Social Risks And Vulnerability Of Labor Migrants In The Russian Borderland

Abstract

International migration has a significant effect on demographics, economics and ethnocultural life of Russia. Throughout the last decade, its population has been augmented by about 2.5 million of officially documented international migrants and a significant number of illegal foreign workers, which main streams come from CIS countries and Central Asia. The State migration policy aimed to promote transparency in registration and adaptation of newcomers but they remain very susceptible to risks of discrimination, social exclusion and xenophobia. The sociological survey was conducted in 2017 in Asian borderland (the Altai territory) to investigate different aspects of international migration in Russia in conjunction with security and social integration. The methodology included interviews with population (n=932, aged from 18 to 70 years) and labour migrants (n=317, aged from 16 to 73 years). Despite high degree of consent that international migration meets the demand of economy in low-qualified labour force and that migrants deserve humane treatment, the results show that population’s views about migration are often biased and politicized: over a third part of respondents think that migrants threaten national security, associate migration with growing insecurity, increase in disease and blurring of traditional Russian culture. Migrants, in contrast, are rarely opposed to “natives”, they are satisfied with conditions of their life in Russia, 88% of them report that they had never faced hostility or aggression. Meanwhile, considering low level of trust towards social institutions and significant role of social networks in accessing social services, the authors conclude about latent character of migrants’ vulnerability.

Keywords: International migrationlabour migrantsRussian borderlandsocial risksvulnerability

Introduction

Immigration to Russia is an inevitable long-term trend, determined by objective prerequisites (Ivanov, 2011; Belyaev, 2017; Ryazantsev, Bogdanov & Khramova, 2017). With a foreign-born population approaching 9 %, Russia has the second-largest stock of migrants in the world after the USA (Heleniak, 2016). Over the past fifteen years, the presence in Russia of several million labour migrants from Central Asia has been a key determinant of the region’s stability (Lang, 2017). Official statistical data of the Ministry of Internal Affairs indicate persistent and increasing migration inflows, only in 2017 attaining about 15 million of people. The main stream consists of citizens from countries-members of the CIS (67.9%) that is largely due to Eurasian integration process, especially to the appearance of Eurasian economic union in 2015, embracing five countries (Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Armenia and Kyrgyzstan), showing much interest in common economic and politic space and oriented toward liberal, free from administrative barriers relations at the labour markets. The major part (52.4%) of migrants are citizens of Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and China. Every year over 200 thousand of foreign citizens require and receive Russian citizenship and about 300 thousand obtain permits for temporary residence, over 130 thousand of labour migrants gain work permits and about 1.5 million (2017, 1.4 million in 2016) receive work patents.

The recent political decisions of the Russian government in the field of regulation of international migration are aimed to enhance attractiveness of the Russian Federation for international migrants (Mukomel, 2005; Suleymanova & Ryabova, 2016). The liberalization of migration policy following upon the repressive period has prioritized the tasks of increasing volumes of migration, improving statistical reporting, enlarging legal space for temporary migration and partial regulation of the status of illegal migrants, stimulating highly skilled migrants (the State Migration Policy Concept of the Russian Federation through to 2025; Ivahnyuk, 2015), but the process of normative regulation and evaluation of risks, related to migration, is just beginning. Several measures were implemented to ensure social integration and adaptation of migrants, allowing them to learn Russian language, history and basis of law, obtain information about cultural traditions of Russian peoples, rules, practices and behaviours, receive legal support, vocational training and retraining (Malahov, 2015; Mukomel, 2016; Maximov, Morkovkina, & Omelchenko, 2017), but there are still many problems related to the regulation of migratory processes.

The theoretical analysis shows that there doesn’t exist a unique and exhaustive conception, encompassing all risks and threats, related to labour migration (Omelchenko, Maximova, & Noyanzina, 2018). Moreover, the scholarly and policy debates on migration change periodically from pessimistic, stressing on negative impacts and effects, to optimistic, highlighting positive outcomes of migration, reflecting more general shifts in theoretical paradigms, dominating for any given period (De Haas, 2010). Two general discourses can be identified regarding risky nature of migration. One of them – criminalization of migration, establishing links between migration and organized crime, arm and drug smuggling, human trafficking (Düvell, 2008; Mencutek, 2012; Ryazantsev, Karabulatova, Mashin, Pismennaya, & Sivoplyasova, 2015). Another one is a discourse of securitization referring to the destabilizing effects of migration on domestic integration and to the dangers for public order it implied (Huysmans, 2000). It promotes restrictive legislative and administrative measures to ensure the security of borders and national integrity. Both approaches have been much criticized for limitations they constitute to rights potentially granted to immigrants on the basis of universal human rights, the spread of anxiety and apprehension, ethnic tensions and turmoil in receiving countries (Ceyhan & Tsoukala, 2002; Fauser, 2006; Bourbeau, 2011).

In order to move beyond alarm to more ethic context, where migrants aren’t associated with existential danger, a process of de-securitization of migration has been launched (Huysmans & Squire 2009), providing recognition of a right to mobility, elaboration of more equitable policies in the field of migration (Pécoud & de Guchteneire, 2006, pp. 73, 75-76, 82).

Assuming that the general notion of risk represents a probability or threat of damage, injury, liability, or any other negative occurrence that is caused by external or internal vulnerabilities (Haimes, 2009; Aven, 2011), and that risk becomes “social” if it is considered as a matter of some collectivity, such as social organization, group, nation or state, we share the view that risks are mental concepts which are s constructed since they depend on social norms and expert opinions (Beck, 2013; Renn, 2017). They contain both objective and subjective components reflecting its complexity and the principal challenge is to understand how they are combined, constructed, interpreted and managed (Hansson, 2010). With regards to international migration it means that a comprehensive risk analysis should address data about not only objective but also subjective aspects, compare different points of view and opinions representing different parties: sending and receiving societies, and migrants themselves as subjects and objects of risky behaviour.

As a starting point in analyzing the risk - vulnerability link regarding migration and migrants we propose a broad conceptual framework, based on the idea of heterogeneity of migration impacts (De Haas, 2010), interrelation and interdependence between objects and subjects of risks, which might be attributed to individual, social group or societal level, and determination of risks by local socio-economic situation, national migration policy and global migration trends. The variety of negative migration outcomes for migrants and receiving society, considered in the study, include economic, social, cultural, socio-psychological and physical risks which are explained through subjective assessments and attitudes of population from receiving society and a “feedback” from migrants.

Problem Statement

The international migration into Russia is characterized by diverse and multiple migration itineraries, considerable flows of illegal migrants, functioning of non-formal well-developed infrastructure on the base of ethnic communities and ethnic diasporas. Border regions are more severely impacted by international migration costs of border crossing and primary adaptation of migrants. Unfortunately, contemporary state of migration situation doesn’t permit to use its opportunities and benefits both for migrants and receiving regions, rather it is associated with risks and vulnerabilities. Effective regulation of migration processes needs evidence-based researched to describe qualitative and quantitative components of migration, that points to the importance of the current study.

Research Questions

The main research questions discussed in the study relate to:

- the subjective assessment of the character of migration situation in the region, predominance and intensity of migration flows, risks and opportunities of migrations by the population, living in border region;

- the general attitudes of population towards migrants and its support for regulation measures arising therefrom;

- the assessment of the social well-being of migrants, their relations with local population and diasporas, authorities and public institutions as indicators of the risk.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of the study consisted in examination of subjective views, attitudes and evaluations, related to migrants’ risks and vulnerabilities, from both parties involved in the process: local population on the one hand and migrants themselves on the other.

Research Methods

To accomplish the above tasks, the sociological research “Transit migration, transit regions and Russian migration policy: security and Eurasian integration” was conducted in the Altai region – a typical poly-ethnic region of Asian borderland, occupying a middle position in the national socio-economic rating (RIA rating, 2016) with similar to all Russian regions demographical problems, related to natural depopulation and aging. The population survey data was gathered by means of stratified multi-stage sampling (n=932), there was a fairly even distribution of males and females, aged 18-29 years – 29.9%, aged 30-49 years – 41.1%, aged 50 years ad over – 29.0%, 79.3% resided in urban settlements and 20.7% – in rural area, 80.1% of those who reported about their ethnicity (65.1%) were Russians, 6.5% – Armenians, 4.4% – Kazakhs, 1.9% – Uzbeks, 3.8% had mixed ethnicity.

The survey among migrants was carried out in places of their work and residence, in testing centres and migration services (n=317). Most surveyed migrants come from CIS countries (Kazakhstan –35.6%, Tajikistan – 22.1%, Uzbekistan – 19.2%, Kirgizstan – 7.9%, Azerbaijan – 3.5%, Armenia – 4.7%, Belarus – 0.9%), and Ukraine (3.8%), other countries were poorly but represented (China, Germany, Georgia, Egypt, Moldova). Respondents’ age – from 16 to 72 years, mean age – 30.4 years. At the time of the survey, 18% of migrants stayed in Russia less than a month, 29% – up to half a year, 15% – 7-11 months, 23% – 1-3 years and 16% – more than 3 years, over half of surveyed migrants (52%) have already visited Russia earlier. Three groups of migrants were divided depending on plans and intentions: temporary labor migrants, staying in the region for a short period of time (39.7%), potential settlers with desire to stay in Russia and receive citizenship (50.8%) and transit migrants, seeking to reach other regions of Russia or other countries (9.5%).

Findings

Conclusion

Given that migration situation in the border region where the study took place had quiet and non-problematic character, migrants’ risks and vulnerabilities were assessed as minor and improbable, surveyed population and migrants reported about friendly attitudes towards each other and readiness to cooperate. Meanwhile, considering biased and limited representations of population about migration, focused largely on disadvantages and several problems of adaptation and integration of migrants preferring to rely on informal networks in resolving their problems, we can conclude that migrants’ risks, especially related to confrontation with local population had hidden character and might become apparent without weighted and well-elaborated measures in the field of national and migration policy, aimed to promote changes in public conscience and increase trust towards state and public institutions, involved in the process of migration regulation.

Acknowledgments

This article received financial support from the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation, the State Order for the scientific research “Transit migration, transit regions and Russian migration policy: security and Eurasian integration” [№ 28.2757.2017/ПЧ].

References

1. Aven, T. (2011). On some recent definitions and analysis frameworks for risk, vulnerability, and resilience. Risk Analysis. An International Journal, 31(4), 515-522.
2. Beck, U. (2013). Risk Society Revisited: Theory, Politics and Research Programs. In J. Cosgrave (Ed.), The sociology of risk and gambling reader (pp. 68–90). Routledge.
3. Belyaev, S.A. (2017) The main trends of migration processes in Russia. International journal of applied and fundamental research, 2, 226-230.
4. Bourbeau, P. (2011). The securitization of migration: A study of movement and order. New York: Routledge.
5. Ceyhan, A., & Tsoukala, A. (2002). The securitization of migration in western societies: Ambivalent discourses and policies. Alternatives, 27, 21-39.
6. De Haas, H. (2010). Migration and development: A theoretical perspective. International migration review, 44(1), 227-264.
7. Düvell, F. (2008). Clandestine migration in Europe. Social Science Information, 47(4), 479-497.
8. Fauser, M. (2006). Transnational migration–A national security risk? Securitization of migration policies in Germany, Spain and the United Kingdom. Center for International Relations.
9. Haimes, Y. Y. (2009). On the complex definition of risk: A systems‐based approach. Risk Analysis. An International Journal, 29(12), 1647-1654.
10. Hansson S.O. (2010) Risk: objective or subjective, facts or values, Journal of Risk Research, 13(2), 231-238, DOI:
11. Heleniak, T. (2016). The Evolution of Russian Migration Policy in the Post-Soviet Period. In D. Leal, L. Rodríguez, P. Nestor (Eds.), Migration in an Era of Restriction and Recession (pp. 211-232). Springer, Cham. doi:
12. Huysmans, J. (2000). The European Union and the securitization of migration. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 38(5), 751–777.
13. Huysmans, J., & Squire, V. (2009). Migration and security. In D. M. Cavelty, & V. Mauer (Eds.), The Routledge handbook of security studies (pp.169-179). London, UK: Routledge.
14. Ivahnyuk, I. (2015). International labour migration management: global experience and Russian practices. Theoretical and Practical Aspects of Management, 10, 36–44.
15. Ivanov, S. (2011). International migration in Russia: dynamics, policy, forecast. Voprosy Ekonomiki, 10, 35-53.
16. Lang, J. (2017). Central Asia: the crisis of the migration model and its potential impact on the EU. OSW Commentary, 237. Retrieved from https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2017-04-25/central-asia-crisis-migration-model-and-its-potential-impact
17. Malahov, V. S. (2015). Integration of migrants. Conceptions and practices. Myslʹ.
18. Maximov, M.B., Morkovkina, A.G., & Omelchenko, D.A. (2017). System adaptation and integration of migrants as a condition of effective realization of the State nationalities policy of the Russian Federation. Social integration and development of ethnic cultures in the Eurasian space, 5(1), 185-194. Retrieved from https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_30507072_15767495.pdf
19. Mencutek, Z. S. (2012). Immigration control in transit states: The case of Turkey. European Journal of Economic and Political Studies, 5(1), 137–163.
20. Mukomel, V.I. (2005). Migration policy of Russia. Post-soviet contexts. Dipol-T.
21. Mukomel, V.I. (2016). Adaptation and integration of migrants: methodological approaches to assessment of effectiveness and the role of receiving society. Rossiya reformiruyushhayasya [Russia in reforms], 14, 411–467.
22. Omelchenko, D.A., Maximova, S.G., & Noyanzina, O.E. (2018) International migration and security in Russian regions: statistical analysis and the experience of typology building. Society & Security Insights, 1(1), 13-31.
23. Pécoud, A., & De Guchteneire, P. (2006). International migration, border controls and human rights: Assessing the relevance of a right to mobility. Journal of Borderlands Studies, 21(1), 69-86.
24. Ryazantsev, S.V., Bogdanov I.Ya., & Khramova M.N. (2017). Forecast of migration in the context of the formation of Russia foreign migration policy. Science review. Series 1: Economics and law, (1), 5-12.
25. Ryazantsev, S. V., Karabulatova, I. S., Mashin, R. V., Pismennaya, E. E., & Sivoplyasova, S. Y. (2015). Actual problems of human trafficking and illegal migration in the Russian federation. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences, 6(3 S1), 621.
26. Renn, O. (2017). Risk governance: coping with uncertainty in a complex world. London: Routledge.
27. Suleymanova, S. S., & Ryabova E. L. (2016). Migration Processes and International, Interethnic Relations in Russia: Interinfluence and the Role of Mass Media. Ethnosocium, 2, 9–21. Retrieved from http://etnosocium.ru/english/etnosocium_2_92_2016