Migration and mobility - A comparative perspective of Russia and Japan

Transcription

1 Migration and mobility - A comparative perspective of Russia and Japan Reiko Hayashi hayashi-reiko@ipss.go.jp National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Japan < Draft Paper > I. Context International migration has become one of the most important issues in almost all the countries in the world. It has been noted the volume of global international migration keeps on increasing (UN 2012) and immigrants-rich countries are struggling hard how to continue the inflow and maintain the integrity of the society and migrants sending countries are keen on the continuous outflow as the emigrants remittance back home is becoming the primary source of the country s income. Another important trend of the world population is urbanization. The urban population of the world has surpassed 50% in 2010 and the rate is generally considered to be increasing even further. The natural increase, i.e. the excess of birth against death in urban area should not be underestimated (Chen et al. 1998) but the major component of urban growth is due to migration, especially the internal (domestic) migration. Hence both international and internal migration plays an important role for the present world population trend. However historically, the migration has not been automatically and monotonically increasing phenomena and several transition theories have been presented. The mobility transition was first proposed by Zelinksy in 1971 but different forms of theories have been elaborated and examined since then, such as migration transitions (Skeldon 2011, de Haas 2010) or migration turnaround (Ishikawa 2001). Russia and Japan are 2 different countries with different historical background but the 2 countries are neighbors with similar population size, and both are going through the population decline. In terms of population migration, the 2 countries are not typical sending or receiving countries. In this article, a brief comparison of international and internal migration trend of Russia and Japan will be made in order to add the piece for a better understanding of the global migration and mobility at present. II. International migration pattern The international migration pattern can be measured by several indicators. Here rates of migrant par total population by origin and destination of the country are examined using the newly available data of international migrant stock by destination and origin compiled by United Nations Population Division. The rate of migrant par total population by destination (herein after referred to as rate by destination ) is defined as the number of immigrant divided by the total population of the receiving (destination) country and the rate of migrant par total population by origin (herein after referred to as rate by origin ) is defined as the number of emigrant divided by the total population of the sending (origin) country. Some small countries where massive emigrant exist outside of the country can have the rate by origin more than 100% but if we limit the analysis for countries 1

2 large enough, for example more than 10 million people, the rate by origin ranges modestly between 0.3% (Madagascar) to 21.2% (Portugal) and 0.1% (China) to 26.6% (Saudi Arabia) for the rate by destination. These rates exhibit the level of international mobility. It is commonly believed that rich countries have a lot of immigrants hence have higher rate by destination and developing countries send a lot of emigrant hence higher rate by origin. In fact, this conventional and simplistic view is not always the case. It is true that the rich countries such as Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, USA, Germany or France have larger rate by destination than the rates by origin and well considered to be receiving countries whereas countries like Afghanistan or Burkina Faso have high rates by origin than the rates by destination, which are also easily labeled as sending countries (Figure 1). However, there are not only the typical cases. There exist the developing receiving countries such as Côte d Ivoire and emerging sending countries such as Portugal or Mexico. It is interesting to see China as world second least sending country (0.6% of total population is outside of the country) due to the large total population and probably due to emigrants who have been outside already generations ago. However these low rates of migration are observed in Brazil and India, other countries of BRICs. Russia is one of the BRICs and it has been acknowledged that the country is a big importer and exporter of migrants. This perception is confirmed with the data used here, 7.5% of total Russian population is outside of the country as emigrants in other countries and the immigrants within Russian territory comprises 8.6% of the total population of Russia. The rates by origin and by destination are close to each other and the level is rather high. Japan is known for its rigid immigrant policy and thus the rate by destination is quite low, 1.7% of total population in Japan, but its rate by origin is not so inferior; 1.0% of total population, which is even superior to the rate of Saudi Arabia (0.6%) or USA(0.8%). Between Russia and Japan, we can see the difference of the overall level of migration, Russia around 7-8% and Japan around 1% but on the other hand we can notice the similarity that there is the balance between the rates by origin and destination. With the similar size of population around 140 and 120 and million both facing to the population decline, this similarity can be an interesting source of comparison between the two countries. 2

3 30 a. Rates over 10% 25 Saudi Arabia Destination% Canada Australia USA Spain Germany Cote d'ivoire Ukraine Syria Netherlands UK France Russia Burkina Faso Kazakhstan Portugal Japan Mexico Romania 0 Afghanistan Cuba Origin % 10 b. Rates below 10% Greece Belgium 9 Malaysia Russia 8 Italy Ghana 7 Destination% 6 5 Venezuela Rwanda Uzbekistan 4 South Africa Czech Argentina Chad 3 Nepal Ecuador Iran Zimbabwe Pakistan Poland Turkey 2 South Korea Japan Sri Lanka 1 Nigeria Mali India Brazil Guatemala Morocco 0 China Indonesia Vietnam Origin % Figure 1 Rate of migrant par total population by origin and destination, Countries with population more than 10 million Data source : United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Trends in International Migrant Stock: Migrants by Destination and Origin (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2012). 3

4 III. Internal mobility pattern Although the international mobility is one of the key issues in the context of globalized world at present, in fact, the international mobility is just the tip of the iceberg of total mobility, which the internal mobility shares the important portion. For example with the data of National Survey on Migration conducted in 2011, 3.8% of Japanese has the experience of living in foreign country / countries whereas 83% has the experience of domestic move in 2011 (the remaining 13.2% has never experience a migration). Internal mobility can be measured by several indicators derived from various types of data. For example, in the case of Japan, mainly 3 data sources exist ; Population Census, Report on Internal Migration derived from the Basic Resident Registers and the National Survey on Migration. The former 2 sources are complete enumerations and the last one is a sample survey. From these data sources the outlook of Japanese internal migration is obtained and the samples of indicators are shown in Table 1. Table 1 Examples of internal mobility indicators of Japan a. Population Census (2010) Population, by Duration of Residency at the Current Domicile Since birth Less than 1 year 1 to 5 years 5 to 10 years 10 to 20 years 20 years or more Total 12.9% 6.4% 17.8% 14.3% 17.7% 30.9% 100.0% Male 16.1% 6.7% 18.2% 14.2% 17.3% 27.5% 100.0% Female 10.0% 6.1% 17.4% 14.4% 18.2% 34.0% 100.0% Note : Percentage is calculated excluding Not Reported. Source : 2010 Population Census / Basic Complete Tabulation on Industries / Japan, &tstatCode= &tclass1= &tclass2= &tclass3=&tclass4=&tclass5= Total Place of usual residence five years ago Another place Same as within the same different outside of Total present municipality prefecture prefecture Japan Total 77.2% 11.4% 5.1% 5.7% 0.5% 100.0% Male 76.6% 11.2% 5.2% 6.5% 0.5% 100.0% Female 77.8% 11.7% 5.0% 5.0% 0.5% 100.0% Note : Percentage is calculated excluding Not Reported. Source : 2010 Population Census / Tabulation on Internal Migration for Population / Japan &tstatCode= &tclass1= &tclass2= &tclass3=&tclass4=&tclass5= 4

5 b. Report on Internal Migration (2011) Annual Rate of Migration par Total Japanese Population (%) Year Annual rate of Interprefectural migration Annual rate of Intraprefectural migration Annual rate of migration (Total of Inter and Intraprefectural) Source : Report on Internal Migration in Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, c. National Survey on Migration (2011) Range of life-time migration the same place within municipality within prefecture inside Japan international Total 13.2% 17.2% 21.8% 44.1% 3.8% 100% Reason of migration Educational Occupational Housing Living with parents / children Following family member Marriage / divorce Others Not stated Total Total 5.4% 14.1% 35.0% 6.4% 10.9% 13.5% 11.8% 2.9% 100% Male 5.0% 20.1% 34.8% 6.6% 7.3% 11.4% 11.8% 3.0% 100% Female 6.0% 8.2% 35.0% 6.3% 14.6% 15.6% 11.6% 2.9% 100% Source : 7 th National Survey of Migration, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research As for internal mobility of Russia, the available data to the author for the moment are the Population Census with the question of the duration of stay at the place of usual residence. As the similar item is available in Japanese Population Census, a comparison is possible. Using the data of Russian 2002 census and Japanese 2010 census, 10 year mobility rate, defined here as the rate of people who lived in the present residence less than 10 years against total population and immobility rate as the rate of people who lived in the present residence since birth, are compared. 10 year mobility rate is higher in Japan (36%) than in Russia (13%). Immobility rate is higher 5

6 in Russia (56%) than in Japan (12%). There is a marked difference between the mobility of Russia and Japan and the Japanese are much more mobile than the Russians, within each country boundary. Population in urban area is expected to be more mobile so the rates of capital areas of both countries are compared. Not surprisingly, Tokyo s mobility is higher than in Moscow city, with 10 year mobility rate of 47.0% in Tokyo versus 12.0% in Moscow city, immobility rate of 8.7% in Tokyo versus 56.8% in Moscow city. The interest contrast between the 2 countries is that the Tokyo has higher mobility than the whole country (Japan) whereas Moscow city has lower mobility than the whole country (Russia). If urban and rural areas are compared, again in Japan, the urban area is much more mobile than in rural area. However in Russia, 10 year mobility rate in urban area is lower (12.5%) than in rural area (14.9%) and the immobility rate is, on the contrary, lower in the urban area than in rural area. Table 2 Comparison of internal mobility, Russia and Japan 10 year mobility rate (2010) Immobility rate (2010) 10 year mobility rate (2002) Immobility rate (2002) Japan 38.5% 12.9% Russia 13.1% 55.7% Tokyo 47.0% 8.7% Moscow city 12.0% 56.8% Urban (DID) 43.3% 9.6% Urban 12.5% 54.1% Rural (non DID) 29.2% 19.3% Rural 14.9% 60.2% Rates are calculated excluding the not stated. Source : For Japanese data, same as Table 1-a. For Russian data, All-Russia Population Census This peculiar urban-rural mobility difference of Russia can be further examined with the rates according to the period of stay (Table 3). In Russian urban area, there are fewer people living in the same place since birth and fewer people who moved in the present place since 10 years ago. Then it means that there are more people in urban area who moved in present place since birth until 10 years ago. Between these 2 periods, 2 categories of the duration are available in the 2002 census data, 1988 and earlier and There are much more people who moved in the present place since birth until 1988 in urban area (30.3%) than in rural area (20.9%) but for the brief period of , the rate is lower in urban (2.6%) and higher in rural (3.7%), the same trend as the 10 year mobility rate. Thus it can be said that urban population had higher mobility until 1988, which is a common phenomenon in the global context, then the urban mobility weakened since The explanation of this trend might be already done somewhere else and the release of census data of 2010 will shed a new light for the more recent trend of Russian internal mobility. 6

7 Russia Table 3 Internal mobility in Russia, urban and rural area by period Since Birth (Immobility rate) Duration of stay at the place of usual residence 1988 and earlier (10 year mobility rate) Not since birth but duration not shown Total 55.7% 27.8% 2.9% 13.1% 0.5% Urban 54.1% 30.3% 2.6% 12.5% 0.5% Rural 60.2% 20.9% 3.7% 14.9% 0.3% Source : same as Table 2. The immobility rate by Russian oblast and by Japanese prefecture is shown in Figure 2. The marked low immobility rates in the central Russia are conspicuous but also it can be noted that the oblasts in Far Eastern Federal District in Russia and Hokkaido in Japan share the lower immobility rates compared to the national average of respective country. This can be due to the similar history of these regions which received new settlements during the 19 th century. Figure 2 Russia(2002) Japan(2010) regional immobility rate Source : same as Table 2. IV. Conclusion The volume of international migrants is larger in Russia than in Japan but both Russia and Japan are not either sending or receiving migrants and there is a balance between the number of immigrants and emigrants. 7

8 Internal mobility is much stronger in Japan than in Russia and urban area has higher mobility in Japan and lower in Russia for the period after A society which contains foreigners less than 2% but nearly 40% of the people move their residence in 10 years is well different from the society with nearly 9% as foreigner but 56% never moved since birth. That is the difference of Japan and Russia, seen from population mobility and migration point of view. This can be due to the difference of economic level or mobility restrictive policies in respective country. Further details should be examined for the better understanding of these trends. Bibliography - Nancy Chen, Paolo Valente and Hania Zlotnik (1998) What do we know about recent trends in Urbanization?, in Migration, urbanization, and development : new directions and issues, United Nations Population Fund, Kluwer Academic Publishers - Hein de Haas (2010) Migration transitions : a theoretical and empirical inquiry into the developmental drivers of international migration, Working Papers 24, International Migration Institute, James Martin 21st Century School, University of Oxford - Yoshitaka Ishikawa (2001) Jinko ido tenkan no kenkyu, Kyoto University Press - Ronald Skeldon (2012) Migration Transitions Revisited: Their Continued Relevance for The Development of Migration Theory, Population, Space and Place, 18, pp United Nations (2012) International migration and development, Report of the Secretary-General, A/67/354, - Wilbur Zelinsky (1971) The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition, Geographical Review, vol.61, no.2 8