Abstract
Since the mid-1990s, the Australian immigration programme has undergone a ‘paradigm’ shift to encourage skilled migrants to settle in regional Australia. The success of this programme is dependent on not just attracting increasing numbers of settlers but more importantly on retaining them in the long run in regional Australia. In this paper, we argue the importance of social connectedness for long-term stay in a particular place and empirically examine the determinants of social connectedness in regional Australia. We use the data from a national survey of 500 randomly selected principal applicants who migrated under the regional sponsored migration scheme. We derived a composite measure of social connectedness from responses to five questions about regular participation in various community activities. Logistic regression models were employed to examine the factors that contribute to social connectedness. Of all the covariates included in the model, five were critical for strong social connectedness. The families with young children, those who have lived in Australia longer, those living in small towns and those who were born in the USA/Canada, South Africa and Zimbabwe showed much stronger social connectedness than others. Another interesting finding was that those who found the assistance they received from their employer sponsor upon arrival helpful were also more likely to have strong social connectedness. The paper concludes with the policy implications and future research directions on this very important social issue.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Regional and low growth areas include some slow growing capital cities and excludes some regional cities. See Hugo, Table 5, in this volume for a list of eligible locations under different regional migration schemes.
Associate professionals, as defined by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, ‘perform complex technical and administrative support functions … often performed in support of professionals’. Examples include administering the operational activities of an office or financial institution; organising the operations of retail, hospitality and accommodation establishments; assisting health and welfare professionals and many other similar positions in science, business, sales and health and welfare (ABS 1997, p. 229).
The principal applicant is the person who applied for the visa to migrate. Any spouse or dependent children or close relatives who migrate on the same visa application with the Principal Applicant are members of the migrating unit.
No specific time frame was specifically mentioned in the question. Instead, the question referred to ‘regular’ participation.
Without further detailed investigation, the logic of cause and effect in this relationship is difficult to disentangle. Could it be the case that the people unlikely to acknowledge sponsor assistance as being helpful are the same sorts of people who are unlikely to regularly participate in community activities?
References
(ABS) Australian Bureau of Statistics (1997 Second Edition) Australian standard classification of occupations, Cat. No. 1220.0, Canberra.
Birrell, B. (2003). Redistributing migrants: the Labour’s Agenda. People and Place, 11(4), 15–26.
Brown, D. (2002). Migration and community: social networks in a multilevel world. Rural Sociology, 67(1), 1–23.
(CVWPM) Commonwealth–Victoria Working Party on Migration (2004), Final Report, Melbourne, Victoria: Victorian Department of Premier and Cabinet.
(DIAC) Department of Immigration and Citizenship (2007). New migrant outcomes: results from the third longitudinal survey of immigrants to Australia. www.immi.gov.au/media/research/lsia/lsia11.
DIMA (Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs) (2006). New beginnings: life in Australia. Supporting new arrivals on their settlement journey. Canberra, ACT: Settlement Branch.
(DIMIA) Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2005). Survey and analysis of the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme. www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/rsms-paper-final.pdf.
Guest, A. M., & Wierzbicki, S. K. (1999). Social ties at the neighborhood level: two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35(1), 92–111.
Hanson, S. (2005). Perspectives on the geographic stability and mobility of people in cities. PNAS, 102, 15301–15306.
Hugo, G. (2004a). A new paradigm of international migration: implications for migration policy and planning in Australia, Research Paper no. 10, Parliamentary Library, Commonwealth Department of Parliamentary Services, Canberra.
Hugo, G. (2004b). Australia’s most recent immigrants. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Cat. No. 2053.0.
Hugo, G. (2005). The state of rural populations. In C. Cocklin, & J. Dibden (Eds.) Sustainability and change in rural Australia pp. 56–79. Sydney: UNSW Press.
Hugo, G., Khoo, S. E., & McDonald, P. (2006). Attracting skilled migrants to regional areas: what does it take. People and Place, 14(3), 26–36.
Irwin, M., Tolbert, C., & Lyon, T. (1999). There’s no place like home: nonmigration and civic engagement. Environment and Planning A, 31(12), 2223–2238.
Irwin, M., Blanchard, T., Tolbert, C., Nucci, A., & Lyson, T. (2004–5). Why people stay: the impact of community context on nonmigration in the USA. Population, 59, 567–592.
Joint Standing Committee on Migration (2001). New Faces, New Places. The Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.
Keller, S. (1968). The urban neighborhood: a sociological perspective. New York: Random House.
Stone, W. & Hulse, K. (2007). Housing and social cohesion: an empirical exploration. Final Report. Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute: Melbourne, Australia.
Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential mobility. Demography, 11(2), 173–188.
Spoonley, P., Peace, R., Butcher, A., & O’Neill, D. (2005). Social cohesion: a policy and indicator framework for assessing immigrant and host outcomes. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24, 85–109.
Withers, G. & Powell, M. (2003). Immigration and the regions: taking regional Australia seriously. Chifley Research Centre, www.chifley.org.au.
Victorian Settlement Planning Committee. (2005). A Victorian welcome toolbox. Australian Government Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs: Canberra.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge and thank the Research Advisory Committee of the Standing Committee on Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (SCIMA RAC) for allowing access to the original unit record files of the RSMS telephone survey for our analysis. We would also like to thank the Monash Institute for the Study of Global Movements and the Department of Victorian Communities for financial support, which allowed the authors to participate in two research workshops for this project.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wulff, M., Dharmalingam, A. Retaining Skilled Migrants in Regional Australia: The Role of Social Connectedness. Int. Migration & Integration 9, 147–160 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-008-0049-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12134-008-0049-9