| 31.10.2006 |
| |
| Bank of Israel research: Internal migration reflects increasing segregation in Israeli society and a weakening of the development towns in the periphery;
17 percent of families changed their locality between 1983 and 1995.
|
| The opinions brought in the study referred to herein are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those of the Bank of Israel
|
| Strong families left metropolitan areas principally for suburban and rural communities; development towns in the north and south suffered considerable population loss, particularly among young educated couples; the flow of strong families to smaller and more homogeneous localities reflects a process of segregation which could reinforce polarization and increase gaps in the education system between communities. |
|
| |
|
|
| |
| Internal migration–changing locality of residence within the country––has considerable implications on a range of factors, such as urban sprawl, changes in the population of communities, increasing segregation and polarization between communities, patterns of land use and infrastructure, as well as areas of transport. Public debate deals in no small way with the implications of internal migration, for example in reference to communities that suffer from the loss of strong populations. This migration has important ramifications for policy, particularly when considering the long-standing declared policy of dispersing the population and devoting considerable resources in an attempt to influence individuals' choice of location of residence. |
| This new research by Kobi Braude and Guy Navon of the Research Department of the Bank of Israel analyses the characteristics of families from the Jewish sector that changed their locality––internally migrated––between 1983 and 1995. The study finds that: internal migration is of significant scope with about 17 percent of the families changing their locality of residence (at least once) between 1983 and 1995; the likelihood of families migrating rises with income and level of education, and declines with age up to a certain point, after which the latter trend is reversed. Migration (incoming and outgoing) reached significant proportions in all localities, although there were great differences between localities in the balance of migration and its characteristics. |
| Among metropolitan areas, Tel Aviv and Jerusalem had highest rates of leaving |
| The research analyzes two important processes that have attracted considerable public attention: the rise of the suburbs, and the weakening of the development towns. The former entails strong populations leaving metropolitan cities, and, most clearly, the strongest populations moving to suburban and rural communities, which have seen considerable population growth. Net out-migration rates (those leaving less those moving in) among the families examined stood at 9 percent in Tel Aviv, 8 percent in Jerusalem, 4 percent in the rest of the Dan region and 5 percent in the Haifa and Krayot metropolitan area. The average education among those leaving metropolitan areas was significantly higher than among those staying and, except for Tel Aviv, also higher than among those moving in. The families that arrived at the small affluent suburbs were particularly well-educated––with 14.1 years of education on average––far higher than that found among any other group within the sample (see tables attached). |
| Considerable loss to development towns in the north and south |
| The second process was seen in the considerable population loss in the development towns in the north and south, particularly among young educated couples. As can be seen in the tables attached, net out-migration rates of these towns (those leaving less those moving in) among the families examined totaled 8 percent; and those leaving had 11.7 years of education on average compared to 10 years among those staying on1. The research found a difference between the destination of those leaving these towns; many of those leaving development towns in the north stayed in the area, with the strongest of whom moving to local rural communities; while among those leaving development towns in the south, a larger fraction moved to the center of the country. The net negative migration balance in the development towns is all the more noteworthy considering the longstanding policy to strengthen these towns. |
| There is a great similarity in the processes that we found among the metropolitan areas and the development towns: the move of strong families from urban and heterogeneous localities to smaller and more homogeneous communities. This reflects increasing segregation and could reinforce polarization between localities, particularly in the field of education. The processes could also be self-reinforcing: as the stronger population leaves the cities, so the cities' tax base is eroded and their ability to supply services in general and education in particular will suffer, thereby encouraging others among the strong population to leave. |
| |
| 1The education of those moving into the development towns was similar to those leaving, but, as mentioned, the numbers of those moving in were considerably lower than the numbers leaving, hence, overall, there was a net out-migration of educated population. |
| |
| |
|
| |
| Migration balances among families1 by type of locality 1983-1995 |
|
| Locality |
Leaving |
Moving in |
Migration balance* |
| |
(as percentage of families by type in 1983) |
| Metropolitan |
| Jerusalem |
13 |
6 |
-8 |
| Tel Aviv |
17 |
8 |
-9 |
| Dan region |
20 |
16 |
-4 |
| Haifa-Krayot |
17 |
13 |
-5 |
| Affluent suburbs |
| Large5 |
16 |
24 |
8 |
| Small6 |
14 |
82 |
68 |
| Development towns7 |
17 |
9 |
-8 |
|
| |
| *Those moving in less those leaving, rounded up.
|
|
| |
| Family characteristics1 by type of locality 1983-1995 |
|
| Locality |
Leaving |
Staying |
Moving in |
| |
Age2 |
Education3 |
Relative income4 |
Age2 |
Education3 |
Age2 |
Education3 |
Relative income4 |
| Metropolitan |
| Jerusalem |
33.4 |
13.6 |
1.0 |
42.1 |
12.1 |
36.8 |
13.0 |
1.0 |
| Tel Aviv |
36.9 |
11.7 |
1.1 |
47.6 |
10.9 |
40.5 |
12.5 |
1.2 |
| Dan region |
35.5 |
12.6 |
1.1 |
42.5 |
10.8 |
37.0 |
11.5 |
0.9 |
| Haifa-Krayot |
36.0 |
12.9 |
0.9 |
43.6 |
11.5 |
36.8 |
12.1 |
0.9 |
| Affluent suburbs |
| Large5 |
35.6 |
13.4 |
1.1 |
41.0 |
11.6 |
35.9 |
13.3 |
1.1 |
| Small6 |
36.2 |
13.4 |
1.0 |
41.8 |
12.1 |
33.2 |
14.1 |
1.1 |
| Development towns7 |
33.0 |
11.7 |
1.1 |
38.1 |
10.0 |
34.6 |
11.9 |
1.0 |
| All localities8 |
35.3 |
12.6 |
1.1 |
41.9 |
10.8 |
35.3 |
12.6 |
1.1 |
|
| |
| 1 |
The sample includes 17,199 families from the Jewish sector, with both partners belonging to the same household in 1983 and in 1995; the sample does not include those that immigrated to Israel in the 1990s. |
| 2 |
Average age of the partners in 1983. |
| 3 |
Average years of education of the partners in 1995. |
| 4 |
Monthly family income from all sources in 1983 of those leaving/moving in relative to the income of those staying in the locality. |
| 5 |
Nine cities with income above the median among near-medium cities (those with populations of 20,000-100,000 residents, and situated up to 25 km from the nearest metropolitan city): Hod Hasharon, Herzliya, Yavneh, Kfar Saba, Nes Ziona, Kiryat Ono, Rehovot, Ramat Hasharon, Ra'anana. |
| 6 |
178 communities where their average income is higher than the median among the overall group of suburbs (small communities situated up to 35 km from the nearest metropolitan city). |
| 7 |
In the literature there is no agreement on what constitutes a development town. Here we define 21: (In the north) Beit She'an, Hazor Hagalilit, Tiberius, Carmiel, Migdal Ha'emek, Ma'alot, Nazareth Illit, Afula, Sfat, Kiryat Shemona, Shlomi; (in the south) Ofakim, Eilat, Dimona, Yeruham, Mizpeh Ramon, Netivot, Arad, Kiryat Gat, Kiryat Malachi, Sderot. |
| 8 |
In the sample, 1,058 Jewish and mixed localities in 1995. Of these, 993 existed in 1983. |
|
| |
|