This paper aims to deepen our understanding of how migration shapes the socio-demographic structure of the peripheral rural regions. We bridge the fields of peripherality and migration research to address the gap in understanding their interplay. We use Lithuania as a case study, exemplifying the metropolization-peripheralization trend and selective migration patterns. Our analysis uses a unique longitudinal, geocoded data set covering the entire population, including inner and international migrants, allowing for a detailed examination of migration patterns across spatial and temporal dimensions from 2001 to 2021. The results show significant variations in the characteristics of individuals migrating to and from peripheral rural regions across different directions, with two-way migration flows playing an important role in shaping the socio-demographic structure of these regions. Furthermore, migration—particularly inner migration—has become an increasingly important factor influencing population dynamics and contributing to further peripheralization.

This study examines how socio-spatial inequalities are associated with population concentration and de-concentration processes shaped by residential mobility. The study explores whether the patterns of residential mobility vary in different settlement system contexts. It reviews the cyclical urbanization models and the inequality of opportunities they provide in urban, suburban, and counter-urban contexts for individuals in various life stages. The theoretical models are tested by analysing individual-level data covering the entire populations of Estonia and Lithuania – two countries with similar social but different settlement system contexts. The study utilizes linked individual-level data from the 2011 and 2021 censuses, and harmonized variables in the two countries. The results show that individuals engaging in concentration, suburbanization, or de-concentration have distinct characteristics, with little differences between countries characterized with different settlement systems. While the life-course approach assumes that young people are most likely to urbanize (concentrate), those in family ages shift towards suburbanization, and older individuals tend to counter-urbanize (de-concentrate), our findings challenge these assumptions, demonstrating that young adults have a high likelihood of migration in all three directions. These findings call for more in-depth studies on the interplay between age and migration patterns that would go beyond the life-course approach and delve deeper into the residential decision-making of young people.