HARAMAYA UNINERSITY

COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMICS

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

Youth Rural -Urban Migration and the associated

factors :The case of Addis Ababa city,Ethiopia

By: Chala Erba

ID NO; 2538/08

MARCH, 2018

Haramaya, Ethiopia

i|Page
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I want to give my thanks to Almighty God. Then I am really happy to thank
my advisor, Sisay Diriba (MSc), as without his encouragement and guidance, the completion of
this work may not have been possible. Thus, I am very much indebted to his for all his support
and willingness to advise me on my all efforts to successfully finalize this thesis. he provides
constructive ideas and suggestions to carry out the project effectively without expressing any
grievance.

My special thanks are given to my mother and father ,my brothers, Sisters and all my relatives
for continues their financial and moral support throughout my stay in campus.

Table of Content
Content page
Acknowledgements..........................................................................................................................i
Table of Content..............................................................................................................................ii
List of Figures.................................................................................................................................iv
List of tables....................................................................................................................................v
Acronyms and Abbreviation...........................................................................................................vi
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................vii

ii | P a g e
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................1
1.1. Background of study.....................................................................................................1
1.2. Problem statement.........................................................................................................3
1.3. Hypothesis of the study.................................................................................................6
1.4. Objective of study.........................................................................................................7
1.5. Significance of the study...............................................................................................7
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW..................................................................................8
2.1. THEORETICAL LITERATURE......................................................................................8
2.1.1. Concepts and definitions.............................................................................................8
2.1.2. Economic Theories of Migration................................................................................9
2.2.The Empirical Literature..................................................................................................16
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY................................................................20
3.1 Data sources and Methods of Collection..........................................................................20
3.2. Sampling..........................................................................................................................21
3.3. Method of analysis..........................................................................................................22
3.3.1. Model Specification..................................................................................................22
CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS...........26
4.2. Descriptive analysis.....................................................................................................26
4.2.1. Background Characteristics of Respondents............................................................26
4.2.2. Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents.............................................................31
4.2.3.Source of Information, Information received about Destination and Assistance at
Destination..........................................................................................................................33
4.2.4. Reasons of respondents to make migration decision................................................35
4.2.5. Costs and Economic characteristics of respondents before and during migration...36
4.2.6. Current occupational Status and Nature of respondents present job...................39
4.2.7. Socio-economic condition of sampled youths.....................................................41
4.2.8. Problems/ difficulties faced by migrants.............................................................44
4.2.9. Future Intentions and/or Plans of respondents.....................................................45
4.3. Econometric Analysis......................................................................................................46
4.3.1. Determinants of Youths rural-urban migration in the case of Addis Ababa.......46
CONCLUSION AND POLICY IMPLICATION.........................................................................51

iii | P a g e
 Conclusions................................................................................................................................51
Policy Implication......................................................................................................................53
REFERENCES
APPENDIXES

List of Figures
Figures page

Figure 4.1 percentage distributions of respondents by age………………………………………27

Figure 4.2: percentage distributions of administrative regions…………………………………..30

Figure 4.3: percentage distributions of respondents by religion…………………………………30

Figure 4.4: percentage distributions of respondents by educational level……………………….31

Figure 4.5: percentage distributions of respondents by family’s educational attainment………..32

Figure4.6: percentage distribution of respondents by total rural farm size……………………...33

iv | P a g e
Figure 4.7: Percentage Distributions of Respondents by Prior-Information about Addis
Ababa…………………………………………………………………………………………….34

Figure 4.8: occupational statuses of respondents before migrating to Addis Ababa……………37

Figure 4.9: Family occupation of youths prior to migration……………………………………38

Figure 4.10: Staying period to get first income earning…………………………………………39

Figure 4.11: improvements in living standard of migrants………………………………………42

Figure 4.12: percentage distributions of Remittance Sent to Families and Items

taken……………………………………………………………………………………………...43

Figure 4.13: Respondents’ saving habit………………………………………………………….44

Figure 4.14: future plans of migrant youths……………………………………….......................45

List of tables
Tables page

Table3.1: description and characteristics of explanatory variables of the model……………....23

Table 4.1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Sex………………………………………....27

Table 4.2: Percentage Distribution Respondents by Marital Status…………………………….…...28

Table 4.3: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of information……………...........33

Table 4.4: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by assistance received in the

destination……….....…………….................................................................................................35

v|Page
Table 4.5: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by to make migration decision……………...36
Table 4.6: percentage distribution of respondents by expense incurred at the initial period of
migration …………………………………………………………………………………….......39

Table 4.7: Current Occupational Status of Respondents’………………………………….….....40

Table 4.8: Nature of respondents’ present job…………………………………………………...........41

Table 4.9: percentage Distribution of respondents by Monthly Average Income…………….......43

Table 4.10: Problems Encountered by Migrants at the Place of Destination……………............45

Table 4.11: Co linearity Diagnosis for Continuous Explanatory Variables……………..............48

Table 4.12: Model specification test …………………………………………………………….49

Table 4.12: Logistic Regression Model Output for the Entire Explanatory Variable…………...50

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AABOFED Addis Ababa Bureau Of Finance and Economic Development

C failure Crop Failure

CSA Central Statistics Agency

F edu Family Education

F size Rural Farm Size

GDP Gross Domestic Product

IOM International Organization for Migration

vi | P a g e
I urban Urban Income

LDCs Least Developing Countries

NE desires Non-Economic Desires

S infra Social Infrastructure

SNNP South Nation Nationality People

UN United Nation

UNDP United Nation Development Program

WB World Bank

Abstract

This study analyzes the determinant factors of rural- urban youth’s migration to internally
migrate in Ethiopia case of Addis Ababa. Young people comprise a considerably large share of
contemporary rural-urban internal migration flows and recently becoming growing phenomena.
To do so, the study employed both descriptive and econometrics analysis tools to analyze the
data. The paper explore that firstly, Migrant youth have heterogeneous motivation by socio
demographic background. Secondly, most youth migrants characterized by secondary school
attainment, literate mother or father, but low rural farm size. Thirdly, large numbers of migrants
make assistance and information based migration decision. Fourthly, rural unemployment and
Concentration of various elements of modernization and Proximity to better social infrastructure
facilities in the urban areas greatly impact the rural-urban youth’s migration. Fifthly,
Temporary income shocks can make youth socioeconomic insecure. In the last, the migrant youth

vii | P a g e
have general improvement in the cities compared to rural and make effort to improve their
livelihood condition. Using binary logistic regression model, the study estimate youths decision
to migrate. Generally The main determinant forces or variables gender, crop failure, family
shocks, and non-economic desires, as push factors and social infrastructure and facilities in
urban as pull factors affect youths’ rural-urban migration.

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

1.1. Background of study

Migration is a demographic process of geographical or special mobility of people that involves

permanent and temporary basis from one environmental area to another. It involves people’s
economic calculation of their living condition, their sociological situation, their geographical
constraints, and their cultural and historical factors. Accordingly, migration can be classified in
different ways, some of which include: Traditional migration, emergency or forced migration,
country-country migration, and internal migration. Traditional migration involves peoples
mobility such as fishermen, pastoralists etc. from one place to another, in search of resources like
water bodies, pasture field for their livestock to aid their businesses. Emergency or forced
migration refers to an unexpected movement from one place to another either due to war, famine,
and draught and other unforeseen factors. Country-country migration refers to the population

viii | P a g e
movement from one country to another on the basis of an inter-continental or intra-continental.
Internal migration refers to the movement of people from the urban centers to the rural areas;
urban centers to urban centers; rural to rural areas; and rural to urban centers.

According to UNDP (2009) report the widespread internal migration, which are 740 million
migrants, exceeding international migration, which constitutes 214 migrant peoples around the
world. The report discuss that given higher propensity to migrate, internal migrants’ originate
from rural areas are higher and mainly constitute the youths. WB (2007) finding report also
announced that young people are 40 percent more likely to move from rural to urban areas or
across urban areas than older individuals. During the period 1994-1999 in Vietnam show that the
young people under aged 25 years have the share of half of 4 million internal migrants given
with a highest migration rate within the 20-24 years category. In the least developed African
countries like Burkina Faso, Ghana, Nigeria and Senegal, also on average internal migrants are
younger aged.

Among internal migration, rural to urban migration is a relatively long aged and wide spread
phenomenon globally. However, in recent years, it has become a cause of concern at the global,
regional and national levels. The unprecedented levels of urbanization characteristic of most
developing countries have resulted in the movement of people from rural to urban areas
subsequently resulting in the emergence of slums and informal settlements. Developmental
challenges that include spread of disease pandemics such as cholera, dysentery, supply of
unclean water, insecurity, poor infrastructures and poor service delivery are common in these
regions. Furthermore, problems such as pollution, congestion and crime are linked to this
concept. Mutandwa (2011) point out that rural to urban migration is also sometimes having seen
as an important livelihood strategy for rural youths mostly living in poor rural areas in
developing countries.

Studies over time, attribute the rapid growth of rural-urban migration to increasing
unemployment and rural poverty and it has been noted that rural-urban migration is
primarily a consequence of rural-urban income differentials. Studies have also shown that the
incidence of rural-urban migration is higher in developing countries than in their developed
counterparts. Furthermore, within the developing countries, there exists a significant
selectivity of migrants with respect to age, sex, caste, marital status, education, occupation

ix | P a g e
etc., and the propensity of migration differs significantly among these socio-economic
groups. A review of rural-urban migration literature shows that migrants are predominantly
young males, but research has also shown that the proportion of male and female
migrants varies.

The lack of jobs, famine, drought, various kinds of poverty for example landlessness, the hope to
find a job, increase one’s income, educational opportunities, in search of better services generally
to improve one’s economic welfare influence the tendency of individuals to migrate to urban
areas. Studies have also shown that farm mechanization; farm size, education, marital status,
non-farm income and land tenure influence the decision to emigrate towards urban zones. These
factors tend to differ from one socio-economic context to another.

In the history of migration in Ethiopia, Internal migration flows in Ethiopia over the last few
decades have been forced due to complex phenomena of the country’s political, economic,
social, climatic and political condition and factors, including drought, war, political turmoil,
forced migrations and poverty. In recent years small plots of farmland, which are inadequate to
support a family have seen a surge in migration in all parts of Ethiopia, are a driver of migration.
Because of increasing land scarcity it has become difficult to fulfill this right for the young
generation, although access to farm land is a constitutional right to village residents of country.
This is particularly characterizes for the highlands of Ethiopia where population densities have
become very high. The increase in farmland scarcity in the highlands of Ethiopia coupled with
lack of non-farm employment opportunities in the rural areas have pushed youth away from their
agricultural livelihoods and rural villages. On the other hand, youth migration to cities and towns
in search for better livelihoods, which actually have better education, technology, and other basic
social services compared to rural areas, increases the existing problem, adding to the urban
unemployment and underemployment , increasing pressure on inadequate housing resources and
increasing social and psychological stresses among the urban population, poverty, destitution,
prostitution, streetism, beggaring, and crime are widespread and rampant in cities and towns of
Ethiopia.

The determinants of migration which are diverse, may be broadly collapsed into push
factors (reasons for leaving an area) and pull factors (reasons for moving into an area).These

x|Page
factors may also be social, political, economic, environmental, and cultural in nature. Studies
in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that employment remains a major determinant of rural-urban
migration. In this regard, men usually move to urban and semi-urban areas for mining, logging,
or agricultural jobs, while the women are much less likely to move for these jobs. This research
therefore analyses the determinant factors of youth rural- urban migration.

1.2. Problem statement

In many development research publication ,it is argued that rural-urban migration leads to
industrialization and economic growth taking to account the experience of the developed world
in the 9th and 20thcentury.However,certain question remain unambiguous and didn’t get
comprehensive and empirical explanation particularity with respect to the case of sub-Saharan
Africa. The economy of sub-Saharan Africa heavily depend on agriculture sector contributing
for an average 20% of the GDP, livelihood for 60% of the labor force and dominated by small
scale farming.(Beneberu, 2012) The agricultural sector is characterized by its low productivity
and affected by environmental degradation and increased population pressure.

Rate of rural-urban migration in developing countries have exceeded rates of urban job creation
those surpassed greatly the absorption capacity of both industry and urban social services.
Migration today, particularly to the largest LCDs, must be seen as the major factor contributing
to the ubiquitous phenomena of urban surplus labor, a force that continuous to exacerbate
already serious urban unemployment problems.

Ethiopia is one of the least urbanized countries in the world, even by the standard of Sub-
Saharan Africa. According to the most recent population census in Ethiopia, only 16% of
Ethiopia’s population lives in urban areas (CSA, 2008) while the average for Sub-Saharan Africa
was 34% (UN, 2014).The rapid growth of urban population in Ethiopia and in other developing
countries has been largely due to rural-urban migration contributing almost half of their urban
population growth.

Addis Ababa, which is the capital city of Ethiopia, has most of countries administrative,
commercial, and industrial establishment. These created potential attract large number of
migrants. According to the 2007 Population and Housing Census about 48% of the residents of

xi | P a g e
the city were migrants. The city also is among the fastest growing urban areas in the world.
Since 1970, the population has increased by nearly three times. However, the spatial expansion
of the urban area has been much greater. Addis Ababa has been expanding, both physically and
in population, for the past several decades. A city of about half a million residents in 1961, the
population in 2011 is stated to be slightly more than 3 million (CSA, 2011a). While the decline
in death rate has contributed to this increase in population, an equally import contributor to this
increase in population is the rapid pace of rural urban migration.

Even though in the early development of Addis Ababa, Internal migration viewed as a favorable and
natural phenomenon for it provided with the need personnel for the development of industrial and
other socio-economic sectors ,now a day’s rural urban population is regarded as a major
contributor to the creation of a large numbers of unemployed labor forces. The fact that the city
economy has been unable to generate enough jobs, coupled with the continued influx young semi-
skilled and unskilled job seekers has created a significant burden on the job market. It is true that the
level of unemployment has in the city has slowly declined over the years. However, the rate remains
worryingly high. The results of a March 2011 survey by the Central Statistical Agency depict that
highest level of unemployment in the Country (25%) is recorded in Addis Ababa (CSA, 2011b).
Moreover, rural urban migration has played a major role in creating shortage of housing,
educational, and health facilities and scarcity of basic consumer commodities. While huge
investments and private sector involvement in the health and education sectors seem to have
alleviated some of the pressure in the sectors, complicated problems still exist in various other
sectors, particularly housing. Not only is the sector unable to proceed at par with the increasing
demand, even the existing housing stock suffers from problems of durability, lack of connection to
services, and overcrowding (AABOFED, 2010). In fact, it is estimated by the Ethiopian government
that the housing in 2008 was “between 900,000 and 1,000,000 units in urban areas and that only 30
per cent of the current housing stock is in a fair condition, with the remaining 70 per cent in need of
total replacement. In Addis Ababa alone, 300,000 units are required to meet the deficit.” (UN-
habitat,2008).

Ethiopian youth, with 45 percent of the population under age 15 and 71 percent under age 30, are
most affected by poverty. Gebeyehu, 2014 as cited in Adamnesh e t a l, 2014characterizes poverty in
Ethiopia as a state of … landlessness, lack of productive assets, absence of income, food shortage,

xii | P a g e
marginalization, lack of access to education, health, and other basic services, and an inability to
obtain employment. Migration is a strategy for moving out of poverty that is accessible to
the poor in rural Ethiopia. It is often a risky investment, it has low short term returns, has the
potential to end in disaster, exposes migrants to exploitation, hard work and abuse. However, in
many cases it is the only investment opportunity available, and the only opportunity some of the
rural poor have to change their lives.

Rural youth are particularly disadvantaged; with inadequately developed education and skills, many
find limited employment opportunities in the cities. Most face a future of low-wage employment,
unemployment, underemployment, poverty, drugs, and crime. The arrival of rural migrants worsens
the situation by expanding the pool of young urban job seekers, which reduces the pressure on
employers to offer competitive incomes and work standards to their workers. Urban areas are
becoming extremely overcrowded and overburdened, putting pressure on insufficient infrastructures,
schools, health facilities, sanitation and water systems. This escalating urbanization has created a
new context of poverty in which urban centers are overtaxed and unprepared to absorb increasing
youth unemployment. In absolute numbers, youth unemployment becomes more prevalent in urban
areas than rural areas. The situation is worse for young women many who have migrated to escape
forced and early marriage as they face particular barriers to the labor market, much of which are
attributable to cultural attitudes of men. They may find work in domestic settings and in small
businesses. More commonly, many girls are exploited because they are young, easily manipulated,
unaware of their rights, and afraid to expose their negligent employers. In the worst of situations,
they work fifteen hours a day, are beaten, badly fed, poorly paid, and become sex slaves to pay for
their basic needs. The prostitution, in which these unsuspecting girls engage, complicates the fight
against HIV/AIDS. With the rising incidence of poverty, crime, prostitution, violence, and
exploitation, migrating youth are in an age fraught with potential threats exacerbated by ill-prepared
and rapid urbanization. As a consequence, many rural migrants are no better off in the city than they
were in their village. Life in the city has resulted in marginalization and social exclusion.

Various studies have been conducted in rural urban migration. Most of these studies focus on the
socio economic aspects of migration. Therefore to partially fill gap, this study is conducted with a
particular emphasis on determinants of youth’s migration. This paper addresses the following

xiii | P a g e
question: What are really the socio-economic determinants of the decisions to internally migrate
in Ethiopia in case of Addis Ababa among youths?

1.3. Hypothesis of the study

The hypotheses to be tested are:

 Males are fewer migrants than females.

 Youth migrate towards better facilities and infrastructural urban areas.

 The non-economic desires of youths influence their decision positively and significantly

 Youth who has shocks in the family has higher chance of being migrants.

 Income earned in urban positively significant with migration.

 Experience of crop failure positively and significantly associated the youth migration

decision.

1.4. Objective of study

The main objective of the study is to analyses the determinants factors of rural to urban
migration among migrant youths in Ethiopia specifically in Addis Ababa.

Specific objectives are as follows:

 To identify underlying socio-economic and demographic determinants of youths

from rural to urban areas.
 To identify the current socio-economic activities that migrant youths are engaged in
the study areas

xiv | P a g e
  To assess the relationship between economic and non-economic desires of youths and
their migration decision.
 To provide policy recommendations that can be used by government to solve this
problem.

1.5. Significance of the study

With regard to its significance, the findings of this study outputs are important as they will
contribute to the growing literature on rural to urban migration both in the region and the
country. It is also going to help the responsible organ to understand why youths are migrating
and therefore draft the necessary policies and strategies necessary to reduce this problem.
Stakeholders who will benefit from this study include youths, local district authorities, and other
related ministries.

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1. THEORETICAL LITERATURE

2.1.1. Concepts and definitions

Youth Concept

 The term ‘young people’ or ‘youth’ has different meanings depending on the context.
One meaning is based on a sociological definition of youth as a life stage comprising a
series of transitions from adolescence to adulthood, from dependence to independence,

xv | P a g e
 and from being recipients of society’s services to becoming contributors to national,
economic, political and cultural life” (Curtain, 2003: 74).

 According to Ethiopia’s national youth policy (2004) defines youth as those aged
between15-29.

 Young men and women are among the world’s greatest assets. They bring energy, talent
and creativity to economies and create the foundations for future development. “We are
living in a very youthful world, indeed, with almost half of the current global population
under the age of 25. There are 1.2 billion young people in the world today, and the next
generation of youth (children presently below the age of 15) will be half again as large,
numbering 1.8 billion. (UN youth report, 2015)
Definition of terms

According to CSA and other literature the following terms used in this study also were defined.
 Migration of human refers to the movement of people from one place in the World to
another for the purpose of taking up permanent or semi - permanent residence. People
can either choose to be active (voluntary migration) or be forced to move (involuntary
migration). There are various types of migration include; internal migration, external
migration, emigration, immigration, return migration, chain migration and seasonal
migration.
 Migration determinants can simply be defined as factors or forces existing at macro, and
micro level, which influence the decision to migrate. The study of the nature and
determinants of migration has long history in the economics literatures which explain the
impression created in the minds of migrants to move with the aim to reach higher income
stream.
 Rural-urban Migrant: Is a person who changes his/her usual place of residence from a
rural to an urban area.
 Urban area: Is the human settlement with concentration of 2000 or more inhabitants
mainly engaged in secondary and tertiary activities.

xvi | P a g e
  Non-migrants: individuals, who were present at the time of the survey and who, if ever
away from the household, came back more than five years ago and have not left the
household since that time. For these individuals, information is available only from the
general part of the survey.

2.1.2. Economic Theories of Migration

For some decades, various disciplinary and multi-disciplinary approaches have been trying to
analyze and provide fundamental understanding for the phenomenon of migration. There are
multitudes of theoretical as well as empirical studies, which are concerned with characteristics,
determinants and impact of migration both of international and of internal levels. In the next
section present a review and critical evaluation of the main existing theories of migration, with
special reference to rural–urban movement in those developing countries with some similarities
to the Ethiopian context.

A) Raven Stein‘s Law of migration

Economic theory's contribution to migration research has rapidly increased since the
1960s.However, the classical theories of migration may be traced back to Raven stein’s 1885
paper on the laws of migration to the Royal Statistical Society in an attempt to show the
regularities in the scale and direction of migration and to explain migration movements in
relation to opportunities and constraints. Raven stein’s laws stated that the primary cause for
migration was better external economic opportunities; the volume of migration decreases as
distance increases; migration occur in the stages instead of one long move: population movement
are bilateral and migration differential (gender, social class, age etc.) influence persons
mobility(Rhoda, 1979:12).
His Law of migration could be categories as follows (Lee and Todaro):
1. Migration and Distance
The rate of migration between two points will be inversely related to the distance
between these points will be inversely related to the distance between these points. “the
great body of our migrants only proceed a short distance “and “migrants enumerated in a

xvii | P a g e
 certain centers of absorption will grow less at distance from the center increases”( Raven
Stein 1885;198-199).
2. Migration by stages
Migration proceeds step by step. “The in habitants of the country immediately
surrounding a town of rapid growth of flock into it “the gaps thus lefts in the rural
population are filled up by migrants from more remote district, until the attractive forces
of one of or rapidly growing cities makes its influence felt, step by step, to the most
remote corner of the kingdom” (Raven Stein 1885; 199).
3. Steam and counter stream
“Each main current of migration produces a compensating counter current” (Raven Stein
1885; 199). Which rural urban migration may dominates the overall current or stream of
migration there will always be a counter stream of reverse urban rural migration.
4. Urban rural differences in propensity to migrate “the native of towns are less migratory
than these of the rural parts of the country” (Raven Stein 1885; 199).
5. Technology, communication and Migration
Migration streams will have a built in tendency to increase over time as aresult of
increase “in the stream of locomotion and development of manufacture and commerce”
(Raven Stein 1885; 288).
6. Dominance of the Economic motive
“Bad or oppressive laws, heavy taxation, an attractive climate, uncongenial social
surrounding, and ever compulsion (slave trade transportation), all have produced and are
still producing currents of migration, but none of these currents can compose in volume
with that which a rises from the desire inherent in the most men to battle them serves in
material respect” (Raven Stein 1885; 286).

B) Lee’s General Theory of Migration

In 1966, Lee revised the basic push-pull concept. He developed a “general schema into which a
variety of spatial movements can be placed” (Lee, 1966:49). He also tried to figure out a number
of conclusions with regard to the factors in the act of migration, the volume of migration, the
development of streams and counter streams, and the characteristics of migrants. He considered
all factors associated with migration to be included in four categories. They are;

xviii | P a g e
 1. Factors associated with area of origin /Push Factors/
2. Factors associated with the area of destination /Pull Factors/
3. Intervening obstacles
4. Personal factors.

According to his explanation “In every area there are countless factors which act to hold people
with in the area or attract people to it, and there are other which intend to repel them some of
these factors affect most people in much the same way.” while others affects in the different
ways.” (Lee 1966;50). His interpretation means the same factors could be have different function
for different people. The same is two have intervening obstacles. His comments about the
personal factors are “we must note that it is not so much the actual factors at origin and
destination as the perception of these factors which result in migration. Personal sensitivity,
intelligence; and awareness of condition elsewhere enter into the evaluation of the situation at
origin, and knowledge of the situation at destination depends upon personal contacts or upon
sources of information which are not universally available” (Lee 1966; 51).

C) The Push-Pull Theory

The push-pull model is associated with E.G. Revenstein, 1885 as cited in Macatty, 2004, he
noted a relationship between migration and distance distinguishing between long and short
distance migrants. He also showed that although some migration was directly to large urban
centers of attraction there was there was also a movement by stages. He also noted that the
development of technology and commerce leads invariably to an increase in migration. The
economic factor was of paramount importance. The push-pull model is based on factors of push
and pull. There are those factors which drive people away from their place of origin, i.e. push
factors, and there are those that act as attraction to pull them towards somewhere else. This
model suggests that migration is due to economic imbalances between regions. The push factors
are generally economic and include lack of access of land, lack of employment, drought and
famine, and population increase. The pull factors offer attractive to the push factors, such as job
opportunities in urban areas.

xix | P a g e
 D) Network Theory of Rural-Urban Migration

By network theory migrants setup interpersonal ties that connect migrants, former migrants, and
non-migrants in the place of origin (Massay et al, 1993 cited in De Haas, 2008). An important
concept around the importance of migration network, locally as well as internationally put
simply, migrant move to place where friends, family members, neighbors or other from their
village have moved before because it decreases their psychological and financial costs as well as
increases social security. As a result, migrant in particular destination tends to come from
specific areas of origin; particularly when the migratory jobs are relatively attractive and have
higher returns.

E) Migration and the Dual Sector Model of Economic Development

The Lewis Dual Sector model has two main sectors: An agricultural/rural sector characterized by
zero marginal productivity of labor, and an urban/industrial sector which has a high demand for
labor and offers wages that are higher than the rural areas. Lewis assumed the agricultural sector
to be purely subsistence characterized by surplus labor, low productivity, low incomes, and
considerable underemployment. Some portions of the rural labor force were assumed to be
redundant or surplus in nature, contributing nothing to output. The industrial sector was assumed
to be technologically advanced with high levels of investment operating in an urban environment
(Macatty, 2004).

The Lewis Dual Sector model basically states that there is the existence of excess labor in the
rural agricultural sector; therefore people migrate to the industrial sector to obtain employment
(Macatty, 2004). Besides, the urban manufacturing sector demands labor transfer so as to
increase its productivity. In the modern sectors the migrants are thought to be attracted due to
better wage. According to Todaro, high levels of rural-urban migration can continue even when
urban unemployment rates are high and are known to potential migrants. Migrant will move even
if that migrant ends up by being unemployed or receives a lower urban wages than the rural
wages (Todaro, 1976:31). Similarly, the probability of obtaining an urban job is inversely related
to the urban unemployment rate (Todaro, 1976: 47).

xx | P a g e
 F) Harris-Todaro Model of Migration

Like Lewis in his model, Todaro assumes that the economy consists of two sectors. These are the
industrial sector in urban areas and agricultural sector in rural areas. This considers that the
decision to migrate will be made if the urban income exceeds the rural income. However one
thing is new in his model, and that is expected urban income, which emphasizes that migrants are
calculating the expected income in a certain period rather than the current real difference income
between the cities as and the county side. The main characteristics of Todaro’s model are:
1. Migration is stimulated primarily be rational economic consideration of reactive
benefits and costs, mostly financial but also psychological.
2. The decision to migrate depends on expected urban-rural real wage differential,
where the expected differential is determined by the interaction of two variables, the
actual urban-rural wage differential and probability of successfully obtaining
employment in urban sector.
3. The probability of obtaining an urban job is inversely related to the urban
unemployment rate.
4. Migration rates in excess of urban jobs opportunity growth rates are not only possible
but rational and ever likely in a face of wide urban-rural expected income
differentials. High rates of urban unemployment are therefore inevitable outcomes of
serious in balances of economic opportunities between urban and rural areas of most
under developed countries (Todaro, 1976).
The core issue of his approach is the relationship between migration and the expected urban-rural
wage differential, the model postulates that rural urban migration on developing countries is
assumed to be a function of the expected urban-rural wage differential.

G) Sjaastad’s Human Investment Theory

Sjaastad’s (1962) advanced a theory of migration which treats the decision to migrate as an
investment decision involving an individual’s expected costs and returns over time. Returns
comprise both monetary and non-monetary components, the latter including changes in
“psychological benefits” as a result of location preferences. Similarly, costs include both
monetary and non-monetary costs. Monetary costs include costs of transportation, disposal of
property, wages foregone while in transit, and any training for a new job. Psychological costs

xxi | P a g e
include leaving familiar surroundings, adopting new dietary habits and social customs, and so on.
Since these are difficult to measure, empirical tests in general have been limited to the income
and other quantifiable variables. Sjaastad’s approach assumes that people desire to maximize
their net real incomes over their productive life and can at least compute their net real income
streams in the present place of residence as well as in all possible destinations; again the realism
of these assumptions can be questioned since “perfect information” is not always the case, by
any means.

H) Migration and Unemployment

Rural urban migration was viewed favorably in economic development literature. Internal
migration was thought to be a natural process in which surplus labor was gradually with drawn
from rural sector to provide need manpower for urban industrial growth. However, it is now
abundantly clear from recent LDCs experience that rates of rural-urban migration continue to
exceed rates of urban job creation and to surpass greatly the absorption capacity of both industry
and urban social services (Todaro, 1994).

Many developing countries are plagued by a historically unique combination of massive rural-
urban population movement, stagnating agricultural productivity and growing urban and rural
unemployment for both educated and non-educated individuals. Rural urban migrants pile up in
large cities in the form of unemployed and underemployed masses living in the unsightly
congested cities due to low level of urbanization most LDCs.

According to CSA (1995) more than half (55%) of the migrants in Addis Ababa were employed
in various activities in agricultural and informal sectors while about 45% of the migrants were
unemployed, students or family helpers.

I) W-Zelensky’s Mobility Transition Theory

Over the last 250 years there has been a transition of the developed countries of Europe from a
primary rural society to a primary urban society (the urban transition, from societies of high
fertility and mortality to societies of low fertility and mortality (demographic transition) in this

xxii | P a g e
Wilbur Zelensky’s brought the mobility transition with attempts to link demographic transition
and modernization with changes in the type and pattern of migration. There are definite patterned
regularities in the growth of personal mobility through space time during recent history and these
regularities comprise and essential component of modernization process (Woldie, 2010).

The strength of this approach is that it combines within a single frame work several different
types of population movement including both internal and international movement towards the
agricultural frontier, from rural areas to urban themselves. Zelensky’s recognized that permanent
or at least long term can be classified under circulation. While the nature of relationship between
modernization which can be assumed to represent development and form of mobility was never
precisely stipulated part of the innovative nature of the mobility was to identify two clear
connections between technological changes and mobility changes. As form of transport
improved people could stay in their places of origin and commute to jobs, whereas before they
would have had to move these jobs. Thus, overtime some forms of migration are absorbed by
circulation (Woldie, 2010).

J) Urbanization and Migration

The process of rural urban migration is normally associated with industrialization and
urbanization. It is possible for the growth of urban population with considerably greater speed
than the corresponding rural population throughout the world. Rural urban migration was a
feature of the 19th century in the developed countries (Europe and North America). In other
word, from the one set of industrialization particularly from 1860s onwards, a considerable part
of their urban growth was due to rural-urban migration (Birhane, 2011).

After 1920s, rural urban migration depopulation began to slow down due to beginning of sub-
urbanization and the transformation of certain urban industrial areas in to depressed areas. In the
contrary, urban out migration become accelerate. Since 1945, the less developed countries (Asia,
Latin America and Africa) began to industrialize and more people began to move to cities. Cities
in the developing world have grown so rapidly and rural-urban migration become of the
characteristics of these countries (Lewis, 1998). For instance in the period between 1950 and

xxiii | P a g e
1975, the urban population of less developed countries grew at 4.0 percent annually, much faster
than the rate of increase of developed countries in the 19 th century (didn’t exceed 2.5percent) and
migration alone accounts for about 40% of the urban population growth (Gelbard,et al, 1999 and
Grigg, 1980 as cited in Aliyev, 2008).

Moreover, with the decline of natural increase in many of the urban developing countries, net
rural urban migrations become the major sources of urban population growth. For example, it has
accounted for 54% of their urban growth in the 1980s. However, the contribution of rural urban
migration varied from 25% in Africa to 64% in developing Asia. In Latin America (most
urbanized among less developed regions), its contribution declined from 75% in the post-World
War II periods to 34% in the 1980s. This is because the increase in the level of urbanization will
lead to low net urban migration in relation to high rates of net out migration (IOM, 2008).

Migration (Lemlem, 2002) is the demographic process that links rural-urban areas, generating or
spurring the growth of cities. The resultant urbanization is linked to variety of policy issues,
spanning demographic, economic and environmental degradation. Urbanization can place stress
on the land through sprawl, coincident industrial development may threaten air and water. Rapid
urbanization is also linked to problem of unemployment and social adaptation of migrants in
their new urban setting. Cities advertise societies inequalities income, housing and social
resources, whether these problems are or just newly manifest setting.

2.2. The Empirical Literature

Early theoretical discussions on rural-urban migration in economics focus on the individual’s

motivation to migrate from rural to urban areas. It is argued that differences in returns and
income between rural and urban areas are the main drivers of rural-urban migration in the highly
influential Harris- Todaro model, wages in urban areas are institutionally set above market
clearing price so that migrants compare the expected wage in the urban sector with the
agricultural wage in the rural areas. Hence, rural-urban migration will exist even if there is
unemployment in urban areas so long as expected earning in urban areas is higher than earnings
in rural areas (Harris &Todaro, 1994). Later models of migration incorporate more factors than
the wage differential as a trigger for migration and more actors than the migrants in the decision

xxiv | P a g e
making. In the ‘new economics of migration’ the household is the unit of analysis instead of the
individual migrant and factors such as risk minimization, imperfections in rural markets and
relative deprivation are considered important incentives for migration in addition to differences
in expected returns to labor.

The migration theories imply that more people will migrate from poor areas that have relatively
low return to labor and more exposure to risks and shocks. However, the empirical evidence
shows that it is not always the case. Some empirical literature documents segmentation of
migration streams but the poorest areas do not always have the most out-migration (De Haan,
1999). Migration is self-perpetuating in the sense that migrants from a certain area open the way
for more migrants from the same place through their social capital that reduces the cost and risk
of new migrants and increases the return from migration. It is not always the case that the
migrants are individuals who are expected to earn better in urban areas. This is because barriers
in the form of lack of capital to finance migration, absence of networks, insufficient information,
distance to urban areas and poor infrastructures limit migration for those facing the constraints.

African migration is fundamentally a family affair rather than an individual activity. Sending of
remittances by migrants is identified as one of the strongest and most all-encompassing
phenomena in Africa’s migration systems (Adepoju, 1995). Accordingly (Stark and Bloom,
1985), individual migration enables the household to maximize its chances for survival by
diversifying its sources of income and spreading its risks The recurring threat of famine or crop
failure resulting from inadequate equipment and faulty method of utilization and cultivation of
land and others induce rural out migration (Caldwell, 1969). He expresses that the limitation of
cash earning opportunities of farmers to once or twice during the year forces many men to leave
the countryside for the towns even to get daily labor.

There are multiple effects of migration in Africa both on sending and receiving areas. Some
studies in the region link migration with negative outcomes. Of particular concern is the
selectivity of migration for the young, the educated, the innovative, and the energetic into rural -
urban migration, leaving behind in rural areas the very young the apathetic, the retired and tired,
the illiterate and the infirmed. Thus, those who will stimulate the local economy and contribute

xxv | P a g e
to improvement in household living conditions are lost, perpetuating rural poverty and
dependency as well as undermining rural social viability.

Empirical studies found results that most migrants in poor countries are young, mostly in the age
group 15-30 (De Haan, 1999; Lipton, 1980). They are also more educated than others indicating
the self-selectivity of the migrants. In terms of gender, males dominate labor migration in Africa
and Asia. The costs associated with migration, including the financial costs, risks associated with
migration and lack of information creates barriers to migration for individuals who can
potentially benefit from migration. For example, in western Kenya, Hoddinott (1994) shows that
while the amount of land received from parents reduces the likelihood of sons’ migration
because it indicates the earning potential in the rural area, parental land holding, proxying wealth
and ability to finance migration, and thus increases the likelihood of sons’ migration.

When we come to Ethiopia the country suffered national famine in different time period’s .The
1984-85 famine was the most catastrophic Ethiopia experienced and reportedly more than a
million people died. As part of response to the famine, the Derg regime launched a massive
national resettlement and villagization program intended to bring dispersed rural farmers from
drought prone areas in the north into concentrated farming cooperatives, mostly in western
Ethiopia. According to Kloos (1990), he estimated that 1984-85 resettlement programs resulted
in the movement of about 600,000 drought victims from northern and central Ethiopia to the
western part of the country. This controversial resettlement program exacerbated the food crisis
by not only interfering with agricultural production but also disrupting social relations.
According to Berhanu and White (2000), the program engendered discontent among the peasants
and out migration flows towards cities to avoid living in settlements established and controlled
by government. However, the country has been undergoing a major transformation from a
centrally planned to a market oriented economy since the current government came to power in
1991. Because of such transformations internal migration tends to play an increasing role both
demographically and economically.

As (Hailu, 1983 cited in Kederalah, 1991), indicate that movement of people from rural to urban
areas of Ethiopia has considerable significance for urban growth. The share of in-migration

xxvi | P a g e
accounted for more than 50 percent and in some cases up to 80 percent as noted around 1978
causing high urban population growth. The development of urban centers was, thus, at the cost of
the rural areas. This resulted in rural stagnation and increased poverty, forcing the people to
leave their villages. Accordingly, the rural “push” due to the prevailing poverty conditions in the
rural areas and not the urban “pull” or attractions that has been the main force for migration). As
far as the push factors concerned, different studies in Ethiopia specified that unfavorable land
tenure system, lack of rural employment opportunities, seasonality of agricultural work,
inadequacy or lack of social and economic services, and natural disasters such as drought caused
frequent crop damages and failure, ecological degradation and poverty in rural areas were the
main forces for rural out migration) stated that the rural “push” factors have been strong forces in
the movement of people from the rural to urban areas of Ethiopia than the urban “pull “factors.

CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study focuses on the determinant factors of rural-urban migration to youth in Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia. In order to address the stated objectives and research questions of the study, this
chapter outlines sources of data, method of data acquisition and analysis.

3.1 Data sources and Methods of Collection

xxvii | P a g e
Based on the research problem and objectives, both primary and secondary data sources were
used. More specifically, the selected methods to collect the necessary primary data are
questionnaire and personal observation on post migrant youths in Addis Ababa. To collect
primary data on individual youth migrants, the questionnaire which includes open-ended and
closed ended types and that consisted of seven main sections has been prepared. The first part
was Demographic characteristics of migrants at present that helps to secure information about
the personal profile of the respondents including their age, sex, marital status, religion and
educational attainment. The second section deals with Demographic characteristics of youth
migrant families. The third part is about patterns and process of youth’s migration. The fourth
section addresses migration and migration decision. The next two sections concerned on
economic status of migrants before migration-past and, economic characteristics of migrants at
present. Finally, the last two sections deals with problems faced by youth migrants after arrival
in Addis Ababa and future plan of these youths. In order to achieve the stated objective, the
items of the questionnaire are developed using simple and clear words that were appropriate and
helped migrants to respond to the questions with understanding. The construction of this
questionnaire items is more strengthened using the professional comments given by colleagues,
my advisors and the any feedback obtained before data collected. The questionnaire was
prepared in English and translated in to Amharic which is the language of the local people and
once again translated in to English for report purpose. In addition to the questionnaire personal
observation also was given more attention and conducted with youth migrants engaged in
construction, hotel, small business, beggar, home maker and child care, shoeshine and youth
civil servants to get necessary information and to understand the determinants of rural-urban
youth migrants in the study area.

In addition to data collected through questionnaire and personal observation, the secondary data
that help to clarify were obtained from various sources. The books related to migration in the
library, reports and other available written data from central statistics agency specially the 1984,
1994 and 2007 population and housing census statistical and analytical reports at country and
regional level, and International Organization for Migration (IOM), United Nation (UN)recent
reports, and related research documents are some of the major sources will have contribution to
the study substantially by providing information regarding the study.

xxviii | P a g e
3.2. Sampling

In this study both the quantitative and qualitative designs will be employed to achieve the study
objectives. In this section therefore, data collection tools and instruments, procedures of sample
size determination and method of data analysis for both quantitative and qualitative data types
will be discussed in detail as follow.

A multistage sampling technique will be employed to select sites and draw sampled youth
migrants for the study. Firstly, Addis Ababa purposively selected as migrants common
destination to presence of most of countries administrative, commercial, and industrial
establishment and migrants common destination. Secondly, the targeted youth migrants selected
purposively along with engaging socio economic activities which is assumed in the construction,
hotel, small business, beggary, home maker and child care, shoeshine, lottery selling and private
and government organization salaried worker. Finally, the respondents was randomly selected in
at time of survey in the engaging socio economic activities place, where migrants are intensively
and easily get in the Addis Ababa with scheduled time of data collection period.

The sample size determination respects the amount of sample required for logistic regression. To
this effect sample size determination will take in to consideration the minimum ratio of valid
cases to independent variables for logistic regression to be 10 to 1 (Gorard, 2004 and Long and
Freese, 2006). Therefore, the independent variables in this study are 8, which require a minimum
of 80 individuals to have good output for logistic model. Though this is the minimum
requirement for logistic regression, it is up to the researcher to increase the size as long as other
factors such as the availability of budget, time and the objectives and nature of the research are
not hindering the researcher. Putting these factors in to consideration primarily the study were
employed 110 individuals which were distributed randomly to each respondent youth migrants
based on economic sector engage in the study area. However, Out of 110 questionnaires, 92
questionnaires were filled and are found useful for the study. From total of 92 individuals 86
(93.5%) are migrant youths and the other 6 (6.5%) are non- migrant youth respondents.

xxix | P a g e
 3.3. Method of analysis

Both descriptive statistics and logistic or Logit regression were employed to analyze the
quantitative and qualitative data. After the completion of data collection, the data were analyzed,
edited, coded, classified and tabulated the demographic and socio-economic variable
quantitatively and qualitatively using descriptive analysis including frequency, percentage
computations, and tables, charts, and graphs. Regression analysis is another tool that will be
utilized in the second part of analysis. To this effect binary logistic regression which signifies the
effect of each independent variable on the dependent variable were employed in this study.

3.3.1. Model Specification

Dependent variable:

 The Dependent variable in this study is youth’s internal migration decision (M). The
presence of one migrant individual youth and above represents as migrants’ youth
otherwise non-migrants’ youth.

{
M = 1 , If the individual is youthmigrant
0 , otherwise

Explanatory variables

There are about eight explanatory variables that are expected to influence youths’ internal
migration decision. All these variables are illustrated in the following the table below.

Figure 3.1; Abbreviations, description, and characteristics of explanatory variables of the

model.

S. Variables Abbrevi Characteris Expected Variable Description Measurement

N. ations tics of influence
variables
1 Sex of the Gender Dummy Positive Sex is one of basic demographic (1=female,

xxx | P a g e
 individual youth factors that determine migration 0 = male)
related to structure and growth of
population. Young men and
women hold different motivations
for migration. Female youths with
high cultural influence, social
responsibility, and economic
constraint motivate towards the
migration decision compared to
men.
2 Experience of C failure Dummy Positive Extreme poverty which is 1=Yes,
Crop Failure composed of crop failure due 0=No
natural hazard, landlessness, lack
of productive assets, and absence
of income, food shortage, and lack
of access to education, health, and
other basic services, and an
inability to obtain employment is
main driver of migration.
Therefore, the rural poor (youth)
use migration as a strategy to
overcome their desperate poverty.
3 Parents Level of F edu Dummy Positive The average level of education in a 1=literate ,
Education of family is also a potentially 0=illiterate
youth important determinant of
migration. Father’s and mother’s
education and subjective well-
being positively associated with
children’s migration decision.
4 Income earned in I urban continuous Positive The income earned in urban as
urban compared to rural is the major
motivator in youth migration. A
migrant move to towns in search of
well – paid jobs due to desire to
support their rural poor families
with hope full expected income
earned to send remittance.
5 Total rural farm Fsize Dummy Positive Amount of land received from 1,< 1hectare
size parents reduces the likelihood of 0, otherwise
sons’ migration because it indicates

xxxi | P a g e
 the earning potential in the rural
area. Youth from poorer and
landless households and from
villages with less agricultural
potential and size are more likely
to migrate.
6 Social or public S infra Dummy Positive Accesses to infrastructure, group 1,if better
facilities and migration, networking, and facilities and
infrastructure information from earlier migrants infrastructure
are also important factors that may in urban
facilitate more migration from 0,other wise
some places to the others. Good
roads, schools, hospitals etc. are
concentrated in urban areas and
this attracts youth to move to
towns.
7 Non-economic NE desires Dummy Positive Youth seem to have quite realistic 1,if youth
desires expectations about life in urban have been
areas before they arrive there. The decided to
desire for personal development migrate due to
like Urban experience, modernity, noneconomic
knowledge gain, desire for desire
independence etc. is a common 0,otherwise
motivator for young migrants.
8 Family shocks F shocks Dummy Positive Family shocks for example death, 1,presence of
divorce, family disputes also affect shocks
migration decision. 0,absence of
shocks

Now to derive the logit regression, consider the linear probability model (LPM): the probability
that the dependent variable y is one given independent variables x is

p ( yi=1/ x )=β 0+ β 1 X 1+ β 2 X 2+… … … …+ β k X k +E

p ( yi=1/ x )=G ( β 0+ β 1 X 1+ β 2 X 2+… … … …+ β k X k ) And

xxxii | P a g e
let z=β 0+ β 1 X 1+ β 2 X 2+… …+ β k X k =x β . Thus G the logistic function:
z
e
G ( z )=G ( x β )= pi= z
1+ e

Such that is G (z) is the binary logistic function taking on values between zero and one (0<G (z) <1).
Suppose pi the probability that individual youth migration decision occurs ( yi=1) and 1− pi is
the probability that youth migration decision doesn’t occur( yi=0) .
z z
e e 1
pi= z And
1− pi=1− z
= z ; where, z=β 0+ β 1 X 1+ β 2 X 2+…+ β k X k =x β .
1+ e 1+e 1+e
z
e
z
pi 1+e z
The likelihood function written as: L= = =e
1− pi 1
z
1+e

We can now transform the binary logistic function,(G), to the logit model (log of the odds that
youth migration decision occur), M, by taking L in to logarithm.

M =ln ( pi
1− pi )
=ln ( e z )=zln e=z=β 0+ β 1 gender +¿β2 C failure+ β3Fedu+β4I urban + β5F size + β6
S infra+ β7 NE desires +β8Fshocks

Where, Β 0 is intercept term

ei is error term
β1, β2, β3....β8 are coefficients of variables
Therefore, individual migration decision is the function of factors that this study want observe are
gender, experience of Crop Failure, parents education attainment, income earned in urban, total
individual rural farm size, social or public facilities and infrastructure, non-economic desires,
and family shocks factors.

CHAPTER FOUR: DATA PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND

ANALYSIS

xxxiii | P a g e
 4.1. Introduction

In this chapter, the data collected through different data collection methods and tools are
discussed and analyzed carefully in order to know the determinant factors of youth’s rural urban
migration. The statistical software package is also used for processing and analyzing the data
obtained from questionnaires.

The questionnaires consist of 86 identical questions for migrant youths aged from 15-29 years
old. The information gathered through interviews is also used to complement the data collected
through questionnaires. The data presentation is done in such a way that the response questions
and data are grouped according to the respective research questions. In view of that, the
responses are presented in descriptive and econometric parts as follows.

4.2. Descriptive analysis

The study has collected a wide range of demographic and socio-economic information which is
essential to the interpretation of the findings and the understanding of the results of the study on
determinant factors of rural- urban youth migration.

4.2.1. Background Characteristics of Respondents

The background characteristics which include the demographic and socio-economic profile of
respondents interviewed in the study area such as age, sex, marital status before migration, youth
education, religion, region, father or mother maximum education, total rural farm size, etc are
presented in this section using figures and tables.

A. Sex composition of respondents

Sex is one of basic demographic factors that determine migration decision and highly related to
structure and growth of population. Young men and women hold different motivations for
migration. Female youths with high cultural influence, social responsibility, and economic
constraint motivate towards the migration decision compared to men. As presented in Table
4.1 among the respondents 54.7 percent were male while the remaining 45.3
percent were male.

Table 4.1: Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Sex

Sex Frequency Percent

xxxiv | P a g e
 Female 47 54.7
Male 39 45.3
Total 86 100.00

B. Age of respondent youths

Among the demographic characteristics, age compositions are the one which have influence on
youth’s migration decision. The age distribution of respondents included in the
study is presented in Figure 4.1.

44.56
40.28%

14.13 % percent(%)

15-19 20-24 25-29

Figure 4.1.Percentage distributions of respondents by age

As shown in figure 4.1.the highest proportion of respondents were found in the age
group 20-24 (44.56 percent) and 25-29 (40.28 percent). The number of
respondents in the age group 15-19 was 14.13 percent. Hence, migration to Addis
Ababa is age selective. They are young between 20 and 24 years of age who migrated to the
capital. This may be explained by the fact that in this age group young people decide to move as
they characteristically get easily bitten by the rising ambition; they who get more restless about
the deteriorating socio economic situation in their rural settings or about searching out newer
environment and better chance of life; by their age specific long future; they also enjoy the
capacity to learn new trends, acquire new skills, change jobs, get education and work harder to
achieve their goals in the newer environment and enjoy life. Moreover, this young age group (20-24)
migrated because of information access becomes maximum due to more social interaction than other

xxxv | P a g e
young age group. There is also the 20-24 young age groups becomes less satisfied with the rural
agricultural system and are more ambitious to test urban life.

C. Marital Status of Respondents

Marital status is another important characteristic influencing the propensity to migrate. Migration
propensities change with marital status. That is, the matter of being married, never married
(includes currently single, divorced, and widowed), has an effect on the decision to migrate.
Single persons have less responsibility than married ones. So, being a young, single man
increases the probability of movement to these nearby places which mean unmarried are more
likely to migrate.
According to Kebede (1994) as cited in Birhan (2011) many of the migrants were never married
at the time they migrated. Similarly, the response given by the youth respondents strengthen this
idea. As indicated in Table 4.2 below, out of 86 migrant youths 84.84 percent of the respondents
were never married and the remaining 15.11percent were married ((includes currently single,
divorced, and widowed) when they first migrated to Addis Ababa.

Table 4.2: Percentage Distribution Respondents by Marital Status

Marital Status Number Percent

Married 13 15.11
Male 8 61.54
Female 5 38.46
Total 13 100.00
Never married 73 84.84
Male 31 42.46
Female 42 57.53
Total 73 100.00

Table 4.2 further shows that about 42.46 percent of the migrant male respondents’ were never
married when they first migrated to Addis Ababa. .The corresponding figure for female
respondents were about 57.53 percent. It was also found that 15.11 percent of the respondents

xxxvi | P a g e
were married when they migrated to Addis Ababa, of which 61.53 and 38.46percent were males
and females respectively. There is higher proportion of married males at rural can be elaborated
by the tradition of the country by large where males are relatively forced to take responsibilities
independently through marriage at earlier ages.

Thus, from the sample, we can understand that most of respondent migrants to Addis Ababa are
female (47), who are never married compared to male (39) respondents. This may be based on
the fact that, in Ethiopia particularly at rural areas, unmarried females have too much
responsibilities at home as well as farm activities. As such, they have no time for education and
even some of them are forced to dropout from school. So, they prefer to move to other areas
where better different opportunities are available. In addition, because of less respect from the
society, divorced and widowed young females in rural areas also prefer to move to urban areas
and be engaged in different activities. In general, youth migrant toward Addis Ababa based on
their marital status is dominated more by unmarried male and female than married ones.

D. Administrative region of respondent youths

Respondents were asked about their administrative region of respondents. The 1994 census
indicates that the Amharas (36.6 percent) and the Oromos (29.7) percent are the most mobile
administrative region. Similarly, the response given by the youth respondents in this study strengthen
this idea. The response of respondents which is presented in Figure 4.2 shows that 40.7 percent of
the respondents from Amhara region, and 25.58 percent from Oromo and 19.77percent from the
Tigray, and13.95 % from SNNP.

However, domination of the two administrative regions among the total respondents could be
attributed to the size of Amharas and the Oromos in the country as a whole.

xxxvii | P a g e
 Amhara 40.70%

Oromiya 25.58%

Tigray 19.77%

SNNP 13.95%

0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00%

Figure 4.2 percentage distributions of respondents by administrative region

E. Religion of the respondents

The volume of migrants by religious affiliation is more associated with the size of followers of
different religion of the country. According to the figure, nearly three fourth of migrant youth
(70 %) belongs to Orthodox Christianity. And the other about 24 % percent is Protestant
Christian and about 6% are Muslim.

percentage distribution of respondant by re-

ligion

6%
Orthodox christain
Protestant christian
24%
Muslim

70%

Figure 4.3 percentage distributions of respondents by religion

The domination of Orthodox Christian among migrants, as explained above doesn’t indicate
that Christians are more mobile than followers of other religions, but it is also because of the
large size of the Orthodox Christian youths of the respondents.

xxxviii | P a g e
 4.2.2. Socio-Economic Profile of Respondents

A. Educational level of Respondents

Education is one of the factors of youth’s rural-urban migration. As indicated in the figure the
decision to migrate from illiterate up to end of secondary school is also more likely influenced by
educational attainment. This is mainly because of the fact that on the one hand national
examination failure at the end of secondary school (grade 10) and primary school (grade 8)
increases due to low quality and quantity education. On the other hand, the educational
attainment increases the chance to get employment and other opportunities.

The data from respondents of this study also shows that the propensity to migrate is decreases in
the preparatory and higher educational attainment due to youths give more concerned directly to
learning rather than migration decision issues. As illustrated in Figure 4.4 below, majority of the
respondents (about 90.68percent) had primary and above educational level when they migrated
to Addis Ababa. However, 9.3percent of the samples migrant are illiterate.

45.00%
40.69%
40.00%

35.00%

30.00%

25.00% 24.41%

20.00% 17.44%
Percent
15.00%

10.00% 9.30%
8.14%

5.00%

0.00%
illterate primary secondary preparatory higher education

xxxix | P a g e
 Figure 4.4 percentage distributions of respondents by educational level

B. Educational attainment of respondent family

One of the factor variable used to discuss the socio-economic profile of respondents in this study
is educational attainment of respondents’ mother or father. Father’s and mother’s education and
subjective well-being is positively associated with children’s migration decision. The distribution
of respondents’ family according to their educational level is presented in Figure 4.5. The data on the
highest educational level of respondents’ mother or father illustrated that the higher proportion (64.4
percent) respondents’ mother or father completed some primary, secondary or higher education. And
35.6 percent of the respondents’ mother or father was illiterate.

1000.00%
900.00%
800.00%
700.00%
600.00%
500.00%
400.00%
300.00%
200.00%
100.00%
0.00%
llliterate Literate

Figure 4.5 percentage distributions of respondents by family’s educational

attainment

C. Rural farm size

Land is one of the most important assets in the rural area. A good quality of cultivated land is
necessary to support the livelihood of rural people. The probability of movement of a person is
relatively high for who does not have access to land size and other productive assets. In addition
to low rural farm size, which is due to the high family member to -land ratio, low quality and
productivity of land because of increasing pressure on land has led to division and fragmentation
of operational holding send to drive a large number of rural youth to urban areas in search of
better livelihood options.

xl | P a g e
As indicated in the figure 4.6 the respondents reported that 70.93% of them had rural farm size
of less than 1 hectare, 19.76 % 1-2 hectare and 9.3% greater than 2 hectares.

80.00%
70.93%
70.00%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00% Rural farm size
30.00% 19.76%
20.00% 9.30%
10.00%
0.00%
< hectare 1-2 hectare >2 hectare

Figure4.6 percentage distribution of respondents by total rural farm size

4.2.3. Source of Information, Information received about Destination and Assistance

at Destination

A. Source of Information

Information flow and personal networks such as friendship and kinship were among the
important determinants of rural-urban migration to the migrants of this study. Almost (93.02%)
of migrants had obtained information about destination (Addis Ababa) prior to their migration.
The sources of information were friends, relatives, family members, their previous knowledge
and some other informal sources. Based on this, 26.74% of respondents obtained information
about the destination from friends, 11.63% from relatives, 15.12% from other family members,
6.98% received no information and 39.53% respondents received information from other sources
such as Contact with people who know the capital city which imply high information linkage
between rural youth and people in urban.

Table 4.3; Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Source of information

Source of information Number of Percent
respondents
1. Friends in the destination 23 26.74
2. Family/parent 13 15.12
3. Contact with people who know the city 34 39..53
4. Relatives or friends in the origin 10 11.63

xli | P a g e
 5. No information received 6 6.98
Total 86 100

Even though information and social networks in facilitating respondents’ migration was
important, those who are generally less educated and subject to greater social constraints were
more likely to rely upon friends or relatives information and guidance to make the decision to
migrate. This information flows may results the influence on next potential youth migrants to
make the decision for rural-urban migration to Addis Ababa.

B. Information received about Destination

As indicated in figure 4.7, the majority (65.12 percent) of the respondents had positive
information (migrant life is easy), the 27.9 percent of the respondents had negative information
and the remaining 6.98% received no information before they decide to migrate towards the
destination of Addis Ababa.

70.00% 0.6512

60.00%

50.00%

40.00%
0.279
30.00%

20.00% 0.0698
10.00%

0.00%
Positive(migrant life is Negative(migrant life is No information
easy in AA) not easy in AA)
Figure 4.7 Percentage Distributions of Respondents by Prior-Information about Addis Ababa

Youth respondents that contact relatives and friends and received positive information from who
back home or through phone indicating that work is found and perhaps telling about some of
attractions of city life. Due this case, the migrants are attached with the fact that they already
have friends and relatives at their destination which might provide comfort, help in a job search,
or perhaps offer them a place to stay initially. Therefore, the flow of information, which tell
positive and negative side of destination between potential youth migrant and family, relatives

xlii | P a g e
and friends in the origin and destination have highly significant role to affect the pattern and
also decision of youths migration.

C. Assistance at Destination

Youth migrants are heavily dependent upon interpersonal influences due to complexity of capital
city of Addis Ababa and the distance of migration. They need different types of information and
assistance from family, relatives or friends. As indicated in the table below 13.95% of
respondents reported that they received financial assistance, 17.44% food and housing and
65.12% of them got assistance related to their work.

Table 4.4; Percentage Distribution of Respondents by assistance received in the destination

Assistance at Addis Ababa Frequency Percent

Food and logging 15 17.44
Assisted in finding jobs 56 65.12
Helped in arranging and finding 10 11.63
adjustment
Financial aid 12 13.95
No assistance 26 30.23
Total 119 138.37
*The percent greater than 100 shows that respondents have been received >1 assistances.

4.2.4. Reasons of respondents to make migration decision

There are several reasons for youth population mobility from place to place. Reasons for
migration to urban centers in particular are more complex. However, the reasons of youths rural
to urban migration are usually identified as two broad categories, namely “pushing” and
“pulling” factors. Young people area may be pushed off by poverty and other natural factor to
move towards towns for employment. On the other hand, better employment opportunities or the
need for better facilities in urban areas may also pull people to different urban areas. In addition,
the decision to migrate from one place to another may also be influenced by non-economic
factors such as the need to join relatives, the need to be free from cultural and family restriction
and obligation and so on.

xliii | P a g e
According to Todaro (1997) as cited in Brihane (2011), rural-urban migration takes place largely
as a response to economic factors rather than non-economic factors. The result of this study also
confirms with this theory. As indicated in Table 4.6 the majority that accounted for 20.49 percent
of the total sample respondents were to get job or seek employment. About 24.6 percent of
sample respondents moved to Addis Ababa as a result of famine, poverty and crop failure. This
is due to the fact that they become highly food insecure and degraded areas. So, the only
opportunity is to move to other areas. On the other hand, 12.02 percent of the sample
respondents were looking for modern urban services and facilities while 12.3 percent of sample
respondents came to Addis Ababa to get education and training. In addition, about 9.01 and 13.4
percent of sample respondents moved to Addis Ababa to join their relatives and to be free from
cultural or family restrictions and obligations respectively.

Table 4.5; Percentage Distribution of Respondents by to make migration decision

Reasons to decide to migrate Number Percent
To obtain job (seek employment),To earn good income in 75 20.49
urban
Famine, poverty, crop failure, lack of oxen, land 39 10.65
shortage, poor facilities, small agricultural land,
unproductive land
To free from cultural or family restrictions and 33 9.01
obligations
To join immediate relatives and friends or following 49 13.4
them
To gain education and training 45 12.3
To seek modern urban social services and facilities 44 12.02
Large family size 27 7.4
To open up or extend personal business 28 7.7
Family shocks factors like death, divorce of family 26 7.1
member
Total 366 100

xliv | P a g e
4.2.5. Costs and Economic characteristics of respondents before and during
migration

A. Respondents’ occupations before migration decision

Pre migration occupation plays an important role for the decision to migrate. Thus, youths as a
result of crop failure as well as the need for other better opportunities and for students as a result
of less opportunity in rural areas and lack of employment opportunities need to move to urban
areas.
As figure 4.8 illustrates about 40.7 percent of the sample respondents were students before they
migrated to Addis Ababa town whereas the computed figure for unemployed sample respondents
was found to be about 14 percent. On the other hand, about 16.3, 3.5, 2.3 and 23.3 percent of the
sample respondent youth reported that they were daily laborer, housewives and working in the
private and unpaid family work before they migrated to Addis Ababa town respectively. Among
sample respondents, the proportion of unemployed respondents (14 percent) is much greater than
those who were employed (2.33 percent).This may be due to the presence of high youth
unemployment level in different rural areas of Ethiopia. As such, it would appear that
unemployed young people prefer to go to another urban area like Addis Ababa where better
employment opportunities are available. Therefore, the higher proportion of sample youth
immigrant populations of Addis Ababa town were either unemployed or students coming to Addis
Ababa.

45.00% 40.70%
40.00%
35.00%
30.00%
25.00% 23.30%
20.00% 16.30% 13.95%
15.00%
10.00%
5.00% 3.50% 2.33%
0.00%
Trainee/ Daily House wife Unemployed Working for a Unpaid family
student laborer(in private owner work
both rural and
near urban )

Figure 4.8 occupational status of respondents before migrating to Addis

Ababa

xlv | P a g e
B. Respondent’s responsibility or activity engaged in the family before migration
decision
The majority of the respondents (23.3%) mentioned that they were engaged in Land
preparation/tillage as the main economic activity prior to migrating but the land cultivated was
owned by the family. Most youths concurred that they do work in the farms as unpaid family
worker to sustain the whole family with the custodians of all the produce being the parents.
There were also others engaged in planting and fertilizing, weeding, harvesting and threshing, or
livestock and crop marketing. The other were earning income through daily labor (in both rural
and near urban) which considered that they are self-employed. It was therefore evident that the
economic activity of the family before migration decision was predominantly Land
preparation/tillage.

25.00% 23.30%

20.00% 17.50%
16.30%
15.10%
15.00%
10.50%
10.00% 9.30%
5.80% 4.70%
5.00%

0.00%
ge g ng ng ng re er rs
tilla lizin edi shi eti ca our the
n/ rti e re k nd O
fe ar lab
atio d
W
d
th m ga ily
ar n n p in
ep ga g a cro eed Da
pr tin tin d f
es an ck
nd lan v ck to
La P
Ha
r es
esto Liv
Liv

Figure 4.9; Family occupation of youths prior to migration

C. Respondents expense cost incurred at the initial period of migration

Migration requires some investment specially cost of travel, adjustment and other initial
expenses incurred at the destination. Youth migrants with less expense at initial period of
migration are more likely to migrate. High cost due to distance from destination and absence of
information and assistance affect their decision to migrate inversely because of difficulties to
finance it.

xlvi | P a g e
According to Table 4.6, most migrants (51 percent) earn an average expenses incurred less than
300 birr per-month. Similarly, about 19.8, 18.6 and 10.5 percent of migrants incurred 301-600
birr, 601-900, greater than 900 birr respectively.

Table 4.6; percentage distribution of respondents by expense incurred at the initial period of
migration
Frequency Percent
Less than 300 44 51.2
301-600 17 19.8
601-900 16 18.6
Greater than 900 9 10.5
Total 86 100.00

D. Staying period to get first income earning

After the arrival in Addis Ababa, youth respondents had to stay without income earning job for a
months. When staying period increases the volume and motivation of youths in the originto
make migration decision minimizes. This is due to their expectation that they may get them the
same situation and results the expenses of initial period of migration to rise.

how long did you stay to find your first income earning job?
34.90%
22.09% 19.80% 23.30%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%
s s s )
da
y y y ed
da da oy
<3
0
-9
0 1 pl
1 >9 em
3 y
el
i at
ed
m
(i m
y ed
ta
ts
No

Figure 4.10; Staying period to get first income earning

4.2.6. Current occupational Status and Nature of respondents present job

A. Current occupational Status

xlvii | P a g e
The rural-urban youth migrants to Addis Ababa are engaged in different urban informal and
formal economic sector activities. Formal economic sector activities such as small business
owner, hotel reception, low level employee-civil service, professional salaried worker and
construction worker(skilled in experience) and while informal economic sector activities, which
are relatively casual works, such as street vending , daily labor, shoe shine, Child care and home
services of total sample respondents.

This study reported that (21.7%) are engaged as daily laborers and the rest (16.3%) are child care
and home services activities. This could be due to `lack adequate education or required
occupational skill to be engaged in the formal sector, and hence the only option is to join urban
informal sector. They have also no capital potential to run any form of big business of their own
in the capital city. That is why they are engaged in the urban informal economic sector of street
vending and daily casual work to lead their life. Whereas the (12.8 percent) are employee civil
servant and business owner, hotel reception and construction worker (skilled in experience) also
constitute 9.3, 12.8, 4.65 percent respectively.

Table 4.7; Current Occupational Status of Respondents’

Occupational Status Frequency Percent

Trainee/student 5 5.8
Shoe shiner 2 2.3
Hotel reception 11 12.8
Daily laborer(unskilled) 18 20.9
Child care and home service 15 17.44
business owner 8 9.3
Unemployed 12 13.95
employee-civil service 11 12.8
construction worker(skilled inexperience) 4 4.65
Total 86 100.00

The table 4.7 shows that, 12(13.95%) of respondent unemployed from both formal and informal
during the time of data collection of this study. The table also indicate that informal sector are
important to absorb the unemployed youth migrant, and for those students who are to complete
their educations both in high schools or colleges/Universities and also for those who don’t have
permanent jobs, like daily laborer.

xlviii | P a g e
 B. Nature of respondents’ present job
As shown in the table 4.8, among respondents who engaged in both formal and informal
economic sector activities 26.7 percent of youth migrants have permanent job and 59.5 percent
of youth migrant have temporary job. Even though these temporary worker have access to easily
hired and get employment, potential for flexible hours and opportunity to gain experience from
different situations and procedures, this may lead youth migrants to high vulnerability to socio-
economic insecurity.

Table 4.8; Nature of respondents’ present job

Number Percent

Permanent 23 26.7

Temporary 51 59.3

Currently unemployed 12 13.95

Total 86 100.00

4.2.7. Socio-economic condition of sampled youths

A. Impacts of migration on respondents

An attempt was made to gather information about the socio-economic condition of migrants
before and after migration. As such, socio-economic conditions such as working conditions,
income, cultural and social interaction, education, access to education, transportation and health
care, economic independence from families, modernity, knowledge gain, family help and general
living conditions of migrants were used as instruments for assessing the impacts of migration on
individual youth migrants.

As indicated in figure 4.11, more than three-quarter of the sample respondents reported that they
enjoyed improvements in different aspect of their lives. For instance, about 77.9 percent of the
respondents reported that they had got improvements in their types work. About 82.6 percent of

xlix | P a g e
them got improvement in their income while 81.4 percent of them got significant improvements
in their access to housing, education/skill, health care, water, food and transport.

Improved Worsened Remained the same

100.00%
90.00% 86.60% 87.20%
82.60% 81.40%
80.00% 77.90% 74.40%
70.00% 66.30%
60.00%
50.00%
40.00%
29.00%
30.00%
19.80% 18.60%
20.00% 12.80% 12.80% 12.80%
10.00% 6.98% 8.12%
5.80% 4.70%
2.30% 4.70% 4.70% 4.70%
0.00%

Figure 4.11 improvements in living standard of migrants

Similarly, about 87.2 percent of the sampled youth migrants told that their general living
conditions have improved. In Ethiopia, access to education, health care, and transportation in
rural areas did not improve much in their quality. Therefore, since most of the migrants are of
rural origin, it is expected to benefit from the available social services like education, health
service and transportation in better quality and quantity than in rural areas. However, about 5.8
percent of the sampled youth migrants reported that their educational status remained the same.
This can be so because some of the youth migrants were engaged in self-employed activities
which are hand to mouth, as a result they could not have enough time to attain formal education.

B. Current income level by respondents

One of the economic characteristics of a migrant is income. According to Table 4.9, currently
most migrants (50 percent) earn an average income level of less than 1500 birr per-month.
Similarly, about 19.8 and 24.4 percent of migrants earn monthly income of 1501-3000 birr and

l|Page
3001-5000 birr respectively. This could be because they may engage indifferent formal, informal
and self-employed economic activities that enable them to earn average monthly income.

Table 4.9; percentage Distribution of respondents by Monthly Average Income

Frequency Percent
Less than 1500 43 50
1501-3000 17 19.8
3001-5000 21 24.4
Greater than 5000 5 5.8
Total 86 100.00

C. Habits and frequency of sending remittance to family

Respondents were asked whether they remitted money or goods home to their relatives in rural
areas. Most of respondents stated quite clearly that they did not do well enough themselves to be
able to do this, or that some of them had lost contact with their rural families’ altogether after
living in Addis Ababa for some years.
Most migrants who send money to the home usually do so (8.14%), and about 40.7% of migrants
send money when situations allow them and during any emergencies either for medication, to
buy grain or to pay debt given, the amount of money sent to home varies among individuals.

8.14%

Regular cash
38.40 Occasional amount
%
Contributing in
kind
Didn’t send any-
thing
40.70
14.00% %

Figure 4.12; percentage distributions of Remittance Sent to Families and

Items taken

The table further indicates how much insignificant the amount of money sent to the rural areas is
to bring change in a well-being of their families let alone the community. Most youth migrants
did not remit money, but took gifts of clothing, shoes, educational materials, household utensils
and others on annual home visit at the time of important holidays and during emergencies.

li | P a g e
According to their response, most of the migrants visit their home place at least once or twice a
year on public holidays.

D. Pattern and saving habit of respondents

It is known that saving is the most important parts of any business activity. It enables the youth
migrants to invest in the future and acquire appropriate return. It also solves the problems
occurred in one’s business or to solve individual youths and their families problems. As a result,
42(48.8%) of the respondents found that they are not saving, however, 16(18.6%) save their
extra income. This indicates that youth migrants’ habit of saving is low due to hand to mouth
way of life and high cost of living in the city.

60.00% Do you save and in what pattern?

50.00% 0.488

40.00%
0.326
Saving regular cash
30.00% Saving Occasional
amount
20.00%0.186 No saving

10.00%

0.00%

Figure 4.13; Respondents’ saving habit

4.2.8. Problems/ difficulties faced by migrants

It is always presumed that the migrants face difficulties at the place of destination in one form or
the other. Table 4.10 shows that majority of the respondents (80.2 percent) did face shelter
(housing) difficulties at the place of destination.

Table 4.10; Problems Encountered by Migrants at the Place of Destination

Problems Encountered Frequency Percent
(Multiple Responses are Possible)
Shelter(housing) 69 80.2
Food and related consumer items 50 58
Inability to obtain job or employment 50 58
Cultural difference 59 68.6

lii | P a g e
 Inadequate social services and amenities 38 44.2
High transport cost 47 54.7
Violence and streetism 17 19.8
No difficulties faced 3 3.5

Similarly, about 68.6 and 58 percent of the sampled youth migrants reported that there is a
problem of cultural difference and food and related consumer items and amenities respectively.
About 58 percent of them told that inability to obtain job or employment. While 54 percent
reported that high transport cost is the problematic. However, about 44 percent of the sampled
youth migrants faced inadequate social services and amenities.

4.2.9. Future Intentions and/or Plans of respondents

According to the sample data presented in figure 4.13 about 25.6 percent of sampled youths
reported that they are planning to leave Addis Ababa. On the other hand, about 45.4 percent of
the respondent youths reported that they had no plans and 29 percent don’t know whether they
leave Addis Ababa or not.

Do you have planned to return back to your place of

residence?

45.40%
YES
50.00% 29% NO
25.60% I don’t know
40.00%
30.00%
20.00%
10.00%
0.00%

Figure 4.14; future plans of migrant youths

From the figure 4.13 we can understand that most of sampled respondents no interest to return to
their rural residences. The surprising response is that many respondents said that even though
urban life is challenging it is better for youths in the city than in rural areas. The urban life that
characterized by difficulty in finding job regularly (most of them are temporary, informal sector
worker), high cost of living, low daily income and not enough to save, and high severity of urban
congestion etc. But this may be explained further as once they adapt the urban life (which has

liii | P a g e
opportunities and difficulties) through time and hoping things will improve in the future staying
in the Addis Ababa is better.

4.3. Econometric Analysis

4.3.1. Determinants of Youths rural-urban migration in the case of Addis Ababa

Under this analysis section the binary logistic regression model was employed to identify the
determinant factors that could affect determinants of youth’s rural-urban internal migration in the
in the case of Addis Ababa. Binary logistic regression model is the multivariate statistical tool
used to analyze the relationship between the dependent variable (youth employment status) and
the independent variables; namely gender, experience of crop failure , family education
attainment, income earned in urban rural farm size, social facilities and infrastructure, non-
economic desires and family shocks.

The logistic regression model predicts the log odds (youth unemployment Vs employment) of
the dependent variable. The model is expressed by:-

M =ln ( 1−pipi )=β 0+ β 1 gender +¿ β Cfailure+β Fedu+β I

2 3 4 urban + β5F size + β6 S infra+ β7 NE

desires +β8Fshocks

Where, pi is the predicted probability of the event migrant coded with 1 and 0 other wise. The
regression coefficient together with their sign indicates the magnitude and direction of the effect
in the log odds, being the category of interest of response variable for a unit of increase in the
predictor variable.

However before undergoing the analysis, goodness of fit of the model, multicollinearity, and
model specification diagnoses test must be done to avoid variables that may affect the model
output.

1. Multicollinearity Effects

liv | P a g e
Multicollinearity is a phenomenon in which two or more independent variables in logistic
regression model are highly correlated, meaning that one can be linearly predicted from the
others with a substantial degree of accuracy. Therefore, to test multicollinearity effect in the
model, this study used Variance Inflation Factor estimator (VIF). When the VIF value of a given
independent variable less than 10 the variable reflects no multicollinearity problem.

Obeying this rule each continuous variable regressed against the remaining continuous variables
and as shown in Table 4.11, the mean VIF and values of VIF for all variables were found to be
almost below 3.00, which imply the absence of serious multicollinearity problem for all
continuous variables.
Table: 4.11: Collinearity Diagnosis for Continuous Explanatory Variables

Variable VIF 1/VIF

Nedesires 2.38 0.419835
Cfailure 2.25 0.445398
Fshocks 2.24 0.445843
Fsize 2.21 0.452384
Gender 2.02 0.494665
Iurban 1.96 0.509336
Fedu 1.94 0.516703
Sinfra 1.72 0.582644
Mean VIF 2.09

So far the multicollinearity tests for all independent variables assured that there is no as such
problematic multicollinearity that could a threat for the estimation of the results of the model. As
a result all the eight explanatory variables were entered in to the binary logistic regression to
identify the determinants factors of youth’s rural-urban migration.

2. Goodness of Fit

One of the techniques used to assess the goodness of fit of a model is Hosmer and Lemeshow
test. The test is used to accept or reject the alternative hypothesis “the model adequately
describes the data”. If the significance level of the test is less than 0.05, it indicates that the
alternative hypothesis is rejected and the null hypothesis which states the inadequacy of the
model to describe the data is accepted. In the case of this study, for Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness
of fit statistic, insignificant p-value (0.9430) suggests that the model fits the data reasonably
well.

lv | P a g e
Through the classification table, the correct predication of all the samples used were 81.52 %,
whereas the sensitivity (correct prediction of migrants’ youths) is 91.04 %and Specificity
(correct prediction of non-migrants’ youths) is 56 %.

In this study the model Prob>chi2=0.0026 as a whole also highly statistically significant at 5%
significant level which signifying that the explanatory variables used in the binary logistic
regression have jointly significant importance in predicting the youths migration decision.

3. Model specification

Insignificant _hatsq (p=0.921) show that the link function is correctly specified which mean no
specification error and there is no relevant variables omitted.
Table 4.12. Model specification test
Logistic regression Number of obs = 92
LR chi2(2) = 23.71
Prob> chi2 = 0.0000
Log likelihood = -41.963004 Pseudo R2 = 0.2203

mdecisionCoef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval]

_hat .9711153 .3864452 2.51 0.012 .2136966 1.728534

_hatsq .0156849 .157579 0.10 0.921 -.2931644 .3245341
_cons -.004049 .3257702 -0.01 0.990 -.6425468 .6344488

After observing how the model fits well, it is now time to see how each of the
explanatory variables affects the youths migration decision. Binary logistic regression in this
study is based on the dependent variable (migration decision) is coded as 1 if the respondent is
migrant youth and a value of 0 if the respondent is non-migrant. As shown in the below table
4.13, out of the eight explanatory variables, five of them significantly influence on youths’
internal migration decision. These are, gender (Gender), experience of crop failure (C ,
failure)

social facilities and infrastructure(S infra), non-economic desires (NEdesires) family shocks (Fshocks).

lvi | P a g e
Table 4.13: Logistic Regression Model Output for the Entire Explanatory Variables
Logistic regression Number of obs= 92
LR chi2(8)= 23.70
Prob> chi2= 0.0026
Log likelihood = -41.967996 Pseudo R2= 0.2202

Mdecision Coef. Odds Ratio Std. Err. Sign. [95% Conf. Interval]

Gender 1.402244 4.064309 2.746063 0.038* 1.08111 15.27931

Cfailure 1.069463 2.913815 2.21121 0.059** .6584303 12.89479
Fedu .2052777 1.227866 .6917804 0.716 .4069898 3.704405
Iurban -.0000263 .9999737 .0001722 0.879 .9996363 1.000311
Fsize .3269466 1.386727 .7992249 0.571 .4481367 4.29113
Sinfra 1.712186 5.541062 4.05602 0.019* 1.319833 23.26306
NE desires 1.198179 3.314077 2.024724 0.050** 1.000746 10.97492
F shocks -1.550391 .2121649 .1631272 0.044* .0470122 .9574954
. * P < 0.05, **P<0.1

As expected gender influence youths’ migration decision positively and significantly at

5% probability level. The odds ratio favoring migration decision increased by the factor of 4.06
for female youths compared to male youths. The results have showed agreement with the
hypothesis in which female youths with high cultural influence, social responsibility, and
economic constraint motivate towards the migration decision compared to men.

Experience in crop failure (Cfailure) also have been found to positively and significantly
influence youths’ migration decision at 10% significance level. The possible interpretation of
this output is that crop failure alone keeping others factors constant can trigger migration
decision by the a factor of 2.91 for those who experience crop failure within their family

lvii | P a g e
membership than absence of crop failure. This result is consistent with prior expectation of this
study.

On the other hand social facilities and infrastructure (Sinfra) influence youths’ migration
decision positively and significantly at 5% probability level. The odds ratio favoring migrants’
decision increased by a factor of 5.54 for youths those who need good roads, schools, hospitals..,
etc. in the concentrated area of urban. This result has consistency with the prior expectation
of the study in which the youth migrate towards better facilities s and infrastructural areas.

The non-economic desires represented as (NE desires) are also positively and significantly
influence youths’ rural-urban internal migration decision at 10% significance level. The odds
ratio for this variable indicates that keeping other factors constant NE desires alone can
increase the migration decision by the factor of 3.31 for realistic expectation of rural life. This
variable too indicates similarity with the prior expectation of this study.

The family shocks (Fshocks) on the other influence youths’ migration decision negatively
and significantly at 5% probability level. The odds ratio for this variable indicated that for one
increment of family size, the migration decision increased by the factor of 2.14. The model
output for this variable not conform to the initial expectation of this study, in which as
the family shocks becomes it will be the push factor for youths to undertake migration. This is
due to the fact that shocks like divorce, divorce not much more characterized the youth’s parents’
members.

Whereas income earned in urban, family education attainment and rural farm size were expected
to influence the migration decision of youths towards Addis Ababa. Unexpectedly, these
variables have had no significant effect on youth migration in case of Addis Ababa. Though, the
relationship was not significant, the likelihood of migration decision for youths are 0.9998,
1.228, and 1.387 respectively. This shows that firstly, youth migrant don’t actually calculate and
decide migration based on expected income they earn rather so as to being better in urban based
on motive of other significant factors. Secondly, whether youth’s families are illiterate or not;
they can’t force their decision because the youths at this age level become more independence

lviii | P a g e
and get freedom compared to the previous years. Thirdly, rather than rural farm size shortage the
productivity loss of farm land which cause crop failure is the controlling factor.

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS

Conclusions
Young people comprise a considerably large share of contemporary rural-urban internal
migration flows and recently becoming growing phenomena. This study examine determinant
factors for youth rural-urban migration to provide better understanding on the vast youth
population movements underway in Ethiopia using post-migration sample data collected from
randomly selected youth migrants at their destination city case of Addis Ababa. Our findings are
summarized below:
1. Migrant youth have heterogeneous motivation by socio demographic background. Gender
is strongly associated and significantly related with the likelihood of decision of
migration. Related to marital status, most youth in-migrants were single (unmarried)
when they came to Addis Ababa. The majority of them are in their most productive age
group of 20-24 years. The Amharas and Oromos are the most mobile administrative
region, and orthodox Christian also have large share by religious affiliation.
2. Most youth migrants characterized by secondary school attainment, literate mother or
father, but low rural farm size. Most of the migrants had formal education. However,
more of the youth migrants had secondary school attainment (40.7%), which directly
related to national examination failure. A greater number of migrants were either
students/trainees or unpaid family worker or daily laborer or unemployed before they
migrate to Addis Ababa. Most youth’s father or mother educations are literate. Larger
portion of the rural farm size is below less than one, which is inadequate for large family
size and decreases the land productivity of the land.
3. Large numbers of migrants make assistance and information based migration decision.
Among rural youth migrants about 93% are obtained information about the destination
from friends, families, relatives, and other peoples. This implies that youth migrants are
highly linked with information flow and personal networks. Positive information and
assistance in finding a job is commonly characterizes the migrant youths.

lix | P a g e
4. Rural unemployment, Concentration of various elements of modernization and Proximity
to better social infrastructure facilities in the urban areas greatly impact the rural-urban
youth’s migration. Most migrants moved basically for economic and non-economic
reasons. Growing unemployment with inadequate farm land in the rural areas pushes
young people, who are also motivated by the rising ambition big and better life chances
in the urban area. The attractive city life in addition to better social infrastructural
facilities attribute and have impact to youths to leave their residence.
5. Temporary income shocks can make youth socioeconomic insecure. Youth migrant
initially have no potential capital to run their businesses and then highly engaged in
informal and marginal works may be exposed to serious socio economic shocks in the
event that they lost their employment or income sources. These migrant youths have no
one that can provide them food and shelter; and no formal institutions that provide
support for unemployed youth and very vulnerable in the cities because they have left
their parents and their village. These youth, thus, may the risk ending up in the streets
with great consequences for their future and current welfare.
6. The migrant youth have general improvement in the cities compared to rural and make
effort to improve their livelihood condition. The study indicates that the majority of
migrant youths leave their village with reasonable expectations and they are now
generally satisfied and have improved in their living standard in urban areas. However,
regardless difficulties in the town migrants the problem of housing, lack of employment
opportunities and sufficient consumption goods, rising cost of living, inadequate social
services and others are major problems that migrants still currently face. But most of the
migrants do not have an intention or a plan to return to their place of birth because they
rather expecting things will get improved. However, a few others have plans to move to
other urban areas. This is an indication of low level of returnees of urban-rural migrants
in Ethiopia. This is because rural living and working conditions are much worse
compared to urban areas of the country.
7. The main determinant forces for youths’ rural-urban migration decision were gender,
crop failure, family shocks, and non-economic desires, as push factors and social
infrastructure and facilities in urban as pull factors. Based on the logistic regression
output results, the determinant variables gender, social facilities and infrastructure, family

lx | P a g e
 shocks are highly significant at 5% significant level and experience of crop failure, and
non-economic desires are also significant at 10% significant level affect youth’s
migration decision.

Policy Implications
On the basis of the findings and conclusion of this study, the following policy implications are
forwarded.
 Considering rural and rural development policy related issues:
Rural development policies should be designed in ways of enhancing the productivity of
labor and improving the living standard of the rural youth population. Modern
technologies, mechanized farming and irrigated agriculture should be introduced fairly to
rural youths in considerable extent to increase land productivity and also to reduce youth
migration. The rural youths should also participate from the planning to evaluation of
rural development projects. Provision of different social services such as better medical
facilities, education, infrastructure, water and electricity and access to credit to the rural
areas may reduce the amount of flow of youth population to urban centers. Give
emphasis to forestation and reforestation in highly degraded areas to income earning
activities and involve in farm and non-farm investments can also reduce the flow of
youths towards urban areas.
 Considering youth and migration policy related issues: Governments need to heighten
youth migration policies, which include access to land for youths. These policies also
should be designed in the ways of maximizing the benefits of youth before and
minimizing the negative outcomes after migration.
 Building the youth capacity for a better livelihood: through like
 Vocational training should be given for youths to improve them with the
necessary skills and make them competitive in the non-farm labour market
 favourable conditions should be created to an enabling environment for youth
entrepreneurship and creativity so that they can get alternative livelihood option
in the residence without migration

lxi | P a g e
  Appropriate job opportunities and enabling environments should be done for
those who terminate education beyond secondary school.
 Provide and facilitating access to credit availability and capital through
microfinance institutions.
 Information is often regarding the opportunities in urban regions from friends or
relatives informal, biased and exaggerated leading to excess migration to urban
centres, increasing the unemployment level, exploitation of labour and human
trafficking. Thus, access to information should be improved for potential rural
youth migrants.
 Train rural youth families about the successful soil and water conservation
practices as well the appropriate agronomic practices.
 Addressing the gendered nature of some youth challenges: In most parts of rural
Ethiopia, young girls and women are often discouraged from asking/claiming their rights,
expressing their opinion and leading their work and life with assertiveness. Female
migrants may thus find it difficult to improve their livelihood in urban environment.
Targeted training for girls and young women can boost their confidence and improve
their information through empowerment of girls and young women.
 Family obligation: Youth’s parent should be advice, and facilitate and encourage their
children to work in their residence rather than to decide migration and solving the socio
economic problems of the family.

Finally this study recommended that all stake holders should give equal emphasis to youth’s
migration and for the need to have further in-depth study on youth’s internal migration.

lxii | P a g e
 REFERENCES
Adamnesh, A., Linda O., and Benjamin Z, (2014). “Poverty, Youth and Rural-Urban Migration
in Ethiopia” Working Paper 17 July 2001.
AABOFED. (2010). Addis Ababa Population Images 2010. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa City
Government Finance and Economic Development Bureau.
Adepoju, A. (1995). “Emigration Dynamics in Sub-Saharan Africa. International migration.
Special Issue: Emigration Dynamics in Developing countries”, vol. 33, no, 314.
Aliyev, H. (2008). “Determinants of internal migration in Pakistan: Evidence from the labour
force survey, 1996-97”, The Pakistan development review 39: 4 part ii, pp. 695-712.
Benebeberu, A. (2012). “Economic impact of Rural- urban migration on income and poverty of
migrant sending Rural House Holds: with evidences from southern Ethiopia”.

Birhane, A. (2011). “Causes and consequences of rural-urban migration, the case of Wolidia
town”, MA thesis in geography, AA

Berhanu, B. and M.J. White. (2000). “War, Famine and Female Migration in Ethiopia, 1960-
1989: Economic Development and cultural change”, vol.49 (1): pp. 91-113.

Bezu, S., & Holden, S. T. (2014b). “Land Access and Youth Livelihood Opportunities in
Southern Ethiopia: Summary Report”. Nairobi, Kenya: Global Land Tool Network- UN-Habitat.
Caldwell, J.C. (1969). “African Rural-Urban Migration: The movement to Ghana‟s Town
Cambera”: Australian National U.P.

CSA. (2008). Summary and Statistical Report of the 2007 Population and Housing Census.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.

CSA. (1995).The 1994 Population and Housing Census of Ethiopia. Results at country levels,
vol.1. Addis Ababa: Ethiopia Central Statistical Authority.

CSA. (2011a). Job research and internal migration, Statistical Abstract Ethiopia. Addis Ababa:
Central Statistical Authority.

lxiii | P a g e
CSA. (2011b). Analytical Report on the 2011 Urban Employment Unemployment Survey. Addis
Ababa.

Curtain, R. (2003). “Youth in Extreme Poverty: dimensions and policy implications with
particular focus on South East Asia”. National Institute for Governance, University of Canberra,
Australia. pp.74

De Haan, A. (1999). “Livelihoods and poverty: The role of migration‐a critical review of the
migration literature”. The Journal of Development Studies, vol. 36(2), pp. 1-47.

De Haas, H. (2008). “Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective”. International

Migration Review, vol. 44(1), pp. 227-299.

De Haas, H. (2010). “Migration and Development: A Theoretical Perspective”. International

Migration Review, vol. 44(2), pp. 227-264.

Hoddinott, J. (1994). “A model of migration and remittances applied to Western Kenya”. Oxford
Economic Papers, pp. 459-476.

Kederalah, I. (1991). “Migration and Non-Migrant Fertility Differentials: the case of Addis
Ababa”, MA Thesis, Addis Ababa University

Kloos, H. (1990). “Farm Labour Migration in the Awash Valley of Ethiopia”, International
Migration Review .Vol. 16, No. 1. Pp. 133-169.

Lemelem, B. (2002). “The livelihood strategies of Rural-Urban Migrants in Addis Ababa: Case
studies of Amhara and Gurage Migrants”. School of Graduate Studies Addis Ababa University in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Anthropology.

Lewis, W. A. (1998). “Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour”. The

Manchester School, 22(2), 139-191.

Lee, E.S. (1966). “Theory of Migration” in M. Kefyfitz, Demography, Vol. 3, No.1. A

Publication Association of America.

Lipton, M. (1980). Migration from rural areas of poor countries: the impact on rural productivity
and income distribution. World Development, 8(1), 1-24.literature. The Journal of Development
Studies, 36(2), 1-47.

J. Long and J. Freese. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent variables using stata.
Third edition. Stata press.

McCatty, M. (2004). “The Process of Rural-Urban Migration in Developing Countries”. An

Honours essay submitted to Carleton University in fulfillment of requirements for the course
ECON 4908, as credit toward the degree of Bachelor of Arts with Honors’ in Economics.
Carleton University. Ottawa, Ontario.

lxiv | P a g e
Mutandwa E. (2011). “An Analysis of the Determinants of Rural Tour ban Migration among
Rural Youths in Northern and Western Provinces of Rwanda”, Rwanda Journal Volume 22,
Series B, 2011: Social Sciences

Ravenstein, E.G. (1985). “The Law of Migration.” Journal of Royal Statistical Society, Vol. 48,
No.2, June 1885, PP. 167-288.

Rhoda, R.E. (1979). Development Activities and Rural-Urban Migration: Is it Possible to Keep
Them Down on the Farm. Washington, D.C: Office of Urban Development.

Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). “The costs and returns of human migration”. The journal of political
economy. The migration of labor: Blackwell Oxford.

Sosina, B. and S. T. Holden. (2014). “Rural-urban Youth Migration and Informal Self-
Employment in Ethiopia”, Centre for Land Tenure Studies/School of Economics and Business,
Norwegian University of Life Sciences, November 2014.

Stark, O., & Bloom, D. E. (1985). “The new economics of labor migration”. The American
Economic Review, pp. 173-178.

Todaro, M. (1976). “A model of labor migration and urban unemployment in less developed
countries”. The American Economic Review, 138-148.

Todaro, M. (1994). “Internal migration in developing countries: a survey Population and

economic change in developing countries”. pp. 361-402. University of Chicago Press.

UN. (2013). United Nations a - Youth Migration and Development: The World Youth Report
2013, Decent Rural Employment Team, ESW, FAO, New York: United Nations.
UN. (2014). United Nations -Urbanization Study Report. New York: United Nations.
UN. (2015). United Nations - The World Youth Report 2015, New York: United Nations.
UNDP. (2009), “Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development”, Human
Development Report 2009, UNDP, New York.

UN-HABITAT. (2008). “Situation Analysis of Informal Settlements in Addis Ababa”. United

Nations Human Settlements Programme.

UN-HABITAT. (2011). “Condominium Housing in Ethiopia: The Integrated Housing

Development Programme”. United Nations Human Settlements Programme: Nairobi.

Wolide, A. (2010). Seasonal migration and rural livelihood: the case of Bahir Dar town and three
rural kebelies in Amhara Region.

lxv | P a g e
WB. (2007), “World Development report 2007: Development and the next generation”, The
World Bank, Washington D.C.

APPENDIXES
Questionnaire- English version

Dear respondents: This instrument is designed for the purpose of gathering information regarding the
determinant factors of youth rural-urban migration in Ethiopia case of Addis Ababa. The final paper that
will be written based on the information you have provided is intended to serve for research and
development purpose. Therefore, you are kindly requested to provide accurate information as much as
possible. Thank you!
Instruction: Circle (use tick mark) or write the answer as may be necessary to indicate your appropriate
response
A. Demographic characteristics of migrants
1. Age ______ (in years).
2. Gender A. Male B. Female
3. Marital Status before migration A. Single B. Married C. Divorced D. Widowed
4. Religion A. Orthodox Christian B. protestant C. Muslim D. Other(specify) ______
5. Region A. Oromiya B. Amhara C. SNNP D. Tigraye E. other(specify)_________
6. What is your educational attainment (highest level of schooling completed)?
A. Illiterate B. Primary school (1-8) C. Secondary (9-10) D. Preparatory (11-12)
E. 10+certificate training G.12+special training H. College/University graduate
B. Demographic characteristics of migrants family
1) Maximum educational attainment of your mother or father
A. Illiterate B. Primary school (1-8) C. Secondary (9-10) D. Preparatory (11-12)
E. 10+certificate training G.12+special training H. College/University graduate
2) Total rural farm size A.<1 hectare B. 1-2 hectare C. >2 hectare
D. Patterns and Process of Migration
1. Specify Migration pattern A. Temporary B. Permanent
2. Who was your main advisor and source of information in decision making to move to Addis Ababa?
A. friends in the destination B. family/Parent(s) C. Contact with people who know the city
D. Relatives or friends in the origin E. Other (specify) ____________
3. Before you moved to Addis Ababa, what was the information about living conditions and facilities
such as housing, health care, employment and so forth?
A. positive (migrant life is easy in Addis Ababa)
B. negative (migrant life is not easy in Addis Ababa)
C. I don’t have had any information before.
4. What type of assistance you have received from any relative or friend or parents living in Addis
Ababa?
A. food and lodging B. Assisted find jobs C. Helped find houses
D. Financial aid E. Information about how to adjust and job possibility
F. I don’t have had any assistance. G. Other (Specify) ____________________________
E. migration and migration decision

lxvi | P a g e
 1. Why you are decided to migrate?”(Indicate in there order of importance)

To obtain job (seek employment),

To earn good income in urban
Famine, poverty, crop failure, lack of oxen, land shortage, poor facilities, small agricultural
land, unproductive land
To free from cultural or family restrictions and obligations
To join immediate relatives and friends or following them
To gain education and training
To seek modern urban social services and facilities
Large family size
To open up or extend personal business
My Religious teacher migration
Family shocks factors like death, divorce of family member
Other (Specify) ____________

F. Economic status of migrants before migration-past

1. Before you moved to here you were

A. Trainee/Student
B. church school student (yekolotemari)
C. local wage employment laborer
D. Daily laborer in near urban center
E. House wife
F. Unemployed
G. Other Specify)_______

2. What are your past responsibilities or activity engaged in the family? (Multiple responses are
possible)
A. Land preparation/tillage
B. Planting and fertilizing
C. Weeding
D. Harvesting and threshing
E. Livestock and crop Marketing
F. Livestock feeding and health care
G. local wage employment laborer
H. Other(Specify)

3. Enumerate Cost type and the costs incurred at the initial periods of migration
A. Transportation______
B. Cost for Living/adjustment in the destination_____\
C. others (specify) _________________________Total__________________
4. When you moved to Addis Ababa, how long did you stay to find your first income earning job?
_____ (in year(s) _______(in month(s).
G. Economic characteristics of migrants at present
1. Presently you are.
I.
A. Shoe shiner
B. Maid/guard private home

lxvii | P a g e
 C. Shop keeper
D. Skilled worker-construction
E. Low-level employee-civil service
F. Professional salaried worker
G. Run own business(Self employed)

H. Unemployed
I. Trainee/Student
J. Child care and home service
K. Lottery seller
L. Daily laborer
M. Beggar
N. Other(specify)_____
2. Nature of your present work? A. permanent B. temporary
3. Do you think that moving to Addis Ababa from your place of birth or last place of residence
improved?
Your condition with regard to : Improved Worsened Remained The same
Type and place of work
Your income level
Cultural and social interaction
Access to housing, education/skill,
health care, water, food, transport
Economic independence from families
,Modernity ,Knowledge gain
Family help
general living conditions
4. How much is your average monthly income? _______________ (in birr).
5. If you sending remittance to your family, what is the gap?
A. regular cash B. occasional amount C. contributed in kind D. I don’t have had send money.
6. If you are saving from your income earned, what is the pattern?
A. Regular cash B. Seasonal amount C. I don’t have had save money

H. Problems faced by migrants after arrival in Addis Ababa

1. What was /were the main difficulty/difficulties you have faced in Addis Ababa.(Indicate in there
order of importance)
Shelter (Housing)
Food and related consumer items
Inability to obtain job or Employment
Cultural difference
Inadequate social services and amenities
High transport cost
Violence and streetism
Faced no difficulties
Other (specify) __________
2. Do you have planned to move to your birth place? A. Yes B. No C. Do not know
3. What is your feeling about threat, opportunity of migration phenomena? And what do you think
youth should/ should not decide to migrate?

lxviii | P a g e
 ______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
________________
4. In your opinion, what should be done from stakeholders to minimize youths rural to urban
migration problems?
 From parents
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________
 From friends
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
_____________
 From Government
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________
 From society as a whole
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
________.

Logistic regression stata output

*(9 variables, 92 observations pasted into data editor)

. logistic mdecision gender cfaliure fedu lurban fsize sinfra nedesires fshocks

Logistic regression Number of obs = 92

LR chi2(8) = 23.70

Prob > chi2 = 0.0026

Log likelihood = -41.967996 Pseudo R2 = 0.2202

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mdecision | Odds Ratio Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

lxix | P a g e
 Gender | .4.064309 2.746063 -0.74 0.038 1.08111 15.2793
cfaliure | 2.913815 2.21121 0.19 0.059 .6584303 12.89479
fedu | 1.227866 .6917804 0.44 0.716 .4069898 3.704405
lurban | .9999737 .0001722 -1.49 0.879 .9996363 1.000311
fsize | 1.386727 .7992249 1.41 0.571 .4481367 4.29113
sinfra | 5.541062 4.05602 -0.62 0.019 1.319833 23.26306
nedesires | 3.314077 2.024724 0.98 0.050 1.000746 10.97492
fshocks | .2121649 .1631272 -1.67 0.044 .0470122 .9574954
_cons | 8.94507 15.8092 2.26 0.024 1.792711 35.72147

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. logit mdecision gender cfaliure fedu lurban fsize sinfra nedesires fshocks

Iteration 0: log likelihood = -43.180125

Iteration 1: log likelihood = -45.978308

Iteration 2: log likelihood = -41.746168

Iteration 3: log likelihood = -41.690628

Iteration 4: log likelihood = -41.690235

Iteration 5: log likelihood = -41.690235

Logistic regression Number of obs = 92

LR chi2(8) = 23.70

Prob > chi2 = 0.0026

Log likelihood = -41.967996 Pseudo R2 = 0.2202

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mdecision | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

-----------------------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gender | 1.402244 2.746063 -0.74 0.038 1.08111 15.2793

cfaliure | 1.069463 2.21121 0.19 0.059 .6584303 12.89479
fedu | .2052777 .6917804 0.44 0.716 .4069898 3.704405
lurban -.0000263 .0001722 -1.49 0.879 .9996363 1.000311
fsize | .3269466 .7992249 1.41 0.571 .4481367 4.29113
sinfra | 1.712186 4.05602 -0.62 0.019 1.319833 23.26306

lxx | P a g e
 nedesires | 1.198179 2.024724 0.98 0.050 1.000746 10.97492
fshocks -1.550391 .1631272 -1.67 0.044 .0470122 .9574954
_cons | 8.94507 15.8092 2.26 0.024 1.792711 35.72147

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. vif, uncentered

Variable | VIF 1/VIF

-------------+---------------------------------------------------

gender | 2.38 0.494665

nedesires | 2.25 0.419835

cfaliure | 2.24 0.44539

fshocks | 2.21 0.445843

fsize | 2.02 0.452384

sinfra | 1.96 0.582644

fedu | 1.94 0.516703

lurban | 1.72 0.509336

-------------+---------------------------------------------------

Mean VIF | 2.09

.estat gof, group(7)

Logistic model for mdecision, goodness-of-fit

(Table collapsed on quantiles of estimated probabilities)

number of observations = 92

number of groups = 7

Hosmer-Lemeshow chi2 (6) = 3.03

Prob > chi2 = 0.9430

. estat class

Logistic model for mdecision

-------- True --------

lxxi | P a g e
 Classified | D ~D | Total

-----------+--------------------------+-----------

+ | 86 6 | 92

- | 0 0 | 0

-----------+--------------------------+-----------

Total | 86 6 | 92

Classified + if predicted Pr(D) >= .5

True D defined as mdecision != 0

--------------------------------------------------

Sensitivity Pr( +| D) 91.04 %

Specificity Pr( -|~D) 56.00%

Positive predictive value Pr( D| +) 93.48%

Negative predictive value Pr(~D| -) .%

--------------------------------------------------

False + rate for true ~D Pr( +|~D) 100.00%

False - rate for true D Pr( -| D) 0.00%

False + rate for classified + Pr(~D| +) 6.52%

False - rate for classified - Pr( D| -) .%

--------------------------------------------------

Correctly classified 81.52 %

----------------------------------------------------

. linktest

Iteration 0: log likelihood = -42.180125

Iteration 1: log likelihood = -45.867393

lxxii | P a g e
 Iteration 2: log likelihood = -41.929147

Iteration 3: log likelihood = -41.680718

Iteration 4: log likelihood = -41.668479

Iteration 5: log likelihood = -41.668435

Logistic regression Number of obs = 92

LR chi2(2) = 23.71

Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

Log likelihood = -41.963004 Pseudo R2 = 0.2203

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

mdecision | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]

-------------+------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

_hat | .9711153 .3864452 2.52 0.012 -.2136966 1.728534

_hatsq | -.0156849 .157579 0.10 0.921 -.2931644 .3245341

_cons | -.004049 .3257702 -0.01 0.990 -.6425468 .6344488

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

. lroc

Logistic model for mdecision

number of observations = 92

area under ROC curve = 0.8295

lxxiii | P a g e
 1.00
0.75
Sensitivity
0.50
0.25
0.00

0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00

1 - Specificity
Area under ROC curve = 0.8295

. mfx

Marginal effects after logit

y = Pr(mdecision) (predict)

= .97500998

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

variable | dy/dx Std. Err. z P>|z| [ 95% C.I. ] X

lxxiv | P a g e
 ---------+---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

gender*| 1.0221196 .03183 -0.69 0.087 -.084502 .040263 .434783

cfaliure*| .0050322 .02618 0.19 0.078 -.046272 .056337 .434783

fedu*| .011214 .02594 0.43 0.666 -.03963 .062058 .413043

lurban | -5.1906 .00000 -1.26 0.208 -.000013 2.90206 2282.91

fsize*| .0511925 .03962 1.29 0.196 -.026459 .128844 .48913

sinfra*| 1.623885 .02858 -0.57 0.041 -.072256 .039778 .413043

nedesi~s*| .0250273 .02935 0.85 0.032 -.032505 .08256 .543478

fshocks*| -1.064863 .04058 -1.60 0.010 -.144398 .014672 .554348

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(*) dy/dx is for discrete change of dummy variable from 0 to 1

lxxv | P a g e