Page 52 - IJPS-5-1

Associates and employment among Ugandan young migrants

married (RRR=2.3, 95% CI:1.2-4.5). In addition, the risk of a youth being employed over being unemployed was higher
for a youth who had acquired secondary education or more than a youth who had acquired primary education or lower and
the risk of a youth being employed over being unemployed was lower for a youth who had migrated due to social reasons
compared to a youth who had migrated due to economic reasons (RRR = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.7). On the other hand, age,
residence, number of children, region and social networks did not have any association with the possibility of a migrant
youth being employed (p>0.05).
4. Discussion

Results of the study showed that age is the only demographic factor that had a significant association with migration
status. Whereby the likelihood of a youth being a migrant increased with the increase in a youth’s age because youths aged
23-27 were 1.4 times more likely to be migrants as compared to youths aged 18-22 and youths aged 33-35 were almost
3 times more likely to be migrants as compared to youths aged 18-22 years. The study results are in support of the studies
conducted by Bell and Muhidin (2009); Ackah and Medvedev (2012); Lakuma, Marty, and Kuteesa (2016) which found
a positive association between age and migration status. This is true because usually young adults aged between 23 and
36 years, have completed tertiary education, are flexible, open minded, in good health and in most cases want to stabilize
financially (for example, having their own house and a personal business which can raise daily income to take care of the
day to day expenses of the household) (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, 2016). This makes it
easier for them to look for opportunities elsewhere other than their original places of origin.
On the other hand, youths from urban areas were more likely to be migrants as compared to youths from rural areas.
The results are in support of the study conducted by Ackah and Medvedev (2012); Lakuma, Marty, and Kuteesa (2016)
which also revealed that there existed a significant association between place of residence and the possibility of someone
being a migrant. The association exists because in most cases, youths residing in urban areas can easily have access to
the social media and phone contacts which helps to maintain contacts of their friends with whom they had either worked
or studied with. With such contacts, a youth migrant is able to get all the necessary information about the available
opportunities, existing cultures and the language spoken in the proposed new destination area hence making movement
easier (United Nations, 2013).
Youths from urban areas had fewer odds to be migrants as compared to those from rural areas and youths from central
region had more odds to be migrants as compared to those from Northern region. On the other hand, sex, number of
children, marital status, and highest education level had no association with the likelihood of youth being a migrant.
However, the results of the study revealed that there was no relationship between sex and number of children with
migration status. The results are in contradiction with several (Awumbila, Teye, Litchfield et al., 2015; Herrera and Sahn
2013; Nzabona and Maniragaba, 2016) which reported an association between sex and migration as well as studies (Dobson,
2009; Dustmann, 2003; Mushomi, 2016) which suggested that number of children had an association with migration. In the
study, sex and number of children were not statistically significant probably because youths are ambitious to explore and
will certainly move to new destination areas regardless of their gender or parenthood background (United Nations, 2016).
Results of the study also showed that region is the only socioeconomic factor that had an association with migration
status. With, youths from central region were more likely to be migrants as compared to youths from the Northern region.
Results of the study are in agreement with the results of the study conducted by Osawe (2013) in Nigeria and Mushomi
(2016) in Uganda which showed that region was significantly associated with migration. The region stands out to be
significantly associated with migration status because youths formerly residing in the central region are nearer to Kampala
which is the country’s capital city, therefore, these youths move to provide labor to the economic activities taking place
in the city (Magelah and Ntambirweki-Karugonjo, 2014).
On the other hand, the study results revealed that marital status and highest education level did not have any association
with migration status. The results are in contradiction to studies by Ackah and Medvedev (2012); Boutin (2016) and
Lakuma, Marty, and Kuteesa (2016) which found an association between highest education level and migration as well as
studies conducted by Gubhaju and Gordon (2009); Herrin, Knight, and Balihuta (2008) which also found an association
between marital status and migration. Education level did not have an association with migration status probably because
most of the jobs in the cities or urban areas in the country are mainly in the informal sector which requires limited trained
skills but rather who connects the youth to the job (Pletscher, 2015).
The self-employed youths are employers not only to themselves but also to others. The study results revealed that
residence, marital status, highest education level, fuel used for cooking, and social networks did not have any association
with self-employment status of the migrant youth while age, sex, number of children, region, and reasons for migration

46 International Journal of Population Studies | 2019, Volume 5, Issue 1