Aperçu

Résumé (français)

Veuillez noter que les résumés n'apparaissent que dans la langue de la publication et peuvent ne pas avoir de traduction.

Résumé (anglais)

Canada’s economic development in the twentieth century has been closely linked to factor mobility. The movement of labour into newer regions was critical to the rapid process of settlement, population expansion and economic growth that defined Canada from 1896-1929. And beyond settlement, the mobility of labour is critical to an open economy, particularly the Canadian economy which has strong regional specializations that are subject to asymmetric international shocks. Adjustment to regionally-specific shocks undoubtedly has been enhanced by the mobility of the Canadian labour force. Analysis of the characteristics of migration prior to 1961 has been done without access to the Census microdata. In this paper, the recently released Census of Population of Canada for 1911-1951 will be used to characterize and explain the long-run patterns of Canadian population mobility. Availability of individual-level data for Canada now extends from 1871 (and earlier) through 2006. These data will be utilized to plot the long-run trends in interprovincial mobility of the Canadian population. The nature of mobility: who moves, from where they move, and what characteristics influence the propensity to move will be analyzed using the individual-level data in two complementary methods. Migration propensities by decade can be tracked using a synthetic birth cohort of individuals from 1881-2001. While the general pattern of migration is consistent with previous studies, and is similar to patterns in interstate mobility in the U.S., there are differences. Interprovincial mobility was increasing in the late-nineteenth through early twentieth century in Canada while it was declining in the U.S. In both Canada and the U.S., the decades of the Great Depression and World War II had reduced interprovincial mobility. There is some evidence that World War I was also disruptive of factor flows within Canada. While the Great Depression is a turning point for the mobility trends for most age groups, for those in their 20s and younger, the decline in interprovincial mobility begins a decade earlier. Tracking birth cohorts does suffer from some basic flaws. The data do not allow separating multiple moves; they only allow comparison of province of birth with province of residence. Migration propensity assessed as difference between province of birth and province of residence will capture a move made at anytime in a person’s life. The measure will not be as sensitive to intercensal changes. As well, the measure is cumulative over a lifetime, so older cohorts will inevitably display a greater propensity to move. To address this shortcoming, an alternate method is used looking only at families with children aged less than 10 years old. From this sample, families of those children whose province of residence and province of birth differ will have moved within the previous ten-year period. This method thereby restricts the focus to those that moved between the two census dates. The individual-level data allow for relating the characteristics of the individual-their age, language spoken, province of birth-with the propensity to move. We run logit regressions on propensity to move for evidence of the influence of human capital on interprovincial migration. Measures of education are used to capture general skill endowments of individuals. Language spoken is also an important characteristic of those who move. In this regard, human capital will be assessed not only as an individual characteristic, but also as having a location-specific component. Province of birth and language taken together have significant impacts on mobility. Canada differs from the U.S. in that languages acts as a barrier to mobility. Language alone has served to separate Canadians, but language differences also affect the impact of education on mobility. For English-speakers, education enhances mobility, while for French-speakers it may have the opposite effect of restricting opportunities. While French-speakers in general were less likely to migrate, French-speakers born in Quebec were the least likely to move. Interestingly, ability for French-speakers to speak English had almost no influence on mobility from the period of land settlement of the West through World War II. Then in the postwar period this changed rather abruptly and significantly and bilingual speakers became highly mobile.