Thursday, May 30, 2013

Socio-Economic Status

Yair Assaf-Shapira

Recently, the central bureau of statistics released data about the socio-economic characterization of localities and neighborhoods. The socio-economic index is a complex indicator, made of 16 different variables, covering the subjects of demography; education; employment; and standard of living. These 16 variables were combined into a single index, and all localities in Israel were classified into one of ten clusters, 1 being the lowest and 10 being the highest socio-economic status. Areas within localities, which are referred to as "statistical areas", and are actually neighborhoods or parts of neighborhoods, are naturally much more diverse, and were therefore classified into 20 clusters. The data was processed from the population census of 2008

Jerusalem was classified in cluster 4 (out of 10) - lower than the other large cities (200,000 residents and over), namely Tel-Aviv (classified in cluster 8), Haifa (7), Rishon Lezion and Petach Tiquva (6), and Ashdod (5). One of the factors causing the lower classification for Jerusalem is the large Arab and ultra orthodox Jewish populations residing in it, largely characterized by lower socio-economic status. 

But since clusters have been calculated not only for whole cities, but also for areas within them, we can look at the distribution of the population within the city. The figures look quite cheerless for Jerusalem, with 51% of the population residing in low socio-economic areas (clusters 1-5 out of 20). The figure is much higher than for Israel, where it stands at 23%, Haifa (2%), and Tel Aviv (at 1%). The high status population (clusters 16-20) comprises about 4% of Jerusalem's population, considerably lower than Israel (9%), and much lower than Haifa (28%) and Tel Aviv (37%), which seem to attract high status population. Rishon Lezion and Ashdod stand lower than Jerusalem, at 0%.

The complete data is published in The Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, at

Data source: Characterization and Classification of Geographical Units by the Socio-Economic Level of the Population 2008, Central Bureau of Statistics, April 2013

Intra city Migration

Yair Assaf-Shapira

On the occasion of Jerusalem Day, celebrated this week, we look at figures from the new Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, published annually by the institute. The figures of intra-city migration, or migration from place to place within Jerusalem, are often good indicators for the appeal of neighborhoods to incoming Jerusalemite migrants, and also indicate which neighborhoods are experiencing negative in-city migration.

When we look at the map, showing only in-city migration balance (for 2011), we see a few trends. First of all, we can see the negative migration from the city center, and its adjacent neighborhoods. The city center as a whole was left by 870 of its residents in 2011, of which 500 left to other places in Jerusalem, and the rest left the city. Incoming migrants to the same area were 710 people, of which 400 came from within Jerusalem, resulting in an overall negative balance of -160, and an intra-city balance of -100. Using the same method we find that Romema has a negative intra-city balance of -200, and Har Nof of -180. Outer neighborhoods are characterized by inter-city migration flows, so for example compared to an inter-city balance of -930 and -650 for Ramot Alon and pisgat Zeev (accordingly), their intra-city balances of +60 and +70 (accordingly) are negligible. This means that these neighborhoods, being far from the centers of activity, have a weaker connection to the city. Migration from Ramot to Modiin is a smaller decision than migrating from Rehavia to it.

Positive intra-city migration can be identified for Har Homa , although not as high as previous years, standing at +208 in 2011. The Katamonim (A-I), being in a gentrification process, also saw positive intra city balance of +120, with 1370 out migrants, and 1490 incoming. Other neighborhoods with meaningful positive intra-city balance were Beit Hakerem, Geula, Ramat-Sharet, and Talpiot.

In the Arab sector, the strongest trend is out-migration from the old city, and mainly from the Muslim quarter, which had an intra-city balance of -1243. Apparently these migrants moved mainly North - to Kfar Aqeb, Beit Hanina, and Shuafat. 

The data in their entirety appear on The Yearbook, and all are invited to use it.