Abstract
Riga stands out within Latvia as a significant pool of economic and education-related opportunities. Students and young people are traditionally more mobile and move towards destinations where self-advancement is accessible. Thus, this study aims to describe the human capital disequilibria in the regions of Latvia by analysing youth in the age group from 15 to 34 years and making a comparison between the years 2011 and 2018. The backbone of the study is an analysis of changes in regional unemployment rates and changes in the number of young people in certain regions outside the capital, as well as the general trend for the proportion of young people to decrease in some regions since 2011. The main research questions addressed are: how can the core-periphery model be applied to the regions of Latvia, and to what extent do economic opportunities explain regional inequality? The results indicate that Riga is a core, geographically, and the functionally related regions of Pieriga and Zemgale are semi-peripheral regions. However, the regions of Vidzeme, Latgale and Kurzeme are “places of lower rank” or peripheral regions, which are losing young people in the competition both with the core areas within the country and with other attractive destinations abroad.
Highlights
Economic development and success for countries and regions largely depends on human capital resources
Net migration from 2011 to 2018 was negative, the number of young people aged 15-34 moving to the region (15,907) was nearly the same as to all other regions combined (16,650)
The share of net youth migration in the total decrease of youth for both regions is less than 50%; the decrease in the youth unemployment rate is similar to Riga, and average monthly gross salaries differ from Riga by no more than 25%
Summary
Economic development and success for countries and regions largely depends on human capital resources. Considering that migration outcomes are scale-specific, it is very important to focus on regions, and in some cases on subregions within them. The coreperiphery model is described through the ongoing process of uneven economic opportunities and the formation of specific social and political conditions (King 2019) drawing potential migrants to more prosperous spatial units. It has long since been discovered and re-examined that power relation between core and peripheral territories are asymmetrical and increase social inequality (Seers 1979; King 2015; King 2019)
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
