ABSTRACT

Data from the Census of Population show that about 216 thousand in 2010 and 338 thousand in 2020 of the working-age population (15-64 years old) who had completed at least high school in those years were recent migrants in their then places of residence. While in both years those migrants constitute only about 4% of their reference demographic groups, do their choices of destinations nonetheless reveal a pattern that can inform policy? Specifically, are they drawn by the presence in specific locations of local amenities (LA), their social networks (N), economic opportunities (O), or by some unique attraction or characteristic of the place (P)? Applying logistic regression on the pooled population of around 13.688 million highly educated working-age individuals from the 2010 and 2020 rounds of Census of Population, tentatively we find among the sociodemographic groups that the younger cohort (15-35 years old) are more likely than older cohorts (45-64 years old) to be migrants, while those who have finished at least college are more likely than those with less education to be migrants, and migrants are likely to be unrelated to the heads of the households in which they reside. With respect to local amenities, migrants choose barangays with schools, city halls, churches, parks, access to national highways, hospitals, with cellular phone signals or landline facilities, but not to barangays with cemeteries, fire services, markets, or libraries. They move to provinces with airports. In search of economic prospects, they tend to locate in municipalities (or cities) with a high number of small-sized enterprises, but not in municipalities with high numbers of micro, medium-sized, or large-sized firms. Among the other local features, densely populated towns, including capital towns, are attractive to them, but not cities, poblaciones, or those lying along coastal areas. Relative to Northern Mindanao, they tend to choose Davao Region or CARAGA, but not BARMM, Zamboanga Peninsula, or SOCCSARGEN. Interestingly, the relative importance of some local amenities and indicators of economic opportunities varies across age groups, suggesting possible life-cycle related considerations.

————————————————–