Center for Population Research Monograph

RURAL-URBAN
MIGRATION
RESEARCH IN THE
UNITED STATES

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY
AND SYNTHESIS

BY
DANIEL O, |JPRICE

and
MELANIE M. SIKES

DHEW Publication No. (NIH) 75-565
 

Supported by the Center for Population Research,
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
under Contract Number NO1-HD 2-2708
and by the Office of Economic Opportunity
under Contract Number B 00-5209
with TRACOR, Inc., Austin, Texas

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
Public Health Service
National Institutes of Health
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Center for Population Research
Bethesda, Maryland 20014

 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Washington, D.C. 20402 — price $5.95
Stock Number 1746-00026

ii
Preface ___

Introduction

Contents

Part I: SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

Chapter 1.

Chapter 2.

Chapter 3.

» Chapter 4.

Chapter 5.

Sources of Migration ______________________________________
“Surplus” Population: Interplay of Natural Increase
and Labor Demand ________________________________
Areas of Heavy Outmigration ________________________

Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migration and Effects on

Rural Areas ________________________________
Aspirations and Intelligence __________________________
Age and Education __________________________________
FOPtIIIY .ocoiss rns aia mm is sara i a cmt
LIICOING: ee oe eee ecm es mm 0 i i
Work-Limiting Health Conditions ____________________
Effects on Rural Areas ______________________________
Summary _____________

The Decigion To Migrate ..ceeuvssmwsssmmm seme sis
Reasons for Moving ...cosessammmmmmvnsm ames
Subsidies and Services as Inducements to Moving ____
Barriers to Migration ________________________________
“Step” Migration ____________________________________
Summary ______________________________________

Adjustment of Migrants and Effects on Urban Areas ____
Educational Achievement ____________________________
Quality of Education __________________________________
Fertility meee eee mm mm
Income ______________________
Unemployment ______________________________________
Poverty and Welfare __________________________________
Social Adjustment: cee mmrsrr ese ——
Mental HEIN eee mem mmm mm mm mm i ii sei mi i
Effects on Urban Areas ______________________________
Summary ____________________

REturtt NABTREION co moms mission iioios 00 isiimaimt s
Age, Education, Employment, and Dependency ______
Reasons for Returning _________________.______________
Summary _________

30b6

w =

SOW Ogu,

—

13
13
15
15
16
16

17
18
20
20
21
22
22
23
25
25
26

29
29
30
31
Chapter 6.
Part II:
Part III:

Needed Research

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

1v
Preface

Rural-Urban Migration Research in the United States is
designed to help the researcher and policymaker to know what
has been done in this field over the past two decades, as a guide
to further research and to the development of policies and
programs relating to the distribution of population in the
United States. This objective is accomplished through an anno-
tated bibliography containing over 1,200 items (with key
items flagged to provide the student with an introduction to
the field), a synthesis of research findings, a topical index to
the bibliographic citations, and a listing of research needs.

The preparation of this monograph was stimulated by the
contract research program of the Behavioral Sciences Branch
in the Center for Population Research, National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development (NICHD), and Earl E.
Huyck, Ph. D., project officer, worked closely with the authors.
The NICHD in the National Institutes of Health established
the Center in 1968 as a focal point for biomedical and behav-
ioral research in the field of population relating primarily to
the United States. The Center’s program in behavioral sci-
ences research, fashioned and reviewed by consultants from
universities and research organizations working closely with
the staff, has concentrated on the determinants of fertility and
the consequences of population growth and change.

The Center has also had a special interest in the causes,
patterns, and consequences of migration related to the demo-
graphic evolution of large cities and the contrasting depopula-
tion of many rural or nonurban areas. Several studies have
therefore been funded to identify the conditions which precipi-
tate migration and to define its consequences. These studies
have been concerned, for example, with: the analysis of na-
tional trends based on Current Population Survey data col-
lected annually by the Bureau of the Census; migration in
response to employment opportunities in 14 States; migration
from eastern Kentucky to Cincinnati; the return movement
of black migrants to Birmingham, Ala.; patterns of residential
preferences and correlates of population redistribution in

Vv
Pennsylvania; and the relationship between migration and the

provision of public and private services within a metropolitan

area or region. A corollary of such research is the need for

systematic review of research available and the summary of

research requirements indicated by this review. A committee
of peers felt that the present monograph would fill this need.

The Chief of the Behavioral Sciences Branch, Jerry W.

Combs, Jr., Ph. D., welcomes your comments and suggestions

with respect to this specific monograph and to related popula-

tion areas that should be considered for inclusion in the

Center’s research program.

ARTHUR A. CAMPBELL,

Deputy Director,

Center for Population Research,

National Institute of Child

Health and Human Development.

vi
Introduction

The massive redistribution of the population of the United
States from rural to urban areas is the subject of this volume.
The objective is to provide a sourcebook for both researchers
already working in the field and students wanting an introdue-
tion to the field. The synthesis of research findings also gives
the policymaker an overview of internal migration in the
United States to the present as one basis for the consideration
of possible policies and programs that might be effected with
respect to the redistribution of population in the future.

The framework we have chosen attempts to follow the
migration process from the rural area to the urban area
during the period 1950-72 in terms of: sources and selectivity
of migration and effects on rural areas; the decision to mi-
grate; adjustment of migrants and effects on urban areas; the
characteristics of return migrants; and needed research indi-
cated by major gaps in knowledge in this field.

The bulk of the volume, Part II, consists of an “Annotated
Bibliography” arranged alphabetically by author. Part I repre-
sents the “Synthesis of Research” based on the findings in
Part II; and Part III, the “Topical Index,” provides a key to the
listings by subject matter. For example, the item on ‘“Bibliog-
raphies” refers to 43 listings of books and articles concerned
with parts of the broad field of rural-urban migration covered
in this volume.

While the annotations attempt to let the authors speak for
themselves, the synthesis section reflects the judgment of the
compilers of this bibliography as to how the individual contri-
butions come together to develop a knowledge base and the
conceptual and methodological tools for the field of rural-
urban migration.

The road to attainment of the objective set forth for this
volume is obviously fraught with pitfalls, so the information
presented must be couched in caveats. An effort to synthesize
research in any substantive area is bound to be unsatisfactory
to many workers in the field, because the very nature of a
synthesis requires that much of the research will not be cited.

vil
The present effort is no exception. Nor is it likely that two
different people would use the same framework. It would have
been possible for us to use a somewhat more theoretical
approach, but there is no adequate theoretical framework to
embrace the work which has been done, as most research on
rural-urban migration has been primarily descriptive. Many
theories and models of migration are included in the bibliog-
raphy and are indexed, but the emphasis throughout has been
on substantive findings rather than methodology, to the ex-
tent that these can be separated.

Lack of comparability in the measurement of migration
can lead to divergent findings between studies. In the United
States a move across a county line is fairly well accepted as the
definition of migration. However, some studies look at those
individuals who moved across a county line during the pre-
vious year, while others investigate those who were born in a
State other than their present residence. These two types of
migrants will almost certainly have different characteristics.
Accordingly, an effort has been made to indicate when a study
has used an unusual definition of migration and also when
there has been wide variation in the time periods over which
moves might have taken place.

A more critical problem is that many studies use estimates
of net migration while others use gross migration. Since the
individuals who comprise net migration are an abstraction, an
attempt has been made to avoid referring to characteristics of
net migrants. However, most migration studies utilize a type
of net migration which must lead to some qualification of the
findings. For example, those individuals living in Chicago in
1970 who moved there from Mississippi since 1965 are really
the residual of the total number who made the move. Those
who moved on elsewhere or returned to Mississippi before 1970
are not included. If the returnees are those who did not
succeed financially, the income picture of the residual mi-
grants looks more favorable than it otherwise would. Efforts
have been made to qualify the findings of those studies using
data of this type.

Since this volume is intended as a sourcebook for research-
ers and students, some titles emphasizing methodology and
others providing background information have been included
in addition to those titles dealing strictly with rural-urban
migration. Titles marked with an asterisk are felt to be most
important and ones with which a student in the field should be
familiar. The selection of such a list is highly subjective and

viii
would be different if made by any other research worker or
even if made by the authors at a different point in time. Many
volumes basic to the study of demography and migration are
not marked with an asterisk because it was felt that they did
not make a major contribution to the study of rural-urban
migration. There are bound to be oversights and errors of
judgment in the construction of such a list, and the two
authors have not always been in agreement on the starred
items. To our friends whose works are not so marked but
probably should be, our apologies.

The terms “white,” “nonwhite,” “Negro,” “black,” and “An-
glo” have changed usage during the period covered by this
bibliography. An effort has been made to use terms consistent
with the date of the material referenced. Bureau of the Budget
“Amendment to Circular No. A-46, August 8, 1969, Race and
Color Designations in Federal Statistics” states that the “des-
ignation ‘nonwhite’ will no longer be used . . . in any publica-
tion of statistical data or in the text of any statistical report.”
In discussing research published prior to 1969 dealing with
“nonwhites,” however, it seems reasonable to use the term
“nonwhite” rather than to rewrite history. The term “black”
has been substituted for “Negro” in most situations, but in
some places it has seemed more appropriate to use the term
“Negro.” The term “Anglo” is used to distinguish “other
whites” from Mexican Americans.

The term Standard Metropolitan Area (SMA) was not
changed to Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA)
until the 1960 census in accordance with a definitional change
made by the Statistical Standards Division of the Bureau of the
Budget. These abbreviations have been used consistent with
the date of the research being discussed.

While every effort has been made to include as many
relevant titles on rural-urban migration published since 1950
as possible, the bibliography is not exhaustive. We have at-
tempted to be selective in choice of titles, especially of those
annotated. In some cases, access to material governed the
possibility of annotation. Limits of time and resources have
precluded perusal of every title included here, and undoubt-
edly some works which should have been cited have inadvert-
ently been omitted.

The time period covered is from 1950 through the summer
of 1972, although important works published prior to 1950 have
been included as have a few foreign titles whose relevance

1X
made their inclusion seem desirable. Many unpublished papers
have been listed, some of which will have been published by
the time this volume appears in print. An attempt has been
made to annotate as many of these unpublished and fugitive
works as possible.

Most of the annotations do not contain critical material,
but evaluative remarks are supplied for some of the important,
recently completed research reports. Each annotated refer-
ence is designed to reflect the conceptualization and data
development of the referenced author(s). The length of an
annotation is not a key to the importance of work cited, for, in
general, the substantive aspect was the overriding factor.
Short works on subjects about which little is known might be
given more space than an excellent, lengthier work in a widely
studied area.

Titles were obtained from a variety of sources, including
published bibliographies (see “Bibliographies” listing in the
Topical Index). Also, the following journals were searched back
to 1950, or to their beginnings, if more recent: American
Journal of Sociology, American Sociological Review, Demogra-
phy, Geographical Analysis, International Migration Review
(Digest), Population Index, Poverty and Human Resources
Abstracts, Rural Sociology, Social Forces, and Social Research.

Additionally, the following journals were searched back to
1970: American Economic Review, American Journal of Agri-
cultural Economics, American Journal of Economics and Soci-
ology, Annals of the Association of American Geographers,
Economic Geography, Geographical Review, Journal of Geog-
raphy, Journal of Regional Science, Land Economics, Milbank
Memorial Fund Quarterly, Population Studies, Race, Rural
Economic Problems, Social Problems, Social Science Quarterly
(Southwestern Social Science Quarterly), Sociology and Social
Research, and Southern Economic Journal.

It is hoped that the collective annotations will provide a
broad knowledge of rural-urban migration, and that each
individually gives enough material to allow a reader to judge
whether the original source should be consulted.

Ms. Pat Koshel was monitor of the project during the stage
sponsored by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO Con-
tract B 00-5209), and Earl E. Huyck has been monitor for the
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
(NIH Contract NO1-HD-2-2708). Earl Huyck’s comments
and extensive, careful editing have made a large positive
contribution to the final product. Thanks also go to Ms. Joyce

Thoresen for aiding in manuscript preparation.
Major responsibility for the synthesis of research rests
with Price, while that for the annotated bibliography and

index belongs to Sikes.
DANIEL O. PRICE

MELANIE M. SIKES

AUSTIN, TEX.
January 1974

x1
 
Part 1

Synthesis of Research

Chapter 1

Sources of Migration

The farm population of the United States reached a high of
approximately 50 million in 1910. While the total population
was continuing to grow, the farm population declined to ap-
proximately 10 million by 1970 as a result of rural-urban
migration and urbanization. We begin our consideration of
rural-urban migration with an examination of the areas from
which migration takes place.

“Surplus” Population: Interplay of
Natural Increase and Labor Demand

Two basic factors are involved in producing a “surplus”
population for outmigration. One is an above-average rate of
natural increase (excess of births over deaths), and the other is
a decreasing demand for labor. Both of these factors are
present in rural areas of the United States, but until about
World War II the more important was probably the higher rate
of natural increase due to higher levels of fertility. Since World
War II, however, the fertility differential between urban and
rural areas has been decreasing (although rural areas still
have higher fertility), and the decreasing demand for farm
labor has assumed increasing importance in producing a sur-
plus population.
2 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

Rarely is it possible to find a study which mentions the
decreasing demand for farm labor without mentioning the
mechanization of agriculture, the “aggregation of agricul-
ture,” “changes in crop acreages,” and so forth. (See, for
example, the following citations in Part II, Annotated Bibliog-
raphy: 21, 93, 187, 189, 209, 269, 308, 418, 433, 469, 769.) In the
South the rate of declining agricultural employment has been
greater for Negroes than for whites, primarily as a result of
the Negroes’ greater concentration in cotton. From 1950 to
1969, the number of white family workers in agricultural
employment in the South declined from 2,741,000 to 1,192,000—
a decrease of more than 1!/> million, or approximately 56
percent. For Negroes the decline during the same period of
time was from 767,000 to 158,000—a reduction of more than
600,000, or 79 percent. This trend of diminishing farm labor
needs can be expected to continue through the 1970's (al-
though at a decreasing rate) as a consequence of technological
developments and the extension to farm labor of social legisla-
tion such as minimum wage and unemployment compensation
(613).

Rural blacks have been highly concentrated in cotton,
tobacco, and peanut culture. The mechanization of cotton
growing has been an important precursor of rural-urban mi-
gration of blacks. In 1950, only 1 percent of the cotton grown in
the South (excluding Texas and Oklahoma) was harvested by
machine (67). By 1969, 94 percent of southern cotton was
machine harvested, and chemical weed control had further
reduced the need for manual labor. Peanut production has
been mechanized, and acreage cutbacks and laborsaving de-
vices have reduced labor requirements in tobacco. Tobacco
growing could also be mechanized, but the present pattern of
crop allotments prevents the accumulation of the acreage
necessary for efficient mechanization. If and when mechaniza-
tion develops in tobacco culture, there will be the potential for
another wave of black migration from rural to urban areas
(1144).

Technological innovations in agriculture are the major
source of the southern black’s poor economic condition, and the
idea that migration leads to mechanization is not realistic
(269). Losses from the rural-farm population were proportion-
ately greater among blacks than among whites starting as far
back as 1930 (90). Blacks have been more likely to move out of
State than have whites when they left the farm (189). The
continuing growth of the total number of rural nonfarm blacks
SOURCES OF MIGRATION 3

in the South and the continuing decline of the Negro farm
population are well documented (308, 433). The birth rate
among rural blacks has been sufficiently high to more than
replenish the losses from outmigration (1192), and the total
black population in the rural South has increased.

Southern blacks, whites in Appalachia, Spanish-Ameri-
cans, and American Indians comprised less than 20 percent of
the rural population in 1950, but accounted for approximately
50 percent of the net rural-urban migration between 1950 and
1960 (66). Their overall outmigration rate was about 25 per-
cent, but there was only a 10-percent decline in their rural
populations. The difference was made up by high fertility.
Thus, despite the decreasing demand for farm labor, high rural
fertility is still an important factor in producing population
pressure that results in rural-urban migration (21, 66, 149, 174,
189, 261, 307, 418, 427, 432, 433, 434, 767, 822, 1192). Blanco’s
research (106) indicates that “prospective unemployment” (the
difference between the actual rate of change of employment
and the natural rate of increase of the working-age population)
can account for 85 percent of the variation in regional rates of
civilian migration.

Areas of Heavy Outmigration

Almost all of the areas in which there has been a loss of
rural population have been in the North Central or Southern
States, and rural areas in which there have been population
increases are areas that are basically nonagricultural (68). It is
important to distinguish between total rural and rural farm.
The rural-farm population of the United States has been
declining, but the total rural population has remained approxi-
mately stable.

Most of the farm-born population now live in nonfarm
areas (981). The net migration from rural to urban areas was
about 20-22 million between 1940 and 1960, and about 10
million of these were in the 1950's (68). While the rates of
outmigration from the rural-farm population remain high, the
total number of migrants is declining due to the decrease in
the total rural-farm population.
 
Chapter 2

Selectivity of Rural-Urban
Migration and Effects on Rural
Areas

The heavy outmigration from rural areas has been a
consequence of conditions in these areas and has also had an
impact on these conditions. The impact on the rural area is
determined by the number and the characteristics of the
people who leave. Those individuals who move away from an
area are different in many ways from those who remain. The
most important factor, but most difficult to study, may be
motivation. Why does one person decide to leave an area while
his brother, with similar characteristics, chooses to remain?
The differences between migrants and nonmigrants in motiva-
tion are relatively unstudied, and yet may constitute at least
part of the explanation for many of the other observed differ-

ences. Are outmigrants better educated than nonmigrants /

because individuals who have obtained more education are
more likely to move, or because highly motivated individuals
are more likely to stay in school longer and also more likely to
migrate? The answer to this question is important for policy
reasons, but little research points to its resolution. Informa-
tion on such variables as education and income suggests that
differences observed could be due to motivation, but we do not
know whether they are or not.

Aspirations and Intelligence

An examination of background differences between mi-
grants and nonmigrants shows that academic achievement
and urban-oriented interests are important factors in the
migration of boys, while social aggressiveness (as measured by
psychological tests) is a more important factor in the migration
of girls, although it is possible that marriage is an intervening
variable in this latter association (687). The sample on which
this conclusion was based was white, but the findings were

5
6 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

true for migrants from both rural-farm and rural-nonfarm
areas. Grigg and Middleton (403) support Lipset’s hypothesis
(637) that differential levels of aspiration between urban and
rural youths account for the higher socioeconomic mobility
rates of urban youth. Youths either brought up on farms,
whose fathers own farms, or who do not plan to attend college
are most likely to choose farming as a career and, thus, not to
migrate (56, 134, 192, 421, 422, 552, 761, 1036). Some authors
(134, 170, 1036) find no association between measured intelli-
gence and plans to farm or migrate, while others (421, 422, 552,
840) find a positive association between intelligence and plans
to migrate or not to farm. After reviewing much of the litera-
ture, Duncan (281) concluded that rural-urban migration
draws from the extremes of intelligence. It is quite likely that
other conditions, such as type of farming area and race, have
an important influence on the relationship between measured
intelligence and rural-urban migration.

Age and Education

Other well-established characteristics of rural-urban mi-
grants relate to age and education. Outmigrants from rural
areas are preponderantly young adults with better-than-aver-
age education (7, 281, 309, 557, 774, 837, 997, 999, 1045). The
educational selectivity is more pronounced for males than for
females and for blacks than for whites in recent years (429-
/ 431). The rate of outmigration from rural-farm areas is higher
for females and blacks (90, 142, 182). Females tend to migrate
at younger ages than do males (182, 653, 654). Since young
people generally are better educated than their elders, the age
selection could in itself explain the better education of mi-
grants. However, even within age groups, the migrants are
better educated than the nonmigrants remaining in rural
areas. There is some evidence that educational selectivity is
increasing, especially among blacks (67, 849). Data from the
Survey of Economic Opportunity (148) show that rural-urban
migrants are better educated than rural nonmigrants among
both whites and blacks. In fact, white migrants, on the aver-
age, have 1.4 more years of education than white rural nonmi-
grants, while black rural-urban migrants have only 0.8 years
more education than black rural nonmigrants. These data are
for the population age 17 and over, and include the cumulative
effects of differentials. In a young age group the difference
would be greater for blacks, since the educational selectivity of
black rural-urban migrants seems to have been increasing.
SELECTIVITY OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION 7

Fertility

Negro fertility increased during the period of rapid urbani-
zation of the Negro population, apparently as a consequence of
improved health and welfare facilities and as part of the
general fertility increase of all groups following World War 11.
As Farley (308) states, “Urbanization does not appear to have
reduced Negro fertility” (see also 304), but he also points out
that if the rural-urban migration had not occurred, the 1960
fertility rate would have been even higher. The Survey of
Economic Opportunity (148) shows that fertility (number of
children ever born per 1,000 females aged 35-44) of rural-urban
migrant females was significantly less than that of females
remaining in rural areas (17 percent less for whites and 32
percent less for blacks). It is not known whether this is due to
selection or to the effect of migration. The fertility of each
black group is considerably higher than that of the correspond-
ing white group, however. It should be remembered that this
measure of fertility is for women who were at, or near, the end
of their childbearing (age 35-44 in 1967). According to Farley
(304), this is not the cohort of black females that likely will
have the highest completed fertility, but it is reasonable to
assume that these differentials between rural females and
rural-urban migrants will continue, with resulting reductions
in black fertility.

Rural-urban migrants in poverty in 1967 had higher levels
of fertility than did rural-urban migrants who were not in
poverty. Even among black rural-urban migrants in poverty,
however, the fertility rate was still slightly below that found
among rural blacks and appreciably below that of rural blacks
in poverty. White rural-urban migrants in poverty had a
higher level of fertility than did rural whites in general, not as
high a fertility level as rural whites in poverty, and a higher
fertility level than black rural-urban migrants.

In general, rural-urban migrants have lower fertility
than the rural nonmigrants. The rapid urbanization of the
black population did not result in a reduction of black fertility
because the fertility of all groups was increasing at the time.
However, total black fertility is not as high as it would have
been without the effects of rural-urban migration.

Income

One of the most consistent findings of all the research
studies is that rural-urban migrants earn more than nonmi-
8 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

J grants left in the rural areas (6, 148, 693, 823, 1181). The
studies are not consistent in their findings as to the amount of
difference, but this can be explained by the fact that different
studies focused on different populations and different age
groups at varying times of migration and with varying lengths
of time in urban areas. While blacks earn less in both urban
and rural areas, most studies report that the urban-rural
differences in income for blacks are greater in both absolute
and relative amounts. For example, consider the income of
male-headed families classed as rural of rural origin in con-
trast to rural-urban migrants as reported in the Survey of
Economic Opportunity (148). The rural and urban family-
income figures for blacks were $3,100 and $5,900, urban income
being nearly twice the rural income. For whites, the corre-
sponding figures were $6,400 and $8,300. A similar pattern of
differences was found within age groups, for unattached indi-
viduals, and for female-headed families. Thus, there is little
question that rural-urban migration improved gross income,
although the higher cost structure in urban areas would lessen
the apparent improvement.

Blum and Sorensen (114) do not support this finding and
conclude that, for blacks, *“. . . the fact that a geographical
transition took place is not important in determining income.
For nonblacks, the results are less clear-cut.” However, they
did not distinguish between rural-urban migrants and urban-
urban migrants, which would confuse the issue.

Wertheimer (1181) presents strong evidence that the in-
come gain by migration from a rural to an urban area in-
creases with the size of a city. (Cost of living probably in-
creases with size of city also, but there are no sound figures on
this point.) He also indicates that the gains are less during the
first 5 years in the city, but tend to reach a higher level
thereafter. The gains during the first 5 years compared to
later years are relatively larger for blacks than for whites. The
regression technique which he used in analyzing data from the
Survey of Economic Opportunity indicated little or no financial
gains in rural-urban migration for unrelated females and
female heads of households after adjustments for education,
age, and race.

An aspect not examined by most of the research but
having some relevance for the study of motivation for migra-
tion is the comparison between the incomes which migrants
had in the rural areas before migrating and the incomes of
others in rural areas at the same time who did not migrate. In
SELECTIVITY OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION 9

other words, do migrants have above-average incomes in rural
areas before migrating? Price and others (855) collected data
(unpublished) which shed light on this question. Among blacks
in Yazoo County, Miss., the probability of becoming a rural-
urban migrant after 1963 increased with increasing 1963 fam-
ily income. The rate of outmigration was significantly higher
among those blacks with higher family incomes. Among whites
in Butler County, Ky., the reverse pattern was found. The rate
of outmigration was lower among those whites with higher
incomes. A similar finding was reported among Kentucky
whites by Breazeale (163). Price and others found no associa-
tion between the rate of outmigration and family income prior
to migration among Mexican Americans. This lends support to
the Petersen and Sharp suggestion (823, p. 31) that “. . . white
men come to Cleveland to find a job, Negroes, to find a better
job.” These trends hold within the same income range and
income categories for blacks and whites and therefore are not
related to the differences in level of income between whites
and blacks in rural areas. The numbers were too small to
examine the trend within educational categories. These differ-
ential trends suggest that outmigration from rural areas may
deprive rural black communities of potential leadership to a
much greater extent than is true for rural white communities.

As a corollary to the improvement in income following
rural-urban migration, the proportion of rural-urban migrants
in poverty is considerably lower than the proportion of rural
residents in poverty (148, 855). Similarly, the proportion of
rural-urban migrants receiving welfare assistance is lower
than the proportion of the rural population of rural origin that
receives assistance (148).

Work-Limiting Health Conditions

The Survey of Economic Opportunity (148) shows that
there are no significant differences between rural nonmi-
grants and rural-urban migrants in terms of work-limiting
health conditions—approximately 18 percent of each group had
such conditions.

Effects on Rural Areas

Rural-urban migrants represent a selection of the more
capable individuals from the rural area, especially among
blacks. The migrants are younger, better educated, and, if
black, may have had a higher income in the rural area than
10 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

nonmigrants. What has been the effect on the rural areas of
the outmigration of this group?

One of the best documented effects on the rural areas is an
increase in the dependency ratio, the population under 15 and
over 64 years of age per 100 people 15 to 64 (see 7, 56, 73, 272,
811, 814, 850). This increase in the dependency ratio means
that those of labor-force age have more potential dependents
to support. The loss of young adults means that much of the
potential leadership of the community is gone. The fact that
the outmigrants are better educated means a reduced level of
education in those rural areas that have had heavy outmigra-
tion. The outmigration of the younger, better educated individ-
uals leaves behind the less well-educated, the young, and the
aged. These people have low potential for migration and are
unable to aid in attracting new industry to their areas because
they are not equipped for jobs in industry (73). The loss in
population has also meant difficulties for service establish-
ments and agencies, particularly those working on a county
basis (44, 272, 1045). The reduction in employment combined
with the resultant outmigration frequently has meant reduced
ability to support the education needed to prepare others
adequately for outmigration (7, 56, 730).

The age structure resulting from heavy outmigration in
many rural counties has resulted in natural decrease, with
deaths outnumbering births (59). However, since much, if not
most, of the movement is in response to “population pressure”
(106), one of the primary effects in many areas is some allevia-
tion of population pressure with resultant improvement of job
opportunities for those remaining (44, 53, 925). The extent of
this is a function of the amount of outmigration, fertility, and
the local job market. Despite heavy outmigration and its
effects on rural areas, the outmigration has not been great
enough to solve the problems of excess labor and low incomes
in agriculture (101, 165).

Summary

The outmigrants from rural to urban areas are generally
younger and better educated than those who stay behind and
may be more highly motivated. Heavy outmigration tends to
leave the rural areas with an excess of individuals in the
dependent ages (under 15 and over 65) and with individuals
less able to attract industry or other types of job opportunities
SELECTIVITY OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION 11

that would provide an alternative to farming. The migrants
find improved incomes and levels of living by migrating, but
there has been insufficient study of the consequences for the
rural areas left behind.

 
ee Eee Eee

 
Chapter 3

The Decision To Migrate

A previous section looked at the background from which
migration takes place. The present chapter considers how
these background factors are translated into individual rea-
sons for migration, the migration process, and choice of desti-
nations.

It is likely that the motivation for so complex a social
event as migration is rarely understood completely by the
migrant himself. The previous chapter discussed high fertility
and reduced demand for agricultural labor as the background
of rural-urban migration. The way in which these factors
impinge on a specific individual and result in a decision to
migrate, or not to migrate, may be quite intricate. The circum-
stances that lead one individual to migrate may be important
in another individual’s decision not to migrate.

Reasons for Moving

The Census Bureau points out (1111, No. 154) that “. . .
brief inquiries on reasons for moving do not necessarily pro-
duce a definitive catalogue of the causes of mobility, although
they do provide some useful insights.” In the study from which
the quotation is taken, approximately two-thirds of the mi--/
grants 18-64 years of age reported job-related reasons for
migration; 14 percent, change in marital status, or move with
family; approximately 10 percent, housing reasons; and 11
percent gave other reasons. In the national sample studied,
the Census Bureau found less than 1 percent reporting a
“forced” migration due to reasons beyond the individual's
control. In interviewing rural residents at or below the poverty
level, one study (855) found that approximately 10 percent of
the most recent moves had been due to circumstances beyond
the individual's control. We do not know if all of these moves
involved sufficient distance to be counted as migrations, but
the figure is much higher than the percent of “forced” moves
reported by the Census Bureau. In migration, as in other

13
14 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

matters, the poor seem to be more at the mercy of outside
forces than do others.

Consistent with the census results reported above, most
studies of reasons for migration find that economic and job-
related factors are the most frequently mentioned reasons
(115, 161, 605, 606, 647, 763, 865, 903, 1094). Various studies (115,
606, 855, 903, 1094) have found from 10 to 25 percent of
migrants moving for family reasons, that is, as a member of a
family whose head is moving, to join a family, as a result of
change in marital status, and so on. It is important to distin-
guish between decisions to migrate and to choose a destina-
tion, but these two decisions usually cannot be separated for
individuals moving for family reasons. For most other mi-
grants, there is usually the realization that they eventually
will migrate, but some precipitating event determines the time
of migration and the destination (6, 855). One study (855) found
that the precipitating event was most frequently an occupa-
tional or economic situation. For other individuals, a change in
marital or family status is the precipitating event, although
the Census Bureau (1111, No. 154) reports that only about 4
percent of male migrants give “change in marital status” as
the reason for migration. Blumberg (115) found that about 17
percent of the black female migrants into Philadelphia were
either joining or leaving their husbands. Sixty-five percent of
the female inmigrants chose Philadelphia as a destination
because of friends and relatives.

Virtually all studies of migration find that the destination
is chosen on the basis of friends and relatives (400, 448, 775,
855, 865). Some authors consider such a basis for making a
decision as “irrational,” since it may result in moves to areas
not likely to produce the highest economic returns (898, 899).
However, since the main information channel used by rural-
urban migrants, particularly those in poverty, is friends and
relatives, it is not surprising that this is the most frequent
basis for choice of destination. Many authors (103, 115, 441, 543,
658, 661, 685, 725, 751, 775, 994, 1002) have expressed concern
about the lack of information available to potential migrants
regarding alternative destinations, since friends and relatives
are rarely in a position to provide the information that would
yield greatest economic gains.

The Census Bureau (1111, No. 154) reports that two-fifths
of migrants give noneconomic reasons for migrating—housing,
family status, health, and so forth. Other sources suggest that
among potential migrants, noneconomic factors are more im-
THE DECISION TO MIGRATE 15

portant in the decision not to migrate than in the decision to
migrate (6, p. 22; 1013). Taylor (1078) reports the Area Redevel-
opment Administration finding that the major barriers to
relocation are psychological. Nonmigrants see the rural area
as providing healthy living conditions, esthetic enjoyment, and
a better homelife (1013). Landownership, capital investment,
and lack of information about urban conditions (cited above)
may also inhibit migration from the rural area. Low-socioeco-
nomic-status individuals more frequently mentioned economic
factors, while higher socioeconomic-status people gave non-
economic reasons (1104). This is consistent with the previously
mentioned finding that the poor are more likely to be at the
mercy of their surroundings and environment, while the non-
poor may migrate to obtain amenities rather than just eco-
nomic improvement.

Subsidies and Services as Inducements to Moving

Studies of the Labor Department’s labor mobility pro-
grams (306, 446, 520, 522, 783, 784, 1078) indicate that the offer
of a financial subsidy to cover costs of moving was reported by
the migrants to have had no effect in about one-third of the
cases, to have made migration possible earlier than it other-
wise would have occurred in one-third of the cases, and to have
been the deciding factor for another third. Thus, among this
group, we find a wide range in the certainty of the decision to
migrate, with the subsidy being the relevant factor in some
cases. Among those for whom the subsidy was the relevant
factor, a higher proportion returned to the rural area. Most
rural-urban migrants spend little money for the actual move,
and the costs of moving are more than recouped during the
first year (533, 543, 658, 775). Between 1952 and 1965 the
Bureau of Indian Affairs relocated 70,000 Indians from reser-
vations to cities (394, 395, 1078), but, despite the provision of
many services, two in five returned to the reservations.

Barriers to Migration

A study of rural poverty (7) indicated that the greatest
barriers to migration for blacks were security factors, family
ties, and fears of discrimination and the unknown. Off-farm
migration is hindered by the isolation of many farmers from
off-farm jobs and the nontransferability of farm skills, as well
as low educational levels (209). Sentimental attachments to
farms have limited nonfarm vocational-training opportunities
and impeded mobility (99).

XX
16 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

Some Government programs are designed to discourage
migration. Schon (931) classes rural industrial development,
Rural Electrification, Federal Housing Administration, unem-
ployment insurance, and welfare in this category. Government
/ programs identified by Schon as encouraging or contributing
to rural-urban migration are the Labor Mobility Demonstra-
tion Projects, the Department of Agriculture programs such as
acreage allotments, the minimum wage law, the Office of
Economic Opportunity Job Corps, and the Bureau of Indian
Affairs’ Employment Assistance Program.

“Step” Migration

The early heavy migration from the rural South was “step
migration,” first to southern urban areas, then to northern
urban areas (133). Among blacks there has been a shift from
step migration to direct migration as more friends and rela-
tives have accumulated in northern cities (903). During the
heaviest migration from the southern rural areas in the 1950’s,
whites tended to move from rural areas to urban centers in the
same State, while blacks moved from rural areas to urban
centers out of State (189).

Summary

While a variety of situations may lead to migration, the
individual’s decision, especially among lower income migrants,
is most likely to be based on economic, or job-related, factors.
The decision to migrate may be distinct from the choice of
destination, which is usually made on the basis of the location
of friends and relatives. Black migration has tended to shift
from step migration to migration directly out of the region,
while white migrants are more likely to move to urban areas
within the region.
Chapter 4

Adjustment of Migrants and
Effects on Urban Areas

Since the effect of rural-urban migration on urban areas is
largely a consequence of the adjustment of the migrants in the
urban areas, these two topics are treated together. The propor-
tion of the urban population made up of rural-urban migrants,
however, is also important.

It is frequently thought that many urban problems are
either caused or worsened by inmigrants from rural areas.
This conclusion is based on the assumption that these inmi-
grants are likely to be uneducated, black, and looking for
welfare assistance. In an earlier chapter we saw that these
migrants were better educated and younger than the average
rural resident, and were better off financially in the urban °
area than were their rural counterparts.

In 1967, 20 percent of the urban population aged 14 and
over had originated in rural areas (1145). The proportion was
higher among whites than blacks, indicating that there has
not been a disproportionate rural-urban migration of blacks
compared to whites. Data from the Survey of Economic Oppor-
tunity (147, 148, 614, 616) indicate the decreasing importance of
migration in the total population growth of urban areas, since
a larger proportion of the urban population increase in recent
years has come from natural increase rather than migration.

The age distribution of black rural-urban migrants does
not differ significantly from that of white rural-urban mi-
grants. The similarity of the effects of black and white migra-
tion on the urban population is reflected in the fact that, of the
urban population 17 to 29 years of age in 1967, 14.2 percent
were rural-urban migrants, and this percentage was exactly
the same for blacks and whites. In the urban population 50
years of age and over, 33 percent of the black population and
26 percent of the white population were rural-urban migrants.
The fact that these figures are higher than those for the 17-29
age group again reflects the decreasing importance of migra-

17
18 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

tion from rural areas on urban growth. The slightly higher
figure for blacks aged 50 and over indicates that in earlier
years migration was relatively more important in the growth
of the urban black population than it was in the growth of the
urban white population. This was primarily because of the
relatively small number of blacks in urban areas and their
concentration in rural areas at the time.

Most rural-urban migrants are white because most of the
population is white, and whites also are more migratory than
blacks. However, migration results in greater redistribution of
the black population because the counterstreams of migration
are generally smaller among blacks (293, 296, 776). Therefore,
migration has an important effect on the increase in the black
population of metropolitan centers outside the South. At the
present time, however, most of the population increase of
blacks in metropolitan areas is the result of natural increase
rather than migration (67, 642, 1063, 1181). The tremendous
reduction in the absolute size of the rural-farm population
makes it inevitable that the volume of rural-urban migration
will decline in the future, although it is still of significant
proportions. There are no figures on the annual amount of
rural-urban migration, although there are estimates of net
migration by decades for rural and urban areas, and estimates
of net annual off-farm migration by 5-year periods (1142).

Educational Achievement

Despite the fact that rural-urban migrants in general are
better educated than the people left behind in the rural areas,
they are moving into areas where the levels of education are
higher. Survey of Economic Opportunity (71) data indicate that
rural-urban migrants’ levels of education are similar to those
of nonmigrant urban residents. All rural-urban migrants 17
vears of age and over had a median of 11.8 years of school
completed, or nearly as much as the 12.0 years of school
completed by urban nonmigrants. For the white population,
the rural-urban migrants had exactly the same level of educa-
tion as did the urban nonmigrants, so they should not be
considered disadvantaged in terms of number of years of
school completed. (Quality of education is another matter
discussed later.)

Interregional rural-urban migration from the rural South
to urban areas outside the South shows a somewhat different
picture. For example, white interregional rural-urban mi-
grants 17 years of age and over had completed 9.6 years of
ADJUSTMENT OF MIGRANTS 19

school, compared to 11.1 years of school completed by nonmi-
grant urban residents outside the South (71). However, much
of this difference is a consequence of the age distribution of the
population classified as “interregional rural-urban migrants.”
Anyone living in an urban area in 1967 who lived in a rural
area at age 16 was classed as a rural-urban migrant, regard-
less of present age or age at migration. The educational
disadvantage of white interregional migrants increases with
increasing age. For those rural-urban migrants from the South
who were 17-29 years of age, the median educational level was
11.1 years, or only 0.3 year lower than the educational level of
urban nonmigrants outside the South. For those aged 30-49,
the educational level of both groups is lower and the difference
is greater, the migrants on the average having 0.7 year less
education. For those 50 and over, the educational leveis are
still lower, and the migrants are 1.1 years behind the nonmi-
grants in median educational attainment. If we assume that
all individuals migrated at approximately the same age, these
differences could have resulted from the increasing educa-
tional selectivity of rural-urban migration and/or the improv-
ing educational levels in the South.

A comparison of black rural-urban migrants with the
urban black nonmigrant population shows that migrants have
1.7 years less education on the average than do the urban
nonmigrants. This comparison poses the same problems in age
distribution that were discussed regarding whites. Also, we
usually think of black rural-urban migrants as moving out of
the South. Using the Survey of Economic Opportunity defini-
tion of rural-urban migrants, approximately one-half of the
black rural-urban migrants are in southern areas. There is
some evidence that black rural-urban migrants in recent years
have gone disproportionately out of the South (6, 269, 855, 903).
Blacks moving to urban areas out of the South have 2.0 years
less education than the nonmigrant urban population, but
black rural-urban migrants 17-29 years of age have 0.3 year
more education than nonmigrant blacks in urban areas outside
the South. This group of black migrants has a median of 11.1
years of schooling—exactly the same as that of white rural-
urban migrants out of the South. The rural-urban black mi-
grants 30-49 years of age have only 8.6 years of education on
the average, 2.0 years less than nonmigrant blacks of the same
age in urban areas outside the South. Since most of this older
group migrated some years ago, the educational gap between
black migrants and nonmigrants in urban areas outside the

 
20 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

South has been decreasing and has now disappeared or re-
versed. This could be the result of the increasing educational
selectivity of rural-urban migration and/or improving levels of
education in the South. We can conclude that recent rural-
urban migrants are no longer educationally disadvantaged as
compared to the urban residents they are joining when educa-
tion is measured by years of school completed.

Quality of Education

Young rural-urban migrant blacks had as much education
as did the urban black population they were joining, but there
are serious questions about the quality of the education they
received in the South. Weiss and Williamson (1175, p. 12) have
examined the effects of quality of education on income using
Survey of Economic Opportunity data and assuming that place
of residence at age 16 was the place at which education was
received. They conclude that—

Interregional differences in the quality of black education have relatively
weak effects on earning ability, and thus southern rural blacks suffer no
competitive disadvantage in urban labor markets, North or South; on the
contrary, . . . it appears to be the ghetto-educated black who suffers the
competitive disadvantage. An obvious explanation . . . is that other
features of rural southern origin outweigh the disadvantage of low-
quality formal education there. An implication is that the geographical
shift in population can only improve black incomes by the positive impact
on income from migration and by increasing the number of years of school
completed by migrants’ children. Education has a strong and consistent
effect on black incomes for the sample as a whole, and for each age group
in the interaction equation.

Schwarzweller (936) and Shannon and Krass (963) reached
similar conclusions. This does not imply that the quality of
education for blacks in the rural South is equal to that of the
urban North, but that the black rural-urban migrant is not
economically disadvantaged by what is probably a poorer
education.

Fertility

Females leaving rural areas for cities have appreciably
lower fertility than do those remaining in rural areas. When
compared with urban females of urban origin (148), migrants
show similar fertility patterns. Black female migrants aged 35—
44 had slightly lower numbers of children ever born per 1,000
females than did black urban females. Among whites, the
migrants had slightly higher fertility rates. Most studies,
ADJUSTMENT OF MIGRANTS 21

using data older than those of the Survey of Economic Oppor-
tunity, have found the fertility of black rural-urban migrants
to be between that of the rural and urban areas. The differ-
ences could be due to changes over time or to differences in
definition of rural-urban migrants. Regardless of the causes of
the disparity in findings, in fertility, as in education and
income, the black inmigrants resemble the urban population
more closely than do the white migrants.

It would be helpful to know more about the differences
between rural-farm and rural-nonfarm migrants in compari-
son with urban natives. While some studies indicate the same
general findings for farm migrants as for all rural-urban
migrants, few researchers have distinguished the two compo-
nents of the rural-urban migrant groups and presented compa-
rable data. Some studies have classified migrants by size of
place of origin, but comparable categories are rarely used.

Income

We next turn to the question of how migrants do finan-
cially compared to urban residents. Again, the most complete
information is provided by data from the 1967 Survey of
Economic Opportunity (67, 71, 148, 878). Of all individuals
classed as rural-urban migrants by the Survey of Economic
Opportunity, whites had a median income of $7,855, and blacks,
$5,116. In the urban population of urban origin, whites had a
median income of $8,557, and blacks, $5,105. The most striking
point here is that black rural-urban migrants had a slightly
higher income than did the urban blacks of urban origin. The
difference is not statistically significant, but indicates that, in
general, the rural-urban black migrants are doing as well
financially as the urban blacks of urban origin. Both black
groups had considerably lower income levels than whites, but
being black with a rural background is no more of a handicap
in an urban area than is just being black.

The white rural-urban migrants do not have as high a
median income as do white urban residents of urban origin. In
no age group of rural-urban white males is the family income
higher than that of similarly aged urban-of-urban-origin males
(71). The difference is least among those white families with
male heads 30-49 years of age. The income for rural-urban
migrants is $9,500, only $400 below that of similar urban
residents of urban origin. Among blacks, the families with
male heads under 30 years of age have higher incomes than do
those urban families whose male head is of urban origin.
22 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

Among black families with a male head 30-49 years of age, the
rural-urban migrants have a $300 lower median income than
those who are urban of urban origin. These figures support the
earlier statement that, for blacks in an urban area, having a
rural background does not add further to the disadvantage of
being black. Whites, however, are disadvantaged by the rural
background, although they tend to overcome some of this
disadvantage after several years’ residence in the urban area
(692).

For families with female heads, the picture is slightly
different. Such families have incomes only about half that of
male-headed families to start with. Among whites, families
with a female head who is a rural-urban migrant have higher
incomes than urban families with a female head of urban
origin, except where the female head is 50 or more years of
age. Among blacks, only those rural-urban female-headed
households where the head is under 30 years of age have
higher incomes than similar urban households. In other words,
among blacks, households in which the head is a rural-urban
migrant under 30 years of age tend to have higher incomes
than similar urban households, regardless of whether the head
is male or female. Among whites, households headed by female
rural-urban migrants apparently are not disadvantaged finan-
cially relative to urban female-headed households (71).

Unemployment

Findings on unemployment levels among migrants in com-
parison to urban natives are nearly unanimous in showing
that migrants are more likely to be unemployed. Peterson and
Sharp (823) and Lansing and Mueller (606) found that migrant
blacks had higher rates of unemployment, and Fried (336)
found the highest rates of unemployment among black-male
migrants arriving before age 18, but even those who arrived at
older ages had higher rates of unemployment than did the
native urban population. Although Beale, Hudson, and Banks
(70) did not find unemployment levels higher in general among
migrants from farms, they did find higher unemployment rates
among migrants at the young adult ages.

Poverty and Welfare

The proportions of the population in poverty are consistent
with the income distributions discussed earlier. White rural-
urban migrants have slightly higher proportions in poverty
ADJUSTMENT OF MIGRANTS 23

than have the white urban population of urban origin (67, 148).
The picture for blacks is mixed (148), with some categories of
black rural-urban migrants having higher proportions in pov-
erty than their urban counterparts, while other categories
have lower proportions in poverty. However, the proportions in
general are similar to those of urban blacks (148).

Since not all people in poverty receive welfare assistance,
especially in rural areas, the patterns of receipt of welfare are
similar, but not identical, to the patterns of poverty. Among
white families whose heads are rural-urban migrants, 4.0
percent received some form of welfare assistance as of 1967
(148). Only 2.3 percent of white families whose heads are urban
of urban origin received welfare assistance. Among black
families whose heads are rural-urban migrants, 17.3 percent
received welfare assistance as compared to 15.6 percent of
urban black families whose heads are of urban origin. Similar
patterns exist for unrelated individuals. Fried (336) found
similar proportions of black migrants and nonmigrants receiv-
ing welfare, and Struening, Rabkin, and Harris (1041) found
that black migrants do not end up on welfare roles more
frequently than permanent residents.

Social Adjustment

In addition to considering the economic adjustments of
migrants and their effects on urban areas, it is important to
consider their social adjustments. It is difficult to separate
economic and noneconomic factors, and the migrants’ identifi-
cation with the city is based on how well they are doing both
economically and socially (1199). Where economic advance is
clearly evident for migrants, satisfaction with (and adjustment
to) the move is nearly unanimous (823). While there is substan-
tial evidence that length of time in the city is probably the
most important factor in adjustment (606, 795, 878, 1181), there
are other intervening factors important for the recent mi-
grant.

One of the better established findings regarding rural-
urban migration is that most migrants have friends and/or
relatives in the urban area to which they are moving (6, 115, |
176, 648, 676, 855, 903, 943, 1088, 1098). While the function of
relatives and friends may vary from one class or ethnic group
of migrants to another, their influence on the adjustment of
newcomers is crucial.

Many researchers find that friends and relatives in distant
cities are the primary if not sole source of information about

 
24 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

the cities. Hostility of the new community is not as significant
as isolation from friends and relatives in the adjustment
process for migrants (520), and the presence of friends and
relatives in the city is more important for adjustment than
rural or urban background (897). Kin may be more psychologi-
cally supportive than functionally effective and many re-
searchers point to their “cushion” and “haven of safety”
function.

The presence of friends and relatives militates against the
migrant’s feeling disheartened, depressed, or pessimistic (897)
by providing temporary housing, giving job leads and informa-
tion, and by helping newcomers find their way around the city.
A very high percentage of all rural-urban migrants spend their
first night in the urban area with friends and relatives (336,
823, 855), yet the kin-friend network may also retard the
migrant’s development of new community contacts and partici-
pation in the wider society (897).

Social participation, frequently viewed as an indication of
adjustment to urban life, has been examined by many studies,
but each has used a different measure. Yet there is general

| agreement that rural-urban migrants participate less in volun-
| tary associations than do urban nonmigrants (111, 369, 530,

969, 1297, 1327). Migrants’ levels of social participation are
lower, but they seem more likely to hold leadership positions in
the organizations to which they do belong (111, 1297). Several
studies (531, 897, 1098) indicate a higher interaction with kin
among migrants and suggest the hypothesis that migrants
with extensive kin may participate in organizations less be-
cause the kin, while aiding in adjustment, actually function as
a barrier to integration in the city. Holt (503) hypothesized
that the growth of Holiness churches in urban areas is a
consequence of the isolation and insecurity of rural-urban
migrants. Dynes (286) did not find support for this hypothesis,
and Cunningham (254) and Jitodai (530) found reduced church
attendance among migrants. Jitodai indicated that the church
does not perform the same function in urban as in rural areas,
and therefore is not used by migrants in the process of
adjustment to urban life.

The involvement of migrants in crime is another indication
of their adjustment to urban living and an important aspect of
their impact on the urban area. Three studies of blacks (572,
921, 1095) found that inmigrants had lower rates of crime and
delinquency than did resident nonmigrants. One of these (Kin-
man and Lee, 572), while showing that prison commitments for
ADJUSTMENT OF MIGRANTS 25

migrants were 20 percent less than for nonmigrants, indicates
that the prison commitments for white migrants were 33
percent higher than for white nonmigrants after adjustment
for age differences.

Mental Health

The relative differences between migrants and nonmi-
grants in urban areas in regard to mental health have been
studied extensively without firm agreement on conclusions.
Most studies have found higher rates of mental hospital admis-
sions among rural-urban migrants (619, 671, 758, 1041), but
some (581, 583, 641) have found higher rates among urban
residents. Fried (336) found self-reported incidence of moder-
ate-to-severe emotional difficulties more frequent among mi-
grant than among nonmigrant black residents in Boston.
However, Sanua (920) feels that statistics on admissions to
mental hospitals are too crude to study the mental health of
migrants. Fabrega (301) points to cultural differences in the
diagnosis of type and severity of illness, with negative conse-
quences for Mexican Americans in particular. Bagley (34)
found a decrease in diagnosed mental illness among blacks
with increased length of time in the city. Breed (164), in
studying the effects of migration on suicide, found variations
by sex, race, duration of residence, and the difference between
lifestyles in the old and new community. These findings are
consistent with the idea that joining a “colony” of individuals
like oneself reduces the probability of mental illness. There are
not enough data to verify the theory, but there is some
evidence in its support and logic in the idea that the psycholog-
ical support function provided by kin does much to prevent
isolation and subsequent trauma (116, 164, 176, 285, 520, 945,
946, 1029).

Effects on Urban Areas

There is much disagreement in the literature about the
total effects of rural-urban migration on urban areas, but the
references cited previously indicate that the effects are not so
negative as have frequently been presumed. Using national
data from the Survey of Economic Opportunity, Bacon (31, 33)
found that “. . . poor rural-urban, South-North migrants of
both races constitute a minority of poor persons in Northern
ghettos and slums of cities.” Therefore, central-city conditions
must not be “blamed” on migrants from the rural South.
26 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

Rural-urban migration provides an urban area with additions
to its labor force that have cost it nothing to rear and educate.

Crowley (252) has estimated the cost to cities per inmi-
grant based on expenditures for highways, education, public
health, social security, and so on (welfare costs are not speci-
fied), per person by income category, as well as on tax income
from each person by income category. He estimates a national
median cost to urban areas of approximately $72 per inmi-
grant, with a variation from $12 to $300 among cities. He
discussed some questionable assumptions of the study and
concedes ““. . . that those who impose a cost in 1960 may be of
net benefit in later years.” If Crowley is correct that each
inmigrant costs a city so much money, and if Bryant and
Wilber (188) are correct that between 1950 and 1960 outmigra-
tion cost Mississippi $700 million a year, then the process of
migration is costing the United States a great deal of money at
both ends of the line. However, the evidence shows that the
incomes almost invariably improve with rural-urban migra-
tion.

The fallacy or inconsistency lies in the fact that Crowley
did not consider gains and costs over time, nor did he consider
the private sector of the economy, and Bryant and Wilber
assumed that had the migrants not moved they could have
been economically employed. Given the total situation, we
conclude that the individuals themselves are better off, and
that the area of outmigration is frequently relieved of surplus
population, with the result that the remaining individuals are
better off. While the inmigrant may well cost the city govern-
ment some sort of cash expenditure, this will be more than
repaid through the payment of taxes if the migrant does not
stay in poverty. Migration (labor mobility) is the major factor
in adjusting the geographic variations in economic opportu-
nity. Petersen and Sharp (824, p. 261) report in the conclusion
of their study in Cleveland, “We find little in these data to
nourish the lingering notion that the arrival of Southern
migrants per se signals the imminence of additional drains on
government budgets. . . .”

Summary

The adjustment of migrants to urban living is a difficult
concept to analyze because the definition of adjustment varies
from one culture and situation to another. A migrant may be
well adjusted to the smaller group of which he is a part but
ADJUSTMENT OF MIGRANTS 27

may not be at all integrated into the broader community. Only
when lack of adjustment leads to economic difficulties, mental
illness, crime, or other problems do we have any objective
criteria of lack of adjustment. The one conclusion that can be
drawn from studies of the adjustment of rural-urban migrants
is that there is no consistent pattern of failure of migrants to
adjust to urban living and, thus, to pose problems for the
urban areas in which they live.
—— 5 A gemma Em = a-—- = EE Em man

             

 

|
1
:
]

=
x al

=
Chapter 5

Return Migration

Many individuals who leave rural areas for urban areas
later return, and many migrants from southern rural areas to
the North eventually return to the South. However difficult to
quantify, such return movement should be considered concep-
tually as part of the rural-urban migration process in order to
assess the magnitude and characteristics of the net or effec-
tive migration into urban areas. One of the early generaliza-
tions about migration made by Ravenstein in 1889 (1084, p.
230) was, “Each main current of migration produces a compen-
sating countercurrent.” The relative size of each of these
return streams varies from place to place, from year to year,
from one age group to another, and from one ethnic group to
another. The absolute sizes of these streams are unknown in
most situations because most data collection procedures obtain
data on some sort of net movement.

Age, Education, Employment, and Dependency

Eldridge (293, 296) has hypothesized that the age distribu-
tion of return migrants has a peak at an older age than the age
distribution of initial migrants, and that the age peak for
return migrants is less sharp than is the age peak for initial
migrants. She also posits that in the two opposite streams of
migration between two points, returnees will make up a more
important proportion of the smaller stream. Fink (313) exam-
ined the characteristics of nonwhite migration into the South
between 1935 and 1940, but the data did not permit separation
of returnees from initial migrants.

Hathaway (1133, p. 9) has suggested that there is a high
rate of return to farm employment: “. . . each year there
appear to be about 90 percent as many people who move back
into farm employment as move out of it.” But, as Beale points
out (1133, p. 12), these figures are almost certainly the result of
the inadequacies of the Social Security data which Hathaway

29

 
30 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

was using. (Only people covered by Social Security were in-
cluded.)

The Survey of Economic Opportunity data (614, 616) indi-
cate that in 1967 there were 8.3 million people living in rural
areas who had been living in urban areas at age 16, as
compared with more than 18.1 million people living in urban
areas who had been living in rural areas at age 16. (“Rural”
includes rural nonfarm as well as rural farm.) Approximately
11 percent of the rural-urban migrants but less than 4 percent
of the urban-rural migrants were Negro; i.e., blacks were far
less likely than whites to move from urban to rural areas. This
resulted in a higher net migration of blacks into urban areas
relative to the total number of moves made. Approximately 53
percent of the migrants were female, regardless of color or
destination. Hamilton (427) noted in 1964 that there is very
little black remigration to the South, but among whites there
is a tendency ror older people to return to the South. He
reported in 1970 (433) an increasing return movement of better
educated adults 45 years of age and older. Whites are more
likely than blacks to be considering a return to the origin area
(6, 823).

Data from the Survey of Economic Opportunity (614, 616)
show that among whites, 46 percent of the rural-urban mi-
grants as compared with 29 percent of urban-rural migrants
were 50 or more years of age; i.e., the urban-rural migrants
were less concentrated at ages above 50. The fact that whites
who had moved to rural areas were younger than whites who
had moved to urban areas suggests that some of the movement
was to suburban rural-nonfarm areas. Among blacks the pro-
portion of rural-urban migrants was slightly lower than that
for whites. The age differences between rural-urban and ur-
ban-rural migrant blacks were not significant because of the
small differences in percentages and the small size of sample.
In Mississippi between 1950 and 1960 the dependency ratio in
the rural population increased partly as a result of the inmi-
gration of retirement-aged persons (189). However, the propor-
tion of these who were returnees could not be ascertained.

Reasons for Returning

Among return migrants to Appalachia the returnees were
older, tended to have smaller households, to live with relatives
and parents, and to be either unsuccessful or very successful,
including in their numbers high proportions of both unskilled
RETURN MIGRATION 31

workers and professionals. They saw Appalachia as “a place to
be happy without money” (837). Return migrants to depressed
areas of eastern Kentucky had returned because they had
been able to find only marginal employment in the city—30
percent had been laid off their jobs, and 50 percent were
dissatisfied with the urban area (917, 918). Mueller and Barth
(749) found that most of the migration into depressed areas
was return migration. For example, migration to the Big
Sandy area of east Kentucky in response to the opening of a
new plant showed a high proportion of the new employees to be
return migrants who had left urban areas and accepted wage
cuts to return to the rural area. Many local people were still
unemployed (1221). Bender, Green, and Campbell (85, 86) also
make the point that at times inmigration and return migration
help perpetuate rural poverty because returnees, by age, edu-
cation, and experience, take jobs that might have relieved the
poverty of rural residents already in the area.

Mexican American returnees to New Mexico in 1958 “. . .
tended to be found in the lower middle ranges of the status,
class and power orders of the community” (321). Examination
of data presented by Reagan and Maynard (868, 870) shows
that Mexican American labor-mobility-project dropouts who
returned to the rural area, as compared to those who stayed on
the job, were younger, less well educated, and had more
children. Among whites in Butler County, Ky., 60 percent of
the rural residents interviewed had lived in an urban area at
one time or another. They preferred living in the rural area,
wanted to bring up their families there, and, having left to find
work, returned when they were able to get employment in one
of the small industries that had located in the area (855).

If returnees are disproportionately made up of those who
did not “make it” in urban areas, then the characteristics of
rural-urban migrants observed in urban areas are the char-
acteristics of the more successful migrants. This is one possible
explanation for the findings discussed in chapter 4 that indi-
cate that young rural-urban black migrants earn more than
similar urban nonmigrants. It is also a possible explanation for
the finding that earnings of migrants increase with increased
time in the city. Those earning less may drop out and return to
the rural area.

Summary

Firm findings on returnees are fragmentary, but the pre-
vious references suggest that whites are more likely to return
32 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

to rural areas than are blacks, that black returnees seem to be
those who did not succeed in urban areas, and that, frequently,
white returnees to rural areas perpetuate rural poverty by
taking up jobs originally developed to relieve rural poverty.
The subject of return migration to rural areas needs much
additional research, and a comparison of return migrants,
initial migrants, rural population, and nonreturning migrants
would shed light on the dynamics of migration. There is
considerable evidence, as cited above, that the characteristics
of returnees vary among ethnic groups.
Chapter 6
Needed Research

The preceding chapters obviously cannot summarize the
findings of all the research cited in the bibliography that
follows. However, this synthesis does indicate the present
status of research on rural-urban migration. The demographer
planning research should utilize the index, the annotations,
and the original research reports.

Despite the volume of research represented by the anno-
tated bibliography, there are still gaps in our understanding of
rural-urban migration. Some of the more important areas in
which research is needed are listed below without comment,
since most of them have been mentioned in earlier parts of this
discussion.

1. Differences between migrants and nonmigrants in mo-
tivation, or need achievement, prior to migration.

2. Factors which make for a strong identification with an
area and an unwillingness to migrate despite eco-
nomic advantages.

3. The decisionmaking process of both migration and the
selection of a destination.

4. Income in the rural area prior to migration and its
relationship to rates of outmigration.

5. The physical and mental health of migrants compared
to urban nonmigrants.

6. The effects of regional location and size of city on
income of rural-urban migrants.

7. The relationship between migrant and nonmigrant

} income differentials and the number of wage earn-
ers in the family.

8. Differences between rural-farm and rural-nonfarm mi-
grants to urban areas in comparison with urban
nonmigrants.

9. Knowledge of the characteristics and motivations of
returnees, nonreturnees to rural areas compared to
initial migrants, nonreturnees, and rural nonmi-
grants.

33
34 SYNTHESIS OF RESEARCH

10. The effects of outmigration on the structure and serv-
ices of rural communities.

11. Effects of migration on family structure.

12. Comparison of urban-born children of rural-urban mi-
grants with urban-born children of urban nonmi-
grants and urban-urban migrants.
Part II

Annotated Bibliography

1. ABLON, JOAN. “American Indian Relocation: Problems of Dependency
and Management in the City.” Phylon, 26 (Winter 1965), 362-371.

The relocation programs of the Bureau of Indian Affairs began in
1952. Generally, relocatees from various tribes come from backgrounds
of all-Indian schools with little vocational training. Earlier relocatees
who were veterans found their training in the Armed Forces useless.
The prime motivation for relocation is the desire to find secure
employment, but personal and family problems also figure promi-
nently. While Indians expect and experience frequent layoffs from city
jobs, they value any job if it provides security, a fact which seems to
be important in their retention of jobs. Although relocatees tend to
live in working-class neighborhoods, they interact socially only with
other Indians. Their relationships with whites are characterized by
ambivalence and are almost never equalitarian. Their cultural pat-
tern of sharing exacerbates their economic problems. Ablon feels that
if jobs on reservations were available, over 75 percent of relocatees
would return. Although returns can be precipitated by the slightest
cause, important impetuses are layoff, illness or death, medical bills,
and acute homesickness. Indians’ biggest survival problem is that
they learn skills only superficially and lack understanding of instru-
mental Anglo values. Successful Indian relocatees conform to white
economic standards and find houses and extra jobs on their own, but
seem to have white values “superimposed” on them. Ablon describes
these Indians as an ‘urban neo-Indian” type who is economically
successful yet has full awareness of Indian identity.

 

 

2. . “Relocated American Indians in the San Francisco Bay Area:
Concepts of Acculturation, Success and Identity in the City.” Unpub-
lished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1963.

3. . “Relocated American Indians in the San Francisco Bay Area:

Social Interaction and Indian Identity.” Human Organization, 23(4)
(Winter 1964), 296-304.

This study evaluates the dependency, rejection, discrimination, so-
cial problems, and Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA’s) practices charac-
terizing the history of Indian-white relations. Data described were

35
36

4.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

obtained from 34 families and individuals among relocatees of the
BIA’s 1954-55 Voluntary Relocation Program and from 19 others
including five self-relocatees who came after 1955. Ablon found little
aspiration for social mobility and no American Indians whom she
considered assimilated. Indians of various tribes prefer to associate
with other Indians, usually relatives. Only those in the city for a very
long period have any well-developed relationships with whites. Al-
though Indians often fear rejection, hostility, or dependency in inter-
actions with whites, the exclusion of Anglos from formal and informal
relations is usually the result of a positive awareness of Indianness.
While this awareness aids the maintenance of pan-Indian activities,
Indian organizations are characterized by group participation in
planning; authoritarian leadership and organized preplanning for
activities are absent. Most of the identified Indian organizations were
“Indian companionship types,” usually oriented toward religion or
sports. However, “less than one-sixth of the adult Indians are effec-
tively touched by the activities.”

. “Retention of Cultural Values and Differential Urban Adapta-
tion: Samoans and American Indians in a West Coast City.” Social
Forces, 49(3) (Mar. 1971), 385-393.

5. ABRAMSON, J. H. “Emotional Disorder, Status Inconsistency and Migra-

tion.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44(1) (Jan. 1966), 23-48.

*6. ABT ASSOCIATES, INC. The Causes of Rural-to-Urban Migration among

the Poor. Final report submitted to Office of Economic Opportunity,
OEO Contract B99-4841. Cambridge, Mass.: Abt Associates, Inc., 1970.

It was found that about twice as many rural as urban respondents
(more than 50 percent vs. 17-24 percent) had incomes of less than
$3,000 per year. Blacks seemed to have made the largest relative gains
in income simply because they started out in the worst position;
Mexican Americans made the smallest gains. The authors accept the
idea that the flow of blacks out of the South has decreased. Migrants
to the smaller regional cities seemed to have been propelled by weaker
versions of the same forces that motivated the longer distance mov-
ers: employment dislocation and life-cycle changes. Blacks more fre-
quently than whites gave the excitement and social life of the city as a
reason for moving and were less likely to have made intermediate
stops. Economic factors were considerably more important for the
migrants to big cities; they were more likely to have been unemployed
in the rural areas, and they tended to be much younger than those
who chose within-region destinations. Those who moved tended to be
younger and better educated. However, with age controlled, nonmi-
grants were better educated than migrants. (This finding is contrary
to most other studies and to census data on migration.) Whites are
more likely than blacks to return to the area from which they
migrated. About half of the returnees went back to the “rural” area
because they were homesick. Other reasons were ill health, poor city
housing conditions, superiority of country environment for children,
and availability of definite jobs. Those who returned for housing,
educational, or family reasons were more likely to consider a return to
the city than were those with negative psychological feelings about the
city. Ownership of property in the rural area was found to be a barrier
to future mobility. It would appear that most returns to the rural area
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 37

were voluntary. While 17 percent of black, 32 percent of white, and 26
percent of Mexican American returnees went back for economic
reasons, there was no way to determine who were “failures” and who
were returning in response to job offers or news of jobs. At the time of
move, migrants were more likely to have been unemployed than were
those who did not move. Among all three ethnic groups, those who had
received benefits from training or poverty programs in the rural area
were less likely to have migrated. The study found no evidence that
migrants moved because of the expectation of higher welfare pay-
ments in the city and concludes that income maintenance programs
will not cause people to migrate. The authors recommend provision of
better information to rural dwellers concerning potential migration
destinations and efforts to redirect migration to points closer to areas
of origin.

This study utilized no rigid definition of poverty, and the “under
25,000” population used to define a rural area limits comparability
with other studies and may account for the high proportion of return-
ees to “rural” areas. Interviewing was conducted in two destination
cities and eight origin counties for each of the black, white, and
Mexican American migration streams. County names were obtained
from urban respondents. Three hundred each of urban and rural
interviews were obtained from each ethnic stream, for a total sample
of 1,800, including a disproportionate number of people living in
sparsely settled areas. In using multiple regression analysis, the
authors failed to consider the effect of varying numbers of independ-
ent variables in alternative models. Contradictory findings are given
as to whether “push” or “pull” forces were the major factors in the
outmigration observed. Income and age comparisons between mi-
grants and nonmigrants do not refer to the same time points; age was
not used as a control at some crucial points of comparison between
migrants and nonmigrants; and migrant and nonmigrant responses
frequently were lumped together when comparisons of findings were
made between ethnic groups.

7. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS. Urban
and Rural America: Policies for Future Growth. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

The section on the dynamics of mobility and migration relies heavily
on census data and on work completed at the Survey Research Center
of the University of Michigan in 1967 for the period 1957-63. Subsec-
tions discuss patterns of movement, migration and urban concentra-
tion, causes of mobility, the process of moving, and mobility of the
poor. See 606.

8. ALABAMA, UNIVERSITY OF, BUSINESS RESEARCH COUNCIL. Flight from
the Soil. University, Ala.: University of Alabama, Business Research
Council, 1958.

Includes changes in size of farms, land use, tenant farming, farm
labor force, mechanization, levels-of-living, income, and migration to
the city.

9. ALFRED, V. M. “Blood Pressure Changes Among Male Navajo Migrants
to an Urban Environment.” Canadaian Review of Sociology and
Anthropology, 7(3) (Aug. 1970), 189-200.
38

- ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Alfred found systolic and diastolic blood pressures significantly
higher among a sample of male Navajos after their migration to the
city. He ascribes these changes to altered rest patterns, separation
from relatives, and urban pollution, and not to changes in altitude,
age, or saturated fat intake.

10. ALLEN, JOHN H., Roy C. BUCK, and ANNA T. WINK. Pulling Up Stakes

and Breaking Apron Strings. Progress Report 136. University Park,
Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1955.

11. ALMON, CLOPPER, JR. “Origins and Relation to Agriculture of Industrial

Workers in Kingsport, Tennessee.” Journal of Farm Economics, 38
(Aug. 1956), 828-836.

In two large manufacturing plants in this predominantly agricul-
tural area, Almon found no differences in work records between
persons with farm and industrial experience or between farm and
nonfarm background.

12. ANDERSON, ALBERT F. “Theoretical Considerations in the Analysis of

Migration.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Iowa State University,
1962.

Using census data, Anderson tests several hypotheses about migra-
tion within a theoretical framework which includes considerations of
cohesion, deprivation, role ambiguity, and achievement. He explains
intra-ITowa county variations in net migration for 1950-60 on the basis
of this theory and explores whether there are other types of adapta-
tion to deprivation which function in lieu of migration. Significant

correlations from the analysis generally support the hypotheses.
»

13. ANDERSON, ANTON J. Changes in Farm Population and Rural Life in

Four North Dakota Counties. Bulletin 375. Fargo, N. Dak.: North
Dakota State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1952.
Covers the period 1930-45.

14. ANDERSON, C. S. Young Men 10 Years After Leaving Pennsylvania Rural

High Schools: An Analysis of High School Records and Vocational
Choices and the Adult Experiences of 586 Young Men. Bulletin 468.
University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1944.

While over one-third of the male sample group had moved from their
home communities, only about one in five were working in occupations
they originally had planned to enter.

15. ANDERSON, WALFRED A. Bibliography of Researches in Rural Sociology.

16.

 

Rural Sociology Publication 52. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, 1957.

. The Characteristics of the New York State Population. Bulletin
925. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, 1958.

Analysis of 1900-50 census data of the New York State population
revealed that the rural-nonfarm population was the most mobile of
the State’s population groups; inmigrants came predominately from
New Jersey and Pennsylvania, and the major portion of the State’s
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 39

loss in population was not the result of heavy outmigration from the
farm population.

 

. “How New York State Population Increased: 1940 to 1950.”
Mimeograph Bulletin 44. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1954.

Estimates of net migration for New York's total, urban, and rural
populations, counties and State economic areas were derived from
vital statistics.

 

18. . Population Change in Vermont, 1900 to 1950. Bulletin 585.
Burlington, Vt.: University of Vermont, Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, 1955.

The Vermont farm population decreased 25 percent from 1940 to

1950; other figures are given for State economic areas and counties.

19.

 

. Population Trends in New York State 1900 to 1950. Rural Sociol-
ogy Publication 47. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1956.

20.

 

. Rural Youth in Low Income Agricultural Areas. Bulletin 809.
Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1944.

Outmigration of young people was more prevalent from low-income
than from high-income areas, but age, education, and occupation were
not used as controls in the analysis.

21. ANDREWS, HENRY L. “A Descriptive and Analytical Study of Population
Redistribution in Alabama, 1930 to 1950.” Dissertation Abstracts, 13
(1953), 1289-1290.

Areas of population loss due to heavy outmigration were character-
ized by high fertility, mechanization, technological changes, and low
incomes.

22. ANDREWS, WADE H. “Farm People and the Changing Population of
Ohio.” Ohio Farm Bureau News, 34(6) (Jan. 1955), 35, 37.

 

and J. ROSS ESHLEMAN. The New Community: Characteristics of
Migrant and Non-Migrant Residents in the Rural Fringe of a Metropol-
itan Area in Ohio. Research Bulletin 929. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1963.

24.

 

and JOSEPH SARDO. Migration and Migrants from Sedgwick
County, Colorado. Technical Bulletin 82. Fort Collins, Colo.: Colorado
State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965.

 

and EMILY WESTERKAMM. Rural-Urban Population Change and
Migration in Ohio, 1940-50. Bulletin 737. Wooster, Ohio: Ohio Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1953.

26. APPLEYARD, R. T. “Determinants of Return Migration.” The Economic
Record, 38 (Sept. 1962), 352-368.

This study’s focus is on return migrants to Great Britain from
Australia, but its findings on the noneconomic reasons that migrants
gave for return parallel those from studies of migrants who return to
rural areas in the United States. In general, the decision to return
home was economically irrational. Homesickness was an important
factor, but few returnees experienced the return they envisioned.
40 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Their nostalgia on return was demolished, some became annoyed very
quickly by the folkways of home, and many thought about or were
planning a move back to their original emigration destination.

27. ASKIN, A. BRADLEY. “An Economic Analysis of Black Migration.” Un-
published doctoral dissertation, Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy, 1970.

This dissertation examines the causes, patterns, and consequences
of black migration by itself and in relation to migration in general
within an econometric approach. Black mobility patterns are signifi-
cantly related to a number of factors but differ significantly from
migration patterns in general, and also from those between the North
and South. Black migration has significant effects on urbanization for
all definitions of migration analyzed and on income for a portion of the
definitions, and larger urbanization and income effects than migra-
tion in general for all the definitions. The larger impacts are traced
back to the disproportionate number of blacks living in and migrating
from the South.

28. BACHMURA, FRANK T. “Man-Land Equalization through Migration.”
American Economic Review, 49 (1959), 1004-1017.
Investigates the role of migration from farms in reducing regional
differentials in agricultural incomes.

 

29. . “Migration and Factor Adjustment in Lower Mississippi Valley

Agriculture.” Journal of Farm Economics, 38(4) (Nov. 1956), 1024-1042.

30. BACK, KURT W., and DAVID J. PITTMAN. “Dimensions of Mobility.” In
Mobility and Mental Health. Edited by Mildred B. Kantor. Springfield,
I1l.: Charles C Thomas, 1965. Ch. 9, pp. 205-210.

*31. BACON, A. LLOYD. “Migration, Poverty and the Rural South.” Social
Forces, 51 (Mar. 1973), 348-355. (See 149 also.)

This paper is one of several resulting from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture-University of Georgia study (149), which used data from
the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity. The prevalence of poverty
(with race controlled) is not significantly different between rural
nonmigrants and rural-rural migrants within the South, but is lower
among outmigrants from the South than among nonmigrants in the
South. Prevalence of poverty among white migrants from the rural
South was lower among those moving to other rural areas outside the
South than for those going to rural areas within the South or to urban
areas outside the South. The data base for blacks was too small to
permit comparison. Black but not white rural-urban migrants out of
the South had lower rates of poverty than racial counterpart migrants
within the South. Migrants into the rural South were less likely to be
living in poverty than native Southerners, with race controlled. White
rural-rural migrants into the South did not have a lower incidence of
poverty than white rural-rural migrants within the South. “... those
migration streams in opposite directions on both regional and rural-
urban axes were quite similar in poverty composition whether the
movement was into or out of the South.”

32. . “Migration and Structural Conflict.” Unpublished memorandum

prepared for the Southern Land Economics Research Committee,

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 41

Agricultural Development Division, Tennessee Valley Authority, Mus-
cle Shoals, Alabama, 1963.

33. ——. “Poverty among Interregional Rural to Urban Migrants,” Rural
Sociology, 36(2) (June 1971), 125-140.

Bacon presents some findings from the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture-University of Georgia study (71), which used data from the 1967
Survey of Economic Opportunity. Analyses of geographic movements
were restricted to the four major census regions. Interregional mi-
grants from the rural South to the urban North were found to have
intermediate levels of poverty between those of sending and receiving
populations. Poor rural-urban South-North migrants of both races
constituted a minority of poor persons in Northern ghettos and slums;
likewise, the incidence of poverty in the South was in no way related
to the inmigration of rural-urban North-South poor whites and blacks.
Rural-urban North-South migrants were considerably better off than
both sending and receiving populations.

34. BAGLEY, CHRISTOPHER. “Migration, Race, and Mental Health: A Review
of Some Recent Research.” Race, 9(3) (1968), 343-356.

Focuses on Mertonian “anomie” as a cause of delinquency and
explores the question of whether migrants affected by such anomie
are more prone to delinquent behavior once they are in the city. Most
of the research reported deals with the mental health, learning
problems, goal striving, and psychiatric treatment experiences of
blacks. Bagley notes the decrease in diagnosed mental illness among
migrants with increased time in the city.

35. BAIRD, ANDREW W., and WILFRID C. BAILEY. Farmers Moving Out of
Agriculture. Sociology and Rural Life Bulletin 568. State College,
Miss.: Mississippi State University, 1958.

Of the 161 farm operators interviewed during a 3-year (1955-58)
study in Alcorn County, Mississippi, 32 percent left farming. The
average annual income of those who left was $679, while that of those
who stayed was $541. Part-time farming may be a step in the transi-
tion to full-time nonfarm employment. Some respondents felt they
would return to farming during periods of unemployment or high farm
prices, while younger men were more likely to leave the community
altogether in seeking permanent nonfarm jobs. The authors note the
changing age structure of the area and the effects of outmigration on
the communities involved.

36. BAKER, O. E. “Rural-Urban Migration and the National Welfare.” Annals
of the Association of American Geographers, 23 (June 1935), 59-126.

37. BAKKE, E. WIGHT, and others. Labor Mobility and Economic Opportu-
nity. Cambridge, Mass., and New York: The Technology Press of MIT
and John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1954.

These readings on labor mobility provide general background infor-
mation for those concerned with the economic/occupational aspects of
rural-urban migration.

38. BALL, A. GORDON, and EARL O. HEADY, EDS. Size, Structure and Future
of Farms. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1972.

Fuller and Van Vuuren’s chapter focuses on the exodus of farm
operators and their families, intersectoral labor market relations,
technological change and underemployment, farm underemployment
42

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

and land value inflation, government programs and factor income
distribution, loss of factor income to labor due to land value inflation,
and on open entry and residuality in farm labor recruitment. Daly,
Dempsey, and Cobb’s chapter concerns future farm numbers and sizes.

39. BANAS, CASEY. “Uptown: Mecca for Migrants.” Southern Education

Report (Mar. 1969), 10-13.

“Uptown” is a decaying northside Chicago neighborhood where thou-
sands of Appalachian whites have settled in the past 20 years and
about 3,200 Appalachian white children are enrolled in the schools.
The absentee rate of a school with many Appalachian whites is as
high as 14 percent, compared to the city’s average of 8 percent. Banas
discusses the severe truancy problem, the parents’ distrust of schools,
and officials’ attempts to increase parental commitment to their chil-
dren’s education.

40. BANG, JAMES S., and others. Population Change and Migration: 1950-

1960. Population Series 1. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin,
College of Agriculture, 1961.

41. BANKS, VERA J. Migration of Farm People: An Annotated Bibliography,

1946-60. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, 1963.

This bibliography of 251 titles was compiled primarily from the
Bibliography of Agriculture, Population Index, Agricultural Index, and
Rural Sociology. It groups annotated citations into general U.S. and
specific regional sections.

42. BATCHELDER, ALLAN B. “Occupational and Geographic Mobility: Two

Ohio Area Case Studies.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 18
(July 1965), 570-583.

Noting the increasing concern of economists with “class” unemploy-
ment, i.e., among certain occupational, geographic, or demographic
groups, the author believes such unemployment can be decreased by
training programs designed to increase worker mobility. The study
reported on was designed before existing training programs took
effect to measure aptitudes and attitudes of the long-term (26 weeks
or more) unemployed toward occupational and geographic mobility.
About two in five of the respondents (203 men in Youngstown and 91
men in Athens County, Ohio, two dissimilar geographic areas charac-
terized by economic depression) had an aptitude for retraining pro-
grams and were willing to undertake them. Yet aspirations for train-
ing were severely restricted as a result of the respondents’ limited
knowledge of alternative industries and occupations. About half of the
willing-and-able respondents had specific occupational skills they
wanted to acquire, and one-fourth of this group had had some other
training. Among all respondents, one-third to two-thirds were willing
to move to other geographic areas if assured of steady employment.
Most of the men “knew as little about geographic as about occupa-
tional alternatives.”

43. BAUDER, WARD W. Analysis of Trends in Population, Population Charac-

teristics and Community Life in Southern Iowa. CAEA Report 4.

Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, College of Agriculture, 1959.
Analysis of 1950 census data for 19 Southern Iowa counties indicates

that heavy outmigration had reduced the population, especially in the
44.

45.
46.

47.

48.

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 43

25-30 age group, resulting in a reduction in the crude birth rate and in
relatively lower numbers of children under 10 years of age. Bauder
also explores the effects of outmigration on the rural communities.

. The Impact of Population Change on Rural Community Life: The
Economic System. Soc. 9. Ames, lowa: Iowa State University, Coopera-
tive Extension Service, 1962.

Greene County is typical of other Iowa and Corn Belt State counties
which have little manufacturing employment, high levels of living,
heavy outmigration, and population decline. Changes in transporta-
tion occurring in Greene County have generally expanded the trade
areas of larger cities at the expense of smaller places, and changes in
goods and services available have increased the demand for certain of
them “even in areas of declining purchasing power.” Business commu-
nity members interviewed stated their biggest problem was in provid-
ing more job opportunities at pay rates that would retain talented
youth. Smaller businesses were having trouble attracting customers
since they could not provide the range of goods increasingly de-
manded. Over time, the number of firms in the county had decreased,
and many firms were gradually going out of business. Continuing
declines in farm employment needs and the concomitant necessity for
outmigration will exacerbate existing problems.

— “When People Move. ..” Iowa Farm Science, 19(1)(July 1964), 6-7.

and LEE G. BURCHINAL. “Adjustment of Rural-Reared Young
Adults in Urban Areas.” Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.: National
Committee for Children and Youth, Inc., 1963.

The authors review studies and findings on adjustment in terms of
personality, social participation, and occupation.

and . “Do Rural People Succeed in the City?” Iowa Farm
Science, 19 (Sept. 1964), 11-13.

Data were obtained from farm-reared and rural-nonfarm-reared
people in Des Moines, Iowa, who had lived on a farm or in a rural area
between the ages of 5 and 19; from Des Moines natives; and from
migrants to Des Moines from other cities. Farm-reared couples, older
and married longer, were found more likely to have lived in a small
town or other city before coming to Des Moines and to have lived in
the largest number of places of different sizes. With age controlled,
the farm-reared men were disadvantaged in getting better jobs and
were older than others in the same occupations. With age and educa-
tion controlled, however, the farm reared were no worse off occupa-
tionally than the urban reared.

 

 

and . “Economic Success of Farm Migrants.” Towa Farm
Science, 19 (Oct. 1964), 9-10.

Data from the study noted in the preceding annotation showed that
farm migrants had the lowest status jobs, median income, and educa-
tional attainment, and owned homes of the lowest value. Differences
in income, job status, and property value were greatly diminished
among those younger than 45 and among those with less than a
college education. Time lived in the city could not account for differ-
ences in job status or income. However, there was no difference in job
mobility among groups, suggesting that migrants’ initial low position
explains their relative status position at the time of interview. While
44 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

farm migrants also had the lowest occupational and educational
aspirations for their children, all respondents’ aspirations for their
children were related to their own educational and occupational
statuses.

49.

 

and . Farm Migrants to the City: A Comparison of the
Status, Achievement, Community and Family Relations of Farm Mi-
grants with Urban Migrants and Urban Natives in Des Moines, Iowa.
Bulletin 534. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco-
nomic Research Service, and Iowa Agricultural Experiment Station
cooperating, 1965.

Supplies the detailed data of the study whose findings are noted in
the two preceding annotations.

 

50.

 

 

and . “Farm Migrants and Family Aides.” Iowa Farm Sci-
ence, 19(9) (Mar. 1965), 10-12.

51.

 

 

and . “Occupational Achievement of Rural-to-Urban Mi-
grant Males in Comparison with Two Urban Control Groups.” Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological Associ-
ation, St. Louis, Mo., Sept. 1961.

52.

 

and JON A. DOERFLINGER. “Progressive Convergence of Rural and
Urban Social Systems as a Factor in the Assimilation of Rural
Migrants to an Urban Environment.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Chicago, Ill., Aug. 29, 1965.

 

53. and WILLIAM F. KENKEL. Effects of Migration on the Open-
Country Population of Iowa, 1950-61. Research Bulletin 536. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965.

The authors undertook a statewide probability sample of 100 open-
country segments involving 457 houses and collected data on the
occupancy history of these houses from occupants and neighbors and
data on all household heads and individuals living in the houses for
1950-61. They found that net outmigration of 204 persons had been
offset by natural increase. The net effects of interstate migration on
the open country were to exchange youth and older families for
families in the preschool-child and school-age-child stages, and to
lower the average age of the population and the average level of
education. There was little effect on the occupational structure, and
the extent of return migration was unknown. The net effects of
intrastate migration were to decrease the entire open-country popula-
tion and the entire labor force (particularly among farm operators); to
increase the number of households in the early stages of the family
life cycle, to lower the average age of the population, and to slightly
lower the educational level of the population. The net effects of all
migration occurring in this period on the open country were to lower
the average age and the educational level, and to increase the
proportion of younger families and occupational homogeneity. Of all
movers, 69 percent only changed residence. The remaining 31 percent,
who also changed occupation, were younger and more likely to be
single, or to have young families if married, and to be slightly better
educated than the resident population. Farm laborers were the most
mobile of the occupational groups.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 45

54. BAUM, E. L., and EARL O. HEADY. “Some Effects of Selected Policy
Programs on Agricultural Labor Mobility in the South.” Southern
Economic Journal, 25 (Jan. 1959), 327-337.

The authors feel that agricultural price and production policies have
encouraged rather than discouraged labor mobility out of agriculture.
They discuss agricultural policy programs which may retard migra-
tion, policies promoting migration, and programs which are presently
inadequate to promote migration. They note that tobacco programs
have kept low-income farms going, while cotton programs have held
some types of labor but have pushed out sharecroppers. Reductions in
both cotton and tobacco allotments have forced out small low-income
farmers. Price and production policies have neither added much
income nor had any effect on the rate of transfer of underemployed
workers to nonfarm jobs. Thus, labor productivity increases resulting
from mechanization or technological changes have increased the rate
of outmigration. The authors believe that improved educational pro-
grams, vocational training, reorientation of employment services, and
changed State/county residence laws for welfare eligibility would
promote the outmigration that must eventually take place.

55. BAUMGARTNER, H. W. “Potential Mobility in Agriculture: Some Reasons
for the Existence of a Labor-Transfer Problem.” Journal of Farm
Economics, 47 (Feb. 1965), 74-82.

Most of those leaving agriculture are young, but many farmers stay
despite declining prices, income, and productivity. To isolate factors
involved in the problem of labor transfer out of agriculture, Baum-
gartner hypothesized that “potential mobility” is an attitude, devised a
scale to measure it, and undertook a study in 1957-58 of 100 full-time
farmers in two Minnesota counties to investigate its relationship to
various economic and noneconomic variables. Potential mobility de-
clined with age, with number of years in farming, related inversely to
income among young farmers, and increased with nonfarm work
experience, regardless of age. It had no significant relationship to six
economic variables and was not related to type of farming, farm
ownership, family size, or educational level. Finally, it related in-
versely to a preference for farming and positively related to a favora-
ble attitude toward urban nonfarmwork opportunities. The author
concluded that programs enabling acquisition of technical skills and
nonfarmwork experience for farmers would increase migration out of
agriculture.

56. BEAL, GEORGE M. “Communities with Declining Populations.” In Family
Mobility in Our Dynamic Society. Prepared by Iowa State University,
Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjustment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press, 1965. Pp. 149-170.

Selectivity of migration in declining communities generates a high
dependency ratio, which signifies too many older and younger people
and increased tax burdens on each productive worker. Older people
create problems “in terms of conservative attitudes toward change in
general,” while more youth create costs for schools, churches, and some
types of government services. Selective migration leaves behind a less
educated population, less oriented toward change and less qualified to
assume positions of leadership, thereby weakening the town’s adaptive
capability. It also decreases the ability of the community’s institu-
46

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

tional structures to prepare the next group of migrants adequately.
Many of those remaining in declining communities (where job oppor-
tunities are decreasing) may do so because they are cognizant of their
inferior skill levels. These persons are prone to experience unemploy-
ment and low incomes, and they contribute fewer taxes and may
increase the town’s welfare burden. Beal also presents findings on
rural-urban migrants from several studies cited in other annotations.

57. BEALE, CALVIN L. “Demographic and Social Considerations for U.S.

58.

59.

 

 

Rural Economic Policy.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
51(2) (May 1969), 410-4217.

Using census data for 1950-60 and 1960-66, Beale illustrates differ-
ences among geographic location and ethnocultural rural groups with
regard to growth trends, fertility, age structure, migration, and
changes in small towns. While fertility is generally higher among
rural than urban women, the variations among rural groups are more
pronounced than rural-urban differences. High fertility levels are
characteristic especially of rural blacks of the southern coastal plain,
Mexican Americans of the Southwest, Mormons in Utah and Idaho,
whites in southern Appalachia, German Catholics of the northern
plains, and American Indians and Eskimos. Areas of low fertility have
been characterized in the main by heavy outmigration. In the 1950's
rural counties of the United States lost 40 percent of youth reaching
age 20, and the poorest Southern counties lost as many as 60 percent
of blacks reaching this age. Effects of migration on the age structure
of an area vary according to level of fertility; thus, disproportionate
numbers of youth and the aged are found generally in rural areas and
small towns, and areas of heavy outmigration are not always left with
older persons. Counties of low average age and high outmigration
have large numbers of such groups as blacks, Mexican Americans,
Indians, Mormons, or Catholics. Such counties require more job devel-
opment efforts, if the goal is to reduce outmigration, than do counties
of higher average age. Some counties of high average age are now
declining from both natural decrease and net outmigration. Beale
predicts there will be more counties with higher average ages in areas
not noted in 1960. Also, rural counties retained their potential popula-
tion growth better in 1960-66 than in 1950-60. The region of heaviest
net outmigration has shifted from the East South Central to the West
North Central Division. Counties with declining populations since 1960
are in the central part of the United States and in the heart of
southern Appalachia, but population loss has been heaviest in the
most agriculturally productive areas. Evidence is given that, contrary
to the popular notion, small towns are not “dying”: over three-fourths
of all nonmetropolitan places sized 2,500-25,000 increased in popula-
tion in the 1950's, and their overall growth rate exceeded that for the
United States as a whole. Beale concludes that differences still exist
between rural and urban attitudes and values, and that these differ-
ences are not negligible.

. “Farm Exodus Slowing Down.” Social Service Outlook, 4(9) (Nov.
1969), 14-15.

. “Natural Decrease of Population: The Current and Prospective
Status of an Emergent American Phenomenon.” Demography, 6(2)
(May 1969), 91-99.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 47

Natural decrease of population was first observable in a few coun-
ties in the Central United States in the early 1950's, when U.S. births
were increasing in numbers and in crude rates. By 1966, some 324
counties had been affected. These counties generally were rural,
agricultural areas with average fertility, a history of population
decline, and high median ages, had had their highest modal population
in 1900, and had suffered a decline in their principal economic activity.
Causes for the decrease have been distorted age structures, which, in
turn, are the result of heavy age-selective outmigration. In some
areas, the decrease has been the result of inmigration of retirement—
and pre-retirement-age persons. Areas of heavy outmigration but no
natural decrease are those with high fertility and atypical patterns of
age-selective migration, with net migration fairly high among middle-
aged, as well as younger, adults. In some southern areas where blacks
outnumber whites, total natural increase but white natural decrease
of population is observable, with whites and blacks having different
age-specific outmigration rates. Beale projected that by 1970 an
additional 250 counties located around the areas already affected
would have experienced natural decrease. He urges responsible offi-
cials to consider the problems that areas of population decrease face in
terms of future labor supply, economic development, tax resources,
and local morale.

60.

 

. “The Negro in American Agriculture.” In The American Negro
Reference Book. Edited by John P. David. New York: Prentice-Hall,
1966. Pp. 161-204.

. Negro Farm Operators: Number, Location and Recent Trends.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Mar-
keting Service, 1959.

In the 1940's, 42 percent of black farm dwellers outmigrated, and by
the mid-1950’s the black farm population had declined.

61.

 

. “Recent Population and Migration Trends in the South.” State-
ment before the Commission on Population Growth and the American
Future, Little Rock, Ark., June 7, 1971.

 

63. ——. “Recent Trends in Farm Population.” Agricultural Policy Review,
9(3) (July-Sept. 1969), 6-7.

64. . “The Relation of Gross Out-Migration Rates to Net Migration.”

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association

of America, Atlantic City, N.J., Apr. 1969.

Beale focuses on the independent finding of both Lowry (645) and
Lansing and Mueller (606) that the major determinant of net migra-
tion is variation in gross inmigration. This has unfortunately led to
acceptance of the idea that gross outmigration rates do not vary and
are no different for prosperous than for depressed areas, and, thus,
that outmigration cannot be affected by economic improvement pro-
grams. Using census data for all 509 State economic areas on gross
and net domestic migration rates for 1955-60, he found that gross
outmigration rates were related to the level of net migration, and that
variation in gross outmigration was the major component of variation
in net migration among areas that have had moderate-to-heavy net
outmovement. However, gross outmigration from depressed and pros-
perous areas may be the same, but is not associated with the same

 
48

65.

66.

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

factors. Beale attempts to expand and qualify rather than discredit
the work of Lowry and of Lansing and Mueller, noting the importance
of two generalizations from their work: (1) variations in gross inmigra-
tion are wider and generally more important in determining net
migration variations than are those in gross outmigration; and (2)
gross outmigration is often as high for prosperous areas of net
inmigration as it is for depressed areas of net outmigration.

. “Rural Depopulation in the United States: Some Demographic
Consequences of Agricultural Adjustments.” Demography, 1 (1964),
264-272.

The general demographic situation of rural areas diverges increas-
ingly from that of metropolitan areas. While depopulation was always
occurring somewhere, it became substantial during World War II.
With variations from year to year, the rate of outmigration in 1963
was as high as the peak one of the war years.

Factors allowing reduction of the farm population include mechani-
zation, improved seeds, better breeds and animal nutrition, good
management, advancement in fertilizer, pest and weed control, the
generally high operating level of the nonfarm economy, ease of
physical access to cities, dominant stylistic position of metropolitan
life, and Federal agricultural programs, such as acreage restrictions
and the soil bank. Other factors have been the decline in coal-mining
employment and the reclassification of territory from rural to urban
as a result of suburbanization, annexation, or census definitional
changes.

Although the rural population remained stationary in the 1950's,
five-eighths of all counties lost rural population. Areas with growing
rural populations have made their gains in the nonfarm sector while
still experiencing farm population losses. Of all totally rural counties,
three-fourths declined in the 1950’s, while only one-half of those
predominantly rural declined. The major effect of declines has been to
increase the variation of size and density of population among coun-
ties. Beale notes Bowles’ (147) estimate that, of all net migrants from
farms in the 1950s, about 60 percent were under age 20 or reached 20
during the decade. Areas of heavy outmigration but no natural
decrease have high fertility. In areas with large black populations,
increased fertility since 1950 and a pattern of higher rates of outmi-
gration at middle ages in comparison to that of whites have precluded
natural decrease. Since the farm population has already declined by
more than half, demographic adjustments as a result of change
already have occurred, but rates of change can still remain high for
one or two decades. While technological changes are still rapidly
proceeding, spreading growth of metropolitan areas to outlying areas
is modifying effects on the rural population by facilitating Federal
investment in nonagricultural development and bringing nonfarm-
work within commuting range. Beale cites the need for increased
attention to be paid to depopulated areas, since the combination of low
population density and downward trends is extending over much
greater areas of the country.

. “Rural Minorities, Rural Fertility, and Their Relation to Rural-
Urban Migration.” Agricultural Policy Review, 8(3) (July-Sept. 1968),
10-11.
*67.

68.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 49

Recent concern about rural-urban migration has focused chiefly on
those migrants characterized by poverty, low education, high fertility,
and cultural visibility: Negroes, Mexican Americans, southern Appa-
lachian whites, and American Indians. These groups, comprising only
one-fifth of the rural population, constituted half of the net migration
from U.S. rural areas in the 1950’s. Still, because of high rural
fertility, the four groups’ combined rural populations dropped in the
same period by only 9 percent. These groups have a level of childbear-
ing high enough to double their rural populations in about a genera-
tion, while the rest of the rural population’s fertility would lead in a
generation to an increase of only 35 percent. Further, because of high
fertility and atypical patterns of age-selective outmigration, the rural
components of these groups have not been left with high average-age
populations. While these components have high growth/outmigration
potentials, no efforts to reduce outmigration will succeed unless
efforts also are made to reduce their childbearing.

—. “Rural-Urban Migration of Blacks: Past and Future.” American

Journal of Agricultural Economics, 53(2) (May 1971), 302-307.

Beale presents some findings from the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture-University of Georgia study (71) which used 1967 Survey of
Economic Opportunity data. Only among whites did rural-urban mi-
grants show a consistently greater amount of poverty than urban
natives. Black urban families headed by a migrant of rural origin did
not experience a lower average income than other black urban fami-
lies, a consequence of the more normal composition of the rural
migrant family. Among blacks, the rural-urban migrant family or
individual was nominally slightly more likely than urban natives to
have received welfare income assistance. Black rural-urban migrant
families were somewhat less likely to have received welfare money
than those living in rural areas. Black rural-urban male migrants
were as likely to have had some employment in the preceding year as
their urban-reared neighbors. In the future, rural-urban migrants will
not comprise as high a proportion of the urban population as they
have in the recent past. Beale states, “There is no question that the
vast rural-urban movement after 1940 was the major source of the
rapid growth of black urban population. As such, it was a major
contributor to those urban problems associated with black growth and
congestion per se, but was probably not critical to the changed politico-
cultural mood and stance of the urban black population.”

, VERA J. BANKS, and GLADYS K. BOWLES. “Trends and Outlook
for Rural Migration.” Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1966.

The authors analyzed 1960 census data, unpublished data from the
Economic Research Service (ERS), and population projections for 1970
prepared at the Economic Development Division of the ERS. From
1940 to 1960, an estimated 21-22 million persons left rural areas
permanently, and probably millions more left and returned. Areas of
growing rural population were counties where agriculture was not the
principal economic activity and where rural-nonfarm population gains
offset rural-farm losses. Net 1950-60 change as a result of migration
and area reclassification was about 10 million persons. In the same
period, the black rate of outmigration was probably higher than that
50

69.

70.

#71,

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

for whites, while the female migration rate probably was slightly
larger than that of males, and migration was selective largely of the
young. The peak age of migration for whites occurs in the late teens,
while that of blacks is at slightly older ages and does not decline as
rapidly with age as that of whites. The three major interregional
rural-urban flows are the southern white stream to the North Central
and West regions, the southern black stream to metropolitan areas in
all regions, and the white stream from the North Central region to the
West. Except for southern blacks, the majority of rural-urban mi-
grants stay within their region of origin. Almost all of the 1950-60 net
loss (4.6 million) from predominantly rural counties occurred in North
Central and Southern States. Seven-eighths of the net inmigration in
predominantly urban counties in 1950-60 (7.3 million) occurred in the
West and South; the Northeast had a net loss of whites but a net gain
of blacks. Beale expected that if 1950 migration patterns prevailed
during the 1960’s, the 1970 rural population would have been 200,000
persons smaller than in 1960. In the absence of net migration to urban
places, the rural labor force and the number of needed jobs probably
would have grown by about 3.5 million by 1970. Eighty percent of such
jobs would be required for those under age 30. Projections for 1960-70
showed a probable decade decline of 800,000 commercial farms.

and DONALD J. BOGUE. Recent Population Trends in the United
States With Emphasis on Rural Areas. Agricultural Economic Report
23. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Re-
search Service, 1963. Also in Our Changing Rural Society, edited by
James H. Copp. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965. Pp. 71-
126.

, JOHN C. HUDSON, and VERA J. BANKS. Characteristics of the U.S.
Population by Farm and Nonfarm Origin. Agricultural Economic
Report 66. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Eco-
nomic Research Service, 1964.

Data used are from the 1958 Current Population Survey. Among the
farm-born, there has been no difference overall in the proportions of
whites and nonwhites who have left the farm, but since the proportion
of nonwhites born on farms is higher than that among whites, equal
white and nonwhite rates of outmigration have weighted the non-
white urban population more heavily with persons of farm origin.
Girls leave the farm in greater numbers and at a somewhat earlier
age than boys. The farm-born population is an older group than the
nonfarm born. Interregional migration of farm people has been high-
est for the North Central States; the largest single stream of interre-
gional movement has been from the North Central States to the West.
Except at young adult ages, people who have moved from farms to
nonfarm areas are as likely as nonfarm natives to be in the labor
force, although they are underrepresented in white collar jobs at all
ages. Data showed no sharp differences in the characteristics of
return migrants compared to farm residents or to permanent off-farm
migrants. For every six off-farm migrants, only one nonfarm native
moved to a farm.

, ANNE S. LEE, and GLADYS F. BOWLES. “Demographic Portrait of
the South.” Washington, D.C. and Athens, Ga.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture and the University of Georgia. Incorporated in 149.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 51

72. BEALL, JOHN W. “A Study of Population and Capital Movements Involv-
ing the South.” Dissertation Abstracts, 14 (1954), 1957-1958.
Southern rural-urban migration generally flows first to an urban

area in the South and then onward to an urban area outside the
South.

73. BEARDWOOD, ROGER. “The Southern Roots of Urban Crisis.” Fortune
(Aug. 1968), 80-87, 151-156.

Beardwood discusses Negro migration to the North, to cities, and to
better paying jobs, and heavily criticizes U.S. agricultural policies.
Negroes are beginning to go more frequently than in the past to
smaller cities and towns in the North and to southern urban centers.
Most movers are in younger age groups, leaving behind ‘sizable
concentrations of illiterate and sick people, and of the old and the very
young’; many children are left with grandparents. The loss of prime
working-age persons makes the region less attractive to corporations
planning new plants; lack of new jobs these plants would provide
forces more blacks to move North.

74. BECKER, GARY S. Human Capital. New York: National Bureau of
Economic Research, 1964.

75. BEEGLE, J. ALLAN. “Sociological Aspects of Changes in Farm Labor
Force.” In Labor Mobility and Population in Agriculture. Prepared by
Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjust-
ment. Ames, lowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. Pp. 73-81.

76. and D. HALSTEAD. Michigan's Changing Population. Bulletin 415.
East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experi-

ment Station, 1957.

 

 

17. , DOUGLAS G. MARSHALL, and RODGER RICE. Selected Factors
Related to County Migration, 1940-50 and 1950-60. North Central
Region Research Publication 147. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963.

78. and JOHN F. THADEN. Population Change in Michigan with
Special Reference to Rural-Urban Migration, 1940-50. Bulletin 387.
East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, 1953.

Uses data for State economic areas.

 

79. BEERS, HOWARD W. Mobility of Rural Population: A Study of Changes in
Two Types of Rural Communities. Bulletin 505. Lexington, Ky.: Uni-
versity of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1947.

Rural youth had been more mobile than families in two Kentucky
counties in 1941, and the intercounty mobility differences were not the
result of differential selectivity of migration.

80.

 

and CATHERINE P. HEFLIN. People and Resources in Eastern
Kentucky: A Study of a Representative Area in Breathitt, Knott, and
Perry Counties. Bulletin 500. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1947.

The authors conclude that outmigration should be encouraged as
one means of alleviating population pressure.

81. and . Rural People in the City: A Study of the Socioeconomic

Status of 297 Families in Lexington, Kentucky. Bulletin 478. Lexing-

 

 
52

82,

83.

84.

85.

86.

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

ton, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1945.

While rural-urban migrants to Lexington were not equal competi-
tors with urban natives in terms of either incomes, jobs, or overall
status, the deficiency was not solely the result of rural origin.

and . Urban Adjustment of Rural Migrants. Bulletin 487.
Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1946.

 

and . “The Urban Status of Rural Migrants.” Social Forces,
23 (1944), 32-37.

 

BEWVER, G. Rural Migrants in an Urban Setting. The Hague: Martinus

Nijhoff, 1963.

BENDER, LLOYD D., BERNAL L. GREEN, AND REX R. CAMPBELL. “The

Process of Rural Poverty Ghettoization: Population and Poverty
Growth in Rural Regions.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of
the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Philadel-
phia, Pa., Dec. 28, 1971.

The authors’ thesis is that once poverty becomes concentrated in a
geographic area, basic U.S. economic and social systems operate to
increase that poverty. To show how leading poor areas become what
the authors define as “rural poverty ghettos,” they obtained data in
places of less than 2,500 population and in open country in one such
area of the Ozarks from 1,413 households. The authors maintain that
economic stress starts intergenerational familial poverty, class-selec-
tive migration, and changes in productivity of social and economic
institutions. Through the interactions of these forces, an area can only
attract low-wage, labor-intensive industries, and people with low
incomes and inadequate institutions accumulate. They found that
poverty household heads had lower estimates of the educational needs
of their children than nonpoverty household heads, and that there
was an inverse relationship between amount of education of sons aged
25 and over and poverty status of the household. Horizontal job
mobility but little vertical mobility were evident, reflecting lack of job
opportunities in the region, while vertical job mobility was found for
household heads’ sons who had migrated out of the region. A relation-
ship was found between occupation and poverty status, and also
between occupation of the father and poverty status of household
head. Of the 12 percent of the sample who were inmigrants, 65 percent
were returnees, and 29 percent were not in the labor force. Income
declines, from an average $6,341 to $3,343, were realized by over half
of the 71 percent of inmigrants who were in the labor force after their
move, and only 37 percent of inmigrant families registered gains after
arrival. Programs aimed only at upgrading education and job skills
will further intensify the ghettoization noted if selective migration
results, and so will industrialization if it results in class-selective
inmigration.

y , and . “Trickle-down and Leakage in the War on
Poverty.” Growth and Change (Oct. 1971), 34-41.

Data from the Ozarks study noted above were analyzed to find out if
nonmigrants are inferior to inmigrants in work capability, and if
inmigration is occurring in the presence of industrialization, prevent-

 

 
87.

88

89

90.

91.

92.

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 53

ing the native rural poor from getting jobs, and, thereby contributing
to the perpetuation of poverty. Preliminary data showed that because
of age and physical disabilities, some of the poor native population
would have difficulty in qualifying for jobs even in the absence of
inmigrant competition. Also, inmigrants had an initial advantage over
natives in being younger with higher education and more job training,
and a willingness to accept additional training or to move for a better
job. High inmigration rates tended to be associated with areas where
natives had training, job mobility, less propensity for holding more
than one job, less dependence on farm income, more rental income,
and fewer health disabilities. Many inmigrants were found to have
accepted lower wages to move in, and many inmigrants were retur-
nees who were downwardly mobile economically. The authors con-
cluded that inmigration is interfering in the process whereby indus-
trialization creates jobs for the rural poor.

, DARYL J. HOBBS, and JAMES F. GOLDEN. “Congruence between
Aspirations and Capabilities of Youth in a Low-Income Rural Area.”
Rural Sociology, 32(3) (Sept. 1967), 278-289.

The authors review evidence from previous research which shows
that rural-urban migrant youth’s disadvantage in competing with
urban natives for jobs is traceable to less favorable social class
background, poor quality education in the rural origin, and generally
lower levels of aspiration. Their own study of high school students in
Arkansas counties showed that lack of capability rather than low
aspiration may be the important factor in the lower occupational
achievement levels of rural youth.

. BENEWITZ, MAURICE C. “Economic Factors in Migration to St. Paul,

Minnesota, 1940-50.” Dissertation Abstracts, 14 (1954), 937-938.

. BERNERT, ELEANOR H. County Variation in Net Migration from the

Rural-Farm Population, 1930-40. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1944.

. Volume and Composition of Net Migration from the Rural-Farm
Population, 1930-40, for the United States, Major Geographic Divisions
and States. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau
of Agricultural Economics, 1944.

In the 1930’s the rural-farm population suffered greater propor-
tional losses among nonwhites and females than among whites and
males.

and GLADYS K. BOWLES. Farm Migration, 1940-45: An Annotated
Bibliography. Library List 38. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics, 1947. Out of print.

BERRY, CHARLES H. Occupational Migration from Agriculture, 1940-

1950. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, Library of the University of
Chicago, 1956.

93. BERTRAND, ALVIN L. Agricultural Mechanization and Social Change in

94.

 

Rural Louisiana. Bulletin 458. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1951.

and HAROLD W. OSBORNE. Rural Industrialization in a Louisiana
Community. Bulletin 524. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State Univer-
sity, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.
54 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Proximity of factories in nearby towns and cities did not influence
people to move off farms.

95. BESHERS, JAMES M., and ELEANOR N. NISHIURA. “A Theory of Internal
Migration.” Social Forces, 39 (1961), 214-218.

Analyzing Indiana migration streams using 1935-40 and 1949-50
census data, the authors found that: the proportion of migrants was
greatest among young adults; proportionately fewer farmers and farm
managers than those of other occupational groups migrated, while
professionals were not more likely to have moved than those in other
occupations; migration was greater among those aged 65 and over
than among those in the preceding age group, except in streams from
rural areas; among persons aged 15-19, those with fewer than 6 years
of education were less likely to have migrated than those with more
education; and migration was highest among college graduates.

96. BEVERIDGE, RONALD. “Subregional Migration within Illincis, 1935-40.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, 1959.
Special tabulations from census data on Illinois subregions showed
a positive correlation between size of outmigrating and inmigrating
streams and between the resident subregional population and number
of migrants originating in each subregion. There was little mutual
attraction between metroplitan subregions, and rates of net migration
were found to vary inversely with unemployment rate and directly
with both the proportion employed in manufacturing and educational
level.

97. BEVINS, ROBERT JACKSON. “A Measurement of Agriculture’s Public
Investment in the Education of 1940 Decade Farm-Nonfarm Mi-
grants.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1962.

The total investment made by rural areas in the education of off-
farm migrants of 1940-49 was approximately $2.5 billion. The author
concludes that nonfarm areas should bear more of a share of these
costs since they gain the productive workers whom the rural areas
lose.

98. BEYNON, E. D. “The Southern White Laborer Migrates to Michigan.”
American Sociological Review, 3 (1939), 333-343.

99. BISHOP, C. E. “Dimensions of the Farm Labor Problem.” In Farm Labor
in the United States. New York: Columbia University Press, 1967. Ch.
1, pp. 1-17.

Low wages in farming give workers a substantial incentive to shift
to nonfarm jobs. Although there has been a continuing outmigration
from farms since 1920, sentimental attachments to farms, limited
nonfarm vocational training opportunities, and direct costs of trans-
ferring out of farming still impede geographic mobility.

100. . “Economic Aspects of Migration from Farms.” Farm Policy
Forum, 13(2) (1960-61), 14-20. Also in Labor Mobility and Population in
Agriculture. Prepared by Iowa State University, Center for Agricul-
tural and Economic Adjustment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1961. Pp. 36-49.

Migration has not reduced the income disparity between farm and

nonfarm jobs because the number who want to transfer to nonfarm

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 55

work exceeds the number of nonfarm jobs. Migration increases when
more nonfarm jobs are available, even though at such times the
relative wage increases are greater for farm than nonfarm workers,
while migration decreases during periods of unemployment.

 

 

 

101. . Geographic and Occupational Mobility of Rural Manpower. Paris:
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, 1965.

102. . “The Mobility of Farm Labor.” In Policy for Commercial Agricul-
ture. Hearings before the Joint Economic Committee, 85th Cong., 1st
sess., 1957. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1957.
Pp. 437-447.

103. . The Need for Improved Mobility Policy. Federal Programs for the

Development of Human Resources, sponsored by the U.S. Congress,
Joint Economic Committee, Subcommittee on Economic Progress. Vol.
1. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

The U.S. farm population declined from 31 million in 1920 to 12
million in 1967. Noting patterns of black and white migrations, the
author maintains that much of these movements result in “social
waste’ because decisions to move are made on the basis of incomplete
information, and too much reliance is placed on friends and relatives.
He presents several policy recommendations to improve the labor-
transfer process.

104. BIVENS, GORDON E. “Adjustments of Mobile Families to Their New
Economic Environment.” In Family Mobility in Our Dynamic Society.
Prepared by Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and
Economic Adjustment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press,
1965. Pp. 223-236.

After showing a graphic model of the interrelationships between
households and the economic system, this study focuses on economic
adjustments “mover” families make. These include a leasing arrange-
ment for housing, effects of reduced time available for shopping,
reestablishment of rapport with vendors of goods and services, more
market decisions, broadened market conditions, impersonalization of
the purchase-sale transaction, greater spatial separation of work and
family, and impact of new environment on expectations.

105. BLANCO, CICELY. The Determinants of Factor Mobility. The Hague:
Pasmans, 1962.

. “The Determinants of Interstate Population Movement.” Journal
of Regional Science, 5(1) (1963), 77-84.

While economists agree that availability of jobs determines the
extent and direction of interstate migration, data from only a few
States and regions have been used in previous analyses to support
this assumption. Blanco used census data on interstate migration for
each State for 1950-57 to compute a series of multiple correlation
analyses of a large number of variables thought to be important in
determining population mobility. Eighty-six percent of the variation
in the regional rate of civilian migration between States during 1950-
57 could be explained by changes in level of unemployment and
changes in the number of Federal military personnel in each State.
Changes in the regional level of unemployment were the most impor-
tant determinant of regional rates of interstate migration, while
changes in the location of Federal military personnel accounted for

 

106.
56 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

about 1 percent of the regional variation of migration of civilians,
indicating a tendency for dependents to accompany transferred mili-
tary personnel. Regional differences in degree of racial prejudice,
education, wage levels, or climate did not appear to have a significant
direct influence on the rate of interstate migration.

 

*107. . “Prospective Unemployment and Interstate Population Move-
ment.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 46 (May 1964), 221-222.
Reply: Denton, Frank T., 47 (Nov. 1965), 449-450. Rejoinder: Blanco,
Cicely, 47 (Nov. 1965), 450.

The concept “prospective unemployment,” which is defined as the
annual rate of change in unemployment which would be expected to
occur if workers were not able to migrate between States, is used to
examine the heretofore unmeasurable influence of the unemployment
rate on population distribution among States. Prospective unemploy-
ment is measured by the difference between the actual rate of change
of employment and the natural rate of increase of the working-age
population in each State. Data on interstate migration for each State
for the period, 1950-57, showed that 85 percent of the variation in the
regional rates of total civilian migration could be explained by
changes in the rate of prospective unemployment. The largest compo-
nent was found to be the number of teenagers expected to come into
the labor force relative to the number of new jobs becoming available.

*108. BLAU, PETER M., and OTIS DUDLEY DUNCAN. “Farm Background and
Occupational Achievement.” In The American Occupational Structure.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967. Pp. 277-294.

The size of off-farm movement is reflected in Occupational Changes
in a Generation (OCG) data, which the authors used. Over one-fourth
of the men in the OCG population had fathers who at age 16 were
engaged in farming. Three-fourths of the fathers had taken up non-
farm residence by 1962. Analysis showed an inverse relationship
between the inmigration rate and size of community; large cities were
found to be the least favorable environment for men with farm
backgrounds, although variations by race complicated the findings.
The authors conclude that farm background is not an obstacle to
occupational achievement.

*109.

 

and . “Geographical and Social Mobility.” In The American
Occupational Structure. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1967. Pp.
243-275.

The authors’ finding that migrants’ careers are superior to those of
nonmigrants is explained in terms of selective migration and urbani-
zation. Since migration is selective of men with high potential, the
achievements of migrants are superior to those of both men left
behind and men in their new community. But urbanization has
paradoxical consequences for migration: while better opportunities in
cities attract migration and improve opportunities for most migrants,
the majority of these migrants come from less-urban areas where they
received poorer training compared to that available in highly urban-
ized markets. These two opposite influences affect both occupational
chances and achievements.

 

110. BLEVINS, AUDIE L. “Socioeconomic Differences between Migrants and
Nonmigrants.” Rural Sociology, 36(4) (Dec. 1971), 509-520.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 57

Using data on income, poverty index scores, occupation, attitudes
toward benefits of migration, and planned future moves from the
TRACOR study (855), the author concludes that financial gains are so
great for migrants that no restrictions should be placed by govern-
ment on migration.

111. BLIZZARD, SAMUEL W., and E. JOHN MACKLIN. Social Participation
Patterns of Husbands and Wives Who Are Migrants to the City. Serial
Paper 1722. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1952.

Rural migrants to Pittsburgh participated less in both formal and
informal social groups than natives or migrants from other urban
areas, although rural migrants were proportionately more frequently
leaders in the organizations they did belong to.

112. BLUM, ZAHAVA D., CHARLES C. BERRY, and AAGE B. SORENSEN. Migra-
tion and Household Composition: A Comparison between Blacks and
Non-Blacks. Report 77. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins Univer-
sity, 1970.

113.

 

» NANCY L. KARWEIT, and AAGE B. SORENSEN. A Method for the
Collection and Analyses of Retrospective Life Histories. Report. Balti-
more, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University, Center for the Study of the
Social Organization of Schools, 1968.

114. and AAGE B. SORENSEN. “Does It Pay to Move? An Analysis of the

Occupational Consequences of Migration.” Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Washington, D.C.,

Aug. 1970.

The authors investigated whether changes in jobs but not in loca-
tion had different effects on mobile persons than did changes in jobs
and in location. Data used in the analysis were obtained from the
retrospective life histories of a national sample of 738 black and 851
white men aged 30-39 in 1968. Although younger people tended to
move more, older movers gained more in job status after a move.
Migrants with more education and blacks from the Southeast and
those whose fathers had higher occupational statuses gained more in
status when they moved. Individuals who had had high initial job
status gained less than those whose initial job status had been low.
Both color groups showed job status increments over time, with
migrants having the higher gain, especially at later ages. Similar
findings were obtained from income analyses. Analysis of data con-
trolled for initial status and income for a given period of time
suggested that migration does not have systematic effects on yearly
gains in job status or income. An analysis of all job transitions,
controlled for simultaneous associated migration, showed that status
increments were generally a function of education, and, secondarily, of
age. Regression analysis using income difference as the dependent
variable showed that the most important factors in income changes
were education and age, with parental background having some effect.
Effects of migration on income were less important than the effect of
father’s occupational status. The authors conclude that, for both
blacks and nonblacks, migration does not pay economically. Rural-
urban migration was not distinguished from other forms of migration.

 
58 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

115. BLUMBERG, LEONARD. Migration as a Program Area for Urban Social
Work: A Pilot Study of Recent Negro Migrants into Philadelphia.
Philadelphia, Pa.: Urban League of Philadelphia, 1958.

The nonrandom sample consisted of black lower socioeconomic sta-
tus female migrants who had lived in Philadelphia a median 3-4 years
and who had children in the school system in the 1957 school year.
They had migrated primarily from the Carolinas and Georgia. Thirty
percent had lived on a farm or in a village of less than 1,000 population
during the year prior to arrival in the city. One-third gave economic/
job-related reasons for moving, 24 percent gave betterment of social
situation and 6 percent moved to join husbands, while 11 percent
moved when they “deserted” husbands. Sixty-five percent chose Phila-
delphia because of the presence of friends and relatives, and almost 90
percent did not borrow money or sell property in order to move.
Seventy-five percent had not considered moving again, and general
preference and good job opportunities were given as reasons for
wanting to stay in Philadelphia. Seventy percent were not in the labor
force at time of interview, but the great majority had worked since
coming to the city, mostly as household and service yorkers. One-
fourth of their husbands were employed as operatives-semiskilled
workers, and one-third, as laborers, mostly in construction work. Of
those females who had wanted a job on arrival, 20 percent said it had
taken a month or more to find one, and about 40 percent of those
getting jobs had found them through a friend or neighbor. Only 15
percent searched newspaper ads for a job, and few used the employ-
ment services. Almost 60 percent of migrants were helped with
housing by friends and relatives. Ten percent of wives or husbands
had lost three or more weeks from work in the past year due to illness.
Fifty-three percent reported Jjob/money problems, and 11 percent had
had marital problems; welfare agencies overwhelmingly were the
source of help. Respondents suggested needs for information concern-
ing Traveler's Aid, welfare, borrowing money, moving loans, assist-
ance for postmaternity child care, and childrens’ clothing. Channels of
communication to give aid to migrants are relatives and friends, press
and television, church leaders, and local politicians. Although 80
percent of migrants attended church at least once a month, participa-
tion in other formal organizations was practically nonexistent.

116. and ROBERT R. BELL. “Urban Migration and Kinship Ties.” Social
Problems, 6 (Spring 1959), 328-333.

This study attempts to modify findings of Park and Burgess and
their students who contend that the importance of family and kinship
are declining in U.S. urban society, being replaced by secondary
associations and relations. It focuses on areas that have high concen-
trations of recent, mostly lower class migrants from rural areas. These
populations of rural origin tend to keep their “old values” and living
patterns. Most migrants reported having relatives in the destination
city and that they received assistance from them in finding jobs and
housing. However, the data indicated that the relatives and close
friends were probably more psychologically supportive than function-
ally effective. The decline in family ties was noteworthy particularly
among single adult male migrants, for whom the institution of the
“neighborhood tavern” seemed to fulfill some of the functions of the

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 59

missing kinship structure. The study concludes that lower class mi-
grants turn to relatives because it is the natural thing to do, and those
without relatives establish ‘“pseudo-kin relationships” with people
from the same background.

117. BLUMEN, ISADORE, MARVIN KOGAN, and PHILIP J. MCCARTHY. The
Industrial Mobility of Labor as a Probability Process. Cornell Studies
of Industrial and Labor Relations. Vol. 6. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univer-
sity, 1955.

118. BOGUE, DONALD J., COMP. Bibliography on Research in Population
Distribution, Published and Underway: 1950-1955. Oxford, Ohio:
Miami University, Scripps Foundation, undated.

119. . “Changes in Population Distribution Since 1940.” American Jour-

nal of Sociology, 56 (July 1950), 43-57.

 

120.

 

. Components of Population Change, 1940-50: Estimates of Net
Migration and Natural Increase for Each Standard Metropolitan Area
and State Economic Area. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population
Distribution, No. 12. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, Scripps Founda-
tion, 1957.

121.

 

. “Economic and Social Implications of Population Changes in the
Chicago Metropolitan Area: A Case Study.” In Selected Studies of
Migration since World War 11. Edited by Clyde V. Kiser. New York:
Milbank Memorial Fund, 1957. Pp. 125-136.

Data are provided for the Chicago Standard Metropolitan Area
(SMA) as an example of U.S. metropolitanization. At the time of
writing, 82 percent of Chicago’s growth was through natural increase,
18 percent the result of migration. Growth was concentrated outside
the central city in both the metropolitan ring and the rural parts of
suburbs. While the Chicago SMA gained net migrants, its central city
had experienced net outmigration, which was a mix of a substantial
amount of white net outmigration and a large net inmigration of
blacks. Continued growth of the black population in future years will
be the result of natural increase. Several implications of this metro-
politanization are given. Because of the tight housing market in
central cities, land values and rentals have remained high, making
slum clearance and renewal efforts difficult. Manufacturing, becoming
suburbanized at a rapid rate, is consuming considerable space, caus-
ing concern over the demise of valuable farmland, and increasing the
distance between homes and places of work, making car ownership
necessary and creating serious transportation problems. Conference
discussants affirmed Bogue’s findings for New York City. Concluding,
Bogue recommended a longitudinal study based on the “experiences of
real cohorts.”

122.

 

. An Exploratory Study of Migration and Labor Mobility Using
Social Security Data. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distri-
bution, No. 1. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, Scripps Foundation,
1950.

123.

 

. “The Geography of Recent Population Trends in the United

States.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 44 (June
1954), 124-134.
60

124.

125.

126.

127.

128.

129.

*130.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

. “Internal Migration.” In The Study of Population. Edited by
Philip M. Hauser and Otis Dudley Duncan. Chicago, Ill. University of
Chicago Press, 1959. Ch. 21, pp. 486-509.

Attention is focused on the definition of internal migration and the
establishment of migration-defining boundaries. The author includes
concepts and terms used in migration analysis and considers direct
and indirect methods for measuring migration and their limitations
with respect to the types of data available. In a summary of what is
known, two particularly important points are made: There are no
“laws” of migration; and migrants do not necessarily know their
reasons for migrating. A framework of 25 migration-stimulating situa-
tions for persons, 15 factors in choosing a destination, and 10 socioeco-
nomic conditions affecting migration are given. What actually was
known about migration at the time of writing is presented in terms of
13 basic generalizations and their limitations concerning migration
streams (with a measure of relative stream velocity suggested as an
improved way to study streams) and six basic generalizations and
their limitations concerning differential migration. Bogue concludes
“. . . we have concentrated much on the migrant as a newcomer and
social problem and have given too little attention to migration as a
vehicle of longrun change in demographic processes.”

. “Internal Migration and Residential Mobility.” In The Population
of the United States. Glencoe, I11.: The Free Press, 1959. Ch. 15, pp. 375-
418.

Includes the effect of internal migration on the regional distribution
of population.

. “Internal Migration, with Special Reference to Rural-Urban
Movement.” In Proceedings of the World Population Conference, 1965.
Vol. I. New York: United Nations, 1966. Pp. 162-165.

. A Methodological Study of Migration and Labor Mobility in Ohio
in 1947. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution, No. 4.
Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, Scripps Foundation, 1952.

- Methods of Studying Internal Migration. Technical Paper. Oxford,
Ohio: Miami University, Scripps Foundation, 1955.

Includes indirect methods for measuring (a) migration streams
using place-of-birth data and (b) net intercensal migration; and direct
methods for measuring internal migration through (a) migration
streams and (b) differential migration.

. “The Use of Place-of-Birth and Duration-of-Residence Data for
Studying Internal Migration.” Paper presented at the UNESCO Semi-
nar on Evaluation and Utilization of Population Census Data in Latin
America, Santiago, Chile, 1959.

and CALVIN L. BEALE. “Recent Population Trends in the United
States and Their Causes.” In Our Changing Rural Society: Perspec-
tives and Trends. Edited by James H. Copp. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press, 1964. Ch. 3, pp. 71-126.

Considers distribution for central cities and metropolitan rings,
distributional trends in general, by region, by metropolitan-nonmetro-
politan classification, by rural-urban status, by farm-nonfarm status,
by size of place, type of place, and county size; and the urbanization-
suburbanization of blacks. Composition trends are considered relating
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 61

to age, color, sex, marital status, education, family and household, and
economic characteristics. Explanations for these basic population
trends include factors relating to natality and mortality, inmigration
and migration, patterns of regional economic growth, patterns of
rural-urban economic equilibrium, metropolitan decentralization, de-
fense activity, the agricultural revolution, structure of business, ex-
pansion of higher education, drift toward warmer climates, styles and
levels of living, and changes in the social and economic status of
blacks.

131.

 

and MARGARET JARMAN HAGOOD. Subregional Migration in the
United States, 1935-40. Vol. 11. Differential Migration in the Corn and
Cotton Belts. Scripps Foundation Studies in Population Distribution,
No. 6. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, Scripps Foundation, 1953.

This is an extensive analysis of 1935-40 subregional migration in the
Corn and Cotton Belts. Native white, male rural-urban migrants aged
22-24 in comparison to counterpart nonmigrants were found to be
better educated, to have a higher rate of unemployment, and more
frequently were married. White male rural-urban migrants aged 22-24
averaged incomes only slightly below those of urban residents of the
same age, were employed in neither high- nor low-status occupations in
the city, and were generally similar to the city’s same-age population.
White female rural-urban migrants aged 22-24 to cities in the same
State were more likely to be in the labor force than females at either
origin or destination. In comparison to urban females, these migrants
were more likely to be professional workers than clerical workers, and
more likely to be employed, although their incomes were generally
lower. Among young rural-urban migrants, females earned less than
males of the same educational level. Young nonwhite male rural-
urban migrants to cities in the same State in general had less
education, lower occupational statuses, lower incomes, and lower un-
employment rates than urban nonwhites. Although they had severe
adjustment problems, they were more likely to be married than those
in origin or destination areas. Additional findings are given on older
groups of migrants by age, race, and sex.

132. , HENRY S. SHRYOCK, JR., and SIEGFRIED A. HOERMANN. Subre-
gional Migration in the United States, 1935-40. Vol. 1. Streams of
Migration Flow between Environments. Scripps Foundation Studies in
Population Distribution, No. 6. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University,
Scripps Foundation, 1957.

Includes data on rural-nonfarm-to-urban migration, rural-farm-to-
urban migration, and the two reverse streams, by sex and color, age,
education, occupation, and employment status. Urban-urban migra-
tion was found to be more common for the period studied than was
rural-urban migration. Rural-urban migration probably contributed
less to city population growth for 1935-40 than did natural increase,
and net migration probably accounted for no more than 25 percent of
total urban growth. Off-farm migrants were younger than migrants in
other streams, and migration of all types was selective of the better
educated. Off-farm migrants were more likely to be unemployed than
nonmigrants on farms.

 

133. and WARREN S. THOMPSON. “Migration and Distance.” American

Sociological Review, 14 (1949), 236-244.

 
62

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

In analyzing 1935-40 census data, the authors found an inverse
relationship between rate of migration and distance. Data indicated
that rural-urban migration is accomplished by step movement rather
than by single moves.

134. BOHLEN, JOE M., and RAY E. WAKELEY. “Intentions to Migrate and

Actual Migration of Rural High School Graduates.” Rural Sociology,
15(4) (Dec. 1950), 328-334.

Data were obtained from 157 graduating seniors of the eight rural
high schools located in towns having a population range of 100-1,779
in Hamilton County, Iowa, and the adjoining community of Story City
in Story County. Students were reinterviewed 1 year after graduation.
Respondents included 41 farm and 28 nonfarm boys; 52 farm and 36
nonfarm girls.

Significant differences between intentions and actual migration
were found mainly among the large number of students originally
undecided about future plans. Of the undecided nonfarm boys and
girls and farm girls, about half subsequently migrated. However, only
one-eighth of the undecided farm boys actually left. Approximately 60
percent of the sample moved, most going to urban areas, although
only three of the migrants left the State.

A significant relationship was found between sex, place of residence,
and migration. A greater proportion of the farm boys did not migrate
during the first year following graduation, while differences between
nonfarm boys, farm girls, and nonfarm girls were not significant.
Actual migration was not significantly related to frequency of discus-
sion of plans for the future with parents, to age of parents, or to the
socioeconomic status level of the home. Graduates whose parents had
attended college showed no greater tendency to migrate, and intelli-
gence was not related to migration.

135. BONNEN, JAMES T. “The Distribution of Benefits from Selected U.S.

Farm Programs.” In Rural Poverty in the United States. Report of the
President’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 26, pp. 461-
505.

In describing relative distributions for eight different commodity
programs, Bonnen states, “. . . these programs would not be an
efficient means of improving the welfare of the lowest income groups
on farms. ... The lowest 40 percent of farmers received much less than
a proportionate share of the program benefits.”

136. BOONE, RICHARD W., and NORMAN KURLAND. “A Look at Rural Pov-

erty.” New Generation, 50 (Summer 1968), 2-5.

In 1965 the U.S. Civil Rights Commission concluded that racial
discrimination was accelerating the displacement and impoverish-
ment of Negro farmers and increasing the social, educational, and
economic gap between white and Negro farmers. The most rapid
increase in the use of mechanical cotton pickers and improved weed
killers in the South paralleled the effort of the Negro community to
secure political rights, while Federal farm programs which made these
advances possible were denied Negro farmers as a result of their
exclusion from local decisionmaking affecting the dispensation of
benefits. A solution suggested here is a rural counterpart to the Model
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 63

Cities Program, which should avoid the mistakes encountered by the
Area Redevelopment Act (ARA), through which investment loans
were made mainly to “outside” entrepreneurs induced to move into
redevelopment areas by the Government-subsidized capital loans and,
frequently, by a desire to relocate to nonunionized areas and low tax
jurisdictions. As a result, many new industries created jobs mainly for
outsiders with considerable training, while the ARA programs hardly
affected the outmigration rate of the poor whose presence formed the
basis for ARA eligibility in the first place.

137. BORTS, GEORGE H. “Patterns of Regional Economic Development in the

138.

 

United States, and Their Relation to Rural Poverty.” In Rural Poverty
in the United States. Report of the President’s National Advisory
Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 9, pp. 130-140.

Examines economic growth and decline among major regions of the
United States, economic effects of intraregional resource movements
and interregional migration, supply and demand factors in regional
growth, and debtor and creditor regions. Three alternative public
policies designed to alleviate rural poverty are presented: relocation of
industry to rural areas, industrial and residential location in growth
centers, and subsidized migration to established metropolitan areas.
Choice of which policy is most effective is given to the second over the
third alternative, even though the author says that “. . . there are
strong economic grounds for continuing the migratory patterns which
have been established.” Whatever social maladjustments are pro-
duced by large-scale rural-urban migration would seem to be mini-
mized through the use of the growth center as a staging area for
cultural change.

AND OTHERS. “Problems of Raising Incomes in Lagging Sectors of
the Economy: Discussion.” American Economic Review, 50 (May 1960),
251-257.

Social investment in declining regions may be designed to increase
the mobility of labor so as to induce migration, or to revitalize the
areas, so as to retain industry.

139. BOTTUM, J. CARROLL. “The Impact of Anticipated Trends and Shifts of

Population upon American Agriculture.” In Proceedings of Agricul-
tural Industries Conference. Prepared by Cornell University Graduate
School of Business and Public Administration, in cooperation with
New York State College of Agriculture. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Univer-
sity, 1956. Pp. 43-49.

140. BOWLES, GLADYS K. “Adjustment Processes Associated with Migration,

with Special Reference to Population Redistribution in the Great
Plains between 1950 and 1960.” In Proceedings of the Great Plains
Agricultural Council, 1962. Fort Collins, Colo.: Great Plains Agricul-
tural Council, 1962. Pp. 103-132.

Using census data and information on retail establishments, this
study discusses kinds of adjustment attendant on migration: personal
adjustments of migrants in the new location and of nonmigrants in
both areas of origin and destination; and institutional adjustments in
areas of outmigration and at destination points. Also included are
tabular data and interpretations of total population change and
64 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

percentage change, components of change, net change as a result of
migration for 1940-50 and 1950-60, net migration by counties for 1950-
60, net change as a result of migration by sex and color for metropoli-
tan and nonmetropolitan counties, rates of net migration for metropol-
itan and nonmetropolitan counties by age and sex, and the rural and
farm population.

141. . “The Current Situation of the Hired Farm Labor Force.” In
Farm Labor in the United States. Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1967. Ch. 2, pp. 19-40.

 

142.

 

. Farm Population . .. Net Migration from Rural-Farm Population,
1940-1950. Statistical Bulletin 176. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service, 1956.

Gives data on rural-farm net migrants for 1940-50 by age, sex, and
color. Decade migration rates generally were low for children and for
persons aged 25-44, highest for those aged 15-19, and intermediate for
those over 45. Female rates were higher for the ages under 25 and
over 35, while male rates were highest among those aged 20-29. In
general, net outmigration rates of nonwhites were greater than those
of whites. With race controlled, females had higher net outmigration
rates than males in almost all age groups.

143.

 

. “Migration Patterns of the Rural-Farm Population, 13 Economic
Regions of the United States, 1940-1950.” Rural Sociology, 22 (Mar.
1957), 1-11.

144.

 

. Migration of Population in the South: Situation and Prospects.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Mar-
keting Service, 1958.

There was a net annual loss to rural areas of about 1 million persons
for recent years preceding 1958, with the majority of the loss occur-
ring in the South. This loss is predicted to continue, with the average
annual net decrease being about 200,000. Lack of employment oppor-
tunities to absorb the increasing numbers coming into the labor force
could require as many as 50 percent of rural youth to seek nonfarm
work.

145.

 

. “Migration Status and Residence Background of Husbands and
Wives and the Incidence of Poverty in 1967.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Washing-
ton, D.C., Apr. 22-24, 1971.

Data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity show that
married couples who had migrated out of the South and those who had
moved from rural to urban areas were about as well off in 1967 as
destination-area couples and were much better off than origin-area
residents.

 

146. . Migration of the Texas Farm Population. Bulletin 847. College
Station, Tex.: Texas A & M University, Agricultural Experiment

Station, 1957.
*147.

 

=, “A Profile of the Incidence of Poverty among Rural-Urban
Migrants and Comparative Populations.” Paper presented at the

Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Washington, D.C.,
Aug. 26-30, 1970.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 65

Using 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity data, this study pre-
sents an overall view of the socioeconomic position of persons of rural
background who were living in urban places in 1967 and compares
them with rural nonmigrants and rural-rural migrants and with
urban nonmigrants and urban-urban migrants. Information for ur-
ban-rural migrants is included in the tables but not discussed. Mi-
grants from rural to urban areas may have been of above average
status at the time of move. A much larger proportion of the rural
population than of rural-urban migrants was in poverty. In the three
populations and among all characteristics examined, incidence of
poverty was usually higher for Negroes than for whites. Among rural-
urban migrants, incidence of poverty was higher among persons of
farm origin than among those of rural-nonfarm origin; persons mak-
ing a direct move to a metropolitan area than among those having an
intervening move; persons making at least two moves to a nonmetro-
politan area; and interregional migrants of southern origin than
among interregional migrants of nonsouthern origin. Generally, rural-
urban whites were relatively better off than rural counterparts. “With
only a few exceptions, white rural-urban migrants had about the same
or higher incidences of poverty than white people in the urban
population of urban origin, regardless of characteristics examined.
The relationship between the incidence of poverty among Negro rural-
urban migrants and the Negro population of urban origin was irregu-
lar. . . . In none of the characteristic divisions of the population had
rural-urban Negro migrants reached or surpassed the levels of the
white populations they were living among, and the incidence of
poverty among Negroes is often several times as high as that of
whites.” Incidence of poverty among rural-urban migrants was closely
associated with low education, poor health, incomplete or irregular
family arrangements, multiple marriages, excessive numbers of chil-
dren, lack of regular employment, and poor jobs in industries charac-
terized by low wages and salaries. White and Negro rural-urban
migrants were better educated than the rural-origin population.
Whites had about the same education as urban-origin whites (12
years), whereas rural-urban blacks had less education (8.8 years) than
urban-origin whites and blacks, but about the same as whites living in
poverty conditions in 1967. A higher proportion of both Negro and
white rural-urban migrants than of either of the comparative popula-
tions had been married more than once. A smaller proportion of rural-
urban migrants than of the rural population still in rural areas was
receiving welfare.

 

148. . Some Previews of Population Changes in Low-Income Farming
Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricul-
tural Marketing Service, 1960.

149. , A. LLOYD BACON, and P. NEAL RITCHEY. Poverty Dimensions of

 

Rural-to-Urban Migration. Vol. 1. A Statistical Report; Vol. II. Chart
Book; Vol. 111. An Analytical Report: Migration and Poverty in the
United States, 1967. Published jointly by Economic Research Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture; University of Georgia, Institute for
Behavioral Research; Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation,
Office of Economic Opportunity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1973 and 1974.

 
66 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

These volumes will be the final reports of a research project utiliz-
ing the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity data. Much of unpub-
lished papers by Bowles, Bacon, Ritchey, and Anne S. Lee, cited
elsewhere, will be incorporated in these three volumes.

 

150. , CALVIN L. BEALE, and BENJAMIN S. BRADSHAW. Potential Sup-
ply and Replacement of Rural Males of Labor Force Age, 1960-1970.
Statistical Bulletin 378. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Economic Research Service, 1966.

Estimates the numbers of men expected to be entering and leaving
the working age groups (especially ages 20-64) in the rural population
during the 1960’s. Shows measures for the rural population and its
farm and nonfarm components, and for the total, white, and nonwhite
populations of these residence categories for the United States, re-
gions, geographic divisions, States, economic subregions, State eco-
nomic areas, and counties.

151.

 

, SIEGFRIED A. HOERMANN, and WAYNE C. ROHRER. Population of
the Northeast: Growth, Composition and Distribution, 1900-1950. Bul-
letin 468. College Park, Md.: University of Maryland, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1960.

152.

 

and H. LOCK OH. “Some Methodological Notes on a Study of the
Educational Selectivity of Rural and Urban Migrants Between the
South and the Rest of the Nation.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Statistical Association, Fort Collins, Colo.,
Aug. 26, 1971.

153.

 

and JAMES D. TARVER. “The Composition of Net Migration among
Counties in the United States, 1950-1960.” Agricultural Economics
Research, 18(1) (Jan. 1966), 13-19.

The 1950-60 net migration resulted in population loss for the South
and North Central Divisions and gains for the West. The two northern
regions gained nonwhites but lost whites; the South gained more
middle and older-aged whites than it lost young adult whites but
heavily lost nonwhites; and the West gained both nonwhites and
whites. On balance the South lost white males but gained white
females; the patterns of other regions for both nonwhites and whites
of both sexes were similar. Data for the 25-29 cohort of 1960 illustrate
age-specific patterns of migration: California gained most heavily,
while Southern States were the heaviest losers. Counties less than 50
percent urban in 1950 had population losses in nearly every age-sex
group, with losses increasing with rurality. Counties most highly
urbanized had greatest nonwhite population gains, while those 50-69
percent urban had greatest white gains. County migration rates
increased with decreasing median family income, and only counties
with median family incomes of $6,000 or more had net gains. Counties
with less than $5,000 median family income disproportionately lost
nonwhites, and those with median family incomes of $6,000 and over
disproportionately gained nonwhites. Counties with median family
incomes of less than $3,000 lost half their young adults during the
decade. There was a net movement away from designated redevelop-
ment areas.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 67

 

 

 

154. and . Net Migration of the Population, 1950-60, by Age, Sex
and Color. Vol. I. States, Counties, Economic Areas and Metropolitan
Areas. Vol. II. Analytical Groupings of Counties. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1965.

155. , AND OTHERS. “Urban Migration of Rural Youth: Related Factors,

Personal Adjustments and Urban Assimilation.” In Rural Youth in
Crisis: Facts, Myths and Social Change. Edited by Lee G. Burchinal.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Wel-
fare, Welfare Administration, 1965. Pp. 273-287.

Rising labor efficiency in agriculture provides a “push” for outmi-
gration from rural areas. This study considers four broad kinds of
factors related to rural youth migration: social norms and aspirations,
demographic and ecological factors, social and economic factors, and
family and community factors. It discusses adjustments—and barriers
to assimilation—of rural youth to urban life in terms of occupational
achievement and economic status, community and family relation-
ships, and migrants’ perceptions of their situations.

156. BOWLES, SAMUEL. “Migration as Investment: Empirical Tests of the
Human Investment Approach to Geographical Mobility.” Program on
Regional and Urban Economics, Discussion Paper 51. Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University, 1969.

157. BOWMAN, MARY JEAN, and W. WARREN HAYNES. Resources and People
in East Kentucky: Problems and Potentials of a Lagging Economy.
Baltimore, Md.: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1963.

 

158. and R. G. MYERS. “Schooling, Experience and Gains and Losses in
Human Capital through Migration.” Journal of the American Statisti-
cal Association, 62(319) (Sept. 1967), 875-898.

Present ways of calculating human capital gains and losses through
migration represent a too simplistic view of migration. Gross flows
must be taken into account; net migration flows’ analyses still hide
critical problems and evidence, and return migration is important
quantitatively. Especially important in analyzing return flows is the
fact that regions vary in quality of education and experiential oppor-
tunities and where there is “rotating migration of obsolescent and
undereducated men.” Considers the merits of using human invest-
ment decision models in migration analysis, and discusses recent
applications of these models in migration by Sjaastad (992), Weisbrod
(1174), and Fein (309).

159. BOWRING, J. R., and O. B. DURGIN. The Population of New Hampshire. .
Factors Influencing the Attitudes of Farmers Toward Migration Off
Farms. Bulletin 458. Durham, N.H.: University of New Hampshire,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1958.

This analysis of attitudes of 253 New Hampshire farm operators
toward leaving farming found that age, education, children’s migra-
tion, community ties, indebtedness, and investment in the farm were
all related to willingness to leave—but only one in seven of the sample
had considered moving.

160. BOYKIN, W. C. Factors Associated with the Migration of Rural People
from Selected Mississippi Counties. Report to the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. Lorman, Miss.: Alcorn A & M College, forthcoming.
68

161.

162.

163.

164.

165.

166.

*167.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

BRAMHALL, D. F., and H. J. BRYCE. “Interstate Migration of Labor-
Force Age Population.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 22(4)
(July 1969), 576-583.

The purpose, using 1960 census data, was to analyze gross interstate
migration for 1955-60 for each 5-year age, sex, and color cohort within
the labor force (15-64 age group), to find out if different groups within
the labor force respond differently to migration stimuli, and to take
account of gross in- and outflows. Cohort population size explained a
significant and high proportion of interstate variation in cohort outmi-
gration, while the propensity of nonwhites to outmigrate was lower
than that of whites. Outmigration was more closely linked to life-cycle
changes than to economic conditions; a five-year lead change in
employment opportunities explained a significant but low proportion
of interstate variation in cohort migration. Whites generally were
more responsive than blacks to changes in employment opportunities.

BRANDON, DONALD GOLDEN. “Migration of Negroes in the United
States, 1910-1947.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia Uni-
versity, 1949.

BREAZEALE, NORMA J. “Association of Selected Socio-Economic Charac-
teristics with Net Migration from Three Kentucky Economic Areas,
1920-1950.” Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kentucky,
1958.

Net outmigration from three Kentucky economic areas for 1920-50
was inversely associated with economic level and family ties and
directly related to development of communication and transportation
capabilities.

BREED, WARREN. “Suicide, Migration, and Race: A Study of Cases in
New Orleans.” Journal of Social Issues, 22 (Jan. 1966), 30-43.

Breed found that suicide rates varied by sex, race, duration of
residence, and congruence between origin and destination lifestyles,
and that parts of the less urbanized South have an emotional cushion-
ing effect on blacks.

BREWSTER, JOHN M. “The Impact of Technical Advance and Migration
on Agricultural Society and Policy.” Journal of Farm Economics, 41
(Dec. 1959), 1169-1184.

Because the great rate of technological advance in agriculture has
produced and continues to produce aggregate farm output in excess of
effective demands for farm products, outmigration has not been and
will not be sufficient to solve the problems of excess capacity and low
incomes in agriculture.

BRIGHT, MARGARET L., and CHARLES E. LIVELY. Farm Youth in Mis-
souri. Bulletin 504. Columbia, Mo.: University of Missouri, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1947.

BRODY, EUGENE B., ED. Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of
Migrant Populations. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970.
Includes sections on dimensions of migration, rural-urban migra-
tion, and the sociocultural and individual behavior problems of mi-
grants. Annotations of various chapters are given in citations 168, 267,
301, 333, 452, 456, 583, 920, 942, 945, 955, and 1041.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 69

 

168. . “Migration and Adaptation: Nature of the Problem.” In Behavior
in New Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Populations. Edited by
Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Ch. 1,
pp. 13-21.

Presents a framework for viewing the consequences of migration.
Factors given which determine the migrant’s adaptation are: the
individual’s past history; his acquired defense mechanisms, adaptive
techniques, and motivation for the move; the public push and pull
factors in the donor and host environments, including the consonance
of their norms and resistances and receptor networks encountered in
the host system; and transitional factors. Indicators which reflect the
nature of the adaptive process are: time in the system, rank, esteem,
physical and psychic mobility. Also discusses family ties and circular
migration and the host system in relation to the origin area, with
particular reference to the nature of the ghetto as a mediating
influence.

169. BROWN, CLAUDE HAROLD. “Personal and Social Characteristics Associ-
ated with Migrant Status among Adult Males from Rural Pennsylva-
nia.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pennsylvania State Univer-
sity, 1960.

Of 974 high school male sophomores in rural areas of Pennsylvania
interviewed in 1947 and reinterviewed 10 years later, 25 percent had
migrated to urban areas, and there was no selectivity of migration
with respect to parents’ occupational status, intelligence, and person-
ality adjustment.

170.

 

and Roy C. BUCK. Factors Associated with the Migrant Status of
Young Adult Males from Rural Pennsylvania. Bulletin 676. University
Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1961.

From data noted in the previous annotation, it was found that
migrants were better educated and more likely to be single than
nonmigrants.

171. BROWN, JAMES S. Migration within, to, and from the Southern Appalachi-
ans, 1935-58: Extent, Direction and Social Effects. Lexington, Ky.:
University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.

172.

 

. “Population and Migration Changes in Appalachia.” In Changes
in Rural Appalachia. Edited by John D. Photiadis and Harry K.
Schwarzweller. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press,
1971. Ch. 2, pp. 23-49.

Appalachia’s birth rates, death rates, the proportions of urban,
rural-farm, and rural-nonfarm population, size of family, industrial
composition, and age structure are becoming more like those of the
United States in general. Appalachian migration patterns can be
understood by noting that there are few metropolitan areas in the
region, those that do exist lie on the fringes, and the region is
completely surrounded by metropolitan areas.

The area first lost population in the 1950’s despite high rates of
natural increase but registered a slight gain in 1960-65, when the
annual rate of loss due to migration dropped by half. Area birth rates
are still capable of producing sizable population increases if it were
not for heavy migration losses.
70

173.

174.

175.

*176.

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Increasing welfare benefits, stay-in-school programs, and various
antipoverty measures have contributed to the decline in outmigration,
while the shrinking number of employment opportunities elsewhere
for unskilled and semiskilled workers has acted as a barrier to
geographic mobility. Migration losses have been highest from counties
with the lowest median family incomes and lowest levels of living.
Migrants are typically young adults, disproportionately male, and
better educated than the general population, although less well edu-
cated than the populations of destination areas.

and HOWARD W. BEERS. Rural Population Changes in Five
Kentucky Mountain Districts, 1943 to 1946. Bulletin 532. Lexington,
Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1949.
There was a large net outmigration during World War II but a net
inmigration beginning in the summer of 1946. The total rural-farm
population declined 20-30 percent during the period 1940-46.

and GEORGE A. HILLERY, JR. “The Great Migration, 1940-1960.” In
The Southern Appalachian Region: A Survey. Edited by Thomas R.
Ford. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1962. Pp. 54-78.

Although economic necessity has been the greatest spur to outmi-
gration from this region, education, family structure, mass communi-
cation, and urbanization also are influential factors. Problems of
depopulation are so irrevocable as to preclude attempts at economic
development in favor of a program of guided migration.

and RALPH J. RAMSEY, COMPS. The Changing Kentucky Popula-
tion: A Summary of Population Data for Counties. Progress Report 67.
Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1958.

, HARRY K. SCHWARZWELLER, and JOSEPH J. MANGALAM. “Ken-
tucky Mountain Migration and the Stem Family: An American Varia-
tion on a Theme by Le Play.” Rural Sociology, 28 (Mar. 1963), 48-69.

In a 20-year study of a Kentucky mountain farming community, the
authors found Le Play’s “stem-family” concept useful in explaining
findings on the adjustment of mountain migrants in the city. Family
members tended to migrate to the same places as had others before
them, where extensive kin ties had been developed and origin-destina-
tion communications had been maintained. Members of the stem
family in the mountains encouraged outmigration but also provided a
haven of safety for returnees during crises, and the “branch family”
in the city acted as a psychological cushion for the new migrant in his
attempts to adjust.

177. BROWN, LAWRENCE A. Diffusion Processes and Location: A Conceptual

Framework and Bibliography. Philadelphia, Pa.: Regional Science
Research Institute, 1968.

178. BROWN, MORGAN C. “Selected Characteristics of Southern Rural Ne-

groes Exchanged to Southern Urban Center.” Rural Sociology, 27
(Mar. 1962), 63-70.

The findings are from an exploratory study of selected characteris-
ties of 312 rural Negro males who entered Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
from other counties during different time periods. Each had resided in
the city for more than 1 year, presumably intended to live in the city
179

180

181

182.

183.

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 71

permanently, had made one migratory move, and was married at the
time of entry. A random sample of native Negro family heads served
as a control group. Most (61.5 percent) of the migrants came from
contiguous parishes, and none was drawn from a parish with a city of
more than 50,000 or total population over 100,000. The median dis-
tance migrated increased from 28.7 miles prior to 1930 to 47.9 miles in
the 1950's. The percent who migrated alone declined from 73 percent
prior to 1930 to 51.1 percent in the 1950's. Migrants from noncontig-
uous parishes tended to have slightly higher educational attainments.
The largest proportions of entrants of the 1940’s and 1950’s were
employed as laborers. The longer a migrant had lived in the city, the
more likely he was to have been employed in a high-level occupation.

. BROWN, PHILLIPS H., and JOHN M. PETERSON. “The Exodus from Arkan-

sas.” Arkansas Agricultural Economist, 2 (Winter 1960), 10-15.

The growth of manufacturing in Arkansas rural areas from 1947 to
1958 was too small to provide enough jobs for those entering the labor
force from the rural-farm population, so outmigration continued at a
substantial rate.

. BROWNING, HARLEY L., and LARRY H. LONG. Population Mobility:

Focus on Texas. Population Series 2. Austin, Tex.: University of
Texas, Bureau of Business Research, 1968.

Focuses on interstate migration to and from Texas, 1870-1960;
patterns of short-term migration, 1930-60; net migration and overall
mobility for urban areas; socioeconomic characteristics of movers; the
process of urbanization; and population decline in 71 counties.

. BRUNNER, EDMUND DES. “Internal Migration in the United States,

1935-40.” Rural Sociology, 13(1) (Mar. 1948), 9-22.

. “Population Research.” In The Growth of a Science: A Half
Century of Rural Sociological Research in the United States. New
York: Harper Bros., 1957. Pp. 42-63.

In surveying population research studies, Brunner noted several
consistent findings. Most rural-urban migration occurs between the
ages 16 and 30. While women leave rural areas at earlier ages than
males and are overrepresented proportionately among rural-urban
migrants, males move greater distances. Better educated youth mi-
grate greater distances, and longer distance migrants are more likely
to end up in urban areas. While among the rural-farm population,
children of tenants are more frequently movers than children of
owners, they also are more likely to move shorter distances. Migration
and number of group affiliations are inversely related. Distance of
migration and job status are directly related. Younger families are
more likely to migrate than older ones.

AND OTHERS. “Migration and Education.” Teachers College Re-
cord, 49 (1947), 98-1017.

In using 1935-40 census data to analyze the relationship between
migration and education, the authors ranked States as to migration
gain or loss and expenditure per classroom unit and found a positive
correlation between these two variables. The college educated among
the rural-farm population were less likely to migrate than rural-
nonfarm or urban counterparts, and among both rural population
categories, the better educated moved to cities in higher proportions
72 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

than to farms or villages. Distance of migration and education also
were positively related. The typical migrant to an urban area was a
high school graduate, while the one to a rural area had 7 or 8 years of
schooling.

184. BRUNO, HAL. “Chicago’s Hillbilly Ghetto.” The Reporter (June 4, 1964),
28-31. Also in Poverty in the Affluent Society. Edited by Hanna H.
Meissner. New York: Harper & Row, 1966. Pp. 102-107.

185. BRYANT, ELLEN S. Changes in Mississippi County Population 1950 to
1959: Some Hypotheses. Sociology and Rural Life Series Preliminary
Report 13. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1960.

186.

 

. Estimated Population Trends, Mississippi, 1960-61. Bulletin 659.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, 1963.

and KIT MUI LEUNG. Mississippi Farm Trends 1950-1964. Bulletin
754. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1967.

There was a 55 percent decrease in the number of farm operators in
Mississippi from 1950 to 1964. Tenant losses were proportionately
greater than owner losses, although outmigration from both groups
was substantial. Eighty percent of the tenant loss occurred among
blacks, while the proportion of white farmers of all farmers increased
from one-half to two-thirds in the time period. Remaining farms were
rapidly mechanizing, the number working only part time in farming
greatly increased. The authors also noted city influences on farm
living in relation to ownership of appliances, educational levels, and
youth aspirations.

187.

 

188.

 

and GEORGE L. WILBER. “Mississippi Farms and Farmers:
Changes Since 1950.” Information Sheet 709. State College, Miss.:
Mississippi State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961.

 

189.

 

and . Net Migration in Mississippi 1950-1960. Bulletin 632.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, 1961.

The effect of Mississippi’s 1950-60 net migration was to increase
both the proportion of dependent persons in the population and the
ratio of white to nonwhite population. Factors combining to produce
this result were high fertility, heavy outmigration of labor-force-aged
persons and of blacks, and inmigration of those over age 65. Mechani-
zation of agriculture and industrial job opportunities were the push-
and-pull forces influencing the outmigration of rural youth. Migrant
whites typically moved to intrastate cities, while blacks went primar-
ily out of State. The authors estimate that yearly migration losses cost
the State an average of $700 million.

190. Buck, Roy C. “Rural Youth Leave Home . . . There is a Vacant Chair.”
Science for the Farmer (New Series), 1(3) (Winter 1954), 4-5.
One-fourth of the rural Pennsylvania high school sophomores inter-
viewed in 1947 had moved to cities 4 years later.

191.

 

and BOND L. BIBLE. Educational Attainment among Pennsylvania
Rural Youth. Bulletin 686. University Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 73
192, and CLAUDE HAROLD BROWN. “The Implications of Rural Youth
Migration and Occupational Mobility for Agriculture.” Journal of
Farm Economics, 41 (Dec. 1959), 1155-1168.

Data were obtained from 1,042 white rural male high school sopho-
mores in 1947 and from re-interviews in 1951 and again in 1957. Of the
sample, about 26 percent were farm reared, 19 percent were rural-
nonfarm dwellers, and the rest lived in towns and villages of less than
2,500 population. Initial interview data revealed that there were no 1Q
differences among the sample by origin.

Controlling for choice of farming by farm-reared boys, there was no
relationship found between choice of occupation and place of resi-
dence. Parents’ choices for sons’ occupations were most frequently for
white collar jobs, although half of the parents of the farm reared
preferred farming for their sons. There were no differences in the
family statuses or dropout rates of the boys by place of residence, but
the farm reared ultimately completed fewer years of school. Data
obtained 4 years later revealed that of the original group, 69 percent
of the farm reared, 70 percent of the rural-nonfarm dwellers, and 63
percent of the village dwellers were still in their places of origin.

Most migrants had gone to urban areas. The farm-reared sample
contributed far less proportionately than the other groups to the
numbers of urban migrants. Most of the migration observed occurred
in and around the home county. Sixty-five percent of the original
sample was in the labor force, with over two-thirds of these in blue
collar jobs and the rest about equally divided between white collar
pursuits and farming. Except for the association between being reared
on, and working on, a farm, no other relationships were found between
occupation and place of origin. Farm-reared youth were earning about
$30 less per month than members of the other two groups. For all
groups, but especially the farm reared, frequent job changes following
labor-force entry were associated with low initial weekly salaries.
However, the initial income advantage of those in stable jobs was
offset over time by the improved incomes of those changing jobs. The
farm reared were less likely than others to be in white collar jobs.

In 1957 twenty-nine percent of the original sample were living in
urban areas, with the farm having contributed the least number of
urban migrants. An urbanward trend in migration was offset by the
tendency for moves to same-sized places. Twenty-five percent of the
sample had never moved.

Farm-reared males were least likely to be employed in white collar
occupations or as foremen and craftsmen. Only 25 percent of the farm
reared were actually farming. Fewer of the farm reared than of the
other groups were working as operatives, and only 14 of the entire
original sample were common laborers. 1947 residence was a better
indicator of subsequent occupation than 1951 residence. No significant
relationship was found between 1947 place of residence and 1957
income, the gaps observed in 1951 by that time having been closed.
There was a greater variability in income among the farm reared than
among the other two groups. It is concluded that findings do not
support the hypothesis of a difference in socioeconomic achievement
between farm- and non-farm-reared youth 10 years after the sopho-
more year of high school.

 

193. BULTENA, GORDON L. “Career Mobility of Low-Income Farm Opera-
tors.” Rural Sociology, 34 (Dec. 1969), 563-569.

 
74

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Data were obtained from a sample of farm operators in Price
County, Wis., in 1958 and 1965. In the interim one-fourth had died and
one-third had retired. The remaining respondents were traced, and 49
replied to a mailed questionnaire. At the time of leaving farming, over
two-thirds were employed in off-farm work, and 80 percent of these
worked at least 40 hours per week.

Off-farm work became the principal occupation for one-third of the
off-farm movers. Eighty percent were in blue collar jobs. Thirty
percent changed jobs at least once after leaving farming. Such shifts
were horizontal or vertical within blue collar ranks, and only 4 percent
had moved from blue to white collar jobs. Nearly three-fourths of
respondents were as satisfied with their present job as they had been
with farming. Half were in the same county or had moved to a
contiguous county, one-fourth were elsewhere in Wisconsin, and the
rest had moved to another State.

Findings did not support the idea that farmers leaving agriculture
in midcareer have greater adjustment problems than youth leaving
farms. This may be a result of the fact that destination areas for this
sample were not typically urban (74 percent lived in places of less than
10,000 population and only 8 percent had moved to areas of 100,000 or
more), and most respondents continued to live near friends and
relatives.

194. BUNTING, ROBERT L. “A Test of the Theory of Geographic Mobility.”

195.

 

Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 15 (Oct. 1961), 75-82.

This study of rural-urban and interregional migration of the labor
force found that moves typically flow from lower to higher income
areas.

, LOWELL D. ASHBY, and PETER A. PROSPER, JR. “Labor Mobility
in Three Southern States.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 14
(Feb. 1961), 432-445.

This 1953 study of labor mobility in North Carolina, South Carolina,
and Georgia, used the Social Security 1-percent Continuous Work
History sample relating to workers whose first and last covered
employment during 1953 was in the three-State area. Less than 30
percent of the workers were mobile, defined as having had two or more
employers in 1953. Mobility varied with age, race, and sex.

Controlling for sex and race, young workers were 45 percent more
mobile than older workers. Controlling for race and age, male workers
were 65 percent more mobile than female workers. Negro males were
more mobile than white males, but white females were slightly more
mobile than black females. Within age, sex, and race categories,
intercounty moves were more frequent for workers employed in non-
metropolitan than in metropolitan areas.

The three-State study area was characterized by net outmigration:
this loss was greater among males and blacks than among females and
whites. Primary destinations were in the East North Central, the
Middle Atlantic, and the northern portion of the South Atlantic
Divisions. Age, sex, and race composition of migrating streams
changed with distance moved: the proportion of youths, males, and
blacks increased as distance traveled increased, but other factors also
were involved. Since findings are in agreement with Bogue’s for
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 75

Michigan and Ohio for 1947 (127), it is concluded that, despite limita-
tions, Social Security data provide reliable information on labor mobil-
ity.

196. BURCHINAL, LEE G. “Differences in Educational and Occupational Aspi-
rations of Farm, Small-Town and City Boys.” Rural Sociology, 26(2)
(June 1961), 107-121.

. “Do Family Moves Harm Children?” Iowa Farm Science, 17(9)
(1963), 11-12.

From a study of three groups of children in the 7th through 11th
grades in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, it was found that children from farm
backgrounds had adjusted quickly to their new homes and schools,
and did not differ from natives on any of the measured characteristics.
The greater absenteeism rate of 1lth-grade boys from farm back-
grounds compared to all others was the only major group difference
found in the study.

. “Farm Versus Nonfarm Youth in the Urban Labor Market.”
Extension Service Review, 34 (Aug. 1963), 144.

 

197.

198.

 

199; . “How Do Farm Families Adjust to City Life?” Iowa Farm

Science, 17 (1963).

200. ———. “Who's Going to Farm?” Iowa Farm Science, 14 (Apr. 1960), 12-15.
Data were obtained from 103 farm boys enrolled in the 10th and 12th
grades in a rural Iowa high school. Boys who had made definite
decisions about their future occupations were more likely to have held
discussions with their parents. Mothers more frequently than fathers
had talked with the boys concerning their future occupations and had

placed more emphasis on education.

Boys who planned to farm preferred farm work, had lower grades,
considered freedom on the job as the most important characteristic of
a job, tended to be more satisfied with their present level of informa-
tion concerning employment opportunities, and were less likely to be
planning to attend college. Only 30 percent of those boys who planned
to have nonfarm jobs or were uncertain about their future occupa-
tions lived on owner-operated farms.

 

201.

 

and WARD W. BAUDER. “Adjustments to the New Institutional
Environment.” In Family Mobility in Our Dynamic Society. Prepared
by Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Economic
Adjustment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965. Pp. 197-
222.

The working hypothesis was that *... mobility is a response by
which individuals and families expect to, and generally do, succeed in
better meeting important housing and other personal and family
needs.” This hypothesis was based on the assumptions that “... most
moves involve short distances, impose few disruptions in major sys-
“tems of social roles and occur as a result of voluntary decisions.” The
authors present a graphic concept of adjustment to spatial movement
which is essentially a flow chart of time-interrelated sets of factors
preceding, intervening in, and following the actual movement. Inter-
vening factors are those related to the social system, to status, and to
sociopsychological factors of individuals and of families.

Three types of measures are suggested to discover adjustments of
rural migrants to urban social systems: occupational and other social
76

202.

203.

204.

205.

206.

207

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

status data; social participation indices; and attitude, goal, aspiration,
and value measures.

and . “Educational Values of Farm Migrant Families.” Iowa
Farm Science, 19 (Nov.-Dec. 1964), 6-8.

Data were obtained from fathers living in Des Moines, Iowa, from
their sons who had left home, and from their sons still at home for
samples of farm-reared migrants, urban-reared migrants, and city
natives. Educational attainment in general for both types of sons was
greater than that of their fathers, but fewer older sons of urban
migrants were educated beyond high school. Fathers’ educational
aspirations for sons still at home were greater than the actual
achievements of sons who had left. The educational attainments and
aspirations of those in the farm-reared sample fell below those in the
other two groups. Children’s educational level increased as father’s
occupational status increased. Data on actual achievement of older
sons revealed that the eventual achievement of farm migrants’ sons
still at home will lag behind that of sons in other groups. Occupational
status of older sons was lowest among farm migrants and highest
among natives, with farm migrants’ older sons having attended col-
lege in less than half the proportion of native older sons. The authors
conclude that the lower levels of educational and occupational attain-
ment of farm-reared fathers have been passed on to sons and will
continue to be passed on.

 

 

and . “Farm Migrants Adapt to City Life.” Iowa Farm
Science, 19(11) (Feb. 1965), 15-17.

 

and . “Integration of Farm- and Urban-Reared Persons in
Des Moines.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society, Los Angeles, Calif., Aug. 24, 1963.

, ARCHIBALD O. HALLER, and MARVIN J. TAVES. Career Choices of
Rural Youth in a Changing Society. Bulletin 458. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1962.

and PERRY E. JACOBSON. “Migration and Adjustment of Farm
and Urban Families and Adolescents in Cedar Rapids, Iowa.” Rural
Sociology, 28 (Dec. 1963), 364-378.

. BURNIGHT, ROBERT G. 100 Years of Interstate Migration, 1850-1950.

Bulletin 330. Storrs, Conn.: University of Connecticut, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1957.

Analysis of 1850-1950 census data indicate a net outmigration from
Connecticut, 1850-1900, and a net inmigration to the State, 1900-50.

208. Busca, M. “The Rural Exodus.” Riso, 5 (Sept. 1956), 3-4.
209. BUTCHER, WALTER. “Productivity, Technology, and Employment in Ag-

riculture.” In Automation and Economic Progress. Edited by Howard
R. Bowen and Garth L. Mangum. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-
Hall, Inc., 1966. Pp. 114-127.

Technological advances in agriculture have decreased the number of
farm jobs by increasing output and productivity per producing unit.
Movement of labor out of agricultural jobs has not been rapid enough
to balance labor needs in farm and nonfarm jobs. Forces hindering
outmovement from farms are: the isolation of many agricultural areas
210.

211.

212.

213.

214.

215.

216.

217.

218

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 77

from off-farm jobs, nontransferability of farm skills to nonfarm work,
and educational disadvantage of the farm reared. Three-fifths of 1950
off-farm migrants were under age 25 and primarily employed in low-
income semiskilled and unskilled jobs.

BYRN, DARCIE. “Education as a Selective Factor in the Minnesota
Rural-Urban Migration Patterns, 1935-40.” Unpublished master’s the-
sis, University of Minnesota, 1951.

CALDWELL, MORRIS G. “The Adjustments of Mountain Families in an
Urban Environment.” Social Forces, 16 (Mar. 1938), 389-395.

CALIFORNIA, UNIVERSITY OF, MEXICAN AMERICAN STUDY PROJECT. Ad-
vance Report 3: Bibliography, 1966. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of
California at Los Angeles, Graduate School of Business Administra-
tion, Division of Research, Mexican American Study Project, 1966.

CARPENTER, EARL T. Farming Opportunities in Missouri Projected
through 1975, With Special Attention to Openings for High School
Graduates in Vocational Agriculture. Research Bulletin 746. Columbia,
Mo.: University of Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1960.

Carpenter found that the number of farm opportunities in Missouri
were, and would continue to be, insufficient to absorb the growing
number of farm-reared youth entering the labor force.

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY. Department of Sociology. Cleve-
land’s In-Migrant Workers: Part I. Project 27, Hough Area Research 9,
Report 1. Cleveland, Ohio: Case Western Reserve University, 1957.

CHARLTON, J. L. “Farm People on the Move.” Arkansas Agricultural
Economist, 3(2) (May 1916), 1.

. “Migration and Occupational Change Among Arkansas Coun-
ties.” Arkansas Farm Research, 17(2) (Mar.—Apr. 1968), 15.

 

 

. Social Aspects of Farm Ownership and Tenancy in the Arkansas
Coastal Plain. Bulletin 545. Fayetteville, Ark.: University of Arkan-
sas, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1954.

. CHOLDIN, HARVEY M. “The Response to Migrants of the Receiving
Community.” In Family Mobility in Our Dynamic Society. Prepared
by Iowa State University, Center for Agricultural and Economic
Adjustment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1965. Pp. 171-
177

Choldin distinguishes between problems of “ethnic” and “noneth-
nic” migrants and between those of “normal” and “problem” mi-
grants. While the normal migrant learns to adapt quickly to the urban
milieu, the problem migrant may be unemployed, unemployable, or on
public welfare lists, may be highly mobile residentially, and have a
host of other difficulties.

A study performed by Chicago’s Community and Family Study
Center revealed that many real estate operators rent crowded sub-
standard housing at inflated prices to ethnically visible migrants.
Also, ethnic migrants have found many occupations and unions closed
to them. Natives’ responses to visible ethnic migrants reflect the fear,
originally engendered by immigrant groups and fostered today by a
shrinking unskilled labor market, that the new laborers will take over
their jobs. Many people view black southern migrants as “criminal,
78 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

immoral and lazy” people who move North to live on welfare and place
special burdens on a city’s welfare, educational, and police services.
Special problems of migrants are homesickness and feelings of not
belonging, which are less acute for ethnic migrants because of the role
the ethnic enclave plays. A city’s response to a nonethnic migrant,
essentially no response at all, may cause great distress and feelings of
isolation for those from small, intimate communities, and impersonal
treatment may be taken very negatively.

*219. and GRAFTON D. TROUT. Mexican-Americans in Transition: Mi-
gration and Employment in Michigan Cities. Final report submitted to
the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Research, Contract
81246632. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1969.

This random sample study of Mexican Americans (626 males and 69
females) included natives of Michigan (11 percent), and Texas- and
Mexico-born migrants (both nonagricultural workers and farm work-
ers who settled out of the migratory labor stream in Michigan). The
sample studied may have overrepresented low-mobility respondents
and underrepresented the poorest among the groups, with the result
that findings may underestimate unemployment and problems associ-
ated with high intra-area mobility and low incomes. Many findings are
not presented with type of migrant status or length of time in
Michigan controlled. However, it can be said that most of the migrants
from Texas originated in either towns or in small- and medium-sized
cities, had a median age of 27 at outmigration, and had higher
educational attainment than the Mexican American population left
behind. Recent migrants tended to be somewhat younger and better
educated than the resident Mexican American population in Michi-
gan.

Most migrants gave job-related reasons for dropping out of the
migration stream. Desire to be near kin was the second most impor-
tant reason. One-third of migrants had relatives and one-fourth of
migrants had friends already in Michigan when they settled there.
Once in Michigan cities, ex-migratory-workers and the less well edu-
cated were more likely than others to be residentially mobile. Mi-
grants from Texas were more likely than others to have age-grade
retarded children, but age-grade retardation did not seem to be linked
to frequency of parents’ mobility. Ties were maintained with kin in
origin areas by sending money and by making visits. Three-fourths of
migrants changed occupations on migrating to Michigan. Increases in
occupational status were inversely related to years in the migratory
labor stream. Twenty percent of direct inmigrants had completed high
school, versus only 10 percent of labor stream dropouts. Although
direct inmigrants had greater job stability than ex-migratory-stream
workers, there was only a slight difference in their pay on first
Michigan jobs.

 

220. CHRISTENSEN, DAVID E. Rural Occupance in Transition, Sumter and Lee
Counties, Georgia. Population Changes, No. 43. Chicago, Ill.: Univer-
sity of Chicago, Department of Geography, 1956.

221. CHRISTIAN, VIRGIL L., JR., and ADAMANTIOS PEPELASIS. “Agricultural
Displacement and Surplus Labor in the South.” Review of Regional
Studies, 2(1) (1971), 65-81.
222.

223.

224.

225.

226.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 79

This review of secondary-source data for the period 1950-69 from the
census, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Labor, and
from Bowles and Fein concerns the effect of reduced labor in Southern
agriculture on regional manpower. Agricultural labor requirements
have declined to a very great extent over the last two decades, and
Negroes have been displaced at a faster rate than whites. Because of
educational and skill differences and regional racial attitudes, dis-
placed nonwhites have been disadvantaged in competition for non-
farm jobs. Continued improvements in agricultural technology and a
continuing high net reproduction rate in the rural South insure the
perpetuation of a large pool of surplus labor. Data reveal that mi-
grants out of the South largely have been those from urban areas who
were pushed out by those with lower educational levels who, in turn,
were initially pushed off farms and went to southern cities.

and . “Farm Size as a Factor in the Relative Displacement
of Black Farm Families.” Paper presented at the Conference on Rural
Manpower Problems, Center for Study of Human Resources, Univer-
sity of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex., February 12, 1971.

In analyzing Department of Agriculture data for 1950-64, the au-
thors found that technological changes had increased the minimum
size of the economically viable farm, and that longrun pressures of
possible economies of scale in agriculture are greater on the small
farmer than the pressure of technological change alone. More black
than white farmers have been adversely affected by the required
increase in farm size, and for all farm sizes, blacks are at a greater
disadvantage than whites in attempting to shift to capital-intensive
methods in relation to assets, dccess to credit, and poor educational
background. Regardless of farm size, blacks are more subject to
displacement because they are more likely than whites to be tenants.

 

CHRISTIANSEN, JOHN R., JAMES D. COWHIG, and JOHN W. PAYNE. Educa-
tional and Occupational Aspirations of High School Seniors in Three
Central Utah Counties. Social Science Bulletin 1. Provo, Utah:
Brigham Young University, 1962.

, and . Educational and Occupational Choices of Rural
Youth in Utah: A Follow-Up Study. Social Science Bulletin 2. Provo,
Utah: Brigham Young University, 1962.

 

 

 

CISIN, IRA H. “The Mountain Migrant: The Problem Centered Workshop
at Berea.” Journal of Human Relations, 9(1) (Autumn 1960), 67.

CLAWSON, MARION. “Factors and Forces Affecting the Optimum Future
Rural Settlement Pattern in the United States.” Economic Geography,
42(4) (Oct. 1966), 283-293.

In focusing on rural areas and the less-than-5,000-population towns
and villages which serve them, Clawson describes a pattern of “opti-
mum settlement” in relation to both satisfaction and cost and consid-
ers factors which must figure in building resettlement models. He
discusses intrafarm factors, marketing of farm output, purchase of
farm inputs and of home supplies for farm consumption, farm and
family services usually consumed in towns, economies of scale in
group services, and roads. He especially recommends that since today
there are fewer farms per rural road mile, construction of roads
should stop, some roads should be closed, and money diverted from
80 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

construction and repair to relocation allowances for families now
living on marginal farms. He concludes by listing present forces for
and against change in rural areas.

. Policy Directions for U.S. Agriculture. Baltimore, Md.: The Johns
Hopkins University Press, 1968.

Discusses aspirations and noneconomic needs of farm people, farm
labor, rural living conditions, migration of farm people, rural institu-
tions and services, rural towns, the spatial organization of agricul-
ture, and its capital structure. It is considered unlikely that migration
will be accelerated in the absence of major programs to assist farmers
in readjustment, yet the United States may easily get down to 2
million farms or less by 1980 and to 1 million or less by the year 2,000.
Thus, there will continue to be a great deal of underemployment and
unemployment in agriculture as well as a surplus of labor.

227.

 

228. CLELAND, CHARLES L. “Human Resource Development and Mobility in
the Rural South.” Cooperative Regional Project S—-61 Termination
Report. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee, 1972.

229. CLELAND, COURTNEY B. Changes in Rural Population on the Plains.
Social Science Report 3. Fargo, N. Dak.: North Dakota State Univer-
sity, Institute for Regional Studies, 1957.

230. CLOWARD, RICHARD A., and FRANCES F0X PIREN. “Migration, Politics
and Welfare.” Saturday Review (Nov. 16, 1968), 31-35.

231. COE, PAUL F. “Nonwhite Population Increases in Metropolitan Areas.”
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 50(270) (June 1955),
283-308.

Using primarily census data, the author analyzed nonwhite popula-
tion changes in Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMA’s) 1940-50. By
region, nonwhite SMA population increases were absolutely greatest
in the North Central area and relatively greatest in the West. Inmi-
gration of nonwhites to SMA’s accounted for two-thirds of central city
population increases of nonwhites and one-half of suburban nonwhite
population increases. Nonwhites were concentrated in a few SMA’s:
while one-half of all nonwhites lived in 168 SMA'’s, one-half of all
nonwhites living in SMA’s were residing in 10 of them.

232.

 

. “The Nonwhite Population Surge to Our Cities.” Land Econom-
ics, 35 (Aug. 1959), 195-210.

Discusses effects of increased black populations in cities on income,
housing, and taxes.

233. COLEMAN, A. LEE, ALBERT C. PRYOR, JR., and JOHN R. CHRISTIANSEN.
The Negro Population of Kentucky at Mid-Century. Bulletin 643.
Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1956.

The 1950 census data show a decrease of the black population of
Kentucky as a result of heavy outmigration, principally to Ohio,
Indiana, Illinois, and Michigan. The lesser number of blacks who had
inmigrated came generally from Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, and
Mississippi. Thus it appears that Kentucky is a “way point” in the
migration of blacks from the South to northern cities.

234. COLLER, RICHARD WALTER. “Geographic Mobility of Selected Rural
Minnesota Male High School Graduates.” Unpublished doctoral disser-
235.

236.

237.

238.

239.

240.

241.

242,

243.

244.

245.

246.

247.

248.

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 81

tation, University of Minnesota, 1959.
See Taves and Coller, 1077.

COMMITTEE FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. Distressed Areas in a Grow-
ing Economy. New York: Committee for Economic Development, 1961.

CONFERENCE ON ECONOMIC PROGRESS. Full Prosperity for Agriculture:

Goals for Farm Policy. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1955.

CONNECTICUT, UNIVERSITY OF, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, AGRICUL-
TURAL EXTENSION SERVICE. Population Estimates, Natural Increase
and Net Migration, Connecticut Towns, 1950 to 1955. Connecticut
Population Reports 1, Progress Report 11. Storrs, Conn.: University of

Connecticut, College of Agriculture, Agricultural Extension Service,
1955.

COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC AID. The Southern
Appalachian Migrant on Public Aid in Cook County: A Follow-Up
Study. Chicago, I1l.: Cook County, Illinois, Department of Public Aid,
1964.

CORBIN, DORIS, COMP. Publications of the Social Science Department,
1963-1970. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1971.

COWGILL, DONALD O. “Value Assumptions in Recent Migration Re-
search.” Sociological Quarterly, 2(4) (Oct. 1961), 263-279.

COWHIG, JAMES D. Age-Grade School Progress of Farm and Nonfarm
Youth: 1960. Agricultural Economic Report 40. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1963.

. Characteristics of School Dropouts and High School Graduates,
Farm and Nonfarm, 1960. Agricultural Economic Report 65. Washing-

ton, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Serv-
ice, 1964.

. “Early Occupational Status as Related to Education and Resi-
dence.” Rural Sociology, 27(1) (Mar. 1962), 18-27.

. “Rural Youth, Schools and Jobs.” Mimeographed. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
1964.

and CALVIN L. BEALE. “Vocational Agriculture Enrollment and
Farm Employment Opportunities.” Southeastern Social Science
Quarterly, 47(4) (1967), 413-423.

, J. ALLAN BEEGLE, and HAROLD F. GOLDSMITH. Orientations
Toward Occupations and Residence: A Study of High School Seniors in
Four Rural Counties of Michigan. Special Bulletin 428. East Lansing,
Mich.: Michigan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1960.

and SHERIDAN T. MAITLAND. “The Prior Farm Wage Work Experi-
ence of the 1959 Labor Force.” Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Sociological Society, Chicago, Ill., Sept. 1959.

 

 

 

 

and CHARLES B. NAM. “Educational Status, College Plans, and
Occupational Status of Farm and Nonfarm Youths: October 1959.” In
Farm Population. Series Census-ERS, P-27, No. 30. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961.

 
82 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

249. CRAWFORD, CHARLES O. “Family Attachment, Family Support for Mi-
gration, and Migration Plans for Young People.” Rural Sociology, 31
(1966), 293-300.

The study sample consisted of 790 seniors from a low-income and a
high-income agricultural county in northern New York in 1962. Three
measures of sociopsychological support and one form of economic
support were utilized. A four-item index was developed as an opera-
tional measure of attachment. The hypothesis was that high school
seniors who had high attachment to family of orientation, and receive
support from this system to migrate, and those with low attachment
to this system both are more likely to migrate than those who have
high attachment and receive no support for migration. It was found
that the high-attachment-support group was more likely to plan
migration than the high-attachment-no-support group. Support from
the family of orientation to migrate can overcome the inhibiting
effects of attachment to the rural system.

250.

 

. Family Factors in Migration Plans of Youth: High School Seniors
in St. Lawrence County, New York. Department of Sociology Bulletin
65. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1964.

Data noted in the annotation above also show that family support
versus nonsupport in sociopsychological, economic, and communica-
tions functions were especially important for males and for those with
one or no siblings, and that the family of orientation was no more
important than other relatives in influencing a subject’s plans con-
cerning migration.

251. CROWE, MARTIN J. “The Occupational Adaptation of a Selected Group of
Eastern Kentuckians in Southern Ohio.” Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, University of Kentucky, 1964.

*252. CROWLEY, RONALD W. “An Empirical Investigation of Some Local
Public Costs of In-Migration to Cities.” Journal of Human Resources,
1(1) (Winter 1970), 11-23.

Crowley figured costs of inmigrants to 94 cities of destination by
multiplying the income distribution of inmigrants by per capita distri-
bution of expenditures and revenues, and adjusting for intercity
differences in revenue-income-expenditure patterns. Migrants to
these cities for 1955-60 cost each city an average of $2.5 million in
1960, and the annual cost to the city per migrant was nine times as
high as that per native ($72 versus $8), although there was considera-
ble intercity variability.

253. . “The Nature and Social Cost of In-migration to Cities in the
United States, 1955-1960.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke

University, 1968.

254. CUNNINGHAM, EARL HAROLD. “Religious Concerns of Southern Appala-
chian Migrants in a North Central City.” Unpublished doctoral disser-
tation, Boston University, 1962.

Data from 33 migrants from Appalachia to Cleveland showed that
migrants were adapting well and were also satisfied with their city
lives. Most had helpful relatives and friends, and most also had less of
a “religious” life after arrival. Those who were more religiously active
had a more active orientation toward their life situations and were
less distressed by things in general.

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 83

255. DAHLKE, H. OTTO. “Wartime Rural Migration, Western Specialty Crop
Areas.” Studies of the State College of Washington, 14(2) (June 1946),
151-157.

256. and HARVEY STONECIPHER. “A Wartime Back-to-Land Movement

of Old Age Groups.” Rural Sociology, 11(2) (June 1946), 148-152.

Inmigration to four rural areas of Butte County, Calif., 1935-45
represented inmigration of retiring persons who originally had left
rural areas, and who were now establishing “retirement” areas for
part-time farming or enjoyment of rural living.

 

257. DANLEY, ROBERT A., and CHARLES E. RAMSEY. Standardization and
Application of a Level-of-Living Scale for Farm and Nonfarm Fami-
lies. Bulletin 362. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, 1959.

The authors believe that level-of-living scales ought to be standard-
ized to allow comparison of farmers with other occupational and
residence groups. The scale they developed was standardized on one
population group and tested on another. Data were obtained from 549
respondents, of whom 75 percent were rural nonfarmers; 11 percent,
part-time farmers; and 14 percent, full-time farmers. In developing
the level-of-living scale, a battery of 48 pretested variables was
considered, each variable was dichotomized, and a phi coefficient was
used to determine the power of each variable to distinguish high from
low occupational status. A 13-item scale resulted, which included the
following: water supply (inside faucets); tub and shower in bath;
piano; washing machine; pressure cooker; separate freezer; kinds of
clocks; two or more cars; age of cars; concrete floored basement;
telephone; and number of magazines taken. A reduced nine-item scale
was also developed, and each scale gave significant predictions of
educational status and membership and leadership in formal organi-
zations.

The nine-item scale, tested on a sample on which it had not been
standardized, had a significant relationship to all status and con-
sumer pattern variables and to 7 of 12 value-orientation questions. It
was also successful on data from a sample of full-time farmers in the
investigation of the relationship between level of living and stratifica-
tion, attachment to farm, isolation, lifecycle, and health.

258. DAS GUPTA, AJIT. “Types and Measures of Internal Migration.” In
Proceedings of the International Population Conference, 1959. Vienna:
International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 1959. Pp.
619-624.

This theoretical discussion focuses on whether movement of the
household head is voluntary or involuntary, and on the sequential
movement of dependents. It is suggested that one way of dealing
effectively with the spatial variable in studying migration is to divide
a country into homogeneous segments on the basis of such character-
istics as economic opportunities or living conditions, “in a manner
analogous to stratification in sampling.”

259. DAVIES, SHANE, and GARY L. FOWLER. “The Disadvantaged Urban
Migrant in Indianapolis.” Economic Geography, 48(2) (Apr. 1972), 153—
1617.
84

260.

261.

262.

263.

264.

265.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Data were obtained from the records of those who sought jobs in the
Employment Outreach Centers of Indianapolis between August 1966
and August 1968. The sample included 494 blacks and 146 whites for
some kinds of information, while complete information was obtained
only for 197 blacks and 73 whites. All respondents were defined as
disadvantaged. Most migrants were found to be from Southern States
and to have settled in known black and Appalachian white poverty
sections of the city. Over 90 percent of black and Appalachian white
migrants were under 30, with the whites slightly older than the
blacks. Of blacks, 75 percent were female, while 69 percent of whites
were male. Compared to the native poverty area population, migrants
were younger and included more females. Seventy percent of black
males and 51 percent of white male migrants were single. Most
females of both races were married, divorced, separated or widowed.
Divorce was more prevalent among black than among white female
migrants, and divorced black women had more dependents than
married women. The majority of migrants had not finished high
school.

The rural-urban migrants were typically poorly skilled. Except for
black males, about half of the migrants got jobs on arrival which
lasted 3 months or less. The rates of job change varied little by race or
sex when education, age, and mode of transport to work were con-
trolled. Many migrants were not employed in jobs utilizing their skills.
Sixty percent of blacks were making less than $1.65 per hour, while
only 30 percent of white migrants were making that little. These wage
findings were similar to those for the native poverty population.

DAVIES, VERNON. Farm Population Trends in Washington. Bulletin 507.
Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, 1949.

Davis, DAN R. “Who Wants to Keep ’Em Down on the Farm?” South-
western Social Science Quarterly, 17(3) (Dec. 1946), 262-267.

DAVIS, ELIZABETH GOULD, COMP. Low-Income Farm People: A Selected
List of References. Library List 62. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, 1955.

DAvis, JACK. “Texas Population Shifts from Rural to Urban.” Texas
A & M College Agriculturist, 10(4) (Mar. 1952), 13, 24.

DAVIS, KINGSLEY. “Internal Migration and Urbanization in Relation to
Economic Development.” In Proceedings of the World Population
Conference, 1954. Vol. II. New York: United Nationas, 1955. Pp. 783-801.

While internal migration from agricultural areas to cities becomes
heavy in early stages of industrialization, at later stages, interurban
migration eclipses rural-urban movement.

DAY, R. H. “The Economics of Technological Change and the Demise of
the Sharecropper.” American Economic Review, 57 (June 1967), 427-
449.

Day describes an economic model of production, investment, and
technological change and tests it on 1940-60 census data from Missis-
sippi. He shows trends from the model using data on technology,
output, and productivity and focuses on labor demands in line with his
theory of a “two-stage push off the farm.” The first stage occurs when
sharecroppers are forced into nearby villages which provide proximity
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 85

to work in agriculture in peak harvest seasons. The second stage push
occurs when complete mechanization destroys the need for workers
during peak harvest times.

If this model is correct, one should first observe a shift of people
from rural-farm to rural-nonfarm status, from sharecropper to wage-
worker status, and then a shift of rural-nonfarm groups to urban
areas through migration or declines in the populations of regions as a
whole. The Mississippi data used supported this theory.

266. DE JONG, GORDON F. The Population of Kentucky: Changes in the
Number of Inhabitants, 1950-60. Bulletin 675. Lexington, Ky.: Univer-
sity of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961.

267. DERBYSHIRE, ROBERT L. “Adaptation of Adolescent Mexican Americans
to United States Society.” In Behavior in New Environments: Adapta-
tion of Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 275-289.

The sample consisted of 89 females and males of Mexican American
background in a low-income area of Los Angeles. Migrants were
determined on the basis of whether the individual had moved to Los
Angeles during his lifetime or whether his mother or father had
moved there from Mexico, while nonmigrants and their parents were
born and reared in the United States. The major conclusion was that
nonmigrants may have found it necessary to ‘“overidentify” with
traditional Mexican role models to counteract the “cultural-stripping”
process of American society. Adaptive behavior learned at the outset
of migration may become maladaptive during succeeding steps in the
migration process.

268. DIEHL, WILLIAM D. “Farm-Non-Farm Migration in the Southeast: A
Costs Returns Analysis.” Journal of Farm Economics, 48 (Feb. 1966),
1-11.

Diehl presents a theory of a costs-returns framework as the basis for
an analysis of farm-nonfarm migration in the southeastern United
States, 1950-60. Costs noted are farm income given up, out-of-pocket
costs of moving, and “psychic” costs of moving, while returns are said
to be associated with age, education, and nonfarm work experience.
Age was related to migration, and an inverse relationship was found
between income and migration. Capital gains were found to be a
deterrent to migration. No other compositional factor but race ac-
counted for high rates of outmigration for areas with high proportions
of blacks. It is concluded that ¢. . . farm people do migrate in response
to income incentives,” and that special skill training programs may
speed the transfer of agricultural labor to nonfarm jobs.

269. DILLINGHAM, HARRY C., and DAVID F. SLY. “The Mechanical Cotton-
Picker, Negro Migration, and the Integration Movement.” Human
Organization, 25(4) (Winter 1966), 344-351.

The authors obtained data concerning adoption of mechanical cotton
pickers from 17 Arkansas counties, 15 of which had large Negro tenant
populations. These data indicate that ¢“. . . the hypothesis that mecha-
nization in the 1950's was caused by migration is scarcely tenable.” It
is concluded that most migrants went to urban areas in the South,
which, in turn, have been losing large numbers of migrants to urban
places in the North. It seems that this latter group of migrants has
86 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

been pushed North by increased competition from rural migrants for
available urban jobs in the South.

270. DOERFLINGER, JON A. “Patterns of Internal Migration Related to Insti-
tutional and Age-Sex Structure of the U.S.” Unpublished doctoral:
dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1962.

In an examination of family, housing, and occupational institutions,
Doerflinger discerns structural factors facilitating or inhibiting mi-
gration and also the changes taking place in these institutions. An
analysis of data on high school graduates from five Wisconsin counties
showed that there are sex differences among graduates in feelings
about living apart from parents, and means to independence generally
were undertaken but at different rates for each sex. Migration was
differentially related to each “means to independence,” for example,
getting a job, and availability of those means influenced migration.

 

 

271. and RONALD KLIMEK. Jowa’s Population: Recent Trends, Future
Prospects. Special Report 47. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University,
Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, 1966.

272. and DOUGLAS G. MARSHALL. The Story of Price County, Wiscon-

sin: Population Research in a Rural Development County. Research
Bulletin 220. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1960.

Heavy outmigration among labor-force-age adults had left a high
dependency ratio, and the lowered population density had raised the
costs of available services.

273. DUCOFF, Louis J. “Trends and Characteristics of Farm Population in
Low-Income Farming Areas.” Journal of Farm Economics, 37(5) (Dec.
1955), 1399-1407.
Rates of farm population decline were more rapid in low-income
than in high-income rural areas.

*274. DUNCAN, OTIS DUDLEY. “Farm Background and Differential Fertility.”
Demography, 2 (1965), 240-249.

The author notes that, although studies of the late 1950’s showed
that the classic pattern of differential fertility among the nonfarm
population was confined to couples in which one or both spouses grew
up on a farm, these studies had small samples. The purpose here was
to replicate the earlier studies but to use national data on couples
with completed fertility obtained from the March 1962 Current Popu-
lation Survey, to which a supplementary Occupational Changes in a
Generation questionnaire had been attached. A respondent was classi-
fied as having a farm background if his father was a farmer, farm
manager, farm laborer, or foreman, and couples were studied only if
the wife was 42-61 years old in March 1962. This group of women (born
1900-19) had the smallest completed family size of any preceding
cohort, and much of their fertility was completed prior to the “baby
boom.” A “. . . sufficient condition for controlled fertility was indi-
cated by either . . . two generations of nonfarm residence in the
history of both spouses or attainment of high levels of school.” Couples
with farm background but high educational attainment did not differ
in mean fertility from nonfarm couples. High values of mean fertility
were found among couples with both low levels of education and farm
background, two factors which will characterize increasingly fewer
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 87

and fewer women. There may be changes in overall fertility levels, but
the effects of low educational attainment and farm background will be
less.

275.

 

. “Gradients of Urban Influence on the Rural Population.” In
Urban Research Methods. Edited by Jack P. Gibbs. Princeton, N.J.: D.
Van Nostrand Co., Inec., 1961. Pp. 550-555.

The 1950 census data confirm the hypothesis that the influence of
urban areas on rural populations with respect to economic activities,
family organization and functions, and the demographic structure is
greater for areas closer to, than for those more remote from, these
urban centers.

276.

 

. “Note on Farm Tenancy and Urbanization.” In Urban Research
Methods. Edited by Jack P. Gibbs. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand
Co., Inc., 1961. Pp. 556-561.

This analysis of 1950 census data found significant urbanization
gradients for the incidence of farm tenancy, related farm characteris-
tics, and the form of tenure.

2717.

 

. “Occupational Trends and Patterns of Net Mobility in the United
States.” Demography, 3(1) (1966), 1-18.

Using data for males from the 1962 Current Population Survey's
Occupational Changes in a Generation supplement and from other
reports, Duncan presents information on occupational changes for
1900-62 to show the relationship between occupational mobility and
trends and changes in the occupational structure. Among farmers and
farm managers, each successive cohort had a smaller proportion in
farming. Intracohort net shifts were very small until 1950, except for
the 1930’s, when unemployment was high. A sizable intracohort net
shift into farming between the time of first job and ages 25-34 was the
result of farm laborers shifting to farmer and farm manager status.
The proportion of unpaid family workers declined sharply—from 48
percent in 1920 to 12 percent in 1960. The “farm laborer” occupation
proved “. . . more prominent in the cohort’s early history than in its
later experience.” It is concluded that net intracohort shifts are not
automatically predictable from aggregate trends or from intercohort
changes and that intra- and intergenerational changes have their own
patterns.

278.

 

and BEVERLY DUNCAN. Chicago’s Negro Population: Report of the
Chicago Community Inventory, June 1956. Chicago, Ill.: University of
Chicago Press, 1956.

and . The Negro Population of Chicago: A Study of Residen-
tial Succession. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1957.

279.

 

 

*280.

 

and ALBERT J. REISS, JR. Social Characteristics of Urban and
Rural Communities, 1950. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1956.

Analyzes mainly 1950 census data including migration status and
characteristics of migrants by size of community, and migration
status and characteristics of migrants for central cities versus sub-
urbs and rings, noting particularly urban areas of growth and decline
through migration.

281. DUNCAN, OTIS DURANT. “The Theory and Consequences of Mobility of
Farm Population.” In Population Theory and Policy: Selected Read-
88 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

ings. Edited by Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan. Glencoe,
Ill: The Free Press, 1956. Pp. 417-434. Originally printed as The
Theory and Consequences of Mobility of Farm Population. Experiment
Station Circular 88. Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma A & M University,
1940.

In a review of research studies and statistical information on
migration, Duncan found that types of moves are differentiated on the
basis of distance traveled, that migration is age- and sex-selective,
with singles more mobile than marrieds, and that migrants to urban
areas represent extremes in regard to intelligence, socioeconomic
status, and physical characteristics.

282. DURGIN, O. B. Population of New Hampshire: Effects of Migration on the
Small New Hampshire Town. Bulletin 437. Durham, N.H.: University
of New Hampshire, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1957.

283. DYCK, D., and F. LAWRENCE. “Relocation Adjustments of Farm Fami-
lies.” The Economic Analyst, 30 (Feb. 1960), 3-11.

284. DYER, WILLIAM G., and MARILYN AFFLECK. “Labor Mobility and Indus-
trialization in a Utah County.” Social Forces, 36(3) (Mar. 1958), 214—
2117.

This study of industrial workers accepted for employment in a new
steel plant located in a rural Utah county found that most of them
were obtained from the local labor market and surrounding counties,
but out-of-State workers had not come from contiguous States. While
only 10 percent of the workers were over age 45, there was a direct
relationship between age and distance of migration. Workers with
previous termination records, younger workers, and those with lower
educational levels were more likely to terminate the steel plant job.
The rural county involved became urbanized as workers settled closer
to the plant in communities with better services.

285. DYNES, RUSSELL R. Consequences of Population Mobility for School and
Community Change. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State University, 1956.
Describes what happened to a rural Ohio county when many people
moved in to work in a new plant.

286.

 

. “Rurality, Migration, and Sectarianism.” Rural Sociology, 21
(Mar. 1956), 25-28.

Data were obtained from the city directory of Columbus, Ohio, on
350 adults who were administered a Likert-type scale measuring
sectarianism and denominationalism. Results did not support the
hypothesis that sectarianism acts as a “cushion” for the rural migrant
in his adjustment to city life, unless he is of lower socioeconomic
background.

287. EATHERLY, MARGARET F., Lucy W. COLE, and HAROLD F. KAUFMAN.
Twenty Years of Research in Sociology: Publications of Sociology Staff
of Mississippi State University: 1949-68. Administrative Report 2.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Social Science Re-
search Center, 1969.

288. EDWARDS, CLARK, and CALVIN L. BEALE. “Rural Change in the 1960s.”
Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture
Economic Research Service, 1969.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 89

289. EICHER, JOANNE BUBOLZ. “Social Factors and Social Psychological
Explanations of Non-migration.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Michigan State University, 1959.

This study of 168 nonmigrating households in upper Michigan found
that older age was associated with aspirations which could be fulfilled
within the community of residence, and that community satisfaction
was prevalent among all race-sex groups.

290. EISENSTADT, SAMUEL N. The Absorption of Immigrants. Glencoe, Ill.:
The Free Press, 1955.

291. ELDER, GLEN H., JR. “Achievement Orientations and Career Patterns of
Rural Youth.” Sociology of Education, 37 (Fall 1963), 30-58.

292. ELDRIDGE, HOPE T. “A Cohort Approach to the Analysis of Migration
Differentials.” Demography, 1(1) (1964), 212-219.

Noting Dorothy S. Thomas’ (1083) finding of a “covariance of inter-
censal swings in net interstate migration and relative levels of eco-
nomic activity” during 1880-1940 and tentatively to 1950, Eldridge
wanted to find out “. . . whether or not a cohort approach to the
analysis of historical series might yield further insight into associa-
tion between economic fluctuations and rates of migration.” Using
rates of net interstate inmigration of native white males for each
intercensal period, 1870-1950, she followed 5-year cohorts from decade
to decade. The earliest born cohort was aged 15-19 in 1880, and the
latest born cohort was aged 10-14 in 1950. Graphs of net interstate
inmigration by cohort show fluctuating rises and falls in accord with
Thomas’ classification of decades as relatively prosperous or de-
pressed. Except for one, all cohorts of odd ages at the end of decades
reached their highest rate at ages 25-29, regardless of a decade’s
economic activity, although such peaks were higher for prosperous
decades than for depressed decades. Otherwise all cohorts’ rates
generally varied directly with the level of economic activity. Even-age
cohorts peaked at ages 20-24 at the end of prosperous decades, but at
ages 30-34 at the end of depressed decades. This was hypothesized to
be the result of “deferred response to prosperity stimulus.”

293.

 

. “The Influence of Return Migration upon Rates of Net Migra
tion.” Bulletin of the International Statistical Institute, 40 (1964), 321-
349.

Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania developed estimate:
of net migration by State by decade (1870-1950) for 5-year age group:
of male and female native whites, foreign-born whites, and black:
(625). This study investigates the impact of return migration on ne:
migration rates. Ages cited are those reached at the end of decades
cohort rates are plotted graphically to show curve peaks and troughs
Considerable space is devoted to analyses substantiating the hy
potheses that the observed slumps in migration rates by age are not
necessarily the result of reduced mobility at middle, as compared tc
older and younger, ages, but that it is the more nearly approximate
volume of gross in- and outflows rather than reduced flows at these
ages which account for slumps in the rates’ curves. Certain States
have net gains or losses for each decade, and movement to areas of
gain and movement from areas of loss is defined as primary move-
ment, while movement counter to these primary moves is called
90

294.

295.

296.

297.

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

reverse movement. It is hypothesized that age-specific rate curves of
reverse migration would have the same regularity as those of primary
movement, but would differ in that their peaks would not be at ages
25-29; after ages 25-29, the rate curves of reverse movement would
rise and then decrease with advancing age. Although an older average
age for reverse migration is given to account for middle-age rate curve
slumps, there actually is no reason why reverse migrants should
generally be older than primary migrants unless return migration is a
large component of reverse movement. Tests using data for compo-
nent areas and for primary and reverse displacement for males only
generally support the hypotheses.

- The Materials of Demography: A Selected and Annotated Bibliog-
raphy. New York: Columbia University Press for the International
Union for the Scientific Study of Population and the Population
Association of America, 1959.

. Net Intercensal Migration for States and Geographic Divisions of
the United States, 1950-1960: Methodological and Substantive Aspects.
Analytic and Technical Report 5. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of
Pennsylvania, Population Studies Center, 1965.

. “Primary, Secondary, and Return Migration in the United States,
1955-1960.” Demography, 2 (1965), 444-455.

Peculiarities found in profiles of age-specific rates of net intercensal
migration for 1870-1950 require some explanation in terms of probable
differences between gross migration in the predominant and reverse
directions of movement. A study of net migration (with information on
return migration inferred) for 10-year intervals and data on gross
migration for 1935-40 and for 1-year periods from the 1950 census and
Current Population Survey led to the conclusions that peak rates for
migration occur in the age group of the early twenties, that dominant
and reverse migration both are related to age, in that rates for adults
first increase and then decrease with advancing age, that return
migration is present in primary and secondary streams, with return
occurring soon after first migration, that return migration accounts
for a greater proportion of reverse than of dominant stream migra-
tion, and that the age curve for rates of dominant migration has a
large peak, while that for rates of reverse migration is more rounded
and bulges at ages above the peak. In this analysis, information on
return migration was inferred. The 1960 census data suggest that
predictions might have been confirmed had it not been for military
and retirement migration. Eldridge concludes that all theories of
migration should recognize differences in age characteristics of pri-
mary, secondary, and return migration, and that rates of net migra-
tion will reflect different amounts of the types in the dominant and
reverse streams, probably conforming to the results noted here.

and KIM YUN. The Estimation of Intercensal Migration from Birth
Residence Statistics: A Study of Data for the United States, 1950 and
1960. Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania, Population Stud-
ies Center, 1968.

Two of the conclusions are that the data utilized are of limited value
in determining either the relative importance or the size of total
migration streams, and that the volume and patterns of return and
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

secondary movement are both large enough and different enoug
preclude the assumption (necessary for use of division-of-birth «
mates as stream estimates) that all migration is primary migratios

298.

 

and DOROTHY S. THOMAS. Population Redistribution and E
nomic Growth, United States, 1870-1950. Vol. III. Demographic Anaty-
ses and Interrelations. Philadelphia, Pa.: American Philosophical Soci-
ety, 1964.

299. ELGIE, R. “Rural Immigration, Urban Ghettoization, and Their Conse-
quences.” Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography, 2 (Dec. 1970), 35-
54.

The author states that a city’s institutional responses to the migrant
and especially its spatial structure are as important as a migrant’s
own characteristics for his successful adjustment. Spatial ghettos act
as barriers to the adjustment of blacks and the poor by restricting
their potential for social relationships with nonghetto residents and
their employment opportunities, and by providing inferior education
and a poor self-image for inhabitants.

300. EVANS, PIERRE. “Indians Find Cities Unhappy Hunting Grounds.” Op-
portunity, 2(1) (Jan-Feb. 1972), 20-25.

Half of the estimated 1 million American Indians in the United
States live in cities, and 80,000 of these migrated to Los Angeles alone.
Evans maintains that the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ (BIA’s) policies of
the 1940’s and 1950's were “. . . vacillating between attempted assimi-
lation of Indians into white society and protection of their cultural
identity.” He discusses Office of Economic Opportunity, Housing and
Urban Development, and Health, Education, and Welfare centers set
up in 1970 to develop methods and resources in providing services to
Indians. An Indian professional at one center stated that while the
BIA has encouraged leaving reservations by implying that Indians in
cities will have a good paying job, a house, and educational opportuni-
ties, they actually have been cut off from tribal customs, find an
aggravation of poverty because of the high cost of living, and come
occupationally and educationally ill equipped for city jobs. Most Amer-
icans are described as having an attitude toward Indians which is a
combination of “sentimental attraction to the ‘noble savage’” and
“startling ignorance and indifference to the actual circumstances of
Indian life.” One program director notes that one cannot measure
Indians’ solutions to their problems in terms of their lifestyle changes,
and that their fundamental problem is how to retain cultural identity
while dealing effectively with white society.

301. FABREGA, HORACIO, JR. “Mexican Americans of Texas: Some Social
Psychiatric Features.” In Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation
of Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 249-273.

An investigation of the value identification of patients and nonpa-
tients confirmed the hypothesis that Mexican Americans exhibit
greater disorganization, regression, and grossly psychotic behavior
among patients because of the general lateness of their hospitaliza-
tion by their families in the course of illness. “Unacculturated”
Mexican American patients were diagnosed as having the greatest
clinical differences, pointing to underlying differences in definitions of
92 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

”

“illness,” “need for treatment,” and “tolerance of psychiatric symp-
toms” among cultures.

302.

 

. “Social Psychiatric Aspects of Acculturation and Migration: A
General Statement.” Comprehensive Psychiatry, 10(4) (July 1969), 314—
326.

303. FABRICANT, RUTH A. “An Expectational Model of Migration.” Journal of
Regional Science, 10 (Apr. 1970), 13-24.

Presents a model of migration which “. . . initially postulated
demand and supply functions of labor expected by potential migrants
for each geographic region.” Migration between regions, thus, was
seen as a function of the “expected excess demand-for-labor gap
between the two regions.” Using 1960 census data on 1955-60 moves of
white males aged 20-64 for the nine geographic divisions, a test of the
model showed it had an explanatory power of over 60 percent.

. “Regional Labor Markets and Migration: An Analysis of Gross
Migration in the United States, 1955-1960.” Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of California at Berkeley, 1967.

305. FAIRCHILD, CHARLES K. “Transfer of Population from Rural to Urban
Areas: Rural Disadvantaged Mobility.” Labor Law Journal, 20(8) (Aug.
1969), 461-473.
The author advocates encouraging outmigration from rural areas.

. Worker Relocation: A Review of U.S. Department of Labor Mobil-
ity Demonstration Projects. Final report submitted to U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, Manpower Administration, Contract 87-34-69-01.
Washington, D.C.: E. F. Skelley & Co., Inc., 1970.

Reviews 61 labor mobility demonstration projects conducted by 35
agencies in 28 States from March 1965 through June 1969. The
projects spent $13 million relocating slightly over 14,000 workers using
various methods. Through analysis of project reports, field visits,
interviews with Government officials, independent analyses, and a
review of Government publications, Fairchild attempted to determine
the overall effectiveness of the projects in reducing unemployment,
increasing or redirecting geographic mobility, and increasing employ-
ment stability and incomes. The majority of the programs evaluated
were designed to relocate workers from nonmetropolitan areas to
nearby metropolitan areas or regional growth centers. Most of the
projects appeared successful in achieving their relocation goals. Over
80 percent of relocatees were moved to jobs within their home States.
Ninety percent of relocatees were male; 50 percent were single and
under 25 years of age. Most were blue collar workers. Three-fourths of
all workers were still in destination areas 2 months after relocation.
Average relocation payment was $294, and average cost per relocatee
was $572. While about one-fifth of relocatees had prior Manpower
Development and Training Act or other vocational training, and it
was easier for projects to find them jobs, relocation outcomes for the
trained were not substantially different than for the untrained. Proj-
ects attempting to relocate workers from central cities to suburbs or
fringe areas experienced considerable difficulty due to a variety of
social, economic, and attitudinal factors. In general, relocated workers
experienced income gains. The study notes that the followup period
was too short a time to allow accurate assessment of the permanency
of gains and success of adjustments made by relocatees.

304.

 

*306.

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 93

*307. FARLEY, REYNOLDS. “Recent Changes in Negro Fertility.” Demography,
3(1) (1966), 188-203.

Negro fertility rates fell between 1880 and the 1930’s and then rose
rapidly during and after World War II. These rates fell when they
would have been expected to remain constant, and accelerated when
they would have been expected to rise. Although blacks have rapidly
urbanized since 1940, their fertility has increased. Evidence shows
that this increased fertility may have been the result of increased
fecundity rather than greater family stability associated with eco-
nomic gains. It is concluded that lower fertility does not automatically
result from urban living and that urbanization may have no conse-
quence for fertility. The educational, occupational, and residential
isolation of blacks has blocked their social mobility in the city which
might otherwise have acted to control fertility. A decrease in black
fertility observed in the immediately preceding 4 years is linked to a
possible decrease in fecundity effected by higher disease rates. Black
fertility rates could fall more in the future if the recent decrease
observed is a result of greater involvement in American life and
knowledge of birth control devices rather than the effect of higher
rates of disease.

308.

 

. “The Urbanization of Negroes in the United States.” Journal of
Social History, 1(3) (Spring 1968), 241-258.

Using data from post-Civil War to 1960, Farley concludes that the
southern black population is still a growing one, despite heavy outmi-
gration in recent decades, and that while the rural-farm black popula-
tion is sure to decline with continued mechanization of agriculture,
the rural-nonfarm component will get larger. As southern cities grow
and smaller towns expand industrial employment, the southern black
urban population will increase, and many blacks will commute to jobs
while still living in rural-nonfarm areas. While persisting social and
economic factors may continue to push blacks toward the North and
West, expanding employment opportunities in such places as Florida
and Texas and declining opportunities in the North may interact to
lessen the black exodus from the South.

309. FEIN, RASHI. Educational Patterns in Southern Migration. Washington,
D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1965. Also in Southern Economic
Journal, 32(1), pt. 2 (July 1965), 106-124.

The 1960 census data for southern white and nonwhite males
showed that rates of outmigration were particularly high for the
younger and the better educated.

310. FERRISS, ABBOTT L. “North Carolina Trade Centers, 1910 to 1940: A
Study in Ecology.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
North Carolina, 1949.

Investigates the changing pattern of trade centers in one State,
utilizing data from Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., as well as from the census
and other sources. Ferriss documents a decline of more than 900 trade
centers in the State during this period, the changing patterns of
services offered, and the relationship to changing patterns of trans-
portation.

311. FIELD, DONALD R. “The Social Characteristics Associated with Growing
and Declining Small Towns in Wisconsin.” Unpublished master’s
thesis, University of Wisconsin, 1965.
94 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

312. FIELD, HENRY, COMP. “M” Project for F.D.R.: Studies of Migration and
Settlement. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1962.

313. FINK, ELIZABETH M. “Some Aspects of Nonwhite Migration into the
South, 1935-1940.” Unpublished master’s thesis, University of North
Carolina, 1953.

314. FISHMAN, BETTY E. Economic Effects of Internal Migration: An Explor
atory Study. Morgantown, W. Va.: University of West Virginia, Re-
gional Research Institute, 1965. Also in Business and Economic Stud-
ies, 10(4) (1968).

Using data from 1950 and 1960-61 Bureau of Labor Statistics-
Wharton School studies, Fishman examined the relationship between
migration and total current expenditure. Except for food, the average
and marginal consumption functions in all categories were higher
among migrant than nonmigrant families.

315. FITE, GILBERT C. “Flight from the Farm.” Nebraska History, 40(3) (Sept.
1959), 159-176.
Discusses reasons for the late 19th-century migration away from
Kansas and Nebraska farms.

316. FLIEGEL, FREDERICK C. “Aspirations of Low-Income Farmers and Their
Performance and Potential for Change.” Rural Sociology, 24 (Sept.
1959), 205-214.

If it is true that “. . . poor people may not want to be other than
poor,” it is necessary to determine what noneconomic goals are
important to low-income farm people in effectively solving their prob-
lems. One way to achieve this is to study the relationship between
income and aspirations. Data obtained from 189 low-income farm
operators in Pennsylvania in 1957 showed no relationship between
gross farm income and level of aspiration, and that between total
family income and aspiration was not very important. Since a signifi-
cant inverse relationship was found between level of aspiration and
positive orientation toward farming as an occupation, farmers with
high aspirations will probably seek nonfarm employment opportuni-
ties. Farmers with low aspirations were found to like farming, plan to
continue farming, and would choose to farm if they were starting over
again. Because those with low aspirations, while positively oriented
toward the farm, were not necessarily “oriented toward economic
success in farming,” it is concluded that policies designed to develop
farms for higher farm income yields may not be fruitful.

317. FOGEL, WALTER. Advance Report 10: Mexican Americans in Southwest
Labor Markets. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California at Los
Angeles, Graduate School of Business Administration, Division of
Research, Mexican American Study Project, 1967.

318. FOLGER, JOHN K. “Some Aspects of Migration in the Tennessee Valley.”
American Sociological Review, 18 (June 1953), 253-260.

Tests three hypotheses relating economic and demographic charac-
teristics of an area to population movement, using a special tabulation
of subregional migration in Tennessee (see 1091 for description of
data). Hypotheses tested were: Zipf’s P1P2/D hypothesis (the amount of
interchange between two areas is directly proportional to the distance
between them); the hypothesis that net migration between two areas
319.

320.

321.

322,

323.

324.

325.

326.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 95

is directly proportional to levels of living and inversely proportional to
the distances between them; and Stouffer's hypothesis that migration
is directly proportional to the number of opportunities, using two
definitions of opportunities. It was found that the correlation between
the expected and observed amounts of interchange between the pairs
of subregions predicted from Zipf’s hypothesis was 0.814. Measures of
level of living underestimated rates for short-distance moves and
moves between metropolitan subregions, and overestimated rates for
long-distance moves. Neither measure of opportunities provided ade-
quate prediction of outmigration from any given subregion to any
other. The migration definition of opportunities more closely predicted
observed rates than the population pressure definition for 51 out of 90
cases but was more frequently off by large amounts. These measures
are therefore appropriate only for predicting general patterns of
migration.

FORD, THOMAS R., ED. The Southern Appalachian Region: A Survey.
Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1962.

and WILLIS A. SUTTON, JR. “The Impact of Change on Rural
Communities and Fringe Areas: Review of a Decade's Research.” In
Our Changing Rural Society: Perspectives and Trends. Edited by
James H. Copp. Ames, Iowa: [owa State University Press, 1964. Ch. 6,
pp. 198-229.

FORM, WILLIAM H., and JULIUS RIVERA. “The Place of Returning Mi-
grants in a Stratification System.” Rural Sociology, 23 (1958), 286-297.
In studying 130 adult male Mexican American return migrants to
Sonora, N. Mex., a border town having three socioeconomic strata, the
authors found that the returnees largely fit into the lower-middle
range of the status and class hierarchy.

FORMAN, ROBERT EDGAR. “The Ideology of Mobility: Some Attitudinal
Aspects of Migration.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Minnesota, 1959. )

This analysis of the approval or disapproval of a series of statements
justifying mobility by a sample of 1,770 high school students in
Minnesota, concludes that “. . . there is a considerable range of
attitudes relating to mobility, and that favorable attitudes are closely
associated with middle-class values. . .. This may be attributed to the
role mobility may play in the socioeconomic advancement of the
individual in accordance with middle-class values.” Expectation of
mobility was strongly related to community satisfaction.

 

and ROY G. FRANCIS. Some Ideological Aspects of Migration.
Sociology and Rural Life Series 5220, Scientific Journal Series 4.
Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, 1963.

FOWLER, GARY L., and SHANE DAVIES. “The Urban Settlement Patterns
of Disadvantaged Migrants.” Journal of Geography, 71(5) (May 1972),
275-282,

FREEDMAN, AUDREY. “Labor Mobility Projects for the Unemployed.”
Monthly Labor Review (June 1968), 56-62.

FREEDMAN, RONALD. “Cityward Migration, Urban Ecology, and Social
Theory.” In Contributions to Urban Sociology. Edited by Ernest W.
96

3217.

328.

329.

330.

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burgess and Donald J. Bogue. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago
Press, 1964. Pp. 178-200.

This analysis of 1940-50 data found that the average migrant to the
city conforms to a type of “ideal city dweller,” although those from
rural-farm areas may be deficient in terms of educational preparation,
occupational achievement, or general economic status. Many rural-
urban migrants from the South conformed to the stereotype of lower
status on several important dimensions.

. “Health Differentials for Rural-Urban Migration.” American
Sociological Review, 12(5) (Oct. 1947), 536-541.

National Health Survey data showed that illness rates were higher
among rural-urban migrants than among the total urban populations
of the cities studied.

. Recent Migration into Chicago. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chi-
cago Press, 1950.

and DEBORAH FREEDMAN. “Farm-Reared Elements in the Non-
farm Population.” Rural Sociology, 21 (Mar. 1956), 50-61.

In examining whether farm migrants are concentrated in distine-
tive social and economic positions in the city and if they have low
rates of social participation, the authors used data on 1,887 adults 21
years of age or older in 1952. Farm-reared persons were found in
considerable numbers in every size class of residence but were most
concentrated in the smaller nonfarm places. In the United States 47
percent of the nonwhite nonfarm population was farm reared, as
compared to 32 percent among the white population. About half of the
nonfarm adults in the South were farm reared. The smallest propor-
tion of farm reared, 15 percent, was in the Northeast. The farm reared
were an older group than the non-farm-reared, and were greatly
overrepresented in low-status positions, whether the measure of sta-
tus was education, occupation, family income, or self-perception of
social status. These relationships persisted with relatively little varia-
tion when controlled for size of residential community, region of
residence, age, sex, and color. The social participation patterns of
farm-reared and non-farm-reared persons in the nonfarm population
differed with the type of activity considered. The most important
finding on participation patterns was that the farm reared have less
confidence in the political institutions.

and AMOS H. HAWLEY. “Education and Occupation of Migrants in
the Depression.” American Journal of Sociology, 56(2) (1950), 161-166.

Data were from the Michigan Population and Unemployment Cen-
sus of 1935 (for 1930-35), and the sample consisted of all male migrants
25 or older at the time of migration to Flint and Grand Rapids from
other places in Michigan. In comparison with randomly selected
nonmigrants at the origin, migrants to Flint were less well educated,
while those to Grand Rapids were better educated. However, in
neither case did the migrants differ significantly in education from
the randomly selected groups at the destination. Surprisingly, when
the six variables, age, occupation, occupational history prior to migra-
tion, employment history, employment status, and marital status,
were controlled, there was no significant educational selection of
migrants. There was selectivity of the higher occupational groups at
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 97

both the source and destination when comparison was made with the
randomly selected group of nonmigrants, although it was statistically
significant only at the destination. It is tentatively concluded that
selectivity of given individual traits is a function of partial control of
the remaining characteristics, an idea supported by the lack of statis-
tically significant selection in education and occupation.

331.

 

and . “Migration and Occupational Mobility in the Depres-
sion.” American Journal of Sociology, 55 (1949), 171-1717.

Using the 1930-35 Michigan data on intrastate migration to Flint
and Grand Rapids cited above and data on comparative nonmigrant
origin and destination groups, the authors found that migrants had
had almost three times as much occupational mobility during the
Depression as had nonmigrants. For migrants, occupational mobility
following migration was unrelated to high unemployment rates or to
high rates of mobility prior to migration. A substantial group of
migrants had not been occupationally mobile, and it was concluded
that stresses of adjustment were less for them than for those both
occupationally and residentially mobile.

 

332. and . “Unemployment and Migration in the Depression
(1939-1945). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 44 (1949),
250-272.

Migrants had had higher unemployment rates prior to migration
than did the nonmigrants in the areas of origin, but the differences
were not large. The unemployment rates increased after migration,
and it was concluded that migrants during an economic depression are
disadvantaged in labor markets to which they move because of lack of

skills and ignorance of a new labor market.

 

 

333. FRIED, MARC. “Deprivation and Migration: Dilemmas of Causal
Interpretation.” In Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of
Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 23-72.

By examining similarities and differences between the European
immigration into the United States from 1820 to 1930 and Negro
migration from the South to the North from 1900 to the present,
Fried’s objective is to determine how deprivation functions in massive
population redistributions. He concludes, “.. . the idea of the U.S. as a
melting pot emerges as a mythical elaboration of fragmentary truth
and gives way to an image of widespread inequality, racist attitudes
and ethnic segregation as the dominant reality.”

 

334. . “Grieving for a Lost Home.” In The Urban Condition. Edited by
Leonard J. Duhl with the assistance of John Powell. New York: Basic
Books, 1963. Pp. 151-171.

335. . “Transitional Functions of Working-Class Communities: Implica-

 

tions for Forced Relocation.” In Mobility and Mental Health. Edited by
Mildred B. Kantor. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1965. Pp. 123
165.

Working-class communities are “processing mechanisms,” which
«._.. provide the basis for social interaction, allow for gradual adapta-
tion to the altered environment and to the radically different set of
expectations which eventuate in preparedness for social mobility.”
While a migrant can move into such an area and experience a great
98 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

deal of change in regard to occupation and work orientation, the
self-contained and parochial nature of the community presents a
great barrier to his assimilation, especially in social relationships.

*336. AND OTHERS. A Study of the Demographic and Social Determi-
nants of Functional Achievement in a Negro Population. 4 vols. Final
report submitted to the Office of Economic Opportunity, OEO Contract
B 89-4279. Chestnut Hill, Mass.: Boston College, Institute of Human
Sciences, 1971.

This study of 221 black male and 593 black female migrants aged 25—
45 to Boston was designed to assess “the impact of early social
environments on occupational and urban functioning.” The working
hypothesis was that “. . . while education may be the mediate influ-
ence of greatest importance for occupational achievement, in a longer
view it is itself the product of prior forces of parental social class
status, of rural-urban environments, of American regional differences
in opportunity, and of a more global experience of modern resources
and facilities.” Since part of the sample was drawn by area method
and part from school lists, and since about three-fourths of the final
sample was female, there is some question concerning representative-
ness, and there appear to be several sources of bias.

A number of questionable assumptions were made regarding statis-
tical significance of findings, and many conclusions were drawn on the
basis of small percentage differences in responses. Several indices
developed for measurement of crucial differences appear not to have
discriminated between the subsamples as claimed, and it is question-
able what some of the indices used actually measured. It was found
that migrants were earning less than urban nonmigrants, and mi-
grants from less urbanized origins were earning less than migrants
from more urban backgrounds, but no income figures were given for
migrants prior to moving. Migrants were less well educated than
urban natives. Some data indicate lower levels of satisfaction with
Boston among migrants than among urban natives. Migrants showed
only a very small disproportion among those on public assistance and,
among the migrants, it was those who had been in Boston for 6 or
more years rather than newcomers who most frequently received
public assistance. There was no evidence found to support the idea
that black migrants moved to obtain welfare. Yet male migrants who
arrived in Boston before they were 19 years old had the highest rates
of unemployment (7.4 percent), but even those arriving in later
adolescence or adulthood had considerably higher rates (5.5 percent)
than did those born in Boston (3 percent).

The pattern among females was similar, except that migrants
arriving after age 18 had the lowest unemployment rate. Not only did
migrants have particularly high unemployment rates, but those who
arrived less than 2 years prior to interview were more often currently
unemployed. Apparently, migrants in the city 3 to 5 years had the
lowest unemployment rates of all. Among recent migrants, the single
most important factor in adjustment was the loss of close ties to
people left behind, and more generally, of the home environment.
Among all migrants, the predominant sources of hardship were locat-
ing adequate jobs and housing, the strangeness of the large city, and,
for women, social isolation. Some apparent retrospective glossing over
was found among the sample responses concerning adjustment prob-

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 99

lems. The majority of migrants (52 percent) received no help at all on
arrival in the city. Most migrants were less well educated than urban
nonmigrants and those who migrated to Boston before 6 years of age.
Inmigrants from other northern urban areas, however, were better
educated than black natives, with age controlled.

337. FRIEDLAND, WILLIAM H. “Migrant Labor as a Form of Intermittent

Social Organization and as a Channel of Geographical Mobility.”
Mimeographed. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University, New York State
School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1967.

338. FUGUITT, GLENN V. Growing and Declining Villages in Wisconsin, 1950—

1960. Population Series 8. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin,
Department of Rural Sociology, 1964.

339. ——. “The Growth and Decline of Small Towns as a Probability

340.

*341.

 

Process.” American Sociological Review, 30 (June 1955), 403-411.

A distinction is made between changes in population size categories
over time and changes in individual places over time for small towns
in the census data. Changes in the size distribution of incorporated
Wisconsin places were attributed to the patterns of shifts over time
between size groups and the number of incorporations and disincor-
porations. The decline in the number and proportion of small towns
was the result of the growth of these places to larger size categories,
with a drop in the number of incorporated places after 1920. It was
concluded that small towns are not dying, but a considerable number
of places seem to be in trouble economically. This contradiction is
explained by noting that in a time of rapid urbanization and total
population growth, the failure of places to grow out of their size
categories in the presence of positive natural increase means net
outmigration; that a drop in the number of incorporated places may
show how hard it has been for some of these places to grow, once
incorporated, beyond a certain point; and that the decline and disap-
pearance of unincorporated places may be the rule.

. “Part-Time Farming and the Push-Pull Hypothesis.” American
Journal of Sociology, 64 (Jan. 1959), 375-379.

If the extent of part-time farming is positively associated with the
level of off-farm opportunities and, independent of this, negatively
associated with the level of opportunities in agriculture, then the
push-pull hypothesis would be supported by local-origin data based on
1950 Censuses of Agriculture and Population. The hypothesis that the
proportion of farm operators engaged in part-time farming is directly
related to off-farm opportunities and inversely related to opportuni-
ties in agriculture by counties for Wisconsin was supported by the
data both for all farmers and for commercial farmers. For noncommer-
cial farmers, however, the results did not explicitly confirm the
hypothesis. Findings for noncommercial farmers are seen as not really
inconsistent with the hypothesis if one considers the county segments
(which include only farmers who grossed less than $1,200 from their
farms in 1949) as rating uniformly low in opportunities in agriculture.

— “The Places Left Behind: Population Trends and Policy for Rural

America.” Rural Sociology, 36(4) (Dec. 1971), 449-470.
In analyzing population changes occurring in incorporated nonmet-
ropolitan places in the United States between 1950 and 1970, this
100

342.

343.

344.

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

study found that smaller remote places were less likely to have grown.
During the 1960's, a smaller proportion of places of 2,500 or more
population grew than in the 1950's, except in smaller places of the
South and in parts of the North Central region, where population
growth was greater in the 1960's than in the 1950’s. A trend toward
decentralization around larger nonmetropolitan places was also
found.

. “Trends in Unincorporated Places, 1950-60.” Demography, 2
(1965), 363-371.

. and NORA ANN DEELEY. “Retail Service Patterns and Small
Town Population Change.” Rural Sociology, 31 (1966), 53-63.

and DONALD W. THOMAS. “Small Town Growth in the United
States: An Analysis by Size Class and by Place.” Demography, 3 (1966),
513-527.

Using nationwide survey data, changes occurring in incorporated
places under 10,000 from 1940 to 1960 were examined. Size places were
divided into those with less than 1,000, those with 1,000-2,500, and
those with 2,500 to 10,000 population. Data were tabulated separately
for places in 1960 urbanized areas (UA’s), other places in 1960 stand-
ard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s), and places in neither UA’s
nor SMSA'’s, and trends in the four census regions were analyzed. It
was found that the small town is not disappearing but continuing to
grow. Places were 10,000 in 1940 as an aggregate grew during both the
1940's and 1950's in all four regions and in the three location cate-
gories defined. Growth differentials generally were similar to those
found for the total populations. The most rapid growth was found in
places adjacent to large cities, while the least rapid growth was found
in nonmetropolitan areas. By region, the most rapid growth occurred
in the West, and the least rapid, in the Northeast. More rapid growth
was noted in the 1950’s than in the 1940's, except for places in
nonmetropolitan areas. Population changes in the two larger classes
showed increases over both decades for most of the 48 location-region-
decade categories. The smallest sized class declined or showed no
growth for all but 2 of its 24 categories. Decline of size classes was
found to be the result of the growth of places out of a given class not
compensated for by the growth or decline of other places into the
class, or by new incorporations. “Larger absolute declines of classes
were often associated with rapid growth of places as in UA’s, while
classes with the largest growth percentage were associated with
intermediate levels of place growth.” Results show the importance of
distinguishing between size class and place in the study of urbaniza-
tion. It was concluded that the small town problem remains because,
although small towns in UA’s may be the same size as those in other
areas, these other towns are quite different in terms of location and
region.

345. FULLER, VARDEN. “Factors Influencing Farm Labor Mobility.” In Labor

346.

 

Mobility and Population in Agriculture. Prepared by Iowa State
University, Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjustment. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. Pp. 32-35.

. “Opportunities and Limitations of Employment Services and
Other Informational Aids.” In Problems and Policies of American
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 101

Agriculture. Prepared by Iowa State University, Center for Agricul-
tural and Economic Adjustment. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University
Press, 1959. Ch. 21.

 

*3417. . Rural Worker Adjustment to Urban Life: An Assessment of the
Research. Policy Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Rela-
tions, No. 15. Edited by Louis A. Ferman and Joe A. Miller. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: University of Michigan-Wayne State University, Institute of
Industrial and Labor Relations and the National Manpower Policy
Task Force, 1970.

Contrary to popular belief, “. . . four out of five rural residents are
not engaged in farming; two out of five gainfully employed residents
of farms do no farm work or very little; and one out of three persons
employed at farm work does not live on a farm.” The major force
causing workers to move off farms has been technological advance,
fostered by the Morrill Act of 1862 and the Smith-Lever Act of 1914. It
is emphasized that ““... off-farm ... mobility is not a unitary phenome-
non. There is no such thing as ‘the mobility process.”” The studies
reviewed seem to agree that “American people of farm origins and
occupational backgrounds ... are attempting to respond rationally to
what they understand to be employment alternatives,” and “the
‘push’ forces... have not been matched by ‘pull’ forces in the nonfarm
economy for the capabilities that ex-farm people have to offer,...” The
limited success of farm people to adjust is ascribed to a combination of
the variability, uncertainty, and insufficiency in the level and compo-
sition of nonfarm employment opportunity, and the educational and
skill training deficiencies of ex-farm dwellers for available nonfarm
jobs. It is strongly urged that the concept “rural” be abandoned
altogether in the study of migration and assimilation.

348.

 

and CALVIN L. BEALE. “Impact of Socioeconomic Factors on Farm
Labor Supply.” Journal of Farm Economics, 49(5) (Dec. 1967), 1237-
1243.

349. FULMER, JOHN L. “Urbanization and Agriculture.” In Agricultural
Progress in the Cotton Belt Since 1920. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of
North Carolina Press, 1950. Pp. 107-134.

 

350. , and J. W. ROBINSON. “Worker Mobility and Government Aid.”

Business and Government Review, 7(5) (Sept.—Oct. 1966), 14-22.

Results of 11 State employment service mobility demonstration
projects show that it took longer to place unemployed people with low
skill levels. Also, over 70 percent of those involved in the projects were
interested in relocation. The major factors found facilitating reloca-
tion were marketable skills and availability of suitable jobs. Since
younger workers were found to be more mobile, it is concluded that
older semiskilled and unskilled workers should be placed in jobs in local
areas, especially since jobs in these categories in urban areas provide
very low wages.

351. GALLAWAY, LOWELL E. “The Effect of Geographic Labor Mobility on
Income: A Brief Comment.” Journal of Human Resources, 4 (Winter
1969), 103-109.

. “Geographic Flows of Hired Agricultural Labor: 1957-1960.”

American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50 (May 1968), 199-212.
This analysis of Social Security data on hired agricultural labor

covered in both 1957 and 1960 revealed that the movement of such

352.

 
102 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

labor is related to earnings differentials between regions, distance,
age, age-group earnings, and, for some cases, demand for agricul-
tural labor, all of which is consistent with formal labor market theory.
However, a number of noneconomic barriers to interregional mobility,
such as costs of moves and inadequate nonfarm job opportunity
information, were found to limit the possibility of bettering the
relative economic position of hired agricultural labor. (See 353.)

353.

 

. Geographic Labor Mobility in the United States, 1957-1960.
Research Report 28. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Social Security Administration, 1969.

Using the Social Security data noted above, this study found that
for whites, the proportion of nonmovers in a region was positively
related to the mean annual earnings in the region, while for blacks,
there was no relationship between proportion of nonmovers and
regional mean earnings. Blacks stayed where there were large num-
bers of blacks. For all men and white women, a positive relationship
was found between interregional gross flow differentials and both
earnings and distance, and interregional earnings variations ex-
plained a significant amount of interregional differences in net flows.
Only white male movers had higher incomes in 1960 than those still in
origin areas.

 

354. . “Industry Variations in Geographic Mobility Patterns.” Journal

of Human Resources, 2 (Fall 1967), 461-474.
355.

 

. “Labor Mobility, Resource Allocation and Structural Unemploy-
ment.” American Economic Review, 53 (Sept. 1963), 694-716. Reply:
Stoiker, V., 55 (June 1965), 527-530. Rejoinder: Gallaway, Lowell E., 55
(June 1965), 531-532.

In analyzing Department of Commerce data for 1948-60, Gallaway
found that the labor market reasonably efficiently allocates labor
among regions, considering appropriate qualifications concerning mo-
bility, that there apparently are barriers to the mobility of workers
between occupations and industries not strictly associated with the
opportunity costs of such transfers, and that the structural unemploy-
ment explanation for the recent increase in unemployment is not
valid.

356.

 

. “Mobility of Hired Agricultural Labor: 1957-1960.” Journal of
Farm Economics, 49, pt. 1 (Feb. 1967), 32-52.

3517.

 

, R. F. GILBERT, and P. E. SMITH. “Geographic Labor Mobility: An
Empirical Analysis.” Western Economic Journal (June 1967), 211-223.

358. GALLOWAY, ROBERT E. Part-Time Farming in Eastern Kentucky: A
Study of Economic Area 8. Bulletin 646. Lexington, Ky.: University of
Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1956.

Even though both the number of farms and the farm population of
eastern Kentucky decreased from 1940 to 1950, the area’s rural
population stayed chiefly rural-farm. One-third of the area’s farm
families experienced the permanent outmigration of at least one
member between 1946 and 1950.

359.

 

. Rural Manpower in Eastern Kentucky: A Study of Underemploy-
ment among Rural Workers in Economic Area 8. Bulletin 627. Lexing-
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 103

ton, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1955.

*360. GALPIN, CHARLES J., and T. B. MANNY. Interstate Migrations among the
Native White Population as Indicated by Differences in State of Birth
and State of Residence: A Series of Maps Based on the Census, 1870-
1930. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1934.

361. GAVETT, THOMAS W. “Migration and Changes in the Quality of the
Labor Force.” Business and Economic Studies, 10(2) (Jan. 1967).

362. GEDDES, JOSEPH A. Migration: A Problem of Youth in Utah. Bulletin 323.
Logan, Utah: Utah State University, Agricultural Experiment Sta-
tion, 1946.

Data from a youth survey and from the 1940 census on 1935-40
migration in Utah, show that most rural-farm migrants moved to
small cities and villages rather than to metropolitan areas or to other
farms.

363. GEE, WILSON. “Migration From Farms.” In The Social Economics of
Agriculture. New York: MacMillian Co., 1954. Pp. 386-390.

364. GEGAN, VINCENT F., and SAMUEL H. THOMPSON. “Worker Mobility in a
Labor Surplus Area.” Monthly Labor Review (Dec. 1957), 1451-1456.

A 1953-55 pilot study of Social Security data in Harrison County,
West Virginia, found that 18 percent of covered workers had migrated.
Those under 25 left in relatively greater numbers than did older
workers. While the proportion of those migrating from all age groups
was higher among males than females, the proportions of each of the
sexes leaving at ages 25-34 was almost the same. Among men, the
proportion migrating dropped greatly after age 44, while, among
women, the comparable age was 34. Thirty-one percent of migrants
left the State, while 15 percent went to adjacent or nearby counties.
Those who later became migrants had lower 1953 earnings than those
who did not. Migrants had greatly increased their earnings 2 years
after migration, and outmigrants from the State did better economi-
cally than those who moved to other parts of the State. However, at
the end of 1955, nonmigrants were making higher incomes than any of
the migrant groups. During the 2-year period, outmigrants were less
likely to have had continuous employment and were more likely to
have drawn on unemployment insurance benefits.

365. GEORGE, K. M. “Association of Selected Economic Factors with Net
Migration Rates in the Southern Appalachian Region, 1935-1957.”
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kentucky, 1961.

366. GESCHWIND, R. D., and VERNON W. RUTTAN. Job Mobility and Migration
in a Low-Income Rural Community. Research Bulletin 730. Lafayette,
Ind.: Purdue University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1961.

This investigation of job mobility and migration compared a low-
income rural community (population 4,000) of southern Indiana with a
high-income rural community (population 2,000) in the northern part
of the State. Migrants living in the low-income town were younger and
better educated than nonmigrants, had low or high rather than
medium incomes, and had high social status. There were no differ-
ences by age, education, or income between those changing and those
not changing job classifications. Job-mobile individuals tended to
104

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

occupy relatively low social status positions. Inmigration of technical
and professional workers complemented the areas ’s outmigration of
those in other occupational groups. A comparison of data from the
high- and low-income towns showed that people with supplementary
sources of income were in the high-economic-status group of the low-
income town, but were in the low-economic-status group of the high-
income town. Outmigration from farming by farmers had occurred at
all ages around the low-income community, while in the high-income
area, those who had left farming were younger than those who
continued to farm. Movement from farming to nonfarm employment in
both places had resulted in a decline in social status of migrants. For
both towns, migrant farmers were the ones who had had the lowest
gross sales. Former farmers living in the high-income community
were more likely to have been tenants rather than owners, while in
the low-income town, the former farmer group included as many
owners as tenants.

367. GIBBS, JACK P. “Note on Industry Changes and Migration.” American

368.

 

Sociological Review, 29 (Apr. 1964), 266-270.

The problem in investigating the relationship of basic industry to
community growth is the fact that basic industries vary from place to
place, and there is no adequate criterion for selecting such strategic
industries. It was necessary to develop such a criterion in using
census data to study migration in Texas counties. Changes in employ-
ment in four industries related more closely to 1950-60 net migration
rates than did total labor force. Industries selected on the basis of
maximum gain or loss of employees tended to be of a particular kind:
manufacturing types were associated with the largest gains, nonman-
ufacturing types tended to have more losses, and agricultural types
suffered the biggest losses of all. It is concluded that the best method
to ‘find basic industry change in studying the relationship between
migration and community change is to correlate maximum net gains
and losses in industrial employment with annual average net migra-
tion.

. “On the Estimation of Rural-Urban Migration.” In Urban Re-
search Methods. Princeton, N.J.: D. Van Nostrand Co., Inc., 1961. Pp.
562-576.

369. GIFFIN, ROSCOE. “Appalachian Newcomers in Cincinnati.” In The South-

370.

371.

 

 

ern Appalachian Region: A Survey. Edited by Thomas R. Ford. Lex-
ington, Ky.: University of Kentucky Press, 1962. Pp. 79-84.

Analysis of data on 211 households with one or more children in the
Cincinnati public school system found that Southern Appalachian
migrants did not differ significantly in social participation from mi-
grant groups from other areas, but did participate less than nonmi-
grants in neighborhood clubs, lodges, unions, and community center
organizations.

. “Cinder Hollow to Cincinnati.” Mountain Life and Work, 32(4)
(Fall 1956), 11-20.

. Report of a Workshop on the Southern Mountaineer in Cincinnati.
Cincinnati, Ohio: Mayor’s Friendly Relations Committee, 1954.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 105

372. GISSER, MICHA. “On Benefit-Cost Analysis of Investment in Schooling in
Rural Farm Areas.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics,
50(3)(Aug. 1968), 621-629.

In applying a method of estimating the cost-benefit ratio of schooling
investment to U.S. Department of Agriculture and census data, Gisser
found that schooling positively affects agricultural production but
could not determine whether schooling is *. . . a vehicle for a higher
degree of technological sophistication or a factor of production per se.”
He concludes that raising the level of education in rural-farm areas will
stimulate outmigration which will more than offset the effects of higher
farm productivity.

373.

 

. “Schooling and the Farm Problem.” Econometrica, 33 (July 1965),
582-592.

374. GIST, NOEL P., and D. C. CLARK. “Intelligence as a Selective Factor in

Rural-Urban Migration.” American Journal of Sociology, 44 (July
1938), 36-58.

and CECIL L. GREGORY. Selective Factors in Migration and Occu-
pation: A Study of Social Selection in Rural Missouri. Columbia, Mo.:
University of Missouri, 1943.

 

3175.

376. GLIDEWELL, JOHN C. “Some Mental Health Implications of Age and
Educational Selection in Farm to Nonfarm Migration.” In Mobility
and Mental Health. Edited by Mildred B. Kantor. Springfield, Ill:
Charles C Thomas, 1965. Ch. 8, pp. 196-201.

Three types of migrants and related stresses are distinguished in
discussing risk of mental illness: older, poorly educated off-farm
migrants forced to seek nonfarm jobs; younger, poorly educated
migrants looking for nonfarm work; and younger, better educated
people looking for professional/managerial work in urban areas.

377. GLYNN, JEROME. “Some Effects of Migration on Texas Counties, 1950-
1960.” Texas Health Bulletin (Apr. 1962), 12-117.

378. GODWIN, JOSEPH RANDALL. “Subregional Migration, 1935-40: An Analy-
sis of the Structure of Migrant Characteristics Across Metropolitan
and Non-Metropolitan Migration Streams.” Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Illinois, 1960.

This analysis of Illinois census data concerning migrant characteris-
tics, attempts to isolate common factors across metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan subregional streams. Results point to the further
question of whether migration variables come about because of the
age structure of the populations involved or because of the decisions of
those who migrate.

379. GOLDEN, JAMES F. “Aspirations and Capabilities of Rural Youth in
Selected Areas of Arkansas in Relation to Present and Projected
Labor Market Requirements.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Arkansas, 1966.

380. GOLDKIND, VICTOR. “A Comparison of Folk Health Beliefs and Practices
between Ladino Women of Denver, Colorado and Saginaw, Michigan.”
Unpublished master’s thesis, Michigan State University, 1959.

381. . “Factors in the Differential Acculturation of Mexicans in a
Michigan City.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State

University, 1963.

 
106

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Occupational status was related to fluency in English, time in the
agricultural migrant stream, length of residence in the area, and
years of experience in agricultural work. Social participation was
related to physical appearance, time spent in agricultural work, age of
arrival and length of time in the city. Amount of contact with Anglos
was associated with the degree of prearrival contact with Anglos,
experience in agricultural work, length of city residence, occupational
status, years of education, fluency in English, age, and skin color. Low
English fluency was associated with more time spent in Mexico, time
spent in the agricultural migrant stream, and shorter length of
residence in the Northern United States.

382. GOLDSCHEIDER, CALVIN. “An Outline of the Migration System.” Proceed-

ings of the International Population Conference, 1969. Vol. IV. Liege:
International Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 1971. Pp.
2746-2754.

To facilitate the construction of needed theories, the author under-
took to isolate “the skeletal components of the migration system.”
There are two conceptually critical elements involved: the stability
component, and types of migratory flows. Issues which must be
examined from both macro- and microdemographic levels of analysis
include why movement does not occur, repeat migration, why some
young adults do not move, and why some older persons move. Three
types of migratory flows are delineated and the importance of distin-
guishing conceptually between counterstream and return movement
is noted. Goldscheider then presents and illustrates the utility of an
outline of the migration system which takes account of differentiation
for the stable sector of the population, separation of first-time and
return migration for both major stream and counterstream flows, and
placement of flows between an origin and destination in a broader
social system framework.

383. GOLDSMITH, HAROLD F. “The Meaning of Migration: A Study of the

384.

 

Migration Expectations of High School Students.” Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1962.

In a sample of Michigan high school students, the major factor in
the motivation for migration was “the relative attractiveness of social
situations.” Community satisfaction, personal obligations, and the
expectation that goals could best be met outside the home community
were independently related to students’ desires to migrate. Actual

future migration would also depend on the facilities for moving. (See
384.)

and J. ALLAN BEEGLE. The Initial Phase of Voluntary Migration.
Rural Sociology Studies 1. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State Uni-
versity, Department of Sociology and Anthropology, 1962.

A sociopsychological model of the initial phase of voluntary migra-
tion was tested using data obtained from all juniors and seniors in
high school in Ontonagon, Michigan, in 1957. “The desire to migrate,”
“the consideration of migration,” and actual plans or expectations to
migrate were distinguished conceptually.

An inverse relationship was found between desire to migrate and
level of community satisfaction which was independent of the per-
ceived attractiveness of other locations. The desire to migrate and the
consideration given to migration were related to the perceived attrac-
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 107

tiveness of other locations, regardless of level of community satisfac-
tion. A direct relationship was found between consideration being
given to migration and level of community satisfaction which was
independent of the perceived attractiveness of alternate locations.
Obligations played an important part in considering migration—stu-
dents who had no significant attachments to parents or who had
strong attachments to supportive parents were more likely to plan to
migrate than were those with strong attachments to nonsupportive
parents. Whether or not respondents had facilities for migrating was
related to their expectations and plans to move.

385. GOLDSTEIN, SIDNEY. “Migration: Dynamic of the American City.” Amer-
ican Quarterly, 6(4) (Winter 1954), 337-348.

In 1952 Goldstein obtained information from a 10-percent sample of
Norristown, Pennsylvania, households (749 whites and 79 blacks,
foreign born as well as U.S. born) concerning migration histories and
factors influencing spatial movement. He also analyzed city director-
ies from 1910 to 1950 to determine the migration histories of the city’s
population. While migration accounted for 80 percent of the adult male
population growth from 1910 to 1950, inmigration greatly decreased
during the economic depression of the 1930's. Despite decreases in
population as the result of migration, gross migration continues to
play a significant role in the restructuring of the city’s social and
cultural organization. High mobility rates for the city as a whole were
brought about by certain mobile elements of the population, while a
core population exhibited a high degree of residential stability. Analy-
sis of city directory information suggested that the great majority of
future moves would be made by previous migrants and only a small
proportion by city natives. Two-thirds of the 1952 sample were born
outside Norristown. Seventy percent of the black migrants were from
the South, and most of these came from one county in South Carolina,
initially in response to the recruitment of industrial workers during
World War I, but continuing due to the influence of friends and
relatives. The pattern of step migration noted among whites was not
found among blacks. Migrants in general had a lower sex ratio than
natives, had less education, were older, and were more likely to be
Protestant. The lower education noted was felt to be greatly influ-
enced by the poor attainment level of the foreign born.

 

*386. . Patterns of Mobility 1910-1950: The Norristown Study. Philadel-
phia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1958. (See 385.)
3817. and KURT B. MAYER. “The Impact of Migration on the Socio-

 

Economic Structure of Cities and Suburbs.” Sociology and Social
Research, 50 (1965), 5-23.

These authors present findings from a continuation of work begun
by Taeuber and Taeuber, who studied migration and changing socioec-
onomic levels among the cities and suburbs of 12 standard metropoli-
tan statistical areas (1062). Data used here are 1960 census data for
the Providence-Pawtucket metropolitan area. As did the Taeubers,
Goldstein and Mayer found that migrants into both central cities and
suburbs were more like each other than nonmigrants in both areas,
and that migration created a socioeconomic status difference between
city and suburbs, since there was a larger numerical flow of persons to
the suburbs than to the cities, and migrants to the suburbs had higher
socioeconomic status levels.
108 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

388. GONZALEZ, JESUS J. Bibliography of Mexican American Studies on
Various Subjects. San Bernardino, Calif.: San Bernardino Valley
College, 1970.

389. GOODMAN, L. A. “Statistical Method for the Mover-Stayer Model.”
Journal of the American Statistical Association, 56 (1961), 841-868.
Since the transition probability matrix for movers at some initial
point in time is unknown, various estimators for these parameters
have to be developed. Goodman gives various estimators (using both
direct and indirect methods) of these parameters and their accuracies
and shows their consistency as compared to the so-called nonconsis-
tent estimators used by Blumen, Kogan, and McCarthy, who devel-
oped the mover-stayer model (117). Several hypotheses concerning the
model were tested and methods presented that can be used for various
kinds of studies when panel data are available.

390. GOODNER, JAMES. Indian Americans in Dallas: Migrations, Missions and
Styles of Adaptation. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota,
Training Center for Community Programs, 1969.

This pastor-investigator finds that American Indian migrants to the
city have succeeded in their attempts to participate in, and adjust to,
urban life and generally have no desires to return to their reserva-
tions.

*391. GOODRICH, CARTER, AND OTHERS. Migration and Economic Opportunity.
Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1936.

In this classic work, the authors examine the relationship of migra-
tion and the business cycle. While in the earlier 1920's people had
moved from poorer to more prosperous areas, the depression brought
with it a general return-to-the-land movement directed particularly at
those areas “least capable of providing a decent living.” Many people
probably managed to stay off welfare by returning to a farm or by
taking up abandoned land.

392. GRAVES, THEODORE D. “The Personal Adjustment of Navajo Indian
Migrants to Denver, Colorado.” American Anthropologist, 72(1) (Feb.
1970), 35-54.

393.

 

and CHARLES A. LAVE. “Determinants of Urban Migrant Indian
Wages.” Human Organization, 31(1) (Spring 1972), 47-61.

Data from 259 male Navajo migrants to Denver, Colorado, show that
over 60 percent of the variance in starting wages in the city is
unexplained even after account is taken of education, skill training,
premigration job status, marital status, and father’s education.

394.

 

and MINOR VAN ARSDALE. “Perceived Opportunities, Expecta-
tions, and the Decision to Remain on Relocation: The Case of the
Navajo Indian Migrant to Denver, Colo.” Separately published paper
in the series on Navajo Urban Relocation Research, 5 (June 1965). 30
pp.

395.

 

 

and . “Values, Expectations and Relocation: The Navajo
Migrant to Denver.” Human Organization, 25 (Winter 1966), 300-307.
The authors wanted to know if the Navajo migrant’s decision to stay
in or to leave Denver could be predicted. They hypothesized that «“. . .
those migrants who remain in the city have a personal goal structure
more compatible with urban opportunities, and higher expectations
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 109

for the achievement of their goals within the urban setting, than
those migrants who leave the city and return to the reservation.”
Analysis was made of data from 100 male Navajo migrants in Denver,
57 of whom were classed as “stayers,” and 43, as “leavers.” Both
groups of respondents liked the city’s advantages in terms of economic
and material goal fulfillment but said the reservation is better for
love, affection, and engaging in traditional Navajo activities. Eco-
nomic goals were more important to those migrants who stayed, and
they had a higher expectation of achieving their goals in the city
environment than did those who left. Since only economic advantages
keep Indians in the city, any change in economic conditions may
precipitate a return to the reservation. It is concluded that long-
distance migration is only minimally successful and that it might
therefore be best to develop job opportunities for Indians on or near
reservations.

396. GRAY, IRWIN. “Employment Effect of a New Industry in a Rural Area.”
Monthly Labor Review, 92 (June 1969), 26-30.

New industry in a rural area, rather than providing employment for
the surplus population, attracts younger return migrants who have
acquired skills elsewhere, leaving the original population in essen-
tially the same economic position.

397. GRAY, WAYNE T. “Population Movements in the Kentucky Mountains.”
Rural Sociology, 10(4) (Dec. 1945), 380-386.
Covers the period from World War I through the 1930’s.

398. GREBLER, LEO, JOAN W. MOORE, and RALPH C. GUZMAN. The Mexican
American People: The Nation's Second Largest Minority. New York:
The Free Press, 1970.

399. GREEN, BERNAL L., LLOYD D. BENDER, and REX R. CAMPBELL. Migra-
tion into Four Counties in the Ozarks Region. Bulletin 756. Fayette-
ville, Ark.: University of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1970.

The authors conducted a 1967 study of the kind and amount of
inmigration into four communities in the Ozarks Region. Inmigrants
were defined as persons who had moved from outside the Ozarks
Economic Development Region after January 1960 and after age 16
and been resident in the region at least 6 months. They were subclas-
sified as new inmigrants or as returnees. Data suggested that the
community itself is a crucial variable with respect to the type of
inmigrants it attracts. Many new inmigrants, retirees, were better off
economically and educationally than were nonmigrant residents. Sali-
ent reasons for returning were: nearness of kin, occupational opportu-
nity, and distaste for city life. Mobility motivations of new inmigrants
were occupational opportunity and climate-recreation factors. De-
pending on the community under consideration, returnees and new
inmigrants were found either to complement the nonmigrant labor
force or to compete directly with it for available jobs.

400. GREENWOOD, MICHAEL J. “An Analysis of the Determinants of Geo-
graphic Labor Mobility in the United States.” Review of Economics

and Statistics, 51(2) (May 1969), 189-194.
Multiple regressions of 1960 census data were used to determine the
extent to which each of several factors influenced 1955-60 interstate
110

401.

402.

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

migration. The most important explanatory variable was “migrant
stock,” that is, the number of persons born in State “i” but living in
State “j”. People tended to move to States to which natives of their
home region had already migrated. Transportation costs of movement,
noneconomic variables for which distance may be a proxy, or both,
acted as impediments to geographic mobility. Distance was an impor-
tant factor influencing earlier migration. Income had only a slight
direct effect on the 1955-60 distribution of migrants. The relationship
between educational attainment and recent migration was positive,
while in the past it had been inverse. A State’s amount of outmigra-
tion was directly related to its unemployment level, although these
two variables had been inversely related in the past. Migrants in
general were moving toward States with relatively large urban popu-
lations and with more moderate climates.

. “Lagged Response in the Decision to Migrate.” Journal of Re-
gional Science, 10(3) (1970), 375-384.

and P. J. GORMERLY. “A Comparison of the Determinants of White
and Non-White Interstate Migration.” Demography, 8(1) (Feb. 1971),
141-155.

403. GRIGG, CHARLES M., and RUSSELL MIDDLETON. “Community of Orienta-

tion and Occupational Aspirations of Ninth Grade Students.” Social
Forces, 38 (May 1960), 303-308.

Data from 26,313 white male and female ninth grade students in 216
high schools of 61 Florida counties showed that for males there was a
significant positive association between aspirations for professional-
status occupation and size of community of orientation. This relation-
ship disappeared among females when intelligence and father’s occu-
pation were partialed out of the analysis. Among males, 65 percent in
cities of 250,000 or more population, but only 37 percent of those in
places of less than 2,500 population, aspired to professional status.
Occupational aspirations also were associated with farm-nonfarm
background. Findings support Lipset’s (637) hypothesis that higher
occupational aspirations of urban youth may account for their greater
mobility.

404. GRIMSHAW, ALLEN D. “Relationship between Agricultural and Economic

Indices and Rural Migration.” Rural Sociology, 23(4) (Dec. 1958), 397
400.

405. GRINDSTAFF, CARL F. “The Negro, Urbanization, and Relative Depriva-

tion in the Deep South.” Social Problems, 15(3) (Winter 1968), 342-352.

Using David Matza’s concept of relative deprivation, this study
investigated whether the relative socioeconomic position of blacks
living in the same urban areas of the Deep South as whites was more
important in influencing black feelings of deprivation than any abso-
lute measures of socioeconomic status. Also tested was Blalock’s
hypothesis that black-white differentials concerning certain variables,
such as income, would not decrease in urban relative to nonurban
areas. Using indices of occupation, education, and income from 1960
census data for rural and urban places of Mississippi, Georgia, Ala-
bama, and South Carolina and for one large urbanized area of each
State (Jackson, Atlanta, Birmingham, and Charleston) it was found
that both blacks and whites were absolutely better off in terms of
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 111

education, occupation, and income as size of place of residence in-
creased, but blacks were increasingly less well off than whites in
terms of these three variables. Since for each State the black percent-
age of the total population living in urban as compared to rural areas
varied, it is concluded that State differentials in level of industrial
development might influence blacks in Mississippi and South Carolina
to migrate out of State rather than to in-State urban areas. The black
unemployment rate increased as size of place increased, whereas just
the opposite was found for whites. It is concluded that the relatively
worsened position of blacks in reference to whites in urban as com-
pared to rural areas may lead to increased black feelings of depriva-
tion.

406. GRODZENS, MORTON. “New Shame of Cities.” Confluence, 7 (Spring 1958),
29-46.

Although the natural increase rate is a greater contributor to
population growth than inmigration, the patterning of black settle-
ment in cities is the result of increased migration from the South.
Inmigrants move into core areas already characterized by high levels
of residential mobility and ethnic segregation, and once a city becomes
predominantly black, a reverse trend toward predominantly white
rarely recurs. Residential movement occurs from the core outward, in
step fashion.

407. GROSSMAN, DAVID A., and MELVIN LEVIN. The Appalachian Region: A
Preliminary Analysis of Economic and Population Trends in an
Eleven State Problem Area. Atlanta, Ga.: Council of Appalachian
Governors, 1961.

408. GUITHER, HAROLD D. “Factors Influencing Farm Operators’ Decision to
Leave Farming.” Journal of Farm Economics, 45 (Aug. 1963), 567-576.
Two hundred Illinois farm operators who had had capital invest-
ment in machinery were interviewed between October 1960 and March
1961. Those who left or were leaving farming had an average age of 50,
and included proportionately more of those under 35 and over 64 than
did the total farm operator population. The education of those leaving
did not differ from that of other farm operators. Leavers and their
wives were more likely than others to have worked off-farm in the
year preceding their move, and many moved full time into the same
nonfarm jobs. Most leavers liked farming but could not make enough
money in it. Over half the leavers had thought about moving for over
a year prior to the actual move. Twelve percent of respondents cited
the impact of Government policies on their decisions to leave. Over
half had moved 5 miles or less from their old farms. Those in the 10
percent of the samples who had moved more than 25 miles were
younger, in better health, had operated larger farms, were more likely
to have children in school, had no relatives within 15 miles, and
planned to take a job not related to, or only partly related to,
agriculture.

Nonfarm jobs were seen as providing more security, less physical
labor, and steadier income. Respondents were not likely to investigate
employment opportunities in a wide variety of places but tended to
take the first job they could get “close to home.” Emergent problems
in adjustment to off-farm work were more consistent working hours,
loss of independent proprietorship, time required away from home,
112 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

changes in employer-employment attitudes, and increased interper-
sonal interaction. Only 30 percent of respondents said they would
move again if higher paying jobs were available elsewhere.

409. GULICK, JOHN, and CHARLES E. BOWERMAN. Adaptation of Newcomers
in the Piedmont Industrial Crescent. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of
North Carolina, Institute for Research in Social Science, 1961.

This study of migrants to Durham and Greensboro, North Carolina,
found that migrants’ intentions to stay or move again were related to
age, length of residence, and general level of satisfaction. Women
exhibited greater attachment to both present and past places of
residence than men. Most migrants had moved to the city with their
families. Only about 14 percent of the sample had moved to the cities
from farms.

410.

 

AND OTHERS. “Newcomer Enculturation in the City: Attitudes and
Participation.” In Urban Growth Dynamics. Edited by F. S. Chapin,
Jr., and S. F. Weiss. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962. Pp. 315-
358.

411. GUPTA, SAVITA. “Net Migration in Michigan, 1950-60: An Analysis of
Population Change in Relation to the Demographic, Socioeconomic
and Occupational Variables.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Mich-
igan State University, 1961.

Analysis of census data on net migration in Michigan for 1950-60
showed that patterns of net migration bore a close relationship to
recent growth and to changes such as industrial locations, transporta-
tion, and communication facilities. Positive net migration was associ-
ated with increases in median family income, educational level, per-
cent employed in manufacturing, sex ratio, and population density,
and with decreases in the percentage employed in agriculture, in the
percentage 65 years of age and over, and in the dependency ratio.

412. GUTIERREZ, ELSA LAPUZ. “A Study of Migration among Rural Youth in
Montgomery and Stokes Counties, North Carolina, 1947-1956.” Unpub-
lished master’s thesis, North Carolina State University, undated.

413. GUTTENTAG, M., and F. DENMARK. “Psychiatric Labelling: Role Assign-
ment Based on the Projective Test Performance of In-Migrants.”
International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 11 (1965), 131-137.

Recently established norms for the Rorschach test do not include
racial, regional, social class, or subcultural groups as part of the
standardization population. This study of southern Negro female
inmigrants showed no Rorschach test differences between institution-
alized and noninstitutionalized persons, but a large difference be-
tween these two groups and Rorschach norms. Findings point to
either of two possible conclusions: the entire subcultural group is
“abnormal,” or Rorschach performance of a subcultural group mem-
ber cannot form the basis of diagnosis of illness.

414. GUZMAN, RALPH C. Advance Report 3: Revised Bibliography, 1967. Los
Angeles, Calif.: University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Division of Research, Mexican
American Study Project, 1967.

415. HACKETHORN, JACK. “The Farm Problem Moves to Town.” Co-op Grain
Quarterly, 16(1) (Spring 1960), 14-17.
416

417

418.

419.

420.

421.

422.

423.

424.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 113

. HAENZEL, WILLIAM. “Concept, Measurement and Data in Migration

Analysis.” Demography, 4(1) (1967), 253-261.

. HAGOOD, MARGARET JARMAN. “Dynamics of Rural Population.” In

Rural Life in the United States. Edited by Carl C. Taylor. New York:
Alfred A. Knopf, 1948. Pp. 233-244.

. “The South’s Great Export: People.” Southern Agriculturist, 77(2)
(Feb. 1948), 12.

Three factors greatly influencing outmigration from southern rural
areas are: high rural birth rates, reduction in the number of agricul-
tural jobs available, and increased nonfarm job opportunities.

and EMMIT F. SHARP. Rural-Urban Migration in Wisconsin, 1940-
1950. Research Bulletin 176. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1951.

Two factors producing the large volume of 1940-50 off-farm migra-
tion in Wisconsin were an increase in the number of nonfarm, particu-
larly manufacturing, job opportunities and a corresponding decrease
in the number of farm jobs.

HALLER, ARCHIBALD O. “Education and the Occupational Achievement

Process.” Rural Poverty in the United States. A Report of the Presi-
dent’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 11, pp. 149-169.

“ .. Rural Southern and Southwestern Negroes are clearly the
students who are least prepared for satisfactory achievement in the
modern occupational structure.”

. “The Influence of Planning to Enter Farming on Plans to Attend
College.” Rural Sociology, 22(2) (June 1957), 137-141.

This study of high school students found a positive correlation
between measured IQ and plans not to farm.

. “The Occupational Achievement Process of Farm-Reared Youth
in Urban Industrial Society.” Rural Sociology, 25(3) (Sept. 1960), 321-
333.

This study of 109 high school seniors in Lenawee County, Michigan,
in 1957, found that a decision not to farm was positively associated
with size of sibling group, high school agricultural courses, parental
educational aspirations for son, plans to attend college, belief that a
college education is needed for those not planning to farm, emotional
stability, the value of change, self-control, self-sufficiency, self-cen-
teredness, high parental occupational aspiration for son, and high
level of nonfarm occupational aspiration. Those choosing not to farm
were uncertain of eventual occupational choice. Despite findings of
other studies, the choice of farming was not found to be associated
with father’s having high-status friends, father’s being full owner or
having a large operatorship of a farm, high school grades, measured
1Q, values of residential stability, and deferred gratification pattern.

. “Occupational Choices of Rural Youth.” Journal of Cooperative
Extension, (Summer 1966), 93-102.

. “Planning to Farm: A Social Psychological Interpretation.” So-
cial Forces, 37(3) (Mar. 1959), 263-268.
114 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

425. and WILLIAM H. SEWELL. “Farm Residence and Levels of Educa-
tional and Occupational Aspiration.” American Journal of Sociology,
62 (Jan. 1957), 407-411.

426. and . “Occupational Choices of Wisconsin Farm Boys.”

 

 

Rural Sociology, 32(1) (Mar. 1967), 37-55.

427. HAMILTON, C. HORACE. The Changing Population of the USA South.
Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina, Carolina Population
Center, 1970.

The South is no longer homogeneous with regard to volume, direc-
tion, and characteristics of migration, and is no longer unique among
regions. Factors involved are mechanization of agriculture, industrial-
ization, urbanization and metropolitan growth, changes in transporta-
tion and communication patterns, rising levels of living and income,
rising educational levels, greater reduction of birth rates compared to
other regions, and new welfare policies. Moreover, return movement
to the South of better educated adults over 45 years of age is
increasing.

428.

 

. “Continuity and Change in Southern Migration.” In The South in
Continuity and Change. Edited by John C. McKinney and Edgar T.
Thompson. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1965. Ch. 3, pp. 53—
78.

There are high rates of movement within the South, both among
States and from rural to urban areas, and there is an increasing
amount of inmovement from other States to the South. Migration is a
tool in youths’ adjustments to changes in the occupational structure,
and there is a high correlation between educational level and geo-
graphic mobility.

429.

 

. “Educational Selectivity of Migration from Farm to Urban and
Other Non-farm Communities.” In Mobility and Mental Health. Edited
by Mildred B. Kantor. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1965. Ch. 7,
pp. 166-195.

Analysis of 1940-50 data on net migration shows age to be related to
educational selectivity in rural-urban migration. The net effect of this
selectivity has not been great on the farm population but has tended
to reduce the range of formal education. Rural-urban migration has
acted to lower the educational level at destination areas, and was
more likely to be selective of the better educated among blacks than
among whites. ’

430. . “Educational Selectivity of Net Migration from the South.”
Social Forces, 38 (Oct. 1959), 33-42.

Between 1940 and 1950 outmigration from the South was selective of
the most poorly educated whites but of the better educated blacks.
This differential was observed primarily at younger ages, while selec-
tion among middle- and old-aged persons was confined chiefly to the
poorly educated. The effect of net migration from the South has been
to lower the educational level at both origins and destinations.

 

*431.

 

. “Educational Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migration: Preliminary
Results of a North Carolina Study.” In Selected Studies of Migration
since World War 11. Edited by Clyde V. Kiser. New York: Milbank
Memorial Fund, 1957. Pp. 110-122.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 115

Both census data and survey data were used in this study. Migra-
tion in the 1940's and 1950's from North Carolina and from its rural-
farm areas was selective of both the best and least well educated. The
selectivity from the rural-farm population was particularly heavy for
those with 5 or fewer years of education and varied by color. At ages
20-34, migration was selective of the best and least well educated
among whites, but selective only of the best educated among blacks.
While sex differences in educational selectivity were small, the migra-
tion rates of well-educated males of both the U.S. and North Carolina
rural-farm populations were higher than those of well-educated fe-
males. Age differentials in the educational selectivity were more
pronounced for the total U.S. population than for either the total or
rural-farm North Carolina populations. Among the 339 youth sur-
veyed, only one-third had stayed within the home county. Seventy-two
percent of those who moved within their county settled in open-
country areas, while 82 percent of those moving out of the county
settled in open country. Those who went to urban areas and villages
(rather than open country) had more education and their parents had
more education, regardless of whether they had been reared on or off
farm.

432.

 

. “How Many of Our Farm Families Are Leaving the Farm?”
Research and Farming, 14 (Summer-Autumn 1955), 12-13.

 

433. . “The Negro Leaves the South.” Demography, 1(1) (1964), 273-295.

Factors producing high levels of black outmigration from the South
include high rural birth rates, the shift of cotton production from the
South to the Southwest and West, mechanization in agriculture, and
the rapid expansion of industrial job opportunities in regions outside
the South. Blacks’ highest rates of outmigration occur at ages 18-25,
and they return less frequently than do whites. Migration has been
selective of better educated blacks, but these migrants have had less
education than blacks in destination areas. Blacks have moved pri-
marily to cities of the North and West, and, if present trends continue,
75-85 percent of them will soon live outside the South. While an
increasing number of black migrants are getting white collar and
skilled jobs, the majority move into low-status and low-wage occupa-
tions. In spite of heavy outmigration, the South’s black population is
still increasing at a rate of about 10 percent per decade.

 

434. . “Population Pressure and Other Factors Affecting Net Rural-
Urban Migration.” In Demographic Analysis: Selected Readings. Ed-
ited by Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan. Glencoe, Ill.: The
Free Press, 1956. Pp. 419-424.

The effect of population pressure on migration from farms is partic-
ularly noteworthy at the time farm youth enter the labor market, and
changes in crop acreages are highly correlated with both the outmi-
gration of youth and that of the total population from rural-farm
areas.

435. . Rural-Urban Migration in North Carolina 1920-1930. Raleigh,

N.C.: North Carolina State College, 1934.

 

 

436. . “Rural-Urban Migration in the Tennessee Valley between 1920

and 1930.” Social Forces, 13 (1934), 57-64.
116 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

4317.

 

. “Whither Our Youth?” Research and Farming, 16(9) (Spring
1958).

438.

 

and HERBERT AURBACH. What's Happening to North Carolina
Farms and Farmers. Bulletin 407. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1958.

Data from the 1954 Census of Agriculture for North Carolina show
that while there was no difference between black and white rates of
outmigration, blacks were more likely to have moved out of State,
whereas whites were likely to ha¥e moved elsewhere within the State.

439. HANDLIN, OSCAR. The New Comers: Negroes and Puerto Ricans in a
Changing Metropolis. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press,
1959.

440.

 

. The Uprooted. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown & Co., 1951.

441. HANSEN, NILES M. “The Case for Government Assisted Migration.”
Paper prepared for the Commission on Population Growth and the
American Future, 1971.

Presents the case for redirecting migration from declining regions to
growth centers of expanding employment and criticizes past U.S.
policy (which tried to stop migrant outflow and aid lagging areas by
attracting industry to them) as “place” rather than “people” oriented.
The policy to redirect migration should include relocation counseling
and assistance programs for migrants with the following specific
objectives: the provision of information about job opportunities in
proximate growth centers; pre- and postrelocation support services,
including personal and family testing and financial counseling, legal
help, and area orientation information on day care, schocls, and job
training programs; preemployment interviews in potential destina-
tions; and coordination and assistance with transportation. Hansen
also feels people should have a choice of whether to stay in, or leave,
the lagging areas and recommends programs for those who might
choose to stay.

 

 

442, . Intermediate-Sized Cities as Growth Centers: Applications for
Kentucky, The Piedmont Crescent, The Ozarks and Texas. New York:
F. A. Praeger, 1971.

443. . “Migration Centers, Growth Centers and the Regional Commis-

sions: An Analysis of Expected Future Lifetime Income Gains to
Migrants From Lagging Regions.” Southern Economic Journal, 38(4)
(Apr. 1972), 508-517.

1965 legislation creating the Appalachian Regional Commission and
the Public Works and Economie Development Act ‘Title V’ commissions
was correct in supporting a growth-center strategy to benefit people
in depressed areas, but the creation of commissions limited to lagging
regions precluded selection of the most relevant growth centers for
development project efforts. This argument is supported by an analy-
sis of data from the 1-percent Social Security Continuous Work His-
tory sample, which permitted the identification of “migration centers”
(highest ranking Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s) in
terms of per migrant expected future lifetime income) and their rela-
tionship to “growth centers” (SMSA’s whose 1960's population growth
rates were greater than that for all SMSA'’s).
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 117

The author discusses the process by which the increase in migrants’
expected future lifetime income in relation to SMSA size was com-
puted and shows the 15 highest ranking SMSA’s on this variable for
each regional commission area. The Title V regions as a whole had
twice as many migration centers in noncommission- as in commission-
covered portions of the relevant States. A higher proportion of
SMSA'’s in noncommission-covered areas were migration centers. Al-
though migrants to cities in the Appalachian region are increasing
their incomes by moving to cities, the long-term prospects at these
destinations are “at best stagnant.” Regional commissions should
focus on whole States rather than counties, and while growth-center
and relocation-assistance policies undertaken on the Federal level can
take advantage of existing migration patterns in States served by the
Title V commissions, greater effort should be made in the Appalachian
region to redirect migration streams to growth centers outside the
area presently covered by the Commission.

444.

 

. “Regional Development and the Rural Poor.” Journal of Human
Resources, 4(2) (Spring 1969), 205-214.

Hansen critiques the final report of the President’s National
Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty (846) in its approach to, and
solutions for, the problems of migration, the rural poor, and depressed
area development. The Commission assumes that solution of problems
of the rural poor will not entail a large amount of outmigration and in
its desires to avoid social costs of urban congestion focuses its atten-
tion on places rather than people. The Commission supports location
of industry in lagging areas to absorb underemployment and unem-
ployment, to engender self-sustaining growth for these areas, and to
equalize economic opportunity, despite evidence that U.S. efforts have
not brought about changes in regional income differentials or in-
creased the attractiveness of small towns and lagging areas for
growth industries. Hansen admits that it would be cheaper socially
and economically to bring industry to lagging areas than to move
workers and increase congestion and unemployment in urban areas, if
all areas were either lagging or congested. However, since this is not
the case, ““. . . migration may be directed toward intermediate regions
where growth is rapid but where congestion poses no immediate
threat.”

Noting findings from Lansing and Mueller’s The Geographic Mobil-
ity of Labor (606) to the effect that those most likely to be unemployed
also are those who exhibit a low propensity to move, even when
unemployed, Hansen surmises that educational, vocational, and guid-
ance programs would be needed to increase “the quality and also the
mobility potential of the labor force in redevelopment areas,” and that
a health information program should also be included. He concludes
that while such a proposed program would be costly, it is the only
viable alternative.

445. . “Reservation Development versus Migration: A Study of the
Locational Preferences of Indian High School Seniors in the South-
west.” Economic Development Administration Program on the Role of
Growth Centers in Regional Economic Development, Discussion Paper
16. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas at Austin, Center for Economic

Development, 1971.

 
118 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Past efforts to relocate Indians did not take into account their need
for preparation and training. Renewed concern for Indians as a
disadvantaged group has led many to favor economic development on
the reservations, but Hansen cites evidence that Federal programs
cannot bring in enough jobs to rural areas to permit people to
continue to live there. For example, by 1970, only about 4,000 jobs had
been created for Indians despite a decade of Federal effort to bring
industry to the reservations. He therefore advocates relocation assist-
ance as an alternative. Since actual numbers of Indians wanting to
migrate and their locational preferences would likely affect the feasi-
bility of such relocation, this study focuses on the preferences aspect
of the problem. High school seniors of the Navajo, Zuni, and Rio
Grande Pueblo tribes were studied because of their relative success in
accommodating dominant societal influences without losing their own
values and cultural heritage. From findings, the author concludes
that since these respondents, “who represent the future of the reser-
vations,” are apparently very willing to leave for economic opportuni-
ties elsewhere, “sentiment about reservation life” should not obscure
the survival value of matching workers with jobs in intermediate-
sized cities such as Albuquerque and Denver.

. Rural Poverty and the Urban Crisis. Bloomington, Ind.: Indiana
University Press, 1970.

Hansen presents his proposal for a growth-center strategy as a
solution to problems of both declining rural areas and congested
urban areas. He finds Government programs designed to deal with the
economic problems of lagging areas generally ineffective because they
are more concerned with “place” problems than with human resource
development. He feels that it is unworkable to seek to attract industry
to lagging areas to provide jobs for the unemployed there, because
most growth industries need facilities available only in fairly large
cities. He hypothesizes that it would be better policy to develop job
opportunities in intermediate centers of 200,000 to 500,000 population
which have a good chance of growth. Simultaneously, the surplus
population of lagging areas would have to be encouraged to move to
these centers and be aided and prepared for such moves, and Hansen
delineates the types of assistance programs which should be made
available. (See 443 and 444.)

*446.

 

and WILLIAM C. GRUBEN. “The Influence of Relative Wages and
Assisted Migration on Locational Preferences: Mexican Americans in
South Texas.” Social Science Quarterly, 52(1) (June 1971), 103-114.
Evidence from south Texas is given in support of Hansen's ideas
concerning lagging areas, growth centers, and development of human
resources. Results are presented from a study conducted among
adults and high school seniors in the Rio Grande Valley and Laredo,
Texas, to determine mobility potentials and locational preferences
under different relative wage patterns. The authors found that Valley
people would probably only move elsewhere in Texas—to San Antonio
and Corpus Christi as intermediate places or to Dallas and Houston as
metropolitan destinations; on the other hand, Laredo respondents
(more mobile initially) would be familiar with Chicago and Detroit as
destinations. Under present conditions, the migration potential of
high school graduates and many younger adults is greater than is

447.

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 119

generally believed. The data indicate that Texas cities have approxi-
mately equal attractiveness to potential migrants, and that these
cities are preferred to Chicago or Detroit. Forty-seven percent of
respondents would choose a destination where friends or relatives
were already living. “. . . many more would be willing to leave with
relocation assistance, and such a program would increase the number
and proportion of migrants who would move to intermediate growth
cities.” Over half of the respondents did expect to live outside south
Texas. A Government assistance program would increase outmigra-
tion from south Texas and would be especially helpful to females. San
Antonio and Corpus Christi would be the best choices for growth
centers toward which to redirect migration, and designating them as
places for concentrating economic development efforts would be a
more workable choice than attempting to develop such opportunities
in south Texas.

and RICHARD YUKHIN. “Locational Preferences and Opportunity
Costs in a Lagging Region: A Study of High School Seniors in Eastern
Kentucky.” EDA Program on the Role of Growth Centers in Regional
Economic Development, Discussion Paper 17. Lexington, Ky.: Univer-
sity of Kentucky, 1969.

The authors feel that regional development programs have focused
on creating jobs in lagging regions rather than on manpower mobility
projects because of the belief that social costs of migration would be
greater than costs of rural industrialization efforts. Arguing for
growth centers and assisted migration, they maintain that people’s
preferences are important, and accordingly investigated such prefer-
ences by making a study (replicated later in other geographical areas)
of the locational preferences of 625 graduating seniors in the Big
Sandy region of eastern Kentucky. Preferences for living in home
community, in Lexington or Louisville (intermediate-sized cities), or in
northern metropolitan areas were obtained under varying hypotheti-
cal wage rates for these areas. In 5 years 70 percent of the students
expected to live outside eastern Kentucky, but if the wage rate were
higher there than elsewhere, over 80 percent of the respondents would
stay in the home community, and nearly two-thirds would choose to
remain if wages were hypothetically the same everywhere. However,
where the posed wage rate for Lexington or Louisville was higher
than for the home community, more respondents would choose the
cities as a place to live, and this preference increased with an increase
in the wage differential. Still about half of the students, while respon-
sive to wage rates, would also be influenced by where friends and
relatives had moved. In general the students would avoid choosing
northern cities. The authors concluded that, despite previously held
views, young adults in lagging regions are willing and ready to move,
given sufficient incentive. Yet the belief that people from lagging
regions want to move to big northern cities is incorrect, although
actual migration does occur to these cities. While relatives and friends
do influence choice of destination to some extent, respondents show
great sensitivity to relative wages in location choices. Results support
policies which would provide for migration of people of lagging regions
to intermediate-sized areas.

449. HANSEN, VIOLA K. “Some Social and Economic Factors That Influence
Young Couples to Stay on the Farm in a Low-Income County in

448.

 
120 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Kentucky.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Columbia University,
1962.

450. HANSON, ROBERT C. Urbanization of the Migrant: Processes and Out-
comes—Final Report Summary. National Institute of Mental Health
Project MN 09208. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado, Institute of
Behavioral Science, Program of Research on Social Processes, 1971.

The major publications resulting from this investigation are sum-
marized in this report and are annotated here as items 451-456.

451. and FU CHIN SHIH. “Dynatypes, Rural Migrant Case Histories
and Urbanization Processes.” Mimeographed. Boulder, Colo.: Univer-
sity of Colorado, Institute of Behavioral Research. 1971.

Hanson and Shih define a dynatype as a *. . . constructed, ex-
tracted type that represents a particular pattern of change over time
common to a group of objects; thus, each dynatype manifests its own
specific variation of a general process.” Using longitudinal data, they
demonstrate one way to get at dynatypes empirically. (See also 450,
452-456.)

and OZZIE G. SIMMONS. “Differential Experience Paths of Rural
Migrants to the City.” In Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation
of Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 145-166.

Uses time trend data to analyze the adjustment process following
migration and develops a four-group typology of migrants based on
socioeconomic status and welfare recipiency: a) thrivers, b) stumblers,
c¢) strugglers, and d) losers. Analyses are focused on employment,
income, patterns of expenditure, rootedness-stability, rapid family
expansion, accumulation of property, neighborhoods, misfortune expe-
riences (legal difficulties and medical expenses), deviant friends, and
heavy drinking. Those who started off in a relatively advantaged
position but ended up on welfare did so because of unstable employ-
ment experience, exacerbated by earlier established spending pat-
terns. Those who did not start off in an advantaged position but who
managed to stay off welfare were most likely to have had better
health and a smaller burden of family responsibilities. (See also 450,
451, 453-456.)

and . “Role Path: A Concept and Procedure for Studying
Migration to Urban Communities.” Human Organization, 27 (Summer
1968), 152-158.

Points out that socialization to urban areas generally occurs within
a limited number of role contexts. A rural migrant’s urbanization can
be studied “by tracing attribute-changing experiences as he performs
newly acquired city roles.” His role path is therefore represented by
the spectrum of changing role contexts that he encounters. (See also
450-452, 454-456.)

454. , ,» and WILLIAM N. MCPHEE. “Quantitative Analyses of the
Urban Experiences of Spanish-American Migrants.” In Spanish-
Speaking People in the U.S.: Proceedings of the 1968 Annual Spring
Meeting of the American Ethnological Society. Seattle, Wash.: Univer-
sity of Washington Press, 1968. Pp. 65-83.

Deals with the methodological problems involved in distilling gener-
alizations from life-history data. The two particular problems focused

 

 

452.

453.

 

 

 

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 121

on are: how minutiae from individual histories can be generalized so
that the resulting theory remains capable of predicting behavior for
an individual case; and how life-history data can be organized to make
implicit social processes explicit. Using the concept of “role path”
(453), 66 rural migrants to Denver were interviewed concerning their
life experiences of 2 to 7 years’ duration. These interviews provided a
basis for model construction. The computer model developed simulates
the response of a migrant with certain attributes to the opportunity
structure of a city and predicts, on the basis of his search, confronta-
tion, and acceptance/rejection behavior, his change in attributes,
which will govern his next interaction process. Most of the equations
(theories) accounted for more than 50 percent of the data variance
found. (See also 450-453, 455, 456.)

455. y , and . “Time Trend Analyses of the Urban Experi-
ences of Rural Migrants to the City.” Paper presented to the Confer-
ence on Adaptation to Change sponsored by the Foundation’s Fund
for Research in Psychiatry, San Juan, P.R., 1968.

Describes the methodology used in the “Urbanization of the Mi-
grant” project (450). In an attempt to determine the predictable
experience path of a migrant, the authors first obtained life histories
from Spanish American rural-urban migrants to Denver. Changes in
migrant statuses, attributes, and various behaviors were coded month
by month for each migrant’s urban experience and the resulting data
were subjected to factor analysis to reduce the mass of data to
significant variables. Variables, constants, and indices were standard-
ized, and a data tape for each migrant on 84 standardized variables
was made for use in a time-series analysis. The program permits
classification of up to four groups on almost any basis, and then,
holding the groups’ composition constant, computes means or percent-
ages on up to four variables for a period of up to 48 months, month by
month.

Findings show that migrants who come to the city with higher
socioeconomic status do better in terms of employment and income
over time than do those who start out at a relative economic disadvan-
tage. The same general patterns were found to hold for Catholic and
non-Catholic, and “prudent” migrants. Younger unmarried migrants,
younger migrant families, and “reckless” migrants were more likely to
acquire deviant friends, engage in risky behavior, live in poorer
neighborhoods, get into trouble more frequently and take longer to
stabilize. (See 450-454, 456.)

 

 

 

 

AND OTHERS. “A Simulation Model of Urbanization Processes.” In
Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Populations.
Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications,
1970. Pp. 377-394.

(See 450-455.)

457. HARDERT, RONALD ALBERT. “Social Structural Factors Influencing the
Urbanization of Appalachian Hill Emigrants in an Urban Ghetto.”
Dissertation Abstracts, 28(9) (Mar. 1968), 3778A-3TT9A.

Findings showed significant differences in “degree of urban person-
ality” between migrants to Cincinnati and natives. Simmel’s concept
of “metropolitan man” suffers from a middle-class bias, in that his
“urbanness” may be essentially a middle-class phenomenon found

456.
122

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

only among middle-class migrants and natives. Failure to find a
strong relationship between urbanness and place of birth may reflect
the fact that cities may be “urbanizing” rural life, resulting in
“preconditioning for urban attitudes” among potential migrants.

Migrants who scored lower on urbanness tended to have more stable
employment histories, interacted more with relatives than with city
natives, and tended to have slightly fewer children. Higher degrees of
urban attitudes among migrants were associated with increased age,
longer city residence, and the tendency to depend on relatives for
financial aid.

458. HARDIN, CLARA ALBERTA. “The Negro in Philadelphia: The Cultural

Adjustment of a Minority Group.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Bryn Mawr College, 1943.

459. HARKINS, ARTHUR M., and RICHARD G. WOODS. Indian Americans in

Duluth: A Summary and Analysis of Recent Research. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota, Training Center for Community Pro-
grams, 1970.

Indian problems in the city include health, high school dropouts,
unemployment, and crime. Findings from the studies reviewed show
that similarities between dropouts and high school graduates raise
questions concerning the value of a diploma to Indians.

460. HARRIS, B. W. Population Changes among Rural Negroes in Mississippi.

Lurman, Miss.: Alcorn A & M College, Department of Agricultural
Economics, 1956.

The outmigration of blacks from rural Mississippi in 1930-1950 was
largely composed of tenants and sharecroppers.

461. HARRISON, ROBERT H., and EDWARD B. KASS. “MMPI Correlates of

Negro Acculturation in a Northern City.” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 10(3) (1968), 262-270.

MMPI data from three groups of lower class pregnant women in
Boston showed that black women born in the North were halfway
between black women born in the South and white women born in the
North on the personality dimensions investigated. The authors con-
clude that a process of acculturation to white society by blacks is
progressing.

462. HART, JOHN F. “Migration and Population Change in Indiana.” Proceed-

463.

 

ings of the Indian Academy of Science, 66 (1951), 195-203.

. “Negro Migration in the United States.” Annals of the Associa-
tion of American Geographers, 48 (Spring 1958), 268.

Between 1820 and 1910, the South constantly retained 84-88 percent
of the total U.S. black population, although blacks were moving in a
westerly direction within the South. Major black migration began
after 1910, with the dominant stream flowing from the South Atlantic
States to the Northeast, and another flowing from the East South
Central to the East North Central States. These trends continued
through 1950, and a persistent trend is black migration from the West
South Central to Pacific States. The heaviest black outmigration has
been from counties in the western South. The heaviest inmigration
rates were to northern cities, although some southern metropolitan
areas have attracted blacks. However, blacks have generally avoided
smaller cities, many of which lost black population during the 1940's.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 123

464. HARWOOD, EDWIN S. “Work and Community Among Urban Newcomers:
A Study of Social And Economic Adaptation of Southern Migrants to
Chicago.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago,
1956.

465. HASSINGER, EDWARD W. “Factors Associated With Population Changes
in Agricultural Grade Centers of Southern Minnesota, 1940-1950.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, 1956.

466. . “How Many People Leave Farming or Move to New Farms?’

Minnesota Farm and Home Science, 10(13) (May 1953), 16.

 

467. HATHAWAY, DALE E. “Can Rural Communities Be Saved?’ Paper pre-
sented at the Annual Extension Conference, Michigan State Univer-
sity, Oct. 22, 1968.

. “Migration from Agriculture: The Historical Record and Its
Meaning.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 50(2)
(May 1960), 379-391, 413-418. Also in: Monthly Labor Review, 83(2)
(Feb. 1960), 136-140. Agriculture in Economic Development. Edited by
Carl Eicher and Lawrence Witt. New York: McGraw-Hill Co., 1964. Ch.
12. Regional Development and Planning. Edited by John Friedmann
and William Alonso. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1964.

Rural-urban migration has relieved some population pressure but
has not improved the economic position of farm people relative to
those employed in other occupational sectors and/or geographic areas.

468.

 

469. . “Occupational Mobility From the Farm Labor Force.” In Farm
Labor in the United States. Edited by C. E. Bishop. New York and
London: Columbia University Press, 1967. Ch. 5, pp. 71-96.

Low returns to agricultural work and diminishing needs for labor in
agriculture necessitate the continued occupational mobility of farm
people. The decreased number of prospective retirements out of agri-
culture means that youth should not seek to enter the farm labor force
and further that greater numbers of nonfarm jobs must be provided to
absorb the surplus rural youth. Available data show that most mobil-
ity out of agriculture occurs via the multiple-job-holding process, in
step fashion. Economic opportunity, the major force in such mobility,
is dependent upon the general employment level, the location of the
individual, and the occupational and industrial structure, while age,
sex, education, and race characteristics of the worker also are mediat-
ing variables. Hathaway concludes with a section on policy implica-
tions.

. “People on the Move: The Rural to Urban Population Shift.”
Paper presented at the National Manpower Conference, Stillwater,
Okla., May 17-18, 1968.

Four factors form the basis for rural-urban migration: high rural
fertility, income differences between farm and nonfarm workers,
declining demand for farm labor, and inability of small towns in rural
areas to provide enough nonfarm jobs to the farm labor-force surplus.
Migration out of farming is related to age, race, place of residence, and
farm occupational status. Long-distance migration is more frequent
among young adults, blacks, farm wage workers, and those with the
lowest farm incomes. There is a considerable return migration to the
farm among those who fail to make successful nonfarm employment
adjustments. Thus, gross off-farm labor migration is high but net

 

470.

 
124 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

change is not great. The incomes which off-farm migrants make is
found closely related to size of destination area, as is the rate of
return movement. Despite the outcry against overcrowding among
blacks in urban ghettos, in 1960 almost twice as many rural blacks as
urban ones lived in overcrowded dwellings. (See also 472, 473.)

471.

 

. “Urban-Industrial Development and Income Differentials be-
tween Occupations.” Journal of Farm Economics, 46(1) (Feb. 1964), 56—
66.

*472.

 

and BRIAN B. PERKINS. “Farm Labor Mobility, Migration, and
Income Distribution.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 50
(May 1968), 342-353.

Analysis of data from the 1-percent Social Security sample on gross
migration flows between 1955 and 1963 showed that neither insuffi-
cient nonfarm labor demands nor slow off-farm movement lessen the
utility of the currently accepted farm-nonfarm labor mobility model.
The earnings abilities of farm workers in the nonfarm labor market
may have been overestimated, since return movement offsets approxi-
mately 90 percent of the high occupational mobility out of agriculture.
One-half of those changing from farm to nonfarm jobs in 1957-60 lost
earnings in a given year. Average earnings were both low and
variable. Short-term gains and long-term earnings levels were partic-
ularly low for ex-farm-workers over 44, and occupational instability
increased drastically with age. Black movers experienced lower in-
come gains than did whites, although black employment instability
was no greater. It is concluded that blacks simply are either unpre-

* pared for, or lack access to, higher paying jobs over time. Movers with
prior off-farm work experience had slightly lower long-term earnings
levels but greater employment stability following moves than did
those without such experience. Those living within 50 miles of a
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area had bigger gains and higher
earnings levels on leaving agriculture than did others. No substantia-
tion was found for the idea that unemployment levels in the nonfarm
labor market or lack of information concerning available nonfarm jobs
inhibit mobility out of agriculture. Those moving to big city labor
markets were less likely than others to return to the farm. Most of
those entering agriculture from nonfarm jobs had previous farm
experience. Returnees to the farm, who usually had lower earnings
and more unemployment in nonfarm jobs than those who stayed off
farm, were likely to be older, black, farm operators, and to move into
remote rural counties with low levels of commercialized agriculture
and very low family incomes. (See also 473.) [It should be pointed out
that conclusions on rural-urban migration drawn from the 1-percent
Social Security work history sample are almost certainly biased be-
cause a high proportion of farm laborers are not in covered employ-
ment.]

473.

 

 

and . “Occupational Mobility and Migration From Agricul-
ture.” In Rural Poverty in the United States. A Report of the Presi-
dent’s National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 13, pp. 185-237.
Long-distance migration for changing jobs is a function of age, race,
sex, county of origin, and farm status before moving. The young,
Negroes, males, low-income persons, and those from high-income
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 125

counties were the most common long-distance migrants. Long-dis-
tance migrants did not have long-term earnings as high as short-
distance movers. In general, the mobility process works less well for
those who need it most—it may widen income differentials between
high- and low-income farmers and farm areas. (See also 472.)

474.

 

and ARLEY D. WALDO. Multiple Jobholding by Farm Operators.
Research Bulletin 5. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1964.

475. HAUSER, PHILIP M., and HOPE T. ELDRIDGE. “Projection of Urban
Growth and Migration to Cities in the United States.” Milbank Memo-
rial Fund Quarterly, 25(3) (July 1947), 293-307.

476. HAWLEY, AMOS H. Intrastate Migration in Michigan, 1935-1940. Univer-
sity of Michigan Governmental Studies, No. 25. Ann Arbor, Mich.:
University of Michigan Press, 1953.

477. HAYES, MARION. “Regional Differences in Jobs, Income and Migration,
1929-49.” Monthly Labor Review, 71(4) (Oct. 1950), 433-4317.

The net effect of the 1929-49 change in jobs, income, and migration
was to reduce disparities between States and between regions, but
people continued to be more prosperous in the North and West than in
other regions. Manufacturing had grown in the South, and farm
profits had increased. About the same proportion (17 percent) of the
population moved from 1940 to 1946 as had moved from 1935 to 1940,
but they traveled greater distances. Of 14 States gaining population in
both the 1930’s and 1940’s, 9 were in the North and 4 in the Far West.
States losing population in both periods stretched from Pennsylvania
and West Virginia through the Appalachians, down into the Southeast
and up into the Plains. Movements in both the Southwest and South-
east seemed to vary more with economic activity. The Southwest
gained only in 1940-49, while the Southeast’s loss was greatly acceler-
ated during the same time period. Most States offset migration loss
with natural increase, but in the central United States—from North
Dakota to Oklahoma and Arkansas—the States lost population or
remained stable from 1929 to 1949, and in the Southeast, Kentucky
and Mississippi lost population in the 1940’s.

478. HEADY, EARL O., HOWARD DIESSLIN, HAROLD JENSEN, and GLENN
JOHNSON, EDS. Agricultural Adjustment Problems in a Growing Econ-
omy. Ames, lowa: Iowa State University Press, 1958.

479. HEBERLE, RUDOLF. “The Causes of Rural-Urban Migration: A Survey of
German Theories.” American Journal of Sociology, 43 (1938), 932-950.

 

 

480. . “Social Consequences of the Industrialization of Southern Ci-
ties.” In Cities and Society. Edited by Paul K. Hatt and Albert J.
Reiss, Jr. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1957.

481. . “Types of Migration.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 36

(June 1955), 65-70.

Heberle develops “ideal” types of migration differentiated by the
way in which migration affects the social relationships of the migrants
and the difference in sociocultural systems between areas of origin
and destination.
126 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

482. HEER, DAVID M. “The Attractiveness of the South to Whites and
Nonwhites: An Ecological Study.” American Sociological Review, 28
(Feb. 1963), 101-107.

Through an analysis of census data, the author tests hypotheses
concerning the relative and absolute attractiveness of southern places
either over or under 100,000 in population to whites and nonwhites
based on status discrepancy. The status discrepancy indicator used,
based on income, was the ratio of the median income of whites to the
median income of nonwhites. The measure of the absolute attractive-
ness of an area for each race was determined by taking the ratio of
men and women 25-34 of that race in the area in 1960 to the number of
men and women 15-24 in the area in 1950. Relative attractiveness was
defined as the ratio of the measure of absolute attractiveness to
nonwhites to the measure of absolute attractiveness for whites. It was
found that the absolute attractiveness of an area both to whites and
to nonwhites is slightly correlated with white-nonwhite status discrep-
ancy, and that areas where the racial status discrepancy is greater
are more attractive to both races. It is noted that better economic
opportunities are available to both whites and blacks in areas where
relative white status is much greater. The migratory attractiveness of
southern areas can largely be explained in terms of job opportunities.

483. HEFLIN, CATHERINE P., and HOWARD W. BEERS. Urban Adjustment of
Rural Migrants. Bulletin 487. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1946.

484. HELLER, CELIA STOPNICKA. “Ambitions of Mexican-American Youth:
Goals and Means of Mobility of High School Seniors.” Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1964.

485. HENDERSON, FRANCIS M. “An Estimate of Net Rural-Urban Migration
in the States and Counties of North Carolina.” Unpublished master’s
thesis, North Carolina State College, 1943.

486. HENDERSON, GEORGE. “Poor Southern Whites: A Neglected Urban Prob-
lem.” Journal of Secondary Education, 41 (Mar. 1966), 111-114.

487. HENDERSON, SIDNEY. Labor Force Potentials: Farm Migration Available
for Urban Growth, Eight Nebraska Cities, 1940-1950. Business Re-
search Bulletin 60. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, College of
Business Administration, 1956.

488. HENEBERRY, BILL. Why Don’t More People Leave Farming. Cooperative
Extension Service Series, No. 208. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan
State University, Department of Agricultural Economies, 1960.
Land value increases and capital investments are two barriers to
migration for farm owners.

489. HERR, WILLIAM McD. “Credit and Farm Policy.” In Rural Poverty in
the United States. A Report of the President’s National Advisory
Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 28, pp. 522-541.

This chapter contains discussion of credit use among farmers,
particularly those with chronically low incomes or those in poverty;
contributions of FHA loan programs and their effect in alleviating low
farm income; the Rural Housing Loan program; the Economic Oppor-
tunity Loan program; and adjusting credit programs for chronically
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 127

low-income farmers. Failure to obtain satisfactory credit motivates
off-farm migration, especially among operators of small farms.

490. HILDAHL, S. H. “A Longitudinal Analysis of Migration of Young Adults,
Hamilton County, Iowa.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Iowa State
University, 1961.

491. HILL, GEORGE W. “Recent Population Changes in Rural Wisconsin.”
Rural Sociology, 12(2) (June 1947), 169-172.

492. HILL, LOWELL D. “Characteristics of the Farmers Leaving Agriculture
in an Iowa County.” Journal of Farm Economics, 44 (May 1962), 419-
426.

Data came from 19 former farm families from a county in north
central Iowa who had lived on a farm which was sold between October
1959 and May 1961 and whose head had taken urban employment. In
general, the migrants were slightly younger and 3 years better
educated than the county population. The main reasons given for
leaving farming were low income, poor health, lack of (or poor)
facilities, lack of other available farm, lack of available credit, and
inability to do well for children. While all migrants improved their
incomes after moving, they often felt increased costs in town offset
earnings increases. ¥

493. HILL, SADIE MOSELL. “Standard of Living Among One Hundred Negro
Migrant Families in Philadelphia.” Annals of the American Academy
of Political and Social Science, 98 (Nov. 1921).

494. HILLARY, GEORGE A., JR., JAMES S. BROWN, and GORDON F. DE JONG.
“Migration Systems of the Southern Appalachians: Some Demo-
graphic Observations.” Rural Sociology, 30 (Mar. 1965), 33-48.

495. HIMES, JOE S. “Some Characteristics of the Migration of Blacks in the
U.S.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population
Association of America, Washington, D.C., 1971.

Analysis of 1950-60 and later census data showed that black popula-
tion growth peaked at 2.5 percent per year during the 1950's and has
since been declining. The South lost blacks and all other regions
gained them through inmigration. Growth of the black population in
central cities was the result of natural increase, and inmigration is
now playing a declining role in black population growth. Black inmi-
grants were younger, better educated, and in white collar jobs more
frequently than nonmigrants.

496. HITT, HOMER L. “Migration Between the South and Other Regions, 1949
to 1950.” Social Forces, 36(1) (Oct. 1957), 9-16.

 

 

497. . “Peopling the City: Migration.” In The Urban South. Edited by
Rupert B. Vance and Nicholas J. Demerath. Chapel Hill, N.C.: Univer-
sity of North Carolina Press, 1954. Pp. 54-717.

498. . “Population Movements in the Southern United States.” The
Scientific Monthly (May 1956), 241-246.

Urbanization patterns observable in the South are similar to those
seen earlier in both the Northeast and West, and interurban migra-
tion has become a more frequent type of movement.

499. . “The Role of Migration in Population Change Among the Aged.”

 

American Sociological Review, 19 (Apr. 1954), 194-200.
128

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The elderly are migrating in increasing numbers. Using census
data, Hitt estimated the volume and relative importance of the net
movement of the elderly into and out of each State in the 1940’s and
compared this movement to the 1930’s movement. In the 1940’s some
20 States, primarily in the South, Southwest, and West, had net gains
of persons over age 65, with California and Florida gaining the
greatest numbers. States losing the elderly were in the Great Plains,
Midwest, and Northeast. The same trends were operant but less
pronounced in the 1930’s.

500. HOBBS, ALBERT H. Differentials in Internal Migration. Philadelphia,

Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1942.

501. HODGE, GERALD. “Do Villages Grow?—Some Perspectives and Predic-

502.

503.

504.

505.

506.

tions.” Rural Sociology, 31 (1966), 183-196.

The number of trade centers will continue to decline as farm
mechanization proceeds and farms get larger, “lowering the man-land
ratio and the market potential for trade center establishments.” “Con-
venience centers,” losing clientele to larger places offering a wider
selection in goods and services, will “decline to hamlet status,” and
many hamlets will disappear. Except for some suburbanization around
large trade centers, smaller trade centers within 10 miles of large trade
centers will disappear, those 15 miles away will decline, and only those
farther away will have any chance of survival.

HODGELL, MURLIN RAY. “Low-Income Rural Families in an Urbanizing
Society.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1960.

HoLT, JOHN B. “Holiness Religion: Culture Shock and Social Reorgani-
zation.” American Sociological Review, 5 (Oct. 1940), 640-647.
The Holiness churches have grown up in the Southeast as a result of
rural-urban migrants’ attempts to adjust to the isolation and inse-
curity caused by the rapid urbanization of the region.

HUELSMAN, BEN R. “Southern Mountaineers in City Juvenile Courts.”
Federal Probation, 33(4) (Dec. 1969), 49-54.

The seemingly high delinquency rates found among migrant adoles-
cents is attributed to migrants moving into pockets of a city where
their mountain culture is perpetuated. This culture is characterized
by lack of discipline, low valuation on education, and the educational
systems’ emphasis on the preparation of students for college rather
than for jobs.

HUIE, J. M. “Migration of Rural Residents.” Alabama Agricultural
Experiment Station Highlights of Agricultural Research, 9 (Summer
1962), 14.

HULTMAN, CHARLES W. “Factor Migration: Trade Theory and Growth
Centers.” International Migration, 8(3) (1970), 130-139.

In studying the nature of regional growth, several researchers have
hypothesized the existence of a polarization process characterized by
disparity in growth rates and factor migration. Hultman reexamines
the polarization process, and concludes that the focus on the compara-
tive factor endowments of regions makes trade theory important for
regional planners to use in assessing growth potential.
507.

508.

509.

510.

511.

512.

513.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 129

HUMPHREY, NORMAN D. “The Changing Structure of the Detroit Mexi-
can Family: An Index of Acculturation.” American Sociological Re-
view, 9 (1944), 622-626.

Humphrey detects a trend away from the traditional patriarchal
family structure and toward more democratic roles and interactions.

. “The Housing and Household Practices of Detroit Mexicans.”
Social Forces, 21(4) (1946), 433-4317.

Certain “comfort” items and household practices which may appear
in Mexican American inmigrant homes are two of the most reliable
kinds of indicators of acculturation.

. “Migration and Settlement of Detroit Mexicans.” Economic Geog-
raphy, 19 (Oct. 1943), 358-361.

HUNDLEY, L. C. “The Mountain Men in Northern Industry.” Mountain
Life and Work, 31(2) (Spring 1955), 33-38.

 

 

HURT, WESLEY R. “The Urbanization of Yankton Indians.” Human
Organization, 20 (Winter 1961-62), 226-231.

HUTCHINSON, ROBERT S. Migration and Industrial Development in Ten-
nessee. Report to the Industrial Development and Migration Subcom-
mittee of the Tennessee Legislative Council. Knoxville, Tenn.: Tennes-
see Legislative Council, 1958.

HYLAND, GERARD A. “Social Interaction and Urban Opportunity: The
Appalachian In-Migrant in the Cincinnati Central City.” Antipode: A
Radical Journal of Geography, 2 (Dec. 1970), 68-83.

The typical Appalachian migrant is a white, Protestant native who
is greatly attached to his place of birth. He migrates only because he
needs money, and he cannot wait to “go home” on retirement.

514. IDEN, GEORGE. “The Mobility of Labor in Low-Income Regions of the

515.

South.” Research Previews, 19(1) (Apr. 1972), 30-41.

Analysis of Social Security and Survey of Economic Opportunity
data showed that workers from low-income southern areas made large
income gains by migrating. Findings cast doubt on the thesis that
employment conditions in southern growth centers have become more
favorable for blacks than labor markets in northern industrial cen-
ters.

 

and CHARLES RICHTER. “Factors Associated with Population
Mobility in the Atlantic Coastal Plain.” Land Economics, 47(2) (May
1971), 189-193.

Multiple-regression analysis of 1955-60 census data showed that in
the 24 State economic areas of the Atlantic coastal plain outmigration
was related to declines in the number of farm jobs and high unem-
ployment levels, and inmigration was associated with increases in
the number of nonfarm jobs and the level of education.

516. International Labour Review. “Labor Mobility in the United States.”

International Labour Review, 79 (Mar. 1959), 296-314.

This is a broad review of mobility trends in the United States. While
industrialization has occurred in the South, high natural increase
rates in combination with low job opportunities have resulted in
heavy outmigration to the Northeast and, recently, to the West. There
is considerable involuntary migration caused by job displacement as a
130

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

result of technological change, shifts in demand, depletion of raw
materials, and relocation of industry. This economic change, coupled
with a dependency on only one industry, has led to unemployment and
chronic depressions in many labor market areas. Shifts in industrial
location often result from efforts by other communities to attract
“new” industry. In turn, communities losing an industry have sought
to replace it with a new one to absorb displaced workers. But many
industries attracted to depressed areas are not growth industries, and
even those which are, prefer to hire new entrants to the labor force,
leaving the situation of the displaced worker unchanged. Women enter
and leave the labor force more frequently during their working lives
but change jobs less frequently than men. Geographic mobility rates
are highest among farm laborers, professionals, and sales personnel.
Four obstacles to geographic mobility are community attachment,
age, home ownership, and unrealistic optimism concerning the tempo-
rary nature of depressed-area conditions. The concluding section deals
with efforts to facilitate labor mobility and to solve depressed-area
problems.

517. JACO, E. GARTLY. “Mental Health of the Spanish-Americans in Texas.”

518.

 

In Culture and Mental Health. Edited by Marvin K. Opler. New York:
Macmillan, 1959. Pp. 467-488.

Jaco felt that psychosis rate differences observed between migrant
and native Mexican Americans were due to chance variation.

. “Migration and Mental Illness.” In The Social Epidemiology of
Mental Disorders. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1960. Ch. 4, pp.
60-72.

The study population included all Texas residents diagnosed as
having a psychosis and who sought psychiatric treatment for the first
time during 1951 and 1952. Migration status was defined by nativity in
Texas or elsewhere. While significant differences in incidence rates of
psychoses between blacks, Mexican Americans, and Anglos were
found, migration status was not statistically significant for the psy-
chotic rates. The higher schizophrenic rate for migrant Mexican
American females than for native females is attributed to the stress-
ful nature of migration for Spanish-speaking immigrants.

519. JAFFE, A. J, and S. L. WOLFBEIN. “Internal Migration and Full Employ-

ment in the United States.” Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 40 (1945), 351-353.

520. JAKUBAUSKAS, EDWARD B., and NEIL A. PALOMBA. Relocation of Farm

Workers from Mississippi to Iowa. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University,
Industrial Relations Center, 1969.

Five families participated in the initial phase of the Mississippi-
Iowa Labor Mobility Project from May 1968 to April 1969. One purpose
of the program was to study the process of relocating underemployed
southern farm workers to year-round farm jobs in Iowa, which might
demonstrate how the South-to-North rural-urban migration pattern
might be deflected to smaller northern communities. It was concluded
that the relocating families must have a latent middle-class value
structure. Relocation of workers should take place in multiples of two
or more families within a relocation area, and the receiving area
should be no more than 30-40 miles away from an urban center to
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 131

provide maximum supportive services and to offer alternative employ-
ment opportunities to relocatees. The optimum number of relocated
families that could be moved is about 25 per year. A smaller number
produces high administrative costs, while a larger number might
cause opposition to develop in the receiving area.

521. JAMES, BERNARD J. “Sociopsychological Dimensions of Ojibwa Accultur-
ation.” American Anthropologist, 62 (Aug. 1961), 721-746.

/ 522. JANSSEN, MELVIN R. Summaries of Selected Studies on Training of
Workers and Migration From Low-Income Rural Areas. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
1963.

Most of this paper consists of an annotated bibliography of research
studies dealing with the low-income problem in rural areas, public
policy for such areas, occupational labor mobility, migration from
rural areas, testing and training of workers, educational attainment
of rural people, adjustments of the labor force, and problems of older
workers.

523. JAY, FLORENCE E. “Those Who Stay: A Sociological Study of the

Stability of a Community.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Pittsburgh, 1956.

524. JEHLIK, PAUL J. “lowa Loses More Farm People.” Iowa Farm Science,
5(8) (Feb. 1951), 12-14.

525.

 

. “Iowans Are ‘Movers,’ Too.” lowa Farm Science, 8(11) (May 1954),
8-10.

526.

 

. “Patterns of Net Migration and Changes in Crude Birth Rates in
the North Central States, 1940-1950.” Rural Sociology, 20 (Dec. 1955),
282-288.

In the 13 North Central States 109 of the 173 State economic areas
had net outmigration in the 1940's. Areas experiencing net inmigra-
tion were the big cities and the rural fringe portions of metropolitan
areas.

5217.

 

and RAY E. WAKELEY. Rural-Urban Migration in lowa, 1940-1950.
Research Bulletin 407. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Agricul-
tural and Home Economics Experiment Station, 1954.

528.

 

 

and . “What's Happening to Our People?’ Iowa Farm
Science, 7(8) (Feb. 1953), 13-16.

Iowa's net loss of 57,000 persons from the rural population in the
1940’s was largely the result of outmigration.

529. JEROME, NORGE W. “Food Consumption Patterns in Relation to Life
Styles of In-Migrant Negro Families.” Mimeographed. Madison, Wis.:
University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty, 1968.

Findings demonstrate the relevance of sociocultural characteriza-
tion to an understanding of the food consumption patterns of families
headed by inmigrant Negro manual workers in the central city of
Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Results are discussed within a typology of
groups identified on the basis of educational achievement, stage in
family life cycle, age, psychological orientation, and recency of migra-
tion.
132

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

530. Jitopal, TED T. “Migrant Status and Church Attendance.” Social

531.

532

533

534.

535.

536

537.

538.

 

 

 

 

 

Forces, 43 (Dec. 1964), 241-248.

Findings from five interview surveys conducted in Detroit revealed
that natives attended church more frequently than either rural-urban
or urban-urban migrants. Jitodai concluded that the urban church
does not perform the same function as the rural church and, thus, is
not used by migrants as a channel in their adjustment to urban life.

. “Migration and Kinship Contacts.” Pacific Sociological Review, 6
(Fall 1963), 49-55.

Data on native-born white adults from the Detroit Area Study of the
University of Michigan, conducted in 1952, 1953, 1957, and 1958,
supported the hypothesis that rural migrants would participate more
with relatives than urban migrants. The most frequent type of infor-
mal contact found among all residents of Detroit (except for white.
collar urban-urban migrants) was contact with relatives. Among mi-
grants of less than 10 years’ city residence controlled for socioeco-
nomic status and sex, rural migrants had a greater number of
contacts with relatives than urban migrants. Among recent migrants,
differences in contacts with relatives were related to urban-rural
origin and socioeconomic status.

. JOHANSEN, D. O. “Working Hypotheses for the Study of Migration.”

Pacific Historical Review, 36 (Feb. 1967), 1-12.

. JOHANSEN, JOHN P. The Influence of Migration upon South Dakota's

Population 1930-1950. Bulletin 431. Brookings, S. Dak.: South Dakota
State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1953.

. The People of Nebraska: A Mid-Century Summary. A Discussion
of Population Trends from 1920 to 1950. Agricultural Economics Prog-
ress Report 1, rev. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1952.

. “Recent Population Changes in South Dakota.” South Dakota
Farm and Home Research, 3(3) (Spring 1952), 49-54, 76.

Most of the net outmigration from South Dakota’s farms for the 30-
year period beginning in 1920 was composed of single youths and
young married adults.

. JOHNSON, D. GALE. “Comparability of Labor Capacities of Farm and

Nonfarm Labor.” American Economic Review, 43 (June 1953), 296-313.

Evidence relating to occupational distribution, unemployment, and
wages for different U.S. regions indicated that farm people have about
90 percent of the labor capacity of urban nonmigrants of the same age
and sex. Findings are heavily qualified by the fact that migrants
frequently do not obtain jobs which estimate their true labor capacity.

. “Labor Mobility and Agricultural Adjustment.” In Agricultural
Adjustment Problems in a Growing Economy. Edited by Earl O.
Heady, Howard Diesslin, Harold Jensen, and Glenn Johnson. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1958. Ch. 10.

. “Policies to Improve the Labor Transfer Process.” American
Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings, 50 (May 1960), 403-418.
Findings regarding off-farm migrants of 1935-40 (see 536) were
substantiated by analysis of 1949-50 data. Johnson recommends policy
efforts to improve the transfer of labor from farm areas relating to job
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 133

opportunity information, financial assistance, and educational im-
provement.

539. . “Policies and Procedures to Facilitate Desirable Shifts of Man-

power.” Journal of Farm Economics (Nov. 1951), 722-729.

 

540. JOHNSON, HELEN W., ED. Age of Transition—Rural Youth in a Changing
Society. Agriculture Handbook 347. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1967.

541. . Supplement to Age of Transition—Rural Youth in a Changing
Society. Supplement to Agriculture Handbook 347. Washington, D.C.:

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1967.

 

542. JOHNSON, PAUL R. “Influence of Characteristics of Labor Mobility on
Functional and Personal Distribution of Income.” In Income Distribu-
tion Analysis with Special Reference to Problems of Rural People, API
Series 23. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State University, Agricul-
tural Policy Institute, 1966. Pp. 95-111.

 

543. . “Labor Mobility: Some Costs and Returns.” In Rural Poverty in
the United States. Report of the President’s National Advisory Com-
mission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office, 1968. Ch. 14, pp. 238-247.

On the average, people do not spend a great deal to move about in
actually changing jobs. However, out-of-pocket costs understate the
true costs by omitting forgone earnings, costs of search for new jobs,
and psychic costs. Probably the most important constraint on move-
ment of the rural poor is that of information about both job opportuni-
ties and urban life in general. Examination of the returns to migra-
tion for a sample of migrants in two cities and for two groups of rural
poor whose moves were financed by public funds revealed that the
costs of the move could probably be recouped in a year or less.

544. JOHNSON, SHERMAN E. “Technological Changes and the Future of Rural
Life.” Journal of Farm Economics, 32 (May 1950), 225-240.

545. JONES, LAMAR B. “Farm Labor: Shortage or Surplus?” Southwestern
Social Science Quarterly, 47 (Mar. 1967), 401-412.

After the termination of the bracero program, Mexican farm worker
employment declined from 60,500 in June 1964 to 800 in June 1965.
Critics of stopping the program maintained that the result would be
increased farm costs because of labor shortage, but Jones contends
these charges proved untrue, pointing out the underutilization of
manpower in agriculture, and the farm labor surplus. He notes some
then-current conditions on farms. In 1962, 27 percent of all children
and youth in the poverty sector were in farm wage-worker households.
In the last 20 years, despite the decrease in the farm sector, the
number of hired farmworkers has not changed. The hired farm force is
71 percent men and boys, 69 percent white. One-fourth were engaged
only in farm wage work; one-half were not in the labor force most of
1964, and 10 percent could be considered as seasonal migrants. About
6 percent of the U.S. population lives in farmworker households; 64
percent of such households are in urban or rural-nonfarm areas.
About 50 percent of them have only minor dependence on farm wage
work as a source of income. In 1962, 56 percent of all such households
but 83 percent of such nonwhite households earned less than $3,000.
134

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

From 1954 through 1964, while productivity in agriculture rose twice
as fast as that in manufacturing, real earnings increased four times as
fast in manufacturing as that in agriculture. Educational lacks,
prejudice against minorities, and severe competition for semiskilled
and unskilled nonfarm jobs have acted as barriers to off-farm mobil-
ity.

546. JONES, LEWIS W. “The Outlook for Low-Income Youth in Rural Areas.”

In Rural Youth in a Changing Environment. Edited by Ruth C. Nash.
Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Children and Youth, Inc.
1965. Pp. 115-117.

547. JORDAN, MAX F., JAMES F. GOLDEN, and LLOYD D. BENDER. Aspirations

and Capabilities of Rural Youth. Bulletin 722. Fayetteville, Ark.:
University of Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1967.

548. KAHL, JOSEPH A. “Some Social Concomitants of Industrialization and

Urbanization.” Human Organization, 18 (Summer 1959), 53-74.

549. KAIN, JOHN F., and JOSEPH J. PERSKY. “Alternatives to the Gilded

550.

 

Ghetto.” The Public Interest (Winter 1969), 74-87.

One result of gilding poverty programs for the ghetto, like efforts to
increase income and reduce unemployment in central cities, may have
the implied undesirable effect of increasing the rate of the migration
of blacks from southern rural areas into northern central city areas
and ghettos. While efforts to stem outmigration from rural areas
recognize what is seen as the relationship between northern ghettos
and southern rural areas, proposed solutions for developing rural
areas economically and improving educational opportunities and liv-
ing conditions there are only partial aids to solving ghetto problems.
Ghetto “dispersal” is considered the only viable long-term solution.

 

and . “The North’s Stake in Southern Rural Poverty.” In
Rural Poverty in the United States. A Report of the President’s
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968, Ch. 17, pp. 294-296.

551. KALDOR, DONALD R. “Moving Resources Out of Agriculture.” Farm

552.

 

Policy Forum (Fall 1954), 31-36.
U.S. farm programs have reduced off-farm labor mobility.

, EBER ELDRIDGE, LEE G. BURCHINAL, and I. W. ARTHUR. Occupa-
tional Plans of Iowa Farm Boys. Research Bulletin 508. Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State University, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment
Station, 1962.

A study of Towa high school boys in 1959 found that the choice of
farming as an occupation was positively associated with family in-
come, son’s own assets, preference for working with things rather
than people and ideas, extracurricular activities, farm economic
knowledge, attachment of strong nonincome value to farming, antici-
pation of higher income from farming than from a nonfarm job,
expectation of being helped in getting established in farming, valuing
of residential stability, and satisfaction with family, father’s owner-
ship of a farm or being an operator of a large farm, and parents’
favoring their son’s farming. Choice of farming was negatively associ-
ated with son’s IQ and high school grades, having taken high school
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 135

agricultural courses, use of “professional” and nonfarm occupational
information sources, father’s off-farm employment, and parents’ edu-
cational aspirations for son. No association was found between choice
of farming as a career and parents’ educational attainment.

553. KANEL, DON. “Nebraska Births Exceed Deaths: Migration Cuts Popu-
lation Gain.” Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Quarterly, 3
(Winter 1954-55), 6-8.

Nebraska's population loss as the result of outmigration occurred
most heavily among youth entering the labor force, retirees, farm
operators, and children of young migrating couples.

554. KANT, EDGAR. “Classification and Problems of Migrations.” In Readings
in Cultural Geography. Edited by Philip L. Wagner and Marvin W.
Mikesell. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1962. Pp. 342-354.

Kant’s typology differentiates interregional and intraregional mi-
gration.

555. KANTOR, MILDRED B. “Internal Migration and Mental Illness.” In
Changing Perspectives in Mental Illness. Edited by S. C. Plog and R. B.
Edgerton. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Pp. 364-394.

The migration-mental illness relationship usually varies with mi-
grants’ social characteristics, socio-psychological aspects of the situa-
tion surrounding migration, characteristics of sending and receiving
communities, and with the measure used to define mental illness.
Research results are often contradictory and inconsistent. Patient
status data show that race and sex may be associated with the
differential occurrence of mental illness in migrant and nonmigrant
groups. Studies using nonpsychiatric measures of adjustment show
that age, socioeconomic status, mobility experiences, attitudes toward
geographic movement, and discrepancy between aspiration and
achievement may be factors important for the mental health differ-
ence found between migrants and nonmigrants. Although migration
does not itself precipitate mental illness, environmental changes
resulting from migration may create situations to which the migrant
may or may not be able to adjust without important mental health
consequences. Origin-destination similarity is important psychologi-
cally to lower socioeconomic status migrants.

556. KARIEL, H. G. “Selected Factors Really Associated with Population
Growth Due to Net Migration.” Annals of the Association of American
Geographers, 53 (June 1963), 210-223.

Analysis of 1950 and 1960 census data for U.S. counties showed that
about half of interarea variation in net migration could be accounted
for by using a small number of independent variables in a correlation-
regression analysis, with size of the employed civilian labor force
explaining most (44 percent) of the interarea variation and other
variables accounting for only about 3 percent. Results supported the
“push-pull” theory in that areas of net inmigration seemed to have
experienced this growth because of economic factors, although “amen-
ities” may have played some role. Number of employees in manufac-
turing was not as good a predictor of interarea variation in net
migration as was size of total employed civilian labor force.

557. KAUFMAN, HAROLD F., and GEORGE L. WILBER. Social Changes and
Their Implications for Southern Agriculture. Sociology and Rural Life
136

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Series 11. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1959. .

Findings from census data on 1949-50 migration from Mississippi
reveal that those with more education, higher income, and high
occupational status were more likely to have moved than others and
to have moved longer distances.

558. KAUN, DAVID E. “Negro Migration and Unemployment.” Human Re-

sources, 5(2) (Spring 1970), 191-207.

Analysis of net nonwhite migration for 1955-60 by region shows that
while migration was unrelated to net unemployment rate, migration
streams still flowed toward areas of high unemployment. Migration
was “rational” in terms of income maximization and improved the
absolute incomes of blacks but not their position relative to whites.

559. KAYE, IRA. “Rural-Urban Migration.” CAP Rural Opportunities,

4(6) (June 1969), 4-6.

560. KELLEY, A. C., and LEONARD W. WEISS. “Markov Processes and Eco-

nomic Analysis: The Case of Migration.” Econometrica, 37(2) (Apr.
1969), 280-297.

The authors compare their economic model of migration to the
Markov process usually employed in migration studies, using interre-
gional wage differences as equilibrating variables. They argue that
empirical evidence on interstate migration points to the fact that
migration projections using Markov processes will generally under-
state population changes required before stochastic equilibrium is
reached, and that even theory points to this conclusion, since the
analytic foundation for using Markov analysis for interregional migra-
tion is weak.

561. KEMPINSKI, T. “Rural Migration.” Rural Sociology, 26 (Mar. 1961), 70-73.
562. KENKEL, WILLIAM F. “The Family Moving Decision Process.” In

Family Mobility in Our Dynamic Society. Prepared by Iowa State
University, Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjustment. Ames,
Iowa: Towa State University Press, 1965. Pp. 178-193.

Kenkel assumes that nonmobility, rather than mobility, is the
phenomenon that requires an explanation. He defines the voluntary
moving process as consisting of family discussion, decision to move,
choice of destination, and particulars of the move itself. The probabil-
ity of holding family discussions regarding moving seems related to
occupational and social status factors and to the family’s stage in the
life cycle, as well as to its goals and values in relation to home/farm
ownership, level of living, and stability-mobility. The family mobility
discussion is considered in terms of what precipitates it, its content,
roles the participants play, and how rational their decisionmaking
process is.

563. KENNEDY, LOUIS V. Negro Peasant Turns Cityward: Effects of Recent

Migration to Northern Centers. New York: Columbia University Press,
1930.

564. KETCH, CLARENCE WILLARD. “A Situational Analysis of the Effects of

Drought as a Disaster on the Mobility of a Selected Rural-Farm
Population.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Louisiana State Uni-
versity, 1961.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 137

The two variables, drought and migration, are not as directly associ-
ated as is usually assumed. Those moving geographically because of
drought had the same age, sex, and educational characteristics as
migrants in general, but they may not adjust as readily or be as
satisfied with moving as others.

565. KILLIAN. LEWIS M. “The Adjustment of Southern White Migrants to
Northern Urban Norms.” Social Forces, 32 (1953), 66-69.

Interviews were obtained from 150 white migrants into Chicago in
1947-49 as well as from black and white coworkers, foremen, teachers,
and storekeepers who interacted with the migrants. Although city
natives called the newcomers ‘“‘hillbillies” and perceived them as
culturally inferior, distinct, and cohesive, and employers regarded
them as unstable because of their frequent mobility, the migrants
were not regarded with hostility. Few migrants actually were from
mountainous areas. Many had come because of the urging of friends
and relatives already in the city, and many clustered near these
relations in otherwise heterogeneous neighborhoods. In making the
transition from being native white Protestants in intimate communi-
ties to becoming just one more minority group in an impersonal city
where blacks had relatively more freedom and power than in the
South, the migrants had suffered a great loss of perceived status.
Feeling disliked and degraded, they reacted by isolating themselves
from city churches and other formal and informal institutions, re-
stricting their interactions to members of their own group and its
special tavern, and preoccupying themselves with work. They were
suspicious of nonsoutherners, considered the South their home, and
visited home frequently, particularly during periods of unemployment.
While these irregular visiting patterns reflect their marginality as
workers, the migrants saw their mobility as indicative of their supe-
rior and independent worker status. Importantly, they had made a
peaceful accommodation to the northern norms concerning black-
white relations. While verbally upholding the idea that “Negroes are
taking over the city,” because of lack of support from other groups and
fear of physical retaliation, they had abandoned overt southern be-
havioral patterns and adopted the private, informal, and indirect
forms of discrimination characteristic of their new environment.

566. . “The Effects of Southern White Workers on Race Relations in
Northern Plants.” American Sociological Review, 17 (1952), 327-331.

Employers in Chicago look on southern migrants as marginal work-
ers available during labor shortages but unreliable because of their
frequent mobility. Hiring policies/practices regarding blacks in 14 of
the city’s industries which also employed southern migrants did not
vary with the presence or absence of “hillbilly” workers in the plants,
and southern migrants had only indirect, minor effects on manage-
ment policy toward blacks. Any companies having discriminatory
policies toward blacks had them prior to awareness of the hillbilly as a
particular type of employee; the presence of hillbillies only made
continuation of previously established discriminatory practices possi-
ble.

 

567. ——. “Southern White Laborers in Chicago’s West Side.” Unpubiished
doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, 1949.
138 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

568. ———. “Southern White Migrants—Who, Why, Whither.” Social Science
Bulletin (Apr. 1953), 7-15.

569. ——. White Southerners. New York: Random House, 1970.

570. KILLINGSWORTH, CHARLES C. Jobs and Incomes for Negroes. Policy
Papers in Human Resources and Industrial Relations, No. 6. Ann
Arbor and Detroit, Mich.: University of Michigan-Wayne State Uni-
versity, Institute of Labor and Industrial Relations, 1968.

 

571. . “Negroes in a Changing Labor Market.” In Jobs and Color.
Edited by Arthur M. Ross. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc.,
1966.

Blacks’ competitive disadvantage in the labor market is greatest in
the North, at young ages, and at higher educational levels, and is
increasing, as evidenced by their upward unemployment rate since
the early 1950's. They have had a larger relative growth in hidden
unemployment than have whites. The 1959 median income of Negro
males in the North was twice that of those in the South, and black-
white economic inequities are different between the two regions. Part
of the blacks’ disadvantage in the North is the result of their new-
comer status. The Negro population is growing the fastest in those
very places where their relative disadvantage is greatest and is such
that legal actions to end discrimination, greater economic growth,
higher school attendance rates, and normal labor market adjustments
will not provide the solution. One solution suggested is to encourage
geographic dispersal of black populations now in big cities.

*572. KINMAN, JUDITH L., and EVERETT S. LEE. “Migration and Crime.”
International Migration Digest, 3 (1966), 7-14.

Data were obtained from the Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction on
all male commitments of those aged 15 and over to the Pennsylvania
State Prison System, 1960-62. Migrants were defined as those born
outside Pennsylvania—in States contiguous to Pennsylvania, in the
South, in other States, in Puerto Rico, and in other countries. Age-
specific commitment rates by race and migration status at every age
were higher for white migrants than for white nonmigrants, but
among blacks the opposite was the case. Age-standardized rates by
migration status and race showed that the rate for white migrants
was 33 percent higher than that for white nonmigrants, the result
principally of the high commitment rate of white southern migrants.
For blacks, the age-standardized rate was one-fifth less for migrants
than for State natives, due primarily to the very low rate for black
southern migrants. Overall, the black-white difference in commitment
rates was lowered by migration. The lowest rate of commitment
among blacks (southern migrants) was four times as high as the
highest rate found among whites (southern migrants). Thus “. . . high
rates of crime should not be attributed to the migrant and his
personal disorganization,” and “. . . we must no longer look to the
South for the roots of Negro crime.”

573. KIRK, DUDLEY. “The Character and Implications of Population Trends in
the United States.” In Basic Papers of the “A Look to the Future”
Conference. Prepared by the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. Battle Creek,
Mich.: W. K. Kellogg Foundation, 1956.
574.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 139

Kirk's assessment of population trends includes general remarks
concerning the source and direction of the nation’s migration streams,
which portend a continued lessening of regional differences and a
weakening of community and family ties.

. “Major Migrations Since World War I1.” In Selected Studies of
Migration since World War II. Edited by Clyde V. Kiser. New York:
Milbank Memorial Fund, 1957. Pp. 11-28.

The volume of U.S. internal migration in the decade following World
War II greatly exceeded projections made by Philip M. Hauser and
Hope T. Eldridge in 1946. Between 1946 and 1955, of the over 100
million estimated migrations, about 48 million were interstate, as
many were intercounty, and about 6.5 million were immigrations from
abroad, with the number of emigrations unknown. At the time of
writing migration had become the major force affecting population
change rate differences and would become increasingly important
with the expanded mobility of the U.S. population. Three internal
migratory movements cited as having important implications for the
future are: the continuing movement to the west coast, the rural-
urban movement, and the city-suburbia-exurbia movement. Problems
relating to rural-urban movement are exacerbated by the fact that
outmigrants are disproportionately young. Even where net migration
is small, important compositional changes may be involved.

575. KIRSCHENBAUM, ALAN B. “City-Suburban Destination Choices among

576.

577

5178.

579.

580

 

 

 

Migrants to Metropolitan Areas.” Demography, 92) (May 1972), 321-
335,

Analysis of 1960 census data on white employed family heads aged
14-64 showed that interurban migrants (1955-60) preferred larger
Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSA’s), while nonmetropoli-
tan-origin migrants tended to go to smaller SMSA’s. All migrants
were increasingly attracted to suburban rings. Migrants more fre-
quently moved to the ring than to the core as SMSA size increased.
Interurban migrants were of higher socioeconomic status than non-
metropolitan-origin migrants.

. “Family Mobility: An Examination of Factors Affecting Migra-
tion.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Syracuse University, 1970.
(See 575.)

. KISER, CLYDE V. “Birth Rates of Rural Migrants to Cities.” Milbank

Memorial Fund Quarterly, 16 (Oct. 1938), 369-381.

. “Fertility Rates by Residence and Migration.” In Proceedings of
the International Population Conference, 1959. Vienna: International
Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 1959. Pp. 273-286.

Sea Island to City: A Study of St. Helena Islanders in Harlem and
Other Urban Centers. Columbia University Studies in History, Eco-
nomics and Public Law, No. 368. New York: Columbia University
Press, 1932.

. KITTS, NANCY B. Urbanization and Child-Rearing among Spanish-Amer-

ican Families. A report of the Research Training Program in Culture
Change. Boulder, Colo.: University of Colorado, Institute of Behav-
ioral Science, 1967.
140

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Using data obtained in 1965 from 11 mothers in Spanish American
families who had migrated to Denver from the San Luis Valley in
southern Colorado, Kitts conducted a pilot study to investigate volun-
tary and involuntary-reactive changes in childrearing patterns. Com-
parison groups used were a sample of Spanish American nonmigrants
in the area of origin and a lower class Anglo sample in Denver. There
were no differences in childrearing attitudes and behavior. Migrant
mothers felt no more capable of influencing their children than did
nonmigrants and expected less from their children’s development;
they were less warm and more authoritarian with their children, and
their home atmosphere was less permissive or flexible.

581. KLEINER, ROBERT J., and SEYMOUR PARKER. “Goal Striving and Psycho-

582.

583.

 

 

somatic Symptoms in a Migrant and Non-Migrant Population.” In
Mobility and Mental Health. Edited by Mildred B. Kantor. Springfield,
I1l.: Charles C Thomas, 1965. Ch. 4, pp. 78-85.

Among blacks in Philadelphia, natives had higher mental illness
rates than rural southern migrants. Migrants from other areas had
lower rates than natives but higher rates than rural southern mi-
grants. Recent migrants had lower rates than those in the city 5 years
or more. Goal striving and weak or ambivalent ethnic identification
related to social mobility in either direction, and all three variables
were related to mental illness.

 

and . “Migration and Mental Illness: A New Look.” Ameri-
can Sociological Review, 24 (Oct. 1959), 687-690.

Among 2,000 first-admission black patients to Pennsylvania State
psychiatric hospitals, southern migrants were underrepresented,
while Pennsylvania natives and northern migrants were overrepre-
sented.

and . “Social-Psychological Aspects of Migration and Mental
Disorder in a Negro Population.” In Behavior in New Environments:
Adaptation of Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody.
Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 353-374.

Northern Negroes had higher rates of mental disorder than south-
ern migrants, higher levels of upward and downward social mobility
and more intense goal-striving behavior, and weak or ambivalent
attitudes toward their Negro group membership. Thus, characteristics
shown previously to exist only in mentally ill groups were found
within the community as well. The findings that social mobility was
associated with high rates of mental disorder, and that high illness
rates characterized northern Negroes indicated that the northern
group was more socially mobile than the southern migrant group.

 

584. KLIETSCH, RONALD G. The Impact of Population Change on Rural

585.

 

Community Life—The School System. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univer-
sity, Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, 1962.

AND OTHERS. Social Response to Population Change and Migra-
tion. Special Report 40. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Agricul-
tural and Home Economics Experiment Station, 1964.

586. KLINEBERG, OTTO. Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration. New

York: Columbia University Press, 1935.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 141

587. KNOX, JOHN B. “People on the Move.” In The People of Tennessee: A
Study of Population Trends. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee
Press, 1949. Pp. 74-82.
Discusses 1900-1940 off-farm migration.

588. KOLB, JOHN H., and EDMUND DES. BRUNNER. “The Mobility of Rural
Population.” In A Study of Rural Society. 4th ed. Boston, Mass.:
Houghton, Mifflin, 1952. Pp. 25-33.

Kolb and Brunner examine various aspects of 1920-48 off-farm
migration. :

589. KOLODNER, FERNE L. The Unaccepted Baltimoreans: A Study of White
Southern Rural Migrants. Baltimore, Md.: National Council of Jewish
Women, 1962.

Kolodner made an informal study of white southern migrants in
Baltimore who were considered unadjusted, regardless of length of
city residence, by interviewing personnel of agencies having migrants
as clients, as well as visiting migrants’ homes and schools attended by
their children.

590. KOSHEL, PATRICIA. “Migration and the Poor.” Working Paper 7. Wash-
ington, D.C.: Office of Economic Opportunity, Office of Planning,
Research, and Evaluation, 1972.

Koshel reviews the results of several OEO-funded studies of migra-
tion and presents a final section on policy implications and areas in
which more research is needed. Findings discussed include those
which have been regarded as sensitive issues and those which con-
travene the wisdom of the present attitudes held by many agencies
and individuals concerning the nature of rural-urban migration and
the characteristics of migrants. Also includes: reasons for migration,
differences between migrants and nonmigrants in rural areas, desti-
nation decisions, economic gains to migration, differences between
migrants and other urban residents, and migrants’ adjustments.

591. KRASS, ELAINE M., CLAIRE L. PETERSON, and LYLE W. SHANNON.
“Differential Association, Cultural Integration, and Economic Absorp-
tion among Mexican-Americans and Negroes in Northern Industrial
Community.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 4(7) (1966), 239—
252.

More important than the correlation of urbanization measures with
measures of absorption/integration found in the Racine study (968) is
the fact that these measures are more closely correlated among blacks
than among Anglos or Mexican Americans. Both prior urbanization
and prior occupation affected the present occupational statuses and
incomes of the migrants, particularly of Anglos, who were most likely
to have co-workers of similar incomes and occupations. Anglos who
started out economically better off have “moved up” more rapidly
than other migrants. Gains that blacks or Mexican Americans have
made are primarily the result of their move from rural areas of the
South and Southwest to the North. Occupation, income, level of living,
and level of aspiration were more frequently intercorrelated for
Anglos than for blacks or Mexican Americans. Mexican Americans are
seen as the worst off of the three groups because they face an
additional language barrier and lack the blacks’ organized community
as a source of help. Findings suggested that there may be a great
142 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

difference between blacks who are totally part of a black subculture
and blacks who are highly absorbed economically into the larger
society.

592. KURTZ, NORMAN R. “Gatekeepers in the Process of Acculturation.”
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado, 1966.

593. KURTZ, RICHARD ALLEN. “Resident Adjustment Patterns in the Rural-
Urban Fringe.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State
University, 1959.

In a study of residents of the fringe area around Lansing, Michigan,
one variable found to be associated with a high degree of social
participation was rural, non-Lansing background.

594. KUVLESKY, WILLIAM P., and MICHAEL LEVER. “Occupational Goals,
Expectations, and Anticipatory Goal Deflection Experienced by Negro
Girls in Low-Income Rural and Urban Places.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Southwestern Sociological Society, Dallas,
Tex., Mar. 1967. \

595.

 

and GEORGE W. OHLENDORF. “A Rural-Urban Comparison of the
Occupational Status Orientations of Negro Boys.” Rural Sociology, 33
(June 1968), 144-152.

596.

 

and JOHN T. PELHAM. Occupational Status Orientations of Rural
Youth: Structural Annotations and Evaluations of the Research Litera-
ture. Technical Report 66-3. College Station, Tex.: Texas A & M
University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Sociology,
1966.

597.

 

and . “Place of Residence Projections of Rural Youth: A
Racial Comparison.” Social Science Quarterly (June 1970), 166-176.

Interviews with 484 poor high school sophomores in three east
Texas counties showed that proportionately more blacks than whites
wanted to live in big cities, while whites more frequently preferred to
live in small cities or in the country. Few respondents wanted to live
in small towns or on a farm. Among both blacks and whites, females
more frequently than males exhibited preferences for living in either
small or large cities. Compared to other race-sex groups, white males
most often indicated preferences for living in the country or on farms.
Findings on residence expectations were generally the same as those
concerning aspirations. Socioeconomic status had no relationship to
the youths’ residential orientations or to the racial differences in
expectations.

and W. KENNEDY UPHAM. “Social Ambitions of Teen-Age Boys
Living in an Economically Depressed Area of the South: A Racial
Comparison.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southern
Sociological Society, Atlanta, Ga., Mar. 30, 1967.

 

598.

 

599. LANCELOT, W. H., and BARTON MORGAN. Iowa's Vanishing Farm Youth
and Their Schools. Bulletin P-81. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University,
Agricultural and Home Economics Experiment Station, 1946.

Most of the migration loss from Iowa farms in 1930-39 consisted of
young people under 25 years of age, and the rate of youth outmigra-
tion had not been affected by the State's declining birth rate. Fewer
children from districts having only rural elementary schools than of
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 143

those in districts with graded schools went on to high school and
college. Yet a major factor in the rural youth outmigration appeared
to be the school situation, since the outmigration rate from districts
with only rural elementary schools was three times that from districts
with graded schools, and no other factor existed to explain the rate
differential. The unfavorable tax position of large landholders is seen
as the reason why school reorganization and consolidation had not
taken place.

600. LANDIS, PAUL J. “Educational Selectivity of Rural-Urban Migration and
Its Bearing on Wage and Occupational Adjustments.” Rural Sociol-
ogy, 11 (1946), 218-232.

Data from 16,732 youths in Washington State in 1942 showed that
male rural-urban migrants were better educated than male rural
nonmigrants but less well educated than urban nonmigrant males;
urban-rural migrants were slightly less well educated than rural-
urban migrants. Among males, rural-urban migrants had higher
incomes than nonmigrants in urban or rural areas. Among females,
rural-urban migrant incomes were higher than incomes of rural
nonmigrants but lower than those of urban nonmigrants. Urban-rural
migrants had either very high or very low incomes but generally were
doing better than rural nonmigrants. Rural-urban migrants were
more likely to hold professional jobs than rural nonmigrants but less
likely to hold them than urban nonmigrants. Relative educational
disadvantage did not hinder the income achievements of rural-urban
migrants in the city.

601.

 

. “Rural-Urban Migration and the Marriage Rate—An Hypothe-
sis.” American Sociological Review, 11(2) (Apr. 1946), 155-158.

From a study of Washington State data Landis found that migrants
were more likely to be married than nonmigrants. Controls for direc-
tion of movement did not reduce the significance of this finding.

602. LANSING, JOHN B., and NANCY BARTH. The Cost of Geographic Mobility.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelop-
ment Administration, 1964.

(See 606.)
and

 

 

603. . The Geographic Mobility of Labor: A Summary Report.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelop-
ment Administration, 1964.
(See 606.)

and WILLIAM LADD. The Propensity to Move. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelopment Administration,
1964.

(See 606.)

and JAMES N. MORGAN. “The Effect of Geographical Mobility on
Income.” Journal of Human Resources, 2(4) (Fall 1967), 449-460.

The authors found that the geographically mobile generally did not
have higher incomes than the nonmobile when education was con-
trolled.

and EVA MUELLER. The Geographic Mobility of Labor. Ann Arbor,
Mich.: University of Michigan, Survey Research Center, 1967. [Covers
material reported earlier or in preliminary form in 602-604, 749, 750.]

604.

 

 

605.

*606.

 
144

607.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The authors report results of research based on sample surveys of
U.S. adults in private households taken in 1962-63 for the period 1957-
63. Defined in terms of a change of residence between labor market
areas, 57 percent of household heads were not living where they had
been when they left school. Mobility rates were highest for young
adults and for those with 4 years of college, but were only slightly
higher for high school graduates than for those with a grade school
education. Those with special skills were more mobile than the less
well trained. Most people moved for economic/occupational reasons.
The unemployed were only slightly more mobile than the employed,
most families with unemployed heads did not move, and the volume of
movements of unemployed persons had not diminished discrepancies
in unemployment rates between geographic areas. The unemployed
who did move had relatively more education and skills than the
nonmobile unemployed. A possible reason for the low mobility of the
unemployed may have been the low level of aggregate demand for
labor during the interview period. Controlling for differences in occu-
pational and geographic location of destination, the authors found
that migrants did not attain higher incomes by moving. Misinforma-
tion as to available jobs may have played some role in this. Also,
migrants from poor areas may be at a competitive disadvantage in
prosperous-area labor markets, and destinations may not be based on
economic considerations. Migrants who started out more advantaged
made the best moves economically. Mobility did not provide an eco-
nomic solution for the unemployed lacking education, skills, or other
qualifications. Low levels of economic opportunity in an area did not
stimulate outmigration nor did high levels of economic activity inhibit
outmigration, but high levels of economic opportunities did attract
inmigration. One-fourth of the migrants moved for family reasons, and
46 percent moved to destinations where they had relatives. Twenty
percent moved wholly or partly because of community factors or good
climate. Recent migrants made frequent trips back home, but within 2
years, migrants belonged to as many formal organizations as natives.
Home ownership was only a slight barrier to geographic mobility and
pension plans and unemployment insurance rights did not inhibit
movement. There was no relationship between the overall probability
a person would move and either of two measures of personality
(personal effectiveness and achievement-security orientation).

Many migrants left quickly, without considering alternatives or
using many sources of information. The costs of moving were found to
he less than 10 percent of the annual income for 83 percent of the
migrants.

The mobility of blacks during the survey period was severely inhib-
ited by low aggregate demand for labor and high overall unemploy-
ment rates among blacks. Given this situation and the greater pro-
spective discrimination a black would face in a new environment,
family and emotional ties to an area may have acted as greater
barriers to mobility for blacks than for whites. Blacks also were more
likely than whites to choose a destination on the basis of presence of
friends and relatives. There was no evidence that receipt of private or
public welfare reduces the geographic mobility of low-income people.

, , WILLIAM LADD, and NANCY BARTH. The Geographical
Mobility of Labor: A First Report. Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 145

Michigan, Institute for Social Research, Survey Research Center,
1963.

608. LANTZ, HERMAN R., and RICHARD H. WILLIS. “Mobility: Problem Areas
in the Measurement of Impact and Change.” In Mobility and Mental
Health. Edited by Mildred B. Kantor. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C
Thomas, 1965. Ch. 11, pp. 219-237.

The impact of mobility should not be measured strictly in terms of
obvious psychological “symptoms.”

609. LARSON, GUSTAV E. Can Our Small Towns Survive? Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Rural Development Program, Re-
source Development Aid, 1960.

610. LARSON, OLAF F., and EVERETT M. ROGERS. “Rural Society in Transi-
tion: The American Setting.” In Our Changing Rural Society: Perspec-
tives and Trends. Edited by James H. Copp. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State
University Press, 1964. Ch. 2, pp. 39-67.

Discusses the following changes taking place in rural society: in-
creases in specialization and farm productivity, the decline in the
number of farm people, increased linkages between the farm and
nonfarm sectors, and decreases in rural-urban value differences,
changes in rural social organizations and increasingly cosmopolitan
outlook of rural people, and the trend toward centralization of deci-
sionmaking in rural public policy and agribusiness firms.

611. LAZARUS, J., BENJAMIN Z. LOCKE, and DOROTHY S. THOMAS. “Migration
Differentials in Mental Disease.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly,
41(1) (1963), 25-41.

For first admissions in 1950 to mental hospitals in New York,
California, and Ohio for all disorders and for schizophrenia among
adults aged 20-59, color was more important than migration status.
Migration differentials for all disorders were more consistent among
native whites than when whites were compared to the foreign born.

612. LEBERGOTT, STANLEY. “Migration within the U.S., 1800-1960: Some New
Estimates.” Journal of Economic History, 30 (Dec. 1970), 839-847.
Obtaining results for 1870-1950 migration patterns similar to those
from the census survival rate method, Lebergott used his method to
estimate migration for 1800-1850 and 1850-1870.

613. LECHT, LEONARD A. “The Supply of Farm Labor in the Early 1970's: An
Overall View.” Working Paper for the U.S. Department of Labor,
Manpower Administration, Office of Manpower, Policy Evaluation and
Research. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1966.

This pilot study performed by the Center for Priority Analysis,
National Planning Association, concerning the effects of the next
decade’s technological, social, and economic changes shows that: the
supply of farm labor for the next decade is likely to decrease but at a
slower rate than for the previous decade; technological changes will
increase the need for full-time semiskilled farm workers but decrease
the need for seasonal unskilled workers; and social legislation for farm
labor and some governmental programs may decrease both the supply
and demand for seasonal unskilled farm workers.

614. LEE, ANNE S. “Migration and Poverty in the United States in 1967.”
Washington, D.C., and Athens, Ga.: U.S. Department of Agriculture,
146

615.

616.

617.

618.

619.

*620.

621.

622.

*623.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

University of Georgia, and Office of Economic Opportunity. Prepared
as a separate report, but part to be published in (149).

. “New Views on Migration and Poverty.” Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Toronto,
Canada, Apr. 13-15, 1972.

. “Regional, Environmental, and Return Migration, and Their
Relation to Poverty.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the
Rural Sociological Society, Baton Rouge, La., Aug. 25-27, 1972.

LEE, EVERETT S. “Internal Migration and Population Redistribution in

the United States.” In Population: The Vital Revolution. Edited by
Ronald Freedman. New York: Anchor Books, Doubleday & Co., Inc.,
1964. Ch. 9, pp. 123-136.

. “Migration Differentials by State of Birth in the United States.”
In Proceedings of the International Population Conference, 1961, pt. 1.
London: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population,
1963. Pp. 375-535.

. “Migration and Mental Disease: New York State 1949-1951.” In
Selected Studies of Migration Since World War 11. Edited by Clyde V.
Kiser. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund, 1957. Pp. 141-150.

Data on first admissions to New York hospitals for 1949-51 show
that after controlling for race, age, and sex, migrants had higher first-
admissions rates than nonmigrants for each classified psychosis and
for all psychoses combined. However, Lee cautions that conclusions
from first-admissions data must be drawn with care.

. “Negro Intelligence and Selective Migration: A Philadelphia Test
of the Klineberg Hypothesis.” American Sociological Review, 16 (Apr.
1951), 227-233.

Confirms Klineberg’s (586) hypothesis that the IQ test scores of
black children of southern origin would improve as length of residence
in the city increased.

. “Relationships of Migration to Rural Poverty.” Paper presented
at the Annual Meeting of American Sociological Association, Denver,
Colo., Aug. 30-Sept. 2, 1971.

—— “Socioeconomic and Migration Differentials in Mental Disease,

New York State, 1949-1951.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 41
(1963), 249-268.

. “A Theory of Migration.” Demography, 3(1) (1966), 47-57. Also in
Migration. Edited by J. A. Jackson. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press, 1969. Ch. 10, pp. 282-297.

Noting that no effort comparable to Ravenstein’s has been made in

the 20th century to develop migration theory, Lee attempts “. . . the
development of a general schema into which a variety of spatial
movements can be placed and, from a small number of . . . self-

evident propositions, to deduce a number of hypotheses.”

He hypothesizes that the volume of migration within a given
territory varies with the degree of diversity of areas included in that
territory but is related to the difficulty of surmounting intervening
obstacles. Unless severe checks are imposed, both volume and rate of
migration tend to increase with time but vary with the state of
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 147

progress in a country or area. Hypotheses concerning streams and
counterstreams include: migration tends to take place largely within
well-defined streams; for every major migration stream, a counter-
stream develops; the efficiency of a stream and counterstream tends
to be low if origin and destination are similar but will be high if the
intervening obstacles are great; and the efficiency of a migration
stream varies with economic conditions, being high in prosperity and
low in depression.

624.

 

and ANNE S. LEE. “Internal Migration Statistics for the United
States.” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 55 (1960), 646—
6917.

Supplements internal migration data given in Historical Statistics
of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957 (1119) and includes a list of
sources of migration statistics.

%625. , ANN R. MILLER, CAROL P. BRAINERD, and RICHARD EASTERLIN.
Population Redistribution and Economic Growth, United States, 1870—
1950. Vol. 1. Methodological Considerations and Reference Tables. Vol.
II. Analyses of Economic Change. Prepared under the direction of
Simon Kuznets and Dorothy S. Thomas. Philadelphia, Pa.: The Ameri-
can Philosophical Society, 1957.

This two-volume work deals with the interrelationships of popula-
tion redistribution and economic growth. Volume I develops data for
the individual States concerning migration, labor force, manufactur-
ing, and income; and volume II presents analyses and interpretations
for these data.

 

 

626. and DANIEL O. PRICE. Net Intercensal Migration, 1870-1940. 3 vols.
Studies of Population Redistribution and Economic Growth. Philadel-

phia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania, 1953. (Data included in 625.)

627. LEGGETT, JOHN C. “Uprootedness and Working-Class Consciousness.”
American Journal of Sociology, 68(6) (May 1963), 682-692.
Detroit blue-collar workers from rural backgrounds were more “mili-
tant” and had a greater consciousness of being “working class” than
did workers reared in industrial areas. Degree of militancy and
amount of intellectual and skill resources were inversely related. The
combination of poor skills and background experiences of persons of
rural origin may lead to their exploitation and the blocking of their
mobility in the urban area, which, in turn, may lead to collective
protests.

628. LEONARD, OLEN E. “Occupational Structure and Occupational Aspira-
tions of Spanish-Speaking Migrant Families of Saginaw County, Mich-
igan.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociologi-
cal Society, Miami Beach, Fla., Aug. 29, 1966.

629.

 

and HELEN W. JOHNSON. Low-Income Families in the Spanish
Surname Population of the Southwest. Agricultural Economic Report
112. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, 1967.

630. LERAY, NELSON L., and WILLIAM W. REEDER. Ex-Farm Operators in a
Low-Income Area. Bulletin 67-2. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965.
148

631

632

633

634

635

636

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

. LEUTHOLD, FRANK O., CHARLES M. FARMER, and M. B. BODENHOP.

Migration of Young Adults From a Low-Income Rural County. Prog-
ress Report 63. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of Tennessee, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1967.

. LEVEN, CHARLES L. “Population, Migration and Regional Economic

Development.” Current Economic Comment, 21(4) (Nov. 1959), 31-42.

. LEVIN, MELVIN R. “Talent Migration: Distressed Area Dilemma.” In

Community Regional Planning. New York: F. A. Praeger, 1969. Pp.
220-244.

. LEYBOURNE, GRACE F. “Urban Adjustments of Migrants from the

Southern Appalachian Plateaus.” Social Forces, 16 (Dec. 1937), 238—
246.

. LIEBHAFSKY, E. E. “Migration and the Labor Force: Prospects.” Monthly

Labor Review, 91(3) (Mar. 1968), 7-11.

Presents three projections of the 1975 southern labor force under
different assumptions concerning net interstate migration, and dis-
cusses expected labor force participation rates by race and sex.

. LINGREN, HERBERT G. “Perception Changes of Farm Emigrants Before

and After Migration.” Rural Sociology, 34 (June 1969), 223-238.

Data are from 21 husband-wife pairs who moved out of farming in
Iowa between 1956 and 1961. The hypothesis tested was that migrants
would change their perceptions of eight “opportunity factors” (net
income, opportunity to get ahead, freedom to make decisions, amount
of leisure time, social standing, opportunities for children, religious
opportunities, and moral character of the community) concerning
farm life. Men who became more nonfarm oriented were younger,
more satisfied with their current jobs, and had higher occupational
ratings. Women who became more nonfarm oriented had moved
greater distances and to places where they had relatives. Men and
women who became more farm oriented after their moves had farmed
longer than others and had fewer children.

637. LIPSET, SEYMOUR MARTIN. “Social Mobility and Urbanization.” Rural

Sociology, 20 (Sept.—Dec. 1955), 220-228.

This study of 935 households in Oakland, Calif., showed a positive
relationship between size of community of orientation and degree of
upward mobility experienced.

638. LITWAK, EUGENE. “Geographic Mobility and Extended Family Cohe-

sion.” American Sociological Review, 25 (June 1960), 385-394.

In support of the thesis that a modified extended family can be
maintained in an industrial, democratic society, Litwak presents three
propositions contrary to Parsons’ hypothesis that the extended family
and geographic mobility are incompatible: modified extended families
aid geographic movement; extended family relations are maintained
despite geographic separation; and geographic coalescence takes place
at peak earning power. Data used to test these hypotheses were
obtained from a 1952 survey of 920 young, married, white native
females in Buffalo, N.Y., the type of sample most likely to support
Parsons’ hypotheses. The proportion of families with relatives in
Buffalo increased from those on career upswings to those at medium
career points to those at career peaks [which suggests that number of
639.

640.

641.

642.

643.

644.

*645.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 149

relatives and career achievement are positively associated]. Among
those at career peaks, the families who were extended family oriented
were most likely to have relatives in the city.

LIVELY, CHARLES E., and MARGARET L. BRIGHT. The Rural Population
Resources of Missouri. Research Bulletin 428. Columbia, Mo.: Univer-
sity of Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1948.

Presents data for the 1920’s and 1930s.

and CONRAD TAEUBER. Rural Migration in the United States.
Research Monograph 19. Washington, D.C.: Works Progress Adminis-
tration, 1939.

Focuses on the period 1930-35.

 

LOCKE, BENJAMIN Z., and H. J. DUVALL. “Migration and Mental Illness.”
Eugenics Quarterly, 11 (1964), 216-221.
Data on first admissions to Ohio State mental hospitals for July 1958
to December 1961 showed that nonmigrant Ohio natives had lower
first-admission rates than out-of-State migrants.

LOEWENBERG, J. JOSEPH. Nonwhite Inmigrants and Manpower Problems
in Philadelphia. Final report submitted to the U.S. Department of
Commerce. Philadelphia and Washington, D.C.: Temple University
and U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

Natural increase rather than rural-urban migration is now respon-
sible for the city’s increasing black population, and the most frequent
type of black geographic movement to the North is interurban rather
than rural-urban (1061). Still, by 1965, almost half of the city’s black
inmigrants were from nonmetropolitan southern areas. It is concluded
that black inmigration to Philadelphia will probably continue at its
present rate. None of the seven manpower programs in the city kept
separate records for the migrants among their clients or even recog-
nized inmigrant needs as separate from the needs of locals.

LONG, ERVEN J., and PETER DORNER. “Excess Farm Population and the
Loss of Agricultural Capital.” Land Economics, 30(4) (Nov. 1954), 363—
368.

Discusses the Tennessee farm population’s costs to rear the surplus
agricultural labor which migrated off farm in 1949.

Loomis, RALPH A. Farmers in the Nonfarm Labor Market. Research
Report 24. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1964.

Data obtained in 1962 from 20 managers of industrial firms in
Muskegon and Kalamazoo Counties, Mich., showed that farmers
lagged in education but were considered superior to nonfarmers in
attitude and willingness to work. In evaluating on-the-job success, 85
percent of employers said there were no differences between farmers
and nonfarmers, while the rest said farmers were more rapidly
successful.

LOWRY, IRA S. Migration and Metropolitan Growth: Two Analytical
Models. Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California Press, 1966.
Migration to a metropolitan area is related to its wage rate, level of
unemployment, and amount of military employment. Since distance
also is a factor, transportation costs, information, and proximity to
family, friends, or ethnic group additionally are involved.
150 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

646. LUEBKE, B. H. “Tennessee Farm Depopulation Continues: What Lies
Ahead for Rural Communities?’ Tennessee Farm and Home Science, 7
(July-Sept. 1953), 4-5.

and JOHN F. HART. “Migration From a Southern Appalachian
Community.” Land Economics, 34 (Feb. 1958), 44-53.
Migrants from the Chestnut Hill area of Tennessee had moved for

economic reasons only and were experiencing difficulties in adjusting
to city life.

647.

 

648. LURIE, MELVIN, and ELTON RAYACK. “Racial Differences in Migration
and Job Search: A Case Study.” Southern Economic Journal (July
1966), 90-92.

This study in the Middletown, Conn., labor market area (LMA) in
1964 to ascertain interracial differences in job search methods ob-
tained interviews from 100 white and 150 black males under age 46
and employed in nonprofessional and nonmanagerial jobs. Negroes in
this LMA in 1960, mostly from the South through a process of chain
migration, were overrepresented in labor and service jobs and under-
represented in professional, white collar, and skilled occupations.
Chain migration had led to chain occupations for the white immigrant
group, so Middletown had become a labor market where jobs and even
industries were to some extent stratified by national origin. It was
concluded that Negroes have less adequate sources of job information
than whites of the same skill level in the area studied, and that

informal job search procedures work more effectively for whites than
blacks.

649. LYND, HELEN MERRELL. “Sociopsychological Costs and Gains.” In Fam-
ily Mobility in Our Dynamic Society. Prepared by Center for Agricul-
tural and Economic Adjustment, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State University Press, 1965. Pp. 237-250.

Some of the problems involved for families in changing from rural to
urban living are: discontinuities for children and disorientations for
adults, loss of support of long-known neighbors and friends, self-
alienation or development of feelings of revulsion toward self or
toward one’s family members, adjustment to the faster pace of life,
shock of impersonal interactions, and depersonalization.

650. MACDONALD, JOHN S., and LEATRICE D. MACDONALD. “Chain Migra-
tion, Ethnic Neighborhood Formation and Social Networks.” Milbank
Memorial Fund Quarterly, 42(1)(Jan. 1964), 82-97.

While focusing on Southern Italian immigrants, 1885-1914, defines
“chain migration” as that movement in which prospective migrants
learn of opportunities, are provided with transportation, and have
initial accommodation arranged by means of primary social relation-
ships with previous migrants.

651. MACDONALD, LEATRICE D., and JOHN S. MACDONALD. “Motives and
Objectives of Migration and Preferences Toward Rural and Urban
Life.” Social Economic Studies, 17(4) (Dec. 1968), 417-434.

652. MACISCO, JOHN J., JR. “Fertility of White Migrant Women, U.S. 1960: A
Stream Analysis.” Rural Sociology, 33(4) (Dec. 1968), 474-479.

Uses census data on fertility and migration between 1955 and 1960

to examine the fertility of women who moved between metropolitan

areas, those who moved from metropolitan to nonmetropolitan areas,
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 151

and those who moved from nonmetropolitan areas to metropolitan
areas. For the total United States, migrant women had lower fertility
than nonmigrant women. Controls for age diminished but did not
eradicate this difference. Of the three migrant groups, nonmetropoli-
tan-metropolitan migrant women had the highest age-standardized
fertility rate, while intermetropolitan migrants had the lowest.
Through age 24, nonmetropolitan-metropolitan migrants also had the
lowest cumulative fertility. Metropolitan-nonmetropolitan migrants
had lower fertility shown by crude, standardized, and age-specific
rates than nonmigrant nonmetropolitan counterparts. Through age
29, nonmetropolitan-metropolitan migrants had lower age-specific fer-
tility rates than metropolitan nonmigrants but higher ones from age
30 onward. It is concluded that migration has a depressing effect on
fertility depending on age at migration.

 

 

653. . “Some Thoughts on an Analytic Framework for Rural to Urban
Migration.” Invited presentation to the Latin American Regional
Population Conference, Mexico City, D.F., Aug. 1970.

/ 654. and E. PRYOR, JR. “A Reappraisal of Ravenstein’s ‘Laws’ of

Migration: A Review of Selected Studies of Internal Migration in the
United States.” American Catholic Sociological Review, 24 (Fall 1963),
211-221.

In reviewing migration studies of the 1940’s and 1950’s, Macisco and
Pryor found that Ravenstein’s laws generally are still valid, especially
for rural-urban migration. The research findings and laws agree that:
females are more migratory than males in rural-urban streams and
comprise a greater proportion of short-distance movers, migrants are
generally younger than nonmigrants, and female migrants are
younger than male migrants.

655. MACKLIN, BARBARA J. “Structural Stability and Culture Change in a
Mexican-American Community.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Pennsylvania, 1963.

In studying Mexican Americans from Texas and Mexico in Toledo,
Ohio, Macklin found that most migrants had settled in the city for
reasons of economic crisis, probably as migrant labor-stream dropouts.
These Mexican Americans restrict social interactions in the city to
relatives and members of the subcultural group and maintain exten-
sive ties with kin in the origin area through mutual visiting. This
practice has both enabled the survival of “traditional” cultural pat-
terns in Toledo and prevented new cultural elements from being
adapted.

656. MACLACHLAN, JOHN M. “Recent Population Trends in the Southeast.”
Social Forces, 35(2) (Dec. 1956), 147-154.

The 1940-50 and 1950-54 census data showed that population in-
crease rates in the Southeast were slowing down, the population was
becoming older, the percentage of the nonwhite population was declin-
ing, and net migration losses were increasing among blacks, especially
those of labor-force age.

and JOE S. FLOYD. This Changing South. Gainesville, Fla.: Univer-
sity of Florida, 1956.
658. MADDOX, JAMES G. “Private and Social Costs of the Movement of People

Out of Agriculture.” American Economic Review: Papers and Proceed-
ings, 50 (May 1960), 392-402, 412-418.

657.

 
152

659.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Maddox sees the costs of inmigration to host areas as including the
need for increased police protection, a declining quality of public
services, a rapid growth of congested city slums, increased public
welfare expenditures, and so on. Recent research has shown that most
of these stereotyped ideas are false, inaccurate, or overly simplistic.

. “Tar Heel Farmers Pay When Youth Leave Farms.” Research
and Farming, 18 (Spring 1960), 11.

Examination of the off-farm migration of North Carolina youth aged
10-20 for the 1950’s showed that rural areas bear an undue burden,
since outmigrants will later benefit urban areas which have made no
investment in the migrants.

660. MADRIL, ERNEST. “Social Participation in Relation to the Acculturation

of the Spanish-Speaking People of Del Norte, Colorado.” Unpublished
master’s thesis, Washington University, 1952.

661. MAHONEY, BETTE SILVER. “The Case for Migration.” New Generation, 50

662.

663.

664.

665.

 

(Summer 1968), 9-10.

Some people wish to stem rural-urban migration by developing new
economic opportunities in rural areas. Such views involve the assump-
tions that recent rural (particularly southern) migration is a major
factor contributing to urban problems; that the poor are better off in
rural areas; that rural problems can always be solved by either
economic development or migration; and that economic opportunities
must be provided by the economic development of rural areas. How-
ever, the effect of migration upon urban problems is not major: the
typical white or Negro inmigrant to northern cities is from another
urban area, and new migrants typically do not form a large percent-
age of a city’s Negro population and do not concentrate in a single
sector of a city. Also, the poor are not necessarily better off in rural
areas, rural poverty cannot be overcome simply by economic develop-
ment or migration, and migration may be a cheaper way of providing
economic opportunity for poor people than the economic development
of rural areas.

Recommendations include the provision of information on job vacan-
cies and housing opportunities to the disadvantaged in their own
regions and in other areas of the country, expanded programs of
human development (education, training, health) within the rural
areas, “migrant reception centers” in the cities, relocation assistance,
and an income maintenance system such as the negative income tax
for those who are not interested in economic progress at the cost of
moving.

MAHONEY, THOMAS A. “Exploratory Study of Factors Influencing Work-

ers’ Adjustments in Relocation.” Mimeographed. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center, 1966.

MAITLAND, SHERIDAN T., and LOUIS J. DUCOFF. “The Farm Labor Force:
Recent Trends and Prospects.” Journal of Farm Economics, 43 (Dec.
1961), 1183-1189

and STANLEY M. KNEBEL. “Rural to Urban Transition.” Monthly
Labor Review, 91 (June 1968), 28-32.

MALZBERG, BENJAMIN J. “Are Immigrants Psychologically Disturbed?”
In Changing Perspectives in Mental Illness. Edited by S. C. Plog and R.
B. Edgerton. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969. Pp. 394-421.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 153

 

 

 

 

 

666. . “Internal Migration and Mental Disease among the White Popu-
lation of New York State, 1960-1961.” International Journal of Social
Psychiatry, 13 (1967), 184-191.

667. . “Migration and Mental Disease Among Negroes in New York
State.” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 21 (1936), 107-113.

668. . “Migration and Mental Disease in New York State, 1939-41.”
Human Biology, 28 (Sept. 1956), 350-364.

669. . “Migration and Mental Disease Among the White Population of
New York State, 1949-1951.” Human Biology, 34 (May 1962), 89-98.

670. . Migration in Relation to Mental Disease. Albany, N.Y.: Research
Foundation for Mental Hygiene, 1968.

*671. and EVERETT S. LEE. Migration and Mental Disease. New York:

 

Social Science Research Council, 1956.

Data on first admissions to New York public mental hospitals for
1939-41 are used in investigating the relationship between migration
and mental disease. Comparisons are made as to the rates for total
psychoses and for individual psychoses between natives and the
foreign born, between State natives and those born in other States,
and by 1935 State residence.

672. MANGALAM, JOSEPH J. Human Migration: A Guide to Migration Litera-
ture in English, 1955-1962. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky
Press, 1968.

 

673. . “A Reconsideration of the Notion of Adjustment: An Explora-
tion.” In Proceedings of the Southern Agricultural Workers Conference,
1962. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Department of Sociol-
ogy, 1962.
*674. and HARRY K. SCHWARZWELLER. “General Theory in Study of

 

Migration: Current Needs and Difficulties.” International Migration
Review, 3 (Fall 1968), 3-18.

The study of migration lacks a comprehensive theoretical approach.
Limitations of available data and misconceptions about the very
nature of migration are reflected in much of the research. Some
prevailing methodological approaches are evaluated. The critiques of
many well-known publications are particularly relevant for those
interested in the directions and issues of migration research.

675. MANGUS, A. R., and R. L. MCNAMARA. Levels of Living and Population
Movements in Rural Areas in Ohio, 1930-40. Bulletin 639. Wooster,
Ohio: Ohio Agricultural Experiment Station, 1943.

676. MARSH, ROBERT C. “Negro-White Differences in Geographic Mobility.”
Social Security Bulletin (May 1967), 8-19.
(See Lansing and Mueller, 606.)

677. MARSHALL, DOUGLAS G. “Better Farms, Fewer Boys and Girls.” Minne-
sota Farm and Home Science, 4(2) (Feb. 1947), 4-6.

. Population Characteristics, Resources, and Prospects in the North
Central Region. Bulletin 209. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.

This study of census data on population changes focuses on moves of
hired farm workers, off-farm moves of youths and of families, nonmet-
ropolitan-metropolitan migration, and urban-rural migration.

678.

 
154 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

679.

 

. Wisconsin’s Population: Changes and Prospects. Research Bulle-
tin 194, rev. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1959.

Analysis of 1900-55 census data indicated that rural-urban migra-
tion was highly selective of youths, singles, and females.

680.

 

and JOHN D. KELLEY. Changes in Minnesota's Population by
Counties—Natural Increase and Net Migration. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota, Department of Agriculture, 1952.

681. MARTIN, HARRY W. “Correlates of Adjustment Among American Indi-
ans in an Urban Environment.” Human Organization, 23(4) (Winter
1964), 290-296.

Examines the relationship between selected characteristics of relo-
cated Navajos, Choctaw, and Sioux and their behavioral adjustment.
Data were from case files on 311 single individuals and family heads
relocated to a southwestern metropolitan area between September
1957 and July 1961. Among the three tribes, Navajos were more likely
to exhibit adaptive behavior, while the Sioux were least likely, and
tribal differences were found more frequently among women than
among men. In general, younger men had better behavioral adjust-
ment than older men. Type of school experience rather than simply
attending school was important for adjustment. Both military experi-
ence and arrest record had a negative relationship to good adjust-
ment. The author hypothesized that the greater Navajo “adjustment”
might reflect their passive and cooperative nature more than real
adjustment.

682. MARTIN, JOE ALLEN. “The Impact of Industrialization Upon Agricul-
ture: A Study of Off-Farm Migration and Agricultural Development in
Weakley County, Tennessee.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Minnesota, 1955.

This analysis of data on 181 farm operators showed that migration
had been selective of youth, hired labor and sharecroppers. Before
1946, there had been selectivity of migration with respect to educa-
tion, but 1946-51 data showed no differences between migrants and
nonmigrants. Movers aged 17-28 were more likely to have been
married than nonmigrants. Rural-urban migrants learned about off-
farm job opportunities solely through friends and relatives having
previously moved to cities.

 

 

683. . “Off-Farm Migration and a Changing Agriculture in Tennessee.”
Tennessee Farm and Home Science Progress Report, 24 (Oct.—Dec.
1957), 10-11.

684. . Off-Farm Migration: Some of Its Characteristics and Effects

Upon Weakley City, Tenn. Bulletin 290. Knoxville, Tenn.: University of
Tennessee, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1958.

685. MARTIN, L. R. “Relevant Alternatives in Resolving the Rural Poverty
Problem.” Journal of Farm Economics, 46 (May 1964), 418-428.

686. MARTIN, WALTER T. “Some Socio-Psychological Aspects of Adjustment
to Residence Location in the Rural-Urban Fringe.” American Socio-
logical Review, 18 (June 1953), 248-253.

One finding from this study of 832 families and individuals living in
a fringe area between Eugene and Springfield, Oreg., was that pre-
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 155
vious residence in nonurban places was associated with positive
sociopsychological attitudes toward the fringe as a place to live.

687. MARTINSON, FLOYD M. “Personal Adjustment and Rural-Urban Migra-
tion.” Rural Sociology, 20 (June 1955), 102-110.

688.

 

. “Some Personality Adjustment Differences of Rural Nonmi-
grants and Migrants.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Minnesota, 1953.

Martinson conducted an ex post facto study of personality adjust-
ment factors related to rural-urban migration of 1945-49 high school
graduates in five Minnesota communities. Nonmigrant-migrant pairs
were matched on farm-nonfarm residence, age, sex, size and location
of community, year of high school graduation, and father’s occupation.
High school grades, participation in extracurricular activities and
other data available from high school records were used as indicators
of personality adjustment (Bell Adjustment Inventory and Kuder
Preference Record).

Among girls, migrants were more socially aggressive than nonmi-
grants. Among boys, migrants had higher high school grades, partici-
pated in more extracurricular activities, and had greater computa-
tional and scientific interests but less mechanical interest than non-
migrants.

Among farm girls, migrants participated in more extracurricular
activities, and had lower clerical interest scores than nonmigrant
girls. Among farm boys, migrants were less well adjusted emotionally
than nonmigrants.

689. MASLOWSKI, JAMES J. “North Carolina Migration, 1870-1950.” Research
Previews, 2(2) (Mar. 1954), 1-4.

690. MASNICK, G. “Employment Status and Retrospective and Prospective
Migration in the United States.” Demography, 5 (1968), 79-85.

Using March 1962-March 1963 census data on males aged 18-64,
Masnick found that the unemployed with a history of recent migration
were as likely to have been employed as unemployed at the beginning
of the migration period. He criticizes those who assume unemployed
persons are more migratory than the employed simply because they
were more likely to have been migratory in the preceding year and
says that it is inappropriate to use data on employment status after
migration to judge the mobility of the unemployed.

691. MASON, MARIE, and C. PAUL MARSH. Migration within Kentucky, 1935-
40. Bulletin 620. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1954.

*692. MASTERS, STANLEY H. “Are Black Migrants From the South to the
Northern Cities Worse Off Than Blacks Already There?” Journal of
Human Resources, in press.

(See 693.)

693.

 

. A Study of Socioeconomic Mobility Among Urban Negroes. Final
report submitted to the Office of Economic Opportunity, OEO Contract
B99-4790. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers, The State University, 1970.

The research question posed was, “Are Negro migrants better off
than nonmigrants in urban areas?” Using 1960 census data, regres-
sion analysis was done for Negro and white movers separated into
156

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

groups of “recent migrants’ (those who moved to a standard metropol-
itan statistical area (SMSA) between 1955 and 1960) and those living
in SMSA’s in both 1955 and 1960. Negro lifetime migrants were
defined as those born in the South who were living in an SMSA
outside the South in 1960, and they were compared to Negroes living
in SMSA’s outside the South in 1960 who were not born in the South.
A questionable procedure used by the investigator was in comparing
the results of white and black lifetime migrants, where Negroes in this
category were those born in the South and living in SMSA’s outside
the South in 1960, whereas the white comparison group was foreign-
born residents of SMSA’s. Also, because of the classification system
used, a person could be both a recent and a lifetime migrant.

It was found that lifetime Negro migrants, while at an educational
disadvantage, were doing better than Negro nonmigrants although
results for recent black migrants indicate they go through an adjust-
ment period during which they do not do as well as nonmigrants.
Results for white migrants were comparable to those for blacks except
that adjustment problems of recent migrants were less. To account for
the greater attainment of black lifetime migrants in comparison to
nonmigrant blacks, it was suggested that among blacks migration
may be selective of the most ambitious. Also, because black migrants
move to northern urban areas where economic opportunities are
greatest, they gain an advantage over nonmovers just by moving
there. Since recent Negro migrants accounted for only 5 percent of all
blacks living in SMSA’s, “. . . very little of the economic problems of
the Negro ghettos can be attributed to disadvantaged migrants com-
ing up from the rural South.”

694. MATRAS, JUDAH, and KARL E. TAEUBER. “The Use of Residence Histo-

ries in Studying Migration and Population Redistribution.” In Pro-
ceedings of the International Population Conference, 1969. Vol. IV.
Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population,
1971. Pp. 2805-2819.

Using data on residence histories from a 1958 national sample,
procedures were developed to represent U.S. migration and population
redistribution patterns. Matrix equations were used to represent
rates of migration by size-of-place category, rates of migration be-
tween U.S. divisions, and how these rates, along with differential
patterns of fertility and mortality, redistributed the population in
sequences of 5-year intervals since 1910.

695. MAULDIN, W. PARKER. “Selective Migration From Small Towns.” Ameri-

can Sociological Review, 5 (1940), 748-758.

The three Tennessee towns studied had populations between 2,000
and 4,000 and were supported by agriculture and related industries;
none was close to a metropolitan area. The high school records of more
than 1,220 persons attending area schools for as much as 2 years
during 1923-34 were examined. The sample was divided by grade
clusters into superior, average, or below-average groups, and by sex
and migration status. More than half of those studied had migrated,
and the largest percentage of these had come from the superior group.
Overall, more of the below-average than of the average had migrated.
About 10 percent of migrants did not leave their home counties. The
ratio of urban to rural migrants was 5:2, and slightly over half of
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 157

urban migrants had moved to metropolitan areas. Girls were more
migratory than boys, but superior boys were more migratory than any
group. The author feels that grades are a reasonable substitute for
developed intelligence in research.

696. MAYO, SELZ C. “Communities With Stationary Populations.” In Family
Mobility in Our Dynamic Society. Prepared by Center for Agricultural
and Economic Adjustment, Iowa State University. Ames, Iowa: Iowa
State University Press, 1965. Pp. 133-148.

In studying two communities in growing counties and two in declin-
ing counties (with populations ranging from 1,600 to 4,600), Mayo
found that “Communities with relatively stationary populations expe-
rience heavy losses by migration,” that most migrants are young, and
that most of those who left to continue their education probably will
not return. Estimates showed that the monetary investment in each
young person was about $20,000 at the time they left. On this basis,
the four communities studied sustained investment losses of $279
million in the 1950's.

 

697. . “Is the Farmer Going to Town?’ Research and Farming, 11(1)
(Summer 1952), 12-13.

Analysis of 1940-50 census data revealed that, within the decade, all
but three counties in North Carolina had experienced farm population

decline.

 

698. . The Young, the Old, and the Mature: A Study of the Significance of
the Changing Age and Sex Composition of the Rural Population.
Bulletin 365. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State University, Agricul-

tural Experiment Station, 1949.
699.

 

and C. HORACE HAMILTON. “Current Population Trends in the
South.” Social Forces, 42(1)(Oct. 1963), 77-88.

700. MAZEK, WARREN F. “Unemployment and the Efficacy of Migration: The
Case of Laborers.” Journal of Regional Science, 9(1) (Apr. 1969), 101-
107.

No study has attempted to determine how much migration has
reduced aggregate unemployment. Few studies of the migration-
unemployment relationship have used measures of the unemployment
rate of total regional labor force rather than the rate specific to each
labor-force component. The author criticizes existing single-equation
models of regression using unemployment measures. His own model,
applied to data on the 1955-60 migration of white and nonwhite
laborers and defined as interim, provides for regression of laborer-
migration rates over what he calls “potential unemployment rates”
(the unemployment rate for laborers which would exist in a region at
the end of a period if no laborer in- or outmigration took place).
Results show migration to have been unemployment equilibrating.
Findings appear useful for future research because they show that
labor-force subgroups may be used to reduce least squares bias, and
that analysis of the equilibrating mechanism of the geographic labor
market is possible in terms of distribution of unemployment.

701. MCDONALD, STEPHEN L. “Economic Factors in Farm Outmigration: A
Survey and Evaluation of the Literature.” Working paper. Austin,
Tex.: University of Texas at Austin, Department of Economics, 1971.
158

702.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Over 200 pieces of mainly economic research published since 1950
were examined. An economic model of off-farm migration is presented
along with some hypotheses which provide a framework for a discus-
sion of the research, which is classified as to data sources. Findings
from the research are presented concerning migration and nonfarm
unemployment, motives for outmovement, costs of migration, eco-
nomic gains through migration, migration and age, migration and
distance, migration and information, and migration and income equal-
ization. These findings generally supported McDonald's hypotheses
that perceived prospective income differences between agricultural
and other jobs is the major factor in outmigration; that most migrants
find gains through migration exceed the cost; that migration away
from farms is associated with urban unemployment levels; that rates
of off-farm migration vary inversely with age; that rates of off-farm
migration to nonfarm jobs vary inversely with distance; and that the
farm-nonfarm income gap remains despite continued net migration
from farms.

. “Farm Out-Migration as an Integrative Adjustment to Economic
Growth.” Social Forces, 34(2) (Dec. 1955), 119-128.

Patterns of off-farm migration and consequent effects on farm
incomes may be understood as partly the result of agriculture’s
integration into the industrial economy and partly the consequence of
incomplete functional integration of the farm and nonfarm sectors.

703. MCELROY, ROBERT C. “Manpower Implications of Trends in the Tobacco

Industry.” Paper presented at a meeting of the Association for Public
Program Analysis Conference, U.S. Civil Service Commission, Wash-
ington, D.C., June 16, 1969.

704. MCKECHNIE, G. H. “Retraining and Geographic Mobility: An Evalua-

”

tion.
1966.

Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin,

705. MCKEE, VERNON C., and LEE M. DAY. “Measuring the Effect of U.S.

Department of Agriculture Programs on Income Distribution.” In
Rural Poverty in the United States. A Report of the President’s
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 27, pp. 506-521.

Examines the effects of selected U.S. Department of Agriculture
programs on the income distribution of farmers and the general
public. The results indicate that most of the farm programs tended to
reduce the inequality of farm income.

706. MCKINNEY, JOHN C., and EDGAR T. THOMPSON, EDS. The South in

Continuity and Change. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1965.

707. MCMAHAN, C. A. “Selectivity in Rural to Urban Migration.” In Sociology

of Urban Life. New York: Dryden Press, 1951. Pp. 334-340.

708. MCMILLAN, ROBERT T. Migration and Status of Open-Country Families

in Oklahoma. Technical Bulletin T-19. Stillwater, Okla.: Oklahoma
State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1943.

709. MCNAMARA, ROBERT L. “A Design for Study of Urban Adjustment of

Rural Migrants in St. Louis.” In Rural Sociology in a Changing
Society. North Central Rural Sociological Committee. Columbus, Ohio:

Ohio State University, Agricultural Extension Service, 1959. Pp. 49-
60.
710.

711.

712.

713.

714.

715.

716.

717.

718.

719.

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 159

 

. “Population Change Poses Problems in Supplying Adequate
Health Service.” Journal of Osteopathy, 69 (Apr. 1955), 9-14.

, PETER NEW, and DONALD PAPPENFORT. Rural-Urban Population
Change and Migration in Missouri, 1940 to 1950. Bulletin 620. Colum-
bia, Mo.: University of Missouri, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1954.

MCQUEEN, ALBERT JAMES. “A Study of Anomie among Lower Class
Negro Migrants.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Michigan, 1959.

In a study of the adjustment of 75 Negro migrants aged 20-50 who
came to Ypsilanti, Michigan, from 1940 to 1957, McQueen found that
the most alienated and apprehensive respondents were generally
dissatisfied with their situations in the city. Most were aged 20-30,
veterans, late arrivals, nonvoters, nonchurchgoers, and persons who
did not know much about the city. These migrants had status anxiety
because they were high strivers but had limited opportunities for
getting ahead. Number of Ypsilanti relatives and size-composition-of-
family variables had no relationship to alienation, apprehension, and
powerlessness measures. Homeowners were less alienated and appre-
hensive but more aspiring than renters. Those with higher incomes
and those who saw their jobs as important and meaningful felt less
alienated, apprehensive, and powerless than others.

MEADOW, KATHRYN P. “Negro-White Differences among Newcomers to
a Transitional Urban Area.” Journal of Intergroup Relations, 3 (1962),
320-330.

In 1960-61, data were obtained from 122 black and white newcomers
within the previous 3 years to Highland Park, Mich. Black migrants
were less well educated, had lower incomes and lower occupational
statuses than whites yet twice as many black as white migrants were
buying homes. Blacks viewed the community with extreme satisfac-
tion, while whites stressed only its locational convenience. The move
to Highland Park appeared as achieved upward mobility for blacks but
as possibly only a convenient way station for whites.

MEIER, RICHARD L. “Policies for Planning Rural-Urban Migration.” In
Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Populations.
Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications,
1970. Pp. 395-404.

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO. “Recent Movement to Large Popu-
lation Centers.” Statistical Bulletin, 33(2) (Feb. 1952), 7-10.

METZLER, WILLIAM H. Farm Mechanization and Labor Stabilization.
Giannini Foundation Research Report 280. Berkeley, Calif.: Univer-
sity of California, Giannini Foundation, 1965.

and J. L. CHARLTON. Employment and Underemployment of Rural
People in the Ozarks. Bulletin 604. Fayetteville, Ark.: University of
Arkansas, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1958.

MICKLIN, MICHAEL T. “A Selected Bibliography of Periodical Literature
Dealing with Internal Migration, 1900-1961.” Mimeographed. Austin,
Tex.: University of Texas, Institute of Latin American Studies, 1964.

MIDDLETON, RUSSELL, and CHARLES M. GRIGG. “Rural-Urban Differ-
ences in Aspirations.” Rural Sociology, 24 (Dec. 1959), 347-354.
160

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

This study of high school seniors in Florida found that a signifi-
cantly greater proportion of urban than of rural white males aspired
to white collar jobs, even when controls were added for intelligence.
No differences in aspiration by rural-urban residence were found for
white females or for black males or females.

720. MILBANK MEMORIAL FUND. Postwar Problems of Migration. Papers

presented at the Round Table on Population Problems, 1946 Confer-
ence of the Milbank Memorial Fund, Oct. 29-30, 1946. New York:
Milbank Memorial Fund, 1947.

721. MILES, GUY H. Optimizing the Benefits of Neighborhood Youth Corps

Projects for Rural Youth. Final Report submitted to the U.S. Depart-
ment of Labor, DOL Contract 41-7-006-25. Minneapolis, Minn.: North
Star Research and Development Institute, undated.

722. MILLER, ANN R. “Migration Differentials in Labor Force Participation:

723.

 

United States, 1960.” Demography, 3(1) (1966), 58-67.

It is commonly assumed that since people move for economic rea-
sons, those who move are more likely to be in the labor force than
those who do not. Examination of both 1940 and 1960 census data
raised questions about this assumption for the U.S. white population.
In general, both male and female white interstate migrants between
1955 and 1960 had labor-force participation rates in 1960 that were the
same as, or below, those found in the total population, whereas the
opposite was true for nonwhites. This may possibly be interpreted as
demonstrating that economic (job-connected) motives are more signifi-
cant in nonwhite than in white migration. The 1935-40 migration data
indicated that, among both sexes, white interstate migrants were less
likely to be in the labor force than others. Since the analysis leads to
the conclusion that white interstate migrants are not more likely to be
in the labor force than the general population (with age differences
taken into account), “. .. the widespread practice of using population
flows as a reflection of labor force flows in the analysis of migration
and its relationship to economic change becomes questionable.” More
emphasis should be placed upon the migration of the labor force per se
and on separation of migrants whose moves are not job related.

. “The Migration of Employed Persons to and From Metropolitan
Areas of the United States.” Journal of the American Statistical
Association, 62(320) (Dec. 1967), 1418-1432.

724. MILLSPAUGH, MARTIN. “Problems and Opportunities of Relocation.” Law

and Contemporary Problems, 26 (Winter 1961), 6-36.

To be effective, relocation programs must be considered in their own
right and as equal in importance to economic redevelopment programs
in the solution of rural area problems.

725. MILNE, N. DANN. “Toward an Improved Labor Relocation Program:

Evaluating the Foreign and Domestic Experience.” EDA Program on
the Role of Growth Centers in Regional Economic Development,
Discussion Paper 13. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, Center for
Economic Development, 1970.

Evaluates the lessons from Great Britain and Sweden and recent
American programs concerning labor relocation, giving special atten-
tion to improving the domestic program and using labor relocation
more effectively as a means of regional development.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 161

726. MOCHON, MARION J. “Stockbridge—Munsee Cultural Adaptations: ‘As-
similated Indians.”” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Soci-
ety, 112(3) (1968), 182-219.

727. MOGEY, JOHN, and GEORGE WINOKUR. “Sociology, Mobility and Mental
Health.” In Mobility and Mental Health. Edited by Mildred B. Kantor.
Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1965. Ch. 10, pp. 211-218.

Stresses the need to define basic mobility concepts carefully when
attempting to discover the relationship between mobility and mental
health. “Migrants to urban areas are most prone to personal and
social disorganization if they are poor, uneducated and unskilled.
These people infrequently get involved in voluntary associations
which might aid in successful socialization.” ;

728. MOGULOF, MELVIN B., MARCIA K. FREEDMAN, and JOHN J. WAGNER, JR.
“Programs and Services to Aid the Integration of Rural Youth in
Urban Communities.” In Rural Youth in Crisis: Facts, Myths, and
Social Change. Edited by Lee G. Burchinal. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965. Ch. 21, pp. 309-
325,

Rural youth in cities may be hampered by anomie, lack of education,
lack of job opportunities, lack of meaningful relationships, problems in
communicating, and limited participation in decisions affecting their
lives. The authors describe some existing programs for rural youth,
such as compensatory education programs, short-term occupational
training, and other developmental programs, and discuss how these
programs may be evaluated.

729. MONTANA AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Migration of Farm
Families to Town. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State University, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, undated.

730. MOORE, E. J., E. L. BAUM, and R. B. GLASGOW. Economic Factors
Influencing Educational Attainments and Aspirations of Farm Youth.
Agricultural Economic Report 51. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1964.

Low population density, low income, and small school districts in
many rural areas have contributed to lower quality educational
facilities and services which have resulted in rural youths’ relative
educational disadvantage in comparison to urban youth. Rural youth,
for example, have lower levels of both educational attainment and
aspiration, and parental educational attainment and aspirations and
the occupation of household head are related to youth’s attainment
and aspirations. In a study of 1.3 million 15-21-year-olds, four-ninths
had dropped out of school, and three-fourths of the dropouts had
completed less than 8 years of school. Two important reasons for the
dropouts were lack of money and lack of desire for education. Many
parents are unable to afford education beyond high school for their
children, and a substantial number who could, do not apply for
educational loans.

731. MOORE, JANE. Cityward Migration. Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago
Press, 1938.

*732. MOORE, JOAN W. “Mexican Americans and Cities: A Study in Migration
and the Use of Formal Resources.” International Migration Review,
5(3) (Fall 1971), 292-308.
162

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

In investigating the relationship between time in city and birth-
place and use of formal versus informal resources for a sample of
Mexican Americans in Los Angeles, Moore found that the traditional
theory of “urban acculturation” (whereby a migrant “urbanizes”
when he abandons use of informal resources and turns to formal ones
for help) cannot explain the help sources that respondents chose for
various posed problems. Some sources of help chosen were related to
the birthplace or ruralness/urbanness of the respondents. Some prob-
lems had the reverse relationship to help source from what would be
predicted by traditional theory. It is concluded that urbanization is
not the equivalent of abandonment of the primary group as a source of
help, that help sought depends on resources actually available as well
as on those which are perceived to be available, that perception of
available resources is not dependent on the cosmopolitan/rural origin
of the respondent, and that the old explanation of Mexican Americans
as a “rural-folk” people is an incorrect one to give in accounting for
their preferred patterns of resource use.

733. MORGAN, JULIAN D. Some Controlling Forces in Kansas Population

Movements. Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas, School of Busi-
ness, 1953.

734. MORRILL, R. L. “The Distribution of Migration Distances.” Regional

735.

 

Science Association Papers and Proceedings, 11 (1963), 75-84.

Concern here is with the theoretical aspects of the distribution of
migration distances. Theoretical curves and some empirical distribu-
tions and the functions fitted to them are shown. The pure distance
functions can be modified to include variations in the density of
populations.

and F. R. PITTS. “Marriage, Migration and the Mean Information
Field.” Annals of Association of American Geographers, 57 (June 1967),
401-422.

Information fields, defined as “measures of tendency to communi-
cate over distance,” are useful to simulate or describe geographic
movement of people. The distance-frequency aspects of fields may be
described by curves of close fit, the appropriate function depending on
data under consideration. Four types of curves used in such analysis
are discussed: Pareto, lognormal, exponential, and Pareto-exponential.
Exponential functions are found better for permanent, costly moves
(migration).

736. MORRISON, PETER A. Demographic Information for Cities: A Manual for

7317.

738.

 

 

Estimating and Projecting Local Population Characteristics. Santa
Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1971.

. Dimensions of the Population Problem in the United States. A
Report to the Commission on Population Growth and the American
Future. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1972.

. Future Urban Growth and the Nonmetropolitan Population: Poli-
cies for Coping With Local Decline. P-4801. Santa Monica, Calif.: The
Rand Corp., 1972.

Discusses the chronic population decline found in many U.S. non-
metropolitan and rural areas and concomitant patterns of metropoli-
tan growth, which may culminate in the future in the development of
about 26-29 urban regions. The areas from which outmigration has
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 163

occurred are left with populations that are older, less well educated,
less skilled, and less able to cope with the problems associated with
the declining scale of local economies. Further, these declining areas
cannot provide the infrastructure, quality of labor force, and proxim-
ity to urban centers necessary to attract new industry. In discussing
policy alternatives to deal with lagging area problems, Morrison
presents many ideas developed by Niles M. Hansen. Evidence of the
greatly enhanced economic positions of migrants over nonmigrants
leads to the conclusion that attempts to stop migration are counter-
productive. Particularly important is the finding that new industry
brought into lagging areas disproportionately attracts return mi-
grants with better skills, leaving the original nonmigrants in the area
in essentially the same employment positions. Specific recommenda-
tions to aid declining areas include consolidation of education, health
care delivery, and other social services

*739.

 

. The Impact and Significance of Rural-Urban Migration in the
United States. Testimony presented at Hearings, Migratory Labor
Subcommittee, Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, U.S. Senate,
San Francisco, Calif., Jan. 11, 1972. Publication P-4752. Santa Monica,
Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1972.

Covers determinants of rural-urban migration, effects of the move
on migrants, and impact of migration on origin and destination areas.
Determinants of rural-urban migration are said to be the combined
effects of high rural fertility and shrinking employment. Effects of
migration on migrants are said to be positive. It is not presently
known to what extent the favorable effects are simply the results of a
migration rather than the characteristics of migrants, but migration
is selective of those with higher social status, education, and work
experience.

Presence of friends and relatives in the city, length of time in the
city, and economic success are crucial to migrants’ successful adjust-
ment. Migrants, in general, appear to be happier and see themselves
as better off.

Outmigration can reduce labor surpluses and lessen competition for
scarce resources in origin areas, but it also can. accelerate the
economic decline of rural areas because it is selective of the younger,
better educated, and more skilled and leaves an older, unskilled, less
well educated population. Since the rural labor force is declining in
quality, it is harder to attract industries to these areas, and those who
need the types of workers which would be available are in nongrowth
sectors. Lastly, since these rural areas will spend money on the
education of those from whom the city will benefit, they will get less
return from investment, and the outcome will be an “accumulation of
people in poverty.”

Net inmigration now only contributes one-fifth of total urban
growth and only a fraction of this is rural-urban. Rural poverty is not
transplanted to an urban setting. White and black inmigrants have
slightly higher welfare rates than natives, but evidence shows that
black rural-urban migrants do get off welfare. Increased dependency
in central cities reflects the concentration of the aged, disabled, and
female-headed households.

The increasingly black composition of the cities is not the result of
rural-urban migration but the cumulative effects of previous inmigra-
164 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

tion, compounded by subsequent natural increase of blacks and move-
ment of whites to suburbs. Rural-urban migrants soon become indis-
tinguishable economically from the native urban population of the
same education, age, race, and sex. The author concludes that using
Federal pressure to slow down such migration would seem to be a
serious mistake in light of these basic findings, and a more productive
direction for policy would be to strengthen the effectiveness of rural
outmigration.

740.

 

. Population Distribution Policy: Issues and Objectives. P-4793.
Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1972.

Considers U.S. population redistribution processes, their long-term
implications, and several policies for handling local and regional
redistribution effects. Future trends projected by the Census Bureau
include continued population decline in many central cities, racial
separation within metropolitan areas, and the growth of both the
black and white populations in metropolitan rings. Morrison’s propos-
als for coping with growth in urbanizing areas and decline in lagging
regions follow those outlined by Niles M. Hansen. Special note is made
of environmental problems attending population concentration and
the need to reverse the observable trend toward racial segregation
occurring in the United States.

 

741. . Population Movements and the Shape of Urban Growth: Implica-
tions for Public Policy. A Report to the Commission on Population
Growth and the American Future. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand

Corp., 1972.
742.

 

. Population Movements: Where the Public Interest and Private
Interests Conflict. A Report to the Commission on Population Growth
and the American Future. Santa Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1972.

743.

 

. The Propensity to Move: A Longitudinal Analysis. Santa Monica,
Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1971.

Factors influencing a person’s propensity to move are examined and
traced on an aggregate level for 12 metropolitan areas.

744.

 

. The Rationale for a Policy on Population Distribution. Santa
Monica, Calif.: The Rand Corp., 1970.

The U.S. population crisis concerns spatial distribution rather than
numbers. Our hidden distribution policies may be aggravated if there
is massive commitment to new cities. Four issues he explores in this
paper are: Should a population’s arrangement in space be an issue of
broad public concern? Would policies intrude unavoidably on individu-
als’ freedom to move or reside where they choose? What aspects of
population distribution are appropriate policy targets? What instru-
mental options can be identified? The conclusion is that policies to
promote long-range distribution objectives could focus on promoting
active labor demand at selected growth centers to attract migration-
prone segments of the population, and on intervention in the behav-
ioral process of choosing destinations.

745.

 

. “Unresolved Questions About Population Distribution Policy: An
Agenda for Further Research.” Mimeographed. Santa Monica, Calif.
The Rand Corp., 1971.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 165

 

746. . Urban Growth, New Cities, and the “Population Problem.” P-4515-
1. Santa Monica, Calif.: Rand Corp., 1970.

Situations which govern the redistribution of population presently
occurring in the United States are discussed in the light of national,
regional, and metropolitan perspectives. The rationale behind the
building of new cities to absorb excesses of migrants and population
increase is given and it is shown (through an analysis of forces
involved in intermetropolitan, rural-urban, and central-city-suburb
migratory flows) how unfeasible, even counterproductive, such a new-
cities approach would be. Distribution policies should take advantage
of existing population dynamics and cease to view migration as simply
a numbers problem and an involuntary process.

747. MOSES, EARL RICHARD. “Migrant Negro Youth: A Study of Culture
Conflict and Patterns of Accommodation.” Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1948.

748. MOYES, EARL L. “Attitudes and Plans of Selected Rural and Urban
Students in Idaho to Migrate Upon Graduation from High School.”
Unpublished master’s thesis, Utah State University, 1957.

A study of the plans and attitudes of 132 seniors in rural high
schools of Jefferson County, Idaho, and of 133 seniors in the urban
high school at Idaho Falls for the 1955-56 school year was conducted.
A larger percentage of urban than rural students felt they would stay
in their present communities. However, a larger percent of the urban
than rural group felt they would have to leave Idaho. Three times as
many rural as urban students were undecided or had no choice of
occupation, while three times as many urban as rural students
thought fulfilling their occupational choices would force them to move.
A much higher proportion of urban than rural students did not plan to
attend college. Attitudes toward present residence were found to have
influenced rural students’ plans to migrate, while these were not
important for the urban group. Of all students scoring below average
on IQ tests, a larger proportion of rural than urban students planned
to move. Family relations were found to have influenced only the
urban group in their migration plans. Personal and social adjustment
scores had no relationship to intention to migrate.

749. MUELLER, EVA, and NANCY BARTH. Migration Into and Out of De-
pressed Areas. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Area
Redevelopment Administration, 1964.

The authors present results from one phase of a study conducted at
the University of Michigan (see Lansing and Mueller, The Geographic
Mobility of Labor, 606). Data for this special investigation were ob-
tained from interviews of families in 74 depressed areas completed
between August 1962 and November 1963. Most population loss from
these areas has been the result of relatively small amounts of inmi-
gration rather than of large amounts of outmigration, although the
absolute amount of inmigration to these areas is substantial and
appears to consist largely of returnees. One factor inhibiting outmi-
gration is lack of reliable information concerning employment oppor-
tunities elsewhere. The advanced age and low incomes and educa-
tional levels of the remaining population in these areas further
discourage outmigration.
166 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

 

750. and WILLIAM LADD. Negro-White Differences in Geographic Mobil-
ity. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Commerce, Area Redevelop-
ment Administration, 1964.
(See 606.)

751. and JANE LEAN. “The Case Against Migration.” New Generation,

50(3) (Summer 1968), 7-8.

In making the case against migration, Mueller and Lean present
findings and conclusions from several studies. Outmigration gradually
deprives depressed areas of some of the most desirable elements of
their labor force—the young, the well educated, and the skilled. In
time, the remaining population of depressed areas will gradually show
a reduced mobility potential, and increasingly strong economic incen-
tives may be required to maintain net outmigration. Survey data
suggest that even strong negative pressures (the “push”) are only
moderately successful in inducing people to abandon depressed areas;
the “pull” provided by awareness of attractive opportunities else-
where is crucial. Depressed areas experience a net loss of population
not only because of outmigration but also, and primarily, because they
attract fewer inmigrants than do other areas. It appears that moving
industry into depressed areas is not necessarily a more feasible or
more promising alternative than migration. Two things needed to
assist depressed areas include a system providing information about
job opportunities elsewhere and programs to improve the quality and
mobility potential of the labor force.

752. MUGGE, ROBERT H. “Negro Migrants in Atlanta.” Microfilm 5337 F.

Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago, Department of Photoduplication,
1957.

753. MUMEY, GLEN A. “The Parity Ratio and Agricultural Outmigration.”
Southern Economic Journal, 26(1) (July 1959), 63-66.
Data for 1922-29 and 1946-56 showed that higher farm incomes had
had no effect on the rate of off-farm migration.

754. MURPHY, BETTY. “Arizona Job Colleges: Defeating the Dependency
Syndrome.” Opportunity, 2(5) (June 1972), 4-11.

Arizona Job Colleges (AJC), a nonprofit, private corporation, were
established as a demonstration project in residential family rehabili-
tation of the rural poor in Casa Grande, Pinal County, Ariz. Services
offered include vocational training, remedial education, parent-child
development, home living and management, recreation, personal
counseling, and medical care. Eighteen of the first 19 graduates of the
program have been employed in skilled technical positions since the
end of AJC training. The average income of the original nine AJC
families is now $9,097 per year, a threefold increase over pretraining
levels. Professionals involved in the program seem to have found some
important techniques in helping the former migrants handle the small
daily problems which for them are the crises often cited as crucial
factors in migrants’ failures to adapt.

755. MURPHY, CHARLES P. “Significance of Rural Population Trends for the
Farmer of the Future.” In Farmers of the Future: A Report of the
Columbia University Seminar on Rural Life. New York: Columbia
University, Teachers College, Bureau of Publications, 1953. Pp. 10-18.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 167

756. MURPHY, H. B. M. “Migration and the Major Mental Disorders: A
Reappraisal.” Mobility and Mental Health. Edited by Mildred B. Kan-
tor. Springfield, Ill.: Charles C Thomas, 1965. Ch. 1, pp. 5-29.

Discusses the three theories of the relationship between migration
and mental illness prevalent when the first studies of mental hospital-
ization rates were made. The prevailing theory today is that stresses
of the migration are the most likely precipitants of mental disorder.
Consideration of the merits of using data on mental hospital admis-
sions as adequate measures of mental disorder focuses on variables
which might both affect mental hospitalization rates and be abnor-
mally distributed in migrant populations.

757. MURPHY, RAYMOND J. “Stratification and Mental Illness: Issues and
Strategies for Research.” In Changing Perspectives in Mental Illness.
Edited by S. C. Plog and R. B. Edgerton. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1969. Pp. 312-336.

758. MURPHY, W. B. “The Rural-Urban Balance.” Vital Speeches, 32(2) (Nov.
1965). 53.

759. MUTH, RICHARD. “Migration: Chicken or Egg.” Southern Economic
Journal, 37(1) (Jan. 1971), 295-306. Reply: Mazek, Warren F., and
Chang, John, “The Chicken or Egg Fowl-up in Migration,” 39(1) (July
1972), 133-139. Rejoinder: Muth, Richard, 39(1) (July 1972), 139-141.

This interchange deals with the relationship between migration and
the growth of employment in cities.

760. MYERS, GEORGE C. “Health Effects of Urbanization and Migration.” In
Proceedings of the International Population Conference, 1969. Vol. IV.
Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population,
1971. P. 2950.

As a step toward discovering the health effects of urbanization,
Myers developed a framework for examining the influence of migra-
tion and migration status on the health patterns of people born
outside cities. Such patterns were classified into selection, transmis-
sion, exposure, and adaptation components. The utility of the model
with reference to recent epidemiological and other medically oriented
research is examined.

761. NAM, CHARLES B., and JAMES D. COWHIG. Factors Related to College
Attendance of Farm and Nonfarm High School Graduates. 1960 Cen-
sus-ERS, P-27, No. 32. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing
Office, 1962.

A national sample of students showed that those in farm families
were less likely than others to have plans to attend college, and that

girls in all sizes of residence were less likely than boys to have such
plans.

762. NANJUNDAPPA, G. “Differentials in Occupational Attachments of Intra-
and Inter-Regional Rural and Urban Migrants and Nonmigrants in
the United States in 1967.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Univer-
sity of Georgia, in process.

763. NASH, E. F. “Rural Migration: The Economic Background.” In Rural
Migration. Papers presented to the First Congress of the European

Society for Rural Sociology. Bonn: Privately published, 1959. Pp. 445-
453.
168 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

764. NASH, RUTH C., ED. Rural Youth in a Changing Environment. Report of

765.

766.

767.

768.

769.

770.

771.

772.

a National Conference sponsored by the National Committee for
Children and Youth, Inc., and Oklahoma State University. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Committee for Children and Youth, Inc., 1965.
Summaries of special section proceedings of particular interest are

“Perspectives on Rural Youth Employment,” by Samuel V. Merrick,
and “The Spanish-Speaking Youth: From Farm to City,” by Horacio
Ulibarri.

NASRAT, MOHAMED M. E. “Conceptual Variable Analysis of Rural
Migration in Iowa.” Dissertation Abstracts, 19(3) (1958), 564-565.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT. Rural Poverty:
Conference Proceedings. Washington, D.C.: National Association for
Community Development, 1967.

NATIONAL GOALS RESEARCH STAFF. Toward Balanced Growth: Quantity
and Quality. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH. Proceedings of the Rural-
Urban Migration Conference. Bethesda, Md.: U.S. Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, National Institutes of Health, Na-
tional Institute of Mental Health, 1964.

NATIONAL SHARECROPPERS FUND, BOARD OF DIRECTORS. Memorandum
on Policy and Programs to End Poverty in Rural America. New York:
National Sharecroppers Fund, 1966.

NEAL, ERNEST E., and LEWIS W. JONES. “The Place of the Negro Farmer
in the Changing Economy of the Cotton South.” Rural Sociology, 15(1)
(Mar. 1950), 30-41.

NELSEN, HART M., and ANNE K. NELSEN. Bibliography on Appalachia: A
Guide to Studies Dealing With Appalachia in General and Including
Rural and Urban Working Class Attitudes Toward Religion, Education
and Social Change. Bowling Green, Ky.: Western Kentucky Univer-
sity, College of Commerce, Office of Research and Services, 1967.

 

and HUGH P. WHITT. “Religion and the Migrant in the City: A
Test of Holt’s Cultural Shock Thesis.” Social Forces, 50 (Mar. 1972),
379-384.

Appalachian migrants in Detroit are not experiencing culture shock
and turning to “sect-like religious expressions.”

773. NELSON, LOWRY. “Migration of the Rural Population.” Rural Sociology.

774.

775

New York: American Book Co., 1948. Pp. 122-146.

 

. “Selectivity of Migrants From Minnesota Farms.” Proceedings of
the Minnesota Academy of Science, 16-18 (1948-50), 44-52.

Using 1940 census data to investigate off-farm migration in Minne-
sota, Nelson found that migrants were generally young and better
educated than nonmigrants, and that a larger proportion of outmi-
grants were female.

. NELSON, PHILLIP. “Migration, Real Income, and Information.” Journal
of Regional Science, 1 (Spring 1959), 43-74.
“Relatives and friends provide a unifying principle for the variables
determining migration. The money income hypothesis determines
which variables will affect migration, but the relatives and friends
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 169

multiplier determines the relative importance of these variables. In
short, this analysis has shown that systematic implications can be
deduced from other behavior than money income maximization and
that these implications are consistent with the behavior of migration.
However, difficulties are encountered in differentiating between the
two most obvious causes of the power of relatives and friends: real
income and information. There is some evidence that both operate.”

776.

 

. “A Study in the Geographical Mobility of Labor.” Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1957.

From an investigation of interstate migration using 1935-40 and
1949-50 census data, Nelson concluded that since migration rates were
related to distance, destination income, and destination unemploy-
ment levels, among other things, labor market information plays an
important role in determining the migration patterns.

777. NEOG, PRAFULLA, RICHARD G. WOODS, and ARTHUR M. HARKINS. Chi-
cago Indians: The Effects of Urban Migration. Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota, Training Center for Community Programs,
1970.

In a study of Indian clients of the St. Augustine Center in Chicago,
the authors found that the employment practices of the day-labor
agencies in the city support the existence of temporary employment
among Indians and, thus, their “labor exploitation.” About half of the
Indian migrants studied had arrived in the city within the previous 3
years. They had experienced familial and financial problems and poor
living conditions, all of which resulted in high rates of intracity
mobility. Whether or not Indians had high school diplomas made no
difference in their occupational levels. It was found that most had had
to get emergency funds.

778. NEUBERGER, RICHARD L. “Why People Are Moving to Town.” Survey,
87(3) (Mar. 1951), 119-122.

779. New Generation. “Dialogue: Rural Poverty-Flight or Fight?” New Gener-
ation, 50(3) (Summer 1968), 21-32.

Net rural-urban movement has consisted of 500,000 to 600,000 per-
sons per year, mostly young adults between ages 17 and 30. Negro
youths constitute one-eighth of rural youth, but 20-25 percent of the
outmigration. Forced mobility affects a higher proportion of rural
Negroes than rural whites, and there is a question as to how much
migration actually is involuntary. Redevelopment of rural areas must
be considered in terms of what we want these areas to be like in the
next 100 years. The effect of a guaranteed annual income on rural
poverty would be to relieve blacks of the burden of dealing with local
welfare agencies. While cooperatives enable people to stay in rural
areas and some of these have been successful, it is doubtful whether
they could provide a solution to the problems of rural youths.

#780. NEWMAN, DOROTHY K. “The Negro’s Journey to the City, Parts I and
11.” Monthly Labor Review (May 1965), 503-507 (June 1965), 644-650.

This paper is divided into two parts. Part I concerns the housing,

occupations, and education of Negro migrants, and Part II contains

comparisons of black migrants with earlier inmigrants. The focus is on

results of migration in terms of jobs, income, and housing, and on

indicators of motivation, including interest in schooling and training.
170

781

782.

783.

784.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

The conclusion is that Negroes do not lack aspiration and motivation
but make intensive attempts to improve and to grasp opportunities, as
is evidenced by their willingness to migrate.

. NICHOLLS, WILLIAM H. “The Effects of Industrial Development on

Tennessee Valley Agriculture, 1900-1950.” Journal of Farm Econom-
ics, 64 (1956), 277-302, 400-415.

. “Industrialization, Factor Markets and Agricultural Develop-
ment.” Journal of Political Economy, 64 (Aug. 1961), 319-340.

NORTH CAROLINA FUND, MOBILITY PROJECT. Final Report. Report sub-

mitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Manpower Policy,
Evaluation and Research. Durham, N.C.: North Carolina Fund, Mobil-
ity Project, 1968.

—— “Report No. 1: Background and Design of the Study.” Durham,

N.C.: North Carolina Fund, Mobility Project, 1966.

785. NORTH CAROLINA STATE UNIVERSITY, AGRICULTURAL POLICY INSTI-

786.

787.

788.

789

 

 

TUTE. The Farmer and Migration in the United States. Papers pre-
sented at a research workshop. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State
University, Agricultural Policy Institute, 1961.

Presents results of a workshop in which participants evaluated
research becoming available on migration, analyzed research prob-
lems, reviewed findings of studies, and considered possibilities for
further research. Abstracts and summaries are given for more than 25
studies.

. Policies Affecting Rural People. Series 20. Raleigh, N.C.: North
Carolina State University, Agricultural Policy Institute, 1966.

. Problems of Chronically Depressed Rural Areas. Raleigh, N.C.:
North Carolina State University, Agricultural Policy Institute, 1965.

OFFICE OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY. Transcript of Proceedings: Confer-

ence on Migration Research. Dec. 4-5, 1969. 2 vols. Washington, D.C.:
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc., 1969.

. OGBURN, W. F. “Size of Community as a Factor in Migration.” Sociology

and Social Research, 28 (1944), 255-261.

Ogburn notes that, prior to Jane Moore's classic study (731) of
Stockholm, in which she found that inmigrants to the city came more
from towns than from agricultural areas, people thought that mi-
grants were “farm boys going to the city.” Using 1940 census data,
Ogburn found that towns (all size places of 2,500 or more) contributed
relatively more of the migrants to large cities in the United States
than did rural areas. Factors involved in the first stage of movement
(rural-town) appeared different from that for the second stage (town-
city).

790. O'HARA, JAMES. “Disadvantaged Newcomers in the City.” NEA Journal,

52(4) (Apr. 1963).

791. OHIO, STATE OF, BUREAU OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION, DIVISION

OF RESEARCH AND STATISTICS. The Mobile, Unemployed Worker: A
Labor Mobility Study of Unemployed Workers Who Migrated to Colum-
bus, Ohio from Other States. Columbus, Ohio: Ohio State Bureau of
Unemployment Compensation, 1962.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 171

792. OHLENDORF, GEORGE W., and WILLIAM P. KUVLESKY. “Racial Differ-
ences in the Educational Orientations of Rural Youth.” Social Science
Quarterly, 49(2) (Sept. 1968), 274-283.

793. OKUN, BERNARD, and RICHARD W. RICHARDSON. “Regional Income
Inequality and Internal Population Migration.” Economic Develop-
ment and Cultural Change, 9 (Jan. 1961), 128-143.

Attempts to assess the effects of regional migration on regional per
capita income inequalities. It concludes that no one generalization can
be made about the effect of internal migration on regional inequality
of per capita income, but that the effects depend on the types of
regions involved.

794. OLSON, PHILIP G. Job Mobility and Migration in a High Income Rural
Community. Research Bulletin 708. Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue Univer-
sity, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1960.

795. OMARI, THOMPSON PETER. “Factors Associated With Urban Adjustment
of Rural Southern Migrants.” Social Forces, 35 (Oct. 1956), 47-52.
From a study of the adjustment of 200 black migrants over 18 years
of age who had lived in Beloit, Wis., for at least 1 year, Omari found
that relatives play an important role in the migrants’ successful
adjustments, although adjustment depends in part on factors and
situations existing prior to migration. Length of city residence was
the most significant factor influencing adjustment.

796. ORGANIZATION FOR ECONOMIC COOPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT. Meas-
ures of Adjustment of Rural Manpower to Industrial Work and Urban
Areas. Washington, D.C.: Organization for Economic Cooperation and
Development Publications Center, 1968.

Includes summaries of extant U.S. programs designed to enable and
facilitate the transfer of rural labor to industrial, urban work and life.

*797. ORGANIZATION FOR SOCIAL AND TECHNICAL INNOVATION. An Assessment
of Six Labor Mobility Demonstration Projects. Final Report submitted
to the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administration. Cam-
bridge, Mass.: Organization for Social and Technical Innovation, 1967.

Six labor mobility projects (LMP’s) were examined in an attempt to
define common program elements, kinds of mobility assistance re-
quired by different groups, the most effective types of aid available,
and important factors crucial to the functioning of such projects. The
programs assessed include those operated privately by the North
Carolina Fund, the Arizona Council of Churches, and Northern Michi-
gan University, and publicly by the Employment Security Commis-
sions of New York, Virginia, and Missouri. Four of the projects
involved rural-urban relocation. For each project studied, one origin
area and one destination area were selected for onsite observation.

It was found that there is a limit to the number of workers LMP
projects in their observed form can relocate which is imposed by
economic, social, and residential factors in origin and destination
areas, by the difficulty of finding jobs for unskilled, poorly educated
workers even in areas of labor demand, and by implicit project
objectives. Expanded LMP’s probably could only relocate a fraction of
the outmigrants from some origin areas who, in fact, could qualify for
relocation but move on their own. In rural origin areas, growers often
actively oppose LMP’s, and those operated by employment security
172

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

commissions are particularly vulnerable to local grower pressures
because of the way they operate. Other local persons do not want to
see the relocation of their skilled, experienced, well-educated workers
or youth. The LMP’s tend to select only the most employable of
qualified relocatees. The numbers of jobs available in some destina-
tion areas are the result of high labor turnover and low wages; the
ability of industries which use cheap labor to provide secure employ-
ment is doubtful. Few LMP’s can write on-the-job-training contracts.
Many employers expect relocatees to be more stable and skilled than
those they hire through other methods. All LMP’s experienced high
return rates, unemployment, and further migration among relocatees.
Some workers returned home for such non-job-related reasons as
loneliness, illness in the family, or inability to adjust in the city.
Amount of housing available in destination areas often is small, yet
LMP’s often reduce this supply further by requiring relocatees to
move into standard and/or integrated dwellings. Many LMP’s encour-
age workers to buy homes because it increases their stability, even
though this may represent a grave economic risk for the relocatee.
Counseling provided by LMP’s to aid the adjustment of rural-urban
relocatees is meager. No statistical data are provided to support the
findings and recommendations.

798. OSBURN, D. D. “Returns to Investment in Human Migration.” Unpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, North Carolina State University, 1966.
The costs of, and returns to, migration to Greensboro and Winston-
Salem, N.C., were measured. Families moving into these areas from
outside counties in 1960 or after were considered migrants. Two
hundred fifty-four white and black families were interviewed in June
and July 1965. Costs were defined as direct costs, forgone earnings,
and other outlays. The average direct cost for whites was $118, while
that for blacks was $44. Average forgone earnings were $450 for both
races. Of all migrants, 32 percent of whites but 53 percent of blacks
incurred forgone-earnings costs. The average total costs for whites
was $266, and for blacks was $283. The rates of return on investment
in migration were determined by finding the interest rate at which
the sum of the lifetime income advantage made through inmigrating
was equal to the total moving cost adjusted for mortality rates. Whites
received a 106-percent rate return investment; blacks, a 132-percent
rate. When lifetime income differences were discounted by 20 percent
and the resulting figure was divided by the cost of moving, it was
found that white migrants made about $9 for every $1 invested, and
black migrants, $4 for every $1. Psychic costs were not evaluated.

799. OYLER, MERTON D. Fertility Rates and Migration of Kentucky Popula-

800.

 

tion, 1920 to 1940, as Related to Communication, Income and Educa-
tion. Bulletin 469. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1944.

. Neighborhood Standing and Population Changes in Johnson and
Robertson Counties, Kentucky. Bulletin 523. Lexington, Ky.: Univer-
sity of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1948.

801. PAGLIN, M. “Surplus Agricultural Labor and Development: Facts and

Theories.” American Economic Review, 55 (Sept. 1965), 815-834.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 173

802. PALMER, D. H. “Moving North: Migration of Negroes During World War

1.” Phylon, 28 (Spring 1967), 52-62.

The mass migration of blacks out of the South began about 1914,
when northern factories needed laborers and southern agriculture
was having trouble with the boll weevil. In 1920, 73 percent of the
blacks in the North were in 10 cities: Indianapolis, Detroit-Toledo,
Cleveland-Youngstown, Kansas City, Pittsburgh, Columbus-Cincin-
nati, St. Louis, Chicago, Philadelphia, and New York. The social,
economic, and political conditions of Negroes in the South and the
South’s adverse reaction to its increasing loss of black workers are
described.

803. PALOMARES, UvALDO H. “A Study of the Role of Mobility in the

Acculturation Process of Rural Migrant and Nonmigrant Disadvan-
taged Mexican-Americans in the Coachella Valley.” Dissertation Ab-
stracts, 28(10-A) (1968), 4008.

*804. PARK, ROBERT E. “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” American

Journal of Sociology, 33(6) (May 1928), 881-893.

One result of human migration can be that an individual from one
culture finds himself trying to live in another culture, or trying to live
in two diverse cultural groups. The effect of this situation is to
produce “the marginal man,” in whose mind the “conflicting cultures
meet and fuse.” Park believed the crisis or transition period is more or
less a permanent thing in the mind of the torn individual.

805. PARKER, SEYMOUR, and ROBERT J. KLEINER. “Status Position, Mobility,

806.

 

and Ethnic Identification of the Negro.” Journal of Social Issues (Apr.
1964), 85-102.

, ROBERT J. KLEINER, and B. NEEDLEMAN. “Migration and Mental
Illness: Some Considerations and Suggestions for Further Analysis.”
Social Science and Medicine, 3(1) (Apr. 1969), 1-9.

The authors found that “culture shock” is an inadequate variable,
for explaining variations in rates of mental illness between and among
various migratory groups, but that such things as reference-group
orientation, goal striving, and self-esteem are useful. In this study
urban migrants showed higher rates of mental illness than rural
migrants. Since so broad a concept as “migration” may or may not be
accompanied by sociopsychological factors, a more individualized or
particular definition for unique situations seems warranted.

807. PARR, JOHN B. “Outmigration and the Depressed Area Problem.” Land

Economics, 42 (May 1966), 149-159.

In examining the effects of outmigration as a means to easing labor
surplus problems of depressed areas, Parr concludes that there is a
widespread resistance to migration out of depressed areas. Outmigra-
tion of labor does not necessarily solve an area’s problem and may, in
fact, exacerbate it. Where outmigration leads to total population
decline, employment in market-oriented activities is likely to be ad-
versely affected, taxes will increase, and there will be a drop in quality
of public services, which might lead to shutdown of firms in the export
sector, further aggravating the unemployment problem. Outmigration
can be an indirect cause of unemployment as well as a relief in a labor-
surplus area; it does not really solve the depressed area problem.
174 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

808. PARSONS, HOWARD L. “The Effect of Fluctuations in National Income
on the Supply of Farm Workers: An Inquiry into the Cyclical Aspects
of Rural-Urban Migration.” In The Impact of Fluctuations in National
Income on Agricultural Wages and Employment. Harvard Studies in
Labor in Agriculture 1-HL. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1952. Pp. 31-55.

From an analysis of 1920-45 data, Parsons found that employment
opportunities were the most important factor in affecting off-farm
migration rates.

809. PAYNE, RAYMOND. “Development of Occupational and Migration Expec-
tations and Choices Among Urban, Small Town, and Rural Adolescent
Boys.” Rural Sociology, 21(2) (June 1956), 117-125.

Data were obtained on occupational, migration, and educational
expectations from 438 8th- and 12th-grade boys in a Georgia county.
Expectations for educational attainment, migration, and future occu-
pation were greatly influenced by informal interpersonal contact.
Educational expectations were formed prior to occupational expecta-
tions, which were generally higher than father’s achieved oceupa-
tional status. Formal counseling played a very minor part in 5
development of occupational expectations, and most respondents
planned to have to move from the home community when starting
work.

810. PEARSON, J. E. “The Significance of Housing in Rural-Urban Migra-
tion.” Land Economics (Aug. 1963), 231-239.

Using 1949-50 census data, Pearson concluded that adequate hous-
ing in large cities is not a pull factor in rural-urban migration, that
inadequate housing in large cities is not a factor in the urban-rural
backmovement, and that housing in large cities, whether adequate or
inadequate, is not a significant factor in net rural-urban migration.

811. PEDERSEN, HARALD A. “The Costs of Migration.” In The Church in the
Changing Community. Sociology and Rural Life Conference Series 2.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, 1956.

812.

 

. “Family Mobility—Rural and Urban.” In Family Mobility in Our
Dynamic Society. Prepared by Center for Agricultural and Economic
Adjustment, Towa State University. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State Univer-
sity Press, 1965. Pp. 58-65.

813.

 

. “Migration From Mississippi.” Information Sheet 536. State
College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1956.

. “Migration from State Shown in Plantation Study.” Mississippi
Farm Research, 16(12) (Dec. 1953), 1, 4, 7-8.

. “Population Prospects for the Delta.” Information Sheet 470.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, 1952.

814.

 

 

815.

816.

 

. Population Trends and Labor on Southern Farms, 1940-1950.
Circular 168. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, 1951.

817.

 

. Selectivity in Rural-Urban Migration. Circular 190. State College,
Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1953.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 175

Pedersen found that heavy outmigration had left a large plantation
in Mississippi with a very high dependency ratio.

 

818. and WILLIS J. ROBERTSON. Migration of High School Graduates
From a Mississippi Community. Community Series 6. State College,
Miss.: Mississippi State University, Social Science Research Center,
1954.

819. and LEILA THOMAS. Estimated Population Trends in Mississippi

 

1950-1956. Bulletin 550. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State Univer-
sity, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1957.

820. PERKINS, BRIAN B. “Labor Mobility between the Farm and the Nonfarm
Sector.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State Univer-
sity, 1964.

and DALE E. HATHAWAY. The Movement of Labor between Farm
and Nonfarm Jobs. Research Bulletin 13. East Lansing, Mich.: Michi-
gan State University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1966.

The research reported here is based on a Social Security Continuous
Work History sample for 1955-59. Gross transfer from farm to nonfarm
employment averaged slightly over 14 percent for the period studied.
Substantial backmovement into farming, associated with nonfarm
unemployment levels, reduced the average net reduction in farm
employment to only 3.5 percent. Mobility rates off farms were higher
for youth, for those with previous nonfarm job experience, and for
those holding multiple jobs. Black mobility rates were not higher than
white, and there was no significant relationship between income and
off-farm mobility. Those who made income gains stayed off-farm, while
those who sustained losses returned. The 1957-58 recession coincided
with reduced gross outmovement from farms and increased backmove-
ment to farms. The bias arising from the selectivity of workers
covered by Social Security (from whom the sample was drawn) should
be considered in interpreting these findings.

*821.

 

822. PERSKY, JOSEPH J., and JOHN F. KAIN. “Migration, Employment and
Race in the Deep South.” Southern Economic Journal, 36(3) (Jan.
1970), 268-276.

In investigating the effect of the nonmetropolitan Deep South’s
racial employment distribution on the racial composition of outmigra-
tion, Persky and Kain developed an employment-migration model.
Results confirmed the hypothesis that the employment distribution
does affect the racial composition of outmigration. Factors which
would need to be considered in a Government decision to encourage,
halt, or reverse migration out of the South are noted.

*823. PETERSEN, GENE B., and LAURE SHARP. Southern Migrants to Cleve-
land: Work and Social Adjustment of Recent In-Migrants Living in
Low-Income Neighborhoods. Final report submitted to the U.S. De-
partment of Labor, Manpower Administration, Contract 81-09-66-27.
Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science Research, Inc., 1969.

In studying southern inmigrants to Cleveland, the researchers’
purpose was “. . . to locate and assess the channels and barriers to
adjustment, primarily by studying their experiences over time and by
comparing them with those of their long-time resident neighbors.”
The sample of black and white males and females comprised 700 who
had lived in Cleveland less than 2 years, slightly over 600 who had
176

824.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

been there 2 to 5 years, and slightly more than 400 who had been there
more than 10 years. The authors indicate that clustering of the white
sample at the middle- and low-income range and of the black sample
among upper incomes, and differential male-female criteria for inclu-
sion in the sample may have introduced bias.

The association noted between the independent variables raises
questions about the multiple regression analysis. It was found that
the majority of migrants came directly to Cleveland from their home
States—most whites from West Virginia and bordering States and most
Negroes from Alabama and contiguous States. It is suggested that
whites come to Cleveland for jobs, while Negroes come seeking better
jobs. Recent migrants appeared to have more relevant work experi-
ence and higher skill levels than those who had arrived earlier. White
males had the highest and black females the lowest premigration
wages. The majority of all groups but black females moved to Cleve-
land for job or wage reasons. The second most important factor was
desire to accompany or join family, relatives, or friends. Black mi-
grants were better educated than white migrants, although less likely
to be married and living with spouse.

In finding their first and subsequent jobs, most respondents relied
primarily on friends and relatives and secondarily on going directly to
prospective employers and using newspaper ads. Males entered the
labor force more rapidly than females, and whites found jobs slightly
faster than blacks. Qualifications and experience frequently counted
little in acquisition of first Cleveland jobs. Whites were able to obtain
jobs as operatives without previous skills, but blacks got operative
jobs only with previous experience. Blacks were more likely than
whites to be dissatisfied with their jobs and looking for other work.
Whites had easier entrance into labor unions.

Over time, the absolute status of black male migrants improved, yet
their status relative to whites declined. Unemployment was excessive
among females. Access to benefits of a liberal welfare system was of
minor importance in migration. Welfare recipiency was especially high
for white females. Blacks were less likely to be considering another
move than whites, who were more likely to be considering a move back
home.

, LAURE SHARP, and ELAINE EL-KHAWAS. Providing Train ing and
Job-Finding Assistance to Disadvantaged Southern In-Migrants to
Cleveland. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Man-
power Administration, Office of Special Manpower Programs, Contract
82-09-67-54. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science Research,
Ine., 1970.

825. PETERSEN, WILLIAM. “A General Typology of Migration.” American

826.

 

Sociological Review, 23(3) (June 1958), 256-266.

Petersen defines two types of migration (innovative and conserva-
tive), distinguishes five broad classes of migration (primitive, forced,
impelled, free, and mass), and discusses the forces behind these
movements.

. “Internal Migration and Economic Development.” In The Politics
of Population. New York: Anchor Books, 1965. Pp. 291-300.
8217.

828

829.

830

831.

832

833.

834.

835.

836.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 177

. “Internal Migration and Economic Development in North Amer-
ica.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,
316 (Mar. 1958), 52-59.

. PETERSON, CLAIRE L. “When the Migrant Laborer Settles Down: A

Report of the Findings of a Project on Value-Assimilation Among
Immigrant Laborers.” Mimeographed. Madison, Wis.: University of
Wisconsin, 1964.

and THOMAS J. SCHEFF. “Theory, Method and Findings in the
Study of Acculturation: A Review.” International Review of Commu-
nity Development, No. 13-14 (1965), 155-176.

. PETTY, JULIAN J. “South Carolina Population Redistribution.” Univer-

sity of South Carolina Business and Economic Review, T (May 1961), 1-
4.

. 20th Century Changes in South Carolina Population. Study
prepared for the State Organization for Associated Research, SOAR
Report 5A-USC 1962. Columbia, S.C.: University of South Carolina,
Bureau of Business and Economic Research, 1962.

. PHILLIPS, COY T. “Population Distribution and Trends in North Caro-

lina.” Journal of Geography, 55(4) (Apr. 1956), 182-194.

PHOTIADIS, JOHN D. Changes in the Rural Southern Appalachian Com-

munity. Research Series 7. Morgantown, W. Va.: University of West
Virginia, Appalachian Center, 1968.

. “Corollaries of Migration.” Sociological Quarterly, 6(4) (Autumn
1965), 339-348.

In this analysis, based on 1960 census data for Minnesota, county
net migration was the dependent variable. Independent variables
considered were rural-farm population, part-time farmers, average
age, total county population, employment in manufacturing, low-
income families, decrease in number of farms (1950-60), average size of
farm, and percentage of dwellings of sound construction with all
plumbing fixtures present. The only variables found independently
related to migration (while all others were held constant) were propor-
tion of low-income families, proportion of dwellings of sound construc-
tion with all plumbing fixtures present, and average size of farms.

. “Extension Aims and Modern Society.” Mimeographed. Morgan-
town, W. Va.: West Virginia University, Appalachian Center, Office of
Research and Development, 1969.

. Population of Minnesota 1950-1960. Bulletin 468. Minneapolis,
Minn.: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1963.

Minnesota counties showing more than a 10-percent decrease of
population in 1950-60 contained no urban centers. Counties with the
greatest gains were those in the St. Paul-Minneapolis area. The total
rural population declined from 45.5 percent in 1950 to 37.9 percent in
1960. The rural-farm group lost more people than the rural-nonfarm
group gained, and the percentage of the population which was rural-
farm declined from 25.8 percent in 1950 to 17.2 percent in 1960. Rural-
nonfarm areas had the highest proportions of those aged 65 and over.
178 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

*837.

 

. Selected Social and Sociopsychological Characteristics of West
Virginians in Their Own State and in Cleveland, Ohio. Final report
submitted to the U.S. Department of Labor, Manpower Administra-
tion, Office of Manpower Research. Morgantown, W. Va.: University of
West Virginia, Appalachian Center, 1970.

Analysis is based on 1,700 cases, of whom 890 never migrated, 167
were migrants in the Appalachian ghetto of Cleveland, 383 were
migrants in Cleveland suburbs, and 235 were returnees. The study is
organized around the proposition that in order to satisfy societal
expectations in terms of income and level of living, people often,
regardless of fitness, move to the city where implementation of such
expectations may be possible. In Cleveland people first move to the
ghetto. As they secure new skills in terms of occupation and under-
standing of the urban culture, a considerable number move to the
suburbs. Suburbanites are physically healthier, slightly older, more
educated and skilled, value family life more, and see society as more
orderly than those who remain in the ghetto. Suburbanites fit the
lower middle class stereotype.

Those who remain in the ghetto tend to be younger, semiskilled,
newer in Cleveland, and less stable in job holding than the suburban-
ites. They have relatively high incomes but low levels of living and
place less value on material comfort and recreation. These people do
not like the Appalachian style of life as much as the others nor do they
feel themselves to be part of the larger community. They express
strong religious beliefs but participate in church less than the other
groups studied.

The returnees tend to be older, unskilled, and with lower incomes
and levels of living than the other groups studied even though they
express a higher value orientation toward achievement. Although a
majority of the returnees would be classed as unsuccessful, 10
percent of the returnees are professional and a few are skilled
workers. The returnees and the ghetto migrants have lower incomes
than the nonmigrants or suburbanites.

The report provides much detailed data, but important control
variables are not always considered.

 

838. . West Virginians in Their Own State and in Cleveland, Ohio:
Summary and Conclusions of a Comparative Study. Information Re-
port 3. Morgantown, W. Va.: University of West Virginia, Cooperative
Extension Work in Agriculture and Home Economics, and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture cooperating, 1970.

This 18-page report summarizes information from the study de-
scribed in detail in the previous annotation.

839. PIHLBLAD, C. T., and C. L. GREGORY. “Occupations and Patterns of
Migration.” Social Forces, 36(1) (Oct. 1957), 56-64.

Students who performed better on test scores were more migratory,
moved longer distances, and settled in places of greater population
size. Measured intelligence was related to occupational choice. Most
migration from small towns in Missouri had been selective of profes-
sionals, students, and skilled workers. Additionally, more of these
groups than others moved to the West. The process of occupational
selection appears responsible for the tendency of those with higher
IQ’s to move more often, farther, to larger cities, and to the West or
Northeast.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 179

840.

 

 

and . “Selective Aspects of Migration among Missouri High
School Graduates.” American Sociological Review, 19(3) (June 1954),
314-324.

(See 839.)

841. PIORE, MICHAEL J. “Negro Workers in the Mississippi Delta: Problems of
Displacement and Adjustment.” Paper presented at the 20th Annual
Meeting of the Industrial Relations Research Association, Washing-
ton, D.C., Dec. 1967.

Discusses the factors involved in the displacement of black farm
laborers in the Mississippi Delta and the failure of existing job
programs now in the hands of whites to train black workers for
available and future expected jobs. It is noted that many black leaders
in the Delta see the displacement of black workers as a conspiracy to
force blacks to move out of the region.

842. PLOCH, L. A. “Grass Is Always Greener.” Maine Agricultural Experiment
Station Farm Research, 5 (July 1957), 3-6.

843. PODELL, LAWRENCE. Mothers’ Nativity and Immigration, Families on
Welfare in New York City. New York: City University of New York,
Graduate Center for Social Research, 1968.

This 1966 survey of publicly assisted mothers in New York City
found one-third of the welfare recipients were born in the South and
one-fourth had been reared on farms, but over three-fourths had
either been born in New York City or had lived there for more than 10
years.

844. POWLES, W. E. “The Southern Appalachian Migrant: Country-Boy
Turned Blue-Collarite.” In Blue-Collar World: Studies of the American
Worker. Edited by Arthur B. Shostak and William Gomberg. Engle-
wood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1964. Pp. 270-281.

845. PRESIDENT’S APPALACHIAN REGIONAL COMMISSION. Appalachia. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.

*846. PRESIDENT’S NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMISSION ON RURAL POVERTY. The
People Left Behind. A Report of the President's National Advisory
Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967.

The Commission notes that the urban poor have benefited more
than the rural poor from antipoverty programs and welfare labor
legislation, maintains that migration links urban and rural poverty
problems, and presents recommendations for simultaneous solution of
these problems.

8417.

 

. Rural Poverty. Hearings before the National Advisory Commis-
sion on Rural Poverty. 3 vols. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1967.

848. PRICE, DANIEL O. “Educational Differentials between Negroes and
Whites in the South.” Demography, 5(1) (1968), 23-33.
The increasing educational differences found between whites and
blacks in the South are in part due to the higher outmigration rates of
better educated blacks.

849.

 

. “Effects of Outmigration on Educational Levels of Negro Males
in Southern United States.” Paper presented at the United Nations
World Population Conference, Belgrade, Yugoslavia, 1965.
180

850.

851.

852.

853.

854.

*855.

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Residents of the South in 1960 had the lowest educational levels of
any group. Also, blacks and males had achieved lower levels of
education than whites and females. Southern outmigrants had com-
pleted fewer years of school than any other regional group of outmi-
grants. Inmigrants to the South had completed fewer grades of school
than inmigrants to any other region. This lower level of educational
attainment of inmigrants to the South was the result of return
migration. First-time inmigrants had much higher educational levels
than returnees. Outmigrants from the South had higher levels of
education than nonmigrants, and this difference was much more
pronounced for blacks and males than for whites and females. Data for
1960 from the East South Central Division of the South on black males
aged 25-29 and 30-34 showed that outmigration from these age groups
lowered the educational level of the residual population.

. “The Negro Population of the South.” In Rural Poverty in the
United States. A Report of the President’s National Advisory Commis-
sion on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Governmen* Printing
Office, 1968. Ch. 2, pp. 13-39.

Census data on population distribution, fertility, marital status,
dependency ratios, migration, occupational changes, education, and
income are examined by cohorts. Black rates of net outmigration from
the rural South are higher than white rates, and are continuing to
increase, although the number of blacks migrating from the rural
South is declining because of the reduced black population base.
Blacks are finding southern urban areas less attractive as destina-
tions. Whites are more likely to move as whole families than are
blacks.

. “Rural to Urban Migration of Mexican Americans, Negroes and
Anglos.” International Migration Review, 5(3) (Fall 1971), 281-291.
(See 855.)

. Rural-Urban Migration and Poverty: A Synthesis of Research
Findings, With a Look at the Literature. Final Report submitted to the
Office of Economic Opportunity, OEO Contract B 00-5209. Austin,
Tex.: TRACOR, Inc., 1971.

This preliminary version of the present monograph also presents
detailed findings from recent Office of Economic Opportunity- and
Department of Labor-funded studies. It includes a number of titles not
listed here because of marginal relevancy.

. “Urbanization of the Blacks.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly,
48(2) (Apr. 1970), 47-58.

and MELANIE M. SIKES. “Rural-Urban Migration and Poverty: A
Synthesis of Research Findings, With a Look at the Literature.”
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Denver, Colo., Aug. 30, 1971.

AND OTHERS. A Study of the Economic Consequences of Rural to
Urban Migration. Final Report submitted to the Office of Economic
Opportunity, OEO Contract B 89-4594. Austin, Tex.: TRACOR, Inc.,
1969.

The population studied was made up of 75 male Mexican American
migrants from south Texas to San Antonio and Chicago, 119 male and
89 female black migrants from Yazoo County, Miss., to Chicago, 124
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 181

male Anglo migrants from Butler County, Ky., to Louisville and
Indianapolis, and a larger number of nonmigrants in the specified
rural areas. Since interviews were not conducted in “representative”
areas, generalization of findings to other “similar” areas would be
highly questionable. The sampling frame for the study was biased
toward more recent migrants, and the extent of bias resulting from
the substitution into the urban sample of new individuals for members
of the original sample who could not be located is unknown.

The major finding was that migrants to urban areas were better off
in virtually all respects than nonmigrants of similar age and educa-
tion. Migration was found generally to decrease the proportion in
poverty. The greatest absolute and relative gains in income were
made by black male migrants, although all groups of migrants had
higher family incomes than corresponding groups of nonmigrants.
Blacks and Mexican Americans who moved after 1963 had higher
incomes in their rural areas in 1963 than did rural counterparts; the
reverse was true among Anglos. Except among Anglos, all groups of
migrants had a greater proportion of two or more family wage earners
than nonmigrants. Migrants were generally younger, better educated,
and less likely to be unemployed than nonmigrants. Questioning
concerning ease of obtaining welfare in the city pointed to the conclu-
sion that migrants do not move to obtain welfare. Reasons for migra-
tion were primarily economic and occupational, but specific destina-
tion areas were chosen on the basis of friends and relatives already
living there. Sources of advance information about the city also were
friends and relatives, who generally provided initial lodgings for the
new migrants. After 1 week in the city, three-fourths of Anglos and
Mexican Americans but only 42 percent of black male migrants had
jobs. After 1 month, however, over 85 percent of all male migrants
were employed.. Mexican Americans were the most satisfied with
urban living; Anglos were more likely than other migrants to be
unhappy with city living and to want to return to the rural area. Half
of the black migrants indicated they would return to the rural area if
given job opportunities, the chance to own their own homes, or
reduced discrimination.

856. PRICE, JOHN A. “Migration and Adaptation of American Indians to Los
Angeles.” Human Organization, 27(2) (Summer 1968), 168-174.
Findings are from a 1966 survey of Los Angeles’ Indian migrants,
including those who moved on their own and those relocated by the
Bureau of Indian Affairs under the Employment Assistance Program
instituted in 1955. In comparison to relocatees, unassisted Indian
migrants were younger, had been in Los Angeles a shorter period of
time, had lower incomes, associated with other Indians more often,
spoke a tribal language more frequently, and were more likely to want
to go back to reservations if jobs were available. Among tribal groups,
Navajos were the least adjusted, and those of the Five Civilized Tribes
the most adjusted, to city life. Most Indians were affiliated with pan-
Indian activities.

857. PRICE, PAUL H. Louisiana’s Rural Population at Mid-Century. Bulletin
514. Baton Rouge, La.: Louisiana State University, Agricultural Ex-
periment Station, 1958.
182 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

858. PROCTOR, SAMUEL D. “The Preparation of Negro Youth for National
Manpower Needs.” In The Manpower Revolution: Its Policy Conse-
quences. Edited by Garth Mangam. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday &
Co., Inc., 1966. Pp. 416-424.

859. PURDY, LAWSON. “The Negro Migration in the United States.” American
Journal of Economics and Sociology, 13(4) (July 1954), 357-362.
Uses 1920-50 census data.

860. RAINWATER, LEE. “Social and Cultural Problems of Migrants to Cities.”
In Rural Poverty in the United States. A Report of the President’s
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Pp. 248-266.

Migrants as a transitional, marginal group in the city need housing
that is manageable in terms of their situation. They will not be
interested in programs of home ownership or programs that require a
strong interest in property maintenance; a good stock of low-rent
older housing is in order. Housing needs will still exist, however,
because most cities do not have an adequate stock of older dwellings;
the possibility of mobile homes and trailerlike prefabricated units for
new migrants shows considerable promise for meeting needs of new
migrants. Housing should be made available for families just above
the poverty level, and builders and others should be provided subsi-
dies so they can provide housing to migrants at low cost. Slum
clearance should assume a much more minor role in Federal housing
policies than it has had to date.

861. RATCLIFFE, S. C. “Size as a Factor in Population Changes of Incorpo-
rated Hamlets and Villages, 1930-1940.” Rural Sociology, 7 (Sept.
1942), 318-327.

862. RAUP, PHILIP M. “Economic Aspects of Population Decline in Rural
Communities.” In Labor Mobility and Population in Agriculture. Pre-
pared by Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjustment, Iowa
State University. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. Pp.
95-106.

863.

 

. “Impact of Population Decline on Rural Communities.” Farm
Policy Forum, 13(2) (1960-61), 28-36.

864. RAVITZ, MEL. “Rural In-Migration and Urban Assimilation.” Mimeo-
graphed. Washington, D.C.: National Committee for Children and
Youth, Inc., 1963.

This descriptive essay discusses the problems of educating and
assimilating poor rural migrants in urban industrial cities. It notes
points of similarity between rural-urban migrants in the United
States and people receiving U.S. aid in developing countries. Most
migrants come to the city for jobs, and many admittedly are unpre-
pared for the urban world of work. Problems of cultural clash are
important, particularly the pressure of mass culture, with its dimin-
ished belief in the cultural pluralism supposedly characteristic of
American life in the first part of the 20th century. Ravitz also explores
the question of how urban, middle-class people who control schools
and all other community organizations learn to relate successfully to
rural newcomers so that effective assimilation can be achieved and
community cohesion be maintained.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 183

865. RAYMOND, RICHARD. “Determinants of Non-White Migration During the
1950’s: Their Regional Significance and Long-Run Implications.”
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 31(1) (Jan. 1972), 9-20.

Using 1950-60 census data on net migration for 90 standard metro-
politan statistical areas to investigate the relationship of nonwhite
inmigration to urban job markets and to the size of the nonwhite
populations, Raymond found that blacks tend to move to places where
there already are large numbers of blacks. If blacks do choose destina-
tions on the basis of size of black population, this means that they will
move to places where jobs do not necessarily exist, or that black
populations in some places will quickly outgrow the city’s ability to
absorb them in terms of jobs and housing.

866.

 

. “Mobility and Economic Progress of Negro Americans During the
1940's.” American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 28(4) (Oct.
1969), 337-350.

While the Negro’s overall economic position improved in the 1940's,
black rural-urban migrants from the South to the North did not
improve their status relative to whites.

867. READ, P. B. “Migration and Mobility: The Myth of a Northern Haven for
Blacks.” Cornell Journal of Social Relations, 5(1) (Spring 1970), h7-78.

868. REAGAN, BARBARA B. Mexican-American Industrial Migrants. Report
submitted to the Office of Economic Opportunity, OEO Contract B 99-
4775, SMU Project 8635. Dallas, Tex.: Southern Methodist University,
Institute of Urban Studies, 1971.

This largely ethnographic report summarized work completed in the
first 2 years of a projected 3-year, multidisciplinary study of 323
Mexican American industrial migrants relocated from the Rio Grande
Valley of Texas to Dallas. Data were obtained from co-workers in the
same work units of the migrants at Ling-Temco-Vought, Inc. (LTV), in
Dallas, and a cohort of residents in the Rio Grande Valley. Case
studies are presented of a family who returned to the valley, a worker
who stayed in Dallas but left LTV, and a worker who stayed in Dallas
at LTV.

While 59 percent of respondents had been in poverty, and another 18
percent were near poverty prior to relocation, their median income at
the time of interview was $8,368 (including overtime pay); only 7
percent had gross annual incomes of less than $6,000. Relocatees,
thus, were a great deal better off than the nonmigrant control group.
Relocatees who terminated in comparison with those still employed at
the LTV plant at the time of last interview were slightly younger, had
a greater proportion with four or more children, and were generally
less well educated. Most relocatees who terminated went back to the
origin area.

869.

 

. “Texas Interarea Price Differences for Food at Home.” Working
Paper. Dallas, Tex.: Southern Methodist University, 1971.

The author shows that, for calculating changes in real income for
rural-urban migrants, differences in food prices found between areas
of origin and destination is one major factor that must be taken into
account.

870. and BETTY MAYNARD. Mobility Adjustments, Levels of Living and

Propensity to Succeed of Retrained Disadvantaged Workers and Their

 
184

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Families. Mexican American Industrial Migrants: Preliminary Report,
Part I. Report submitted to the Office of Economic Opportunity, OEO
Contract B 99-4775, SMU Project 8635. Dallas, Tex.: Southern Method-
ist University, Institute of Urban Studies, 1970.

871. REINSEL, EDWARD I. “Labor Movements Between Farm and Nonfarm

Jobs: Comment.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 43
(Aug. 1961), 666-674.

872. REISS, ALBERT J., JR. “Rural-Urban and Status Differences in Interper-

873.

 

sonal Contacts.” American Journal of Sociology, 65 (Sept. 1959), 182—
195.

This Nashville, Tenn., study concerning the number of respondent’s
interpersonal contacts, found that farm-nonfarm origin was more
important than present urban or rural residence in determining the
number of interpersonal contacts.

and EVELYN M. KITAGAWA. “Demographic Characteristics and
Job Mobility of Migrants in Six Cities.” Social Forces, 32 (1953), 70-75.

‘Summarizes findings from the 1951 Occupational Mobility Survey
conducted by the Social Science Research Council in cooperation with
six university centers and the Bureau of the Census. Data were
obtained on 4,000-5,000 migrants and nonmigrants 14 years of age and
over in each of New Haven, Philadelphia, Chicago, St. Paul, Los
Angeles, and San Francisco. Migrants were defined as persons having
lived in the cities less than 12 years. In comparison to nonmigrants,
migrants were younger, had smaller families, were more likely to be in
the labor force, and had a lower sex ratio. Their higher labor-force
participation rates were a function of their more favorable age distri-
bution. With age controlled, migrant women were more likely to be
working than nonmigrant women. Migrant males were less skilled
than nonmigrant males. The varying migrant structures in the cities
studied played a large part in intercity differences in job mobility
rates.

874. RENDON, GABINO. “Prediction of Adjustment Outcomes of Rural Mi-

grants to the City.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Colorado, 1968.

875. Review of the River Plate. “Shifting and Drifting: Urban and Rural

Populations.” Review of the River Plate, 130 (Nov. 1961), 15-16.

876. RIEGER, JON H. “Geographic Mobility and the Occupational Attainment

of Rural Youth: A Longitudinal Education.” Rural Sociology, 37(2)
(June 1972), 189-207.

Rieger presents a series of hypotheses tested on a 1967 100-percent
data-recovery study of a sample of male high school graduates from a
Michigan rural area over a period of 10 vears. The sample was the
same as that first interviewed in 1957 by Goldsmith and Beegle for
their study, The Initial Phase of Volu ntary Migration (384). Most boys
had left their home community by the end of the 10-year period and
had migrated to urban areas. Migrants’ higher occupational status
could only be slightly attributed to selective migration. Migrants to
small cities, migrants to large cities, migrants to other rural areas,
and nonmigrants had, respectively, highest to lowest occupational
status.
8717.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 185

 

. “Effects of Marital Status on Fertility of Rural-Urban and
Urban-Rural Migrants.” Rural Sociology, 38(1) (1973), 26-35.

*878. RITCHEY P. NEAL. “Poverty Among Rural-Urban Migrants to Metropoli-

879.

880.

881.

882.

883.

tan Areas.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural
Sociological Society, Washington, D.C., Aug. 26-30, 1970.
(See 149).

Data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity are used to test
the hypothesis that the incidence of poverty is inversely associated
with previous or long-time urban experience. The incidence of poverty
among whites was higher among rural-urban migrants than among
urban-origin individuals in each size-of-place category. While the level
of poverty was not related to size of place, rural-urban migrants had
higher incidences of poverty in nonmetropolitan than in metropolitan
areas. Among blacks, the incidence of poverty showed a strong inverse
relationship to size of place, the larger sized places being more
conducive to social and economic well-being for blacks, regardless of
residence origin. The higher incidence of poverty among blacks is
attributed to farm origins.

Blacks more often than whites, older and younger more often than
middle-year adults, and females more often than males experienced
higher rates of poverty. In metropolitan areas, one-stage migrants
had higher incidence than multistage migrants, but the reverse was
true in nonmetropolitan areas.

In nonmetropolitan urban areas an inverse relationship existed
between incidence of poverty and duration of residence. In central
cities of metropolitan areas blacks did not have decreasing rates of
poverty as duration of residence increased. For whites increasing time
of residence is associated with reduced rates of poverty.

 

and C. SHANNON STOKES. “Residence Background, Migration and
Fertility.” Demography, 92) (May 1972), 217-230.

In analyzing data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity,
the authors found that residence background and migration have
independent effects on fertility. The hypothesis that fertility would be
directly associated with degree of rural experience was only partly
supported. Rural-urban migrants had only slightly higher fertility
than urban nonmigrant natives.

 

 

and . “Residence Background, Socioeconomic Status, and
Fertility.” Demography, 8(3) (Aug. 1971), 369-377.

RITZENTHALER, ROBERT, and MARY SELLERS. “Indians in an Urban
Situation.” Wisconsin Archeologist, 36 (Dec. 1955), 147-161.

ROBERTS, I. P. “The Exodus From the Farm.” In Proceedings of the
Tenth Annual Convention of the Association of American Agricultural
Colleges and Experiment Stations. Washington, D.C.: Association of
American Agricultural Colleges and Experiment Stations, 1897. Pp.
80-82.

ROBERTS, ROY L. Some Postwar Rural Trends in Kentucky, North
Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, and West Virginia. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Agricultural Economics,
1946.
186

884

885

886.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

. ROBERTSON, JOE. “Migration of High School Graduates From a Missis-

sippi Community.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Mississippi State
University, 1954.

. ROBERTSON, LYNN, HARRY F. AINSWORTH, O. E. BAKER, and NAT T.

FRAME. Rural Youth in Indiana. Bulletin 467. Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1942.

ROBIN, ELLEN P., and JOSEPH SARDO. Attitudes and Plans of High School

Students in Sedgwick County, Colorado. Technical Bulletin 85. Fort
Collins, Colo.: Colorado State University, Agricultural Experiment
Station, 1964.

887. ROGERS, ANDREI A. “Estimating Interregional Population and Migra-

888.

*889.

890.

891.

 

 

 

 

tion Operators from Interregional Population Distributions.” Demog-
raphy, 4 (1967), 515-531.

A matrix model for estimating the growth pattern of a multiregional
system, using only historical data on interregional population distri-
butions, is tested and found “unsatisfactory.” Alternative estimators
and the possibility of smoothing the data are considered.

. “A Markovian Policy Model of Interregional Migration.” Regional
Science Association Papers and Proceedings, 17 (1966), 205-224.

« Matric Analysis of Interregional Population Growth and Dis-
tribution. Berkeley and Los Angeles, Calif.: University of California
Press, 1968.

Matrix formulation of population growth and change allows the
separation of process from the population undergoing the process, and
gives insights into problems concerning estimation, stability, inter-
vention, and migration not afforded by conventional techniques of
population analysis. Recent demographic efforts have used the matrix
representation of population movement and change but have de-
scribed a “closed” single-region population. However, recent work in
Markovian analysis of social and geographic mobility suggested a
natural extension of the model by considering both time and space
jointly in an analysis of interregional systems.

Of special interest is the chapter on migration. In the analysis of
migration streams and economic opportunity, Rogers modifies the
Lowry model (645) for testing the economic “push-pull” hypothesis and
achieves a higher explanatory power. In the section on migration
streams by class of subregion at origin and destination, Rogers fits his
model to the 1955-60 flow matrix partitioned by metropolitan and
nonmetropolitan origins and destinations. Results show that the
model generates an improved description of flows originating from
metropolitan subregions. The migration chapter also contains an
analysis of the joint effects of economic opportunity and differential
characteristics on spatial mobility. Rogers briefly outlines how the
matrix formulation can be extended to describe intraregional popula-
tion systems.

. “The Multiregional Matrix Growth Operator and the Stable
Interregional Age Structure.” Demography, 3(2) (1966), 537-544.

. “Sensitivity Tests of a Model of Population Growth in California
Regions.” Regional Science Association Papers and Proceedings, West-
ern Section (Jan. 1966), 180-195.
892.

893.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 187

and BURKHARD VON RABENAU. “Estimation of Interregional
Migration Streams from Place-of-Birth-by-Residence Data.” Demogra-
phy, 8(2) (May 1971), 185-194.

For the purpose of using place-of-birth-by-residence (PBBR) data in
the estimation of interregional migration streams, Rogers and von
Rabenau first define the multiregional matrix model of population
growth and the estimation problem, and then develop the method
shown, which yields estimation of the age-specific survival ratios and
outmigration rates. Estimates of net migration obtained by use of this
place-of-birth-by-residence method are compared with those found
through use of the division-of-birth method developed by Eldridge and
Kim (297). Findings for nine regions show that both methods yield
similar results for all age groups except the last (70 and over), but the
place-of-birth-by-residence method additionally provides estimates of
migration streams.

ROGERS, ToMMY W. “Migration Prediction on the Basis of Prior Migra-

tory Behavior: A Methodological Note.” International Migration, 7(1-
2) (1969), 13-21.

In investigating the usefulness of Markov chain analysis in predict-
ing migration from past migratory behavior, Rogers used transition
probability matrices to predict migration from 145 longitudinal-data
cases and derived predictions for selected educational, occupational,
and age classes.

894. ROGOFF, NATALIE. “Local Social Structure and Educational Selection.”

895

896

8917.

 

In Education, Economy and Society. Edited by A. E. Halsey, Jean
Floud, and C. Arnold Anderson. New York: The Free Press of Glencoe,
1961. Pp. 241-251.

Rogoff found that high school seniors in places of under 2,500
population were less likely than those living in larger places to plan to
attend college.

. ROHRER, WAYNE C. A Century of Migration of the Kansas Population.

Economics and Sociology Report 1. Manhattan, Kans.: Kansas State
University, 1961.

. ROSE, ARNOLD M. “Distance of Migration and Socioeconomic Status of

Migrants.” American Sociological Review, 23 (1958), 420-423.
Using data from the study described in the following annotation,
Rose found that higher status jobseekers moved longer distances.

Exceptions to this were black and lower status whites moving out of
the South.

and LEON WARSHAY. “The Adjustment of Migrants to Cities.”
Social Forces, 36 (Oct. 1957), 72-76.

To investigate the adjustment of migrants, data were obtained from
the Minneapolis Electric Company on 217 individuals who had moved
into the city from more than 40 miles away in March-May 1955. The
hypotheses that urban-urban migrants solve their adjustment prob-
lems more “efficiently” than rural-urban migrants, that migrants who
already have primary group contacts in the city interact less with
others in the community, and that migrants without primary group
contacts feel personally less optimistic about their achievements and
future life chances than those who have such contacts were generally
confirmed. It is concluded that the presence of friends and relatives in
188 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

the city is more important for a migrant’s adjustment than rural or
urban background.

898. ROTTENBERG, SIMON. “On Choice in Labor Markets.” Industrial and
Labor Relations Review, 9 (Jan. 1956), 183-189.

Rottenberg challenges the classical economic theories that workers
will move from areas of low demand to areas of high demand and that
they respond readily to wage differentials. Findings from several
studies showed that workers do not make occupational choices on the
basis of relative wages. Most choices are made for personal reasons,
and the wage structure plays only a small part in the choice process. If
workers are to make choices based on the comparative advantages in
different occupations, they must have the information to do so, but
such information is almost nonexistent. Because they value security,
workers will remain in their present employment at lower wages
rather than move just to obtain higher wages, especially during times
of less than full employment. It is concluded, however, that classical
theory is grossly correct since, over time, workers do move from areas
with low to areas with high earnings.

899. Roy, PRODIPTO. “Factors Related to Leaving Farming.” Journal of
Farm Economics, 43 (Aug. 1961), 666-674.

Data were obtained in 1960 from 260 households in depressed
Stevens County, Washington, and from census reports. It was found
that level of aspiration was not related to gross farm sales, productive
man-work units, net farm income, net worth, the use made of farmer-
help agencies, education, level of living, family income, number of
previous nonfarm jobs, presence/absence of special skills for nonfarm
work, or to amount of income from nonfarm jobs. Inverse relationships
were found between level of aspiration and age, and level of aspiration
and years in farming. It is concluded that the people studied were
remaining in farming for “highly individual” and “irrational” reasons.

900. . “The Measurement of Assimilation: The Spokane Indians.” Amer-
ican Journal of Sociology, 67(5) (Mar. 1962), 541-551.

Acculturation was measured in terms of education, level of living,
and occupation. Social integration measures showed that Indians
participate in formal organizations set up primarily for them, while
there is some “cleavage” in voluntary associations. Amalgamation
(percent of white ancestry among Indians) was found directly related
to education, level of living, and income, and inversely related to age.

 

901. ROZMAN, DAVID, and RUTH E. SHERBURNE. Migration in Massachusetts
on a State and Local Basis. Bulletin 512. Amherst, Mass.: University
of Massachusetts, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.

902. RUBIN, MORTON. “Localism and Related Values Among Negroes in a
Southern Rural Community.” Social Forces, 36 (Mar. 1958), 263-267.
In studying 114 black household heads in the northeastern Missis-
sippi county from which the migrants reported on in Omari’s 1954
study (795) had moved, Rubin investigated the attitudes toward
migration of those who had not left, their view of local opportunities,
and their satisfaction with place of residence. Those who formerly
favored country living had developed more positive attitudes toward
outmigration and northern urban areas.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 189

 

*903. . “Migration Patterns of Negroes From a Rural Northeastern
Mississippi Community.” Social Forces, 39 (Oct. 1960), 59-60.

The 386 black residents of northeastern Mississippi interviewed for
the study described above also were questioned as to the migration
patterns of siblings and children. Step migration to gateway cities was
decreasing in favor of migration to independent and satellite cities. A
significant amount of chain migration was observed, as two-thirds of
migrants had relatives already living in destination areas. There was
a large amount of primary migration to other rural southern areas
and to small southern cities and towns. There was a great deal of
mutual visiting occurring between migrants and their origin-area kin.
As has been found by other researchers, migrants were reported by
relatives to have moved in search of higher wages and better job
opportunities, although one-fifth had moved specifically to live with
kin already in cities. Relatives reported that, for two-thirds of the
migrants, both the decision to move and the choice of specific destina-
tion had been motivated by information concerning available jobs.

904.

 

. “The Negro Wish to Move: The Boston Case.” Journal of Social
Issues, 15(4) (1959), 4-13.

Data used were those obtained in a larger study of Negro migrants’
adjustments in Boston. Interviews were conducted in 1958-59 by
random and interval sampling of blacks and whites living in four
Boston neighborhoods, representing roominghouse, public-housing,
working-class, and middle-class neighborhoods. The findings reported
here pertain to 353 blacks, of whom approximately 50 percent were
migrants from the South. Of these 353, 68 percent said they wished to
move from their present Boston neighborhood. Southern migrants
were less likely than those of other backgrounds to wish to move at all.
In general, those wishing not to move were older, had no children,
were less well educated, and had lower incomes than others. Desire to
move was unrelated to occupation and sex of household head. Among
migrant respondents, pre-World War II migrants either did not want
to move or expressed the desire to leave Boston altogether. Migrants
who came in the 1940’s wanted to move to Boston's suburbs, while
those who came in the 1950’s preferred other neighborhoods in Boston.
The more recent migrant group was found very residentially mobile
within Boston. There was no association between reasons for moving
to Boston and present desire to move. Those desiring to leave Boston
altogether were more likely to have been in the city less than 3 years.

905. RUESINK, DAVID C., and MICHAEL KLEIBRINK. “Mexican Americans
From the Rio Grande to Ling-Temco-Vought.” Labor Law Journal, 20
(Aug. 1969), 473-479.

906. RUSSELL, WILLIAM R., and ALAN R. WINGER. “Non-Market Income and
Out-Migration in Lagging Regions.” EDA Program on the Role of
Growth Centers in Regional Economic Development, Discussion Paper
32. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, undated.

Economic factors alone do not account for the outmigration patterns
observed from depressed regions because regressions using a model of
net migration based on economic factors always contain some amount
of unexplained variation. Although there has been a tendency to
ascribe the remaining variation to people’s destination preferences, it
is hypothesized that the residual may be explainable in terms of
190

907.

908.

909.

910.

911.

912.

913.

914.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

nonmarket income. Data were obtained for an area where nonmarket
income is an important factor: Kentucky counties with per capita
median incomes below the per capita median for all Kentucky coun-
ties. Findings from regression analysis using these data were consist-
ent with the hypothesis. It also is concluded that since locational
preferences do not appear to play as large a part in destination choices
of migrants as is commonly assumed, those proposing relocation
programs for people in depressed areas should not be so concerned
about the psychological costs to the potential migrants.

RUTMAN, G. L. “Migration and Economic Opportunities in West Vir-
ginia: A Statistical Analysis.” Rural Sociology, 35(2) (1970), 206-2117.

RUTTAN, VERNON W. “Farm and Nonfarm Employment Opportunities
for Low-Income Farm Families.” Phylon, 20 (Fall 1959), 248-255.

 

. The Human Resource Problem in American Agriculture. Farming,
Farmers and Markets for Farm Goods, No. 15. New York: Committee
for Economic Development, 1962.

 

. “Industrial Progress and Rural Stagnation in the New South.”
Social Forces, 34 (Dec. 1955), 114-118.

Farm people in rural areas of the Southeast making the greatest
income gains in recent years were those closest to developing urban
centers.

RYAN, PHILIP. Migration and Social Welfare: An Approach to the Problem
of the Non-Settled Person in the Community. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation, 1940.

SABEN, SAMUEL. “Geographic Mobility and Employment Status, March
1962-March 1963.” Monthly Labor Review, 87 (Aug. 1964), 873-881.

SALDANA, NANCY. Mexican-Americans in the Midwest: An Annotated
Bibliography. Special Paper 10. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State
University, Rural Manpower Center, 1969.

SAMORA, JULIAN, and RICHARD A. LAMANNA. Mexican-Americans in a
Midwest Metropolis: A Study of East Ch icago. Advance Report 8. Los
Angeles, Calif.: University of California at Los Angeles, Graduate
School of Business Administration, Division of Research, Mexican-
American Study Project, 1967.

Census data and records of community agencies and other local
groups were used in examining the experiences of several generations
of Mexican Americans in east Chicago in the search for explanations
of the limited acculturation and assimilation in the area. The group
has not been committed to an assimilationist goal, e.g., they have
never questioned the value of maintaining their own separate iden-
tity. Even the more recent migrants come from stable and traditional
communities that do not predispose them to accept the changes that
assimilation implies. The migrating group was large enough to provide
mutual reinforcements and eventually to support the full range of
separate community institutions. Physical “visibility” was probably
an obstacle to assimilation. Low educational, income, and occupational
levels were a hindrance. Family ties, back-and-forth visiting to Texas
and Mexico, and replenishment in the colony of new inmigrants
probably led to a self-sufficient and residentially isolated group.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 191

Comparative recency of arrival is still a factor. A passive, fatalistic,
resigned value orientation is still in evidence. Lack of organization
and cohesion and envy of leaders have been observed. Language
differences persist. (See 398 for a comprehensive treatment of re-
search conducted by the Mexican-American Study Project.)

 

and RICHARD F. LARSON. “Rural Families in an Urban Setting: A
Study in Persistence and Change.” Journal of Human Relations, 9(4)
(1961), 494-503.

Presents results from a followup study conducted in 1959 of nine
families interviewed originally in El Cerrito, N. Mex., in 1939, who
subsequently moved to Pueblo, Colo. Respondents lived in the city of
Pueblo and were not concentrated in a “ghetto.” All but one were
home owners/buyers and appeared comfortably off. Visiting was con-
fined to relatives or to trips back home. The extended family patterns
of the village were maintained in the new location, and the only other
significant institutional contact migrants had was with the church.
Originally, the migrants viewed their work periods in Pueblo as
temporary, but gradually, this perception changed, and many respond-
ents seemed to have contempt for those economically foolish enough
still to be living in El Cerrito. While unemployment was somewhat of a
problem there was no evidence of family disorganization or intergen-
erational conflict. At the time of interview, seven of the nine re-
spondents were registered to vote and had voted in the last general
election. The manner in which migration took place over time for this
group of related respondents may have enabled them to avoid many
social and economic problems.

916. SANDERS, IRWIN T., and ROBERT E. GALLOWAY. Rural Families in the
Purchase Area of Western Kentucky. Bulletin 647. Lexington, Ky.:
University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1956.

917. SANDERS, JOHN. “The Depressed Area and Labor Mobility: The Eastern
Kentucky Case.” Journal of Human Resources, 4(4) (Fall 1969), 437-
450.
Migrants returned to Kentucky because they had obtained only
marginal employment in the city.

918.

 

. “Some Aspects of the Economics of Return Migration: With
Reference to the Eastern Kentucky Coal Fields.” Unpublished mas-
ter’s thesis, University of Kentucky, 1967.

Data were obtained from 129 return migrants under 50 years of age
to a six-county Kentucky coal fields area. Most returned from Ohio,
Indiana, Michigan, and Illinois and did not plan to go back to the city.
They gave the following reasons for returning: dissatisfied with the
urban area, 50 percent; laid off, 30 percent; health or retirement, 17
percent; and return to school, 3 percent. Voluntary returnees were
younger than those laid off and had about the same education, but
proportionately more had had vocational training, had higher mean
incomes, and suffered less income loss on return. Of those dissatisfied
with the urban area, most listed ties to Kentucky as reason for return
and named lower cost of living as a secondary factor; many listed
family illness or other adjustment problems. Mean age of returnees
studied was 37.1 years; their median educational attainment level was
7.6 years, virtually the same as that for the resident population.
192

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Almost 28 percent of returnees had asset holdings in Kentucky, with a
mean value of $2,285, and 20 percent increased their real incomes by
returning, but the mean annual money income loss was $2,031, and
the mean real income loss, $1,347.

919. SANFORD, GILBERT A. “Selective Migration in a Rural Alabama Commu-

nity.” American Sociological Review, 5 (1940), 759-766.

920. SANUA, VICTOR D. “Immigration, Migration and Mental Illness: A

Review of the Literature With Special Emphasis on Schizophrenia.”
In Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Popula-
tions. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publica-
tions, 1970. Pp. 291-352.

Sanua concludes that migration or immigration and their relation to
mental illness as measured by hospital statistics are too gross varia-
bles and that research should be more fruitful if both the characteris-
tics of the migrants and the conditions under which they move are
fully considered.

921. SAVITZ, LEONARD. “Delinquency and Migration.” Unpublished doctoral

dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1960.

A study of school records of 890 Negro boys living in a “high
delinquency area” of Philadelphia, found that migrant boys were less
likely to have become delinquent than nonmigrants. When controls
were added for age on arrival in the city, age, and length of exposure
to delinquency, nonmigrant-migrant differences were still observable,
though not statistically significant.

922. SCARLETT, M. “Psychodynamic Interpretation of Population Movement:

A Changing Emphasis Reflected in Travelers Aid Casework.” Social
Service Review, 36 (Sept. 1962), 280-285.

923. SCHEFF, THOMAS J. “Acculturation and Ties to Former Home of Mexi-

924.

 

can-Americans in an Industrial City.” International Review of Com-
munity Development, No. 15-16 (1966), 239-244.

. “Changes in Public and Private Language Among Spanish-
Speaking Migrants to an Industrial City.” International Migration,
3(1-2) (1965), 78-84.

Survey data on Mexican American migrants living in a northern
industrial city supported the findings of Warner and Srole and others
that acculturation occurs more slowly in the personal interactional
spheres among migrants than in their public interactions with the
host environment. Acculturative changes that do occur within the
migrant group appear related to length of residence, age, education,
and income. It was found that there had been few, if any, changes in
the language spoken at home, and that private interactional behavior,
specifically speech, may be the most resistant to change.

925. SCHER, BERNHARD. “The War on Poverty in West Virginia: National

Program and Regional Realities.” Journal of Social Work Progress
(1967), 53-68.

Although many outmigrants from West Virginia's coal field areas
fail in the city because of educational and work experience disadvan-
tages, the home areas’ job markets are so contracted that outmigra-
tion (with no return) relieves a great deal of population pressure.
State programs reflect lack of awareness that this outmigration is
necessary and must be aided.
926

9217.

928

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 193

. SCHMID, CALVIN F., SANFORD M. DORNBUSCH, and VINCENT A. MILLER.

Population Growth and Distribution: State of Washington. Seattle,
Wash.: Washington State Census Board, 1955.

, VINCENT A. MILLER, and BAHA ABULABAN. “Impact of Recent
Negro Migration on Seattle Schools.” In Proceedings of the Interna-
tional Population Conference, 1959. Vienna: International Union for
the Scientific Study of Population, 1959. Pp. 674-684.

Principals and teachers in Seattle schools were asked for their
assessments of the problems of recent Negro migrants. Difficulties
most frequently cited were related to discipline and lack of interest in
school work.

. SCHNITTKER, JOHN A., and GERALD P. OWENS. Farm-to-City Migration:

Perspectives and Problems. Agricultural Economic Report 84. Law-
rence, Kans.: University of Kansas, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1959.

Schnittker and Owens found that 46 off-farm migrants had adapted
well to their city jobs and had improved their incomes as a result of
migration.

929. SCHNITZER, MARTIN C. “An Approach to the Amelioration of Rural

930.

*931

Poverty: Migration and Relocation.” Working Paper 12. Blacksburg,
Va.: Virginia Polytechnic Institute, College of Business, Department
of Business Administration, 1968.

SCHNORE, LEO F. “The Rural-Urban Variable: An Urbanite’s Perspec-

tive.” Rural Sociology, 31(2) (June 1966), 131-143.

. SCHON, DONALD. “Assimilation of Migrants Into Urban Centers.” In

Rural Poverty in the United States. A Report of the President’s
National Advisory Commission on Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968. Ch. 16, pp. 267-287.

This chapter appraises the effect of government programs on rural-
urban migration, identifies existing conflicts in major program ele-
ments, assesses the effectiveness of programs in achieving objectives,
and recommends changes in programs to increase efficacy. Programs
and policies are classified into three types: (1) those that act to
encourage rural-urban migration by creating conditions that tend to
displace people from rural areas or that pull them toward urban areas,
(2) those that discourage migration, either by creating conditions that
tend to hold people in rural areas or that discourage them from
entering urban areas, and (3) those that provide, or could provide,
support and assistance contributing to the success of rural-urban
migration; some of these may act as motivating forces which increase
the propensity to migrate.

Type 1 programs discussed are the Bureau of Indian Affairs’ Em-
ployment Assistance Program, the labor mobility demonstration pro-
jects sponsored by the Office of Manpower Evaluation and Research
and the Bureau of Employment Security of the Labor Department,
Department of Agriculture (USDA) programs such as acreage allot-
ments and so on, USDA food stamp and surplus commodity programs,
recent amendments to the Federal minimum wage law, the Labor
Department’s Manpower Development and Training Act programs,
the interarea clearance activity of the Bureau of Employment Secu-
rity, and the Office of Economic Opportunity’s Job Corps program.
194

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Type 2 programs discussed are the farm-labor placement programs
of the State employment security commissions, categorical assistance
programs administered by State and local welfare departments, unem-
ployment insurance programs, surplus food programs, the Area Re-
development Act of 1961 and the Economic Development Act of 1965,
programs of the USDA’s Farm Credit Administration and the Rural
Electrification Administration, activities of the Farmers’ Home Ad-
ministration and its aid by the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964,
State-level industrial development programs, and the local corpora-
tion development program of the Small Business Administration.

Type 3 programs delineated include the adult basic education pro-
gram enabled under the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, vocational
education programs, the Medicaid programs, the Maternal and Child
Health and Mental Retardation Planning Acts of 1963, the Wagner-
Peyser Act of 1933, the Work Experience Program enabled by Title V
of the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964, on-the-job training pro-
grams, and apprenticeship programs under the Bureau of Apprentice-
ship Training.

932. SCHUH, G. EDWARD. “Interrelations Between the Farm Labor Force and

Changes in the Total Economy.” In Rural Poverty in the United
States. Report of the President’s National Advisory Commission on
Rural Poverty. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968. Ch. 12, pp. 170-184.

The nonfarm sector of the U.S. economy influences the labor market
through rural farm prices, civilian labor force, nonfarm pecuniary
income, unemployment, technology, and education.

933. SCHULTZ, T. W. “Investing in Poor People: An Economist's View.”

934.

 

American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings, 55 (May 1965),
510-520.

Notes that a substantial part of remaining poverty is a result of
disequilibria brought on by the imperfect response of workers to
changed labor-market demands for skills. This inadequate response is
the result of unemployment, differential effects of economic growth on
some sectors, inadequate information, and lack of opportunity to
acquire skills because of discrimination and “. . . restraints on the
capital market in providing funds for this purpose.”

. “Reflections on Poverty Within Agriculture.” Journal of Political
Economy, 58 (Feb. 1950), 1-15.

935. SCHULZE, ROLF, JAY ARTIS, and J. ALLAN BEEGLE. “The Measurement

of Community Satisfaction and the Decision to Migrate.” Rural Sociol-
ogy, 28 (1963), 279-283.

936. SCHWARZWELLER, HARRY K. “Education, Migration, and Economic Life

Chances of Male Entrants to the Labor Force From a Low-Income
Rural Area.” Rural Sociology, 29 (June 1964), 152-167.

Schwarzweller obtained data in 1949-50 from 757 eighth-grade
males enrolled in the schools of 11 low-income counties in eastern
Kentucky and conducted a followup study 10 years later on 307
migrants and nonmigrants of the original sample in Ohio and Ken-
tucky. There were no significant differences between migrants and
nonmigrants in regard to education, number of siblings, occupation of
father, education of father, education of mother, and rural-farm
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 195

versus rural-nonfarm origin. Forty-nine percent of migrants held
manufacturing jobs, while 43 percent of nonmigrants were employed
in agriculture. Migrants had not found a high school diploma a
particular advantage in the city. Among nonmigrants, there was a
positive, significant association found between level of living and
education, whereas there was no such relationship between these two
variables among migrants. Yet no actual level-of-living differences
were found between migrant and nonmigrant high school graduates.
It is concluded that rural eastern Kentucky schools leave youth with
inferior educations for the number of years of school completed.

 

937. . Family Ties, Migration and Transitional Adjustment of Young
Men From Eastern Kentucky. Bulletin 691. Lexington, Ky.: University
of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1964.

Family ties in a rural Kentucky area did not act as barriers to
mobility but did influence migrants to feel such an attachment to the
area of origin that identification with the area of destination was
difficult.

 

938. . “Parental Ties and Social Integration of Rural to Urban Mi-

grants.” Journal of Marriage and The Family, 26 (Nov. 1964), 410-416.

939.

 

. Research Design, Field Work Procedures and Data Collection
Problems in a Follow-Up Study of Young Men From Eastern Kentucky.
Bulletin 21. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, 1963.

Describes the methodology and field work procedures used in con-
ducting the study noted above (936).

940.

 

. Sociocultural Factors and the Career Aspirations and Plans of
Rural Kentucky High School Seniors. Progress Report 94. Lexington,
Ky.: University of Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1960.

941.

 

. Sociocultural Origins and Migration Patterns of Young Men From
Eastern Kentucky. Bulletin 685. Lexington, Ky.: University of Ken-
tucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963.

(See 936.)

942.

 

and JAMES S. BROWN. “Social Class Origins and the Economic,
Social and Psychological Adjustment of Kentucky Mountain Migrants:
A Case Study.” In Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of
Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 117-144.

This study of Kentucky mountain migrants and their origin families
found that upper class people moved as nuclear families, while inter-
mediate-class people maintained a family homestead in the moun-
tains, and young migrants from these families usually joined older
siblings or close kin. The lower class families exhibited a more diverse
pattern. Upper class families either moved completely out of the
region or did not move, while others tended toward short, local moves

- first, in a step fashion. Differences were noted in time of migration
and place of destination. Branch family networks performed different
functions for the different classes of migrants. Variables concerning
interaction with kin at home and in the city were analyzed with
regard to residential stability, nostalgia, happiness, worry, anomie,
and anxiety.
196 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

943.

 

 

and . “Social Class Origins, Rural-Urban Migration, and
Economic Life Chances: A Case Study.” Rural Sociology, 32(1) (Mar.
1967), 5-19.

Social-class origin not only influences migrants as delineated in 942,
but also determines their subsequent levels of living in the city.

944. , JAMES S. BROWN, and JOSEPH J. MANGALAM. Mountain Families
in Transition: A Case Study of Appalachian Migration. University

Park, Pa.: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1971.

 

945.

 

and MARTIN J. CROWE. “Adaptation of Appalachian Migrants to
the Industrial Work Situation: A Case Study.” In Behavior in New
Environments: Adaptacion of Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene
B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 99-116.

This study is based on the same data as 942. These migrants had
adjusted well because of a combination of favorable factors in the city.
These factors included the particular and particularistic nature of the
industrial work situation, the normative equivalencies which exist in
the donor and recipient subsystems both at the origin and destination,
and the supportive functions performed by the kinship network during
the transitional period. Topics investigated concerning the migrants’
city jobs comprise first job, job advancement and stability, job satis-
factions, and overall occupational adaptations.

946.

 

and JOHN F. SEGGAR. “Kinship Involvement: A Factor in the
Adjustment of Rural Migrants.” Journal of Marriage and The Family,
29(4) (Nov. 1967), 662-671.

In presenting more findings from the “Beech Creek” study followup
(see 942, 943, 945), the authors note the “haven of safety” function of
the kin group for Kentucky mountain migrants in the city. They found
that the actual numbers of kin a migrant had in the city bear no
relationship to his adjustment.

947. SCOTCH, N. A. “Social Change and Personality: The Effects of Migration
and Social Mobility in Personality.” In Personality and Social Sys-
tems. Edited by N. J. Smelser and W. T. Smelser. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1963. Pp. 323-330.

948. SCUDDER, R., and C. A. ANDERSON. “Migration and Vertical Occupa-
tional Mobility.” American Sociological Review, 19 (June 1954), 329—
334.

Tests the hypothesis that “. . . individuals who leave the home
community become detached from stable status relationships and
manifest unusual mobility.” The study area was a Kentucky commu-
nity of about 1,500 white households within 1 hour’s drive of two
moderate-sized cities and within 100 miles of a metropolitan area.
Fathers were heads of households with sons aged 15 and over having
completed their schooling. Sons were divided into migrants and non-
migrants, and, for each of these groups, father-son occupational
comparisons were made. Chances for upward occupational mobility
were greater for migrants than nonmigrants. Fewer migrants entered
occupations with the same ratings as those of their fathers. The group
with the highest rise in occupational status consisted of migrant sons
of manual workers. The least occupationally mobile group was nonmi-
grant sons of the highest status white collar fathers. The majority of
sons were in the same strata as, or in strata adjacent to, their fathers.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 197

Occupational inheritance was found to be greater for nonmigrant than
for migrant sons. It is concluded that migrants are more likely to rise
above their parents’ occupational status than nonmigrants.

949. SEGGAR, JOHN F. “Social-Psychological Adjustment of Kentucky Moun-
tain Migrants in Urbanized Industrial Areas of Southern Ohio.”
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Kentucky, 1964.

950. SEWELL, WILLIAM H. “Community of Residence and College Plans.”
American Sociological Review, 29 (Feb. 1964), 24-38.

951.

 

and ARCHIBALD O. HALLER. “Educational and Occupational Per-
spectives of Farm and Rural Youth.” In Rural Youth in Crisis: Facts,
Myths and Social Change. Edited by Lee G. Burchinal. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965. Ch. 10,
pp. 149-169.

Sewell and Haller present findings from Nam and Cowhig’s (761) and
Rogoff’s (894) studies based on national samples and from Sewell’s
study of high school seniors and also review investigations of occupa-
tional aspirations. Sewell found students’ plans for further education
related to size of place of residence, with those in larger places more
likely to be planning attendance. Also, farm girls were more likely
than farm boys to be planning to continue their educations. Studies on
occupational aspirations consistently showed that farm boys have
lower occupational aspirations than nonfarm boys. Additional findings
confirm farm boys’ preferences for low-status jobs and show that a
large percentage of students with superior academic abilities have low
educational and occupational aspirations. Factors influencing the
rural-urban aspiration differences include differences: in measured
intelligence and past academic performance; in motivation concerning
persistence and high-level performance; in attitudes related to mobil-
ity, security, independence, occupational preferences, and other per-
sonality traits; in family socioeconomic status and in parental aspira-
tions for children; in levels of aspirations of peers, and in the value of
high educational and occupational achievement stressed in school and
home community, and in the availability of information on job choices.

 

 

952. y , and A. PORTES. “The Educational and Early Occupational
Attainment Process.” American Sociological Review, 34(1) (Feb. 1969),
82-92.

Presents a path model of antecedent conditions of educational and
occupational achievement, assuming a starting point with parents’
status and the individual's intellectual ability. Other sequential fac-
tors delimited are: school achievement, influence of significant others,
and educational and occupational aspirations, which end in educa-
tional and occupational attainment. The model is applied to longitudi-
nal data from a study of Wisconsin farm-reared males.

953. and ALAN M. ORENSTEIN. “Community of Residence and Occupa-

tional Choice.” American Journal of Sociology, 70 (Mar. 1965), 551-563.

 

954. SHANNON, LYLE W. The Assimilation and Acculturation of Migrants to
Urban Areas. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Urban Program,
1963.

. “The Economic Absorption and Cultural Integration of Inmi-
grant Workers.” In Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of

955.

 
198 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 167-187.

Shannon’s discussion centers on findings from the Racine study
(968) concerning respondents’ world views. Race and ethnicity, reli-
gion, and sex were designated as group identity variables which
influence a person’s “acceptability,” and, as hypothesized here, his
world view, which in turn affects the use made of available opportuni-
ties. It was posited that Anglo male Protestants and female Mexican
American Catholics would represent the two extremes in regard to
world view. While Anglos, Negroes, and Mexican Americans differed
in world view, relationships of the variables only slightly supported
the hypothesis.

956.

 

. “Economic Absorption and Cultural Integration of the Urban
Newcomer.” In Emerging Problems in Housing and Urban Develop-

ment. lowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, Institute of Public Affairs,
1965. Pp. 24-46.

957.

 

. “Goals and Values in Agricultural Policy and Acceptable Rates of
Change.” In Goals and Values in Agricultural Policy. Ames, Iowa:
Iowa State University Press, 1961. Pp. 260-384.

958.

 

. “Occupational and Residential Adjustment of Migrants.” In
Labor Mobility and Population in Agriculture. Prepared by Center for
Agricultural and Economic Adjustment, Iowa State University. Ames,
Iowa: Towa State University Press, 1961. Pp. 122-150.

 

959. . “The Study of Migrants as Members of Social Systems.” In
Spanish-Speaking People in the United States. Proceedings of the 1968
Annual Spring Meeting of the American Ethnological Society. Edited
by June Helm. Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press, 1969.

Pp. 34-64.

. “Urban Adjustment and Its Relationship to the Social Anteced-
ents of Inmigrant Workers.” International Review of Community
Development, No. 13-14 (1965), 177-188.

and ELAINE M. KRASS. The Economic Absorption and Cultural
Integration of Mexican-American and Negro Workers. Progress Report
on National Institutes of Health Projects RG-5342, RG-9980, GM
10919, and CH 00042. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, 1964.

960.

 

961.

 

 

 

962. and . “The Economic Absorption of In-Migrant Laborers in
a Northern Industrial Community.” American Journal of Economics
and Sociology, 23 (Jan. 1964), 65-84.

Findings from the Racine study (968) concerning differences be-
tween Mexican Americans and Anglos show a statistically significant
difference between first and present job for Anglos but not for
Mexican Americans. The latter group had not experienced occupa-
tional mobility partly because of relatively low levels of education and
low-status first jobs, but the authors feel that these factors do not
account for the differences in occupational level; limited job opportun-
ities are another important factor.

 

 

963. and . “The Urban Adjustment of Immigrants: The Relation-
ship of Education to Occupation and Total Family Income.” Pacific

Sociological Review (Spring 1963), 37-47.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 199

Findings from the Racine study (968) on the relationship of educa-
tion to income and occupation for the three ethnic groups of migrants
studied showed that Anglos were significantly better educated than
blacks, who, in turn, were better educated than Mexican Americans.
There was a significant relationship for all groups between educa-
tional level and status of first job, but the relationship between
education and present job was significant only for Anglos, even after
taking into account length of city residence. It is concluded that
Mexican Americans and blacks with a high school education are no
better off in the job market than are members of their respective
groups with only 8 completed years of school. However, higher educa-
tion and longer city residence help improve the occupational and
income situations only of Anglos.

964.

 

and KATHRYN LETTAU. “Measuring the Adjustment of Inmigrant
Laborers.” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly (Sept. 1963), 139-
148.

Presents findings on 209 Mexican American inmigrant household
heads and their spouses from the larger Racine study (968). Over 70
percent of the Mexican Americans were from Texas, while 13 percent
were born in Mexico; most had come to Racine after 1940. Signifi-
cantly more Mexican Americans than Anglos had heard about Racine
through friends or personal contacts. Mexican Americans indicated
overall satisfaction with life changes since their moves to Racine.
Those whose satisfaction scores were low were much more likely to
intend to return home. While Mexican Americans generally made
unplanned moves and experienced no real occupational mobility as a
result of migration, they generally saw themselves as better off in the
city. No association for Mexican Americans was found between level of
satisfaction and either occupational status or income.

965.

 

and PATRICIA MORGAN. “The Prediction of Economic Absorption
and Cultural Integration Among Mexican-Americans, Negroes, and
Anglos in a Northern Industrial Community.” Human Organization,
25 (Summer 1966), 154-162.

Findings from the larger Racine study (968) concerning all three
ethnic groups interviewed showed no relationship for any of the
groups between size of community of orientation and various eco-
nomic measures. There were no significant relationships between
urban exposure and income, occupational status, or material posses-
sions for either blacks or Mexican Americans, and the only significant
relationship found among Anglos was between urban exposure and
income.

966. and MAGDALINE W. SHANNON. “The Assimilation of Migrants to
Cities: Anthropological and Sociological Contributions.” In Urban
Affairs Annual Review. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1967. Pp.
49-75. Also in Social Science and the City. Edited by Leo Schnore. New
York: F. A. Praeger, 1968.

The decline in the number of rural-urban migrants does not mean
that the impact on cities will be any less, since the very poorest
persons in areas of outmigration are just beginning to leave. The
authors discuss theoretical concepts of economic absorption and cul-
tural integration and problems and biases in their measurement. It
appears that too much attention has been paid to the improvements

 
200 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

migrants make over rural counterparts, when the crucial issue is how
prepared such migrants are to face the city situation realistically. It is
felt that successful adjustment depends on specific city structures and
organizations, not on the migrants’ own learned behaviors and atti-
tudes. Apparent failure among migrants is frequently the result of
discrimination rather than personal incapacities.

 

 

967. and . Minority Migrants in the Urban Community: Mexican
American and Negro Adjustment to Industrial Society. Beverly Hills,
Calif.: Sage Publications, 1973.

*968. AND OTHERS. The Economic Absorption and Cultural Integration

 

of Inmigrant Workers. Revised Report submitted to the National
Institute of Mental Health. Iowa City, Iowa: University of Iowa, 1966.
Shannon and his colleagues conducted an investigation into the
economic absorption and cultural integration into Racine, Wisconsin,
of groups of Mexican American and Negro inmigrants. This study
known as the Racine Study, was conducted at the University of
Wisconsin from 1958 through 1962, and, from 1962 onward, data
analysis was continued at the University of Iowa. Several of the many
publications resulting from the study over the last decade are listed
and/or annotated in this bibliography. First interviews were com-
pleted with 209 Mexican Americans in 1959; 208 Negroes with children
in 1960; and 284 Anglo controls with children in 1960. Later (1960-61),
reinterviews were completed with 137 of the blacks with children and
189 of the Anglos with children. The second round of interviews
concluded with 236 Mexican Americans including reinterviews of
those with children and first interview of some more recent migrants.
Most of the Mexican Americans were from Texas and were relatively
recent dropouts from the migratory labor stream. Half of the Anglo
control group were inmigrants from the North Central States. Most
blacks were from the South, especially Mississippi.

“Anglos had higher status jobs, higher wages, and longer work weeks
than the other groups, and were least likely to be unemployed or on
strike. No evidence of the extended family pattern was found among
Mexican Americans. Over one-third of black males and over one-
quarter of black females cited discrimination as one reason why they
left their origin areas. In regard to perception of changes, Mexican
Americans tended to see things changing for the better for their
group, while Anglos did not feel things had changed much for Mexican
Americans in the city. Mexican Americans felt they had benefited by
migration but were less likely to perceive personal benefits rather
than benefits for the entire Mexican American group. While members
of all ethnic groups had more favorable attitudes toward their present
than their former jobs, Mexican Americans had a more favorable view
of their work than either blacks or Anglos. However, blacks and
Mexican Americans, more frequently than Anglos, agreed that one
should save money for future emergencies. It appeared that Mexican-
American and black responses reflected a lack of understanding of the
relationship between education and occupation and of the type of
effort required of both parents and children in acquiring higher
education. Data on level of living showed that Anglos were signifi-
cantly better off than blacks, who, in turn, were significantly better
off than Mexican Americans. While blacks and Mexican Americans
969.

970.

971.

972.

973.

974.

975.

976.

077.

978.

979.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 201

were paid fairly for the work they were doing, their occupations were
not as much a function of their education as was true for Anglos.

Despite the differential effects of antecedent handicaps, the nature
of Racine’s social organization appears to have been the crucial
determinant for the absorption and integration of the inmigrants
studied.

SHAR?, HARRY P. “Migration and Social Participation in the Detroit
Area.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan,
1954.

Migrants from farm backgrounds had lower social participation
rates than others.

. “Migration and Voting Behavior in a Metropolitan Community.”
Public Opinion Quarterly, 19 (Summer 1955), 206-209.

SHARP, LAURE, and GENE B. PETERSEN. Southern In-Migrant Study: An

Overview. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Social Science Research, 1967.

Describes the research procedures used in the Cleveland study (823)
and presents some preliminary findings.

SHELDON, HENRY D. “Changes in the Rural Population, 1940 to 1950.”
Rural Sociology, 17 (June 1952), 118-126.

SHIH, FU-CHIN. “Dynatypes: A New Tool for Sequential Analysis Applied
to Urbanization Processes.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-
versity of Colorado, 1970.

SHORT, JAMES L. “Relocation: A Myth or Reality?’ Urban Affairs
Quarterly, 3 (Sept. 1967), 62-74.

SHRYOCK, HENRY S., JR. “The Efficiency of Internal Migration in the
U.S.” In Proceedings of the International Population Conference, 1959.
Vienna: International Union for the Scientific Study of Population,
1959. Pp. 685-694.

Efficiency of migration, greater for blacks than whites, was espe-
cially high for farmers from the South to the West in 1949-50.

 

. “Internal Migration and the War.” Journal of the American
Statistical Association, 38(122) (Mar. 1943), 20.

 

- Population Mobility Within the United States. Chicago, Ill.: Uni-
versity of Chicago, Community and Family Study Center, 1964.

Using various census data, Shryock discusses the history of U.S.
population mobility, reasons for moves, urban-rural trends, and mi-
gration selectivity in regard to race, sex, and age. He also cites sources
of migration data.

 

. “Redistribution of Population: 1940 to 1950.” Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 46(256) (Dec. 1951), 417-437. Also in
Demographic Analysis: Selected Readings. Edited by Joseph J. Spen-
gler and Otis Dudley Duncan. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press, 1956. Sec.
V, pp. 386-405.

. “Survey Statistics on Reasons for Moving.” In Proceedings of the
International Population Conference, 1969. Vol. IV. Liege: Interna-
tional Union for the Scientific Study of Population, 1971. Pp. 2820-
2835.

Reviews findings on reasons for moves obtained from sample house-
hold surveys conducted in many countries.

 
202

980.

981.

982.

983.

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

and HOPE T. ELDRIDGE. “Internal Migration in Peace and War.”
American Sociological Review, 12 (1947), 27-39.

The authors use census data on internal migration, 1935-40, and
civilian migration, 1941-45, and compare migration trends for the two
time periods. In general, more people moved in the approximately 3-
year war period than in the prior 5-year period of peace. Regional
shifts for the two time spans were similar. During the war, the
heaviest movement was from the South to other regions, whereas,
previously, the heaviest had been from the North Central region to
other regions. In 1935-40, the Northeast had a net outmigration of
whites to the South but a net inmigration of blacks from the South,
and the black outmigration from the South was intensified during the
war years. Data on patterns of net migration for seven time periods
showed a greater similarity between those of 1935-40 and 1940-45
than for any other time.

and ELIZABETH A. LARMON. “Some Longitudinal Data on Inter-
nal Migration.” Demography, 2 (1965), 579-592.

Reviews sources of longitudinal information and the methods and
limits of study efforts by various researchers and concludes with a
section on what the findings indicate. There is some disagreement
concerning lifetime migration, but current estimates indicate three or
four movements. Questions remain concerning the difference in rea-
sons for intra- versus intercounty (or other) types of moves or the
relationship between moves and life-cycle events. Reasons for return
migration are lacking, although it is known that returnees are older
than first-time migrants, and peak mobility rates occur in the early
twenties. There is considerable return migration, except to farms; a
majority of the farm born now live in nonfarm areas. The unemployed
appear more likely to migrate.

and CHARLES B. NAM. “Educational Selectivity of Interregional
Migration.” Social Forces, 43 (Mar. 1965), 299-309.

Using 1935-40, 1949-50, birth-to-1950, and 1958-59 census data,
Shryock and Nam investigated the relationship between migration
and education. Among all age-sex groups, migrants out of a region had
higher median education than those staying in the region. While
migrants into the South had higher median education than those who
stayed in the South, the opposite was true for the North and for the
West. For all age-sex groups, migrants from the North and West to the
South, nonmigrants in the North, migrants from the South to the
North and West, and nonmigrants in the South had, respectively,
highest to lowest educational attainment. Migration out of the South
has been selective of the middle educational levels and of the college
educated. The net effect of interregional migration has been to raise
slightly the educational level of the South.

AND OTHERS. “Internal Migration and Short-Distance Mobility.”
In The Methods and Materials of Demography. Vol. 11. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1971. Ch. 21, pp. 616-672.

984. SIKES, MELANIE M. Rural-Urban Migration and Poverty: A Synthesis of

Research Findings, With a Look at the Literature, Vol. 11: Annotated
Bibliography. Final Report submitted to the Office of Economic Oppor-
tunity, OEO Contract B 00-5209. Austin, Tex.: TRACOR, Inc., 1971.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 203

985.

 

. “Toward an Evaluation of the Mental Health and Adjustment of
Mexican American Rural-Urban Migrants: A Review of Literature
and Research.” Research report submitted to the Hogg Foundation
for Mental Health. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, Department of
Sociology, 1971.

Reviews research on the interrelationships between mobility, minor-
ity group membership, and adjustment, focusing particularly on theo-
retical considerations and variations in researchers’ definitions of
concepts. Information on the historical background, demographic
characteristics, and migration streams of Mexican Americans, along
with various research findings regarding a Mexican American “cul-
ture,” are presented as a framework within which findings on Mexican
American rural-urban migrants’ adjustment and mental health are
evaluated. It is concluded that, with a few notable exceptions, the
research on Mexican American rural-urban migrants is very unsatis-
factory. An extensive bibliography is appended.

986. SIMMONS, OZZIE G., ROBERT C. HANSON, and R. J. POTTER. “The Rural
Migrant in the Urban World of Work.” In Proceedings of the Eleventh
Interamerican Congress of Psychology. Mexico City, D.F.: University
of Mexico, 1969.

987. SIMONS, SAVILLA MILLIS. Social Services for the Mobile Poor in Urban
Areas. New York and London: Columbia University Press for the 1965
National Conference on Social Welfare, 1965.

988. SIMPSON, RICHARD L. “Occupational Careers and Mobility.” In Urban
Growth Dynamics. Edited by F. S. Chapin and S. F. Weiss. New York:
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1962.
A study of the male labor force conducted in the Piedmont area of
North Carolina indicated a relationship between area of origin and
type of first job. Off-farm migrants were least likely of all groups to
begin work in white collar jobs. (See 989.)

989. AND OTHERS. Occupational Choice and Mobility in the Urbanizing
Piedmont of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, N.C.: University of North
Carolina, Institute for Research in Social Science, 1960.

Data were obtained from 917 white male high school students in two
North Carolina Piedmont communities and 380 white male labor force
workers in two other communities. The larger a worker’s place of
origin, the more successful he was likely to have been in the urban
labor market. However, this finding was qualified for farm-reared
workers, among whom high school graduates did as well in city jobs as
those from places of up to 50,000. Still, a farm-reared person was less
likely than those reared in towns to have had a high-level first job.
While findings showed that the cumulative effects of low parental
status, farm or small-town origin, and lack of education together
handicapped workers, amount of education had more of an influence
on job changes than the other two factors. Boys did not show signifi-
cantly different reasons for their occupational choices, no matter what
status level they were choosing. Only father’s occupational status, of
all variables, turned out to be a satisfactory predictor of son’s occupa-
tional choice. Very few boys actually had a clear idea of what they
would do occupationally, and few had considered alternative occupa-
tions in any meaningful way. Former vocational counseling in school

 
204

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

had had very little effect on workers’ careers. While the nature of
work influenced choice of first jobs, career considerations played a
larger role in the selection of subsequent jobs.

990. SINCLAIR, ROBERT O., and FREDERICK S. TEFFT. Off-Farm Migration and

Farm Consolidation in Vermont, 1953-63. Bulletin 642. Burlington,
Vt.: University of Vermont, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1965.

991. SIZER, LEONARD M. Population Changes in West Virginia, 1900-1950.

Bulletin 401. Morgantown, W. Va.: West Virginia University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1957.

The overall decline in West Virginia’s population for a half century
was the result of decreases in the number of labor-force workers
employed in agriculture and mining, and continuing urbanization.

992. SJAASTAD, LARRY A. “The Costs and Returns of Human Migration.”

993.

*994.

 

Journal of Political Economy, 70 (Oct. 1962), 80-93.

Presents an extended discussion of the costs of, and returns to,
investment in migration, treating migration within a resource alloca-
tion framework. Sjaastad concludes that gross rather than net migra-
tion is a more relevant concept for studying the returns to migration,
as well as the impact of migration upon earnings differentials, and
that migration rates are not an appropriate measure for estimating
the effect of migration. Also, age is significant as a variable influenc-
ing migration and must be considered in interpreting earnings differ-
entials over space and among occupations. The relation between
private and social costs of, and returns to, migration depends upon
market structure, resource mobility in general, and revenue policies of
State and local governments.

. “Occupational Structure and Migration Patterns.” In Labor
Mobility and Population in Agriculture. Prepared by Center for Agri-
cultural and Economic Adjustment, Iowa State University. Ames,
Iowa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. Pp. 8-27.

———. “The Relationship between Migration and Income in the United

States.” Regional Science Association Papers and Proceedings, 6
(1960), 37-64.

Using a cross-section gravity model, Sjaastad attempted to deter-
mine if interregional income differentials are a result of factor dise-
quilibrium, and, if so, how effective the unassisted labor market is in
reducing these disparities. He found that holding other factors con-
stant, increasing education reduces real income relative to measured
income. The effects found as a result of including race lend credence to
the idea of inferior black education rather than to discrimination, and
the effect of race on income diminishes with the increasing age of the
migrant. He concludes, “It may take migration alone more than three
decades to bring a State to par with other States had it begun with a
per capita income (labor) of $1,000 versus $1,100 in all other States.
This statement is necessarily crude. However, . . . we cannot expect
migration to bring about rapid adjustments to substantial changes in
demand and technology. Thus, we may well be suffering substantial
losses from resource misallocation due to the slow workings of the
labor market.” He suggests improving channels of information and
artificially increasing the incentives the labor market offers.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 205

995. SKRABANEK, ROBERT L. Characteristics and Changes in the Texas Farm
Population. Bulletin 825. College Station, Tex.: Texas A & M Univer-
sity, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1955.
Seventy percent of youth aged 10-15 living on Texas farms in 1940
had left by 1950. °

 

996. . A Decade of Population Change in Texas. College Station, Tex.:
Texas A & M University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963.
997. and GLADYS K. BOWLES. Migration of the Texas Farm Population.

 

Bulletin 847. College Station, Tex.: Texas A & M University, Agricul-
tural Experiment Station, 1957.

Texas’ off-farm migration had been greater in 1940-50 than in 1920-
40 and had been selective of females, youth, blacks, and those living in
declining areas.

998. SLOCUM, WALTER L. “The Influence of Reference Group Values on the
Educational Aspirations of Rural High School Students.” Rural Soci-
ology, 32 (Sept. 1967), 269-278.

and CAROL L. STONE. The Farm People of Washington At Midcen-
tury. Bulletin 557. Pullman, Wash.: Washington State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1955.

Washington rural outmigration for 1940-50 had been especially
selective of youth and older women.

999.

 

1000. SLOTKIN, JAMES SYDNEY. From Field to Factory: New Industrial Em-
ployees. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free Press for the University of Chicago,
Research Center in Economic Development and Cultural Change,
1960.

1001. SMITH, CHARLES U. “The Disappearing Negro Farmer in Florida, 1920 to
1950.” Florida A & M University Bulletin of Research, 9(3) (Sept. 1956),
12-18.

1002. SMITH, ELDON DEE. “Migration and Adjustment Experiences of Rural
Migrant Workers.” Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of
Wisconsin, 1953.

Migrants to Indianapolis had less difficulty in finding jobs and
housing than expected, but southern white migrants found it espe-
cially hard to adjust to new social conditions. Information on jobs and
housing and social contacts were provided to migrants almost exclu-
sively by friends and relatives. Migrants from other northern areas
were much more widely dispersed throughout the city than southern-
ers, while southerners tended to cluster in certain city areas. The fact
that migrants from the South made greater income gains through
migration than northern migrants may be why the latter were less
satisfied with city conditions.

1003. . “Non-Farm Employment Information for Rural People.” Journal
of Farm Economics, 38 (Aug. 1956), 813-8217.

From the same study of migrants in Indianapolis reported above,
Smith found evidence indicating that lack of specific information
concerning city wages and social conditions may inhibit off-farm

mobility.

. “Urban Employment for Rural People: The Problems and Possi-
bilities of Long Distance Migration.” Abstracts of the Association of
Southern Agricultural Workers Proceedings, 52 (1955), 12.

 

 

1004.
206

1005.

1006.

1007.

1008.

1009.

1010.

1011.

1012.

1013.

1014.

1015.

1016.

1017.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

SMITH, T. LYNN. “Changing Number and Distribution of the Aged Negro
Population of the United States.” Phylon, 18 (Jan. 1958), 339-354.
Among Smith’s findings is one indicating a large amount of rural-
urban migration among aged blacks.

 

. “Dynamics of the Rural Population. Part III. Levels and Trends
in Rural Migration.” Rural Sociology, 19(1) (Mar. 1954), 78-82.
. “Migration.” The Sociology of Rural Life. 3d ed. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1953. Pp. 160-195.
Discusses patterns and selectivity of 1920-48 off-farm migration.
SMITH, WESLEY G. “Contributions of Farm Labor to the Nonfarm Labor
Force in the Tennessee Valley, 1960-65.” Mimeographed. Muscle
Shoals, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, undated.

. “Mobility of the Tennessee Valley Labor Force, 1957-63.” Mimeo-
graphed. Muscle Shoals, Tenn.: Tennessee Valley Authority, undated.

 

 

 

and VENKAREDDY CHENNAREDDY. “Movement of Labor between
Farm and Nonfarm Sectors and Multiple Jobholding by Farm Opera-
tors in the Tennessee Valley.” Mimeographed. Muscle Shoals, Tenn.:
Tennessee Valley Authority, 1967.

SOLIEN, NANCIE L. “The Family Organization in Five Types of Migra-
tory Wage Labor.” American Anthropologist, 63 (Dec. 1961), 1264-1280.
Discusses seasonal, temporary nonseasonal, recurrent, continuous,
and permanent migration patterns and their differential effects on
the family.

SOLLIE, CARLTON R. Migration from the Yellow Creek Watershed. Prog-
ress Report 29. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1963.

SOLOMON, DARWIN DALE. “Value Factors in Migration: Rural Residence
Values Associated With Rural to Urban Migration.” Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, Cornell University, 1957.

Data were obtained from 56 open-country and 56 urban residents of
Broome County, N.Y. to test the hypothesis that the married children
of open-country residents who had lived in the open country at least
through age 14 would have different perceptions of the desirability of
rural-versus-urban living, depending on their own rural or urban
residence. Solomon found that migrants preferred the educational,
religious, and intellectual activities of the city, while nonmigrants saw
the rural area as providing healthy living conditions, esthetic enjoy-
ment, and a better home life.

SOMERS, GERALD G. “The Experience With Retraining and Relocation.”

Paper presented at Conference on Manpower Policy, Berkeley Unem-
ployment Project, New York, N.Y., June 20-22, 1966.

SORKIN, ALAN L. “Education, Migration and Negro Unemployment.”
Social Forces, 47(3) (Mar. 1969), 265-274.

. “Some Aspects of American Indian Migration.” Social Forces, 48
(Dec. 1969), 243-250.

SPAULDING, IRVING A., and HOWARD W. BEERS. Mobility and Fertility
Rates of Rural Families in Robertson and Johnson Counties, Ken-
tucky, 1918-1941. Bulletin 451. Lexington, Ky.: University of Ken-
tucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1943.

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY * 207

1018. SPIEGELGLAS, S. “The Role of Industrial Development as a Factor
Influencing Migration to and From Wisconsin Counties, 1940-1950.”
Journal of Farm Economics, 43 (Feb. 1961), 128-137.

The author studied the relationship between 1940-50 population
movements in the 71 Wisconsin counties and industrialization. Only 13
counties gained population through natural increase and also through
inmigration; the remaining 58 counties had experienced outmigration,
although in 24 the loss to outmigration was offset by natural increase.
Net migration in the 71 counties was closely related to employment
opportunities in manufacturing, trade, and service industries but not
to those in agriculture, and the proximity of a county to a larger
population area influenced its inmigration.

1019. SPILERMAN, SEYMOUR. “The Analysis of Mobility Processes by the
Introduction of Independent Variables into a Markov Chain.” Ameri-
can Journal of Sociology, 37(3) (June 1972), 277-294.
Develops a regression procedure which allows a nonhomogeneous
population to be studied within a Markov framework and applies the
technique to an analysis of spatial mobility.

 

1020. . “Extensions of the Mover-Stayer Model.” Discussion Paper. Mad-
ison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Institute for Research on Poverty,
1970.

Presents a generalization of the mover-stayer model, illustrating it

with simulated data in an analysis of interregional migration.

1021. STACEY, WILLIAM A. “Returned Migrant Attitude Study.” Unpublished
master’s thesis, Mississippi State University, 1961.

In a larger study of 456 black farm wage workers in the Mississippi
Delta area in 1958, some 15 returned migrants were located. All of
these were among the 200 farm wage workers interviewed who lived in
nearby towns and commuted to the fields to work. Returned migrants,
when compared with all nonmigrants, were slightly younger, had
higher incomes, worked more days per year, had larger households but
similar education to nonmigrants. In attitudes they were less satisfied
with their present job than nonmigrants but more optimistic about
future possibilities of farm work. They were more likely than nonmi-
grants to favor staying on the same job, more likely to think that farm
work is more difficult, similar to nonmigrants in preferring nonfarm
work and town living, and less likely to be providing financial help to
relatives. Among those who intended to leave, the returnees were
more likely to prefer other points in the South as migration destina-
tions, while the nonmigrants preferred points outside the South.
Because of the sample size of 15, very few of the results showed
statistical significance.

1022. STAM, JEROME M. Farming as a Career: What Are the Opportunities for
Youth? Bulletin 521. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota,
Agricultural Extension Service, 1969.

1023. STEFFERUD, ALFRED, ED. A Place to Live: 1963 Yearbook of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1963.

1024. STEPHENSON, RICHARD M. “Mobility Orientations and Stratification of
1,000 Ninth Graders.” American Sociological Review, 22 (Apr. 1957),
204-212.
208 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1025. STEWART, C. T., JR. “Migration as a Function of Population and Dis-
tance.” American Sociological Review, 25 (1960), 347-356.

Stewart concludes from analysis of available data that empirical
evidence does not support the idea that migration is in proportion to
the population of the destination area, nor inversely proportional to
the distance traveled. The idea of allometric growth of cities, whereby
cities are said to have an attractive power more than in proportion to
their populations, seems true only for specific cases, such as where
there are structural shifts in economy from subsistence to commercial
agriculture or from commercial agriculture to industry.

1026. STEWART, HENRY H., JR. “Identifying Potential Migrants among Missis-
sippi Delta Plantation Workers.” Unpublished master’s thesis, Missis-
sippi State University, 1961.

Presents a secondary analysis of data collected from 428 black farm
wage workers in the Mississippi Delta in 1958 in an attempt to identify
potential migrants from the area. A mobility potential index was
constructed including the variables age, town-country residence pref-
erence, farm-nonfarm work preference, and household size. Of all
respondents, the 31 identified as potentially mobile by the index or by
self-stated plans to leave were much more likely than others to prefer
nonfarm over farm work and to prefer living in town rather than in
the country, and were twice as likely to feel they had not had their
share of good luck. Resident plantation workers were more optimistic,
content, or satisfied than nonresident workers. It is concluded that
farm-nonfarm residence is the major factor in attitude differences
found and that strong orientation to leave the Delta strengthens
these differences.

1027. STINGELL, L. D. “Some Private and Social Aspects of the Labor Mobility
of Young Workers.” Quarterly Review of Economics and Business, 6
(Spring 1966), 19-27.

1028. STINNER, W. F., and GORDON F. DE JONG. “Southern Negro Migration:
Social and Economic Components of an Ecological Model.” Demogra-
phy, 6(4) (Nov. 1969), 455-471.

Stinner and De Jong related data on 1950-60 net migration of black
males from 150 southern counties by age to social and economic
factors within an ecological model. They found that the major factors
involved were change in nonprimary industrial employment (‘“pull”
factor), population pressure and white traditionalism (“push” factors).
The primary factors stimulating black males’ migration out of agricul-
ture are population pressure and nonownership of homes.

1029. STODDARD, ELLWYN R. The Role of Social Factors in the Successful
Adjustment of Mexican-American Families to Forced Housing Reloca-
tion. El Paso, Tex.: City of El Paso, Texas, Department of Planning
Research and Development, Community Renewal Program, 1970.

Stoddard feels some adjustment problems of those forced to relocate
in a city are similar to those of migrants, because some of the
situations involved are the same for both groups. He obtained data
from 40 Mexican American homeowners and 40 renters in El Paso 5
years after their forced relocation within the city. The more mobile
tenement renters had experienced fewer adjustment problems than
either homeowners or permanent house renters.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 209

1030. STOECKEL, JOHN E., and J. ALLAN BEEGLE. “The Relationship between
the Rural-Farm Age Structure and Distance From a Metropolitan
Area.” Rural Sociology, 31 (Sept. 1966), 346-354.

The authors studied the relationship between the rural-farm popu-
lation age structure (by regions) and distance to the nearest Standard
Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) for the rural-farm white popula-
tion of the United States and its regions and for the nonwhite
population of the South. It was hypothesized that the relative propor-
tion of youth in age categories under 5, 5-14, and 15-19 would vary
directly with distance from the nearest SMSA, that the relative
proportions of economically active people in ages 20-44 and 45-64
would vary inversely with distance from the nearest SMSA, that the
relative proportion of people aged 65 and over would vary inversely
with distance to the nearest SMSA, that the youth dependency ratio
would vary directly with distance from the nearest SMSA, and that
the aged dependency ratio would vary inversely with distance from
the nearest SMSA. The hypotheses were supported for the under 15
and over 45 age categories and for youth and aged dependency. The
failure of two hypotheses to be supported was seen as the possible
result of the size and economic function of urban place and the
occupational composition of the rural-farm population within distance
bands (50-mile bands were used).

1031. STONE, LEROY O. “Evaluating the Relative Accuracy and Significance of
Net Migration Estimates.” Demography, 4(1) (1967), 310-330.

1032.

 

. “Stable Migration Rates From the Multi-Regional Growth Matrix
Operation.” Demography, 5 (1968), 439-442.

Stone provides formulas for stable age-specific migration rates and
probabilities for each region to extend Rogers’ (890) earlier work that
made provision for population distribution changes over space and
time by means of a matrix operator.

1033.

 

. “Urbanization and Rural Population Age Structure: Some Gener-
alizations.” In Proceedings of the International Population Conference,
1969. Vol. IV. Liege: International Union for the Scientific Study of
Population, 1971. Pp. 2923-2934.

1034. STOUFFER, SAMUEL A. “Intervening Opportunities and Competing Mi-
grants.” Journal of Regional Science, 2 (1960), 1-26.

*1035.

 

. “Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and
Distance.” American Sociological Review, 5 (1940), 845-8617.

1036. STRAUS, MURRAY A. “Personal Characteristics and Functional Needs in
the Choice of Farming as an Occupation.” Rural Sociology, 21 (Sept.—
Dec. 1956), 257-266.

This 1954 study of high school boys in Washington State showed
that choice of farming was not associated with length of community
residence, size of community or nearness to city, religion, boy’s off-
farm employment, high school grades, extracurricular activity, liking
of school, intelligence, or health and physical prowess. Also, choice of
farming was positively and significantly associated with family in-
come, father’s full ownership or large operatorship of farm, son's
satisfaction with family, hours worked per week on home farm, work
regarded as a good in itself, preference for working with things rather
than with people or ideas, and certainty of occupational choice. Choice
210 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

of farming was negatively and significantly associated with mother’s
employment, allowance, plans to attend college, number of occupa-
tions considered, and use of “professional” sources of information.

1037. . “Societal Needs and Personal Characteristics in the Choice of
Farm, Blue-Collar and White-Collar Occupations by Farmers’ Sons.”
Rural Sociology, 29 (Dec. 1964), 408-425.

The author studied all farmers’ sons (98) enrolled in the 11th and
12th grades in a Wisconsin county high school using both school
records and interview data. He compared findings on different varia-
bles for boys choosing white, blue collar, and farm occupations to those
from three similar studies conducted in Washington, Michigan, and
Iowa.

Choice of farming was positively and significantly related to par-
ents’ full ownership or operatorship of large farm, hours worked per
week on the farm, work-role emphasis by parents, attitude of work’s
being a good in itself, boy’s own assets, the value held of residential
stability, parents’ favoring the son’s farming, and certainty of occupa-
tional choice.

Choice of farming was negatively and significantly associated with
mother’s employment, father’s being employed off farm, boy’s off-farm
employment, boy’s allowance, parental educational aspirations for
son, plans to attend college, and those holding the value of change.

Choice of farming had no association with parents’ education, length
of community residence, religion, level-of-living index, marital happi-
ness of parents, high school grades, liking of school, 4-H Club member-
ship, intelligence, or deferred gratification patterns.

 

1038. STREET, JAMES H. The New Revolution in the Cotton Economy. Chapel
Hill, N.C.: University of North Carolina Press, 1957.
U.S. agricultural policies in the 1940's and 1950's slowed off-farm
mobility.

1039. STRODTBECK, FRED L. “Population, Distance and Migration from Ken-
tucky.” Sociometry, 13(2) (May 1950), 123-30.

1040. STRUENING, ELMER L., STANLEY LEHMANN, and JUDITH G. RABKIN.
“Context and Behavior: A Social Area Study of New York City.” In
Behavior in New Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Populations.
Edited by Eugene B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications,
1970. Pp. 203-216.

1041.

 

, JUDITH G. RABKIN, and HARRIS B. PECK. “Migration and Ethnic
Membership in Relation to Social Problems.” In Behavior in New
Environments: Adaptation of Migrant Populations. Edited by Eugene
B. Brody. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1970. Pp. 217-247.
Migrant Negroes from the South and Puerto Ricans from abroad
having moved to the Bronx and Brooklyn between 1955 and 1960 were
compared to a relatively permanent native population of each ethnic
group. Health indicators investigated were the number of divorced or
separated, the number on welfare in 1962, the numbers of infant deaths
and of premature births in 1960 and 1965, the number of births with
prenatal care beginning in seventh or eighth month, hospital admis-
sions, and the numbers of arrests of persons 7-20 years old and of
homicides. It was concluded that *. . . the number of migrants and
the number of relatively permanent residents of the same ethnic
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 211

group played virtually identical roles in predicting the indicators of
social, health and mental health problems,” except that migrants had
higher rates of hospitalization for mental illness.

1042. STUB, HALGER R. “The Occupational Characteristics of Migrants to
Duluth: A Retest of Rose’s Hypothesis.” American Sociological Re-
view, 27 (Feb. 1962), 87-90.

Data obtained from 735 inmigrants to Duluth, Minn., in 1958 sup-
ported Rose’s hypothesis that professional and managerial workers
migrate longer distances than others. Lower status migrants into
Duluth came from rural areas, small cities, and towns west of the
Mississippi River.

1043. SUNDQUIST, W. B. “The Future of Farmers and Farming.” A Good Life
for More People: 1971 Yearbook of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, 1971.

From 1950 to 1969, while the total U.S. population increased by a
third, total farm employment declined more than one-half, from 9.9
million to 4.6 million persons. The number of man-hours actually
worked in farming declined by an even greater proportion. New
technological developments spurred the trend toward increasing farm
size, and this is expected to continue. Mechanization will affect most
the hired farm labor force, the very people who have limited education
and training for other jobs. Future regulatory constraints on land use
and production practices will not abate the trend toward fewer and
larger farms. Changes in the farm supply, marketing, and related
service sectors have resulted in the removal of businesses and employ-
ment opportunities from small towns to large regional trade centers.
The result is that in some rural areas, the problem of providing public
services has reached crisis proportion. Economies of scale necessary
for the upgrading and provision of such services suggest the growth of
the regional trade center and the attendant migration of farmers to
the centers for service benefits. Increased regional and commodity
specialization makes the “average U.S. farm” an unrealistic concept
on which to center farm policy, and future changes in agriculture will
not affect as many farm people as have those of the past. A decline in
total farm employment of the absolute size that occurred from 1950-69
is impossible.

1044. SUVAL, ELIZABETH. Selectivity in Migration: A Review of Literature.
Technical Bulletin 209. Raleigh, N.C.: North Carolina State Univer-
sity, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1972.
This literature review heavily emphasizes educational selectivity
and deals with all types of migration.

1045. and C. HORACE HAMILTON. “Some New Evidence on Educational
Selectivity in Migration to and from the South.” Social Forces, 43
(May 1965), 536-547.

Using 1960 census data to investigate the selectivity of migration
with respect to education for southern in- and outmigration, Suval
and Hamilton found that, for all sex and race groups, the percentage
of the population which was recently migrant increased as educational
level increased. Migration to and from the South and its divisions was
selective of the better educated, regardless of age, sex, race, or

direction of movement. Lifetime migration into and out of the South

 
212

1046.

1047.

1048.

1049.

1050.

1051.

1052.

1053.

1054.

1055.

1056.

1057.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

has been selective of the better educated, with the exception of the
sharp drop in outmigration among black college-educated females.
During 1955-60, the South lost most heavily among better educated
youth.

TAEUBER, CONRAD. “Economic and Social Implications of Internal Mi-

gration in the United States.” Journal of Farm Economics, 41 (Dec.
1959), 1141-1154.

Off-farm migration has created serious problems in rural areas for
service agencies accustomed to working on a county basis, and rural-
urban migration is becoming a less important component of popula-
tion redistribution.

. “Migration and Rural Population Adjustment.” Rural Sociology,
5(4) (Dec. 1940), 399-410.

Between 1930-35, farm population increases were greatest in low-
income areas.

. “Recent Trends of Rural-Urban Migration in the United States.”
Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 25(2) (Apr. 1947), 203-213.
Discusses 1940-45 off-farm migration.

. “Utilization of Human Resources in Agriculture.” In Moderniza-
tion Programs in Relation to Human Resources and Population Prob-
lems. Edited by Clyde V. Kiser. New York: Milbank Memorial Fund,
1950. Pp. 61-76.

and IRENE B. TAEUBER. The Changing Population of the United
States. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1958.
Using mainly census data, considers the whole period 1790 to 1950.

TAEUBER, IRENE B. “Migration, Mobility, and the Assimilation of the

Negro.” Population Bulletin, (Nov. 1958), 129-134.

. “Migration and Transformation: Spanish Surname Populations
and Puerto Ricans.” Population Index, 32 (Jan. 1966), 3-34.

and CONRAD TAEUBER. People of the United States in the Twen-
tieth Century. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1971.

TAEUBER, KARL E. “Cohort Migration.” Demography, 3(2) (1966), 416—

422,

Discusses cohort migration models and advocates the collection of
residence histories as sources of data until a suitable registration
system is instituted.

. “Cohort Population Redistribution and the Urban Hierarchy.”
Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 43 (Oct. 1965), 450-462.

. “Duration-of-Residence Analysis of Internal Migration in the
United States.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 39 (1961), 116-131.
Discusses the advantages of duration-of-residence data as informa-
tion on migration. He outlines four examples of studies which used
data based on this type of information and points out specifically what
kinds of migration knowledge duration-of-residence data provide.

. “Perspectives on the Urbanization of the Negro Population of the
United States.” In Proceedings of the World Population Conference,
1965. New York: United Nations, 1965. Vol. IV. P. 468.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 213
1058. . “The Residential Redistribution of Farm-Born Cohorts.” Rural
Sociology, 32(1) (Mar. 1967), 20-36.

Residence histories for six farm-born successive age cohorts were

obtained from a 1958 national sampling. Members of each cohort were
classified by place of residence at ages 18, 24, 34, and 44. Migration
was widespread by age 18 for each cohort and, the younger the cohort,
the greater the movement at earlier life-cycle stages. For each cohort
of off-farm migrants, there was a unique type-of-destination distribu-
tion established early and continued throughout the life cycle.
, LEONARD CHIAZZE, JR., and WILLIAM HAENZEL. Migration in the
United States: An Analysis of Residence Histories. Public Health
Monograph 77. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Health, Educa-
tion, and Welfare, Public Health Service, 1968.

Uses census data on residence histories obtained in a 1958 national
sampling. Discussions center on residential stability, frequency and
distance of migration, variety of residential experience, timing of
migration in the life cycle, migration sequences, and birthplace as a
characteristic.

and JUDAH MATRAS. “A New Look at 20th Century Migration and
Population Redistribution in the United States.” Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Population Association of America, Atlan-
tic City, N.J., 1969.

and ALMA F. TAEUBER. “The Changing Character of Negro
Migration.” American Journal of Sociology, 70 (Jan. 1965), 429-441.

and . “The Negro as an Immigrant Group: Recent Trends in
Race and Ethnic Segregation in Chicago.” American Journal of Sociol-
ogy, 69 (Jan. 1964), 374-382. Also in Racial and Ethnic Relations:
Selected Readings. Edited by Bernard E. Segal. New York: Thomas Y.
Crowell, 1966. Pp. 311-323.

and . Negroes in Cities: Residential Segregation and Neigh-
borhood Change. Studies in American Negro Life. Edited by August
Meier. New York: Atheneum, 1969.

In the 10 standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s) under
study it was found that, compared to nonmigrants in the city, the
inmigrants were younger, better educated, and more likely to be
employed in white-collar occupations. Inmigrants of nonmetropolitan
origin were generally much younger than those of metropolitan origin.
Further, they were similar to nonmigrant residents of cities in educa-
tional and occupational status, except when age was controlled, when
they showed lower status than the resident population. In the four
southern SMSA'’s, the effect of migration had been negative because
there were fewer inmigrants than outmigrants, and the status of
inmigrants, while slightly above the resident population, was below
that of the outmigrants. The net impact of migration on northern and
border State SMSA’s was mixed. The discussion of residential distri-
bution of Negroes concludes that “Negro migrants are not concen-
trated or overrepresented to any appreciable degree in any type of
area,” and “are distributed throughout the city in much the same
manner as the total population of which they are a part.”

1064. TANG, ANTHONY M. “Industrial-Urban Development and Agricultural
Adjustment in the Southern Piedmont, 1940-1950.” Journal of Farm
Economics, 39 (Aug. 1957), 657-675.

 

*1059.

 

1060.

 

1061.

 

 

1062.

 

*1063.

 

 
214 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1065. TARVER, JAMES D. “Bureau of the Census Data on the Selectivity of
Migration from Farms.” Rural Sociology, 22 (June 1957), 162-163.

1066.

 

. “Differentials and Trends in Actual and Expected Distance of
Movement of Interstate Migrants.” Rural Sociology, 36(4) (Dec. 1971),
563-571.

In examining census data on total outmigration from each State to
every other State by race for 1930-40, 1949-50, and 1955-60, Tarver
found no evidence showing that blacks from the South generally
moved farther than southern whites. In fact, for all three time periods
examined, just the opposite was observed.

1067.

 

. “Interstate Migration Differentials.” American Sociological Re-
view, 28 (June 1963), 448-451. Errata: 28 (Dec. 1963), 989-997. Reply:
Gordon, R. A., 28 (Dec. 1963), 987-988. Rejoinder: Tarver, James D., 28
(Dec. 1963), 988.

 

1068. . Migration in Georgia. Research Report 26. Athens, Ga.: Univer-

sity of Georgia, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1968.
1069.

 

. “Occupational Migration Differentials.” Social Forces, 43 (Dec.
1964), 231-241.

1070.

 

. “Patterns of Population Change Among Southern Nonmetropoli-
tan Towns, 1950-1970.” Rural Sociology, 37(1) (May 1972), 53-572.

1071.

 

and CALVIN L. BEALE. “Population Trends of Southern Nonmet-
ropolitan Towns, 1950-1960.” Rural Sociology, 33 (Mar. 1968), 19-29.

1072.

 

 

and . “Relationship of Changes in Employment and Age
Composition to the Population Changes of Southern Nonmetropolitan
Towns.” Rural Sociology, 34 (Mar. 1969), 16-28.

1073. TATE, LELAND, and GEORGE BLUME. ‘Virginia's Changing People.”
Virginia Farm Economics, 1568 (May 1959), 2-5.

1074. TAVES, MARVIN J. “Consequences of Population Loss in Rural Communi-
ties.” In Labor Mobility and Population in Agriculture. Prepared by
Center for Agricultural and Economic Adjustment, Iowa State Uni-
versity. Ames, [owa: Iowa State University Press, 1961. Pp. 107-121.

 

1075. . Mobility Among High School Graduates. Sociology of Rural Life
Series 3. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1959.

Although male high school graduates from a high-income Minnesota
farming area were more likely to have been geographically mobile
than those from a low-income area, the movers from the latter were

more likely to have gone out of State.

1076. . “Population Loss Affects Everyone.” Minnesota Farm and Home

Science, 19 (Fall 1961), 12, 21.

and RICHARD WALTER COLLER. In Search of Opportunity: A Study
of Post High School Migration in Minnesota. Technical Bulletin 247.
Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, Agricultural Experi-
ment Station, 1964.

The authors conducted a study in 1958 of 739 male high school
graduates generally aged 20-30 of the even-numbered classes of 1948—
56 from six high schools in four low-agricultural-income and two high-

 

1077.

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 215

agricultural-income counties in Minnesota. Data utilized were ob-
tained from school records, mailed questionnaires, and interviews. By
1958, over half of the graduates from both high- and low-income areas
had moved to noncontiguous counties within the State, while those
from low-income areas generally moved shorter distances. However,
members of both groups were equally as likely to have moved out of
State. Career advancement (years of school, job history, and post-high-
school training combined) was the variable most closely associated
with migration behavior. It appears that the propensity to move
dissipates rapidly if it does not occur soon after graduation. Those who
were working in farm or white-collar jobs at the time of interview
were more likely to have moved within Minnesota, while blue-collar
workers were more likely to have moved out of State. Data for
migrants from low-income areas showed evidence of step migration.
Choice of destination appeared to depend on desired income and
perceptions of social and cultural advantages.

1078. TAYLOR, FREDERICK. “Relocation Riddles.” Wall Street Journal, May

1965.

Reports findings from U.S. Government relocation programs, e.g.,
that the Area Redevelopment Administration found psychological
barriers to mobility the biggest problems encountered, and that two-
fifths of Indians relocated by the Bureau of Indian Affairs since 1952
had returned to reservations.

1079. TAYLOR, LEE. Urban-Rural Problems. Belmont, Calif.: Dickenson Pub-

1080.

1081

1082.

1083

*1084.

 

 

lishing Co., Inc., 1968.

and CHARLES W. GLASGOW. Occupation and Low-Income Rural
People—A Southern Regional Study. Southern Cooperative Series
Bulletin 90. Various places: Agricultural Experiment Stations of Ala-
bama, Florida, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ten-
nessee, and Texas, 1963.

. TETREAU, E. D., and VARDEN FULLER. “Some Factors Associated with

the School Achievement of Children in Migrant Families.” Elementary
School Journal, 46(6) (1942), 432-431.

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL UNIVERSITY, AGRICUL-

TURAL EXPERIMENT STATION. Trends in the Texas Farm Population
1947, 1948, 1949. Progress Reports 1098, 1128, and 1184. College Sta-
tion, Tex.: Texas A & M University, Agricultural Experiment Station,
1947, 1948, 1949.

. THOMAS, DOROTHY S. “Age and Economic Differentials in Interstate

Migration.” Population Index, 24(4) (Oct. 1958), 313-325.

. Research Memorandum on Migration Differentials. SSRC Bulle-
tin 43. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1938.

This classic work prepared by Thomas and others is a critical
evaluation and summary of findings concerning research to date on
the selectivity of internal migration. While the major focus is on
American studies, information on, and annotated bibliographies of,
Swedish, English, and Dutch works are included. Research Memoran-
dum is the major sourcebook of American migration research con-
ducted prior to World War II.
216

1085.

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

 

. “Selective Internal Migration: Some Implications for Mental
Hygiene.” In Demographic Analysis: Selected Readings. Edited by
Joseph J. Spengler and Otis Dudley Duncan. Glencoe, Ill.: The Free
Press, 1956. Pp. 425-431.

Empirical evidence suggests that migrants, particularly rural-urban
ones, are better risks than nonmigrant counterparts, but that data
are lacking which would provide more definite answers on the selectiv-
ity of migration with respect to mental health factors.

1086. THOMLINSON, RALPH. “The Determination of Base Population for Com-

1087.

1088.

1089.

1090.

1091.

1092.

10923.

*1094.

1095.

1096.

 

 

puting Migration Rates.” Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 40(3)
(July 1962), 356-366.

. “Methodological Needs of Migration Research.” Population Re-
view, 6 (Jan. 1962), 59-64.

Thomlinson suggests that migration phenomena could be quantified
in a better way by using mathematical or statistical ideas found in
decision theory or game theory.

 

THOMPSON, JOHN L. “A Case Study of Interregional Labor Migration.”
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 46 (June 1956),
277-278.

THOMPSON, WARREN S. Migration Within Ohio, 1935-40: A Study in the
Redistribution of Population. Scripps Foundation Studies in Popula-
tion Distribution, No. 3. Oxford, Ohio: Miami University, Scripps
Foundation, 1951.

. Research Memorandum on Migration in the Depression. Bulletin
30. New York: Social Science Research Council, 1937.

and DONALD J. BOGUE. “Subregional Migration as an Area of
Research.” Social Forces, 27(4) (May 1949), 392-400.

and P. K. WHELPTON. Population Trends in the United States. New
York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1933.

 

THORNDIKE, E. L. “The Causes of Interstate Migration.” Sociometry, 5
(1942), 321-35.

THORNTHWAITE, C. WARREN. Internal Migration in the United States.
Philadelphia, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania, Press, 1934.
This is a classic analysis of migration based on State-of-birth data.

TILLY, CHARLES. “Migration to American Cities.” In Toward a National
Urban Policy. Edited by Daniel P. Moynihan. New York: Harper &
Bros., 1970. Pp. 152-166.

. Migration to an American City. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, Farm Population
Branch and University of Delaware, Agricultural Experiment Station
and Division of Urban Affairs cooperating, 1965.

Presents results of a 1961 study conducted in Wilmington, Del., of
190 migrant and 54 nonmigrant heads of households who had children
in the public elementary schools. Respondents were classified by race
and white collar/blue collar occupation and further classified as na-
tives (nonmigrants), old migrants (prior to 1953), or recent migrants
(after 1953), and as to urban or rural origin.

Broken families were more common among rural than among urban
migrants and more common among those migrants in the city at least

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 217

8 years. Natives were better educated than all migrants, and urban
migrants were better educated than rural migrants. Eighty percent of
black but less than one-third of white migrants were from the South.
A large proportion of southern black migrants had lived elsewhere in
the North and in other cities before arrival in Wilmington. White-
collar migrants had more prior urban experience than blue-collar
migrants. Most differences found were greater by occupational class
than by race. Most reasons for the migration to Wilmington were job
related. Blue collar workers and rural migrants had changed jobs
more frequently than white-collar workers and urban migrants, but
blue-collar rural origin migrants had a very low rate of change into
other occupational classifications. Before the move to Wilmington,
blue collar migrants had been there to visit friends and relatives much
more frequently than white-collar migrants. Tilly concluded that
rural-urban origin is not a source of differences among migrants but
that total urban exposure is what is important.

 

1097. . “Race and Migration to the American City.” In The Metropolitan
Enigma: Inquiries Into the Nature and Dimensions of America’s
Urban Crisis. Edited by James Q. Wilson. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Chamber of Commerce, 1967. Pp. 124-146.

Intermetropolitan migration between northern and western cities is
of increasing importance among black migrants, while the rural-urban
migration from the South to the North and West is of decreasing
significance. Although the average black migrant is inferior in educa-
tion and occupation to the white migrant or to the total city popula-
tion, he is superior to the nonwhite city native in terms of these two
variables, and also is younger. Crime and delinquency rates of black
inmigrants are lower than those of city natives.

1093.

 

and CLAUDE HAROLD BROWN. “On Uprooting, Kinship and the
Auspices of Migration.” International Journal of Comparative Sociol-
ogy, 8 (Sept. 1967), 139-164.

Presents findings from the 1961 Wilmington study (1096) on the
relationship between kinship and the auspices of migration—*. . . the
social structures which establish relationships between the migrant
and the receiving community before he moves.” They hypothesized
that those who move under the auspices of kinship are more likely to
be of low rank, to have had little prior urban experience, to be
extremely young or old, and to be prior or possible future victims of
forms of discrimination, that kinfolk function to alleviate stressful
factors involved in migration, that kin groups are the most effective in
providing domestic kinds of aid, and that those who migrate under the
auspices of kinship remain more intensely involved with kin following
migration and assimilate into formal city structures more slowly than
other migrants. Findings showed some trends but no significant
differences between rural and urban migrants with respect to the
hypotheses. Whites were more likely to migrate under the auspices of
kinship than blacks. The hypothesis that heavy involvement with kin
slows migrants’ assimilation into city structures was not confirmed.

1099. TOLLEY, GEORGE S. “Population Adjustment and Economic Activity:
Three Studies of Interstate Migration.” Regional Science Association
Papers and Proceedings, 11(3) (1963), 85-97.
218 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1100.

 

and H. W. HGORT. “Age-Mobility and Southern Farmer Skill:
Looking Ahead for Area Development.” Journal of Farm Economics,
45 (Feb. 1963), 31-46.

Areas designated by the Area Redevelopment Administration are
not the counties of heaviest concentrations of potentials for area
development when criteria for selection are not limited to per capita
income. Southern data and recent migration trends suggest that it
would be more helpful in regard to benefits to locate new industries in
areas where the size of the center is already large enough to lead to
economies of agglomeration, or where social overhead is available. The
authors emphasize industrialization but also note that recreation may
have some good employment opportunities. Since industrialization
favors younger, skilled workers, they suggest that perhaps Federal or
State government decentralized-function facilities should be estab-
lished in rural areas (e.g., military bases), with the deliberate policy of
hiring older workers, where there are such worker concentrations.

1101. TOWER, J. A. “Negro Exodus from the South.” Annals of the Association
of American Geographers, 45 (Sept. 1955), 301-302.

1102. TRIPP, THOMAS A. Rural Americans on the Move. New York: Friendship
Press, 1945.

1103. TROTT, CHARLES E. “Differential Responses in the Decision to Migrate.”
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Regional Science
Association, Ann Arbor, Mich., Nov. 12, 1971.

In attempting to discover if blacks and whites move for different
reasons, Trott developed a method for estimating the likelihood of
outmigration by specific cohorts. Data used in the analysis were those
for black and white males from the Social Security Continuous Work
History sample. Although the directional movements of volumes of
black and white males differed, the rates at which blacks and whites
left the same areas did not, and black and white males moved for the
same reasons.

1104. TURNER, RALPH H. “Migration to a Medium Sized American City:
Attitudes, Motives, and Personal Characteristics Revealed by Open-
Ended Interview Methodology.” Journal of Social Psychology, 80
(1949), 229-249.
Turner interviewed 200 persons 21 years of age and over who had
moved to Kalamazoo, Mich., from at least 25 miles away between July
1946 and January 1947. He found size of place of origin unrelated to
opinions, attitudes, reasons for move, frequency of migration, socioeco-
nomic status, age, education, occupation, and other sociodemographic
variables.

1105. TuTTLE, DAWN H. “Rural-Urban Experience and Values in Rural,
Fringe and Urban Areas of Pennsylvania.” Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, Pennsylvania State University, 1962.

1106. TuTTLE, W. M. JR. “War, Migration, and Retaliatory Violence: The ‘New
Negro’ in Chicago.” Paper presented at the 85th Annual Meeting of
the American Historical Association, Boston, Mass., Dec. 28-30, 1970.

1107. ULIBARRI, HORACIO. “Social and Attitudinal Characteristics of Spanish-
Speaking Migrant and Ex-Migrant Workers in the Southwest.” Mi-
meographed. Albuquerque, N. Mex.: University of New Mexico, 1966.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 219

1108. ULLMAN, EDWARD L. “Amenities as a Factor in Regional Growth.”
Geographical Review, 44(1) (Jan. 1959), 119-132.

1109. UNITED NATIONS. Internal Migration: Use of Census Data to Measure
Volume and Characteristics of Migrants, and Reasons for Moving. New
York: United Nations, 1960.

. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Problems of Migra-
tion Statistics. Population Studies, No. 5. New York: United Nations,
1949.

1111. U.S. BUREAU OF THE CENSUS. Current Population Reports. Series P-20.
Population Characteristics. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-
ing Office.

No. 4: “Postwar Migration and Its Causes in the U.S.: August 1945 to
October 1946.” 1947.
No. 14: “Internal Migration in the U.S.: April 1940 to April 1947.” 1948.

Nos. 22, 28, 36, 39, 47, 49, 57, 61, 73, 82, 85, 104, 113, 118, 127, 134, 141,
150, 156, 171, 188, 193, 210 provide annual data on the mobility of the
population of the United States for virtually all years 1945-70.

No. 154: “Reasons for Moving: March 1962 to March 1963.” 1966.

1110.

 

112.

 

. Current Population Reports. Series P-23. Special Studies. No. 7:
“Components of Population Change, 1950 to 1960 for Counties, Stand-
ard Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Economic Subregions.” Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

1113.

 

. Current Population Reports. Series P-23. Special Studies. No. 25:
“Lifetime Migration Histories of the American People.” Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

1114.

 

. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. Population Estimates.
No. 72: “Estimates of Population of States, July 1, 1940 to 1949.”
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1953.

1115.

 

. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. Population Estimates.
No. 227: “Preliminary Estimates of the Components of Population
Change, by States: 1950 to 1960.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1961.

 

1116. . Current Population Reports. Series P-25. Population Estimates.
No. 247: “Estimates of the Components of Population Change by Color,
for States: 1950 to 1960.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing

Office, 1962.
1117.

 

. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. Population Estimates.
No. 310: “Estimates of the Population of the United States and
Components of Change, by Age, Color and Sex: 1950 to 1960.” Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.

1118.

 

. Current Population Reports. Series P-25. Population Estimates.
No. 461: “Components of Population Change by County: 1960 to 1970.”
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

 

1119. . Historical Statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1957.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960.

. Population-Special Reports. Series P-44, No. 17: “Interstate
Migration and Other Population Changes: 1940 to 1943.” Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1944.

1120.

 
220

1121.

1122.

1123.

1124.

1125.

1126.

1127.

1128.

1129.

1130

1131.

1132.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

. Population-Special Reports. Series P-S, No. 5: “Civilian Migration
in the United States: December 1941 to March 1945.” Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945.

. Population-Special Reports. Series P-S, No. 5: “Population Shifts
in Farm Population: December 1941 to March 1945.” Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1945.

. U.S. Census of Population: 1940. Population. Internal Migration,
1935 to 1940. “Color and Sex of Migrants”; “Age of Migrants”; “Eco-
nomic Characteristics of Migrants”; and “Social Characteristics of
Migrants.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943—
46.

. U.S. Census of Population: 1950. Population Mobility. Special
Reports P-E. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

No. 4B: States and State Economic Areas. 1956.

No. 4C: Farm-Non-Farm Movers. 1957.

No. 4D: Characteristics of Migrants. 1957.

. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Final Reports. Series PC(1)-D.
Detailed Characteristics. No. 19: “Geographic Mobility of the Popula-
tion of the United States, April 1960.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1962.

. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Series PC(3)-1D. Standard
Metropolitan Areas. “Tables on Population Shifts and Personal In-
come.” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1960.

. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Subject Reports. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Final Report PC(2)-2B. Mobility for States and State Economic Areas.
1963.

Final Report PC(2)-2C. Mobility for Metropolitan Areas. 1963.

Final Report PC(2)-2D. Lifetime and Recent Migration. 1963.

Final Report PC(2)-2E. Migration between State Economic Areas. 1967.

. U.S. Census of Population: 1960. Series PC(SI). Supplementary
Reports. No. 30: “Mobility of the Population, by Age: 1960.” Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1962.

and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, BUREAU OF AGRICUL-
TURAL ECONOMICS. Net Movement Away From Farms in the United
States, by Age and Sex: 1940-1944. Series Census-BAE No. 4. Washing-
ton, D.C.: U.S. Bureau of the Census and U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, 1945.

. U.S. CONGRESS. House. Committee on Agriculture. Subcommittee on

Rural Development. Effect of Federal Programs on Rural America.
Hearings of the 90th Cong., 1st sess. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govern-
ment Printing Office, 1967.

. House. Select Committee Investigating the Interstate Migration
of Destitute Citizens. Interstate Migration. Hearings, 1940-41. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1941.

. House. Select Committee Investigating National Defense Migra-
tion. National Defense Migration. Hearings, 1941-42. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942.
1133.

1134

1135.

1136.

1137.

1138.

1139.

1140.

1141.

1142.

1143.

1144.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 221

. Senate. Committee on Government Operations. Subcommittee on
Government Research. The Rural to Urban Population Shift: A Na-
tional Problem. Proceedings of the National Manpower Conference.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1968.

. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE. Development of Agriculture’s Hu-

man Resources: A Report on Problems of Low-Income Farmers. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1955.

. A Good Life for More People: 1971 Yearbook of Agriculture.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

, AGRICULTURAL MARKETING SERVICE. Farm Population ... Mi-
gration to and from Farms, 1920-1954. AMS-10. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office, 1954.

. Economic Research Service. “Bibliography of Publications of the
Farm Population Branch, 1955-64.” Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1965.

. Economic Research Service. “Bibliography of Publications of the
Human Resources Branch, 1965-1966.” Mimeographed. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service,
1967.

——. Economic Research Service. “Bibligraphy of Publications of the

Human Resources Branch, 1967.” Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1968.

. Economic Research Service. “Bibliography of Publications of the
Human Resources Branch, 1968.” Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1969.

. Economic Research Service. “Bibliography of Publications of the
Human Resources Branch, 1969.” Mimeographed. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1970.

. Economic Research Service. The Economic and Social Condition
of Rural America in the 1970's. Prepared for the U.S. Senate Commit-
tee on Government Operations, 92d Cong., 1st sess. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1971.

. Economic Research Service. Farm Population Estimates. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research
Service.

ERS-130: For 1910-62 was published in 1963. ERS Nos. 177, 233, 286,
344, 410, and 427 were published in subsequent years for each year,
1963-68, and ERS 427-69 for 1969 was published in 1970.

Information cited in the last-noted publication, ERS-427-69, shows
that the farm population had dropped from about 34 percent in 1960 to
5 percent of the total U.S. population in 1969. The farm population loss
for 1965-69 was slightly over half what it had been in 1950-55, the
peak years for outmigration. While the rate of off-farm movement is
still high, the impact of this migration on nonfarm areas is much less
than it was for 1940-65.

. Economic Research Service. Potential Mechanization in the Flue-
Cured Tobacco Industry With Emphasis on Human Resource Adjust-
222

1145.

1146.

1147.

1148.

1149.

1150

1151

 

 

 

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

ment. Agricultural Economic Report 169. Washington, D.C.: U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 1969.

. Economic Research Service. Rural Development Chartbook. ERS—
500. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service, 1972.

A review of the data charts in this book reveals a great deal of
information about migration. In 1967, 20 percent of the U.S. urban
population 14 years old and over originated in rural areas. A slightly
greater proportion of the black than white population of urban areas
was composed of nonmigrants. In 1967, a larger proportion of the
white than of the black rural population had been both urban-rural
and rural-rural migrants. In fact, almost 75 percent of rural blacks
aged 14 and over were nonmigrants, while the majority of rural whites
aged 14 and over were migrants. One-fourth the rural white popula-
tion originated in urban areas, whereas only about one-tenth of rural
blacks did. There was no decline (through 1970) in the rate of off-farm
migration. From 1960 to 1970, nonmetropolitan counties had a net loss
of about 2.4 million outmigrants. This datum conceals the fact that the
nonfarm nonmetropolitan population had a higher rate of growth (19
percent) than that of metropolitan areas. While the 1960-70 rate of
gain of nonfarm jobs was slightly greater for rural and nonmetropoli-
tan than for metropolitan areas, rural areas need more opportunities
in fast-growing industries.

. Economic Research Service. “U.S. Population Mobility and Distri-
bution.” ERS-436. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1969. Chartbook.

Male mobility rates by occupation for 1968 show farm operators with
the highest rate and farmers with the lowest rate. Professionals were
more likely than others to be intercounty movers. Off-farm migration
rates were as high as ever, but the number of migrants has declined
as the farm population base has declined. (See 1145.)

. Federal Extension Service. Facts and Trends About the Rural
Population: Highlights of Three Agricultural Outlook Conference Pa-
pers. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal
Extension Service, 1962.

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE. “Whites Account for Reversal of

South’s Historic Population Loss through Migration, Census Shows.”
U.S. Department of Commerce News, CBT1-34, Mar. 3, 1971.

. Area Redevelopment Administration. Population, Labor Force
and Unemployment in Chronically Depressed Areas. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.

Includes data on total net migration to and from depressed areas for
the 1940’s and 1950’s and discusses factors involved in the movement.

. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE. Social Secu-

rity Administration, Office of Research and Statistics. Poverty Studies
in the Sixties: A Selected, Annotated Bibliography. Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1970.

. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Manpower Administration, Bureau of

Employment Security. Farm Labor Developments, September. Wash-
ington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1965.
1152.

1153.

1154.

1155.

1156.

1157.

1158.

1159.

1160.

1161.

1162.

1163.

1164.

 

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 223

VALIEN, PRESTON. “Internal Migration and Racial Composition of the
Southern Population.” American Sociological Review, 13(3) (June
1948), 294-298.

Proportionately more whites than blacks left southern farms be-
tween 1935 and 1940.

VANCE, RUPERT B. Research Memorandum on Population Redistribution
within the United States. Bulletin 42. New York: Social Science Re-
search Council, 1938.

VANDIVER, JOSEPH S. “Some Population Trends in the More Rural
States, 1940-1950.” Rural Sociology, 16(2) (June 1951), 154-163.
Through an examination of census data, Vandiver found that the
heaviest rural population losses, generally the result of outmigration,
had occurred in the Corn Belt and Great Plains States.

VINING, R. “On Describing the Structure and Development of a Human
Population System.” Journal of Farm Economics, 42 (Dec. 1959), 922
942,

VOELKER, STANLEY W. “Economic and Population Changes in Rural
Areas of North Dakota.” Paper presented at Rural Manpower and
Farm Labor Conference, Bismarck, N. Dak., Dec. 2, 1969.

. “Migration and Poverty in the Great Plains.” Paper presented at
the Annual Meeting of the Great Plains Inter-Religious Commission,
Oklahoma City, Okla., July 29, 1969.

VOGT, EVON Z. “The Acculturation of American Indians.” Annals of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 311 (May 1957),
137-146.

WADDELL, JACK O., and O. MICHAEL WATSON. The American Indian in
Urban Society. Boston, Mass.: Little, Brown & Co., 1971.

WAGNER, JOHN J., JR. Program and Services of Urban Churches in
Helping Rural Youth Become Assimilated in Urban Areas. Washing-
ton, D.C.: National Committee for Children and Youth, Inc., 1963.

WAGONER, DELMER WILLIAM. “Recent Migration of Young Males Into
Houston, Texas.” Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Texas,
1957.

WAKELEY, RAY E., and PAUL J. JEHLIK. “Regional Research in Popula-
tion Dynamics.” Rural Sociology, 18(2) (June 1953), 166-169.

and AMY RUSSELL. Migration and Changes of Population in lowa,
1960. Project 1225. Ames, Iowa: Iowa State University, Agricultural
and Home Economics Experiment Station, 1960.

Presents data on county net migration of Iowa’s rural-farm popula-
tion by decade for the period 1920-50.

WALDO, ARLEY D. “The Impact of Migration and Multiple Job Holding
upon Income Distribution in Agriculture.” Journal of Farm Econom-
ics, 47 (Dec. 1965), 1235-1244.

Despite fluctuations in outmigration because of the Depression,
World War II, and the availability of nonfarm jobs, farm population
outmigration still has exceeded inmigration in all but 3 years since
1920. While the volume of off-farm migration has declined because of
the shrinking population base, the rate has not. U.S. Department of

 
224 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agriculture data for 1949-59 show that there had been no decrease in
underemployment and unemployment among the rural-farm labor
force, nor had the relative income position of farm labor improved.
This is a result of the fact that declines in the number of entrants to
the farm labor force and increases in the number of transfers of farm
workers to nonfarm jobs have not been great enough to offset the
effects of increased labor productivity, technological displacement,
and lowered overall aggregate demand. A closer look at l-percent
Social Security sample data revealed that reductions in the farm labor
force were primarily the result of reduced entries to that force.
Multiple jobholding frequently was the first step toward off-farm
migration, but those who remained in agriculture held multiple jobs
sporadically and only for short periods of time. Waldo concludes that,
while the biggest impact of multiple jobholding is to ease the off-farm
migration of younger workers, the several effects of multiple jobhold-
ing and off-farm migration on agricultural incomes are unclear.

1165. WALLS, DWAYNE. The Chickenbone Special. New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, 1971.

In discussing outmigration from low-income tobacco areas of Geor-
gia, Walls points out that, although migrants generally move for
economic/job-related reasons, they are aware that northern welfare
policies are more equitable, and that they can depend on welfare if it
becomes necessary.

1166. WALTON, SIDNEY, JR. “Geographic Proposals for Black Economic Libera-
tion.” Black Scholar, 3(6) (Feb. 1972), 38-48.

The problems of many cities are compounded by concentrations of
poor blacks in central city areas, yet these blacks really have few
alternatives in light of white attitudes and behavior and lack of a
strong national policy geared to help black migrants, who have no
choice but to move to the city in the first place. Walton recommends
the establishment of a central source of information for potential
black migrants so they can make better destination choices and a
program which would aid black outmigration from cities of high black
unemployment. This recommendation reflects acceptance of findings
showing that blacks of few skills are increasingly moving into areas
with no jobs, not only for psychological and family reasons, but also
because they lack adequate information.

1167. WALZ, ORRY C. “Migration of Ranch Country Youth.” Southwestern
Social Science Quarterly, 41 (Supplement) (1960), 283-289.

This study of migration from a rural Oklahoma county found that

farm-reared youth were less likely than others to have been migrants.

1168. WAN, THOMAS, and JAMES D. TARVER. “Socioeconomic Status, Migration
and Morbidity.” Social Biology, 17(1) (Mar. 1972), 51-59.

1169. WAYLAND, SLOAN R. “Basic Rural Trends and the Farmer of the
Future.” In Farmers of the Future: A Report of Columbia University
Seminar on Rural Life. New York: Columbia University, Teachers
College, Bureau of Publications, 1953. Pp. 1-9.

1170. WEAVER, ROBERT C. “Non-White Population Movements and Urban
Ghettos.” Phylon, 20 (Fall 1959), 235-241.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 22h

Discusses the possible effects of concentrations of low-income black
populations on the business and cultural institutions of central cities.

1171. WEINBERG, A. A. “Mental Health Aspects of Voluntary Migration.”
Mental Hygiene, 39 (1955), 450-454.

1172. WEINSTEIN, ROBERT. “Indian Migration and Assimilation.” EDA Pro-
gram on the Role of Growth Centers in Regional Economic Develop-
ment, Discussion Paper 14. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas, Center
for Economic Development, 1970.

After reviewing research and theory sources, Weinstein concludes
that all definitions of assimilation imply that migrant attitudes,
beliefs, and institutions must change for assimilation to occur, some-
thing he feels is not only unnecessary but unlikely, and that the
notion of the necessity for value and attitude changes in the assimila-
tion process is the result of a “superficial concept of values and
attitudes.” He presents some general research findings on Indian
cultural values and shows how the ordering, not the substance, of
values and attitudes are different between Anglos and Indians. In
considering Indians’ problems in the urban environment, Weinstein
hypothesizes that ““. . . drinking may represent a substitute for the
more traditional forms of social interaction that are lost when the
migrant leaves the reservation.” Other problems cited are inability to
keep jobs due to low skill levels, inadequate facility with English, and
inability to handle small, daily crises. Military experience does not
appear to aid Indian adaptation. Factors positively associated with
successful adaptation for relocated Indians include a good under-
standing of the requirements of working for wages, greater education,
premigration work experience, job satisfaction, job security, getting
along well with supervisor and co-workers, good match between voca-
tional training and first job, and skill in using English. Weinstein
points out that timing of stresses and problems encountered may have
a great deal to do with success or failure of relocation; formal skills
and education may be of secondary importance to other sociopsychol-
ogical factors. He feels that premigration training programs for Indi-
ans should try to produce achievement motivations sufficiently high
to get them to migrate but not so high that return to the reservation
will occur at the first frustration of effort. Indians should be relocated
to areas distant from the reservation, because prejudice against them
is high in areas close to reservations.

1173. WEISBROD, B. A. “Education and Investment in Human Capital.” Jour-
nal of Political Economy, 70 (Oct. 1962), 106-124.

1174.

 

. External Benefits of Public Education. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University, Industrial Relations Section, 1964.

*1175. WEISS, LEONARD, and JEFFREY G. WILLIAMSON. “Black Education,
Earnings and Interregional Migration: Some New Evidence.” Ameri-
can Economic Review, 62(3) (June 1972), 372-383.

Using data from the 1967 Survey of Economic Opportunity, Weiss
and Williamson investigated the relationship between education,
earnings, and migration for blacks. They conclude that if blacks’
educational advances remain as they were in the mid-1960’s and if
they also continue to have the same migration rates, their relative
incomes will remain stable in the 1970’s and probably into the follow-
226 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

ing decade. The alleged inferiority of black southern schools is not an
intervening factor for migrants. It would appear that urban ghetto
life in either the North or South has more negative consequences for
the economic progress of blacks than does origin in the rural South.
“...1in 1967 education generated returns to blacks that were as high
as those enjoyed by whites in 1960.” This was observed at every
educational level. From projections for young working-age black
males, it is estimated that less than half of the black male population
will have completed high school by 1987.

1176. WELCH, FRANK J. “The Evolving Low-Income Problems in Agriculture.”
American Economic Review, 50(2) (May 1960), 143-150.

Most low-income areas are in the Southeast, where most farmers
are dependent on small, poorly paying farms. Two characteristics of
these areas are a high man-land ratio and an imbalance between
agriculture and industry. Even though there has been heavy migra-
tion from farms, high fertility, difficulties in labor mobility, and lack of
job opportunities have restricted movement or made it traumatic.
Also, lack of adequate information about distant job opportunities also
inhibits movement, and many people may only have outside contact
with relatives. When they do move, they are hampered by lack of skills
and have to learn new social relationships, perhaps have to assume
the role of a cultural minority group. The author recommends up-
graded educational efforts for these areas, since “. . . only 3-percent
of male youth in depressed areas can expect to have successful farm
opportunities.” Since efforts to stem outmigration will not help de-
pressed areas, use of public funds to try to stop the inevitable is highly
inefficient.

1177. WELFARE COUNCIL OF CHICAGO. “In-Migrants—Number, Location and
Selected Characteristics.” Statistics, 23(11-12) (Nov.—Dec. 1956), 107.

1178. WELLER, ROBERT H., and JOHN J. MACISCO, JR. “Migration, Urbaniza-
tion and Fertility: A Case Study.” Paper prepared for the Annual
Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science,
not published, 1969.

1179. WENLANG, L1, and R. R. SHAW. “A Differential Approach to the Study of
Migration Streams.” Rural Sociology, 35(4) (Dec. 1970), 534-538.

1180. WEPPNNER, ROBERT S. “The Economic Absorption of Navajo Indian
Migrants in Denver, Colorado.” Navajo Urban Relocation Research,
No. 15 (1968).

*1181. WERTHEIMER, RICHARD F., II. The Monetary Rewards of Migration
within the U.S. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1970.

Efforts to develop rural areas have been based in part on the desire
to stem outmigration, as have attempts to equalize welfare payments.
“Migration is commonly viewed as massive, mostly rural in origin, and
disproportionately black. Migrants are commonly viewed as poorly
educated, prone to unemployment, likely to be on welfare, likely to
riot, and rather unsystematic in their choice of destinations . . .
virtually all of these impressions are false.” Actually, the current
increase in central-city populations is not the result of net migration,
migrants in general are younger and better educated than the rest of
the population, black rural-urban migrants are about as likely to be
employed as urban native blacks, and the concentration of blacks in
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 227

central cities is more related to white outmigration than to black
inmigration.

In presenting his economic theory of migration, Wertheimer postu-
lates that migrants make a choice of destination based on maximizing
the economic returns over time. Eight hypotheses concerning the
return to migration are tested using 1967 Survey of Economic Oppor-
tunity data and multiple regression analysis to obtain an estimate of
the annual earnings differential attributable to migration. Earnings
of the family head are used as the dependent variables, and age,
education, migration status, race, and sex are used as explanatory
variables. Two types of migration studied are migration out of and
into the South, and migration into, out of, and among urban areas.
Outmigration from the South generally results in about an $800
yearly expected income gain for the migrants. Two exceptions noted
are for the college educated, who increase their expected annual
incomes about $3,100 by moving, and, for women, who experience no
expected income increases. Rural-urban migration to cities of less
than 250,000 population results in about a $600 yearly expected
income increase for migrants, while that to more populous cities yields
an average yearly expected gain of nearly $1,100. Exceptions again
were noted for the college educated and women. Women’s expected
gain by migrating was zero, and the college educated moving to
smaller cities would be expected to suffer an average annual income
loss of over $1,000. Five years after migration, migrants had earnings
equal to those of northern urban natives of the same age, race,
education, and sex. The black-white differential for migrants out of
the South was notable for the 5 years immediately following migra-
tion. Blacks’ expected gain per year for these years was about $800,
while that for whites was insignificant. This means that South-North
migration is more profitable for blacks than whites. It is concluded
that Government programs to stem migration to cities will not have
much effect on city problems and that the costs per migrant of these
programs would be prohibitively high.

Wertheimer points out that the method of analysis may bias returns
to South-North migration in an upward direction with a corresponding
downward bias of returns to North-South migration. One should also
be aware of the fact that earnings by others than household heads are
not included in the analysis.

1182.

 

. “Rural-To-Urban Migration: Implications for Government Pol-
icy.” Research Memorandum for the Office of Economic Opportunity,
Sept. 15, 1967.

In this paper written to stimulate discussion within the Office of
Economic Opportunity, Wertheimer seeks to oppose the idea that
rural-urban migration should be slowed or reversed because “hordes”
of southern black migrants have created the major problems of the
cities. Using primarily census and Department of Agriculture data, he
attempts to provide evidence for the following propositions: (1) Migra-
tion is a response to employment opportunities elsewhere rather than
to deprivation in rural areas; (2) since migration is selective, Negro
migrants to urban areas are as well educated as black urban resi-
dents, and they do not have greater unemployment rates; and (3)
recent black migrants to cities are not a large percentage of a city’s
228 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

black population, and they do not tend to concentrate disproportion-
ately in one area of a city.

1183. WHITE, JEAN DEMPEWOLF. “Time Orientation as a Factor in the Accul-
turation of Southwestern Spanish-Speaking Groups.” Unpublished
master’s thesis, University of Texas, 1955.

1184. WHITE, ROBERT. “The Urbanization of the Dakota Indian.” Unpublished
master’s thesis, St. Louis University, 1959.

1185. WILBER, GEORGE L. “Fertility, Migration and Socioeconomic Status.”
Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Population Association
of America, not published, 1970.

 

1186. . “Migration Expectancy in the United States.” Journal of the
American Statistical Association, 58 (June 1963), 444-453.

Using census data for 1958-59 and National Office of Vital Statistics
data for 1959, Wilber calculated migration expectancies. He estimated
that those born in 1958 had an average lifetime expectancy of 4.17
moves to a different county. Expectancies by sex, occupation, and

employment and marital status also were calculated.

1187. and JAMES S. BANG. Internal Migration in the United States,
1940-1957: A List of References. Sociology and Rural Life Series 10.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Exper-

iment Station, 1958.

and . “Some Characteristics of Mississippi's Migrants.”
Information Sheet 593. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State Univer-
sity, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1958.

Between 1949 and 1950 more men than women moved both into and
out of Mississippi, leaving the State with a greater net loss of females.
While three times as many whites as nonwhites moved out, white
inmigration caused the loss in numbers for the two races to be about
the same. Mobility rates were highest among those aged 18-35,
peaking at 20-24. There was a positive association between level of
education and outmigration. Migrants had above-average incomes,
and mobility rates were highest for professional, white collar, and
skilled workers. Over two-thirds of outmigrants from the State moved
to a city.

and CARL T. ROBBINS. Estimated Population Trends in Missis-
sippi 1950-1960. Bulletin 577. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State
University, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.

and TOMMY W. ROGERS. Internal Migration in the United States,
1958-1964: A List of References. Sociology and Rural Life Series 15.
State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agricultural Exper-
iment Station, 1965.

and . Interstate Migration of the Mississippi Population.
Bulletin 717. State College, Miss.: Mississippi State University, Agri-
cultural Experiment Station, 1965.

Using census data, Wilber and Rogers investigated 1950-60 inter-
state migration for Mississippi. Most white male and female outmi-
grants from Mississippi were in contiguous States, Texas, and Califor-
nia, while Illinois had the greatest number of black outmigrants. Most
black and white inmigrants to Mississippi had come from other
southern States, but inmigrant whites came in far greater proportions

 

1188.

 

 

1189.

 

1190.

 

1191.

 

 
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 229

than nonwhites. The absolute number of white inmigrants was in-
creasing, while that of nonwhite inmigrants was declining.

1192. WILHELM, SIDNEY M., and EDWIN H. POWELL. “Who Needs the Negro?
From the Economics of Exploitation to the Economics of Uselessness.”
Trans-action (Sept.—Oct. 1964), 18-34.

1193. WILLIAMS, ROBIN M., and HOWARD W. BEERS. Attitudes toward Rural
Migration and Family Life in Johnson and Robertson Counties, Ken-
tucky, 1941. Bulletin 452. Lexington, Ky.: University of Rentoeky,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1943.

1194. WILLITS, FERN K., and ROBERT C. BEALER. “The Utility of Residence for
Differentiating Social Conservatism in Rural Youth.” Rural Sociology,
28 (Mar. 1963), 70-80.

1195. WILLSIE, ROGER H. Why Farmers Sold Out in Central Nebraska in 1956
57. SB 445. Lincoln, Nebr.: University of Nebraska, Agricultural
Experiment Station, 1960.

1196. WILLSON, E. A. Off-Farm Residence of Families of Farm and Ranch
Operators. Bulletin 530. Bozeman, Mont.: Montana State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station, 1957.

1197. WINDHAM, GERALD O. “Formal Participation of Migrant Housewives in
an Urban Community.” Sociology and Social Research, 47(2) (Jan.
1963), 201-209.
Differences in social participation patterns among various types of
migrant housewives related primarily to length of city residence. (See
following annotation.)

 

1198. . “Socioeconomic Status and Formal Social Participation of Rural
Migrant Families in Pittsburgh.” Unpublished doctoral disserstation,
Pennsylvania State University, 1960.

The relationship between migration, socioeconomic status, and so-
cial participation was examined using data from 1,470 Pittsburgh
metropolitan area families. When educational level was controlled,
there was no relationship between migrant status and housing or
socioeconomic status. Nonmigrants belonged to, and participated in,
more organizations than migrants, but both rural and urban migrant
females who did belong to organizations were more likely to hold
leadership positions.

1199.

 

. “Urban Identification of Rural Migrants.” Mississippi Quarterly,
14 (Spring 1961), 78-89.

The hypothesis that the migrants’ identification with the city was
related to socioeconomic status was tested on data from 105 rural
migrants in Pittsburgh. While migrants’ scores on an urban identifica-
tion index indicated that they were not strongly identified with the
city, these scores were significantly associated with housing status,
educational level, length of city residence, and social participation.

1200. WINGER, ALAN R. “Mover Origin, Residential Construction and the
Urban Form.” Economic Development Administration Program on the
Role of Growth Centers in Regional Economic Development, Discus-
sion Paper 26. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky, 1970.
Inmigrants have a greater impact on new construction than those
who are residentially mobile. Why this is so and what consequences
this has for urban form are discussed.
230 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

1201.

 

. “Residential Construction and the Urban Housing Adjustments
of the Migrating Household.” Economic Development Administration
Program on the Role of Growth Centers in Regional Economic Devel-
opment, Discussion Paper 25. Lexington, Ky.: University of Kentucky,
1970.

The nature of housing market activities and conceptual links be-
tween inmigrant housing demands and residential construction are
considered, and results are presented of an investigation into the
ways in which the construction industry responds to the moves of
various kinds of inmigrants in different places. It is concluded that
housing considerations support the idea that intermediate-sized cities
are the appropriate focus for growth-center plans.

1202. WINKELMAN, DON. “A Case Study of the Exodus of Labor From Agricul-
ture: Minnesota.” Journal of Farm Economics, 48 (Feb. 1966), 12-21.

Among factors affecting the rate of decline in the Minnesota agricul-
tural labor force for 1949-60, income was the particularly influential
variable. Those in farm work who were receptive to income differences
were not particularly quick to respond to them, however. Policies
which have the effect of raising farm incomes tend to maintain some
people in agriculture who otherwise would have left.

1203. WISCONSIN, UNIVERSITY OF, INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS RESEARCH INSTI-
TUTE. Retraining and Migration as Factors in Regional Economic
Development. Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin, Industrial Rela-
tions Research Institute, 1966. Out of print.

1204. WOLF, L. G. “The Metropolitan Tidal Wave in Ohio, 1900-2000.” Eco-
nomic Geography, 45(2) (Apr. 1969), 133-154.

1205. WOLPERT, JULIAN. “The Basis for Stability of Interregional Transac-
tions.” Geographical Analysis (1968), 152-180.

The development of a continuous sampling plan for interregional
migration which will aid in the analysis of factors involved in differen-
tial regional development is illustrated.

1206.

 

. “Behavioral Aspects of the Decision to Migrate.” Regional Sci-
ence Association Papers and Proceedings, 15 (1965), 159-169.

Three central concepts of migration behavior are considered: the
idea of place utility, the field-theory approach to search behavior, and
the life-cycle approach to threshold formation. A model based on
operational forms of these concepts is presented. The model is de-
signed to relate “. . . aggregate behavior in terms of migration
differentials into measures of place utility relevant for individuals.”
The idea is to predict the composition of in- and outmigrants and their
choice of destination. Model inputs are described.

1207.

 

. “Migration as an Adjustment to an Environmental Stress.”
Journal of Social Issues, 22 (Oct. 1966), 92-102.

Although migration between similar environments is evidence that
there is little determinism inherent in migration behavior, few of the
crucial behavioral issues involved have been studied, and most re-
search has been directed at obtaining maximum “explanation” in a
regression sense. The author suggests a model in which he tried to
“.. . structure the ecological relationship between individuals and
their social and physical environment on a ‘continuum of harmony’ in
the matching of individuals to sites.” Emphasis is given to urban
environment and urban situations of stress and threat.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 231

1208.

 

. “Stability in Interregional Migration Streams.” Mimeographed.
Not published, 1966.

1209. WOODSON, CARTER G. A Century of Negro Migration. Washington, D.C.
Association for the Study of Negro Life and History, 1918.

1210. WOOFTER, T. J. “Migration in the Southeast.” Demography, 4(2) (1967),
532-552.

Woofter describes the economic changes occurring in the Southeast
from 1940 to 1960, including mechanization of agriculture, creation of
a surplus of farmers and farm laborers, industrialization, and the
greater development of natural resources. In the interim 5.75 million
left farms of the Southeast States, 3 million going to nonfarm areas in
the region and a net of 2.7 million leaving the region. The ratio of
black to white outmigrants was four to one. Migrants tended to be
young. The 1960-80 volume of migration from the region probably will
be one-fourth to one-fifth as great as that of the 1950's.

1211.

 

. Negro Migration: Changes in Rural Organization and Population
of the Cotton Belt. New York: W. D. Gray Co., 1920.

1212. YANCY, WILLIAM L. “Going Down Home: Family Structure and the
Urban Trap.” Social Science Quarterly, 52(4) (Mar. 1972), 893-906.

Differences in the opportunities and choices available to black

versus white rural-urban migrants may account for the greater fre-

quency of female-headed families among blacks. Black migrants do not

have the option of going back home that whites have, and, thus, the

urban area becomes, not a step in the process of mobility, but a “trap.”

1213. YAPA, LAKASHMAN, MARIO POLESE, AND JULIAN WOLPERT. “Interde-
pendencies of Commuting, Migration and Job Site Relocation.” Eco-
nomic Geography, 47(1) (Jan. 1971), 59-72.

A conditional probability approach to the spatial structure of inter-
dependency is presented. The avoidance of concentrated population in
limited space and increased productivity are two U.S. goals, yet both
cannot be achieved simultaneously. Commuting then becomes impor-
tant as a substitute for migration in achieving the goals together. The
development of community policies (including rapid-transit-system
development) can affect the development of the relationship between
commuting and migration.

1214. YAUKEY, DAVID WILLIAM. “A Comparison of Distribution by Classes of
Migrants within the State of Washington, 1949-1950.” Unpublished
doctoral dissertation, University of Washington, 1956.

1215. YINGER, J. M., and G. E. SIMPSON:. “Integration of Americans of Mexi-
can, Puerto-Rican, and Oriental Descent.” Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 304 (Mar. 1956), 124-127.

1216. YOESTING, DEAN R., and JOE M. BOHLEN. “A Longitudinal Study of
Migration Expectations of Young Adults.” Journal of Human Re-
sources, 3(4) (Fall 1968), 485-498.

Data were obtained initially in 1948 from 157 graduating seniors in
eight rural high schools in Hamilton County, Towa, and in one high
school in Story County, Iowa. Populations of the towns in which the
schools were located ranged from 100 to 1,600. One hundred fifty-two
of the same respondents were reinterviewed in 1956, and 143 of them
were reinterviewed again in 1967. Sex, college aspirations, migration
232 ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

intentions, and frequency of early discussions with parents concerning
occupations all related to actual migration. Two factors unrelated to
migration behavior were residence at the time of high school gradua-
tion and socioeconomic status in 1948.

1217. YOUMANS, E. GRANT. The Educational Attainment and Future Plans of
Kentucky Rural Youth. Bulletin 664. Lexington, Ky.: University of
Kentucky, Agricultural Experiment Station, 1959.

Educational plans but not educational attainment affected youths’
plans to migrate.

. “The Rural School Dropout: A Ten-Year Follow-Up Study of
Eastern Kentucky Youth.” Bureau of School Service, 36(1) (Sept. 1963).

, S. E. GRIGSBY, and H. C. KING. After High School What: High-
lights of a Study of Career Plans of Negro and White Rural Youth in
Three Florida Counties. Gainsville, Fla.: University of Florida, Cooper-
ative Extension Service, 1965.

The authors interviewed 171 black and 240 white high school seniors
in three rural counties of northern Florida in 1962 concerning their
career plans. The principal value seen in a high school education by
both black and white students was for getting a good job. While the
majority of both races also saw a high school education as important
for going on for more training, learning about the world, and making a
good income, whites more frequently agreed to the importance of a
high school education for these things. Encouragements to attend
college were most often given to blacks by their mothers, while, for
whites, it was their friends. There was only a small difference in the
total proportions of students of each race planning to go on to college
(over 75 percent). Within each racial group, a larger proportion of
females than males planned to attend college, the difference being
larger among blacks. Although the majority of male students wanted
to be professionals, a larger proportion of blacks (61 percent) than
whites (52 percent) held this aspiration. Also, a higher proportion of
blacks (18 percent) than whites (8 percent) aspired to be skilled
workers, while more whites (14 percent versus 2 percent) wanted to be
farm operators. A majority of black mothers wanted their daughters
to have professions in the future. More black males than females
expected to leave the county after high school, while the reverse was
true among whites. The majority of all race-sex groups said they
would stay in the county if they had a good job, but blacks and white
females preferred to live in cities, while white males preferred small
towns or the country.

, H. C. KING, and S. E. GRIGSBY. “Self-Concept of Negro and White
Rural Youth.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the South-
ern Sociological Society, Asheville, N.C., Apr. 16, 1964.

1218.

 

 

1219.

1220.

 

*1221. YUKHIN, RICHARD. “Rural Industrialization and In-migration: A Case
Study of the Big Sandy Region.” Economic Development Administra-
tion Program on the Role of Growth Centers in Regional Economic
Development, Discussion Paper 27. Austin, Tex.: University of Texas,
Center for Economic Development, 1970.

Rural industrialization in lagging areas does not always mean
creation of jobs for the unemployed in those areas because of inmigra-
tion of other workers.
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY 233

In studying industrialization effects in the Big Sandy area of
eastern Kentucky, YuKhin analyzed job applications of those seeking
work at a new American Standard Company plant. Of the 8,000 job
applications, 998 came from people living outside of but originally
from eastern Kentucky. These applications from potential return
migrants formed the data base for the study.

Most of the potential return migrants were living in Ohio at the
time they applied, and about half were living in large cities. Ninety
percent of applicants were male, and about 85 percent were employed
at the time of application. Almost 90 percent had at least a high school
education, and three-fourths were under age 35. Potential returnees
were found to be willing to accept lower pay in exchange for the
chance to return. These findings suggest that the “Big Sandy Area
can attract ‘heavy’ industry even if the local labor pool cannot satisfy
skilled manpower requirements.” An analysis of high-school seniors’
migration preferences made by YuKhin prior to and subsequent to the
coming of the American Standard plant revealed that, whereas previ-
ously only 30 percent of the students had expected to be living in
eastern Kentucky in 5 years, after the company was established 55
percent expected to be in eastern Kentucky in 5 years.

The new plant actually hired only 216 persons, and all professional
and skilled workers were hired from outside the area. The author
suggests the initiation of programs to match the area’s labor surplus
with jobs in intermediate-sized growth centers. Relatively few applica-
tions from potential return migrants were received from those in
intermediate-sized cities, and these applicants would accept less wage
reduction than those from other-sized places in return for the chance
to come back to eastern Kentucky.

1222. ZEISEL, JOSEPH S., and GEORGE S. TOLLEY. “The Job Outlook for Rural

Youth.” In Rural Youth in Crisis: Facts, Myths and Social Change.
Edited by Lee G. Burchinal. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, 1965. Pp. 257-272.

The number of nonfarm jobs is not growing rapidly enough to
absorb the surplus of farm youth entering the labor market and those
shifting from farm to nonfarm work. Competition for jobs among
youth is escalating because of the increased numbers of youth enter-
ing the labor market in general, and technological changes are reduc-
ing the need for semiskilled and unskilled workers. Also discussed are
the impacts on rural youth of industrial employment shifts, increased
number of women in the labor force, occupational shifts, and geo-
graphic trends in employment.

1223. ZELINSKY, WILBUR. “Changes in the Geographic Patterns of Rural

1224.

 

Population in the United States.” Geographical Review, 32(4) (Oct.
1962), 492-524.

Considers national and regional-temporal patterns of change, the
rural life cycle of American counties, types of rural population
changes, the pattern of aggregate rural population loss, reproductive
change and migration, rural migration patterns, and genetic factors in
rural migration.

. “Recent Publications on the Distribution of Population in the
U.S.” Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 48 (Dec.
1958), 472-481.
234

ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

Surveys 16 of the more significant booklength works on U.S. popula-
tion written since 1950 and describes the important contributions of
each. Zelinsky notes a lack of geographers’ work in the field and a lack
of gengraphic perspective among social demographers. (All the rele-
vant publications noted are cited and annotated in this bibliography.)

1225. ZICKEFOOSE, PAUL W. “Migration and Population Turnover.” In Eco-

nomic Development in Southwestern Kansas. Part 11. Population and
the Labor Force. Lawrence, Kans.: University of Kansas, School of
Business Research, 1953. Pp. 64-90.

1226. ZIMMER, BASIL G. “Adjustment of Migrants in the Urban Area: A Study

1227.

1228.

1229,

 

 

 

of Participation in the Urban Community in Relation to Migration
Experience.” Dissertation Abstracts, 14(8) (1954), 1272-1273.

. “The Adjustment of Negroes in a Northern Industrial Commu-
nity.” Social Problems, 9 (Spring 1962), 378-386.

. “Farm Background and Urban Participation.” American Journal
of Sociology, 61 (Mar. 1956), 470-475.

Ma'e migrants with farm backgrounds participated in a midwestern
city’s organizations less frequently than others.

. “Participation of Migrants in Urban Structures.” American So-
ciological Review, 20 (Apr. 1955), 218-224.

Migrants’ participation in the city increased with city residence, and
migrants from other urban areas participated more than those with
farm backgrounds.

1230. ZITTER, MEYER, and ELIZABETH S. NAGY. “Use of Social Security’s

Continuous Work History Sample for Measurement of Net Migration
by Geographic Area.” Journal of the American Statistical Association,
65 (June 1970), 1044.

In considering the potential of the 1-percent Social Security sample,
estimates of net migration derived from the file for regions, States,
and standard metropolitan statistical areas (SMSA’s) by race for 1960—
65 were compared with corresponding estimates from the 1960 census’
intercensal surveys. A certain degree of consistency was found in the
net migration rates compared, but there is still some question as to
whether rates based on employment changes as reflected in the Social
Security sample reflect true migration. The authors note two prob-
lems: size of the Social Security sample and timeliness of the data.
They feel the former precludes obtaining good migration rates from
many States and SMSA’s, while the latter precludes the usefulness of
migration rates derived from the data for any regular systematic set
of estimates for geographic areas.

1231. ZUICHES, JAMES J. “In-migration and Growth of Nonmetropolitan Urban

1232.

 

Places.” Rural Sociology, (Sept. 1970), 410-420.

and GLENN V. FUGUITT. “Residential Preferences: Implications
for Population Redistribution in Nonmetropolitan Areas.” Paper pre-
sented at the 138th Annual Meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science, Philadelphia, Pa., Dec. 28, 1971.
Findings from several recent surveys and polls indicate that Ameri-
cans have a general preference for living in small towns and rural
areas. However, these studies failed to differentiate size classes when
ANNOTATED BIBLIOGRAPHY

giving respondents choices. A rural area’s nearness to a city was an
important factor not investigated in these studies. The authors’ data
from a statewide sample of 902 Wisconsin residents collected in 1971
showed that the general preference for living in a rural area or small
town is more specifically a preference for living in one of these areas
within commuting distance of a metropolitan area. Few of those living
in metropoli an areas preferred to live farther away, while more than
half of those in nonmetropolitan areas indicated they would like to be
living closer to a central city. Those who wanted to move to metropoli-
tan areas in comparison to those who wanted to leave such areas were
younger, better educated, and held higher status jobs.

235
  

 
Part 111

Topical Index for Bibliog-

raphy

Acculturation of migrants (see Ad-
justment of migrants).

Adaptation of migrants (see Adjust-
ment of migrants).

Adjustment of migrants (incl. Accul-
turation, Adaptation, Assimila-
tion): 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 34, 39, 46, 49, 52,
82, 84, 104, 115, 116, 137, 140, 155,
164, 167, 168, 169, 170, 176, 193, 197,
199, 201, 203, 204, 206, 211, 218, 219,
225, 238, 254, 259, 267, 283, 286, 290,
299, 300, 301, 302, 329, 331, 333, 334,
335, 336, 347, 350, 369, 376, 381, 390,
392, 394, 395, 405, 408, 409, 410, 439,
450, 452, 454, 455, 457, 458, 459, 461,
464, 481, 483, 492, 503, 504, 507, 508,
511, 513, 520, 521, 530, 531, 555, 564,
565, 567, 580, 581, 583, 589, 590, 591,
592, 593, 606, 608, 627, 628, 629, 634,
636, 638, 642, 647, 649, 655, 660, 662,
664, 673, 681, 686, 687, 688, 693, 709,
712, 714, 721, 726, 727, 728, 7132, 739,
747, 754, 764, 772, 7717, 780, 790, 795,
796, 797, 803, 804, 805, 806, 823, 824,
828, 829, 837, 838, 851, 852, 854, 855,
856, 860, 864, 874, 881, 897, 900, 904,
906, 914, 915, 916, 921, 923, 924, 927,
928, 931, 937, 938, 941, 942, 944, 945,
946, 947, 949, 954, 955, 956, 958, 959,
960, 961, 962, 963, 964, 966, 968, 973,
984, 985, 986, 1002, 1011, 1016, 1029,
1040, 1041, 1051, 1079, 1081, 1096,
1097, 1098, 1105, 1158, 1159, 1160,
1166, 1172, 1180, 1183, 1184, 1199,
1207, 1212, 1215, 1226.

Age selectivity of migration: 6, 7, 35,
53, 55, 57, 39, 65, 66, 68, 73, 79, 86,

237

95, 114, 125, 132, 140, 142, 153, 154,
172, 182, 195, 209, 219, 268, 270, 272,
281, 292, 293, 296, 308, 352, 353, 364,
366, 376, 385, 408, 432, 433, 437, 470,
472, 473, 487, 491, 492, 495, 533, 535,
553, 564, 574, 599, 606, 642, 654, 679,
682, 696, 701, 711, 739, 751, 774, 779,
812, 821, 837, 838, 852, 854, 873, 977,
980, 981, 997, 999, 1033, 1063, 1083,
1084, 1097, 1104, 1117, 1123, 1124,
1128, 1129, 1146, 1181, 1188, 1210.

Alabama: 8, 21, 405, 505, 919.

Alaska: 300.

American Indians: 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 57, 66,
300, 390, 392, 393, 394, 395, 445, 459,
511, 521, 681, 726, 754, 777, 852, 856,
881, 900, 1016, 1078, 1158, 1159,
1172, 1180, 1184.

Anomie among migrants (see Mental
health/illness and migration; Ad-
justment of migrants).

Appalachia: 57, 171, 172, 174, 319,
365, 407, 494, 647, 771, 833, 835, 845,
852.

Appalachian migrants: 39, 66, 171,
172, 174, 176, 184, 211, 225, 238, 254,
369, 370, 371, 457, 504, 510, 513, 550,
565, 566, 567, 568, 569, 634, 647, 772,
837, 838, 844, 852, 942, 943, 944, 945,
946, 949.

Area redevelopment/regional devel-
opment (see also Growth centers;
Industrialization of rural areas):
65, 85, 136, 137, 138, 153, 174, 272,
399, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 516,
632, 661, 724, 725, 738, 739, 751, 779,
852, 931, 1100, 1181, 1203, 1221.

Arizona: 754, 797.
238 TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arkansas: 87, 179, 215, 216, 217, 269,
379, 399.

Aspirations of migrants: 3, 48, 49,
201, 555, 591, 628, 712, 780, 955, 968,
1077.

Assimilation of migrants (see Adjust-
ment of migrants).

Attitudes of migrants (see also Val-
ues of migrants): 201, 267, 380, 394,
408, 410, 565, 580, 636, 686, 712, 780,
828, 837, 838, 851, 852, 854, 855, 914,
942, 943, 955, 968, 1013, 1021, 1104,
1107.

Attitudes toward migrants, general
and in destination areas: 66, 218,
230, 300, 520, 565, 589, 629, 644, 837,
838, 864, 914, 966, 1181.

Attitudes toward migration: 42, 55,
86, 110, 137, 159, 201, 246, 249, 250,
316, 322, 347, 352, 383, 384, 408, 444,
445, 447, 448, 492, 516, 555, 651, 748,
802, 807, 809, 837, 838, 841, 855, 886,
899, 902, 904, 951, 968, 1013, 1024,
1026, 1193, 1216.

B

Barriers to migration/mobility: 6, 7,
99, 159, 163, 172, 182, 209, 226, 227,
268, 270, 289, 352, 353, 354, 355, 382,
384, 400, 408, 445, 449, 472, 473, 488,
492, 516, 523, 543, 545, 606, 623, 725,
749, 797, 821, 855, 898, 899, 937,
1003, 1078, 1176.

Bibliographies: 15, 34, 41, 91, 118,
177, 212, 239, 262, 287, 294, 388, 414,
450, 522, 548, 596, 654, 672, 674, 701,
718, 725, 756, 771, 785, 829, 852, 913,
920, 984, 1044, 1084, 1137, 1138,
1139, 1140, 1141, 1150, 1172, 1187,
1190, 1224.

Blacks: 6, 7, 27, 31, 33, 34, 57, 59, 60,
61, 65, 66, 67, 68, 70, 73, 90, 103, 108,
110, 112, 114, 115, 121, 130, 131, 132,
136, 140, 142, 148, 150, 153, 154, 161,
162, 163, 164, 178, 187, 189, 195, 218,
220, 221, 222, 231, 232, 233, 259, 268,
269, 278, 279, 293, 299, 307, 308, 309,
313, 329, 333, 336, 353, 385, 402, 405,
406, 413, 420, 428, 429, 430, 431, 433,
437, 438, 439, 458, 460, 461, 463, 470,
472, 473, 482, 489, 493, 495, 514, 518,
520, 529, 545, 549, 550, 555, 558, 563,
565, 566, 570, 571, 572, 581, 582, 583,

586, 591, 594, 595, 597, 598, 606, 611,
614, 615, 616, 619, 620, 635, 642, 648,
656, 657, 661, 667, 668, 669, 670, 671,
676, 692, 693, 698, 700, 712, 713, 719,
739, 740, 741, 747, 750, 752, 754, 757,
7170, 779, 780, 792, 798, 802, 805, 821,
822, 823, 824, 841, 848, 849, 850, 851,
852, 853, 854, 855, 858, 859, 865, 866,
867, 879, 897, 902, 903, 904, 920, 921,
927, 954, 955, 956, 958, 961, 962, 963,
965, 967, 968, 971, 975, 977, 980, 991,
997, 1001, 1005, 1015, 1026, 1028,
1041, 1045, 1051, 1057, 1061, 1062,
1063, 1066, 1096, 1097, 1098, 1101,
1103, 1106, 1116, 1117, 1123, 1145,
1146, 1152, 1166, 1170, 1175, 1181,
1182, 1188, 1191, 1192, 1209, 1210,
1211, 1212, 1219, 1220, 1227.

Bureau of Indian Affairs: 1, 3, 300,
681, 856, 931, 1078.

C

California: 256, 267, 300, 611, 637, 856,
873, 891.

Causes of migration (see also Rea-
sons for moving): 6, 7, 13, 21, 27, 28,
35, 54,173,717, 78, 85, 86, 88, 101, 105,
106, 107, 109, 124, 125, 130, 155, 160,
161, 170, 174, 189, 209, 221, 265, 269,
270, 292, 296, 318, 333, 340, 345, 347,
352, 353, 364, 365, 372, 385, 391, 400,
401, 402, 404, 405, 408, 418, 419, 428,
432, 433, 434, 438, 468, 469, 470, 472,
473, 4717, 479, 502, 512, 515, 516, 519,
522, 524, 5217, 533, 556, 561, 564, 576,
590, 599, 606, 621, 625, 642, 645, 646,
661, 676, 684, 700, 701, 702, 739, 751,
763, 766, 769, 773, 778, 779, 789, 799,
807, 808, 841, 851, 852, 854, 855, 862,
865, 889, 906, 907, 1015, 1018, 1028,
1082, 1093, 1149, 1157, 1195, 1202.

Careers of migrants (see Occupa-
tional mobility of migrants; Job
performance of migrants; Occupa-
tional selectivity of migration).

Chain migration (see Kinship/family
ties/friendship as factors in migra-
tion and for migrants).

Chicanos (see Mexican Americans;
Spanish Americans).

Children, effects of migration on: 39,
197, 504, 580, 620, 623, 632, 8317,
1081.
TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

Church attendance among migrants
(see Social participation of mi-
grants).

Circular migration (see also Visiting
patterns of migrants): 168, 565,
655, 837, 838, 903, 914, 915, 942, 943.

Cohort analyses: 161, 274, 277, 292,
293, 491, 850, 889, 1054, 1055, 1058,
1103.

Colorado: 24, 380, 392, 393, 394, 395,
450, 451, 452, 453, 454, 455, 580, 592,
660, 886, 915, 973, 986, 1180.

Commuting: 65, 797, 1213, 1232.

Congestion, urban: 67, 444, 446, 470,
658, 739, 1213.

Connecticut: 207, 237, 648, 873.

Consumer patterns of migrants: 452,
455, 529, 851, 855.

Costs of migration to areas of in- and
outmigration: 97, 189, 252, 253, 268,
372, 602, 643, 658, 659, 696, 739, 811,
852, 854, 855, 992, 1174.

Costs of moving for migrants: 99,
268, 350, 355, 400, 543, 602, 606, 645,
658, 701, 798, 992, 1181.

Credit use among migrants: 452, 455,
851, 855.

Crime among migrants (see Delin-
quency/criminal behavior among
migrants).

Crowded living conditions (see Levels
of living among migrants; Levels
of living, rural).

D

Decisionmaking process to move:
103, 201, 384, 394, 401, 408, 562, 751,
855, 935, 964, 1103, 1206.

Declining areas (see Depressed/de-
clining/distressed rural areas).

Definitional problems in studying
migration: 124, 347.

Delaware: 1096, 1098.

Delinquent/criminal behavior among
migrants: 34, 450, 452, 455, 459,
504, 572, 681, 921, 1041, 1097.

Dependency problems of migrants: 1,
3, 259, 754.

Dependency ratio, increase/decrease
in, as result of migration: 7, 43, 56,
57,59, 66, 73, 189, 272, 411, 656, 698,
739, 749, 787, 817, 836.

239

Dependents, number of migrants’, in
comparison to nonmigrants: 112,
259, 855, 873.

Depopulation of rural areas/natural
decrease of population: 13, 21, 44,
57, 59, 65, 93, 174, 180, 272, 467, 477,
498, 505, 646, 697, 738, 862, 863,
1074.

Depressed/declining/distressed rural
areas: 21, 44, 56, 59, 80, 85, 86, 136,
137, 138, 149, 157, 235, 273, 282, 320,
366, 399, 407, 443, 444, 446, 447, 448,
467, 478, 501, 514, 516, 522, 599, 606,
621, 630, 631, 633, 661, 696, 730, 738,
739, 740, 749, 766, 779, 786, 787, 807,
836, 846, 847, 852, 854, 863, 906, 917,
934, 1080, 1142, 1149, 1157, 1176.

Depression, the Great, migration
during: 330, 331, 332, 385, 391, 397,
640, 1090.

Deprivation and relative depriva-
tion: 12, 332, 333, 405, 571, 600.

Destinations, choice of, migrants’: 7,
10, 114, 201, 347, 378, 408, 448, 556,
562, 575, 590, 606, 744, 851, 852, 854,
855, 865, 898, 903, 906, 1021, 1077,
1181.

Destinations of migrants (see Pat-
terns of migration; specific States).

Discrimination against migrants (see
Attitudes toward migrants, gen-
eral and in destination areas).

Discrimination, role of, in migration:
7, 73, 106, 107, 136, 221, 545, 606,
851, 855, 968, 1028, 1166, 1212.

Distance as a factor in migration: 6,
108, 114, 133, 137, 178, 182, 183, 195,
201, 281, 284, 318, 352, 395, 397, 400,
408, 437, 470, 473, 4717, 555, 557, 617,
636, 645, 654, 701, 734, 735, 776, 812,
839, 896, 983, 1004, 1025, 1035, 1039,
1042, 1059, 1066, 1077, 1191.

E

Economic factors in migration (see
Causes of migration; Income vari-
ations between areas, role of, in
migration; Income from farms).

Educational selectivity of migrants:
6, 7, 48, 49, 53, 56, 86, 95, 114, 125,
131, 132, 148, 152, 158, 170, 172, 178,
182, 183, 202, 210, 219, 243, 309, 330,
336, 366, 376, 385, 397, 400, 408, 411,
240

428, 429, 430, 431, 4317, 492, 495, 505,
550, 557, 564, 600, 606, 642, 682, 695,
713, 739, 751, 774, 799, 837, 838, 848,
849, 852, 854, 936, 980, 982, 1015,
1044, 1045, 1063, 1084, 1096, 1097,
1104, 1124, 1181, 1182, 1188.
Efficiency of migration: 623, 975.
Elderly, migration of the: 59, 95, 189,
256, 382, 399, 499, 722, 1005.
Employment opportunities, per-
ceived/actual, in urban and and ru-
ral areas (see also Information,
role of, in migration; Reasons for
moving; Labor supply and de-
mand): 44, 55, 56, 68, 73, 86, 101,
106, 107, 136, 144, 161, 172, 179, 189,
209, 213, 221, 245, 269, 308, 339, 346,
347, 367, 379, 394, 396, 401, 407, 418,
419, 432, 438, 444, 445, 446, 469, 470,
4717, 482, 514, 515, 516, 522, 545, 546,
576, 606, 613, 643, 648, 661, 685, 729,
739, 7159, 764, 785, 7917, 801, 807, 808,
822, 841, 865, 889, 903, 907, 908, 925,
933, 941, 993, 1018, 1022, 1043, 1064,
1072, 1145, 1169, 1176, 1222.
Employment services (see Reloca-
tion; Labor mobility demonstra-
tion and relocation projects).

Employment stability of migrants:
192, 193, 218, 219, 259, 364, 450, 452,
455, 457, 459, 472, 516, 565, 566, 739,
742, 777, 797, 823, 837, 838, 851, 852,
855, 945, 1096, 1172.

Epidemiological data on migrants
(see Mental health/illness and mi-
gration).

F

Family, effects of migration on the/
problems of migrants’ families (see
also Children, effects of migration
on): 112, 155, 201, 258, 450, 452, 455,
507, 573, 580, 589, 638, 649, 915,
1011.

Family ties as a factor in migration
(see Kinship/family ties/friendship
as factors in migration and for mi-
grants).

Farms, changes in size of/declines in
number of: 8, 38, 68, 222, 358, 478,
785, 834, 852, 1043.

Farm consolidation: 38, 227, 347, 434,
478, 501, 502, 785, 834, 990.

TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

Farm incomes (see Income from
farms).

Farm labor force (see also Labor sup-
ply and demand): 8, 35, 38, 53, 54,
55, 61, 68, 70, 75, 99, 100, 102, 139,
141, 150, 187, 188, 213, 221, 2217, 265,
345, 346, 347, 348, 352, 356, 438, 469,
470, 472, 473, 474, 478, 488, 537, 545,
613, 663, 678, 701, 702, 711, 755, 785,
808, 816, 821, 852, 991, 1001, 1043,
1099, 1149, 1151, 1164, 1169, 1202,
1210.

Farm population (see Rural, rural-
farm, rural-nonfarm populations,
changes and trends in).

Farm reared, proportion of, in non-
farm areas: 70, 280, 329, 878, 981,
1145.

Female migrants: 68, 70, 90, 111, 115,
131, 132, 134, 140, 142, 145, 153, 154,
164, 172, 182, 195, 218, 259, 267, 270,
281, 293, 329, 336, 353, 364, 385, 403,
409, 413, 431, 432, 437, 447, 473, 505,
516, 517, 518, 533, 555, 564, 600, 601,
611, 619, 635, 636, 638, 652, 654, 679,
681, 687, 688, 695, 698, 719, 722, 739,
774, 812, 823, 851, 852, 855, 873, 878,
904, 915, 954, 955, 968, 977, 980, 982,
997, 999, 1045, 1063, 1117, 1123,
1124, 1129, 1181, 1188, 1191, 1197,
1198, 1199.

Fertility of migrants/changes in as
result of migration: 274, 307, 406,
577, 578, 652, 694, 877, 879, 880,
1178, 1185.

Fertility of rural populations: 21, 57,
60, 65, 66, 149, 172, 189, 221, 307,
308, 417, 418, 419, 427, 432, 433, 470,
477, 516, 526, 578, 694, 698, 739, 799,
850, 852, 1017, 1028, 1047, 1176,
1192.

Financial support strategies (see In-
come maintenance programs, fac-
tor of, in migration).

Florida: 308, 403, 719, 1001, 1219.

Food consumption factors/patterns
among migrants (see Levels of liv-
ing among migrants; Consumer
patterns of migrants).

Forced and involuntary migration:
54, 73, 296, 407, 408, 440, 481, 516,
564, 769, 779, 825, 852.
TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

Friendship as a factor in migration
(see Kinship/family ties/friendship
as factors in migration and for mi-
grants).

Fringe areas: 23, 320, 498, 526, 593,
686, 1105.

Future migration—trends, rates,
outlooks, predictions: 44, 57, 59, 66,
67, 68, 144, 189, 271, 296, 297, 308,
383, 385, 407, 433, 463, 475, 487, 499,
501, 574, 635, 663, 677, 736, 737, 738,
740, 741, 745, 785, 815, 852, 893, 908,
1043, 1050, 1175, 1186, 1210.

Future moves (see Plans for future
moves among respondents).

G

Geographic mobility of the poor: 6, 7,
305, 590, 606, 614, 615, 616, 621, 629,
749, 851, 852.

Georgia: 195, 220, 405, 752, 809, 1068,
1165.

Ghettos (see Residential locations of
migrants, incl. segregation).

Government policies/programs, ef-
fects of, on migration and on rural
areas: 38, 54, 65, 73, 135, 136, 165,
172, 300, 347, 350, 408, 441, 444, 445,
446, 447, 489, 516, 549, 551, 613, 705,
744, 745, 786, 841, 846, 852, 854, 931,
1038, 1043, 1130, 1176, 1181.

Great Plains: 57, 140, 229, 1043, 1154,
1157.

Gross flows: 64, 96, 161, 293, 296, 297,
353, 385, 470, 472, 473, 543, 749, 821,
978, 992, 1099.

Growth centers (see also Relocation;
Labor mobility demonstration and
relocation projects): 137, 441, 442,
443, 444, 446, 448, 506, 745, 746, 852,
1221.

H

Happiness, expressed, by migrants:
739, 851, 855, 942.

Health, mental, of migrants (see
Mental health/illness and migra-
tion; Adjustment).

Health, physical, of migrants: 9, 327,
408, 452, 455, 760, 837, 838, 1006,
1041.

Historical data on migration prior to
World War I: 18, 19, 151, 162, 207,

241

298, 308, 310, 315, 347, 360, 385, 386,
463, 612, 625, 626, 802, 831, 882, 895,
977, 991, 1050, 1053, 1084, 1119,
1143, 1204, 1209, 1211.
Homesickness among migrants (see
also Return migration, factors in-
fluencing): 1, 218, 334, 336, 492, 513,
565, 608, 649, 655, 851, 852, 854, 855,
923, 937, 942, 943.
Housing, quality of, migrants’ (see
Levels of living among migrants).
Housing, role of, in migration: 201,
270, 797, 810, 851, 855, 1028.
Human resource development (see
also Policy recommendations for
potential migrants): 74, 156, 158,
228, 347, 441, 442, 443, 444, 445, 446,
447, 448, 661, 738, 739, 740, 909, 933,
1049, 1134, 1144.

I

Idaho: 57, 748.

Identification with destination areas
among migrants (see Satisfaction,
community, of migrants; Adjust-
ment; Kinship/family ties/friend-
ship as factors in migration and
for migrants).

Identity problems of minority group
migrants (see Mental health/ill-
ness and migration; Adjustment).

Illinois: 39, 96, 121, 184, 218, 238, 278,
279, 328, 378, 408, 464, 565, 566, 567,
777, 851, 855, 873, 1062, 1063, 1106,
1177, 1191.

Income effects of migration: 6, 10, 27,
28, 29, 35, 47, 48, 49, 56, 67, 81, 85,
88, 101, 104, 110, 114, 131, 145, 148,
155, 190, 192, 219, 259, 268, 306, 336,
351, 353, 364, 366, 393, 394, 405, 411,
443, 450, 452, 455, 470, 472, 473, 492,
514, 520, 542, 543, 558, 571, 590, 591,
600, 605, 606, 625, 692, 693, 701, 712,
739, 742, 775, 780, 798, 821, 823, 837,
838, 851, 852, 854, 855, 866, 868, 917,
928, 954, 956, 958, 961, 962, 963, 964,
965, 967, 968, 971, 992, 994, 1002,
1089, 1154, 1172, 1175, 1180, 1181,
1188.

Income from farms: 8, 55, 101, 165,
213, 316, 366, 468, 469, 478, 489, 492,
545, 636, 705, 753, 821, 899, 1043,
1145, 1164, 1176.
242

Income maintenance programs, fac-
tors of, in migration: 6, 852.

Income variations, interarea, role of,
in migration: 7, 28, 38, 88, 101, 106,
194, 352, 353, 400, 401, 444, 468, 470,
471,473, 4717, 506, 543, 560, 701, 776,
793, 808, 898, 994.

Indiana: 95, 259, 366, 462, 851, 855,
914, 1002, 1003.

Indians (see American Indians).

Industrial growth/decline factors: 65,
130, 137, 235, 264, 367, 405, 411, 471,
478, 480, 512, 548, 610, 625, 632, 739,

910, 1025.
Industrialization of rural areas: 85,

86, 94, 179, 284, 396, 427, 444, 446,
448, 477, 478, 502, 512, 516, 610, 682,

702, 739, 751, 781, 782, 1018, 1064,
1210, 1221.

Information, role of, in migration: 7,
42, 103, 193, 346, 352, 441, 472, 473,
492, 543, 556, 606, 645, 682, 685, 701,
725, 735, 749, 775, 776, 799, 851, 852,
854, 855, 898, 903, 915, 933, 1003,
1096, 1166, 1176.

Inmigration as a factor of metropoli-
tan growth: 7, 67, 120, 121, 132, 231,
232, 280, 367, 385, 386, 387, 406, 463,
475, 487, 495, 497, 642, 645, 693, 715,
736, 737, 738, 739, 740, 741, 744, 745,
746, 1053, 1060, 1127, 1181, 1182,
1204, 1231.

Inmigration, impact of, on destina-
tion areas: 27, 53, 67, 73, 121, 136,
137, 140, 171, 218, 231, 252, 253, 285,
377, 385, 386, 387, 399, 406, 429, 430,
448, 486, 549, 550, 563, 566, 658, 661,
684, 693, 720, 738, 739, 740, 741, 745,
746, 846, 852, 854, 864, 865, 878, 927,
966, 982, 1033, 1063, 1088, 1133,
1143, 1170, 1181, 1182, 1200, 1201.

Interethnic comparisons among mi-
gants (incl. race selectivity): 6, 7,
31, 33, 57, 59, 66, 67, 68, 70, 71, 90,
108, 110, 112, 114, 121, 130, 131, 132,
140, 142, 148, 153, 154, 161, 164, 167,
181, 187, 189, 195, 214, 218, 220, 221,
222, 231, 259, 268, 280, 293, 298, 301,
309, 329, 336, 353, 354, 369, 385, 386,
402, 427, 428, 429, 430, 431, 432, 433,
437, 438, 469, 470, 472, 473, 482, 514,
518, 555, 572, 590, 591, 602, 603, 604,
606, 607, 611, 614, 619, 622, 624, 625,

TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

626, 635, 640, 648, 656, 668, 676, 692,
693, 698, 699, 700, 713, 722, 739, 740,
750, 756, 798, 821, 822, 823, 824, 828,
848, 849, 850, 851, 852, 854, 855, 856,
878, 896, 920, 954, 955, 956, 958, 960,
961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 967, 968, 971,
975, 977, 979, 980, 994, 997, 1041,
1044, 1045, 1050, 1066, 1096, 1097,
1103, 1111, 1113, 1115, 1116, 1117,
1123, 1124, 1127, 1145, 1146, 1148,
1152, 1181, 1188, 1191, 1210, 1212.

Interethnic relations in urban areas:
1, 3, 565, 566, 580, 655, 856, 864, 868,
914, 915, 968, 1029.

Interpersonal interactions of mi-
grants (see also Social participa-
tion of migrants): 1, 3, 155, 381,
450, 452, 464, 513, 531, 565, 566, 580,
583, 592, 655, 729, 851, 852, 854, 855,
856, 868, 872, 897, 900, 914, 915, 924,
968, 1098, 1172.

Interregional/interstate flows: 7, 16,
31, 33, 53, 68, 70, 106, 107, 137, 143,
148, 161, 180, 181, 183, 194, 207, 292,
293, 295, 296, 303, 352, 353, 360, 364,
400, 401, 402, 496, 499, 560, 572, 574,
614, 615, 616, 618, 635, 671, 700, 722,
762, 776, 793, 878, 887, 888, 890, 892,
980, 982, 994, 1020, 1045, 1066, 1067,
1068, 1083, 1088, 1093, 1099, 1120,
1131, 1146, 1175, 1191, 1205, 1208.

Interregional variations in migra-
tion (see Patterns of migration).

Intervening opportunities: 318, 1034,
1035.

Involuntary migration (see Forced
and involuntary migration).

Iowa:12, 43, 44, 47, 48, 49, 53, 134, 197,
198, 199, 202, 204, 205, 206, 271, 490,
492, 520, 524, 525, 527, 528, 552, 599,
636, 735, 765, 1037, 1163, 1216.

J

Jobholding, multiple (see also Part-
time farming): 35, 54, 86, 187, 193,
316, 366, 408, 469, 472, 473, 474, 492,
545, 821, 851, 855, 1010, 1043, 1145,
1164.

Job leads, role of, in migration (see
Information, role of, in migration;
Employment opportunities, per-
ceived/actual, in rural and urban
areas).
TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY 243

Job performance of migrants: 11, 510,
536, 644, 681, 928, 944, 1088.

Job search procedures of migrants:
115, 648, 732, 823, 824, 855.

K

Kansas: 315, 733, 895, 1225.

Kentucky: 79, 80, 81, 157, 163, 173,
175, 176, 233, 251, 266, 358, 359, 397,
442, 448, 449, 691, 799, 800, 851, 855,
883, 906, 916, 917, 918, 936, 937, 939,
940, 941, 942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 948,
949, 1017, 1039, 1088, 1193, 1217,
1218, 1221.

Kinship/family ties/friendship as fac-
tors in migration and for migants:
1,2, 3,4, 6,7, 9,50, 103, 114, 115,
116, 163, 168, 176, 193, 201, 218, 249,
250, 254, 270, 376, 384, 385, 399, 401,
408, 447, 448, 457, 492, 531, 562, 565,
606, 636, 638, 645, 648, 650, 655, 682,
712, 732, 739, 744, 748, 775, 795, 797,
823, 837, 838, 851, 852, 854, 855, 865,
897, 903, 914, 915, 916, 923, 937, 938,
942, 943, 944, 945, 946, 964, 968,
1002, 1003, 1096, 1098, 1166, 1176.

L

Labor force participation of mi-
grants (see also Unemployment/
employment levels of migrants fol-
lowing migration): 70, 115, 131, 635,
722,751, 823, 851, 852, 854, 855, 873.

Labor market theory: 42, 105, 106,
107, 194, 347, 352, 355, 472, 473, 478,
506, 700, 702, 801, 898, 932.

Labor markets, intersectoral (see
also Employment opportunities,
perceived/actual, in rural and ur-
ban areas; Income variations, in-
terarea, role of, in migration): 38,
105, 106, 107, 137, 194, 270, 303, 347,
355, 433, 468, 469, 470, 471, 472, 477,
478, 506, 543, 545, 556, 606, 645, 700,
702, 759, 782, 932, 933, 1222.

Labor mobility demonstration and
relocation projects: 306, 325, 347,
350, 516, 520, 522, 662, 704, 725, 783,
784, 796, 797, 852, 856, 868, 870, 905,
931, 1014, 1078.

Labor supply and demand (see also
Employment opportunities, per-
ceived/actual, in rural and urban

areas): 6, 38, 42, 44, 59, 65, 99, 101,
107, 137, 144, 150, 165, 179, 189, 209,
212, 213, 221, 221, 245, 265, 303, 3117,
346, 347, 348, 352, 364, 367, 379, 407,
418, 419, 428, 433, 469, 470, 472, 473,
477, 478, 487, 506, 516, 522, 536, 539,
545, 546, 570, 571, 606, 613, 625, 635,
639, 643, 700, 702, 703, 716, 739, 764,
770, 785, 801, 807, 808, 908, 933, 993,
1043, 1100, 1164, 1169, 1176, 1202,
1210, 1222.

Labor transfer process from farm to
nonfarm jobs: 42, 54, 55, 99, 103,
193, 209, 269, 347, 469, 473, 478, 537,
538, 539, 551, 630, 994.

Land use/value changes related to
migration: 8, 38, 121, 478, 488, 1043.

Layoffs among migrants (see also
Unemployment/employment levels
among migrants following migra-
tion; Job performance of mi-
grants): 1, 472, 851, 855.

Length of residence of migrants in
destination areas: 3, 34, 48, 49, 115,
164, 168, 178, 336, 381, 409, 450, 452,
455, 457, 529, 531, 555, 581, 620, 692,
693, 732, 739, 777, 795, 798, 823, 843,
851, 854, 855, 878, 904, 914, 921, 924,
963, 964, 965, 966, 968, 1096, 1181,
1197, 1198, 1199, 1229.

Levels of living among migrants: 56,
218, 300, 314, 450, 452, 455, 470, 492,
493, 508, 529, 591, 739, 777, 837, 838,
851, 852, 854, 855, 869, 900, 915, 936,
954, 955, 964, 965, 968.

Levels of living, rural: 8, 44, 187, 257,
422, 427, 470, 545, 675, 766, 834, 838,
851, 852, 854, 855, 936, 942, 943,
11786.

Life cycle as factor in migration (see
Timing of migration/life cycle as a
factor in migration).

Locational preferences of respond-
ents (see Residential location pref-
erences of respondents; Attitudes
toward migration).

Louisiana: 93, 94, 164, 178, 265, 857.

M

Maine: 842.

Marital status factors/formation and
disruption, role of, in migration
(see also Timing of migration/life
244

cycle as a factor in migration): 115,
270, 601, 735, 851, 855.

Maryland: 589.

Massachusetts: 336, 461, 901, 904.

Matrix modeling (see Models and
theories).

Mechanization and technology/pro-
ductivity changes in agriculture:
6, 8, 21, 38, 54, 65, 93, 99, 136, 165,
187, 189, 209, 221, 222, 265, 269, 308,
345, 347, 427, 433, 478, 501, 516, 537,
544, 557, 610, 613, 632, 682, 683, 702,
703, 716, 739, 769, 770, 781, 782, 841,
852, 1038, 1043, 1144, 1164, 1169,
1210, 1222.

Mental health/illness and migration
(see also Adjustment): 5, 30, 34,
164, 167, 301, 302, 376, 413, 461, 5117,
518, 521, 532, 555, 581, 582, 583, 608,
611, 619, 622, 641, 665, 666, 667, 668,
669, 670, 671, 727, 756, 757, 805, 806,
920, 947, 985, 1041, 1085, 1171.

Mexican Americans (see also Spanish
Americans): 6, 57, 66, 110, 219, 267,
301, 317, 321, 381, 398, 414, 447, 484,
507, 508, 509, 517, 518, 545, 591, 628,
629, 655, 732, 754, 764, 803, 851, 852,
854, 855, 868, 870, 905, 913, 914, 923,
924, 954, 955, 956, 958, 961, 962, 963,
964, 965, 967, 968, 985, 1029, 1052,
1107, 1183, 1215.

Michigan: 76, 78, 98, 127, 218, 219,
246, 289, 330, 331, 332, 380, 381, 383,
384, 411, 422, 424, 476, 507, 508, 509,
530, 531, 593, 627, 628, 644, 712, 713,
772, 797, 876, 969, 970, 1037, 1104.

Migration as a factor in population
change: 25, 40, 43, 57, 59, 61, 65, 68,
76, 18, 79, 119, 120, 121, 123, 124,
125, 126, 130, 140, 149, 151, 153, 171,
172, 173, 175, 180, 185, 186, 189, 229,
233, 237, 260, 263, 266, 271, 272, 298,
349, 367, 407, 417, 427, 428, 460, 462,
465, 476, 41717, 491, 495, 496, 497, 498,
499, 505, 512, 526, 527, 528, 533, 534,
535, 553, 556, 573, 574, 585, 587, 588,
617, 625, 632, 639, 645, 648, 656, 657,
6175, 6178, 679, 680, 691, 694, 696, 698,
699, 706, 708, 711, 720, 733, 736, 737,
738, 739, 740, 741, 742, 744, 745, 746,
749, 755, 767, 785, 787, 799, 800, 812,
813, 814, 815, 826, 827, 830, 831, 832,
836, 837, 838, 842, 862, 875, 883, 895,

TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

901, 926, 977, 978, 981, 995, 996,
1001, 1018, 1033, 1046, 1053, 1060,
1089, 1092, 1094, 1112, 1115, 1116,
1117, 1118, 1119, 1146, 1152, 1154,
1156, 1163, 1189, 1204, 1210, 1225.

Migratory labor, role of, in migra-
tion: 219, 337, 381, 851, 855, 914,
968, 1107.

Military service of migrants: 1, 681,
712, 851, 855, 1077, 1172.

Minnesota: 55, 88, 210, 234, 300, 322,
343, 459, 465, 677, 680, 687, 688, 774,
834, 836, 873, 896, 897, 1042, 1075,
1077, 1202.

Mississippi: 29, 35, 160, 185, 186, 187,
188, 189, 265, 287, 405, 460, 520, 556,
813, 814, 815, 817, 818, 819, 841, 851,
855, 884, 902, 903, 968, 1021, 1026,
1188, 1189, 1191.

Missouri: 166, 213, 375, 399, 639, 709,
711, 797, 839, 840.

~./ Models and theories: 12, 27, 30, 33,

95, 104, 113, 117, 124, 128, 129, 152,
158, 168, 177, 194, 201, 240, 257, 258,
265, 268, 281, 293, 297, 301, 302, 303,
322, 339, 355, 367, 368, 382, 384, 389,
415, 416, 450, 451, 453, 454, 455, 456,
479, 481, 494, 532, 554, 560, 562, 580,
608, 623, 645, 653, 654, 673, 674, 694,
700, 701, 727, 734, 736, 743, 756, 760,
765, 801, 804, 806, 822, 825, 829, 887,
888, 889, 890, 891, 892, 893, 906, 966,
968, 973, 981, 985, 1006, 1019, 1020,
1031, 1032, 1035, 1054, 1056, 1065,
1086, 1087, 1099, 1109, 1110, 1172,
1179, 1181, 1205, 1206, 1207, 1230.

Montana: 729.

Multiple moves (see Repeat and step
migration; Plans for future moves
among respondents).

N

Natural decrease of population (see
Depopulation of rural areas/natu-
ral decrease of population).

Natural increase/decrease as a fac-
tor of change/growth: 7, 17, 25, 53,
517, 59, 65, 68, 120, 121, 123, 132, 172,
231, 237, 406, 477, 495, 553, 571, 642,
657, 680, 739, 978, 1018, 1112.

Nebraska: 315, 487, 534, 553, 1195.

Negroes (see Blacks).
TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

Neighborhoods, ethnic, functions of
(see also Adjustment): 116, 164,
168, 201, 218, 290, 299, 335, 450, 452,
455, 565, 591, 650.

Neighborhoods of migrants (see Resi-
dential locations of migrants, incl.
segregation).

/Net migration: 7, 12, 17, 19, 25, 53, 57,
59, 64, 65, 66, 68, 77, 78, 89, 90, 96,
120, 132, 140, 142, 143, 144, 147, 153,
154, 160, 161, 163, 166, 173, 180, 181,
189, 195, 207, 237, 277, 292, 293, 295,
296, 318, 365, 367, 385, 411, 419, 429,
430, 434, 435, 436, 470, 475, 476, 477,
485, 496, 499, 516, 526, 527, 528, 533,
535, 543, 556, 558, 574, 612, 625, 626,
635, 656, 680, 701, 711, 722, 739, 749,
751, 779, 821, 834, 848, 849, 850, 865,
892, 906, 980, 992, 1018, 1028, 1031,
1058, 1111, 1112, 1113, 1115, 1116,
1117, 1118, 1120, 1121, 1122, 1123,
1124, 1125, 1126, 1127, 1128, 1129,
1136, 1145, 1146, 1148, 1149, 1163,
1164, 1188, 1230.

New Hampshire: 159, 282.

“J New Mexico: 300, 321, 915.

New York: 16, 17, 19, 121, 250, 2517,
579, 611, 619, 622, 638, 666, 667, 668,
669, 670, 671, 797, 843, 1013, 1040,
1041.

North Carolina: 195, 310, 409, 410,
412, 431, 432, 435, 437, 438, 485, 659,
689, 697, 698, 782, 783, 797, 798, 832,
883, 988, 989.

North Dakota: 13, 1156.

0

Occupational mobility of migrants:
10, 35, 42, 46, 47, 48, 49, 51, 53, 55,
56, 70, 81, 85, 86, 92, 108, 109, 110,
114, 117, 127, 131, 155, 178, 190, 192,
193, 195, 201, 205, 216, 219, 224, 233,
251, 277, 291, 317, 326, 330, 331, 347,
352, 353, 354, 355, 356, 357, 366, 381,
393, 397, 405, 408, 433, 450, 452, 454,
464, 469, 472, 473, 478, 516, 522, 536,
591, 600, 603, 606, 607, 627, 629, 642,
643, 676, 713, 739, 740, 742, 762, 780,
791, 794, 823, 844, 851, 852, 854, 855,
873, 876, 885, 936, 948, 954, 955, 956,
958, 961, 962, 963, 964, 965, 966, 967,
968, 971, 986, 988, 989, 1000, 1008,
1009, 1010, 1027, 1042, 1077.

245

Occupational selectivity of migra-
tion: 7, 56, 95, 109, 114, 132, 182,
209, 2717, 330, 331, 354, 361, 366, 375,
470, 472, 473, 495, 516, 557, 576, 691,
723, 837, 838, 839, 852, 854, 896, 897,
980, 1042, 1063, 1069, 1077, 1084,
1097, 1104, 1146, 1188.

Ohio: 22, 23, 25, 42, 127, 214, 251, 254,
285, 286, 369, 370, 371, 457, 513, 611,
641, 655, 675, 735, 791, 823, 824, 837,
838, 936, 949, 971, 1088, 1089, 1091,
1204.

Oklahoma: 708, 1167.

Old age migrants (see Elderly, migra-
tion of the). )

Opportunities (see Employment op-
portunities, perceived/actual, in
rural and urban areas; Reasons
for moving; Labor supply and de-
mand; Intervening opportunities).

Oregon: 686.

Organizational memberships of mi-
grants (see Social participation of
migrants).

Outmigration, impact of, on rural
areas: 7, 13, 21, 22, 35, 43, 44, 53, 56,
57, 59, 65, 73, 80, 85, 139, 140, 149,
165, 171, 226, 233, 272, 281, 282, 320,
341, 349, 363, 377, 429, 430, 467, 468,
478, 574, 584, 599, 606, 631, 633, 646,
656, 659, 684, 695, 696, 710, 711, 720,
738, 739, 740, 741, 749, 751, 755, 7817,
807, 815, 817, 837, 838, 846, 849, 852,
854, 862, 863, 925, 982, 995, 1033,
1043, 1046, 1074, 1076, 1133, 1181,
1188.

Ozarks: 85, 86, 399, 442, 717.

P

Parents of migrants/rural youth,
characteristics of: 56, 114, 169, 170,
192, 200, 202, 206, 336, 393, 403, 422,
424, 552, 687, 688, 730, 809, 936, 948,
951, 989, 1036, 1037, 1077, 1219.

Part-time farmers/farming (see also
Jobholding, multiple): 35, 54, 187,
193, 256, 257, 316, 340, 358, 469, 472,
473, 474, 492, 545, 593, 834, 855, 899,
1010, 1043, 1145, 1164.

Patterns of migration: 7, 27, 53, 57,
64, 67, 68, 70, 73, 89, 95, 96, 114, 115,
121, 123, 130, 132, 140, 143, 153, 154,
162, 163, 171, 172, 176, 180, 189, 193,

ai
246 TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

195, 207, 210, 233, 259, 263, 264, 277,
292, 293, 295, 296, 297, 298, 308, 318,
353, 355, 356, 362, 364, 378, 382, 385,
386, 397, 399, 400, 411, 427, 428, 431,
433, 438, 463, 477, 481, 494, 495, 496,
498, 499, 516, 526, 558, 573, 574, 606,
614, 615, 616, 623, 640, 642, 652, 654,
676, 689, 691, 694, 702, 711, 746, 776,
802, 812, 823, 839, 852, 859, 889, 892,
901, 903, 926, 977, 978, 980, 985, 996,
997, 1006, 1007, 1012, 1017, 1045,
1046, 1048, 1050, 1053, 1058, 1060,
1061, 1068, 1094, 1096, 1097, 1111,
1113, 1115, 1116, 1117, 1118, 1119,
1120, 1124, 1125, 1127, 1128, 1129,
1133, 1136, 1143, 1145, 1146, 1148,
1149, 1152, 1154, 1163, 1188, 1191,
1210, 1223.

Pennsylvania: 14, 111, 115, 169, 170,
190, 191, 316, 385, 386, 458, 493, 572,
581, 582, 583, 620, 642, 757, 873, 921,
1197, 1198, 1199.

Piedmont Crescent: 409, 442, 988,
989, 1064.

Plans for future moves among re-
spondents: 6, 26, 110, 115, 134, 159,
228, 249, 250, 322, 383, 384, 408, 409,
748, 809, 823, 837, 838, 851, 855, 886,
899, 904, 917, 964, 1021, 1024, 1026,
1217.

Policy recommendations, general: 59,
65, 550, 701, 851, 852, 855.

Policy recommendations for poten-
tial migrants: 6, 7, 42, 54, 55, 99,
103, 136, 261, 268, 347, 350, 395, 408,
441, 443, 444, 445, 446, 447, 448, 469,
472, 473, 478, 522, 538, 539, 570, 590,
606, 642, 658, 661, 664, 714, 725, 728,
738, 739, 740, 741, 744, 745, 746, 751,
779, 860, 911, 925, 931, 994, 1002,
1003, 1079, 1164, 1166, 1172, 1176,
1182, 1221.

Policy recommendations for redi-
rected migration: 6, 7, 110, 174,
306, 350, 395, 441, 443, 444, 445, 446,
447, 448, 520, 661, 724, 725, 738, 739,
740, 744, 745, 807, 822, 906, 931,
1029, 1172, 1221.

~ Policy recommendations for urban

and rural areas: 7, 57, 66, 80, 85, 97,

136, 137, 226, 227, 236, 261, 304, 316,

341, 443, 445, 469, 478, 502, 549, 571,

590, 606, 642, 658, 659, 661, 685, 714,

724, 738, 739, 740, 741, 744, 745, 746,
749,751, 766, 767, 769, 779, 807, 821,
835, 846, 860, 911, 925, 931, 957,
1064, 1100.

Population pressure (see Causes of
migration; Fertility of rural popu-
lations; Rural, rural-farm, rural-
nonfarm populations, changes and
trends in).

Poverty groups, studies of: 6, 31, 33,
85, 86, 148, 259, 262, 305, 316, 324,
486, 489, 502, 522, 546, 594, 598, 606,
614, 615, 616, 621, 629, 712, 742, 790,
823, 824, 847, 851, 852, 854, 855, 971,
1080, 1150.

Poverty levels among migrants and
in comparison to nonmigrants: 6,
31, 33, 110, 145, 148, 614, 615, 739,
742, 851, 852, 854, 855, 868, 878.

Problems of migrants (see Adjust-
ment).

Process of migration: 7, 347, 562, 606,
1160.

Productivity in agriculture (see
Mechanization and technology/
productivity changes in agricul-
ture).

Programs aiding migrants: 115, 259,
300, 346, 347, 350, 459, 642, 721, 728,
754, 824, 986.

Propensity to migration/potential
mobility: 7, 55, 114, 161, 604, 606,
623, 690, 743, 751, 893, 1026, 1077,
1186.

Property/homeownership among mi-
grants (see also Barriers to migra-
tion/mobility; Return migration,
conditions for, migrants’): 48, 49,
452, 455, 562, 606, 712, 713, 851, 855,
915, 1029, 1098.

Psychiatric symptoms among mi-
grants (see Mental health/illness
and migration).

Public assistance receipt (see Wel-
fare topics).

Push-pull factors in migration (see
Causes of migration).

R

Race relations (see Interethnic rela-
tions in urban areas).

Race selectivity of migration (see In-
terethnic comparisons among mi-
grants).
TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY 247

Rates of migration: 57, 59, 61, 64, 65,
68, 70, 96, 106, 107, 133, 140, 142,
143, 153, 172, 179, 181, 187, 220, 221,
231, 273, 292, 293, 296, 309, 318, 358,
364, 365, 367, 432, 433, 438, 463, 472,
473, 4717, 491, 495, 512, 516, 549, 550,
599, 606, 623, 642, 694, 701, 739, 821,
848, 849, 850, 889, 890, 892, 980,
992, 997, 1007, 1032, 1045, 1046,
1048, 1050, 1053, 1127, 1143, 1145,
1146, 1164, 1188, 1191, 1210, 1230.

Reasons for moving (see also Causes
of migration): 1, 6, 7, 88, 115, 124,
201, 218, 256, 270, 300, 347, 397, 399,
408, 492, 513, 590, 605, 606, 641, 642,
651, 655, 701, 722, 751, 775, 778, 823,
851, 852, 854, 855, 864, 865, 899, 903,
904, 941, 964, 968, 977, 979, 981,
1096, 1103, 1104, 1109, 1111, 1165,
1181, 1182.

Reasons for nonmigration (see Bar-
riers to migration/mobility).

Regional development (see Area re-
development/regional develop-
ment; Growth centers; Industriali-
zation of rural areas).

Regional growth centers (see Growth
centers).

Religiosity/religious affiliations of
migrants (see Attitudes of mi-
grants; Social participation of mi-
grants; Values of migrants).

Relocation (see also Labor mobility
demonstration and relocation proj-
ects): 1, 2, 3, 4, 137, 283, 300, 306,
347, 350, 394, 395, 443, 444, 445, 446,
447, 520, 522, 662, 681, 704, 724, 725,
738, 783, 796, 797, 856, 868, 870, 905,
929, 974, 1014, 1029, 1078, 1172,
1203.

Relocation, studies of the acceptabil-
ity of: 42, 350, 445, 447, 448.

Repeat and step migration/interven-
ing moves: 6, 47, 72, 114, 133, 148,
233, 265, 382, 385, 469, 789, 823, 851,
855, 878, 903, 942, 943, 968, 1059,
1077, 1096, 1104.

Reproductive behavior of migrants
(see Fertility of migrants; Depend-
ents, number of migrants’, in com-
parison to nonmigrants).

Reservations, outmigration from (see
American Indians).

Residential location preferences (see
also Attitudes toward migration):
445, 446, 447, 448, 575, 597, 651, 748,
855, 1219, 1221, 1232.

Residential locations of migrants,
incl. segregation: 1, 33, 39, 116, 184,
231, 259, 279, 299, 324, 406, 450, 452,
455, 470, 565, 661, 713, 739, 740, 746,
823, 837, 838, 904, 914, 915, 960,
1002, 1029, 1062, 1063, 1146, 1166,
1175, 1177, 1181, 1182.

Residential mobility of migrants:
115, 125, 218, 219, 385, 450, 452, 455,
565, 566, 777, 851, 852, 855, 942, 943,
1059.

Responses of migrants to interview,
unrealistic: 26, 202, 851, 855, 968.
Return migrants: 6, 26, 70, 85, 86,
321, 396, 399, 427, 469, 616, 749, 797,
821, 837, 838, 849, 851, 855, 868, 917,

918, 1021, 1078, 1164, 1221.

Return migration, conditions for, mi-
grants’: 1, 35, 396, 837, 838, 851,
852, 854, 855, 856.

Return migration, factors influenc-
ing: 1, 6, 26, 103, 158, 176, 256, 382,
391, 394, 395, 396, 399, 470, 472, 473,
616, 738, 797, 810, 821, 837, 838, 851,
852, 854, 855, 917, 918, 981, 1164,
1221,

Return migration, predictions of: 6,
68, 293, 296, 297, 390, 394, 395, 849,
1221.

Rhode Island: 387.

Rural, rural-farm, rural-nonfarm
populations, changes and trends
in: 8,13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 25, 35,
38, 40, 41, 43, 52, 56, 57, 58, 59, 61,
62, 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70, 71, 76, 78,
80, 85, 89, 90, 91, 93, 103, 119, 120,
123, 130, 132, 139, 140, 142, 143, 144,
145, 146, 147, 149, 150, 151, 153, 154,
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 180, 181, 182,
185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 205, 207, 220,
226, 2217, 229, 235, 237, 260, 262, 265,
266, 271, 273, 282, 288, 298, 308, 319,
320, 341, 347, 349, 358, 397, 407, 417,
418, 427, 428, 432, 438, 460, 462, 465,
466, 468, 476, 478, 491, 498, 512, 524,
526, 533, 534, 535, 553, 557, 573, 585,
587, 588, 610, 617, 625, 639, 640, 643,
646, 656, 657, 675, 677, 678, 679, 680,
697, 698, 699, 706, 708, 711, 733, 755,
248

767, 773, 785, 815, 816, 819, 830, 831,
832, 836, 845, 850, 852, 857, 875, 882,
883, 895, 926, 972, 977, 978, 990, 991,
995, 996, 997, 999, 1006, 1007, 1017,
1023, 1038, 1043, 1047, 1050, 1053,
1068, 1070, 1071, 1072, 1073, 1080,
1082, 1092, 1112, 1114, 1115, 1116,
1117, 1118, 1119, 1122, 1124, 1134,
1135, 1136, 1142, 1143, 1145, 1147,
1149, 1156, 1157, 1163, 1169, 1189,
1228.

Rural youth, aspirations of, educa-
tional/occupational: 56, 87, 155,
192, 196, 205, 223, 224, 246, 291, 379,
403, 424, 425, 484, 547, 594, 598, 719,
730, 792, 940, 951, 952, 953, 998,
1079, 1216, 1219.

Rural youth, capacities/qualifica-
tions of: 87, 191, 192, 202, 241, 242,
244, 248, 379, 540, 541, 547, 730, 858,
936.

Rural youth, expectations/plans of,
educational/occupational: 14, 200,

205, 224, 228, 245, 246, 248, 250, 291, _

383, 384, 421, 422, 423, 424, 425, 426,
552, 594, 595, 596, 748, 761, 792, 809,
939, 840, 886, 894, 940, 950, 951, 952,
989, 1036, 1037, 1217, 1219.

Rural youth, geographic nobility of:
10, 14, 20, 46, 79, 87, 134, 155, 166,
169, 170, 189, 190, 192, 198, 202, 206,
224, 234, 270, 362, 412, 422, 434, 4317,
490, 534, 599, 631, 659, 677, 678, 687,
688, 695, 721, 728, 764, 818, 839,
840, 876, 884, 885, 937, 939, 952, 989,
995, 1075, 1077, 1079, 1167.

S

Satisfaction, community, of mi-
grants: 115, 254, 336, 394, 395, 409,
492, 593, 608, 686, 712, 713, 837, 838,
851, 852, 855, 904, 915, 964, 1002,
1029.

Security, employment, value of, to
migrants: 1, 898, 1172.

Selectivity of migration (see various
topics).

Self-perceptions of migrants: 1, 3,
155, 329, 565, 627, 837, 838, 851, 855.

Services (see Trade centers).

Sex selectivity of migration (see Fe-
male migrants).

Sharecroppers: 54, 265, 460, 682, 769.

TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

Size of community as factor/selectiv-
ity factor in migration: 96, 104,
108, 114, 153, 178, 183, 192, 193, 219,
281, 329, 403, 470, 472, 473, 575, 637,
695, 789, 878, 989, 1025, 1077, 1181.

Skills of migrants (see Vocational
training of migrants)

| /Small town population change and

growth, incl. villages and unincor-
porated places: 57, 226, 237, 280,
282, 311, 338, 339, 341, 342, 343, 344,
501, 609, 836, 861, 1070, 1071, 1072,
1231.

Social mobility of migrants: 56, 109,
116, 450, 452, 455, 581, 583, 637, 713.

Social participation of migrants (see
also Interpersonal interactions of
migrants): 3, 46, 49, 56, 111, 115,
168, 201, 254, 286, 329, 369, 381, 410,
450, 452, 455, 457, 503, 513, 530, 565,
593, 606, 655, 660, 712, 727, 732, 772,
837, 838, 851, 852, 854, 855, 856, 900,
914, 915, 968, 969, 970, 1098, 1197,
1198, 1199, 1226, 1228, 1229.

Social Security data, analyses used
in: 122, 127, 195, 352, 353, 354, 364,
443, 472, 473, 514, 701, 743, 821,
1103, 1164, 1230.

South Carolina: 195, 405, 830, 831.

South Dakota: 533, 535.

Spanish Americans (see also Mexican
Americans): 380, 450, 451, 452, 453,
454, 455, 580, 592, 628, 629, 660, 874,
915, 973, 985, 986, 1052.

Spanish-speaking migrants (see Mex-
ican Americans; Spanish Ameri-
cans).

Stability, residential, of rural popu-
lations (see also Residential mobil-
ity of migrants): 523, 617, 855, 1059.

Step migration (see Repeat and step
migration).

Streams of migration (see Patterns
of migration).

Stress factors in migration (see Ad-
justment of migrants; Costs of
moves to migrants; Relocation;
Process of moving).

Subregional migration: 96, 131, 132,
173, 318, 378, 691, 1068, 1089, 1090.

Success of migration, characteristics
of: 1, 2, 103, 155, 299, 394, 450, 452,
455, 739, 795, 1172.
TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY 249

Survey of Economic Opportunity
data, analyses used in: 31, 33, 67,
71, 145, 148, 614, 615, 616, 701, 877,
878, 1175, 1181.

T

Technological changes in agriculture
(see Mechanization and technol-
ogy/productivity changes in agri-
culture).

Tenant farmers/farming: 8, 182, 187,
2117, 222, 255, 276, 366, 460, 770.

Tennessee: 11, 318, 436, 512, 587, 643,
646, 647, 682, 683, 684, 695, 781, 872,
883, 1008, 1009, 1010.

Texas: 180, 219, 263, 301, 308, 367,
3717, 390, 442, 447, 517, 518, 564, 597,
655, 851, 855, 868, 869, 905, 964, 968,
995, 996, 997, 1029, 1082, 1161.

Ties to rural areas (see Homesick-
ness of migrants; Return migra-
tion, factors influencing; Barriers
to migration/mobility).

Timing of migration/life cycle as fac-
tor in migration: 6, 10, 53, 161, 182,
270, 408, 450, 452, 455, 553, 562, 576,
623, 652, 855, 981, 1058, 1059, 1206.

Trade centers/service factors: 44,
140, 226, 227, 284, 310, 343, 465, 501,
1043.

U

Underemployment of labor: 38, 54,
99, 105, 138, 221, 227, 259, 355, 359,
444, 536, 545, 717, 1064, 1164.

Unemployment/employment levels
among migrants following migra-
tion: 67, 85, 115, 131, 132, 218, 259,
331, 332, 336, 364, 450, 452, 455, 459,
536, 565, 642, 690, 692, 722, 739, 742,
777, 823, 837, 838, 851, 852, 854, 855,
915, 968, 1181, 1182.

Unemployment among migrants be-
fore migration: 6, 42, 325, 332, 355,
364, 444, 472, 473, 558, 606, 791, 852,
017.

Unemployment, structural (see La-
bor market theory; Causes of mi-
gration).

Unincorporated places (see Small
towns).

Unions, labor, migrants’ affiliation/
attitudes toward migrants: 218,
644, 779, 823, 851, 855, 968.

Urbanization: 27, 121, 130, 174, 178,
180, 264, 275, 276, 286, 307, 308, 339,
344, 349, 405, 450, 451, 453, 454, 455,
456, 457, 498, 503, 548, 557, 580, 591,
629, 656, 738, 739, 740, 760, 853, 910,
973, 991, 1033, 1057, 1178.

Utah: 57, 223, 224, 284, 362.

Vv

Values of migrants (see also Atti-
tudes of migrants): 1, 39, 116, 201,
202, 300, 380, 394, 395, 450, 452, 455,
504, 580, 828, 837, 838, 851, 852, 854,
855, 914, 955, 968, 1013.

Vermont: 18, 990.

Veterans, migrants as (see Military
service of migrants).

Village growth (see Small towns).

Virginia: 797, 883, 1073.

Visiting patterns of migrants (see
also Circular migration; Kinship/
family ties/friendship as factors in
migration and for migrants): 168,
176, 219, 450, 452, 455, 565, 606, 655,
837, 838, 851, 852, 854, 855, 903, 914,
915, 942, 943.

Vocational training of migrants: 1,
86, 259, 306, 393, 492, 600, 606, 627,
798, 823, 851, 855, 917, 1096.

Volume of migration: 6, 68, 90, 96,
121, 132, 161, 172, 181, 201, 265, 293,
2917, 300, 349, 387, 427, 475, 481, 487,
491, 497, 499, 527, 528, 574, 606, 612,
617, 623, 779, 815, 850, 859, 1053,
1082, 1103, 1109, 1145, 1146, 1152,
1164, 1177, 1188, 1191, 1210.

Voting patterns of migrants (see So-
cial participation of migrants).

w

Wartime migration: 255, 256, 976,
980, 1048, 1121, 1122, 1129, 1131,
1132.

Washington: 260, 600, 601, 735, 899,
926, 927, 999, 1036, 1037, 1214.

Welfare receipt among migrants: 67,
148, 218, 238, 336, 450, 452, 455, 658,
739, 823, 837, 838, 843, 851, 852, 854,
855, 1041.

Welfare receipt as inhibitor of migra-
tion: 6, 172, 427, 606, 931.

Welfare as motive for migration: 6,
230, 336, 823, 851, 852, 854, 855,
1165.
250 TOPICAL INDEX FOR BIBLIOGRAPHY

West Virginia: 364, 837, 838, 883, 907, 962, 963, 964, 965, 967, 968, 1018,
925, 991. 1037, 1232.

Wisconsin: 193, 270, 272, 311, 318, 339, Y
340, 343, 419, 426, 491, 529, 591, 679,

Youth (see Rural youth topics; Age
795, 951, 952, 954, 955, 956, 958, 961, selectivity of migration).

#U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1975 O—553-837
*veerovrevaen

 

===
on —
w
v=
iin
B=
I=
we
=
i=
=

(028719171

1seen0v0a0s 000

>see rr098s 0

es3ssav000

ceva
C899 3304170539806 36081 %00 3800082 2003870080730 473909500¢s00000003803000,.00000800%00, 000