1. ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN SUBURBANISATION IN ESTONIA Tiit Tammaru University of Tartu Centre for Migration and Diaspora Studies

2. 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

3. Aims of the study To 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

4. Background: Ethnic minority population in Estonia Literature review: suburbanisation of ethnic minorities Hypotheses of the study Data and methods Results Conclusions Outline of the presentation

5. Background: Ethnic minority population in Estonia

6. Immigration and emigration in Estonia, 1946–1990

7. Share of ethnic minorities in Estonia (%), 1934–2008

8. Main ethnic minority groups in Estonia (%), 2000

9. Russians: Majority -> Minority Estonians: Minority -> Majority The demise of the Soviet Union and changing ethnic relations

10. Changed social status of Russians Selective effect of economic restructuring Poor Estonian language skills Lack of Estonian citizenship Downgrading position of ethnic minorities

11. Estonian and minority population characteristics (%), 2000 First generation Second generation Third plus generation

12. Share of people living in urban areas (%), 1934–1989

13. Literature review: suburbanisation of ethnic minorities

14. 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

15. Spatial outcomes I: dispersal to majority areas Minorities t 1 Minorities t 2 Majority

16. 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

17. Minorities t 1 Minorities t 2 Majority Spatial outcomes II: alternative concentration areas

18. 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

19. Spatial outcomes III: majority migration increases minority concentration Minorities t 1 Minorities t 2 Majority

20. Hypotheses of the study

21. Hypothesis 1 The probability to suburbanize is smaller for members of ethnic minorities relative to majority population

22. Hypothesis 2 Minorities with stronger ties with Estonians and Estonian society have an elevated probability to suburbanize

23. Hypothesis 3 There is no straightforward relationship between SES and suburbanisation

24. Hypothesis 4 Minorities with stronger ties with Estonians and Estonian society have an elevated probability to move to suburban rural municipalities

25. Data and methods

26. Census 2000 anonymous individual data Place of residences in 1989 (retrospective) and 2000 (current) Variables of main interest: SES and different characteristics of minority population Research data

27. Central cities of the metropolitan areas Capital Tallinn Regional centres County 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

28. Central cities and suburban areas

29. 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

30. Binary logistic regression models fitted p(Y i = 1) K log = + k X ik p(Y i = 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

31. Results

32. Estonian and minority population by residence in 1989 and 2000 (%)

33. Suburbanizers (1) vs Stayers (0) in central cities, odds ratios Full model # # Model 2 # Byelorussian

34. Minority Suburbanizers (1) vs Stayers in central cities (0), odds ratios # Full model # generation

35. Full model # Minority Suburbanizers (1) vs Stayers in central cities (0), odds ratios #

36. Share of urban and rural destinations among minority suburbanizers, %

37. Full model # Minority suburbanizers to Rural (1) vs Urban (0) municipalities, odds ratios # generation partner citizenship

38. Full model # Minority Suburbanizers to Rural (1) vs Urban municipalities (0), odds ratios #

39. Conclusions

40. Ethnic minorities have a smaller probability to suburbanize relative to Estonians The 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 moves The relationship between SES and suburbanisation is not straightforward Conclusions

41. Half of the members of ethnic minorities undertaking central city-to-suburban moves settle in rural municipalities The share of members of ethnic minorities settling in rural municipalities increases as we move down the urban hierarchy Increased ties with Estonia and Estonians, especially having an Estonian partner, exert a positive effect on moves to rural municipalities The relationship between SES and moves to rural municipalities is not straightforward Conclusions

42. THANK YOU! Tiit Tammaru University of Tartu Centre for Migration and Diaspora Studies