Migration and mobility - A comparative perspective of Russia and Japan
Reiko Hayashi
hayashi-reiko@ipss.go.jp
National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, Japan
< Draft Paper >
I.
Context
International migration has become one of the most important issues in almost all the countries in the
world. It has been noted the volume of global international migration keeps on increasing (UN 2012) and
immigrants-rich countries are struggling hard how to continue the inflow and maintain the integrity of the society
and migrants sending countries are keen on the continuous outflow as the emigrants’ remittance back home is
becoming the primary source of the country’s income.
Another important trend of the world population is urbanization. The urban population of the world has
surpassed 50% in 2010 and the rate is generally considered to be increasing even further. The natural increase, i.e.
the excess of birth against death in urban area should not be underestimated (Chen et al. 1998) but the major
component of urban growth is due to migration, especially the internal (domestic) migration.
Hence both international and internal migration plays an important role for the present world population
trend. However historically, the migration has not been automatically and monotonically increasing phenomena
and several transition theories have been presented. The “mobility transition” was first proposed by Zelinksy in
1971 but different forms of theories have been elaborated and examined since then, such as “migration
transitions”(Skeldon 2011, de Haas 2010) or “migration turnaround”(Ishikawa 2001).
Russia and Japan are 2 different countries with different historical background but the 2 countries are
neighbors with similar population size, and both are going through the population decline. In terms of population
migration, the 2 countries are not typical sending or receiving countries. In this article, a brief comparison of
international and internal migration trend of Russia and Japan will be made in order to add the piece for a better
understanding of the global migration and mobility at present.
II. International migration pattern
The international migration pattern can be measured by several indicators. Here rates of migrant par
total population by origin and destination of the country are examined using the newly available data of
international migrant stock by destination and origin compiled by United Nations Population Division. The rate of
migrant par total population by destination (herein after referred to as “rate by destination”) is defined as the
number of immigrant divided by the total population of the receiving (destination) country and the rate of migrant
par total population by origin (herein after referred to as “rate by origin”) is defined as the number of emigrant
divided by the total population of the sending (origin) country. Some small countries where massive emigrant
exist outside of the country can have the rate by origin more than 100% but if we limit the analysis for countries
1
large enough, for example more than 10 million people, the rate by origin ranges modestly between 0.3%
(Madagascar) to 21.2% (Portugal) and 0.1% (China) to 26.6% (Saudi Arabia) for the rate by destination.
These rates exhibit the level of international mobility. It is commonly believed that rich countries have a
lot of immigrants hence have higher rate by destination and developing countries send a lot of emigrant hence
higher rate by origin. In fact, this conventional and simplistic view is not always the case. It is true that the rich
countries such as Saudi Arabia, Australia, Canada, USA, Germany or France have larger rate by destination than
the rates by origin and well considered to be receiving countries whereas countries like Afghanistan or Burkina
Faso have high rates by origin than the rates by destination, which are also easily labeled as sending countries
(Figure 1). However, there are not only the typical cases. There exist the developing receiving countries such as
Côte d’Ivoire and emerging sending countries such as Portugal or Mexico. It is interesting to see China as world
second least sending country (0.6% of total population is outside of the country) due to the large total population
and probably due to emigrants who have been outside already generations ago. However these low rates of
migration are observed in Brazil and India, other countries of BRICs.
Russia is one of the BRICs and it has been acknowledged that the country is a big importer and exporter
of migrants. This perception is confirmed with the data used here, 7.5% of total Russian population is outside of
the country as emigrants in other countries and the immigrants within Russian territory comprises 8.6% of the
total population of Russia. The rates by origin and by destination are close to each other and the level is rather
high.
Japan is known for its rigid immigrant policy and thus the rate by destination is quite low, 1.7% of total
population in Japan, but its rate by origin is not so inferior; 1.0% of total population, which is even superior to the
rate of Saudi Arabia (0.6%) or USA(0.8%).
Between Russia and Japan, we can see the difference of the overall level of migration, Russia around
7-8% and Japan around 1% but on the other hand we can notice the similarity that there is the balance between the
rates by origin and destination. With the similar size of population around 140 and 120 and million both facing to
the population decline, this similarity can be an interesting source of comparison between the two countries.
2
30
a. Rates over 10%
Saudi Arabia
25
Canada
Australia
Destination%
20
Kazakhstan
15 USA
Spain
Germany
Cote d'Ivoire
Syria Netherlands
UK
France
10
Ukraine
Russia
Portugal
Burkina Faso
5
Japan
Mexico Romania
Afghanistan
Cuba
0
0
10
5
10
15
Origin %
20
25
30
Greece
b. Rates below 10%
Belgium
9
Russia
Malaysia
8
Italy
Ghana
Destination%
7
6
5
Venezuela
4
South Africa
3
Iran
Rwanda
Uzbekistan
Czech
Argentina
Chad
Nepal
Zimbabwe
Pakistan
Japan
1 Nigeria
India
Brazil
0
Poland
Turkey
South Korea
Sri Lanka
Mali
2
0
Ecuador
China Indonesia
1
2
Guatemala
Morocco
Vietnam
3
4
5
6
Origin %
7
8
9
10
Figure 1 Rate of migrant par total population by origin and destination,
Countries with population more than 10 million
Data source : United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division. Trends in International Migrant Stock: Migrants by
Destination and Origin (United Nations database, POP/DB/MIG/Stock/Rev.2012).
http://esa.un.org/MigOrigin/
3
III. Internal mobility pattern
Although the international mobility is one of the key issues in the context of globalized world at present,
in fact, the international mobility is just the tip of the iceberg of total mobility, which the internal mobility shares
the important portion. For example with the data of National Survey on Migration conducted in 2011, 3.8% of
Japanese has the experience of living in foreign country / countries whereas 83% has the experience of domestic
move in 2011 (the remaining 13.2% has never experience a migration).
Internal mobility can be measured by several indicators derived from various types of data. For example,
in the case of Japan, mainly 3 data sources exist ; Population Census, Report on Internal Migration derived from
the Basic Resident Registers and the National Survey on Migration. The former 2 sources are complete
enumerations and the last one is a sample survey. From these data sources the outlook of Japanese internal
migration is obtained and the samples of indicators are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Examples of internal mobility indicators of Japan
a. Population Census (2010)
Population, by Duration of Residency at the Current Domicile
Since birth
Less than 1 1 to 5 years
5 to 10
year
years
Total
12.9%
6.4%
17.8%
14.3%
10 to 20
years
17.7%
20 years or
more
30.9%
Total
100.0%
Male
16.1%
6.7%
18.2%
14.2%
17.3%
27.5%
100.0%
Female
10.0%
6.1%
17.4%
14.4%
18.2%
34.0%
100.0%
Note : Percentage is calculated excluding “Not Reported”.
Source : 2010 Population Census / Basic Complete Tabulation on Industries / Japan,
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/GL32020101.do?method=extendTclass&refTarget=toukeihyo&listFormat=hierarchy&statCode=0
0200521&tstatCode=000001039448&tclass1=000001047544&tclass2=000001050184&tclass3=&tclass4=&tclass5=
Place of usual residence five years ago
Same as
present
Another place
within the same
different
prefecture
municipality prefecture
outside of
Japan
Total
Total
77.2%
11.4%
5.1%
5.7%
0.5%
100.0%
Male
76.6%
11.2%
5.2%
6.5%
0.5%
100.0%
Female
77.8%
11.7%
5.0%
5.0%
0.5%
100.0%
Note : Percentage is calculated excluding “Not Reported”.
Source : 2010 Population Census / Tabulation on Internal Migration for Population / Japan
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/GL32020101.do?method=extendTclass&refTarget=toukeihyo&listFormat=hierarchy&statCode=0
0200521&tstatCode=000001039448&tclass1=000001048107&tclass2=000001048108&tclass3=&tclass4=&tclass5=
4
b. Report on Internal Migration (2011)
Annual Rate of Migration par Total Japanese
Population (%)
9
Annual rate
of Interprefectural
migration
8
7
6
Annual rate
of Intraprefectural
migration
5
4
3
Annual rate
of migration
(Total of
Inter and
Intraprefectural)
2
1
0
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000
2010
Year
2020
Source : Report on Internal Migration in Japan, Statistics Bureau, Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications,
http://www.e-stat.go.jp/SG1/estat/List.do?lid=000001073599
c. National Survey on Migration (2011)
Range of life-time migration
the same place
within municipality
within prefecture
inside Japan
international
Total
13.2%
17.2%
21.8%
44.1%
3.8%
100%
Reason of migration
Living with
parents /
children
Following
family
member
Marriage /
divorce
35.0%
6.4%
10.9%
13.5%
11.8%
2.9%
100%
20.1%
34.8%
6.6%
7.3%
11.4%
11.8%
3.0%
100%
8.2%
35.0%
6.3%
14.6%
15.6%
11.6%
2.9%
100%
Educational
Occupational
Total
5.4%
14.1%
Male
5.0%
Female
6.0%
Housing
Others
Not stated
Total
Source : 7th National Survey of Migration, National Institute of Population and Social Security Research
http://www.ipss.go.jp/ps-idou/e/m07e/mig07e.asp
As for internal mobility of Russia, the available data to the author for the moment are the Population
Census with the question of the “duration of stay at the place of usual residence”. As the similar item is available
in Japanese Population Census, a comparison is possible. Using the data of Russian 2002 census and Japanese
2010 census, 10 year mobility rate, defined here as the rate of people who lived in the present residence less than
10 years against total population and immobility rate as the rate of people who lived in the present residence since
birth, are compared. 10 year mobility rate is higher in Japan (36%) than in Russia (13%). Immobility rate is higher
5
in Russia (56%) than in Japan (12%). There is a marked difference between the mobility of Russia and Japan and
the Japanese are much more mobile than the Russians, within each country boundary.
Population in urban area is expected to be more mobile so the rates of capital areas of both countries are
compared. Not surprisingly, Tokyo’s mobility is higher than in Moscow city, with 10 year mobility rate of 47.0%
in Tokyo versus 12.0% in Moscow city, immobility rate of 8.7% in Tokyo versus 56.8% in Moscow city. The
interest contrast between the 2 countries is that the Tokyo has higher mobility than the whole country (Japan)
whereas Moscow city has lower mobility than the whole country (Russia). If urban and rural areas are compared,
again in Japan, the urban area is much more mobile than in rural area. However in Russia, 10 year mobility rate in
urban area is lower (12.5%) than in rural area (14.9%) and the immobility rate is, on the contrary, lower in the
urban area than in rural area.
Table 2 Comparison of internal mobility, Russia and Japan
10 year
mobility rate
(2010)
Immobility
rate
(2010)
Japan
38.5%
12.9%
Tokyo
47.0%
Urban (DID)
Rural (non DID)
10 year
mobility rate
(2002)
Immobility
rate
(2002)
Russia
13.1%
55.7%
8.7%
Moscow city
12.0%
56.8%
43.3%
9.6%
Urban
12.5%
54.1%
29.2%
19.3%
Rural
14.9%
60.2%
Rates are calculated excluding the “not stated”.
Source : For Japanese data, same as Table 1-a. For Russian data, All-Russia Population Census-2002
http://www.perepis2002.ru/index.html?id=87
This peculiar urban-rural mobility difference of Russia can be further examined with the rates according
to the period of stay (Table 3). In Russian urban area, there are fewer people living in the same place since birth
and fewer people who moved in the present place since 10 years ago. Then it means that there are more people in
urban area who moved in present place since birth until 10 years ago. Between these 2 periods, 2 categories of the
duration are available in the 2002 census data, “1988 and earlier” and “1989-1991”. There are much more people
who moved in the present place since birth until 1988 in urban area (30.3%) than in rural area (20.9%) but for the
brief period of 1989-1991, the rate is lower in urban (2.6%) and higher in rural (3.7%), the same trend as the 10
year mobility rate. Thus it can be said that urban population had higher mobility until 1988, which is a common
phenomenon in the global context, then the urban mobility weakened since 1989. The explanation of this trend
might be already done somewhere else and the release of census data of 2010 will shed a new light for the more
recent trend of Russian internal mobility.
6
Table 3 Internal mobility in Russia, urban and rural area by period
Duration of stay at the place of usual residence
Russia
Since Birth
(Immobility rate)
1988 and earlier
1989-1991
1992-2002
(10 year mobility
rate)
Not since birth but
duration not
shown
Total
55.7%
27.8%
2.9%
13.1%
0.5%
Urban
54.1%
30.3%
2.6%
12.5%
0.5%
Rural
60.2%
20.9%
3.7%
14.9%
0.3%
Source : same as Table 2.
The immobility rate by Russian oblast and by Japanese prefecture is shown in Figure 2. The marked low
immobility rates in the central Russia are conspicuous but also it can be noted that the oblasts in Far Eastern
Federal District in Russia and Hokkaido in Japan share the lower immobility rates compared to the national
average of respective country. This can be due to the similar history of these regions which received new
settlements during the 19th century.
Figure 2 Russia(2002) – Japan(2010) regional immobility rate
Source : same as Table 2.
IV. Conclusion
The volume of international migrants is larger in Russia than in Japan but both Russia and Japan are not
either sending or receiving migrants and there is a balance between the number of immigrants and emigrants.
7
Internal mobility is much stronger in Japan than in Russia and urban area has higher mobility in Japan and lower
in Russia for the period after 1989.
A society which contains foreigners less than 2% but nearly 40% of the people move their residence in
10 years is well different from the society with nearly 9% as foreigner but 56% never moved since birth. That is
the difference of Japan and Russia, seen from population mobility and migration point of view. This can be due to
the difference of economic level or mobility restrictive policies in respective country. Further details should be
examined for the better understanding of these trends.
Bibliography
- Nancy Chen, Paolo Valente and Hania Zlotnik (1998) “What do we know about recent trends in Urbanization?”,
in Migration, urbanization, and development : new directions and issues, United Nations Population Fund,
Kluwer Academic Publishers
- Hein de Haas (2010) “Migration transitions : a theoretical and empirical inquiry into the developmental drivers
of international migration”, Working Papers 24, International Migration Institute, James Martin 21st Century
School, University of Oxford
- Yoshitaka Ishikawa (2001) Jinko ido tenkan no kenkyu, Kyoto University Press
- Ronald Skeldon (2012) “Migration Transitions Revisited: Their Continued Relevance for The Development of
Migration Theory”, Population, Space and Place, 18, pp.154-166
- United Nations (2012) “International migration and development”, Report of the Secretary-General, A/67/354,
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N12/452/13/PDF/N1245213.pdf?OpenElement
- Wilbur Zelinsky (1971) “The Hypothesis of the Mobility Transition”, Geographical Review, vol.61, no.2
8