Population, territory and sustainable development

39
Table IV.6
LATIN AMERICA: NET MIGRATION FROM RURAL TO URBAN AREAS AND RELATIVE
SCALE OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION, 1980-2010
Net migration rate
Relative scale of rural-urban migration
Country
1980-1990
(per 1,000)
(percentages)
1990-2000 2000-2010 1980-1990 1990-2000 2000-2010
Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female Male Female
Argentina 5.1 5.3 3.0 2.9 29.0 29.0 25.2 24.6
Bolivia (Plurinational
State of) 21.2 23.9 8.0 8.4 55.5 57.0 24.9 30.4
Brazil 10.6 11.4 7.6 8.6 40.3 41.9 37.5 38.1
Chile 1.5 1.7 3.5 3.2 8.0 11.2 22.6 23.1
Colombia 7.3 8.5 7.6 6.8 30.6 34.0 31.2 32.8
Costa Rica 15.5 15.8 18.9 18.5 42.7 45.1 45.7 46.3
Cuba 13.2 13.6 4.9 5.2 61.4 59.4 44.8 45.2
Dominican Republic 6.9 6.7 13.1 13.7 27.9 27.9 42.6 52.3
Ecuador 15.1 16.0 10.5 10.2 5.3 5.4 45.5 47.8 38.0 38.6 24.2 24.6
El Salvador 15.4 15.1 16.6 16.5 56.0 55.1 81.5 76.1
Guatemala 10.6 11.9 25.8 26.3 39.9 42.1 55.3 54.9
Haiti 29.0 12.1 32.6 12.8 48.3 50.9 58.2 118.5
Honduras 17.5 20.7 14.2 15.6 42.2 49.0 41.5 45.6
Mexico 8.6 8.4 7.0 7.1 3.1 5.1 40.1 34.3 32.4 32.9 20.5 30.6
Nicaragua 8.4 9.5 4.7 6.2 23.8 27.7 28.9 37.8
Panama 10.5 11.6 16.7 15.9 6.4 6.8 36.3 40.6 51.5 51.9 30.7 32.7
Paraguay 18.6 21.0 13.0 14.4 45.6 50.6 42.4 48.0
Peru 8.1 9.0 7.1 7.7 32.3 35.0 38.3 41.1
Uruguay 3.7 3.2 1.2 1.5 37.5 35.5 30.9 35.9
Venezuela (Bolivarian
Republic of) 5.4 6.3 4.9 4.9 20.6 23.3 19.2 20.4
Source: Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), using the intercensal survival ratio method.
The figures on net rural-urban transfers given in table IV.6 show how much net rural-urban
migration rates vary across countries. Some countries (Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador,
Guatemala, and Honduras) have high net migration rates, and their rural-urban migration flows are still
significant. Other countries (Argentina, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Chile and Uruguay) have
seen their net migration rates decline or remain low, and the relative scale of rural-urban migration has
tended to diminish. Thus, the movement of people from rural to urban areas continues to make a significant
contribution to the growth of the urban population in the first group of countries. In the second group of
countries, on the other hand, migration from the countryside to the cities accounts for a small and declining
portion of the expansion of the urban population, although it must be remembered that, if the natural growth
rate for the urban population falls to zero, then the influence of rural-urban transfers will increase again,
since it would then be virtually the only factor spurring the growth of the urban population.
There are, of course, some exceptions. The rural population in Panama, for example, represents a
smaller and smaller percentage of the total, but rural-to-urban transfers continue to account for a
significant proportion (over 30% in 2010) of the growth of the urban population. There are also some
puzzlingly sharp changes from one decade to the next (in El Salvador, Haiti and the Plurinational State of
Bolivia, for example). These findings may warrant further study or may reflect abnormalities attributable
to short-run situations or flaws in the methodology.
The net transfer of population from the countryside to the cities is a significant factor in the
decline of the rural population, and it has continued to occur even when countries have reached a high
degree of urbanization. Rural-to-urban migration continues to have a considerable impact on rural zones
not only in terms of declining population growth rates (and the depopulation of many areas) but also on
the ageing of the population, since the scale of out-migration is closely correlated to age, with younger
members of the population being the most likely to emigrate (see box IV.3).