Monitor for secondary migration

In this edition of the Monitor for Secondary-Migration we look at people with refugee background who were settled in Norway in the years 2005-2014, if they left their settlement municipality and where those who migrated settled. We describe those who migrated by characteristics such as gender, age, refugee type, family type and country background.

New in this issue is that we look at the relationship between education levels in asylum receptions and migration patterns after settlements; the labor status of those who migrate; secondary-migrations before, during and after the financial crisis; a regional centrality division with housing and labor market regions.

A cohort is the people with refugee background who were settled a certain year.

2009 and 2010 cohorts. Residence five years after settlement

Almost as many have been living in their settlement municipality (resident) for the 2009 and 2010 cohorts as for the previous two cohorts. The residential rate is relatively stable around 80 per cent, which corresponds to a 20 per cent secondary-migration rate. The same four cohorts are also similar when we look at the proportion moving to another municipality in the county, to Oslo, or to another county than Oslo.

However, at county level, the changes have been large. In Sogn og Fjordane and Nordland, the secondary-migration has risen a lot, but the greatest growth took place in Nord-Trøndelag. Oppland, Hordaland and Akershus have had the biggest decline. Still there are most resident in Oslo. Next-largest are the share of residents in Rogaland, Hordaland, Østfold and Buskerud, while it is least in Nord-Trøndelag, Sogn og Fjordane, Nordland, Troms and Finnmark.

Changed migration pattern

It is increasingly common for those who secondary-migrates to migrate in the county. The figures for the 2008-2010 cohort are record high. The strong growth has come at the expense of migration to Oslo and migration to other counties than Oslo.

Although the secondary-migrations don’t so often go to Oslo, it is still the place where definitively most people migrate. Just over one of four secondary migrants migrated to Oslo, one of four migrated internally in the county, while two out of four migrated to another county than Oslo.

Particularly many of those who were settled in Sogn og Fjordane, Nord-Trøndelag and Finnmark in 2009 migrated to Oslo. For those who were settled in 2010, most migrated to Oslo in Nord-Trøndelag. Akershus and Aust-Agder.

Housing and labor regions

Of those settled in central housing and labor regions more people are living in a corresponding central region than what’s the case for those settled in less central regions. The difference is particularly large between those who were settled in regions with medium-sized cities and regions with small towns.

Educational level measured at asylum reception

Those who have a higher education level before they’re settled are in a larger extent settled in in the most central housing and labor market regions than those with a lower education level or no education. Additionally, they increase their housing centralities somewhat more. However, the main difference between the group's housing centrality five years after settlement occurs by settlement, not due to unequal migration patterns.

Those who have a higher education level before settlement migrate very little during their settlement year. Most migrate during year 2 after settlement.

Labor status before migration

Those who migrate from their settlement commune in central housing and labor regions are more often a part of the workforce than those who migrate from their settlement municipality in a less central region. This is primarily because more people are registered as wage earners / self-employed persons.

Of those who migrated within 6 months (1.10.2014-31.3.2015) after labor status registrations as of 1/10/2014 were:

• 24 per cent in the labor force, of whom 20 per cent were wage earners or self-employed and 4 per cent were unemployed.
• 62 percent outside the labor force, 51 percent of whom were outside the labor force for reasons other than "education" and "health-related benefits", while 10 percent were under education and 1 percent were recipients of health-related benefits.
• 14 per cent lacking a labor status.