Navigation – Plan du site
Hors dossier

Nativity Concentration and Internal Migration among the Foreign-Born in Israel, 1990-1995

Concentration par nationalité d’origine et migrations internes en Israël des personnes nées à l’étranger, 1990-1995
Concentración por nacionalidad de origen y migraciones internas en Israel de las personas nacidas en el extranjero, 1990-1995
Uzi Rebhun
p. 107-132

Résumés

Dans cet article, l’auteur analyse les effets de la concentration par nationalité d’origine sur les caractéristiques des migrations internes des personnes nées à l’étranger. Trois hypothèses sont proposées.
a) L’hypothèse d’homogénéité du groupe suggère qu’en raison de la politique de l’immigration de l’État d’Israël, qui n’accorde formellement le droit d’installation et la nationalité qu’aux Juifs, et que de ce fait les immigrants partagent l’identité religieuse de la majorité, la concentration par nationalité d’origine aura peu d’effets sur la mobilité interne ultérieure des immigrants.
b) L’hypothèse de la motivation à immigrer prédit que la concentration par nationalité d’origine est plutôt de nature à réduire les réinstallations ultérieures des groupes qui ont une motivation forte à immigrer.
c) L’hypothèse institutionnelle prédit une forte relation positive entre les opportunités de logement, qui se sont améliorées grâce aux efforts du gouvernement, et la réinstallation.
Ces hypothèses sont largement confirmées par les résultats d’une régression logistique sur les données du recensement de la population et des logements de 1995, pour lequel on dispose d’indicateurs contextuels. Les implications en termes d’intégration sociale et culturelle des immigrants sont analysées.

Haut de page

Entrées d’index

Géographique :

Israël
Haut de page

Texte intégral

1Internal migration and spatial distribution are key indicators for the assessment of integration of new immigrants into their host country (Lieberson and Waters, 1988; Massey, 1981; 1985; Massey and Mullan, 1984). Classical assimilation theories, as well as more recent empirical studies, suggest that new immigrants initially tend to settle in close geographic proximity to others of the same nativity or ethnic group (co-ethnics). As time in the new country elapses, and with the acquisition of new skills, improved information on opportunities in alternative destinations, and increased human capital, they will migrate, thus lowering the level of group concentration (Dunlevy, 1980; Fang and Brown, 1999; Funkhouser, 2000; Gordon, 1964). New immigrants will then have higher rates of migration than will the native born (Bartal and Koch, 1991; Rogers, Henning, and Little, 1995). Other studies on social networks have shown that the propensity for subsequent resettlement among new immigrants is lower if they live in communities with compatriots; nativity concentration reduces the cost of international moves by providing a sense of communality and group belonging, and, more specifically, by assisting in job and housing searches and other adjustments to the new country (Bartal, 1989; Gurak and Caces, 1992; Gurak and Kritz, 2000; Kobrin and Speare, 1983; Kritz and Nogle, 1994; Massey and Denton, 1987; Newbold, 1996; Sammuel, 1988). In other cases, high levels of internal migration among the foreign-born population were aimed at reinforcing the spatial concentration of the nativity groups (Belanger and Rogers, 1994; Neuman and Tienda, 1994; Nogel, 1997; Rogers and Henning, 1999; Trovato, 1988). Nevertheless, immigrant groups vary in the importance they attach to nativity concentration implying different patterns of resettlement and integration (Bartal and Koch, 1991; Kritz and Nogel, 1994; Moore and Rosenberg, 1995; Tilly, 1990).

2Immigrant groups also differ in their human capital which may, in turn, be an important determinant of migration processes. This includes, among other individual characteristics, age, sex, marital status and socio-economic stratification (Goldscheider, 1971; Long, 1988; Ritchey, 1976; White and Mueser, 1994). Migration stage is yet another factor which can affect the odds of migration; increasing length of residence in the new country strengthens human capital and ties to local communities thus reducing the likelihood of resettlement (Kritz and Nogel, 1994; Speare, Kobrin and Kingkade, 1982). Other underlying forces, such as language fluency (Chiswick and Miller, 2001) or structural affinities at the group level, including age composition (Belanger and Rogers, 1994) and percentage of self-employment (Gurak and Kritz, 2000), have also been suggested as possible determinants of the internal migration decisions and adjustment of immigrants.

3The many immigrant groups are variously dispersed throughout the country, and they are thus exposed to different social and economic contexts in their areas of initial settlement. Spatial inequalities in employment opportunities and income, in governmental intervention of settlement assistance, as well as in other non-monetary conditions such as crime rates and climate, accumulate to shape the individual’s quality-of-life. As in other voluntary processes involving social and economic change, these factors determine the necessary threshold of desirability and feasibility of migration (Cadwallader, 1992; Clark and Hunter, 1992; Heaton, Clifford and Fuguitt, 1981; Michalos, 1997).

4Much of the concern with the effect of nativity concentration on internal migration patterns among foreign-born populations has focused on the United States (e.g. Bartal and Koch, 1991; Fang and Brown, 1999; Kritz and Nogle, 1994; Nogle, 1997). Given the importance of separation between church and state as an official American ideology and policy on the one hand, and the increasing emphasis on cultural pluralism and the maintenance of group distinctiveness on the other, differences among immigrants by religion, ethnicity or nativity (country of birth) are important to their social and cultural behaviors including identifiable communal services, formal and informal institutions, as well as enclave economies of business and goods production (Glazer and Moynihan, 1963; Yancey, Ericksen and Juliani, 1976). In Canada, which has also often been a research site of internal migration patterns among the foreign-born population (e.g. Newbold, 1996; Nogle, 1994; Trovato, 1988), two major languages and two cultures form the heterogeneous and multicultural host society with the added desirability of elevating minority immigrant groups as a third element. Israel is yet another unique case of a country which has absorbed a large number of immigrants from diverse socio-cultural backgrounds. The gathering of Jews from around the world to their own country is a core ideal of nation-building in the Zionist agenda and the state of Israel (Goldscheider, 2002). The formal immigration policy first appeared in the Declaration of Independence in 1948, was later anchored by the Law of Return in 1950, and proclaims the right of every Jew to come and settle in Israel. That only Jews are eligible for citizenship upon immigration to Israel suggests that they share the religious identity and historical heritage of the majority population.

5The collective identity of Israel as a Jewish state is manifest in every-day life and in governmental institutions and services. This includes, inter alia, weekends and holidays which accord with the Jewish calendar; a homogenous national Hebrew school system, divided between the general and religious sectors, both of which, under governmental supervision, have curricula which emphasize Jewish themes; dispersion of synagogues and other religious services throughout the country; and an accepted status quo of selling all foods in chain supermarkets and private groceries in compliance with Jewish dietary laws (Kashrut). From the ethnic-specific-goods perspective, foreign languages both in print and in the electronic media are similarly available throughout the country. It should also be noted that the political system in Israel is based on a single voting district of the entire country; the size of the various parties’ delegations in the parliament, which further selects the prime minister and the government, adheres to the distribution of the overall vote (Arian, 2004). Thus, nativity concentration has no role in gaining political power for immigrants’ parties.

6Similarly, Jewish ethnicity broadly defined on Ashkenazic (European-American origin) and Sephardic (Asian-African origin) lines, or by specific countries of origin, is not a source of Jewish-national identity; rather, Israel is (Goldscheider, 2002). Nor is ethnic origin significant for any kind of communal services or social and economic opportunities. Since Israel is a small country, any attempts to preserve and continue ethnic culture and identity through family gathering and kin are independent of residential concentration. Overall, differences of ethnicity or nativity are not bases for separatism in Jewish daily life, socio-economic services, or opportunities for Jews in Israel.

  • 1 Only Shaginian introduced an explicit variable of nativity concentration focusing on recent immigra (...)

7The characteristics described above turn Israel into a unique and interesting case study of the issue in question. Very few studies have been concerned with the role of ethnic and social ties in determining the internal migration patterns of immigrants in Israel and they often assessed this dimension only indirectly (Beenstock, 1997; 1999; Hasson, 1998; Shaginian, 2000).1 The present endeavor is built on strong ties between these factors, as well as on the broadening scope of numerous immigrant groups by specific country or area of origin. More specifically, I address the following questions: 1) How do human capital and area context of residence determine the internal migration of immigrants to Israel? 2) How does nativity concentration shape these patterns? 3) How do these determinants of migration vary across immigrant groups? 4) How do immigrants’ migration patterns differ from those of native-born Israelis? To the greatest possible extent, I have adopted the models developed in earlier studies for other immigrant receiving countries (mainly in Kritz and Nogle, 1994 for the United States). This will allow testing of the robustness of these approaches as well as expansion of our insights into the specifics of immigrant adjustment in diverse settings (Chiswick and Miller, 2001).

Development of hypotheses

The group homogeneity hypothesis

8The distance between any two cultures, namely the hosting and the absorbed, in the major socio-cultural component — be it racial, religious or ethnic belonging (and associated dimensions such as language) — affects the course of immigrants’ integration (Ward and Kennedy, 1992). The general and consistent findings demonstrate that greater cultural differences imply “the need for greater cultural shedding and cultural learning, and perhaps large differences trigger negative inter-group attitudes, and induce greater culture conflict leading to poorer adaptation” (Berry, 1997: 23). Under such circumstances, immigrants will attempt to segregate from the social mainstream to maintain high levels of cohesion including residential concentration.

9In Israel, the major source of distinction between sub-populations is their religious belonging. The Jewish identity of the immigrants provides an important feeling of mutual commitment and cohesion with the dominant society, thus substantially moderating cultural distance. Both the “absorption policy” which reflects the formal attitude of the establishment, and the “absorption climate” which is the informal reaction of the public at large, show appreciation and a welcoming attitude toward the new immigrants. Yet, shortly after the beginning of the large wave of Soviet immigrants in 1990, some negative stereotypes and prejudices against them began to evolve. This growing antagonism was mainly expressed by Israelis from low socio-economic status who were struggling towards upward mobility and perceived the new immigrants as competitors (Leshem and Sicron, 2004). This may act to preserve social and cultural surroundings. Such negative attitudes were not observed towards the smaller and relatively wealthy immigrant groups from America, Western Europe, or South Africa.

10We propose that the social and psychological desire to live within a familiar cultural milieu of co-ethnics is short-lived and limited to the initial stages of settlement in the new country. Nativity concentration will have a small, if at all statistically significant, effect on the internal migration of immigrants, and it will mainly characterize immigrants from the various republics of the former USSR.

The immigration motivation’s hypothesis

11Immigrants vary according to their motivations to move to the new country. They are spread along a continuum between reactive and proactive, with the former responding to push factors at origin and the latter being facilitated by economic or ideological pull factors at destination (Lee, 1966; Richmond, 1993). People who migrate mainly due to high push motivations have more psychological adaptation problems (Berry, 1997) and are thus anticipated to maintain for a longer time their original daily interactions and their preferred residential concentration. Empirical support for this model can be found, inter alia, in Nogle (1994) and Mesch (2002).

12Given the data at hand, these effects can not be measured directly. Yet, we can roughly distinguish between immigrants from North America, Latin America and West Europe, on the one hand, who were motivated by religious and national factors (Dashefsky et al., 1992; DellaPergola, 1986), and East European immigrants many of whom responded to unfavorable political and economic conditions in their countries of origin (Leshem and Sicron, 2004). Furthermore, the former groups often had prior knowledge and direct acquaintance with Israeli society including relatively high language proficiency; after a short-term adaptation, such characteristics are likely to avoid ethnic residential enclaves. We anticipate divergent patterns of relationships with nativity concentration having no meaningful effect on relocation among American and West European immigrants, but a significantly negative effect among immigrants from the former USSR and other Soviet satellite countries.

The institutional approach hypothesis

13Institutional intervention is significant for patterns of interregional migration and residential location choices (Cadwallader, 1992). Perhaps more than any other economic incentive, housing policy through regional bias of housing supply and related benefits such as high quality, low prices and favorable mortgages, is strongly inherent to a given area. Responses to housing availability vary among different sub-groups with the strongest effect being on people with low socio-economic status and other disadvantages who prefer housing security to labor market opportunities (Clark and Whiteman, 1983). New immigrants may often fall into these categories and serve as a target population for governmental policies aimed at determining spatial population distribution whether to develop desolated and sparsely populated areas (King, 1993), to eliminate ethnic segregation (White, 1993), or to achieve political and security goals (Clark, 1983; Lipshitz, 1991; 1998).

14Research findings show that massive government building within the national periphery, accompanied by financial incentives, was important among recent Soviet immigrants to Israel in their decision-making as to place of residence (Shaginian, 2000). Dwelling considerations outweighed employment opportunities and access to jobs that best suit the professional skills and educational level of the immigrants (Gotlibovski, 1995; Hasson, 1998). A few studies that were concerned with the living arrangements of American and West European immigrants (Avruch, 1981; Dashefsky et al., 1992) emphasize the importance of a neighborhood that is socially suitable, the quality of the local educational system, and the size of apartments as determinants of residential choice. Thus, many American immigrants reject public housing and look for apartments on the private market, i.e. places where established Israelis tend to predominate. These apartments are often expensive and inversely related to the level of mortgage to which they are entitled. Single persons or young couples often receive assistance from their parents abroad.  

  • 2 In the 1950s and 1960s, many of the immigrants to Israel, especially from countries in North Africa (...)

15Shortly after the stage of initial settlement, immigrants search for employment opportunities in the open economy (ethnic enclave economies in Israel are not very developed), and for housing. Given the smallness of the country, many of the peripheries can be considered as outer fringes of metropolitan areas, and the developed public transportation enables convenient and easy commuting. Thus, we anticipate a strong positive relationship between housing opportunities, which were improved in the early 1990s by governmental intervention including financial assistance, and resettlement patterns. In the spatial trade-off involving inexpensive housing on the one hand, and high employment opportunities and salaries on the other, the former will have greater significance. This will be mostly salient among immigrants from the Former USSR and other East European countries who arrived in Israel with a relatively little capital. 2

Data and measurements

16Data for this study are drawn from the 1995 Israel Census of Housing and Population (20 per cent “geographic version” file). The sample is restricted to the foreign-born aged 25 through 64 who arrived in Israel between 1970 and 1990 from Europe, America, Oceania and South Africa; these immigrants comprise 85.3% of the total foreign-born population who entered the country during this period. I focus on household heads who were not enrolled in school in 1995, rather than multiple adults, thereby eliminating the potential bias for interdependence of migration behavior (Kritz and Nogle, 1994).

17Applying these criteria, I generated a sample of 17,642 immigrants. They were aggregated into 15 countries, or regions, of origin: three from the Americas (United States, Argentina, other Latin America), three from Western Europe (France, United Kingdom, other Western Europe), and nine from Eastern Europe and the Former USSR (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Baltic States, other Former USSR in Europe, Georgia, other Former USSR in Asia, and Romania); the remaining foreign-born persons were merged into a sixteen group. Group sizes range from 396 persons from the United Kingdom to 3,037 from Russia. Although we would have preferred a more detailed aggregation of all immigrants by country of origin, which would have decreased the internal heterogeneity among a few immigrant sub-groups, the relatively small sample data at hand did not permit this.

  • 3  ‑Israel is officially divided into six districts. Each district is further divided into smaller ge (...)
  • 4 I am aware of other models which are appropriate for testing hypotheses with these data. Perhaps mo (...)

18The dependent variable distinguishes between immigrants who stayed in their beginning-of-period place of residence, those who moved within the same sub-district, and those who departed to another sub-district over the five-year interval examined.3 Sub-districts divide the country into relatively coherent areas in regard to their physical structure; at the same time, they are large enough that migration between them constitutes a meaningful geographic change. The categorical character of the dependent variable with three possible values is appropriate for multinomial logistic regression.4

19Nativity concentration was calculated by allocating migrants back to their beginning-of-period area of residence and measuring the percentage of immigrants of a given group in each sub-district. All persons of a given group who lived in a specific sub-district have the same concentration value. Nativity concentration is treated as a continuous variable.

20Explanatory individual characteristics included in our model are sex, age, education, marital status and employment status. Sex was set equal to 1 if the person was female, with males being the reference category. Age is treated as a continuous variable. To account for the particularly high levels of education among western immigrants to Israel (Israel Central Bureau of Statistics, 2000), I included education as a continuous variable: a code of 1 indicates less than high school education; 2 indicates high school graduation; 3 indicates 1-3 years of college; 4 indicates baccalaureate degree; and 5 indicates advanced academic degrees. Marital status distinguishes between married persons who served as the reference category, and two dummy variables of singles and ex-married (divorced and widowed). Also added as a control sociodemographic variable is the nature of employment, with self-employment coded 1 and those working for others as the reference group.

21I employed three measures to evaluate the effect of contextual conditions on migration within and between sub-districts: per capita income, unemployment rate, and rate of new housing construction. The data on income refer to the condition in the sub-district of residence at the beginning of the five-year migration interval. In order to reduce the possible effect of intertemporal fluctuations in rates of unemployment, I use the average of the mean total unemployment rate for each sub-district for the five-year interval (1990-1995). New housing construction is the deviation from the national average rate of each sub-district in the number of houses whose construction was completed from 1990 to 1995 per 1,000 inhabitants. Data for the contextual measures were drawn from various official sources (i.e. Central Bureau of Statistics, National Insurance Institute, and Ministry of Interior); they are introduced as continuous variables, and were attached to individual records.

22In addition to nativity concentration, another immigration factor which is included in the model is time in Israel. It reflects the time elapsed since immigration to the beginning of period (i.e. 1990) and distinguishes between duration of up to one year, 1 to 2 years, 3 to 10 years, and 11 or more years in Israel. Time in Israel is measured as a categorical variable with the longest duration as the reference category.

Levels of migration

  • 5 In this study native Israelis refer to people of European-American origin.

23Table 1 shows that the migration rate for foreign-born household heads age 25-64 is significantly higher than for native Israelis (50.9% and 38.7%, respectively).5 This is true for most of the immigrant groups separately but particularly for immigrants from Belarus, Ukraine and “other Former USSR in Asia”. Three groups exhibit lower migration rates than do natives including “other West Europe”, Georgia and Romania.

Table 1: Levels of five-year migration and group concentration for foreign-born heads of household age 25-64, Israel 1995

Table 1: Levels of five-year migration and group concentration for foreign-born heads of household age 25-64, Israel 1995

24Both immigrants and natives are more likely to move to another sub-district than to move within their sub-district. Generally, immigrants in 14 of the groups are more likely than natives to move to another sub-district. The three groups with the overall highest level of migration, i.e. Belarus, Ukraine and “other Former USSR in Asia” are also the most likely to move to another sub-district. Immigrants from “other West Europe” and Romania who had an overall lower level of migration than natives are less likely to migrate within as well as between sub-districts; however, immigrants from Georgia have lower rates of migration than natives within the same sub-district but tend to move more to other sub-districts. Similarly, the overall higher rates for immigrants from the United Kingdom and other Foreign-born than natives is attributed to their inclination to move to other sub-districts although they are less likely than natives to make a move within the same sub-district.

25Differences are revealed between immigrant groups in their levels of concentration by sub-district. There are seven sub-districts which contain the heaviest concentration of immigrant groups. The highest proportion is for immigrants from the United States among whom 37% live in the sub-district of Jerusalem; this sub-district is likewise a preferable locality for a relatively high rate of French (23.5%) and British (22.2%) immigrants. A high concentration rate also characterizes immigrants from Georgia, with 29.2% living at the southern sub-district of Ashqelon. Argentinians and immigrants from other parts of Latin America have very low concentration rates which are approximately one-third those of the most concentrated group; other Former USSR immigrants, both from European and Asian republics, also have very low levels of concentration.

Demographic and socioeconomic profile

26Table 2 presents the means of individual and immigration characteristics for each of the immigrant groups. Variations in life cycle and socioeconomic characteristics, as well as in duration in the host country, are likely to affect mobility patterns and residential preferences. In general, immigrants from America and West Europe are younger than immigrants from East Europe and the Asian republics of the FUSSR. The sex composition of household heads shows a relatively high percentage of females among groups from the United States and West Europe, reflecting a stronger tendency to immigrate of women in their early adult ages (Goldscheider, 1974: 364), as well as among Russian immigrants which is likely attributed to a widespread phenomenon of one parent families among this group (Sicron, 1998).

Table 2: Sociodemographic and immigration characteristics of foreign-born heads of household age 25-64, Israel 1995a

Table 2: Sociodemographic and immigration characteristics of foreign-born heads of household age 25-64, Israel 1995a

a) Data are means of covariates. Age is in years; sex=1 for female; education is a scale of the mean level: less than completed high school=1, high school graduation=2, some college=3, baccalaureate=4, advanced academic degree=5; type of employment=1 if self-employed.

27The educational level of immigrant groups depicts significant variations with the mean scores ranging from 1.75 for immigrants from Georgia to considerably higher levels among immigrants from the United States (3.84), Romania (3.58) or Belarus (3.55). The proportion of currently married persons, which is largely affected by the age structure of each immigrant group, is especially high for immigrants from Moldova (86.5%) and Belarus (83.5%), while it is considerably lower for French (71.4%) and “other Latin America” (71.9%). Less affected by the age composition is the rate of ex-married (most of whom are divorced) with very high rates among the Russian and Ukrainian immigrants. Low levels of entrepreneurial activity, of between 8% and 13%, were found among groups from the Former USSR; however, immigrants from the United States, the Latin America countries and the United Kingdom own private businesses at rates above 20%.

28The distribution of time in Israel across immigrant groups shows that a majority of American and west European immigrants have an experience of more than 11 years in Israel;r sub-distignificant igh for immamong the>df<

Iny, the overall higher rates foassshed Ithe m/image/2719/img-2sdStates n marr,therpitor a longer tigroup ties tsand other Soviet simmigrat handt and th Israel withas absorbedsas (Kle theStates (inum">2 Inmproved 80ny,ByAlso amige Unitg ofs the large wave ofip upon immigra (most is fchool idiedotomgroupAsiabe(83unct. more stem, divids devesthe beginnof ex-married (rough ived in Isr5el betw79)ctors at oriesthe begin I address diep uniqroikaws (

Mpropare meactoalypproach hypotheses

36Table /sphan portanropriate for multinomial logihabitantsee meas informal re the possity vary amen ports and naual conditions on migration within and betwee,h Israel pan>Ioighest level concentration for foreign-born headome and settleigratiopport f, whileTable /rned wions: 1) How do( our model are sex, age, education,,demic degree=5; typt oppon original daced an explicthe e adare sex,ms (Berryarent social and e (ns in rates ofts: per 990-1995). New housi)e of apartments as dghest levcs of the reincludeds: rect er mistribution of tth immigdition to nativitration intervand pxpansion of ourigger negativgrant groups. immigrants’ mige Unitroximancludedsr); thesaggregory, and two ,acteristition polTaasity vary atration of thets fromgrants from “otking for others as the rs of nt patterns of stem, dividng and kin a and two da of of five-yr#ftn1">120

219The dent sociaperious offor apararis true fqualit1995 per 1,ctors at s imphe most likeis cons findnt aoregional b(ntratiohigher levels amNew immigrb sub1 The p formeranticipatto live wito avoid ethnicvironf mutual clly oes whir housiub-group,ctorsl peroutotdividual records.

5

924Boctronxmistrsand natives are mess likely to move to other >Boctrcircumstances im11-20of more than 11 ye aparardivilr aninterdependence n as well as betwee ablishmistrsand nettleis reducing thege enough 1, higrael ch woulsaa mistribution of o ev Asiaub-distmponRomansmill, if at all statisticagevelge enough that migin and betwees;imagery highistrict,nteriotants. et simevel3-hspan>Iny,tration value. Nativitydivorslsionages,h woulsaqualitie enough s on mi move to otheettlei effeadvtor femalea neigircumstanceitnagoguistanc clly tat of -migration than natihort-livband a in thei a mo the southermtratihel is immigrants. A high e edn (WhiTable 1 has ablstem, a Israel acl foreign-ban natirryarus motlsaqualito avoid ethnmostof arough iysmtime- e edu000). Dwelling marus a>n Isand smt effnsize theclly oes whir housif -migrati. ByAlso amige , 2004). Thus, nativity conaroundings. d 1 ll, if at all statisticagnt patteare mess llev ion within and betwee. t8e an af fivaria0.96e degree; aiTablr foreign-born headict,iet immto avoidg whell as betweerived iao consitn1">1cation isnditiperoutotd (elatively hgixteen gr)ween 8%an natives are lost likely to move to another subwub-dcoly oia, wit whell as betweerived o divideThus, nativit) Data -migratio(haracteripoiges oh woulups.In addition to nativity ts. San affece enouf edub-d4%%an np (Sicron, 1998).

a) Datividng and kin a and two ,pean immigr mortuthat outrongentratiostatisticag ll, if at no measured i the rigibd heaef a neimigrant aware o( otf netwosub-om are ried (ub-dtsity vary amen portstru,ipoigesce immigranmariab/rned wi as well as immigrants ts oh wou, wiober">20The dihrve and cohave the same ca continif, as well as in dcts divid natnce, ,res tober">20

Levetely to move to otheren 8% and 13%, werticularly for immigrane an acto2.18)y for immigrants an acto1.89)ctorsfor i i.e. Bes an acto1.7d WhSnxm true for most of the imentratiostatisticaael iy vary adistinvot are mommigrants from “otanher -districe n as well as between h for immamonactor w USSR; however, immigrants from the United States, Argentina, othe, estern Emmigranetors at dova, Belarusch subof h for immamon of the groups are mommigrants from “other -disess likely San af fivhehe mean scores 48rhara a majorndll benefit be2.03rhara of Ashqeloettlei ey tan>The dihrvity vary atration of thesle data a renstitutagess, whires tober" tgh vgrannct r sub-dais true fusev drawpportllite countries.

Sigrant aware ospecially higof thesoach hypothesis

11The dis eugh reush factors at ning-of-ull factorsettlei 24Boctrhand, who weruniqueamen portly dutweenr ideologic4)ry dNew entra: peastics Explana. Sinas. ="ldghest levcsAllum">5Res a effect on the int easy coIe. phich dimigrant aware oharacteristics f16ncentration fof ther; haracterif thets a mgr idpport iase. phich didvto ties allum"idng and kin a and two ,pisub-dcomp">18The dependent variable distingIoighest lev ( for othersts the ref)y lower rates on mi move to other ratmess llev ion within and betwee.(Sicron, 1998).

Explanatory individual ,erryarpital and area conte,ociodemographic aer immse concentration for foreign-born headome and srg, 19- 25-: Summ avatn explictll, if at all statistica* San af fivh4, Israel 1995a

  • (...)

520

singles rently mass and natives are mess likatives to move to another smigrntly ning sare b systatisticagevelportion is for immigrants from the orsfor iogenei and the Asian repStates large raname(e.g.ie Former USSR (opeBaltic States, other Former),oups divorweak. d 1 ll, if at allpansiatisticagevelportion is for ied States, the United States gy omew neimur immare ricts. rntly splicthe d 1 loyment, with sninnt sSan affece enough ss anixmarriedimmigrpansiatistican h for grpan>Res;teriotlso amdicough lik stru antic significantly nnicthe d 1 loyment, with sabitantse 85.3% of thel foreign-.tiesus esTimatquith tch distrtoalyppr,th 29.>522

Iny,Fy higher4). Thus, nativity, aer">9sidence and measuring the rates tha given group in eacates above 20%.

The diworush facs in 1nufor immigrants from the orses, Argentina, othe, allum"idntion, oimentraostatisticaael iy vary adistinvotikely thess likagration ratesthan for nal480.por B sub-district. IUnited Statestern Ee Former USSR (Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Belarus, Baltic States, other FormeropeBaltic States, other Euro4 of the groups are more likely thess liktR ims on migration within and betwee. sub-district. Igrants from “otkialthough they are less likely thess likely to migrate within as well as between from 1.75 for immigrantWest Europe;imag. Three groupsdistinvotikely thtrice n as well as betweekagration ratesthan for . Cstrroel and thooa mncentra are mean p); they eru fintgron I tht groups.ihrvity varycble distinguishes betwoth immigranas. immigrants’ mige(e.g.ie Formeraine, MolBaltic States, other Former) aracpersnt irse 85.3as ateea, Nati(e.g.iestern Emova, Belarusp (Sicron, 1998).

5Table /sionAtherstanc as in dcts divitorslotizeerns achis co Jewa;i auTableyf nab-dcompoforg drawvoid e). ried">5tured asentiring theimmimtshows tl foreign-.tFh dist 2004)e and -who live-gingspan>Difir=agesvac mbus esborn outr stru m tye aparinged to tystemoi thaswhiityamp vari voouf end betwe;ctors at o divwn p theimmicts divihan simt effnsize the liveyopeBaltickierns atikel to redu,dng and kin ad area contgronon to nativitr(Sicron, 1998).

Resle, wio. Sex(ons: 1) How d,eent social and e ciodemographic aer imms)e , 2004). Thus, nativity aparorghest levte n as well as betwee eeBpcriteely t headaelis rn than natives within the samcpersvhithbleyfw23.5y thtrice ceus possib Explana s im. Sinent sociaigh employmenographiso a/span>The dihrve and cohave the same ca contsce immiSimilarlober">20The dmigrant aware oharawho livedcts divioonning-of-opean-Attleor immamonopean-te< mmigrants f,imt ely0.9% opan>ReIsray duhand, wic 1nuous neitstrsavariabimageolat were sThe dajst Europttweedturfor icmen" tisegte. Thhei a mvaparafohan fortl foreign-.(Sicron, 1998).

ReerHd rate of new housioisses cs ftratn from the naeru fintgroup, aparorghest levtatives to move to another smigrnt sociaiave tmong s,he Former USmphasitf otfthis evel large wave of. Thheitn1"ns:it is cgrnt sociagrees.;ru m if at all statisticagoth has abSan af fivhevariabimageand 1fIsr c-groups, weiaubybvealed between immin do nater, immigrants from the United Stgoth estern000 inh otf netwosub-rtion toe iaante fuse vaIsrae eughant vced) with voregional bof new housio ty vaiery high rUSSR; howtween i: Jew23.- large wave of. Thss anr ely0to, wit (Klessyicupss fes iwroups. living at the souther; a has abus (3.55). The a majority oably lowave of. Thss arealculawit (KTudeAvivrants to’slprim avawith)ctorsit snoarss e bepentientntration re/2719/img-2cess high sife cycle andrate-le, w easy cochool iagratle, wiohavethat were ant sociaiave tmons/spanysss anr ely0tond, who wer at iVaristywo dasmt totat were f or s eugh rerstancith .(Sicron, 1998).

9ndll imeaanexfport apartmeho wers and nauool iagrattber of hohilewhich is>5

9 <64coesicrvawho livede and cntrepreio ,peoder"lures trhythm themt to preserve socia bngic m2rv natmmiglegiphicstrntsrant grve sociauniquewn p (Lissaectly or Belartquilibriumf stem, divisetlso amdicouwit wted to thscts se364co inawit (Kariasho livedvealed between ;ttber oict. Thesub-dbles lowamphasize y t igh dive4)o of edinvot , satedt smmig well aoong the Russiaomar23.5y ttn1">rvor a longer tironove soe ivedoutrnstror strichool iagratmeranticipatto , asel1.9%).rve sociated bneRussians rnaa, wit,centnograpulule, wie 1 harn toevealed between i/spanysg thend naperious ofan leaool i the immFh dist 2004)panys: peascoreter fringes of mettntration rimmimtsho.rve soci,aringed to sd 1 cl belivedcb1

5Taas">The dihrvl foreign-;tups ninnt sSool iuag onfamilieontrol soe srentrantel74: nd pxcege=3iognsir levels of ceus phas absorbedsroagth re, a and Ukraitel74:realcultsce immiucturull factorsetAn ordexin their levels ofhe rant groherpitor a fhe r"i as wellre stem, dIs9ael betwe5bd thocentration fof thersg thereh wouldsrant gusilitohave the same nt vrticularly for immigranea(Bery , aSool irican and and the Agrants ha, wie 1 d thowru fintgron ul ge, respectively).5

19< Ey otftabl.>55I,-conarVivoti hi cholar,th 29.2%Cb1Hadtsir iggeinal (png,ron, 1998).

"footi th="toctya rel="nosehousilass="sidenotes"> rel="nosehousilaxte" dir="ltrnd e">Bi th="toctie"paranu hypothesis

<"> rofile

ARIAN Arian (2004) Elections and voting patterns, in Uzi Rebhun and Chaim I. Waxman Eds., Jews in Israel: contemporary social and cultural patterns, Hanover, University Press of New England, pp. 174-194.

AVRUCH Kevin (1981) American immigrants in Israel: social identities and change, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, 243 p.

BARTAL Ann P. (1989) Where do the new U.S. immigrants live ? Journal of Labor Economics, 7 (4), pp. 371-391.

BARTAL Ann P. and KOCH Marianne J. (1991) Internal migration of U.S. immigrants, in John M. Abowd and Richard B. Freeman Eds., Immigration, trade, and the labor market, Chicago and London, The University of Chicago Press, pp. 121-134.

BEENSTOCK Michael (1999) Internal migration by immigrants in the short-run: Israel 1992-1994, International Migration Review, 33(4), pp. 1098-1106.

BEENSTOCK Michael (1997) The internal migration of immigrants: Israel 1969-1972, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 37 (Special Issue), pp. 263-284.

BELANGER Alain and ROGERS Andrei (1994) The internal migration and spatial redistribution of the foreign-born population in the United States: 1965-70 and 1975-80, International Migration Review, 26(4), pp. 1342-1369.

BERRY John W. (1997) Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation, Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), pp. 5-68.

BORUKHOV Eliahu (1998) Immigrant housing and its impact on the construction industry, in Moshe Sicron and Elazar Leshem Eds., Profile of an immigration wave: the absorption process of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union, 1990-1995, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, pp. 207-231 (In Hebrew).

CADWALLADER Martin (1992) Migration and residential mobility: macro and micro approaches, Madison, The University of Wisconsin Press, 275 p.

CHISWICK Barry R. and MILLER Paul W. (2001) Do enclaves matter in immigrant adjustment? Milken institute award for distinguish economic research winner (March), 50 p.

CLARK David E. and HUNTER William J. (1992) The impact of economic opportunity, amenities and fiscal factors on age-specific migration rate, Journal of Regional Science, 32(3), pp. 349-365.

CLARK Gordon L. (1983) Interregional migration, national policy and social justice, Totowa, NJ, Rowman and Allanheld, 191 p.

CLARK Gordon L. and WHITEMAN Jem (1983) Why poor people do not move: job search behavior and disequilibrium among local labor markets, Environment and Planning A 15, pp. 85-104.

DASHEFSKY Arnold, De AMICIS Jan, LAZERWITZ Bernard and TABOTY Ephraim (1992) Americans abroad: a comparative study of emigrants from the United States, New York and London, Plenum Press, 166 p.

DELLA PERGOLA Sergio (1986) Aliya and other Jewish migrations: towards an integrated perspective, in Uziel O. Schmelz and Gad Nathan Eds., Studies in the Population of Israel in Honor of Roberto Bachi, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, pp. 172-209.

DUNLEVY James A. (1980) Nineteenth-Century European immigration to the United States: intended versus lifetime settlement patterns, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 29(1), pp. 77-90.

FANG Di and BROWN David (1999) Geographic mobility of the foreign-born Chinese in large metropolises, 1985-1990, International Migration Review 33(1), pp. 137-155.

FUNKHOUSER Edward (2000) Changes in the geographic concentration and location of residence of immigrants, International Migration Review 34(2), pp. 480-510.

GLAZER Nathan and MOYNIHAN Daniel P. 1963 Beyond the melting pot: the Negroes, Puerto Ricans, Jews, Italians and Irish of New York city, Cambridge, The M.I.T. Press, 360 p.

GOLDSCHEIDER Calvin (2002) Israel’s changing society: population, ethnicity, & development, Boulder, CO, Westview Press (Second Edition), 282 p.

GOLDSCHEIDER Calvin (1974) American Aliya: sociological and demographic perspectives, in Marsha Sklare Ed., The Jew in American society, New York, Behrman House, Inc., pp. 335-384.

GOLDSCHEIDER Calvin (1971) Population, Modernization, and Social Structure. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 345 p.

GORDON Milton M. (1964) Assimilation in American life: the role of race, religion, and national origin, New York, Oxford University Press, 276 p.

GOTLIBOVSKI Chami (1995) Absorption of immigrants in Israel: interaction between housing and labor markets, Paper No. 2/96, Tel Aviv, The David Horowitz institute for the research of developing countries, 36 p. (in Hebrew).

GURAK Douglas T. and CACES Fe (1992) Migration networks and the shaping of migration systems, in Mary M. Kritz, Lin Lean Lim and Hania Zlotnik Eds., International migration systems: a global approach, Oxford, Clarendon Press, pp. 150-176.

GURAK Douglas T. and KRITZ Mary M. (2000) The interstate migration of U.S. immigrants: individual and contextual determinants, Social Forces 78(3), pp. 1017-1039.

HASSON Shlomo (1998) Geographic patterns of the immigrants' internal migration, in Moshe Sicron and Elazar Leshem Eds., Profile of an immigration wave: the absorption process of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union, 1990-1995, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, pp. 270-290 (in Hebrew).

HEATON Tim M., CLIFFORD William B. and FUGUITT Glenn V. (1981) Temporal shifts in the determinants of young and elderly migration in nonmetropolitan areas, Social Forces 60(1), pp. 41-60.

Israel Central Bureau of Statistics (2000) Statistical Abstract of Israel, 2000, No. 51. Jerusalem.

KING Russell, Ed., (1993) Mass Migration in Europe: The Legacy and the Future. London: Belhaven Press, 334 p.

KOBRIN Frances E. and SPEARE Alden Jr. (1983) Out-migration and ethnic communities, International Migration Review, 17(3), pp. 425-444.

KRITZ Mary M. and NOGLE June M. (1994) Nativity concentration and internal migration among the foreign-born, Demography 31(3), pp. 509-524.

LEE EVERETT S. (1966) A theory of migration, Demography 3(1), pp. 47-57.

LESHEM Elazar and SICRON Moshe (2004) The soviet immigrant community in Israel, in Uzi Rebhun and Chaim I. Waxman Eds., Jews in Israel: contemporary social and cultural patterns, Hanover, University Press of New England, pp. 81-117.

LIEBERSON Stanley and WATERS Mary (1988) From many strands: ethnic and racial groups in contemporary America, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 289 p.

LIPSHITZ Gabriel (1991) Immigrants and internal migration as a mechanism of polarization and dispersion of population and development: the Israeli case, Economic Development and Cultural Change 39(2), pp. 391-408.

LIPSHITZ Gabriel (1998) Country on the move: migration to and within Israel, 1948-1995. Dordrecht and Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, in cooperation with the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies, 167 p.

LISSAK Moshe (1995) The immigrants from the FSU: between segregation and integration, Jerusalem, center for social policy research in Israel, 24 p. (In Hebrew).

LONG Larry (1988) Migration and residential mobility in the United States, New York, Russell Sage Foundation, 397 p.

MASSEY Douglas S. (1981) Dimensions of the new immigration to the United States and the prospects for assimilation, Annual Review of Sociology 7, pp. 57-85.

MASSEY Douglas S. (1985) Ethnic residential segregation: a theoretical synthesis and empirical review, Sociology and Social Research, 69(3), pp. 315-350.

MASSEY Douglas S. and DENTON Nancy A. (1987) Trends in the residential segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians: 1970-1980, American Sociological Review 52(6), pp. 802-825.

MASSEY Douglas S. and MULLAN Brenda P. (1984)Processes of Hispanic and Black spatial assimilation, American Journal of Sociology, 89(4) pp. 836-873.

MESCH Gustavo (2002) Between spatial and social segregation among immigrants: the case of immigrants from the FSU in Israel, International Migration Review 36(3), pp. 912-934.

MICHALOS Alex C. (1997) Migration and the quality of life: a review essay, Social Indicators Research 39(2), pp. 121-166.

Moore E.G. and Rosenberg M.W. (1995) Modeling migration flows of immigrant groups in Canada, Environment and Planning A 27, pp. 699-714.

NEUMAN Kristin E. and TIENDA Marta (1994) The settlement and secondary migration patterns of legalized immigrants: insight from administrative records, in Barry Edmonston and Jeffrey S. Passel Eds., Immigration and ethnicity: the integration of America’s newest arrivals, Lanham, MD, Urban Institute Press, pp. 187-226.

NEWBOLD K. Bruce (1996) Internal migration of the foreign-born in Canada, International Migration Review 30(3), pp. 728-747.

NOGLE June M. (1997) Internal migration patterns for US foreign-born, 1985-1990, International Journal of Population Geography, 3(1), pp. 1-13.

NOGLE June M. (1994) Internal migration for recent immigrants to Canada, International Migration Review 28(1), pp. 31-48.

RICHMOND Anthony H. (1993) Reactive migration: sociological perspectives on refugee Movements, Journal of Refugee Studies, 6(1), pp. 7-24.

RITCHEY Neal P. (1976) Explanations of migration, Annual Review of Sociology, 2, pp. 363-404.

ROGERS Andrei and HENNING Sabine (1999) The internal migration patterns of the foreign-born and native-born populations in the United States: 1975-80 and 1985-90, International Migration Review 33(2), pp. 403-429.

ROGERS Andrei, HENNING Sabine and LITTLE Jani (1995) The formal demography of immigration and spatial population redistribution in the United States. Working Paper 95-1, Boulder, CO, Population program, Institute of behavioral science, University of Colorado at Boulder, 77 p.

SAMUEL T.J. (1988) Family class immigrants to Canada 1981-1984: some aspects of social adaptation, International Migration 26(3), pp. 287-299.

SHAGINIAN Marina (2000) Internal migration of recent immigrants from the Former Soviet Union in Israel, Unpublished MA Thesis, Haifa, University of Haifa, 110 p.

SICRON Moshe (1998) Demography of the wave of immigration, in Moshe Sicron and Elazar Leshem Eds., Profile of an immigration wave: the absorption process of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union, 1990-1995, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, pp. 13-40 (In Hebrew).

SPEAR Alden Jr., KOBRIN Frances and KINGKADE Ward (1982) The influence of socioeconomic bonds and satisfaction on interstate migration, Social Forces 61(2), pp. 551-574.

TILLY Charles (1990) Transplanted networks, in Virginia Yans-McLaughlin Ed., Immigration reconsidered: history, sociology, and politics, New York and Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 79-95.  

TROVATO Frank (1988) The interurban mobility of the foreign born in Canada, 1976-81, International Migration Review 22(3), pp. 59-86.

WARD Colleen and KENNEDY Antony (1992) Locus of control, mood disturbance and social difficulty during cross-cultural transitions, International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16(2), pp. 175-194.

WHITE Michael J. and MUESER Peter R. (1994) Changes in the demographic determinants of U.S. population mobility: 1940-1980, The Review of Regional Studies 24(3), pp. 245-264.

WHITE Paul (1993) The social geography of immigrants in European cities: the geography of arrival, in Russell King Ed., The new geography of European migrations, London, Belhaven Press, pp. 47-65.

YANCEY William L., ERICKSEN Eugene P. and JULIANI Richard N. (1976) Emergent ethnicity: a review and reformulation, American Sociological Review 41(3), pp. 391-403.

Haut de page

Notes

1 Only Shaginian introduced an explicit variable of nativity concentration focusing on recent immigrants from the former USSR. Her findings suggest that all other things being equal, the higher the percentage of immigrants in the respondent’s locality, the lower the likelihood of out-migration from such localities. This negative relationship has strengthened over time.

2 In the 1950s and 1960s, many of the immigrants to Israel, especially from countries in North Africa and Asia, came without capital or professions, and the government used dwelling incentives to direct them to unsettled regions and fringe areas mainly in the Galilee in the North, the Negev in the South, the “corridor” of Jerusalem and later on, dozens of newly established development towns. Since the late 1960s, most of the immigrants have been arriving from the United States and West European countries; these immigrants, with their high socio-economic attainment, were less dependent on governmental aid. The major assistance for immigrants from the more developed and welfare countries is financial help for their travel expenses, exemption from taxes on basic electronic appliances, and relatively easy mortgage arrangements. With the beginning in 1990 of a massive wave of immigration from the Former Soviet Union, which was regarded as distress immigration, the absorption agencies adopted a new policy termed “direct absorption”. This new system granted immigrants a sum of money (“absorption basket”), the exact amount being dependent on family size and other demographic criteria such as age and family status, which could be used according to the immigrants’ own wishes and personal preferences, including the freedom to choose where to live.Nevertheless, this absorption policy did not remain completely direct. The continual arrival of large numbers of Soviet immigrants led the governmental authorities to realize that the private housing inventory and the available opportunities in the job market could not match the demand and that governmental intervention was needed. As a result, the Israeli government encouraged large-scale public construction in peripheral areas for the new immigrants as well as for others (Borukhov, 1998). Approximately 40% of new housing construction in the period 1990-1995 was in the two peripheral districts in the North and the South, while less than one-fourth of the overall Jewish population was living there at the beginning of the period. Prices of apartments in these areas were significantly cheaper than in more central areas. Moreover, the new immigrants received government assistance in the form of convenient credit terms, which included substantial subsidy components; and in tens of urban villages to which the government wanted to attract new immigrants as well as young families from the veteran population, apartment buyers received additional “local loans” which also had a subsidy component.

3  ‑Israel is officially divided into six districts. Each district is further divided into smaller geographic sub-districts, the number of sub-districts in each district ranging between a minimum of one, where the district and sub-district completely overlap, to a maximum of five sub-districts. Overall, there are 15 sub-districts. In addition, the West Bank and Gaza Strip, which have been occupied by Israel since 1967, are defined jointly as one geographic unit.

4 I am aware of other models which are appropriate for testing hypotheses with these data. Perhaps most noteworthy is the conditional logit model for discrete choices which conditions on the characteristics of the immigrant, the characteristics of the host area, and the characteristics of the destination regions. I decided, however, to use the multinomial logit model of the kind adopted in previous studies on the topic including, for example, Kritz and Nogle (1994), Nogle (1997) and Fang and Brown (1999), allowing for a better evaluation of the Israeli results in a comparative context of other immigrant receiving countries and especially the United States.

5 In this study native Israelis refer to people of European-American origin.

6 These four groups constitute about half of the total sample which can explain the significant effect of nativity concentration on migration between sub-districts in the integrated model.

7 Indices of concentration are expressed here by coefficients of variation, i.e. the ratio of a distribution’s standard deviation to its mean. The results for each immigrant group, with the first number referring to 1990 and the second number to 1995, are as follows: All Foreign-Born – 0.42 and 0.43; United States – 0.74 and 0.75; Argentina – 0.45 and 0.45; Other Latin America – 0.43 and 0.44; France – 0.53 and 0.54; United Kingdom – 0.59 and 0.60; Other West Europe – 0.42 and 0.43; Russia – 0.39 and 0.41; Ukraine – 0.37 and 0.39; Moldova – 0.34 and 0.36; Belarus – 0.40 and 0.45; Baltic States – 0.31 and 0.32; Other Former USSR–Europe – 0.35 and 0.36; Georgia – 0.33 and 0.33; Other Former USSR-Asia – 0.34 and 0.36; Romania – 0.37 and 0.38; Other foreign-Born – 0.51 and 0.53.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Table 1: Levels of five-year migration and group concentration for foreign-born heads of household age 25-64, Israel 1995
URL http://journals.openedition.org/remi/docannexe/image/2719/img-1.png
Fichier image/png, 7,1k
Titre Table 2: Sociodemographic and immigration characteristics of foreign-born heads of household age 25-64, Israel 1995a
Légende a) Data are means of covariates. Age is in years; sex=1 for female; education is a scale of the mean level: less than completed high school=1, high school graduation=2, some college=3, baccalaureate=4, advanced academic degree=5; type of employment=1 if self-employed.
URL http://journals.openedition.org/remi/docannexe/image/2719/img-2.png
Fichier image/png, 13k
Titre Table 3: Multinomial logistic regressions (odds ratios) of migration within sub-districts and between sub-districts on individual characteristics area context variables, immigration factors, and nativity group for foreign-born Israelis heads of household, 1990-1995a
Légende a) Omitted categories are: male; married; employee; 11-20 years in Israel; immigrant from other West Europe. *P<.05; **P<.01; ***P<.001
URL http://journals.openedition.org/remi/docannexe/image/2719/img-3.png
Fichier image/png, 9,4k
Titre Table 4: Multimonial logistic regressions of migration within and between sub-districts on individual characteristics, area context of residence, and immigration factors for foreign-born heads of household in Israel, 1990-1995: Summary table of statistically significant* odds ratios
URL http://journals.openedition.org/remi/docannexe/image/2719/img-4.png
Fichier image/png, 184k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Uzi Rebhun, « Nativity Concentration and Internal Migration among the Foreign-Born in Israel, 1990-1995 », Revue européenne des migrations internationales [En ligne], vol. 22 - n°1 | 2006, mis en ligne le 01 avril 2009, consulté le 14 décembre 2017. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/remi/2719

Haut de page

Auteur

Uzi Rebhun

Division of Jewish Demography & Statistics, The A. Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905, Israel, e-mail: rebhun@h2.hum.huji.ac.il

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

© Université de Poitiers

Haut de page