Does distance matter? A comparison of boundary and distance-based measures of internal migration

This study demonstrates that migration measures predicated on cross-boundary movement introduce significant misclassification error into both migrant and non-migrant samples. The former is shown to occur when across-boundary moves cover only relatively short distances, while the later results from l...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of economic and social measurement 2002, Vol.28 (3), p.161-175
Main Author: Yankow, Jeffrey J.
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Boundaries
Classification
Data analysis
Economics
Error of Measurement
Health insurance
Hispanic people
Insurance coverage
Internal Migration
Measurement
Migrants
Migration
Minority & ethnic groups
Model testing
Social conditions & trends
Social mobility
Spatial Analysis
U.S.A
United States of America
Youth
Citations: Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:This study demonstrates that migration measures predicated on cross-boundary movement introduce significant misclassification error into both migrant and non-migrant samples. The former is shown to occur when across-boundary moves cover only relatively short distances, while the later results from long distance residential movement occurring within the boundary. Using a unique sample of geocoded data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979, I find that over half of all intercounty moves and one-third of all interstate moves cover distances of less than fifty miles. In contrast, more than half of all within-state moves (of at least ten miles) cover distances of more than fifty miles while over thirty-five percent cover at least one hundred miles. Estimation results from a standard discrete-choice model of migration propensity are shown to be highly sensitive to distance suggesting that inferences based on a particular migration definition will often not generalize across alternative measures.
ISSN:0747-9662
1875-8932
2523-5338
DOI:10.3233/JEM-2003-0210