This study investigates migrant and non-migrant fertility differences and the relationship between migration and fertility in Guyana. Some attempts are also made to verify the relevance or applicability of the major models seeking to explain the migration-fertility relationship. In this study, fertility was found to be negatively associated with the degree of urbanization. Even the fertility of migrants was found to be negatively related to the degree of urbanization at both places of origin and destination. The degree of urbanization at destination areas, however, appeared to have the greater influence. In this regard, also, the influence of urban areas, particularly Georgetown, in depressing migrant fertility, was particularly evident. In view of the firmly established negative relationship between the fertility of migrants and urbanization at destination areas, there was relatively strong support for the "selectivity" hypothesis. There was also some suggestion that migrants may have selected destination areas in which the levels of fertility were similar to their own preferences. Greater validity was given to this supposition by the observation that compared with non-migrants in each residential category, the fertility of migrants originating therefrom was lower or higher, depending on whether there were greater levels of urbanization at particular destination areas, compared to origins. Although these findings could have been interpreted to suggest that migrants were adapting to fertility norms at destination, further analysis indicated that this was not necessarily the case. Some support was also found for the "adaptation" and "disruption" hypothesis. In the case of the Georgetown destination area, there was some suggestion of adaptation of migrant to non-migrant fertility. The findings also suggest some disruptions to migrant fertility in Georgetown. In the case of Other Urban and Rural destination areas, adaptation of migrant to non-migrant fertility was less evident. In the analysis of migration streams, in confirmation of the above-mentioned general findings, some adaptation of migrant to non-migrant fertility appeared to be evident for the rural-to-Georgetown migrant stream. Even though generally there appeared to be little evidence in support of adaptations of migrant to non-migrant fertility in Rural Areas, among rural-to-rural migrants, there was some indication of adaptation to non-migrant fertility, while among the Georgetown-to-rural migrants, adaptation was less evident. As suggested by some of the findings already mentioned, adaptation of migrant to non-migrant fertility did not occur uniformly in all destination areas, or among all migrant streams. The analysis also indicates that the migration-fertility relationship, may be different for Georgetown and Other Urban, as opposed to Rural Areas. Among the findings that gave rise to this supposition was the fact that generally migation to Rural Areas appeared to be selective of higher fertility migrant groups, while migration to Georgetown appeared to be associated with the selection of lower fertility migrant groups. Since the fertility of migrants to Georgetown was found to be below that of Georgetown non-migrants, the overall effect of migration to Georgetown, according to the findings, was not to increase the levels of fertility in Georgetown. Indeed, since these migrants originated from higher fertility areas, the total effect of migration to the city was to lower the levels of fertility in the country as a whole. In the case of Other Urban and Rural Areas, total migrant fertility was at higher levels compared to non-migrants. As a result, the total effect is to increase overall levels of fertility in those areas.
Networked Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations