,405 -81,366 -240,771 15,632 218,046 7,093

Whole Kingdom

region

Population Mobility and Redistribution

27

Population

Mobility and Redistribution

population

to Bangkok Metropolis,

from

other

all

regions, Central

regions.

Bangkok Metropolis and

The

attracted

both lifetime

North lost population

and the South,

and five-year

to

the

more

migrants

attractive

but gained even more back from

Northeast regions (ASEAN Committee

on

Social

Development,

the

1977:

Doc. A. 4. 2) . Focussing

on the five-year

inter-regional

migration,

data in Table 8

indicate that during the five years preceding the 1980 census the Central

region

had a substantial

it was

the

Bangkok

total

of

Central

net gain of over 241,000 persons.

Metropolis

which served as the magnet,

region experienced

the

inflow of migrants. largest

regions .

28

net outflow;

however,

the city itself

over 159,000 persons from the other three regions.

leaving the balance of slightly

During this period,

gained

The rest

a net out flow of migrants to the South

from the North and the Northeast, net

In fact,

of

but

a the

gained

over 81,000 of

the Northeast still experienced

it lost a total of about 218,000

persons

to

other

Chapter

III

POPULATION MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT: MACRO PERSPECTIVES

A.

OVERALL DEVELOPMENT Thailand

country's

first embarked on national

planned

development

national

economic

economic

development

designation

of

POLICIES

and

is now in its fifth

social development beyond

selected

Bangkok

provinces

and

The concentrated

first on

reorganization

of

of

about

7

per

satisfactory,

it

further

income

national

development

public

important contributors

Central

(1982-1986).

the Each

promote

social

and

region,

through

the

regions

were encouraged,

as

growth

poles.

it was realized that

development

plans (fiscal

of basic infrastructure

development

administration

per

year.

recognized

inequalities

Although

the

years

1962-1971)

facilities

and these

to the high growth rate of production

cent was

to

in 1961;

efforts favored the latter.

two

the

the

planning

period

plan aimed

in the outlying

Although both rural and urban development the overall development

development

seen

at an average

overall

that the nature of the

were

and

growth

rate

development

between regions and various income groups

led

the as rate was to

(NESDB,

1977:5). During improve

the

Third Plan (1972-1976) ,

At the same time,

related

the

plan

to

widening

Development

emphasis

development

income gap and uneven

programs

introduced

inputs include the following

land development,

agricultural

electrification,

organizations, The product

given

to

distribution

of

during the third national

areas:

and inequitable family

further

through increased

was also given to alleviating

as the means to reduce income disparities

networks,

was

economic structure and to maintain economic stability

production.

inputs.

emphasis

problems

development development

distribution

planning,

irrigation,

credit, agricultural research and extension,

water supply,

education,

of

public health,

road

farmers'

and agricultural price stabilization. evaluation

of

the

Third Plan showed that

the

gross

domestic

in real terms increased at a rate of 6.2 per cent per year and the

per

Overall Development

Policies

capita income grew by 3.3 per cent per year.

These

rates,

however, fell short

of the targets set for the Third Plan, 7.0 and 4.5 per cent respectively 1977:7). world

This slow economic

economic

economy

in

situation,

recovery was attributable and

largely to changes

partly to structural imbalances

terms of social and economic disparities

(NESDB,

in

within areas

in the

the

and

Thai

between

areas . Recognizing introduced 1981) .

these problems,

ten integrated development

in the Fourth National Economic and Social Development

(1977-

agricultural output expansion; improvement of industrial structure. and income distribution, and expansion of rural employment; trade planning for industrial exports and the production of import substitutes; regional development and urbanization decentralization; decentralization of basic economic services; reduction of population growth rate; decentralization of social services; promotion of social stabilization; rehabilitation and management of natural resources, and environmental development; and promotion of science and technology.

-

During (1961-1981), million

the

20 years under the first four national development

Thailand's

baht

to 817,000

gross domestic

product expanded 14 times

million baht,

and per capita income

times

from 2,200 baht to 17,200 baht (NESDB,

terms

of

aggregate measures,

increasing regional income

disparities inequalities

had

product

this

Plan

were

They are:

-

shares

strategies

the urban bias of development

in the share of gross domestic The Central

has

Table 9

region's share of

in income.

shows

gross

1979,

in in

that capita

domestic while

In addition, In

eight

resulted

from 53 per cent in 1960 to 59 per cent in 1979,

also show regional differences

60,000

its progress

product and in per

in the other three regions declined consistently. table

from

increased

Despite

between areas within the country.

become more marked.

increased

1982:1).

plans

the

data

the in

average

income per head for the Northeast was close to 5,000 baht, which was about 3,800 baht

lower than the second lowest figure of the North,

than

that of Bangkok.

the

Northeast,

figure, 1979.

consistently

level

to note that the per capita

in 1960 was at a level of 51 per cent declined

is the South.

of

the

to 47 per cent in 1970 and 41 per

Another region that experienced

national

30

had

which

It is interesting

and was six times lower income

of

national cent

in

a decline in income level relative to the

In 1960,

its per capita income was 28 per

cent

9

Sources NESDB

(1982:275).

Bangkok (BKK) Central excluding BKK North Northeast South Total 23.8 29.3 15.8 17.0 14.1

1960 28.5 27.5 15.2 16.0 12.8

1970 27.4 31.2 14.9 14.7 11.8

1979

Share of gross domestic product at constant price ( i n percentage)

5,630 2,565 1,496 1,082 2,700

10,234 4,662 2,699 1,822 3,858

1970 30,161 17,655 8,781 4,991 12,683

1979

Per capita income at current prices ( i n baht)

by region, 1960-1979

1960

Gross domestic product and per capita income

Region

Table

267.3 121.8 71.0 51.4 128.2

1960 265.9 121.1 70.1 47.3 100.2

1970 250.0 146.3 72.8 41.4 105.1

1979

P e r capita income as per cent of national average

Overall Development Policies

31

Overall Development

higher

than

the national figure.

level in 1970, national

Policies

and increased slightly

gross domestic

1979.

product

national

to a level of 5 per cent higher than

to be the center of economic activities.

It's share

It's per capita income in 1960 was 2.7 times that of the national

experienced

to 2.5 in 1979.

146

to the national per cent in 1979.

As a consequence

urban development

taken

and

increasingly

a significant

seasonal

have transformed

from 29 per cent income as

of the bias in development

1960

efforts

volume of urbanward migration

especially

has

become

of Bangkok (including

has

oriented

those in the capital

Bangkok from a pre-industrial

The urban population

average

from 122 per cent in

labor

in

region also

its value of per capita

movement of farm

towards urban opportunities,

These phenomena metropolis.

the

In addition,

figure increased noticeably

which favored place

The rest of the Central

an increase in its share of gross domestic product,

in 1960 to 31 per cent in 1979. compared

the

increased from 24 per cent in 1960 to 27 per cent

the ratio declined slightly

to

the

average in 1979. Bangkok continued

of

The ratio dropped sharply to

town to a

city. modern

that of Thon Buri) which

was enumerated at 0.7 million persons in 1947, grew to 1.7, 2.5, and 4.7 million persons in 1960,

1970 and 1980 respectively.

The urban bias towards Bangkok is

revealed from the fact that in 1947 the urban population

of Bangkok was 20 times

greater than that of Chiang Mai, the second largest urban place in Thailand, the

ratio

evidence which

stresses

-

increased to 46 times in 1980.

the Fifth Plan (1982-1986)

development

on

"economic

objectives

On the basis

adopted a new line of national

progress

with

national

harmony".

of

this

development Six

major

were introduced; they are:

restoration of the country's economic and financial position; adjusting the economic structure and raising economic efficiency; development of social structure and distribution of social services; poverty alleviation in backward areas; coordination of economic development activities with national security management; and reformation of the public development management system at the national level. To

implemented

32

consistently

and

meet

these policy objectives,

during the Fifth Plan period.

a wide range of programs has

been

Policies

Migration-Related

B.

POLICIES

MIGRATION-RELATED

there was concern over the

During the Second Plan period (1967-1971) ,

was

temporary

in nature.

consequent

social problems

to

and service

industrial

additional

commercial,

1967:82).

During this same period,

in

self-help

established

and construction

education

also

Land settlements

rai.*

677,200

given to the alleviation

of

other urban and rural areas. local

and

development,

34,480

government

development

self-help

Southern

vocational

of

discourage

existing

Land in the

families,

outside

introduced.

They

the metropolitan

make should

that priority as well as

those

of

urban

of development

metropolitan

included

area and

53

approximately

covering

of Bangkok Metropolis

Three main categories were

were

various actions

in the South were to be improved so as to

of problems

be

already

For this five-year period, it was planned

At the same time it was suggested

them model settlements.

areas

to

be allotted

to

was

settlements

(NESDB,

other

promotion

distribution,

were to be established.

more settlements

five

that

create

to

during the Third Plan in the effort to

movement from rural areas.

population

was

public utilities and infrastructure.

of necessary

by the government

and

Another

44

in

made

been

to

were established

settlements

irrigation for agriculture,

Regarding the policy on population undertaken

was

related

in the province

centers

and three newly established

settlements

providing

by

settlements

much

and

Metropolis

six self-help

had

Improvement

provinces.

six

and

by planning for future city expansion.

centers outside of Bangkok

urban

new

promote

movement,

of them was to relieve urban overpopulation

One

distribution.

the

was reflected in various policies

This concern

population

provinces

to neighboring

distances

short

over

however,

of

Most

from rural to urban areas.

mobility

labor

unplanned

local

government

development. Although

spatial

programs

designed to more or less

direct measures affecting

first incorporated and

were

strategies

decentralization distribution,

the plans for regional and rural development

population

into the Fourth Plan (1977-1981) .

considerations

concerning

affect

distribution,

generation,

production

the

population

however,

During this Plan,

were taken into account to formulate

income

as well as

were

regional

policies

diversification

and and

* One rai equals 0.4 acre or 1,600 square meters. 33

Policies

Migration-Related

of industries

decentralization

at the same time,

was planned,

It

into the Bangkok metropolitan

migration

In

(NESDB,

through:

1977:105)

reducing in-migration rates to Bangkok and to urban areas in some provinces; encouraging migration out of Bangkok into adjacent areas and other provinces; supporting intra-regional migration; and supporting rural-urban migration into urban places designated as growth centers under the regional development policy.

However,

it is generally

influence

migration and population

Policies

Rural Development

emphasis

distribution.

population

sought

levels

basic

rural

development:

agricultural development,

comprehensive

to

approaches

new

of

strategies

(Findley,

lands

agricultural

more

and programs place

on the first two approaches. During

the

Second National Economic Development

period

Plan

been established.

projects

had

farmers,

development

of farmers' co-operatives,

irrigation, dam construction were promoted.

These included programs

and road building.

These projects

(1967Several

1971) greater attention was paid to agricultural and rural development.

projects

to

and Programs

rural development

Thailand,

In

designed

were

redistribution.

colonization

and

and

at both rural and urban

and capital-intensive

development,

1977:75) .

three

are

There

patterns

distribution.

(1982-1986)

Plan

Fifth

the

programs

and

policies

commercialization

and population

migration

alter

to

intentionally Development

in

programs

Many

had little if any

accepted that these policy directives

migration patterns

impact on altering

rural

1977:41).

trends

distribution

Plan proposed to modify population

the

addition,

check

to

Special programs

area in the long run.

areas of each region (NESDB,

were to be designed for the depressed

1.

together

plan,

improvement

Metropolis

Bangkok

formulated

newly

the

These

regional urban centers.

to establish

were expected to provide an economic base for each region and

centers with

to various regions of the country.

and employment

credit

providing

cultural extension

to

programs,

Also various social development

included construction

of health stations

and primary schools. The to

34

the

rural

main purpose of these programs was to extend development population.

The

programs

were also

expected

to

a

efforts means

of

Policies

Migration-Related

the development

Indirectly,

for farmers.

conditions

living

better

and

which implied higher income

productivity

agricultural

increasing

would

programs

reduce "push" forces in the rural areas and at the same time they would serve as people in the rural areas or even lead to an in-movement

retaining

factors

The

population.

implemented

ongoing programs and new programs designed to be included:

during the Fifth Plan period (1982-1986)

expansion of irrigation facilities; land development and land reform; provision of agricultural credit; agricultural extension; promotion of price stabilization for agricultural products; provision of physical infrastructure; expansion of off-farm employment; provision of health services and family planning services; and provision of education and short term training.

-

Urban Development

2.

and

development, spatial

Plan,

and Programs to urban development decentralized

urbanization,

dispersed

are:

Policies

basic approaches

Three

urbanization.

centralized

development

decentralize

economic

establishment

of

five

of

the

to

regional urban centers

urban system (NESDB,

country's

and

(BMR);

summarized a.

plan,

previous

forward

regions have been put

as

programs in agriculture and growth

in

the

for urban development

comprise

two

parts:

1)

and towns within the Bangkok Metropolitan

development

of

regional

They

urbanization.

are

below. Development The

activities

2)

the

to

addition

to bring about more balanced

of the Bangkok Metropolis

development

and

growth

1982:107).

and programs

Policies

Region*

and

decentralization

In

regions.

another means to encourage the structural adjustment industrial

Development

In the Fifth National

introduced during the

"specific areas" in different

selected

regional

and

were introduced to diffuse

strategies

activities

urbanization

Thailand

in

implemented

basic

from

of the Bangkok Metropolis principle

and towns in the BMR

is to diffuse growth and

the Bangkok Metropolis

decentralize

to the major communities

in

economic the

five

as introduced in the Sixth Plan, * The Bangkok Metropolitan Region, Nonthaburi, of Samut Prakan, Metropolis and the provinces Bangkok includes Pathum Thani, Nakhon Pathom and Samut Sakhon. 35

Policies

Migration-Related

including:

Several programs are to be implemented,

and Samut Sakhon.

designation of a green belt zone area around Bangkok; provision of basic public utility services; provision of basic infrastructure networks, to integrate the various urban centers in the Bangkok Metropolitan Region; improvement of slums and shanty towns; decentralization of economic activities within the BMR; and development of the towns in the BMR to absorb the economic activities decentralized from Bangkok Metropolis.

-

of regional urbanization

Development

b.

program in Thailand

development

rural

is expected to generate growth economically and second,

effects) ;

(spread

development

absorb surplus population

the growth regional

accelerate

and to

expected

streams

to the

Indirectly,

effects) .

center would help by drawing the flow of migration

growth

first,

the growth center is

from rural areas (backwash

regional

of

establishment

is the

of this policy are:

The two main objectives

growth centers. center

policy" to

measure that has been undertaken as the "complementary

One the

Nonthaburi, Pathum Thani, Samut Prakan,

of Nakhon Pathom,

surrounding provinces

away from the

Bangkok Metropolis.

3.

on Population

Other Policies

for resettlement*

Program

a.

programs

Resettlement help

farmers

lands

public

in Thailand belonged

which

land

buy

Land

Cooperative

Distribution

to

Settlement

Act was passed to assist

farmers.

The Land Allocation

to

improve land distribution through cooperative A

settlements. providing Royal

that

Decree

formulated farmers.

revision

of

the

land settlements with

Act of 1942

land settlements

Land Settlement

Act

could be established

Cabinet approval.

distributing

in

was

on

1968,

in

passed

to land

or self-help

only when

The latest program

vacant

designed

was

to the

1938,

In

Government.

the

order

in 1935 in

were started

proclaimed

by

resettlement

is

in the Agricultural Land Reform Act of 1975, to help poor or landless This

goal

had

by then been identified as a national

policy

of

top

priority. Resettlement

programs

agencies such as the Department

* First Published 36

have

been

carried

out

by

many

government

of Public Welfare, Ministry of the Interior;

in Institute

of Population

Studies (1981:21).

the

Policies

Migration-Related

the

Interior;

the

of

Ministry

planned

Ministry of the Interior.

Public Welfare,

the improvement

service

standard

characterized

Tamrongtanyalak,

and

It is considered

Department

and

political welfare

to be a social

As

development.

for community

of

measure

farmers and

social

economic,

by integrated activities

an effective

unstable

of economically

The program is considered

been

Program which has

Settlement Division,

to contribute to the

the country.

of

development

of living conditions

believed

is

therefore

Land Settlement

since 1940 under the Self-help

implemented

Their goals

are very similar.

of farmer's income and the overall increase in the

example is the Self-help

One

resettlement

the

of

land

in

involved

agencies

the people in the rural areas (Chirapanda

of

living

1980:3).

for

their main objectives

vary considerably,

are the improvement of

government

by

the detailed objectives

Although

programs.

resettlement programs

established

resettlements

fourteen

been

have

there

Up to present,

and Cooperatives.

Agriculture

of

Ministry

and the Agricultural Land Reform Office,

Agriculture and Cooperatives; of

Ministry

Cooperatives,

of

Department

of Cooperatives,

the Department

Ministry of the Interior;

of Lands,

Department

such it has a wide range of objectives. The to

economic objectives

uncultivated

problems

of land tenancy;

the quality of land suitable

increase

communities

with commercial

The schemes

to

are

provide

sense as

community

a

and to

of the Self-help land

Land

Settlement

sufficient

of living of the people;

of belonging to the land they are cultivating to help relieve population

to

create

and

Land

people;

Settlements;

to help eliminate

to

density in urban

areas

to promote an increase in the means of living causes of crimes and disputes

on land tenure;

in

their

to

by

Self-

transferring people who are willing to. start a new life in agriculture to help

new

create

with national policies on agriculture and local

raise the standard

whole;

solve

help

centers.

landless farmers with a plot of

In accordance to

administration; a

and agro-industrial

to

to

of forest and water resources;

for cultivation;

social and cultural objectives

provide a living.

farmers

to prevent destruction

are:

scheme incomes;

and to raise

land resources for agricultural purposes;

utilize

to

Land Settlement

of agricultural production

the quantity

increase

of the Self-help

of

the

and to

upgrade welfare conditions- of the people in rural areas.

37

Determinants

of Population

Mobility

The administrative conforming

to

planning; of

the

national

Government.

It

rai (91,280

Settlements

analysis

determinants

of

(1981:60)

2,275,700 acres)

living in the Self-help

of Self-help

Land

of Public Welfare

is

93,365

Land Settlement,

Department

MACRO LEVEL

of

some factors

migration

at

the

that can be useful macro

level.

for These

of geographical

areas or

"contextual

variables"

of individual characteristics;

variables"

which refers to characteristics

of the

whole

historical background, i.e., colonial institutional, i.e., government population policy external, i.e., association with external organization behavioral, i.e., ability to mobilize rural population for national purposes physical, i.e., terrain that makes internal communication difficult

includes

other

income

often-cited

differentials,

macro-level

and industrial changes,

and economic

institutional

1975:67ff;

If

the

variables

in this section,

in Thailand

(Przeworski

and Teune,

which

urbanization,

and

political

1970:49-57;

Shaw,

cited in Gardner, 1981:60).

listed

above are to be

used

as

guidelines

it is quite obvious from the previous discussion

the institutional

variable,

particularly

acted as one among many other macro-level population.

education,

"structural"

or they may be limited to social,

structures

Freedman, 1979:10-11,

factor is the

unemployment,

occupational

38

has

Such variables may be:

The

of

has allocated

of which 2,011,026 rai (84,410

has suggested

determinants

"setting

population.

has

program

mobility.

of Department

MOBILITY:

characteristics

2)

analysis

of

and concern

Ministry of Interior, Bangkok, 1980) .

which refer to aggregations

-

kind

community

include:

1)

-

this

of Public Welfare

(Division

and

by the people of the services

The total number of families

OF POPULATION

Gardner

organization

believed that

the Department

516,849 persons.

DETERMINANTS

-

also

under the administration

of Public Welfare,

the

of community

acres) to the 58 settlements,

been utilized.

numbering

is

of the scheme are to develop communities

or has some effects on population

At present,

C.

principles

and to build up recognition

contributed

have

objectives

As already discussed,

factors

the development to determine

past national development

for that

policies,

the movement

plans have

to

between the two areas has encouraged

large volume of rural-to-urban

influx of urbanward migrants tends to overtax the available

capacity

productive

development

of both the sending and the receiving areas.

development

plan has put forward explicit

which

to overcome

aim

processes,

and development

countries

developing to

economic.

where the dominant

urban

the

in

friends

rate

the

on

of

national

The present

interrelationships

between

of the desired migration

patterns

areas of destination

migration appears

while the influence of is less

many

in

findings

to

is similar

the

by

identified

motive for rural-urban

returns,

as the result of

Perhaps

the major factor

This

discussed

have been

mobility in Thailand

related to migration.

actual or expected economic

be

migration

may take a long period of time.

population

was

migrants

of

that

recognized

and a wide range of programs

effects of the

inputs in the past,

development

majority

however,

by various studies

extensively

policies

The achievement

affecting

Factors

unequal

the negative

and development.

migration

the

unplanned migration has acted as a brake

that

and

patterns

reduce

may

undesired

has encouraged

processes

past development

of

nature

the

At

It is generally

of their place of origin.

large

a

urban resources.

of young people from rural areas

time out-migration

same

the

growth,

urban economic

helps accelerate

migration

While

migration.

a relatively

development

of

distribution

The uneven

of migration.

directions

and

rates

in

affect

inputs in the rural and urban areas

The unequal development

many areas.

population

of

to the unequal distribution

led unintentionally

extent

some

Mobility

of Population

Determinants

family

and

Jong

(De

important

or

Gardner, 1981:39).

shortage of water,

need for land,

and seasonal

differentials,

include,

for

1962:6);

(Meinkoth, rural

example,

Thailand;

resettlement (1976:229)

area;

sterile soil,

rural-urban wage

were the major reasons inducing the movement of

Meinkoth's

Tirasawat

Parvichit

survey of Northeastern

(1970:35-36)

(1972:27)

Prachuabmoh

on

and Tirasawat

on internal migration in Thailand;

migration

on factors affecting migration

the

in

(1974:44)

and

Fuller et al.

These

Thailand.

in

migration

found in almost every study of

was

population

land tenure,

were:

needs for farm labor in the place of destination.

economic factors

That

in most migration studies

reasons identified

The major economic

to

Bangkok

migration

Kamphaeng

in Phet

Chamratr ithirong (1983:75)

on

out-

39

Determinants

migration analysis

of Population

in

Roi

Mobility

Et Province;

and

of the 1980 Census (Pejaranonda, From the latest analysis

data

it

is

population

evident

that migration continues

redistribution

within the country.

been a shift in various streams

the

population

constituted

now

live

urban

about 17 per cent compared

lessened

availability

greater economic attraction Goldstein,

1984:54).

an

important

It was found,

1980

the

urban

to 13.2 per cent in 1970.

land in the rural (Pejaranonda,

of

population

The

role in this the movement of

of the urban centers

in

however that there

An increasing percentage

In

of new cultivated

role

economic population areas

Goldstein,

and and

1984:22) . However,

migrants

who

the

analysis of the data showed that reasons for moving

moved within a province ( intra-changwat)

provinces

( inter-changwat)

between

moved

across province lines indicated economic reasons as the

while those who moved within the province motive (Piampiti,

different.

of

those

who

Migrants

who

primary

motive,

identified family reasons as the major

1985:49-50).

This suggests determining

were quite

and for

moved

40

Goldstein's

and Goldstein,

to play

places.

and

movement using 1980 Thai census

of migration.

is seen as playing an important

through

the

in

Goldstein

Goldstein,

of population

has

factor

Pejaranonda,

the further investigation,

the process of movement and the decision

at a micro level, on factors to move by the individuals.

Chapter

LINKAGES

MACRO-MICRO

inducing population

especially

assuming

that migration

relating

migration

to

significant

proportion

particularly

multiple

macro- and

reasons ..." (quoted

It

is suggested

by Goldstein

can

be used to evaluate

for

understanding

their

understanding

them

clearly demonstrated

are

..."

account

assumption, analysis

importance

the

illustrated into

process,

factors determining

of

interplay

in

(1981)

the characteristics

the migration

recent years

and

1981:43-44).

It is also

in rural and urban

of using the macro-micro they state that "...

and Goldstein,

In

approach

to

link

The complexity

approaches

in order to gain a better understanding

They

used.

also

variables

In response

there has been a shift from macro- to

of the

assessing

in

and individual

1981:78).

valuable

migration.

migration and the difficulties

by the variety of

process.

information

contextual

of migrants.

between

link

a

words,

that

of taking both contextual

(Goldstein

idiosyncratic

involved in the migration

variables

on the importance

other

in

the push and pull factors

discussion

social,

that there should be a close link

studies

and Goldstein

the

in De Jong and Fawcett,

factors,

micro-level

factors and individual

contextual

for

migrants who move

while

and

overlooking

studies,

in macro

economic variables

It is assumed by a number of migration between

There is danger in

behavior,

purposive

such

for

explanation

is only a partial

is always economically

of

areas, it is

the move to more developed

in his own words stated that "...

(1975:5)

Pryor

movement.

movement,

the economic determinant

that

reason

economic factor is generally accepted as the major

the

While

agreed

MICRO PERSPECTIVES

MOBILITY AND DEVELOPMENT:

POPULATION

A.

IV

to

this

micro-level

of

individual

linkages

can be seen

and explanation

decision-making. However, from

the

suggested

work

the earlier analysis of the macro-micro

by Lee (1966:50)

that migration

who offered a

is generally

associated

migration

which

with both macro factors:

areas

framework

of

Macro-Micro

Linkages

of origin and destination,

and micro-factors:

intervening

obstacles

and migrants

themselves . For suggested

the

can affect individuals'

categorization

of macro factors

Place-related

macro-level

commonly comfort,

held

affecting

(1981:71)

has

at both levels and examining

desires to move.

According

how

to Gardner,

a

migration must have two sections:

of

Goldstein, and

individuals. have

individual

factors considered

factors

include

factors,

considerations

as macro-level

impact

of

Moreover,

they suggested

that

wealth,

according

et

al.

determining variables

status,

viewed

(1977,

These categories

cited

migration.

may

in

In

with and use of transportation

between

their

and macro

framework,

decision-making

and and

in

motivate

Goldstein

individual

family size

or

affiliation,

to the author,

affecting

land tenure patterns,

are

refer to value-expectancy

given another example of the linkages

variables

networks,

and

which

Connell

include familiarity

population

or place-utility

autonomy and morality of individuals.

1981:73)

move

or goals

with place-related

migration

factors

expectancies

values

factors

the analysis of the links between the two different

factors while micro-level

stimulation,

combination

to

Gardner

has offered the example of macro- and micro-level

be used to facilitate

levels. as

linkages,

factors that individuals can perceive, feel, articulate, relate to and evaluate or consider important to themselves and their goals; and factors beyond the individual consideration but with their influence felt through intermediate macro factors. Gardner

could

of macro-micro

looking at the links between factors

macro-factors

-

analysis

communication

structure,

that one needs to ask whether integration

village economy into the urban nexus stimulates

etc.

of the rural

or

constrains

movement . The attempt made in the previous chapter was to observe the effects of development are

policies

believed

However,

to

the

on migration

be determinants

observations

patterns

as well as to observe factors

of population

movement at

did not fully disclose

factors

that may be involve in the decision-making

concept

and

researchers

findings

of

has suggested

specialization

to

and

movement.

42

population

macro-micro

the influences

give greater attention

macro

as

and led researchers

other

moving.

provided

by

in this

field

to this aspect in studying

The attempt of this chapter

level.

of many

process before

linkage analysis

its importance

the

which

is therefore

The many of

migration to

analyze

Characteristics

the

linkages

The

analysis

different

between macro-factors will

periods

and individual

surveys

make use of data from various of

time in Thailand.

of

of Migrants

characteristics.

migration

conducted

It is expected that the

during

analysis

of

macro and micro linkages should yield some interesting picture of migration its determinants

B.

at both levels.

CHARACTERISTICS

OF MIGRANTS

Since the very early years of migration that

has

been

migrants.

receiving

attention

Interestingly

enough,

similar patterns of characteristics individuals found.

excepting

selective

in

Some

is

majority of these

(i.e.,

terms

even

found

sex, are interrelated

in the same direction Browning,

(Browning,

1972:307-308)

vary in different

age, sex,

characteristics studies

education,

have

of found

occupation)

of

their that

socioeconomic

patterns

of

are

and

demographic

migrants

selectivity,

and when these variables change they will change 1972:293).

times and places.

However,

Bogue,

(1969:54,

cited in

That is, in one area the characteristics

while only a mild degree of selectivity

all is observed in another area. characteristics

of

that migrants

argued that the intensity of migration selectivity

migrants may be highly selective

these

the

researchers

one important aspect

who moved although some variation from the major patterns were also

characteristics.

at

from

research,

From these studies one can derive a general statement

generally

and

Moreover,

it is recognized that

in many cases act as determinants

can of

or none some

of

at the micro-level

to

motivate persons to move from one place to another. The projects

following

is

a

on characteristics

summary of

findings

of migrants in Thailand

from

migration

in the past,

research

including the

latest surveys on migration.

1.

Age Selectivity In many countries

both developed

that persons in their late teens, twenties than their older counterparts. to

have

a

conditions

close

association

and developing

societies,

it is found

and early thirties are more migratory

The common pattern of young migrants is with the greater

in the new places to which they move.

adaptability

to

new

assumed living

Thai migrants demonstrate

this

selectivity.

43

Characteristics

of Migrants

The Longitudinal Thailand, that

conducted

single-move

Study on Social,

Economic and Demographic

in rural areas in 1969 and in urban areas in

migrants

were slightly younger

1970,

than multiple movers

urban areas while the reverse pattern was found in the rural areas. study,

age

proportion years.

at

first move of heads of households

indicated

moved while in their late teens and twenties,

Thereafter,

the

proportions

Change

that

in

found in

the

In the same the

largest

peaking at age

20-24

declined regularly with increasing

ages.

About 41 per cent of male household heads in the rural sample first moved at age 21-24 years compared age group.

For lifetime

to another. year

age

migrants,

The proportion group

provincial migrants

with only 18 per cent of the general population

from

age patterns were little varied from one area

of lifetime

migrants

to Bangkok peaked in the

regardless of rural or urban origins at

urban

areas the proportion

rural

places

while

last

move.

peaked in the 20-24 year age

those

who

came

from

urban

concentrated

in the 25-29 year age group (Prachuabmoh

The

age pattern of migrants in younger age groups was later

similar

many other studies on migration (i.e., 1985:32-34) . held

true.

and Tirasawat,

Fuller et al.,

The data from the 1980 Census confirmed

1983:72;

and

15-19

For

the

group

for

areas

were

1974:60). found

in

Piampiti,

that age selectivity

still

Very high rates of migration for both males and females aged

20-29

years were found and the rates declined steadily with increasing migrants

in

distance

than did the older ones.

five-year

in the same

the

younger

migrants

age groups (15-19 years)

tended to

In Bangkok Metropolis,

move

Moreover, to

longer

over 43 per cent

were in the 15-24 year age group compared

cent of the same age group for the whole country

age.

to under

(Pe jaranonda,

37

Goldstein,

of per and

Goldstein, 1984:39).

2.

Sex Selectivity It is observed from a number of migration studies that sex selectivity

does age been

not match the uniformity in

1975:21) . females,

44

Sex is less selective

that the sex ratio of migrants varies with time and locale.

explained

workers

of the age pattern.

of

as

resulting in part from fluctuations

one sex or the other at certain times In

Thailand,

especially

in

males are generally

in

labor

(Browning,

than

This

has

demand

for

1972:286;

Shaw,

found to be more

migratory

than

the working age groups (25-44 years) .

Using the

same

of Migrants

Characteristics

and area in the metropolitan households of Heads migration intermediate-sized urban areas classified by age, status and sex

Table 10

Intermediatesized urban areas

Metropolitan area Current age and sex Migrant

Nonmigrant

Migrant

Nonmigrant

Male 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 55 and over Total per cent (Total number) Average age

4.5 7.5 15.0 19.5 29.3 18.8 5.3 100.0 (133) 36.5

5.1 19.2 22.2 16.2 23.2 9.1 5.1 100.0 (99) 33.1

2.9 7.9 17.8 21.6 22.4 22.0 5.4 100.0 (241) 36.7

12.3 21.5 23.1 10.8 20.0 12.3 — 100.0 (65) 30.3

Female 15-19 20-24 25-29 30-34 35-44 45-54 5 5 and over Total per cent (Total number) Average age

15.6 13.3 11.7 17.2 23.4 7.8 10.9 100.0 (128) 33.8

7.2 14.4 19.8 18.9 18.9 17.1 3.6 100.0 (111) 33.4

4.6 13.9 17.5 12.4 25.8 18.0 7.7 100.0 (194) 36.2

11.1 17.3 23.5 12.3 22.2 9.9 3.7 100.0 (81) 31.8

Institute

Source:

of population Studies

the 1980 Census,

source of data,

(1984:40)

Goldstein

sex

ratios during 1975-1980

135.4 and 140.0 respectively as marital status,

the

is changed.

pattern

dependent

highly

the provinces

supported found

age and marital

the

single migrants

for

of

It is found that,

1984:14) .

in the Northeast,

the age of 30 years. that

or place of destination

and Goldstein,

Goldstein,

that

on

males,

that

status

the four regions female

an analysis

migrants at ages

(Pejaranonda,

(1983:72)

to mbve increased

of female migrants,

is

in Roi Et, one of

Fuller et al.

the peak at age of 20 years.

selectivity

sex

In a study on migration

For instance,

consideration

migrants

of

of both sexes the propensity

by later analyses.

136.0,

once other factors

were taken into

for instance,

and in Bangkok,

The proportion

reached

However,

1985:34).

The

migrants.

30-39 and 40-49 were

for age groups 20-29, (Piampiti,

Goldsteift,

and Pejaranonda,

(1985:34)

indicated an excess of male over female

and

such

Piampiti

(1981) .

found until

which was greater than This

finding

is

well

based on the 1980 Census 15-19

years

outnumbered

45

of Migrants

Characteristics

domestic and industrial

on Population

Survey

fields and particularly

Area and intermediate-sized

in both sample areas the percentages

the

although

migrants

females

in the intermediate-sized

the proportions

However,

males

between

in proportions

of

that

and

urban areas were more narrow (see Table 10) .

Marital Status

3.

Findings

from

individual stimulates

various studies on whether the marital

or hinders the motivation

many of these studies

While to

differences

15-19

aged

male migrants in the age groups 25-54 years were much greater than

female

in was

It

urban areas.

of female migrants

year were greater than that of males of the same age.

the

from in 1981

conducted

Migratory Movement and Development,

both the Bangkok Metropolitan that

in

other

and

in the textile

Another example is taken

the capital city.

in

located

industries

of

their

also the effect of an increase in the demand for female labor

and

husbands

found

This

1985:34).

(Piampiti,

68.0

10-19

ages

at

indicates the influence of marriage through which women accompany

pattern

both

and 1975-1980

both in 1965-1970

ratio decreased from 80.6 to

sex

the

years

Metropolis

Bangkok

For

males.

finding from the Longitudinal

to move are quite contradictory.

the reverse pattern

Study conducted

male migrants whose migration

of

gave

marriage a

Similarly,

as study

the reason to move on migration

However,

However,

the

findings

(Prachuabmoh

and

same

year

1974:61).

Tirasawat,

marriage

in Roi Et and in Bangkok found that

from the 1980 Census

The

about 82 per

and marriage occurred in the

al.,

1983:74).

indicate higher rates of

migration

female mobility far more than that of males (Fuller

limited

found.

also

is

in 1969 indicated that 46 per cent

of male migrants tended to be single at their first move. cent

an

found that married persons have a higher propensity

than d o unmarried persons,

move

of

status

among both married males and females who were under 30 years

et

of age.

Thus,

18.3

per cent of men and 14.3 per cent of women who were married had moved while only 11.1

per

cent of single

men and 10.3 per cent of single women

were

migrants.

marriage was given as the major reason

Moreover,

among females

aged 15-24 years

associated

with a move.

For the age group 30 years

and over,

men and women who Findings

from the

were single

tended to migrate more and move longer distances.

same source

indicate that male and female migrants of rural origin who moved

urban

46

areas show higher percentages

to

single than d o migrants of rural origin who

of Migrants

Characteristics

moved

within

1985:38).

Piampiti,

(1981)

Development

the

In

Survey

also found similar

migrants were not classified

although

quite obvious that in the Metropolitan and in the rural sample,

11

on

1984:45;

Goldstein,

Movement

and

As shown in Tables 11 and

12,

Population

patterns.

and

Migratory

by age at move or by current age, area,

the intermediate-sized

of male migrants

Marital status and sex

urban areas

and intermediatemigration status, Intermediatesized urban areas

Migrant

Nonmigrant

Migrant

Nonmigrant

Male Single Married Widowed Divorced or separated Total per cent (Total number)

16.5 82.7 0.8 0.0 100.0 (133)

29.3 68.7 1.0 1.0 100.0 (99)

17.0 81.3 0.4 1.2 100.0 (241)

32.3 66.2 1.5 — 100.0 (65)

Female Single Married Widowed Divorced or separated Total per cent (Total number)

33.6 54.7 7.0 4.7 100.0 (128)

41.4 45.0 4.5 9.0 100.0 (111)

23.7 62.9 5.7 7.7 100.0 (194)

39.5 45.7 4.9 9.9 100.0 (81)

Table

12

Same as Table 10.

Male heads of households in the rural areas classified marital status, migration status More developed rural areas

Marital status Single Married Widowed Divorced or separated Total per cent (Total number) Source:

is

than of females.

Heads of households in metropolitan area urban areas classified by marital sized status and sex Metropolitan area

Source:

it

more than 80 per cent of migrants were already married

and there were higher percentages

Table

Goldstein,

(Pejaranonda,

rural areas

Same as Table

by

Less developed rural areas

Migrant

Nonmigrant

Migrant

Nonmigrant

4.5 88.8 3.4 3.4 100.0 (89)

1.1 95.6 2.8 0.6 100.0 (25)

3.1 91.8 4.1 1.0 100.0 (98)

3.6 93.5 2.4 0.6 100.0 (198)

10.

47

of Migrants

Characteristics

Education

4.

education

are

distances

in

multiple-move

on

In

educational

the

findings

consistent

persons with

more

opportunities.

much better educated than

These findings suggest

migration.

Development

social

and

are generally

show

when moving they tend to

Also,

economic

of

migrants

1985:41).

(Piampiti, has

more migratory. search

namely,

and migration,

selectivity

educational

Thailand

in

studies

of

number

A

travel

of

longer

Furthermore, single

movers

the strong influence that education Population

on

Survey

years

on

Migratory

Movement

pattern the fluctuating the data showed however, \ In other words, influence on migration (see Tables 13 and 14) . (1981),

and of no

clear pattern was found whether persons with higher level of education tended to migrate more. Thai

This evidence

population

compulsory.

This

generally fact,

between the two factors

Table 13

might be explained by the fact that the majority of only

obtained therefore

4-6 years

education

has more or less obscured the

Intermediatesized urban areas

Migrant

Nonmigrant

Migrant

Male No formal education Primary General secondary Technical secondary University Total percent (Total number) Average years of school

2.3 53.4 27.1 6.8 10.5 100.0 (133) 7.8

2.0 43.9 23.5 19.4 11.2 100.0 (98) 8.9

2.1 46.9 28.5 13.8 8.8 100.0 (239) 8.4

Female No formal education Primary General secondary Technical secondary University Total percent (Total number) Average years of school

11.0 64.6 7.9 8.7 7.9 100.0 (127) 5.9

6.5 46.3 23.1 16.7 7.4 100.0 (108) 8.0

11.9 52.6 12.9 14.9 7.7 100.0 (194) 6.9

Same as Table 10.

is

relationship

Heads of households in metropolitan area and intermediatesized urban areas classified by educational level, migration status and sex

Educational level and sex

Source:

which

in this study.

Metropolitan area

48

of

Nonmigrant

of Migrants

Characteristics

Less developed rural areas

More developed rural areas Educational level Migrant

Nonmigrant

Migrant

Nonmigrant

3.4 85.4 7.9 3.4 — 100.0 (89) 4.7

5.6 89.9 4.5 — — 100.0 (179) 4.0

12.4 82.5 3.1 2.1 — 100.0 (97) 3.8

13.1 86.5 0.6 — — 100.0 (168) 3.7

No formal education Primary General secondary Technical secondary University Total percent (Total number) Average years of school Same as Table 10.

Source:

5.

Activities

Economic

and Occupational

with higher education,

closely associated

migration

becomes selective

Thailand

occupational

Tirasawat,

1974:63).

and

Census data.

It indicated that male migrants

than females.

least

occupations 1984:46-47).

were

the

Several

difficult

unskilled

for

in

those who were

service

(Pejaranonda,

mobile

them to move.

1980

were

farmers

administrative/executive and

Goldstein,

Migration is also

Goldstein,

less

likely

it

making

the

among

and the poor because moving involves costs and risk as well as loss of

found

that

not only individuals

skill

also

move

In

occupation

have assumed that the less mobile behavior of

researchers

from their farms when family member migrate.

towns.

of

groups were more

occupations,

and

labor

migrants

1969

The

is provided by

in all occupation

Among migrants with different

most

In

1975:24).

was because the majority of farmers are tied to their land,

farmers more

while

mobile

levels

A similar finding

(Prachuabmoh

mobile

(Shaw,

migrants.

among

found

likely to move than those in higher

less

were

is also

occupations

societies,

in rural areas showed that farmers and manual

Survey data collected

Longitudinal

such as in the industrial

of more specialized

selectivity

is

which

skill,

more

are more likely to move and move for a

As the economy develops,

longer distance.

Differentials

accepted that persons with

generally

is

It

workers

by

classified

in rural areas Male heads of households educational level and migration status

Table 14

appear

because

However,

with skill but also those with

of general poverty in the

of

or

little origin.

no

These

jobs

in

it was found that the very high level

of

willing to take chances

a study in Roi Et province

place

have

some studies

and expect to be able to get

49

Characteristics

out-migration al.,

of Migrants

was the result of poverty of the village under study

1983:76).

Development

Similarly,

(1981),

when

according to occupation, while

only

proportions

17.4

per

the Survey of Population

migrants

in the Metropolitan

cent were white collar differences

Heads of households sized urban areas status and sex

Current occupation and sex

Area

were

classified

workers

(Table

15).

The

in metropolitan classified by

Metropolitan area

area and intermediateoccupation, migration Intermediatesized urban areas Migrant

Nonmigrant

Male White collar Sales Agriculture Blue collar Unspecified Total per cent (Total number)

17.4 15.2 2.3 56.8 8.3 100.0 (132)

21.2 32.3 — 41.4 5.1 100.0 (99)

23.8 25.0 1.3 42.9 7.1 100.0 (240)

23.1 26.2 1.5 43.1 6.2 100.0 (65)

Female White collar Sales Agriculture Blue collar Unspecified Total per cent (Total number)

18.0 28.1 — 53.1 0.8 100.0 (128)

35.5 33.6 — 30.0 0.9 100.0 (110)

25.5 44.3 — 29.7 0.5 100.0 (192)

32.1 35.8 1.2 29.6 1.2 100.0 (81)

Same as Table 10.

Male heads of households in rural occupation and migration status More developed rural areas

Current occupation White collar Sales . Agriculture Unspecified Total per cent (Total number) Source: Same as Table 10.

same

were also found among female migrants

Nonmigrant

Table 16

50

Migratory Movement and

Migrant

Source:

et

56.8 per cent of male migrants were blue collar workers

of occupational

Table 15

in

(Fuller

areas

classified

Less developed rural areas

Migrant

Nonmigrant

Migrant

Nonmigrant

4.5 2.2 85.4 7.9 100.0 (89)

1.1 1.1 87.8 10.0 100.0 (180)

2.0 — 92.9 5.1 100.0 (98)

— 0.6 98.2 1.2 100.0 (168)

by

in

Determinants

the

Metropolitan

areas,

in

Area.

contrast

non-migrants

in

indicate

areas

to the Metropolitan

the same occupational

larger proportion may

It is interesting

Despite

the a

higher percentage

when compared

to non-migrants

DETERMINANTS

much

among migrants to the Metropolitan

Area

migration and the decision

at both macro and micro levels.

making process it is necessary Prachuabmoh

1981:38).

factors such as

The

determinants

the

the

determinants

to look at factors

(1974:49),

in

However,

socioeconomic

their

individuals

by

differences

at the micro-level,

that before moving,

and psychological

Browning

(1972:310)

it

is

will compare

and proposed places of destination.

problems of adjustment

suggested

(De Jong and

in his article on Countries"

"Migrant

that

better

in the urban area may be one of the factors inducing ruralbut the social benefits such as educational

be even more important and beneficial,

destination,

occupations

movement can be induced

and the Growth of Large Cities in Developing

migration

migration,

areas

they will choose the areas where they can maximize the benefits and

economic opportunity to-urban

and Tirasawat

aggregate population

structural

minimize the socioeconomic

Selectivity

rural

pointed out that reasons to move may be

benefits of present places of residence

Gardner,

occupation.

the more developed

in order to better understand

accepted by many studies

After that,

Area.

MICRO LEVEL

between places of origin and destination. generally

Metropolitan

or may be identified or observed by investigators.

the macro-level, and

rural

was not found among migrants and non-

however,

in Thailand,

given by migrants themselves

environmental

the

(4.5 per cent versus 1.1 per cent) .

OF MIGRATION:

study of internal migration

and

A

of migrants who were in white collar

As mentioned earlier,

At

of migrants

16) where agriculture is the dominant

small number of cases,

urban

groups were not much different.

differentials

in rural areas (Table

the

the proportions

that many migrants with limited or no skill may leave

migrants

of

Area,

of blue collar workers

This pattern of occupational

C.

that in the intermediate-sized

or smaller cities in the hope of finding work in the

recorded

of migration

1980

indicated

Census

data,

especially

characters

of migration (Pejaranonda,

would

for their children.

which for the first time asked

that both structural

and individual

facilities

reasons

for

factors such as place of origin

and

such as age and sex were also Goldstein,

and Goldstein,

important

1984:54) .

It

51

Determinants

was

found

because female male

of migration

that

of

in the urban areas about 50 per cent of

economic reasons followed by family and

migrants, and

however,

Migratory

Movement

was the least important

were

obtained

and Development

in the

in Thailand.

family

in

the

rural

17) .

most

determinant.

1981

Survey

on

Population

When asked about reasons

for

the majority economic

while more than 50 per cent of migrants who

areas gave various reasons including

military service (Table

returning

Furthermore, when the respondents

reasons for moving into the present place of residence, of

the

migrants who were in the urban areas at the time of interview gave

reason as the main determinant

For

For both

was

moving away for the first time from the prior place of destination, of

moved

reasons.

marriage and family were more important.

important reason and education finding

migrants

educational

female migrants who moved within rural areas,

Similar

male

home,

were

entering

were asked about

much larger percentages

migrants who moved into the urban areas reported that they moved because

the

economic pull (52.4

the

intermediate-sized

per cent in the Metropolitan urban areas) ,

Area and 58.6 per cent

compared to much smaller

percentages

of in of

migrants who moved within rural areas and gave the same reason (29.8 per cent in the

more

areas).

developed In contrast,

Table 17

rural areas and 36.8 per cent in the less

developed

data in Table 18 show that there were more migrants in the

Reason for moving away from place of destination first move)* Urban area

Reason for move Economic/job related/ seeking land Studying Following others Marriage Other** Total per cent (Total number)

Metropolitan 45.2 6.3 5.6 4.0 38.9 100.0 (126)

(of

the

Rural area

Intermediatesized

More developed

Less developed

35.5 23.6 9.3 1.6 30.2 100.0 (258)

29.9 4.4 3.0 1.4 61.2 100.0 (67)

28.3 3.3 5.0 13.3 50.0 100.0 (60)

* Excludes those who moved only once or those who never moved after aged 15 years. ** Includes personal reasons, returning home, enter military service. Source:

52

rural

Same as Table 10.

Determinants

Table 18

Reason move) *

for

moving

Reason for move

into present place of

residence

Urban area

Rural area

Metropolitan

Economic/job relayed/ seeking land Studying Following others Marriage Other** Total per cent (Total number)

of migration

(last

Intermediatesized

More developed

Less developed

58.6 2.7 10.9 6.4 21.4 100.0 (440)

29.8 — 12.8 13.8 43.6 100.0 (94)

36.8 — 19.8 16.0 27.4 100.0 (106)

52.4 3.7 13.3 5.5 25.1 100.0 (271)

* Excludes those who moved only once or those who never moved after aged 15 years. ** Includes personal reasons, returning home, get new house. Source:

Same as Table 10.

rural areas than in the urban areas who moved because of marriage (29.8 per cent in the rural areas and 11.9 per cent in the urban areas). What that

there

is more interesting

is a relationship

This relationship the

life

cycle.

Therefore,

the

generally

increase with age.

proportion

male population

and increases

between age of migrants

is seen as reflecting

instance,

the

in studying the determinants

the

a close connection

of those whose moves were due (1985:54)

who moved for economic

constantly

of

migrants

proportion

of

migrants who cited education

increasing

age.

followed 19) .

relatives;

The

study

Pitaktepsombati higher those the

would

is

many moved,

of migrants (1974:38)

for once-only

places

involved

This

in

to

with

age.

economic

For

reasons of

If moving for marriage, the 20-29

age

and family factors

true of those who

as children,

group.

The

decreases

with

indicated

that

migration

by was

Goldstein

to the authors that movement than that to

and

considerably

Urban Places,

Urban Places were older than those who

type of selection

they

along with their parents (Table

in both Bangkok and Provincial

suggested

a different

vary

found that the proportion

the

found that age at last

migrants

moving.

between migration and

to all urban places in Thailand

who moved to provincial Capital.

reach a peak

especially

for

is

reasons begins to rise at ages 20-24

up to the 50-59 age group.

proportion

This

and reasons

reasons for movement

Piampiti

of migration

to

moved

smaller

Bangkok.

but to

urban It

was

53

Determinants

Table 19

of migration

Percentage of male migrants migration status

by reason for move,

age at move and

Age Reason for move

Under 10

Single move Economic Marriage Following relatives Duty Study Other Reason unknown Total per cent (Total number)

10-19

20-29

30-39

50 and over

40-49

14.3 3.6 75.0 — — 3.6 3.6 100.0 (28)

32.0 22.2 33.3 — 1.4 8.3 2.8 100.0 (72)

25.2 63.9 3.2 0.6 0.6 4.5 1.9 100.0 (155)

44.1 35.6 1.7 — — 16.9 1.7 100.0 (59)

75.0 10.0 — — — 10.0 5.0 100.0 (20)

90.0 11.8 — — — — — 100.0 (10)

First move of multiple move Economic 12.9 — Marriage Following relatives 59.0 Duty 5.1 Study 12.8 Other 10.3 — Reason unknown Total per cent 100.0 (Total number) (39)

32.1 6.2 21.0 3.7 24.7 7.4 4.9 100.0 (81)

32.2 19.5 3.4 36.8 — 6.9 1.1 100.0 (87)

60.0 13.3 — — — 20.0 6.7 100.0 (15)

80.0 — — — — 20.0 — 100.0 (5)

a* — — — — a* 100.0 (2)

Last move of multiple Economic Marriage Following relatives Duty Study Other Reason unknown Total per cent (Total number)

35.2 11.8 17.6 — — 17.6 17.7 100.0 (17)

25.4 29.1 1.8 13.6 0.9 20.9 8.2 100.0 (110)

42.0 8.7 1.4 1.4 1.4 33.3 11.6 100.0 (69)

50.0 — — — — 35.0 15.0 100.0 (20)

36.4 9.1 9.1 — — 27.3 18.2 100.0 (11)

move — a* — — a* a* 100.0 (4)

a* Fewer than 5 persons in base population. Source:

further

Adapted from Prachuabmoh

suggested

and Tirasawat

that this movement was more purposive

because of involving study in the following From these studies, between

(1974: 56) .

in character,

in

part

chapter.

it is obvious that there is a close

age of migrants and reasons for move.

With this kind of

relationship relationship,

one

could expect the effects of migration to be either positive or negative

the

development

of places of origin and destination.

effects will be the task of this job, knowledge available

54

transfers;

The examination

these

it may also reflect a greater

on the part of migrants to smaller urban places of the in them.

of

on

opportunities

of migration

Determinants

addition,

In

Goldstein

to

according

of

from migrants.

information

These questions

about the destination,

had

advantages

of

contacts

they had made with people in the place

network

existing

economically

socially,

migrants

in the place where they wanted

and psychologically

from rural new

support

help

Kinship may

to

network

and kinship especially

inducing migration

countries.

in many developing

areas

urban

factors

of

migrants'

destination,

the

at

flow from place of destination

were found to be very important to

migrants

may include knowledge that

and disadvantages

information

In fact,

move.

kinship

the

destination, perceptions

to get further insight and to elicit some other

should be designed

questions

and

another set

Therefore,

that forced them to move.

the pressure

did not disclose

the

on

already rationalized

to move may yield the answers which migrants

decision

level,

micro

the direct questions

(1981:76) ,

and Goldstein

at

of migration

determinants

studying

until they settled down in

the new area. In the Survey on Population

majority of migrants (about 8 3 per cent in Metropolitan

the

in the intermediate-sized

cent

that they also received support in

the

intermediate-sized

and relatives

lived

or relatives who in

the

urban areas reported this type of assistance.

This

finding

from

friends

only 48.6 per cent of

those

and psychological

supports

may be more needed by those who moved to a large city like Bangkok

factors

them to specify

in

this same Survey further questions

which may influence

in Bangkok

Metropolis,

destination

elsewhere

in the Metropolitan

were also

to move of migrants.

the decision

the place to which they preferred

a few of the migrants

learned

reported

Area

lived

Moreover,

only

in.

moved

than those who first moved to smaller cities.

Metropolis

elicit

in some way from friends

the fact that socioeconomic

to

points

they

who

while

before

place

before

61.3 per cent of those in the Metropolitan

migrants,

the

Among

per

75.7

Area and

urban areas) reported that there were friends or

lived in the present place of residence

who

relatives

(1981) ,

Migratory Movement and Development

asked

to

By asking

to move if they had a

choice,

Area said they wanted to

remain

and the larger number said they knew of an exact place of (Table

20) .

When migrants were asked further how they had

about the expected place of destination,

that they lived there before,

followed

the majority

of them reported

by the group of those who reported

they

55

Determinants

of migration

Table 20

Percentage specified choice

Preferred

of male heads of households* in urban areas who the place they preferred to live, if having a

place

Bangkok Metropolis Big municipal area Small municipal area Village Foreign country Know exact place of destination Total per cent (Total number)

Metropolitan area

Intermediatesized urban areas

9.2 10.0 4.1 10.8 1.7 64.2 100.0 (120)

8.4 13.4 2.5 6.7 0.8 68.1 100.0 (119)

Excludes respondents who were not considering moving away, who did not know whether to move and who did not give answers. Source:

Same as Table 10.

Table 21

Percentage classified destination

of by

male heads of households in urban areas their knowledge of the expected place of

Knowledge of the expected place of destination Lived there before Visited there before Having f riends/relatives Other Combination of above reasons Total per cent (Total number) Source:

visited 21) .

This

important was

the

motives

54.0 19.0 15.0 10.0 2.0 100.0 (100)

47.3 17.9 14.2 4.4 15.2 100.0 (112)

place before and had friends and relatives who lived there that knowledge

in the decision-making

about the place of

process of individuals.

asked the reasons for choosing

destination

Intermediatesized urban areas

Same as Table 10.

indicated

also

Metropolitan area

(Table

played

a

22) . less

The findings important

destination

is

role compared

to

the

quite

This group of migrants

the place which they specified

show that at

(Table

micro-level

social

or

as

the

economic

psychological

factors. These factors

56

at

examples well illustrate

the macro-level

the fact that although

were accepted as important in

the

structural

inducing

migration,

Determinants

Table 22

Percentage classified destination

of by

male heads of households in urban areas reason for choosing the expected place of

Reasons for choosing the expected place of destination Return to place of birth Closer to f riends/relatives More comfortable there Own house/land there More income job Other* Total per cent (Total number)

Metropolitan area

Intermediatesized urban areas

31.5 13.9 23.1 4.6 11.1 15.7 100.0 (108)

21.9 17.5 21.9 8.8 7.9 21.9 100.0 (114)

* Includes: boring here, want to live in developed not too crowded, someone advised to g o there. Source:

other

community,

Same as Table 10.

factors

at the micro-level

also play an important

making

of

individuals on whether they wanted to move and

wanted

to

go.

investigators factors

of migration

part in the if

This is an important aspect that deserves more in order to identify the linkages

so,

decisionwhere

they

attention

from

between macro- and

micro-level

determining migration.

57

Determinants of migration

58

Chapter V IMPACT OF POPULATION

As was mentioned of

population

earlier, because of limitation

mobility the discussion

impact of long term migration conditions whether number

in

MOBILITY

in this chapter focuses primarily

on demographic,

social,

both sending and receiving areas.

and in what ways out-migration of in-migrants

of data on other forms

affects

environmental

The discussion

rural structure

could affect the socioeconomic

on

the

and economic will

examine

and how a

and demographic

large

conditions

in the urban areas. Relatively empirically Most

the

effects

specific

urban locales, Northeastern

have

of mobility

objectives.

endeavored

to

evaluate

on the areas of origin

and

those

Northern

involved

internal

regions.

and

measure

destination.

surveys

designed

in contract

to

rural-

from rural areas in the

Among the groups of migrants studied

in short term circular

migration

or

They have varied in terms of regional and

with a tendency to focus on out-migration

regions of Thailand, term

studies

of those that have been carried out were small-scale

achieve

been

few

movement within

and

between

have the

labour movement to the Middle East and in long

of five years or longer duration.

Where

studies

of

short term mobility are cited it is usually because of the absence of comparable data on long term migrants. workers

in

average

remittances

degree

Thus information

the Middle East could be expected to be significantly

of

sent by long term migrants

comparability

expenditure

may

disadvantages

be assumed with respect

of

that

accrue to the areas of out-migration

wide range of conditions

empirical

to

lack

consensus

paucity of data and the limitations

of

within the

remitted by larger

country, the

but

priorities

than some of

observed in the villages of origin.

The

volume

on the average amounts

migration. research

on the relative weighting

of the studies.

that influence This

in exploring the

demographic,

advantages

reflects

in

and

part

the

It is also a result of

the

the selectivity,

chapter draws upon both

of

direction, conceptual

social,

timing and

analyses

and

environmental

and

Composition

Impact on Demographic

of long term

on areas of origin and destination

impact

economic

migration

in

terms

of

Thailand.

A.

age, sex, marital status,

by age, sex and marital status modifies the

Selectivity

changes

compositional

through

structure

demographic

economic reduction

the

Out-migration

opportunities.

in rural areas (Davis,

remaining

rural

changes

compositional population

(1985:489)

size of rural households

and

Southern

time

reduction

notes within

is sustained

by

result

of

response to the

from

relief

regions.

in sample

villages in the

Northern,

Northeastern

Based on the data from the most recent sample survey

Migratory Movement and Development calculated

on

has also observed the effect of out-migration

the differences

in Thailand,

conducted

in

on

1981,

between the observed household size at the

of the survey and the size five year preceding

the

survey.

had reduced the average household size in the more developed

60

rural

fertility

(1984:10)

"this effect is not the

but rather is a behavioral

the

Tirasawat

he points out,

High fertility

to

pressure." Tirasawat

Population

Goldscheider

1963:355-356).

in places of origin.

when,

for

may also be a substitute

may bring about a delay in fertility

population

out-migration

of

that help

a response to the lack of

pressure and is considered

rural out-migration

that

young

or postponement

is viewed as one of many mechanisms

out-migration

population

relieve

of

when the heavy out-migration

also

may

remaining in the places of origin.

marriage among females Rural

Migration

high rate of celibacy

males from an area causes a relatively

of

places

at

ratio

at places of origin.

squeeze" situation

"marriage

a

a heavy

For instance,

in a higher masculinity

and an excess of females

destination create

results

males

of

in

changes

through

and

1984:6).

marriage patterns and behaviour (Goldscheider , out-migration

from

out-migrants

countries

in

populations

of the

young adult males or females and large proportions

rural areas are predominantly of them are unmarried.

in

individuals

Ordinarily the most evident impact of

etc.

In developing

origin and destination.

of

places

education,

of certain

its effect on the age and sex composition

is

migration

to be selective

tends

Migration

COMPOSITION

ON DEMOGRAPHIC

IMPACT OF MIGRATION

Out-migration

villages from 4.9

Impact on Social and Environmental

to 4.6 persons and in the less developed data

suggest

that out-migration

reduce materially The assessment.

Goldstein

elsewhere

reproductive growth

60

with

is

villages from 5.6 to 5.0 persons.*

from the areas surveyed

does not

The

function

to

the size of rural households.

demographic

approximately

Conditions

effect of in-migration

and Tirasawat

(1977:44),

on urban growth also for example,

noted that in 1970

percent of the ever married women in urban places the

highest

years.

percentages

reported

Thus the contribution

compounded

for

those

of in-migration

warrants

in

were

born

the

peak

to urban

population

by the children born into the families of migrants

their arrival, with a significant

after

impact on both the size and age composition

of

the urban population.

B.

IMPACT OF MIGRATION ON SOCIAL Socially

and environmentally,

both

rural and urban areas.

that

rural

migrants

interested

and

opportunities the

are drawn from two to

in urban centers

In Thailand

educational highly

in

selectivity

search

Moreover,

of

persons

sufficiently

education

in the city ..."

of migration

or

than

made in

findings

although

The

their

negative

impact

movement

of

aspect

of

young

people

rural out-migration

from

due

to

and ability. which is

of kinship or clan ties. villages

better

may shut those migrants out once

to their education

is a disruption

not

education.

leave in that many of them cannot or do not return to the village suitable

on

non-migrants.

effect on the villages of origin.

rural social and economic conditions

Another

wider

(Abu-lughod,

show consistent

Those who move out,

take with them the investment

the lack of employment

on

it has been suggested

have higher average education

has a negative

out-migrants

types:

effect

and persons who are "... driven by the poverty of

among out-migrants.

generally

can have a great

countries

extreme

migrate

a number of studies

selectivity

educated,

educated

they

In many developing

motivated

CONDITIONS

migration

village and are attracted by the opportunity

1964) .

This

AND ENVIRONMENTAL

seen

as

having

Increased

to towns are viewed

as

a

a

rates

of

sign

of

* Villages classified as more developed are "larger in population and total land area, and are better equipped with such basic social, economic, and health services as secondary schools, electricity, retail shops, and health centers" (Tirasawat, 1985:477). 61

Impact on Social and Environmental

Conditions

breakdown of family and village society (Klausner 1983:60) .

Rural

over a person's family

and

distance left

cited in Fuller et al.,

may lead to the reduction of

kinship

dominance

behaviour but it is also argued that the extent of the impact on

kin

in the place of origin depends on

the

type,

permanence

and

of migration as well as the ties retained by a migrant with the family

behind

social

out-migration

1972,

in the village.

changes

Uniform relationships

between

out-migration

in rural places of origin should not be expected

and

(Goldscheider ,

1983:11). On stimulate

the

positive

the process of change,

ideas and technologies. often

side,

migrants who return to

functioning

Successful

their

villages

as agents for the diffusion

may

of new

rural migrant returning from urban areas are

equipped with new ideas and skills gained during their stay in

the

city

It is not only the sending areas that are affected by migration.

Mass

which they can share with those who remained behind.

movements

of population

the environmental a

city

from rural areas affect the social structure

conditions

in the urban receiving areas.

with a different culturaj. background

tensions

or

Migrants who move to

and behavioral

conflicts

between migrants and

migrants themselves.

Collective

violence and conflicts

from

of existing social ties and controls.

the

problems are

social

disruption

of assimilation

and integration

norms

urban

as migrants,

as well as

can

natives

create

or

among

in the cities can result There are also

especially

the

recent movers,

less prone to join with new neighbors or other formal associations

in

the

places of destination. Because from

of

the limited skills and resources that many

rural areas bring to the city they tend to take up residence

settlements problems.

or

These

other

Common

contaminated

substandard

housing,

creating

health

to these slum areas are crowding and

water

supplies

and inadequate

health

and

nutritional

unsanitary

facilities

Debavalya

and

associates'

study of environmental

four improved slum areas in Bangkok found that conditions areas

faced

problems

of inadequate

garbage

residences,

and

services. (Beier,

health conditions

in

were not satisfactory.

disposal,

lack

of

systems,

congestion

of dwelling units and lack of safe water supply

drinking

and general

use.

62

migrants

in squatters'

result in high rates of infant and child mortality and morbidity

1974).

The

new

drainage for

both

In some areas which were located close to the river

Conditions

Impact on Social and Environmental

or

people drew water from these sources

canals,

for general use (Debavalya

et

al., 1983:97) . Chamratrithirong, on migrants'

study of

Archavanitkul , and Kanungsukasem,

adjustment

migrants and non-migrants .

Migrants,

utilization

of health care

It was found that urban natives

used

generally

and public hospitals as well as than

migrants.

on the other hand, reported using folk cures and traditional

medicines

clinics

private

the patterns

such as public health centers

facilities

modern

compared

in their

(1979:79)

and

private

hospitals to a

extent

greater

to a greater extent than urban natives. The

the

and environmental

by in-migration,

exacerbated in

social

Fifth Five-Year

problems of

Thailand's

have long been recognized

National Economic and Social

city,

primate

and were well described

Development

(1981-

Plan

1986) , which noted that " ... The rapid population growth as a result of migrants looking for the to industrial sectors has posed serious problems in the work problems of congestion and disorderly land use pattern. e.g., areas, in terms of losses have resulted in great economic These ... The congested and consumed but scarce energy resources. lavishingly such as traffic- jammed city has to face many other related problems and public utilities inadequate floods, pollution, environmental social services, a shortage of housing, and increasing slum areas ... rapid increase in urban population is putting great pressure . . . The to capacity on the services sector which has reached its absorptive A section of the urban poor population is satisfy the urban demands. The problem thus inevitably condemned to be without proper housing. acute among the migrant labourers from up country, is particularly most of whom are unskilled and are more likely to be given temporary and shortage has forced them to live in slums housing The jobs. shanty towns, which are known to be breeding groups of problems ... issue is how to slow ... The major development population growth and to lessen its economic dominance 1982:148-149) . In order to bring about more balanced population the

country,

the

rural development

and industrial

introduced during the Fifth National Development five

next

years

in the Sixth National

down Bangkok's ... " (NESDB, redistribution

decentralization

within

programs

Plan will be pursued during the

Development

Plan

(1987-1991) .

These

programs include: -

development development development development

of of of of

Bangkok Metropolitan Area and its vicinity towns; regional urbanization plan; the Eastern Seaboard Sub-Region; and low order centers and rural communities.

63

Impact on Economic Structure

C.

ON ECONOMIC STRUCTURE:

IMPACT OF MIGRATION

of studies

number

A

Mera, 1973:309-324;

have associated (e.g.,

buildup of urban concentrations

Williamson,

the costs,

-

general,

In

migration

however, individuals and families

1965; Fukuchi, 1969, cited in of the growth of large cities,

may be summarized

those

with

the problems of unemployment,

wages with unfavorable

working conditions

that the newcomers

who focus their attention

Migration Lost

a

represents

primarily

are

above

rural averages,

labor

persons from 15 to 29 years

terms of education

in

selective

in rural areas.

and skill levels but,

urban differentials

place most migrants at a distinct

disadvantage

associated

at very

low

Many if

not

derive

that

Onchan

(1985:447)

led

and

supply of

chiefly

are

human

generally

age,

Migration

also

is

although these tend and

to

skills

impact that an analysis

in household size as a result of out-migration

and

on

in the urban setting.

when only moves of five years or more were involved.

64

face.

in both schooling

It was noted in the section on demographic

Adulvidhaya

for jobs

on the impact of out-migration

transfer of both

the prime years of productivity

considered

and employment

origin report that its effects on the rural economy

of

negative.

At the micro-level,

Poverty and slum residence are underemployment

as

growth.

Scholars area

economic development.

seen

thus

rural to urban areas is

migrants fail to share in the economic benefits

rural-urban

from metropolitan

by

as follows:

migrating to Bangkok face competition

already resident there.

from

capital.

from

to both urban and national

beneficial

change

the

with

income rises as the size of the city increases; metropolitan areas provide higher wages; per capita costs in the social sector are generally lower in the large cities; large cities generate faster national economic growth; and the process of economic development is closely associated with metropolitan expansion.

-

rank

both,

researchers,

development

economic

The benefits

Gilbert, 1976) .

which they saw as outweighing

the

This

effects.

and academic.

governmental

most

and also to

to policy makers and planners

generally

applies

greater

receive

to

tend

environmental

social and

the demographic,

do

than

attention

migration

of

consequences

economic

The

to

the

of

appeared relatively slight A review of the literature conclusions

that

rural

Impact on Economic Structure

production

rural-urban

movement and the farming calendar"

the households

the agricultural level

of

of changes

production absence

The

especially

This demographic

labor

shortage

adaptation

take

on

may

rural families

for

agricultural

received

from town to hire extra labor for farm work,

intensive

crops.

is unavailable production If

or too expensive,

In the

adapt

can

work,

use

to

were

the left

remittances

or switch to less

labor

the result may be a reduction of

agricultural

(Kols and Lewison,

1983:M260) .

or even leaving the land uncultivated

remain unsolved in the long term they would not only have a

impact on the economic situation

in the community

unchanged.

Where the absence of male manpower is too great or hired labor

these situations

strong

out-

of the community.

be that the women and children who

more responsibility

and

productivity

remains

in the economic structure

is not too serious,

the

of mobility.

can have economic consequences.

effect of out-migration

Where

level

of

evident

productivity

labor

in its coverage

areas where the fertility

it may lead to changes

behind

It is

ratio for those remaining in the areas of

case,

The

East.

Over one-fifth

of migrants in the prime years of economic

in

(1983:281)

mainly in the Middle

in rural labor supply,

worst

situation.

Pitayanon

appeared to remain unchanged.

must be comprehensive

tends to increase the dependency migration,

absent

reported an increase in the hiring of labor and

agricultural production

agricultural

articulation

of

in the Northeast where a total of over one-

had members employed overseas,

households

assessment

an

that

observed that short

67 per cent of the household heads were female.

As a result,

villages in the

with many movers

both.

for

workers

of

lack

villages showed "an important

and

supply

movement (sometimes

migration

(1983:84)

Fuller et al.

carried out a survey of two villages half

circular

In a survey of selected

the planting or harvest seasons or

either

during

labor

rural

in

and international

regions,

the

from

absences

between

are shorter term moves,

of one or two years.

and Northeastern

Northern

of reduction

sources

migration)

to as seasonal

periods ordinarily

term

as

serious

productivity

agricultural referred

affected.

had not been seriously More

agricultural

that

and

the rural labor force

reduced

not

had

out-migration

through the disruption

but would also alter social of family structure,

conditions

changing the

role

of women, etc.

65

Impact on Economic Structure

of

role

the

mechanism

or for productive

purposes

consumption

Oberai and Singh,

amounts of remittances households

village

that household heads usually expressed migration

considered

a means of lessening Fuller

al.

et

indicated

out-migration.

toward

members

young and single family

the

of

Urbanward

(Tirasawat, as

(1976)

and Griffin

(1983) cited Leffert (1974)

was

especially

burdens of the family

the financial

data

The

Movement and Development

positive attitudes

appear

generally

households.

of the rural

Migratory

the 1981 Survey on Population

1985:492).

the remittances

to

reporting that a large majority of rural household heads viewed out-migration areas or commuting

urban

to the

returning on weekends

most of the household heads felt

to rural communities;

as beneficial

villages,

to nearby towns to work,

of

related

of

relative to the incomes of migrants and

help in improving the income situation

from

Although full details

1983:16-17).

are not readily available,

for 1972;

Eicher,

investment (Byer lee and

Fuller et al.,

1980;

or both. used

are transferred to rural areas where they can be

funds

Urban-earned

areas

urban

in

migrants

show that

retain ties to their home areas through visits or remittances

generally

the

has an economic effect on the sending

1980:123) .

migration studies

of

number

A

to

through which migration

(Miro and Potter,

communities

constitute

either in cash or in kind,

of origin,

from

Remittances

areas.

rural

in developing

urban remittances

migrants to their communities another

in the field of migration have studied

many researchers

More recently,

that the moves should be encouraged. Studies

sent to villages of

For example,

contracts.

two-year

Fuller et al.

luxuries, rather than for productive investment. tend to discourage

for

urban

designed

experienced

66

have

either of necessities

of

the

In many cases remittances

toward development

viewed from the short term household rather than as

that

as a

within the

term

from

community, to

contributing long

or

the

investment

to increase productivity. Pitayanon

income

is

migration welfare

immediate

the progress

found

(1983:16-17)

to rural areas were used for consumption,

remittances

towns

origin

on circular movement or migration of workers to the Middle East on one-

focussed or

the uses of remittances

of

after

heavy

(1983:292-296) out-migration

surveyed

two Northeastern

of workers to the Middle

household members were employed overseas

villages that East.

The

increased over

had

average 350

per

Impact on Economic Structure

cent. and

The author notes that while there was significant consumer

expenditures

durables on

a majority of the households

health,

numbers of households

education,

savings

spending on consumption

also

reported

and repayment

of

debt.

to assess the amounts remitted to rural

areas by internal migrants who have been away five years or more, of remittances

Smaller

spent more on land, housing and agricultural productivity.

Data are not readily available

made

increased

but the

of short term movers are probably equally applicable

uses in the

case of long term migrants. Stark remittances

for

inducing

funds

accounts

has proposed that the

to agricultural development

intervention, utilize

(1982)

more

migrants

contribution

urban-to-rural

could be increased through institutional

to remit more and their rural

productively.

He has suggested

special

households remittance

with matching loans or grants to be extended when funds are

use in introducing new or improved technologies.

would

of

to bank

withdrawn

Careful study and testing

be required to determine whether a scheme of this type can be adapted

function

effectively To

impact

on

in the rural Thai context.

conclude, both

rural

it and

is evident that migration can have urban areas

demographic, social,

environmental

are

harmful

beneficial

receiving areas.

or

to

through

the

changes

and economic conditions.

varies

a

with circumstances

considerable it

brings

in

Whether the changes in

both

sending

Determining factors also include the volume of migration,

and the

characteristics of those whose moves are short term or long term, the absorptive capacity

of

migrant

and

the

non-migrant

which political, receiving

areas of destination

areas

populations.

and the degree

homogeneity

Of primary importance

economic and social institutional undertake

of

structures

to evaluate and solve conflicts

is the

of

extent

the to

in the sending and and

problems

that

arise.

67

Impact on Economic Structure

63

Chapter VI CONCLUSION

A.

LINKAGES

BETWEEN

Despite have

attempted

MACRO-MICRO

the extensive

to investigate

development.

As

distribution

policies

this

efforts

monograph

development level.

is

determinants

meant

to

is

in developing

areas.

This

examine

the

relationship

and

better

process,

migration

determining migration at

that influence

the

understanding movement

and direct

had become a center of attention

countries and

cities,

and micro

of

and

the

thus

migration

owes much to the influx of migrants

planners.

Migration

for development

distribution of population

economically

population

development

between

and

to

to the

development.

as a mechanism

developing

movement

comprehensive

of long term population

policies

and development

the

include

provide knowledge

countries

pattern

administrators

between population

few studies

evident that the enormous growth of the populations

cities

primate

the relationship

consequences

benefit of the country's

between

research on migration in Thailand,

are being made to

to

formulating

It

MOVEMENT

as an integral part of the national

seeks

and

in

perceived

ON POPULATION

at the macro level and factors

It

assist

PERSPECTIVE

from

rural

governments,

as it helped to maintain However,

to contribute

to

their

the

migration

especially

about their effect on

overall

was

balance

maladjustments

and the high urban growth rates,

have raised questions

major

in developed countries

and resources.

has the potential

socially

for

of

in both

in

the

national

economic and social development. From contributed city,

living

is located, and

sources

of

to urban growth

Metropolis,

regional differences

lifetime

available

substantially

Bangkok

population

the

accounted

in municipal

clear

that

and in 1980 of

Bangkok was responsible

between the Central

and the rest of the country. five-year

in Thailand

is

for almost two-thirds

areas.

in urbanization

data it

other

the the

primate country's

for the

marked

region, within which it

Bangkok Metropolis

migrants from every

migration

region.

itself gained both The

1980

Census

Macro-Micro Linkages

indicates

that

substantial

during the five years preceding

A

migration

many

a

magnet,

have asserted that this large volume of

was in part the result of past development

which have favored urban areas.

in

had

numbers of rural migrants.

number of migration studies

rural-urban

have

region

net gain but it was Bangkok Metropolis which served as the

drawing significant

Thailand

1980 the Central

ways

encouraged

The urban-biased

unintentionally

the

policies

development

unequal

in

policies

distribution

of

population. A suggests the

review

of

past

national

that this assumption

first

production

two

development

was

satisfactory

inequalities

economic and

is basically correct. plans but

(1961-1971) it

was

social

development

plans

It was evident that

during

the

national

accompanied

by

between regions and various income groups. (1972-1976

and 1977-1981)

emphasized

growth

rate

increasing

The Third

income

and

Five-Year

Plans

programs that

alleviate

the problems of a widening income gap and economic disparities

of

Fourth

sought

to

within

and between regions. Although

the period of the first four development

plans

(1961-1981)

recorded national

gains in both gross domestic product and in per capita income,

the

in

urban

bias

regional, Fourth

urban-rural

Plan

million

the

people,

activities. migration, and

the distribution of and Bangkok-other

Bangkok

Metropolis

dominating

A significant supplemented

urban disparities.

exacerbated By the end of

was a modern metropolis

country's

proportion

inputs

economic,

of

social

by circular' movement from rural areas.

of economic development

Government rural

concern over unplanned population

both to discourage rural-urban

pressure with its attendant centers

outside

Development

Plan.

of

the

the five

political long term

Both migrants provided by

the

especially

from

shifts and to relieve urban

social problems. Bangkok Metropolis

in the Fourth Plan.

shifts,

has been reflected in various

Direct measures affecting

were first introduced

and

the

within the Metropolis.

areas to the Bangkok Metropolis,

intended

almost

of its growth has resulted from

movers were drawn primarily by the perceived opportunities

concentration

70

the

development

The proposal was

population

to promote new

initiated

population

policies

during

distribution,

the

urban Third

however,

Macro-Micro

The 1980 Census of Thailand and

programs,

distribution

adopted

a

Thailand

to play an important role in

approach to harmony."

The

further

has

indicated that macro-level

economic

examination

disparities

and

movement,

especially

factors

of data from various surveys factors such as

between regions and

for permanent

migration.

sex and education

These characteristics,

determining

moves.

is therefore

and,

The findings

for

and deserve more attention

to

in identifying linkages

in

population

a

micro-

macro-micro

very important. were

generally marital

with other elements such

individual

imply

should not be overlooked researchers

development

to a lesser degree,

combined

in

differences

in Thailand

that

play an important role determining migration,

assist

conducted

and the use of

family and other social factors which influenced

factors

population-

national

urban-rural

data sources show that migrants

status and occupation.

in

Plan

stressed

Migration also involves

such as individual characteristics

in terms of age,

important

that

income levels provide only a partial explanation

Available

as

development

Fifth

A brief summary of the

link approach to understand the migration process

selective

population

As a result the

national

policies

is included in the next section.

education

level

new

progress with national

related programs

plans,

had continued

in the wake of economic disparities.

(1982-1986) "economic

migration

revealed that, despite government

Linkages

decisions,

while

macro-level

the micro-level

from investigators

between

were

macro-and

factors in

order

micro-level

factors. The

selectivity

of

migrants can be expected

to

economic and social effects on both sending and receiving analysis

of

available.

there is no consensus The cross-sectional

from

on

many

capacity

duration

the volume of movement,

of the moves,

and

development.

that the extent

characteristics or

depend of

temporary,

the the

to adjust to and absorb the movers

of the moves for both migrants and non-migrants

solutions

the

presently

contradictory

to national

whether moves are permanent

of places of origin and destination

evaluated and satisfactory

However,

movement on the sending or receiving areas

including

and whether the consequences

demographic,

of data

evidence reviewed in this monograph suggests

the effects of population factors,

various sources quite often are

on whether migration contributes

of

movers,

areas.

these effects was restricted by the limitations Findings

have

are

found for specific problems.

71

Policies

B.

and Planning

POLICIES

Outlook

AND PLANNING

Governments policies

intended

population migration -

of

many

-

however,

variety

through

of

influencing

or adopted to discourage

apparent that most of these policies have been limited

scope and have had little success

programs

impact,

to

tending

migration. networks

For

1983:M267).

Moreover, it has been suggested

promote

instance,

rather than discourage

the improvement

Thailand

was

mentioned

country's

difference other

of

city and its environs,

implementing redirect

is

in attempting

essential

rural and agricultural the establishment communities,

that

existing development migration

mixed

communication those

who

streams

the

programs

and the of

and this discrepancy

reduce

city

remain

Therefore,

rural-urban

will

it is

migration

inputs between areas and, perhaps more government

exert

greater

in the Sixth Five-Year

programs,

of growth centers,

the utilization

to

in The

concentration

in the primate

to other urban areas.

development

development

inequalities.

than those in the remainder of the country.

the government,

it

economic

is seen as resulting from the

to narrow the gap in development

important,

that

rural-urban

size of Bangkok Metropolis

as long as social and economic conditions

task

and

by regional and urban-rural

between the population

urban centers

attractive

down

the outward movement of

earlier that social and

economic growth in the capital continue

or slow

to

1983:54-60).

have been characterized

substantial

could have a

of transportation

and access to mass media stimulate

It

streams,

in stopping migration flows from rural

and some other related activities

live in rural areas (Rhoda,

72

distribution

a

or to direct the flows of movement away from large cities include:

rural development

to

have tried

Measures that have been initiated

urban areas (Kols and Lewison,

the

countries

to achieve more equitable

movement.

It is,

more

developing

adoption of "site and services" approach to accommodate migrants who settle on the outskirts; rural development programs to create more jobs in rural areas; limitations on urban housing and employment; control of individual movement by passes and permits; incentives for industry and workers to move to small cities; emphasis on small scale rural industries; colonization policies to support new cities in rural or frontier areas; and establishment of new capital cities and growth centers.

-

in

OUTLOOK

These

of rural communities

of low-order

in

Plan that seek

programs

a regional development

development

effort

include

program with

centers

and rural

as main local service

centers

for

and plans to diffuse growth

and marketing,

agriculture

activities

inclusion

of programs designed to influence migration

of

national

better

Too

movements

is available

longitudinal

and achieving

and

non-movers sending

and

economic,

their

receiving

Improvements

research. population motivate

The complexity

studies.

demographic

areas

long term

a

and

receiving

and

permanent

on the effects of seasonal

adequate knowledge

of the relationships

to the

in the effectiveness

will

depend

as

well

as

migration

social and political

point

movement movers

of

and

practices.

and commuting

short term movements,

sending

upon

It is evident that long term and permanent by

part

patterns as integral

about the effects of

known

is

little

and even less information

migration circular

the impact of migration

of

The

towns.

planning gives renewed emphasis to the importance

development

understanding

areas.

decentralize

and

from the capital city to the major surrounding

economic

Outlook

and Planning

Policies

necessity

of

movers

between

for

of government

migrants'

requires the use

consequences

upon better insight into

knowledge

is often preceded

more

programs the

economic,

of and both

for

micro-level to

modify

factors social

that and

characteristics.

73

Policies and Planning Outlook

74

REFERENCES ABU-LUGHOD, Janet. to City Life: Adjustment "Migration 1961 67:22-32. Journal of Sociology

The

ADEPOJU, Aderanti. and Development in Tropical 1977 "Migration 76:210-225. African Affairs ties."

Egyptian

Africa:

American

Case."

Priori-

Some Research

ADULAVIDHAYA, Kampol, and ONCHAN, Tongroj . Past and Future." and Agricultural Development of Thailand: "Migration 1985 edited by Philip M. In Urbanization and Migration in ASEAN Development, Tokyo: National Daniel B. Suits and Naohiro Ogawa, pp. 427-454. Hauser, Institute for Research Advancement. ARNOLD, 1975

Fred, and PHANANIRAMAI , Mattana. Estimates of the 1970 Population of Thailand. Revised Bangkok: National Statistical Office. no.l.

ARNOLD, 1977

Fred; RETHERFORD, Robert D.; and WANGLEE, Anuri. Papers of the East-West The Demographic Situation in Thailand. Honolulu: East-West Center. tion Institute, no. 45.

Research Paper,

Popula-

ASEAN Committee on Social Development. of In Report Thailand." in Relation to Rural Development: "Migration 1977 ASEAN 77 ASEAN Workshop on Migration in Relation to Rural Development. Bangkok. SD/Work Mig.l/Rpt.l, pp. Doc. A. 4. 1-11. BEIER, G.J. Can Third World Cities Cope? 1976 Bureau.

Washington,

D.C.:

Population

Reference

BOURGEOIS— PICHAT, Jean. for an "An Attempt to Appraise the Accuracy of Demographic Statistics 1974 In Perspective on Thai Population, Thailand." Under-developed Country: no. 11. Report, Research Studies of Population Institute pp.1-31. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. BROWNING, Harley L. in Developing and the Growth of Large Cities Selectivity "Migrant 1972 and policy Consequences Growth, In Rapid Population Societies." of Academy of the National Papers vol. II, Research Implications, Baltimore: The John Hopkins Press. Sciences, pp. 273-314. BYERLEE, Derek, and EICHER, Carl K. Rural Employment, Migration and Economic Development: Theoretical Issues 1972 Employment, Rural African from Africa. Evidence Empirical and Michigan State Department of Agricultural Economics, Michigan: no.l. University. CENTRAL 1961 1962

STATISTICAL OFFICE. Thailand Population Thailand

Population

Census 1960: Changwat

Series.

Census 1960: Whole Kingdom.

Bangkok. Bangkok.

and KANUNGSUKKASEM , Krittiya; ARCHAVANITKUL, Aphichat; CHAMRATRITHIRONG, Uraiwan. A Follow-up Study of Migrants’ Migrants in Bangkok Metropolis: 1979 Recent Bangkok: Institute for PopuAssimilation and Integration. Adjustment, lation and Social, Research, Mahidol University. CHIRAPANDA, Suthiporn, and TAMRONGTANYALAK , Worwate. Bangkok: Mass Medias. Resettlement in Thailand. 1980

References

CONNELL, John, et al. 1976 Migration from Rural Areas: Oxford University Press. 1981

Delhi:

The Evidence from Village Studies.

In Remittances and Rural Development in the South Pacific." "Migration Southeast Asia and the Pacific, Mobility and Development: Population Development Studies Jones and H.V. Richter, pp. 229-255. edited by G.W. Centre Monograph, no. 27. Canberra: The Australian National University.

Samruay; CHALOTHORN, Thip; and SIRIPAK, Wiwit. DAS GUPTA, Ajit; CHOTECHANAPIBAL, Thai on In Perspective of Thailand." Perspective "Population 1974 Institute of Population Studies Research Report, pp. 33-78. Population, no. 11. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. DAVIS, Kingsley. of "The Theory 1963 Population Index

Change and Response 29:345-366.

in

Modern

Demographic

History."

D E JONG, Gordon F., and FAWCETT, James T. and a Value-Expectancy An Assessment for Migration: "Motivations 1981 Multidisciplinary Making: Decision In Migration Model." Research Countries, Approaches to Microlevel Studies in Developed and Developing New York: Pergamon d e Jong and R.W. Gardner, pp. 13-58. edited by G.F. Press. D E JONG, Gordon F., and GARDNER, Robert w. , eds. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Decision Making: Migration 1981 New York: Pergamon countries. in Developed and Developing Studies Press. Aurapin; and NOKYOONGTHONG , BUNNAG, Pannee; PRACHUABMOH, Nibhon; DEBAVALYA, Ma-yuree. Bangkok: Institute 1983 A Study of Four Improved Congested Areas in Bangkok. of and Department University Chulalongkorn Studies, of Population Health, Bangkok Metropolitan Administration. FINDLEY, Sally. for Internal 1977 Planning Developing Countries. Census.

Migration: IPS-RD-4.

in A Review of Issues and Policies Washington, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the

FREEDMAN, Ronald. Survey in the Comparative Analysis of World Fertility Issues 1979 Honolulu: no. 62. Papers of the East-West Population Institute, West Center.

Data. East-

FULLER, 1979

Theodore D. Population In Redistribution." Population "Rural-to-Urban Policies and Prospects, edited by L.A. Peter Patterns, Redistribution: New York: UNFPA. Gosling and Linda Y.C. Lim, pp. 24-48.

FULLER,

Peerasit; KAMNUANSILPA, D.; Theodore RATHANAMONGKOLMAS , Sawaeng . Migration and Development in Modern Thailand. Association of Thailand.

1983 FULTON, 1979

LIGHTFOOT, Bangkok:

Paul;

and

social Science

John P. Instiof Selected Aspects of the 1970 Census of Thailand. Evaluation tute of Population Studies working Paper, no. 29. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

GARDNER, Robert W. In Migration "Macrolevel Influences on the Migration Decision Process." 1981 in Multidisciplinary Approaches to Microlevel Studies Decision Making: edited by Gordon F. de Jong and and Developing Countries, Developed New York: Pergamon Press. Robert W. Gardner, pp. 59-89.

76

References

GOLDSCHEIDER, Calvin, ed. Patterns Nations: in Developing Migrants 1983 Urban Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Adjustment. 1984

and

Problems

of

Rural Migration in Developing Nations: Comparative Studies of Korea, Sri Lanka and Mali. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.

GOLDSTEIN, Sidney. Interrelations between Migration and Fertility in Population Redistribu1971 Institute of Population Studies Research Paper, no. 5. tion in Thailand. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. 1978

Papers Circulation in the Context of Total Mobility in Southeast Asia. East-West Honolulu: no. 53. Institute, of the East-West Population Center.

GOLDSTEIN, Sidney, and GOLDSTEIN, Alice. of Migration in Development Countries: A Methodological Review. 1981 Survey, EastHonolulu: no. 71. Papers of the East-West Population Institute, West Center. 1986

Papers of the EastA twenty-five-year review. Migration in Thailand: West Population Institute, no. 100. Honolulu: East-West Center.

GOLDSTEIN, Sidney, and PITAKTEPSOMBATI, Pichit. Migration and Urban Growth in Thailand: An Exploration of Interrelations 1974 Institute of Population Recency and Frequency of Moves. among Origin, Studies Research Report, no. 14. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. GOLDSTEIN, Sidney, and TIRASAWAT, Penporn. Papers of The Fertility of Migrants to Urban Places in Thailand. 1977 East-West Population Institute, no. 43. Honolulu: East-West Center. GRIFFIN, K. "On the Emigration 1976

of the Peasantry."

World

Development

HAUSER, Philip M.; SUITS Daniel B.; and OGAWA, Naohiro, eds. Tokyo: Urbanization and Migration in ASEAN Development. 1985 tute for Research Advancement. INSTITUTE OF POPULATION STUDIES. Migration in Relation to Rural Development: Self-help 1981 Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University. Thailand. JONES, Gavin W. , and RICHTER, H.V., eds. Mobility and Development: Population 1981 Development studies Center Monograph, National University.

the

4:353-361. National Insti-

Land Settlement

in

Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Canberra: The Australian no. 27.

KOLS, Adrienne, and LEWISON, Dana. Population Migration, Population Growth and Development. 1983 M , no. 7. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University.

Reports Series

KONGSIRI, Sarawudh. an Overview of ASEAN Countries." Mobility and Development, 1980 "Population on Conference at the 1980 Development Studies Center presented Paper Population Mobility and Development, 8-10 October 1980, Canberra. KUZNETS, Simon, and THOMAS, Dorothy S. Reprint The Bobbs-Merrill and Economic Growth." Migration 1958 "Internal Reprinted from Selected Studies S-439. Series. in the Social Sciences, Millbank Memorial Fund. of Migration Since World War II, pp. 196-211. LEE, Everett S. "A Theory of Migration." 1966

Demography

3:47-57.

77

References

LIGHTFOOT, Paul, and FULLER, Theodore D. 1983 "Circular Rural-Urban Movement and Development Thailand." Geoforum 14:277-287. LIPTON, 1980

Planning

in

Northeast

Michael. "Migration from Rural Areas of Poor Countries: The Impact on Productivity and Income Distribution." World Development 8:1-24.

MEINKOTH, Marian R. 1962 "Migration in Thailand with Particular Reference Economic and Business Research Bulletin 14:2-45.

to

MERA, Koichi. 1973 "On the Urban Agglomeration and Economic Efficiency." ment and Cultural Change 21:309-324.

the

Rural

Northeast."

Economic Develop-

MIRO, Carmen A., and POTTER, Joseph E. 1980 "Internal Migration." In Population Policy: Research Priorities in Developing world, edited by Carmen A. Miro and Joseph E. Potter, pp.118132. London: France Printer. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD. 1967 Government of Thailand: The Second Development Plan (1967-1971) . Bangkok.

National

Economic

and

Social

1972

Government Development

of Thailand: The Third Plan (1972-1976) . Bangkok.

1977

Government Development

of Thailand: The Fourth Plan (1977-1981) . Bangkok.

National

Economic

and

Social

1982

Government Development

The Fifth of Thailand: Plan (1982-1986) . Bangkok.

National

Economic

and

Social

NATIONAL STATISTICAL OFFICE. 1973a 1970 Population & Housing Census: 1973b 1970 Population

& Housing Census:

National

Changwat

Economic

Series.

Whole Kingdom.

Bangkok.

The Survey of Population

1982

1980 Population

& Housing Census:

Bangkok Metropolis.

1983a 1980 Population

& Housing Census:

Central

1983b 1980 Population

& Housing Census:

Northern

1983c 1980 Population

& Housing Census:

Northeastern

1983d 1980 Population

& Housing Census:

Southern

1983e 1980 Population

& Housing Census:

Whole Kingdom.

1986 OBERAI, 1980

Statistical

Yearbook:

Thailand.

No. 34.

Social

Bangkok.

1978

Change 1974-1976.

and

Bangkok.

Region. Region.

Bangkok.

Bangkok. Bangkok.

Region.

Region.

Bangkok

Bangkok. Bangkok.

Bangkok.

A.S., and SINGH, H.K. Manmohan. "Migration, Remittances and Rural Development: Findings of a Case Study in the Indian Punjab." international Labour Review 119:229-240.

PANEL ON THAILAND, COMMITTEE ON POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHY. 1980 Fertility and Mortality Changes in Thailand 1950-1975. Population and Demography Report, no. 2. Washington, Academy of Sciences.

Committee on D.C.: National

PAVICHIT, Chamriang. 1972 "A Study of Population Migrating to Settle Down in the Land Self-Help Settlement of Thung Pho Thale, Changwat Kamphaeng Phet." Second Exhibition of Sociology and Anthropology, Thammasat University. (Thai) 78

References

PEJARANONDA, Chintana; GOLDSTEIN, Sidney; and GOLDSTEIN, 1980 Population and Housing Census. Migration: 1984 Bangkok: National Statistical Office.

Alice. Subject Report,

no. 2.

PIAMPITI, Suwanlee. of Region on Urban Development in the Southern of Migration 1976 Effects International Singapore: no. 9. Report, Research SEAPRAP Thailand. Development Research Centre. 1985

Internal

Migration

in Thailand

1970-80.

Bangkok:

Parbpim.

PITAYANON, Sumalee. Workers "The Impact of Short-term Contract Overseas Employment of Thai 1983 A Case Study of on the Economy of Rural Households and Communities: in In Population and Development Interactions Villages." Northeastern Bangkok: pp. 271-306. Prasith-rathsint, by Suchart edited Thailand, Microlevel Studies Program on Population and Development Interactions in Thailand. PORNCHOKCHAI, Sopon. 1985 1020 Bangkok Slums: Press.

Evidence,

Analysis,

Critics.

Bangkok: Darnsutha

PRACHUABMOH, Vis id, et al. Comparative of Thailand: Rural and Urban Populations 1972 The no. 8. Report, Research Studies, of Population Institute Chulalongkorn University.

Profiles. Bangkok:

PRACHUABMOH, Visid, and TIRASAWAT, Penporn. Institute of Population Internal Migration in Thailand. 1974 Paper, no. 7. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University.

Studies Working

PRYOR, Robin J . , ed. and Development 1979a Migration University Press.

Lumpur:

1979b The Motivation sity.

of Migration.

in South-East Canberra:

PRZEWORSKI, Adam, and TEUNE, Henry. 1970 The Logic of Comparative Social Inquiry. RAVENSTEIN, E.G. "The Laws of Migration." 1885 235.

Journal

Asia.

Kuala

The Australian

Oxford

National Univer-

New York: John Wiley and Sons.

of the Statistical

XLVI:167-

Society

RHODA, Richard. Can we Keep Them Down on and Urban Migration: 1983 "Rural Development 17:34-64. International Migration Review Farm?" RUNGPITARANGSI, Benjawan. Estimates for the in Thailand: Trends Mortality 1974 Paper, Working Studies of Population Institute Chulalongkorn University.

Period no. 10.

1937-1970. Bangkok:

SHAW, R. Paul. of and Bibliography A Review and Fact: Theory Migration 1975 Philadelphia: Regional Science Research Institute. Literature. SIMMONS, Alan B. 1979 "Slowing Results."

City Growth Metropolitan Population and Development

in Asia: Policies 5:87-104. Review

the

Current

Programs

and

STARK, Oded. Frontier on Rural-to-urban Migration in LDCs: The Confusion 1982 "Research 10:63World Development and why We Should Pause to Rethink Afresh." 70.

79

References

TIRASAWAT, Penporn. 1970 "Factors Affecting Migration in Rural Thailand." thesis (Thai) , Chulalongkorn University. 1985

TODARO, 1980

Micheal P. "Internal Migration in Developing Countries: A Survey." In Population and Economic Change in Developing Countries, edited by Richard Easterlin, pp.361-402. Chicago: The University of Chicago. Country,

Migration, Urbanization and Development in Thailand. on Migration, Urbanization and Development in the Reports, no. 5. Bangkok.

WORKING GROUP ON POPULATION PROJECTIONS. 1983 Population Projections for Thailand: Whole 1970-2005. Bangkok: Institute of Population University.

80

Master's

"The Impact of Migration on Conditions at the Origin: A Study on Selected Villages in Thailand." In Urbanization and Migration in ASEAN Development, edited by Philip M. Hauser, Daniel B. Suits and Naohiro Ogawa, pp.475-496. Tokyo: National Institute for Research Advancement.

UNITED NATIONS. 1979 World Population Trends and Prospects by Report of the 1978 Assessment. New York. 1982

Unpublished

1950-2000:

Summary

Comparative Study Region. Country

Kingdom Studies,

and Regions, Chulalongkorn