Who has stayed? How many of those who have moved out have moved back again? For those who have not moved back home, where have they ended up?
The proportion of permanent residents is lowest in the least central municipalities, and few of those who have left these municipalities have moved back. However, the differences between the sexes are, in some cases large, which is likely related to education level: Considerably more women than men have higher education, and those with higher education have a more centralising moving pattern than those with lower education. In any case, there are more permanently residing men than women. Of those who have completed higher education, men have a more centralising pattern of migration than women. For those with education at upper secondary level or lower, the opposite is true. That is, the women have a more centralising moving pattern. In a ranking of migration by education level and gender, men with a short education have the least centralising migration pattern. This is followed by women with short education, followed by women with higher education. Finally, men with higher education have the most centralising migration pattern.
Since more women than men have moved out of the municipality where they grew up, there are also slightly more women than men who have moved back again, and more women who have moved to other municipalities. On a national level, there has been a slight increase in return migration for all levels of centrality except centrality level 6. For the country as a whole, the proportion of people who lived in the municipality where they grew up at the age of 35 has decreased, then stabilised at around 50 percent. However, the level for municipalities at centrality level 5 and 6 are significantly lower, with 45 and 35 percent respectively.
Of those who grew up in municipalities with centrality level 1, around 20 percent lived in another municipality with centrality level 1 when they were 35 years old. In centrality levels 4, 5 and 6, this proportion was 5-7 percent.
There are significant differences in the proportion of internal migration by centrality, but what really matters is where people move to. The migration flows are largely going to the most centralised parts of the country. That is, to municipalities with centrality levels 1, 2 and 3.
The migration balance is the total impact of relocations. The relationship between the migration balance and centrality is clear. In the cohorts from 1998 to 2002 combined, the municipalities with centrality level 1 had increased their population within the cohorts to 140 percent of the original number of 15-year-olds when they had turned 35. At the same time, the municipalities with centrality levels 5 and 6 had shrunk their cohort population by 14 per cent and 28 per cent respectively. If immigrants are kept out, the picture is even bleaker. The municipalities with centrality level 5 lost almost a third of those who grew up there, and the municipalities with centrality level 6 lost 44 percent.