migration – commuting substitution commuting potential and interregional migration propensity emma...
TRANSCRIPT
Migration – commuting
substitution
Commuting potential and interregional migration
propensity
Emma LundholmUmeå University
Development in Sweden and other European countries……….
• Migration tolerance has decreased
• Commuting tolerance has increased
Substitution hypothesis:
”people are today more likely to choose commuting over other strategies, including interregional migration”
• It is more convinient to commuteMigration is redundantEnables a more free choice of settlement
• It is more difficult to migrateCommuting is the solution to achieve labour market matching
Substitute or complement?(Evers & Van der Veen, 1995)
Previous studies have shown…..
People who live in regions with good commuting potential are less likely to migrate
Eliasson, Lindgren, and Westerlund 2003Eriksson, Lindgren, and Malmberg 2007 Van Ham, Mulder, and Hooimeijer 2001
This is a study of this relationship over time
Empirical question:
Have migration propensities declined more in regions with better commuting potential?
cross-sections 1970, 1985, 2001
Commuting potential = size of labour market
Narrow labour
market 0-30 km
Extensivelabour market
30-80 km
Approximated as population at a given eucledian distance
Method and Data• Register data, entire Swedish population in
working age (1970, 1985, 2001)
• Interregional migration = migrants moving >150 kilometer
• Logistic regression
Control variables:age,sex,civil status,children in household,education level,employment,student, recent migration
Dependant variable:Interregional migration propensity
Commuting potential narrow labour market extensive labour market
Results
• Migration was less likely among persons living in regions with better commuting potential
• The inhibiting effect of residing in a large labour market was the same in all three years
no support for the hypothesis that commuting potential reduce interregional migration more today
N (included in analysis) 4183145 4585523 5300630
Model chi-square 60001 51448 128219-2 Log likelihood 658551 499842 774110Nagelkerke R square 0,090 0,098 0,153
1970 1985 2001
Woman -0,059*** 0,114*** 0,086***
Age 18-20 -0,167*** -0,235*** -0,145***
Age 21-24 0,184*** 0,166*** 0,226***
Age 30-34 -0,314*** -0,325*** -0,390***
Age 35-44 -0,767*** -0,653*** -0,815***
Age 45-54 -1,358*** -1,234*** -1,545***
Age 55-65 -1,936*** -1,644*** -1,912***
Married -0,109*** -0,194*** -0,174***
Children -1,245*** -2,030*** -2,435***
High education 1,127*** 0,892*** 0,467***
Employed -0,244*** -0,226*** -0,237***
Student -0,231*** 0,705*** 0,604***
Recent migration 1,017*** 1,222*** 0,837***
LM size 0-30 km -0,144*** -0,158*** -0,160***
LM size 30-80 km -0,288*** -0,265*** -0,243***
LM size 0-30 km * children 0,048*** 0,142*** 0,255***
LM size 30-80 km*children 0,031** -0,003 -0,114***
Has increased job commuting substituted interregional migration
or has decreased interregional migration forced the process of job commuting?
Summary
• Commuting potential is a factor that can contribute to non-migration
• No direct casual relationship between increase in commuting and lower migration rates over time
• Increased migration to commuting substitution might not be a general trend but rather a tendency among increasingly immobile groups, such as dual income households
Thank You!