1

The changing pattern of rural and urban migration in Malaysia

By:Razani Jali, John Stillwell and Phil Rees

Presented at:

Third International Population Geographies ConferenceUniversity of Liverpool

19-21 June 2006

2

Presentation

• Aims of the paper

• Data sources and background of country under study

• Population change, urbanization and development

• Internal migration

• Summary

3

Aims of the paper

• Review the progress of urbanization in Malaysia

• Identify the magnitude and patterns of migration in Malaysia in two time periods (1986-1991 and 1995-2000)

• Identify the relative volumes of migration taking place within and between urban and rural areas, both within and between the states of Malaysia

4

Data sources

• Principal data source from censuses carried out by Department of Statistics, Malaysia

• Focus on migration data obtained from 1991 and 2000 censuses – involved population movement within five year period prior to each census within and between the states

5

Background - Malaysia

6

States in Malaysia

7

Population change and urbanization

• Rapid development since independence

• Transformation from agricultural to industrial development

• Creation and growth of new towns

• Urbanization was driven by rural to urban migration

8

Population change and urbanization

• Malaysian population growing steadily• In 1950 – 6.1 millions, 1955 – 7 millions,

over 1 million added every five years• Population live in urban areas

– 1950 – 20.4%– 1960 – 26.6%– 1991 – over 50%

• Estimated – ¾ of population live in urban areas by 2020

9

Urban, rural and total population, Malaysia, 1950-2030

Year

Total population

(000)

Urban population

(000) % urban

Rural population

(000) % rural

1950 6,110 1,244 20.4 4,866 79.6 1955 7,000 1,639 23.4 5,361 76.6 1960 8,140 2,165 26.6 5,975 73.4 1965 9,502 2,842 29.9 6,660 70.1 1970 10,853 3,631 33.5 7,222 66.5 1975 12,258 4,615 37.7 7,642 62.3 1980 13,763 5,787 42.0 7,977 58.0 1985 15,677 7,197 45.9 8,480 54.1 1990 17,845 8,891 49.8 8,955 50.2 1995 20,363 11,326 55.6 9,038 44.4 2000 23,001 14,212 61.8 8,790 38.2 2003 24,425 15,617 63.9 8,808 36.1 2005 25,325 16,479 65.1 8,846 34.9 2010 27,513 18,768 68.2 8,745 31.8 2015 29,563 20,998 71.0 8,565 29.0 2020 31,580 23,218 73.5 8,362 26.5 2025 33,479 25,351 75.7 8,128 24.3 2030 35,191 27,324 77.6 7,867 22.4

10

Urban, rural and total population, Malaysia, 1950-2030

Urban, rural and total population

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

40000

Year

Po

pu

lati

on Total population (thousands)

Urban population (thousands)

Rural population (thousands)

11

Urban, rural and total population, Malaysia, 1950-2030

Urban and rural population (%)

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

Year

Per

cen

tag

e

Percentage urban (%)

Percentage rural (%)

12

Urban population within the states

• States in Malaysia have been categorized into more developed and less developed states

• In 2000– Less developed states have low proportion of

people living in urban areas (<50%)– More developed states have high proportion

of people living in urban areas (>50%)

13

Internal migration: aggregate patterns

• Changing levels of migration, 1986-1991 and 1995-2000– Migration within the country decline during the

last census– Total migration dropped from 4.6 millions

during 1986-1991 period to 3.6 millions during 1995-2000 period

– Possible reason - economic downtown because of currency crisis during the second period, or Malaysia had probably passed the time of peak rural to urban flows

14

Migration by age and sex, 1995-2000

• Highest propensity to migrate – among the population in their twenties and thirties

• Internal migration involves more men than women

• In late teenage and young working age groups (15-29), females migrants outnumber males

• In child ages, middle and late working age, there are more male migrants than female

15

Internal migration rates and percentage shares by age, 1995-2000

16

Age-specific migration rates by state, 1995-2000

17

Internal migration volumes by sex, 1995-2000

18

Urban and rural migration

• Comparing flows between urban and rural for two censuses 1991 and 2000

• This is possible because the definition for urban areas is the same

• Shortcomings:– Ever expanding urban areas means urban territories/

boundaries are not the same– There are unknown origin and destinations in

migration data, especially in 1991 census – “from unknown to unknown”

19

Urban and rural migration

• In 1995-2000 - 60% flows between urban areas within and between states, only 10% occur within rural areas

• In 1986-1991, 46% flows between urban areas within and between states, but 25% of migration was taking place between rural areas

20

Intra-state Intra-state migrationmigrationby type, by type, 1995-20001995-2000

Source:Malaysian Census 2000

21

131,400

20,000 - 42,000

10,000 -20,000

Inter-state Inter-state flows in flows in

Malaysia, Malaysia, 1995-20001995-2000

22

Summary

• Malaysia experiencing rapid urbanization since independence and internal migration is one of the significant determinants at early stage

• Most urbanized states situated in the west coast of peninsular Malaysia and they are also the more developed states

• Internal migration within Malaysia in 1995-2000 is between urban areas, which suggest the process of deconcentration of urban population into its rural hinterlands.

23

Future project?

• Look at the contribution of immigration from outside Malaysia (i.e. Indonesia) to urban population growth

• Estimate natural increase in Malaysia’s urban and rural areas using census age distributions and national schedules to obtain full picture of population flows that are contributing to changes in Malaysia’s urban and rural populations

24

Thank You

For Your Attention