1. Introduction
Commuting and its determinants have been widely studied in several English-speaking
countries (the USA, the United Kingdom and Ireland) (Preston; McLafferty 1997; Lloyd;
Shuttleworth 2004). In the case of Germany most publications are kept at a descriptive level,
often only commenting on commuting behaviour. Responsible for this are limitations
associated with the use of aggregate data with low regional evidence. Usually survey results
and random samples are used (Alecke; Untiedt 2001: 386).
The availability of a new data source - the German social security statistics - promises better
results. Compared with survey results the advantage of these statistics is the possibility of
regional disaggregation and representative results. Using these statistics the paper will
examine the influence of spatial structure on commuting behaviour of employees in Germany.
As an introduction the historic development of commuting in rural and urban regions is
shown. Subsequently explanatory approaches and models of commuting behaviour are given
on spatial and individual levels. The database and the chosen approach are explained in the
next section. In the remaining paper spatial differences in commuting behaviour are described
by the commuting rate and the average commuting distance based on a rural-urban division of
German regions. Furthermore the influence of individual characteristics on commuting
behaviour is examined. The characteristics that are taken into account are age, education and
working hours.
The separation of workplace and residential location as well as the interaction between these
two places is generally seen as a result of transition from agrarian to industry and service
based societies (Geipel 1954: 468 f.; Paesler 1992: 76; Boustedt 1970: 2283; Kaestner: 1940:
230; Otto 1979: 25). The final point of this development is an increasing temporal and spatial
separation of working and private life.
Characteristically for preindustrial and early industrial societies there were close spatial
relations between the functions of living and working. In many cases the workplace and
residential location were situated in the same house. To a great extent work and profession
determined spatial and functional location of private life. This applied particularly for the
majority of inhabitants in the cities. In cases where the home and workshop were not situated
in the same building, less than weekly commuting was recognised as economical (Boustedt
1970: 2284).
During the industrial age (in Germany between 1850 and 1873) these conditions mostly
ceased. Even a certain connection between workplace and place of residence was kept up. The
increased use of machines in factories, based on principles of division of labour organisation,
led to concentration of the workforce in companies (Otto 1979: 25). At first employee
demand starting with industrialisation was covered mainly by migration which in other words
meant the opportunity to change the place of residence. In the wider course of the
industrialisation process the number of commuters rose with increased concentration of
working places in cities. Employees from the surrounding countryside had to be recruited to
satisfy employee demand. As a result the urban region began to expand. Distances between
residential and working places and the crowds which had to be transported increased.
Effective transportation could only be managed with mass transportation systems (Otto 1979:
26). Since that time the absolute number of commuters as well as distances covered by them
has increased further (Otto 1979: 28).
On the whole the main reason for the increase of commuting in the cities was the increasing