鑑於勞工遷徙是幫助失業勞工再就業之有效機制，而且針對失業勞工之遷徙研究很少見，本研究旨在區分失業勞工的三種遷徙，包括初級、回流和連續遷徙，並分析這三種遷徙與失業勞工再就業之關係。本研究問題意識是：傳統認為失業勞工遷徙係由失業者為了再就業所驅動，且既有理論和實證研究皆發現失業者較其他勞動人口有較高遷徙率，這表示失業勞工遷徙應具促進再就業之效果，但面對總體失業率難以下降的事實，這卻又表示失業勞工遷徙不必然是因失業者為了再就業所驅動。本研究以1991-2006年「人力運用擬追蹤調查資料」為基礎，目的在(1)檢驗失望假說、慣性假說、及反應假說在驅動失業勞工遷徙的理論效果；(2)探討失業勞工遷徙和再就業的關係；及(3)比較三大類遷徙對失業勞工再就業過程的相對重要性。研究主要發現：(1)三大理論皆獲得部分支持，但沒有任何一個單一理論能完全解釋失業勞工再遷徙決策；(2)失業勞工遷徙受個人過去遷徙經驗、自身因素（如性別、年齡和教育）、景氣循環、勞動市場資訊及條件、及親友網絡等要素所影響；(3)勞動狀態變化是驅動勞工遷徙要素，且相較就業者，失業勞工較易選擇回流而非連續遷徙；回流遷徙失業勞工以持續失業者為主，但連續遷徙失業勞工以再就業成功者為主；(4)雖然景氣循環對失業勞工的回流遷徙有負向效果，但失業勞工遷徙和景氣循環存在強烈正向關係，該正向關係主要是由初級遷徙及連續遷徙的失業勞工遷徙所形塑出來的；(5)有關教育和職業選擇性，失業者初級遷徙及連續遷徙以高教育及職業階層較高者為主，而失業者回流遷徙選擇性則和初級遷徙及連續遷徙相反。

Considering the contribution of labor migration to the reemployment of the unemployed and the fact that there is a paucity of studies on this in existing literature, this research studies the connections between the primary, return, and onward migrations and the reemployment of unemployed labor in Taiwan. The distinction among these three types of migration is essential for avoiding ambiguous and misleading empirical findings. A motivation for this research is the desire to obtain insights into the apparent contradiction between the relatively high geographical mobility of the unemployed and the persistence of a high unemployment rate in Taiwan since the mid-1990s. Based on the 1991-2006 "Quasi-Longitudinal Manpower Utilization Survey", the research goals are threefold: (1) to assess the effectiveness of the "disappointment hypothesis", "chronicity hypothesis", and "responsiveness hypothesis" in explaining repeat (i.e. onward and return) migration behaviors of the unemployed; (2) to ascertain the relationship between migration of the unemployed and reemployment; (3) to distinguish the relative effectiveness of primary, onward, and return migrations in promoting reemployment of the unemployed. Major research findings are as follows: (1) the three hypotheses all gain partial support, and none could exclusively explain the repeat migration behaviors of the unemployed; (2) past migration experiences, individual characteristics (gender, age, education, etc.), business cycle, availability of labor market information, and ties to and strength of kinship-friendship networks are crucial in explaining the migration behaviors of the unemployed; (3) a change in labor force status tends to trigger labor migration, and relative to the employed workforce, the unemployed are more prone to choose return migration than onward migration; (4) once the decision of repeat migration has been made, the unemployed who eventually get reemployed are more likely to engage in onward migration than the unemployed who do not successfully acquire a new job; (5) although the business cycle exhibits the expected negative effect on return migration for the unemployed, the positive association between the business cycle and migration of the unemployed is mainly shaped by its effect on primary and onward migrations amongst the unemployed; (6) in contrast to its primary and onward counterparts, return migration of the unemployed is selective of those with less human capital and lower in the occupational hierarchy.