Internal migration and socio-

demographic changes in Malaysia

Tey Nai Peng

International Conference on Migration, Urbanization and Development organized by National Population and Family Development Board, and Population Studies Unit

(University of Malaya)8 July 2013

atFaculty of Economics and Administration

University of Malaya

Scope and objectives of the paper• Re-examines levels, trends and patterns of

internal migration for 1991 and 2000.• State and regional level analysis• Reasons for the concentration in the Klang

Valley• Migration selectivity• Effects of migration on - Demographic changes - Socio-economic changes

Theories and Hypotheses• Ravenstein’s law of migration - Most migrants only proceed a short

distance, and toward centers of absorption • Lee’s push and pull factors- migration directed to areas with more

jobs and higher incomes• Neoclassical economic theory- the main reason for labor migration is

wage difference between two geographic locations • Chain migration – migrants from a certain city of region tend to

migrate to the same area as others from their city or region. It can also refer to the process where relatives who have previously migrated to a new country can sponsor family to migrate to the same city by sponsoring them.

• Migration is selective, especially by age and education• Inter-regional predominates intra-regional migration (except KL

Selangor), because for a small country distance is not a deterrent• Govt policies affect migration, which in turn is instrumental to achieve

the objectives of restructuring society

Data sources and measures• 2% sample data from 1991-2000 censuses• Measures –obtained by cross-classifying by current

state and state of birth/5 years ago - Life time migration (place of birth)- Recent migration (place of residence 5 years before

the census) Note: in 2000 census, 7.2% unknown place cf to 1.9% in 1991, and these are assumed to be inter-state migrants).

- Estimate for % that changed states between 1996 and 2000 varies from 4.8% (published figure) to 11.6% if include persons with unknown state

Bi-polar migration in 1970sLife time in, out and net-migrants (U-u migration

made up about 2/3 in 1995-2000, from 50% in 1986-1991, r-u migration decrease from 17% to 12%)

Life time and 5-year migrants

% living in other states 5 years ago(Data for 2000 include 7.3% of unknown state of origin, and this is as high as

13-14% in KL/Selangor, 10% in Sarawak and 7% in Sabah)

Percent distribution of 5-year migrants by receiving states

Migration status (1996-2000). In Pen. Malaysia, inter-state predominates intra-state migration.

Same major, same minor administrative unit

Same major, different minor administrative unit

Different major administrative unit Abroad Total

Kedah Perlis 1991 87.9 4.3 7.4 0.4 100.0 2000 93.8 2.1 3.8 0.2 100.0Penang 1991 87.8 4.1 7.5 0.6 100.0 2000 88.9 4.3 4.9 1.9 100.0Perak 1991 91.3 3.6 4.6 0.5 100.0 2000 94.1 1.9 3.1 1.0 100.0KL Selangor 1991 80.7 3.2 14.5 1.6 100.0 2000 86.0 3.0 9.3 1.7 100.0NS Melaka 1991 83.1 3.5 12.6 0.9 100.0 2000 89.3 2.0 7.0 1.6 100.0Johor 1991 87.0 5.4 5.8 1.7 100.0 2000 90.8 2.7 4.3 2.1 100.0East Coast 1991 86.0 6.1 6.1 1.8 100.0 2000 93.2 2.7 3.2 0.9 100.0Sabah Sarawak 1991 82.2 10.9 2.1 4.9 100.0 2000 90.4 5.8 1.1 2.7 100.0

Life time net migration ratio, 1991

Life time net migration ratio 2000

5-year net migration ratio, 1991

5-year net migration ratio, 2000

Migration selectivity. Persons aged 20-24 have the highest propensity to migrate. Young women > men

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

15 to 19

20 to 24

25 to 29

30 to 34

35 to 39

40 to 44

45 to 49

50 to 54

55 to 59

60 to 64

4.1

9.0

7.66.5

5.44.2

2.81.9 1.7

0.9

3.8

10.1

8.3

5.9

4.1

2.71.8 1.5 1.4 1.2

1996-2000

Male

Female

Percentage distribution of migrants (1996-2000) by age and sex. Younger women made up

29.5%

Educational level by migration status (1996-2000)

Persons aged 20-39 were most mobile (during 1996-2000). Higher proportion of young Malays have migrated as

compared to non-Malays –objectives of NEP

The pulls in Klang Valley• Rapid industrialization – one third of the

approved manufacturing projects for the period 2001-2005 located in Selangor

• Administrative/business/commercial/financial and educational hub

• Job availability -In 2000, 28.3% of all jobs in the country, 38.9 % of 2.7 million modern sector workers lived in KL/Selangor, up from 33.2% of 1.7 million in 1991

•

Klang Valley has the highest income level. Net in-migration rate is highly correlated with household

income

Correlation between net migration ratio and urbanization level

Other reasons for the attraction to Klang Valley

• Concentration of institutions of higher learning in the region

• Housing development• Better facilities – health care, entertainment etc• Preference for the bright lights of the city• Chain migration and existing network – presence of

relatives and friends in KV facilitates migration • Central location and easy accessibility• Port and airport

Consequences: Unequal population growth The population of Selangor grew rapidly at 6% p.a. Perak,

Kelantan and Perlis had a growth rate of less than 1 %

Selangor increased its share of total population to 19 percent in 2010, from 12% in 1980. Perak registered

the sharpest decline

Between 2000 and 2010, the population in some districts had grown rapidly, others had experienced

depopulation.

1980-1991 1991-2000 2000-2010Sepang (including Putrajaya)

1.6 8.3 8.7

Petaling 5.1 7.6 3.4

Kulim 3.0 5.0 3.3

Johor Bahru 5.0 5.5 3.1

Seremban 2.4 4.6 3.0

S.P. Selatan 1.5 4.4 2.8

Sabak Bernam -

0.3 2.0 -1.4

Jempol 5.4 0.7 -1.4

Kota Tinggi 3.8 1.5 -0.6

Kuala Pilah 0.1 -0.4 -0.3

Segamat 1.5 0.7 -0.3

Effects on age-sex composition

Internal migration has affected the age sex composition of the population of each state. This is borne out by the sharp contrast of changes depicted by the population pyramids in 1970 and 2010 for Selangor (with rapid increase and concentration in the prime working age) and Perak (showing a decrease in the young age population and an ageing population).

Population pyramid: Selangor

300000 200000 100000 0 100000 200000 300000

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

Population ('000)

Selangor 1970 & 2000

2000 Female

2000 Male

1970 Female

1970 Male

Population pyramid: Perak

150000 100000 50000 0 50000 100000 150000

0-45-9

10-1415-1920-2425-2930-3435-3940-4445-4950-5455-5960-6465-6970-7475-79

80+

Population ('000)

Perak 1970 & 2000

2000 Female

2000 Male

1970 Female

1970 Male

The rate urban population growth (1991-2000) much higher than the rate of natural increase – the important

role of migration

Migration accounted for 1/3 of urban population growth (1991-2000) (49% in Selangor), with negative impact on urban

population growth in five states, Kelantan (-170%)State/territory Natural increase Reclassification Migration

Johor 44.6 16.1 39.3Kedah 67.5 0 32.5Kelantan 270 0 -170Melaka 25.9 77.8 3.7N.Sembilan 38 24 38Pahang 41.8 29.1 29.1Perak 90 15 -5Perlis 68.6 74.3 -42.9P. Pinang 68.2 18.2 13.6Selangor 33.3 19.7 48.7Terengganu 88.9 37 -25.9KL 142.9 0 -42.9P. Malaysia 48.9 20 31.1Sabah 28.8 35 36.3Sarawak 44 12 40Malaysia 45.8 20.8 33.3

Rural depopulation in eight states with Melaka taking the lead at -5.1% pa

Migration resulted in rapid urbanization of all the ethnic groups

Changes in ethnic composition of urban population

33

Economic transformation since 1970

1970 1975 1985 1990 2000 2005

Agriculture 52.6 47.6 31.3 26.0 15.7 12.9

Mining 2.6 2.2 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.4

Manufacturing 9.6 11.1 15.2 19.9 27.7 29.7

Construction 2.7 4.0 7.6 6.3 8.1 7.0

Utilities 0.7 0.6 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.8

Transport/communication 3.9 4.5 4.3 4.5 5.0 5.8

Sales 9.3 12 16.3 18.2 17.1 17.7

Government 8.5 12.9 14.6 *19.8 10.6 9.7

Finance * 1.0 3.5 3.9 5.4 6.7

Other services *9.6 4.1 5.6 * 9.6 10.3

Other consequences of migration• agglomeration and economy of scale• regional disparity and land abandonment in

the rural areas (but remittances benefited rural areas)

• Escalating prices of houses • Urban poverty. • Pollution, traffic congestion, environmental

degradation • Rising crimes

Polices, programmes and strategies• No direct policy on internal migration, but economic

policies affect migration• National Urbanization Policy and National Physical Policy• Strategies for managing urban growth while enhancing

productivity and efficiency of small towns and rural areas• The Greater KL initiative under the ETP is to create an

urban agglomeration to spur the country’s economic growth, and this will attract more migrants to the region

• Corridor development – expected employment by around 2025 – Iskandar Malaysia (1.4 million), NCER (3.1 million), ECER (1.9 million), SDC (2.1 million), SCORE (3.0 million)

Conclusions• Migration played an important role in

economic transformation, raising income level, and restructuring of society

• Regional disparity and over-concentration in the Klang Valley, but Selangor managed to achieve zero squatter settlement

• More efforts to promote the integration of migrants and improve their income-earning capability

• The impact of migration and effectiveness of population redistribution policies/programs need to be evaluated

Thank you!

Appendix 1: % born in other states

Appendix 2: Life time inter-regional migration flow, 1991 (read col. for in-migration, row for out-migration)

Region at birth Kedah Perlis Penang Perak KL Selangor NS Melaka Johor East Coast Sabah Sarawak

Kedah Perlis 1276250 82800 53600 97000 14500 20900 52650 9750

Penang 57950 803150 33300 76600 8550 14200 14600 5200

Perak 44700 67500 1586950 348900 34650 47650 85000 12650

KL Selangor 13350 12250 38700 2111800 62450 35750 64250 11250

NS Melaka 9500 7100 16150 243600 939400 76600 40350 12400

Johor 9800 8550 20900 128750 84950 1672750 43100 10350

East Coast 17000 11550 25250 161200 33700 45150 2586750 12250

Sabah Sarawak 4850 3500 5650 23250 7650 7600 7500 2834600

From

Kedah Perlis 89.0 8.3 3.0 3.0 1.2 1.1 1.8 0.3

Penang 4.0 80.6 1.9 2.4 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.2

Perak 3.1 6.8 89.1 10.9 2.9 2.5 2.9 0.4

KL Selangor 0.9 1.2 2.2 66.2 5.3 1.9 2.2 0.4

NS Melaka 0.7 0.7 0.9 7.6 79.2 4.0 1.4 0.4

Johor 0.7 0.9 1.2 4.0 7.2 87.1 1.5 0.4

East Coast 1.2 1.2 1.4 5.1 2.8 2.4 89.4 0.4

Sabah Sarawak 0.3 0.4 0.3 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.3 97.5

In migrant 157150 193250 193550 1079300 246450 247850 307450 73850

Out-migrant 331200 210400 641050 238000 405700 306400 306100 60000

Net migrant -174050 -17150 -447500 841300 -159250 -58550 1350 13850

Appendix 3: Life time inter-regional migration flow, 2000Kedah Perlis Penang Perak KL Selangor NS Melaka Johor East Coast Sabah Sarawak

Kedah Perlis 1493100 96900 52150 136800 16000 27950 50800 9250

Penang 78000 915100 29150 92650 8200 14800 14800 3450

Perak 56750 75500 1680700 466400 32400 66550 70650 11200

KL Selangor 17300 13250 38900 3058850 60750 40450 63850 11650

NS Melaka 10850 5950 17950 294850 1071750 70900 38100 6650

Johor 10650 7850 16900 184700 81150 1997950 50000 11250

East Coast 23150 17900 30700 299700 40800 83650 2942250 16000Sabah Sarawak 8750 7800 8550 68650 14100 22650 14750 3792850

From

Kedah Perlis 87.9 8.5 2.8 3.0 1.2 1.2 1.6 0.2

Penang 4.6 80.3 1.6 2.0 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.1

Perak 3.3 6.6 89.6 10.1 2.4 2.9 2.2 0.3

KL Selangor 1.0 1.2 2.1 66.5 4.6 1.7 2.0 0.3

NS Melaka 0.6 0.5 1.0 6.4 80.9 3.0 1.2 0.2

Johor 0.6 0.7 0.9 4.0 6.1 85.9 1.5 0.3

East Coast 1.4 1.6 1.6 6.5 3.1 3.6 90.7 0.4Sabah Sarawak 0.5 0.7 0.5 1.5 1.1 1.0 0.5 98.2

in migrant 205450 225150 194300 1543750 253400 326950 302950 69450

Out-migrant 389850 241050 779450 246150 445250 362500 511900 145250

Net migrants -184400 -15900 -585150 1297600 -191850 -35550 -208950 -75800

Appendix 4: 5-year inter-regional migration, 1991Kedah Perlis Penang Perak KL Selangor NS Melaka Johor East Coast Sabah Sarawak

Kedah Perlis 1359600 25300 14200 23950 6050 6100 10550 5400

Penang 24600 938900 9850 19550 5500 4950 5150 2800

Perak 18300 21850 1745700 79300 11700 15050 24250 7750

KL Selangor 18450 10900 26050 2869200 47050 25150 36500 11700

NS Melaka 8250 2500 6250 49850 1075900 25250 12700 5550

Johor 5000 3800 6850 34650 32550 1864450 15450 8450

East Coast 14550 6050 14850 64000 17550 29150 2832950 7400

Sabah Sarawak 7650 3250 5850 16850 6050 6400 7300 3132150

From

Kedah Perlis 93.4 2.5 0.8 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.2

Penang 1.7 92.7 0.5 0.6 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1

Perak 1.3 2.2 95.4 2.5 1.0 0.8 0.8 0.2

KL Selangor 1.3 1.1 1.4 90.9 3.9 1.3 1.2 0.4

NS Melaka 0.6 0.2 0.3 1.6 89.5 1.3 0.4 0.2

Johor 0.3 0.4 0.4 1.1 2.7 94.3 0.5 0.3

East Coast 1.0 0.6 0.8 2.0 1.5 1.5 96.2 0.2

Sabah Sarawak 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 98.5

In-mgrants 96800 73650 83900 288150 126450 112050 111900 49050

Out-migrants 91550 72400 178200 175800 110350 106750 153550 53350

Net migrants 5250 1250 -94300 112350 16100 5300 -41650 -4300

Appendix 5: 5-year inter-regional migration, 2000

Kedah Perlis Penang Perak KL Selangor NS Melaka Johor East Coast Sabah Sarawak

Kedah Perlis 1603700 20850 8400 21600 4050 6000 5900 4150

Penang 16350 1069250 6400 12250 2000 4250 2900 1500

Perak 11850 13550 1806550 51350 5050 12250 7900 4350

KL Selangor 13800 9100 21100 4164600 35600 20600 23200 9850

NS Melaka 2850 1650 3650 33000 1252050 16150 9700 2100

Johor 3400 2600 6450 34550 17800 2163850 12950 3500

East Coast 7650 5800 9500 65150 14250 26450 3155650 7700

Sabah Sarawak 4000 3500 3150 31700 7100 11250 10550 3966300

From

Kedah Perlis 96.4 1.9 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.1

Penang 1.0 94.9 0.3 0.3 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.0

Perak 0.7 1.2 96.9 1.2 0.4 0.5 0.2 0.1

KL Selangor 0.8 0.8 1.1 94.3 2.7 0.9 0.7 0.2

NS Melaka 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.7 93.6 0.7 0.3 0.1

Johor 0.2 0.2 0.3 0.8 1.3 95.7 0.4 0.1

East Coast 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.1 1.2 97.7 0.2

Sabah Sarawak 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.3 99.2

in-migrants 59900 57050 58650 249600 85850 96950 73100 33150

Out-migrants 70950 45650 106300 133250 69100 81250 136500 71250

Net-migrants -11050 11400 -47650 116350 16750 15700 -63400 -38100