Introduction
Post-Soviet migration was caused by different social and political factors, cultural and economic changes in the post-USSR era. After the fall of the Soviet Union, Soviet citizens received a chance to migrate to European country looking for a better life and high standards of living. Thus, Stiglitz (2002) and Friedman (2005) admit that the causes of immigration can be explained by globalization processes and economic integration of the world. Researchers link immigration with the domestic development of sending countries. They suggest that cross-national inequalities in the level of development are underlying conditions pertinent to immigration. Post-Soviet immigration was caused by a combination of factors: domestic factors (low economic development and low standards of living) and global factors (new labor elations and economic integration).
The Main Trends and Causes of Immigration
The main causes of immigration involved economic instability and a shift from central-planned economy to capitalism. Overpopulation, economic stagnation, and poverty determine immigration. Underdevelopment may only partly explain why people want to migrate but cannot explain why they can do so. For an individual from post USSR countries to move from one country to another, motivation is only a necessary condition, but not a sufficient one. Potential immigrants need to have resources to carry out the move and overcome legal and administrative barriers.. This may be especially true in countries with low average income. Hence, the motivation-only argument is, at best, an incomplete explanation of cross-national variation in immigration (Pilkington 5). Accordingly, because of these flaws, development theory prevents a full understanding of causes of cross-national variation in immigration. “In Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, when these “market reform” benefits failed to materialize in country after country, democratic elections rejected the extremes of new economic systems” (Stiglitz 136).
For the majority of Soviet immigrant, income represents the most important aspect of living standards. Following the basic doctrine of economics, income maximization is one of the important reasons why people engage in cross-country migration. In countries where income levels are similar or close to that of the United States, people’s motivation for immigration to that nation will be relatively weak because there is little income gain in migration. “The devastation-the loss in GDP- was greater than Russia had suffered in World War II. In the period 1940-46 the Soviet Union industrial production fell 24 percent” (Stiglitz 143). Conversely, people from low-income countries can expect a large income gain through migration and therefore will have a stronger motivation to carry out the move (Pilkington 6). Since a higher income reflects a smaller income differential between the sending country and the United States, the level of average income of sending countries should be inversely related to the level of immigration to the United States, holding other factors constant. In addition to income differentials, potential immigrants also consider quality of life when making migration decisions (Shuval and Berustein 81).Quality of life is well measured by life expectancy at birth and is also reflected in the quantity and quality of food, water, clothing, housing, health care, and other basic human requirements. High levels of quality of life in sending countries reduce incentives for immigration. Conversely, a poor quality of life drives people to seek opportunities elsewhere (Brecher and Costello 43).
Children’s educational opportunities may be a very important factor in immigrants’ migration decisions. Although seldom discussed, it has been frequently observed that people migrate, not just for their own well-being but, more importantly, for their children’s benefits, and especially for their children’s social mobility. One important way to ensure children’s social mobility is education. Obviously, people in countries with better educational opportunities for children will have less incentive for emigration than those in countries with worse opportunities (Pilkington 9). Thus, children’s educational opportunities in the home country will be negatively associated with the level of immigration, all else being equal (Shuval and Berustein 80). People are motivated to migrate, not solely by economic reasons, but by political considerations as well. Some people leave their countries of origin because of international wars, domestic conflicts, ethnic cleansing, religious prosecution, or social unrest; some emigrate because they dislike the political regime under which they live; some may feel that their lives and freedom are threatened by the government; and still others may be faced with direct political pressure to leave their home countries (Pilkington 7).
Immigration to and from Russia
In recent years, increasing attention has been given to the prominent role of immigrants’ social networks in the immigration process. Prior research has pointed to the importance of such networks in determining the size and direction of flows and immigrant adjustments to the host society (Shuval and Berustein 76). With regard to contemporary immigration to Russia, proponents of immigrants’ network theory argue that the most critical structural determinant of immigration to Russia is the extent of potential immigrants’ social networks in the receiving country because the major modes of entry into Russia, through either family reunification or occupational preferences, all depend on the arrangements made by immigrants’ relatives or friends or by institutions in the receiving country. It is the cross-national ties between relatives and friends in Russia and potential immigrants in sending countries that determine the level of immigration (Wade et al 62). These networks provide would-be immigrants with information about the receiving country, travel fares, room and board accommodations, job arrangements, and even language training (Pilkington 10). At the macro-level, the size of ethnic networks in the receiving country and the historical depth of family and community migration are suggested among the main social network variables that determine the volume of immigration from sending countries. Immigrants’ social network theory contributes to our understanding of the immigration process by highlighting the social facet of immigration. It underscores that the nature of immigration is not only economic but also, and more importantly, social, as it relies on the existence of social networks (Shuval and Berustein 62). It recognizes the importance of social resources of migration. For actual migration to occur, one needs not only motivation, but also resources, and particularly, social resources. According to statistical results, about 1.1 million of citizens emigrate from Russia since 1990. It is approximately 1% of the total population. The main counties of destination are Germany, Canada and the USA.
The majority of immigrants in Russia are Chinese, Indians and Korean citizens dissatisfied with their regimes and economic development. Critics suppose that illegal immigration from these countries exceed 1 million people, thus legal immigrants are 300,000 people. Population pressures in sending countries may be one of the key conditions inducing emigration. Immigration is a spatial movement of people across national boundaries to search for a better life, and hence population pressures become pertinent. Population pressures refer to the demographic conditions that reduce resources shared by people within a country. The speed of the population’s growth, the level of its fertility rate, and its age structure are different, but interrelated, facets of population pressures. Intuitively, in a given territory with a usually stable amount of resources, when population grows fast (usually as a result of high fertility), the size of population increases, and therefore the individual’s share of resources decreases. As a consequence of high fertility and fast population growth, a relatively high proportion of the population will be concentrated in the young age groups. A young population age structure increases the youth dependency ratio and signifies the entry of a growing number of young people into the labor force (Pilkington 12). If other conditions, such as economic growth, remain unchanged, heavier population pressures mean that more people are likely to be displaced, unemployed, or underemployed, and living conditions will deteriorate. These kinds of population pressures are likely to motivate people to search for opportunities elsewhere as solutions. Emigration is one such solution. In general, the higher the fertility rate, the faster the population growth, the younger the age structure, and the less resources that can be shared; therefore, the more likely it is that emigration will become a viable option of searching for a better life. Hence, we can expect that the level of population pressures in sending countries will be positively associated with the level of immigration to Russia, other things being equal (Shuval and Berustein 15).
Critics (Flynn 72) admit that there are close links between the nationality/ethnicity and country of destination. One of the best examples is Israel and Jews population from post-Soviet Union. Also, the majority of Soviet citizens immigrate to the countries with large Diaspora and cultural links with native country. For instance, many Ukrainians and Armenians immigrate to Canada and the USA. While information regarding personal relationships and institutional connections is not available for cross-national analysis, we do have data concerning the size of immigrants’ ethnic communities. The size of ethnic communities indicates the amount of immigrants’ ethnic resources (Flynn 71). The larger the ethnic communities, the greater the social capital. A large stock of previous immigrants in the United States from the same country of origin will increase their relatives’ and friends’ probability of immigrating to Russia under current immigration policy, which emphasizes family reunification and acknowledges occupational skills (Wade et al 62). Hence, there should be a positive relationship between the stock of previous immigrants and the level of immigration to the United States across nations, should other factors hold constant. Political and individual freedom of the sending countries may indirectly influence immigration through emigration policy (Pilkington 15).
Globalization Processes and Immigration
While the effects of population pressures, economic growth, income differentials, and quality of life on immigration have been actively researched in the past, empirical studies on the effects of urbanization, children’s educational opportunities, and political and individual freedom are scant. In recent years, the effect of urbanization on immigration has drawn increasing attention from scholars. A widely held belief is that urbanization increases immigration, because the urban environment provides potential immigrants with more information necessary for migration decisions than the rural one. Migration threatens “industries and occupations. Similarly, the “export processing zones” in the Third World employ women disproportionately and under particularly exploitative conditions” (Brecher and Costello 112). Urban residents generally have more exposure than rural residents to foreign influence brought in through foreign television, magazines, and movies, which often depict prosperous lifestyles, political freedom, and economic opportunities in Western industrialized countries, especially the United States. Urban residents also find themselves in the immediate orbit of foreign embassies or consulates, international airports, labor recruiters, and emigration service centers which specialize in handling international travel documents.
Recent examples include the influx of Chinese refugees in the mid- and late- 1990s, the inflow of India refugees in 1990, and the arrival of refugees from Central and South Asia. While wars, political turmoil, and civil strife largely explain refugee movements, a lack of political and individual freedom in sending countries may be more important in determining regular, permanent migration flows. In today’s world (except for about a dozen Western democracies), many countries, and especially developing countries, are still operating under fragile political systems that have not yet been able to guarantee basic individual rights and freedoms (Quigley 92). Less individual freedom in speech, press, assembly, and residential movement and fewer political and civic rights in sending countries certainly push people to leave for countries with better political conditions. The higher the degree of political and individual freedoms in the sending countries, the lower the level of immigration to the United States, other things being equal (Quigley 91).
Impact of Immigration on Russia
Immigration from Russia has a negative impact on country’s economy, cultural life and social development. The majority of immigrants belongs to high and middle social classes with high intellect and good education. Immigration causes cultural degradation and depopulation which, in its turn, influences cultural capital and future of the country. Since the degree of permissiveness of emigration policy is positively associated with immigration, critics expect a positive indirect effect of political freedom on immigration. As time passes, however, national boundaries have changed, and continue to change with, for example, the reunification of West and East Germany, the dissolution of the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia, and the ongoing separation process in Yugoslavia (Shuval and Berustein 82). Hence, whether my theoretical framework can be applied to immigration in the post-Soviet era has to be evaluated using new data reflecting the new makeup of nations. This is particularly essential in subgroup analyses of cross-national variations in immigration for socialist and capitalist countries. Immigration causes the particular development problems of that country that may generate the flow, the specific types of cross-country connections and their timing, and the specific kinds of migration resources and specific migrant communities from which a large proportion of a country’s emigrants come. By contrast, under totalitarian regimes such as the former Soviet Union, policies strictly control the emigration of their citizens. Hence, countries with higher degrees of political freedom should have higher degrees of permissiveness in their emigration policies (Flynn 12).
In sum, Immigration from the post-Soviet Union countries was caused by a combination of factors including poor economic and social development of the state and international labor relations. Besides population pressures, other domestic factors are also related to a better life and therefore need to be taken into consideration. One of these factors is economic growth and job opportunities. Some prior studies reported that economic stagnation and high unemployment increase the level of emigration.
Works Cited
Brecher, J. Costello, T. Global Village or Global Pillage. South End Press; 2 edition, 1998.
Flynn, M. Migrant Resettlement in the Russian Federation: Reconstructing Homes and Homelands. Anthem Press, 2004.
Friedman, T. L. The World Is Flat. Farrar, Straus and Giroux; First Edition edition, 2005.
Pilkington, H. Migration, Displacement and Identity in Post-Soviet Russia. Routledge; 1 edition, 1998.
Quigley, J. Flight into the Maelstrom: Soviet Immigration to Israel and Middle East Peace. Ithaca Press, 1997.
Shuval, J. T. Berustein, J. H. Immigrant physicians: Former Soviet doctors in Israel, Canada, and the United States. Praeger Publishers, 1997.
Stiglitz, J. Globalization and its Discontents, London: Allen Lane, 2002.
Wade, R., Kambhampati, U. S., Guista, M. D. Critical Perspectives on Globalization. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006.