Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as a Tool to Regulate Internal Migration and Reduce Social Vulnerability

Abstract

Purpose: The article explores links between the attractiveness of regional labor markets and internal migration as a change in the usual place of residence in Ukraine. Methodology: Based on the migration theory of “push-pull” a study of the attractiveness of regional labor markets as determinants of the intensification of internal migration in 24 regions of Ukraine (2010–2020) was conducted with the use of integrated assessment and balance econometric modeling. Findings: The study found that the internal migration activity in Ukraine is of urbanistic nature because the development of rural-urban area migration vectors dominates in the country. The most attractive regions in the focus of internal emigration and immigration processes are defined based on the developed rankings of the regions’ attractiveness by the system of labor market and employment development indicators. Research limitations: This article studies a specific country and its regions, along with the local labor market. One should be careful when generalizing the results to other regional labor markets. Originality/value: The level of regional labor markets’ attractiveness correlated with internal migration activity. The attractive regional labor market, high IT market development level, and increasing innovative-technological capacity proved the main attraction factors of these regions.

Full text

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
© 2022 Authors. This is an open access article distributed under the Creat ive Commons BY 4.0 license
(https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
„Central European Management Journal”
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022, p. 120–149, ISSN: 2658-0845, e-ISSN: 2658-2430
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool
to Regulate Internal Migration and Reduce Social Vulnerability1
Olha Mulska2, Taras Vasyltsiv3, Olha Levytska4, Tetiana Sabetska5, Liliia Stefanyshyn6
Submitted: 11.03.2022. Accepted: 4.10.2022
Abstract
Purpose: The article explores links between the attractiveness of regional labor markets and internal
migration as achange in the usual place of residence in Ukraine.
Methodology: Based on the migration theory of “push-pull” astudy of the attractiveness of regional
labor markets as determinants of the intensication of internal migration in 24 regions of Ukraine
(2010–2020) was conducted with the use of integrated assessment and balance econometric modeling.
Findings: The study found that the internal migration activity in Ukraine is of urbanistic nature
because the development of rural-urban area migration vectors dominates in the country. The most
attractive regions in the focus of internal emigration and immigration processes are dened based
on the developed rankings of the regions’ attractiveness by the system of labor market and employ-
ment development indicators.
Research limitations: This article studies aspecic country and its regions, along with the local
labor market. One should be careful when generalizing the results to other regional labor markets.
Originality/value: The level of regional labor markets’ attractiveness correlated with internal
migration activity. The attractive regional labor market, high IT market development level, and increas-
ing innovative-technological capacity proved the main attraction factors of these regions.
Keywords: migration, labor market, regulation tools, attractiveness, employment, balance, Ukraine.
JEL: J40, J60, J68
1 The study was conducted in the framework of applied research “Mechanisms of the proactive policy for reducing social vulnerabil-
ity of the population (based on the Carpathian region of Ukraine)” (No SR 0121U112014, M. Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of
National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, 2021–2023).
2
Corresp onding author, M. Dolishniy Ins titute of Regiona l Research of National Ac ademy of Sciences of Uk raine, Departmen t of Social
and Humanitarian Development of Regions, Ukraine; e-mail: oliochka.mulska@gmail.com; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1666-3971.
3
M. Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Department of Social and Humanitarian
Development of Regions, Ukraine; e-mail: tgvas77@ukr.net; http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2889-6924.
4
M. Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, Department of Social and Humanitarian
Development of Regions, Ukraine; e-mail: o.levytska@gmail.com; https://orcid.org /0000-0001-8174-9918.
5 Ivano-Frankivsk Education and Research Institute of Management, West Ukrainian National University, Depar tment of Internation-
al Economics, Marketing and Management, Ukraine; t.sabetska@gmail.com; https://orcid.org/000-0001-5742-2595.
6 Ivano-Frankivsk Education and Research Institute of Management, West Ukrainian National University, Depar tment of Internation-
al Economics, Marketing and Management, Ukraine; liliua627@gmail.com; https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1163-7782.

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 121
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
Introduction
After the permanent stabilization of the economic system in Ukraine in 2010–2013,
the social vulnerability of the population – especially its social-labor component – has
substantially increased since 2014 due to military conict in the east and its negative
consequences, including the large numbers of internally displaced persons, aggravated
employment problems, and growing international migration. There have been trends
of increasing stratication of the population by living standards, growing poverty,
labor precarization, social exclusion, and the emergence of new socially vulnerable
groups. It is conrmed by research conducted by the International Labour Organiza-
tion (ILO). According to its criteria, Ukraine is now acountry with high poverty and
alargely informal economy.
Internal migration is dened as the change of the usual place of residence inside the
country, whose level and intensity correlate with the attractiveness of the socioeco-
nomic environment and the competitiveness of regional labor markets in Ukraine.
Interregional migration does not impact the number and composition of the country’s
population in general, yet it causes changes in the settlement, age, and gender structures
of the population in some regions, showing acausal relationship with asymmetries
of regional development, urbanization, and rural depopulation processes.
The internal migration level of the Ukrainian population globally is 12%, while that
of international migration – over 3% (Eurostat, 2020). The reasons for the emergence of
internal migration are the same as the reasons for international migration, including
migration from depressed to dynamically developing regions, from rural areas to cities,
and the expansion of awareness that migration to other regions is the key to prospective
development and achievement of personal goals.
The above provides fertile ground to argue about the direct correlation between the
level of attractiveness of regional labor markets and interregional migration activity.
Therefore, the implementation of proactive regional labor markets development policy,
the creation of new competitive jobs, and the stabilization of the social-labor environ-
ment for the implementation of the intellectual-labor capacity of the population serve
as powerful tools to both regulate migration processes, use them to reduce the intensity
of international migration, keep labor resources in the country – especially the youth
– and reduce the population’s social and labor vulnerability.

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
122 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
The purpose of the research is to conduct abalance correlation analysis and detect
relationships between the attractiveness of regional labor markets and interregional
migration activity. To achieve this goal, we planned the following research structure:
1) assessment of migration activity levels by regions of Ukraine according to migra-
tion balance, internal migration activity, pendulum migration movements, and
the intensity of arrivals/departures;
2) comprehensive integrated assessment of the level of attractiveness of regional
labor markets and its links with internal immigration and emigration, gross
migration activity, and the migration activity structure by regions;
3) identication of links and assessment of the impact of labor market development
parameters on migration activity.
The study described below followed in the footsteps of the Lviv School of Regional
Research (Mulska et al., 2021; Sadova et al., 2020; Semiv et al., 2021; Levytska, 2022;
Vasyltsiv et al., 2020; Voznyak et al., 2021) in the migration theory of push-pull. There-
fore, in the context of limited studies on internal migration in Ukraine as determinant
of the attractiveness of regional labor markets, there was aneed to generate logical
information and an analytical system regarding (1) the scale and structural characte-
ristics of interregional disproportions of migration activity, (2) the attractiveness of
regional labor markets and employment, and (3) causal links between migration and
the attractiveness of regional labor markets. The implementation of such aresearch
algorithm allows us to determine the measures that will contribute to the use of migra-
tion potential for the socioeconomic development of regions.
The article will be organized as follows. The next section will delineate the theoretical
framework based on the push-pull theory of migration and areview of the literature
on changes in development tendency and attractiveness of the internal labor market.
Next, we will present the methodology of our study. Then, we will describe the study’s
analyses, while the concluding section will discuss managerial implications, limita-
tions, and recommendations for future research.
Literature Review
Internal Migration: Social and Economic Development Causal Nexus
The study on issues related to migration has gained relevance of late, because of grow-
ing mobility capacity, globalization, and differentiation by income, job opportunities,
or the quality of life of the population. The situation has caused the emergence of

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 123
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
arange of comprehensive studies addressing the scales, trends, and challenges of migra-
tion processes intensication (Hugo, 2000; Carletto et al., 2006; Castles and Miller,
2009; Rausser and Strielkowski, 2013; Eno and Henning, 2016; Vollmer and Maly-
novska, 2016; Mulska et al., 2020; 2021; Lupak, 2021).
The socioeconomic development of acountry is the object of different studies that show
how it is dened by awide range of various internal and external factors. Meanwhile,
most factors prove to have both positive and negative impacts, while having no relation-
ship with socioeconomic growth. Paying attention to the results of the current most
relevant publications, the problem of the course of migration processes – along with
the change of their intensity, forms, and consequences – is the most popular among the
preconditions and challenges of economic growth (Dastidar, 2017; Andersson et al., 2020).
Migration is both the consequence and factor of impact on socioeconomic development.
Therefore, when examining the relationships between socioeconomic development and
migration, we must rely on the studies of Bilan (2017), Voznyak et al. (2021), and other
researchers who explain the factors that are key in terms of decision-making on migra-
tion. It helps to understand the problems that lead to migration and substantiate the
priorities and decisions of state policy on migration intensity and volume management,
demonstrating the positive impact on processes of regions’ socioeconomic development.
Migration – both from and to the country, both internal and international – has sub-
stantial positive consequences outlined by Boschma and Lindgren (2014), including
the improvement of employment opportunities as the result of growing workforce
mobility (Bosworth, 2006), the capacity of business expansion abroad or permanent
business migration (Léon-Ledesma and Piracha, 2004; Kumar et al., 2018), nancial
and social support for economically depressed families in the countries of migrants’
origins (Singh et al., 2010; Meyer and Shera, 2017), and remittances that improve the
purchasing power and investment capacity of the population to secure the country’s
revitalization and development.
Therefore, migration processes are subject to public regulation with the aim to over-
come the challenges and threats for regional and national securities, on the one hand,
and strengthen the impact of positive aspects and their consequences, on the other
hand. Thus, the consequences and problems of regulating migration processes are
comprehensively studied in terms of the aspects of social protection of female migrants’
employment (Ireland, 2018), smoothing the peak periods of emigration growth (Jarosze-
wicz and Kaźmierkiewicz, 2014), and meeting the economy’s needs for an international
workforce (Keijzer et al., 2016).

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
124 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
The above matters have undergone scientic debates for several years now, especially
regarding the counterweights of social and labor environment – migration intensi-
cation – aggravated by problems of the population’s social vulnerability. High social
vulnerability leads to the population’s inability to meet its basic socioeconomic needs
along with social rights and interests. This issue is apowerful push factor of migra-
tion (Massey et al., 2010). Intensication of migration processes leads to social divi-
sions, weakens the social resilience of families, and aggravates arange of social and
household problems for both migrants (Aure et al., 2018) and their family members
that stay home (Voznyak et al., 2021). Therefore, migration problems activate and make
various aspects of social and labor vulnerability of the population more relevant
(Bhagat, 2017).
The long-term systemic consequences of the negative impact of critical migration
volumes and structurally imperfect migration are analyzed in Becker and Ferrara’s
2019 studies on the destruction of families and depopulation of regions, but also in
Mahmoud et a l.’s 2010 research on the use of migration to undermine the principles
of international, regional stability and security, man-made disasters, environmental
crises, and environmental degradation.
Link Between Internal Migration and Labor Market
Migration is akey dimension in the discussion about the trend and potential of demo-
graphic and economic concentration in cities and their inuence on socioeconomic
development. Thus, the classic models of internal migration – especially rural-urban
migration based on labor market differentials, meaning disparities in unemployment
and income – remain limited in their ability to explain urban migration (Berg et al.,
1982; Atienza and Aroca, 2012; Vignoli, 2017), as they tend to disregard factors related
to the area of residence (Pitkänen et al., 2019; Hear, 2017), culture, education, living
standards, and costs of living, which appear to motivate decisions to move from one
city to another and can sometimes be dissociated from levels and trajectories of income
and employment.
Recent scientic and applied developments on the assessment of migration impact on
the socioeconomic development of different regions (Wills et al., 2009; Rahman, 2013;
Sadova et al., 2020) still disallow one to fully directly analyze and calculate the cau-
sality of socioeconomic development of migration, differentiate the (direct and indirect)
inuence of migration on certain indicators of socioeconomic development, and identify
time lags (periods, intervals) in which one could observe the strongest mutual relation-
ships (both positive and negative) between migration and regional development.

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 125
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
Unfortunately, there are no studies and research results that would show close relation-
ships and develop efcient mechanisms and tools of public development policy, e.g. for
the improvement of the labor market and labor environment in the system of regulat-
ing internal migration processes regarding reducing the population’s social and labor
vulnerability. The origins of the discourse can be traced in Ryan (2018), Semiv et al. (2021),
and Vasyltsiv et al. (2021). However, the changes in the characteristics of social and
labor environment and the specics of alabor market, employment conditions, and inter
-
nal migration processes in acertain country call for further development of theoreti-
cal and methodological research on these problems, along with the empirical analysis
of relationships on the labor market, internal migration processes, and social domain
stabilization.
The above literature review informs our three hypotheses:
H1. Signicant differentiation of regional migration in Ukraine result from the
divergence of regions’ socioeconomic development and central-peripheral inter-
actions.
H2a. Ahigh level of regional labor market attractiveness determines the inten-
sication of regional immigration processes, while alow one – the intensica-
tion of emigration.
H2b. Differentiation of regional labor markets’ attractiveness determines the
nature of structural ratios in the distribution of acountry’s migration resources.
H3. There are stable causal relationships between migration, regional labor
markets’ attractiveness, and the effectiveness of regulations that allow ensuring
rational structural changes in internal migration and its scale, stimulating labor
market transformations, and encouraging employment in regions.
Data and Method
The study of internal migration in Ukraine was based on data about regional migration.
The empirical indicators of regional migration in Ukraine were the numbers regarding
arrivals, departures, and balance of internal migration, which demonstrated achange
in the population due to changes in their place of registration. The State Statistics
Service of Ukraine conducted several studies on regional migration, but there is no
systematic monitoring of migration. The system of information and analytical support

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
126 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
for the research of the internal migration intensity in Ukraine for 2014–2020 are pre
sented in Table 1.
Table 1.
Scale of departures and arrivals, total population of Ukraine (regional vector),
in thousands of persons
Regions
Departures Arrivals Total population
2014 2017 2020 2014 2017 2020 2014 2017 2020
Ukraine 499.8 413. 9 408.9 498.3 410.1 406.8 45426.2 42584.5 419 02.4
Vinnytska 24.8 6.9 13.9 25.1 11.6 16.3 1618.3 1590.4 1545.4
Volynska 13.8 8.6 10.6 13.3 9.4 10.7 10 41. 3 10 41.0 1031.4
Dnipropetrovska 36.7 50.2 25.9 37. 0 26.3 2 7.6 3292.4 3230.4 3176.6
Donetska 26.7 7.6 13.9 38.6 31.6 19.3 4343.9 4244.1 4131.8
Zhytomyrska 17.2 13.8 15.9 18.2 14.9 16.6 1262.5 1240.5 1208.2
Zakarpatska 6.3 5.5 5.1 6.5 5.6 5.5 1256.9 1258.8 1253.8
Zaporizka 17.4 7.2 12.6 18.9 10.3 14.6 1775.8 1739.5 16 87.4
Ivano-Frankivska 14.2 14.4 12.3 13.3 13.1 11.7 1382.1 1379.9 1368.1
Kyivska 31.6 53.3 47. 3 21.8 23.7 24.1 1725.5 1734.5 1781.0
Kirovohradska 13.8 10.4 9.9 15.0 12.5 12.4 98 7. 6 965.8 933.1
Luhanska 10.0 2.6 5.4 19.3 21.8 8.8 2239.5 2195.3 2135.9
Lvivska 26.9 28.1 25.1 25.7 25.8 24.4 2538.4 2534.0 2512.1
Mykolayivska 13.2 7.9 9.1 13.4 9.9 10.6 1168.4 1150.1 1119.9
Odeska 27.9 22.9 26.4 24.9 19.7 22.9 2396.5 2386.5 2 377.2
Poltavska 21.6 18.7 17. 8 21.4 20.2 18.0 1458.2 1426 .8 1 3 87.0
Rivnenska 18.4 15.1 14. 3 18.7 16.3 15.3 1158 .8 1162.8 1153.0
Sumska 16.4 15.7 12.4 17. 1 16.8 14.2 1133.0 1104.5 1068.2
Ternopilska 12.5 7.1 10.1 12.7 8.6 10.8 1073.3 1059.2 1038.7
Harkivska 35.5 47.1 33.0 32.7 32.7 30.9 273 7. 2 2701. 2 2658.5
Hersonska 12.9 4.9 8.4 14.0 7.6 10.2 1072.5 1055.6 1 027.9
Hmelnytska 19.9 7.7 15.8 20.2 10.5 15.9 13 0 7.0 1285.3 1254.7
Cherkaska 16.8 15.7 14.6 17.1 16.3 14.9 1260.0 1231.2 1192.1
Chernivetska 10.0 5.2 5.7 9.2 5.3 6.4 908.5 908.1 901.6
Chernihivska 12.9 8.4 10.3 13.8 10.5 11.2 1066.8 1033.4 991.3
Kyiv 42.5 29.1 33.3 30.5 29.0 33.5 2868.7 2925.8 2967.4
Source: own elaboration based on data of internal migration of State Statistics Service of Ukraine.

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 127
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
Thus, Kyiv is the main center of human resources gravitation in the interregional
migration of Ukraine. In 1995, net interregional migration numbered 4100 persons, in
2000 – 12,900 persons, while in 2007 – 24,800 persons. Net migration reduced under the
impact of the nancial crisis of 2007–2008, yet it has recovered since 2010. The posi-
tive net migration rate was 24,000 in 2012 (internal and international migration). The
net migration declined to 14,400 persons in Kyiv during the 2014–2015 systemic crisis.
Interestingly, in 2020, anegative net migration rate was observed in Ukraine (200 per-
sons) as the consequence of the coronavirus infection spread leading to limited spatial
mobility of the population.
In 2020, the Kyiv oblast (Kyiv region) had the highest positive net migration rate among
all Ukrainian regions, amounting to over 23,000 persons, which is 13,200 more than
in 2014. The number of migrants arriving from other regions of Ukraine exceeded the
number of those leaving in Kharkiv, Odessa, Lviv, and Ivano-Frankivsk oblasts. After
2014, the industrial regions in the east of Ukraine lost their attractiveness, so the net
migration rate was negative in 2020 in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, which amounted
to 13.1 and 6.3 persons per 10,000 of the population, respectively. Let us note the
signicant growth of the population in 2017 in Kharkiv, Kyiv, and Dnipropetrovsk
oblasts. The positive net migration rate here could indicate the increase in the regions’
attractiveness, including regional labor markets. In 2018–2020, interregional migration
increased in Kirovohrad, Mykolayiv, Rivne, Sumy, and Cherkasy oblasts.
Aclassic approach to calculating empirical indicators of internal migration follows
the analysis of statistical information based on the calculation of scale, the intensity
of immigration and emigration ows, total net migration coefcients, and coefcient
participation of regions by the indicators of arrivals and departures intensities.
The intensity of internal emigration was calculated as the ratio of the number of depar-
tures from the region to the total population in the region (formula 1), and the inten-
sity of internal immigration – as the ratio of the number of arrivals in the region to the
total population in the region (formula 2):
(1) and (2);
in which DM
n
t
was the intensity of internal emigration of the n
th
region in the t time;
DEP
n
t
was the scale of departures of the n
th
region in the t-period of time; NP
n
t
was the
amount of population in the n
th
region in t-period of time; AM
n
t
was the intensity of
internal immigration to the n
th
region in t-period of time; and ARR
n
t
was the scale of
arrivals of the n
th
region in the t-period of time.

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
128 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Total net internal migration was calculated as the difference between the departure
and arrival intensity in the region, which demonstrated the regions’ level of mobility,
generated its ability to conduct aspatial comparative analysis, and identied dynam-
ics of migration movement regardless of population changes so as to predict changes
in these trends in the future (formula 3):
(3);
in which NM
n
t
was the total net internal migration coefcient of the n
th
region in the
t-period of time.
To identify the role of regions in the total internal migration (formulas 4–5), we cal-
culated the coefcients of participation of regions by the indicator of arrivals and
departure intensities:
(4) (5);
in which PD
n
t
was the coefcient of participation of the n
th
region in total internal
emigration in the t-period of time; DEP
g
t
was the scale of total internal emigration;
PA n
t was the coefcient of participation of the nth region in total internal immigration;
ARR
g
t
was the scale of total internal immigration.
To perform the tasks, the article used aset of general scientic and special methods
and techniques of scientic research, such as theoretical and logical generalization
to identify the latest determinants of the actualization of state regulation of migration,
structural-logical and semantic analysis to form amethodology for analyzing the
monitoring of internal migration, grouping to identify migration risks and threats for
regional labor market statistical analysis to analyze the current state, trends, and struc-
tural changes of internal migration processes, and rating analysis to assess the charac-
teristics of the regional labor market as adeterminant of migration attractiveness.
Based on the principles of data consistency, the universality of indicators, and the
ability for comparative analysis according to the spatial-temporal criterion to create
ratings of the attractiveness of regional labor markets in Ukraine (2014 and 2019), we
formed an information-analytical model (formula 6) that consisted of 10 indicators
(Table 2). The selection of the indicators was conducted by the expert method based
on data from the Ukrainian Statistical Ofce:
(6);

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 129
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
in which ALM
n
t
was the information and analytical model of rating the attractiveness
of the labor market of the n
th
region in the t-period of time; a
j
was an indicator of the
attractiveness of the labor market of the n
th
region in the t-period of time, and j was
the number of indicators.
Table 2.
Decomposition of attractiveness of regional labor markets
Indicators Variables Expression
Employment at 15–70 y.o.
Х
1Percentage of the corresponding age
Unemployment at 15–70 y.o.
Х
2
Employment level
Х
3Percentage of the average number of
full-time employees
Dismissal level
Х
4
Level of economic activity at 15–70 y.o.
Х
5Percentage
Level of forced part-time employment*
X
6
Share of employed in jobs with hazardous
conditions
Х
7Percentage of the number of full-time
employees
Average monthly wages
Х
8$ per full-time employee
Unofcial employment
Х
9Percentage of the total number of
employees
The ratio of labor remuneration to wage fund
Х
10
Note: * full-time employees who were in the specied conditions up to the average number of full-time employees;
Annex Apresents the data for the calculation of regional labor market attractiveness coefcients.
Source: own elaboration.
The rating of the attractiveness of labor markets in regions of Ukraine served as the
basis for identifying the strength of the region’s sensitivity to increasing immigration
ows or escaping human resources. This approach revealed the level of attractiveness
and repulsion for migration of the labor market and the employment sector of the region.
The data were elaborated in the OnFront software. The regional labor market attrac-
tiveness coefcient rate fell in the [1;
∞
] range, in which 1 showed the highest attracti-
veness level. The coefcient above 1 demonstrates the lower attractiveness levels.
The balance regression model was used to evaluate the impact of the labor market
condition on internal migration in Ukraine. The employment parameters X
t
= [∆logX
t
]
showed the endogenous variables vector, in which all variables were used in the form
of rst differences of corresponding logarithms. The exogenous variables vector Y
t
included the net migration coefcients of Ukrainian regions.

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
130 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Results and Discussion
Interregional Migration in Ukraine: Spatial and Temporal Approaches
Internal migration in countries with ahigh level of socioeconomic development is
atool to balance regional labor markets and secure sustainable development of national
and regional economies. For comparison, the internal migration rate in the USA is
13 movements per capita throughout life, the UK – seven (OECD, 2020), Ukraine – two
to three movements. The internal migration coefcient was 19.4 per 1000 of the popu-
lation (Figure 1; State Statistics Service of Ukraine, 2020), while in the USA – 27.3,
the UK – 22.4, and France – 21.6 (Eurostat, 2020). In 2020, the Kyiv oblast was the leader
among Ukrainian regions with an internal migration coefcient of 400.97 persons.
The lowest migration activity level was observed in the Luhansk oblast (66.45 persons).
Zhytomyr (268.94 persons), while Poltava (258.24), Rivne (256.38), and Khmelnytskyi
(253.01) oblasts also showed high internal migration coefcients. Notably, the internal
migration rate grew in 2014–2020 only in the Kyiv oblast (29.38%). An upward trend of
internal migration activity appeared in each oblast of Ukraine, caused by both unstable
economic conditions and sociopolitical events. Interestingly, the internal migration
coefcient changes were negative and the highest among all regions of Ukraine in
Donetsk and the Luhansk oblasts – 45.58% and 48.24%, respectively. The internal
migration changes reduced in Chernivtsi and Vinnytsia oblasts by 36.55% and 36.72%.
Figure 1.
Internal migration in Ukraine; regional breakdown for 2014 and 2020
Note: per 10,000 of the population; excluding the temporarily occupied territory of the AR Crimea and the part of
temporarily occupied territories in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on the data of Table 1 using formula 1.

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 131
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
The main causes of internal migration growth in Ukraine were low well-being levels,
high levels of depression of some regions, decit or high cost of purchase or rental of
housing in industrial centers, and the lack of jobs and opportunities to access social
services in the cities of registration of residence. What should also be considered as
factors stimulating internal migration are the high level of public social expenditures,
developed social infrastructure, and agglomerations’ advantages, which is conrmed
by total net migration coefcients in 2014–2020 (Table 3). Thus, the net migration rate
(the difference between the arrival and departure intensity coefcients) was the highest
in Kyiv and industrial regions, especially in 2014–2019.
Table 3.
Total net migration coefcients in Ukraine; regional breakdown for 2014–2020
Regions
Years, persons Deviation
2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2019–2014
2019/2014,
coef
Ukraine 0.33 1.16 0.65 0.91 0.83 0.78 0.50 0.45 2.38
Kyiv 41.68 41.33 36.75 0.11 32.32 43.47 -0.67 1.80 1.04
Vinnytsia -2.03 1.42 -15.94 -29.12 -23.27 -20.06 -15.60 -18.03 9.87
Volyn 4.82 -0.22 -12.31 -7.65 -3.24 -5.87 -1.02 -10.69 -1.22
Dnipropetrovsk -0.65 -3.59 -7.76 73.88 6.61 -7.6 6 -5.25 -7.01 11.84
Donetsk -2 7.38 -21.97 -8.57 -56.39 -24.59 -18.82 -13.11 8.57 0.69
Zhytomyr -7. 97 -12.11 -0.47 -8.31 -13.53 -15.73 -6.51 -7.76 1.97
Zakarpattia -1.06 -3.16 -4.71 -1.30 -0.56 -2.01 -3.01 -0.96 1.90
Zaporizhia -8.41 -5.63 -10.05 -17.74 -13.79 -15.59 -11.55 -7.19 1.86
Ivano-Frankivsk 6.25 11.71 0.20 8.92 3.79 2.37 3.87 -3.89 0.38
Kyiv 56.71 59.92 62.77 170.77 144.70 145.28 130.40 88.57 2.56
Kirovohrad -12.21 -9.10 -0.62 -21.72 -27.02 -36.35 -26.03 -24.14 2.98
Luhansk -41.47 -26.17 -11.52 -87.61 -26.42 -22.81 -16.29 18.65 0.55
Lviv 4.65 4.10 18.74 9.23 6.93 4.56 3.05 -0.08 0.98
Mykolayiv -1.87 -0.45 -12.86 -17.75 -22.61 -22.64 -13.94 -20.78 12.14
Odessa 12.29 -0.16 12.56 13.36 16.31 15.66 14.51 3.37 1.27
Poltava 1.89 2.06 -3.48 -10.45 -5.44 -3.16 -1.03 -5.06 -1.67
Rivne -2.22 -6.61 -2.50 -10.98 -11.30 -12.92 -9.02 -10.70 5.83
Sumy -6.24 -9.31 8.00 -10.36 -22.47 -26.05 -16.97 -19.81 4.17
Ternopil -1.79 -1.27 -15.29 -13.98 -5.91 -9.84 -6.52 -8.05 5.50

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
132 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Kharkiv 10.21 10.03 -6.73 53.06 7.85 8.91 8.05 -1.30 0.87
Kherson -10.49 -3.94 -9.78 -25.86 -20.16 -19.39 -17.89 -8.90 1.85
Khmelnytskyi -2.68 -3.10 -14.96 -21.81 -5.71 -6.95 -0.91 -4.27 2.60
Cherkasy -2.69 -4.84 -17.31 -4.52 -19.50 -17.92 -3.00 -15.23 6.66
Chernivtsi 8.56 7.07 -5.67 -1.08 -1.50 -2.25 -7. 8 0 -10.81 -0.26
Chernihiv -7. 8 4 -1.49 -9.91 -20.72 -18.55 -19.88 -9.73 -12.04 2.54
Note: per 10,000 of the population; excluding the temporarily occupied territory of the AR Crimea and the part of
temporarily occupied territories in Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on the data of Table 1 using formula 3.
Migration activity declined sharply in 2020, yet we should not dwell on the socioeco-
nomic foundation of these processes, because 2020 was aperiod of limited migration.
In particular, the rate was 43.4 persons per 10,000 of the population in Kyiv and 130.4
in Kyiv oblast, while the net migration rate was negative in Kirovohrad and Vinnytsia
oblasts in 2019: 36.3 and 20.1 persons, respectively.
Notably, Ukrainian regions have ahigh intensity of repeat migration processes unre-
lated to the change in the place of residence, including migration from rural to urban
areas and from rural areas to metropolitan areas. For comparison, 21.4% of the popu-
lation from rural areas participated in the village-to-city migration vector in 1991,
and in 2005 the share was 28.5% of the rural population or over 1 million persons
(Skrypnychenko, 2004). The surveys of the economic activity of the population con-
ducted by the State Statistics Service of Ukraine show the highest level of participation
in repeat migration in Kyiv oblast, namely 30% of the population in the oblast worked
in Kyiv while 49.2% in other settlements of the oblast in 2010 (Kupets, 2012).
We should mention the problem of implementation of the state migration management
policy, which is related to the lack of record-keeping of the internal labor migration
because internal migrants are registered at the place of residence, not ajob. To evaluate
the volumes of internal migration, studies most often employ indirect methods based
on the data on employment, tax payment, or food consumption. For example, the
results of the research on the economic activity of the population in 2010 show ahigh
share of internal labor migrants (13.2%; Kupets, 2012). However, the research disallows
determining repeat migration volumes, so internal labor migration is often considered
in conjunction with repeat migration. Moreover, many people participate in internal
labor migration, which is unrelated to daily and weekly returns to the place of per-
manent residence. The character of internal migration is seasonal and shift work,
especially in the capital city and the largest industrial cities. According to the Data

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 133
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
of International Migration Organization, the number of internal labor migrants in
Ukraine exceeded 1.6 million persons – or 9% – of the economically active population
in 2014–2015 (OECD, 2016). Other sociological surveys show that 55% of internal labor
migrants have permanent jobs. Interestingly, 20% of the surveyed labor migrants
worked ofcially under alabor agreement, while others worked unofcially or through
self-employment (Burov, 2018).
No comprehensive research on internal migration has been conducted recently. The
monitoring of internal migration has been absent in the development of the Ukrainian
migration policy. In 2014, the State Statistics Service of Ukraine changed the metho do-
logy of calculating the internal migration activity levels, making it impossible to make
substantiated conclusions regarding the rankings (level of participation) of aregion
in the total intensity of migration processes in Ukraine. In 2014, the share of Kyiv in
the total intensity of arrivals in Ukraine was the highest and amounted to 8.5% (Figure 2).
Figure 2.
Participation of regions in internal migration in Ukraine by the indicator
of arrivals intensity in 2014 and 2020
Note: excluding the temporarily occupied territor y of the AR Crimea and the part of temporarily occupied territories in
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on the data of Table 1 using formula 5.
In 2020, the largest share was observed in Kyiv oblast (11.57%), while the share of Kyiv
was 8.15%. Zakarpattia and Luhansk oblasts had the lowest share of internal migration

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
134 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
in 2020: 1.25% and 1.31%, respectively. Kyiv, Kharkiv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovsk, and
Lviv oblasts were the top regions by the share of arrivals in the total arrivals in Ukraine.
Signicant growth in arrivals share change in 2014–2020 was recorded for Kyiv (from
5 p.p. to 24 p.p.) and Kharkiv oblasts (from 0 p.p. 98 p.p.), while negative rates appeared
in Donetsk (from 1 p.p. to 94 p.p.), Vinnytsia (from 1 p.p. to 57 p.p.), and Dnipropet-
rovsk (from 1 p.p. to 10 p.p.) oblasts.
The ranking of Ukrainian regions by the share of departures in the total number of
departed shows that Kyiv (8.24%), Kharkiv (7.59%), Dnipropetrovsk (6.78%), Lviv
(5.99%), and Kyiv (5.92%) oblasts are the leaders (Figure 3). Let us emphasize that such
asituation results from internal education-related migration because Kyiv and Kharkiv
oblasts are the largest centers-recipients of education-related migration in Ukraine.
Luhansk, Chernivtsi, and Zakarpattia oblasts (2.17%, 1.57%, and 1.35%) are the regions-
-donors by the share of internal departure. Chernivtsi and Zakarpattia oblasts are also
the largest donors of international migration.
Figure 3.
Participation of regions in internal migration in Ukraine by the indicator
of departures intensity in 2014 and 2020
Note: excluding the temporarily occupied territor y of the AR Crimea and the part of temporarily occupied territories in
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on the data of Table 1 using formula 4.

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 135
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
The Attractiveness of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine:
Pull-Push Environment
Volumes of internal migration in Ukraine are determined by several economic factors,
especially regional labor market imbalances and nancial asymmetries of territorial
development. The labor market is the major push-pull factor of internal migration. Its
attractiveness simultaneously is the force pushing and pulling internal migrants.
Ukrainian oblasts are ranked by the labor market attractiveness indicator to determine
the prospective regions in terms of increasing internal immigration ows.
In 2014, Kyiv, Rivne, Kherson, Khmelnytskyi oblasts, and Kyiv city were the regions
attracting internal migrants the most (labor market attractiveness coefcients equaled
1.0), while Chernivtsi, Volyn, Zhytomyr, Poltava, Sumy, Odessa, Kirovohrad, Ternopil,
Cherkasy, Kharkiv, Lviv, and Chernihiv oblasts attracted migrants moderately (from
1.01 to 1.17). The attractiveness of labor markets for internal migration was low in
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts (Table 4). In 2019, Chernivtsi and Zhytomyr oblasts were
the regions with the highest labor market attractiveness for internal migration. Mean-
while, the attractiveness of labor markets for internal migration declined in the Donetsk
oblast from 2.11 to 5.53 and in the Luhansk oblast from 3.23 to 7.89. Interestingly,
Mykolayiv, Zaporizhia, and Dnipropetrovsk oblasts were outsiders in the rankings of
attractiveness for internal immigration in 2019.
In 2010, the highest attractiveness for internal migration was in Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr,
Kyiv, Kirovohrad, Rivne, Kherson, Khmelnytskyi oblasts, and Kyiv city (labor markets
attractiveness coefcients were 1.0). Moderate attractiveness level inuenced the
restraining of internal emigration from Sumy (1.02), Kharkiv (1.06), Chernihiv (1.04),
Volyn (1.05), Odessa (1.06), Poltava (1.08), Cherkasy (1.13), and Dnipripetrovska (1.17)
oblasts. Interestingly, in 2019, the situation did not change much, and Sumy and
Chernivtsi oblasts entered the group of regions with the highest labor market attrac-
tiveness in terms of internal emigration of the population. In 2014–2019, the force of
employment inuence as apull factor increased for the Ivano-Frankivsk oblast, which
became one of the largest tourism centers in Ukraine.
The ranking of oblasts by gross migration per 10,000 of the population helps identify
the most attractive regions of Ukraine in terms of migration. Thus, in 2014, the Vin-
nytsia oblast had the highest migration attractiveness level with 155.3 and 153.3 rates
of arrival and departure intensity per 10,000 of the population (Figure 4). The group
of regions with the highest migration attractiveness included Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Kirovo-
hrad, Rivne, Kherson, Khmelnytskyi oblasts, and Kyiv city. The highest departure

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
136 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
and arrival intensity rates among the leading regions by migration attractiveness rate
were in Zhytomyr (143.94 and 136.0 persons, respectively) and Vinnytsia oblasts (155.3
and 153.3 persons, respectively). Notably, Donetsk, Zakarpattia, and Luhansk oblasts
had lower migration attractiveness rates of 1.63, 1.91, and 2.15, respectively. The arrival
and departure intensity in the oblasts was also low compared to other regions of Ukraine.
The lowest departure rate in 2014 was in the Zakarpattia oblast (51.6 persons), and
the arrival rate – in the Luhansk oblast (44.7 persons).
Table 4.
Ranking of Ukrainian oblasts by their labor markets attractiveness for internal
emigration and immigration processes in 2014 and 2019
Internal immigration Internal emigration
2014 2019 2014 2019
Oblasts Coef. Oblasts Coef. Oblasts Coef. Oblasts Coef.
Kyiv 1Kyiv city 1 Vinnytsia 1 Zhytomyr 1
Kyiv city 1Kyiv 1Zhytomyr 1Kyiv 1
Rivne 1Rivne 1Kyiv 1Kirovohrad 1
Kherson 1Khmelnytskyi 1Kirovohrad 1Rivne 1
Khmelnytskyi 1Chernivtsi 1Rivne 1 Sumy 1
Vinnytsia 1 Zhytomyr 1Kherson 1Kherson 1
Chernivtsi 1.01 Zakarpattia 1.13 Khmelnytskyi 1Khmelnytskyi 1
Volyn 1.04 Chernihiv 1.19 Kyiv cit y 1Chernivtsi 1
Zhytomyr 1.04 Kirovohrad 1.26 Sumy 1.02 Kyiv city 1
Poltava 1.05 Odessa 1.3 Chernihiv 1.04 Poltava 1.02
Sumy 1.05 Vinnytsia 1.32 Volyn 1.05 Chernihiv 1.03
Odessa 1.06 Poltava 1.4 Odessa 1.06 Ternopil 1.06
Kirovohrad 1.07 Kherson 1.59 Kharkiv 1.06 Kharkiv 1.06
Ternopil 1.12 Volyn 1.6 Poltava 1.08 Cherkasy 1.07
Cherkasy 1.14 Ternopil 1.6 Ternopil 1.11 Volyn 1.09
Kharkiv 1.16 Sumy 1.64 Chernivtsi 1.11 Odessa 1.15
Lviv 1.17 Cherkasy 1.69 Cherkasy 1.13 Zakarpattia 1.16
Chernihiv 1.17 Kharkiv 1.78 Dnipropetrovsk 1.17 Vinnytsia 1.18
Ivano-Frankivsk 1.24 Lviv 1.84 Lviv 1.21 Lviv 1.2
Dnipropetrovsk 1.38 Ivano-Frankivsk 1.92 Mykolayiv 1.22 Ivano-Frankivsk 1.4

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 137
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
Mykolayiv 1.41 Mykolayiv 2.17 Zaporizhia 1.3 Mykolayiv 1.41
Zaporizhia 1.6 Zaporizhia 2.72 Donetsk 1.33 Dnipropetrovsk 1.55
Zakarpattia 1.92 Dnipropetrovsk 2.74 Ivano-Frankivsk 1.35 Zaporizhia 1.64
Donetsk 2.11 Donetsk 5.53 Luhansk 1.65 Donetsk 2.42
Luhansk 3.23 Luhansk 7.89 Zakarpattia 1.91 Luhansk 3.13
Note: shaded oblasts show the highest attractiveness of regional labor markets for internal migration; calculated
based on the OnFront soft ware package; Coef. – regional labor market attractiveness coefcient.
Source: own elaboration based on the data of Annex A, using formula 6 and OnFront.
Figure 4.
Migration attractiveness of Ukrainian regions: internal migration activity
in terms of the labor market and employment development in 2014
Note: excluding the temporarily occupied territor y of the AR Crimea and the part of temporarily occupied territories in
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on date Table 1 and Table 4.
In 2019, Vinnytsia, Zhytomyr, Kyiv, Kirovohrad, Rivne, Sumy, Kherson, Khmelnytskyi,
Chernivtsi, Chernihiv oblasts, and Kyiv city entered the group of Ukrainian regions
with the highest migration attractiveness. Notably, the highest arrivals and departures
intensity rates among the regions were in Kyiv (177.1 and 322.4 persons per 10,000 of
the population) and Zhytomyr oblasts (176.9 and 161.2 persons; Figure 5).

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
138 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Figure 5.
Migration attractiveness of Ukrainian regions: internal migration activity of the
population in terms of the labor market and employment development in 2019
Note: excluding the temporarily occupied territor y of the AR Crimea and the part of temporarily occupied territories in
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on date Table 1 and Table 4.
In 2014–2019, Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts were the least attractive by migration acti-
vity and the labor market and employment development. The intensity of departures
from the Luhansk oblast was 126.35 persons per 10,000 of the population, and arrivals
– 169.8 persons. It is worth mentioning that departures and arrivals rates in Zaporizhia
oblast, which was among the outsiders by migration attractiveness, are much lower
and amount to 108.0 and 92.4 persons, respectively. The lowest level of internal migra-
tion intensity in 2019 was in the Zakarpattia oblast, namely, the departure coefcient
was 54.3 and the arrivals coefcient – 52.3.
The highest share of internal migration in the total volume of internal migration
processes in Ukraine in 2020 was observed in Kyiv (9.44%), Kharkiv (8.66%), and Kyiv
oblasts (8.56%; Figure 6). The fast pace of labor market development, human resources
capitalization, educational-scientic domains’ competitiveness, and developed infra-
structure were the main factors pulling internal migrants to these regions. Luhansk,
Chernivtsi, and Zakarpattia oblasts place last in the rankings of Ukrainian regions

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 139
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
by the share of gross migration in the total volume of internal migration (1.71%, 1.5%,
and 1.32%, respectively).
Figure 6.
Regional structure of internal migration of Ukrainian population: shares
of arrivals, departures, and gross migration in 2020
Note: excluding the temporarily occupied territor y of the AR Crimea and the part of temporarily occupied territories in
Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts.
Source: own elaboration based on date Figures 2–3 and Table 1.
Relationship Between Labor Market Attractiveness and Internal
Migration Intensity
The results of the balance correlation analysis prove the hypothesis that the regional
labor market attractiveness correlates with the interregional migration activity of the
population (Table 5). Thus, the net internal migration rate in Ukraine in 2014 and 2019
had the highest level of adirect relationship with the level of economic activity of the
population aged 15–70 (correlation coefcients equal to 0.856 and 0.822, respectively).
There appeared avisible direct relationship between internal migration and such labor
market condition indicators as employment level (0.614) and average monthly nominal
wages (0.655) in 2014. Interestingly, there also appeared avisible relationship in Ukrainian
regions between internal migration and employment at 15–70 (0.744) in 2019.

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
140 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Table 5.
Results of the analysis of the relationship between net interregional migration rate
and labor market condition indicators in Ukrainian regions in 2014 and 2019
Indicators
2019 2014
r R2t-test p-level r R2t-test p-level
1. Employment at 15–70 0.744 0.554 3.208 0.039 0.539 0.291 3.071 0.005
2. Unemployment at 15–70 -0.530 0.280 -2.994 0.006 -0.655 0.429 -4.157 0.000
3. Employment level 0.750 0.563 3.417 0.024 0.614 0.377 3.181 0.040
4. Dismissal level 0.404 0.163 2.120 0.045 0.554 0.307 2.258 0.078
5. Economic activity of the
population aged 15–70 0.856 0.733 4.098 0.000 0.822 0.676 4.632 0.001
6. Forced part-time
employment -0.661 0.437 -2.296 0.028 -0.589 0.347 -3.496 0.002
7. Share of employed in jobs
with hazardous conditions -0.066 0.004 -0.317 0.754 -0.442 0.195 -2.364 0.027
8. Average monthly nominal
wages 0.743 0.552 2.370 0.007 0.655 0.429 2.819 0.008
10. Number of unofcially
employed -0.535 0.286 -2.158 0.025 -0.480 0.230 -2.385 0.070
11. Ratio of labor
remuneration to wage fund -0.143 0.021 -0.694 0.495 -0.540 0.291 -3.073 0.005
Note: moderate relationship on the Chaddock scale is highlighted in italics; visible relationship in bold; strong rela-
tionship in italics and bold; r – correlation coefcient; R
2
– coefcient of determination; t-test – Student’s t-test;
p-level – probability of error.
Source: own elaboration based on date Annex Aand Table 1 using Statistica 7.
The reverse relationship between the parameters of employment conditions and internal
migration proved that some labor market development parameters did not contribute
to the growing migration attractiveness of Ukrainian regions. Thus in 2019, interregional
migration had areverse relationship with forced part-time employment level (-0.661)
and unemployment (-0.530), as well as the number of unofcially employed (-0.535).
The same trend was present in 2014.
Empirical estimations showed that the impact of unemployment on the net internal
migration rate in 2014 was negative, the same as aggravating hazardous labor condi-
tions and growing wage arrears (formula 7):

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 141
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
(7);
in which
Unemplr
was the unemployment vector in r-regions,
Condhr
was the share
of employed in jobs with hazardous conditions vector in r-regions,
Salzr
was the ratio
of labor re muneration to wage fund vector in r-regions, and
∆InMigrr
was the net
migration rate vector in r-regions.
There was areverse relationship between labor market indicators and internal migra-
tion at 5% statistical signicance, which showed asubstantial force of push factors.
Interestingly, growing volumes of internal migration were the factors of reduced unem
-
ployment in Ukrainian regions. It may have indicated that unemployment and employ-
ment in 2014 were of complementary nature to migration processes, and in such away,
they mapped migration corridors with the labor-surplus regions.
Meanwhile, in 2019, the regional labor market in Ukraine was the pullfactor of inter-
nal migration, which could have caused the transformation of international migration
vectors into internal ones (formula 8):
(8);
in which
Receip
r
was the employment vector in r-regions,
EAP
r
was the economic
activity of the population aged 15–70 vector in r-regions, and
InfEMr
was the informal
employment vector in r-regions.
The estimated balance regression model for internal migration of the population in
2019 demonstrated the direct relationship between internal migration processes inten
-
sity, employment levels, and the population’s economic activity. Growing volumes of
informal employment ambiguously reduce the volumes of interregional migration
because informal employment acquires the features of avirtual one, so its development
can foster business migration and various forms of migration of the population.
Internal migration activity of the population in Ukraine was of urbanistic nature
because the development of rural-urban area migration vectors dominated the country
in the studied period. The Kyiv oblast and Kyiv city turned out to be the most attrac-
tive for life and jobs as the main centers of human resources gravitation, as well as

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
142 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Kharkiv, Dnipropetrovsk, Odessa, and Lviv oblasts. The developed rankings of
Ukrainian regions’ attractiveness with the system of the labor market and employment
development parameters allowed for the detection of the most attractive regions in the
focus of internal emigration and immigration processes. The highest share of internal
migration activity in the total volume of internal migration in Ukraine in 2019 was
observed in Kyiv (9.44%), Kharkiv (8.66%), and Kyiv oblasts (8.56%). The attractive
regional labor market, high IT market development, and growing innovative-technolo-
gi cal capacity Were the main factors of gravitation to these regions in the studied
period. Luhansk, Chernivtsi, and Zakarpattia oblasts have the lowest positions in the
rankings of Ukrainian regions by the share of gross migration in the total volume of
internal migration.
The econometric balance modeling proved that uncontrollable internal migration
processes impacted the decline in the demographic and social security of regions the
most. This resulted in the depopulation of villages, the increase in the share of the
retirement-age population, the regress in social and transport infrastructure, growing
unemployment, and growing pressures on the pension fund and national budget.
Conclusions
The above study conrmed our research hypotheses about signicant differentiations
of regional migration in Ukraine caused by the divergence of regions’ socioeconomic
development and central-peripheral interactions. Apositive balance of internal migration
for 2014–2020 years was observed only in six regions of the country, while the rest was
negative; the level of internal migration in the Kyiv oblast on average exceeded the
average state value by about 80%, while in the Luhansk oblast it was about 70% lower;
more than 30% of the population was actively involved in pendulum labor migration;
among the 25 analyzed oblasts, the intensity of population arrival exceeded the average
value of only six of them, and the departure of the population – of ten. Differentiations
in scales and types of internal migration in Ukraine have aclear link with the parame-
ters of aregion’s socioeconomic development (for example, signicant immigration
and internal migration are typical for the high level of socioeconomic development
oblasts, and emigration is typical for an average level of development ones).
The second hypothesis regarding ahigh level of attractiveness of the regional labor
market affected the determinant of the intensication of internal immigration, and
low – emigration was checked. The high level of attractiveness of the regional labor
market activates immigration, and vice versa, which is conrmed by the formed rating

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 143
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
of the attractiveness of regions based on asystem of indicators of attractiveness of the
employment sphere and the labor market of the regions of Ukraine. Certain oblasts
with high and above-average levels of socioeconomic development are characterized
by both immigration and emigration active.
The third hypothesis about astable causal link between migration and the attractive-
ness of regional labor markets was established. The strength of the relationship between
the attractiveness parameters of regional labor markets and the intensity of internal
migration is signicant (in 2019 only 3 factors had aweak connection), and the direc-
tion of one characterized the inuence of the indicator (stimulate/destimulate) on the
resulting change. This gives grounds for the conclusion that the regulation of key
parameters of the functioning of the labor market and the sphere of employment will
lead to changes in the scale and structural characteristics of migration. The obtained
coefcients of the balance regression model made it possible to state that the key
factors that most affect the migration processes in the region are the unemployment
rate, the creation of new jobs, economic activity, and informal employment.
The directions of further research are to determine the empirical correlations of the
impact of the attractiveness of regional labor markets in Ukraine vs abroad, as well as
to improve the system of information and analytical support for studying the attrac-
tiveness of labor markets as determinants of migration potential management by
indicators of social development of the region, housing and communal infrastructure,
mental, cultural, and other factors. In the context of ongoing military conict, further
research on the strength of attracting internal migrants to those regions with alow
level of socioeconomic development and the attractiveness of the labor market is of
great importance.
Policy Recommendations
Considering the obtained results, we rst have identied the high level of correlation
between economic development, attractive labor market, and migration, and second
– the determinants of migration in the structure of labor market and employment
parameters, which has led us to the following key recommendations:
1) for developing regions that need to increase human and labor resources: the
implementation of intensied immigration policy by the measures below:
z
combination of intellectual and human resource extension with structural
reforms such as neoindustrialization and industry 4.0 development, expand-

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
144 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
ing the scale of the digital economy, deepening smart specialization in
housing and communal services, elaborating cities’ and regions’ infrastructure,
strengthening social and household systems;
z
decreasing shadow economy by improving business motivation toward
legal employment, introducing systems of nancial and economic monitor-
ing of income and employment, developing non-cash payments infrastruc-
ture, preventing/increasing the risks and losses of both business entities
and employees in feasible and shadow activities;
z
effective (investment) use of migration capital by promoting the use of
migrant funds for business development, providing nancial, organiza-
tional, and other support for doing business in priority economic activities,
social entrepreneurship, and microcredit business projects of migrant work-
ers and in rural areas, the attraction of migrant funds in the stock market
(municipal bonds);
2) for regions with alower level of socioeconomic development that lose human
resources: the implementation of policies preserving human potential by the
measures below:
z
creation of new jobs by the development and implementation of national
and regional strategies for the creation of high-paying jobs as tools to boost
employment of highly skilled personnel, minimization of unofcial employ-
ment, and the reduction of the precariat;
z
elimination of imbalances in supply and demand in the labor market by
the elimination of demand and supply imbalances based on national and
regional surveys of employers and graduates of higher and vocational edu-
cation institutions, the development of asystem of preventive measures for
employment management in rural areas, the improvement of the institu-
tional framework of an inclusive labor market;
z
stimulating the development of small private businesses by the expansion
of preferential and microcredit programs, the development of small business
infrastructure, the stimulation of internal demand, and the improvement
of the accessibility of new small businesses to resources and markets;
3) for regions with ahigh level of internal migration and which have problems of depres-
sion and depopulation of rural and remote areas – the implementation of abalanc
-
ing spatial development policy with the measures below:
z
intensication of local development agencies’ activities to attract nancial
assets and create new places of employment in regional communities;
z
opening of industrial parks and transfer of production capacities of enter-
prises of the real sector of the economy from regional centers to districts;
z
development of rural infrastructure;

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 145
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
z
budget and grant support for youth initiatives in districts, small towns, and
rural areas.
References
Andersson, L., & Siegel, M. (2020). The Impact of Migration on Development in Developing Countries:
AReview of the Empirical Literature, Regional Integration and Migration Governance in the
Global South, 121–150. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-43942-2_6
Arthur, P. L., Ensor, J., Van Faassen, M., Hoekstra, R., & Peters, N. (2018). Migrating People, Migrating
Data: Digital Approaches to Migrant Heritage. Journal of the Japanese Association for Digital
Humanities, 3(1), 98–113. https://doi.org/10.17928/jjadh.3.1_98
Atienza, M., & Aroca, P. (2012). Concentración y crecimiento en Chile: una relación negativa ignorada,
EURE (Santiago), 38(114). http://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0250-71612012000200010
Aure, M., Forde, A., & Magnussen T. (2018). Will migrant workers rescue rural regions? Challenges
of creating stability through mobility. Journal of Rural Studies, 60, 52–59.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2018.03.005
Becker, S.O., & Ferrara, A. (2019). Consequences of forced migration: Asurvey of recent ndings.
Labour Economics, 59, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.02.007
Berg, L. et al. (1982). Urban Europe: AStudy of Growth and Decline, Vol. 1, Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Bhagat, R. (2017). Migration, gender and right to the city. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(32),
35–40. Retrieved from https://www.epw.in/journal/2017/32/perspectives/migration-gender-and-
right-city.html
Bilan, Y. (2017). Migration of the Ukrainian population: Economic, institutional and sociocultural
factors. London: Ubiquity Press. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10-
4 1 9 / 1 8 2 4 2 6 / 1 / 6 3 7 9 0 6 . p d f
Boschma, R., Eriksson, R. H., & Lindgren, U. (2014). Labour market externalities and regional growth
in Sweden: The importance of labor mobility between skill-related industries. Regional Studies,
48(10), 1669–1690. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2013.867429
Bosworth, G. (2006). Counter urbanisation and job creation: entrepreneurial in-migration and rural
economic development. CRE Discussion Paper No. 4. Centre for Rural Economy.
Burov, I. (2018). Labour migration as aconsequence of the government’s socioeconomic policy over
the past four years (2014–2018). Ukrainian Society: monitoring of social changes: collection of
scientic papers, 6(20), 166–170.
Carletto, C., Davis, B., & Stampini, M. (2006). Acountry on the move: international migration in
post-communist Albania. International Migration Review, 40(4), 767–785.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27645634
Castles, S., & Miller, M. (2009). The Age of Migration. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire and
London: MacMillan Press Ltd. Retrieved from http://migrationmatters.me/wp-content/
uploads/2016/11/AgeOfMigrationChapter1and.pdf
Dastidar, S. G. (2017). Impact of Remittances on Economic Growth in Developing Countries. Global
Economy Journal, 13, 20160066. https://doi.org/10.1515/gej-2016-0066
Eno, K., & Henning, M. (2016). The development of economic growth and inequality among the
Swedish regions 1860–2010: Evidence from regional national accounts. In J. Ljungberg (Ed.).
Structural Analysis and the Process of Economic Development. Essays in Memory of Lennart
Schön (pp. 126–148). London: Routledge.

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
146 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Eurostat. Database. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/ web/ main/data/database
Harris, J. R., & Todaro, M. P. (1970). Migration, Unemployment and Development: ATwo-Sector Analysis.
American Economic Review, 60(1), 126–142. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/1807860
Hear, N. V., Bakewell, O., & Long, K. (2017). Push-pull plus: reconsidering the drivers of migration.
Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(1): 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1384135
Hugo, G. (2000). The crisis and international population movement in Indonesia. Asian and Pacic
Migration Journal, 9(1), 93–129. https://doi.org/10.1177/011719680000900104
International Migration Database. OESD. Stat. Retrieved from https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?-
DataSetCode=MIG
Ireland, P. R. (2018). The Limits of Sending-State Power: The Philippines, Sri Lanka, andFemale
Migrant Domestic Workers. International Political Science Review, 39(3), 322–337.
https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0192512118755597
Jabłoński, M. (2019). Interdependence Among Creativity, Education, and Job Experience: AMunicipal
Company in Poland. Central European Management Journal, 27(4), 48–70.
https://doi.org/10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.9
Jaroszewicz, M., & Kaźmierkiewicz, P. (2014). Does Ukraine Have aPolicy on Emigration? Transcend-
ing the State-Centered Approach. Central and Eastern European Migration Review, 3(1), 11–26.
Keijzer, N., Héraud, J., & Frankenhaeuser, M. (2016). Theory and practice? Acomparative analysis
of migration and development policies in eleven European countries and the European Com-
mission. International Migration, 54(2), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12191
Kumar R. R., Stauvermann P. J., Kumar N. N., & Shahzad S. J. H. (2018). Revisiting the threshold
effect of remittanceson total factor productivity growth in South Asia: Astudy of Bangladesh
and India. Applied Economics, 50, 2860–2877. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1412074
Kupets, O. (2012). Statistical analysis of repeat migration in Ukraine. Kyiv: KNEU, 649–660. Retrieved
from http://ir.kneu.edu.ua: 8080/ bitstream/2010/3597/1/649%20-%20660.pdf
Léon-Ledesma, M., & Piracha, M. (2004). International Migration and the Role of Remittances in
Eastern Europe. International Migration, 42, 65–83. Retrieved from https://econpapers.repec.
org/scripts/redir.pf?u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.kent.ac.uk%2Feconomics%2Frepec%2F0113.
pdf;h=repec:ukc:ukcedp: 0113
Levytska, O. (2022). Border Migration Processes in Ukraine: Developing Responses to Emerging
Vulnerabilities. Migration Letters, 19(2), 159–170. Retrieved from https://migrationletters.com/
ml/article/view/1614
Libanova, E. (2019). Labour migration from Ukraine: key features, drivers and impact. Economics
and Sociology, 12(1), 313–328. https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789X.2019/12-1/19
Lupak, R., Boiko, R., Kunytska-Iliash, M., & Vasyltsiv, T. (2021). State management of import dependency
and state’s economic security ensuring: new analysis to evaluating and strategizing. Accounting,
2021, 7(4), 855–864. https://doi.org/10.5267/j.ac.2021.1.023
Mahmoud, O., Trebesch, T., & Trebesch Ch. (2010). The economics of human trafcking and labor
migration: Micro-evidence from Eastern Europe. Journal of Comparative Economics, 38, 173–188.
Massey, D., Axinn, W., & Ghimire, D. (2010). Environmental change and out-migration: Evidence
from Nepal. Population and Environment, 32 (2–3), 109–136.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-010-0119-8
Meyer, D., & Shera, A. (2017). The impact of re-mittances on economic growth: An econometric
model. EconomiA, 18(2), 147–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econ.2016.06.001
Migration as adevelopment factor in Ukraine (2016). Kyiv: IOM. Retrieved from http://www.iom.
org.ua/sites/default/les/mom_migraciya_yak_chynnyk_rozvytku_v_ukrayini

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 147
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
Mulska, O., Levytska, O., Panchenko, V., Kohut, M., & Vasyltsiv, T. (2020). Causality of external
population migration intensity and regional socioeconomic development of Ukraine. Problems
and Perspectives in Management, 18(3), 426–437. http://dx.doi.org/10.21511/ppm.18(3).2020.35
Mulska, O., Levytska, O., Zaychenko, V., Vasyltsiv, T., & Ilyash, O. (2021). Pull environment of migra-
tion in the EU countries: Migration vector from Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Mana-
ge ment, 19(4), 283–300. https://doi.org/10.21511/ppm.19(4).2021.23
Omata, N. (2013). The Complexity of Refugees Return Decision-Making in aProtracted Exile: Beyond
the Home-Coming Model and Durable Solutions. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(8),
1281–1297. https://doi.org /10.1080/1369183X.2013.778149
Pitkänen, P., Hayakawa, T., Schmidt, K., Aksakal, M. & Rajan, S. I. (2019). Temporary Migration, Trans-
formation and Development: Evidence from Europe and Asia. London: Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429244346
Rahman, M. M. (2013). Estimation of internal migration by the national growth rate method: an
alternative approach. The Bangladesh Development Studies, 79–87.
https://doi.org/10.2307/44730021
Rausser, G., & Strielkowski, W. (2013). International Labour Migration and Structural Channels:
ACase Study of Ukrainian Working Migrants in the Czech Republic. Ekonomický časopis, 10,
1034 –1052.
Ruiz-Tagle, J. (2013). Atheory of socio-spatial integration: Problems, policies and concepts from
aUS perspective. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(2), 388–408.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.2012.01180.x
Ryan, L. (2018). Differentiated embedding: Polish migrants in London negotiating belonging over
time. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 44(2), 233–251.
https://doi.org /10.1080/1369183X.2017.1341710
Sadova, U. Ya. et al. (2020). Ukrainian labor migration and the future of labor market: social-eco
-
nomic, geographic and institutional dimensions; Dolishniy Institute of Regional Research of
the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine. Lviv. Retrieved from: http://ird.gov.ua/irdp/
p20200037.pdf
Semiv, S., Berezivskiy, Y., Baranyak, I., Mulska, O., & Ivaniuk, U. (2021). Priorities and tools of
regulation of external migration in the Carpathian region of Ukraine. Agricultural and Resource
Economics: International Scientic E-Journal, 7(2), 160–181.
https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2021.07.02.09
Singh, R. J., Haacker, M., Lee, K.-W., & Le Goff, M. (2010). Determinants and macroeconomicimpact
of remittances in Sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of African Economies, 20(2), 312–340.
Skrypnychenko, M. I. (2004). Sectoral and interstate economic development models: monograph.
Kyiv: Feniks.
State Statistics Service of Ukraine. Retrieved from: http://www.ukrstat.gov.ua
Statistics of the population of Ukraine. Retrieved from http://database.ukrcensus.gov.ua
Szaban, J., and Skrzek-Lubasińska, M. (2018). Self-Employment and Entrepreneurship: ATheoretical
Approach. Central European Management Journal, 26(2), 89–120.
https://doi.org/10.7206/jmba.ce.2450-7814.230
Vasyltsiv, T. (2015). Directions for improvement of the institutional basis of transaction costs min-
imization of business entities in Ukraine. Actual Problems of Economics, 172(10), 160–168.
Vasyltsiv, T., Lupak, R., Kunytska-Iliash, M., Levytska, O., & Mulska, O. (2020). Instruments of
regional policy for human resources conservation by means of regulation of external youth
migration of rural territories of the Carpathian region. Agricultural and Resource Economics:
International Scientic E-Journal, 6(3). 149–170. https://doi.org/10.51599/are.2020.06.03.09

DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
148 CEMJ
Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
Olha Mulska, Taras Vasyltsiv, Olha Levytska, Tetiana Sabetska, Liliia Stefanyshyn
Vignoli, J. (2017). Effects of internal migration on the human settlements system in Latin America
and the Caribbean. CEPAL Review, 123.
Vollmer, B., & Malynovska, O. (2016). Ukrainian Migration Research Before and Since 1991. In Ukrai-
nian Migration to the European Union (pp. 22–32). Cham: Springer.
Voznyak, H., Mulska, O., & Bil, M. (2021). Migration aspirations of territory population: Acase study
of Ukraine. Problems and Perspectives in Management, 19(2), 217–231.
https://doi.org /10.21511/ppm.19(2).2021.18.
Wills, J., May, J., Datta, K., Evans, Y., Herbert, J., & McIlwaine, C. (2009). London’s Migrant Division
of Labour, European Urban and Regional Studies, 16(3), 257–271.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0969776409104692
Annex A
The system of information and analytical support for the research of the attractiveness
of regional labor markets in 2014 and 2019
2014
Regions
Indicators
Х1Х2Х3Х4Х5Х6Х7Х8Х9Х10
Vinnytsia 56.3 10.5 25.3 28.9 62.9 11.1 19 236.40 37.6 1.4
Volyn 54.9 9.9 22.7 24.7 60.9 7.9 20 228.91 25.2 2.1
Dnipropetrovsk 60.2 823.7 30.5 65.5 11.6 36.1 306.31 18.4 3
Donetsk 54.2 11 18.3 37. 2 60.9 16.4 46.9 324.56 15 41.6
Zhytomyr 56.1 11.5 22.1 26.3 63.4 8.7 20.8 232.44 23.5 1.7
Zakarpattia 56.4 9.2 17.6 20 62.2 8.5 17.6 230.85 49.9 0.7
Zaporizhia 58.2 8.4 22.8 28.9 63.6 17. 9 34.2 288.73 22.9 3.7
Ivano-Frankivsk 53.9 8.1 18.2 20.9 58.6 10.7 19.3 241.87 52.4 1.5
Kyiv 56.9 8 26.5 33.5 61.8 7.5 23.1 293.52 15.4 8.6
Kirovohrad 54.2 11.2 24.4 28.2 61 12 19.7 234.63 22.2 5.3
Luhansk 52 11.4 20 34.9 58.7 14.4 39 284.10 20.8 67
Lviv 55.3 8.6 17 21.8 60.5 12.4 22.3 249.10 19.4 4.5
Mykolayiv 57.3 9.1 24.3 29.3 63 9.3 20.1 281.32 24.5 4.7
Odessa 56.7 6.7 26.1 32.1 60.8 8.6 20.1 263.24 30.2 1.3
Poltava 55.7 11.5 22.4 2 7.7 62.9 13.1 26.6 2 67.44 21.5 2
Rivne 57. 2 10.6 19.5 23.7 64.1 7. 5 28.1 255.16 48.6 1.3
Sumy 56.6 9.5 21.6 25.8 62.5 15 25.2 242.04 24.2 9.5

Vol. 30, No. 4/2022
DOI: 10.7206/cemj.2658-0845.92
CEMJ 149
Development of Regional Labor Markets in Ukraine as aTool to Regulate Internal Migration…
Ternopil 52.9 11.3 20.8 24.8 59.6 819.5 212.59 34.2 1.1
Kharkiv 59 7.8 21.6 28 63.9 11.8 21.9 264.41 15.8 5.3
Kherson 56.4 9.9 26.5 32.5 62.6 11 11.7 220.16 43.8 2.8
Khmelnytskyi 54.7 9.4 22.2 25.5 60.3 10.8 22.1 242.12 19.8 1.1
Cherkasy 56.3 10.2 26.7 31.1 62.8 10.4 29.7 238.00 28.5 3
Chernivtsi 55.5 923.7 26.8 61 8.9 18.4 216.88 51 0.8
Chernihiv 56.8 11.2 23.5 28.4 63.9 8.7 18.7 226.30 21.9 3
Kyiv 62.6 6.7 26.9 37.8 67.1 5.9 17.8 452.27 14.8 1.1
2019
Vinnytsia 58.0 9.4 30.3 35.0 64.0 1.4 25.9 359.8 37.6 0.5
Volyn 50.9 10.6 25.5 34.5 56.9 0.8 23.3 335.2 25.2 1.7
Dnipropetrovsk 59.5 7.7 28.9 33.2 64.4 1.5 40.7 416.0 18.4 3.9
Donetsk 50.9 13.6 22.6 27.8 58.9 3.2 47.0 453.3 15.0 11.9
Zhytomyr 58.5 9.6 27.2 30.7 64.7 1.4 21.2 330.0 23.5 0.6
Zakarpattia 55.4 9.1 22.1 27.8 60.9 0.9 7.7 356.0 49.9 0.2
Zaporizhia 58.1 9.5 26.3 31.6 64.1 7.6 37.3 405.5 22.9 2.3
Ivano-Frankivsk 56.6 7.2 23.0 27. 3 61.0 1.6 26.2 341.1 52.4 2.0
Kyiv 59.3 5.9 33.1 37.9 63.1 0.9 26.2 425.7 15.4 3.1
Kirovohrad 55.6 11.0 29.9 33.5 62.5 1.7 24.9 323.5 22.2 0.7
Luhansk 58.8 13.7 25.4 31.5 68.1 3.6 35.3 337.8 20.8 46.5
Lviv 57.8 6.5 25.4 28.9 61.9 1.5 27.7 358.7 19.4 2.7
Mykolayiv 59.1 9.3 27.8 31.6 65.1 1.3 22.8 386.0 24.5 1.7
Odessa 58.3 5.9 33.4 37.0 62.0 0.8 24.9 357.7 30.2 1.0
Poltava 56.6 10.6 28.5 34.1 63.3 3.5 32.5 381.0 21.5 1.6
Rivne 58.4 8.3 21.5 25.2 63.7 0.7 34.0 346.9 48.6 0.2
Sumy 59.8 7.7 24.8 30.3 64.8 2.2 26.2 331.9 34.2 17.8
Ternopil 53.8 10.0 24.2 28.2 59.8 2.6 20.7 320.2 34.2 2.0
Kharkiv 62.1 5.0 27.1 31.5 65.4 2.9 25.0 351.4 15.8 6.4
Kherson 58.9 9.6 27.3 32.6 65.2 1.7 15.3 316.8 43.8 1.6
Khmelnytskyi 57.0 8.0 26.8 31.1 61.9 3.2 30.4 335.5 19.8 0.2
Cherkasy 59.3 8.3 31.4 36.9 64.7 2.2 26.9 342.0 28.5 2.2
Chernivtsi 59.0 6.9 26.1 32.4 63.4 1.2 14.8 312.1 51.0 0.0
Chernihiv 58.9 10.2 26.0 33.1 65.6 1.4 18.4 317.5 21.9 0.8
Kyiv 63.1 5.8 32.6 35.5 67.0 0.3 23.6 610.4 14.8 0.9
Source: own elaboration based on data from the State Statistics Service of Ukraine.