Population Change and Migrations in Lithuania: Trends

and Hidden Processes

Donatas Burneika Lithuanian Social Research Centre

Rūta Ubarevičienė

Lithuanian Social Research Centre Delft University of Technology

The aim and objectives

The aim is to reveal the main trends of the transformations of the Lithuanian settlement network in the context of migration processes.

The main objectives – analysis of population change, “official” and hidden migrations and their causes as well as some consequences of these proceses

Emigration – finding out hidden reasons

• Unemployment, wage differences, bad or good images of places and all other reasons of migrations are well known, but they do not explain the exceptional scale of the process in Lithuania.

• Why Lithuanian are so exceptionally “emigrable”, though economy of the country is not exceptionally bad?

Emigration – finding out hidden reasons

• Answers may be related to the reasons, which are being analysed quite rare.

• They theoretically could be related to exceptional “mind” or “consciousness” of our citizens, always perceiving that grass is much greener in your neighbours yard. But we don’t have serious proof of somewhat strange brain structure of Lithuanians…

• So what is exceptional in Lithuania, comparing to other countries, causing such a will or need to leave your place?

Present trends – consequences of spatial structure of Lithuanian society

• Any society has more or less optimum spatial structure according to its state of development and geographical structure of the country.

• Changing society means changing spatial structure and therefore movement of population. So understanding migrations is difficult ignoring processes of transformations of society.

• Foreign migrations (emigration, namely) should not be analysed and could not be fully understood ignoring migrational processes inside the country, because these two processes are interrelated.

Urbanisation and metropolisation

• Redistribution of population from rural areas to urban and especially to metropolitan regions is absolutely natural process happening in all developing countries, because rural jobs are shrinking few times due to technological changes, while best jobs are concentrated in biggest metropolitan areas due to the comparative advantages they can offer.

• Therefore many (and in some places the most) Lithuanians have got no option between to emigrate or not. They do only have option where to?

Unique Lithuanian settlement system –historical and geographical heritage

• Historical reasons determined creation of second capital city (Kaunas) and geographical reasons raised the Klaipėda (Lithuania is the only state in the region with the peripheral capital, which is not sea port).

• Prevention of the development of the biggest cities, especially Vilnius, and expansion of medium sized towns into cities, giving them regional functions was carried out in the Soviet era. This created network of medium size cities.

• It worked O.K. in the society without competition, but none of the other European state of similar composition have evolved such a uniform urban system, without dominant metropolitan area, which would serve as a main economic axis of the country and compete with similar ones abroad.

Settlement system of Lithuania – result of exceptional historical and geographical circumsatnaces as well as unique

spatial planning

10 biggest cities in Baltic countries Lithuania – was (is) the only small or medium size country in Europe without clear dominance of one metropolitan region

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

700000

800000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Lithuania

Latvia

Estija

Transformation of space as a consequence of transformation of society

• Emigration, and especially scale of emigration partly could be perceived as another negative heritage of the Soviet regime.

• Post-soviet transformations together with processes of globalisation and Europeanization have been transforming Lithuanian society.

• So, emigration (apart from other reasons) is a continuation of “suspended” processes of urbanisation and metropolitisation. It is a natural process, which gained “unnatural”, exceptional character due to the deminishing political, economic and “mental” borders and exceptional socio-spatial structure of the country.

• Therefore, there are very few possibilities to stop this process, but maybe it could be regulated by changing the destinations of those leaving their hometowns.

The result – differences of GVA per capita (2009)

General trend - population increase 1959-1989 - population decrease 1989-2001

Regional differences of population change 1989-2011

Tendencies of metropolization 2001 - 2011

Total population change in Lithuanian cities and LAU2 regions 2001 – 2011

Trends of the metropolization will be expressed more by shrinkage of secondary cities than by expansion of capital city-region

Pace of emigration from municipalities in 2001 – 2012

Migrations from municipalities to other destinations in Lithuania

Emigration from municipalities to foreign countries. Cities dominate – instead of becoming the final destination points

for emigrants, their become a transit points

Approximate number of labour migrants and their origin in the biggest cities in 2012 (hidden migration is of the same scale as

official)

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

Vilnius Kaunas Klaipėda Šiauliai Panevėžys Alytus

Other

Alytus

Panevėžys

Šiauliai

Klaipėda

Kaunas

Vilnius

Destination of labour migrations to the city municipalities

Gathered income tax and proportion of population in municipalities

I. Result of depopulation – spread of sparsely populated regions in Lithuania

II. Change of number of pupils in schools of general education in 2001 – 2011

Change of number of schools of general education in 2001 – 2011

Empty “central kolchoz settlements”

The city sprawl

Expansion of Vilnius city region in 1990 and 2011 – result of internal migrations and poor regional planning

Simplified structure of Vilnius city (functional) region

Foreign migration – why Scandinavia?

Economic “Scandinavisation” of Eastern Baltics is more than obvious. This process ends within state borders of Baltic

countries.

Foreign direct investments in Lithuania

0

5000000

10000000

15000000

20000000

25000000

30000000

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

Russia

Scandinavia

Central Western Europe

• Natural processes of depopulation of rural areas related to continuation of delayed urbanisation will persist in Lithuania and in surrounding countries. It will be making negative impact on local population first of all by damaging their expectation and hopes, but not their incomes or living standards.

• Such trends will continue to fuel both inner and foreign migrations. Developing business contacts and other relations with Scandinavian countries will guarantee that Nordic dimension of foreign emigration will be dominating.

Conclusions

• The state policy in such new sparsely populated areas should concentrate not on preservation of number of population or existing service networks or hausing facilities, but on adoption of these to new reality.

• Strengthening local communities and local self-governing, improving communication networks, simplification of land use conversion procedures, disseminating objective information of on-going processes and other similar actions would make much more effective influence on the prosperity and life satisfaction of local population.

Conclusions

• Metropolization in Lithuania will not reach the degree of other countries of the Baltic sea region and remaining Europe. The difference of on-going socio-economic changes and transformations of settlement structure will cause various social, economic and psychological tensions in Lithuania.

• Such a situation and inherited polycentrism of the country will cause bigger emigration flows than in the other post-socialist countries. The management of the urban network should be based on the idea of solidarity and unity, but not on the uniform settlement network of the country.

Conclusions

Thank you for your attention!