わが国農村人口の流出過程について : 特にゼリンスキーの人口移動転換理論との関係を中心として
The Process of Outflow of Rural Population in Japan, viewed with reference to Zelinsky's Mobility Transition Theory
From the Meiji era, rural to urban migration has played the dominant role in the all migration flows in Japan.
Noting this fact, the author aims to review the process of the outflow of rural population from the feudal age of the Edo period to the present. In doing this, he wishes particularly to clarify the characteristics of the process by referring to Zelinsky's Mobility Transition Theory. This theory is known as the one developed in correspondence with demographic transition theory among demographers and population geographers.
Here, the theory of mobility transition is explained in brief, especially with regard to the part of migration of rural population in various movements. Zelinsky divides the process of mobility into five phases. The first phase is the age called "The Premodern Traditional Society" in which residential migration is little seen and the demographic character has high fertility and high mortality. The second is "The Early Transitional Society" in which massive movement occurs from the countryside according to its high population growth and this high growth is due to the declining mortality and the rise in fertility. The third is "The Late Transitional Society" in which the movement from countryside is slacking due to the slowdown of population growth with the decline of fertility. The fourth is "The Advanced Society" in which there is little natural increase and the movement from countryside to city continues but is further reduced in absolute and relative terms The last is "A Future Superadvanced Society" in which nearly all residential migration may be of the inter-urban and intra-urban variety.
The most important characteristics in the process of the outflow of rural population can be summarized as follows:
1. Both the volume of the outflow of rural population and the direction of migration to city were very constant in Japan for a long time from the second phase to the first half age of the third one in the demographic and mobility transition. This is quite different from Zelinsky's model which says that the volume of rural to urban migration changes in the course of the mountain-shaped curve (Fig. 1). The reason why this volume was constant during this period is, in short, due to the lack of appeal to labourers of employment in urban industries before World War II. These industries could only employ labourers from the countryside in numbers almost equal to the volume of natural in crease in rural population.
2. In Japan, such curve is drawn at the period of rapid economic growth (1955 to 60's) situated between the second half age of the third phase and the earlier age of the fourth. The pull power of industries in this period was so strong that a great reduction in the number of farm houses and farmers occured. This phenomenon was never seen before World War II.
Thus, by adding other facts to the above, it may be said that in the case of Japan the chainging process of the outflow of rural population should be viewed more from the standpoint of socioeconomic factor than the demographic one. In this respect, the results of this research seem different from the conclusions expressed in Zelinsky's theory.