?Caucasian? female labor migration in contemporary Russia ...

“Caucasian” female labor migration in contemporary Russia: changing patterns (case of
St.-Petersburg)
Oleg Pachenkov *
Social, economical and political context of migration from former USSR Caucasian republics
to Russia
The disintegration of the USSR, coupled with the ethnic and military conflicts in the post-Soviet
region, as well as economic decline in many former USSR republics, has caused a mass
migration of the population of newly independent states to Russian cities. A considerable
number of the migrants are refugees and economic migrants from the Caucasus (Georgia,
Armenia, Azerbaijan and Tajikistan). The rate of migration of the citizens of the Caucasus and
Trans-Caucasus to Russia is quite high, but there are no reliable data on the scale of this
migration. It is difficult to estimate the number of migrants precisely. The main reason is that
significant part of the migrants is officially unregistered (I will address this issue below).
Anyway there are several official estimations of the number of migrants working in Russian
Federation. Since early 2000s the calculation of the migrants, decreasing the number of the
illegal migrants and taxation of the economic activities of the legal migrants were formulated as
a task for national policy for the following years. So officials started to calculate migrants. In
September 2005 the director of the Federal migration service of RF sad about 5-10 millions of
migrants living in Russia. 4 months later representatives of the same body mentioned that 750
thousands of foreigners had got official allowance to work in Russia, while the number of illegal
labor migrants they estimated as 14 millions. In March 2006 another official, leading a
Commission on constitution and law in the Parliament, mentioned 10-15 millions of migrants
from CIS countries living in Russia (meaning that migrants from other countries, like China,
Vietnam etc. are not included). A few days later director of the Migration service concluded that
the number of migrants coming to Russia annually is about 20 millions and a half of them are
illegal. It seems that migrants from CIS countries constitute at least a half of the whole number
of migrants and majority among illegal ones.
Legal issues
Majority of the illegal migrants in Russia had entered the country legally. Until 2001, there was
a significant difference between the positions of foreigners from the “far abroad” (countries
outside of the former USSR plus the Baltic States) and “near abroad” (the CIS states). In
according to the Bishkek Agreement of CIS states from 1992, citizens of the member states
could travel across the CIS internal borders without visas. Situation changed in 2002 when in
according to new Law on Foreigners former Soviet citizens as well as citizens of CIS countries
were treated equally to foreigners and have the right to stay temporarily in Russia only for the
term of their visa. People, who come from the countries which have agreements on visa-free
migration regimes with Russia (still majority of CIS countries), are allowed to stay for three
months (Ossipov 2007); (this period might be extended to six months). Therefore all migrants
staying in Russia for longer than 6 months automatically become illegal (in case they have no
special documents that allow them to stay longer, like work permit and contract etc.). Many of
those who broke that rule and have been staying in Russia for years, still stay at RF territory
illegally. The reason is that in case they will cross the border they will be fined by Russian
* Deputy Director and research fellow at the Centre for independent social research (CISR), St-Petersburg, Russia
(www.cisr.ru). E-mail: pachenkov@yahoo.com
1

order servants and probably will be forbidden to come back to Russia as a penalty for violation
of Russian law on foreigners 1 .
In addition, legality of one’s stay in Russia is dependent on the residential registration in the
place of staying on the territory of RF - so called “propiska”. Everybody coming to Russia has to
be registered at a place of residence within 3 days after coming. Residential registration is given
for the time up to 6 months. The residential registration is a part of the passport system that RF
inherited from USSR, where it was mandatory. Before 1991 staying in USSR and then Russia
without passport or propiska was a crime. Since 1992, in according to the new Constitution
everyone who legally stays within the Russian Federation has the right to move freely and
choose the place of residence (article 27, part 1). However in according to this new rule Russian
nationals as well as foreigners are legally obliged to register themselves by the place of their
permanent residence and temporary stay. Under the RF Law of the rights to free movement (of
1993), the registration though is of a notifying character is nevertheless an obligatory procedure.
In according to law, absence of registration constitutes an administrative codex violation and
leads to fine with no other legal consequences for a person (Ossipov 2007). In practice the
procedure of getting registered is complex and time-consuming; there are a number of formal
and informal restrictions on registration both by place of residence or stay, created by direct
official prescriptions or by technical limitations. Some regions also adopt their own rules of
registration which introduce additional conditions, restrictions and penalties. Therefore many
migrants fail to comply with all these requirements and are forced to live without registration.
In reality residential registration is a precondition for exercise of the basic rights and freedoms
including employment; marriage registration; participation in elections; medical care; access to
higher and occasionally even secondary education; access to social security. A person without
registration cannot pay taxes, register a vehicle, obtain driver’s licence, etc. For instance,
authorities of some regions including Moscow force employers not to hire people without local
residence registration. Even a Russian citizen living without a registration within a given region,
in many respects finds him- or herself in a position of illegal immigrant, not speaking about real
migrants who are not Russian citizens. Many scholars claim that the main problem with the
passport system is the fact that it can serve as a mechanism of social exclusion of certain
individuals or groups (Ossipov 2007). In practice this tool is often employed by local authorities
against certain groups – such as migrants in general and against some ethnic groups in particular,
for example, against so called “Caucasians”.
Actually migrants are subjected to two main sets of laws in Russia: one is passport system and
another one is formed by laws and regulations on forced migrants – refugees, asylum seekers and
forced resettlers. However, at the moment, social privileges at the territory of RF are closely
connected with having a citizenship: only citizens have access to resources and advantages
provided by state in accordance to “civic contract” between state and its people. At the same
time, those who are excluded from this contract (like foreigners) cannot rely on the support of
this state 2 . Labor migration is not treated officially as a sort of “forced migration”. Those who, in
according to the point of view of Russian officials, were not forced to migrate, are considered as
1 However, as recent experience of my friend and informant – woman migrant from Armenia – had shown, in real
life there is a chance to cross RF border (with Ukraine, for example) even without being fined, and to come back in
few hours and to get a new border stamp confirming new entrance to the RF territory. Sometimes corruption helps,
sometimes – just personal charisma or charm.
2 International migrants can get some help on basis of participation of RF in international conventions on human
rights and international legislation on humanitarian help. But being a county-recipient, Russia is too weak
economically and too concerned about the national idea (interpreted in ethnic terms) to implement its duties in front
of international community. Only people who obtain status of refugees or asylum seekers might get some support
from the state, however this only happens at declaration level; in reality this support is minimal and anyway in
practice Russian state stopped granting refugee status since the end of 1990-s.
2

“economic migrants”, and the main task for the state is to make them legal, means controllable
and taxable.
Moreover, gaps in the realization of the state migration policy create chances for bureaucratic
manipulation. The state policy stresses the civil component of the nation state concept; however
at the level of bureaucratic practices ethnic component of nation state is heavily employed, so
“Caucasians’ face ethnic and race discrimination also at official level. As a result they prefer to
stay in shadow since there are no real benefits form being legal labor migrant in contemporary
Russia (Guerassimova, Pachenkov 2005).
Due to the lack of official structures and institutions working with migrants and supporting them,
on the one hand, and due to restrictive residential registration system, on the other hand,
overwhelming majority of migrants stay unregistered in Russia, meaning – illegal. Consequently
they have no right to work, no ability to pay taxes, no access to social benefits. They live and
work in a black or at the best in a grey sphere. Migrants from Caucasus region of former USSR
are even in worse conditions due to ethnic hostility and racism which are widespread in Russian
society (Brednikova, Pachenkov 1999).
Changing patterns: female migration in Russia
Scholars studying migration note that although male migration was predominant globally for last
several decades, it seems that now patterns of migration are changing (Carling 2005).
Feminization of migration has been recognized as a tendency at the global level (Castles and
Miller 1993: 67). Today, women constitute about half of international migrants and in some
countries female migrants actually outnumber male migrants (Boyd, 1992; Simon and Brettell,
1986). So now “male migration” pattern has been replaced by “family migration” and female
migration. This tendency could be noted in Russia too. For example, at the territory of Russia
one can find all three types of gender composition of migration, for example, Armenians and
Azerbaijanis seem to represent “family migration” patterns, and overwhelming majority of
migrants from Moldova, Ukraine and Byelorussia are females (Brednikova 2003).
Concerning the family migration, scholars suggest an explanation as follows. In early 1990-s a
significant proportion of adult males from former USSR left their countries in search of job
opportunities. This caused the situation when women take responsibility for the traditional
patterns of male authority. Women got new power but on the other hand they were disappointed
with this situation of being a woman and a man at the same time (in terms of gender roles and
obligations in "functional" sense). Studies of Armenian women staying in Armenia while their
husbands had immigrated to Russia showed that women complained about this situation because
of suffering living without man and because of a sort of "symbolic loss" caused by break of
traditional gender relations and deviation "from the ideal of the exemplary traditional household,
from the norm to which everybody is expected to aspire" (Shahnazaryan 2005). As a result those
of them who did not want to be "virtual widows" - took children and followed their husbands in
migration. They might come even without asking a permit from husbands or other elder relatives
from husband’s part of family (since one anyway needs support from her social networks to
immigrate, so here women relied on their own part of kin or friend networks). This situation
leads to changes in the family relations of the migrants, it is resulted in the reconfiguration of the
gender roles and gender contracts in their families, because women become relatively free and
self-dependent breadwinners, while men stay as house husbands (Brednikova 2003).
In terms of employment female migrants usually occupy the same niches as their male
predecessors – mainly retail trade. Women who come as followers of their husbands are included
in their husbands social networks that allow them to find jobs. However they often establish \
enter their own “female migrants” networks and find job and new opportunities through them.
3

Domestic work and female Caucasian migrants in Russian cities
The demand for migrant domestic care work is socially and culturally constructed. In the other
words, this construction takes place at economic, social and cultural levels. As some scholars
point out, there are mainly four main factors that affect the situation in this sector: 1) welfare
policy of the state; 2) situation with employment (and probably wider, economic situation), 3)
cultural stereotypes and ideologies, 4) migration policies (Gavanas, Tobio, Williams, 2007). The
further description of the situation in the sphere of migrant employment in the domestic work
sector in Russia proceeds from these basic factors. Since “migration policy” has bean already
described above, I will pay attention to the first three factors.
There are several factors forming demand for domestic workers and child care workers in
contemporary big Russian cities, like St.-Petersburg or Moscow.
• In the soviet times child care was a public responsibility – it was guaranteed by the state
and provided by the services of the state institutions (kindergartens and day nursery); also
workday and workweek were limited and controlled by the state so parents were basically able to
take care of children themselves. Public childcare used to be a widespread tradition and a part of
the “care ideology” at Soviet times. The responsibility for provision of childcare was considered
to be shared between parents and the state 3 . But this is not the case any more in post-socialist
times. Majority of all the soviet welfare institutions were destroyed, including child care ones.
Preschool and school education and care still does exist and is not very expensive, however the
situation in the care for children under 3 seem to be worse. There is day nursery at kindergartens
however quality of this service is usually very low, which is well known; therefore moral
pressure of the “public opinion” forces parents to avoid day nursery and to take care of children
themselves or to use relatives. So the lack of the public institutions providing high quality care
services for children under 3, altogether with the changes in the ideology and values (when
responsibility for any sort of care became not the state but private business) leaded working
mothers to seek private sector services (another option is kinship solidarity which still works, but
is not as strong as it used to be – see below).
• Another factor is growth in quality of life, as well as growing upper and middle classes,
especially in big cities. This means changes in attitudes and practices. Soviet ideology was
egalitarian, so it denied and stigmatized colonialism, slavery and hired labor (especially by
private people - only state could hire anybody). Even though egalitarian values still are partly
shared by people, however the tendency is now, especially in megapolices, that so called
“western” i.e. market values are replacing the soviet ones. Therefore hired labor is becoming a
norm, and moreover - hiring someone for domestic work is seen as a tool to signify and increase
the social status of the employee. The gender dimension deserves especial attention in this
concern.
o Global processes leaded changes in the attitudes and values of Russian women,
especially – those of certain generation and class. I.e. middle class young women are
getting career oriented, want to be independent and free. This freedom implies career,
changes in the femininity patterns (shift from good mother and wife to breadwinners and
career successful professionals); and hired domestic work and waged nannies are integral
part of these new patterns (Rotkirch, Temkina 1997, Zdravomyslova 2006).
o Social networks and especially family ties were much closer in soviet times than
now; then they faced challenges of wild capitalism, free market and modernization
3 It seems to be similar to Scandinavian patterns (Björnberg 2002, a,b), even though there are some significant
differences, for example, shared parenting and gender equality were not dominant cultural values or patterns in
USSR.
4

processes; western way of life with its individualism values was adopted in post-socialist
Russia. This leaded to the weakening of the family ties and former patterns of family
relations. As a result, elder family members, like grannies and other female relatives, are
not ready to take responsibility for child care of their younger relatives any more; or at least
not in the same scope. It happens partly because the elders are employed (sometimes
informally, when already retired), partly because they do not feel the child care to be a
value and their responsibility (this is especially characteristic for big cities). Therefore
young parents, who can not rely on family care any more, are forced to resort to the help of
waged domestic work and private child care workers.
So there is a growing demand for waged domestic work and childcare in contemporary big
Russian cities. However in reality, female migrant are not represented in the sector of domestic
and child care work, in spite of such a demand and in spite of the fact that this is one of the most
popular economic niche for female migrants all over the world. In Russia this niche is mainly
occupied by either young women having special education who are usually hired via agencies, or
by local women of middle age and elder who are found through social networks. Preliminary
observations and analysis allow to identify several reasons, explaining why immigrant females
are not dominating in this sector and loose the competition with locals. I would like to note that,
of course, all the factors listed below are interconnected even though have different “nature” or
concern different dimensions of social life in the society:
1) Social reason: illegal migrants are excluded from either official labor market (agencies)
and from social networks of the locals, while all the domestic workers are searched through
personal networks or at official agencies – due to security issue (domestic worker is someone
you allow to enter your home, your privacy; therefore you need to trust him or her; and
trustworthy is checked through personal networks or is guaranteed by the reputation of the
agency. This is especially important in case of child care).
2) Economic reason: there is a social stratum in the society which members are in very bad
economic condition even though they are not migrants: old women (also men, but men are
almost never considered as domestic workers in Russia). They live for very small pensions or are
unemployed because loose competition with younger colleagues, or they are partly employed for
very low paid jobs (low qualification, state sector or part time). They are disadvantaged people; a
sort of “migrants / refugees in their own countries”, they are excluded from prospering sectors of
social and economic life, that can guarantee minimal social secure. Therefore they are ready to
work as domestic workers for small wages. This readiness is completed by several cultural
values, attitudes and stereotypes.
3) Cultural reasons: here gender and age characteristics are of main importance.
a. There are cultural patterns existing in Russia, as well as in many European countries, in
according to which, care (especially child care) is seen as women's domain. So preferably it is
considered to be done by female relatives, mother or grannies; but in case it is impossible – by
female employees. But, in fact, since family ties are kept strong in Russia still, grandmothers are
often involved in domestic work and child care – for free. In this sense scholars claim that the
upward social mobility of middle class young women is a built on the downward mobility of
women of the elder soviet generation (Zdravomyslova 2006). Anyway this is not a pure
instrumental exploitation, but a cultural pattern that elder women reproduce; they feel themselves
responsible for child care, especially for grandchildren, and feel insulted when parents hire
nannies or baby-sitters instead of using grandmother free labor.
b. Another cultural stereotype proceeding from the same roots is the one that domestic work
and child care are to be carried out for free as “a labor of love”, so in practice this stereotype
5

turns out in a low paid work, even when it is realized by non relatives - neighbors, friends or
members of social network.
c. One more thing about culture that is worth attention: in Europe women from certain
countries may be preferred by European employers as child care or domestic workers – in
comparison to the home state women. These preferences are based on ethnic or racial
stereotypes envisioning certain migrant women as more apt for care work due to the "warm
family ties, strong community life and long tradition of patient maternal love of children" in their
home country and culture (Hochschild 2002:23). In Russia there is no need for it: Russian
culture itself is treated as having those traditions of “warm family ties” and “maternal love for
children”. Nevertheless this believe has an age specifics: it is rather characteristic for elder
generations, than for youngsters. Therefore elder Russian females fit this stereotype and are seen
as the best domestic workers; “old babushkas” reminding to the employers – young parents -
their own parents, are therefore are seen as the best baby sitters or child care providers.
4) Moral reason: employees, hiring old Russian babushkas feel that they help old poor
women who are forced to live for their very small pensions or wages; so the notion of
exploitation though might seem to be clear for Marxist oriented scholars, is not a part of the
public discourse; in contrary this activity (hiring old women as baby sitters) is estimated usually
as morally positive and approved.
5) Ethnic/racial reason is the last but far not least: on the on hand, many scholars stress that
domestic worker is "one of the family", and I think that to a great extent this is a case in Russia 4 .
On the other hand, due to high level of xenophobia and racism, migrants, especially
“Caucasians”, are associated in Russia - in discourses and in minds – with the concepts of “dirty”
and insecurity – in all senses (Brednikova, Pachenkov 2002). They are seen as people not at the
bottom of social pyramid (like poorly paid women and “babushkas”) but under or out of the
social order; in some sense they are treated sometimes as a caste of “untouchable” who you only
interact with in certain limited number of contexts (at open air market or at construction or
repairing work), and one’s own home, privacy, intimacy, child care – is definitely not a case.
Therefore Caucasian migrants have low chance to be employed as domestic workers.
I think these listed reasons are interesting from the point of view of the discussion on domestic
work. Marxist approach claims that domestic work is nothing more than a sort of capitalist
exploitation, because, like for all other types of capitalist employers “it is in the interest of those
who hire domestic workers to increase productivity by demanding as much labor for as low
wages as possible (Romero 2002:8). This point of view seems to be pretty popular and
dominating in the discussion on domestic work. However there are alternative approaches to the
domestic work, claiming that it is more complex and complicated phenomenon. The above listed
factors show the importance of non economic reasons – cultural, ethnic, moral. This leads us to
treating domestic work as complex interpersonal process producing work, class, ethnic groups
etc., and viewing “…domestic workers as active subjects who are nevertheless operating within a
culturally and economically constituted structural inequality” (Özyegin 2002:58).
Taking all the above mentioned reasons into consideration, I would say that female migrants
from Byelorussia, Ukraine and ethnic Russians form Moldova seem to have higher chances to be
employed as domestic workers in Russia within the next few years, since they are seen as
“Slavic” and therefore “our own”, “non strangers” from racist and cultural perspective (and there
4 For instance, friends told me a story about the family of their relatives, there was a woman, ethnic Armenian, who
was a nanny for children for ore than ten years; she became old, children grew up, but she kept coming as a nanny.
Finally it turned out in a comic situation: not she took care of the children (who became teenagers at that time) but
all the family members helped her to dress and to shoe when she had to leave their apartment.
6

are some examples of them being employed as domestic workers and baby sitters at Russian
middle class families already).
On the other hand, very rich people (first of all – in Moscow) reproduce international patterns
and are hiring Philippines as domestic workers and well educated English or French ladies as
child care workers.
Post Scriptum. The Caucasus female migrants’ perspectives in the domestic work sector
However there is a niche were Caucasian female migrants also could be employed as domestic
workers and waged child care providers. The demand is formed by the Diaspora people. This is
especially the case for Armenians who are well known for their Diasporas existing all around the
world. Armenians have very big Diaspora in Russia and in St.-Petersburg in particular, since it is
the second biggest city on the country. In according to official data of the recent Census,
Armenian Diaspora in St.-Petersburg consists of about 25 000 people officially registered.
Moreover there are for sure some who are not willing to be officially registered as “ethnic
Armenians” in the Census or other documents, due to ethnic hostility and xenophobia which are
characteristic for contemporary Russia; so the number of the members of Armenian Diaspora is
even larger.
There is no reliable data but in according to expert estimations majority of the Armenians who
immigrated to Russia many years ago and who are well integrated St.-Petersburg citizens now,
could be attributed to the middle class. Therefore they seem to share values, needs and patterns
of the way of life of contemporary St.-Petersburg middle class people; and my personal
observations prove this hypothesis. These new patterns include weakened family ties and lack of
support from family members (which is complicated by the immigration status – meaning that
part of the family stays in Armenia, especially elders who do not want to change way of life by
immigration and who prefer southern climate to northern one). As a result the very pattern of
hiring waged domestic workers and child care workers are also adopted by middle class
Diaspora Armenians.
Above I just analyzed the factors preventing Russians from hiring Caucasians as domestic and
child care workers; but the effect might be totally different when we think about chances of
recent migrants from Armenia to be employed by St.-Petersburg Armenians from Diaspora:
• Even though long-standing migrants and recent migrants often have separate networks,
still these networks overlap partly (especially in case of Armenians for who Diaspora way of life
is a part of culture and often – a part of a family experience). So domestic workers could be
recruited by long-standing migrants among recent migrants through social networks; or
newcomers might migrate especially to be hired as domestic worker. There are also examples
when child care workers – paid and unpaid (recruited among relatives) are invited by their
relatives. There are examples when people who live in St.-Petersburg invite friends or relatives
from Armenia to St.-Petersburg to stay at their family as lives-in and to do child care and / or
domestic work.
• There is no place for ethnic hostility in this situation, since it is obvious that members of
Armenian Diaspora do not share ethnic prejudices of the local Russians towards their
compatriots. Moreover, due to the attention paid by Armenians to ethnic solidarity issues (mainly
due to genocide experience) they seem to be ready to make a co-ethnic person “a member of the
family” (the way that domestic workers are often seen). There are still some cultural
(urban/rural), regional and class boundaries and prejudices that compete with the ethnic
solidarities, as our study of Azerbaijanian or Armenian Diaspora in St.-Petersburg has shown
(Bredniova, Pachenkov 2003; Damberg, Chikadze 2000, Chikadze 2000, Brednikova, Chikadze
7

1998). However it seems to be not such a crucial thing for hiring a domestic worker, because, as
some scholar claim about it, employers who hire domestic workers have to conceive them “as
different from themselves, yet not too different and alienating in an intimate family context
(Moors 2003:390). It seems to be exactly the case for Armenians hiring Armenians, while
Russians feel Caucasians too much “alien and different” to let them enter their privacy.
• Further, Armenian culture seems to have even stronger accent on “warm family ties” and
“maternal love for children” when compared to Russian. So local patterns of child care
reproduced by Russian elder generation (especially – in megapolices like Moscow or St.-
Petersburg) might seem to be examples of cruelty and abandonment towards children – form the
point of view of Armenian traditions. Therefore local Russian females are not competitors for
potential female Armenian child care providers – at least, not in the eyes of the parents that still
share Armenian traditions of child care.
• Economic factors matter here as well. Recent migrants are in very poor economic
situation and are poorly paid at any economic niche where they are employed. Moreover,
conditions in this sector are much batter in comparison to retail trade at open air markets where
female migrants are usually employed. Therefore they are ready to work for low wages as
domestic or child care workers, and in this sense they compete in the niche with Russian
babushkas.
• Regarding morality, the situation when recent Armenian migrants are employed by local
Armenians from Diaspora could be attributed to the ethnic solidarity and therefore is estimated
as morally positive. The notions of exploitation and slavery seem to be not mentioned even in
case of unpaid child care or domestic work. Because even in this case employers provide to the
friends or relatives who stay at their homes as lives-in shelter, food and chance to stay in Russia
in much better living conditions than they would have at home in Armenia (where people often
live without electricity, water, gas and heating). Moreover, waged labor principles confront here
with the strong family ties, family values and “labor for love” principles. Such complications
make this situation even more interesting for a social scientist.
Therefore it seems that the patterns of employment of the female migrants into Russia will be
changing. There are conditions that could stimulate the process of involving female migrants into
the sector of waged domestic and child care work in Russia. There are already signs of these
changes and I believe this process deserves sociological investigations.
Literature:
Björnberg, U. (2002, a) "Ideology and choice between work and care: Swedish family
policy for working parents", Critical Social Policy Vol. 22, No. 1.
Björnberg, U. (2002, b). "Working and caring for children: family policies and balancing
work and family in Sweden" in Carling, Alan, Duncan, S. and Edwards R. (eds.) Analyzing
Families: Morality and rationality in policy and practice. London and New York: Routledge.
Boyd, M.1992 "Gender Issues in Immigration and Language Fluency". In: Immigration,
Language and Ethnicity. Ed. B. Chiswick. Washington D.C.: AEI Press.
Brednikova O. (2003) The Female Labor Migration: A Shift in Gender Contracts?
(Original in Russian: Женская трудовая миграция: смена гендерных контрактов? // Гендерные
отношения в современной России: исследования 1990-х годов. Издательство Самарский университет. 2003).
Brednkiova O., Pachenkov O. (2002) Migrants-"Caucasians" in St. Petersburg: life in
tension. Anthropology & archeology of Eurasia [Armonk] Vol. 41. No. 2. Fall 2002. p. 43-89
Brednkiova O., Pachenkov O. (1999) Economic Migrants from Azerbaidjan in
St.Petersburg (in co-authorship with O.Brednikova) // 'Caucasian Regional Studies' Vol. 4,
Number 3, 1999.
8

Brednikova O., Chikadze E. (1998). Armenians of St.-Petersburg: careers of ethnicity.
(Original in Russian: Ольга Бредникова, Елена Чикадзе. Армяне Санкт-Петербурга: карьеры
этничности. Конструирование этничности. Этнические общины Санкт-Петербурга. Под ред. В.Воронкова,
И.Освальд. СПб: «Дмитрий Буланин»: 227-259)
Chikadze (2000) Armenians of St.-Petersburg – from a social movement to community
institutions
(Original in Russian: Елена Чикадзе. Армяне Петербурга – о общественного движения к общинным
институтам. / Диаспоры, 2000, №1-2, М: 196-214)
Damberg, Chikadze (2000) Armenians in a shoe business in St.-Petersburg. In: )//
Ethnicity and Economy: collection of articles based on the materials of international workshop. /
Ed. by O.Brednikova, V.Voronkov., E.Chikadze. Centre for independent social research. Works.
Vol. 8. St.Petersburg. Pp: 113-117
Carling, J. (2005). Gender dimensions of international migration /GLOBAL MIGRATION
PERSPECTIVES, No. 35 May 2005, Global commission for international migration,
International Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO), Global Commission on International
Migration, Geneva, Switzerland
Castles, S. and Miller M. (1993) The Age of Migration: International Population
Movements in the Modern World. New York: Guilford Press.
Folbre N. (1986) "Cleaning House: New Perspectives on Households and Development,"
Journal of Development Economics, 22:5-40.
Gavanas, A., Tobio, C. , Williams, F. (2007). “Gendered Citizenship: ‘Global Care Chains’
and Migrant Domestic Work in the UK, Spain and Sweden,” Chapter in “Gendering Citizenship
in Western Europe: new challenges for citizenship research in a cross-national context,” edited
by Ruth Lister. Policy Press (in print).
Guerassimova K., Pachenkov O. (2005) Needs assessment of asylum-seeker children in
St.-Petersburg. Hans E Andersson, Henry Ascher, Ulla Björnberg, Marita Eastmond and Lotta
Mellander (Eds.). Asylum seeking child in Europe. Centre for European Research at Göteborg
University (CERGU). Gothenborg, Sweden. 2005 Pp: 183-196
Hochschild, Arlie R. 2002. "Love and Gold" in Ehrenreich, Barbara and Hochschild, Arlie
(eds) Global woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in the New Economy. New York:
Metropolitan Books.
Light I., Bhachu P., and Karageorgis S., (1990) "Migration Networks and Immigrant
Entrepreneurship" (December 31, 1989). Institute for Social Science Research. Volume V. 1989-
90 - California Immigrants in World Perspective: The Conference Papers, April 1990. Paper 1.
http://repositories.cdlib.org/issr/volume5/1
Light I., Karageorgis S. (1994) The Ethnic Economy. // The handbook of Economic
Sociology. Ed. by N. Smelser and R. Swedberg. Princeton University Press.
Moors A. (2003). “Migrant Domestic Workers: Debating Transnationalism, Identity
Politics, and Family Relations. A Review Essay.” Comparative Studies in Society and History,
Vol. 45, No. 2, p. 386-395.
Osipov A. (2007) Falling between the cracks: legal status of the Meskhetian Turks in the
Russian Federation. In: Meskhetian Turks in the intersection: integration, resettlement or
repatriation, ECMI (in print).
Ossipow A. (2003) Pruefung der Identitat - Ethnische Intoleranz und Diskriminierung in
Russland // Russland auf dem Weg zum Rechtsstaat? / Berlin: Deutsches Institut fur
Menschenrechte, 2003. S. 72-78.
Özyegin G. (2002) “The Doorkeeper, the Maid and the Tenant: Troubling Encounters in
the Turkish Urban Landscape.” In: Kandiyoti Deniz and Saktanber, Ayse (eds). Fragments of
Culture. The Everyday of Modern Turkey. New Brunswick, New Jersey: Rutgers University
Press
Pachenkov O. (2004) The life of ethnic migrants: primary groups vs. imagined
communities (based on case-study research of Caucasian migrants in St.-Petersburg, Russia). In:
9

Times, places passages. Ethnological Approaches in the New Millenium. Attila Paladi-Kovacs
(Ed. in chief), Gyorgyi Csukas, Rekka Kiss, and others (Eds.). Akademiai Kiado, Budapest.
Portes A., Bach R. (1985) Latin Journey: Cuban and Mexícan Immigrants in the United
States. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Romero, M. (2002). Maid in the U.S.A. 10 th Anniversary Edition. New York and London:
Routledge.
Rotkirch A., Temkina A. (1997) "Soviet Gender Contracts and Their Shifts in
Contemporary Russia // Idantutkimus. 1997. N 4. Р. 6-24.
Shahnazaryan N. (2005) The Virtual Widows of Migrant Husbands in War-Torn
Mountainous Karabagh. Generations, Kinship and Care. Gendered Provisions of Social Security
in Central Eastern Europe. Haukanes, Haldis og Frances Pine (Eds.). Senter for kvinne- og
kjønnsforskning, Universitetet i Bergen. Skriftserien Vol. nr.17
Simon, R., Brettell C. (1986) Immigrant Women: An Introduction. In: International
Migration: The Female Experience. Ed. R. Simon and C. Brettell. Totowa, New Jersey: Rowman
and Allanheld. Pp. 3-20.
Zdravomyslova (2006) New Russian Everyday Life: Reproductive practices, gender and
sexuality (Freedom / Comparative Ethnographies. Gender and Generation session at a workshop
of the Uncertainty & Freedom Project (UFP) NECEN;
http://www.necen.org/public/ufp/gender/document_view).
10