You should specify how much "local" you mean: same country ?
Same region ?
Same city ?
As a recruiter explained me a couple of years ago, in their specific case they request only local (here local means "same small city or the neighboring area") applicants for quality of life reasons.
The logic behind their decision was that the nearer the worker is to the office the better from a quality of life perspective: no long travels to/from work, maybe option to go home for lunch, possibility to take the children from school or to get through all the small tasks of the everyday life without any particular hassle.
Of course there is the other face of the medal, that they tend to not specify: you are near, so they have not to pay for travel (very rare where I live anyway) or for lunch (no tickets, no canteen) and maybe you can work some more time since being so near to home even if you work 30 minutes more in the evening you are home at a pretty decent time.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/83707/Gianluca
They do not want to have to pay for travel or relocation.
Even if a candidate made the trip on their own, what is to say they did not ask for relocation assistance once the offer is made.
Now you have an additional expense the employer was not expecting.
I personally worked around this by removing my address from my resume and replaced it with 'relocating to the DC area' when I was targeting Washington DC for jobs.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/10856/Bill Leeper
I can imagine that employees who have moved to the city extra for the job are at greater risk of quickly resigning - just because they realize they do not like the city - for whatever reason: too expensive, missing friends, different culture.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/62421/spickermann
There is a number of reasons for the employer to post "local only candidates" offer.
In reality, it doesn't mean that company only considers local employees - I was leading a project in Frankfurt in 2015-2017 and most of my recruiters could only find people from London or Berlin, so I posted "local only", knowing that our recruiters will cover London and Berlin pool of candidates.
I can think of some other reasons:
They want to hire somebody really fast, maybe even interview within aweek.
They had a bad experience recently, and just want to avoid it.
For some reason they might think it's easier to get a culture fit.
Once colleague of mine was complaining that their hire spent 2 month trying to find a suitable apartment, and then just left.
If that happens twice in a row - I can imagine employer being a bit afraid for a period.
As in my example - they have other agents/recruiters lookingglobally.
Could be "Agency Experience Mentality" -
Employer mightbelieve that there is something about local people
, that will givethem specific perspective.
Usually ad agencies organisations forexample try to find people with "Agency experience".
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/9223/David Sergey
Recently, I've noticed a couple job postings that say they'll only consider local applicants.
What is the motivation for this?
Some companies conclude (usually through experience) that hiring non-local workers isn't working out for them, and choose to avoid the hassle.
Sometimes the local market for talent is rich enough that there is no need for non-locals.
Sometimes they have been burned by applicants travelling long distances who later drop out of the running after several interviews.
Sometimes the company just wants to support the local economy.
Lots of reasons, lots of possible motivations.
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/7777/Joe Strazzere
Recently, I've noticed a couple job postings that say they'll only consider local applicants. What is the motivation for this? It seems like it shouldn't make a difference if applicants are willing to travel for interview and/or relocate on their own budget.
Why do some companies only consider local applicants?
workplace.stackexchange.com
<job-description><job-listing>
workplace.stackexchange.com/questions/118512
workplace.stackexchange.com/users/91151/zanahorias
The company might have had bad experiences in the past with non-local employees resigning.  They might also want to hire someone fast and not have to wait for them to relocate.  The answer to this question is highly subjective and there are a range of reasons why a company might prefer local applicants. They could see local applicants as being lower risk as they wouldn't have to relocate or travel long distances. They may also feel that hiring local applicants is more likely to quickly provide them with an employee who fits in the company culture. Finally, they may simply feel strongly about supporting the local economy.
It could be that hiring non-local applicants carries a risk of needing to pay relocation costs. They may see non-local employees as more likely to resign if they have to travel long distances or don't like the area after relocation. They might believe that hiring locals will be a faster process. They may believe that local applicants are more likely to fit in the company culture. They may feel strongly about supporting the local economy.