Roi Earl J.

Red SOCIO 160

2013-48395

A Review of Related Literature on Internal Migration to Urban Areas in the

Philippines

Perhaps, you might have heard someone in a Filipino television and movie dramas
uttered a line similar to this: “Kailangan kong lumuwas para mairaos ko ang aking pamilya
sa hirap.” In the Filipino language, the word “luwas” is unquestionably understood as going
at some place particular. The idea of “luwas” or “pagluwas” connotes going into the central
part of a province. It could mean going to places such as “bayan” or “city” coming from the
outskirts of provinces. However, in a larger and more particular context, “pagluwas” is
oftentimes understood as a movement to Metro Manila either for purposes of employment
and permanent settlement. Henceforth, the concept of “pagluwas” is as synonymous to
rural-urban migration.

While citizens of Metro Manila are growing exhausted and impatient with the heavy
traffic and high pollution in the city, people from its outskirts believe that it is the “city of
dreams.” Setting their foot on the soil of Metro Manila is a step closer to the fulfillment of
their hopes and dreams of escaping poverty and attaining social mobility. Both
perspectives present two contrasting but at the same time existing realities. However,
getting into the city is not as easy as most people think. Moving into a highly urbanized area
has a lot of trade-offs. First, the cost of moving from rural areas to Metro Manila is
expensive especially for migrants from Visayas and Mindanao who needs to cross the air
and the seas. Then once you get into the city, the cost of living in Metro Manila is above the
cost of living in rural areas. It all includes the basic needs of an individual: food, shelter, and
clothing. Yet while it is true that wage is higher in Metro Manila; there is also a tough
competition for employment even in low-paying jobs. One’s level of education is certainly a
primary advantage. Besides economic risks, migrating into highly urbanized area like Metro
Manila pose safety and health risks. It is typical for highly urbanized areas to have very
high crime rates. The pollution within the city also poses threat to health as it causes fatal
diseases like cancer and tuberculosis. Mental health is also at stake in highly urbanized
areas because of the presence of many kinds of stressors. One of the possible stressors that
a migrant might experience is the alienation from the culture. Moving into the city also
needs a long period of adjustment especially in the Philippine context where culture and
language are very diverse. Feelings of loneliness and distance from immediate family and
other support systems might also affect the mental health of a migrant. It is therefore that
while Metro Manila is the “city of dreams” for people from provinces and newcomers in the
city, for others who were unfortunate not to succeed, it is otherwise the “city of broken
dreams.” It is reflected by the many informal settlers in Metro Manila who chose to stay
living under bridges, in slum areas, and in the streets. Regardless, despite these horrifying
images of city life and the low chance of achieving social mobility especially for people
without sufficient capital, there are still many people from the provinces who would rather
take the risk and hopeful to become one of the successful migrants they saw on television
and movies.

This paper seeks to integrate the literature about rural-urban internal migration in
the Philippines. It discusses causes and consequences of internal urban migration in the
country. Aside from journal articles written in the local context, other journal articles on
the similar topic conducted in other countries—neighboring countries from Asia—will also
be used to determine if there is a similar pattern, and if there is not, what could be the
possible reasons why there is a pattern differences.

Theories in Migration

The phenomenon of distribution of people across spaces over a period of time, in

population studies, is called migration—international and internal. In studying migration,
two of the most substantial questions asked by researchers are: why do people migrate?
And where do people migrate from and to? The question of “why do people migrate” is
principally a concern for micro-level of analysis. According to Harris and Todaro (1970),
internal migration from rural to urban areas is a consequence of labor market failures.
Unemployment rate and wage differentials between rural and urban sectors are key
determinants of internal migration. New economics of labor migration is another theory
that was introduced much later by Stark and Bloom in 1985. In this theory, the process of
decision-making involves a certain group of people. Their decision is on the basis of
maximizing expected income while reducing economic risks. A more recent developed
theory is the dynamic approach of network models. It states that migrant establishes social
networks in the destination places which decreased migration costs in the future. On the
other hand, spatial role is more common concern for macro-level of analysis. Classical
models theorize that migration is a mechanism to reach equilibrium by reducing
unemployment differential and per capital income within national borders. It emphasizes
the differences between locations as important motivations for people to migrate from one
place to another (Etzo 2008). The same study identified the determinants of migration:
gravity variables, labor market variables, and environmental variables. For gravity
variables, according to Ravenstein as mentioned by Etzo (2008), “high economic prosperity
indicates more activities, services, and opportunities for people”; and dynamic centers
draw the attention especially of young people. For labor market variables, for instance,
unemployment rates in both the origin and destination regions are explanatory variables.
Lastly, environmental variables generally include variables that determine qualities of life:
“public safety, social services, environmental quality, political atmosphere, and other
similar aspects.”

A report from International Organization for Migration—prepared by Deshingkar

and Grimm (2005)—concluded that migration is a livelihood strategy of poor households
to alleviate income fluctuations and earn extra income for contingencies. Another literature
written by Anh (2003), and was used in the research, concluded that migration is a vehicle
to reach economic growth and escape from poverty. At the same time, migrants’ livelihood
and well-being are positively influenced. In addition, the classical model of “push and pull”
was still proven to be a relevant framework for analyzing migration patterns. In summary,
the so called “push factors” includes the following: “declining opportunities in agriculture:
drought, river erosion, water logging, poor mountain and forest economies, downsizing of
public sectors jobs, and overall stagnation in formal sector job creation.” Ergo “push
factors” are the current conditions within the place of origin. On the other hand, “pull
factors” are the conditions within the destination such as “urbanization, influence of rural-
urban wages, economic opportunities to rural people for changing jobs rapidly and moving
upward social mobility with a very low asset-base and skills.” Therefore, based on
empirical evidences, Deshingkgar and Grimm concluded that rural-urban migration
manifests significance in the rapid urbanizing economies of Asian countries as rural-urban
wage differentials and returns from migration increase. The pattern of movements shows
that a huge portion of cases are long-distance migrants flowing into larger cities and
manufacturing centers. Nonetheless, in smaller towns, poorer people also do minor
movements.

Asian Countries

In this succeeding section of the paper, studies conducted about internal migration
in several neighboring Asian countries will be discussed. In a study conducted in Thailand,
material and symbolic disparities were listed as two enduring causes of rural to urban
migration—from periphery areas to the city of Bangkok. Thais still perceive the city of
Bangkok as the “place of culture, education, prosperity, and progress” despite the efforts of
material and symbolic decentralization by their government. The reasons found are: firstly,
rural to urban migration offers economic advances, opportunities, and ways of
experiencing national modernity and glorified urban life. Cosmopolitan migrants1 believe
that education allows social mobility while employment within Bangkok provides prestige.
Furthermore, lifestyle improvements create a symbolic distinction of being “hi-so” or
“trendy.” Higher income and more job opportunities, on the other hand, are principal
motivators of migrant workers in Bangkok (Gullette 2014). In a study conducted by Khan
and Kraemer (2014) in Bangladesh, using the “push-pull model” of analysis, they argued
that rural to urban migration is a result of rural poverty, unemployment, and national
hazards. To put context on these claims, Bangladesh is a densely populated yet

1
Youth identity that draws from global subcultures such as hip-hop or punk (Gullette 2014)
economically poor country. Geographic location of the country makes it prone to
environmental hazards like severe flooding and storm surges. The push factors that were
determined in the study are “widespread poverty, limited opportunities for jobs, healthcare
facilities, low wages, a low standard of living, river bank erosion due to flooding,
landlessness, and other environmental factors.” In contrast, pull factors includes “better
wages, expectations of higher living standards, improved educational and healthcare
facilities, growing demand for specific skills and knowledge, increasing transportation and
better communication facilities, employment opportunities particularly for women in
export-oriented garment manufacturing industries, and the culture of female movement
with their husbands after marriage.” As a consequence, rural to urban migration accounts
for about two-thirds of the urban growth in Bangladesh. As a matter of fact, the urban
population of Bangladesh has grown to 25.1% in 2005 from the 9.9% 30 years ago. If urban
migrants continue to increase at this rate, by 2060 it is predicted that the urban population
will balloon up to 60% (NIPORT 2007). In the same study, the effects of urban migration to
migrants were also discussed. Study has shown that rural-urban migrants are more
exposed to “risks on housing, tobacco-use behavior, mental health, and general health.” In
terms of mental health, the risk is primarily due to factors such as “missing family and
social networks, reduced social support as a consequence of family disruption, and limited
opportunities to share their sorrow.” In addition, it can also be a cause of adjusting to
foreign culture and vulnerabilities to stressful conditions. Advantages in health for
migrants in the city gradually diminish due to changes in lifestyle and stress. For instance,
migrants tend to consume less food to increase their savings and remittances (Chen 2011;
Khan and Kraemer 2014). Poor housing is also a problem because overcrowding in slum
areas allows the transfer of communicable diseases easier. In Nepal, rural-urban migrants
need to overcome adversities like access to employment, residence, health care, education,
and other urban amenities during their early years of transfer. Findings of Harris and
Todaro in 1970 state that migration into urban areas cause congestion, increase in
unemployment rate, and limits opportunities leading to poverty However; in a small urban
area in Nepal, it was observed that “urban inequality, disrupted social harmony and
security” caused by massive migration only lasts in a short run.
 In the research conducted by Acharya and Leon-Gonzales (2015) in a small urban
area in Nepal, they explored the assimilation of difficulties in the environment like fewer
jobs. Results have shown that in the initial stages of migration, migrant households have 24
percent less income and 13 percent less consumption than local households. However,
after an average of 10 years, migrant households achieve the same income level of local
households while an average of 3 years is what it takes to achieve the same level of
consumption. The study is an indication that economic improvement among the migrants is
possible.

Philippine Context

The Philippines has been enduring socio-economic and political problems for very
long years. The country suffers from “rising poverty levels and population growth, high
unemployment and jobs with low wages, fiscal imbalance, and huge deficits for public
spending, bad governance, corruption, and the lack of basic services and asset reform
measures for poor and marginalized sectors” (Asian Development Bank 2003, Action for
Economic Reforms 2001; Aldaba and Tuano 1997). Hopelessness among Filipino becomes a
stimulus for them to consider migration. In a Pulse Asia Survey in 2002, it was shown that
ratio one out of five Filipinos wants to migrate while in the succeeding survey ration
increased to one out of four. This kind of culture breeds generation of migrants (Opiniano
2004).

According to Asian Development Bank (2012), urban population experienced rapid

growth rate as more and more people migrate from rural to urban areas to seek better
employment opportunities. The total population of the Philippines considered as urban is
estimated to be at 60%. Evidently, Metro Manila houses the largest number of urban
population of 33 million people; Metro Cebu and Davao City are other large urban areas in
Visayas and Mindanao respectively. These cities fundamentally steer the economic growth
of the country. In fact, urban areas account for 75%-85% of the country’s Gross Domestic
Product since 2000; a large proportion of one-thirds of the total GDP came from Metro
Manila alone. Furthermore, the economy grows at 5% attributed to its fastest-growing
sectors in urban areas like service, trade, and communications.

Abad (1985) made a review of research findings on internal migration in the

Philippines. He began with his claim that historically Filipinos are relatively mobile people.
As evidences, in the 1970s, 14% of the total population resides in a region other than their
place of birth. Prior to the period of 1960s-1970s, migration flow follows two streams: first,
from Luzon, Eastern and Western Visayas to Metro Manila; second, flow moves from
Visayas to some parts of Luzon and frontier of Mindanao. When the period of 1960s-1970s
came, the movement of people towards Metro Manila and some parts of Visayas rapidly
increased—an indication of the popular movement from rural to urban areas. The
industrialization within these areas was the factor that influenced this shift according to
Flieger and Smith. As further evidences, the National Demographic Survey of 1965-1970
shows that one-third of all internal migration movements are from rural to urban flow,
26% urban-urban, 24% rural-rural, and 17% urban-rural migration. The data also shows
that internal migration is sex and age selective. Industrially and agriculturally advanced
regions accept more female migrants.

In another study, in city-ward migration, female migrants are more probably young.
Inside these cities, females are either of the following: students, factory workers, or
domestic helpers. Difference among socio-economic status of migrants has also been
observed. Several researches provide evidences that migrants are educated and works in
white-collar jobs. In 1968 National Demographic Survey, Wery noticed a pattern that female
migrants works as professionals while their younger clusters work around service and
unskilled occupations. Yet it was also observed that selectivity on education and
occupation also varies according to place of destination. In a separate study, Hendershot
argued that migrants to urban places have higher socio-economic status than migrants to
rural places.

Improving one’s economic status is the rationale behind migration as argued by

classical theories on migration. Thus, logically, migration should have an impact to
economic status of both sending and receiving areas. In the review of literature of Abad
(1985), it has been shown that sending areas gain more benefits like remittances.
Nonetheless, the amount of remittances is not sufficient to uplift living conditions in their
places of origins. It is despite Zachariah and Pernia’s claim that massive-out migration has
been effective as a means of relieving population pressures. On the other hand, migration
contributed development to receiving areas. Yet, as a side effect, the large influx of
migrants to cities caused overcrowding and proliferation of slum communities.

While several discussions focused on the direction of migration streams from areas of
low economic opportunity to areas of high economic opportunity, a few macro studies do
not show significance of economic variables. Zosa argues that geographical-cultural
variables are more important in explaining and predicting migration flow. On another
study, Devoretz tested the significance of differences in wages and growth rates between
sending and receiving areas. Surprisingly there is no statistical significance between
employment opportunities as a factor affecting migration. He then concluded that large
income differentials between origin and destination prompt people to move. Additional
income gains are only available to highly-educated migrants. In a micro-level study,
Pernia’s finding shows the higher significance of personal attributes than external. In
particular, presence of kinship ties is the most important factor considered by a migrant. It
is supported by Ulack’s study in Iligan City which shows that family-related reasons and
prior contacts with relatives are critical socio-psychological variables. Meanwhile, the most
significant reason is still economically motivated. There are also studies which debunked
the myth of economic improvement promised by migration. Lopez-Nerney, in their study,
revealed that migrating does not necessarily results to economic improvement. In addition,
data from 1968 National Demographic Survey similarly shows that migration does not
result to educational mobility, status change among workers; and except for persons whose
original occupations were in agriculture. Regardless migrants still glorify the city as the
“promised land.”

Arnold and Abad (1985) conducted a study comparing and contrasting international
and internal migration of Ilocanos. Ilocos Norte is said to have a long history of
outmigration. Results of the study show that Ilocano migrants give the utter most
importance to values of “comfort, wealth, and status,” then give importance to values
related to “affiliation and morality, and give least importance to autonomy and
stimulation.” The survey also determined the perception of Ilocanos towards locations as
being relatively good places or bad places to achieve different goals. Manila was not highly
regarded by Ilocanos in most respects. Nevertheless, Manila is perceived as a good place for
educational opportunities and entertainment. On the other hand, with regards to wealth
and status, Hawaii was rated high but low on satisfying desire for affiliation. “Comfort,
affiliation, and morality” were seen as being most easily achieved in their present barangay.
These findings show the significance of social network perspective: the concept of
auspices—presence of individuals in the destination who can provide the migrant with
information and support—and the concept of shadow households—migrants’ commitment
or obligations to their former household. In another province in Mindanao which is
Bukidnon, findings show that various destinations attract different types of migrants.
Poblaciones2 and urban areas attract educated individuals because of two reasons: to
continue studying, and to find better job opportunities. The study also suggests that
presence of relatives in a destination makes it more attractive to young migrants especially
in non-rural areas. Propensity of educated rural-urban migrants, and support of social
networks of earlier migrants, if combined, creates an impetus for an ongoing migration
flow from rural to non-rural areas. Another contribution of the study was determining the
typical job opportunities these urban migrants get. Large proportion of male migrants in
urbanized areas ends up on “manual labor/transportation works or crafts and trades.”
These are not high-income jobs. Females, on the other hand, usually work in sales in
Poblaciones areas. In urbanized areas, females get to have professional and managerial jobs
(Quisimbing and McNiven 2006).

Migration to Manila

Before the arrival of Spanish, Manila had already been established as a location for
trading among neighboring Asian countries like China, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia,

2
Poblaciones are the administrative seats of the municipality. Even though all poblaciones are in fact population centers, only those
poblaciones that have a population density of at least 500 persons per square kilometer and essential infrastructure are classified as
urban, even if they are surrounded by predominantly rural areas (Quisimbing and McNiven 2006). .
Borneo and Kampuchea. Its location and state of progressiveness was the reason why it
became the colonial capital during Spanish and American era. During these periods, Manila
was further developed as a gateway for export and import of agricultural products and raw
materials that will be transferred to Europe and vice versa. Years later, Manila emerged as
the “primate city of the Philippines.” However, after World War II, a huge portion of Manila
was damaged. Yet, many of the economic policies during that time converged upon to
revive the city. While the intentions were good, unfortunately, these economic policies
were too much “Manila-centric.” It has resulted to an uneven development between Manila
and the rest of regions in the country. Since Manila has already developed infrastructures
and as it was the country’s main port, financial and commercial center, investors of large
industries favored it; hence other regions were underdeveloped (Manasan and Mercado
1999). Many years later, the situation has remained to be the same. For these reasons, it is
not surprising the rampant number of rural migration to Manila, and its rapid urbanization

In the Ramos administration, several industrial zones were developed; in general, it

is to generate more employment across different parts of the Philippines. Because of this
policy, many country sides turned into urban areas while agricultural lands were used for
non-agricultural establishments. These efforts is in-line with the administrations’ campaign
for local industrialization—foundation of globally competitive local industries.
Simultaneously, it sought to distribute development across other regions. Consequently,
young men and women were attracted to move from the periphery to the center or to the
cities. Hence when decentralization happened outside Metro Manila, the rural working age
population flocked to major urban centers within their regions. In a research conducted by
Chaves (2009) in coastal areas in Mindanao, young men became less interested with fishing
as a livelihood primarily because of dwindling number of fishes caught. Forthwith, instead
of taking these chances, young men were prompted to work in urban areas where income
is steadier. Similarly, women also tend to work in urban areas in domestic and service
sectors. Parents of these young men and women are also involved in this proliferation of
idealized urban life. In a group discussion, parents encourage their children to find
alternative occupations to fishing. Working in the urban and non-agricultural sector is the
job these parents are dreaming of for their children. Thus completion of formal education is
determined as a means to an end. These incidences resulted to the out-migration of young
adults from rural to urban areas where levels of income are more stable. Moreover the
study also found out that young adult children are perceived as a source for economic
security. It implies that rural parents prepare their children for employment in cities in the
Philippines and abroad; and expect them to send remittances. As a conclusion, the absence
of economic opportunities in rural villages forces families to send a member of the family
to urban areas to work.

In relation to Chaves (2009), under the administration of Ramos, Philippines

adopted an export-led growth economic development policy. Trade liberalization was core
of this approach. With World Bank and United States as supporters, the government
proposed two major pieces of legislation RA No. 7227 or the Base Conversion and
Development Act of 1992 and RA 7916 also known as Special Economic Zone Act of 1995. It
created the Base Conversion and Development Authority (BCDA) and the Philippine
Economic Zone Authority to help attract foreign investors, and to target special areas within
Philippines thought to be particularly suitable for special economic zones. Redistribution of
investments away from Metro Manila by developing “underutilized lands” was the goal of
SEZ program. In the 1995, the implementation of PEZA and BCDA led to population
redistribution. Rural workers moved from low wage rural areas to more highly urbanized
regions where PEZA and BCDA had established SEZ. As consequences, population
redistribution increases the pressure on urban labor markets to integrate a growing
number of potential workers. It further caused the increase of unemployment rate in urban
areas. Highest levels of rural to urban migration coincide with the period wherein PEZA
and BCDA have produced the most jobs. The map shows that the Metro Manila area and
parts of Region 3 and Region 4 have the highest tendency for in-migration. Shatkin (2009)
in his study found two factors shaping the equity outcomes of spatial change in Metro
Manila. The fragmented nature of the city’s geography of economic and housing
opportunity has presented low-income people with a set of choices between quality and
security of housing, access to employment and commuting time. The second factor is the
job shortage in metro manila, and policies that keeps the price of labor relatively low.
Metro Manila is a globalizing city of 10.7 million that sits in a larger mega-urban region of
some 17 million.

Indeed, internal migration remains to be the cause of rapid urbanization in the

country. This phenomenon causes socio-economic inequality between rural and urban
areas. Commission on Population, in their 2010 report, presents that there is a shift among
patterns of movement of long-distance migrants. Currently, internal migrants prefer
moving to Region IV-A CALABARZON with 28%. It is followed by Metro Manila which has
20%, and Region III has 13%. In total, 37% of Filipinos are living in CALABARZON, Metro
Manila, and Central Luzon in 2010 (Perez III n.d) . Indeed, claims of Jolipa in (1980), still
holds true as patterns of movement show that Filipinos are moving towards urban areas
and areas adjacent to Metro Manila. Economic advancement is the primary reason causing
this movement. As further support, in as study of Filipinas Foundation, half of the
respondents moved to other location than their province of birth due to employment and
economic opportunities. From the years 2007-2010, population in urban areas increased
by 4%. In the meantime, internal migration remained to be sex and age selective. Regarding
age, 52% of the migrants are in the age interval of 20-39 years old. Among these migrants,
many of them are female from the age group of 20-29 years old. Almost half of the migrants
(46%) are single or unmarried. Data also shows that these migrants are educated as 24%
of them were at least high school graduates. Lastly, majority of these migrants were
employed (CPH 2000).

Conclusion

Patterns of rural to urban migration among Asian countries presented in this paper
shows that economic reason is a strong driving factor influencing the movement of people
from rural to urban areas. In the case of Philippines, which is the focus of this review of
related literature, literature proves that migration is a conscious and dynamic effort of
seeking new and better opportunities. Movements of Filipinos from rural areas to highly
urbanized areas are shaped by economic conditions in their locality: unemployment rate,
livelihood, and opportunities. In addition, migrants’ perception about availability of income
is also a compelling factor. More than economic reasons, established social network in the
destination is also a factor that migrants weigh before moving. There is also support in the
literature that environmental factors are also important variables in predicting patterns of
migration. Some migrants choose to move from rural to urban areas because of
environmental hazards in their localities. This factor is significant to Filipino internal
migrants because the country is prone to natural disasters. Lastly, the literature was also
able to highlight the fact that political factors shape movement from rural to urban areas. It
was very evident in the Ramos administration, enactment of two legislations and trade
liberalization policies had influenced more Filipinos to move from rural areas to Metro
Manila and near sub-urban regions. It is because new and better employment opportunities
sprang in these regions because of the establishment of more and more foreign and local
industries. All these factors contribute to the creation and enforcement of culture of
migration among Filipinos. Similar to Bangkok, Thailand, Metro Manila is hailed as the city
of culture, progress, and opportunities. It was a result of the very long history of Metro
Manila as the central city. It has always been a priority of the government and,
international and local industries in their blueprint for progress.

References

Abad, Ricardo. 1981. “International migration in the Philippines: a review of research

findings.” Philippine Studies, 19(2): 129-143.
Acharya, Chakra and Leon-Gonzalez, Roberto. 2015. “The assimilation of migrant
households in the urban areas of a developing country.” The Journal of Developing
Areas, 49(2), 336-354.

Arnold, Fred and Abad, Ricardo. 1985. “Linkages between internal and international
migration: the Ilocos Norte experience.” Philippine Population Journal, 1(2): 1-17.

Asian Development Bank. 2012. “Urban sector assessment, strategy, and road map.”
Philippines. Asian Development Bank.

Brown, Daniel and Sanders, Scott. 2009. “The migratory response of labor to special
economic zones in the Philippines, 1995-2005.” Population Res. Policy Rev, 31: 141-
164.

Chaves, Carmeli Marie. 2009. “Those that urbanization left behind: a case study of spatial
disparities and rising dependency in coastal areas in Mindanao, the Philippines.
Journal of Social Issues in Southeast Asia, 24(2): 251-268.

Deshingkar, Priya and Grimm, Sven. 2005. “Internal migration and development: a global
perspective.” International Organization for Migration Research Series, 19: 1-79.

Etzo, Ivan. 2008.”International migration: a review of the literature.” Munich Personal

RePEc Archive, 8783: 1-27.

Gullette, Gregory. 2014. “Rural-urban hierarchies, status boundaries, and labour mobilities
in Thailand.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40(8), 1254-1274.

Khan, Mobarak Hossain and Kraemer, Alexander. 2014. “Are rural-urban migrants living in
urban slums more vulnerable in terms of housing, health knowledge, smoking,
mental health, and general health?”. International Journal of Social Welfare, 23: 373-
383.

Manasan, Rosario and Mercado, Ruben. 1999. “Governance and urban development: case
study of Metro Manila.” Philippine Institute for Development Studies Discussion
Paper Series, 99-03.
McNiven, Scott and Quisumbing, Agnes. 2006. “Migration and rural-urban continuum:
evidence from Bukidnon, Philippines.” Philippine Journal of Development, 33(1-2): 1-
43.

Opiniano, Jeremiah. 2004. “Our Future Beside the Exodus: Migration and Development
Issues in the Philippines.” Institute for Migration and Development Issues.

Perez III, Juan Antonio. n.d. “Filipinos on the move.”

Shatkin, Gavin. 2009. “The geography of insecurity: spatial change and the flexibilization of
labor in Metro Manila.” Journal of Urban Affairs, 31(4): 381-408.