Since 2005, the Korean government has relocated national research institutes from the Seoul Metropolitan Area (SMA) to other parts of the nation. The main purpose of this relocation is to ameliorate disparities in population and economic power across regions. However, it turns out that only 27% of researchers in the SMA have actually relocated. This implies that researcher’s preference for a living environment should be reflected in the planning process. Hence, this paper attempts to specify the migration behaviors of researchers by comparing their preferences with those of general workers. Here, regional living environment is represented by a function of two attributes: regional labor market conditions and living environments. The paper shows that regional living environments have a more decisive impact on the migration of researchers, relative to general workers. Also, researchers are found to be slightly more sensitive to regional living environments especially crime than regional labor market conditions. Finally, the paper suggests a policy direction for balanced development among regions in Korea based on the results obtained.
J61 R23 R58
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Arntz M (2010) What attracts human capital? Understanding the skill composition of interregional job matches in Germany. Reg Stud 44(4):423–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Betz MR, Partridge MD, Fallah B (2016) Smart cities and attracting knowledge workers: which cities attract highly-educated workers in the 21st century? Pap Reg Sci 95(4):819–841CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown WM, Scott DM (2012) Human capital location choice: accounting for amenities and thick labor markets. J Reg Sci 52(5):787–808CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buch T, Hamann S, Niebuhr A, Rossen A (2014) What makes cities attractive? The determinants of urban labour migration in Germany. Urban Stud 51(9):1960–1978CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buch T, Hamann S, Niebuhr A, Rossen A (2017) How to woo the smart ones? Evaluating the determinants that particularly attract highly qualified people to cities. J Urban Aff 39(6):1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buettner T, Janeba E (2016) City competition for the creative class. J Cult Econ 40(4):413–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlino J, Saiz A (2008) Beautiful city: leisure amenities and urban growth. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia working paper. SSRN-1280157Google Scholar
Constant A, Massey DS (2003) Self-selection, earnings, and out-migration: a longitudinal study of immigrants to Germany. J Popul Econ 16(4):631–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cullen JB, Levitt SD (1999) Crime, urban flight, and the consequences for cities. Rev Econ Stat 81:159–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott AJ (2010) Jobs or amenities? Destination choices of migrant engineers in the USA. Pap Reg Sci 89(1):43–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro JM (2006) Smart cities: quality of life, productivity, and the growth effects of human capital. Rev Econ Stat 88(2):324–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shen J, Liu Y (2016) Skilled and less-skilled interregional migration in China: a comparative analysis of spatial patterns and the decision to migrate in 2000–2005. Habitat Int 57:1–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark O (1991) The migration of labor. Blackwell, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar