RETURN MIGRATION TO A MARGINAL

NORTH NORWAY RURAL AREA - AN EXAMPLE FROM

b BERYL NXCHCJLSON

Dtpartnw of Gagrapby, Uuiwsie o j Nnvcazrlr upon T p

I N T R O D U C T I O N

Ve y little attention has been paid in research on internal migration to the return flow of migrants to areas experiencing a net migration loss, though a number of studies have been made of international migrants who have returned to their countries of origin. The foci of these latter studies have included return movement to the countries of the old world from countries such as Australia and Canada which have a policy of encouraging immigration, and where there is clearly a reason to investigate the loss of immigrants (Appleyard 1962(a), 196z(b), Richardson 1968, Richmond 1966, 1968); the return from North America of highly educated emigrants from Europe and the third world, so that the real loss due to the “brain drain” could be assessed (Mills 1966, Pankhurst 1966); and the return of emigrants from less privileged countries who had sought employment’in the highly developed nations, where the concern is with the reintegration of the returned migrant as well as with the reasons for returning (Hernandez Alvarez 1967, Reverdy 1967).

The small amount of attention which so far has been paid to return movement within countries has been largely confined to sections of studies on other aspects of migration. Due probably to the relatively easy accessibility of data, most of the existing work has been done in Scandinavia, much of it at the commune or parish level. It has been found that there are variations both in the proportion of immigrants who are return migrants (Holt-Jensen 1969, p. 20, Hertzberg 1969, p. 86, Wallander 1948, p. 139) and in the proportions of emigrants who return (Wallander 1948, p. 140, Geschwind 1gj7, p. 608, Wendel 1913,pp. 3,4,10, ~g,Arnljot 1969,~. 118).Differmcesinthelevelsof return migration found in the various studies can be ataibuted to only a limited extent to difftrences in the time periods covered. Return

228 Beryl Nicholson

migration generally takes place within a few years of emigration, and in many, perhaps the majority, of cases return moves are made from the first place to which the migrant moved (see e.g. Wallander 1948, pp. 115-117, Dolven 1968, pp. 20, 22). Explanations for these vari- ations must be sought in the initial selection of migrants and their reasons for moving. It has been found, for example, that migrants who were assisted financially to move to other places to take up employment were more likely to return than other people who left the same area (Kempe 1965, pp. 9, 14, Kjdl and Westin 1972, pp. 54, 58). Such evidence as is available elsewhere (e.g. House, Thomas and Willis 1968, Hathaway and Perkins 1968), as well as the work on international migration, shows that the Scandinavian experience is not peculiar to that region.

It has been shown that even in peripheral communes of North Norway where there is high net emigration, t h i s seldom amounts to more than half of the gross emigration (Mook 1967). The importance of immigration to a commune can be expected to vary according to its compostion, return migrants might be more indined to remain than immigrants who have no bonds in the area. If emigrants who return are atypical of emigrants as a whole, the return of emigrants to resume residence will m o w the effects of emigration on, for example, the age and sex structure of the population of an area. Furthermore, the study of migratory movements in the context of migration sequences provides a greater understanding of patterns of mobility than the consideration of data on individual flows. Some investigation of migration histories has betn done by a number of writers (c.g. Wallander 1948, Wendel 1953, Shryock and Larman 1961, Tauber 1966, M~brch 1968 (a), 1968 (b), Mitchell 1969 and Mook 1969)~ but much s t i l l remains to be done.

T H I S S T U D Y

The aim of the present study is to investigate whether, and in what ways, return migrants differ from emigrants in general. Using data from an area in North Norway, a group of return migrants was compared with a group of emigrants to see in what respects the two groups differed. Just as emigration is the result of a selection process, it was expected that the return migrants would constitute a selected group of emigrants. Variables which influence selection at emigration indude sex, age and occupation, these were also expected to influence return migration and either to intense or m o e the effect of the

Return migration to a marginal rwal area 229

initial selection. Migration is also associated with the general ucnd towards urbanisation, therefore return migration is likely to be selective according to whether the original destination was urban or rural, being greater from the latter.

T H E A R E A

The migrants who are the subject of this study come from a pre- dominantly mal area in the north of the province of Trorns in North Norway, consisting of three communes, Skjervoy, Nordreisa and Kvenangen. The area can be considered marginal, having been settled initially as a result of population pressures and famines in other arms. In recent years, as prosperity has increased in the country as a whole, settlement in North Trorns has contracted slightly. The area extends from the Finnish border and the Finnmark plateau to the Arctic Ocean. Nordreisa consists of the valley of the River Rcisa and the small fjord into which it flows. Kvenangen is the area surrounding Kvanangen fjord. Skjervoy includes most of the coastal islands as well as two areas of mainland bordering a sound and two s m a l l fjords. The population of the area increased until the mid-x9jo’s, a peak of IO,ZOI being reached in 1951 (Central Bureau of Statistics undated, p. j), but from then until the data for t h i s study were collected in August 1969, it has shown a very gradual ded.int. The figures for each commune in 196~ were: Skjervoy 4922, Nordreisa z i t 3 and Kvznangen tz9j, a total of 9740~.

Settlement is scattered along the coasts, located mostly on raised beaches, and extends about j o km up the Reisa valley; it is effectively delimited by the IOO meter contour. The settled area has contracted slightly during the past two decades as some outlying places have been deserted. Apart from two villages at the head of Reisa fjord only j km apart, one with 400 inhabitants the other with about ZJO, and a fishing village on the outer coast, with a population of 300,

Which was still without a road connection in I 96 j , the ody agglome- ration of any size is Skjervoy, the administrative centre of the com- mune. In 196j it had about 1400 inhabitants.

T H E D A T A

All residents of the three communes in August 1961 who had regis- tered emigration from that commune at any time since the population register was established in 1946 were considered to be return migrants,

230 Beryl Nichohoon

even if they had not been born in that commune. The population register contains a card for each inhabitant on which personal details are recorded and each absence from the commune is noted. It was from these cards that the data about return migrants were obtained. The data on emigrants were taken from the notifications of emigration for the preceding three and a half years, from the beginning of 1962 to mid 1965, that is, in the part of the period covered when the population had already begun to decline (data covering a longer period were not available). Use was also made of notifications of immigration over the same period, though it was not possible to obtain such a complete record.

T H E LEVEL O F RETURN M I G R A T I O N

Return migrants accounted for 34.0% of the immigrants to Skjervoy, 39.2% of those to Nordreisa and 44.4% of those to Kvanangen, the majority of these returned directly from the commune to which they migrated, respectively 28.8%, 30.9% and 3 1 . 5 % of the totals (Nichol- son, 1971, p. 105). By comparing the gross emigration up to 1964 from the hrst year for which figures were published, 195 I (Central Bureau of Statitics, undated, 1962 and 196ja), with the number of returned emigrants who had emigrated for the first time during t h s period, it was possible to establish that about 10% had returned (in Skjervoy 10.3%, in Nordreisa 9.3% and in Kvenangen 11.7%). But about I 5 yo of the return migrants had emigrated more than once and had been included in the statistics each time, therefore the proportion who returned was probably nearer I Z O / ~ .

In order to identify the attributes which were more or less likely to charaaerise return migrants than all emigrants, the proportions of each group falling within each category of the variables considered were compared. Wherever for any category of variable the proportion of total return migrants was greater than the proportion of total emigrants, it was taken to indicate that the people in this category had an above average propensity to return, and vice versa where the proportion was greater among emigrants. The data were analysed separately for each commune throughout to allow within-region differences to be shown.

It is important to note a major limitation of the data used in this study. In addition to the movements which are registered, an un- known number of people leaves each commune without registering their departure. Very few who leave the area to obtain education

fi turn migation to a marginal rwal area 231

elsewhere register, for example. It is probable that most of these return within a fairly short time, as those who decide not to return Sooner or later noufy that they have left. The number of return migrants included in this study can therefore be assumed to be understated, and it is not known whethe- those who are not included difh from those who are. The value of a study using this incomplete data is seen as providing indications of trends and suggesting lines of further investigation.

THE F I N D I N G S

I Sex and axe strtltfure

Selectivity in emigration operates more in favour of some age groups than others, and women are generally more likely to be mobile than men. In North Troms women accounted for 42.8% of the population in Skjervoy, 46.5% in Nordreisa and 45.1% in Kvanangen. It is obvious from Table I that the proportion of migrants who were women was the greaterz, but, rather surprisingly, there was no a p preciable dderence between the two migrant groups. Thus, although women are more likely to leave the district than men, they are no less likely to return. Twenty years earlier, Wallander had found a still greater propensity to return among women than among men (Wal- lander, 1948, p. 140). A closer examination of the places to which women returned indlcated a greater tendency to return to fishing settlements on the outer coast than to parts of the area where agricul- ture was of some importance. In a study of a neighbouring fishing &strict it was noted that there was not a great imballance of the sexes there, such as was frequently the case in mountain farming districts (Aubert and Karlsen, 1965, p. 191). This leads one to question the assumption that more women than men leave, and are reluctant to return to, sparsely populated areas simply because they are attracted by the bright lights of the towns. A more plausible explanation might be found by examining the availability of niches for women in an agricultural as opposed to a fishing community.

The large proportion of emigrants in the IJ-29 age group accords with the commonly observed phenomenon that in any area losing population a large proportion of those who leave are young. But, rather unexpectedly, the proportion of return migrants who had left the area when they were in the same age group was still greater. Particularly noticeable is the large proportion of girls who return who

N

u

N

TA

BL

E

I :

Em

igra

nts 1962-1961 b

y ax

e an

d rr

tnrn

mig

rant

s 39

61 by

age

at fi

rst

rm&

ratia

n, a

nd b

SIX

. P

er r

rnt

Skjc

rvoy

Em

igra

nts

mig

rant

s R

etur

n

Age

M

F

M

F

Ove

r 44

2.6

3.'

2.

9 4.

3 30

-44

8.0

7.6

7.2

6. I

25-2

9 6.

0 6.

9 8.

7 3.

6 20

-14

8.2

13.3

7.

' '4

.9

19-1

9 4.

0 19

.0

5.4

22

.1

0-14

1

1.1

10.0

8.

7 8.

1

Nor

drci

sa

Kv m

ng

en

R

cNrn

R

etur

n E

m&

antr

m

igra

nts

Em

igra

nts

mig

ran

t8

M

P M

F M

F

M

P

4.1

4.3

3.4

4.0

I .-I

3.0

3.6

4.2

8.1

7.7

9.1

6.

1 7.

9 4.

7 10

.7

4- 3

6.2

7.2

6.1

4.7

8.6

6.6

5.0

4-3

7.2

1

2.2

1

2.2

1

2.1

1

5.2

18

.9

11.4

13

.6

7.0

12.7

12

.8

23

.0

3.0

18.2

7.

9 28

.6

12

.0

10

.5

4.0

2.0

6.

3 6.

3 2.

8 3.

1

A1 A

gu

39.9

60.1

40.1

59.9

, 45

.4

14.6

48

.0

52

.0

42.7

57

.3

41.4

18

.6

Return migation to a mar@nal rural ana 23 3 left the area when they were between the ages of r j and 19, it is even greater than the already large proportion of emigrants contributed by t h i s group. This would suggest that the apparent exodus of young people from rural areas is not necessarily a permanent drain to the extent indicated by emigration figures alone.

Wallander found that return migrants were concentrated parti- cularly in the I 5 to z j age group, especially in the case of women, and to a slightly lesser degree in the z j to 3 1 age group (Wallander, 1948, p. 140). It would appear to be migrants in the former category who most frequently move back and forth between their home commune and another, and due to t h i s figure wih disproportionate prominence in migration statistics (c.f. Goldstein 1914). In another commune in Troms it was observed that there were always some young people present, but it was difficult to determine who was living there at any particular time (Aubert and Karlsen, 1965, pp. 195-196).

The number of return migrants in relation to the number of emi- grants decreased with progressively older age groups from about 25

till about retirement age (70), when again there was a s m a l l excess of return migrants. However, the smallest proportion of return migrants compared with emigrants was found among those under I 5 , and of those, most of the return migrants were children under school age (7). Thus while some families with children leave the district, their low level of mobility is reflected in the fact that few return. The decline in propensity to return in successively older age groups can be attributed at least in part to the increased numbers who are parents of children.

The differences between age groups a e therefore not necessarily due to age alone, but also to different patterns of mobility at different stages in the family cycle, in particular the difference between relatively mobile single people and relatively immobile families (c.f. Central Bureau of Statistics, 1968, p. 87).3 These two kinds of movement affect individual age groups to different degrees. The extent to which single people account for both emigration and return migration, but particularly for the latter, can be shown by considering the proportion of all “migrant units” who are single people. A migrant unit is a group of people who moved as one unit, the types identified being single people, couples and couples or single adults with one or more children. The following table shows the first type as a proportion of each migrant group. Except in Kvaxungen, where a power station was under construction which might have influenced migration for a short time, single people accounted for a higher proportion of the migrant units among return migrants than among emigrants.

234 Beryl Nicholson

S k j w 6 y 8 4 3 87.7 Nordreisa 84-3 92.6 Kvlmvlgen 89.9 89.0

-

2. Occupation before mijyating

It is consistently found that a greater number of emigrants from rural areas have occupations in the secondary and tertiary sectors than in the primary sector. In an area such as North Troms one would also expect those with occupations in the first w o sectors to be less prone to return than those in the primary sector, as opportunities in these sectors are greater elsewhere. One can also speculate that experience in ‘urban’ occupations before moving might enable a migrant to establish himself more easily in a new place, especially in a town, and therefore he would be less inclined to consider returning. O n the other hand, those engaged in primary industries would probably have less to gain from moving elsewhere. Therefore even if they did emigrate, should they for any reason have difficulty settling in a new place, they would be likely to consider returning to their home area.

Of all the entries on the migration registration forms, that of occupation was exceptional in being omitted, or only vaguely defined, in a number of cases where the migrant could reasonably be assumed to be economically active. For this reason all the entries have been amalgamated into two groups, occupations in the home commune and occupations elsewhere, and these have been classified according to industry. This has the disadvantage that changes during a migrant’s career will remain hidden, as, for example, where experience gamed in another area might have enabled a return migrant to gain em- ployment in his home commune from which he was previously excluded. It is also possible that there is a bias in the data, as some occupations are easier to ddine concisely than others. However, the ditfcrences between the migrant groups were sufficiently large to by worthy of examination, even though the findings must be con- sidered tentative.

3 3.

2.

TA

BL

E

3: E

mig

ront

r 19

62-1

961 a

nd r

etur

n m

igra

nrr

196j

b~

orc

up

tio

m in

~J

JJ

~

rom

nnuu

, and :h

a oc

cujm

tiona

l ~tr

vrtu

re in *

arb c

omm

mu

at tbr c

~ll

sy

~

in 1

960.

Ar

Can

t 2 8

Sect

or'

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

1960

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

1960

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

1960

4 K 3

Skje

rvoy

N

ordr

cisa

K

vP

wg

cn

mig

rant

s m

igra

nts

mig

rant

s ~

-

__

_.

f',

Prim

ary

10.4

24.8

46.1

22

.7

31.9

41.7

9.2

14.3

15.6

Ter

tiary

72.0

47.9

31.0

11.7

39.6

31.3

70.6

62.5

27.1

a Se

cond

ary

17.6

21.3

I 8.9

21.6

'4.5

23.0

10

.2

23.2

16.9

n

Tot

al

(= 100

%)

26 I

'17

I747

97

I3

965

109

16

906

* Pri

mar

y: A

gric

ultu

re, f

orut

ry, f

ishi

ng.

Seco

ndar

y: In

dust

ry, m

inin

g, b

uild

ing

and

cons

truc

tion.

T

ertia

ry: C

omm

erce

, tra

nspo

rt, s

ervi

ces.

Source (f

or 1960) li

guru

): G

naus

I N

ovem

ber 1960.

Com

mun

e vo

lum

es fo

r Sk

jerv

oy, N

ordr

eira

and

Kvm

ange

n.

236 Beryl Nicbolson

Compared with the resident population, both migrant groups show dear evidence of occupational selection, see Table 3 . There is con- siderable over-representation of those with tertiary occupations, while the primary sector is under-represented. In part this is probably due to the age structure of the migrants, but the group containing the larger proportion of young people, the return migrants, is the one which is the less unlike the resident population, thus occupation seems also to intluence propensity to r e m n independently of age.

Secondary, like tertmy, occupations might also be considered ‘urban’ rather than ‘rural’, but the proportion of migrants who were in secondary occupations did not differ greatly from the resident population. Furthermore, a greater proportion of return migrants than emigrants had been engaged in secondary occupations before emigrating. It would appear, therefore, that the experience of secon- dary occupations which could be obtained in the three communes was of a kind which was less suited as a preparation for work in the areas to which migrants went than that which could be gained in tertiary occupations. Alternately, as in primary occupations, there might be greater opportunities for finding employment without moving to another area. Both these explanations would appear to be valid, due to the occupational composition of the secondary sector in the district. In 1960 over half of it was accounted for by building and construction, except in Skjervoy (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1964, Table 2) . In all migrant groups building and construction accounted for a still greater proportion of the secondary sector, and in all three communes the proportion was greater among return migrants than emigrants, in Skjervoy it was twice as great. It is very common for those employed in building and construction to spend a large part of the long winter, and in some case other seasons as well, working in other districts, while their families remain resident in North Troms. Thus while men in the building trades might .cgister emigration while they are single, it can often be advantageous for them to set up their homes in their home area, due to the impermanent nature of the location of their workplaces. This would account for their prominence among return migrants.

3 . Occupation after emigrating When both migrant groups are compared with the occupationally active in the nation as a whole in 1960 (Table 4) there is a dear differ- ence, the migrants being engaged far more frequently intertiary occupations and less frequently in primary occupations.

Rem migation to a marginal rwd ana 23 7 TABLE 4: Emigrmtr 1962-196~ d r r t m mi@atr IgdJ b orcupdioaa at ri&ttbn drrti- dlralionr, a d ocmpatwd stnuturr in tbr nation at t& E ~ Z I U of 1960. Pm uni

SkjervBy NCUdfCiSl K v m g m Nation Sector Emigrants Rmvn Emigrants Rnum Emigrants Return 1960

migMts migrants Qligrvlo

p- 4-1 3.5 4-3 7.1 3.9 a9 19.5 Secondary 24.9 31.0 16.6 26.9 17.7 37.I 3b5 Teaivy p.0 65.5 69.1 65.4 68.4 55.6 43.6

Sourcc(for 1960 data): Lmenstr6m and Skancke 1964, p. 15.

They were also employed less frequently in secondary occupations, but in the case of return migrants the difference was generally slight. The occupational structure of the migrant groups can be attributed to some extent to the high proportion of migrants who moved to towns, between 70% and 80% of each migrant group, By comparison, only 57% of the total population lived in urban areas in 1960 (Central Bureau of Statistics, 1963b, Table 2). But it would also appear that migrants differ in their occupations from the inhabitants of the places to which they migrate. Dolven, for example, found that a greater proportion of immigrants from a rural commune to Oslo were engaged in tertiary occupations, and correspondingly fewer in secon- dary occupations, than was the case for the total resident population of the city (Dolven, 1968, p. 30). Without comparable data on migrants from urban a z a , it is not possible to establish whether this occu- pational structure is found only among migrants from d areas or among migrants in general.

After emigrating the differences in occupational structure between migrant groups were reduced. This can be largely attributed to the types of employment available in the places to which they migrated In the tertiary sector, where differences between emigrants and return migrants had been greatest before emigration, the proportion among return migrants approached considerably nearer that among emi- grants.

The proportion of both migrant groups in secondary occupations was greater after emigrating than before, but on the whole the haease was slightly greater among emigrants than return migrants.

238 Btryl Nicbolion

Primary occupations showed a decline in importance in both migrant groups, but it was greater among those who subsequently returned.

While not necessarily showing that it is the case, the evidence presented in Tables 3 and 4 suggests that occupational mobility was more characteristic of the return migrants than of emigrants &om North Troms.4 Information about occupation in both the home commune and elsewhere w a s available for only a s m a l l number of migrants, but such as it is, it indicates that return migrants were indeed more occupationally mobile than emigrants. This finding adds support to the belief that a change of occupation does not, in many cases, appreciably improve the position of the migrant, and is therefore likely to be associated with return migration (c.f. Hathaway and Perkins 1968, pp. 3 4 4 , 349).

5 . Urbanixation

In the previous sections reference has been made to the fact that the migration estination was likely to be, in many cases, a more highly urbanized place than the one from which the migrant came. The loss of population from predominantly rural areas is seen as part of the tendency towards increased urbanization in the country as a whole. It is therefore to be expected that migration will be mostly to UT-

banized a r e a s , 5 and this is more likely to be permanent than migration to rural areas. Table 5 shows that this was indeed the case, emigration went largely to urban destinations, and, taken as a whole, return migration from urban destinations was below average. While mi- gration to rural areas was not inconsiderable, its share of the total movement was only about half as great as the proportion of the national population living in rural areas, and return migration was above average.

When the pattern of return migration was examined in more detail, it became dear that it was the emigrants to the smaller urban com- munities who were most likely to stay away; return *migration from the larger towns was above average. This evidence accords with the theory that urbanization takes place in stages, in that migrants to places only slightly higher in the urban hierachy than the place they I& were the least likely to return. Thus from Kvstnangen, which has no sizeable agglomerated settlement, the proportion migrating to villages was highest and the level of return migration from them lowest. Some of the migrants leaving the other two communes had already lived in villages, and might therefore be more likely to settle

TA

BL

E

5: E

mip

an

ts 1

961-

196j

by

dest

inat

ion

and

rrtu

trc

mig

rant

r 19

61 by

drr

tinai

ion

atj

irs

t em

igra

tion

. Na

tio

na

l Po

pula

tion

by

resi

abur

19

60.

Pw

rmt.

f

__

.-

B Sk

jcnd

y N

ordr

cisa

K

v zna

ngcn

Sk

jcrv

oy

villa

ge

Now

ay 1960

p

Des

tinat

ion

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

Em

igra

nts

Ret

urn

Rta

idcn

t 3

mig

rant

s m

igra

nts

mig

rant

s m

igra

nts

popu

latio

n

P

27.4

42.4

CI

Vill

age1

26.4

22

.7

23.4

19.6

37.4

16.5

31

.5

33.3

12.4

Lnigc

tow

n'

10.3

8.4

12

.5

8.1

9.3

'3.1

13.4

10

.8

16.5

B

Abr

oad

I .o

1.1

I .7

10.8

1.3

0.0

I .4

2.0

2

Rur

al

26.2

30,4

13

.5

11.6

19.2

30.0

20.4

Tow

n'

36.1

37.4

33,7

39.9

33.8

30

.0

32.8

26.5

10.7

ii

1 A

gglo

mer

atio

n w

ith a

t lea

st zoo in

babi

tant

r. S

ee n

ote 6.

Adm

inis

trat

ive t

own.

* O

slo

and

Ber

gen.

6

Incl

udin

g j

unkn

own.

So

m (for 1960

data

): C

entr

al B

urea

u of

Sta

tist

ia 1963b.

Tab

le 2

.

Y

u.

W

240 Beryl Nicbolson

in towns. This was shown to hold true when the figures for the largest village, Skjervoy, were considered separately from the rest of the commune; a dear difference emerged between the two. A greater proportion of emigrants went to urban settlements, there was also a very slight increase in the proportion of return migrants from urban settlements. But the most importaat diffuence was seen in the propensity to return from urban settlements of Werent sizes. From villages it was slightly above average, a reversal of the situation in the commune as a whole and in the other communes.

S U M M A R Y A N D D I S C U S S I O N

It has been shown that the return migrants in this study differed from emigrants in all the characteristics it was possible to test, with the exception of sex when no account was taken of age. The selection process which operates at emigration is continued and refined. This is particularly the case when occupational sector and degree of urbanity of migration destination are considered. The occupational selection which takes place provides evidence that people whose skills and experience Cannot readily be transferred to a different environment (c.f. Aubert and Karlsen, 196j, p. tog), if they do still migrate, are more likely than those whose experience is transferable to reconsider the decision, thus the character of the initial selection process is accentuated. Similarly the tendency to migrate to urban, rather than d, destinations, is inaeased by the relatively high return migration from rural areas, as is the effect of selection of types of urban settlement, favouring small towns and villages more than

The age stucture of return migrants, compared with emigrants, raises a number of questions. Firstly, the relatively large proportion of young people who returned gives grounds for speculation that migration was regarded in a very different way by them than it was by families with children or older people who had a well established home. The deasion was taken in the knowledge that it could easily be reversed, they had little to lose (c.f. Hofstede, 1961, p. 26). Thus it would appear that selection by age and family status might in part be rather a selection by migration intention. (c.f. Kjdl and Westin 1972,

Secondly, the evidence of movement back and forth between the home area and other places, sometimes repeated several times (Nichol- son, 1971, pp. 106-107, and c.f. WalIander, 1948, p. 157) would

large towns.

P- v-4.

Ruturn migation to a marginal rural area 241 suggest that interpretations of migration based on individual migra- tion flows should be treated with caution Similarly, conclusions drawn about the loss of young people from rural areas can be mis- leading unless a distinction is drawn between temporary absences and permanent emigration. For a considerable number of young people in North Troms, as perhaps in any area with limited employ- ment opportunities, such repeated movement back and forth seems to form a distinct phase in their lives. Formerly, when each household was self sufficient to a greater degree than is now the case, the contri- bution made to the household economy by its adult members com- pared favourably with the few other opportunities then available for making a living. This is no longer the case. Thus the niches available to young people within the local community are limited by the amount of employment available locally and by the time it may be necessary to wait till openings occw (c.f. ERU 1974). Therefore the resources of the home community may have to be supplemented by exploiting possibilities elsewhere until a niche can be found.

N O T E S

This is a revised version of the major part of an article which was published in Norwegian: “Tilbakdyning til et utkultdismkt”, Tidsskrifi for sunfunrufoakning, bind 12 m z, 1971, pp. 99-122. It fomu part of a larga piece of research on Nonh Tromr which was begun when the author held a Norwegian Govcmmcnt Scholurhip. The fimd for a North Norwegian University contributed towarda fieldwork apcnsa. Unpublished material was made available by the Central Buzau of S t a t k t k . The major part of the data was collected in the population registries of thc three communes in thc rummtt of 1965. without the helpfulness and cooperation of thc stiff of ach one this r Q M h would not have been possible. The author is indebted to Greta S u m n a and Ruth Young for commenting on an earlier draft.

Except where otherwise stated, all figures were obtained from data collated by the

Between 1962 and 1964 54.6% of the migratory m o v a m a in the illtion PI L whole

A W di~czcpancy between single people and families was found by Kjlll and

In the early 1940’s Ahlberg found in Sweden that mmt changes of occupation took phcc in the same parish and that most migrants moved without changing their job (mbcrg 1956, p. 16). ‘ To be considered urban for the purposes of the Norwegian CQISUI, a phcc must have at least zoo inhabitants, all the dwellings must lie within 5 0 meten of one another, and at las t 75 % of the m p a t i o d y active population must be engaged in industries otha agriculture or foraay.

author in the population registry of each commune in August 1965.

were made by WOW. (Gntral Bureau of Statistics 1966, p. 35).

W*l& (1972). PP. 39. 54).

Beryl Nkbolsan

R E F E R E N C E S

AHL~ERc. G~STA (1916). Populationttends and lublnintionin Sweden 1911-1910 (Lund,

APPLEYARD, R T. (19621). The return movement of United Kingdom migrants from

APPLSYARD, R T. (196rb), Detcrminanm of rctum movement, The Economic Record,

JOT, HARALD A. (1969). Hz!gcbo8tad. En d o l o g i s k undcnokeke (Oslo: NO&

AUBERT, VILH~LL~ and KARLSEN, GUSTAV, Flytting €ra utkanten Tidsskrift for samfunns-

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS, (undated). Population Gnsus of Norway I. Novunber

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1962), Population in rural districts and towns 1961

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1963a). Population in rural dismca and towns 1962

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATUT?CS (r963b). Population -us of Norway I. November

h u t BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1964). Population census of Norway I. Novunba

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1968), Boligundersokclscn oktober 1967 (Oslo: Rapport

CENTRAL BUREAU OF STATISTICS (1966). Statistical Yearbook 1966 (0510). DOLVEN, ARNE S. (1968). A1irskog-H6lcn&ger i Oslo: Nonk Institutt for By- og

Regionforskning, Rapport 10).

ERU (Jbpcrtgruppen far regional umdningsvuksunhct) (1974). Ortu i regional sun- vakan (Stockholm: Arbctsmarknadsdepartemtet, SOU 1974 : I).

G~scwwm~, HENRXK (1917). Inrika odyttnhg 1951-1955, Scatistisk tidrkrift 6 (XI) 607-614.

GOLDSTEIN, SYDNEY (1954). Repeated migration as a f iaor in high mobility rates, American Sociologid Review 19, 136-541.

HATHAWAT, DALE E. md PERKINS, BRIAN B. (1968). Farm labour mobility, migration and income dismbution, American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 10 (2) 3 4 - 3 5 3-

HERNANDEZ ALVAREZ, JOSE ( I 967). Return migration to herto Rico (Berkeley : Population Monograph Series No. I).

HERTZBERG. LUDVIC H. (1969). Lyngdal. Fonkpvninger i boseming of flyttingq Nonk Geogra6sk Tibkrift. 23 (2) n90.

HOFSTEDE, B. P. (1961). An enquiry into the reasons for the decision to migrate, in BEIJER, G.. FRIJDA, N. I-L, HOPSTF.DE, B. P. and W-OLT, R., Chamacristiu of O v c ~ s Migrants (The Hague: Government Printing Office).

HOLT-JENSEN, Aarrs (1969). Fjellbygda huland (Bergm: Norwegian Universities Press, Ad Novas No 6).

HOUSE, J. W., THOMAS, A. D. and WILLIS, K. G. (1968), Where did the school lcavm go? (Newcastle upon Tyne: P a p on Migration and Mobility in Northcm England No. 7).

WE, h a (1965). ArWasbet och geo@k bundenha. En studic inom Norrbottam h (Stockholm: Stockholm Univenitet. Soaiologiska institutioncn, h o ) .

Studies in Geography b 16).

Ausaalia. Population Studies, 15 (3) 214-225.

38. 352-368.

instima for by- og rcgionfonkning, Rapport 14).

fonkning. 6 (3) 182-212.

1960, Commune volumes for Skjcrvoy, Nordreisa and KvPlvlgen (Oslo).

(Oslo: N.O.S. A67).

(Oslo: N.O.S. Ago).

1960, vol. I (Oslo: N.O.S. XII 108).

1960, vol. 3 (Oslo: N.O.S. XII 129).

fn kontoret for intcrvjuundcrs6kclser nr. 3).

Return migation to a marginal rwal area 2 4 3 KJUL, ULP and WESTIN, LARS-ERIC (1971)~ Flyttning frh U m d A-region 1968 med

siirskild b y n til AMS-flyttama ( V d universitet, Geogra6ska institution, Glesbygdsforskningen, Rapport nr 20, mimco).

LEHENSTR~M, G ~ R D SKOH and SJUNCKE, G I S L E ( I ~ ~ ~ ) , De yrkcsaktive i Norge 1875-1960 og prognoscr for utviklingen fiam til 1970 (Oslo: Central Bureau of Statistics, Aitikla nr 10).

MILLS, THOMAS J. (1966). Scienti6c personnel and the professions, Annals of the mexican Academy of Political and Social Science 367, September, 33-42.

MITCHELL, J. CLYDE (1969), Structural plurality, urbanisation and labour circulation in southcrn Rhodesia, in JACKSON. J. A. (ed.), Migration (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. Sociological S t u d i a no. 2).

MOOE, REINHARD (1967). Flyttinger i Nord-Norge etta 1950 (Bodb: Studiuelskapet for Nord-Norsk Nmingsliv, Shift nr. 35) .

Moor, RFXNHARD (1969). Flytting og levcvilkk. En undenokelse i Karasjok (Oslo: Institutt for sunfunnsforskning, mimeo).

M ~ R C H , HENNPrc (1968a). Fedestcds- og hdflydningsfeltct for Grindstcd by 1964, Geograhsk Tidsskrift 67 (I) 19-49

hfeacs, HENNINC (1968b), En aldersgruppes vandringer, Gcografisk Tidsskrift 67 (2)

171-199. NICHOLSON, BERYL (1971). Tilbakcflytting ti1 et utkantdisuikt, Tidsskrift for ramfunns-

PANICHURST, K. V. (1966), Migration between Canada and the United States, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 367, September, 53-63.

RWERDY, J . C. (1967). Emigrant workers returning to thek home country, Final Report, International Management Seminar, Athuu. October 18-21, 1966 (Paris: O.E.C.D.).

RICHARDSON, A. (1968), A shipboard study of some British-born immigrants returning to the United Kingdom from Australia, International Migration 6 (4) 221-235.

RICHMOND, A. H. (1966), Demographic and family charactcristb of British immigrants renuning from Canada, International migration 4 (I) 21-25.

RICHMOND, A. H. (1968). Return migration from h d a to Britain, Population studies

SHRYOCK, Hwar S., JR. and LARMON, ELIZABETH A. (1965)~ Some longitudinal data on

T A ~ E R , KARL (1966), Cohort migration, Demography 3 (2) 416-422. W-ER, JAN (1948). Flykten frin skogsbygden (Stockholm: Industriau Utrednings-

WENDEL, BERTIL (1953). A migration schema. Theories and observations (Lund Stud ia

fOtSkning I2 (2) 99-122.

zz (2) 263-271.

internal migration, Demography 2, 579-592.

hSUNt).

in Geography B 16).

S U M M A R Y

A small number of studies have examined aspects of return migration in an international context. T d now, work on internal return migration has largely consisted of parts of studies dealing primarily with some other aspect of migration. On the basis of population register data and migration notifications, this study examines return migration to a marginal area which is experiencing a net migration loss. It ex-

244 Beryl Nicbolson

plores differences between emigrants and return migrants in age at emigration, occupations in the home area and elsewhere and migration, destination. On the basis of the findings, tentative explanations are suggested for the Merences between migrants in propensity to return.

R B S U M B

Un petit nombre de rechuches ont examin& les aspects du retour migratoire dans un contexte international. Jusqu’a maintenant les travaux sur Ic retour migratoire interne faisaient partie d’etudes prinapalement concernits avec d’autres aspects du mouvement migratoire. Sur la base de registres de la population et de la notification des migrations, ce travail examine le retour migratoire dans un domaine marginal et la perte migratoire nette. Les diffkrences d’ige, d‘emploi d a n s le pays d’origine et ailleurs, et de but migratoire entre Cmigrants et immigrants y sont ttudites. Sur la base dcs risultats obtenus, on cherche une explication des Werences entre migrants et leur penchant de retour.

2 U S A M MEN F A S SUN G

Eine kleine Zahl von Untersuchungen behandelt Aspekte der Ruck- wanderung in einem internationalen Kontest. Bis jetzt waren die Arbeiten uber interne Ruckwanderung zum grossten Teil beschriinkt auf Teile von studien, die sich hauptsachlich mit anderen Aspekten von Wanderungsbewegungen beschiftigten. In dieser Untersuchung wird a d der Grundlage der Bevolkerungs- und Wandemgsstatistik die Ruckwanderung in ein marginales Gebiet mit einem Netto- Wanderungsverlust untersucht. Es werden die Unterschiede zwischen Auswanderern und Ruckwanderem in B a g auf ihr Alter, h e n Beruf im Heimatgebiet und sonstwo und ihr Wanderungsziel unter- sucht. Auf der Grundlage der Ergebnisse wird cine E r k l k g fur die Unterschiede zwischen den Wandernden und ihrer Neigung zuriickmkehren versucht.