Fiche du document
- handle: 10670/1.0ly844
- hal: hal-03354047
- doi: 10.15609/annaeconstat2009.142.0283
Ce document est lié à :
info:eu-repo/semantics/altIdentifier/doi/10.15609/annaeconstat2009.142.0283
Mots-clés
mobility costs spatial frictions migration local labor markets occupation J - Labor and Demographic Economics/J.J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers/J.J6.J61 - Geographic Labor Mobility • Immigrant Workers J - Labor and Demographic Economics/J.J6 - Mobility, Unemployment, Vacancies, and Immigrant Workers/J.J6.J64 - Unemployment: Models, Duration, Incidence, and Job Search R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics/R.R1 - General Regional Economics/R.R1.R12 - Size and Spatial Distributions of Regional Economic Activity R - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics/R.R2 - Household Analysis/R.R2.R23 - Regional Migration • Regional Labor Markets • Population • Neighborhood CharacteristicsSujets proches
Mobility Internal migrationCiter ce document
Benoît Schmutz et al., « Why Are Low-Skilled Workers Less Mobile? The Role of Mobility Costs and Spatial Frictions », HAL-SHS : économie et finance, ID : 10.15609/annaeconstat2009.142.0283
Métriques
Partage / Export
Résumé
Workers' propensity to migrate to another local labor market varies a lot by occupation. We use the model developed by Schmutz and Sidibé (2019) to quantify the impact of mobility costs and search frictions on this mobility gap. We estimate the model on a matched employer-employee panel dataset describing labor market transitions within and between the 30 largest French cities for two groups at both ends of the occupational spectrum and find that: (i) mobility costs are very comparable in the two groups, so they are three times higher for blue-collar workers relative to their respective expected income; (ii) Depending on employment status, spatial frictions are between 2 and 3 times higher for blue-collar workers; (iii) Moving subsidies have little (and possibly negative) impact on the mobility gap, contrary to policies targeting spatial frictions; (iv) Mobility-enhancing policies have almost no impact on the unemployment gap.