Elsevier

Social Science Research

Volume 31, Issue 3, September 2002, Pages 409-431
Social Science Research

Where are they going? A comparison of urban and rural youths' locational choices after leaving the parental home

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0049-089X(02)00007-8Get rights and content

Abstract

The decision for adolescents and young adults to leave their parents and their home community is complex and difficult. This study of youth migration focuses on the geographical location to which urban and rural youths relocate upon exiting their parental household. Little is known about destination choices of youths, especially how they differ for youths from urban and rural areas. A multinomial logit model of migration destination choices that incorporates individual, household, and community-level factors is estimated with data from the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. Results indicate that while the local economy and labor market are important to the migration decision, the magnitudes of these effects are generally small. Non-economic individual, household, and community factors play an important role in the migration process, as well. The magnitudes of non-economic factor effects generally are greater for rural youths compared to urban youths.

Introduction

The decision for adolescents and young adults to leave their parents and their home community is complex and difficult (Cromartie, 1993; Elder et al., 1996; Gibbs, 1995; Gibbs and Cromartie, 1994; Hektner, 1995; Rudkin et al., 1994). Characteristics of the youth, their home environment, and their local community have been found to be important to the decision (Garasky et al., 2001; Gibbs and Cromartie, 1994; Lichter et al., 1990). For example, the hard economic times of the farm crisis of the 1980s led to the out-migration of many working-age youths from rural areas in the Midwest (Frey, 1993; Guither, 1988; Richter, 1985). Young adults in non-metropolitan areas continue to be highly mobile. During the late-1990s, nearly 30% of adults aged 18–24 in non-metropolitan areas moved each year, resulting in an annual net out-migration of 1.6% for this age group (Cromartie, 2000).

This study focuses on the locations to which youths move. Much of the migration literature is oriented toward the determinants of migration, while little is known about the destination choices of youths. The destination choice is important, as it impacts not only each youth's future, but also the communities left behind and joined (Beale, 2000; Frey, 1993; Guither, 1988; Lichter et al., 1979; Richter, 1985). The quality of life for residents of many communities is tied to the ability of the community to maintain a viable base of younger adults, as youths who leave the home community are often the most motivated and skilled (Cromartie, 2000; Gibbs and Cromartie, 1994; Lichter et al., 1990). This study builds on the literature related to the determinants of migration by examining how the impacts of personal, household, and local community factors together affect the decisions of youths and young adults regarding when to leave the parental home and where to locate geographically upon leaving. It is hypothesized that these factors will affect the choices of urban and rural youths differently (Hektner, 1995).

The paper continues with a review of the youth migration literature. Special attention is paid to differences found between urban and rural youths regarding the determinants that affect their migration location choices. The literature review is followed by the development of a residential location choice model. The parameters of this model are estimated with annual data from the 1979 cohort of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY79). The NLSY79 contains a nationally representative sample of youths aged from 14 to 21 in 1979 (N=12,686). Oversamples of Blacks, Hispanics, and economically disadvantaged Whites permit statistical analyses of these population subgroups. Survey attrition rates are low with approximately 90% of the eligible sample retained as of the 1992 survey. Results and a concluding discussion complete the text.

Section snippets

Literature review

Clearly, the migration decision process from a theoretical perspective is complex. Neoclassical economic theory purports that people move as a consequence of weighing the economic alternatives between places. Individuals select a site that optimizes their material well-being (Cadwallader, 1992; Jobes, 2000). Demographic `push–pull' models of migration suggest that individuals are pushed from locations in decline and pulled to areas of prosperity (DaVanzo, 1981). Human capital models put forward

Descriptive statistics

Descriptive statistics for the dependent and independent variables are listed in Table 1. These statistics cover the 1979–92 period and include all person–year observations in the final study sample (N=24,887). Overall, the urban and rural samples are similar with a few important exceptions. Blacks provide one-fourth of the observations for each sample, while Hispanics are much more prevalent in the urban sample (20%) than in the rural sample (4%). Regarding education, the urban sample has a

References (50)

  • K Crowder

    The racial context of White mobility: an individual-level assessment of the White flight hypothesis

    Social Science Research

    (2000)
  • R Haurin et al.

    Home or alone: the costs of independent living for youth

    Social Science Research

    (1997)
  • P Allison

    Event History Analysis

    (1984)
  • W Aquilino

    Family structure and home-leaving: a further specification of the relationship

    Journal of Marriage and the Family

    (1991)
  • R Avery et al.

    Feathered nest/gilded cage: parental income and leaving home in the transition to adulthood

    Demography

    (1992)
  • C Beale

    Nonmetro population growth rate recedes in a time of unprecedented national prosperity

    Rural Conditions and Trends

    (2000)
  • V Bencivenga et al.

    Unemployment, migration and growth

    Journal of Political Economy

    (1997)
  • D Blackwell et al.

    Do rural youth attain their educational goals?

    Rural Development Perspectives

    (1998)
  • S Bourassa et al.

    Independent living and homeownership: an analysis of Australian youth

    Australian Economic Review

    (1994)
  • M Cadwallader

    Migration and Residential Mobility: Macro and Micro Approaches

    (1992)
  • Center for Human Resource Research, 1993a. NLSY Codebook Supplement: 1979–1992. Ohio State University, Columbus,...
  • Center for Human Resource Research, 1993b. NLSY Handbook. Ohio State University, Columbus,...
  • J Cromartie

    Leaving the countryside: young adults follow complex migration patterns

    Rural Development Perspectives

    (1993)
  • J Cromartie

    Nonmetro migration drops in the West and among college graduates

    Rural Conditions and Trends

    (2000)
  • J DaVanzo

    Microeconomic approaches to studying migration decisions

  • G Elder et al.

    Attachment to place and migration prospects: a developmental perspective

    Journal of Research on Adolescence

    (1996)
  • J Ermisch

    The economic determinants of young people's household formation

    Economica

    (1997)
  • D Featherman et al.

    Opportunity and Change

    (1978)
  • W Frey

    The new urban revival in the United States

    Urban Studies

    (1993)
  • S Friedman et al.

    Spatial inequality and poverty among American children

    Population Research and Policy Review

    (1998)
  • G Fuguitt et al.

    Rural and small town America

    (1989)
  • S Garasky et al.

    Group living decisions as youth transition to adulthood

    Journal of Population Economics

    (2001)
  • R Gibbs

    Going away to college and wider urban job opportunities take highly educated youth away from rural areas

    Rural Development Perspectives

    (1995)
  • R Gibbs et al.

    Rural youth outmigration: how big is the problem and for whom?

    Rural Development Perspectives

    (1994)
  • F Goldscheider et al.

    The effects of childhood family structure on leaving and returning home

    Journal of Marriage and the Family

    (1998)
  • Cited by (53)

    • What is holding farmers back? Endowments and mobility choice of rural citizens in China

      2022, Journal of Rural Studies
      Citation Excerpt :

      Local livelihoods tend to tie individuals to the rural home (Tian et al., 2016), while livelihoods in other places enable and encourage migration to those destinations. For instance, people are attracted to destinations where siblings or other family members are present (Garasky, 2002), as well as destinations where job opportunities or information on such opportunities are offered by relatives and friends (Banerjee, 1984). For rural migrant workers in China, job-seeking through personal connections or native-place (tong xiang) networks is one of the most important means to starting an urban life (Fan, 2003; Zhao, 2003).

    • Using the reasoned action approach to understand Brazilian successors’ intention to take over the farm

      2018, Land Use Policy
      Citation Excerpt :

      Youth intention to out-migrate rural areas decreases if rural youth parent’s support the study of agriculture, if rural youth family’s owns agricultural land, and if rural youth believe that it is not difficult to establish an own business (Bednaríková et al., 2016). Family background, such as parents’ education level, and personal characteristics, such as gender, age and education level also influence youth expectations of out-migrate rural areas (Corbett, 2005; Garasky, 2002; et al., 2014Mihi-Ramirez and Kumpikaite, 2014; Stockdale, 2006). Both approaches, however, have not considered the impact of psychological factors on successors’ intention to take over the farm.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    An earlier version of this paper was presented at the NLSY97 Early Results Conference sponsored by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Joint Center for Poverty Research held November 18–19, 1999, in Washington, DC. This research has been supported in part by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics and the Iowa Agriculture and Home Economics Experiment Station, Ames, Iowa. The author gratefully acknowledges the research assistance of Kirk Zinck. All opinions are those of the author.

    View full text