1. INTRODUCTION
In many developing countries rapid
urban growth since the mid-twentieth century has caused much alarm. How
to provide employment, housing and public services to the growing numbers
of urban dwellers will undoubtedly remain important problems for these
nations well into the twenty-first century. As countries go through the
process of economic development, a greater percentage of the population
tends to congregate in the capital region in order to take advantage of
economic, educational, political, and cultural resources (Jefferson, 1939;
El-Shahks, 1972; and Mehta, 1964). This agglomeration process tends to
create a lop-sided form of economic development that favors the capital
region at the expense of the periphery of the country. In an attempt to
alleviate the concentration of population in the capital region, many developing
countries have adopted population redistribution policies. Since the 1960s,
these policies have been implemented with limited success in such diverse
countries as Tanzania (Sawers, 1989), Egypt (Stewart, 1996), South Africa
(Dewar, Todes, and Watson, 1986), Peru (Jameson, 1979), Mexico (Barkin,
1975), Brazil (Semple, Gauthier, and Youngmann, 1972), Thailand (Sternstein,
1979), Taiwan (Williams, 1988), and Indonesia (Firman, 1997).
Probably the most grandiose population
redistribution project undertaken during the mid-twentieth century was
in Venezuela. The Venezuelan government used its oil wealth to create an
industrial complex in the southeast to act as a growth pole to direct population
and economic resources away from the overcrowded metropolis of Caracas.
The planned industrial city emerged out of two mining settlements at the
confluence of the Caroni and Orinoco Rivers and grew from an urban population
of approximately 3,500 in 1950 to 453,047 by 1990 (Venezuelan Census, 1995).
Since Venezuela was one of the newly industrializing nations of the developing
world, it was hoped that policies concerning population redistribution
enacted in Venezuela could be appropriately applied to other developing
nations of the world. Unfortunately, social scientists lost interest in
the demographic impact of Ciudad Guayana after the 1970s, as the growth
pole philosophy came under attack by those who believed that deconcentration
of population and economic resources would occur naturally as a country
went through the process of economic development (Richardson, 1984; Oberai,
1993).
There have been no studies that
have examined migration flows to and from Ciudad Guayana on a longitudinal
basis. This study attempts to help fill this void in the literature. This
work does not dispute the fact that migration to Ciudad Guayana increased
substantially during the 1960s and early 1970s. Earlier studies have clearly
indicated this to be the case (Rodwin, 1969; Friedmann, 1969).
All data used in the analysis are
from the Venezuelan Censuses for 1950, 1961, 1971, 1981, and 1990. Unfortunately,
the Venezuelan Censuses did not record migration flows by city. The lack
of these data necessitates an indirect approach to the migration problem.
The only comparable migration data over the five census years are migration
exchanges between the 23 states of Venezuela. Each census recorded the
state of birth and present state of residence at the time of the census
for all individuals who were born in Venezuela. Henceforth, these individuals
will be considered either life-time in or outmigrants. Foreign-born individuals
are not considered in this study.
The major focus of the paper is
to detect changes in the importance of origin and destination states of
life-time migrants to and from Bolívar State that may be attributed
to the creation of Ciudad Guayana. Instead of focusing on actual numbers
of life-time inmigrants to Bolívar State from the other 22 states
of Venezuela between 1950 and 1990, this paper examines the percentage
of life-time inmigrants to Bolívar State that originated from each
of the other 22 states of Venezuela (Figure 1) in 1950, and the changes
that occurred by 1990. Likewise, the percentage of life-time outmigrants
from Bolivar found in each of the other Venezuelan
Figure
1
 |
states is compared with the percentages
for 1990. The argument is that Ciudad Guayana changed the migrational patterns
between Bolívar State and the remainder of the Venezuelan states
over the forty year period. The average distance traveled by a life-time
inmigrant or outmigrant to and from Bolívar State during this time
is also provided as supporting evidence for the shifts in origin and destinations
of life-time migrants to and from Bolívar State.
Migrant exchange ratios between
Bolívar State and the other 22 states are also examined for the
five census years. These ratios compare the number of life-time inmigrants
to outmigrants between Bolívar State and each of the other Venezuelan
states. A figure of 1.0 represents an equal exchange of life-time migrants
between Bolívar State and another state. Figures below 1.0 represent
a loss of net migrants from Bolívar State, while figures above 1.0
represent a net gain for Bolívar State.
BACKGROUND:
Venezuela’s Experience with
the Guayana Project:
The general consensus concerning
the Ciudad Guayana project was that it failed in its attempt to divert
both migrants and economic resources from the capital region (Friedmann,
1965; Rodwin, 1969; and Peattie, 1987). Even though approximately 1,000
migrants were streaming into the new city every month as of 1967 (Proctor,
1968), little of the flow originated from the capital region or the overpopulated
rural states of Western Venezuela. The early migrational flows were mostly
unskilled rural migrants from Eastern Venezuela instead of skilled personnel
from the capital region as initially intended (Rodwin, 1965; Friedmann,
1969; Turner and Smulian, 1971). Further spurring the uncontrolled growth
of the city was that the majority of migrants to Ciudad Guayana consisted
of families from the surrounding eastern states, where women maintained
some of the highest fertility levels in Venezuela and likewise continued
this behavior once relocating to Ciudad Guayana (MacDonald, 1969).
From an economic perspective, the
success of the program was equally discouraging. Roesler and Azam (1990)
claimed that Ciudad Guayana did not achieve its intended objectives because
planners had relied on a unidimensional strategy of development which entailed
only developing the industrial sector at |
the expense of the agricultural sector.
The channeling of a great proportion of economic resources into the industrial
sector may have increased production levels, employment and GNP, but it
also led to some negative externalities. A few examples of problems with
this particular development strategy include unmanageable population growth,
income disparities and increased costs of living. According to Artle (1971)
the design of the Ciudad Guayana industrial complex was an unwise use of
resources because manufacturing is a highly capital-intensive operation
and, although the city attracted migrants, there were not enough employment
opportunities to fulfill these needs. Reif (1987) addressed the question
as to whether government policies were effective in the deconcentration
of industry away from the Caracas metropolitan area to Ciudad Guayana.
He found that for 1974-1978 the deconcentration in industry that did occur
had little to do with government incentives.
Venezuelan Migration Studies
with Reference to Bolívar State:
Chen (1968) in his study of internal
migration in Venezuela was one of the first to call attention to the fact
that the state of Bolívar had switched from being a state of negative
net migration prior to 1950 to one of positive net migration by the end
of the 1950s. Lawson and Brown (1987) found a significant relationship
between the process of industrialization and inmigration rates to the state
of Bolívar in the early 1970s and concluded that Caracas was less
important economically and a less significant destination for migrants
than it had been prior to the 1970s. Brown and Goetz (1987) combined place
attributes with individual attributes in the migration equation to determine
the effect that economic development had on out-migration from particular
districts in Venezuela and found that population pressure and the
economic structure of the district, as well as the educational level of
individual migrants, explained approximately two-thirds of the variance
in migration. More importantly, the authors found that the district containing
Ciudad Guayana conformed to the characteristics for districts housing other
major cities, and that by 1971 Ciudad Guayana had taken its place as a
core district in terms of economic development. Brown and Kodras (1987)
found in their analysis of 1971 census data of migration between rural
areas, frontier regions and core regions that, as far as Ciudad Guayana
was concerned, the inmigration flows to the region were migrants who were
less endowed in human capital than the out-migrants moving to the core
region. The researchers admit that this pattern may indeed change as the
frontier regions undergo further development as will be determined by the
1981 and 1990 censuses.
DISCUSSION:
Comparison of Life-Time In,
Out, and Net Migration for the Bolívar State for 1950 through 1990:
Life-time inmigration, outmigration,
and net migration for Bolívar State with the other 22 Venezuelan
states are recorded for 1950, 1961, 1971,1981, and 1990 in Table 1. In
1950, Bolívar State had a net life-time migration loss to the other
states of Venezuela of 10,283 individuals. By 1961, Bolívar State
had a net life-time migration gain of 4,860 individuals. The new city of
Ciudad Guayana had just been completed and attracted migrants from the
surrounding states. It is also probable that potential migrants out of
Bolívar State would have also settled in the new city. Net life-time
migration gains to Bolívar State climbed to 56,230 individuals in
1971 and then to 128,118 life-time individuals by 1981, before leveling
off at 157,347 by 1990. One must be extremely cautious in interpreting
these figures. While it is apparent that Bolívar switched from a
net loser of life-time migrants in 1950 to a net gainer of migrants with
every successive decade from 1961 to 1990, one must also consider that
Venezuela’s population increased by 259.5 percent between 1950 and 1990
as a result of rapidly declining death rates (Statistical Abstract of Latin
America, 1997), which provided a tremendous pool of potential migrants.
Likewise, Bolívar State’s pool of potential life-time outmigrants
would be affected by natural increase over the decades attributed to the
flow of migrants into Bolívar State.
TABLE
1. Life-Time In, Out, and Net Migration for the Bolívar State,
1950-1990.
|
Year
|
Life-Time In
|
Life-Time Out
|
Life-Time Net
|
|
1950
|
15,467
|
25,750
|
-10,283
|
|
1961
|
40,785
|
35,928
|
4,860
|
|
1971
|
103,918
|
47,683
|
56,230
|
|
1981
|
202,452
|
74,334
|
128,118
|
|
1990
|
243,765
|
86,418
|
157,347
|
Source: Compiled from Table
12. Décima Censo de Venezuela. 1975. Tables 1.7.
Venezuela: XI Censo General de
Población y Vivienda. Vols. 1-23. 1981-1986; and
Table 7. Características
Generales. El Censo 90 en Venezuela. Central de Estadística e Informática.
1995.
The numbers of life-time migrants
to and from Bolívar State for each of the other 22 states of Venezuela
from 1950 to 1990 are displayed in figures 2A and 2B.
Figure
2A
 |
Figure 2B
 |
The directional bias of life-time
inmigrants is obvious, given that the Northeastern States provided the
bulk of life-time inmigrants to Bolívar State. The western states
provided relatively few migrants and this is most likely a result of the
distance between Bolívar State and these states as well as alternative
opportunities that would be available in the capital region. Life-time
outmigrants from Bolívar State as of 1990 were less constrained
by distance than life-time inmigrants and were more represented in the
capital region (the Federal District, Aragua, Carabobo, and Miranda). Average
distance traveled by life-time migrants to and from Bolívar State
for the five census years will be further examined in a another section.
Percentage
Distribution of Life-time In and Outmigrants to and from Bolívar
State for 1950 and 1990:
A comparison of the percentage
life-time inmigrants to Bolívar State that originated in the other
22 Venezuelan states is displayed in Table 2 (located at the end of this
section). Over the 1950 to 1990 timeframe, Bolívar began to pull
a greater percentage of its total life-time migrant population from further
afield. One of the most striking examples is that of the Federal District,
which in 1950 provided only 4.5 percent of the total life-time inmigrant
population in Bolívar, whereas by 1990, 10.6 percent of the total
life-time inmigrant flow was from the Federal District. However, the other
states of the capital region, Aragua, Carabobo and Miranda, never sent
as many migrants to Bolívar State as the Federal District did. The
1950 and 1990 percent composition of total migrants to Bolívar from
these three states remained relatively unchanged. Miranda, Aragua and Carabobo
were always more important as a destination for migrants from Bolívar
than vice versa. One of the greatest losers in the inmigrant flow, in terms
of the percentage of life-time inmigrants, between 1950 and 1990, was Anzoategui
which contributed 33.9% of all migrants to Bolívar in 1950
but only 17.7% in 1990. By 1990, Anzoategui had receded to third place
as a source of inmigrants to Bolívar--behind Sucre, 22.9% and Monagas,
21.7%. Delta Amacuro, Guarico, and Apure were also major losers in percent
composition of the total migrant population between 1950 and 1990. Apure
showed the greatest decline during this four-decade period. In 1950, 5.7
percent of all inmigrants to Bolívar hailed from this state, whereas
by 1990 only 1.2 percent were represented in Bolívar’s life-time
inmigrant population. Guarico also receded from 8.3 percent of the total
in 1950 to only 3.1 percent of the total in 1990. Sucre made the
biggest gain for it had only 5.8 percent of the inmigrant total in 1950,
which for that year made it the fifth greatest contributor of migrants
to Bolívar, but had become the number one contributor by 1981 at
23.0 percent of the total. The eight states of the western highlands did
not change much in their percentage contribution of migrants to Bolívar
between 1950 with 7.3 percent of life-time inmigrants and 1990 with a comparable
7.0 percent of life-time inmigrants. It would appear that the western highlands
as a source region was always outside the migration field of Bolívar.
Zulia contributed only 1.1 percent of life-time migrants to Bolívar
in 1950 but submitted a greater share of migrant population by 1990, 3.8%,
indicating a much greater draw from Zulia than in earlier decades.
In 1950, the Federal District was
the destination for almost one third, 32.7 percent, of outmigrants from
Bolívar State (figure 2B, table 2), but by 1990, this figure dropped
to only 17.3 percent. The Federal District failed to remain as attractive
to Bolívar-born individuals as it was during mid-century. At this
time, a process known as polarization reversal was occurring throughout
the developing world. For many major cities, inmigration rates had lessened
or in some circumstances reversed so that more individuals were leaving
the major city of the country than entering (Rowland and Gordon, 1996;
MacKellar and Vining, 1995; Villa and Rodríquez, 1996). While the
Federal District was decreasing its share of outmigrants from Bolívar,
the three surrounding states in the capital region were making significant
gains. In 1950, Aragua, Carabobo, and Miranda only held a combined total
of 8.2 percent of outmigrants from Bolívar. By 1990, these same
three states held 27.3 percent of all outmigrants from Bolívar.
Though much of the flow of outmigrants from Bolívar was still directed
toward the capital region, it was more dispersed to the surrounding states
of the capital region by 1990 than it was in 1950. The single greatest
destination for outmigrants in 1950, Anzoategui, with 36.5 percent of the
total, receded to second place with 20.2 percent of the total flow
by 1990. Monagas and Sucre became more popular over the 1950 to 1990 period
for outmigrants from Bolívar; 4.2 and 0.9 percent respectively in
1950, compared to 7.1 and 3.2 percent in 1990. By 1990, these two states
were the greatest contributors of inmigrants to Bolívar. It is plausible
that this substantial flow to Bolívar caused a countermigration
in the opposite direction. Such a countermigration would account for the
increased percentages of outmigrants from Bolívar found in Monagas
and Sucre by 1990. One of Ravenstein’s (1885) laws was that every major
migration stream caused a countermigration stream due to the return of
unsuccessful migrants to the origin as well as the migration of individuals
from the destination to this locale due to the increased interaction between
the two locales. Since the census records migration by state of birth,
only migrants born in Bolívar, the origin, would be enumerated in
the counterflow to Sucre and Monagas, since any returned migrants to either
Sucre or Monagas would be enumerated as nonmigrants in the census data.
The western highlands proved to be of greater attraction to outmigrants
from Bolívar by 1990 than they had been in 1950. These eight states
were the destination for 2.9 percent of all life-time outmigrants in 1950,
while in 1990, 5.5 percent of migrants from Bolívar were enumerated
in the highlands. It appears that outmigrants from Bolívar have
extended their migration distance during the latter half of the twentieth
century.
In summation, an examination of
the percentage composition of total life-time inmigrants for Bolívar
State would suggest that by 1990 Bolívar had drawn migrants from
states further away than in the earlier decades of the study period. Changes
in the direction of outmigrants from Bolívar State to other states
in Venezuela between 1950 and 1990 are more difficult to discern. The next
section examines the average distance traveled by a life-time inmigrant
and outmigrant for Bolívar State for the five census years.
TABLE 2. Percentage Distribution
of Life-Time In and Outmigrants to and from Bolívar State, by State,
1950-1990:
| |
IN
|
|
|
|
|
OUT
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1950
|
1961
|
1971
|
1981
|
1990
|
1950
|
1961
|
1971
|
1981
|
1990
|
| Federal District |
4.5
|
5.3
|
5.9
|
9.5
|
10.6
|
32.7
|
36.2
|
35.4
|
22.3
|
17.3
|
| Anzoategui |
33.9
|
26.8
|
24.4
|
20.6
|
17.7
|
36.5
|
26.2
|
18.1
|
19.7
|
21.2
|
| Apure |
5.7
|
2.6
|
1.2
|
1.3
|
1.2
|
3.2
|
2.3
|
7.0
|
0.9
|
0.8
|
| Aragua |
1.5
|
0.9
|
0.8
|
1.4
|
1.8
|
3.3
|
4.3
|
1.4
|
7.7
|
7.6
|
| Barinas |
1.0
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.7
|
0.9
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.6
|
0.7
|
0.9
|
| Carabobo |
1.5
|
0.9
|
0.8
|
1.2
|
1.6
|
2.1
|
2.7
|
5.6
|
8.3
|
8.2
|
| Cojedes |
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.1
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
| Falcón |
1.6
|
0.9
|
0.9
|
0.7
|
0.8
|
0.7
|
1.1
|
0.4
|
0.8
|
0.7
|
| Guarico |
8.3
|
4.7
|
2.7
|
3.0
|
3.1
|
3.7
|
4.7
|
2.6
|
2.9
|
2.7
|
| Lara |
1.1
|
0.8
|
0.7
|
0.8
|
1.1
|
0.8
|
1.0
|
1.2
|
1.4
|
1.6
|
| Mérida |
1.0
|
0.6
|
0.5
|
0.7
|
1.1
|
0.2
|
0.4
|
0.7
|
1.3
|
1.5
|
| Miranda |
1.7
|
1.1
|
0.7
|
1.2
|
1.4
|
2.8
|
6.9
|
11.0
|
11.3
|
12.1
|
| Monagas |
15.0
|
20.6
|
24.7
|
22.4
|
21.7
|
4.2
|
3.4
|
4.7
|
7.1
|
8.1
|
| Nueva Esparta |
1.9
|
2.2
|
2.2
|
1.5
|
1.4
|
0.2
|
0.2
|
0.4
|
1.4
|
2.0
|
| Portuguesa |
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
0.4
|
0.6
|
0.4
|
0.5
|
0.8
|
0.7
|
0.7
|
| Sucre |
5.8
|
16.9
|
22.8
|
23.0
|
22.9
|
0.9
|
1.5
|
1.5
|
3.2
|
4.1
|
| Tachira |
1.6
|
1.2
|
0.9
|
1.6
|
2.1
|
0.3
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.7
|
1.1
|
| Trujillo |
1.3
|
0.8
|
0.6
|
0.7
|
0.8
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
0.4
|
| Yaracuy |
0.7
|
0.5
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
0.2
|
0.3
|
0.3
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
| Zulia |
1.1
|
1.2
|
1.9
|
2.6
|
3.8
|
2.0
|
2.9
|
2.7
|
2.4
|
2.4
|
| Amazonas |
1.2
|
1.0
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
0.5
|
3.2
|
2.7
|
3.2
|
3.9
|
3.1
|
| Delta Amacuro |
9.0
|
10.1
|
6.9
|
5.8
|
4.6
|
1.9
|
1.2
|
1.5
|
2.3
|
3.9
|
Source: Compiled from Table
12. Décima Censo de Venezuela. 1975. Tables 1.7 Venezuela: XI Censo
General de Poblacion y Vivienda.
Vols. 1-23. 1986; and Table 7.
Características Generales. El Censo Noventa en Venezuela. Central
de Estadística e Informática. 1995.
Average Distance
Traveled by Life-time In and Outmigrants to and from the state of Bolívar:
Average distance traveled by a
life-time inmigrant/outmigrant to or from Bolívar State for each
census year was determined by multiplying the number of migrants for each
state by the distance in kilometers from the capital of that state to Ciudad
Guayana. Distance between capitals to measure migration flows in Venezuela
has been used by a number of researchers (Levy and Wadyck, 1971; Schultz,
1982). The data were then summed for all states and then divided by the
total number of life-time inmigrants to determine average distance. The
same procedure was then repeated to determine average distance traveled
by life-time outmigrants from Bolívar State to the other 22 states
for the five census years.
In 1950, the average distance traveled
by a life-time inmigrant to Bolívar was 372.8 kilometers (Table
3). This average distance decreased to 323.3 kilometers for life-time inmigrants
to Bolívar as of 1961. The reason for this dramatic decrease in
average migrational distance was due to the attraction of migrants from
adjacent states, who had been spurred by the creation of Ciudad Guayana
(Friedmann, 1969). By 1971, the average distance traveled by a life-time
inmigrant further declined to 312.3 kilometers. By 1981, the average distance
traversed by a life-time inmigrant to Bolívar State increased to
344.8 kilometers, and then to 373.3 kilometers by 1990. As would be expected,
as Ciudad Guayana continued to grow, its attraction to potential migrants
expanded further throughout the country. This process underlies the concept
of the gravity model of social interaction (Zipf, 1946), in which interaction
is enhanced by the population of two entities, but curtailed by the distance
between two entities (Stouffer, 1940).
When applied to this specific migration
problem, it is clear that an increase in the size of Ciudad Guayana (and
thus Bolívar State) while distance remained unchanged would enhance
the flow between Bolívar State and other states. |
TABLE
3. Average Distance Traveled by Life-Time Migrants to and from
Bolívar State, 1950-1990 (in Kilometers):
| |
IN
|
OUT
|
|
1950
|
372.8
|
489.3
|
|
1961
|
323.3
|
471.2
|
|
1971
|
312.3
|
485.9
|
|
1981
|
344.8
|
479.4
|
|
1990
|
373.3
|
463.8
|
Source:
Características Generales. El Censo de Venezuela. Central de
Estadística e Informática. 1995. |
The average distance traveled by
an outmigrant from Bolívar State in 1950 was 489.3 kilometers.
In 1961, the average distance traveled by an outmigrant from Bolívar
State declined to 471.2 kilometers. A plausible reason for this slight
decline is that the new city of Ciudad Guayana siphoned off potential outmigrants
from Bolívar State who may have proceeded to the cities of the Capital
Region. In 1971, the average distance traveled by an outmigrant increased
to 485.9 kilometers. By the early 1960s, the growth of employment opportunities
in Ciudad Guayana could not keep pace with the influx of migrants from
surrounding states (Blanco and Ganz, 1969). It is not unreasonable to assume
that individuals in Bolívar State would seek employment opportunities
in the capital region. The average distance traveled by an outmigrant in
1981 was 479.4 kilometers and 463.8 kilometers in 1990.
Throughout the time period studied,
the average distance traveled by an outmigrant from Bolívar far
exceeded that of the average inmigrant to Bolívar State. This differential
was greatest in 1971 (173.6 kilometers). However, by 1990 the differential
between life-time inmigrants and outmigrants was only 90.5 kilometers.
Undoubtedly, transportation and communication linkages between Bolívar
State and the other states were improved between 1950 and 1990. Such linkages
may provide a sufficient explanation of the increase in the average distance
of inmigrants to Bolívar State, but they do not adequately explain
the decline in average distance for life-time outmigrants. A number of
factors may account for the decline in distance for life-time outmigrants
from Bolívar State. First, Bolívar-born individuals who left
the state prior to the 1980s for the cities of the capital region may have
returned once the Venezuelan economy experienced a downturn. Secondly,
Bolívar-born individuals who migrated to the capital region may
have returned for retirement. Thirdly, potential outmigrants from Bolívar
State may not have been attracted to the states of the capital region due
to the economic slump of the 1980s.
Migrant
Exchange Ratios for 1950-1990:
A migrant exchange ratio is used
to determine how equitable in and outmigrant flows are for a particular
entity without using actual numbers (Chan, 1994). The significance of the
ratio is that it allows values to be compared over different time periods.
The migrant exchange ratio is computed by dividing the number of inmigrants
to an entity by the number of outmigrants from that entity. A figure of
1.00 indicates an equal exchange of migrants between two entities with
the end result 0 net migration for both entities. A figure above 1.00 indicates
positive inmigration for the entity in question, while a figure below 1.00
indicates negative inmigration for that particular entity.
| The migrant exchange ratios between
Bolívar and the other 22 Venezuelan states, treated as one entity,
illustrate the dramatic shifts in life-time migration between 1950 and
1990 (Table 4). In 1950, Bolívar had a migrant exchange ratio of
0.60 indicating that it was a state of net life-time outmigration. Not
surprisingly, with the completion of Ciudad Guayana in the early 1960s,
Bolívar switched from a state of net outmigration to one of slight
net inmigration with a migrant exchange ratio of 1.14. By 1971, with a
migrant exchange ratio of 2.18, Bolívar State had twice as many
life-time inmigrants from other states of Venezuela as it had Bolívar-born
individuals residing in the remainder of Venezuela. Bolívar
continued to be favored in net life-time migration exchanges in 1981 (2.72)
and 1990 (2.82).
A more detailed picture of migrant
exchange ratios between Bolívar and the remainder of Venezuela can
be obtained by disaggregating the exchanges by state. In 1950 and 1961,
a total of ten states had migrant exchange ratios with Bolívar State
below 1.00, indicating that Bolívar lost in the net migration exchange
with these states. By 1971, only six states had migrant exchange ratios
below 1.00. In 1981 and 1990 the number was further reduced to four states.
The Federal District in 1950 received many times the number of migrants
from Bolívar as it sent to Bolívar in return (0.082). By
1981, the balance had tipped so that Bolívar had more life-time
migrants from the Federal District than vice versa with a migrant exchange
ratio of 1.16. By 1990, there were almost twice as many life-time migrants
from the Federal District in Bolívar, with a migrant exchange ratio
of 1.73, as there were Bolívar-born individuals in the Federal District.
It is likely that a percentage of migrants who left Bolívar in the
1950s, 1960s and 1970s returned to Bolívar or dispersed to the surrounding
states of the capital region. Surprisingly, migrant exchange ratios between
Bolívar and the three surrounding states of the Federal District
showed little change between 1950 and 1990, suggesting that there was not
a mere deconcentration of Bolívar-born individuals throughout the
capital region. Anzoategui, geographically positioned between the capital
region and Bolívar, with a migrant exchange ratio of 0.56 received
almost twice as many life-time migrants from Bolívar as it sent
to Bolívar. Migrants from Bolívar may have proceeded on their
trek to the capital region via Anzoategui, which would most likely have
siphoned off some of the migrants. By 1961, the exchange between the two
states was comparable (1.16). The incipient industrial city of Ciudad Guayana
was just beginning to draw migrants from directly across the Bolívar-Anzoategui
border. During the 1970s and 1980s, Anzoategui was contributing between
2.5 and 3.0 times as many migrants as were being received from Bolívar.
Zulia was another state that underwent a major transformation in migrant
flow. In 1950, Bolívar’s migrant exchange ratio with Zulia was 0.33
indicating that Bolívar sent three times as many migrants to Zulia
as it received from Zulia. However, by 1990, Zulia had sent over |
TABLE 4: Life-Time
Migrant Exchange Ratios Between Bolívar State
and the Other
States of Venezuela, 1950-1990:
|
|
1950
|
1961
|
1971
|
1981
|
1990
|
| Federal District |
0.08
|
0.17
|
0.36
|
1.16
|
1.73
|
| Anzoategui |
0.56
|
1.16
|
2.94
|
2.85
|
2.47
|
| Apure |
1.07
|
1.30
|
0.39
|
3.79
|
4.16
|
| Aragua |
0.27
|
0.23
|
1.21
|
0.50
|
0.67
|
| Barinas |
1.25
|
0.56
|
1.07
|
2.46
|
2.79
|
| Carabobo |
0.43
|
0.40
|
0.30
|
0.38
|
0.54
|
| Cojedes |
0.74
|
1.75
|
2.06
|
2.09
|
1.38
|
| Falcón |
1.38
|
0.96
|
4.26
|
2.38
|
3.56
|
| Guarico |
1.36
|
1.15
|
2.26
|
2.77
|
3.29
|
| Lara |
0.81
|
0.94
|
1.24
|
1.54
|
1.89
|
| Mérida |
2.58
|
1.62
|
1.57
|
1.59
|
2.18
|
| Miranda |
0.38
|
0.17
|
0.14
|
0.29
|
0.32
|
| Monagas |
2.16
|
6.82
|
11.40
|
8.66
|
7.50
|
| Nueva Esparta |
6.83
|
10.82
|
11.80
|
3.09
|
2.03
|
| Portuguesa |
0.47
|
0.57
|
0.76
|
1.67
|
2.08
|
| Sucre |
3.96
|
12.47
|
32.70
|
19.83
|
15.84
|
| Tachira |
3.49
|
2.77
|
3.64
|
5.79
|
5.44
|
| Trujillo |
4.50
|
3.17
|
5.25
|
6.49
|
6.20
|
| Yaracuy |
1.85
|
2.21
|
1.84
|
1.45
|
1.87
|
| Zulia |
0.33
|
0.46
|
1.53
|
2.97
|
4.37
|
| Amazonas |
0.23
|
0.43
|
0.38
|
0.33
|
0.47
|
| Delta Amacuro |
2.90
|
9.21
|
9.69
|
6.91
|
3.33
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| All States |
0.60
|
1.14
|
2.18
|
2.72
|
2.82
|
Source: Compiled
from Table 12. Décima Censo de Venezuela. 1975.
Tables 1.7 Venezuela:
XI Censo General de Población y Vivienda. Vols.
1-23. 1986;
and Table 7. Características Generales. El Censo Noventa en
Venezuela. Central
de Estadística e Informática. 1995. |
four times as many life-time
migrants to Bolívar as it had received from Bolívar. It is
possible that the downturn of the economy in the 1980s stimulated
outmigration of individuals
from Zulia and at the same time potential outmigrants from Bolívar,
would not be attracted to Zulia (Auty, 1990).
The most inequitable migrant exchange
ratios were in 1971 and indicated the tremendous one-way exchange of life-time
migrants between Bolívar and three states in the northeast, with
Bolívar receiving over 32 times (32.7) as many migrants from Sucre
as it sent to Sucre in return. Monagas, 11.4 and Delta Amacuro, 9.69 also
had migrant exchange ratios that highly favored Bolívar. However,
the two decades that followed showed a more equitable exchange between
Bolívar and these states; this shift in exchange rate may be attributed
to lower population growth rates in the northeastern states and perhaps
TO return migration of individuals who migrated to Bolívar during
the 1960s.
CONCLUSION:
Bolívar State was transformed
from a state of net migration loss in 1950 to a state that had almost three
times as many life-time inmigrants as life-time outmigrants by 1990. This
turnaround in migration trends is mostly attributed to the creation of
Ciudad Guayana, an industrial city in a former inaccessible region of the
country. In 1950, 63.7 percent of the inmigrants to Bolívar State
originated from the four northeastern states of Anzoategui, Monagas, Sucre
and Delta Amacuro. The creation of Ciudad Guayana in 1959 stimulated a
greater influx of migrants from these northeastern states than the other
states of the country so that by 1971, 78.8 percent of total life-time
inmigrants to Bolívar originated from these four states. By 1990,
a greater percentage of inmigrants were being attracted from states further
away and only 66.9 percent of life-time migrants originated from the four
northeastern states. For example, the Federal District became a more important
source of inmigrants to Bolívar in 1981 and 1990. Whether
this dispersal of population can be attributed to Ciudad Guayana or to
a general trend in many developing countries to naturally undergo deconcentration
of population away from the capital city may never be known. Perhaps the
new city of Ciudad Guayana had obtained a population size and economic
structure that allowed it to compete with other cities in Venezuela for
potential migrants.
For destination of life-time outmigrants
from Bolívar, the agglomeration of migrants in the capital region
in the 1950, 1961, and 1971 censuses subsided, so that more migrants were
found in other states of the country by the 1981 and 1990 censuses. The
concentration of Bolívar-born outmigrants peaked in 1971 with 53.4
percent of all outmigrants from Bolívar residing in the capital
region and declined to 45.2 percent by 1990. It is likely that the growth
of Ciudad Guayana that was fueled by inmigration and natural increase as
well as the development of the economic base over the 1950 to 1990 period
provided a suitable alternative for potential outmigrants from Bolívar
State by 1981 and 1990.
By using migrant exchange ratios,
it was possible to track the in and out life-time migrant flows between
the state of Bolívar and the other 22 states of Venezuela. In 1950,
Bolívar lost migrants to ten states, whereas by 1990, it only lost
migrants to four states. Overall, Bolívar’s migrant exchange ratio
increased with each census. This shift indicates a combination of three
possible scenarios: 1) Bolívar became more attractive to individuals
born in other states; 2) Bolívar became more successful in maintaining
potential outmigrants who were born in Bolívar; or 3) individuals
born in Bolívar returned to their state of birth. Of greater significance,
concerning migrant exchange ratios, is the exchange of life-time migrants
between Bolívar State and the four states of the capital region
(the Federal District, Aragua, Carabobo, and Miranda). In 1950, Bolívar,
with a migrant exchange ratio of 0.13, lost eight life-time migrants to
the capital region for every life-time migrant it gained from the capital
region. Although, Bolívar was never to gain more life-time migrants
from the capital region than it sent to the capital region, by 1990 the
migrant exchange ratio was 0.96, indicating almost an even exchange of
life-time migrants between the State of Bolívar and the four states
of the capital region. Given the results of this study, it appears that
social scientists prematurely dismissed the role of Ciudad Guayana as a
growth pole.
Two questions still await definitive
answers. Was Ciudad Guayana responsible for the changes in the source and
destination states of migrants to and from Bolívar State between
1950 and 1990? Was the implementation of the Guayana Program responsible
for the favorable migrant exchange for Bolívar State between 1950
and 1990? The data suggest that this may be the case. However, internal
migration does not occur in a vacuum. It is quite likely that other conditions
were interacting to affect this relationship, such as the general increased
mobility of individuals once a country proceeds through economic development.
The latest Venezuelan Census was
undertaken in October 2000. It takes several years to collate the migration
data between states and publish the data. The logical next step is an examination
of migrational flows between Bolívar State and the other Venezuelan
States over the 1950 to 2000 period.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Artle, Roland. 1971. “Urbanization
and Economic Growth in Venezuela.” Papers of the Regional Science Association.
Vol. 27. Pp. 63-93.
Auty, R.M. 1990. Resource-Based
Industrialization: Sowing the Oil in Eight Developing Countries. Clarendon
Press: Oxford.
Barkin, David. 1975. “Regional Development
and Interregional Equity: A Mexican Case Study.” Pp. 277-300. In Latin
American Urban Research. Edited by Wayne A. Cornelius and Felicity
M. Trueblood. Sage Publications: Beverly Hills.
Blanco, Roberto Alamo and Alexander
Ganz. 1969. “Economic Diagnosis and Plans”. Chapter 3 in Planning Urban
Growth and Regional Development: The Experience of the Guayana Program
of Venezuela. Ed. Lloyd Rodwin and Associates. The MIT Press: Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Pp. 60-90.
Brown, Lawrence A. and Andrew Goetz.
1987. “Development Related Contextual Effects and Individual Attributes
in Third World Migration Processes: A Venezuelan Example". Demography.Vol.
24, No. 4.
Brown, Lawrence A. and Janet E.
Kodras. 1987. “Migration, Human Resource Transfers, and Development Contexts:
A Logit Analysis of Venezuelan Data.” Geographical Analysis. Vol.
19, No. 3. Pp. 243-263.
Chan, Kok Eng. 1994. “Internal Migration
in a Rapidly Developing Country: The Case of Peninsular Malasia.” Malaysian
Journal of Tropical Geography. 25(2), Pp. 69-77.
Chen, Chi-Ye. 1968. Movimientos
Migratorios en Venezuela. Instituto de Investigaciones Económicas
de la Universidad de Andrés Bello: Caracas.
Dewar, David; Alison Todes; and
Vanessa Watson. 1986. “Industrial Decentralization Policy in South Africa:
Rhetoric and Practice.” Urban Studies. 23. Pp. 363-376.
El-Shakhs, Salah. 1972. “Development,
Primacy, and Systems of Cities.” The Journal of Developing Areas.
Pp. 11-36.
Firman, Tommy. 1997. “Land Conversion
and Urban Development in the Northern Region of West Java, Indonesia.”
Urban
Studies. Vol. 34(7). Pp. 1027-1046.
Friedmann, John. 1969. “The Guayana
Program in a Regional Perspective.” Chapter 7 in Planning for Urban
Growth and Regional Development: The Experience of the Guayana Program
of Venezuela. Ed. Lloyd Rodwin and Associates. The MIT Press: Cambridge,
Massachusetts. Pp. 147-159.
Friedmann, John. 1966. Regional
Development Policy: A Case Study of Venezuela. The M.I.T. Press: Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
Jameson, Kenneth P. 1979. “Designed
to Fail: Twenty-Five Years of Industrial Decentralization Policy in Peru.”
The
Journal of Developing Areas. 14. Pp. 55-70.
Jefferson, Mark. 1939. “The Law
of the Primate City.” The Geographical Review. V. 29. Pp. 226-232.
Lawson, Victoria A. and Lawrence
A. Brown. 1987. “Structural Tension, Migration and Development: A Case
Study of Venezuela.” Professional Geographer. 39 (2). Pp. 179-188.
Levy, Mildred and Walter J. Wadycki.
1971. “A Comparison of Young and Middle-Aged Migration in Venezuela.” Annals
of Regional Science. Vol. 6. Pp. 73-85.
MacDonald, John Stuart. 1969. “Migration
and the Population of Ciudad Guayana.” Chapter 5 in Planning Urban Growth
and Regional Development: The Experience of the Guayana Program in Venezuela.
Pp. 109-125. Edited by Lloyd Rodwin. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
MacKellar, F. Landis and Daniel
R. Vining Jr. 1995. “Population Concentration in Less Developed Countries:
New Evidence.” Papers in Regional Science. 74 (3). Pp. 259-293.
Mehta, Surinder K. 1964. “Some Demographic
and Economic Correlates of Primate Cities: A Case For Reevaluation.” Demography.
1. Pp. 136-147.
Oberai. A.S. 1993. “Urbanization,
Development and Economic Efficiency.” In Third World Cities: Problems,
Policies and Prospects. Eds. John D. Kasarda and Allan M. Parnell.
Sage Publications: Newbury Park. Pp. 58-73.
Peattie, Lisa. 1987. Planning:
Rethinking Ciudad Guayana. The University of Michigan Press: Ann Arbor.
Proctor, N. 1968. “Economic Developments
in Guayana, Venezuela.” Geography. Pp. 183-186.
Ravenstein, E.G. 1885. “The Laws
of Migration.” Journal of the Statistical Society. Pp. 167-227.
Reif, Benjamin. 1987. “Industrial
Deconcentration Policy: Venezuela.” Pp. 106-119. In The Economics of
Urbanization and Urban Policies in Developing Countries. Edited by
George S. Tolley and Vinod Thomas. The World Bank: Washington, D.C.
Richardson, Harry W. 1984. “Population
Distribution Policies.” Pp. 262-293. In Population Distribution, Migration
and Development. United Nations: New York.
Rodwin, Lloyd. 1969. “Planning Guayana:
A General Perspective.” Chapter 1 in Planning for Urban Growth
and Regional Development: The Experience of the Guayana Program of Venezuela.
Ed. Lloyd Rodwin and Associates. The MIT Press: Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Pp. 9-39.
Rodwin, Lloyd. 1965. “Ciudad Guayana:
A New City.” In Cities. Alfred A. Knopf. New York. Pp. 88-104.
Roeseler, Wolfgang G. and Asmaa
A. Azam. 1990. “Resource Frontier Regions: Strategic Development Planning
and Management: Tennessee Valley (U.S.), Guayana Region (Venezuela), New
Valley (Egypt).” Ekistics. V. 57. Pp.319-331.
Rowland, Allison and Peter Gordon.
1996. ‘Mexico City: No Longer A Leviathan?” In The Mega-City in Latin
America. Edited by Alan Gilbert. United Nations University Press: New
York. Pp. 173-202.
Sawers, Larry. 1989. “Urban Primacy
in Tanzania.” History of Political Economy. Pp. 841-859.
Semple, R. Keith; Howard L. Gauthier;
and Carl E. Youngmann. 1972. “Growth Poles in Sao Paulo, Brazil.” Annals
of the Association of American Geographers. Vol. 62, No. 4. Pp. 591-598.
Schultz, T. Paul. 1982. “Life-Time
Migration within Educational Strata in Venezuela: Estimates of a Logistic
Model.” Economic Development and Cultural Change. Pp. 559-593.
Statistical Abstract of Latin
America. Volume 34. 1997. Editor. James W. Wilkie. UCLA Latin American
Publications: UCLA.
Sternstein, Larry. 1979. “Thailand:
Migration and Regional Development: The Khon Kaen Development Centre.”
In Migration and Development in Southeast Asia: A Demographic Perspective.
Edited by Robin J. Pryor. Oxford University Press. Pp. 59-68.
Stewart, Dona J. 1996. “Cities in
the Desert: The Egyptian New-Town Program.” Annals of the Association
of American Geographers. Vol 86 (3). Pp. 459-480.
Stouffer, Samuel. 1940. “Intervening
Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance.” American Sociological
Review. Vol. 5. Pp. 845-867.
Turner, Alan and Jonathan Smulian.
1971. “New Cities in Venezuela.” In The City in the Third World.
Edited by D.J. Dwyer. Harper and Row Publishers, Inc. : New York. Pp. 237-253.
Venezuela. Dirección General
de Estadística y Censos Nacionales. 1969. Noveno Censo General de
Población. Vols. 1-22. Caracas.
Venezuela. Dirección General
de Estadística y Censos Nacionales. 1974. X Censo de Población
y Vivienda: Venezuela, Resumen General. República de Venezuela,
Ministerio de Fomento. Caracas.
Venezuela. Dirección General
de Estadística y Censos Nacionales. 1958. Octavo Censo General de
Población. Vols. 1-23. Caracas.
Venezuela. Oficina Central de Estadística
e Informática. 1986. Venezuela: XI Censo General de Población
y Vivienda. Vols. 1-23. Caracas.
Venezuela. Oficina Central de Estadística
e Informática. 1995. Características Generales. El Censo
90 en Venezuela. Vols. 1-23. Caracas.
Villa, Miguel and Jorge Rodríquez.
1996. “Demographic Trends in Latin America’s Metropolises, 1950-1990.”
In The Mega-City in Latin America. Edited by Alan Gilbert. The United
Nations University Press: New York. Pp. 25-52.
Williams, Jack E. 1988. “Urban and
Regional Planning in Taiwan: The Quest for Balanced Regional Development.”
Tijdschrift
voor
Econ. En Soc. Geografie. 79 (3), Pp. 175-187.
Zipf, George Kingsley. 1946. “The
P1P2/D Hypothesis: On the Intercity Movement of Persons.” American Sociological
Review. Vol. 11. Pp. 677-686.
|