Section 4.1 of this chapter has outlined the characteristics of in-migrants. This section now compares the characteristics of in-migrants with that of non-migrants.
In this study non-migrants were respondents who had never moved from their present location or who had only moved within a 20 mile radius of their present home. The decision as to who was and wasn’t an in-migrant was made on the basis that the category for
determining who is or isn’t a migrant is not clear cut. As chapter 2 and 3 has set out there is no standard definition and different studies use different definitions. This research wanted to ensure the definition was simple enough for respondents to judge if they were a migrant or not, yet complex enough to capture the variety of moves that are present in rural areas. As discussed in chapter 3 this study adopted a lifetime approach to migration which also assisted in capturing migrations that had occurred some time ago as Keeble and Tyler (1995) asserted many in-migrant business owners in their study had migrated many years before the business start-up. Therefore in this research in order to focus in on migrants moves of under 20 miles were considered moves of circulation within local labour and housing markets. Moves of over 20 miles were considered ‘migrations’. The results of the non-migrant respondents are presented here as a comparison to the migrant results in order
Page
133
the Heads of households (as defined by the respondent’s themselves). The number of heads of households that were not migrants equates to 220 although this figure can alter slightly depending on whether some questions were missed out by respondents. The number of heads of households that were defined as in-migrants is 377 again this figure can vary according to how many respondents answered individual questions.
Firstly the age profile of the two groups is compared;
TABLE 4.13AGE COMPARISON
The results highlight the difference in age profile of in-migrant and non-migrant households (p<0.001). Non-migrant households tend to be younger with only 28.2% of heads of
households being aged over 66. Whereas in-migrant households had 40.6% of head of households aged over 66. In total 83.6% of in-migrant heads of households are aged over 45. The figure for non-migrant heads of households is 68.2%. This difference in age profile of in-migrant and non-migrant households is noteworthy, particularly in considering the impact of in-migrants on local rural economies. Stockdale (2006) has highlighted that many pre-retired in-migrants may be stepping down from full time working to part time working or self-employment. This could impact upon rural economies. There is also potential for the influx of older migrants to rural areas to exacerbate existing issues surrounding ageing rural populations. This can have important repercussions on service provision by rural local
e
134
authorities (CRC 2010). What impact the influx of older in-migrants will have on rural areas is the subject of current research by Stockdale (2010).
In terms of the gender profile of non-migrant households, as expected, they shared similar patterns to in-migrant figures. The ratio was 49.7% Male to 50.3% female. Turning now to the household structure; the following table outlines the household structure profile of in-migrant and non-in-migrant households.
TABLE 4.14HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE COMPARISON
Total
What table 4.14 reveals is that non-migrant households are more likely to be made up of 3 and 4 person households (which could be indicative of largely households with children) than migrant households – this is due to the younger age profile of non-migrant households.
77.3% of in-migrant households are made up of 1 and 2 person households where as this figure drops to 60.4% for non-migrant households. This too may have important ramifications for local service provision in rural areas as In-migrants may be less supported (by family and friends) in times of crisis as Green and Hardill (2003) identified and may therefore require more support from local service providers.
The next table outlines the differences between in-migrant and non-migrant Welsh speaking abilities. Some 37.9% of in-migrants have some comprehension of the Welsh language the next table outlines what the level rises to for non-migrants.
Page
135
TABLE 4.15WELSH SPEAKING COMPARISON
Total
The table reveals that 71.6% of non-migrants have some comprehension of the Welsh language (compared to only 37.9% on in-migrants) with 54.6% having Welsh as their first language. Further on in this chapter the differences of Welsh speaking across Powys and Gwynedd will be addressed. Chapter 6 will then explore what impact Welsh speaking has on employment patterns; however we now turn to a comparison of non-migrant and in-migrant qualifications and employment status.
It has been established that migrants have higher qualifications than local populations (Brown et al 2004, Stockdale, Short and Findlay 1999, Stockdale 2006). This is one of the explanations offered for varying degrees of economic activity between in-migrants and non – migrants. In this research the qualifications of both in-migrants and non-migrants were analysed and the results are presented below:
e
136
TABLE 4.16 QUALIFICATIONS COMPARISON
Total
The results support the findings of other studies (Brown et al 2004, Stockdale, Short and Findlay 1999, Stockdale 2006) in that in comparing non-migrants and in-migrants, it is clear in-migrants have higher qualifications than local populations. In-migrants are more likely to have a degree (24.4%) or higher degree (6%) than local populations. The impact of this is that in-migrants are bringing with them a skill set that may be useful for rural areas. They may have access to extended networks and can therefore offer expertise to others in rural areas. One consequence of this is that further research may be warranted to determine in what ways rural regions can tap into this valuable resource.
The employment status of non-migrants was also analysed and the results are compared to that of in-migrants and presented below:
TABLE 4.17 EMPLOYMENT STATUS COMPARISON
Page
137
This table is not statistically significant as 43% of cells have expected count less than 5 therefore the analysis has been rerun on the following page with a reduced number of categories. However the table is included here for information as this is how the data was presented in other studies which allows useful comparison.
The results of table 4.17 show that non-migrant populations are less likely to be retired and more likely to be employed full time than non-migrant populations. This again can be partially explained by the age differences between in-migrants and non-migrants as in-migrants are older and therefore more likely to be retired. In order to understand the economic activity choices of non-migrants more fully the next table analyses only those respondents that are economically active.
e
138
TABLE 4.18EMPLOYMENT STATUS (EXCLUDING RETIRED) COMPARISON
MIGRANT
Total
Non-migrant In-migrant
Head of Household Employment Status
Employed Full time
Count 76 82 158
% 59.4% 48.8% 53.4%
Employed Part time
Count 18 30 48
% 14.1% 17.9% 16.2%
Self employed
Count 23 42 65
% 18.0% 25.0% 22.0%
Other
Count 11 14 25
% 8.6% 8.3% 8.4%
Total
Count 128 168 296
% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
The results highlight (controlling for retirement) that in-migrants are less likely to be
employed full time (48.8%) compared with 59% for non-migrants and more likely to be self-employed (25%) compared with 18% for the non-migrant populations. This suggests that in-migrants are behaving differently in terms of their economic activity from non-migrant populations (albeit in small ways) – however the results are not statistically significant. This suggests that any differences shown between in-migrant and non-migrant populations are small enough to be due to chance or random variation between samples. Being an in-migrant does not necessarily correlate with being involved in particular economic activity.
This questions the success of in-migrant drives to certain regions in order to boost economic activity levels, these issues will be discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
The following tables outline whether non-migrant populations are involved in full or part time working and or multiple jobs working, which is according the Rural Observatory (2004) a particular feature of rural labour markets.
Page
139
TABLE 4.20NUMBER OF JOBS WORKED COMPARISON
Total
The results highlight that non-migrants are less likely to be doing part time work, and less likely to be doing more than one job than in-migrants. This suggests that (although in small numbers) some in-migrants have a higher incidence of different kinds of economic activity to non-migrants including part time working and multiple jobs working. Whether this is due to differences in age profiles between the two groups or suggests under employment or less
e
140
stable employment for in-migrant groups will be discussed in Chapter 5. At this juncture it is clear as earlier tables have highlighted that the differences between in-migrant and non-migrant economic activity is not statistically significant. This is an important finding and highlights patterns of economic activity between in-migrants and non-migrants are very similar.
TABLE 4.21 COMMUTING COMPARISON
Total
There is a body of literature on the commuting patterns of individuals including in-migrants (Stockdale, Short and Findlay 1999); this research has not connected with this literature as this was not a central theme of the research. However in understanding the economic activity choices of in-migrants it is important to consider location of work place. Therefore this study asked in-migrants and non-migrants in Powys and Gwynedd how far they travelled to work. The results revealed they are not statistically significant – (due to the small number of respondents that were economically active) and that almost 65% of in-migrants work locally. This figure rises slightly to 69% for non-migrants. In terms of home working 18.8% of in-migrants work from home compared to only 11.9% of non-migrants, however in-migrants
Page
141
populations of which only 3.4% commute over 1 hour to work. These results are similar to that of Stockdale, Short and Findlay (1999), (2000). They reveal that in-migrants are more involved in home working than the general population (CRC 2005). They also reveal that the majority of in-migrants work local to their residence.