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.

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 C o l u m b i a , 1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED I N PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE i n t h e Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics  We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA O c t o b e r , 1973  In p r e s e n t i n g an  this thesis  advanced degree at  the  Library  I further for  shall  the  of  this thesis  written  representatives.  of B r i t i s h  be  g r a n t e d by  for f i n a n c i a l gain  shall  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 V a n c o u v e r 8, Canada  October 2 6 ,  1973  Columbia  the  requirements  Columbia,  for reference  the  I t i s understood  permission.  Department o f  Date  University  permission for extensive  s c h o l a r l y p u r p o s e s may his  f u l f i l m e n t of  make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e  agree t h a t  by  in partial  that  not  and  copying of Head o f my  be  I agree  that  study.  this  thesis  Department  copying or  for  or  publication  allowed without  my  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 R e p o r t o f t h e F e d e r a l Task  F o r c e o f A g r i c u l t u r e i n 1969 d e f i n e d i n c r e a s e d m o b i l i t y o u t o f a g r i c u l t u r e as a f a r m p o l i c y g o a l .  T h i s g o a l was seen a s a means t o h e l p r e d u c e t h e  incidence of poverty i n farming. Economic t h e o r y i d e n t i f i e s c o s t s and b e n e f i t s a s 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 . o f i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n making.  T h i s study i s a study  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 t h e a i d o f a model where a d e c i s i o n t o migrate  i s some f u n c t i o n o f economic and non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n s , and e x -  p e c t a t i o n s i n t u r n a r e some f u n c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n about e v e n t s , and f i n a l l y i n f o r m a t i o n about e v e n t s i s a f u n c t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n . A sample a r e a 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 S a s k a t c h e wan and two p a r a l l e l s u r v e y s were c o n d u c t e d i n J u l y 1971. the sample a r e a were i n t e r v i e w e d , and o u t m i g r a n t s p r e v i o u s f i v e y e a r s were l o c a t e d and i n t e r v i e w e d .  Residents of  from t h e a r e a d u r i n g t h e 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 o f v a r i a n c e p r o d u c i n g  the F s t a t i s t i c ,  and n o n - p a r a m e t r i c v a r i a b l e s were e v a l u a t e d u s i n g c r o s s t a b u l a t i o n s the c h i square The  producing  statistic. s t u d y f i n d i n g s and c o n c l u s i o n s p r o v i d e t h e f o l l o w i n g i n f o r m a -  tion.  R u r a l p e o p l e do e x p e c t a h i g h e r l e v e l o f income a s a r e s u l t o f m i g r a -  tion.  The e x p e r i e n c e  a lower l e v e l .  of migrants  seems t o s u p p o r t  these expectations but a t  J o b e x p e c t a t i o n s a r e 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 o f  s t e a d y employment i s seen as d e s i r a b l e . ii  C o s t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y c o s t s o f moving  iii  a r e n o t p e r c e i v e d as a s i g n i f i c a n t d e t e r r e n t t o moving. low  incomes and  Failing  inadequate a c r e a g e a r e the most common m o t i v a t i n g  ( f a c t o r s ) towards the d e c i s i o n t o m i g r a t e .  Information  health, events  about an urban  en-  vironment i s most e f f e c t i v e l y t r a n s m i t t e d by p e r s o n a l c o n t a c t , f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s accurate  a r e most e f f e c t i v e  information.  i n t r a n s m i t t i n g r e l e v a n t and  reasonably  A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S  T h i s s t u d y was made p o s s i b l e by r e s e a r c h g r a n t s awarded by t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia and t h e Canada Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , The A u t h o r w i s h e s t o e x p r e s s g r a t i t u d e t o t h e Committee and t h e members and s t a f f o f t h e Department o f 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, s u g g e s t i o n s and good f e l l o w s h i p d u r i n g t h e time t h i s s t u d y was undertaken. My t h a n k s a r e extended  t o D r . I a n W i l l s , under whose  guidance  t h i s s t u d y began, t o D r . George W i n t e r f o r h i s encouragement d u r i n g t h e w r i t i n g o f 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 h e l p i n c a l l i n g my a t t e n t i o n t o a l l t h o s e t h i n g s t h a t a r e n o t 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 t o D r , P e t e r L. A r c u s , A s s i s t a n t P r o f e s s o r , Department o f 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 t o i t s f i n a l c o n c l u s i o n .  iv  TABLE OF CONTENTS  Page  CHAPTER I.  II.  INTRODUCTION  1  THE PROBLEM  3  11.1 11.2 11.3 11.4 11.5  III.  IV.  V.  VI.  POVERTY 3 DIMENSIONS OF FARM POVERTY 4 GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE . . . 7 EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE. . . 10 THE FUTURE 12  SOME HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS  14  OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES  18  IV.1 IV. 2 XV* 3  20 23 24  MODEL OBJECTIVES HYPOTHESES*  t  t  t  e  a  a  f  t  s  t  a  o  e  s  a  SELECTION OF A POPULATION WITHIN SASKATCHEWAN  FINDINGS VI. 1 VI.2 VI.3 VI.4 VI.5 VI.6 VI.7  A  O  o  e  o  t  o  *  *  *  . . . . . . . . . .  26  33  IDENTIFICATION OF MIGRANTS. .34 SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ALL RESPONDENTS 34 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN BY RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . 36 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS DESIRED BY RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . 37 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO RURAL PEOPLE . . . . . . . . . . 38 KINDS OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING . 40 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING 41  v  vi  CHAPTER  Page VI.8  NET ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MIGRATION EXPECTED BY NON-MIGRANTS . VI.9 REALIZED NET ECONOMIC BENEFITS ASSOCIATED WITH MIGRATION BY MIGRANTS . VI.10 NON-ECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS OF RURAL PEOPLE CONCERNING MIGRATION TO URBAN AREAS V I . 11 NON-ECONOMIC EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING OPPORTUNITIES IN URBAN AREAS HELD BY MIGRANTS . . . . . . . . . . .  VII.  VIII.  42 46 51 53  ANALYSIS VII. 1 SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES VII.1.1 S k i l l s o f Head VII.1.2 Number o f Y e a r s Spent i n O c c u p a t i o n . . . . V I I . 1.3 T o t a l A r e a o f Land VII.1.4 A r e a o f Land Rented or Leased From O t h e r s . V I I . 1.5 Reasons f o r D e s i r i n g t o Move VII.1.6 I n f o r m a t i o n Items Known VII.1.7 Expected and A c t u a l Moving C o s t s 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 . . . V I I . 1 . 9 E v a l u a t i o n o f Hypotheses VII. 2 SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH  57 64 64 65 65 66 68 71 73 75 78 81  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  APPENDIX V  98  SOME SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF MIGRANTS. . . I l l  L I S T OF TABLES  TABLE  Page  1.1  CANADIAN FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS IN 1966. . . . . . . . . .  V.l  URBAN-RURAL  5  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.  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  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  .40  INCOME  43  . 44  VI.13  PRESENT AND EXPECTED BENEFITS  V I . 14  TOTAL INCOME IN THE YEAR BEFORE MOVING  VI.15  TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING MIGRATION. . . 47  VI.16  TOTAL INCOME IN 1970. . . . .  VI.17  TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING FOR THE YEAR PRIOR TO MOVING. . . . . 48  vii  . . . . . . . .  45 46  . . . . . . . . .  47  viii TABLE  Page  VI.18  EXPECTED COSTS OF LIVING AFTER MIGRATION.  48  V I . 19  TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING IN 1970  49  VI.20  MIGRANTS' PRESENT BENEFITS  49  VI.21  MIGRANTS' BEFORE MOVE BENEFITS . . . . . . .  VI.22  ATTITUDE TOWARDS MOVING. .  51  VI.23  DESTINATION IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION  52  VI.24  REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE  VI.25  REASONS FOR WANTING TO CONTINUE LIVING IN RURAL AREA. . . . .  VI.26  DISPOSITION OF FARM AFTER MIGRATION.  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. . . .  VI.30  REASONS FOR NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING  56  VI.31  THOUGHT ABOUT MOVING BACK TO THE FARM  56  V I . 32  REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE BACK .  56  VII. 1  RESULTS OF TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS J. . . . . . .  VII.2  SKILLS ACQUIRED  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:  . . . . . .  70  VII.9  ECONOMIC INFORMATION KNOWN . . . . . . . . . . .  . . . . . .  71  VII.10  NON-ECONOMIC INFORMATION KNOWN . . .  . . . . . .  72  . . . . . . . .  50  . . . . . . . .  52 53  . 54  . . . . . . .  . . . . 58  . . . . . . .  DESIRE TO MOVE AND DID MOVE. . .  55  64  ix  TABLE  Page  V I I . 11  TOTAL INFORMATION KNOWN  72  V I I . 12  COSTS OF MOVING  73  VII.13  SIGNIFICANCE OF MOVING COSTS  V I I . 14  AMOUNT SPENT ON UTILITIES  75  V I I . 15  HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA. . . '  76  VII.16  MEDICAL EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA. .  V I I . 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  . . . 74  . . . . .  77  . 79  CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION  At the time t h i s thesis was originated (1969-70) the a v a i l a b l e i n f o r mation from government sources indicated that an increased outmigration from marginal farming areas was to become a goal of a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , a p o l i c y designed to help a l l e v i a t e the problems of low farm incomes, namely poverty. Given that government involvement i n the movement of human resources from the a g r i c u l t u r a l sector of the economy to another sector was imminent, I f e l t a somewhat d i f f e r e n t approach to the study of migration was needed. The available migration l i t e r a t u r e explains migration adequately from the point of view of describing the factors a f f e c t i n g net migration flows at the aggregate l e v e l , but there were no data a v a i l a b l e at the micro micro l e v e l meaning the family or i n d i v i d u a l unit —  level—  describing 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 decision.  Nor  was there any information a v a i l a b l e concerning the decision-making process of i n d i v i d u a l s i n low income areas.^ Accordingly, the present study i s concerned with decision making i n r u r a l urban migration from a low income area.  The study reports an examina-  t i o n 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 i n an urban area.  H,eroy 0. Stone, Migration 1969), p. 391.  in  Canada  (Ottawa:  Queen's Printers  2  The  a p p r o a c h f o l l o w e d i n t h i s study proceeds from a s u b s t a n t i a t i o n o f  the problem o f p o v e r t y and imminent government involvement migration  t o a b r i e f review  t i n g human m i g r a t i o n .  i n the process of  o f some h i s t o r i c a l and t h e o r e t i c a l n o t i o n s  A simple  respec-  c o n c e p t u a l model o f d e c i s i o n making i s deve-  l o p e d a s t h e b a s i s f o r t h e study method o f p a r a l l e l i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e s .  The  method o f sample s e l e c t i o n i s d e s c r i b e d , f o l l o w e d by f i n d i n g s of t h e survey, d i s c u s s i o n o r a n a l y s i s of t h e f i n d i n g s , and a summary and c o n c l u s i o n s .  CHAPTER I I  THE PROBLEM  1.1 POVERTY As a point of departure, the problem simply stated i s poverty. The p r e v a i l i n g a t t i t u d e under l a i s s e z - f a i r e was "every man f o r himself."  This a t t i t u d e implied f o r government that "the government which  governs l e a s t , governs best."  The poor, therefore, had to fend f o r them-  selves as best they could, as passive r e c i p i e n t s of c h a r i t y . Compassion and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the poor i n our contemporary p o l i t i c a l and economic philosophy belong both to the i n d i v i d u a l and the government but p r i m a r i l y to the government.  The government i s , as guardian of the  general w i l l , responsible f o r the poor i n p a r t i c u l a r and "human development" i n general.  With the advent of increasing affluence poverty i s no longer  simply a shortage of l i f e ' s n e c e s s i t i e s , but ". . .an i n s u f f i c i e n t access to c e r t a i n goods, services, and conditions of l i f e which are a v a i l a b l e to everyone else and have come to be accepted as a basis to a decent, minimum standard of  living."  1  To a i d people i n a t t a i n i n g 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 P r i n t e r , 1968), pp. 104-105. o  (Ottawa:  Index of Programs for Human Development, Special Planning Secretariat, Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967).  3  4  32 income s u p p o r t , p e n s i o n and i n s u r a n c e programs; 16 h o u s i n g and r e l a t e d s e r v i c e s programs; 10 community development programs; 17 f u n d s and a d v i c e t o governments, a s s o c i a t i o n s , programs; 32 h e a l t h , e d u c a t i o n and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s programs; 33 s o c i o - e c o n o m i c i n t e g r a t i o n and m o b i l i t y programs; 38 a i d s 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 a r e a development and l a n d u s e programs; 13 development o f m a n a g e r i a l and o c c u p a t i o n a l s k i l l s programs; 7_ employment i n c e n t i v e s and l a b o r s t a n d a r d s programs 211  total  While p o v e r t y i s n o t synonymous w i t h low incomes i t does c o r r e l a t e w i t h low i n comes.  Hence, most d e f i n i t i o n s of p o v e r t y a r e based on income l e v e l s .  There  a r e numerous d e f i n i t i o n s o f p o v e r t y i n the l i t e r a t u r e , b u t t h e most w i d e l y accept e d i n Canada i s g i v e n by the Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada. w i t h 70 p e r c e n t o f income spent o n n e c e s s i t i e s , a r e d e f i n e d a s poor;  Based on 1961 d a t a ,  the f o l l o w i n g  income  levels  3 1 2 3 4 5  person persons persons persons persons  $1,500 $2,500 $3,000 $3,500 $4,000  1.2 DIMENSIONS OF FARM POVERTY D e f i n i n g farm p o v e r t y i n v o l v e s s p e c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s , a c c o r d i n g t o what d e f i n i t i o n o f f a r m income i s u s e d , and how farm incomes a r e compared incomes.  Generally, a s h i f t  evident.  F o r example,  t o urban  i n t e r m i n o l o g y from p o v e r t y t o " s m a l l f a r m s " i s  the 1969 A g r i c u l t u r e Congress d e f i n e d the " s m a l l farm  s e c t o r " a s farms w i t h g r o s s s a l e s a t l e s s t h a n $5,000 p e r y e a r .  4  This  Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, F i f t h Annual Review, op. ait., p. 110. 4 "Low Income S e c t o r i n Canadian A g r i c u l t u r e , " P r o c e e d i n g s o f t h e 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 a s a p p r o x i m a t i n g t h e p o v e r t y income l e v e l s d e f i n e d by t h e Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada.  The Task F o r c e ' s d e f i n i t i o n o f the l o w income  s e c t o r employs t h e same d e f i n i t i o n , a s m a l l o r non-commercial farm i s d e f i n e d as h a v i n g l e s s t h a n $5,000 g r o s s s a l e s . F o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y , the same d e f i n i t i o n s w i l l be u s e d , i . e . , a s m a l l o r non-commercial f a r m i s one w i t h l e s s t h a n $5,000 g r o s s s a l e s . U s i n g t h e g r o s s s a l e s as c r i t e r i o n , i n 1966 o f 430,522 Canadian  farms  237,857 o r 55.1 p e r c e n t f e l l i n t o t h e poor s m a l l - s c a l e c l a s s f a r m s , p r o v i d i n g $459 m i l l i o n o r 13.7 per c e n t o f g r o s s f a r m s a l e s .  (See T a b l e 1-1).  TABLE 1 CANADIAN FARMS BY ECONOMIC CLASS IN 1 9 6 6  GROSS VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL SALES PER FARM $'s  -  35,000 24,000 15,000 10,000 7,500 5.000 3,750 2,500 1,200 250 50  over 34,999 24,999 14,999 9,999 7.499 4,999 3,749 2,499 1,199 249  Small Scale TOTAL  NUMBER OF FARMS %  6  GROSS VALUE OF AGRICULTURAL SALES, TOTAL $Millions %  10,282 9,384 31,149 44,217 38,753 58,103 37,923 47,024 60,947 55,271 36,692  2.4 2.2 7.2 10.3 9.0 13.5 8.8 10.9 14.1 12.8 8.5  778 273 586 536 335 357 164 145 110 37 3  23.3 8.2 17.5 16.0 10.0 10.7 4.9 4.3 3.3 1.1 .1  237,857  55.1  459  13.7  430,522  100.0  3,338  100.0  ^Canadian Agriculture in the Seventies, R e p o r t o f t h e F e d e r a l Task F o r c e 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 S e c t o r i n C a n a d i a n A g r i c u l t u r e , " op. c i t .  t  p. 400.  6  The 1980  Task F o r c e p r o j e c t i o n s of t r e n d s d u r i n g  a t o t a l o f 315,310 f a r m s , of w h i c h 78,827 or  i n t o the p r e s e n t l y d e f i n e d are r e a l i s t i c  low  income c a t e g o r y . ^  1951-66, e n v i s i o n  25 per  VThether these  fall  projections  or n o t , i t i s c l e a r t h a t a t the p r e s e n t time t h e r e a r e a  number of s m a l l - s c a l e f a r m s .  The  question  of whether the r e d u c t i o n  s o l u t e numbers o f farms w i l l be adequate t o improve the those who  c e n t would  by  large  i n the  ab-  income p o s i t i o n o f  r e m a i n , i s open to d e b a t e .  D u r i n g the p e r i o d 1948-68 t h e t o t a l c i v i l i a n employed l a b o r f o r c e panded from 4,875,000 t o 7,537,000 a t the same time the a g r i c u l t u r a l force declined  from 1,096,000 t o 546,000.  o f t h e l a b o r f o r c e was  In p e r c e n t a g e terms 22.5  employed i n a g r i c u l t u r e i n 1948,  and  this  ex-  labor per  cent  proportion  g d e c l i n e d t o 7.3  per  cent by  1968.  Growth i n l a b o r 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 r a t e s of the g r o s s volume o f p r o d u c t i o n t u r e has iod  been an  1947-65.  c e n t due  i m p r e s s i v e 5.5  The  1.8  Canadian  per c e n t average a n n u a l change d u r i n g  the  components o f t h i s p r o d u c t i v i t y growth have been 2.0  to l a b o r i n p u t  i n p u t s , and  per p e r s o n employed i n a g r i c u l -  per  outmigration,  1.7  per  c e n t due  t o c a p i t a l and  per material  9  c e n t f o r a l l o t h e r changes.  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 B r a n c h ,  Statistical  Information  on Agriculture  in Canada,  Selected  Ottawa, 1969, p . 4.  9 L . A u e r , Canadian Agricultural Canada, S t a f f Study No. 24 (Ottawa:  Productivity, Economic C o u n c i l Queen's P r i n t e r , 1970), p. 23.  per-  of  7  Thus i t c a n be seen t h a t o u t m i g r a t i o n was t h e l a r g e s t component of p r o d u c t i v i t y g a i n s .  L o o k i n g m e r e l y a t p r o d u c t i v i t y g a i n s , one would ex-  p e c t e q u a l l y i m p r e s s i v e income g a i n s .  However, s i n c e t h e demand f o r a g r i c u l -  t u r a l goods i s n o t i n c r e a s i n g i n t h e 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 o f i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y a r e i n e f f e c t passed on t o consumers i n t h e f o r m o f l o w f o o d p r i c e s , r a t h e r t h a n t o f a r m e r s i n t h e form o f i n creased  incomes.  T h i s t r e n d becomes e v i d e n t i f one n o t e s  the r e l a t i v e l y un-  c h a n g i n g magnitude o f a g g r e g a t e n e t f a r m incomes o v e r t h e p e r i o d o f 1948-68. On t h e o t h e r hand, i n c r e a s e d p r o d u c t i v i t y g a i n s a c c r u e  11  to large, efficient  p r o d u c e r s 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 r e d u c e t h e demand f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l l a b o r . production s i m i l a r l y accrue e  farms.  The b e n e f i t s from i n c r e a s e d  t o l a r g e farms p r o p o r t i o n a l l y more t h a n t o s m a l l  11 I n summary, t h e c u r r e n t p r o b l e m o f C a n a d i a n a g r i c u l t u r e may be c h a r a c 12  t e r i z e d by t h e Matthew e f f e c t . poorer.  The r i c h g e t r i c h e r , and t h e poor g e t  Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s ,  m i g r a t i o n i s a n escape from  poverty,  from l o w incomes. 1.3 GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT I N 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 , a l o n g w i t h an o u t l i n e o f t h e d i m e n s i o n s of p o v e r t y i n a g r i c u l t u r e .  ^Selected  Statistical  Information.  .  op.  H . B u c k l e y and E. T i h a n y i , Canadian Policies Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada, S p e c i a l Study //7 (Ottawa: pp. 39-40. 1 1  cit.,  p. 62.  for Rural Adjustment Queen's P r i n t e r , 1 9 6 7 ) ,  1?  G. R. W i n t e r , Characteristics and Consequences of Rural Poverty, Department o f A g r i c u l t u r a l Economics, U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a , 1968,  8  A more complete account of government Involvement i n a g r i c u l t u r e 13 may be found elsewhere,  but an examination of the main programs suggests  that farm p o l i c y has s h i f t e d during the 1930s to improving the l o t of farmers and furthermore migration is Becoming an accepted p o l i c y a l t e r n a t i v e to this end. Government involvement i n a g r i c u l t u r e started with land settlement programs i n the years following Confederation. From that point on government involvement u n t i l the Depression consisted mainly of e f f o r t s to improve the q u a l i t y of farm products.  The 1930s brought government involvment of a  d i f f e r e n t s o r t , i n the form of d i r e c t assistance programs.  Thus government  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r farm Income maintenance dates back f o r over the past 30 years.  The Canadian Wheat Board, The P r a i r i e Farm R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Act and  the P r a i r i e Farm Assistance Administration continue to the present day. P r i c e controls were introdueed during World War I I and i n order to a s s i s t t r a n s i t i o n back to peace time conditions the A g r i c u l t u r a l 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 A g r i c u l t u r a l S t a b i l i z a t i o n Act.  Numerous  other programs and assistance for c r e d i t , insurance, expansion and  improve-  ment of farming were introduced by both p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments, 14 with a view of improving the economic welfare of the a g r i c u l t u r a l industry. The major post-war government program designed f o r solving a g r i c u l ture's small farm problem was 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 S. W. Garland and S. C. Hudson, Government Involvement in Agriculture, A Report Prepared f o r the Federal Task Force on Agriculture (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969). Proceedings of the Canadian Agriculture Congress, Canadian Department of Agriculture (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969), pp. 273-76.  9  Act.  P a s s e d i n 1961 as t h e 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 A c t ,  i t was changed i n 1966 t o the A g r i c u l t u r a l and R u r a l Development A c t . to the p a s s i n g  Prior  of t h e firs± ARDA l e g i s l a t i o n , t h e M i n i s t e r o f A g r i c u l t u r e ,  then the Hon. A l v i n H a m i l t o n , o u t l i n e d t h e i n t e n t of t h e new  program:  " I t i s not t h e purpose of ARDA t o reduce the numb e r of farms. . .ARDA i s d e s i g n e d , r a t h e r , to h e l p by v a r i o u s means t o improve the income and s t a n d a r d o f l i v i n g o f the s m a l l e r and more m a r g i n a l farms and i n t h a t way h e l p improve the o v e r a l l p o s i t i o n o f a g r i c u l t u r e . " 1 5 ARDA was d e s i g n e d 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. First  G e n e r a l Agreement was  March 31, 1965.  The f i r s t  n a t i v e use o f l a n d ; and  (4) r e s e a r c h .  signed  i n 1962, c o v e r i n g  the p e r i o d  agreement c o n s i s t e d o f f o u r p a r t s :  (2) s o i l and water c o n s e r v a t i o n ; Under the f i r s t  The of up to  (1) a l t e r -  (3) r u r a l development;  agreement, most of the approved p r o j e c t s  were concerned w i t h the development o f a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e s .  The  first  agreement o n l y i m p l i e d m o b i l i t y programs as a s i d e e f f e c t of a l t e r n a t i v e land use. had  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  a c e i l i n g of $50.million, „  spent.  agreement  o f which some $34,488 m i l l i o n were a c t u a l l y  16  On A p r i l 1, 1965, t h e Second G e n e r a l Agreement was s i g n e d , the f i v e - y e a r p e r i o d t o 1970.  T o t a l f e d e r a l funding  was  $125 m i l l i o n .  s p e c i a l $50 m i l l i o n fund was e s t a b l i s h e d under t h e Fund f o r R u r a l Development A c t . million).  1 7  (FRED funds by a 1967 amendment were e n l a r g e d  The emphasis was  to $300 orientation  Program in the Making, Canada Department  o f A g r i c u l t u r e (pamphlet), March, 1961. ^ B u c k l e y and T i h a n y i , op. oit.  3  Garland  A  Economic  s h i f t e d from an a g r i c u l t u r a l r e s o u r c e  ARDA: A Rehabilitation  1 7  covering  and Hudson, op, oit.,  p. 98. p. 73.  10  under t h e f i r s t agreement  t o an " a l l r e s o u r c e approach" under t h e second  18 agreement. the  The r e o r i e n t a t i o n Becomes e v i d e n t from t h e expanded scope o f -  second agreement, which was d i v i d e d i n t o e i g h t p a r t s :  (2) l a n d u s e and farm adjustment; (3) r e h a b i l i t a t i o n ; s t a f f and t r a i n i n g s e r v i c e s ;  (1) r e s e a r c h ;  (4) r u r a l  (5) r u r a l development a r e a s ;  development a r e a s ; (7) p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s ;  development  (6) s p e c i a l  (8) s o i l  rural  and water  conser-  19 vation. B e s i d e s a s h i f t e d emphasis t o an " a l l r e s o u r c e " approach, s e c t i o n s (2) and (3) may b e used t o 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 t h e second agreement.  A further effort  towards  raising  incomes o f r u r a l p e o p l e v i a o f f - f a r m m o b i l i t y becomes even more e v i d e n t under the  t h i r d agreement  s i g n e d between  consists of s i x parts: rehabilitation;  (1) r e s e a r c h ;  II.4  and O n t a r i o which  (2) l a n d use and farm adjustment; (3)  (4) r u r a l development f i e l d  ment and income o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; can  t h e f e d e r a l government  services;  (5) a l t e r n a t i v e 21  (6) p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n s e r v i c e s .  employ-  P a r t (5)  be seen as m o b i l i t y o r i e n t a t e d . EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN AGRICULTURE Government e x p e n d i t u r e s on a g r i c u l t u r e i n Canada a r e approach22  ing  half  a billion  dollars yearly.  •j o ARDA Annual  W h i l e n o t a l l of t h e s e e x p e n d i t u r e s a r e  Report,  1964-65,  Department  of F o r e s t r y  (Ottawa:  1965),  Report,  1965-66,  Department  of F o r e s t r y  (Ottawa:  1966),  pp. 1—2. 19 ARDA Annual 20 B u c k l e y and T i h a n y i , op.  cit.,  Federal-Provincial  Development  p. 100.  21  Rural  Agreement  1970-75,  ment of R e g i o n a l and Economic E x p a n s i o n , Canada Department Food, O n t a r i o . 22  G a r l a n d and Hudson, op.  cit.,  p. 317.  ARDA,  Depart-  o f A g r i c u l t u r e and  11  made on b e h a l f of t h e s m a l l farm s e c t o r , most e x p e n d i t u r e s were i n t e n d e d to benefit  f a r m e r s , and  at l e a s t  i n d i r e c t l y i n t e n d e d t o improve the income  p o s i t i o n o f the farm s e c t o r as a whole. government involvement  expenditures  questions a r i s e :  did  improve the Income p o s i t i o n of s m a l l f a r m e r s , and  m o b i l i t y out of a g r i c u l t u r e A direct  Thus- two  has  increased?  e v a l u a t i o n of the economic impact  of o v e r a l l  agricultural  i s not a v a i l a b l e , But an e v a l u a t i o n of R u r a l Adjustment programs  w i t h p a r t i c u l a r r e f e r e n c e to ARDA r e v e a l s the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s . l a n d and water investment  p r o j e c t s undertaken  w i t h ARDA funds would  Few satisfy  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 g o a l of income r e d i s t r i b u t i o n i n f a v o u r of the poor. t a l t o low-income farmers income p o s i t i o n may f o r some f a r m e r s .  The  e f f e c t s of ARDA may  have been  detrimen-  i n s o f a r t h a t some s m a l l improvement i n the f a m i l y ' s  have h e l p e d to postpone the l o n g - t e r m o f f - f a r m s o l u t i o n On  the i n t a n g i b l e s i d e , ARDA h e l p e d t o p r o l o n g some p o p u l a r  myths c o n c e r n i n g t h e B e n e f i t s - of development per  se  3  but on the o t h e r hand  ARDA a l s o h e l p e d t o form a t t i t u d e s more a c c e p t i n g towards farm  adjustment  23 and r u r a l adjustment  v i a mobility.  ARDA's o r i g i n a l o b j e c t i v e was of l i v i n g  t o "Improve the income and  of the s m a l l e r and more m a r g i n a l farms."  standard  T h i s o b j e c t i v e can  a c h i e v e d by r e s o u r c e development p r o j e c t s which w i l l reduce  the c o s t s of  p r o d u c t i o n , and by I n c r e a s i n g the " o p p o r t u n i t y c o s t s " of farm o p e r a t o r s t h a t they l e a v e f o r more r e m u n e r a t i v e would a l s o have a s e c o n d a r y  Buckley  occupations.  The  income e f f e c t on those who  and T i h a n y i , op.  ovt.  3  pp.15-26.  be  so i n d u c e d remain,  by  so  mobility lowering  12  production costs.  2A  Thus the above objective can be achieved by:  (1)  altering the structure of farming; C2) increasing mobility; and (3) offfarm 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 t o t a l , "the number of Canadian farmers who have been helped to move to 26 jobs must be almost n i l . "  Fortunately, e l i g i b i l i t y 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 P r i w Council Office, Ottawa, 1966, MP-25, pp. 19-20. '  13  by the Economic Council of Canada i n 1964.  Higher net farm income per cap-  i t a was added by the Task. Force as a second l e v e l goal, and increased mobility of labor out of a g r i c u l t u r e was l i s t e d as a t h i r d l e v e l goal f o r a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , along with stable net farm income and lower cost of production and , . 28 marketing. Given increased mobility- of labor out of a g r i c u l t u r e as a goal of Canadian a g r i c u l t u r a l p o l i c y , a forecast of movement of surplus r u r a l manpower to other sectors of the economy w i l l have to be developed to supple29 ment existing manpower s t a t i s t i c s .  To achieve a balanced program mix  between development and m o b i l i t y programs, "more than purely economic s t a t i s t i c s w i l l be needed —  Canadian  some type of a t t i t u d i n a l surveys w i l l be most important.  Agriculture  in the  Seventies,.  . .op.  cit.,  pp. 29-32.  29 G. B e i j e r , "National Rural Manpower," ARDA Reports and Department of Forestry (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1966), p. 4. 30 Summary and Reports  of  the Panel  Discussions,.  . .op.  Digests,  cit.,  p. 22.  >i  CHAPTER I I I  SOME HISTORICAL AND THEORETICAL CONSIDERATIONS  I n 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 m i g r a t i o n took p l a c e , as o n l y f r e e people  had the r i g h t and t h e means t o move.  The Greek c i t y  states considered  some optimum p o p u l a t i o n f o r each c i t y s t a t e and i n r e s p o n s e to p o p u l a t i o n pressures migration occurred  i n the form o f c o l o n i z a t i o n .  In t h e Roman Empire r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e m i g r a t i o n o c c u r r e d u n t i l  A.D.  212 when a l l f r e e i n h a b i t a n t s o f the empire r e c e i v e d c i t i z e n s h i p s t a t u s . With t h e d e c l i n e o f the Empire i n the T h i r d Century,  l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n move-  ments t o o k p l a c e i n r e s p o n s e to i n f l a t i o n and heavy t a x a t i o n .  I n t u r n , the  D i o c l e t i o n r e f o r m s i n t r o d u c e d t h e m a t e r i a l budget and t i e d people land  {glebeae  adscripts).  next  thousand y e a r s m i g r a t i o n v i r t u a l l y ceased.  t o thie  These r e f o r m s r e s u l t e d i n f e u d a l i s m and f o r the With the r i s e o f independent  c i t i e s i n t h e 1 2 t h and 1 3 t h C e n t u r i e s m i g r a t i o n r e o c c u r r e d i n t h e form o f r u r a l t o u r b a n movement.  S t a r t i n g i n t h e 1 4 t h C e n t u r y f e u d a l i s m weakened and  r o y a l power a s s e r t e d i t s e l f  slowly.  A b s o l u t e monarchy was the f i r s t  step t o -  wards the n a t i o n a l s t a t e , and m e r c a n t i l i s m was the economic system o f t h i s era.  M e r c a n t i l i s m r e s t e d on t h e power and importance o f the s t a t e , and  g e n e r a l l y speaking, power.  a l a r g e p o p u l a t i o n was regarded  a s a source o f revenue and  The i n f l u x of m i g r a n t s i n t o H o l l a n d , England and the German s t a t e s was  f u e l l e d by r e l i g i o u s i n t o l e r a n c e i n o t h e r European s t a t e s . an impetus t o the I n d u s t r i a l R e v o l u t i o n by encouraging of  s k i l l e d workers.  declining.  M e r c a n t i l i s m gave  a large concentration  In the 1 7 t h Century the power o f a b s o l u t e monarchy s t a r t e d  With L o c k e ' s w r i t i n g 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  14  philosophy  15  was emerging.  L i b e r a l i s m s p a r k e d i t s own economic system o f " 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 a l l o w e d l a r g e - s c a l e m i g r a t i o n , t h e pace o f i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n p r o c e e d e d r a p i d l y as more and more r u r a l p e o p l e moved t o t h e c i t i e s and t h e f a c t o r i e s . 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 :  The l i b e r a l l a i s s e z f a i r e c o n c e p t o f (1) t h e economic s e l f - i n t e r e s t o f t h e  m i g r a n t d e t e r m i n e s h i s movement; and (2) t h e economic s e l f - i n t e r e s t o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l sums i n t o o r c o i n c i d e s w i t h t h e g e n e r a l i n t e r e s t . The purpose o f t h e s t a t e i n t h i s t h e o r y i s s i m p l y t o 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.  I n economic • terms t h i s means a s s i s t a n c e i n m a x i m i z i n g r e a l  per c a p i t a i n c o m e .  1  M a x i m i z i n g r e a l p e r c a p i t a income as opposed t o 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 o f 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 o f  m a x i m i z i n g p e r c a p i t a incomes l e a d s t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f some k i n d  o f 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 a s w e l l .  If this  r e a s o n i n g i s c a r r i e d f a r enough, some k i n d o f optimum p o p u l a t i o n has t o be determined.  However, t h e 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 t i m e ,  there  i s s i m p l y a problem o f how t o d i s t r i b u t e t h e p o p u l a t i o n o p t i m a l l y , i . e , so a s t o maximize p e r c a p i t a incomes. N e o - c l a s s i c a l economic t h e o r y a s 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 a d m i t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f market i m p e r f e c t i o n s , and p e r m i t s t h e p o s s i b i l i t y o f p o l i c y i n t e r v e n t i o n t o w a r d s t h e end o f maximum p e r c a p i t a incomes. 2 Borrowing a s e t o f assumptions  a s s y n t h e s i z e d by Theodore P. L i a n o s  f r o m 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 m o d e l s , t h e m i g r a t i o n mechanism  i s depicted  i  J u l i u s I s a a c , Economics of Migration Trubner & Co. L t d . , 1 9 4 7 ) , pp. 70-71. 1  (London:  Kegan P a u l , F r e n c h  2 Theodore P. L i a n o s , "Labor M o b i l i t y and M a r k e t I m p e r f e c t i o n s , " Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, V o l . 18, No. 3 (November, 1 9 7 0 ) , p. 97.  16  as f o l l o w s . Assumptions: (1) Workers p o s s e s s p e r f e c t i n f o r m a t i o n about l a b o r m a r k e t conditions. (2) L a b o r i s homogeneous. (3) Moving c o s t s a r e  negligible.  (4) L o c a t i o n a l p r e f e r e n c e s a r e (5) Workers a c t  rationally.  (6) Employers a c t I f we  non-existent.  rationally.  f u r t h e r assume t h a t t h e economy i s p e r f e c t l y c o m p e t i t i v e ,  full  employ-  ment e q u i l i b r i u m s h o u l d e x i s t a t a common wage r a t e , o r i f f o r some r e a s o n 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 m a r k e t , a movement towards e q u i l i b r i u m s h o u l d ensue.  Under t h e 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  r e c e i v e s i t s p r i c e as wages. product of l a b o r .  production  A t e q u i l i b r i u m wages a r e e q u a l t o the m a r g i n a l  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 region  lead  t o wage d i f f e r e n c e s between r e g i o n s  t h e n t h e h i g h e r wages i n one  pro-  v i d e i n c e n t i v e f o r l a b o r movement.  L a b o r movement t o h i g h e r wage r e g i o n s  r e s u l t s i n r e d u c t i o n o f 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 restored.  Following  the r e a s o n i n g o f n e o - c l a s s i c a l t h e o r y the f i r s t  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 t h e m s e l v e s do n o t e x p l a i n human m i g r a t i o n 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  explana-  f u l l y , market  i m p l i e s "downwards  s t i c k i n e s s wages" w h i c h cause unemployment as a d j u s t m e n t i n the l a b o r market s h i f t s from p r i c e o f l a b o r to q u a n t i t y of l a b o r . i n g we  now  have two  an i n c e n t i v e and  contradictory forces:  Thus w i t h t h i s l i n e of r e a s o n -  the wage r a t e d i f f e r e n t i a l a c t i n g  unemployment r a t e as a d i s c o u r a g e m e n t to m o b i l i t y .  In  this  as  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 o c c u r .  t o have merely a h i g h wage r a t e f o r m i g r a t i o n  The i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s now depends on a  son o f t h e o b t a i n a b l e b e n e f i t s and c o s t s of movement. pected  compari-  B e n e f i t s may be ex-  t o take a p o s i t i v e v a l u e and c o s t s a n e g a t i v e v a l u e f o r a h y p o t h e t i -  cal mobility function.  3 However, t h e s o - c a l l e d  " p s y c h i c " c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of m i g r a t i o n  cannot be e s t i m a t e d w i t h such models, p r e d i c t i o n s based on p a r a m e t r i c n i q u e s a r e l i k e l y t o i g n o r e such hard non-pecuniary  t o p r 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  m o t i v e s i n i n d i v i d u a l d e c i s i o n making.  L a r r y A. S j a a s t a d , " C o s t s and R e t u r n s o f Human M i g r a t i o n , " Economy, Supplement (October, 1962).  of Political  tech-  Journal  I*  CHAPTER IV OBJECTIVES AND HYPOTHESES  The f o r e g o i n g b r i e f c h a p t e r s examined  t h e low income problem o f  Canadian a g r i c u l t u r e , and m i g r a t i o n as an economic e q u i l i b r i u m mechanism. M i g r a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e r e v e a l s an adequate knowledge o f the economic problem o f m i g r a t i o n from t h e macroeconomic  p o i n t o f view.  That i s ,  there i s reason-  a b l y a c c u r a t e knowledge o f t h e f a c t o r s a f f e c t i n g n e t m i g r a t i o n a t the a g g r e gate l e v e l i n terms o f i n t e r p r o v i n c i a l n e t m i g r a t i o n f l o w s , and i n terms o f aggregate r u r a l to urban m i g r a t i o n flows.  However, t h e r e a r e no s t u d i e s  a v a i l a b l e a t t h e m i c r o l e v e l d e s c r i b i n g t h e economic and non-economic c r u c i a l t o an i n d i v i d u a l ' s m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n .  factors  1  G i v e n p r e s e n t governmental m o b i l i t y programs and t h e p o s s i b i l i t y of f u t u r e m o b i l i t y programs aimed a t a p a r t i c u l a r sub-segment  of the labor  f o r c e , an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s d e c i s i o n making p r o c e s s , which r e s u l t s i n e i t h e r r e m a i n i n g o r moving, i s r e q u i r e d .  The u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f  t h i s p r o c e s s i s needed i n o r d e r t o implement an o p t i m a l mix o f development and m o b i l i t y programs.  Knowledge  o f t h e r e l e v a n t f a c t o r s which determine t h e  p r o b a b i l i t y o f m i g r a t i o n and b e n e f i t s o f m i g r a t i o n from b o t h t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s and s o c i e t y ' s p o i n t o f view a r e needed.  R. M a r v i n M c l n n i s , " S p e c i f i c a t i o n o f a R e g r e s s i o n Model f o r t h e A n a l y s i s o f I n t e r p r o v i n c i a l M i g r a t i o n , " i n Migration in Canada: Regional Aspects, L e r o y 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 preferences of i n d i v i d u a l s .  The concept of u t i l i t y i n economic theory assumes  r a t i o n a l decision making based on preferences. look at the interface of preferences, at  In this study I attempt to  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, a t t i t u d e s , motives, needs, wants, etc. which are not d i r e c t l y observable o b j e c t i v e l y . P r i n c i p l e s of psychology can be applied to the study of economic behaviour.  Instead of r e l a t i n g merely the environment  to economic processes,  we study the perception and perception of changes i n the environment  as they  2 r e l a t e to economic behavior. The datum of the GNP and the data of farm incomes, for example, are the concrete measurements of the environment, economic analysis.  the variables of macro-  Nominal variables evaluate the range of emotions from  approval to indifference to rage, for example, that may be evoked by a change i n economic p o l i c y (taxation law). While nominal measures do not permit such powerful tools of analys i s as c a r d i n a l measures, the impact of non-economic variables needs to be taken into account i n a study dealing with a process that takes place i n an i n d i v i d u a l ' s mind.  Without attempting any greater p r e c i s i o n and d i s t i n c t i o n  between the v a r i a b l e s employed i n this study, the conceptual model i d e n t i f i e s  York:  George Katona, Psychological Analysis of Economic McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1951), pp. 28-40.  Behavior  (New  20  economic and non-economic f a c t o r s merely t o draw a t t e n t i o n to t h e importance of f a c t o r s under  A.  the non-economic  label.  MODEL The c o n c e p t u a l model o f d e c i s i o n - making employed i n t h i s study i s  based on the f o l l o w i n g  assumptions.  1. D e c i s i o n making i s some f u n c t i o n o f economic e x p e c t a t i o n s and non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n s .  D = f (E  e  + E ) ne'  where  D = decision; = e x p e c t e d economic event; E = expected non-economic e v e n t , ne E  r  2.  E x p e c t a t i o n s a r e some f u n c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n about  events.  E = g(I)  where  E = expectations; I = i n f o r m a t i o n about  events.  I n f o r m a t i o n about events i s an attempt s u b j e c t i v e l y p e r c e i v e d time f o r m i g r a n t s . jectively  to e s t a b l i s h what c o n s t i t u t e s  Time a s l i n e a r  time i s measured ob-  i n increments o f y e a r s , days, h o u r s , seconds, e t c .  Subjective  time  c o n s i s t s o f "moment s i g n s " where "moment s i g n s " a r e a f u n c t i o n o f p e r c e p t i o n .  21  F o r example, t h e f e m a l e c a t t l e t i c k , may spend up t o 18 y e a r s mation.  i n suspended  ani-  The o n l y i n f o r m a t i o n e x p e r i e n c e which, w i l l i n d u c e a change f o r t h e  t i c k i s the s c e n t of b u t e r i c a c i d .  T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n t r i g g e r s time f o r t h e  3 animal  to continue  its life  cycle.  s i o n thus c o n s i s t s of nothing which w i l l  S u b j e c t i v e time i n i t s s i m p l e s t  or something, t h e something b e i n g  i n d u c e a change i n b e h a v i o r .  Information  expres  information  about events  rather  than  b e i n g bound t o o b j e c t i v e l y measured time and space i s bound t o a s u b j e c t i v e q u a l i t y o f p e r c e p t i o n 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 expressed as: Information perception.  As an example o f t h i s t h i r d  about events  f u n c t i o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , see Appendix I I I .  have i n f o r m a t i o n about an event happen.  time."  of t h e p r e s e n t e d  We  ( s i n g i n g f o l k songs) which may o r may n o t  The c o n t a c t p o i n t i n time i s when "independent c o n t r a c t time"  " s i n g along  event  i s some f u n c t i o n o f  The q u e s t i o n and answer:  equals  what i s p e r c e i v e d by t h e r e a d e r  i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l d e t e r m i n e t h e s u b j e c t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y o f the  occurring? A v a i l a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n about events  making p r o c e s s .  Information  already held expectations.  i s the b a s i c i n p u t t o t h e d e c i s i o n -  a l t e r s e x p e c t a t i o n s , i t may r e i n f o r c e or change The sum t o t a l o f e x p e c t a t i o n s w i l l  whether an i n d i v i d u a l d e c i d e s  to migrate  John N. B l e i b t r e u , The Parable 1971), pp. 3-30.  or n o t .  of  the  determine  (See F i g u r e 1 ) .  Beast  (New York:  Collier  Books,  22  Information  Information  s t a y  input  input  A Non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n s  Economic e x p e c t a t i o n s  negative  —  negative  0  d e c i s i o n '•  0  positive  positive  m o v e  Figure 1  A number of c o n s i d e r a t i o n s emerge from t h i s model. model i s a g r o s s o v e r s i m p l i f i c a t i o n of what may making, n e v e r t h e l e s s we  the  a c t u a l l y take p l a c e i n d e c i s i o n  have n i n e p o s s i b l e combinations  t h a t i n the r e a l w o r l d we  While  of e x p e c t a t i o n s .  would f a c e an unknown number o f combinations  t a t i o n s t h e problem of d e t e r m i n i n g would be w e l l n i g h I m p o s s i b l e .  the r i g h t w e i g h t i n g  f a c t o r f o r each  Given  o f expecone  On the o t h e r hand t h e r e are u t l i m a t e l y o n l y  two  p o s s i b l e d e c i s i o n s , namely s t a y i n g o r moving. On  the b a s i s of t h e s e two  d e c i s i o n , outcomes, i d e a l l y f o r a study  d a t a s h o u l d be c o l l e c t e d by i n t e r v i e w i n g the same s u b j e c t s b e f o r e and moving.  That  i s , a f t e r s u b j e c t i v e time has  elapsed.  after  In t h i s f a s h i o n s i g n i f i c a n t  23  changes i n e x p e c t a t i o n s and r e q u i r e a two  Cor more) s t a g e time s e r i e s s t u d y  p o p u l a t i o n now, view those who circumstances  i n f o r m a t i o n i n p u t c o u l d be measured.  f o l l o w e d by another had moved).  i n , say,  T h i s was  (one s u r v e y o f c u r r e n t  f i v e y e a r s to l o c a t e and  not p r a c t i c a l i n the  be p o s s i b l e t o i d e n t i f y m i g r a n t s to somewhere e l s e .  who  presumed t h a t i t would  p o p u l a t i o n i n b e f o r e - m i g r a t i o n s u b j e c t i v e time.  area.  I f we  i s recognized that t h i s procedure f o r migrants  assumption of  groups  may  f o r "non-migrants."  It  i s not f u l l y s a t i s f a c t o r y s i n c e e l a p s e d  time f o r t h i s s t u d y s h o u l d be m i n i m i z e d , to changed  The  s e l e c t a second non-migrant  procedure  c o v e r s a range i n excess  area  would be d e a l i n g  Comparisons between t h e s e two  be dependent on the adequacy of t h e sampling  IV.2  prevailing  I f t h i s presumption were c o r r e c t then we  group from the same g e o g r a p h i c  due  inter-  moved from one p a r t i c u l a r g e o g r a p h i c  homogeneity f o r t h e p o p u l a t i o n s h o u l d h o l d  t i v e time  rural  so a c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l a n a l y s i s has been s u b s t i t u t e d .  As m i g r a t i o n i s an ongoing p r o c e s s , i t was  with, one  T h i s would  of f i v e y e a r s .  objec-  Elapsed o b j e c t i v e  so as t o m i n i m i z e e r r o r s of p e r c e p t i o n  circumstances.  OBJECTIVES The  above c o n s i d e r a t i o n s l e d to t h e development of two  i n t e r v i e w schedules living  (Appendices  I and  i n a r u r a l a r e a , and P a r t Two  i n urban a r e a s .  The  questions  II) -  P a r t One  f o r migrants  comprising  the two  personal  f o r people p r e s e n t l y  from the r u r a l a r e a now i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e s were  living de-  s i g n e d t o g a t h e r as much, d a t a as p o s s i b l e , p e r t a i n i n g to the f o l l o w i n g o b j e c t i v e s : 1. respondents.  Determine s o c i o - e c o n o m i c  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l  2. Determine what s o u r c e s of i n f o r m a t i o n about opport u n i t i e s i n urban areas a r e known to r u r a l p e o p l e .  24  3. Determine what k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n about i n urban areas, a r e known to r u r a l p e o p l e .  oppor-  tunities  4. Determine what k i n d s of i n f o r m a t i o n about i n urban a r e a s a r e d e s i r e d by r u r a l p e o p l e .  oppor-  tunities  5. I d e n t i f y m i g r a n t s who have l e f t d u r i n g t h e past f i v e y e a r s .  the s t u d y  area  6. L o c a t e and i n t e r v i e w m i g r a n t s who have l e f t t h e s t u d y a r e a d u r i n g the past f i v e y e a r s .  tunities  7. Determine what s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n about oppori n urban areas were known t o m i g r a n t s p r i o r t o moving.  8. Determine what k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n about o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n urban areas were known t o m i g r a n t s p r i o r t o moving. 9. Determine the d i r e c t i o n ( p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e ) o f expected n e t 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 by nonmovers.  fits  10. Determine t h e $ v a l u e o f expected n e t economic benea s s o c i a t e d w i t h m i g r a t i o n by non-movers.  11. Determine t h e d i r e c t i o n ( p o s i t i v e o r n e g a t i v e ) o f expected n e t 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 by m i g r a n t s p r i o r t o moving. /  fits  12. Determine t h e $ v a l u e o f expected n e t economic benea s s o c i a t e d w i t h m i g r a t i o n by m i g r a n t s p r i o r t o moving.  13. A s s e s s non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n o f r u r a l p e o p l e c e r n i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n urban a r e a s .  tunities  IV.3  con-  14. A s s e s s non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n s c o n c e r n i n g oppori n urban areas h e l d by m i g r a n t s .  HYPOTHESES The major c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t h e d e s i g n of t h i s study was  the d e s i 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 k i n d of d a t a needed f o r t h e study o f m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g . l y the gathering of data p e r t a i n i n g  primarily  Consequent-  t o t h e o u t l i n e d o b j e c t i v e s was g i v e n primary  25  importance,  r a t h e r than the f o r m u l a t i o n o f s p e c i f i c hypotheses.  the f o l l o w i n g g e n e r a l hypotheses 1.  P e o p l e who  Nevertheless  were f o r m u l a t e d : did  m i g r a t e t o an urban a r e a  from  a low income r u r a l a r e a knew:of a g r e a t e r number o f i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s about o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n urban areas than r u r a l p e o p l e who have not m i g r a t e d . 2. P e o p l e who d i d m i g r a t e to an urban a r e a from a low income r u r a l a r e a u t i l i z e d i f f e r e n t i n f o r m a t i o n s o u r c e s about o p p o r t u n i t i e s a v a i l a b l e i n urban areas than r u r a l p e o p l e who have not m i g r a t e d . 3. M i g r a n t s 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 n e t 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 to an urban a r e a . 4. P e o p l e l i v i n g i n low income r u r a l areas have a n e g a t i v e l e v e l of economic e x p e c t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m i g r a t i o n to an urban area. 5. M i g r a n t s ' non-economic e x p e c t a t i o n s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h m i g r a t i o n a r e d i f f e r e n t from those of p e o p l e 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 D i v i s i o n 16 i n Saskatchewan was  chosen as the study area,  for the following reasons. Census D i v i s i o n 16 has been extensively studied under various ARDA sponsored research projects by the Canadian Centre for Community Studies i n Saskatoon.  From these sources and from DBS  data of the 1961  and 1966  Censuses,  the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area could be accurately determined p r i o r to undertaking of the proposed study. may  Furthermore, any r e s u l t s of the present  study  be related back to previous f i n d i n g s . The population of Census D i v i s i o n 16 i s predominantly  1966 census t o t a l s show the following composition.  rural.  1  TABLE V - l URBAN-RURAL COMPOSITION OF THE POPULATION OF CENSUS DIVISION 16 1961-1966  1961  1966  Urban Population Rural Population  12,272 32,748  13,350 30,200  Total Population  45,020  43,550  DBS,  1966 Census No.  92-603, Rural and Urban D i s t r i b u t i o n .  26  The  27  The  p o p u l a t i o n of the a r e a i s d e c l i n i n g i n t o t a l , due  c r e a s e of the r u r a l component of the The  to the  de-  population.  a r e a o f Census D i v i s i o n 16 c o n t a i n s o n l y one  s i z e a b l e urban  a r e a , N o r t h 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 l o c a t e d w i t h i n the a r e a . second a r e a , S h e l l b r o o k , 1/11  is classified  the s i z e of N o r t h B a t t l e f o r d .  urban by census d e f i n i t i o n but  North B a t t l e f o r d and  Shellbrook  A i s only  accounted  2 f o r a l l o f the area's  urban p o p u l a t i o n i n TABLE  V-2  URBAN POPULATION  The  1961  North B a t t l e f o r d Population Shellbrook Population  11,230 1,042  Total Population  12,272  economy of the a r e a i s dependent on a g r i c u l t u r e and  t r i e s serving agriculture. low  1961.  The  a r e a i s f u r t h e r c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  farm incomes, low wages, low non-farm incomes and  the  indus-  relatively  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 o f r u r a l , low  income and  predominantly  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 r e q u i r e d f o r the  2 DBS No. 92-539, P o p u l a t i o n by C o u n t i e s sus S u b - D i v i s i o n s , 1901-1961.  3 Multi-Disciplinary  Research  Census D i v i s i o n s and  on Development  Problems  of  Cen-  A Low  Income Agricultural Area, An Overview of ARDA-Sponsored Research on Census D i v i s i o n 16, Saskatchewan. P u b l i s h e d by the Canadian Centre f o r Community S t u d i e s , Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, 1967.  28  study.  Some a r e a s w i t h i n Census D i v i s i o n 16 have been e l i m i n a t e d  from f u r -  4 t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n by the f o l l o w i n g  steps.  1. E l i m i n a t e u n o r g a n i z e d a r e a s , i . e . , Land Improvement D i s t r i c t s (L.I.D.) i n the n o r t h e r n p a r t o f the D i v i s i o n , namely: L.I.D. #974 L.I.D. #980 (low p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y , a r e a s encompass t e r r i t o r y o u t s i d e D i v i s i o n 16) L.I.D. #986  2. E l i m i n a t e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s which c o n t a i n e x i s t i n g "urban" centres, i . e . : North B a t t l e f o r d Shellbrook  RM RM  #437 #493  3. E l i m i n a t e townships w i t h i n an a r b i t r a r i l y d e f i n e d 15-20 m i l e s r a d i u s o f "urban i n f l u e n c e " o f North B a t t l e f o r d .  4.  E l i m i n a t e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s w i t h major I n d i a n  reserves,  i.e.: Leask Canwood Spiritwood  RM RM RM  #464 #494 #496  5. E l i m i n a t e t h e m u n i c i p a l i t y o f Medstead RM #497, as a l a r g e p a r t o f i t i s taken up by the Bronson F o r e s t R e s e r v e . 6. E l i m i n a t e 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 g r e y wooded s o i l zones and grey wooded s o i l zones, i . e . : M e e t i n g Lake  RM  #466 ( d i f f e r e n t i a l l a n d use  Round H i l l  RM  #467  capabilities)  (Saskatoon:  Atlas of Saskatchewan, Eds. J . H. R i c h a r d s Modern P r e s s , 1969).  and K. I . Fung,  29  The remaining  f i v e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of  Great Bend May-field Blaine Lake Redberry Douglas  RM RM RM RM RM  #405 #406 #434 #435 #436  (black s o i l zones, r e l a t i v e l y uniform land use)  form a r e l a t i v e l y uniform area with respect to climate, s o i l zone, land use c a p a b i l i t y , population d i s t r i b u t i o n , and a dec l i n i n g population. A d e c l i n i n g population i s important i n sofar that since an attempt w i l l be made to i d e n t i f y , locate and interview families who have l e f t the area within the l a s t f i v e years. Accordingly, the following population changes have taken place between the i n t e r - c e n s a l years of 1961-1966 i n the described area. T o t a l population l i v i n g i n the area outside towns and v i l l a g e s was 5,623 i n 1961 and 4,752 i n 1966, a decrease of 15.6 per cent.-* T o t a l population l i v i n g i n the area Including towns and v i l l a g e s was 8,732 i n 1961 agd 7,727 i n 1966 which represents a decrease of 11.6 per cent.  7. One further elimination was made i n order to allow s i n g l e stage sampling and eliminate the p o s s i b i l i t y of a large proportion of interviews obtained i n a town or v i l l a g e . Accordi n g l y , the townships where the three l a r g e s t towns and v i l l a g e s are located were excluded from the area under consideration. The excluded towns and v i l l a g e s are:  POPULATION 1966 Blaine Lake Radisson Hafford  650 489 587  1961 641 515 511  ^DBS No. 92-606, 1966 Census of Canada, Divisions and Subdivisions, Western Provinces. 6  Ib£d.  30  With, t h i s elimination the t o t a l population were revised f o r the f i n a l l y selected area.  figures  TABLE V-3 TOTAL POPULATION IN THE STUDY AREA  YEAR  POPULATION  1961 1966  Source:  7,065 6,001  Decline of 15.1%  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 m u n i c i p a l i t i e s of Great Bend, Mayfield, Blaine Lake, Redberry and Douglas, within Census D i v i s i o n 16 i n Saskatchewan. (See Map I ) . Sampling Procedure: Single Stage Cluster Sampling The population  can be broken down into 48 primary sampling u n i t s .  (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 i s one family) i n each primary unit were interviewed.  Multi-Disciplinary  (See Maps I and I I ) .  Research.  . .  3  op.  cit.  3  7  p. 6 and p. 15.  MAP I MAP OF SASKATCHEWAN  SHOWING THE LOCATION OF CENSUS DIVISION 16 AND SAMPLE AREA  '*;HI = Sample Area.  CO. i f  I  .  „ „.  A  e  a  r  Prince Albert  MiLCS  •  Saskatoon  MAP I I SAMPLE AREA IN CENSUS DIVISION 16, SASKATCHEWAN  RANDOMLY SELECTED TOWNSHIP RANGES  f f / W IAJ3  yr//o/ n/n/  33  CHAPTER V I  FINDINGS  The  f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s i n t e n d e d t o c o v e r as much as p o s s i b l e o f  the c o l l e c t e d d a t a , i n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e t h e " f e e l " o f what i t i s l i k e t o l i v e i n the described area i n contrast t o l i v i n g i n a c i t y .  Secondly to  p r o v i d e some s i m p l e r e f e r e n c e m a t e r i a l on t h e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e sampled p o p u l a t i o n . I n t h e d e s c r i p t i o n w h i c h f o l l o w s d o l l a r v a l u e s t h r o u g h o u t a r e una d j u s t e d , i . e . , t h e r e were no compensatory a d j u s t m e n t s made f o r r e p o r t e d income o r c o s t s o f l i v i n g e i t h e r by i n f l a t i n g o r d e f l a t i n g r e p o r t e d v a l u e s . W h i l e t h e h y p o t h e t i c a l economic man w o u l d no doubt d e f l a t e o r a d j u s t t h e d a t a , t h e c u r r e n t s t u d y aims a t some u n d e r s t a n d i n g process.  This process  d e c i s i o n maker.  of the decision-making  t a k e s p l a c e on t h e b a s i s o f what i s p e r c e i v e d by t h e  I n the case o f migrants  r e p o r t e d v a l u e s c o v e r an o b j e c t i v e  t i m e span o f o v e r 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 acy.  T h e r e f o r e i t i s assumed t h a t i f i n r e p o r t i n g p a s t e v e n t s  accur-  respondents  made an a d j u s t m e n t they d i d so t o make t h e answers c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  their  perception. I n t h e f i v e t o w n s h i p s s e l e c t e d , 78 f a m i l y u n i t s were f o u n d ,  there  were two r e f u s a l s , f i v e not-at-home c a s e s so t h a t 71 i n t e r v i e w s were c o m p l e t e d . The  t o t a l number o f f a m i l i e s r e s i d i n g i n each township c o u l d n o t be d e t e r m i n e d  w i t h complete a c c u r a c y  s i n c e the maps f u r n i s h e d by t h e r u r a l m u n i c i p a l i t y o f f i c e s  m e r e l y denote o w n e r s h i p o f each q u a r t e r s e c t i o n o f l a n d , n o t t h e r e s i d e n c e o f owners. by  The f i v e not-at-home c a s e s i n d i c a t e p a r t - t i m e f a r m r e s i d e n c e a s c o n f i r m e d  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 years?  who moved from here to a town or a city  I f the answer was yes,  where did they move to? touch  with  them?  during  other questions were:  Could you tell  the last  Could you tell  me at what address  I could  five me get  in  In t h i s fashion names and addresses of people who moved  from the sample area were obtained.  Only those persons who resided i n 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 l o c a t i o n references, e.g., somewhere in B.C., the immediate family or i s a close f r i e n d . located.  unless the migrant belongs to  By t h i s process 25 migrants were  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 i n North B a t t l e f o r d , 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 i n tabular  form the appropriate d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s for non-migrants on:  (1) sex of household head; (2) m a r i t a l 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) t r a i n i n g of head; (ID) t r a i n i n g of spouse; (11) years resident i n area; (12) previous residence;  35  (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19) (20) (21) (22) (23) (24) (25)  years resided i n previous residence; occupation i n 1970; number of years i n current occupation; secondary jobs held; t o t a l acreage owned and operated; t o t a l acreage owned; acreage rented; acreage c u l t i v a t e d ; main product; 1970 t o t a l income; t o t a l value of a l l property; indebtedness; costs of l i v i n g i n 1970.  Appendix V contains i n tabular form the appropriate d e s c r i p t i v e s t a t i s t i c s f o r 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; m a r i t a l status; length of marriage; age of head; age of spouse; number of c h i l d r e n ; years of school completed; years o f school completed by spouse; t r a i n i n g of head; t r a i n i n g of spouse; year of move; number of years spent farming; secondary occupation before moving; t o t a l acreage owned and operated while farming; t o t a l acreage.owned while farming; acreage rented while farming; t o t a l acreage c u l t i v a t e d while farming; main product; t o t a l income f o r l a s t year spent farming; number of jobs held since moving; present job held; kind of job f i r s t looked f o r ; 1970 t o t a l income; sold property; $ value of property s o l d ; $ amount owned on property sold; $ value of a l l property presently owned; $ amount presently owing; t o t a l costs of moving; t o t a l costs of l i v i n g p r i o r to moving; t o t a l 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  t o an ^assumed s e t o f " t h i n g s " one might  l i k e t o know about i n moving t o a new p l a c e . schedule quently  Trial  testing  of the i n t e r v i e w  r e v e a l e d a g e n e r a l l y poor response t o t h i s s e t o f q u e s t i o n s ; f o r t h i s survey  responses i n d i c a t i n g  each i t e m was e v a l u a t e d by a frequency  familiarity  conse-  count o f a l l  (Table VI.1).  TABLE VI.1 KINDS OF URBAN INFORMATION KNOWN BY RURAL PEOPLE  KINDS OF INFORMATION  NUMBER  Economic: Jobs Housing Cost o f L i v i n g  16 17 17  22.4 23.9 23.9  9 6 8 5 9 -  12.7 8.5 11.3 7.0 12.7  37  51.8  Non-Economic: Shopping Schools Recreation Climate The Way P e o p l e L i v e O t h e r Don't Know  The of i n t e r e s t  h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f "don't know" responses r e f l e c t the g e n e r a l  about moving f o r the m a j o r i t y o f the p e o p l e .  lack  The d i s t i n c t i o n o f  economic-non-economic knowledge w i t h i n the group o f i n f o r m a t i o n items i s a r b i trary  and s e r v e s merely a s a d i s t i n c t i o n between c l e a r l y economic  items such as j o b s , h o u s i n g ,  c o s t s o f l i v i n g and o t h e r  items.  information  The f i r s t  three  37  items c o n t a i n the b a s i c c o s t - b e n e f i t i n f o r m a t i o n which i s n e c e s s a r y economic e x i s t e n c e of a f a m i l y u n i t .  On  for  the  the o t h e r hand, i n f o r m a t i o n about  shopping, s c h o o l s , e t c . a r e somewhat more d i s c r e t i o n a r y , depending on b o t h monetary and  preference  considerations.  Hence these  c a l l e d non-economic i n the sense t h a t they j o b s , housing  VI.4  and  KINDS OF  c o s t s of l i v i n g  take  INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS DESIRED BY  information  q u e s t i o n was  secondary importance a f t e r  information.  Respondents were asked, What kinds  accurate  i n f o r m a t i o n items were  about  if  of  things  you were moving to  RURAL PEOPLE  would you  a city  asked as an open ended q u e s t i o n , and was  or a town? intended  what k i n d s o f i n f o r m a t i o n r u r a l p e o p l e t h i n k i m p o r t a n t . answers were  The  obtained.  TABLE  VI.2  DESIRED INFORMATION BY RURAL PEOPLE  DESIRED INFORMATION  Jobs Hous i n g Cost of L i v i n g Shopping Schools Recreation Climate The Way P e o p l e L i v e "Other" No I n f o r m a t i o n Wanted  like  NUMBER  %  19 14 3  26.7 19.7 4.2  5 1 1 3 5 4  7.0 1.4 1.4 4.2 7.0 5.6  to  to  have  The explore  following  38  The responses i n the "other" category were concerned with':  "Infor-  mation about how to apply for jobs'/; " l i k e to find out whether I would make i t or not"; "cost of moving"; "how much I could get f o r the farm"; "information about future farm outlook." As a n t i c i p a t e d , 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 f o r i n the event of moving to a c i t y .  The following answers were obtained.  TABLE VI.3 URBAN JOB EXPECTATIONS OF RURAL PEOPLE  EXPECTED JOB  NUMBER  No Response Anything Carpenter Mechanic Janitor Farm Part-Time Labo r S k i l l e d labor "Other" (white c o l l a r , self-employed) TOTAL  VI.5  42 6 5 1 2 2 6 2  58.8 8.4 7.0 1.4 2.8 2.8 8.4 2.8  5  7.0  71  100.0  SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO RURAL PEOPLE Since information i s a key concept i n this study, an attempt was made  to c o l l e c t 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 r e s u l t s .  TABLE VI.4 URBAN INFORMATION SOURCES OF RURAL PEOPLE  INFORMATION SOURCES  Relatives "Other" Canada Manpower Friends C i t y Newspaper Television Radio Local Newspaper Magazines Government Agencies People Here  NUMBER  37 21 16 14 7 4 1 — 1 1 —  %  52.1 29.6 22.5 19.7 9.9 5.6 1.4 — 1.4 1.4 --  Of these responses, the following deserve some closer scrutiny: (a) Relatives  seem to be the s i n g l e most s i g n i f i c a n t source of  information with 37 (52.1%) respondents having f a m i l i a l connections with urban areas. (b) Canada Manpower —  of the 16 responses two were considered  favorable responses, seven were neutral and s i x were unfavorable where the comment helped and pretty  to  take management short  useless  or wouldn't  try  course  was  interpreted as a favorable remark,  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 r e a l estate firms, seven (9.9%) would make s p e c i a l t r i p to the c i t y , and 10 (14.1%) have l i v e d , 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  know about.  you moved, what kinds  of things  did you  . .? The r e s u l t s are tabulated i n Table VI.5.  TABLE VI.5 KINDS OF INFORMATION KNOWN BY MIGRANTS  KINDS OF INFORMATION  Cost of L i v i n g Housing Didn't Know Jobs Shopping Schools The Way People Live Recreation Climate Other  NUMBER  10 8 8 4 4 4 3 2 2  %  45.5 36.3 36.3 18.2 18.2 18.2 13.7 9.1 9.1  The responses indicate much the same pattern as those given by r u r a l people, the importance of housing and cost of l i v i n g information are noticeable. extra decision  Migrants were asked an a d d i t i o n a l open question:  information to move?  would  have been useful  to you in helping  What sort  of  you to make the  The responses are calculated i n Table VI.6.  41  TABLE VI.6 POTENTIALLY USEFUL INFORMATION TO MIGRANTS  INFORMATION  Nothing Jobs No response Retraining Investment Hous ing Didn't think of i t TOTAL  NUMBER  %  9 5 2 2 1 1 1  40.9 22.7 9.1 9.1 4.6 4.6 4.6 100.0  22  Through this question investment  and retraining  emerge as  p o t e n t i a l l y useful information to prospective migrants, while the high proportion of nothing  responses indicates l i t t l e i n t e r e s t i n information outside of  jobs, housing and costs of l i v i n g .  VI.7  SOURCES OF INFORMATION ABOUT URBAN AREAS KNOWN TO MIGRANTS PRIOR TO MOVING Sources of information available to migrants p r i o r to moving were ob-  tained with a set of questions corresponding to the questions asked of r u r a l respondents, with the r e s u l t s shown i n Table VI.7. Manpower were somewhat more complimentary  than those made by non-migrants, with  s i x favorable and two unfavorable responses. able comments were approached  The comments about Canada  Two respondents who gave favor-  i n person by a Manpower counsellor from North  Battleford; the counsellor arranged f o r 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 i n Lloydminster.  42  TABLE VI.7 URBAN INFORMATION SOURCES OF MIGRANTS  INFORMATION SOURCES  NUMBER  Other Friends Relatives Canada Manpower C i t y Newspaper Television Magazines L o c a l Newspaper Radio O t h e r Government A g e n c i e s No I n f o r m a t i o n Source Other:  VI.8  Real Estate Own Knowledge  %  16 8 8 8 3 1 1 —•  72.7 36.4 36.4 36.4 13.6 4.5 4.5  — —•  — —  6 10  27.3 45.5  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  a city  or town, what changes  would you expect  in your income?  i n d i c a t e s the r e s u l t s . TABLE V I . 8 EXPECTED INCOME CHANGES  CHANGE:  No Response More Less Don't Know None  NUMBER  i  35 15 8 7 6  you were to move to  %  49.3 21.1 11.3 9.9 8.5  Table VI.8  43 I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e e x p e c t e d n e t 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 , r e s p o n d e n t s were asked f o u r s e t s o f q u e s t i o n s p e r t a i n i n g t o p r e s e n t income, e x p e c t e d income i n t h e event o f m i g r a t i o n , p r e s e n t c o s t s o f 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  were o b t a i n e d ( s e e T a b l e s V I . 9 , V I . 1 0 , V I . 1 1 and V I . 1 2 ) . were used  The f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n s  throughout: N M SD R  = = = =  t h e number o f o b s e r v a t i o n s ; t h e mean v a l u e o f o b s e r v a t i o n s ; standard d e v i a t i o n ; range o f o b s e r v e d v a l u e s . TABLE V I . 9 TOTAL PRESENT INCOME  I N C O M E  NUMBER  %  L e s s t h a n $4,000 $4,001 - $7,000 $7,000 - Over No Response  55 10 2 4  77.4 14.1 2.8 5.6  71  100.0  TOTAL  N = 67  M =$1891.42  SD =$2747.93  R =$ -8700 - 10200 TABLE V I . 1 0 TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME I N THE EVENT OF MIGRATION  I N C O M E  NUMBER  %  51 5 7 8  71.8 7.0 9.9 11.3  No.Response L e s s t h a n $4,000 $4,001 - $7,000 $7,001 - Over  N = 66  M =$7432.00 R =$2500 - 16800  responses  SD =$4122.32  TABLE VI.11 TOTAL PRESENT COSTS OF LIVING PER YEAR  NUMBER  EXPENDITURES  No Response $ 0 - $2,500 $2,501 - $5,000 $5,001 - Over TOTAL  7.0 33.8 47.9 11.3  5 24 34 8  100.0  71  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  No Response $ 0 - $2,500 $2,501 - $5,000 $5,001 - Over TOTAL  NUMBER 51 2 10 8 71  71.8 2.8 14.1 11.3 100.0  N = 17 (3 incomplete responses deleted) M =$5034.64 SD =$1704.00 R =$2200 - 8000  45  From t h e d a t a summarized i n t h e p r e v i o u s f o u r t a b l e s , p r e s e n t b e n e f i t s and e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s were c a l c u l a t e d as income minus expenses, w i t h the f o l l o w i n g  results.  TABLE VI.13 PRESENT AND EXPECTED BENEFITS  NO RESPONSE Present Benefits Expected B e n e f i t s  Present Benefits: Expected B e n e f i t s :  NEGATIVE  5 61  POSITIVE  42 1  N = 66; M =$-1241.11; N = 10; M =$ 3723.10;  S i n c e t h e r e were o n l y 10 complete  24 9  SD =$3611.76; R =$-18698 - 6669 SD =$3860.97; R =$-1600 - 10480  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  e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s , e x p e c t e d n e t economic b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o m i g r a t i o n were c a l c u l a t e d o v e r t h e 10 a v a i l a b l e d a t a p a i r s as e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s minus present b e n e f i t s .  E x p e c t e d n e t economic b e n e f i t s may be u n d e r s t o o d  alter-  n a t i v e l y as t h e e x p e c t e d i n c r e a s e i n s a v i n g s upon moving from a r u r a l a r e a t o an u r b a n a r e a .  The f o l l o w i n g $ v a l u e s were o b t a i n e d : $  -2130.00 996.00 6794.00 3256.00 1947.00 11458 00 2504.00 2350.00 4412.00 10448.00  Mean SD X R* Mean S  =  = $4,203.50 = $4,001.23 $!. 33.74 = $-2130 - 11458 95% c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l = $1,589.37 $6,817.63 3  I would c o n c l u d e t h a t p o s i t i v e n e t economic b e n e f i t s were e x p e c t e d by r u r a l p e o p l e consequent t o m i g r a t i o n , and t h e expected v a l u e s on t h e 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 of  determining  (11)  and  (12)  the d i r e c t i o n and  were changed from the o r i g i n a l  $ v a l u e o f expected  intention  net b e n e f i t s , to  t i o n to d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f 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 m i g r a n t s . however, i n t r o d u c e d some added d i f f i c u l t i e s , such as s e t s of q u e s t i o n s on c o s t s of l i v i n g , of  10  items.  pected  f o r example, where each s e t c o n s i t s were asked  about  expenses b e f o r e moving, an o p i n i o n q u e s t i o n about  expenses a f t e r moving, and  were asked  This,  asHing t h r e e p a r a l l e l  In o r d e r to a v o i d t h i s s i t u a t i o n , respondents  t h e i r costs of l i v i n g  migra-  i t e m by i t e m .  f i n a l l y c u r r e n t c o s t s of l i v i n g  Thus m i g r a n t s  were asked  ex-  expenses  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 v a l u e o f t h e i r r e a l i z e d n e t economic b e n e f i t s , and g i v e some i n d i c a t i o n of e x p e c t a t i o n s b e f o r e m i g r a t i o n . asked  pertained to:  income b e f o r e moving, expected  y e a r a f t e r moving, expected c o s t s of l i v i n g .  The  were o b t a i n e d  and  finally  TOTAL INCOME IN THE  INCOME  No Response Minus  $ 0 - $3,000 $3,001 - $6,000 $6,001 - Over TOTAL  N = 21  VI.14 YEAR BEFORE MOVING  %  NUMBER  1 6 7 6 2  4.5 27.3 31.8 27.3 9.1  22  100.0  M =$2441.48 R =$-1 -$10500  first present  (see T a b l e s VI.14,  VI.15, VI.16, VI.17, VI.18, and VI.19).  TABLE  questions  income f o r the  change i n c o s t s o f l i v i n g ,  f o l l o w i n g responses  The  SD =$2888.93  47  S i n c e r e s p o n d e n t s c o u l d n o t 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  filled  out  income  tax,  r e s p o n s e s were a r b i t r a r i l y e v a l u a t e d as d e n o t i n g an income of $-1.00.  TABLE VI.15 TOTAL EXPECTED INCOME FOR THE YEAR FOLLOWING MIGRATION  %  NUMBER  INCOME No Response Don't Know $3,001 - $6,000 $6,001 - Over TOTAL N = 9  4.5 54.6 22.7 18.2  1 12 5 4  100.0  22 M =$5778.22  SD =$1013.52  R =$3600 - 7000  TABLE VI.16 TOTAL PRESENT INCOME (1970)  No Response $ 0 - $3,000 $3,001 - $6,000 $6,001 - Over Total N = 22  %  NUMBER  INCOME  __  ,  4 8 10  18.2 36.4 45.5  22  100.0  M =$5563.91 R =$506 - 11767  SD =$2859.63  their  48  TABLE VI.17 TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING FOR THE YEAR PRIOR TO MOVING  No Response $1,501 - $2,000 $2,001 - $2,500 $2,501 - $3,000 $3,001 - $3,500 $3,501 - $4,000 $4,001 - Over TOTAL  M  N = 15  %  NUMBER  EXPENDITURES  7 1 3 4 3 2 2  31.8 4.5 13.6 18.2 13.6 9.1 9.1  22  100.0  SD =$800.57  =$2982.13  R =$1847 - 4474  TABLE VI.18 EXPECTED COSTS OF LIVING AFTER MIGRATION  EXPECTATION  NUMBER  %  No Response More Same Don't Know  4 15 2 1  18. 68.2 9.1 4.5  TOTAL  22  100.0  TABLE  VI.19  TOTAL PRESENT COSTS OF LIVING  (1970)  %  NUMBER  EXPENDITURES  No Response $2,501 - $3,000 $3,001 - $3,500 $3,501 - $4,000 $4,001 - $4,500 $4,501 - $5,000 $5,001 - Over TOTAL  N = 21  1 3 1 3 2 2 10  4.5 13.6 4.5 13.6 9.1 9.1 45.5  22  100.0  M =$5586.38  SD  =$1690.91  R =$2660 - 8430  From t h e d a t a summarized i n t h e above t a b l e s , m i g r a n t s ' p r e s e n t b e n e f i t s were c a l c u l a t e d b y s u b t r a c t i n g 1970 c o s t s o f l i v i n g from 1970 income and s i m i l a r l y , b e f o r e 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 b e f o r e moving c o s t s o f l i v i n g f r o m b e f o r e moving income ( s e e T a b l e s VI.20 and V I . 2 1 ) ,  TABLE VI.20 MIGRANTS' PRESENT BENEFITS  BENEFITS No Response Minus $ 0 - $2,000 $2,001 - Over TOTAL N - 21  NUMBER 1 6 7 8 22  4.5 27.2 31.8 36.4 100.0  M = $L191.71 R = $-4633 - 4522  SD =$2335.38  50  TABLE V I . 2 1 MIGRANTS' BEFORE MOVE BENEFITS  BENEFITS  No Response Minus $ 0 - $2,000 $2,001 - Over TOTAL  N = 14  NUMBER  %  8 9 3 2  36.4 41.0 13.6 9.1  22  100.0  M =$-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  b e f o r e move b e n e f i t s , T a b l e V I . 2 1 f r o m p r e s e n t b e n e f i t s , T a b l e V I . 2 0 , and t h e f o l l o w i n g $ v a l u e s were  obtained.  938.00 1,300.00 -5,316.00 2,158.00 -3,520.00 -2,728.00 916.00 7,150.00 4,379.00 4,526.00 3,001.00 6,543.00 ! -3,953.00 3,606.00  Mean = $1,226.29 = $3,839.03 SD = $1,063.44 S_ X Mean 95% c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l = $-858.05 - $3,310.63  W h i l e a t f i r s t g l a n c e i t w o u l d appear t h a t m i g r a n t s on t h e average r e a l i z e d $1,226.29 n e t economic b e n e f i t s a t t r i b u t a b l e t o m i g r a t i o n , from t h e a v a i l a b l e d a t a i t cannot be s t a t e d w i t h c e r t a i n t y t h a t t h e r e a l i z e d n e t economic benefits 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  E x p e c t a t i o n s w i t h i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h i s o b j e c t i v e a r e used i n a somewhat more g l o b a l sense t h a n i m p l i e d b y economic t h e o r y .  That i s , expec-  t a t i o n s a r e used w i t h o u t 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 encomp a s 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 o f expectations i s not w i t h i n t h e scope o f t h i s s t u d y , t h e s e r i e s o f q u e s t i o n s asked were i n t e n d e d t o m e r e l y  indi-  c a t e s u b j e c t i v e l y some o f t h e r e a s o n s why p e o p l e move from o r s t a y i n a r u r a l area.  The r e s p o n s e s o b t a i n e d a r e p r e s e n t e d w i t h o u t any i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i n T a b l e s  V I . 2 2 through  VI.25.  TABLE VI.22 EXPECTATIONS TOWARDS MOVING  EXPECTATION D e f i n i t e l y Moving Have Thought About M o v i n g Have N o t Thought About Moving TOTAL  NUMBER 2 31 38  2.8 43.7 53.5  71  100.0  An i n t r o d u c t i o n t o a psycho-economic i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f e x p e c t a t i o n s may be found i n George K a t o n a , Psychological Analysis of Economic Behavior (New Y o r k : M c G r a w - H i l l Book Co. I n c . , 1 9 5 1 ) . 1  52  TABLE VI.23 DESTINATION IN THE EVENT OF MIGRATION DESTINATION  NUMBER  No Response Rural Urban No D e f i n i t e P l a c e TOTAL  %  36 9 18 8  50.7 12.7 25.4 '11.3  71  100.0  TABLE VI.24 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE  REASONS  No Response Retire Low Income Health Schools Elsewhere Other B u s i n e s s Lonely Want t o S e l l Other ( B e t t e r E l s e w h e r e ) TOTAL  NUMBER  %  25 16 17 3 1 1 1 1 6  35.2 8.5 9.9 4.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.5  71  100.0  53  TABLE VI.25 REASONS FOR WANTING TO CONTINUE LIVING IN RURAL AREA  R E A S O N  No Response Like Farming Don't Know Anything Else Can't Afford to Move Not Enough Education For Anything Else No Trade Don't Like the C i t y Can't S e l l the Farm Help Kids' Schooling Farm Good f o r Raising Kids Family Ties Here No P a r t i c u l a r Reason 0 t h.e r TOTAL  NUMBER  %  2 29 8 5  2.8 40.8 11.3 7.0  5 1 4 3 1 6 1 5 1  7.0 1.4 5.6 4.2 1.4 8.5 1.4 7.0 1.4  71  100.0  The above enumerated questions were asked as open questions and  may  be construed as an i n d i c a t i o n of how r u r a l people f e e l about moving or remaining i n a farming community.  The responses may be categorized as economic-non-economic  on a continuum where the response lonely tent and low income  contains very l i t t l e or no economic con-  contains mostly economic content i n emotional terms.  VI.11 SOME NON-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS AND OBSERVATIONS OF MIGRANTS EX-POST The s e r i e s of questions asked of migrants were somewhat more diverse than those asked of non-migrants, as completed migration introduces a d d i t i o n a l choice-decision s i t u a t i o n s . through VI.32.  The obtained responses are presented i n Tables VI.26  54  TABLE VI.26 DISPOSITION OF FARM AFTER MIGRATION  DISPOSITION  NUMBER  Sold Rented Out Operate Part-Time Other (Sold Some Acreage)  .  TOTAL  7 4 9 2  31.8 18.2 40.1 9.1  22  100.0  TABLE VI.27 REASONS FOR MIGRATING TO A CITY  R E A S O N S Retire Low Income Health* Schools i n C i t y O t h e r TOTAL  NUMBER  %  1 9 10 1 1  4.5 40.1 45.5 4.5 4.5  22  100.0  Of those respondents giving health reasons f o r having moved, four have moved because of a l l e r g i e s . In each case a l l e r g i e s were given as the d e f i n i t e reason f o r moving.  55  TABLE VI.28 SATISFACTION WITH THE DECISION TO MOVE  SATISFACTION  NUMBER  Yes No Some Doubts  18 3 1  81.8 13.6 4.5  22  100.0  TOTAL  %  TABLE VI.29 REASONS FOR BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING  R E A S O N S No Response Children's Schooling Better L i f e i n City H e a l t h Too O l d t o Farm O t h e r TOTAL  NUMBER  %  4 1 6 4 4 3  18.2 4.5 27.3 18.2 18.2 13.6  22  100.0  )  TABLE VI.30 REASONS FOR NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH MOVING  R  E  A  S  O  N  S  NUMBER  No Response B e t t e r L i f e on Farm Hard t o Get A Job Cheaper t o L i v e on Farm TOTAL  17 3 1 1  77.2 13.6 4.5 4.5  22  100.0  TABLE V I . 3 1 THOUGHT ABOUT MOVING BACK TO THE FARM  THOUGHT OF MOVING No Response Yes No TOTAL  NUMBER  %  1 7 14  4.5 31.8 63.6  22  100.0  TABLE VI.32 REASONS FOR WANTING TO MOVE BACK  REASONS No Response Don't L i k e J o b More S e c u r i t y on Farm Better f o r Kids Don't L i k e t h e C i t y  NUMBER  I  15 1 4 1 1  68.2 4.5 18.2 4.5 4.5  ^7  CHAPTER V I I  ANALYSIS  The  a n a l y s i s of the c o l l e c t e d data f o l l o w s  the b a s i c  outline of  the c o n c e p t u a l model o f d e c i s i o n making p r e s e n t e d i n Chapter IV. since  t h e r e a r e two p o s s i b l e d e c i s i o n s ,  a combined  t o t a l o f 174 i n f o r m a t i o n  the two i n t e r v i e w  p e o p l e who moved t o an urban a r e a  c a l l e d group  one or two,  schedules provided  items, o f w h i c h 63 a r e common items from  the combined r e s p o n s e s o f p e o p l e p r e s e n t l y and  living  (N=22).  i n t h e sample a r e a  (N=71)  U t i l i z i n g a dependent v a r i a b l e  d e n o t i n g non-migrants and m i g r a n t s r e s p e c t i v e l y ,  m e t r i c v a r i a b l e s were e v a l u a t e d i n a one-way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e F statistic,  That i s ,  and n o n - p a r a m e t r i c v a r i a b l e s were e v a l u a t e d u s i n g  para-  producing the  cross  tabulations,  2 producing the X  statistic.  S i n c e t h e a n a l y s i s p u r p o r t s t o approximate a c o n t r o l l e d taking two  experiment  g e o g r a p h i c l o c a t i o n a s t h e i n d i c a t o r o f s i g n i f i c a n t e v e n t ( s ) f o r group  v i a t h e concept o f s u b j e c t i v e  time, t h e i n t e n t o f a n a l y s i s  i s to determine  which items a r e s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t between t h e groups s t u d i e d . significant difference  to location difference,  Attributing  i . e . , d e c i s i o n made t o m i g r a t e ,  the component items o f t h e 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 d e f i n e d by further disaggregation  a t a future  time t o d e v e l o p a somewhat more comprehensive  model o f m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n making. Testing  t h e n u l l h y p o t h e s i s o f no d i f f e r e n c e between r u r a l and urban  respondents, the f o l l o w i n g differences  r e s u l t s were o b t a i n e d .  i n T a b l e V I I . l w i l l be f u r t h e r  57  (Table  VII.l).  examined i n S e c t i o n  Significant  VII.l.  TABLE V I I . l RESULTS OF TESTING THE NULL HYPOTHESIS That Between Non-Migrants  VARIABLE NO.  3 4 5 6 7 17 22 23 24 25 31 32 33 34 35 40 41 45 46 47 48 62 63 64  and Migrants  Groups are  Different  2  VARIABLE  NAME  M a r i t a l Status Years Married Age o f Head Age o f Spouse Number o f C h i l d r e n Number o f C h i l d r e n a t Home S c h o o l i n g o f Head S c h o o l i n g o f Spouse S k i l l s o f Head S k i l l s o f Spouse Number o f Y e a r s i n O c c u p a t i o n (Farming) Secondary O c c u p a t i o n T o t a l A r e a o f Land A r e a o f Land Owned A r e a o f Land Rented A r e a o f Land C u l t i v a t e d Main P r o d u c t S o l d M a i n Reason Want/Did Move F i r s t Reason Want/Did Move Second Reason Want/Did Move T h i r d Reason Want/Did Move Know Economic I n f o r m a t i o n Know Non-Economic I n f o r m a t i o n T o t a l I n f o r m a t i o n Known  * 0 n l y t h e 1% and 5% s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s n o t e d .  VALUES OF X  2 df X F(l,78) F(l,90) F(l,76) F(l,79) F(l,84) F(l,88) F(l,761 1 d f tZ 1 df X F(l,50) 1 df X F(l,89) F(l,90) F(l,89) F(l,801 7 d f X, 7 d f X, 7 d f X, 7 d f X, 7 d f X, 2 d f X, 4 d f X, 7 df X  OR F  = 3.043 = 1.902 = 0.957 = 0.468 = 0.674 = 0.074 = 0.061 = 0,112 = 4.102 = 0.001 9.757 = 2.650 = 4.581 = 1.123 = 4.630 = 0.826 = 6.980 = 20.066 = 16.058 9.395 = 10.000 = 18.51 = 11.7222 = 17.450  SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL*  — — — — — — — — 5%  —  1%  —  5%  —  5%  — —  1% 5%  —  1% 5% 5%  TABLE V I I . l (Continued)  VARIABLE ., NO. n  T T A D T A T O T T?  XT A M P  VARIABLE NAME  VALUES OF X  2  OR F  2 76 77 78 79 93  94  95  96  97  98  100  I n f o r m a t i o n Source: Media I n f o r m a t i o n Source: I n s t i t u t i o n I n f o r m a t i o n Source: P e r s o n a l T o t a l I n f o r m a t i o n Sources Gross Farm Income 1970 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  3 2 2 9  df df df df  X X X X  F ( l , 7 8 ) = 2.020  Net Farm Income 1970 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 8 0 ) = 1.301  Secondary Job Income 1970 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 1 2 ) = 0.539  F a m i l y A l l o w a n c e Income 1970 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 4 0 ) = 0.774  T o t a l On Farm Income 1970 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - urban  F ( l , 8 6 ) = 0.625  Expected Job i n C i t y 1970 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  7 df X  E x p e c t e d wages 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 2 3 ) = 2.831  2 2  = = = =  0.682 0.029 0.090 6.686  2  = 8.121  SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL  TABLE V I I . l  VARIABLE NO.  101  102  103  111  116  117  118  119  120  (Continued)  VALUES OF X  VARIABLE NAME  OR F  E x p e c t e d E a r n i n g s by Dependents 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 8 ) = 3.112  E x p e c t e d " O t h e r " Income 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 1 0 ) = 0.789  E x p e c t e d T o t a l Income 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 2 7 ) = 1.384  T o t a l Owing on P r o p e r t y 1971 - r u r a l P r o p e r t y s o l d - urban  F ( l , 4 1 ) = 2.984  T o t a l Moving Expenses Expected - r u r a l I n c u r r e d - urban  F ( l , 1 7 ) = 5.969  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n Housing/Month 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - urban  SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL  5%  Expenses I n v a l i d - o n l y one r e s p o n s e i n I )  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n Food/Week Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 8 2 ) = 1.854  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n A u t o m o b i l e / Y e a r Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - urban  F(l,58) - 0.395  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n C l o t h i n g / Y e a r Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 7 6 ) = 0.014  ON  o  TABLE V I I . l  VARIABLE NO.  121  122  123  124  125  126  127  (Continued)  VARIABLE NAME  VALUES OF X  OR F  B e f o r e 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 B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 8 1 ) = 6.240  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n Household/year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 6 2 ) = 0.046  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n M e d i c a l / Y e a r Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - urban  F ( l , 7 0 ) = 0.692  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n R e c r e a t i o n / Y e a r Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 7 0 ) = 0.082  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n Taxes/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - u r b a n  F ( l , 8 3 ) - 0.141  B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n "Other"/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - urban  F ( l , 8 ) = 0.081  T o t a l B e f o r e M i g r a t i o n Expenses 1971 - r u r a l B e f o r e moving - urban  F ( l , 7 9 ) = 0.357  SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL  5%  TABLE VTI.1 (Continued)  VARIABLE NO. 128  129  130  131  132  133  134  135  VARIABLE NAME After Migration Housing/Month 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  VALUES OF  x  21  OR F  SIGNIFICANCE LEVEL  Expenses F(l,46)  1.105  After Migration Food/Week Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,39)  1.342  After Migration Automobile/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,32)  2.280  After Migration Clothing/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,34)  0.739  After Migration U t i l i t i e s / Y e a r Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,34)  3.017  After Migration Household/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,28)  7.051  5%  After Migration Medical/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,33)  8.932  1%  After Migration Recreation/Year Expenses 1971 - r u r a l expected 1971 - urban incurred  F(l,32) = 0.500  —  Ov  N3  cJo«t  »o+ 64  VII.l  SIGNIFICANT VARIABLES VII.1.1  Skills  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  f e r e n c e between m i g r a n t s and non-migrants was s k i l l s was examined by a s k i n g r e s p o n d e n t s :  you left  Did you acquire  o f head.  dif-  This v a r i a b l e  any other skills  after  school? i  TABLE VII.2 SKILLS ACQUIRED  YES Non-Migrants Migrants  X  The  Non-migrants: ( c o u r s e n o t completed),  (No)  = 4.102  specific skills  (No)  NO  8  55  7  15  1 d.f. s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% l e v e l  a c q u i r e d were: w e l d e r , b a k e r , l i c e n s e d mechanic, t e a c h e r ' s  o i l f i e l d foreman, l o g g e r , c e r t i f i e d  carpenter;  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 , n u r s i n g o r d e r l y , steam e n g i n e e r , t e c h n i c i a n , welder,  college Migrants:  radio-TV  surveyor. 2  While t h e v a l u e o f the X two  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  groups, the v a l u e i s m i s l e a d i n g .  after migration. made: migrate  Thus  The s k i l l s  c i t e d by m i g r a n t s were a c q u i r e d  in toto f o r the s k i l l s v a r i a b l e two statements may be  (a) t h e r e i s a p o o l o f s k i l l e d l a b o r among farmers; do a c q u i r e some s k i l l s  and (b) people  as a consequence o f m i g r a t i o n .  who  65  VII.1.2  Number of Years Sjent i n Occupation (Farming).  Non-migrant  respondents were asked how many years they had spent i n their current occupation (Q 12c), and migrants were asked how many years they had spent i n t h e i r occupation before migrating (Q l i b ) .  The following r e s u l t s were obtained.  TABLE VII.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF YEARS SPENT IN OCCUPATION (FARMING)  NUMBER OF RESPONDENTS Non-Migrants Migrants Total  34 18 52  %  MEAN  S.D.  65. 4 34. 6 100. 0  19.2 29.2 22.7  11.2 10.3 11.8  S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,50) = 9.757 S i g n i f i c a n t at 1% p. l e v e l  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 i s a rather curious r e s u l t i f we note that the  mean age of non-migrants i s 48.6 years and of migrants 51.2 years.  A plausible  explanation may be that the discrepancy i n the number of years spent i n farming i s due to two or more i n t e r a c t i n g forces.  Namely, in-migration which would p u l l  down the average length of years spent i n 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 i n 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 t h i s explanation. VII.1.3 total  area  of all  Total Area of Land. land you own(ed)  Respondents were asked:  and operate(d)?  What is/was  the  This v a r i a b l e was found to be  s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t , 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 s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% p. l e v e l  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 i s to be  noted that migrants were not necessarily those people with the least amount of land.  C l a s s i f y i n g land into i t s components of owned land and rented land,  there was no 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 i n the amount of land owned, but there was a s i g n i f i c a n t difference i n the amount of land rented.  VII.1.4  Area of Land Rented or Leased From Others (I 14c, I I 12c)  The mean values obtained are summarized i n Table VII.5. While the amount of land rented was s i g n i f i c a n t l y less f o r 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 Table VII.6).  s i g n i f i c a n t difference between migrants and non-migrants (see  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 s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% p. l e v e l  TABLE VII.6 PATTERN OF RENTING  DONT RENT  RENT  Non-Migrants  35  36  Migrants  16  6  X  =3.723  While the s i g n i f i c a n t X  l d . f . significant at 5% l e v e l  value at 1 d.f. would be 3.84 the obtained X  value of 3.72 leads to acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis.  Nevertheless, sub-  j e c t i v e considerations suggest that the a b i l i t y to rent land i s an important factor.  Both migrants and non-migrants frequently expressed the opinion that  the a c q u i s i t i o n  of more land would be h e l p f u l .  countered situations  During the interviewing I e n -  where one or more respondents expressed interest  i n their  68  neighbour's  land.  In summary, m i g r a n t s tended t o o p e r a t e a s m a l l e r acreage than migrants.  In my  non-  o p i n i o n t h e p r o c e s s o f l a n d c o n s o l i d a t i o n by l a r g e farm u n i t s  puts a s u b t l e but i r r e v o c a b l e p r e s s u r e on the s m a l l e r f a r m i n g u n i t s , by  physi-  c a l l y s u r r o u n d i n g the s m a l l e r farms, and p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y by s l o w l y removing n e i g h b o u r s and emphasizing p a r i s o n t o the VII.1.5 What reasons you  tell  f a i l u r e of the s m a l l farmer i n com-  large. Reasons f o r D e s i r i n g t o Move.  make you  me why did  these two  the commercial  want to  you  move from  move away from  here? (the  R u r a l respondents were asked: And m i g r a n t s were asked:  farm)?  The r e s p o n s e s o b t a i n e d on  q u e s t i o n s were s o r t e d i n t o e i g h t c a t e g o r i e s .  S i n c e the q u e s t i o n s  were asked as an open q u e s t i o n , more than one response was cases.  To f a c i l i t a t e  main r e a s o n i n my  own  Could  o b t a i n e d i n most  a n a l y s i s one r e s p o n s e i n each case was  d e s i g n a t e d as  judgement, and s u b s e q u e n t l y the f i r s t ,  second and  reasons as mentioned by respondents were t a b u l a t e d s e p a r a t e l y . The  third  responses  are t a b u l a t e d i n T a b l e V I I . 7 . Comparing the r e s p o n s e s the s o u r c e of s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between m i g r a n t s and non-migrants appears to be non-monetary.  That i s , m i g r a n t s gave  a d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e f r e q u e n c y o f h e a l t h reasons f o r moving compared t o non-migrants.  The  e x p l a n a t i o n may  be found by v i e w i n g " h e a l t h " reasons as  f o r c e d r e t i r e m e n t i n some i n s t a n c e s when g e n e r a l l y f a i l i n g h e a l t h f o r c e s  retire-  ment w i t h o u t the man  wanting  aller-  g i e s as the d e f i n i t e  reason f o r moving.  to r e t i r e .  Of the 10 respondents  f o u r gave  W h i l e the number o f responses i s much  too low t o d e r i v e any s t r o n g i n f e r e n c e s , the v e r y p o s i t i v e responses m e n t i o n i n g a l l e r g i e s would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s may  be a s t r o n g e x p l a n a t o r y v a r i a b l e i n  69  f a m i l y d e c i s i o n making. dust:  F o r example, one respondent's w i f e was a l l e r g i c t o  the f a m i l y d e c i s i o n was made t o move to Vancouver,  a prairie  B.C. r a t h e r than t o  city.  TABLE VII.7 MAIN REASONS FOR DESIRING TO MOVE  NON-MIGRANTS NO. %  MIGRANTS NO. %  1 9 10 1  Retirement Low Income H e a l t h Reasons Better Schools i n C i t y Other B u s i n e s s L o n e l i n e s s on Farm Want t o S e l l Land Other  16 17 3 1 1 1 1 6  22.4 23.8 4.2 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 8.4  Total  46  64.4  22  No Respbnse  25  35.6  —  X  2  = 20.066  7 d . f .s i g n i f i c a n t : a t 1% p.  4.3 40.5 45.0 4.5  — — —  —• — — 1  4.5 100.0  —.  level  S i n c e t h e above responses were i n t e r p r e t e d as "most i m p o r t a n t " i n my e s t i m a t i o n , an e v a l u a t i o n t a b u l a t i n g the f i r s t and  h a v i n g moved f o l l o w s  (see T a b l e V I I . 8 ) .  reasons f o r wanting  t o move  70  TABLE VII.8 FIRST REASONS:  DESIRE TO MOVE AND DID MOVE  NON-MIGRANTS NO. %  MIGRANTS NO. %  Retirement Low Income Health Reasons Better Schools i n City Other Business Loneliness on Farm Want to S e l l Land Other  16 16 5 1 1 1 1 5  22.4 22.4 7.0 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 7.0  1 9 10 1 — — — 1  Total  46  64.4  22  100.0  No Response  25  35.6  —  —  X  2  = 16.058  4.5 40.5 45.0 4.5 — — — 4.5  7 d.f.s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% p l e v e l  Tabulating the f i r s t reasons mentioned by respondents y i e l d s e s s e n t i a l l y the same r e s u l t s as tabulating the main reasons. n u l l hypothesis the conclusion i s that migrants moving, namely, poor health and inadequate  Rejecting the  had d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r  incomes.  In terms of the decision-making model, making the subjective time jump from before to a f t e r the act of migration the single 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 decision i s f a i l i n g health.  An i m p l i c i t  p r o b a b i l i s t i c evaluation on the part of decision makers i s contained i n the change from seven per cent of those people who have some degree of expectations to move i n d i c a t i n g poor health as reason f o r 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 d i d f a i l seriously enough to warrant a decision to move. VII.1.6  Information Items Known ( I , Q 19a; I I Q 16).  The i n f o r -  mation v a r i a b l e employed was divided into economic and non-economic information items.  Economic information was taken to measure f a m i l i a r i t y with: j o b ,  housing and cost of l i v i n g s i t u a t i o n i n an urban envrionment. information was taken to mean f a m i l i a r i t y with:  shopping,  Non-economic  schools, r e c r e a t i o n ,  climate and the way people l i v e i n an urban environemnt. Since a precise operational d e f i n i t i o n of what one b i t of information i s i n the migration s i t u a t i o n i s not a v a i l a b l e , each response i n d i c a t i n g f a m i l i a r i t y was used to b u i l d a possible score with values of 0-3 f o r economic i n f o r mation, 0-5 f o r non-economic information, and 0-8 f o r t o t a l information. value denotes no response,  1 denotes f a m i l i a r i t y with one item, etc.  A0  In this  fashion a frequency count of information score values was obtained f o r both groups to make a comparison.  While score values are employed, these are purely  nominal i n the d e f i n i t i o n of possible values. an expedient  Score values were used merely as  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 TOTAL 3  Non-Migrants Migrants X  = 18.51  53 10  2 5  3 5  13 2  71 22  3 d.f. s i g n i f i c a n t at 1% p. l e v e l  72  Rejecting the n u l l hypothesis at the 1% l e v e l , the conclusion i s 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. s i g n i f i c a n t  at 1% p . l e v e l  The n u l l hypothesis i s rejected, migrants had more non-economic information items than non-migrants. TABLE VII.11 TOTAL INFORMATION KNOWN  0  Non-Migrants Migrants  X  NO. OF INFORMATION ITEMS KNOWN 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8  TOTAL  50  4  2  7  0  0  3  0  5  71  9  4  3  3  1  1  0  1  0  22  = 19.83 8 d.f. s i g n i f i c a n t  at 5% p. l e v e l  73  Reject items.  the n u l l hypothesis;  While t h e s t a t i s t i c s  obtained  m i g r a n t s knew of more support  the c o n c l u s i o n  are b e t t e r informed, a f u r t h e r c u r i o s i t y was e v i d e n t  during  namely, t h e tendency o f some respondents t o agree w i t h of q u e s t i o n s .  F o r example, i n the p r e v i o u s  t e n t l y scored higher i n the f a c t and  three  that migrants interviewing,  a l l items on a s e t  t a b l e s non-migrants  on the upper end o f each s c o r e s c a l e .  t h a t t h i s tendency t o a g r e e was o n l y e v i d e n t  absent among m i g r a n t s .  information  consis-  The c u r i o s i t y  among a few non-migrants,  During i n t e r v i e w i n g migrants g e n e r a l l y t r i e d  f o r c l a r i f i c a t i o n of questions,  lies  and attempted t o r e c a l l as many d e t a i l s  to ask from  memory as was p o s s i b l e . VII.1.7 not  considered  E x p e c t e d and A c t u a l Moving C o s t s .  While moving c o s t s was  as a p a r t o f t h e o v e r a l l c o s t - b e n e f i t c a l c u l a t i o n , t h e a n a l y s i s  of v a r i a n c e between e x p e c t e d moving c o s t s and a c t u a l c o s t s o f moving r e v e a l s a significant port higher  d i f f e r e n c e between m i g r a n t s and non-migrants.  expected costs  Non-migrants r e -  than t h e c o s t s i n c u r r e d by m i g r a n t s f o r e s s e n t i a l l y  the same g e o g r a p h i c d e s t i n a t i o n s . TABLE VII.12 COSTS OF MOVING <I Q 29; I I Q 27)  N  Expected Moving C o s t s A c t u a l Moving C o s t s  8 11  MEAN  S.D.  307.50 140.10  205.13 86.70  S.D. = Standard D e v i a t i o n F ( l , 1 7 ) = 5.969 s i g n i f i c a n t a t 5% p. l e v e l  RANGE  50-600 11-300  74  As we a r e concerned w i t h what i s p e r c e i v e d by r u r a l p e o p l e , the low number of r e s p o n s e s i s noteworthy, e s p e c i a l l y among m i g r a n t s .  Of the 22  i n t e r v i e w e d one p e r s o n gave no r e s p o n s e , 10 p e o p l e r e p o r t e d no costs and 11 people r e p o r t e d the i n c u r r e d amount o f moving expenses.  migrants incurred,  C a l c u l a t i n g the  r e p o r t e d mean f i g u r e s f o r m i g r a n t s no c o s t r e s p o n s e s were e x c l u d e d , s i n c e respondents d i d not r e p o r t zero expected c o s t s .  rural  Hence the mean c o s t f i g u r e i s  m r e l y an e s t i m a t e o f c o s t s f o r those p e o p l e who d i d p e r c e i v e c o s t s among m i g r a n t s . Comparing the-number o f p e o p l e who r e p o r t e d expected or i n c u r r e d moving c o s t s a g a i n s t those who d i d n o t , would suggest t h a t c o s t s o f moving a r e not as important a c o n s i d e r a t i o n f o r most people b e f o r e m i g r a t i o n o c c u r s .  TABLE VII.13 SIGNIFICANCE  OF MOVING COSTS  NON-MIGRANTS  MIGRANTS  Cost  8  11  No Cost  63  11  :  x  2  =15.5  s i g n i f i c a n t a t 1% p. l e v e l  In summary, moving c o s t s do n o t appear t o be an important f a c t o r i n m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n making. and  R e l a t i v e l y few p e o p l e p e r c e i v e moving c o s t s b e f o r e m i g r a t i o n ,  those who do, tend t o o v e r e s t i m a t e these c o s t s .  A f t e r m i g r a t i o n people a r e more  aware o f moving c o s t s and the magnitude o f these c o s t s , but a r e as l i k e l y  to r e -  i  c o g n i z e them as n o t . While these r e s u l t s seem c u r i o u s , they a r e not unexpected. p e r t a i n i n g to moving c o s t s were open-ended q u e s t i o n s , c o v e r i n g :  The q u e s t i o n s wages l o s t  75  while moving; wages l o s t while looking for a new job; cost of moving belongings; and transportation costs for the family.  Opportunity costs only apply i n the  limited circumstances of off-farm employment i n which case migration i s u n l i k e l y , or moving during the main farm work periods, which i s also u n l i k e l y . moving costs consist of moving belongings, and family transportation.  Hence  However,  most moves are moves to the nearest c i t y , i n t h i s case Saskatoon, which i s approximately two hours' d r i v i n g distance.  Thus, moving family and belongings  i s merely an inconvenience, since d r i v i n g to Saskatoon i s a r e l a t i v e l y routine event, the cost of which i s no d i f f e r e n t from d r i v i n g the farm truck to Saskatoon at any other time. cases was:  Hence, to the questions of moving costs the response i n 10  Nothing,  moved in my own truck  (which i s i l l e g a l i n Saskatchewan with-  out a permit. VII.1.8  S i g n i f i c a n t Costs of L i v i n g Variables.  The comparison of present  costs of l i v i n g expenses incurred by r u r a l people against costs incurred by migrants before they l e f t the farm produced merely one s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t item, the amount spent on u t i l i t i e s i s higher for non-migrants (see Table 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 s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% p. l e v e l  VII.14),  76  The p l a u s i b l e explanation f o r t h i s difference may be that the costs of l i v i n g i n a farming area are r e l a t i v e l y more stable than i n an urban area.  That  i s , housing costs are non-existent, food, car, c l o t h i n g , etc. are much more e a s i l y substituted f o r than i n 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 e a s i l y substituted.  The d i f f e r -  ence r e f l e c t s increased costs of u t i l i t i e s over the elapsed objective time span of f i v e years. Comparing the expected costs of l i v i n g that r u r a l people envision with costs incurred by migrants i n an urban area, s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found in household expenditures, medical expenditures and i n taxes paid (see Tables VII.15, VII.16, and VII.17). TABLE VII.15 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN AN URBAN AREA  N  MEAN  S.D.  Expected by Non-Migrants  14  142.14  83.77  Actual by Migrants  16  348.44  279.35  RANGE  0 -300 100 -1200  S.D. = Standard Deviation F(l,28) = 7.051 s i g n i f i c a n t at 5% p. l e v e l  The differences i n household expenditures a r i s e from two sources:  on the  one hand buying an o l d house i n the c i t y e n t a i l s repair and upkeep expenses due to d i f f e r e n t construction of the housing, and on the other hand some of the added expenses occur because of a fundamental  change i n l i f e s t y l e , which occasions the  a c q u i s i t i o n of new and d i f f e r e n t appliances, the a c q u i s i t i o n of a t e l e v i s i o n r e c e i v e r , f o r example.  The large range of expenditures f o r migrants r e f l e c t s t h i s  77  change, but from t h e d a t a c o l l e c t e d  i t i s n o t p o s s i b l e to a s c e r t a i n t o what ex-  t e n t the p u r c h a s e o f consumer d u r a b l e s i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the i n c r e a s e 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  A c t u a l by M i g r a n t s  19  211.84  100.21  50 - 400  S.D. = Standard D e v i a t i o n F ( l , 3 3 ) = 8.932 s i g n i f i c a n t  a t 1% p. l e v e l  The d i f f e r e n c e i n t h e amount spent on m e d i c a l expenses c a n be e x p l a i n e d by the h i g h p r o p o r t i o n o f m i g r a n t s who moved f o r h e a l t h r e a s o n s and  t h e e x i s t e n c e o f a nominal f e e f o r medicare  (45 p e r c e n t )  s e r v i c e s i n Saskatchewan.  TABLE VII.17 PROPERTY TAXES PAID  Expected by Non-Migrants A c t u a l by M i g r a n t s  N  MEAN  S.D.  RANGE  9  394.00  138.25  206-600  20  728.20  445.57  S.D. = Standard D e v i a t i o n F ( l , 2 7 ) = 4.769 s i g n i f i c a n t  a t 5% p. l e v e l  60-2000  78  The increased tax load of migrants i s explainable by the high proport i o n of migrants who sentee landlords.  continue farming on a part-time basis, or simply as ab-  Of the 22 respondents, only seven or 31.8%  which i n turn means that the remaining 68% pay taxes  sold t h e i r property  on two places.  Hence the  v i r t u a l doubling of the tax b i l l f o r 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 number 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 (N - 71)  MIGRANTS (N = 22)  TOTAL  Observed  104  44  148  Expected  113  35  148  X  2  = 3.03  1 d.f. < 5% p. l e v e l .  The data presented i n Table VII.18 has been calculated by making a f r e quency count of the t o t a l number of information sources mentioned by each respondent.  Assuming the n u l l 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 n u l l hypothesis, and  79  therefore to the r e j e c t i o n of the hypothesis that migrants knew of a greater number of information sources than r u r a l people.  HYPOTHESIS I I :  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 c o l l e c t e d by questions I 19b and I I 17, the following categories of information sources were i d e n t i f i e d :  (a) media, consisting of  radio, t e l e v i s i o n , l o c a l newspaper, c i t y newspaper and magazines; (b) government agencies, including manpower and a l l other government information sources; (c) personal, including r e l a t i v e s and friends; (d) other, including r e a l estate firms, and a l l other sources of information.  A comparison of non-migrants and  migrants across these four categories of information sources t e s t i n g the n u l l hypothesis of no difference, leads to the acceptance of the n u l l hypothesis and r e j e c t i o n of the hypothesis that migrants u t i l i z e d i f f e r e n t information sources.  TABLE VII.19 FREQUENCY COUNT OF SOURCES OF INFORMATION KNOWN TO MIGRANTS AND NON-MIGRANTS  MEDIA Non-Migrants Migrants  X  2  = 4.2  GOVERNMENT AGENCIES  PERSONAL  OTHER  13 (18%)  17 (24%)  51 (72%)  21 (30%)  5 (22%)  8 (36%)  16 (73%)  16 (73%)  3 d.f. < 5% p. l e v e l .  Accept n u l l 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.  I n C h a p t e r V I , S e c t i o n 9, r e a l i z e d n e t economic b e n e f i t s o f m i g r a n t s had a mean o f $1226.29 w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f $3839.03.  The s t a n d a r d  e r r o r o f t h e mean was $1063.44 and t h e 95 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l f o r t h e mean ranged from $-858.05 t o $3310.63.  From t h e s e f i g u r e s i t would  t h a t m i g r a n t s on t h e 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 .  appear How-  e v e r , i t cannot be a s 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 r e a s o n f o r such l a r g e  v a r i a t i o n may be found n o t o n l y i n t h e s m a l l number o f d a t a p a i r s ( 1 4 ) , b u t 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 part-time farming o f migrants.  Some 68 p e r c e n t  o f " m i g r a n t s " c o n t i n u e d w i t h some degree o f ownership o r o p e r a t i o n o f t h e i r  land.  C o n t i n u e d i n v o l v e m e n t i n f a r m i n g i n some sense may be s a i d t o negate t h e economic b e n e f i t s o f 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 p r o p e r t y t a x e s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher f o r migrants.  The upkeep and o p e r a t i o n o f  machinery,  h o u s e h o l d s , e t c . c o n t i n u e s i n two p l a c e s , w h i l e t h e income g e n e r a t e d by t h e farm begins t o decline. 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 p e o p l e expect p o s i t i v e n e t economic b e n e f i t s from m i g r a t i n g ( C h a p t e r VI, section 8 ) ,  The mean o f e x p e c t e d b e n e f i t s was c a l c u l a t e d t o be an a d d i t i o n a l  $4203.50 p e r year from m i g r a n t s w i t h a s t a n d a r d d e v i a t i o n o f $4001.23, s t a n d a r d e r r o r o f t h e mean was $1333.74 and t h e mean 95 p e r c e n t c o n f i d e n c e i n t e r v a l was from $1589.37 t o $6817.63.  Chapter  VI.II.  Hence t h e h y p o t h e s i s t h a t r u r a l p e o p l e have a nega-  1  81  t i v e l e v e l of economic expectations associated with migration was r e j ected. The conclusion that economic expectations are p o s i t i v e f o r 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 r e v i s -  ing  subjective p r o b a b i l i t i e s of events occurring.  The inflow of information,  the perception of s i g n i f i c a n t events a l t e r s expectations u n t i l the occurrence of a c r i t i c a l event e f f e c t s the migration d e c i s i o n . From t h i s view of the migration decision-making process, two general suggestions f o r further research emerge: 1. A t t i t u d e s c a l i n g may be used to evaluate expectations regarding migration at any given point i n time. U t i l i z i n g the p a r a l l e l p r i o r 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 f o r an attitude scale construction.^  2. The f e a s i b i l i t y of building an aggregate p r e d i c t i v e migration model based on Bayesian p r o b a b i l i t i e s should be explored.  Marvin E. Shaw and Jack M. Wright, Scales for the Measurement of Attitudes (New York: McGraw-Hill Co. Inc., 1967). Contains the scale Attitude Toward Farming (Myster 1944) and The (Work Related) Change Scale (Trumbo 1961). M o b i l i t y Orientation Scale i s contained i n Melvin Seeman, "On the Personal Consequences of A l i e n a t i o n i n Work," American Sociological Review, No. 32 ( A p r i l , 1967), pp. 273-285. Charles M. Bonjean et al. Sociological Measurement (San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co., 1967); N. Frederiksen and H. G u l l i k s e n , Contributions to Mathematical Psychology (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, Inc., 1964) contains a paper by Robert P. Abelson on "Mathematical Models of the D i s t r i b u t i o n of A t t i t u d e s Under Controversy." t  CHAPTER V I I I  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  The model o f d e c i s i o n making employed i n t h i s study r e s t s on two b a s i c assumptions: are  (a) a d e c i s i o n i s . some f u n c t i o n o f e x p e c t a t i o n s ; (b) e x p e c t a t i o n s  some f u n c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n about e v e n t s .  was used  The concept o f s u b j e c t i v e  t o introduce the perception o f s i g n i f i c a n t  time  events a s c a u s a l s o u r c e s i n  d e c i s i o n making. W i t h t h e a priori significant  assumptions  event, and t h a t t h e ceteris  son o f t h e two surveyed groups, of  t h a t t h e completed paribus  act of migration i s a  c o n d i t i o n o b t a i n s i n the compari-  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 o c c u r r e n c e  events which l e d t o t h e m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n . In t h e model employed a d i s t i n c t i o n was made between economic and non-  economic e x p e c t a t i o n s i n o r d e r t o a s s e s s t h e r e l a t i v e  importance  o f each.  Migra-  t i o n i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y m o t i v a t e d by monetary c o n s i d e r a t i o n s , t h e s o - c a l l e d noneconomic m o t i v a t i o n s a r e o f e q u a l o r h i g h e r importance  i n the m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n .  In terms o f the c u r r e n t study, the sum t o t a l o f e x p e c t a t i o n s r e g a r d i n g the m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n o f t h e 71 people i n t e r v i e w e d may be expressed a s two people (3%) w i l l move d e f i n i t e l y , 31 p e o p l e people of  (43%) have thought about moving, and 38  (53%) have n o t thought about moving.  T h i s i s our p r e s e n t b e s t e s t i m a t e  f u t u r e b e h a v i o u r , 31 p e o p l e may move i f . . .  Chapter V I , S e c t i o n 10, T a b l e VI.22.  82  83  Making t h e time jump from b e f o r e e v a l u a t i o n suggests  t h a t t h e s i n g l e most f r e q u e n t c r i t i c a l  the m i g r a t i o n d e c i s i o n i s f a i l i n g The  t o a f t e r t h e a c t of m i g r a t i o n , a nominal  hypothesized  event  calling  forth  h e a l t h (Table V I I . 8 ) .  i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w as p a r t o f the p r o c e s s  of forming ex-  p e c t a t i o n s was examined i n r e l a t i o n t o a s e t o f e x p e c t a t i o n s which f o r c o n v e n i e n c e were c a l l e d  " o p p o r t u n i t i e s i n u r b a n a r e a s , " and by assumption c o n s i s t e d o f i n f o r -  mation/knowledge o f j o b s , h o u s i n g ,  cost of l i v i n g ,  shopping, s c h o o l , r e c r e a t i o n ,  c l i m a t e , t h e way people l i v e and an " o t h e r " c a t e g o r y Information  furthermore  to allow free  was assumed t o o r i g i n a t e from such s o u r c e s  responses. as r a d i o ,  t e l e v i s i o n , l o c a l newspaper, c i t y newspaper, magazines, Canada Manpower, g o v e r n ment a g e n c i e s people  ( s o u r c e s such a s V e t e r a n ' s  Affairs, etc.), relatives,  i n home a r e a , and an " o t h e r " c a t e g o r y Recognizing  friends,  to allow a d d i t i o n a l free  responses.  t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n may be r e c e i v e d p a s s i v e l y o r a c t i v e l y , i . e . ,  t h e r e i s some "normal" amount o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n f l o w c o n s t a n t l y , b u t t h e r e i s an i n c r e a s e d i n f l o w i f i n f o r m a t i o n i s sought a c t i v e l y . t h e s e s I and I I p r o v i d e d  some e v i d e n c e  Findings related  to Hypo-  t h a t t h e s o u r c e s o f i n f o r m a t i o n were a p p r o x i -  m a t e l y t h e same f o r m i g r a n t s and non-migrants a l i k e , b u t t h a t the q u a n t i t y  (item)  2 of  i n f o r m a t i o n known was g r e a t e r f o r m i g r a n t s than The  c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h e study 1.  of  The c r i t i c a l  are: events which a f f e c t  i n d i v i d u a l s may be a g g r e g a t e d .  a c r e a g e may be c a l l e d ulation.  non-migrants.  F a i l i n g h e a l t h , low incomes and  t h e most common c r i t i c a l  As t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of o c c u r r e n c e  events  of c r i t i c a l  the p r o b a b i l i t y o f m i g r a t i o n a l s o i n c r e a s e s .  Chapter V I I , S e c t i o n 6.  the migration d e c i s i o n inadequate  f o r the surveyed events  pop-  approaches,  84  2. tact,  Information  i s t r a n s m i t t e d most e f f e c t i v e l y by p e r s o n a l  con-  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 m i g r a t i o n l i t e r a t u r e c o n t a i n s r e f e r e n c e to two complemen-  t a r y f o r c e s e x p l a i n i n g the movement o f workers from a g r i c u l t u r e t o I n d u s t r y , viz.,  " t h e c e n t r i f u g a l f o r c e o r impetus  which pushes them o u t of a g r i c u l t u r e ,  3 and  the power of  attraction  seems r a t h e r i n s i g n i f i c a n t  H. K r i e r , Rural OECD (1961), p. 15.  which p u l l s them i n t o i n d u s t r y . "  The l a t t e r  i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e former i n t h e surveyed  Manpower and Industrial  Development,  force  population.  General Report,  B I B L I O G R A P H Y  ARDA, Annual Report. years.  Ottawa:  Department o f F o r e s t r y o f Canada,  "ARDA: A R e h a b i l i t a t i o n Program i n t h e M a k i n g . " o f A g r i c u l t u r e , Ottawa, 1961,  Pamphlet,  various  Canada  Department  ARDA, Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement 1970-75. Department o f R e g i o n a l Economic E x p a n s i o n Canada and Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e and Food O n t a r i o , Ottawa, 1970.  ARDA R e p o r t s and D i g e s t s , National 1966.  Rural Manpower. Ottawa:  Queen's P r i n t e r ,  , Manpower Adaptability and Economic Growth: From the Farm to the Factory. Ottawa, Canada Department o f A g r i c u l t u r e , 1963. A u e r , L. ECC S t a f f Study #24. Queen's P r i n t e r , 1970.  Canadian Agricultural  B l e i b t r e u , John N.  of the Beast.  The Parable  Productivity.  New Y o r k :  B u c k l e y , H. and E. T i h a n y i . ECC S p e c i a l Study #7. Adjustment. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967,  Ottawa:  C o l l i e r Books, 1971.  Canadian Policies  for  Rural  Canadian C e n t r e f o r Community S t u d i e s . Multi-Disciplinary Research on Development Problems of a Low-Income Agricultural Area: An Overview of ARDASponsored Research on Census Division 15. S a s k a t o o n , 1967, C a m p b e l l , D. R. "Overcoming t h e C a n a d i a n 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 o f S t a t i s t i c s . 1961.  Census of Canada.  Economic C o u n c i l o f Canada. Fifth Annual Review: Change. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1968.  85  Ottawa:  Queen's P r i n t e r ,  The Challenge  of Growth and  86  Garland, S. W. and S. C. Hudson. A Report Prepared for the Federal Task Force on A g r i c u l t u r e , Government Involvement in AGriculture. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969.  Isaac, J u l i u s . Economics of Migration. and Co. L t d . , 1947.  Katona, George. Psychological Analysis McGraw-Hill Book Co. Inc., 1951.  K r i e r , H. Rural Manpower and Industrial OECD, 1961.  London:  Kegan Paul, French, Trubner  of Economic Behavior.  Development.  New York:  General Report,  Lianos, Theodore P. "Labor M o b i l i t y and Market Imperfections," Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics, V o l . 18, No. 3 (1970).  Proceedings of the Canadian Agriculture 1969.  Congress.  Ottawa:  Queen's P r i n t e r ,  Report of the Federal Task Force on A g r i c u l t u r e . Canadian Agiruclutre Seventies. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969. Richards, J . H. and K. I . Fung (Eds). Atlas of Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan, Saskatoon, Modern Press, 1969. Selected S t a t i s t i c a l Information on Agriculture in Canada. ment of A g r i c u l t u r e , Economics Branch, 1967. Special Planning SEcretariat. Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967. Stone, Leroy 0.  Migration  in the  U n i v e r s i t y of  Ottawa, Canada Depart-  Index of Programs for Human Development.  in Canada.  Ottawa:  Ottawa:  Queen's P r i n t e r , 1969.  Summary and Reports of the Panel Discussions: Federal-Provincial Conference on Poverty and Opportunity. Ottawa, Privy Council O f f i c e , Special Planning Secretariat, 1966.  Winter, G. R. " C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and Consequences of Rural Poverty." Mimeo. Vancouver, University of B r i t i s h Columbia, Department of A g r i c u l t u r a l 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 m a r i t a l 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 c h i l d r e n 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 i n t h i s area? (c) How many have l e f t t h i s area? (d) Where d i d they go? /probe f o r address/ (e) Are there any other people l i v i n g i n your home?  8.  (a) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling d i d you complete? (b) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling d i d your wife complete?  9.  (a) Did you (b) D i d she  you acquire any other s k i l l s a f t e r you l e f t school? What were trained i n ? your wife have any t r a i n i n g a f t e r she l e f t school? What was trained in?  10.  How long have you l i v e d  i n t h i s area?  11.  (a) Where d i d you l i v e before here? (b) Why did you move? (c) How long d i d you l i v e there?  12.  (a) What sort of work did you do i n 1970? /specify within category/ (b) How many years had you been working i n t h i s occupation? (c) Did you have a secondary occupation i n 1970? If yes, what was your secondary occupation?  13.  (a) Have you been unemployed during the l a s t year? (b) How long have you been unemployed? (c) What was the reason f o r your unemployment?  88  89  / I f f ? r m / What i s t h e t o t a l a r e a o f a l l l a n d you own and o p e r a t e ? A r e a owned? A r e a r e n t e d o r l e a s e d from o t h e r s ? How many a c r e s do you have i n :  (e)  (1) c r o p ? (2) summer f a l l o w ? (3) p a s t u r e ? (4) unimproved? What i s your main p r o d u c t s o l d ?  15.  Have you thought o f moving from h e r e d u r i n g t h e l a s t two y e a r s ? /probe/ (a) D e f i n i t e l y moving? (b) Have thought about moving? (c) Have n o t t h o u g h t about moving /go t o q u e s t i o n 18/  16.  (a) Where would y o u 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 p l a c e ?  17.  What r e a s o n s make y o u want t o move from here?  18.  What r e a s o n s make you want t o c o n t i n u e l i v i n g i n t h i s reasons/  19.  (a) Supposing t h a t you would have t o move t o l i v e i n a c i t y o r a town a l l o f a sudden, w h i c h o f t h e f o l l o w i n g t h i n g s do you know about? /ask e a c h i t e m / (1) j o b s (2) h o u s i n g (3) c o s t o f l i v i n g (4) s h o p p i n g (5) s c h o o l s (6) r e c r e a t i o n (7) c l i m a t e (8) t h e way p e o p l e l i v e (9) o t h e r (10) don't know  /probe f o r r e s p o n s e s / a r e a ? /probe f o r  (b) Where would/do you g e t y o u r i n f o r m a t i o n about t h e s e thimgs? t h e / a s k each i t e m / (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 a g e n c i e s o t h e r t h a n Manpower (8) r e l a t i v e s i n u r b a n a r e a s (9) f r i e n d s i n u r b a n a r e a s (10) p e o p l e here (11) o t h e r (12) no i n f o r m a t i o n  Through  90  20.  What k i n d s o f t h i n g s would you l i k e t o know a c c u r a t e i n f o r m a t i o n about i f you were moving to a c i t y o r a town? (a) j o b s (b) h o u s i n g (c) c o s t of l i v i n g (d) shopping (e) s c h o o l s (f) r e c r e a t i o n (g) c l i m a t e (h) the way p e o p l e l i v e (i) other ( j ) none  21.  Do you know of any p e o p l e who moved from here t o a town o r a c i t y d u r i n g the l a s t f i v e years? I f yes, - c o u l d you t e l l me where d i d t h e y move to? - c o u l d you t e l l me a t what a d d r e s s I c o u l d get i n t o u c h w i t h them? Name Address  / I n t r o d u c e t h i s s e c t i o n w i t h some c o n v e r s a t i o n a l remarks/. . .1 would l i k e t o a s k you some q u e s t i o n s about your economic s i t u a t i o n h e r e , and what i t might be l i k e somewhere e l s e . 22.  Did how (a (b (c (d (e (f (g (h (i (j (k (1 (m (n  you r e c e i v e any income from the f o l l o w i n g s o u r c e s i n 1970? much? g r o s s farm income net income from f a r m i n g e a r n i n g s from main o c c u p a t i o n ( b e f o r e d e d u c t i o n s ) e a r n i n g s from second o c c u p a t i o n ( b e f o r e d e d u c t i o n s ) e a r n i n g s by dependents ( b e f o r e d e d u c t i o n s ) unemployment i n s u r a n c e w e l f a r e payments family allowances p e n s i o n s (government) pensions (other) Workmen's compensation r e n t income i n t e r e s t and d i v i d e n d income other  T o t a l income  I f yes,  ( e x c l u d e i t e m a)  23.  I f you were t o move t o a c i t y o r town, what s o r t of j o b would you l o o k f o r ?  24.  I f you were t o move t o a c i t y your income? (a) none (b) more (c) l e s s  25.  How (a) (b) (c)  or town, what changes would you expect i n  much would you expect to earn from /probe f o r r e a s o n s / wages and s a l a r i e s self-employment o r non-farm b u s i n e s s n e t income from farm? ( p a r t n e r s h i p , i f n o t s o l d or r e n t e d ) -  91  (d) earnings by dependents (e) other sources, e.g., rent, i n t e r e s t , unemployment insurance, e t c . 26.  What would you estimate i s the f a i r value of any property you own? (a) Farm: b u i l d i n g s 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 t h i s property outright? 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? would you expect to get f o r your: (a) Farm: b u i l d i n g s and machinery land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other  I f no, how much do you owe  I f yes, how much  If given values d i f f e r e n t than on question 26, probe f o r reasons. 29.  /If How (a) (b) (c) (d)  question 16 indicated a possible urban move/ much would you think a move to would cost you i n : wages l o s t while moving wages l o s t while looking for a new job moving your belongings transportation costs f o r 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, l i g h t , 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, l i g h t , 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 I I  INTERVIEW SCHEDULE PART TWO DECISION MAKING IN RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION  1.  Sex of household  head.  2.  What i s your m a r i t a l 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 i n your home?  8.  (a) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling d i d you complete? (b) Could you t e l l me how many years of schooling d i d your wife complete?  9.  (a) Did you (b) Did she  you acquire any other s k i l l s a f t e r you l e f t school? What were trained in? your wife have any t r a i n i n g a f t e r she l e f t school? What was trained in?  10.  In what year d i d you move from farm? previous residence?  How long had you l i v e d at your  11.  (a) What sort of work d i d you do before you moved? /specify within category/ (1) Self-employment (2) Farming (3) Working i n a job (4) Other (b) How many years had you been working i n t h i s occupation? (c) Did you have a secondary occupation before you moved? I f yes, what was your secondary occupation?  12.  /If (a) (b) (c)  farm/What was the t o t a l area of a l l land you owned and operated? Total area Area owned Area rented or leased  93  94  (d) How many acres d i d you have i n : (1) crop (2) summer fallow (3) pasture (4) unimproved (e) What was your main product sold? 13.  What d i d you do with your farm when you moved? (a) s e l l i t ' (b) rent i t out (c) operate i t i n partnership with someone (d) S t i l l own i t , but l e f t i n fallow (e) Other /specify/  D i you:  14.  Could you t e l l me why d i d 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) I f no, what makes you think so?  16.  Before you moved, what kinds of things d i d you know about: (a) jobs (b) housing (c) cost of l i v i n g (d) shopping (e) schools (f) r e c r e a t i o n (g) climate (h) the way people l i v e ( i ) other (j) don't know  17.  Where d i d you get your information about these things? (a) radio (b) t e l e v i s i o n (c) l o c a l newspaper (d) newspaper from c i t y (e) magazines (f) Canada Manpower (g) government agencies other than Manpower (h) r e l a t i v e s i n 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 i n helping you to make the decision to .move?  ?  Through the:  Next, I would l i k e to ask you some questions about your economic s i t u a t i o n , what i t was l i 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 y e a r b e f o r e you moved from ? (a) Gross farm income (b) Net income from f a r m i n g (c) E a r n i n g s from main o c c u p a t i o n (d) E a r n i n g s by dependent (e) Other income ( e . g . , second j o b , unemployment i n s u r a n c e , r e n t , e t c . ) T o t a l income ( e x c l u d e item a)  20.  C o u l d you t e l l me what j o b s d i d you h o l d s t a r t i n g w i t h your most r e c e n t j o b ?  s i n c e you moved from  21.  O r i g i n a l l y how much d i d you expect t o e a r n t h e f i r s t y e a r a f t e r you moved? (a) G r o s s f a r m income ( i f applicable) (b) Net income from f a r m i n g (c) E a r n i n g s from main o c c u p a t i o n (d) E a r n i n g s by dependents (e) O t h e r income ( e . g . , second j o b , r e n t , unemployment i n s u r a n c e , e t c . )  22.  When you moved, what s o r t o f j o b d i d you l o o k f o r a t f i r s t ?  23.  What was your income i n 1970 from a l l s o u r c e s ? (a) G r o s s farm income ( i f applicable) (b) Net income from f a r m i n g (c) E a r n i n g s from main o c c u p a t i o n (d) E a r n i n g s from dependents (e) Other income (e.g., second j o b , r e n t unemployment i n s u r a n c e , f a m i l y allowance, e t c . ) T o t a l income ( e x c l u d e i t e m a)  24.  (a) When you moved d i d you s e l l any o f your p r o p e r t y ? much d i d you g e t f o r y o u r : (1) Farm; b u i l d i n g s and m a c h i n e r y land livestock (2) House (non-farm) (3) L o t (4) Land (non-farm) (5) B u s i n e s s (6) Other (b) D i d you g e t what you expected?  25.  D i d you owe any money on any of t h e p r o p e r t y you s o l d ? much o n : (a) Farm: b u i l d i n g and m a c h i n e r y land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) L o t (d) Land (non-farm) (e) B u s i n e s s ( f ) Other  I f y e s , how  I f y e s , how  96  26.  What would you estimate i s the f a i r value of the property you s t i l l (a) Farm: buildings and machinery land livestock (b) House (non-farm) (c) Lot (d) Land (non-farm) (e) Business (f) Other  own:  27.  How (a) (b) (c) (d) (e)  much did i t cost you to move, i n Wages l o s t while moving Wages l o s t while looking f o r a new job Moving your belongings Transportation costs f o r your family Other  28.  How (a) (b) (c) (d) (e) (f) (g) (h) (i) (j)  much did you estimate you spent before you moved on: Housing per month Food per week Transportation per week Clothing per year E l e c t r i c i t y , gas, phone, etc., per month Household expenses (furniture, appliances, r e p a i r s ) Medical expenses per year (those not covered by government insurance) Recreation per month Property taxes per year Other expenses  29.  Did you expect that your costs of l i v i n g a f t e r 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, e t c . 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? back?  If yes, what makes you want to move  Remarks on Interview  APPENDIX IV SOME SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RURAL RESPONDENTS  TABLE 1 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SEX OF HOUSEHOLD HEAD  SEX Male  NO.  %  70  98.6  Female  1  1.4  TOTAL  71  100.0  TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MARITAL STATUS  MARITAL STATUS  NO.  Single Married Widowed, D i v o r c e d , Separated  %  9  12.7  57  80.3 7.0  5  TOTAL  71  98  100.0  TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LENGTH OF MARRIAGE  YEARS MARRIED  %  NO.  6-10 11 - 15 16 - 20 20 - Over  12 3 5 9 5 37  17.0 4.2 7.0 12.7 7,0 52.1  TOTAL  71  100.0  3°-5  N = 59 Mean = 21.78 y e a r s Standard D e v i a t i o n = 9 . 9 7 Range = 3 - 4 2  TABLE 4 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE OF HEAD  AGE GROUP  NO.  15 25 35 45 55 65  1 7 19 22 14 8  1.4 9.9 26.7 30.8 19.7 11.3  71  100.0  -  TOTAL  24 34 44 54 64 Over  %  N = 71 Mean = 48.62 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 10.96 Range = 2 4 - 6 8  TABLE 5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY AGE OF SPOUSE  %  AGE GROUP  NO.  15 25 35 45 55 No  1 12 20 15 9 14  1.4 16.9 28.2 21.1 12.7 19.7  71  100.0  - 24 - 34 - 44 - 54 - 64 Response  TOTAL  N = 57 Mean = 4 3 . 6 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 10.61 Range = 2 1 - 6 4  TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN  %  NO. OF CHILDREN  NO.  No Response 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 13  10 2 7 15 15 12 2 2 4 1 1  14.1 2.8 9.9 21.1 21.1 16.7 2.8 2.8 5.6 1.4 1.4  71  100.0  TOTAL  N = 61 Mean = 3.33 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 2.19 Range = 0 - 1 3  TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED  YEARS OF SCHOOLING  NO.  %  No Response 0-5 6-8 9-11 12 13 - 15  3 7 34 23 3 1  4.2 9.9 47.9 32.4 4.2 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 0-5 6-8 9-11 12 13 - 15  14 3 24 17 11 2  19.7 4.2 33.8 23.9 15.5 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  NO.  %  3  4.2  Yes  11  15.5  No  57  80.3  TOTAL  71  100.0  TRAINING OF HEAD  No Response  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  20 - Over  3 1 4 3 1 59  4.2 1.4 5.6 4.2 1.4 83.1  TOTAL  71  100.0  0-2 3-5 6-10 11 - 15  N = 68 Mean = 35.15 Standard D e v i a t i o n =  16.23  Range = 2 - 6 3  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 3-5 6-10 11-15 16-20  63 2 4 1 1  88.7 2.8 5.6 1.4 1.4  TOTAL  71  100.0  TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY OCCUPATION IN 1970  OCCUPATION No Response  NO. 2'  Farming  68  Labor  1  TOTAL  71  % 2.8 95.8 1.4 100.0  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 6-10 11-20  5 2 8  7.0 2.8 11.2  20 - Over  52  72.8  TOTAL  71  100.0  N = 34 Mean = 19.24 Standard D e v i a t i o n  =  11.23  (Mean i s u n d e r e s t i m a t e d s i n c e r e s p o n s e s " a l l my l i f e " wa6 n o t counted)  TABLE 16 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SECONDARY JOBS HELD  SECONDARY JOBS HELD  NO.  %  3  4.2  Ye's  10  14.1  No  58  81.7  TOTAL  71  100.0  No Response  TABLE 17 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE OWNED AND OPERATED  %  ACREAGE  NO.  No Response 0 - 160 161 - 320 321 - 480 481 - 640 641 - 800 801 - 960 961 - 1120 1121 - 1280 1281 - Over  2 3 6 8 19 8 8 7 3 7  2.8 4.2 8.4 11.3 26.8 11.3 11.3 9.9 4.2 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 0 - 160 161 - 320 321 - 480 481 - 640 641 - 800 801 - 960 961 - 1120 1121 - 1280 1280 - Over  1 4 13 19 13 8 6 4 2 1  1.4 5.6 18.3 26.8 18.3 11.3 8.4 5.6 2.8 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 0 - 160 161 - 320 321 - 480 481 - 640 641 - 800 801 - 1120  35 13 8 5 4 2 2  49.3 21.1 11.3 7.0 5.6 2.8 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 f o r N = 69) TABLE 20 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY ACREAGE CULTIVATED  ACREAGE  NO.  No Response 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 601 - 700 701 - 800 801 - 900 901 - 1000 1001 - Over  5 6 9 11 12 4 8 3 1 5 5  7.0 8.5 12.7 15.5 16.9 5.6 11.3 4.2 1.4 7.0 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 Grains Wheat Mixed Cattle Hogs Rape Seed Sheep  2 15 17 24 8 1 3 1  2.8 21.1 23.9 33.8 11.3 1.4 4.2 1.4  TOTAL  71  100.0  TABLE 22 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY 1970 TOTAL INCOME  INCOME  NO.  %  No Response 0 - 1000 1001 - 2000 2001 - 3000 3001 - 4000 4001 - 5000 5001 - 6000 6001 - Over  6 19 13 10 11 8 2 2  8.5 26.8 18.3 14.1 15.5 11.3 2.8 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 0 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 30,000 30,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 70,000 70,001 -100,000 100,001 - Over  6 1 5 11 9 8 8 14 9  8.5 1.4 7.0 15.5 12.7 11.3 11.3 19.7 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 0 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000 10,001 - 15,000 15,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 30,000 30,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 75,000  34 12 9 5 4 2 1 3 1  47.9 16.9 12.7 7.0 5.6 2.8 1.4 4.2 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 1,001 - 1,500 1,501 - 2,000 2,001 - 2,500 2,501 - 3,000 3,001 - 3,500 3,501 - 4,000 4,001 - 4,500 4,501 - 5,000 5,001 - Over  5 2 11 11 13 10 5 3 3 8  7.0 2.8 15.5 15.5 18.3 14.1 7.0 4.2 4.2 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  Male  NO.  %  22  100.0  22  100.0  Female TOTAL  TABLE 2 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY MARITAL STATUS  MARITAL STATUS  NO.  %  Single  1  4.6  Married  21  95.4  22  100.0  Widowed, Divorced, Separated TOTAL 111  TABLE 3 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY LENGTH OF MARRIAGE  YEARS MARRIED  NO.  %  No Response 6-10 11-15 16-20 20 - Over  1 2 2 1 16  4.6 9.1 9.1 4.6 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 25 35 45 55 65  Response - 34 - 44 - 54 - 64 - Over  TOTAL  1 1 4 7 8 1  4.5 4.5 18.2 31.9 36.4 4.5  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 Response 25-34 35-44 45-54 55 - 64 TOTAL  NO.  %  1 2 9 7 3  4.5 9.1 40.1 31.9 13.6  22  100.0  N = 21 Mean = 45.38 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 9.00 Range = 2 8 - 6 4  TABLE 6 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF CHILDREN  NUMBER OF CHILDREN  0 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL  NO.  %  2 1 9 6 1 1 2  9.1 4.5 40.9 27.3 4.5 4.5 9.1  22  100.0  N = 20 Mean = 2 . 9 Standard D e v i a t i o n = 1.37 Range = 1 - 6  TABLE 7 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEARS OF SCHOOL COMPLETED  YEARS OF SCHOOLING  NO,  0-5 6-8 9-11 13 - 15  1 15 5 1  TOTAL  22  4.5 68.2 22.7 4.5 100.0  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 9-11 12  1 1 11 7 2  TOTAL  22  4.5 4.5 50.0 31.8 9.1 100.0  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 Yes No  2 5 15  9.1 22.7 68.2  TOTAL  22  100.0  TABLE 10 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TRAINING OF SPOUSE  TRAINING  NO.  %  No Response Yes No  2 4 16  9.1 18.2 72.7  TOTAL  22  100.0  116  TABLE 11 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY YEAR OF MOVE  YEAR OF MOVING  1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 - before TOTAL  NO.  %  1 3 4 2 9 3  4.5 13.6 18.2 9.1 40.9 13.6  22  100.0  TABLE 12 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF YEARS SPENT FARMING  NUMBER OF YEARS  NO.  %  No Response 16 - 20 20 - Over  4 5, 13  18.2 22.7 59.1  TOTAL  22  100.0  TABLE 13 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY SECONDARY OCCUPATION BEFORE MOVING  SECONDARY OCCUPATION  NO.  Yes No  6 16  27.3 72.7  TOTAL  22  100.0  TABLE 14 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL ACREAGE OWNED AND OPERATED WHILE FARMING  ACREAGE 0 161 321 481 641 801 961  -  TOTAL  160 320 480 640 800 960 1120  NO. 1 3 8 3 3 2 2  4.5 13.6 36.4 13.6 13.6 9.1 9.1  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 0 - 160 161 - 320 321 - 480 641 - 800 801 - 960 961 - 1120  1 2 4 10 2 1 2  4.5 9.1 18.2 45.5 9.1 4.5 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 0-160 161 - 320 321 - 480  16 2 3 1  72.7 9.1 13.6 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 101 - 150 201 - 250 251 - 300 301 - 350 351 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 701 - 800 9.01 - 1000 TOTAL  6 1 2 2 1 1 4 2 1 2  2713 4.5 9.1 9.1 4.5 4.5 18.2 9.1 4.5 9.1  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 Grains Wheat Mixed Cattle Dairy  1 10 4 4 1 2  4.5 45.5 18.2 18.2 4.5 9.1  120  TABLE 19 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL INCOME FOR THE LAST YEAR SPENT FARMING  TOTAL INCOME  "Very l i t t l e " ) "Don't know" ) 0 - 1,000 1,001 - 2,000 2,001 - 3,000 3,001 - 4,000 4,001 - 5,000 8,001 - Over TOTAL  NO.  7 4 2 1 4 2 2  31.8 18.2 9.1 4.5 18.2 9.1 9.1  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, f o r N = 21) TABLE 20 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY NUMBER OF JOBS HELD SINCE MOVING  NUMBER OF JOBS  NO.  0 1 2 3  4 11 5 2  18.2 50.0 22.7 9.1  TOTAL  22  100.0  TABLE 21 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY "PRESENT" JOB HELD  "PRESENT JOB"  NO.  %  Unemployed Labor Part-time Labor S k i l l e d Labor Retired  2 12 2 4 2  9.1 54.6 9.1 18.2 9.1  TOTAL  22  100.0  TABLE 22 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY KIND OF JOB FIRST LOOKED FOR  JOB  No Response Anything Carpenter Mechanic Janitor Caretaker Nothing TOTAL  NO.  %  2 9 1 2 1 5 2  9.1 40.9 4.5 9.1 4.5 22.7 9.1  22  100.0  122  TABLE 23 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY 1970 TOTAL INCOME  1970 Income $  NO.  %  1,000 - 3,000 3,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 7,000 7,001 - 9,000 10,000 -- Over  4 .3 7 6 2  18.2 13.6 31.8 27.3 9.1  TOTAL  22  100.0  N - 22 Mean = 6563.91 S t a n d a r d 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 10,001 20,001 40,001 50,001 100,000  -  10,000 20,000 30,000 50,000 100,000 Over  TOTAL  10 2 3 3 1 1  45.5 9.1 13.6 13.6 4.5 4.5  22  100.0  N - 12 Mean = 32850.00 Standard Deviation = 29457.93 Range = 4000 - 108000  TABLE 26 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY $ AMOUNT OWED ON PROPERTY SOLD  AMOUNT OWED  NO.  %  None 0 - 5,000 5,001 - 10,000  17 4 1  77.3 18.2 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 0 - 10,000 10,001 - 20,000 20,001 - 30,000 30,001 - 40,000 40,001 - 50,000 50,001 - 70,000 70,001 - 100,000 TOTAL  2 1 6 1 4 2 2 4  4.5 4.5 27.3 4.5 18.2 9.1 9.1 18.2  22  100.0  N = 20 Mean = 42275.00 Standard Deviation = 27118.38 1000 - 100000 Range = '.  TABLE 28 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL $ AMOUNT PRESENTLY OWING  %  $ OWING  NO.  No Response 0 - 10,000 10, 001 - Over  11 7 2  50.0 31.8 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 0 0 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 300  1 10 4 5 2  TOTAL  22  %  4.5 45.5 18.2 22.7 9.1 100.0  N = 11 Mean = 140.09 Standard Deviation = 86.68 Range = 1 1 - 3 0 0  TABLE 30 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING PRIOR TO MOVING  TOTAL COSTS $  NO.  No Response 1,501 - 2,000 2,001 - 2,500 2,501 - 3,000 3,001 - 3,500 3,501 - 4,000 4,001 - 4,500 5,001 - Over TOTAL  5 1 4 3 4 2 2 1 22  %  27.7 4.6 18.2 13.6 18.2 9.1 9.1 4.6 100.0  N = 15 Mean = 2982.13 Standard Deviation = 800.57 Range = 1847 - 4474  TABLE 31 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS BY TOTAL COSTS OF LIVING 1971  TOTAL COSTS $  NO.  %  No Response 0 - 3,000 3,001 - 4,000 4,001 - 5,000 5,001 - 6,000 6,001 - 7,000 7,001 - Over  1 3 4 4 3 3 4  4.6 13.6 18.2 18.2 13.6 13.6 18.2  22  100.0  TOTAL  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}]}"
                            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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101277/manifest

Comment

Related Items