a wary welcome: varying reception of migrants in russian cities

7/30/2019 A Wary Welcome: Varying Reception of Migrants in Russian Cities

1/42


2/42

A WARY WELCOME:Varying Reception of Migrants

in Russian Cities

Mary Elizabeth Malinkin


3/42

WOODROW WILSON INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SCHOLARS

The Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, established by Congress

in 1968 and headquartered in Washington, D.C., is a living national memo-

rial to President Wilson. The Centers mission is to commemorate the ideals

and concerns o Woodrow Wilson by providing a link between the worlds o

ideas and policy, while ostering research, study, discussion, and collaboration

among a broad spectrum o individuals concerned with policy and scholar-

ship in national and international aairs. Supported by public and private

unds, the Center is a nonpartisan institution engaged in the study o national

and world aairs. It establishes and maintains a neutral orum or ree, open,and inormed dialogue. Conclusions or opinions expressed in Center pub-

lications and programs are those o the authors and speakers and do not

necessarily reect the views o the Center sta, ellows, trustees, advisory

groups, or any individuals or organizations that provide fnancial support to

the Center.

The Center is the publisher oThe Wilson Quarterlyand home o Woodrow

Wilson Center Press, dialogue radio and television. For more inormation

about the Centers activities and publications, please visit us on the web atwww.wilsoncenter.org.

Jane Harman, Director, President and CEO

Board o Trustees

Joseph B. Gildenhorn, Chairman o the Board

Sander R. Gerber, Vice Chairman

Public Board Members:James H. Billington, Librarian of Congress; John Kerry, Secretary,

U.S. Department of State; G. Wayne Clough, Secretary, Smithsonian Institution; Arne Dun-

can, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education; David Ferriero, Archivist of the United States;

Fred P. Hochberg, Chairman and President, Export-Import Bank; James Leach, Chairman,

National Endowment for the Humanities; Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary, U.S. Department of

Health and Human Services

Private Board Members: Timothy Broas, John T. Casteen III, Charles Cobb, Jr., Thelma Dug-

gin, Carlos M. Gutierrez, Susan Hutchison, Barry S. Jackson

Wilson National Cabinet: Eddie & Sylvia Brown, Melva Bucksbaum & Raymond Learsy,

Ambassadors Sue & Chuck Cobb, Lester Crown, Thelma Duggin, Judi Flom, Sander R.

Gerber, Ambassador Joseph B. Gildenhorn & Alma Gildenhorn, Harman Family Founda-

tion, Susan Hutchison, Frank F. Islam, Willem Kooyker, Linda B. & Tobia G. Mercuro,

Dr. Alexander V. Mirtchev, Wayne Rogers, Leo Zickler


4/42

A WARY WELCOME:

Varying Reception of Migrants

in Russian Cities

Mary Elizabeth Malinkin

2013 Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars, Washington, D.C.www.wilsoncenter.org

Cover Photograph: Shutterstock Images

ISBN: 978-1-938027-18-5


5/42


6/42

Preface 7

Introduction 8

Overview of International Migration in Russia 11

Xenophobia and Racism 13

Migrants and Social Norms 14

The Role of the Media 15

Regional Variations in How Migrants Are Received 17

Krasnodar 17

Ekaterinburg 21

Nizhnyi Novgorod 25

Conclusions 30

Notes 32

About the Author 38

CONTENTS


7/42


8/42

7A WARY WELCOME: Varying Reception of Migrants in Russian Cities

Preface

This paper is a version o a lecture I gave at Hamburg University on

December 14, 2011 or a series titled Narratives o Nomadism, or-

ganized by Monica Ruethers and Beata Wagner-Nagy. I would like

to thank them again or including me in such a creative lecture series, which

has inspired me to look at migration in broader terms.

The research or the lecture emerged rom a project titled People, Power,

and Conict in the Eurasian Migration System, unded by the National

Science Foundation (NSF award 0904817) and headed by Cynthia Buckley,

proessor o sociology, University o Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. I would

like to express my deep gratitude to Blair A. Ruble, ormer director o the

Kennan Institute and co-principal investigator or the project, and Cynthia

Buckley, or their invaluable guidance and comments on many drats as I

prepared or the Narratives o Nomadism talk. William Bird read several

versions o the paper, and I am grateul or his thoughtul editorial advice.

I would also like to thank Oliver Bevan, Timothy Heleniak, Erin Homann,

Irina Kuzemkina, Igor Kuznetsov, Beth Mitchneck, and Everett Peachey ortheir research contributions, without which I would not have been able to

compare the three cities discussed herein. Anastasia Pleshakova and Natalia

Vlasova were instrumental in obtaining access to a wide range o interviews

in Ekaterinburg in September 2011, or which I am in their debt.

Finally, I would like to thank Blair Ruble or his encouragement to pub-

lish the lecture as part o the Eurasian Migration Papers series.


9/42

8 EURASIAN MIGRATION PAPERS

Introduction

Gde rodilsia, tam i prigodilsiaessentially, The place where one

was born is where one belongs. This is a Russian proverb I have

heard many times in conversations with Russians. Russia has a long

history o citizens being tied to their hometown, village, or city, sometimes

by choice, and other times by restrictions on movement. Historically, a large

part o the population was bound to the land as sers until the mid-1800s. In

addition, as early as the 16th century, an internal passport system and limited

permits or city residents were used in Imperial Russia.1 Under Soviet rule,

internal passports and residence permits (propiska) reected the attempt o the

state to manage population movement, with a ocus on the most efcient use

o labor. Throughout Russian history a series o administrative policies have

reinorced the atalistic expression, Gde rodilsia, tam i prigodilsia.

In the post-Soviet period, there is evidence o both continuity and

change. Russias new constitution (1993) recognized the reedom o move-

ment as well as the right to emigrate or all citizens.2 At the same time,

several actors limited de actomobility within the country: the mandatorysystem o registering where one works, access to social services being linked

to ones permanent place o residence and registration, a poorly developed

and very expensive housing market, lack o recruitment and employment

agencies, and discrimination toward people o non-Slavic ethnicity. This last

actor aects the Northern Caucasus in particular, which has a high percent-

age o non-Slavic ethnicities and is currently the only region in Russia with

a laborsurplus.3

Even with ofcial restrictions on movement removed, many barriers tomoving within Russia remain. The migration that has taken place within

Russia since the end o the Soviet period has largely been rom the north and

Siberia into central Russia as illustrated in the map on Figure 1. 4

For the cities in central Russia, which have a generally immobile native

population, the inux o native Russians rom other regions and a steady ow

o international labor migrants over the last 20 years have caused consider-

able tension. Such circumstances are similar to those in Europe where the

concept o nomadism has been used to exclude certain groups rom inte-

gration. Nomadism has been constructed in the political discourse in Europe


10/42


as a potentially dangerous phenomenon and in direct opposition to the im-

plicit norm o sedentariness. A very similar discourse is currently underway

in Russia as well.

Regardless o what the implicit norm might be, the reality is that Russia

has the second largest number o international migrants in the world, sur-

passed only by the United States. Understanding how migrants are perceived

and have been integrating in Russian cities is relevant to the United States

as well. Russia and the United States are conronting many o the same chal-

lenges as major migrant destinations: rising unemployment related to global

economic recession, changing local labor markets due to the globalized econ-

omy, increased populist and nationalist rhetoric, and a history o racism and

xenophobia that can easily rise to the surace under tense circumstances. It

seems the two countries have much to learn rom each others experiences.

In this paper I highlight the importance o historical context, xenopho-

bia, mass media, and local context in examining the experiences o migrantsin the Russian Federation. These our actors provide unique insights into

FIGURE 1. NET GAIN FROM INTERNAL MIGRATION BY REGION,

1993 TO 2007 (PERCENT OF 1993 POPULATION).

Map by Timothy Heleniak, 2012.

2.0 to 6.0 -5.0 to 0.0 -10.0 to -5.0 -43.7 to -10.06.0 to 10.4 0.0 to 2.0


11/42


understanding the patterns o continuity and change related to migration in

Russia. Some o the key questions addressed in this paper include:

How might we determine whether the reception o migrants varies romregion to region in Russia?

Why might the reception o migrants vary?

What actors seem to play a role in whether migrants integrate in a par-

ticular city or region?


12/42


Overview of International Migration in Russia

Since the all o the Soviet Union in 1991, labor demand has con-

tinually increased. Simultaneously, an aging population and rising

mortality rate, particularly among men, make or an ever-shrinking

workorce. The graph in Figure 2 depicts the birth rate, death rate, and

natural population increase in the Russian Federation between 1980 and

2009.

With such demographic trends, the demand or labor in the Russian

Federation is acute. The combination o these actors5 has led to the emer-

gence o Russia as a new migration destination: migrants have opportunities

to earn much higher wages in Russia than they could in their home countries,

and in turn, vacancies in the Russian labor market are flled. Ofcial statistics

reveal substantial growth in some cities (Moscow in particular) despite the

act that the Russian population has been declining or nearly two decades.

Migrants are the primary source o demographic growth or Russian cities

showing population growth or stability since 1991. The Russian Federation is

a major international migration destination, second only to the United Statesin the total number o oreign-born ofcial residents (estimated at 12 million

in 2010) as shown in Figure 3.6

Migrants in Russia accounted or 8.7 percent o the total Russian popu-

lation in 2010, putting Russia among the top 20 countries worldwide in

FIGURE 2. BIRTH RATE, MORTALITY RATE, AND NATURAL POPULATION IN-

CREASE IN RUSSIAN FEDERATION, 19802009.

Source: Demografcheskii ezhegodnik Rossii 2010 (RosStat: Moscow, 2010), Table 2.1.


13/42


proportion o oreign-born.7 It is important to note, however, that the ofcial

statistics do not include unregistered residents. Researchers have used vari-

ous methods to calculate the number o unregistered migrants currently in

Russia, and the estimates range rom 4 million to 12 million. In this paper, I

reer only to statistics on registeredmigrants.

Regardless o the actual number o migrants in Russia, the increase in in-

ternational migrants is not the only recent change in Russia, but also shits

in migrants countries o origin, the jobs they hold, and their motivations to

migrate. In the early 1990s, migrants were largely ethnic Russians who were

permanently relocating or returning to Russia rom other ormer Soviet re-

publics,8 as well as Ukrainians and peoples rom the Caucasus. Beginning in

the 2000s, the ethnic composition o the migrant ows changed as more mi-

grants began arriving rom Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Moldova,

ormer Soviet republics with a history o limited international migration.9

Migrants are coming to Russia in growing numbers rom countries beyond

the borders o the ormer Soviet Union as well, in particular rom China

and Vietnam. While these are not newmigration ows or Russia (the Soviet

FIGURE 3.TOP 10 HOST COUNTRIES FOR INTERNATIONAL MIGRANTS

(IN THOUSANDS)

Source: United Nations Department o Economic and Social Aairs, Population Division,

Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision, UN database, 2010.

WORLD: 213,943,812

TOP TEN: 52%

of the worlds total

42,813

12,270

10,758

7,289

7,202

6,685

6,452

6,378

5,436

5,258

United States

Russian Federation

Germany

Saudi Arabia

Canada

France

United Kingdom

Spain

India

Ukraine


14/42


Union had labor exchange agreements with the two countries since the 1950s

and 1970s, respectively), the numbers o migrants have increased.

Although the newly arriving nonethnic Russian migrants remain a smallpercentage o the largely monoethnic Russian cities, their presence aects, and

is aected by, long-standing social structures, and they are oten seen as out-

siders by the local population and as disrupting cultural norms. The 2002

census results indicated that nearly 79.8 percent o the Federations population

was ethnic Russian, with the next largest ethnic group Ukrainians, comprising

10.6 percent o the population.10 Growing migrant populations, particularly

in Russian cities, raise numerous public policy issues related to identity, power

structures, and a citys overall capacity to accommodate diversity. Blair A. Ruble

has argued that cities must develop new modes o operation which expand

the social and economic capital generated by diversity.11 While it is not a new

phenomenon or Russia to receive migrants, the level o migration and the

nature o the society to which todays migrants are moving have changed. How

the Russian ederal government and city administrations address these issues

depends in large part on their appreciation o the positive role that migrants

play in a changing society.

XENOPHOBIA AND RACISM

The social challenges relating to migration in Russia have been met with

various responses at all levels o society, rom the ederal to local city gov-

ernments, public opinion, and the media. While there is notable variation,

most cities have responded to increased international migration with greater

xenophobia as well as a wide range o anti- sentiments. In spite o the sig-

nifcant role played by migrants in Russia, the host population has met the

newcomers with what could be described as a wary welcome at best. Atworst, the migrants are treated as enemy invaders. As Russian philosopher

Vladimir Malakhov wrote, Villages throughout Russia continue to become

extinct, the national economy is short about two and a hal million workers

every year, and yet, instead o developing measures to attract migrants and

help them adapt, the overwhelming dialogue in Russia continues to ocus on

the threats migrants pose to the countrys ethno-cultural security.12 In the

mass media as well as statements by politicians and ofcials, migrants are oten

associated with diverse threats, including crime, terrorism, drugs, and disease.


15/42


Experts show that the rise in xenophobia is not related to the increased

numbers o migrants, but to the ethnicities o the migrants.13 Surveys by the

Levada Center in 2005 showed that negative attitudes directed toward mi-grants rom the Caucasus and Central Asia were common, with the most ex-

treme negative attitudes toward Chechen and Roma migrants, described by

historian Valeri Solovei as the domestic other. The respondents explained

their negative attitudes as being largely due to cultural distance and social

dierences. Solovei, however, argued that the cultural dierences between the

groups were not as important as the phenotypical dierences o the disliked

groups, given that the respondents showed much more positive attitudes to-

wards oreigners who were more similar in appearance, such as Germans or

white Americans. As in migration debates in the United States, xenophobia

and racism are oten at the root o antimigration attitudes.

MIGRANTS AND SOCIAL NORMS

As part o a project titled People, Power, and Conict in the Eurasian

Migration System, unded by the National Science Foundation (NSF award

0904817) and led by Cynthia Buckley, proessor o sociology, University o

Illinois, Urbana-Champaign*, we compared Russian social norms with thevalues and attitudes o the oreign born. As in other key destination countries

or international migration, migrants to Russia are identifed as causing a va-

riety o social ills, presenting core challenges to Russian culture and leading

to long-term changes in social identity.14 We used content analysis o media,

government pronouncements, and public opinion surveys to identiy core

idealized social norms and cultural practices in Russia. Using the frst wave o

the Russian Gender and Generation Survey (2004), we empirically tested or

dierences between oreign- and native-born residents in Russia in terms oadherence to these idealized sociocultural values. Exploring views on gender

roles and childbearing, and attitudes toward elder care, religion, and the use o

Russian language, we ound that the oreign-born display signifcantly greater

adherence to idealized norms, especially the importance o the amily and

religious participation than the native-born, but the eects vary by country

or region o origin. The results are summarized in Table 1.

* Buckley and Malinkin, Fitting in or Setting the Standards? Nativity and Adherence

to Idealized Social Norms in the Russian Federation. Forthcoming.


16/42


Our results highlighted the disjuncture between oten-politicized ears

about immigration and the sociocultural attitudes and practices o the oreign-

born. They also support the theory that it is perceived phenotypical and racial

dierences that evoke the ire o local residents rather than cultural dierences

as oten claimed. We ound that the cultural threats oten attributed to migrants

are not linked to core social values in the Russian Federation; but rather the

otherness is driven, perhaps, by xenophobia. This ear o the other is a long-standing issue in Russia, but more recently has been anned by mass media.

THE ROLE OF THE MEDIA

Ater a nationally publicized ethnic conict in 2006 in Kondopoga, a small

city in the Republic o Kareliia (northwestern Russia), the word migrant

began to be used more and more requently in the language o hate.15 A skir-

mish between Russians and Azeris escalated to an armed conict between

Chechens and Russians in which two Russians were killed. In reaction, the

TABLE I. ADHERENCE TO IDEALIZED NORMS, RUSSIAN GENDER AND

GENERATIONS SURVEY, 2004, BY NATIVITY AND REGION OF ORIGIN (%)

Native

(N=9190)

Slavic

(N=1111)

Kazakhstan

(N=274)

CentralAsia

(N=292)

Caucasus

(N=164)

Other

(N=230)

Housework is

as valuable as

paid work

10.5 10.0 10.7 8.8 15.3 12.2

Women need

children/

ulfllment

25.0 28.2 28.8 28.8 32.5 27.6

Families

should

support elders

36.5 37.8 37.1 36.8 31.3 33.0

Four or more

religious

events/year

16.0 15.1 14.2 18.0 26.2 27.0

Russian

primary

language

91.8 91.1 95.6 92.7 68.0 80.0


17/42


Movement against Illegal Immigration (DPNI) organized a highly publicized

meeting that was ollowed by antimigrant pogroms, arson, and vandalism.

Soon ater the medias coverage o these events, the original meaning o theword migranta person who moves rom one place to anotheracquired

an ethnic dimension in Russia, as in the non-Russian who moves into a

Russian area. Dennis Zuev noted that Etienne Balibars concept o racism

without races is quite applicable to Russia, with the word migrants being

used as a more politically correct euphemism or other races.16 This is just

one example o how the mass media has played a signifcant role in portray-

ing migrants as objects worthy o hatred and the other ueling an antimi-

gration atmosphere.


18/42


Regional Variations in How Migrants Are Received

Having discussed trends and attitudes toward migration in Russia

overall, I will now ocus on the dierences in how migrants are re-

ceived in three regions. Under the auspices o the NSF grant men-

tioned above, our research team studied the experience o migrants in three

Russian cities: Krasnodar, Ekaterinburg, and Nizhnyi Novgorod, which have

high, moderate, and low migration levels, respectively. The three cities were

also chosen to give us a spectrum o three regions o Russia: the Southern,

Urals, and the Volga ederal districts, respectively. In order to better unders-

tand Russias new role as a migrant host and to test existing theories con-

cerning selectivity and integration, we use a multimethod approach or each

city, including demographic assessment, legislative and discourse analysis, and

interviews. The approach also includes ethnosurveys* in the three cities and in

fve sending countries, and social network analysis. In comparing the results

o each o these measures or the three cities, our goal is to identiy the ac-

tors that help or hinder the integration o migrants in Russia. For this paper,

however, I ocus on preliminary fndings rom the legislative and discourseanalysis and interviews in the three cities.

KRASNODAR

Krasnodarthe smallest city in our studyis the seventeenth-largest city

in Russia as o 2010, with a population o 744,933; it has received more

registered migrants than the other two cities, and has been growing rapidly

since the end o the 1990s.17

Krasnodar is the capital o Krasnodar Krai (re-gion), located in the northwest area o the Caucasus, in the Southern ederal

district. Krasnodar Krai borders on both the Black Sea and the Sea o Azov,

* An ethnosurvey is a research design developed by Douglas S. Massey that

incorporates multimethod data compilation, representative multisite sampling,

multilevel data compilation, life history collection, and parallel sampling. See

Massey, The Ethnosurvey in Theory and Practice, International Migration Review

21, no. 4, Special Issue: Measuring International Migration: Theory and Practice(Winter 1987): 1498522.


19/42


providing the territory with key ports. Furthermore, the krai is also the

breadbasket o Russia, with a predominantly agricultural economy.

The city o Krasnodar was originally named Ekaterinodar (EkaterinasGit) at its ounding in 1794. During the expansion o the Russian Empire

to the Caucasus,18 the Cossacks colonized the region (called the Kuban), and

in return Empress Catherine the Great gave them the land.19 Ekaterinodar

became a garrison city, and the majority o the indigenous population (the

Circassians) o the Kuban ed to Turkey, particularly ater the Caucasian War

in 1864.20 Ekaterinodar became the central city or Kuban Cossacks in the

1800s and a signifcant trade center or the southern regions o Russia.21

Fast-orwarding to the modern history o migration in Krasnodar Krai,

during the Soviet period there was signifcant sociopolitical transorma-

tion, and mass migrations changed the composition o the regions popula-

tion again. Ater the Civil War ended (1920), most o the Kuban Cossacks

were exiled because they had ought against the Red Army. It was also at

this time that the citys name was changed to Krasnodar. In the early 1930s,

Bolshevik policies such as dekulakization exiled several Cossack settlements

(approximately 63,000 people or 2 percent o the krais total population) to

the northern and eastern regions o the USSR. Meanwhile, non-Cossacks,

mainly demobilized Red Army soldiers and Russian peasants, along withother ethnic minorities, were resettled in the region. In part because o these

events, Krasnodar had the highest average annual increase in migrants or all

o Russia during the Soviet period.

In the 1990s, Krasnodar Krai was the most popular migrant destination

in Russia, receiving between 3.9 and 5.8 percent o Russias annual migrant

ow. Only in 1998 did the city o Moscow start receiving a greater share

o Russias migrants than Krasnodar. Throughout the decade, Krasnodar

experienced substantial net immigration rom the Commonwealth oIndependent States (the CIS), with all CIS states represented among its mi-

grants. There were eectively no migrants rom arther abroad in the 1990s

with the exception o 250 workers rom Vietnam. The peak o Krasnodar

Krais migration occurred between 1991 and 1993, and the rate began to all

in 1995. Since 1998, natural population decline is no longer being compen-

sated by migration.

The ethnic composition o Krasnodar Krai in the post-Soviet period has

remained relatively stable at about 85 percent ethnic Russians.22 Although a

rather high percentage, it is the lowest among the three cities, as the other


20/42


two are even more monoethnic. The relatively high percentage o ethnic mi-

norities in Krasnodar perhaps accounts or higher levels o tension than in

the other two cities. Discrimination against people classifed as migrants,meaning non-Russians as opposed to indigenous residents, meaning

Russians or Cossacks, became law with the passing o several policies in the

1990s. One such resolution in 1997 reprimanded the administration o Sochi,

a popular Russian resort city in Krasnodar Krai, or permitting people o

Armenian and Georgian nationalities permanent registration, Russian citi-

zenship, and permission to marry. Meanwhile, they vigorously tried to attract

ethnic Russians to migrate to the krai.

In 2002, Governor Tkachyov o Krasnodar Krai tightened existing laws

regarding registration procedures by setting quotas by region, identiying pro-

essions that are essential or the needs o the krai, and establishing a qualif-

cation commission.23 A ew years later, to strengthen the existing ederal law,

the governor sponsored legislation titled, On Measures to Prevent Illegal

Migration in Krasnodar Krai in July 2004. In December 2004, the frst camp

or illegal migrants was ounded in a village near the city o Krasnodar and

the ollowing year a second one was established in a village near the krais

border with Abkhazia. Within a ew years more than 3,000 non-Russian mi-

grants were deported rom the krai.24

Russian and international human rights organizations, as well as the in-

ternational media, have repeatedly criticized the discriminatory policies in

Krasnodar Krai toward ethnic minorities, especially toward Meskhetian Turks.

Likewise, the 2004 Ofcial Country Report on Human Rights Practices re-

leased by the U.S. State Department mentioned violations in Krasnodar Krai.

Subsequently, more than 15,000 Meskhetian Turks residing in Krasnodar Krai

have been granted reugee status or immigration to the United States.

Such a legislative history reveals a largely punitive approach toward mi-grants in Krasnodar Krai. For the media analysis, our research team analyzed

the contents o the main Krasondar Krai newspaper, Kubanskie novosti, rom

2000 to 2010.* Overall we observed an expression o intense hostility to-

ward migrants.

* Using the search terms * or * in the Russian newspaper database

EastView, we searched all articles published in Kubanskie novosti in that time

period. We limited results to articles with a score of 2 or higher on the databases

relevancy scale. This procedure yielded 56 articles, of which 40 were relevant.


21/42


There was great ocus on the importance o law and order, as well as con-

cerns about migrants overtaxing social services and the inability o certain

groups to assimilate. Such themes are ound in many migrant host countries,including the United States, but there were others that seemed unique. For

example, there was concern over the delicate ethnic balance in the Kuban

region, and migration as a threat to this balance; a very overt orm o rac-

ism in that some migrants, especially the Meskhetian Turks, were portrayed

as undamentally uncivilized; and a very strong ocus on state interests over

individual interests. Two common phrases ollow: Migration should serve

the interests o the state, and not the interests o the migrants, meaning that

all migration should be directed to specifc strategic locations, particularly

those with low population density, which is quite reminiscent o the Soviet

approach to migration; and assertions that migrants come to Krasnodar or

their own personal enrichment, in a tone that implied taking a job was the

equivalent o stealing something rom Krasnodar.

Despite such negative attitudes and policies toward migrants, Krasnodar

Krai has held steady in receiving 4 to 5 percent o Russias migrants annually.

It is second only to the Moscow region now. However, as in Russia overall,

the absolute numbers o migrants coming to Krasnodar have dropped sub-

stantially over the last decade. Ater 2006, the number o articles in Kubanskienovostiabout migration dropped dramatically. In articles that did appear, there

was a slight but important change in tone. The antiillegal migration rhetoric

was as strong as ever, but many o the articles published since 2007 noted the

importance o a legal oreign workorce or the local economy. It is probably

not a coincidence that it was 2007 when the host city o the 2014 Winter

Olympics was announcedSochi, the seaside resort town noted above. The

colossal construction projects underway have surely required additional

workers, and there is an anticipated need or masses o service workers duringthe games. In 2008, Krasnodar experienced positive net migration exchange

with the ar abroad or the frst time, which included labor migrants rom

China and Turkey. In 2012, the total number o migrants rom the ar abroad

is projected at about 200,000.25

Keeping this background research in mind, our research team conducted

interviews in June 2011 in Krasnodar. In meetings with representatives o so-

cial organizations and various governmental departments, the team was oten

told that there were no problems with migrants in Krasnodar. For example, a

representative o the Department o Foreign Relations commented: There


22/42


is no unriendly behavior, just rumors.... We have more than 100 nationali-

tiesi there is a problem, it will be an explosion. Our biggest problem right

now is how hot it will be here this summer.... We have no ethnic problems.

26

However, interviews with human rights leaders painted a dierent pic-

ture, which reected the negative attitudes expressed in the newspapers. The

chairman o the Human Rights Center o Krasnodar noted that [t]he big-

gest problem is the lack o protection o local rights and laws. There is a real

slave mentality heremigrants always get blamed.27 Similarly, a representa-

tive o the Commission on Human Rights or Krasnodar Krai stated that

The level o integration in the city is relatively low.28

In interviews with representatives o various diaspora groups, our research

team heard another viewpoint, that the ethnic minorities in Krasnodar elt

well-integrated in act, and that some o the groups were established or the

explicit purpose opreventing ull assimilation and maintaining their respec-

tive cultural identities.29 Some negative attitudes were observed among the

minority ethnic groups, however, in particular the Ukrainian representatives

view o Central Asians. Also, an Armenian respondent reported discrimina-

tion and discomort. Overall, however, the ethnic diaspora groups had posi-

tive outlooks. Furthermore, our researchers did not observe ethnic enclaves

in the city, with the exception o the Vietnamese population, who tended tolive in specifc dormitories in Krasnodar. As or inormal day labor markets,

which are typically requented by unregistered migrants in other cities (as

in the United States), it was interesting to note that most o the laborers

were ethnic Russians! Igor Kuznetsov, proessor at Kuban State University in

Krasnodar and consultant to the project, theorized that it would be too risky

in Krasnodar or oreign migrants to advertise their services on the street and

that they have their own channels or fnding employment.

EKATERINBURG

Ekaterinburg is the ourth most populous city in Russia, with 1,350,136 peo-

ple as o 2010, and is one o Russias leading fnancial centers today.30 A thou-

sand miles east o Moscow, just east o the Ural Mountains,Ekaterinburg was

ounded a bit earlier than Krasnodar, during Peter the Greats rule in 1723.

Established as an imperial outpost, it steadily gained settlers rom across the

Empire,31 and particularly during construction o the Trans-Siberian Railroad

in the late 19th century. This allowed Ekaterinburg to proft rom the mineral


23/42


deposits or which the Urals are well known and to eventually become one o

Russias most important mining and manuacturing centers.

During the Soviet period, Ekaterinburg was renamed Sverdlovsk in 1924in honor o Bolshevik leader Yakov Sverdlov, who organized military-indus-

trial production during the Cold War, drawing on the citys many actories.

For this reason, Sverdlovsk was closed to oreigners and all Soviet citizens

were required to receive approval or entry. The Soviet period saw little mi-

gration to Sverdlovsk.

In the 1990s, the city was renamed Ekaterinburg and reopened to or-

eign visitors and migrants alike. As Blair A. Ruble has written about this

period, Ekaterinburgs city administration ostered cooperation among the

many research institutions in the area with the new civil manuacturing in-

dustry when it aced the prospect o a huge deense industry in decline.32

This saved jobs that would have been eliminated, as well as created newjobs.

Furthermore, the Ekaterinburg elite capitalized on their political connections

to President Yeltsin, who was born and educated in the region and ormer

frst secretary o the local Communist Party. Enjoying such high-level con-

nections, the city was able to attract oreign investors and establish more than

a dozen consulates.

Thanks to these measures, among others, the oblast (another regional unitin Russia, similar to krai) in which Ekaterinburg is located received approxi-

mately 3 percent o Russias annual international migrants throughout the

1990s.33 The vast majority o the migrants wererom ormer Soviet repub-

lics, mainly Ukraine, and almost no migrants arrived rom the ar abroad in

the 1990s.

Like much o the Urals, Sverdlovsk Oblast is more ethnically diverse than

the regions o Central Russia. Nevertheless, in the early 2000s, the over-

whelming majority o residents in the oblast were o Russian nationality (89percent), and the largest minority groups were Tatars (almost 4 percent) and

Bashkirs (0.8 percent).34 The ethnic composition o the oblast has remained

airly stable since the early 1990s, and while less diverse than the country as a

whole, it is more diverse than the third city, Nizhnyi Novgorod.

The peak year or migration in Sverdlovsk Oblast was 2001, when it host-

ed just over 4 percent o all international migrants to Russia, but by the next

year this percent dropped by hal to 2 percent o all international migrants,

and has increased only slightly since then. Similar to migration in Russia

overall, the total number o international migrants coming to Sverdlovsk


24/42


Oblast has decreased substantially since the 1990s, but recovered some since

2006. Currently Ekaterinburg and Sverdlovsk Oblast have moderatemigration

ows compared to the rest o the country and attract more migrants thanother regions in the Urals because o Sverdlovsk Oblasts dynamic construc-

tion industry. The majority o the migrants in the region continue to be rom

the ormer Soviet Union, but Ukraine is no longer the main source coun-

try or migrants. Since 2000, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan contribute the larg-

est number o migrants. Sverdlovsk Oblast also now receives a ew hundred

migrants annually rom the ar abroad.35

In contrast to Krasnodar, Ekaterinburg does not have a reputation or

being strongly anti-immigrant. We tested this reputation using the same

methods we used or Krasnodar, and began by analyzing the content o the

Sverdlovsk press. We searched or terms relating to migration in Sverdlovsk

Oblasts main newspaperUralskii rabochii or the years 2005 through 2010.

Based on the number o articles, the most interest in migration issues oc-

curred in 2007; this was likely due to many signifcant changes made in mi-

gration policy in 2007, including simplifed registration procedures and an

increase in registered migrants.

Three main themes regarding migration emerged in the newspaper. Most

o the articles dealt with legislation and paid signifcant attention to howthe local government was handling migration issues, including interviews

o Federal Migration Service (FMS) ofcials in several articles. The articles

gave the overall impression that Uralskii rabochiiwas dedicated to providing

as much inormation as possible about the inux o migrantshow their

presence aects the local residents and the experience o migrants themselves.

They provided a great deal o helpul inormation or both migrants and

employers o migrants about changes in the system and called on the FMS to

publicly address concrete questions. The newspaper even sponsored migra-tion question hotlines on more than one occasion.

The articles rom the 20052007 period seemed to be more protection-

ist in tone than in more recent years. However, it was one o a preemptive

deense as in dont worry, there are plenty o jobs or Russians too.... [T]

he Ikea is being built hal by Russians, hal by migrants ... [and] such-and-

such building is being built only by Russians. Thus it was not a battle cry

or Russian nationals, but a careul anticipation o such complaints. (Analysis

o Uralskii rabochii articles beore 2005 would be interesting to determine


25/42


whether the extreme negative views we ound in the press o the early 2000s

in Krasnodar were also present in Ekaterinburg at that time.)

While journalists recognized ethnic and social conict in the oblast, theyurged readers to think about the benefts or society i all groups could work

together peaceully. One o the journalists who requently wrote about mi-

gration issues orUralskii rabochii seemed to sympathize with the migrants,

as she covered the exploitation o migrants and interviewed human rights

workers or her articles. Overall, the newspaper articles supported what we

had heard o Ekaterinburgs relatively tolerant reputation.

In interviews we conducted in September 2011, many respondents

also lauded a history o diversity and tolerance, oten connecting it to

Ekaterinburgs geographic location on the natural border o Europe and

Asia. Tatyana Merzlyakova, the human rights ombudsman or Sverdlovsk

Oblast praised the ormer governor o the oblast, Eduard Rosselan ethnic

German who aced much discrimination growing up ater World War IIor

having been sensitive to ethnic minorities.36 She characterized the current

governor, however, as not seeming to know how to handle such issues.

Several experts noted that many o the recent ethnic conicts had been

blown out o proportion by the media and that bloggers were eeding cer-

tain antimigrant sentiments. For example, a representative o the nongov-ernmental organization Uralskii Dom commented: In general, Sverdlovsk

Oblast is very tolerant, with the exception o the ethnic tensions stirred up

by the media ater recent conicts, making basic criminal activity into ethnic

conicts.37 An ofcial o the Sverdlovsk Oblast Migration Center described

attitudes toward migrants based on widely held ethnic stereotypes: Local at-

titudes toward migrants vary depending on perceptions o the ethnic group:

the Chinese and Vietnamese, or example, are seen as more cultured and or-

derly, whereas migrants rom Central Asia are seen as unpredictable and athreat.38 Others observed a dierence in attitudes based on age. For instance,

according to a representative o the local United Russia Party, The youth do

not respect the migrants, orgastarbaiterias we call them. Russians who grew

up in the Soviet Union have had more contact with people rom the other

republics, so most o the cultural tensions are among the youth.39

The non-Russians we interviewed described a wide range o experiences,

rom positive to negative. A representative o the Azeri ethnic community

expressed a pragmatic view o successul integration into Ekaterinburg so-

ciety: Its all about money. I you have a shop at the market, people will


26/42


ignore your nationality. An ethnic Uzbek woman rom Kyrgyzstan was also

positive about her situation: I there is enough work I will bring my amily

here. I have ound a common language with my Russian landladya goodwoman. However, other diaspora spokespersons, such as a man rom the

Ingush community, were visibly upset and rustrated by how their people

have been treated by the ethnic Russian majority. In a response to a criticism

that incoming migrants do not respect the local customs and traditions, an

Ingush man exclaimed, What are the traditions that we [migrants] should be

ollowing? Drinking beer and smoking like the 15-year-old Russian girls I

see sitting in the park at night? Ater we observed a heated discussion among

many o Ekaterinburgs ethnic minorities, it was clear that there are many

unresolved points o tension simmering beneath the surace.

NIZHNYI NOVGOROD

Nizhnyi Novgorod, the fth largest city in Russia, has the lowest proportion

o migrants among the three cities in our study. In 2002, it ranked ourth in

population in Russia but has declined signifcantly in the last ten years, swap-

ping places with Ekaterinburg.40 Nizhnyi, as it is colloquially reerred to, is

the capital o Nizhegorodskaiia Oblast, which is part o the Volga FederalDistrict. A port city, Nizhnyi is located at the convergence o two major

Russian rivers, the Volga and the Oka, giving it access to the Baltic, Black,

Caspian, and White Seas as well as the Sea o Azov.

Considerably older than the other two cities in our study, Nizhnyi

Novgorod was ounded by Grand Prince Yuri in 1221 at the meeting o the

two rivers as a strategic location to protect against invasions and developing

trade.41 In 1817, a substantial trade air was moved to Nizhnyi, and the city

gained international recognition. Tradespeople rom other parts o Russia andmany European and Asian countries traveled to Nizhnyi to sell their goods.

The citys industrial boom began in the second hal o the nineteenth cen-

tury, and Nizhnyi Novgorod became one o Russias largest industrial centers.

For example, the Sormovo plant ounded in 1849 led the country in ship-

building and machine manuacturing. In 1897, Nizhnyi merchants ounded a

weaving plant that became one o the largest in Russia.

Nizhnyi was a closed city during the Soviet period, during which time

its name was changed to Gorkii, and oreigners were not allowed to visit.

The amous dissident Andrei Sakharov was exiled to Gorkii, most likely due


27/42


in part to its tightly controlled media and strict residency rules. Factories

building torpedoes, tanks, radar equipment and, most notably, commercial

vehicles grew during the Soviet period. Established in Gorkii in 1932 as ajoint venture with the Ford Motor Company, the Gorkovsky Avtomobilny

Zavod (GAZ), was one o the largest producers o commercial vehicles in

Europe. Ironically, this city, which was known or administrative control and

media restrictions, gained notoriety in the late perestroika period as the home

o reorm-minded and market-oriented politicians such as Boris Nemtsov.42

Ater the all o the Soviet Union, the Volga Federal District began to

attract migrants in large numbers, and throughout the 1990s received only

slightly ewer migrants than the Central Federal District (where Moscow

is located). Nizhegorodskaiia Oblast has not been a major migration target,

however, as it consistently received approximately 2 percent o all ofcially

registered migrants in Russia. Similar to our other case studies, as well as

other regions in Russia, the majority o migrants to Nizhegorodskaiia Oblast

came rom the ormer Soviet republics. The largest source countries or mi-

grants during the mid-1990s were Ukraine, Uzbekistan, and Georgia.43 As

the 1990s ended, migration rom Ukraine remained high, and migration rom

Azerbaijan increased, but migration rom the other countr ies declined. There

was eectively no migration rom the ar abroad in the 1990s.Between 2001 and 2002, the number o migrants to Nizhegorodskaiia

Oblast decreased rom approximately 2 percent o Russias migrants to just

over 1 percent, and the level remained low or several years. During this time,

incoming migrants were mostly rom the CIS. In the early 2000s, Nizhnyi

Novgorod received approximately fty migrants rom the ar abroad every

year, while more than fty Nizhnyi Novgorod citizens were emigrating to

the ar abroad annually. Ukraine and Uzbekistan were the major source coun-

tries or migrants, but there was also signifcant outmigration to Ukraine,meaning that net migration was barely positive some years.

Ater 2006, as migration to Russia began to increase, migration to Nizhnyi

Novgorod Oblast increased even aster, and by 2008 Nizhnyi Novgorod was

receiving nearly 3 percent o Russias migrants. This could also be explained

in part by the act that today Nizhegorodskaiia Oblast ranks seventh in Russia

in industrial output, and manuacturing dominates the local economy, em-

ploying 62 percent o the workorce. Although migration rom the ar abroad

has doubled to over 100 people per year, most o the overall increase in mi-

gration is explained by migrants rom the CIS, particularly rom Uzbekistan,


28/42


Tajikistan, and Azerbaijan. More recently, large numbers o Kyrgyz workers

have arrived in the region.44

Despite this growing supply o migrants to Nizhnyi Novgorod, the eth-nic makeup o Nizhnyi is the least diverse o our three case studies as ethnic

Russians currently account or 95 percent o the regions population. Tatars

are the largest minority group, at approximately 1.3 percent, and other mi-

nority groups include Mordvinians and Ukrainians.45 Similar to Ekaterinburg,

Nizhnyis travel websites emphasize its geographic location perched on the

crossroads o the Volga and Oka Rivers, described as a connecting link be-

tween Europe and Asia, and a br idge between the European and Asian parts

o Russia.46 Is the same welcoming attitude expressed toward nonethnic

Russians in Nizhnyi?

Using the same method as or the other cities, our research team ana-

lyzed the content o Nizhnyi Novgorods two most prominent newspapers to

identiy local attitudes toward migration. We reviewed the main newspaper,

Nizhegorodskie novosti, or the 20002010 period, and Birzha, a weekly busi-

ness journal, or 2005 through 2008. Almost all o the articles that dealt with

migration made the point that Nizhnyi needs migrants and cannot survive

economically or demographically without them; one article in Nizhegorodskie

novosti rom 2005 even lamented the act that too few migrants come toNizhnyi. Birzha did not have many articles on migration, but the handul

published tended to inorm employers o new ederal migration laws that

might aect them and their workers. The Birzha articles general tone was

toward migration was eectively neutralits just a reality or business.

The main newspaper took a airly strong stance against illegal migration,

but unlike in Krasnodar, the journalists tended to put the blame on the em-

ployers o undocumented workers rather than on the migrants themselves.

Nizhegorodskie novostitended to portray illegal migration as bad not only be-cause it decreased tax revenues and undermined order (which were the ar-

guments made in Krasnodar), but also because it leads to exploitation o the

migrants. There were even some articles that delved into the vested interests

which allowed or undocumented migration to go unchecked.

Articles in the Nizhnyi press on crime bring out the citys most antimi-

grant attitudes. In a string o articles published rom 2007 to 2010, the story

was essentially migrant commits atrocious crime. These were descriptions

o a specifc crime, with the criminal clearly identifed as a migrant. In one

such article, the connection between migration and crime was made explic-


29/42


itly: migrants are more likely to commit crimes than locals because they have

no local social support system. The same article supported the local prosecu-

tors call or residency laws to be more strictly enorced since most migrantswho commit crimes have violated residency laws.

It was interesting that Nizhegorodskie novosti did not appear to be con-

trolled nearly as strictly by the local government as Kubanskie novosti. The

wide range o issues and viewpoints expressed in the two Nizhnyi newspapers

makes it more difcult to describe their general attitude toward migration.

Like Krasnodars Kubanskie novosti, the Nizhnyi papers dedicated much

coverage to legislation. There was also evidence o the Nizhnyi authorities

pushing back against the ederal government rom time to time. For instance,

the author o a 2008 article criticized the idea o a quota system, arguing that

it creates illegal migration when demand exceeds the quota. In 2009, Nizhnyi

raised its regional quota or migrants, despite then-Prime Minister Putins

request or all regions to lower their quotas; and in 2010, the local FMS pro-

tested some o the changes to the law on oreigners.

Overall, the tone o the migration debate in Nizhnyis newspapers can

be described as much calmer and much more positive toward migration

and migrants than in Krasnodar, but not as positive as the discourse in the

Ekaterinburg press. There is also much more reliance on ederal legislation(although they criticize it), and no voiced eorts to supplement it with local

policy. As team researcher Erin Homann noted, the articles on migration that

appear in Nizhegorodskie novostiare oten very thoughtul and intelligent and

address complicated issues, with the exception o the migrant commits atro-

cious crime articles.

This mix o attitudes was also ound in the interviews conducted by our

research team in Nizhnyi in the summer o 2011. Many residents interviewed

by our team made conicting comments about migrants.47

A common re-mark was I dont have anything against the migrants, but it would be bet-

ter i they did not come to Russia. With urther explanation, the sentiment

behind such statements was not that the migrants were taking away jobs, but

that non-Russians were not able to integrate or adapt to Russian culture.

Nonethnic Russians noted a lack o tolerance in the city. A member o one o

the Tajik diaspora groups stated, We are ar rom tolerance, but we dont have

ethnic conict. Most o the [ethnic] problems [in the oblast] are centered

around youth and skinheads. A labor migrant, who was reportedly not rom

the CIS but did not speciy urther, scoed, Fit in? We have been coming to


30/42


this country or decades, but no, we do not have a place here, we make our

own.... [We have our] own schools, ... protection, all our own. Distrust onon-Russians also came out in advertisements or apartments speciying that

the renters must be ethnically Russian, as well as decent Russian people

(). Figure 4 shows examples o such ads,

collected by team researcher Everett Peachey.

In contrast, a proessor o sociology at Nizhnyi Novgorod State University

insisted that migration was not o major concern to locals: I [a Nizhnyi

Novgorod resident is asked an open-ended question about problems in the

city], migration will never appear among the top fve social problems. We

have many other problems that people would mention frst.48

Through both content analysis o Nizhnyis press and interviews conduct-

ed in the city, a rather conicted perspective on migration emerges. Some

voices seem to want to encourage more migration, others are indierent, and

still others are strongly against the newcomers presence. It will be interesting

to see over time whether general attitudes become moreorless welcoming to

the migrants, and whether the local FMS will continue to increase quotas or

migrants, independent o the ederal governments decisions.

FIGURE 4. EXAMPLES OF APARTMENT-FOR-RENT ADS DEMONSTRATING

BIAS AGAINST NON-RUSSIAN ETHNICS, NIZHNYI, SUMMER 2011.


31/42


Conclusions

Based on our research to date, the unique situations in the three cities

make it clear that the local context has a signifcant eect. In this

way, Russia is experiencing large-scale migration ows in a manner

similar to other countries with large migrant populations, with the United

States as a prime example. The United States does not have a national inte-

gration policy, and thereore local and state governments make their own de-

cisions on whether they develop integration programs and urge immigrants

to become active members in their new home communities.49 Overall, U.S.

cities with a long history o receiving immigrants rom Latin America have

a better track record on assisting their new residents integrate than cities or

towns that do not have as much experience with migration. However, there

are exceptions to this trend; or instance, Tucson, Arizona has a long history

o migration ows but also has some o the most anti-immigrant policies at

present. According to recent studies, larger cities in the United States also

tended to be more tolerant toward Latino immigrants than medium-size ci-ties and small towns. Furthermore, local immigration policies in the United

States have been ound to be more invasive and regulatory the arther a town

is rom a metropolitan area.

Similarly, while there are general trends in attitudes and perceptions toward

migrants in Russia, each city or region has its own unique history, and de-

mographic makeup and economic peculiarities that aect how it welcomes,

or does not welcome, migrants. When looking at geographic locations, the

border city in our study has much more contentious relations with migrantsthan the nonborder cities, as could be expected. Regarding the history o

migration to the cities, the two cities that were closed to oreigners dur-

ing the Soviet periodsomewhat surprisinglyhave more tolerant attitudes

toward migrants than the city with a rich migration history. Next, the two

larger cities had more positive views o migrants than the smallest one. In

terms o economic characteristics, the two industrial giants have been more

welcoming to migrants than the agricultural region. However, as seen in the

interviews, what is expressed in the newspapers or proclamations by politi-

cal leaders does not always mirror real-lie interactions in that city, and vice


32/42


versa. These are some o the subtleties that we would like to explore in our

ongoing research.

Migration presents Russia with several major challenges, including re-confguring traditional labor markets, addressing legal restrictions against mi-

grants, and, perhaps most importantly, integrating migrants into the ormal

economy and society at large. How Russian government leaders ultimately

respond to these challenges and how they shape the national discourse will

play a major role in defning Russias political and economic uture. Russia

would do well to oster goodwill among all o its residents and promote a

pragmatic pluralism in order to build a sustainable society on both national

and local levels. By overcoming deep-rooted prejudices against the other

both domestic and oreignRussia will be able to beneft rom the human

resources required to grow and prosper.


33/42


Notes

1 Cynthia Buckley, The Myth o Managed Migration: Migration Control

and Market in the Soviet Period, Slavic Review54, no. 4 (Winter 1995):

896916.

2 Timothy Heleniak, International Comparisons o Population Mobility

in Russia, International Journal of Population Research 2012 (2012), article

ID 361497, 13 pages, doi:10.1155/2012/361497.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid.

5 A.G. Korovkin, I.N. Dolgova, and I.B. Korolev, Labor Shortages in

the Russian Economy: A Macroeconomics Estimate, Studies on Russian

Economic Development17, no. 4 (2006): 36576.

6 United Nations Department o Economic and Social Aairs, Population

Division, Trends in International Migrant Stock: The 2008 Revision, UN

database(2010), http://esa.un.org/migration/index.asp?panel=1.

7 Ibid.

8 Valerii Dmitrievich Solovei, The Revolution o Russian Identity

Russia or the Russians? Sociological Research 47, no. 3 (2008): 5679.

(Published in Russian, Russian Center or Public Opinion Research,

2006.)

9 Renata Kosc-Harmatiy and Mary Elizabeth Malinkin, Moscow

and Kyiv: Changing Cities and Migrant Magnets, Kennan Institute

and Comparative Urban Studies Project Report (Washington, D.C.:

Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars, Kennan Institute,

2008).

10 2002 Russian Census, http://www.perepis2002.ru/content.html?id=11

&docid=10715289081463, accessed December 4, 2011.

11 Blair A. Ruble, Adding Human Diversity to Urban Political Economy

Analysis: The Case o Russia, in Segmented Cities? How Urban Contexts

Shape Ethnic and Nationalist Politics, ed. Kristin Good, Phil Triaflopoulos,

and Luc Turgeon (Vancouver: University o British Columbia,

orthcoming).

12 Vladimir Malakhov, Ponaexali Tut(Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe

obozrenie, 2007).13 Solovei, The Revolution o Russian Identity.


34/42


14 Cynthia Buckley and Mary Elizabeth Malinkin, Fitting in or Setting

the Standards? Nativity and Adherence to Idealized Social Norms in the

Russian Federation (Department o Sociology, University o Illinois,

Champaign-Urbana, 2012).

15 Dennis Zuev, The Russian ultranationalist movement on the internet:

actors, communities, and organization o joint actions, Post-Soviet Affairs

27, no. 2 (2011): 12157.

16 Ibid.

17 Federal State Statistics Service, May 21, 2004, http://www.perepis2002.

ru/ct/doc/1_TOM_01_04.xls; and Federal State Statistics Service, 2011,

http://www.perepis-2010.ru/results_o_the_census/results-inorm.php.

18 Oliver Bevan and Igor Kuznetsov, Krasnodar Passport, archiveddocument (Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, 2011). For the project,

we reerred to a background report on a city, including local history,

geographical, political, cultural, social, economic, and demographic

context as its passport.

19 RussiaTrek.org, Welcome to Russia, Krasnodar City, Russia, http://

russiatrek.org/krasnodar-city.

20 With thanks to Oliver Bevan and Igor Kuznetsov or research on the

history o migration in Krasnodar.

21 RussiaTrek.org, Krasnodar City, Russia.

22 Bevan and Kuznetsov, Krasnodar Passport.

23 A.A. Kochergin, Vlasti Krasnodarskogo Kraia vs etnicheskikh

menshinstv (Krasnodar: Adult Education Center, 2002).

24 Bevan and Kuznetsov, Krasnodar Passport.

25 Ibid.

26 Interviews o experts conducted by Beth Mitchneck, co-principal

investigator, and Oliver Bevan, research assistant or the project.27 Ibid.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.

30 Russia Profle.org, Sverdvlosk Region, http://russiaprofle.org/bg_

places/resources_territory_districts_sverdlovsk.html.

31 Ruble, Adding Human Diversity to Urban Political Economy Analysis.

32 Blair A. Ruble, Urals Pathfnder: Theatre in Post-Soviet Yekaterinburg,

Kennan Institute Occasional Paper Series #307 (Washington, D.C.:Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars, 2011).


35/42


36/42


The Eurasian Migration Papers

The Eurasian Migration Papers is a series o reportsproduced jointly by

the Kennan Institute and the Comparative Urban Studies Program o the

Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars in Washington, D.C.

that examines migrant communities in Eurasian cities. The series eatures the

results o Wilson Center-supported research examining the lives o migrants

in contemporary Russia, Ukraine, and surrounding states.

According to the United Nations, the number o people living in coun-

tries other than their birth is approaching 200 million worldwide, up rom 80million three decades ago. While the scale o migration has grown, the nature

o international population movements and patterns o migrant adaptation

have changed. Migration movements have become part o the permanent

abric o modern society, and bring with them questions o economic, politi-

cal, and social signifcance.

Migration is an especially pressing issue or the countries o Eurasia, in

which large-scale international migration is a relatively new phenomenon.

While the collapse o the Soviet state brought with it expanded reedomo movement, it also resulted in increased restrictions at many destination

points or migrants, providing new administrative challenges. Some citizens

are driven to leave their places o origin because o conict, political ambi-

guity, or economic deprivation. As the region continues its integration into

global economic networks, it becomes an increasingly desirable transit route

and destination or migrants rom Southeast Asia, Arica, and the Middle East.

The Kennan Institute has sponsored a number o activitiessuch as lec-

tures, workshops, working groups, seminars, and survey research among di-

erent migrant communities, native-born populations, and ofcialsintended

to explore the social and ofcial reaction to the presence o migrants within

Eurasian countries and to trace the evolving response o migrant communi-

ties to lie in their new homes. The Eurasian Migration Papers publication series

seeks to make the results o these eorts widely available to specialists, poli-

cymakers, and citizens in Russia, Ukraine, the United States, and elsewhere.

Printed copies o the Eurasian Migration Papers are available upon request

rom the Kennan Institute in Washington, D.C. They are also available ordownload in PDF ormat on the web pages o the Wilson Center:


37/42


Kennan Institute, www.wilsoncenter.org/kennan,

Comparative Urban Studies Program, www.wilsoncenter.org/cusp,

the Kennan Moscow Project, www.kennan.ru,

and the Kennan Kyiv Project,www.kennan.kiev.ua.

Previous volumes of the Eurasian Migration Papers include:

No.1: Establishing a New Right to the Ukrainian City, Washington, DC:

Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars, 2008, by Blair A.

Ruble

No.2: Translational Migration to New Regional Centers: Policy Challenges,

Practices, and the Migrant Experience, Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson

International Center or Scholars, 2009, edited by Lauren E. Herzer,

Sarah Dixon Klump, and Mary Elizabeth Malinkin

No.3: Chinese Migration to Russia: Missed Opportunities,Washington, DC:

Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars, 2009, by Maria

Repnikova and Harley Balzer

No.4: Remittances, Recession Returning Home? The Effects of the 2008

Economic Crisis on Tajik Migrant Labor in Moscow, Washington, DC:

Woodrow Wilson International Center or Scholars, 2010, by Hilary

Hemmings

No.5: Demography, Migration, and Tolerance: Comparing the Russian,

Ukrainian and U.S. Experience, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow WilsonInternational Center or Scholars, 2010, edited by Nancy Popson

No.6: Migration Processes and Challenges in Contemporary Russia: St.

Petersburg Case Study, Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson International

Center or Scholars, 2012, by Marya Rozanova


38/42


In addition to the Eurasian Migration Papers, please also see the Kennan

Institutes previous publications concerning migration and tolerance in

Ukraine (available or download in PDF ormat):

Netradytsiini Mihranty u Kyievi [Nontraditional Immigrants in Kyiv],

Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson International Center or

Scholars, 2004, by Olena Braichevska, Halyna Volosiuk, Olena

Malynovska,Yaroslav Pylynskyi, Nancy E. Popson, and Blair A. Ruble.

[Available in English and Ukrainian; no longer available in printed

orm]

Mihratsiia i tolerantnist v Ukrainy [Migration and Tolerance in Ukraine],

Kyiv: Stylos Press, 2007, edited by Yaroslav Pylynskyi. [Ukrainian; nolonger available in printed orm]

Aktualno: Tolerantnist![Current Issue: Tolerance!], Kyiv: Stylos Press, 2008,

edited by Yaroslav Pylynskyi. [Ukrainian]


39/42


About the Author

Mary Elizabeth Malinkin has been on the sta o the Kennan Institute since

2007. Ater graduating rom Carleton College in 2001 with a B.A. in history,

she lived in Vladimir, Russia or two years and studied Russian language, his-

tory, literature, and politics at Vladimir State Pedagogical University. In 2006

she received an M.A. in Russian and East European Studies at the University

o Michigan ater writing her thesis on ethnic minorities in the Moscow

workorce. Her current research ocuses on migration issues in Russia, and

her other publications include: Moscow and Kyiv: Changing Cities and MigrantMagnets (co-authored with Renata Kosc-Harmatiy; Kennan Institute and

Comparative Urban Studies Project Report, 2008) and Transnational Migration

to New Regional Centers: Policy Challenges, Practice, and the Migrant Experience

(conerence proceedings) (co-edited with Lauren Herzer and Sarah Dixon

Klump; Kennan Institute and Comparative Urban Studies Eurasian Migration

Paper #2, 2009). In addition to her work on the Kennan Institutes migration

research, she is liaison to the Kennan Moscow and Kyiv Projects.


40/42


41/42


42/42

a wary welcome: varying reception of migrants in russian cities

Documents