RESEARCH GOALS:

1. Describe the demographic transition (DT) and age-structural transition (AST) of the Philippines

2. Extend the prevailing discourse on demographic transition and age-structural change by:

• Examining spatial/sectoral variations in age-structure
• Exploring migration as a factor in age-structure change
• Focusing on the youth as migrants
• Examining the compositional differences of migrant youth

Data and Methods:

Data:

Age structure - Census of Population and Housing
Projections - NSO, UN (medium series)
Migration - 10% sample of 2000 Census (public use file)

Definitions:
Youth - population aged 15-29
Migration - current province/municipality of residence is different
               from that of 1995
HUA - highly urbanized cities with a population of not less than
         200,000 and with the latest annual income of at least
         50 million pesos based on 1991 constant prices (NSO)

Approach: descriptive

Estimated duration of the demographic transition for the Philippines and neighboring countries

Age-structural transition

Transition from a young population to an old population as a result of the demographic transition

• Slow and gradual decline in fertility à protracted DT
• Gradual aging of the population
• Relatively smooth AST

Population of the Philippines, by major age groups: 1970-2020

AGE-STRUCTURAL TRANSITION TRENDS:

1.Proportion of people under age 15 is declining, but its number continues to increase until 2010

2.Proportion of the elderly population will not reach the 10% level before 2020

3.Proportion of youth (aged 15-29) reached its peak in the 1990s but its number continues to rise until 2020 and will be the second largest segment in 2020

4.Older adults (aged 30-59) continue to increase in number and proportion and will constitute the largest segment of the population in 2020

Age-structure at the sub-national level:

Highly Urbanized and Less Urbanized Areas: Philippines 2000

The age-structures are indicative of urban migration of youth, esp. females

Highly Urbanized Areas:

Metro Manila (NCR)
Baguio City
Angeles City
Olongapo City
Lucena City
Iloilo City
Bacolod City
Cebu City
Mandaue City
Zamboanga City
Cagayan de Oro City
Iligan City
Davao City
Marawi City
Cotabato City
General Santos City
Butuan City

Age-structure at the sub-national level

Age-structural differences, by urbanization level, 2000

Internal Migration in the Philippines:

Before 1960: frontierward, male-dominated migration
After 1960: urbanward, female-dominated migration

Shift from frontier to urban migration and from male- to female-dominated migration occurred at about the same time as the onset of the Philippine demographic transition.

Internal Migration of Youth in 2000

Migrants constituted 12% of the youth population
     10.4% in NON-HUA
     13.5% in HUA outside NCR
     18.8% in NCR

Youth migrants were predominantly females
  Sex ratio of migrants: 86.0 in NON-HUA
     75.7 in HUA outside NCR
     74.3 in NCR

Sex ratio was lowest for age group 15-19 in the HUA
   Sex ratio of migrants: 87.2 in NON-HUA
     67.7 in HUA outside NCR
     67.8 in NCR

• Migrant youth were more likely to be married than non-migrants except: female migrants in the HUA
• Cohabitation was more common among migrants than non-migrants; it was most prevalent in the HUA
• More migrants than non-migrants had an occupation
• Migrants had lower enrolment ratios than non-migrants
• Migrants had lower high-school completion rates than non-migrants
• Completion of college was more common among non-migrants than migrants in the HUA, but not in the NON-HUA
• More women than men had completed high-school/college
• Female migrants in the HUA, esp. outside NCR, had the highest proportion working as domestics or in "elementary" occupations
• Non-migrants were more likely than migrants to hold managerial, supervisory or professional occupations than migrants, esp. among women in HUA, but not among men in NON-HUA
• Fewer migrants than non-migrants belonged to the nuclear family of the household head; in the HUA, 22% of female migrants were not related to the HHH
• One in 10 households had a migrant youth residing in it; in the HUA the proportions were higher:
       12% outside NCR
       16% in NCR

Implications for Highly Urbanized Areas:

• Augmentation of the youth population (augmented youth bulge)
       lower dependency burden
       increased labor force; need for employment
       provide opportunity akin to the demographic dividend,
          provided policy environment is right (?)
• Feminization of the age-structure
• Implications on fertility, momentum, aging
• Implications on the urban labor market
• Provision of services for young and older women
       reproductive health and FP, child care, elderly care
       employment opportunities for young and older women
       education, life skills, women's empowerment

Implications for Rural/Less Urbanized Areas:

Deficit of youth, esp. females

• higher dependency burden
• Implications on:
• fertility, nuptiality, rural population growth
• agricultural productivity
• land distribution/inheritance patterns
• human capital investments on children
• elderly care
• rural development

Question remains:

How will the youth bulge, urban migration of youth, contemporary urban and rural demographies
combine to influence the Philippine DT and AST?