Subproject 1. Family ties as a deterrent of migration and key determinant of immobility
Previous research has indicated that those who have family members living nearby are less likely to migrate than those who do not. FamilyTies results show that this effect is partly explained by frequent contact with parents and partly by support exchange. Among separated parents, nonresident minor children living close by formed an important deterrent of migration. Young adults who migrated to large Swedish cities were less likely to return to the home region if a sibling lived in the city of residence. At the start of couple co-residence, living close to family was negatively related to moving towards the partner. Those whose parents and grandparents were born in the region where they were also born themselves were much more likely to stay in their region of birth than others. We found a negative effect of having a nonresident adult child living nearby on the likelihood of older adults moving to institutions (mostly older people’s homes), particularly for mothers. Conversely, close relationships between parents and children are associated with a greater likelihood of the child moving out of the parental home, suggesting that such relationships can help launch children into adulthood. Those whose parents and grandparents were born in the region where they were also born were much more likely to stay in their region of birth than others.
Subproject 2. Explaining migration towards family in relation to migration in other directions
The common idea about long-distance moves is that they are mainly directed towards centres of jobs and education. FamilyTies results show that nonresident parents, children and siblings also form an important attraction factor for migration. This attractiveness is strengthened if multiple family members live in the same area, and increases with the occurrence of life events typically linked to increased support needs (separation, widowhood, childbirth, and job loss). Moves towards nonresident family are first and foremost related to the support needs and life events of the movers rather than the family members they move towards. Yet, we also observe grandparents moving towards their grandchildren, likely to help care for them or to enjoy their company. We conclude that family living far away forms an important beacon: it attracts migration.
Subproject 3. Family-related motives for migration and immobility
Just like for directions of migration, the common idea for motivations is also that they are related to work or education. FamilyTies results show that family motives are just as important to migration as employment motives. In a Swedish survey, more than half of the moves closer to family were indeed motivated by family reasons. Nonresident family was a particularly important migration motive for women, those with children and the widowed. Adults were more likely to report moving for proximity reasons if they had geographically distant parents who did not utilise formal care services than if they had distant parents who did. Just like for migration, ties to family were also an important motivation for immobility: ‘family and friends’ was the most frequently reported reason for staying rather than moving. e conclude that proximity to family is not just a coincidental by-product of internal migration and immobility, but actually forms an important motivation for moving and staying.
Subproject 4. The individual labour-market outcomes of migration and immobility
According to FamilyTies results, family-motivated migration is associated with worse labour-market outcomes than moves for work or other reasons: The incomes of those who migrate to be closer to nonresident family grow less, and these movers report more frequently that their working conditions worsened after a move. However, among those who were unemployed before moving within Sweden, those who reported family motives were more likely to be employed after the move than those who reported other motives. In the Netherlands, moving for both work and proximity to family was more positively related to women’s number of hours worked than moving for work only.
