This doctoral thesis explores the migration alacrity of young people in peripheral areas. The main objective of the study is to investigate, firstly, how high migration alacrity is among young people in the Barents Region, and secondly, what factors affect young people’s migration alacrity. I then consider how these factors affect migration alacrity. The context of the study is the Barents region, which includes 13 counties in northern parts of four different countries: Finland, Norway, Sweden and Russia. The Barents Region is characterised by its northern and peripheral location. This study is based on empirical data that was collected among young people living in different living environments within this region, in response to both structured and open-ended questions. The data was collected by means of a school survey conducted among students (N=1627) in four different levels of education: comprehensive schools, upper secondary schools, vocational institutes and universities. The age of the respondents varied between 14 and 30 years old. The theoretical frame of reference for this research is built on themes that are closely connected to important factors in the investigation of the migration plans of young people living in remote and peripheral areas. The central theoretical themes in this research are: life politics, individualism, future orientations, place attachment and basic factors affecting on migration. My research questions and data analysis are based on three components of place: location, locale and sense of place (Agnew 1993). Location here refers to those factors of certain places which affect the people living there on an external level. These factors may be, e.g., division of labour, possibilities for work and education, local systems of material production and distribution networks. Locale, in turn, refers to “the settings in which social relations are constituted”. For the individual, locale means the setting for personal social relations and both formal and institutional relations and activities, i.e. “face to face” society. Sense of place, in turn, is the internal component of place, referring to place attachment and local everyday practises which bind people to their living environment. In the Barents Region this may mean both representation and experiences of northerness: peripheriality, harsh climate, traditionally and locally guided culture, but also a chain of generations and emotional and meaningful experiences connected to certain places. The results imply that migration alacrity is a dominant feature among young people involved in this study. The majority of the respondents, 74 %, have migration plans. On the country level, the strongest desire to migrate can be found among Finnish and Swedish respondents. In Finland 81 % of all respondents plan to move out of their region; in Sweden, 82 %. Russia and Norway join at a lower level; about 67 % of those surveyed from each of these countries have migration plans. On the county level, the highest migration alacrity, over 80 %, was found among respondents from Lapland, Murmansk County and Norrbotten. The lowest migration willingness can be found among respondents from Republic of Karelia. Migration readiness is highest, about 82 %, among those respondents who live in villages or in municipal centres. The lowest migration alacrity was found in big cities; with only 59 % of respondents there have plans for migration. It can be argued on the basis of the results of this study that the fundamental idea behind and reasons for migration alacrity are the correspondence between individual wishes and the three essential components of place: location, locale and sense of place. Results suggest that location and local opportunity structure play an important part in the origin of a mental attitude concerning relations between remote and urban areas, in which urban areas are seen as being in a stronger position compared to peripheral areas. This has an impact on young people’s relation to their home places, and their comprehension of local opportunity structure and their possibilities to make successful use of personal life politics. Thus respondents’ tendencies to migrate are tied to their beliefs concerning their home district and what their home district is (not) able to offer them. Migration alacrity of survey respondents is thus partly a consequence of their belief that their home district has no future. One aspect of this is a belief among these young people that somewhere else than in their home localities there is a “diversity of open possibilities” which they do not see for themselves in their home locales; even though, at least to some extent, those possibilities might really be there. The issue of providing ample possibilities has to do with the most important issues in the lives of the respondents: education, employment and career prospects. Locale, the social environment of the living place, was present in this study in the form of respondents’ relatives, friends and romantic partners. In this way locale was anchored to considerations of geographical distances and personal future orientation. Closeness to relatives and friends appeared to be important for young people involved in this study not only psychologically, but also geographically; long distances between oneself and important persons were not seen as a preferable situation. As part of outward migration, young people are escaping from the area together with their relationships and their social capital. It will be harder to maintain relationships and local social networks in the situation in which some relatives, and perhaps most peers, have moved away or are planning migration. Thus young people involved in this study have less possibilities, or will, to seize on the idea of integrating themselves into the locale. High migration alacrity also means that social capital is becoming even more exposed to erosion due to future depopulation. Furthermore, migration alacrity is a consequence of respondents evaluating their home territory in terms a “cost/benefit” analysis. This is based on the sense of place experiences and knowledge the person has of his/her own living environment, together with information that has been gathered regarding places further away. During the evaluation process, the person is comparing his/her own contemporary living environment and place of residence with other places and areas, either on a realistic level or an imaginary level. Relation to the place is constructed during this process on the basis of place experience and features of the living environment, as well as on knowledge of the history and the future prospects of one’s own living place and knowledge or imaginary ideas of other places. Migration alacrity can also be seen as a spatial implication of individualism. Migration is based on an individual point of view; a desired and sometimes even inevitable developmental process. In an individualistic society an individual, unique life plan is highly valued. It seems that migration has become part of an individual life plan, which is aiming towards the good life. Individual belief in the profitability of migration is crystallised at the intersection of personal performance structure (Groß 2005) and local opportunity structure. A high personal performance structure may increase belief in this profitability and thus increase migration alacrity. On the other hand, a will to build a higher personal performance structure may be a driving force of migration alacrity. To summarise, respondents’ migration alacrity is a consequence of an individual valuation process, and a consequence of unbalance between the local reality and a somewhat imaginary outside world.
