1. Migration – commuting substitution Commuting potential and interregional migration propensity Emma Lundholm Umeå University Sweden Emma.Lundholm@geography.umu.se

2. Development in Sweden and other European countries………. Migration tolerance has decreased Commuting tolerance has increased

3. Is increased commuting a good thing or a bad thing?

4. Interregional migration in Sweden

5. Substitution hypothesis: ”people are today more likely to choose commuting over other strategies, including interregional migration”

6. It is more convinient to commute Migration is redundant Enables a more free choice of settlement It is more difficult to migrate Commuting is the solution to achieve labour market matching Substitute or complement? ( Evers & Van der Veen, 1995)

7. Previous studies have shown….. People who live in regions with good commuting potential are less likely to migrate Eliasson, Lindgren, and Westerlund 2003 Eriksson, Lindgren, and Malmberg 2007 Van Ham, Mulder, and Hooimeijer 2001 This is a study of this relationship over time

8. Empirical question: Have migration propensities declined more in regions with better commuting potential? cross-sections 1970, 1985, 2001

9. Commuting potential = size of labour market Narrow labour market 0-30 km Extensive labour market 30-80 km Approximated as population at a given eucledian distance

10. 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

11. 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

12. N (included in analysis)418314545855235300630 Model chi-square6000151448128219 -2 Log likelihood658551499842774110 Nagelkerke R square0,0900,0980,153 197019852001 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***

13. Has increased job commuting substituted interregional migration or has decreased interregional migration forced the process of job commuting?

14. 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

15. Thank You!