The share of persons with low education (EDLOW) appears, however, to have had no
significance for excess in- or out-migration, any more than for the categories to and from
work. This may seem surprising, since we often connect regions with a large proportion of
persons with low education in the work force with stagnation and decline. The paradox can,
however, be explained by the local labour markets characterised by a large share of persons
with low education also having a small out-migration of people in work - people do not move
from the jobs they have - while those who moves in to a job fill vacant jobs which cannot be
filled by the work force in the local labour market. In both cases it is thus the “pull” factors
that dominate.
Those regions that have a high proportion of persons with high education (EDHIGH) have an
excess in-migration overall and with regard to those who migrate to and from studies, with the
exception of 1997, when no significant relationship can be detected. This in itself is not
surprising, since study migrations can in many cases be viewed as a chain of migrations:
people move to college towns only to move away again a few years later. Furthermore, the
number of students increased during the entire period investigated, and the fact that they were
attracted to study locations is therefore hardly surprising. These locations are also
characterised by having a high proportion of persons with high education in their work force.
With regard to age structure (AGE), this has no significant correlation with net migration
overall except for the year 1991, when a significant negative correlation is found. Only for one
category, students, do we find a persistent positive connection. Persons who migrate to study
do so to regions with a young population or vice versa: in-migration of students creates a
young population. In connection with emphasis of the 1990s on education, the study locations’
excess in-migration should have been accentuated, at least as far as the students’ category is
concerned. Age structure has, however, no fairly obvious influence on net migration for the
other categories.
As far as the other explanatory factors are concerned, we see that branch width (BRW) does
not strengthen the size effect either, quite the opposite in fact. This applies to total net
migration for all the years investigated, as well as for 1991 and 1997, with regard to
migrations to and from work.
15