Colombia - Urbanization, internal migration and spatial policy

Report No. 1154-CO Urbanization, Internal Migration, and Spatial Policy in Colombia June 10, 1976 Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office Country Programs Department II FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Document of the World Bank This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World FPank authorization.   FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY URBANIZATION, INTERNAL MIGRATION, AND SPATIAL POLICY IN COLOMBIA This report was undertaken by Michael E. Conroy, a World Bank Consultant, as part of the World Bank's work on urbanization in Colombia. The data presented in the study are preliminary and tentative. The conclu- sions are those of the author and do not necessary reflect the views of the Bank. This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.   TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. MAP SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ......................................... i-i I. INTRODUCTION ....... ............................... . 1 II. RECENT URBANIZATION IN COLOMBIA ......... .............. 3 III. RATES AND STRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS OF RECENT INTERNAL MIGRATION ...... ............................ 8 IV. CHARACTERISTICS, COSTS AND BENEFITS ................... 11 V. SIMULATED MIGRATION: 1973 TO 1985 .................... 14 VI. RECENT SPATIAL POLICY: CHARACTERISTICS AND qUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION ..........lb ................. 16 A. Industrial and Administrative Decentralization ... 18 B. The "Cities-Within-the-City" Program .... ......... 24 C. Concentration of UPAC Investment ................. 25 D. Integrated Rural Development ..................... 25 ANNEXES I. Recent Urbanization in Colombia: Characteristics and Policy Considerations .............. ............. I - 19 II. Recent Internal Migration in Colombia: Rates and Structural Determinants ............................. 1 - 19 III. Notes on the Characteristics of Migrants and on the Social Costs and Benefits of Migration in Colombia I.. - 14 IV. Simulation of Migration and Spatial Policy in Colombia: From 1973 to 1985 ................................... I - 17  11  78- 76. r I A N T 0 C F A Al C, ATLANTICC) /MAGDALENA SU(P NORTE DE coROOBA W SANTAN A T I 0 G L) I A A" 5 A N I A N D E R A R A U C A C H 0 C 0 9 C) Y A C A L CALPA51 CUNDINAMARCA) BOGOTA v I c H A DA OL)IOD10 41 Lk T 0 L 1 M A \1A L L E
j M E T A NZ M U IL A C A U C A G U A I N I A N A R I N 0 V A U P F 5 P""s M,, d- C A Q U E T A P ki T U M A Y 0 A M A Z C) N A 5 COLOMBIA DeparNlrv*4t, Infoilt"mi*1 6A damiwk boundaylot Vall, rivom -4-   SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 1. Colombia has experienced one of the highest rates of urban growth in Latin America and, hence, one of the highest in the world. From 1938 to 1973 the urban population 1/ increased from about 30% to about 60% of the total population. As a result, there has been widespread concern in Colombia about the social and economic consequences of internal migration and urbaniza- tion. Every administration in Colombia for the last 15 years has articulated a set of policies with an explicitly spatial focus. However, the nature of that focus, the conceptual and empirical understanding of that focus, and the policies which have been derived from it have varied substantially. This report seeks to analyze in policy-relevant terms the recent patterns of internal migration and urbanization and to consider in that context current Colombian policies that have either explicit spatial orientation or signif- icant implicit spatial implications. 2. Urban growth in Colombia has fallen sharply in the recent past, drop- ping from an average annual rate of about 5.4% per year from 1951 to 1964 to about 3.7% annually from 1964 to 1973. Average annual population growth has also declined over the same periods, although not as steeply. Historically, urban growth in Colombia has been dispersed among an unusually large number of intermediate and large cities. Contrary to the commonly held belief that the largest cities have been growing disproportionately rapidly, evidence pres- ented here suggests that there has been no significant relationship between size of city and rate of growth since 1951. 3. The current administration has expressed support for policies which aim at decentralizing economic and population growth away from the three largest cities. The above growth trends raise some questions as to the appro- priateness of such policies. While it may be that the net social benefit of additional migration to the intermediate size cities is greater than to the larger cities, there is no evidence available which supports this conclusion, and additional study appears to be necessary if decentralization policies are to be justified on economic grounds. 4. Migration in Colombia continues to be predominantly urban-oriented. Preliminary estimates of net migration among departamentos from 1964 to 1973 indicate that both the absolute size of the flows and the flows as a percentage of the initial year population have increased. At the same time, the pattern of flows among areas of the country has changed consider- ably. There have been reversals in the direction of the flows for some departamentos and significant changes in the proportion of total flows con- tributed by each departamento. A small experimental model of the deter- minants of migration for the most recent period based on sector-specific 1/ "Urban population" is defined as the population living in the cabeceras of the municipios (the political center and largest city of each county- like area). For a more detail discussion of this definition, see Annex I.  - ii - employment expansion in each area indicates that migration is closely asso- ciated with the pattern of employrent growth, although statistical problems limit the model's explanatory power. 5. Migrants tend to be persons in their younger years. While their educational levels relative to non-migrant residents vary according to their destinations, they tend to be characterized by significantly lower open unemployment rates. Although it is feared that migration may be stripping the rural area of its most productive population, such a process may be in the national interest of a country such as Colombia which seeks to increase the production, productivity, and competitiveness of the economy as a whole. Social costs associated with migration and urbanization, such as increased congestion, pollution, land-use problems, and, perhaps, crime, are difficult to measure. There is no doubt that they exist, but they must be weighed not in absolute terms but rather relative to the social benefits of increased productivity, economies of agglomeration and the reduction in birth rates which internal migration and urbanization may produce. 6. Recent spatial policy in Colombia has been less consistent from administration to administration than perhaps any other policy area. These inconsistencies reflect both fundamental differences in points of view with respect to the significance and desirability of present migration flows and urbanization patterns, as well as the differences between national and local perspectives on the costs and benefits brought about by the migratory and urbanization processes. The 1966-70 administration, concerned about the "excessive" rapidity with which Bogota was growing and the slow rates of growth in other urban areas, emphasized the stimulation of new "growth poles" and the decentralization of industry by means of improving the quality of infrastructure in small and intermediate size cities. This "decentralization" emphasis was reversed by the 1970-74 administration, whose development plan emphasized growth led by the urban construction sector. The present adminis- tration has returned to a predominant concern with decentralization, rural development and a slowing of the growth in the four largest cities. Its goals are the discouragement of industrial employment expansion in or near Colombia's three largest cities, and the encouragement of industrial development in intermediate size urban centers which offer suitable conditions for industrial location. 7. These goals are to be accomplished through several policy tools. National Planning Department approval is being used to direct foreign invest- ment and the provision of new infrastructure to intermediate size cities. Industrial development credit is being made available at subsidized interest rates for investment in intermediate size cities. Administrative decentral- ization of National Government and public or semi-public enterprises is being undertaken where possible. Finally, the Government is considering creation of a new investment guarantee fund for small industrial and mining enterprises in depressed areas. Of these tools, the most significant to date have been the use of Planning Department foreign investment approval and the estab- lishment of preferential interest rates.  - iii - 8. Other policies of the current administration may also have spatial implications. The "Cities Within the Cities" (CWTC) program. fnr "simple, which piovides for the construction of large multi-income housing and work complexes close by the existing cities, may have localized employment expan- sion effects in the larger cities inconsistent with the Government's decen- tralization objectives. The Government's program for Integrated Rural Devel- opment, on the other hand, is likely to help reduce rural-urban migration and thus slow the population growth rates of cities. 9. Several issues concerning the effectiveness and the underlying rationale of the decentralization program have been raised in Colombia. With regard to implementation, the Government may find it difficult to alter spatial industrial development patterns to a large extent by affecting locational in- vestment decisions, since its influence is limited to foreign and public enter- prises. The use of blanket prohibitions against new or expanding industrial location in the large urban centers may reduce the rate of increase of total employment rather than merely decentralizing it. While the use of subsidies to capital as an incentive to decentralize is less likely to distort the rate or pattern of industrialization, it may be self-defeating to the extent that it induces substitution of capital for labor. On a broader level, concern with a more "equitable" spatial distribution of production as a basis for decentralization nay reqt[ce programs which encourage persons to remain in areas other than those where they will be most productive, implying the subsidy of less efficient decentralized production. The decentralization program could also lead to the distortion of national industrial development toward those industries which have less need for economies of agglomeration. Further research is needed to determine whether or not rural to urban migra- tion would be absorbed more easily or productively if detoured to cities other than the largest three or four, and whether urbanization is less costly in these smaller cities.   I. INTRODUCTION 1. An economy such as that of Colombia in which persons are free to move from one location to another in the pursuit of improved economic oppor- tunity must be viewed in spatial or geographic terms as one in which the incentives to migrate and the constraints against migrating constitute a complex web which affects every person in the society. Everyone is a poten- tial migrant. Whether a person migrates one or more times depends upon the evolution of those incentives and those constraints over the lifespan of the individual. Internal migration within Colombia, and especially migra- tion from rural areas to urban areas, has been a massive phenomenon in recent years, leading to a shift in the location of the population from 69.1% rural in 1938 to 60.9% urban in 1973, where urban refers to popula- tion in the cabeceras municipales. 2. There has been widespread concern in Colombia for the social and economic consequences of this population movement. Has it contributed to the acceleration of economic development? Has it served the interests of the migrants? Has it denuded the countryside and slowed the growth of the agricultural sector? Has it distorted the pattern of city growth, leading to "excessive" growth in the largest cities and to little or no growth in smaller and intermediate size cities? Does it create widespread unemploy- ment as ill-informed migrants move toward non-existent jobs? Does it worsen the problems of the principal cities toward which the flows are occurring? 3. Internal migration and urbanization have been the focus of policy concern of the Colombia government for at least the past 15 years. The nature of the focus, the understanding of the problems presented and the policies with explicit and implicit spatial consequences have varied signif- icantly from administration to administration. Although it can be suggested that there is very little policy-making at either national or local levels which is free of impact upon the spatial distribution of the population, it is often difficult to gauge the exact nature of the spatial impact. There have been, furthermore, relatively few satisfactory guidelines provided in the theoretical literature on spatial patterns of development to assist on a normative level in determining what spatial patterns should be sought. 4. This report, then, has been prepared to serve three purposes: (a) to analyze and evaluate in policy-relevant terms the recent patterns of internal migration and urbanization; (b) to determine the sensitivity of those patterns to feasible development policies in order to understand better the spatial consequences of those policies and to provide additional background for any attempts to intervene directly to affect population movements; and  (c) to consider in that context current Colombian policies that have either explicit spatial orientation or signif- icant implicit spatial implications. 5. The report is divided into five sections. The first section is concerned with the recent trends in Colombian urbanization as derived from newly available 1973 census data. It addresses the following questions: (a) To what extent has the rate and pattern of urbanization in Colombia changed in recent years? (b) To what extent would urban problems be ameliorated by redirecting the urbanization process toward cities other than Bogota or the four largest cities? (c) To what extent is there evidence that Bogota has become "too large"? (d) More generally, to what extent is there evidence to warrant active intervention in the processes which determine the rate and pattern of urbanization as they affect national develop- ment goals? These are questions which are implicit in current discussions of alternative spatial policies. Answers to all of them are not readily available, but the first section of this report (and the Annex which supports it) provides an overview of the conceptual and empirical answers which are available. 6. The second section provides new estimates of net migration from 1964 to 1973 among the 18 consolidated departamentos for which comparable data were available at the time this report was prepared and of net rural- urban migration to the cabeceras (the central place of each county-like municipio) of each departamento. These estimates are compared with data for the 1951-1964 intercensal period, and differences in both rates and patterns for the two periods are noted. The results of the specification and testing of a small, simple experimental model of the determinants of those migration flows based on sector-specific patterns of employment expansion among the 18 departamentos are reported. 7. In the third section questions with respect to the characteristics of the migrants themselves and with respect to the social costs and benefits of migration in Colombia are addressed. The analysis, based largely on previously published reports, addresses questions such as the following: (a) Who are the migrants? (b) To what extent are they educationally equipped to compete in the labor markets into which they are moving? (c) To what extent do they succeed in finding employment after migrating?  -3- (d) To what extent is the occupational status of the employment they find comparable to that of other residents of their destinations? (e) What social costs may be associated with the migration rates and flows? (f) What social benefits may be associated with the migration rates and flows? 8. The fourth section provides a relatively simple simulation analysis and projection of net interdepartmental and net rural urban migration under alternative assumed sets of conditions with respect to the spatial distribu- tion of future Colombian economic growth. The fifth section reviews Colombian spatial policy,, including the decentralization program, the "Cities within the City" program, and the proposal for Integrated Rural Development. 9. For purposes of brevity and readability, detailed analyses of each major point made in the body of this report and documentation of references have been separated and included in four annexes. II. RECENT URBANIZATION IN COLOMBIA 10. There are strong popular views in Colombia which suggest that the rate of urbanization in the country is "excessive," that Bogota and the three other cities over 500,000 in 1973 (Medellin, Cali, and Barranquilla) are growing too rapidly, and that the much slower rates of growth of the next echelon of cities, those from about 100,000 to 500,000, should be accelerated. Other observers have maintained that Colombia has "the most decentralized urban population in Latin America" and "a diversity of urban centers unmatched in the Latin American world." These positions have had considerable impact on the question of whether the Colombian government would be warranted in intervening to change the evolving pattern of spatial distribution. 11. Colombia has had one of the highest rates of urbanization of any Latin American nation and, therefore, one of the highest in the world. As noted above, the proportion of the population living in urban areas has increased from 30.9% to 60.9% in the 35 years from 1938 to 1973. Over the 1951 to 1964 period, the rate of urbanization reached a peak at 5.36% per year. In recent years, however, both the rate of population growth and the rate of urbanization have fallen in Colombia. From 1964 to 1973 the Colombian population grew at an exponential rate of 2.62%, down by 16% from the 1951-64 rate of 3.12% based on published census figures (or down by 10% from the revised growth rate of 2.9% for the earlier period). The urbanization rate fell by 30% to 3.74% per year over the 1964-73 period. The rural population, at the same time, has shrunk slowly by approximately 0.2% per year.  - 4 - 12. Colombian urbanization has also been characterized by the tendency of migrants to move toward the largest cities. In 1918, about 98% of the municipios 1/ had fewer than 25,000 inhabitants. Almost 90% of the popula- tion resided in places of that size or smaller. Fewer than 3% lived in municipios larger than 100,000 people. By 1973, however, 40% of the popula- tion resided in such municipios. The population of the largest size class of municipios (over 500,000) grew by about 12% from 1951 to 1964 and by about 6% from 1964-73. These growth rates may be somewhat overstated, however, since this group of municipios contains only the four largest cities, and the effect of marginal boundary-crossing is therefore magnified. The rate of growth in municipios with between 100,000 and 500,000 people was less than 2% a year from 1964-73, but these figures are also somewhat misleading. 13. The patterns of cities ranked by size and the pattern of growth rates since 1951 indicate that there is considerably more complexity in the Colombian urban growth process than appears in simple analysis of the growth of size-classes (see Table 1). 14. Published census figures give the Bogota metropolitan area a 1973 population of 2,719,000; subsequent unpublished adjustment has raised that estimate to 2,849,000. There is considerable opposition to both figures, because they are alleged to be much too low by representatives of the local government in the Bogota Special District. However, no bases for claiming a larger population which have the reliability of even disputed census pro- cedures have been provided, and the national statistical bureau, DANE, is standing by the latter estimate. 15. Although Bogota has grown rapidly since 1951 (and earlier), growth has also been rapid in a wide selection of other cities. Bogota grew by 7.0% per year from 1951 to 1964. This rate fell to 5.26% per year between 1964 and 1973 (although newly adjusted population figures for Bogota may raise that to 5.76% per year). Yet even during its period of most rapid growth, Bogota was exceeded in rate of growth by five other cities, and in the most recent period it was exceeded by three others. Even if the Bogota population were underenu- merated by 10% relative to the other cities, it still would have been exceeded in its rate of growth by two smaller cities. 16. This decline in the rate of urbanization was also felt in the other large cities of Colombia. Twenty-nine of the thirty largest had growth rates over the 1964-73 period below those of the 1951-64 period. The sole city with more rapid recent growth and the group of cities which underwent the smallest decline in growth rates were not among the dozen or so largest cities. Rather the cities with the smallest decline in their rates of growth were "inter- mediate" cities such as Buenaventura (116,000), Pasto (119,000), Sincelejo (69,000), and Tulua (87,000). 1/ For a discussion of the rationale for and the qualifications to the use of municipios as a base for urban analysis, see Annex 1, pp. 5-7.  TABLE 1 RELATIVE INTERCENSAL GROWTH RATES* OF THE THIRTY LARGEST CITIES IN COLOMBIA: 1951 TO 1973 (Listed by 1973 size rank; column-ranks. in parentheses) 1964-1973 1951-1964 RATI 0 4 - r ) (2) (1)/(2) BOGOTA, et al. 5.26 (4) 7.00 -(6) .75 MEDELLIN, et al. 4.53 (7) 6.58 (9) .68 CALI, et al . 4.12 (10) 7.19 (5) .57 BARRAtNQUILLA, et al 3.37 (16) 4.42 (28) .76 BUCARAMANGA, et al. 4.50 (8) 5.60 (15) .80 CARTAGENA 3.20 (18) 5.10 (23) .63 CUCUTA 4.36 (9) 5.60 (15) .78 MAN IZALES et al. 3.26 (17) 6.33 (1i) .52 PEREIRA, et al. 1.31 (26) 5.25 (19) .25 I BAGUE 3.70 *(14) 6.33 (l1) .25 ARM'ENIA, et al. 0.68 (28) 5.75 (14) .12 PALMIRA 2.90 (20) 5.11 (22) .56 PASTO 3-90 (13) 3.99 (30) .98 BUEtNAVENJTURA 5.47 (3) 5.25 (19) 1.04 UIEIVA 3.50 (5) 6.31 (13) .55 SAtiTA MARTA 1.48 (25) 6.67 (8) .22 MONTER IA 2.57 (22) 8.28 (3) .31 BARRANCABERMEJA 4.02 (12) 6.58 (9) .6l TULUA 4.58 (6) 5.14 (291) .89 VALLEDUPAR 7.38 (1) 11.95 (1) .62 VILLAVICENCIO 6.63 (2) 7.37 (4) .90 POPAYAtl 3,02 (19). 4.61 (26) .66 BUGA 0.79 (27) 5.43 (17) .15 CARTAGO 2.26 (23) 4.43 (27) .51 SINCELEJO 4.87 (5) 5.39 (18) .90 GIRARDOT -1.38 (30) 4.74 (25) -- TU NJA 2.84 (21) 4.28 (29) .60 SOGAMOSO, et al. 4.07 (11) 6.88 (7) .59 ClIENAGA -0.90 (29) 5.10 (23) -- DU ITAMA 1.57 (24) 10.75 (2) ' .14 Compound annual percentile rates. The ratios of city growth rate during the latest int3rcensal period to the growth rate during the earlier one are listad in this column. Ratios less than 1 indicate that a city's growth rate has slowed; ratios greater than 1 indicate an increase in growth rate. SOURCES: 1951-64 from "La Poblacion en Colombia...,"0op.cit. 1964-73 calculated 2r-m tablo A-1.5  - 6 - 17. More generally, it is not the largest cities which have been grow- ing most rapidly. The rank correlation between size in 1964 and rate of growth from 1964 to 1973 was -.047. There was, in fact, no significant relationship between size and growth. Similarly there has been little con- stancy in the rate of growth from one period to the next. The rank correla- tion between rate of growth from 1951 to 1964 and the rate of growth from 1964 to 1973 for the largest cities was only .185. 18. These trends imiply that policies which seek to direct migratory flows from the larger cities to the intermediate size cities (by Colombian definition between 50,000 and 250,000) through the expansion of employment in intermediate size cities may stimulate population growth in cities which are already rapidly growing, perhaps more rapidly than the largest 3 or 4, especially since employment expansion, as is noted below, is strongly cor- related with increased migratory inflows. To the extent that the government tailors such policies to stimulate growth in specific intermediate cities with lower growth rates, however, this effect would be mitigated. 19. It has become increasingly apparent in many countries that urban problems such as inadequate infrastructure, lagging social service provision, and land-use disarray are more closely associated with the rates of growth of cities than with the absolute size of cities. If the largest cities in Colombia have, in general, larger and better trained staffs for planning and adapting to growth, the problems created by growth may be much greater in the smaller and intermediate size communities, especially if, as suggested here, they are growing at rates comparable to those of the larger, better- staffed cities. 20. Bogota has increased its share of the total Colombian population from 5.8% in 1951 to 12.2% in 1973. This has given rise to fears that Colombia will become one of the countries dominated by a single "primate" city. That these fears are unfounded, at least by comparison with the countries with truly primate city-size distributions, can be seen when one compares those percentages with the 35.8% of Argentine population in Greater Buenos Aires in 1970, the 32.3% of Chilean population in Santiago de Chile or the 24.5% of Peruvian population in Lima-Callao. Other "indices of primacy" in Tables 2a and 2b also indicate that Colombia is a long way from becoming a country thus dominated. On the other hand, the distribution of cities by size in Colombia demonstrates very close correspondence to the lognormal city-size distribution, an alternative distribution often given positive normative significance (see Annex 1, pp. 13-16). Neither the indices of primacy nor the rank-size distri- butions are very sensitive to increases of 5% or 10% in the relative size of Bogota due to an assumed relative underenumeration. 21. The normative significance of both abhorrence of "primacy" and pursuit of a lognormal distribution has been challenged severely in recent years. There do not appear to be either theoretical or empirical reasons for believing that the optimum system of cities for any group of countries with different topographic conditions, different output structures, or  - 7 - TABLE 2a INDICES OF "PRIMACY" FOR COLOMBIA POPULATION OF BOGOTA RELATIVE TO POPULATION OF: 1973 1964 1951 a.) 2 largest cities .654 .638 .626 b.) 3 largest cities .535 .514 .489 c.) 4 largest cities .468 .442 .414 d.) 10 largest cities .375 .341 .309 e.) COLOMBIA .122 .096 .058 SOURCE: Calculated from Tables A-1.1 and A-1.4. TABLE .?b INDICES OF "PRIMACY" FOR OTHER LATIN AMERICAN COUNTRIES POPULATION CF LARGEST URBAN AREAS RELATIVE Argentina Venezuela Chile Peru TO POPULATTON OF: 1970 1970 1970 1970 i.) 2 largest cities .796 .751 .862 .914 .) 3 largest cities .666 .656 .856 .857 .) 4 largest cities .618 .594 .828 .820 .) 10 largest cities .487 .442 .723 .692 .) country as whole .358 .201 .323 .245 OURCES: Interamerican Development Bank, Regonal Urban Population Growth Trends,Urban PopulatIon SerIes Nos. 2,3, and 4 1972 and 1974.  - 8 - different resource endowments will conform uniformly to any predetermined aggregate spatial configurattoni. The more readily acceptable conceptual criterion for determining whether a city is "too large" or a pattern of urbanization is "distorted," the question whether the marginal social pro- ductivity of an individual in a given city, net of increased social cost, exceeds that of the same individual in another location, has not been ex- plored, other than superficially, in the determination of whether Bogota or the four largest cities are too large. III. RATES AND STRUCTURAL DETERMINANTS OF RECENT INTERNAL MIGRATION 22. Preliminary estimates of net migration were derived for this report by means of the census survival-ratio technique using published 1964 census data and unpublished tabulations of age and sex distributions of the 1973 census for each of 18 consolidated departamentos (see Annex 2). Because the departamentos of Quindio, Risaralda, Sucre, and Cesar were created be- tween 1964 and 1973, it was necessary to consolidate them into the departa- mentos from which they had been separated. Because no 1964 data were avai- lable on La Guajira, which was a military-governed territory in 1964, it was omitted from the analysis. 23. The estimates must be considered preliminary, pending the appearance of adjusted census figures and estimates of migration derived from them. Several ad hoc adjustments were required to account for missing population in the prime male migrant ages, 15 to 25. The absence of that population may be attributed to both undocumented emigration to Venezuela and Ecuador, thought by some to have exceeded 200,000 over the intercensal period, and to the absence of institutionalized population and the armed forces from the original data. 24. The pattern of net migration among departamentos from 1964 to 1973 (Table 3) indicated strong net in-migration to Cundinamarca (including Bogota), to Valle, and to Atlantico. These are the areas in which three of the four largest cities are located. Valle also contains four additional cities among the largest 30 (Buenaventura, Palmira, Buga, and Cartago in addition to Cali). Small net positive flows also occurred into Norte de Santander on the Veneztuelan border and Meta, the gateway to the vast and virtually unpopulated eastern plains. 25. Net rural-urban migration was overwhelmingly positive for all but one departamento, Caldas, which was the departamento with the largest net out- migration. There was a tendency, however, for those departamentos which had large net out-migration to have also net urban out-migration in the age group 20 to 29. 26. Comparison of these patterns with the patterns over 1951-1964 indicates that there have been reversals of the direction of the flow and and changes in the proportions of total net migration contributed by the  -9- Table 3 Annual Net Migration Flows and Rates by Departamento: 1951-64 and 1964-73 Annual Net Flows Annual Net Mlgrat-or. of Persons as Percent of Ini.ial Year Population 1951-64 1964-73 1951-64 1964-73 Antioquia 3259 -2185 0.21 -0.08 Atlantico 2781 11540 0.64 1.61 Bolivar -5036 -6852 -0.51 -0.43 Boyaca -5566 -16422 -0.71 -1.55 Caldas -9830 -22240 -0.92 -1.52 Cauca -643 -14863 -0.14 -2.45 Choco 945 -4046 0.72 -2.22 Cordoba -- -7343 -- -1.21 Cundlnamarcaa 23149 61040 1.42 2.16 Huila -- -3546 -- -0.85 Eagdalena 3990 -9468 0.87 -1.19 Narina -3197 -6786 -0.58 -0.96 Norte de Santander -472 3092 -0.12 0.58 Santander -3958 -5367 -0-53 -0.52 Tolima -11472 -9696 -1.62 -1.15 Valle 3916 13290 0.35 0.77 an