The Migration of Young Adults from Non‐Metropolitan Counties

Mills, Bradford F.; Hazarika, Gautam

doi:10.1111/0002-9092.00159

Cited by 53 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While this view of higher education as an instrument of upper economic mobility for socioeconomically disadvantaged students has long been discussed in the history of American higher education (Trow, 1992), it is also associated with substantially greater geographical mobility for rural youth who must leave their home communities to attend four-year institutions elsewhere (McGranahan & Beale, 2002; Mills & Hazarika, 2001). In this context, rural students who may be turning toward college education as a pathway to a different future from their parents may be more dedicated to college education.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Bachelor’s Degree Completion among Rural Students at Four-Year Institutions

Byun¹,

Irvin²,

Meece³

2012

rhe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Using the National Education Longitudinal Study, this study explored various factors that predicted bachelor’s degree attainment among rural youth attending a four-year institution. Results showed that Hispanic origin, family income, parental educational expectations, the rigor of the high school curriculum, timing and intensity of college enrollment, and participation in Greek social clubs were significant predictors. Gender, parental education, family structure, number of siblings, institutional features of college first attended, and participation in intramural athletics and student government were insignificant predictors. We discussed similarities and differences between rural and metro students in factors predicting bachelor’s degree completion.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Predictors of Bachelor’s Degree Completion among Rural Students at Four-Year Institutions

Byun¹,

Irvin²,

Meece³

2012

rhe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Mills and Hazarika (2001) show gains in initial earnings for those who migrate from their nonmetro county of origin. They also find that returns to schooling are higher for people who move to both metro and other nonmetro counties than for those who stay in place.…”

Section: Education Rural-urban Migration and Poverty: Conceptual Framentioning

confidence: 98%

Education's Effect on Poverty: The Role of Migration

Weber

Marré

Fisher

et al. 2007

Rev Agricultural Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

E ducation is a key determinant of economic well-being for both individuals and places. Despite overall improvements, however, rural residents still have significantly lower educational attainment than urban residents. Improving the quality of education and encouraging students to stay in school is one possible strategy for reducing poverty and raising local well-being. A better-educated workforce should have higher incomes. Partridge and Rickman showed that both education levels and increases in attainment explained spatial variation in poverty reduction.Outmigration to metro areas is a potential obstacle to this strategy, however. Migration from rural areas occurs because of the lack of demand for a better-educated rural workforce and the necessity of leaving rural areas to attend college (Gibbs). Outmigration may prevent local human capital levels from reaching the threshold required to attract new industry or encourage expansion in the existing economic base. Even where robust rural job growth exists, the lower skill levels and wages offered by rural employers, on average, both dampen the poverty-reducing power of education and hinder long-term development prospects associated with an increasingly high-skill economy.This study documents a direct effect of education on householder poverty, but does not find an indirect effect through migration. Data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) is used to obtain a sample of 708 working-age (25-64 years of age) household heads that lived in a nonmetro county in 1993.

show abstract

“…First, migration can encourage marriage to the extent that the move improves an individual’s socioeconomic status (Cadwallader 1992; Massey et al 1993). Empirical research confirms that migrants from nonmetropolitan counties obtain higher educational attainment and earnings after moving to a metropolitan county (Mills and Hazarika 2001), thereby improving their marriage market prospects. More directly, migration can improve marriage market prospects if individuals move to a location where there is a larger supply of marriageable mates (Lichter et al 1992; Lichter et al 1995; Oppenheimer 1988; South and Lloyd 1992).…”

Section: Background and Research Questionsmentioning

confidence: 79%

Migration and marriage: Modeling the joint process

Jang¹,

Casterline²,

Snyder³

2014

DemRes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Previous research on inter-relations between migration and marriage has relied on overly simplistic assumptions about the structure of dependency between the two events. However, there is good reason to posit that each of the two transitions has an impact on the likelihood of the other, and that unobserved common factors may affect both migration and marriage, leading to a distorted impression of the causal impact of one on the other. Objective We will investigate relationships between migration and marriage in the United States using data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. We allow for inter-dependency between the two events and examine whether unobserved common factors affect the estimates of both migration and marriage. Methods We estimate a multi-process model in which migration and marriage are considered simultaneously in regression analysis and there is allowance for correlation between disturbances; the latter feature accounts for possible endogeneity between shared unobserved determinants. The model also includes random effects for persons, exploiting the fact that many people experience both events multiple times throughout their lives. Results Unobserved factors appear to significantly influence both migration and marriage, resulting in upward bias in estimates of the effects of each on the other when these shared common factors are not accounted for. Estimates from the multi-process model indicate that marriage significantly increases the hazard of migration while migration does not affect the hazard of marriage. Conclusions Omitting inter-dependency between life course events can lead to a mistaken impression of the direct effects of certain features of each event on the other.

show abstract

The Migration of Young Adults from Non‐Metropolitan Counties

Cited by 53 publications

References 16 publications

Predictors of Bachelor’s Degree Completion among Rural Students at Four-Year Institutions

Predictors of Bachelor’s Degree Completion among Rural Students at Four-Year Institutions

Education's Effect on Poverty: The Role of Migration

Migration and marriage: Modeling the joint process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About