Even where data are not avai1able to urban admimistrators, it is clear that their cities are growing both by natural increase and by in-mlgration of 93 responding to one question, 61 reported growth by natural increase, 30 by in-mlgration and 2 by other causes. Regarding in-mlgration, the administrators perceive mgrants comlng mostly from the surrounding ruraI areas and small towns, with some coming from other cities and more distant regions as well. China, Pakistan, Philipplnes and Thailand perceived most of the migrants coming frm surrounding rural areasÅDInIndonesia about half come from distant areas and from larger cities. In Malaysia and Nepal all of the 3 cities find migrants coming from distant regions.

0verall, the admimistrators perceive that the mlgrants are young men and women in about equal numbers, but there are some differences among the countries. In China, India and Malaysia the perception is that young men dominate the mlgrant stream. In the Philippines and Pakistan, the perception is that whole families are heavily involved in the stream. Whole families are also important in the perceptions in China, India, Indonesia, and Japan.

As the administrators see it, people move into the city primarily for work. This is the dominant response in all countries except Japan, where the search for work is perceived as most important in only 22% of the cities. In almost half (11 or 40%) it appears that people in Japan migrate to the city largely for the better public services the city has to offer.

Even though good data are generally not avai1able, it is obvious that many cities in the third world today are growing in part by in-migration, and many administrators see this massive influx as a major problem. The migrants swamp city services and the basic infrastructure and constitute a major problem for city planrLers. To what extent this migration perceived as a major problem by Asian urban administrators, and what tends to detemine the extent to which mlgration is perceived as a problem? These are questions for which some of the items in the questionnaire were designed. Admimistrators were asked if they considered in-migration a major problem for their city. They could respond that in-migration is a Very Serious problem, produces Some Pressures on the city, produces Only Minor Pressures on the city, or that the in-migration is actually an advantage, or even a major advantage for the city. The results are seen in Table 9.

Table 9
Perceptions of In-Migration as a Problem
or Advantage by Country Category

The basic distribution of the responses Was itself quite revealing. Almost all the administrators had views on this in-migration. Of the 128 who responded to this question, 15 found the in-migration to constitute a serious problem; 41 fbund it to produce some pressures and 23 found it produced only minor pressures on the city. Almost half, 43, fbund the in-migration to be advantageous, and 6 found it to be a major advantage. This perception was somewhat associated with the actual size of the city: larger cities saw in-migration as more of a problem than did smaller cilies, but recall that city size varied considerably by country. It was also somewhat associated with the calculated growth rates 1980-1990. Higher growth rates tended to produce more perceptions of migration as a problem, but recall that these, too, varied by country. There was also a clear difference among countries as well, as can be seen in Table 9.
The real difference here is between the high income countries with lower urban growth rates, and the lower income countries with higher urban growth rates. Neither Japanese nor Korean administrators consider in-migration as a serious problem, while almost a fifth (19%) in the less developed countries consider it serious. At the other end, over 80% of Japanese and 55% of Korean administrators, but only 19% of administrators in the low income countries, consider in-migration advantageous. There are two reinforcing processes at work to explain this distribution. In the richer countries, like Japan, overall population growth is very slow and even though there continues to be urban growth, it, too, is very modest, usually less than 1 percent per year. This constitutes a lesser absolute pressure, which these wealthy countries are well equipped to manage. Moreover, many of the Japanese cities are actually losing population, especially as their younger people tend to migrate to the larger cities and the capital in search of better prospects. Thus for most Japanese cities in-migration is a desirable condition of itself. The poorer countries face much larger in-migration streams and they have far less capital to provide the basic infrastructure that the migrants need. For them the migrant streams do indeed constitute a major pressure.

The Problems of In-migration Administrators were asked what kinds of urban problems weredue to the influx of people into the cities. The most commonly mentioned problems were housing shortage, domestic wastes and transportation problems. Half or more of the administrators in all countries except Thailand mentioned housing shortage as a serious problem brought by in-migration.

As might be expected many (11) of the Japanese did not respond to this question, since 24 of the 29 reported in-migration to be an advantage to their cities. It is interesting that even half of the Japanese administrators who did respond to this question considered housing a problem. The most common problem mentioned by the Japanese administrators was domestic wastes (15 or 83%), followed closely by transportation (13, or 72%). These were the only three problems mentioned by half or more of the 18 administrators who did reply to this question.

Problems of Out-migration. Although there was relatively little response to this question, in some cases out-migration from the city is perceived as a problem. Administrators perceive that when people leave, they mostly go to other cities, and usually to larger cities. As with in-migrants, young men dominate the out-migration stream, in the low income countries, with equal numbers of young men and women, and whole families also playing a significant role. People are perceived to leave for much the same reasons that they come: for work and for better services.

Whether this out-migration represents a loss or a gain for the city, like in-migration, depends on the level of development. For the well developed Japanese cities, the out-migration represents a loss, and in a fifth of the cases, a serious loss. In 29 cities, spread throughout all countries, the loss is considered only a minor one. In another 18 cities (none in Japan) the out-migration is considered an advantage or a major advantage. Out-migration is a problem, as the administrators see it, because it is associated with economic decline, idle housing, reduced public services and a drop in public investment.

As in the first Inquiry we find that most cities are not doing very much to try to influence the migration flows, either into our out of the city. When something is being done, it is mostly the development of suburban housing to move people out of the central city or to relieve the in-migration pressures; and it is mostly through stimulating development and jobs that the city attempts to encourage greater in-migration. When these measures are taken, they are considered to have some impact in only about half of the cases.