AMENITIES VERSUS LABOR MARKET OPPORTUNITIES: CHOOSING THE OPTIMAL DISTANCE TO MOVE*
- 1 August 1991
- journal article
- Published by Wiley in Journal of Regional Science
- Vol. 31 (3) , 311-328
- https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1991.tb00150.x
Abstract
A recent debate in the regional economics literature has focused attention on the motivation behind an individual's decision to migrate. Human‐capital migration models emphasize labor market disequilibria whereas alternative (hedonic) migration models stress households’altered demand for nontraded goods. In this paper, we test the relative importance of these two possible motivations for moving between metropolitan areas. We use an intercity hedonic model to decompose wages into equilibrium and disequilibrium components. We then compare the separate influences of amenities and the disequilibrium component of wages on the distance moved between two metropolitan areas. Our findings indicate that both economic factors and amenity differentials are significant factors in explaining regional migration.Keywords
This publication has 18 references indexed in Scilit:
- AN EQUILIBRIUM MODEL OF GROSS MIGRATIONJournal of Regional Science, 1989
- PUBLIC POLICY, LOCAL LABOR DEMAND, AND MIGRATION IN SWEDEN, 1979-84*Journal of Regional Science, 1989
- ON THE ROLE OF AMENITIES IN MODELS OF MIGRATION AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT*Journal of Regional Science, 1989
- A DYNAMIC MODEL OF REGIONAL POPULATION GROWTH AND DECLINE*Journal of Regional Science, 1988
- A HEDONIC MODEL OF INTERREGIONAL WAGES, RENTS, AND AMENITY VALUES*Journal of Regional Science, 1987
- Union Membership in the United States, 1973-1981ILR Review, 1985
- Post-Migration Earnings Profiles: An Application of Human Capital and Job Search ModelsSouthern Economic Journal, 1983
- Evaluating consumer amenities and interregional welfare differencesJournal of Urban Economics, 1982
- Household migration: Theoretical and empirical resultsJournal of Urban Economics, 1979
- The Socio-Economic Status of Cities and SuburbsAmerican Sociological Review, 1963