No. 0203 ...Back Movers and in Movers. Nilsson, PÅ

1 SELASETUR REPORT NO. 0203 Back movers and in movers A study of back migration flows into small societies over time by Per Åke Nilssona Sigurður Arnasonb Guðrun Helgadóttirc Dennis Holmd a The Icelandic Sealcenter b The Icelandic Regional Development Institute c Holar University College d The Research Centre for Social Development, Faroe Islands 2 Photo: Lena Wikström 3 PREFACE The background for this project is the ongoing depopulation of peripheral Arctic regions. Measures have over the years been undertaken to stop that process and this project tries to shed light on a part of these undertakings by putting focus on a special target group: people who have left the area and then moved back. The motives for these back movers may be of interest for future actions and for counteracting the demographic problem. Holar University College [Háskólinn á Hólum] in Iceland has been responsible for the project process and The Icelandic Regional Development Institute [Byggdastofnun] has provided statistics for the Icelandic destinations. The Research Centre for Social Development [Granskingardepilin fyri samfelagsmenning] in Faroe Islands has administrated interviews in the Faroe Islands and has also taken part in the design process of the project. The Icelandic Seal Centre [Selasetur Íslands] has administrated the project and been responsible for interviews in Iceland. The municipality of Kvænangen in Norway has organized interviews there. Interviews have been made by Kolbrún Reynisdóttir, Holar, and Christine Iversen, Kvænangen The project has been financed by NORA [Nordiskt Atlantsamarbejde], Faroe Islands. Guðrun Helgadóttir Per Åke Nilsson Project coordinator Project leader 4 BACKGROUND 6 Demographic challenges in peripheral North Atlantic 6 Theory review 7 Method 9 RESULTS 11 Type of households 11 1. Household structure 11 2. Age of the interviewed 12 3. Size of the households 12 Demography 14 1. Age when moving out 14 2. Age when moving back 14 3. Years staying away 15 4. Moving back year 16 Motives for moving out 17 1. Push factors 17 2. Pull factors 18 Chosen destinations 20 1. First choice 20 2. Additional choice 20 Motives for moving back 22 1. Pull factors 22 2. Push factors 23 Circumstances after moving back 25 1. Environmental circumstances 25 2. Social circumstances 26 3. Economic circumstances 27 4. Occupation 28 Household structure differences in general 29 Household structure differences after type of household 31 1. BB households 31 2. BI households 32 3. IB households 33 4. Bf and Bm households 34 CONCLUSIONS 36 Moving away 36 Moving back 36 Partners 37 The present situation 37 DISCUSSION 38 Implications on life cycles 38 Models for encountering depopulation of the Arctic periphery 39 References 41 Appendix I Questionaire 43 Appendix II Household structure after destination 44 Appendix III Short description of Iceland 47 5 Appendix IV Short description of Kvænangen 52 Appendix V Short description of Faroe Islands 54 6 Fig. 1. Migration: Push factors 7 Fig. 2. Migration: Push factors 8 Fig. 3. Number of interviews related to investigated destinations 10 Fig. 4. Household structure when interviewed 11 Fig. 5. Age of interviewed 12 Fig. 6. Size of household 13 Fig. 7. Age when moving out 14 Fig. 8. Moving back age 14 Fig. 9. Stay away years 15 Fig. 10. Moving back year 16 Fig. 11. Push factors, moving out 17 Fig. 12. Pull factors, moving out 18 Fig. 13. First choice 20 Fig. 14. Chosen places, additional choice 21 Fig. 15. Pull factors, moving back 22 Fig. 16. Push factors, moving back 23 Fig. 17. Views on environment 24 Fig. 18. Views on social circumstances 25 Fig. 19. Satisfaction with economic circumstances 26 Fig. 20. Occupation situation 27 Fig. 21. Type of households 29 Fig. 22. Matrix over answers, household-wise 29 Fig. 23. BB-household after destinations 31 Fig. 24. BI-households after destination 32 Fig. 25. IB-households after destination 33 Fig. 26. Bf/Bm-households after destination 34 Fig. 27. Matrix over answers households-wise, Iceland 44 Fig. 43. Matrix over answers households-wise,Norway 45 Fig. 44. Matrix over answers households-wise, Faroe Islands 46 7 BACKGROUND DEMOGRAPHIC CHALLENGES IN THE PERIPHERAL NORTH ATLANTIC In the Nordic context, the depopulation of peripheral regions has been going on since World War II. A lot of research and incentives have been carried through but nothing has had profound effects to stop the depopulation. EU has for decades put it on its agenda (LEADER 1997; EG 1698/2005) and national parliaments have taken steps for a change (Lindquist 2010). Especially the North Atlantic region has had a negative forecast. The islands in the North Atlantic are among the more threatened places (Baldacchino 2008), in Canada the Maritime Provinces are predicted to go from increase to decrease (Lindström & Nilsson 1996; Palmer 2003) and in the Nordic countries the EU enlargement has put a new dimension into the problem (Edvardsson et al 2007). In the 1950s, theories on development appeared more frequently, based either on inevitable reversel forces from periphery to centre (Myrdal 1957) or on bottom-up initiatives for endogenous development in a community. Brox (1969) saw the traditional society in Northern Norway, with a diversified and sustainable rural-based labour market, break down into pieces and be replaced by a unified, disciplined and anti-human industrial urban-based society. Prigogine & Nicolis (1989) on the other hand coined the concept of chaos theory from their natural science perspective, unfolding biological mechanisms showing almost deterministic development scenarios. All these often contradictory theories confused the development research discourse and probably decreased the possibility for politicians to solve the depopulation problems, a development that was underpinned by the inherent unmanageability of the society (Carlsson 1993; Erkki 2005) and an uncertainty of what to learn from the theories (Karlsson et al. 2009). An attempt to avoid such conflicts between general and national interests on one side and separatism and special interests on another is the elaboration of triple helix models, where academy, public authorities and private companies work together. The aim of the model is to give tools to increase the possibility to find a navigable way to tackle development problems, like how to counteract a non-desired depopulation of peripheral regions (Leydesdorff 2005; Granquist et al. 2010). A specific demographic threat for the Nordic region is the out-migration of young people. Communities in the North often have a high fertility rate resulting in a young population. In many cases, this is regarded as a demographic prosperity. But if it is connected with lack of higher education and professional skill, it is not always favourable for the communities (Gløersen 2009). Bukve (2008) finds, that young people leave peripheral areas in Northern Norway even if job are available there, which shows a “mismatch between the young peoples’ education and job preferences and the type of jobs that are offered in the 8 peripheries” (p. 5). Since a lot of the women have left for urban jobs, a gender imbalance develops which may foster a remaining macho culture relying on conservative gender roles(Nilsson 1998; Hall et al. 2003). THEORY REVIEW As mentioned, contradictory economic theories have dominated the debate on the question why people move from one part of a country to another part or abroad (Edvardsson et al. 2007; Jennissen 2007). One type of these theories - Neoclassic Macroeconomic Theory, Neoclassic Microeconomic Theory – stresses the push factors and the initiation approaches. Another type - Theory of the dual labour market and segmented market theories - stresses the pull factors and continuations of migration. The Neoclassic Macroeconomic Theory is based on a labour intensive sector or/and a sector with high level of technology and capital intensive production. Each sector is assumed to strive for a state of equilibrium. To achieve that equilibrium, labour is transferred from less productive sectors to more productive sectors. This requires a closed economic system and access to unlimited labour supply. An influx of cheap labour from abroad will lower wages and create a new equilibrium where external immigration will cease (Athukorola & Manning 1999). National politics and policies either facilitate or halt these movements (Adey 2010). Work is here the main motive for out migration as a push factor. Fig.1. Migration: Push factors Photo: Lena Wikström 9 The Neoclassic Microeconomic Theory is based on individual choice where the individuals are rational and fully informed. They want to live where they find it best to live based on individual cost/benefit analysis and the higher the reward, the greater the propensity to move (Massey et al. 1993). The theory can, however, not explain why people from certain areas move to certain places without optimizing the costs and benefits. Quantifiable variables of lifestyle and other social factors are here counted for as push factors. Theories like Theory of the dual labour market and Segmented market theories stress the pull factors and continuations of migration instead (Claydon & Beardwell 2001). As pull factor, education can here be seen as an important motive. Fig. 2. Migration: Pull factors Photo: Lena Wikström There have been efforts to merge the two types of theories together. Net work theory stresses the importance of contacts and knowledge for the decision to move (Schoorl 1995). Kritz and Zlotnik (1992) emphasize historical, cultural, colonial and technological linkages between migrants and destinations. Jennissen (2007) finds that network theory explains why migration flows is an ongoing phenomenon by stressing the arising of institutions, strengthening the linkages between immigrants and the countries they come from. Adey (2010) finds that “societal contexts shape the way mobilities are treated and understood” (p 81). In a North Atlantic context, education as a pull factor limits the number of possible destinations to move to while job as a pull factor broadens the number.

Load more