Migration and the National Census: Who Is Counted and What Is Left behind (the Case-Study of the Meskhetian Turks’ Participation in the Russian Census 2002)

Elisaveta A. Koriouchkina, Brown University

National censuses serve as one of the primary data sources for the estimation of demographic processes. However, coverage error, non-response or differential response rates, systematic undercounting of people by ethnicity, and inadequacies of the data collection instrument need to be considered in order to derive valuable information about changes that occur during the intercensal period (Belin & Rolph, 1994). Unfortunately, quantitative methods are not always sufficient to identify and detect possible errors in population coverage (Iversen et al., 1999). This particularly applies to the problem of migration rate evaluation. Research shows that mobile populations generally tend to have response rates different from those of the permanent population in a given region (Fein 1989; Jones 1979). Understanding the differential rate of response among a given migrant group mandates an examination of the meaning and significance that census participation holds for that group; their commitment to the task; and their notions of ethnicity, nationality and citizenship (Iversen et al., 1999). Further, analyzing the politics behind census as a state undertaking can also clarify the question of group participation in the census. Thus, the study of census politics requires a deeper understanding of inter-ethnic communication as well as the specifics of the social and spatial incorporation of mobile groups into the larger society. The following paper will examine the specifics of census participation among a particular migrant ethnic group – Meskhetian Turks – in Krasnodar, Russia. The remarkable population movements within the Russian Federation and, even more importantly, the movement of migrants into Russia from the other states of the former Soviet Union have brought about shifts in the ethnic composition of the region and introduced the potential for new lines of ethnic tension. The case of Meskhetian Turks therefore presents an interesting case for the general discussion of census quality and census coverage of an ethnic minority in the context of a changing socio-economic, political and cultural environment. The vast majority of Meskhetian Turks in Uzbekistan fled the country after interethnic conflicts in 1989. While many of them migrated either to neighboring Central Asian states (Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan) or to major metropolitan areas in Russia (Moscow, St. Petersburg), a considerable number of Turks relocated to Krasnodar, a region in the south of Russia. For the past 10 years, their presence in this region has spurred a lot of controversy and even open hostility on behalf of the local population (primarily Russian and Cossack in terms of ethnicity) as well as the local administration (primarily communist in terms of its political affiliation). Meskhetian Turks have been exposed to substantial economic and social discrimination that prevented them from being integrated into the local communities. A national census can be seen by the Turkish leaders as an opportunity to announce their presence as a group and possibly legitimize their presence in the region. Their census participation could very well be affected by the activities of local authorities that might strive to prevent the Turks from participating in the census altogether. Concerns about the confidentiality and anonymity of the data and the possibility of repercussions from local authorities might also prevent the Turks from participating in the census (Jones 1979: 107). An ethnographic analysis of census participation among the Meskhetian Turks will enable me to highlight the contextual forces that influence the way in which minority populations in a given region are enumerated. It will allow me to examine, how a marginalized minority population residing in a hostile environment reacts to the official registration of identity: whether they hide or flee (i.e. not participate?); use voice as protest (participate in large numbers and identify), or compromise (register as Russian speakers and if possible hide their identity?). Ethnographic observation will also provide data on how the state and local census administrations approach the enumeration of minorities - whether they seek complete and total enumeration, or whether their political interests lead to haphazard efforts and/or undercounting. A case study of the participation of Meskhetian Turks’ in the Russian census 2002 will give me an excellent opportunity to examine these larger census issues that are central to the quality of census information overall. Research agenda: - Observe specifics (spatial and social) of group incorporation - Observe specifics of the interethnic communication - Conduct in-depth interviews with community leaders and few informants about their notions of ethnicity, their perception of the interethnic communication and inter-ethnic tensions; their expectations of the census; reasons for their (non)participation in the census; their projection of the migration figures (exact, undercount, overcount). - Observe specifics of census taking (follow the enumerators and see how they ask the questions; how the respondents react to/answer the questions; how the answers are interpreted / recorded; how ethnicity of both the respondent and the census taker affects specifics of their communication). The ethnographic observation for this study will be undertaken as a part of the research project “Russia’s New Experiment in Power Sharing” to be conducted over the period of the census taking (October 9-16). During this project a monitoring team, deployed in several Russian provinces, will investigate the political uses of census results by federal and regional actors in contested areas of Russia’s shared sovereignty. Bibliography Belin Thomas R., John E. Rolph 1994 Can We Reach Consensus on Census Adjustment?, in Statistical Science, Vol. 9, No. 4. Fein David J. 1990 Racial and Ethnic Differences in U.S. Census Omission Rates, in Demography, Vol. 27, No.2 Iversen Roberta Rehner, Frank F. Furstenberg, Jr., Alisa A. Belzer 1999 Reporting Error in the Census and Surveys How Much Do We Count? Interpretation and Error-Making in the Decennial Census, in Demography, Vol. 36, No. 1 Jones, W. H. 1979 Generalizing Mail Survey Inducement Methods: Population Interactions With Anonymity and Sponsorship, in Public Opinion Quarterly 43(1) pp. 102-111 Kertzer, D. & D. Arel 2002 Censuses, Identity Formation, and the Struggle for Political Power; in Census and Identity edited by D. Kertzer and D. Arel; Cambridge University Press Simon, P. 1999 Nationality and Origins in French Statistics. Ambiguous Categories; in Population: An English Selection 11: 193-219