Valikoiva muuttoliike Uudellamaalla

This thesis explores selective migration in Greater Helsinki region from the perspective of counterurbanisation. The aim of the study is to research whether the migration is selective by migrants age, education, income level or the rate of employment and to study any regional patterns formed by the selectivity. In the Helsinki region recent migratory developments have been shifting the areas of net migration gain away from the city of Helsinki to municipalities farther off on the former countryside. There has been discussion about Helsinki s decaying tax revenue base and whether the city s housing policy has contributed to the exodus of wealthier households. The central question of the discussion is one of selective migration: which municipalities succeed in capturing the most favourable migrants and which will lose in the competition. Selective migration means that region s in-migrants and out-migrants significantly differ from each other demographically, socially and economically. Sometimes selectivity is also understood as some individuals greater propensity to migrate than others but the proper notion for this would be differential migration. In Finnish parlance these two concepts have tended to get mixed up. The data of the study covers the total migration of the 34 municipalities of Uusimaa provinces during the years 2001 to 2003. The data was produced by Statistics Finland. Two new methods of representing the selectivity of migration as a whole were constructed during the study. Both methods look at the proportions of favourably selected migrants in regions inward and outward migrant flow. A large share in the inward flow and a small share in the outward flow is good for region s economy and demography. The first method calculates the differences of the proportions of favourably selected four migrant groups and sums the differences up. The other ranks the same proportions between regions giving value 1 to the largest proportion in inward flow and 34 to the smallest, and respectively in outward flow the smallest proportion gets value 1 and the largest 34. The total sum of the ranks or differences in proportions represents region s selectivity of migration. The results show that migration is indeed selective in the Greater Helsinki region. There also seems to be a spatial pattern centred around the Helsinki metropolitan region. The municipalities surrounding the four central communes are generally better of than those farther away. Not only these eight municipalities of the so called capital region benefit from the selective migration, but the favourable structure of migration extends to some of the small municipalities farther away. Some municipalities situated along the main northbound railway line are not coming through as well as other municipalities of the capital region. The selectivity of migration in Greater Helsinki region shows signs of counter-urbanisation. People look for suburban or small-town lifestyle no longer from Espoo or Vantaa, the neighbouring municipalities to Helsinki, but from the municipalities surrounding these two or even farther off. This kind of pattern in selective migration leads to unbalanced development in population structure and tax revenue base in the region. Migration to outskirts of the urban area also leads to urban sprawl and fragmentation of the urban structure: these issues have ecological implications. Selective migration should be studied more. Also the concept itself needs clearer definition and so do the methods to study the selectivity of migration.

Migration-Development Nexus in the Malawian Health Sector: European Union Blue Card – circular migration for development?

The European Union has agreed on implementing the Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) principle in all policy sectors that are likely to have a direct impact on developing countries. This is in order to take account of and support the EU development cooperation objectives and the achievement of the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals. The common EU migration policy and the newly introduced EU Blue Card directive present an example of the implementation of the principle in practice: the directive is not only designed to respond to the occurring EU labour demand by attracting highly skilled third-country professionals, but is also intended to contribute to the development objectives of the migrant-sending developing countries, primarily through the tool of circular migration and the consequent skills transfers. My objective in this study is to assess such twofold role of the EU Blue Card and to explore the idea that migration could be harnessed for the benefit of development in conformity with the notion that the two form a positive nexus. Seeing that the EU Blue Card fails to differentiate the most vulnerable countries and sectors from those that are in a better position to take advantage of the global migration flows, the developmental consequences of the directive must be accounted for even in the most severe settings. Accordingly, my intention is to question whether circular migration, as claimed, could address the problem of brain drain in the Malawian health sector, which has witnessed an excessive outflow of its professionals to the UK during the past decade. In order to assess the applicability, likelihood and relevance of circular migration and consequent skills transfers for development in the Malawian context, a field study of a total of 23 interviews with local health professionals was carried out in autumn 2010. The selected approach not only allows me to introduce a developing country perspective to the on-going discussion at the EU level, but also enables me to assess the development dimension of the EU Blue Card and the intended PCD principle through a local lens. Thus these interviews and local viewpoints are at the very heart of this study. Based on my findings from the field, the propensity of the EU Blue Card to result in circular migration and to address the persisting South-North migratory flows as well as the relevance of skills transfers can be called to question. This is as due to the bias in its twofold role the directive overlooks the importance of the sending country circumstances, which are known to determine any developmental outcomes of migration, and assumes that circular migration alone could bring about immediate benefits. Without initial emphasis on local conditions, however, positive outcomes for vulnerable countries such as Malawi are ever more distant. Indeed it seems as if the EU internal interests in migration policy forbid the fulfilment of the PCD principle and diminish the attempt to harness migration for development to bare rhetoric.