POPULATION MIGRATION IN GEORGIA AND IT'S SOCIO-ECONOMIC CONSEQUENCES
Revaz Gachechiladze

Population migration i.e. a “permanent or semi-permanent change of residence of an individual or group of people” [Dictionary, 1994, 380] is a classic example of cultural diffusion, and has always served to enlarge the area of earth inhabited by man. For tens of thousands of years humans have settled throughout all the continents. The effects of migration result in changes to ethnic and political maps. Most modern nations were more or less formed under the influence of population migration.
Throughout human history the directions of migration were constantly changing but the basic motive for migration have remained the same.
The factors for migration can be grouped into the three categories:

a. the desire for better living conditions (including better means of production, housing, jobs, etc.) This can be called the “socio-economic factor”;
b. a risk to a group of people (organized as a tribe, community, ethnic, religious, racial group, etc.) from other, competing groups. This can be called the “political factor”;
c. natural hazards, e.g. flood, drought, earthquake, avalanche, or animal hazards (the latter was a more significant factor at the dawn of
mankind, but to some extent still plays a role today. For example, some mosquitoes, which can cause serious illnesses, may prompt a migration or may be a factor in rejecting the idea to migrate to a certain place). This factor can be called the “ecological factor”.

All motives for migration can be grouped within these categories. Seemingly, the “factor of coercion” can be added. For example, when people are forced against their will to migrate - being sold as slaves, placed into penal servitude, forcibly deported, “cleansed” (on ethnic, religious or other bases) - unfortunately, this happens in the 20th century as well. But ultimately even the above-mentioned coercion factor can be placed under the heading “political factors”.
Migrations are traditionally labeled as either internal or external. This division is correct if political boundaries serve as the major criterion to classify the migration. In the present work I follow this division. However, this is not the only nor the most precise division, because sometimes political boundaries are not well defined or recognized as state boundaries. For example, interrepublican migration in the USSR was considered as internal by many Soviet geographers and demographers (especially in Moscow and Leningrad), but for the Union Republics this was actually an external migration and was considered as such by local scholars.

Follow the hyperlink to see the full version of the document in English (131Kb) | Georgian (383Kb)