Determinants of the Spatial Mobility of Immigrants: Evidence from Sweden

Abstract

Foreign-born residents constitute approximately 11 percent of the Swedish population. This level has been reached after steady immigration during the postwar years and has been accompanied in recent decades with proportionately more non-European immigrants. This paper examines how these foreign born differ from native Swedes in internal migration behavior using a unique, geographically descriptive micro database. It finds that they differ, in part, because of the role that the size of foreign-born communities plays in both the decision to migrate and choice of destination. The implications of these results for public policy, regional economic growth, and regional economicdemographic modeling are discussed.

Economic-Demographic Effects of Immigration: Results from a Dynamic Spatial Microsimulation Model

“…Figure 5 shows that initial spatial settlement patterns are related to postimmigration internal moves. The "All of Sweden" policy (AFR_ALL), Kiruna concentration (AFR_KIRUNA), and Stockholm (AFR_STOCK) patterns induce a greater rate 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 250,000 300,000 350,000 400,000 450,000 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 8 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 -100,000 -50,000 0 50,000 100,000 150,000 200,000 1 9 8 6 1 9 8 8 1 9 9 0 1 9 9 2 1 9 9 4 1 9 9 6 1 9 9 8 2 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 2 0 0 4 2 0 0 6 2 0 0 8 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 4 effect of reducing migration rates because natives are less likely to move than immigrants (Rephann and Vencatasawmy 2000). Not surprisingly, increased immigration stimulates births while curtailed immigration has the opposite effect (see Figure 6).…”

“…Numerous studies show that immigrant economic and demographic behavior is initially quite different from native (e.g., earnings, employment, fertility, mortality, migration). However, with length of stay, these differences tend to lessen (Fischer et al 1998;Rephann and Vencatasawmy 2000). Macroeconomic models assume that immigrants and natives are the same in their economic and demographic behavior.…”

“…Third, immigrant socioeconomic differences persist for some time after entry. For example, internal migration patterns, following arrival in Sweden, differ from native Swedes (Andersson 1996;Rephann and Vencatasawmy 2000).…”

Do Non-Economic Quality of Life Factors Drive Immigration?

“…The literature suggests that immigration is path dependent in that current immigration flows are related to past immigration patterns. For example, Kahan (1978), Murayama (1991, Rephann and Vencatasawmy (2000) find distinctive ethnic concentrations of immigrants, and Zawodny (1997) find that family connection is the most significant immigrant determination factor. Additional evidence suggests that immigration flows are larger, ceteris paribus, when a common language is spoken.…”

Colombian Emigration by Administrative Regions

“…Migration outflows have also grown over time in Colombia. The emigrant level was 391 percent higher from the period of 2000-2005in comparison to the period of 1970-1975(Ramírez et al 2010. The primary factor explaining Colombia's migration outflow is a search for employment opportunities (Mejía Ochoa 2012).…”