URBANIZATION AND COUNTER-URBANIZATION BY ETHNIC ORIGIN IN ESTONIA

URBANIZATION AND COUNTER-URBANIZATION BY ETHNIC ORIGIN IN ESTONIA

Tiit Tammaru

Department of GeographyUniversity of Tartu, Estonia

The Fourth International Conference on Population GeographiesHongkong, 10–13 July 2007

Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundationgrant no 6506

Content of the presentation:

• Conceptual background

• Data and methods

• Results: ethnic differences in urbanization and counter-urbanization

CONCEPTUAL BACKGROUND

Dominant conceptual approach (Massey, 1985):

• Ethnic enclave

• Spatial assimilation

Alternatives (Ellis and Goodwin-White, 2006), e.g:

• Segmented assimilation

• Heterolocalism

• Diversified immigrant destinations

Features of minority population in Estonia:

• High share in total population

• Spatially concentrated

• Longer residence compared to Western European immigrant populations

• Relatively homogenous (Russian- speaking)

• Weak linkages between Estonians and minorities

Ethnic origin could be a special population characteristic shaping migration in transition context (Kulu and Billari, 2004):

• New opportunities in transition economies

• Economic hardships in transition economies

DATA AND METHODS

Research data:

• Census 2000 anonymous individual records

• Place of residence in 1989 and 2000

Research population (n = 125,668)

• Urbanizer — a person who lived on a lower level of the settlement system in 1989, but on a higher level in 2000 (n = 71,699)

• Counter-urbanizer — a person who lived on a higher level of the settlement system in 1989, but on a lower level in 2000 (n = 53,969)

Figure 3. Five level Estonian settlement system.

Capital cityRegional townCounty seatSuburban areaNon-metropolitan areas (small towns and rural areas)

UM MCI = X 100

UM + DM

MCI — migration concentration index

UM — net up-ward moves

DM — net down-ward moves

Migration concentration index(Kontuly and Tammaru 2006)

Two-level random intercept logistic regression model:

p(Yij = 1) K L M

log = + k · k Xij + l · lZj + m · mZij + εj

p(Yij = 0) k=1 l=1 m=1

Hypothesis 1

Ethnic minorities have a lower probability to be an internal migrant compared to Estonians

Hypothesis 2

Estonians urbanize more likely compared to ethnic minorities

RESULTS OF THE STUDY

Table 1. Internal migration by ethnic origin.

Estonians Ethnic

minorities

Share in population (%) 68 32

Share among internal migrants (%) 86 14

Share among migrants in the settlement system 88 12

Figure 4. NMR by ethnic origin in the settlement system, 1989–2000.

MCI Estonians = 100MCI minorities = 40

-100

-50

0

50

100

150

200

Rural areas Small towns County seatMAs

Regionalcenter MAs

Capital city MA

Cru

de r

ate,

‰

ö

Estonians Ethnic minorities

Table 2. The probability to be an urbanizer (0) or counter- urbanizer (1) in the settlement system (parameter estimates).

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3

Ethnic origin (Base: Estonian)

Ethnic minority 0,476 *** 0,786 *** 1,301 ***

Share of Estonians (Base: <80%) 80–89% 90% and more

Cross-level interactions

Ethnic minority by

Share of Estonians 80–89% –0,556 ***

Share of Estonians 90% and more –0,729 ***

σε 0,779 *** 0,470 *** 0,499 ***

0,681 ***

1,544 ***

0,728 ***

1,606 ***

CONCLUSIONS

• Migration of ethnic minorities is modest in the settlement system modest compared to Estonians

• The counter-urbanization moves are clearly evident among ethnic minorities

• Ethnic minorities migrate more likely to municipalities with higher share of minorities

THANK YOU!

Tiit Tammaru

Department of GeographyUniversity of Tartu, Estonia

The Fourth International Conference on Population GeographiesHongkong, 10–13 July 2007

Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundationgrant no 6506