The migration intentions of young adults in Europe: A comparative, multilevel analysis

Abstract

Research on migration intentions is relatively fragmented, traditionally drawing conclusions from relatively small survey samples, focussing on individual countries, or relying on public opinion polls which provide very few explanatory variables. This paper addresses these limitations by developing a multilevel model of an extensive range of macro, meso, and microdeterminants of migration intentions across different time frames. The paper utilises an online panel survey of 20,473 non-student respondents aged 16-35 from nine European Union countries. Ordinal multilevel modelling, with post-stratification weighting, is used to determine the key drivers of, and barriers to, migration intentions in both a pan-European model and nine separate nationalscale models. The findings confirm the significance of macro, meso, and micro factors. Although socio-economic factors emerge as powerful explanatory factors, non-pecuniary factors are also important, including sensation seeking. There are broad similarities in the findings across the separate national-level models but also differences in the relative importance of socio-economic, gender, and personality factors. Migration intentions were highly dependent on the decisionmaking time frame: 17% of respondents over 1 year, but 30% over 5 years, are likely to migrate or to have made firm plans to migrate. The rank ordering of the countries challenges the notion of there being a simple differentiation between the newer and older member states of the European Union.

Editorial introduction: New European youth mobilities

“…For “first migration,” the Romanian case is shown to be similar to the Latvian and Slovak cases; all are marked by the prime importance of job motivation, followed by the “family and friends” factor. These similarities in the initial migration of the three eastern countries stand in marked contrast to differences in the future migration intentions observed in the prior paper by Williams et al (). By contrast, Spain and Italy are marked by the dominance of the education variable (plus jobs for Spain) and Sweden and Germany by the importance of lifestyle.…”

“…Next follow two papers that are based on quantitative analyses, but of two very different types of data. In the first of these, Williams, Jephcote, Li, and Janta () present some of the most interesting results from the online panel survey of non‐student young Europeans in nine countries, based on a total sample of over 20,000 respondents. The paper presents one of the most detailed studies yet published on migration intentions, although fully recognising two fundamentally problematic issues with such analyses, namely that “intentions” can be worded and interpreted differently (“wishes,” “desires,” and “plans”) and secondly that intentions may well not be realised in later actions.…”

Who’s About to Leave? A Global Survey of Aspirations and Intentions to Migrate

“…96–128). Some scholars have voiced criticisms regarding the inconsistent ways in which past studies have dealt with migration aspirations and intentions (Williams et al, ). Indeed, Carling and Collins identify 15 terms that were broadly meant to capture “potentiality in migration” (Carling and Collins, , p. 10).…”

“…Aspirations and intentions to migrate have been analysed from both qualitative and quantitative angles (Docquier et al, 2014;Thulin and Vilhelmson, 2016;Gubert and Senne, 2016;Van Hear et al, 2017;Carling and Schewel, 2017;Carling and Collins, 2017;Dao et al, 2018;Williams et al, 2018). Many quantitative studies have tapped into the Gallup World Poll (among others, see Esipova et al, 2011;Docquier et al, 2014;Esipova et al, 2016;Cai et al, 2014;Bertoli and Ruyssen, 2018;Dao et al, 2018;Tjaden et al, 2018), but other examples have focused on, e.g.…”

Migration decisions in the face of upheaval: An experimental approach

“…The results for 540 individuals were retained after the data cleaning, of which 282 were students and 258 were young employed (Table ). Other than the higher proportion of students in the experimental research compared to the panel survey in the nine YMOBILITY countries (Williams, Jephcote, Janta, & Li, ), the average age of the experimental participants was 24.9 years, which is similar to that in the panel survey (25.0). Students (23.2 years) were on average younger than the employees (26.8 years).…”