What are the laws of population migration in the process of modernisation?
The so-called “laws of migration” (patterns) or “laws of population migration” are researchers' summaries and distillations of the regular phenomena, trends and issues that emerge in numerous population migration movements, and constitute one of the important components of population research and theoretical research on population migration. Chinese and foreign scholars have long invested great enthusiasm and effort in theoretical research on population migration and have achieved considerably fruitful results, among which many “laws of migration” (patterns) have already been proposed. These “laws of migration” (patterns) hold important reference value for people in re-understanding the history and current problems of population migration around the world, as well as in predicting future trends of population change.
A Review of Research Results on “Laws of Migration” in Chinese and Foreign Academia
The pioneering achievement in population migration theory recognised by Chinese and foreign academia is the “laws of migration” proposed by the British statistician Ernest-George Ravenstein. Based on the 1881 British census data, Ravenstein published two important papers in 1885 and 1889 respectively in the Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, both titled “the laws of migration” (i.e. the laws of migration).
The main contents of Ravenstein's “laws of migration” were later summarised by scholars as the “eight laws” or the “seven major laws” and so on, while according to the author's own arrangement, Ravenstein's “laws” can in fact be divided into ten major “laws” in their main body: First, the law of distance concerning the migration subject (law of distance): “Migratory movements generally take place over short distances, and migrants by and large move towards a nearby commercial and industrial centre, while the main body of migrants moves only a relatively short distance.” From the perspective of spatial distance, population migration is the movement of a certain number of people between the place of out-migration and the place of in-migration. This law emphasises the influence of spatial distance on population migration, namely that the net migration rate is inversely proportional to the distance of migration, and the total number of migrants decreases as the migration distance lengthens; the migrants who actually settle in the place of in-migration usually constitute only a minority of all those who initially set out. The reasons for this situation are quite complex, involving both the factor of return migration and the exclusion of incoming migrants by the place of in-migration. Second, the law of step-by-step migration (law of succession): “When a large-scale migration movement occurs, a wave of migration usually appears: people always rush towards commercial and industrial centres of great attraction. ...Migration usually also occurs in a step-by-step manner: first, those living in the areas surrounding the city compete to be the first to enter it. ...The gaps left behind by these outgoing migrants are then filled by people from more distant regions, and in this way migration forms step by step, until the growing attraction of the city affects the most remote corners of the kingdom.” Third, the law of migration waves and reverse migration waves (law of two-way movement): For any particular region, out-migration and in-migration always occur in relation to each other. Most migration processes are a kind of two-way movement. “After every migration wave, there is always a reverse, compensating migration wave.” Although the two migration movements are not necessarily equal in number. Fourth, the law of urban-rural migration differences (law of urban and rural): “Compared with rural residents, urban residents are less mobile.” That is, rural residents have a stronger tendency to migrate. Fifth, the law of gender selection (law of gender): “Women appear to predominate in shorter-distance migration.” That is, female migrants are more numerous in short-distance migration, whereas the number of women participating in longer-distance migration is less than that of men. Sixth, the law of economic factors being dominant (law of economy): that is, most migration occurs for economic reasons. “Bad and oppressive laws, heavy taxation, an unattractive climate, uncongenial social surroundings and even compulsion... all these have already produced and are still producing migration currents, but none of these can compare with the strong desire inherent in most people to better themselves in material respects.” Seventh, the law of economic development or technological progress as a promoting factor (law of technological promotion): that is, economic and transportation development both stimulate an increase in migration. Ravenstein pointed out in his paper: “Wherever I have compared them, I have found that the increase of means of communication and the development of manufactures and commerce all lead to an increase in migration.” Eighth, the law of choosing the place of in-migration (law of large cities): Population always migrates towards large commercial and industrial centres, and this destination characteristic is even more pronounced for those migrating over long distances. Ninth, the law of age selection (law of age): Most migrants are adults aged between 20 and 35. Tenth, the “law of urban development and migration”: The development of many large towns is mainly driven by migrants rather than by their own natural growth.
The “laws of migration” proposed by Ravenstein were grounded in statistics from a large number of migration cases; highly condensed, concise and broad in content, they are one of the pioneering and foundational achievements in population migration theory. It must be admitted that for a considerable time afterwards, most of the results produced by researchers were merely partial elaborations and extensions of the content of the “Ravenstein laws”, and it was difficult to comprehensively surpass the status and influence of Ravenstein's “laws of migration”. One of the most influential subsequent achievements was the discovery by the American scholar Everett Lee, who developed new advances on the basis of Ravenstein's “laws of migration”, focusing on several aspects such as “the definition of migration”, “factors of migration”, “volume of migration”, “stream and counter-stream of migration” and “characteristics of migrants”, providing a more detailed arrangement and elaboration of population migration theory from multiple levels. First, Everett Lee proposed that there are four categories of factors leading to migration decisions and the migration process: factors associated with the place of origin; factors associated with the place of destination; various intervening obstacles; and personal factors. Second, he held that the volume of migration is influenced by the following aspects: the degree of diversity within the geographic area; the cultural differences among peoples and ethnic groups; the difficulty of overcoming intervening obstacles; cyclical economic fluctuations; the decline over time of the inertia of migration; and differences in conditions at the place of destination. Third, Everett Lee likewise emphasised the issue of migration streams and counter-streams. He proposed several characteristics worthy of attention: population migration mostly has a specific direction of flow; each major migration stream is usually accompanied by a counter-stream; and the ratio of stream to counter-stream varies according to the positive and negative factors of the place of origin and the place of destination, including political treatment, migration policies, economic conditions and so on. Fourth, regarding the influence of migrants' characteristics on migration, such as the fact that the selection of migrants is crucial to the completion of migration, and that migration selection is likewise affected by the life cycle, and so on.
Of course, we should also recognise that population migration theory is all-encompassing, and through the joint efforts of numerous researchers, Western modern and contemporary theoretical research on population migration has to date achieved remarkable and outstanding results, forming population migration theories of different orientations and numerous schools. Such as neoclassical theory, the new economics of migration theory, international migration theory, migration ecology theory, Marxist and neo-Marxist population migration theory, analytical models of population migration, migrant acculturation theory, and so on. It is not difficult to find that in the research practice of population migration theory, Chinese and foreign scholars have followed two main different paths of exploration: one is the work of summarising the laws (or patterns) of migration represented by Ravenstein, Everett Lee and others. Its value lies in the fact that it is based on abundant empirical materials and statistical analysis, arrangement and summarisation of the objective facts of migration, and focuses on using a long-term perspective to summarise and reflect on the patterns of development and change in population migration movements. The other path is that of migration theory researchers represented by the American scholar W. A. Lewis, who proceed more from an economics background, treating population migration as a kind of economic behaviour and constructing one after another unique so-called analytical “hypotheses”, “paradigms” or “models” for use in the analysis and discussion of migration issues in real society. This paper focuses on exploring the value and social applicability of the research results of the former type (that is, the “law-based” type).
Since the 1980s, Western population migration theory represented by Ravenstein's “laws of migration” has also had a major impact on Chinese academia, and quite a few scholars have advocated drawing on Western theory and attempting to propose new theoretical models or migration laws suited to China's national conditions or with Chinese characteristics. Drawing on Ravenstein's laws, Hu Zhaoliang proposed new laws of migration suited to China's national conditions, among which are the law of economy - improving one's livelihood is the main reason for migration; the law of urban and rural - the rural migration rate is relatively high in the process of urbanisation; the law of gender ratio - more men overall, more women locally; the law of age - many single young people, few whole-family migrations; the law of distance - the volume of migration is inversely proportional to distance; the law of succession - the phenomenon of successive replacement in concentric layers of population migration; the law of two-way movement - forward migration drives a weaker reverse migration; and the law of large cities - large cities have a high proportion of in-migrants and attract migration from distant places. Cai Fang and other scholars summarised the patterns of regional population mobility and proposed the concept of “step-by-step mobility”: “Migration will form a kind of regional ladder, that is, the labour force first transfers from relatively less developed rural areas, and subsequently migrates from more developed rural areas to cities.” Wang Guixin held that since reform and opening up, the causes and mechanisms of China's population migration have undergone a major transformation: “This transformation is mainly manifested in the gradual shift of the influencing causes from being predominantly social to being predominantly economic, and the gradual shift of the occurring mechanism from being predominantly planned and organised to being dominated by market regulation.” In her research, Yan Bei paid particular attention to the issue of gender selectivity in population migration in the new era. In addition, the rise of the three major metropolitan circles (namely the “Beijing-Tianjin-Tangshan metropolitan circle”, the “Yangtze River Delta metropolitan circle” and the “Pearl River Delta metropolitan circle”) has also attracted great attention from researchers. Nationally speaking, “the three major metropolitan circles are China's economic, cultural and transportation centres and occupy a pivotal position in China, and the main direction of population migration over the more than 20 years of China's reform and opening up has also been towards the three major metropolitan circles”. Although these theoretical explorations are not entirely perfect, they are all valuable efforts for understanding the patterns of contemporary Chinese population migration.
Chinese scholars have recognised in their research: “Compared with the characteristics of the migrating population in the 30 years before reform and opening up, the characteristics of the migrating population at present (the 1990s) conform more closely to general laws of population migration.” This also reflects from one aspect the important value of research on population laws (patterns) that cannot be ignored in contemporary population research. In order to obtain more scientific and more realistic understanding, they have paid greater attention to innovation in research methods, and in particular the sociological questionnaire method has been widely adopted. Gu Chaolin and others used 2,424 questionnaires to summarise and arrange the current migration characteristics of China's floating population: First, the trend of the floating population gathering towards large and medium-sized cities is obvious; second, the tendency to migrate to cities, to wealthier places and to nearby places is prominent; third, family-based migration has become a new mode of mobility, and so on. From June to September 2010, the School of Social Development and Public Policy of Beijing Normal University organised personnel to conduct a questionnaire survey of migrants in 6 cities including Beijing, Dongguan, Wuxi, Wenzhou, Qingdao and Shenyang, obtaining 1,605 valid responses. Based on these questionnaires, the researchers conducted a detailed analysis and summary of the characteristics and migration patterns of migrant groups in current eastern cities. For example, the floating population in eastern cities is mainly composed of young people, mainly with agricultural household registration and of rural origin, but there are obvious differences between cities; the trend of husbands and wives migrating together is obvious, but the proportion of whole-family migration bringing children is low; population mobility shows the characteristic of nearby migration, but the scope of attraction differs to a certain extent among different cities, and so on.
Since the migration phenomenon is both a demographic issue (an economic issue) and a sociological issue; both a contemporary issue and a historical issue, and also a geographical issue, researchers from different disciplines clearly differ in their orientation towards exploring “laws” (patterns). As the famous French sociologist Durkheim said: “Philosophy and positive science study laws in the abstract, whereas the aim of history is to show how laws unfold in specific times and spaces.” Ravenstein's “laws of migration” (patterns) were precisely proposed from the perspectives of history and statistics. From the perspective of history, the “laws of migration” are not so-called migration “research models” or “mathematical formulas”, but rather empirical summaries obtained through a large amount of verified evidence. The author believes: although modern and contemporary population migration theory has developed greatly, the fundamental reason why the important value of migration law theory centred on Ravenstein's “laws of migration” (including the supplements made by Everett Lee) has been weakened or diminished lies precisely in this. Attention to the study of the history of population migration is indispensable for enriching and perfecting the study of the laws of population migration. However, we see that owing to the enormous differences in the objective conditions of historical development between China and the West, some Western scholars inevitably display biases of “preconception” or “West-centredness” when summarising the laws of population migration in historical periods. One of the most famous examples is the so-called five-stage “hypothesis of the demographic transition” proposed by the American scholar Zelinsky, in which it is emphatically pointed out that traditional societies before modernisation had no population migration. If one examines the true course of the development of China's population history and migration history, one will naturally find such a conclusion absurd and ridiculous. Therefore, the important value of research on China's population history and migration history can be seen from this, and Chinese scholars ought to make great efforts to contribute more greatly to the study of world population history and migration history.
It is precisely on the basis of this understanding that some domestic researchers have likewise devoted themselves to the exploration of migration theory and patterns in the study of Chinese migration history, and have put forward many insightful summaries and generalisations regarding certain regular phenomena and issues. Chen Kongli, focusing on the process of constructing immigrant society in Taiwan, China, and combining a large number of historical examples, raised quite a few points worthy of revision and discussion in response to some migration theory writings in domestic and foreign results. For example, Professor Chen particularly pointed out: “Immigrant society is a transitional society, and it must inevitably transform into a settled society.” This is clearly a rather valuable theoretical breakthrough in the study of immigrant society. Regarding the issue of social transformation in Taiwan, China, Professor Chen held: “In Taiwan, the structure of immigrant society is primarily organised on the basis of ancestral-place geographical ties, which is an essential characteristic, and the change in this characteristic is the marker of social transformation.” Ge Jianxiong has always maintained a cautious attitude towards research on the patterns of China's population history, while at the same time he has already put forward quite a few patterned and summative viewpoints in a series of works, which are very worthy of attention. He held: “Looking comprehensively at migration in Chinese history, whenever it was carried out by official administrative means and compulsion, it mostly either ended in failure or became a fiscal burden, forcing enormous long-term costs. But spontaneous migration, although at the outset it received no official support or funding and was even prohibited by the authorities, often achieved success and made major contributions to developing the economy and consolidating the frontier.” This is a refined summary of China's long historical experience of migration, thought-provoking and of highly practical reference significance. Professor Ge spoke highly of the great contribution of migration movements to China's historical development: “Only by earnestly studying and summarising them can we and our descendants understand the glorious achievements of our forebears and carry them forward. Today, that we in China can possess 9.6 million sq km of territory and vast territorial seas, possess 56 ethnic groups and 1.2 billion people, that Chinese people can have tens of millions of descendants overseas, that all parts of the country can be developed and developed, that the traditions of Chinese culture can continue for several thousand years and remain ever new, and that Chinese culture can exert a huge influence in the world - all of this is inseparable from the contributions of migration.” These startling and enlightening statements say what predecessors did not say, and are even more difficult for the numerous European and American scholars to attain, demonstrating the research level of contemporary Chinese migration history and the foresight and insight of Chinese scholars.
In the course of engaging in scientific research and teaching on Chinese migration history and regional migration, and in view of the great complexity of the population migration phenomenon, the author has felt very urgently the necessity and urgency of summarising and studying the “laws” of Chinese migration. Therefore, drawing on the “Ravenstein laws of migration” and summarising the relevant research results of Chinese and foreign scholars, the author has proposed some “laws” (patterns) of typical significance in Chinese migration history:
First, the law of political dominance, which includes the “law of central cohesion”, the “law of dispersal by turmoil”, the “law of forced rebound or forced offset” and so on. Unlike Western scholars who emphasise economic factors in migration movements, in history the most important driving force of Chinese migration movements has come from political factors and influences, and consequently the migration laws related to politics are also more numerous and more complex. This is a major characteristic of the course of Chinese migration history. “The people are the foundation of the state, and when the foundation is solid the state is at peace.” The important value and influence of population for political construction was long familiar to the ruling strata of successive dynasties. For this reason, China's feudal dynasties established strict household registration management systems very early on, the purpose of which was to restrict the free migration of ordinary people. The law of political dominance is mainly manifested in the following aspects, such as that a capital or provincial capital generally rapidly develops into one of the most densely populated areas within its territory. This is what is called the “law of central cohesion”. In the history of the construction and development of famous great capitals in Chinese history (such as Chang'an of the Western Han, Luoyang of the Eastern Han, Luoyang of the Northern Wei, Chang'an of the Sui and Tang, and Bianliang of the Northern Song, etc.), we can all find the participation of large numbers of migrants. Second, dynastic change, the transfer of the political centre and the outbreak of political turmoil all create an absence of a core of power for a considerable time, thereby becoming the most important source of impetus for triggering waves of migration in the capital and its nearby areas. The three most famous large-scale migration movements in Chinese history (the “Yongjia crossing to the south”, the population migration after the “An Lushan Rebellion”, and the “Jingkang crossing to the south”) were all triggered by political turmoil and the relocation of the capital, and are typical manifestations of what the author calls the “law of dispersal by turmoil”.
Second, the law of migration determined by population density and population carrying capacity, which includes the “law of determination by population density gradient (including the law of ‘vacuum’ attraction)”, the “law of determination by population carrying capacity (including the law of out-migration due to overloading)” and so on. The “law of determination by population density gradient” has much in common with Ravenstein's “law of step-by-step migration”, namely that the regional population gaps or so-called “vacuums” created by a major population migration will trigger the migration of surrounding populations to make up for or fill the gaps and “vacuums”, thereby forming new migration waves.
Third, the law of famine and migration, mainly the “law of dispersal by disaster” or the “law of dispersal by famine” and so on. When natural disasters rage and food supply is extremely short, ordinary people face only two choices, namely “death” and “migration”; those unwilling to wait for death have no choice but to go out in search of food or to “go where the food is”. In history, the unstable migrating population caused by famine is usually called “displaced people” (liumin). Thus, each time a severe natural disaster strikes, it is also the day when yet another displaced-people movement breaks out. The severity of the natural disaster and the degree of famine correspond to the scale and duration of the displaced-people movement, and are also directly proportional to the proportion of displaced people who convert into permanent migrants. Therefore, apart from political factors, natural disasters became yet another important cause triggering waves of migration. This is what the author calls the “law of dispersal by disaster” or the “law of dispersal by famine”.
Fourth, the law of ethnic migration, including the “law of centripetal movement of surrounding ethnic groups”, the “law of Han migration towards the frontier” and so on. Since the Qin and Han dynasties, the waves of migration of surrounding ethnic groups were irresistible, and their main direction of migration was inward migration, that is, migration towards the Central Plains region. After many non-Hua-Xia ethnic groups migrated south of the Great Wall, they gradually merged with the Han ethnic group and thereby disappeared from history. This is the main content of the “law of centripetal movement of surrounding ethnic groups”.
Fifth, the law of migration and the characteristics of cultural regions, including the “law of elegant culture following the superior”, the “law of popular culture following the majority” and so on. In Chinese history, the Han ethnic group's achievements in elegant culture were the most outstanding, and consequently their influence was also the greatest. From the Qin and Han to the Ming and Qing, almost without exception all the non-Han ethnic groups that migrated inward accepted the achievements of Han elegant culture, and thus “sinicisation” also became an important component of the cultural development of each ethnic group. The path of inward migration of surrounding ethnic groups was often the “path of sinicisation”.
These laws or patterns proposed by the author are not the painstaking creation of an individual, but rather an arrangement and generalisation of the complex and diverse typical cases of migration in Chinese history; their purpose lies not only in understanding migration events of historical periods from a more macro and longer-term perspective, but even more in helping people today to more comprehensively and more clearly portray and summarise the trajectory of development of Chinese migration history, and to effectively and reasonably predict future migration trends and migration issues. The author believes:
First, as one of the core contents of population theory, the great value of research on the “laws of migration” (patterns) is self-evident. One bottleneck in achieving a breakthrough in cognition is to thoroughly change the limitations in the understanding of the “migration” issue across the whole of society (including academia). For example, the so-called “migration” commonly referred to in modern society remains more at the legal level, habitually measured by whether one has obtained nationality (or a green card), household registration, or whether one has obtained lawful migrant status, and so on. This itself differs greatly from the concept of “migration” in academic research. Only by truly changing the previous narrow cognition of the migration issue can one more deeply understand the major significance of the migration issue for the development of China and even the world.
Second, population history research has the advantage of multidisciplinary intersection, belonging both to the scope of social history and classifiable as economic history. Migration history research, however, involves an even grander scope, relating not only to history, sociology, economics and demography, but also being a prominent human geographical phenomenon. The occurrence of a migration movement of considerable scale is often the complex result of the combined action of multiple factors; therefore, in theoretical explanation, relying on the perspective of a single discipline often amounts to “viewing flowers in the mist” or “scratching an itch through a boot”, and one should persist in a research and exploration direction at multiple levels and from multiple angles. Under such circumstances, comprehensive research based on multiple disciplines or interdisciplinarity will be the inevitable orientation of migration research.
Third, it must be admitted that the formation of the “laws of migration” (patterns) is not a momentary flash of inspiration, but the result accumulated over a rather long historical process, and researchers must have a “long-term” perspective and a spirit of seeking truth from facts. If a “migration model” can be a kind of economic hypothesis, then a “law of migration” must be a kind of wise and objective historical summary that traverses time and space. Moreover, whether it be a migration model or a law of migration (pattern), its accuracy and true value very much need to withstand the test of a long period.
Finally, for the study of population history (including migration history), practical application for the benefit of society is the ultimate destination of our research. If we keep the study of the laws of migration (patterns) merely at the level of academic discussion, then the value and significance of this research will be greatly weakened, and the driving force for its research development will also be fundamentally undermined. The vast world is endlessly changing, and the summarisation and study of the laws of migration (patterns) should rightly be an open and dynamic process, and should not degenerate into rigid dogma; the true process of migration development is not only the objective basis and “living source” from which the laws of migration (patterns) arise, but even more the “touchstone” of the value of the laws of migration (patterns) themselves. A so-called “purely academic” orientation that is unwilling to face objective reality and has no sense of social responsibility is either a pretext for evasion or merely an escape born of cowardice.