Page 129 - IJPS-11-6

International Journal of
Population Studies Internal migration in Indonesia

Table 3. Multinomial logistics model of migrant’s typologies
Social demographic characteristics Migrants’ typologies (ref. model: one‑step rural)
a
Two‑step urban‑rural Two‑step urban Multi‑step urban Multi‑step urban‑rural One‑step urban
Gender (ref. male)
Female 0.785** 0.794* 0.812** 0.766*** 1.040
Marital status (ref. unmarried)
Married 1.096 0.782** 0.910 0.932 0.930
Ever married 0.756** 0.849 0.633*** 0.567*** 0.702***
Level of education (ref. low)
Middle (junior high school/equivalent) 1.138 1.871*** 2.447*** 1.181 1.702***
High (senior high school and higher) 1.442** 2.212*** 4.453*** 1.646*** 2.100***
Gender and level of education
Female with higher education 1.433* 1.335 1.251 1.330 1.205
Age group (ref. <20 years)
20–30 years 1.713*** 2.381*** 1.259 2.308*** 0.728**
31–44 years 1.665** 2.406*** 1.609** 2.649*** 0.572***
45+year 0.939 1.193 0.980 1.521* 0.411***
Welfare status (ref. poor)
Near poor 1.134 1.651*** 1.950*** 1.373*** 1.728***
Not poor 1.189* 1.528*** 2.642*** 1.241** 1.930***
Island of origin (ref. others)
Java 1.876*** 1.070 3.112*** 1.392*** 2.721***
Sumatera 1.396*** 0.870 1.443*** 1.152 1.323**
Migration motives (ref. other motives)
Work 0.765** 1.403** 1.651*** 1.600*** 1.058
Education 1.897*** 2.076*** 1.572** 3.001*** 1.943***
Marriage 0.382*** 0.383*** 0.259*** 0.261*** 0.797
Migration with family 0.963 0.878 0.754* 0.627*** 0.908
To be closer to family 1.799*** 1.153 0.837 1.572*** 0.757*
Pregnancy/other family reasons 1.079 0.873 0.676** 0.705** 0.781
Migrate with (ref. alone)
Others 0.690*** 0.820* 1.216** 0.939 0.901
Constant term (β ) 0.467*** 0.193*** 0.109*** 0.330*** 0.466***
0
Notes: Statistical significance: *p<0.1, **p<0.05, ***p<0.001, starting from rural.
a
Source: Author’s calculations based on Indonesian Family Life Survey data from 1993, 1997, 2000, 2007, and 2014.
Abbreviation: Ref.: Reference.
significant differences across migration clusters, single findings from Kleinepier et al. (2015) and Pardede et al.
individuals, both unmarried and ever married, are more (2020), but contrasting with Takenaka (2007) and Zufferey
likely to migrate. This can be attributed to the fewer (2019), who found that multiple migrants are often
social ties and responsibilities that single individuals have married.
compared to their married counterparts (Folger & Rowan, Education is strongly associated with variations
1953). This is also confirmed when the coefficients in the in migration patterns, with higher levels of education
multi-step cluster are compared between unmarried and correlating with an increased likelihood of migration,
ever-married individuals. The large difference between especially toward urban destinations. This result is in line
the two indicates that unmarried individuals (single) are with Gould (1982) and Haapanen & Böckerman (2017),
more mobile than those who are ever married, supporting who emphasized the preference of highly educated migrants

Volume 11 Issue 6 (2025) 123 https://doi.org/10.36922/IJPS025190084