Post on 28-Mar-2015
transcript
ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN SUBURBANISATION IN
ESTONIA Tiit Tammaru
University of Tartu Centre for Migration and Diaspora Studies
QMSS 2 Immigration and population dynamics Seminar "Multi-attribute analysis and projection of ethnic populations" 3–5 June 2009, Jevnaker, Norway
Modest levels of suburbanisation in previously centrally planned countries in Europe
Suburbanisation the most important feature of spatial population change today
No studies to the ethnic dimension in suburbanisation in the former Soviet space
25 million Russians living in the previous member states of the Soviet Union, highly clustered spatially
Background
Aims of the studyTo clarify
1)Ethnic differences in suburbanisation in Estonia
2)The role of immigrant population related characteristics in shaping the city-to-suburban moves
3)The role of socio-economic status (SES) in shaping the city-to-suburban moves
Background: Ethnic minority population in Estonia
Literature review: suburbanisation of ethnic minoritiesHypotheses of the study
Data and methods
Results
Conclusions
Outline of the presentation
Background: Ethnic minority population in Estonia
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
1946
1948
1950
1952
1954
1956
1958
1960
1962
1964
1966
1968
1970
1972
1974
1976
1978
1980
1982
1984
1986
1988
1990
Year
Mig
ran
ts, i
n th
ou
san
ds
Immigration Emigration
Immigration and emigration in Estonia, 1946–1990
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
1934 1945 1959 1970 1979 1989 2000 2008
Sha
re, %
Share of ethnic minorities in Estonia (%), 1934–2008
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Other
Byelorussians
Ukrainians
Russians
Share, %
Main ethnic minority groups in Estonia (%), 2000
Russians: Majority -> Minority
Estonians: Minority -> Majority
The demise of the Soviet Union and changing ethnic relations
Changed social status of Russians
Selective effect of economic restructuring
Poor Estonian language skills
Lack of Estonian citizenship
Downgrading position of ethnic minorities
Estonian
Ethnic
minority Total
Immigrant Foreign-born 1 48 17 status Second-generation 12 41 12 Native 87 11 61
Mother Estonian 98 3 68 tongue Russian 2 90 30 Other 0 7 2
Partner Estonian 94 13 67 ethnicity Minority 6 87 33
Citizenship Estonian 99 40 81 Russian 0 19 6 Other countries 0 2 1 Not chosen 1 39 12
Estonian and minority population characteristics (%), 2000
First generationSecond generationThird plus generation
Share of people living in urban areas (%), 1934–1989
0
10
20
30
40
5060
70
80
90
100
1934 1959 1970 1979 1989
Year
Sh
are
, %
Estonians Ethnic minorities
Literature review: suburbanisation of ethnic minorities
The hypothesis of similarity in causes: the migration of minorities is driven by similar factors (life course, contextual factors etc) as majority population (Finney and Simpson 2008; Newbold 1996)
Spatial assimilation hypothesis: immigrants move to “White” suburbs as their SES starts to improve (Clark 2006; Massey and Denton 1985; 1988)
Extended spatial assimilation: other ties with host society and majority population facilitate suburbanization and ethnic co-residence (Alba et al 1999; Logan et al 1996; South et al 2005)
Causes of minority suburbanisation I
Spatial outcomes I: dispersal to majority areas
Minoritiest1
Minoritiest2
Majority
Ethnoburb hypothesis: immigrants move to suburbs without necessarily undergoing spatial assimilation (Li 1998)
The suburbanization of disadvantaged hypothesis: immigrants look for cheaper housing that is increasingly available in older suburbs (Ladanyi and Szelenyi 1998; Randolph and Holloway 2005)
Causes of minority suburbanisation II
Minoritiest1
Minoritiest2
Majority
Spatial outcomes II: alternative concentration areas
Initial settlement of minorities is crucial, later domestic migration has only modest impact on immigrant settlement (Hou 2007)
The spatial mobility of ethnic minorities is smaller relative to the majority population (Kulu and Billari 2004)
Immigrant concentration to major cities could lead to native population dispersal (Frey and Liaw 1998; Van Ham and Van Kempen 2009)
Ethnic differences in mobility
Spatial outcomes III: majority migration increases minority
concentration
Minoritiest1
Minoritiest2
Majority
Hypotheses of the study
Hypothesis 1
The probability to suburbanize is smaller for members of ethnic minorities relative to majority population
Hypothesis 2
Minorities with stronger ties with Estonians and Estonian society have an elevated probability to suburbanize
Hypothesis 3
There is no straightforward relationship between SES and suburbanisation
Hypothesis 4
Minorities with stronger ties with Estonians and Estonian society have an elevated probability to move to suburban rural municipalities
Data and methods
Census 2000 anonymous individual dataPlace of residences in 1989 (retrospective) and 2000 (current)Variables of main interest: SES and different characteristics of minority population
Research data
Central cities of the metropolitan areasCapital TallinnRegional centresCounty seats
Suburban area defined based on 30 per cent commuting threshold to the central cities
Urban municipalities or Soviet time satellite towns (dense multifamily housing, minority-rich)Rural municipalities (sparse single-family housing, minority-poor)
Research areas
Central cities and suburban areas
Stayer in central city: lived in central city both at 1989 and 2000 census dates (n=660,495)Stayer in the suburbs: lived in the suburban area both at 1989 and 2000 census dates (n=126,537)
Suburbanizer: lived in central city in 1989, but in the suburban area in 2000 (n=36,626)
Research population
Binary logistic regression models fitted
p(Yi = 1) K
log = + k Xik
p(Yi = 0) k=1
Models 1–2: Suburbanizer (1) vs Stayer (0), total population
Models 3–4: Suburbanizer (1) vs Stayer (0), minority population
Models 5–6: Suburbanizer to Rural (1) vs Urban (0) municipality,
minority population
Results
Estonians Ethnic Totalminorities
Capital city metropolitan area Stayers in central city 52 48 100 Suburbanizers 74 26 100 Stayers in suburb 74 26 100Regional town metropolitan areas Stayers in central city 43 57 100 Suburbanizers 81 19 100 Stayers in suburb 82 18 100Country seat metropolitan areas Stayers in central city 86 14 100 Suburbanizers 92 8 100 Stayers in suburb 93 7 100
Estonian and minority population by residence in 1989 and 2000 (%)
Suburbanizers (1) vs Stayers (0) in central cities, odds ratios
Full model#
Model 1 Model 3 Estonian 1,000 1,000 Russian 0,274 *** 0,271 *** Ukrainian 0,360 *** 0,337 *** Belarus 0,297 *** 0,294 *** Other 0,415 *** 0,401 ***
#Model 2#
Byelorussian
Minority Suburbanizers (1) vs Stayersin central cities (0), odds ratios Model 3 Model 4
Russian 1,000 1,000 Ukrainian 1,242 *** 1,084 * Byelorussians 1,048 1,012 Other 1,322 *** 1,239 ***
First 1,000 1,000 Second 1,102 0,941 Third plus 1,057 0,968
Does not speak Estonian 1,000 1,000 Speaks Estonian 1,257 *** 0,943
Not in union 1,000 1,000 Estonian 2,278 *** 1,951 *** Minority 1,007 1,027
Estonian 1,000 1,000 Russian 0,649 *** 0,691 *** No citizenship 1,065 0,962 Other country 1,089 0,899
# Full model
#
generationgeneration
generation
Full model#
Minority Suburbanizers (1) vs Stayersin central cities (0), odds ratios
#
Model 4
Primary 1,000 Secondary 0,877 *** University 0,718 *** In education 1,051
Blue collar 1,000 Manager 1,767 *** Other white collar 0,887 ***
Share of urban and rural destinations among minority suburbanizers, %
Urban Rural Total
Tallinn MA 61 39 100Regional town MA 25 75 100County seat MA 5 95 100Total 49 51 100
Full model#
Minority suburbanizers to Rural (1) vs Urban (0)municipalities, odds ratios
# Model 5 Model 6
Russian 1,000 1,000 Ukrainian 1,090 * 1,179 *** Byelorussian 0,700 *** 0,765 *** Other 1,025 1,089
First 1,000 1,000 Second 0,924 0,969 Third plus 0,859 *** 0,958
Does not speak Estonian 1,000 1,000 Speaks Estonian 1,370 *** 1,649 ***
Not in union 1,000 1,000 Estonian 3,990 *** 3,044 *** Minority 0,781 *** 0,870 ***
Estonian 1,000 1,000 Russian 0,623 *** 0,590 *** No citizenship 0,627 *** 0,732 *** Other country 0,709 *** 0,757 ***
generationgeneration
generation
partnerpartner
citizenshipcitizenship
Full model#
Minority Suburbanizers to Rural (1) vs Urbanmunicipalities (0), odds ratios
# Model 5 Model 6
Primary 1,000 Secondary 0,756 *** University 0,639 *** In education 0,707 ***
Blue collar 1,000 Manager 1,527 *** Other white collar 0,788 ***
Conclusions
Ethnic minorities have a smaller probability to suburbanize relative to EstoniansThe share of members of ethnic minorities decreases among suburbanizers as we move down the urban hierarchy Increased ties with Estonia and Estonians, especially having an Estonian partner, exert a positive effect on city-to-suburbs movesThe relationship between SES and suburbanisation is not straightforward
Conclusions
Half of the members of ethnic minorities undertaking central city-to-suburban moves settle in rural municipalitiesThe share of members of ethnic minorities settling in rural municipalities increases as we move down the urban hierarchyIncreased ties with Estonia and Estonians, especially having an Estonian partner, exert a positive effect on moves to rural municipalitiesThe relationship between SES and moves to rural municipalities is not straightforward
Conclusions
THANK YOU! Tiit Tammaru
University of Tartu Centre for Migration and Diaspora
Studies
QMSS 2 Immigration and population dynamics Seminar "Multi-attribute analysis and projection of ethnic populations" 3–5 June 2009, Jevnaker, Norway