A commentary on social mobility, cross-border residence and second homes

In the era of globalization, the role of national borders is not as prominent as it was before. With higher degrees of co-operations and integrations, economically, socially and culturally, it has been increasingly difficult to clearly delineate the nature of different human behaviours involving two regions separated by a border. This is particularly the case when it comes to homemoving behaviours. Although both internal residential mobility and international migration have already been very well-researched, homemoving from one side of a national border to another with histories of economic and cultural integrations, as well as ideological conflicts, is in an odd situation that both sets of theories do not seem able to fully explain. Intensified integrations and co-operations only render the functions of political borders even more obscure than they previously were, and thus the line between international migration and internal residential mobility. Further complicating the scenario is one's consideration of having a second home in other nations/regions, which does not constitute a relocation. Besides, previous studies have mostly focused on either residential mobility or the second-home phenomenon while overlooking the other, although the underlying conditions for both behaviours are almost identical. In other words, without the understanding of how they consider the trade-offs between a variety of conflicts and contacts between border regions, it is not possible for us to explain the rationale behind two different housing consumption behaviours taking place under identical circumstances, and for government agencies to devise relevant policy measures in addressing the potential impacts derived from these behaviours.