[Paper Review] Impact of internal migration on population redistribution in Europe: Urbanisation, counterurbanisation or spatial equilibrium?

Francisco Rowe, Martin Bell+3 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Nov 9, 2019

Urban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies41 references57 citations

TL;DR

This study analyzes internal migration's impact on population redistribution across 27 European countries using the Index of Net Migration Impact (INMI), revealing that migration redistributes populations weakly overall, with Northern and Eastern Europe experiencing urban concentration due to high migration intensity and effectiveness, while Southern and Western Europe show deconcentration due to low effectiveness despite high intensity. Ravenstein’s law of streams and counter-streams remains relevant, highlighting system-wide migration dynamics across Europe’s settlement systems.

ABSTRACT

The classical foundations of migration research date from the 1880s with Ravenstein's Laws of migration, which represent the first comparative analyses of internal migration. While his observations remain largely valid, the ensuing century has seen considerable progress in data collection practices and methods of analysis, which in turn has permitted theoretical advances in understanding the role of migration in population redistribution. Coupling the extensive range of migration data now available with these recent theoretical and methodological advances, we endeavour to advance beyond Ravenstein's understanding by examining the direction of population redistribution and comparing the impact of internal migration on patterns of human settlement in 27 European countries. Results show that the overall redistributive impact of internal migration is low in most European countries but the mechanisms differ across the continent. In Southern and Eastern Europe migration effectiveness is above average but is offset by low migration intensities, whereas in Northern and Western Europe high intensities are absorbed in reciprocal flows resulting in low migration effectiveness. About half the European countries are experiencing a process of concentration toward urbanised regions, particularly in Northern, Central and Eastern Europe, whereas countries in the West and South are undergoing a process of population deconcentration. These results suggest that population deconcentration is now more common than it was in the 1990s when counterurbanisation was limited to Western Europe. The results show that 130 years on, Ravenstein's law of migration streams and counter-streams remains a central facet of migration dynamics, while underlining the importance of simple yet robust indices for the spatial analysis of migration.

Motivation & Objective

• To assess the overall redistributive impact of internal migration on population settlement patterns across 27 European countries.
• To examine how migration intensity and effectiveness vary across Europe and shape regional population redistribution.
• To test the continued relevance of Ravenstein’s 'laws of migration,' particularly the principle of streams and counter-streams, in contemporary migration systems.
• To update and extend prior cross-national migration studies by analyzing changes since the 1990s, accounting for post-millennial demographic and economic shifts.
• To provide a robust, cross-nationally comparable framework for analyzing migration impacts using system-wide indices that mitigate the modifiable areal unit problem (MAUP).

Proposed method

• Employed the Index of Net Migration Impact (INMI), a system-wide measure that quantifies net population redistribution from internal migration, independent of zonal system size or structure.
• Used data from the IPUMS database and national statistical offices to construct consistent migration flow matrices across 27 European countries for multiple time periods.
• Applied the IMAGE Studio software to process migration data and compute INMI, enabling cross-national comparison while minimizing MAUP effects.
• Decomposed INMI into components of migration intensity (total movement) and migration effectiveness (net redistributive impact) to analyze their spatial interplay.
• Conducted time-series analysis to track changes in migration impact from the early 2000s to the 2010s, identifying trends in concentration, deconcentration, or spatial equilibrium.
• Mapped country-level migration patterns using scatter plots and regional maps to visualize deviations from expected net migration trends and identify outliers.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 What is the overall redistributive impact of internal migration on population settlement in 27 European countries?
• RQ2 How do migration intensity and effectiveness interact to shape population concentration or deconcentration across different European regions?
• RQ3 To what extent does Ravenstein’s law of streams and counter-streams remain valid in contemporary European migration systems?
• RQ4 How have migration-driven population redistribution patterns changed since the 1990s, particularly in response to EU expansion, economic crises, and aging populations?
• RQ5 Which countries exhibit spatial equilibrium, deconcentration, or re-urbanization, and what factors explain these divergent trajectories?

Key findings

• The overall redistributive impact of internal migration is low in most European countries, with the average INMI value below the global mean, indicating limited net population redistribution.
• In Northern and Western Europe, high migration intensity is largely offset by reciprocal flows, resulting in low net migration effectiveness and minimal redistribution.
• In Southern and Eastern Europe, migration effectiveness is higher due to unbalanced flows, but low migration intensity limits the overall redistributive effect.
• About half of European countries are experiencing population concentration, particularly in Northern, Central, and Eastern Europe, indicating ongoing urbanisation or re-urbanisation.
• Countries in Western and Southern Europe are undergoing deconcentration, with population gains shifting toward lower-density regions, a trend more widespread than in the 1990s.
• Six countries—Norway, Lithuania, Estonia, Spain, the UK, and Italy—have reached spatial equilibrium, where internal migration causes minimal change in existing settlement patterns.