Historicizing counterurbanization: in-migration and the reconstruction of rural space in Berkshire (UK), 1901-51

This article uses census data for Berkshire to argue that large-scale counterurbanization began much earlier than is generally recognized in some parts of southern England. This was not just movement down the urban hierarchy, which as Pooley and Turnbull have demonstrated was a long-term feature of England’s settlement system, but in some cases at least amenity-driven migration to rural areas of the kind increasingly recognized as a core component of recent counterurbanization. Despite a reduction of acreage Berkshire’s rural districts saw a 54% rise in population between 1901 and 1951. The sub-regional pattern of growth is assessed to gauge whether ‘clean break’ migration to the remote west of the county (which remained effectively out of commuting range from London throughout the period) was taking place, or whether counterurbanization was confined to the more accessible eastern districts. However, whilst population did increase in both west and east, it was in fact the central districts that grew most impressively. Three case study parishes are investigated in order to gauge the nature and consequences of counterurbanization at a local level. Professional and business migrants figure prominently, seeking to preserve and promote the rural attributes of their new communities, without however cutting their ties to urban centres. It is argued that migration to rural Berkshire in the first half of the twentieth century cannot adequately be described either as a form of extended suburbanization or an anti-metropolitan ‘clean break’. Rather, early counterurbanization marks the first stage on the long road to a post-productivist countryside, in which countryside becomes detached from agriculture, there is socio-economic convergence between town and country, and the ‘rural’ increasingly becomes defined by landscape and identity rather than economic function.

Interregional migration 'wage premia': the case of creative and science and technology graduates in the UK

We analyze the migration behavior of graduates from UK universities with a focus on the salary benefits they receive from the migration process. We focus on sequential interregional migration and specifically examine the case of Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) and Creative subject graduates. Our analysis differs from previous studies in that it accounts explicitly for migrant selectivity through propensity score matching, and it also classifies graduates into different migration behavior categories. Graduates were classified according to their sequential migration behavior first from their pre-university domicile to university and then from university to first job post-graduation. Our results show that ‘repeat migration’, as expected, is associated with the highest wage premium (around 15%). Other migration behaviors are also advantageous although this varies across different types of graduates. Creative graduates, for instance, do not benefit much from migration behaviors other than repeat migration. STEM graduates, on the contrary, benefit from both late migration and staying in the university area to work.

Talent on the move: creative human capital migration patterns in UK

The last decade has seen an increasing number of contributions, from both academics and policy makers, focusing on the role of higher education in developing human capital (Charles, 2003; Cramphorn & Woodlhouse, 1999; Preston & Hammond, 2006) and hence contributing to local and regional growth (Faggian & McCann, 2006; Mathur, 1999; Moretti, 2004). Within this broader literature, the role played by more ‘scientific’ types of human capital, such as STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) graduates and science parks (Bozeman, Dietz, & Gaughan, 2001; Linderlöf & Löfsten, 2004; Löfsten & Lindelöf, 2005), has also been explored. Little attention has been paid so far, to the role played by more ‘creative’ types of human capital. This chapter aims at filling this gap, in light of the central role that the term ‘creative’ took in policy and academic discourses in the UK (Comunian & Faggian, 2011; Comunian & Gilmore, 2015; DCMS, 2006; Powell, 2007; Universities UK, 2010).