Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2024.46.0053 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 46:53–64, 2024 © 2024 The Author(s). Licensed under a CC-BY 4.0 licence Published by the Czech Technical University in Prague DEVELOPMENT AND CAUSES OF MIGRATION IN LAGGING REGIONS IN THE YEARS 2017–2021: A CASE STUDY OF THE SLOVAK REPUBLIC Michal Levickýa,∗, Viera Papcunováa,b, Marta Urbaníkováa, Annamária Kozlokováa a Constantine the Philosopher University in Nitra, Faculty of Natural Sciences and Informatics, Institute of Economics and Management, Tr. A. Hlinku 1, 949 01 Nitra, Slovak Republic b Masaryk University, Faculty of Economics and Administration, Department of Regional Economics, Lipová 41a, 602 00 Brno-Pisárky, Czech Republic ∗ corresponding author: mlevicky@ukf.sk Abstract. Migration represents a process where people leave their homes for various reasons. The aim of the article is to evaluate the level and development of migration in Slovakia and to identify its causes in the Gemer region, which is among the least economically productive regions of Slovakia. We quantified the development and level of migration based on secondary data through selected analytical indicators of migration. We determined the motivations of the residents of the Gemer region to migrate using a questionnaire survey. Until 2004, Slovakia was an emigration country, but in recent years it has turned into a destination country. However, the situation is not the same for all regions of the country. A negative migration balance persists in the Gemer region, although restrictions related to the coronavirus pandemic have slowed this trend. We found that up to 21 % of respondents from the region migrate for work. Up to 45 % of respondents want to move out of the region, while in 64 % of cases the migration is motivated by economic reasons. The opinion on migration is influenced by the gender of the respondent but is not related to the level of education achieved. Keywords: Regional differences, migration, lagging regions. 1. Introduction Migration is a historical social phenomenon that has political, economic and social implications, but it also affects national security by changing the social com- position of countries. Migration can be a catalyst for conflict but also for national development [1]. Migra- tion is most often classified according to whether or not an individual or group moves inside or outside the borders of a country, whether or not a national border is crossed. Based on these criteria, a distinction is made between international and internal migration. Internal migration takes place at the level of the state, regions, districts and municipalities. On the other hand, international migration includes intercontinen- tal and intracontinental [2]. Internal migration can generally be seen as the movement of people from one geographical area to another for the purpose of perma- nent or temporary residence. The study of this form of migration is therefore important for understanding population distribution, growth and urbanization of territories [3]. Most studies suggest that migration is primarily motivated by economic factors. In developing coun- tries, low agricultural incomes and unemployment are considered as the primary factors that lead migrants to move to developed areas with higher employment opportunities. Thus, almost all studies agree that most migrants move in search of better economic op- portunities [4]. Economic migration is triggered by the search for a better livelihood, seeking better con- ditions, compared to financial opportunities in the country of origin. In all cases, economic migration is voluntary. Political migration can be based on armed conflict or a political decision that leads to the de- portation, relocation or resettlement of a country’s population - this is the case of forced migration. In addition, political migration can also occur when a per- son, although not in an immediate situation of forced displacement, comes from a territory where human and political rights are violated [5]. Migrants are not a homogeneous group. Rather, migrant categories are often defined by migrants’ reasons for leaving home. Categories of migrants include refugees, economic mi- grants, migrants fleeing war, environmental migrants, climate migrants, and migrants seeking to reunite with family. Further, a migrant may have multiple overlapping reasons for their movement. International refugee law protects some individuals whose flight is perceived as forced and completely excludes others whose flight is perceived as voluntary [6]. The most common reason for migrating from country to coun- try is job opportunities. This is confirmed by several studies. For example, Western European countries, which felt the economic devastation caused by the Second World War profoundly, were forced to import labour from other countries [7]. From 1955 onwards, 53 https://doi.org/10.14311/APP.2024.46.0053 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.cvut.cz/en M. Levický, V. Papcunová, M. Urbaníková, A. Kozloková Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings labour migration began from developing countries, especially to the Federal Republic of Germany; and in the 1960s, workers began to be brought mainly from Spain, Portugal, Italy and Greece, and then from Mediterranean countries such as Turkey, Morocco, Al- geria and Tunisia [8]. Immigrants are still one of the biggest problems of separation in the EU. Member states have seen their first tough test in the crisis trig- gered by immigrants appearing at the EU’s borders in 2015-2016, causing the Dublin system to lose its func- tionality [9]. Bell et al. [10] state that an important event in migration policy in the Republic of Poland, was represented by the introduction of a simplified pro- cedure for the employment of foreigners in the Polish labour market in 2006-2007. Initially, it was limited to selected types of agricultural and fruit-growing activi- ties and to citizens of countries neighbouring Poland, but later it was abandoned to specify the types of economic activity and to cover citizens of Armenia, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, the Russian Federation and Ukraine. Changes in Poland’s migration situation are intertwined with changes caused by demographic processes: depopulation, rapid increase in the number of people of post-working age, ageing workforce and low birth rate. In practice, of course, the relationship between population density and the net migration rate is not straightforward. In most countries, the residuals from regression analysis suggest that more complex patterns of movement are also taking place. Migration is by no means uniformly directed towards the most densely populated regions, as the outlying regions show [11]. Migration processes cause a variety of economic and social effects, and the more intense the migration, the more dynamic the processes become. The effects can be both positive (strengthening of the economy, its development, cultural enrichment, development of social integration processes, etc.) and negative (seg- mentation of the population and increase in ethnic and cultural tensions, overburdening of the social se- curity system, administrative overload, etc.) [12]. In today’s highly mobile world, migration, and in partic- ular internal migration, is becoming an increasingly complex area of governance that is highly interlinked with other key policy areas, including economic and social development, national security, human rights, public health, regional stability, etc. Managing mi- gration at national or regional level is a complex and multifaceted task. Internal migration includes regular, irregular and forced migration. It has been shown that the increasing scale of migration is in many cases not matched by the availability of infrastructure in urban centres to accommodate migrants [13]. Perhaps the most significant aspect of internal migration is that it changes the spatial distribution of the population. Internal migration, together with births, deaths and international migration, shapes population changes in a territory. Analysing the drivers and dynamics of internal migration is crucial to understanding the pro- gressive shifts in human settlement patterns around the world [14]. However, apart from individuals and households that are mobile both internally and in- ternationally, the “boundary” between internal and international migration can easily become blurred. Distance is certainly not the determining criterion. Moreover, the nature of international borders may be changing: the European Union and its border- less “Schengenland” have created a borderless zone for mobility that is, with its regime of passports, visas and borders, more akin to internal migration than to “traditional” international migration. Moreover, borders themselves can be mobile; they can appear or disappear (e.g. the dismemberment of the former Soviet Union or Yugoslavia) [15]. On the other hand, according to [16], migration is an inevitable feature of development. Migration can improve the distribu- tion of income at origin by providing rural households with opportunities to diversify their income portfo- lio. Also [17] confirms that although filling labour market gaps with migrants may only be a temporary solution, it is nevertheless of positive importance, es- pecially for the further functioning of the market in a particular country. And at the same time, this can often prevent the decline of certain sectors in which the indigenous population refuses to work. According to [17], uncovering the link between internal migration and economic development is difficult. Researchers analysing internal migration face two challenges: on the one hand, the inconsistent and difficult concep- tualisation and subsequent measurement of internal migration and, on the other hand, its limited popu- larity within economic research. Problems related to defining, measuring and collecting data on domestic flows have hampered research on internal migration. However, there is also an empirical correlation between internal migration and the residential distribution of immigrants, which is the basis of spatial assimilation theory (SAT). According to this theory, the early set- tlement of immigrants from abroad was generally in large urban cities or areas where their national or ethnic groups were more concentrated (ethnic concen- tration). Immigrants then tended to be distributed in a similar way to natives. They leave areas of first arrival and relocate within the host country through internal migration [18, 19]. Geographical migration is thus the result of the socio-economic upward mobility of immigrants who, through the process of assimila- tion, acquire knowledge and become more attached to the host country and the native population. This, in turn, leads to a reduction in ties with the native community, less segregation and a convergence of set- tlement patterns between immigrants and natives [20]. This is primarily related to the existence of a set of displacement and integration costs, and therefore im- migrants tend to first observe the process or racial or ethnic concentration in certain areas. Only sub- sequently does the dispersal of the original commu- nity and its integration into the host society occur. 54 vol. 46/2024 Development and causes of migration in lagging regions . . . However, the relationship between spatial mobility and assimilation is not always direct. Socio-economic improvement and the formation of ties to the host country do not necessarily lead to spatial assimilation. For example, it has been shown that the impact of certain individual characteristics may differ between immigrant groups. Similarly, it appears that some individuals, regardless of their socioeconomic status, prefer to reside in ethnic enclaves. The persistence of high moving costs or the existence of discriminatory practices (for example, in the housing market) may also hinder the assimilation process. Thus, there is no consensus on the characteristics of immigrants who move within the host society, nor on their possible dispersion from the original concentrations of foreign- ers [21]. Thus, human capital migration theory is not conclusive on whether immigrants should generally be expected to be more mobile than natives. This ambiguity is due to the conflicting forces that affect the internal migration of immigrants. On the one hand, there is a lack of locally specific human capital due to more recent relocation, potentially increasing the propensity to migrate. On the other hand, there is the empirically observed effect of ethnic enclaves where immigrants tend to cluster. These enclaves allow immigrants to benefit from their origin-specific human capital, which would otherwise be worthless in the new host country. Migration rates are there- fore potentially reduced for immigrants residing in an enclave [22]. The new economics of migration argues that migration is a rational decision made by an in- dividual or family based on a cost-benefit analysis. However, research has increasingly focused on quanti- tative regression analysis to examine the “causes” and “impacts” of migration largely along the (implicit or explicit) lines of the push-pull model. Push factors are factors that, for a variety of reasons, force someone to leave their place of birth and seek new opportunities elsewhere. Pull factors, on the other hand, are those factors that attract migrants to a particular place and offer various advantages, benefits and more eastern liv- ing conditions [23]. Push-pull models dominated much of migration thinking in the mid-twentieth century, until the 1960s, and reflect a paradigm of neoclassical economics based on the principles of utility maxi- mization, rational choice, price differentials between regions and countries, and labour mobility [24]. Ac- cording to this model, migrants are actors seeking to maximise income or “utility”. Neither qualitative nor quantitative approaches have adequately captured the vital role of hard-to-quantify structural factors such as inequality, power and the state in shaping migration processes. They have also not been able to develop a meaningful idea of human agency beyond the vol- untaristic assumptions of neoclassical models or the portrayal of migrants as more or less passive victims, as is common in historical-structural theories [25]. Internal migration, which involves population move- ments within a country’s borders for economic, politi- cal or social reasons, is considered both a cause and a result of regional imbalances. In this framework, the impact of increasing internal migration on devel- oped and underdeveloped regions may differ due to the influence of different socio-cultural and economic conditions between regions. The imbalance aspect is directly related to the extent to which migration af- fects parameters such as wages, output, consumption, human capital levels, business migration, unemploy- ment and household income in regions with different levels of development [26]. The benefits of internal migration include the costs associated with job oppor- tunities or other financial benefits. Examples of such benefits include higher wages or better employment, better job prospects and cheaper housing. Associated costs include the costs of moving a household, the time costs associated with finding new housing and employment, and the loss of local networks or locally specific human capital. In addition to economic con- siderations, other important costs and benefits relate to local amenities or family issues [27]. Karhula et al. [28] add however, that cheap housing in poorer urban areas can be an attractive option for those mi- grating to study. At least initially, students also have greater opportunities to move to wealthier areas after graduation. Over time, however, both processes (the migration of the less well-off as well as the emigration of the better-off) can potentially lead to a concentra- tion of low-paid and low-skilled internal migrants in more deprived neighbourhoods. However, there is also other research on the factors that influence internal migration. Research [12] has shown that the fragmentation of rural agricultural land is triggering a process of rural- to-urban migration in India. The higher the extent of subdivision and fragmentation of agricultural land the lower will be the agricultural productivity and the higher will be the extent of rural-to-urban migration. Rural industrialization has been found to play a sig- nificant role in determining the extent of rural-urban migration in India. The higher the degree of rural industrialization, the higher will be the employment opportunities and hence lower will be the extent of rural-to-urban migration. On the other hand, rural unemployment acts as a driving factor in the pro- cess of rural-to-urban migration. In many cases, it has been found that due to unavailability of jobs in the rural sector, people are forced to migrate from the rural to the urban sector. The most important factor which significantly explains the rural-to-urban migration pattern is the urban amenity index. Oppor- tunities to lead a better quality of life in urban centres act as a pull factor in this rural-to-urban migration process as well as an impulse factor in determining the extent of rural-to-urban migration. According to [29], rural-to-urban migration has been one of the key drivers of demographic development over the last three decades worldwide. Global forces can also affect internal migration in 55 M. Levický, V. Papcunová, M. Urbaníková, A. Kozloková Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings other ways. As manufacturing in many industrial economies becomes more labour-intensive or less com- petitive compared to emerging economies, smaller or more peripheral cities may experience population de- cline [13]. Research [30], which examined migration flows from Wrocław, shows that there are also perma- nent migration flows to other rural communities in the voivodeship and other major cities in the country. The migration to rural areas that are not close to the city is significant. Against the background of a general decline in the urbanisation index for Poland and Dolnośląskie Voivodeship, this may indicate that anti-urbanisation processes are taking place in the country and the region. Moreover, this phenomenon involves not only a redistribution of population be- tween the city and its suburbs, but also an outflow of population from the city to peripheral areas. This is confirmed by [31], who states that permanent migra- tion from urban to rural areas occurs in most cases in peri-urban zones. These migrations are largely a consequence of, but probably also the reason for, the increased amount of housing development in the vicinity of cities. Given that the subjects of permanent migration to peri-urban zones are young people just before or just after entering into (in)formal relation- ships, this value appears to be a good variable, useful in identifying urban functional areas at different levels of the urban hierarchy. Permanent internal migration in rural areas is less significant among all directions of migration. They share a common characteristic, that is, they usually take place between places that are not distant, between neighbouring units. However, accord- ing to [32], internal migration not only increases the region’s population, but young people’s enthusiasm, self-fulfilment, risk-taking and entrepreneurship will drive innovation and development. At the same time, such migration will bring racial and cultural diversity to cities, fostering integration, while also providing the right conditions for innovation. This is confirmed by [24], who states that population redistribution con- tributes to the flow of innovation between regions. At the same time, however, Chen and Rosenthal [33] pointed out that economic benefits seem to be an important driver for young people and those with a university education, but amenities such as climate seem to be more important for older people. One of the other factors influencing internal migra- tion was the amount of information they had about where they wanted to settle and the amount of as- sistance they could expect to receive there. Studies on internal migration provide ample evidence of the existence of various social networks that link urban and rural communities and provide migrants with ex- tensive information and practical assistance. Social networks vary in nature: some are based on blood rela- tions, others on professional ties, personal friendships or common geographical origins [34]. Networks enable immigrants to accumulate social capital, facilitate the acquisition and distribution of information and the availability of ethnic goods and services, and reduce the costs of migration and the risk of discrimination in labour markets [35]. Interestingly, internal migration is largely ignored as a consequence of global, regional and national policymaking, but the topic of urbaniza- tion, which is a direct consequence of international and internal movements, is hotly debated [36]. 2. Materials and methods The aim of the article is to evaluate the level and development of migration in Slovakia and to identify its causes in the Gemer region, which is among the least economically productive regions of Slovakia. We tried to find answers to the following research questions: (1.) How important are the push and pull factors that motivate people to migrate? (2.) Are there significant differences between individ- ual factors? (3.) Are there significant differences in opinions in terms of gender, residence and level of education? To evaluate the status and development of migra- tion, we used analytical indicators of migration. For example, gross and net migration, immigration and emigration, the migration balance index, which shows the efficiency of migration, and the gross migration balance. The main source for the calculation of analyt- ical indicators was the Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic, specifically the Statistical Yearbooks of the Slovak Republic, as well as the Regional statistical yearbooks of the Slovak Republic. We investigated the motivation for migration and its causes based on the push-pull model. We used data from a questionnaire survey in which residents of the Gemer region participated. Respondents filled out questionnaires in the Google Forms application. From a methodological point of view, we focused on the psychological barriers of the respondents to fill out content- and technically demanding questionnaires. Based on the above, we compiled the most suitable questionnaire with an adequate number of the sim- plest possible questions. When designing the ques- tionnaire items, we emphasized their mutual symbio- sis. Pilot testing was carried out on a small sample of respondents in order to find out feedback on the comprehensibility of the questionnaire. After slight adjustments, the result was 6 questions focused on the socio-demographic characteristics of the respon- dents and 6 questions related to the solved problem. We used random sampling to construct the research sample. There were 316 correctly completed question- naires. We conducted the research from January to March 2023. Table 1 summarizes the personal characteristics of the respondents. The group included 179 women (56.65 %) and 137 men (43.35 %). Next, we focused on the characteristics of residence and education. We 56 vol. 46/2024 Development and causes of migration in lagging regions . . . Variable Number of respondents Percentage Gender Female 179 56.65 Male 137 43.35 Total 316 100.00 Residence Town 176 55.70 Countryside 140 44.30 Total 316 100.00 Education Elementary 8 2.53 Secondary 152 48.10 University 156 49.37 Total 316 100.00 Table 1. Personal characteristics of the participants. Source: Processing by the authors based on their own questionnaire survey: The main causes of migration in the Gemer region. 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Immigrants 7,188 7,253 7,016 6,775 5,733 Emigrants 3,466 3,298 3,384 2,428 3,395 Total migration 10,654 10,551 10,400 9,203 9,128 Migration balance 3,722 3,955 3,632 4,347 2,338 Table 2. Development of international migration in Slovakia and its analytical indicators [37–41]. present these characteristics because they were the subject of our research in our own work. Of the total number of respondents, 176 (55.70 %) lived in the city and 140 (44.30 %) lived in the countryside. The struc- ture of the selection set was approximately the same as the structure of the base set for these two charac- teristics. In terms of education, the research sample consisted of 8 respondents (2.53 %) with completed primary education, 152 respondents (48.10 %) with completed secondary education and 156 respondents (49.37 %) with completed university education. The higher representation of respondents with completed university education is primarily related to their will- ingness to participate in questionnaire surveys. For the purpose of evaluating the data obtained from the questionnaire survey, we used descriptive and inferential statistics. Considering the type of data obtained, we preferred to use non-parametric tests. Specifically, we used the Friedman test for comparison of multiple dependent samples. The sub- sequent examination of the two experimental units was carried out using the Nemenyi post-hoc test. We will also use the Chi-square test of independence to determine the dependence of two nominal variables. All tests were performed at a significance level of 0.05. Data analysis for this purpose was created using the Real Statistics Resource Pack software (release 7.6). Copyright (2013–2021) Charles Zaiontz [42]. 3. Results and discussion 3.1. International and internal migration in Slovakia We will evaluate the development and state of mi- gration in Slovakia for the period from 2017 to 2021 (Table 2). In 2017 and 2018, the number of immi- grants showed an upward trend, although the increase was minimal [37, 38]. Since 2019, there has been a de- crease every year. While only 241 fewer people chose Slovakia as a destination country between 2019 and 2020, between 2020 and 2021 the number of immi- grants decreased by 1 042 people. This was probably caused by the situation related to the COVID19 pan- demic at the time. The numbers of emigrants did not change significantly except for one year. In the first monitored year, the number of emigrants was 3 466. Subsequently, a decrease in migration values can be observed in 2020. This change was caused by the pandemic described above and its negative consequences. The number of emigrants decreased by 956 between 2019 and 2020. By 2021, however, the situation stabilized again and the values again reached the median and average from previous years. The number of immigrants is always higher than the number of emigrants. Between 2017 and 2021, on av- erage, 3 599 more people immigrated than emigrated. This indicates that Slovakia is a target destination from an economic, social, demographic and cultural point of view. The volume of migration is the sum 57 M. Levický, V. Papcunová, M. Urbaníková, A. Kozloková Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 SR total 95 132 98 414 98 677 87 853 92 768 in the district 42 590 44 222 42 837 39 343 41 772 between districts 27 800 28 809 28 854 25 478 27 019 between regions 24 742 25 383 26 986 23 032 23 977 Table 3. Development of internal migration in Slovakia [37–41]. of the number of immigrated and emigrated persons. It can also be called gross migration. During the monitored period, this volume of migration was the highest in 2017. Subsequently, it began to gradually decrease. Net migration is the difference between the number of people who moved in and the number of people who left. In the first three years, the value of this indicator was at the level of 3 700, then it in- creased to 4 347 in 2020. This increase was caused by a greater decrease in the number of emigration than immigration. Finally, the migration rate reached its lowest value in 2021. This was due to the fact that in 2021, compared to the previous year, the number of immigrants decreased and the number of emigrants increased [37–41]. Internal migration (Table 3), which includes popu- lation movements within a country’s borders for eco- nomic, political or social reasons, is considered both a cause and a consequence of regional imbalance [26]. If we consider the average of migration between 2017 and 2021, we can say that the majority of people – specifically 45 % of internal migration – took place within one district. Another 29 % of persons involved in internal migration moved from one district to an- other within the county. The remaining 26 % moved from one region to another within Slovakia. Internal migration can also be examined on a regional basis. The largest increase in migration over a long period was recorded in the Bratislava region, which is the most economically productive region of Slovakia. In 2021, the gross migration rate per 10 000 inhabitants was 56.7 [41]. This value is significantly lower com- pared to recent years and 2019. The second highest gross rate of migration increase (28.6 persons per 10 000 inhabitants) was in the Trnava Region, where the gross rate in 2021 increased compared to the pre- vious year. Only these two regions in Slovakia had a positive population increase during the monitored period. Other regions have long-term migration losses, i.e. the number of emigrants exceeded the number of immigrants in all monitored years. The largest migra- tion decreases were recorded in the Banská Bystrica and Prešov regions, in both regions in 2021 there were 16.4 gross migrants per 10 000 inhabitants [37–41]. 3.2. Migration in the Gemer region The Gemer region is located in the south-eastern part of Slovakia and had 178 680 inhabitants in 2021 [43]. It includes the districts of Rimavská Sobota, Revúca and Rožňava. These districts are not only geographically similar, but also share a common history, similar social structure and culture of life. Although they are part of the same region, Rimavská Sobota and Revúca belong to the Banská Bystrica region, while Rožňava belongs to the Košice region [23]. The Gemer region belongs to the regions of Slovakia with the lowest economic performance. Due to the availability of data on regional migration, we focused on its evaluation for the period from 2017 to 2020 [44]. In each district of the Gemer region, we monitored how the number of immigrants and emigrants changed. We further divided immigrants and emigrants into two groups: immigrated from/to Slovakia and immigrated from/to abroad. Every year, more people leave the Gemer region than move into. This means that the number of emigrants exceeded the number of immigrants every year. Noticeably more people moved to other parts of Slovakia than abroad. In the case of immigrants to the Gemer region, in the monitored years, on average, five times more people came from other parts of Slovakia than from abroad. Eighteen times more people immigrated to other parts of Slovakia than abroad [44]. • Median number of people emigrating from Slovakia: 882. • Median number of persons who immigrated from abroad: 173. • Median number of persons migrating to other parts of Slovakia: 1 388. • Median number of persons migrating abroad: 84. Net migration shows a fluctuating development. In 2017 and 2019, net migration increased compared to the previous year. In 2018 and 2020, it was at the level of approximately −370. In the next part, we examine the reasons for mi- gration in the Gemer region (Table 4), based on the answers to the questionnaire we composed. In addi- tion to socio-demographic questions, we investigated where the respondents currently work and whether they were thinking about moving out of the region. Subsequently, we investigated the respondents’ moti- vations based on the push-pull model. Push factors are factors that, for various reasons, force someone to leave the place of their birth and look for new oppor- tunities elsewhere. On the other hand, pull factors are factors that attract migrants to a specific place and offer various advantages, benefits and better living conditions. The combination of these two factors helps 58 vol. 46/2024 Development and causes of migration in lagging regions . . . Immigrants Emigrants Net migration from SK from abroad total to SK to abroad total 2017 918 164 1 082 1 427 84 1 511 −429 2018 911 173 1 084 1 388 88 1 476 −392 2019 841 174 1 015 1 460 83 1 543 −528 2020 801 216 1 017 1 315 52 1 367 −350 Table 4. Development of migration trends in the Gemer region [44]. determine the reasons for emigration and immigration of people from one country to another [45]. Push and pull factors are usually opposite. For example the push factor of lack of job opportunities in the rural areas is the opposite of the pull factor of abundant vacant jobs in the urban areas [46]. The basic results show that 55 % of respondents would not want to leave the Gemer region. A total of 24 % of respondents would like to leave Slovakia and move to another country. 21 % of respondents would like to move to another region in Slovakia. Respon- dents who would like to leave the region also stated their reasons. In the twelfth question, respondents could choose from three predefined options or enter their own answer. Of those who wanted to move, up to 64 % said economic reasons prevailed, 15 % cited demographic reasons and 13 % socio-cultural and po- litical reasons. The remaining 9 % gave their own answer. The respondents most often stated: better work, studies, low living standards, family ties, weak infrastructure, lack of opportunities in the field of culture and sports, or a weak offer of commercial services. Based on the established research questions, we fur- ther investigated the relationship between the selected socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents and questions related to attitudes towards migration. Specifically, we investigated whether there is a dif- ference in the propensity to migrate with respect to gender, level of education of the respondent and with respect to his place of residence (whether the person lives in a city or in the countryside). In all cases, these were nominal variables, and testing was performed using the Chi-square test of independence. The re- sults of the calculated p-values are documented in Table 5. Based on it, it can be concluded that the null hypothesis can be rejected only in the case of the first alternative, as the calculated p-value is smaller than the confidence interval of 95.00 %. We can say that there is a difference in the propensity to migrate between men and women. Specifically, 52.55 % of men and 39.66 % of women thought about emigrating from the region. This is an expected result given the tra- ditional model of family functioning, where the man takes responsibility for the material security of the family. This confirms the results of family migration research, according to which couples’ decisions about migration are more often made with regard to the male career than the female career [47]. Couples are Variable p-value Gender – propensity to migrate 0.023 Gender – destination of migration 0.160 Education – propensity to migrate 0.448 Residence – propensity to migrate 0.094 Table 5. Results of the investigation of the relation- ship between the respondents’ personal characteristics and their propensity to migrate. Source: Processing and calculations by the authors based on their own questionnaire survey: The main causes of migration in the Gemer region. more likely to move for the male’s job than for the female’s job [48, 49] and social-economic and work characteristics of the man often have a greater influ- ence on the couple’s propensity to migrate than the characteristics of the woman. In other cases, the calcu- lated p-value is higher than 0.05 and therefore we do not reject the null hypothesis. There is no difference in how men and women perceive the goal of migration (domestic or foreign migration). Furthermore, the propensity to migrate is not related to the level of ed- ucation. University-educated people are interested in migrating from the region due to limited employment in the region. People with lower education, whose motivation to migrate includes both limited opportu- nities for employment and low wages. It is interesting to note that there is no significant difference in the propensity to migrate with respect to the place of residence. We hypothesized that in an economically weak region, the propensity to migrate will be higher among residents who live in the countryside. Table 6 shows the respondents’ answers regarding pull factors. On a scale from 1 (the least important fac- tor) to 5 (the most important factor), the respondents expressed the subjective importance of the mentioned pull factors. The arithmetic mean of all items was 3.56, which indicates that pull factors are important for the residents of the region. Table 6 contains arith- metic means of each evaluated pull factor, standard deviations and interval estimates of the mean at a con- fidence interval of 95.00 %. The factors are ranked from most important to least important based on the arithmetic mean. The most important pull factor is better living conditions in the target region, which can be considered an expected result. This confirms the results of studies according to which most migrants 59 M. Levický, V. Papcunová, M. Urbaníková, A. Kozloková Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings Pull factors Average St. dev. −95.00 % +95.00 % A. Better living conditions 3.965 1.161 3.837 4.094 B. Higher wages 3.915 1.225 3.779 4.050 C. Better working conditions 3.851 1.234 3.715 3.988 D. Career opportunities 3.848 1.251 3.710 3.987 E. Better health care 3.475 1.298 3.331 3.618 F. Better educational opportunities 3.386 1.274 3.245 3.527 G. Family relations 3.358 1.374 3.206 3.510 H. Better climatic conditions 2.867 1.307 2.722 3.012 I. Political and religious freedom 2.440 1.407 2.284 2.596 Scale: 5 = most important, 1 = least important Table 6. The importance of pull factors. Source: Processing and calculations by the authors based on their own questionnaire survey: The main causes of migration in the Gemer region. Factors p-value Factors p-value Factors p-value Factors p-value A-B 0.987 B-D 1.000 C-G 0.046 E-G 1.000 A-C 0.747 B-E 0.010 C-H 0.000 E-H 0.000 A-D 0.929 B-F 0.000 C-I 0.000 E-I 0.000 A-E 0.000 B-G 0.004 D-E 0.029 F-G 0.943 A-F 0.000 B-H 0.000 D-F 0.000 F-H 0.022 A-G 0.000 B-I 0.000 D-G 0.013 F-I 0.000 A-H 0.000 C-D 1.000 D-H 0.000 G-H 0.000 A-I 0.000 C-E 0.093 D-I 0.000 G-I 0.000 B-C 0.998 C-F 0.000 E-F 0.854 H-I 0.009 Table 7. Comparison of pairs of pull factors by Nemenyi post test. Source: Processing and calculations by the authors based on their own questionnaire survey: The main causes of migration in the Gemer region. move in search of better economic opportunities [4]. Other factors in order of importance include higher wages in the target region, better working conditions, the possibility of realizing a career or better health care. It should also be noted that in the case of lag- ging regions we can talk about labour migration. It is obvious that in this case economic pull factors will reach higher levels of importance [50]. Nevertheless, we agree with the opinion [51], according to which non-economic factors also play a very important role in the decision on migration. The least important factors are better climatic con- ditions or political and religious freedom in the target region. Better climatic conditions were not so impor- tant for the respondents due to relatively homogeneous climatic conditions in the country. The distribution of the population in terms of religion in Slovakia is also relatively homogeneous with majority representation. The situation is similar in the case of religion. In 2021, there were 68.80 % Christians in Slovakia, 23.80 % of people with no religion and 0.90 % of people with other religion. The order of pull factors shown in Table 6 is valid only for a sample set of respondents. If we want to generalize these results (order of pull factors) to the level of the basic set, we need to find out whether the differences in the respondents’ answers are sta- tistically significant. For this purpose, we used the Friedman test, through which we verified the validity of the null hypothesis. The null hypothesis assumed that the average level of all pull factors is the same compared to the alternative. The calculated p-value of the Friedman test was 0.000, which means that we reject the null hypothesis. There are statistically significant differences between the level of at least two pull factors. To achieve more accurate results, we had to perform Nemenyi post test, the results of which are shown in Table 7. Based on the results of Nemenyi post test, it can be concluded that the factors of better living conditions, higher wages, better working conditions and career opportunities are significantly more important than other pull factors (at the 90.00 % confidence level). On the other hand, the factor of political and religious freedom is significantly the least important among the other mentioned pull factors. Table 8 captures the responses regarding push fac- tors. Push factors are a negative motivation to mi- grate. These are factors that motivate people to emi- grate from their place of residence. In this case as well, the respondents assigned numbers from 1 to 5 to the individual factors. The number 1 corresponded to the lowest importance and the number 5 to the highest importance. The overall average of all responses was 3.251. Compared to the value of pull factors, this is a smaller number. This may mean that pull factors 60 vol. 46/2024 Development and causes of migration in lagging regions . . . Push factor Average St. dev. −95.00 % +95.00 % A. Lack of jobs 3.943 1.225 3.807 4.079 B. Bad economic conditions of the region 3.785 1.231 3.649 3.921 C. High unemployment 3.592 1.341 3.443 3.740 D. Few opportunities for career growth 3.560 1.297 3.417 3.704 E. Poor health care 3.437 1.307 3.292 3.581 F. Poor living conditions in the region 2.851 1.262 2.711 2.991 G. Discrimination in the region 2.794 1.321 2.648 2.941 H. Lack of political or religious freedom 2.044 1.236 1.907 2.181 Scale: 5 = most important, 1 = least important Table 8. The importance of push factors. Source: Processing and calculations by the authors based on their own questionnaire survey: The main causes of migration in the Gemer region. Factors p-value Factors p-value Factors p-value Factors p-value A-B 0.961 B-C 0.357 C-E 0.981 D-H 0.000 A-C 0.024 B-D 0.135 C-F 0.000 E-F 0.000 A-D 0.005 B-E 0.036 C-G 0.000 E-G 0.000 A-E 0.001 B-F 0.000 C-H 0.000 E-H 0.000 A-F 0.000 B-G 0.000 D-E 1.000 F-G 1.000 A-G 0.000 B-H 0.000 D-F 0.000 F-H 0.000 A-H 0.000 C-D 1.000 D-G 0.000 G-H 0.000 Table 9. Comparison of pairs of push factors by Nemenyi post test. Source: Processing and calculations by the authors based on their own questionnaire survey: The main causes of migration in the Gemer region. represent a generally more important motivation for respondents to migrate than push factors. Push fac- tors are arranged in Table 8 based on the arithmetic mean from most important to least important. Based on the descriptive statistics, it can be concluded that the most important push factor is the lack of jobs, which can be considered an expected result. In order of importance, the poor economic conditions of the re- gion, high unemployment, few opportunities for career growth and poor health care were ranked next. It is in- teresting that poor health care was a more important factor for the respondents than poor housing condi- tions, as the majority of the sample was represented by the younger population. The least important push factors included discrimination and lack of political and religious freedom. In order to find out whether the results from Table 8 are generally valid for the base set (residents of the Gemer region), we will use the Friedman test. The calculated p-value was 0.000, which means that we can reject the null hypothesis. Therefore, the alternative hypothesis is valid, based on which there is a statisti- cally significant difference in at least one pair of factors (in their arithmetic averages). To obtain more detailed results, we will perform Nemenyi post test, the results of which are in Table 9. We can say that the lack of jobs is the most important among all other factors (ex- cept for bad economic conditions in the region). It can also be concluded that the factor of lack of political and religious freedom is significantly the least impor- tant push factor for the inhabitants of the region. 4. Conclusion Migration is a complex phenomenon and it has many different effects on society. It is important to under- stand its causes, consequences and risks in order to develop an effective policy in this area. Migration can also be defined as the spatial movement of the popula- tion and one of the most important components of pop- ulation development and regional development [52]. We can conclude that Slovakia is attracting people in terms of migration in the current situation. More people immigrate to Slovakia than emigrate from it. This is mainly due to the fact that business and eco- nomic conditions have improved since 2004, which has enabled Slovakia to compete with other countries. Innovations and reforms increased labour productivity, reduced unemployment and increased the number of foreign migrants [53]. Although the current situation is positive, it should not be considered closed. The COVID-19 pandemic radically limited migration flows, but already in 2021 there was an intensive increase in migration. During the five monitored years, the aver- age number of internal migrants was 94 569 [37–41]. The majority of these internal migrants, namely 45 %, moved within one district. In other words, they did not leave the district of their residence, but migrated within it. 29 % of internal migrants moved from one district to another within the region. The remaining 26 % moved to another region within the country. The Bratislava Region was the area within Slovakia where the largest increase in migration was recorded in the monitored years. The stated fact confirms the general 61 M. Levický, V. Papcunová, M. Urbaníková, A. Kozloková Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings empirical research according to which the greatest migration activity takes place in the most developed regions. The level of development of these regions compared to other regions is very high, which is re- flected in their attractiveness for migration [54]. The largest migration declines were recorded in the Banská Bystrica and Prešov regions. We also paid attention to the Gemer region, which is among the least econom- ically productive regions of Slovakia. It is a marginal and disadvantaged region with a lower standard of living, an aging population, a lower number of job opportunities, a lower educational level and lower in- vestments [55]. A negative migration balance with the threat of depopulation is typical for this region. Every year, more people leave the Gemer region than move into [44]. Net migration shows a fluctuating trend. The questionnaire survey showed that 21 % of the inhabitants of the Gemer region regularly migrate. Based on the results of the questionnaire survey, it follows that the favourite destination countries are Hungary, Germany, the Netherlands, Austria, Italy, England and the Czech Republic. Within the country, the most common destinations are Bratislava, Prešov and Košice regions. 45 % of respondents would like to move from the Gemer region, of which 24 % to abroad and 21 % to another part of Slovakia. The Gemer region is a region with a long-term negative migration balance, which loses its potential from the labour pro- duction factor and thus its chances for convergence decrease [54]. On the other hand, some authors con- sider migration as a necessary feature of development that can improve income distribution by providing households with the opportunity to diversify their income portfolio [16]. A total of 64 % of respondents cited economic reasons for migration. This result con- firmed the empirical assumption about the importance of economic reasons for migration. This is also con- firmed by the majority of studies, according to which the economic factors of migration can be considered a key and significant driving force in the decision of migrant workers, and most migrants move in search of better economic opportunities [4, 56]. Furthermore, 36 % of respondents to the questionnaire survey stated demographic, sociocultural or other reasons for mi- gration. Based on the conducted research, we can conclude that the propensity to migrate is dependent on gender, but it is not dependent on the respondent’s place of residence and his education. On the contrary, based on the results [57], it follows that residents with higher education show the greatest interest in migration. However, this survey was conducted before Slovakia joined the EU, when the conditions for migra- tion were more difficult and the educational level of the country’s population was lower. We investigated the motivation to migrate based on the well-known push-pull model [23]. The most important pull factors that motivate individuals to migrate to another place include better living conditions and higher wages. One of the most important push factors that motivates residents to migrate from their place of residence is clearly the lack of jobs. Research [56] proved that there is a stronger correlation between the number of migrant employees and the number of job vacancies. Discrimination or the level of religious and political freedom do not play an important role in deciding on population migration. Acknowledgements This article is a part of the solution of the project VEGA 1/0466/21 “Evaluation of the quality of the business envi- ronment in Slovakia with an emphasis on entry into busi- ness in and the post-pandemic period”, VEGA 1/0517/22 “Mapping of processes and financial impacts at the level of local self-governments in the conditions of the COVID-19 pandemic” and part of the solution of the project KEGA 029UKF-4/2022: Preparation of the structure and con- tent of the subject, textbook and e-learning course “En- trepreneurial skills” for non-economic study programs with a focus on the online environment. References [1] L. Spálová, P. Mikuláš. Media – Migration – Politics. Peter Lang Verlag, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3726/b19495 [2] M. Bilic, A. Krogmann. Zahraničná migrácia a jej vplyv na životnú úroveň obyvatel’ov a krajinu Slovenska. Univerzita Konštantína Filozofa v Nitre, 2015. [3] M. Z. Alam, A. A. Mamun. Dynamics of internal migration in Bangladesh: Trends, patterns, determinants, and causes. PLOS ONE 17(2):1–19, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263878 [4] Z. Hautzinger, J. Hegedűs, Z. Klenner. A migráció elmélete. [Theory of migration]. NKE RTK Budapest 2014. [5] P. R. Dadhania. State responsibility for forced migration. Boston College Law Review 64(4):745–800, 2023. [6] B. Şahin Kütük. The reflection of labour migration from Turkey to Western Europe to sociological studies. Journal of Economy Culture and Society (52):609–654, 2015. https://doi.org/10.18368/iu/sk.19012 [7] S. Murat. European union countries and Turkey’s comparative population structure. In Bilgi – Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, vol. 3, pp. 23–47. 2000. [8] Z. Erdoğan, Z. Karakoç Dora. Belarus-Poland migration crisis and supra-national political concerns of the extended actors. Güvenlik Bilimleri Dergisi 11(2):417–440, 2022. https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.1119842 [9] M. Piotrowski. Krótkoterminowe zatrudnienia cudzoziemców w Polsce. zmiany zasad i ich ocena. Studia Prawno-Ekonomiczne 113:243–257, 2019. https://doi.org/10.26485/spe/2019/113/14 [10] M. Bell, A. Bernard, E. Charles-Edwards, W. Ke. Comparative measures of internal migration. In Internal Migration in the Countries of Asia, pp. 31–48. Springer International Publishing, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44010-7_3 62 https://doi.org/10.3726/b19495 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263878 https://doi.org/10.18368/iu/sk.19012 https://doi.org/10.28956/gbd.1119842 https://doi.org/10.26485/spe/2019/113/14 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44010-7_3 vol. 46/2024 Development and causes of migration in lagging regions . . . [11] S. Łodziński, M. Szonert. Polityka migracyjna “bez polityki”. Antynomie tworzenia polityki migracyjnej w Polsce w okresie 2016–2022. CMR Working Papers 130(188):1–29, 2023. [12] D. Chakraborty, P. K. Kuri. Internal migration in India: Causes and determinants. IASSI Quarterly 26(4):47–63, 2008. [13] P. Rees, M. Bell, M. Kupiszewski, et al. The impact of internal migration on population redistribution: an international comparison. Population, Space and Place 23(6):e2036, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2036 [14] R. King, R. Skeldon. ‘Mind the gap!’ Integrating approaches to internal and international migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 36(10):1619–1646, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2010.489380 [15] C. Tiwari, S. Bhattacharjee, P. Sethi, D. Chakrabarti. Internal migration and rural inequalities in India. Population Research and Policy Review 41(4):1673–1698, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-022-09707-5 [16] I. Lennerova. Economic impact of migration, in perspective directions of scientific researches. In Perspective Directions Of Scientific Researches, Collection of scientific articles, pp. 70–75. 2016. [17] V. Von Berlepsch, A. Rodríguez-Pose. The missing ingredient: distance. Internal migration and its long- term economic impact in the United States. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 47(9):2198–2217, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1567303 [18] M. M. Gordon. Assimilation in American life: The role of race, religion, and national origins. Oxford University Press, USA, 1964. [19] D. S. Massey. Ethnic residential segregation: A theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Sociology and social research 69:315–350, 1985. [20] O. Casacchia, C. Reynaud, S. Strozza, E. Tucci. Inter-provincial migration in Italy: a comparison between Italians and foreigners. European spatial research and policy 26(1):101–126, 2019. https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.26.1.06 [21] J. Silvestre, D. S. Reher. The internal migration of immigrants: Differences between one-time and multiple movers in Spain. Population, Space and Place 20(1):50– 65, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1755 [22] A. Boman. The mobility of immigrants and natives: Evidence from internal migration following job displacement. Regional Studies 45(3):283–297, 2011. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903431003 [23] K. K. Thet. Pull and push factors of migration: A case study in the urban area of Monywa Township, Myanmar. News from the World of Statistics 1(24):1–14, 2014. [24] R. King. Theories and typologies of migration: An overview and a primer. Malmö Universtity, Malmö Institute for Studies of Migration, Diversity and Welfare, 2013. [25] H. de Haas. A theory of migration: the aspirations-capabilities framework. Comparative Migration Studies 9(1):8, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00210-4 [26] Y. Bayraktar, A. Özyilmaz. Internal migrations as a driving force of regional disintegration: An empirical analysis of NUTS-2 regions in Turkey. Insan & toplum 11(3):197–214, 2021. https://doi.org/10.12658/M0632 [27] R. Molloy, C. L. Smith, A. Wozniak. Job changing and the decline in long-distance migration in the United States. Demography 54(2):631–653, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0551-9 [28] A. H. S. Karhula, P. McMullin, E. Sutela, et al. Rural-urban migration pathways and residential segregation in the Helsinki region. Finnish Yearbook of Population Research 2021. [29] G. C. Pencea, A. B. Curteanu. Internal and external migration. Postmodern Openings 11(1):57–70, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18662/po/108 [30] M. Długosz, R. Szmytkie. Migratory outflow from Wrocław: Directions of population flows within the framework of internal migration in the period 2002–2018. Quaestiones Geographicae 40(2):19–33, 2021. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0014 [31] D. Ilnicki. Rural areas as the origin and destination of permanent internal migrations between 2002 and 2017 in Poland. A local-level analysis (NUTS 5). Quaestiones Geographicae 39(2):15–30, 2020. https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2020-0015 [32] X. Zhao, X. Li. The influence of internal migration on regional innovation in China. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 34(1):498–520, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2020.1792325 [33] Y. Chen, S. S. Rosenthal. Local amenities and life-cycle migration: Do people move for jobs or fun? Journal of Urban Economics 64(3):519–537, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2008.05.005 [34] I. Ofer. Mobility of ‘the defeated’: internal migration and social advancement in a post-civil war society. Mobilities 12(3):479–491, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2016.1208413 [35] N. Finney, L. Simpson. Internal migration and ethnic groups: evidence for Britain from the 2001 Census. Population, Space and Place 14(2):63–83, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.481 [36] D. Pitoski, T. J. Lampoltshammer, P. Parycek. Network analysis of internal migration in Croatia. Computational Social Networks 8(1):10, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40649-021-00093-0 [37] Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Statistical yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2018. 2019. [38] Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Statistical yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2019. 2020. [39] Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Statistical yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2020. 2021. [40] Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Statistical yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2021. 2022. [41] Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Statistical yearbook of the Slovak Republic 2022. 2023. [42] C. Zaiontz. Real statistics using Excel 2020, 2021. [2023-05-27]. https://www.real-statistics.com 63 https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.2036 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2010.489380 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-022-09707-5 https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2019.1567303 https://doi.org/10.18778/1231-1952.26.1.06 https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1755 https://doi.org/10.1080/00343400903431003 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-020-00210-4 https://doi.org/10.12658/M0632 https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-017-0551-9 https://doi.org/10.18662/po/108 https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2021-0014 https://doi.org/10.2478/quageo-2020-0015 https://doi.org/10.1080/1331677x.2020.1792325 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2008.05.005 https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2016.1208413 https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.481 https://doi.org/10.1186/s40649-021-00093-0 https://www.real-statistics.com M. Levický, V. Papcunová, M. Urbaníková, A. Kozloková Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings [43] P. Kuchař, L. Vaska. Regionálne aspekty nezamestnanosti v Českej republike a na Slovensku. IRIS-Vydavatel’stvo a tlač, sro, Bratislava, 2014. [44] M. Ondrušek. Medzinárodná migrácia ako odozva na disparity v sociálno-ekonomickom rozvoji svetových regiónov. Krízový manažment 9(1):75–85, 2010. [45] T. J. Cooke. Migration in a family way. Population, Space and Place 14(4):255–265, 2008. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.500 [46] I. Gordon. Migration in a segmented labour market. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers 20(2):139–155, 1995. https://doi.org/10.2307/622428 [47] Statistical office of the Slovak Republic. Census of inhabitants, houses and apartments 2021, 2021. [2023-08-15]. https://www.scitanie.sk [48] E. S. Shihadeh. The prevalence of husband-centered migration: Employment consequences for married mothers. Journal of Marriage and the Family 53(2):432– 444, 1991. https://doi.org/10.2307/352910 [49] J. Špilka. Štatistická ročenka regiónov Slovenska 2021: Regional statistical yearbook of Slovakia 2021. Štatistický úrad Slovenskej republiky, 2022. [50] M. Palát. Příčiny vzniku migrace a reflexe souvisejících teorií. In 17. mezinárodní kolokvium o regionálních vědách. Sborník příspěvků. 17th International Colloquium on Regional sciences. Conference Proceedings., pp. 708–714. Masaryk University Press, 2014. https: //doi.org/10.5817/cz.muni.p210-6840-2014-91 [51] W. A. V. Clark, R. Maas. Interpreting migration through the prism of reasons for moves. Population, Space and Place 21(1):54–67, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1844 [52] L. S. G. Repaska, K. Vilinova. Migration trends and their impact in the districts of Slovakia. International Scientific Conference on Region in the Development of the Society pp. 768–777, 2016. [53] E. Matouskova. Unemployment as factor of international migration. Journal of International Business Research and Marketing 5(2):16–19, 2020. https://doi.org/10.18775/jibrm.1849- 8558.2015.52.3003 [54] M. Janotka, V. Gazda, D. Horvath. Migration trends among regional clusters in Slovakia. Engineering Economics 24(5):437–446, 2013. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.3377 [55] D. Hutárová, I. Kozelová, J. Špulerová. Tourism development options in marginal and less-favored regions: A case study of Slovakia’s Gemer Region. Land 10(3):229, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030229 [56] Z. Beňová, K. Brocková. Factors affecting migration destination choices of international migrant workers in Slovakia. Geographia Cassoviensis 16(2):113–129, 2022. https://doi.org/10.33542/gc2022-2-03 [57] C. Wallace, C. W. Haerpfer. Migration potential in Slovakia. Sociológia 33(6):549–567, 2001. 64 https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.500 https://doi.org/10.2307/622428 https://www.scitanie.sk https://doi.org/10.2307/352910 https://doi.org/10.5817/cz.muni.p210-6840-2014-91 https://doi.org/10.5817/cz.muni.p210-6840-2014-91 https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1844 https://doi.org/10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.52.3003 https://doi.org/10.18775/jibrm.1849-8558.2015.52.3003 https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.24.5.3377 https://doi.org/10.3390/land10030229 https://doi.org/10.33542/gc2022-2-03 Acta Polytechnica CTU Proceedings 46:53–64, 2024 1 Introduction 2 Materials and methods 3 Results and discussion 3.1 International and internal migration in Slovakia 3.2 Migration in the Gemer region 4 Conclusion Acknowledgements References