View the most recent version.Information identified as archived is provided for reference, research or recordkeeping purposes. It is not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards and has not been altered or updated since it was archived. Please "contact us" to request a format other than those available.
The Daily. Tuesday, September 5, 2000
Rural areas are not always net losers of people. Between 1991 and 1996, rural communities experienced a net loss of teenagers, according to a new study on migration patterns of young people in rural Canada. However, the rural communities' population of individuals aged 25 to 64 increased in most provinces, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia.
The study conducted by Statistics Canada for the Canadian Rural Partnership and the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency found that between 1991 and 1996, rural communities had net losses of 12% of their population of teenagers aged 15 to 19 in 1991 (discounting deaths and international migration). All provinces saw a net loss of teenagers in their rural communities, with the most substantial net losses (between -21% and -25%) seen in Saskatchewan and Newfoundland.
However, those 25 to 64 migrated according to much different patterns. During the 1991 to 1996 period, rural communities saw their population of individuals in this age group increase 4%.
Although the study did not investigate the reasons behind the migration patterns of teenagers, it is likely that factors such as the need to pursue post-secondary education, the desire to gain independence, the wish to fulfill one's aspirations or to "discover the world" and the desire to get a (well-paid) job may explain the decision to migrate from a rural area to an urban one.
The reasons underlying the net gains in rural communities of individuals aged 25 to 64 are currently unknown.
Migration patterns in rural areas varied markedly across provinces. Rural areas have been, in demographic terms, booming in British Columbia, showing net gains of individuals aged 15 to 29 of about 15% from 1991 to 1996. In Newfoundland, rural communities saw net losses of 15% in the same age group.
Even within provinces, migration patterns varied substantially across economic regions.
Interprovincial differences in unemployment coincide with interprovincial differences in net migration flows. In rural areas, the unemployment rate for those aged 15 to 29 in 1996 who were not full-time students was 27% in the Atlantic provinces, compared with only 11% in Alberta and 16% in British Columbia.
Because migration is not a one-step process, it is crucial to examine how many people return to their rural community after having left. If a substantial portion of leavers were to return to their community, return migration could help maintain the population of a given cohort in a community.
In this study, however, only one young leaver in five returned to his or her rural community 10 years later. This suggests that rural areas must rely on inflows from other (primarily urban) areas to maintain their population size. Some rural communities did achieve this and registered positive net flows of individuals aged 25 to 29 or older.
|
While all provinces saw a net loss of teenagers in their rural communities from 1991 to 1996, most provinces saw net gains of young individuals aged 25 to 29 in rural areas. British Columbia saw the greatest growth in the number of those in their late twenties (+21%). Furthermore, all provinces except Newfoundland and Saskatchewan saw net gains of rural 30-to-64-year-olds. Whether rural communities suffered a net loss of individuals aged 20 to 24 is unclear. As a result of these trends, the rural population aged 15 and over rose in the four largest provinces - Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
From 1991 to 1996, migration patterns varied markedly across provinces. Rural communities in Newfoundland and Saskatchewan saw their teenaged population decline between 21% and 25%, compared with only 3% in British Columbia. At the national level, the corresponding net loss for rural communities was 12%.
Even within provinces, migration outcomes differed substantially across economic regions. In Quebec, the economic regions of Bas-Saint-Laurent, Abitibi-Témiscamingue and Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean saw a net loss of at least 5% of their rural population aged 15 to 29 during the period. In contrast, Lanaudière and Laurentides enjoyed a net gain of at least 5%. In Ontario, the Northeast economic region had a decline of at least 5% while Kitchener-Waterloo-Barrie had an increase of at least 5%.
Most economic regions in Newfoundland experienced net losses of rural youth and most regions in British Columbia enjoyed net gains over the reference period.
Some young people who leave rural communities to pursue postsecondary education may return to work in their area of origin. Others may choose to stay in urban areas and not to return.
Over the 1987-to-1997 period, 44% of teenagers stayed in their rural community. Another 12% left at some point during the period and returned by 1997. The remaining 44% left and did not return. Thus, 56% of teenagers were in their original rural community at the end of the 10-year period. In addition, 64% of those aged 20 to 24 and 74% of those 25 to 29 had stayed in or returned to their original rural community.
Youths who leave their rural community rarely return to it. Among all three age groups of the youth population, only 20% to 22% of leavers were back in their rural community by 1997. This shows that return migration probably has a limited effect on the size of a given cohort. Rather, rural areas must rely on inflows from other (primarily urban) areas to maintain a given population.
Young people who left their rural community differed from those who stayed in the community. Among young people who were not students, university graduates moved out of rural areas in greater proportions (42%) than did high school graduates (27%). Individuals in rural areas who were employed all year were less likely to leave than those who were not employed for the whole year.
Whenever rural communities in a given province have smaller net migration flows than the national average (for all rural communities), the difference may be because inflow rates are below the national average or because outflow rates are above the national average.
In the Atlantic provinces, the source of the discrepancy is clear. Almost all rural communities of the Atlantic provinces whose net migration flows were smaller than the national average had low inflow rates - that is, they did not attract a comparable proportion of new residents.
While there may be many reasons to migrate from rural areas to urban, labour market conditions are indeed less favourable in rural areas. In 1996, the unemployment rate of those aged 15 to 29 who were not full-time students was 17% in rural areas, but 12% in urban areas. The rural unemployment rate of youth was 40% in Newfoundland and 11% in Alberta.
As well, the percentage of workers employed full-year full-time was lower in rural areas. In 1995, the full-year full-time employment rate of youths was 39% in rural areas, compared with 49% in urban areas. This rural rate was lowest in Newfoundland (22%) and highest in Ontario (45%).
One reason people change location is to improve their earnings prospects, and the data seem to support their decision. Those aged 25 to 29 in 1993 who left their rural community saw their real annual earnings increase by 22% between 1993 and 1997, compared with only 16% of their counterparts who stayed in the community.
Faster earnings growth, however, does not necessarily result from migration itself. It could occur if rural leavers have greater earnings growth potential than rural stayers. Some leavers may be "on a fast track" in terms of earnings progession.
Those who return to their rural community may do so because they did not find the well-paid jobs they were hoping to find in a larger centre. Others may move to an urban area and find a highly paid job involving long hours but decide to return to their rural community to a job with lower wages but shorter hours. In both cases, return migrants would experience a relatively slow growth of annual earnings.
Those who left and did not return may have found a good job with desirable working conditions. If so, the earnings growth of return migrants should be lower than that of leavers who did not return.
The evidence is consistent with this view. For all three age groups of the youth population, the earnings growth of return migrants is much smaller than that of leavers who did not return. Those aged 20 to 24 in 1987 who had migrated and returned to their rural community by 1997 saw their real annual earnings increase by about $7,700 (in 1992 dollars) between 1987 and 1997, compared with roughly $13,400 for their counterparts who had not returned.
"Rural youth: Stayers, leavers and return migrants" is available from Ling Lee (613-759-7040), Rural Secretariat of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada; and Wade Aucoin (506-851-2576), Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency.
The results are also available through the research paper Rural youth: Stayers, leavers and return migrants, (11F0019MPE; $5/$25). In addition, the electronic version (11F0019MIE; free) is available on Statistics Canada's Web site (www.statcan.ca). On the Products and services page, choose Downloadable research papers (free). A shorter version of the study, titled "Rural roots" will be released in September in the Fall issue of Perspectives on labour and income (75-001-XPE).
For more information, or to enquire about the concepts, methods or data quality of this release, contact René Morissette (613-951-3608; moriren@statcan.gc.ca), Business and Labour Market Analysis Division.