Get your own Free HomepageContrast the impact of migration on its source and destination areas in terms of demography (9), economic geography (8) and social geography (8).
In order to determine the impact of migration, it is important to understand and define the term migration and to whom the movements are relevant. Migration, in terms of population, refers to permanent change of residence lasting over one year and, therefore, does not include short-term migrations such as commuting. This said, some authorities include seasonal and daily movements as migration but in terms of this essay could not be included as a substantial migrational movement. However, the term migration does include ‘permanent’ movements between countries (external or international movements) or with one country (internal movements). Of course, the movement of people from one place to another will result in population changes in any given area and will also affect the total population of the source and destination areas. Subsequently, the population structure of an area will be changed as a result of migration.
The influence of migration upon demography is likely to cause changes in the demographic structure of the population. Certain migrational movements may involve one type of age group rather than others. For example, internal migration in the UK into the London Docklands has seen many more young married couples moving into the region, which in turn has caused the amount of children to increase. Previously, before the urban development schemes begun in the 1960’s, many young people moved out of the area in search of better quality homes and surroundings. However, counterurbanisation generally has seen large-scale movement of younger people back into urban areas. Since younger people are usually money earners, it is common to find more of the younger age groups migrating in order to better themselves since they can afford to.
It is also common for there to be a higher proportion of young married couples and children in areas where governments have created new towns or move the Capitol City. This has occurred in Brazil (Brasilia) and Nigeria (Abuja) where the governments have both chosen to move the capitol inland. The new economy and housing has enticed younger people with families to move - a similar situation occurred in the UK when New Towns were first established. In economically less developed countries, it is common to find a high proportion of males in comparison to the amount of females in urban areas. Internal migration from rural areas to urban areas occurs due to lack of good resources in rural areas and what is called the ‘Dick Whittington Syndrome’ causes men to move to urban areas to set up a home for their family. Few succeed, and leave their families with the effect of urban areas having a high amount of males over 18 and a deficit of women and children.
Another example of demographic changes as a result of migration is the movement of Turks to Germany during a period after the Second World War. In 1945, the German government encouraged many foreigners into the country to work as Gastarbeitern (literally - guest workers) in order to rebuild their economy. To begin with, the migration of Turks to Germany was very age and sex selective; only men between twenty to thirty moved initially. While the impact of this movement in Germany is visible, the impact upon the source is far more recognisable. Money earned by Gastarbeitern was returned to the source area. 50% of Sakaltutan’s income (a Turkish Village) in 1945-89 was derived from overseas sources. Also, skills developed in Germany were brought back to the village where the more modern techniques and skills begun to be applied since the income became sufficient to do so. Pressure upon local resources was reduced meaning the amount of people unemployed became considerably lower. However, those who emigrated were generally those people with skills and education leaving the area lacking efficient workers; the birth rate was lowered as mainly men emigrated but death rates increased as, as people died, there were few people in subsequent age groups to ‘regenerate’ the population and overall population decline occurred. These points can clearly be seen on the right hand population pyramid below.
The effect on the destination can clearly be seen on the right hand pyramid. It is clear that more males migrated than females and mostly between the ages of 20 and 40. By the early 1990’s there were 1.8 million Turks living in Germany and tensions between the ethnic groups – who do not integrate – has arisen. Resentment of the Turks has occurred, as many Germans believe that Turks are causing unemployment to rise in Germany by taking up jobs. Racial tension is common and Turks are harassed by police officers meaning some migration back to the source has occurred. However, German employers are reluctant to encourage this movement, as Turks are cheaper to employ and help supply a labour shortage. Migrants are also more economically active and have many skills, qualities that are likely to be retained by the German government.
Migration also has economic impacts on the source and destination areas. As is often the case, however, migration will not have only one effect, rather several. The demographic impacts of rural depopulation in India especially, also have economic implications. In the source (rural) regions, economic activity is slowed or even halted creating a job surplus and resources are abundant. The urban destination areas are likely to suffer from problems of unemployment since there are too many people for the amount of jobs. In some cases people are forced to work shorter hours in order to allow for the higher amounts of employment seekers which in turn reduces the purchasing power of each individual and adversely affects the economy of the area. Similarly, the movement of Turks to Germany could be applied to economic migration since the reason for the movement was to find employment. There are aspects of both demographic implications and economic impacts in this example as discussed previously.
Many people migrate in order to find employment and in many cases the destination government actively supports this idea. Most authorities regard the movement of people from the Caribbean to London in the 1960’s as an economic migration since the movement was encouraged by the British Government and the London Transport Company in order to have sufficient jobs to maintain the public transport systems in London. The inward migration of people from the West Indies solved the problems of employment on London’s public transport system by using cheaper labour from abroad. However, the immigrants failed to integrate into British society until fairly recently and so formed cliques and ghettos and as a result of British prejudices bore many allegations of job stealing, violence and so on.
Similarly, political migrations could be included in the economic impact umbrella of migration. Many refugees – victims of forced migration – are classed as migrants due to political reasons. The UN classifies refugees as those people who have a ‘well-founded fear’ of a certain situation and disregards the variety of causes that force people to flee. The definition is very vague and open to different interpretations. However, keeping in mind that refugees are usually fleeing political or social unrest (which may include economic problems), the impact upon the destination countries is fairly severe. Large-scale movements of refugees can cause huge economic and logistical problems for the destination nation. The UNHCR spends over US$1 billion a year on refugees and the strain put on resources, the economy and so on of the destination nation can lead to the refugees being refused asylum or just as poorly accommodated in their new ‘home’.
Like some aspects of economic impacts (especially political refugees), social impacts are an influence on migration. Most refugees are fleeing social problems such as civil war or natural hazards such as refugees from Rwanda. Worldwide there are 23 million refugees and 80% of these come from economically less economically developed countries. What is more, 25 million refugees are displaced annually with different countries – these are internal refugees. The first UN involvement in the movements of refugees occurred in 1948 with the creation of a new Israel. Palestinians were displaced to Jordan, Syria, and several other countries. Israel is now seeking independence, which has caused several civil problems. War between Israelis and Palestinians has caused several thousands of people to flee their homes.
Perhaps a less violent social migration pattern is shown in the United States. Many people from North Eastern parts of the States have shown signs of Sunbelt migration. Many people have moved from the now poor steel industry areas around the Great Lakes and New York City to warmer climates such as California and Florida. Florida is particularly popular with elderly women. Consequently, Chicago has seen a decline in population and industry with the only advantage being a release of pressure on the job market. This will me marginal as mainly retired people are moving away, although some younger families have chosen to move. The Sunbelt migration has brought about better skilled workers for the California region but the dependency ratio has increased. The tourist trade will profit from some seasonal migration although this cannot really be counted as ‘real’ migration as the period is often under 1 year.
The increase of Jews in London from Normandy in 1066 brought about some social changes. Today there are 220,000 British born Jews in London alone, however, following the 1290 decree of expulsion, Jews suffered persecution countrywide. In 1697 following the ‘official return’ of Jews to London, notably Oliver Cromwell, London exchanged ’12 Jew Brothers’ who successfully integrated in to society. By 1831 Jews were given the freedom of the city and were willing and able to take skilled jobs at high levels. There was very little impact on the source area since the transition was slow, although the impact on the destination is significant since they prospered and integrated into society bringing new skills, food, and culture.
In conclusion, it is clear that it may not be possible to have any one specific impact on source or destination areas since all types of migration affect the areas in many ways. Overall, however, demographic changes will me most significant when migration is age and sex selective although this in itself will cause social and economic changes. These three aspects interrelate and will all affect both source and destination in different ways, regardless of the type of migration.
Get your own Free Homepage