2011年-世界发展银行全球_Rural_Out-Migration_and_Family_Life_in_Cities_in_Mongolia_52页_255kb

Summary of "Rural Out-Migration and Family Life in Cities in Mongolia"

Core Content

This paper explores the characteristics of recent internal migration in Mongolia and assesses the livelihoods of rural-to-urban migrants compared to those who remained in rural areas and local urban residents. It utilizes data from the 2007/08 Household Economic and Social Survey (HSES) conducted by the National Statistical Office (NSO) of Mongolia. The study highlights the growing concentration of migrants in Ulaanbaatar (UB), the capital city, and its implications for social, economic, and environmental conditions.

Main Points

• Migration Trends:
  Migrants account for 31.6% of the adult population (15 years or older) in Mongolia. The majority originate from soum centers and aimag centers, with nearly half choosing UB as their destination.

  • The first major wave of migration occurred in the early 1990s due to economic reforms and job losses.
  • The second major wave started in 2000, driven by dzud (severe winter disaster) and other push factors like poor infrastructure and limited job opportunities in rural areas.

• Regional Migration Patterns:

  • UB remains the most common destination for migrants, with its share increasing over the past two decades.
  • The share of migrants going to aimag centers has generally declined, while the share of those moving within soum centers or rural areas has remained relatively stable.
  • Migration from aimag centers to UB has increased, indicating a shift in migration patterns.

• Demographic Characteristics of Migrants:

  • Migrants are slightly more likely to be female than non-migrants, possibly due to marriage-related movements.
  • Migrants tend to have higher educational attainment than non-migrants, with more likely to have completed higher or vocational education.

• Economic and Social Indicators:

  • Rural-to-urban migrants generally have higher consumption levels and lower poverty incidence compared to those who stayed in rural areas.
  • However, there are significant disparities between migrants moving to UB and those moving to aimag centers.
    • Poverty incidence is 24% for UB migrants, 33% for aimag migrants, and 37.3% for local aimag residents.
    • Monthly per capita consumption for UB migrants is 120,147 tugrugs, compared to 99,842 tugrugs for aimag migrants and 78,197 tugrugs for rural non-migrants.

• Housing and Infrastructure:

  • Migrants are more likely to live in traditional gers (felt tents) than local UB residents.
  • In UB, 31% of migrant households live in gers, compared to 16.3% of local households.
  • In aimag centers, the proportion is even higher, with 41% of migrant households living in gers, close to the 42.6% of local families.
  • Migrants are more likely to use traditional and polluted heating fuels (firewood, coal, dung) and less likely to access centralized water supply systems.

• Key Challenges Faced by Migrants:

  • Land Access: Migrants often struggle to obtain land permits and are forced to live in marginal areas with poor infrastructure.
  • Job Opportunities: Finding stable employment is difficult, especially in UB without proper registration. Many migrant households have family members who are unemployed.
  • Education Access: Migrant children are three times more likely to be out of school than children of long-term urban residents.

• Conclusion:

  • Migration is generally associated with improved livelihoods and a reduced risk of poverty.
  • However, the quality of life in cities for rural migrants remains challenging, particularly in terms of housing, energy, and water access.
  • Migrants from UB and aimag centers tend to have better access to urban infrastructure than local residents.

Key Information

• Migration Destinations:

  • UB: 49.15% of migrants
  • Central region: 22.4%
  • Other regions: declining shares

• Migration Origins:

  • 54.2% of migrants originate from rural areas (soum and rural)
  • 35% from aimag centers
  • 10% from UB

• Poverty Threshold:

  • Defined as a monthly per capita consumption of 62,494 tugrugs

• Consumption Levels:

  • Rural-to-urban migrants in UB: 120,147 tugrugs
  • Local UB residents: 127,627 tugrugs
  • Rural-to-aimag migrants: 99,842 tugrugs
  • Rural non-migrants: 78,197 tugrugs

• Education and Migration:

  • Education is positively correlated with migration to both UB and aimag centers.
  • The effect is stronger for those migrating to UB.

• Reasons for Migration:

  • Top reason: Marriage (39% for UB, 40.5% for aimag centers)
  • Second reason: Education (18.7%) for UB migrants, and work opportunities (for aimag and soum/rural migrants)

Methodology

• Data Source: 2007/08 HSES, a nationally representative survey.
• Limitations:
  • Limited pre-migration data
  • Inability to track multiple circular movements
• Analysis Approach:
  • Descriptive statistics
  • Multivariate analysis (OLS regression) to examine the impact of migration while controlling for other variables such as education.

Conclusion

Migration from rural to urban areas in Mongolia has been a significant trend, particularly in the past two decades, with UB as the main destination. While migration generally improves livelihoods and reduces poverty risk, it also brings challenges such as poor housing conditions, limited access to clean water and energy, and difficulty in securing employment and education for migrant families. The study underscores the need for better policy support to address these issues and improve the living conditions of rural migrants in urban areas.