UNIVERSITY OF NAIROBI

COLLEGE OF EDUCATION AND EXTERNAL STUDIES

KIKUYU CAMPUS

COURSE TITLE: DEMOGRAPHY

COURSE CODE: TGN 408

TASK: Write a documented essay on migration patterns experienced in

your home county.

SUBMITTED TO: DR. J.O WAKAJUMMAH

NAME: GEORGE OGOLA

REG. NO.: E35/84040/2017

Introduction
Migration is the physical movement of people from one place to another; it may
be over long distances, such as moving from one country to another, and can
occur as individuals, family units, or large groups. When referring to international
movement, migration is called immigration. Some interesting patterns occur with
migration. Most people that migrate travel only a short distance from their
original destination and usually within their country, often due to economic
factors. This is called internal migration. Migration is very dynamic around the
world, with peaks in different regions at different times. As noted earlier, there
are several reasons why people migrate, but where are people relocating to or
from? This forms the migration pattern which simply looks into how people
migrate.
In this study, migration patterns in Nairobi county will discussed. Migration
generally occurs when the perceived interaction of Push and Pull factors
overcome the friction of moving and with time leads to migration patterns. Push
factors refers to the elements of the origin that are perceived negatively leading
to a desire to leave while pull factors are simply the elements of the destination
that are perceived positively leading to place-attraction. Friction of moving in
migration refers the costs in time, finance and emotions in leaving one location
and moving to another. The strength of the Pull and/or Push factors need to
overcome these costs to cause potential migrants to turn that into an actual
relocation. Perception, on the other hand is what one thinks or feels about
something, a place or a person. In the context of this study, it generally refers to
how a geographical feature may be received be each individual. A quiet coastal
resort may be seen as ‘boring’ by a teenager but attractive to a retired couple.
This may result in coastal resorts seeing a net out-migration of young people and
net in-migration of the recently retired.
Body
As nations develop their economies, younger generations are drawn from rural
areas into cities. Urban growth rates in recent years have been particularly
pronounced in lower and middle-income countries. Africa depicts this global
trend in high relief. For the past few decades, Africans have been moving from
rural areas into cities, seeking work, so the continent’s urban population has
skyrocketed. Nairobi is a prime example of that migration, with its population
pushing upward and its boundaries pushing outward. The recently released 2019
national census report indicated that Nairobi is the most populous county with a
population of 4.556 million, an indicator of rising job and investment
opportunities.
The primary languages of Nairobi are Swahili and English. The county is the
location of one of the largest slums in the world, and approximately 22% of the
city’s residents live in poverty. Nairobi is a very ethnically diverse city, and Kenya’s
major ethnic groups all reside here, including Luo, Luhyia and Kamba. The
population is made up of 20% Kikuyu. There are also many Asians, Europeans, and
Somalis that call this city home. A large number of expatriates live here because
of the job opportunities, which has led to the city’s explosive growth. The
population growth rate is currently at about 3.96% and is as a result of migration.
Honestly, migration has had an evident impact on Nairobi’s urban formation. Its
short history of urbanization has been shaped by an inflow of different social
groups, each transplanting its distinct culture, social, ethnic, and physical forms
into the city. Through these different forms of migration and urbanization,
multiple power systems have emerged in Nairobi, impairing the role of local
government and limiting its authority to act as a single dominant ruling body.
Most slums in Nairobi like Kibera and Mathare, Korogocho and Viwandani are
mainly as a result of rural-urban migration dynamics and urban-urban influence.
Korogocho and Viwandani are located about 5-10 km from the city centre and 3
km from each other. These two settlements are home to nearly 23,000
households. The total population in the two slums grew from about 53,000 in
mid-2003 to about 57,500 in mid-2007. Data from a cross-sectional migration
history survey carried out in 2006 show that with a median duration of stay of 16
years for the current population, Korogocho has a more settled population. On
the other hand, Viwandani, which is located adjacent to Nairobi’s industrial area,
attracts a youthful and highly mobile population seeking job opportunities in the
nearby industries. The median duration of stay in Viwandani is 7 years (Muindi et
al. 2009). In general, the proportion of economically active individuals (aged 15-64
years old) is higher in Viwandani than in Korogocho. For example, in 2008, 72%
and 62% of the people in Viwandani and Korogocho, respectively, were aged 15-
64. Conversely, Korogocho has a larger proportion of 0-4year old than Viwandani
(37% vs. 28% in 2008). This translates into a higher dependency ratio in
Korogocho than in Viwandani (62% vs. 39%). Most residents in the two slums rely
on unstable and low-paying sources of income (Zulu et al. 2006).
For the case of Kibera, the classification of Nubians as `detribalized natives’ is the
origin of insecure tenure and ambiguous land use in Kibera and the origin of
Kibera slum conflicts. I think the lack of titles to the land and the fact that the land
was large, owned by government, and a huge part was not allocated to the
Nubian community are key factors which attracted invasion and latter
commercialization of the area as the rate of migration increased at independence
coupled with the removal of restriction of movement to the city. A mere
documentation of the Nubians would not have changed the situation, since tracks
of land were lying idle and migration pressure was building up. Furthermore,
colonial government and recruitment of some ethnic groups should also take into
consideration the fact that the colonial government largely provided housing to
its employees, whose relics are still visible in the city.
The densification without planning generally set a stage for emergence of slum
structures tolerated by colonial administrators despite few attempts to eliminate
the settlements. The tolerance of colonial government is attributed to
exploitation of the labour of the migrants without providing planning and
providing for labour migrants. This resulted in the ambiguous use of land through
`landlordism’ on unauthorized land and urban order of densification without
concomitant infrastructure and services. Consequently, the government declared
Kibera government land due to its ambiguous nature with Nubians being given
right to structures but not land. While this action of government was not initially
viewed as problematic, in recent years it has become contentious with Nubians
claiming a right to the entire land which has since been appropriated by informal
land and housing development entrepreneurs. This has generated many interests
including local administrators who provide rights to others to occupy land whose
tenure they do not have and investors including absentee structure owners with
powerful ties. Kibera is still being defined as informal while the government with
the support of the UN is making interventions in the area of slum upgrading. This
seems to be the outcome of the presence of many actors and interests, including
influential social, political and ethnic networks. What does not come out is the
fact that local government is not excluded in this convoluted outcome, and could
be both a beneficiary and an arbitrator.
The CBD brief puts emphasis on modernist buildings produced during the 1960s
and 1970s alleging that they were meant to reflect nationalism but ended up
reflecting international influence of foreign architects, engineers and migrant
workers. For the UN Blue Zone, there is migration of professionals and experts,
while in Eastleigh, the in-migration of Somali refugees from Dadaab is perceived
as an urban catalyst in the county. The UN Blue Zone is not only a suburb of the
migrant professionals and experts but also home to other elites, including the
`money’ elites whose sources of income are often unknown. The same case
applies to Eastleigh, which is not only a home to Somali refugees, but also a home
to indigenous Kenyan Somali and a few other non-Somali ethnic groups. This
point is important since in isolated cases, the Kenya Government has used a
similar lens and ended up harassing citizens on assumption that the majority who
live within the suburb are refugees who have moved out of the Dadaab refugee
camp. Consequently, if the four illustrative cases are to be viewed as exemplifying
cases of multiple power systems that contributes to Nairobi’s urban formation as
a city.
The different and segregated urban patterns are indicative of co-existence of
multiple power systems. Segregation is conceptualized to include ethnic, spatial,
and economic differences in the city which result in multiple power structures
which in turn influence the urban transformation of Nairobi as a county. However,
the nexus of segregation and migration does not come out clearly in most of the
available documentations. Segregation as a concept in the development of the
city of Nairobi connotes the historical planning policy which zoned Nairobi
residential areas along racial lines with Europeans, Asians and Africans having
separate living areas. This zoning dictated access to services and infrastructure,
with the African areas having least consideration.
The historical development of Nairobi clearly points out the colonial policy of
segregation and the rapid migration after independence in 1963 and the various
plans dating back to the 1st plan of 1927 and the 1948 plan. The latter plan
strengthened the spatial zoning of the 1927 plan and also disconnected urban
activities in the city. These plans were not inspired by indigenous values but
foreign garden city concepts which generated extensive road construction and
travel time. Although both the 1927 and 1948 plans were not fully implemented
their impact is still being felt in the city. The independent government and the
1973 Nairobi Metropolitan Growth Strategy, which was expected to deal with
rapid urban growth and change the trend by the year 2000, did not achieve much.
The plan proposed self-contained metropolitan neighborhoods aimed at
containing the city by integrating residential, commercial, industrial and
administration areas in every neighborhood, but this has so far not succeeded.
Eastleigh area is largely a suburb of Somali refugee. The refugees have succeeded
in organizing their livelihoods in striking difference to other neighborhoods in the
city, and the area has well established infrastructure. The neighborhood has
unregistered refugees who do not have legal documents and basically live
informal and illegal lives; and have been ignored by the administration of the
county. This raises a number of questions, for example: are the same individuals
who have succeeded in organizing livelihoods the same ones who require
support? Are the entrepreneurs who are building huge shopping malls, the same
ones who are living informally and illegal or are these different entrepreneurs? It
seems Eastleigh is a complex settlement that cannot be understood by
generalization that conceptualizes all residents as informal and illegal refugees.
Indeed, quality of life in Eastleigh is problematic, and the rising population is
putting pressure on the settlement resulting in expansion outside the settlement.
Conclusion
Nairobi is a county of diverse ethnic groups due to migration. The
population keeps on increasing as many youths come to the county to
seek for employment. The migration patterns of Nairobi county are
basically complex and might be difficult to explore fully though major
patterns have been discussed above. The patterns keep on changing
depending on the economic status of the county and the country at
large.
Reference
Adepoju, A., 2007: ‘Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa’, A background
paper commissioned by the Nordic Africa Institute for the Swedish
Government White Paper on Africa, Nordic Africa Institute, Lagos.
Adebusoye, M.P., et al, 2006: ‘Geographic Labour Mobility in Sub-
Saharan Africa’, IDRC Working Papers on Globalization, Growth and
Poverty, IDRC, Ottawa.
Appleyard R. 1992. Migration and Development: An Unresolved
Relationship. International Migration 30:251-66.
Black, R. et al, 2008: ‘Demographics and Climate Change: Future Trends
and their Policy Implications for Migration’, Development Research
Centre on Migration, Globalization and Poverty, University of Sussex,
UK.
Clear International Journal of Development and Economic
Sustainability Vol.3, No.4, pp.29-48, August 2015 ___Published by
European Centre for Research Training and Development UK
in Africa,’ in Plaza, S. and Ratha, D. (eds.) Diaspora for Development in
Africa. World Bank: Washington, D.C.: 55-78.
Courgeau, D. (1985), Interactions between Spartial Mobility, family and
Career LifeCycle: A French Survey; European Sociological Review. Vol. 1
No. 2, September 1985, Oxford University Press, 1985.
Development Research Centre on Migration, Globalisation and Poverty
(Migration DRC), 2007: Global Migrant Origin Database, University of
Sussex, March 2007,http://www.migrationdrc.org/research/
typesofmigration/global_migrant_origin_database.html. Djajic S. 1986.
International Migration, Remittances and Welfare in a Dependent
Economy. Journal of Development Economics 21:229-34 Ezra, M., 2001: