Population, territory and sustainable development
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of current trends, contexts and issues in the spheres of population, territory and sustainable development and examine their public policy implications. Three themes run through the report. The first two are laid out in the empirical chapters (III through X); the third is taken up in the closing chapter. Using the most recent data available (including censuses conducted in the 2010s), the first theme describes and tracks location and spatial mobility patterns for the population of Latin America, focusing on certain kinds of territory. The second explores the linkages between these patterns and sustainable development in different kinds of territory in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third offers considerations and policy proposals for fostering a consistent, synergistic relationship between population location and spatial mobility, on the one hand, and sustainable development, on the other, in the kinds of territory studied.
The purpose of this document is to provide an overview of current trends, contexts and issues in the spheres of population, territory and sustainable development and examine their public policy implications. Three themes run through the report. The first two are laid out in the empirical chapters (III through X); the third is taken up in the closing chapter. Using the most recent data available (including censuses conducted in the 2010s), the first theme describes and tracks location and spatial mobility patterns for the population of Latin America, focusing on certain kinds of territory. The second explores the linkages between these patterns and sustainable development in different kinds of territory in Latin America and the Caribbean. The third offers considerations and policy proposals for fostering a consistent, synergistic relationship between population location and spatial mobility, on the one hand, and sustainable development, on the other, in the kinds of territory studied.
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
99<br />
D. TERRITORIAL EQUITY, REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT<br />
AND INTERNAL MIGRATION: CURRENT TRENDS<br />
One stylized fact concerning internal migration —adjusted, of course, in line with theoretical predictions—<br />
is that these movements tend to flow away from the less developed regions <strong>and</strong> towards the more developed<br />
ones. This is verified in a very basic way through the correlation between the net migration rate (indicative<br />
of whether the MAD is a pull or push area) <strong>and</strong> the Human Development Index. Almost without exception,<br />
the highest levels of human <strong>development</strong> are shown to be concomitant with net migration rates that are<br />
higher on average, that is, with a higher pull, <strong>and</strong> lower push, effect (see table VII.1).<br />
Table VII.1<br />
LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN (SELECTED COUNTRIES): SIMPLE LINEAR<br />
CORRELATION BETWEEN THE HUMAN DEVELOPMENT INDEX (HDI) AND THE NET<br />
INTERNAL MIGRATION RATE AT THE MAJOR ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION<br />
LEVEL CENSUSES FROM THE 2000 ROUND<br />
Country <strong>and</strong> year, indicator <strong>and</strong><br />
reference year, number of major<br />
administrative divisions<br />
(MADs) with data<br />
Index of simple correlation between<br />
the indicator <strong>and</strong> the net migration rate<br />
(p value in parentheses)<br />
Argentina, 2001 HDI 1996 24 MAD 0.407 (0.0242)<br />
Bolivia (Plurinational State of), 2002 HDI 1994 9 MAD 0.619 (0.0378)<br />
Brazil, 2000 HDI 1996 27 MAD 0.451 (0.0091)<br />
Chile, 2002 HDI 1998 13 MAD -0.01136 (0.5147)<br />
Colombia, 2005 HDI 2000 24 MAD 0.414 (0.0222)<br />
Cuba, 2002 HDI 1996 14 MAD 0.77 (0.0006)<br />
Ecuador, 2001 HDI 1999 15 MAD 0.65 (0.0044)<br />
Guatemala, 2002 HDI 1995-1996 22 MAD 0.442 (0.01972)<br />
Honduras, 2001 HDI 1996 18 MAD 0.697 (0.0006)<br />
Mexico, 2000 HDI 1995 32 MAD 0.408 (0.0102)<br />
Nicaragua, 2005 HDI 2000 17 MAD 0.055 (0.4170)<br />
Panama HDI 2000 12 MAD 0.484 (0.0554)<br />
Paraguay, 2002 HDI 2000 18 MAD 0.133 (0.29936)<br />
Uruguay, 1996 HDI 1991 19 MAD 0.063 (0.60097)<br />
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of), 2001 HDI 1996 23 MAD 0.0686 (0.3780)<br />
Source: J. Rodríguez, “Spatial distribution, internal migration <strong>and</strong> <strong>development</strong> in Latin America <strong>and</strong> the Caribbean”, CEPAL<br />
Review, No. 96 (LC/G.2396-P/I), Santiago, Chile, Economic Commission for Latin America <strong>and</strong> the Caribbean<br />
(ECLAC), 2008, p. 142.<br />
As indicated in the foregoing section, the most consistent pattern is that the push regions are those<br />
MADs with the highest relative poverty levels <strong>and</strong> the most serious cases of marginalization <strong>and</strong> which,<br />
historically, had been settled by indigenous people; almost all of these are situated in the north-west <strong>and</strong><br />
north-east of Argentina (except Catamarca), the four provinces of the high plateau (altiplano) in the<br />
Plurinational State of Bolivia (Chuquisaca, La Paz, Oruro <strong>and</strong> Potosí), seven of the nine states of the<br />
Brazilian north-east, the centre <strong>and</strong> south of Chile (in particular the ninth region of Araucanía), the west<br />
of Costa Rica (although in this case, socioeconomic disparities between MADs are less marked),
Change language