The Logic of Letting Go: Family and Individual Migration from Rural

Bangladesh

Running Head: Family and Individual Migration from Rural Bangladesh

Randall S. Kuhn*
Josef Korbel School of International Studies
University of Denver

October 2010

* The author gratefully acknowledges the support of the International Pre-Dissertation

Fellowship of the Social Science Research Council (supported by Ford Foundation and
American Council of Learned Societies); the J. William Fulbright Scholarship (funded by United
States Information Agency, administered by Institute for International Education); the Population
Council Dissertation Fellowship in the Social Sciences; the Mellon Fund for Research in
Population in Developing Countries; and the University of Colorado Population Aging Center
(funded by National Institute on Aging). Many provided valuable commentary on the paper,
including Jane Menken, Douglas Massey, Leah Vanwey, Robert Retherford, Jeroen van
Ginneken, Lynn Karoly, Erin Trapp, Julie DaVanzo, Richard Rogers, Fernando Riosmena, Tania
Barham, and Linda Mamoun. Most of all, the author wishes to thank the research and technical
staff of the Matlab Health and Demographic Surveillance Unit at ICDDR,B: International Centre
for Health and Population Research, and the patient and thoughtful citizens of Matlab.

Author’s Contact Information

Randall Kuhn
Josef Korbel School of International Studies
2201 S. Gaylord St.
Denver, CO 80208
rkuhn@du.edu
Abstract

It is now understood that voluntary and forced migration constitute a continuum, yet this paper is

among the first studies to develop a theoretical test of these connections. Processes of family

migration that drive the global growth of informal settlements are driven by structural factors

such as environmental degradation and considerable individual selectivity. This paper introduces

a three-outcome model in which individual and family migration constitute distinct family

livelihood strategies: individual migration supplementation rural livelihoods while family

migration replaces a rural livelihood with an urban one. I test this model using 14 years of

migration data from the rural Matlab area of Bangladesh. Family migration becomes more likely

than individual migration for men with very low household land holdings. This effect is

exacerbated during the period following a catastrophic flood, when the likelihood of family

migration rose, particularly for landless men.

Keywords: Rural-Urban Migration, Family Migration, Bangladesh, Developing Countries

Kuhn
Introduction
Recent years have witnessed increasing concern about the growth of informal settlements or

slums in the megacities and rapidly emerging towns of the developing world. Informal

settlements pose many inherent challenges relating to the lack of property rights or tenure,

inaccessibility to markets and public services, and overcrowding (UN-Habitat 2003; Davis

2006). Yet the roots of many of these challenges lie in the underlying forces of economic

deprivation, social exclusion, and environmental degradation -- so called “push factors” -- that

drive rural-urban migration in the first place. Efforts to address the needs and harness the

capabilities of rural-urban migrants thus require an indepth understanding of the rural

vulnerabilities and selectivity behind the migration process.

Social scientists have developed an acute understanding of the heterogeneity in the

motivations for migration, particularly in relation to family livelihoods (Lindstrom and Lauster,

2001; Massey and Espinosa, 1997). The New Economics of Labour Migration has moved

migration theory beyond the simple idea of the lone migrant in search of personal advancement

by accounting for the role of migration in ensuring the collective security and livelihood of a

family unit living in two places at once (Stark 1991; VanWey, 2001). Contextual models account

for the role of ecological resources and other entitlements in individual- and family-level

decisions (Hunter 1998, 2005; Ezra and Kiros 2001; Henry et al. 2004; Massey et al. 2009).

Despite progress, few studies have addressed the distinct livelihood functions of different

modes of migration and their underlying forces of selectivity. One distinguishing characteristic

of many informal settlement dwellers is the movement of an entire family unit to the city, or

family migration, as opposed to the movement of only those family members most likely to find

employment in the city, or individual migration. Family migration poses numerous challenges

for migrants and for planners, including residential overcrowding, the need to provide social and
health services to new population groups, and the risk that children will opt out of school in

favour of labour market activity. Few demographic studies have modelled the movement of an

entire family, whether in a separate model or as a direct alternative to individual migration.

Instead, a separate literature on forced migration has emerged primarily in the fields of political

geography, refugee studies, and ecology. While many studies explore welfare outcomes among

forced migrants, few address the determinants of such moves beyond the occurrence of

precipitating crises such as conflict or disaster (Keely, Reed, and Waldman 2001).

Such crisis events constitute neither sufficient nor necessary condition for family

migration (Castles 2006). First, many family migration episodes would be traced not to a

particular crisis but to a gradual deterioration of social, economic, and ecological position. More

importantly, the vast majority of families move in or near their original location except in cases

of total catastrophe, while only a small share will make it to a city. As population growth and

climate change increase the occurrence of precipitating events, the magnitude and nature of

forced migration flows would depend greatly on the positive and negative forces of selectivity

that drive families to move to the city.

This paper develops a rational choice model of family and individual migration and tests

it using data from rural Bangladesh. The typical mover-stayer utility maximization, in which

potential urban income is compared to current rural income, is reframed as a three-outcome

maximization. Rural income is instead compared to two potential utility streams, a rural-urban

utility in which the best outcome involves working in the city but raising family in the rural area

(implying individual migration) and a strictly-urban utility in which the best outcome involves

moving the entire family to the city (and thus undertaking family migration). The model thereby

draws a theoretical connection between the total loss of livelihood underlying forced migration

Kuhn 2
and the livelihood diversification motives behind the New Economics of Labour Migration.

This model is employed to explore the determinants of family and individual migration

by married men in the rural Matlab area of Bangladesh between 1982 and 1996. Data come from

the Matlab Health and Demographic Surveillance System (HDSS), a unique data archive that is

ideally suited to the prospective modelling of migration behaviour in a representative population.

The primary finding shows that family migration is far more likely than individual migration

among men with minimal land holdings. This effect is exacerbated in the years following a

flood, when the majority of excess family migration occurred among men with little land.

Migration, Livelihoods, and Family

Familial Models of Migration Decision-Making
Existing theory highlights the unique role of migration as a labour market, housing, and

livelihood decision. Neo-classical economists initially conceived migration as a simple labour

market response to an unequal spatial distribution in wages or earnings, suggesting that the

likelihood of migration will increase either with a decline in origin-area wages or a rise in the

expected wage in the destination (Lewis, 1954; Ranis & Fei, 1961; Sjaastad 1962; Todaro, 1970;

Harris & Todaro, 1969; Massey and Espinosa 1997). The typical wage differential model (hence

referred to as WD) predicts migration decision (M) for individual i in terms of the utility (U) to

be derived moving to the urban area (u) versus remaining in the rural area (r).

P(M i  k)  M ax(Uk ), k  u, r (1)

Mincer (1978) incorporated the role of residential decision-making by extending the WD model

to the utility of an entire migrant family rather than a single labourer. In order for migration to

occur, the benefits accruing to a single working member (usually a husband) would have to be

sufficient enough to compensate any potential “tied movers” for the costs of relocation, social

dislocation, and other psychic costs. In other words, for a family j, the migration of all members
Kuhn 3
(i) depended on the joint utility that all family members could achieve in the urban or rural area:

P(M j ,i*  k)  Max(Uk ), k  u, r

(2)

This model spawned an extensive literature on family migration, largely focused on developed

countries, in which a family unit collectively chose family migration or no migration or, failing

to resolve a joint solution, the family dissolved via divorce.

In much of the developing world, individual migration offers another option (Rogaly,

2003; Rogaly and Rafique, 2003; Lauby and Stark, 1988). If migration improves an individual’s

labour market position, but not his family’s residential position, he may move alone, often for

long durations, while other family members remain in the area of origin, before eventually

returning to the origin area. In other words, a family j chooses whether to send a member i to the

city by maximizing on the income to be derived from remaining in the rural area versus the

income to be derived from a multi-sectoral existence (m) in which a member moves to the city:

P(M j ,i  k)  Max(Uk ), k  r, m
(3)

While the value of the multisectoral utility ( U m ) is difficult to quantify explicitly, the New

Economics of Labour Migration (hence referred to as "NELM") provides a systematic

framework for understanding the potential effects of individual migration that would cause a

family to value U m over U r (Stark, 1982). Most notably, the migration of an individual can

substantially improve the welfare of those left behind by migration through the consumption and

investment of remittances, or financial transfers, sent by the migrant (Taylor & Wyatt, 1996; de

Haan, 1999; Kanaiaupuni & Donato, 1999; de Haan and Rogaly 2002; Kuhn 2005). Remittances

may both diversify the sources of family livelihood, thereby offering protection against crisis,

and generate liquidity for rural economic activities (Lauby and Stark, 1988; Durand et al., 1996;

Ellis, 1998; Winters et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2003; Sana 2005; Massey et al., 1999).

Kuhn 4
 NELM highlights important non-linearities in the land-migration relationship, most

notably that households with small landholdings may benefit more from individual or temporary

migration since they would have more to gain from income diversification since families with

large land holdings might not need either extra income or diversification (VanWey 2003; Taylor

& Wyatt 1996). VanWey (2003) points to the distinct role of temporary migration for those with

moderate land holdings, where migration might contribute to a strategy of investment and

expansion, and for those with smaller land holdings, who might simply be combining rural and

urban wages to achieve a minimum livelihood target. By extension, below a certain land-holding

threshold the rural contribution to wages could become so minimal that rural-urban income

would drop below strictly-urban income, making family migration more likely.

By ignoring the migration of an entire family, equation (3) implicitly assumes that the

joint utility resulting from all family members moving to the city, U u , is necessarily lower than

U m or U r , or that an entire family would never migrate. There are strong empirical reasons for

ignoring this third alternative. Legal barriers (as in modern China or Apartheid-era South

Africa), high urban living costs, low wages, and limited job-related benefits may all encourage

migrants to raise children and retire in rural areas (de Janvry & Garammon, 1977; Gereffi &

Korzeniewicz, 1994; Mackenzie 2002; Brueckner & Kim 2001). Yet continued increases in the

urban youth dependency ratios point to the importance of family migration flows. While some

migrants may have achieved sufficient income to move their families to the city, the world's

informal settlements include a great many families living in poverty. At present, such moves are

addressed, if at all, through the literature on forced migration, which tends to address structural

and political factors rather than individual heterogeneity and agency (Castles 2006).

Kuhn 5
Distress, and other sources of family migration
Traditionally, forced migration has been understood both as resulting from collective instigators

(e.g., armed groups) and as affecting collective classes of victims requiring institutional redress,

typically connected to conflict. A gradual relaxing of the collective nature of both cause and

affected group has opened up new space for understanding forced migration as part of a common

continuum with voluntary migration, and thus as a process that might be understood in terms of

within-group heterogeneity (Castles 2006).

First, the forced migrant category has grown to include a broader range of political,

environmental and even economic causes. This includes development-driven displacement

resulting from government public works projects (e.g., roads and dams) and environmental

displacement due to population pressure or poor resource management (Scudder 1993; Cernea

1995, 2006). The increasingly apparent displacement risks posed by climate change have driven

interest in these processes (Myers 2002).

Second, the literature has gradually moved its focus from specific precipitating events

such as disasters or conflicts to the long-term, structural precursors of forced migration,

particularly in fragile political or ecological systems (Curran 2002; Hunter 2005). Systematic

political neglect or abuse may lie at the heart of modern cycles of displacement and discrete

events may precipitate moves, but these are often connected via complex mezo chains of

causation that blur the distinction between voluntary and involuntary migration and introduce a

role for individual agency (Castles 2006). Even a half-century ago, Peterson (1958) distinguished

between forced migration and “impelled migration”, in which migrants retain some agency to

stay or go. The question remains how to operationalize this continuum into a testable framework.

Only recently have a few demographic studies modelled individual migration decisions in

response to a crisis (Engel and Ibañez 2007; Ibañez and Velez 2008; Alvarado and Massey

Kuhn 6
2009). None has yet accounted for heterogeneity in the decision of whether to move, though

Bohra-Mishra and Massey (2010) address migrant destination choice in the context of the Nepali

civil war. A recent World Bank report on climate change and displacement highlights the role of

rural environmental degradation and environmental crises in precipitating rural-urban migration

and urbanization (Raleigh et al. 2008, referring to Pederson 1995; Findley 1994; Ezra 2001). In

keeping with the New Economics literature the report emphasizes the role of the “migration of

certain family members to urban areas” during periods of crisis and as a means of mitigating

future crises, emphasizing that most moves are circular, not permanent (Ezra and Kiros 2001;

Caldwell et al. 1986; Paul 1995; Perch-Nielsen 2004). The authors’ exploration of “distress

migration” emphasizes that such displacements are usually temporary and quite often local, with

most of the distressed travelling fewer than 3km from the origin area, partly in order to protect

their assets and interests in the origin area (Hutton and Haque 2004; Zaman 1991).

A smaller number of studies draw a more direct association between structural change,

family livelihoods, and migration (Bilsborrow 1991, 1992, 2002; Hugo 2008). The mode,

permanence, and destination of crisis migration may be determined both by so-called pull

factors, such as having the connections and skills to earn incomes in other environments, and

push factors, such as the household’s level of attachment to rural livelihoods. Bilsborrow and

DeLargy (1990) begin to identify a continuum of labor market responses to diminishing

agricultural holdings within a peasant “household survival strategy”, proceeding from changes in

crop mix, to local off-farm labor market opportunities; to individual; circular; and seasonal

migration; and finally to family migration.

This continuum of migration responses points to a clear gap in the mover-stayer model of

migration. WD implies a monotonic relationship between land holdings and migration, while

Kuhn 7
NELM suggests that households with small land holdings might actually draw greater benefit

from migration than those with no land holdings. These factors may each carry weight for the

decision to migrate in general, but may further explain distinct family and individual migration

decisions, particularly at the margins of economic sustainability. If individual migration

represents an effort to diversify between rural and urban livelihood resources and family

migration represents a departure from rural livelihoods, then family migration should be more

strongly responsive to a lack of land holdings than individual migration. Similarly, the period

immediately following an environmental catastrophe might push a large number of households,

particularly those with constrained livelihood options, below a threshold of rural viability and

into family migration. Before testing a formal model of family and individual migration, I

describe the context of migration. This exploration is not meant to exceptionalize the Bangladesh

experience, but merely to illustrate how a particular livelihood context might set the stage for

family migration.

Research context
The interplay between ecological context, livelihoods, and migration can be seen in the

unfolding process of urbanization in Bangladesh. Most generally, Bangladesh is one of the most

densely populated countries in the world, with 1,127 persons per square mile. A truer reckoning

of the ecological and economic fragility of the country would also account for the fact that as of

2005, only 26% of this population lived in cities (UNPD 2010). Furthermore, approximately

30% of Bangladesh’s total land area consists of rivers, swamps, or charlands that shift between

habitable and uninhabitable with the changing course of rivers. The southeast monsoon weather

system, which continues to feed most of Bangladesh’s rice production, floods a further 20% of

land for half of each year, and up to two-thirds of all land in extreme flood years (Mirza 2002).

Given these conditions, it is not surprising to find that Bangladesh has been undergoing

Kuhn 8
rapid urbanization. Between 1970 and 1995, the proportion of the Bangladeshi population living

in cities grew from 7.6 per cent to 21.7 per cent, yet even the latter figure was the lowest urban

proportion among the ten largest Asian nations (UNPD 2010). The most prominent rural-urban

migration flows involve movement from areas along the Meghna River Basin in southern

Bangladesh, such as Chandpur, Comilla, and Barisal Districts, to large cities such as Dhaka

(Nabi, 1992). Matlab is situated in the heart of this migrant-sending region. Situated near the

highway about halfway between the two largest cities of Dhaka and Chittagong, travel by boat

(in the rainy season) or bus (in the dry season) to either destination is about six hours, close

enough to carry out regular circular migration but not close enough to commute.

As in many places, urbanization in Bangladesh results at least in part from a process of

rural livelihood diversification in which migration serves as a response to persistent risks to

agricultural production (Kuhn 2003). In Matlab, as elsewhere in Bangladesh, households

depending on underwater rice cultivation are exposed to high levels of unmanaged risk from

price fluctuations and severe flooding. Monsoon rice production also results in extreme seasonal

fluctuations in cash flow, nutrition, employment, and prices (Chen et al., 1979). Small

landholders finance production and mitigate the worst seasonal effects of flooding by borrowing

rice at high, pre-harvest grain prices, repaying these loans at the lower, post-harvest price,

resulting in an effective annualized interest rate of between 30 per cent and 400 per cent,

threatening land foreclosure and fragmentation (Kuhn, 1999; Jensen, 1987; Jahangir, 1979; van

Schendel, 1981; Momin, 1992; van Schendel & Faraizi, 1984).

Remittances from migrants can alleviate each of these risks and contribute to economic

progress. Results from the Matlab Health and Socioeconomic Survey (MHSS) in 1996 reveal

that households with out-migrant kin received 27 per cent of total household income from such

Kuhn 9
transfers (Kuhn, 2001). Transfers finance agricultural production and growing-season

consumption, thereby reducing the need to incur debt (Kuhn, 1999; Gardner, 1995; Afsar, 1994;

Stark, 1991). They also enable economically secure households to extend credit to indebted

households (Gardner, 1995). In the process, however, remittance-related liquidity may hasten

cumulative processes of economic displacement (Massey et al. 1998).

Individual migration greatly facilities the sending of transfers. Solo movers can minimize

the extent of consumption at the higher urban cost of living by living in low-cost group housing,

living in company housing, or often sleeping on the floors of their workplaces (Kuhn, 2003).

Furthermore, many men are able to return home during the rice harvest, mitigating much of the

impact on rural labour supply. Matlab’s age-sex distribution in 1996 demonstrates the

significance of male individual migration (Mostafa et al., 1998). In 1996, the male-female ratio

for the 10-14 and 15-19 age groups was 1.08, compared to 0.95 at age 20-24, 0.78 for 25-29, and

0.79 for 30-34. Matlab’s relative proximity to major urban destinations (six hours travel

compared to twenty to twenty-five hours for other areas with high levels of outmigration) should

further facilitate temporary and individual migration (Lucas, 2000).

Despite these forces, the practice of family migration is widespread, as quantified below.

While family migration may have ecological roots, qualitative research points to the underlying

role of economic disenfranchisement and social exclusion (Kuhn 2003). Family migrants were

not merely landless, but often those who had been landless for quite a long time. Landlessness

was often amplified by inadequate access to informal social and patronage entitlements including

sharecropping arrangements, off-farm employment on public works projects, and access to

ecological resources such as ponds and fallow resources (Kuhn 2003, Das Gupta, 1987). For

these households, the dwindling benefits of low rural consumption prices and informal rural

Kuhn 10
exchange are outweighed by the costs, both personal and financial, of having one household

member move back and forth between rural and urban areas. Rather than making a gradual

transition to urban economic activity as temporary labourers in support of a rural household,

family migrants make an immediate transition to the city as economic producers, consumers, and

permanent residents (Unnithan-Kumar, 2003; Roy et al., 1992).

The social and economic processes underlying family and individual migration are

further amplified by the fragile, though not entirely unique, ecological conditions of deltaic areas

of Bangladesh. Extreme floods are the most devastating ecological crisis affecting inland areas

such as Matlab, destroying crops, altering the course of rivers, and permanently submerging

land. The October 1988 flood in Bangladesh occurred at the end of the annual growing season,

resulting not from heavy local rains, but from unusual flows of water from rivers draining the

Himalayas. Most of the permanent property loss was sustained by households living on river

banks, where buildings and land were inundated. But a broader segment of households suffered

lasting indirect effects, including disruptions in subsequent planting seasons, broken

communications and transport links, and commodity price distortions. A household’s ability to

sustain the short-term effects of a flood may be determined not merely by ecological factors, but

also by its own ability to manage risk and cope with crises. Quantitative analysis of family and

individual migration will address both the main effects of the flood and interactions with land

holdings. Before addressing patterns and determinants of family migration, it is first critical to

understand the significance of migration by married men more generally.

The Migration of Married Men in Matlab

The Matlab HDSS provides a dynamic, computerized population event history for the Matlab

study site from 1974 to the current era, conferring numerous analytic advantages for the study of

vital events in general and migration in particular. During the study period, HDSS data collection

Kuhn 11
assistants made monthly visits to each household to record the timing and circumstances of all

birth, death, migration, marriage, and divorce events occurring to household members. Periodic

censuses in 1974 and 1982 collected additional data on factors such as education, household

living conditions, and land holdings. The large sample size, time span, and precision provide

what amounts to a quantitative history of a population, with the sole limitation that events

occurring entirely outside the HDSS area are not recorded (e.g. marriages of out-migrants,

onward migrations).i This analysis focuses on vital events occurring from July 1982 through

June 1996, a period covering the significant social and ecological changes described above.

A census conducted in July 1982 provides baseline characteristics such as land holdings

and education. The 1982 census captured 186,695 individuals living in 149 study villages. The

1982-1996 followup period saw an additional 94,255 new births and 43,684 new in-migrations

from outside the HDSS area (largely women who married into the study site and men who had

migrated out before the 1982 census and returned after). The master HDSS event file thus tracks

the vital events of 324,634 individuals in total. The demographic events of all of these

individuals were used to construct dynamic, time-varying counts of household size and co-

resident children. This study population of 53,901 married males included 30,956 males who

were married at the time of the census, 12,710 who were unmarried at the time of the census but

subsequently married, and 10,235 men who were newly migrated into the HDSS area after the

census. Education and land data were added for individuals who entered the system via in-

migration. Because censuses occurred in mid-year, the annual monitoring of events for this study

is organized on a mid-year basis (e.g., 1982 refers to events occurring between July 1982 and

July 1983, 1995 refers to events occurring from July 1995 to July 1996. Each man contributed

an observation for each person-year in which he was present at any time during the year, starting

Kuhn 12
from the 1982 census, in-migration, or marriage until censoring. Censoring occurred if a man

died or migrated outside the household during the observation year. The 53,901 eligible males

contributed 473,492 person-years to the analysis, or 8.78 person years per person out of a

possible 14 years.

Levels of overall migration were substantial as a source of livelihood and a check on

population growth. While the area’s population grew from 186,232 in mid-1982 to 209,843 in

mid-1996, the 1996 population would have been 40,327 higher in the absence of net

outmigration, accounting for about 20% of the population. Although migration was quite

common for women as well as men, women’s moves were primarily for marriage (with an equal

number of moves in as out) or as tied movers with husbands. Overall, 58% of net out-migration

during the study period was accounted for by men. Among adults over age 15, 76% of men’s

moves were to urban or overseas destinations compared to only 48% of women’s moves. Among

those moves, work was the reported reason for migration among 73% of men’s moves compared

to 9% of women’s moves. Because most moves by married women during this period were tied

to the moves of men, this analysis focuses on the migration of men. The analysis focuses on

moves to urban areas, accounting for about 60% of all moves. Although the results hold for

international migration as well, the infrequency of international family migration (except among

Hindus moving to India) made models more difficult to interpret. Migrants to overseas and rural

destinations were censored but not analyzed.

Given the exclusive emphasis on the migration behaviour of married men, it is important

to understand the salience of post-marital migration within men’s lifetime migration histories.

Fortunately HDSS data make it possible to construct such a history. HDSS field assistants were

trained to ensure that migrants returning from outside the study area were always assigned the

Kuhn 13
same permanent Registration Identification (RID) number upon returning to the study area, thus

enabling the classification as return migrants those who migrated after 1974. The long time span

of HDSS also makes it possible to go back to an earlier time period to understand the selectivity

of the sample prior to our 1982 study baseline.

Figure 1 depicts the marriage and migration behaviour of a group of unmarried men age

15+ living in the Matlab HDSS area at the time of the 1974 census. These men are a subset of the

larger study population, which also includes men who were already married in 1974, men who

are under 15 in 1974, and men who were already living outside the study area in 1974. In this

stylized comparison, men begin as unmarried non-migrants (segment 1) and can transition to

either being married before migrating (segments 2 and 3, 74% of all men) or migrated before

marriage (segments 4-6, about 24% of the total). Only 2% of men neither married nor migrated

during the study period. These results involve migration to any destination (e.g. urban, rural, or

overseas) to capture the full extent of attrition.

Figure 1 illustrates the salience of migration, and post-marital migration in particular, in

the typical adult male life course. Although the youngest of these men were still only 36 by the

end of followup, a sizeable 37% of them had already migrated to the city at some point

(segments 3-6). About half of these migrants (18% of the total cohort) experienced a move after

marriage (segments 3 and 4). Although the risk of migration was higher for those men who had

also moved prior to marriage, over one-third of all ever-migrants experienced their first move

only after marriage. Among the remaining 24% of men who had migration experience prior to

marriage (segments 4-6), a little less than half (47%), or 11% of the total cohort, never returned

to the HDSS area and thus are excluded from this analysis (segment 6). Although those who

never returned represent a source of attrition from the study population, HDSS data on returned

Kuhn 14
migrants reduces the magnitude of attrition and accounts for their past migration experience.

A Model of Family and Individual Migration

The staggering level of mobility among married men, including those with no prior migration

experience, constitutes the starting point for the statistical analysis. Building on the earlier

background discussion, I identify a three-outcome migration decision (Mi,j) whereby a family

chooses between remaining in the rural origin area (r), sending one member to the city (m), or

moving as a family to the urban area (u)

P(M j,i  k)  Max(Uk ), k  r, m, u

(4).

This three-outcome model offers ready contrast to the simple mover-stayer model identified in

equation (3), which treats family migration as no different from individual. As with any

migration model, we cannot fully operationalize the three potential utility streams ( U k ), but we

can present divergent predictions for family and individual migration with respect to key

correlates of migration such as land holdings. While both individual and family migration should

become more likely at lower levels of land holding, family migration should become the

dominant form of migration at lower levels of land holdings. Modest land might encourage

individual migration, while no land holdings would encourage family migration.

Initial statistical results compare a test of equation (4) using a multinomial logistic

hazards regression model against a test of equation (3) using a binomial logistic hazards model.

For each year t until an event occurred or a respondent was censored, the outcome for man k was

Mkt = j, where j= i (individual), f (family) or n (no) migration in the multinomial models, and

where j= m (migration) or n (no) migration men in the binomial.ii Only rural-urban moves were

modelled; rural-rural and international migrants were censored, with no event recorded.iii Family

migration was recorded if the migrant’s wife moved on the same day to the same destination,

Kuhn 15
individual migration if the man moved alone or with a group that did not include his wife. iv

Both equations fit a vector of predictive coefficients X and a measure of time (t)

according to the following equation:

n

  j s X ks
e s i
Pr( M kt  j, j  i, f , n)  n

  j s X ks
e
j i , f , n
s i

Because estimation could result in any number of solutions, no migration was chosen as a

reference event for which all values of  n  0 .

Table 1 summarizes key dependent and independent variables at the person and person-

year levels, and compares men who were in the 1982 census against those migrants who returned

after the 1982 census. Family migration is about twice as likely as individual migration.

Although neither mode of migration is particularly likely in any given person-year, the

cumulative proportion of men who migrated is quite high, with 4.3% individual and 8.4% family.

The study size of 473,561 person years for 53,905 men offers sufficient statistical estimation

power. Both individual and family migration are about twice as likely among men who had

previously migrated. Past migrant destination reports make it possible to account for men who

had any previous rural-urban migration experience, 9.2% of all men and those who had moved to

other destinations (6.6%). As noted above, the mean agricultural holdings were quite low at 113

decimals, or 1.13 acres, with a median holding of just over 0.5 acres per household.

[Insert Table 1 about here]

Results
Table 2 presents a base model of the covariates of migration using the multinomial and binomial

specifications. The models also included controls for household headship, total number of

Kuhn 16
household members (to control for membership in an extended family household unit), whether

the respondent’s occupation was fisherman, and whether the respondent’s religion was Hindu

(with Muslim as the reference category). Each of these controls was negatively associated with

any, family, and individual migration.

Models included village-level fixed-effects specified through controls for village of

origin to eliminate the impact of community-level factors such as ecology, market development,

and community-level variation in migration rates.v The fixed effects controls were jointly

significant according to a chi-square test of difference in both the binomial (χ2 = 802.8, d.f. =

143) and multinomial (χ2 = 1284.9, d.f. = 286) specifications. Covariates estimates and

significance were robust to the inclusion of fixed effects, with only a minor reduction in the

magnitude of the Hindu control coefficient owing to the extreme clustering of half the Hindu

populations in just 9 of the 149 study villages, while 60 village had no Hindus at all. This

suggests that the any individual- or household-level heterogeneity in migration pattern is not

simply the result of clustering, for instance the tendency for people with little land to live in areas

with a common ecological predisposition to migration. Subsequent presentation of results

focuses on the fixed effects specifications.

[Insert Table 2 about here]

Finally, all models control for the positive association between prior and subsequent

migration experience, with separate controls for past rural-urban migration and other forms of

migration. All key findings with respects to land holdings, schooling, age, family composition,

and flood effects are robust to the inclusion of exclusion of this control (not shown). All models

described below were tested separately for men with and without prior migration experience (not

shown). The magnitude of most coefficients was lower for men with prior experience,

Kuhn 17
unsurprising since barriers to entry into migration would be lower for past migrants. In no case

did the coefficient direction differ between those with or without past migration experience.

Presentation of results focuses on measures of household land holdings, individual schooling

attainment, age, and the effects of a flood.

Livelihood measures
The principal point of distinction between family and individual migration in the above model

lies in the differential role of rural livelihood resources as both a potential deterrent to migration

(of any form) and as a platform for livelihood diversification (favouring individual migration).

The principal variable of interest is the total land holdings of the man’s household, measured in

HDSS in decimals, or hundredths of an acre. Before presenting the results of a simple logged-

land specification (shown in columns 4-6 of Table 2), Figure 2 explores a detailed categorical

specification that demonstrates the robustness of the logged relationship. A stable categorization

was create by joining rare land values with neighbouring categories until all groups contained at

least 1% of the sample.vi The resulting land distribution was roughly power law in form, with

low values far more common than higher ones. Landless men were by far the modal category,

accounting for 21%. While 79% had some land, the median holding was only 50 decimals and

87% had less than 200 decimals. As a result, the mean land holding of 114 decimals was

considerably higher than the median. The resulting 23 land holding categories were entered into

fixed effects logistic regression models with the same controls as the models in Table 2.

Coefficient estimates are shown in Table A1. For each land holding category, predicted

probabilities of family and individual migration were derived from these estimations using the

Stata clarify package and plotted in Figure 2.

[Insert Figure 2 about here]

The categorical specification demonstrates the greater value of land as a predictor of

Kuhn 18
family versus individual migration, particularly when delineating between men with no land at

all and men with very small land holdings. For example, relative to men with between 20 and

100 decimals of land (the middle 40% of the sample), men with no land at all were only 12%

more likely to practice individual migration, a difference that was not statistically significant, but

were 45% more likely to practice family migration. A binomial model would split this difference

by predicting a 35% increase in the likelihood of migration. Men with just 10 decimals of land

were only 2% more likely to practice individual migration than men with 20 to 100 decimals, but

27% more likely to practice family migration. While small variations in land ownership have

little effect on individual migration, they have quite large effects on family migration.

The differential effects of low-level land holdings on family and individual migration

also go a long way towards explaining the relative frequency of family migration in this context

(recall that the annual probability of family was 0.89% compared to 0.48% for individual

moves). For the top quartile of landowners (with 150 decimals or more of land), the adjusted

likelihood of family migration is about 50% higher and the difference is only moderately

significant. This gap widens with decreasing land holdings, to about 2-to-1 for men with 20 to

150 decimals, 2.3-to-1 for men with 10 decimals, and 2.6-to-1 for men with no land at all. A

decomposition across the actual distribution of land holdings reveals that two-thirds of the

difference between the overall family and individual migration probability was accounted for by

men holding less than 50 decimals (one-half acre) of land and 40% of the gap was explained by

landless men alone.

Although the magnitude and significance of the land-migration relationship diverges

substantially between family and individual moves, both are well captured by the single variable,

logged-land specification employed in the base regression models in Table 2. The single measure

Kuhn 19
takes the log of land holdings (measured in decimals); landless men are given a value of 0. Since

the lowest non-zero value of land holding is 10 (natural log = 2.3), the transformation generates a

large linear distance between landless households and those with very little land without the use

of an extra landless dummy variable. The categorical results suggest that the likelihood of

individual migration begins to rise at the very highest levels of land holdings, supporting earlier

findings of an economies of scale effect whereby households with very large land holdings may

use migration as part of an accumulation strategy (VanWey 2005). Yet such households

represent just over 2% of men in this land distribution. The cubic land specification used by

VanWey (2005) to capture curvilinear land holding effects was significant only at the 10% level

and could not actually predict the non-monotonic pattern (results not shown).

For both family and individual moves the log-land specification is highly significant

compared to other single variable specifications, and captures the shape of the land-migration

relationship across the distribution, as shown in the comparison of fitted probabilities in Figure 2.

Although the single-variable specification explains both family and individual migration, the

separation of the two streams is nonetheless justified on the basis of the substantial and

significant variations in coefficient magnitude and significance. Coefficient estimates suggest

that a doubling of total household land holdings would be associated with a 8.5% decline in the

relative risk of family migration but only a 3.2% decline in the risk of an individual move. Under

this specification, the relative risks of migration for a man from a landless household compared

to a household with the median landholding of 50 decimals (0.5 acres) would be 64% higher for

family migration (off a larger base) but only 20% higher for individual moves.

To indirectly address some of the environmental aspects of rural livelihoods, the base

model also explores the role of internal migration behaviour as a predictor of family and

Kuhn 20
individual migration. As noted above, family migration outside the district may represent the

culmination of a gradual process of economic and ecological displacement that may include rural

displacement. Flooding, environmental degradation, and the short-term unintended consequences

of the flood control embankment resulted in fairly high levels of internal displacement. The base

model includes two measures of internal migration, one for whether the household moved

internally (to a separate village) in the current or previous year, and another accounting for

internal migration experience in any previous year since 1982. A simple mover-stayer model of

migration, would have suggested a reduced risk of out-migration in the year following internal

migration, followed by a return to baseline risk.

In fact, such a result would mask divergent effects of internal migration on family and

individual migration. Internal migration in the current or previous year was associated with a

substantial reduction in the likelihood of both family and individual migration, with men about

80% less likely to leave the study site if they had recently moved villages. Net of this effect,

however, strikingly different migration patterns emerge for those with less immediate internal

migration experience. Internal migrants had a substantially reduced risk of individual migration

(50% relative risk reduction, significant at the p<0.001 level), but a significantly increased risk

of family migration (44% increased risk, p<0.001). In the case of both land holdings and internal

migration, livelihood vulnerability appears to act in the manner of a “push factor” for family

migration, but less so for individual migration.

Human capital and life course measures

The model of family and individual migration offers less clear predictions for the role of

individual human capital or life course factors on migration. It would be simple to assume that

family migrants are simply more vulnerable in every respect compared to individual migrants.

Yet it is also possible that, after adjusting for the effects of rural livelihood vulnerability, that

Kuhn 21
family migration would be driven by classic pull factors like education. Furthermore, the Mincer

model of tied movers suggests that only those men with high levels of schooling would be better

able to finance the high long-term costs of permanent urban residence associated with family

migration. The base model includes controls for three levels of respondent's schooling

completion: 1-4 years, 5-9 years (lower secondary school), and 10+ years (higher secondary

school), each compared to the reference category of no schooling.

In the case of education, a two-outcome model of migration versus no migration would

generate the statistically correct result that schooling increases the likelihood of migration, but

would miss some salient differences between family and individual moves. Each additional level

of schooling attainment is associated with an increased likelihood of both family and individual

migration, suggesting that forces of positive educational selection operate even in the family

migration decision. Yet for each level of schooling, the coefficient for individual migration is

significantly larger. An interesting pattern emerges across different levels of schooling whereby

each additional level of schooling associated with a relatively large increase in the likelihood of

individual migration (coefficients = +.272, +.576, +.821), whereas family migration responds

primarily to higher levels of schooling (coefficients = +.150, +.229, and +.672). One

interpretation of these effects is that some family migrants move not because their strictly rural

income is so low but rather because their strictly urban income is so high that they can actually

afford to raise their children in the city. Nevertheless, it should be clear that family migration

involves some level of individual agency and responsiveness to individual human capital, not

merely livelihood loss.

The three-outcome migration model also generates predictions about the effects of age

and life course transition on migration. In general, older men and men with more children should

Kuhn 22
be less likely to migrate at all, yet there are multiple reasons why migration declines over the life

course. One factor relates to familial obligations, which merely require family unity, whether all

members are living in the rural area or urban area and thus should have less effect on family

migration. Another factor relates to the diminishing returns to long-term investments over the

life-course; older men may have fewer opportunities to acquire further human capital in the

urban area or to see the benefits of investments in long-term livelihood improvements. Both

interpretations suggest that the likelihood of individual migration should decline more rapidly

with age. At the same time, if individual migration represents a relatively short-term livelihood

response, then one might expect that individual moves would become relatively more frequent at

older ages as an opportunity to generate a temporary livelihood supplement without long-term

separation from family. The age effects in the base model indicate that individual migration

experiences a much more rapid age-related decline than family migration. Using an age and age-

squared specification, the likelihood of individual migration declines rapidly with age, before

levelling off slightly at older ages. By contrast, the likelihood of family migration remains

relatively unchanged throughout the 30s before declining more rapidly through the 40s.

To further explore the incentives for family and individual migration across the life

course, Table 3 introduces controls for the effects of children of different ages. Family migration

is not merely more compatible with aging, it is also more compatible with childbearing. The risk

of both family and individual migration is substantially reduced if a man has a child under age 1

(54% reduction for individual, 57% reduction for family, not statistically different from one

another). But whereas the likelihood of individual migration remains substantially reduced for

men with children age 1-4 (56% relative risk reduction), family migration is actually slightly but

significantly more likely (14% increased risk) if a man has a child age 1-4. Less strikingly,

Kuhn 23
having a child age 5-9 results in a moderately decreased risk of individual migration (31%

reduction) but no significant impact on family migration. Children age 10-14 had no effect on

individual migration and slightly reduced the likelihood of family migration, but these effects

were not jointly significant. These results suggest that the presence of small children is a

demonstrable impediment to individual migration, but a less clear impediment to family

migration. While the presence of an infant may create logistical challenges to moving an entire

family, somewhat older children offer no such limitation. One interpretation of this divergence

would suggest that potential individual migrants have a choice not to move given their familial

obligations, whereas potential family migrants do not have such a choice at their disposal and are

forced to migrate irrespective of childrearing responsibilities. The finding of a positive effect of

children age 1-4, however, may actually suggest slightly greater agency. Vulnerable families

may be forced to consider alternatives to rural life, yet they may also take advantage of windows

of opportunity for family resettlement, much as in rich countries (Rogers et al. 19xx). After

controlling for the effects of young children, age patterns of individual and family migration

become remarkably similar.

Variation over time – main effects and interactions

One final factor driving family and individual patterns was variation over time, particularly

relating to ecological conditions related to the construction of a river embankment and the

occurrence of a major flood in 1988. While analysis of the specific interactions between

ecological and socioeconomic vulnerability is beyond the scope of this paper, it is important to

establish that excess migration risks in the post-1988 period are indeed associated with heavy

flooding. To isolate this effect, Figure 3 illustrates spatial variation in the relative risk of family

migration in 1988 in relation to the three major rivers in the area, the primary river Meghna

touching only the southwest corner of the site, the major tributary Gumti touching only the

Kuhn 24
northern tip, and the Dhonnagoda running through the site. The shape and flow of the

Dhonnagoda created a tidal flow on the left bank of the river, thereby exacerbating flood risks

and justifying the placement of the river embankment on that side. Results are based on the

regression models in Table 3, thereby controlling out some of the socioeconomic variations (like

high rates of internal migration) that may also vary spatially. Village-year controls were added to

capture spatial variation. Map A depicts village-level relative risks of family migration adjusted

for baseline variation in risk in all other years.

The pattern of spatial variation demonstrates that the spike in family migration rates

observed following the flood was indeed associated with flooding, though the pattern is perhaps

counterintuitive. After adjusting for baseline risk, the map indicates lower relative risks at the

water’s edge, largely because every year is a flood year for those living right on the river.

Moving away from the immediate river bank, relative risks are highest along the main canals of

the river, particularly on the one major canal on the embankment side. Finding are adjusted for

baseline migration risks, and thus control for lower levels of family migration on the right-hand

side of the river. Panel B instead maps absolute spatial variation in 1988, thereby incorporating

the general tendency towards high levels of family migration in riverine areas. This map

illustrates that overall family migration risk in 1988 was universally higher on the embankment

side of the river, particularly in areas along the major Meghna and Gumti rivers which always

have high family migration risk, and in the major canal areas that saw a temporary spike to

comparable migration rates. While excess family migration risk is not simply a matter of

proximity to water, the story is clearly related to the flood.

The risk of excess family migration was not confined to the flood year, however, but

rather carried on through 1991. Table 4, columns 1 and 2 present the coefficients of models with

Kuhn 25
observation year dummies for each year in the study period (1982 is the reference year). There

was a gradual rise in the family migration rate over time. The relative risk of family migration

peaked in 1988, but remained significantly higher through 1991 before declining. Individual

migration was relatively high in 1988, but actually peaked in 1985 and 1986. Columns 3-6

combine observation year dummies with an interaction between each observation and household

land holdings. Land effects on family migration were more negative for the years 1988 to 1991,

ranging from -0.149 to -0.159, all significantly different from zero. Joint significance tests

further support that the land interaction coefficients for these four years were jointly significantly

different from land interaction coefficients for all other years. Main effects on family migration

from 1988 to 1991 remain jointly significant as well, such that family migration increased during

this period, but especially among households with lower land holdings. As with the main effects,

observation year-land interactions for individual migration were not statistically significant.

Interactions effects of land holdings and time on the risk of family migration are

summarized in Figure 3, which compares the predicted probability of individual and family

migration over time for a landless man and a man with the mean landholding of 115 decimals.

For men with mean landholdings, the probability of family migration between 1988 and 1991

was about 15% higher than in the two years preceding and following this era (1.32% vs. 1.15%).

Landless men experienced a more pronounced four-year peak on top of an already high baseline

family migration risk, rising from 1.51% to 1.93%, or a 28% increase.

Conclusion
The preceding theoretical framework and analysis set out to bridge the divide separating the

literatures on voluntary and forced migration, particularly with respect to the role of family

livelihoods. In this area of rural Bangladesh as in much of the world, rural-urban migration

represents a critical livelihood adaptation strategy even after marriage, yet individual and family

Kuhn 26
migration represent two distinct approaches to migration given the gravity of the decision to raise

children in the urban setting and to forgo many of the social and economic benefits of rural life.

A number of specific differences in the determinants of family and individual migration

would be missed by a two-outcome model. The relative likelihood of family migration is much

higher among men who lack land, the principal economic resource in the area. Family migration

is also more likely among those who had recently experienced internal migration, which is itself

typically associated with the loss of economic livelihoods or housing security in the former

location. Extensive qualitative research carried out in the study site indicate that family migration

patterns could be further understood in the context of deeper forms of socioeconomic

vulnerability such as a long history of landlessness, limited access to patronage resources

including employment and informal resources, and exclusion from social exchange networks.

In spite of the ecological and socioeconomic vulnerabilities, family migration requires

some amount of agency. This is most evident in the positive selectivity of family migration on

schooling, though this selectivity is substantially less than exists for individual migration. While

children are less likely to discourage family migration than they are to discourage individual

migration, the pattern of child age selectivity nevertheless reveals considerable agency. Family

migration is quite unlikely among families with infant children, yet it is somewhat more likely

among families with children age 1 to 4, suggesting that families may be strategic in finding

opportune stages in the life course to carry out this drastic relocation decision.

These findings point to the need for further expansion and integration of existing models

of the role of livelihoods and involuntary migration. For the literature on labour migration,

including the New Economics of Labor Migration, the spectrum of livelihood-based migration

options could be broadened to incorporate the movement of an entire family. The existing model

Kuhn 27
of livelihood diversification through temporary and individual migration works well enough

when modest livelihoods can be supplemented by migration, but more adverse conditions may

imply a point to the largely rational response of replacing rural livelihoods entirely with urban

ones. Such conditions may be more common in rural Bangladesh than in places with a broader

base of rural capital, but they may surely play out in a variety of settings. The adverse conditions

underlying family migration also raise the continued need to inject a stratification perspective

into the study of migration.

For forced migration studies, these results allow us to broaden our conception of

involuntary migration to include moves that are non-coercive and uncoordinated, yet occur over

long distances and durations. It also adds depth to our existing understanding of the motives

behind such migration, moving beyond the specific crisis and a general sense of vulnerability to

a specific set of predisposing risks for family migration.

Ultimately, the significance of this study and of an integrated model of voluntary and

involuntary migration derive from the need for behavioural models of population displacement

and welfare in anticipation of the long-term effects of global climate change. Episodes like the

1988 flood illustrates both the significance of family migration under such crisis conditions, the

duration of such effects, and the importance of livelihood effects rather than simple ecological

effects. The likelihood of family migration rose substantially in the years immediately following

a catastrophic flood, far more so than the likelihood of individual migration. The family

migration peak lasted not one but four years, with little difference between 1988 and the three

subsequent years. The immediate spike in family migration risk came not in the most flood-

prone areas, which see flooding and high rates of family migration every year, but in areas of

moderate flood risk. Most importantly, the relative risk of family migration in the entire four

Kuhn 28
year post-flood period were higher for men from households with smaller land holdings, on top

of their already greater risk of family migration. Post-flood main effects and land interactions

were robust to the inclusion of village fixed-effects, suggesting that excess family migration was

less the result of the rising waters themselves than of the ensuing social and economic

disruptions. Future research should explore the specific interactions between exposure to

environmental risk, generalized economic disruption, and household livelihoods in greater depth.

Extrapolating from this one small study area to the broader coastal ecosystem, this post-

flood dislocation of population could have had substantial impacts on rural-urban migration.

Over a four-year period, about 1,400 married left the study site with their families, or about 250

more than would have left in a normal year. Roughly 30% of these men were landless, compared

to 21% of the total sample. Each of these men travelled with a wife and an average of 2 children

under age 15. In a study area population of 200,000, between 5,000 and 6,000 moved during a

four-year period under highly adverse conditions, half of them children, about 1,000 of whom

would not have moved in the absence of a flood. Simply extrapolating this level of displacement

to the quarter of Bangladesh’s population living in deltaic areas, about 30 million at the time,

would imply the displacement of approximately 750,000 people in a four-year period, about

150,000 of whom would not have moved had there not been a flood. While these migrants do not

constitute the flood of displaced individuals that might be associated with a worst-case scenario

climate event, they point a more relevant and equally challenging form of displacement,

sustained and highly selective on livelihood vulnerability, with occasional spikes that dip ever

more deeply into the pool of vulnerable households.

The forces of vulnerability and agency at play in the family migration decision raise

questions about the welfare of family migrants and appropriate policy measures. Even in arguing

Kuhn 29
that family migration is rational and thus perhaps not easily or sensibly discouraged, it may

nonetheless be sub-optimal or avoidable under some conditions. Periods of ecological disaster

offers periods of potential risk and opportunity. Some displacement is unavoidable, yet continued

excess displacement over a period of four years places considerable burdens on urban areas,

thereby justifying efforts to promote rural population retention. The duration of risk and its

concentration among socioeconomically vulnerable families suggests that medium-term

livelihood support (such as employment on reconstruction) would at least mitigate the migration

flow. For the subset of families who could not and should not be discouraged from abandoning

rural life, urban transition programs targeting the needs of socially excluded and economically

vulnerable families could carry further benefits. While forced migration is normally attributed to

acts of God, politics, or both, this paper proceeded to understand the role of household

vulnerability and agency in driving the process of family migration. More family migration can

be expected in the future. Much more can be done to understand it, and to provide families and

societies with the tools they need to make it both avoidable and tolerable.

Kuhn 30
References
Afsar, Rita. 1994. Internal migration and women: an insight into causes, consequences, and
policy implications, Bangladesh Development Studies 2/3: 217-243.

Alvarado, Steven E. and Douglas S. Massey. 2010. “In Search of Peace: Structural Adjustment,
Violence, and International Migration.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
Social Science, forthcoming.

Amin, Sajeda, Ian Diamond, Ruchira T. Naved, and Margaret Newby. Transition to adulthood of
female garment-factory workers in Bangladesh, Studies in Family Planning 29: 185-200.

Arango, Joaquin. 2000. Explaining migration: a critical view, International Social Science
Journal 52(3): 283-296.

Bohra-Mishra, Pratikshya and Douglas S. Massey. 2010. Individual Decisions to Migrate

During Civil Conflict. Paper presented at "Migration: A World in Motion", University of
Maastricht, Maastricht, Netherlands.

Brueckner, Jan K. and Hyun-A Kim. 2001. Land Markets in the Harris-Todaro Model: A New
Factor Equilibrating Rural-Urban Migration. Journal of Regional Science 41(3): 507-520.

Castles, Stephen. Towards a Sociology of Forced Migration and Social Transformation.

Sociology 77(1): 13-34.

Cernea, Michael M. 1995. Social Integration and Population Displacement:The Contribution of

Social Sciences. International Social Science Journal 43 (1): 91–112.

Cernea, Michael M. 2006. Development-induced and Conflict-induced IDPs: Bridging the

Research Divide. Forced Migration Review 15: 25-27.

Chen, Kong-Pin, Shin-Hwan Chiang, and Siu Fai Leung. 2003. Migration, family, and risk
diversification, Journal of Labour Economics 21(2): 353-380.

Chen, L.C., A.K.M.A. Chowdhury and S.L. Huffman. 1979. Seasonal dimensions of energy
protein malnutrition in rural Bangladesh: The role of agriculture, dietary practices, and
infection, Ecology of Food and Nutrition 8: 175-187.

Connell, John, Biplab Dasgupta, Roy Laishley, and Michael Lipton. 1976. Migration from Rural
Areas: The Evidence from Village Studies. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Curran, Sara R. 2002. Migration, Social Capital, and the Environment: Considering Migrant
Selectivity and Networks in Relation to Coastal Ecosystems. In: Population and
Environment: Methods of Analysis, Population and Development Review. Lutz, W.
Prskawetz, A. and Sanderson, W. (eds). A supplement to Volume 28, 89–125.

de Haan, Arjan. 1999. Livelihoods and poverty: The role of migration – a critical review of the

Kuhn 31
 migration literature, Journal of Development Studies 36: 1-47.

de Haan, Arajan and Ben Rogaly. 2002. Introduction: migrant workers and their role in rural
change, Journal of Development Studies, Special Issue on Labour Mobility and Rural
Society, 38(5): 1-14.

de Janvry, Alain and Carlos Garramon. 1977. The dynamics of rural poverty in Latin America,
Journal of Peasant Studies 5(2): 206-216.

Durand, Jorge, Douglas S. Massey, Rene M. Zenteno. 2001. Mexican immigration to the United
States: continuities and changes, Latin American Research Review 36(1): 107-127.

Durand, Jorge, William Kandel, Emilio A. Parrado, and Douglas S. Massey. 1996. International
migration and development in Mexican communities, Demography 33(2): 249-264.

Ellis, Frank. 1998. Household livelihood strategies and rural livelihood diversification, Journal
of Development Studies, 35: 1-38.

Engel, Stefanie, and Ana Maria Ibanez. 2007. “Displacement Due to Violence in Colombia: A
Household-Level Analysis.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 55:335–365.

Ezra, Markos and Gebre-Egziabher Kiros. 2001. “Rural Out-Migration in the Drought Prone
Areas of Ethiopia: A Multilevel Analysis.” International Migration Review. 35(3):749-771.

Faist, Thomas. 2000. The Volume and Dynamics of International Migration and Transnational
Social Spaces. New York: Clarendon Press.

Fauveau, Vincent. 1994. Matlab: Women, Children and Health. Dhaka, Bangladesh: ICDDR,B.

Frankenberg, Elizabeth and Randall Kuhn. 2001. Old age support from sons and daughters:
Bangladesh and Indonesia in comparison. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Population Association of America, Washington, DC.

Gardner, Katy. 1995. Global migrants, local lives: Travel and transformation in rural
Bangladesh. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Gereffi, Gary and Miguel Korzeniewicz (ed.). 1994. Commodity Chains and Global Capitalism.
Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

Harris, John R. and Michael P. Todaro. 1970. Migration, unemployment and development: a two
sector analysis, American Economic Review 60(1): 126-142.

Henry, Sabine, Bruno Schoumaker, and Cris Beauchemin. 2004. The Impact of Rainfall on the
First Outmigration: A Multi-Level Event-History Analysis in Burkina Faso. Population and
Environment 25(5): 423-60.

Kuhn 32
Hunter, Lori M. 1998. “The Association between Environmental Risk and Internal Migration
Flows.” Population and Environment. 19(3):247-277.

Hunter, Lori. M. 2005. Migration and environmental hazards. Population & Environment: A
Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies 26 (4): 273-302.

Ibáñez, Ana Maria, and Carlos Eduardo Vélez. 2008. “Civil Conflict and Forced Migration: The
Micro Determinants and Welfare Losses of Displacement in Colombia.” World
Development 36(4):659-676.

Jahangir, B.K. 1979. Differentiation Polarization and Confrontation in Rural Bangladesh.

Dhaka, Bangladesh: Centre for Social Studies, University of Dhaka.

Jansen, Eirik G. 1987. Rural Bangladesh: Competition for Scarce Resources. Oslo, Norwegian
University Press.

Kanaiaupuni, Shawn Malia and Katharine M. Donato. 1999. Migradollars and mortality: The
effects of migration on infant survival in Mexico’ Demography 36(3): 339-353.

Keely, Charles B., Holly Reed, Ronald J. Waldman, R. 2001. Understanding mortality patterns
in complex humanitarian emergencies. In Reed, H. E. & Keely, C. B. (eds) Forced
Migration and Mortality. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.

Kuhn, Randall. 1999. The Logic of Letting Go: Family and Individual Migration from Rural
Bangladesh, Unpublished Doctoral Thesis, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.

Kuhn, Randall. 2003. Identities in motion: social exchange networks and rural-urban migration
in Bangladesh, Contributions to Indian Sociology, 37(1-2): 311-337.

Kuhn, Randall. 2005. A longitudinal analysis of health and mortality in a migrant-sending region
of Bangladesh, in S. Jatrana, M. Toyota, and B. Yeoh (eds.), Migration and Health in Asia,
London: Routledge Press, pp. 318-357.

Lauby, Jennifer and Oded Stark. 1988. Individual migration as a family strategy: young women
in the Philippines, Population Studies 42: 473-486.

Lewis, W.Arthur. 1954. Economic Development with unlimited supplies of labour, The
Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies 22: 139-191.

Lindstrom, David P. 1996. Economic opportunity in Mexico and return migration from the
United States, Demography 33(3): 357-374.

Lindstrom, David P. and Nathanael Lauster. 2001. Local economic opportunity and the
competing risks of internal and US migration in Zacatecas, Mexico, International Migration
Review 35(4): 1232-1256.

Kuhn 33
Lipton, Michael. 1980. Migration from rural areas of poor countries: the impact on rural
productivity and income distribution, World Development 8: 1-24.

Lomnitz, Larissa A. 1977. Networks and Marginality: Life in a Mexican Shantytown, New York:
Academic Press.

Lucas, Robert E B. and Oded Stark. 1985. Motivations to remit: evidence from Botswana,
Journal of Political Economy 93: 901-918.

Mackenzie, Peter. 2002. Strangers in the City: The Hukou and Urban Citizenship in China.
Journal of International Affairs 56(1): 305-319.

Massey, Douglas S. and Emilio A. Parrado. 1994. Migradollars: the remittances and savings of
Mexican migrants to the United States, Population Research and Policy Review 13: 3-30.

Massey, Douglas S. and Kristen Espinosa. 1997. What’s driving Mexico-US migration: a
theoretical, empirical and policy analysis, American Journal of Sociology 102: 939-999.

Massey, Douglas S., Joaquin Arango, Graeme Hugo, Ali Kouaouci, Adela Pellegrino, and J.
Edward Taylor. 1999. Worlds in Motion: Understanding International Migration at the End
of the Millennium, New York: Oxford University Press.

Massey, Douglas S., Nathalie Williams, William G. Axinn, and Dirgha J. Ghimire. 2009.
Community Services and Out-Migration. International Migration 48(3): 1-41.

Mincer, Jacob. 1978. Family migration decisions, Journal of Political Economy 8(2): 749-773.

Myers, Norman. 2002. Environmental refugees: a growing phenomenon of the 21st century.
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society London. 357:609-613,

Nabi, A.K.M. Nurun. 1992. Dynamics of internal migration in Bangladesh, Canadian Studies in
Population 19(1): 81-98.

Perlman, Janice E. 1976. The Myth of Marginality: Urban Poverty and Politics in Rio de
Janeiro, Berkeley: University of California Press.

Portes, Alejandro and Julia Sensenbrenner. 1993. Embeddedness and immigration: notes on the
social determinants of economic action, American Journal of Sociology 98(6): 1320-1350.

Raleigh, Clionadh, Lisa Jordan, and Idean Salehyan. 2008. Assessing the Impact of Climate
Change on Migration and Conflict. Working paper on Social Dimensions of Climate
Change. The Social Development Department, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.

Ranis, Gustav and John C.H. Fei. 1961. A theory of economic development, American Economic
Review 51: 533-565.

Kuhn 34
Retherford, Robert D. and Minja Kim Choe. 1993. Statistical Models for Causal Analysis, New
York: John Wiley and Sons.

Rogaly, Ben. 2003. Who goes? Who stays back? Seasonal migration and staying put among rural
manual workers in Eastern India, Journal of International Development 15: 1-10.

Rogaly, Ben and Abdur Rafique. 2003. Struggling to Save Cash: Seasonal Migration and
Vulnerability in West Bengal, India, Development and Change 34(4): 659-681.

Root, Brenda Davis and Gordon F. De Jong. 1991 Family migration in a developing country,
Population Studies 45(2): 221-233.

Rosenzweig, Mark R. and Oded Stark. 1989. Consumption smoothing, migration, and marriage,
Journal of Political Economy 97: 905-926.

Roy, Kartik C., Clem Tisdell, and Mohammad Alauddin. 1992. Rural-urban migration and
poverty in South Asia, Journal of Contemporary Asia 22(1): 57-72.

Sana, Mariano. 2005. Buying Membership in the Transnational Community: Migrant

Remittances, Social Status, and Assimilation. Population Research and Policy Review 24:
231-261.

Scudder, Theodore. 1993. Development-induced Relocation and Refugee Studies: 37 years of

Change and Continuity among Zambia’s Gwenbe Tonga. Journal of Refugee Studies 6(3):
123–152.

Shaw, Annapurna 1988. The income security function of the rural sector: the case of Calcutta,
India, Economic Development and Cultural Change 36: 303-314.

Sjaastad, Larry A. 1962. The costs and returns of human migration, Journal of Political
Economy 70: 80-93.

Stark, Oded. 1982. Research on rural-to-urban migration in LDCs: the confusion frontier and
why we should pause to rethink afresh, World Development 10(1): 63-70.

Stark, Oded and Eliakim Katz. 1986. Labour migration and risk aversion in less developed
countries, Journal of Labour Economics 4: 134-149.

Taylor, J. Edward and T.J. Wyatt. 1996. The shadow value of migrant remittances, income and
inequality in a household-farm economy, Journal of Development Studies 32: 899-912.

Todaro, Michael P. 1969. A model of labour migration and urban unemployment in less-
developed countries, American Economic Review 59: 138-148.

United Nations Population Division. 2010. World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision and
World Urbanization Prospects: The 2007 Revision. Department of Economic and Social

Kuhn 35
 Affairs of the United Nations Secretariat. Accessed at http://esa.un.org/unup, Saturday,
September 11, 2010; 1:52:17 PM.

Unnithan-Kumar, Maya. 2003. Spirits of the womb: migration, motherhood and healthcare in
Rajasthan, Contributions to Indian Sociology 37(1/2): 163-187.

VanWey, Leah K. 2003. Land ownership as a determinant of temporary migration in Nang Rong,
Thailand, European Journal of Population 19: 121-145.

Winters, Paul, Benjamin Davis, and Leonardo Corral. 2002. Assets, activities and income
generation in rural Mexico: factoring in social and public capital, Agricultural Economics
27(2): 139-156.

Zaman, M.Q. 1991. “The Displaced Poor and Resettlement Policies in Bangladesh.” Disasters.
15(2):117-125.

Kuhn 36
 Table 1: Means of key dependent and independent Variables

Person-
Person Level Year Level
Migration Outcomes
Individual Migration 4.3% 0.49%
Family Migration 8.4% 0.96%
Past Migration Experience
Rural-Urban 9.2% 8.5%
Other External 6.6% 3.6%
Internal n/a 7.1%
Any in current year 2.8%
Independent Variables
112.9 113.4
Household Land
(168.8) (170.3)
Years of Schooling 3.1 (3.8) 3.1 (3.7)
1-4 Years 23% 22%
5-9 Years 21% 22%
10+ Years 10% 9%
Age 37.5 (12.4) 43.1 (12.2)
Any child age 0-1 18% 13%
Any child age 1-4 39% 46%
Any child age 5-9 34% 48%
Any child age 10-14 28% 42%
Household head 51% 60%
Household Size 7.8 (3.6) 8.4 (4.1)
Fisherman 5% 5%
Hindu 15% 15%

Cases 45,382 473,561

Notes: * - First entry to sample is in 1982 for cases in census, and
on first return post-1982 for others. Standard deviations in
parenthesis where applicable.

Kuhn 37
 Table 2: Covariates of Migration Using Two-Outcome and Three-Outcome Models
No Village Fixed Effects Village Fixed Effects
Binomial Multinomial Logit Binomial Multinomial Logit
Logit - Logit -
Any Individual Family Any Individual Family
Variables Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration Migration
Household Land -0.101*** -0.048*** -0.128*** -0.101*** -0.048*** -0.127***
Holdings (logged) (0.007) (0.012) (0.008) (0.007) (0.012) (0.008)
Internal Migrant in -1.428*** -1.489* -1.415*** -1.427*** -1.504* -1.404***
Previous Year (0.240) (0.591) (0.262) (0.240) (0.591) (0.263)
Any Internal 0.194* -0.538** 0.415*** 0.114 -0.684*** 0.366***
Migration History (0.077) (0.186) (0.085) (0.081) (0.192) (0.090)
1-4 Years+ 0.228*** 0.321*** 0.181*** 0.193*** 0.272*** 0.150***
(0.035) (0.060) (0.043) (0.036) (0.061) (0.044)
5-9 Years 0.379*** 0.628*** 0.232*** 0.359*** 0.576*** 0.229***
(0.036) (0.059) (0.044) (0.036) (0.059) (0.045)
10+ Years 0.724*** 0.843*** 0.664*** 0.723*** 0.821*** 0.672***
(0.044) (0.074) (0.054) (0.045) (0.075) (0.056)
Age -0.044*** -0.106*** -0.007 -0.044*** -0.113*** -0.004
(0.010) (0.015) (0.013) (0.010) (0.015) (0.013)
Age squared 0.000 0.001*** -0.000** 0.000 0.001*** -0.000**
(0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000)
Any Rural-Urban 0.964*** 0.601*** 1.155*** 0.913*** 0.504*** 1.127***
Migration Experience (0.034) (0.058) (0.041) (0.035) (0.059) (0.042)
Any Other External 0.637*** 0.59*** 0.782*** 0.596*** 0.308*** 0.747***
Migration Experience (0.041) (0.071) (0.049) (0.041) (0.072) (0.049)
Household head -0.537*** -0.935*** -0.331*** -0.540*** -0.924*** -0.344***
(0.035) (0.061) (0.042) (0.036) (0.062) (0.043)
Household Size -0.053*** -0.084*** -0.035*** -0.051*** -0.081*** -0.035***
(0.004) (0.007) (0.005) (0.004) (0.007) (0.005)
Fisherman -0.864*** -1.107*** -0.806*** -0.929*** -1.157*** -0.869***
(0.125) (0.270) (0.141) (0.129) (0.290) (0.144)
Hindu -0.757*** -1.029*** -0.628*** -0.591*** -0.767*** -0.509***
(0.056) (0.104) (0.067) (0.070) (0.125) (0.084)
Constant -1.908*** -1.502*** -3.214*** -2.140*** -1.421*** -3.597***
(0.192) (0.303) (0.248) (0.238) (0.381) (0.304)

Observations 458448 458448 458448 458448

Log Likelihood: 5048.640 5195.511 5851.483 6480.410
DF 14 28 157 314
RSquared 0.0753 0.0717 0.0846 0.0850
Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

Kuhn 38
 Table 3: Covariates of Multinomial Logistic Regression on
Three-Outcome Migration Model: Young Child Effects
Variables Individual Family
Has child 0-1 Year Old -0.766*** -0.835***
(0.070) (0.053)
Has child 1-4 Year Old -0.827*** 0.141***
(0.048) (0.037)
Has child 5-9 Year Old -0.372*** -0.076
(0.055) (0.040)
Has child 10-14 Year Old -0.093 -0.144**
(0.068) (0.046)
Age 0.002 0.009
(0.019) (0.015)
Age squared -0.001** -0.001***
(0.000) (0.000)

Observations 458448
Log Likelihood: 7292.9
DF 328
RSquared 0.0979
Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.001,
** p<0.01, * p<0.05

Kuhn 39
 Table 4: Annual Variation in Individual and Family Migration, Main Effects and Land
Interactions
Year Effects Only Year Effects Land Interactions
Individual Family Individual Family Individual Family
1982 (Omitted) -- -- -- -- -0.151*** -0.266***
(0.046) (0.033)
-0.083 -0.373*** -0.360 -0.720*** -0.068 -0.130***
1983
(0.141) (0.111) (0.260) (0.171) (0.048) (0.038)
0.171 0.052 -0.072 -0.348* -0.078 -0.112***
1984
(0.133) (0.100) (0.243) (0.157) (0.042) (0.033)
0.550*** 0.327*** 0.161 -0.156 -0.037 -0.087**
1985
(0.123) (0.094) (0.225) (0.147) (0.033) (0.028)
0.509*** 0.227* 0.166 -0.179 -0.050 -0.112***
1986
(0.123) (0.095) (0.226) (0.145) (0.035) (0.027)
0.210 0.364*** -0.054 -0.002 -0.072 -0.125***
1987
(0.130) (0.092) (0.237) (0.138) (0.039) (0.025)
0.413*** 0.472*** 0.089 0.175 -0.056 -0.149***
1988
(0.125) (0.091) (0.228) (0.134) (0.035) (0.024)
0.304* 0.404*** 0.053 0.117 -0.077* -0.152***
1989
(0.127) (0.092) (0.232) (0.136) (0.038) (0.024)
0.148 0.237* -0.343 -0.030 -0.012 -0.159***
1990
(0.131) (0.095) (0.254) (0.141) (0.044) (0.026)
0.251* 0.358*** -0.026 0.072 -0.070 -0.153***
1991
(0.127) (0.092) (0.230) (0.136) (0.037) (0.024)
0.189 0.053 -0.330 -0.446** -0.004 -0.085**
1992
(0.128) (0.097) (0.239) (0.152) (0.038) (0.028)
0.004 0.291** -0.223 -0.135 -0.085* -0.107***
1993
(0.131) (0.093) (0.234) (0.141) (0.038) (0.025)
-0.074 0.275** -0.228 -0.216 -0.108** -0.088***
1994
(0.132) (0.093) (0.230) (0.142) (0.037) (0.025)
-0.215 0.044 -0.513* -0.371* -0.066 -0.112***
1995
(0.135) (0.096) (0.243) (0.145) (0.042) (0.026)

Observations 458448 458448

Log Likelihood 7657.267 7751.8
DF 366 386
RSquared 0.101 0.101
Notes: Robust standard errors in parentheses; *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05

Kuhn 40
 Figure 1: First Migration and Marriage Status by Year,
1974 Census Cohort of unmarried men age 18+
100%

90%
Unmarried, never
80%
migrated

70%
Married, never
60% migrated

50%

40%

30% Migrated after

marriage
20% Migrated before
marriage, returned
10%
Migrated before
marriage, never
0% returned
1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995

Source: ICDDR,B (1996)

Kuhn 41
 Figure 2: Predicted probability of any, family, or individual migration, by land holdings,
categorical and linear logged specifications

Source: ICDDR,B (1996). Categorical specification from Appendix Table 1. Linear specification from
Table 2, columns 4-6.

Kuhn 42
 Figure 3: Spatial variation in relative risk of family migration in 1988,
with and without adjustment for baseline risk

Adjusted for baseline Risk Unadjusted for baseline risk

Source: ICDDR,B (1996). Models not shown

Kuhn 43
 Figure 4: Annual predicted probabilities of family Migration, for landless and
median landholding households (with confidence intervals shaded)

Source: Model shown in Table 4, columns 3-6

i
Migration in and out of the study site and household was recorded only after a period of six months, excluding

most seasonal or circular migration episodes, business trips, or vacations.

ii
Multinomial models must account for the “Independence of Irrelevant Alternatives” (IIA) assumption that the

relative choice between outcomes 1 and 2 would not be affected by elimination of outcome 3. Hausmann

specification tests compare coefficients and standard errors of possible two-outcome models with those of the

chosen model. All tests show no significant differences between the two-outcome models and the chosen model (at

the p<=0.01 level).

Kuhn 44
iii
Rural-rural moves, which typically involve individual seasonal migration episodes or nuclear family resettlement,

require a separate analytic model that includes destination-specific resources that are relevant in the rural context

(land purchase opportunities, local labor opportunities). International moves are difficult to model because income

expectations depend more on labor relations and social connections than on education, and because international

family migration is a rare event.

iv
All models were also tested using a definition of family migration as involving a husband, wife, and children (if

any were alive). Cases in which a husband and wife moved without their children were rare, and the models

produced statistically similar results. Separate models also relaxed the requirement that wives move on the same day

as husbands, instead defining family migration as husbands and wives moving in the same week or month. It was

also quite rare for wives to move in the same month if they did not move on the same day, and thus results were

unchanged.
v
While estimating a fixed-effects multinomial logistic regression is problematic because of the categorical nature of

the dependent variable, the inclusion of village-level controls in a standard model results in no bias as long as the

number of observations per cell (village) approaches infinity. An average cell contains 1,800 married male person-

years and 600 unmarried ones.

vi
These groupings build on already-observed clumping patterns. Between 100 and 200 decimals, values are grouped

to the nearest 20 decimal unit (so 110 decimals becomes 100, 130 becomes 120). Above 200 decimals, values are

group to the nearest 50 decimal unit.

Kuhn 45