Analysis of Push and Pull Factors onProspective Job Seekers Decision to Emigrate from Padang

Syamsul AmarAriusni

Abstract

This study aims to analyze the pull and push factors influencing the job seekers consideration to emigrate from Padang. The research variables are classified into two, push and pull factors of migration. The pull factor is a variable that indicates the condition of the migration destination which consists of: economic infrastructure, educational facilities, health facilities, job opportunities, security level, and relative wages. The push factor is a variable that indicates the condition of potential migrants, such as: sex, local physical condition, parent occupation, wandering culture, job opportunity. Migration destination cities are determined in a purposive method, namely Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. These three cities are considered to have relatively high economic growth and employment, that is above the average Indonesia. The research population was prospective job seekers from Padang presented by students of 8th semester from 4 faculties in State University of Padang namely Faculty of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of Engineering and Faculty of Letter, Literature and Art. This research used purposive sampling technique with 60 people from each faculty, so the total sample was 240 respondents. Data collection was performed using questionnaires to respondents for each destination city. The analysis technique used Logistic Regression.

The results show that (a) economic infrastructure, educational facilities, safety and comfort levels, sex, and parent occupation are the factors influencing the tendency of job seekers to emigrate from Padang to Surabaya. (b) health facilities, job opportunities, relative wage rates, physical condition of origin region are the factors influencing the tendency of job seekers to emigrate from Padang to Medan. (c) whereas the physical condition of originregion, parent education, wandering culture and job opportunity in the origin region are the factors influencing the tendency of job seekers to emigrate from Padang to Jakarta.

Keywords: Emigration, pull factor, push factor, logistic model

A. Introduction

Aside from birth and death, migration is one of the demographic components that affect the number and structure of the population in a region or country. Migration

1

is the movement from one place to another within a certain period. Migration phenomenon is caused by push factors from the origin and the pull factors in the destination area. In addition to physical factors, social factors, demographic factors, security and cultural factors such as wandering culture are the factors considered by an individual to migrate, apart from the desire to obtain job or high wage rates.

Table 1 shows the four cities in Indonesia and three of them are the largest cities in Indonesia such as Jakarta, Surabaya and Medan. Jakarta is one of the largest metropolitan cities in Indonesia and also includes in ten of most populous cities in the world with more than ten million people. Meanwhile, the second largest city in Indonesia is Surabaya with more than three million people. While Medan with 2,135,516 in 2013 and increased to 2,210,624 in 2015 is in the third place. All cities in Table 2 shows an increase in the number of residents except Surabaya, which has a fluctuating population.

Table 1: Population by City

In the Four Provinces of 2013-2015No.

City 2013 2014 2015

1 Medan 2,135,516 2.191.140 2,210,6242 Jakarta 9,988,329 10,075,310 10,177,9243 Surabaya 3,200,454 2,853,661 2,943,5284 Padang 876,670 889,561 902,413

Total 16,200,969 16,009,672 16,234,489 Source: Central Bureau of Statistics, 2013-2015

One hand, migration is an indicator of ongoing city growth process, but on the other hand migration can also cause problems and challenges to urban development activities. Excessive migration may also threaten the continuity of development processes in urban areas. Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya are cities with high attraction for migrants from various regions in Indonesia. The reason of people from different parts of Indonesia to migrate to Medan, Jakarta, and Surabaya is due to their critical role in trade, industry, hotel and restaurant sector in providing employment and high wage rates.

One of many factors of migration is the income gap between the destination city and the origin region, but based on some research conducted by the previous researcher, it is suggested that the push factor of migration to big cities in Indonesia is lack of job opportunities in origin region and the number of dependents and pull factors are: more complete infrastructure facilities and high wages. Meanwhile age and marital status variables do not affect the interest of job seekers to migrate. According to Henderson et.al., (2016), poor rural infrastructure and climate change and declining soil fertility force the farmers to urbanize to find alternative jobs in urban area.

Viewed from the economic development, Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya are growing rapidly economically. Therefore, many migrants from various ethnic groups including Minang, Chinese, Batak and Malay come to these cities.

2

B. Literature ReviewTodaro Migration Model explains the paradox relationship between urban-rural

migration acceleration and the increasing number of urban unemployment. This theory is developed with the assumption that migration is an economic phenomenon and individual migrants will make rational decisions regardless of unemployment in urban areas. Migration occurs in response to the expected income inequality in the urban with rural income. Migrants will consider the various labor market opportunities available in rural sector and urban sector, then they choose which sectors are deemed to maximize the expected results from migrating. The frame of mind of the Todaro Migration Model shows the interaction of various factors that will influence the decision to migrate as shown in Figure 1. Furthermore, this theory explains that actual or potential workforce will compare the income they expect within a certain period of time in the urban sector by the difference between the yield and the cost of migrating with the average income gained in the countryside. These workers will migrate if the expected revenue in urban areas is higher than in rural income after being reduced by the cost of migrating.

Figure 1: Systematic Framework of Migration Decisions from Village to CitySource: Todaro, 2011

In full employment conditions, migration decisions are based solely on the desire to get a high-salary job whenever opportunities are available. Theoretically, this condition will reduce the difference in wage rate through the interaction of labor supply and demand forces, both in the context of emigration and immigration. On the other hand, rural-urban migration is not a process that takes into account the comparison between urban and rural wage rates as in competitive models, but it takes into account the comparison between expected income in rural and urban areas. The equilibrium process of unemployment between the expected urban wage and the average rural incomes as described in the Harris-Todaro Model is based on the different assumptions of the neoclassical free market model that compares only rural and urban wages.

3

Figure 2 illustrates that there are two economic sectors: rural agricultural sector and urban manufacturing sector. The demand for labor (marginal product of the labor curve) in the agricultural sector is shown by the AA’ negative curved line. Labor demand in the manufacturing sector is shown by the MM' line. The total labor can be seen from the OAOM line. In the Neoclassical market characterized by flexible wage and full employment, the equilibrium wage will be in WA* = WM* with workers OALA* in the agricultural sector and workers OMLM* in the urban manufacturing sector. Therefore, all of the labors are employed in their respective sectors.

Figure 2: Harris-Todaro Migration Model

What happens if the urban wage is determined by the government (so the curved line moves downward and inflexible) as assumed by Todaro at the WM level which is at a considerable distance above WA*. If it is temporarily assumed that there is no unemployment, worker OMLM will get urban employment and the remaining workers, OALM, must work in rural areas with OAWA* wage (below OAWA* free market rate). So, now we are seeing a real rural-urban WM - WA** wage gap with WM wage rate set by the government. If rural workers are free to migrate, they are willing to try their luck in urban area even if the jobs are available for OMLM only. If their probability of getting one of the preferred jobs is expressed by the ratio of employment opportunities in the LM manufacturing sector to the total number of Lus urban labor, then the formula is:

(1) The above equation shows the probability of successful employment in the

city by comparing the income of WA agricultural sector with the expected urban income (LM/LUS) (WM), so that potential migrants are being indifferent to the job sector obtained. The location of indifference points is shown by the qq' curve Now a new equilibrium occurs at point Z where the actual rural-urban wage gap is WM - WA with workers OALA are still in the agricultural sector and workers OMLM are in the modern (formal) sector by receiving WM wage. The rest is that OMLA - OMLM might unemployed or cultivate low-salary informal sector activities. The illustration shows the existence of urban unemployment and personally, one will still migrate from a village to the city despite the high unemployment rate. The same thing is stated by

4

Slobodan et.al. (2015), that the wage in the country of origin, the cost of migration, and the expertise set the considerations for migration.

Liddle & Lung (2014) state that urbanization or the share of a population living in urban areas, is both an important demographic, socio-economic phenomenon. Next, Cristina Baboc, et. al. (2014) state that the origin region and socio-economic influence the consideration of potential migrants to migrate. Similarly, Michael (2017) points out these factors, namely geographical, demographic, economic, religious and linguistic factors. Elie A, et. al. (2006) argue that the culture of migration influences one's consideration to migrate.

C. Research Method

The population of this research was prospective job seekers (migrants) presented by students of 8th semester (in the course completion process) from 4 faculties in State University of Padang, namely Faculty of Economics, Faculty of Social Sciences, Faculty of Engineering, and Faculty of Language, Literature, and Arts. This population was chosen with the consideration that the students of the 8th semester were students who were in the completion phase of their studies. In addition, the students had preferences and considerations to determine the destination city to get a job after they finish their study. The research usedpurposive sampling technique, 60 people per each faculty so that the total respondents were 240 respondents or 80 people for each destination city.

The respondents from each faculty were selected randomly. The data type used was primary data collected directly from the respondents by using a questionnaire containing several statements.

The results of analysis using logistic regression method evaluate the determinants of migration, in this case from Padang to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. According to Gujarati (2000), Logistic model comes from Logistic Distribution Function with the equation:

Pi=EY= 1x1

= 11+e−( β 0+β1 x1+β2 x2+β 3 x3+… βp xp ) (1)

Equation (4) above is then simplified into:

Pi=1

1+e−Z i(2)

The equation is manipulated by multiplying 1+e-zi on both sides so that equation (5) can be estimated and the following equation is obtained:

(1+e−Zi ) Pi=1

1+e−Z i× ( 1+e−Z i ) (3)

Or (1+e−Zi ) Pi=1 (4)

(1+e−Z i ) P i

Pi−1= 1

Pi−1(5)

So,

5

eZ i=P i

1−Pi(6)

Since the Pi range is between 0 - 1 and Pi is nonlinearly associated with Zi. If Pi is an opportunity to migrate to the destination city, then 1 - Pi is a notation to not migrate. The opportunities of prospective workers to migrate to the destination city are:

1−Pi=1

1+e−Z i(7)

Using the Odds Ratio statistic model by combining equation (6) with equation (7), a new equation is obtained so that the new equation can be written as:

Pi

1−Pi=1+eZi

1+eZi=eZ i (8)

Equation (11) is transformed into a natural logarithmic model and resulted the following equation:

Li=Ln[ Pi

1−Pi ]=Zi (9)

Based on the above equation, then the specific model in this study is:

Li=Ln[ Pi

1−Pi ]=β0+β1 x1+ β2 x2+..+β12 x12+ε (10)

Description:

Li=Ln[ Pi

1−Pi ]is to migrate or not, β0 is the intercept of the regression line,

β_(1,2,..12) is the logistic regression coefficient of each independent variable, X1 is the economic infrastructures, X2 is the educational facilities, X3 is the health facilities, X4 is the work opportunities, X5 is the safety and comfort levels, X6 is the relative wage rates, X7 is the sex, X8 is the physical conditions of the origin region, X9 is the Parent Occupation, X10 is the Parent Education, X11 is the Wandering Culture, X12 is the Job Opportunities in the origin region.

D. Results and Discussion

1. Research results

After the application of several methods to ensure that this logistic regression model is good and feasible to analyze, the next step is to perform the logistic regression coefficient interpretation itself. The results of logistic regression analysis for models 1,2, and 3 can be seen in Table 2.

From the results of logistic regression estimation in Table 2, we can make a logistic regression equation for model 1 as follows:

Ln ( P1−P )= 3.315 + 0.466 X1 + 0.270 X2 + 0.823 X3 + 0.949 X4 + 0.469 X5

+ 0.274 X6 + 0.002 X7 + 0.233 X8 + 0.364 X9 + 0.676 X10

+ 0.304 X11 + 0.514 X12 (11)While logistic regression equation for model 2 can be written as follows:

6

7

Table 2: Logistic Regression Analysis Models 1,2, and 3Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

B Sig. Exp(B) B Sig. Exp(B) B Sig. Exp(B)

Step 1a x1 .466 .056 .628 .030 .053 .971 .316 .013 1.372

x2 .270 .089 .764 .313 .003 .732 .639 .007 1.895

x3 .823 .038 2.278 .088 .039 .916 .253 .001 .776

x4 .949 .063 2.584 .372 .022 1.450 .758 .026 .469

x5 .469 .013 1.599 1.781 .000 .168 1.956 .000 7.067

x6 .274 .062 1.315 .246 .020 .782 .164 .016 1.178

x7 .002 .096 .998 .002 .003 .998 .008 .024 1.008

x8 .233 .020 1.262 .353 .007 1.423 .581 .030 .559

x9 .364 .042 1.440 .629 .000 .533 .576 .015 1.779

x10 .676 .018 .509 .666 .008 1.946 -.482 .008 .617

x11 .304 .004 .738 .107 .004 1.113 .020 .042 1.020

x12 .514 .022 .598 .216 .046 1.241 .055 .035 1.056

Constant 3.315 .035 .036 1.530 .114 4.616 2.220 .074 .109

8

9

Ln ( P1−P ) = 1.530 + 0.030 X1 + 0.313 X2 + 0.088 X3 + 0.372 X4 + 1.781 X5

+ 0.246 X6 + 0.002 X7 + 0.353 X8 + 0.629 X9 + 0.666 X10

+ 0.107 X11 + 0.216 X12 (12)On the other hand, logistic regression equations for model 3 can be written as

follows:

Ln ( P1−P ) = 2.220 + 0.316 X1 + 0.639 X2 + 0.253 X3 + 0.758 X4 + 1.956 X5

+ 0.164 X6 + 0.008 X7 + 0.581 X8 + 0.576 X9 + 0.482 X10+ 0.020 X11

+ 0.055 X12 (13)

Based on Table 2, equations 10, 11, and 12, the results of logistic regression analysis in this study can be interpreted as follows:

Economic infrastructure has a positive and significant effect on the tendency of the prospective migrants to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio (EXP (B)) values for this variable are 0.628, 0.971, and 1.372 respectively. This condition shows that the biggest odds ratio is Surabaya economic infrastructure which is 1.372. It means that prospective migrants have the opportunity to migrate to Surabaya because the economic infrastructure has the greatest effect compared to the economic infrastructure of Medan and Jakarta.

Educational facilities have a positive and significant effect on the tendency of people to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Pekanbaru. The odds ratio (EXP (B)) values for this variable are 0.764, 0.732, and 1.895, respectively. From this condition shows that the biggest odds ratio is owned by Surabaya which is 1.895. This situation means that educational facilities cause people to migrate to Surabaya the most compared to Medan and Jakarta.

Health facilities have a positive effect on the tendency of people to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Pekanbaru. The odds ratio (EXP (B)) values for this variable are 2.278, 0.916, and 0.776 respectively. This condition shows that the biggest odds ratio for this variable is owned by Medan which is 2.278. This situation means that people will have the opportunity to migrate to Medan mostly because of the health facilities compared to health facilities in Jakarta and Surabaya.

Job opportunities have a positive and significant effect on the tendency of people to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 2.2584, 1.450, and 0.469, respectively. The largest odds ratio for job opportunities is in Medan. Therefore, job opportunities cause the tendency of people to migrate to Medan the most compared to Medan and Jakarta.

Safety and comfort levels have a positive and significant effect on the tendency to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for each of these variables are 1.599, 0.168, and 7.067 respectively. The largest odds ratio for this variable is in Medan. In other words, the tendency of people to migrate to Surabaya is caused mostly by the safety and comfort levels when compared to Medan and Jakarta.

Relative wage have a positive and significant effect on the tendency to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 1.315, 0.782, and 1.178 respectively. The largest odds ratio is the relative wage in Medan. In other words, relative wages cause the tendency of people to migrate to Medan the most compared to Jakarta and Surabaya.

10

Sex has a positive and significant effect on the tendency to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 0.998, 0.998, and 1.008 respectively. The largest odds ratio for this variable is in Surabaya. It means that men have a great tendency to migrate to Surabaya compared to Medan and Jakarta.

The physical condition of origin region has a positive and significant effect on the tendency of prospective job seekers to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 1.262, 1.423 and 0.559 respectively. The largest odds ratio for this variable is in Jakarta. In other words, the physical condition of origin region has the greatest tendency to push people to migrate to Jakarta compared to Medan and Surabaya.

Parents occupation has a positive and significant effect on the tendency of people to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 1.,440, 0.533 and 1.779 respectively. The largest odds ratio is in Surabaya. In other words, parents occupation has the greatest tendency to push people to migrate to Surabaya compared to Medan and Jakarta.

Parents occupation has a positive and significant effect on the tendency of job seekers to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variableis 0.509, 1.946 and 0.617 respectively. The largest odds ratio is in Jakarta. In other words, parents occupation has the greatest tendency to push people to migrate to Jakarta compared to Medan and Surabaya.

Culture of wander around has a positive and significant effect on the tendency of people to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 0.738, 0.04, and 1.020 respectively. The largest odds ratio is in Surabaya. In other words, wandering culture known so far pushes people to tend to migrate to Surabaya compared to Medan and Jakarta.

Job opportunities in the origin region have a positive and significant effect on the tendency of people to migrate to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The odds ratio for these variables are 0.598, 1.241, and 1.056 respectively. The largest odds ratio is the relative wage in Jakarta. In other words, job opportunities in the origin region cause the tendency of people to migrate to Jakarta compared to Medan and Surabaya.

2. DiscussionBased on the results of logistic regression analysis in Table 3, it can be seen that

the odds ratio of economic infrastructure of Surabaya is bigger than Medan and Jakarta. This condition means that job seekers will have greater opportunity to migrate to Surabaya, it is caused by a better economic infrastructure compared to the economic infrastructure of Medan and Jakarta. A quality economic infrastructure will facilitate the production process in the region. A smooth production process will be able to bring in and increase the income of people who execute the production process in the region. Therefore, a quality economic infrastructure will encourage people to come to the region because it provides a hope in getting a job. Therefore, the arrival of that person will encourage migration to the region.

The tendency of job seekers migration from Padang to Surabaya is caused by higher education facilities compared to Medan and Jakarta. Education is a basic necessity for every job seeker and family. Good education will provide a better opportunity in the future. With a better education such as educational facilities, a good quality and quantity of education will be able to make a region a good place to live.

11

Therefore, the existence of good education in a region will encourage job seekers to move to that region, because of a hope to have a better life. Based on this, the high tendency of job seekers to migrate to Surabaya caused by education facilities compared to Medan and Jakarta means that education facilities in Surabaya is better than education facilities in Medan and Jakarta.

Health facilities in Jakarta and Surabaya appeal the prospective job seekers compared to the odds ratio value of health facilities in Medan, it causes job seekers to migrate. This situation happens because of the adequate health facilities existing in Medan compared to health facilities in Jakarta and Surabaya. Health is very important to humans; a high salary is worthless if someone's health is not guaranteed properly. Complete health facilities in a region will support the region to be more advanced. Investors will invest in regions with a complete infrastructure, one of which is health facilities. Therefore, complete health facilities will make people want to come to the region. Whether it's for a place of business only or staying forever.

Based on the results of the analysis, it is known that the tendency of job seekers to migrate to Medan is greater due to job opportunities compared to the tendency of people to migrate to Jakarta and Surabaya. This condition is caused by good economic infrastructure, quality educational facilities, and complete health facilities have encouraged the availability of wide, many, and varied job opportunities in Medan. This wide, many, and varied job opportunities allow job seekers to get the job they want. Thus, these factors encourage a high job opportunity in Medan. Although the economic infrastructure are also good, educational facilities are also qualified, and health facilities are also complete in Jakarta and Surabaya, but the available job opportunities caused by these factors are not as big as those in Medan. It is shown by the high tendency of job seekers to migrate to Medan compared to the tendency of job seekers to migrate to Jakarta and Surabaya.

Safety and comfort levels to migrate to Surabaya is higher compared to Medan and Jakarta. This condition means that the biggest pull factor for job seekers from Padang to migrate those three cities is the safety and comfort levels in Surabaya. Surabaya is known to be conducive and somewhat homogeneous so that there are less social conflicts in this region, therefore, it becomes a safe region to visit.

Wage rate determines the migration of job seekers from Padang to Medan, Jakarta and Surabaya. The relative wage of Medan is greater than those of Jakarta and Surabaya. It is caused by the relatively favorable economy condition, economic infrastructure, and job opportunities in Medan which has prompted a high relative wage in Medan City. The relatively high wages makes the attractiveness of Medan high for people to try their fate in this region, the findings are supported by the results of Slobodan et.al. (2015) study.

Gender provides higher effect for prospective migrants to emigrate to the city of Surabaya. Prospective male job seekers have a great tendency to migrate to Surabaya when compared to Medan and Jakarta. This condition is because the male will be the head of household. Therefore, a man should be able to prepare himself to find a job in order to support the economy and family welfare. On the other hand, a man must be able to fight for a decent job so that later the family will be able to foster children's education for the future. Thus, a male job seeker will tend to emigrate to several cities to try his fortune. It turns out that Surabaya is the biggest city that encourages the tendency of male job seekers in Padang City to emigrate compared to the other two cities. This is

12

because Surabaya is a city that is relatively safe and comfortable and has many job opportunities when compared to Medan and Jakarta.

The variable of physical condition of origin region becomes higher consideration for job seekers to emigrate to Jakarta City. In other words, the physical condition pf origin region has the greatest tendency to encourage job seekers to migrate to Jakarta compared to Medan and Surabaya. Inadequate physical condition of origin region such as unsuitable climates, rough topography, less fertile areas, away from urban centers, unavailability of water supply, disaster prone areas, and poorly ground structures have made it difficult to find good jobs. Therefore, the situation has encouraged job seekers in Padang City to emigrate especially to Jakarta because Jakarta is more representative. This city has more transportation routes from all regions in Indonesia. The findings are in accordance with the opinion stated byCristina Baboc, et. al. (2014).

The parents occupation shows the tendency of job seekers to migrate to Surabaya compared to Medan and Jakarta. Parents occupation will determine the thinking patterns of job seekers in seeking job. Parents working in the formal sector will encourage their children to get a better formal job in other regions, one of them is the tendency to find a job in Surabaya.

Parents education variable tends to encourage job seekers to emigrate to Jakarta. It means that the higher the education of parents will further encourage the tendency of job seekers to emigrate. These job seekers are more likely to emigrate to Jakarta with the largest odds ratio. This condition is because Jakarta City is the capital of the country, so job seekers with high parental education will encourage their children to find decent work in Jakarta. The city of Jakarta with all the facilities and employment field makes the parents of job seekers to give insight that Jakarta is one of good cities to look for work, especially formal jobs.

Wandering culture variable, tend to encourage job seekers to emigrate to the city of Surabaya. Job seekers in Padang tend to emigrate to Surabaya due to wandering culture. Wandering culture is really inseparable from Minangkabau society. The word "merantau" (to wander) itself comes from Minangkabau language and culture, that is "rantau" (wander). It means: territories outside the core area of Minangkabau. A Minangkabau man at the age of young adulthood (20-30 years old) is encouraged to wander by Minangkabau culture. The egalitarian culture of Minangkabau community that has the same characteristics as Surabaya is likely to be one of the emigration drivers of Surabaya City from Padang city. Wandering culture is a mental attitude possessed by the people of West Sumatra in order to seek experience and destination area that is not much different from the region of origin, as stated by Elie A, at.al (2006)

Employment opportunity variable in the region of origin encourages prospective job seekers to emigrate to the city of Surabaya. Employment opportunities in the region of origin have tends to encourage job seekers to migrate to Surabaya when compared to Medan and Jakarta. Inadequate job opportunities in the region of origin such as the unavailability of more diverse occupations, limited agricultural land, and the absence of suitability in the field of expertise with work make it difficult to find a good job. Therefore, the situation has encouraged job seekers in Padang City to emigrate especially to Surabaya City because Surabaya is considered more able to give better hope than other cities,such as Medan and Jakarta. The factor of origin region will greatly determine the consideration to emigrate such as economic, demographic, religious and linguistic factors, as stated by Michael (2017).

13

E. Conclusions and Suggestions

This study concludes that (a) economic infrastructure, educational facilities, safety and comfort level, sex, and parent occupation are the factors influencing the tendency of job seekers to migrate from Padang to Surabaya. (b) health facilities, job opportunities, relative wage rates, physical condition of origin region are the factors influencing the tendency of job seekers to migrate from Padang to Medan. (c) whereas the physical condition of origin, parents education, wandering culture and job opportunity in the origin are the factors influencing the tendency of job seekers to migrate from Padang to Jakarta.

Based on the above conclusions, the suggestions that can be presented in this research are:

1. Factors affecting job seeking emigration to Surabaya are economic infrastructure, educational facilities, safety and comfort levels, sex, and parents occupation. Therefore, the Local Government of Surabaya must continuously improve the quality and quantity of economic infrastructure, educational facilities, safety and comfort levels in Surabaya. Thus, economic infrastructure, educational facilities, safety and comfort levels in Surabaya will continue to improve in the future. It will surely bring positive effects on the development of Surabaya itself, especially the entry of quality human resources to Surabaya due to better economic infrastructure, educational facilities, safety and comfort levels in Surabaya. Those human resources will be settled there as residents of Surabaya and develop the city of Surabaya.

2. The main factors of emigration to Medan are the availability of good health facilities, job opportunities, relative wage rates, physical condition of the origin region. Therefore, the Local Government of Medan must continuously improve the quality and quantity of health facilities, job opportunities, and relative wage levels. Increased investment, good economic regulation will be able to bring in qualified investors to promote health facilities, job opportunities, relative wages rates in Medan. This situation will be able to encourage competent job seekers to stay in Medan because of a better expectation, especially in health facilities, job opportunities, and qualified relative wage rates so they can contribute to the economy of Medan.

3. In addition, the factors that support the emigration to Jakarta are the physical condition of the origin region, parents education, wanderingculture and job opportunities in the origin region. All these factors should be a concern to the local government for these factors to cause migration in Jakarta becomes a positive migration. This positive emigration implies that job seekers who will enter Jakarta are potential and qualified job seekers that can highly contribute to the economic development of Jakarta.

14

F. References

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2012-2015. Sumatera Barat Dalam Angka. Padang. Badan Pusat Statistik.

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2010-2015. Kota Padang Dalam Angka. Padang. Badan Pusat Statistik.

A Elie, Nancy Mroun, Stella at al 2006. Why are you draining yur brain? Factor underlaying decesions af graduting Labanese medical studens to migrate. Social Science and Medicine . www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed.

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2010-2015. Kota Medan Dalam Angka. Medan. Badan Pusat Statistik.

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2010-2015. DKI Jakarta Dalam Angka. DKI Jakarta. Badan Pusat Statistik.

Badan Pusat Statistik. 2010-2015. Kota Surabaya Dalam Angka. Surabaya. Badan Pusat Statistik.

Boboc, Cristina, Valentina Vasile, Simona Ghita at. Al 2014. Romanian labour migration: emplyees perspective. International confererence on applied statistic. www.elsevier.com/locate/socscimed.

Henderson, J.V.,Storeygard, A.,Deichmann,U., 2016.Has climate change driven urbanization in Africa?.Journal of Development Economics.www.elsevier.com/locate/jdeveco.

Jhingan, M.L. 2007. Ekonomi Pembangunan dan Perencanaan. Penerbit PT RajaGrafindo Persada, Jakarta.

Liddle.B , Lung. S. 2014. Might electricity consumption cause urbanization instead? Evidence from heterogeneous panel long-run causality tests. Global Environmental Change 24 (2014) 42–51

Djajic Slobodan, Murad G, Alexandra 2015. Source country earning and emigration. Journal of International Economics. www.elsevier.com/locate/jie.

Suntajaya ,I Gede, Ketut, 2014. Faktor-Faktor yang Mmepengaruhi Urbanisasi di Propinsi Bali, PIRAMIDA Vol. X No. 2 : 61 – 70, ISSN : 1907-3275.

.

15

Todaro, Michel P, Stephen C Smith 2006. Economic Development, Ninth Edition.United Kingdom : Pearson Education Limited.

Windzio, Michel 2017. The network of global migration 1990 – 2013 using ERGMs to test theories of migration between countries. Social network. . www.elsevier.com/locate/sonet.

16