Youth Migration

Introduction

Young people are the most geographically mobile group in any society. The extent to which they move, their reasons for moving and the pattern of movement all affect life chances and incorporation into households. 

This brief will mainly be concerned with the movement of young people who have been resident in South Africa between mid-2011 and mid-2016. It builds on two recently published briefs on migration for the entire population. 

Definitions

In line with the migration briefs for the population as a whole, this brief distinguishes between three categories of movement:

Movers: Residents at the time of moving who have moved within the boundaries of metros and local municipalities[1], as they were constituted at the time of the 2011 census.

Migrants: Residents at the time of moving who have moved across the boundaries of metros and local municipalities. These movers are termed inmigrants and outmigrants.

Immigrants/Emigrants  People who have entered South Africa from another country or who have departed from South Africa to another country. Short term visitors are not counted.

Key findings

The population equation for young people is presented in Table 1.

The youth population shrank slightly between 2011 and 2016, despite an increase in the foreign born population. 

The migration study for the population as a whole found that the direct estimate of net internal movement in the 2016 Community Survey was substantially lower than the indirect measure. This will be true for the youth population as well. 

Table 2 sets out estimated movement of the foreign born between 2011 and 2016. It shows that foreign born youth is highly mobile, with immigration and emigration together representing over half the 2011 population.

The direct estimate of moves across municipal boundaries between 2011 and 2016 is 1 036 408, implying a five-year migration rate of 50 per 1 000, or 10 per 1 000 per year. This estimate is implausibly low, as was found in the study of migration of the population as a whole. Based on that analysis, the estimate should be adjusted to 2 964 127, implying a more reasonable annual migration rate of 29 per 1 000 per year. 

It follows that between 2011 and 2016, movements across the national boundary constituted 15.3% of total moves. There were 138 male immigrants or emigrants across for every 100 female immigrant or emigrants. 85.0% of the immigrants were born in the SADC countries, with a further 7.5% coming from the rest of Africa.

There were 106 male migrants for every 100 female migrants. On the other hand, there were 89 men for every 100 women among short distance movers. And there were 98 movers for every 100 migrants.

Figure 1 graphs the percentage of residents by gender who were (a) inmigrants and (b) immigrants or emigrants. Bear in mind that the age refers to the date of the community survey, not the age at which the moves were made, on average about two years earlier. The curves rise among the youngest ages, peak at age 23 and then fall off, more gradually for men than for women.

It is only possible to correlate direct moves with socio-economic characteristics. All the tables that follow present information in percentage terms. To the extent that direct moves are drawn randomly from all moves, the tables will describe unbiased estimates of the actual situation.

Table 2 sets out the main reasons for moving[2]. Among every group, economic reasons were stronger among men than among women, and stronger for migrants and immigrants than for movers. Just over three-quarters of male immigrants moved for economic reasons. By contrast, a relatively small proportion of movers moved for economic reasons. Nearly half of movers moved because their whole household moved, while the proportions of migrants and immigrants moving for the same reason are much lower. Moving closer to spouse is more prevalent among women in all three categories.

How do immigrants fit into the social fabric of the communities into which they move? The community survey has information on three related demographic variables: marital status, the distribution of households by size and the relationship of individuals to the household head. Table 3 sets out the distribution of movers, migrants and immigrants across marital status categories. The fact that more women than men are married or cohabit is explained by the fact that the singulate mean age at marriage (the number of years lived as a single person among people who are married by the age of 50) is higher for men than for women.  Nor is it surprising that the proportions married or cohabiting are higher among migrants and immigrants than among movers, because the youngest age groups are relatively little represented among migrants and immigrants.  The higher proportions of married or cohabiting people among migrants and immigrants cannot be explained in the same way. As Table 2 suggests, many women immigrate to join their spouses, and it may be that marriage in the country of origin and the development of household obligations spurs migration for economic reasons.

Table 4 compares sizes of households with movers, migrants and immigrants. There is little difference between movers and migrants, but households with immigrants are considerably smaller on average.

Table 5[3] rounds out the picture by indicating the position of all people, inmigrants and immigrants in relation to the heads of the relevant households.

Relative to movers, migrants and immigrants are more often heads of household and their partners, and descendants of household heads are greatest among migrants, followed by movers. The proportion of descendants among immigrants is markedly smaller.  Movers and immigrants are more likely to be brothers and sisters than migrants, and the same is true for other relatives and non-related persons. The smaller average size of households with immigrants reflects the small number of immigrant descendants.  Migrants and immigrants face a choice: either establish a household of their own, or move in as descendants brothers, sisters, and other relatives of the head of an existing head, or become lodgers. The first strategy is, not surprisingly more common among immigrants.

The geography of migration

Two maps indicate the geography of migration.

Map 1: Net migration

From the point of view of the influence of internal South African migration on the geographical distribution of the population, net inmigration or net outmigration (inmigration less outmigration, or the reverse) into or out of municipalities is the appropriate measure. Many municipalities experienced net migration of fewer than a thousand young people between mid-2011 and mid-2016, and these municipalities are left blank on the map.  No municipality experienced net outmigration of more than 10 000 young people. Municipalities experiencing net outmigration of between 1 000 and 10 000 young people are shown in red. Net outmigration is concentrated in municipalities in predominantly tribal areas. Only four municipalities experienced net inmigration of more than 10 000 young people: the three Gauteng metros and Cape Town. Ethekwini and Manguaung had net inmigration of between 1 000 and 10 000 young people, and there was negligible net movement in an out of the Eastern Cape metros: Nelson Mandela Bay and Buffalo City. There was a belt of modest inmigration stretching from Mpumalanga through Gauteng and North West to Limpopo, and another cluster in municipalities near Cape Town.

Note that adjusted recorded moves are represented on the first map. 

Map 2: Immigrants

The second map indicates the location of immigrants. Net migration across South African boundaries cannot be estimated, since there are no emigration data. The map shows the places where immigrants arriving between October 2011 and April 2016 were located at the latter date. As in the case of internal migration only four municipalities contained more than 10 000 young immigrants: the three Gauteng metros and Cape Town. The other four metros contained between 1 000 and 10 000. Most of the remaining municipalities with more than 1 000 young immigrants are concentrated around the country’s eastern, northern and north-western borders or close to Lesotho. 

Note that movers within a municipality do not appear on either map.

Conclusion

Young migrants have a number of options at their destinations, spread across forming a new household, moving in with relatives or lodging with people to whom they are not related. Young immigrants have more constrained options and tend to form households of their own, but a significant minority are able to move in with relatives. Young immigrants are more likely than young migrants to leave their children behind.

Map 1 in this brief corresponds to Map 2 in the second brief on migration among the population as a whole.  Map 2 in this brief corresponds to Map 6 in the second general migration brief. Comparisons suggest that the pattern of movement among young migrants and immigrants is not markedly different from the pattern in the population as a whole, partly because young migrants are a large proportion of all migrants.

NOTES