Regional features of migrants’ treatment (the case of the Tomsk and Vladimir Regions)


2019, Vol. 3. №4 (10)

Regional features of migrants’ treatment (the case of the Tomsk and Vladimir Regions)

For citation: Filkina A. V., Bulatova T. A. 2019. “Regional features of migrants’ treatment (the case of the Tomsk and Vladimir Regions)”. Siberian Socium, vol. 3, no 4 (10), pp. 17-37. DOI: 10.21684/2587-8484-2019-3-4-17-37

About the authors:

Alexandra V. Filkina, Cand. Sci. (Soc.), Associate Professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University (Tomsk, Russian Federation); Web of Science RecheacherID: AAB-5217-2020;

Tatiana A. Bulatova, Cand. Sci. (Med.), Associate Professor, Tomsk State Pedagogical University (Tomsk, Russia); Web of Science RecheacherID: AAB-1578-2020;


This article presents a comparative analysis of attitudes toward ethnic migrants in two Russian regions: the Tomsk and Vladimir Regions. Its relevance is associated with a high migration influx of foreign citizens into various Russian regions. According to the UN data (2015), our country is the third in the world in terms of the migrants’ influx. Moreover, there is no reliable and comparable sociological information both about the attitude of the local population to them and about the factors that determine it. Against the backdrop of a growing trend of interethnic tension in relations with migrants, the results of such studies acquire important social and political significance. This article relies on the results of representative questionnaires of the population of the Tomsk (in 2014, 563 respondents) and Vladimir Regions (2015, 500) using the general methodology. In the process of research, groups with different levels of tolerance towards migrants were identified in the “host community”. Subsequently, different groups of tolerance of the population were compared in these two regions. The findings show that the attitude towards migrants in the regions can vary even under similar economic conditions and within the framework of a uniform political situation. Significant differences were found in the size of groups that showed varying degrees of tolerance towards migrants. While in the Tomsk Region, the half of the sample can be attributed to the group of the tolerant people, in the Vladimir Region, their percentage is equal to the xenophobes’. The structure of attitudes towards migrants presents particular interest: for the Tomsk Region, the difference between educational and labor migrants is more significant. The obtained results actualize the issue of factors differentiating attitudes towards migrants in different regions of one country. Based on the results obtained, the authors propose a hypothesis that the specificity of the local urban social and cultural context can occupy an important place among these factors. Therefore, in Tomsk (an educational center), there is an obviously higher level of tolerance towards migrants. The authors speak for additional studies using qualitative methods to test their hypothesis.


  1. Alekseyeva A. Yu. 2009. “The main elements and structure of interpersonal trust”. Sociological Journal, no 3, pp. 22-40. [In Russian]

  2. Bavin P. S. 2006. “Social geography of xenophobia and tolerance”. Polis. Political Studies, no 6, pp. 37-58. [In Russian]

  3. RF Federal State Statistic Service. 2018. Vladimir Region in Numbers: A Short Statistical Compendium. Vladimir. Accessed 10 March 2019.

  4. Drobizheva L. M. 2015. “The potential of interethnic harmony: understanding of the concept and social practice in Moscow”. Sociological Studies, no 12, pp. 80-90. [In Russian]

  5. Komornikova O. M. 2010. “Types of tolerant attitude of young people to migrants”. Sociological Studies, no 8 (316), pp. 133-134. [In Russian]

  6. Malakhov V. S. 2015. Integration of Migrants: Concepts and Practices. Moscow: Fond “Liberalnaya missiya”. [In Russian]

  7. Mastikova N. S. 2016. “Interethnic tension in Russia and Europe (according to ESS for 2012)”. Sociological Journal, vol. 22, no 1, pp. 95-113. [In Russian]

  8. Levada-Center. Materials on the tag “migrants”. Accessed 10 March 2019.

  9. Mukomel V. I. 2013. “The role of the state and society in the production of discrimination”. In: Demintseva E. (ed.). Racism, Xenophobia, Discrimination. How We Saw Them…, pp. 195-211. Moscow: Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye. [In Russian]

  10. Mukomel V. I. 2016. “Adaptation and integration of migrants: methodological approaches to assessing the effectiveness and the role of the host society”. In: Gorshkov M. K. (ed.). Reforming Russia: A Yearbook. Vol. 14, pp. 411-467. Moscow: Novyy khronograf; Institut sotsiologii RAN. [In Russian]

  11. Mukomel V. I., Ryzhova S. V. 2017. “Trust and distrust in interethnic relations”. Sociological Studies, no 1, pp. 37-46. [In Russian]

  12. Petrosyan D. I., Svintsov I. V. 2015. Sociological Analysis of Factors Contributing to the Reduction of Tension in the Field of Interethnic Relations in the Vladimir Region. Vladimir: Vladimirskiy filial RANKhiGS. [In Russian]

  13. RF Federal State Statistic Service. 2018. Russian in Numbers. 2018: A Short Statistical Compendium. Accessed 10 March 2019.

  14. Ryzhova S. V. 2016. “Trust and ethnic tolerance under conditions of social change”. Sociological Journal, vol. 22, no 1, pp. 72-94. DOI: 10.19181/socjour.2016.22.1.3920 [In Russian]

  15. Stepanov V. V., Tishkov V. A. (eds.). 2014. Social Factors of Ethnic Intolerance: The Results of an Interdisciplinary Study. Moscow: Institut etnologii i antropologii RAN. [In Russian]

  16. Tomsk Statistic Service. 2018: Statistical Compendium. Accessed 10 March 2019.

  17. Shnirelman V. A. 2011. “The Threshold of Tolerance”: Ideology and Practice of a New Racism. Vol. 2, part 4. What Do Sociological Polls Talk about? Moscow: Novoye literaturnoye obozreniye. [In Russian]

  18. Yakimova O. A. 2017. “Xenophobia in English-language social research: from an explanation of the reasons to an understanding of the dynamics”. Society and Power, no 6 (68), pp. 44-51. [In Russian]

  19. Allport G. 1954.The Nature of Prejudice. Doubleday. Garden City. New York.

  20. Barry D. 2018. “Ethnodoxy, national exceptionalism, and xenophobia: a case study of contemporary Russia”. National Identities, 11 February. DOI: 10.1080/14608944.2018.1431876

  21. Blumer H. 1958. “Race prejudice as a sense of group position”. Pacific Sociological Review, no 1, pp. 3-7.

  22. Bobo L., Hutchings V. L. 1996. “Perceptions of racial group competition: extending Blumer’s theory of group position to a multiracial social context”. American Sociological Review, no 61, pp. 951-972.

  23. Freitag M., Rapp C. 2014. “The personal foundations of political tolerance towards immigrants”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, no 41 (3), pp. 351-373. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.924847

  24. Garcia F. L. 2017. “Determinants of attitudes towards immigration: testing the influence of interculturalism. Group threat theory and national contexts in time of crisis first”. International migrations, April, vol. 55, no 2, pp. 10-22. DOI: 10.1111/imig.12261

  25. Herrera Y. M., Butkovich K. N. M. 2016. “Pride versus prejudice: ethnicity, national identity, and xenophobia in Russia”. Comparative Politics, April, vol. 48, no 3.

  26. Hellwig T., Sinno A. 2016. “Different groups, different threats: public attitudes towards immigrants”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, no 43 (3), pp. 1-20. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2016.1202749

  27. Hjerm M. 1998. “National identities, national pride and xenophobia: a comparison of four western countries”. Acta Sociologica, vol. 41, no 4, pp. 335-347.

  28. Iakimova O. 2018. “Exploring the dynamics of xenophobia in the Nordic countries”. Changing Societies & Personalities, vol. 2, no 1, pp. 17-31.

  29. Inglehart R. 1997. Modernization and Postmodernization: Cultural. Economic and Political Change in 43 Societies. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

  30. Janmaal J. G. Braun R. 2009. “Diversity and postmaterialism as rival perspectives in accounting for social solidarity: evidence from international surveys”. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, no 50 (1), pp. 39-68.

  31. Janmaat G., Keating A. 2017. “Are today’s youth more tolerant? Trends in tolerance among young people in Britain”. Ethnicities, vol. 19 (1), pp. 44-65. DOI: 10.1177/1468796817723682

  32. O’Rourke K. H., Sinnott R. 2006. “The determinant of individual attitudes toward immigration”. European Journal of Political Economy, no 22, pp. 838-861.

  33. Quillian L. 1995. “Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe”. American Sociological Review, no 60 (4), pp. 586-611.

  34. Roccas S., Brewer M. B. 2002. “Social identity complexity”. Personality and Social Psychology, no 6, pp. 88-106.

  35. Turper S., Iyengar S., Aarts K., van Gerven M. 2014. “Who is less welcome? The impact of individuating cues on attitudes towards immigrants”. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, no 41 (2), pp. 239-259. DOI: 10.1080/1369183X.2014.912941

  36. Weldon S. A. 2006. “The institutional context of tolerance for ethnic minorities: a comparative, multilevel analysis of Western Europe”. American Journal of Political Science, vol. 50, no 2, pp. 331-349. DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00187.x