The 2021 census became the first census conducted since 2009, and the recent publication of its final results unveils valuable insights into various demographic aspects of Kazakhstan over the twelve-year intercensal period. A particularly interesting addition to the census of 2021 is that it places a significant emphasis on migration, encompassing both internal and external movements of the population. The recently released thematic collection derived from the census provides a compelling exploration of the dynamics of internal migration in Kazakhstan throughout the intercensal period spanning from 2009 to 2021.
First and foremost, the census statistics shed light on the interesting spatial mobility observed among citizens in Kazakhstan. A remarkable 28.2% (or 5.4 million people) of the population is reported to have established permanent residence in a location different from their birthplace, indicating that almost three out of ten people in the country on average have changed their place of residence. Nearly half of the population who have changed their place of residence have done it during the period between 2009 and 2021 (Census, 2021), which indicates that the internal migration rate in the country remains high (See Figure 1).
Figure 1. Migration statistics of Kazakhstan
Source: Prepared by the author based on data from Census, 2021.
The census results provide valuable insights into various facets of internal migration. Notably, the geographical distribution of internal migration reveals substantial variation from one region to another. As observed previously, major urban centers continue to act as primary magnets for internal migrants. The census findings highlight Astana, the capital city, as the foremost destination for internal migration. Impressively, 38% of Astana’s population originated from other parts of Kazakhstan, and during the period from 2009 to 2021, nearly a quarter (23%) of the city’s population migrated from various other regions of the country (Census, 2021).
Similarly, in Almaty, approximately one-third (33.8%) of the population consists of migrants from other regions, with nearly half (17.6%) of the non-native population having relocated to the city at some point between 2009 and 2021. Shymkent, the third-largest city, follows a similar pattern, with 16.4% of its population being migrants who settled in the city over the intercensal period from 2009 to 2021 (Census, 2021). This trend clearly shows the tendency of internal migrants to gravitate toward larger urban centers—a characteristic profile often observed in developing countries during the middle stages of urban transition (Islyami, 2020). Additional large cities, such as Aktobe and Karagandy, also exhibit attractiveness for internal migrants, evident in the high percentages of their populations born in other regions.
In contrast, southern regions such as Turkistan, Kyzylorda, and Jambyl appear to exert lesser appeal for internal migration. For instance, the Turkistan region registers the lowest percentage of internal migrants at approximately 6.4%, who relocated there during the period spanning from 2009 to 2021. Similarly, the internal migration share for the Jambyl region stands at 8.8%, while for the Kyzylorda region, it is 8.9% (See Figure 2) (Census, 2021).
Beyond the pull of higher incomes that typically attracts internal migrants to larger cities, the phenomenon of population redistribution through internal migration can be explained by different factors. These may include interregional disparities in natural population growth rates and the proportion of rural population. Notably, the southern regions exhibit higher birth rates compared to other areas and maintain lower levels of urbanization. Consequently, the outmigration of individuals from these regions to other parts of the country serves as a natural mechanism through which the processes of urbanization and spatial redistribution of the population unfold.
The recently updated demographic data regarding the population sizes of cities and urban settlements provides a more nuanced perspective on internal migration. Surprisingly, the latest demographic figures post-census reveal a notable trend: it is the smaller towns and suburbs that have experienced the most substantial rates of internal immigration. Remarkably, towns such as Derkul and Zachagansk in the West Kazakhstan region, as well as Mangystau in the Mangystau region, emerged as among the fastest-growing settlements nationwide, nearly doubling their population sizes over the last intercensal period from 2009 to 2021. What is common among these three towns is their strategic location in close proximity, within a range of 15-20 kilometers, to large and rapidly growing cities. A parallel trend is also evident in towns surrounding major urban centers such as Almaty, Shymkent, and Astana (Census, 2021).
As anticipated, large cities also exhibit notably high rates of population growth, indicative of substantial internal immigration. In addition to Almaty, Astana, and Shymkent, cities such as Aktobe, Aktau, Kyzylorda, and Turkistan stand out as some of the fastest-growing urban centers, primarily propelled by internal migration. This concentration of the population in and around large cities reflects a common internal migration model observed in developing countries undergoing urbanization. These processes play a crucial role in the economic landscape of developing nations, forming an integral part of the economic framework that demands large internal consumption markets. The heightened concentration of labor in urban centers becomes a prerequisite for labor productivity, serving as a key driver for national economic growth.
At the same time, the intense population growth in suburbs and towns near large cities can be interpreted as a form of suburbanization within Kazakhstan’s urban population centers (Makhanov, 2023). This phenomenon may yield both positive and negative social effects. On one hand, the urban shift away from city centers may arise from wealthier segments of the urban population seeking respite from the adverse effects of urban life. On the other hand, this urban population growth contributes to escalating housing prices, potentially prompting migrants to seek residences in more affordable urban peripheries.
The census data unveils another valuable insight into the geography of internal migration – specifically, the previous places of residence of internal migrants. Notably, internal migrants consistently exhibit a tendency to relocate to nearby areas when choosing their destination. For instance, in the primary attractor of internal migrants, the city of Astana, over one-fifth of the internal immigrant population originated from various regions within the surrounding Akmola region. In Almaty, the share of internal immigrants from the Almaty region is nearly 37%, while in the city of Shymkent, the share of internal immigrants from the Turkistan region surpasses 80% (Census, 2021).
The data also reveal that a majority of internal migration in other regions primarily occurred within the respective regions. In essence, major cities serving as administrative centers emerged as the primary attractors of internal migration from rural areas and smaller towns. This observation aligns with previous research that identified distance as a significant factor in inter-regional migration, with migration flows between regions being proportional to the population size of the respective regions (Tussupbayeva, 2007).
Internal migration tendencies exhibit notable variations based on various social parameters. Interestingly, women appear to be more inclined toward internal migration compared to men, with this disparity being more pronounced among ethnic Kazakhs. Specifically, internal migration rates among women were 18.8% higher than those among men, and among ethnic Kazakhs, this difference increased to 21.7%. The age groups of 25-29 and 30-34 emerge as the most active participants in internal migration, collectively accounting for 28.6% of the total internal migration flow in Kazakhstan over the period from 2009 to 2021. It is also interesting to note that internal migration was predominantly an urban phenomenon, and the census data reveal that the rate of involvement of the urban population in internal migration was nearly 60% higher than among rural residents (Census, 2021).
Within the whole context of the internal migration of Kazakhstan, the particular case of Astana deserves a special attention. The capital city remains to be one of the keystones of internal migration in Kazakhstan and has the highest share of people that migrated to the city at some point since independence. According to the census results, nearly 470 thousand permanent residents of the capital city reported being born in regions other than their current place of residence (Census, 2021). One particularly salient aspect of Astana’s migration profile is the remarkable diversity observed in the origins of internal migrants contributing to the substantial inflow to the new capital city. As mentioned earlier, only around 20% of the incoming immigrants to the city originated from the neighboring Akmola region. The remaining 80% of internal migrants came from diverse regions across the country, with their percentage distribution closely aligning with the population size of their respective home regions. Of course, this kind of geographic balance was partly due to the transfer of a significant share of the bureaucratic apparatus from regions and the subsequent centralization of political power. However, it cannot be denied that the ample and yet balanced immigration from various parts of the country to the new capital contributed a lot to the strengthening of the centralized governance in Kazakhstan (Anacker, 2013). The highly regionally balanced migration to the capital city provided a significant degree of regional neutrality, depriving it of any regional characteristics and making it highly representative and inclusive for all.
Another significant role played by the city of Astana in the context of internal migration is its contribution to achieving longstanding objectives of the central authorities in Kazakhstan -balancing the spatial distribution of different ethnic groups and preventing the population decline in some parts of the country. Specifically, the goal to increase the proportion of ethnic Kazakhs in Northern regions and reverse the depopulation trend was successfully realized through the substantial internal migration flows into the newly built capital city of Astana. For instance, before becoming the national capital, Kazakhs constituted nearly half of the total population of the future capital city (Census, 1999). Currently, ethnic Kazakhs make up about 80% of the city’s population, which is even higher than the share of ethnic Kazakhs in the total population of the country (70.4%) (Census, 2021). However, the general effect of Astana on the internal migration trends is currently gradually declining. Its peak in ensuring the targeted south-north population shift peaked during the late 1990s and 2000s and it has been in a slow decline since then (Tussupbayeva, 2007; Islyami, 2020).
In conclusion, it can be said the entire post-Soviet period in Kazakhstan has been marked by highly intense internal migration. However, the period statistics and census data show that there are gradual but significant shifts in the different parameters of internal migration in the country. In earlier stages of the 1990s and 2000s, the internal migration flows were hugely dominated by interurban migration in which people from smaller urban settlements (typically with populations below 100 thousand people) moved into larger cities. The latest census and statistical data show that internal migration patterns are slowly shifting towards rural-urban migration in which the demographic decline of small urban settlements is not that explicit anymore. The role of large urban centers remains dominant, with the largest agglomeration continuing to be the primary destination for internal migrants in the country. However, at the same time, there is a rapid concentration of internal migrants in suburbs and towns located in very close proximity to large urban centers, which probably can be viewed technically as a process of suburbanization, which also contributes to the growth of large agglomerations. We can expect that the active urbanization and internal migration processes will remain a very powerful factor of spatial population redistribution, which will determine to a certain extent the socio-economic profile and development of different regions of the country. Within this context, the prevalent migration of the most economically active age groups in large cities should play one of the key roles in regional policy-making. One of the biggest challenges of urban policy in the near future in Kazakhstan will be associated with resolving the socio-economic problems and integration of internal migrants in large cities.
References
Anacker, Shonin (2013). Geographies of power in Nazarbayev’s Astana. Eurasian Geography and Economics 45 (7): 515-533.
Citypopulation.de (2023). City population Kazakhstan. Retrieved from https://www.citypopulation.de/en/kazakhstan/cities/. Accessed on 04.12.2023.
Islyami, Aidan (2020). “Internal migration in Kazakhstan” in Internal Migration in the Countries of Asia. Switzerland: Springer Cham.
National Census of the Republic of Kazakhstan (1999). Results of the National Population Census 1999. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.kz/national/1999/. Accessed on 08.12.2023.
National Census of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2015). Results of the National Population Census 2021. Retrieved from https://stat.gov.kz/ru/national/2021/. Accessed on 04.12.2023.
Makhanov, Kanat (2023). Soviet and Post-Soviet transformations of urban system: Case of Kazakhstan from 1979 to 2022. Eurasian Research Journal 5 (1): 43-58.
Tussupbayeva, Leila (2007). “Regional disparities as determinants of internal migration in Kazakhstan”, Master Thesis, Population Research Centre, University of Groningen.
Note: The views expressed in this blog are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the Institute’s editorial policy.