Document of The World Bank FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Report No. 4776-IND 4776 VOL. 3 INDONESIA SELECTED ASPECTS OF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT (A Main Report and Four Annexes) Annex 2 DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS November 1, 1984 Country Programs Department East Asia and Pacific Regional Office This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in ih. V v- their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World H,ank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS Currency unit = Rupiah (Rp) US $1.00 = Rp. 970 (1983) US $1.00 = Rp. 625 (1980) US $1.00 = Rp. 450 (1978) FISCAL YEAR January 1 to December 31 4q - i - FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY INDONESIA SELECTED ASPECTS OF SPATIAL DEVELOPMENT ANNEX 2 DEMOGRAPHIC PATTERNS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS Table of Contents Page No. PART I - THE INTER-PROVINCIAL MIGRATION STUDY Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION ......................................... 1 The Context . . Ojectives of the Study ...1 Organization of the Study . . 2 Chapter 2: INTER-PROVINCIAL MIGRATION PATTERS. 3 Trendls in Population Distribution, 1961-80. 3 Migration Based on the 1971 Census ... 3 Migration Based on the 1980 Census ... 8 Inter-Island Migration, 1971 and 1980 . ......... 4 12 Chapter 3: CHARAkCTERISTICS OF THE MIGRANTS .. 15 Age Distribution . . .15 Marit:al Status ..... ........ ................. 15 Education Standards . . 18 Sector of Activity . . 18 Occupational Types ...20 Family and Individual Migration . .. 21 Migration Typologies . . 22 Households by Socio-Economic Classification ... 25 Chapter 4: DETERMINANTS OF MIGRATION .................. ......... . 26 Introduction ..................... ................... 26 Determinants of Inter-provincial M:igration 27 The Role of Transmigration .......I.................... 28 The Transmigration Policy: Some Issues . . ............ 30 Other Policies .... ................. 34 Chapter 5: SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHEEI STUDY . .35 Summary ... 35 Suggestions for Further Study . . .36 This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization. - ii - Page No. PART II - POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND POPULATION PROJECTIONS ................. ... . ......................... 38 CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ..................... 39 CHAPTER 2: THE DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION ............................ 40 Population Distribution .................. ............ 40 Population Growth ....... 0...... 000.... 0..0... ...................... 41* Components of Population Growth ... .................. 45 CHAPTER 3: POPULATION PROJECTIONS (1980-2000) AND IMPLICATIONS ..o. ... .. . ....... ... .--. 52 Base Data and Assumptions ........................... 52 Implications of the Projections ....-............... 53 APPENDIX 1 : Concepts and Definitions. ..... 65 APPENDIX 2 : Tables on Migration from the 1980 Census ...... *.... 67 APPENDIX 3 : Transmigration Data o .... o ...... o........... 100 APPENDIX 4 : Provincial Population Projections, 1980-2000 ......... 113 Tables in the Text PART I Table 2.1: Population Distribution by Island 1961-1980 4 Table 2.2: Lifetime Migration by Province, 1971 ......5......... 5 Table 2.3: Inter-Provincial Lifetime Migration Pattern, 1971 .... 7 Table 2.4: Lifetime Migration by Province, 1980 ...9......... 9 Table 2.5: Inter-Provincial Lifetime Migration Pattern, 1980 .... 11 Table 2.6: Inter-Island Lifetime Migrants 1971 and 1980 ........ . 13 Table 2.7: Population Flows During 1971-1980 (millions of persons) .. 14 Table 3.1: Percentage Distribution of Recent Migrants, Non-migrants and Total Population by Age and by Major Islands, 1980 Census Data 16 Table 3.2: Percentage Distribution of Recent Migrants, Non-Migrants, and Total Population by Marital Status and Major Islands,180 Census Data . 17 Table 3.3: Percentage Distribution of Recent Migrants, Non-Migrants and the Total Population (Persons 10 and over) by Level of Education and Major Islands, 1980 Census Data ..... .. ...... . .-. 19 Table 3.4: Percentage Distribution of Migrant, Non-Migrant and Total Work Force by Sector of Activity and Major Islands, 1980 Census Data .20 Table 3.5: Percentage Distribution of Migrant, Non-Migrant and Total Workers by Occupational Type and Major Islands, 1980 Census Data. 21 - iii - Page No. Table 3.6: Family and Non-Family Migration, 1980 Census Data .... 22 Table 3.7: Structure of Migration Typologies ............. oo..... 23 Table 3.8: Percentage Distribution of Population by Migration Typology, Urban and Rural Residence and Sex, 1980 Census Data ............... , 23 Table 3.9: Non-Migrants and Migrants by Household Socio- Economic Classification, 1980 Census Data 25 Table 4.1: Results of Multiple Regressions of SelEcted Provincial Indicators on Net Migration 29 Table 4.2: 1971-80 Population Growth Rates of TrarLsmigrant Rteceiving Provinces, Kabupatens and Kecamatans ... 31 Table 4.3: Ratios of 1971-1980 Population Growth Rates for Different Levels of Regions Receiving l'ransmigrants . ........32 Table 4.4: Potential Migrants and Their Migration Preferences, Data From Two Yogoyakarta Hamlets, 1975 33 Part II Table 2.1: Distribution of Rice Production and Population by Major Regions ......... ___oo ............. 40 Table 2.2: Population Distribution by Provifnce, 1980 .. ......... 42 Table 2.3: Distribution and Redistribution of the Population by Provinces, 1930-80 .... .... 43 Table 2.4: Growth Rates by Province, 1961-80 . ....... .... 44 Table 2.5: Total Fertility Rates, 1967-70 and 1980 by Provaincer .o.v.a.i.. .......... *. .............. 46 Table 2.6: Estimates of Infant Mortality Rates and Expectation of Life at Birth by Province, 1976-79 48 Table 2.7: Percent Decline in IMRs Between 1971 and 1980 by Province ..... ................... 0.0............. ....-.-.... 49 Table 2.8: In-Migrants to, Out-Migrants from, and NIet Migranlts (5+ Years) by Province, 1975-80 .................. 50 Table 2.9: Estimates of Net Migration and Natural I]ncrease Components of Population Change in Plrovinces, 1971-80...... ...... 51 Table 3.1: Population Distribution among Provinces, 1980-2000 ..... . .. o.... .._._... . ... 54 Table 3.2: Annual Average Growth Rates by Province, 1971-2000 ... 55 Table 3.3: Depend'ency Burden, 1980-2000 (Per 1,000 Population) by, Province .. 000- .. ..56 Table 3.4: Primary School-Age Population (Aged 7-12 Years) by Province, 1980-2000 . .............. . ........ . 57 Table 3.5: Junior and Senior Secondary School-Aged Population 1980-2000 by Province (in 00(s) 59 Table 3.6: Secondary School Age Population As A Proportion of the Total Population, by Provrince, 1980-2000 60 Table 3.7: Working-Age Population (10-59 Years) by Province, 1980-2000 ................. . 61 Page No. Table 3.8: Annual Average Growth Rates of the Population Aged 10-59, 1 980-2000, by Province ............... 62 Table 3.9: New Additions to the Worl-Force, 1980 and 1990 ....... 63 Appendix Tables Appendix 2 Table 1.1: Population by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Age Group (Male) ,...... 68 Table 1.2: Population by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Age Group (Female) ..... 70 Table 2.1: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Occupation (Male) ............. ............ 72 Table 2.2: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (President Residence), Duration of Residence and Occupation (Female) D a . o.................e r . 74 Table 3.1: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Industry (Male) ...e.....o....SO............... 76 Table 3.2: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of in-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Industry (Female) ....... ...... ___..4.....0... 78 Table 4.1: Population 10 Years and Ovier by Area oi. In-migration (Present Residence)', Duration of Residence and Employment Status (11alea) a. e0 Table 4.2: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (Present Residence) Duration of Residence and Employment Status (Feiiale) _............... 82 Table 5.1: Population 10 Years and by Area of in-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Marital Status (Male) _....................... 84 Table 5.2: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Durati ion of Residence and Marital Status (FemaaLe ...................... 86 Table 6.1: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Highest Level of Education Completed (Male) ...... 88 Table 6.2: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of in-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Highest Level of Education Completed (Female) .... 90 Table 7.1: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-naigration (Present Residence) Duration of Residence and Economic Activity (Male) ..... .. ........... 92 Table 7.2: Population 10 Years and Over by Area of In-migration (Present Residence), Duration of Residence and Economic Activity (Female) . .....0. . 94 Table 8.1: Migration Patterns of the Total Population by Household Socio-Economic Classification (Urban) .e.......... 96 Table 8.2: Migration Patterns of the Total Population by Household Socio-Economic Classification (Rural) .... ...... 98 v Page No. Appendix 3 Table 1 TrarLsmigration Data (Latest InFormation as on August 31, 1983) ....................... * D....... 101 Table 2 Population Size of Selected Kabupatens and Kecam.atans Receiving T-ransmigrants OO).............. 112 Appendix 4 Table 1 Population Projections, 1980-2000, D,I. Aceh ......... 114 Table 2 Population Projections, 1980-2000, North Sumatra ..... 115 Table 3 Population Projections, 1980-2000, West Sumatra ...... 116 Table 4 Population Projections, 1980-2000, Riau .............. 117 Table 5 Population Projections, 1980-2000> Jambi ............. 118 Table 6 Population Projections, 1980-2000, SouTh Sumatra ..... 119 Table 7 Population Projections, 1.980-2C00, Bengkulu .... ...... 120 Table 8 Population Projections, 1980-2C00, Lampung ........... 121 Table 9 Popu:Lation Projections, 1980-2C00, Jakarta . .......... 122 Table 10 Population Projections, 1980-2000, West Java ..... 123 Table 11 Population Projections, 1980-2000, Cent:ral Java , 124 Table 12 Popu:Lation Projections, 1980-2000, DI Yogyakarta 125 Table 13 Popu:Lation Projections, 1980-2000, East: Java ......., 126 Table '14 Popu:Lation Projections, 1980-2000, Bali. ............ 127 Table 15 Popu;Lation Projections, 1980-2000, West Nusatenggara ..................... ......... 128 Table 16 Population Projections, 1980-2000, East Nusatenggara ............. ............. 129 Table 17 Population Projections, 1980-2030, West Kalimantan ... 130 Table 18 Population Projections, 1980-20300 Central Kalimantan . ...... ............. . .... 131 Table 19 Population Projections, 1980-200)0, South Kalimantan ..e........ I ..e........*. 132 Table 20 Population Projections, 1980-2000, East Kalimantan ... 133 Table 21 Population Projections, 1980-2000, North Sulawesi . 134 Table 22 Population Projections, 1980-2000, Central Sulawesi .....e...... ..... 135 Table 23 Population Projections, 1980-2000, South Sulawesi.... 136 Table 24 Population Projections, 1980-2000, Southeast Sulawesi ............ 137 Table 25 Population Projections, 1980-2000, Maluku ........... 138 Table 26 Population Projections, 1980-2000, Irian Jaya ........ 139 ANNEX 2; PAR1' I THE INTER PROVINCIAL MIGRATION STUDY CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION The Context 1.01 The Indonesian archipelago, extending from Asia almost to Australia, consists of over 13,000 islands, of which 3,000 are inhabited. The major islands are Su-matra, Java, (the most developed and populated), lKalimantan, the portion of the island formerly called Borneo, Sulawesi, once ca'lled the Celebes, and [rian Jaya, the Western part. of the islanid of New Guinea. The rest of the country comprises much smaller islands, of which on:Ly Bali is well known. 1.02 The Total land area of Indonesia is close to 2 millioni sq km. The 1980 population census put Indonesia's population at 1.46.8 million, making it the fifth most' populous country in the world after China, lndia., the Soviet Union and the USA. Close to 80% of the population live in rura: areas. 1.03 A sl:riking feature of Indonesia's population is its uneven distribu- tion. Java with on:Ly 7% of the land area is home for two-thirds of the popu- lation. DensiLty on this islan.d is over 690 persons per sq km. Population density in Ir:Lan Jaya, an area of 422X000 sq kin, is only 3 persons per sq km, while the density in Jakarta exceeds 10,000 persons per sq km. The vastness of the geographical area and the uneven spread of the population provide the overall context for the study of migration in Indonesia2 Objectives of the Study 1.04 This Study has two objectives. First is to presenLt an overall view of migration between regions, based on the data from the 1971 and 1980 Populat:ion Censuses, The Census questions on provirnce. of birth and province of residence provide the data for migration analiysis./1 A secolnd objective of this study is to examine the characteristics of migrarLts and patterns of migration. 1.05 During the past decade, the volume and characteristics of migration have changed because of the acceleration in the Goverrnment's transmigration program, a program aimed at resettling people from Java on the Outer /1 In 1971 as well. as in 1980, the main census operation covering the entire population obtained basic information on age group, sex, schooling status etc., of all the people. For a 3.8%o sample in LS71 and a 5% sample in 1980, relatively more detailed data wvere collected on exac. age, labor force and employment status, sector of activity, duratiori of residence at the curre!nt place of residence, etc. - 2 - Islands. The Government expects that the program can lead to increased voluntary migration as well. This issue of linkages between transmigration and voluntary migration is also addressed in this report. Organization of the Study 1.06 This Study comprises 5 chapters. The next chapter has a discussion of inter-provincial and inter-island migration patterns. Chapter 3 examines the characteristics of migrants compared to non-migrants. Chapter 4 provides some observations about migration in conjunction with the transmigration pro- gram. The chapter also has a few observations based on multiple regressions of selected socio-economic indicators on migration rates. The final chapter highlights the main findings and indicates directions for future studies. -3- CHAPTER 2 INTER-PROVINCIAL MIGRATI]ON PATTERNS Trends in Population Distribution, 1961-80 2.01 Census data show that between 1961 and 1980, there haLs been a slight shift in population from Java to Sumatra (see Table 2.1). In 1.961, 65% of the population lived in Java, and 16% in Sumatra; by 1980, 62% lived in Java and 19% in Sumatra. The faster growth in Sumatra results from a higher rate of natural increase, an influx of migrants, and relatively lower mortality. How- ever, while the proportion of the total population in Java is slowly decreas- ing, the absolute numbers and, consequently, the density continue to increase. Population density on Java increased 45% between 1961 and 1980, from 476 to 690 people per sq km. Migration Based on the 1971 Census 2.02 Lifetime migration by provinces: The cross-tabulation between the province of birth and province of residence a: the time of the census produces the number of inter-provincial lifetime migrants. A summary of lifetime migration from the 1970 Census data by province is given in Table 2.2. The princip-1I net gainers of population are North Sumatra, Riau, Jambi, South Sumatra, Lampung and Jakarta. These provinces account for almost 60% of life- time in-migrants through 1971. The greatest net out-migration was found from TTest Sumatra, West Java, Central Java, D.I. Yogyakarta, East Java and South Sulawesi. These six provinces account for 60%' of all 1971 lifetime out- migrants. 2.03 Jakarta has the highest level of in--migration. With 1.7 million in-migrants, almost 40% of the population of Jakarta in 1971 was born else- where. Jakarta's attractions include its being the center of government and commerce, and its greater education and employment potential. The second largest inflow of migrants was in Lampung, where 35% of the population was born in other provinces. Since the time of Dutch occupation, transmigration to Lampung, especially from central and eastern Java, has been significant. 2.04 Population movements in North and South Sumatra occur in both directions but with a net in-flow. Through 1971, Riau and Jambi received more than 200 and 155 thousand new arrivals respectively and sent out only 40 and 28 thousand respectively. These four provinces depen,d on export- oriented agricultural production, (e.g., rubber). The establishment of large planta- tions along the east coast of Sumatra during the Dutch period attracted labourers from Java who were both knowledgable and experienced in cultivating export crops. 2.05 Generally, the Javanese provinces have seen net out-migration. By 1971, West Java had lost 0.8 million of its populationl through net out-migra- tion, and Central Java, 1.5 million. South Sulawesi also had large numbers of out-migrants, nearly a quarter million people by 1971. - 4 - Table 2.1: POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY ISLAND, :1961-1980 Islands Other Indicator Java Sumatra Kalimantan Sulawesi IUdndesia Land area ('000 sq km) 132e2 473.6 539.5 189.2 570.1/a 1,904.6 Pe-rentage of total natironal area 6.9 24.9 28.3 9.9 29.9 100.0 Population (x 1,000) 1961 Census 62,993 15,739 4,101 7,079 7,106 97,019 - 1971 Cernsus 76,102 20,812 5,152 8,535 8,631 199,232 - 1980 Cen5sus 91,270 28,016 6,723 10,409 11,072 1477,491 Population Density persons per sq km - 1961 Census 476 33 8 37 12 51 1971 Census 575 44 10 45 15 63 1980 Census 690 59 12 35 19 77 Percentage Distri- bution of Population - 1961 Census 64.9 16.2 4.2 7.3 7.3 100.0 - 1971 Census 63.8 17.5 4.3 7.2 7.2 100.0 - 1980 Census 61.8 19.0 4.6 7.1 7.5 100.0 Average annual population increase 1961-1971 1.9 2.8 2.3 1.9 1.9 2.1 - 197>1980 2.0 3.3 2.8 2.2 2.8 2.3 /a Includes West Irian with 421,981 sq km or 21.39% of the total land area. Source: 1971 and 1980 Population Censuses. -5- Table 2.2: LIFETIME MIGRATION BY PROVINCE, 1971 Total Total Migration Migration Percentages /a Population In Out Net Ir Out Net D.I. Aceh 2,008,341 60,982 65,835 -4,853 3.04 3.28 -0.24 North Sumatra 6,620,811 530,012 188,326 +341,686 8.01 2.84 +-5.16 West Sumatra 2,792,221 87,901 324,897 -236,996 3.15 11.64 -8.49 Riau 1,641,074 203,606 41,636 +161,970 12.41 2.54 +9.87 Jambi 1,005,658 155,924 27,437 +128,437 15.50 2c73 +12.77 South Sumatra 3,438,061 327,312 199,0160 +128,252 9.52 5.79 +3.73 Bengkulu 519,361 36,038 24,753 +11,285 6.94 4.77 +2.17 Lampung 2,775,695 1,001,103 29,728 +971,375 36.07 1.07 +35.00 DKI Jakarta 4,546,492 1,791,635 132,215 +1,659,420 39.41 2e91 +36e50 West Java 21,620,950 371,448 1,192,987 -821,539 1.72 5.52 -3.80 Central Java 21,865,263 253,477 1,798,001 -1,544,524 1.16 8.22 -7.06 D.I. Yogyakarta 2,488,544 99,782 266,933 -167,151 4.01 10.73 -6.72 East Java 25,508,387 273,228 749,848 -476,620 1,07 2.94 -1.87 Bali 2,120,091 22,010 57,072 -35,062 1.04 2.69 -1.65 West Nusa Tenggara 2,203,435 33,575 12,764 420.811 1.52 0,58 +0,94 East Nusa Tenggara 2,295,279 10,218 26,222 -16,004 0.45 1,1]4 -0,70 West Kalimantan 2,019,924 20,805 35,109 -14,304 1.33 Le74 -0,71 Central Kalimantan 701,936 50,078 11,514 +3E,564 7,13 1.64 +5,49 South Kalimantan 1,699,105 66,119 84,257 -18,138 3.89 4.96 -1.07 East Kalimantan 731,606 39,548 23,723 +15,825 5.40 3.24 +2,16 North Sulawesi 1,717,671 48,668 60,837 -12,167 2.33 3,54 -0.71 Central Sulawesi 913,662 50,937 34,274 +16,663 5.58 3.75 +1.82 South Sulawesi 5,179,911 66,984 241,72.6 -174,742 1.29 4.67 -3.37 Southeast Sulawesi 714,120 25,906 30,771 -4,865 3.63 4.31 -0.68 Maluku 1,089,511 42,228 36,613 +5,615 3.38 3.36 +0.52 Irian Jaya 150,786 33,513 6,449 +27,064 22.22 4,28 +17,95 Total 118,367,850 5,703,037 5,703,037 0 4. 82 4.82 0 /a Denominator for determining percentages is the total 1971 popula-ion of the respective province. Source : Populati:on Census 1971 Series D Table 23, pp. 101-102 -6- 2.06 Major lifetime migration patterns: Major inter-provincial migration patterns through 1971 are shown in Table 2.3. Based on these data, it is possible to determine migrants' origin and principal destination. For instance, there were 65.8 thousand out-migrants from Aceh, of which 39.5 thousand were in North Sumatra when the census was carried out, representing 60% of all out-migrants from Aceh. On the other hand, although North Sumatra, received most of Aceh's out-migrants, they constituted only a small proportion (7%) of the total flow into North Sumatra. 2.07 Migrants from North and West Sumatra often settled in Jakarta (see Table 2.3). By 1971, more than one-third of the lifetime migrants from North Sumatra and a quarter from West Sumatra had become residents in Jakarta. At the same time, West Sumatra was the main destination for migrants from Riau and Jambi; 30% of all the migrants from Riau settled in West Sumatra forming nearly 15% of all in-migrants. 2.08 Lampung was a preferred destination among many migrants from South Sumatra, Yogyakarta, East Java and Bali. About 40% of the people leaving South Sumatra, 33% from Yogyakarta, 29% from East Java, and 35% from Bali, settled in Lampung./2 However, migrants from South Sumatra and Bali to Lampung were only a small fraction of Lampung's in-migrants. Migrants from East Java were the largest group (22%) of Lampung's in-migrants. 2.09 It was noted earlier that Jakarta had the highest level of in-migration of all provinces. Table 2.3 indicates a two-way flow between Jakarta and West Java. Of all the migrants from Jakarta, 42% headed for West Java, while 64% of the migrants from West Java settled in Jakarta. It is possible that many of these migrants have settled at the fringe of Jakarta which borders West Java. Improvement in transportation facilities between Jakarta and its environs (Bogor, Tangerang and Bekasi) contributed to this inter-regional migration. On the other hand, urban development in Jakarta must have forced some city dwellers to move outside the city to the surround- ing areas. Jakarta is the destination of substantial numbers of migrants from the Nusa Tengarra islands, Maluku and Irian Jaya. However, together these constitute only a small portion of total in-migration to Jakarta. 2.10 Based on past migration to and from the provinces in Kalimantan, it appears that distance is an important influence on migration patterns. Two provinces on the south coast, Central Kalimantan and South Kalimantan, show a high level of inter-migration; over half of the migrants from Central Kalimantan settle in South Kalimantan. However, migrants from West and East Kalimantan which are more isolated from the other Kalimantan provinces, but easily accessible to Java, frequently make their way there. Two-thirds of the migrants originating in West Kalimantan head for Jakarta, and one quarter oi those from East Kalimantan go to East Java. /2 This flow could have occurred in the nature of spontaneous migration since Lampung was a transmigrant receiving area. Table 2.3 INTER PROVINCIAL L]IFETIME MIGRATION PATTERN, 1971 No. of Total migrants Total (4) (4) out- Principal from (1) in-mi- as a as a Province migration destination i who settled gration % of % of of origin from (1) of (2) in (3) to (3) (2) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) D.I. Aceh 65,835 North Sumatra 39,503 547,405 60.01 7.22 North Sumatra 188,326 DKI Jakarta 64,963 1,821,833 34.50 3.57 West Sumatra 324,897 DKI Jakarta 80,612 1,821,833 24.81 4.42 Riau 41,636 West Sumatra 12,912 88,832 31.01 14.54 Jambi 27,487 West Sumatra 5,388 88,832 19.60 6.07 South Sumatra 199,060 Lampung 78,798 1,003,550 39.59 7.85 Bengkulu 24,753 South Sumatra 11,880 333,875 47.99 3.56 Lampung 29,728 South Sumalra 9,394 333,875 31.60 2.81 DKI Jakarta 132,215 West Java 55,200 383,560 41.75 14.39 West Java 1,192,987 DKI Jakarta 767,413 1,821,833 64.33 42.12 Central Java 1,798,001 DKI Jakarta 500,689 1,821,833 27.85 27.48 D.I. Yogyakarta 266,933 Lampung 87,386 1,003,550 32.74 8.71 East Java :749,848 Lampung 218,586 1,003,550 29.15 21.78 Bali 57,072 Lampung 19,908 1,003,550 34.88 1.98 West Nusa Tenggara 12,764 DKI Jakarta 3,127 1,821,833 24.50 0.17 West Nusa Tenggara 26,222 DKI Jakarta 6,354 1,821,833 24.23 0.35 West Kalimantan 35,109 DKI Jakarta 21,496 1,821,833 61.23 1.18 Central Kalimantan 11,514 S. Kalimantan 5,785 67,285 50.24 8.60 South Kalimantan 84,257 Cen. Kalimantan 31,813 50,235 37.76 63.33 East Kalimantan 23,723 East Java 5,544 297,948 23.37 1.86 North Sulawesi 60,837 DKI Jakarta 18,59C 1,821,833 30.56 1.02 Central Sulawesi 34,274 South Sulawesi 7,322 71,411 21.36 10.25 South Sulawesi 241,726 Jambi 37,497 160,041 15.51 23.43 S.E. Sulawesi 30,771 Maluku 10,754 43,530 34.95 24.70 Maluku 36,613 DKI Jakarta 9,142 1,821,833 24.97 0.50 Irian Jaya 6,449 DKI Jakarta 1,487 1,821,833 23.06 0.08 Source: Population Census 1971 Series D Table 23, pp. 101-102. 2.11 Two of the provinces in Sulawesi follow this general pattern, namely the majority of the migrants go to the nearest area, and t:wo do not. Migrants from Central Sulawesi choose South. Sulawesi and those from South East Sulawesi go to the Maluku islands. One-third of the migrants leaving South East Sulawesi settle in Maluku, and form almost one quarter of all in-migrants to Maluku. In contrast, the majority of the migrants from North Sulawesi settle in Jakarta, while those from South Sulawesi go to Jambi, in each case covering long distances. Migration Based on the 1980 Census 2.12 Lifetime migration by province: Table 2.4 shows a summary of the lifetime migration based on the 1980 Census. Comparing the 1980 and 1971 patterns shows that West Sumatra still has negative net migration. On Java, all provinces have negative net migration, except for DKI Jakarta. The 198.0 pattern for the Nusa Tenggara islands and Bali is the same as 1971D In 1971 West Kalimantan and South East Su'lawesi both had net out--migration, whereas, in 1980, they had net in-migration. 2.13 In Sumatra the level of migration increased sharply. For instance, in the province of Riau, 1 out of 6 inhabitants was a migrant and in Jambi, it was 1 out of 5, Most con spicuoU5s were the figures for Lampung, where in- migrants made up 39% of the total population. In JaVa, Jaikarta continued to attract large numbers of i.n-migrants. In 1980, 40%O of the population of Jakarta had been born elsewhere, and about 9% of persons born in Jakarta were living outside of Jakarta. 2.14 In Kalimantan, the impact oL migration has grown. Partly resulting from the government's transmigration program during the 1970s, ir-migration to South and East Kalimantan increased markedly, so that by 1980, 17% and 31%, respectively of their populations were not native born. 'East Kalimantan attracted some voluntarv migrants as wel! because of its 'Logging and petroleum industries, 2.15 Central Sulawesi also experienced a rather largea change. In 1971., net in-migrants were less than 2% of the population, but had reached 12% by 1980. The number of migrants into South East Sulawesi tripled between 1971 and 1980, while out-migration doubled, resulting in net in-migration, During t:he same period, migration into Irian Jaya apparently deelined,. 2.16 Nationwide, inter-provircial mobility has increased, with migrants rising from 4.8% to O68% of the population. Clearly however, the impact of migration varies widely among provinces. The following section looks at the major streams of migration and .heir direction. -9- Table 2.4: LIFETIME MIGRATION BY PROVINCE, 1980 Total Migration Total migrations_ percentages /a Province population In Out Net In Out Net D.I. Aceh 2,607,569 143,348 116,010 27,338 5.5 4.4 1.0 North Sumatra 8,327,662 547,575 417,65.9 129,916 6.6 5.0 1.6 West Sumatra 3,402,796 131,376 558,804 -427,428 3.9 16.4 -12.6 Riau 2,150,583 342,959 86,54C 256,419 15.9 4.0 11.9 Jambi 1,439,047 292,937 47,151 245,786 20.4 3.3 17.1 South Sumatra 4,617,921 607,947 333,024 274,923 13.2 7.2 6.0 Bengkulu 766,477 121,274 39,019 82,255 15.8 5.1 10.7 Lampung 4,613,806 1,782,621 57,664 1,724,957 38.6 1.2 37.4 DKI Jakarta 6,445,777 2,564,490 400,767 2,163,723 39.8 6.2 33.6 West Java 27,409,454 963,372 1,487,935 -524,563 3.5 5.4 -1.9 Central Java 25,353,028 336,408 3,227,892 -2,891,,484 1.3 12.7 -11.4 D.I. Yogyakarta 2,,745,377 175,616 253,447 -77,831 6.4 9.2 -2.8 East Java 29,133,676 430,621 1,597,851 -1,167,230 1.5 5.5 4.0 Bali 2,467,725 63,272 117,828 -54,556 2.6 4.8 -2.2 West Nusa Tenggara 2,719,050 51,453 44,487 6,966 1.9 1.6 0.3 East Nusa Tenggara 2,729,381 35,007 47,534 -12,527 1.3 1.7 -0.5 West Kalimantan 2,477,395 104,748 72,358 32,390 4.2 2.9 1.3 Central Kalimantan 951,888 139,969 25,086 114,883 14.7 2.6 12.1 South Kalimantan 2,060,386 142,576 169,561 -26,985 6.9 8.2 -1.3 East Kalimantan 1,209,225 291,586 34,059 257,527 24.1 2.8 21.3 North Sulawesi 2,111,550 88,188 121,231 -33,043 4.2 5.7 -1.6 Central Sulawesi 1,281,969 184,465 33,912 150,553 14.4 2.6 11.7 South Sulawesi 6,048,361 107,781 511,725 -403,944 1.8 8.5 -6.7 South East Sulawesi 940,259 104,652 89,957 14,695 11.1 9.6 1.6 Maluku 1,402,888 124,546 64,725 59,821 8.9 4.6 4.3 Irian Jaya 1,104,210 92,998 15,559 77,439 8.4 1.4 7.0 Total 146,517,460 9,971,785 9,971,785 0 6.8 6.8 0 Source: 1980 Population Census Series No. 2. Table 6.3 page 25, 26 and 27. Excludes persons born abroad, in East Timor and those whose place of birth was not stated. /a Denominator used in calculating migration percentages in the 1980 population of the respective province. - 10 - 2.17 The pattern of lifetime migration: Table 2.5 shows inter-provincial migration patterns through 1980. It can be seen that the migrants from the province of Sumatra generally move to another province in Sumatra, except that those from North and West Sumatra have predominantly moved to Jakarta. 2.18 More than half of the out-migrants from Jakarta now live in West Java, while the majority of the non-native born population of Jakarta came from West and Central Java. Each of these provinces accounted for about one- third of all migrants to Jakarta. The percentage of the population living in Jakarta and born in West Java decreased between 1971 and 1980, as migration from other provinces increased. For instance, in 1971 the largest number of migrants from Central Java went to Lampung, but by 1980 the largest proport:ion of migrants from Central Java went to Jakarta. For Yogya and East Java, Lampung is still the main target area. From Bali, 22% of the out-migrants settled in Central Sulawesi, a pattern similar to that in 1971./3 2.19 Migrants from Kalimantan seek various destinations; 64% of out- migrants from West Kalimantan were found in DKI Jakarta, while 27% of out- migrants from East Kalimantan settled in East Java. The pattern of migratory interchange between Central and South Kalimantan remained unchanged between 1971 and 1980. Almost half (46%) of the out-migrants from South Kalimantan settled in Central Kalimantan, where they formed more than half of all in-migrants. The volume of migration from Central to South Kalimantan was not large (12 thousand people) but represented 48% of South Kalimantan's in-migrants. 2.20 The pattern of the outflow from the Sulawesi provinces shows some change between 1971 and 1980. In 1971, a third of the out-migrants from North Sulawesi went to Jakarta and the main stream from Central Sulawesi was to South Sulawesi. As against this, the 1980 Census showed that one-third of the migrants from North Sulawesi settled in Central Sulawesi and one-fourth of the migrants from Central Sulawesi took up residence in North Sulawesi. In 1971 the major flow of migrants from South Sulawesi had been to Jambi; by 1980 this shifted to East Kalimantan. In 1971 and 1980, nearly half of the out-migrants from South East Sulawesi settled in Maluku. 2.21 Prevalence of short distance movement was apparent in the migration links between a number of neighboring provinces, especially Maluku and Iriian Jaya. One-third of the population born in Maluku was registered in Irian Jaya in 1980, while one-fifth of the migrants from Irian Jaya resided in Maluku. /3 The history of the settlement of the new arrivals from Bali to Central Sulawesi was documented in Lorene Yap, "Internal Migration in Less Developed Countries: A Survey of the Literature", World Bank Staff Working Paper (No. 215), 1975. - 11 - Table 2.5: INTER-PROVINCIAL LIFETIME MIGRATION PATTERN, 1980 No. of Total migrants Total (4) (4) out- Principal from (1) in-mi- as a as a Province migration destination who settled gration % of % of of origin from (1) of (2) in (3) to (3) (2) (5) (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) D.I. Aceh 116,010 North Sumatra 62,770 570,863 54.11 11.80 North Sumatra 417,659 DKI Jakarta 153,141 2,59'3,367 36.67 5.89 West Sumatra 558,804 DKI Jakarta 141,038 2,599,367 25.24 5.43 Riau 86,540 West Sumatra 24,988 134,712 28.87 18.55 Jambi 47,151 West Sumatra 11,466 134,712 24.32 8.51 South Sumatra 333,024 Lampung 112,540 179,305 33.79 62.76 Bengkulu 39,019 South Sumatra 18,108 617,745 46.41 2.93 Lampung 57,664 South Sumatra 17,064 617,745 29.59 2.76 DKI Jakarta 400,767 West Java 261,724 1,003,758 65.31 26.07 West Java 1,,487,935 DKI Jakarta 837,999 2,599,367 56.32 32.24 Central Java 3,227,892 DKI Jakarta 844,778 2,599,367 26.17 32.50 D.I. Yogyakarta 253,447 Lampung 61,747 179,305 24.36 34.44 East Java 1,597,851 Lampung 490,799 179,305 30.72 273.72 Bali 117,828 C. Sulawesi 26,496 187,024 22.49 14.17 West Nusa Tenggara 44,487 East Java 8,663 465,949 19.47 1.86 East Nusa Tenggara 47,534 DKI Jakarta 9,105 2,599,367 19.15 0.35 West Kalimantan 72,358 DKI Jakarta 46,406 2,599,367 64.13 1.79 Central Kalimantan 25,086 S. Kalimantan 12,046 145,417 48.02 8.28 South Kalimantan 169,561 C. Kalimantan 78,536 142,257 46.32 55.21 East Kalimantan 34,059 East Java 9,331 465,949 27.40 2.00 North Sulawesi 121,231 C. Sulawesi 33,364 187,024 30.56 1.02 Central Sulawesi 33,912 North Sulawesi 8,602 91,460 25.37 9.41 South Sulawesi 511,725 E. Kalimantan 85,156 296,963 16,64 28.68 S.E. Sulawesi 89,957 Maluku 43,185 130,109 48.01 33.19 Maluku 64,725 Irian Jaya 17,82:3 96,079 27.54 18.55 Irian Jaya 15,559 Maluku 3,498 130,109 22.48 2.69 Source : Population Census 1980 Series S Table 06.3 page 25, 26 and 27. - 12 - Inter-Island Migration, 1971 and 1980 2.22 Table 2.6 shows lifetime inter-island migration in 1971 and 1980. This indicates that Sumatra has absorbed the great bulk of migrants (67% in 1970 and 58% in 1980), followed by Java (about 20% in both years). On the other hand, Java has seen the highest level of out-migration followed by Sumatra. Some 93% of total migration into Sumatra through 1971 and 94% through 1980, was from Java, while 90% of migrants from Java through 1971 and 81% through 1980 settled in Sumatra. The decline in migration from Java to Sumatra must be at least partly due to the government's efforts throughout the 1970s to promote transmigration outside Sumatra. Thus, for instance, accord- ing to the 1980 census, 70% of the migrants to Kalimantan came from Java. For Sulawesi and the other islands, the percentages were 61% and 45%, respectively. 2.23 Of the 3.1 million arrivals into Sumatra by 1980, 2.9 million were born on Java. Similarly, on Kalimantan the largest share (68%) came from Java, just as on Sulawesi nearly 60% of all migrants were born in Java, where shortage of agricultural land, economic pressures, desire to improve the standard of life and increasingly, transmigration have induced many to try their luck on other islands. 2.24 As for the migrational outflows, of the 787,000 people born on Sumatra but living on other islands, 718,000 (91%) were on Java at the time of the 1980 census. Similarly Java was the destination for 78% of out-migrants from Kalimantan, 25% of out-migration from Sulawesi, and 50% from the other islands. 2.25 Between 1971 and 1980, some 2.5 million people migrated between islands (Table 2.7). Of this total, Java accounted for 1.7 million, or 68%; Sumatra for 0.4 million or 16%; and sulawesi 0.3 million or 12%. Of the 1.7 million Javanese migrants, 1.0 million could be accounted by the official transmigration program. Java received 0.5 million persons from the rest of Indonesia. The official transmigration program thus played an important role in the net out migration from Java. In addition, in the absence of the offi1- cial transmigration, the total mobility would have been only 1.5 million persons instead of 2.5 million. Another important point to note is the dif-- ferentials in the ability of different outer islands to attract voluntary in- migrants. Sumatra and Kalimantan seem to have a relatively higher capability, where the inflows have been larger than the outflows. Sulawesi, being rela- tively poor and underdeveloped, has not yet demonstrated this capability. '[t is, in fact, worth special mention that whereas government data on transmigra- tion from Java to Sulawesi has been recorded as 0.2 million persons, the census outflow from Java to Sulawesi during 1971-80 has been derived as 0.1 million persons. (The numbers in thousands were 168 for official data and :LlO for the outflow estimated from Census). Clearly, not all places are very attractive in retaining the transmigrants, let alone attracting voluntary in- migrants. - 13 - Table 2.6: INTER-ISLAND LIFETIME MIGRANT'S 1971 AND 1980 Out- In migrants to migrants Kali- Other from Year Sumatra Java mantan Sulawesi Islands Total Sumatra 1971 ('000) - 348 7 8 6 369 1980('000) - 718 26 23 20 787 (% change) (106) (271) (187) (233) (113) Java 1971 ('000) 1,735 - 90 57 53 1,935 1980 ('000) 2,906 - 374 167 137 3,584 (% change) (67) - ('316) (193) (158) (85) Kalimantan 1971 ('000) 17 75 - 6 2 100 1980) ('000) 19 122 - .10 5 156 (% change) (12) (63) (67) (150) (56) Sulawesi 197L ('000) 90 98 23 - 52 263 198() ('000) 145 137 123 - 140 545 (% change) (61) (40) (435) - (169) (107) Other 197]1 ('000) 28 62 3 17 - 110 Islands 1980 ('000) 31 115 11 74 - 231 (% c:hange) (11) (85) (267) (335) - (110) 1971 ('000) 1,870 583 123 88 113 2,777 Total 1980 3,101 1,092 534 274 302 5,303 (% change) (66) (87) (334) (211) (167) (91) /a Excludes persons born abroad, and those whose place of birth was not stated. Source: 1971 and 1980 Population Census. - 14 - Table 2.7: POPULATION FLOWS DURING 1971-80 (millions of persons) To Total From Sumatra Java Kalimantan Sulawesi Others Outflow Sumatra - 0.4 - - - 0.4 Java 1.2 - 0.3 0.1 0.1 1.7 Kalimantan - - - - - Sulawesi ---- 0.1 -------- 0.1 - 0.1 0.3 Others - 0.1 - - - 0.1 Total Inflow 1.2 0.5 0.4 0.1 0.2 2.5 Transmigrants (1971-80) +0.6 - +0.2 +0.2 - 1.0 from Java /a /a These data are not from the census. They are from Department of Transmigration (see also Chapter 4). - 15 - CHAPTER 3 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MIGRA_TS 3.01 This chapter examines selected characteristics of migrants, includ- ing age, marital status, economic activity and occupation. In order to facil- itate comparisons, recent migrants of less than 4 years duration are compared with non-migrants. Tables in Appendix 2 present urban and rural classification by island and divide migrants into groups based on the length of their present provincial residence. This chapter does not attempt to be an exhaustive study of the factors which influerLce peopLe to migrate; further areas for study are suggested later in this report (see Chapter 5). Age Distribution 3.02 Table 3.1 shows the age distribution of bot:h migrants and non- migrants, grouped by major islands, and for Indonesia as a whole, by urban and rural areas. The most commonly observed age group among migrants was 10-24, ages that correspond with early working years and upper levels of education. On the other hand, migrants consistently exhibit a smaller percentage of the very young (aLges 0-9) and older persons (45 and above). The proportion of adolescents and young adults (10-24) is even higher among urban in-migrants. Over 55% of all recent migrants into the urban areas were in this group, in contrast to 39% of migrants to rural areas. As shown. elesewhete in the report, rural in-migrants most frequently consist of family grcups. Older migrants tend to be married and have children moving with them. 3.03 Comparisons of age distribution among islands reflect the urban/rural characteristics of the island. For example, there is a larger proportion of very young (0-9 years) children, among the in-migrants into Sumatra, and correspondingly most Sumatran in--migrants settle in rural areas. Java has a high proportion of in-migrants aged 10-24, and most migrants into Java settle in the urban areas, especially in Jakarta. Marital Status 3.04 Table 3.2 indicates the distribution by marital status as of October 1980, i.e., time of the census, of recent migrants, grouped by major islands, and, for Indonesia as a whole, by urban and rural areas. While the marital status at the time of migration (i.e., four yEars prior to the census) could differ from that at the time of the census, the data nevertheless provide an interesting picture. Among those who have moved to rural areas, 56% were married and 39% were single, while the distribution oi- those who moved to urban areas was the exact converse, with 56% single and 39% married. It is conceivable that the extent of observed migration to urban areas was inflated, since the census was taken in October, which is the slack agricuiltural season. - 16 - Table 3.1: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RECENT MIGRANTS, NON-MIGRANTS AND TOTAL POPULATION BY AGE AND BY MAJOR ISLANDS, 1980 CENSUS DATA Major islands Indonesia Population type Other and age group Sumatra Java Kalimantan Sulawesi Islands Urban Rural Recent Migrants 0 - 9 19.48 15.31 15.61 20.83 1L7.05 13.15 21.20 10 - 24 41.18 53.52 43.40 39.75 45.22 55.44 39,33 25 - 44 30.50 25.70 34.09 30.85 32.01 26.40 30.,64 45 - 64 7.55 4.55 6.08 7.24 4.87 4.13 7 .,59 65 + 1.29 0.92 0.82 1.33 0.85 0.88 1,24 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Non Migrants 0 - 9 36.00 28.70 33.49 32.08 31.29 30.87 30.57 10 - 24 33.61 30.96 31.55 30.99 30.23 35.81 30.29 25 - 64 19.16 23.80 22.95 22.84 23.64 21.03 23.33 45 - 64 8.90 13.12 9.78 10.90 11.43 9.86 12.47 65 + 2.33 3.42 2.22 3.19 3.41 2.43 3.34 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total Population 0 - 9 31.88 27.55 30.87 30.92 30.46 26.80 29.59 10 - 24 32.52 31.02 31.27 30.97 30.33 35.20 30.13 25 - 44 22.17 24.70 24.86 23.63 24.30 24.41 24.04 45 - 64 10.61 13.30 10.58 11.23 11.50 10.95 12.81 65 + 2.82 3.43 2.41 3.25 3.41 2.63 3.43 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 10(.00 - 17 - Table 3.2: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RECENT MIGRANTS, NON MIGRANTS AND TOTAL POPULATION BY MARITAL STATUS AND MAJOR ISLANDS, 1930 CENSUS DATA Major islands Indonesia Population type Other and marital status Sumatra Java Kalimantarn Sulawesi Islands Urban Rural Recent Migrants Single 39.76 54.63 41.42 43.00 48.04 55.90 38.82 Married 54.89 40.26 52.60 51.90 48.25 39.68 55.79 Widowed 30.02 2.25 2.64 3.09 1.97 2.21 2.97 Divorced 2.33 2.86 3.34 2.01 1.74 2.81 2.42 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.0( 100.00W100.00 Non migrants Single 44.90 34.23 30.95 41.29 39.93 47.19 34.58 Married 48.83 56.01 52.55 50.51 52.23 45.57 56.17 Widowed 4.68 6.60 5.36 6.11 5.90 5.06 6.42 Divorced 1.59 3.16 2.14 2.09 1.95 2.18 2.82 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total Population Single 40.26 34.01 37.97 40.52 39.58 43.87 33.86 Married 53.07 56.40 54.43 51.35 52.67 48.88 56.95 Widowed 4.96 6.48 5.37 6.04 5.82 5.02 6.39 Divorced 1.71 3.11 2.22 2.10 1.94 2.23 2.80 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 In the slack season the small farmers and agricultural laborers frequently migrate to large cities, such as Jakarta and Surabaya, seeking temporary work, such as driving pedicabs (becaks)./4 When the planting season arrives, they return to their villages. (However, it is necessary to add here that not too many seasonal migrants are counted in the census. If the respondents were not living in the area of residence for a period cf six months or more prior to the time of the census, or if they stated that: they were returning to other /4 During June, 1983, the Jakarta regional government launched an operation to send away the unregistered becak drivers from the city. At that time, it was estimated that some 60,000 becak drivers were operalting, most of them without valid licenses. Some of them could be temporary in-migrants from rural Java. - 18 - areas, then, they would not be counted as usual residents of the place where they were found.) 3.05 Comparing the marital status of migrants from the various islands indicates that the percentage distribution of migrants to Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi corresponds to the overall pattern of rural migration while the. distribution for Java corresponds to the overall urban pattern. Educational Standards 3.06 The overall level of education in Indonesia is low; more than 90% of of the population have never been to school or have only completed primary school. Given the large majority's low level of education, this is not an important factor influencing migration. Table 3.3 shows that migrants and non-migrants alike have low levels of education. Among the migrants, about 80% have never been to school or have had only primary education. However, one important observation does emerge from this data. Some 40% of the migrants to Java had junior or senior high school education compared to 17.3% among migrants to rural areas. This indicates very clearly that Java, especi- ally the urban areas, mostly Jakarta and Surabaya, drain the Outer Islands cf their relatively highly educated manpower. Sector of Activity 3.07 The sector of economic activity of migrants and non-migrants showm in Table 3.4 relates to those who were classified as employed during the reference week, at the time of the 1980 Census. There are clear distinctions between the sectoral distribution of the migrants to urban and rural areas. Among the urban in-migrants, 76% are employed in the service sector, followed by mining, manufacturing and construction with 21%. Among the rural in- migrants, 60% work in the agricultural sector, 26% in services and 13% in mSin- ing, manufacturing and construction. 3.08 Agricultural employment predominates among non-migrants, while noll- agricultural employment is dominant among migrants. There are, however, con- siderable differences among regions. Some 71% of migrants to Java are engaged in services, compared to 26% for Sumatra, 44% for Kalimantan, 34% for Sulawesi and 67% for the other islands. Only 6% of those migrating to Java are engaged in agriculture, reflecting the urban bias of the bulk of these migrants. In contrast, the proportion of agricultural workers among migrants to other islands is quite high: 63% in Sumatra, 53% in Sulawesi and 39% in Kalimantan. The very high proportion of agricultural workers among the migrants into Sumatera is largely due to official transmigration and the asso- ciated spontaneous migration. - 19 - Table 3.3: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF RECEN1' MIGRANTS, NON MIGRANTS AND THE TOTAL POPULATION (PERSONS 10 AND OVER) BY LEVEL OF EDUCATION AND MAJOR ISLANDS, 1980 CENSUS DATA Population type Major island Indonesia and education Other level Sumatra Java Kalimantan Sulawesi Islancls Urban Rural Recent Migrants (O - 4 years) No Schooling 17.97 8.72 19.50 17.18 11.73 8.10 18.82 Primary School 65.34 51.17 54.73 57.49 52.17 49.85 63.89 Junior High School 7.81 15.80 11.70 10.21 15.07 16.23 8.37 Senior High School & above 8.85 24.27 14.06 15.10 20.99 25.79 8.88 Do not know 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.0.2 0.04 0.03 0.04 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Non-Migrants No Schooling 16.34 30.32 30.02 28.04 36.32 14.82 31.72 Primary School 71.63 61.26 61.56 61.14 55.94 61.29 62.87 Junior -High School 7.53 4.89 5.25 6.18 4.50 13.53 3.35 Senior High Schoo:L & above 4.48 3.51 3.14 4.62 3.21 10.34 2.04 Do not know 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.02 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Total Populati-on No Schooling 18.51 29.58 29.82 27.36 35.42 14.27 31.56 Primary School 69.37 61.10 60.22 60.89 55.69 58.38 62.66 Junior High School 7.29 5.68 5.85 6.49 4.94 14.11 3.50 Senior High School & above 4.81 3.62 4.09 5.24 3.92 13.22 2.25 Do not know 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.02 0.03 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 - 20 - Table 3.4: PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF MIGRANT, NON MIGRANT AND TOTAL WORK FORCE BY SECTOR OF ACTIVITY AND MAJOR ISLANDS, 1980 CENSUS DATA Type of Major islands Indonesia population Other and sector Sumatra Java Kalimantan Sulawesi Islands Urban Rural Recent Migrants (O - 4 years) Agriculture 62.60 5.74 39.30 53.28 20.48 2.27 60.20 Mining, manufacturing and construction 10.93 22.56 15.78 12.76 11.10 20.83 13.10 Services 25.77 70.51 44.28 33.51 67.38 75.76 25.98 Not Classified 0.70 1.19 0.64 0.45 1.04 1.14 0.72 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 Non Migrants Agriculture 68.91 53.59 72.50 62.46 65.40 11.26 66.81 Mining, manufacturing and construction 8.04 14.62 7.64 11.71 12.61 21.21 11.42 Services 22.48 31.13 19.42 25.71 21.51 66.68 21.20 Not classified 0.57 0.66 0.43 0.58 0.48 0.86 0.57 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ;00.00 100.00 All Workers Agricuture 67.99 50.43 68.64 61.26 63.68 9.30 66.84 Mining, manufacturing and construction 8.31 14.95 8.30 11.34 12.48 20.64 11.28 Services 23.13 33.93 22.61 26.82 23.34 69.17 21.30 Not classified 0.57 0.69 0.45 0.58 0.50 0.89 0.58 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 .100.00 Occupational Types 3.09 Among the migrants to rural areas, 60% are farm workers, while urban migrants are largely white collar workers (Table 3.5). The characteristics of migrants to Java suggest that they are largely destined for urban areas. As shown in Table 3.5, Javanese in-migrants consist mainly of "white collar" workers (35%), "blue collar" workers (29%), and "service" workers (26%). In Sumatra, Kalimantan, Sulawesi and the other islands migrants are mostly farm workers. - 21 - Table 3.5 PERCENTAGE DISTRIBUTION OF MIGRANT, NON-MIGRANT AND TOTAL WO1RKERS BY OCCUPATIONAL TYPE AND MAJOR ISLAiNDS, 1980 CENSUS DATA Type of Major islands Indonesia Population Other and Occupation Sumatra Java Kalimantan Sulawesi Islands Urban Rural Recent Migrants (O - 4 years) White Collar 15.57 35.14 22.21 22.94 42.99 38.38 15.69 Service Workers 4.39 26.33 9.69 3.71 10.47 26.25 4.86 Farm Workers 62.48 5.61 38.34 52.53 20.41 2.20 59.82 Blue Collar 15.40 28.55 25.86 18.26 20.19 28.79 16.97 Not classified 2.16 4.37 3.90 2.56 5.94 4.38 2.66 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100,00 100.00 Non Migrants White Collar 14.13 20.03 12.61 16.86 14.04 40.64 14.03 Service Workers 2.93 4.21 2.36 2.36 2.86 10.28 2.52 Farm Workers 68.49 53.63 71.86 61.8'3 65.37 11.08 66.73 Blue Collar 13.30 20.86 12.07 17.62 16.71 35.30 15.77 Not classified 1.15 1.27 1.10 1.27 1.02 2.70 0.95 Total .lOO.0O 100.00 100.00 100.0() 100.00 100,00 100.00 All Workers White Collar 14.56 21.64 14.17 17.66 15.26 42.12 14.06 Service Workers 3.10 4.99 3.01 2.52. 3.01 11.63 2.57 Farm Workers 67.60 50.46 67.97 60.68 63.64 9.12 66.74 Blue Collar 13.43 21.36 13.25 17.67 16.79 33.69 15.60 Not classified 1.31 1.55 1.60 1.47 1.29 3.44 1.03 Total 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00C 100.00 100.00 100.00 Family and Individual Migration 3.10 Among the 3.2 million recent migrants, 1.9 million fall into family or household groups (Table 3.6), with the remaining 1.3 million moving as individuals. Household migration constitutes a greater proporation of rural than urban migration. Of the 1.6 million persons moving into urban areas, household migration was about half. Of the 1.6 million who moved into rural areas, nearly three quarters moved in household groups. Among the 0.7 million who moved to Jakarta, 0.4 million moved as ind:ividuals. Detailed tabulations on the relationship of the different in-migrants are provided in Appendix 2. - 22 - Table 3.6: FAMILY AND NON-FAMILY MIGRATION, 1980 CENSUS DATA Migrating household heads Non migrating household heads Region Household Population Household Population Heads Total Moved Others Heads Total Moved Others Indonesia: Total Totals in thousands 609 2,413 1,881 532 29,502 141,569 1,275 140,294 Average per household 1 3.96 3.09 0.87 1 4.80 0.04 4.76 Indonesia: Urban Totals in thousands 267 974 741 233 5,898 30,757 836 29,921 Average per household 1 3.65 2.78 0.87 1 5.21 0.14 5.07 Indonesia: Rural Totals in thousands 341 1,439 1,140 299 23,604 110,812 439 110,373 Average per household 1 4.22 3.34 0.88 1 4.69 0.02 4.67 DKI Jakarta Totals in thousand 107 360 290 70 1,097 5,856 435 5,421 Average per household 1 3.36 2.71 0.65 1 5.34 0.40 4.94 /a Recent migrants, with less than 5 years duration. Migration Typologies 3.11 The Census data on province of birth, province of current residence, and duration of residence could be used to construct certain migration typolc- gies, as indicated in Table 3.7. The system in Table 3.7 provides a conve- nient mechanism to describe mobility patterns by region (See Table 3.8 below). 3.12 The general typology of migration is summarized in Table 3.8. The overwhelming majority of the population, 84.2% in urban areas and 95.6% in rural areas, have not moved boyond the boundaries of their province of birth. However, urban residents are 3.6 times more likely than rural resi- dents (15.8% to 4.4%) to have made an interprovincial move of some type. Another less dramatic but consistent pattern is that males are more likely to have made some type of interprovincial move than females. This is true in both urban and rural areas. Return migration and circular migration prevail in relation to both urban and rural areas, though they are not of much numerical significance. - 23 - Table 3.7: STRUCTURE OF MIGRATION 1'YPOLOGIES Province Patterns of Pattern At Birth Fivre Years Previous At time of Code Ago (1975) 0-2 years census (1980) Non migrants 1 X X X X One step migrants 2 x x x y One step migrants 3 X X Y Y One step migrants 4 X Y Y Y Two step migrants 5 X X Y Z Two step migrants 6 X Y Y Z Two step migrants 7 X Y z z Continuing migrants 8 X Y Z W Return migrants 9 X Y X X Return migrants 10 X Y Y X Return migrants 11 X Y z x Return migrants 12 X X Y X Circular migrants 13 X Y X Y Circular migrants 14 X Y x z Circular migrants 15 x Y x Y Not classifieid 16 --- Missing informatio … ---------- X = Province at birth. Y = Province different from province at birtlh. Z = Province different from province at birtlh and province of residence in 1975. W = Province different from province at birth, from province of residence in 1975 and from province of previous residence during the last two years. Tabl.e 3.8: PERUE DISTRUION CUF POPLATON BY MGRATION TPLOGY, URBAN AND RURAL RESIDENCE ND SE1, 1980 CENUS DATA Residence Non- OCne step Tw-Step Continuing Return Circular Not and sex migrants migrants migrants migrants migrants migrants classified Total Urban 84.2 14.0 0.4 0.0 /a 1.1 0.2 0.1 100.0 Yale 83.3 14.6 0.5 o.o 7T 1.2 0.2 0.1 99.9 /b Female 85.0 13.4 0.4 0.0 Ta 1.0 0.2 0.1 100.1 /b Rural 95.6 3.7 0.1 0.0 0.5 0.0 /a 0.0 /a 99.0 /b Male 95.2 4.1 0.1 0.0 0.6 0.1 /a 0.0 /a 100.1 Female 96.1 3.4 0.1 0.0 /a 0.4 O.x7; 0.0T7 100.0 /a Less than 0.01%. /b Totals may not equal 100% due to rounding. - 24 - Table 3.9: NON-MIGRANTS AND MIGRANTS BY HOUSEHOLD SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSIFICATION, 1980 CENSUS DATA Region and classification Total Non Percent of of household head population migrants Migrants migrants in ('000) ('000) ('000) each category Urban Areas Non-agricultural Non-professional own account workers 10,079 8,747 1,332 13.3 White collar employees 5,896 4,584 1,312 22.3 Lower level clerical, sales, and service workers 2,333 1,898 435 18.7 Manual Workers 5,937 5,016 921 15.5 Above 4 categories as % of total population 82.2 81.5 85.6 - Total Population /a 29,508 24,835 4,673 15.8 Rural Areas Agricultural Operators: Food Crops Owning less than 0.25 ha 20,383 19,669 714 3.5 0.25-0.50 ha 11,246 10,938 308 2.7 0.50-1.00 ha 10,188 9,700 488 4.8 0.01-2.00 ha 6,384 5,766 618 9.7 Greater than 2 ha 3,281 3,006 275 8.4 Agricultural Operators: Fisheries 2,003 1,944 59 3.0 Other Agricultural Operators owning less than 0.25 ha 3,506 3,381 125 3.6 over 0.25 ha 4,120 3,867 253 6.1. Agricultural employees 10,011 9,738 273 2.3 Non-agricultural, non-professional own account workers 18,772 18,129 643 3.4 White collar employees 5,002 4,671 331 6.6 Manual workers 6,482 6,189 293 4.5 Above 11 categories population as % of total 95.7 95.8 93.6 Total population Ia 105,971 101,294 4,677 4.4 /a Excluding the population related to inactive household heads. - 25 - Households By Soc:Lo-Economic Classification 3.13 As part of the 1980 census, a classification was developed which enabled the cross-tabulation of household migration patterns by socio-economic classificaion of households. Detailed tables are provided in Appendix 2. A summary for the pr-incipal (numerically large) urban and rural socio-economic groups is given in Table 3.9. Within urban areas, in-migrants are more likely to be white-collar and other service sector workers. Migration to rural areas is dependent on land availability. Large land owners include a higher proportion of migrants than smaller land owenrs. Other than this, the proba- bility of in-migration to rural areas seems t:o be about equal in all other socio-economic categories. - 26 - CHAPTER 4 DETERMINANTS OF MIGRATION Introduction 4.01 Individuals and families move away from their birth places for a variety of reasons. Migration from small to large towns and rural to urban areas results largely from the so-called push/pull factors, i.e., those fac- tors which make smaller towns and rural areas less attractive than large towns and urban areas. Principal among these are better educational and employment opportunities. Jakarta, rather than Bogor and Bogor, rather than the villages of West Java, offer better opportunities for the educated, the skilled and the enterprising. 4.02 However, economic factors alone can seldom account fully for migration patters. An ESCAP study /5 of migration mentioned socio-cultural. factors also as important determinants of Indonesian inter-provincial migration. Some ethnic groups in Indonesia are habitual migrants, and for these people, it is normal to spend part of their life outside the village of their birth. Specifically these include the Minangkabau people of West Sumatra, Acehnese and Bataks of the northern part of Sumatra, Rotinese of NTT, Banjarese of South Kalimantan and the Bugis of South Sulawesi. In all probability, such migration is very localized and intra- rather than inter- provincial and from a policy point of view is probably not significant. In any case, the Census data are hardly adequate to assess the significance of socio-cultural factors. 4.03 The ESCAP study mentioned above also discusses the relevance of economic and other factors in explaining migration patterns. One important observation of the study is worth quoting: "The bulk of field studies conduc- ted into population mobility in Indonesia which have asked migrants why they have moved and examined the context of migration decision making have produced findings which confirm the dominance of the economic factors."/6 Economic factors such as higher income, better infrastructure, and opportunities for advancement are largely the result of development differentials between regions which reflect earlier locational decisions regarding public and pri- vate investment. Initial investments attract a stream of migrants; the resulting economic differentials in turn attract more migrants, particularLy from the lagging regions. Thus, metropolitan Jakarta and some of the Outer Island provinces, which have been the leading areas for enterprises and extractive industries since the Dutch Colonial days, have probably attracted the largest inflows of capital and people alike. /5 ESCAP, Migration, Urbanization and Development in Indonesia, New York; U.N., 1981, pp. 106-110. This publication has a particularly rich bibliography on migration studies. /6 ESCAP, op.cit., p.108. - 27 - 4.04 Infrequently, migration may result from neither cultural nor economic forces, but from policitical upheavels and local insiecurity, causing otherwise settled people to become refugees. Finally, official intervention, such as the transmigration program, may influence population shifts. Determinants of Inter-provincial Migration 4.05 As noted earlier, migration between neighboring prorinces is much more frequent than between the major islands. In In,donesia, as in many devel- oping countries, intra-provincial and circular migration is an important phenomenon,/7 but since the Government's primary concern is to encourage a more balanced population distribution between Java and the Outer Islands, the priority should be to isolate and study the determinants of inter-provincial migration, which is more relevant for policy formulation. 4.06 Results of multiple regression anaLysis: Multiple regression analysis was employed to test the association between economic and demographic indicators and the rate of net migration./8 This exercise has certain limitations which should be borne in mind. The observed units are provinces and not individuals or families. The economijc indicators are not exhaustive, but based on accessibility of data, rather than economic behavioral considera- tions. Finally, they refer only to a point in time, namely 1980. The indica- tors considered are: provincial per capita GDP, the rate of transmigration, population density, share of agriculture in provincial GDP, share of exports in provincial GDP, and provincial poverty incidence. 4.07 The choice of variables was based cn common sense. Positive influences which would encourage net in-migration would include higher income per capita, higher transmigration rates, lower population density, lower share of agriculture, greater export orientation and lower poverty incidence. The results for six regressions are given in Table 4.1. The economic and demographic i:ndic: ltors considered here could account for 58% al: most of pro- vincial variation in net migration rates,/9 and thus other fact:ors, not con- sidered here,D would also have a significant impact on the migration rate. The coefficients of transmigration and per capita GDP have expected signs. /7 See Graeme J. Hugo, Population Mobility in West Java, Gajah Mada University Press, Yogyakarta, 1981. Hugo's summary observation on circular migration in West Java is: "Circular mobility is a recurrent feature in West Javan history, although it has undergone considerable modification over time. In precolonial times most West Javans were shifting agriculturists engaging in highLy localized circulation and even after the changeover to sedentary wet rice cultivation, temporary move- ments outside the village to harvest crops or to trade were common. Colonial rule resulted in many West Javans leaving their villages to work for limited periods on plantations or in cities. Thus two distinct concepts of personal mobility encapsulated in thes words: merantau and pindah have evolved and persisted into the post-Independece period." /8 Net life--time migration as percent of 1971 population. /9 The rate is positive when there is net inflow into a province and negative for net outflow. - 28 - Population density and share of agriculture do not have the expected signs; but these are not difficult to explain in the Indonesian context. There is a spurious positive relation between density and net migration, resulting from the combination of out-migration from the provinces in Java, other than DKI Jakarta and in-migration into DKI Jakarta. Similarly, in regard to the share of agriculture in GDP, there are provinces which receive migrants through the transmigration program, which wrongly suggests a positive relation between the agricultural share and the net migration rates. 4.08 Two important observations emerge from Table 4.1: the stable and significant association between the rates of transmigration and net migration, and the weaker but still positive relation between provincial income and net migration. These in turn can be attributed to the high level of net out- migration from the relatively poor provinces of Java and the net in-migration, both voluntary and officially sponsored, into Sumatran provinces. The Role of Transmigration 4.09 In the absence of officially sponsored transmigration, there would probably be two major population flows in Indonesia - into Jakarta and out of the rest of Java. From Java, the major shift would have been to Sumatra. However, the movement from Sumatra to Jakarta would have more than compensated the voluntary inflow into Sumatra. Jakarta would experience a net gain deu to in-migration from the rest of Java and other islands. Government sponsored transmigration did not and could not halt the voluntary outflows from the Outer islands; however, it has balanced these with inflows to the Outer islands, and outflows from Java, despite substantial net inflow into Jakarta. 4.10 Growth of Transmigration Areas: Appendix 3 has a list of the trans- migration project sites and the settlers by site listed by year of settle- ment. The kecamatan, kabupaten and province of each transmigration site is also given. Based on this information, an attempt is made to identify some of the relatively large sites contributing significantly (around 25%) to the population of the kecamatans in which the sites are located. The population sizes of such kecamatans and their kabupatens are also given in Appendix 3. From that, the population growth rates for transmigrant receiving kecamatans, kabupatens and provinces are computed and the information is provided in Table 4.2. The table shows, albeit in a crude way, the rate of diffusion of the demographic impact of transmigration assuming that transmigration does tend to attract some voluntary migration. Some general observations can be made from - 29 - Table 4.1: RESULTS OF MULTIP'LE REGRESSIONS OF SELECTED PROVINCIAL INDICATORS ON NEI' MIGRATIOtI Independent Partial regression coefficients in six regressions Variable I II III 'IV V VI Provincial per capita GDP (Rp'000) 9.793 Transmigrantfion rate (%) 2.586/a 2.546/a 2.351/a 2.366/a 2.899/a 2.877/a Population density ('000 persons) 4.053/a 6.149/a 6.262/a 6.655/a 6.395/a 6.424 /a Share of agriculture in GDP (%) 0.535 0.477 0.564 0.572 0.600 /b Exports to GDP ratio (%) 0.169 0.099 Poverty incidlence (%) 0.223 Log of per capita GDP 5.021 7.907 2.307 10.982/a 11.386 lb Log of poverty incidence 6.309 R2 0.479 0.552 0.563 0.574 0.580 0.587 R2 0.408 0.467 0.454 0.468 0.475 0.483 /a Significant at 5% level. /b Significant at 10% level. Note on independent variables: Seve!ral provincial social and economic infrastructure indicators (e.g., cinemas, state roads, all roads etc., per capita) were included in the regressions (not reported here), but the results were of litr,le significance. - 30 - Table 4.2. Most kecamatans receiving transmigrants have very high population growth rates, a fact that is not surprising since the kecamatans have been so selected as to have a significant transmigrant population. As against the high demographic impact at the kecamatan level, the impact is not always high at the kabupaten and the provincial level, as the measures in Table 4.3 (derived from Table 4.2) indicate. While most kabupatens have population growth rates close to half the respective kecamatan growth rates, there are some important exceptions such as the kabupatens in West Sumatra, North Sulawesi, Central Sulawesi and South Sulawesi. Provincial demographic growth rates in most parts of Sumatra are over a third of the respectiv kecamatan growth rates. West Sumatra and the provinces of Kalimantan and Sulawesi are the exceptions. It is clear that official transmigration does not uniformly contribute to kabupaten/province demographic growth rates. Another way of putting the same observation is that transmigration receiving provinces are not always equally attractive to generate secondary voluntary migration. The Transmigration Policy: Some Issues 4.11 The principal policy issues concerning migration are clearly those relating to the government's transmigration program, the ultimate objective of which is to move 12 to 13 of Java's 90 million people to the Other Islands. There are a number of emerging problems. Program costs have been increas- ing,/10 reflecting partly the difficulty of finding suitable land for trans- migration. Soon Sumatra will be closed to further transmigration, after which Kalimantan, Sulawesi and Irian Jaya will become the principal transmigration areas. But, the data in Tables 4.2 and 4.3 suggest that these regions have been basically unattractive to settlers in the past, which raises doubts about their long-term prospects for successful transmigration./11 The ESCAP study on migration comments on socio-cultural difficulties which may arise in con-- nection with transmigration: "In South Sulawesi, for example, there was considerable resentment that poor indigenous farmers were not eligible for the financial and other assistance available to transmigrants from Java and Bali."/12 The key question for future transmigration, however, relates to land availability. It is often stated that some 48 million ha may be available in the Outer Islands, but the accuracy of these estimates, in the absence of reliable land-use and land potential data is open to serious doubt. The ESCAP study notes that "A fundamental fact which must be clearly established in any /10 Average cost per settler family increased from $538 in 1969/70 to $7,835 in 1978/79. See World Bank, Indonesia: Transmigration Program Review, April 2, 1981, Volume II, p. 29. /11 There is considerable out-migration from Sulawesi thus pointing to the region's push factors out-weighting any pull factors. /12 ESCAP, op.cit. p. 146. - 31 - Table 4.2: 1971-80 POPULATION GROWTH RATES OF TRANSMIGRANT RECEIVING PROVINCES, KABUPATENS AND KECAMATANS 1971-80 overal population growth 1980 raLtes (%) Province Provincial Province TrarLsmigrant Transmigrant Population as a receiving receiving ('000) while kabu.patens /a Kecamatans/a D.I. Aceh 2,608 29.8 31.3 (2) 61.6 (2) West Sumatra 3,402 21.8 39.2 (1) 131.6 (1) Riau 2,163 31.7 33.3 (3) 45.6 (3) Jambi 1,440 43.1 51.6 (1) 107.2 (1) South Sumatra, 4,621 34.2 36.5 (3) 64.4 (3) Bengkulu 768 48.0 73.4 (1) 159.7 (1) Lampung 4,622 66.4 89.9 (1) /b (3) Central Kalimantan 950 35.7 122.8 (1) 132.6 (1) South Kalimantan 2,069 21.8 42.8 (2) 81.2 (2) East Kalimantan 1,219 66.1 141.8 (1) 264.4 (1) North Sulawesi 2,091 21.7 23.1 (1) 127.5 (1) Central Sulawesi 1,289 41.0 46.6 (2) 142.4 (2) South Sulawesi 6,054 16.7 54.5 (1) 173.7 (1) Southeast Sulawesi 943 32.1 6l.4 (1) 108.0 (1) /a Figures in brackets refer to the number of kabupaten/kecamatan. 7FW New kecamnatans; large growth rates are implied. Source: See Appendix 3, Table 2 (Appendix 3, Table 1, providets a list of all setitlements by province, kabupaten and kecarnatan). - 32 - Table 4.3 RATIOS OF 1971-1980 POPULATION GROWTH RATES FOR DIFFERENT LEVELS OF REGIONS RECEIVING TRANSMIGRANTS Province Ratio of kabupaten Ratio of provincial to kecamatan to kecamatan population growth population rates growth rates D.I. Aceh 0.51 0.49 West Sumatra 0.30 /a 0.17 /a Riau 0.73 0.70 Jambi 0.48 0.40 South Sumatra 0.57 0.53 Bengkulu 0.46 0.30 Lampung n.a. n.a. Central Kalimantan 0.93 0.27 South Kalimantan 0.53 0.27 East Kalimantan 0.54 0.25 North Sulawesi 0.18 /a 0.17 /a Central Sulawesi 0.33 /ia 0.29 7-a South Sulawesi 0.31 Ia 0.10 Ia Southeast Sulawesi 0.57 0.30 /a Low ratios (less than 0.40 for the kabupaten to kecamatan ratio). discussion of transmigration is that the carrying capacity of the Outer Islands is limited and is often the subject of considerable exaggeration."/13 4.12 Critics suggest that transmigration is not yet an integral part cf overall regional development strategy. Arndt and Sundrum, for instance, voiced concern that "Integration of transmigration into regional development has largely remained an abstract aspiration."/14 They recommend that the transmigration program should "aim at ensuring an adequate supply of labor for regional development outside as well as in agriculture; serve as a catalyst for regional development by using labor from Java to remove the obstacles to regional development and to mobility of labor arising from inadequate infra-- structure; and offer migrants, both officially sponsored transmigrants and voluntary migrants, opportunities for employment as wage earners rather than as smallholders."/15 The recent (June 1983) announcement by the chief of BIKPM /13 ESCAP, op.cit. p. 146. /14 H.W. Arndt and R.M. Sundrum, "Transmigration: Land Settlement or RegionalDevelopment?" B.I.E.S., November 1977, pp. 72-90. - 33 - that private estates will be permitted to be opened in Kalimantan and Irian Jaya is thus an encouraging development. 4.13 Costs, administrative and managerial problems, availability of land and related factors are one set of constraints. Other constraints relate to the personal preferences of potential migrants. Table 4.4 sketches motiva- tional factors for two villages in Yogyakarta. In each village, the average size of a family's land holding was less than 0.2 ha, and thus it is not surprising that almost 20% of the population wanted to migrate. However, the availability of sufficient cultivable land did not appear to be a significant motivating factor, as only 10-15% listed this among tlheir preferences. These people may be considered potential transmigranLts. If these percentages are applied to rural Java as a whole, 1.6 to 2.4 million people, at most, less than half a million families would be willing transmigrants. The improvements in transmigration wielfare during the past few years must have created a better market for transmigration than indicated by the above number. Despite this, those who positively prefer to transmigrate would represent only a small proportion of Java'is rural population. Table 4.4: POTENTIAL MIGRANTS AND THEIR MIGRATION PREFERENCES, DATA FROM TWO YOGYAKARTA HAMLETS, 1975 Characteristic Kadirojo Piring hamlet hamlet Number who do not want to move 137 147 Number who want to taove 22 40 Preference of place by characteristic (%) (%) Relatives or friends present 54.6 47.5 Job opportunities exist 22.7 17.5 Sufficient land for farming 9.1 15.0 Place known 4.6 10.0 Not too far off 9.1 10.0 Total 100.C 100.0 Source: Ida Bagus MaLntra, Population Movements in Wet-Rice Communities,Yogyakarta: Gajah Mada University Press, 1981. 4.14 To increase migration from Java to the Outer Islands will require additional spontaneous migration, with or without official aid. As for gov- ernment sponsored transmigration, it must be recognized that "Village people are reluctant to settle in places where there are no friends or relatives and /15 Ibid, p. 77. - 34 - about which they have little information"; and in order to assist the process of transmigration, "The Government ought to reinstitute the method that the Dutch used by which migrants successfully settled in Sumatra were encouraged to visit their natal communities and explain to them the recent improvement in their economic position."/16 Voluntary migration will be possible if specific growth centers and agricultural resettlement areas are developed in the Outer Islands. In addition, efficient low-cost transportation could facilitate links between Java and the Outer Islands. Other Policies 4.15 In addition to transmigration, the only other policy with a direct bearing on migration/17 is the regulation of entry into a particular area. Legislation in 1970 made Jakarta a "closed city."/18 In the mid-1970s, the Governor of Bali promulgated a decree restricting migration into Bali. Such restrictions, of course, were never effective. The long-term solution is, of course, not in the imposition of restrictions, but in the development of sparsely populated areas to attract the potential migrants, /16 Ida Bagus Mantra, Population Movement in Wet-Rice Communities, Yogyakarta:Gajah Mada University, 1981, p. 175. /17 Here, the reference is to migration policies and not general economic and social policies affecting migration. For instance, policies on indus-- trial location may influence migration relatively more heavily than a specific policy restricting or favoring migration. /18 See ESCAP, op.cit., for a summary of measures taken by the Jakarta government to reduce the inflow of people into Jakarta. - 35 - CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND SUGGESTIONS FOR FURTHER STUDY Summary 5.01 Data from the 1961, 1971 and 1980 Censuses show that t:here has been a slight shift in population from Java to Sumatra. Java's share in total population declined from 65% in 1961 to 62% in 1980. During the same period, Sumatra's share incr-eased from 16% to 19%. By 1971, there were 5.7 million persons (or 5% of thte 1971 population) living away from their provinces of birth. By 1980, close to 10 million persons accounting for 6.8% of the population were living away from their provinces of birth. Sumatra and Jakarta experienced the gretest net in-migration through 1971. The principal net losers were West Sumatra, Java except Jakarta, and South Sulawesi. The most frequent migration patterns were from Java (other than Jakarta) to Lampung (a well-known area for transmigration settlements), from Sumatra and other Outer Islands to Jakarta, and between neLghboring provinces. 5.02 There are no major differences in the broad patterns of inter- provincial migration between 1971 and 1980, bul: the volume of migration differed in some cases. In most provinces of Sumatra, in-migration increased between 1971 and 1980. In-migration to Jakarta remained about the same, with 40% of its population in 1971 and 1980, classii'ied as migrants. Migrants from West Java to Jakarta declined proportionately between 1971 and 1980, as migra- tion from other provinces to Jakarta has increased in recent years. North and West Sumatrans continued to move to Jakarta as in the past. Kalimantan and Sulawesi had absorbed more people by 1980, compared to 1971, largely indicat- ing the shift in the geographical focus of the transmigration program. 5.03 Inter-provincial migrants numbered 5.7 million persons by 1971 and 10 million persons by 1980; the inter-island migrants numbered 2.8 through 1971 and 5.3 million through 1980. Inter-island migration amounted to 2.4% of the population by 1971 and 3.6% by 1980. It was found that 93% of the people moving to Sumaltra by 1971 and 94% by 1980 had been born on Java. Sumatra was the destination for 80% of migrants leaving Java, but due mostly to transmi- gration programs, an increasing number also settled in Kalimantan and Sulawesi. The net inter-island movement during 1971-80 was 2.5 million persons, of which transmigration programs accounted for 1.0 million, or 40% of the total. Without the transmigration program, the net: outflow :Lrom Java would have been 0.7 million persons during 1971-80, of which 0.6 million went to Sumatra. Thus vo:Luntary migration basically compris;es two simple flows: from Java to Sumatra, and from all the Outer Islands irnto Java. Transmi- gration into Sulawesii has apparently not always been permanent; t:ransmigration data indicate movemernt of some 0.2 million people, whereas Census data show only 0.1 million, suggesting that some transmigrants moved elsewhere. 5.04 Migrants have characteristics distinct from non-migrants. The age composition of migrants consistently shows a smaller percentage of very young - 36 - and very old people. Over 55% of recent migrants to urban areas were in the 10 to 24 years age group, in contrast to 39% of the migrants to rural areas, and 30% of the non-migrant rural population. About 56% of the migrants to urban areas were single, compared to 39% of migrants to the rural areas. Of those who moved to rural areas, 17.3% had junior or senior high school edu- cation (compared to 5.4% for non-migrants); however, over 40% of migrants to urban areas had junior or senior high school education. The majority of mig- rants to urban areas (76%) worked in the service sector; most of those who moved to rural areas (60%) worked in the agricultural sector. The charac- teristics of migrants to Java corresponded to urban in-migrants, and the characteristics of migrants to the Outer Islands corresponded to rural mig- rants. 5.05 Rural migration mainly occured in the context of household units, whereas more than 60% of in-migrants into Jakarta moved as individuals. With regard to duration of residence, census data indicate that among urban in- migrants, 36% of males and 38% of females had migrated within the previous 5 years. For rural in-migrants, these percentages were 42% for males and 40% for females. 5.06 Social, cultural and economic factors affect migration flows. Historically, some regions like Jakarta and Sumatra have developed faster and thus attracted more migration. Multiple regression analysis was applied to selected variables to test which factors could explain inter-provincial mig- ration. The chosen parameters could explain only 58% of the variation. The coefficients of the rate of transmigration and GDP per capita had significant association with migration. 5.07 The role of transmigration has been considered in some detail. Government sponsored transmigration into Sumatra and other Outer Islands did not and could not arrest migration from these regions to Java (especially Jakarta). However, in the absence of transmigration, there would probably have been only urban growth, with hardly any migration between rural areas.. The demographic impact of transmigration has been analysed by matching the census and transmigration data. The demographic impact was substantial at the kecamatan level. The impact varied at the kabupaten and province levels. Sulawesi appears to have had the least impact at the kabupaten and provincial level. 5.08 In implementing its transmigration policy, the government is likely to face increasing costs, lack of suitable land and declining numbers of willing transmigrants. Some village studies indicate that potential migralts have strong location preferences. Prospects for future migration from Java to the Outer Islands could be improved through development strategies that would promote wage employment in the Outer Islands. Suggestions for Further Study 5.09 An important area for further study is the identification of motivating factors in migration decisions. An excellent study along these - 37 - lines was conducted in two hamlets of Yogyakarta (Kadirojo and Piring) in 1975./23 Sizeable benefits can be obtained by replicating such studies in a dozen or more villages. A parallel effort would be clesirable ito assess the growth patterns andl problems of the possible transmigrant receiving areas, such as Sulawqesi. One important topic for detailed study is the question of inter-city differentials in migration patterns. A rich body of 1980 census data exist-s that can be exploited. /23 Ida Bagus Mantra, op.cit. - 38 - ANNEX 2: PART Il POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AMM POPULATION PROJECTIONS - 39 - CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1.01 UsLng the data from the 1971 and 1980 censuses of Indonesia, this paper summarizes the current demographic situation of the proviinces in Indonesia, and projects their most likely trend of population growth for the remainder of this century. The focus on the provinces rather t:han on the country as a whole is useful from a policy analysis point of view, since Indonesia is characterized by wide regional variations in demographic characteristics. 1.02 Between 1971 and 1980, Indonesia's population growth rate was 2.3% p.a., up slightly from 2.1% that prevailed between 1961-71. With the exception of Jakarta and West Java, high growth rates were concentrated in the provinces of the Outer Islands. Since the sources of growth have different effects on age structure, the growth rates of the provinces were decomposed into their basic demographic components of natural increase and migration. 1.03 Migration contributed significantly to the growth of Jakarta and the provinces, targeted for transmigration schemes, such as Jambi, Bengkulu, and Central and Eastern Kalimantan in the Outer Islands. For the majority of the provinces however, ithe growth rates reflected differences between fertility and mortality. Rates of natural increase were higher in the Outer Islands than in Java-Bali. Although fertility declined in the mid-70s Ln all the provinces, the most substantial declines were in Java--Bali, which already had lower fertility than the Outer Islands in the early 70s. Morta:lity showed no such regional differentials, although there is considerable interprovincial variation. All the provinces except West NusatenggaraL experienced mortality declines in the intercensal period; nevertheless, mortality continued to be high in almost: all the provinces. 1.04 In an attempt to assess the implications of the recent: demographic trends for thei provinces, provincial populations were projected up to the year 2000. Fertility and mortality were assumed to decline further in line with official population policy. Migration patterns observed between 1975-80 were, however, held constant up to the year 2000. The anticipated fertility decline would exert a downward pressure on dependency ratios. A corollary of this would be a decline in the proportion of the prLmary and junior school aged population relative to the total population of the provinces. In the short run, however, the provincial governments face a serious problem in providing educational opportunities at the secondary level to those who seek such opportunities and assuring employment to the growing work force. - 40 - CHAPTER 2 THE DEMOGRAPHIC SITUATION Population Distribution 2.01 A characteristic feature of Indonesia's demography :is the uneven distributioni of its population. In 1980, Java-Madura and Bal:i supported 63.6% of Indonesia's 147.4 million people on approximately 7.0% of the nation's land area. An analysis of the pattern of population distribution between Indonesia's major regions indicates that these wide disparities are a conse- quence of th.e reality of ecological differences, especially irn soil, which influences their relative capacities for sustained cultivation of food./1 For instance, the close relationship between fooil production and population density is illustrated in Table 2.1, which shows the near equality of the regional distributions of population and food1 production. Table 2.1: DISTRIBUTION OF RICE FPRODUCTION AND POPULATION BY MAJOR REGIONS Region Percentage share of Percentage of rice production total population 1980 1980 Java/Madura 61.0 61.9 Sumatra 21.0 19.0 Kalimantan 5.2 4.6 Sulawesi 7.2 7.1 Other Islands 5.6 7.4 Source: Central Bureau of Statistics /1 Fisher, C.A. "Economic Myth and Geographical Reality in Indonesia", Modern Asian Studies, 1:55-189, 1967; See also Geertz, C. Agricultural Involution: The Processs of Ecological Change in Indonesia (Berkeley, Universilty of California Press), 1963. - 41 - 2.02 The highest population density is in Java and Bali (Table 2.2), where it exceeds 400 persons per square kilometer. Among the Outer Islands, Lampung and West Nusateggara have population densities which are between those of Java-Bali and the remaining provinces of the Outer Islands. Because of their proximity to West Java and Bali respectively, both these provinces have developed rice cultivation methods similar to those of the Java. Among the remaining Outer Islands, the least densel -settled areas are the "frontier" provinces of Irian Jaya (3 p Irsons per km ), and Central and Eastern Kalimantan (6 persons per km each). 2.03 With the exception of Jakarta which has shown a consistent tendency to increase its share of the national population, there has been a trend over the past 50 years for the population share of Java-Bali provinces to decline. (Table 2.3). Between 1930 and 1980, the share of the population residing in Java-Bali declined from 70.5 to 63.6%. The provinces of East and Central Java experienced the most substantial declines in their share of Indonesia's total population. Between 1930 and 1980, their share declined by 10 percentage points from 47.3 to 37%. 2.04 Over the period 1930-80, Sumatra's share in total population increased from 13% to 19%. Within Sumatra, the provinces of Jambi, South Sumatra and Lampung have increased their population shares to a relatively large extent, especially during 1971-80. Among the other regions, provinces that recorded significant gains in their share of the populaton over the intercensal periods between 1930-80 are East Kalimantan-and North and South Sulawesi. Population Growth 2.05 Between the periods 1951-61 and 1961-71, Indonesia's population growth rate changed marginally, from 2.0% to 2.1%. Between 1971-80, the rate increased to 2.3%. With the exception of nine provinces, all the remaining showed growth rates higher than those prevailing in the preceeding intercensal period (Table 2.4). With the exception of Jakarta and West Java in Java, which recorded a growth rate in excess of the prevailing national figure, high growth rates are concentrated in the provinces of the Outer Islands, mainly because of higher fertility levels. Some of these provinces, however, such as Lampung, Jambi, and East Kalimantan, are also the recipients of large influxes of population from Java-Bali as part of the resettlement schemes. - 42 - Table 2.2. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION BY PROVINCE, 1980 Percentage Population Percentage distribution density 1980 distribution of population (persons per of land Province/Region 1980 sq.km.) area (%) (%) Daerah Istimewa Aceh 1.77 47 2.88 North Sumatra 5.67 118 3.69 West Sumatra 2.31 68 2.59 Riau 1.47 23 4.93 Jambi 0.98 32 2.34 South Sumatra 3.14 45 5.40 Bengkulu 0.52 36 1.10 Lampung 3.14 139 1.74 Sumatra 19.00 59 24.67 DKI Jakarta 4.41 11,028 0.03 West Java 18.61 594 2.41 Central Java 17.20 742 1.78 D. I. Yogyakarta 1.87 868 0.17 East Java 19.79 609 2.50 Java 61.88 691 6.89 West Kalimantan 1.68 17 7.65 Central Kalimantan 1.85 6 7.05 South Kalimantan 1.40 55 1.96 East Kalimantan 0.83 6 10.55 Kalimantan 4.56 12 28.11 North Sulawesi 1.43 111 0.99 Central Sulawesi 0.87 18 3.63 South Sulawesi 4.11 83 3.79 Southeast Sulawesi 0.64 34 1.44 Sulawesi 7.05 55 9.85 Bali 1.67 444 0.29 West Nusa Tenaggara 1.85 135 1.05 East Nusa Teriggara 1.86 57 2.49 Maluku 0.96 19 3.88 Irian Jaya 0.79 3 21.99 Indonesia 100.0 77 100.0 Source: Central Btureau of Statistics - 43 - Table 2.3: DISTRIBUTION AND REDISTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION BY PROVINCES, 1930-80 % of total population Change in percentage of total Provinces 1930 1961 1971 1980 1930-61 1961-71 1971-80 Daerah Istimewa Aceh 1.65 1.68 1.68 1.77 0.03 0 0.09 North Sumatra 4.18 5.11 5.55 5.67 0.93 0.44 0.12 West Sumatra 3.15 2.39 2.34 2.31 -0.76 -0.56 --0.03 Riau 0.81 1.27 1.38 1.47 0.46 0.11 0.09 Jambi 0.04 0.76 0.84 0.98 0.36 0.08 0.14 South Sumatra 2.27 2.86 2.89 3.14 0.59 0.03 0.25 Bengkulu 0.42 0.42 0.44 0.52 0 0.02 0.08 Lampung 0.70 1.72 2.33 3.14 1.02 0.61 0.81 Sumatra 13.58 16.21 17.45 19.00 2.63 1.24 1.55 DKI Jakarta 0.88 3.06 3.84 4.41 2.18 0.78 0.57 West Java 17.89 18.14 18.14 18.61 0.25 0 0.47 Central Java 22.57 18.96 18.35 17.20 -3.61 -0.61 -1.15 D.I. Yogyakarta 2.57 2.31 2.09 1.87 -0.26 -0.22 -0.22 East Java 24.79 22.48 21.41 19.79 -2.31 -1.07 1.62 Java 68.70 64.95 63.83 61.88 -3.75 -1.12 -1.95 West Kalimantan 1.32 1.63 1.69 1.68 0.31 0.06 -0.01 Central Kalimantan 0.33 0.51 0.59 0.65 0.18 0.08 0.06 South Kalimantan 1.44 1.52 1.42 1.40 0.08 -0.10 -0.02 East Kalimantan 0.47 0.57 0.62 0.83 0.10 0.05 0.21 Kalimantan 3.56 4.23 4.32 4.56 0.67 0.09 0.24 North Sulawesi 1.23 1.35 1.44 1.43 0.12 0.09 -0.01 Central Sulawesi 0.64 0.71 0.77 0.87 0.07 0.06 0.10 South Sulawesi 4.43 4.65 4.34 4.11 0.22 -0.31 -0.23 Southeast Sulawesi 0.66 0.58 0.60 0.64 -0.08 0.02 0.04 Sulawesi 6.96 7.29 7.15 7.05 0.33 -0.14 -0.10 Bali 1.81 1.84 1.78 1.67 0.03 -0.06 -0.11 West Nusa Tenggara 1.67 1.86 1.85 1.85 0.19 -0.01 0 East Nusa Tenggara 2.21 2.03 1.92 1.86 -0.18 -0.11 -0.06 Maluku 0.81 0.92 0.96 0.11 0.04 Irian Jaya 0.78 0.78 0.79 0.01 Source: 1930-1971: ESCAP, Migration, Urbanization and Development in Indonesia. United Nations, New York, 1981, Table 27. - 44 - Table 2.4: GROWTH RATES BY PROVINCE, 1961-80 Growth rate Growth rate Provinces 1961-71 1971-80 Daerah Istimewa Aceh 2.14 2.93 North Sumatra 2.96 2.60 West Sumatra 1.82 2.21 Riau 2.99 3.11 Jambi 3.25 4.07 South Sumatra 2.21 3.32 Bengkulu 2.55 4.39 Lampung 5.82 5.77 DKI Jakarta 5.09 3.93 West Java 2.05 2.66 Central Java 1.70 1.64 D.I. Yogyakarta 1.02 1.10 East Java 1.55 1.49 West Kalimantan 2.07 2.31 Central Kalimnantan 3.60 3.43 South Kalimantan 1.44 2.16 East Kalimantan 2.92 5.73 North Sulawesi 2.79 2.31 Central Sulawesi 2.82 3.86 South Sulawesi 1.37 1.74 Southeast Sulawesi 2.47 3.09 Bali 1.74 1.69 West Nusa Tenggara 2.00 2.36 East Nusa Tenggara 1.55 1.95 Maluku 3.24 2.88 Irian Jaya 2.04 2.67 Indonesia 2.10 2.32 Source: 1961-71 and 1971-80: 1980 Census of Populat:ion. - 45 - Components of Population Growth 2.06 Fertility. A system of compulsory registration of vital events does not exist in Indonesia. Direct estimates of crude birth rates and other fertility indices are not available. This discussion draws on estimates of total fertility rates (TFRs) /2 for the provinces which were calculated usinlg information on children ever born and births in the 12 months preceeding the survey. Table 2.5 shows the TFRs in 1980 derived for the provinces./3 The data show that between 1967-70 and 1980, the TFR in Indonesia has fallen by 18.2%, from 5.5 to 4.5, and that declines in fertility have also occurred Ln all the provinces. The most spectacular decline was in Bali, where the TFR dropped by 38% between 1967-70 and 1980. The provinces of Java, with the exception of Jakarta, also experienced substantial fertility declines, in excess of the overall national decline. Most of these reductions are attribu- table to the successful implementation of the family planning program./4 Substantial reductions in TFR also were recorded in Sumatra even though the TFR levels were still high. In Kalimantan and Sulawesi the TFR reductions were meagre and the absolute levels of TFR were higher. /2 The total fertility rate (TFR) is the average number of children that: would be born alive to a woman (or group of women) during her lifetime if she were to pass through all her childbearing years conforming to the age-specific fertility rates of a given year. 13 Underenumeration and age mis-statements affected provincial estimates thus obtained to varying degrees, depending on the extent of the problem in these provinces. Adjustments were therefore made to these rates based on an estimated TFR of 4.5 in 1980 for Indonesia, and on past fertility trends derived from the 1971 Census, the 1976 Indonesia Fertility Survey (for Java-Bali) and the 1979 National Socio-Economic Survey. The TFR estimate derived for Irian Jaya was considered unsuitable even after adjustments; hence the TFR of Maluku, the province closest to it, was used instead. /4 In Java, around 30% of women in the reproductive age group were using contraceptives, according to the 1980 census data. In Bali the percen- tage was 50. In other regions the percentages were low - less than 20%. Note that the government family planning program was introduced first in Java-Bali in the early 70's. - 46 - Table 2.5: TOTAL FERTILITY RATES, 1967-70 and 1980, BY PROVINCE x change Provinces 1967-70 1980 in TFR Daerah Istimewa Aceh 6.2 4.9 -21.0 North Sumatra 7.0 5.3 -24.3 West Sumatra 6.1 4.9 -19.7 Riau 5.8 5.1 -12.1 Jambi 6.3 4.9 -22.2 South Sumatra 6.3 5.2 -17.5 Bengkulu 6.6 5.5 -16.7 Lampung 6.3 5.2 -17.5 DKI Jakarta 5.1 4.2 -17.6 West Java 5.9 4.6 -22.0 Central Java 5.3 4.3 -18.9 D.I. Yogyakarta 4.7 3.4 -27.7 East Java 4.7 3.4 -23.4 West Kalimantan 6.1 5.4 -11.5 Central Kalimantan 6.7 5.6 -16.4 South Kalimantan 5.4 4.3 -20.4 East Kalimantian 5.4 4.7 -13.0 North Sulawesi 6.7 6.4 -4.5 Central Sulawesi 6.4 6.1 -4.7 South SulawesL 5.6 5.4 -3.6 Southeast Sulawesi 6.4 6.1 -4.7 Bali 5.8 3.6 -37.9 West Nusa Tenggara 6.5 5.8 -10.7 East Nusa Tenggara 5.8 5.6 -3.4 Maluku 6.7 6.5 -3.0 Irian Jaya 7.1/a 6.5 -8.5 Indonesia 5.5 4.5 -18.2 /a Figure for urban areas only. Sources: 1967-70: Lee-Jay Cho, et. al. Estimates of Fertility and Mortality in Indonesia. Central Bureau of Statistics,, Jakarta. January 1976; 1980 census of Population. 1980: Estimated from the 1980 Census of Population. - 47 - 2.07 Mortality. Estimates of infant and child mortality in Indonesia are made from census and survey data on child survivorship. Table 2.6 shows the infant mortality rates and the corresponding estimates of expectation of life for each province. Compared to the wide variations in fertility, mortality differentials appear somewhat less pronounced. The lowest mortality rate was in Yogyakarta in Java and the highest level was in West Nusatenggara. In fact, mortality declined in all the provinces, except West Nusatenggara where the infant mortality rate increased from 170 to 188 per 1,000 live births in the 70's (Table 2.7). Overall, infant mortality is still very high in Indonesia; at the time of the census, 18 out of the 26 provinces had IMRs of 100 or over. 2.08 Migration. In-migrants into and out-migrants from provinces by age and sex were calculated from the 5% sample of the 1980 census on the basis of information on current residence and residence five years ago. This yielded age-sex-specific information on net migrants, aged 5 years and over. 2.09 Table 2.8 illustrates two important facts concerning migration in Indonesia, The population of Indonesia is relatively immobile; between 19/75 and 1980 only 3.5 million people aged 5 years and over comprising roughly 2.4% of the total population moved across provincial boundaries. The pattern of population movements (Table 2.8) shows two dominant streams: the first is the influx of migrants into metropolitan Jakarta and Lampung, two areas with very dissimilar economies. Metropolitan Jakarta dominates in Indonesia's urban bound migration and Lampung is the focus of settlement schemes associated with official transmigration. The second major stream is population movement out of Central and East Java. Prior to 1970, regions of Kalimantan, Maluku and Irian Jaya showed net losses of population. In recent years, mostly because the focus of transmigration shifted away from Sumatra to these areas, they showed a net gain in population between 1975-80. 2.10 Components of Population Growth. A decomposition of the provinc:ial growth rates into the two basic components of natural increase and migration is presented in Table 2.9. Migration contributed significantly to the popula- tion growth of Jambi, Bengkulu, Lampung, Cewntral and East Kalimantan, ancl Sulawesi in the Outer Islands and Jakarta in Java. The growth rates of these provinces increased by at least 20-35% because of net in-migration. A sub-- stantial annual rate of net migration loss was recorded in Central Java. Its growth rate decreased by about 35% because of net out-migration. For most: of the provinces, therefore, the growth rates reflect differences in the rates of natural increase. Rates of natural increase are higher in the Outer Islands than in Java-Bali. The reason for this is that higher fertility rates prevail in the Outer Islands, with mortality displaying no such regional variation,. With the exception of Jakarta and West Java, the rates of natural increase! in Java-Bali are much lower than the national growth rate. Jakarta and West Java, compared to the rest of Java had high levels of fertility, contributing to a relatively larger rate of natural increase. - 48 - Table 2.6: ESTIMATES OF INFANT MORTALITY RATES kMD EXPECTATION OF LIFE AT BIRTH BY PROVINCE, 1976--79 Infant Mortality Rate Expectation of Life Provinces Male Female Total Male Female Total Daerah Istimewa Aceh 0.099 0.082 0.091 54.2 57.2 55.81 North Sumatra 0.098 0.080 0.089 54.4 57.7 56.01 West Sumatra 0.132 0.112 0.122 48.3 51.2 49.71 Riau 0.123 0.103 0.113 49.9 5:3.0 51.41 Jambi 0.130 0.110 0.120 48.8 51.7 50.21 South Sumatra 0.106 0.089 0.098 52.8 56.0 54.36 Bengkulu 0.116 0.097 0.107 51.1 54.2 52.61 Lampung 0.106 0.089 0.098 52.8 56.0 54.36 Dki Jakarta 0.089 0.073 0.081 56.0 59.5 57.71 West Java 0.141 0.120 0.131 46.9 49.7 48.27 Central Java 0.117 0.098 0.108 50.9 54.0 52.41 D.I. Yogyakarta 0.070 0.056 0.063 58.9 63.5 61.14 East Java 0.123 0.103 0.113 49.9 53.0 51.41 West Kal:imantan 0.127 0.107 0.117 49.2 52.2 50.66 Central Kalimantan 0.109 0.091 0.100 52.3 55.5 53.86 South Kalimant - A.4 144 9 7/.3 9 614 7 i11 9 769 3 438 2 924 .3 848 29 148 21 063 50 211 4> - 64 Se(6 1 869 1 271 1 224 1 408 336 597 522 3 975 3 Big 7 793 65 + '.3 ',-1- 2 92 240 394 73 234 58 844 923 1 767 TO'AL, 1~h , 49 14/ 124 EU 935 25 193 4? 392 11 718 1I 510 13 8t1 1 125 562 76 745 202 312 I 4 Y EARItS O - 9 16 3 4 85 19( 715 58 706 3 0 581 1I 7 36 1? 856 9 855 83 171 159 411 247 582 10 -24. 52 0el 1 f4 511 1I1f 205 69 (198 152 57U 45 730 39 603 28 666 355 375 306 884 662 259 25 -44 35i 64.5 1'.9 ;? 1' 6(2 ?10 51 5 7 84 141 45 018 33 454 22 91 9 210 338 272 015 482 353 45 -64 4 7134 41 3M 9 6,92 11 287 10 940 7 591 8 361 2 987 28 372 68 548 96 920 6 5 + ti825 5 129 1 117 1 .5 1 2352 162 1 091 428 4 042 8973 13 015 TOTAl ~~~~~~~~ ~~1 09 6?3 4,45 eitd ? 20 899 1 72 199 280) 584, 115 837 102 365 64 855 686 298 815 831 1 502 129 Annex2 Appendix 2 Table 1.1 TABLE 11 POPULATION BY AREA OF IN-MIGRATION (PRESENT RES[LULN(;I), DURATION OIF RESIDENCE AND AGE GROUP MALE P RE SE N T RE9S I D E NC E DURATION OF ____________ RESIDENCE. JAVA EXCLUDING AND AGE GROUP ~S U M A T E R A D.K.I. JAKARTA D.K.I. KALI1- SULA- OTHER I N D 0 N E S I A JAKARTA MANTAN W4EST ISLAND URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL UILBAN RURAL URBAN+RURAL (1) ~~~~~~~ ~ ~~~(2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (6) (9) (10) - 1)(12) 5- 9 YEARS 0- 9 50313 19 829 6 712 5 808 9 815 4 306 5 091 3 183 24 621 35 156 59 77 7 10- 24 26 258 95 112 40 728 22 428 78 629 23 654 24 998 18 261 16? 624 162 4 44 330 068 25 -44 3'/. 684 109 11? 50 623 23 745 126 518 37 183 23 728 24 949 243 5 23 187 024 430 54 7 45 - 44 997 34 t,92 7 601 5 809 10 291 7 670 8A12.5 4 363 2? 939 55 607 83 546 65-4 60? 3 811 1 009 806 1 303 645 1 136 656 3 427 6 546 9 973 TOTAL 7? 529 262 561 1 06 673 58 596 226 556 73 458 63 076 51 4 12 467 13', 446 777 913 911 10 YEARS AND OVER 0-9----------- 10 -24 34 587 120 277 49 311 29 625 95 404 21 305 17 584 13 885 198 403 183 595 381 998 25-44 120 015 391 345 150 472 96 08i7 i91 284 76 389 56 145 40 286 718 572 603 451 1 322 023 45 -64 86 936 299 016 107 051 83 023 182 742 54 062 37 944 20 990 414 733 4 57 051 871 784 65 + 741 973 89 851 24 514 25 414 22 704 13 971 10 594 5 8 35 82 165 135 731 217 896 TOTAL 266 511 9)0 0 489 331 428 2 34 1 4 9. 692 134 165 727 122 267 80 996 1 413 873 1 379 828 2 793 701 NON HIGRANTS ( - 9 7'5 783 3 618 9co4 ? 154 548 9 531 573 868 003 1 031 528 1 628 119 1 600 375 4 331 328 16 87`7 565 21 208 893 LU 24 8 79 5 56e 3 068 56 el 2 588 260 9 772 421 738 491 940 664 1 4 79 518 1 515 9 75 4 862 831 16 120 617 20 983 448 25 -44 437 157 1 802 708 1 718 937 7 893 027 277 864 683 034 1 047 325 1 150 e.43 2 809 398 12 201 297 15 010 695 45 -64 1 6? 108 875 274 882 888 4 515 6 47 86 615 299 312 505 9 75 562 395 1 276 905 6 614 309 7 891 214 65 + so 280 220 999 202 623 1 082 049 15 348 66 332 140 658 167 250 280 420 1 651 119 1 931 539 TOTAL 2 2 85 884 9 586 5303 7 547 256 32 794 717 1 986 321 3 020 870 4 807 595 4 996 638 13 560 882 53 464 907 67 025 789 TOT'AL POPULATION O - 9 8 l3 058 3 731 0)9 4 7 199 715 9 583 258 914 442 1 054 638 1 655 609 1 616 132 4 465 211 17 089 735 21 554 946 10 - 24 1 002 454 3 464 (31 2 809 482 9 902 959 1 1) 9 4872 1 037 156 1 566 915 1 583 451 5 654 742 16 806 878 22 461 620 2 5- 44 631 645 2 441 (.2e 1 989 916 8 071 787 889 576 845 062 1 163 576 1 242 645 4 010 979 13 2 84 850 17 295 829 /,5 - 44 2 e,r 341 1 252 199 1 008 503 4 61 6 990 291 996 368 971 561 000 591 257 1 751 924 7 199 333 8 951 25 7 I 54 I? 8 1 20 203 229 5/5 I jog 8 60r 42 101 81 783 1 5971 ?3174227 370 898 1 80 3 292 2 174 190 TOTAL 2 5 21 2 4 3 111 8 5 5 8 87 610 5 106 813 5 207 71I2 1 6 253 754 56 184 088 72 437 842 Annex 2 Appendix 2 Table 1.2' TABLE I.2 POPULATION BY AREA OF -Nl ICRATTON (['sIlrN RESIDENCE) DURATION OF RESIDJENCE AND AGE GROUP FEMALE P R Ii E N T R E' S I D E N C E DURATION OFA AND AGE GROUP MAT R D.K.I. JAKARTfA D.K. . KALI- SULA- OTHER I N D 0 N K S I A .r ____JAKARTA MANTAN W4EST ISLANDl URBAN RURAl, URBAN T _RURAL URANRURA JBA+UA (1) ~~~~~~~~~(2) ()(4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)(1 (12) Al-L IN-MIGRANTS 0 - 9 23 063 102 11,3 41 668 50 505 4 5 191 21 l18 25 734 14 172 126 320 197 494 323 814 10 -24 117 258 371 67U 204 7 50 122 968 445 064 90 681 77 356 55 061 8144 811 639 997 1 484 808 2 5 - 44 159 568 566 048 203 142 130 901 523 935 115 024 88 216 64 817 973 064 879 187 1 852 251 45 - 64 /9 10? 2/1 322, 95 2 7 70 464 173 60? 47 591 36 952 21 874 383 283 412 118 795 401 6 5 + 2/ 907 is 450 28 747 21 121 33 856 11 577 10 756 6 271 101 100 112 585 213 685-. TOTAL, ,4 0 903 1 384 9 30 5 74 114 395 959- 1 221 853 285 991 239 014 162 195 2 428 57s 2 241 381 4 669 959- IN-MIGRANTS BY DURATION OF' RESIDENCE LESS TIhAN I YEAR 0 - 9 7 919 5 935 1 ./ 7 4(L ?- t3~p i 5U7 2 3 1 803 18 695 16 376 3s 07l [0 - 24 A 239 iD 986 21 869 10 272 51 516 5 561 3 6 53 4 739 88 409 28 426 1 16 835 25 - 44 2 965 5 193 7 068 4 766 11 346 2 063 2 030 ~ 2 384 24 668 13 147 37 815 4,5 - 64 7b3 16 695 1 297 1 087 2 /95 700 381 509 54 453 3 774 9 227 65 + ~~~~~~155 491 511 298 1 131 161 231 156 2 089 1 045 3 134 TOTAL 15 1 4 1 24 300 38 149 23 660 72 5?3 9 992 8 826 9 591 139 3 1'4 62 768 202 082 - 4 YLAR'w< 0 - 9 14, 991 77 117 28 433 37 913 30L 125 1 5274 189 284 9 20()7 85i 673 148 327 231 950 JO - 24 441 911 141 876 916 399 58 090 ?01 065 41 834 33 992 22 481 377 267 265 381 642 648 25 - 44 2 5 4.22 1 0 80(9 4 1 3 07 35 433 76 417 2? 176 25 585 1 5120 160 427 187 842 348 269 4 5 - 64 4 659 26 962 / 492 7 931 14 169 5 234 5 687 2 720 28 587 46 267 24 854 6 5 + 1 726 5 257 1 888 1 /12 3 08 868 1 214 532 7 171 9 084 16 255 TOTAL 91 715 1 55 621 175 519 11 07 O9 34 534 90 386 84 762 50 0 60 6 57 075 656 901 1 313 976 Annex 2 Appendix 2 Table 1.2 TABLE 1.2 ~~~~POPULATION BY AREA OF IV--M1GRA'[IUW (PR8SLNTr RESlDENCE). Pg DURATION OF RESIDENCE AND AGE GROUP FEmALEI PR E SE NT RE S ID EN CE DURATiON OF RESIDENCE MAT. JAVA EXCLUDINGSUAOTEIN 0NESIA D.K.I. JAKARTA D.K.1. K(ALI- SUAOTEIN 0NeSIA AND AGE GROUP ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~JAKARTA KANTAN WESI ISLAND URBAN RAL URBAN RRAL URBAN RRLUBNRRA 5 - 9 YEARS 0 - 9 5 147 1(1 711 5 831 ~5355 9 331 4 337 4 919 S. 162 24 002 32 791 56e 793 10 - 24 2e6 928 98 i92 40 300 2,3 597 95 749 21 882 21 963 15 566 182 561 162 216 344 77? 25 -44 25 470 86 884 35 588 15 564' 89 916 24 983 18 472 16 681 171 373 142 185 313 558 45 - 64 4 305 21 412 6 615 3 893 11 263 4 494 5 087 2 955 25 571 34 453 60 024 65 + 957 3 520 1 534 610 2 511 563 986 504 5 427 5 758 II 185 TOTAL 62 8U7 729 319 891 868 49 019 208 770 56 259 51 427 38 868 408 934 377 403 786 337 10 YEARS AND OVER I- 10 -24 Is 180 120 0)1 6 46 182 31 009 96 734 21 404 17 748 12 275 196 574 183 974 380 548 25 -44 I(07 711 310 162 11 9 779 75 138 T,46 256 60 802 42 129 30 632 616 596 536 013 1 152 609 45 - 64 o3 380 221 .53(1 79 8(13 57 553 145 580 37 163 25 797 15 690 323 67? 327 624 651 296 65 + 25 069 64 182 24 814 18 501 27 156 9 985 8 325 (179 86 4 13 96 698 1 83 III TOTAL 23~~~~~~~~~~~6 340 775 690. / 7 8 0. 1 2 129 354 93 999 63 676 1 2 23 255 1 144 309 2 367 564 NON MIGRANTS O - 9 730) 326 3 447 1 9 7 062 238 9 268 347 826 736 978 890 1 512 532 1 5 33 427 4 115 865 16 243 824 20 3 59 689 (o - 24 872 620 3 181 8X9 2 7 23 347 10 121 04 7 713 859 953 261 1 553 929 1 511 5 57 4 935 667 16 695 842 21 631 509 25 - 44 439 258 1 883 621 1 840 856 8 479 888 276 608 694 61 9 1 189 204 1 2 16 938 2 946 299 13 074 693 16 020 992 45 - 64 1711 904 9(18 222 1 001 195 4 722 363 90 637 287 810 561 560 581 91 6 1 422 395 6 902 212 8 324 607 65 + ~~~~42 ?93 260 2(00 280 379 1 343 600 19 206 66 936 165 221 1 73 807 383 683 1 968 459 2 352 142 TOTAL 2 255 901 9 681 125 7 908 015 33 935 245 1 927 046 2 981 516 4 982 446 5 017 645 13 803 909 54 8185 030 68 688 939 TOTCAL POPULATION .0 - 9 753 389 3 5 49 556 2 103 906 9 318 852 871 927 1 ooo 008 1 538 266 1 547 599 4 242 185 16 441 318 20 68 3 503 10 - 24 9M9 878 5 553 559 2 9 28 097 ;D 244 015 1 158 923 1 043 942 1 631 285 1 566 618 s 78(1 478 17 335 839 23 116 317 2 5 - A14 I 9 8 i6 2 449 h61 ) (144 510A 6 61 I0 789 800 543 809 643 1 277 420 1 281 755 1 919 361 13 953 880 17 873 243 4.5 - 64 249 Oi1 1 1279 621 1 096 402 4 792 8 27 264 444 335 401 598 512 603 790 1 80O5 68' 7, 31i4330 9120a008 65 + m70 7 333 6S0 309 126 1 364 721 53 062 78 5 13 175 977 180C 078 4 84 783 2 081 044 2 565 827 TOTAL 2 661 8f04 11 Df66 (155 11 482 129 34 531 204 3 148 899 3 2 67 507 5 221 460 5 179 840 16 232 487 57 126 411 73 358 898 Annex 2 Appendix 2 Table 2.1 Page 1 TABLE 2. 1 POPULATION 10 YEARS AND OVER BY AREA Of IN-MIGRATION (PRESENT RESIDENCE), DURATION OF RESIDENCE AND OCCUPATION MALE | P R E S E N T R E S I D E N C E DURATION OF I _ EXCLUDI G ANU OCCUPATION JAKARTA MANTAN WESI ISLAND URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAI. URBAN RURAL URBAN+RURAL (__ (2(3) (4)-- (5) (6)- I7) - (tS)-- ) (1014) (:Z) ALL IN-MIGRANTS W,HITE COLLAR 131 863 1t3 585 194 222 84 255 435 138 62 003 47 621 52 833 853 046 258 474 1 111 520 SERVICE WORKERS 25 119 25 987 29 599 14 861 105 415 14 561 5 019 6 567 171 267 55 861 227 128 FARMl WORKERS 37 646 1 021 547 12 985 121 317 13 942 115 965 100 395 40 594 74 819 1 389 572 1 464 391 BLUE COLLAR 121 Ill 148 638 125 517 85 154 .336 165 67 156 41 033 27 850 640 698 311 926 952 624 - NOT CLASSIFIED 17 200 17 4?O 47 350 19 775 42 762 14 981 8 246 11 216 126 085 52 865 178 950 9 TOTAl. 332 939 1 31Z 177 409 673 325 362 933 422 274 666 202 314 139 060 1 865 915 2 068 698 3 934 613 1N-rIlt,I¶ANIS bY DURATION OF RESIDENCE LESS TIIAN I YEAR WHY!!tTE COLLAR S V94 Z 018 7 076 3 968 7 685 1 790 1 599 3 909 24 073 7 936 32 009 SERVICE WORKERS 603 8() 1 855 903 5 689 212 79 353 8 404 2 097 10 5(1 FARN WORKERS 7(5 12 807 2h4 2 532 171 1 574 1 871 539 1 490 18 973 20 463 BLUE COLLAR S 343 6 255 4 858 3 478 9 765 2 909 1 646 1 627 21 195 12 686 33 881 NOT CLASSIFIED SO5 246 2 250 983 796 424 263 367 3 927 1 767 5 694 TOTAI. S 98t1 22 135 16 303 11 864 24 106 6 909 5 458 6 795 59 089 43 459 10)2 548 l TO 4 YEARS WHITE COLLAR 28 N885 23 467 44 986 27 655 75 494 17 310 12 464 15 364 174 237 71 388 245 625 SERVICE WORKERS 4 584 6 6O0 8 012 6 060 22 511 3 651 1 294 2 878 38 065 17 535 55 600 FARMS WORKERS 4 451 722 440 2 711 20 347 4 572 29 029 32 123 8 707 11 732 312 648 324 380 BLUE COLlAR 23 241 SZ 748 33 926 ?9 320 66 227 23 932 11 620 8 635 140 193 94 456 234 649 NOT CLASSIFIED 5 971 4 97U 7 R46 6 393 5 199 3 626 1 614 2 710 21 056 15 273 36 329 TlTAl. 65 132 295 2S5 97 481 89 775 174 0(03 77 548 59 115 38 294 385 283 511 300 896 583 Annex 2 Appendix 2 Tabl~e 2.~1 Page2 TABLE 2. 1 POPULATION 10 YEARS AND OVER BY AREA OF IN-MIGRATION (PRESENT RESIDENCE), DURATION OF RESIDENCE AND OCCUPATION MALE P R ES E NT RE S IDE NC E DURATION OF RELSIDENCE S U N A T B B A JAVA EXCLUDING AND OCCUPATION D.K.I. JAKARTA D.K.I. KALI- SULA- OTHER I N D 0) N ES I A ______-- ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~JAKARTA NfANTAN WESI ISLAND --___ URA RURAL URBA RURAL URBAN T-RURALURA-RRL 5 TO 9 YEARS WIIITE COLLAR 17 5 97 14 510 28 401 9 531 90 151 12 574 1'081 11 7 65 144 696 36 914 181 610 SERVICE WORKERS 2 697 2 898 3 854 1 825 17 210 2 921 666 886 26 193 6 7 34 32 927 FARM WORKERS 6 122 157 559 1 290 9 793 1 284 23 302 24 381 12 04.4 12 732 222 843 235 575 BLUE COLLAR 1') 1153 18 23 4 19 627 10 902 64 870 13 331 7 299 6 651 116 014 44 003 160 017 NOT CLASSIFIED 2 143 2 226 5 045 1 497 5 37 ?8 1 727 11 155 1 965 15 704 5 432 21 136 TOTAL 47 12 195 261 58 197 33 548 168 893 53 B55 40 582 33 311 315 339 315 926 631 265 10 YEARS AND OVER WHITE COLLAR 9) 417 63 590 113 759 43 101 271 808 30 3 29 26 4 77 2 1 795 510 040 1 42 236 652 276 SERVICE WORKERS 17 235 15 68 A2 1s 898 6 073 60 005 7 777 2 980 2 4 50 98 605 29 495 128 100 FARN W4ORKERS 26 56318 621 941 8 720 88 645 7 915 62 060 42 020 19 304 48 865 835 108 883 973 BLUE COLLAR 75 474 86 351 67 106 41 454 195 303 26 984 20 468 10 937 363 296 1 60 781 524 077 NOT CLASSIFIED I1)1 721 9 9~7 8 32 209 10 902 31 389 9 204 5 214 6 1 74 85 398 30 393 115 791 TOTAL 211 215 804 5 42 2 37~ 692 19)0 175 566 420 136 354 97 159 60 660O 1 106 204 1 1 98 013 23504 217 NON MIGRANTS WILITE COLlIAR 294 449 0 401 1 0 I 036 2 43 2144 1,999 11.7 52)) 183 892 291 788 2 49 256 1 775 155 3 056 403 4 829 558 SERVICE WORKERS 5' 44 8)) 210 209 912 131 813 4 4 6~1 5 35 4,18 3 7 488 4 7 8998 4 54 181 489 5 17 837 898 FARM WORFRES e'e 8'. 2 ?91I5t 71e, 4?6 5 85 I1 1) 87 311 20 596 881 645 1 S115 950 1 552 611 5 97 74-9 17 4 94 054 18 091 303 BLUE COLLAR 51)l 2p9j 4811 ) 41 1 108 575 5 (179 558 200 664 199 365 328 891 322 055 7 1124 156 4 196 116 6 220 27 2 NOT CLASSIFIED 2? 618 38 109 107 553 16(2 818 7 791 17 095 25 810 24 736) 158 817 2 47 713 406 530 TOTAL, 741 I) 1 '3 916 5~5 0 188 868 16t 65 6 5 9 461 186 1 317 4 35 1 999) 927 2 196 556 4 901 7 58 25 483 803 5 0 3 85 561 TOTAL. POPULATION WHITE COLLAR 4"'4 553 54955 1 230 4465 2 26`9 254 6'22 658 245 895 339 41) 9 302 089 2 6,26 201 3 3 14 877 5 941 078 SERVICE WORKERS 7% "63 1 Ile 197 2S9 51 I1 146 7 34 150 030 49 999 42 5 07 54 465 5 19 648 5 45 378 1 065 026 1AR01 W'0111C1111 1 17 4 8 915 310 43 9 570 1 1 1118 625 34 5 38 997 610 1 4 16 345 1593 2 1) 6 72 068 18 883 626 19 5 55 694 BLUE COLLARI "4 ? 94'. 1n 'i I ',j , 4 ' 556 8 29 21,6 521 3A9 9)). 3 49 91)5 7 664 1 5 4 4 50 0 i)42 2 ?172 896 NOIT CLASSIFIED 1) 418 5% 5 29 1 514 91) 3 112 593 SU1 553 32 076 34 056 35 952 284 902 300 578 585 480 TIOTAL. 1 (PI L 16 5 I1 7111 1) 98 541 I 1I 91 1 721I 1 5 94t 608 1 592 101 2 20)2 241 2 335 t1,16 e6 767 673 2 7 5 52 501 54 320 174 Annex 2 Appendix 2 Table 2.2 Page 1 TABLE 2. 2 POPULATION IQ YEARS AND OVER BY AREA OF IN-MIGRATION (PRESENT RESIDENCE), DURATION OF RESIDENCE AND OCCUPATION FEMALE P R E S E N T R E S I D E N C E DURATION OF . . I - RESIDENCE | JAVA EXCLUDING I I AND OCCUPATIN if M A T ED.K.I. JAKARTA D.K.I. KALI- SULA- OTHER I N D 0 N E s I A AND OCCUPATION ______ JAKARTA MANTAN WESI ISLAND URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL URBAN RURAL URBAN+RURAL (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) ALL IN-MtGRANTS WHITE COLLAR 45 638 70) 28', 78 613 43 583 151 956 21 404 18 644 1s 091 303 298 141 915 445 213 SERVICE WORKERS 14 6b4 13 743 35 988 10 303 155 132 9 833 5 524 3 92?7 214 205 34 929 249 1 34 FARM SORKERS 8 225 i52 188 1 899 35 637 819 49 460 21 158 8 774 14 169 463 991 478 160 BLUE COLLAR 8 215 26 8'45 28 633 16 962 46 086 5 013 5 220 3 447 86 233 54 188 140 421 1 NOT CLASSIFIED) 1 019 4 415 3 772 2 201 6 80a 886 865 481 12 529 7 915 20 444 ' 40- TOTAL 77 /81 4 .h7 475 148 9035 108 bs, 560 798 86 596 51 411 31 720 630 434 702 938 1 333 372 IN-MIGRANTS BY DURATION OF RESIDENCL LESS THAN I YEAR WIIITF COLLAR 856 988 2 572 1 413 I 191 ?23 286 286 r ii3 2 882 9 995 SERVICE WOi