Page 46 - IJPS-7-2

International Journal of
Population Studies Objective and subjective assimilation of migrants

Table 1. Sample characteristics by reference group intentional. In addition, the coefficient on age shows
that older migrants (either temporary or permanent)
Variable Rural Same Same Urban may be more likely to compare themselves with people
community district
Age from the place of origin rather than residents in the host
destination. The coefficient on education suggests that the
17 – 40 57% 61% 70% 70% selected reference group is also based on capability and
40 – 65 41% 37% 28% 29% inspiration. That is, migrants with more education may be
65+ 2% 2% 2% 1% more capable and inspired to integrate into the city.
Gender This focus on factors that affect economic assimilation
Male 51% 48% 47% 47% into the mainstream and especially the link between
Female 49% 52% 53% 53% the objective and the subjective path makes it clear that
Education economic assimilation into the mainstream is highly
Elementary or below 36% 30% 26% 25% determined by economic assimilation into the reference
group (β = 0.350). This finding supports Hypothesis 2
d/t
Middle school 44% 48% 35% 45% that economic assimilation into the mainstream is mainly
High school 10% 12% 21% 11% dependent on the economic assimilation into the reference
College or above 10% 10% 18% 20% group. In addition, while not many factors affect economic
Years of Migration assimilation into the mainstream through the economic
0 – 5 years 70% 73% 66% 64% assimilation into the reference group (i.e., affecting the
5 – 10 years 10% 10% 11% 15% objective path through the subjective path), the indirect
10 – 20 years 15% 11% 21% 16% coefficient for gender (β = 0.258) on the mainstream
i
economic assimilation suggests that the subjective path
20+years 5% 7% 2% 5% should be taken into account, not only because it directly
Intention to stay affects the objective path but also because other factors may
No 85% 77% 80% 68% affect the objective path through the subjective path. This
Yes 15% 23% 20% 32% finding supports Hypothesis 3 that a major stratification
Economic Assimilation factor like gender can affect the economic assimilation into
Assimilation into the 0.64 −2.12 0.16 0.25 the mainstream through economic assimilation into the
reference group reference group. As shown in Table 2, around 30% of the
Assimilation into the −0.12 −0.13 0.34 0.25 total impact may be omitted if the subjective path is not
mainstream considered. This two-path approach also shows that men
Subjective well-being are more inspired to assimilate with the people to whom
Happiness 2.56 2.74 2.50 2.47 they compare themselves and may be more capable of
assimilating into the mainstream.
Capable 2.74 3.02 2.91 2.86
Comfort 2.48 2.71 2.40 2.54 Finally, an examination of the factors affecting subjective
N 86 171 61 49 well-being shows that, economic assimilation into the
mainstream (β = 0.063) and economic assimilation into
d/t
Note: Few missing data were replaced using the mean at the closest the reference group (β = 0.022), both affect subjective
geographical unit. i
well-being, but in different ways. It is helpful to look at the
standardized coefficients to understand better how their
who intend to become permanent migrants are willing impacts differ in size. The standardized coefficients show
to choose local residents as their reference group. While that the direct or the total effect of economic assimilation
the intention to permanently migrate may be affected by into the mainstream is 0.294, while the indirect effect of
assimilation into the mainstream instead of the other way economic assimilation into the reference group is 0.138.
around, this potential limitation may not undermine the Economic assimilation into the mainstream affects it
conclusion. The selected reference group is intentional as directly, while economic assimilation into the reference
long as the positive correlation between the intention to group produces an indirect effect. This finding rejects
permanently migrate and the reference group choice is Hypothesis 4 and indicates that subjective well-being is
confirmed. For example, suppose those with a stronger affected by economic assimilation into the mainstream.
intention to settle are more likely to choose mainstream This is probably because there are positive externalities
urban residents as their reference group. This strongly accompanied by a higher level of economic assimilation into
indicates that the reference group choice itself is also the mainstream. While testing this hypothesis is beyond the

Volume 7 Issue 2 (2021) 40 https://doi.org/10.36922/ijps.v7i2.346