Tuesday, July 21, 2009

Welcome to the Jiis blog

Ora Ahimeir, Director General
Welcome to the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies blog
where you can read and comment on ongoing events and studies
including our activity reports and press columns.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Internal Migration Between Regions, 1967-2007


Eitan Bluer

from: City in Numbers

Since the end of the 1970s a bi-national, Jewish-Arab, metropolitan area has formed and grown around Jerusalem. The development of the metropolitan area is the result of a process of suburbanization, expressed in the movement of population and economic activities from Jerusalem out to the areas surrounding it. In parallel to this exodus, many and varied ties have developed between Jerusalem and its environs: economic activity, cultural and religious activities, infrastructure, tourism, and population migration – both change of residence and commuting.

These connections have transformed the metropolitan area into a multi-functional expanse serving both the city and the outlying areas. It is therefore difficult to separate what goes on in the jurisdiction of the city and in the whole metropolitan area, which is composed of many different localities.

Statistics on the outward migration from Jerusalem demonstrate the process of development of the Jewish metropolitan area surrounding Jerusalem. One finds that the Jewish population leaving Jerusalem for surrounding areas close to the city (the Jerusalem district, Judea and Samaria) has grown from 6% of all those leaving the city in the years 1967-1976 to 32% in the years 1977-1986, 45% in the years 1987-1996, and up to 51% in the last decade. That is, in recent years half of the residents who left the city of Jerusalem remained in the area, choosing to move to surrounding localities.

The graph displays the balance of migration between Jerusalem and other regions of the country, showing the trend of metropolitanization. The negative balance of migration between Jerusalem and the surrounding localities – of metropolitan Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria – has grown higher and higher. That is, the gap between the number of residents leaving Jerusalem for the metropolitan area and those coming in from the area into the city has widened: more have left the city than came into it.

From a comparison between the direction of migration between Jerusalem and other regions of the country one learns that over the last four decades Jerusalem has had a positive balance of migration in relation to Haifa, the north, and the south, but a negative one in relation to the Tel Aviv and central regions – a trend which has been growing over the last decade.

The Balance of Migration between Jerusalem and Other Regions of the Country.

Source: processing of data from the relevant years of the Statistical Yearbook of Jerusalem, published by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies and the Jerusalem Municipality.


The Representation of Population Sectors


Michal Korach

from: City in Numbers

In the local councils of Israel the number of city council members is decided by the size of the population represented. Since 1969 the Jerusalem city council has had 31 members. But in August 2008 Minister of the Interior Meir Sheetrit issued a directive to limit the number of city council members. According to the Minister, the directive is meant to "significantly improve the ability of the heads of local councils to manage their councils and to form coalitions without incurring high costs; to avert divisions, the creation of many small parties, and the formation of oppositionary councils." A number of political parties and council members presented appeals to the High Court of Justice requesting to cancel the directive. They claimed, among other things, that the directive was issued "on the spur of the moment, without prior discussion or warning" and at a time when elections were already under way, when candidates had already taken upon themselves financial responsibilities based on the previously existing system. The appeals were accepted, and the new directive will not be effect in the upcoming elections.
An examination of the composition of the current city council of Jerusalem shows that some groups are over-represented and some are under-represented.
The Ultra-Orthodox population of Jerusalem comprises, according to estimates, 20% of the city population, or 30% of the Jewish population. In the City Council there are currently 14 representatives of the Ultra-Orthodox population, (45% of the council members). Thus there is over-representation of the Ultra-Orthodox population in the council, relative to its percentage of the population as a whole. This is due to the high percentage of voter participation in this sector.
The Arab population, comprising 34% of the city population, has no representative whatsoever in the city council. This is because most of the Arab population refrains from voting in the municipal elections, which they view as recognition of Israeli control over the city. As a result, the Arab voice is not heard in the council, and in effect there is no one who sees to their interests.
Another sector that is under-represented on the city council is women. Women constitute 50% of the city population, but there are only 5 women on the city council – 16% of the city council members. For comparison, 35% of the city council members of Tel Aviv are women, 27% in Maale Adumim and 23% in Mevasseret Zion. In Givat Zeev and Beitar Illit there is not a single female council member.
Percentage of Women in Local Councils
Source: The Central Elections Committee, the Ministry of the Interior.

Who Elected Whom?


Yair Assaf-Shapira

from: City in Numbers


Although in Jerusalem's mayoral elections of 2003 Uri Lupoliansky won a clear majority (52% of the valid ballots) over the other candidates, in most sectors of the city it was actually Nir Barkat who was victorious. In 100 out of the 188 statistical districts of the city (not including the industrial areas and other non-residential areas), Nir Barkat won a majority. Lupoliansky received a majority of the votes in 83 districts and Yossi Tal-Gan in 5. The candidates Yigal Amedi, Roni Aloni, and Larisa Gerstein didn't receive majorities in any district.

As one can see in the map, the areas in which Lupoliansky won a majority were those with an Ultra-Orthodox majority – Romema, Sanhedriyya, Ramat Shlomo, the eastern part of Ramot Alon, Neve Ya'akov, Har Nof, and Bayit VeGan. In addition, Lupoliansky won in most of the Arab districts in East Jerusalem, though it should be noted that the voter turn-out in these sectors was very low – only about 5%.
In the Jewish districts that are not Ultra-Orthodox, entailing 113,000 valid ballots, Barkat won 62% of the votes and Lupoliansky 32%. 74% of the Jews with the right to vote live in these areas, but the voter turn-out is low compared to that in the Ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods. In Ultra-Orthodox districts, out of 56,000 valid ballots, Lupolianski won 93% and Barkat 6%. In Arab districts, out of 4,500 valid ballots, Lupoliansky won 43% and Barkat 23%.
Overall, districts with high socioeconomic status were characterized by support for Barkat, and districts with low socioeconomic status – for Lupoliansky. In areas of the city with upper-middle and upper status (defined by the Central Bureau of Statistics as clusters 12-20), Barkat received 63% of the votes, while in the areas with lower-middle and lower status (clusters 2-11), Lupoliansky received 74% of the votes.
The Winning Candidate, by Parts of the City, 2003
Source: Processing of data provided by Prof. Avraham Diskin.