CC BY
103Journal of Siberian Federal University. Humanities & Social Sciences 7 (2019 12) 1256-1281
УДК 331.556.4-053.81
Youth with a Migrant Background: Are They Willing to Stay in Russia?
Anna L. Rocheva, Evgeni A. Varshaver and Nataliya S. Ivanova
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration, Center for Regional and Urban Studies 84/3 Vernadskogo, Moscow, 119571, Russia
Received 18.04.2019, received in revised form 01.07.2019, accepted 08.07.2019
In the context of current demographic situation in Russia, migration is considered one of the most efficient ways of population maintenance if not upsurge. Labour migrants coming to Russia are mostly young people. Moreover, in recent years, the youth who grew up in migrant families — the so called second generation migrants, the 1.5 generation migrants, and migrants of other more fractional categories — are becoming increasingly important. According to the international research, migration plans of these groups of young people can, to a varying extent, include the intentions to return to their or their parents' country of origin, higher instability being their distinctive feature. In light of this, the issue of the-youth-with-migrant-background's willingness to plan their future in Russia and, thus, their potential to be the resource for correcting the demographic situation is getting urgent. Basing on qualitative interviews and online surveys, this article considers the issue of how various groups of youth with a migrant background view plans of their future life in Russia and what these plans are connected with. Less than a half of the first generation migrants are willing to stay in Russia, whereas the majority of the second and 1.5 generation migrants plan to live in Russia in future. The factors associated with orientation towards Russia are the respondents' age at their first migration to Russia and at the moment of the survey, social ties and identification attitudes. They are significant for both groups. However, there are differences as well: for migrants of the second and 1.5 generations the age at their migration to Russia is less important than their feeling of belonging to Russia, whereas these are legal statuses and documents that are decisive for the first generation migrants. Nonetheless, migration plans among youth with migrant a background are malleable, which opens up the receiving state's opportunities to attract and retain this group.
Keywords: migration plans, migration intentions, youth with a migrant background, migrant youth, second generation migrants, 1.5 generation migrants.
© Siberian Federal University. All rights reserved Corresponding author E-mail address: [email protected]
ORCID: 0000-0002-3181-9698 (Rocheva); 0000-0002-5901-8470 (Varshaver); 0000-0002-1140-2334 (Ivanova) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC BY-NC 4.0).
The article is supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant (RSF No. 18-78-00019) "Analysis of Integration Characteristics of Migrant Youth in Russia".
Research area: sociology.
Citation: Rocheva, A.L., Varshaver, E.A., Ivanova, N.S. (2019). Youth with a migrant background: are they willing to stay in Russia? J. Sib. Fed. Univ. Humanit. soc. sci., 12(7), 1256— 1281. DOI: 10.17516/1997-1370-0453.
Introduction
Current demographic situation in Russia is characterized by low fertility, high mortality and population aging. In light of this, one of the most effective ways of maintaining the population at least at the same level is migration (Mukomel, 2011). The key migration resource is the youth, this social group presenting the greatest interest for countries with an "aging" population, being the most mobile in principle, and expressing and further on implementing migration plans and intentions more often than other population groups. Migrants' main flow to Russia is from the countries of Central Asia (Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan) and is comprised of young people. This migration is largely transnational (Abashin, 2017), which means that some migrants will not "settle" in the host country, but return home (De Haas, Fokkema, 2011). In addition, it is already possible to state that the youth are entering the Russian labor market, their parents being those who once moved to Russia from other countries and their socialization fully or partially taking place in Russia. Depending on the age when a person came to Russia, he/she can be called a second-generation migrant (if born in Russia), 1.75 generation migrant (if he/she came before the age of 5), 1.5 generation migrant (aged 6-12 years), 1.25 generation migrant (aged 13-17) (Rumbaut, 2004). As the international experience shows, "nostalgic" attitudes toward the country of the parents' origin can be spread among such children, and some of them eventually "return" (Wessendorf, 2007). A common characteristic of these groups (young migrants of the first generation and migrant children who grew up in a new country) is their young age, this age being the most "volatile" life stage, which, as a rule, accounts for a significant part of the events that change the life trajectory. Within the frame of the life course approach these events are called "transitions" and "turning points" (Hardgrove, et al. 2014). It can be assumed that this age volatility, if multiplied by the migration experience of a person or his/her family, leads to less stability in relation to migration plans and intentions.
Migration plans and intentions are an established research topic in the social sciences. Yet, the connection between intentions and behavior is not always straightforward,
as evidenced by diverse research results. Studies of the 1980s in the Philippines showed an ambiguous link between migration intentions and actual migration (Card, 1982; De Jong, et al. 1985; Gardner, et al. 1985); a recent study in the Netherlands highlighted the link between voiced intentions to migrate and a subsequent move to another country (van Dalen, Henkens, 2013). There are also differences in relations between intentions and behaviors among different population groups: for example, analyzing the relationship between the Mexicans' migration plans and US migration, Chort noted that men are more likely to realize their migration intentions than women (Chort, 2014). It is vital to study migration plans and intentions, since even if they are not fully implemented, they are associated with other behaviors — remittances, for example (Wolff, 2015).
There are two types of research on migration intentions and plans. The first one concerns potential migrants and, as a rule, is carried out in sending countries. The second one focuses on migrants, is carried out in receiving countries and focused on migrants' future plans (to stay, return or, in some cases, go to a third country).
The issue of migration intentions and plans of the population is framed by the economic development of the countries of migrants' origin. In particular, it is considered in connection with the problems of human capital loss due to "brain drain." First of all, such studies are about university students and qualified specialists (Card, 1982; Dako-Gyeke, 2016). Among them, an extensive group of papers examines the medical personnel's migration intentions (Vork, Kallaste, Priinits, 2004; Akl, et al., 2008; Imran, et al. 2011; Freeman, et al. 2012; George, Reardon, 2013; Gouda, et al., 2015). Researchers identify a number of factors related to migration plans and intentions: remittances (Leeves, 2009), the Internet (Vilhelmson, Thulin, 2013; Thulin, Vilhelmson, 2014), characteristics of the respondent's household compared to other households in the local community (Loschmann, Siegel, 2014), and violence against migrants in host countries (Friebel, Gallego, Mendola, 2013). A number of publications demonstrate the importance of age, as well as life stage and life events connected with it (Kley, Mulder, 2010; Elbadawy, 2011). According to the study of Romanian youth, the factors related to the intention to migrate are different for adolescents and for young adults: Internet usage and the social class are the most significant factors for the former, whereas for the latter, these are perceived discrimination and a desire for entrepreneurial activity (Roman, Vasilescu, 2016). The presence of relatives, friends or acquaintances in the host country is an important factor for taking a migration decision as well as for choosing a particular region, city or even neighborhood (Massey,
1999; Epstein, Gang, 2006; Bauer, Epstein, Gang, 2009). One of the largest studies of this kind was the work by Williams and his colleagues (Williams, et al. 2018). The scholars used the data on young people aged 16-35 in nine European countries who were not enrolled in educational institutions at the time of the survey and showed the importance of not only socio-economic factors, but also of non-pecuniary ones (for example, "sensation seeking"). A number of papers state the difference between the factors that are significant for men's and women's migration plans and intentions (De Jong, Richter, Isarabhakdi, 1996).
Migration plans and intentions of those who are already in a host country are a less studied issue. The researchers' growing attention to it is associated with the idea that migration is not only "brain drain" but also "brain gain" as well as inflow of migrants' investments in case of their return home (Agyeman, Garcia, 2016). In addition, this direction is associated with the study of repatriation (Uehling, 2002). Researchers identify the factors related to migration intentions: for example, social ties in a host and a sending country (Haug, 2008; Gungor, Tansel, 2014), age and migration stage of life (Waldorf, 1995). In their study of Polish migrants in the UK, Drinkwater and Garapich show the significance of the financial side of life for the duration of migrants' stay in a host country (Drinkwater, Garapich, 2013). A longitudinal study of Philippine university graduates in the United States stated that young age and openness to American culture, which has operationalized through the presence of American friends and a sense of involvement in American life, became significant factors for changing migration plans, and namely for a decision to stay in the United States (Card, 1982).
In the post-Soviet space there are scattered publications devoted to migration plans and intentions. Such studies concern, for example, Kyrgyzstan and Latvia. In the first case, the authors (Agadjanian, Nedoluzhko, Kumskov, 2008) compare two groups of young people — Russian speakers and local population — and come to the conclusion that these are the latter who are oriented towards temporary migration, while the former consider more often a permanent one. In the second case, researchers show that in Latvia Russian-speaking population groups have more migration plans than the locals (Ivlevs, 2013). In Russia, the youth's migration plans and intentions are studied quite actively, students and school and university graduates being the groups of primary interest (Florinskaia, Roshchina, 2005; Abankina, Krasilova, Iastrebov, 2013; Bogomolova, Glazyrina, Sidorenko, 2013; Varshavskaia, Chudinovskikh, 2014). One of the groups includes the Russians studying abroad (Ledeneva, 2002). In addition, a
number of works analyze migration intentions (Varshaver, Rocheva, 2015; Varshaver, Rocheva, Ivanova, 2017a) and life plans of migrants (Peshkova, 2017). However, there is hardly a study that would focus on migration intentions and plans of young people with a migrant background. The goal of this article is to assess the willingness of young people with a migrant background to consider Russia as the country of their future residence and to discover the factors connected with the presence or absence of their orientation towards Russia. In accordance with this task, we first present the data that form the basis of the article and then proceed to the analysis. Basing on the interviews, we will show how diverse migration plans and intentions are among different groups of young people with a migrant background, and basing on the quantitative data, we will demonstrate the prevalence of each of the options and highlight the factors associated with orientation towards Russia. In the concluding part, we will discuss the uncovered links and the plasticity of the plans of young people with a migrant background.
Research methodology
The empirical basis of the article includes a series of qualitative interviews conducted in 2018-2019 in Moscow and Yekaterinburg with young people with a migrant background and experts (52 interviews), a series of interviews with migrant children of 16-35 years old from the South Caucasus and Central Asia who grew up in Russia (2017-2018, ten regions of Russia, 401 interviews) (Varshaver, Rocheva, Ivanova, 2019), a series of interviews with the first generation migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (2016, three regions of Russia, 72 interviews) (Varshaver, Rocheva, 2017) as well as the results of two online surveys with targeting in social networking sites. The first one includes migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (2016, N = 2412) (Varshaver, Rocheva, Ivanova, 2017b) while the second one focuses on grown-up children of migrants from the South Caucasus, Central Asia, Ukraine and local residents (2018, N = 12524) (Varshaver, Rocheva, Ivanova, 2019).
The respondents included in the analysis for this article were selected from the indicated databases. From the first database obtained from a 2016 survey, we selected respondents aged 18-35 years who were in Russia at the time of the survey, came to Russia for the first time at the age of 18 or older and gave their answers to the question about their future plans (N = 449). From the second database obtained in 2018, we selected respondents aged 18-35 years old who were born or moved to Russia at the age of no older than 16 years and answered the question about their future plans, who were classified as second generation migrants from the South Caucasus and Central
Asia or local youth. The category of the second generation migrants in this case was constructed basing on the respondent's father: we selected the respondents who noted that their father was Armenian or Azerbaijani by ethnicity and was born in one of the South Caucasian Soviet republics (Azerbaijan / Azerbaijan SSR, Armenia / Armenian SSR, Georgia / Georgian SSR) or Kyrgyz, Tajik or Uzbek by ethnicity and was born in one of the Central Asian Soviet republics (Kyrgyzstan / Kyrgyz SSR, Uzbekistan / Uzbek SSR, Tajikistan / Tajik SSR, Kazakhstan / Kazakh SSR, Turkmenistan / Turkmen SSR). If the father was born in Russia / RSFSR, the respondent was classified as a local youth (N = 2539 for young people with a migrant father and N = 5290 for local youth; 7829 respondents in total).
The main variable for analyzing quantitative data is "future plans." In 2016, the question about future plans was formulated the following way: "What are your plans for the future?", the options for the answer being 1) to live in Russia, 2) to live in Tajikistan or Uzbekistan, 3) to live both in Russia and in Tajikistan / Uzbekistan, 4) to move to another country (neither Russia nor Tajikistan / Uzbekistan), 5) I do not know. For further analysis, this variable was recoded to the binary one, where 0 stands for the absence of Russia in future plans (options 2 and 4), and 1 stands for the presence of Russia in future plans (options 1 and 3), option 5 being excluded. In 2018, the question about future plans was formulated as follows: "Where do you plan to live in the future?" The options for the answers were the following ones: 1) in the same place as now, 2) in another place in Russia, 3) in another country. This variable was recoded to the binary one, where 0 stands for the absence of Russia in the plans for the future (option 3), 1 stands for the presence of Russia in the plans for the future (options 1 and 2).
Basing on the literature review, we hypothesize that significant factors related to future plans are the respondent's age at the time of the survey and at the time of his/ her move/first visit to Russia; his/her involvement in Russian life with his/her social ties in different contexts as its indicator; having necessary documents (citizenship of the Russian Federation, permanent or temporary residence permit, etc.); identification attitudes.
Having tested these hypotheses on two separate databases, we created a new database including all the respondents' answers from the 2016 database and the answers of the respondents with a migrant background from the 2018 database. Some of the variables important for the analysis, and in particular those that characterize the social ties and identification attitudes, were different in the two databases. To work with them, we created indices for social ties and for identification attitudes. In particular, the index of
social ties for the respondents from the 2016 database was created on the basis of three binary variables about social ties at work, at home and at leisure (Cronbach's Alpha (a) 0.763), where 0 stands for not only compatriots, and 1 stands for compatriots only. For the respondents from the 2018 database, this index was created on the basis of five binary variables about social ties at school, at the educational institution after school graduation, at work, among neighbors, and also in social networking sites (Cronbach's Alpha (a) 0.578), where 0 stands for not only representatives of the same ethnicity, 1 stands for all or the majority of the same ethnicity. Regarding the respondents from the 2016 database, the index of identification attitudes was created on the basis of five variables (I will marry off my daughter only to a representative of my ethnicity; It is important for me to be a representative of my ethnicity; I want to be friends only with the representatives of my ethnicity; In Russia, I prefer to live only with the representatives of my ethnicity; I am against the young women of my ethnicity communicating with men of a different ethnicity; Cronbach's Alpha (a) 0.825)), each taking a value on a scale of 0 to 3, where 3 denotes the maximum ethnic exclusivity and 0 stands for the minimum. This index for the 2018 database was created on the basis of two variables (I will marry off my daughter only to a representative of my ethnicity; For me it is important to be a representative of my ethnicity; Cronbach's Alpha (a) 0.56), the scale being the same (from 0 to 3).
Research results
In this part, we will present the range of migration plans and intentions of young people with a migrant background, the prevalence of certain plans, and the factors connected with the presence or absence of Russia in these plans.
Our analysis of the interviews shows that there are several types of migration plans and intentions which are characteristic of young people with a migrant background, and each type can be found among those who came to Russia after graduation from school as well as among those who spent at least part of their school years in Russia or lived in Russia from their birth.
Firstly, some informants would like to stay in Russia, and this might be due to the labor market characteristics or romantic or marital relations in Russia. For example, B. (female, 24 years old, Karabakh, Surgut, MBn220)1, born and raised in Russia in a family of refugees from Karabakh, talks about her future plans in connection with
1 Henceforward, the description of informants includes gender, age, country/region of origin, city or region of current residence and identification number according to the researchers' internal recording system.
her employment opportunities: there is "no job" in Armenia, therefore, she does not consider it rational to move there. She is sure that in Russia she will always be able to find work in her career field — she is an accountant, and this profession is needed everywhere. Another example is G. (male, 26 years old, Armenia, Yekaterinburg, WB38), who, having completed 9 grades in Yerevan, had been working there in the sphere of catering since the age of 14. At the age of 19 he came to Moscow, where he worked for six years as a cook in the Armenian cafe and then moved to Yekaterinburg and got a job at another Armenian café. He made his career when he became a senior chef supervising three more chefs' work. It is in Yekaterinburg where he met his Russian bride and where he is going to buy an apartment and live in the future.
Secondly, there are informants who are focused on moving to / returning to their own or their parents' country of origin. These plans are partly related to the fact that informants consider this country of origin as their "native" one and feel more comfortable there, and partly are related to a kind of "Prometheus effect" when the informants feel the need to return to the country of origin and contribute to its development. For example, D., who has lived in Moscow from the age of seven (female, 28 years old, Uzbekistan, Moscow, MBni97), has become a rather successful person by her 28 years: she has obtained higher education, worked in oil and gas industry, and opened business in one of the European countries. She has recently visited Uzbekistan and, according to her words, "rediscovered" it for herself. Now she is going to live in Uzbekistan, open business there, perhaps, by making it transnational so that it could embrace Russia as well. Another informant, A. (male, 20 years old, Uzbekistan, Yekaterinburg, PMAP1) wants to return to Uzbekistan, following his parents. He lived and studied in Yekaterinburg from school grade 4 to grade 9 and then, due to problems with documents, went back to Uzbekistan, graduated from college and served in the army there. Having returned to Yekaterinburg, he works as a taxi driver, wants to get higher education in Russia and plans to come back to Uzbekistan again. Informant S. (male, 22 years old, Tajikistan, Tyumen, MBn313) is willing to contribute to the development of Tajikistan. His transnational trajectory is complex: when he was three years old, the family moved to Tyumen, where he started school, in grade 6 he studied in Tajikistan, grades 7 to 9 he studied in Moscow region, and Tajikistan was the place of graduation from school. Later he entered a university in Tyumen as a foreign student. S. plans to get Master degree from a German university and then return to Tajikistan and open an educational and consulting center in Dushanbe in order to "open [the Tajikistan residents'] eyes to
the fact that Russia is not the only country for getting education and let them know that they can go anywhere".
Thirdly, the informants plan to go on living a transnational life and travelling between countries. This is what E. (male, 27 years old, Tajikistan, Krasnodar, WB70) holds as a plan, for example. After graduating from school in Tajikistan, at his uncle's invitation he started going to Russia to work as a construction worker. At present, he is a foreman, working with his relatives in Krasnodar. He spends 5-6 months a year in Russia and the rest of the time in Tajikistan, where his house is being built. His immediate plans are to live the same way, spending half a year in Russia and the other half in Tajikistan, where his wife and a two-year-old son live. In addition, life "between countries" can be closely associated with transnational business. Such is a plan of V. (male, 19, Kyrgyzstan, Moscow, MBn191) who has been living in Moscow since the age of three. Up to school grade 8 he lived with his parents and other migrants from Kyrgyzstan in a very small flat. He did not study well at school, but on weekends he worked in the market at his father's shop. His poor results of the school-1 eaving exam prevented him from getting further education in Moscow. Thus, at present he is a university student in Bishkek, working as a hookah-keeper in his aunt's cafe in Moscow.
Fourthly, there are informants who plan to live neither in Russia nor in the parents' country of origin, but in a third country. At the same time, the range of these third countries is wide: from the USA and Canada to South Korea and Costa Rica. For example, T. (male, 20 years old, Kyrgyzstan, Moscow, MBn177) arrived in Moscow with his parent family when he was 13 and studied in one of Moscow vocational schools. In parallel with his studies, he started working and is now engaged in various types of business: he sells climate equipment and manages several groups in social networking sites. At work, he prefers to interact with the Russians, whom he considers more reliable, as his compatriots stood him up. He plans to increase his income from business, obtain citizenship of the Russian Federation and go to Costa Rica. The sister of informant B. (male, 20 years old, Armenia, Krasnodar, MBn90) met an Armenian from the United States during her summer holiday in Yerevan, married him, moved to the USA and was followed by her parents. Now B. is planning to join them — together with having family there, he finds the USA attractive because of the good career prospects in the academic sphere: he has received PhD and works in the university.
Fifthly, we can speak of the absence of specific plans for the future as a distinct type. Since the young age implies a wide range of "turning points" in life trajectory
such as completion of school education and start of a different educational and/or professional trajectory, as well as emergence of romantic relations which can lead to start of family life, then the lack of clear plans is quite characteristic of young people. For example, L. (female, 22, Uzbekistan, Moscow, MBni80), who grew up in Moscow, was finishing her university study at the time of the interview and when asked about her plans for the future, she mentioned her fiancé who came to Russia as a foreign student from Uzbekistan. According to L., it is he who after the wedding will decide whether they will live in Russia or leave for Uzbekistan. Another example is A. (male, 23 years old, Kyrgyzstan, Yekaterinburg, PMAP2) who upon his graduation from a vocational school in Uzbekistan went to work to his uncle in Moscow, worked in various places there, including fast food cafes. Later his friend invited him to Yekaterinburg, where he has been working as a packer in a transportation company with a friend of his for a year and renting a room in a dormitory. He has no specific plans — whether to stay in Russia, return home or leave for some third country.
How common are certain migration plans and intentions? To answer this question we will not turn to the quantitative data.
The first generation migrants plan to return home in half the cases (53 %). Almost a quarter are going to live transnationally travelling between Russia and the country of origin (23 %). One fifth of the respondents want to live in Russia (21 %). Only 4 % consider the option to leave for a third country — neither Russia nor a home country (Fig. 1, Table 1).
Young people without a migrant background more often plan to stay in their current city, town or village than the second or 1.5 generation migrants and if they plan
What are your plans for the future?
4%
■ To live in Russia
■ To live in Tajikistan / Uzbekistan
■ To live both in Russia and in Tajikistan / Uzbekistan
■ To move to a third country (neither Russia nor Tajikistan / Uzbekistan)
Fig. 1. Migration plans of the first generation migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (N = 449),
the 2016 survey
to emigrate, they choose distant foreign countries, while the second and 1.5 generation migrants, on the contrary, planning to leave Russia, more often opt for the country of the former USSR (that is, the country of their parents' origin).
Table 1. Migration plans of young people with/without a migrant background, the 2018 survey
Second and 1.5 generation migrants Youth without a migrant background
In Russia In the same place of residence as now 51 % 58 %
In another place of residence in Russia 31 % 34 %
In a country of the former USSR 8 % 1 %
In a third country 10 % 8 %
N 2538 5279
Chi Sq 323,633****
* ***p < 0,001; **0,001 < p < 0,01; *0,01 < p < 0,05
In order to compare the data from the two surveys, we use the recoded variable about future plans, where 0 stands for the absence of Russia in the plans, 1 stands for the presence of Russia in the plans. Table 2 presents the data characterizing three groups of young people: first generation migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, second and 1.5 generation migrants from Central Asia and the South Caucasus, and local youth. Local youth respondents are most oriented towards Russia (only one tenth of them plan to live in another country), and young respondents who come from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan are least of all oriented towards Russia (less than a half of them (44 %) plan to live in Russia). Young people who grew up in Russia in migrant families from Central Asia and the South Caucasus occupy an intermediate position: one fifth of them speak of their plans to live in another country.
In order to understand the characteristics associated with the presence or absence of Russia in the plans for the future, we will conduct a logistic regression analysis for each database. The presence or absence of Russia in the future plans will be the dependent variable, whereas the variables related to the respondents' age at the time of their first visit (or move) to Russia, social ties and attitudes towards ethnic exclusivity will be independent ones. With regard to the 2016 database, we will also test the association
between future plans and the respondent's Russian citizenship or documents for foreign citizens (ranging from absence of any documents to a permanent residence permit).
Table 2. Migration plans and intentions of three youth groups, the 2016 and 2018 surveys
Young people with a migrant background Young people without a migrant background (2018)
First-generation migrants from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (2016) Second and 1.5 generation migrants from the South Caucasus and Central Asia (2018)
The presence of Russia in the plans for the future 44 % 82 % 92 %
The absence of Russia in the plans for the future 56 % 18 % 8 %
N 449 2539 5290
According to the results of the logistic regression for the first generation migrants (Table 3), females, respondents with higher education, respondents who came to the country at an earlier age, as well as older respondents more often associate their future with Russia. Income and marital status are not significant (model 1). Regarding the connection of future plans with social ties, only the working context (model 2) will be significant: if the respondents communicate only with their compatriots at work they will hardly consider Russia a place for their future life. Out of five variables that reflect the respondents' attitudes toward ethnic exclusivity only two are significantly related to future plans ("In Russia, I prefer to live only with the representatives of my ethnicity" and "I am against the young girls of my ethnicity communicating with men of other ethnicities") (model 3): the preference for "one's own ethnicity" is significantly related to the absence of Russia in the plans for the future. In addition, the respondent's "document status" is significant for future plans: the one with citizenship and temporary or permanent residence permit is more oriented towards Russia than the one with a patent, registration only or none of these documents (models 4 and 5). If we place the significant variables in one model, then the following will become clear (models 6 and 7): gender and higher education will lose significance, and among the variables related to the documents, the only significant difference will be between the Russian citizenship, temporary and permanent residence permit, on the one hand, and
the absence of any documents justifying the respondent's stay in Russia, on the other han. Such characteristics as social ties at work and attitudes toward ethnic exclusivity will remain significant.
For young people with a migrant background who grew up in Russia the following factors turned out to be significant (Table 4). Gender, age of arrival in Russia, marital status and income level are significant socio-demographic characteristics: males and the respondents who moved to the country at a younger age, have a higher income and are married (Model 1) more often want to live in Russia in the future. The same model reflects significant differences between the respondents, whose father is an Armenian or an Azerbaijani from the South Caucasus, on the one hand, and those whose father is a Kyrgyz from Central Asia. Placed in a separate regression model, the variables characterizing social ties turned out to be insignificant (Model 2). Those who agree with the statements "In Russia I will never be considered as belonging to the Russians", "I will marry off my daughter only to a representative of my ethnicity" and disagree with the statement "There is much from Russian culture as well as from the culture of the country of my parents' birth in me" seldom view Russia as a country of their future residence (Model 3). The frequency of visits to the country of parents' origin in the respondents' school years is not related to future plans. Yet, on the contrary, the visits in recent years are associated with a lack of desire to live in Russia in the future (Model 4). It is important, however, that the age of arrival in Russia is less significant than the feeling of belonging to Russia (Model 5). In the general model (Model 6), the significant variables are gender, marital status, social ties at work, a sense of belonging to Russia and the respondent's idea of a successful integration of Russian culture and the culture of the country of parents'.
However, the question on the factors that become significant if the analysis includes both groups of young people with a migrant background is still open. To answer this question, we will create a new database that would include migrants of the first, 1.5 and second generations, and then conduct the regression analysis. We use two models: one model involves indices for social ties and identification attitudes, the other one — specific variables included in these indices and matching in two databases (Table 5). According to the analysis results, all factors remain significant — the respondent's age at his/her arrival in Russia, age at the time of the survey, social ties and attitudes. Gender, citizenship of the Russian Federation and region of origin (the South Caucasus or Central Asia) are insignificant (models 1 and 2).
Table 3. Logistic regression analysis results for the first generation migrants, dependent variable being the presence or absence of Russia in the respondents" plans for the future*
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 42 Model 53 Model 6" Model T
B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)
Age ,090 1,095* ,097 1,102* ,097 1,102*
Age at the first visit to Russian Federation -,196 0,822*** -,144 0,866* -,144 0,866*
Marital status (0 — single, 1 — married) ,093 1,097
Gender (1 — male, 2 — female) ,957 2,604* -,007 ,993 -,007 ,993
Income -,027 ,974
Higher education (0 — no.l — yes) ,687 1,988* ,540 1,716 ,540 1,716
Social ties at work (0 — not exclusively compatriots, 1 — compatriots only) -1,092 0,336** -1,285 0,277*** -1,285 0,277***
Social ties at home (0 — not exclusively compatriots, 1 — compatriots only) -,331 ,718
Social ties at leisure time (0 — not exclusively compatriots, 1 — compatriots only) -,437 ,646
Registration only ,279 1,322 -1,233 0,292* -1,488 ,226 ,667 1,949
Patent and registration -,104 ,901 -1,615 0,199** -1,461 ,232 ,694 2,001
Temporary or permanent residence permit 1,136 3,116** -,375 ,687 -,110 ,896 2,045 7,728**
None of these -1,511 0,221** -2,155 0,116*
Citizenship of the Russian Federation 1,511 4,533** 2,155 8,627*
I will marry off my daughter only to a representative of my ethnicity -,104 ,902
It is important for me to be a representative of my ethnicity -,305 ,737
I want to be friends with representatives of my ethnicity only -,082 ,922
In Russia I prefer to live with representatives of my ethnicity only -,337 0,714* -,278 0,758* -,278 0,758*
I am against young girls of my ethnicity communicating with men of other ethnicities -,304 0,738** -,504 0,604*** -,504 0,604***
Constant ,214 1,239 ,180 1,197 1,835 6,267 -,470 ,625 1,041 2,833 2,787 16,238 ,632 1,882
R-squared ,089 0,142 0,245 0,077 0,077 0,383 0,383
N 363 387 345 449 449 301 301
* ***p< 0,001; "0,001 <p<0,01; *0,01 <p<0,05. ** Reference category - absence of documents. *** Reference category - citizenship of the Russian Federation. **** Reference category - citizenship of the Russian Federation. ***** Reference category - absence of documents.
Table 4. Logistic regression analysis results for the second and 1.5 generation migrants, dependent variable being the presence or absence of Russia in the respondents" plans for the future*
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6
B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B) B Exp (B)
Gender (1 — male, 2 — female) -,230 0,794* -,477 0,620**
Age ,015 1,015
Age at moving to a country -,030 0,970* -,012 ,988 -,021 ,979
Income ,000 1,00* ,000 1,000
Marital status (0 — single, 1 — married) ,768 2,154*** ,888 2 431***
Dummy — Armenian origin ,539 1,714** ,583 1,791
Dummy — Azerbaijani origin ,496 1,642* ,551 1,734
Dummy — Tajik origin ,664 1,942 ,961 2,614
Dummy — Uzbek origin ,470 1,599 ,820 2,271
Social ties at school -,089 ,915 ,106 1,112
Social ties at an educational institution after school -,006 ,994 ,067 1,069
Social ties in social networking sites -,084 ,919 ,258 1,294
Social ties — friends ,470 1,600 ,457 1,580
Social ties at work -,635 ,530 -,741 0,477*
I prefer to be friends with representatives of my ethnicity only. -,131 ,877 -,028 ,972
There is much from Russian culture as well as from the culture of the country of my parents" birth in me. ,297 1,345*** ,414 1,513***
In Russia I will never be considered as belonging to the Russians. -,463 0,629*** -,483 0,617*** -,563 q 579***
For me it is important to be a ' 'by ethnicity. -,116 ,891 -,109 ,897
My parents" ethnicity is of no importance for me — I am a citizen of the universe. -,009 ,991 -,022 ,979
I will marry off my daughter only to a representative of my ethnicity. ,116 1,123* ,100 1,105
Visits in school years -,100 ,905
Visits in recent years -,229 q 795*** -,072 ,930
Citizenship of the Russian Federation (0 — no,l — yes) -,044 ,957
Constant 1,140 3,127 1,565 4,783 1,625 5,077 1,956 7,073 2,155 8,626 1,871 6,497
R-squared ,031 ,006 ,074 ,022 0,055 0,083
N 2341 1140 2537 2539 2503 1042
* ***p< 0,001; "0,001 <p<0,01; *0,01 <p<0,05. ** Reference category - absence of documents. *** Reference category - citizenship of the Russian Federation. **** Reference category - citizenship of the Russian Federation. ***** Reference category - absence of documents.-
Table 5. Logistic regression analysis results for migrants of the first, second and 1.5 generations, dependent variable being the presence or absence of Russia in the respondents' future plans*
Model 1 Model 2
B Exp (B) B Exp (B)
Gender (1 — male, 2 — female) -,203 ,816 -,262 ,769
Age ,041 1,042* ,042 1,042*
Age at moving /first visit to the country -,073 0,930*** -,066 0,936***
Index of social ties -1,454 0,234***
Index of identification attitudes -,272 0,762**
Citizenship of the Russian Federation (0 — no, 1 — yes) ,326 1,386 ,404 1,498
Region of origin (1 — the South Caucasus, 2 — Central Asia) -,037 ,964 -,112 ,894
Social ties at work -,708 0,493***
I will marry off my daughter only to a representative of my ethnicity -,107 ,898
I prefer to be friends with representatives of my ethnicityonly -,263 0,769***
Constant 1,237 3,445 1,529 4,614
R-squared 0,212 0,218
N 1632 1467
* ***p < 0,001; **0,001 < p < 0,01; *0,01 < p < 0,05.
Discussion and Conclusion
On the whole, the analysis suggests that orientation towards Russia is strong among young people with a migrant background. Yet, the hypotheses regarding the factors associated with specific migration plans were partially confirmed and partially confuted. The respondent's age at the time of the survey and his/her age at the time of the first arrival in / moving to Russia are significant for all young people with a migrant background. These two factors together indicate that the more time a person spends in Russia and the earlier the stage of life is when the respondent "encounters" Russia, the more inclined he/she is to consider his/her future in this country. In this sense, the difference between migrants of the first generation, on the one hand, and migrants of the second and 1.5 generations becomes especially vivid. The former see their future as connected with Russia in less than half the cases, and the latter are, on the contrary, in their majority. However, it has become a surprising result that among the second and 1.5 generation migrants the age of their arrival in Russia is less significant than
the sense of belonging to Russia. Yet, these two factors correlate with each other (the Pearson correlation coefficient is 0.153**). The importance of belonging for migration plans is emphasized in other studies (for example, in the text about the "return home" of the second generation migrants of Ugandan origin (Binaisa, 2011)).
The respondent's "document status" is significant for the first generation of migrants. By this our results are aligned with the study of rural-urban migration in China, according to which migrants without registration in the cities are more intent on further migration than migrants registered as well as urban residents (Yang, 2000). It can be assumed that in those contexts where the receipt of documents is difficult, these documents as well as the opportunity to use them while staying longer in the host society are valued higher. We know from the interviews that gaining a "permanent" status in Russia (citizenship, temporary or permanent residence permit) is not always driven by the desire to stay in Russia forever. One often gets these documents in order to improve his/her position in the labor market and simplify relations with law enforcement authorities, that is, to increase income and send more money home. The absence of any documents in the light of migration control tightening, that has been taking place in Russia over the past few years and manifests itself, for example, in the introduction of "blacklists" and court decisions on deportations and administrative expulsions, may indicate that the migrant has turned out to appear in the zone of "illegality" and, thus, assumes the risk of having no opportunity to live in Russia in the future. In turn, among the second and 1.5 generation migrants the number of those who do not have Russian citizenship is low (about 11 %), this factor being insignificant in making decisions regarding their future trajectory.
For all young people with a migrant background social ties at work turned out to be significant. It is so, apparently, due to the context of the place where the respondents spend most of their time. For the first generation migrants whose international migration to Russia coincides with rural-urban migration as well as with movement from a more "traditional" society expanding the circle of contacts is also an extension of the range of available biographical scenarios, that is, the ideas about shaping their life trajectory as well as events and their sequence on it (Rocheva, 2016). At the same time, in this analysis we used only a rough distinction in relation to the social ties being only compatriots/ not only compatriots, whereas in other publications we proved that the social ties with compatriots may include ties with people already familiar before migration or new acquaintances, and these differences may have consequences for integration (Varshaver, Rocheva, 2015).
The migrants' settlement in Russia is such that no monoethnic areas, where it would be possible to "hide" from ethnic diversity, turn up in Russia (large construction towns can be considered as exceptions, but even they do not display ethnic homogeneity). As a result, those who wish to preserve "ethnic purity" will be less willing to stay in Russia in future. This is evidenced by the following interdependence: the higher the orientation towards ethnic exclusivity — the less expressed plans to live in Russia.
It is important to note that in surveys the questions about future plans register only a certain "imprint" of the decision-making process. According to the interview data, young people with a migrant background consider possible options for arranging their lives in one or another geographical point, and there are quite a few factors under the influence of which this decision may change. E. (female, 23 years old, Kyrgyzstan, Moscow, WB2) faces a difficult choice: she got a vocational secondary education in the dental specialty in Kyrgyzstan, and now she works in Moscow and saves money while considering different scenarios. Her parents offer to help her open a dental office, which will cost about 200 thousand rubles, in Kyrgyzstan; her childhood friend lives in the USA now, works in fast food chain and invites her to go to America, which would take the same 200 thousand rubles; and, finally, she thinks of getting a higher dental education in Russia. Decision-making can be influenced by the Russian migration policy, or the policy for attracting "repatriates" in the countries of origin. For example, G. (male, 25 years old, Armenia, MBn29), who grew up in Moscow in a family of engineers, graduated from one of the best mathematical schools and later created high-tech startups, considers Spain to be an ideal place to live, but at the same time he supports those who "return" to Armenia. Yet, he himself is ready to go there only in case of institutional changes: until then going to Armenia alone is as meaningless as "going to the war with a baton". The reflections of H. (female, 19 years old, Tajikistan, Yekaterinburg, PMAP2), a foreign student from a university in Yekaterinburg, are very revealing: she is eager to go to South Korea, but she is ready to stay in Russia if, most importantly, she finds a suitable job and, secondary, manages to get documents (such as a temporary or permanent residence permit). At the same time, there are cases when Russian migration policy "repels" even those who grew up in Russia. So, G. (male, 20 years old, Kyrgyzstan, MBn359) graduated from school and college in one of the cities of the Yamalo-Nenets Autonomous Okrug. He very seldom went to Kyrgyzstan. But when he decided to get married and went to Kyrgyzstan, while trying to return to Russia he discovered that he is banned from entry to Russia for three years.
Thus, due to plasticity of migration plans of young people with a migrant background and a relatively high orientation towards their future life in Russia, there are vast opportunities for the Russian Federation migration policy to attract and retain these young people in Russia.
References
Abankina, T., Krasilova, A., Iastrebov, G. (2013). Education as a Start in Life: Life Plans of Rural High School Students in Russia [Obrazovanie kak start dlia zhizni: zhiznennye plany sel'skikh shkol'nikov v Rossii]. In Educational Studies Moscow [Voprosy obrazovaniya], (2), 87-120. DOI: 10.17323/1814-9545-20122-87-120
Abashin, S.N. (2017). Return Home and Circular Mobility: How Crises Change Anthropological Views on Migration [Vozvrashchenie domoi i tsirkuliarnaia mobil'nost': kak krizisy meniaiut antropologicheskii vzgliad na migratsiiu]. In Ethnographic Review [Etnograficheskoe obozrenie], (3), 5-15.
Agadjanian, V., Nedoluzhko, L., Kumskov, G. (2008). Eager to Leave? Intentions to Migrate Abroad Among Young People in Kyrgyzstan. In International Migration Review, 42 (3), 620-651. DOI: 10.1111/j.1747-7379.2008.00140.x
Agyeman, E.A., Garcia, M.F. (2016). Connecting Return Intentions and Home Investment: the Case of Ghanaian Migrants in Southern Europe. In Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17 (3), 745-759. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-015-0432-2
Akl, E.A., et al. (2008). Post-Graduation Migration Intentions of Students of Lebanese Medical Schools: a Survey Study. In BMC Public Health, 8 (191), 1-8. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2458-8-191
Bauer, T., Epstein, G.S., Gang, I.N. (2009). Measuring Ethnic Linkages Among Migrants. In International Journal of Manpower, 30 (1/2), 56-69. DOI: 10.1108/01437720910948393
Binaisa, N. (2011). Negotiating 'Belonging' to the Ancestral 'Homeland': Ugandan Refugee Descendants 'Return'. In Mobilities, 6 (4), 519-534. DOI: 10.1080/17450101.2011.603945
Bogomolova, T. Iu., Glazyrina, I.P., Sidorenko, N.L. (2013). Eastern Border-Zones of Russia: Student-Age Population's Attitudes Towards Migration [Prigranich'e vostoka Rossii: migratsionnye nastroeniia studencheskoi molodezhi]. In Region: Economics and Sociology [Region: ekonomika i sotsiologiia], 4 (80), 154-173.
Card, J.J. (1982). The Correspondence Between Migration Intentions and Migration Behavior: Data from the 1970 Cohort of Filipino Graduate Students in the United States. In Population and Environment, 5 (1), 3-25.
Chort, I. (2014). Mexican Migrants to the US: What Do Unrealized Migration Intentions Tell Us About Gender Inequalities? In World Development, 59, 535-552. DOI: 10.1016/j .worlddev.2014.01.036
Dako-Gyeke, M. (2016). Exploring the Migration Intentions of Ghanaian Youth: A Qualitative Study. In Journal of International Migration and Integration, 17 (3), 723-744. DOI: 10.1007/s12134-015-0435-z
De Haas, H., Fokkema, T. (2011). The Effects of Integration and Transnational Ties on International Return Migration Intentions. In Demographic Research, 25, 755-782. DOI: 10.4054/DemRes.2011.25.24
De Jong, G.F., Richter, K., Isarabhakdi, P. (1996). Gender, Values, and Intentions to Move in Rural Thailand. In International Migration Review, 30 (3), 748-770. DOI: 10.1177/019791839603000305
De Jong, G.F., Root, B.D., Gardner, R.W., Fawcett, J.T., Abad, R.G. (1985). Migration Intentions and Behavior: Decision Making in a Rural Philippine Province. In Population and Environment, 8 (1-2), 41-62.
Drinkwater, S., Garapich, M.P. (2013). Migration Plans and Strategies of Recent Polish Migrants to England and Wales: Do They Have Any and How Do They Change? NORFACE Research Programme on Migration, Department of Economics, Univ. College London.
Elbadawy, A. (2011). Migration Aspirations Among Young People in Egypt: Who Desires to Migrate and Why? Working Paper 619. Economic Research Forum.
Epstein, G.S., Gang, I.N. (2006). The Influence of Others on Migration Plans. In Review of Development Economics, 10 (4), 652-665. DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9361.2006.00340.x
Florinskaia, Iu.F., Roshchina, T.G. (2005). Migration Intentions of Graduates of Schools in Small Russian Towns [Migratsionnye Namereniia Vypusknikov Shkol Malykh Gorodov Rossii]. In Monitoring of Public Opinion [Monitoring Obshchestvennogo Mneniia], 2 (74), 77-87.
Freeman, M., Baumann, A., Akhtar-Danesh, N., Blythe, J., Fisher, A. (2012). Employment Goals, Expectations, and Migration Intentions of Nursing Graduates in a Canadian Border City: A Mixed Methods Study. In International Journal of Nursing Studies, 49 (12), 1531-1543. DOI: 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2012.07.015
Friebel, G., Gallego, J.M., Mendola, M. (2013). Xenophobic Attacks, Migration Intentions, and Networks: Evidence from the South of Africa. In Journal of Population Economics, 26 (2), 555-591. DOI: 10.1007/s00148-012-0455-3
Gardner, R.W., De Jong, G.F., Arnold, F., Cariño, B.V. (1985). The Best-Laid Schemes: an Analysis of Discrepancies Between Migration Intentions and Behavior. In Population and Environment, 8 (1-2), 63-77.
George, G., Reardon, C. (2013). Preparing for Export? Medical and Nursing Student Migration Intentions Post-Qualification in South Africa. In African Journal of Primary Health Care & Family Medicine, 5 (1), 1-9. DOI: 10.4102/phcfm.v5i1.483
Gouda, P., et al. (2015). Ireland's Medical Brain Drain: Migration Intentions of Irish Medical Students. In Human Resources for Health., 13 (11), 1-9. DOI: 10.1186/ s12960-015-0003-9
Güngor, N.D., Tansel, A. (2014). Brain Drain from Turkey: Return Intentions of Skilled Migrants. In International Migration, 52 (5), 208-226. DOI: doi.org/10.1111/ imig.12013
Hardgrove, A., Boyden, J., Dornan, P., Pells, K. (2014). Youth Vulnerabilities in Life Course Transitions. Occasional Paper. 4 UNDP Human Development Report Office.
Haug, S. (2008). Migration Networks and Migration Decision-Making. In Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 34 (4), 585-605. DOI: 10.1080/1369183080 1961605
Imran, N., Azeem, Z., Haider, I.I., Amjad, N., Bhatti, M.R. (2011). Brain Drain: Post Graduation Migration Intentions and the Influencing Factors Among Medical Graduates from Lahore, Pakistan. In BMC Research Notes, 4 (417), 2-5. DOI: 10.1186/1756-0500-4-417
Ivlevs, A. (2013). Minorities on the Move? Assessing Post-Enlargement Emigration Intentions of Latvia's Russian Speaking Minority. In The Annals of Regional Science, 51 (1), 33-52. DOI: 10.1007/s00168-012-0534-0
Kley, S.A., Mulder, C.H. (2010). Considering, Planning, and Realizing Migration in Early Adulthood. The Influence of Life-Course Events and Perceived Opportunities on Leaving the City in Germany. In Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25 (1), 73-94. DOI: 10.1007/s10901-009-9167-8
Ledeneva, L.I. (2002). Professional and Migration Intentions of Russian Students Studying Abroad [Professional'no-migratsionnye namereniia rossiiskikh studentov, obuchaiushchikhsia za rubezhom]. In Sociological Studies [Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniia], (10), 94-102.
Leeves, G. (2009). Migration Plans and Received Remittances: Evidence from Fiji and Tonga. In International Migration Review, 43 (1), 160-177. DOI: 10.1111/j.0197— 9183.2008.01151.x
Loschmann, C., Siegel, M. (2014). The Influence of Vulnerability on Migration Intentions in Afghanistan. In Migration and Development, 3 (1), 142-162. DOI: 10.1080/21632324.2014.885259
Massey, D.S. (1999). Why Does Immigration Occur? A Theoretical Synthesis. In the Handbook of International Migration: The American Experience, ed. C. Hirschman, P. Kasinitz, J. DeWind. New York: Russell Sage Found. 34-52.
Mukomel, V.I. (2011). Integration of Migrants: Challenges, Policies, Social Practices [Integratsiia migrantov: vyzovy, politika, sotsial'nye praktiki]. In Universe of Russia. Sociology. Ethnology [Mir Rossii. Sotsiologiia. Etnologiia], 20 (1), 34-50.
Peshkova, V.M. (2017). Life Plans of Central Asian Migrants in Russia: Narratives and Practices [Zhiznennye plany trudovykh migrantov iz Srednei Azii v Rossii: narrativy i praktiki]. In Ethnographic Review [Etnograficheskoe obozrenie], (3), 48-62.
Rocheva, A. (2016). Transformation of Gender Relations of Migrants in Russia (Case of Kyrgyz Migrants in Moscow) [Transformatsiia Gendernykh Otnoshenii Migrantov v Rossii (na Primere Migrantov iz Kirgizii vMoskve)]. PhD thesis. Institute of Sociology, Russian Academy of Sciences.
Roman, M., Vasilescu, M.D. (2016). Explaining the Migration Intentions of Romanian Youth: Are Teenagers Different? In Romanian Statistical Review, 64 (4), 69-86.
Rumbaut, R.G. (2004). Ages, Life Stages, and Generational Cohorts: Decomposing the Immigrant First and Second Generations in the United States 1. In International Migration Review, 38 (3), 1160-1205.
Thulin, E., Vilhelmson, B. (2014). Virtual Practices and Migration Plans: A Qualitative Study of Urban Young Adults. In Population, Space and Place, 20 (5), 389-401. DOI: doi.org/10.1002/psp.1766
Uehling, G. (2002). Sitting on Suitcases: Ambivalence and Ambiguity in the Migration Intentions of Crimean Tatar Women. In Journal of Refugee Studies, 15 (4), 388-408. DOI: 10.1093/jrs/15.4.388
van Dalen, H.P., Henkens, K. (2013). Explaining Emigration Intentions and Behaviour in the Netherlands, 2005-10. In Population Studies, 67 (2), 225-241. DOI: 10.1080/00324728.2012.725135
Varshaver, E., Rocheva, A. (2015). Peering into 'Ethnic' Community: Integration in Performance Differences 'Patriotic-Related' and 'National' Wheels (Case of Migrants from Kyrgyzstan in Moscow) [Vgliadyvaias' v 'Etnicheskoe' Soobshchestvo: Otlichiia Kharakteristik Integratsii v 'Zemliachesko-Rodstvennye' i 'Natsional'nye' Krugi (na Primere Migrantov iz Kyrgyzstana v Moskve)]. In Social Policy and Sociology [Sotsial'naia Politika i Sotsiologiia], 14 (3), 24-37. DOI: 10.17922/2071-3665-201514-3-1-24-37
Varshaver, E., Rocheva, A. (2017). Integration of Labor Migrants in Russia. Presentation. World Bank Group. Moscow.
Varshaver, E., Rocheva, A., Ivanova, N. (2017a). Assessment of the Regulatory Impact of the Law on the Complex Exam: Results of a Case Study [Otsenka Reguliruiushchego Vozdeistviia Zakona 74-FZ o Kompleksnom Ekzamene: Rezul'taty Sotsiologicheskogo Issledovaniia]. Preprint. Moscow.
Varshaver, E., Rocheva, A., Ivanova, N. (2017b). Information Behavior of Migrants from Central Asia under Changes in the Russian Migration Legislation [Informatsionnoe Povedenie Migrantov iz Srednei Azii v Kontekste Izmeneniia Migratsionnogo Zakonodatel'stva]. In The Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal [Monitoring Obshchestvennogo Mneniia: Ekonomicheskie i Sotsial'nye Peremeny], (1), 182-195. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2017.1.12
Varshaver, E., Rocheva, A., Ivanova, N. (2019). Second Generation Migrants Aged 18-35 in Russia: Research Project Results [Integratsiia Migrantov Vtorogo Pokoleniia v Vozraste 18-35 Let v Rossii: Rezul'taty Issledovatel'skogo Proekta]. In The Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal [Monitoring Obshchestvennogo Mneniia: Ekonomicheskie i Sotsial'nye Peremeny], (1). (in print)
Varshaver, E., Rocheva, A., Kochkin, E., Kuldina, E. (2014). Kyrgyz Migrants in Moscow: Results of a Quantitative Research on Integration Tracks [Kirgizskie Migranty v Moskve: Rezul'taty Kolichestvennogo Issledovaniia Integratsionnykh Traektorii ]. Preprint. Moscow.
Varshavskaia, E. Ia., Chudinovskikh, O.S. (2014). Migration Intentions of Graduates of Russian Regional Higher Educational Institutions [Migratsionnye plany vypusknikov regional'nykh vuzov Rossii]. In Moscow University Economics Bulletin. Series 6: Economy [VestnikMoskovskogo universiteta. Seriia 6: Ekonomika], (3), 36-58.
Vilhelmson, B., Thulin, E. (2013). Does the Internet Encourage People to Move? Investigating Swedish Young Adults' Internal Migration Experiences and Plans, In Geoforum, 47, 209-216. DOI: 10.1016/j.geoforum.2013.01.012
Vork, A., Kallaste, E., Priinits, M. (2004). Migration Intentions of Health Care Professionals: The Case of Estonia. New Patterns of Labour Migration in CEE. AMM Publishing House. 169-182.
Waldorf, B. (1995). Determinants of International Return Migration Intentions. In the Professional Geographer, 47 (2), 125-136. DOI: 10.1111/j.0033-0124.1995.00125.x Wessendorf, S. (2007). 'Roots Migrants': Transnationalism and 'Return' among Second-Generation Italians in Switzerland. In Journal of Ethnic andMigration Studies, 33 (7), 1083-1102. DOI: 10.1080/13691830701541614
Williams, A.M., Jephcote, C., Janta, H., Li, G. (2018). The Migration Intentions of Young Adults in Europe: A Comparative, Multilevel Analysis. In Population, Space and Place, 24 (1), 1-16. DOI: 10.1002/psp.2123
Wolff, F.C. (2015). Do the Return Intentions of French Migrants Affect Their Transfer Behaviour? In The Journal of Development Studies, 51 (10), 1358-1373. DOI: 10.1080/00220388.2015.1046443
Yang, X. (2000). Determinants of Migration Intentions in Hubei Province, China: Individual Versus Family Migration. In Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 32 (5), 769-787. DOI: 10.1068/a32114
Молодежь с миграционным бэкграундом: хотят ли они оставаться в России?
А.Л. Рочева, Е.А. Варшавер, Н.С. Иванова
Центр региональных исследований и урбанистики Российской академии народного хозяйства и государственной службы при Президенте Российской Федерации Россия, 119571, Москва, пр. Вернадского, 84/3
В контексте современной демографической ситуации в России миграция рассматривается как один из наиболее действенных способов если не роста, то поддержания численности населения на том же уровне. В трудовой миграции в Россию участвуют преимущественно молодые люди, а кроме того, в последние годы все большую значимость приобретает группа молодежи, выросшей в России в семьях мигрантов — так называемые мигранты второго поколения, полуторного поколения и прочих более дробных категорий. Согласно международным исследованиям, миграционные планы таких групп молодежи могут в разной степени включать намерение вернуться в страну происхождения, свою или родителей, а также в целом отличаться большей лабильностью. В свете этого особую важность приобретает вопрос о том, насколько
молодежь с миграционным бэкграундом видит свое будущее в России и в силу этого действительно может стать ресурсом по корректировке демографической ситуации. В этой статье на основе качественных интервью, а также данных онлайн-опросов мы рассматриваем, как разные группы молодежи с миграционным бэкграундом оценивают свои перспективы в будущем жить в России и с чем связаны те или иные планы. Мигранты первого поколения меньше чем в половине случаев намереваются оставаться в России, тогда как мигранты второго и полуторного поколений, напротив, в большинстве своем связывают будущее с Россией. Значимые для обеих групп факторы, связанные с ориентацией на Россию, включают в себя возраст респондента при переезде/первом приезде в Россию и на момент опроса, круги общения, а также идентификационные установки. Однако есть и различия: для мигрантов второго и полуторного поколений возраст приезда оказывается менее значимым, чем ощущение принадлежности в России, а для мигрантов первого поколения важны правовые статусы и документы. Тем не менее, планы на будущее среди молодежи с миграционным бэкграундом пластичны, что открывает для принимающего государства возможности по привлечению и удержанию этой группы.
Ключевые слова: миграционные планы, миграционные намерения, молодежь с миграционным бэкграундом, молодые мигранты, мигранты второго поколения, мигранты полуторного поколения.
Статья подготовлена при поддержке гранта Российского научного фонда (проект РНФ № 18-78-00019) «Анализ интеграционных характеристик молодых мигрантов в России».
Научная специальность: 22.00.00 — социология.
