LECTURE 2:�THEORIES OF MIGRATION

Kojo Gyabaah, Ph.D & Felix Kofi Damte

North Campus

Department of Geography Education

University of Education, Winneba

GEOG 245

MIGRATION AND DEVELOPMENT

AIM OF THEORIES

• Examine variety of theoretical models available. Appraise both the micro- and macro- levels theories.
• Lee’ Push-pull theory
• Gravity model
• Zelinsky’s mobility transition theory
• Ravenstein’s law of migration

​

• It focuses on primary assumptions of the most popular theories of migration and present them as synthetic as possible.
• To understand why some people migrate and others do not.

PUSH – PULL THEORY

• Context
• Migrations as the response of individual decision-makers.

​

• Negative or push factors in his/her current area of residence:
• High unemployment and little opportunity, great poverty, high crime, repression or a recent disaster (e.g., drought or earthquake).

​

• Positive or pull factors in the potential destination:
• High job availability and higher wages, more exciting lifestyle, political freedom, greater safety and security, etc.

LEE’S PUSH-PULL FACTORS

Pull Factors

• Job opportunities
• Better living conditions
• Political and/or religious freedom
• Enjoyment
• Education
• Better medical care
• Attractive climates
• Security
• Family links
• Industry
• Better chances of marrying

​

Push factors

• Not enough jobs
• Few opportunities
• Primitive conditions
• Desertification
• Famine or drought
• Political fear or persecution
• Poor medical care
• Loss of wealth
• Natural disasters
• Death threats
• Lack of political or religious freedom
• Pollution
• Poor housing
• Landlord/tenant issues
• Bullying
• Discrimination
• Poor chances of marrying

INTERVENING OPPORTUNITIES OBSTACLES

• Intervening obstacles: Barriers that hinder migration between origin and destination.
• Migration/transportation costs, visa and immigration laws and policies, war/conflict, language barrier, physical barriers (borders), etc.

​

• Intervening opportunities: potential destinations between origin and destination that may attract or divert migrants.
• Jobs in a mid-sized city, emerging economies, transit countries as destination countries, family networks, educational institutions, etc.

​

THE PROBLEM OF PERCEPTION

• Assumes rational behavior on the part of the migrant:
• Not necessarily true since a migrant cannot be truly informed.
• The key word is perception of the pull factors.
• Information is never complete.
• Decisions are made based upon perceptions of reality at the destination relative to the known reality at the source.
• When the migrant’s information is highly inaccurate, a return migration may be one possible outcome.

GRAVITY MODEL

Historical evolution

• The Gravity Model of Migration states that the force between two objects is proportional to their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them.
• The model suggests that migration flows between two places are influenced by their population sizes (economic mass) and the distance between them.
• The concept was first adapted to social sciences by Henry Carey (1858), who applied it to trade and urban interactions.
• Ravenstein’s “Laws of Migration” (1885, 1889) laid the groundwork by observing that most migrants move short distances and that large cities attract more migrants.
• Geographers (Zipf, 1946; Stewart, 1948) adapted it to migration, proposing that migration between two regions increases with their population sizes and decreases with distance.

GRAVITY MODEL

GRAVITY MODEL

Key assumptions

• Larger populations attract more migrants (more opportunities, networks).
• Distance acts as a deterrent (cost, information decay, cultural differences).
• No intervening opportunities (migrants choose directly between origin and destination).
• Symmetry (migration from A to B is similar to B to A, though this is often unrealistic).

​

GRAVITY MODEL

Contemporary relevance

• Predicting migration flows:
• Used by governments and NGOs to forecast internal and international migration trends.
• Refined versions in research:
• Modern adaptations include economic variables (GDP, wages), policy factors (border controls), and migrant networks.
• Random utility models (RUM) and radiation models have been proposed as alternatives.
• Policy & urban planning:
• Helps in infrastructure development, labor market analysis, and refugee settlement planning.
• Digital & Temporary Mobility:
• Applied to commuting patterns, tourism, and even digital labor migration (remote work).

GRAVITY MODEL

Critiques

• Oversimplification:
• Ignores individual motivations (e.g., economic, political, or family reasons).
• Assumes distance is the main barrier, but technology (e.g., air travel, internet) reduces its impact.
• Lack of socioeconomic factors:
• Does not account for income disparities, job opportunities, or policy barriers (e.g., visas).
• Fixed distance decay (β):
• The impact of distance may vary (e.g., rural vs. urban migration).
• Symmetry problem:
• Migration from a poor to a rich country is often higher than the reverse, but the model assumes proportionality.
• Neglects network effects:
• Existing migrant communities (chain migration) significantly influence flows, which the model does not capture well.

ZELINSKY’S MODEL OF MOBILITY TRANSITION

Historical evolution

• Wilbur Zelinsky’s (1971) Mobility Transition Model is a demographic theory with five (5) stages.
• Links migration patterns to stages of economic and social development, similar to the demographic transition model (DTM).
• It assumes that as societies modernize, their migration patterns evolve.
• DTM (Notestein, 1945) links population growth to industrialization.
• Ravenstein’s laws of migration (1885) – early observations on migration trends.
• Modernization theory – suggesting societies progress through linear stages.

ZELINSKY’S MODEL OF MOBILITY TRANSITION

Stages

• Stage 1: Pre-modern traditional society
• High fertility & mortality, low mobility.
• Limited local migration (rural-rural).
• Stage 2: Early transitional society
• Declining mortality, rising population.
• Mass rural-to-urban migration (internal migration).
• International emigration increases (e.g., 19th-century Europe to the Americas).
• Stage 3: Late transitional society
• Declining birth rates, urbanization peaks.
• Urban-to-urban migration dominates.

​

• Immigration of low-skilled labor to developed nations.

ZELINSKY’S MODEL OF MOBILITY TRANSITION

Stages

• Stage 4: Advanced society
• Low fertility, stabilized population.
• High intra-urban mobility (suburbanization)
• Skilled labor migration (brain drain/gain)
• Stage 5: Future Super-Advanced Society
• Hypothesized stage with reduced physical migration due to technology (telecommuting).
• Immigration of low-skilled labor to developed nations.

ZELINSKY’S MODEL OF MOBILITY TRANSITION

ZELINSKY’S MODEL OF MOBILITY TRANSITION

Contemporary relevance

• Understanding development-migration links
• Explains why developing countries experience massive rural-urban migration.
• Helps predict future migration trends in emerging economies.
• Policy implications
• Governments use it to anticipate labor shortages.
• Urban planners apply it to manage rapid urbanization (e.g., China’s hukou system reforms).
• Modified applications
• Revised versions incorporate forced migration, climate refugees, and transnationalism.
• Used alongside Lee’s Push-Pull Theory and Massey’s Cumulative Causation Theory for better accuracy.

ZELINSKY’S MODEL - CRITICSMS

• Overgeneralization and linearity
• Assumes all countries follow the same path (ignores unique historical, political, and cultural contexts). Example: Some oil-rich Gulf states skipped stages due to rapid urbanization fueled by foreign labor.
• Neglects forced migration
• Does not account for refugees, conflict-induced displacement, or environmental migrants. Example: Syrian refugee crisis (2010s) doesn’t fit neatly into the model.
• Technological changes unaccounted for
• The rise of digital nomadism, remote work, and globalization challenges the “super-advanced” stage predictions.
• Globalization’s impact
• Modern migration is more circular (back-and-forth) rather than unidirectional as suggested. Example: Mexican migration to the U.S. involves frequent returns.
• Urban bias
• Overemphasizes rural-urban shift; neglects counter urbanization (urban-to-rural moves in developed nations).

�RAVENSTEIN’S LAW OF MIGRATION

Historical evolution

• Ernst Georg Ravenstein, a German-English geographer, formulated his “Laws of Migration” in 1885. Based on an analysis of British census data.
• His work laid the foundation for modern migration studies and influences human geography, demography, and urban planning.
• Early 20th century: Ravenstein’s laws were foundational but seen as Eurocentric, based on 19th-century industrialization patterns.
• Mid-20th century: Scholars like Everett Lee (1966) expanded the theory, introducing push-pull factors and intervening obstacles.
• Late 20th century: Globalization, refugee crises, and transnational migration challenged Ravenstein’s focus on economic motives and short-distance moves.
• Gender & family dynamics: Later research showed women’s migration patterns are more complex (e.g., care labor migration).

�RAVENSTEIN’S LAW OF MIGRATION-PRINCIPLES

• Distance decay effect: Most migrants move short distances, with longer-distance migration typically directed toward major economic centers.
• Step migration: Migration occurs in stages, with rural inhabitants moving to nearby towns before relocating to larger cities.
• Urban-rural disparity: Rural areas experience higher out-migration than urban areas.
• Gender differences: Women are more likely to migrate short distances, while men dominate long-distance migration.
• Economic motivation: Most migration is driven by economic opportunities.

�RAVENSTEIN’S LAW OF MIGRATION-PRINCIPLES

• Counter-streams: For every major migration stream, a counter-stream develops (e.g., rural-to-urban vs. urban-to-rural).
• Youthful migrants: Most migrants are young adults.
• Technology & infrastructure: Improved transport (e.g., railways) facilitates migration.
• Urban growth: Cities grow more from migration than from natural population increase.
• Direction of flows: Migration flows are toward commercial and industrial hubs.
• Absorption & displacement: Large cities absorb migrants but also displace local populations outward.

���CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF RAVENSTEIN’S LAW

• Gender differences
• Most females migrate over short distances, but males move more frequently long distance and abroad. However, the trend is changing.
• Distance & step migration:
• Internal migration: Rural-urban flows in developing nations (e.g., China, India) follow Ravenstein’s patterns.
• Urban hierarchies: Step migration persists (e.g., from villages to megacities).
• Economic drivers:
• Global labor migration: Workers move from low-income to high-income regions (e.g., Mexico→USA, Philippines→Gulf States).
• Brain drain vs. gain: Skilled migrants follow economic incentives.

���CONTEMPORARY RELEVANCE OF RAVENSTEIN’S LAW

• Counter-streams & return migration:
• Deindustrialization: Some Western cities see urban-to-rural shifts (e.g., remote work post-COVID).
• Retirement migration: Older populations move to cheaper regions.
• Technology’s role:
• Digital nomadism: Remote work allows long-distance migration without economic hubs as destinations.
• Transport advances: Air travel enables transnational migration beyond Ravenstein’s scope.
• Refugees & forced migration:
• Unlike Ravenstein’s voluntary migrants, modern refugees flee conflict/climate disasters, complicating predictions.

���CRITIQUEs OF RAVENSTEIN’S LAW

• Overgeneralization and lack of diversity
• Ravenstein’s laws were based primarily on 19th-century European migration patterns, ignoring variations across cultures, economies, and political systems.
• Modern migration is influenced by forced displacement (refugees), climate migration, and transnational mobility, which his laws did not account for.
• Assumption of economic rationality
• Ravenstein assumed that migration is primarily driven by economic factors (e.g., moving for work).
• Critics argue that migration decisions are also shaped by social networks, political instability, environmental factors, and family ties, not just job opportunities.

���CRITIQUEs OF RAVENSTEIN’S LAW

• Underestimation of female migration
• While Ravenstein noted that women migrate more over short distances, his laws largely overlooked female independent migration.
• Today, women make up nearly half of global migrants, often moving for education, employment, or autonomy not just family reunification.

​

• Neglect of government policies and borders
• His laws did not consider how immigration policies, visas, and border controls restrict or redirect migration flows.
• Modern migration is heavily shaped by legal barriers (e.g., asylum laws, deportation policies), which were less stringent in Ravenstein’s time.

SUMMARY

• No one theory of migration can adequately explain this huge worldwide phenomenon.

​

• Each brings a contribution to the understanding of why people move.