UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Decision making in rural-urban migration from a low income area Kovacsics, Miklos Peter 1973

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1973_A6_7 K69_3.pdf [ 5.47MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101277.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101277-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101277-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101277-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101277-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101277-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101277-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101277-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101277.ris

Full Text

c / DECISION MAKING IN RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION FROM A LOW INCOME AREA by MIKLOS PETER KOVACSICS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1969 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA October, 1973 In p r e s e n t i n g t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t o f the requirements f o r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r r e f e r e n c e and study. I f u r t h e r agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be g r a n t e d by the Head o f my Department or by h i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . I t i s understood t h a t c o p y i n g or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l g a i n s h a l l not be allowed without my w r i t t e n p e r m i s s i o n . Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date October 2 6 , 1973 A B S T R A C T T h i s i s a study of m i g r a t i o n . The Report of the F e d e r a l Task Force of A g r i c u l t u r e i n 1969 def i n e d increased m o b i l i t y out of a g r i c u l t u r e as a farm p o l i c y g o a l . This g o a l was seen as a means t o help reduce the inci d e n c e of poverty i n farming. Economic theory i d e n t i f i e s c o s t s and b e n e f i t s as d e t e r r i n g and m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r s f o r m i g r a t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y . This study i s a study of i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n making. R e t a i n i n g a b a s i c c o s t - b e n e f i t framework, d e c i s i o n making i s examined w i t h the a i d of a model where a d e c i s i o n to migrate i s some f u n c t i o n of economic and non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n s , and ex-p e c t a t i o n s i n t u r n are some f u n c t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n about events, and f i n a l l y i n f o r m a t i o n about events i s a f u n c t i o n of p e r c e p t i o n . A sample area was s e l e c t e d w i t h i n Census D i v i s i o n 16 i n Saskatche-wan and two p a r a l l e l surveys were conducted i n J u l y 1971. Residents of the sample area were i n t e r v i e w e d , and outmigrants from the area d u r i n g the previous f i v e years were l o c a t e d and i n t e r v i e w e d . Parametric v a r i a b l e s were>evaluated v i a one way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e producing the F s t a t i s t i c , and non-parametric v a r i a b l e s were evaluated u s i n g c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s producing the c h i square s t a t i s t i c . The study f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s provide the f o l l o w i n g informa-t i o n . R u r a l people do expect a higher l e v e l of income as a r e s u l t of migra-t i o n . The experience of migrants seems to support these e x p e c t a t i o n s but a t a lower l e v e l . Job expectations are g e n e r a l l y n o n - s p e c i f i c , any k i n d of steady employment i s seen as d e s i r a b l e . Costs, p a r t i c u l a r l y c o s t s of moving i i i i i are not perceived as a s i g n i f i c a n t deterrent to moving. F a i l i n g health, low incomes and inadequate acreage are the most common motivating events (factors) towards the d e c i s i o n to migrate. Information about an urban en-vironment i s most e f f e c t i v e l y transmitted by personal contact, f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s are most e f f e c t i v e i n transmitting relevant and reasonably accurate information. A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S This study was made p o s s i b l e by research grants awarded by the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia and the Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , The Author wishes to express g r a t i t u d e t o the Committee and the members and s t a f f of the Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics f o r t h e i r h e l p -f u l comments, suggestions and good f e l l o w s h i p d u r i n g the time t h i s study was undertaken. My thanks are extended t o Dr. Ian W i l l s , under whose guidance t h i s study began, to Dr. George Winter f o r h i s encouragement d u r i n g the w r i t i n g of t h i s t h e s i s , and t o Mr. Bob G i l l i l a n d f o r h i s help i n c a l l i n g my a t t e n t i o n to a l l those t h i n g s t h a t are not economic i n l i f e . P a r t i c u l a r acknowledgement i s o f f e r e d to Dr, Peter L. Arcus, A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, f o r h i s a s s i s t a n c e i n b r i n g i n g t h i s study to i t s f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION 1 I I . THE PROBLEM 3 11.1 POVERTY 3 11.2 DIMENSIONS OF FARM POVERTY 4 11.3 GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE . . . 7 11.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE. . . 10 11.5 THE FUTURE 12 I I I . SOME HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS 14 IV. OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES 18 IV.1 MODEL 20 IV. 2 OBJECTIVES 23 XV* 3 HYPOTHESES* t t t e a a f t s t a o e s a A O o e o t o * * * 24 V. SELECTION OF A POPULATION WITHIN SASKATCHEWAN . . . . . . . . . . 26 VI. FINDINGS 33 VI. 1 IDENTIFICATION OF MIGRANTS. .34 VI.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL RESPONDENTS 34 VI.3 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN BY RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . 36 VI.4 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS DESIRED BY RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . 37 VI.5 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . 38 VI.6 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING . 40 VI.7 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING 41 v v i CHAPTER Page VI.8 NET ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MIGRATION EXPECTED BY NON-MIGRANTS . 42 VI.9 REALIZED NET ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MIGRATION BY MIGRANTS . 46 VI.10 NON-ECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS OF RURAL PEOPLE CONCERNING MIGRATION TO URBAN AREAS 51 VI. 11 NON-ECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING OPPORTUNITIES IN URBAN AREAS HELD BY MIGRANTS . . . . . . . . . . . 53 VII. ANALYSIS 57 VII. 1 SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES 64 VII.1.1 S k i l l s of Head 64 VII.1.2 Number of Years Spent i n Occupation . . . . 65 VII. 1.3 T o t a l Area of Land 65 VII.1.4 Area of Land Rented or Leased From Others . 66 VII. 1.5 Reasons f o r D e s i r i n g to Move 68 VII.1.6 Information Items Known 71 VII.1.7 Expected and Actua l Moving Costs 73 VII.1.8 S i g n i f i c a n t Costs of L i v i n g V a r i a b l e s . . . 75 VII.1.9 Evaluation of Hypotheses 78 VII. 2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 81 VII I . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . 82 BIBLIOGRAPHY 85 APPENDIX I INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: PART ONE. . . . . . 88 APPENDIX I I INTERVIEW SCHEDULE: PART TWO. . . . . . . . . . . . 93 APPENDIX I I I LETTER (W. I. Lane) . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 APPENDIX IV SOME SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RESPONDENTS 98 APPENDIX V SOME SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS. . . I l l LIST OF TABLES TABLE Page 1.1 CANADIAN FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS IN 1966. . . . . . . . . . 5 V . l URBAN-RURAL COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF CENSUS DIVISION 16 (1961-1966) . 26 V.2 URBAN POPULATION 1961 27 V. 3 TOTAL POPULATION IN THE STUDY AREA. . 30 VI. 1 KINDS OF URBAN INFORMATION KNOWN BY RURAL PEOPLE. . . . . . 36 VI.2 DESIRED INFORMATION BY RURAL PEOPLE 37 VI.3 URBAN JOB EXPECTATIONS OF RURAL PEOPLE 38 VI.4 URBAN INFORMATION SOURCES OF RURAL PEOPLE 39 VI.5 KINDS OF INFORMATION KNOWN BY MIGRANTS. . 4 0 VI.6 POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION TO MIGRANTS. . . . . . . . . 41 VI.7 URBAN INFORMATION SOURCES OF MIGRANTS . . . . . . 42 VI.8 EXPECTED INCOME CHANGES . . . . . . . . . . . 42 VI.9 TOTAL PRESENT INCOME 43 VI.10 TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION . . . . . . 43 VI.11 TOTAL PRESENT COSTS OF LIVING PER YEAR. . . . . . . . . . . 44 VI.12 TOTAL EXPECTED COST OF LIVING PER YEAR IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION . 44 VI.13 PRESENT AND EXPECTED BENEFITS . . . . . . . . 45 VI. 14 TOTAL INCOME IN THE YEAR BEFORE MOVING 46 VI.15 TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING MIGRATION. . . 47 VI.16 TOTAL INCOME IN 1970. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 VI.17 TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING FOR THE YEAR PRIOR TO MOVING. . . . . 48 v i i v i i i TABLE Page VI.18 EXPECTED COSTS OF LIVING AFTER MIGRATION. 48 VI. 19 TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING IN 1970 49 VI.20 MIGRANTS' PRESENT BENEFITS 49 VI.21 MIGRANTS' BEFORE MOVE BENEFITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 VI.22 ATTITUDE TOWARDS MOVING. . 51 VI.23 DESTINATION IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION 52 VI.24 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE . . . . . . . . 52 VI.25 REASONS FOR WANTING TO CONTINUE LIVING IN RURAL AREA. . . . . 53 VI.26 DISPOSITION OF FARM AFTER MIGRATION. . 54 VI.27 REASONS FOR MIGRATING TO A CITY. 54 VI.28 SATISFACTION WITH THE DECISION TO MOVE . 55 VI.29 REASONS FOR BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING. . . . . . . . . . . 55 VI.30 REASONS FOR NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING 56 VI.31 THOUGHT ABOUT MOVING BACK TO THE FARM 56 VI. 32 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE BACK . 56 VII. 1 RESULTS OF TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS J. . . . . . . . . . . 58 VII.2 SKILLS ACQUIRED . . . . . . . 64 VII.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS SPENT IN OCCUPATION (FARMING) . . . . 65 VII.4 AVERAGE AREA OF LAND OWNED AND OPERATED (ACRES) 66 VII.5 AVERAGE AREA OF LAND RENTED OR LEASED FROM OTHERS . . . . . . 67 VII.6 PATTERN OF RENTING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 VII.7 MAIN REASONS FOR DESIRING TO MOVE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 VII.8 FIRST REASONS: DESIRE TO MOVE AND DID MOVE. . . . . . . . . 70 VII.9 ECONOMIC INFORMATION KNOWN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 VII.10 NON-ECONOMIC INFORMATION KNOWN . . . . . . . . . 72 ix TABLE Page VII. 11 TOTAL INFORMATION KNOWN 72 VII. 12 COSTS OF MOVING 73 VII.13 SIGNIFICANCE OF MOVING COSTS . . . 74 VII. 14 AMOUNT SPENT ON UTILITIES 75 VII. 15 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA. . . ' 76 VII.16 MEDICAL EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA. . . . . . . 77 VII. 17 PROPERTY TAXES PAID , 77 VII.18 TOTAL NUMBER OF INFORMATION SOURCES. . 78 VII.19 FREQUENCY COUNT OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION KNOWN TO MIGRANTS AND NON-MIGRANTS . 79 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION At the time this thesis was originated (1969-70) the available infor-mation from government sources indicated that an increased outmigration from marginal farming areas was to become a goal of agricultural policy, a policy designed to help alleviate the problems of low farm incomes, namely poverty. Given that government involvement in the movement of human resources from the agricultural sector of the economy to another sector was imminent, I f e l t a somewhat different approach to the study of migration was needed. The available migration literature explains migration adequately from the point of view of describing the factors affecting net migration flows at the aggregate level, but there were no data available at the micro l e v e l — micro level meaning the family or individual unit — describing the economic and non-economic factors crucial to an individual's migration decision. Nor was there any information available concerning the decision-making process of individuals i n low income areas.^ Accordingly, the present study i s concerned with decision making in rural urban migration from a low income area. The study reports an examina-tion of economic and non-economic aspects of decision making, f i r s t from the viewpoint of prospective migrants before migration occurs, and secondly, from the point of view of migrants presently l i v i n g in an urban area. H,eroy 0. Stone, Migration in Canada (Ottawa: Queen's Printers 1969), p. 391. 2 The approach followed i n t h i s study proceeds from a su b s t a n t i a t i o n of the problem of poverty and imminent government involvement i n the process of migration to a b r i e f review of some h i s t o r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l notions respec-t i n g human migration. A simple conceptual model of d e c i s i o n making i s deve-loped as the basi s f o r the study method of p a r a l l e l interview schedules. The method of sample s e l e c t i o n i s described, followed by f i n d i n g s of the survey, d i s c u s s i o n or a n a l y s i s of the f i n d i n g s , and a summary and conclusions. CHAPTER II THE PROBLEM 1.1 POVERTY As a point of departure, the problem simply stated i s poverty. The prevailing attitude under laissez-faire was "every man for himself." This attitude implied for government that "the government which governs least, governs best." The poor, therefore, had to fend for them-selves as best they could, as passive recipients of charity. Compassion and responsibility for the poor in our contemporary p o l i -t i c a l and economic philosophy belong both to the individual and the govern-ment but primarily to the government. The government i s , as guardian of the general w i l l , responsible for the poor in particular and "human development" in general. With the advent of increasing affluence poverty i s no longer simply a shortage of l i f e ' s necessities, but ". . .an insufficient access to certain goods, services, and conditions of l i f e which are available to every-one else and have come to be accepted as a basis to a decent, minimum standard of l i v i n g . " 1 To aid people in attaining a minimum standard of l i v i n g , the Canadian government, as of 1961, had the following number of human development programs 2 in effect: Economic Council of Canada, The Challenge of Growth and Change, F i f t h Annual Review (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1968), pp. 104-105. o Index of Programs for Human Development, Special Planning Secretariat, (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967). 3 4 32 income support, pension and insurance programs; 16 housing and r e l a t e d services programs; 10 community development programs; 17 funds and advice to governments, a s s o c i a t i o n s , programs; 32 health, education and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s programs; 33 socio-economic i n t e g r a t i o n and m o b i l i t y programs; 38 aids to p r o d u c t i v i t y and i n d u s t r i a l development programs; 13 area development and land use programs; 13 development of managerial and occupational s k i l l s programs; 7_ employment incentives and labor standards programs 211 t o t a l While poverty i s not synonymous with low incomes i t does c o r r e l a t e with low i n -comes. Hence, most d e f i n i t i o n s of poverty are based on income l e v e l s . There are numerous d e f i n i t i o n s of poverty i n the l i t e r a t u r e , but the most widely accep-ted i n Canada i s given by the Economic Council of Canada. Based on 1961 data, with 70 per cent of income spent on n e c e s s i t i e s , the following income l e v e l s 3 are defined as poor; 1 person $1,500 2 persons $2,500 3 persons $3,000 4 persons $3,500 5 persons $4,000 1.2 DIMENSIONS OF FARM POVERTY Defining farm poverty involves s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , according to what d e f i n i t i o n of farm income i s used, and how farm incomes are compared to urban incomes. Generally, a s h i f t i n terminology from poverty to "small farms" i s evident. For example, the 1969 A g r i c u l t u r e Congress defined the "small farm 4 sector" as farms with gross sales at l e s s than $5,000 per year. This Economic Council of Canada, F i f t h Annual Review, op. ait., p. 110. 4 "Low Income Sector i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , " Proceedings of the Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e Congress (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969), MP 396-433, p. 400. 5 d e f i n i t i o n i s seen as approximating the poverty income l e v e l s d e f i n e d by the Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada. The Task Force's d e f i n i t i o n of the low income secto r employs the same d e f i n i t i o n , a small or non-commercial farm i s defined as having l e s s than $5,000 gross s a l e s . For the present study, the same d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l be used, i . e . , a sm a l l or non-commercial farm i s one w i t h l e s s than $5,000 gross s a l e s . Using the gross s a l e s as c r i t e r i o n , i n 1966 of 430,522 Canadian farms 237,857 or 55.1 per cent f e l l i n t o the poor s m a l l - s c a l e c l a s s farms, p r o v i d i n g $459 m i l l i o n or 13.7 per cent of gross farm s a l e s . (See Table 1-1). TABLE 1 CANADIAN FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS IN 1966 6 GROSS VALUE OF NUMBER AGRICULTURAL SALES OF GROSS VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL SALES, PER FARM FARMS TOTAL $'s % $ M i l l i o n s % 35,000 - over 10,282 2.4 778 23.3 24,000 - 34,999 9,384 2.2 273 8.2 15,000 - 24,999 14,999 31,149 7.2 586 17.5 10,000 - 44,217 10.3 536 16.0 7,500 - 9,999 38,753 9.0 335 10.0 5.000 - 7.499 58,103 13.5 357 10.7 3,750 - 4,999 37,923 8.8 164 4.9 2,500 - 3,749 47,024 10.9 145 4.3 1,200 - 2,499 60,947 14.1 110 3.3 250 - 1,199 55,271 12.8 37 1.1 50 - 249 36,692 8.5 3 .1 Small Scale 237,857 55.1 459 13.7 TOTAL 430,522 100.0 3,338 100.0 ^Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies, Report of the F e d e r a l Task Force on A g r i c u l t u r e (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969), p. 419. 6"Low Income Sector i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , " op. c i t . t p. 400. 6 The Task Force p r o j e c t i o n s of trends during 1951-66, envision by 1980 a t o t a l of 315,310 farms, of which 78,827 or 25 per cent would f a l l i n to the presently defined low income category.^ VThether these projections are r e a l i s t i c or not, i t i s c l e a r that at the present time there are a large number of small-scale farms. The question of whether the reduction i n the ab-solute numbers of farms w i l l be adequate to improve the income p o s i t i o n of those who remain, i s open to debate. During the period 1948-68 the t o t a l c i v i l i a n employed labor force ex-panded from 4,875,000 to 7,537,000 at the same time the a g r i c u l t u r a l labor f o r c e declined from 1,096,000 to 546,000. In percentage terms 22.5 per cent of the labor force was employed i n a g r i c u l t u r e i n 1948, and t h i s proportion g declined to 7.3 per cent by 1968. Growth i n labor p r o d u c t i v i t y i n a g r i c u l t u r e measured i n terms of growth rates of the gross volume of production per person employed i n a g r i c u l -ture has been an impressive 5.5 per cent average annual change during the per-iod 1947-65. The components of t h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y growth have been 2.0 per cent due to labor input outmigration, 1.7 per cent due to c a p i t a l and material 9 i n p u t s , and 1.8 per cent f o r a l l other changes. Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies, op. cit.t p. 261. 8 Canadian Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Economics Branch, Selected Statistical Information on Agriculture in Canada, Ottawa, 1969, p. 4. 9 L. Auer, Canadian Agricultural Productivity, Economic Council of Canada, S t a f f Study No. 24 (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1970), p. 23. 7 Thus i t can be seen that o u t m i g r a t i o n was the l a r g e s t component of p r o d u c t i v i t y gains. Looking merely at p r o d u c t i v i t y g a i n s , one would ex-pect e q u a l l y impressive income gai n s . However, s i n c e the demand f o r a g r i c u l -t u r a l goods i s not i n c r e a s i n g i n the same p r o p o r t i o n s as p r o d u c t i v e c a p a c i t y the b e n e f i t s of increased p r o d u c t i v i t y are i n e f f e c t passed on to consumers i n the form of low food p r i c e s , r a t h e r than to farmers i n the form of i n -creased incomes. This t r e n d becomes evident i f one notes the r e l a t i v e l y un-changing magnitude of aggregate net farm incomes over the p e r i o d of 1948-68. 1 1 On the other hand, in c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y gains accrue to l a r g e , e f f i c i e n t producers w i t h i n a g r i c u l t u r e . T e c h n o l o g i c a l changes have been l a b o r s a v i n g , hence reduce the demand f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r . The b e n e f i t s from increased p r o d u c t i o n s i m i l a r l y accrue to l a r g e farms p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more than to s m a l l e 11 farms. In summary, the c u r r e n t problem of Canadian a g r i c u l t u r e may be charac-12 t e r i z e d by the Matthew e f f e c t . The r i c h get r i c h e r , and the poor get poorer. Under these circumstances, m i g r a t i o n i s an escape from poverty, from low incomes. 1.3 GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE I n the previous s e c t i o n s the n o t i o n of governmental r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r human development has been i n t r o d u c e d , along w i t h an o u t l i n e of the dimensions of poverty i n a g r i c u l t u r e . ^Selected Statistical Information. . op. cit., p. 62. 1 1 H . Buckley and E. T i h a n y i , Canadian Policies for Rural Adjustment Economic C o u n c i l of Canada, S p e c i a l Study //7 (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967), pp. 39-40. 1 ? G. R. Winter, Characteristics and Consequences of Rural Poverty, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1968, 8 A more complete account of government Involvement in agriculture 13 may be found elsewhere, but an examination of the main programs suggests that farm policy has shifted during the 1930s to improving the lot of farmers and furthermore migration is Becoming an accepted policy alternative to this end. Government involvement i n agriculture started with land settlement programs in the years following Confederation. From that point on govern-ment involvement u n t i l the Depression consisted mainly of efforts to improve the quality of farm products. The 1930s brought government involvment of a different sort, in the form of direct assistance programs. Thus government responsibility for farm Income maintenance dates back for over the past 30 years. The Canadian Wheat Board, The Prairie Farm Rehabilitation Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Administration continue to the present day. Price controls were introdueed during World War II and i n order to assist transition back to peace time conditions the Agricultural Prices Support Act of the Federal Government was passed In 1944, and continued u n t i l 1958, at which time i t was replaced by the Agricultural Stabilization Act. Numerous other programs and assistance for credit, insurance, expansion and improve-ment of farming were introduced by both provincial and federal governments, 14 with a view of improving the economic welfare of the agricultural industry. The major post-war government program designed for solving agricul ture's small farm problem was the Agricultural Rehabilitation and Development S. W. Garland and S. C. Hudson, Government Involvement in Agricul-ture, A Report Prepared for the Federal Task Force on Agriculture (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969). Proceedings of the Canadian Agriculture Congress, Canadian Depart-ment of Agriculture (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969), pp. 273-76. 9 Act. Passed i n 1961 as the A g r i c u l t u r a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n and Development Act, i t was changed i n 1966 to the A g r i c u l t u r a l and Rural Development Act. P r i o r to the passing of the firs± ARDA l e g i s l a t i o n , the M i n i s t e r of A g r i c u l t u r e , then the Hon. A l v i n Hamilton, o u t l i n e d the intent of the new program: " I t i s not the purpose of ARDA to reduce the num-ber of farms. . .ARDA i s designed, rather, to help by var-ious means to improve the income and standard of l i v i n g of the smaller and more marginal farms and i n that way help improve the o v e r a l l p o s i t i o n of agriculture."15 ARDA was designed as a j o i n t F e d e r a l - P r o v i n c i a l program. The F i r s t General Agreement was signed i n 1962, covering the period of up to March 31, 1965. The f i r s t agreement consisted of four parts: (1) a l t e r -native use of land; (2) s o i l and water conservation; (3) r u r a l development; and (4) research. Under the f i r s t agreement, most of the approved projects were concerned with the development of a g r i c u l t u r a l resources. The f i r s t agreement only implied m o b i l i t y programs as a side e f f e c t of a l t e r n a t i v e land use. The o r i g i n a l l y a l l o c a t e d f e d e r a l funds under the f i r s t agreement had a c e i l i n g of $50.million, of which some $34,488 m i l l i o n were a c t u a l l y „ 1 6 spent. On A p r i l 1, 1965, the Second General Agreement was signed, covering the f i v e - y e a r period to 1970. T o t a l f e d e r a l funding was $125 m i l l i o n . A s p e c i a l $50 m i l l i o n fund was established under the Fund for Rural Economic Development Act. (FRED funds by a 1967 amendment were enlarged to $300 m i l l i o n ) . 1 7 The emphasis was s h i f t e d from an a g r i c u l t u r a l resource o r i e n t a t i o n ARDA: A Rehabilitation Program in the Making, Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e (pamphlet), March, 1961. ^ B u c k l e y and Tihanyi, op. oit. 3 p. 98. 1 7 G a r l a n d and Hudson, op, oit., p. 73. 10 under the f i r s t agreement to an " a l l resource approach" under the second 18 agreement. The r e o r i e n t a t i o n Becomes- evident from the expanded scope of the second agreement, which was divided i n t o eight p a r t s : (1) research; (2) land use and farm adjustment; (3) r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ; (4) r u r a l development s t a f f and t r a i n i n g s e r v i c e s ; (5) r u r a l development areas; (6) s p e c i a l r u r a l development areas; (7) pub l i c information s e r v i c e s ; (8) s o i l and water conser-19 v a t i o n . Besides a s h i f t e d emphasis to an " a l l resource" approach, sections (2) and (3) may be used to supplement e x i s t i n g m o b i l i t y programs and t r a i n i n g 20 programs under the second agreement. A fu r t h e r e f f o r t towards r a i s i n g incomes of r u r a l people v i a off-farm m o b i l i t y becomes even more evident under the t h i r d agreement signed between the f e d e r a l government and Ontario which c o n s i s t s of s i x pa r t s : (1) research; (2) land use and farm adjustment; (3) r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ; (4) r u r a l development f i e l d s e r v i c e s ; (5) a l t e r n a t i v e employ-21 ment and income op p o r t u n i t i e s ; (6) p u b l i c information s e r v i c e s . Part (5) can be seen as m o b i l i t y orientated. II.4 EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE Government expenditures on a g r i c u l t u r e i n Canada are approach-22 ing h a l f a b i l l i o n d o l l a r s y e a r l y . While not a l l of these expenditures are •j o ARDA Annual Report, 1964-65, Department of Forestry (Ottawa: 1965), pp. 1—2. 19 ARDA Annual Report, 1965-66, Department of Forestry (Ottawa: 1966), 20 Buckley and Tihanyi, op. c i t . , p. 100. 21 Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement 1970-75, ARDA, Depart-ment of Regional and Economic Expansion, Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food, Ontario. 22 Garland and Hudson, op. c i t . , p. 317. 11 made on behalf of the small farm sector, most expenditures were intended to be n e f i t farmers, and at least i n d i r e c t l y intended to improve the income p o s i t i o n of the farm sector as a whole. Thus- two questions a r i s e : d i d government involvement improve the Income p o s i t i o n of small farmers, and has m o b i l i t y out of a g r i c u l t u r e increased? A d i r e c t evaluation of the economic impact of o v e r a l l a g r i c u l t u r a l expenditures i s not a v a i l a b l e , But an evaluation of Rural Adjustment programs with p a r t i c u l a r reference to ARDA reveals the following conclusions. Few land and water investment p r o j e c t s undertaken with ARDA funds would s a t i s f y the c r i t e r i o n of economic e f f i c i e n c y and much l e s s the goal of income r e d i s -t r i b u t i o n i n favour of the poor. The e f f e c t s of ARDA may have been detrimen-t a l to low-income farmers i n s o f a r that some small improvement i n the family's income p o s i t i o n may have helped to postpone the long-term off-farm s o l u t i o n f o r some farmers. On the i n t a n g i b l e s i d e , ARDA helped to prolong some popular myths concerning the Benefits- of development per se3 but on the other hand ARDA also helped to form a t t i t u d e s more accepting towards farm adjustment 23 and r u r a l adjustment v i a m o b i l i t y . ARDA's o r i g i n a l o b j e c t i v e was to "Improve the income and standard of l i v i n g of the smaller and more marginal farms." This o b j e c t i v e can be achieved by resource development p r o j e c t s which w i l l reduce the costs of production, and by Increasing the "opportunity costs" of farm operators so that they leave f o r more remunerative occupations. The so induced m o b i l i t y would a l s o have a secondary income e f f e c t on those who remain, by lowering Buckley and Tihanyi, op. ovt.3 pp.15-26. 12 2 A production costs. Thus the above objective can be achieved by: (1) altering the structure of farming; C2) increasing mobility; and (3) off-farm employment. The efficiency of such an approach as . . ."the only rational solution in the long run to the problem of farm incomes has been 25 realized for a long time." Curiously enough, as the evaluation of ARDA showed, in Canada a more tolerant attitude towards the notion of off-farm mobility has been achieved. In terms of actual mobility during 1966-67 for the whole of Canada, a grand total of 2,100 persons received loans or grants for moving. Out of this total, "the number of Canadian farmers who have been helped to move to 26 jobs must be almost n i l . " Fortunately, eligibility requirements have been eased in 1969. II.5 THE FUTURE Canadian policy planners are aware that regional development programs by themselves don't provide a long-term solution without corresponding mobility 27 programs for the. solution of the low income rural and farm problem. A further recognition of the importance of mobility was given by the Federal Task Force on Agriculture. The structure of economic goals spelled out by the Task Force were essentially based on the national economic goals set out 2A D. R. Campbell, "Overcoming the Canadian Farm Problem — Theory and Practice," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. XIV, No. 2 (1966), p. 67. 25 Manpower Adaptability and Economic Growth: From the Farm to the Factory, ARDA Reports and Digests, Canadian Department of Agriculture (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1963), p. 5. 26 Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies,. . .op. cit., p. 412. 27 Summary and Reports of the Panel Discussions: Federal-Provincial Conference on Poverty and Opportunity, Special Planning Secretariat Priw Council Office, Ottawa, 1966, MP-25, pp. 19-20. ' 13 by the Economic Council of Canada in 1964. Higher net farm income per cap-i t a was added by the Task. Force as a second level goal, and increased mobility of labor out of agriculture was l i s t e d as a third level goal for agricultural policy, along with stable net farm income and lower cost of production and , . 28 marketing. Given increased mobility- of labor out of agriculture as a goal of Canadian agricultural policy, a forecast of movement of surplus rural man-power to other sectors of the economy w i l l have to be developed to supple-29 ment existing manpower s t a t i s t i c s . To achieve a balanced program mix between development and mobility programs, "more than purely economic st a t i s -tics w i l l be needed — some type of attitudinal surveys w i l l be most important. Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies,. . .op. cit., pp. 29-32. 29 G. Beijer, "National Rural Manpower," ARDA Reports and Digests, Department of Forestry (Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1966), p. 4. 30 Summary and Reports of the Panel Discussions,. . .op. cit., p. 22. >i CHAPTER I I I SOME HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS In a n t i q u i t y r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e migration took place, as only f r e e people had the r i g h t and the means to move. The Greek c i t y states considered some optimum population f o r each c i t y state and i n response to population pressures migration occurred i n the form of c o l o n i z a t i o n . In the Roman Empire r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e migration occurred u n t i l A.D. 212 when a l l free inhabitants of the empire received c i t i z e n s h i p s tatus. With the d e c l i n e of the Empire i n the Third Century, large population move-ments took place i n response to i n f l a t i o n and heavy taxation. In turn, the D i o c l e t i o n reforms introduced the ma t e r i a l budget and t i e d people to thie land {glebeae adscripts). These reforms r e s u l t e d i n feudalism and f o r the next thousand years migration v i r t u a l l y ceased. With the r i s e of independent c i t i e s i n the 12th and 13th Centuries migration reoccurred i n the form of r u r a l to urban movement. S t a r t i n g i n the 14th Century feudalism weakened and r o y a l power asserted i t s e l f slowly. Absolute monarchy was the f i r s t step t o -wards the n a t i o n a l state, and mercantilism was the economic system of t h i s era. Mercantilism rested on the power and importance of the state, and generally speaking, a large population was regarded as a source of revenue and power. The i n f l u x of migrants into Holland, England and the German states was f u e l l e d by r e l i g i o u s intolerance i n other European st a t e s . Mercantilism gave an impetus to the I n d u s t r i a l Revolution by encouraging a l a r g e concentration of s k i l l e d workers. In the 17th Century the power of absolute monarchy started d e c l i n i n g . With Locke's writing l i b e r a l i s m as a s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l philosophy 14 15 was emerging. L i b e r a l i s m sparked i t s own economic system of " l a i s s e z f a i r e . " The accompanying emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l freedom allowed l a r g e - s c a l e m i g r a t i o n , the pace of i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n proceeded r a p i d l y as more and more r u r a l people moved to the c i t i e s and the f a c t o r i e s . The l i b e r a l l a i s s e z f a i r e concept of m i g r a t i o n c o n t a i n s two p r o p o s i t i o n s : (1) the economic s e l f - i n t e r e s t of the migrant determines h i s movement; and (2) the economic s e l f - i n t e r e s t of the i n d i v i d u a l sums i n t o or c o i n c i d e s w i t h the general i n t e r e s t . The purpose of the s t a t e i n t h i s theory i s simply to enhance i n d i v i d u a l w e l f a r e and i n d i v i -d u a l freedom. In economic • terms t h i s means a s s i s t a n c e i n maximizing r e a l per c a p i t a income. 1 Maximizing r e a l per c a p i t a income as opposed to n a t i o n a l income i m p l i e s d i f f e r e n t forms of economic o r g a n i z a t i o n s and p o l i c i e s . U l t i m a t e l y the aim of maximizing per c a p i t a incomes leads to c o n s i d e r a t i o n of some k i n d of optimum p o p u l a t i o n d i s t r i b u t i o n and t h e r e f o r e m o b i l i t y as w e l l . I f t h i s reasoning i s c a r r i e d f a r enough, some k i n d of optimum p o p u l a t i o n has to be determined. However, the p o p u l a t i o n i s f i x e d a t any one p o i n t i n time, there i s simply a problem of how to d i s t r i b u t e the p o p u l a t i o n o p t i m a l l y , i . e , so as to maximize per c a p i t a incomes. N e o - c l a s s i c a l economic theory as a m o d i f i c a t i o n o f l a i s s e z f a i r e ad-m i t s the p o s s i b i l i t y of market i m p e r f e c t i o n s , and permits the p o s s i b i l i t y of p o l i c y i n t e r v e n t i o n towards the end of maximum per c a p i t a incomes. 2 Borrowing a set of assumptions as synthesized by Theodore P. Lianos from v a r i o u s n e o - c l a s s i c a l m i g r a t i o n models, the m i g r a t i o n mechanism i s de p i c t e d i 1 J u l i u s Isaac, Economics of Migration (London: Kegan P a u l , French Trubner & Co. L t d . , 1947), pp. 70-71. 2 Theodore P. L i a n o s , "Labor M o b i l i t y and Market Imperfections," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, V o l . 18, No. 3 (November, 1970), p. 97. 16 as f o l l o w s . Assumptions: (1) Workers possess p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n about l a b o r market c o n d i t i o n s . (2) Labor i s homogeneous. (3) Moving c o s t s are n e g l i g i b l e . (4) L o c a t i o n a l preferences a r e n o n - e x i s t e n t . (5) Workers a c t r a t i o n a l l y . (6) Employers act r a t i o n a l l y . I f we f u r t h e r assume t h a t the economy i s p e r f e c t l y c o m p e t i t i v e , f u l l employ-ment e q u i l i b r i u m should e x i s t a t a common wage r a t e , or i f f o r some reason d i s e q u i l i b r i u m e x i s t s i n the l a b o r market, a movement towards e q u i l i b r i u m should ensue. Under the assumed c o n d i t i o n s l a b o r as a f a c t o r of p r o d u c t i o n r e c e i v e s i t s p r i c e as wages. At e q u i l i b r i u m wages are equal to the marginal product of l a b o r . I f d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n marginal p r o d u c t i v i t i e s of l a b o r lead to wage d i f f e r e n c e s between r e g i o n s then t h e h i g h e r wages i n one r e g i o n pro-v i d e i n c e n t i v e f o r l a b o r movement. Labor movement to higher wage reg i o n s r e s u l t s i n r e d u c t i o n of the wage d i f f e r e n t i a l s , e v e n t u a l l y e q u i l i b r i u m i s r e s t o r e d . F o l l o w i n g the reasoning of n e o - c l a s s i c a l theory the f i r s t explana-t o r y v a r i a b l e of m o b i l i t y becomes wage r a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l s . However, s i n c e wage r a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l s by themselves do not e x p l a i n human m i g r a t i o n f u l l y , market i m p e r f e c t i o n has to be accounted f o r . Market i m p e r f e c t i o n i m p l i e s "downwards s t i c k i n e s s wages" which cause unemployment as adjustment i n the l a b o r market s h i f t s from p r i c e of l a b o r to q u a n t i t y of l a b o r . Thus w i t h t h i s l i n e of reason-i n g we now have two c o n t r a d i c t o r y f o r c e s : the wage r a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l a c t i n g as an i n c e n t i v e and unemployment r a t e as a discouragement to m o b i l i t y . In t h i s 17 s i t u a t i o n i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t to have merely a high wage rate f o r migration to occur. The i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e c i s i o n making process now depends on a compari-son of the obtainable b e n e f i t s and costs of movement. Benefits may be ex-pected to take a p o s i t i v e value and costs a negative value for a hypotheti-c a l m o b i l i t y function. 3 However, the s o - c a l l e d "psychic" costs and b e n e f i t s of migration cannot be estimated with such models, p r e d i c t i o n s based on parametric tech-niques are l i k e l y to ignore such hard to pr e d i c t v a r i a b l e s as a t t i t u d e s and non-pecuniary motives i n i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n making. Larry A. Sjaastad, "Costs and Returns of Human Migration," Journal of Political Economy, Supplement (October, 1962). I* CHAPTER IV OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES The foregoing b r i e f chapters examined the low income problem of Canadian a g r i c u l t u r e , and migration as an economic eq u i l i b r i u m mechanism. Migration l i t e r a t u r e reveals an adequate knowledge of the economic problem of migration from the macroeconomic point of view. That i s , there i s reason-ably accurate knowledge of the f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g net migration at the aggre-gate l e v e l i n terms of i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l net migration flows, and i n terms of aggregate r u r a l to urban migration flows. However, there are no studies a v a i l a b l e at the micro l e v e l d e s c r i b i n g the economic and non-economic f a c t o r s c r u c i a l to an i n d i v i d u a l ' s migration d e c i s i o n . 1 Given present governmental m o b i l i t y programs and the p o s s i b i l i t y of future m o b i l i t y programs aimed at a p a r t i c u l a r sub-segment of the labor force, an understanding of the i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e c i s i o n making process, which r e s u l t s i n e i t h e r remaining or moving, i s required. The understanding of th i s process i s needed i n order to implement an optimal mix of development and m o b i l i t y programs. Knowledge of the relevant factors which determine the p r o b a b i l i t y of migration and benefits of migration from both the i n d i v i d u a l ' s and s o c i e t y ' s point of view are needed. R. Marvin Mclnnis, " S p e c i f i c a t i o n of a Regression Model f o r the Anal y s i s of I n t e r p r o v i n c i a l Migration," i n Migration in Canada: Regional Aspects, Leroy 0. Stone, DBS Census Monograph (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1968), p. 391. 18 19 In migration decision processes, we deal with choices and prefer-ences of individuals. The concept of u t i l i t y in economic theory assumes rational decision making based on preferences. In this study I attempt to look at the interface of preferences, at decision making between the op-tions of remaining or moving. The decision-making process viewed as a psychological process may be analyzed by examining some variables such as habits, attitudes, motives, needs, wants, etc. which are not directly observable objectively. Principles of psychology can be applied to the study of economic behaviour. Instead of relating merely the environment to economic processes, we study the perception and perception of changes in the environment as they 2 relate to economic behavior. The datum of the GNP and the data of farm incomes, for example, are the concrete measurements of the environment, the variables of macro-economic analysis. Nominal variables evaluate the range of emotions from approval to indifference to rage, for example, that may be evoked by a change in economic policy (taxation law). While nominal measures do not permit such powerful tools of analy-sis as cardinal measures, the impact of non-economic variables needs to be taken into account in a study dealing with a process that takes place in an individual's mind. Without attempting any greater precision and distinction between the variables employed in this study, the conceptual model identifies George Katona, Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1951), pp. 28-40. 20 economic and non-economic fa c t o r s merely to draw a t t e n t i o n to the importance of f a c t o r s under the non-economic l a b e l . A. MODEL The conceptual model of decision- making employed i n t h i s study i s based on the following assumptions. 1. Decision making i s some function of economic expectations and non-economic expectations. D = f (E + E ) e ne' where D = d e c i s i o n ; E = expected economic event; E = expected non-economic event, ne r 2. Expectations are some function of information about events. E = g(I) where E = expectations; I = information about events. Information about events i s an attempt to e s t a b l i s h what constitutes s u b j e c t i v e l y perceived time for migrants. Time as l i n e a r time i s measured ob-j e c t i v e l y i n increments of years, days, hours, seconds, etc. Subjective time consists of "moment signs" where "moment signs" are a function of perception. 21 For example, the female c a t t l e tick, may spend up to 18 years i n suspended a n i -mation. The only information experience which, w i l l induce a change f o r the t i c k i s the scent of b u t e r i c a c i d . This information t r i g g e r s time f o r the 3 animal to continue i t s l i f e c y c l e . Subjective time i n i t s simplest expres si o n thus consists of nothing or something, the something being information which w i l l induce a change i n behavior. Information about events rather than being bound to o b j e c t i v e l y measured time and space i s bound to a subjective q u a l i t y of perception and o b j e c t i v e l y may o r i g i n a t e anywhere and any time. Hence, we have a t h i r d f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , which may be ex-pressed as: Information about events i s some function of perception. As an example of t h i s t h i r d f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , see Appendix III. We have information about an event (singing f o l k songs) which may or may not happen. The contact point i n time i s when "independent contract time" equals "sing along time." The question and answer: what i s perceived by the reader of the presented information w i l l determine the subjective p r o b a b i l i t y of the event occurring? A v a i l a b l e information about events i s the basic input to the d e c i s i o n -making process. Information a l t e r s expectations, i t may r e i n f o r c e or change already held expectations. The sum t o t a l of expectations w i l l determine whether an i n d i v i d u a l decides to migrate or not. (See Figure 1). John N. B l e i b t r e u , The Parable of the Beast (New York: C o l l i e r Books, 1971), pp. 3-30. 22 Information input Economic expectations p o s i t i v e s t a y A m o v e Figure 1 Information input Non-economic expectations negative negative — 0 d e c i s i o n '• 0 p o s i t i v e A number of considerations emerge from t h i s model. While the model i s a gross o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of what may a c t u a l l y take place i n d e c i s i o n making, nevertheless we have nine possible combinations of expectations. Given that i n the r e a l world we would face an unknown number of combinations of expec-tations the problem of determining the r i g h t weighting f a c t o r f o r each one would be w e l l nigh Impossible. On the other hand there are u t l i m a t e l y only two possible decisions, namely staying or moving. On the basis of these two decision, outcomes, i d e a l l y f o r a study data should be c o l l e c t e d by interviewing the same subjects before and a f t e r moving. That i s , a f t e r subjective time has elapsed. In t h i s fashion s i g n i f i c a n t 23 changes i n expectations and information input could be measured. This would require a two Cor more) stage time s e r i e s study (one survey of current r u r a l population now, followed by another i n , say, f i v e years to locate and i n t e r -view those who had moved). This was not p r a c t i c a l i n the p r e v a i l i n g circumstances so a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l analysis has been su b s t i t u t e d . As migration i s an ongoing process, i t was presumed that i t would be p o s s i b l e to i d e n t i f y migrants who moved from one p a r t i c u l a r geographic area to somewhere e l s e . If t h i s presumption were correct then we would be dealing with, one population i n before-migration subjective time. The assumption of homogeneity f o r the population should hold I f we s e l e c t a second non-migrant group from the same geographic area. Comparisons between these two groups may be dependent on the adequacy of the sampling procedure f o r "non-migrants." I t i s recognized that t h i s procedure i s not f u l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y since elapsed objec-t i v e time f o r migrants covers a range i n excess of f i v e years. Elapsed o b j e c t i v e time f o r t h i s study should be minimized, so as to minimize errors of perception due to changed circumstances. IV.2 OBJECTIVES The above considerations led to the development of two personal interview schedules (Appendices I and II) - Part One f o r people presently l i v i n g i n a r u r a l area, and Part Two for migrants from the r u r a l area now l i v i n g i n urban areas. The questions comprising the two interview schedules were de-signed to gather as much, data as p o s s i b l e , pertaining to the following o b j e c t i v e s : 1. Determine socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l respondents. 2. Determine what sources of information about oppor-t u n i t i e s i n urban areas are known to r u r a l people. 24 3. Determine what kinds of information about oppor-t u n i t i e s i n urban areas, are known to r u r a l people. 4. Determine what kinds of information about oppor-t u n i t i e s i n urban areas are desired by r u r a l people. 5. I d e n t i f y migrants who have l e f t the study area during the past f i v e years. 6. Locate and interview migrants who have l e f t the study area during the past f i v e years. 7. Determine what sources of information about oppor-t u n i t i e s i n urban areas were known to migrants p r i o r to moving. 8. Determine what kinds of information about opportu-n i t i e s i n urban areas were known to migrants p r i o r to moving. 9. Determine the d i r e c t i o n ( p o s i t i v e or negative) of expected net economic benefits associated with migration by non-movers. 10. Determine the $ value of expected net economic bene-f i t s associated w i t h migration by non-movers. 11. Determine the d i r e c t i o n ( p o s i t i v e or negative) of expected net economic benefits associated with migration by mi-grants p r i o r to moving. / 12. Determine the $ value of expected net economic bene-f i t s associated with migration by migrants p r i o r to moving. 13. Assess non-economic expectation of r u r a l people con-cerning opportunities i n urban areas. 14. Assess non-economic expectations concerning oppor-t u n i t i e s i n urban areas held by migrants. IV.3 HYPOTHESES The major consideration i n the design of t h i s study was p r i m a r i l y the desi r e to e s t a b l i s h whether the proposed model w i l l i n f a c t help to c o l l e c t the kind of data needed f o r the study of migration decision-making. Consequent-l y the gathering of data pertaining to the out l i n e d objectives was given primary 25 importance, rather than the formulation of s p e c i f i c hypotheses. Nevertheless the following general hypotheses were formulated: 1. People who did migrate to an urban area from a low income r u r a l area knew:of a greater number of information sources about opportunities a v a i l a b l e i n urban areas than r u r a l people who have not migrated. 2. People who did migrate to an urban area from a low income r u r a l area u t i l i z e d i f f e r e n t information sources about opportunities a v a i l a b l e i n urban areas than r u r a l people who have not migrated. 3. Migrants o r i g i n a t i n g from low income r u r a l areas had a p o s i t i v e l e v e l of net economic ben e f i t s associated with migration to an urban area. 4. People l i v i n g i n low income r u r a l areas have a negative l e v e l of economic expectations associated with migration to an urban area. 5. Migrants' non-economic expectations associated with migration are d i f f e r e n t from those of people s t i l l l i v i n g i n a r u r a l area. XL CHAPTER V SELECTION OF A POPULATION WITHIN SASKATCHEWAN Census Division 16 in Saskatchewan was chosen as the study area, for the following reasons. Census Division 16 has been extensively studied under various ARDA sponsored research projects by the Canadian Centre for Community Studies in Saskatoon. From these sources and from DBS data of the 1961 and 1966 Censuses, the characteristics of the area could be accurately determined prior to under-taking of the proposed study. Furthermore, any results of the present study may be related back to previous findings. The population of Census Division 16 i s predominantly rural. The 1966 census totals show the following composition. 1 TABLE V-l URBAN-RURAL COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF CENSUS DIVISION 16 1961-1966 1961 1966 Urban Population 12,272 13,350 Rural Population 32,748 30,200 Total Population 45,020 43,550 DBS, 1966 Census No. 92-603, Rural and Urban Distribution. 26 27 The population of the area i s d e c l i n i n g i n t o t a l , due to the de-crease of the r u r a l component of the population. The area of Census D i v i s i o n 16 contains only one s i z e a b l e urban area, North B a t t l e f o r d , which i s p e r i p h e r a l l y located w i t h i n the area. A second area, Shellbrook, i s c l a s s i f i e d urban by census d e f i n i t i o n but i s only 1/11 the s i z e of North B a t t l e f o r d . North B a t t l e f o r d and Shellbrook accounted 2 for a l l of the area's urban population i n 1961. TABLE V-2 URBAN POPULATION 1961 North B a t t l e f o r d Population 11,230 Shellbrook Population 1,042 T o t a l Population 12,272 The economy of the area i s dependent on a g r i c u l t u r e and the indus-t r i e s serving a g r i c u l t u r e . The area i s f u r t h e r characterized by r e l a t i v e l y low farm incomes, low wages, low non-farm incomes and r e l a t i v e l y low educational 3 l e v e l s compared to a l l Saskatchewan and Canada averages. Census D i v i s i o n 16 appears to meet the c r i t e r i a of predominantly r u r a l , low income and p r i m a r i l y a g r i c u l t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s required f o r the 2 DBS No. 92-539, Population by Counties Census D i v i s i o n s and Cen-sus Sub-Divisions, 1901-1961. 3 Multi-Disciplinary Research on Development Problems of A Low Income Agricultural Area, An Overview of ARDA-Sponsored Research on Census D i v i s i o n 16, Saskatchewan. Published by the Canadian Centre f o r Community Studies, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1967. 28 study. Some areas within Census D i v i s i o n 16 have been eliminated from f u r -4 ther consideration by the following steps. 1. Eliminate unorganized areas, i . e . , Land Improvement D i s t r i c t s (L.I.D.) i n the northern part of the D i v i s i o n , namely: L.I.D. #974 L.I.D. #980 (low population density, areas encompass t e r r i t o r y outside D i v i s i o n 16) L.I.D. #986 2. Eliminate m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which contain e x i s t i n g "urban" centres, i . e . : North B a t t l e f o r d RM #437 Shellbrook RM #493 3. Eliminate townships within an a r b i t r a r i l y defined 15-20 miles radius of "urban i n f l u e n c e " of North B a t t l e f o r d . 4. Eliminate m u n i c i p a l i t i e s with major Indian reserves, i.e.: Leask RM #464 Canwood RM #494 Spiritwood RM #496 5. Eliminate the mun i c i p a l i t y of Medstead RM #497, as a large part of i t i s taken up by the Bronson Forest Reserve. 6. Eliminate m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n the t r a n s i t i o n a l dark grey wooded s o i l zones and grey wooded s o i l zones, i . e . : Meeting Lake RM #466 ( d i f f e r e n t i a l land use c a p a b i l i t i e s ) Round H i l l RM #467 Atlas of Saskatchewan, Eds. J . H. Richards and K. I. Fung, (Saskatoon: Modern Press, 1969). 29 The remaining f i v e municipalities of Great Bend RM #405 (black s o i l zones, May-field RM #406 relatively uniform Blaine Lake RM #434 land use) Redberry RM #435 Douglas RM #436 form a relatively uniform area with respect to climate, s o i l zone, land use capability, population distribution, and a de-clining population. A declining population is important i n -sofar that since an attempt w i l l be made to identify, locate and interview families who have l e f t the area within the last five years. Accordingly, the following population changes have taken place between the inter-censal years of 1961-1966 in the described area. Total population liv i n g in the area outside towns and villages was 5,623 in 1961 and 4,752 in 1966, a decrease of 15.6 per cent.-* Total population l i v i n g in the area Including towns and villages was 8,732 in 1961 agd 7,727 in 1966 which represents a decrease of 11.6 per cent. 7. One further elimination was made in order to allow single stage sampling and eliminate the pos s i b i l i t y of a large proportion of interviews obtained in a town or village. Accord-ingly, the townships where the three largest towns and villages are located were excluded from the area under consideration. The excluded towns and villages are: POPULATION 1966 1961 Blaine Lake 650 641 Radisson 489 515 Hafford 587 511 D^BS No. 92-606, 1966 Census of Canada, Divisions and Subdivi-sions, Western Provinces. 6Ib£d. 30 With, this elimination the total population figures were revised for the f i n a l l y selected area. TABLE V-3 TOTAL POPULATION IN THE STUDY AREA YEAR POPULATION 1961 7,065 1966 6,001 Decline of 15.1% Source: DBS No. 92—606, 1966 Census of Canada, Divisions and Subdivisions, Western Provinces. The population as defined, therefore, consists of a l l families l i v i n g i n the 48 townships of the municipalities of Great Bend, Mayfield, Blaine Lake, Redberry and Douglas, within Census Division 16 i n Saskatchewan. (See Map I ) . Sampling Procedure: Single Stage Cluster Sampling The population can be broken down into 48 primary sampling units. (The primary unit i s one township range, or part of a complete township range on the periphery of the selected area). Five primary units were randomly selected, and a l l elementary units (the elementary unit is one family) in each primary unit were interviewed. (See Maps I and I I ) . 7 Multi-Disciplinary Research. . . 3 op. cit.3 p. 6 and p. 15. MAP I MAP OF SASKATCHEWAN SHOWING THE LOCATION OF CENSUS DIVISION 16 AND SAMPLE AREA CO. i f I . „ „. A e a r '*;HI = Sample Area. Prince Albert MiLCS • Saskatoon MAP II SAMPLE AREA IN CENSUS DIVISION 16, SASKATCHEWAN RANDOMLY SELECTED TOWNSHIP RANGES f f / W IAJ3 yr//o/ n/n/ CHAPTER VI 33 FINDINGS The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s intended to cover as much as p o s s i b l e of the c o l l e c t e d data, i n order to provide the " f e e l " of what i t i s l i k e to l i v e i n the de s c r i b e d area i n c o n t r a s t to l i v i n g i n a c i t y . Secondly to provide some simple r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l on the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the sampled p o p u l a t i o n . I n the d e s c r i p t i o n which f o l l o w s d o l l a r values throughout are un-adju s t e d , i . e . , there were no compensatory adjustments made f o r rep o r t e d income or c o s t s of l i v i n g e i t h e r by i n f l a t i n g or d e f l a t i n g r e p o r t e d v a l u e s . While the h y p o t h e t i c a l economic man would no doubt d e f l a t e or a d j u s t the data, the c u r r e n t study aims a t some understanding of the decision-making process. This process takes p l a c e on the b a s i s of what i s pe r c e i v e d by the d e c i s i o n maker. In the case o f migrants r e p o r t e d values cover an o b j e c t i v e time span of over f i v e y e a r s , w i t h consequent u n c e r t a i n t y about t h e i r accur-acy. Therefore i t i s assumed th a t i f i n r e p o r t i n g past events respondents made an adjustment they d i d so to make the answers c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n . I n the f i v e townships s e l e c t e d , 78 f a m i l y u n i t s were found, there were two r e f u s a l s , f i v e not-at-home cases so that 71 i n t e r v i e w s were completed. The t o t a l number of f a m i l i e s r e s i d i n g i n each township could not be determined w i t h complete accuracy s i n c e the maps f u r n i s h e d by the r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t y o f f i c e s merely denote ownership of each quarter s e c t i o n of l a n d , not the residence of owners. The f i v e not-at-home cases i n d i c a t e part-time farm residence as confirmed by neighbors. 33 34 VI.1 IDENTIFICATION OF MIGRANTS A l l respondents i n the area surveyed were asked, Do you know of any people who moved from here to a town or a city during the last five years? If the answer was yes, other questions were: Could you tell me where did they move to? Could you tell me at what address I could get in touch with them? In this fashion names and addresses of people who moved from the sample area were obtained. Only those persons who resided in the sample area before moving were considered. Locating migrants proved to be rather d i f f i c u l t , as people s t i l l l i v i n g on the farm tend to give only vague location references, e.g., somewhere in B.C., unless the migrant belongs to the immediate family or i s a close friend. By this process 25 migrants were located. Of these people one refused the interview, and two people were not found at home. Of the 22 migrants who completed interviews, 15 were i n Sask-atoon, two in North Battleford, two i n Lloydminster, one i n Prince Albert a l l i n Saskatchewan, and two i n Vancouver, B.C. VI.2 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL RESPONDENTS This objective has been achieved and was intended to serve as background reference to the two groups. Appendix IV contains in tabular form the appropriate descriptive s t a t i s t i c s for non-migrants on: (1) sex of household head; (2) marital status; (3) length of marriage; (4) age of head; (5) age of spouse; (6) number of children; (7) years of school completed; (8) years of school completed by spouse; (9) training of head; (ID) training of spouse; (11) years resident in area; (12) previous residence; 35 (13) years resided in previous residence; (14) occupation in 1970; (15) number of years in current occupation; (16) secondary jobs held; (17) total acreage owned and operated; (18) total acreage owned; (19) acreage rented; (20) acreage cultivated; (21) main product; (22) 1970 total income; (23) total value of a l l property; (24) indebtedness; (25) costs of l i v i n g in 1970. Appendix V contains i n tabular form the appropriate descriptive s t a t i s -t i c s for migrants on: (1 (2 (3 (4 (5 (6 (7 (8 (9 (10 (11 (12 (13 (14 (15 (16 (17 (18 (19 (20 (21 (22 (23 (24 (25 (26 (27 (28 (29 (30 (31 sex of household head; marital status; length of marriage; age of head; age of spouse; number of children; years of school completed; years of school completed by spouse; training of head; training of spouse; year of move; number of years spent farming; secondary occupation before moving; total acreage owned and operated while farming; total acreage.owned while farming; acreage rented while farming; total acreage cultivated while farming; main product; total income for last year spent farming; number of jobs held since moving; present job held; kind of job f i r s t looked for; 1970 total income; sold property; $ value of property sold; $ amount owned on property sold; $ value of a l l property presently owned; $ amount presently owing; total costs of moving; total costs of l i v i n g prior to moving; total costs of l i v i n g 1971. 36 VI.3 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN BY RURAL PEOPLE Kinds of information r e f e r s to an ^ assumed set of "things" one might l i k e to know about i n moving to a new place. T r i a l t e s t i n g of the interview schedule revealed a generally poor response to t h i s set of questions; conse-quently f o r t h i s survey each item was evaluated by a frequency count of a l l responses i n d i c a t i n g f a m i l i a r i t y (Table VI.1). TABLE VI.1 KINDS OF URBAN INFORMATION KNOWN BY RURAL PEOPLE KINDS OF INFORMATION NUMBER Economic: Jobs 16 22.4 Housing 17 23.9 Cost of L i v i n g 17 23.9 Non-Economic: Shopping 9 12.7 Schools 6 8.5 Recreation 8 11.3 Climate 5 7.0 The Way People L i v e 9 12.7 O t h e r -Don't Know 37 51.8 The high proportion of "don't know" responses r e f l e c t the general lack of i n t e r e s t about moving for the majority of the people. The d i s t i n c t i o n of economic-non-economic knowledge within the group of information items i s a r b i -t r a r y and serves merely as a d i s t i n c t i o n between c l e a r l y economic information items such as jobs, housing, costs of l i v i n g and other items. The f i r s t three 37 items contain the basic cost-benefit information which i s necessary for the economic existence of a family u n i t . On the other hand, information about shopping, schools, e t c . are somewhat more d i s c r e t i o n a r y , depending on both monetary and preference considerations. Hence these information items were c a l l e d non-economic i n the sense that they take secondary importance a f t e r jobs, housing and costs of l i v i n g information. VI.4 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS DESIRED BY RURAL PEOPLE Respondents were asked, What kinds of things would you like to have accurate information about if you were moving to a city or a town? The question was asked as an open ended question, and was intended to explore what kinds of information r u r a l people think important. The following answers were obtained. TABLE VI.2 DESIRED INFORMATION BY RURAL PEOPLE DESIRED INFORMATION NUMBER % Jobs Hous ing Cost of L i v i n g 19 14 3 26.7 19.7 4.2 Shopping Schools 5 1 1 3 5 4 7.0 1.4 1.4 4.2 7.0 5.6 Recreation Climate The Way People Live "Other" No Information Wanted 38 The responses in the "other" category were concerned with': "Infor-mation about how to apply for jobs'/; "like to find out whether I would make i t or not"; "cost of moving"; "how much I could get for the farm"; "information about future farm outlook." As anticipated, information about jobs was mentioned with the highest frequency. In order to form some notion of job expectations, respondents were asked an open question about what sort of job they would look for in the event of moving to a city. The following answers were obtained. TABLE VI.3 URBAN JOB EXPECTATIONS OF RURAL PEOPLE EXPECTED JOB NUMBER No Response 42 58.8 Anything 6 8.4 Carpenter 5 7.0 Mechanic 1 1.4 Janitor 2 2.8 Farm Part-Time 2 2.8 Labo r 6 8.4 Skilled labor 2 2.8 "Other" (white col l a r , self-employed) 5 7.0 TOTAL 71 100.0 VI.5 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO RURAL PEOPLE Since information i s a key concept in this study, an attempt was made to collect data on important a priori information sources, and on information sources perceived as important or relevant by the respondents. Previous migration 39 experience was assumed to be operative, and out of 71 respondents 22 (29.6%) were in-migrants to the area, 11 respondents (15.5%) came from urban areas. A second assumed source of information was children who moved away from home i n -to another area. Of 71 respondents, 30 (42%) reported having one or more children who migrated out of the area. A series of open-ended questions yielded the following results. TABLE VI.4 URBAN INFORMATION SOURCES OF RURAL PEOPLE INFORMATION SOURCES NUMBER % Relatives 37 52.1 "Other" 21 29.6 Canada Manpower 16 22.5 Friends 14 19.7 City Newspaper 7 9.9 Television 4 5.6 Radio 1 1.4 Local Newspaper — — Magazines 1 1.4 Government Agencies 1 1.4 People Here — --Of these responses, the following deserve some closer scrutiny: (a) Relatives seem to be the single most significant source of information with 37 (52.1%) respondents having familial connections with urban areas. (b) Canada Manpower — of the 16 responses two were considered favorable responses, seven were neutral and six were unfavorable where the com-ment helped to take management short course was interpreted as a favorable remark, and pretty useless or wouldn't try Manpower as an unfavorable remark. 40 (c) Responses i n the other category indicate four respondents (5.6%) would u t i l i z e real estate firms, seven (9.9%) would make special t r i p to the city, and 10 (14.1%) have lived, or currently l i v e part-time in a city. VI.6 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING Migrants were asked: Before you moved, what kinds of things did you know about. . .? The results are tabulated in Table VI.5. TABLE VI.5 KINDS OF INFORMATION KNOWN BY MIGRANTS KINDS OF INFORMATION NUMBER % Cost of Living 10 45.5 Housing 8 36.3 Didn't Know 8 36.3 Jobs 4 18.2 Shopping 4 18.2 Schools 4 18.2 The Way People Live 3 13.7 Recreation 2 9.1 Climate 2 9.1 Other The responses indicate much the same pattern as those given by rural people, the importance of housing and cost of liv i n g information are noticeable. Migrants were asked an additional open question: What sort of extra information would have been useful to you in helping you to make the decision to move? The responses are calculated in Table VI.6. 41 TABLE VI.6 POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION TO MIGRANTS INFORMATION NUMBER % Nothing 9 40.9 Jobs 5 22.7 No response 2 9.1 Retraining 2 9.1 Investment 1 4.6 Hous ing 1 4.6 Didn't think of i t 1 4.6 TOTAL 22 100.0 Through this question investment and retraining emerge as potentially useful information to prospective migrants, while the high propor-tion of nothing responses indicates l i t t l e interest in information outside of jobs, housing and costs of li v i n g . VI.7 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING Sources of information available to migrants prior to moving were ob-tained with a set of questions corresponding to the questions asked of rural respondents, with the results shown in Table VI.7. The comments about Canada Manpower were somewhat more complimentary than those made by non-migrants, with six favorable and two unfavorable responses. Two respondents who gave favor-able comments were approached in person by a Manpower counsellor from North Battleford; the counsellor arranged for upgrading the formal education of these two people, i.e., Grades 9 and 10. Consequently, upon achievement of education requirements of urban employers, these two respondents obtained employment in Lloydminster. 42 TABLE VI.7 URBAN INFORMATION SOURCES OF MIGRANTS INFORMATION SOURCES NUMBER % Other 16 72.7 Fri e n d s 8 36.4 R e l a t i v e s 8 36.4 Canada Manpower 8 36.4 C i t y Newspaper 3 13.6 T e l e v i s i o n 1 4.5 Magazines 1 4.5 L o c a l Newspaper —• Radio Other Government Agencies — — No Information Source —• — Other: R e a l E s t a t e 6 27.3 Own Knowledge 10 45.5 VI.8 NET ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MIGRATION EXPECTED BY NON-MIGRANTS Respondents were asked an o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n : If you were to move to a city or town, what changes would you expect in your income? Table VI.8 i n d i c a t e s the r e s u l t s . TABLE VI.8 EXPECTED INCOME CHANGES C H A N G E : NUMBER % No Response 35 49.3 More 15 21.1 Less i 8 11.3 Don't Know 7 9.9 None 6 8.5 43 In order to determine expected net economic b e n e f i t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m i g r a t i o n , respondents were asked f o u r s e t s of questions p e r t a i n i n g to present income, expected income i n the event of m i g r a t i o n , present c o s t s of l i v i n g , and expected c o s t s of l i v i n g i n the event of m i g r a t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g responses were obtained (see Tables VI.9, VI.10, VI.11 and VI.12). The f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n s were used throughout: N = the number of o b s e r v a t i o n s ; M = the mean v a l u e o f o b s e r v a t i o n s ; SD = standard d e v i a t i o n ; R = range of observed v a l u e s . TABLE VI.9 TOTAL PRESENT INCOME I N C O M E NUMBER % Less than $4,000 55 77.4 $4,001 - $7,000 10 14.1 $7,000 - Over 2 2.8 No Response 4 5.6 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 67 M =$1891.42 SD =$2747.93 R =$ -8700 - 10200 TABLE VI.10 TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION I N C O M E NUMBER % No.Response 51 71.8 Less than $4,000 5 7.0 $4,001 - $7,000 7 9.9 $7,001 - Over 8 11.3 N = 66 M =$7432.00 R =$2500 - 16800 SD =$4122.32 TABLE VI.11 TOTAL PRESENT COSTS OF LIVING PER YEAR EXPENDITURES NUMBER No Response $ 0 - $2,500 $2,501 - $5,000 $5,001 - Over TOTAL 5 24 34 8 71 7.0 33.8 47.9 11.3 100.0 N = 66 M =$3241.11 SD =$1629.65 R =$1244 - 9998 TABLE VI.12 TOTAL EXEPCTED COST OF LIVING PER YEAR IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION EXPENDITURES NUMBER No Response $ 0 - $2,500 $2,501 - $5,000 $5,001 - Over 51 2 10 8 71.8 2.8 14.1 11.3 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 17 (3 incomplete responses deleted) M =$5034.64 SD =$1704.00 R =$2200 - 8000 45 From the data summarized i n the previous four t a b l e s , present b e n e f i t s and expected b e n e f i t s were c a l c u l a t e d as income minus expenses, w i t h the f o l l o w i n g r e s u l t s . TABLE VI.13 PRESENT AND EXPECTED BENEFITS NO RESPONSE NEGATIVE POSITIVE Present B e n e f i t s 5 42 24 Expected B e n e f i t s 61 1 9 Present B e n e f i t s : N = 66; M =$-1241.11; SD =$3611.76; R =$-18698 - 6669 Expected B e n e f i t s : N = 10; M =$ 3723.10; SD =$3860.97; R =$-1600 - 10480 Since there were only 10 complete data p a i r s a v a i l a b l e to c a l c u l a t e expected b e n e f i t s , expected net economic b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to m i g r a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d over the 10 a v a i l a b l e data p a i r s as expected b e n e f i t s minus present b e n e f i t s . Expected net economic b e n e f i t s may be understood a l t e r -n a t i v e l y as the expected i n c r e a s e i n savings upon moving from a r u r a l area to an urban area. The f o l l o w i n g $ values were obtained: $ -2130.00 996.00 6794.00 3256.00 1947.00 Mean = $4,203.50 SD = $4,001.23 11458 00 SX= $!. 333.74 R* = $-2130 - 11458 Mean 95% confidence i n t e r v a l = $1,589.37 -$6,817.63 2504.00 2350.00 4412.00 10448.00 I would conclude t h a t p o s i t i v e net economic b e n e f i t s were expected by r u r a l people consequent to m i g r a t i o n , and the expected values on the average may be c a l c u l a t e d as $4,203.00. 46 VI.9 REALIZED NET ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MIGRATION BY MIGRANTS Objectives (11) and (12) were changed from the o r i g i n a l i n t e n t i o n of determining the d i r e c t i o n and $ value of expected net b e n e f i t s , to migra-t i o n to determination of a c t u a l l y r e a l i z e d net b e n e f i t s by migrants. This, however, introduced some added d i f f i c u l t i e s , such as asHing three p a r a l l e l sets of questions on costs of l i v i n g , f o r example, where each set consits of 10 items. In order to avoid t h i s s i t u a t i o n , respondents were asked about t h e i r costs of l i v i n g expenses before moving, an opinion question about ex-pected expenses a f t e r moving, and f i n a l l y current costs of l i v i n g expenses were asked item by item. Thus migrants were asked a s e r i e s of s i x questions to determine the d i r e c t i o n and value of t h e i r r e a l i z e d net economic b e n e f i t s , and give some i n d i c a t i o n of expectations before migration. The questions asked pertained to: income before moving, expected income for the f i r s t year a f t e r moving, expected change i n costs of l i v i n g , and f i n a l l y present costs of l i v i n g . The following responses were obtained (see Tables VI.14, VI.15, VI.16, VI.17, VI.18, and VI.19). TABLE VI.14 TOTAL INCOME IN THE YEAR BEFORE MOVING INCOME NUMBER % No Response 1 4.5 Minus 6 27.3 $ 0 - $3,000 7 31.8 $3,001 - $6,000 6 27.3 $6,001 - Over 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 M =$2441.48 SD =$2888.93 R =$-1 -$10500 47 Since respondents c o u l d not i n d i c a t e any p l a u s i b l e income l o s s beyond such comments as lost money or never even f i l l e d out income tax, t h e i r responses were a r b i t r a r i l y evaluated as denoting an income of $-1.00. TABLE VI.15 TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING MIGRATION INCOME NUMBER % No Response 1 4.5 Don't Know 12 54.6 $3,001 - $6,000 5 22.7 $6,001 - Over 4 18.2 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 9 M =$5778.22 SD =$1013.52 R =$3600 - 7000 TABLE VI.16 TOTAL PRESENT INCOME (1970) INCOME NUMBER % No Response _ _ , $ 0 - $3,000 4 18.2 $3,001 - $6,000 8 36.4 $6,001 - Over 10 45.5 T o t a l 22 100.0 N = 22 M =$5563.91 SD =$2859.63 R =$506 - 11767 48 TABLE VI.17 TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING FOR THE YEAR PRIOR TO MOVING EXPENDITURES NUMBER % No Response 7 31.8 $1,501 - $2,000 1 4.5 $2,001 - $2,500 3 13.6 $2,501 - $3,000 4 18.2 $3,001 - $3,500 3 13.6 $3,501 - $4,000 2 9.1 $4,001 - Over 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 15 M =$2982.13 R =$1847 - 4474 SD =$800.57 TABLE VI.18 EXPECTED COSTS OF LIVING AFTER MIGRATION EXPECTATION NUMBER % No Response 4 18. More 15 68.2 Same 2 9.1 Don't Know 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE VI.19 TOTAL PRESENT COSTS OF LIVING (1970) EXPENDITURES NUMBER % No Response 1 4.5 $2,501 - $3,000 3 13.6 $3,001 - $3,500 1 4.5 $3,501 - $4,000 3 13.6 $4,001 - $4,500 2 9.1 $4,501 - $5,000 2 9.1 $5,001 - Over 10 45.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 M =$5586.38 SD =$1690.91 R =$2660 - 8430 From the data summarized i n the above t a b l e s , migrants' present b e n e f i t s were c a l c u l a t e d by s u b t r a c t i n g 1970 cos t s of l i v i n g from 1970 income and s i m i l a r l y , b efore moving b e n e f i t s were c a l c u l a t e d by s u b t r a c t i n g before moving cos t s of l i v i n g from b e f o r e moving income (see Tables VI.20 and VI.21), TABLE VI.20 MIGRANTS' PRESENT BENEFITS BENEFITS NUMBER No Response 1 4.5 Minus 6 27.2 $ 0 - $2,000 7 31.8 $2,001 - Over 8 36.4 TOTAL 22 100.0 N - 21 M = $L191.71 SD R = $-4633 - 4522 =$2335.38 50 TABLE VI.21 MIGRANTS' BEFORE MOVE BENEFITS BENEFITS NUMBER % No Response 8 36.4 Minus 9 41.0 $ 0 - $2,000 3 13.6 $2,001 - Over 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 14 M =$-322.36 SD =$2928.51 R =$-4170 - 6026 Net economic b e n e f i t s from m i g r a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d by s u b t r a c t i n g before move b e n e f i t s , Table VI.21 from present b e n e f i t s , Table VI.20, and the f o l l o w i n g $ val u e s were obtained. 938.00 1,300.00 -5,316.00 Mean = $1,226.29 2,158.00 SD = $3,839.03 -3,520.00 S_ X = $1,063.44 -2,728.00 - 916.00 Mean 95% confidence i n t e r v a l = 7,150.00 $-858.05 - $3,310.63 4,379.00 4,526.00 3,001.00 6,543.00 ! -3,953.00 3,606.00 While at f i r s t glance i t would appear t h a t migrants on the average r e a l i z e d $1,226.29 net economic b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t a b l e to m i g r a t i o n , from the a v a i l a b l e data i t cannot be s t a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y that the r e a l i z e d net economic b e n e f i t s are p o s i t i v e f o r migrants. 51 VI.10 NON-ECONCMIC EXPECTATIONS OF RURAL PEOPLE CONCERNING MIGRATION TO URBAN AREAS Exp e c t a t i o n s w i t h i n the context of t h i s o b j e c t i v e are used i n a somewhat more g l o b a l sense than i m p l i e d by economic theory. That i s , expec-t a t i o n s are used without n e c e s s a r i l y i m p l y i n g m o t i v a t i o n a l i n t e n t , and encom-pas s i n g a t t i t u d e s and p e r c e p t i o n . 1 Since an e x t e n s i v e e v a l u a t i o n of exp e c t a t i o n s i s not w i t h i n the scope of t h i s study, the s e r i e s of questions asked were intended to merely i n d i -cate s u b j e c t i v e l y some of the reasons why people move from o r stay i n a r u r a l a rea. The responses obtained are presented without any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n Tables VI.22 through VI.25. TABLE VI.22 EXPECTATIONS TOWARDS MOVING EXPECTATION NUMBER D e f i n i t e l y Moving 2 2.8 Have Thought About Moving 31 43.7 Have Not Thought About Moving 38 53.5 TOTAL 71 100.0 1An i n t r o d u c t i o n to a psycho-economic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of expe c t a t i o n s may be found i n George Katona, Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. In c . , 1951). 52 TABLE VI.23 DESTINATION IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION DESTINATION NUMBER % No Response 36 50.7 Rural 9 12.7 Urban 18 25.4 No D e f i n i t e Place 8 '11.3 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE VI.24 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE REASONS NUMBER % No Response 25 35.2 R e t i r e 16 8.5 Low Income 17 9.9 Health 3 4.2 Schools Elsewhere 1 1.4 Other Business 1 1.4 Lonely 1 1.4 Want to S e l l 1 1.4 Other (Better Elsewhere) 6 8.5 TOTAL 71 100.0 53 TABLE VI.25 REASONS FOR WANTING TO CONTINUE LIVING IN RURAL AREA R E A S O N NUMBER % No Response 2 2.8 Like Farming 29 40.8 Don't Know Anything Else 8 11.3 Can't Afford to Move 5 7.0 Not Enough Education For Anything Else 5 7.0 No Trade 1 1.4 Don't Like the City 4 5.6 Can't S e l l the Farm 3 4.2 Help Kids' Schooling 1 1.4 Farm Good for Raising Kids 6 8.5 Family Ties Here 1 1.4 No Particular Reason 5 7.0 0 t h.e r 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 The above enumerated questions were asked as open questions and may be construed as an indication of how rural people feel about moving or remaining in a farming community. The responses may be categorized as economic-non-economic on a continuum where the response lonely contains very l i t t l e or no economic con-tent and low income contains mostly economic content in emotional terms. VI.11 SOME NON-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND OBSERVATIONS OF MIGRANTS EX-POST The series of questions asked of migrants were somewhat more diverse than those asked of non-migrants, as completed migration introduces additional choice-decision situations. The obtained responses are presented in Tables VI.26 through VI.32. 54 TABLE VI.26 DISPOSITION OF FARM AFTER MIGRATION DISPOSITION NUMBER Sold 7 31.8 Rented Out 4 18.2 Operate Part-Time . 9 40.1 Other (Sold Some Acreage) 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE VI.27 REASONS FOR MIGRATING TO A CITY R E A S O N S NUMBER % Retire 1 4.5 Low Income 9 40.1 Health* 10 45.5 Schools in City 1 4.5 O t h e r 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 Of those respondents giving health reasons for having moved, four have moved because of allergies. In each case allergies were given as the definite reason for moving. 55 TABLE VI.28 SATISFACTION WITH THE DECISION TO MOVE SATISFACTION NUMBER % Yes 18 81.8 No 3 13.6 Some Doubts 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE VI.29 REASONS FOR BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING R E A S O N S NUMBER % No Response 4 18.2 C h i l d r e n ' s Schooling 1 4.5 B e t t e r L i f e i n C i t y 6 27.3 H e a l t h 4 18.2 Too Old to Farm 4 18.2 O t h e r 3 13.6 TOTAL 22 100.0 ) TABLE VI.30 REASONS FOR NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING R E A S O N S NUMBER No Response 17 77.2 Be t t e r L i f e on Farm 3 13.6 Hard to Get A Job 1 4.5 Cheaper to L i v e on Farm 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE VI.31 THOUGHT ABOUT MOVING BACK TO THE FARM THOUGHT OF MOVING NUMBER % No Response 1 4.5 Yes 7 31.8 No 14 63.6 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE VI.32 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE BACK REASONS NUMBER I No Response 15 68.2 Don't L i k e Job 1 4.5 More S e c u r i t y on Farm 4 18.2 B e t t e r f o r K i d s 1 4.5 Don't L i k e the C i t y 1 4.5 ^7 CHAPTER VII ANALYSIS The a n a l y s i s of the c o l l e c t e d data follows the basic o u t l i n e of the conceptual model of d e c i s i o n making presented i n Chapter IV. That i s , since there are two po s s i b l e decisions, the two interview schedules provided a combined t o t a l of 174 information items, of which 63 are common items from the combined responses of people presently l i v i n g i n the sample area (N=71) and people who moved to an urban area (N=22). U t i l i z i n g a dependent v a r i a b l e c a l l e d group one or two, denoting non-migrants and migrants r e s p e c t i v e l y , para-metric v a r i a b l e s were evaluated i n a one-way a n a l y s i s of variance producing the F s t a t i s t i c , and non-parametric v a r i a b l e s were evaluated using cross tabulations, 2 producing the X s t a t i s t i c . Since the a n a l y s i s purports to approximate a c o n t r o l l e d experiment taking geographic l o c a t i o n as the i n d i c a t o r of s i g n i f i c a n t event(s) f o r group two v i a the concept of subjective time, the int e n t of ana l y s i s i s to determine which items are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between the groups studied. A t t r i b u t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e to l o c a t i o n d i f f e r e n c e , i . e . , d e c i s i o n made to migrate, the component items of the s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s may be defined by further disaggregation at a future time to develop a somewhat more comprehensive model of migration d e c i s i o n making. Testing the n u l l hypothesis of no d i f f e r e n c e between r u r a l and urban respondents, the following r e s u l t s were obtained. (Table V I I . l ) . S i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n Table V I I . l w i l l be further examined i n Section V I I . l . 57 TABLE V I I . l RESULTS OF TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS That Between Non-Migrants and Migrants Groups are Different VARIABLE 2 NO. VARIABLE NAME VALUES OF X OR F SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL* 3 M a r i t a l Status 2 df X = 3.043 — 4 Years Married F ( l , 7 8 ) = 1.902 — 5 Age of Head F( l , 9 0 ) = 0.957 — 6 Age of Spouse F( l , 7 6 ) = 0.468 — 7 Number of C h i l d r e n F ( l , 7 9 ) = 0.674 — 17 Number of C h i l d r e n at Home F(l , 8 4 ) = 0.074 — 22 Schooling of Head F(l , 8 8 ) = 0.061 — 23 Schooling of Spouse F(l,7 6 1 = 0,112 — 24 S k i l l s of Head 1 df tZ = 4.102 5% 25 S k i l l s of Spouse 1 df X = 0.001 — 31 Number of Years i n Occupation (Farming) F ( l , 5 0 ) 1 df X 9.757 1% 32 Secondary Occupation = 2.650 — 33 T o t a l Area of Land F(l , 8 9 ) = 4.581 5% 34 Area of Land Owned F(l, 9 0 ) = 1.123 — 35 Area of Land Rented F ( l , 8 9 ) = 4.630 5% 40 Area of Land C u l t i v a t e d F(l,801 7 df X, = 0.826 — 41 Main Product Sold = 6.980 — 45 Main Reason Want/Did Move 7 df X, = 20.066 1% 46 F i r s t Reason Want/Did Move 7 df X, = 16.058 5% 47 Second Reason Want/Did Move 7 df X, 9.395 — 48 T h i r d Reason Want/Did Move 7 df X, = 10.000 62 Know Economic Information 2 df X, = 18.51 1% 63 Know Non-Economic Information 4 df X, = 11.7222 5% 64 T o t a l Information Known 7 df X = 17.450 5% *0n l y the 1% and 5% s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s noted. TABLE V I I . l (Continued) VARIABLE T T A D T A T O T T? XT A M P VALUES OF X 2 OR F SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL .,n VARIABLE NAME NO. 2 76 Information Source: Media 3 df X = 0.682 77 Information Source: I n s t i t u t i o n 2 df X 2 = 0.029 78 Information Source: Pe r s o n a l 2 df X 2 = 0.090 79 T o t a l Information Sources 9 df X = 6.686 93 Gross Farm Income 1970 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 7 8 ) = 2.020 94 Net Farm Income 1970 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 8 0 ) = 1.301 95 Secondary Job Income 1970 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 1 2 ) = 0.539 96 Family Allowance Income 1970 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 4 0 ) = 0.774 97 T o t a l On Farm Income 1970 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 8 6 ) = 0.625 98 Expected Job i n C i t y 1970 - r u r a l 2 Before moving - urban 7 df X = 8.121 100 Expected wages 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 2 3 ) = 2.831 TABLE V I I . l (Continued) VARIABLE NO. VARIABLE NAME VALUES OF X OR F SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 101 Expected Earnings by Dependents 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 102 Expected "Other" Income 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 103 Expected T o t a l Income 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 111 T o t a l Owing on Property 1971 - r u r a l Property s o l d - urban 116 T o t a l Moving Expenses Expected - r u r a l Incurred - urban 117 Before M i g r a t i o n Housing/Month Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 118 Before M i g r a t i o n Food/Week Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 119 Before M i g r a t i o n Automobile/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 120 Before M i g r a t i o n Clothing/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 8 ) = 3.112 F( l , 1 0 ) = 0.789 F ( l , 2 7 ) = 1.384 F( l , 4 1 ) = 2.984 F ( l , 1 7 ) = 5.969 5% I n v a l i d - only one response i n I) F( l , 8 2 ) = 1.854 F(l,58) - 0.395 F ( l , 7 6 ) = 0.014 ON o TABLE V I I . l (Continued) VARIABLE NO. VARIABLE NAME VALUES OF X OR F SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 121 Before M i g r a t i o n U t i l i t i e s / Y e a r Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 122 Before M i g r a t i o n Household/year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 123 Before M i g r a t i o n Medical/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 124 Before M i g r a t i o n Recreation/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 125 Before M i g r a t i o n Taxes/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 126 Before M i g r a t i o n "Other"/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban 127 T o t a l Before M i g r a t i o n Expenses 1971 - r u r a l Before moving - urban F ( l , 8 1 ) = 6.240 F ( l , 6 2 ) = 0.046 F ( l , 7 0 ) = 0.692 F ( l , 7 0 ) = 0.082 F ( l , 8 3 ) - 0.141 F ( l , 8 ) = 0.081 F ( l , 7 9 ) = 0.357 5% TABLE VTI.1 (Continued) VARIABLE NO. VARIABLE NAME VALUES OF x2 1 OR F SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL 128 After Migration Housing/Month Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,46) 1.105 129 After Migration Food/Week Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,39) 1.342 130 After Migration Automobile/Year Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,32) 2.280 131 After Migration Clothing/Year Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,34) 0.739 132 After Migration Utilities/Year Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,34) 3.017 133 After Migration Household/Year Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,28) 7.051 5% 134 After Migration Medical/Year Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,33) 8.932 1% 135 After Migration Recreation/Year Expenses 1971 - rural expected 1971 - urban incurred F(l,32) = 0.500 — Ov N3 cJo«t »o+ 64 V I I . l SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES VII.1.1 S k i l l s of Head. The f i r s t v a r i a b l e showing s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ference between migrants and non-migrants was s k i l l s of head. This v a r i a b l e was examined by asking respondents: Did you acquire any other skills after you left school? i TABLE VII.2 SKILLS ACQUIRED YES NO Non-Migrants (No) 8 55 Migrants (No) 7 15 X = 4.102 1 d.f. s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% l e v e l The s p e c i f i c s k i l l s acquired were: Non-migrants: welder, baker, l i c e n s e d mechanic, teacher's college (course not completed), o i l f i e l d foreman, logger, c e r t i f i e d carpenter; Migrants: r e c r e a t i o n a l d i r e c t o r , bus d r i v e r , nursing o r d e r l y , steam engineer, radio-TV technician, welder, surveyor. 2 While the value of the X shows s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the two groups, the value i s misleading. The s k i l l s c i t e d by migrants were acquired a f t e r migration. Thus in toto f o r the s k i l l s v a r i a b l e two statements may be made: (a) there i s a pool of s k i l l e d labor among farmers; and (b) people who migrate do acquire some s k i l l s as a consequence of migration. 65 VII.1.2 Number of Years Sjent in Occupation (Farming). Non-migrant respondents were asked how many years they had spent in their current occu-pation (Q 12c), and migrants were asked how many years they had spent in their occupation before migrating (Q l i b ) . The following results were obtained. TABLE VII.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS SPENT IN OCCUPATION (FARMING) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS % MEAN S.D. Non-Migrants 34 65. 4 19.2 11.2 Migrants 18 34. 6 29.2 10.3 Total 52 100. 0 22.7 11.8 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,50) = 9.757 Significant at 1% p. level Migrants on the average had spent 10 more years In farming than people who s t i l l l i v e on the land. This is a rather curious result i f we note that the mean age of non-migrants is 48.6 years and of migrants 51.2 years. A plausible explanation may be that the discrepancy in the number of years spent in farming i s due to two or more interacting forces. Namely, in-migration which would pull down the average length of years spent in farming, and out-migration mainly by those people who spent most or a l l of their adult l i f e on the farm. Of those people currently l i v i n g in the surveyed area 29.6% are in-migrants and 15.5% are in-migrants from an urban area, while the mean age of migrants (51.2 years) and years of farm tenure (29.2 years) suggest this explanation. VII.1.3 Total Area of Land. Respondents were asked: What is/was the total area of all land you own(ed) and operate(d)? This variable was found to be significantly different, with the following mean values. (See Table VII.4). 66 TABLE VII.4 AVERAGE AREA OF LAND OWNED AND OPERATED (ACRES) NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS % MEAN S.D. RANGE Non-Migrants 69 75.8 778.174 367.021 158-1840 Migrants 22 24.2 597.773 257.092 160-1120 Total 91 100.0 734.560 351.043 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,89) = 4.581 significant at 5% p. level Migrants on the average had a quarter section of land less to operate than non-migrants. This result was expected to some extent, but i t is to be noted that migrants were not necessarily those people with the least amount of land. Classifying land into i t s components of owned land and rented land, there was no significant difference between migrants and non-migrants i n the amount of land owned, but there was a significant difference in the amount of land rented. VII.1.4 Area of Land Rented or Leased From Others (I 14c, II 12c) The mean values obtained are summarized in Table VII.5. While the amount of land rented was significantly less for those who migrated, an evaluation of the proportion of people who do rent land reveals no s t a t i s t i c a l l y significant difference between migrants and non-migrants (see Table VII.6). 67 TABLE VII.5 AVERAGE AREA OF LAND RENTED OR LEASED FROM OTHERS NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS % MEAN S.D. RANGE Non-Migrants 69 75.8 192.522 263.884 0-1120 Migrants 22 24.2 66.591 129.075 0-360 Total 91 100.0 162.077 243.802 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,89) = 4.630 significant at 5% p. level TABLE VII.6 PATTERN OF RENTING DONT RENT RENT Non-Migrants 35 36 Migrants 16 6 X =3.723 l d . f . significant at 5% level While the significant X value at 1 d.f. would be 3.84 the obtained X value of 3.72 leads to acceptance of the null hypothesis. Nevertheless, sub-jective considerations suggest that the a b i l i t y to rent land is an important factor. Both migrants and non-migrants frequently expressed the opinion that the acquisition of more land would be helpful. During the interviewing I en-countered situations where one or more respondents expressed interest in their 68 neighbour's land. In summary, migrants tended to operate a smaller acreage than non-migrants. In my opinion the process of land c o n s o l i d a t i o n by large farm units puts a subtle but i r r e v o c a b l e pressure on the smaller farming u n i t s , by physi-c a l l y surrounding the smaller farms, and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y by slowly removing neighbours and emphasizing the commercial f a i l u r e of the small farmer i n com-parison to the l a r g e . VII.1.5 Reasons for Desiring to Move. Rural respondents were asked: What reasons make you want to move from here? And migrants were asked: Could you tell me why did you move away from (the farm)? The responses obtained on these two questions were sorted i n t o eight categories. Since the questions were asked as an open question, more than one response was obtained i n most cases. To f a c i l i t a t e analysis one response i n each case was designated as main reason i n my own judgement, and subsequently the f i r s t , second and t h i r d reasons as mentioned by respondents were tabulated separately. The responses are tabulated i n Table VII.7. Comparing the responses the source of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between migrants and non-migrants appears to be non-monetary. That i s , migrants gave a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y large frequency of health reasons f o r moving compared to non-migrants. The explanation may be found by viewing "health" reasons as forced retirement i n some instances when generally f a i l i n g health forces r e t i r e -ment without the man wanting to r e t i r e . Of the 10 respondents four gave a l l e r -gies as the d e f i n i t e reason f o r moving. While the number of responses i s much too low to derive any strong inferences, the very p o s i t i v e responses mentioning a l l e r g i e s would i n d i c a t e that t h i s may be a strong explanatory v a r i a b l e i n 69 family d e c i s i o n making. For example, one respondent's wife was a l l e r g i c to dust: the family d e c i s i o n was made to move to Vancouver, B.C. rather than to a p r a i r i e c i t y . TABLE VII.7 MAIN REASONS FOR DESIRING TO MOVE NON-MIGRANTS MIGRANTS NO. % NO. % Retirement 16 22.4 1 4.3 Low Income 17 23.8 9 40.5 Health Reasons 3 4.2 10 45.0 Better Schools i n C i t y 1 1.4 1 4.5 Other Business 1 1.4 — —• Loneliness on Farm 1 1.4 — — Want to S e l l Land 1 1.4 — — Other 6 8.4 1 4.5 T o t a l 46 64.4 22 100.0 No Respbnse 25 35.6 — —. X 2 = 20.066 7 d.f. s i g n i f i c a n t : at 1% p. l e v e l Since the above responses were inte r p r e t e d as "most important" i n my estimation, an evaluation t a b u l a t i n g the f i r s t reasons f o r wanting to move and having moved follows (see Table VII.8). 70 TABLE VII.8 FIRST REASONS: DESIRE TO MOVE AND DID MOVE NON-MIGRANTS MIGRANTS NO. % NO. % Retirement 16 22.4 1 4.5 Low Income 16 22.4 9 40.5 Health Reasons 5 7.0 10 45.0 Better Schools i n City 1 1.4 1 4.5 Other Business 1 1.4 — — Loneliness on Farm 1 1.4 — — Want to Sell Land 1 1.4 — — Other 5 7.0 1 4.5 Total 46 64.4 22 100.0 No Response 25 35.6 — — X 2 = 16.058 7 d.f. significant at 5% p level Tabulating the f i r s t reasons mentioned by respondents yields essentially the same results as tabulating the main reasons. Rejecting the null hypothesis the conclusion is that migrants had different reasons for moving, namely, poor health and inadequate incomes. In terms of the decision-making model, making the subjective time jump from before to after the act of migration the single most frequent c r i t i -cal event calling forth the migration decision i s f a i l i n g health. An implicit probabilistic evaluation on the part of decision makers i s contained in the change from seven per cent of those people who have some degree of expectations to move indicating poor health as reason for doing so i n the future, to the 45 per cent of people who did move because of poor health. The c r i t i c a l event 71 occurred i n time, 45 per cent of interviewed migrants' health did f a i l seriously enough to warrant a decision to move. VII.1.6 Information Items Known (I, Q 19a; II Q 16). The infor-mation variable employed was divided into economic and non-economic informa-tion items. Economic information was taken to measure familiarity with: job, housing and cost of li v i n g situation in an urban envrionment. Non-economic information was taken to mean familiarity with: shopping, schools, recreation, climate and the way people l i v e in an urban environemnt. Since a precise operational definition of what one bit of information is in the migration situation i s not available, each response indicating famili-arity was used to build a possible score with values of 0-3 for economic infor-mation, 0-5 for non-economic information, and 0-8 for total information. A 0 value denotes no response, 1 denotes familiarity with one item, etc. In this fashion a frequency count of information score values was obtained for both groups to make a comparison. While score values are employed, these are purely nominal in the definition of possible values. Score values were used merely as an expedient to allow comparison between migrants and non-migrants. The ques-tions employed were open ended, so as to allow information items mentioned by the respondents to be added. Responses, however, were rather poor, and no additional information items were mentioned. TABLE VII.9 ECONOMIC INFORMATION KNOWN NO. OF INFORMATION ITEMS KNOWN 0 1 2 3 TOTAL Non-Migrants 53 2 3 13 71 Migrants 10 5 5 2 22 X = 18.51 3 d.f. significant at 1% p. level 72 Rejecting the nu l l hypothesis at the 1% level, the conclusion is that migrants had more economic information than non-migrants before they moved. TABLE VII.10 NON-ECONOMIC INFORMATION KNOWN NO. OF INFORMATION ITEMS KNOWN 0 1 2 3 4 5 TOTAL Non-Migrants 61 1 1 3 0 5 71 Migrants 14 4 3 0 1 0 22 2 X =18.25 5 d.f. significant at 1% p.level The null hypothesis i s rejected, migrants had more non-economic information items than non-migrants. TABLE VII.11 TOTAL INFORMATION KNOWN NO. OF INFORMATION ITEMS KNOWN 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 TOTAL Non-Migrants 50 4 2 7 0 0 3 0 5 71 Migrants 9 4 3 3 1 1 0 1 0 22 X = 19.83 8 d.f. significant at 5% p. level 73 Reject the n u l l hypothesis; migrants knew of more information items. While the s t a t i s t i c s obtained support the conclusion that migrants are better informed, a furt h e r c u r i o s i t y was evident during interviewing, namely, the tendency of some respondents to agree with a l l items on a set of questions. For example, i n the previous three tables non-migrants consis-t e n t l y scored higher on the upper end of each score s c a l e . The c u r i o s i t y l i e s i n the f a c t that t h i s tendency to agree was only evident among a few non-migrants, and absent among migrants. During interviewing migrants generally t r i e d to ask f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of questions, and attempted to r e c a l l as many d e t a i l s from memory as was po s s i b l e . VII.1.7 Expected and Actual Moving Costs. While moving costs was not considered as a part of the o v e r a l l cost-benefit c a l c u l a t i o n , the an a l y s i s of variance between expected moving costs and a c t u a l costs of moving reveals a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between migrants and non-migrants. Non-migrants r e -port higher expected costs than the costs incurred by migrants f o r e s s e n t i a l l y the same geographic de s t i n a t i o n s . TABLE VII.12 COSTS OF MOVING <I Q 29; II Q 27) N MEAN S.D. RANGE Expected Moving Costs 8 Actual Moving Costs 11 307.50 140.10 205.13 86.70 50-600 11-300 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,17) = 5.969 s i g n i f i c a n t a t 5% p. l e v e l 74 As we are concerned with what i s perceived by r u r a l people, the low num-ber of responses i s noteworthy, e s p e c i a l l y among migrants. Of the 22 migrants interviewed one person gave no response, 10 people reported no costs incurred, and 11 people reported the incurred amount of moving expenses. C a l c u l a t i n g the reported mean f i g u r e s f o r migrants no cost responses were excluded, since r u r a l respondents d i d not report zero expected c o s t s . Hence the mean cost f i g u r e i s mrely an estimate of costs f o r those people who did perceive costs among migrants. Comparing the-number of people who reported expected or incurred moving costs against those who d i d not, would suggest that costs of moving are not as important a consideration f o r most people before migration occurs. TABLE VII.13 SIGNIFICANCE OF MOVING COSTS NON-MIGRANTS MIGRANTS : Cost No Cost 8 63 11 11 x 2 =15.5 s i g n i f i c a n t at 1% p. l e v e l In summary, moving costs do not appear to be an important f a c t o r i n migra-t i o n d e c i s i o n making. R e l a t i v e l y few people perceive moving costs before migration, and those who do, tend to overestimate these costs. A f t e r migration people are more aware of moving costs and the magnitude of these costs, but are as l i k e l y to r e -i cognize them as not. While these r e s u l t s seem curious, they are not unexpected. The questions per t a i n i n g to moving costs were open-ended questions, covering: wages l o s t 75 while moving; wages lost while looking for a new job; cost of moving belongings; and transportation costs for the family. Opportunity costs only apply in the limited circumstances of off-farm employment in which case migration is unlike-l y , or moving during the main farm work periods, which i s also unlikely. Hence moving costs consist of moving belongings, and family transportation. However, most moves are moves to the nearest city, in this case Saskatoon, which i s approximately two hours' driving distance. Thus, moving family and belongings is merely an inconvenience, since driving to Saskatoon i s a relatively routine event, the cost of which is no different from driving the farm truck to Saskatoon at any other time. Hence, to the questions of moving costs the response in 10 cases was: Nothing, moved in my own truck (which i s i l l e g a l in Saskatchewan with-out a permit. VII.1.8 Significant Costs of Living Variables. The comparison of present costs of li v i n g expenses incurred by rural people against costs incurred by mi-grants before they l e f t the farm produced merely one significantly different item, the amount spent on u t i l i t i e s i s higher for non-migrants (see Table VII.14), TABLE VII.14 AMOUNT SPENT ON UTILITIES: PRESENT ON FARM/BEFORE MOVE ON FARM N MEAN S.D. Non-Migrants 65 410.36 167.17 Present on Farm Migrants 18 299.00 168.16 Before Move on Farm S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,81) = 6.240 significant at 5% p. level 76 The plausible explanation for this difference may be that the costs of li v i n g in a farming area are relatively more stable than in an urban area. That i s , housing costs are non-existent, food, car, clothing, etc. are much more easily substituted for than in an urban area. Fuel, e l e c t r i c i t y and telephone services on-the other hand demand expenditures and are not easily substituted. The d i f f e r -ence reflects increased costs of u t i l i t i e s over the elapsed objective time span of five years. Comparing the expected costs of l i v i n g that rural people envision with costs incurred by migrants in an urban area, significant differences were found in household expenditures, medical expenditures and in taxes paid (see Tables VII.15, VII.16, and VII.17). TABLE VII.15 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA N MEAN S.D. RANGE Expected by Non-Migrants 14 142.14 83.77 0 -300 Actual by Migrants 16 348.44 279.35 100 -1200 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,28) = 7.051 significant at 5% p. level The differences in household expenditures arise from two sources: on the one hand buying an old house in the c i t y entails repair and upkeep expenses due to different construction of the housing, and on the other hand some of the added expenses occur because of a fundamental change in l i f e s t y l e , which occasions the acquisition of new and different appliances, the acquisition of a television re-ceiver, for example. The large range of expenditures for migrants reflects this 77 change, but from the data c o l l e c t e d i t i s not possible to a s c e r t a i n to what ex-tent the purchase of consumer durables i s responsible f o r the increase i n mean expenditures. TABLE VII.16 MEDICAL EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA N MEAN S.D. RANGE Expected by Non-Migrants 16 117.56 83.46 0 - 300 Ac t u a l by Migrants 19 211.84 100.21 50 - 400 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,33) = 8.932 s i g n i f i c a n t at 1% p. l e v e l The d i f f e r e n c e i n the amount spent on medical expenses can be explained by the high proportion of migrants who moved for health reasons (45 per cent) and the existence of a nominal fee f o r medicare s e r v i c e s i n Saskatchewan. TABLE VII.17 PROPERTY TAXES PAID N MEAN S.D. RANGE Expected by Non-Migrants 9 394.00 138.25 206-600 Actual by Migrants 20 728.20 445.57 60-2000 S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,27) = 4.769 s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% p. l e v e l 78 The increased tax load of migrants i s explainable by the high propor-tion of migrants who continue farming on a part-time basis, or simply as ab-sentee landlords. Of the 22 respondents, only seven or 31.8% sold their property which in turn means that the remaining 68% pay taxes on two places. Hence the virtual doubling of the tax b i l l for migrants. VII.1.9 Evaluation of Hypotheses. HYPOTHESIS I: People who did migrate to an urban area from a low income rural area knew of a greater num-ber of information sources about opportunities available in urban areas than rural people who have not migrated. TABLE VII.18 TOTAL NUMBER OF INFORMATION SOURCES NON-MIGRANTS MIGRANTS TOTAL (N - 71) (N = 22) Observed 104 44 148 Expected 113 35 148 X 2 = 3.03 1 d.f. < 5% p. level. The data presented in Table VII.18 has been calculated by making a fr e -quency count of the total number of information sources mentioned by each respon-dent. Assuming the null hypothesis, expected frequencies were calculated. At f i r s t glance i t would appear that migrants knew of a greater number of information 2 sources. But the obtained X value leads to acceptance of the null hypothesis, and 79 therefore to the rejection of the hypothesis that migrants knew of a greater number of information sources than rural people. HYPOTHESIS II: People who did migrate to an urban area from a low income rural area utilize different information sources about opportunities available in urban areas than rural people who have not migrated. U t i l i z i n g the data collected by questions I 19b and II 17, the following categories of information sources were identified: (a) media, consisting of radio, television, local newspaper, city newspaper and magazines; (b) government agencies, including manpower and a l l other government information sources; (c) personal, including relatives and friends; (d) other, including real estate firms, and a l l other sources of information. A comparison of non-migrants and migrants across these four categories of information sources testing the nu l l hypothesis of no difference, leads to the acceptance of the null hypothesis and rejection of the hypothesis that migrants u t i l i z e different information sources. TABLE VII.19 FREQUENCY COUNT OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION KNOWN TO MIGRANTS AND NON-MIGRANTS MEDIA GOVERNMENT AGENCIES PERSONAL OTHER Non-Migrants 13 (18%) 17 (24%) 51 (72%) 21 (30%) Migrants 5 (22%) 8 (36%) 16 (73%) 16 (73%) X 2 = 4.2 3 d.f. < 5% p. level . Accept null hypothesis. 80 HYPOTHESIS I I I : Migrants, originating from low income rural areas had a positive level of realized net economic benefits associated with migration to an urban area. In Chapter V I , S e c t i o n 9, r e a l i z e d net economic b e n e f i t s of migrants had a mean of $1226.29 w i t h a standard d e v i a t i o n of $3839.03. The standard e r r o r of the mean was $1063.44 and the 95 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l f o r the mean ranged from $-858.05 to $3310.63. From these f i g u r e s i t would appear that migrants on the whole d i d r e a l i z e some p o s i t i v e monetary b e n e f i t s . How-ever, i t cannot be as s e r t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t r e a l i z e d monetary b e n e f i t s were p o s i t i v e i n l i g h t of the l a r g e standard d e v i a t i o n . The reason f o r such l a r g e v a r i a t i o n may be found not o n l y i n the small number of data p a i r s (14), but a l s o i n the s i g n i f i c a n c e of c o n t i n u i n g p a r t - t i m e farming of migrants. Some 68 per cent of "migrants" continued w i t h some degree of ownership or o p e r a t i o n of t h e i r l a n d . 1 Continued involvement i n farming i n some sense may be s a i d to negate the economic b e n e f i t s of m i g r a t i o n i n s o f a r t h a t expenses, most n o t a b l y property taxes are s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r f o r migrants. The upkeep and o p e r a t i o n of machinery, households, e t c . continues i n two p l a c e s , w h i l e the income generated by the farm begins to d e c l i n e . HYPOTHESIS I I I : People living in low income rural areas have a negative level of economic expectations associated with migration to an urban area. R u r a l people expect p o s i t i v e net economic b e n e f i t s from m i g r a t i n g (Chapter VI, s e c t i o n 8 ) , The mean of expected b e n e f i t s was c a l c u l a t e d to be an a d d i t i o n a l $4203.50 per year from migrants w i t h a standard d e v i a t i o n of $4001.23, standard e r r o r of the mean was $1333.74 and the mean 95 per cent confidence i n t e r v a l was from $1589.37 to $6817.63. Hence the hypothesis t h a t r u r a l people have a nega-Chapter V I . I I . 81 tive level of economic expectations associated with migration was re-j ected. The conclusion that economic expectations are positive for non-migrants implies that these expectations must be counterbalanced by the desire to remain and by the uncertainty of attaining higher economic benefits elsewhere.among non-migrants. VII.2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH The forming of expectations i s a continuous process, a process of revis-ing subjective probabilities of events occurring. The inflow of information, the perception of significant events alters expectations u n t i l the occurrence of a c r i t i c a l event effects the migration decision. From this view of the migration decision-making process, two general suggestions for further research emerge: 1. Attitude scaling may be used to evaluate expectations regarding migration at any given point in time. U t i l i z i n g the parallel prior and posterior interview method an inventory of c r i t i c a l events — which discriminate between migrants and non-migrants — may be b u i l t and used as the basis for an attitude scale construction.^ 2. The f e a s i b i l i t y of building an aggregate predictive migration model based on Bayesian probabilities should be explored. Marvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for the Measurement of Atti-tudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Co. Inc., 1967). Contains the scale Attitude Toward Farming (Myster 1944) and The (Work Related) Change Scale (Trumbo 1961). Mobility Orientation Scale i s contained in Melvin Seeman, "On the Personal Con-sequences of Alienation in Work," American Sociological Review, No. 32 (April, 1967), pp. 273-285. Charles M. Bonjean et al.t Sociological Measurement (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1967); N. Frederiksen and H. Gulliksen, Contributions to Mathematical Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1964) contains a paper by Robert P. Abelson on "Mathematical Models of the Distribution of Attitudes Under Controversy." CHAPTER VIII SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The model of d e c i s i o n making employed i n t h i s study r e s t s on two basic assumptions: (a) a d e c i s i o n i s . some function of expectations; (b) expectations are some function of information about events. The concept of subjective time was used to introduce the perception of s i g n i f i c a n t events as causal sources i n d e c i s i o n making. With the a priori assumptions that the completed act of migration i s a s i g n i f i c a n t event, and that the ceteris paribus c o n d i t i o n obtains i n the compari-son of the two surveyed groups, s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i c a t e the occurrence of events which l e d to the migration d e c i s i o n . In the model employed a d i s t i n c t i o n was made between economic and non-economic expectations i n order to assess the r e l a t i v e importance of each. Migra-t i o n i s not n e c e s s a r i l y motivated by monetary considerations, the so - c a l l e d non-economic motivations are of equal or higher importance i n the migration d e c i s i o n . In terms of the current study, the sum t o t a l of expectations regarding the migration d e c i s i o n of the 71 people interviewed may be expressed as two people (3%) w i l l move d e f i n i t e l y , 31 people (43%) have thought about moving, and 38 people (53%) have not thought about moving. This i s our present best estimate of future behaviour, 31 people may move i f . . . Chapter VI, Section 10, Table VI.22. 82 83 Making the time jump from before to a f t e r the act of migration, a nominal evaluation suggests that the sing l e most frequent c r i t i c a l event c a l l i n g f o r t h the migration d e c i s i o n i s f a i l i n g health (Table VII.8). The hypothesized information flow as part of the process of forming ex-pectations was examined i n r e l a t i o n to a set of expectations which for convenience were c a l l e d "opportunities i n urban areas," and by assumption consisted of i n f o r -mation/knowledge of jobs, housing, cost of l i v i n g , shopping, school, r e c r e a t i o n , climate, the way people l i v e and an "other" category to allow free responses. Information furthermore was assumed to o r i g i n a t e from such sources as radio, t e l e v i s i o n , l o c a l newspaper, c i t y newspaper, magazines, Canada Manpower, govern-ment agencies (sources such as Veteran's A f f a i r s , e t c . ) , r e l a t i v e s , f r i e n d s , people i n home area, and an "other" category to allow a d d i t i o n a l free responses. Recognizing that information may be received p a s s i v e l y or a c t i v e l y , i . e . , there i s some "normal" amount of information inflow constantly, but there i s an increased inflow i f information i s sought a c t i v e l y . Findings r e l a t e d to Hypo-theses I and II provided some evidence that the sources of information were approxi-mately the same for migrants and non-migrants a l i k e , but that the quantity (item) 2 of information known was greater f o r migrants than non-migrants. The conclusions of the study are: 1. The c r i t i c a l events which a f f e c t the migration d e c i s i o n of i n d i v i d u a l s may be aggregated. F a i l i n g health, low incomes and inadequate acreage may be c a l l e d the most common c r i t i c a l events f o r the surveyed pop-u l a t i o n . As the p r o b a b i l i t y of occurrence of c r i t i c a l events approaches, the p r o b a b i l i t y of migration also increases. Chapter VII, Section 6. 84 2. Information i s transmitted most e f f e c t i v e l y by personal con-t a c t , i . e . , f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s or r e a l estate agents. 3. The migration l i t e r a t u r e contains reference to two complemen-tary forces explaining the movement of workers from a g r i c u l t u r e to Industry, viz., "the c e n t r i f u g a l force or impetus which pushes them out of a g r i c u l t u r e , 3 and the power of attraction which p u l l s them into industry." The l a t t e r force seems rather i n s i g n i f i c a n t i n r e l a t i o n to the former i n the surveyed population. H. Krier, Rural Manpower and Industrial Development, General Report, OECD (1961), p. 15. B I B L I O G R A P H Y ARDA, Annual Report. Ottawa: Department of F o r e s t r y of Canada, v a r i o u s years. "ARDA: A R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Program i n the Making." Pamphlet, Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , Ottawa, 1961, ARDA, Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement 1970-75. Department of Regional Economic Expansion Canada and Department of A g r i c u l t u r e and Food O n t a r i o , Ottawa, 1970. ARDA Reports and D i g e s t s , National Rural Manpower. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1966. , Manpower Adaptability and Economic Growth: From the Farm to the Factory. Ottawa, Canada Department of A g r i c u l t u r e , 1963. Auer, L. ECC S t a f f Study #24. Canadian Agricultural Productivity. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1970. B l e i b t r e u , John N. The Parable of the Beast. New York: C o l l i e r Books, 1971. Buckley, H. and E. T i h a n y i . ECC S p e c i a l Study #7. Canadian Policies for Rural Adjustment. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967, Canadian Centre f o r Community S t u d i e s . Multi-Disciplinary Research on Develop-ment Problems of a Low-Income Agricultural Area: An Overview of ARDA-Sponsored Research on Census Division 15. Saskatoon, 1967, Campbell, D. R. "Overcoming the Canadian Farm Problem — Theory and P r a c t i c e , " Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, V o l . 14, No. 2 (1966). Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s . Census of Canada. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1961. Economic C o u n c i l of Canada. Fifth Annual Review: The Challenge of Growth and Change. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1968. 85 86 Garland, S. W. and S. C. Hudson. A Report Prepared for the Federal Task Force on Agriculture, Government Involvement in AGriculture. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Isaac, Julius. Economics of Migration. London: Kegan Paul, French, Trubner and Co. Ltd., 1947. Katona, George. Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1951. Krier, H. Rural Manpower and Industrial Development. General Report, OECD, 1961. Lianos, Theodore P. "Labor Mobility and Market Imperfections," Canadian Jour-nal of Agricultural Economics, Vol. 18, No. 3 (1970). Proceedings of the Canadian Agriculture Congress. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Report of the Federal Task Force on Agriculture. Canadian Agiruclutre in the Seventies. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Richards, J. H. and K. I . Fung (Eds). Atlas of Saskatchewan. University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Modern Press, 1969. Selected S t a t i s t i c a l Information on Agriculture in Canada. Ottawa, Canada Depart-ment of Agriculture, Economics Branch, 1967. Special Planning SEcretariat. Index of Programs for Human Development. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1967. Stone, Leroy 0. Migration in Canada. Ottawa: Queen's Printer, 1969. Summary and Reports of the Panel Discussions: Federal-Provincial Conference on Poverty and Opportunity. Ottawa, Privy Council Office, Special Planning Secretariat, 1966. Winter, G. R. "Characteristics and Consequences of Rural Poverty." Mimeo. Vancouver, University of Bri t i s h Columbia, Department of Agricultural Economics, 1968. ^7 A P P E N D I C E S APPENDIX I INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PART ONE DECISION MAKING IN RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION 1. Sex of household head. 2. What i s your marital status. 3. How long have you been married? 4. What i s your age? 5. What i s your wife's age? 6. What are the ages of your children? 7. (a) How many of your children l i v e with you? (b) Of those who have l e f t home, how many s t i l l l i v e in this area? (c) How many have l e f t this area? (d) Where did they go? /probe for address/ (e) Are there any other people l i v i n g in your home? 8. (a) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling did you complete? (b) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling did your wife complete? 9. (a) Did you acquire any other s k i l l s a f t e r you l e f t school? What were you trained in? (b) Did your wife have any training after she l e f t school? What was she trained in? 10. How long have you lived in this area? 11. (a) Where did you l i v e before here? (b) Why did you move? (c) How long did you l i v e there? 12. (a) What sort of work did you do in 1970? /specify within category/ (b) How many years had you been working in this occupation? (c) Did you have a secondary occupation in 1970? If yes, what was your secondary occupation? 13. (a) Have you been unemployed during the last year? (b) How long have you been unemployed? (c) What was the reason for your unemployment? 88 89 / I f f?rm/ What i s the t o t a l area of a l l land you own and operate? Area owned? Area rented or leased from others? How many ac r e s do you have i n : (1) crop? (2) summer f a l l o w ? (3) pasture? (4) unimproved? (e) What i s your main product sold? 15. Have you thought of moving from here during the l a s t two years? /probe/ (a) D e f i n i t e l y moving? (b) Have thought about moving? (c) Have not thought about moving /go to question 18/ 16. (a) Where would you l i k e t o move? (1) r u r a l ? (2) urban? (3) ho d e f i n i t e place? 17. What reasons make you want t o move from here? /probe f o r responses/ 18. What reasons make you want to continue l i v i n g i n t h i s area? /probe f o r reasons/ 19. (a) Supposing t h a t you would have to move to l i v e i n a c i t y or a town a l l of a sudden, which o f the f o l l o w i n g t h i n g s do you know about? /ask each item/ (1) j o b s (2) housing (3) c o s t of l i v i n g (4) shopping (5) schools (6) r e c r e a t i o n (7) c l i m a t e (8) the way people l i v e (9) o t h e r (10) don't know (b) Where would/do you get your i n f o r m a t i o n about these thimgs? Through the/ask each item/ (1) r a d i o .(2) t e l e v i s i o n (3) l o c a l newspaper (4) newspaper from ( c i t y ) (5) magazines (6) Canada Manpower (7) government agencies other than Manpower (8) r e l a t i v e s i n urban areas (9) f r i e n d s i n urban areas (10) people here (11) other (12) no i n f o r m a t i o n 90 20. 21. What kinds of things would you l i k e to know accurate information about i f you were moving to a c i t y or a town? (a) jobs (b) housing cost of l i v i n g shopping schools r e c r e a t i o n climate the way people l i v e other (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) ( i ) (j) none Do you know of any people who moved from here to a town or a c i t y during the l a s t f i v e years? I f yes, - could you t e l l me where di d they move to? - could you t e l l me at what address I could get i n touch with them? Name Address /Introduce t h i s s ection with some conversational remarks/. . .1 would l i k e to ask you some questions about your economic s i t u a t i o n here, and what i t might be l i k e somewhere e l s e . 22. Did you receive any income from the following sources i n 1970? I f yes, how much? (a (b (c (d (e (f (g (h ( i (j (k (1 (m (n gross farm income net income from farming earnings from main occupation (before deductions) earnings from second occupation (before deductions) earnings by dependents (before deductions) unemployment insurance welfare payments family allowances pensions (government) pensions (other) Workmen's compensation rent income i n t e r e s t and dividend income other To t a l income (exclude item a) 23. If you were to move to a c i t y or town, what sort of job would you look for? 24. If you were to move to a c i t y or town, what changes would you expect i n your income? (a) none (b) more (c) l e s s 25. How much would you expect to earn from /probe for reasons/ (a) wages and s a l a r i e s -(b) self-employment or non-farm business (c) net income from farm? (partnership, i f not sold or rented) 91 (d) earnings by dependents (e) other sources, e.g., rent, interest, unemployment insurance, etc. 26. What would you estimate i s the f a i r value of any property you own? (a) Farm: buildings and machinery land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other 27. Do you own a l l of this property outright? If no, how much do you owe on: (a) Farm: buildings and machinery land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other 28. If you were to move, would you s e l l your property? If yes, how much would you expect to get for your: (a) Farm: buildings and machinery land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other If given values different than on question 26, probe for reasons. 29. /If question 16 indicated a possible urban move/ How much would you think a move to would cost you in: (a) wages lost while moving (b) wages lost while looking for a new job (c) moving your belongings (d) transportation costs for your family? (e) other What makes you expect these costs? 30. How much do you estimate you spend presently on: . (a) Housing per month: own rent (b) Food per week (c) Automobile expenses per year (d) Clothing per year 92 (e) Telephone, light, power per year (f) Household expenses /furniture, appliances, repairs and house/ (g) Medical expenses per year (those not covered by government insurance) (h) Recreation per month (i) Property taxes per year (j) Other expenses 31. If you were to move to a city or town, how much would you expect to spend on: (a) Housing per month: buy rent (b) Food per week (c) Automobile expenses per year (d) Clothing per year (e) Telephone, light, power, per year (f) Household expenses/furniture, appliances, repairs to house/ (g) Medical expenses per year (those not covered by government insurance) (h) Recreation per month (i) Property taxes per year (j) Other expenses Remarks on Interview APPENDIX II INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PART TWO DECISION MAKING IN RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION 1. Sex of household head. 2. What i s your marital status? 3. How long have you been married? 4. What i s your age? 5. What i s your wife's age? 6. What are the ages of your children? 7. (a) How many of your children l i v e with you? (b) Are there any other people l i v i n g in your home? 8. (a) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling did you complete? (b) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling did your wife complete? 9. (a) Did you acquire any other s k i l l s after you l e f t school? What were you trained in? (b) Did your wife have any training after she l e f t school? What was she trained in? 10. In what year did you move from farm? How long had you lived at your previous residence? 11. (a) What sort of work did you do before you moved? /specify within category/ (1) Self-employment (2) Farming (3) Working in a job (4) Other (b) How many years had you been working in this occupation? (c) Did you have a secondary occupation before you moved? If yes, what was your secondary occupation? 12. /If farm/What was the total area of a l l land you owned and operated? (a) Total area (b) Area owned (c) Area rented or leased 93 94 (d) How many acres did you have in: (1) crop (2) summer fallow (3) pasture (4) unimproved (e) What was your main product sold? 13. What did you do with your farm when you moved? Di you: (a) s e l l i t ' (b) rent i t out (c) operate i t in partnership with someone (d) S t i l l own i t , but l e f t in fallow (e) Other /specify/ 14. Could you t e l l me why did you move away from ? 15. Do you s t i l l think that you should have moved? (a) If yes, what makes you think so? (b) If no, what makes you think so? 16. Before you moved, what kinds of things did you know about: (a) jobs (b) housing (c) cost of l i v i n g (d) shopping (e) schools (f) recreation (g) climate (h) the way people l i v e (i) other (j) don't know 17. Where did you get your information about these things? Through the: (a) radio (b) television (c) local newspaper (d) newspaper from cit y (e) magazines (f) Canada Manpower (g) government agencies other than Manpower (h) relatives in urban areas (i) friends i n urban areas (j) people here (k) other (1) no information 18. What sort of extra information would have been useful to you in helping you to make the decision to .move? Next, I would like to ask you some questions about your economic situation, what i t was li k e before you moved, and what i s l i k e here. 95 19. Could you r e c a l l how much your income was i n the year before you moved from ? (a) Gross farm income (b) Net income from farming (c) Earnings from main occupation (d) Earnings by dependent (e) Other income (e.g., second job, unemployment insurance, rent, etc.) T o t a l income (exclude item a) 20. Could you t e l l me what jobs d i d you hold since you moved from s t a r t i n g with your most recent job? 21. O r i g i n a l l y how much d i d you expect to earn the f i r s t year a f t e r you moved? (a) Gross farm income ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) (b) Net income from farming (c) Earnings from main occupation -(d) Earnings by dependents (e) Other income (e.g., second job, rent, unemployment insurance, etc.) 22. When you moved, what sort of job d i d you look f o r at f i r s t ? 23. What was your income i n 1970 from a l l sources? (a) Gross farm income ( i f a p p l i c a b l e ) (b) Net income from farming (c) Earnings from main occupation (d) Earnings from dependents (e) Other income (e.g., second job, rent unemployment insurance, family allowance, etc.) Tota l income (exclude item a) 24. (a) When you moved d i d you s e l l any of your property? I f yes, how much d i d you get f o r your: (1) Farm; b u i l d i n g s and machinery land l i v e s t o c k (2) House (non-farm) (3) Lot (4) Land (non-farm) (5) Business (6) Other (b) Did you get what you expected? 25. Did you owe any money on any of the property you sold? I f yes, how much on: (a) Farm: b u i l d i n g and machinery land l i v e s t o c k (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other 96 26. What would you estimate i s the f a i r value of the property you s t i l l own: (a) Farm: buildings and machinery land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other 27. How much did i t cost you to move, in (a) Wages lost while moving (b) Wages lost while looking for a new job (c) Moving your belongings (d) Transportation costs for your family (e) Other 28. How much did you estimate you spent before you moved on: (a) Housing per month (b) Food per week (c) Transportation per week (d) Clothing per year (e) E l e c t r i c i t y , gas, phone, etc., per month (f) Household expenses (furniture, appliances, repairs) (g) Medical expenses per year (those not covered by government insurance) (h) Recreation per month (i) Property taxes per year 29. (j) Other expenses Did you expect that your costs of l i v i n g after moving from would be: (a) more (b) less (c) same 30. Could you t e l l me how much do you spend presently on: (a) Housing per month: own rent (b) Food per week (c) Transportation per week (d) Clothing per year (e) E l e c t r i c i t y , gas, phone, etc. per month (f) Household expenses (furniture, appliances, repairs) (g) Medical expenses per year (those not covered by government insurance) (h) Recreation per month (i) Property taxes per year (j ) Other expenses 31. Have you thought about moving back? If yes, what makes you want to move back? Remarks on Interview APPENDIX IV SOME SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RESPONDENTS TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD SEX NO. % Male 70 98.6 Female 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MARITAL STATUS MARITAL STATUS NO. % S i n g l e 9 12.7 Married 57 80.3 Widowed, Divorced, 7.0 Separated 5 TOTAL 71 100.0 98 TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LENGTH OF MARRIAGE YEARS MARRIED NO. % 3°-5 12 3 17.0 4.2 6 - 1 0 5 7.0 11 - 15 9 12.7 16 - 20 5 7,0 20 - Over 37 52.1 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 59 Mean = 21.78 years Standard Deviation =9.97 Range = 3 - 4 2 TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE OF HEAD AGE GROUP NO. % 15 - 24 1 1.4 25 - 34 7 9.9 35 - 44 19 26.7 45 - 54 22 30.8 55 - 64 14 19.7 65 - Over 8 11.3 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 71 Mean = 48.62 Standard Deviation = 10.96 Range = 2 4 - 6 8 TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE OF SPOUSE AGE GROUP NO. % 15 - 24 1 1.4 25 - 34 12 16.9 35 - 44 20 28.2 45 - 54 15 21.1 55 - 64 9 12.7 No Response 14 19.7 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 57 Mean =43.6 Standard Deviation = 10.61 Range = 2 1 - 6 4 TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN NO. OF CHILDREN NO. % No Response 10 14.1 0 2 2.8 1 7 9.9 2 15 21.1 3 15 21.1 4 12 16.7 5 2 2.8 6 2 2.8 7 4 5.6 9 1 1.4 13 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 61 Mean = 3.33 Standard Deviation = 2.19 Range = 0 - 1 3 TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED YEARS OF SCHOOLING NO. % No Response 3 4.2 0 - 5 7 9.9 6 - 8 34 47.9 9 - 1 1 23 32.4 12 3 4.2 13 - 15 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 68 Mean = 8 Standard Deviation = 2.32 Range = 2-13 TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY SPOUSE YEARS OF SCHOOLING NO. % No Response 14 19.7 0 - 5 3 4.2 6 - 8 24 33.8 9 - 1 1 17 23.9 12 11 15.5 13 - 15 2 2.8 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 57 Mean =9.07 Standard Deviation = 2.70 Range = 0 - 1 4 102 TABLE 9 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TRAINING OF HEAD TRAINING OF HEAD NO. % No Response 3 4.2 Yes 11 15.5 No 57 80.3 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TRAINING OF SPOURSE TRAINING OF SPOUSE NO. % No Response 12 16,9 Yes 16 22.5 No 43 60.6 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS RESIDENT IN AREA NO. OF YEARS RESIDENT NO. % No Response 3 4.2 0-2 1 1.4 3 - 5 4 5.6 6-10 3 4.2 11 - 15 1 1.4 20 - Over 59 83.1 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 68 Mean = 35.15 Standard Deviation = 16.23 Range =2-63 TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY PREVIOUS RESIDENCE PREVIOUS RESIDENCE NO. % No Response 50 70.4 Urban 11 15.5 Rural 10 14.1 TABLE 13 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS RESIDENT IN PREVIOUS RESIDENCE YEARS RESIDENCE NO. % No Response 63 88.7 3 - 5 2 2.8 6 - 1 0 4 5.6 11 - 1 5 1 1.4 1 6 - 2 0 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY OCCUPATION IN 1970 OCCUPATION NO. % No Response 2' 2.8 Farming 68 95.8 Labor 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 15 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF YEARS IN CURRENT OCCUPATION NO. OF YEARS IN OCCUPATION NO. No Response 4 5.6 0-5 5 7.0 6-10 2 2.8 11-20 8 11.2 20 - Over 52 72.8 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 34 Mean = 19.24 Standard Deviation = 11.23 (Mean i s underestimated since responses " a l l my l i f e " wa6 not counted) TABLE 16 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SECONDARY JOBS HELD SECONDARY JOBS HELD NO. % No Response 3 4.2 Ye's 10 14.1 No 58 81.7 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 17 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE OWNED AND OPERATED ACREAGE NO. % No Response 2 2.8 0 - 160 3 4.2 161 - 320 6 8.4 321 - 480 8 11.3 481 - 640 19 26.8 641 - 800 8 11.3 801 - 960 8 11.3 961 - 1120 7 9.9 1121 - 1280 3 4.2 1281 - Over 7 11.3 TOTAL 71 100.0 N - 69 Mean = 778.17 Standard Deviation - 367.02 Range = 158 - 1840 TABLE 18 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE OWNED ACREAGE NO. % No Response 1 1.4 0 - 160 4 5.6 161 - 320 13 18.3 321 - 480 19 26.8 481 - 640 13 18.3 641 - 800 8 11.3 801 - 960 6 8.4 961 - 1120 4 5.6 1121 - 1280 2 2.8 1280 - Over 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 70 Mean = 597 Standard Deviation = 283.93 Range = 158 - 1324 TABLE 19 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ACREAGE RENTED ACREAGE NO. % No Response 35 49.3 0 - 160 13 21.1 161 - 320 8 11.3 321 - 480 5 7.0 481 - 640 4 5.6 641 - 800 2 2.8 801 - 1120 2 2.8 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 69 Mean = 192.52 Standard Deviation - 263.88 Range = 0 - 1120 (33 no response calculated with 0 value for N = 69) TABLE 20 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ACREAGE CULTIVATED ACREAGE NO. No Response 5 7.0 101 - 200 6 8.5 201 - 300 9 12.7 301 - 400 11 15.5 401 - 500 12 16.9 501 - 600 4 5.6 601 - 700 8 11.3 701 - 800 3 4.2 801 - 900 1 1.4 901 - 1000 5 7.0 1001 - Over 5 7.0 TOTAL 71 100.0 N - 66 Mean - 557.71 Standard Deviation = 333.74 Range = 150 - 1585 TABLE 21 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MAIN PRODUCT MAIN PRODUCT NO. % No Response 2 2.8 Grains 15 21.1 Wheat 17 23.9 Mixed 24 33.8 Cattle 8 11.3 Hogs 1 1.4 Rape Seed 3 4.2 Sheep 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 TABLE 22 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY 1970 TOTAL INCOME INCOME NO. % No Response 6 8.5 0 - 1000 19 26.8 1001 - 2000 13 18.3 2001 - 3000 10 14.1 3001 - 4000 11 15.5 4001 - 5000 8 11.3 5001 - 6000 2 2.8 6001 - Over 2 2.8 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 67 Mean = 1891.42 Standard Deviation = 2747.93 Range = -8700 to 10200 (N = 67 includes two negative values from No Response category) TABLE 23 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY PROPERTY VALUE $ NO. % No Response 6 8.5 0 - 10,000 1 1.4 10,001 - 20,000 5 7.0 20,001 - 30,000 11 15.5 30,001 - 40,000 9 12.7 40,001 - 50,000 8 11.3 50,001 - 70,000 8 11.3 70,001 -100,000 14 19.7 100,001 - Over 9 12,7 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 65 Mean = 59611.69 Standard Deviation = 39427.82 Range = 5000 - 205.000 TABLE 24 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY $ INDEBTEDNESS $ AMOUNT OF DEBT NO. % No Response 34 47.9 0 - 5,000 12 16.9 5,001 - 10,000 9 12.7 10,001 - 15,000 5 7.0 15,001 - 20,000 4 5.6 20,001 - 30,000 2 2.8 30,001 - 40,000 1 1.4 40,001 - 50,000 3 4.2 50,001 - 75,000 1 1.4 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 37 Mean = 14681.08 Standard Deviation = 15655.31 Range = 200 - 69.000 TABLE 25 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY $ COSTS OF LIVING IN 1970 $ COSTS NO. $ No Response 5 7.0 1,001 - 1,500 2 2.8 1,501 - 2,000 11 15.5 2,001 - 2,500 11 15.5 2,501 - 3,000 13 18.3 3,001 - 3,500 10 14.1 3,501 - 4,000 5 7.0 4,001 - 4,500 3 4.2 4,501 - 5,000 3 4.2 5,001 - Over 8 11.3 TOTAL 71 100.0 N = 66 Mean = 3241.11 Standard Deviation = 1629.65 Range = 1244 - 9998 APPENDIX V SOME SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD SEX NO. % Male 22 100.0 Female TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MARITAL STATUS MARITAL STATUS NO. % Single 1 4.6 Married 21 95.4 Widowed, Divorced, Separated TOTAL 22 100.0 111 TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LENGTH OF MARRIAGE YEARS MARRIED NO. % No Response 1 4.6 6 - 1 0 2 9.1 11-15 2 9.1 1 6 - 2 0 1 4.6 20 - Over 16 72.7 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 Mean = 22.24 Standard Deviation = 9.57 Range = 6 - 4 3 TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE OF HEAD AGE OF HEAD No Response 1 4.5 25 - 34 1 4.5 35 - 44 4 18.2 45 - 54 7 31.9 55 - 64 8 36.4 65 - Over 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 Mean = 51.19 Standard Deviation = 9.12 Range = 3 0 - 6 6 TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE OF SPOUSE AGE OF SPOUSE NO. % No Response 1 4.5 2 5 - 3 4 2 9.1 3 5 - 4 4 9 40.1 4 5 - 5 4 7 31.9 55 - 64 3 13.6 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 Mean = 45.38 Standard Deviation = 9.00 Range = 2 8 - 6 4 TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN NUMBER OF CHILDREN NO. % 0 2 9.1 1 1 4.5 2 9 40.9 3 6 27.3 4 1 4.5 5 1 4.5 6 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 20 Mean =2.9 Standard Deviation = 1.37 Range = 1 - 6 TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED YEARS OF SCHOOLING NO, 0 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 1 1 13 - 15 1 15 5 1 4.5 68.2 22.7 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 22 Mean = 8.14 Standard Deviation =1.98 Range = 4 - 1 3 TABLE 8 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED BY SPOUSE YEARS OF SCHOOLING NO. No Response 0 - 5 6 - 8 9 - 1 1 12 1 1 11 7 2 4.5 4.5 50.0 31.8 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 Mean = 8.86 Standard Deviation =1.71 Range = 6 - 1 2 TABLE 9 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TRAINING OF HEAD TRAINING NO. % No Response 2 9.1 Yes 5 22.7 No 15 68.2 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TRAINING OF SPOUSE TRAINING NO. % No Response 2 9.1 Yes 4 18.2 No 16 72.7 TOTAL 22 100.0 116 TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEAR OF MOVE YEAR OF MOVING NO. % 1971 1 4.5 1970 3 13.6 1969 4 18.2 1968 2 9.1 1967 9 40.9 1966 - before 3 13.6 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF YEARS SPENT FARMING NUMBER OF YEARS NO. % No Response 4 18.2 16 - 20 5, 22.7 20 - Over 13 59.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 13 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SECONDARY OCCUPATION BEFORE MOVING SECONDARY OCCUPATION NO. Yes 6 27.3 No 16 72.7 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE OWNED AND OPERATED WHILE FARMING ACREAGE NO. 0 - 160 1 4.5 161 - 320 3 13.6 321 - 480 8 36.4 481 - 640 3 13.6 641 - 800 3 13.6 801 - 960 2 9.1 961 - 1120 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 22 Mean = 597.77 Standard Deviation = 257.09 Range = 160 - 1120 TABLE 15 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE OWNED WHILE FARMING ACREAGE NO. No Response 1 4.5 0 - 160 2 9.1 161 - 320 4 18.2 321 - 480 10 45.5 641 - 800 2 9.1 801 - 960 1 4.5 961 - 1120 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 22 Mean = 523.91 Standard Deviation = 276.40 Range = 160 - 1120 TABLE 16 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ACREAGE RENTED WHILE FARMING ACREAGE RENTED NO. % No Response 16 72.7 0-160 2 9.1 161 - 320 3 13.6 321 - 480 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 22 Mean = 66.59 Standard Deviation = 129.08 Range = 0 - 360 TABLE 17 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE CULTIVATED WHILE FARMING ACREAGE CULTIVATED NO. No Response 6 2713 101 - 150 1 4.5 201 - 250 2 9.1 251 - 300 2 9.1 301 - 350 1 4.5 351 - 400 1 4.5 401 - 500 4 18.2 501 - 600 2 9.1 701 - 800 1 4.5 9.01 - 1000 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 16 Mean = 469 Standard Deviation = 248.73 Range = 110 - 960 TABLE 18 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MAIN PRODUCT MAIN PRODUCT NO. No Response 1 4.5 Grains 10 45.5 Wheat 4 18.2 Mixed 4 18.2 Cattle 1 4.5 Dairy 2 9.1 120 TABLE 19 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL INCOME FOR THE LAST YEAR SPENT FARMING TOTAL INCOME NO. "Very l i t t l e " ) "Don't know" ) 7 31.8 0 - 1,000 4 18.2 1,001 - 2,000 2 9.1 2,001 - 3,000 1 4.5 3,001 - 4,000 4 18.2 4,001 - 5,000 2 9.1 8,001 - Over 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 Mean = 2441.48 Standard Deviation = 2888.93 Range = -1 to 10500 (6 "very l i t t l e " responses calculated as -1 value, for N = 21) TABLE 20 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF JOBS HELD SINCE MOVING NUMBER OF JOBS NO. 0 4 18.2 1 11 50.0 2 5 22.7 3 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 21 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY "PRESENT" JOB HELD "PRESENT JOB" NO. % Unemployed 2 9.1 Labor 12 54.6 Part-time Labor 2 9.1 Skilled Labor 4 18.2 Retired 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 22 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY KIND OF JOB FIRST LOOKED FOR JOB NO. % No Response 2 9.1 Anything 9 40.9 Carpenter 1 4.5 Mechanic 2 9.1 Janitor 1 4.5 Caretaker 5 22.7 Nothing 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 122 TABLE 23 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY 1970 TOTAL INCOME 1970 Income $ NO. % 1,000 - 3,000 4 18.2 3,001 - 5,000 .3 13.6 5,001 - 7,000 7 31.8 7,001 - 9,000 6 27.3 10,000 -- Over 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N - 22 Mean = 6563.91 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 2859.63 Range = 506 - 11767 TABLE 24 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS WHO SOLD PROPERTY SOLD PROPERTY NO. % Yes 12 54.5 No 10 45.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 123 TABLE 25 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY $ VALUE OF PROPERTY SOLD VALUE OF PROPERTY SOLD $ NO. % None 0 - 10,000 10 45.5 10,001 - 20,000 2 9.1 20,001 - 30,000 3 13.6 40,001 - 50,000 3 13.6 50,001 - 100,000 1 4.5 100,000 - Over 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 N - 12 Mean Standard Deviation = = 32850.00 29457.93 Range = 4000 - 108000 TABLE 26 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY $ AMOUNT OWED ON PROPERTY SOLD AMOUNT OWED NO. % None 17 77.3 0 - 5,000 4 18.2 5,001 - 10,000 1 4.5 TOTAL 22 100.0 TABLE 27 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL $ VALUE OF ALL PROPERTY PRESENTLY OWNED VALUE OF PROPERTY OWNED NO. % $ No Response 2 4.5 0 - 10,000 1 4.5 10,001 - 20,000 6 27.3 20,001 - 30,000 1 4.5 30,001 - 40,000 4 18.2 40,001 - 50,000 2 9.1 50,001 - 70,000 2 9.1 70,001 - 100,000 4 18.2 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 20 Mean = 42275.00 Standard Deviation = 27118.38 Range = '. 1000 - 100000 TABLE 28 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL $ AMOUNT PRESENTLY OWING $ OWING NO. % No Response 11 50.0 0 - 10,000 7 31.8 10, 001 - Over 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 9 Mean = 10872.22 Standard Deviation = = 11453.52 Range « 150 - 37000 TABLE 29 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL COSTS OF MOVING MOVING COSTS $ NO. % No Response 1 4.5 0 10 45.5 0 - 100 4 18.2 101 - 200 5 22.7 201 - 300 2 9.1 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 11 Mean = 140.09 Standard Deviation = 86.68 Range =11-300 TABLE 30 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING PRIOR TO MOVING TOTAL COSTS $ NO. % No Response 5 27.7 1,501 - 2,000 1 4.6 2,001 - 2,500 4 18.2 2,501 - 3,000 3 13.6 3,001 - 3,500 4 18.2 3,501 - 4,000 2 9.1 4,001 - 4,500 2 9.1 5,001 - Over 1 4.6 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 15 Standard Deviation Mean = = 800.57 2982.13 Range = 1847 - 4474 TABLE 31 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING 1971 TOTAL COSTS $ NO. % No Response 1 4.6 0 - 3,000 3 13.6 3,001 - 4,000 4 18.2 4,001 - 5,000 4 18.2 5,001 - 6,000 3 13.6 6,001 - 7,000 3 13.6 7,001 - Over 4 18.2 TOTAL 22 100.0 N = 21 Mean = 5586.38 Standard Deviation = 1690.91 Range = 2660 - 8430 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101277/manifest

Comment

Related Items