Exclavity under globalization. Selected works

Special region of Russia

appears to be related to the size of the community and the closeness of internal links.

As in the survey of 2001, the respondents were asked “Which of the following geographic groups do you feel you belong to?” As can be seen from table 5, certain changes took place over the two years that passed since the time of the previous survey: they concern both the hierarchy of the identities and the significance of the groups for the region’s citizens.

In 2001 there was no clear favourite among the given options, although certain objects of identification were more preferable as compared to the others. The local community as an object of identification was chosen by the respondents in approximately one third of all the cases, followed by the options “I am a citizen of Kaliningrad region” and “I am a citizen of Russia” (28.0% and 24.6% respectively).

In 2003 the community of the Russians seemed more prioritized by the respondents (31.5%). It is followed by the local community (town or village) with 27.5%. The region within this hierarchy is moved to third place and receives, as compared with the country, 21.2%, which corresponds to the respondents’ estimates of the extent of their closeness to these communities (Table 6).

111

Exclavity under globalization

Another important change that took place since the time of the previous survey is the increase in the share of the respondents who first of all feel a sense of belonging to the community of the Europeans – from 2.6% to 7.6%, i.e. practically a threefold increase.

The changes in identity with the geographic groups within the sample are connected with different factors, for example, with the type of the settlement in which the respondents live. Thus, the Kaliningraders and the villagers often speak about their belonging to the Russians, though the latter do it more seldom; the inhabitants of small towns of the region choose the local community more often. The citizens of the city of Kaliningrad more seldom than the others feel they belong to the regional community (Table 6).

Table 6

The structure of the identification of the inhabitants of settlements of different types (%)

The pattern of identification also differs within the age groups. Those aged 24 - 30 tend to identify themselves with the Russians and more seldom (more than 1.5 and two times respectively) with the regional and local community (39.7%, 24.7% and 16.4% respectively). The respondents aged 40 - 50 and over 60 more often choose the local community (34.9% and 39%). The oldest respondents are also distinguished by the lowest degree of identification with the community of the region’s inhabitants (13.6%). In the age

112

Special region of Russia

groups under 23 and 51-60 the differences between the shares of the respondents who chose the local, regional communities or the country are not large. The greatest share of the respondents with the identification “European” is in the youngest group (14.3%), and the smallest share is among the oldest respondents (1.7%). Those aged 24 - 30 more seldom call themselves Europeans (5.5%), but more often citizens of the world (11%) (Table 7).

Table 7

The pattern of identification of the region’s citizens of different ages (%)

Another question in the questionnaire aimed at determining identification of the respondents with the socio-territorial communities was “Which of the listed groups would you sooner consider as “we” category?’ The respondents were given 3 options in order of the weakening of identification. The following results were obtained (Table 8).

113

Exclavity under globalization

As in the survey of 2001, in the first option the most preferred answer was “The Russians”, and in the second option the leading answer was “The Kaliningraders”. And again in the aggregate these options are of equal significance and occupy special positions as compared with the others.

At the same time certain changes occurred. Thus, in spite of retaining a leading place, the option “The Russians” weakened its position having lost some of the respondents’ votes. This happened due to the distribution of the votes in favour of the options “the representatives of the same nationality” (the share of those who chose it grew from 11% to 18.5%) and “the Europeans” (from 2.6% to 6.6%). The options “the Europeans” and “the representatives of the same nationality” approached closely the option “the Slavs”, though formally retaining third place in the total for all the choices.

An equal share of those respondents born in Kaliningrad region chose the options “the Russians” and “the Kaliningraders” (34.6% each), but the share of those who chose the latter option is significantly higher than the similar index within the sub-sample of the respondents who were born outside Kaliningrad region (21%).

As well as in 2001, there are certain differences in the choice of the “we” group between the migrants of the last decade and the

114

Special region of Russia

“conventionally indigenous” citizens of the region. When making their first choice the migrants of recent years gave preference to “the Russians” (44%), almost ignoring the option “the Kaliningraders” (10%), while the respondents living in the region for more than 10 years consider themselves Kaliningraders in 30% of the cases. It is also interesting that the migrants see themselves as the Europeans more than twice as often than the “conventionally indigenous” citizens of the region.

Traditionally attention was paid in our survey to determining identification with one of the most important types of communities, i.e. the ethnic ones.

The share of Russians who are very proud of their nationality is a little smaller than among the respondents of other nationalities. Those respondents who were not able to name their nationality had difficulty answering this question (Table 9).

Since the title itself implies perceiving oneself as a member of a particular social community or group, we asked the respondents what they call their home when they are away from the region. The question was an open one and the responses were grouped within the categories “Kaliningrad”, “Kaliningrad region”, “A specific settlement”, “Koenigsberg”.

On the whole, 43% of the respondents, being in some other Russian region and answering the question about their place of residence, say “Kaliningrad”, a little more than one third name Kaliningrad region, 11% name a particular settlement and 1.4% answer “Koenigsberg”. The pattern of the answers of the inhabitants of settlements of different types varies. The citizens of Kaliningrad

115

Exclavity under globalization

mostly name their city (82%). Kaliningraders are also mainly those who answer “Koenigsberg”. The villagers and citizens of small towns relatively rarely (18% and 21% respectively) name the particular settlement in which they live, and it is more customary for them to say “Kaliningrad region” (69% and 49%). The inhabitants of small towns also sometimes (18%) name the city of Kaliningrad as their home.

As was the case two years ago, the survey was supposed to reveal the extent of the respondents’ pride in connection with their belonging to a particular social community. The participants in the survey were asked to assess to what extent they are proud of being Russians and citizens of Kaliningrad region. As it turned out, in particular, the extent of the pride in living in Kaliningrad region dropped (the share of the responses characterizing a high level of pride decreased from 63% to 46%).

As compared with the natives of the region, the respondents who were born outside it are to a lesser extent proud of their living in the region: among them the shares of those who are not at all proud or who are not very proud are 1.5 times higher. Also the respondents who moved to the region relatively recently are to a lesser extent proud of their status as citizens of Kaliningrad region: almost half of this group chose the options “not at all proud” and “not very proud”.

In spite of a certain underdevelopment of the Kaliningrad socium the answers received to the question formulated above identify the population of the region with the region itself and a settlement more clearly than in the majority of the other Russian regions. But it probably occurs because the exclave position of the region separates it from the rest of Russia. And this self-identifica- tion of Kaliningraders is a serious precondition for the development of a socio-territorial community in the region.

The vision and assessment of the prospects

for the regionís development done by the population of the Kaliningrad region

In recent years the prospects for unrestricted travel to and from mainland Russia have become less definite, changes in the Law on the SEZ are being discussed again, and the consequences for the

116

Special region of Russia

regional economy of Poland and Lithuania’s joining the EU. For this reason the anxiety of the region’s citizens about its exclave position increased in 2001-2003 (Table 10).

Table 10

The anxiety concerning the exclave position of the region (%)

In 2001 60%, and in 2003 65% of the citizens of the region are to some extent anxious about its exclave position, about its territorial isolation from Russia. Judging by the data received, the greatest share of those anxious (more than 70%) is within the age groups from 30 to 60. The young (under 30) and the elderly (over

60)are to a lesser extent concerned about the issue.

The respondents with higher education are a little more con-

cerned about the exclave position of the region than all the others (73% of the respondents of this group answered “worries me somewhat” and “worries me very much”). There are some differences between those respondents who moved to the region during the past decade and those who have been living here longer. While among the former the share of those who to some extent concerned about the region’s isolation from the “continent” is 59%, among the conventionally indigenous inhabitants the share is 66%.

There are differences as regards the extent of concern about the issue of the exclave position among the citizens of the various settlements. The villagers are less concerned about it than city dwellers: the region’s isolation from Russia is to a greater or lesser extent of concern to 59% of rural inhabitants, to 65% of the citizens of small towns, to 68.4% of the citizens of the city of Kaliningrad.

117

Exclavity under globalization

Generally, it can be concluded that the extent of anxiety grows with the level of knowledge. This illustrates the role that the mass media play in covering the issue.

Approximately two thirds of the respondents to a greater or lesser extent agreed that Lithuania and Poland’s accession to the European Union in any case poses a threat to Kaliningrad region. This is also higher than the figure in the survey of 2001. Special concern was expressed by the people who have lived in the region for a long time (Table 11).

The respondents who think that Lithuania and Poland’s joining the European Union in any cases threatens the region, answered the question about what precisely this threat is. As in 2001, the gravest threat was identified as complete isolation from Russia (38% of the responses) and deterioration of the socioeconomic position of the region’s citizens (35%). Both figures are higher than two years ago.

Table 11

The assessment of the threats in connection

with the neighbouring countries’ joining the EU and NATO by the conventionally indigenous population and the migrants of recent years (%)

*In brackets the data of 2001 are given.

118

Special region of Russia

14% of the respondents believe that the neighbouring countries’ joining the EU can in the future lead to the region’s withdrawal from the Russian Federation, 9% of the respondents fear the invasion of foreign culture and language. And at the same time the inhabitants of the city of Kaliningrad are very concerned about the economic aspect, i.e. the threat of the deterioration of the socioeconomic climate (41%). And those living in small towns and rural areas are first and foremost concerned about the political consequences, and the possible isolation from Russia (46% and 48%) (Table 12).

Table 12

The nature of the threat in connection

with the neighbouring countries’ joining the EU and NATO (in accordance with the various settlements) (%)

*In brackets the data of 2001 are given.

119

Exclavity under globalization

The deterioration of the socioeconomic situation is often a concern for the respondents with higher and incomplete higher education, for specialists and entrepreneurs. The isolation from Russian is of great concern for managers, military personnel and law-en- forcement officers, labourers and civil servants. The respondents who were born outside the region to a greater extent fear its complete isolation from Russia (the share of such responses is approximately 42% among them, while among the region’s natives the share is 34%).

As was the case of 2001, we asked the participants of the survey to answer a question about the possible status of the region. And again, on the whole the largest number of choices was for the option “a region with the rights of the special economic zone within the RF” (34%). This is followed by “an area that is within the joint administration of the RF and the European Union” (20%), which took the lead this time over the option “a republic within the RF” (14%), “a region within the RF” (14%), “an independent state” (11% as in 2001).

Thus, it is obvious, that the overwhelming majority (approximately 80%) of the region’s citizens are in favour of the special status of the region. As was the case two years ago, more than two thirds of the respondents see the region as a special part of Russia, a part that enjoys a special political and/or economic status.

The respondents of different ages have different views as regards the possible status of the region. The oldest respondents are more conservative and choose the options “independent state” or “an area that is within the joint administration of the RF and the European Union” more seldom than the others, but much more often they choose “a region within the RF”. The option “an area that is within the joint administration of the RF and the European Union” appealed most of all to the respondents aged under 23 and from 31 to 40 (Table 13).

120