URBANIZATION AND COUNTER-URBANIZATION BY ETHNIC ORIGIN IN ESTONIA Tiit Tammaru Department of Geography University of Tartu, Estonia The Fourth International Conference on Population Geographies Hongkong, 10–13 July 2007 Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundation grant 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 city Regional town County seat Suburban area Non-metropolitan areas (small towns and rural areas)

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(Y ij = 1) K L M log =  +   k · k X ij +   l · l Z j +   m · m Z ij + ε j p(Y ij = 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. Research variables (%). N80,39828,47630,40621,516 Table 1. Research variables (%). Table 1. Internal migration by ethnic origin. Estonians Ethnic minorities Share in population (%) Share among internal migrants (%) Share among migrants in the settlement system 88 12

Figure 4. NMR by ethnic origin in the settlement system, 1989–2000. MCI Estonians = 100 MCI minorities = 40

Table 1. Research variables (%). N80,39828,47630,40621,516 Table 1. Research variables (%). 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 minority0,476 *** 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 *** σεσε 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 Geography University of Tartu, Estonia The Fourth International Conference on Population Geographies Hongkong, 10–13 July 2007 Research was financed by Estonian Science Foundation grant no 6506