The aim of this study is to identify factors influencing the housing conditions of migrant workers from Central Asia in Russian cities, based on the author’s research conducted in 2023, 2020, and 2017 in Moscow, St Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg. The study encompasses 2.500 migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. The findings indicate that the Russian rental housing market exhibits discriminatory practices towards foreigners, resulting in living conditions that differ significantly from those of Russian citizens. A substantial number of migrant workers are compelled to make informal payments for registration.

The study shows that labour migrants from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan tend to live in overcrowded conditions, with a high proportion (up to half) continuing to share accommodation with others (compatriots, friends, etc.). However, residence at the workplace is becoming increasingly uncommon. The analysis reveals a gradual increase in the proportion of migrant workers renting separate housing for themselves and their families. This trend is largely driven by the rising number of women from all three countries who rent housing either for individual residence or for cohabitation with relatives.

The study also highlights persistent gender-based differences in the housing conditions of migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan in Russia. The hypothesis that female migrant workers from these countries generally experience more comfortable housing conditions was confirmed.

labour migration from Central Asia, housing conditions of migrants, rental housing market

Russia, as a key destination for labour migrants within the post-Soviet space – often referred to as the Eurasian migration system – has undergone a substantial transformation in the structure of external migration over the past 15 years. One of the most notable changes has been the significant increase in the proportion of migrants from Central Asia, both in the overall migration flow and particularly among labour migrants.

Yet, how much do we truly know about the most frequently debated category of migrants entering Russia – labour migrants from Central Asia? What are their living conditions in Russia, and how have these conditions evolved? These questions are difficult to address using Russian official migration statistics alone. Therefore, this article draws on data from sample surveys conducted by the author between 2017 and 2023.

The object of the study is labour migrants from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan residing in Russia. The subject of the study is the housing conditions of these migrant workers.

The aim of the study is to identify the factors influencing the living conditions of migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in Russian cities.

The hypothesis of the study is that the living conditions of female migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan in Russia are generally more comfortable.

To clarify the scope of the issue under consideration, it is important to note that in 2022, the average annual number of foreign workers in the Russian Federation was 3.5 million, which is significantly lower than the pre-COVID estimates for 2018–2019 (approximately 4–4.5 million). A similar average was observed in 2023, with migrant workers comprising around 5% of all employees in the Russian labour market. Among citizens of CIS countries who entered Russia for employment purposes in 2022, those from Uzbekistan (42.8%), Tajikistan (29.1%), and Kyrgyzstan (16.6%) represented the overwhelming majority (Shcherbakova 2023).

Despite the differences between the Russian and foreign housing markets in terms of conditions for foreigners, it is possible to identify comparable patterns described in the works of international scholars. A key tenet of the local labour market model – confirmed by several empirical studies (Partridge et al. 2010) – is that housing prices tend to be higher in cities with elevated nominal wages. This is attributed to the influx of migrants into labour markets offering higher nominal incomes. As a result, the advantages of higher wages are effectively offset by increased housing costs, with property owners ultimately reaping the primary benefits.

American researchers Albert Saiz and Susan Wachter (Saiz and Watcher 2011), in their study of the relationship between migration and housing based on U.S. urban census data, developed a geographical model to analyse the impact of immigrant numbers on the housing market. Their analysis concluded that a rising concentration of immigrants in a given area triggers a mass exodus of native residents and a gradual decline in real estate prices. The study also demonstrated that in areas with continued immigrant population growth, property prices either remained stagnant over time or increased only marginally.

In her monograph “Migrants in European Capitals: Socio-Ethnic Differentiation”, Daria Shatilo compares immigrant settlement patterns with the distribution of selected social indicators across districts of European cities. She constructs a typology of urban areas based on the proportion of immigrants and housing prices. Her analysis of residential property values makes it possible to assess their influence on the spatial distribution of immigrants (Shatilo 2022).

There are fewer Russian studies on migration and housing compared to those conducted abroad, and they tend to be less extensive – typically relying on small-scale sample research. For instance, Ksenia Grigorieva, employing an experimental approach in her study (Mukomel et al. 2022), demonstrates that landlords discriminate more strongly against Tajik citizens when renting out low-quality housing than they do against citizens of Uzbekistan or Kyrgyzstan. In the case of high-quality housing, Kyrgyz citizens are the least discriminated against, while citizens of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan face greater levels of discrimination.

Anna Rocheva expands on the concept of a “housing career” using Russian data, characterising it as a progression in housing conditions corresponding to different stages of the life cycle. She illustrates this through the example of a migrant or migrant household’s “tenant career” (Rocheva 2015).

Researchers from the RANEPA Centre for Regional Studies and Urban Studies conclude that long-term residence in Russia is the primary factor influencing the decision of migrants to purchase housing in the country (Varshaver et al. 2022).

The article draws on data from studies conducted in 2023, 2020, and 2017 in Moscow, St Petersburg, and Yekaterinburg, covering a total of 2.500 migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan. All three studies employed a consistent methodology involving face-to-face surveys. The questionnaires used in each city included identical sections related to the housing conditions of migrant workers and were administered in both central and peripheral urban areas.

The 2023 study, Provision of Services for Monitoring Labour Migration from Central Asia in Moscow, was conducted by the author in Moscow with the support of the Commissioner for Human Rights of Moscow and his office. It surveyed 900 migrant workers aged 18 to 60 – comprising 300 citizens each from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan – with an equal gender split (50% men and 50% women). Half of the respondents had 1–3 years of work experience in the Russian Federation, while the other half had more than three years of experience. One-third of the sample were aged 18–25, one-third 26–35, and one-third 36–60.

The 2020 study, “Reducing the Impact of the Socio-Economic Consequences of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Migrants and Communities in Central Asia and the Russian Federation”, was conducted by the author with the support of the UN International Organization for Migration (IOM). It involved 900 migrant workers aged 18 to 60: 310 from Tajikistan, 296 from Kyrgyzstan, and 294 from Uzbekistan. The study was carried out in Moscow (420 respondents), St Petersburg (240 respondents), and Yekaterinburg (240 respondents). The sample included 51% men (460 individuals) and 49% women (440 individuals). Among the respondents, 32% were aged 18–25, 35% were aged 26–35, and 33% were aged 36–60. Approximately half of the participants (48%) had 1–2 years of work experience in Russia (430 individuals), while 52% had three years or more (470 individuals). To ensure maximum sample diversity, no more than one to two people were interviewed per location, and no more than one individual was surveyed per household.

The 2017 study, “Monitoring the Observance of the Rights of Kyrgyz Labour Migrants and the Current Risks of Unregulated Labour Migration of Kyrgyz Labour Migrants in the Russian Federation (RF) and the Republic of Kazakhstan (RK) in Accordance with the Terms of Accession to the EAEU Protocol”, covered 702 Kyrgyz migrant workers residing in Russia across three cities: Moscow (300 respondents), St Petersburg (201 respondents), and Yekaterinburg (201 respondents). The sample was stratified by age (34% aged 18–25; 33% aged 26–35; 33% aged 36–60), gender (50% men, 50% women), and work experience in Russia (50% with 1–2 years of work experience; 50% with three years or more).

All three studies focused exclusively on labour migrants, enabling a detailed analysis of the specific niches they occupy within the Russian labour market, their involvement in the shadow economy, their migration intentions, and their levels of integration. Other migrant groups from Central Asia – such as international students, migrant children, retirees, and the unemployed – were not included in the sample, as their living conditions and strategies for integration and adaptation differ markedly from those of employed migrant workers.

Due to the limited sample size and to ensure better comparability across age groups, the studies identified three equally sized categories: young respondents (aged 18–25), middle-aged respondents (aged 26–35), and individuals with substantial life and work experience who had not yet reached retirement age (aged 36–60). In all three studies, no more than one to two individuals were surveyed at a single location, and it was not permitted to interview more than one member from the same household.

The surveys were conducted by interviewers with knowledge of the languages spoken in Central Asian countries, including staff from non-governmental organizations working with migrants from the region. This approach allowed for the inclusion of migrant workers who had limited knowledge of Russian, experienced significant socio-economic difficulties in the Russian Federation, and are typically difficult to reach through conventional research methods.

The studies did not include migrants from Central Asia who held Russian citizenship or a Russian residence permit in addition to the citizenship of their country of origin. Possession of Russian citizenship or a residence permit significantly alters the migrant’s status and position in the Russian labour market.

Sampling was structured according to four parameters – gender, age, duration of residence in Russia, and country of citizenship. Quotas were not introduced for other characteristics.

Data from all three studies were processed using the SPSS statistical software package.

A comparison of the 2017–2023 studies with earlier research conducted by the Center for Migration Research between 2008 and 2010 reveals both continuity and some improvements in the housing conditions of migrant workers from CIS countries. In the earlier study, 40% of respondents lived in rented accommodation, 23% resided directly at their place of work (such as construction sites, trailers, basements, or technical rooms), 19% in dormitories, and 13% with relatives or friends (Zayonchkovskaya and Tyuryukanova 2010). As in the current period, migrants most frequently found both housing and employment through personal networks – relatives, friends, acquaintances, or employers.

Notably, short-term migrant workers 15 years ago were more likely to live in uninhabitable spaces, which contributed to the spatial segregation of urban areas. The comparison shows a modest but important improvement: today, migrant workers are less likely to reside at their place of employment. However, no fundamental changes have occurred – migrant workers remain predominantly reliant on the most affordable housing options available.

Our quantitative findings confirm that migrants who express long-term migration intentions are more likely to seek or purchase housing in Russia. This observation aligns with the qualitative conclusions of researchers at RANEPA (Varshaver et al. 2022), who also noted that homeownership is a characteristic strategy among migrants planning permanent settlement.

To date, Russia lacks a targeted programme or policy framework to manage the spatial resettlement of migrant workers. By contrast, some European countries, such as Denmark, implement centralized resettlement mechanisms for other migrant groups – such as refugees – based on the needs and capacities of specific regions, particularly in relation to labour market demand (Efimova and Yakimov 2019).

A comparison of the housing conditions of Russian citizens and external labour migrants from Central Asia highlights a stark disparity. According to data from Rosstat, the vast majority of Russian citizens reside in relatively stable and secure housing: 85% live in separate apartments, 14% in individual houses, and only 1% in dormitories (Rosstat 2020). Similarly, a 2019 study by the NAFI analytical center reported that approximately 9% of Russians – or about 10 million people – rent housing (NAFI 2019). Data from the Rosgosstrakh insurance company suggests that 80% of Russians own their homes, while only 20% rent rooms or apartments (Vedomosti 2020).

In contrast, labour migrants from Central Asia (Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan) experience significantly more precarious housing conditions. According to the 2023 study, only 3–5% of migrant workers own housing in Russia, 6–13% live in dormitories, and 5–14% reside at their places of employment. The majority – approximately 70–80% – rent housing either collectively with fellow countrymen or separately for their families. These figures underscore the widespread vulnerability of migrant housing arrangements, which are often informal and unstable.

This situation is exacerbated by widespread legal nihilism among landlords, who frequently refuse to register foreign tenants, giving them the power to evict migrants at will – particularly in cases of conflict, such as disputes over rent increases. The absence of temporary registration (propiska) significantly hampers the integration of migrants into Russian society. Without registration, migrants are unable to access essential public services, such as enrolling their children in schools and kindergartens. More critically, they risk detention, deportation, and entry bans, particularly during police raids aimed at enforcing migration legislation.

Overall, the data demonstrate that labour migrants from Central Asia face not only poor housing conditions compared to Russian citizens but also a precarious legal status that further marginalizes them socially and economically.

The challenges faced by labour migrants from Central Asia in integrating into Russian society are closely linked to both the accessibility and quality of rental housing, as well as the overall underdevelopment of the rental housing market in Russia. One of the key issues is the widespread reluctance of landlords to provide temporary registration (migration registration) or formal rental agreements to migrant tenants. This hesitancy is often rooted in landlords’ desire to avoid tax obligations, fear of increased scrutiny from law enforcement, and concerns over potential legal liability in the event of unlawful activities committed by tenants (Kommersant 2024). Additionally, xenophobic attitudes play a significant role, particularly among landlords of economy-class housing, who frequently express a preference not to rent to foreigners from Central Asia.

The strategic role of housing in shaping migration dynamics within Russia remains significantly underestimated. While access to employment continues to be the primary driver of labour migration, inadequate housing conditions function as a serious constraint on migrants’ ability to adapt and integrate (Grishanov et al. 2017). A more nuanced and differentiated approach to housing provision is needed, reflecting the diverse needs of various categories of migrants. Temporary, low-skilled migrant workers require access to affordable collective housing – such as dormitories or budget hotels equipped with basic amenities – whereas highly qualified professionals require housing options that meet higher standards in terms of comfort and infrastructure.

At present, however, housing policy for migrants is largely absent from the framework of Russia’s migration policy. Without a targeted approach that considers both the temporary and permanent nature of migrant residence, the country risks continued marginalization of migrant workers and missed opportunities for more effective labour integration.

The development of an accessible and affordable rental housing sector is crucial for labour migrants, as rental arrangements provide the flexibility to adapt to fluctuations in income levels and changes in household composition without the constraints of permanent residence. However, the growth and formalization of the rental housing market for foreign workers from Central Asia are significantly impeded by Russia’s outdated system of migration registration, which has remained largely unchanged for decades.

This archaic framework has fostered the emergence of a systemic and informal market for registration services, as demonstrated by recent empirical research. The phenomenon of so-called “rubber apartments” – residences in which dozens of migrants are officially registered but do not actually reside – has not arisen from the actions of labour migrants themselves, but rather as a consequence of inconsistencies and deficiencies in Russia’s migration legislation. Law enforcement agencies are thus frequently engaged in addressing the symptoms of legal non-compliance by landlords, rather than targeting the root cause: the existence of an unregulated and opaque housing rental market.

In this context, it is increasingly imperative to raise landlords’ awareness of their legal responsibilities regarding the registration of foreign tenants and to improve enforcement of existing legal norms. Moreover, efforts should be directed at dismantling networks of shadow intermediaries that profit from offering fictitious registration services. Addressing these issues is vital not only for the protection of migrant rights, but also for strengthening the integrity of Russia’s housing and migration systems.

The findings of the study fully confirm the initial hypothesis: overall, female migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan experience more comfortable living conditions in Russia. This trend is largely attributed to the fact that migrant families prefer to live separately from unrelated tenants, and women often arrive in Russia as part of family units, frequently accompanied by children.

The study highlights several key conclusions:

1. Discrimination in the Housing Market. The Russian rental housing market exhibits clear signs of discrimination against foreign nationals, and the housing conditions of labour migrants differ significantly from those of the native population.
2. Informal Registration Payments. A considerable number of migrant workers from Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Uzbekistan are compelled to pay informally for registration at their place of residence, reflecting a systemic failure in the legal housing registration process.
3. Persistent Gender Differences. Distinct gender-based differences in housing conditions persist over time, with women generally experiencing more stable and private living arrangements than men.
4. Decline in Workplace Residence. Over the years, the share of migrants residing directly at their place of work has decreased, indicating a slow improvement in overall living standards.
5. Overcrowding Remains Common. A significant proportion of labour migrants – up to half – continue to rent housing jointly with fellow countrymen or acquaintances, often resulting in overcrowded living environments.
6. Growth in Separate Family Housing.There is a gradual increase in the proportion of migrants who rent housing exclusively for themselves and their families, particularly driven by a growing number of women who prioritize such arrangements.
7. Correlation with Settlement Intentions. Migrants who express a long-term intention to remain in Russia tend to enjoy better housing conditions. These individuals are more frequently employed in the trade sector, especially in wholesale and retail.

Although some Russian studies have concluded that ethnic neighborhoods do not formally exist in Moscow (Poletaev and Mikhailov 2024), the lack of reliable, detailed spatial data continues to hinder deeper quantitative analysis, such as the calculation of segregation indices (Massey and Denton 1988). Nevertheless, comprehensive studies that incorporate both demographic and spatial dimensions are essential. They hold great promise for understanding the long-term integration trajectories of migrants, not only in metropolitan centers but also in regional areas of Russia that receive significant numbers of foreign labour migrants.

Dmitry Vyacheslavovich Poletaev – candidate of Economics, senior researcher, Faculty of Economics of Lomonosov Moscow State University. Leading Researcher, Institute of Economic Forecasting of Russian Academy of Sciences. Moscow, 119991, Russia. E-mail: migrocenter@yandex.ru