-7;‘b‘\c£¢uuwwm.~ “rm- .. Ah.‘ w .2. uq—q‘.‘ in 'T\ I . ‘ x .. :A;»- . mum-7125' v" . ‘ w" 95‘». C ‘:‘-»~ """fl'wr an; ,2, 23%;: . ’l:‘"~}12 ELK»; if 3 :3 $2135, :3; .55.. “32% 2‘ :v‘iu"-A.r,7 . 0‘ M. In"; . ' ""ka 4U“ 3.“ ’fivvfl"; . I“. . Md. w: ._ .f ‘13.}. 4‘,»- 5‘”: $233“ “:5 q‘fi‘fl'fié‘i ._. . «up? '- 2'2'29’ I51;;“:‘:w?\'l\&n ' ~;. ~ '> 5. . . ‘ . . ‘ _ .ufi;1'{§;;‘;3 :as: 1w} ~ I 'v {'H:):—3:1~'“'3J5_' _ ___. . '1." 2 “k *{X' o _ l . ' . ' 3.. 1'3"“ 7. EV - - n 1‘?- » r! “*7" .lii' “ 0..“ .r.” 3»: F. u. 3‘75.) iii“? I’I“ rm .rri Dao 35".; -:.v‘.2' ,'\. ' {Rail-‘5‘ ‘ '3‘ - 3:332: "in “7,; "jg-"15¢.- "J2 :7“ >u‘. u "‘w- 1; N (:E,v‘o‘"r‘1.; ‘ 52‘ 4%“ ’% é)», 7'17. 5,:‘3-51‘7’fiv.’ 2 vii-":2 ; ”If '? oz ATJ’.’ Al" . {:55}, ' 2:5'V' iii/I} H i. :2 [1,: wkwp‘g...‘ . vs 4' , WW2” {Jig-4”- 3:23;? 63, . ‘.‘.:‘ l? ’ ‘- 'I' . ‘ .J. I I {IN/J ‘1‘; 5,. 9372.2?“ ~ 4 fig,- , . . "’"‘2:{':V '5J "u" '_’ J 6’... r. 2 2 J, . . r ’ 1."? {1:2 ' 'r/ .. " .‘ ‘J , '5' ‘ $2,333: ‘ ‘:,.J ‘1'”? . v . . v :7" 1:3 . affi- (5:; 58.22%; 7;“ ..-1~ .75“ k-J : 341.2165: 2:; if?” 1:15;! ‘. ’2", “1- 76556:. Iii/:3!" ” ‘ 1" .J.‘/' ‘ ”t1 ‘. "‘. ~‘ .3 5-. ‘1‘. _" fl 4} . .31? 2,3; {'7}, {,2}; y'] ‘ t » L“! .;I,: 4g {2:23;}: :2??? . 4‘ ’1 t, I . ”'fiffikygg‘, --' . ’1.":v:_,, " -::’:r[‘2’ ‘Jfiz’ll’f , u? , WW. éént’a gaff/f .f", "1113’: ~ qr, " ' Hf , ”I?! ‘ - #3415 ’ ‘l'ni-tcr..-=”>‘_”::~".-_ ~ - .. ' ’ -l 4 ,‘ 7""5':?".-’]7? a . .55,- 'p‘ly'g’// ”‘4’", I?! - , _- f:"!; ,jfit’l"; ' /' /n-,/_' (1’12, J I, I 1.1:, .P ”If? "I?!" .If‘ I; If? ' '"Ir’if'f if; , fi’l'fl‘vw'i. { .h. fr 1""2': . ’60: ’ .327] I" [,1 I" ’51'4'942/1 I ,qu 603-5 Illlllllgglllgmlgllgllll LIBRARY Michigan State University This is to certify that the dissertation entitled INTERNAL MIGRATION TO RIYADH: PATTERNS, KINSHIP SYSTEM SUPPORT, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF MIGRANTS presented by Mohammed Komaikh D. Al-Oteiby has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Sociology degree in Major professor Date C1 AWVST )qgg MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0-12771 )V1531.} RETURNING MATERIALS: Place in book drop to LJBRARJES remove this checkout from 4-..— your record. FINES will be charged if book is returned after the date stamped below. t," .. V- - 'r... "i ‘3 if" « ; ' '1‘ '5 .. Jth; 14155 57 ‘ INTERNAL MIGRATION TO RIYADH: PATTERNS, KINSHIP SYSTEM SUPPORT, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF MIGRANTS BY Mohammed Komaikh D. Al-Oteiby A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Sociology 1988 INTERNAL MIGRATION TO RIYADH: PATTERNS, KINSHIP SYSTEM SUPPORT, AND THE SOCIOECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF MIGRANTS BY Mohammed Komaikh D. Al-Oteiby ABSTRACT This research report describes a cross-sectional study of Saudi households in the city of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. It is based on interviews of 270 heads of household of the city. The main objectives are: a) to study the earlier and more recent waves of Saudi migration to the city to see if they are similar in pattern over time; b) to examine the kinship network's role in facilitating the migration process and how relatives help newcomers become established both socially and economically in the urban society: and c) to focus on the current situation of migrants by investigating their socioeconomic achievements after moving to the urban center and to determine the extent to which they have become socially and economically integrated into the mainstream of Riyadh. The majority of Saudi heads of households in Riyadh are migrants. The patterns of migration of the earlier and more recent waves of migration are similar. Al-Oteiby Migrants came to Riyadh from similar circumstances. Both early and recent migrants were young when they moved to the urban center and they were searching for better economic and educational opportunities. The kinship network helped newcomers to become established in the city. Relatives gave migrants shelter, financial help, and assisted them in finding jobs. The eventual achievements of newcomers in the city were more a result of stage in life cycle and how long they were living in Riyadh than any unique characteristics of the migration situation. COpyr ight by MOHAMMED KHOMAIKH D. AL-OTEIBY 1988 DEDICATION To the memory of my mother and my father ACKNOW LEDGMEN TS First, I would like to express my thanks and sincere appreciation to my academic advisor and committee chairman, Professor Harry Schwarzweller, who worked with me (2103er from the inception of this study as an idea through completion of the manuscript. He was always available when I needed his advice or direction, which was valuable and fruitful. Thanks are also extended to my committee members, Professors Allan Beegle, Christopher K. Vanderpool, and Kevin Kelley for their advice, comments, and suggestions. I wish to express thanks to my friends in the Sociology Department at King Saud University for their help, encouragement, and comments; especially to Dr. Ibrahim Al-Obeidy for his help and support during the field work. I extend thanks to my friends who helped conduct the interviews, especially Abdulah Al-Sofian, and Hamoud Al-Kanaan, who continued through the end of the coding stage. Thanks are also expressed to those who work for the Riyadh City and Suburbs Electric Company, vi particularly to the General Director of Subscribers, Fahad Al-Solmi, and to those who helped locate the respondents during the field work process. Also my sincere thanks go to Gene Purdum, who typed the manuscript and provided editorial assistance. I would also like to thank those relatives and friends who helped or encouraged me to complete this study. Last, but not least, special thanks and appreciation go to my wife, Nora, and my children, Moniarah, Maha, Ahmad, Mona, Laila, Yousef, and Hind for their endurance and patience. vii TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 LIST OF FIGURES O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Chapter I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . MigratioraConcept . . . . . . . . . . . . Review of Literature . . . . . . . . . . . II. METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES . . . . . . . Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . Focus of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses . . . Importance of the Study . . . . . . . Migration Qperationalized . . . . . . . . Questionnaire Design . . . . . . . . . . . The Interview Team . . . . . . . . . . . . Interviewers' Training . . . . . . . . . . Locating the Respondents . . . . . . . . . Sampling Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . Selecting the Sample . . . . . . . . . . Field Schedule and Response Rates . . . . Sampling Problems . . . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . III. HOUSEHOLDS IN RIYADH . . . . . . . . . . . . HOusehold Heads Sampled . . . . . . . . . Stages in Family Life Cycle . . . . Household Composition and Related Aspects Socioeconomic Situation . . . . . . . . . The Impact of Age and Education on Income Origins of Heads of Household in Riyadh . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii Page xiv OUT 26 26 27 28 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 44 46 48 50 52 52 55 59 84 95 98 112 IV. V. VI. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON RIYADH M IGMT I ON WAVE S O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 Residential Situation Before Migrating . . Age at Time of Migration . . . . . . . . . Level of Education Prior to Moving to the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jobs Before Migration . . . . . . . Occupational Status Before Migrating Income Before Migrating . . . . . . Reasons for Migration . . . . . . . Structure of Migration Process . Kinship Role in Facilitating the Migration Process . . . . . . . . . . . Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF M IGRANTS O O O O I O O O O O O O O O O O O Migrant Household Composition . . . . . . Close Relatives' location . . . . . . . . Patterns of Economic and Educational Attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Impact of Age and Education on Income Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Findings . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Findings in the Light of Other Research . Generalizations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . Suggestions for Further Research . . . . . APPENDIX 0 O O O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 REFERENCES 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 ix Page 115 116 119 121 123 124 126 128 131 133 139 142 143 144 150 160 165 168 169 179 183 185 187 189 190 229 3.11 3.12 3.13 3.14 LIST OF TABLES Riyadh pOpulation growth from 1930 through‘ZOOO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . All customers of Riyadh on computer file by use type on October 28, 1986 . Sample classification and outcome of field contacts 0 O O O O O O O O O O I O O O 0 Sex and age position of head of household Head of household marital status . Age of head of household . . . . . . . . . Age of head of household's wife . . . Age of head of household's youngest child Age of head of household's oldest child . Household composition . . . . . . . . . . Number of family members per household . . Other kin (not conjugal family) in household by relationship to head of household . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of male children at home . . . . . Number of female children at home . . . Household composition, by marital status . Household composition, by presence of Children 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Heusehold composition, by age of youngest Child O O O O O O O O O O O I O I O O O Page 43 47 53 54 55 57 57 58 6O 61 63 64 64 67 68 69 o‘. .10 «II .1. 3.26 3.27 3.28 3.29 3.30 3.31 3.32 HOusehold composition, by age of Child O O O O O O O O O O Heusehold composition, by number who live in household . . Household composition, by age of household . . . . . . . . HOusehold composition, by age of Page oldest O O O O O O 71 of peOple O O O O O O 71 head of O O O O O O 73 spouse . . 74 Surviving parents of head of household . . . 77 Head of household's living parents' residential place . . . . Distance to living parents' miles O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 78 residence in O O O O O O 80 Surviving parents-in-law of head of household . . . . . . . . O O O O O O 80 Head of household's living parents—in-law's place of residence . . . . O O O O O O 82 Distance to head of household's living parents-in-law's place of residence, in miles . . . . . . . . . . O O O O O O 83 Years of education completed by head of household . . . . . . . . Work status of head of household Type of residence . . . . . Ownership of home . . . . . . . . . . . 85 . . . . . . 86 O O O O O O 88 Head of household's total current income, in Saudi rials . . . . . . O O O O O O 90 Total monthly income from all sources, by age of head of household . O O O O O O 91 Total monthly income from all sources, by education level of head of household . . . 93 Total monthly income from all sources, by work status of head of household . . . . . 94 xi 3.33 3.34 3.37 3.38 3.39 3.40 3.41 4.2 4.3 Total monthly income from all sources, by occupational status of head of household . Total monthly income from all sources, by home ownership situation . . . . . . . . Total monthly income from all sources, by type of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . Zero-order correlation coefficients for all Saudi heads of household in Riyadh . . . . Birthplace of head of household . . . . . . Head of household's childhood home . . . . . Head of household's family origin . . . . Period of movement to Riyadh (household head) O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Head of household's age at time of move . . Birthplace of head of household's wife . . . Most recent visit to family home outside of Riyadh (head of household) . . . . . . Origin of household head's family, by birth place O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Origin, by childhood home . . . . . . . . . Origin, by first move to Riyadh . . . . . . Ancestral origin, by both parents' place of residence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Origin, by place of residence for mothers only O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Origin, by place of residence for fathers only O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Comparison of both waves of migrants' situations before moving to Riyadh . . . . Reason for migrating to Riyadh . . . . . . . Migrating unit O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O xii Page 95 96 96 97 99 99 101 102 104 106 107 108 110 110 111 112 113 117 129 132 4.4 5.1 Kinship role in facilitating the migration process O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O Distance of respondent's household from parents and most visited brother, by migration status (percent) . . . . . . . Comparison of current Riyadh head of household's socioeconomic achievement . Zero-order correlation coefficients for non-migrants o o o o o o o o o o o o o o Zero—order correlation coefficients for early migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . Zero-order correlation coefficients for recent migrants . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Page 135 145 152 161 163 164 5.1 5.2 5.3 LIST OF FIGURES Relation between income, for non-migrants . . . Relation between income, for early migrants . . Relation between income, for recent migrants . xiv Page age and education O O O O O O O O O O 162 age and education O O O O O O O O O O 164 age and education O O O O O O O O O O 165 .n. no. .V A... ‘b. an- A h 'u .C‘ .\ o IN. Ah - F‘O ifi O‘h CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Migration is an important sociological phenomenon. Social scientists concerned with the problem have focused on various issues, such as the conditions that affect migration, the motivations that cause pe0ple to move, the social adjustments of migrants, and the social ties that link migrants with their kin at both place of origin and place of destination. In general, however, internal migration in developing countries has not been adequately studied, especially when one takes into account the enormous implications of internal migration on the processes of socioeconomic develoPment. Saudi Arabia is no exception: the great pOpulation redistribution of recent years, which was stimulated by the forces of modernization, has not been well-documented nor researched. Before the beginning of this century, that part of the Arabian Peninsula now occupied by Saudi Arabia had no large urban center. At that time, the only cities in Saudi Arabia were Jeddah, a seaport on the Red Sea, and Mecca and Medina, the holy cities, also located in 1 2 western Saudi Arabia. For the most part, the country was populated by nomadic groups and persons living in small villages and a few small towns. Both bedouin tribes and village dwellers lived at a subsistence level, and rural-urban migration was virtually absent except for people on pilgrimages to holy places. After the establishment of the Saudi government in Riyadh at the beginning of this century, this situation began to change. Once King Abdulaziz, the founder of the Saudi regime, established his capital in Riyadh, the growth of that city was enhanced. There were some endeavors to estimate the population growth of Riyadh city. Although these estimates were not a result of official census procedures, other attempts were made to determine the population. The reports published in 1970 and 1971 by Doxiadis Associates can provide a rough estimate of Riyadh's population growth, as shown in Table 1.1. Table 1.1--Riyadh population growth from 1930 through 2000. Year Population 1930 27,000 1940 46,000 1950 82,000 1960 160,000 1968 300.000 1975 525,000 1980 685,000 2000 1,400,000 Source: Combined from Doxiadis Associates (1970, 1971). D n O‘- ’1 3 The King also encouraged migration by increased Spending and investment in Riyadh. He tried to convince bedouins to abandon their nomadic life and either settle in villages or establish villages in their territory. Following these developments, migration within Saudi Arabia became an integral feature of the social structure. The following factors partially explain this phenomenon. First is the development of the oil industry in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia since the 1930s. Migrants from desert villages and small towns headed (toward the oil fields to obtain better-paying jobs. Concomitantly, the increased oil revenues were invested in and led to the expansion of the larger cities. Riyadh is one of those cities. In the 19503, all government ministries, except the Ministry of Foreign Affairs which moved in the early 19803, were moved from the Western Province, especially from Jeddah, to Riyadh. With the economic boom of the early 19703, government projects increased, which in turn boosted private-sector activities. Construction projects reached a peak during the late 1970s and very early 19803. This economic boom accelerated migration to the larger cities, including the capital, Riyadh. A study by Sogreah and Osailan (1984) shows that in 1953, development was aimed at the large cities. By 1960, development activities included smaller towns; v.- a 0-. .Ofi 4“ .-‘ .Q I ’- ~v .1 I .bb 4 development did not reach rural areas until the late 19703 (p. 15). Second is the change in the situation of the bedouins and small agricultural villages. ha the past, nomadic bedouins exchanged animals and animal products for agricultural products with villagers. Both groups would also take excess products to nearby towns to sell at market. However, this all changed with the development of the oil industry and the subsequent influx of more efficient, cheap imported goods. In the late 19503 and early 19603 drought hit the country, and both agriculture and the pastoral life sufferai. Sebai (1974:455) concludes that this drought had severe effects (n1iall rural areas, estimating that cultivation decreased by 25 percent and livestock decreased by 40-50 percent. The result was greatly increased migration from rural to urban areas. It is also important to note that institutions for training and higher education are located in the urban areas rather than in rural areas. The factors presented above are major reasons for the increasing migration from rural to urban areas in Saudi Arabia. Bedouin youth abandoned the nomadic life, and migrated in order to secure a better income. At the same time, some farmers quit cultivating and migrated or hired foreigners to cultivate the land for them, while sharing both regular income and governmental production subsidies. 9'- .o‘ . 0" not pu- 5.. I.» o-a pvn (I) 1 I III n,. ‘i 5 My study focuses on the patterns of internal migration to Riyadh, which is to say, Saudi migration from small towns and rural areas within Saudi Arabia to the city. Issues such as incentives for moving to the city are addressed. The socioeconomic circumstances of migrants at the place of origin are investigated. The kinship network's role in facilitating the migration process as well as helping newcomers to get socially and economically established in the city is examined. Finally this study describes the current socioeconomic situation of migrants, and assesses their integration into the socioeconomic mainstream of Riyadh. My findings will be compared with an earlier study of Riyadh conducted by Malik in 1973, entitled "Rural Migration and Urban Growth in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia." Malik's findings can help me to arrive at a broader perspective on the migrants' economic integration into Idyadh. The results will also be compared with results from studies of other Saudi regions. These include Al-Shamrany's (1984) study of Assarah and Al-Thubaity's (1981) study of rural migration in Taif. Migration Concept Migration is a sociological concept which does not have one definition adequately agreed upon by social scientists. Geographers define it in terms of spatial movement; economists define it in terms of the impact of :- .r. .a- .‘O A‘O 6 economic circumstances for migrants, especially the difference in wages for various locations. For example, Lee (1966) considers any geographical move from place to place as a migration even if it is only from one apartment to another apartment across the hall in the same building. On the other hand, Mangalam and Schwarzweller define migration as follows: Migration is a relatively permanent moving away of a collectivity, called migrants, from one geographical location to another, preceded by decision-making on the part of the migrants on the basis of a hierarchically ordered set of values or valued ends and resulting in change in the interactional system of the migrants (Mangalam and Schwarzweller 1968:8). This definition broadens the understanding of migration by giving it sociological as well as geographical meaning. Migration concepts should zero-in on social effects of movement from one place to another and how primary social relations respond to such a move. So migration can be seen as a moving from one place to another place with considerable distance and period of time enough to reduce the primary social relations of the migrant in his/her previous location and to increase such relations in the new location. Review of Literature Throughout history, migration has been an integral part of human society. If we use the previously mentioned definition put forth by Lee, for example, it I" an O0:- .5: (I. ll- 3 . ‘a 5‘. fl \ '1." a “n V: 7 is difficult to find anyone who has never migrated or will not migrate. The major reason for migration is the search for a better life. In modern history, migration has become more or less affected by political regulations-—either directly, as is the case for international migration, or both directly and indirectly as is the case for internal migration. Migration occurs in all societies, in developed as well as developing countries. The differences lie in the numbers of migrants, and in the causes and consequences of migration. Developing countries, in particular, are suffering from urban growth. For both city planners and sociologists, it is a problem of the first magnitude. Also, the patterns of migration are different from one society to another. Statistics for the past two centuries illustrate how massive rural-to-urban migration has contributed to the world's burgeoning populations. In 1800 the world population was estimated at 978 million, with 948.7 million being rural, and only 29.3 million urban. By 1900 the world pepulation was 1650 million, with 1,425.6 million being rural and 224.4 million urban. In 1980 the world p0pu1ation was estimated to be around 4,470 million: the rural population comprised 2,414 million, while the urban population had jumped to 2,056 million. By the year 2000 it is estimated that the world population will be between 5,400 and 6,300 "million. Of .... er- I.. d 'J O- Ill .,‘ ‘1 8 this number, between 2,400 and 3,100 million will be rural, while the urban pOpulation will be between 2,900 and 3,900 million (Golden 1981: 145). As these numbers reveal, about one hundred and eighty years ago the majority of the world population was rural, with only a small pr0portion being urban. Since then, however, the rural population has declined gradually, while urban areas have grown at an increasingly rapid rate. These rapid changes in the pOpulation of urban areas have been attributed to two factors. The first is a natural increase resulting from the difference between the birth and death rates. This factor has become significant since the late nineteenth century and is caused by improvements in health, nutrition, and other related improvements. The second factor that has led to urban growth is the flow of rural migrants to cities that are experiencing economic and industrial growth. This phenomenon appeared first in more developed countries and was later observed in the less developed countries. It is in the developing countries that attempts to control such a rural-urban influx by means of governmental policy have generally failed. According to Golden, urban population growth is attributable more to rural-urban migration than to natural increases, especially during the second half of this century. He considers that there was a high rural birth rate during this century, while the urban birth I" .'~v- .01.: d ,. lino. e -.'V .O-o. o-.' '0'. '1) (IA ’1 m, w“ b '(J (D I‘ 1 “A ‘ OV‘ () "O 9 rate declined, resulting in a very pronounced growth of the rural p0pu1ation, which in turn resulted in migration to the cities (Golden 1981: 151). The advance of manufacturing in nineteenth century England served to pull the agricultural population to big cities such as London. This rural-to-urban flow of migration was accelerated not only by advancements in industrializa- tion, but also the decreasing cost of transportation (Golden 1981:252-253). The urban population of less developed countries is growing rapidly. In 1970 only 635 million of the 1.35 billion of the world's urban population lived in developing countries. By the year 2000, it is estimated that the world's urban population as a whole will be 75 percent of the total world population. While the overall rate of urban growth is estimated to be at 4.5 percent per year, urban growth in less developed countries is estimated to be 6 percent per year. Only 20 percent of this will be due to natural increase (Brown and Neuberger 1977318). Caldwell has estimated for Ghana that, between 1921 and 1960, the urban pOpulation grew 850 percent, while the entire nation's pOpulation did not even triple. It must be kept in mind that Caldwell included external migration in this estimate (Caldwell 1968:376). Trager found in her study of migration in the Philippines that 42.8 percent of those parents who registered a child in the city birth I 1 1h n. .‘y III ”I 'f’ 10 records were born outside of Dagupan city (Trager 1984: 320). Ibrahim's study of pepulation and urbanization in Morocco in 1980 found that in 1935 84 percent of Morocco's population was rural: in 1971 the rural p0pulation was reduced to only 64.8 percent (Ibrahim 1980: 31). As in other developing countries, urban growth in Saudi Arabia has been increasing at a rapid rate. Davis estimates that in 1950 the rural p0pulation of Saudi Arabia comprised 90.5 percent of the total Saudi population, while in 1960 and 1970 the rural population was 83.9 percent and 74.8 percent, respectively. The pr0portion of Saudi Arabia's population living in cities with less than 500,000 inhabitants was 1.9 percent in 1950, 7.7 percent in 1960, and 13.5 percent in 1970 (Davis 1969, v.1:129). For the same time period, Davis estimates that the annual growth rate in rural areas of Saudi Arabia was 0.9 percent in 1950-1960 and 0.6 percent in 1960-1970; urban growth for the same periods was 7.2 and 6.4 percent, respectively. Davis estimates that Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, will grow at a rate of 5.9 percent (1969:153). According to Baer, "even accepting the highest estimates, Saudi Arabian urban pOpulation is not more than 10 percent of the total" (1964: 179). The Saudi Arabian Third Development Plan estimated the spatial distribution of Saudi Arabia's p0pu1ation to be 40 percent urban versus 60 v - GU- ' h 0" on. “V ‘4— .30 i4 11 percent rural in 1970, 51 percent urban versus 49 percent rural in 1975, and 54 percent urban versus 46 percent rural in 1980. However, if we look at the growth of big cities, those with 100,000 or more inhabitants, the percentages are even higher. In 1970, only 20 percent of Saudis lived in metropolitan centers; in 1975 the proportion had jumped to 35 percent; in 1980 it was 42 percent (Saudi Arabian Ministry of Planning, Third Development Plan 1980:56). Saudi cities are experiencing rapid population growth as a result of increasing migration rates, both national and international. In his study of Taif City, Al-Thubaity found that rural-urban migration had been accelerating since the 19503. For example, the pOpulation of Taif City jumped from 57,000 in 1964 to 217,779 in 1978 (Al-Thubaity 1981:87-88). Fifty-three percent of Al-Thubaity's sample were rural migrants (1981:238). Riyadh's population growth was also studied by Malik. In 1930, Riyadh had 27,000 inhabitants. By 1940, the population had jumped to 46,000, with an annual growth rate of 5.4 percent; in 1968, its population was 300,000 with an annual growth rate of 8.2 percent: (Malik .1973z8). Al-Sheikh's study cw residential mobility in Riyadh found that over 84 percent of all of heads of household were born elsewhere. About 56 percent of those migrants had come from rural places (1977:119). DA n.. U.- u: .n- V a n!- ‘4‘ :6 \ 12 There are various views regarding the determinants of migration. Some scholars consider migration streams to be caused by income differentiation. Others see this factor as insufficient and point to the saliency of other factors, such as educational advancement, the influence of relatives, job relocation, the military, retirement, and so on. It is imperative that we differentiate between those migrants in the United States who have retired to Dade County, Florida, in search of a quiet, warm place and those who suffer from severe famine in Africa and, as a result, roam to find their next mouthful of food. When one factor is a determinant for a certain group under particular circumstances, it is not necessarily applicable to other groups with different circumstances. Nonetheless, from ancient times to the present, if we look at which factor has exerted the most effect on causing people to move, the economic factor stands out in first place. For example, Ravenstein's two studies on migration in Great Britain were first published in 1885 and 1889. His first paper was based on his study of the censuses of England, Scotland, and Ireland; in his second, he covered another 20 European countries. Ravenstein dealt with the geographical movement of migration on an abstract level, and considered the pull-push factors to be determined by economic factors. Therefore, for Ravenstein, economic factors are the at. l. I or . a ‘1‘ O 13 determining factors of migration; other motivational factors are not considered important to migrants. Ravenstein concluded that migration comes in stages. From his study he found that migrants are more likely at first to move to a closer parish or town than to a remote one: they then move on to larger industri- alized cities. Migrants were concentrated in some countries and not in others: they were concentrated where there were more opportunities for work. Ravenstein asserted that towns were growing at the expense of rural areas. The way to curb the flow of migration to towns would be to implement development programs which would stop the drain from rural areas. Lansing and Mueller found in their study of American workers in 1967 that only 15 percent migrated for non-economic reasons (Sabbaghi and Afshar 1982: iii-l3). In the view of Sabbaghi and Afshar, rural- urban migrants are attracted to where there is wage and employment growth in urban areas. They hold that there is a linear relationship between employment in urban areas and rural-urban migration (1982:96). Wood holds the View that economic reasons cause spatial movement: "Population movement is conceptualized as geographical mobility of workers who are responding to imbalances in the spatial distribution of land, labor, capital and natural resources" (Wood 1982:300). This perspective, therefore, assumes that migration is ‘0‘ vs... p. a «do no u i.. \.| 'u .‘\‘ 14 merely a response to inequality in the distribution of resources. Workers move from places where there is high employment and surplus labor to places where there is a high demand for workers and numerous job opportunities. Africa today provides an example for the economic factor being determinant of migration. Most studies show that in Africa the differential in income between urban and rural areas is the major factor causing rural-urban migration. In Nigeria, the differences between rural and urban personal income are obvious-- rural income is less than one half of urban income (Richmond and Kubat 1976:189; Byerlee 1973: 16). Also the same sort of situation exists in Kenya (Richmond and Kubat 1976:189). Meilink considers the main reason for migration to be economic, followed by education (Meilink 1978:59). Mukherji's (1982:181) study concluded that the main reason for migration is the human need for food. Hinderink and Tempelman considered migration from rural to urban areas in northern Ivory Coast to be due to economic factors (1978:105). Todaro (1971) likewise views the wide gap between wages paid in urban areas and those paid in rural areas as the major cause of rural- urban migration. To support his view, he gives examples from some African countries. In Nigeria, urban wages were double what farmers earned between 1960-66. In Kenya, the average urban wages in 1966 were two and a half times those of average farm family incomes. 0.. '0- .Oh ' O rh on I" ll) 15 Finally, in Uganda between 1954 and 1964, farmers' incomes remained unchanged, while income from government employment in Kampala almost tripled for the same period (Todaro 1971:391-393). Makinwa's (1981:161-167) study CHE internal migration and rural develOpment also found that the main reasons for migration are economically related factors. When he asked migrants from rural areas to the city, "suppose you could earn the same income in your village as in this city, where would you prefer to live?", about 66 percent replied that they would live in their place of origin (1981:168-169). Bearing this in mind, in order to curb the high rural-urban influx, the Nigerian government adopted some economic, social and administrative policies aimed at narrowing the gap between rural and urban areas (1981:165). Essang and Mabawonk, in their study of 180 families in selected communities in western Nigeria, found that 480 migrants from those families went to urban areas seeking better economic opportunities (1974:29). This finding is also supported by Caldwell's study of rural-urban migration in Ghana, where he found the economic factor playing an important role in determining migration from poorer areas to richer areas (1968:375). Oberai and Singh, in their study of Indian Punjab in 1976-77, found that of 1646 migrants, 949 were either women who migrated out for marriage or children under 12 as. by no «8» In. in 16 years of age. The remaining 697 migrated for economic reasons (Oberai and Singh 1980:230-232). Connell et a1. (1976) conclude that most migration in India is for economic reasons: Overwhelmingly, and perhaps increasingly . . . migration out of villages reflects a lack of opportunities for income generation in rural areas. In general, decisions on migration increase with the perceived gap between such opportunities in the village and elsewhere" (1976:30). Most studies about the Middle East reach the same conclusions. Migrants from rural areas to Baghdad, Iraq, for example, are migrating in search of a better life (Baali 1966). People who have been rural-urban migrants in Morocco have done so in search of better economic opportunities (Ibrahim 1980:318-69). Al-Shamrany's study of Assarah, Saudi Arabia, found economic reasons for migration predominating for people between the ages of 20 and 40 years: 69 percent of his sample said that better jobs and wages in urban centers was the major reason for their leaving Assarah (Al-Shamrany 1984:231-233). On the other hand, Al-Thubaity, in his study of migration to Taif, Saudi Arabia, acknowledges that the decline in farming adequacy and other economic factors affect rural-urban migration, but emphasizes that relatives and friends in the city are more influential than other factors (Al-Thubaity 1981:239-242). Apparently, then, there is a high disparity in income distribution in Saudi Arabia o.. In ID 'v .A ‘V ’n 't ‘4 l7 and this is the major reason for migration from rural to urban areas. "There is no doubt that the incentive for migration in Saudi Arabia is primarily and preeminently a desire for cash and material wealth not available in the desert or in the village" (Malik 1973:112). In a survey done by SCET International/Sedes in 1977, it was found that about 73 percent of the heads of household moved to Riyadh for economic reasons: about 13 percent moved to Riyadh for educational purposes, and about 14 percent moved for other reasons (SCET International/Sedes 1979:90). In Saudi Arabia, both bedouins and village settlers move. Those who live in towns are more likely to move to cities. Village dwellers move to nearby towns or to big cities. Bedouins move to villages, towns, or cities because their products are no longer sufficient to support them: The bedouin need to be in the vicinity of a market: the trend to rely less on being self- sufficient as the rise in consumption forces them to sell more products. Consequently, it is advantageous for them to practice their nomadic way of life near a town and they generally end up by establishing permanent dwellings. . . . All the bedouin population will have settled either in towns or in small local centers" (Sogreah and Osailan, 1984:31). Maintenance of ties between rural migrants in urban centers and their place of origin is prevalent. Various studies have show how and why such social ties exist. .Brown, Schwarzweller, and Mangalam found in I" 'l I III an I" 'Aq. n.5‘ {In M f" .i. . .‘A, “-3.. “V.“ v.“‘ :1 ‘ . I. “a s..~! V . "r: has in... 7"..5 On‘ an the \ A;‘ u.‘ v“ 0‘ 18 their study that earlier migrants have effects on their relatives at the point of origin and give them socio- psychological support in the early period of migration. "Finally, many Beech Creek families, like Le Play's stem—family, facilitate and encourage migration and prdvide in crises a 'haven of safety.'" Furthermore, "branch-families in the new communities provide a socio-psychological 'cushion' for the migrant during the transitional phase" (1961:49). Migrants in Nigeria, for example, maintain economic and non-economic contacts with both their communities and households of origin. Economic aid moves in both directions: from the place of origin to the newly migrated in order to help them until they secure jobs, then from employed migrants to their families and relatives at the place of origin. Often this aid is in the form of gifts, consumer items, and money that migrants carry with them when they visit their place of origin, or, on the other hand, gifts of food and other items brought by rural peOple when they call upon their relatives and friends who have moved to the city. Furthermore, those who migrate first help other new migrants from the same place of origin by providing social security, shelter, food and clothing, and aid in the search for jobs. Makinwa, in his survey of migration to Benin, found mutual visitation between migrants in Benin City and their relatives at the place of origin. For example, he found that 93.3 percent of n. . I:- 0" '1 ll) .,‘ is 'I) "1 l9 migrants from six villages to Benin returned to their villages at least once each year. Similarly, 91.3 percent of the migrants were visited by people from their home villages. Remittances and gifts, as well as people, flow both ways. Migrants send cash remittances to their family members in rural areas, while they receive remittances from those same family members. Rural-to- urban remittances are more likely to be food items: cash is usually sent only for things such as school fees in the urban center. Makinwa found in his study that 79.9 percent of migrants regularly sent remittances. The proportion of such remittances were estimated to be between 28 and 40 percent of these migrants' income. One out of three villagers receiving such remittances from their migrant relatives mentioned that the remittances were used for farming on behalf of the migrants (Makinwa 1981:131-135). When Makinwa asked migrants to Benin City where they stayed the first time they came to Benin, 82.0 percent reported that they stayed with relatives, while 5.2 percent said they stayed with friends. In addition, most migrants received free meals and free housing from their relatives, sometimes for a period of months. Among the migrants, about 63 percent got help finding jobs, while 19.23 percent found jobs by themselves (Makinwa 1981:52-54). .p. O in 20 Confirming the findings of Makinwa, Essang and Mabawonk found in their study of 480 rural-to-urban migrants in west Nigeria that remittances passed in both directions between migrants and their relatives in rural areas. Village relatives sent school fees, money for food, transportation, accommodations, and clothing during the first year that migrants were in the city (Essang and Mabawonk 1974:25-27). They also found that migrants moved to places where they can be close to relatives who had migrated before, and could provide the newcomer with shelter and assistance in getting jobs in the urban sector (1974:29). This finding confirms Meilink's view that relatives in town assist new migrants by providing them with food, housing, and information about the employment market. Other studies show that remittances play an important role in the life of rural areas. Dasgupta found that 89 percent of the working men in Nairobi sent regular remittances to their relatives in the place of origin. These remittances were used by rural households to invest in their children's education. They also helped to improve the life situation of these households, especially their consumption levels. In addition, such remittances may also be seen as an investment made by migrants who intend to eventually return to their villages (Dasgupta 1981:47). C. be .5! V o uh «a 5 ‘l 21 Caldwell, in his study of rural—urban migration in Ghana, found that relatives who have already migrated to urban areas influence their relatives in rural areas to migrate. Thus, Caldwell found that chain migration is an important mechanism in Ghanaian rural-urban migration (Caldwell 1968:367). Caldwell also found that remittances are sent by rural-to-urban migrants in Ghana, and that the newcomers get assistance from relatives who migrated before them (Caldwell 1968:367: Rempel 1971:71). Trager studied 176 migrants from rural areas to Dagupan City and found that 169 of these migrants maintained contact with their relatives elsewhere. Ninety-two percent of the sample visited relatives outside of Dagupan City, while about 70 percent received return visits from rural kin. Nearly all migrants who have parents or siblings visited them, while 43 percent visited more removed kin, such as grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces, and in-laws (Trager 1984:322-323). Trager states: "In (general, it is safe to say that migrants of all types--both male and female, young and old, single and married, of all occupations, income, and educational levels, those who migrated long ago and those who migrated recently--maintain ties of some sort with relatives" (1984:323). Generalizing from her study, Trager concluded: 22 This study indicates that in the Philippines, nearly all migrants to a provincial urban center retain some type of ties with family in rural areas. While not all remit money, many of those who do so send considerable sums, with some remitting up to 50 percent or more of their incomes (1984:335). About 50 percent of all migrants in Trager's study sent money to other family members (1984:336) without expectation of return. Trager explains these remittances by referring to Philippine cultural values (1984:337). This explanation differs from those of researchers in some African countries, where it was found that some migrants sent remittances in order to enhance relations with their kin so they could maintain access to land, or so that their money could be invested on their behalf in the local area--thus, when they return to their place of origin, they will find assets. Oberai and Singh, in their study of Indian Punjab migrants in 1976-77, found that 395 of 697 migrants had sent at least one remittance to their rural relatives in the place of origin, and 374 of them had sent remittances in 1976-77 (Oberai and Singh 1980:230). They also found that ties did not decline during the period of time of the study and that migrants from farm families remitted less than landless migrants (1980: 232). Such remittances did not carry any conditions, as has been found in some African societies. For example, Ibrahim found that migrants from southern Morocco to 23 urban centers are expected to support their family back home. He states: "In any event, remittance from migrant relatives becomes indispensable to the maintenance of a subsistence level of living in southern Morocco" (Ibrahim 1980: 78). In Saudi Arabia, social ties to family groups are very strong. Each person develops attachments to his family and other relatives, so that mutual visitation is an accepted obligation. Among rural people, such particularistic behavior is even stronger. Although no sociological studies appear to have explored this phenomenon, some social geographers have provided evidence for such ties. For example, Al-Thubaity, in his study of Taif, found that rural migrants maintain strong social ties with their place of origin: 82 percent of the migrants he sampled made visits to relatives in rural areas (Al-Thubaity 1981:167-169). Al-Shamrany's findings in his study of Assarah were similar: he noted that such contact has even accelerated since the improvement of transportation (Al-Shamrany 1980:82-83: 1984:167). Most rural-urban migrants share some common characteristics, especially with regard to age, skill levels, and living conditions. They are more likely to be in the productive period of their lives, from about 20 to 40 years. Shaw (1975: 133) asserts that people in their late teens to early thirties are more likely to TI 24 migrate than other age groups. Sabbaghi and Afshar (1982:80) conclude that rural-urban migrants in less developed countries are more likely to be young. Baali (1966) found that migrants to Baghdad were more likely to be unskilled, accept low wages, and have a low level of living, with most living in overcrowded housing where the average was 6 persons per room. In the three Latin American countries of Argentina, Brazil, and Chile, Bock and Lutaka (1969:349-350) found that migrants from rural areas were more likely to attain lower-paying jobs than were migrants from urban areas. As in other developing countries, rural-urban migrants in Saudi Arabia are younger and less skilled than urban dwellers. In Taif, 85 percent were between 24 and 34 years old when they migrated (Al-Thubaity 1981:239). Al-Shamrany (1980:82-83) found that most Assarah villagers were either less than twenty years old or older than forty. Most people in the middle-aged group had migrated out to urban centers. These findings coincide with Malik's study of rural migrants to Riyadh, in which he found that most were young adults. Saudi internal migration to Riyadh is motivated by the wide gap between cities, and small towns and rural areas, in terms of economic and educational opportunities. This situation exists in most Third World countries: Saudi Arabia is no exception. Saudi ‘5' f) r)’ 0‘ 25 cities are always far ahead of the small towns and rural areas. Economic development is directed toward the cities and not the rural areas. Similarly, educational institutions are located in the urban areas. All of this has caused small towns and rural areas to lag behind the urban centers. In such areas, inhabitants have had to move to the cities to secure better economic and social conditions. Migrants, when they move to Riyadh, often have relatives who help them to get socially and economically established in the city. Migrants lag somewhat in catching up with the mainstream of Riyadh society, as mentioned by the Malik study. (I) PI >‘c CHAPTER II METHODOLOGY AND PROCEDURES This study is derived from a cross-sectional survey of households in Riyadh, the capital city of Saudi Arabia. It focuses on patterns of internal migration and the socioeconomic integration of migrants into the urban context. Information was obtained from a random sample of households, about one-third of which were immigrants from other countries. For purposes of this phase of the project, the 270 heads of Saudi households were interviewed at greater length. Interviews were conducted during the period November 1986 through June, 1987. The majority of Saudi household heads in Riyadh are not native to the area, but had moved to this rapidly growing metr0polis from somewhere else. My main concern is with the economic adjustments of these migrants and with their patterns of social adaptation to life in Riyadh. Statement of the Problem There has been a large and steady stream of migration to Riyadh since the city became the capital of Saudi Arabia. This stream became especially strong 26 'p . .po a. a ab. vpl z. '0 0!. V» sfll can b. o F: a»; 27 after the discovery of oil in the eastern provinces in the 19303 and 19403. Most migrants were seeking better economic and educational opportunities. In the process, the influence of and help from earlier migrants, mainly relatives, was an important factor and, consequently, helped to determine the pattern of migration. The basic aim of my inquiry is to assess the overall patterns of socioeconomic integration of Saudi migrants into the general structure of Riyadh. I will consider the following questions: What are the main reasons for these migratory streams and the various waves of migration over time? Do such movements occur as a result of economic stress, educational aspirations, or pressure from relatives? To what extent does the kinship network of the Saudi family serve to facilitate the process of migration and to help new migrant families become socially and economically established in Riyadh? From answers to the above questions I will be able to formulate a better understanding of the patterns of economic and social integration of migrants into the mainstream of modern Saudi Arabian urban society. Focus of the Study The central questions to be dealt with in this study are as follows: How does the recent wave of In '1 r1 ,1 I). 0!, 28 migration differ from earlier waves, in terms of social and economic characteristics as well as patterns of relocation? What is the role of the kinship network in facilitating the migration process to Riyadh? In what respects do migrants to Riyadh differ socially and economically from non-migrants? Theoretical Framework and Hypotheses The basic tenet of this study is that people from all over the world tend to move to, or try to move to, places where they can have a better way of life for themselves and their families. In Third World countries, of course, people move from rural areas and small towns where wages are low to urban areas where wages are relatively higher. Makinwa (1981) emphasizes that the main determinants of movement from rural areas to urban centers are economic and related factors. This has also been suggested theoretically by Malik in his study of migration to Riyadh. Saudi society is no exception. This study will zero-in on the socioeconomic situations of migrants before and after migration. Also more attention will be given to the motivation of these migrants for moving. We will discuss the economic factors and whether they have an important role in driving migrants from small towns and rural areas to Riyadh as a haven for better economic circumstances. 29 The role of the kinship network in the city in facilitating the process of migration will be discussed. The situation of migrants will be investigated to probe whether their socioeconomic status has changed and in what direction. All of these issues will be investigated through guiding hypotheses, the first of which is: Hypothesis I - Current patterns of migration to Riyadh are essentially similar to earlier patterns. Saudi society has similar social circumstances but not similar economic circumstances. The cities have advanced economically leaving behind small toms and rural areas. The policy of Saudi Arabia's government has been to develop the major cities, especially Riyadh. Too little attention has been given to the development of small towns and rural areas. The Saudi government's development efforts in 1953 were aimed at the cities: in the 19603 it included towns: finally development included rural areas in the late 19703 (Sogreah and Osailan 1984:15). Hence the main economic and educational institutions are concentrated in the city. This leaves the circumstances of other areas as they have been. Lately some efforts have been made to develop other areas of the country, but such efforts are still limited. Thus, some questions are focused on the patterns of migration, mainly on the motivation to move to the city and how such a move took place. I» r1 f" (D 3O Hypothesis II - The kinship network of the Saudi family has helped to facilitate the process of migration to Riyadh. Family plays an important part in the lives of Saudi people. loyalty among kinship members is very strong. Thus, migration to Riyadh is believed to be a chain pattern. Potential migrants probably have considerable information through their kinship network before they migrate. When newcomers arrive in the city, they are more likely to get help from relatives who are already in the city. Such help is in the form of accommodations and assistance in finding a home and a job. Psychological problems which some migrants face in big cities are assumed to be minimal. Also, it is not surprising for relatives to help the newcomers financially when it is needed. Some questions regarding whether those migrants have relatives in the city were posed. And some questions were asked regarding whether these heads of households got help from these relatives in the city and whether or not such help was given to relatives who migrated thereafter. Hypothesis III - Current patterns of economic and educational attainments of migrants are different from earlier patterns. Migrants are more likely to migrate for economic as well as educational reasons. The assumption is that their chance to benefit from substantial income and educational opportunities .in their place of origin is 10:. Hence they moved to Riyadh with the potential 31 promise of satisfying their economic and educational ambitions. In Saudi Arabia, traditional jobs--main1y farming and herding-~are no longer adequate for the support of families. Because of the increase in consumer demands among all Saudi families, the decline in income that bedouins and farmers have experienced from their traditional activities, and the increasing number of cash-paying jobs in the city, migration to Riyadh has occurred. Also the opportunity for more adequate and even higher education in Riyadh far exceeds what is available in their place of origin. Hence they are expected to have better achievements in the city. For comparison, some questions have been posed concerning their situation before and after they migrated to Riyadh. Importance of the Study This study builds upon an earlier study of Riyadh conducted by Malik (1973), entitled "Rural Migration and Urban Growth in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia." Malik's study was a secondary analysis of Doxiadis Associates' household sample survey done in 1968. Some of his findings will prove helpful toward our better understanding of the streams of migration into Riyadh. By considering Malik's findings, we can arrive at a more in-depth comprehension of the economic integration of migrants into Riyadh . c. 32 The present study also will be compared with studies 1J1 other Saudi regions. These include Al-Shamrany's (1984) study of Assarah and Al-Thubaity's (1981) study of rural migration in Taif. Al-‘Ihubaity, for example, found that most Taif residents are migrants from rural areas who moved to the urban area in search of better economic circumstances. Taking into account studies such as these, it is hoped that findings from our survey of Riyadh households will enhance our ability to generalize about the causes and patterns of migration to Riyadh and the pattern of social ties that migrants maintain with their place of origin. This is especially important since most large Saudi cities are similar in their economic circumstances and their concentration of educational institutions, as well as in their private- sector businesses. Finally, the findings from this study will shed light on several patterns of Saudi migration, which in turn will add to sociological knowledge of the general phenomenon of Third World migration, and on Middle East migration in particular. Migration Operationalized Some procedures, concepts, and definitions that will be used in this study are as follows: A "migrant" is defined as anyone who was born and grew up outside of Riyadh--specifica11y, a person who spent at least eleven of his first 15 years of age 33 elsewhere. A migrant is a person who moved to Riyadh city to establish residence, not a visitor. For examphe, a person who is given access to a vacant home or apartment by his relatives while he visits for a short period of time, e.g., less than 3 months, and then returns to his own home, would not be considered a migrant. Neither would a person be considered a migrant who has come to the city for medical treatment, and rented a home for the period of his stay, be considered a migrant. Persons who were born in Riyadh, or who lived in Riyadh for a period of time and then moved elsewhere for a period of time before moving back to Riyadh, are treated on a caseéby-case basis, as follows: (a) If he is originally from Riyadh, meaning his ancestors are from Riyadh, he is considered a Riyadh native (there are only two cases). This is because they may have moved for a better position and their way of life has not changed appreciably. (b) If a person is not originally from Riyadh, he is treated as a migrant. For example, if a person is born outside of Riyadh, moves to and lives in Riyadh for a period of time, moves away again, and then moves back to Riyadh, he is considered a migrant. Migrants are divided into "early" and "recent" migrants. Early migrants are those who migrated before 34 1971. Recent migrants are those who migrated in 1971 or after. The reasons for this division are: (a) In the past the country as a whole was one of the poor Third World countries. In the late 19303 and 19403, oil production started and had some effect on migration to the Eastern Province where the oil industry is located. But since the government owns the oil products, some of its revenues are transferred on a limited basis to Riyadh. (b) In the 19503 and 19603, there was a well-known drought in Saudi Arabia. This drought reduced agricultural and livestock production, which most rural areas and small towns depended on. Hence many farmers and bedouins moved to the city. (c) In the early 19703, oil prices had increased dramatically and the economic situation of Saudi Arabia boomed. This attracted pe0ple to move to the cities. Questionnaire Design The questionnaire was designed in three parts. Part one recorded the household's location plus the respondent's background on the first page. Some basic information and characteristics of the heads of household were noted as well as some administrative matters. On subsequent pages, information was collected about the socioeconomic situation of all respondents, Saudi as well as non-Saudi. Part two is addressed to 35 Saudis only and concentrated on the social relations of the Saudi respondents, both migrants and non-migrants, and mainly on their visitation patterns. Part three deals exclusively with Saudi migrants who come from all over the country to the city. It investigates the differences between their previous economicsituation and their current one. Construction of the three-part questionnaire instrument was supervised by the major advisor professor. In the final stage of the English version, a copy of the questionnaire was submitted to committee members for comments or suggestions, which were incorporated into the final English version. The questionnaire was then translated into Arabic. Both the English and Arabic versions of the question- naire were submitted for comments and suggestions to four Saudi professors with Ph.D. degrees from the United States who were teaching in the Sociology [apartment at King Saud University. Some revisions were made according to their suggestions. The Interview Team Five students, who were taking a sociological research methods course at King Saud University, were chosen to serve as interviewers. This course was taught by one of the researcher's colleagues in the Sociology Department. He counted participation in interviewing as 36 part of the students' course assignments. Another student joined us later. Three of the students were seniors, one was a junior, and the other two were 30phomores. Two of the senior students, after graduation, continued working with us through the coding stage. Most of the interviews were conducted by these two students and the researcher. The interviewers benefited positively from participating in this field work. First, they earned grade points toward their research methods requirements. Second, they were paid for each completed questionnaire unit. The interviewers and the researcher met on a regular basis, daily or every other day, and kept in contact via telephone. Interviewers' Training Detailed written instructions were made in both English and Arabic. Since the interviewers were Arabic- speakers--a1though they could speak some English—~they were provided with instruction bulletins written in Arabic. A week-long interviewer training school was held and the questionnaires were explained in detail. The instruction bulletins also outlined the purpose of the research, and the way each interviewer should approach the respondents. Also, each interviewer was given a number of questionnaires to use as pretests for 37 his training and for testing the instrument. This kind of procedure was advantageous in making the interviewers more comfortable and familiar with the field work. Before going into the field for pretesting, the interviewers, including the research supervisor, conducted interviews among themselves. This gave a better sense of mission among the team members and more understanding about the way the interviewer should approach the respondents. Locating the Respondents Since there are no street numbers and no accurate addresses for the sample being drawn, the only way to locate the people included in the sample was through the meter readers who work for Riyadh City and Suburbs Electric Company. Those readers have to report for duty to the subscription department at their area headquarters each morning at about 6:30 a.m., when they receive their daily assignment and the defined areas where meter-reading and other related work is to be done. Each of the interviewers went to the department at that time to meet the meter readers who were assigned areas which included houses in the research sample. The interviewers then accompanied the meter-readers to these areas so that respondents' homes could be located. This was the only way respondents in the sample were located. 38 Since this locating process took place in the morning, and it was not always possible to interview the head of the household that early, the interviewer made note of the home's location and returned there to interview the respondent at a more convenient time, usually either after three o'clock in the afternoon, when workers returned from their jobs, or on weekends. Finding time for an interview and/or locating the respondent was a major problem. Sometimes this required more than 10 recalls to the respondent's home. After the interview was completed, the interviewer was required to review the questionnaire and to edit it as soon as possible, then give the finished work to the research director for review. If there was any missing or inconsistent information, the questionnaire was returned to the interviewer to make corrections or to re-contact the respondents if needed. Sampling Procedure The heads of households in Riyadh are the subjects to be interviewed. The following definitional considerations were applied: 1. Although all households drawn into the sample were be enumerated, and basic census information obtained, only the heads of Saudi households were interviewed at great length. 39 2. Institutional contacts were excluded from the sample (e.g., hospitals, soldiers' barracks, government buildings not used for residential purposes, company offices, and so on). 3. Where several single men resided in one household, one of them was asked to speak for them all (as the head of household). 4. In the case of a female head of household, which is exceedingly rare, she was interviewed as a head of household. There are only two of them: one is a widow who lives by herself; the other is divorced and lives with her daughter and her grandchildren. A representative sample is crucial for the study but is not easily obtained because Riyadh is a a newly developed Third World city where land use planning is minimal. In addition, until the first quarter of this century, Riyadh was a small town. Since the 19303, oil revenues have spurred the growth of this city, so most physical development took place in the traditional phase. But due to increased oil production, which generates more income, some endeavors have been made to develop a base for a well-planned contemporary city. These endeavors have not been entirely: successful because the traditional phase of Riyadh still exists along with a more modernized one. As a result of this setting, there is no way to obtain a sampling list. 40 Also there are no street numbers where the household location can be easily reached. To obtain a good representative sample from Riyadh households, the researcher resorted to working with the Riyadh City and Suburbs Electric Company. This procedure is believed to be more accurate than any other available at the present time. Some reasons for this belief are: a) Since the economic boom in the early 19703, the government has concentrated on and emphasized the infrastructure: it requires the Riyadh City Electrical Company to supply each home in Riyadh with electricity. Electrical service was extended to reach even small villages in remote areas during this boom era. b) Electricity is offered at an affordable price. The price of electricity for the normal subscriber is about 1.9 cents per kilowatt-hour. No one uses the traditional ways instead of electricity, except in some very newly developed areas still under construction and not yet fully inhabited. Hence it can be said that electrical service covers all of Riyadh and extends beyond its boundaries into neighboring villages. So using Riyadh Electrical Company facilities to draw a representative sample is the most reliable method known to the researcher. The following is a description of how the company arranges the city's subscribers. 41 Riyadh City and Suburbs Electrical Company arranges its subscribers by dividing the city into four major districts: North, East, South, and Khuras. Each of these four districts is divided into sub-districts or areas. Each sub-area is divided into lists [Kushef]. Each list includes from 1-99 subscribers and is likely to be one or two blocks. Each subscriber file has a seven—digit number arranged in the computer system. This number is read from left to right and divided into three segments. The first three digits are the sub-area number, the second two digits are the Kushef number, and the third two digits are the subscriber number. For example, if the code number is 1451917, 145 is the sub-area number, 19 is the Kushef number, and 17 is the subscriber number. The sub-area number can be created when there is a need for it and it is not in serial order, but the number itself cannot be repeated. So number 625, for example, can be assigned to an area in Khuras district, number 626 can be in the North district, 627 can be assigned to Khuras, and so on. Each sub-area has from 1 to 99 Kushefs, and each Kushef has from 1 to 99 subscribers. It should be mentioned that some sub-areas have a very small number of subscribers and some sub-areas have a large number of subscribers: it depends on the concentration of inhabitants in such sub-areas. Hence 42 Riyadh Electrical Company arranges the entire city as follows: Districts [only four major districts: North, East, South and Khuras]; Sub-areas [designated by three digits and created when needed to unlimited number]: Kushefs [can only be two digits from 01—99]: Subscribers [can only be two digits from 01—99]. So the company arranges its subscribers starting in the North district all the way through the last subscriber in that district. The East district is next on the list and it continues to the last East district subscriber. Third comes the South district, and it is continued until the last subscriber. Finally comes the Khuras subscribers until the last one. This sequence arrangement, even though it appears to be similar to taking a serial number, is affected by daily activities. It is affected by daily subscribers and by those who are disconnectad. For example, when a new subscriber has his meter connected in any district, his file will affect those who come after him on the file arrangement on the computer. That means if subscriber "A" is connected and he is in the North district, sub-area No. 140, Kushef No. 10, and his number in the Kushef is 5, then all subscribers numbered 6 and greater in Kushef 10, Sub-area 140, North district and all district subscribers to come after would have to move backward or forward one number when one subscriber 43 is added or disconnected. Hence the randomness of the subscribers is achieved almost daily. The distribution of Riyadh City and Suburbs Electric Company's total customers on October 28, 1986 is shown in Table 2.1. Table 2.1 consists of all areas covered by company services, including some neighboring villages. Two of those villages have been absorbed by the extension ofthe city limits: the others are outside the city limits by 30 miles or more. Table 2.1--A11 customers of Riyadh on computer file by use type on October 28, 1986 District (Number of Hookups in District) Use North East South Khuras Total Commercial 978 3093 3170 1371 8612 Residential 71523 74896 128977 53614 329010 Industrial 11 383 17 1 412 Agricultural 90 8 15 - 113 V.I.P.'s* 666 62 201 38 967 Government Buildings 4487 1754 1664 842 8747 Mosques 301 311 770 221 1603 Others 143 139 153 62 497 Total hookups 78199 80646 134967 56149 349961 *Very Important Persons [Royal family] 44 Selecting the Sample Table 2.1 shows that the total number of meter hookups is 349,961. This number includes all types of subscribers. Those designated as commercial or government buildings were excluded from the sample. The sample which remained consisted of 332,602 subscribers (hookups). Those designated as industrial, agricultural, other use, or mosque were included under the assumption that buildings might have either some families of farmers, workers or janitors who might reside there. Also this number (332,602) is not all designated to households. Some of them are commercial, especially small shops, offices, staircases, gardens, and so on. The number of such meters cannot be figured beforehand. The applicants of electricity do not apply for such places as it is but apply for them as residential. Some of the applicants have attached small units to their houses and after a period of time they rent these units as small groceries, shops, real estate offices, small coffee shops, etc. This presents a problem because it is hard to predict the size of the sample required for this study. The best way to solve this problem is to draw two samples simultaneously. The estimation of a satisfactory sample was in the range of 500 heads of household. To get such a number the researcher divided the 332,602 meter hookups or 45 files by 655. Then household meter number 600 was chosen randomly as a starting point. Each household chosen was 655 files from the last chosen, all the way to the end of the files. The number of units chosen was 507. A subsample was chosen starting from household meter number 71 and each 655th household after that was chosen and so on until the end. The number of units chosen was 508. The subsample was chosen to substitute for those meters hookups which were designated as non-residential, vacant, not at home, or refusals in the original sample. From the sample list, two kinds of meter hookups were excluded. One was those meters which exist only theoretically and not practically. That means that in the past some subscribers disconnected their meter hookups without contacting the company, and those meters were not returned to the company. Those subscribers still owe the company some money, since they did not pay their bills. After such disconnections the company lost track of those old subscribers. As a result, the company did not close their files, but kept them open until their bills were paid. The second kind was those meter hookups which supply some villages located about 30 miles from the city of Riyadh and are not included in the sample. There were 9 meters altogether of the two kinds: six of the first type, located in old districts, East and South, and three from the second type. 46 The study was conducted from the first list, which was reduced by the 9 mentioned above and became 498 instead of 507. Interviews were conducted using this first sample list. The result was 331 completed questionnaires and 167 uncompleted questionnaires. The uncompleted ones included vacancies, non-residential, refusal and so on. Uncompleted questionnaires from this first list were substituted with questionnaires from the second sample list: each uncompleted questionnaire in the first list is substituted by choosing from the second sample list the unit with the same serial number. For example, if the uncompleted questionnaire on the first list is number 10, it must be substituted by number 10 from the second list, and so on. This must be in the same district. Also it is more likely to be in the same sub-area. But sometimes when the number of subscribers in a sub-area is small, it cannot be in the same sub-area but is in some other sub-area within the same district. The result of the second sample list is 104 completed questionnaires and 63 uncompleted. Field Schedule and Response Rates Field work was conducted between November 13, 1986 and June 7, 1987. It took a long time because the city is big and there are great distances between the various respondents' residences. A convenient time for the respondents was often an obstacle to finishing the 47 interviews early. A summary of the field work is presented in Table 2.2. Table 2.2--Sample classification and outcome of field contacts. Classification Number Saudi households [completed] 270 Non-Saudi households [completed] 165 Non-Saudi households [not completed] 0 Saudi refusals [not completed] 9 Saudis, not at home [not completed] 5 Non-residential units 99 vacant units 116 Total Places Contacted 664 (meter hookups located) The total number of households in this survey was 449. Among those households, 165 were non-Saudi: Saudi households totaled 284 (about 63 percent). About 95 percent of the designated Saudi heads of household were interviewed: 3 percent refused: and about 2 percent were unable to be contacted after repeated call-backs. It was estimated that a good response rate would be difficult to obtain. But field work shows the Opposite. There were only 9 refusals and 5 not available, all of them Saudis. The total was 14, as shown in Table 2.2, or 3.2 percent of all completed 48 interviews, or about 5 percent of Saudis. Respondents were very cooperative, helpful, and even enthusiastic. Many were very hospitable. Indeed, according to our records, about 34.5 percent of the respondents insisted on offering the interviewer something to drink or eat. Some insisted on setting a time for dinner that would be convenient. Sampling Problems There were three problems encountered in selecting the sample for this study: 1. Nonresidential buildings or units. A problem results when some units are used for different purposes other than what was specified in the original electricity application. For example, someone applied for electricity for his building for residential units. Then one of the apartments or units was used as an office. Some owners apply for more than one meter for a house, so there is one meter for the house, another for the garden, and so on. Hence the company does not classify every meter hookup accurately. Although some of these extra hookups are correctly classified, most are classified as residential. Therefore, when such cases were encountered during the field work they were recorded as they were and a substitution was made from the substitute list. 49 2. A second problem was multidwelling units where more than one unit share one meter. This problem was expected in the past but generally is not expected now. Most homes sharing one meter now have been disconnected and each home has its own meter. But some homes still share one meter. The procedure adopted to address this problem is P.G. Gray and T. Corlett's (1950:143-175) procedure, which is also supported by C.A. Moser (1969:123-124). In this situation, where two households get their electricity from one meter, and this meter is on the sample list, then both heads of household should be interviewed. The next household on the list is then skipped. If three homes are sharing one meter, all of them are interviewed and the next two households on the list are skipped. If there are more than three units per meter, three would be chosen randomly and the next two households are skipped (Gray and Corlett 1950: 143-175: Moser 1969:123-124). The total number of meter hookups which supplied more than one unit were limited to just 8, or 1.2 percent of the total sample and 1.84 percent of the completed interviews. 3. A third problem was when there was more than one meter hookup in one home. This situation exists among all sort of homes. The reason for this situation is that, first, some of these houses are castles where royalty live and one meter is not enough: there were 50 only five such dwellings. Some are houses with two stories. These stories are designated as one apartment each with separate meter hookups each. These are designed for several purposes. Some are designed as upper-level rental units to generate income. Some are designed for relatives, such as a married son or daughter, so they can be nearby. Some people who have very small sites to build a home build two apartments, one over the other, for the purposes explained above. But with the decline in the rent they generate, most of these extra units are vacant. As a result, these units are used by the owners for extra rooms rather than left as vacant rental units. Such units account for 52 cases. This situation does not threaten the randomness of the sample because it is not characteristic of any particular segment of the society. But it does affect the calculation of the city's population [census]. Statistical Analysis After the data were collected they were coded. The two interviewers who participated in data collection and who had just received their bachelor's degrees in sociology were trained to code. After a sufficient practice period, these two persons and the researcher coded the data. Then some statistical analyses were performed. First, cross-tabulation was implemented to measure the association between some of the variables 51 under investigation, such as the association between income and level of education, level of education and work status, age and income, place of origin and income, and income and home ownership. Correlation coefficients and regression analysis were used to measure the effect of level of education and age on income among early migrants, recent migrants, and non-migrants to determine whether there were any differences between these three groups, especially regarding income, and whether these differences are due to education or age. The level of significance used in this study is .05. CHAPTER III HOUSEHOLDS IN RIYADH This chapter deals with the structure of Saudi households in Riyadh. It is an overview of all heads of households in this city. Some characteristics about the heads of households, sudh as sex, age position, marital status, stage in family life cycle, and household composition will be discussed. Also, heads of households' living parents and parents-in-law and their place of residence and the distance to it will be examined. The socioeconomic situation of city households will be investigated in terms of educational achievement and occupational achievement. This discussion also will include housing type, and home ownership. It is worthwhile to give an idea about these heads of household in Riyadh and where they originally came from. All of these considerations will be discussed in the following sections. Household Heads Sampled Saudi heads of household are predominantly male, by operational as well as cultural definition. Table 3.1 summarizes the distribution of heads of household by 52 53 Table 3.1--Sex and age position of head of household Sex Frequency Percent* Oldest male 248 91.9 Younger male 15 5.6 Female, no male in household 2 0.7 One of the roommates 5 1.9 Total 270 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. sex and age position for the research sample. Of those interviewed, 91.9 percent (248) are the oldest male head of household, while 5.6 percent (15) are the younger male head of household living with some older male in the same household. These younger males are mainly heads of household, although there are a few of them (between two to four persons) who responded instead of the head of household, when the head of household was unavailable, or when the head of household wanted a younger brother or son to answer the questions for him. Those who live with a roommate or a female with no male (which is rare among Saudi peOple) in the household number 1.9 percent (5) and 0.7 percent (2 cases), respectively. 54 Marital Status of Heads of Household Most Saudi heads of Immsehold in the sample were married at the time this study was conducted. Table 3.2 indicates the marital status of these heads of household. The majority, 89.6 percent, are married. There are 24 (8.9 percent) individuals who were never married. Only 2 cases each of Saudis who were divorced or widowed fell into this sample. Of the total number of heads of household, 241 had children. Clearly, children are an important part of most Saudi families. Indeed, children are probably more important in a Saudi couple's life than just about anything else. There is social pressure for a couple to have children: a couple's parents and other relatives are always questioning why young couples do not have children soon after marriage. Table 3.2--Head of household marital status k 4 Marital Status Number Percent* Never married 24 8.9 Divorced 2 0.7 Widowed 2 O. 7 Married 242 89.6 Total 270 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 55 Stages in Family Life Cycle This section will focus on stages in family life cycle. The age of the head of household and his spouse will be discussed, as will the age of the youngest child and the age of the oldest child. Age of Head of Household The majority of Saudi heads of household in the sample can be categorized as middle-aged. As shown in Table 3.3, 54.8 percent were between 31 and 50 years ohi. Only 18.9 percent were over 50 years of age. At the same time, there are 26.3 percent (71 cases) who were under 31 years of age: and all but one of these were between 22 and 30 years old. Table 3.3--Age of head of household Age Number Percentage* From 18 - 30 years 71 26.3 From 31 - 40 years 77 28.5 From 41 - 50 years 71 26.3 From 51 - 60 years 37 13.7 61 years or more 14 5.2 Total 270 100.0 Median = 39.25 years Mean 8 40.1 years *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 56 In the past, Saudis of both sexes married at an early age. But in recent times there have been some changes for Saudi couples. Boys as well as girls delay their marriages. Everyone wants to finish school. Boys, and girls to some extent, want to secure their future with a suitable job before establishing a family. Support from parents for married boys still exists but it is not favored either by the couples or by the wife's parents. This may establish the husband's parents' influence on the newly married couple. A small number of married males still live with their parents. Age of Head of Household's Wife Wives are young compared with their husbands. As shown in Tables 3.3 and 3.4, the median age of the wife is 30.4 years, compared to the husband's median age of 39.3 years. The average age of the wife is 32.4 years, compared to 40.1 years for the husband. Age of Youngest Child of Heads of Household Children are valuable for Saudi parents. A high proportion of the married couples in the sample have a child one year old or younger. This is also an indication of the high~ birth rate among Saudis. Table 3.5 shows that 46.7 percent (100) of heads of household have a youngest child one year old or under: 18.2 percent (39) have a youngest child between 1 and 2 years old. A130, 8.4 percent (18) have a youngest child Table 3.4—-Age of head of household's wife 57 Age Number Percentage* From 16 - 20 years 22 9.2 From 21 - 30 years 99 41.4 From 31 - 40 years 71 29.7 From 41 - 50 years 39 16.3 51 years or more 8 3.3 Total 239 100.0 Median = 30.37 years Mean = 32.43 years *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Table 3.5-2Age of head of household's youngest child Age Number Percentage* One year or less 100 46.7 From 1 - 2 years 39 18.2 From 2 - 3 years 18 8.4 From 3 - less than 6 years 16 7.5 From 6 to less than 13 years 27 12.6 From 13 to less than 19 years 9 4.2 More than 19 years 5 2.3 Total 214 100.0 * Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 58 between 2 and 3 years of age. Those who had a youngest child of 4 to 5 years of age totaled 7.5 percent (16), and those heads of household with a youngest child aged from 6 through 12 years are 12.6 percent (27). Only 6.5 percent (14) had a youngest child 13 years of age or older. Age of Oldest Child of Heads of Household Table 3.6 shows the age of the head of household's oldest child. Among heads of household with children, 22.9 percent (54) had an cfldest child under the age of six, while those who had an oldest child between 6 and 18 years of age are 38.7 percent (91). People with an oldest child between 18 and 23 years of age are 14.8 percent (35). Those with an oldest child between 23 and 31 years of age are 18.6 percent (44), and only 5.1 percent (12) had an oldest child 31 years old or more. Table 3.6-~Age of head of household's oldest child Age Number Percentage* Less than 6 years 54 22.9 6 to less than 18 91 38.7 18 to less than 23 35 14.8 23 to less than 31 44 18.6 31 or more 12 5.1 Total 236 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 59 Household Composition and Related Aspects In this section, household composition and family size will be discussed. The number of children at home and other kin who live within the same home will be examined. Saudi Household Composition The Saudi household composition is most likely to be a nuclear family. Table 3.7 shows the structure of Saudi households. Saudi families in Riyadh are more likeLy to contain parents and their unmarried children: the simple nuclear family accounted for 64.3 percent (173) of Saudi households. Among those families, 114 are nuclear families with dependent children and only 59 are families with adult children 18 years of age and older. Extended families were 12.6 percent or 34 cases. Joint families and complex families each are 7.4 percent (20). This suggests that many couples are starting to split from the extended family, which was the dominant characteristic of the Saudi family in the past. This trend may be accelerated by the economic boom experienced by the country in the 19703 and the presence of more educated wives, some of whom do not wish to live with the husbands' parents: the latter factor may not be as strong as the former. Also it is believed that more educated parents are more flexible in allowing their newly married sons to live their own lives. 60 Table 3.7--Household composition Type of Number of Household Households Percentage* Lone adult with or without children 18 6.7 Simple nuclear family, no adult children 114 42.4 Simple nuclear family with adult children 59 21.9 Extended family 34 12.6 Joint family 20 7.4 Complex family 20 7.4 Single male roommate 4 1.5 Total 269 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Number of People in Saudi Homes Regarding the number of people in Saudi homes in Riyadh, this study shows some numbers which are high for most households surveyed. Table 3.8 indicates that 2.6 percent of the households are occupied by a single person. Five percent of the households had 2 people per home: most of these households were probably newly married couples. There are 7.8 percent (21) with 3 pe0ple and 9.3 percent (25) with 4 people. The highest percentage was for homes with 5 people, which totaled 13.0 percent (35 cases) of all occupied homes. 61 Table 3.8--Number of family members per household* g Number per Number of household Households Percentage** 1 7 2.6 2 14 5.2 3 21 7.8 4 25 9.3 5 35 13.0 6 24 8.9 7 21 7.8 8 27 10.0 9 20 7.4 10 29 10.7 11 10 3.7 12 15 5 6 13 12 4.4 14 4 1.5 15 4 1.5 16 1 0.4 24 l 0.4 Total 270 100.0 *does not include servants: the average size of a household is 7.23 persons **Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. The number of people in each household fluctuated. The majority of Saudi households sampled have between 5 and 10 people per household. There are 57.8 percent (156) of the households of the Saudi households surveyed in Riyadh in this category. There were 24.8 percent (67) of households having 4 people or fewer per home: households where there were 11 or more peOple accounted for 17.4 percent (47 cases). Finally, the average number of Saudi people per household was 7.23. This number is in contradiction with Doxiadis Associates' estimate that the average 62 Saudi family size in 1968 was 5.4 persons, and that by the year 2000 it would drop to 4.5 persons (Doxiadis Associates 1971:43). Kin Members at Home Table 3.9 shows that of 71 households which contain one or more kin members, there are 35 homes which have at least one brother of the head of household: this number equals 49.3 percent of the households with kin members. In contrast, only 19 sisters lived with their brothers. Also, 64.8 percent (46) of mothers of household heads lived in such a household. This finding shows how much women depend upon their sons in their later life. There were only 9 cases where the father of the head of household lived with their sons, which indicates that men are more able to continue to support themselves even in old age than are women. When in-laws are considered, only 8 cases had an in-law present: 7.0 percent or 5 households had one or both parents-in-law living there, two households had sisters-in-law present, and only one had a brother-in-law in residence. This gives an indication that relatives in extended family units are more likely to be related to and dependent upon a male household head rather than upon their female relatives. 63 Table 3.9--Other kin (net conjugal family) in household by relationship to head of household* Kin member's relation Number Percentage** Brother 35 49.3 Sister 19 26.8 Father 9 12.7 Mother 46 64.8 Parent—in—law(s) 5 7.0 Brother-in-law l 1.4 Sister-in-law 2 2.8 *Some households had more than one other kin member. Number of Children at Home, by Gender Saudi households are characterized by the presence of many children of both sexes. Tables 3.10 and 3.11 give some information and percentages about male and female children at home for each head of household. Table 3.10 shows that of the 213 heads of household having a male child at home, 25.8 percent (55) had one male child: 26.3 percent (56) had two male children at home. Homes with 3 and 4 male children at home are 15 percent (32) each. Also, there were 11.3 percent (24) where there are five male children at home and 6.6 percent (14) where there were six male children or more. For those households with male children at home, 64 Table 3.10-—Number of male children at home Number of Number of Male Children Households Percentage* 1 55 25.8 2 56 26.3 3 32 15.0 4 32 15.0 5 24 11.3 6 or more 14 6.6 Total 213 100.0 Average number of male children at home for those who have ever been married = 2.46. *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Table 3.11--NUmber of female children at home Number of Number of Female Children Households Percentage* l 51 24.9 2 51 24.9 3 55 26.8 4 27 13.2 5 12 5.9 6 or more 9 4.4 Total 205 100.0 Average number of female children at home for those who have ever been married = 2.23. *Rounded to nearest one—tenth of one percent. 65 the average number is 2.84 male children. The average for heads of household who have ever been married is 2.46. For female children at home per household, Table 3.11 shows that 205 households have female children. Those who have one or two female children at home account for 24.9 percent (51) each. Those with 3 female children account for 26.8 percent (55) cases. Heads of household who had 4 female children numbered 13.2 percent (27) and those with 5 female children numbered 5.9 percent (12). Only 4.4 percent of the heads of household (9) had 6 or more female children at home. The average number of female children at home, for those heads of household who had at least one female child at home, is 2.67. The average number of female children at home for heads of household who have ever been married is 2.23. Taking into consideration both sexes, the average number of children at home per head of household is 4.68. There is a factor which probably should be considered in counting males and females in each household. When the boy gets married, he does not move to his parents-in-law home. Rather, the couple moves to their own home or with the husband' 3 parents. 66 Hou3ehold Composition by Marital Status Among heads of household who were married, as shown in Table 3.12, 71.4 percent are living in nuclear family households. Those who lived in extended household families accounted for 14.1 percent: joint families and complex families were 10.8 and 3.7 percent, respectively. But the majority (75.9 percent) of heads of household who are not nerried or are divorced either live alone or with a roommate. This means that the dominant Saudi household composition is shifting from extended and other complex forms to nuclear family compositions. This is due to the expansion of the economic situation since the early 19703 as well as other changes which took place accordingly. This finding is somewhat similar to the SCET International/ Sedes survey, which shows that about two-thirds of the households are nuclear households (SCET International/ Sedes l979:iv). Household Composition by Presence of Children Most Saudi households have children, as shown in Table 3.13. Some of those with children might not have the children living with them. All but five of the nuclear family households have children. Those who do not have children either are newly married or are an infertile couple. Infertile couples in Saudi Arabia, as 67 Table 3.12--Household composition, by marital status Marital Status of Household Head Household Composition % Single % Married Loner 75.9 - Nuclear*** 3.4* 71.4 Extended - 14.1 Joint 10.3** 10.8 Complex 10.3 3.7 Total % 100.0 100.0 N = (29) (241) Percentages rounded to nearest oneetenth of one percent. *This person is head of household but both his parents live with him and he is not married. **Some loners' brothers may live as a roommate, or head of household is not married or divorced and his married brothers live with him. ***Nuclear family with and without adult children has been collapsed with nuclear family. well as in other Third World countries, suffer from pressures put upon them from relatives and community members. It is a two-sided problem for the couple. If the wife is infertile, the husband can get married to another wife, under the excuse of having children, which is acceptable in Saudi Arabia and some other Islamic countries. But if the husband is infertile, the wife can either accept the situation as it is or seek divorce and remarry. 68 Table 3.13--Household composition, by presence of children Have Children Household Composition % Yes % No Loner 1.2 65.5 Nuclear* 69.7 17.2 Extended, Joint, and Complex 29.0 17.2 Total % 100.0 100.0 N = (241) (29) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Nuclear family with and without adult children has been collapsed together. Household Composition by Age of Youngest Child Most Saudi families have a child under 5 years of age. For 80.8 percent of all heads of household surveyed, with at least two children at home, the youngest child was under 5 years of age, as shown in Table 3.14. When there is only one child, it is then considered to be the oldest child. Many Saudi families have young children. It is believed that this phenom- enon is due to two reasons. One is that children are still valued by parents: more so for older parents. The other reason is that some of the older husbands tend to have married more than one wife. They are also more 69 Table 3.14—-Household composition, by age of youngest child Household Composition Age of youngest child* % NUclear** % All Other*** Up to 5 years 82.7 76.6 6 years and over 17.3 23.4 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (150) (64) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *There must be more than one child the head of household has, but if there is only one it is considered the older child. **Both nuclear family types have been collapsed together. ***This type includes extended, joint and complex family types. likely to marry younger wives and continue to have continue to have children at late ages. It should be kept in mind that there are some differences in the percentages between nuclear families and non-nuclear families regarding the youngest child's age, but the difference is not large. For nuclear families, 82.7 percent have a youngest child under 5 years of age, whereas 76.6 percent of the non-nuclear families have a youngest child 5 years of age. 70 Household Composition by Age of Oldest Child As was the case for the youngest child of the head of household, there are many having children under the age of 12 as the oldest child, as shown in Table 3.15. So it is not surprising to find many having children aged 5 or under, even the older heads of household. This is because Saudi husbands are still getting married at older ages to younger wives and then having children. The heads of nuclear families with an oldest child of 11 years and under accounted for 41.6 percent, while those with an oldest child of 12 years or more accounted for 58.4 percent. Extended, joint, and complex families who had an oldest child of 11 years or less accounted for 38.6 percent, and those with an oldest child of 12 years or more accounted for 61.4 percent. This situation is prevalent in most Third World countries. Household gomposition by Number of PeOple at Home Saudi family size generally is large. From Table 3.16, which shows family size according to type of household, it can be seen that almost all loner families live in households where the family size is seven persons per household or less. But nuclear families which have seven peOple or less per household were 60.1 percent of total nuclear families. Nuclear families of 8 persons per household or more accounted for 39.9 71 Table 3.15--Household composition, by age of oldest child Household Composition Age of oldest child** % Nuclear* % All Other YOung - Up to 5 years 22.3 24.3 Middle - 6-11 years 19.3 14.3 Adolescent — 12-20 yrs 30.1 28.6 Older - 21 and over 28.3 32.9 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (166) (70) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Includes both types of nuclear families [with and without adult children] and only two loners. **If there is only one child it is counted as the oldest child and not the youngest child. Table 3.16--Household composition, by number of people who live in household Household Composition % Nuclear [with Household % and without % % % Size Loners adult child] Extended Joint Complex Small, 1-4 77.3 24.9 2.9 13.8 16.7 Middle, 5-7 18.2 35.3 11.8 31.0 16.7 large, 8-10 4.5 28.9 47.1 24.1 16.7 very Large, Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (22) (173) (34) (29) (12) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 72 percent. All other types of family composition [extended, joint, complex] who have seven or less persons per household were 29.3 percent of these types, while those who have 8 people or more per household were 70.7 percent. Regarding all household compositions, small households accounted for 24.8 percent: middle-size families, 29.6 percent: large families, 28.2 percent: and very large families, 17.4 percent of total households. This is not surprising because the average Saudi family size is 7.23 persons. . Household Composition by Age of Head of Household Table 3.17 shows that the majority of heads of household of Riyadh are middle-age and older. This pertains to all types of household. Analyzing household composition by age reveals that most non-loners are middle-aged or older, but the majority of loners are younger. Young loner-type heads of household accounted for 72.7 percent of the loner type: nuclear families with a young head of household accounted for only 22.0 percent of nuclear family type. Those nuclear families headed by a middle-age person totaled 30.1 percent and those headed by an old person totaled 48. 0 percent. Other types of households are as follows: a) among extended families, 14.7 percent are younger and the same are middle age, 70.6 percent of them are considered old: b) for joint families, 31.0 percent are young, 44.8 73 Table 3.17-—Household composition, by age of head of household Household Composition Age of % Nuclear [with Head of % and without % % % Household Loners adult child] Extended Joint Complex YOung, up to 30 72.7 22.0 14.7 31.0 25.0 Middle Age, 31-40 22.7 30.1 14.7 44.8 16.7 Old, 41 or older 4.6 48.0 70.6 24.1 58.3 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (22) (173) (34) (29) (12) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. percent are middle age, and 24.1 percent are old: and c) for complex families, there are only 12 cases, most (58.3 percent) are old. It is clear that the highest percentage of loner heads of household are young (72.7 percent). But the majority (70.6 percent) of heads of household of extended families are old. Household Composition by Age of Spouse By analyzing the age of spouse according to household composition, it is found that the majority of spouses of nuclear families are under 31 years of age. Table 3.18 shows that 53.8 percent of the nuclear 74 Table 3.18--Household composition, by age of spouse Household Composition % Nuclear [with Age of and without % % % Spouse adult child] Extended Joint Complex YOung, up to 30 53.8 27.3 63.0 37.5 Middle Age, 31-40 29.2 36.4 22.2 37.5 Old, 41 or older 17.0 36.4 14.8 25.0 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (171) (33) (27) (8) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. families have a wife 30 years of age or less: 29.2 percent have a middle-aged spouse of 31-40 years: and only 17 percent had a spouse 41 years of age and older. The majority of wives of heads of household of joint families tend to be younger: 63 percent of them are 30 years or younger. In contrast, the age of wives of heads of household of extended and complex families tend to be 30 years or older. But a considerable proportion of them are younger than 31 years old. It should be noted again that young Saudi females may get married to older men. The average age of Saudi wives is 32.4 years, compared to the husband's average age of 40.1 years. This is not surprising for Saudi society, as well as some other Third World countries. 75 Other Kinship in Household by Household Composition Regarding other kinship members who lived with heads of household, there were not many. The majority are nuclear families with only a wife and children at home. Of the loners' households, 45.5 percent had mothers at home. Also, 41.2 percent of the extended families had mothers at home: 31 percent of the joint families had mothers at home: and 50 percent of the complex families had mothers at home. Only 7 households reported having both parents at home, and only two households had just the father at home. There were only 5 who had parents-in-law, and only 3 reported having a sibling-in—law. Those heads of household who had brothers at home accounted for 31.8 percent of loner households: 27.3 percent also had sisters at home. Those heads of joint families who had brothers at home totaled 65.5 percent, and those who had sisters at home totaled 31 percent. There are not that many kinship members in Riyadh households. The relatives most likely to be with their children are the mothers, because when they are separated or widowed, they have no means to support themselves other than to move in with their sons . 76 Heads of Household Parents and Parents-in-Law Parents are very important in Saudi social life. The number of parents who are still alive will be discussed, as well as where they reside and the distance to that residence. Table 3.19 shows how many heads of household have parents living. It shows that 29.3 percent (79) of heads of household had both parents still living, although this does not imply that both parents still lived together since some were divorced or separated. Those heads of household whose mother was the only surviving parent totaled 25.9 percent (70), and those whose father was the only surviving parent totaled 8.5 percent (23). From this table it is also clear that the number of heads of household having living mothers exceeds the number having fathers living. This is similar with the international phenomenon that women live longer than men. Those heads of household having both parents deceased totaled 36.3 percent (98). Regarding parental place of residence, it is clear from Table 3.20 that the majority of the heads of household's parents live in Riyadh either in the same house 'or same neighborhood, or at least in Riyadh. Those who have both parents living in their home totaled 11.3 percent (8) of those whose parents lived together. But those whose mother only lived with them accounted 77 Table 3.19--Surviving parents of head of household Number of Parents living Households Percentage Both parents living 79 29.3 Only mother living (father deceased) 70 25.9 Only father living (mother deceased) 23 8.5 Both parents deceased 98 36.3 Total 270 100.0 Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. for 54.5 percent (42), whose mother was either widowed or separated. Again this gives the indication that the mother is more likely to live with her sons as an Arabian culture characteristic. This is especially indicative when this high percentage is compared with the number of fathers who live with their sons: there were only 7.9 percent (3) such cases, where the father did not live with their son's mother. Those parents who lived in the same neighborhood in Riyadh totaled 7.0 percent (5) for both parents, 6.5 percent (5) for mothers only, and 13.2 percent (5) for fathers only. Those parents who live in different neighborhoods in Riyadh totaled 19.7 percent (14) for both parents, 20.8 percent (16) for mothers only, and 36.8 percent (14) for fathers only. The majority of both parents living 78 Table 3.20—-Head of household's living parents' residential place % Both % Mother % Father Place of Residence Parents Only* Only** Same home as head of household 11.3 54.5 7.9 Same neighborhood in Riyadh 7.0 6.5 13.2 Different neighbor- hood in Riyadh 19.7 20.8 36.8 City other than Riyadh 5.6 3.9 0 Town 23.9 10.4 21.1 Village 25.4 3.9 15.8 Desert 7.0 0 2.6 Outside Saudi Arabia 0 0 2.6 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (71) (77) (38) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. * This is the number who do not live with the head of household's father: either widowed or with other husband or separated, but the majority are widowed. ** This is the number who do not live with the head of household's mother: either widowed or with other wife or separated, but the majority are widowed. 79 together are living either in town (23.9 percent, or 17) or villages (25.4 percent, or 18); only 7.1 percent (5) lived in the desert. That means that 57.1 percent (40) of both parents are in towns or rural areas. This is the opposite of living mothers only or fathers only where the majority are living in Riyadh either with the head of household, in the same neighborhood or in a different neighborhood in Riyadh. This is also a strong indication of the coherence of Saudi families. Regarding distance of parents from the head of household, most parents of heads of household generally live in Riyadh. Table 3.21 shows that both parents who are living with each other in Riyadh totaled 36.5 percent (27); the remainder, 63.5 percent (47), are living outside Riyadh. This is not the case for mothers or fathers who do not live with each other, either widowed or separated for one reason or another. For mothers, 80.8 percent are living in Riyadh, and 53.8 percent of the total mothers are living with the heads of household. For fathers, 51.4 percent of them are living in Riyadh, but they do not tend to live with the heads of household as was the case for mothers. There are more wives' parents living than husbands' parents, which is to be expected since wives tend to be younger than husbands. Table 3.22 shows that for 43.3 percent (117) of heads of household, both parents-in-law are living. Those whose father-in-law 80 Table 3.21--Distance to living parents' residence in miles % Both % Mother % Father Distance Parents Only Only Same home as head of household 10.8 53.8 2.7 Same neighborhood in Riyadh 6.8 6.4 10.8 In Riyadh 18.9 20.5 37.8 from 30-100 miles 5.4 2.6 0 from 101-200 miles 2.7 1.3 10.8 from 201-500 miles 18.9 2.6 18.9 from 501-800 miles 20.3 9.0 5.4 from 801-1100 miles 13.5 1.3 8.1 more than 1101 miles 2.7 2.6 5.4 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (74) (78) (37) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Table 3.22--Surviving parents-in—law of head of household Number of Parents-in-law living Households Percentage* Never married 23 8.5 Both parents-in—law living 117 43.3 Only father-in-law living 21 7.8 Only mother-in-law living 57 21.1 Both parents-in-law deceased 52 19.3 '—— Total , 270 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 81 only is living totaled 7.8 percent (21) while those whose mother-in-law only is living totaled 21.1 percent (57). In 19.3 percent (52) of cases both parents-in-law are deceased. Comparing Tables 3.19 and 3.22 it can be seen that more parents-in-law are living than parents of household heads; 79 heads of household have both parents living compared to 117 who have both parents-in-law living. It can also be seen that there are more mothers living than fathers. .6 It is believed that this is due to the fact that wives are younger than their husbands and that women generally live longer than men. With regard to the place of residence of parents- in-law, about half of parent couples living together are residing in Riyadh. As shown in Table 3.23, 50.5 percent (54) are living in deadh, whereas 43.9 percent (47) live in either towns or villages. For mothers-in- law who do not live with fathers-in-law, there are 71 cases. Among them, 47.9 percent (34) live in Riyadh; 33.8 percent (24) live either in towns or villages. Fathers-in-law who are not living with mothers—in-law totaled only 30 cases. Among them, 36.7 percent (11) live in Riyadh and 46.7 percent (14) live either in towns or villages. Most parents-in-law either live in Riyadh or more than 500 miles away from Riyadh, but a few live just a short distance from the city. Table 3.24 shows that the 82 Table 3.23--Head of household's living parents-in-law's place of residence . % Both % Mother % Father Place of Residence Parents Only* Only** Same home as head of household 1.9 5.6 3.3 Same neighborhood in Riyadh 6.5 5.6 0 Different neighbor- hood in Riyadh 42.1 36.6 33.3 City other than Riyadh 2.8 12.7 10.0 Town 29.9 22.5 30.0 Village 14.0 11.3 16.7 Desert 1.9 2.8 3.3 Outside Saudi Arabia 0.9 2.8 3.3 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (107) (71) (30) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Mothers who do not live with head of household's mother-in-law **Fathers who do not live with head of household's mother-in-law majority of parents-in-law who live in Riyadh are not in the same household or neighborhood as the head of household they are related to. Both parents-in-law who live in different neighborhoods totaled 40.4 percent (46), compared to 1.8 percent (2) and 7.0 percent (8) of those who live in the same household or same neighborhood, respectively, as the head of household. Table 3.24--Distance to head of household's living parents-in-law's place of residence, in miles % Both % Mother % Father Distance Parents Only Only Same home as head of household 1.8 4.2 0 Same neighborhood in Riyadh 7.0 5.6 0 In Riyadh 40.4 36.1 32.4 from 30-100 miles 6.1 4.2 0 from 201-500 miles 13.2 9.7 2.7 from 501-800 miles 7.0 11.1 20.6 from 801-1100 miles 11.4 9.7 11.1 more than 1101 miles 9.6 9.7 14.7 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (114) (72) (34) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Of the mothers-in-law who live in Riyadh but not with fathers-in-law, 36.1 percent (26) are living in different neighborhoods. Those who live either in the same home as the head of household or nearby totaled only 4.2 percent (3) and 5.6 percent (4), respectively. For fathers-in-law only who do not live with mothers-in— law, there were 32.4 percent (11) who lived in different neighborhoods in the city and none lived either in the same household as the head of household or nearby. 84 Both parents-in—law who live in one household who live within 500 miles from Riyadh's city limits accounted for 22.8 percent (26). Those who lived more than 500 miles from Riyadh totaled 28.1 percent (32). Mothers-in-law only living within 500 miles of Riyadh were 23.6 percent (17). Those living more than 500 miles from Riyadh totaled 30.6 percent (22). Fathers- in-law only who lived within 500 miles of Riyadh were 11.8 percent (4). Those living more than 500 miles from Riyadh totaled 55.9 percent (19). Socioeconomic Situation The educational achievement of heads of household of Riyadh will be discussed next, as well as work status and level of income. Several aspects such as the effects of age, education, and work status on income will be examined. Also the relationship between income and home type and home ownership will be investigated. Table 3.25 displays the level of education of heads of household of Riyadh. It shows that about 19.7 percent (53) are illiterate, and 25.7 percent (69) have between a first-grade and sixth-grade education. The majority of them (69.7 percent) have a sixth-grade education. Those who have between a seventh-grade and ninth-grade education totaled 20.1 percent (54). Those with a tenth-grade through high school level education accounted for 13.8 percent. Finally, 20.8 percent (56) 85 Table 3.25--Years of education completed by head of household Number of Years Completed Number Percentage* Illiterate/no school 53 19.7 From 1st through 6th grade 69 25.7 From 7th through 9th grade 54 20.1 From 10th grade through high school 37 13.8 More than high school 56 20.8 Total 269 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. have an education level beyond the high school diploma. It should be mentioned that those who completed sixth, ninth, twelfth, and the bachelor's level are the highest numbers; 48 have a sixth grade degree, 27 have a ninth grade degree, 25 have a twelfth grade degree, and 23 have a bachelor's degree. The reason for this is believed to be because these degrees are more likely to be the levels of education which can be considered for certain types of employment or promotion. The grades in-between are less valuable for those who want to get a job or seek promotion. From Table 3.26 it can be seen that almost all Saudi heads of household surveyed work; only one was unemployed. There were only 5 who were retired and 5 who were students. Two were on welfare and two were 86 Table 3.26--Work status of head of household Work status Number Percentage* Government employee 175 64.8 Private sector employee 17 6.3 Self-employed 58 21.5 Non-governmental manual worker 5 1.9 Retired 5 1.9 On welfare 2 0.7 Student 5 1.9 Housewife 2 0.7 Unemployed l 0.4 Total 270 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. housewives. Of the 270 heads of household interviewed, 255 were working. The majority worked for the government, which accounted for 64.8 percent (175). There were 6.3 percent (17) who worked for the private sector and 21.5 percent (58) who were self-employed. Hence the total of those who were in the labor force accounted for 94.4 percent of the Saudi heads of household in Riyadh. These were mainly male; there are only two female heads of household in this study. This high employment rate is believed to be the result of the economic boom which the country has been experiencing since the early 19703. 87 Table 3.27 provides information on the type of residence of Saudi families in Riyadh. Of the interviewed sample, there were 1.9 percent (5) who lived in a castle: a majority--57.8 percent (156)--lived in villas: and 28.1 percent (76) lived in apartments. For apartments, it should be mentioned that some of these apartments are floors of villas, not apartments in big buildings. This type is dominant for Saudi families. They do not like to live in big buildings, especially those with large families. Some of them live near some relatives. Where they share one villa, each family lives independently on one of the Villa's floors. Those who live in concrete houses accounted for 9.6 percent (26). This kind of housing consists of small concrete houses on very small lots, most likely to be between 150 and 200 square meters. There are no back or front yards for such houses. Those who lived in typical Saudi houses built of mud with a wood roof accounted for only 6 cases, or 2.2 percent. At this point it should be explained that in the middle of this century, over 90 percent of Saudi homes were built in this way. But a modernization of housing type has since occurred. Living in villas and modern homes is one of the characteristics of the 19703 and 19805. The Saudi government initiated the Saudi Real Estate Development Fund in 1974. When Saudis want to build a house, they get a loan from the government through this institution. 88 Table 3.27-—Type of residence Type of residence Number Percentage* Castle 5 1.9 Villa 156 57.8 Apartment 76 28.1 Concrete house 26 9.6 Mud house with wood roof 6 2.2 Cement house with wood roof 1 0.4 Total 270 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. The interest-free loan can be up to 300,000 Saudi rials (about 80,000 0.8. dollars) and can be repaid on a yearly basis in 25 years. This has enhanced the type and quality of Saudi housing. There are 270 Saudi households in this sample: most of them own their homes. Table 3.28 shows the ownership status of homes. There were 32.6 percent (88) of heads of household who rented their homes. This type of ownership is more likely to occur among young married heads of household. Also, it is believed that not all of them do not have homes. Some of them have rented their homes for better incomes and some may be renting a home to be closer to relatives such as siblings or, more likely, parents. There were 65.2 percent (176) heads of household who owned their home. This high ownership 89 Table 3.28--Ownership of home Ownership of home Number Percentage* Rented 88 32.6 Owned 176 65.2 Employer provided 2 0.7 Relative provided 3 1.1 Government provided 1 0.4 Total 270 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. percentage is also enhanced by the initiation of the Real Estate Development Fund, which the government established in 1974. A total of 155,732 residential units in Riyadh were built through this fund (Makky 1986:133). Only 1.1 percent (3) of homes, were provided by relatives, and only 0.7 percent (2) were provided by employers. Table 3.29 shows that Saudi peOple have reasonable incomes. The majority have a monthly income of 3000 Saudi rials or more (about 800 American dollars). Those who earn less than that amount accounted for only 6.4 percent. There were 56.4 percent (149) heads of household with incomes over 6000 rials. This relatively high income for Saudi people is due to the economic boom the country has experienced since the early 19703 oil 90 Table 3.29——Head of household's total current income, in Saudi rials Income Number Percentage* Less than 3000 SR 17 6.4 From 3000 to less than 6000 SR 98 37.1 From 6000 to less than 9000 SR 79 29.9 From 9000 to less than 12000 SR 37 14.0 12000 SR or more 33 12.5 Total 264 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. production. As a result, wages and salaries have increased several fold since the early 1970s. Doxiadis Associates, in their 1968 survey, expected that the income of 76 percent of all Saudi families would be 2000 Saudi rials or less: by 1980, 72.5 percent of Saudi families would have an income of 2000 Saudi rials or less (Doxiadis Associates 1971: 40). Another study done by SCET International/Sedes in 1979 indicated that 57.3 percent of Saudi households had an income of 3333 Saudi rials per month or less (SCET International/Sedes 1979:64). Most Saudi heads of household earn modest incomes between 3000 and 8999 SR, as shown in Table 3.30. It can be seen that young heads of household's incomes take a sharp curve but the peak of the curve is at the modest income level, where about 46 percent (32) of whom were 91 Table 3. 30—-Total mnthly income from all sauces, by age of head of household Age of Household Head Monthly Income % Young % % % % of in Saudi Rials Up to 30 yrs 31-40 yrs 41-50 yrs 51+ yrs Total Low-lessthan 3000 SR 8.6 3.9 1.5 14.3 6.4 Dbdest - 3000 to 5999 SR 45.7 28.6 39.7 34.7 37.1 Middle - 6000 to 8999 SR 30.0 35.1 30.9 20.4 29.9 Upper - 9000 to 11999 SR 11.4 15.6 17.6 10.2 14.0 Wealthy - 12000 SR or more 4.3 16.9 10.3 20.4 12.5 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (70) (77) (68) (49) (264) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 30 years of age or younger earned incomes of between 3000 to 5999 SR. Most of those who earned less than 3000 SR were either under 30 or above 50 years of age, although their number is not great. At the same time, in all age groups the highest percentages were in the modest income level. Among the four groups the highest percentages of whom were wealthy were the oldest, aged 51 and above. Generally, the income level of Saudi households of Riyadh increases with level of education up to 6000 SR, 92 then it declines. This decline is sharp for all levels of education except for higher education (over high school). As Table 3.31 shows, the majority of illiterates earn less than 6000 SR. For other levels of education except post-high school diploma, the majority earn less than 9000 SR. The majority of those with more than a high school diploma earn more than 9000 SR. In all but the low income group, the government sector is the largest employer. As shown in Table 3.32, about 71 percent of the modest income as well as middle income group work for the government. Also those who are categorized as upper-level income and wealthy were working for the government with percentages of 73 and 48.5, respectively. The self-employed group was the second highest group, although the percentage of those in this group is not high compared to the government sector group. These two sectors are about the only ones absorbing Saudi employment in Riyadh and are most likely to be the dominant ones throughout Saudi Arabia. The majority of Riyadh's heads of household are in the middle-range occupation type, as Table 3.33 shows. About 69 percent of the total heads of household were in the middle range occupations. About 73 percent of this group are earning a modest or middle income. About 15 percent are in the upper-range occupation type: 41 percent of this group are wealthy, and believed to be the true upper elite. The rest are thought to be either 93 Table 3.31—Total nmthly income from all sources, by education level of head of household Level of Education % % % % % No Elementary Middle High More than % of Monthly Income School School School School High School Total low - less than 3000 SR 17.0 7.6 1.9 2.8 1.8 6.5 Modest - 3000 to 5999 SR 52.8 40.9 45.3 36.1 10.9 37.3 Middle - 6000 to 8999 SR 18.9 27.3 37.7 30.6 34.5 29.7 Upper - 9000 to 11999 SR 5.7 12.1 3.8 16.7 32.7 14.1 Wealthy - 12000‘ SR or more 5.7 12.1 11.3 13.9 20.0 12.5 Tota1%= 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (53) (66) (53) (36) (55) (263) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. officers who are not on the top or some high government officials or self-employed. Few people are at the bottom of the income and occupation ranges because most people work for the government. Government salaries have increased several times since the 19703. As shown in Table 3.34, the percentage of those who pay rent among all income groups was almost an inverse linear relationship with income. But the case is the opposite with regard to who owned their residence. The percentage of those who own their place of residence increased as income increased in a linear 94 Table 3.32—Total monthly income from all sources, by work status of head of household Work Status % Private % Self- % of mnthly Income % Government Sector Enployed % Others Total low-lessthan 3000 SR 2.3 5.9 7.3 42.1 6.4 Modest - 3000 to 5999 SR 40.5 47.1 25.5 31.6 37.1 Middle - 6000 to 8999 SR 32.4 17.6 34.5 5.3 29.9 Umer - 9000 to 11999 SR 15.6 29.4 5.5 10.5 14.0 Wealthy - 12000 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (173) (17) . (55) (19*) (264) *Five non-government nanual vorkers, 5 retired, 5 students, 2 on welfare, and 2 housewives. relationship. Probably the major issue in such ownership situations is the interest-free‘government loans to people for building homes which became available in the mid-19708. As shown in Table 3.35, most Saudis live in modern homes, especially villas. The percentage of those who lived in modern homes increased linearly with an increase in income. Similarly, the percentage of those who live in apartments decreased when income increases. Apartment-dwellers probably are those young couples with fewer children who earn modest incomes and could not 95 Table 3.33—Total monthly income from all sources, by occupational status of head of household Occupaticn Type % % % % of Monthly Income Upper range Middle range lower mnge* Total low - less than Modest - 3000 to 5999 SR 7.7 38.5 58.1 37.1 Middle - 6000 to 8999 SR 28.2 34.6 11.6 29.9 Upper - 9000 to 11999 SR 23.1 13.7 7.0 14.0 Wealthy - 12000 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (39) (182) (43) (264) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent . *Ammg this type are 6 who are either housekeqaers, students or unenployed . afford yet to buy a house or villa. And it is more likely that those who live in apartments are tenants and not owners. Some of these have a two-story villa with one floor rented, usually to close relatives, and the other floor occupied by the owners. These cases are considered apartments in this survey. The Impact of Age and Education on Income Regarding all heads of household in Riyadh, there are mixed results for correlation coefficients, as shown in Table 3.36. The correlation coefficient of income 96 Table 3.34-Total monthly income from all sources, by home ownership situation Monthly Income %low %Modest %Middle %Upper %Wealthy Omership Less than 3000 - 6000 - 9000— 12000 SR of home 3000 SR 5999 SR 8999 SR 11999 SR or more lbnt 41.2 42.9 27.8 29.7 15.2 Own 52.9 55.1 69.6 70.3 81.8 Provided by Government Employee or , Relative 5.9 2.0 2.5 - 3.0 Total % 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N (33) (37) (79) (98) (17) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent.- Table 3.35—Total nonthly income from all sources, by type of residence Monthly Income %low %Modest %Middle %Upper %Wealthy Type of less than 3000 - 6000 - 9000- 12000 SR residence 3000 SR 5999 SR 8999 SR 11999 SR or more Villa or castle" 23.5 45.9 62.0 78.4 87.9 Apartment 41.2 38.8 27.8 16.2 6.2 Concrete home“ 35.3 15.3 10.1 5.4 6.1 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (17) (98) (79) (37) (33) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of (me percent. *ley 5 castles **Of these, 6 hanes were built of mad 97 Table 3.36--Zero-order correlation coefficients for all Saudi heads of household in Riyadh Income Age Age .1002 - N - 264 p<.05 Education .1319 -.S648 N - 263 N = 269 p < .05 p < .05 with age shows a low positive association, with a value of only .10, and is significant at .05. The coefficient of income with education shows a low positive correlation of .13 but this is significant at .05. There is a significant high negative association between age and education. This is because the education system in Saudi Arabia, especially higher education, is recently developed. Also, in the past, people were more concerned with getting work rather than getting an education. In recent times there are more educated people, although they tend to be younger. Also, the older the person (in Riyadh) the more income he has so there is a suppression effect between age and education. When both age and education are introduced at the same time, the correlation between each of them and income is low. But, as I will show later, when controlled for age, the effect of education on income appears and is strong. Similarly, when controlled for 98 education, the effect of age appears and is strong. This will be discussed in Chapter V. Origins of Heads of Household of Riyadh This section concerns the origin of heads of household. It will examine where they were born, where they grew up, and where they came from. It will also investigate the age of the respondents when they moved to the city and the current residence of their parents. Table 3.37 indicates the birthplace of the heads of household surveyed. Of the respondents, 22.8 percent (61) were born in Riyadh; 6.0 percent (16) were born in another Saudi city. Some of those born in Riyadh were not from families originally from Riyadh. The majority of the heads of household were either born in a town (38.8 percent, or 104) or in a village (24.3 percent, or 65): only 6.7 percent (18) were born in the desert. It is the researcher's opinion that many bedouins who are born in the desert associate their birthplace with villages or towns close to their territories, or with some towns or villages which they initiated under the encouragement of the Saudi government and its rise in the early part of this century. Those towns and villages [called Higer] were established for political and military reasons. Table 3.38 gives information about where the heads of household grew up. It shows that those who grew up Table 3.37-~Birthplace of head of household 99 Place of birth Number Percent* Riyadh 61 22.8 Other Saudi city 16 6.0 Saudi town 104 38.8 Saudi village 65 24.3 Desert (nomad) 18 6.7 Outside Saudi Arabia 4 1.5 Total 268 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Table 3.38--Head of household's childhood home Childhood home Number Percent* In Riyadh 85 31.6 In other Saudi city 23 8.6 In Saudi town 82 30.5 In Saudi village 59 21.9 In desert 15 5.6 Outside Saudi Arabia 5 1.9 Tbtal 269 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. 100 in Riyadh were 31.6 percent (85). This includes natives of the city as well as those who were born to non-natives and those who migrated to Riyadh when they were children. Those who grew up in other Saudi cities were 8.6 percent (23). The small prOportion of migrants from other cities may be an indication that the motives which attracted them to migrate to Riyadh do not differ from what they had in those cities. This would be especially true if the other cities were located either in the western province, where the holy cities are located, or in the eastern province where most of the oil industries are found. The prOportion of those who grew up in Saudi towns was 30.4 percent (82): those who grew up in Saudi villages or the desert were 21.9 percent (59) and 5.6 percent (15), respectively. It should be noted that among those who grew up in a Saudi town are those who were born in that town. Among 82 people who grew up in towns, all but only 4 people grew up in the same town they were born in; the others were born elsewhere. Among 59 peOple who grew up in a Saudi village, only one person was born in another village While 58 were born in the same village they grew up in. Riyadh is a newly developed city and its population is mainly migrants. Table 3.39 shows the original family home of the heads of household interviewed. Those who defined themselves as Riyadh natives were 11.3 percent (30). This means that the ‘1— 101 Table 3.39--Head of household's family origin Place Number Percent* Riyadh 30 11.3 Other Saudi city 11 4.1 Saudi town 132 49.6 Saudi village 73 27.4 Desert 15 5.6 ** South.Yemen 5 1.9 Total 266 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. ** These are originally from South Yemen but they gained Saudi citizenship and are considered as Saudis in this study. majority of Riyadh residents are migrants, and a small number are children of migrants who still consider themselves not from Riyadh. Also those who come from other Saudi cities accounted for only 441 percent (11). That enhances the assumption that cities' people are not motivated to migrate as other areas' people. Of the heads of household surveyed, 49.6 percent (132) are originally from Saudi towns: 27.4 percent (73) are from Saudi villages; and 5.6 percent (15) are of bedouin origin. Again, this small number of bedouins, as mentioned earlier, is due to the fact that most bedouins are associated with some towns or villages or with their tribes or outlying areas. 102 Table 3.40 shows that the total number of Saudi heads of household who were not born in Riyadh is 210. This number includes all those who are not originally from Riyadh and were born outside of the city regardless of his/her age at the time of migration. Table 3.40--Period of movement to Riyadh (household head) Period Number Percent* 1931-1940 7 3.3 1941-1950 19 9.0 1951-1960 58 27.6 1961-1970 51 24.3 1971-1980 54 25.7 1981 or after 21 10.0 Total 210 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Migrants came to the city during three principal time periods. The first period is prior to 1951. From Table 3.40, it is evident that 12.4 percent (26) came before 1951. They are believed to be very young when they moved to the city. The second period is the 19503 and 19603, which is the result of a drought that hit most of the country and reduced agriculture and livestock of Saudi Arabia's inhabitants by a considerable degree. Those who migrated in this period were 51.9 percent (109) of all 103 Saudi migrants who were interviewed in this study. These migrants moved to the city as a result of both push and pull factors: their life in agriculture or livestock was no longer good enough to support themselves. They moved because there was no choice but to move to big cities in search of a better living. The third period started in the early 1970s. The total number of migrants in this period is 35.7 percent (75) of the heads of household being interviewed. This wave is believed to be attracted by the economic boom generated by the increase in oil prices in this period and the abundance of high—paying jobs for everyone. From Table 3.41, which gives information about the migrant's age at time of migration, it is seen that among 210 migrants to Riyadh, only 6.2 percent (13) migrated at an age of 6 years or less. Those who migrated between the ages of 6 and 11 years are 10 percent (21). But the majority migrated between an age of 12 to 20 years. This group is 56.2 (118) percent of the total migrants. When our finding is compared to the SCET International/Sedes study conducted in 1977, no major differences are noted. The SCET International/ Sedes study shows that about 15 percent migrated before the age of 15 and about 14 percent migrated after the age of 35. The rest--about 71 percent--migrated between the ages of 15 and 35 years. 104 Table 3.41--Head of household's age at time of move Age at migration Number Percent* Less than 6 years old 13 6.2 From 6 to less than 12 years 21 10.0 From 12 to less than 21 years 118 56.2 From 21 to less than 40 years 51 24.3 40 years old or more 7 3.3 Total 210 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. It should be mentioned that migrants leave Saudi towns and villages at an early age because of two factors. First, the early ages are when the youngest are more willing to get jobs and experience independence and self-dependency. They can get jobs by moving to the cities where there is a greater chance of finding employment. Riyadh has such opportunities because it is the capital of the country, and the Saudi government emphasizes its development by initiating more projects there. Still, there is a large gap between the cities and the small towns and rural areas in terms of income. The second factor for explaining the high percentage of migrants in this range is an educational one. Educational institutions in Saudi Arabia are not equally distributed. The education levels are different according to population concentrations. The greater the III.- 105 population density, the more advanced the institutions of education. For example, small villages have elementary schools but no schools at levels above that. Higher education opportunities are offered in areas with larger populations. About 14.4 percent (17) of those who moved to the city from age 12 to age 20 were 12 years old, which is the age of graduation from elementary school. Also this group accounts for 8.1 percent of total migrants. Similarly, 34 peOple migrated to the city at the age of 18, since the higher education institutions are located there. This number accounts for 16.2 percent of the total migrants and for 28.8 percent of the total of those between the ages of 12 and 20. It should be kept in mind that there is no clear-cut evidence proving that these peOple migrated exclusively because of educational reasons: some migrated to seek job Opportunities with a high school diploma. Those who migrated between the ages of 21 to 38 years were 24.3 percent (51); at age 39 or above the proportion dropped to 3.3 percent (7). Table 3.42 gives the distribution of the birthplace of the head of household's wife. About 29 percent (68) of the wives were born in Riyadh; only 6.9 percent (16) were born in other Saudi cities. A Saudi town was the birthplace of 33.0 percent (77) wives who lived in Riyadh; 2.7 percent (53) were born in Saudi villages; only 3 percent (7) were born in the desert. 106 Table 3.42—-Birthplace of head of household's wife Place of birth Number Percent* Riyadh 68 29.2 Other Saudi city 16 6.9 Saudi town 77 33.0 Saudi village 53 22.7 Desert (nomad) 7 3.0 Outside Saudi Arabia 12 5.2 Total 233 100.0 *Rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. As previously discussed, few report being born in the desert because bedouins tend to associate themselves with villages or towns close to their territories. Only 5.2 percent (12) of the wives were born outside Saudi Arabia. Saudis keep in constant contact with their family homes. About 43 percent of heads of household, as shown in Table 3.43, had visited their family homes within three months of their interview. About 21 percent had visited their place of origin within the past 3 to 6 months. In fact, less than twenty percent had visited their family home either less than once a year or not at all; these cases are believed to be those who have been in the city for a very long time or those whose relatives have moved from their place of origin. When 107 Table 3.43--Most recent visit to family home outside of Riyadh (head of household) Last visit Number Percent Within last 3 months 103 42.9 Within last 6 months 50 20.8 Within last year 41 17.1 Over a year ago 11 4.6 Over 2 years ago 17 7.1 Not at all 18 7.5 Total 240 100.0 Table 3.43 is reviewed, it is clear that even some of those born in Riyadh visit their family's place of origin somewhat. So being born in the city does not mean that the person necessarily associates himself with the city. They like being there and want to stay, but it does not eliminate the social ties which they have with their family's place of origin. The majority of the heads of household of Riyadh are migrants. Those who were born in Riyadh did not move from it: this is true for natives and non-natives. Those who are not from Riyadh but were born in Riyadh stayed in Riyadh and did not move out of it during their early life. Those who migrated to Riyadh from other Saudi cities totaled 6.8 percent of the total migrants, as shown in Table 3.44. Those who migrated to Riyadh from other towns accounted for about 50 percent of the 108 Table 3.44--Origin of household head's family, by birth place Origin % % % Riyadh Born in Riyadh, but Born outside Birth place native not Riyadh native of Riyadh Riyadh city 90.0 100.0 1.4* City other than Riyadh 6.7 - 6.8 Saudi town 3.3 - 49.8 Village - - 31.4 Desert - - 8.7 Outside S.A. - - 1.9 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (30) (31) (207) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Born in Riyadh city but not originally from Riyadh: they moved out of Riyadh then returned, and are considered migrants. total migrants, and those who were originally from Saudi villages who were born in villages accounted for 31.4 percent. About 9 percent were born in the desert as bedouins. Only three people native to Riyadh were born outside of Riyadh. The majority of Riyadh heads of household were born outside of the city. This is not much different from what SCET International/Sedes found in a 1977 survey of Riyadh, where the percentage of 109 those migrants was 80.5 percent (SCET International/ Sedes 1979:90). From Table 3.45 it can be seen that all those born in the city of Riyadh, natives as well as those born in Riyadh but not Riyadh natives, grew up in Riyadh. Also about 14 percent of those migrants who grew up in Riyadh moved to the city under the age of 11 years. Those who grew up in towns, villages, and in the desert totaled about 75 percent of total migrants and about 58 percent of total Riyadh heads of household. Regarding the time of movement to Riyadh, there are two major waves. The most important one took place between 1951 and 1970. This wave accounts for over 51 percent of all migrants, as shown in Table 3.46. The reason, as mentioned previously, probably is the drought which hit the whole country during that era. The second wave is the one which took place from 1971 to the present. The reason for this is no doubt the economic boom which was a response to the increase in oil prices which started in the early 19708. In 1977, SCET International/Sedes found that those who moved to the city six or more years earlier constituted 84.9 percent of the total heads of household migrants (SCET International/Sedes 1979:92). Of non-migrants with both parents living together, all are living in Riyadh. All of those who were Riyadh natives as well as many who were non-natives had their 110 Table 3.45--Origin, by childhood home Origin Childhood % Riyadh % Born in Riyadh but % Born Out- Home native not Riyadh native side Riyadh Riyadh 86.7 100.0 13.5 City other than Riyadh 6.7 - 10.1 Saudi town 3.3 - 38.9 Village - - 28.4 Desert . - - 7.2 OUtSide S.A. 303 - 109 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (30) (31) (208) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Table 3 . 46--Or igin, by first move to Riyadh First move To Riyadh Origin nat ive not Riyadh nat ive % Riyadh % Born in Riyadh but % Born Out- side Riyadh Before 1951 From 1951-1970 1971 and later Born in Riyadh Total % N 6.7 - 3.3 - 90.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 (30) (31) 12.4 51.2 35.4 1.0* 100.0 (209) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *These Riyadh, and th two were born in Riyadh, en moved back again. moved out of 111 parents living in Riyadh. But of the migrants whose parents live together, the majority of their parents live in villages or towns or the desert. About 74 percent of those parents live either in a town, a village, or the desert, as shown in Table 3.47. Table 3.47--Ancestral origin, by both parents' place of residence Origin Parental place % NOn-migrants of residence born in Riyadh % Migrants Riyadh or other city . 94.4* 26.4** Town 5.6 30.2 Village or desert - 43.4 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (18) (53) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Only one lived in a city other than Riyadh. **Only two lived in a city other than Riyadh. All mothers of heads of household who did not live with the head of household's fathers were living in Riyadh and more likely live in the same home as the head of househohi. As previously discussed, this is because women are always dependent on men, and the lucky ones are those who have a son to take care of them under such circumstances. All those who live outside of Riyadh are mothers of migrants, as Table 3.48 indicates. 112 Table 3.48--Origin, by place of residence for mothers only Mother's Place of Residence % Riyadh or % Town or Origin other city Village Non-migrants 34.8* - All migrants 65.2** 100.0*** Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (66) (11) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Only one lived in a city other than Riyadh. **Only two lived in a city other than Riyadh. ***Only three lived in villages. For the father's place of residence, Table 3.49 shows that most of them live in Riyadh. Fifty percent of the fathers who live in Riyadh are fathers of non-migrants, while the other 50 percent are fathers of migrants. Of the fathers who live in towns or other rural areas, only 18.8 percent (3 cases) are fathers of non-migrants. Most (81.3 percent) of the fathers of heads of household who live in towns or villages are fathers of migrants. Summary This Chapter focused (n1 socioeconomic and demographic characteristics of all Riyadh heads of household who were interviewed for this study. The 'E'J .‘n hmnf-g.n “"- 113 Table 3.49--Origin, by place of residence for fathers only Father's Place of Residence % Riyadh or % Town or Origin other city Village Non-migrants 50.0 18.8* All migrants 50.0 81.3** Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (22) (16) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Three of the fathers of non-migrants live outside Riyadh and one lives outside Saudi Arabia. The other two live in Saudi towns. **One father of a migrant lives in the desert. finding of the study is that Saudi heads of household of Riyadh are more likely to be adult males from the age of 30 to 50 years. They are married and have children. Husbands are older than wives. The nuclear family is the dominant type of family in Saudi household composition. Family size is very large, with an average of 7.23 per household. The parents of heads of household are more likely to be in Riyadh, especially in the same neighborhood, but in-laws live either in different neighborhoods of Riyadh or in small towns or rural areas. The education level of heads of household is not very high but when their achievements are 114 measured according to the newness of the educational system it is encouraging. All Saudi heads of household are employed. They live in modern homes and a high percentage own their homes. Their income is high but when the household size is taken into consideration it is not as good as it appears to be. Income is inversely associated with age; younger people earn less and older peOple earn more. Also income is associated positively with education up to an income of 8999 Saudi rials, then the relation takes an inverse association. Most heads of household work for the government sector, and most of them occupy middle-range ranks. The relation between the quality and ownership of homes is positive. Most Saudi heads of household are migrants. Some of them moved to the city at a very young age and some as young adults: all but 11.1 percent consider them- selves not originally from Riyadh. Also, they keep visiting their family homes outside Riyadh. Most of them reported that they visited their family within the last six months as of the time this study was conducted. CHAPTER IV COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVES ON RIYADH MIGRATION WAVES In Chapter III, I provided an overview of Saudi households in Riyadh. In particular, I considered the socioeconomic characteristics and origins of household heads. The majority are migrants from various parts of the country, mainly from rural areas and small towns. Of the 270 heads of household sampled, about 71.1 percent were born and grew up outside of Riyadh. These migrants moved to Riyadh over a long period of time. We have chosen to view this in terms of two major "waves" of migration, as described in Chapter II. The first one took place before 1971. Of the 270 heads of household sampled, 40.4 percent (109) were in that earlier wave. The second wave was from 1971 until 1987. It included about 27.0 percent (73 cases) of the heads of household sampled. In this chapter, I will compare these two waves of migration as represented by heads of Saudi households Who moved to the city. The pattern of migration will be examined. I'll also consider the process of migration and the role of family-kinship networks in facilitating 115 116 the migration process. The following is a discussion about the two waves of migration to Riyadh. They will be compared on the basis of residential situation before moving to the city. Their socioeconomic situation before moving will be examined. Their motivation to move to the city will be discussed to see if such motivation was different between the two waves of migration. Data concerning the characteristics of these two migrant waves are shown in Table 4.1. Residential Situation Before Migrating In this section, the residential situation of both waves of migrants will be discussed to determine if there are any differences in their residential circumstances before they moved to Riyadh. Early Migrants The majority of early migrants (58.3 percent) lived with their parents before they moved to Riyadh, as shown in Table 4-1. Those who lived with their wives and children before they migrated accounted for 16.7 percent of migrants sampled: 12.0 percent lived either alone (5 cases) or with friends or roommates (8 cases). Those who used to live with a sibling are 6.5 percent. The rest (6.5 percent) either lived with other relatives (3 cases), in an extended family (3 cases), or in a joint family (1 case). 117 Table 4.l--Comparison of both waves of migrants' situations before moving to Riyadh. Situation before % Early % Recent migrating Migrants Migrants Residential Situation lived alone 4.6 4.2 lived with sibling 6.5 2.8 lived with parent 58.3 50.0 lived with wife & children 16.7 27.8 lived with extended family 2.8 6.9 lived with joint family 0.9 1.4 lived with friends 0.9 - lived with roommate 6.5 6.9 lived with other relatives 2.8 - Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (108) (72) Level of Education illiterate/no school 56.5 28.8 let through 3rd grade 4.6 2.7 4th through 6th grade 21.3 24.7 7th through 9th grade 9.3 19.2 10th grade through ' high school 5.6 19.2 more than high school 2.8 5.5 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (108) (73) 10.12 in school 32.1 42.5 herder 8.5 8.2 farmer 19.8 5.5 herder and farmer 4.7 6.8 manual worker 2.8 - government worker 19.8 27.4 private sector 4.7 - self-employed 4.7 5.5 unemployed 1.9 1.4 housekeeper 0.9 1.4 other - 1.4 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (106 (73) ~. I Minn-mgr .-%.'Tr* 118 Table 4.1, continued. Situation before % Early % Recent migrating Migrants Migrants Occupation Type upper-rank 0.9 - housekeeper 0.9 1.4 farmer or nomad 31.1 19.4 in school 33.0 43.1 searching for work 1.9 1.4 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (106) (72 Total Monthly Income none 60.6 56.2 less than 2500 SR 32.1 26.0 3000 SR or more 7.3 17.8 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (109) (73) Age at Time of Migration 11 through 20 68.5 43.1 21 through 30 18.5 36.1 31 and older 13.0 20.8 Total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (108) (72) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. Recent Migrants The majority of recent migrants (50 percent) lived with their parents before they moved to Riyadh. Those who lived with their wife and children accounted for 27.8 percent of the total recent migrants. About seven 119 percent lived with a roommate. Those who lived with either a sibling (2 cases) or alone (3 cases) totaled 6.9 percent. About 8.3 percent lived in extended families (5 cases) or a joint family (1 case). The major differences between earlier migrants and recent migrants regarding their residential situation before movement to the city is that about 58 percent of earlier migrants used to live with their parents before migrating, compared to 50 percent of recent migrants. Also earlier migrants who lived with their nuclear family (wife and children) before they moved to the city accounted for about 17 percent compared to 28 percent of the recent migrants. This difference is most likely due to the improvement in economic circumstances in recent times, and the improvement in the education level of the society as a whole, which encourages new couples to be more independent and more able to be economically so. In addition, early migrants moved to the city at younger ages than recent migrants: hence they were more likely to be single at the time of migration. Age at Time of Migration Age has some effect on the movement of people. The general notion among social scientists is that younger people migrate more often than do older people. At later ages, people are more settled socially and 120 economically, but younger people have more ambition and fewer familial restrictions. This section will be a discussion about the ages of waves of migrants to Riyadh at the time of migrating. Early Migrants Generally, early migrants to Riyadh are young, predominantely under 21 years of age. Those who moved to the city between the age of 11 and 20 accounted for 68.5 percent of total migrants, as shown in Table 4.1. Those who moved to the city between the age of 21 and 30 were_18.5 percent of the total early migrants. Only 13.0 percent were older than 30 years when they moved to Riyadh . Recent‘Migrants Recent migrants who moved to the city are more likely to be 21 years or older. About 43.1 percent migrated to Riyadh at age of 11 through 20 years. Those who moved to the city at age of 21 through 30 years are 36.1 percent. And those who moved to the city at age 31 or more totaled 20.8 percent of the total recent migrants. The majority of both waves migrated at early ages; the percentage of migrants decreases as age increases. The earlier wave moved to the city at an early age; recent migrants moved to the city at a relatively older 121 age by comparison. It is assumed that economic reasons account for this. In the past, the Saudi population was under greater economic pressures than at present. Moving to the city as an individual or with family members was the only way to seek better economic circumstances in the urban center. But the economic situation for the country improved in the early 19703, and the city became more attractive to recent migrants due to higher oil prices. Hence, both push and pull factors drove early migrants to the city, with push factors having more effect. But it is believed that recent migrants were more attracted by pull factors, both economically and educationally. Level of Education _Prior to Moving to the City The education system in Saudi Arabia is relatively new, and the big cities have a better chance of having educational opportunities than do other towns or rural areas. Lately, education has expanded and is reaching some of the small towns and villages, although at a low level. Hence early migrants usually had lower education levels than recent migrants. The following is a discussion of the level of education of the two waves of migrants prior to their move to Riyadh, as shown by the data in Table 4.1. a «‘7 “W'— 122 Early Migrants Generally early migrants were illiterate or had small amounts of education. Those with no grade school education when they moved to the city were 56.5 percent of the total; 25.9 percent had an education ranging from first to sixth grade. Those with an education level from seventh through ninth grade totaled 9.3 percent: 5.6 percent had an education level from tenth grade through high school; and only 2.8 percent (3 cases) had a post-high-school education. Recent Migrants Recent migrants had relatively better education opportunities before they moved to the urban center of Riyadh. About 68. 5 percent of the recent migrants had a fourth grade education or more when they moved to Riyadh. Also, 28.8 percent had no education level. Those who had a middle-school education (7th-9th grade) and high school education (10th-12th grade) accounted for 19.2 percent each. About 5.5 percent had a post- high-school degree (4 cases). Comparing education levels of early with recent migrants, it is clear that early migrants had a higher illiteracy rate than recent migrants. A higher percentage of recent migrants had post-elementary grades than did early migrants. The incidence of 123 post-high-school education is very low among both waves of migrants. Jobs Before Migration In the past, Saudi society used to be agricultural and pastoral in nature. After the discovery of oil, Saudi society entered a transition phase. This phenomenon will be examined below to find out if there were any changes in the waves of migrants' activities before they moved to Riyadh. Early Migrants Most early migrants who were in any kind of labor activity before migration were either farmers or pastoralists. Those who were involved in such activities accounted for 50.7 percent of total early migrants with any kind of job, as shown in Table 4.1. Of those working in other activities, 19.8 percent worked for the government, 4.7 percent each worked for the private sector or were self-employed, and only 2.8 percent (3 cases) were manual workers. A high prOportion (32.1 percent) of all early migrants were in school. Only 1.9 percent (2 cases) were unemployed, and there was only one housewife. Recent Migrants By comparison, the majority of recent migrants who were in the labor force before they moved to Riyadh were 124 working in activities other than agriculture or pastoralism. About 51 percent of those who were in the labor force worked for the government before they moved to the city: 5.5 percent were self-employed; and none worked as manual workers or for the private sector. Those who were working in agricultural or pastoral activities totaled 38.5 percent of those who were working before moving to Riyadh. Also, a high proportion (42.5 percent) of all recent migrants were in school before they moved to the city; one person was unemployed and one was a housewife. From the discussion above about the two waves of migrants, it can be seen that more early migrants were involved in agricultural and pastoral activities than were recent migrants. A higher proportion of recent migrants were working for the government or were self- employed than was the case for early migrants. Large proportions of both waves of migrants were in school before they moved to the city, but the percentage of recent migrants in school before moving was relatively greater than the percentage of early migrants. Occupational Status Before Migrating As an international phenomenon, the most prestigious jobs are more likely to be in the big cities. This is more salient in the Third World as a 125 whole because big cities have more facilities, better quality of service, and better economic opportunities. Hence, small towns and rural areas do not attract high- ranking people. So it is believed that all migrants used to be in the middle-rank occupation or less before they moved to the city. This issue will be investigated for both waves of migrants, as indicated in Table 4.1. EarlL Migrants As shown in Table 4.1, the majority (66.2 percent) of early migrants who were in the labor force before they moved to Riyadh city were occupying low-rank occupations or were farmers or nomads. Those who were working in middle-rank jobs were 32.4 percent of those who were working; only one was in the upper-rank position. Recent Migrants By comparison, most recent migrants (53.8 percent) who were working before they moved to'the city were working in the middle-rank occupations. The rest of the recent migrants who were working were either in a low-rank occupation or were farmers or nomads; all of this group accounted for 46.2 percent of the total recent migrants who were working before they moved to the city. For both waves of migrants, as discussed above, there were almost no persons of high-rank occupational 126 status among migrants before they moved to the city. Recent migrants were occupying relatively higher-ranked occupations before they moved to the city than did earlier migrants, most of whom were practicing traditional activities. Income Before Migrating People in rural areas and small towns have lower incomes as a general phenomenon, especially in the Third World. In Saudi Arabia, there are two aspects regarding income. One is that in the past, the economic situation was not very bright; rural areas and small towns were at the bottom of the income levels. Second, the country has been experiencing high incomes for the past 16 years. Rural areas and small towns still lag behind, although there has been some relative improvement in the country's economy as a whole. Most of the migrants were young or young adults. They usually worked for their families and therefore were not in the wage labor force. They either went to school, or worked at farming or herding, and their parents usually paid for their board and supported them. They were more likely to be single. For married children who lived in their parents' house, the situation is almost the same: they received support within the extended family and were not paid cash for working with their parents in farming or herding. The 127 following is a brief discussion about income levels for both waves of migrants before they moved to the city. Early Migrants The majority of early migrants (60.6 percent) did not earn any income, as Table 4.1 indicates. Those who earned 2500 SR or less accounted for 32.1 percent: 7.3 percent earned 3000 SR or more. Recent Migrants Similarly, the majority of recent migrants (56.2 percent) did not earn any income before they moved to Riyadh as they were not in the wage labor force. Those earning 2500 SR or less before moving to the city totaled 26. 0 percent; the rest (1 7. 8 percent) were earning 3000 SR or more. Comparing both waves of migration with regard to their income before moving to the city, the majority of both early and recent migrants did not earn any income before they moved to the city. It is believed that -- early migrants did not have income because the majority were working as herders and farmers and did not get paid for this work from their families. Also, many of them were going to school. The case for recent migrants is almost the same. But it is believed that most of them were in school rather than being farmers or some other worker outside 128 the cash economy. For both waves of migrants, those who earned some income earned low incomes. The percentage of those who earned income before migrating is relatively high among recent migrants compared to early migrants. The percentage of those who earned 3000 SR and more is higher for recent migrants than for early migrants, with percentages of 17.8 and 7.3 percent, respectively. Reasons~ for Mi gr ation Most migration waves are caused by economic factors. But both waves are also attracted somewhat by the educational opportunities concentrated mostly in the urban centers. Hence both migration waves' reasons for migrating will be discussed below. Early Migrants; Reasons for Moving to Riyadh Due to relatively lower economic conditions at the place of origin of early migrants, the majority (56.9 percent) moved to Riyadh in search of a better economic situation, as shown in Table 4.2. When those who moved to the city because of job transfers are added to this category, the percentage increases to 66.1 percent of the total number of early Saudi migrants to Riyadh. Those who reported moving to the city for educational reasons totaled 22.0 percent: and 16.5 percent reported that they moved with their parents as children. 129 Table 4.2--Reason for migrating to Riyadh.* Reason for % Early % Recent migrating Migrants Migrants moved with parents, as a child 16.5 9.6 to get better job 56.9 52.1 for educational reasons 22.0 28.8 to join family 2.8 6.8 to join other relatives 4.6 5.5 job transfer 9.2 9.6 N = (109) ‘77—; Total % = 100.0 100.0 Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Some respondents reported more than one reason for migrating to Riyadh. Recent Migrantg' Reasons for Moving to Riyadh In the early 19708, Saudi Arabia experienced an unexpected economic boom as the result of increased oil prices. Hence the majority of migrants since then are attracted by high-paying job opportunities in Riyadh. At that time, there was an influx of internal migration to Riyadh in search of improvement in individual economic situations. Those who reported that they had been in the city for economic reasons totaled 52.1 percent. In addition, about 10 percent moved to the city as a result of their jobs being transferred to the 130 city. Among recent migrants, about 28.8 percent moved to the city for educational purposes. But only 9.6 percent moved to the city accompanied by their parents. There are some differences in percentage between early migrants and recent migrants regarding the reasons they reported for migrating, although these differences are not crucial. About 66 percent of the early migrants reported economic reasons for migrating, compared to 62 percent of the recent migrants. Probably the difference is due to more economic stress in the place of origin, especially from the drought which occurred during the 19503 and 19605. Also, earlier migrants who reported migrating for educational reasons accounted for about 22 percent, compared to about 29 percent of the recent migrants. This difference could be due to the expansion of educational institutions and education for adults; some recent migrants may have moved to the city to work during the day and go to adult education at night. Also more earlier'migrants moved to the city with their parents than did recent migrants. This may account for the fact that more early migrants moved at an earlier age than recent migrants. In any case, the whole family might migrate under economic pressure, which was more important for early migrants than for recent ones. 131 Structure of Migration Process In this section, the concentration will be on how the two waves of migration took place. Did migrants move to the city as singles or with families? Did they move to the city with nuclear families or other types of families? Early Migrants Generally, early migrants moved to the city alone. As shown in Table 4.3, 45.9 percent moved alone. Those who moved to the city with their parents totaled 23.9 percent. Also, 20.2 percent were accompanied by their wife and children; 3.7 percent (4 cases) migrated with siblings; 1.8 percent (2 cases) migrated with friends: and 4.6 percent (5 cases) migrated with other relatives. Recent Migrants Most recent migrants' (58.9 percent) moved to the city alone. Those who moved with their parents were 11 percent. But those who migrated to the urban center accompanied by their wife and children totaled 24.7 percent. The rest moved with siblings (2.7 percent), in an extended family (1 case), or with other relatives (1 case). Comparing the two waves of migration reveals that a larger percentage of recent migrants moved to the city alone. A smaller prOportion of recent migrants compared to early migrants moved to the city with their parents. 132 Table 4.3--Migrating unit. Migrating % Early % Recent Unit Migrants Migrants alone 45.9 58.9 with parents 8 23.9 11.0 with siblings 3.7 2.7 with wife and children 20.2 24.7 with extended family - 1.4 with friends 1.8 - with other relatives 4.6 1.4 Total % = 100:0 lOOTO N = (109) (73) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. A relatively larger proportion of recent migrants accompanied their wife and children to the city when they moved. The higher proportion of recent migrants accompanying their families to the city is mostly attributed to the relative improvement of the economic and educational levels lately in the country. This situation enables migrants to support their families in the city rather than leave them behind at the place of origin. Hence, earlier migrants were more likely to be part of a family unit under economic pressure than recent migrants, so the whole family moved together to the city for a better economic life. Recent migrants were more likely to be older than earlier migrants, and 133 there was less need for the immediate family to move to the city with their migrant child who, for example, may have wanted to pursue his post-elementary education. But for recent migrants, and with the relative expansion of intermediate and high schools in small towns, most migrate at an older age and with a high school diploma. They moved to the urban center either to pursue higher education or to seek jobs with their school degrees. Kinship Role in Fagilitating the Migration Process This section focuses on the role of kinship in facilitating the process of migration to Riyadh. The form of help these migrants offered to newcomers is to be investigated as well as the help those migrants received from earlier migrants' relatives in the city. This phenomenon is not surprising for anyone who is acquainted with Saudi society. The nature of the Arabian Peninsula has, over history, imposed on its inhabitants a kind of c00peration and caring for each other. One of the major characteristics of this area is generosity and coherence, although this phenomenon is believed to be declining, as the result perhaps of the economic boom experienced by the country since the early 19703. In the following, we will discuss two topics: first, the relatives' presence in the city before the migrants moved and the help received by the migrants upon their arrival: second, the help given by the 134 migrants themselves to other newcomer relatives who later came to Riyadh. The data for this discussion are shown in Table 4.4. Relatives in the City Before Migration Migratory streams to Riyadh are increasing over time. Most Saudi migrants to Riyadh had relatives living in Riyadh before they moved. About 68 percent of the earlier migrants had relatives in the city before they moved. A larger percentage of the recent migrants (about 82 percent) had relatives in Riyadh before they moved. About 48 percent of the earlier migrants reported that they had received help upon their arrival to the city, compared to about 59 percent of the recent migrants. As mentioned earlier, there were more relatives in Riyadh for recent migrants than for earlier migrants. Help Received by Head‘of Household During the Migratory Process Among the 47 earlier and 38 recent migrants to Riyadh city who reported receiving help from their relatives in the city, about 91 percent either received a home to live in or lived with their relatives in their homes, at least for a while. This also included board, since it is customary in Saudi society not to charge for food when accommodating relatives. All those recent 135 Table 4.4--Kinship role in facilitating the migration process. Kinship members in Riyadh and % Early % Recent help given to newcomers Migrants Migrants Having relatives in Riyadh before migrating yes 67.6 82.2 no 32.4 17.8 total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (108) (73) Any help received by head of household upon arrival in Riyadh yes 47.5 58.5 no 52.5 41.5 total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (99) (65) *Kind of help head of household received from relatives in Riyadh duringymove to city or gpon arrival (multiple responses) transportation help 12.8 26.3 lived with relative for a while 76.6 84.2 got home to live in 14.9 21.1 financial help 53.2 60.5 help finding a job 21.3 34.2 other 8.5 10.5 N = (47) (38) Any help from migrants to newcomers during the past five years yes 53.2 60.3 no 46.8 39.7 total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (109) (73) 136 Table 4.4, continued. Kinship members in Riyadh and % Early % Recent help given to newcomers Migrants Migrants **Types of help by migrants to Riyadh to those who moved during the past 5 years (multiple responses) gave transportation help 17.4 24.7 gave housing help 35.8 45.2 gave financial help 39.5 30.1 helped to find job 23.9 28.8 helped to start business 11.9 - other 0.9 8.2 none 47.2 39.7 N = (109) (73) Had any kind of problems upon arrival in Riyadh yes 47.2 51.4 no 52.8 48.6 total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (106) (72) ***T e of problems faced upon arriving in Riyadh (multiple responses) housing problems 40.0 29.7 adjustment problems 14.0 29.7 finding a job 12.0 - transportation problems 6.0 8.1 loneliness 6.0 5.4 away from family 18.0 18.9 financial problems 30.0 13.5 other 26.0 45.9 total % = 100.0 100.0 N = (50) (37) Percentages rounded to nearest one-tenth of one percent. *Some respondents reported that they had more than one type of help. **Some respondents reported that they gave more than one type of help. ***Some respondents reported that they had more than one problem. 137 migrants either lived with their relatives or got a home to live; some of them lived first with their relatives and later got a place of their own to live in from their relatives. Also about 53 percent of the earlier migrants got financial help from their relatives in Riyadh upon their arrival, compared to 60 percent of the recent migrants. About 21 percent of the earlier migrants got help from relatives in Riyadh in finding jobs, compared to about 34 percent of the recent migrants. The help received by early as well as recent migrants during the migratory process is extensive regarding the number of forms of help they received. This appears especially in the number who received accommodations and financial help. Migrant Head of Household'g Help to ’ Newcomers During the Past Five Years Migrants to Riyadh have been helped during the migrating process as well as upon their arrival at the urban center. In turn, these migrants have helped some of their relatives and friends. These forms of help are similar to the help they received when they first came to the city. Hence, as these heads of households received help in the process of migration and help in becoming established in the city, they have helped other newcomers to the city in nearly the same way. Some of 138 the forms of help offered by both early and recent migrants during the past five years are discussed below. About 18 percent of the earlier migrants helped relatives by offering transportation to. Riyadh. Also about 36 percent offered housing for those newcomers, and about 40 percent offered financial help. About 25 percent helped new migrants to find a job in the city. For recent migrants, 24 percent offered new migrants transportation to the city; 45 percent either offered newcomers a home to live in or accommodated them in their house (including free board) for a period of time; 30 percent helped-newcomers financially; and about 29 percent helped newcomers in finding jobs. From the discussion above, it is clear that more of the recent migrants gave help to newcomers, such as offering transportation, offering homes, and finding jobs than earlier migrants. But more of the earlier migrants gave financial help to newcomers than recent migrants. This is probably because new migrants in the 19703 and thereafter were in better economic situations and did not depend financially on their relatives in Riyadh. Some respondents reported that they gave more than one form of help. Problems Faced by_Heads of Household Upon Arriving in Riyadh Some migrants to cities face problems, such as culture shock, or social and psychological problems. 139 These kinds of problems are minimal among migrants to Riyadh. This is because Riyadh was not a large city until the past two decades, and the inhabitants of the city are more likely to be homogeneous and most of them are migrants. Newcomers do not usually have psychological problems. About 53 percent of the earlier migrants reported that they did not face any problems whatsoever, compared to about 49 percent of the recent migrants. Most of the problems experienced by both early and recent migrants were related to housing and finances. The respondents were asked if they faced adjustment problems, loneliness, or problems due to being away from family. Among earlier migrants, the number reporting such problems were 14, 6, and 18 percent, respectively; among recent migrants it was 31, 6, and 20 percent, respectively. A larger percentage of the recent migrants had adjustment problems. This is probably because the city has been expanding in recent years and this expansion, accompanied by an economic boom, has contributed to a somewhat reduced level of social communication among city inhabitants. Still, no one reported any major problems. Summary This chapter provided an overview comparing the patterns of migration for early migrants and recent Ell HE (D (0' 140 migrants. It examined what, if any, differences there were between the two waves of migration. It appears that the patterns of early migrants are different from recent migrants, but such differences are in degree rather than in kind. The majority of both early and recent migrants lived with their parents prior to their move to Riyadh. The percentage of recent migrants who lived with their wife and children is greater than that of early migrants. Early migrants had lower education levels at the time of migration than did recent migrants. More early migrants than recent migrants were involved in agricultural and pastoral activities before moving. Incomes of both waves of migration before they moved was either low or nonexistent. The majority of migrants to the city moved at early ages (under 21 years of age). The majority of both waves of migration moved to the city in search of better economic circumstances. Educational advancement is reported as a major reason for migrating to the urban center, although it is not as important as economic reasons. More early migrants moved to the city with their parents than did recent migrants, but more recent migrants moved to the city alone than did early migrants. Saudi migration is a chain migration. Many migrants had relatives in Riyadh before they moved there. They received help upon their arrival, and they 141 gave help to newcomers who arrived later. Both waves of migration reported no major problems upon their arrival. CHAPTER V CURRENT SOCIOECONOMIC ACHIEVEMENTS OF MIGRANTS Chapter IV compared two waves of internal migration to Riyadh. It focused on basic patterns and processes of migration and the facilitating role of the kinship network. In this chapter the discussion will be concerned with three aspects of the current situation of migrants. First, I'll examine the household composition of Saudi migrants to see if there has been any shift in household patterns among the migrants themselves as well as in their prOpinquity to close relatives. Also, the location of the close relatives of non-migrants willbe considered. Second, the achievements of migrants will be discussed to find out how their living standard has improved since moving to the city. Their socioeconomic status will be outlined, including their current level of education, work status, occupation, and economic achievement. Both waves of migration will be compared with non-migrants to see whether migrants are socially and economically integrated into Saudi society. This comparison will include educational level, work status, 142 143 occupation types, and level of income and quality and ownership of home . Migrant Household Composition This section will discuss the structure of Saudi migrants' households in Riyadh city. Early Migrants The majority of early migrants are situated in nuclear family households (67.9 percent). Those who are in extended family households are 21.1 percent: only 3.7 percent (4 cases) are in joint families, and about 7.3 percent in complex families. None of the early migrants are currently lone adults or single roommates. Recent Migrants The majority (about 63.9 percent) of recent migrants also live in nuclear family households. Only 5.6 percent live in extended family households, and about 11.1 percent live in joint family households. Only 5.6 percent (4 cases) live in complex family households, and 13.9 percent live either as lone adults or as single roommates. The majority of both waves of migrants live in nuclear households. There is a large proportion of early migrants who live in extended families but not many recent migrants who live in extended families. None of the early migrants live as lone adults or single 144 roommates, but about 14 percent of the recent migrants live in lone adult or single roommate households. Close Relatives' Location Saudi society is characterized by close family social ties. Family members keep in touch with each other. Most loyalty is to parents and older siblings. So relatives are likely to reside as near to each other as possible. Table 5.1 reports data on proximity to close kin. Non-Migrants Regarding non-migrants, most of their close relatives live in Riyadh. Separated, divorced, or widowed mothers are most likely to live in the home where her son is head of the household. But other close relatives live elsewhere in different neighborhoods of the city. For heads of household with both parents living, 13 percent (3 cases) live together in the same home as the head of household; 17.4 percent (4) are neighbors, and most (47.8 percent, or 11 cases) live in different neighborhoods in Riyadh. Only 21.7 percent (5 cases) live outside of Riyadh; in this last case, all but one live over 200 miles away. But in the case of mothers who do not live with their husbands, most (about 63.6 percent) live with their son as the head of household; only one lives as a neighbor: 27.3 percent live in different neighborhoods in Riyadh; only two live 145 30v 30:05 93608me .53 dogma 0.02 2.00 0.0 0.8 0.00 . 00503 0022., 08: 3: 0.02 0.8. 0.: 0.2 u 0.0 38 8500...: A03 0.02 0.0m 5.0 «:8. 5.0 0.8 36 0050:: 3o 0.02 0.0m 4.2 2.8 u 0.0m 3:38. 58.. uncommon manna A03 0.02 0.2 0.0 0.00 0.00 .. 00503 038? 08: 3: 0.02 0.00 50 p.00 0.00 5.0 38 8500:... 38 0.02 2.0 TR 0.m 0.8 38 H.502... 38 0.02 0.: mé 0.2V 0.2 0.2 308% 58.. 3:053:82 :e 022 000 8:2. 00m 08685202 80502202 80: 0330 w Hg Cg mug GEE raga H930 5 8mm CH SMHMHDMZ 3:833 gumbo coinage an 9850.5 owing D80. pom momma 0.0mm oaocmmoo: Pocono-Oman mo Snowman—1L6 manna. 146 359. whoop-800.0 05 52: 00>: ummsg 0: 0:3 amen—0&3: 02500 0 . Downing 05 53 83a 39.3 0: on: 35023 umfimmou may: on: mucmumm 50?. . unwound woo mo ficmulmco ”.8200: 0» vegan mommacmoumm 3a 0.02 0.20 20 «.00 Tmm u 00502 0020? 08: 0V 0.02 0.00 5.02 p.02 H2 .. 38 0050.02... 3: 0.02 p.0m n0 .. 0.2 0.00 38 0059:... 33 0.02 A .00 0.0 .. Tu 0.0 308% 58.. 323me 300mm A5 835 8w 8.3.: com 000508332 000.008.5202 meom 0305 w 2309 :93 80: 35:3 raga .350 950w Sam. :H 830mm?— Bonmmoa m. 3068ng .096 8:308 «005.0380 .H . m 3905 147 outside the city. Most fathers of the non-migrant head of household who do not live with the mother live in different neighborhoods of the city (about 46.7 percent or 7 cases). Twenty percent of the fathers (3 cases) are neighbors; only one is in the same home as the head of household; and 26.7 percent (4 cases) live outside the city. The majority of "most visited brothers" live in the city. About 62.0 percent live in different neighborhoods of the city: 26.0 live in the same neighborhood; and only 12.0 percent (6 cases) live outside the city. Early Migrants In a large proportion of the cases where the early migrants' mother does not live with the father (her husband) she lives in the early migrant's home (about 43.3 percent). Two others live in the same neighborhood; 23.3 percent live in different neighborhoods of Riyadh; another 26.7 percent live outside the city. There are only 13 cases of both parents of early migrants living together. Four of them live in the same house as the migrant head of household: three live in different neighborhoods of the city: and six live outside the city. But fathers who do not live with their early migrant son's mother are more likely to live 148 outside Riyadh. Only one father not living with the migrant's mother lives in the same home as the migrant; 29.4 percent (5 cases) live in different neighborhoods of Riyadh: and the majority (64.7 percent) live outside the city. Also, the majority of earlier migrants “most visited brothers" are living either in the same neighborhood (24.4 percent) or in some other Riyadh neighborhood (36.6 percent). Only about 39.0 percent of the "most visited brothers" live outside the city. Recent Migrants Generally most recent migrants' close relatives, except for mothers who do not live with the head of household's father, live outside of Riyadh. About 94.3 percent of both parents who live together live outside the city. Only one couple lives in the same home as the recent migrant: one couple lives in the same neighborhood: three live in different neighborhoods in Riyadh. But mothers who do not live with the father are more likely to live with their son, the recent migrant. About 53.3 percent (8 cases) live in the same home as the recent migrant; 13.3 percent (2 cases) live in the same neighborhood: and 33.3 percent (5 cases) live outside Riyadh. Also there are only 6 fathers who do not live with the recent migrant's mother. Four of them live outside Riyadh. 149 Regarding the "most visited brother," over 50 percent live in Riyadh; 23.3 percent live in the same neighborhood; 30.2 percent live in different neighborhoods in Riyadh: and 46.5 percent live outside the city. From the discussion above, there are some points that should be emphasized concerning non-migrants, earlier migrants, and recent migrants: First, for both migrants and non-migrants, most of the mothers who do not live with the head of household's father live in the same home with their sons. Second, most of the heads of household's close relatives who do not live in Riyadh live in excess of 200 miles away from Riyadh. Third, most of the non-migrants' close relatives live in Riyadh. Fourth, most recent migrants' close relatives live outside Riyadh. Fifth, the pattern for early migrants in terms of proximity to close relatives is somewhere between those just mentioned, where a large proportion of the close relatives live in Riyadh and another large proportion live outside Riyadh. And finally, it can be concluded that the association between residence time in the city and proximity to close relatives is a linear relation: the greater the time the person has been in the city, the more relatives he has in the city. 150 Patterns of Economic and Educational Attainment Migrants generally move from one place to another to improve their life situation economically, socially, or both. Saudi migrants are no exception to this phenomenon, and so the achievement of Saudi migrants will be discussed in this section. It is well known that migrants from rural areas and small towns are more likely to have lower economic status and lower levels of education than the urban non-migrants. This is especially true in Saudi Arabia, where deve10pment began late and started in the big cities. Hence the socioeconomic achievements of Saudi migrants will be investigated in the following sections to find out whether their situation improved by moving to the urban center. At the same time, their situation will be compared with non-migrants. The data for this analysis are shown in Table 5.2. Current Level of Education After the migrants moved to the city, some of them tried to catch up and achieve a better educational status. Among early migrants, about 29 percent are still illiterate, compared to 56 percent who were illiterate upon arrival. Only three attained no more than a third grade education. Those who had attained a fourth to sixth grade education totaled 25 percent. About 20 percent have a seventh to ninth grade 151 education, 8 percent have a tenth grade to high school education, and about 15 percent achieved more than a high school education. For the recent migrants, some educational improvements also took place. About 16 percent are still illiterate, compared to about 29 percent who were illiterate upon arrival. Only three now have less than a third grade education. Twenty-six percent have a fourth to sixth grade education; 16.4 percent have a seventh to ninth grade education; 12.3 percent have a tenth grade to high school education; and about 25 percent achieved more than a high school education. Generally speaking, while both groups improved their education after migration, recent migrants maintained an educational advantage over that of the earlier migrants. Non-migrants have an illiteracy rate of only 11.5 percent; those who have only an elementary school education account for only 19.5 percent. Non-migrants who have intermediate school and high school levels of education account for 23.0 and 21.8 percent, respectively. A post-high-school level of education was achieved by 24.1 percent. Comparing non-migrants with each wave of migration, it can be seen that non-migrants have the lowest rate of illiteracy (11.5 percent) and the highest percentage with degrees in intermediate and high school 152 Table 5.2-Cbnparison of current Riyadh head of household' 3 socioeconomic achievement % Nan-Migrants % Early % Recent Migrants Migrants Socioeconanic Achievement level of Education Illiterate 11 . 5 28. 7 l6. 4 Grade 6 or less 19.5 27.8 30.1 Grades 7 through 9 23.0 20.4 16.4 Grade 10 through high school 21.8 8.3 12.3 fibre than high school 24.1 14.8 24.7 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (87) (108) (73) Current Work Status Government employee 62.1 56.9 79.5 Private sector employee 6.9 7.3 4.1 On welfare - 1.8 - Student 4.6 - 1.4 Unemployed 1.1 - - Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (87) (109) (73) Current Occupation 'Iype Upper-range rank 18.4 11.0 15.1 Middle-range rark 67.8 68.8 72.6 lower-range rank 10.3 19.3 9.6 student or housewife 3.4 0.9 2.7 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 Table 5. 2, continued 153 Socioeconcmic % Non-Migrants % Early % Recent Achievement Migrants Migrants Current Total Monthly Income low - less than 3000 SR 3.6 6.5 9.6 modest - from 3000 SR to less than 6000 SR 42.2 27.1 46.6 middle - from 6000 SR to less than 9000 SR 26.5 32.7 30.1 upper - from 9000 SR to less than 12000 SR 13.3 18.7 8.2 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (83) (107) (73) Type of Residence Castle 4.6 0.9 - Villa 49. 4 72. 5 45. 2 Apartment 34.5 12.8 43.8 Ooncrete house 11. 5 9.2 8.2 Cement house with wood roof - 0.9 - Mai house with wood roof - 3. 7 2. 7 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (87) (109) (73) Ownership of Home Omed 66. 7 83. 5 35. 6 Rent 32.2 14.7 60.3 Other 1.1 1.8 4.1 Total % = 100.0 100.0 100.0 N = (87) (109) (73) Percentages rounded to nearest one—tenth of one percent . 154 levels of education (23.0 and 21.8 percent, respectively). The percentage of non-migrants with more than a high school level of education (24.1 percent) is greater than the percentage of early migrants (14.8 percent) but nearly the same as the percentage of recent migrants (24.7 percent). Current Job The government sector is increasingly absorbing most of the labor force in Riyadh. About 65 percent of all migrant and non-migrant heads of household are working for the government. About 57 percent of the early migrants are working for the government, 26 percent are self-employed, and about 7 percent work for the private sector. The rest are either manual workers (four persons), retired (four persons), on welfare (two persons), or a housewife (one person). Among recent migrants, the largest proportion (80 percent) work for the government. About 11 percent of the recent migrants are self-employed, and only 4 percent work for the private sector. The rest are manual workers, retired, students, or a housewife (one person in each category). It is clear that more of the early migrants are self-employed than are recent 155 migrants, and more of the recent migrants work for the government than do earlier migrants. The majority of non-migrants (62.1 percent) work for the government: 25.3 percent are self-employed; and none are manual workers, retired, on welfare, or a housewife. Comparing non-migrants with both waves of migration, it is clear that the percentage of non- migrants who work for the government is somewhat closer to the percentage of early migrants, but lower than the percentage of recent migrants who work for the government. Also the percentage of non-migrants who are self-employed is somewhat closer to the percentage of self-employed early migrants, and higher than the percentage of recent migrants who are self-employed. Table 5.2 shows the work status of non-migrants and both waves of migrants. Current Occupation Type Generally speaking, both types of migrants are occupying middle-rank occupations, and it is rare to find one without a job. About 11 percent of the early migrants are occupying the upper-rank occupation. Those who occupy ‘the middle rank account for about 69 percent, while about 19 percent rank in lower level occupations and there is also one housewife. 156 Among the recent migrants, about 15 percent are in upper-rank occupations, but the majority (about 73 percent) are in the middle rank. Ten percent are in low-rank occupations and only two are either students or housewives. Again, due to better education situations the recent migrants enjoy relatively better occupational status than earlier migrants. Regarding non-migrants, 18.4 percent occupy upper- rank occupations. Those in middle-rank occupations total 67.6 percent and only 10.3 percent are in low-rank occupations. Comparing non-migrants with both waves of migration, it is clear that the percentage of non-migrants in upper-rank occupations is higher than the percentage of both early and recent migrants. There are somewhat fewer non-migrants who work in udddle-rank jobs than migrants from either migration wave. The percentage of non-migrants, early migrants, and recent migrants is 67.8 percent, 68.8 percent, and 72.6 percent, respectively. The percentage of non-migrants who occupy low-rank occupations is lower than early migrants but is closer to the percentage of recent migrants in this rank, as shown in Table 5.2. 157 Current Income Generally, those who migrated early currently have a higher income than those who migrated in recent times. Only 6.5 percent of those who moved to Riyadh earlier and earn an income of less than 3,000 Saudi rials (less than $800), and about 27 percent earn a modest income of 3,000 to 5,999 SR. But about 30 percent earn a middle income between 6,000 and 8,999 SR, about 19 percent earn an upper income between 9,000 and 11,999 SR, and 15 percent are considered wealthy with incomes of 12,000 SR or more. Recent migrants generalLy earn less compared with earlier migrants. About 10 percent earn a low income, 47 percent a modest income, 30 percent a middle income, and those who have an upper income or are wealthy account for only 8 and 5 percent, respectively. From the discussion above, it is clear that a majority of the early migrants earn a middle income or more whereas most recent migrants earn a modest income or less. But, of course, one must take into account the difference in age and stage of life cycle. Only 3.6 percent of the non-migrants earn less than 3000 SR and those who earn incomes of 3000 to less than 6000 SR total 42.2 percent. But those with middle incomes of 6000 to less than 9000 SR total 26.3 percent and those who earn upper incomes or are wealthy account for 13.3 and 14.5 percent (27.8 percent combined). 158 Comparing non-migrants with migrants, it can be noted that non-migrants have somewhat lower incomes than early migrants but have somewhat higher incomes than recent migrants. Type of Residence Generally, a large proportion of both types of migrants live ix; villas cu' apartments. Most (72.5 percent) early migrants live in villas. Those who live in apartments or concrete homes account for 12.8 and 9.2 percent, respectively. The rest live id: either a castle, a cement home with a wood roof, or a mud home (0.9, 0.9, and 3.7 percent, respectively). Among recent migrants, about 45.2 percent live in villas and 43.8 percent live in apartments. Those who live in concrete homes total 8.2 percent: only 2.7 percent live in mud homes. More early migrants live in villas than recent migrants. Also there are fewer early migrants who live in lesser types of residence than recent migrants. Regarding non-migrants, about 54.0 percent live in villas or castles (4.6 percent live in castles). Those who live in apartments account for 34.5 percent; only 11.5 percent live in concrete homes. Comparing non-migrants with migrants, it is clear that non-migrants take a middle position between early migrants and recent migrants. Whereas the percentage of 159 non-migrants who live in modern homes is lower than the percentage of early migrants, it is higher than the percentage of recent migrants. And the percentage of non-migrants who live in apartments or lesser types of residences is less than for recent migrants. But again there are age differences. Ownership of Residence For ownership of homes, there is a different situation among Riyadh residents. The majority of early migrants (83.5 percent) own their home. Those who rent their home account for 14.7 percent. Recent migrants generally are tenants, with 60.3 percent renting their homes. Those who own their homes total 35.6 percent. A large proportion (66.7 percent) of non—migrants own their homes; those who rent their homes total 32.2 percent. Comparing non-migrants with both waves of migrants in terms of home ownership, non-migrants again take a middle position between early and recent migrants. The percentage of non-migrants who own their homes is lower than the percentage of earlier migrants who own their homes, but higher than the percentage of recent migrants who own their homes. The percentage of non-migrants who rent their home is higher than the percentage of early 160 migrant renters, but lower than the percentage of recent migrants who rent their homes. Head of HOusehold's Situation After Moving to Riyadh As a result of the greater attention given to the develOpment of the city, migrants have, in general, report that their situation in Riyadh is better. About 90 percent of the early migrants report their situation is much better after moving to the city: about 7 percent say they are somewhat better; and about 3 percent (three persons) report no difference. About 77 percent of the recent migrants report that their situation is much better after moving to the city: about 12 percent say they are somewhat better off: and about 11 percent either report they are worse off, no different, or uncertain. For both groups of migrants, there is a positive general attitude about their situation in Riyadh. But at the same time, the early migrants, as expected, have a better economic situation, and the percentage of those who are satisfied among earlier migrants is higher than the percentage of recent migrants. The Impact of Age and Education on Income In this section, regression and correlation coefficients are introduced to probe the association 161 between income, age, and education among non-migrants, early migrants, and recent migrants. Non-Migrants The association between income and age for non-migrants is shown in Table 5.3. A positive low association is noted, with r equal to about .2, but it is significant. Also the association between income and education is positive and low, with r about .02 and it is not significant. The association between age and education is high and negative (r = -.57). The low associations between age and income occur because there is a suppression effect of both age and education. In fact, the association between age and income is strong. But because education in the past in Saudi Arabia, especially higher education, was not available for everyone as it is now, older people are less educated. When controlled for education by applying multiple regression, the association between age and income is strong (beta 8 .46). Table 5.3--Zero-order correlation coefficients for non-migrants Income Age Age .1919 N883 p<.05 Education .0159 -.5667 N=83 N=87 pn.s. p<.05 162 The association between education and income is negligible (r = -.0159). Again this is because of the suppression effect between age and education. When controlled for age, the association between education and income produces a beta value of .54. This is again because younger people have higher levels of education. The relation between income, age and education is shown in Figure 5.1. Age Beta + .46 r -057 r .19 e 1. Education]"’ Beta + .54 Figure 5.1--Re1ation between income, age and education for non-migrants. Early Migrants The correlation coefficient applied to measure the association between age and income for early migrants is negligible, with r = .0787, as shown in Table 5.4. The association between education and income is positive and low (r = .2296), but relatively higher than the relation between age and income. The association between age and education is negative (r '= -.5812-). This negative relationship between age and education is due to the 163 Table 5.4--Zero-order correlation coefficients for early migrants Income Age Age .0787 N = 107 p n.s. Education .2296 -.5812 N = 106 N = 108 p< .05 p < .05 suppression relation between age and education which results because of fewer educational opportunities available in the past for peOple of Saudi Arabia as a whole. When controlled for the effect of education, the association between age and income is relatively high, with beta = .303. For the association between education and income, there is a low association without control measures, with association between education and income being positive (r = .2296). When controlled for age, the association becomes high and positive (beta = .6541). Figure 5.2 shows the relation between income, age and education for early migrants. Recent Migrants For recent migrants, the association between age and income is negligible and negative (r = -.0575), as shown in Table 5.5. The association between education and income is high and positive (r = .4656). Again, the association between age and education is high and negative (r = -.4929). This negative association 164 Age Beta + .30 r .23 Education Beta + .65 Figure 5.2--Relation between income, age and education for early migrants. Table 5.5--Zero-order correlation coefficients for recent migrants Income Age N = 73 p n.s . Education .4656 -.4929 N = 73 N = 73 between age and education appears because most older migrants have a lower level of education and younger migrants have a higher level of education. The age of recent migrants has a ndnimal negative association with income. This is because they lack both educational opportunities and a long association with city advantages. When controlled for age, the association between education and income becomes positive and high (beta 8 .5841). When controlled for education, the association between age and income is positive but not 165 high, with an association of beta = .2432. Again, this is because age has less effect on income than does education for recent migrants. The relation between income, age and education for recent migrants is shown in Figure 5.3. £23.. Beta + .24 r -.4929 r —.6 ‘F_____. r‘) Income Education —r' ' ' r .47 Beta + .58 Figure 5.3--Relation between income, age and education for recent migrants. Summary Generally, early migrants are socially and economically integrated rather well into Idyadh's urban society. Recent migrants have not yet caught up with the urban center mainstream, at least economically. The majority of both waves of migrants live in nuclear’ households. More early migrants live in extended family households than do recent migrants. Mothers who are widowed or separated from their husbands are more likely to be in the head of household's home. Most close relatives of non-migrants live in Riyadh. Most relatives of recent migrants live outside Riyadh. 166 Non-migrants are better educated than both waves of migrants, and recent migrants have a somewhat better education level than early migrants. A larger proportion of non-migrants and early migrants are self- employed than are recent migrants. Since low-rank jobs in Riyadh are occupied by imported laborers, most Saudis are in middle-rank occupations. Non-migrants as well as early migrants have higher incomes than do recent migrants. A larger percentage of early migrants live in modern homes than recent migrants and non-migrants. Also the percentage of early migrants who own their home is higher than recent migrants and non-migrants, 83.5, 35.6 and 66.7 percent respectively. Both kinds of migrants reported that their situation is much better after moving to the urban center, but early migrants are more satisfied than recent migrants. The association between age and income for non-migrants and early migrants and between education and income for all Riyadh heads of household surveyed is strong. But there is a suppression relationship between age and education. When both age and education are introduced at the same time their association with income diminishes. This is true for non-migrants and early migrants because they have been in the city for a long period of time and the education system is relatively new in Saudi Arabia as a whole. 167 For recent migrants, the situation is somewhat different. The correlation between age and income is negligible and negative. But the correlation between education and income is high and positive. When controlled for education, age has relative effects on income but the effects are less for non-migrants than for early migrants. When controlled for age, education has a high positive impact on income for recent migrants. Finally, education explains a high prOportion of the variation in income for non-migrants, early migrants, and recent migrants. But age explains a high proportion of the variation in income for non-migrants, a modest proportion for early migrants, and a relatively small proportion for recent migrants (see Figures 5.1, 5.2, and 5.3). CHAPTER VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS In Saudi Arabia, migration from small towns and rural areas to the cities has accelerated since the unification of the country and the discovery of oil in the 1930s and 19403. The major waves of migration occurred first in the 19503 and 19605, as a result of a drought which significantly decreased agricultural and livestock production, and next, in the early 1970s, as a result of the increases in oil prices and production whiCh expanded employment Opportunities. These are the major conditions which have stimulated massive internal migration to the big cities in Saudi Arabia. The purpose of this study was to investigate these two waves of migration to Riyadh. Interviews were obtained from 270 randomly selected Saudi heads of household in Riyadh. The aim was to explore the patterns of internal migration to Riyadh and characteristics of the earlier and more recent waves of migration, the role of kinship networks in facilitating the migration process, and factors influencing the ndgrants' current socioeconomic achievements. 168 169 In this concluding chapter I will briefly summarize the findings of the study. Also, I will address the main hypotheses and how my findings compare with other researchers' findings in the field. Some generalizations deriving from this study will be presented. Further, some recommendations will be made for planning for the future of Saudi Arabia's urban and rural areas. Finally, some suggestions regarding additional research are given in order to enhance further knowledge of the sociological aspects of Saudi society as well as other Middle Eastern societies. Summary of Findings The findings of this study, as they relate to Riyadh households, the two waves of migration to Riyadh, and the current socioeconomic situation of the migrants, will be summarized in the next three sections. Riyadh Households The old picture of Saudi Arabian households has changed as a result of the economic boom the country has experienced since the early 19703. But these changes are more evident in material aspects than in a deeper, social sense. Some traditional values and characteristics change more slowly. The following is a discussion of Saudi households in Riyadh. Saudi heads of households in Riyadh tend to be relatively young, averaging 40.1 years of age. Their .,..-._1 v' ~54 170 wives tend to be younger, averaging 32.4 years. The Saudi family life-cycle is somewhat different from that of Western societies' family life-cycles. In Saudi families, both younger and older children are generally present in the same household. This is probably because older Saudi males marry younger wives and keep having children until later in life. Glick (1977) found that in the United States the mother's median age at the birth of her last child was 29.6 years (p. 5). It is well known that family planning is not an important issue nor a common practice in Saudi Arabia. Hence, women, who are likely to marry at an early age, continue to have children throughout their child-bearing years. It is also rare to find an older couple without any children at home regardless of their age. So the family life-cycle characterized by early marriage, birth of children, children leaving home, "empty-nest" years, and finally the death of a spouse, does not quite apply to the Saudi family life-cycle because Saudi children are generally present in the home. It is uncommon to find an "empty-nest" household. And when a marriage is dissolved by the death of a spouse, the surviving parent moves in with his or her children. Saudi families in Riyadh are large, averaging 7.23 members. The nuclear family type is the dominant form, but there are a small prOportion of other family types. Often, some kin members are in the home, but they are 171 usually only those who are related to the head of household by blood rather than through marriage. Parents of the household head sometimes live in the same home or nearby, but this is not the case for parents-in—law. Among heads of households, the illiteracy rate is about twenty percent. This is not a high rate, given the relatively new educational system in Saudi Arabia. Employment rates are high. Most Saudi heads of household hold rather good jobs. The quality and quantity of housing is being improved, in part, through the Saudi Real Estate Development Fund. Both housing quality and incidence of home ownership have a linear relationship with income: as income increases, so does home ownership and quality of housing. Saudi heads of households earn reasonable incomes, although it is low when family size is taken into consideration. The relationship between income and age is more likely to be linear, where income increases as age increases. The older the person, the higher his income. The impact of education on income takes on a curvilinear relationship: the income of pre-college increases as the level of education increases, up to a modest income level, then declines. But for those who have attained a post-high school level of education, income increases up to a middle income level than 172 declines. A majority of heads of household work for the government and earn a modest or middle-level income. But the majority of those who are considered wealthy are self-employed. Since most of those who occupy lower—ranking jobs are non-Saudis, the majority of Saudi heads of household occupy middle-range jobs. Regarding the birthplace of the 270 heads of household, 22.6 percent were born in Riyadh, 69.3 percent were born in Saudi towns or rural areas, 5.9 percent were born in other Saudi cities, and 1.5 percent were born outside Saudi Arabia. There were two missing cases. Those born in Riyadh are classified as originally from Idyadh (11.1 percent) and not originally from Riyadh (11.5 percent). Those who are not originally from Riyadh continue to keep in contact with their family homes. The majority (about 64 percent) visited their family home within the last six months of the time this study was conducted. waves of Migration The majority of early as well as recent migrants used to live with parents before they moved to the urban center. Over half (58.3 percent) of the early migrants and 50.0 percent of the recent migrants lived with their parents prior to their move. But a larger percentage of 173 recent migrants lived with their wives and children compared to early migrants. The level of education among early migrants is lower than that of recent migrants at the time of moving to Riyadh. The recent expansion of the governmental sector has had some impact on the activities of recent migrants but has not had an evident effect upon the earlier migrants. Prior to moving to the city, earlier migrants tended to be more involved in agricultural and pastoral activities than recent migrants. On the other hand, the more recent migrants were mOre likely to have had government jobs or to have been self-employed than was the case with earlier migrants. Also, a large proportion of both waves were in school shortly before moving. Both waves of migrants tended to be in middle-rank jobs or lower, and recent migrants were more likely to have held relatively higher occupational status positions than early migrants. The income of migrants before they moved to the city was generally low; many were not employed. Those who worked for a wage did not receive high incomes. In general, migrants to Riyadh moved at a young age. But the earlier wave of migrants tended to move to Riyadh at a younger age than the more recent migrants. Both waves of migration to Riyadh were motivated by a search for better economic opportunities which they 174 believed to be readily available in the urban centers. A secondary reason for migration was for educational improvement. But the economic reason outweighed educational reasons for both waves of migrants. Saudi migration to Riyadh is a chain migration. Helping migrants to the city is a characteristic of both waves of migration. As they received help moving to Riyadh, they gave help to relatives and friends who later moved to the city. There were no major adjustment problems, such as cultural shock or psychological trauma, faced by migrants to Riyadh at the time of migration. The main difficulties mentioned by the migrants were financial and housing problems. Current Socioeconomic Situation of the Migrants Nowadays, the majority of migrants live in nuclear family households. The earlier migrants are more likely to live in extended family situations than are the more recent migrants (21.1 and 5.6 percent, respectively). But none of the earlier migrants live alone or with roommates whereas about 14 percent of recent migrants are in this category. This is probably due to age differences among both waves of migrants. Most mothers not living with the head of household's father who were either widowed, divorced, or separated live with their son. 175 Non—migrants, of course, have most of their close relatives living in Riyadh. In about 78.3 percent of the cases both living parents are residing in Riyadh. All but two mothers who do not live with the non- migrant's fathers are residing in Riyadh. Also in 73.3 percent of the cases the fathers who do not live with the non-migrant family's mothers also live in Riyadh. Finally, in 88.0 percent of the non-migrant cases the most visited brothers are also residing in Riyadh. Of the earlier migrants with both parents living, 53.9 percent of these parents are living in Riyadh. Also 72.7 percent of the early migrants' mothers not living with the head of household's father live in Riyadh, and 64.7 percent of the early migrants' fathers not living with the head of household's mother live outside of Riyadh. Finally, 61.0 percent of the early migrants' most visited brothers are living in Riyadh. Similarly, most recent migrants have most of their close relatives living outside of Riyadh. Mothers are the only exception. About 94.3 percent of recent migrants' parents reside together outside Riyadh, whereas 66.6 percent of recent migrants' mothers who do not live with the head of household's father are residing in Riyadh. There are only six cases where the fathers of recent migrants do not live with the mothers: in four cases the father lives outside of Riyadh. 176 Finally, in 53.5 percent of the cases of recent migrants' their most visited brothers live in Riyadh. Concerning educational level, recent migrants have attained higher levels of education than earlier migrants. The current illiteracy level among non- migrants, early migrants, and recent migrants is 11.5, 28.7, and 16.4 percent, respectively. The percentage of recent migrants with a: post-high school level of education is almost the same as for non-migrants--24.7 and 24.1 percent, respectively-- whereas only 14.8 percent of the early migrants have achieved this education level. A larger prOportion of recent migrants (79.5 percent) work for the government as compared with earlier migrants (56.9 percent) or non-migrants (62.1 percent). A larger proportion of earlier migrants are self-employed (25.7 percent) than are recent migrants (11.0 percent). The proportion of non-migrants who are self-employed is about the same as earlier migrants (25.3 percent). When current occupation is examined, it is found that a majority of non-migrants, early migrants and recent migrants occupy middle-rank occupations: the percentages are 67.8, 68.8 and 72.6 percent, respectively. A larger pr0portion of non-migrants were in the upper-rank occupations (18.4 percent) than early migrants (11.0 percent) or recent migrants (15.1 percent). 177 Generally, those who migrated early have higher incomes than those who migrated more recently. When comparing income for non-migrants, early migrants and recent migrants, the percentage of those earning modest or middle incomes, from 3000 SR to 8999 SR, were 68.7, 59.8, and 76.7 percent, respectively. A greater proportion (33.7 percent) of the early migrants earn upper incomes of 9000 SR or more compared with non-migrants (27.8 percent) or recent migrants (13.7 percent). The correlations between education and age (independent variables) and income (dependent variable) are positive and low. The correlation between education and age is negative and strong, as shown in Tables 5.3, 5.4, and 5.5 for non-migrants, early migrants, and recent migrants. There are suppression effects between age and education which are due to two factors. First, those who are older and have been in the city longer have more opportunities and economic advantages. Second, the education system is relatively new in Saudi Arabia, and the older the person the less education he is likely to have had. Those young people with a good education level have a better chance of having a good income compared with older peeple who neither have a good income or have been in the city for very long. Stepwise regression is used to measure the effects of age on income and to measure the effect of education 178 on income separately. For non—migrants, age explains 46 percent of the variation in income and education explains 54 percent. For early migrants age explains 30 percent of the variation in income and education explains 65 percent. For recent migrants, age explains 24 of the variation in income and education explains 58 percent. Hence the impact of age on income is strongest for non-migrants because they have been in the city longer; early migrants are the next most affected group, followed lastly by recent migrants. Regarding the type of residence, a higher percentage of early migrants live in modern homes than do recent migrants or non-migrants. About 72.5 percent of early migrants live in villas: only 45.2 percent of recent migrants and 49.4 percent of non-migrants live in a villa. A higher proportion of early migrants own their home than do recent migrants or non-migrants: the percentages are 83.5, 35.6, and 66.7 percent, respectively. More recent migrants rent their homes than do early migrants or non-migrants: 60.3, 14.7, and 32.2 percent, respectively. A large proportion of both waves of migrants reported that their situation was much better after they moved to Riyadh. But a higher proportion of early migrants (about 90 percent) reported their situation was mudh better after moving to the city compared to recent migrants (about 77 percent). 179 Conclusions This study was guided by three research hypotheses or foci of attention. The first relates to pattern variations in the waves of migration to Riyadh. Basically, no significant differences were observed between the two major waves of migration. There were some minor variabilities, but these are mainly matters of degree rather than kind. For example: the level of education for both types of migrants is low but it is relatively higher, on the average, for recent migrants than for early migrants. Where the literacy rate for non-migrants is 11.5 percent, it is 28.7 percent for early migrants and 16.4 percent for recent migrants. Also the proportion of each group with a post- high-school level of education is 24.1 percent for non-migrants, 14.8 percent for early migrants, and 24.7 percent for recent migrants. Prior to migration, both waves of migrants tended to be involved in traditional activities, such as agriculture and pastoralism. although this was more frequently true for the earlier migrants. On the other hand, although many members of both groups of migrants held government jobs prior to migration, this is more true of the recent migrants. This trend in activities is due to the economic boom which has increased opportunities in the public sector. Hence more people 180 are involved in such activities in recent years than before. Both waves of migrants emphasized economic reasons for migrating, with migration for educational purposes being a second most frequently cited reason. But the percentage of early migrants who reported that they moved for economic reasons is greater than for recent migrants (66.1 and 61.7 percent, respectively). On the other hand, the percentage of recent migrants who reported that they moved to the city for educational purposes is greater than for early migrants (28.8 and 22.0 percent, respectively). A second hypothesis guiding this research focused on the role of the kinship network in facilitating the process of migrating to Riyadh. Findings for this research confirm the assumption that this kind of network has played an important part in helping the migrant become integrated into Saudi society. The majority of both waves of migrants had relatives in Riyadh, and the newcomers received intensive help from them during the migration process. Relatives who had migrated previously to the city helped those who followed them get socially and economically established in the city.) Similarly, these newcomers in turn facilitated the ndgration of those who eventually moved to Riyadh thereafter. Makinwa (1981) states that: my . mute Adana-1‘ or -.b 181 Migration into Benin is made less risky and expensive because of the presence of other family members or co-villagers in the city. As shown, these urban relatives readily provide free food and housing and take keen interest in newcomers' search for urban salaried jobs, apprenticeships, or further education. (p. 56) A third guiding hypothesis sought to explore whether the pattern of economic and education attainments of recent migrants differs from that of the earlier migrants. The assumption that such differences are manifested today appears supported by the research. People in the smaller towns and rural areas of Saudi Arabia generally have had a lower level of education and lower paying jobs than was enjoyed by those in the major urban centers, like Riyadh. One aim of the present study was to explore the differences between the level of education and level of income that migrants had in the places of origin prior to migration and what they achieved at the place of destination. In this regard, there is little doubt that both waves of migrants improved their economic and social circumstances by having moved to Riyadh. Early migrants have become integrated economically in the urban society's mainstream whereas recent migrants have made strides in educational level but have lagged economically. This is because early migrants are older and have been in the city longer periods of time. They have improved in economic terms. But since the education system is relatively new in Saudi Arabia, 182 especially in small towns and rural areas, recent migrants are more likely to have benefited from this system because they are younger. Recent migrants also enroll in post-high-school institutions which have rapidly increased in number in the city since the 19703. Earlier migrants came to Riyadh when the city was small and they probably had more economic Opportunities to advance than did recent migrants. Their career lines paralleled the growth of the city and they were able to take advantage of rapidly expanding job opportunities. Also, since the city expanded very rapidly, the value of land rose dramatically. Hence earlier migrants had a distinct advantage over more recent migrants and they gained greatly in economic terms from this situation. These circumstances were rather unique and there is little chance that they will be repeated in the near future. So one may expect that there will be greater educational opportunities for newcomers to the city, but lower rewards where the competition for jobs will increase as well as the educational level. More than likely, jobs will not keep pace with rate of in- migration over time. Hence there will be fewer jobs available for the better educated in the future. The life chances of future migrants will not be as golden as those of previous migrants. In other words, there will be educational improvements, but economic advancements 183 will not be as rapid or as certain as they have been in the past. Findings in the light of Other Research The findings of this study support the findings from other studies of migration, not only in Saudi Arabia but in other developing countries as well. Malik, for example, observed that urban-reared peOple in Saudi Arabia are more privileged than rural-reared people in terms of socioeconomic achievements. Before the unification of Saudi Arabia around the middle of this century, most Saudi Arabian settlements were villages. Since the 19705, most of these villages have expanded and become small urban centers: what used to be villages are now small towns. My findings partially support Malik's. His conclusion applies to recent migrants but not to early migrants. My study concludes that early migrants were integrated into city society economically, but recent migrants have a better education level. Migrants to the city were young when they moved. This is supported by our study as well as some other researchers. Among Saudis who came to this conclusion are Malik (1973), Al-Shamrany (1980), and Al-Thubaity (1981). We found that internal migration in Saudi Arabia is determined first by economic factors and second by 184 education factors. Many scholars have come to a similar conclusion; among them are Ravenstein (1885, 1889), Wood (1982), Makinwa (1981), Meilink (1978), Todaro (1971), Caldwell (1968), Malik (1973), Al-Shamrany (1984), Al-Thubaity (1981), SCET International/Sedes (1977), Sogreah and Osailan (1984), and others. As for education being a secondary determinant factor for migrating, this study found grounds of support from previous researchers. Meilink (1978) views migrating for education as a secondary reason for moving to urban centers. SCET International/Sedes (1977) found that migrating to Riyadh city for education reasons came second to migrating for economic reasons. In our study we found that the kinship network facilitates the migration process. Support from early migrants to newcomers is a normative characteristic. This finding is similar to what other scholars have reported. Brown, Schwarzweller and Mangalam (1961) found that earlier migrants have an effect on their relatives, such as facilitating and encouraging migrants, helping them when there is a crisis, and giving them socio—psychological support. They concluded that relatives facilitate migration. Makinwa (1981) found that early migrants helped new migrants by providing shelter, food, and clothing as well as aid in searching for jobs. Similar findings were reported by Essang and Mabawonk (1974), who observed that newcomers 185 receive shelter and assistance in finding jobs in urban centers. Finally, Saudi migrants keep in contact with their place of origin. This finding has also been reported by other researchers. Al-Thubaity (1981), in his study of Taif city, found that most migrants visited their relatives in rural areas. Al-Shamrany found the same in his study in 1980 and 1984, and a study by SCET International/Sedes (1977) arrived at the same conclusion. Generalizations Migration to Saudi cities by Saudi citizens is a form of migration that can be best referred to as "long-term chain migration." Saudi residents. and potential urban migrants in small towns and rural areas are relatively homogeneous, culturally and economically: they share similar socioeconomic and demographic characteristics. There is a wide gap, however, in the economic circumstances between cities and small communities. People move to the city at a young age, with little education and no job, except for a small proportion who move to the city because of job transfers. Saudi society has been going through a transition phase since the establishment of a central government, unification of the country, and the discovery of oil. 186 This transition was accelerated drastically with the increase of oil prices in the early 19708. Urban centers have grown rapidly at the expense of small towns and rural areas. Foreign inhabitants comprise a large proportion of the populations of the cities. Overcrowded conditions exist in the cities because of unbalanced develOpment. The government has initiated development projects in big cities while rural areas are lagging behind. Hence an influx of migrants to these cities has occurred: young migrants looking for better incomes as well as better educational opportunities. In the classic pattern of chain migration, Saudi migrants tend to move to a place where there are some relatives at their destination to help them get established in the urban center. These relatives provide economic assistance and psychological safety to newcomers to the urban center. Hence, major problems are usually not encountered by non-urban reared people in Saudi Arabia. Further, when Saudi migrants move to urban centers, they do not sever their ties with family and kin. Rather, they keep in continuous contact with their place of origin. There is a similarity in social interaction between rural and urban people in Saudi Arabia. This is because urbanization has been extremely rapid and social relationships which exist in the urban center are an extension of what existed in the rural sector. It is safe to conclude. that the Saudi social 187 fabric in the city, founded as it is on the tenacity of the Saudi family/kinship system, is strong and not fragmented as is the case in some other large cities around the world. Finally, Saudi households are experiencing a transition from the traditional joint family/extended family household to a nuclear family structure. This is evidenced in the family patterns of migrants over time while maintaining a strong social system and social ties, where their social relations with parents and relatives are still strong. Recommendations Saudi migrants to Riyadh have achieved a better socioeconomic status in Riyadh than what they had, and probably would have had, at the place of origin. But despite the satisfactions reported by these migrants, those acquainted with Saudi society, especially as it pertains to the bigger cities and in Riyadh, would foresee some difficulties that could face both Saudi cities and rural areas. The Ministry of Municipal and Rural Affairs in Saudi Arabia should take steps to slow down such movement from small towns and rural areas to the cities. Some prompt and serious attention should be given to this phenomenon, in an endeavor to alleviate the influx of migrants. The following are some of these 188 potential difficulties and some suggestions to lessen these difficulties. First, the Arabian peninsula in general has an arid climate and water is scarce. 'Major cities in Saudi Arabia are not self—sufficient in terms of water. water for the major cities is imported from other remote areas of the country. So additional peOple in the big cities will increase the pressure on this resource and lead (to greater difficulties in the urban centers. Second, some social problems will increase in urban centers as a logical result of any heavily urbanized center. In Saudi Arabian cities, these problems are not yet very pronounced. Third, rural areas are losing their manpower and agricultural activity is declining. There are few small farms left. Fourth, the public sector is the only one absorbing the excess labor force of Saudi people. The public sector is almost totally dependent on oil production; the more means of resources the country has, the more secure it is. Hence, my main suggestion is to advocate policy that furthers the social and economic development of small towns and rural areas. This development should be directed at initiating more projects in these areas. Such projects should be both industrial and agricultural. Small farmers should be given special 189 attention and should be encouraged to participate in enhancing agricultural production, which is one of the more important resources of any society. This kind of development will help ease the pressures upon the cities as well as increase production for the country. Suggestions for Further Research The focus here was on Riyadh. Some similar studies should be conducted in other Saudi cities in the Western and Eastern provinces. The findings of such research efforts could broaden our view of Saudi cities as well as Saudi society as a whole. Some attention, likewise, should be given to rural areas. These areas should be studied to provide a complete view of migration at both ends: the urban center and the small towns as well as rural areas. This kind of research should be directed at probing whether the peOple in small towns and rural areas intend to move to urban centers or if they intend to stay. It should be determined whether initiating some develOpment projects would help keep these people in their areas. APPENDI X SAMPLE NUMBER 190 QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER Survey of Riyadh Households SAMPLES—Designation: (Street, Number. Location) ( ) Single Household ( ) H ulti 1e Dwelli ‘ P Units ( ) Non-Residential ( ) Non-Occupant Home Completion Date ( ) part one completed ( ) part two completed ( ) pert three completed RESPONDENT/INFORHANI NAME: For multiple dwellings. (Relation to Household Head) Name and number of household Iunnvma CONTACTS/CALLBACKS: T‘ Date Time Who Contacted Comments DISPOSITION: uon-couirTIon (specify reasons): (a) Refusal (why) (b) Unable to respond (why) (c) Other (specify) L———_— INTERVIENER: 191 SAMPLE QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER NUMBER Survey of Riyadh Households Part One He are surveying randomly selected households in the city of Riyadh-to get a better idea of the city's population, and where people were living before moving here, and what family life is like in this city. ARE YOU HEAD OF THIS HOUSEHOLD? ( ) Yes ( ) No (IF NO, try to arrange interview of household head: if not possible, ask this person to provide information below about Household Head) For Household Head: 1. Hhere were you born? (Place: villagg,_city, desert1 etc) "here did you spend most of your early childhood years (up to 15 years old)? 3. Has this your family home? ( ) Yes ( ) No: Where is family home? l. Hhen did you first move to Riyadh? Year 5. How old were you at that time? Age 6. What is your native language? 192 Hhat language do you now speak in your home? Are you now married? ( ) Never married Divorced Hidowed Married a. Number of children b. Age of youngest child c. Age of oldest child AAA VVV Who lives with you in this household? Relation to Head §sg Ag: Place of Birth Notes Wfl’ 193 10. What is your age? (age of Household Head) 11. 12. 13. 1". 15. 16. 17. Years of Age: How much schooling didgyou completeggihead of household] Years of Schooling: Your present occupation? And for whom do you work? ) government employee, and work for ) private sector employee, and work for ) self-employed ) driver or unskilled worker “AAA ( ) welfare ( ) retired last previous job: ( ) other (specify) last previous job: What is the title of your current occupation? (or last previous occupation if unemployed) Job Title: What dogyou do on the job? (or last previousgjob) Describe Job: What is the wage for your current Job? (or your retirement/welfare4payments) Considering all sources, what is your gpproximate level of monthly income? Total Monthly Income: 3 your place of residence a: villa apartment concrete house house built of mud with a wooden roof house built of cement with a wooden roof I ( ( ( ( ( ( other (specify) vvvvvv 194 18. Do you ( ) rent ( ) own this house ( ) house provided by relative ( ) other (specify) 19. Are you a citizen of Saudi Arabia? ( ) No (If no, terminate interview and thank the respondent) ( ) Yes (Continue with Part II) Interviewer: If the respondent is Saudi. thank him for answering this part of the questionnaire and say that you would now like to ask him some questions about his relations with relatives and friends in Riyadh city. 195 SAMPLE Survey of Riyadh Households QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER . NUMBER Part Two For Household Head: Now I would like to ask you (head of this household) about other members of your family and about your friends and your pattern of visiting with them. 1. Are both of your PARENTS still living? ( yes. both parents still living only mother still living only father still living . neither parents still living (skip to Question 06) vvvv ( ( ( 2. Where do your parents live and how far from here? ( ) NA both parents live in , km from here mother lives in . km from here father lives in . km from here 3. How often do YOU VISIT your parents? ( ) NA visit them about ___ times/month times/year'____less than once/year ___ none visit mother about times/month times/year less than once/year '___ none visit father about times/month times/year less than once/year ____none A. How often do your PARENTS VISIT you? ( ) NA both visit here about_ times/month times/year _ less than once/year _ non mother visits about times/month times/year ___ less than once/year‘___ none father visits about _ times/month times/year _ less than once/year _ none 5. About how often do you TELEPHONE parents per month? ( ) both ( ) my mother ( ) my father ( ) NA Other (specify): 6. What is your father's current occupation? Describe Job. If retired or deceased. describe last previous Job. 7. What was your father's occupation when you were about 20 years old? Describe Job: note any agricultural activity 196 8. Are any of your BROTHERS AND SISTERS living elsewhere than with you or with your parents? ( ) no (no brothers or sisters living elsewhere than with parents or in this household) ( ) yes IF YES, indicate residence place of EACH SEPARATE HOUSEHOLD: Brother or Sister Married or Single Residence Location gAper month ’Visits to them I per month Visits from them Residential Status 197 9. Are both of your WIFE'S PARENTS still living? ( ) never married (skip to question 16) ( ) yes. both wife's parents still living ( ) only wife's father still living ( ) only wife's mother still living ( ) no. both parents deceased 10. Where do your wife's parents NOW LIVE and how far from here? ( ) NA both parents live in . km from here her mother lives in . km from here her father lives in . km from here 11. Where is your wife's parents family home? My wife's family home place is: 12. How often do you visit your wife's parents? ( ) NA visit them about times/month or per year __ less than once/year ___ none visit wife's father about times/month per year ___less than once/year ___ none visit wife's mother about times/month per year __.less than once/year none 13. How often do your wife's parents visit you? ( ) NA both visit here about ___ times/month per year ___less than once/year ___ none wife's father visits about times/month per year __ less than once/year ___ non wife's mother visits about‘___ times/month.___ per year __ less than once/year non 198 1a. Are any of your wife's brother and sisters living elsewhere than with you or with their parents? ( ) no (none of my wife's brothers and sisters are living elsewhere than with me or with their parents) ( ) yes IF YES. indicate residence place of EACH SEPARATE HOUSEHOLD. In case more than one livss in the same home. indicate the oldest one's name and then list below the names of those who live with him. Wife's Brother Marital Residence Visits to them Visits from them flesidentisl or Sister Status Location I per month I per month Status ‘3‘” ' ‘hmf- r' 1.9199 ass-am esco- L - ~m_aceouneg mega mesa ecceouae. eouuessooo nosed uses—.3 ceases: sum to com moms ovum“, mm .s...s ”Ala: sou: es.— oss ones» so home: as» so—em dead some see one: n.sco unsouo em» concave“ .emoe on» :— mosu— eco ems» eLOI ammo any aaoaumaox whmucsun zumu ho momma mocooumes commuted .nuh u— sages stole], sass-cos ~stosm eoswmwmeu eomcsummm .. s.m to moms-mum me» A v 6: A . «so. sass cogs toss-s slugs»... as..__ guaasszu use» to as. as. .mp 200 n~_eas madman oce asenonos to. “coda-obs. a.uue su.m econ. eesomn 3a.: uneo so» see: moth eomum esaesm .euesoo so. so Lemxmmg ou mesa-mom‘s oedema-e. «madam: one we» .e—oe3. eexem eguxes some“: emem sou some.» mugecouomue- 6.5.3 3.35.. 33... a 18 so. 8i ”use. «as. 8...: «5.388 8 5389 due 8» 8 5.: .8 5:5 .6». .neoeuc .msesmee .eeaasoo .maesm .eeuocs exuu wooden—ea ceem u 3.2.2.:- 8 35.8.. :8... .353.- ..ssota £2220 .52 so... .8223! 8:8 8% :s .5338 .2 201 17. Have you helped any of your relatives financially during the past five years? ( ) Yes ( ) No IF YES. please indicate relatives (households) you have helped during the past five years and how much help you have given each of them. Name Relation Residence Location How Far from here in Rm? Approximately how much did J00 live them? 202 Secs .8 see..- 35 3 . .3383- oesom ego}... 9.83 pesos 3qu $33!... 5:. «523332: atom .5323... mecca-soon so» one: .853: 3 :2! 2:3 3 .3533 so. so» oo .386 so: .238. an a! wen .3e .252! 23 um aeom so» 253.: :98: as mos. so» nconuem .ooofooguuec =5 5 neS—IL so use SE. .83...me so :9» o» ease—P. to e: coo; so: 2.33 use» co Eeosem no... .593- 3 on guano—o ueeu so; 33:3... 3 ”gum must. 2... 33:3: once: .32. use: so» .3 co assoc coo so» .65. sou e—ooem £238. on end—o use» so» 023.. Josef... enoao :2. see 2.8 .3 use om: nous-usages oc- eocefa eeoe no: Spouses» .3 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2“. 203 Often friends help each other when help is needed. Have you or your family ever OOTTEN any HELP of any kind from any of your friemds? ( )No (never any help of any kind from pgrsons who 553 not rglgtives) ( )Yes {How did they help (explain) have you or your family ever GIVEN any HELP of any kind to any of your friends! ( )No (never given any help to persons who are not relatives) ( )Yes I How did you help (explain) Do you have any friends (not relatives by blood or marriage) who you or members of your family can count on for help if needed? ( )No (no persons gr friends East you could coggt on for help if it were needed ( )Yes Are you sure of such help being available to you in time of need? ( )very sure ( )fairly sure ( )not very sure ( )not at all sure Did you help some of your relatives or friends who moved to Riyadh during the past five years? ( )No ( )Yes Please speck whatever applies) I paid their moving expenses I gave him (them) a ride with me to the city I housed him (then) in my home for a certain time I helped financially I helped him (them) to get a Job I helped him (them) start a business other (Specify) AAAAAAA Has anyone not from your family. bloodline. or tribe married any of your daughters or sisters? ( )No ( )Yes ( )SISTER married outside family/tribe and her husband is originally from ( )DAUOHTER married outside family/tribe and her husband is originally from Do you have a son or brother who got married from outside your family. bloodline. or tribe? ( )No ,( )Yes ( )BROTHER married outside family/tribe and his wife is originally from ( )SON morried outside family/tribe and his wife is originally from 25. 26. 27. 2B. 204 On the average. how many times per month do you host occasions for guests where you (or more)? imes per month: imes per year: Less than once per year If you had a choice. where would you most prefer to live from the following places? ( )right here in this neighborhood ( )some other area of Riyad ( )some other city in Saudi Arabia ( )in a small town in Saudi Arabia ( )in a village in Saudi Arabia ( )other place (specify place) Do you visit your family home on certain occasions. such as weddings. festivals. eto.? )NA )No AAA )Yes I Nhen was the last time you visited your family home? year ] Generally speaking. do you believe that Saudi families who moved from the smaller towns to Riyadh are better off or worse off now than before they moved? )very much better off )somewhat better off )somewhat worse off )very much worse off )same situation )other Generally speaking. do you believe that Saudi families who moved from the villages to Riyadh are better off or worse off now than before they moved? )very much better off )sooewhat better off )somewhat worse off )very much worse off )same situation )other “AAAAA Generally speaking. do you believe that Saudi families who moved from the desert to Riyadh are better off or worse off now than before they moved? )very much better off )somewhat better off )somewhat worse off )very much worse off )same situation )other AAAAAA 205 31. Suppose you would earn the some income you now ears regardless of where you live in Saudi Arabia. Where would you most:p[efer to live? Place name: Region: Why choose this place? Interviewer: If the respondent was born in Riyadh and did not move to live outside Riyadh for at least five years of his/her first fifteen years of age. stop at the end of this part and thank him for his patience and cooperation. If he was not born in Riyadh (or did not grow up here). explain that you would now like to ask him some questions about his situation before and after he moved to Riyadh. I N A N K Y O U INTERVIENER CHECK ( ) Respondent not born in Riyadh (continue part three) ( ) Respondent not born in Riyadh but spent at five years of his first fifteen years of age outside Riyadh (continue part three) ( ) Respondent born in Riyadh and spent his early fifteen years of age in Riyadh (terminate interview) 206 SAMPLE Survey of Riyadh Households QUESTIONNAIRE NUMBER Part Three NUMBER Now I would like to ask a few questions about the situation when you moved here to Riyadh. 1. Have you always resided here in Riyadh since you first moved to Riyadh? ( )Yes (never moved awe from Ri adh since movin to Ri adh the first time) ( )No Where did you last live before last moving to Riyadh? (desert. village. town. city) What place and what year was that? year Now I would like to know a little more about your situation since that move. (Interviewer: focus attention on this particular move to Riyadh.) 2. Why did you move to Riyadh at that time? [mark whatever applies] ( ) moved with parents (child at that time) ( ) to get a better Job ( ) to pursue my education ( ) to Join my family members (son. father. anther. brother. etc.) ( ) to Join other relatives (uncles. cousins. etc.) ( ) to enjoy the amenities of the city ( ) because Riyadh is a good city to live in ' ( [) other (specify reason) 1 3. When you moved to Riyadh at that time. did you move ( ) alone ( ) with siblings ( ) with parents ( ) With wife (and chilgren) ( 1) other (specify who) I A. Who were you living with JUST BEFORE you moved to Riyath(mark whatever applies) alone siblings parents wife (and children other (specify who) 5. 6. 7. 9. 10. 207 How old were you at that time. when you moved here (age in years)? 5 S AAAfiAAAAAr-s wwwVvvvvvv l were you doing before moving here? not applicable in school herder farmer manual worker government employee (rank ) employee in private sector (rank ) self-employed unemployed or lookipg_fgr work other (specify) Please describe your work before you moved here. ‘( )Not applicable ork before I moved: What was your monthly income in Saudi rials from all sources. including your Job or others. in the place you moved to Riyadh from? ( ) not ppplicable My income from all sources: Were any other members of your family or other relatives living in Riyadh before you moved here? ( )No ( )Yes Who was the closest relative? (brother. uncle. cousin. etc.) Did you get help from your relatives who were in the city during the process of moving and after you had aoved to Riyadh? ( )Not applicable ( )No (I did not get any help) ( )Yes (Interviewer: please check whatever applies) ( AAAAAAA vvvvvvuv they paid my expenses in moving to Riyadh I got a ride with them to Riyadh I got a house from them to live in I lived with them for a while they gave me financial help (such as giving or loaning me money) they helped me get a Job they helped me start a business other (specify) ‘wzrfr I .___‘. .rr 11. 12. 13. 1'. 15. 16. 17. 16. 208 Nb kind of work did you obtain soon after you moved to Riyadh? continued schooling government employment (occupation salary ) employment in private sector (occupation salary self-employed It ) ) manual onker Job ) ) ) ) name-nan other (specify) 1 Please describe your first work pppp arriving in Riyadh. First work here: How long did you reside in Riyadh before obtaining your first job? ( ) less than one month ( ) from one to three months ( ) from four to six months ( ) more than 6 monppp ( ) other (specify) Everybody has soae kind of problems when they move from place to place - big ones. little ones. What kinds of problems did you have when you moved to Riyadh? I mean. the little things or big things that may have bothered you? Some of the problems faced are: What level of education did you have at the time when you moved to Riyadh? ) none read and write 6th grade 9th grade high school diploma bachelor‘s degree master's degree or higher AAAAAQA" vvvvvvv other (specify) 1 Did your relatives or friends have any influence on your decision to move to Riyadh? ( ) not applicable ( ) no ( ) yes Who are they? How did they influence you? What did you like best about Riyadh? What did you like least about Riyadh? 209 19. Generally speaking. which of the following statements describes your situation after your move to Riyadh City? ( )much better off ( )a little worse off ( )somewhat better off ( )much worse off ( )no different ( )uncertain (do not know) Interviewer: Thank the respondent for his patience and cooperation. 210 r1 1 ubLgfili—ipurasléha? w""’"""“~""‘ Jinx-.4 1. .‘am‘a' fifl'flpm' L 85—” John-"m 5.5-L.) labs,” 11.3.5134 ) a“ in» xiii-4 ) J’s-295.1334 ) :JJ'HJ' JG:- any‘él «,3 ugh: ‘53.)! all-.1124» 3 We?“ «IS-”Led é’a'w|éjw’;rsy1v)efi‘fi| :OHYR yam” WQJWYIJI’...“ “5'"???- 9.5.511 5431’s.”: 3‘” Eur-3‘ \ v r I 3 \ (en-J'J-I'21-r'sfi-5‘M'pa :.,.|,g.:.m 3.14;)“: v'sfi-“J'W‘l‘éefi (”I“) Jail” ( ’ matey-3.71 .',m J’Y' a}?! J.“ ( ) ('5“)‘-r'e)"J-s,al-i,i( ) mlfiiiyfi! 9.): *Sq ) Maw ) o'fi—flythnjsq ) “1,119.: 211 13,-.11 93: ant-v: (.3, (1553:" Li.“- J3'-'- é—re J31" ‘3?" Ys‘éhi'i'eaa's-J‘Jfl'3:9J‘J-fi3u3'efl'ieuétfi'fi-‘fiL3‘J3W5a-QW ovum or» was: we 2' J' an?» Jess-m as- ». lei 3s.- au ,3. asw as was, mus-51w Esfiy1fii—I?)&1J—b e—‘H ) V( ) [~43 3P“ v; v'ni-‘i V5: r33 J' Jib .31.. ‘4?" '3'] 5.911 swung. s,m,pcgm1¢ut,mvnnynga3wsni 3315139, .:,..:'| s, 31"" .9] 111.11 03‘ [mu-auwz-am-uawp'lsww-~ isflhfllmlpcflfibyfiuwxl-v =flfil-J-rh-9aflsfl'ém' Irv'dsu'w-mwa-v r-“( ) Y( ’ +01 w J»- .2- sit-A'iiswé'aflrbfirm' :2... fipr‘ls'ot-mnyjtumian fif‘dfiédfigflfi-e J-flJ' 212 : 31.91.214.33.) vats-‘ sags! 451.. 3 gin 14.19: ,3" an: ,su- v 3.91.2”: 1.19.»- A '«Ir'cs'F'r-‘i ) .3—54 ) J—u'( ) 517-4 1 [.‘e‘riéurlfi'fi'wJ fish's-h"! Hé‘fi-e :ylmjmgsagy-n «1.413:- ;—s' was» :4.” 1993” 213 (ca-1' get-”‘14:“ as-“ I 1 (an-I“ cot.) 1.31.51 '31 1.1)..” at"..- n J..; absgwumfu- \: JJ-‘brssr-“sJ JJ-‘bxw'tw'J-mr( «HM-15H ,ugmuJuss.1mt...J..s.:sisi.L_.t,,sI,sL. M}.( t: {Wit-,1.“ I BEEN ) s.- (lhswysd ) TJJNICJ,”megsflfiiwum’hkflflywlmfifih- \v jmwuugwnagngmguggpulwytwwmLyon!mists- \1 (Just. Ja):a_.t.hsn's_ss, Qanl-iilaflmiel-migwifl ism. J‘JLN .211 um: 2:91.»: my ”Pun 4.931,,sts- \- IQfiMI’IJl-m 43.1.11 41.5.11 #fifll,lm1,ahfihilw)w1133flem -n :Jg'we-‘J‘Jh’ 214 “flay-\V LN ) oboe-ed ) q-fiihs-bscel-hépéfl ) #“fiséh-Wp'nr-‘efi ) ““054 ) song..-“ fillhg‘i—a( ) www ) immfi-aJfiW'flJi-fl-‘luma'fil ) 14.9w 1 wippacpas 11..» m 1.. am .105" ”w (roe-:5 39'9“ sac-n '1 be" r“) ‘H 2 (3”°>N'$»h')¢4r-HJ( ) mvugxodmgi alps-14.1.1393.“ Ingpualyaavuy .ssugspspmasui .44.. A' 11.-u a was «out. and" 215 Jaw-me 13.-um. gate-1119’» cw iFBI—1.11 SH." 33-fl‘1'whfixu'9 u-O ....... .551. 51.1.1, scum, JILL: at“ g. (:th ._.,) cit—J J 1,1 J 9.: on 55'! “Law'eias-emsxss-n u-J'fl:3':N'-h.-3J‘U”r‘( 1 M'e‘J-‘WJJ‘M ) wewwwu ) [1 r3) aw JU :11 3'11 awn-69411111 1 Ibo-J'aerssd'a'bbi-ew-I H's-N ) “Air-FAA Jae: Jim-EJJI” used-£74 W 445-1.?“ uyfisAS—H-z dos-:44": :w'wmnnswauwwuw-v 51%" ( ) 1‘33“" I: i- 5» — .‘v- 3' 1.11,”) 1.- 5- 3» 1..”51 1: u-‘v 3» —— r5 .a'asb‘ “2.9)" ’e s’- 3;- .)- J" “as? 1.- s'- 3;- _ “as? 1: Jr’- 0» —— .r" u)‘ —— lea-us" 1.4-3:- :rJi‘mJ' 125-3» my )no-“r .e'ni' '- 4." 1M: We at: pa» am.- 311 Jam-nu- t 5.53:“ ) Hui.” 'ei-OP— J‘Ji'é'»): ire-3;- 432.331.." )no-33" Jack.” -— ”in?” 95-3» .‘r'Ji'éaiF ‘rr-‘r— 432.133 )no-$5» r‘éu?’ — "9.1):st 125-5;. .90.)”in 1:5-‘2— .éuLe 1:10-35» if“)! i’fiJIJLj’iBHJUWIJa‘Hh—O 1:"er 11.»:- sw's-Jéw 191—L Lee-:J-JN 1 )no-‘- s-sI-m ) flier.” ) 216 I W1”), “35, ’IU- \ .1...» 11.-sun -'~ an i».- J' 9.2-.1 baa-st: '1' “Au-3" Iii-w" JBJKI—mflwfimgraLe-V um 4.11.- ..a'w-uw .31 at», new 41 14.1-“'99“! 433-}.3?‘ swig-1151.951» wfi'J-e'Je-A [423.25- 0.13.923 J‘s.) .‘fi-eé‘r'e'i' J's'r‘Ja-JIW ) r—‘() 415:5“ 1.1, -=-.-: J ;,$-.- H'- I": .395' '5': «9': J" .‘fi-J‘ ng-fii' H599)?“ '5' Ive—31L: 11.-'1' ... 1- summ- 455-133” mm W 31.1.1 h- Joni-é“ ”Here-1 2,:va (new 217 tzw'aépannsaw-SJ-d [HmJt-J'J'aslaro'oows-zm Meiyémwflsw( 3w 1.3.» swam-m 31,-11.5.» .3”) w.w( «minim w- mum-15m .vvvvv 1 Lb gs ”am-g 151m, .571 9,3131, 35.-mp 331- \ ' 5.1-m ) J's-“ans: .1th J'P‘i‘J-Ae: Jfi-eérsid': J'phgemmfi’ $454393”: 9 H’I ”,5 J...) y” {#1- \\ :s-Jm ,2»; .w .1»- 1 £33 1.1-‘7 45:93 J-mS-‘h- \1' H's“ 1 he»? ' )no-‘- 3:- he»? 01:51 )no-“r — jean-1»? hm) bio-15» — and»? 1.1 ms" Ina—3;- .‘eJi' ous‘ 95-8;- 11 km" ksi-‘r— aw to»? 9 9‘93:- '- w an; w": w.- »1: .r'm w.- 3" J-upu- W H‘“ 1 3'»): U” 1.- 10-1- ——-«.r")i'e 1‘" in? hfi—J-mw,é:sfi —— 'e-‘éax'e" Err-3r J-Ji'a'usir 1r!"- ——'a.-'.mri 1.4—3;- .‘r-Ji'éu'i ter- 218 “Bi-:31 roe-1": fixe‘éxJJS-eéfi-‘rsi 0'95'3' Ob" 0‘s" «1‘- “ [ws’ res”: era-5 .35- .) Q‘s-.- éni 9'95131 a‘ir' 9.1.111” 1 r—‘() {1 bin-Jr‘ué‘ PM” ”'1 5:9.) 405-91" :1 do“ 3‘ '5': D'JJS'J—U‘ .58-1' J‘s-955' ref-.- i-rLr‘I‘ '51 w'waS-es-Mé-a-J‘m 55.5.}? é'kflusb fldkflufls feds-932.3 unanimi- Len-=1! was. on.» gum 219 suggwjgsflutayssygypny- \s 7() r-‘(1 ”in." 91.51 11.-4.1.1 ass-2.31 .1 .11 J15 w.»u.m—w é-J' its.” Lupus—ow u .ulmfihqugsshlfisefldfia ' r0339)» 5.19).)“ JoyJfi-stl ZN Jre-JS: 1210-5-41 )no-1001 9543‘- “ 9:51"wa rt” 3.41-Km 48.-fie» [143,“ s' 45?” J": Y: 4595' 3' 4: s." 3' 4995' 's-e-i .IeU'l 4399' Heats-37' .13-51' e-o- 1‘ 41.35, 51,5111, 39$ 01.3.31 J1,sy1 .1391, «”141 sun .syms, bias." 41,371, .1311 3.. 491311 ,31 ”39.3.1311: Its-1,61 11.53 .1915...» dilapflYldl’eSeyygepoe .13.“, S1,.sy1, 3,571 or... J'b-rs'fiefl-Tvbkfi'w “hrfifl'ébkfi'w “Us 69:) :- M's! £15,3-”)? 41»! 220 out-:15 «1.4-7 U f 3.06 3.1,]. ".5193 415.. M N '3‘, ~18 .‘r' ew‘u we” 1.2-u a» you 1.151;...» .11 who's-.1.- w r—“( 1 ”N 1 «5' “~13 .651" as: :33” 11311, ‘s-bu' abi- J-H' Jab Hist- gm 13,-v! ,1),.,u:r1 .91 31.3.5 ,....-.., 1.1.“. 1;. -1,JsJ.u..1~...-.-.aw 51.11,... UJA-‘Jnieamgp‘ $.11 _-,1s. 2.311.." a." _‘1 “'Ifid ‘1‘... 221 Mia-- “Mm-fibefiui-YHYs-auhemfi‘l'xi.‘n-humuu'uam'JS-u .QN' 3‘ "Ln-k Jail-15' WOWYI nip, whit-15.1," “if.” mywuiuumeyfifiagyuuumayyawuyww1auguw 13' 111‘“ ‘G-HV' ‘7'» £1“: 121-‘3‘ P “‘9': He “1,5131; *5“ CH a-e-‘l 4391-" 3 He“ saw-:19» +111 J-u'u-wammsaumm' way-mun 199-9 ”Neda-4| J'Jfidfi.“ onyx J‘uxnwo‘ up...» ,..11 1.1—3,... JEA‘J'Jr-é *1" a» «.11.», J-J‘JJr-J m? 4’3’ “50‘ .lemnifiul wlquuYI- 11 1M133au1301¢1pmyaluoy {Jkfi'a-J-AJ-Hq'wwu‘J-zfiwfi“3.15.-eel)“ ) r-‘() uu1mw1,...-J.L_.sp..:.1 smuumuggwmHIngmuya1my§thv~ [Jo‘vfi'giJ‘J-HJ'WWJ'hr'Ifl ) 94 ) uu'flafidficfi' [wifmwbxéfl‘uw-‘l-HJDJ‘ tasouIzywmbjmmamwmuumywya1wouu1 [Qummekfl'é'fi-‘uu'flxw‘wdlfl 1 l9MquJM-fius-iw-BUWMJ-J'JSB-e—Jylr-fi( 1 1.».31‘93. ) 1......5124 ) 41.311“ ) 13.—nae...” ) 222 31.311135... 9.1.3.11 .1315 951., ,11411,1n11 gurwum ,1 .-1._. ,131 :1: 1.91 “1... a1, 5.... J. - w H ) -z‘;71;,.3upalfiszI-he&wlefi( ) AAJ'nar-s'mw‘ ékfl'ifiwJ'Hbfl'o‘S-o-fik-Jwefim( ‘fii’kéwnfid Unfit-*4 mmwaamu GawkqufizaL'l Ash-afibaifi'wJ-hd—é-fl 9'5'§""E§W:'M“JH#¢] PM‘JQ‘HgYu-MJ'MJD -" [1.511, N ) H‘ ) 331-0' 9:5:‘L-93" in” a)". .1109); =5” ) Jail-0' 1191513193” lab" {)5 J‘J-fli-‘é( ) 211211-311emuuwwpwmaugvmua-cfituwma -11 W ) 1—1-51 ) 3‘4“”): M'lw‘zauazficfl JV'QJJ:M‘/uucaukzfiw( ) 1.31.1111»: waxw'w1uéxéwp'mwaemmwm #1.);131“. U'Jé'fl'J-B U‘J-rb-Ji' 223 :gm51.115.95.551mfl1gm1wld,1,s,1..N1;,1$1:11 -n 9119111 «”‘Jua-isu AA'Q-ua-é'JuJoS—‘JJAN JEA'Be-géigfl'm'ouo-iéuu m'auaixi-ieuu m‘JfiJ-QJM 9S.“ “551.35.! 1.38.”;3151‘ 9 0951: 49‘1“: 2‘3)” éwhffiw 99-9- ;1 J-d' 4W $913353.» - W H” ) ‘l( ) ."“( ) u .1-111 dwwwzmwwé- " [5" '1 ""-‘" 5‘9 J" J' 31“” 9‘" wm‘ 1r?" W‘ 91131.11 :11 .1311: .1- 3.11.; LL...- "1 2.162.111 4,135.1; 1,115 1.. $1; [.31 ,1] eh'fiKh-Aa-M «euwuootefl QfiVJSB-W VJJ'LsJ‘N a.“ 5““... L... 0‘4)“ J-i'éS‘Jsihz-k'fisflwfl( 133.5?“ VVVVVV' hibp‘gll ,1[;,..>1] le U'.1._.,11 JIJfilyml p1§w1 93131.41 gun-.14..- H ' tJuiiYIJjg‘lfitS «ek'fiKh-Ao-ow ek'fiSt-o-o'tgfifl w'flh-vaaa‘tgfi( Q'fi'SL-‘d.’ 1.5-IN JBY'Jéhg-k'fisflwfl( .534)“ vvvvvv 224 myula‘;,1},1lg,.>1l1,9,...1’51,}1Jligag1yum1’mywuauww1may- r- smmygugu ek‘i‘sh‘é‘rflq «ek'»tSL-.>-'lg;=( 9"?“h-‘W‘JJJ'QFW W'fi‘sh‘d.’ 'JJ)'( WY'JJHA‘W‘SFMJ( fliJfiW 31mg.m1ég1sog135y1ggmgmfiwpwyegg-Jamaafil -71 25s.: 1.51.311 ,‘ iii-“.11 3S.” f—v' 3.5" L3... :93“ Ill—1,5.“ 31.3.3 Jfi" “~r-‘ M9131 '.-.|,°... .r-é '04 loan“ fi—J‘oi-Ji'é-r’: .1“: .1" .3 ob- éP-r” '5‘ “Le" a" -‘--1’1 0:“ W'Fk 694' '5‘ 32H?- 8 39'1““? .‘r. 14; .111 «1 pm 451.. ,11 pr- «=1.» .2- .111 Jams, .131: )1 ¢.,1,. «111.1112» .1 4,1,»; wash-115151 L-i -.:-1.-».11Ju=umJ.-s~=b.>-i1-m-..a~ur,- {SJ—.911 -:*m5,hguyhn¢.up1,11,s1 WoflJfi'ékfl'Jaflrxi-‘vfl'w ( ) JEH‘EJBQRJJa5"a-fifi “uni-9" aipwiflgxgdsgg131»w1 1:.1 WHNJfi-v' -m'~h.us'ubw'ade-J-JfiW-AWAAA¢¢,1,..:.,....11;.1s1.11 ( ) 225 333'" 1‘3) 53‘5“" 932 ”BL: J." u!“)""' $3.91.! MI 53...)” 9313,11mm1mw,»zhy1b.mdn.1g1?1gy1 zzravwmguuuagwgmmuyu .[;,.J,11..,11.-.11=1.;,1:11._,-.1,.,11;,.Ja=1,1],.;( ) ‘N ) ixfi‘JEflJ‘WJiéfi-d [3:59-3xhtyo-§fi-1‘M‘l 413.959“ 15': 31.31,...11. [9957' JET-3" '5‘ J‘ “LP-“35.1 391911.931“! «eel-J1 a: M—bfi‘ :1' -.—" .35" sea-yum»«ussgévlss1-1nguawteumww -v [J—‘H‘IJJ'1e-W1 Hui-5&3.“ «psi—H,“ ['59: .1“ v“ v‘ 11.13.11.131“ 4'1“: 3‘3”! ['HW'W'-Jfi'?h"]xfiy'vam¥5w( i—QJ'J-the-sé‘i'afim . wwwbumzeuawaa-uw :—-‘-~" 15:" l m1yag1dang-yu1m1m -v 4...,” D “We-1 1 iL-rd'ud 1 (44“.1'11 4:9,; ed 1 puny-11 1 226 mug-91‘» 13921J1w®1é31~w11w1jamwo1¢a -1 1W1” 1 115',“ :4 1 .19”: c4 1 (4471‘s) in) c-( 1 :43 a“ MJ1m1may1an5aflg1sg -a 3.13-nerd 11.1.J1mun1ywcasuu -1 H11" ‘9‘" J ( 1.1-"J CL” «11.-J.“ ( I 142"] «09“ 3’1“" 11 Jm' ( l @5111] aw awn-‘11 4.1.5.11 ,1...» 4‘1 ( J“ .‘y‘ -‘—-.-'.1'Jh-=-( .153 .5)“ 9,31,,11J1mepmJ—fiw -v H” 1 43271 4.34.41 2.3-L: .1” J' 4163' 111-3 1.”; 3' “959' :1- "r-M-l' er? a- {41.41 .11: fir .011“ 415-1 .315 93- ’1 543.1“ 1 ”)4“. egg. 3. 61“”. J15; 211-:11mmJJJ-w'éaS—Mufiwmacaw-~91.315.» -‘ 1'1 1 4...“ 1 [ 1&1 91 y .... :1»:- m— p1 911,9 227 14133131194115, JLi'IdlZyJfijgflléifiBxhlfigfilymh‘J-swy -1- 5—11-39'( 1 [HUG-nés'Ju-wellww 1 [3,511 .;.5au1;,;.a-,_.1.y 1.112991.» 31],...“ 1 JEJ‘QHJ‘JW'é;h-'flaflt 1 JEJ'J'eé;E--e¢3:liifl( 1 Wfi-‘H45bH8J-fi-J‘éh'fl( 1 uegsmHung( 1 gnaw-m1 1 QMJ‘JW'JJHL-AN 1 -¢:1.*-'-J~:35J4314“-fl( 1 1331s)“ eggy1J1w®14~gabJuJyyu -11 3-3-4'3-‘1-31‘3-‘1 JHJ-‘J‘éb( [— Jy— Q9” #1.] rfi’J-‘J-‘éhfi DavVVV 4.13:1 ,1...1_-.1.;( 113-33.0" uwu'aI-sainwawiéfimunw-W :pug‘“ J.‘J,I 2%31J‘M'Jéw‘wm'wfikfi'3103.95.13'513n'g‘h-W n—éo-JN 1 311—‘- 35?&J‘,¢-11_)-( 1 :u-‘iL-J‘;H-=i-Iu'&'( 1 m—t‘;-1=S‘( 1 133.9“ 228 zgéJsmIma-M1usiJwK-owmwxmo-mwuuswem -~1 ,1;,_.a.11.1,:.y1,1s,a1,,11J1.:.1m1 “£531, “ausmlvsu .3,,.i...,.511,°..11.,.11, semifiulfi «1113,9991 =40 431-13 fi‘fiU-‘J'J-J-r 231...," 31.313211 1.1.1; M1 411,2...»1. -1: ‘4—1'7( 1 ~13" ‘1" ( 1 [91.191411 1.5.111 ,1.-.1 saw-=1 1 [3.1191 “115...;- :41: 3414M 1 3.1-1.11 39 91:11 3.111;- ( 1 “'1' as ”IS-1‘ ( 1 J" 1‘ 1.5-.44 . 1 .5415 515' 1.15191111311111va1.- 4111311»??- Muu' 41.111311 as.» -n 5—.-|-'-..-‘1'(- 1 ’1 1 e-“t 1 .14: 111:1 .1; ems, .141 111:1“ 11*» ms» 1 131.1111 311934211 11.-1:11..»- -w 1.151911 .1 119111.211 11.-1111..» -\~ (J 115.132 gfikfl'g-I‘J' 33' “1.4-“'5: “3937‘ Ji-N' .301.“- “ s-kflBX-BJJM 1 gguuigqu 1 fid‘fih‘AJ‘J" 1 9331.21.12qu 1 [#1715133 ( 1 4113141 and ( 1 41.1.1», 0,111; ‘1‘ 59,11,531 :91," r" REFERENCES- REFERENCES Al-Fiar, Mohammed H. 1977. "The Faisal Settlement Project at Haradh, Saudi Arabia: A Study in Nomadic Attitudes Toward Sedentarization." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Al-Ghamdi, Abdulaziz. 1979. “water distribution, availability and problems in Jeddah City, Saudi Arabia: a household survey." Unpublished master's thesis, Department of Geography, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Aloochi, fibusain Banifatemeh. 1982. "Squatter Settlements as a Transitional Adjustment Phase in Rural-Urban Migration: The Case of Tabriz, Iran.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Al-Shamrany, Salih A. 1980. ”Types, Distribution, and Significance of Agricultural Terraces in Assarah, Southwestern Saudi Arabia." Unpublished Master's thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. . 1984. "Agricultural Land Use Patterns in Relation to the Physical, Locational, and Socioeconomic Factors in the Assarah Region of Saudi Arabia." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Al-Sheikh, Abdulaziz A. 1977. "Residential Mobility in Riyadh: A Study in Intraurban Migration." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Madison. Al—Thubaity, Khudhran Khadi M. 1981. "Rural Migration in Taif: Their Migration and Residential Mobility. Unpublished Ph.D.ciissertation, Michigan State University, Department of Geography, East Lansing. Arnold, F. 1984. "Asian Labor Migration to the Middle East." International Migration Review 18(2). 229 230 Baali, Fuad. 1966. "Social Factors in Iraqi Rural-Urban Migration." American JOurnal of Economics and Sociology 25 (4):358-364. Bach, R.L. 1982. "Migration, Crisis, and Theoretical Conflict." International Migration Review 16(2). Baer, Gabriel. 1964. POpulation and Society in the Arab East. Frederick A. Praeger Publishers, New Ybrk. Balan, Jorge (editor). 1981. Why People Move, Comparative Perspectives on thegDynamics of Internal Migration. The UNESCO Press. Bilsborrow, Richard E., et a1. 1984. Migration Surveyg in Iow'Income Countries: Guidelines for Survey and Questionnaire Design. Croom Helm, London. Bock, E. Wilbur, and Sugiyama Lutaka. 1969. "Rural-Urban Migration and Mobility: The Controversy on Latin America." Rural Sociology 34(3):342-354. Bogue, Donald J., K. Hinze, & M. White. 1982. Techniques of Estimating Net Migration. Community and Family Study Center, University of Chicago. Brown, Alan A., & E. Neuberger (editors). 1977. Internal Migration: A Comparative Perspective. Academic Press, New Ybrk. Brown, James 8., Harry K. Schwarzweller, and Joseph J. Manglam. 1961. "Kentucky Mountain Migration and the Stem-Family: An American variation on a Theme by L E Play." Paper prepared for the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, St. Louis, Missouri, September 1, 1961. Byerlee, Derek. 1973. "Indirect Employment and Income 1 Distribution Effects of Agricultural Development Strategies: A Simulation Approach Applied to Nigeria." African Rurafl Employment Paper, No.9, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, East lansing. Caldwell, J.C. 1968. "Determinants of Rural-Urban Migration in Ghana." Population Studies 22(3):361-377. Champan, M. 1984. "Themes on Circulation in the Third World." International Migration Review 17(4). 231 Connell, John, et a1. 1976. Migration from Rural Areas. New Delhi, Oxford University Press. Conway, D. 1979. "Step-Wise Migration: Toward a Clarification of the Mechanisms." International Migration Review 14(1). Cook, John T., et a1. 1987. "The Migration Response to Uneven Economic Development in Ecuador, 1973-77: A Province-Level Analysis.” Unpublished paper presented at the 1987 Population Association of America meeting, April 30-May 2. Dasgupta, Biplab. 1981. "Rural-Urban Migration and Rural Development." In: Jorge Balan (ed.), Why People Move, The UNESCO Press. Davanzo, J., and P.A. Morrison. 1982. Migration Seguences. Santa Monica, California: Rand. Davis, Kingsley. 1969. Worlg Urbanization, 1950-1970, vol. 1. Institute of International Studies, University of California, Berkeley. Dean, Ken G. 1988. "Interregional Flows of Economically Active Persons in France, 1975-1982." Demography 25(1):81-98. Dillman, D.A., and D.J. Hobbs (ed.). 1982. Rural Society in the 0.5.: Issues for the 1980s. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press. Doxiadis Associates. 1970. "Current Situation of Riyadh, Final Report." Athens. Doxiadis Associates. 1971. "Final Raport." Athens. Ducoff, Louis J. 1962. "The Migrant P0pulation of a MetrOpolitan Area in a Developing Country: Case Study of San Salvador.” Ekistics 13(75), January. Eisenstadt, S. N. 1953. "Analysis of Patterns of Immigration and Absorption of Immigrants." Population Studies 7:167-180. Essang, Sunday M. & Adewale F. Mabawonk. 1974. "Determinants and Impact of Rural-Urban Migration: A Case Study of Selected Communities in Western Nigeria.“ African Rural Employment, Paper No. 10, Michigan State University, Department of Agricultural Economics, East Lansing. 232 Galle, Omer, and Karl E. Taeuber. 1966. "Metropolitan Migration and Intervening Opportunities.” American Sociological Review 31(1). Glick, Paul. 1977. "Updating the Family Life Cycle of the Family." Journal of Marriage and Family 39 (February):5-l3. Golden, Hilda H. 1981. Urbanization and Cities, Historical and Comparative Perspectives on Our Urbanizing World. D.C. Heath and Company, Toronto. Goldscheider, Calvin. 1971. Population, Modernization, and Social Structure. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. Gray, P.G., & Corlett. 1950. "Sampling for the Social Survey." Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, A, 113, pp. 150-206. Hagood, Margaret Jarman. 1941. Statistics for Sociologists. New Ybrk: Reynal and Hitchcock, Inc. Hauser, P.M. (ed.). 1979. World Population and Development. Syracuse, N.Y.: Syracuse University Press. Hinderink, J., and G.J. Tempelman. 1978. "Rural Change and Types of Migration in North Ivory Coast." African Perspectives 1:93-107. Ibrahim, Saad Eddin. 1980. "POpulation and Urbanization in Morocco." Cairo Paper in Social Science, v.3, monograph 5, pp. 25-87. Kammeyer, K.C.W. (ed.). 1975. Population Studies: Selected Essays and Research. Chicago: Rand-McNally. Kikuchi, Hideo. 1982. "Skiing Involvement and Family Life Cycles: A Study of Michigan Downhill Skiers." Master of Science thesis, Michigan State University, East Lansing. King, Lula Tassin. 1975. "The Effect of Family Status and Family Life Cycle Stages on Housing Standard, Personal Efficacy and Planning, Economizing and Risk Avoidance of Families with Low Incomes--An Ecological Approach." Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Kurtz, Norman R. 1983. Introduction to Social Statistics. New York: McGrawhHill Book Co. 233 Lacey, Linda. 1981. "Urban Migration in Developing Countries: A Case Study of Three Cities in Nigeria." unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University, Ithaca. Lee, E. S. 1966. "A Theory of Migration." Demography 3(1):47-57. . 1982. POpulation Estimates. London: Sage Publications. Lewis, G. J. 1982. Human Migration. Croom Helm, London. Long, Larry H. (reviewer). 1977. "A review of three books: PeOple on the Move, Internal Migration, and Migration Theory and Fact." Demography 14(4). Makinwa, P. beo. 1981. Internal Migration and Rural Development in Nigeria: Lessons from Bendel State. Heinemann Educational Books, Nigeria. Makky, Ghazy A.W. 1986. "The Booming Growth of the City of Riyadh and Its Effect on the Hbusing Market." Geojournal 13(2):133-141. Malik, S. Abdullah. 1973. "Rural Migration and Urban Growth in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia." Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan. Mangalam, J.J., and H.K. Schwarzweller. 1968. "General Theory in the Study of Migration: Current Needs and Difficulties." International Migration Review 13(1). ' . "Some Theoretical Guidelines Toward a Sociology of Migration." (Handout prepared by H.K. Schwarzweller, Sociology of Migration, SOC 820, Michigan State University). Meilink, Henk A. 1978. "Some Economic Interpretation of Migration." African Perspectives 1:51-65. Miro, C.A., and J.E. Potter. 1980. PDpulation Policy: Research Priorities in the Developing World. New York: St. Martin‘s Press. Morrison, Peter A. 1969. "Duration of Residence and Prospective Migrants: The Evaluation of Stochastic Model." Demography 4:553-561. Moser, C.A. 1969. Survey Methods in Social Investiga- tion. Heinemann, London. 234 Mukherji, Shekhar. 1982. Poverty and Mobility in India: A Field-Theoretic Perspective. Sibani Ray Prajna, Calcutta, India. Niblock, T. (ed.). 1980. Social and Economic Development in the Arab Gulf. London: Croom Helm, Ltd. Oberai, A.S., and H.K. Manmohan Singh. 1980. "Migration, Remittances and Rural Development, Findings of a Case Study in the Indian Punjab." International Labor Review 119(2):229-41. Odimuko, Chi L. 1975. "Rural-Urban Migration." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Canadian Association of African Studies held at New York University, Toronto, February 19-22, 1975. Pine, Vanderlyn R. 1977. Introduction to Social Statistics. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: PrentiCe-Hall. Portes, Alejandro. 1978. "Migration and Underdeve10p- ment." Politics and Society 8(1). Ravenstein, E.G. 1976. The Laws of Migration. New YOrk: Arno Press. Rempel, Henry. 1971. “The Rural-to-Urban Migrant in Kenya." African Urban Notes 6(I):53-72. Richmond, Anthony H., and Daniel Kubat (editors). 1976. International Migration: The New World and the Third World. Sage Publications, London. Richard, Anthony H., and R.P. Verma. 1979. "The Economic Adaptation of Immigration: a New Theoretical Perspective.” International Migration Review 12(1). Robertson, Ian. 1977. Sociology. New York: Worth Publishers. Sabbaghi, Asghar, & T.A. Afshar. 1982. "Two Theoretical Contributions: Part A. Technical Notes: A First Attempt to Distinguish Between More and Less Desirable Multi-Sector Patterns of Internal Migration. Part B: Private Returns and Social Costs and Benefits of Rural-Urban Migration in Less Developed Countries." Project papers prepared for the Fertility Department Group, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana. 235 Salem, Claude Isaac. 1975. "Pluralism in the Ivory Coast: The Persistence of Ethnic Identities in a One-Pary State." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles. Saudi Arabia, Ministry of‘Planning. 1980. Third Development Plan: 1980-1985. Riyadh. Schwarzweller, Harry K. 1979. "Migration and the Changing Rural Scene." Rural Sociology 44(1). Schwarzweller, Harry K. et a1. 1971. Mountain Families in Transition. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press. SCET International/Sedes. 1979. "Riyadh Action Master Plans Technical Report No. 6, Existing Conditions." Volume V: Socio—economic Survey. Riyadh: Zul Qiddan 1399. Sebai, Zohair A. 1974. "Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice of Family Planning: Profile of a Bedouin Community in Saudi Arabia." Journal of Biosocial Science 6:453-461. Shaw, R. Paul. 1975. Migrationgheory and FactygA Review of Current Literature. Regionaléscience Research Institute, Bibliography Series, No. 5. . 1983. Mobilizing Human Resources in the Arab WOrld. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London. Sogreah and Osailan. 1984. "Socio-economic Survey of Villages and Hijar in the Kingdom." FDurth Report. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Speare, Jr., Alden. 1971. "A Cost-Benefit Model of Rural to Urban Migrants in Taiwan." Population Studies 25(1). Stouffer, Samuel. 1940. "Intervening Opportunities: A Theory Relating Mobility and Distance." American Sociological Review 5(6). Sudman, Seymour. 1983. "Applied Sampling." In: Handbook of Survey_Research. Edited by P.H. Ross, et a1. Academic Press, New York. Thomas, William I., and Florian Znaniecki. 1958. The Polish Peasant in Europe and America. Vol. 1. New York: Dover Publications. 236 Todaro, Michael P. 1971. "Income Expectations, Rural-Urban Migration and Employment in Africa." International Labor Review 104(5):387-413. . 1969. "A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less Developed Countries." American Economic Review 59(1):138-148. Trager, Lillian. 1984. "Migration and Remittances: Urban Income and Rural Households in the Philippines." Journal of Developing Areas 18:317-340. Uhlenberg, Peter. 1973. "Noneconomic Determinants of Nonmigration: Sociological Considerations for Migration Theory." Rural Sociology 38(3). Van Binsbergen, Wim M.J., and Henk A. Meilink. 1978. "Migration and the Transformation of Modern African Society." Printing Trade, Hasselt, Holland. Weeks, John R. 1981. Population: An Introduction to Concepts and Issues. 2nd ed. Belmont, California: wadsworth Publishing Company. Weiner, M. 1982. "International Migration and Development: Indians in the Persian Gulf." Population and Development Review 8(1). Wells, William D. and George Gubar. 1966. “Life Cycle Concept in Marketing Research." Journal of Marketing Research 3 (November):355-363. White, Michael J., and Deter R. Mueser. 1987. "What Differencel)oes a Line Make? Implications of Boundary Choice for the Measurement of Residential Mobility." Unpublished paper. Williams, J.D., and B. McMillen. 1983. “Location- specific Capital and Destination Selection Among Migrants to Nonmetropolitan Areas." Rural Sociology 48(3). ‘__‘- Wood, Charles H. 1982. "Equilibrium and Historical- Structural Perspectives on Migration.“ International Migration Review 16(2).