ABSTRACT
The end of the Cold War was a ‘watershed event’ in the history of global migration, ending political constraints that had kept migration levels low until 1990 and increasing global economic integration. Movement of both documented and undocumented migrants has been on the rise worldwide, and Russia has become a major receiving state, drawing the second largest labour migrant population in the world after the United States. Over the past two decades more than six million have migrated to Russia legally and illegally, most to work in Moscow and other major cities. While these labour migrants come from many countries the single largest group arrives from Central Asian states, with Tajikistan a major contributor. Approximately 10 per cent of Tajikistan’s population of 7-8 million – more than 30 per cent of working-age men and a smaller number of women – totalling an estimated 1.3 million people, reportedly lived and worked in Russia during 2012-13. From 2000, Russia’s economy has depended on them for unskilled and semi-skilled work in construction and services. For its part Tajikistan has relied on migrants’ remittances for one-third to one-half of its GDP, making it one of the most remittance-dependent states in the world. In sum, migration has become an institutionalised part of the political economies of both Russia’s highly stratified ‘global cities’ and the Eurasian periphery. Russia’s 2008-9 recession and especially the current economic downturn have greatly decreased demand for migrants’ labour, leading to return of many to Tajikistan and a resulting decline in remittances (Abdurazakova 2011: 5; Buckley 2008; Heleniak 2008; Ganguli 2009; Hertzer 2009; Migranty 2007; Trudovaia 2010; Yudina 2005). My research contributes to the understanding of this political economy a
study of Tajik labour migrants in Moscow from 2000-15, focusing on their access to healthcare and other basic social services. I ask whether the Russian government’s policies give migrants access to public health services and medical insurance in Moscow, and what alternatives and practices migrants find if needed services are inaccessible in the formal sector. I consider what social rights are guaranteed by Russia’s commitments to international conventions,
and whether migrants’ labour status as legal/registered or illegal/unregistered matters in determining rights and access. Field work in Moscow and Dushanbe, Tajikistan provides evidence about experiences with different kinds of health issues, i.e. accidents, infectious and non-infectious diseases, pregnancy and childbirth, and where migrants turn for help in cases of urgent health needs or emergencies. My study also contributes to a growing literature on NGOs that asks whether they are substituting for states to fill gaps in public provision (Cammett and McLean 2011; Kulmala 2011; Tsai 2011). I ask how many NGOs work with migrants in Moscow, what kinds of services or advocacy they provide, and whether they fill unmet social needs. The chapter is based on documentary research as well as more than 20
interviews the author conducted in Moscow and Dushanbe from 2012-15 with representatives of Moscow-based NGOs that work with migrants, Dushanbe-based international organisations including UNDP (United Nations Development Project); WHO (World Health Organization); IOM (International Organization for Migration); US AID (Agency for International Development), as well as government health officials and academic experts.2 The study also draws on three focus groups conducted in Tajikistan during summer, 2013: in Dushanbe, in Qurghonteppa City, Khatlon Region, with migrants who returned infected with TB, and in the Nuroboddistrict, Rasht Valley, with returned women migrants. To preview the conclusions, my research confirms that a large population
of Tajik and other Central Asian labour migrants has lived precariously in Moscow with few legal or social rights. The Russian government generally complies with its international commitments to provide emergency medical care for all migrants and education for children; beyond these, most migrants have little access to public services. A small network of IOs, NGOs and human rights lawyers provides help and advocacy but has very limited capacity. Most Tajik migrants work, live and meet basic needs in conditions of social exclusion and legal invisibility that drive shadow economies in labour and social sectors. Growth of large marginalised populations and shadow economies undermine human security and welfare provision in Russia. At the same time, migrants’ lack of job rights or claims to social compensation makes them a disposable labour force that can facilitate labour market adjustment and welfare retrenchment in the current downturn. The chapter proceeds as follows: the next section briefly explains the eco-
nomic and political factors that have driven migration, as well as the rules and practices that have kept the labour and lives of most Tajik migrants ‘in the shadows’. The third section, the core of the chapter, reviews international and domestic policy frameworks governing migrants’ de jure social rights, and presents evidence on their de facto access to healthcare and social services in Moscow. It also discusses NGOs and formal and informal private social providers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of risks and realities for migrants and implications for Russia’s welfare state.
