«МИГРАЦИЯ В ЗЕРКАЛЕ СТРАН СНГ (МОЛОДЕЖНЫЙ РАКУРС) Под редакцией Ирины Молодиковой Москва 2006 3 Проект инициирован Институтом Открытое Общество, Международной Ассоциацией ...»
Внутренняя миграция все еще доминирует и ориентирована, как и прежде, на крупные города. Тем не менее, растет число молодежи участвующих в международных перемещениях, хотя эти перемещения носят в основном временный характер.
FOREWORD‘Migration in the mirror of CIS countries: the youth’s view’ is a collection of articles on the youth migration or results of studies performed by young researchers from CIS countries. Research projects have been implemented within framework of ‘Migration: theory, methods and practice of control’ three-year workshop for lecturers of the higher education institutions. The project was sponsored by Open Society Institute. Though articles on youth migration constitute the basis of the volume, the whole range of migration processes that are burning for CIS countries at the beginning of the 21st century is reflected in the issues discussed by the authors.
Change of residence place due to the desire to continue education is one of the main features of youth migration. Several articles are dedicated to this particular problem. The authors of these articles examine issues of educational migration at several levels: international (from CIS countries to the Western countries), regional (migration from one CIS country to another CIS country) and local (migration from small and medium-size towns to regional centers). A wide range of youth labor migration is exemplified in comparative studies of migration processes in Uzbekistan, Georgia, Belarus, Moldova and Russia. Works of a group of researchers from the most polyethnic region, Northern Caucasus, provide analysis of anti-migrant phobia among the young people.
The youth migration problems are traditionally investigated in CIS countries in the context of the general ‘brain drain’. This problem, taken mainly in its Russian dimension, is extensively examined in works by I.
Oushkalov, V. Iontsev, I Stolyarov, V. Shkol’nikov, J. Zayonchkovskaya. However there is quite a few research works on the youth mobility. Among these works of L. Ledeneva and E. Tyuryukanova, O. Chudinovkikh, Anne de Tanghi (on Russia) and Moldovian colleagues I. Subbotina and V.
Moshnyaga (on Moldova) should be mentioned. Nevertheless development of the new two-stage process of learning in higher education institutes and offset system expand possibilities of students’ migration from one educational institution to another. For example, in 2003 over students from other countries learned in Russian state educational institutions. Therefore, no doubt, that examination of the phenomenon made on the basis of not only Russian but also other CIS countries data is of great interest since it provides the possibility of comparative analysis.
Learning migration is one of the most accessible ways to enter the labor market of another country upon graduation from a higher educational institution. This practice is common in America. Realizing expediency of getting of a high class specialist with little social and financial expenses Europe also follows the suit.
Mobility which graduates from CIS countries demonstrate upon their graduation from a Western college is a hot issue for a greater part of CIS countries. Development of Bologna process, growth of international connections, and cooperation among higher educational institutions make a possibility to study abroad not a unique phenomenon. A research the author made on an extensive material contained in database on graduates of Central European University in Budapest revealed that the real Westoriented mobility of graduates-natives of CIS countries upon graduation from one-two year MS program comprises mere 23.6% of the students’ total number. That is by far lower than figures yielded by previous studies of potential intents to stay abroad (polls of graduates from Russian universities and students learning abroad estimated this intention as high as 60%).
However it’s obvious that a share of young people who stay in West for work or continuation of learning rises with increase of number of years spent abroad and specialization in natural and technical disciplines.
Spatial-territorial factor, i.e. place of residence prior to admission (whether a person lived in metropolitan, regional or small town) plays an important Леденева Л. И., Тюрюканова Е. В. Российские студенты за рубежом: перспективы возвращения в Россию. М., 2002 (The Russian students abroad: prospects for come-back to Russia); Леденева Л.И. Учеба за рубежом как форма эмиграция российской молодежи//Вестник научной информации. Реформы вчера, сегодня, завтра. М., 2002, № 2. (Studies abroad as a form of the Russian young people emigration).
role in the subsequent migration mobility of graduates. Distinctive predominance of capital cities’ residents among the enrolled attests the poor quality of educational services provided by peripheral higher educational institutions of a greater part of CIS countries as well as difficulties with access to information on opportunities to get education abroad. In particular, this statement is true in respect of Caucasian and Central Asian countries.
The ‘metropolitan’ quality is a certain magnet which attracts former students back to their countries of departure. The less ‘metropolitan’ was a community where a graduate lived prior to enrollment, the less is probability of his/her coming back to that location. The highest ‘rate of return’ was registered among graduates of metropolitan higher educational institutions (this rate was 30% higher than the ‘rate of return’ among graduates from respective country). On the contrary, the highest Westoriented mobility is observed among graduates from small towns: every second student among them goes further to improve his/her education or finds a job in the West.
Location of the previous residence also exerts influence on choice of countries where young people move to. Graduates from the country (or the province) move to America, Canada and Australia twice as frequently as graduates of metropolitan universities and those who graduated from institutions located in regional centers. The latter prefer to go to the capital of their respective country or to European countries.
The country of departure also has an impact on mobility. The greatest share of people moved to other countries upon graduation is observed among students from Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Ukraine and Turkmenistan.
Conversely, the greatest share of graduates who came back to their native countries is specific for the Baltic countries because level of social and economic development and stability of political regime in these countries are approaching the average similar indicators for the EU countries. The highly skilled specialists present certain requirements to environment, in particular, to access to global, information, service and transportation networks. Development of these networks against background of political stability and democracy is one of prerequisites for graduates’ come-back.
So called potential migration is another aspect of youth migration. This aspect is dealt with in several articles on comparative political geography of perception of European countries’ appeal for students from Russia and Moldova, on the youth migration from Uzbekistan and on issues of internal mobility of young people from small Russian towns.
A high mobility at the very beginning of life journey is the typical trait of students’ ways. Number of those who have never been abroad among students of three higher educational institutions (Moscow State University, Smolensk Humanitarian University and Moldova State University) varies within range from 16.8% for Moldova to 46% for provincial Smolensk.
Students reproduce, with a certain degree of precision and adequacy, not just individual but also collective notions of Europe, of its attractive and unattractive countries that predominate in their respective countries. Doing that, students take guide from various motives. For Russian students one of the most important reasons is ‘attitude towards Russians, discrimination of the Russian population’ (for students of Moscow State University this factor is the most valid reason of a country’s unattractiveness). For students from Moldova (one third of population of the country earns living abroad) relations emerge and evolve on the basis of experience gained by their relatives and friends’ during their migration travels. Characteristics of a country related to standards of living and conditions of national economy, war and threat of hostilities in a particular country are the basic factors that define sympathies and antipathies of students of all three universities.
Unlike UK, USA, Germany, the higher education in Russia has always been and still is the prerogative of major cities. The article on role of big cities in learning migration is based on materials from Chuvashia and Volgograd.
About 97% of students of state higher educational institutions in Volgograd region and neighboring Chuvashia take their courses at the regional capitals.
The decisive factors that determine choice of a college and a specialty are the high status of both as well as the high quality of educational services, prospects of handsome earnings in the future, subsequent career promotion, prompt employment upon graduation of college.
As several years of migration anomalies of early 1990s passed, after collapse of the USSR countries relapsed to the patterns within which internal migrations prevailed over outward ones. The same is true in respect of greater part of local movements (movements with a single region). These streams are often shaped by learning migrations. Data of polling among school leavers in Vladimir, Smolensk, Kostroma regions, Republic of Tatarstan and Stavropol krai allow appreciating level of migration mobility of young residents of small Russian towns (formerly such towns were single-function centers that had been rather typical for the Soviet urbanization).
Many young residents go to continue education. The total number of those who prefer the permanent migration rather than a temporary one is considerably above a half. Girls proved to be more mobile than young men.
The migration planned by school leavers is predominantly directed to regional centers and neighboring big cities. The greater part of such cities is precisely the cities youngsters visited during their short-term journeys. In spite of common notions that all Russia ‘dreams’ of moving and settling down in Moscow, the capital proved to be just 1% more attractive than Saint-Petersburg and fell considerably behind regional centers. Yet that does not mean that the graded migration will not bring graduates of regional colleges and universities to the capital. Articles by other authors demonstrate a possibility and a great probability of such movements (see, for example, the article on Smolensk region).
The performed investigation has demonstrated how high is the level of migration mobility of young residents of small Russian towns: according to direct and indirect estimates, approximately two thirds of young people are willing to leave their ‘smaller Motherland’. The prospect in waiting for small towns under the current and future scales of migration seems to be bleak. It is not a simple outflow of population. It is the outflow of the young people which will bring about the accelerated, even against the background of all-Russian demographic trends, ageing.