{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024774774774774775, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012387387387387387, 'mean_word_length': 5.126436781609195, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Internal migration: why do Filipinos move?


 The rapid movement of Filipinos from 1 part of the Philippines to another is not a new phenomenon, but mobility has been increasing. A study conducted by Peter C. Smith revealed that interprovincial lifetime mobility of the national population increased from 15.8% in 1960 to 17.6% in 1970, while interregional mobility increased from 12.7% to 13.4%. People still disagree as to whether the size and rate of growth of the population are excessive, but there seems to be total consensus as regards its spatial imbalance. Because internal migration appears to be an important factor in national development, a need exists to examine different aspects of internal migration, such as the directions taken by migration flows, the migrants' reasons for moving, the migrants' characteristics, the migrants' success or lack of success at their places of destination, the social problems accompanying internal migration, effforts to deal with the problems caused by internal migration, and the implications of migration trends for policy and for the country's development programs. The most dominant migration trend in the Philippines in recent years has been toward the urban, or more accurately the suburban, areas adjacent to Metropolitan Manila. The city of Manila itself suffered a net outflow, further pointing to the trend toward suburbanization. Migration flows are primarily caused by economic reasons. About one half the sample of a Filipinas Foundation Study moved to provinces other than the province of birth in the pursuit of employment and other economic opportunities. A study of the country's migrant population age 15 and older showed that 53% of migrants were female. For male migrants, age ranges from 20-40; it ranges from 15-35 for females. Where cash income is concerned, migrants in Pernia's study of rural urban migration were better off than nonmigrants. Migrants were, on the average, as well off as native urbanites or metropolitanites. Among the more significant points raised by scholars and researchers are the following: urbanization is an inevitable and irreversible process, and it is wise to plan for it; the problem is not rapid urbanization but unbalanced urbanization, i.e., the concentration of urbanization in Metro Manila; steps to alter national urban patterns might include establishing a migration guidance office; the need exists for an explicit, firm, and consistent population distribution policy; and solutions that anticipate problems having to do with internal migration and prevent these problems from arising will, in the long run, be more effective than curative solutions.
