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