This paper is based on the research focused on the principles of forming social networks by economic migrants. We will try to regard the existing concepts critically, and to reflect upon the ethnicity of “ethnic economy”.

Economic immigrants from the Caucasus and Central Asia, who were engaged in trading at St.Petersburg markets, were the object of our study. The target group incorporated people, who had lived in St.Petersburg for at most three years. That allowed us to understand better the life strategies and the mechanisms of immigrants' integration. Taking into account the specific of the object, we consider the participation observation to be the most acceptable and adequate method of the research. We observed and, as far as possible, participated in various spheres of everyday life of our informants (the work in the market place, the daily routine, mutual relations with the officials etc.). So that was an attempt to receive the interpretation of the events by their participants, rather than just the participation and observation of what was going on.

Ethnic economy is a conceptually developed topic of the western sociological discussion. There are several classifications of theoretical approaches to the analysis of this phenomenon; the variants of the most widespread approaches can be found in works by Light (Light, 1984) and Waldinger (Waldinger, 1986). We will not consider them, since in the course of such a discussion we could digress from the subject. We will also afford not to take into account the out-of-date (in our opinion) approaches, such as, for example, cultural-historical one.

The modern concepts of ethnic economy originate mainly from the contention that immigrants, belonging to the minority in the host country, encounter a particular situation which is disadvantageous, on the one hand (as the position of any minority). On the other hand, immigrants have additional resources which are usually called “ethnic”. According to Light, ethnic resources are those, which are based on the identification of a person with ethnic community (Light, 1986:21).

“Ethnic” resources not only allow immigrants to find dwellings, to settle down etc., but also determine their economic strategies. This phenomenon is defined as “ethnic economy”: “the economy is ethnic because its personnel are co-ethnics” (Light, Karageorgis, 1994:649). It is supposed, that the people, as representatives of ethnic minority, have an opportunity to be united on the basis of the common (shared) ethnicity and to be engaged in joint business activity. This also implies that they trust each other, just because they belong to the same ethnic group. The trust based on the shared ethnic identity allows them to establish “ethnic” social (economic) networks, facilitates the information circulation within these networks, reduces probable transactional costs connected with mistrust (for example, the activity of middlemen in the role of guarantors in business, becomes excessive) (Light, 1986:22).

Thus, the existing concept of “ethnic economy” rests to a considerable extent upon the concept of ethnicity, and proceeds from the ethnic belonging of individuals involved. At the same time, it is completely unclear, how and also by whom the ethnic belonging of individuals is defined (1) and what the influence of ethnic belonging on the economic behaviour of these individuals is (2).

According to the results of a number of studies, the ethnic belonging of an individual is determined by the researcher on the basis of his/her “natural guidelines” (the term introduced by G.Garfinkel) and the “objective” criteria. In our opinion, such approach is based on common knowledge, rather than on scientific one. Secondly, it does not take into account the discussion on the character and nature of ethnicity (See, e.g.: Voronkov, 1998; Winer, 1998; Tishkov, 1997 and alt.).

As regards the influence of ethnicity on economic activity of an individual, it is obvious, that researchers who adhere to the aforementioned definition of ethnic economy, neither put such a question, nor try to answer it: they are not concerned with the subjective factors of immigrants' activity. They are aware that if an immigrant is Chinese (for them this is an “objective” feature), his/her economic behaviour will correspond to that of Chinees, i.e. he/she will cooperate with other Chinees. In empirical research, such researchers try to find (and get found, as a rule) only the confirmation of the correctness of their contemptions.

Our research, on the contrary, suggests the “understanding” definition of “ethnic economy”, as an economy involving individuals, who subjectively consciously pattern their economic behaviour on their own ethnicity, subjectively comprehended, and on the ethnicity of those with whom they cooperate.

On the basis of such approach, we subject to criticism the thesis about the existence of “ethnic economy” in the migrants milieu which we investigated. Our study has shown, that the orientation towards ethnicity in the community of recent economic migrants is of situative character and is not determinative in a choice of life strategies (including employment). In reality, particularly in business sphere, migrants, often belonging to different ethnic groups and being just “friends”, “colleagues”, “neighbours” etc., help in business and trust each other, rather than “co-ethnics”. This supposes, that the shared ethnicity, “objectively” existing from the point of view of an alien observer (researcher), in reality could hardly be a factor which migrants are subjectively guided by in their economic activity.

Having ignored the ethnicity aspect, we made an attempt to explore the mechanisms which provide immigrants' survival under disadvantage conditions. Recent economic immigrants, whom we studied, substantially lack for potentials, including those of social networks. By social networks we mean, following a number of the authors, the “stable models of immediate interaction among the people” (Rona-Tas, 1999:396). Under the conditions of social vacuum, immigrants launch establishing social networks, increasing thus their social potential. The new social links allow them to settle down: to find dwellings, jobs, to place children in schools, to enjoy medical services etc. In economic life, social networks give immigrants an access to finances, jobs and, what is most important, to information. According to the majority of Western researchers dealing with migration issues, the informal relations established on the basis of social networks are one of the most important factors determining the way of life of migrants' communities. Secondly, these relations constitute the main advantage of immigrants over the local majority in the sphere of economy (Waldinger, 1986).

Western researchers, however, tend to associate migrants' networks with ethnicity. As it was mentioned above, we do not adhere to this point of view. We tried to analyse the structure of social networks of our informants, the conditions for the creation, development, and the way of interaction within these networks. This analysis has resulted in the selection of five main factors determining, in our opinion, the structure and composition of migrants' social networks. We singled them out conditionally, as follows:

• Easiness (simplicity, lack of problems),
• Rationality (benefit),
• Trust,
• Pressure from the outside (forcing out),
• Space.

Since the social networks are the steady interactions between the people, these five factors were selected as a result of the analysis of migrants' social actions and interactions, according to the criterion: “to cooperate with whom...” (it is easily, favourably to deal with, you trust or must trust and, finally, you interact in space). In our opinion, these very factors (eventually not only these factors - it is, however, the point of further research) structure the migrants' activity, and are the basis for the creation and exploitation of social networks. We will detail the description (see below) of the mechanisms of the organization of migrants' life, according to these five principles .

Simplicity/Complexity. Immigrants prefer to cooperate with ones whom it is easier to communicate with, whose actions and behaviour are clear and prognosticative. In this case, the language is of great importance: poor knowledge of Russian by immigrants, as well as the ignorance of immigrants' native language by the local inhabitants, impede the interaction between the immigrants and the local population.

Azeris will cooperate and/or communicate with other Azeris not for the reason that they are both Azeris, but because for them it is easier to understand each other, as they speak the same language. At the same time, in case of need (the necessity, as a rule, is of economic character), migrants can interact whatever language they speak: we observed a number of cases when Azeris and Tadjiks, Tadjiks and Moldovians, worked together as partners. Amongst themselves, Tadjiks, Azeris and Moldovians communicate in Russian, because Russian is the sole common language allowing them to keep up a communication. Despite the fact, that the language is one of the main components of the concept of “ethnic group” (Smith, 1986:27), one should not overestimate the significance of an ethnic component. We tend to stress the practical role of the language for migrants: as a tool of communication, necessary for interaction, rather than as a marker of social (ethnic) boundaries.

A “simplicity” of interaction can also be examined in the context of behavioural prognostications. The people usually exploit so-called cultural patterns of behaviour. On the one hand, the knowledge of these patterns by both parties simplifies the interaction with one's “own” and impedes the interaction with the representatives of the “alien” culture. On the other hand, one can suppose that the notion about the unpredictability and, hence, the danger of the “alien” culture is often over-exaggerated because of our incomprehensibility of their cultural behavioural patterns. The closer observation has shown, that education, the experience of being a migrant, either urban or rural socialization etc. often play much more important role, than any hypothetical belonging to this or that “culture”. Any highly-educated Azeri, who is, for example, a professor, the lecturer and specialist in the Azerbaijan culture, living in St.Petersburg, can easily find a “common language” with another Petersburg professor, rather than with a recent migrant from any village in Azerbaijan. De facto, such state of things demarcates rigidly the community of recent economic immigrants self-employed at St.Petersburg markets, and the representatives of the high-ranking “Azeris” engaded in intellectual labour and successfully integrated into the society (whereas the theory of cultural patterns of behaviour, which is primordialist rather than socializationed one, implies the existence of the rigid boundary between “Russians” and “Azeris”). Hence, dealing with cultural patterns of behaviour too, one should not overestimate the role of ethnicity. Though the culture, alongside with the language, is undoubtedly considered to be one of the basic components of the phenomenon of “ethnic group” (Smith, 1986:26); we conclude, that a completely different, not “ethnic”, measurement of cultural patterns of behaviour turns to be significant for migrants.

Rationality (benefit). Economic immigrants cooperate with ones whom it is beneficial to deal with - this criterion often becomes a decisive factor when seeking workers, partners or suppliers. Thus, the preference for cheap labour predominates over co-ethnics, other things being equal; the goods are usually bought at a lower price and are sold at a higher one etc. Economic migration is aimed at rapid enrichment and a relative stability of income. Therefore, it is the economic activity, that becomes a basis of forming social networks. The relationships amongst economic migrants are established on the basis of the principles of economic rationality. In the case of individual strategies of migrants, when the latter become competitors, each of them tries to sell the goods to other “co-ethnics” at a price that is higher than a purchasing one. Our informant, a Tadjik who earned a living by cooking meal for marketeers, bought vegetables for cooking from Tadjiks, i.e. from his co-ehtnics. He told us, that their prices were higher than the wholesale ones, though lower than the retail prices.

On the other hand, in the course of the study, we could observe the cases of cooperation between Azeri immigrants and the local businessmen. In the scientific literature on ethnic business, it is usual to describe such cooperation as a cooperation with other ethnic groups. However, our research experience has shown, that it was a mutually beneficial cooperation of professionals, rather than the cooperation between the representatives of different ethnic groups. Ethnicity as such does not influence the economic migrants' preference for business partners, completely different factors being of greater importance. The example of such cooperation on the basis of solely economic principles of mutual benefit, is the relations between small-wholesale dealers - the inhabitants of the Leningradskaya oblast', and the Azeri retail sellers. This situation can be represented as an interaction between  a) Russians and Azeris, b) immigrants and the local inhabitants, c) small-wholesale dealers and retail sellers. We believe, that the third interpretation describes the real situation on the market most adequately.

Trust/Control. Economic immigrants cooperate with ones whom they trust. Researchers pay a special attention to the trust, considering it to be a “hard currency” of social networks, as “the trust gives rise to the interaction” (Rona-Tas, 1999: 402). According to the results of our observation, the boundaries of trust, however, often coincide with those of control: you may trust the one who can be controlled. Therefore, migrants prefer to lend the money to the one who can “be reached”: for example, who works in the same market. In this case, ethnicity is of no importance: Tadjik can lend the money to Azeri, the latter or Moldovian - to Tadjik etc. The important condition for this is the possibility to exert pressure on the debtor, in case of non-fulfilment of his/her obligations. First, such pressure can be direct, proceeding from the co-presence in the market space. Secondly, the pressure can be exerted through the threat to spread one's bad reputation amongst other marketeers, i.e. within the whole network. Other example of the combination of trust and control is shown in the mechanism of transferring the money earned by immigrants to their families who stayed in their native land. For some reasons, such transfer of money is made through social networks, rather than through official post or as bank transfers. The money is usually sent through familiars who are going home. However, also in this case, immigrants prefer to pass money with the one who is easily reachable, i.e. who can be controlled in the case of an attempt to take another's money - this would often happen among migrants. The control supposes an opportunity of application of effective sanctions in regard to the infringer of the agreement and migrant's ethics. A relative, on whom it is possible to press through other relatives, who would be subjected to condemnation, or be deprived of any support from the members of the relevant network, can act as a controllable person. A person who is incorporated in the same social network can play the same role. In this case, an infringer runs risks that his/her bad reputation could circulate amongst all the participants of the network. This would deprive him/her of the support within this network, i.e. actually would deny the assess to this resource (it was written above, that the involvement in social networks is practically the sole migrants' capital, hence the loss of the latter is rather objectionable for them).

Physical space. Economic immigrants cooperate with ones whom they interact and/or co-exist with in space: with those who are in the market, namely with customers, traders and attendants; and with the hosts of the dwellings rented, i.e. with ones who are placed in “their space”.

The shared space, in which various migrants' groups and the representatives of the local population coexist, represents a certain framework, in which any interpersonal interaction is developing. It is the co-presence in space that gives immigrants an opportunity to find commercial wage-workers, business partners, creditors, suppliers of goods, etc. Our informants found the sellers just in that way: among the people, who come to the market in order to find a job, knowing that sellers are often required there. Our informants found suppliers, buyers and partners among the people, with whom they interact in space, rather than according to the “among co-ethnics” criterion. So one of our informants from Tadjiks found the potential partners and creditors among his clients when he was working as a cook in one of the city markets. He has found a room to rent also through market-women who were immigrants from Moldova.

We observed a great number of cases when immigrants, interacting with the people in a particular physical space - namely, in markets, - established contacts, formed social networks, and got an access to various resources. Certainly, there is no sense to separate the physical space from the social one: physical space is a metaphor of social space where social distinctions act as objects (Bourdieu, 1993: 36-37). Basing on this contention, the analysis of physical space allows us to make conclusions about the character of social phenomena encountered in this space. However, it is necessary to examine closely the characteristics of these social phenomena: what dimention of social space is most significant. We suppose that concerning economic immigrants, the occupational-economic dimention is not inferior to ethnic one, and is often more significant.

Pressure from the outside. The pressure from the outside establishes certain framework, within which immigrants are forced to live, for lack of resources to overstep it.

As it was mentioned above, the life of immigrants is influenced by their presence in certain physical space, which, undoubtedly, reflects the relationships in the social space. To make the description of life of immigrants from the Caucasus full, one should supplement the social and physical space with the legal one. The point is that immigrants are being ejected to a particular space in three dimentions: legal, social and physical. Thus, the prejudiced attitude towards immigrants on the whole, and from “southern” regions in particular, alongside with the uselessness and complexity of bureaucratic procedures on the legalization of migrant's status, result in the concentration of the majority of migrants in the illegal space. The discrimination in giving an employment to immigrants (in addition to the shortage of social and financial capital) forces them to be grouped in particular fields of self-employment, such as fine and wholesale retail. Their employment in particular sphere of business leads to their physical concentration within the city markets and outskirts.

The existence in all these spaces is interrelated: each of them influences others and is in their own turn subjected to their influence.

The pressure from the outside is closely connected with the process which can be called “imposing ethnicity” (the term suggested by D.Dragunskii, 1993). Naturally, one cannot negate that immigrants' behaviour is in one way or another connected with ethnicity and reflects the belonging or ascribing oneself to a particular ethnic group. However, our study has shown that the cases of accentuation of ethnicity are, as a rule, initiated from the outside. For example, xenophobia of the local population is at the bottom of defining “aliens” in the terms of ethnicity, and sets up a rigid external boundary. Thus, the local population, including the people for whom this identity is of no importance, perceive all migrants from Azerbaijan, Tadjikistan and other republics of the Caucasian and Transcaucasian regions as “Azeris” or “Caucasians”.

There is no doubt that each of the indicated components, structuring the existence of our informants in the conditions of migration, is not sufficient of itself for any concluding explanation of immigrants' life - these components support each other and should be considered as interrelated.

One can see that we did not inscribe “ethnicity” in the list of key factors of the organization of immigrants' social networks. There is no doubt that an ethnicity element should not be completely disregarded. However, for our informants, ethnicity is not so important reference point in their economic behaviour. This becomes obvious, if we digress for a while from the contentions accepted a priori in the scientific community. These contentions suggest the existence of “ethnic economies” and the importance of ethnicity for immigrants' strategies, and apply, first of all, to the analysis of the actual activity of immigrants. As a result of the study, we has come to conclusions, which can be summarized as follows: 1) Social networks of immigrants from the Caucasus to St.Petersburg, in particular of economic character, were hardly organized by the ethnicity criterion. This implies, that these social networks were not created consciously by social agents, who would subjectively pattern their actions on ethnic belonging of those, with whom they cooperated (co-ethnics); 2) In comparison with ethnic identity, the position of economic immigrants is much more important in these relations. It makes immigrants set up their social networks, being guided by simplicity and convenience, utility, trust/control and other principles described in this paper.

Weber, M.(1990) Osnovnye sotsiologicheskie ponyatiya. In: Izbrannye proizvedeniya. Ì.: Progress

Djatlov, V. (1996) Diaspora i “torgovyi narod”. In: Sibirskii evreiskii sbornik. ¹ 2. Irkutsk: “Arkom”

Iljin, V. (1994) Otechestvennyi rasizm // Rubezh. ¹5. P. 189-204

Radaev, V. (1993) Etnicheskoe predprinimatelstvo: mirovoi opyt i Rossiya // Politicheskie issledovaniya. ¹ 5. Ñ. 79-87

Rona-Tas, À. (1999) Ustoichivost sotsialnykh setei v postkommunisticheskoi transformatsii Vostochnoi Evropy. In: Teodor Shanin (ed.) Neformalnaya ekonomika. Rossiya i mir. Moskva: Logos. P. 396-411