Arctic Yearbook 2014
83
migration in the Arctic, followed by a comparative look at migration across the region, followed by a
region-by-region analysis of migration across each Arctic region.
Factors Influencing Migration in the Arctic
Migration is defined and usually measured as a permanent change in residence. Migration is referred
to as an investment in human capital across space - people migrate in order to improve their quality
of life. People migrate to, from, and within the Arctic for the same reasons they migrate elsewhere in
the world. The neoclassical economic approach is the oldest theory of migration and holds that
income differentials between regions are why people migrate from low-income to high-income
regions (Weeks, 2008). Among Arctic regions, and between them and the southern regions of the
Arctic countries, there are enormous income differences which drive people to migrate to and from
the Arctic. The overall gross regional product (GRP) per capita in the Arctic in 2005 was $30,000
(USD) (Glomsrød & Aslaksen, 2009). In the Khanty-Mansiy okrug of West Siberia and the
Northwest Territories of Canada, the GRP was over $70,000 per capita. Using the example of the
Russian Arctic, the Khanty-Mansiy okrug is the main region for the oil extraction in Russia which is
driving so much of the country’s overall economic growth. The per capita GRP is $65,000 in the
Yamal-Nenets okrug in West Siberia, the main region for natural gas production in Russia. Because
of the high incomes in these two West Siberian regions, they are the only two regions in the Russian
Arctic which have experienced net in-migration in the post-Soviet period, while the rest of the
Russian Arctic has had considerable depopulation from out-migration. The per capita GRP in much
of the rest of the Russian Arctic is less than $15,000, evidence that two divergent northern
economies have developed leading to quite different migration patterns.
Incorporating climate change and the impact that it could play in migration in the Arctic is rather
new and thus less well-studied, though the body of knowledge is increasing rapidly. The diversity of
potential impacts of “climigration” across the world have hindered development of a unified theory
and has also lead to a wide variety of policy responses. Climate change can make some Arctic
regions more accessible while rendering others nearly uninhabitable because of reduced sea ice
destroying coastal communities or thawing permafrost ruining the infrastructure of inland
settlements. Many of the coastal communities in Alaska are facing threats from increased erosion
and will likely be forced to move their entire communities in the near future but rising costs,
bureaucratic inertia, and lack of community consensus as to destinations are preventing movements
(Schweitzer & Marino, 2005). Eighty-six percent (184 of 213) of all villages in Alaska are
experiencing problems related to flooding and erosion (Harwood, Carson, Marino, & McTurk,
2011). Some of these communities are receiving considerable national and international attention
and are held up as poster children for climigration (Arctic Council, 2004). Many of the coastal
villages probably should not have been selected as the sites of permanent settlement as the ancestors
of the current residents only used these sites seasonally (Bronen & Chapin, 2013). However,
decisions were made by the U.S. government in the late 19th and early 20th centuries to consolidate
populations into these locations in order to build schools and provide schooling to Native children.
Barge accessibility to be able to ship in construction materials was a key factor in site selection.
There is currently no agency with the authority to relocate all the public and private infrastructure of
Migration in the Arctic