Some years ago, the debate on intra-European migration introduced the concepts ‘liquid migration’ (Engbersen, Snel & DeBoom 2010; Engbersen & Snel 2013) and ‘incomplete migration’ (Okólski 2001). According to Engbersen and Snel (2013), liquid migration is a typical phenomenon of post-accession migration. It is strongly labour-motivated and facilitated by the free movement of workers within the EU. Its main characteristics are the temporality of a stay abroad and invisibility because of the temporal nature of such residence. The concept ‘incomplete migration’ refers to migrants who work abroad but ‘live’ in the country of origin, where their families remain and to which they frequently return (Okólski 2001). Recent studies point out that these patterns have changed and that one should talk about the diversity of labour migration patterns and about the trend of transition to longer-term settlement (Friberg 2012; Hazans 2011, 2019; Bygnes & Erdal 2017).
What characterises migration patterns among migrants from Latvia in the Nordic countries? Is it a lasting temporariness (Grzymala-Kazlowska 2005) or do they have intentions to settle permanently? How do these migration patterns relate to transnationalism, understood as ‘a growing number of persons who live dual lives: speaking two languages, having homes in two countries, and making a living through continuous regular contact across national borders’ (Portes, Guarnizo, & Landolt 1999: 217)? These are issues that have not yet been explored in detail, especially in the context of the Latvian migrants in the Nordic countries. To fill this gap, this study focuses on the attachment of the Latvian migrants to the destination country and to the country of origin, and the return intentions of the Latvian migrants.
A sense of belonging and attachment forms within and in relation to a specific setting and different destination countries, as well as different countries of origin and changing migration policies, provide the context for migration experiences. The Nordic countries offer better working and living conditions compared to Latvia, and abroad salaries are an important reason for the most labour emigration from Latvia (Hazans 2019). Latvia as one of the poorest EU countries can hardly compete with the Nordic countries in economic terms and standard of living. Despite the economic growth and improvement of the labour market situation Latvia is experiencing in recent years, the main challenges Latvia faces are population decline, high inequality and uneven development, as growth in peripheral regions has lagged behind the Riga region (European Commission 2019). At the same time, the development of closer ties with the Latvian emigrants and support for return migration have received a great deal of attention in the mass media and policymaking in Latvia. This seems largely to be related to the hopes of politicians that return migration might be an instrument for meeting labour market demands while avoiding an inflow of immigrants (Kļave & Šūpule 2019). Various diaspora forums, conferences and other events are being organised for the purpose of cooperation, aiming to promote a sense of belonging among emigrants and their offspring.
Although Latvia as a sending country aims to maintain a sense of national belonging among the emigrant community, destination countries are fostering the social integration of migrants. This may result in a situation of being integrated in two localities and feeling attachment to two national settings, in other words, in a form of transnationalism. However, the migrant may also fail to integrate. In this situation, he or she may maintain a sense of belonging to Latvia. Alternatively, he or she may end up not being integrated in either locality. As these phenomena might concern a growing number of emigrants from Latvia, it is worth looking at the processes of transnationalisation and a sense of belonging among the Latvian emigrants.
Therefore, this article explores various aspects of attachment to the country of origin and to the host country and identifies migration patterns of the Latvian migrants in the Nordic countries. As will be revealed in the following, there is no one unified migration pattern but a diversity and a complex set of factors underlying these types. The online survey of 1391 Latvian migrants in the Nordic countries was used for the empirical analysis. The conceptual framework and methodology of the analysis are based on the typology of labour migration patterns among Central and Eastern European migrants in the Netherlands (Engbersen et al. 2013). The typology of the Latvian migration patterns is constructed by two dimensions: the degree of attachment to the country of origin and that to the host country.
The article is structured in the following way: After describing the analytical framework, context and data, the empirical findings are presented. Throughout the analysis, the four ideal–typical patterns of migration based on two dimensions (the degree of attachment to the country of origin and that to the host country) are tested. The analysis includes the development of characteristics of various Latvian migration patterns (in terms of time of emigration, plans to return to Latvia, gender, education, labour market position and others). The discussion on empirical findings contributes to pointing out similarities and differences with the findings on patterns of migration among the migrants of Central and Eastern European Countries and their integration in the Dutch society (Engbersen et al. 2013).
Previous studies show that there are a lot of concerns about migrants’ attachment, both to their country of origin and to the host country. In many articles, analysis of this attachment has been conceptualised as an integration–transnationalism matrix (Snel, Engbersen & Leerkes 2006; Erdal & Oeppen 2013; Engbersen et al. 2013; Carling & Pettersen 2014), arguing that integration in the host society does not exclude dual orientations or bifocality reproduced by migrants (Vertovec 2004).
Immigrants’ adaptation and attachment to the receiving country in the sociological tradition and in social psychology have been referred to by many concepts, for example, assimilation, acculturation, incorporation and integration (Alba & Nee 1997; Portes & Rumbaut 2001; Guibernau & Rex 2010). The first acculturation theory was elaborated by Thomas and Znanecki in their study of Polish migrants in America (1918–20). Probably, one of the most widely used theories of acculturation is that of John W. Berry. According to Berry (1997, 2001), there are two independent dimensions of acculturation strategies, namely, the degree to which immigrants preserve their ethnic culture and identity and the degree to which they adopt the host country’s culture, which can be measured by the frequency of ethnic relations with the other culture.
At the same time, scholars of transnationalism point out that more and more migrants maintain multiple links to their countries of origin, supporting relatives, investing in their home communities or engaging in political work related to their home countries (Pries 1999: 3). The improvement of global transportation and information systems (Skype, social networks, etc.) helps to retain closer ties with the country of origin. However, migrants’ attachment to their country of origin is not evenly spread among migrants, nor is migrants’ attachment to the host country, and this opens room for various typologies of migrants’ attachment. For example, several qualitative studies present various typologies among Polish migrants, and the main dimensions they use for their analysis concern the migrants’ intentions to stay in the host country and their family ties (Düvell & Vogel 2006; Eade, Drinkwater & Garapich 2006; Grabowska-Lusinska & Okólski 2009). The various types of labour migrants are described quite similarly with some particular differences: (1) migrants oriented on returning, circular migrants, (2) settlers or stayers, (3) transnational migrants with a strong bi-national orientation, (4) highly mobile global nomads with cosmopolitan orientation, ‘searchers’ and others.
The study of Andrzejewska and Rye on Polish migrants in rural Norway (2012) shows that particular groups of intra-European migrants can be marginalised in transnational social space. When operating in-between the cultures of the sending and receiving countries, some migrants fail to keep integrated in both.
In their study, Engbersen et al. (2013) suggest calling this marginalised group with weak attachments to both the home and the destination country as footloose migrants. They develop a typology of labour migration patterns among migrants in the Netherlands from Poland, Bulgaria and Romania based on two dimensions: attachment to the destination country and attachment to the country of origin. Their findings based on quantitative surveys suggest that there are four basic migration patterns: (1) circular migrants (mostly seasonal workers) with weak attachments to the country of destination, (2) bi-nationals with strong attachments to both the country of origin and that of the destination, (3) footloose migrants with weak attachments to both the country of origin and the destination country, and (4) settlers with weak attachments to the country of origin. Nevertheless, these four patterns are not exclusive, and they suggest that it is possible for there to be a range of intermediate forms as well.
Another approach is outlined by Dahinden (2010), who is taking a deeper look at transnational formations as the effect of the combination of mobility and locality. To the analysis of local ties in a receiving country and sending country, she has added the dimension of transnational physical mobility (Dahinden 2010: 58). She scrutinises several types of transnational formations. For example, one type is characterised by low physical mobility and a high degree of local ties (localised diasporic transnational formations). Another type is combining high physical mobility and high locality (localised mobile transnational formations). Transnational mobiles refer to people who are highly mobile but have a low degree of local anchorage. Finally, transnational outsiders display both low mobility and a low degree of local anchorage. This typology provides interesting insights into the transnational formations of mobility and locality. However, she has paid less attention to the migrants’ anchorage in the sending country.
Mentioned studies on the different typologies of migration patterns after EU enlargement allows one to conclude that both theoretically and empirically it is grounded to base analysis of migration patterns on two dimensions of attachment. The attachment of migrants to the destination country can be either weak or strong, as well as the attachment to the country of origin. By combining the two dimensions of attachment, Engbersen et al. (2013) developed the analysis model of four combinations of ideal-types, and conceptually this seems the most comprehensive and appropriate model for further studies. Therefore, this approach is used as a theoretical and methodological guide for analysis of migration patterns among emigrants from Latvia.
During the last 20 years, immigration from the Baltic countries to the Nordic countries has increased significantly. According to the Nordic Statistics database (2019), there are more than 68,000 Lithuanians, 62,000 Estonians and 26,000 Latvians in the Nordic countries. The largest Lithuanian communities can be found in Norway and the largest Estonian ones in Finland (Figure 1). Latvians are not concentrated in any particular Nordic country, but the highest proportions live in Norway and Sweden.
Since 1999, the number of Latvians living in Norway has increased from around 280 to more than 10,000. The number of Latvians living in Sweden has increased from around 2100 to more than 8000. The increase of Latvians is comparably smaller in Denmark and Finland, where 5230 and 2382 Latvians, respectively, live. With regard to the gender distribution of Latvians in the Nordic countries in 2019, there were slightly more men than women (52% compared with 48%). Most Latvian emigrants to Nordic countries are aged 20–39 (Nordic Statistics database 2020).
Previous research on migration from Latvia suggests that, over the past decade, the nature of emigration has changed from short-term emigration to the permanent emigration of the whole family (Hazans 2011, 2019). Several studies have focused on the sense of belonging, identity and attitudes of the Latvian migrants. Focusing on practices and discourses of belonging, Kaprāns (2019) shows that the transnational aspect of identity and long-distance nationalism become normal among the Latvian emigrants in the UK, the favoured destination of the Latvian migrants. In their analysis of attitudes among the Latvian emigrants who are active users of social networking sites, Bucholtz and Sūna (2019) argue that migrants tend to selectively incorporate identity elements from Latvia and their host countries, and this promotes the formation of hybrid identities. A quantitative study of the Latvian emigrants (Koroļeva 2019) provides a description of the determinants of the sense of belonging to the host country’s society and Latvia. Koroļeva has found that the level of subjective life satisfaction and having a family back at home are important for strengthening the sense of belonging to Latvia. Most of those who have a weak sense of belonging to Latvia emigrated during or after the years of economic crisis of 2008–2009 and have left Latvia with a sense of resentment (Koroļeva 2019: 84).
Thus, a sense of belonging, the Latvian migrants’ attachment to the destination country and attachment to the country of origin have not been ignored in the previous migration studies. Still, there have been no quantitative studies on the various migration patterns of Latvians in the Nordic countries. Therefore, the construction of migration patterns by two dimensions—the degree of attachment to the destination country and to the country of origin—based on a quantitative analysis of survey data complements the previous studies on the Latvian migrants in the Nordic countries.
The data source used for the analysis is the largest emigrant survey of the Latvian emigrants organised by the University of Latvia from August to October 2014 (More about the survey Mieriņa 2019). To engage with the Latvian emigrants, an online-based survey method was used. As suggested by other researchers, this is an appropriate data collection method to obtain a geographically dispersed, large sample under time constraints (Sue & Ritter 2012; McGhee, Moreh & Vlachantoni 2017; McCollum et al. 2017). To acquire more respondents, a diverse set of respondent recruitment channels were used: diaspora organisations, diaspora media, the largest social networking sites (draugiem.lv; Facebook, odnoklassniki, vkotankte), the largest online news portals in Latvia and the Latvian embassies abroad. The questionnaire was prepared in three languages: Latvian, Russian and English. However, the data collection method and self-selection of respondents to participate in the online survey limit the representativeness of the survey.
For the purposes of analysis of the Latvian migration patterns in the Nordic countries, a subsample has been developed. This subsample includes emigrants from Latvia who live in Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland. In total, the subsample has reached 1391 respondents, which represent 7.5% out of 18,569 Latvian emigrants older than 14 living in the Nordic countries in 2014 (Nordic Statistics database 2020). Table 1 presents the comparison between the subsample and the official Nordic statistics of the Latvian born inhabitants in every of four countries. Although the proportion of the host countries and age groups in the subsample corresponds to the official statistics, women are slightly overrepresented in this survey (Table 2). The greater volume of female respondents may be explained by two interrelated factors: women are more active users of online social media websites and they have a greater propensity to participate in scientific research (McCollum et al. 2017).
|Norway||Statistics N*||Sample N**||Statistics %||Sample %|
|Host country||Statistics N*||Sample N**||Statistics %||Sample %|
The survey focuses on a wide range of issues, with several questions related to integration in the host country and ties to the country of origin. Decisions with regard to the variables to be included in the analysis were made on the basis of both theoretical and data-driven considerations.
In the statistical analysis, the author partly repeats the methodology of Engbersen et al. (2013), and it consists of the following steps. First, the two dimensions of attachment are constructed. One dimension measures attachment to the host country, and the other measures attachment to the country of origin. These two dimensions underlie different typologies of labour migrants, including the one of Engbersen et al. (2013). Six indicators of attachment to the host country were included in the factor analysis (feels closer ties to the host country, feels affiliated with the people of the host country, follows the news of the host country, follows the culture of the host country, has close friends among the natives in the host country and knows most people in the neighbourhood of the host country). A similar number of indicators were used for the factor analysis of attachment to the country of origin (feels closer ties to Latvia, feels affiliated with the Latvian people, follows Latvian culture, follows Latvian news, visits Latvia at least every half year and has close friends in Latvia).
Afterwards, the respondents were divided into clusters using the scores of the respondents on two factors: attachment to the host country and attachment to the country of origin. This was done through a K-means cluster analysis, in which the number of clusters was set at four because of the theoretical expectation that four ideal–typical migration patterns exist.
Finally, four separate binary logistic regression analyses were carried out to examine whether cluster membership was related to individual migrant characteristics. The dependent variable in each model was a membership in a certain cluster. Independent variables were grouped in various sets of variables, which were used to predict which individuals are more likely to belong to a certain cluster. The first set of variables consisted of background characteristics: age, gender, host country and time of emigration (Table 5). Respondents’ ages ranged from 16 to 90 (mean 35.27; the lowest mean in Denmark 30.54). Gender was coded as 0 = male and 1 = female. Host country variables were included in the analysis to reveal if living and working in a particular Nordic country predicts the odds of membership in a certain cluster. Four Nordic countries were defined separately, and variables were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes. As the last emigration wave from Latvia was connected with the economic crisis of 2008–2009 (Hazans 2019), 2008 has been defined as a reference point of migration. The variable on emigration time was coded as 0 = has emigrated before 2009 and 1 = has emigrated after 2008. Many of those who emigrated before 2009 thus have been living abroad more than 5 years.
The second set of predictors refers to occupational status and education. For occupational status, two variables were used: students (12% within the sample, the highest proportion in Denmark 25%) and unskilled workers (10% within the sample). Variables were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes. For education, three variables were used: people with secondary education or lower (22% within the sample), people with a professional education (23% within the sample) and people with a tertiary education (51% within the sample). Of particular interest in this study are those educated in STEM areas (21% within the sample). Therefore, the set of background characteristics was supplemented by the variable on education in STEM areas (variables were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes).
The third set of variables aims to find out relation between memberships in a certain cluster and return plans. Three variables were included in the analysis: those who plan to return in 5 years (20%); those who plan to return after retirement (21%) and those who do not plan to return (19%). Variables were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes.
The fourth set of predictors captures the main three migration motives of the Latvian emigrants. Twenty-one per cent have migrated because of financial problems. The possibility to develop (to get a good education and/or build a career) was mentioned by 13% respondents. The same proportion of the Latvian emigrants has migrated to the Nordic countries to get married or to live together with a foreigner living in the host country. All variables on migration motives included in the analysis were coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes.
To capture the relation of disappointment and negative attitude to Latvia with a cluster membership, the variable ‘Thinks, that Latvian government is not interested in people like me’ has been included in analysis as well (variable was coded as 0 = no and 1 = yes).
Initially, other different variables were tested, for example, living in a city or in a village in a host country and in Latvia before emigration, having children and ethnicity of Latvian migrants (ethnic Latvian, ethnic Russian and other ethnicity). Contrary to expectations, the odds of cluster membership were not affected by these variables. Therefore, they are not included in the final equitation of the regression analyses. One of the possible explanations, why ethnicity of the respondents did not have any significant effects on cluster membership, is self-selection bias inherent for this survey. As mentioned earlier, the data collection method was an online-based survey method, which is characterised by self-selection bias, and probably those emigrants who have a relatively high attachment to Latvia were more motivated to participate in this survey.
As mentioned earlier, the previous studies suggest that there are two dimensions underlying the different types of migrants: attachment to the host country and attachment to the country of origin (Engbersen et al. 2013). In this particular analysis, the factor ‘attachment to the host country’ was derived from indicators: (1) feels closer ties to the host country, (2) feels affiliated with the people of the host country, (3) follows the news of the host country, (4) follows the culture of the host country, (5) has close friends among the natives in the host country and (6) knows most people in the neighbourhood in the host country. The factor has an eigenvalue of 2,229 and explains 37 per cent of the variance in the six indicators mentioned (Table 3).
|Attachment to host country|
|Feel closer ties to host country (1_yes)||0,716|
|Feel affiliated with the people of the host country (1_yes)||0,706|
|Follow the news of the host country (1_yes, regularly)||0,652|
|Follow the culture of the host country (1_yes, regularly)||0,573|
|Have close friends among the natives in the host country (1_yes)||0,502|
|Know most people in the neighbourhood in the host country (1_yes)||0,461|
|Variance explained (%)||37%|
|Attachment to country of origin|
|Feel closer ties to Latvia (1_yes)||0,678|
|Feel affiliated with the Latvian people (1_yes)||0,617|
|Follow the Latvian culture (1_yes, regularly)||0,604|
|Follow the Latvian news (1_yes, regularly)||0,602|
|Visit Latvia at least every half year (1_yes)||0,522|
|Have close friends in Latvia (1_yes)||0,241|
|Variance explained (%)||32%|
The factor ‘attachment to the country of origin’ was derived from the indicators: (1) feels closer ties to Latvia, (2) feels affiliated with the Latvian people, (3) follows the Latvian news, (4) follows the Latvian culture, (5) has close friends in Latvia and (6) visits Latvia at least every half year. The factor has an eigenvalue of 1,899 and explains 32 per cent of the variance in the six indicators mentioned.
Cluster analysis was used to situate the surveyed Latvian emigrants over two dimensions: attachment to the host country and attachment to the country of origin. Four clusters derived through a K-means cluster analysis correspond to four ideal types of attachment. The ‘bi-national’ pattern, where respondents are strongly attached to both the country of origin and the host country, is closest to 397 respondents. Three hundred and nineteen respondents have been classified as settlers who are strongly attached to the host country and less attached to the country of origin. Two hundred and sixty-five respondents are situated at the lower end of both axes and are regarded as ‘footloose’. Finally, 410 respondents are strongly attached to the country of origin, less attached to the host country and are referred to as ‘separated’. However, it should be stressed that the distinction between the clusters in some cases is blurred, because some respondents are relatively close to one or more of the other types. Cluster membership is derived if a respondent resembles the respondents with the strongest tendencies towards that type more than she or he resembles the respondents with the strongest tendencies towards the other types.
The analysis of the indicators of attachment to the host country and the country of origin by cluster membership supports the theoretical assumptions that there are substantial and significant differences between the clusters in terms of attachment to both the home and the host country (Table 4). The indicators of socio-cultural aspects of integration in the host country are much higher among bi-nationals and settlers, and, by contrast, lower among separated and the footloose. Bi-nationals and settlers regularly follow host-country news, follow host-country culture, have close friends among natives in the host country, know most people in the neighbourhood in the host country, feel closer ties to the host country and feel affiliated with the people of the host country.
(N = 397)
(N = 410)
(N = 265)
(N = 319)
|Attachment to the country of destination|
|Feel closer ties to the host country (%)||87||20||30||92|
|Feel affiliated with the people of the host country (%)||77||16||13||78|
|Follow the news of the host country (%)||83||26||23||76|
|Follow the culture of the host country (%)||50||3||2||28|
|Have close friends among the natives in the host country (%)||74||36||29||80|
|Know most people in the neighbourhood in the host country (%)||43||13||12||55|
|Attachment to the country of origin|
|Feel closer ties to Latvia (%)||92||94||39||34|
|Feel affiliated with the Latvian people (%)||83||85||28||23|
|Follow the Latvian culture (%)||51||31||3||6|
|Follow the Latvian news (%)||91||91||45||44|
|Visit Latvia at least every half year (%)||68||70||30||25|
|Have close friends in Latvia (%)||90||88||71||80|
The indicators of attachment to the country of origin (Latvia) are much higher among bi-nationals and separated, and, by contrast, lower among settlers and the footloose. Bi-nationals and separated regularly follow the Latvian news, follow the Latvian culture, feel affiliated with the Latvian people, feel closer ties to Latvia and visit Latvia at least every half year. Altogether, the data allow one to conclude that the theoretical assumptions about the four migrations patterns are relevant in the case of the Latvian migrants. The next step of analysis aims to answer the question about the characteristics of these different migrant types.
The next conceptual question is to find out whether cluster membership can be related to individual migrant characteristics. To examine this, the method of binary logistic regression analysis has been used. For each of the clusters (bi-nationals, separated, footloose and settlers), a separate binary logistic regression analysis has been carried out (descriptive statistics of the dependent and independent variables are reported in Table 5). The results of the regression analysis suggest several characteristics of migrants belonging to each cluster (Figure 2)
|Total %||n||Norway %||Sweden %||Denmark %||Finland %|
|Age (16–90; mean 35.27)||35.27||35.70||37.73||30.54||37.02|
|People with secondary education or lower||22||305||23||21||23||18|
|People with a professional education||23||321||27||20||20||22|
|People with a tertiary education||51||714||47||55||53||55|
|Highly skilled STEM||21||297||21||27||17||15|
|Have emigrated after 2008||66||914||72||59||66||60|
|ISCO group unskilled workers||10||145||11||8||15||6|
|Plan to return in 5 years||20||282||24||17||17||19|
|Plan to return after retirement||21||296||27||18||18||18|
|Do not plan to return||19||265||14||22||21||25|
|Partner other (neither Latvian, nor Russian)||21||288||13||23||28||27|
|Migration motive: financial problems||13||188||18||12||10||10|
|Migration motive: the possibility to develop (to get a good education and/or build a career) (1_yes)||13||184||6||9||26||15|
|Migration motive: get married or started to live together with foreigner (1_yes)||11||158||7||20||12||13|
|Think, that the Latvian government is not interested in people like me||34||474||37||34||32||31|
The Latvian emigrants belonging to the group named ‘separated’ are characterised by a short stay in the Nordic countries. With other variables held constant, separated are more likely to be among those who have emigrated after 2008. With other variables held constant, males are more likely to be separated migrants. These are migrants who plan to return to Latvia in 5 years or to return after retirement.
By contrast, bi-nationals do not plan to return to Latvia within 5 years. The chances of being a bi-national increase if the respondent is a women and has a partner of ethnic origin other than Latvian or Russian. Bi-national migrants are more likely to have a tertiary education or a secondary education but are not among highly skilled in STEM areas or unskilled workers. The odds of being a bi-national increase slightly with age. With other variables held constant, bi-nationals are more likely to be among those who migrated to get a good education or build a career. They do not think that the Latvian government is not interested in people like them.
Like bi-nationals, settlers are more likely to be among women. The chances of being a bi-national increase if the respondent has emigrated before 2009. Settlers do not plan to return to Latvia within 5 years, and they do not plan to return after retirement. With other variables held constant, settlers are more likely to think that the Latvian government is not interested in people like them.
Footloose migrants also do not plan to return to Latvia within 5 years or after retirement. With other variables held constant, young persons and those who live in Denmark are more likely to be footloose migrants. The odds of being a footloose decrease with the age of emigrants. With other variables held constant, footloose migrants are more likely to think that the Latvian government is not interested in people like them (Table 6).
|People with secondary education||0.884||0.057||–0.163||0.661||–0.297||0.402||–0.315||0.396|
|People with a professional education||0.582||0.215||–0.107||0.777||–0.006||0.986||–0.428||0.255|
|People with a tertiary education||1.067||0.020||–0.114||0.757||–0.541||0.125||–0.444||0.221|
|Highly skilled STEM||–0.307||0.084||0.150||0.403||–0.123||0.539||0.309||0.114|
|Have emigrated after 2008||–0.227||0.117||0.497||0.002||0.508||0.003||–0.627||0.000|
|ISCO group Unskilled workers||–0.467||0.054||0.408||0.057||–0.093||0.687||0.138||0.575|
|Plan to return in 5 years||–0.548||0.004||1.553||0.000||–0.405||0.039||–1.821||0.000|
|Plan to return after retirement||0.133||0.413||1.002||0.000||–0.536||0.008||–1.109||0.000|
|Do not plan to return||–0.517||0.004||–1.546||0.000||–0.046||0.813||1.114||0.000|
|Partner other (neither Latvian nor Russian)||0.348||0.046||–0.242||0.283||–0.331||0.138||–0.074||0.696|
|Migration motive: financial problems||0.004||0.985||–0.035||0.856||0.221||0.266||–0.275||0.233|
|Migration motive: the possibility to develop (to get a good education and/or build a career) (1_yes)||0.361||0.070||–0.080||0.719||–0.336||0.177||–0.052||0.818|
|Migration motive: get married or started to live together with foreigner (1_yes)||0.345||0.102||0.072||0.795||0.089||0.750||–0.611||0.014|
|Think, that Latvian government is not interested in people like me||–0.421||0.003||–0.102||0.480||0.251||0.090||0.375||0.012|
This study addresses the trends of transnationalism and settlement of the Latvian emigrants in the Nordic countries through the analysis of the attachment of the Latvian migrants to the destination country and to the country of origin, and return intentions of the Latvian migrants. The literature studies helped to construct a conceptual framework and research methodology based on the research done by Engbersen et al. (2013). Using two dimensions—attachment to the destination country and attachment to the country of origin—the article highlights four migration patterns: (1) bi-nationals, (2) settlers, (3) footloose migrants and (4) separated—isolated migrants who focus on their country of origin and are willing to return. The quantitative analysis offers several general conclusions.
Data analysis confirms that the theoretical assumptions about the four migrations patterns are relevant for the surveyed Latvian migrants, and they relate to transnationalism trends found in other studies. Bi-nationals are people who manage to feel strong attachment both to the country of origin and to the host country. They are interested in news and culture in both countries, feel closer ties to both countries and the people living there, regularly visit the country of origin and know people in the neighbourhood in the host country. Their active interest in news and cultural events can be partly explained by their comparably higher level of education, but the highly skilled in STEM areas are not overrepresented among them. The members of this cluster are not planning to return to Latvia within 5 years. In many cases their partners are not Latvians or Latvian Russians but are of some other ethnicity, often that of the host country. It is worth noting that many characteristics found in this analysis resemble the study of the Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian migrants in the Netherlands (Engbersen et al. 2013). For example, the Polish, Romanian and Bulgarian bi-national migrants also have the intention to stay in the Netherlands longer.
Another migration pattern is demonstrated by settlers who have less of an attachment to Latvia but, by contrast, have a strong attachment to the host country, have emigrated before 2009 and do not plan to return. They feel affiliated with the people of the host country and have close friends among natives in the host country. Interestingly, among both bi-nationals and settlers, there are more women than men. This allows one to conclude that the surveyed Latvian women migrants are more willing to integrate in host communities. However, unlike settlers, bi-nationals are not disappointed with Latvia, and they do not think that the Latvian government is uninterested in people like them.
The most challenging pattern for characterisation and explanation is the footloose migrants. This migration pattern relates to those respondents who have no strong attachment to Latvia, and who have not integrated into the host country, either. Their characteristics suggest that they are more among young persons and among those who live in Denmark. The representatives of this group do not plan to return to Latvia. Probably, their position in life may be characterised by cosmopolitanism and a sense of being a citizen of the world.
Finally, the fourth migration pattern is characterised by a strong attachment to the country of origin and low integration in the host country. The members of this cluster are planning to return to Latvia within 5 years or later but do not plan to stay in the host country. These characteristics were observed more among men, unskilled workers and those who have emigrated after 2008.
Altogether, an orientation towards the host country and permanent settlement characterise more than half of the surveyed Latvian emigrants in the Nordic countries (both bi-nationals and settlers), whereas one-third of the surveyed Latvian emigrants can be characterised by the concept of ‘incomplete migration’, which refers to those who work abroad but ‘live’ in the country of origin (Okólski 2001). The smallest surveyed emigrant group, referred as the footloose, are those who have no attachment to any particular country and feel like they are citizens of the world.
Transnationalism expressed through speaking two languages, having homes in two countries and making a living through continuous regular contact across national borders is characteristic of more than one-fourth of the surveyed Latvian emigrants in the Nordic countries.
The study does not reveal significant differences among the migration patterns of the Latvian migrants in the four Nordic countries, with one exception. Latvian migration to Denmark differs with a higher proportion of young people, students, those who emigrated not because of financial reasons but to develop (to get a good education and/or build a career) and those who have no strong attachment to Latvia or Denmark.
Considering the limitations of this analysis, three aspects should be mentioned. First, the particular sampling procedure of emigrants has certain drawbacks, and in this study, women are overrepresented in the sample. Second, this particular analysis neglects the trend of multiple migrations, when people move from one country to another and do not necessarily return to their country of origin. However, the available data suggest that moving from Latvia to one country and then moving to another country is not a very typical trend (85% lived in Latvia before their migration; only 8% moved to the current host country from another host country). Third, the ad-hoc survey cannot grasp the changes that can be observed in longitudinal studies. Probably, those who now are among the ‘separated’ plan to return to Latvia in the next 5 years and those who have emigrated after 2008 will develop an attachment to their host countries in 5 or 10 years. Therefore, generalisations should be made with caution, and further, preferably, longitudinal studies are required to test these findings.
This work was supported by the European Regional Development Fund, Activity 22.214.171.124 “Post-doctoral Research Aid” under Grant Nr. 126.96.36.199/VIAA/1/16/012, Project “Migration of highly qualified specialists: emigration and return migration in Latvia”.
The author has no competing interests to declare.
Alba, RD and Nee, V. 1997. Rethinking assimilation theory for a new era of immigration. International Migration Review, 31(4): 826–874. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/2547416
Andrzejewska, J and Rye, JF. 2012. Lost in transnational space? Migrant farm workers in rural districts. Mobilities, 7(2): 247–268. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17450101.2012.654996
Berry, JW. 1997. Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1): 5–34. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
Berry, JW. 2001. A psychology of immigration. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3): 615–631. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00231
Bucholtz, I and Sūna, L. 2019. ‘I am one of them’: Exploring the communication of identity of Latvian migrants on social networking sites. In: Kaša, R and Mieriņa, I (eds.) The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics, 231–257. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_11
Bygnes, S and Erdal, MB. 2017. Liquid migration, grounded lives: Considerations about future mobility and settlement among Polish and Spanish migrants in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(1): 102–118. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1211004
Carling, J and Pettersen, SV. 2014. Return migration intentions in the integration–transnationalism matrix. International Migration, 52(6): 13–30. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/imig.12161
Dahinden, J. 2010. ‘The dynamics of migrants’ transnational formations: Between mobility and locality. In: Bauböck, R and Faist, T (eds.), Diaspora and Transnationalism: Concepts, Theories and Methods, 51–71. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Düvell, F and Vogel, D. 2006. Polish migrants: Tensions between sociological typologies and state categories. In: Triandafyllidou, A (ed.), Contemporary Polish Migration in Europe. Complex Patterns of Movement and Settlement, 267–289. Lewiston/Lampeter: Edwin Mellen Press.
Eade, J, Drinkwater, S and Garapich, MP. 2006. Class and Ethnicity: Polish Migrant Workers in London. Research report for the RES-000-22-1294 ESRC project, Economic and Social Research Council, Swindon.
Engbersen, G, Leerkes, A, Grabowska-Lusinska, I, Snel, E and Burgers, J. 2013. On the differential attachments of migrants from Central and Eastern Europe: A typology of labour migration. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 959–981. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.765663
Engbersen, G and Snel, E. 2013. Liquid migration: Dynamic and fluid patterns of post-accession migration flows. In: Glorius, B, Grabowska-Lusinska, I and Kuvik, A (eds.), Mobility in Transition: Migration Patterns After EU Enlargement, 21–40. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048515493-002
Engbersen, G, Snel, E and de Boom, J. 2010. A van full of Poles: liquid migration in Eastern and Central European countries. In: Black, R, Engbersen, G, Okólski, M and Panţîru, C (eds.), A Continent Moving West? EU Enlargement and Labour Migration from Central and Eastern Europe, 115–140. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048510979-006
Erdal, MB and Oeppen, C. 2013. Migrant balancing acts: Understanding the interactions between integration and transnationalism. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 39(6): 867–884. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2013.765647
European Commission. 2019. 2019 European Semester: Country Report Latvia 2019. Brussels: European Commission. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/file_import/2019-european-semester-country-report-latvia_en.pdf [Last accessed 19 November 2019].
Friberg, JH. 2012. The stages of migration. From going abroad to settling down: Post-accession Polish migrant workers in Norway. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 38(10): 1589–1605. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2012.711055
Grzymala-Kazlowska, A. 2005. From ethnic cooperation to in-group competition: Undocumented Polish workers in Brussels. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 31(4): 675–697. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13691830500109787
Hazans, M. 2011. Latvijas emigrācijas mainīgā seja: 2000–2010. In: Zepa, B and Kļave, E (eds.), Latvija. Pārskats par tautas attīstību 2010/2011. Nacionālā identitāte, mobilitāte un rīcībspēja, 70–91. Rīga: Latvijas Universitātes Akadēmiskais apgāds.
Hazans, M. 2019. Emigration from Latvia: A brief history and driving forces in the twenty-first century. In: Kaša, R and Mieriņa, I (eds.), The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics, 35–68. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_3
Kaprāns, M. 2019. Latvian migrants in Great Britain: ‘The great departure’, transnational identity and long distance belonging. In: Kaša, R and Mieriņa, I (eds.), The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics, 119–144. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_6
Kļave, E and Šūpule, I. 2019. Return migration process in policy and practice. In: Kaša, R and Mieriņa, I. (eds.), The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics, 261–282. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_12
Koroļeva, I. 2019. The complex identities of Latvians abroad: What shapes a migrant’s sense of belonging? In: Kaša, R and Mieriņa, I (eds.), The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics, 69–95. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_4
McCollum, D, Apsite-Berina, E, Berzins, M and Krisjane, Z. 2017. Overcoming the crisis: The changing profile and trajectories of Latvian migrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(9): 1508–1525. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2016.1232161
McGhee, D, Moreh, C and Vlachantoni, A. 2017. An ‘undeliberate determinacy’? The changing migration strategies of Polish migrants in the UK in times of Brexit. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 43(13): 2109–2130. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2017.1299622
Mieriņa, I. 2019. An Integrated Approach to Surveying Emigrants Worldwide. In: Kaša, R and Mieriņa, I (eds.), The Emigrant Communities of Latvia: National Identity, Transnational Belonging, and Diaspora Politics, 13–33. Cham: Springer International Publishing. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-12092-4_2
Nordic Statistics database. 2020. CITI02: Population 1 January by Reporting Country, Birthplace, Sex, Age and Time. Available at https://pxweb.nordicstatistics.org/pxweb/en/Nordic%20Statistics/Nordic%20Statistics__Demography__Population%20size/CITI02.px/?rxid=4bd7ba15-3c4a-4793-8711-6db1fc878223 [Last accessed 26 October 2020].
Okólski, M. 2001. Incomplete migration: A new form of mobility in Central and Eastern Europe. The case of Polish and Ukrainian migrants. In: Wallace, C and Stola, D (eds.), Patterns of Migration in Central Europe, 105–128. London: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780333985519_5
Portes, A, Guarnizo, LE and Landolt, P. 1999. The study of transnationalism: Pitfalls and promise of an emergent research field. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22(2): 217–237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/014198799329468
Snel, E, Engbersen, G and Leerkes, A. 2006. Transnational involvement and social integration. Global Networks, 6(2): 285–308. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0374.2006.00145.x
Sue, VM and Ritter, LA. 2012. Conducting Online Surveys. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4135/9781506335186
Vertovec, S. 2004. Migrant transnationalism and modes of transformation. International Migration Review, 38(3): 970–1001. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-7379.2004.tb00226.x