“middle-educated” which are not regarded as attracting work force in-migrants. Migrating to a
job is, at least as far as the years 1993 and 1996 are concerned, linked to migrating to a region
with a young population (AGE). Out-migration (OUTMIG) appears also to have a positive
effect on in-migration; the higher the out-migration the higher is the in-migration of people to
work. This is explained by the fact that small regions with a high out-migration are more
dependent upon in-migration of work force than large regions, which are more self-sufficient
for work force and where local recruitment is more important.
In-migration to unemployment: Here the explanatory values appear to be more dependable
than for migration from unemployment, or at least they appear less shaky. Here a significant
correlation can also be seen with the portion of persons with high education (EDHIGH) in the
in-migration region, which indicates, as previously mentioned, that many unemployed headed
for university and college locations. The exception here is 1997, when the economy had taken
an upswing. Employment situation (EMP) does not, on the other hand, appear to have had any
great pull-effect on in-migration; during 1993 the relationship is rather the opposite. This can
also be said on per capita income level (INC) - higher income does not lead to an increased
in-migration of unemployed. The same seems to be valid for knowledge-intensive regions
(KNOWINT) - i.e. the higher the knowledge intensity in the economy, the lower is in-
migration to unemployment in 1991 and 1993. For those people who migrate to
unemployment, however, out-migration (OUTMIG) does not appear to have had any major
significance.
In-migration to studies: That there is a positive correlation between a region’s education
level (EDHIGH) and in-migration to studies is scarcely surprising. As one might also expect,
people move to locations and regions with a young population (AGE) - study locations do, of
course, generally have a relatively young population. These regions, however, have a low-
income level (INC).
In-migration to “other”: The only explanatory factor with which a significant correlation is
found in all four years is income level (INC). Once more, this is a negative correlation, i.e.
people outside the labour market and not studying move to regions with low incomes. This is,
however, more in accordance with the expected pattern, since many of those persons who
migrate to “other” can be assumed to be older persons whose future income is of less