|**Table3.4:Annu**|**alBreak-downo **|**fMig**|**ration**|**Char**|**acteri**|**stics **|**(HHh **|**eadson**|**ly)**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|**SoutheasttoNo**|**rtheast**|||||||||
||whitenon-whites|male|female|P0|urban|rural|age*|income|study|
|1999|35.5<br>64.5|72.4|27.6|59.2|62.1|37.9|34.32|92.45|<br>4.63|
|1998|27.2<br>72.8|77.3|22.7|59.4|65.8|34.2|33.9|<br>114.78|4.31|
|1997|36.2<br>63.8|82.9|17.1|51.9|63.8|36.2|33.0|<br>167.11|4.80|
|1996|38.2<br>61.8|<br>80.4|19.6|<br>59|57|43|31.0|<br>120.63|4.28|
|1995|32.1<br>67.9|79.7|20.3|48.9|69.8|30.2|32.69|212.11|4.5|
|1994|44.4<br>55.6|80.3|19.7|57.6|72.7|27.3|34.62|<br>218.09|<br>4.41|
|1993|37.3<br>62.7|75.7|24.3|41.2|72.5|27.5|35.52|161.68|5.43|
|1992|39.9<br>60.1|80.2|19.8|41.7|66|34|35.05|153.19|<br>4.53|
|1991|34.7<br>65.3|<br>79.4|20.6|41.3|74.5|25.5|32.92|135.85|4.85|
|lastSyears|35.1<br>64.9|76.2|23.8|56.4|68.8|31.2||137.30|<br>4.50|
|last10years|35.2<br>64.8|78.4|21.6|52.7|66.4|33.6||146.42|<br>4.61|
|morethan10years|37.3<br>62.7|<br>78.5|21.5|34.9|72.0|28.0||215.45|<br>4.78|
|**NortheasttoSo**|**utheast**|||||||||
||whitenon-whites|male|female|P0|urban|rural|age*|income|study|
|1999|58.3<br>41.7|80.9|19.1|18.7|85.4|14.6|35.45|<br>554.45|<br>6.73|
|1998|59.8<br>40.2|67.9|32.1|12.7|94.7|5.3|33.32|<br>328.40|<br>5.66|
|1997|60.3<br>39.7|75.6|24.4|13.5|94.3|5.7|29.44|<br>331.50|<br>6.15|
|1996|33.9<br>66.1|78.2|21.8|<br>12.1|95.2|4.8|30.1|224.90|<br>4.85|
|1995|54.9<br>45.1|71.5|28.5|13.9|96.8|3.2|27.63|<br>254.30|<br>5.20|
|1994|53.1<br>46.9|76|24|<br>13.5|94.5|5.5|28.64|<br>290.00|<br>5.15|
|1993|'57.0<br>43.0|<br>77.2|22.8|7.5|96|<br>4|29.45|283.00|<br>6.40|
|1992|52.2<br>47.8|83.7|16.3|16.7|96|<br>4|27.73|<br>208.00|<br>5.20|
|1991|52.2<br>47.8|77.7|22.3|10.6|96.2|3.8|29.66|<br>275.70|<br>5.80|
|last5years|47.5<br>52.5|77.4|22.6|13.5|93.9|6.1||290.10|<br>5.40|
|last10years|51.2<br>48.8|76.8|23.2|12.7|95.5|4.5||280.00|<br>5.56|
|morethan10years|55.1<br>44.9|74.6|25.4|<br>9.8|<br>96.2|3.8||309.90|<br>4.72|

* Age at year of migration. _Source:_ Author's calculations based on PNAD 1999.

# **4. Economic Returns to Migration**

Economic theory predicts that migration acts as an adjustment mechanism to differentials in income and unemployment rates between regions. According to neoclassical growth theory, the mobility of the workforce is driven by a search for higher remuneration. High remuneration is given in areas where labor is relatively scarce. Furthermore, since regions with higher capital/labor ratios tend to have higher productivity and hence a higher per-capita income, one would expect workers to move to wealthier areas.

Aggregate studies using average income and unemployment data generally confirm the predicted direction of migration (Vanderkamp 1976, Cancado 1997 for Brazil<sup>7</sup> ) and have provided useful insight into the role of migration as an economic adjustment mechanism. Behavior of individual migrants does not necessarily conform to the predictions of aggregate theories. In particular, one short coming of aggregate studies

> **7** Can,ado (1997) uses a Solow-Swan neoclassical growth model and panel data and finds evidence that during 1960 - 91, richer regions in Brazil attracted laborers from poorer areas.

16