臺灣人口已轉變至低出生率、低死亡率水準，符合「人口轉型」（demographic transition）理論的發展，同時，人口遷徙發展也有轉變。Zelinsky（1971）曾整合與界定經濟發展、現代化、生命率和遷徙之關係，發展成「遷移轉型」（mobility transition）假設。熊瑞梅（1987）、邊瑞芬（1991）和Chen（1991）都認為臺灣人口能符合假設發展，指出1980年代是轉型的第三階段，只是「人口轉型」和「遷移轉型」無法密切對應。爾後臺灣區域人口遷移的發展又是如何？由於Zelinsky（1971）之論點只是觀察歸納的結果，我們改以Jones（2005）的概念探討臺灣人口是否符合假設發展。首先，調整邊瑞芬（1991）的作法，透過集群分析法將所有縣市劃分成六組區域，計算檢證1980年、1992年、2002年和2007年人口遷移狀況是否吻合Jones（2005）概念。結果發現，臺灣於1990年代初期進展至轉型第四階段，同時，「人口轉型」和「遷移轉型」也可對應發展；然而，自2000年開始，遷徙歷程未如Zelinsky（1971）和Jones（2005）概念發展，主因是臺灣人口遷徙方向仍是北部為主，社會經濟發展相對進步的縣市也集中在北部地區，故能持續吸引人口移入，人口增加又帶動社會經濟發展，在社會、經濟和遷徙相互影響下，除了臺北市之外，新興之桃園縣、基隆市和傳統的新北市都持續崛起，未來臺灣人口將難均衡分布。

The population in Taiwan has already undergone a demographic transition, entering a period with a low birth rate and low death rate, while population migration patterns have also been changing at the same time. Zelinsky (1971) integrated and defined the relationship of economic development, modernization, vital transition, and migration, and arrived at a model of migration known as "mobility transition." Hsung (1987), Bain (1991), and Chen (1991) indicate that the higher the economic development level, the higher the in-migration rate, and they believe that the socioeconomic development and the migration pattern of the population of Taiwan corresponds to that proposed in the Zelinsky model, stating that the 80s was the third stage "late transitional society;" however, they also find that the development of "demographic transition" and "mobility transition" are not closely parallel in Taiwan. Will the development of population migration in Taiwan keep on following Zelinsky's idea? Since the viewpoints of Zelinsky (1971) were just the conclusion based on his observation, we used Jones' idea (2005) instead to discuss whether the population in Taiwan corresponds to the "mobility transition" model of development or not. First of all, the study method of Bain (1991) was adjusted, and cluster analysis was used to divide all cities and counties into six regions. The population migration situations of 1980, 1992, 2002, and 2007 were calculated and examined for agreement with Jones' idea (2005). The results showed that while both the natural increase rate and the territory migration rate keep on decreasing, Taiwan developed into the fourth stage of transition at the beginning of the 90s. At the same time, "demographic transition" and "mobility transition" also corresponded to the development. However, the actual migration progress does not follow the development proposed by Zelinsky (1971) and Jones (2005), mainly because the major migration direction of Taiwan's population is still toward the northern part, as the cities and counties with rather advanced social and economic development are also concentrated in Northern Taiwan; thus, the population is continuously motivated to migrate to Northern Taiwan. The increase of population also promotes social and economic development. Through the mutual influence of society, economy, and migration, Taoyuan County, Keelung City, and New Taipei City also continue to develop in addition to Taipei City; thus, the population of Taiwan is unlikely to be evenly distributed in the future.