macro and micro levels. While the literature on the determinants of internal migration at the aggregate level is quite extensive, there are few quantitative studies on this subject in Mexico. Moreover, studies analyzing individual factors that determine the propensity to migrate are even scarcer. Finally, it contributes to quantifying the earnings gains from the internal migration decision for both women and men, as no previous studies in Mexico on this topic are available.

**The remainder of this study is organized as follows.** Section 2 provides some background information on internal migration in Mexico. Section 3 discusses the relevant empirical literature and the different approaches to address determinants and returns to migration. Section 4 describes the data and presents descriptive statistics on internal migration patterns and the reasons for migration. It also gives a sociodemographic profile of women and men who migrated internally and compares them to those who stayed in the same state. Section 5 introduces the methodology used to analyze the determinants of internal mobility in Mexico and the earning gains from the migration decision for both women and men. Section 6 presents the empirical results and discusses the main findings. Finally, Section 7 discusses some relevant policy implications and recommendations.

# 2. Background on internal mobility in Mexico

**For decades, rural-urban migration was the primary type of internal migration in Mexico.** However, this pattern turned into inter-urban migration, such that in 2010, it constituted the prominent internal migration in the country (Pérez and Santos, 2013).

**The economic transformation experienced by the country's different regions during the last 30 years resulted in varying levels of sector diversification in the regions.** Pérez and Santos (2013) found that the industrialization process in the Northern regions and the region of Bajío increased the number of medium and large-size cities. Moreover, other regions, mainly in the South, underwent a structural transformation of their economies toward services sectors such as administrative services, commerce, and tourism. While cities in the North are more economically diversified, those in the South rely considerably on the services sector. This structural change in the regions has generated different motivations for internal migration, including the expectation of an increase in household welfare resulting from better employment opportunities.

**The evidence indicates that a more complex urban area mainly drives mobility within metropolitan areas.** During the period 1995-2000, 65 percent of the internal migration was across cities and metropolitan areas. Between 2005 and 2010, this percentage increased to 68 percent (Pérez and Santos, 2013). Pérez and Santos (2013) also showed that some metropolitan areas have positive net migration balances, while others have negative net balances. For example, Mexico City metropolitan area had a negative net migration balance in the period 2005-2010, as well as all the cities in the Veracruz state and some consolidated touristic cities such as Acapulco. Some states have traditionally exported labor force (as Oaxaca). All the metropolitan areas in the frontier with the United States displayed positive net balances in the period 1995-2000. However, only one (Reynosa – Rio Bravo) showed a positive net balance in internal migration during the period 2005-2010.

**Although internal migration in Mexico at the primary geographic level is not as high as in the SubSaharan Africa region, it is an important phenomenon** . According to the Census 2010, around 3.6 percent of the population migrated internally across states during 2005-2010. Bernard et al. (2018) conducted a study comparing internal migration rates across countries and levels of educational attainment. They

3