- Email: [email protected]
Opportunities, information networks and international migration streams
Social Networks,
@Elsevier
Sequoia
1 (1978179) 217284 S.A., Lausanne - Printed
277 in the Netherlands
O~~o~unities, information Networks and International Migration Streams* Davor Jedlicka
Un~versit.~~ of Georgia”” Theoretically, the basis for the continuance of international migration streams lies in the free flow of information between origin and destination. The people best informed about possible opportunities at the destination are most likely to emigrate. This idea is expressed as a simple linear equation and tested in predicting the size of migration streams from eight regions in Japan to each of four major Hawaiian Islands. A destination tends to attract new immigrants from an origin in direct proportion to the previously established amount of migration from that origin to that destination. In general, previous ~nigration may have considerable relevance to continuation of streams in the future. Introduction Immigration to the United States has traditionally been an essential component of its population growth. As births and deaths in America become balanced, immigration, even if negligible in proportion to the . total population, accounts for an increasing proportion of the total growth. As a result, immigration generates public concern which is reflected in sociological and demographic inquiries into this subject. In spite of the attention this subject has received, social scientists seem to be unable to find a common theoretical focus for studying international migration as they have in the study of internal migration. The position of the social scientist with respect to this problem is best represented in Campbell Gibson’s study of the contribution of immigration to the United States population growth. He concludes: “In summary, the demographic factors are so variable and the social economic and political implications are so indeterminate that the contribution of immigration to United States population growth in the 1790 - 1970 period has no obvious relevance to the contribution of future immigration to United States.” (Gibson 1975: 177.) This conclusion is indeed sound if applied to initial instances of immigration from a particular foreign origin. No one can predict when some natural or political disaster abroad will bring thousands to America as has happened *This paper is based on my Master’s Thesis completed at the University of Hawaii in 1972. I am grateful to my wife, Toshiko, for providing English translations of historical emigration documents in Japanese and to P. G. Steinhoff, J. A. Palmore and F. Vallee for their helpful suggestions in response to a!p earlier draft of this material. **Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 30602, U.S.A.
278 l3uvor Jctllicka on numerous occasions in the distant and in the recent past. The same conclusion, however, may be challenged if applied to the persistance of the slow and steady flow of international migration streams which tend to devclop subsequent to these initial massive immigrations. As long as the United States government allows any immigration from abroad these streams will continue to add people in an orderly and, in many instances, in a predictable manner. An important prerequisite to continuation of migration streams is the free flow of information between the origin and destination. In cases where exchange of information is possible, the initial migrants will maintain ties with friends and relatives at the origin in the same way that the migrants within a country tend to do. Bruno Lasker (193 1) demonstrated this point in the case of Filipino immigrants to the United States. He also found that letters from the Unit4 States completely lacked wholly unfavorable reports from abroad. Furthermore, the less favorable information had less impact on the public opinion at the place of origin. It seems then, that the people most informed about some destination would be more likely to know about possible opportunities and would be most likely to emigrate in response to them. This is a network process that depends upon the maintenance of interpersonal contacts between emigrants and those who remain home (Brown and Moore 1970: Freeman and Sunshine 1976) and that, I suspect, operates to maintain differentials in international migration streams. Indirect evidence of this process is sought in this study using the case of Japanese emigration from eight regions in Japan to each of the four largest Hawaiian islands. Based on this case, a predictive migration model is proposed for study of continuity in international migration streams. The basic component of that model is the initial distribution of emigrants. This component, in the cast of Japanese emigration, is itself an outcome of a network networks were systematically established by process. Formal recruitment the Japanese government in order to control the number and the origin of initial migrants within Japan. After these formal networks had been dismantled, the migration to Hawaii continued, presumably under the informal information networks that were initiated by the first emigrants. In the absence of directly quantifiable evidence on information flow, the presence of established information networks may be inferred from the more recent immigration patterns. Because historical events and the initial network structure are assumed to be instrumental in the continuation of migration patterns, they are described and discussed first.
Some historical
aspects of Japanese
migration
Initially, Japanese migration to Hawaii was highly controlled by the Japanese government. Not all who wanted to move could move. Who was eligible to move and why can be understood only in the context of an historical analysis of Japanese migration to Hawaii.
International
migration streams 2’79
In 1868, 149 Japanese sailed as laborers from Yokohama to Honolulu. Their departure was arranged with the Shogun’s government a year before by Van Reed. Just after that arrangement which assured emigration of 350 Japanese, a year-long civil war erupted, putting an end to the Shogunate and initiating a new Imperial Regime. The treaty Van Reed had obtained from the old government was no longer recognized and steps were taken so that no Japanese could leave the country. In spite of government opposition, Van Reed tactfully managed to export 149 people (Wakukawa 1938: 28). The fate of these immigrants became of prevailing concern to the Japanese government, press and public. Detailed accounts of their locations and living conditions were kept. Complaints by the immigrants were investigated by the Japanese government, often leading to strained relations between immigrants and their employers. The first experience of the Japanese in Hawaii resulted in discontent among all parties concerned: emigrants, employers and governments. As a result the Japanese government refused to allow any emigration to Hawaii until a formal agreement was reached between the Hawaiian and Japanese governments guaranteeing humane conditions and a minimum wage for all Japanese in Hawaii. Such an agreement became effective in 1884. A year later the first shipload since 1868 left Japan for Hawaii. Between 1885 and 1893 somewhat over twenty-nine thousand Japanese arrived in Hawaii. Throughout this period the Japanese government controlled emigration through a well-organized structure of regional and local bureaucracies. The policy of emigration was set nationally. It included dissemination of information regarding provisions of the agreement with the Hawaiian government. According to Okahata (1964) the information in the form of pamphlets was distributed first to prefecture governors who were responsible for distribution to mayors of all shi and to gun headmen who in turn sent it along to town and village headmen. The second part of the national policy designated certain prefectures as official emigration areas. These included Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, and Okayama in Chugoku; Fukuoka and Kumamoto on Kytisha; Wakayama in Kinki; Niigata in Chubu; Miyagi and Fukushima in Tohoku. These prefectures were selected for being relatively heavily populated and economically deprived. In these selected areas people were encouraged to emigrate through active recruitment. Officials would actually visit homes and solicit applications. In other areas recruitment was more passive. An applicant would, himself, have to initiate action. Government control did not stop at that point. After the applications were obtained, emigrants were selected according to their occupations and personal backgrounds. Every effort was made to send over farmers with no undesirable traits. Gambling, drinking, and unproductivity were among the items officials investigated. An additional restriction was placed on the number of married couples allowed. According to the same source, 28 000 applications were submitted in the first year and less than 2 000 of these were approved. It is apparent, therefore, that who came to Hawaii and from where
280 Davor Jdicka
to a great extent -~.dependent on the government in Japan they came, was policy and not simply on the economic “push” factors. After eight years the government relinquished its control to private labor contractors. This type of emigration lasted from 1894 to 1899. In this period, some 20 000 Japanese came to Hawaii. From 1900 to 1907 all restrictions on emigration were lifted allowing over 68 000 Japanese to leave their country. Then, the “gentlemen’s agreement” between Japan and the United States was instituted in 1908. During this period, which lasted through 1923. an additional 62 277 Japanese were recorded as immigrants by the Japanese Consulate in Honolulu. From 1924 to 1947, there was a complete prohibition on Japanese immigration to the U.S. and to the territory of Hawaii. Finally, after 1947, Japanese immigration was resumed under a quota system. The emigrant
pull model
In order to place the above historical sketch in a perspective relevant to the objectives of this study, let us consider Friedlander’s (1965: 29) reference to the place of information in migration. Friedlander suggested that “older migrants supply improved information, aid in finding employment, food and shelter during the initial days of emigration”. It is not difficult to imagine that the older migrants can supply improved information by writing letters to their friends and relatives at the origin. If the older migrants indeed communicate in this manner, then the greater the number of migrants at a destination, the greater the number of informed people at the origin. In the case of Japanese movement to Hawaii, higher proportions of people informed about Hawaii are expected to be found in regions from which most migrants came during the period of controlled emigration. Furthermore. if the information that earlier migrants provide tends to be favorable, as Lasker suggests, then it could serve as an impetus for others to emigrate at a later date. Favorable information could include such things as the description of opportunities to work, to educate children, or opportunities to save money and advance one’s social status. Consequently, knowledge at a point of origin about opportunities at a destination depends upon the number of persons at the origin who are directly or indirectly in touch with persons at the destination. An crnigrmt pll model will be proposed here that embodies these ideas. It includes a set of origins, 0, and a set of destinations, D, and incorporates the notion of opportunities and information flow. Let us assume that there are k different destinations, dj, for migration that arc our objects for study over a designated time period. Each of these has associated with it a certain number, IIZj, of opportunities (for work, education, etc.) over the time period in question. Thus, there are k C nli j- 1 opportunities
in all.
International migration streams
281
We can assume further that there are y1 different origins, Oi, of potential migration that we are interested in as potential sources of new migrants in the period we are studying. Each of these origins is assumed to be exposed to information about possible opportunities at various destinations proportionate to its interpersonal network ties at those destinations. And the number of such network ties is, in turn, assumed to depend upon the number of previous migrants from that origin to any member of the destination set. Therefore, let pi be the proportion of previous migrants from a given origin, oi, to any of the possible destinations. Then we can define mjPi
as the “pull” of destination dj on origin oi. Thus, the pull depends upon the interaction between the number of opportunities mj at destination dj and the possibilities for interactional information flow, pi, at a given origin oi. Then the predicted number of new migrants from Oi to dj during the period of study is a linear function of pull: Yij = a + bmjpi were Yij is the predicted
number
of migrants from oi to dj.
Analysis In this study, eight origins and four destinations have been selected. Each origin is located in Japan and represents a geographical region called chiho. Destinations are the four major islands in the Hawaiian chain: Oahu, Maui, Hawaii and Kauai. Data showing the number of Japanese immigrants to Hawaii in 1960 have been recorded by the Japanese consulate for each of forty-six prefectures in Japan. The values in Table 1 represent data on immigration to the four Hawaiian Islands. Each entry provides an operational measure of the total opportunity, mj, for that island. Table 1.
Total number of Japanese immigrants to each of four major islands in the Hawaiian chain in 1960 Island of destination Oahu
Hawaii
Maui
Kauai
Total
10615
2608
1515
840
15578
Source:
Jedlicka
(1972:24).
The second operational definition requires an estimate of the earlier distribution of immigrants in Hawaii in terms of their origin in Japan. Such an initial population was obtained from census data compiled by the Japanese
282
Davor Jedlicka
consulate in Honolulu in 1924, and is reported here in Table 2. The same Table shows the relative population size by region of origin in 1924. The relative population size was obtained arbitrarily by selecting the smallest absolute population size and dividin g all eight entries by it. The resulting quotients are intended to provide an index of the relative volumes of information flow to respective origins in Japan over an indefinite period of time. For example, the relative population size of 4.71 in Table 2 means that population from Kanto in Hawaii prior to the new migration was 4.71 times as great as the population from Hokkaido. The knowledge of opportunities obtainable at an origin is expected to differ in that same proportion. Table 2.
Absolute and relative population sizes obtained from the 1924 census of Japanese population in Hawaii bs, region of origin in Japan Region of origin
Absolute poputation six in 1924
Relative population
Chugoku KyGhti ChGbu Tnhoku Kinki Shikoku Kanto Hokkaido
56139 27495 6500 6024 1124 902 895 190
295.47 144.71 34.21 31.71 5.92 4.15 4.71 1
Total -
99269
522.47
Source:
Jedlicka
size
(1972).
Expected values based on the emigrant pull model can be compared with observed data in Table 3. The coefficient of correlation, Pearson’s r, between the expected and observed entries in this table is 0.991. This high correlation persists even when the exceptionally large rate of movement from Chugoku to Oahu is excluded from calculations. The number of people in this category of movers is about double the next largest category. Without this category Pearson’s r was reduced to 0.96. These high correlations indicate that the post-war immigration from Japan has obviously followed the immigration patterns established in the 19th and early 20th century. It is particularly interesting to note that KyiXshu, which is one of the less populated islands of Japan, continues to be a major source of immigrants to Hawaii. Kytishti and Chugoku were the original areas in Japan from which the early immigrations were encouraged. Continuation of immigration from these areas after the war can be interpreted as evidence of continued maintenance of the informal information networks initiated by the early imnligrailts. Also note that the most populated area of Japan, Kanto, which includes Tokyo and its heavily populated vicinity, contributes relatively little to the migration streams to Hawaii. This seems to be primarily due to the lack of tradition of emigration from these areas into Hawaii.
International migration streams
283
284
Davor Jedlicka
The fact that this area was deliberately excluded labor in the early massive migrations is probably streams today.
from active recruitment of reflected in the migration
Conclusion This research leads to the conclusion that migrant comm~~nities tend to attract new immigrants from the same origin in direct proportion to the initially established size of the community. Because the initial communities tend to be concentrated in specific localities within the United States, migration streams are likely to continue to add immigrants to the same localities in greater proportions than to other parts of the country. These local immigration streams may seem insignificant when viewed in proportion to the total United States population and in comparison with the mass movements of the past; however, locally they may be quite noticeable. For example, immigration of Japanese from a given region of Japan to Hawaii has an impact on population growth and on the ethnic distribution of people within the state, whereas on the national level it has hardly any impact at all. An informal infornlation network may, in fact, underlie all forms of voluntary individually initiated migrations, ranging from movements across town to the movements across international borders. The continuation of regional migration differentials from Japan illustrates this possibility on the international scale and generally indicates that historical accounts of migration with respect to the origin and initial destination may have considerable relevance to the continuation of regional migration differentialsin the future.
References Uro~t,
L. A. and 1.1.G. Moore “The i~~t~~-~~rba~~ ~ni&ration process: A pcrq~cctive.” [~e~~rff~s~ Anna&r 52, Ser. 3: 1~ 13. 1970 I:reeman, L. C. and M. H. Sunshine “Race and intra-urban migration”. De~no~nzphy 13: 571 - 576. 1976 Fricdlandcr, S. L. Labor Mixration and Economic Gmwgth, A Case StudSI of Puerto Rico. Cambridge, MA: 1965 MIT Prc~. Gibson, C. “The contribution of in~llli~r~ition to the United States population growth. 1790 1970”. 1975 ~~?ter~at~o~~al ~~~rat~~n Review 9: 157- 177. Jcdlicka, D. Emigrant Pull Model: A Study of JapaneseMovement to Hawaiian Islands. Master’s Thesis 1972 in Sociology, The University of IIawaii. Lasker, H. Filipino Immigration to Continental United States and to Hawaii: 376 - 382. Chicago: 1931 University of Chicago Press. Okahata. J.H. (ed.) A History of Japanese Zmrni~rants in Hawaii. Tokyo: IJnitcd Japanese Society of Hawaii. 1964 Wakukawa. l’.K. 1938 A Ifistory of Japanese People in Hawaii. Honolulu: The Toyo Choin.
@Elsevier
Sequoia
1 (1978179) 217284 S.A., Lausanne - Printed
277 in the Netherlands
O~~o~unities, information Networks and International Migration Streams* Davor Jedlicka
Un~versit.~~ of Georgia”” Theoretically, the basis for the continuance of international migration streams lies in the free flow of information between origin and destination. The people best informed about possible opportunities at the destination are most likely to emigrate. This idea is expressed as a simple linear equation and tested in predicting the size of migration streams from eight regions in Japan to each of four major Hawaiian Islands. A destination tends to attract new immigrants from an origin in direct proportion to the previously established amount of migration from that origin to that destination. In general, previous ~nigration may have considerable relevance to continuation of streams in the future. Introduction Immigration to the United States has traditionally been an essential component of its population growth. As births and deaths in America become balanced, immigration, even if negligible in proportion to the . total population, accounts for an increasing proportion of the total growth. As a result, immigration generates public concern which is reflected in sociological and demographic inquiries into this subject. In spite of the attention this subject has received, social scientists seem to be unable to find a common theoretical focus for studying international migration as they have in the study of internal migration. The position of the social scientist with respect to this problem is best represented in Campbell Gibson’s study of the contribution of immigration to the United States population growth. He concludes: “In summary, the demographic factors are so variable and the social economic and political implications are so indeterminate that the contribution of immigration to United States population growth in the 1790 - 1970 period has no obvious relevance to the contribution of future immigration to United States.” (Gibson 1975: 177.) This conclusion is indeed sound if applied to initial instances of immigration from a particular foreign origin. No one can predict when some natural or political disaster abroad will bring thousands to America as has happened *This paper is based on my Master’s Thesis completed at the University of Hawaii in 1972. I am grateful to my wife, Toshiko, for providing English translations of historical emigration documents in Japanese and to P. G. Steinhoff, J. A. Palmore and F. Vallee for their helpful suggestions in response to a!p earlier draft of this material. **Department of Sociology, University of Georgia, Athens, Ga. 30602, U.S.A.
278 l3uvor Jctllicka on numerous occasions in the distant and in the recent past. The same conclusion, however, may be challenged if applied to the persistance of the slow and steady flow of international migration streams which tend to devclop subsequent to these initial massive immigrations. As long as the United States government allows any immigration from abroad these streams will continue to add people in an orderly and, in many instances, in a predictable manner. An important prerequisite to continuation of migration streams is the free flow of information between the origin and destination. In cases where exchange of information is possible, the initial migrants will maintain ties with friends and relatives at the origin in the same way that the migrants within a country tend to do. Bruno Lasker (193 1) demonstrated this point in the case of Filipino immigrants to the United States. He also found that letters from the Unit4 States completely lacked wholly unfavorable reports from abroad. Furthermore, the less favorable information had less impact on the public opinion at the place of origin. It seems then, that the people most informed about some destination would be more likely to know about possible opportunities and would be most likely to emigrate in response to them. This is a network process that depends upon the maintenance of interpersonal contacts between emigrants and those who remain home (Brown and Moore 1970: Freeman and Sunshine 1976) and that, I suspect, operates to maintain differentials in international migration streams. Indirect evidence of this process is sought in this study using the case of Japanese emigration from eight regions in Japan to each of the four largest Hawaiian islands. Based on this case, a predictive migration model is proposed for study of continuity in international migration streams. The basic component of that model is the initial distribution of emigrants. This component, in the cast of Japanese emigration, is itself an outcome of a network networks were systematically established by process. Formal recruitment the Japanese government in order to control the number and the origin of initial migrants within Japan. After these formal networks had been dismantled, the migration to Hawaii continued, presumably under the informal information networks that were initiated by the first emigrants. In the absence of directly quantifiable evidence on information flow, the presence of established information networks may be inferred from the more recent immigration patterns. Because historical events and the initial network structure are assumed to be instrumental in the continuation of migration patterns, they are described and discussed first.
Some historical
aspects of Japanese
migration
Initially, Japanese migration to Hawaii was highly controlled by the Japanese government. Not all who wanted to move could move. Who was eligible to move and why can be understood only in the context of an historical analysis of Japanese migration to Hawaii.
International
migration streams 2’79
In 1868, 149 Japanese sailed as laborers from Yokohama to Honolulu. Their departure was arranged with the Shogun’s government a year before by Van Reed. Just after that arrangement which assured emigration of 350 Japanese, a year-long civil war erupted, putting an end to the Shogunate and initiating a new Imperial Regime. The treaty Van Reed had obtained from the old government was no longer recognized and steps were taken so that no Japanese could leave the country. In spite of government opposition, Van Reed tactfully managed to export 149 people (Wakukawa 1938: 28). The fate of these immigrants became of prevailing concern to the Japanese government, press and public. Detailed accounts of their locations and living conditions were kept. Complaints by the immigrants were investigated by the Japanese government, often leading to strained relations between immigrants and their employers. The first experience of the Japanese in Hawaii resulted in discontent among all parties concerned: emigrants, employers and governments. As a result the Japanese government refused to allow any emigration to Hawaii until a formal agreement was reached between the Hawaiian and Japanese governments guaranteeing humane conditions and a minimum wage for all Japanese in Hawaii. Such an agreement became effective in 1884. A year later the first shipload since 1868 left Japan for Hawaii. Between 1885 and 1893 somewhat over twenty-nine thousand Japanese arrived in Hawaii. Throughout this period the Japanese government controlled emigration through a well-organized structure of regional and local bureaucracies. The policy of emigration was set nationally. It included dissemination of information regarding provisions of the agreement with the Hawaiian government. According to Okahata (1964) the information in the form of pamphlets was distributed first to prefecture governors who were responsible for distribution to mayors of all shi and to gun headmen who in turn sent it along to town and village headmen. The second part of the national policy designated certain prefectures as official emigration areas. These included Hiroshima, Yamaguchi, and Okayama in Chugoku; Fukuoka and Kumamoto on Kytisha; Wakayama in Kinki; Niigata in Chubu; Miyagi and Fukushima in Tohoku. These prefectures were selected for being relatively heavily populated and economically deprived. In these selected areas people were encouraged to emigrate through active recruitment. Officials would actually visit homes and solicit applications. In other areas recruitment was more passive. An applicant would, himself, have to initiate action. Government control did not stop at that point. After the applications were obtained, emigrants were selected according to their occupations and personal backgrounds. Every effort was made to send over farmers with no undesirable traits. Gambling, drinking, and unproductivity were among the items officials investigated. An additional restriction was placed on the number of married couples allowed. According to the same source, 28 000 applications were submitted in the first year and less than 2 000 of these were approved. It is apparent, therefore, that who came to Hawaii and from where
280 Davor Jdicka
to a great extent -~.dependent on the government in Japan they came, was policy and not simply on the economic “push” factors. After eight years the government relinquished its control to private labor contractors. This type of emigration lasted from 1894 to 1899. In this period, some 20 000 Japanese came to Hawaii. From 1900 to 1907 all restrictions on emigration were lifted allowing over 68 000 Japanese to leave their country. Then, the “gentlemen’s agreement” between Japan and the United States was instituted in 1908. During this period, which lasted through 1923. an additional 62 277 Japanese were recorded as immigrants by the Japanese Consulate in Honolulu. From 1924 to 1947, there was a complete prohibition on Japanese immigration to the U.S. and to the territory of Hawaii. Finally, after 1947, Japanese immigration was resumed under a quota system. The emigrant
pull model
In order to place the above historical sketch in a perspective relevant to the objectives of this study, let us consider Friedlander’s (1965: 29) reference to the place of information in migration. Friedlander suggested that “older migrants supply improved information, aid in finding employment, food and shelter during the initial days of emigration”. It is not difficult to imagine that the older migrants can supply improved information by writing letters to their friends and relatives at the origin. If the older migrants indeed communicate in this manner, then the greater the number of migrants at a destination, the greater the number of informed people at the origin. In the case of Japanese movement to Hawaii, higher proportions of people informed about Hawaii are expected to be found in regions from which most migrants came during the period of controlled emigration. Furthermore. if the information that earlier migrants provide tends to be favorable, as Lasker suggests, then it could serve as an impetus for others to emigrate at a later date. Favorable information could include such things as the description of opportunities to work, to educate children, or opportunities to save money and advance one’s social status. Consequently, knowledge at a point of origin about opportunities at a destination depends upon the number of persons at the origin who are directly or indirectly in touch with persons at the destination. An crnigrmt pll model will be proposed here that embodies these ideas. It includes a set of origins, 0, and a set of destinations, D, and incorporates the notion of opportunities and information flow. Let us assume that there are k different destinations, dj, for migration that arc our objects for study over a designated time period. Each of these has associated with it a certain number, IIZj, of opportunities (for work, education, etc.) over the time period in question. Thus, there are k C nli j- 1 opportunities
in all.
International migration streams
281
We can assume further that there are y1 different origins, Oi, of potential migration that we are interested in as potential sources of new migrants in the period we are studying. Each of these origins is assumed to be exposed to information about possible opportunities at various destinations proportionate to its interpersonal network ties at those destinations. And the number of such network ties is, in turn, assumed to depend upon the number of previous migrants from that origin to any member of the destination set. Therefore, let pi be the proportion of previous migrants from a given origin, oi, to any of the possible destinations. Then we can define mjPi
as the “pull” of destination dj on origin oi. Thus, the pull depends upon the interaction between the number of opportunities mj at destination dj and the possibilities for interactional information flow, pi, at a given origin oi. Then the predicted number of new migrants from Oi to dj during the period of study is a linear function of pull: Yij = a + bmjpi were Yij is the predicted
number
of migrants from oi to dj.
Analysis In this study, eight origins and four destinations have been selected. Each origin is located in Japan and represents a geographical region called chiho. Destinations are the four major islands in the Hawaiian chain: Oahu, Maui, Hawaii and Kauai. Data showing the number of Japanese immigrants to Hawaii in 1960 have been recorded by the Japanese consulate for each of forty-six prefectures in Japan. The values in Table 1 represent data on immigration to the four Hawaiian Islands. Each entry provides an operational measure of the total opportunity, mj, for that island. Table 1.
Total number of Japanese immigrants to each of four major islands in the Hawaiian chain in 1960 Island of destination Oahu
Hawaii
Maui
Kauai
Total
10615
2608
1515
840
15578
Source:
Jedlicka
(1972:24).
The second operational definition requires an estimate of the earlier distribution of immigrants in Hawaii in terms of their origin in Japan. Such an initial population was obtained from census data compiled by the Japanese
282
Davor Jedlicka
consulate in Honolulu in 1924, and is reported here in Table 2. The same Table shows the relative population size by region of origin in 1924. The relative population size was obtained arbitrarily by selecting the smallest absolute population size and dividin g all eight entries by it. The resulting quotients are intended to provide an index of the relative volumes of information flow to respective origins in Japan over an indefinite period of time. For example, the relative population size of 4.71 in Table 2 means that population from Kanto in Hawaii prior to the new migration was 4.71 times as great as the population from Hokkaido. The knowledge of opportunities obtainable at an origin is expected to differ in that same proportion. Table 2.
Absolute and relative population sizes obtained from the 1924 census of Japanese population in Hawaii bs, region of origin in Japan Region of origin
Absolute poputation six in 1924
Relative population
Chugoku KyGhti ChGbu Tnhoku Kinki Shikoku Kanto Hokkaido
56139 27495 6500 6024 1124 902 895 190
295.47 144.71 34.21 31.71 5.92 4.15 4.71 1
Total -
99269
522.47
Source:
Jedlicka
size
(1972).
Expected values based on the emigrant pull model can be compared with observed data in Table 3. The coefficient of correlation, Pearson’s r, between the expected and observed entries in this table is 0.991. This high correlation persists even when the exceptionally large rate of movement from Chugoku to Oahu is excluded from calculations. The number of people in this category of movers is about double the next largest category. Without this category Pearson’s r was reduced to 0.96. These high correlations indicate that the post-war immigration from Japan has obviously followed the immigration patterns established in the 19th and early 20th century. It is particularly interesting to note that KyiXshu, which is one of the less populated islands of Japan, continues to be a major source of immigrants to Hawaii. Kytishti and Chugoku were the original areas in Japan from which the early immigrations were encouraged. Continuation of immigration from these areas after the war can be interpreted as evidence of continued maintenance of the informal information networks initiated by the early imnligrailts. Also note that the most populated area of Japan, Kanto, which includes Tokyo and its heavily populated vicinity, contributes relatively little to the migration streams to Hawaii. This seems to be primarily due to the lack of tradition of emigration from these areas into Hawaii.
International migration streams
283
284
Davor Jedlicka
The fact that this area was deliberately excluded labor in the early massive migrations is probably streams today.
from active recruitment of reflected in the migration
Conclusion This research leads to the conclusion that migrant comm~~nities tend to attract new immigrants from the same origin in direct proportion to the initially established size of the community. Because the initial communities tend to be concentrated in specific localities within the United States, migration streams are likely to continue to add immigrants to the same localities in greater proportions than to other parts of the country. These local immigration streams may seem insignificant when viewed in proportion to the total United States population and in comparison with the mass movements of the past; however, locally they may be quite noticeable. For example, immigration of Japanese from a given region of Japan to Hawaii has an impact on population growth and on the ethnic distribution of people within the state, whereas on the national level it has hardly any impact at all. An informal infornlation network may, in fact, underlie all forms of voluntary individually initiated migrations, ranging from movements across town to the movements across international borders. The continuation of regional migration differentials from Japan illustrates this possibility on the international scale and generally indicates that historical accounts of migration with respect to the origin and initial destination may have considerable relevance to the continuation of regional migration differentialsin the future.
References Uro~t,
L. A. and 1.1.G. Moore “The i~~t~~-~~rba~~ ~ni&ration process: A pcrq~cctive.” [~e~~rff~s~ Anna&r 52, Ser. 3: 1~ 13. 1970 I:reeman, L. C. and M. H. Sunshine “Race and intra-urban migration”. De~no~nzphy 13: 571 - 576. 1976 Fricdlandcr, S. L. Labor Mixration and Economic Gmwgth, A Case StudSI of Puerto Rico. Cambridge, MA: 1965 MIT Prc~. Gibson, C. “The contribution of in~llli~r~ition to the United States population growth. 1790 1970”. 1975 ~~?ter~at~o~~al ~~~rat~~n Review 9: 157- 177. Jcdlicka, D. Emigrant Pull Model: A Study of JapaneseMovement to Hawaiian Islands. Master’s Thesis 1972 in Sociology, The University of IIawaii. Lasker, H. Filipino Immigration to Continental United States and to Hawaii: 376 - 382. Chicago: 1931 University of Chicago Press. Okahata. J.H. (ed.) A History of Japanese Zmrni~rants in Hawaii. Tokyo: IJnitcd Japanese Society of Hawaii. 1964 Wakukawa. l’.K. 1938 A Ifistory of Japanese People in Hawaii. Honolulu: The Toyo Choin.