The optimists in the context of migration were mainly influenced by the neo-classical, developmental and modernization paradigms which are associated with functional perspectives in society (De Haas, 2010: 231). The emergence of literature on migration in the 1880’s was ground-breaking to the discourse of population movement at a global level. Ravenstein’s publications (1885; 1889) where his famous ‘laws of migration’ were illustrated are still considered as the mainstay, foundation, and genesis of most contemporary dynamic theories of migration. The general hypothesis of Ravenstein’s concepts was that human mobility is very much linked to economic development. An outline of Ravenstein’s laws of migration as noted by Dinbabo and Nyasulu (2015:
…show more content…
In relation to the macro level, the neo-classical theory views human mobility in the lens of spatial issues linking it with the supply of labour, where the workforce migrate from places with low wages to places with higher wages; at a micro level people who migrate are viewed individually, as beings who use logic and reason to make a choice after scheming a cost-benefit analysis of the migration experience (De Haas, 2010). Moreover, Zelinsky’s (1971) Mobility Transition Model view human mobility as a developmental activity which is done as a result of progression or growth at a certain location, as noted De Haas (2010) the mobility transition model is linked to Rostow’s modernization theory which shows progressed evolution from pre-modern to modern or advanced …show more content…
As noted by Todaro (1969: 139) “in our model, the decision to migrate from rural to urban areas will be functionally related to two principal variables: the urban-rural real income differential and the probability of obtaining an urban job.” To sum up, the argument of the optimists is that population movement is linked to economic development and growths. For instance, people migrate from less developed places to more developed areas expecting to get better earnings or improved wages. However, in as much as the neo-classical theories of migration are essential in explaining the phenomenon of human mobility they have their shortcomings which led to the paradigm shift and the emergence of the pessimists
In relation to the macro level, the neo-classical theory views human mobility in the lens of spatial issues linking it with the supply of labour, where the workforce migrate from places with low wages to places with higher wages; at a micro level people who migrate are viewed individually, as beings who use logic and reason to make a choice after scheming a cost-benefit analysis of the migration experience (De Haas, 2010). Moreover, Zelinsky’s (1971) Mobility Transition Model view human mobility as a developmental activity which is done as a result of progression or growth at a certain location, as noted De Haas (2010) the mobility transition model is linked to Rostow’s modernization theory which shows progressed evolution from pre-modern to modern or advanced …show more content…
As noted by Todaro (1969: 139) “in our model, the decision to migrate from rural to urban areas will be functionally related to two principal variables: the urban-rural real income differential and the probability of obtaining an urban job.” To sum up, the argument of the optimists is that population movement is linked to economic development and growths. For instance, people migrate from less developed places to more developed areas expecting to get better earnings or improved wages. However, in as much as the neo-classical theories of migration are essential in explaining the phenomenon of human mobility they have their shortcomings which led to the paradigm shift and the emergence of the pessimists