Middle-aged Migrants Research Articles

“Strategic, dual sense of place” among middle-aged migrants in the diaspora

PurposeCompared to younger and older generation migrants, middle-aged migrants in the diaspora seem to be more conflicted regarding their belonging. This paper aims to explore how middle-aged migrants in the diaspora define themselves in space and time.Design/methodology/approachThe paper is based on ethnographic fieldwork done among Malawian migrants (herein referred to as Lydiatians) settled at Lydiate informal settlement in peri-urban Zimbabwe.FindingsThe paper reveals that, while younger migrants have a “radical transnational stance”, and older migrants regard their place of settlement as their final home, middle-aged migrants prefer to maintain a “strategic dual sense of place” regarding their place of settlement in the diaspora. These middle-aged migrants can be entrepreneurs considering their current settlement as a strategic place for petty commodity trading or those who find informal settlements to provide needed opportunities for cheap housing as the migrants pursue work in the nearby towns.Practical implicationsThe paper offers a deeper understanding of how middle-aged migrants navigate their sense of place and contribute to host nations by functioning as key resources, dynamizing local economies through entrepreneurial activities and labour provision for various industries. The implications of this research should encourage states to positively interact with migrants, leveraging their potential for societal and economic development.Originality/valueThe finding that migrants in the diaspora have a dual, strategic view of their settlements is fascinating, if not new. Before this, scholars presented migrants as transnational figures, successively moving to a better place, which finally becomes home. However, the data presented in this paper suggests that this characterization associating migrants with maintaining a “stable, sedentary, bounded and fixed perception of home” is oversimplified. This is because migrants can sometimes continue to cherish the idea of informal settlements in the diaspora as home, just as the migrants also entertain the nearby established towns as useful places in their life.

Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia

Ravenstein, writing in 19th century papers, observed that migration varied with the life course. However, he did not investigate this variation in detail, as the necessary data were not then available. Age-specific migration has been a focus for researchers of migration in the 20th and 21st centuries. Building on this research, the current paper explores age-specific migration in Russia focussing on its spatial diversity. We compare age-specific migration patterns found in Russia and those observed in other developed countries. For this investigation, we mainly use Russian administrative data on residence registration for 2012-2016, together with information on populations by age in the latest census in 2010. The data are analysed using a classification of local administrative units classified by degree of remoteness from Russia’s principal cities (regional centres).
 The main results are as follows: In Russia, young people participate strongly in migration flows between peripheral territories and regional centres. The net migration surplus in regional centres is mostly produced by the migration of 15-19 year-olds starting further and higher education courses. Peak migration occurs in this age group. This type of migration represents upward mobility in the spatial hierarchy because institutions of higher education are located in the large cities. People aged 20-29 and 30-39 migrate in much smaller numbers, but they also replenish the population of regional centres. The inflow of middle-aged migrants and families with children was directed to the areas located closest to the regional centres, the suburbs. This type of migration is observed in regions with a well-developed middle class with high purchasing power, for example, in the city of Moscow and in the Moscow Region.
 Peripheral territories have similar profiles of age-specific migration, but of loss rather than gain. The farther they are from regional centres, the more significant the outflow of young people and the stronger the impact of migration on population ageing. The rural periphery and small cities attract only elderly migrants, but this inflow is far smaller than the outflow of young people. The directions and age selectivity of migration observed in other countries are thus also found in Russia, although there are important differences associated with the nature of housing in Russian cities and regions.
 * This article belongs to a special issue on “Internal Migration as a Driver of Regional Population Change in Europe: Updating Ravenstein”.

Age-specific Migration in Regional Centres and Peripheral Areas of Russia

Ravenstein, writing in 19th century papers, observed that migration varied with the life course. However, he did not investigate this variation in detail, as the necessary data were not then available. Age-specific migration has been a focus for researchers of migration in the 20th and 21st centuries. Building on this research, the current paper explores age-specific migration in Russia focussing on its spatial diversity. We compare age-specific migration patterns found in Russia and those observed in other developed countries. For this investigation, we mainly use Russian administrative data on residence registration for 2012-2016, together with information on populations by age in the latest census in 2010. The data are analysed using a classification of local administrative units classified by degree of remoteness from Russia’s principal cities (regional centres). The main results are as follows: In Russia, young people participate strongly in migration flows between peripheral territories and regional centres. The net migration surplus in regional centres is mostly produced by the migration of 15-19 year-olds starting further and higher education courses. Peak migration occurs in this age group. This type of migration represents upward mobility in the spatial hierarchy because institutions of higher education are located in the large cities. People aged 20-29 and 30-39 migrate in much smaller numbers, but they also replenish the population of regional centres. The inflow of middle-aged migrants and families with children was directed to the areas located closest to the regional centres, the suburbs. This type of migration is observed in regions with a well-developed middle class with high purchasing power, for example, in the city of Moscow and in the Moscow Region. Peripheral territories have similar profiles of age-specific migration, but of loss rather than gain. The farther they are from regional centres, the more significant the outflow of young people and the stronger the impact of migration on population ageing. The rural periphery and small cities attract only elderly migrants, but this inflow is far smaller than the outflow of young people. The directions and age selectivity of migration observed in other countries are thus also found in Russia, although there are important differences associated with the nature of housing in Russian cities and regions. * This article belongs to a special issue on “Internal Migration as a Driver of Regional Population Change in Europe: Updating Ravenstein”.

Urban amenity and settlement intentions of rural-urban migrants in China.

The existing literature concentrates on the relationship between amenities and migrants or residents. However, only a few studies have focused on the role of city amenities in determining the intentions of rural–urban migrants. Such a relation is a key issue in Chinese urbanisation development. The current study investigates the effects of urban amenities on the settlement intentions of rural–urban migrants in China. We find that medical amenities have a significantly positive effect on rural–urban migrants’ intentions. We also indicate that educational amenities and transportation services attract rural–urban migrants to settle in cities. Furthermore, we explore the heterogeneous effects of amenities on different cohorts by education and age. High- and low-skilled rural–urban migrants focus on transportation amenities, while young and middle–aged migrants are attracted by urban educational amenities. Results suggest that increasing access to urban amenities for rural–urban migrants and improving urban amenities enhance the willingness of rural–urban migrants to stay in cities.