Page 130 - IJPS-11-6

International Journal of
Population Studies Internal migration in Indonesia

for urban areas. The notably high odds ratios for multi- rather than a spontaneous act, according to Livelihood
step urban migration among the highly educated suggest Theory (Chambers & Conway, 1991).
a strong association between educational attainment and From a spatial perspective, Table 3 demonstrates
greater mobility to urban areas. This finding is consistent that Java consistently attracts migrants of all typologies,
with Nekby (2006), Takenaka (2007), and Agrawal (2016). reflecting its status as Indonesia’s most populous
Ritsilä & Haapanen (2003) also reported that highly region, offering abundant economic opportunities and
educated migrants tend to relocate to urban areas in comprehensive facilities. However, this observation should
Finland. Similarly, Paweenawat & Liao (2023) concluded be interpreted with caution, as the analysis is limited to
that higher education increases the likelihood of migration island-level comparisons and does not account for intra-
to cities in Thailand. Interestingly, a significant association island disparities, urban hierarchies, or physical barriers,
between gender and education is observed only in the such as inter-island seas, that may influence migration
two-step urban-rural cluster, where higher education is costs. This preference for Java underscores its role as both
correlated with a greater likelihood of migration among a major origin and destination for migration, drawing
females. This suggests that although education is positively people from various regions in search of better livelihoods.
associated with mobility for both genders, males tend to This finding somewhat contradicts Pardede et al.’s (2020)
exhibit higher overall mobility. research, which suggested that while residents of Java are
Age is another factor that shapes migration patterns. more likely to migrate, they tend to do so only between
Migrants in all clusters are predominantly over 20 years provinces.
old, except in the one-step urban cluster, where younger Migration motives further differentiate the clusters.
individuals under 20 are more prevalent. In the case of Migrants who engage in repeated migration (multi-step
Indonesia, this finding is consistent with Malamassam’s migration), whether moving to urban and then rural or to
(2016; 2022) studies, which concluded that young various urban areas, are primarily driven by employment
migrants typically move to cities. This indicates a trend motives. This is consistent with the concept of migration
where younger individuals initially move to urban areas as spatial interaction, as proposed by Norris (1972), which
for education or early career opportunities, whereas older posits that migrants will always seek out opportunities and
individuals, particularly those aged 31–44, are more relocate to new areas as long as these opportunities are
common in multi-step migration clusters. These mature profitable. Haandrikman & Hassanen (2014) also observed
migrants have likely accumulated diverse migration that Somali migrants in Sweden, who move onward to the
experiences, reflecting a lifecycle approach to migration United Kingdom or Australia, are often driven by job-
(Bernard et al., 2022) where early urban experiences related motives.
facilitate subsequent relocations. Migrants who migrate for education typically follow
In terms of welfare status, migrants are, on average, a multi-step urban-rural trajectory (as indicated by the
drawn from non-poor households, underscoring the highest odds ratio value). Meanwhile, marriage, migration
financial capital required for migration. This finding aligns with family, and pregnancy/other family reasons are
with Kothari’s (2003) assertion that migration is a crucial commonly connected with one-step rural migration
livelihood strategy for many impoverished individuals, trajectories. Migrants who relocate for these three reasons
but it necessitates certain forms of capital that not all prefer rural areas that are geographically closer to their
possess. The high odds ratio for the non-poor variable in place of origin (rural). Meanwhile, migrants who migrate
the multi-step urban cluster suggests that repeated moves to be closer to family typically follow a two-step urban-
between urban areas entail higher costs compared to rural trajectory. It is probable that this group of migrants
other clusters. This reinforces the notion that economic moves to large cities for work and then returns to their
resources are crucial for sustaining multiple relocations, hometowns to be with their relatives.
aligning with the idea that migration is often accompanied Finally, migration patterns also vary in terms of
by financial investment. Widaryoko et al. (2023) also companionship. Migrants in the two-step urban-rural
found that multiple migrants predominantly come from and two-step urban clusters are more likely to move alone,
affluent families. The strong association between repeated whereas those in the multi-step urban migration cluster
migration and non-poor status also suggests that migration often relocate with family members. This distinction
serves as a livelihood diversification strategy, with migrants highlights the differing social dynamics within migration
leveraging financial and social capital to mitigate risk and clusters, where repeated urban migrants may involve their
access new opportunities. This aligns with the notion of families in their relocations, while others prefer individual
migration as a calculated, resource-intensive endeavor, mobility.

Volume 11 Issue 6 (2025) 124 https://doi.org/10.36922/IJPS025190084