Возвратная миграция соотечественников в Россию: существует ли миграционный потенциал?
The present article gives estimation of the number of Russian-speaking communities abroad, as well as approximate assessment of the compatriots’ potential for migration to the Russian Federation from three main Central Asian countries — Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan. The authors analyze some results of the implementation of the programme for resettlement of compatriots in the context of the current migration policy of the Russian Federation. They consider the regional specifics of the compatriots’ settlement in Russia, as well as the regional features of the implementation of the resettlement programme. They also identify the main factors ‘pushing’ compatriots out of the Central Asian countries and the ‘attracting’ factors in Russia.
The article contains the outcomes of a sociological survey conducted among the Russians in three countries of Central Asia — Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan. On the basis of statistical information and data from the sociological survey there is given a quantitative and qualitative estimation of the migration potential of Russian compatriots, as well as analysis of the factors that can stimulate or hinder implementation of the migration attitudes of population in Central Asia. On the basis of the binary choice models the authors made calculations and established relationship between the socio-demographic characteristics of potential migrants and the probability of their migration to the Russian Federation.
The radical changes that occurred in the early 1990s and led to the collapse of the USSR, left outside the Russian Federation about 30 million people – representatives of the people and ethnic groups historically living on the territory of Russia. Deep socio-economic crisis and the growth of separatist sentiment in the newly independent States in the 1990s – early 2000s led to stress migration of the Russian and Russian-speaking population from the former Soviet republics to Russia. Note that about 70% of Russians left in Russia, were of working age. To date, despite a General tendency of reduction in the number of Russian-speaking population in the CIS and Baltic countries, the rate of decline is gradually slowing down.
This article examines the question of identity construction among migrants by looking at the case of the Russian-Germans in Germany. The article summarizes an empirical study on the German repatriation program and on the biographies of Russian-Germans who migrated to Germany from former Soviet states in the 1990s and 2000s. The author employs a critical discourse analysis of institutions, organizations and publications related to the German repatriation program, as well as a biographical analysis of narrative interviews conducted with Russian-Germans in Germany. The author has analyzed descriptions of personal biographies and family histories across generations and has sought to answer the question of how, when and where a collective identity narrative is constructed.
In this paper we research on the internal youth migration. We use the data of the last two Russian Census - 2002 and 2010. The main question we answer is whether it is possible for the regional periphery to hold or return their youths.
Several approaches to the concept of fatherhood present in Western sociological tradition are analyzed and compared: biological determinism, social constructivism and biosocial theory. The problematics of fatherhood and men’s parental practices is marginalized in modern Russian social research devoted to family and this fact makes the traditional inequality in family relations, when the father’s role is considered secondary compared to that of mother, even stronger. However, in Western critical men’s studies several stages can be outlined: the development of “sex roles” paradigm (biological determinism), the emergence of the hegemonic masculinity concept, inter-disciplinary stage (biosocial theory). According to the approach of biological determinism, the role of a father is that of the patriarch, he continues the family line and serves as a model for his ascendants. Social constructivism looks into man’s functions in the family from the point of view of masculine pressure and establishing hegemony over a woman and children. Biosocial theory aims to unite the biological determinacy of fatherhood with social, cultural and personal context. It is shown that these approaches are directly connected with the level of the society development, marriage and family perceptions, the level of egality of gender order.