International migration from developing economies is increasingly driven by the interplay between economic incentives, social networks, and the institutional environment. The understanding of these drivers is central to policy design aimed at maximizing the benefits of labor mobility, minimizing human capital loss, and capturing positive impacts of migration. This paper examines determinants of international migration from Vietnam to the five largest recipient countries, namely, the USA, Japan, Korea, Australia, and Taiwan, for the period 2000-2025. Emphasis is placed on the role of income differentials, migrant networks, and institutions on migration flows, also investigating if the level of institutional quality reinforces the effects of economic incentives on migration flows. A longitudinal panel-data framework is utilized in this analysis to test migration flows during the span of 26 years. In empirical testing, Fixed-effects estimation, supplementary dynamic robustness analysis, and moderation analysis are employed to account for both direct and conditional relationships between variables. Descriptive analysis shows a lot of heterogeneity between migration flows, income differentials, and governance conditions across destination countries. The correlation matrix showed a strong positive relationship between migrant stock and migration flows (0.781, 0.01), which clearly supported the importance of network effects. The results show that both income differentials and migrant networks increase migration flows, and migrant networks are proven to be the strongest determinant of migration. Dynamic panel estimation tests confirmed persistent migration flow over the long period; thus, mobility choices are path-dependent. Institutional quality also promotes migration flows and reinforces the impact of income differentials on migration flows. These results indicate that people not only seek higher income but also governance with transparency, security, and protection for economic activities. Conclusively, international migration flow from Vietnam is characterized by a complex interaction of economic, social, and institutional dynamics. Accordingly, the policy making for migration should not only focus on fostering institutions and managing human capital outflow but also on making use of the potential of diasporas for positive impacts of migration on national development.
Abdou LH. ‘Push or pull’? Framing immigration in times of crisis in the European Union and the United States. InCrisis and politicisation 2021 May 18 (pp. 34-49). Routledge.
2.
Adedoyin FF, Bello AA, Abubakar IF, Agabo TJ. How does governance factors influence the trade impact of migration and capital flows in the EU? Journal of Public Affairs. 2021 May;21(2): e2207.
3.
Arenas A. Human capital portability and international student migration. Journal of Economic Geography. 2021 Mar 1;21(2):195-229.
4.
Arif I. The determinants of international migration: Unbundling the role of economic, political and social institutions. The World Economy. 2020 Jun;43(6):1699-729.
5.
Baite L, Panda B. Social and economic determinants of international migration: a study of Kuki migrants in Singapore. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy. 2025 Oct 28;45(9-10):806-20.
6.
Cai H, Meng Y, Chakraborty S. Migrants and exports: Decomposing the link. Journal of World Business. 2021 Feb 1;56(2):101166.
7.
Calcagnini G, Marin G, Perugini F. Labour flexibility, internal migration and productivity in Italian regions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics. 2021 Jun 1;57:308-20.
8.
Carbajal MJ, de Miguel Calvo JM. Factors that influence immigration to OECD member States. Cuadernos de trabajo social. 2021 Jul 1;34(2):417.
9.
Dheer RJ, Lenartowicz T. Effect of generational status on immigrants’ intentions to start new ventures: The role of cognitions. Journal of World Business. 2020 Apr 1;55(3):101069.
10.
Fong E, Shibuya K, Chen X. Migration among east and southeast Asian economies. International Migration. 2020 Aug;58(4):69-84.
11.
Germani AR, Scaramozzino P, Castaldo A, Talamo G. Does air pollution influence internal migration? An empirical investigation on Italian provinces. Environmental science & policy. 2021 Jun 1;120:11-20.
12.
Hernandez E, Kulchina E. Immigrants and foreign firm performance. Organization Science. 2020 Jul;31(4):797-820.
13.
Hoffmann R, Dimitrova A, Muttarak R, Crespo Cuaresma J, Peisker J. A meta-analysis of country-level studies on environmental change and migration. Nature climate change. 2020 Oct;10(10):904-12.
14.
Jover J, Díaz-Parra I. Who is the city for? Overtourism, lifestyle migration and social sustainability. InMigration, Tourism and Social Sustainability 2023 Mar 21 (pp. 9-32). Routledge.
15.
Kwilinski A, Lyulyov O, Pimonenko T, Dzwigol H, Abazov R, Pudryk D. International migration drivers: Economic, environmental, social, and political effects. Sustainability. 2022 May 24;14(11):6413.
16.
Mitra R, Singh P. SDG implementation: A policy analysis of internal migration in India. InSustainable development goals and migration 2021 Dec 24 (pp. 68-83). Routledge India.
17.
Nishimura AS, Czaika M. Exploring migration determinants: A meta-analysis of migration drivers and estimates. Journal of International Migration and Integration. 2024 Jun 1;25(2):621-43.
18.
Pan Y, Zhu J, Zhao Z, Li Z, Wu J. The dual effects of population migration on the achievement of sustainable development goals in Tibet, China: Y. Pan et al. Environment, Development and Sustainability. 2023 Jul;25(7):5931-47.
19.
Pisarevskaya A, Levy N, Scholten P, Jansen J. Mapping migration studies: An empirical analysis of the coming of age of a research field. Migration studies. 2020 Sep;8(3):455-81.
20.
Piteli EE, Kafouros M, Pitelis CN. Follow the people and the money: Effects of inward FDI on migrant remittances and the contingent role of new firm creation and institutional infrastructure in emerging economies. Journal of World Business. 2021 Feb 1;56(2):101178.
The statements, opinions and data contained in the journal are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publisher and the editor(s). We stay neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
