even when they migrated. As far as the employment situation (EMP) is concerned, a good
employment situation as a rule reduces the out-migration of unemployed. The income
indicator (INC) is, as usual, peculiar: people move from regions with a high-income level to
regions with a lower one. A high in-migration (INMIG) affects out-migration to
unemployment in 1993 and 1996: the higher the in-migration, the higher is the out-migration
to unemployment.
Out-migration to studies: In this case as well population size (POP) reduces out-migration,
which would be due to the fact that the larger the local labour market is, the larger is the
possibility to pursue various types of studies there. The local work force turnover
(LOCTURN) also means that out-migration to studies is reduced and branch width (BRW)
works in the opposite direction to population size. As far as in-migration (INMIG) is
concerned, this has a significant effect for the years 1996 and 1997.
Out-migration to “other”: The only explanatory factor which appears to affect out-migration
for this category fairly continuously is in-migration. It should in this case be kept in mind that
small local labour markets have relatively high in-migration intensities.
Total out-migration: As expected, population size (POP) reduces out-migration. On the other
hand, branch width (BRW) has an opposite effect: only in 1993 does branch width lack a
significant effect on out-migration. A good employment situation as a rule counteracts it, as
expected, while a poor one stimulates it. Age structure (AGE) shows a significant correlation
only for two years, 1991 and 1993. This may appear surprising, since a young population is
often linked to high mobility. This does not, however, apply with regard to the out-migration
regions of the country, which to a large degree have a skewed age distribution with a high
proportion of older people. Furthermore, mobility creates mobility - a high in-migration
(INMIG) results as a rule in high out-migration and vice versa.
12